Download Saline Seep Management in North

0
Saline Seep Management in North‐central Montana (MSCA 2013, Used by permission)
Holly M. Taylor
Oregon State University
Master of Natural Resources
Capstone Project - Fall 2013
AN ABSTRACT OF THE CAPSTONE PROJECT OF
Holly M. Taylor for the degree of Master of Natural Resources presented on December 16, 2013
Title: Saline Seep Management in North-central Montana
Saline seeps are areas of saline soils on non-irrigated land where the concentration of
soluble salts in the soil is sufficient to reduce or eliminate growth of vegetation. Saline seeps
form where groundwater with high soluble salt content exists at or near the soil surface. As water
evaporates, salts are deposited on the soil surface and continue to accumulate unless the water
table can be lowered. Saline seeps remove valuable agricultural land from production and cause
substantial financial loss to farmers and ranchers. The development of saline seeps in northcentral Montana has been largely attributed to the widespread adoption of crop-fallow farming
rotations, which have reduced the amount of soil moisture used by plants each year and
contributed to rising water tables in many areas. The purpose of this paper is to explore the
environmental, social, and economic factors of and possible sustainable solutions to saline seep
development in north-central Montana. Research into the geologic history, settlement history,
and agricultural transition was conducted to provide a framework for analyzing the current status
of saline seeps in the region. Findings indicate that saline seeps are caused by complex
interactions among climate, soils, plants, and land management decisions. A review of enterprise
budgets for Montana’s principal crops and analysis of producer preferences for adopting new
practices was also completed. Results indicate that alternative crop rotations, cover crops, and
converting cropland to perennial forage crops all represent economically viable methods for
managing saline seeps. Sustainable management of saline seeps will most likely require a
flexible approach that mimics the historical relationship between highly adaptable native plants
and prairie soils.
Keywords: Montana, saline seeps, sustainability, soil moisture management
© Copyright by Holly M. Taylor
December 16, 2013
All Rights Reserved
Saline Seep Management in
North-central Montana
by
Holly M. Taylor
CAPSTONE PROJECT
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Natural Resources
Presented December 16, 2013
Commencement June 2014
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author expresses sincere appreciation to Jane Holzer and Scott Brown from the
Montana Salinity Control Association and Mark Suta from the Glacier County Conservation
District for their valuable insights and contributions of area-specific information. Economic
analysis was made possible through the efforts and guidance of graduate co-advisor Penelope
Diebel. Graduate advisors David Perry and Penelope Diebel, graduate advisory committee
member Robert Ehrhart, instructor Cynthia Chapman, and Jane Holzer all provided valuable
reviews of draft material. These contributions have greatly improved the quality of this report
and are sincerely appreciated.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ……………………………………………………… 1
Definition and Types of Saline Seeps……………………..
Effects of Salinity………………………………………….
Causes……………………………………………………...
Identification………………………………………………
Reclamation……………………………………………….
Establishing Perennial crops..…………………….
Intensive cropping systems………………………...
Cover crops………………………………………...
1
2
5
6
7
7
9
9
Study Area ………………………………………………………. 10
Geology……………………………………………………
Climate…………………………………………………….
Native Ecology…………………………………………….
Settlement History…………………………………………
Agricultural Transition…………………………………...
Saline Seep Expansion……………………………………
Conservation Assistance…………………………………..
Conservation Districts……………………………..
Montana Salinity Control Association…………….
U.S. Department of Agriculture…………………...
Economic Considerations…………………………………
Social and Ethical Considerations………………………..
10
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
20
23
24
Methods for Evaluating Practices..…………………………….. 25
Results and Analysis…………………………………………….. 29
Wheat-fallow………………………………………………
Perennial Forage……………………………………….....
Alternative Crop Rotations………………………………..
Cover Crops………………………………………………..
29
29
30
30
Conclusions………………………………………………………. 30
Addendum………………………………………………………... 32
References………………………………………………………… 33
Appendices………………………………………………………... 38
1
Introduction
It is important to distinguish between Montana’s most common type of saline seep
(described below) and two other types of saline areas that can occur in the same region and are
sometimes mistaken for saline seeps. First, saline areas can naturally develop in low-lying areas
with a shallow water table, impermeable base material, and limited outflow where water has
repeatedly accumulated and evaporated over time. Second, sodium-affected areas develop in
sodium rich soils and generally appear as localized barren and shallow depressions (Brown et al.
1983). Saline seeps can be distinguished from other saline areas by their recent origin, saturated
root zone, shallow water table, and sensitivity to climactic variation and land management
practices (Brown et al. 1983). The treatment and control of non-seep saline areas and sodiumaffected areas is very different from the reclamation of saline seeps (USDA NRCS 2010) and is
beyond the scope of this report.
Definition and Types of Saline Seeps. Saline seeps are defined as recently developed
areas of saline soils on non-irrigated land where vegetative production is reduced or eliminated
(Miller et al. 1981; Brown et al. 1983). Saline seeps develop when precipitation in excess of the
soil’s storage capacity percolates through the soil profile and resurfaces in another location
heavily laden with salts dissolved from the substrata. Plants cannot extract soil moisture once it
is below the rooting zone, and the water travels downward through the soil profile, dissolving
mineral salts along the way. The water eventually reaches an impermeable layer such as shale,
clay, or bedrock that causes water tables to build up above the impermeable material. Where
impermeable material is near the surface, water tables emerge as springs or wet spots. Shallow
groundwater within four feet of the soil surface is drawn to the surface by capillary action where
it evaporates and deposits salts at or near the soil surface. The area where excess moisture enters
the soil is called the recharge area and the area where groundwater resurfaces is called the
discharge area. The ratio of recharge area to discharge area is approximately 10 to 1 (Miller et al.
1981; Brown et al. 1983; Wentz 2000; MSCA 2013). Deep percolation of soil water increases
when vegetation is removed, increasing the development of saline seeps (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The formation of a saline seep (MSCA 2013, Used by permission)
2
There are seven types of saline seeps common in north-central Montana, each classified
by the geology and hydraulic properties of the landscape in which they appear (Figure 2).
Hydraulic conductivity (HC) is the ability of water to move through the substrate. Water will
travel downward through the substrate until it encounters materials with low HC, or low
permeability, and is forced to move laterally down gradient. Saline seeps can occur anywhere
within the landscape where local hydrogeologic properties permit but are often located where
there is a change in slope of the landscape. Seeps frequently occur at or near the bottom of hills,
on sidehills, or near hilltops. It is sometimes difficult to predict where saline seeps may develop
because surface topography may not be a reliable indicator of the topography of the bedrock or
other impermeable materials that determine the direction and force of groundwater (Halvorson
and Black 1974).
Effects of Salinity. The salinity of soils refers to the concentration of a variety of soluble
salt ions, including but not limited to calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and ammonium
cations (positively charged) and sulfate, chlorine, nitrate, and bicarbonate anions (negatively
charged). Electrical conductivity (EC) measures the ability of a saturated soil paste to conduct
electricity and has been correlated with the concentrations of soluble salt ions in soils. Soils with
EC values less than 2 deciSiemens per meter (dS/m) are considered non-saline, while EC values
over 16 dS/m are considered strongly saline (Table 1). Yields of some varieties of alfalfa can be
reduced at EC levels above 4 dS/m, while wheat yields begin to decline at EC levels above 6
dS/m (Table 2) (Smith and Doran 1996; USDA NRCS 2010). In practice, saline seep
remediation is generally recommended when soil EC values are over 4 dS/m. For comparison,
soils in the discharge area of saline seeps in northeastern Montana have been reported to have EC
values as high as 38 dS/m (Halvorson and Black 1974).
Table 1. Electrical Conductivity Values and Classes of Saline Soils
(USDA NRCS n.d.)
3
Figure 2. Geologic characteristics of the seven types of saline seeps common in the northern
Great Plains (Brown et al. 1983)
4
Table 2. Salinity Tolerance of Various Crops
Crop Type Crop EC Threshold (dS/m)
Production Salinity Tolerance Affected1 Upper Limit2 Rating3 Annual Winter Wheat 5.9
8
T Crops Spring Wheat 6
8
MT Barley 8
16
T Safflower 7.5
ND
MT Flax 1.7
ND
MT Yellow Mustard 8
ND
T Turnip Rape 3.3
ND
MT Corn 3
6
MS Peas 1.3
ND
S Lentils 6
ND
MT Alfalfa (average) 4 8 MS Tall Fescue 8
18
MT Grasses Crested Wheatgrass 6
14
T and Forage Russian Wildrye 13
24
T Crops Smooth Brome 5
10
MT Tall Wheatgrass 13
24
T Western Wheatgrass 6
16
MT Slender wheatgrass 10
22
T Intermediate wheatgrass 6
12
MT Pubescent wheatgrass 6
12
MT 1 Salinity values above which yields become affected (Ogle and St. John 2010; USDA NRCS 2010) 2 Salinity levels above which seeds will not germinate (Ogle and St. John 2010)
3 (S) Sensitive, (MS) Moderately Sensitive, (MT) Moderately Tolerant, (T) Tolerant (USDA NRCS 2010) As salty, shallow groundwater evaporates, soils in the discharge areas of saline seeps
accumulate enough soluble salts to adversely affect the growth of vegetation. Each plant species
has a different tolerance for soil salinity and a different EC range between production decline
and germination failure, which are dependent on the variety, soil type, and management practices
(Table 2). Plant growth is reduced through several mechanisms. First, high soluble salt content in
soil water increases osmotic pressure and makes water less available to plants despite the
presence of excess moisture in the soil. Second, excess salt ions disrupt the cellular processes
within plants. Third, soluble salts change the chemical properties of the soil, causing essential
nutrients to be less available for adsorption by plants and altering soil structure, permeability,
and aeration (Brown et al. 1983; Smith and Doran 1996; USDA NRCS n.d.).
Soluble salt concentrations within the rooting zone of the discharge area eventually
become so high that no vegetation will grow, removing valuable agricultural land from
production and causing substantial financial loss to farmers and ranchers. Rising saline water
tables can also cause shallow groundwater supplies to become unsuitable for irrigation, human
consumption, or livestock water. Additionally, saline water discharge from saline seeps can
pollute surface waters (Halvorson and Black 1974; Miller et al. 1980; Miller et al. 1981; Paterson
2011). Dryland salinity affects many parts of the world where geology, climate, and land
management combine to create shallow saline groundwater tables, and saline seep problems have
also been reported in India, Iran, Turkey, Latin America, and Australia (Brown et al. 1983).
5
Causes. The widespread adoption of crop-fallow farming rotations is often acknowledged
as the primary culprit for the development of saline seeps in north-central Montana, although
saline seeps also affect rangeland to a lesser degree (Halvorson and Black 1974; Miller et al.
1981; Brown et al. 1983; Holzer et al. 1998; MSCA 2013). Crop-fallow farming practices, also
referred to as summer fallow, leave each parcel of land without growing vegetation for a full
growing season in order to capture and store precipitation. During fallow years, weed growth
must be controlled so that weeds do not consume the water that may be captured for future crops.
However, not all of the precipitation received during fallow years can be stored, and some of it
percolates past the rooting zone and contributes to higher water tables that cause saline seeps.
Other contributing factors to the formation of saline seeps include effective weed control, snow
accumulation, and stubble-mulch fallow systems because these practices increase the amount of
moisture that enters the soil (Halvorson and Black 1974; Miller et al. 1981; Brown et al. 1983).
A variety of summer fallow techniques are practiced; these practices exist along a
continuum rather than representing precise categories. Conventional tillage fallow operations use
multiple, shallow tillage passes to control weed growth throughout the fallow year. Conservation
tillage, also referred to as reduced-till or minimum-till, controls weeds with a combination of
minimal disturbance tillage passes and herbicides. No-till operations, also called chemical fallow
or chem-fallow, rely solely on herbicides to control weeds (Anderson and Tanaka 1997; Tanaka
et al. 2010; Hansen et al. 2012). Although summer fallow practices minimize the risk of crop
failure by storing soil moisture, they also contribute to deep percolation of soil moisture because
they leave each parcel of land devoid of growing vegetation during approximately 14 months for
a winter wheat-fallow rotation or up to 21 months for a spring wheat-fallow rotation.
Water storage is an important consideration for producers in Montana’s semiarid climate,
but the perceived amount of soil water stored during summer fallow may be overestimated. A
substantial amount of the precipitation that falls during the fallow period is lost to evaporation,
surface runoff, and deep percolation on fallow ground. A study in northeast Montana showed
that approximately 72% of the soil water deficit within the surface five feet of the soil profile
was recharged within the first 9 months of the fallow period. During the summer months, when
precipitation is highest, only 3% of precipitation was stored in the soil because evaporation,
transpiration by weeds, and surface runoff are also highest during this time of year. Overall, only
18% of the total precipitation during the 21-month fallow period was stored in the soil
(Halvorson and Black 1974).
