by B. Ali, William C. Nelson, Roger G. Johnson, and Edward J. Deibert · 2017. 5. 5. · CASE STUDY OF MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, NORTH DAKOTA by Mir B. Ali, William C. Nelson, Roger

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS REPORT NO. 196

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR PROFIT AND SOIL CONSERVATION:

CASE STUDY OF MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, NORTH DAKOTA

by

Mir B. Ali, William C. Nelson, Roger G. Johnson, and Edward J. Deibert

Department of Agricultural EconomicsNorth Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station

North Dakota State UniversityFargo, North Dakota 58105

in cooperation with:

North Dakota Soil Conservation ServiceUnited States Department of Agriculture

April 1985

PREFACE

This report presents the effects of alternative crop and soil

management systems on annual soil losses and revenues by land class and byfarm in the Muskrat Lake Watershed, Mountrail County of North Dakota.

The research of this report was conducted under North DakotaAgricultural Experiment Station Project 1351. The research was supported withfunds from the North Dakota Soil Conservation Service, Bismarck and the NorthDakota Agricultural Experiment Station.

We extend our appreciation to the following persons: Charles E. Mummaand Bruce Clark for their expertise and supplying of the information, RandalC. Coon and Harvey G. Vreugdenhil for their help in computer programming, andLori Cullen, Lucy Radke, and Becky Dethlefsen for typing the manuscript.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables . . . . . . . .

List of Figures . . . . . . . . .

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Description of Muskrat Lake Watershed

Agricultural Sector Simulation ModelSoil Loss Simulator ...Revenue Simulator . . . . . . .Main Model . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis by Land Capability Class .

Estimation of Soil Losses by Wind . .

Total Soil Erosion by Water and Wind

Nutrient Loss and Long Term Impacts

Statewide Implications . . . . . . .

Analytical Results by Farm . . . . .

* 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *

. . . . . . . * * *

00 0 .

0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0

· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A: Soil Types, Erosion Factors, and Summary ofMuskrat Lake Watershed, Mountrail County . . . . .

Appendix B: Enterprise Budgets . . . . . . . .Appendix C: Wind Erodibility Factors . . . . . .Appendix D: Assumptions and Amount of Nutrient Loss DueAppendix E: Crop Yield, Price, Statewide . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 0 * * * *

Land Use in

t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

to Soil Erosion

* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page

iiiii

iv

1

3345

5

9

10

12

17

20

3139495357

59

· · · · · · ·· · · · · · ·

. . . . . . . ..*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

*

.*

.*

.*

*

.*

*

.*

*

.*

*

.*

.

.*

*

*

*

.*

.*

*

*

.*

.*

*

*

.*

.*

.

*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

.*

List of TablesTableNo. Page

1. SUMMARY OF LAND USE BY LAND CAPABILITY CLASS IN MUSKRAT LAKEWATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. . . . . . . . . . 3

2. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION PER ACRE OF CROPLAND BY WATER FOR ALTERNATIVECROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY LAND CAPABILITY CLASS INMUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA . . . . . 6

3. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION PER ACRE BY WATER ON PASTURE PLUS TAMEGRASSLAND BY LAND CAPABILITY CLASS IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED,MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7

4. ANNUAL NET REVENUE PER ACRE ON CROPLAND FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP ANDSOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY LAND CAPABILITY CLASS IN MUSKRATLAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA . . . . . . . 8

5. ANNUAL NET REVENUE PER ACRE ON PASTURE PLUS TAME GRASSLAND BYLAND CAPABILITY CLASS IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAILCOUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

6. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION PER ACRE BY WIND ON AGRICULTURAL LAND FORALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN MUSKRAT LAKEWATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA . . . . . . . . . . .. 11

7. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION PER ACRE ON CROPLAND BY WATER AND WIND FORALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY LAND CAPABILITYCLASS IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA . 12

8. AVERAGE ANNUAL LOSS OF TOTAL NITROGEN, PHOSPHORUS, AND POTASSIUMPER ACRE DUE TO SOIL EROSION BY WATER AND WIND FOR ALTERNATIVECROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED,MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA . ............ . .. .13

9. VALUE OF NITROGEN, PHOSPHORUS, AND POTASSIUM LOSS PER ACRE IN ONEYEAR DUE TO SOIL EROSION BY WATER AND WIND FOR ALTERNATIVE CROPAND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAILCOUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA .... .. . . . . . .. . . . . .... . 14

10. QUANTITY OF INORGANIC NITROGEN REQUIRED TO REPLACE THE ADDITIONALNITROGEN LOST DURING ONE DECADE OF CONVENTIONAL TILLFALLOW-DURUM ROTATION VERSUS NO-TILL CONTINUOUS DURUM-WINTERWHEAT-SUNFLOWER ROTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 15

11. COST PER YEAR AND PRESENT VALUE OF COSTS TO REPLACE THE ADDITIONALNITROGEN LOST DURING ONE DECADE OF CONVENTIONAL TILLFALLOW-DURUM ROTATION VERSUS NO-TILL CONTINUOUS DURUM-WINTERWHEAT-SUNFLOWER ROTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16

12. CROPLAND IN CLASS VI BY CROP REPORTING DISTRICT, NORTH DAKOTA . . . 18

ii

List of Tables (Continued)TableNo. Page

13. TOTAL ANNUAL SOIL LOSS ON CLASS VI CROPLAND BY WATER AND WIND FORSELECTED CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY CROP REPORTINGDISTRICT, NORTH DAKOTA . . . . . . . ....... .. . 19

14. NET REVENUE PER ACRE ON CLASS VI CROPLAND FOR SELECTED CROP ANDSOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY CROP REPORTING DISTRICT, NORTH DAKOTA 20

15. SUMMARY OF LAND USE BY FARMS, MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAILCOUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA . . ............ . .. . .. .. 21

16. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION BY WATER FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOILMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY FARM IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAILCOUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . 22

17. ANNUAL NET REVENUE PER ACRE ON CROPLAND FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP ANDSOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY FARM IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED,MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 26

18. ANNUAL NET REVENUE PER ACRE FOR COW-CALF LIVESTOCK BY FARM INMUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA . . . . 28

List of Figures

FigureNo. Page

1. Muskrat Lake Watershed, Mountrail County, North Dakota . . . . . . 2

2. Boundaries of Crop Reporting Districts, North Dakota . . . . .. 17

iii

Highlights

Effects of alternative crop and soil management systems on soil lossesand revenues were examined in Muskrat Lake Watershed, Mountrail County, NorthDakota. The entire area of the watershed was divided into over 8,000 2.5-acrecells. The Agricultural Sector Simulation Model (AGSIM) was used to computecosts, revenues, and soil losses for 20 cropping systems and a cow-calflivestock enterprise. Costs were based on 1981 input prices. Revenues werebased on five-year average yields and prices. Yields were adjusted to reflectthe relative productivity of soil in each 2.5-acre cell. Net revenue isreturn to land, overhead, risk, and management. The Universal Soil LossEquation (USLE) and the Wind Erosion Equation were used to compute annual soillosses.

Personal interviews with area farmers were conducted in April 1982. Afallow-durum rotation was common in the watershed; sunflower was raised onlimited acres. A substantial acreage of rangeland was not utilized since veryfew operators had livestock operations. Farmers were concerned about gullyerosion and installation of grassed waterways.

The fallow-durum practice allowed total soil erosion by water and windat the annual rate of 6.8 and 4 tons per acre respectively. Results indicatedthat less use of summer fallow, and more use of conservation tillage (no-till)and contour strip cropping reduces per acre annual soil losses substantially.For example, inclusion of no-till winter wheat on contour strips reduces theannual soil loss to 4 tons per acre--a reduction of 63 percent in total soilloss.

Approximate annual amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium lostwere 44, 23, and 279 pounds per acre under the fallow-durum practice. Rasedon 1981 nutrient prices, the present value of nutrient loss over 50 years dueto one year of erosion would be $3.39 for nitrogen and $0.20 for phosphorusper acre. The value of potassium loss, $10.63, has less effect on cropproduction because soils are initially high in potassium.

Average net annual revenue for a durum-fallow rotation is $27.49 peracre. Net revenue could be increased by a maximum of $9 per acre underalternative crop and soil management systems. A cow-calf operation on pastureyields net revenue of $7.06 per acre.

Twenty-two percent of the agricultural land in the watershed is ClassVI, which is highly erosive. Fallow-durum practice on Class VI croplandresults in soil losses of 29.1 tons by water and 3.5 tons by wind--a total of32.6 tons per acre annually. Converting Class VI cropland to permanentpasture or wildlife habitat is the best alternative to reduce soil losses. IfClass VI cropland were converted to a permanent pasture, the annual soillosses would reduce to 2.65 tons per acre and net revenue would increase to$6.35 per acre assuming a cow-calf operation on the converted pastureland.

In conclusion, beneficial practices from both soil conservation andeconomic views are less use of fallow, including winter wheat and sunflowerinto the rotation, raising crops on no-till, adapting contour stripconservation practice, and converting Class VI cropland to permanent pasture.

iv

Management Systems For Profit and Soil Conservation:Case Study of Muskrat Lake Watershed, North Dakota

by

Mir B. Ali, William C. Nelson, Roger G. Johnson, and Edward J. Deibert*

Twenty-three percent of the agricultural land in North Dakota has soilerosion in excess of tolerable limits (10). The rate at which soil erosion isoccurring on North Dakota's agricultural land was the number one concernaddressed at the 1981 State Resources Conservation Act meetings (10).

Soil erosion is a process by which soil particles are detached by windand water and redeposited in a different location (such as the bottom ofslopes, depression areas, streams or areas far from the eroded field). Soilerosion due to water is most severe on fields that have steep slopes with longslope length. It results in environmental pollution, sedimentation of riversand lakes, and a substantial reduction in soil productivity. Currentmanagement practices aggravate the soil erosion problem. Excessive erosion canresult from fall plowing, summer fallow, and cropping highly erosive land(Class VI land).

The main objective of this study is to examine effects of differentcrop and soil management systems on soil erosion and current profitability inthe Muskrat Lake Watershed.

Description of Muskrat Lake Watershed

The Muskrat Lake Watershed, located in southern Mountrail County ofNorth Dakota (Figure 1), is drained by intermittent tributaries that flow fromthe upland to a main watercourse that flows into Muskrat Lake. The relief inthe watershed varies from 1,980 msl at Muskrat Lake to 2,200 msl (feet abovemean sea level) in the upper reaches of the watershed, which is a closed basin.Waters cannot outlet from Muskrat Lake until the lake reaches an approximatelevel of 1,895 msl which is not presumed a possibility (16).

A grid was laid over the map of Muskrat Lake Watershed dividing theentire area into 8,018 cells. Each cell was 2.5 acres and was classified byland use (cropland, pasture, tame grassland, woodland, wetland, lake, andfarmsteads), soil type, land capability class, generalized field slope lengthand gradient, productivity index, and farm and field boundaries. Table 1summarizes the distribution of land use in the watershed by land capabilityclass. The 19,909 acres in the watershed includes 13,193 acres of cropland and5,472 acres of rangeland. Land capability class is based on the limitations ofa specific soil type for agricultural production. Erosion potential generally

*Ali is Research Assistant, Nelson and Johnson are Professors,Department of Agricultural Economics, and Deibert is Associate Professor,Department of Soil Science, North Dakota State University, Fargo.

Figure 1. Muskrat Lake Watershed, Mountrail County, North Dakota

increases in the higher number classes. Twenty-two percent of the land in thewatershed is Class VI land.1

There are 42 different soil types in the area; The most common type isWilliams loam comprising 47 percent of cropland. Thirty-eight percent ofcropland has 2 to 5 percent slope. The predominant field slope length in thearea is between 200 and 250 feet (Appendix A).

Personal interviews were held in April 1982 with the 22 farmers in thewatershed to obtain information on their farming practices, machine use,expenses, and revenues. Supplemental information was obtained from the NorthDakota Experiment Station and the North Dakota Soil Conservation Service.

1Class VI land in the watershed is highly erosive and is officiallydesignated as Class VIe land.

- 3-

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF LAND USE BY LAND CAPABILITY CLASS IN MUSKRAT LAKEWATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA1

Land Capability TameClass Cropland Rangeland Farmsteads Grassland Wetland Total

------------------------------Acres-----

II 8,505.50 1,318.15 75.00 128.25 16.05 10,042.95III 1,704.00 482.50 6.00 33.25 0.00 2,225.75IV 1,497.50 486.50 17.25 48.25 1.00 2,050.50V 32.00 61.25 0.00 1.25 0.00 94.50

VI 1,418.00 2,850.50 36.75 117.75 0.00 4,423.00VII 32.30 250.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 282.55

VIII 4.00 23.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.25

Total 13,193.30 5,472.40 135.00 328.75 17.05 19,146.50

1Summary does not include 755 acres of lake and 8 acres of woodland.

The typical cropping system in the watershed is a two-year, fallow-durumrotation. Only two farm producers grew sunflower. Common tillage operationswere to cultivate fields four times with a chisel plow during the fallow yearand to cultivate fields once with a light cultivation and seed in the sameoperation in spring of the crop year. Limited cow-calf operation on pastureoccurred in the watershed.

