EC32-134 Sweet Clover Management

Sweet clover has made a phenomenal growth in popularity and acreage during recent years. In Nebraska, the production increased from 30,000 acres in 1920 to 1,126,000 acres in 1930, an expansion of over one million acres in a 10-year period. Just a few years ago, when sweet clover was classified as a weed, it was the subject of proposed state legislation to prevent its production and spread. Today sweet clover has a recognized place among standard crops and in rotation systems. The acreage of sweet clover in Nebraska is now practically equal to that of alfalfa and is more than ten times that of red clover. Some Nebraska counties grow more than 40,000 acres of sweet clover annually. This 1932 extension circular discusses the kinds of sweet clover; time and method of seeding; kinds of seed and rates of seeding; liming and inoculation; growth habits; utilization of sweet clover for pasture, soil building, hay and seed; and sweet clover in wild hay meadows.

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste

The phrase, “never let a crisis go to waste” may take frugality to a whole new level! That’s the sentiment of Lynda Applegate, Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School, in a recent on-line article, Building Businesses in Turbulent Times.

NF99-403 Livestock Waste Management Act (Revised March 2001)

The Livestock Waste Management Act requires all livestock operations with 300 animal units or more to be inspected by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to determine whether livestock wastes contaminate surface or ground water. This NebFact discusses the following parts of the Livestock Waste Management Act: Act (how cited); Terms (defined); Livestock operation, exemption, livestock waste control facility, permit, restriction; Construction permit or operating permit (when required), livestock waste control facilities, classification, restrictions; Section (how construed); Cold water class A streams (designation); Permit (acknowledgment required); Livestock operation (request inspection, when, fees, department, duties); Permits (duration, modification); Permit (application and modification fees, Livestock Waste Management Cash Fund (created, use, investment, report, legislative intent); Applicant (rejection, grounds, application, information required, certification required); Postconstruction inspection requirement; Department (contracts authorized, permit application, notice required); Permit application (approval from Department of Natural Resources and Department of Environmental Quality, powers); Council (rules and regulations); and Enforcement of act (legislative intent).

EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTING EPA'S ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION PROGRAM ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS

In 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated an effort to comply more fully with the Endangered Species Act. This effort became their "Endangered Species Protection Program." The possibility of such a program was forecast in 1982 when Donald A. Spencer gave a presentation to the Tenth Vertebrate Pest Conference on "Vertebrate Pest Management and Changing Times." This paper focuses on current plans for implementing the EPA's Endangered Species Protection Program as it relates to the USDA Forest Service. It analyzes the potential effects this program will have on the agency, using the pocket gopher (Thomomys spp.), strychnine, and the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) as examples of an affected pest, pesticide, and predator.

A Fixed Netting System as a Means of Excluding Birds From a Domestic Waste Landfill

Many bird species are attracted to landfills which take domestic or putrescible waste. These sites provide a reliable, rich source of food which can attract large concentrations of birds. The birds may cause conflicts with human interest with respect to noise, birds carrying litter off site, possible transmission of pathogens in bird droppings and the potential for birdstrikes. In the UK there is an 8 mile safeguarding radius around an airfield, within which any planning applications must pass scrutiny from regulatory bodies to show they will not attract birds into the area and increase the birdstrike risk. Peckfield Landfill site near Leeds, West Yorkshire was chosen for a trial of a netting system designed to exclude birds from domestic waste landfills. The site was assessed for bird numbers before the trial, during the netting trial and after the net had been removed. A ScanCord net was installed for 6 weeks, during which time all household waste was tipped inside the net. Gull numbers decreased on the site from a mean of 1074 per hourly count to 29 per hourly count after two days. The gull numbers increased again after the net had been removed. Bird concentrations in the surroundings were also monitored to assess the effect of the net. Bird numbers in the immediate vicinity of the landfill site were higher than those further away. When the net was installed, the bird concentrations adjacent to the landfill site decreased. Corvids were not affected by the net as they fed on covered waste which was available outside the net throughout the trial. This shows that bird problems on a landfill site are complex, requiring a comprehensive policy of bird control. A supporting bird scaring system and clear operating policy for sites near to airports would be required.