(Editors' note: Results of PFI 1997 onfarm research are
appearing in The Practical Farmer over the course of this year.
We hope this will give readers a chance to absorb these
cooperator reports. In this issue we report on some research on
row spacing and with tillage and weed management. In 1997, we
learned more about bugs in strip intercropping, including effects
of Bt corn and migrating corn rootworm larvae. And Jeff Klinge
and Deb Tidwell provide crop production budgets for organic and
conventionally grown corn.)
Internet readers note: Data tables and figures are available on request
Reading Numbers, Knowing Terms
When you see the outcome of a PFI trial, you also see a
statistical indication of the strength of the difference
observed. The following information should help you to
understand the reports of the trials contained in this report.
The symbol "*" shows that there was a "statistically significant"
difference between treatments; that is, one that likely did not
occur just by chance. We require ourselves to be 95% sure before
we declare a significant difference. If instead of a "*" there
is a "N.S.," you know the difference was "not significant" at the
95 percent confidence level.
Comparing Two Practices Many onfarm trials are of a
straightforward "A versus B" type. These trials, which are easy
to design and analyze, correspond to the typical experimental
question "Is alternative 'B' better than, worse than, or the same
as my customary practice 'A'?" This approach can be used to
evaluate individual practices or whole systems of practices.
There is a handy "yardstick" called the "LSD," or "least
significant difference," that can be used in a trial with only
two practices or treatments. If the difference between the two
treatments is greater than the LSD, then the difference is
significant. You will see in the tables that when the difference
between two practices is, for example, 5 bushels (or minus 5
bushels, depending on the arithmetic), and the LSD is only, say,
3 bushels, then there is a "*" indicating a significant
Multiple Treatment Trials The LSD doesn't work well in trials
with more than two treatments. In those cases, letters are added
to show whether treatments are statistically different from each
other. (We usually use a statistical test called a Duncan
multiple range grouping.) The highest yield or weed count in a
trial will have a letter "a" beside it. A number with a "b" next
to it is significantly different from one with an "a," but
neither is statistically different from a result bearing an "ab."
A third treatment might produce a number with a "c" (or it might
not), and so on.
Row Spacing Trials
Row spacing has been controversial ever since equipment and crops
no longer had to accommodate the width of a draft animal. Dave
and Lisa Lubben, Monticello, normally drill soybeans and
rowplant corn. In 1997 they compared drilled soybeans to
soybeans they planted in 18inch rows by making a second pass
with the 36inchrow planter. Not counting the expense of the
second planter pass, the chief cost difference was due to the
higher seeding rate for drilled soybeans (Table 1). Since there
was no significant yield difference between the seeding methods,
the greater cost of drilled soybeans tipped the balance in favor
of 18inch rows. The cost of the second planter pass would
largely erase that advantage, however.
At the other end of the state, the NeelyKinyon Farm compared
corn in 30inch and 15inch rows (Table 1). Late summer was very
dry in this part of Iowa, and overall corn yields were half of
normal. However, the 15inchrow corn yielded better than corn
in 30inch rows by more than 11 bushels per acre. This result
runs counter to most of the trials on row spacing conducted by
ISU, and the very low yield environment may have played a role.
If so, this trial helps to fill in a piece of a very large
puzzle, as industry, producers, and university agronomists
reexamine the issue of row spacing.
Think you've heard the last word on row spacing? How about twin
rows? Some ridgetillers and other producers who aren't ready to
narrow their rows are looking at pairing two rows six or seven
inches apart, retaining the customary row spacing between pairs.
In 1997, Paullina cooperators Colin and Carla Wilson and Dan and
Lorna Wilson tried out the twinrow ridge planter constructed by
their cousins (and former PFI cooperators) Doyle and Lowell
Wilson, Primghar. Seed cost was a little greater for the
twinrow configuration, but no difference in yield appeared
(Table 1). Colin reported somewhat earlier canopy shading for
the twin rows, although weeds were not a problem in either
system. He also saw more leaning plants in the twin rows at
harvest time, although the combine was able to harvest the crop
satisfactorily. Colin and Dan don't think they will try the twin
rows again. Their cousins, however, believe they have seen a
benefit on their own farms and will continue planting twinrow
Tillage and Weeds
The connection between weeds and tillage is both obvious and
subtle. Yes, tillage removes weeds. But tillage also stimulates
weed seed germination. Ron and Maria Rosmann, Harlan, repeated a
trial they carried out in the late 1980s, comparing soybeans in
ridge tillage to soybeans grown after a primary tillage of
disking (Table 2, Figure 1). Organic farmers like the Rosmanns
sometimes take advantage of the fact that in ridge tillage there
is no primary tillage to "wake up" the weed seeds. That, and the
fact that the planter sweep removes germinating plants and
surface weed seeds from the row, explains the differences in
broadleafed weeds shown in the table and the figure.