Agricultural Sector Simulation Model (AGSIM)

Agricultural Sector Simulation Model is used to calculate cost,and soil erosion losses for crops and livestock activities. The modelcomputerized simulation model written in a FORTRAN IV language (4, 5).

revenueis a

The model uses two data bases: 1) a physical data base providesinformation about present land use and soil characteristics for each 2.5-acrecell, and 2) the management base describes the management decisions.

The model has three main parts--Soil Loss Simulator, Revenue Simulator,and Main Model--which will now be described.

Soil Loss Simulator

The Soil Loss Simulator calculates annual average soil loss (tons/acre)for each 2.5-acre cell using Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) for differentcrop and soil management systems (15, 22).

- 4-

The general form of USLE is:

A = R * K * LS x C x P

where: A = average soil loss in tons/acre/year;

R = rainfall factor, a measure of erosive forces for the detachmentof the soil particles by rainfall and runoff;

K = soil erodibility factor, a measure of susceptibility of soilparticles to detachment and transport by rainfall and runoff;

LS = length of slope (L) and slope steepness factor (S), a measure toadjust the estimated soil loss for effects of length andsteepness of slope. The value of LS is determined by:

LS = fTL (.0076 + .0053S + .00076S2 )

where: L = slope length in feet;

S = steepness of slope in percent;

C = crop management factor, a measure of effect of protection againsterosion provided by vegetation;

P = erosion control practice factor, a measure of reduction in runoffcaused by changing the geometric characteristics of the site suchas terracing, contouring, and/or strip cropping.

Revenue Simulator

Revenue Simulator calculates total revenue, total cost, and net revenuefor crops and livestock activities by cell. Crop budgets for 1981 weredeveloped using a computerized budget-generator program (Appendix R).Five-year average (1977-81) crop yields for Mountrail County were used as baseyields (8). However, these base crop yields were adjusted according torelative productivity of the soil in each 2.5-acre cell. Crop yields wereassumed to be the same for all tillage and conservation practices. Croprevenues were estimated using five-year averages (1977-81) of crop prices (18).Net revenue is defined as the return to land, overhead, risk, and management.

Total revenue is the sum of revenues from crop and livestock activitiesby each cell. Crop revenue is calculated by multiplying expected yield of aspecified crop by the unit price times crop acres in the cell.

Cow-calf budget for 1981 was developed in consultation with livestockspecialists at North Dakota State University (Appendix B-8). Net revenue isdefined as the return to pasture, overhead, risk, and management, and is basedon five-year average product price (1977-81).

- 5-

Total livestock revenue is calculated by multiplying the revenue fromone animal unit (sales from young calves and cull cows) times the recommendednumber of animal units supported by the cell. The recommended animal units areestimated by dividing the available animal unit month (AUM) by the required AUMper animal. The available AUM is calculated by multiplying the relativeproductivity of pasture (AUM/acre) times the acres of pasture in each cell.

Total cost is calculated by multiplying the number of acres or animalunits by the average cost per acre or animal unit. Subtracting the total costfrom the total revenue gives the net revenue for the cell. The three totals arethen divided by number of crop acres, pasture acres, and acres of agriculturalland to compute average total revenue, average total cost, and average netrevenue for cropland, pasture, and agricultural land, 2 respectively.

Main Model

The information computed for each cell by the Soil Loss Simulator andthe Revenue Simulator is aggregated in the Main Model by fields, farms, andland capability class (Appendices A and B contain the coefficients used in theAGSIM model).

Analysis By Land Capability Class

Twenty cropping systems consisting of various combinations of threecrops (durum, winter wheat, and sunflower), two tillage systems (conventionaland no-till), and contour strip cropping were considered.

Agricultural Sector Simulation Model (AGSIM) was used to compute soillosses from water erosion using the USLE for different crop and soil managementsystems for each 2.5-acre cell. AGSIM also computes the total revenues, totalcosts, and net revenues for crops and cow-calf management systems by cell.This information is then aggregated into fields, farms, and land classes by themodel.

The analysis does not include land classes V, VII, and VIII due to thefew acres of cropland in these classes. Average annual soil losses due towater for different crop and soil management systems by land class are given inTable 2.

Average annual soil loss under the present cropping practice (fallowalternated with durum) amounts to 6.84 tons per acre on cropland. Soil lossis 8.26 tons per acre during a fallow year assuming 200 pounds of residues onthe ground. Reducing fallow acreage causes a major decrease in soil losses.For example, reducing fallow to once each three years (fallow-durum-winterwheat) results in an annual soil loss of 5.34 tons per acre on cropland--areduction of 1.5 tons per acre per year. In other words, reducing fallow usefrom one-half to one-third decreases annual losses by 22 percent.

2Agricultural land includes cropland, pasture, and tame grassland.

TABLE 2. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION PER ACRE OF CROPLAND BY WATER FOR ALTERNATIVECROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY LAND CAPABILITY CLASS IN MUSKRAT LAKEWATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

Crop and Soil Land Capability ClassManagement Systema II III IV VI Weighted Average

------------------ Soil Loss (Ton/Acre)----------------

No Conservation

1. F 3.39 9.39 9.22 35.10 8.262. F-D 2.81 7.77 7.63 29.06 6.843. F-D-WW 2.19 6.06 5.95 22.69 5.344. F-D-SF1 2.73 7.56 7.43 28.30 6.665. F-D-WW-SF1 2.32 6.41 6.29 23.94 5.646. D-WW-SF1 1.60 4.44 4.36 16.62 3.91

Conservation--No Till

7. F-D-WW(Z) 2.08 5.76 5.66 21.56 5.078. F-D-SFI(Z) 2.32 6.42 6.31 24.04 5.659. F-D-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 1.92 5.32 5.22 19.86 4.6810. D(Z)-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 0.89 2.46 2.42 9.21 2.17

Conservation--Strip Cropping


Conservation--No Till Contour Strip

17. F-D-WW(Z) 1.10 3.44 3.46 17.26 3.4218. F-D-SF1(Z) 1.22 3.84 3.86 19.24 3.8019. F-D-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 1.02 3.18 3.18 15.90 3.1620. D(Z)-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 0.48 1.48 1.48 7.38 1.48

aF = fallow, D = durum, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, and Z = no-till.

The beneficial effect of no-till systems can also be seen in Table 2.Average annual soil loss reduces from 3.91 to 2.17 tons per acre due tono-till in a durum-winter wheat-sunflower crop rotation--a reduction of 1.74tons per acre or 45 percent.

Use of contour strip cropping greatly reduces the annual soil loss. Ifcontour strip cropping is introduced in the present cropping practice, annuallosses reduce from 6.84 to 4.62 tons per acre of cropland--a difference of2.22 tons annually.

Annual soil losses are least on Class II land as compared to losses onClasses III, IV, and VI. In general, results indicate similar losses onClasses III and IV because 90 percent of Class III cropland has 8 percentfield slope with 200 feet in slope length. Only 5 percent of cropland in thisclass has 2 percent slope gradient with 150 feet in length. In Class IV, 75percent of cropland has slope gradient of 9 percent and slope length of 150feet. Also, 15 percent of Class IV cropland has 2 percent slope gradient and200 feet of slope length.

Soils in Class VI land are highly erosive. Average annual soil lossunder the present cropping system (fallow-durum) is 29.06 tons per acre ofcropland in Class VI (Table 1). If all cropland in Class VI is converted topasture, this will reduce loss to 2.65 tons per acre.

Annual soil loss per acre of pasture by land class is shown in Table 3.Average loss on an acre of pasture in the watershed amounts to 1.61 tons peryear.

TABLE 3. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION PER ACRE BY WATER ON PASTURE AND TAME GRASSLANDBY LAND CAPABILITY CLASS IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTHDAKOTA

Land Capability Class Soil Erosion by Water

Soil Loss (Ton/Acre)

II 0.21III 0.57IV 0.62VI 2.65

Weighted Average 1.61

Annual net revenues per acre of cropland for crop and soil managementsystems by land class are given in Table 4. Note that annual revenue isreturn to land, overhead, risk, and management, and is based on five-yearaverage crop price (1977-1981).

Annual net revenue under the present cropping practice. (fallow-durum)is $27.49 per acre. Inclusion of sunflower in the present cropping systemincreases revenue to $35.45 per acre--an increase in revenue by 29 percent.

Higher net revenue for a no-till system as compared with a conventionalsystem is due to cost saving in tillage operations. Lower net revenues forall contour strip cropping systems are due to an additional cost per acre of$1.86 for installation of contour strips (16). Crop yields are assummed to bethe same in the short-run for contour strip cropping and no-till.

Annual net revenue per acre of pasture for cow-calf operation is givenin Table 5. Cow-calf operation in the watershed yields an average $7.06 per

-8-

TABLE 4. ANNUAL NET REVENUE PER ACRE ON CROPLAND FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP ANDSOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY LAND CAPABILITY CLASS IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED,MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA


- -----------------Net Revenue ($/Acre)b----

No Conservation

1. F -16.09 -16.09 -16.09 -16.09 -16.092. F-D 39.18 12.11 4.82 - 0.21 27.493. F-D-WW 40.52 9.47 1.10 - 4.67 27.124. F-D-SF1 51.46 14.41 4.42 - 2.47 35.455. F-D-WW-SF1 50.00 11.99 1.75 - 5.29 33.596. D-WW-SF1 52.45 5.10 - 7.67 -16.49 32.00


7. F-D-WW(Z) 41.05 10.01 1.64 - 4.14 27.648. F-D-SF1(Z) 52.57 15.53 5.54 - 1.35 36.579. F-D-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 51.25 13.24 3.01 - 4.04 34.83

10. D(Z)-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 53.93 6.57 - 6.19 -15.01 33.47

Conservation--Stri Cropping

11. F -17.95 -17.95 -17.95 -17.95 -17.9512. F-D 37.31 10.25 2.96 - 2.07 25.6313. F-D-WW 38.67 7.62 - 0.75 - 6.53 25.2514. F-D-SF1 49.59 12.55 2.56 - 4.33 33.5815. F-D-WW-SF1 48.13 10.12 - 0.12 - 7.17 31.7316. D-WW-SF1 50.60 3.25 - 9.52 -18.35 30.14

Conservation--No Till Contour Strip

17. F-D-WW(Z) 39.20 8.15 - 0.22 - 6.00 25.7818. F-D-SF1(Z) 50.71 13.67 3.68 - 3.21 34.7119. F-D-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 49.38 11.37 1.13 - 5.91 32.9720. D(Z)-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 52.07 4.72 - 8.05 -16.87 31.61

aF = fallow, D = durum, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, and Z = no-till.bNet revenue is based on 5-year average crop price (1977-81) and return toland, overhead, risk, and management.

acre of pasture. Net revenue is $6.35 per acre of pasture in Class VI land--an increase of over $6 per acre in revenue as compared with the revenue under

the present cropping practice (fallow-durum).

In conclusion, the present cropping practice causes substantial soillosses in the watershed. These soil losses can be reduced by decreased use of

- 9-

TABLE 5. ANNUAL NET REVENUE PER ACRE ON PASTURE PLUS TAME GRASSLAND BY LANDCAPABILITY CLASS IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

Land Capability Class Net Revenue for Cow-Calf Livestocka

S- - -$/Acre-------------

II $8.29III 8.24

IV 6.52VI 6.35

Weighted Average $7.06

aNet revenue based on a recommended practice and 5-year average price

(1977-81) is the return to land, overhead, risk, and management.

fallow, reduced tillage (no-till), and adoption of contour strip cropping.Estimated net revenue is increased up to $9 per acre under an alternative cropand tillage system including sunflower in the cropping system. Soil losses onClass VI land could be reduced to approximately 7.4 tons per acre; however,losses of $17 per acre in revenue occur when the cropping practice includesno-till winter wheat and sunflower on contour strips. Class VI land exhibitseconomic losses under all cropping conditions due to low yields. Convertingcropland in Class VI land to pasture substantially reduces annual soil lossesand increases net revenue per acre.

Estimation of Soil Losses by Wind

The Wind Erosion equation is used to calculate average annual soillosses by wind for different crop and soil management systems in thewatershed. The general form of the wind erosion equation (15) is:

E = f(IKCLV)

where: E = average annual soil loss (tons/acre);

f = a function of;

I = soil erodibility;

K = soil ridge roughness factor;

C = climatic factor;

L = unsheltered distance in feet across a field along the prevailingwind direction;

V = vegetative cover, expressed as equivalent flat small grain residue.

- 10 -

Coefficients used in estimating soil losses by wind were based on theinformation provided by North Dakota Soil Conservation Service and soilscientists at North Dakota State University (see Appendix C for details).Average annual soil losses by wind for different crop and soil managementsystems were calculated at two levels of actual field width: 1,320 feet and660 feet. Conservation practice involves strip cropping with five fieldstrips for soils having 12 percent soil slope or less and 10 field strips forsoils having slope greater than 12 percent.3 Average soil losses wereweighted against proportion of land in each soil slope group. Results ofcomputations are presented in Table 6 for two wind erodibility groups (WEG) 4and 6. Note that WEG 4 includes land class IV and WEG 6 includes land classesII, III, and VI.