Fallow ground’s low efficiency of soil moisture storage is a result of site-specific soil
properties and climate. Each soil has a limited capacity for storing, and the maximum amount of
water that each soil can store is called its field capacity. At field capacity a soil contains its
maximum plant available water, but the proportion of stored soil water that is available to plants
depends on the soil’s physical and chemical properties. Water in excess of the soil’s field
capacity is referred to as gravitational water, which cannot be stored in the soil and will percolate
downward through the soil profile (Figure 3) (Brady and Weil 2004). The presence of soluble
salts and gravel in the soil profile will decrease water storage capacity, while organic matter and
good soil structure will increase it (Fasching 2001). Estimates of soil water storage capacity are
as high as 1 inch additional plant available water per acre for each 1% of organic matter added
depending on the soil texture and type of organic matter (Mengel 2012).
Under ideal conditions, a medium textured soil will hold approximately ten inches of
plant available water within the five foot rooting zone of wheat (Table 3). However, this does not
mean that ten inches of soil water will be stored in a year with ten inches of precipitation. Deep
6
percolation can occur even in dry years if heavy rainfall events temporarily saturate upper soil
layers (Halvorson and Black 1974). Short, high intensity thunderstorms are common in northcentral Montana. Additionally, deep percolation is increased in heavy rainfall events by water
that quickly penetrates deep into the soil profile through preferential pathways such as cracks in
clayey soil.
Vegetative cover is important for maintaining the soil moisture balance because plants
remove soil moisture through transpiration, thus reducing deep percolation and making room for
additional moisture to be stored. If excess soil moisture is not removed through transpiration, it
will percolate past the rooting zone until it reaches an impermeable layer, where it will cause
water tables to rise. Over time, water tables rise into the rooting zone of the discharge area and
adversely affect plant growth. In dryer periods, plant residues reduce evaporative moisture losses
from the soil.
Table 3. Plant Available Water Storage
Capacity
Figure 3. The soil-water relationship
(Agricultural Bureau of South Australia, n.d.
Originally published as Figure 2, Stages of
Water Holding in Department of Agriculture
Bulletin 462, 1960)
(Brown et al. 1983)
Identification. Early detection of saline seeps can help producers minimize the effort
needed to reclaim seep areas (Brown et al 1983). However, it can be difficult to recognize saline
seeps when they are in the early stages of development. Early signs of saline seep development
include localized high yields, wet or inaccessible fields, increasing infestations of salt tolerant
weeds such as kochia and foxtail barley, sloughed hillsides, and stunted or dying trees in
windbreaks or shelterbelts. As the seep develops, salt concentrations in the soil accumulate and
cause reduced germination and yields, increased proportion of salt tolerant species, and
development of a white crust or salt crystals on the soil surface (Brown et al. 1983; Wentz 2000;
USDA NRCS 2010). Developing seeps generally have higher EC readings in the one to three
7
foot soil zone than at the surface, while existing seeps have the highest EC measurements at the
surface (Brown et al. 1983). Once established, seeps tend to grow towards the recharge area
(Holzer pers. communication).
Most recharge areas are upslope and within 2,000 feet of the discharge area (Brown et al.
1983). Recharge areas can be located using a variety of methods that progress from simple
methods available to farmers to more complicated methods that require specialized knowledge
and equipment. A soil probe pushed into the ground is one of the simplest methods to identify
saturated soils—soils upslope of the discharge area that are wet to greater than 40 inches deep
are potential recharge areas. However, recent rainfall can affect soil probe results, and probing
should be done in another season if soils are uniformly wet to 40 inches in all directions
surrounding a discharge area. Soil surveys provide information on areas that may conduct water
to the discharge area, and topographic maps and aerial photos can be used to identify surface
water flow patterns (USDA NRCS 2010). However, surface topography is not always a reliable
indicator of bedrock or hardpan topography, and these methods are best used in conjunction with
field investigations.
Relative EC measurements of soil and water samples can be taken quickly in the field
with a handheld meter. EC measurements generally increase with depth in the recharge area
(Brown et al. 1983). Inductive electromagnetic soil conductivity meters such as the EM-31 and
EM-38 can measure relative average electro-conductivity up to depths of 20 feet and 5 feet,
respectively. However, the EM-31 and EM-38 are expensive pieces of equipment that require
coordination with a local technical assistance provider that has access to these instruments and
experience calibrating the machines. Electro-conductivity meters are particularly good at
locating discharge areas and hidden salinity that has no visual indicators on uniform soils, but
their use in locating recharge areas requires substantial interpretation of the data relative to
confounding factors such as changes in soil type, soil moisture, and depth to bedrock across the
landscape. A shallow groundwater investigation that includes installation of monitoring wells is
the most reliable method to identify highly permeable zones and impermeable layers, determine
groundwater flow direction, and monitor depth to groundwater and any changes in response to
conservation measures (Brown et al. 1983; USDA NRCS 2010; MSCA 2013).
Reclamation. Once saline seeps develop, they cannot be reclaimed without large-scale
drainage measures or changes to land management. Large-scale drainage installations are
expensive and are rarely feasible given the profit margin of dryland farming and legal constraints
on the discharge of saline waters (Brown et al 1983; Wentz 2000). However, it is estimated that
appropriate cropping practices alone can reclaim 60% to 70% of saline seeps (Miller et al. 1981).
Often, a landowner’s first inclination for management of seeps is to establish vegetation
within the seep area itself. Establishing salt-tolerant species within the discharge area is an
important step in reclaiming saline seeps, but treatment of the discharge area alone will only
slow the growth of the seep at best (Holzer et al. 1998; Wentz 2000). Land management in the
recharge area must be addressed in order to lower the water table in the discharge area.
Precipitation can leach salts that have accumulated at or near the surface in the discharge area
back into the soil profile once water tables are greater than five feet below the surface
Establishing perennial crops such as alfalfa or alfalfa grass mixtures in place of cropfallow rotations on recharge areas is the quickest and most effective method to lower water
tables in the discharge area (Miller et al. 1981; Brown et al. 1983; Holzer et al. 1998; USDA
8
NRCS 2010; MSCA 2013). Deep-rooted perennial species can access much deeper soil water
than annual crops and use more water throughout the year due to their longer growing seasons
(Table 4). Crops such as alfalfa generally use all of the annual precipitation plus some stored soil
water below the rooting zone of other species, thereby lowering the groundwater table over time.
Discharge area plantings can follow one to two years after recharge area plantings and should
consist of salt tolerant grasses or barley (USDA NRCS 2010; MSCA 2013).
Depending on the salinity of soils, yields within discharge areas will return to normal in
as few as five years if 80% or more of the recharge area is treated (Brown et al. 1983; Holzer et
al. 1998; MSCA 2013). Recharge areas can eventually be returned to intensive cropping systems
that effectively use soil moisture. However, studies show that returning recharge areas to cropfallow rotations can cause soil water recharge and saline seep recurrence in as few as six years.
Therefore, producers should continue to monitor water table levels closely and manage recharge
areas to effectively use soil moisture and prevent saline seep recurrence (Brown et al. 1983).
Depending on the salinity of soils, yields within discharge areas will return to normal in
as few as five years if 80% or more of the recharge area is treated (Brown et al. 1983; Holzer et
al. 1998; MSCA 2013). Recharge areas can eventually be returned to intensive cropping systems
that effectively use soil moisture. However, studies show that returning recharge areas to cropfallow rotations can cause soil water recharge and saline seep recurrence in as few as six years.
Therefore, producers should continue to monitor water table levels closely and manage recharge
areas to effectively use soil moisture and prevent saline seep recurrence (Brown et al. 1983).
Table 4. Relative Rooting Depths and Soil Water Depletion of Various Crops1
Crop Type Annual Crops Crop Relative Root Yearly Evapo‐
Depth (ft) transpiration (in)2 Winter Wheat 6
18 Spring Wheat 4
18 Barley 5
18 Safflower 7
17 Flax 5
17 Yellow Mustard 4
18 Turnip Rape 5
7 Corn 4
17 Peas <4
15 Lentils <4
18 Alfalfa (average) 20
28 Sainfoin 14
23 Grasses Tall Fescue 15
25 and Forage Russian Wildrye 10
19 Crops Green Needlegrass 15
23 Tall Wheatgrass 9
17 Western Wheatgrass 11
20 Slender wheatgrass 15
22 Intermediate wheatgrass 15
29 Pubescent wheatgrass 15
22 1 Actual results will vary depending on soil characteristics, climactic conditions, and management practices. 2 Yearly ET designates average annual water use by the plant. (USDA NRCS 2010)
9
Intensive cropping systems that replace crop-fallow rotations with annual cropping are
another highly recommended practice to effectively manage soil water for control of saline
seeps. It is recommended that annual cropping systems incorporate diverse crop rotations of four
or more crops in order to control grassy weeds, pests, and diseases that can accumulate in cereal
grain monoculture operations (Anderson, Tanaka, and Merrill 2002; Hansen et al. 2012).
Intensive, annual cropping systems that replace summer fallow with alternative crops such as
lentils, peas, flax, or canola can be an alternative to establishing perennial forage on cropland.
Alternative crop rotations have many benefits in addition to soil moisture management, including
income from alternative crops, synergistic weed control, disease control, increased water use
efficiency, reduced fertilizer costs and improved soil health as a result of more diverse crop
rotations.
Diverse rotations that include successive crops with varying planting times have been
shown to reduce weed density up to 75% in Colorado (Anderson 1994). Grass and broadleaf
crops reduce the incidence of pests and diseases in both types of crops when alternately planted,
reducing production costs. Broadleaf crops such as dry pea, lentil, flax, and canola have also
been shown to increase cereal grain yields up to 21% when added to continuous grain operations
(Anderson, Tanaka, and Merrill 2002; Anderson 2011a). Annual leguminous “pulse crops” like
peas and lentils are broadleaf crops that also contribute nitrogen to the soil and reduce fertilizer
inputs necessary for subsequent crops (Beckie and Brandt 1997). Additionally, peas have been
shown to increase the water use efficiency of subsequent crops (Anderson, Tanaka, and Merrill
2002; Anderson 2011a). Some crop sequences seem to have synergistic effects, while others do
not, and the effects are not consistent across soil types or precipitation levels. The precise
mechanisms for crop synergisms are not understood and more research is needed to determine
which crop sequences will have the greatest benefit in each region (Anderson, Tanaka, and
Merrill 2002; Anderson 2011a; Hansen et al. 2012).
Annual alternative cropping is preferable to flexible cropping (flex-crop) because of
complexities involved in proper monitoring for the flex-crop system. Flex-cropping involves
carefully monitoring stored soil moisture and rainfall probabilities and only planting in years that
the chances are good for a favorable crop. This type of cropping system can be effective in
controlling saline seep development, but this system requires a high level of monitoring for soil
water content, weed control, seeding time, and fertilization (Brown et al. 1983; Fasching 2001).
Flex-cropping also does not provide the synergistic benefits of diverse crop rotations on weed
tolerance, diversified nutrient input, or support more diverse soil biology.
Cover crops are a third alternative to replace summer fallow practices. Cover crops are
grown to reduce erosion, control weeds, provide livestock feed or forage, improve soil biology,
add organic matter and nutrients to the soil, reduce compaction, improve infiltration, and support
diverse soil microbial communities. Cover crops also shade the soil, reducing high soil
temperatures that increase evaporation rates and damage soil microbial communities. Cover
crops are generally grown as mixtures, or “cocktails,” of five to nine species with a variety of
foliage types, rooting depths, nutrient requirements and maturity ranges to ensure the maximum
benefits to soil structure and health. Individual cover crop mixes should be tailored to site
conditions and management objectives (USDA NRCS 2012). Cover crop mixes can contain a
wide variety of species and the combinations are nearly endless (Table 5). Proper management of
cover crops involves termination of the cover crop well before planting subsequent crops (USDA
NRCS 2012), which allows precipitation to recharge soil water before planting. Proper
10
termination of cover crops also helps to ensure that the cover crop species do not become weeds
themselves in the future cash crop.
Table 5. Potential Cover Crop Species
Alfalfa Barley hooded forage Buckwheat Canola ‐ spring Camelina Clover ‐ berseem Clover ‐ red Clover ‐ crimson Corn forage Cowpea Flax Lentil ‐ red or green Lupins Medic ‐ black Millet proso, white or red, German Mustard, tame
Oats
Peas ‐ dry field
Peas ‐ winter forage pea
Peas ‐ spring forage
Radish ‐ Tillage
Radish ‐ daikon AKA forage Rapeseed
Ryegrass ‐ annual
Safflower
Sorghum‐sudan, grain or forage
Sorghum ‐ forage
Sorghum ‐ grain
Soybean
Spring rye Spring wheat Sudangrass Sugar beet
Sunflower ‐ oil or dwarf Sweetclover ‐ yellow or white
Sunn hemp Teff
Triticale ‐ spring or winter Turnip ‐ purple top Turnip ‐ Pasja Vetch ‐ chickling (grass pea)
Vetch ‐ common Vetch ‐ hairy Winter rye Winter wheat (MSCA 2013)
Study Area
A dynamic equilibrium evolved over time between Montana’s unique geology, climate,
and native plant communities. Montana’s geology and climate combine to create conditions that
can lead to seep development naturally, yet saline seeps were not widely recognized until the
1940s. Land use changes altered plant communities and their functions, disrupting the natural
hydrogeologic equilibrium and leading to rapid expansion of agriculturally related saline seeps.
