ࡱ> %` dbjbj 0̟̟\ddd....,.l>Ef/000000001 /1 ;1eEgEgEgEgEgEgE$FhInEdC1 11C1C1E0000E9E9E9EC1B800d00eE9EC1eE9E9ELd9E 00Z/ @&.8R9EeEE0E9ErI>rIEErIdEE 9EC1C1C1EEDC1C1C1EC1C1C1C1>>>(.>>>.x  Costs and Environmental Benefits of Agricultural Conservation Practices in the Upper Mississippi River watershed The Nature Conservancy 2007 Summer Science Internship Project Summary Lorine Giangola University of Colorado at Boulder Intern Supervisor: Dave DeGeus Director, Upper Mississippi River Watershed Initiative This report is intended to be an introduction to the Conservation Practices Costs and Environment interactive spreadsheets that accompany this paper. The Problem Agricultural activity in the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) basin is a major contributor to the degradation of the Mississippi River ecosystem. In order to restore the ecological health of the UMR region, where 66% of the land is used for agriculture, reducing the environmental impacts of agricultural activity must be a priority. One objective of The Nature Conservancys UMR Watershed Initiative is to promote agricultural conservation practices in the UMR basin. Although the environmental benefits of conservation on agricultural lands are well documented, often farmers do not have economic and technical tools to help them make important financial decisions about changing practices. In order to facilitate widespread adoption of conservation practices in the UMR region, TNC needs to provide farmers with more complete economic information about conservation. The purpose of this summer internship project with TNC is to create user-friendly interactive spreadsheet tools that provide cost data for several conservation practices and enable farmers to estimate the cost of their own potential conservation projects. Though there are many online calculators that facilitate agricultural decision-making, we have located none that focuses on the costs of adopting conservation practices. These spreadsheets also include a qualitative summary of the environmental benefits associated with conservation practices; the environmental element of these tools is unique among existing calculator tools for agricultural decision-making. Selection of conservation practices for this project Altered hydrologic flow and excessive runoff of sediment and nutrients from agricultural land are the most problematic environmental effects of agriculture in the UMR ecosystem. One of TNCs objectives in the UMR watershed project is to encourage the adoption of conservation practices that can reduce these environmental impacts. For this project, I have included conservation practices and other measures that are known to reduce sediment and nutrient erosion and preserve or restore the lands natural hydrology. These measures include alternative tillage systems, nitrogen application practices, wetland construction, buffers, conservation cover, terraces, and stream and channel restoration. Data and information sources The 2006 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) cost data for the state of Illinois are the most complete sources of current conservation practice cost data. Costs for wetlands, buffers, conservation cover, and terraces were obtained from these data sets. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office in Normal, IL provided the EQIP and CRP data. Cost data for other conservation practices and projects was more difficult to find. Though many short-term and long-term studies compare yields from conventional and no-till fields, there is little data on the costs of implementing these practices. The University of Illinois extension provided the only published cost data for tillage systems that was used in this project. I was unable to find a breakdown of the costs of an individual stream restoration project. Therefore, the stream and channel restoration spreadsheet cites examples of total project costs and cost ranges, but it does not include an interactive element that allows farmers to estimate their own project costs. A 2006 Soil and Water Conservation Society publication, Environmental Benefits of Conservation on Cropland: The Status of Our Knowledge (Schnepf and Cox, editors), was an invaluable source of information for this project. This collection of research provided many of the references used to develop and support the Environmental Stewardship Index (ESI) scores (explained below) for each practice. Environmental Stewardship Index (ESI) One of the objectives of this project