Assuming actual field width is 1,320 feet, average annual soil loss bywind under the present cropping system (fallow-durum) amounts to 3.96 tons peracre. Reducing fallow acreage and tillage operations decreases soil lossesannually. For example, inclusion of winter wheat on no-till in the croppingsystem reduces annual losses to 1.69 tons per acre--a reduction of 57 percent.Wind erosion losses are greater on Class IV land as compared to those on ClassII, III, and VI land (Table 6). Average annual soil loss on an acre of landin Class IV is 7.5 tons under the present cropping practice. Use of stripcropping greatly reduces losses by wind annually. If strip cropping isintroduced in the present cropping practice, average soil losses reduce from3.96 to 0.92 tons per acre per year--a reduction of 77 percent.

Total Soil Erosion by Water and Wind

Annual total soil losses by water and wind for alternative croppingsystems by land class are given in Table 7. The total loss by water and windis 10.8 tons per acre per year under the present durum-fallow cropping system(Table 7). Inclusion of a no-till winter wheat crop in the present systemreduces that total by four tons per acre--a reduction of 37 percent. Use ofcontour strip conservation practice also substantially reduces the total loss.If the area farmers used the contour strip practice, the total annual soillosses would be reduced from 10.8 tons to 5.5 tons per acre--a reduction of 50percent due to contour strip cropping.

Average annual losses exceed 10 tons per acre on Class VI land for allalternative cropping systems except 100 percent no-till with contour-strip.Cropland in Class VI erodes at the rate of 32.59 tons per acre annually underthe durum-fallow rotation. Complete elimination of summer fallow and use ofno-till with contour strip cropping reduces the total soil loss to 7.5 tons peracre. However, such a practice is not economical. Converting cropland inClass VI to pasture or wildlife habitat is the best alternative from both soilconservation and economic views. When cropland in Class VI is converted topasture, total soil loss reduces to 2.36 tons per acre per year.4

3personal communication with Ed Diebert, Associate Professor, Departmentof Soil Science, North Dakota State University, Fargo.

4Wind erosion on rangeland was assumed to be negligible.

- 11

TABLE 6. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION PER ACRE BY WIND ON AGRICULTURAL LAND FORALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED,MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

Wind Erodibility GroupbCrop and Soil Management Systema WEG 6 WEG 4 Weighted Average

----------- Soil Loss (Ton/Acre)-----------

1. Field Width 1,320 FeetNo Conservation

1. F 7.06 15.00 7.922. F-D 3.53 7.50 3.963. F-D-WW 2.50 5.18 2.794. F-D-SF1 3.78 8.26 4.265. F-D-WW-SF1 2.88 6.53 3.276. D-WW-SF1 1.29 3.34 1.51


7. F-D-WW(Z) 1.49 3.38 1.698. F-D-SF1(Z) 3.55 7.82 4.019. F-D-WW(Z)-SFl(Z) 2.67 5.86 3.01

10. D(Z)-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 1.11 2.64 1.27

2. Field Width 660 FeetNo Conservation



17. F-D-WW(Z) 1.00 2.78 1.1918. F-D-SF1(Z) 2.41 6.44 2.8419. F-D-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 1.81 4.83 2.1320. D(Z)-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 0.73 2.13 0.88

Conservation--Strip Croppingc


Conservation--No-Till and Strip Croppingc

27. F-D-WW(Z) 0.24 1.11 0.3328. F-D-SF1(Z) 0.63 2.64 0.8529. F-D-WW(Z)-SFl(Z) 0.47 1.98 0.6430. D(Z)-WW(Z)-SFl(Z) 0.13 0.81 0.21

aF = fallow, D = durum, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, and Z = no-till.bWEG 6 includes land capability classes II, III, and VI.WEG 4 includes land capability class IV.

CConservation practice assumes 10 strips for soils having less or equal to 12percent slope and 5 strips if slope is greater than 12 percent. Soil lossvalues are weighted average based on proportion of agricultural land in eachslope group.

- 12 -

TABLE 7. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION PER ACRE ON CROPLAND BY WATER AND WIND FORALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY LAND CAPABILITY CLASS INMUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA


----------------- Soil Loss (Ton/Acre)------------------

No Conservation


Conservation--No-Till

7. F-D-WW(Z) 3.57 7.25 9.04 23.05 6.778. F-D-SF1(Z) 5.86 9.97 14.13 27.59 9.689. F-D-WW(Z)-SFl(Z) 4.59 7.99 11.08 22.53 7.7110. D(Z)-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 2.00 3.57 5.06 10.32 3.45

Conservation--Contour-Strip


Conservation--No-Till and Contour-Strip

17. F-D-WW(Z) 1.30 3.68 4.57 17.50 3.7318. F-D-SF1(Z) 1.85 4.47 6.50 19.87 4.6619. F-D-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 1.49 3.65 5.16 16.37 3.8020. D(Z)-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 0.61 1.61 2.29 7.51 1.68

aF = fallow, D = durum, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, and Z = no-till.

Nutrient Loss and Long Term Impacts

Amount and value of major nutrients (nitrogen, phosphate, and potash)lost due to one year of soil erosion both by water and wind for alternativecropping systems are given in Tables 8 and 9. The analysis is based on theassumption that one ton of eroded soil contains 4.11 pounds of total nitrogen,2.13 pounds of total phosphorus and 25.8 pounds of potassium. The 1981nutrient prices were used. Present value of nutrient loss over a 50-year life

- 13 -

TABLE 8. AVERAGE ANNUAL LOSS OF TOTAL NITROGEN, PHOSPHORUS, AND POTASSIUMPER ACRE DUE TO SOIL EROSION BY WATER AND WIND FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOILMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

Nutrient LossbCrop and Soil Total Total Total

Management Systema Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium--------------------Ib./acre/year--------------------

No Conservation

1. F 66.66 34.55 418.472. F-D 44.47 23.04 279.153. F-D-WW 33.45 17.34 210.014. F-D-SF1 44.96 23.30 282.255. F-D-WW-SF1 36.70 19.02 230.396. D-WW-SFI 22.32 11.56 140.09

7. F-D-WW(Z) 27.82 14.42 174.668. F-D-SF1(Z) 39.78 20.62 249.749. F-D-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 31.69 16.42 198.92

10. D(Z)-WW(Z)-SFl(Z) 14.18 7.35 89.01

aF = fallow, D = durum, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, and Z = no-till.bAssumes 4.11 pounds of total nitrogen, 2.13 pounds of total phosphorusand 25.8 pounds of total potassium per ton of soil.

due to one year of erosion was figured by assuming a real interest rate of4 percent. It is important to mention that values and assumptions used incomputing nutrient losses are of a general nature. There are a number offactors influencing the total amount and availability of these nutrients(Appendix D).

Annual losses of total nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium under thepresent durum-fallow system are 44, 23, and 279 pounds per acre, respectively(Table 8). These annual nutrient losses are reduced by 37 percent if no-tillwinter wheat is included in the present cropping system. Annual nutrientlosses are lowest under durum-winter wheat-sunflower rotation on no-till ascompared to other rotations.

Estimated values of nitrogen lost in the first year and over a 50-yearlife due to one year of erosion are $.21 and $3.39 per acre, respectively,under the present cropping system, F-D (Table 9). It would normally cost$10.67 per acre to replace 44.47 pounds of inorganic (available for plantgrowth) nitrogen at $0.24 per pound. Most of the nitrogen is in organic form,however, and becomes available for plant growth at a rate of approximately 2percent per year (1). Therefore, only 2 percent of the 44.47 pounds oforganic nitrogen would have been available in the first year following soilloss. The cost of replacement is $.024 (.02)(44.47) = $.21. Two percent ofthe remaining organic nitrogen becomes available each year until it is totally

- 14 -

TABLE 9. VALUE OF NITROGEN, PHOSPHORUS, AND POTASSIUM LOSS PER ACRE IN ONEYEAR DUE TO SOIL EROSION BY WATER AND WIND FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOILMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

Value of Nutrient Loss in One YearbNitrogen Phosphorus Potassium

Crop and Soil First P.V. Over First P.V. Over First P.V. OverManagement Systema Year 50 Years Year 50 Years Year 50 Years

------------------------ /Acre-------------------------

1. F 0.31 5.08 .014 .293 0.97 15.932. F-D 0.21 3.39 .0093 .195 0.64 10.633. F-D-WW 0.15 2.55 .007 .147 0.48 7.994. F-D-SF1 0.21 3.42 .0094 .198 0.65 10.745. F-D-WW-SF1 0.17 2.79 .0077 .161 0.53 8.776. f-WW-SFI 0.10 1.70 .0047 .098 0.32 5.33

7. F-D-WW(Z) 0.13 2.12 .0058 .122 0.40 6.658. F-D-SF1(Z) 0.18 3.03 .0084 .175 0.58 9.519. F-D-WW(Z)-SFl(Z) 0.15 2.41 .0067 .139 0.46 7.57

10. D(Z)-WW(Z)-SFl(Z) 0.07 1.08 .003 .062 0.21 3.39

aF = fallow, D = durum, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, and Z = no-till.b19 8 1 price of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium used was $.24, $.27, and$.12 per pound, respectively. Present value (P.V.) of nutrient loss during a50 year life due to one year of erosion by water and wind calculatedassuming interest rate at 4 percent and availability factor for nitrogen andpotassium at 2 percent, and phosphorus at .15 percent.

depleted. These quantities of nitrogen were then discounted back to a presenteconomic value to yield the $3.39 cost of nitrogen lost due to erosion in thefallow-durum rotation.

The value of phosphorus loss is not economically significant due to anextremely slow mineralization rate. Value to replace potassium loss is higherthan nitrogen and phosphorus under all the cropping systems. However, theloss of potassium is of negligible economic consequence because the lostpotassium does not need to be replaced to maintain yields (soils in thewatershed are initially high in potassium).

Continued use of a fallow-durum rotation without any conservationpractices results in significant economic costs to replace nutrients. If onecompares the fallow-durum rotation to a durum-winter wheat-sunflower rotationunder no-till for ten years, the difference in losses becomes substantial(Table 10). The difference in nitrogen lost each year is 30.29 pounds(44.47 - 14.18). This value times 2 percent yields the inorganic nitrogenlost for the following year, .02(30.29) = .61 pounds.

The effect of this first year of soil loss continues to occur duringthe remainder of the decade. Two percent of the remaining organic nitrogen,.59 pounds, would have been available in the second year following erosion,

- 15 -

TABLE 10. QUANTITY OF INORGANIC NITROGEN REQUIRED TO REPLACE THE ADDITIONALNITROGEN LOST DURING ONE DECADE OF CONVENTIONAL TILL FALLOW-DURUM ROTATIONVERSUS NO-TILL CONTINUOUS DURUM-WINTER WHEAT-SUNFLOWER ROTATION

Year of RotationYear 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

------------------------------ pounds----------------------------

1 .61 .612 .59 .61 1.203 .58 .59 .61 1.784 .57 .58 .59 .61 2.355 .56 .57 .58 .59 .61 2.916 .55 .56 .57 .58 .59 .61 3.467 .54 .55 .56 .57 .58 .59 .61 3.998 .53 .54 .55 .56 .57 .58 .59 .61 4.529 .52 .53 .54 .55 .56 .57 .58 .59 .61 5.04

10 .51 .52 .53 .54 .55 .56 .57 .58 .59 .61 5.54

and 2 percent of the remaining organic nitrogen would become available eachyear until the balance was completely mineralized to inorganic form.

The same process occurs to the soil lost in the second and succeedingyears of the rotation. In the tenth year, the quantity of inorganic nitrogenrequired to replace accumulated losses over the ten years is 5.54 pounds.This process will continue at a rate of an additional 5 to 6 pounds perdecade. At the end of 50 years, approximately 25 to 30 pounds of nitrogenannually will be required to replace losses due to the initial 10 years oferosion.

The economic costs incurred due to a decade of high erosion arepresented in Table 11. The first year cash costs are very low, $0.15;however, at the end of 10 years, the annual replacement cost has risen to$1.33. These costs are rising at an average rate of about 10 percent annuallyat the end of the decade.

The present value of the nitrogen replacement costs of one decade ofhigh soil erosion is $19.45 per acre. This value, $19.45, is the amount, ifinvested at 4 percent interest rate, that would generate sufficient income topay for the economic costs of replacing nitrogen over 50 years due to lossesincurred during one decade. Other long-run effects of high soil erosion ratesare the loss of organic matter and water holding capacity, and changes inchemical properties. Soil can change properties sufficiently over time sothat their classification will be different. An example of this is Max loamsoil. Max loam is found on a large percentage of the watershed.5 Max loamhas a productivity index of 60 which equates to a 20.4 bushel yield of spring

5The following discussion is based on communication with J. MichaelNethery, State Conservationist, SCS, Bismarck, January 27, 1983.