Geology. Saline seeps are particularly prevalent in north-central Montana (Figure 4)
because the soil profile and the underlying bedrock both have high soluble salt content.
Throughout geologic history, shallow inland seas periodically covered the region and deposited
thick layers of sediments during moist climactic periods. Bedrock is almost entirely late
Cretaceous period marine sediments deposited from 100 to 65 million years ago. The three major
bedrock units in north-central Montana are Colorado Shale, Judith River-Claggett-Eagle
Formations, and Bearpaw Shale (Figure 5) (Miller et al. 1981; Brown et al. 1983; Alt and
Hyndman 1986; MSCA 2013).
The concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) in groundwater reflects the soluble salt
load of each bedrock formation. In general, the Colorado and Bearpaw Shale units contain TDS
between 20,000 and 50,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L), while the Judith River-Claggett-Eagle
unit contains TDS between 10,000 and 25,000 mg/L. Saline seeps are particularly common in
areas underlain by the Colorado and Bearpaw Shale units, which are largely impermeable and
rich in soluble salts such as secondary gypsum, calcite, and other elements. The Judith RiverClaggett-Eagle Formations consist of marine and non-marine sediments and contain numerous
impermeable bentonite, shale, and mudstone beds. Surface seep problems are less extensive in
areas underlain by the Judith River-Claggett-Eagle Formations, but groundwater contamination
is more widespread (Miller et al. 1981).
11
The marine sediments were eroded into a landscape of hills and valleys during dry
climactic periods from approximately 40 to 20 million years ago and again from 10 to 2.5
million years ago. During these dry periods, plant cover could not protect the ground from
erosion or maintain soil permeability, and precipitation shed off the landscape in torrential
floods. More recently, the continental ice sheets of the Bull Lake and Pinedale ice ages
(approximately 100,000 and 15,000 years ago, respectively) reached into northern Montana (Alt
and Hyndman 1986). The ice sheets in Montana were relatively thin and slow moving because
they melted nearly as fast as they moved forward, depositing large amounts of unconsolidated
debris of all materials and sizes called glacial till. The previous landscape of Cretaceous marine
sediments was buried in a thick mantle of glacial till ranging from 3 to 80 feet deep (Miller et al.
1981; Brown et al. 1983; Alt and Hyndman 1986).
Most agricultural related (i.e. reclaimable) saline seeps occur on the glaciated plains of
north-central and northeast Montana (Figure 6) (MSCA 2013). The flat to gently rolling swell
and swale topography of till deposited by retreating glaciers contributes to poor drainage, and the
buried Cretaceous landscape created “a maze of abandoned channels and isolated depressions in
which saline water could accumulate” (Miller et al. 1981, 7). The combination of permeable
material overlying a shallow bed of impermeable marine sediments causes perched water tables
high in soluble salts throughout much of north-central Montana. Seep development is generally
most pronounced where till is less than 20 feet thick (Brown et al. 1983). Water tables on the
glaciated plains are generally shallow and seasonal wetlands called prairie potholes are common
(Miller et al. 1981; Wiken, Nava, and Griffith 2011). Prairie potholes temporarily store large
amounts of water that can contribute to downslope seep problems. This is particularly true when
cultivation in dry years disturbs the shallow claypan that forms at the bottom of potholes (Brown
et al. 1983).
North-central Montana lies almost entirely within the northwestern glaciated plains
ecoregion. Soils are primarily clay loam and gravelly soils derived from glacial till over shallow
bedrock, and glacial moraines mark the western and southwestern boundaries of the ecoregion
(Wiken, Nava, and Griffith 2011). Very little weathering of the soil profile has occurred because
of limited precipitation in the semiarid environment. Except for the upper three to six feet, the
entire till profile contains abundant soluble calcium, magnesium, and sodium sulfate along with
some nitrates, chlorides, and bicarbonates (Halvorson and Black 1974; Miller et al. 1981; Brown
et al 1983).
Figure 4. Counties of the north-central Montana agricultural district
12
Figure 5. Geologic formations associated with saline seeps in the northern Great Plains
(Reprinted from Agricultural Water Management, Volume 4, M. R. Miller, P. L. Brown, J. J.
Donovan, R. N. Bergatino, J. L. Sonderegger, and F. A. Schmidt, Saline Seep Development and
Control in the North American Great Plains – Hydrogeological Aspects, pages 115–141,
Copyright 1981, with permission from Elsevier)
Figure 6. Distribution of saline areas in Montana determined by aerial and field survey in 1977
(Reprinted from Agricultural Water Management, Volume 4, M. R. Miller, P. L. Brown, J. J.
Donovan, R. N. Bergatino, J. L. Sonderegger, and F. A. Schmidt, Saline Seep Development and
Control in the North American Great Plains – Hydrogeological Aspects, pages 115–141,
Copyright 1981, with permission from Elsevier)
13
Climate. North-central Montana has a semiarid climate, receiving between 10 to 14
inches of annual precipitation. The majority of this precipitation occurs in April, May, and June
before plant water use is high (WRCC 2013). The interaction among three distinct air masses
controls weather on the northern Great Plains—warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico,
generally colder and drier air from Canada and the Hudson Bay, and Pacific currents that can be
warm or cold and dry or moist. At least two of these air masses must collide for precipitation to
occur, and the timing, location, and amount of precipitation can be highly variable (Figure 7).
Precipitation can be violent thunderstorms, large hail, slow drizzle, or the region can experience
long droughts. Additionally, frosts can arrive at nearly any time of year. Dramatic shifts in
weather patterns create a highly variable environment where many consecutive years could be
dry or wet, and many growing seasons short or long (Kraenzel 1955; Miller et al. 1981; Hansen
et al. 2012).
Global cyclical climate patterns such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) contribute to additional environmental variability. In
Montana, ENSO tends to cause winters to be drier and warmer than average in cycles of two to
seven years (NOAA CPC 1997), while warm phases of PDO cause hot, dry summers in
conjunction with reduced winter precipitation in cycles of 20 to 30 years (DOI USGS 2013). The
most significant effects are felt when these two cyclical patterns coincide. A strong ENSO
episode from 1997 to 1998 (NOAA CPC 1997) coincided with a warm PDO cycle that lasted
into the mid-1990s or later (Mantua and Hare 2002), which may have played a significant role in
the prolonged dry period experienced in north-central Montana from 1996 to 2009 (Figure 7).
25
Rainfall(Inches)
20
15
10
5
0
AnnualRainfall
Averagerainfall1893‐2012
Figure 7. Annual precipitation in Havre, MT from 1893 to 2012. Data adapted from historical
data for HAVRE WB CITY (243994) and HAVRE CITY CO AP (243996) weather stations
(WRCC 2013).
14
Native Ecology. Native plants and animals have evolved versatile traits and behaviors to
cope with Montana’s extreme environmental variability (Kraenzel 1955). Native vegetation of
the northwestern glaciated plain is a mixed grass prairie consisting primarily of various
wheatgrass, needlegrass, and grama grass species (Kraenzel 1955; Wiken, Nava, and Griffith
2011). These plants possess a variety of adaptations that allow them to resist or avoid
environmental unpredictability. For example, some plants avoid adverse environmental
conditions by shifting roots to the surface to quickly absorb limited moisture, shifting roots down
during drought, or going dormant. Other plants can flower sooner or later in response to
available resources, or forego seeding entirely until environmental conditions are favorable.
Wind-dispersed seed, long-lasting seed, and flexible timing of reproduction enhance species
mobility and survival. Other plants resist drought with a grey coating, waxy coating, or by
rolling leaves to prevent evaporation. Native animals such as the bison, pronghorn, jackrabbit,
ground squirrel, coyote, and grasshopper also evolved mobility, flexibility, and reserve building
traits to manage environmental variability (Kraenzel 1955). Indeed, flexibility appears to be the
key to survival on the plains.
A unique characteristic of the prairie region is that moisture consumption through
evaporation and transpiration by native plants consumes nearly all of the precipitation that falls
in most years (Kraenzel 1955; Brown et al. 1983). It is estimated that only 1 to 4 % of annual
precipitation is lost to deep percolation under native sod in the glaciated regions of the Great
Plains, whereas approximately 7 to 15% of precipitation is lost to deep percolation in crop-fallow
systems (Miller et al. 1981). Native prairie plant communities consist of many cool season and
warm season grass species. Cool season species begin growing early in the season and complete
their reproductive cycle early, while warm season species grow late into the season. Native plant
communities therefore use soil water for a much greater portion of the year than annual crops
because one or more species is actively growing throughout most of the year (Halvorson and
Black 1974). Additionally, native sod accumulates high concentrations of organic matter over
time that increase soil water holding capacity. The efficient use and storage of soil moisture
prevents nutrient leaching below the rooting zone of plants and is one reason that prairie soils are
so fertile (Kraenzel 1955). The extreme adaptability of Montana’s native vegetation to a highly
variable climate is what allows species to survive through drought so that they can thrive when
there is sufficient precipitation.
Plants alter the physical and chemical properties of soils through other mechanisms in
addition to soil water use and contributions of organic matter. Plants bind soil particles together
into stable aggregates and increase the number and size of spaces between soil particles where
water can be stored by exuding glue-like organic compounds into the soil through their roots.
Stable soil aggregates, along with plant cover, also increase permeability, reduce surface runoff
and erosion, and reduce evaporative water loss. Plant roots create small channels in the soil that
further increase infiltration. Organic matter increases the amount of water a soil can store and is
a major source of phosphorus, sulfur, and nitrogen for plants. Organic carbon also supports many
types of microscopic fungi and bacteria that support plant growth, keep populations of
destructive soil pathogens in check, and exude their own sticky compounds that further improve
soil structure (Brady and Weil 2004).
The characteristics of Montana’s climate, soils, and vegetative communities are so
intricately intertwined that changes to one feature of the community will have cascading effects
on the others. Climate sets the parameters within which soils, plants, and animals develop and
interact and is continuously acting upon all three. The chemical and structural properties of soils
15
determine which plants can establish, but these properties are also altered by the plant life they
support. Plants protect soils from erosion, alter chemical properties of the soil, contribute
compounds that improve soil structure and function, improve infiltration and permeability, and
remove excess soil moisture through transpiration. Plants provide food and shelter for animals,
and animals impact plant communities through hoof action, grazing, and seed dispersal. Animals,
in turn, impact soils through compaction, fertilization, or aeration. Changes to this dynamic
relationship among climate, soils, and native flora and fauna (Figure 8) became an important
factor in the development of saline seeps when land uses began to change.
Climate
Geology
Soils
Plants
Animals
Figure 8. The dynamic interaction among climate,
geology, and the biological community
Settlement History. Fur traders were the first to explore north-central Montana in the
middle of the eighteenth century, but the land remained largely unknown to most Europeans for
many more decades. The expedition by Lewis and Clark in 1805–1806 finally opened up the
landscape to significant trade. After gold was discovered in Montana in the 1850s, the Missouri
River became a highway for steamboats full of furs and gold (Kraenzel 1955). For a brief time,
Helena, Montana had the most millionaires per capita of any area in the United States (Fanselow
2007). However, settlements remained small and isolated because of the transient nature of the
fur and gold industries.
Cattle ranches were established within the region as early as 1857, drawn to the area by
the beef markets of the mining camps. Large bison herds and interference by Native Americans
initially limited the cattle industry, but bison were nearly extirpated and most Native Americans
had been relegated to reservations by the 1880s. The advent of the cattle drive in the late 1860s
allowed ranchers to have larger herds and maximize resource use. Open range cattle ranching
represented a way of life particularly suited to the northern Great Plains region because it
mimicked the temporal and spatial variability of grazing by bison herds and required selfsufficiency, mobility, and flexibility. Even so, the age of the cattle drive didn’t last long. The
demise of the open range cattle industry began with the enlarged allotments of the Desert Land
Act of 1877 and the increased availability of technology that made settlement of the semiarid
region possible. The harsh winter of 1886–1887 delivered a devastating blow to ranchers, killing
large numbers of cattle and bankrupting many operators (Kraenzel 1955; Malone, Roeder, and
Lang 1976).
Many technological innovations made the settlement of the plains possible. For example,
John Deere invented the steel plowshare in 1837, which was followed by the invention and
16
improvement of the harrow, seed drill, hay rake, reaper, wire binder, and other implements in the
following decades. Perhaps the most influential technology for settlement in the plains was the
windmill, which was officially invented in 1854. There are few permanent streams or lakes in the
semiarid landscape of north-central Montana, but settled life on the plains was nearly impossible
without reliable sources of water. Despite high demand on the prairie, the windmill and other
technologies did not become readily available or affordable to plains settlers until after the
1870s. Settlement of the northern Great Plains pushed forward following the industrial trend of
the late nineteenth century, and Montana’s population more than tripled between 1880 and 1890
(Kraenzel 1955).