Whereas these weed numbers were consistently reduced in
ridgetill, by a factor of 5to11, soybean yields have gone both
ways. In 1988, there was a nonsignificant advantage to ridge
tillage; in 1989 ridgetill enjoyed a statistically significant
advantage; and in 1997 the disktillage system enjoyed a
significant yield advantage (Table 2). However, Ron is not ready
to return to conventional tillage for a 2 bushel benefit.
Although he believes a tilled seedbed can be more forgiving of
seed placement errors, he values the weed management benefit
ridge tillage gives his organic system. Ridgetill also fits his
labor availability and his conservation goals.
Nonchemical weed management in ridge tillage was practically
invented on the farm of Richard and Sharon Thompson, Boone. In
1997, Dick Thompson examined the weed control effects of throwing
an extra high ridge at the last cultivation (Table 2). Ridging
higher covers more weeds, and it makes it easier to shave the
ridgetop at planting the following year. Overall broadleaf weed
numbers were very low in this trial, and the 70 percent reduction
in weeds was not statistically significant. There was no
measurable effect on soybean yield.
Strip Intercropping: Life on the Edge
In the early 1990s a dozen PFI cooperators tried their hand at
strip intercropping, the practice of planting narrow strips of
different crops side by side. Some impressive corn yields were
recorded, but various problems made it difficult to consistently
take advantage of the added sunlight and diversity afforded by
strips. PFI cooperators Jeff Olson and Gayle Olson, Mt.
Pleasant, and Paul and Karen Mugge, Sutherland, are working with
university and USDA scientists to identify those barriers.
Research in 1997 focused on three groups of insects that seem to
take advantage of the diversity and plentiful borders between
crops: corn rootworms, grasshoppers, and the common stalkborer.
Table 4 presents corn yields and stands by row in strip
intercropping on the Olson and Mugge farms.
When the outer rows of corn in strips does not yield better than
strip interiors, insects, weeds, or pathogens may be responsible.
On the Olson farm stalkborer has been identified as a problem.
The grass waterways around these strips provide ample wintering
sites for the eggs of these insects. There is also some
indication that the young larvae are using the strips as a
superhighway into the field. PFI and ISU staff examined several
ways to disrupt the insect. One of these was the use of
Btenhanced corn. Jeff Olson planted a Bt corn in some strips,
and in others he planted the nonBt sister hybrid.
Bt corn is not advertized as effective against common stalkborer,
but Bt tends to be active against lepidopterous (moth and
butterfly) larvae in general. As Table 4 and Figure 2 show, Bt
had a significant effect on stands, yields, and the frequency of
stalkborer damage. In fact, corn yields were closely tied to
plant population. As stand varied across the strips, so did
yield. Stand in Bt strips was far from uniform, but it was
consistently higher than in nonBt strips. Does this mean strip
intercropping requires Bt corn? No, but the Bt corn is providing
insight into the agroecosystem. It might be that the most
effective use of this biotechnology is in the border rows of
strips. That conservative level of use should slow the
development of resistant insects.
Where Jeff Olson's corn yields suffered on the west borders of
strips, Paul Mugge's corn yielded 1520 bushel more on either
border than in the strip centers (Table 4). Grasshoppers have
bothered the soybeans in Mugge's strips, but corn yields have
been little affected by the hoppers. You might not guess to look
at the corn yields, but there is evidence that corn rootworm
larvae are at work on the strip edges neighboring previousyear
corn strips. USDAARS entomologist Mike Ellsbury has tracked the
underground migration of rootworm larvae from last year's corn
row #6 to this year's row #1, a distance of one rowwidth. His
research on the Mugge farm has been reported in The Practical
Farmer, Winter 1996/1997. Ellsbury, the ISU agronomists and
entomologists, and PFI farmers are gradually developing a fuller
understanding of croppest interactions in strip intercropping.