- 16 -

TABLE 11. COST PER YEAR AND PRESENT VALUE OF COSTS TO REPLACE THE ADDITIONALNITROGEN LOST DURING ONE DECADE OF CONVENTIONAL TILL FALLOW-DURUM ROTATIONVERSUS NO-TILL CONTINUOUS DURUM-WINTER WHEAT-SUNFLOWER ROTATION

Present Value of Cash CostsYear of Rotation Current Cash Cost Per Year Over 50 Years

1 $ .15 $ 2.312 .29 2.223 .43 2.124 .56 2.065 .70 1.966 .83 1.897 .96 1.828 1.08 1.769 1.21 1.69

10 1.33 1.62$19.45

wheat in the Muskrat Lake Watershed. It becomes a Zahl soil upon erosion of 4to 5 inches of soil. The additional soil loss of a conventional tillfallow-durum rotation over a no-till durum-winter wheat-sunflower rotation isapproximately 9 tons per acre. It takes only 80 years to erode 4.5 inches ofsoil and change Max loam to Zahl soil. Zahl soil has a productivity index of30, equal to 10.2 bushels per acre in the watershed. Technology and increasedfertilizer application is normally assumed to have similar effects on allsoils; therefore, the absolute value of yield decline, 10.2 bushels per acre,would be expected to remain constant.

The analysis and example used in the preceeding discussion were basedon the average soil loss in the basin under different management systems. Theimpact of high erosive management systems are much more dramatic in the caseof Class VI soils. There is a difference of 21 tons per acre of soil lossbetween the high and low erosion managment systems. One can essentiallydouble the costs and other negative impacts based on average soils to obtainestimates appropriate to Class VI soil.

Several studies have substantiated the long run impact of soil loss oncrop yields. Walker and Young (20) reported that, in the Palouse region ofeastern Washington, the loss of topsoil could decrease maximum yields up to 40bushels per acre. They estimated a net loss of 8 bushels per acre has occurreddue to erosion, even though technology has increased overall yields. They alsoemphasized that continued high levels of soil loss has the possibility ofcausing an absolute decline in yield as the topsoil is lost and subsurfacesoils are not capable of supporting high yields.

Swenson (13), in a North Dakota study of zero-till versus conventionaltillage, estimated that cost of nitrogen lost due t'o soil erosion equals about$0.27 per ton of soil loss. Bauer and Black (2) estimated that an annualaverage loss of 28.44 pounds of nitrogen had occurred over a 25-year period.

- 17 -

This was based on a comparison of stubble mulching to conventional tillage inGrant County, North Dakota. The primary sequence in cropland management wasalternate wheat-fallow. The largest difference in total nitrogen loss,approximately 59 pounds per acre annually, occurred on moderately coarsetextured soils. Yield differences averaged about 2 bushels--stubble mulchyielded greater than conventional tillage even though slightly more nitrogenwas applied to the conventional tillage.

Krauss and Allmaras (7) reported that wheat yields declined 11 bushelsper acre with a loss of about 5 inches of topsoil over a 90-year period.Technological advances, however, increased yields 22 bushels per acre duringthe same period. They point out that changes in technology need to be adjustedfor in order to obtain accurate estimates of yield effects of soil erosion.Similar results have been found by Shrader and Robinette (12, 11) with respectto corn production. Common themes of these studies were

1) Soil erosion has decreased yield potential;

2) Technological advances have masked the effect of soil erosion;

3) Technology may not be able to continue to counter the effects ofsoil erosion in the future as the subsoils become exposed.

Statewide Implications

For the purpose of statewide use, results of the analysis were expandedto Class VI land for nine crop reporting districts (Figure 2). Three cropping

Figure 2. Roundaries of Crop Reporting Districts, North Dakota

- 18 -

systems were studied. Net revenue was based on five-year average crop yieldsand crop prices (1977-1981) for the crop reporting districts and the state (8).However, these average crop yields were adjusted to reflect yield on Class VIland for each county using the same relationship that existed between theproductivity of Mountrail County and the productivity of Class VI land in theMuskrat Lake Watershed.

Cropland in Class VI by crop reporting district and the state is givenin Table 12. The state has 735,995 acres of Class VI cropland (9). This is

TABLE 12. CROPLAND IN CLASS VI BY CROP REPORTING DISTRICT, NORTH DAKOTA

Percent of Class VICrop Reporting District Cropland in Class VI Cropland in Each District

-------- Acres- -Percent-------

Northwest 108,208 14.70North Central 90,157 12.25Northeast 25,709 3.49West Central 157,615 21.42Central 64,541 8.77East Central 17,206 2.34Southwest 119,676 16.26South Central 90,419 12.28Southeast 62,464 8.49

State 735,995 100.00

SOURCE: North Dakota Conservation Needs Inventory, July 1970, SoilConservation Service, North Dakota (7).

2.67 percent of the state total cropland in Class VI. West Central districthas the highest proportion of the state Class VI cropland (21.4 percent).

Total annual soil loss by water and wind for selected cropping systemsin each crop reporting district is given in Table 13. In the western area(includes Northwest, Southwest, South Central, and West Central districts)where fallowing is a common practice, the total average annual soil lossamounts to 3.11 million tons. In the eastern half of the state where farmersinclude summer fallow less frequently, the average total soil loss is 1.61million tons--a difference of 1.5 million tons in eastern and western areas ofthe state. Use of contour strip cropping reduces the total annual soil lossesby 27 percent.

Negative net revenue per acre is recorded under the three croppingsystems in all the crop reporting districts except Northeast and East Centraldistricts (Table 14). Note that net revenue is return to land, overhead,management, and risk.

- 19

TABLE 13. TOTAL ANNUAL SOIL LOSS ON CLASS VI CROPLAND BY WATER AND WIND FORSELECTED CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY CROP REPORTING DISTRICT, NORTHDAKOTA

Crop and Soil Management SystemaCrop Reporting District F-W F-W-WW(Z) F-W-WW(Z)-SF (Z)

-----------Soil Loss (Million Tons)-------------

Up and Down Hill Cropping

Northwest 3.53 2.49 2.44North Central 2.94 2.08 2.03Northeast 0.84 0.59 0.58West Central 5.14 3.63 3.55Central 2.10 1.49 1.45East Central 0.56 0.40 0.39Southwest 3.90 2.76 2.70South Central 2.95 2.08 2.04Southeast 2.04 1.44 1.41

State 23.98 16.96 16.58

Contour Strip Cropping

Northwest 2.59 1.89 1.77North Central 2.16 1.58 1.48Northeast 0.62 0.45 0.42West Central 3.78 2.76 2.58Central 1.55 1.13 1.06East Central 0.41 0.30 0.28Southwest 2.87 2.09 1.96South Central 2.17 1.58 1.48Southeast 1.50 1.09 1.02

State 17.64 12.88 12.05

aF = fallow, W = spring wheat, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, and Z =no-till.

Crop production on Class VI land causes a substantial soil loss andalso a negative net revenue. Conversion of Class VI cropland to permanentpasture or wildlife habitat is the best alternative. On the average,converting Class VI land to pasture reduces the total soil losses by 79percent annually, assuming cow-calf operation on converted Class VI land topasture increases net revenue to a positive $6.24 per acre.

- 20 -

TABLE 14. NET REVENUE PER ACRE ON CLASS VI CROPLAND FOR SELECTED CROP ANDSOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY CROP REPORTING DISTRICT, NORTH DAKOTA

Crop and Soil Management SystemaCrop Reporting District F-W F-W-WW(Z) F-W-WW(Z)-SF1(Z)

--------------- Net Revenue ($/Acre)----------------


NorthwestNorth CentralNortheastWest CentralCentralEast CentralSouthwestSouth CentralSoutheast

State

-2.35-2.182.75

-6.06-1.993.34

-7.93-8.12-2.78

-0.63

-6.45-4.954.40-7.92-5.334.51-8.05-9.28-3.60

-3.89

-3.76-2.325.35

-4.57-3.216.48

-8.02-8.91-0.05

-1.02


NorthwestNorth CentralNortheastWest CentralCentralEast CentralSouthwestSouth CentralSoutheast

State

-4.21-4.040.11

-7.92-3.851.48

-9.79-9.98-4.64

-2.49

- 8.31- 6.81

2.547.247.192.659.91

11.145.46

- 5.75

- 5.62- 4.18

3.49- 6.43

5.074.629.88

10.771.91

2.88

aF = fallow, W = springno-till.

wheat, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, and Z =

Analytical Results by Farm

Farms in the watershed were coded from 1 to 43.are not in sequence, and numbers 8, 10, 13, 21, and 37land use by farm is given in Table 15.

Note that code numbersare absent. Summary of

Average annual soil losses per acre due to water erosion on croplandand all agricultural land (cropland, rangeland, and tame grassland), croprevenues for alternative crop and soil management systems, and livestockrevenue (cow-calf) computed by Agricultural Sector Simulation Model (AGSIM)are summarized in Tables 16, 17, and 18. Wind erosion losses presented

- -- -- - - --

- 21 -

TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF LAND USE BY FARMS, MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAILCOUNTY, NORTH DAKOTAa

Farm Cropland Rangeland Farmsteads Tame Grassland Wetland

---------------------------- Acres-------------------------------

1234567911121415161718192022232425262728293031323334353638394041

83.5055.50151.25385.50123.25641.50156.7555.2547.75

477.25536.50181.25203.25150.75185.75271.75308.75104.25371.50

2,336.50180.50

1,365.80728.50297.50215.50155.50

1,037.75375.00125.2585.50

273.00241.25309.25160.00245.5067.75

0.00153.75

8.7595.00

121.75417.75

5.7523.5082.75

136.00248.00

8.75467.50137.50148.00120.7544.0055.750.00

663.50102.50746.15379.75

0.0069.502.00

167.25251.7533.5070.00

200.2518.75

189.250.009.505.00

0.003.000.003.251.253.000.000.000.00

17.2511.750.006.25

11.757.000.000.000.000.009.000.0013.502.255.000.000.00

22.257.250.004.506.750.000.000.000.000.00

14.500.000.00

31.000.000.000.000.00

77.757.501.500.00

43.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

20.750.000.005.500.000.000.00

22.504.001.250.000.000.000.000.0031.0069.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.500.001.300.000.000.000.0015.250.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

aSummary does not include 755 acres of lake and 8 acres of woodland.

TABLE 16. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION BY WATER FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY FARM IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED,MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

Crop and Soil Management SystelnaF F-D F-D-WW F-D-SFI F-0-WW-SF1 D-WW-SFI

Farm Cropland Agr. Landb Cropland Agr. Landd Agr.Laand Agr. Lan Cropland Agr. LandD Cropland Agr. LandC Cropland Agr. Landb

------- ------ ------- - -------------------------- Soil Loss (Ton/A-cre)-------------------

No Conservation

2.95 2.8711.32 11.537.10 6.193.95 4.256.22 8.71

10.67 12.586.13 5.234.33 4.955.06 15.677.86 7.758.58 9.033.62 3.095.21 11.337.96 11.296.05 5.476.83 7.354.12 3.889.90 11.923.91 3.246.16 6.205.94 7.348.01 9.576.21 7.092.77 2.29

11.72 12.243.39 2.835.00 4.764.12 5.276.94 6.998.04 10.523.49 4.014.67 4.158.66 10.545.11 4.224.84 4.634.60 7.93

2.44 2.249.44 9.005.88 4.833.28 3.325.31 6.809.09 9.835.08 4.083.60 3.874.31 12.246.62 6.057.30 7.053.01 2.414.54 8.836.73 8.825.41 4.285.77 5.753.42 3.028.29 9.313.24 2.525.16 4.844.96 5.736.72 7.475.24 5.532.29 1.799.79 9.552.81 2.214.16 3.713.47 4.115.79 5.456.85 8.223.01 3.133.86 3.237.30 8.234.22 3.294.01 3.613.81 6.19

1.91 2.797.46 11.234.60 6.032.58 4.144.35 8.487.42 12.273.97 5.092.84 4.823.52 15.275.31 7.555.94 8.802.36 3.013.83 11.025.44 11.004.75 5.344.66 7.172.67 3.776.59 11.612.52 3.154.11 6.043.93 7.145.36 9.324.23 6.901.79 2.237.75 11.912.19 2.763.28 4.632.79 5.134.59 6.815.58 10.252.51 3.903.02 4.035.86 10.273.29 4.113.13 4.502.98 7.72

2.38 2.369.21 9.515.73 5.113.20 3.505.19 7.198.90 10.364.95 4.323.51 4.094.22 12.896.46 6.407.14 7.442.93 2.554.45 9.346.58 9.305.34 4.535.64 6.063.32 3.208.09 9.823.15 2.675.04 5.124.83 6.066.56 7.905.12 5.852.23 1.909.54 10.112.73 2.344.06 3.923.39 4.325.65 5.786.70 8.652.95 3.303.76 3.427.13 8.704.11 3.493.90 3.823.71 6.53

1 3.472 13.933 7.484 5.135 10.526 15.197 6.329 5.99

11 18.9112 9.3714 10.9115 3.7416 13.6917 13.6418 6.6119 8.8820 4.6922 14.3923 3.9124 7.5025 8.8826 11.5727 8.5628 2.7729 14.8030 3.4331 5.7532 6.3533 8.4634 12.7035 4.8436 5.0138 12.7439 5.1140 5.6041 9.58

2.017.864.862.724.547.744.203.003.675.576.212.493.975.694.894.882.826.922.674.324.145.644.431.908.182.323.462.914.845.822.613.196.153.493.313.14

1.646.603.542.434.987.202.992.838.974.445.171.776.476.463.144.212.226.821.853.554.205.474.051.317.001.622.723.014.006.022.292.376.032.412.644.53

1.405.583.381.913.435.832.922.122.774.074.661.753.164.204.113.601.964.961.853.112.954.073.261.315.821.612.442.133.454.372.022.224.502.412.302.19

r)ND

aF = fallow, D = durum, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, Z = no-till, and agr. land = cropland, pastureland, and tamegrassland.Cropland, rangeland, and tame grassland.

- continued -

TABLE 16. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION BY WATER FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSBY FARM IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA (CONTINUED)

Crop and Soil Management SystemaF-D-WW(Z) F-D-SFl(Z) F-D-WW(Z)-SF lZ) D(Z)-WW(Z)-SFl(Z)

Farm Cropland Agr. Landb Cropland Agr. Landb Cropland Agr. Landb Cropland Agr. Landb

----------------------------Soil Loss (Ton/Acre)-----------------------------


1.81 2.377.11 9.544.37 5.122.45 3.514.18 7.207.13 10.423.78 4.322.71 4.103.39 12.975.08 6.415.71 7.472.25 2.563.70 9.365.21 9.344.63 4.544.46 6.092.54 3.206.28 9.862.40 2.673.92 5.133.75 6.075.12 7.914.05 5.861.70 1.907.40 10.122.08 2.343.12 3.932.67 4.364.38 5.785.36 8.712.42 3.312.87 3.435.61 8.723.13 3.492.98 3.822.83 6.55

2.02 1.967.88 7.894.87 4.242.73 2.914.55 5.967.78 8.594.20 3.593.00 3.403.69 10.705.59 5.316.23 6.172.50 2.113.98 7.755.71 7.724.89 3.764.90 5.032.83 2.656.95 8.152.67 2.224.33 4.254.15 5.035.65 6.554.44 4.851.90 1.578.18 8.392.32 1.943.47 3.262.93 3.584.84 4.795.85 7.182.61 2.743.20 2.846.16 7.223.49 2.893.31 3.173.15 5.42

1 2.132 8.563 4.594 3.155 6.466 9.357 3.889 3.68

11 11.6312 5.7514 6.7015 2.2916 8.4017 8.3818 4.0719 5.4620 2.8722 8.8523 2.4024 4.6025 5.4426 7.1027 5.2628 1.7029 9.0830 2.1031 3.5332 3.9133 5.1834 7.8135 2.9736 3.0738 7.8239 3.1340 3.4341 5.88

1.676.594.042.273.936.673.492.513.174.745.342.083.524.864.464.162.345.832.223.653.494.773.781.576.881.932.902.474.075.012.282.655.232.892.762.61

0.913.661.961.352.763.991.661.574.972.462.860.983.593.581.742.331.233.781.021.972.323.032.240.733.880.901.511.673.313.341.271.313.341.341.472.51

0.773.271.881.092.323.891.631.231.862.553.090.992.332.703.342.301.102.981.021.881.762.492.080.733.470.891.421.332.052.901.431.232.831.341.291.22

aF = fallow, D = durum, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, Z = no-till, and agr. land =

cropland, pastureland, and tame grassland.bCropland, rangeland, and tame grassland.

- continued -

TABLE 16. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION BY WATER FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY FARM IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED,MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA (CONTINUED)

Crop and Soil Management SystemaF F-D F-D-WW F-D-SF1 F-D-WW-SF1 D-WW-SF1

Farm Cropland Agr. Landb Cropland Agr. Landb Cropland Agr. LandD Cropland Agr. Land0 Cropland Agr. Landb Cropland Agr. Landb

---- --------------- ----------------- ---- Soil Loss (Ton/Acre)------ ------------- -------------------

Conservation Practice--Contour Stri Cropping

1.84 1.788.18 8.304.74 4.142.40 2.564.44 6.108.22 9.503.76 3.202.42 2.763.90 12.025.56 5.386.16 6.282.12 1.803.94 8.345.80 8.184.42 3.584.90 5.322.26 2.127.12 8.642.32 1.924.02 4.004.10 5.085.86 6.964.24 4.781.58 1.308.86 9.241.92 1.603.14 2.962.88 3.644.42 4.425.54 7.082.18 2.363.76 2.446.38 7.723.98 2.463.98 2.863.04 5.26

1.52 1.406.82 6.483.92 3.321.98 2.003.80 4.767.02 7.423.12 2.502.00 2.163.32 9.384.68 4.205.26 4.901.76 1.423.44 6.504.72 6.384.02 2.744.16 4.081.86 1.665.96 6.681.92 1.503.38 3.123.54 3.964.92 5.423.60 3.721.30 1.027.40 7.201.58 1.242.62 2.322.42 2.843.70 3.444.74 5.541.90 1.842.28 1.903.38 6.022.46 1.922.48 2.222.52 4.10

1.18 1.745.40 8.103.06 4.021.56 2.503.12 5.945.76 9.262.44 3.121.58 2.682.72 11.723.78 5.244.32 6.121.38 1.762.92 8.123.98 7.963.60 3.403.36 5.081.46 2.064.74 8.321.50 1.862.70 3.902.72 4.943.92 6.782.90 4.641.02 1.285.88 8.981.24 1.562.06 2.881.96 3.562.94 4.303.88 6.901.60 2.301.78 2.384.34 7.521.92 * 2.401.94 2.781.98 5.12

1.48 1.486.66 6.843.82 3.401.94 2.123.72 5.046.88 7.823.04 2.641.96 2.283.24 9.884.58 4.445.16 5.181.72 1.483.38 6.884.80 6.723.98 2.904.06 4.301.82 1.745.82 7.041.86 1.583.30 3.303.34 4.184.80 5.743.52 3.941.28 1.087.22 7.621.54 1.322.54 2.442.38 2.983.62 3.644.64 5.821.88 1.942.22 2.025.26 6.362.40 2.042.40 2.362.46 4.32

1.26 1.025.68 4.763.24 2.361.64 1.463.36 3.586.00 5.442.58 1.841.68 1.582.84 6.883.96 3.084.50 3.601.46 1.043.02 4.764.16 4.683.68 2.003.52 2.981.54 1.224.98 4.881.58 1.102.84 2.282.86 2.904.12 3.983.04 2.721.08 0.746.20 5.281.32 0.922.18 1.702.04 2.083.10 2.524.04 4.061.66 1.341.88 1.404.54 4.422.04 1.402.04 1.642.08 3.00

1 2.162 10.043 5.004 3.105 7.366 11.467 3.889 3.34

11 14.5012 6.5014 7.5815 2.1816 10.0817 5.8618 4.2219 6.3020 2.5622 10.3223 2.3224 4.8425 6.1426 8.4027 5.7628 1.5829 11.1630 1.9431 3.5832 4.4033 5.3434 8.5435 2.8436 2.9638 9.3239 2.9840 3.4641 6.34

0.864.042.261.162.484.561.801.182.142.923.421.042.423.083.202.621.083.581.102.062.042.982.260.744.420.901.541.502.223.081.321.303.341.401.421.44

N)4ý:b

aF = fallow, D = durum, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, Z = no-till, and agr. land = cropland, pastureland, and tamegrassland.

bCropland, rangeland, and tame grassland.

- continued -

TABLE 16. ANNUAL SOIL EROSION BY WATER FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSBY FARM IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA (CONTINUED)

Crop and Soil Management SystemaF-D-WW(Z) F-D-SF (Z) F-D-WW(Z)-SF (Z) D(Z)-WW(Z)-SF (Z)

Farm Cropland Agr. Land Cropland Agr. Landu Cropland Agr. LandD Cropland Agr. Landu

---------------------------- Soil Loss (Ton/Acre)---------------------------

Conservation Practice: No Till'and Contour Strip

1.12 1.485.16 6.882.92 3.421.50 2.123.00 5.045.54 7.862.32 2.641.50 2.282.62 9.943.62 4.464.16 5.201.32 1.502.82 6.903.82 6.763.52 2.903.22 4.321.38 1.764.52 7.061.42 1.582.58 3.302.60 4.203.76 5.762.78 3.940.96 1.085.60 7.641.18 1.321.96 2.461.88 3.022.82 3.643.74 5.861.76 1.941.70 2.024.14 6.381.82 2.041.84 2.361.88 2.14

1.265.703.241.663.266.042.581.682.843.984.521.463.024.183.703.541.545.001.582.842.864.143.061.086.201.322.182.063.104.081.681.885.642.042.042.08

1.225.682.821.764.186.482.201.908.203.684.301.245.725.582.403.561.465.841.322.743.484.763.260.906.321.102.042.483.024.821.621.685.281.681.963.60

1.04 0.564.78 2.642.70 1.301.38 0.822.82 1.945.20 3.021.14 1.021.40 0.882.44 3.823.38 1.703.90 2.001.22 0.582.70 2.643.56 2.583.42 1.103.02 1.661.28 0.684.20 2.701.32 0.602.40 1.262.42 1.603.50 2.202.62 1.520.90 0.425.20 2.921.10 0.501.82 0.941.74 1.162.62 1.403.50 2.241.48 0.741.56 0.783.88 2.441.68 0.781.70 0.901.72 1.66

1 1.322 6.163 3.064 1.905 4.526 7.067 2.389 2.04

11 8.8012 4.0014 4.6615 1.3416 6.1817 6.0618 2.6019 3.8820 1.5822 6.3423 1.4224 2.9625 3.7626 5.1627 2.5428 0.9629 6.8430 1.1831 2.2032 2.7033 3.2834 5.3635 1.7436 1.8238 5.7239 1.8240 2.1241 3.90

0.482.381.260.661.703.101.000.681.441.862.240.601.822.002.701.680.602.160.601.261.211.841.460.422.640.500.900.961.342.080.980.722.120.780.800.80

aF = fallow, D = durum, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, Z = no-till, and agr. land =cropland, pastureland, and tame grassland.

bCropland, rangeland, and tame grassland.

I

TABLE 17. ANNUAL NET REVENUE PER ACRE ON CROPLAND FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY FARM INMUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

Crop and Soil Management SystenmaF-D- F-D- F-D- F-D-WW(Z)- D(Z)-WW(Z)-

Farm F F-D F-D-WW F-D-SF1 WW-SFI D-WW-SF1 WW(Z) SFl(Z) SF1(Z) SFl(Z)

------------------------------------- Net Revenue ($/Acre) ----- - ---------------------


123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

Average

-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09-16.09

-16.09

30.6113.3126.4733.9730.2121.5929.580.0

27.8737.1120.1023.02

0.022.9731.6019.6115.2027.6030.7136.37

0.017.7436.0427.6424.74.22.6727.1138.5021.7836.8533.0635.6221.978.67

32.0232.0249.7122.9835.7431.6316.99

27.35

30.7116.5725.9434.5530.2320.3529.510.0

27.5638.2918.6421.98

0.021.9331.8318.0613.0027.2330.8037.300.0

15.9336.9127.2823.9521.5826.6739.7420.5537.8433.5036.4420.795.51

32.3132.3053.8621.9336.5731.8515.06

26.95

39.7522.8834.0644.3339.1827.3938.310.0

35.9948.8025.3529.33

0.029.2741.0924.6518.6235.6039.8547.60

0.022.1247.1535.6631.6828.8534.9350.5127.6248.2543.0746.5827.919.68

41.6541.6567.4429.2746.7341.1121.08

35.26

37.8820.7032.1542.6537.3425.2836.540.0

34.0947.3823.1227.32

0.027.2539.3422.5116.3433.7338.1346.05

0.019.8945.6233.7929.7426.8233.0749.1025.5846.7741.4344.9625.767.18

39.9539.9466.9027.2645.2139.4118.85

33.39

37.4915.9230.2243.3436.7521.6735.66

0.032.6749.0119.0624.17

0.024 .0939.1918.2010.4832.1837.6247.53

0.014.9446.9532.2627.1923.5631.3351.2622.0048.3641.7546.2122.36

- 0.9439.9239.9272.5724.1046.4339.2313.62

31.75

31.2517.1126.4835.0930.7720.8830.04

0.028.0938.8219.1722.52

0.022.4632.3718.5913.5427.7731.3337.830.0

16.4737.4527.8224.4922.1127.2140.2721.0838.3734.0336.9721.336.05

32.8432.8454.4022.4737.1032.3815.60

27.49

40.8724.0035.1845.4540.3028.5039.43

0.037.1149.9226.4730.45

0.030.3842.2125.7719.7436.7240.9748.72

0.023.2448.2736.7732.8029.9736.0551.6328.7449.3644.1947.7029.0310.8042.7742.7768.5830.3947.8542.2222.20

36.38

39.1321.9533.4143.9038.6026.5337.790.0

35.3448.6424.3728.570.0

28.5140.5923.7617.5934.9839.3847.300.0

21.1446.8735.0430.9923.0734.3250.3526.8348.0242.6846.2127.018.43

41.2041.2068.2028.5246.4740.6720.10

34.65

38.9617.4031.6944.8238.2323.1537.130.0

34.1550.4920.5325.650.0

25.5640.6719.6711.9533.6539.0949.000.0

16.4148.4333.7328.6625.0332.8152.7323.4749.8343.2247.6923.840.53

41.3941.3974.0825.5747.9040.7015.09

33.23

- continued -

rcn

TABLE 17. ANNUAL NET REVENUE PER ACRE ON CROPLAND FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS BY FARM INMUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA (CONTINUED)