Agricultural Transition. Settlers from the eastern United States were accustomed to a
more humid environment, and they brought with them their humid area farming techniques,
which were not suited to the semiarid climate of the Great Plains (Kraenzel 1955; Toole 1959;
Tanaka et al. 2010; Hansen et al. 2012). They were “confident of rain and not mindful of wind”
(Gazit 2009). Homesteaders began to plow up the prairie as fast as they could, but their efforts
were still limited by the speed of a horse drawn plow. One man with a horse drawn plow could
only plow up approximately 50 acres of sod in one day, while a tractor plow could turn over 300
(Gazit 2009). The affordability and availability of motorized tractors and high demand and high
prices for grain during and immediately after World War I encouraged landowners to plow under
virgin sod at an alarming rate (Kraenzel 1955; Malone, Roeder, and Lang 1976).
Enticing railroad advertisements and a wetter than average period from 1895 to 1910
encouraged hundreds of thousands of homesteaders to come to Montana. Between 1917 and
1918, 14,000 new homestead claims were filed per month in the Great Falls Land Office alone.
Shortly after the immigration peak, a devastating drought set in from 1917 to 1921 (Kraenzel
1955; Malone, Roeder, and Lang 1976; Tanaka et al. 2010). Crop-fallow rotations became
common on the northern Great Plains in the late 1920s and 1930s to help reduce the risk of crop
failures caused by moisture deficiencies.
Summer fallow practices helped to stabilize yields and reduce risk but were extremely
inefficient and rarely exceeded 20% storage of fallow season precipitation (Kraenzel 1955;
Anderson and Tanaka 1997; Tanaka et al. 2010; Hansen 2012). Dust mulching, an early summer
fallow technique that involved intensive inversion of the soil to control weeds and reduce
evapotranspiration, left soils vulnerable to wind and water erosion, decreased soil organic matter
content, and degraded soil structure. Many decades of tillage degraded prairie soils and led to
lower infiltration rates, decreased permeability, and lower water storage capacity of soils
(Kraenzel 1955; Tanaka et al. 2010; Hansen et al. 2012).
While the overall ability of soils to capture and store moisture was declining, other
changes in agricultural practices were increasing the water storage efficiency of agriculture.
Particularly after 1940, increased water storage through more efficient management contributed
to the development of saline seeps. Better tractors, improved timing of tillage operations, and
improvements in agrichemicals controlled weeds more effectively (Brown et al. 1983). From
1916 to 1975, tillage operations evolved from dust-mulching to less invasive stubble-mulch
tillage techniques that left more crop residue on the surface. Greater crop residue on the soil
surface reduced runoff and evaporation (Anderson and Tanaka 1997; Anderson, Tanaka, and
Merrill 2002; Tanaka et al. 2010; Hansen et al. 2012). Chemical advancements also created new
synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that reduced the need for crop rotation and
17
effectively controlled pests and weeds that traditionally caused production to fall over time in
monoculture operations (Hansen et al 2012).
Reduced-till and no-till fallow practices began gaining popularity in the 1970s when soil
erosion began to be recognized as a serious threat to the continued productivity of agricultural
lands on the Great Plains (Anderson and Tanaka 1997; Tanaka et al. 2010). Today, most farmers
in north-central Montana have adopted no-till and minimum-till crop-fallow rotations that
primarily control vegetation during summer fallow periods through the use of herbicides rather
than mechanical tillage (McVay et al. 2010). Crops are planted directly into standing stubble
from the previous crop using implements that disturb the soil as little as possible. Conservation
tillage practices have improved soil structure, reduced erosion, and increased infiltration rates
and percolation.
Compared to traditional tillage practices, standing stubble left behind by minimum-till
and no-till operations can capture one to three additional inches of soil water by catching
blowing snow during the winter (Fasching 2001). Standing stubble also reduces moisture losses
from runoff and evaporation (Brown et al. 1983; Anderson and Tanaka 1997; Tanaka et al. 2010;
Hansen et al. 2012). By allowing more moisture to enter and remain in the soil profile,
conservation tillage has increased overall soil water-storage efficiency of fallow season
precipitation to almost 40% for no-till on the northern Great Plains (Tanaka et al. 2010; Hansen
et al. 2012).
Over 60% of fallow season precipitation is still lost to runoff, evaporation, and deep
percolation despite the soil water-storage efficiency improvements of conservation tillage.
Summer fallow practices leave land without growing vegetation for up to 21 months on the
northern Great Plains (Hansen et al. 2012). Without vegetation to extract soil moisture, excess
moisture percolates through the soil profile and contributes to rising water tables. Given the
increased efficiency of no-till practices, summer fallow may not be necessary anymore
(Anderson et al. 2002). In fact, where geology causes high water tables, many authors warn that
increased water use efficiency may lead to seep problems (Halvorson and Black 1974; Miller et
al. 1981; Brown et al. 1983; Anderson et al. 2002). More intensive cropping systems that
annually rotate cereal grains and broadleaf crops are being developed that can maintain or exceed
water use efficiency of summer fallow and provide multiple agronomic and environmental
benefits at the same time.
Saline Seep Expansion. Hardly recognized as a problem before 1940, saline seeps had
expanded to remove over 80,000 acres from production in Montana alone by 1971. By 1978, that
estimate had risen to 200,000 acres (Halvorson and Black 1974; Miller et al 1981). By 1981,
saline seeps were recognized as “one of the most serious conservation problems in the Great
Plains region” (Miller et al. 1981, 1). Degraded soil structure combined with more efficient water
storage through conservation tillage and a lack of vegetation to extract excess moisture on fallow
land disrupted the hydrogeologic balance of the region and slowly raised water tables until saline
seeps appeared.
Once developed, saline seeps can grow rapidly (Figure 9). On average, saline seeps
expand at a rate of 10% per year. While they may not expand at all during dry periods, they can
expand by as much as 200% after wet cycles (Miller et al. 1981). Precipitation cannot leach salts
below the surface as long as water tables remain within three to four feet of the soil surface
(Miller et al. 1981; Brown et al 1983). Seeps will eventually reach a maximum size, after which
point they continue to accumulate higher salt content (Holzer pers. communication).
18
Figure 9. Expansion of a saline seep near Fort Benton, Montana (Reprinted from Agricultural
Water Management, Volume 4, M. R. Miller, P. L. Brown, J. J. Donovan, R. N. Bergatino, J. L.
Sonderegger, and F. A. Schmidt, Saline Seep Development and Control in the North American
Great Plains – Hydrogeological Aspects, pages 115–141, Copyright 1981, with permission from
Elsevier)
Saline seeps likely covered over 300,000 acres in Montana by the late 1980s, assuming
200,000 acres in 1978, seep expansion of 10% per year, and an eventual maximum size for each
seep (Holzer 2013c; Holzer pers. communication). Substantial research into the causes and
treatments for saline seeps during the 1970s and 1980s led to improved identification,
management, and technical assistance for landowners (Miller et al. 1981; Brown et al. 1983).
Management efforts, particularly the establishment of deep-rooted perennial species, have likely
decreased the extent of saline seeps in north-central Montana. However, it is difficult to say
exactly how much the situation has improved because there is no current survey of the extent of
saline seeps in Montana (Holzer pers. communication). Such a survey has not been possible in
recent years because of a lack of agency time, funding, and a proven and cost effective
measurement method. Crop-fallow rotations remain the dominant cropping system in Montana,
occupying approximately 2.7 million acres in 2007 (McVay 2010; USDA NASS 2013). Because
crop-fallow is the dominant cause of dryland saline seeps, it is therefore safe to say that saline
seeps still represent a significant loss to productivity and revenue in the state.
19
Conservation Assistance. The rapid expansion of saline seeps during the 1970s and the
risk posed to the productivity and economy of the northern Great Plains prompted substantial
research by state and federal agencies into the causes of and engineering or agricultural solutions
to saline seep development. Identification of recharge areas and establishment of perennial
vegetation became the primary focus of reclamation efforts (Miller et al. 1981; Brown et al.
1983). However, the causes and best methods for saline seep reclamation are unique to each site,
which can make it difficult for farmers to know which course of action to take. Luckily, many
organizations are available to help landowners investigate the causes and controls that fit their
farm’s geology and their management goals.
Soil and water conservation districts (CD) are units of local government that were
established in order to facilitate local control of natural resource management and collaboration
with federal agencies. Many CD were established across the nation beginning in the late 1930s in
response to the devastation of the Dust Bowl. Montana passed legislation forming its 58
conservation districts in 1939. Local voters elect a board of five supervisors to each conservation
district, who then determine which local natural resource concerns are a priority. Conservation
districts implement a variety of conservation policies and act as a point of contact for local
citizens regarding numerous federal programs (MACD 2013).
The conservation districts in Glacier, Pondera, Toole, and Liberty counties (Figure 6) are
conducting a cooperative experiment to test the viability of cover crops in the semiarid climate of
north-central Montana. The project, which began in the spring of 2013, is funded with a grant
from the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) and will monitor
changes in soil moisture, nutrients, soil health, and soil biology in response to cover crop-cash
crop rotations over 5 years. Two producers in each county have volunteered to test the practices
on their land. Over the 5 years, cover crops will replace summer fallow practices on 30 acres of
cropland, being seeded into 15 acres alternately each year. Soil samples will be taken from cover
crop experiment sites and adjacent control sites where management practices will continue as
normal. Soils will be tested for nutrients, soil moisture, and the number, variety, and activity of
soil microorganisms. Cover crops are gaining popularity in many areas but have not yet become
a common practice Montana. The hope is that the soil health project will demonstrate that cover
crops can support healthy soil biology and efficiently use soil moisture even under the semiarid
conditions that prevail in north-central Montana.
Figure 10. Soil health-cover crop pilot project counties
20
The Montana Salinity Control Association (MSCA) is an association of eleven
conservation districts in ten counties in north-central Montana that joined together to form the
Triangle Conservation District to help individual producers apply saline seep research
recommendations on their land. The Triangle Conservation District was formed in 1979 and
originally received a grant of $241,000 from the Montana Renewable Resource and
Development Program to fund site-specific investigation and reclamation (Brown et al. 1983;
MSCA 2009). Following the success of the Triangle Conservation District’s technical team
approach, the program expanded to include 33 counties and became the Montana Salinity
Control Association. Conservation district supervisors from 33 counties in Montana make up
MSCA, which is divided into 3 regions (Figure 11) (MSCA 2013).
MSCA provides landowners with technical assistance in reclamation and control of saline
seeps. At the request of a landowner, MSCA will conduct groundwater investigations by
installing multiple shallow monitoring wells on a site to gauge depth to and flow direction of
groundwater. MSCA does charge for the groundwater investigation, but does not charge for the
initial visit with the producer to establish the extent of the salinity problem and the need for
further investigation. MSCA will provide treatment recommendations and coordinate activities
with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and other agencies for financial and
technical assistance (MSCA 2013).
Figure 11. Montana Salinity Control Association
(MSCA 2013, Used by permission)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Farm Service Agency (FSA) have played
important roles in the understanding and treatment of saline seeps. The USDA Agricultural
Research Service was established in 1950 and has played an important role in the evolution of
agricultural practices throughout the country (USDA ARS 2013). Regional ARS experiments
were key to understanding the consequences of tillage on soil structure, measuring soil water
storage efficiencies of different cropping systems, and developing techniques for saline seep
management on the Great Plains (Halvorson and Black 1974; Holzer 2013c). ARS continues to
search for solutions to agricultural problems around the country (USDA ARS 2013).
21
The Natural Resources Conservation Service began as the Soil Erosion Service (SES), a
temporary agency established in 1933 in response to growing concern over the loss of fertility on
American cropland. In 1935, amidst growing concern over dust storms in the Midwest, SES was
transferred to the Department of Agriculture and became the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). In
the 1930s and early 1940s, the primary focus of SCS was on erosion control. As the needs and
concerns of the country grew and changed, so did the agency, which was renamed the Natural
Resources Conservation Service in 1994. Today, NRCS’s mission is to protect and enhance the
soil, water, animal, plant, air, human, and energy resources of our nation (USDA NRCS 2013).
NRCS provides technical assistance to identify saline seep areas and advises landowners
of treatment options. NRCS also administers a variety of conservation programs, one of which is
particularly relevant to saline seep management. The Environmental Quality Incentive Program
(EQIP) is available to help landowners defray the cost of installing eligible conservation
practices. EQIP applications are ranked and contracts are awarded competitively based on local
resource priorities established by local conservation districts and overall environmental benefits
(USDA NRCS 2009). In the case of saline seeps, relevant conservation practices include
groundwater investigation, establishing perennial vegetation, managing forage plantings to
maximize soil water use, and conservation crop rotations to effectively utilize soil moisture on
recharge areas (USDA NRCS 2010).