First Year Experience with Organic Corn
Jeff Klinge and Deb Tidwell, Farmersburg
Nineteen ninetyseven was our first year to grow certified
organic corn. To be certified, you have to have records to prove
no chemical use for three years.
We compared the returns from the organic corn and a field of our
conventionally raised corn (Table 3). The conventional corn was
planted April 28th on second year corn ground following alfalfa,
with a manure N credit of 30 lbs and alfalfa credit of 50 lbs N.
The organic corn was planted May 20th on firstyear ground
following alfalfa and manure. Weed control was good in both
fields. Stalk rot was a problem in both fields.
I do not think fertility was limiting on the organic field. Corn
following alfalfa without fertilizer or manure has been my best
corn field for years. Organic corn is normally planted later to
aid weed control. The later planting date plus lack of heat
units in northeast Iowa were a factor this year. Ceiba 3475 has
done well on sod ground in the past, but it is too late (108
days) for May 20th planting in northeast Iowa. Next year we will
plant 100day corn.
Of course, corn production doesn't tell the whole story of farm
profitability. We may net more money on organic corn, but we
won't be growing it as often. My crop rotation will be a
fiveyear one: small grains, alfalfa, corn, soybeans, corn. The
crops that are less profitable than corn will still contribute to
the overall operation of the farm.
Internet readers note: this table is best viewed in a monospaced font
Table 3. Corn production budgets, organic and conventional,
Item Organic (1) Conventional (2)
PreHarvest Machinery $27.50 $20.25
Seed (Ceiba 3475) 29,000 plants/acre $31.90 $31.90
Nitrogen (no P or K) 60 lbs $0.00 $14.40
Herbicide 2.4 qt. Harness Extra, .78 oz Permit, additives
Insecticide 8 lbs Aztec $0.00 $17.12
Crop Insurance $5.00 $5.00
Interest 9.5% for 8 months $4.08 $7.90
PreHarvest Total $68.48 $132.70
Harvest Machinery Combine $22.00 $22.00
Haul Grain $4.00 $4.00
Dry Grain ($0.15/bu)$19.20 $21.75
Harvest Total $45.20 $47.25
Labor $8.00/hr $48.00 $32.00
Land cash rent equivalent $150.00 $150.00
Total Cost per Acre $311.68 $362.45
Crop Yield (bu/acre) 128 145
Cost per Bushel $2.44 $2.50
Sale Price (per bu) $4.05 $2.70
Gross Income per Acre $518.40 $391.50
Net Profit per Acre $206.72 $29.05
(1) Organic: tandem disk 2x, chisel plow, harrow, plant, hoe 2x,
(2) Conventional: tandem disk 2x, chisel plow, harrow, plant, hoe
1x, cultivate 1x.
28^ PHOSPHORUS AND POTASSIUM FOR NOTILL AND RIDGETILL SOYBEANS
It was one year ago that the companion to this article appeared
in the Practical Farmer. That piece focused on corn, instead of
soybeans, and reported results of research carried out by ISU
agronomist Antonio Mallarino some of it on the farms of PFI
members. PFI cooperators had been eager to collaborate with
Antonio because many shared his questions about the utility of
starter fertilizer and the best placement for other P and K
fertilizers in reducedtill situations. Antonio described his
research methods as follows:
We established ten longterm trials (five with P and five with K)
with notill cornsoybean rotations at five research farms.
Several shortterm trials (with P and K combinations) with
notill corn (11 trials), ridgetill corn (13 trials), notill
soybeans (11 trials), and ridgetill soybeans (14 trials) were
established from 1994 to 1996 in producers' fields with their
cooperation. Five PFI members were among these cooperating
farmers. Treatments were placements and rates of P and K
granulated fertilizers. At the research farms, fertilizers were
1) applied broadcast, 2) banded with the planter approximately 2
inches beside and below the seeds, or 3) deepbanded to a depth
of 5 to 6 inches. At the farmers' fields, the fertilizers were
applied broadcast or deepbanded. Fertilizer rates were 0, 28,
56, and 112 lb P2O5/acre and 0, 35, 70, and 140 lb K2O/acre. The
broadcast and deepbanded treatments for the 1994 growing season
were applied in spring three to five weeks before planting and
thereafter were applied always in the previous fall. Nitrogen
fertilizer was applied at rates 25 to 50% higher than local
The figure of corn yields that appeared in the earlier article
are reproduced in Figure 3. The main findings from analysis of
the corn response were:
Enhancements of early growth can be achieved by banding P
fertilizer with planters or deepbanders but will seldom increase
yields compared with broadcast fertilization. The deep banding
of K, however, will seldom increase early growth but will often
increase grain yields.