Crop and Soil Management SystemnaF-D- F-D- F-D- F-D-WW(Z)- D(Z)-WW(Z)-

Farm F F-D F-D-WW F-D-SF1 WW-SF1 D-WW-SFI WW(Z) SFI(Z) SF1(Z) SFl(Z)-------------------------------------- Net Revenue ($/Acre) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


1 -17.95 28.75 28.86 37.90 36.01 35.63 29.39 37.26 39.02 37.102 -17.95 16.44 14.72 21.02 18.82 14.07 15.25 20.08 22.14 15.543 -17.95 24.61 24.09 32.20 30.28 28.36 24.62 31.53 33.32 29.834 -17.95 32.11 32.70 42.48 40.77 41.49 33.23 42.03 43.60 42.965 -17.95 28.34 28.38 37.32 35.47 34.90 28.91 36.72 38.44 36.376 -17.95 19.73 18.49 25.53 23.41 19.82 19.03 24.66 26.65 21.297 -17.95 27.72 27.66 36.46 34.67 33.81 28.19 35.92 37.58 35.288 -17.95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 -17.95 26.01 25.70 34.13 32.21 30.82 26.24 33.47 35.25 32.29

10 -17.95 35.25 36.43 46.94 45.50 47.15 36.96 46.76 48.06 48.6311 -17.95 18.23 16.78 23.49 21.25 17.20 17.32 22.50 24.61 18.6812 -17.95 21.16 20.13 27.48 25.45 22.32 20.66 26.70 28.60 23.7913 -17.95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.014 -17.95 21.11 20.07 27.41 25.38 22.23 20.61 26.63 28.53 23.7115 -17.95 29.74 29.98 39.23 37.46 37.34 30.51 38.72 40.35 38,8116 -17.95 17.75 16.21 22.80 20.64 16.34 16.74 ,21.89 23.92 17.8217 -17.95 13.34 11.15 16.77 14.47 8.62 11.68 15.72 17.89 10.1018 -17.95 25.74 25.38 33.74 31.86 30.32 25.91 33.11 34.86 31.8019 -17.95 28.84 28.94 38.00 36.25 35.76 29.48 37.51 39.12 37.2420 -17.95 34.51 35.44 45.75 44.17 45.68 35.97 45.43 46.87 47.1521 -17.95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.022 -17.95 15.88 14.08 20.26 18.02 13.08 14.61 19.27 21.38 14.5623 -17.95 34.18 35.06 45.29 43.74 45.10 35.59 45.00 46.41 46.5724 -17.95 25.78 25.43 33.80 31.91 30.40 25.96 33.17 34.92 31.8825 -17.95 22.88 22.10 29.83 27.87 25.33 22.63 29.12 30.95 26.8126 -17.95 20.81 19.72 26.99 24.94 21.71 20.26 26.20 28.11 23.1827 -17.95 25.25 24.82 33.08 31.19 29.48 25.35 32.45 34.19 30.9528 -17.95 36.64 37.88 48.66 47.22 49.41 38.42 48.47 49.78 50.8829 -17.95 19.92 18.70 25.77 23.71 20.14 19.23 24.96 26.89 21.6230 -17.95 34.99 35.98 46.39 44.89 46.51 36.52 46.15 47.51 47.9831 -17.95 31.20 31.65 41.22 39.56 39.89 32.18 40.81 42.34 41.3732 -17.95 33.76 34.58 44.73 43.09 44.36 35.11 44.34 45.85 45.8333 -17.95 20.11 18.94 26.06 23.88 20.51 19.47 25.14 27.18 21.9834 -17.95 6.81 3.66 7.83 5.31 - 2.80 4.19 6.56 8.95 - 1.3335 -17.95 30.16 30.45 39.80 38.08 j8.07 30.99 39.33 40.91 39.5436 -17.95 30.16 30.45 39.79 38.07 38.07 30.98 39.32 40.91 39.5437 -17.95 47.85 51.96 65.54 64.97 70.67 52.51 66.26 66.68 72.1838 -17.95 21.12 20.08 27.42 25.39 22.25 20.61 26.64 28.54 23.7239 -17.95 33.88 34.71 44.88 43.34 44.57 35.25 44.59 46.00 46.0540 -17.95 29.77 30.00 39.25 37.54 37.38 30.53 38.79 40.37 38.8541 -17.95 15.13 13.21 19.22 16.97 11.76 13.74 18.22 20.34 13.24

Average -17.95 25.49 25.10 33.41 31.52 29.90 25.63 32.77 34.53 31.37

aF = fallow, D = durum, WW = winter wheat, SF1 = sunflower, Z = no-till.bNet revenue based on five-year average crop price (1977-81).

- 28 -

TABLE 18. ANNUAL NET REVENUE PER ACRE FOR COW-CALF LIVESTOCK BY FARM INMUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

Net Revenuea

1234567911121415161718192022232425262728293031323334353638394041

Average

aNet revenue per acre of pastureland and tame grassland. Net revenue based onfive-year average price (1977-81).

bNet revenue was not computed due to few acres of pasture and tame grasslandin these farms.

Farm

8.126.90b

9.616.937.11bb

5.867.137.95b

6.616.747.556.79b

7.15b

7.377.367.277.18b

6.74b

7.647.68b

6.347.23b

6.98bb

6.83

6.24

- c -I .

- 29 -

previously in Table 6 could also be used in computing losses by wind forfarms. Soil losses by wind were calculated at two levels of actual fieldwidth (1,320 and 660 feet) and for two wind erodibility groups (WEG): WEG 4includes land class IV and WEG 6 includes land classes II, III, and VI. Touse Table 6, one needs to know the typical field width, the wind erodibilitygroup, and the crop rotation on the farm. For example, assume the typicalfield width is 1,320 feet and the predominant wind erodibility group is 6 inFarm 3. Under the fallow-durum cropping system the average annual soil lossby wind is 3.53 tons per acre (Table 6), whereas soil loss by water is 6.19tons--a total of 9.72 tons of per acre on Farm 3. If no-till were practicedon this farm, the average annual soil losses would be reduced from 9.72 to6.59 tons per acre--a major reduction in loss annually.

Annual net revenues for farms were based on five-year average cropyields for Mountrail County and state average crop prices (1977-81). However,the five-year average crop yields for each farm were adjusted based on therelative productivity of each 2.5-acre cell in the farm. Production costsused were equal for all the farms. Differences in annual revenues among thefarms are due to differences in their relative productivity of soils. Netrevenue is return to land, overhead, management, and risk.

Under the present fallow-durum practice, annual net revenue ranges from$8.67 to $49.71 per acre (the average net revenue is $27.35 per acre).Inclusion of no-till sunflower gives the highest net revenue per acre, anaverage of $36.38. Lower net revenues for all cropping systems using thecontour strip conservation practice were due to an additional per acre cost of$1.86 for installation of contour strips. Crop yields remained the sameassuming there were no short-run increases in crop yields due to conservationpractice.

Differences in annual livestock revenues (cow-calf) among the farmswere due to differences in the carrying capacity (AUM) of pasture and tamegrassland in each 2.5-acre cell of the farm. Annual net revenue due tocow-calf operation ranges from $5.86 to $9.61 per acre of pasture and tamegrassland.

An average farm in the watershed that has cropland and pasture, earnsan annual net revenue of $27.35 per crop acre and $6.24 per rangeland acreunder the present fallow-durum practice and cow-calf operation. The totalannual soil losses on this farm by water and wind amounts to 10.8 tons peracre of agricultural land.

- 31 -

APPENDIX A

SOIL TYPES, EROSION FACTORS, AND SUMMARY OF LAND USE

IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY

- 32 -

APPENDIX TABLE A-i. SOILS, 33 MAP UNIT SYMBOL, SOIL TYPE CODE, AND LANDCAPABILITY UNIT IN MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

Map Unit Soil Type Land CapabilitySymbol Code Description Class

1 010 Tonka silt loam IVw62 020 Parnell silty clay loam VwWL7 070 Sinai silty clay IIs49 090 Savage silty clay IIs4

10 100 Makoti silty clay loam IIc713 130 Colvin silt loam, channeled VwWM16 160 Fargo silty clay IIw418 180 Dimmick silty clay VwWL23 230 Williams loam, 0-3% slopes IIc623B 232 Williams loam, 3-6% slopes IIe629 290 Mandan silt loam, 0-3% slopes IIe529B 292 Mandan silt loam, 3-6% slopes IIe531 310 Arnegard silt loam, 0-3% slopes IIc631B 312 Arnegard silt loam, 3-6% slopes IIe632 320 Bowbells loam, 0-3% slopes IIc632B 322 Bowbells loam, 3-6% slopes IIe634 340 Velva loam IIe535 350 Roseglen-Tansem silt loam, 0-3% slopes IIc641 410 Vallers loam, saline VwWM44 440 Flaxton fine sandy loam, 0-3% slopes IIIe345 450 Parshall fine sandy loam, 0-3% slopes IIIe347 470 Lehr-Stady loams, 0-3% slopes IVs547B 472 Lehr-Stady loams, 3-6% slopes IVe549B 492 Manning sandy loams, 0-6% slopes IIIe3

50C 503 Manning-Wabek sandy loams, 6-9% slopes IVe351B 512 Flaxton-Livona fine sandy loams, 3-6% slopes IIIe353E 535 Wabek-Max-Zahl stony loams, 6-25% slopes VIsVS

54E 545 Wabek sandy loam, 0-25% slopes VIsVS55F 556 Cabba loam, 15-50% slopes VIeSW57 570 Badland VIIIs

58 580 Noonan-Miranda loam VIsCp60 600 Harriet and Exline soils VIwSL62B 622 Rhoades-Daglum complex, 0-6% slopes VIsTCp65 650 Parnell and Colvin soils, pended VIIIwWL66 660 Aquents VwWM72 720 Falkrik-Max loams, 0-3% slopes IIc672B 722 Max loam, 3-6% slopes IIe672C 723 Max loam, 6-9% slopes IIIe672D 724 Max loam, 9-15% slopes IVe673C 733 Zahl-Max loams, 3-9% slopes IVe4L

73D 734 Zahl-Max loams, 9-25% slopes VIeTU74F 746 Zahl-Max loams, 25-50% slopes VIIeTU

SOURCE: Soil Conservation Service, Bismarck.

APPENDIX TABLE A-2. SOIL TYPE, SLOPE GRADIENT, SLOPE LENGTH, WATER ERODIBILITY FACTOR AND PRODUCTIVITYRATINGS, MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

Soil Typical Typical Water Productivity RatType Slope Slope Erodibility NatCode Description Gradient Length Factor Cropland Pas

(%) (feet) (K) (index) a A

010 Tonka silt loam 1 0 .32 72 1.020 Parnell silty clay loam 1 0 .28 72 1.070 Sinai silty clay 2 200 .28 85090 Savage silty clay 1 300 .32 77100 Makoti silty clay loam 1 250 .32 87130 Colvin silt loam, channeled 1 0 --- 62 1.160 Fargo silty clay 1 250 .32 82180 Dimmick silty clay 1 0 .28 62 1.230 Williams loam, 0-3% slopes 2 300 .28 79232 Williams loam, 3-6% slopes 5 100 .28 77290 Mandan silt loam, 0-3% slopes 2 150 .32 92292 Mandan silt loam, 3-6% slopes 5 330 .32 82310 Arnegard silt loam, 0-3% slopes 5 250 .28 100312 Arnegard silt loam, 3-6% slopes 5 250 .28 80320 Bowbells loam, 0-3% slopes 2 100 .28 82322 Bowbells loam, 3-6% slopes 5 100 .28 80340 Velva loam 2 100 .20 87350 Roseglen-Tansem silt loam, 0-3% slopes 4 400 .32 82410 Vallers loam, saline .15 200 .28 59440 Flaxton fine sandy loam, 0-3% slopes 2 150 .20 67450 Parshall fine sandy loam, 0-3% slopes 2 150 .20 62470 Lehr-Stady loams, 0-3% slopes 2 300 .28 51472 Lehr-Stady loams, 3-6% slopes 5 200 .28 44492 Manning sandy loams, 0-6% slopes 5 125 .20 44503 Manning-Wabek sandy loams, 6-9% slopes 8 150 .20 36512 Flaxton-Livona fine sandy loams, 3-6% slopes 5 150 .20 59535 Wabek-Max-Zahl stony loams, 6-25% slopes 16 200 .28 33545 Wabek sandy loam, 0-25% slopes 16 125 .28 33

ingsureture

UM)

05203737370537203737373740404037403737373725253737371515

-Continued-

APPENDIX TABLE A-2. SOIL TYPE, SLOPE GRADIENT, SLOPE LENGTH, WATER ERODIBILITY FACTORRATINGS, MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA (CONTINUED)

AND PRODUCTIVITY

Soil Typical Typical Water Productivity RatingsType Slope Slope Erodibility NatureCode Description Gradient Length Factor Cropland Pasture

(%) (feet) (K) (index)a (AUM)

556 Cabba loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes 33 300 .32 33 .15570 Badland 50 150 --- 5 .01580 Noonan-Miranda loam 2 75 .32 33 .20600 Harriet and Exline soils 2 100 .37 18 .30622 Rhoades-Daglum complex, 0-6% slopes 4 100 .37 33 .17650 Parnell and Colvin soils, pended 1 0 .28 5 1.05660 Aquents 1 0 --- 36 1.05720 Falkrik-Max loams, 0-3% slopes 2 200 .28 92 .37722 Max loam, 0-3% slopes 5 200 .28 72 .37723 Max loam, 6-9% slopes 8 200 .28 46 .37724 Max loam, 9-15% slopes 13 250 .28 26 .37733 Zahl-Max loams, 3-9% slopes 9 150 .28 36 .30734 Zahl-Max loams, 9-25% slopes 17 250 .28 33 .30746 Zahl-Max loams, 25-50% slopes 38 300 .28 5 .30

aproductivity index based on average wheat and barley yields.