The recharge areas of saline seeps must be accurately located for vegetative treatment to
succeed. NRCS can use several methods to delineate the extent of recharge areas depending on
the unique characteristics of the site and the landowner’s willingness. The groundwater
investigation with monitoring wells provides the most reliable measure of depth to groundwater
and flow direction but also involves a financial investment by the landowner. The groundwater
investigation is voluntary and financial assistance may be available. Without test wells (or in
addition) NRCS can use soil surveys, soil probes, topographic maps, or inductive
electromagnetic soil conductivity meters (EM-31 or EM-38) to measure the depth to
groundwater and soil salinity (USDA NRCS 2010). However, these methods are not as accurate
at delineating recharge areas as groundwater investigations. It is important that the recharge area
is defined as accurately as possible to avoid excess expenditures of both NRCS and landowner
funds as a result of over-estimation of the recharge area (Holzer 2013a). To receive EQIP
incentive payments for saline seep management, producers must control at least 80% of the
recharge area.
Although generally not considered a conservation agency, the Farm Service Agency
administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) with technical assistance from NRCS,
other state and federal agencies, and non-federal technical service providers. Beginning in 1985,
program participants established perennial species as resource-conserving cover on
environmentally sensitive cropland for the life of 10 to 15 year contracts in exchange for annual
rental payments and cost-share assistance with establishing approved vegetation. CRP contracts
are awarded on a competitive basis that ranks the benefits to wildlife habitat, water quality,
erosion, and air quality as well as the overall cost. Rental rates vary based on relative
productivity of county soils and average dryland cash rental rates. CRP land can only be grazed
or hayed under limited and specific management rules or under nationally declared disaster
conditions (USDA FSA 2013b; Holzer 2013c).
Approved CRP vegetation generally includes three to four grass species and at least one
legume species. MSCA has shown that ten-year CRP rotations of perennial mixtures are
effective at lowering ground water tables and decreasing saline seeps (Figure 12) (Holzer 2013b;
22
Holzer 2013c). As much as 25% of cropland in some counties in north-central Montana was
enrolled in CRP in the 1980s and 1990s, which has greatly reduced the extent of many saline
seeps (Figure 13). However, CRP land is not evenly distributed across the landscape—some
producers may have enrolled all of their land while others may not have applied for the program
at all.
The extent and number of saline seeps has likely been reduced in areas where CRP forage
stands were established across broad acres in specific recharge areas, but it is difficult to say
exactly what the status of saline seeps is today without a recent survey (Holzer pers.
communication). Furthermore, total CRP enrollment in Montana peaked in 2006 at nearly 3.5
million acres but has since declined more than 50% to 1.7 million acres in October 2013 (USDA
FSA 2013a). Environmentally sensitive lands removed from the CRP program and returned to
annual cropping systems are at risk of resource degradation, including erosion and saline seep
(re-) development.
Figure 12. Land use hydrograph for a saline seep reclamation project in Pondera County. Data
shows depth to groundwater in monitoring wells (Holzer 2013b, Used by permission)
Figure 13. A saline seep in Pondera County in 1996 and the same area in 2008 after treatment of
the recharge area with perennial vegetation (Holzer 2013b, Used by permission).
23
Economic Considerations. Agriculture is Montana’s number one industry. Altogether,
livestock and crop production generate over $3.7 billion in revenue in Montana. Cropland only
occupies 30% of agricultural land but supplies over 60% of agricultural revenue, totaling $2.2
billion in 2012. Montana is one of the major producers of cereal grains in the United States,
which cumulatively represent 70% of crop revenue. Hay generates another 13% of crop revenue.
North-central Montana contains six of the state’s top ten winter wheat producing counties, four
of the top ten spring wheat producing counties, two of the top ten hay producing counties, and
the top five barley producing counties (USDA NASS 2013). Clearly, even small changes to
agricultural practices could have significant consequences for the state and national economies.
As saline seeps develop, crop yields may initially be higher in discharge areas because of
abundant soil moisture. After a few years, however, crop yields begin to fall as soluble salts
accumulate in the soil until salinity reaches a threshold where crops fail entirely. CRP, EQIP, and
other conservation initiatives have reduced the extent of saline affected areas, but exactly how
much is not clear. Presuming land management has decreased the extent of saline impaired soils
back to 1978 estimates of 200,000 acres, this still represents an annual loss of approximately 3
million bushels of wheat and amounts to nearly $20 million of lost income at today’s wheat
prices (Miller et al. 1981; Brown et al. 1983; USDA NASS 2013). Saline seeps cause further
economic impacts by reducing the efficiency of farming activities by bogging down farming
equipment in moist soils, dissecting fields into patches that must be maneuvered around, and
over or under application of crop inputs, resulting in lost time and additional expenses
(Halvorson and Black 1974; Miller et al. 1981; Wentz 2000; MSCA 2013).
Two economic factors in particular have likely contributed to decreased CRP
participation. First, reductions in federal spending have led to fewer acres permitted to enroll in
CRP (Smith 2010). Second, agricultural commodity prices increased dramatically beginning in
2007, while CRP average rental rates in Montana actually decreased. Not surprisingly, declines
in CRP enrollment coincide with rising grain prices and falling CRP rental rates (Figure 14).
Additionally, the relatively dry period from 1996 to 2009 may have reduced the signs of seep
development in many areas. During this period, north-central Montana experienced below
average precipitation in eleven out of thirteen years (Figure 7). Economic factors combined with
climactic conditions likely impacted producers’ decisions not to reenroll acres in CRP.
Changes to land use practices have many more potential economic impacts. The
transition to new cropping systems will inevitably entail initial investment by producers, even
when cropping alternatives are economically viable. Producers may need to invest in new
machinery, knowledge, or management strategies, and there will likely be a learning curve as
producers learn new farming techniques. Changing the type of machinery or labor used across a
region could positively impact certain sectors of the agricultural economy and negatively impact
others. In the case of cover crops or alternative crop rotations replacing chem-fallow practices, it
may take several years of attentive weed and pest control until soil health and populations of
beneficial soil biota can recover. Including nitrogen fixing crops such as peas and lentils in
rotations will reduce fertilizer requirements and boost subsequent crop yields, but these benefits
will take several years to develop (Anderson 2011a; Anderson 2011b; USDA NRCS 2012;
Swenson and Haugen 2013). Producing a greater variety of crops may protect an operation from
a market crash in one commodity, but it will also depend on access to markets for alternative
crops (Schaefer 2006; Holzer 2006). Additionally, market prices for alternative crops could fall
if too many farmers in the area begin growing the same alternative crop.
1,500,000
$15.00
1,000,000
$10.00
WinterWheat
500,000
$5.00
CRPRentalRate
0
$0.00
CRPAcres
SpringWheat
Barley
2012
Price($/unit)
$20.00
2011
2,000,000
2010
$25.00
2009
2,500,000
2008
$30.00
2007
3,000,000
2006
$35.00
2005
3,500,000
2004
$40.00
2003
4,000,000
2002
Acres
24
Figure 14. CRP acres enrolled, CRP rental rates, and cereal grain prices in Montana
Social and Ethical Considerations. Farmers often make decisions based on factors other
than economic returns. For example, a survey of dryland cereal grain producers in southeast
Washington, northeast Oregon, and western Idaho revealed that farmers often considered
scientific information when deciding whether to adopt new farming technologies (Kane et al.
2012). Pulse crops are already replacing summer fallow in northeast Montana and other areas
around the country, but producers in north-central Montana remain skeptical that annual
cropping practices will not deplete soil moisture that may be stored during summer fallow
periods (Tanaka et al. 2010). Regionally specific research with pulse crops, oilseed crops, and
cover crops will facilitate a greater understanding of how these practices function in northcentral Montana’s soils and climate.
The survey by Kane et al. (2012) also revealed that farmers highly valued the opinions of
neighbors. Cultural perceptions can act as barriers to the adoption of farming practices that
would allow producers to better manage soil health and soil moisture on their land. Many
farmers in north-central Montana believe that chemicals are necessary to control pests and
weeds. For some, the bragging rights associated with high crop yields may offset the high price
of agrichemicals. The general perception is that chemical fallow practices serve the dual purpose
of controlling weeds while “banking” moisture for the next crop season. However, growing
scientific evidence suggests that diverse crop rotations and cover crops can reduce pest and weed
density and increase soil water storage efficiency without extensive use of chemicals while
improving soil health at the same time. Early adopters will play an important role in facilitating
adoption of new farming technologies by other farmers. Practical understanding of how
alternative cropping systems function in north-central Montana will continue to grow as these
practices become more common, as will access to markets for alternative crops.
25
Many other social issues warrant consideration when proposing changes in cropping
systems. Producers may define themselves and their role in society via a cultural connection with
traditional practices. Farmers may be reluctant to deviate from practices that are familiar and
provide positive experiences or to change status quo practices that are socially acceptable.
Tenant farmers may favor short-term profits at the risk of long-term loss of productivity because
they may obtain leases in other areas if productivity declines.
Landowners who highly value their role as stewards of the environment may be more
likely to adopt conservation measures that provide multiple benefits to soil, water, plant and
animal resources on their land. Even so, the most environmentally minded landowner can
sometimes unwittingly make land management decisions that harm natural resources as a result
of a lack of information. As land ownership changes, the previous landowner’s knowledge of the
land is often lost. The new landowner may decide to change management practices or remove
land from CRP based on current conditions, having no knowledge of previous problems or
motivations that led previous owners to plant perennial vegetation, practice continuous cropping,
or enroll land in CRP.
Soil salinity is a problem unique to very few regions within the United States, but NRCS
practices and procedures are nationally determined. Originally, EQIP practices for salinity and
sodic soil management could be contracted for up to five years. This length of time was based on
the minimum time required for deep-rooted perennial species to draw down an elevated water
table. However, NRCS national policy has recently reduced the eligible contract time for these
practices to three years for political or programmatic reasons that are not based in science. The
lack of understanding of the extent, severity, and necessary treatment of saline soils at the
national level is an obstacle to effective management at the local level (Holzer 2013a).
Ethical issues must also be considered because farmers make land management decisions
that impact soil and water quality for society. Implementing practices that benefit soil and water
quality for society will cost landowners financially, either through implementation costs or by
removing land from annual production. Furthermore, good management practices on discharge
areas without treatment on recharge areas will likely have little to no effect on reclaiming seep
areas (Holzer et al. 1998; Holzer 2013c). However, producers negatively affected by saline seeps
may not own part or any of the recharge area where land management leads to excess
percolation. These producers have little control over the management decisions of their
neighbors despite the impact to their livelihood, but operators on recharge areas have little
incentive to change cropping practices if they are not also affected by the discharge area (Brown
et al. 1983; Holzer 2013c).
Methods for Evaluating Practices
Enterprise budgets allow individual producers to compare costs and returns for different
cropping systems which helps producers decide which crops to grow, identify where they can
become more efficient, make marketing decisions, plan financially, and make other management
decisions (Carkner 2000). Enterprise budgets can also provide insight into the economic
motivation behind operator preference for particular crops and production practices. Enterprise
budgets for winter wheat-chem fallow were compared to three alternative cropping systems—
perennial forage production; annual winter wheat-alternative crop rotations with lentils, peas,
flax, and canola; and a winter wheat-cover crop rotation. Chem-fallow costs were estimated
26
using a 2006 USDA enterprise cost analysis of different tillage systems in Montana (Schaefer
2006) and input from several local producers regarding current fallow spray costs per acre per
year. For other cropping systems, budgets from neighboring states were analyzed because
Montana budgets for all crops could not be located. These budgets were chosen based on
similarity of agricultural practices and climate to north-central Montana, and adjustments were
made to data to bring budgets in line with actual Montana expenses where possible.
Crop yields, crop prices, and land costs in budgets from other areas were adjusted to
average Montana yields, prices, and cash rental rates using National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) data from the 2013 Montana Agricultural Statistics report (Appendix A).
Montana market prices received for each commodity were averaged for 2007 through 2012.
Although price data were available for more years, an average of the most recent six years’
prices was deemed more suitable because significant increases in market prices occurred
beginning in 2007. Considering the past ten years’ data could lead to the conclusion that prices
are increasing rapidly, when the past six years’ data shows that prices have actually leveled off
and are even declining for some commodities (Figure 15) (USDA NASS 2013).
2002‐2012
$40.00
Price($/unit)
$35.00
$30.00
WinterWheat
$25.00
Lentils
$20.00
$15.00
DryPeas
$10.00
Flax
$5.00
Canola
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
$0.00
2007‐2012
$40.00
Price($/unit)
$35.00
$30.00
WinterWheat
$25.00
Lentils
$20.00
$15.00
DryPeas
$10.00
Flax
$5.00
Canola
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
$0.00
Figure 15. Average Montana market prices compared for the past ten and five years. Solid black
lines are trendlines for each crop.
27
Average Montana yields for each crop were calculated using NASS data from 2005
through 2012. The high and low years’ yields were removed, and the remaining 6 years’ yields
were averaged. This helped to ensure that extreme production differences resulting from
environmental variation did not skew the average yield calculation. Average cash rent per acre
was calculated using cash rent data for north-central Montana from 2008 to 2012 (NASS did not
begin separating cash rental rates by agricultural district until 2008). Additionally, a diesel price
of $3.40 per gallon was used in all budgets.