is to provide a qualitative summary of the environmental benefits of conservation practices. The Environmental Stewardship Index (ESI) was developed in order to present this qualitative summary in a format that is easy to read at a glance. The ESI is a quantitative score that represents the total environmental impact of an agricultural practice; it is the sum of the rankings assigned to a practice based on its ability to reduce individual environmental impacts. Each conventional and conservation practice received a rank 1, 2, or 3 for each of a series of environmental effects associated with that practice. A rank of 1 indicates that the practice has little environmental benefit, and a rank of 3 indicates a relatively greater environmental benefit. Therefore, a high ESI score indicates that a practice has a relatively low impact on the environment. Each impact ranking is intended to be a qualitative summary of the environmental effects of these practices as stated in primary literature sources. Each spreadsheet contains a separate list of the references used to determine its ESI. Areas for improvement and future work Another objective for this project was to create spreadsheet designs that are easy to use and require little data entry. In order to ensure the simplicity of use, however, it was necessary to omit some factors and calculations that influence the true costs of practice implementation. For example, the Adjusted total cost of construction on the wetlands and buffers spreadsheets does not include payments that farmers might receive through federal programs (particularly CRP) for taking land out of production for conservation. Dominant soil types determine the amount of these payments, and rates for each soil group vary among counties. Also, some practices are eligible for receiving bonus payments. It is difficult to incorporate a simple estimate of these variable payments within the spreadsheets; spreadsheet users should note that including these payments would reduce the total cost to the farmer. It is also important to consider that the spreadsheets do not account for differences in yield that may occur as a result of changing practices. (This is especially relevant to changing tillage systems.) Many studies have examined yield differences among conventional and tillage systems, but results are variable. Differences in yields can be an important economic consideration when changing practices, but they are difficult to predict and, like every annual crop, they are weather-dependent. The developing carbon market and existing carbon credit programs also provide financial incentives that can reduce the total cost of conservation projects. The ESIs for tillage and conservation cover account for the environmental benefits of carbon sequestration on cropland; the spreadsheet calculations, however, do not include the value of carbon credits because they fluctuate with market signals. Spreadsheet users might consider the potential for earning carbon credits by adopting conservation tillage and by cover cropping, and payments can be estimated using current carbon credit values. Future work on this project might include revising the spreadsheets after receiving feedback from farmers and TNC staff who use this tool in the field. In order to remain accurate, component costs should be updated as more current cost data is collected and published. Another opportunity for future work on this and other related projects could be a more concentrated effort to record, compile, and publish actual costs of implementing conservation practices. The environmental benefits of conservation practices on agricultural lands are well documented, but there are holes in the available data on practice costs; often economic information is a more immediate consideration in conservation decision-making. REFERENCES USED IN THIS PROJECT (Each spreadsheet also includes a list of references specific to the conservation practice) Useful sources for general information about agriculture and conservation: University extension services in the five UMR states: University of Illinois Extension:  HYPERLINK "http://web.extension.uiuc.edu/state/" http://web.extension.uiuc.edu/state/ Iowa State University Extension:  HYPERLINK "http://www.extension.iastate.edu/" http://www.extension.iastate.edu/ University of Minnesota Extension:  HYPERLINK "http://www.extension.umn.edu/" http://www.extension.umn.edu/ University of Wisconsin Extension:  HYPERLINK "http://www.uwex.edu/topics/agriculture/" http://www.uwex.edu/topics/agriculture/ University of Missouri Extension:  HYPERLINK "http://extension.missouri.edu/" http://extension.missouri.edu/ USDA:  HYPERLINK "http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome" http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS):  HYPERLINK "http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/" http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ Farmdoc (U. of Illinois):  HYPERLINK "http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/" http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/ Iowa Soybean Association:  HYPERLINK "http://www.iasoybeans.com/" http://www.iasoybeans.com/ Soil and Water Conservation Society:  HYPERLINK "http://www.swcs.org/" http://www.swcs.org/ National Farmers Union:  HYPERLINK "http://www.nfu.org/" http://www.nfu.org/ References organized by conservation practice Tillage: Blevins, R.L.; Smith, M.S.; Thomas, G.W.; Frye, W.W. 1983. Influence of Conservation Tillage on Soil Properties. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38(3): 301- 305. Chritensen, L.A. 2002. Soil, Nutrient, and Water System Management Systems Used in U.S. Corn Production. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 774 (Electronic Report). Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Colorado State Extension. Available at: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/farmmgt/05006.html Gaynor, J.D.; Findlay, W.I. 1995. Soil and phosophorus loss from conservation and Conventional tillage in corn production. Journal of Environmental Quality 24(4): 734-741. Lakshminarayan, P.G.; Bouzaher, A.; Johnson, S.R. 1994. Is conservation tillage a Sustainable agricultural practice? Environmentally Sound Agriculture, Conference Proceedings. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Lal, R.; Kimble, J. 1997. Conservation tillage for carbon sequestration. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 49(1-3): 243-253. Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123 (1-2): 1-22. Mostaghimi, S.; Dillaha, T.; Shanholtz, V. 1987. Runoff, sediment, and phosphorus Losses from agricultural lands as affected by tillage and residue levels. Optimum Erosion Control at Least Cost. St. Joseph, Michigan: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Rhoton, F.E.; Shipitalo, M.J.; Lindbo, D.L. 2002. Runoff and soil loss from Midwestern and southeastern U.S. silt loam soils as affected by tillage practice and soil organic matter content. Soil and Tillage Research 66: 1-11. Schnepf, M.; Cox, C. (editors) 2006. Environmental Benefits of Conservation on Cropland, The Status of Our Knowledge. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society. Unger, P.W. 1990. Dryland Agriculture: Strategies for Sustainability. Advances in Soil Science 13: 27-68. University of Illinois extension. Available at: http://web.extension.uiuc.edu/state/ Uri, N.D.; Atwood, J.D.; Sanabria, J. 1999. The environmental benefits and costs of conservation tilage. Environmental Geology 38(2): 111-125. Wendt, R.C.; Burwell, R.E. 1985. Runoff and soil losses for conventional, reduced, and no-till corn. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40(5): 450-454. West, T.; Post, W. 2002. Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Data Analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66: 1930-1946. Wilson, G.V.; Dabney, S.M.; McGregor, K.C.; Barkoll, B.D. 2004. Tillage and residue effect on runoff and erosion dynamics. Transactions, American Society of Agricultural Engineers 47(1): 119-128. Yoder, D.C.; Cope, T.L., Wills, J.B., Denton, H.P. 2005. No-till transplanting of vegetables and tobacco to reduce erosion and nutrient surface runoff. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 60(2): 68-72. Nitrogen: Aldrick, S.R. 1980. Nitrogen in relation to food, environment, and energy. Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Publication 61. University of Illinois. Blackmer, A.M., Morris, T.F.; Binford, G.D. 1992. Predicting N fertilizer needs for corn in humid regions. Advances in Iowa. Predicting N Fertilizer Needs for Corn in Humid Regions. (Bock and Kelley, editors). Muscle Shoals, AL: National Fertilizer and Environmental Research Center: 57-72. Boesch, D.F.; Brinsfield, R.B; Magnien, R.E. 2001. Chesapeake Bay eutrophication: scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration and challenges for agriculture. Journal of Environmental Quality 30: 303-320. Carpenter, S.R.; Caraco, N.F.; Correll, D.L., Howarth, R.W.; Sharpley, A.N.; Smith, V.H. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications 8: 559-568. Dampney, P.; Lord, E.; Chambers, B. 2000. Development of advice for farmers and advisors. Soil Use and Management 16: 162-166. Ferguson, R.B., Schepers, J.S; Hergert, G.W.; Lohry, R.D. 1991. Corn uptake and soil accumulation in nitrogen: Management and hybrid effects. Soil Science Society of America Journal 55: 875-880. Ferguson, R.B.; Shapiro, C.A.; Hergert, G.W.; Kranz, W.L.; Klocke, N.L.; Krull, D.H. 1991. Nitrogen and irrigation management practices to minimize nitrate leaching from irrigated corn. Journal of Production Agriculture 4: 186-192. Fox, R.H.; Kern, J.M.; Piekielek, W.P. 1986. Nitrogen fertilizer source and method and time of application effects on no-till corn yields and nitrogen uptakes. Agronomy Journal 78: 741-746. Hatfield, J.L.; Pruegger, J.H.; Jaynes, D.B. 1998. Environmental impacts of agricultural drainage in the Midwest. Drainage in the 21st century: Food Production and the Environment (Brown, L.C., editor). St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Mosier, A.; Syers, J.K.; Freney, J. (editors) 2004. Agriculture and the nitrogen cycle: Assessing the impacts of fertilizer use on food production and the environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Power, J.F.; Wiese, R.; Flowerday, D. 2000. Managing nitrogen for water quality Lessons from Management Systems Evaluation Area. Journal of Environmental Quality 30:866-880. Schnepf, M.; Cox, C. (editors) 2006. Environmental Benefits of Conservation on Cropland, The Status of Our Knowledge. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society. Wetlands: Crumpton, W.G. 2001. Using wetlands for water quality improvement in agricultural watersheds: the importance of a watershed scale approach. Water Science and Technology 44: 559-564. Engelhardt, K.A.M.; Ritchie, M.E. 2001. Effects of macrophyte species richness on wetland ecosystem functioning and services. Nature 411: 687-689. Hansson, L.; Bronmark, C.; Nilsson, P.A.; Abjornsson, K. 2005. Conflicting demands on wetland ecosystem services: nutrient retention, biodiversity or both? Freshwater Biology 50: 705-714. Saunders, D.L.; Kalff, J. 2001. Nitrogen retention in wetlands, lakes, and rivers. Hydrobiologia 443: 205-212. Schnepf, M.; Cox, C. (editors) 2006. Environmental Benefits of Conservation on Cropland, The Status of Our Knowledge. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society. Tanner, C.C.; Nguyen, M.L.; Sukias, J.P.S. 2005. Nutrient removal by a constructed wetland treating subsurface drainage from grazed dairy pasture. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 105: 145-162. Watson, J.T.; Reed, S.C., Kadlec, R.H., Knight, R.L.; Whitehouse, A.E. 1999. Performance expectations and loading rates for constructed wetlands. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural (Hammer, D.A. editor). Chelsea: Lewis Publishers Inc. Woltemade, C.J. 2000. Ability of restored wetlands to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in agricultural drainage water. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55: 303-309. Zedler, J.B. 2003. Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(2): 65-72. Buffers: Dillaha, T.A.; Reneau, R.B.; Mostaghimi, S.; Lee, D. 1989. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. Transactions, American Society of Agricultural Engineers 32: 513-519. Dosskey, M.G. 2001. Toward Quantifying Water Pollution Abatement in Response to Installing Buffers on Crop Land. Environmental Management 28(5): 577-598. Heede, B.H. 1990. Vegetation strips control erosion in watersheds. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. Research Note RM-499. Hunter, M.D. 2002. Landscape structure, habitat fragmentation, and the ecology of insects. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 4(3): 159-166. Landis, D.A.; Wratten, S.D.; Gurr, G.M. 2000. Habitat Management to Conserve Natural Enemies of Arthropod Pests in Agriculture. Annual Review of Entomology 45: 175-201. Magette, W.L.; Brinsfield, R.B.; Palmer, R.E.; Wood, J.D. 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal by vegetated filter strips. Transactions, American Society of Agricultural Engineers 32(2): 663-667. Mickelsoon, S.K.; Baker, J.L. 1993. Bufer strips for controlling herbicide runoff losses. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Paper No. 932084. Neibling, W.H.; Alberts, E.E. 1979. Composition and yield of soil particles transported through sod strips. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Paper No. 79-2065. Robinson, C.A; Ghaffarzadeh, M.; Cruse, R.M. 1996. Vegetative filter strip effects on sediment concentration in cropland runoff. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50(3): 227-230. Schnepf, M.; Cox, C. (editors) 2006. Environmental Benefits of Conservation on Cropland, The Status of Our Knowledge. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society. Tim, U.; Jolly, R. 1994. Evaluating agricultural nonpoint-source pollution using integrated geographic information systems and hydrologic/water quality model. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 25-35. Conservation cover: Dabney, S.; Delgado, J.; Reeves, D. 2001. Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 32(1): 221-1, 250. Gurr, G.M.; Wratten, S.D.; Luna, J.M. 2003. Multi-function agricultural biodiversity: pest management and other benefits. Basic and Applied Ecology 4(2): 107-116. Lal, R. 2004. Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security. Science 304(5677): 1623-1627. Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123 (1-2): 1-22. Pimentel, D.; Stachow, U.; Takacs, D., Brubaker, H.; Dumas, A.; Meaney, J.;Oneil, J.; Onsi, D.; Corzilius, D. Conserving Biological Diversity in Agricultural/Forestry Systems. Bioscience 42(5): 354-362. Post, W.M.; Kwon, K.C. 2000. Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Global Change Biology 6(3): 317-327. Reeves, D.W. 1994. Cover crops and rotations. Crops Residue Management (Hatfield and Stewart, editors). Boca Raton: CRC Press, Inc.: pp. 125-172 Reicosky, D.C.; Forcella, F. 1998. Cover crop and soil quality interactions in agroecosystems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 53(3): 224-229. Schilling, K.E.; Zhang, Y.K.; Drobney, P. 2004. Water table fluctuations near an incised stream, Walnut Creek, Iowa. Journal of Hydrology 286: 236-248. Sharpley,, A.N.; Smith, S.J. 1991. Effects of cover crops on surface water quality. Crops for Clean Water. Ankeney, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society: pp. 41-49. Schnepf, M.; Cox, C. (editors) 2006. Environmental Benefits of Conservation on Cropland, The Status of Our Knowledge. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society. Tabacchi,E.; Lambs, L.; Guilloy, A-M.P.; Muller, E.; Decamps, H. 2000. Impacts of riparian vegetation on hydrological processes. Hydrological Processes 14: 2959-2976. Terraces: Christensen, L.A. 2002. Soil, Nutrient, and Water Management Systems Used in U.S. Corn Production. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 774 (Electronic report). Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Hanway J.J., Laflen, J.M. 1974. Plant nutrient losses from tile outlet terraces. Journal of Environmental Quality 3: 351-356. Renard, K.G.; Foster, G.R.; Weesies, G.A.; McCool, D.K.; Yoder, D.C. 1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). Agricultural Handbook 703. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Schnepf, M.; Cox, C. (editors) 2006. Environmental Benefits of Conservation on Cropland, The Status of Our Knowledge. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society. Spomer, R.G. 1984. Data summary, Agricultural Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Treynor, Iowa. Stream and channel restoration: Fitzpatrick, F.A.; Scudder, B.C.; Lenz, B.N.; Sullivan, D.J. 2001. Effects of multi-scale environmental characteristics on agricultural stream biota in eastern Wisconsin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(6): 489-508. Moerke, A.H.; Lamberti, G.A. 2004. Restoring Stream Ecosystems: Lessons from a Midwestern State. Restoration Ecology 12(3): 327-334. Roni, P.; Hanson, K.; Beechie, T.; Pess, G.; Pollock, M.; Bartley, D. 2005. Habitat rehabilitation for inland fisheries: Global review of effectiveness and guidance for rehabilitation of freshwater ecosystems. Food and Agriculture Organization Technical Paper 484. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0039e/a0039e00.htm#Contents Schilling, K.E.; Zhang, Y.K.; Drobney, P. 2004. Water table fluctuations near an incised stream, Walnut Creek, Iowa. Journal of Hydrology 286: 236-248. Schnepf, M.; Cox, C. (editors) 2006. Environmental Benefits of Conservation on Cropland, The Status of Our Knowledge. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society. Simon, A.; Thomas, R.E. 2002. Processes and forms of an unstable alluvial system with resistant, cohesive streambeds. Earth Processes and Landforms 27: 699-718. Simon, A.; Binger, R.L.; Langendoen, E.J., Alonso, C.V.; 2002. Actual and reference sediment yields for the James Creek watershed, Mississippi. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service National Sedimentation Laboratory Research Report No. 31. Tabacchi,E.; Lambs, L.; Guilloy, A-M.P.; Muller, E.; Decamps, H. 2000. Impacts of riparian vegetation on hydrological processes. Hydrological Processes 14: 2959-2976. Ward, A., Mecklenburg, D.; Powell, G.E.; Brown, L.; Jayakaran, A. 2004. Two-Stage Channel Design Procedures. Self-Sustaining Solutions for Streams, Wetlands, and Watersheds. Conference Proceedings. St. Paul, Minnesota. Available at: http://streams.osu.edu/streams_pdf/2stage(ward).pdf vw|R 5f(g(i(((1)2))))))))* *8*9*:*[*\*㾶͙~㙒s~j hSUh[ hS0JjhSU h|ThSjh|ThSUh|ThS5hmhS56hmhS6hmhS5 hh5hS hmhS hThShykhS6hS hS6hThS5 hS5 hS56-Uw|  L M N O P Q R `gdS $da$gdS$a$gdSgdSdgdSdd F ` 6bG!=#%& d`gdSdgdS$a$gdS&g(h(i((((1)2)h))]**S+++-,.,,,- -j-k---...gdSdgdS\**********(+)+*+Q+R+v+w++++++++++,,,+,,,-,.,],^,,,,,,,,,,,,,--- -#-$-L-M-N-jhSUjhSUjhSUjhSU hmhSjhSUjhSUh[ hS0JjhSU h|ThSjh|ThSUhS7N-h-i-j-k----------.......M.U...o//00052Z2l2m2223344495556566677]778ĽĩĽᡗ hS6hThS6 hThShmhS56hmhS5huAhS0Jj~ hSU hzhSjhzhSUjhSU hmhS h|ThShSjh|ThSUh[ hS0J3.M.V...//X///0H0I00000O111@2m2n2222$33`gdS^gdSgdS332444445X5o5p55555666666'7o7p778*888`gdS <^`<gdSgdS8889999:/;F<f<=2===T>{>G?h?@)@@@zAABBB:CmCnCoCyCD%DDDiE}EEE%FwFFFCGlGGfH%ILIIIJJJJJJUKmKLLIMgMM*N P1PiPPPPQQQQQR>>^gdS`gdS <^`<gdSgdS>>u?v??8@9@@DAEAABBbBBBCnCoCpCzCC4D5DD^gdS x^`xgdS <^`<gdSgdSDDD#EEEEEEEPFFFFG{G|GGHHH^I_IIJJ^gdS <^`<gdSgdS`gdSJJjJJJ3K~KKK8L9LLLL MuMvMM;Naaa5bbcc dqddddd hThS hS56 hzhS hS6hThS6hSDTdTTTiUjUUUUNVVVV3W4WWWW3XyXXXX:Y;YaJaaaJbccccccddddd^gdS <^`<gdS`gdSgdS.:pS/ =!"#$%  DyK %http://web.extension.uiuc.edu/state/yK Jhttp://web.extension.uiuc.edu/state/DyK "http://www.extension.iastate.edu/yK Dhttp://www.extension.iastate.edu/DyK http://www.extension.umn.edu/yK <http://www.extension.umn.edu/DyK (http://www.uwex.edu/topics/agriculture/yK Phttp://www.uwex.edu/topics/agriculture/DyK http://extension.missouri.edu/yK >http://extension.missouri.edu/DyK (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahomeyK Phttp://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahomeDyK http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/yK 4http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/DyK http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/yK :http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/DyK http://www.iasoybeans.com/yK 6http://www.iasoybeans.com/DyK http://www.swcs.org/yK *http://www.swcs.org/DyK http://www.nfu.org/yK (http://www.nfu.org/<@< NormalCJaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List0U@0 |T Hyperlink>*B*@V@ |TFollowedHyperlink>*B* \\\Uw| LMNOPQR\!Y!Y!Y!Y!!!!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!!!YUw| LMNOPQRF`6  bG=g h i 1!2!h!!]""S###-$.$$$% %j%k%%%&&&M&V&&&''X'''(H(I(((((O)))@*m*n****$+++2,,,,,-X-o-p----5.6....'/o/p//0*0000J111111.2y22333v4w44?5@5A55556666u7v7788988D9E99::b:::;n;o;p;z;;4<5<<<<#=======P>>>>?{?|??@@@^A_AABBBjBBB3C~CCC8D9DDDD EuEvEE;FYJYYYJZ[[c[[[\\\00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000X0\*N-8nRd389<B &.38>DJOTFY_d467:;=>?@ACDEd5!!!"9"[""""")#Q#v####$+$]$$$$$%#%M%h%%%%%&&\XXXXXXXXXXX8@0(  B S  ?\ _Hlt49833687#\@,$\!!!!!!"\"^"h"i"k""""""""R#T#^#_#a#v####$,$]$$$$$$$% % %%%#%i%k%o%p%s%%%%%%%%&&)&*&3&''t((( )))))L*Z*n*q*********++++++,,--O.W...80>0V0]011y22223333333344444444A5H55555556666666677I8Q8Y8_8Q9V9^9d9(:1:::z;;5<?<i<s<<<<======>>>??@@_AeABB B&B.B8BBBCCDDDDvE}EEE[>^>>>>>? ?N?[?|??@}@@A_AqAAABKBjBvBBB4CTCCD"D7DDDDD EJEvEEEEOOOOP>PAPzPPPPPP_QQQQQ$RJRzRRRSSvSSSSSS!T$T]TrTTTTTT\\333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 H i !!"\""""R#v###,$]$$$%#%i%%%%&V&&&&X'(I(k((((.)O)))6*n****$+n+++ ,2,,,,-:--.6.c.....(/7/p//0k000011J111!2/2222333F4w44A5l555566T6v777898m888E9z9:=:b::::;;;;<5<^<< =#=j==%>Q>x>>>??@%AAABMBjBB4CUCDDDD ELEvEEEETtTTTTUFUdUUV+VVkWWNXkXXXX YJYiYYYY5ZJZX[c[[[ \\\!!"\""""R#v###,$]$$$%#%i%%%%&\\ xS@Po\`@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial 1 hFF O/ O/!4d\\{2QPh2 ObjectivesrmullenJuan Pablo GalvanOh+'0D1   , 8 DPX`hp ObjectivesrmullenNormalJuan Pablo Galvan2Microsoft Office Word@@?@ABCDEFHIJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrsuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F@&Data G1TableOrIWordDocument0SummaryInformation(tt1DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q