Education Committee - Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2004 Educational Committee Meeting Minutes
Farm Technology Days
Educational Committee
November 4, 2004
Committee Members present: Bill Halfman, Monroe Co. UWEX; Arden Hardie, Jackson Co. UWEX: Nick Schneider, Clark Co. UWEX; Matt Jorgensen, Clark Co. UWEX; Jane Reigel, NRCS; Greg Glisczinski, Citizen State Bank; Bob Volenec, dairy farmer; Pam Selz-Pralle, dairy farmer; Matt Lippert, Wood Co. UWEX; Jon Zander, Trempealeau Co. UWEX; Dave Williams, UWEX Asst. Ag Program Leader, UWEX; Gregg Stangl, Clark Co. Land Conservation Dept. and Cheryl Skjolaas, UWEX Agricultural Safety Specialist.
Review of 2004
The final report from 2004 FTD Educational Committee was distributed and
reviewed by the committee.
Observations – Theme tents were not as full as they could have been. Traffic flow differed between theme tents. In previous years the theme tents were not used as much as they possibly could be. We would look to consolidate tents down to one or two tents.
Jane mentioned how conservation tents had different banners on the outside for visibility. The conservation tent would be maintained for 2005. Dave noted how the conservation tent had theme areas within one tent and used space down the middle for exhibits.
Co-chair Halfman presented the question to the group if they would want to combine selected focus areas or reduce the number of focus areas?
Animal ag tent on very corner and had limited traffic. Half the tent was set-up for presentations and had limited use. Other tents in center section of tent city were better for traffic flow. Alternative crop tent seemed to be buried in the shuffle.
County extension agents generally support the theme tents and extension specialists usually support the Progress Pavilion. In spreading out the theme tents, we were limit the participation and created a barrier for the promotion.
Bob commented on how education should be fun and we need more of a reason for people to go through the tents. . He talked to person from WMMB and they suggested having some type of a contest on the hour.
Matt J. shared with the committee a discussion within Extension about the challenges to get other outside participation to exhibit in the tents.
Nick mentioned that for people movement outside the tents were more of an aspect due to nice weather in Chippewa Co.
Pam shared her view as a farmer, previous exhibitor, and a background in marketing. She asked “What’s the hot button to attract them?” Open sides so people see it and want to be there. Provide activity and action. People are noisy by nature. It is more important to get right people in the tent, than the quantity of people who come through. As farmers, you don’t go to the show to be educated. She recommends putting energy into one or two good things. Who do we want to attract and what we want to achieve?
We reviewed the layout of the site and where the tents are currently placed on the site.
Jane asked about having a soil pit at end of conservation tent. Matt J. noted that the location of conservation tent is such as it takes people out to the woodlot.
Speakers did not work well at the show and would propose to not have speakers at 2005 show.
Group came to consensus on having a conservation tent, Progress pavilion and one focus tent.
Who are we trying to attract into the tent?
Exhibitors can request to be in one of the theme tents. Typically, they’ve
paid a premium to be in the theme tent as an exhibitor.
• Pasture poltry
• Energy exhibitors from 2004 tent
• Low cost theme
• Low cost milking parlor
• CRI – Coop Resources International (were rather disappointed
in the animal theme tent)
• Bunker packing and facing – Don’t understand facing;
have some facers
• Bunker – do more people do piles versus bunkers? Piles getting
too high. People lining bunkers – demo liners. Spoilage issues and
expensive losses. Liners and plastic or customers who can demonstrate.
• Manure separation – what’s out the back end –
nutrient management and analyzing the manure
• Discovery farms data
• Cooling systems – nozzles on the end, fans, who sells those
products, big visual outside. Hank Spencer, AZ, where do you place them.
Humidistats – Blow and flow. Fan with streamer and cooling. Ag Source
management monitoring somatic cell and milk quality.
• Sizing stalls or ideal stalls – how do I size these stalls
and whats right; corral placement. Could be a static display from Biological
Systems Engineering Dept. (BSE). Ask the cows – cow size, listen
to the builders, “Listen to the Cows”
• Environmental loads of the stalls, issue of types of sand, rubber
mats, depth loads, and putting tires down. Where’s the environmental
load, red flag, yellow flag, pack it up and start another business. Different
cows and different stalls, parlor sizes. Bacterial packs.
Cropping system –
• Manure sampling software on nutrient management (SnapPlus)
• “Breaking Yield Barriers” – approaches for higher
yields; not managing one little piece of the puzzle at a time. Soil compaction
issues. Discovery farm data.
• Grazing section – examples of potted plants with grazing;
clovers, grazers to talk experiences with crop. Barenbrug seed grows.
• Biotech – rootworm corn; leaf tests American seed trade
association, performance under pressure levels, hands on.
• Compaction – pointed stick, penetrometer, compacted as far
as they are working it. Loosening up. What’s coming out of research
pipe on compaction – monitoring. Deep soil tillage – track
versus wheels. Controlling compaction – zones. Custom manure haulers
– different sizes of traffic – medium. Open area – probe.
Large audience issues.
• Organic areas and niche marketing – MOSES, pasture poultry.
Questioned how many organic groups already exhibiting there.
Discussion on having business exhibitors involved?
- What’s the value to the exhibitors cooperating?