A 2011 enterprise budget for grass-legume hay from northern Idaho (Painter 2011) was
adapted to estimate returns for dryland grass hay in north-central Montana to compare the
potential profitability of various annual cropping systems to perennial forage production.
Although climate and soils differ between the two areas, costs of production are similar because
management practices are similar, with one cutting of hay occurring annually in July. Actual
Montana price, yield, and land costs (USDA NASS 2013) were used in order to adjust for any
differences in revenues as a result of environmental differences between the two areas. Fertilizer
costs in production years were omitted based on input from several local producers, and the costs
associated with applying fertilizer were removed from operating costs and labor calculations
accordingly. Hay establishment costs were amortized over ten years of production based on local
pasture production practices. Actual stand longevity depends on species and varieties grown,
climate, management practices, and economic production threshold.
Budgets for winter wheat, lentils, peas, flax, and canola from northwest North Dakota
(Swenson and Haugen 2012) were analyzed to compare the potential profitability of alternative
crop rotations to traditional winter wheat-chem fallow practices. Northwest North Dakota
provides a suitable comparison to north-central Montana because the annual precipitation is
similar (Figure 16). Soils and native plant communities for these two regions are also similar
(Kraenzel 1955; Wiken, Nava, and Griffith 2011). Crops in the North Dakota budgets are planted
on dryland ground where soil disturbance occurs only at seeding, similar to practices common in
north-central Montana.
Figure 16. Average annual precipitation in Montana and North Dakota from 1961 to 1990
(WRCC n.d.).
28
Replacing summer fallow with cover crops is a third alternative to wheat-fallow
practices. Cover crops have not yet become a common practice in north-central Montana, and
very little data is available regarding their use in Montana. Cover crop costs were estimated
using 2013 seeding invoices from six Conservation District Soil Health-Cover Crop Project
participants in Glacier, Toole, and Pondera Counties (Table 6). Data for Liberty County was not
available at the time of this report. Mark Suta, also a cover crop project participant, provided
information regarding costs for chemicals to terminate cover crops at the end of the season and
the number of spray operations needed.
Table 6. Conservation District Soil Health-Cover Crop Project
Producer
Glacier Co. A
Glacier Co. B
Toole Co. A
Toole Co. B
Pondera Co. A
Pondera Co. B
Red Brown
Spring Forage Sorghum‐
German
CC mix
Clover Flax Lentil Oat Radish Sudan Turnip Vetch Millet Buckwheat Camelina Triticale Peas Cost/Acre
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
$27.48
x
x
x
x
x
$18.61
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
$46.50
x
x
x
x
x
x
$31.94
x
x
x
29.42
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
$33.33
$31.21
Average Cost/acre
Adjustments were made to data to bring budgets in line with actual Montana costs where
possible, but some important differences may remain. Winter wheat yields and costs are the same
regardless of crop rotation—agronomic advantages and disadvantages of crop rotations are not
considered unless explicitly noted. Agronomic effects such as reduced nitrogen inputs needed
after pulse crops, increased yield after fallow years, or rotational effects on weed or disease
buildup are the results of complex biological interactions, are unique to each situation, and are
difficult to predict. Differences in production risk and marketing risk are also not considered.
The North Dakota budgets assume fertilizer costs sufficient to meet yield goals of 130% of
market yield, but fertilizer needs will vary for each producer and should reflect the results of
individual soil tests. Machinery ownership costs will vary if farm sizes differ significantly from
farm sizes assumed in the sample budgets—2,400 acres for the North Dakota alternative crop
budgets, 2,000 acres for the Idaho hay budget, and 3,000 acres for the Montana chemical fallow
operation.
Aside from custom labor costs included in some operations, costs for labor and
management were not included in the enterprise budgets analyzed because many producers
supply much of their own labor. The net return calculated for each crop rotation is the return to
labor and management, which is available to cover labor and management costs if incurred.
Estimated hours of labor per acre for each crop were obtained from Idaho enterprise budgets
(Donlon and Painter 2011; Painter 2011; Painter and Donlon 2011) and used to calculate
potential labor costs considering an hourly rate of $12.00 per hour. Although not included in the
breakeven price and yield analysis, estimated labor costs are shown below each budget for
reference.
Budgets were evaluated at a variety of price and yield combinations to provide a range of
possible environmental and market conditions in any given year. The net returns to labor and
management of each cropping system in this report were ranked based on the risk of a negative
return to labor and management (Table 7). A low yield was defined as the average yield minus
one standard deviation—statistically, production should meet or exceed this yield 84% of the
29
time. A low market price was defined as the average market price minus one standard
deviation—statistically, market prices should meet or exceed this price 84% of the time.
Table 7. Relative Risk of Negative Returns to Labor and Management
Medium A low yield is reasonably expected to provide net positive returns to labor & management even when low yields and low market prices coincide. A low yield will likely provide net positive returns to labor and management if prices are average, but will likely have negative returns if low yields and low market prices occur in the same year. High A low yield will likely provide negative returns to labor and management unless prices are above average. Low Results and Analysis
Comparison of a winter wheat-fallow enterprise budget to three alternative budgets—
establishment of perennial hay, intensive annual crop rotations of wheat with alternative crops,
and wheat-cover crop rotations—reveals that the alternative cropping systems analyzed in this
report have the potential to meet or exceed returns to labor and management from traditional
wheat-fallow systems. Additionally, prior research indicates that returns from diversified crop
rotations will likely be higher and risks subsequently lower than calculated here using the same
yield and input costs for all budgets. Reasonable expectations for possible yield increases, input
reductions, or both as a result of diversified crop rotations are discussed below where they are
likely.
Wheat-fallow. Winter wheat average yield and price are 40.3 bushels per acre and $6.38
per bushel, respectively (Appendix A). Winter wheat-fallow rotations return $14.06 per acre to
labor and management in an average year. The relatively low return of the wheat-fallow rotation
is due to the large number of unproductive acres each year and the high cost of chemical fallow
operations. Wheat-fallow operations have a medium risk of negative returns because a low
production year will not breakeven if market prices are below average. A low production year
(average yield minus one standard deviation) was calculated at 37.1 bushels per acre. The
breakeven price in a low production year is $6.18 per bushel, only slightly lower than the
average price (Appendix B).
Perennial Forage. Economic analysis of establishing grass-alfalfa hay shows that it can
be a competitive alternative to chem-fallow wheat rotations (Appendix C). The initial investment
for converting cropland to hayland is high because there is no crop in the establishment year, but
these costs are amortized over ten or more years of production. Average Montana hay yield is 1.6
ton per acre and average price is $98.00 per ton. In an average year, returns to labor and
management for hay are approximately $54.85 per acre per production year. Returns will likely
be somewhat lower in the first production year because stands may not be fully established. The
risk of negative returns to labor and management for forage production is low because returns
from a low production year will be positive even when low production years coincide with low
market prices. The breakeven yield at Montana’s average price of $98.00 per ton is 1.04 ton per
acre or 1.27 ton per acre if hay prices fall to $80.12 per ton (the average price minus one
30
standard deviation). These hay prices and yields are well within historic levels (Appendix A).
Establishing perennial forage is the most highly recommended practice for lowering shallow
saline water tables and reducing the extent of saline seeps (Miller et al. 1981; Brown et al. 1983;
Holzer et al. 1998; USDA NRCS 2010; MSCA 2013).
Alternative Crop Rotations. Despite the variability in the budgets for winter wheatalternative crop rotations, all have a higher return to labor and management than wheat-fallow
rotations under average price and yield conditions (Appendix D). The risk of negative returns
associated with alternative crop rotations depends upon the alternative crop chosen, its
production under local conditions, and access to local markets. The alternative crops analyzed
here were chosen because they are already common in the region, but they are by no means the
only alternative crops suitable to grow in north-central Montana. Without accounting for possible
synergistic crop benefits, lentils had low risk of negative returns, canola had medium risk, and
peas and flax had high risk. However, the return to labor and management of the wheat-pea
rotation nearly doubles if the yield of winter wheat is boosted by 10% after peas are planted.
Decreased costs of fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide associated with the introduction of
broadleaf crops into the cereal grain rotation will also increase returns to labor and management
for these alternative crop rotations (Beckie and Brandt 1997; Anderson, Tanaka, and Merrill
2002; Anderson 2011a).
Cover Crops. Although cover crops are not yet a popular practice in north-central
Montana, economic analysis is promising. Cover crop returns are near the breakeven point when
average winter wheat yields and costs are the same as those assumed for wheat-fallow and
alternative crop rotations. However, when a 10% wheat yield increase is calculated, the net
return to labor and management is $16.56 per acre for winter wheat-cover crop rotations,
surpassing the return to labor and management for wheat-fallow rotations. Alternatively, when a
20% decrease in chemicals and fertilizers is applied, the net return is $11.56 per acre, which is
only slightly less than chem-fallow rotations (Appendix E). The potential for additional
economic benefits exists if cover crops can be harvested for sale or used for livestock feed or
forage.
Conclusions
Land use changes in north-central Montana have changed the dynamic interaction
between climate, soil, and biological activity within the soil. Deep rooted prairie grasses that
once used nearly all precipitation have been replaced with crop-fallow practices that leave land
without growing vegetation for anywhere from 14 to 21 consecutive months. Past agricultural
management practices have also reduced soil organic matter, damaged soil structure, and reduced
soil biological activity, which reduce the capacity of soils to store moisture and cycle nutrients
that support plant growth. These two factors—reduced water use and reduced soil water storage
capacity—collaboratively cause an excess of soil water, which percolates through the soil profile
and creates abnormally high water tables that often cause saline seeps under north-central
Montana’s geologic conditions.
It is clear that summer fallow agricultural practices have significantly contributed to
formation of saline seeps over time. Of the three primary factors that contribute to saline seep
31
development—geology, climate, and land use—land use is the only factor that can be controlled
and should therefore be the focus of reclamation activities. Producers must operate within
regional and national social, economic, and political parameters, but the causes and solutions to
saline seeps are local. Fortunately, there are many qualified technical service providers available
to help farmers develop management plans for saline seeps.
Preventing seep development and reclaiming existing saline seeps have many benefits for
producers and society, such as maintaining productive land, maintaining soil and water quality,
and maintaining wildlife habitat. Ultimately, landowners make the resource decisions on their
land. However, society has a responsibility to assist producers in maintaining resources at least
proportionate to the benefits that society receives. It is important to maintain support for
conservation programs like CRP and EQIP that have helped to reduce the extent of salineimpaired lands and encouraged producers to explore more sustainable management practices.
It is important to develop a current estimate of the extent of saline seeps in north-central
Montana to accurately understand the current scope and severity salinity problems. This survey
will require a new and cost effective method to measure seeps on a large scale. One possible
solution could involve the use of aerial imagery analysis combined with limited ground truthing
to verify the method. Once verified, the methods could be used to map saline seeps across the
region. Many agencies, including the NRCS, have limited personnel and funds available for such
a project. However, this could be a great task for a USDA Pathways intern desiring experience
with GIS and survey equipment.
Every month that soil spends without growing vegetation during summer fallow periods
is a lost opportunity to improve water storage capacity through the addition of organic matter,
improve soil structure, and contribute to the health of a diverse soil microbial community.
Current crop-fallow practices, intended to benefit soil, actually only benefit a fraction of the soil,
a fraction of the time that is potentially possible. As Dave Brandt, a 45-year veteran of cover
crop practices in Ohio, recently stated at a soil health workshop, “We must do better” (Brandt
pers. communication).
Developing synergistic annual crop sequences and cover crop mixes tailored to northcentral Montana’s geology and climate will help landowners effectively manage soil moisture
while also improving soil structure and supporting soil health. Synergisms between different
crops and soil microbial communities are not fully understood, and more data is needed to
measure effects of crop sequence and cover crops on subsequent crops and actual economic costs
and benefits to producers in north-central Montana. Farmers generally value the opinions of
neighbors, and often consider scientific information when deciding whether or not to adopt new
farming technologies (Kane et al. 2012). If successful, the Conservation District Soil HealthCover Crop Project will be an important first step in both arenas by providing scientific evidence
for the feasibility of cover crops in north-central Montana and first hand testimonials of local
project participants. At the very least, the project will most likely provide insight into which
cover crop species are more likely to succeed in future cover crop trials.
Quite probably, a one-size-fits-all solution to saline seeps is not possible. Experience has
shown that strategies will depend on the size and severity of seeps as well as on the unique
characteristics of each recharge area. Once saline groundwater tables have been lowered, some
recharge areas may be returned to intensive cropping systems with little groundwater recharge,
while others may need to remain in perennial cover to avoid seep redevelopment. Economic
analysis of the alternative cropping systems analyzed in this report reveals that all have the
potential to meet or exceed returns to labor and management from crop-fallow systems
32
predominant in north-central Montana today. However, a defining characteristic of Montana’s
climate is its unpredictability, and history has shown that markets can be extremely volatile as
well. Land management practices should be reevaluated as climate, markets, and agricultural
technology change. Much like the adaptations of native plants and animals to Montana’s variable
environment, flexibility is likely to be the key to successful management of saline seeps.