SOURCE: Soil Conservation Service, Bismarck, Unpublished.

LA)4chI^

- 35 -

APPENDIX TABLE A-3. SUMMARY OF LANDWATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH

USE BY SOIL TYPE IN MUSKRAT LAKEDAKOTAa

Soil TypeCode Cropland Rangeland Farmsteads Tame Grassland Wetland

-----------------------------Acres------------

10207090

100130160180230232290292310312320322340350410440450470472492503512535545556570580600622650660720722723724733734746

6.814.075.045.0

573.01.3

239.313.3

2,009.84,138.3

3.05.0

51.80.0

495.07.50.0

514.51.3

10.082.3233.063.321.028.050.017.067.53.50.00.0

38.32.54.02.3

240.0108.5

1,540.838.8

1,127.81,289.3

32.3

0.000.000.000.00

106.501.25

150.5040.5094.40

735.500.002.50

15.750.00

60.758.752.50

66.001.250.00

25.2536.007.7519.500.00

20.000.00

63.25146.50

7.505.00

55.507.50

15.7518.2534.2540.75

417.7511.25

431.502,572.75

250.25

0.000.000.000.004.750.002.500.0029.758.000.000.000.000.0013.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.501.504.752.000.000.003.250.000.000.001.250.000.000.006.25

10.751.250.00

11.2532.250.00

0.001.250.000.007.750.000.000.006.25

75.252.000.000.002.50

23.751.250.002.250.000.000.000.750.000.000.000.003.003.500.000.000.000.000.00.0.000.007.250.00

33.250.00

47.50111.25

0.00

0.000.000.000.001.750.00

10.250.001.300.500.000.000.000.000.000.000.002.250.000.000.001.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00


- 36 -

APPENDIX TABLE A-4. SUMMARY OF LAND USE BY FIELD SLOPE GRADIENT GROUP INMUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTAa

Field SlopeGradient

Group Cropland Rangeland Farmsteads Tame Grassland Wetland

-- Percent-- -------------------------- Acres------ ---------------

0- 2 0.0 2.50 0.00 0.50 0.002- 4 4,085.0 646.40 60.00 49.00 14.305-10 4,962.3 924.00 25.00 81.25 2.75

10-15 2,696.5 849.25 14.50 80.75 0.0015-20 40.0 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.0020-35 1,373.8 2,636.00 35.50 117.75 0.0035-40 3.5 146.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

>40 32.3 257.75 0.00 0.00 0.00


APPENDIX TABLE A-5. SUMMARY OF LAND USE BY FIELD SLOPE LENGTH GROUP IN MUSKRAT

LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTAa

Field SlopeLengthGroup Cropland Rangeland Farmsteads Tame Grassland Wetland

--- Feet- - - --------------------------- Acres--------------------------

0- 50 41.50 78.25 0.00 1.75 0.0050-100 4,681.50 875.50 22.25 100.25 0.50

100-150 1,389.50 567.00 21.25 53.00 0.00150-200 2,045.75 501.75 19.75 43.50 0.00200-250 2,192.00 2,856.75 39.50 121.50 12.00250-300 2,323.55 527.15 32.25 7.00 2.30300-400 519.50 68.50 0.00 2.25 2.25


- 37 -

APPENDIX TABLE A-6. CROP MANAGEMENT FACTOR (C FACTOR)

C FactorCropping System

Fallow (#200 residue)

Durum-Fallow-Conventional

Durum-Conventional

Durum-No-Till 1

Winter Wheat-Conventional

Winter Wheat-No-Till

Sunflower-Conventional

Sunflower-No-Til 1

Cattle on Pasture

SOURCE: North Dakota Soil Conservation Service.

APPENDIX TABLE A-7. CONSERVATION PRACTICE FACTOR (P FACTOR)

Degree of Slope No Practicea Contour Strip Cropping

1.1-2.0 1.0 .602.1-7.0 1.0 .507.1-12.0 1.0 .6012.1-18.0 1.0 .8018.1-24.0 1.0 .90

a"Estimating Soil Loss Resulting From Water and Wind Erosion in North Dakota,"USDA-Soil Conservation Service, Bismarck, North Dakota, September 1978(revised).

0.52

0.34

0.19

0.10

0.15

0.10

0.40

0.21

0.035

- 38 -

Appendix A-8: Codes for Muskrat Lake Data Base

Column

PL = Parcel Location (1-2 Row) 1- 4(3-4 Column)

ACR = Acres of Rangeland 6- 8

ACC = Acres of Cropland 10-12

ACRI = Acres of River 14-16

ACL = Acres of Lakes 18-20

ACW = Acres of Woodland 22-24

ACF = Acres of Farmstead 30-32

ACRG = Acres of Tame Grassland 34-36

ACWTL = Acres of Wetland 38-40

TN = Section Number (42 Row 1-8) 42-44(43-44 Column 1-10)

FARM

FIELD

ONO

SL

SG

ST

= Farm Number (1-41)

= Field Number (1-30)

= Ouarter Section NW = 1 NE = 2SW = 3 SE = 4

= Slope Length

= Slope Gradient

= Soil Type (1-43)

46-47

48-49

50

61-63

66-68

71-73

- 39 -

APPENDIX B

ENTERPRISE BUDGETS

- 40 -

APPENDIX TABLE B-1. DURUM PRODUCTION COST AND RETURNS PER TWO ACRE UNIT ANDPER ACRE FOR DURUM AFTER FALLOW, BASED ON 1981 COST

Item

Yield (bu./acre)aUnit PriceaGross Return

Value

25.3$ 3.72$94.12

Fallow Year Expenses (1 acre)Cash Expenses

Machinery RepairsFuel and LubeInterest (@ 12 percent)

Total Cash Expenses

Noncash Expenses (1 acre)Machinery ReplacementLabor ($4.35/hour)Interest on Machinery (@ 4

Total Noncash Expenses

Growing Year Expenses (1 acre)Cash Expenses

Seed ($4.35/bu.)Phosphate2,4-DMachinery RepairsFuel and LubeInterest (0 12 percent)

Total Cash Expenses

percent )b

Noncash Expenses (1 acre)Machinery ReplacementLabor ($4.35/hour)Interest on Machinery (@ 4 percent)


$ 1.444.941.32

$ 6.70

$ 5.252.171.97

$ 9.39

$ 6.525.400.603.797.141.16

$24.61

$ 8.053.472.98

$14.50

Total Cash Expenses $31.31

Total Expenses $55.20per acred

Return Above Cash ExpensesC $62.81 $31.41

Return Above Listed Expensesc $38.92 $19.46

aAverage yield and price for Mountrail County (1977-81).bln the long run, return to capital invested, machinery replacement, and laborare expenses which need to be recovered in order to continue the operation.

cReturn to land, overhead, risk, and management.dReturn is divided by two since return for fallow-durum represents two acresof land for one year or one acre of land for two years.

-

- 41 -

APPENDIX TABLE B-2. DURUM PRODUCTIONAFTER CROP) BASED ON 1981 COST

Item

COST AND RETURN PER ACRE (CONVENTIONAL--

Value


Cash ExpensesSeed ($4.35/bu.)Nitrogen ($0.24/pound)Phosphate ($0.27/pound)2,4-D and HoelonMachinery RepairsFuel and LubeInterest (@ 12 percent)

Total Cash Expenses

Noncash ExpensesbMachinery ReplacementLabor ($4.35/hour)Interest on Machinery (@


21.4$ 3.72$79.61

$ 6.5210.805.40

12.525.02

10.563.52

$54.34

$11.435.19

4 percent) 4.29$20.91

Total Expenses $75.25

Return Above Cash Expensesc $25.27

Return Above Listed Expensesc $ 4.36


cReturn to land, overhead, risk, and management.

_ ___

- 42 -

APPENDIX TARLE B-3. DURUM PRODUCTION COST AND RETURN PER ACRE (NO-TILL--AFTERCROP) BASED ON 1981 COST

Item Value

Yield (bu./acre)a 21.4Unit Pricea $ 3.72Gross Return $79.61

Cash ExpensesSeed ($4.35/bu.) $ 6.52Nitrogen ($0.24/pound) 10.80Phosphate ($0.27/pound) 5.402,4-D, Roundup, and Hoelon 20.65Machinery Repairs 3.93Fuel and Lube 8.25Interest (@ 12 percent) 3.98


Noncash ExpensesbMachinery Replacement $ 8.73Labor ($4.35/hour) 4.25Interest on Machinery (@ 4 percent) 3.28

Total Noncash Expenses $16.26



Return Above Listed Expensesc $ 3.82

aAverage yield and price for Mountrail County (1977-81).bhn the long run, return to capital invested, machinery replacement, and laborare expenses which need to be recovered in order to continue the operation.


- 43 -

APPENDIX TABLE B-4. WINTER WHEAT PRODUCTION COST(CONVENTIONAL) BASED ON 1981 COST

Item

AND RETURN PER ACRE

Value


Cash ExpensesSeed ($4.35/bu.)Nitrogen ($0.24/pound)Phosphate ($0.27/pound)2,4-DMachinery RepairsFuel and LubeInterest (@ 12 percent)

Total Cash Expenses

Noncash ExpensesbMachinery ReplacementLabor ($4.35/hour)Interest on Machinery (0


18.4$ 3.72$68.45

$ 5.4410.805.400.604.707.554.24

$38.73

$ 8.033.86

4 percent) 2.85$14.74


Return Ahove Cash Expensesc $29.72

Return Above Listed ExpensesC $14.98



_ __

- 44 -

APPENDIX TABLE B-5. WINTER WHEAT PRODUCTION COST(NO-TILL) BASED ON 1981 COST

Item

AND RETURN PER ACRE

Value


Cash ExpensesSeed ($4.35/bu.)Nitrogen ($0.24/pound)Phosphate ($0.27/pound)2,4-DMachinery RepairsFuel and LubeInterest (@ 12 percent)

Total Cash Expenses

Noncash ExpensesbMachinery ReplacementLabor ($4.35/hour)Interest on Machinery (@


18.4$ 3.72$68.45

$ 5.4410.805.400.604.187.933.23

$37.58

$ 7.514.03

4 percent) 2.74$14.28


Return Above Cash ExpensesC $30.87

Return Above Listed Expensesc $16.59

aAverage yield and price for Mountrail County (1977-81).b.n the long run, return to capital invested, machinery replacement, and laborare expenses which need to be recovered in order to continue the operation.


_ _ _ __

____

- 45 -

APPENDIX TABLE B-6. SUNFLOWER COST(CONVENTIONAL) BASED ON 1981 COST

Item

Yield (pound/acre)aUnit PriceaGross Return

Cash ExpensesSeed ($1.70/lb.)Nitrogen ($0.24/pound)Phosphate ($0.27/pound)TreflanDrying Sunflower ($0.30/cwt.)Machinery RepairsFuel and LubeInterest (0 12 percent)

Total Cash Expenses

Noncash ExpensesbMachinery ReplacementLabor ($4.35/hour)Interest on Machinery

Total Noncash Expenses(@ 4 percent)

OF PRODUCTION AND RETURN PER ACRE

Value

978$ 0.1021$99.85

$ 6.804.805.405.972.945.458.602.41

$42.37

$12.815.334.62

$22.76


Return Above Cash ExpensesC $57.48




- 46 -

APPENDIX TABLE B-7. SUNFLOWER PRODUCTION COST AND RETURN PER ACRE (NO-TILL)BASED ON 1981 COST

Item Value

Yielda 978Unit Pricea $ 0.1021Gross Return $99.85

Cash ExpensesSeed ($1.70/lb.) $ 6.80Nitrogen ($0.24/pound) 4.80Phosphate ($0.27/pound) 5.40Treflan and Prowl 15.37Drying Sunflower ($0.30/cwt.) 2.97Machinery Repairs 3.99Fuel and Lube 4.76Interest (@ 12 percent) 2.72


Noncash ExpenseshMachinery Replacement $ 8.58Labor ($4.35/hour) 3.34Interest on Machinery (@ 4 percent) 3.03







- 47 -

APPENDIX TABLE B-8. COST AND RETURN PER COW-CALF UNIT, 1981 COST LEVELSa

PRODUCTION:bLb./Animal $/Lb. Proportion Value

Steer 450 .70 .45 $141.75Heifer 423 .63 .29 77.28Cows 1,100 .40 .15 66.00

Gross Return $285.03

CASH EXPENSES:Hayc ($45.00/ton) $ 90.00Grains and Concentrates ($5.00/cwt.) 7.00Salt and Minerals ($10.50/cwt.) 3.15Veterinary, Medicine, & Supplies 7.00Marketing and Trucking 6.10Fuel & Lube 9.00Repair--Buildings, Fences, & Equipment 10.00Interest (@ 12 percent) 7.94


NONCASH EXPENSES:Buildings & Equipment Replacement $ 15.00Interest on Buildings & Equipment (@ 4 percent) 12.00Interest on Livestock (@ 4 percent) 30.00Depreciation of Buildings 10.00Labor ($4.35/hour) 43.50



Return Above Cash Expenses $144.84

Return Above Listed Expenses $ 34.34

aCost based on 1981 input price and revenue based on five-year average livestock

prices (1977-81).bAssumes 90 percent weaning rate, 16 percent replacement rate, 17 percent cowdeath loss. One bull per 25 cows, six month grazing season.

CAssumes half legume hay.

SOURCES: (6), (17), and 19 -Personal communication with:

-Norm Toman, Extension Livestock Marketing Service Specialist, NDStU-Tim Petry, Associate Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, NDSIU

-LeRoy Shaffner, Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, NDSU

- 49 -

APPENDIX C

WIND ERODIBILITY FACTORS

- 50 -

APPENDIX TABLE C-1. SOIL TYPE, WIND ERODIBILITY GROUP, SOIL ERODIBILITYFACTOR, MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, MOUNTRAIL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

Soil Wind SoilType Erodibility ErodibilityCode Description Group (WEG)a Factor (I)

010 Tonka silt loam 6 48020 Parnell silty clay loam 7 38070 Sinai silty clay 4 86090 Savage silty clay 4 86100 Makoti silty clay loam 7 38130 Colvin silt loam, channeled 4L 86160 Fargo silty clay 4 86180 Dimmick silty clay 4 86230 Williams loam, 0-3% slopes 6 48232 Williams loam, 3-6% slopes 6 48290 Mandan silt loam, 0-3% slopes 5 56292 Mandan silt loam, 3-6% slopes 5 56310 Arnegard silt loam, 0-3% slopes 6 48312 Arnegard silt loam, 3-6% slopes 6 48320 Bowbells loam, 0-3% slopes 6 48322 Bowbells loam, 3-6% slopes 6 48340 Velva loam 5 56350 Roseglen-Tansem silt loam, 0-3% slopes 6 48410 Vallers loam, saline 4L 86440 Flaxton fine sandy loam, 0-3% slopes 3 86450 Parshall fine sandy loam, 0-3% slopes 3 86470 Lehr-Stady loams, 0-3% slopes 5 56472 Lehr-Stady loams, 3-6% slopes 5 56492 Manning sandy loams, 0-6% slopes 3 86503 Manning-Wabek sandy loams, 6-9% slopes 3 86512 Flaxton-Livona fine sandy loams, 3-9% slopes 3 86535 Wabek-Max-Zahl stony loams, 6-25% slopes 6 48545 Wabek sandy loam, 0-25% slopes 3 86556 Cabba loam, 15-50% slopes 6 48570 Badland -- -

580 Noonan-Miranda loam 6 48600 Harriet and Exline soils 6 48622 Rhoades-Daglum complex, 0-6% slopes 6 48650 Parnell and Colvin soils, pended 6 48660 Aquents -- -

720 Falkrik-Max loams, 0-3% slopes 6 48722 Max loam, 0-3% slopes 6 48723 Max loam, 6-9% slopes 6 48724 Max loam, 9-15% slopes 6 48733 Zahl-Max loams, 3-9% slopes 4L 86734 Zahl-Max loams, 9-25% slopes 4L 86746 Zahl-Max loams, 25-50% slopes 4L 86

aSoil ridge roughness factor (K) of 0.75 used for all soil types.

SOURCE: Soil Conservation Service, Bismarck.

- 51 -

APPENDIX TABLE C-2. EQUIVALENT FLAT SMALL GRAIN RESIDUES BY CROPPING SYSTEM

Cropping System First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year----------- ------------- Lb./Acre-------------------------

No ConservationT1. F-D 200 1,6002. F-D-WW 150 1,600 1,2003. F-D-SF1 100 1,600 6004. F-D-WW-SF1 100 1,600 1,200 6005. D-WW-SF1 1,600 1,200 600

Conservation--No-Ti I6. F-D-WW(Z) 500 1,600 2,6007. F-D-SF1(Z) 150 1,600 6508. F-D-WW(Z)-SF1(Z) 150 1,600 2,600 6509. D(Z)-WW(Z)-SFl(Z) 2,600 2,600 650

SOURCE: North Dakota Soil Conservation.

- 53 -

APPENDIX D

ASSUMPTIONS AND AMOUNT OF NUTRIENT LOSS DUE TO SOIL EROSION

- 54 -

Appendix D-1: Amount and Value of Nutrients Lost Due to Soil Erosion

Nitrogen loss due to soil erosion is more serious than any othernutrients. This is due to the fact that a larger proportion of nitrogen isassociated with organic matter which is susceptible to erosion. Also it isconcentrated more in the upper few inches of soil than any other nutrient.Therefore, loss of nitrogen due to erosion is not compensated by nitrogenbrought up from deeper soil layers.

Phosphorus is also susceptible to loss through the loss of organicmatter and clay by soil erosion. However, phosphorus loss does not have asserious an effect on yield as nitrogen because phosphorus is available indeeper soil layers and its mineralization rate is extremely slow.

Potassium loss is not of economic concern. The main reason is thatsufficient potassium is distributed throughout the soil profile.

Average soil test values (1972-81) of nitrogen, phosphorus, andpotassium for Mountrail County were used as the basis in calculation (3).These average soil test values are:

(a) Nitrogen (N03-N), Lb/Ac at 2 ft. depth = 100 on fallow field= 55 on nonfallowed field

(b) Phosphorus, Lb/Ac = 14

(c) Potassium, Lb/Ac = 430

Average amount of nitrogen used was weighted against the proportion ofland for Mountrail County in fallow and nonfallow. It was assumed that 98,99.85, and 98 percent of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and totalpotassium are in the organic form (1, 14, and 21) which is not available forplant growth. 1 A ratio of 1:10 between soil and fertilizer phosphorus wasused. 2 Nutrients in organic form would have been available for plant growththrough mineralization in succeeding years if they had not been lost due tosoil erosion. The annual rate at which nutrients become available insucceeding years was assumed to be 2 percent for nitrogen and potassium and0.15 percent for phosphorus. Calculations were based on the assumption thatan acre of furrow slice (6 inches) weighs 2 million pounds (or 1,000 tons).

The amounts of total nitrogen, total phosphorus and total potassiumused in the analysis were 4.11, 2.13, and 25.8 pounds per ton of soil.

1Phosphate percentage is based on personal communication with J.Michael Nethery, State Conservationist, SCS, Bismarck, who indicated amineralization rate of .05 percent. Other sources indicated slightly higherrates and a rate of .15 percent was used.

2personal communication with W. C. Dahnke, Professor, Soil ScienceDepartment, North Dakota State University, Fargo.

- 55 -

Value of Nutrient Loss

Formulas used to calculate annual nutrient loss due to soil erosionare as follows:

(i) Eroded year

PV = (R * r)P

(ii) Over 50 years due to one year of soil erosion

50 1PV = Z (Rn - (R * r)n) P * (1+i)n

n=l

where: PV = Present value of annual nutrient loss in year zero;

R = Amount of total nutrient lost (Lb/Acre);

r = Nutrient availability factor (2 percent for nitrogen andpotassium, 0.15 percent for phosphate);

P = Price of nutrient fertilizer ($.24, $.27, and $.12 per pound ofnitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, these costs includeapplication costs);

i = Interest rate (4 percent was used for a long-term real rate).

- 57 -

APPENDIX E

CROP YIELD, PRICE, STATEWIDE

- 58 -

APPENDIX TABLE E-1. AVERAGE CROP YIELDS AND PRICES (1977-81) BY CROPREPORTING DISTRICT AND THE STATE, NORTH DAKOTA

Crop Reporting Yielda PriceDistrict All Wheat Winter Wheat Sunflower All WheatD Sunflower

-------- Ru./Acre-------- Lb./Acre -- $/Bu.--- -- S/Lb.--

Northwest 25.8 19.0 1,118 3.54 .1069

North Central 26.2 21.3 1,164 3.51 .1046

Northeast 32.0 31.4 1,232 3.43 .1027

West Central 23.9 22.3 1,204 3.26 .1010

Central 27.9 21.2 1,160 3.32 .1012

East Central 33.4 32.7 1,326 3.35 .1011

Southwest 20.5 22.7 906 3.47 .1075

South Central 21.1 21.8 932 3.34 .1047

Southeast 26.4 24.5 1,280 3.40 .1022

State 26.2 23.2 1,211 3.49 .1036

aFive year average yield; for Class VI, average yields were reduced by(.553).

bAll wheat price also used for winter wheat.

SOURCE: North Dakota Statistical Reporting Service (8).

- 59 -

References

1. Alexander, Martin. "Introduction to Soil Microbiology." John Wiley &Sons, Inc., New York and London, 1961.

2. Bauer, Armond and A. L. Black. Effect of Tillage Management on SoilOrganic Carbon and Nitrogen. USDA-ARS, Mandan, North Dakota, 1982.

3. Dahnke, William C.; L. J. Swenson; Arlyce Johnson; and Adeline Klein."Summary of Soil Fertility Levels for North Dakota 1972-81." Bulletin512, North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, North Dakota StateUniversity, Fargo, October 1982.

4. Ehni, Rodney J. "Economic and Environmental Effects of AgriculturalManagement Decisions in the Lower Sheyenne River Basin." UnpublishedM.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota StateUniversity, Fargo, December 1976.

5. Ehni, Rodney J.; Louis A. Ogaard; and William C. Nelson. "Effects ofAlternative Cropping Patterns and Management Decisions on Soil Erosionand Revenue, Region VII, North Dakota." Agricultural Economics ReportNo. 136, Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota AgriculturalExperiment Station, North Dakota State University, Fargo, June 1979.

6. Gullickson, Les. North Dakota Vocational Agriculture Farm BusinessManagement Education, Annual Report 1981. Bismarck Junior College,1981.

7. Krauss, H. A. and R. R. Allmaras. "Technology Masks the Effects of SoilErosion on Wheat Yields--A Case Study in Whitman County, Washington." InDeterminants of Soil Loss Tolerance. American Society of Agronomy,Madison, Wisconsin, 1979.

8. North Dakota Agricultural Statistics, Annual Summaries, 1977-81. NorthDakota Crop & Livestock Reporting Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, in cooperation with the Department of AgriculturalEconomics, North Dakota State University, Fargo.

9. North Dakota Conservation Needs Inventory. North Dakota Soil ConservationService, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bismarck, July 1970.

10. North Dakota Soil Conservation Program--For Our Future. North Dakota StateSoil Conservation Committee, State Capitol, Bismarck, May 1982.

11. Robinette, C. E.; J. E. Foss; and F. P. Miller. "Soil Landscape and CornYield Relationships in Maryland." M.S. Thesis, University of Maryland,College Park, 1982.

12. Shrader, W. D. and G. W. Langdale. "Effects of Soil Erosion onProductivity." In Frontiers in Conservation. Soil Conservation Societyof America, Ankeny, Iowa, 1979.

- 60 -

13. Swenson, Andrew L. "Economic Comparison of Zero and Conventional Tillagefor Small Grain Production in North Dakota." Unpublished M.S. Thesis,Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State University,Fargo, 1981.

14. Tisdale, Samuel L. and Werner L. Nelson. "Soil Fertility andFertilizers." MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1975.

15. U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Estimating Soil Loss Resulting fromWater and Wind Erosion in North Dakota." Revised. Bismarck, September1978.

16. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Preauthorization Report for Muskrat LakeRasin Watershed, Mountrail County, North Dakota. North Dakota SoilConservation Service, Rismarck, May 1981.

17. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics and Statistics Service. "Costsof Producing Livestock in the United States--Final 1979, Preliminary1980, and Projections for 1981." March 1981.

18. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Crop Reporting Roard, ESCS. "AgriculturalPrices." 1977-1981.

19. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. "FederalLivestock Rudgets." Great Plains, 1979.

20. Walker, David J. and D. L. Young. "A Perspective That Technology May NotEase the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Erosion." In PerspectivesOn the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Soil Erosion, edited by L.A. Christensen. Staff Report No. AGES 830315, USDA-ERS-Natural ResourceEconomics Division, Washington, D.C., 1983.

21. Ward, R. and P. Carson. "That Old Element Nitrogen." South Dakota Farmand Home Research 21(2), 1973.

22. Wischmeier, W. H. and D. D. Smith. Predicting Rainfall--Erosion Lossesfrom Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains. Agricultural Handbook No.282, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,1965.

Documents

by B. Ali, William C. Nelson, Roger G. Johnson, and Edward J. Deibert · 2017. 5. 5. · CASE STUDY OF MUSKRAT LAKE WATERSHED, NORTH DAKOTA by Mir B. Ali, William C. Nelson, Roger