- What additional demands does it create on them for staffing?
- Is it convenient to their other location?
Space and layout
It was decided to narrow the focus and work to create a flow amongst the
exhibit.
How much space? Approximately 250’X150’
Soil compaction – outside demo with inside info
Low cost parlor – inside or outside
Cooling system – outside-timers, angles, fans and nozzles
Primary areas selected by committee were:
• Low cost modernization
• Yield Barriers
• Manure Separation/ analysis
• Bunkers
2005 FTD Applied Technology Center
The committee identified four primary areas for “activity centers” or hands-on demo/displays. It was discussed that the areas are laid out in the tent in such a way that there’s a path to show the inter-connectiveness between the main themes of cropping systems, dairy and safety/health initially identified as by the committee as themes.
Potential elements for demonstration/
displays were identified. The four primary areas and related elements
are:
1. Yield Barriers
A demonstration area to Address the issue of soil compaction as the most
significant barrier to yield improvement.
Elements:
Probe Pit - Having participant use soil probes to learn the techniques for identifying the soil barriers. This would need a soil compaction area (probe pit) developed.
Biotech – leaf test
Using sampling solutions to test leaf samples for genetic factors.
Forages would be a display of alternative forages (e.g. clovers). The idea was to have growing plants and display on their uses. This area would be a linkage over to the silage area.
2. “Putting Your Best Face On” would address
issues related to improving forage quality, feed value and safety issues
related to bunker and silage piles.
Elements:
Bunker demo - A small bunker demo unit possibly made out of concrete
road blocks that would be designed to show lining material, packing issues,
and materials for covering.
Facing equipment – For visual display have a skid-steer loader with a facer in this area.
Safety - have display elements that address safety issues when using equipment for packing and facing.
3. “Low Cost Parlors” – This demonstration
area would provide information on low cost parlor designs and information
to assist individuals looking to build a low cost parlor. Related to this
area were issues of stall design and environmental issues including bedding
materials.
Elements:
Low Cost Parlor demonstration unit - This demo unit was built
for the 2004 show and will be modified prior to 2005 show.
”Listen to the Cows” – stall designs and environmental factors such as bedding will be addressed in this element. Potential demo unit would be to build a model stall. Photos of clues from poorly designed stalls could be used to explain what an individual should look for as the clues from cows with stall design. This element could also discuss bedding materials and issues of environmental factors for the cows.
“Cooling” – It was discussed that an element on fans and misters would be most optimum for a July show. However, after discussion on factors in developing a demo unit for cooling equipment involving water the committee wasn’t sure on the feasibility of this demo. Fans to demonstrate air movement with streamers would help to create a visual impact to attract people plus a bit of relief from the outside temperatures would be a draw into the tent.
Safety – Animal handling safety or human factors displays could be incorporated with this area.
4. “Manure Analysis - Score Your Cows Manure”
– This demo area would focus on manure analysis for nutritional
information and other issues related to manure handling.
Elements:
“Score Your Cows Manure” – would be an interactive
display to allow individual’s to score manure samples and match
to them with the feed consumed by the cow. The manure samples should be
washed and displayed on screens.
“Discovery Farms” – Committee wanted to explore what data that Discovery Farms may have by that time on manure related issues.
Secondary Displays – Additional displays to invite
for participation in the Applied Technology Center (ATC) would be identified
after the four primary areas are more defined. These may be exhibitors
who have previously participated in one of the former “theme tents”
or new groups that related to the issues being addressed in the ATC.
2005 FTD Resource Persons
Yield Barrier – Greg Andrews, Lead coordinator
Planning Team:
Dick W., UW CALS Soils Dept.
Nick S., Clark Co UW Extension
Paul Mitchell, UW CALS Applied Econ, will work on economics related to
GMOs
Mike Bertram, Marshfield Ag Research Station
Forage Crops
Phil Holmen, Assistant Superintendent, Spooner Research Station
Mike Bertram, Marshfield Ag Research Station
Bunkers – Bill Halfman, Lead Coordinator
Brian Holmes, UW CALS BSE – Brian checking on video footage already
taken on facing.
Kim Bremer, Vita Plus
John Slipek, Abbotsford Ag Instructor
Mahlon Peterson, Eau Claire Co UW Extension
Low Cost Parlor – Jon Zander, Lead Coordinator
Arden Hardie, Jackson Co UW Extension
Dave Kammel, UW CALS BSE
Vance Hagen, Crawford Co UW Extension
Lee Milligan, St. Croix Co UW Extension
Jim Faust, Dunn Co. UW Extension
Manure Analysis – Matt Lippert, Lead Coordinator
Jim Leverich, Discovery Farms
Jim Weber, Tim Brussow, Dan Bender – Northside Elevator
Darren Bremer
Bob Kaiser, UW Extension
Sue Porter
Zen Miller, Outagamie Co. UW Extension
John Peters,
Kevin Erb, UW Extension
Natural Resources
Jane Reigel, NRCS Clark Co.
Greg Strangl, Clark Co. Land Conservation Dept.
Steve Edge, DNR
Rick Dailey, Clark Co.
Don Streff, Clark Co.
Chris Schmitz, Clark Co.
© 2006, UW Center for Agricultural Safety and Health
Webmaster Feedback