Broadcasting K or banding it with the planter often (but not
always) is inefficient for notill corn. Similarly, broadcast K
for ridgetill corn often (but not always) is an inefficient
The K placements differed statistically over all ridgetill
sites, the deepband placement produced on average 6 more bu/acre
than the broadcast.
Contrary to expectations, responses to deepbanded K (both
ridgetill and notill) were poorly related to soiltest K or
Planting on the fallapplied coulterknifeonly track often
increased early growth of notill corn but did not increase early
growth of ridgetill corn.
Soil sampling depth, soiltest interpretations, and fertilizer
recommendations for P based on chiselplow tillage also apply for
notill systems. In ridgetill, soil sampling of ridges seems
Soybeans, the other crop in the study, took much longer to write
up. For one thing, explains Antonio, the data were not as clear
as in corn. So what did the agronomists find? Figure 4
summarizes the yield results.
In eight of the 20 siteyears on experiment stations, soybeans
(30" row spacing) exhibited a response to phosphorus
fertilization. The soil at all these sites tested low or very
low in P, but not all sites testing low responded to fertilizer.
Neither was stratification of available phosphorus associated
with a yield response in soybeans. The significant placement
effects at three sites were inconsistent. In one site, there was
response only to broadcast P, in another site the broadcast was
better than the two banded placements, and in the other the two
banded placements were better than broadcast.
On the other hand, two of 11 onfarm siteyears (with soybeans
grown in narrow rows) showed a small advantage to deep banding.
However, there was not a significant placement effect overall for
these onfarm trials. Mallarino's team concludes that fertilizer
placement and stratification of available P are not major issues
for notill soybeans in Iowa. The lack of large yield response
to P in several of the lowtesting soils causes them to wonder if
recommendations for notill soybeans might require a separate
In five of the experiment farm siteyears showed yield responses
to potassium fertilizer even though the soils already tested
adequate in K. Mallarino thinks these responses were related to
dry soil conditions in spring, not stratification of K in the
soil profile. Analysis over all siteyears showed a small but
significant response to both K fertilizer and placement.
Phosphorus fertilizer increased soybean yields on FOUR of the 14
farm siteyears, and there was a significant P fertilizer effect
over all trials. Several sites testing below optimum did not
respond to P fertilizer. Most likely this is explained by
responsive trends that were too small to become statistically
significant, because there was a highly significant response over
all sites. It is also possible, however, that other factors
limited yield and that a soil test of just the ridge could more
accurately predict soybean response.
Potassium increased yield only at two sites, and the placements
differed only at one (deep band was better). Analyses over all
14 trials showed no significant response to either potassium
fertilizer or placement. Most soils tested high and very high in
potassium anyway, and the ridges tested even higher.
Soybeans in Reducedtill
In notill and ridgetill, when soil test phosphorus was below
optimum, soybeans sometimes responded to fertilizer, but
placement method was not critical. The degree of P
stratification in the soil profile was less useful in predicting
whether that response would occur than was the number of
consecutive dry days during the spring. Soybeans sometimes
responded to potassium fertilizer even when soil test K was
optimum or higher. Again, the method of placement was not
critical, and weather was a greater factor than was
stratification in predicting a response.
Planterbanded and deepbanded fertilizer more often affected
early soybean growth than it did grain yield. This is consistent
with the observations of many producers who use inrow
fertilizers and see a response early in the season. Mallarino's
work in ridge tillage showed that early nutrient uptake was even
more sensitive to fertilization than was early growth, and deep
banding was the superior placement. However, there was no
correlation between yield response and either uptake or early
growth in this study. Deep banding can produce luxury
consumption of P and K in soybeans, but under ordinary
circumstances this is not translated into yield. If deepbanded
P or K ever provided a yield advantage, it might be when
prolonged dry conditions prevented normal root development or
nutrient uptake from topsoil.
So what is the big picture for fertilizer placement in notill
and ridge tillage?
If you deepband, do it to provide potassium to the corn.
Corn was insensitive to placement of phosphorus, and soybeans
usually did not respond to placement of either P or K. Results
not shown here suggest that the deepband K effects persist up to
two years after the application.