Addendum
Many other conservation districts and groups are just beginning to experiment with cover
crops across Montana. In 2012, Montana State University’s Northern Agricultural Research
Center in Havre, Montana began a cover crop research project to provide much needed
information on cover crop varietal suitability and performance in northern Montana’s climate.
The project is funded by NRCS and also aims to measure the impacts of cover crops on soil
health, nutrient availability, and soil moisture. Each year, a variety of cool season cover crop
mixes, warm season cover crop mixes, and different combinations of cool and warm season
cover crops are all planted on three different planting dates. Each planting is also terminated in
three different ways: spraying, swathing, or grazing. The following year, wheat is cross seeded
on all of the test plots and yields for each are compared to the yield from wheat planted into
summer fallow. Soil samples are also taken in each plot and soil moisture, soil nutrients, and
biological activity are compared between each test plot and summer fallow.
Although it is too early to come to definitive conclusions, data collected in 2012 and
2013 indicates that wheat yields are still primarily moisture driven after two years of cover crops
replacing summer fallow (unpublished data). The benefits of cover crops on soil health are
expected to be cumulative over many years because it takes time to restore soil organic matter
and soil microbial communities. The hope is that wheat yields will become less reactive to soil
moisture as organic matter accumulates and soil biology becomes more diverse, which will
improve soil structure and moisture holding capacity and increase nutrient supply and cycling
over time. Additionally, it is likely that different cover crop mixes, planting dates, and seeding
rates will be needed in Montana as opposed to cover crop practices developed in neighboring
states.
33
References
Agricultural Bureau of South Australia [ABSA]. n.d. Better Soils. “Module 2: Soil Water
Holding Capacity.” Accessed November 30, 2013.
http://soilwater.com.au/bettersoils/module2/2_1.htm
Alt, David, and Donald W. Hyndman. 1986. Roadside Geology of Montana. Missoula, MT:
Mountain Press Publishing Company.
Anderson, R. L. 1994. “Characterizing Weed Community Seedling Emergence for a Semiarid
site in Colorado.” Weed Technology 8: 245–249.
———. 2011a. “Crop Synergism: A Natural Benefit to Improve Crop Production.” NoTill on the Plains Conference Proceedings, January 25–26, 2011, Salina, KS.
———. 2011b. “Synergism Among Crops Can Help Weed Management.” Western Society of
Weed Science Research Reports 106–107.
Anderson, R. L., and D. L. Tanaka. 1997. “Soil Water Storage and Precipitation Storage
Efficiency of Conservation Tillage Systems.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
52.5: 363.
Anderson, R. L., D. L. Tanaka, and S. D. Merrill. 2002. “Yield and Water Use of Broadleaf
Crops in a Semiarid Climate.” Agricultural Water Management 58 (2003): 255–266.
Beckie, H. J., and S. A. Brandt. 1997. “Nitrogen Contribution of Field Pea in Annual Cropping
Systems: 1. Nitrogen Residual Effect.” Canadian Journal of Plant Science 77: 311–322.
Brady, Nyle C., and Ray R. Weil. 2004. Elements of the Nature and Properties of Soils, second
edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Ltd.
Brown, P. L., A. D. Halvorson, F. H. Siddoway, H. F. Mayland, and M. R. Miller. 1983. SalineSeep Diagnosis, Control, and Reclamation. U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation
Research Report No. 30, 22p.
Carkner, Richard. 2000. “Using Enterprise Budgets to Make Decisions About Your Farm.”
Pacific Northwest Extension Publications. Accessed November 5, 2013.
http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/pnw0535/pnw0535.pdf
Donlon, Hilary, and Kathleen Painter. 2011. 2011 Eastern Idaho Oilseed Budgets: Spring
Canola, Flax, Mustard, Safflower. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho College of
Agricultural and Life Sciences. Accessed October 17, 2013.
http://web.cals.uidaho.edu/idahoagbiz/enterprise-budgets/
Fanselow, Julie. 2007. Traveling the Lewis and Clark Trail. Guilford, CT: Falcon Guides.
34
Fasching, Richard A. 2001. “Determining Plant Available Soil Moisture for Flex-Crop Systems.”
Ecological Sciences—Agronomy Technical Note MT-81. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Gazit, Chana. 2009. Surviving the Dust Bowl. American Experiences series. Boston, MA:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, WGBH Educational Foundation. DVD, 53 min.
Transcript and video available at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/dustbowl/player/
Halvorson, A. D., and A. L. Black. 1974. “Saline-seep Development in Dryland Soils of
Northeastern Montana.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 29 (2): 77–81.
Hansen, Neil C., Brett L. Allen, R. Louis Baumbardt, and Drew J. Lyon. 2012. “Research
Achievements and Adoption of No-till, Dryland Cropping in the Semi-arid U.S. Great
Plains.” Field Crops Research 132 (2012): 196–203.
Holzer, Jane M. 2006. “Salinity: Bringing Back the Land.” 2006 Watershed Symposium,
December 5–7, 2006, Conrad, MT.
———. 2013a. “Long Term Importance and Success Using NRCS-EQIP Practice 610 to
Reclaim Montana Saline Soil and Water.” Conrad, MT: Montana Salinity Control
Association.
———. 2013b. “NRCS Training May 2013.” Montana Salinity Control Association
presentation, May 21, 2013, Power, MT.
———. 2013c. “Watershed Approach to Saline Seep Reclamation.” Conrad, MT:
Montana Salinity Control Association.
Holzer, Jane M., Scott K. Brown, Robert G. Legare, and Joseph J. Von Stein. 1998. “Solving
Saline Seeps Using Perennial Forage Rotations.” Bozeman: North American Alfalfa
Improvement Conference. Accessed August 1, 2013.
http://www.naaic.org/Publications/1998Proc/abstracts/Holzer.html
Kane, Stephanie L., Penelope Diebel, J. D. Wulfhorst, Douglas Young, Barbara E. Foltz, Hilary
Donlon, Monica Reyna, and Jennifer Smith. 2012. STEEP: Solutions to Environmental
and Economic Problems. SSRU Report 08-10-31. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.
Kraenzel, Carl Frederick. 1955. The Great Plains in Transition. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Malone, Michael P., Richard B. Roeder, and William L. Lang. 1976. Montana: A History of Two
Centuries. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
35
Mantua, Nathan J., and Steven R. Hare. 2002. “The Pacific Decadal Oscillation.” Journal of
Oceanography, 58: 35–44. Accessed December 12, 2013.
ftp://ftp.atmos.washington.edu/mantua/PDV/2002_Mantua_Hare_JO.pdf
McVay, Kent, Mary Burrows, Fabian Menalled, and Kevin Wanner. 2010. Montana Wheat
Production Guide. Bozeman: Montana State University Extension.
Mengel, Dave. 2012. “The Value of Soil Organic Matter.” K-State Extension Agronomy eUpdates, no. 357, July 6, 2012. Kansas State University Department of Agronomy.
Accessed December 15, 2013.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=13&ved=
0CHoQFjAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.agronomy.ksu.edu%2Fdoc3992.ashx&ei=ky
CyUuPiPKu0sATjuIGwBw&usg=AFQjCNH2TXbNUSswDkgBM2VXzFg08qeiQ&sig2=tsf-BiDQNJmC9idGLCcz6g
Miller, M. R., R. N. Bergantino, W. M. Bermel, F. A. Schmidt, M. K. Boltz, L. L. Bahls, and P.
A. Bahls. 1980. “Regional Assessment of the Saline-Seep Problem and a Water-Quality
Inventory of the Montana Plains.” Montana Water Resources Research Center Report
No. 107. Bozeman: Montana State University.
Miller, M. R., P. L. Brown, J. J. Donovan, R. N. Bergantino, J. L. Sonderegger, and F. A.
Schmidt. 1981. “Saline Seep Development and Control in the North American Great
Plains – Hydrogeological Aspects.” Agricultural Water Management, 4: 115–141.
Accessed December 11, 2013. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03783774
Montana Association of Conservation Districts [MACD]. 2013. “Montana Conservation
Districts.” Accessed August 24, 2013. http://www.macdnet.org
Montana Salinity Control Association [MSCA]. 2009. “MSCA—Thirty Years in Business.”
Conservation News 1. Conrad, MT: Montana Salinity Control Association. Accessed
November 22, 2013. http://montanasalinity.com/downloads/MSCA_Newsletter_2009.pdf
———. 2013. “Saline Seep Reclamation in Montana.” Accessed July 10, 2013.
http://www.montanasalinity.com/index.html
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Climate Prediction Center [NOAA CPC]. 1997.
“The 1997 El Niño: Potential Effects in Montana November 1997 to April 1998.” Last
updated December 2. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/threats2/
enso/elnino/mt_disc.html
Ogle, Dan, and Loren St. John. 2010. “Plants for Saline to Sodic Soil Conditions.” Technical
Note TN Plant Materials No. 9A. Boise, ID – Salt Lake City, UT: USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
36
Painter, Kathleen. 2011. 2011 Enterprise Budgets: District 1 Grass Hay. Moscow, ID:
University of Idaho College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. Accessed October 17,
2013. http://web.cals.uidaho.edu/idahoagbiz/enterprise-budgets/
Painter, Kathleen, and Hilary Donlon. 2011. 2011 Direct Seed Budgets for Northern Idaho:
Winter wheat, soft white spring wheat & dark northern spring (DNS) wheat, spring
barley, dry peas, lentils & garbanzos. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho College of
Agricultural and Life Sciences. Accessed October 17, 2013.
http://web.cals.uidaho.edu/idahoagbiz/enterprise-budgets/
Paterson, John. 2011. “Do my Cattle have a Water Quality Problem?” Bozeman: Montana State
University Extension. Accessed August 1, 2013.
http://www.msuextension.org/valley/AG/Water%20Quality.pdf
Schaefer, Jerry. 2006. Enterprise Costs and Returns for Different Cropping and Tillage Systems
in Northeastern Montana. Economic Technical Note No. MT-7. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Smith, Dave. 2010. “Goodbye CRP?” Montana Outdoors, December. Accessed October 29,
2013. http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2010/CRP.htm#.UnA_X6V9mhM
Smith, J. L., and J. W. Doran. 1996. “Measurement and use of pH and Electrical Conductivity
for Soil Quality Analysis.” In Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Edited by J. W. Doran
and A. J. Jones, 169–185. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.
Swenson, Andrew, and Ron Haugen. 2012. Projected 2013 Crop Budgets: North West North
Dakota. Fargo, ND: NDSU Extension Service. Accessed October 27, 2013.
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/agecon/ecguides/nw2013.pdf
Tanaka, D. L., D. J. Lyon, P. R. Miller, S. D. Merrill, and B. G. Mcconkey. 2010. “Soil and
Water Conservation Advances in the Northern Great Plains.” In Soil and Water
Conservation Advances in the United States, edited by T. M. Zobeck and W. F.
Schillinger, 81–102. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.
Toole, K. Ross. 1959. Montana: An Uncommon Land. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service [USDA ARS]. 2013. “About
Us.” Last modified October 31. http://www.ars.usda.gov/AboutUs/aboutUs.htm
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency [USDA FSA]. 2013a. “Conservation
Programs: Statistics.” Last modified November 20. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/
webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp-st
———. 2013b. “Fact Sheet: Conservation Reserve Program.” Accessed November 11, 2013.
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/crpfactsheet0213.pdf
37
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service [USDA NASS]. 2013.
Montana: 2013 Agricultural Statistics. Vol. L. USDA, NASS, Mountain Region—
Montana Field Office. ISSN: 1095-7278.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. 2009.
“Fact Sheet: Environmental Quality Incentives Program.” Accessed November
20, 2013. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_007742.pdf
———. 2010. “Salinity and Sodic Soil Management: Code 610.” Specification MT610-1. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
———. 2012. “Cover Crop: Code 340.” Specification MT340-1. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
———. 2013. “75 Years Helping People Help the Land: A Brief History of NRCS.” Accessed
November 22, 2013. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/
about/history/?cid=nrcs143_021392
———. n.d. “Soil Quality Indicators: Soil Electrical Conductivity.” Accessed November 11,
2013. http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/assessment/files/EC_sq_chemical_indicator_sheet.pdf
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey [DOI USGS]. 2013. “Retreat of
Glaciers in Glacier National Park.” Last modified May 2013.
http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm
Wentz, Donald. 2000. “Dryland Saline Seeps: Types and Causes.” Alberta Agriculture and Rural
Development. Last modified January 1.
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex167
Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC]. n.d. “PRISM Precipitation Maps: 1961–90.”