Problems remain correlating soil tests to crop needs in
notill and ridgetill. Corn and soybeans sometimes responded to
K even when soil levels were optimum or above. Notill soybeans
sometimes failed to respond to P even when soil tests were below
Nutrient stratification, sometimes considered the culprit, was
not a yield factor in this study. Soil test values are (usually)
higher in the ridges than the interrow valleys. More research
is needed to know if different soil sampling methods are called
for, or if recommendations need to be calibrated especially for
combinations of crop and tillage system.
31^ FOOTPRINTS OF A GRASS FARMER
Looking for Footprints?
We know that many readers will miss Tom Frantzen's regular
commentary. Tom's father passed away in October and Tom just had
to let this newsletter go by. We hope to see the grass farmer in
print again in '99.
32^ BITS OF SUSTENANCE
The Bits of Sustenance pages are a place where PFI women can
share their writing stories, poems, letters, book reviews,
experiences. Hopefully, Bits of Sustenance will give every reader
something to ponder.
Evolution of a Small Business
Connie Lawrance, Madrid
Fourteen years ago, when my son was just a year old and my
daughter was three, my first small business began. A small patch
of garden with herbs and flowers grown just for fun turned into a
home based potpourri company. Discarded flowers purchased from
wholesale florists and scented oils augmented what I grew in my
backyard. I hired a sales company and I soon had a small but
profitable business running.
A basket class I took just for fun turned into an idea for a set
of tiny fabric baskets and soon the potpourri moved aside for the
manufacture of many tiny baskets. This proved to be successful
for a few years, but trends changed and it became readily
apparent that something new was needed. Making the baskets was
also hard on my hands, and responsible help was getting harder to
We were living in the middle of a small town with a large lot and
sizable garden considering the location. Gardening has always
been a passion and stress reliever for me. I decided to increase
my gardening and pursue growing dried flowers for wholesale. I
learned all the fundamentals of growing, packaging and again
talked to sales people. At this time interest in the flowers was
very limited, I kept hearing the phrase "we don't need flowers,
we need finished floral designs."
This led to experimentation with the flowers and with the help of
a few encouraging store owners, another new business was born.
This led to several years of employment from my home, a second
income for the family, the opportunity to stay with my children,
and it kept my fingers in the soil.
Eight years ago we had the opportunity to move to a small thirty
acre farm which had been used to produce dried flowers. All the
facilities were very basic and a lot of work needed to be done.
We finished remodeling the house (1875 oneroom school house) and
added a simple fiberglasscovered greenhouse onto the back of the
singlecar garage that became my workshop. Because the farm is
located at the edge of a small creek, Murphy Creek Farm became
the new company and homestead name. During this time trends
continued to favor dried flower arrangements with the "country "
theme being predominant. Homegrown herbs and flowers along with
wildcrafted weeds and vines kept me well supplied. Most of my
sales were to mall and small gift stores, profits were good and I
could do most of the work myself.
This business has always been somewhat seasonal, with the
majority of sales during the fall and winter months, leaving
plenty of time for growing flowers. When we moved to the farm my
garden grew to acre with plenty of room for vegetables for the
family in addition to the flowers.
As the years passed the decorating trends changed and customers
asked for more dyed and preserved flowers. Colors became darker
and richer, with choices different than what could be grown in
the home garden. As I found myself buying more of my materials I
also found myself thinking about how to fill the extra garden
space. One family can only consume so many vegetables.
Sunday January 25, 1998, The Des Moines Register featured
Practical Farmers of Iowa in the Farm & Country section of the
paper. The article introduced a food system approach to
agriculture, described sustainable agriculture and Community
Supported Agriculture (CSA). Gary Guthrie and his wife Nancy of
Nevada, Iowa were featured as first year farmers who had started
a CSA business and were successful with just a couple of acres
and about eight families as customers. Also listed were The
Magic Beanstalk as part of the Field to Family project, and other
people involved in either their own CSAs or PFI.
This article started the wheels turning. After a week or so of
thinking, I called the people featured in the article for more
information. As it turns out an INCA, (Iowa Network For
Community Agriculture) meeting was scheduled for the next week
and I decided to attend. This was the start of a whole new
project. After consulting with everyone there, I realized this
would be a perfect fit into what I was already doing. I could
continue the flower business, make better use of the garden,
provide a service for people who lack the time and space to grow
for themselves, and hopefully make a little profit as well.