Accessed October 27, 2013. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/precip.html
———. 2013. “US COOP Station Map.” Last modified April 4.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/coopmap/
Wiken, Ed, Francisco Jiménez Nava, and Glenn Griffith. 2011. North American Terrestrial
Ecoregions—Level III. Montreal, Canada: Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
Accessed November 29, 2013. http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/10415-northamerican-terrestrial-ecoregionslevel-iii-en.pdf
38
APPENDICES
39
Appendix A
Montana Market Price1
Non‐irrigated Crop 2002 Winter Wheat 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 6‐year Average Price (2007 ‐ 2012) Standard Deviation $3.73 $3.56 $3.41 $3.51 $4.49 $6.69 $6.31 $4.79 $5.81 $6.74 $7.96 $6.38 $1.06 $13.80 $15.40 $15.10 $9.54 $10.80 $21.80 $34.90 $27.20 $23.90 $23.70 $19.50 $25.17 $5.41 Dry Peas $7.20 $8.10 $5.91 $4.80 $6.64 $12.40 $14.50 $8.46 $9.13 $14.80 $14.60 $12.32 $2.87 Flax $6.15 $5.80 $7.94 $6.20 $6.13 $13.00 $17.70 $7.80 $11.20 $13.60 $13.50 $12.80 $3.25 Lentils Canola Hay ND ND ND $9.00 $11.70 $19.50 $16.50 $13.50 $20.00 $22.50 $26.00 $19.67 $4.39 $74.50 $68.50 $70.00 $68.00 $81.00 $78.00 $111.00 $96.00 $83.00 $94.00 $126.00 $98.00 $17.88 Montana Yield1
Non‐Irrigated Crop 2005 Winter Wheat (bu) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 6‐year Average Yield after high and low removed Standard Deviation 45 43 37 38 36.5 47.4 40.4 38.2 40.3 3.2 12.8 6 11.5 7.7 13.8 13.6 11 11 11.3 2.0 Dry Peas (cwt) 18 10.8 17 10.8 13.3 20 15 15 14.9 2.6 Flax (bu) 17 9 9 9 16 17 13 9 12.2 3.7 12.9 11.2 11.9 19.1 16.6 17.3 13.7 12.4 14.1 2.3 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 0.1 Lentils (cwt) Canola (cwt) Hay (ton) Cash Rent Dollars per Acre for North-central Montana1
Type of Land Non‐irrigated Cropland Pasture 2008 $22.00 $5.40 2009 $23.50 $3.60 2010 $25.00 $5.10 2011 $26.50 $6.20 2012 $23.00 $6.40 Average $24.00 $5.34 40
Appendix B — Winter Wheat-Fallow Rotation (chemical fallow)
1 Revenue
Yield (bu) Price ($) Costs Winter Wheat Chemical Fallow 40.3 Seed & Treatments $0.00 NA 2
$16.50 $77.642 NA 6‐year average price received by producers in Montana from 2007 to 2012. $257.11 NA Average MT yield from 2005 to 2012 after high and low yield removed. $6.38 Revenue/acre Notes $9.00 3 Fertilizer levels to meet yield goals of 130% market yield (North Dakota). Fallow spray costs per acre based on local producer feedback and assuming 3 spray operations. Chemicals & Fertilizer Machinery Operating Costs $27.592 $13.50 3 Other Operating Costs $49.412 $0.97 4 Includes fuel, lube, and repairs. Machinery operating costs tend to be constant cost per acre regardless of level of use. Fallow costs based on local producer feedback and assuming 3 spray operations. Includes crop insurance, operating interest, land costs (average cash rent in north‐central Montana from 2008 to 2012), and miscellaneous costs (such as soil testing, machinery rent and custom work). Ownership Costs $32.472 $1.92 4 Includes overhead, depreciation, and investment costs. Ownership costs vary with the size of operation. $203.61 $25.39 Costs/acre Net Return to Labor & Management per crop/acre $53.50 ($25.39) Revenue per acre minus costs per acre. Net Return to Labor & Management per Rotation/acre Total net $14.06 Annual income per acre assuming .5 acre winter wheat and .5 acre chemical fallow. Lowest expected yield (average yield minus one standard deviation) = 37.1 bu/acre Breakeven WW price at average yield (40.3 bu/acre) = $5.69/bu Breakeven WW price at lowest expected yield (37.1 bu/ac) = $6.18/bu Breakeven WW yield at average price ($6.38/bu) = 35.9 bu/acre Breakeven WW yield at $5.32/bu (average price minus one standard deviation) = 43.05 bu/acre Breakeven WW yield at $7.44/bu (average price plus one standard deviation) = 30.78 bu/acre Risk of negative returns to labor and management in an average year = Medium 41
Appendix C — Grass-Alfalfa Hay
Establishment Year 1 Production Years 2‐11 Notes Revenue1 Yield (ton) NA 1.6 Average MT yield from 2005 to 2012 after high and low yield removed. Price ($) NA $98.00 6‐year average price received by producers in Montana from 2007 to 2012. Revenue/acre 5
Costs $0.00 $156.80 Seed & Treatments $31.85 NA Chemicals & Fertilizer $43.90 Machinery Operating Costs $35.13 Chemical and fertilizer costs omitted in production years based on local producer feedback. Decision to fertilize in establishment or production years is at producer NA discretion and should reflect the results of individual soil tests. Includes fuel, lube, and repairs. Machinery operating costs tend to be constant cost per acre regardless of level of use. Machinery operating costs minus $3.18 per acre for $16.73 rented fertilizer application not used in production years. Other Operating Costs $13.69 Includes land costs (average cash rent in north‐central Montana from 2008 to 2012), $35.30 overhead costs, custom haul & stack, baling twine, and operating interest. Ownership Costs $23.11 Amortization of Establishment Costs NA Costs/acre $147.68 Net Return to Labor & Management per crop/acre Includes depreciation, interest, insurance, taxes, housing, and licenses. Ownership costs $26.48 vary with the size of operation. Assumes 10 years of production. Actual stand longevity depends on species and $23.44 varieties grown, climate, management practices, and economic production threshold. $101.95 ($147.68) Estimated Labor Costs4 Hourly Rate $12.00 Estimated Hours/acre 0.83 Costs/acre $9.96 $54.85 Revenue per acre minus costs per acre. $12.00 0.71 Does not include .05 hr/acre for fertilizer application in production years. $7.64 Labor costs minus $.88 per acre for fertilizer application not used. Lowest expected yield (average yield minus one standard deviation) = 1.5 ton/acre Breakeven hay price at average yield (1.6 ton/acre) = $63.72. Breakeven hay price at lowest expected yield (1.5 ton/acre) = $67.97/ton. Breakeven hay yield at average price ($98.00) = 1.041 ton/acre. Breakeven hay yield at $80.12 (average price minus one standard deviation) = 1.273 ton/acre. Breakeven hay yield at $115.88 (average price plus one standard deviation) = .88 ton/acre. Risk of negative returns to labor and management in an average year = Low 42
Appendix D — Alternative Annual Crop Rotations
Rotations 1
Revenue Yield Price ($) Revenue/acre Winter Wheat (bu) Lentils (cwt) Winter Wheat (bu) Peas (cwt) Winter Wheat (bu) Flax (bu) Winter Wheat (bu) Canola (cwt) 40.3 11.3 40.3 14.9 40.3 12.2 40.3 14.1 $6.38 $25.17 $6.38 $12.32 $6.38 $12.80 $6.38 $19.67 $257.11 $284.42 $257.11 $183.57 $257.11 $156.16 $257.11 $277.35 2
Costs Seed & Treatments Chemicals & Fertilizer Machinery Operating Costs $27.59 $33.70 $27.59 $33.08 $27.59 $28.96 $27.59 $30.85 Other Operating Costs $49.41 $50.24 $49.41 $47.10 $49.41 $39.14 $49.41 $46.45 Ownership Costs $32.47 $39.34 $32.47 $38.74 $32.47 $34.01 $32.47 $36.68 Notes Average MT yield from 2005 to 2012 after high and low yield removed. 6‐year average price received by producers in Montana from 2007 to 2012. Costs/acre Net Return to Labor & Management per crop/acre Net Return to Labor & Management per Rotation/acre $16.50 $24.50 $16.50 $43.50 $16.50 $10.80 $16.50 $47.00 $77.64 $44.01 $77.64 $44.78 $77.64 $57.98 $77.64 $97.48 $203.61 $191.79 $203.61 $207.20 $203.61 $53.50 $92.63 $53.50 ($23.63) $53.50 Total net $73.07 Total net $14.94 Total net $12.00 0.82 $9.84 $12.00 0.73
$8.76
$12.00 0.82
$9.84
$12.00 0.73
$8.76
$12.00 0.82
$9.84
$170.89 $203.61 $258.46 ($14.73) $53.50 $18.89 $19.39 Total net $36.20 $12.00 0.82
$9.84
$12.00 0.93
$11.16
6, 7
Estimated Labor Costs Hourly Rate Estimated Hours/acre Costs/acre Lowest expected yield (avg yield – one SD) Breakeven price at average yield Breakeven price at lowest expected yield Breakeven yield at average price Breakeven yield at avg price – one SD Breakeven yield at avg price + one SD Risk of negative return to labor & management in an average year 9.3
$12.24 $14.87 5.5
7
4.53
Low $12.00 0.9 $10.80 12.3
$10.32 $12.50 12.48
16.27
10.12
8.5 $9.63 $13.81 9.17 12.3 7.32 High High Fertilizer levels to meet yield goals of 130% market yield (North Dakota). Includes fuel, lube, and repairs. Machinery operating costs tend to be constant cost per acre regardless of level of use. Includes crop insurance, operating interest, land costs (average cash rent in north‐central Montana from 2008 to 2012), and miscellaneous costs (such as soil testing, machinery rent and custom work). Includes overhead, depreciation, and investment costs. Ownership costs vary with the size of operation. 11.8
$14.54 $17.37 10.42
13.42
8.52
Medium Revenue per acre minus costs per acre. Annual income per acre assuming .5 acre winter wheat and .5 acre alternative crop. 43
Appendix E — Cover Crop Rotation
Winter Wheat (bu) 1 Revenue
Yield Price ($) Cover Crop 40.3 ND 6‐year average price received by producers in Montana from 2007 to 2012. $257.11 $0.00 Costs Seed & Treatments $16.50 Chemicals & Fertilizer $77.64 Cover crop seed costs based on CD soil health‐cover crop project producer $31.21 records (Table 5). Includes Fuel, lube, and repairs. Machinery operating costs tend to be constant cost per acre regardless of level of use. Cover crop costs based on CD $5.703 cover crop project producer records and assuming 2 spray operations. $27.59 Includes fuel, lube, and repairs. Machinery operating costs tend to be constant cost per acre regardless of level of use. Cover crop costs based on CD cover $9.003 crop project producer records and assuming 2 spray operations. Machinery Operating Costs ND Average MT yield from 2005 to 2012 after high and low yield removed. $6.38 Revenue/acre Notes Other Operating Costs $49.41 Includes crop insurance, operating interest, land costs (average cash rent in north‐central Montana from 2008 to 2012), and miscellaneous costs (such as ND soil testing, machinery rent and custom work). Ownership Costs $32.47 Includes overhead, depreciation, and investment costs. Ownership costs vary ND with the size of operation. Costs/acre Net Return to Labor & Management per crop/acre Net Return to Labor & Management per Rotation/acre $203.61 $45.91 $53.50 ($45.91) Revenue per acre minus costs per acre. Total net $3.80 Annual income per acre assuming .5 acre winter wheat and .5 acre cover crop. Lowest expected yield (average yield minus one standard deviation) = 37.1 bu/acre. Breakeven WW price at average yield (40.3 bu/acre) = $6.20/bu. Breakeven WW price at lowest expected yield (37.1 bu/acre) = $6.73/bu. Breakeven WW yield at average price ($6.38/bu) = 39.11 bu/acre. Breakeven WW yield at $5.32/bu (average price minus one standard deviation) = 46.91 bu/acre. Breakeven WW yield at $7.44/bu (average price plus one standard deviation) = 33.54 bu/acre. Net return at average price with 10% yield increase = $16.56/acre. Net return at average yield & price with 20% chemical and fertilizer cost savings = $11.56/acre. Net return with 10% yield increase and 20% chemical and fertilizer cost savings = $24.32/acre. Risk of negative returns to labor and management in an average year = High 44
ENDNOTES
1. USDA NASS, Montana: 2013 Agricultural Statistics, (USDA NASS).
2. Swenson and Haugen, “Projected 2013 Crop Budgets: North West North Dakota,” (NDSU Extension Service).
3. Mark Suta, pers. communication.
4. USDA NRCS, “Enterprise Costs and Returns for Different Cropping and Tillage Systems,” (USDA NRCS).
5. Painter, “2011 Enterprise Budgets: District 1 Grass Hay,” (University of Idaho).
6. Painter and Donlon, “2011 Direct Seed Budgets for Northern Idaho,” (University of Idaho).
7. Donlon and Painter, “2011 Eastern Idaho Oilseed Budgets,” (University of Idaho).