With the existing facilities, garden, greenhouse, and large
tiller I started a CSA with six customers. (If six doesn't sound
like much, think about cleaning seventytwo green onions, a bunch
for each family.) This was a manageable number to begin with and
it worked out well. We did also purchase twentyfive egg
producing chicks to add to my son's existing 4H flock. This
allowed me to include a dozen eggs with the vegetables each week.
All of the people I approached were friends or acquaintances that
I knew would appreciate fresh organically grown produce and eggs
and were limited in time or resources to grow their own.
This was a challenging year to begin, with the wet spring and hot
summer. I made mistakes, some crops failed, as they will in
Iowa, some produced a lot more than anyone needed. It was a good
learning experience. This year I charged a monthly fee and
delivered a basket of food, whatever was mature and in season,
weekly. This year I did not charge extra for delivery. Next
year I will offer delivery for an extra fee. Response has been
favorable, I feel this was a service appreciated. I hope to
increase my customer base to ten next year and increase the
This first year did produce a profit. While not large, it allows
me to reinvest in more equipment to make the job easier next
year. By using what was available to begin with, expenses were
kept to a minimum and profits were possible.
Murphy Creek Farm Florals continue to be designed and produced,
especially in the fall with Christmas approaching. Look for them
at The Added Touch in Valley West Mall when in West Des Moines..
This summer after attending the Turtle Farm field day and meeting
several people, I joined Practical Farmers of Iowa. I especially
relate to the word Practical! Everyone has been helpful and
supportive to this new venture and I'm sure this trend will
continue. If you have any questions or comments you may call me
at 5 15795 2215. I appreciate the input.
My reason for writing this article was to illustrate the need and
possibility for change. Our options are only limited by our
imagination and fear of trying something different. This is an
exciting and frightening time to be involved in agriculture. The
time is right to consider the possibilities.
Correspondence to the PFI directors' addresses is always welcome.
Member contributions to the Practical Farmer are also welcome and
will be reviewed by the PFI board of directors.
District 1 (Northwest): Paul Mugge, 6190 470th St., Sutherland,
51058. (712) 4462414. firstname.lastname@example.org
Colin Wilson, 5482 450th St., Paullina, 51046. (712) 4482708.
District 2 (North Central): Doug Alert, PFI Vice President, 972
110th St., Hampton, IA 50441. (515) 4564328.
Steve Weis, 2191 440th St., Osage, IA 504618211.
District 3 (Northeast): Michael Natvig, 20074 Timber Ave.,
Cresco, IA 52136. (319) 5698358.
Dan Specht, RR 1, McGregor IA 52157. (319) 8733873.
District 4 (Southwest): Robert Bahrenfuse, 15365 S. 12th Ave. E.
Grinnell, IA 50112. (515) 2364566.
Donna Bauer, 1667 Hwy. 71, Audubon, IA 50025.
(712) 5634084 phone and fax.
District 5 (Southeast): David Lubben, PFI President, 24539 Hwy
38, Monticello, IA 52310. (319) 4654717. email@example.com
Susan ZacharakisJutz, 5025 120th St. NE, Solon, IA 52333.
PFI Executive Vice President & Treasurer: Dick Thompson,
2035 190th St., Boone, 50036. (515) 4321560.
Coordinators: Nan Bonfils, (515) 2948512, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Rick Exner, (515) 2945486, email@example.com, Room 2104,
Agronomy Hall, ISU, Ames, Iowa, 50011.
Gary Huber, (515) 2327162, firstname.lastname@example.org, Field to Family,
917 Burnett Ave., #3, Ames 50010.
The Practical Farmer and the PFI onfarm demonstrations are
supported, in part, by Iowa State University Cooperative
Extension, and the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.
34^ PFI MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FORM
Zip Code __________________________________________________
Phone # (________) ________________________________________
This is a:
Do you derive a significant part of your income directly
from farming in Iowa?
Individual or family membership: $20 for one year, $50 for
Please enclose check or money order payable to "Practical Farmers
of Iowa" and mail to:
Practical Farmers of Iowa
2035 190th St.
Boone, IA 500367423
Rick (Derrick N.) Exner, Ph.D.
PFI Farming Systems Coordinator
Practical Farmers of Iowa
2104 Agronomy Hall, ISU, Ames, IA 50011
(515) 294-5486, -9985 fax
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: