Calumet County Farmland Preservation Plan 2010

Calumet County
Farmland Preservation Plan
2010
1
2
2010-2020
CALUMET COUNTY
FARMLAND PRESERVATION PLAN
Prepared By
THE CALUMET COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND FARMLAND
PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
And The
CALUMET COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND LAND
INFORMATION OFFICE
Photographs Courtesy Of:
William Glasheen, Steve Groessl, High Cliff Quarter Horses LLC,
and Calumet County Staff
3
4
5
6
Table of Contents
Chapter One—Introduction and Purpose of Protecting Farmland
Page 13
Introduction
13
Purpose
18
Chapter Two—Setting It Straight
23
Agricultural Industry
23
Agricultural Resources
24
Agricultural Program Participation
25
Agricultural Land Use
27
Chapter Three—Details, Details
35
Farmland Preservation Program
35
Nutrient Management Plans
37
Chapter Four—‘The Plan’ Goals and Objectives Recommendations
43
Calumet County Goals and Objectives
43
Incorporated Community Goals and Objectives
44
Calumet County Policies and Recommendations
45
Incorporated Community Policies and Recommendations
45
Regional Plan Commission Goals, Strategies, Recommendations
46
Wisconsin Future of Farming and Rural Life
47
Wisconsin Working Lands Initiative
48
Local Focus Groups
49
Conclusion
55
Chapter Five—Mapping the Future
59
Map A: Farmland Preservation Plan Map
59
Map B: (Town Preservation Maps)
62
Map C: Soils
63
Map D: Current Agriculturally Zoned Land
66
Map E: (Town Zoning Maps)
66
Map F: Current Agricultural Land Use
66
Map G: Existing Farms
67
Map H: Existing Farms >1000 Acres
67
Map I: Current Growth Management Areas
68
Map J: POWTS and Well Placement
70
Map K: Archeological Sites and Cemeteries
73
Map L: Threatened & Endangered Communities & Occurrences
75
Map M: Agricultural Infrastructure
79
Chapter Six—Direct Land Preservation Tools
83
State Farmland Preservation and Tax Relief Programs
83
Exclusive Agricultural Zoning
86
Agricultural Enterprise Areas
87
Purchase of Development Rights/Ag Conservation Easements
87
Transfer of Development Rights
91
Lease of Development Rights
94
Land Protection Agreement
95
Land Use Tax Credit Program
97
7
Use Value Assessment
Income Rewards
Miscellaneous Direct Programs
Farm Labor
NAFTA
Chapter Seven—Indirect Land Preservation Tools
Growth/No Growth Policy
Subdivision Management
Urban Redevelopment
Controlling Sprawl
Zoning
Deed Restrictions
Strengthen Small Farmers
Know Your Neighbor
Seed Exchange
Leave a Legacy
Education
Chapter Eight—Food Initiatives
Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin
Farm to School Lunch Programs
Community Supported Agriculture
Community Gardens
Farmers Markets
Public Markets
Produce Auctions
Community Kitchens
Marketing Efforts
Food Sovereignty
Slow Food
Chapter Nine—Agricultural Diversification
Dairy Farming
Go Green
Calf or Heifer
Dairy Goats
The Organic Dairy Farmer
The Amish Dairy Farmer
The Female Dairy Farmer
Grain and Silage Crops
Organic Agriculture
Specialty Foods
Cheese
Honey
Maple Syrup
Meat
Fruits
Vegetables
97
98
101
102
102
107
107
109
113
116
117
118
118
120
120
122
124
127
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
133
134
135
135
141
141
142
145
146
148
149
150
150
151
154
155
156
158
158
159
165
8
Floriculture
Controversial Crops
Equestrian Agriculture
Agri-Tourism
Value Added Agriculture
Sustainability
Bio-Dynamic Farming
Chapter Ten—Innovations In Agriculture
Bio-Economy
Anaerobic Digestion
The Last Straw
Chapter Eleven—Environmental Considerations
Groundwater Quality
Surface Water Quality
Other Environmental Practices
Crop Pollinating
Chapter Twelve—Helpful Programs and Services
Financial Programs
Technical Assistance
Chapter Thirteen—The Action Plan
Step One: Limit Growth
Step Two: Zone Appropriately
Step Three: Identify Target Areas
Step Four: Develop Incentive Programs
Step Five: Educate and Advocate
Step Six: Sustain
Step Seven: Save the Environment
Final Steps
Chapter Fourteen—Last, But Not Least
Land and Water Management Plan
Smart Growth Plan
All Hazards Mitigation Planning
Next Generation Agriculture Planning
Appendix—Maps A-P
168
168
175
176
178
180
181
185
185
189
193
199
199
203
205
215
219
219
223
229
229
229
230
230
231
231
231
232
237
237
237
237
238
241
9
10
“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us.
When we see land as a community to which we belong,
we may begin to use it with love and respect.”
~ Aldo Leopold
11
12
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
OF PROTECTING FARMLAND
Introduction
What is ‘farmland preservation’? Farmland preservation is the permanent or long-term
protection of high quality agricultural land that has a minimum degree of conflict with
development.
More than ever before Calumet County needs to help preserve its farmland. Through
existing farmland preservation tools, and new innovative methods and practices, the
county can help save its working lands. This document will discuss these tools and serve
as the beginning of many discussions to come.
Saving the land is not just the county’s responsibility. Many partners are essential to
make preservation a real success. The success of any farmland preservation program is
cooperation. Various partners need to work collaboratively to make the program
successful. Citizens, government, business and various agricultural boards need to work
together to further the mission of preserving farmland. Throughout this document
various preservation tools will be discussed. It will be up to our leaders and the public
whether or not these tools are embraced and implemented.
We are needlessly wasting one of the world's most important resources—farmland. In
Calumet County 43.3% of our land is considered farmland, another 38.8% prime if
drained and/or not flooded. Looking at both prime and prime if drained or not flooded,
that’s 82.1% of our land. However, only 65.5% of our land is used for farm or crop
purposes. (Source: Calumet County Year 2025 Comprehensive Plan, 2007)
Although it is true the northwest section of the county and the shoreline of Lake
Winnebago have seen extensive growth, overall the county has seen a decrease in the
number of acres being sold and converted to other uses. From 1999 to 2003 the county
has seen a decrease of 88.9% in conversion transactions. Although the county has seen a
decrease in transactions, it has seen a significant (35%) increase in the price of land. This
increase in price makes it appealing to sell farmland for other uses. Table 1-1 displays
the agricultural land sales in the county from 1999 to 2003.
13
Table 1-1
Agricultural Land Sales, Calumet County, 1999-2003
1999
2000
2001
Ag Land Continuing in Ag Use
Number of transactions
29
18
24
Acres sold
1,943
1,228
1,848
Dollars per acre
$1,450 $2,323 $1,915
Ag Land being Diverted to Other Uses
Number of transactions
9
4
1
Acres sold
361
201
60
Dollars per acre
$3,034 $9,590 $2,500
Total of All Ag Land
Number of transactions
38
22
25
Acres sold
2,304
1,429
1,908
Dollars per acre
$1,698 $3,346 $1,934
Source: Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service, 1999-2003
#
Change
19992003
%
Change
19992003
2002
2003
18
1,486
$2,124
25
1,450
$2,844
-4
-493
$1,394
-13.80%
-25.40%
96.10%
8
387
$11,558
1
37
$4,103
-8
-324
$1,069
-88.90%
-89.80%
35.20%
26
1,873
$4,074
26
1,487
$2,875
-12
-817
$1,177
-31.60%
-35.50%
69.30%
Looking at slightly older data, however, and from a different source (the U.S. Census of
Agriculture), the county saw the number of farms decrease by 81 farms from 1997 to
2002; however, land in farms increased by 481 acres in this period. This data implies that
although farms were probably being dissolved, the land, or at least a portion of it, was
being added onto other existing farms. This data could also represent some nonagricultural land being converted to agricultural use.
Such was not true though for the preceding five year period when the county saw the
number of farms decrease by 93 farms from 1992 to 1997, and, the land in farms decrease
by 18,626 acres. This five year span (1992 to 1997) is known as the ‘boom time’, or the
era of when most of the county’s growth in the Harrison, Menasha, and the Appleton
areas took place.
Although the more recent past did not see as many acres being converted as its preceding
period, the future may tell a different story. Based on 2005 statistical data and the East
Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission population projections, between 2010
and 2030 the county will need an additional 11,094.4 acres to meet housing demand,
another 2,749.5 acres for commercial and industrial land use demand, and 885.1 acres to
meet institutional needs. It is imperative the county step forward and aggressively protect
its most valuable working farmland.
Over the past 168 years, Calumet County, like most rural counties, saw an immense
amount of growth and farmland conversion. Although necessary as part of a developing
county, it is now time to stop and look at how to continue to meet the county’s growth
needs, but in a more efficient manner. In 1840 the county’s population was 275
persons—just ten years later it boomed to 1,743. With the introduction of the railroad to
the county in 1872 it grew to 15,722 (year 1880). Most of the noticeable growth occurred
14
in the past 40 years when it grew from 27,604 residents to an estimated 44,323 in 2007.
(Sources: History of Northern Wisconsin, 1988; U.S Census Bureau; Real Estate Center
at Texas A&M University, 2002)
The conversion of farmland is not just a concern to Calumet County. Nationally and
statewide it is also a concern. There are three areas in the United States that the
American Farmland Trust has been observing due to an interest in farmland conversion.
Specifically, these areas have rapidly converted their productive agricultural farmland to
other uses. One of the areas of interest to the American Farmland Trust lies in
Wisconsin. Specifically, a triangle of land in the southeast region of the state between
the cities of Oshkosh, Milwaukee, and Madison, is being monitored closely.
The Program on Agricultural
Technology Studies (PATS), College
of Agricultural and Life Sciences,
University of Madison notes, “While
these three areas (three areas
identified in the State of Wisconsin)
are not the only places where the state
is losing agricultural lands, they
deserve greater attention for a number
of reasons. First, these three areas
represent clusters of counties where
conversion of agricultural land is
happening at an especially high rate.
Combined, the 19 counties (in
Wisconsin) in these three regions
account for nearly 60% of the agricultural land loss across the state. An additional
concern is that much of the land in these areas is considered prime agricultural land by
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), so agricultural land loss is
especially costly in terms of potential productivity”.
The triangle of land mentioned accounted for 16% of the agricultural land in the state in
2005. The area lost 5.7% of its agricultural land between 2000 and 2005— a rate nearly
half again as fast as the State of Wisconsin as a whole. In summary, the losses in the
triangle made up 23% of the total state agricultural land conversion during that five-year
period. (Source: PATS)
The area in the state which encompasses that triangle of land between the cities of
Oshkosh, Milwaukee, and Madison, is of interest in Calumet County in that it
encompasses our neighboring counties of Winnebago and Fond du Lac. If this land
consumption trends seep into Calumet County, it will be faced with issues associated
with rapid farmland conversion. This stresses the importance of a sound agricultural
preservation plan and its implementation.
15
Not all is doom and gloom in the state. Of the counties in this triangular region, four of
the counties actually saw an increase in farmland between 2000 and 2005. These four
counties gained just over 32,000 acres of farmland during the five-year period. However,
according to the PATS research, most of the agricultural growth came at the expense of
forestland losses.
Like the United States, the county’s agricultural land provides the nation—and the
world—with an unparalleled abundance of food. According to the International
Agribusiness Center in the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection (2006), Wisconsin ranks 11th in exporting. State exports mainly go to Canada,
Mexico, China, Italy and Japan. The top export: cereals (rye, oats and corn). The
second and other top exports: flour, starches and malts. Anyone familiar with the
county’s agricultural crops and economy can quickly see the county’s value in exporting
globally.
But farmland means much more than food. Well-managed farmland shelters wildlife,
supplies scenic open space and helps filter impurities from the air and water. These
working lands keep taxes down and maintain the legacy of the county’s agricultural
heritage. It makes no sense to develop the best farmland. Instead, county leaders have a
responsibility to protect this most valuable resource for future generations.
Did you know?
• Every single minute of every day America loses two acres of farmland.
From 1992-1997, nationally, more than six million acres of agricultural land
was converted to developed uses—more than six million acres of agricultural
land—an area the size of Maryland.
• The United States lost farm and ranch land 51% faster in the 1990s than in the
1980s. The rate of loss for 1992-1997, 1.2 million acres per year, was 51%
higher than from 1982-1992.
• The best land is being lost—the most fertile and productive—the fastest.
Nationally the rate of conversion of prime land was 30% faster,
proportionally, than the rate for non-prime rural land from 1992-1997. This
results in marginal land, which requires more resources like water, being put
into production.
• Food is increasingly in the path of development. 86% of U.S. fruits and
vegetables, and 63% of dairy products, are produced in urban-influenced
areas.
• Wasteful land use is the problem, not growth itself. From 1982-1997, the
United States population grew by 17%, while urbanized land grew by 47%.
Over the past 20 years, the acreage per person for new housing almost
doubled; since 1994, 10+ acre housing lots have accounted for 55% of the
land developed.
• Every state is losing some of its best farmland. Texas leads the nation in highquality acres lost, followed by Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Illinois.
Wisconsin ranks 12th in the nation for the amount of farmland lost.
(Source: American Farmland Trust, 2007)
16
It is well documented that farmland often pays more in taxes than it requires in services.
Nearby development can inflate property assessments and values thereby making it more
difficult to pay escalating taxes and more lucrative for the farmer to sell for development.
The American Farmland Trust (AFT) conducts Cost of Community Services Studies
(COCS) to help determine the fiscal role agriculture and open space play in a
community’s budget. Per the AFT, COCS “determine the fiscal contribution of existing
local land uses. Their particular niche is to evaluate working and open lands on equal
ground with residential, commercial and industrial land uses. COCS are a snapshot in
time of costs versus revenues for each type of land use”.
The AFT developed COCS in the mid-1980s to provide communities with a direct and
inexpensive tool to measure the contribution of agricultural lands to the local tax base.
Since then, COCS have been conducted in at least 128 communities in the United States.
The AFT notes four studies in Wisconsin in their Summary of Cost of Community Service
Studies, Revenue-to-Expenditure Ratios in Dollars (see Table 1-2).
Table 1-2
Cost of Community Service Study
Residential
including
farm
houses
Commercial
&
Industrial
Working
& Open
Land
Town of Dunn, Dane County
1: 1.06
1: 0.29
1: 0.18
Town of Dunn, Dane County
1: 1.02
1: 0.55
1: 0.15
Town of Perry, Dane County
1: 1.20
1: 1.04
1: 0.41
Town of Westport, Dane County
1: 1.11
Source: American Farmland Trust, 2007
1: 0.31
1: 0.13
Municipality
Source
Town of Dunn, 1994
WI Land Use Research Program,
1999
WI Land Use Research Program,
1999
WI Land Use Research Program,
1999
Communities all across the United States pay a high price for unplanned growth.
Scattered development often causes traffic congestion, air and water pollution, loss of
open space and an increased demand for costly public services. This is why it is
important for citizens and local leaders to understand the relationships between
residential and commercial growth, agricultural land use, conservation and their
community’s bottom fiscal line.
The AFT points out that “while it is true that an acre of land with a new house generates
more total revenue than an acre of hay or corn, this tells us little about a community’s
bottom line”. In areas where agriculture or forestry are major industries, like in Calumet,
it is especially important to consider the real property tax contribution of privately owned
working lands. “Working and other open lands may generate less revenue than
residential, commercial or industrial properties, but they require little public
infrastructure and few services.” (Source: American Farmland Trust, 2007)
COCS studies conducted over the last two decades show working lands generate more
public revenues than they receive back in public services. Their impact on community
17
coffers is similar to that of other commercial and industrial land uses. On average,
because residential land uses do not cover their costs, they must be subsidized by other
community land uses. Converting agricultural land to residential land use should not be
seen as a way to balance local budgets.
The AFT further reports, “the findings of COCS studies are consistent with those of
conventional fiscal impact analyses, which document the high cost of residential
development and recommend commercial and industrial development to help balance
local budgets. What is unique about COCS studies is that they show that agricultural
land is similar to other commercial and industrial uses. In every community studied
farmland has generated a fiscal surplus to help offset the shortfall created by residential
demand for public services. This is true even when the land is assessed at its current
agricultural use. However, as more communities invest in agriculture this tendency may
change. For example, if a community establishes a purchase of agricultural conservation
easement program, working and open lands may generate a net negative”. (Source:
American Farmland Trust, Farmland Information Center, August 2007)
Purpose
Chapter 91 of the Wisconsin State Statutes establishes the guidelines for the state’s
Farmland Preservation Program. The statutes explain that if the county has a certified
agricultural preservation plan (aka ‘Farmland Preservation Plan’), an eligible land owner
can apply for tax credits if their land is in an Agricultural Enterprise Area (AEA), or, if
the land is zoned for exclusive agricultural use under a certified ordinance (Exclusive
Agricultural Zoning). The certified zoning ordinance must be based on a preservation
plan. The county has a preservation plan in place; however, it is from 1988 and the
information in the plan outdated. The primary purpose of this plan therefore is to have a
current, certified plan so Calumet County land owners are eligible for farmland
preservation tax credits. But it doesn’t stop there…
This plan is also about bringing awareness to the community about the state of the
county’s agriculture, its land, and the people who farm it. It is to be a tool to help farmers
diversify to make a better profit, gain more efficiency, or use their land in a manner never
considered. It is about having food for the future, retaining rural character, and
preserving our farming heritage. This plan details and offers many tools to help preserve
farmland so that there is food, character, and a legacy to pass on to upcoming
generations.
Farmland preservation is not just about saving
land, feeding people, and keeping taxes down.
One of the primary goals of farmland
preservation is to provide a permanently
protected agricultural land base. Such base
allows farmers to improve and expand their
operations without fear of being adversely
18
impacted by conflicting and encroaching development.
Farmland preservation is important because it strengthens the local agricultural industry
by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Providing a stable land base
Providing a venue for the farmer to make a wage
Guaranteeing a commodity for agribusiness
Providing productive tax paying open space
Providing a means to liquidate equity while preserving land
Protecting high quality and prime soils from development
Allowing for efficient growth patterns with minimal cost to the taxpayers
Providing diversity in the landscape
Helping to protect and buffer natural resource areas
Reducing conflict between farms and non-farms in the more rural areas of the
county
Some preservation tools offer farmland owners a means to liquidate the equity in their
land without selling part of their farm and compromising their farming operation. Such
tools can allow farmers to remain in the area and take advantage of local markets.
Farmland preservation also plays a major part in estate planning for families who plan to
pass the farm onto their children or other family members. By providing a means to
separate the equity in the property and placing an agricultural easement on a farm, estate
and inheritance taxes can be greatly reduced.
Preserving the land also plays a social role in maintaining a community’s rural character
and heritage. Smart Growth planning surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005 indicated the
majority of Calumet County town survey respondents want to maintain their rural
atmosphere.
Seven of the county’s nine towns participated in a joint Smart Growth planning effort.
Of the seven towns, six surveyed their adult land owners and residents to solicit
comments about their community and the future character and development of the town.
Five of the towns asked their survey participants to rank the top characteristics the people
liked most about their town. In all five towns ‘rural/country atmosphere’ ranked number
one. Per the surveys people want to maintain the atmosphere they have. Preserving the
working lands is key to keeping the existing character rural and giving it that ‘country’
feel.
The surveys also asked the respondents to rank what the town should consider when
developing the Smart Growth comprehensive plan. Individuals were to rank it a ‘strongly
agree or agree’, ‘neither agree nor disagree’, and ‘disagree or strongly disagree’. In the
four towns that posed the question, preserving the town’s best farmland ranked as
follows:
19
•
•
•
•
Brothertown—76% strongly agree or agree
Charlestown—73% strongly agree or agree
Chilton—80% strongly agree or agree
Rantoul—82% strongly agree or agree
In conclusion, whether one feels the land should be preserved for tax purposes, to provide
food, habitat, atmosphere, or to help maintain a viable agricultural economy, the reality
is, there is an overwhelmingly strong support in the county, state, and nation to preserve
our working lands. We just need to do our part.
20
“Whoever makes two ears of corn, or two blades of grass to grow where
only one grew before, deserves better of mankind, and does more essential
service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together.”
~Jonathan Swift
21
22
CHAPTER TWO
SETTING IT STRAIGHT
In order to see the value in protecting our working lands as a means to secure the future
of farming, it helps to know the facts. The following are various facts and statistics about
the county’s agricultural industry.
Be advised the data compared below is limited to more recent years. Although there is
older statistical data to compare, it is not being utilized in that the accuracy of the data is
unknown (it is unknown if it was calculated using similar factors).
Agricultural Industry
In 2004, the UW-Extension, with economic supporting data from an economist, released
information on just how important agriculture is to the overall Calumet County economy.
Provided are the some of the most notable impacts of agriculture in the county.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agriculture provides jobs for 2,407 Calumet County residents, over 13% of
Calumet County’s total workforce
Every new job in agriculture generates an additional 0.4 jobs in Calumet
County
Agriculture accounts for $338.1 million in economic activity, accounting for
about 15% of Calumet County’s total economic activity
Agriculture contributes $68.5 million to the county’s total income, 8.5% of the
county’s total income (includes wages, salaries, benefits and profits of farmers
and workers in agricultural related businesses)
Agriculture pays about $7.2 million in taxes (this figure does not include all
property taxes paid to local schools)
Ownership of farms in the county
o Individuals or families own 87.3%
o Family-owned partnerships own 6.4%
o Family-owned corporations own 5.6%
o Non-family corporations own 0.7%
Calumet County’s top commodities include:
o Milk ($51.6 million)
o Cattle and calves ($13.3 million)
Grains ($11.4 million)
o Vegetables ($1.7 million)
o Nursery and greenhouse ($840 thousand)
As reported by the UW-Extension, dairy is the largest part of Calumet County’s
agriculture economy. Calumet County milk producers and the dairy industry contribute
$142.9 million to the county’s economy. On-farm production and sale of milk accounts
for $59.7 million in economic activity. The processing of milk into dairy products
23
accounts for another $83.2 million. On-farm milk production and dairy processing
account for 650 jobs.
One dairy cow generates approximately $2,154 in direct income to producers and
$15,000 to $17,000 of economic activity. There are currently seven plants in the county
that process dairy products.
Cows still out number residents in the county. With over
230 dairy farms and several large dairy manufacturing
plants, all of which are supported by a complex
infrastructure, the dairy industry continues to be the
economic mainstay of agriculture in the county.
However, with the recent concern of manure spreading
on karst features, the decrease in family farms, and the
interest in niche agriculture and other specialty products,
there is a demand to diversify the county’s economy. A
steadily increasing cash grain, vegetable and
horticultural industry lends diversity and economic
stability. Such diversification would allow farmers the
opportunity to change crops, create specialty products,
and create a market unique to the county, which could make the county’s farmers more
profitable.
Horticulture is a growing industry in the county. According to the 2004 data source
above, horticulture generates $8.4 million in county economic activity. This industry
alone provides 178 full time jobs and many seasonal jobs.
(More data can be found throughout this document providing statistical detail about other
aspects of our economy, such as organic farming and agri-tourism. Due to the niche
market of such sectors of the economy, their pertinent facts are incorporated into the
discussion on such markets.)
Agricultural Resources
Agriculture is a way of life for much of Calumet County, contributing to its economy,
cultural heritage, land use characteristics, development patterns, and rural atmosphere.
Detailed below are some of the key facts and trends with regard to agricultural resources
in Calumet County.
•
•
•
•
Approximately 43% of the soils are classified as prime farmland
Approximately 65.5% of the land is in farm and cropland
There are approximately 14,000 acres under farmland preservation
agreements
According to the U. S. Census of Agriculture, there were 814 farms in the
county in 1997 and 733 in 2002, a decrease of approximately 10% for the
period
24
•
•
•
•
•
•
From 1997 to 2002, the amount of land in farms increased by 481 acres—this
increase followed a period of great loss in acreage (over 18,000 acres diverted
to non-agricultural use in the previous five year period)
The average size of farms increased from 184 acres in 1997 to 205 acres in
2002
As of 2008, there were 5 dairy operations with over 1,000 animal units and 14
with 500-1000 animal units
During the period 1999-2003, the value of agricultural land which continued
in agricultural use increased at a greater rate than the value of agricultural land
which was diverted to other uses
In 2006, the county led the state in milk production with over 20,000 pounds
produced per cow
Organic agriculture will likely continue to grow (there are currently seven
farms selling organic milk and two other farms producing organic crops)
(Source: Calumet County Land and Water Conservation Department, the
Year 2025 Smart Growth Plan Recommendations Report, and the U.S. Census
of Agriculture)
The Wisconsin Realtors Association provides information on the county’s property sales.
They report the number of hobby farm sales in the county increased 60% from 1999 to
2000. Also, in 1999, 89 hobby farms were sold, whereas in 2002, 223 hobby farms were
sold. (This major sale could represent the desire of many folks to become more
sustainable, become niche farmers, or could be the result of farm consolidation. It is
practical to surmise all three factors contribute to the sale of the hobby farms.) In
comparison, 8 farms (standard farms) were sold in 1999, 12 in 2002.
Agricultural Program Participation
Land is currently preserved for agricultural production in Calumet County through
basically two programs: The Farmland Preservation Program and the Managed Forest
Law Program.
Farmland Preservation Program
The Farmland Preservation Program provides state income tax credits to farmers who
meet the program's requirements. Historically farmers qualified if their land was zoned
Exclusive Agricultural or if they signed an agreement to use their land exclusively for
agricultural purposes. In 2009 the State of Wisconsin revised the program standards. To
now receive a credit the land owner must be either in a farmland preservation zoning
district and meet eligibility and conservation requirements, or, be in an Agricultural
Enterprise Area (discussed later in this plan), meet eligibility and conservation
requirements, and have a Farmland Preservation Agreement. Public access was not, and
still is not, required. More information about the program can be found in the following
sections of this plan.
25
Table 2-1 details the amount of farmland currently being preserved under the program in
the towns in Calumet County.
Table 2-1
Farmland Preservation Agreements, Calumet County Towns, 2004
% of
Municipality
Acreage
County Total
T. Brillion
1,059.2
T. Brothertown
3,406.5
T. Charlestown
1,782.0
T. Chilton
2,549.6
T. Harrison
795.5
T. New Holstein
1,592.0
T. Rantoul
959.2
T. Stockbridge
939.7
T. Woodville
555.3
Unknown
286.2
Calumet County
13,925.2
Source: Calumet County Year 2025 Smart Growth Plan, 2007
7.6%
24.5%
12.8%
18.3%
5.7%
11.4%
6.9%
6.7%
4.0%
2.1%
100.0%
Managed Forest Law Program
The Managed Forest Law (MFL) program can ease the property tax burden for
Wisconsin forestland owners who wish to manage their woodlands. The MFL program is
intended to foster timber production on private forests, while recognizing other values.
MFL participants pay property taxes at a reduced rate. A portion of the foregone taxes is
recouped by the state at the time the timber is harvested. The Wisconsin Department of
Revenue estimates MFL program participants can reduce their property tax an average of
80% after paying harvest taxes.
The MFL program is open to all private land owners with at least 10 acres of woods or
forestland that meet three requirements:
•
•
•
80% of the land must be productive forestland capable of producing wood
products (can grow at least 20 cubic feet of wood per acre per year)
Forests must cover 80% of the land (a forest is an area currently forested or
will soon be regenerated to forests)
The minimum average width of the enrolled land is no less than 120 feet
The program requires a contract period of either 25 or 50 years, an approved forest
management plan, and an application fee. To get the lowest annual property tax rate land
owners must allow the public to access the land. Access on these ‘open’ lands is only for
hunting, fishing, hiking, sightseeing, and cross-country skiing. Land owners may choose
to ‘close’ land to public access. However, there are limits to the number of acres per
municipality (city, town, or village) that may be designated as ‘closed’. The tax rates on
‘closed’ land are higher as well.
26
Table 2-2 details the use of the MFL program for the towns in Calumet County.
Table 2-2
Managed Forest Law Agreements, Calumet County Towns, 2004
Municipality
Open
Acres
Closed
Acres
Total
T. Brillion
56.0
125.0
181.0
T. Brothertown
123.8
504.3
628.1
T. Charlestown
0.0
1050.4
1050.4
T. Chilton
10.0
99.0
109.0
T. Harrison
0.0
207.6
207.6
T. New Holstein
40.6
349.7
390.4
T. Rantoul
0.0
119.0
119.0
T. Stockbridge
130.4
482.4
612.8
T. Woodville
46.0
188.0
234.0
Calumet County
406.8
3125.5
3532.3
Source: Calumet County Year 2025 Smart Growth Plan, 2007
% of
County Total
5.1%
17.8%
29.7%
3.1%
5.9%
11.1%
3.4%
17.3%
6.6%
100.0%
There is a total of approximately 3,500 acres of forestland enrolled in the MFL program
in Calumet County. The majority of MFL land is closed to the public and only 11.5% is
open for public use. The Town of Charlestown has the greatest amount of land enrolled
in the MFL program in the county, followed by the towns of Brothertown and
Stockbridge.
Agricultural Land Use
As mentioned earlier, 65.5% of the county’s land base is used for farm or crop
production. With the pressure to convert farmland to other non-agricultural uses, comes
the threat this percentage could greatly diminish.
Where is the greatest threat? Historically, the Town of Harrison has witnessed the
greatest conversion of farmland primarily to residential subdivisions, and some amount of
farmland being annexed to either the City of Appleton or the City of Menasha. This
second fastest growing portion of the state is not the only area in jeopardy. The east and
south boundaries of the City of Chilton have also seen a drastic loss of farmland through
annexation for an industrial park and shopping centers.
Table 2-3 shows the amount of farmland and cropland in the county’s towns.
This farmland and cropland are not only important for production purposes, but are vital
to the ‘agricultural connections’ (land uses indirectly influenced by agricultural).
Agriculture not only produces food and fiber, but is also linked to many other
components of the economy. Agriculture supports equipment and implement
manufacturers, dealers, and repair technicians, the vegetable and meat processing
27
industries, the construction trade, trucking, veterinary services, genetic research, and
many others.
Table 2-3
Farm and Cropland, Calumet County, 2004
Other
Municipality
Farm
Cropland
Land Use
T. Brillion
498.8
13,869.0
6,927.7
T. Brothertown
387.1
15,482.6
7,679.3
T. Charlestown
316.2
10,864.2
9,089.2
T. Chilton
444.1
15,747.7
4,738.6
T. Harrison
434.5
12,237.2
7,985.0
T. New Holstein
399.5
12,726.4
7,215.4
T. Rantoul
511.1
13,659.3
6,630.1
T. Stockbridge
392.6
14,692.7
6,442.0
T. Woodville
498.1
16,436.4
4,077.1
V. Hilbert
3.8
322.1
388.6
V. Potter
3.7
142.1
184.5
V. Sherwood
10.9
601.3
1,560.4
V. Stockbridge
34.4
1,264.8
773.7
C. Appleton*
3.9
392.5
1,665.3
C. Brillion
6.7
351.0
1,354.8
C. Chilton
24.4
879.7
1,679.9
C. Kiel*
1.9
75.1
168.3
C. Menasha*
2.4
125.1
853.2
C. New Holstein
8.8
295.4
1,246.2
Calumet County
3,983.0
130,164.5
70,659.3
*Data are for land in Calumet County only
Source: Calumet County Year 2025 Smart Growth Plan, 2007
Total
21,295.5
23,549.0
20,269.6
20,930.4
20,656.7
20,341.3
20,800.6
21,527.3
21,011.6
714.5
330.4
2,172.6
2,072.9
2,061.8
1,712.5
2,584.1
245.3
980.6
1,550.3
204,806.9
% of Farm & Cropland
of Total Land Use
67.5%
67.4%
55.2%
77.4%
61.3%
64.5%
68.1%
70.1%
80.6%
45.6%
44.1%
28.2%
62.7%
19.2%
20.9%
35.0%
31.4%
13.0%
19.6%
65.5%
Agriculture is intimately connected to Wisconsin’s culture and heritage. Barns, cows,
fields, and silos paint the scene that so many define as Wisconsin’s rural character. Farm
families include some of the earliest settlers of many areas and provide a sense of
continuity to a community. Public opinion surveys conducted by the American Farmland
Trust, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the American Farm Bureau, Wisconsin
counties, some Calumet County towns, and other local units of government show
that Wisconsin citizens place a high value on the presence of agriculture and agricultural
lands.
Agriculture has many considerations relative to the natural environment, both positive
and negative. Farms provide green space, wildlife habitat, enhanced groundwater
recharge, and nutrient recycling. Farms can also be sources of
soil erosion, polluted runoff, groundwater contamination,
odors, and shoreline damage to stream bank areas.
Agriculture is connected to other land uses, and is a significant
contributor to the overall development pattern. The distance
from farm related services, markets for farm commodities,
processing industries, and other critical land uses can
determine the long term success of an agricultural area.
Certain recreational land uses, like hunting and snowmobiling,
benefit from the presence of agricultural lands.
28
Agriculture is also linked to some significant transportation issues. Agriculture brings
large vehicles to rural roads including farm equipment and heavy trucks. These rural
roads are rarely constructed to handle the size and weight of such large vehicles. This
often contributes to traffic issues, the posting of weight limits, and increased local
expenditures for road maintenance.
The dynamic interaction between the ‘agricultural connections’ mentioned impacts land
values, property taxes, and the overall land use pattern. Figure 2-1 is a series of charts
illustrating the current land use in each town in the county. You will note that although
agriculture is the largest land use segment, the other uses—those impacted by the
agricultural connections, transportation in particular—are sizeable portions of each town.
Figure 2-1
Existing Land Use by Township, 2004
Town of Brillion Existing Land Use, 2004
Industrial, 0.4%
Open/Other,
10.6%
Residential, 1.9%
Recreational,
0.3%
Water, 1%
T ransportation
& Utilities, 3.3%
Commercial,
0.4%
Forestlands,
14.5%
Farm &
Cropland, 67.5%
Town of Brothertown Existing Land Use, 2004
Residential, 1.5%
Water, 0.9%
Industrial, 0.5%
T ransportation
& Utilities, 2.7%
Open/Other,
11.1%
Forestlands,
15.5%
Farm &
Cropland, 67.4%
29
Town of Charlestown Existing Land Use, 2004
Industrial, 0.3%
Residential, 1.0%
T ransportation
& Utilities, 2.5%
Water, 3.1%
Open/Other,
9.8%
Farm &
Cropland, 55.2%
Forestlands,
28.1%
Town of Chilton Existing Land Use, 2004
Water, 1.0%
Residential, 1.2%
T ransportation
& Utilities, 3.7%
Open/Other,
8.1%
Recreational,
0.6%
Forestlands, 7.6%
Farm &
Cropland, 77.4%
Town of New Holstein Existing Land Use, 2004
Residential, 2.8%
Water, 1.1%
T ransportation
& Utilities, 3.6%
Open/Other,
8.2%
Recreational,
0.1%
Forestlands,
19.4%
Farm &
Cropland, 64.5%
30
Town of Harrison Existing Land Use, 2004
Open/Ot her,
4.7%
Recreational,
5.3%
Wat er, 1%
Instit ut ional,
0.3%
Industrial, 0.4%
Resident ial, 8.9%
T ransport ation
& Ut ilit ies, 6.0%
Farm &
Cropland, 60.8%
Commercial,
0.5%
Forest lands,
12.4%
Town of Rantoul Existing Land Use, 2004
Residential, 0.7%
Water, 2.6%
T ransportation
& Utilities, 3.3%
Open/Other,
11.3%
Recreational,
0.1%
Forestlands,
14.3%
Farm &
Cropland, 68.1%
Town of Stockbridge Existing Land Use, 2004
Water, 0.8%
Residential, 2.3%
T ransportation
& Utilities, 3.2%
Open/Other,
6.6%
Recreational,
0.9%
Forestlands,
15.7%
Farm &
Cropland, 70.1%
31
Town of Woodville Existing Land Use, 2004
Residential, 0.9%
Water, 0.8%
Institutional,
0.1%
T ransportation
& Utilities, 3.3%
Open/Other,
4.1%
Forestlands, 9.9%
Farm &
Cropland, 80.6%
(Source: Calumet County Year 2025 Smart Growth Plan, 2007)
32
“I think the environment should be put in the category of our national
security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad.
Otherwise what is there to defend?”
~ Robert Redford
33
34
CHAPTER THREE
DETAILS, DETAILS
In addition to this plan being a tool to help identify lands for preservation, and the tools
which can help preserve those lands, it is also required if the county is to help its farmers
participate in the state’s farmland preservation program. Wisconsin State Statutes 91.10
and 59.69 provide the authority for the county to create and adopt this Farmland
Preservation Plan. This section will discuss the specific details of the program, and, the
nutrient management plans required of the participants.
Farmland Preservation Program
The Farmland Preservation Program was created in 1977 to preserve farmland by
supporting local government efforts to manage growth. It was revised in 2009 as a result
of the Wisconsin Working Lands Initiative, an effort to revise the state farmland
preservation program to more effectively preserve farmland. According to state statutes,
in order for a county to qualify for the program, they must have an agricultural
preservation plan in place.
The main Farmland Preservation Program tools to be used in whole or in part to preserve
land identified in the Farmland Preservation Plan are Farmland Preservation Agreements,
Exclusive Agricultural Zoning (EAZ), Agricultural Enterprise Areas (AEA), and the
Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements (PACE). The specific details on these
tools will be discussed further in the Direct Land Preservation Tools section of this plan.
Provided a land owner’s land is located in a Farmland Preservation Area identified in this
Farmland Preservation Plan, and provided the land meets eligibility and certain
conservation requirements, the owner could receive tax credits if in an EAZ or an AEA,
or both. Land owners under zoning who secure an agreement reap the greatest tax credit
of $10 per acre, where as land owners under zoning without an agreement receive only
$7.50 an acre tax credit. Land owners in an AEA, who must also have an agreement,
receive $5 an acre.
Statewide Farmland Preservation Agreements in the EAZ over the last 10 to 25 years
encompassed 6,800 agreements, covering approximately 90,000 acres. (Source:
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection)
Although there have been critics of the Farmland Preservation Program, it obviously has
been effective at preserving or keeping land in agricultural production. Hopefully the
revised program standards meet the goal of preserving even more agricultural land.
One of the components of the program is to reduce cropland erosion. Based on the
state’s inventory of the state’s counties’ erosion control plans from the mid 1980’s and
data collected in 1999, the state has seen a significant increase in erosion control rates on
their cropland. In 1985, the erosion control rate was 65%, compared to 82% in 1999
(‘control rate’ is deemed ‘controlled to tolerable eroding rates’). (Source: Wisconsin
35
Land and Conservation Annual Progress Report, 2003) These rates indicate erosion
control methods have been successful and validate the need to continue such efforts to
help preserve farmland, and preserve it in a manner that helps minimize the erosion on
that farmland. Be advised though, that per the Calumet County Land and Water
Conservation Department, with the increasing use of low residue crops, such as corn
silage, erosion ratios may be rising again.
Calumet County has soil and water conservation standards for the Farmland Preservation
Program. The Calumet County Land and Water Conservation Department is responsible
for administering the conservation standards.
Under Subchapter IX of Chapter 71, Wisconsin State
Statutes, and Subchapter V of Chapter 91 of the State
Statutes, conformance with the standards and
procedures is necessary for land owners to establish and
maintain eligibility for farmland preservation tax
credits.
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) rule, NR 151,
sets performance standards and prohibitions for farms.
The rule also sets urban performance standards to
control construction site erosion, manage runoff from
streets and roads, and manage fertilizer use. In April of
2008, Calumet County adopted erosion and post
construction site control ordinances for commercial,
industrial, some residential, and some agricultural
development. These rules were necessary in that
agriculture is not the only activity that leads to the
potential water quality problems the county is facing.
The soil and water conservation standards, administered by the Land and Water
Conservation Department, apply to all land owners who claim a farmland preservation
tax credit, including:
•
•
Land owners claiming the tax credit on land located in a district zoned
Exclusive Agricultural.
Land owners claiming the tax credit subject to a Farmland Preservation
Program agreement as part of an Agricultural Enterprise Area.
Each Farmland Preservation Program participant must certify in writing each year that he
or she is complying with the soil and water conservation standards. Certification may be
made by mail or in person (soon the farmer will also be able to do so via the internet) to
the county Land and Water Conservation Department on forms provided by that
department.
36
At a minimum, the Land and Water Conservation Department Staff will determine
individual compliance with the required soil and water conservation standards once every
four years. Or, they will follow an alternative compliance determination schedule and
method documented in the Calumet County Land and Water Resource Management Plan,
and approved in writing by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection (DATCP) and the Land and Water Conservation Board. This determination
may be made through field inspections, interviews, annual crop and tillage reports,
examination of aerial photos or slides, and documentation of installed conservation
practices. One or a combination of these methods may be used.
The soil and water conservation standards are identical to the state agricultural standards
and prohibitions for agriculture in NR 151 and are as follows:
•
•
The farmer must meet tolerable soil loss (‘t’) on cropped fields, and
Follow a nutrient management plan designed to limit entry of land applied
nutrients into state waters (groundwater and surface water)
For farmers who raise, feed or house livestock, they must:
•
•
•
Prevent direct runoff from feedlots or stored manure into waters of the state
Limit livestock access to waters of the state to avoid high concentrations of
animals in/near these waters and maintain adequate or self-sustaining sod
cover along waterways
Follow a nutrient management plan for manure application
For farmers who have or plan to build a manure storage structure, they must:
•
•
•
•
Maintain structures to prevent overflow
Repair or upgrade any failing or leaking structures that pose an imminent
health threat or that violate groundwater standards
Close unused structures according to accepted standards
Meet technical standards for newly constructed or substantially altered
structures
For farmers with land in a water quality management area (an area within 300 feet of a
stream, 1,000 feet of a lake, or an area susceptible to groundwater contamination), they:
•
•
Cannot stack manure in unconfined piles
Must divert clean water away from feedlots, manure storage areas and
barnyards located within this area
Nutrient Management Plans
A farm nutrient management plan is a strategy for obtaining the maximum return from
fertilizer resources in a way that protects water quality. The basic components of a farm
nutrient management plan are as follows:
37
•
•
•
•
•
•
Soil test reports
Assessment of on-farm nutrient resources
Nutrient crediting
Farm conservation plan
Manure inventory
Manure and fertilizer application plan
Soil Test Reports
Soil tests are to be viewed as the starting point for any farm nutrient management plan. It
is important that the soil test be accurate and that the crop fields be tested within the last
four years. From the soil test results, the farmer can determine the base fertilizer
recommendations for his field.
To meet the new nutrient management standards farmers may have to hire an
Agronomist. They may also prepare their own nutrient management plans if they
complete a DATCP approved training course or otherwise demonstrate they are qualified
to prepare such plans. According to Wisconsin Administrative Code ATCP 50, the plans
must:
•
•
•
•
Rely on soil nutrient tests from a DATCP certified laboratory
Comply with current NRCS nutrient management standard 590
Follow the recommendations for nutrient applications and the soil test
recommendations for field, vegetable and fruit crops, UW-Extension
Publication A2809, unless there are circumstances that justify more than the
recommended application
Include additional management practices to reduce runoff of phosphorus or
other nutrients if the farms have Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (WPDES) Permits, or have fields near high priority waters (high
priority waters are defined as impaired, exceptional-outstanding resource
waters, or surface water protection areas)
Assessment of On-Farm Nutrient Resources
It is important that the on-farm resources such as manure, organic waste and other
nutrient sources be closely monitored to ensure the crop is not over fertilized. The onfarm nutrient resources need to be deducted from your base fertilizer recommendations so
that the crop is not over-fertilized.
Manure provides nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, as well as sulfur and organic
matter. The amount of these nutrients in the manure needs to be calculated so that over
application of nutrients does not occur.
38
Nutrient Crediting
Making sure that the on-farm nutrient resources are considered when making nutrient
applications ensures that the commercial fertilizer applications are adjusted to reflect
these nutrient credits. This action prevents over fertilization, protects water quality, but
also helps keep the cost of commercial fertilizer down. The management skills when
dealing with nutrient credits are extremely important. A grower must know both the
manure application rate and amount of available nutrient content of the manure to
properly credit the nutrients supplied from the manure.
Farm Conservation Plan
The nutrient management plan needs to be consistent with the farm conservation plan. If
the land owner participates in any federal farm programs, they probably have a soil
conservation plan in place for the farm. This plan is another important component of the
nutrient management plan because it contains the necessary information to plan crop
rotations and conservation measures to maintain soil erosion rates at tolerable (‘t’) rate.
If the farmer does not have a soil conservation plan for his farm, it will need to be
developed during the nutrient planning process.
Manure Inventory
This involves estimating the amount of manure produced and the nutrients it contains.
Manure Spreading Plan
If the farmer has livestock, the majority of the nutrient management plan will be dealing
with the manure-spreading plan. The amount of manure produced has to be applied to
the fields in a manner that makes good farming sense and is environmentally friendly.
The manure application should be planned at rates that do not exceed crop nutrient needs
(as indicated in the soil test report results). The manure spreader needs to be calibrated
so that the manure can be applied at planned rates. The plan will also prioritize which
fields would benefit the most from the manure-supplied nutrients while at the same time
posing little threat to water quality. The plan will also identify which fields should have
manure-spreading restrictions. Sloping fields where the threat of spring runoff prohibits
manure applications in the winter and fields near wells and sinkholes or fractured
bedrock, need to be treated differently than flat or clay fields.
The 590 Nutrient Management Standard
The ‘590 Standard’ is a USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Technical Standard that lists the minimum requirements and components of an acceptable
nutrient management plan. Federal and state farm cost share programs require that a plan
meet the 590 Standard for cost sharing development of the plan. A farm nutrient
management plan that meets the 590 Standard is also a requirement for county ordinances
which deal with construction of manure storage facilities or siting livestock operations.
39
Cost Sharing
Some farmers voluntarily install conservation practices to help improve water quality and
habitat for wildlife. They also voluntarily install conservation practices to help prevent
soil erosion. Cost sharing is sometimes available for these practices.
Farmers can expect the county to continue to offer voluntary cost sharing programs. The
cost share contracts may be negotiated and:
•
•
•
•
•
Pay for selected conservation practices or selected costs
Pay for installation or maintenance of practices, or both
Pay for some practices if a farmer agrees to install others without cost sharing
Pay alternative flat rates per acre for annual practices such as nutrient
management and contour farming
Make payments for a specified number of years in return for a farmer’s
commitment to continue annual practices (such as nutrient management or
contour farming)
As mentioned earlier, the agricultural performance standards and prohibitions became
effective in October 2002. The standard for nutrient management plans was phased in
and became effective for all farms on January 1, 2008. Farmers who are in compliance
on or after October 1, 2002 do not have a right to cost share if they later fall out of
compliance. Farmers who establish new facilities may be eligible for cost sharing, but
the cost sharing is not required for compliance. Farmers covered by WPDES permits are
not eligible for state cost sharing to meet performance standards and prohibitions required
under their permits. However, they may be eligible for federal cost sharing under certain
NRCS programs (unless they have received a notice of violation or under an enforcement
action).
Farmers who do not participate in the Farmland Preservation Program can not be required
to change existing cropland practices unless they receive cost sharing. Farmers are
eligible for at least 70% cost sharing, more if there is an economic hardship. If there’s an
economic hardship, the farmer may be eligible for up to 90%. There is no requirement in
the program to provide cost sharing to find a farmer who is out of compliance and
remove their eligibility for the farmland preservation tax credits.
In conclusion, the state’s farmland preservation program is more than just a program to
provide tax credits as an incentive to preserve farmland for production, it is also a
program designed to limit soil erosion and improve and protect water quality. New
additions to the program, such as the Agricultural Enterprise Areas, and the Purchase of
Agricultural Easements, will aid in maintaining an agricultural base for the future. Such
base will serve vital in attracting agricultural related businesses, and, help define Calumet
County’s image as a rural community, and, position the county in the State Of Wisconsin
as one of the ideal locations to establish and maintain a farm. Chapter Six, Direct Land
Preservation Tools, provides more general and statistical information about the program.
40
“Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you’re a
thousand miles from the corn field.”
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
41
42
CHAPTER FOUR
‘THE PLAN’
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
RECOMMENDATIONS
In May 2007, Calumet County adopted their twenty year Smart Growth plan (the
comprehensive plan). In the fall 2007, they began preparing the Calumet County
Farmland Preservation Plan. Because the two plans were prepared in relatively the same
period of time, and because the comprehensive plan included input from all the towns,
cities, and villages, the Calumet County Planning, Zoning and Farmland Preservation
Committee chose to use the goals and objectives developed in the Calumet County Year
2025 Smart Growth Plan to develop this Farmland Preservation Plan. They also chose to
incorporate goals and objectives from the incorporated communities’ individual plans and
various state and regional efforts, in particular as they related to agriculture and land
preservation.
The following are the goals, objectives, and some related discussions the county has
chose to adopt, implement, and use as a guide as they move forward to preserve farmland
in Calumet County. Also listed are the adopted policies and recommendations the county
will use in making future policy decisions relative to farmland. This information is the
framework, so to speak, the county should rely on to make policy decisions regarding
farmland preservation. This basis, coupled with the information in the following
chapters, supports the “plan of action” to move forward and preserve land in Calumet
County (the “plan of action” can be found in the Chapter Thirteen of this plan).
Calumet County
Goal and Objectives
Goal: Maintain the operational efficiency and productivity of the county’s agricultural
areas for current and future generations.
Objectives (in no particular order):
1. Strive to reduce the rate of prime farmland being converted to non-agricultural
development.
2. Increase awareness of the importance of protecting the viability of the local
agriculture industry.
3. Actively pursue concepts which could allow farmers and farmland owners an
opportunity to secure financial benefits for the preservation of farmland.
4. Encourage farmers to follow Best Management Practices to minimize erosion
and groundwater and surface water contamination.
5. Work with Calumet County local units of government to identify lands where
the primary intent is to preserve productive farmland and to protect
agricultural investment in land and improvements.
43
6. Manage growth to ensure an adequate supply of land is available for
agriculture, and, the land with prime soils remains available for crop
production and grazing.
7. Support land use practices that reduce potential conflicts between agriculture
and other land uses.
8. Allow for the opportunity to accommodate creative and unique forms of
agriculture.
9. Increase efforts to direct future cost effective residential development.
10. Direct residential subdivision development to planned growth areas.
11. Support opportunities for multi-family, group housing, and other high-density
residential development within existing neighborhoods with established sewer
and water services.
12. Balance growth in the county with the cost of providing services.
13. Encourage sewerage assessment and policies that promote compact
development
14. Encourage development to be located in areas currently served by sanitary
sewer systems.
15. Focus new areas of growth within or near existing areas of development
where adequate public facilities and services exist or are planned for
expansion.
16. Realize the cost effectiveness of utilizing the existing road network to
accommodate most future development.
Unlike most of the towns in the county, most of the incorporated communities chose to
develop their own Smart Growth plans. Those plans also had goals and objectives.
Although this farmland preservation plan excludes the incorporated communities’
farmland as a targeted preservation area (because those plans indicated the current
farmland would eventually be converted for development), this plan does reflect those
communities’ goals, objectives, recommendations and policies. The incorporated
communities’ goals and objectives are shown below. (Since the plans were written by
the same consulting firm, the goals and objectives were fairly similar in all plans.)
Incorporated Community
Goals and Objectives
Goal: Support the agricultural resources of the county and the region.
Objectives:
1. Maintain an attractive and unique small town environment with higher density
development which will have less impact on agricultural lands.
2. Encourage the growth of agriculture related businesses and services in the
cities/villages commercial and industrial areas.
3. Preserve productive agricultural lands from quasi-rural residential,
commercial, and industrial development in the unsewered extraterritorial area.
4. Protect productive agricultural lands from premature development.
44
The incorporated areas’ goals and objectives mirror the county and towns’ goals and
objectives (the county plan included the towns’ goals and objectives). The fact that all
units of government have similar goals and objectives is promising to the future of
farmland preservation.
Calumet County
Policies and Recommendations
In no particular order, the adopted policies and recommendations are as follows:
1. Revise and update the Calumet County Farmland Preservation Plan.
2. Provide opportunities to allow small and mid-size farming operations to
flourish in an efficient and productive manner.
3. Designate specific areas within the county suitable for intensive agricultural
purposes.
4. Update the Calumet County Growth Management Policy in accordance with
the recommendations of the Calumet County comprehensive plan and utilize
that policy for managing land divisions in the unincorporated areas of
Calumet County.
5. The county shall provide technical assistance to farmers to accomplish soil
erosion and runoff management goals and objectives listed in the Calumet
County Land & Water Resources Management Plan.
6. Provide technical and financial assistance, as available from state and federal
sources, to farmers to install best management practices.
7. Develop and implement educational programs for farmers on soil erosion and
runoff and best management practices to control them.
8. Existing prime farmland shall not be used for future non-agricultural use
unless consistent with the comprehensive plan.
9. Municipal services should not be extended into farmland areas unless a plan
for their immediate use is in place.
10. New development on productive agricultural land should be limited in
conjunction with site plan review or other mechanisms that would allow
building and site development coordination as part of development approval.
11. Residential subdivision development shall be located in planned growth areas
as identified by the comprehensive plan.
12. Road development within areas protected for agriculture shall be limited to
the fullest extent possible.
Incorporated Community
Policies and Recommendations
The incorporated communities drafted lengthy lists of policies and recommendations.
The majority of their policies and recommendations in the agricultural element of their
plans related to stormwater runoff, water quality, woodlands and historic preservation.
This was probably due to the fact their agricultural section was grouped with other topics
45
in the plan (the chapter which covered agriculture was called, “Agricultural, Natural, and
Cultural Resources”, and, because their agricultural lands, albeit minimal, were targeted
for eventual conversion. Agricultural policies and recommendations were:
1. The city will focus compact urban development with full public facilities and
services and work with nearby towns to strictly limit the amount of unsewered
development within the city/village extra territorial jurisdictional area in an
effort to preserve agricultural land.
2. Municipal services will not be extended into farmland areas unless a plan for
their immediate use is in place.
Although only two policies and recommendations applied to agriculture, the two are
compatible with the county’s policies and recommendations.
East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Goals, Strategies and Recommendations
In April of 2008 the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ECWRPC),
to which Calumet County is a member, adopted their Year 2030 Regional
Comprehensive Plan. Although their plan looked at agriculture (among other required
items) at a regional glance, many of their goals reflected Calumet County’s goals. As
such, their goals are accepted and encouraged as a guideline for not just the regional
commission, but the county as well.
Goals:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Protect prime agricultural soils for current and future farm use.
Preserve farms and farmland for productive agricultural use.
Preserve and promote a mix of farm types and sizes.
Provide economic incentives to assist farmers and stabilize income and
promote new operations.
Provide market-oriented economic governmental support programs for
agriculture and farmers.
Promote tax and land use policies that support the enhancement of agricultural
activities and the preservation of farms.
Increase the public’s and local officials’ awareness of the significance of
agriculture and farming in their community.
Provide greater education opportunities and assistance to farmers and
agricultural business.
The Commission‘s strategies for reaching the above goals are different than the county’s,
mainly due to their regional approach. However, this document reiterates the
Commission’s strategies as far as education, marketing, and helping farmers. (Note: The
Commission’s plan did not list objectives.)
46
State of Wisconsin
Future of Farming and Rural Life in Wisconsin
The Future of Farming and Rural Life in Wisconsin Organization is part of the Wisconsin
Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. The organization aimed to find out what the key
issues were to maintain the future of farming and rural life in Wisconsin. The
organization held many meetings and discussion sessions aimed to engage citizens in the
process. The forums and engagement opportunities resulted in input from 100 citizens.
They identified many of the opportunities available for farming and rural life in
Wisconsin, as well as constraints to healthy and sustainable farming.
The key recommendations of the Future of Farming and Rural Life in Wisconsin
Organization are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Establish a state-funded Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program
Endorse the continuation of the use value assessment for farmland
Enhance the viability of mid-sized farms
Address health care needs of farmers and rural residents
Convene a statewide meeting of stakeholders to develop a strategy to meet
healthcare needs of all citizens
Assure a reliable supply of agricultural labor
Strengthen management of non-industrial, private working forestlands
Advocate for the greening of the Federal Farm Bill
Increase emphasis on and support for ‘Wisconsin Grown’
Consolidate all programs that promote and address expansion of agricultural
food production and processing into DATCP
Review school aid formula to determine if it provides for equity
Establish a State School Board
Create an Agricultural Educational and Workforce Development Council
Assure adequate funding to Wisconsin Discovery Farms for practical research
on nutrient management and related areas of concern
Conduct a statewide assessment of transportation, energy and
telecommunication needs in rural Wisconsin
Assure that high-speed internet service and other telecommunication tools are
available to rural areas across the state
Provide incentives for regional economic development approaches
The recommendations of the organization serve as a guideline for Calumet County on
how to improve and sustain farming and rural life in the county. If followed, these
recommendations, coupled with the county’s adopted Smart Growth recommendations,
should have a drastic positive impact on not only preserving farmland, but enhancing the
future success of farming in Calumet County and the State of Wisconsin.
47
State of Wisconsin
Working Lands Initiative
In August 2006, the Wisconsin Working Lands Initiative, a report sponsored by the
Secretary of Agriculture, and, the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer
Protection, was completed. Overall, the report acknowledged that Wisconsin’s ‘tool kit’
used for farmland preservation, and its efforts directed to improve the agricultural
industry, needed to be updated and expanded to meet significant preservation and
development challenges. A Working Lands Initiative Steering Committee was
established, consisting of 26 Wisconsin residents from agriculture, local government,
forestry, various private sector businesses, the University of Wisconsin System, and nonprofit organizations. Several of the recommendations in the report are applicable and
particularly important to Calumet County as it develops its farmland preservation plan
and implements the county plan.
Some of the recommendations are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Update the existing Farmland Preservation Program to improve agricultural
planning and zoning, increase tax credits, and improve the flexibility of local
governments to administer the program
Create a new Working Lands Enterprise Area program to foster clustering of
active farms and slow farmland conversion, while providing incentives to
promote environmental sustainability
Work in partnership with local governments and organizations to create a
new state Purchase of Development Rights Grant Program to permanently
preserve selected properties
Create a Beginning Farmer and Logger Program to improve farm viability and
recruit and train the next generation of farmers and loggers
Promote opportunities to increase non-agricultural development density and
quality of life, using land more efficiently, and reducing demand for
conversion of working lands
Improve state leadership in working lands preservation to set statewide
priorities and provide technical resources and assistance to local governments
Create a new education and outreach program to help local governments
implement working lands programs and increase public understanding and
support of programs
Create a new public/private organization to promote agricultural
entrepreneurship and regional initiatives, and strengthen the state’s existing
programs that offer grants and technical assistance to farmers
Many of the county’s recommendations parallel the aggressive Working Lands Initiative.
This will be evidenced by the preservation tools mentioned later in this plan. Due to state
budget constraints, implementing the entire vision of the Working Lands Initiative may
not be possible, at least for a while. However, in 2009 several major components of the
plan were adopted that are estimated will be extremely successful at helping to preserve
the state’s farmland. As time and money allow, more support in the state budget for the
48
various programs identified in the Working Lands Initiative will become critical to
preserving as much farmland as owners and communities are willing to preserve.
The primary ideas in the Working Lands Initiative that Calumet County will follow as
part of their overall plan to preserve farmland are:
1. Preserve agricultural land through density. Maintain that an Exclusive
Agriculturally zoned farm be situated on 35 acres, but allowing residences to be
built on smaller lots so as to not waste farmland. Maximum residential density is
to be 1 unit per 20 acres. The residential sites be developed on lots as small as
one acre.
2. Develop a stable agricultural base. Map, and provide incentives to ‘Agricultural
Enterprise Areas’, those areas where land owners commit to long term
agricultural land use with no conflicting development allowed. The county shall
encourage the state to provide such areas with incentives through either tax credits
and/or purchasing the development rights.
3. Develop a Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.
Establishing such a program will serve as an incentive to keep land in agricultural
production. In 2010 the details of the county program will need to be developed.
The county will need to determine which lands to target for the program and how
to fund and operate such a program.
Local Focus Groups
In addition to the input from all communities in the county, and in addition to
incorporating the goals, policies and recommendations of the region and the state, there
were other factors which influenced the recommendations found in this plan.
The county mailed an invitation soliciting for participation in the development of this
plan to all land holders who were assessed taxes on agricultural land. The land owners
were given a year to volunteer to be part of the planning process. From the list of
volunteers which stepped forward, focus groups were created. In March 2008, Calumet
County held three focus group sessions on various farmland preservation topics.
Specifically, the three focus group sessions included the following topics:
1. Working Lands Initiative (i.e. Purchase of Development Rights, Economic
Incentives, Right to Farm, Bio-mass), March 12, 2008
2. Nutrient Management (i.e. Manure), March 13, 2008
3. Niche Agriculture (i.e. Organics, Agri-tourism), March 13, 2008
All meetings were held at the Calumet County Courthouse in the City of Chilton.
Panelists were invited to attend based on relevant experience and interest in the topic. At
each of the meetings the County Planner presented the topic, asked relative questions,
and then led the group in a facilitated discussion. The information gathered was used to
steer the development of this plan, and, is included as a tool to foster further discussions.
49
Summary of Working Lands Initiative Focus Group
Participants of the Working Lands Initiative Focus Group included local farmers and
citizens interested in farmland preservation. Overall, the group supported a Purchase of
Development Rights Program in Calumet County. They also felt that the current
Farmland Preservation Tax Credit Program needs to be less confusing in regards to the
terms of the contract and that the tax credits should not be tied to income. Finally, bioenergy should be promoted in the county.
Question 1: The County Board has decided to pursue the feasibility of a Purchase of
Development Rights (PDR) program in the county. Do you feel such a
program could work for Calumet County?
A PDR program would be feasible but the public would need to be educated about the
benefits of such a program.
Question 2: Which lands should be targeted for a PDR program?
Those with good agricultural soils and Agricultural Enterprise Areas as identified in the
county’s Smart Growth plan should be targeted. There were two differing viewpoints
regarding lands surrounding the cities and villages. One viewpoint was to include the
land surrounding cities and villages since they are the most threatened and the other was
to exclude them because this is where development should occur (close to water and
sewer).
Question 3: Who should be responsible for administering a PDR program in the county
(i.e. government, private land trust)?
The consensus by the group was whoever had the staff and time.
Question 4: How should a PDR program be funded?
The focus group stated that multiple sources of funding would be needed. Suggestions
included receipt of grants, an impact fee be charged when a building permit for a new
home was issued, and a special district tax be imposed to those in the county (cities and
villages would be excluded because it may be difficult to gain support for the program
from those areas).
Question 5: What are the biggest challenges regarding the Farmland Preservation Tax
Credit Program? What do you like about the Farmland Preservation Tax
Credit Program?
Challenges:
•
Confusing to understand the terms of the contract especially when the
contract expires
50
•
The tax credits should not be tied to income
Likes:
•
•
Easy to collect the tax credit
A good program especially if there are no plans to develop the land anyway
Question 6: How should the Farmland Preservation Plan address conflicts between nonagricultural and agricultural development?
Limit development, although it maybe too late for some areas, and educate new/potential
home buyers about living in rural areas.
Question 7: What are the most frequently heard complaints made by non-agricultural
residents? How should the county resolve them? Should they be resolved?
What role should government play in minimizing conflicts?
Tracking dirt from fields onto roads (heavy clay is slippery and can cause accidents),
flies, birds, smell, noise from equipment (chopping corn while sleeping), plastic debris
from silage bags were pointed out as common complaints.
The focus group mentioned that more enforcement is needed such as making sure that
manure is worked into the ground right away after it is applied to the fields to help reduce
the smell.
They also mentioned that complaints can be made by agricultural residents about nonagricultural residents, such as residential garbage and litter that can find its way into a
field.
Question 8: What economic incentives have you found to be helpful?
The focus group felt that overall the Farmland Preservation Tax Credit Program was
helpful. However, there were concerns about some of the proposed programs mentioned
in the Working Lands Initiative, specifically, the Beginning Farmer Program. One of the
focus group participants mentioned that she was a beginning farmer and had not heard of
any new ones since she started. A beginning farmer is very rare. Farming is a
generational occupation often passed from father to son.
It was also mentioned that in order to succeed in farming that it was best to start small
then gradually get larger.
Question 9: What role should the county have in the emerging bio-economy
(development of bio-mass for energy production)?
The focus group stated that the county needs to get moving and promote bio-mass as an
option for farmers.
51
Summary of Nutrient Management Focus Group
Participants of the Nutrient Management Focus Group included local farmers, an
anaerobic digester contractor, a representative from the Calumet County Land and Water
Conservation Department and a representative from the Calumet County UW-Extension.
Overall, the group supported anaerobic digesters and the purpose they serve but believed
that the development and implementation of a nutrient management plan is more
important and relevant to the county.
Question 1: What successes/failures have you experienced in:
A. Developing and implementing a nutrient management plan?
Successes:
•
•
•
A nutrient management plan is not hard, it is easy to implement
People must realize that manure has value and therefore the plan has value
Education is needed so farm operators know that the plan is worth
something
Failures:
•
•
There needs to be flexibility for irrigation systems
The buffer requirements along rivers for irrigation need to be different
B. Utilizing the manure that is produced on the farm?
The focus group stated that utilizing the manure should not be a problem because
of the economics of dealing with manure.
Question 2: Anaerobic Digesters – Pros vs. Cons
Pros:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Renewable energy source (methane)
Organic matter into inorganic matter
The liquid can be spread more readily on the crop without causing the crop to
burn
Reduces the smell
Reduces nutrients by separating the solids
The liquid can be applied more heavily therefore fewer acres are needed
Reductions in phosphorus, bacteria, pathogens and coliform
52
Cons:
•
•
Expensive; there must be a minimum number of animals in order to make the
digester feasible and functional
Expertise is needed to operate and manage the equipment (i.e. a mechanic)
Question 3: How can farmers and government (local, state, federal) work together to
explore the possibility of getting a demonstration or community digester in
the county? What could be done to make it easier for a group of farmers to
do so on their own?
•
•
•
•
•
•
A concentration of animals needs to be identified, which could be difficult to
find in the county
The farms that use the community digester should have strong equity
The quality of the manure that is put in the digester could vary between farms
Logistically, it would be difficult to have a community digester because of
high transportation costs
The Farmland Preservation Plan should not get too specific on the technology
because it changes so frequently
A community digester would not be feasible because of all the limitations and
the county should not spend much time on the issue
Question 4: What issues/components of nutrient management should the Farmland
Preservation Plan address?
•
•
Promotion and education of developing a nutrient management plan
The contributions of all nutrients which would include organic (manure) and
inorganic (fertilizer)
Other comments made during the focus group that really did not pertain to the questions
directly but rather the overall Farmland Preservation Plan were:
•
•
•
Agriculture needs to be profitable so that a farmer does not have to sell his
land for development
Over-regulation can reduce the profitability of farming
The Farmland Preservation Tax Credit Program was never adjusted to keep up
with inflation, therefore farmers use the program for conservation purposes
and not necessarily for the money
Summary of the Niche Agriculture Focus Group
Participants of the Niche Agriculture Focus Group included the Calumet County
Economic Development Specialist, a representative from Glacierland Resource and
Conservation Development, Inc., local farm operators, which included several existing
niche agriculture farm operators, and citizens interested in niche agriculture. Overall, the
group felt that there were several niche agriculture opportunities that Calumet County had
53
not yet captured. However, their top priority was to develop a marketing co-operative
among the niche agriculture businesses in the county.
Question 1: What types of current niche agriculture exist in the county? Where are they
located?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Produce (Apples, Vegetables, Raspberries, Strawberries)
Elk
Amish Goods (bakery, furniture, leather)
Sheep
Goats
Wine
Tofu
Pasture Poultry
Bees
Cheese
Organics (Dairy, Raw Milk, Beef, Turkey, Pork, Poultry)
Possibly Maple Syrup
Question 2: Is there a market that has yet to be capitalized on in the county?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vineyards/Grapes
Organic Mill (feed, grain)
Food Processors
Local Whole Foods
Agri-tourism
Winter Farmers Market
Mushroom Farming
Certified Farm Kitchen
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
Question 3: Is there interest in a marketing cooperative amongst niche agriculture
businesses?
Yes. The focus group felt that a county-wide marketing effort would be more effective
than a marketing effort for each product. It should include a branding campaign focusing
on the quality of the products from Calumet County. The customer base must be
identified and they need to have an emotional connection to the marketed products.
Question 4: How can government help develop niche agri-businesses?
•
Work with the schools to buy local foods for their lunch programs (the
relationship between the schools and the producers would need to be long
term because of investments the producers would need to make to expand
their operations in order to provide enough food)
54
•
•
•
•
•
•
Develop a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program
Provide adequate regulations for wind energy, large farm operations and
landfills
Work to ensure the profitability of agriculture
Educate the public on local food initiatives
Assist with the marketing of local niche agricultural businesses
Assist with the development of a Certified Farm Kitchen
Question 5: What role should the county play?
•
•
•
•
•
Assist with the development of farmers markets in the area
Work on promotion and education of local foods and other niche agricultural
businesses
Address harmful spraying of crops/land (the chemicals can spillover onto
adjoining properties, which could be organic)
Notify surrounding property owners when this activity is taking place so they
are not outside or can take the necessary precautions
Support the development of a Local Food Council
Question 6: How can planning enhance opportunities (i.e. revise zoning codes, etc.)?
•
•
•
Economic incentives are very short term—communication and development
of relationships provide long term benefits
There is a strong opportunity to partner with those in the Hmong community
Update the Growth Management Policy to include density standards, which
encourages the concentration of lots to a particular area
Conclusion
To effectively preserve farmland, Calumet County’s “plan of action” involves following
the recommendations in this chapter, paying close attention to being consistent with the
State of Wisconsin’s proposed Working Lands Initiative, and encouraging farmers and
officials to consider pursuing some of the ideas in the following chapters.
If even a few of the following ideas are pursued, a difference will have been made.
(For a detailed implementation strategy, please refer to the Chapter Thirteen of this plan.)
55
56
“There can be no doubt that a society rooted in the soil
is more stable than one rooted in pavements.”
~Aldo Leopold
57
58
CHAPTER FIVE
MAPPING THE FUTURE
So far in this plan it has been established that agriculture is a major part of our economy
and a major land use, and that it is a threatened industry. Deciding if it should be
preserved should not be a question in the reader’s mind. What should be preserved, and
how it should be preserved, should be the questions. This section will address the what,
the following sections the how.
In the past Calumet County’s Farmland Preservation Plan addressed the issue of farmland
preservation by looking solely at their soils and land use maps. If land was outside an
urban area and showed up as having prime soils, or prime if drained and/or not flooded, it
was targeted for preservation. What the county has learned since its last Farmland
Preservation Plan (adopted in 1980 and revised in 1988) is that there are many other
influencing factors which dictate the value a farm and its land play in the overall goal of
preserving our working lands.
(For the convenience of printing all maps referenced below can be found at the end of
this plan in the Appendix.)
Map A
Chapter 91 of the State Statutes list items to be considered when delineating the
agricultural preservation areas of a county. The statutes require that the county map areas
of agricultural ‘significance’. Therefore Map A (aka “Farmland Preservation Plan Map”)
shall be considered the official map for which the state’s farmland preservation tax
credits shall be based.
Map A, the Farmland Preservation Plan Map, predominantly shows lands currently
agriculturally zoned or proposed to be agriculturally zoned Exclusive Agricultural (EA),
General Agricultural (GA), or Heartland (HL) as being the farmland preservation areas
(the county is in the process of completing a comprehensive revision to their zoning
codes, including new maps depicting future agricultural zoning districts). These lands
were selected for such zoning districts, and hence as the county’s farmland preservation
areas, due to:
•
•
Quality agricultural soils. The majority of the soils in the preservation area are
Kewaunee-Manawa-Poygan soils which are considered prime or prime if drained
or not flooded, have fairly level slopes, and are considered not to be conducive
for development or traditional septic systems (due to percolation rates). Provided
surface drainage issues are addressed and tillage and fertility concerns are
managed, the soils tend to be well suited to cropland.
Current agricultural land use patterns. Most of the land is either currently
farmed or capable of being converted to some type of agricultural operation.
These areas have either been farmed for generations or are old farmsteads ready
59
•
•
•
•
•
to support some diverse form of agriculture. All of the county’s large farms lie in
the preservation area. Except for the developing portions of some of the
transitional areas in the county, all of the dairy and organic farms lie in the
preservation area as well.
Agricultural investments. The majority of the county’s agricultural cooperatives, implement dealers, agricultural service establishments, and
concentrated animal feeding operations are in the preservation area. These
businesses have made a great financial commitment to the community, and,
anticipate the area will remain agricultural and the farmers cooperate and support
their establishments.
Acreage. Almost all of the family farms in excess of 40 acres, and, farms in the
county holding 1000 acres or more of land are located in the preservation area.
Such land is well suited for farming, and, ideal for designation as an Agricultural
Enterprise Area.
Infrastructure. The lands identified are all fairly close to, or accessible via a
county highway, or well maintained, weight applicable town road, to a state or
federal highway. Due to the presence of an active rail in the county, and several
small communities with access to the rail, the identified lands are also within a
short drive to a rail location.
Development. The majority of the county’s population lives in the northwest
portion of the county. Said area is excluded from the preservation map. The
absence of dense residential development in the remainder of the county (those
areas identified for farmland preservation) made it preferable for agricultural
zoning and farmland preservation. Additionally, the lack of potentially
conflicting commercial or industrial operations in the identified preservation
areas, and zoning to prohibit such uses, made such lands luring for agricultural
preservation planning.
Preference. The public desire to see such areas preserved for agriculture were a
major consideration during the mapping process.
As indicated, Map A, for the most part, depicts lands zoned for agriculture. (Map D
portrays exact zoning district locations.) For those lands zoned EA land owners will be
eligible for a $7.50 an acre tax credit. To receive such credit the land will need to meet
eligibility and conservation requirements, in addition to being zoned EA. If a land owner
in an EA district would like to receive the maximum credit of $10 an acre, he would also
need to enter into a Farmland Preservation Agreement. Eligibility, conservation
requirements, and Farmland Preservation Agreements are administered through the
Calumet County Land and Water Conservation Department. Zoning designations are
managed through the Calumet County Planning, Zoning and Land Information Office.
In an area outside of an EA district, but shown as being in a farmland preservation area
on Map A (those areas with GA or HL zoning), a land owner can work with other land
owners to petition the State of Wisconsin to establish their farm land as an Agricultural
Enterprise Area (AEA). Farmers in such AEA would then be eligible to receive a $5 per
acre tax credit. To receive the credit though, all participating farmers in AEA would
60
need to meet eligibility and conservation requirements, as well as having Farmland
Preservation Agreements.
In that some wetland areas can be used for farming, the wetland areas in the county have
been delineated as an “Environmental Overlay” and the underlining areas classified as
eligible farmland preservation areas. The overlay also includes thin soils over karst
features which are highly susceptible to groundwater contamination. In that thin soils,
and karst topography, are poor filters, land use should be monitored closely on these
areas to avoid potential groundwater contamination. Although such karst areas may not
be good for traditional forms of agriculture, they could prove to be quite conducive for
non-traditional/diverse types of agriculture, such as viticulture.
Most towns in the county developed “buffer areas”, also known as “transition areas”,
when they created their Preferred Land Use Map for the Smart Growth plan. In an effort
to minimize residential development in the agricultural areas it was the intention of the
towns to direct development to the transition areas. The transition area also affords a
town the benefit of new lots and helps the community gradually transition from an urban
setting to a more agricultural setting. The buffer, or transition areas, are delineated in
yellow on the Farmland Preservation Plan Map (Map A). Some of the transitional areas
reflect tracts where land was included in a sewer service plan, lands already seeing a
pattern of small lot residential development, areas where farmers already expressed a
desire to sell for development, or areas historically identified as transition areas on
existing zoning maps (which often reflected transition areas shown on the 1980 Farmland
Preservation Plan Map). All the transition areas are adjacent to incorporated
communities and are parallel or very near major state or county highways.
Areas which typically would not be used for agriculture are shown in black on the map
and labeled “Excluded Area”. The excluded areas are those lands not zoned Exclusive
Agricultural; or lands used for governmental or institutional purposes in the General
Agricultural or Heartland districts; those lands within the county’s cities, villages, and
hamlets; the majority of the lands served by public sewer which are readily available for
residential or commercial development; and county and state owned parks and wildlife
areas.
There is some land in the Excluded Area (in the incorporated communities) that is
currently being used as farmland. The incorporated communities, as well as the
unincorporated communities on sewer, are strongly urged to develop policies to preserve
their farmland. Not only is preserving that land good for providing a food supply and the
economy, but it can serve as a buffer between the developed areas and any possible
undesired development in the adjacent town.
The areas excluded on Map A are very similar to the areas excluded on the 1980
Farmland Preservation Plan Map, with one major exception in the town of Harrison.
Over the past 15 years the town of Harrison saw dramatic growth; therefore, the growth
area, which is predominantly all served by public sewer, is shown as being excluded.
The growth in Harrison occurred on valuable agricultural land. Unfortunate for the
61
agricultural industry, due to the proximity of the land to neighboring cities, the land was
also prime for either annexation or suburban development.
Note: Be advised the excluded areas do not always reflect the sewer service planning
area of a community in that much of those lands are still farmed and eligible for tax
credits. Excluding such areas from the map could result in eligible farmers losing the
ability to participate in farmland preservation programs. Also, as areas become
developed with sewer, the map is not intended to be construed as automatically following
those new sewer service boundaries. Rather, such changes should be reflected on the
periodic plan updates/amendments.
Map A will be extremely helpful in determining if a land owner’s property is in a
Farmland Preservation Area and eligible for a tax credit. However, it will become an
invaluable tool as the county moves forward to help support Agricultural Enterprise
Areas (AEA) or lands eligible for a Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program (PACE).
One tool which can help the county support or identify lands for an AEA or PACE
program is the “LESA” model. In 2007 Calumet County was targeted for a pilot project
to create a mapping tool to help identify lands which could be targeted for protection.
The project, “Targeting Working Lands”, was done through the Center for Land Use
Education, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point. A group of volunteers in the county
were assembled and they helped develop a mock land use preservation map by
identifying lands they thought should be ranked highest for preservation, and, input those
factors into a mapping model. The end result was a map based on the “inputs” (factors
they weighted and used).
The process was valuable in that it illustrated how Geographical Information Systems
(GIS) could be used to map targeted lands. The process also revealed how the outcome
(map) is influenced by the factors being weighted (what is being input into the model).
The model used in the pilot project is referred to as the LESA model.
By utilizing both Map A and the LESA model Calumet County can successfully identify
lands for farmland preservation which can help the county meet their agricultural
preservation goals.
Maps B1-B9
Due to the scale of Map A, the Calumet County Farmland Preservation Plan Map, the
map has been divided into individual town maps for ease of viewing. Each town map
appears as a separate map. Town maps are in alphabetical order and given a number to
reflect that order.
62
Map C
Map C illustrates where the prime and non-prime soils are located in the county. The
data on this map was crucial in establishing the zoning districts used to help create Map A
and during the Smart Growth planning process which resulted in the development of that
plan’s preferred land use maps. This map is also to be referenced when determining
which areas are best suited for various crops and other aspects of farming (such as
manure management). Map C should be relied on heavily when identifying lands for
conservation in the PACE program.
Kewaunee-Manawa-Poygan
The dominant soils in the county are Kewaunee-Manawa-Poygan. These soils were
formed from glacial till and are nearly level to sloping, well drained to poorly drained,
and have a dominantly clay type subsoil and substratum.
These soils are well suited to cropland, however many areas require surface drainage
and/or subsurface drainage to produce high yields. Controlling water erosion, improving
drainage, and maintaining tillage and fertility are the major management concerns. These
soils are not well suited to development. Roads are subject to frost heaving during winter
months. Percolation rates are slow and many areas are saturated with water at less than
five feet during wet periods causing severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields.
Other dominant soils in the county are:
Hochheim-Larmartine-Mayville
These soils were also formed from glacial till and are generally found in the southern and
western areas of the county. These soils are the second most common in the county.
They are characterized as being nearly level to moderately steep, well drained to
somewhat poorly drained, and loamy throughout.
This association is well suited to cropland. Erosion control practices are needed on the
uplands and drainage is needed in the lower areas to produce high yields. The uplands of
these soils are well suited to community development.
Granby-Oakville-Tedrow
These soils are only found in the extreme northwest corner of the county, primarily in the
City of Menasha. Soils are identified as nearly level to sloping, well drained to poorly
drained, and are dominantly sandy throughout.
These soils have a poor potential for crops. Most of the soils are used as woodland and
wildlife habitat. Controlling blowing soil, improving drainage, and maintaining fertility
are the major management concerns for these soils.
63
Channohon-Whalan-Kolberg
These soils are located along the Lake Winnebago shoreline from the Village of
Sherwood south to the Village of Stockbridge. These soils are gently sloping, well
drained, loamy soils, with a dolomite substratum. These soils have fair to poor potential
for cropland use and good potential for woodland use.
Wasepi-Plainfield-Boyer
These soils, similar to the Channohon-Whalan-Kolberg association, are also primarily
located along the Lake Winnebago shoreline from the Village of Sherwood south to the
Village of Stockbridge. A small portion of this soil type is also located in the northeast
corner of the county. These soils are nearly level to moderately steep, excessively
drained to somewhat poorly drained, and are sandy and loamy soils.
Houghton-Palms-Willette
These soils are generally found along the county’s eastern and southern border. They’re
identified as being nearly level, very poorly drained organic soils. This association is not
well suited to cropland. Wet soils and a short growing season caused by late spring and
early fall frosts restrict the type of crops that can be grown. This association is not well
suited to community development because of wet soil conditions and flood hazards.
Pella-Mundelein-Shiocton
These soils are exclusively located along the western border of the City of Brillion. They
are identified as nearly level and gently sloping, somewhat poorly to poorly drained, and
are dominantly loamy throughout. These soils, if drained, have good potential for
cultivated crops such as corn and hay. Some un-drained soil is used for pasture or as
wildlife habitat.
The soils considered prime and those considered non-prime are listed and shown on Map
C, Calumet County Soils.
A list of prime vs. non-prime soils, by town, can be found in Table 5-1. Following the
table is a graphical depiction of the soils (Figure 5-1).
64
Table 5-1
Prime Soils, Calumet County
Municipality
Not
Prime
Prime
Farmland
Total
Prime
Farmland
as % of Total
21,293.2
23,549.2
20,269.6
20,930.9
20,657.0
20,340.7
20,800.5
21,527.5
21,011.6
714.3
330.5
2,171.7
2,072.6
2,061.9
1,712.6
2,584.9
245.2
980.5
1,550.3
204,804.9
25.9%
54.5%
34.5%
54.2%
33.8%
40.5%
41.7%
57.5%
44.2%
35.8%
41.7%
34.5%
42.3%
76.0%
35.2%
50.7%
52.5%
10.6%
51.1%
43.3%
Prime if Drained
and/or Not Flooded
T. Brillion
2,697.2
5,522.4
13,073.6
T. Brothertown
5,345.6
12,828.3
5,375.4
T. Charlestown
7,664.1
6,998.7
5,606.8
T. Chilton
2,047.9
11,341.5
7,541.5
T. Harrison
2,461.8
6,982.1
11,213.1
T. New Holstein
5,949.0
8,230.3
6,161.3
T. Rantoul
4,097.0
8,678.3
8,025.3
T. Stockbridge
3,774.5
12,383.7
5,369.3
T. Woodville
735.7
9,285.6
10,990.4
V. Hilbert
0.0
255.4
458.9
V. Potter
66.0
137.8
126.7
V. Sherwood
448.3
749.9
973.5
V. Stockbridge
223.4
877.7
971.5
C. Appleton*
53.2
1,567.0
441.7
C. Brillion
242.8
602.9
866.9
C. Chilton
394.2
1,309.7
881.0
C. Kiel*
20.1
128.8
96.3
C. Menasha*
262.1
104.2
614.3
C. New Holstein
178.6
792.2
579.6
Calumet County
36,661.5
88,776.4
79,367.0
*Data are for land in Calumet County only
Source: Calumet County Year 2025 Smart Growth Plan, 2007
Figure 5-1
Prime Soils, Calumet County, 2004
Not Prime, 17.9%
Prime if Drained
and/or Not Flooded,
38.8%
Prime Farmland,
43.3%
(Source: Calumet County Year 2025 Smart Growth Plan, 2007)
65
Map D
Lands located in a zoned area are offered the protection of knowing an incompatible land
use can not be established nearby. In addition, lands zoned Exclusive Agricultural offer
the incentive to keep land in farming by making qualified farmers eligible for Farmland
Preservation Tax Credits (discussed elsewhere in this document). Targeting zoned lands
for farmland preservation makes sense, provided they have prime soils (or prime if
drained and/or not flooded) or other factors that make them suitable for farming.
Calumet County has had zoning since 1948. The current county zoning ordinance was
adopted in 1976. It is effective in six of the county’s nine towns. It has several zoning
districts, three of which are agricultural districts. The Town of Brothertown has their
own zoning, which closely replicates the county’s zoning ordinance. Other than
mandated shoreland zoning, the towns of Chilton and Stockbridge do not have zoning. In
2009 the county presented a comprehensive revision to their zoning codes. At that time
the two towns without zoning also drafted town zoning codes. It is anticipated that in
2010 all towns in Calumet County will either have town zoning or county zoning.
Map D shows agricultural zoning to be in effect in 2010 in the unincorporated areas of
Calumet County. Agricultural zoning districts include Exclusive Agricultural (EA),
General Agricultural (GA) and Heartland (HL), or, similar agricultural designations made
by the towns adopting town zoning. Non-agricultural zoning districts are shown on the
map, as are Excluded Areas (incorporated communities and county or state lands for
which no agricultural tax credit can be claimed).
Maps E1-E9
Due to the scale of Map D, the Agriculturally Zoned Land Map, the map has been divided
into individual town maps for ease of viewing. Each town map appears as a separate
map. Town maps are in alphabetical order and given a number to reflect that order.
Map F
Key to identifying the county’s farmland is by reviewing a community’s existing land use
maps. At the onset of Calumet County’s Smart Growth planning process, the county
contracted with the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ECWRPC)
to identify and map the county’s existing land use.
The ECWRPC labeled land agricultural if it was irrigated or non-irrigated cropland, and
if there were barns, sheds, outbuildings, or manure storage structures. They included
abandoned or destroyed barns, sheds, and land between buildings. The ECWRPC then
mapped the data (see Map F) and the county summarized the data. Figure 5-2 shows
what percentage of the county was determined to be agricultural as of 2004.
66
Figure 5-2
Existing Land Use, Calumet County, 2004
Water, 1.4%
Open/Other,
8.6%
Recreational,
1.2%
Residential, 3.6% Commercial,
0.4%
Industrial, 0.5%
Institutional,
0.3%
T ransportation
& Utilities, 4.1%
Forestlands,
14.5%
Farm &
Cropland, 65.4%
(Source: Calumet County Year 2025 Smart Growth Plan, 2007)
Map G
It is important to recognize where agriculture is concentrated in the county. Such
information is helpful when determining where the county’s predominant agricultural
areas are located.
There are approximately 700 farms in Calumet County (733 farms in 2002). The farms
are fairly evenly distributed throughout the county. Map G shows the locations of the
farms in the county.
Map H
Not only is it informative to know where the farms are, as shown on Map G, but it is
important to know where the larger, more contiguous farms are located. These larger
contiguous farms suggest possible areas which could be identified for Wisconsin’s newly
created Agricultural Enterprise Area (AEA) program (although small farms can petition
as well to be in an AEA, and, many should due to their commitment to an agricultural
future). This program defines an AEA as a contiguous land area devoted primarily to
agricultural use and locally targeted for agricultural preservation and agricultural
development. The designation of an AEA by the state is based on a voluntary local
application. Requirements for establishing an AEA include voluntary participation by
county and local government, the participation of at least five farm owners, the land be
located in a farmland preservation area, the land be contiguous, the land be primarily
agricultural in use, and the state approve the AEA.
67
As for large dairy farms, in 2002, there were sixteen farms with at least 500 cattle or
calves. In 2002, a few farms were contemplating expanding; therefore, it is anticipated
this number has increased slightly.
Based on National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 2002 data is the fact that most
farms are between 50 to 179 acres. There were 21 farms with at least 1000 acres, six
with 2000 acres or more. However, using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) data,
only five farms are in excess of 1000 acres. These five farms are shown on Map H. Be
advised this map shows ownership and does not reflect rented land; therefore, there truly
may be 21 farms operating on 1000 acres or more. (Note: The county is not privilege to
the data collected by NASS and therefore can not map the 21 farms.)
Map I
Calumet County has historically had a strong “Growth Management Policy”. The policy
is quite simple—subdivisions must be in an area with or equipped to provide public
sewer and water, and, individual lots are restricted to two lots created off a parent parcel
every five years. Although not popular with those wanting to develop rural landscapes,
the policy has been effective at slowing the conversion of land to potential residential
use.
Map I shows the county’s current growth management areas. The Growth Management
Areas identified on Map I reveal those areas with sewer service or sewer service planning
areas where major subdivisions would be allowed. Major subdivisions are prohibited
beyond the areas identified.
Through Calumet County’s Smart Growth planning process tax payers made it clear they
wanted to see an alternative. County staff evaluated the current Growth Management
Policy and determined that the policy of restricting lot development to two in a five year
period did not really save farmland, or any land at all, it merely slowed the consumption.
With the help of a consulting firm, the county’s Smart Growth plan introduced the idea of
‘density management’. Density management allows more lots to be created up front, but
sets a limit on the total number of lots that could ever be created off a parent parcel. In
2008 the towns participated in several density meetings with county staff to decide what
the density limits in each town should be. In 2009 the towns then prepared zoning maps
which established zoning districts, which also set density limitations. Towns which
chose a lower density should obviously be targeted for preservation tools. Towns with a
lower density will have fewer homes to conflict with and hinder agricultural practices.
Table 5-2 portrays the current density of residential units per acre for Calumet County’s
towns.
68
Table 5-2
Town Density (Residential Units per Acre), 2000
Municipality
Residential
Units/Acre
Total Residential
Units
T. Brillion
1/41
T. Brothertown
1/38
T. Charlestown
1/68
T. Chilton
1/56
T. Harrison
1/10
T. New Holstein
1/36
T. Rantoul
1/78
T. Stockbridge
1/35
T. Woodville
1/62
Source: US Bureau of the Census, 2000 data
521
627
300
371
2139
558
267
614
337
If the county targeted the areas to preserve based on existing density, all towns except
Harrison would probably be considered. However, the density the towns proposed in
2008, and shown on zoning maps created in 2009, could result in fewer towns being
considered. Based on the zoning maps created, data shows only one town would retain a
very low density of 1 unit per 40 acres (Woodville); three towns propose a density
consistent with what the state adopted as part of the Working Lands Initiative (1 unit per
20 acres); two propose a density of primarily 1 unit in 10 acres; and, the remaining towns
a mix if 1 unit in 10 to 1 unit per 1 acre.
Refer to Table 5-3 to show the desired proposed density in the county’s towns. This
information is from an October 2008 meeting with the towns, updated based off 2009
draft zoning maps, and shows the proposal for the more agricultural portions of each
town. Higher densities have been proposed in the more residentially developed or
shoreland areas. (In the towns of Chilton and Stockbridge specific densities are unknown
in that those towns have not submitted their draft zoning codes to the county for review.)
Table 5-3
Proposed General Town Densities (Residential Units per Acre), 2008/2009
Municipality
Residential Units/Acre
T. Brillion
1/20
T. Brothertown
1/10
T. Charlestown
1/20
T. Chilton
Unknown
T. Harrison
1/5
T. New Holstein
1/10
T. Rantoul
1/20
T. Stockbridge
Unknown
T. Woodville
1/40
Source: Calumet County Planning Department
69
Map J
The higher the residential structure density in a community, the higher the demand for
sewage disposal and water supply. All incorporated communities are served by public
sewer, and/or public water. However, all areas not served by municipal sewer (the
majority of the rural areas) depend upon Private On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems
(POWTS), commonly know as septic systems. Areas not served by public water rely on
private wells.
The following communities strictly rely on POWTS for sanitary sewage treatment:
• Town of Brillion
Residences in the community of Forest Junction are served by public sewer.
• Town of Brothertown
Six residences north of Artesian Road are on sanitary sewer (from the south, out
of Fond du Lac County). The remainder of the town does not have sewer service
available to them.
• Town of Charlestown
Currently there are two subdivisions near the City of Chilton which may test their
wells and their sanitary systems to determine if they are safe and functioning
properly. If the wells are found to be unsafe, and the private sewerage systems
failing, the subdivisions will need to connect to the City of Chilton municipal
sewer and water.
• Town of Chilton
• Town of Harrison
The urbanized area of the town is served by public sewer, with the land around
the urban area included in a sewer service area plan, meaning eventually public
sewer will be provided to this area. The urban area encompasses the northwest
section of the town.
• Town of New Holstein
• Town of Rantoul
• Town of Stockbridge
The town has been discussing running sewer along the lakeshore.
• Town of Woodville
The Wisconsin Department of Commerce (DOC) and Wisconsin Counties are jointly
responsible for the regulation and monitoring of POWTS. In July of 2000 the DOC
completed major revisions to the state Plumbing Code (Comm 83) with the intent of
allowing the use of more diverse technology in the design of POWTS.
There are several different types of septic systems in use in Wisconsin, all of which have
varying natural soil requirements, and all of which can be found in Calumet County. The
most common installations are as follows.
Conventional septic tank and soil absorption cell systems have the most stringent soil
requirements in that nearly five feet of permeable soil is required for installation. This
system consists of a septic tank that collects all wastewater from the home. There are
70
baffles in the tank that facilitate the settling of solids to the bottom of the tank, while the
partially treated liquid effluent leaves the outlet of the tank and is further treated by
natural soil beneath the absorption area. Three feet of suitable soil is needed to treat the
effluent, and because the system is completely located below the surface, hence the need
for a minimum of five feet of permeable soil. Typically these systems have the least
amount of components and function by gravity.
In-ground pressure distribution systems are only partially similar to conventional systems
in that although they are completely sub-surface, they are never gravity activated other
than the sewer line from the house to the tank. Again, there is a septic tank component
where solids settle to the bottom. Instead of the effluent from the outlet going directly
into the absorption area, it is staged in a pumping chamber until a certain liquid level is
attained. At that time it is discharged by a pump through a small diameter force-main,
into even smaller diameter (typically 1–2") distribution pipes. Pressurization benefits the
long term performance and life of the absorption area because the effluent is distributed
evenly throughout, and afterward the system is allowed to "rest" until the next pumping
event. In-ground pressure distribution systems also require approximately five feet of
suitable soil.
The mound system is one that many people are familiar with. It is mechanically identical
to the in-ground pressure, but is located above the existing grade. This is because where
these systems are sited have very impermeable or "heavy" soils which don’t accept large
amounts of septic effluent. To make up for this lack of permeability, sand is placed above
the grade, and then the distribution pipes (on a stone bedding) are laid out. By the time
the effluent moves vertically through the sand and natural soil, it is treated sufficiently
enough to discharge into the marginal soil below. Mound systems make it possible to
treat effluent on soils with as little as 12" of permeability. Contemporary mounds are
installed with narrower dimensions than had been in the past. These narrower – but
lengthened – cells can be landscaped, and no longer require the large white observation
pipes to be above grade as in the past.
The relatively new system-at-grade is identical to the mound, except that there is no sand
fill. Instead, the surface of the ground is broken up by plowing, and then the stone
bedding and pipes are installed directly on the ground. Because there is no sand involved,
soil requirements are greater for this system, but are still less than those for in-ground
systems: three feet of permeable soil.
Finally, for sites that have less than 12" of permeable soil, or where there simply is no
room for a treatment system, a holding tank might be an alternative. A holding tank is not
any type of treatment system, but is a storage vessel for wastewater. These tanks –
typically 2,000 to 5,000 gallon capacity – have to be emptied by a licensed septage hauler
when full. This can be both a nuisance and a significant long-term expense to the
homeowner. Because of illegal pumping activities that have been experienced state-wide,
Calumet County does not allow holding tanks for new construction except in limited
circumstances.
71
Some areas are not suitable for POWTS. Poor soils, or steep slopes, are not
recommended for the placement of private sewage systems. The Soil Survey of Calumet
and Manitowoc Counties, Wisconsin, indicates soils deemed “severe” should not be
utilized for POWTS. In addition the Wisconsin Administrative Code dictates soils which
are unsuitable for POWTS. Unsuitable soils are shown on Map J as “prohibited” areas
for private sewage systems. The Soil Survey also reports some soils labeled “severe” are
labeled such due to slope, not soil type. Those areas have not been labeled “prohibited”
due to the fact that although the slope would prevent most systems, holding tanks could
possibly be installed, provided special permission were secured from the county.
There are some areas in the county which have soils suitable for a POWTS that
realistically should not be used for such land use. Some of these soils are very thin and
found covering karst topography. In that karst topography tends to allow surface
contaminants to reach groundwater quickly, it is questionable whether POWTS should
even be allowed on such thin soil, karst areas. With the thin soils over the karst it is often
questioned whether the POWT’S nitrates and bacteria truly are being filtered out before
reaching the karst, and ultimately the groundwater. Due to the county’s groundwater
concerns, these thin soil/karst areas are shown on Map J as being highly discouraged for
use for POWTS (and wells, which will be discussed further in this section).
State designated wetlands, which do not contain the soils deemed “severe” in the Soil
Survey, should also be avoided when installing POWTS, and even when building homes.
These wetland areas are used to filter runoff and aid in proper drainage and should not be
impeded with structures and/or fill. Additionally, the state has strict guidelines about
placing fill in a wetland. These areas also appear as “prohibited” on Map J.
As eluded to above, Calumet County has a serious groundwater quality issue. Some
soils, and sub surface composition (aka, karst topography), do not filter surface
contaminants well, thereby allowing such contaminants to easily reach the groundwater.
Typically these areas have evidence of high nitrates and/or e-coli or other bacteria in the
well water samples. Areas with such soils, or lack of soils, and karst topography, should
be avoided when drilling a well (and POWTS, as discussed earlier). Although modern
wells are to be constructed to prevent contamination, it is highly probable they could
draw the contaminated groundwater.
As part of Calumet County’s Smart Growth planning process, the county contracted with
the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey to map the vulnerability of the
county’s aquifer. The map classified aquifer vulnerability as “high susceptibility”, “thin
soil and high susceptibility”, “moderate susceptibility”, and “low susceptibility”. Areas
found to have both thin soil and a high degree of contamination susceptibility are shown
on Map J as “highly discouraged” for the installation of new well (and POWTS); areas
shown as “high susceptibility” on the aquifer vulnerability map appear on Map J as
“discouraged” for new wells.
Although most of the areas with potential groundwater quality issues which are labeled
“discouraged” on the map are suitable for on-site waste disposal systems (suitable based
72
on soil type), the public is cautioned to not build where they might not be able to obtain
safe drinking water. While it is true bottle water could be used, it is questionable whether
it is wise to bath in, or use dishes or clothing washed in, water contaminated with e-coli
or bacteria.
Although the areas identified on the map may not be best suited for residential
development, they are not always the most suitable areas for agriculture either. Some
intensive agricultural uses should not be practiced on these soils. To farm these areas the
land owner is advised to use very restrictive farming practices which exceed routine Best
Management Practices. Grazing, or alternative/less intensive agriculture, such as
viticulture, may be the best agricultural use for such sensitive areas.
Map K
Per the Wisconsin Historical Society, “Our lives are influenced by what we learn from
our own experiences and by the events that have shaped the communities we live in and
the institutions and organizations we encounter. Our history gives us a sense of place and
a framework to understand the world. It provides continuity and meaning in our lives and
it can be a basis for economic development through preservation programs and heritage
tourism.
People have been living in the area for millennia, with hunting, fishing, and farming
playing a central role in people’s lives. This story of agriculture, resource use, and land
stewardship is preserved in archaeological sites, buildings, landscapes, written accounts,
photographs, governmental records, and the thoughts and ideas people remember and
pass along by word of mouth. Planning can play a critical part in protecting these
resources and in learning from this wealth of experience. Land-use planning and landuse decisions will directly impact historic buildings, archaeological sites, and cemeteries.
Archaeological sites include places where people lived, where they worked, and where
they worshiped. These sites were made by the people who lived at the village, farm, or
logging camp located just down the road. Archaeological sites occur figuratively and
literally under our feet. Archaeology is well suited for providing important information
about the lives of people who are not well represented in the written record.
Archaeological sites are non-renewable resources and once a site is destroyed, either by
natural or human related activities, it cannot be reclaimed.
The Wisconsin Historical Society maintains a list of archeological sites and cemeteries,
said listing referred to as the Archeological Site Inventory (ASI). Although the entire
county has not been surveyed, the ASI has listed 264 archeological sites and cemeteries
in the county. The sites in the county include cemeteries (including effigy mounds,
mounds, and unmarked graves); campsites and villages; corn hills and garden beds,
processing sites and quarries/kilns.
At the present time, a total of 96 cemetery or burial sites have been identified in the
county (including those mentioned earlier). Since a systematic survey of the county has
73
not been completed, additional cemeteries and burials may be present. Often times,
burial areas were established on higher, dryer areas adjacent to rivers, streams, creeks,
lakes, wetlands; higher, dryer areas adjacent to older abandoned rivers, streams, creeks,
lakes, wetlands; and areas adjacent to older historic features such as trails, early roads,
rail corridors, and earlier communities.
It is not uncommon to find evidence of American Indian villages and other earlier
settlements in the form of houses, storage areas, burials, and other undisturbed deposits
underneath the tilled layer in farm fields or in urban settings. The 264 archeological sites
have not been found in one particular area, rather they have been discovered scattered
throughout many different areas in the county.” (Source: Wisconsin Historical Society)
Noting where these sites are, and making a commitment to preserve our cultural past, can
help identify areas which house these sites and are currently being farmed. Targeting
these ‘protective’ farm landscapes for a farmland preservation plan will not only help
preserve farmland, but help guarantee a piece of our past remains buried in the soil for
future generations to explore and contemplate.
Map K illustrates where these sites and those in the incorporated areas are located. Please
note the map does not include historical buildings or general sites, rather those sites with
area significance (those which cover more land than perhaps a home would cover). A
more detailed map of all the county’s sites can be found in the county’s comprehensive
plan.
It is well known that effigy mounds have been discovered in farm fields throughout the
county. Because the entire county has not been surveyed, we do not know where all the
villages or the burial sites are located. Residents should understand that under Wisconsin
Law, Native American burial mounds, unmarked burials and all marked and unmarked
cemeteries are protected from intentional disturbance. If any resident suspects that a
Native American burial mound or an unmarked or marked burial is present in an area, the
Burial Sites Protection Office in Madison should be contacted.
Table 5-4 depicts how many archaeological sites and cemeteries or burial grounds are
located in each of the county’s towns.
One structure often overlooked for its historical value, which often times influences
agricultural transportation routes, is the historic bridge. Bridges hold a valuable place in
history and are often preserved for their character rather than their architectural style.
These bridges tend to be narrow and allow single passage only. Usually the bridges are
so narrow that modern farm equipment can not pass through the driving lane. Most
farmers will find alternate routes to avoid such bridges; however, some farmers feel these
historic structures should be replaced so as to accommodate the farming community and
save gas on unnecessary routes.
Historic bridges are very predominant in Calumet County. There are nine bridges which
are considered ‘notable’. Some of the bridges are over 100 years old and of hand laid
74
stone. The county’s comprehensive plan and the county’s tourism website both provide
more information about these bridges.
Table 5-4
Calumet County Archaeological and Cemetery/Burial Sites
Municipality
Archaeological
Sites
Cemetery/Burial
Sites
T. Brillion
25
T. Brothertown
22
T. Charlestown
55
T. Chilton
15
T. Harrison
30
T. New Holstein
9
T. Rantoul
39
T. Stockbridge
63
T. Woodville
6
Calumet County
264
Source: Wisconsin Historical Society, 2005
13
12
6
8
12
4
12
25
4
96
Map L
It is obvious that if an area has noted threatened or endangered species, it should not be
developed. But should it be farmed? Protecting these areas makes sense in an Open
Space Preservation Plan, but should it apply to a Farmland Preservation Plan? Yes.
Protecting the farmland that surrounds a critical area helps preserve the habitat and
longevity of a threatened or endangered species. A healthy balance in nature helps
maintain diversity and the uniqueness certain rural areas possess.
Map L shows where the threatened and endangered communities and occurrences have
been identified in the county. Identifying those farms on adjacent parcels help detail
which farms should be targeted for certain farmland preservation programs. Adjacent
agricultural parcels are also shown on the map, but shaded a different color.
Equally important are those areas identified by the State of Wisconsin as “Land Legacy
Places”, or rare or significant ecological places, all viewed by some as threatened
resources. These areas are also shown on the map, as are their adjacent farm parcels.
Threatened or Endangered Resources
Wisconsin's Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI), established in 1985 by the Wisconsin
Legislature, is maintained by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' (WDNR)
Bureau of Endangered Resources. The NHI program is responsible for maintaining data
on the locations and status of rare species, natural communities, and natural features in
Wisconsin. The Wisconsin NHI program is part of an international network of inventory
programs that collect, process, and manage data on the occurrences of natural biological
diversity using standard methodology.
75
Wisconsin's Natural Heritage Inventory has three main objectives: collect information on
occurrences of rare plants and animals, high-quality natural communities, and significant
natural features in Wisconsin; standardize this information, enter it into an electronic
database, and mark locations on base maps for the state; and use this information to
further the protection and management of rare species, natural communities, and natural
features.
According to NHI mapping for Calumet County, the following rare species and natural
communities are found in the county. The dates following the occurrence name notes the
most recent year the occurrence was recorded in the county.
•
Aquatic Occurrences
Animal:
ο
ο
ο
ο
ο
Yellow Rail, Coturnicops noveboracensis, 1991
Side-swimmer, Crangonyx gracilis, 1994
Banded Killifish, Fundulus diaphanous, 1964**
Greater Redhorse, Moxostoma valenciennesi, 1979**
Blanchard's Cricket Frog, Acris crepitans blanchardi, 1982**
Plants:
ο Ram's-head Lady's-slipper, Cypripedium arietinum, 1891
Natural Communities:
o
o
o
o
o
•
Open Bog, 1982
Shrub-carr, 1982
Emergent Marsh, 1982
Floodplain Forest, 1979
Northern Wet Forest, 1982
Terrestrial Occurrences
Animal:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Land Snail, Succinea bakeri, 1998
Land Snail, Catinella gelida, 1998
Bat Hibernaculum, Bat hibernaculum, 1986
Dentate Supercoil, Paravitrea multidentata, 1996
Thin-lip Vallonia, Vallonia perspective, 1998
Broad-winged Skipper, Poanes viator, 1990
Northern Ringneck Snake, Diadophis punctatus edwardsii, 1986
76
Plants:
o
o
o
o
Snow Trillium, Trillium nivale, 1995
Yellow Gentian, Gentiana alba, 1992
Prairie Parsley, Polytaenia nuttallii, 1848
Short's Rock-cress, Arabis shortii, 1994
Natural Communities:
o
o
o
o
Dry Cliff, 1983
Moist Cliff, 1983
Talus Forest, 1999
Southern Mesic Forest, 2000
(Source: **Aquatic and terrestrial resources identified in the WDNR’s
Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
completed in 2005. This report provides further information on the particular
species identified. Available information includes general location of
occurrences, threats and issues, and priority conservation actions.)
Land Legacy Places
At the request of the Natural Resources Board, the Department of Natural Resources
undertook a study to identify places that would be critical in meeting Wisconsin's
conservation and recreation needs over the next 50 years. The study did not address how
or when these ‘Legacy Places’ should be protected or who should be responsible for
implementing protection measures. The outcome of the three-year effort was a Land
Legacy Report that catalogues the results of the study.
Land Legacy Places identified by the report as being located or partially located in
Calumet County include the following:
•
Manitowoc – Branch River. Originating in a series of vast wetlands on the
east side of the Niagara Escarpment, the Manitowoc River flows through a
landscape of farm fields and forests before entering Lake Michigan. A key
tributary, the Branch River, adds considerable volume. In its upper reaches,
the river and its tributaries act as ecological connections between the wetlands
that dominate the Killsnake, Brillion, and Collins Marsh State Wildlife Areas.
These Wildlife Areas provide over 15,000 acres of wildlife habitat and
associated recreation opportunities. Maintaining the surrounding landscape in
agriculture would help ensure that these properties are not destroyed by field
sedimentation and meet their recreation and ecological potential.
Further downstream the river bottoms support extensive fish spawning habitat
and are important to nesting and migrating waterfowl. This river system
supports several rare aquatic species, including greater redhorse and wood
77
•
turtles. The river acts as a travel corridor for many species moving from the
large wetlands upstream down to the Lake Michigan shore and the large
protected properties of Woodland Dunes and Point Beach State Forest.
Niagara Escarpment. This linear, high ridge provides many of the state’s most
spectacular views and is the logical means to link many existing protected
areas on and near the Escarpment. Ellison Bluff, Red Banks Alvar, Carlsville
Bluff, High Cliff State Park, Lake Winnebago and Horicon Ledge are some of
the best-known places along the Escarpment. Given its length and proximity
to the Fox River Valley cities, it is one of the most frequently visited features
in the state and there is considerable interest in protecting additional areas to
meet conservation and recreation needs.
Given the numerous rock outcrops, cliffs, and talus slopes, the Escarpment
also harbors some very unusual habitats that in turn support many uncommon
species. Pockets of ancient cedar trees, cold springs, and areas where cool air
gently flows out of the rocky hillsides are scattered along the Escarpment.
These fragile microhabitats support delicate ferns, flowers, and maybe most
notably, a diverse array of extraordinarily rare snails. Areas along the
Escarpment have relatively thin soil deposits as a result of glacial scouring
and little post-glacial deposition. These soil conditions, combined with the
fractured nature of the dolomite, can lead to groundwater contamination
problems.
A study conducted in 2007 revealed that the climate on the Escarpment is
quite conducive to growing grapes. This diverse crop will be discussed later
in this plan.
Other State Natural Areas and Ecological Sites
•
•
•
Brillion Marsh Wildlife Area. Brillion Marsh, a state owned wildlife area,
south and west of the City of Brillion, is the largest wetland in the watershed.
The total acreage of the marsh is 4,802 acres. The marsh is used extensively
by the public for hunting, trapping, dog trailing and training, snowmobiling,
and nature observation. The area is managed for waterfowl. Numerous
wetland and wildlife species use the area during migrations as well as summer
residents like osprey, sand hill cranes, great blue herons, and many grassland
species like bluebirds and short-eared owls.
Hayton Marsh is located in eastern Calumet County, two miles east of
Chilton. The area is wet, but has little to no standing water. Its low elevation
keeps it too wet to farm.
Killsnake Wildlife Area. Also in eastern Calumet County, the center of the
area includes the confluence of the Killsnake River, the South Branch of the
Manitowoc River, and Cedar Creek. Carp and bullheads are the most
common fish species, with northern pike, rock bass, white sucker, fathead
minnow, creek chub, and other forage minnows also present. The Killsnake
Wildlife Area also supports a large number of waterfowl on its numerous
78
•
•
•
•
•
•
small ponds and streams as well as other grassland birds on the grassed
uplands contained within the property boundaries. Supported grassland bird
species include the rare bobo-links, meadowlarks, upland sandpipers, shorteared owls, pheasants, and many other species that depend upon grasslands to
survive. Approximately 75% (5,255 acres) of the wildlife area is located in
Calumet County.
Kiel Marsh Wildlife Area. Located south of the City of Kiel, this 804 acre
state-owned natural area occupies land in Manitowoc, Calumet, and
Sheboygan Counties. Approximately 335 acres are located in Calumet
County. The habitat consists of brush, marsh, forest, and open water.
Recreation opportunities are available including canoeing and fishing. There
is also an abundance of wildlife including waterfowl, furbearers, northern
pike, pan fish, great blue herons, and black terns.
Grass Lake Bog. Located south of the City of Brillion in the Town of
Rantoul, this 240 acre site features a wild pothole lake surrounded by
extensive wetlands, including cattail and reed canary grass monotypes, willow
and alder thickets, tamarack swamp forest, and scrubby bog. The site is
privately owned.
Ludwig Mesic Forest. The forest is located south of Stockbridge on the east
side of Ledge Road near its intersection with County Trunk Highway F. This
privately owned 30 acre parcel contains a southern mesic forest. Dominant
species of the old growth forest include sugar maple, American beech, and
basswood. A good diversity of tree size classes and under story herbs are
found at the site.
Steffen Woods. This private holding 50 acre site is located on the north side
of county trunk highway H east of the South Branch of the Manitowoc River
in the Town of Brothertown. The site features a southern mesic forest, which
grades into a swamp forest near the river.
Shady Lane Hardwood Swamp. This swamp is an 80 acre parcel in the Town
of Stockbridge. The privately owned site features a southern wet-mesic forest
and a hardwood swamp of basswood and black ash.
Sperber-Krueger Woods. This privately owned 150 acre site in the Town of
Woodville features a floodplain (wet-mesic) forest near the North Branch of
the Manitowoc River. There are a number of sizeable trees found at the site.
Map M
Farming becomes very limited if the infrastructure it
needs to conduct business is obsolete or lacking.
Without feed cooperatives, farm service centers,
well maintained roads with reasonable weight limits,
accessible rail, and without truck terminals, farming
becomes very restricted. Even high speed internet
becomes a must for the progressive farmer.
79
Mapping out this infrastructure and determining if it is all easily accessible, helps identify
lands with access to the infrastructure. Targeting these lands for preservation is
important in that they most likely have a more viable future than the farm with no or very
limited access to major highways, rail, etc.
In Calumet County new lots can not be established along private roadways. Any new
residential, agricultural, or commercial lot is required to be on a public, paved road. In
addition, due to the vast network of county and state highways, coupled with the county’s
public road policy, it makes it inviting for agri-business in that they are guaranteed access
to major transportation routes.
Map M identifies where the major roads in the county are located, as well as the rail, feed
cooperatives, and implement repair and dealers.
No new roads or railway extensions are planned in any of the county’s agricultural areas
(per the adopted Smart Growth plans).
80
“A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself.
Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air
and giving fresh strength to our people.”
~Franklin Delano Roosevelt
81
82
CHAPTER SIX
DIRECT LAND PRESERVATION TOOLS
The following details programs which can provide a direct financial incentive to a land
owner that is willing to preserve their farmland either through a Farmland Preservation
Agreement, conservation easement, or other preservation tool.
State Farmland Preservation and Tax Relief Programs
The Farmland Preservation Program and Tax Relief Program are state programs designed
to work jointly to give farmers who meet certain criteria a tax credit. The programs were
revised in 2009 to reflect the goals and objectives of the Working Lands Initiative
(discussed in Chapter Four of this plan and later in this section). Together the programs
provide state income tax credits to farmers who meet the Farmland Preservation
Program’s soil and water conservation standards and whose land is designated (zoned)
for agricultural purposes only. Farmers are eligible for an even greater credit if they are
willing to sign an individual, long-term agreement that stipulates the terms of land use as
exclusive agriculture. If the farmer has an agreement, but is not zoned for exclusive
agricultural use, the farmer can not claim a credit unless his land is designated as an
Agricultural Enterprise Area (explained elsewhere in this document).
Changes made to the statutes in 2009 resulted in some farmers no longer being eligible
for tax credits when their current Farmland Preservation Agreements expire. However,
farmers with existing agreements can continue to claim tax credits under the old credit
formula until their agreement expires. The old agreements are eligible to be modified to
claim the new tax credit in tax year 2010 and beyond.
The programs also work by assisting counties in creating county agricultural preservation
plans. These plans can lay the groundwork for Exclusive Agricultural Zoning Districts
which then designate preferred agricultural operating areas. Land must be identified for
agricultural preservation in the county’s Farmland Preservation Plan or the land is not
eligible for a credit through the State’s Farmland Preservation and Tax Relief Program.
(More information about the program can also be found in Chapter Three.)
Per the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), Wisconsin
provides tax credits to farmers through both the Farmland Preservation Program and the
Farmland Tax Relief Program. The Farmland Preservation Program, established in 1977,
revised in 2009, seeks to conserve Wisconsin farmland and provide tax relief. The
Farmland Tax Relief Credit was created in 1989, revised in 2009, to provide additional
tax relief to owners of farmland. Farmland owners may be eligible to claim both credits.
In 2007, approximately $27.0 million was distributed to Wisconsin farmers through these
two programs. About 18,100 farmers received $12.1 million of farmland preservation
credits and approximately 52,200 farmers received tax relief credits totaling $14.9
million. Both credits are paid as an offset to state income tax or as a cash refund if the
83
credits exceed income tax due. The sum of the credits may not exceed 95% of the annual
property taxes on a claimant's farm.
The Farmland Tax Relief Credit Program provides direct benefits farmland owners with
35 or more acres. The credit is computed as a percentage of up to $10,000 of property
taxes, with the maximum credit at $1,500. The Department of Revenue annually
determines the credit percentage so that expenditures on the credit for all claimants
(individual and corporate) will total $15 million, adjusted up or down for expenditures in
excess of, or less than, this amount in the prior fiscal year. For payments in the state in
2007 (for tax year 2006), the credit was based on 23% of the first $10,000 of property
taxes. The average farmland tax credit paid in 2007 was $286. In Calumet County there
were 792 participants in 2007 (for the 2006 property tax year) receiving an average relief
of $187, totaling $148,154. Average county relief was almost $100 less than the state
average. (Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Division of Research and Policy)
The goals of the Farmland Preservation Program are twofold: (1) to preserve Wisconsin
farmland by means of local land use planning and soil conservation practices and (2) to
provide property tax relief to farmland owners. The average farmland preservation credit
paid in the state in 2007 (for tax year 2006) averaged $669 and equaled 20% of the
average claimant's property tax bill. Approximately 35% of farm owners with 35 acres or
more claimed farmland preservation credits in 2007. In the county 254 farms participated
in the program for an average of $564, meaning a total amount of $143,131 countywide.
Again, the average amount received was about $100 less than the state average.
A higher credit means a bigger incentive to keep farming, resulting in the desire to keep
more land in agriculture. Overall, the county had a 32.1% participation rate in the
programs. Calumet County farmers could improve the amounts received, and preserve
more agricultural land, if more farmers were willing to participate in the program.
Neighboring Fond du Lac County had a participation rate of 73.5%, Manitowoc County
63.7%, Sheboygan 64.5%. The number of participants was double in Fond du Lac
County. Likewise, the average amounts received were higher. (All figures exclude the
filing by corporate, trust, and estate claimants.)
Based on the Calumet County Year 2025 Smart Growth Plan, the local Smart Growth
Land Use Elements and this Farmland Preservation Plan, there is a documented public
desire to preserve farmland in our county. Incentives such as tax credits are one vital
incentive to help preserve the land. Calumet County has the second fastest population
growth rate in the state. As a result, the county is experiencing severe development
pressure in some areas. The need for preservation incentives in such a rapidly developing
county is more important than ever. Incentives which help preserve land are crucial,
perhaps more important in Calumet County than other counties without such
development pressure.
Under the old Farmland Preservation Program (pre-2009 revisions) the county had
approximately 14,000 acres under farmland preservation agreements. The Town of
Brothertown and the Town of Chilton had the highest amount of acreage enrolled in the
84
Farmland Preservation Program. Unfortunately these two towns are not zoned Exclusive
Agricultural (Brothertown has their own zoning, Chilton has no zoning), thereby putting
their farmers at risk to lose their credits unless the towns adopt a farmland preservation
zoning district or their land is designated part of an Agricultural Enterprise Area.
(Program participants with valid preservation agreements won’t lose their current tax
credits until their agreement expiration date.) As of 2004, Brothertown had 3,406.5 acres
enrolled in the program—24.5% of the total enrolled in all of Calumet County!
Over the past several years the state has been working on the “Working Lands Initiative”.
In 2009 a majority of the proposals made in the Initiative were included in the state’s
budget and became law. The Working Lands Initiative proposed to maintain some of the
Farmland Preservation Program initiatives, recognizing some changes had to be made to
the program. Specific recommendations relevant to the farmland preservation program
were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Require county Agricultural Preservation Plans to be certified within five to
ten years and provide state funding and technical assistance for updates
Streamline the process to certify plans and ordinances and allow local
governments to self certify
Allow counties flexibility in designating farmland preservation plan areas
Increase the level of tax credits, delete the income factor, and base credits on
the amount of acreage owned
Streamline paybacks by creating a flat conversion fee and allow counties to
enforce and keep the paybacks for farmland preservation
Honor existing Farmland Preservation Agreements, but do not renew them;
instead create agreements in Working Lands Enterprise Areas
Continue to require compliance with soil and water conservation standards
and provide state assistance for enforcement
Other recommendations in the Working Lands Initiative were that the state:
•
•
•
•
•
Create a new Purchase of Development Rights Program
Identify Working Land Enterprise Areas
Expand beginning farmer and logger programs
Provide incentives to promote land efficient development
Expand education and technical assistance
Most of the above matters were addressed and implemented into the new (2009)
Farmland Preservation Program. The new changes include higher tax credits,
Agricultural Enterprise Area designations, and a Purchase of Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program—three important incentives which should be effective at preserving
more of the state’s farmland.
Lastly, the recommendations also aimed to build capacity for markets and economic
development, and improve the collaboration between programs and agencies to promote
the protection of farmland and forestry. Although the recommendations have gained
85
much support across the state, some of them still need budget support from the governor
and the legislature.
Exclusive Agricultural Zoning (EAZ)
Exclusive Agricultural Zoning (EAZ) works with the state’s farmland preservation
programs to provide the highest tax credit benefit to the farmer. As previously
mentioned, if a farmer entered a farmland preservation agreement, and if the land was
zoned Exclusive Agricultural, the farmer could be eligible for the highest tax credit ($10
per acre). If the land is in an EAZ, but the farmer does not have a Farmland Preservation
Agreement, he would still be eligible for a credit, but it would be just a $7.50 per acre
credit. All this is assuming of course the land met basic eligibility requirements and was
identified in the Farmland Preservation Plan as agricultural.
As of 2008, four of Calumet County’s towns had Exclusive Agricultural Zoning:
Brillion, Charlestown, Rantoul and Woodville. These four towns alone had almost
67,000 acres zoned Exclusive Agricultural. This effort provides their interested farmers
the opportunity to obtain credits. Details are as follows (2006 Planning Department
data):
•
•
•
•
Brillion—16,446,72 acres (77% of the town)
Charlestown—14,022 acres (69% of the town)
Rantoul—16,578.56 acres (80% of the town)
Woodville—19,741.44 acres (94% of the town)
According to DATCP, statewide approximately 7 million acres and about 31,000 farmers
are subject to Exclusive Agricultural Zoning. There are currently 189 Exclusive
Agricultural zoning ordinances that have been certified by the state’s Land and Water
Conservation Board. These ordinances cover 441 local units of government. Of this
number, 19 are cities, 18 are villages and 404 are towns. Of the towns, 118 have
established and administer their own ordinances and 286 towns have adopted county
administered ordinances (33 counties administer Exclusive Agricultural zoning
ordinances).
As stated above, Exclusive Agricultural zoning ordinances must be certified by the state.
To meet certification requirements, the ordinance must be consistent with the
governmental body’s adopted Farmland Preservation Plan, and comply with Chapter 91,
Wisconsin State Statutes (which specify minimum requirements for the ordinance). The
two main components most Calumet County farmers remember about the ordinance are
that the ordinance specifies minimum lot sizes and limits development that is not
consistent with agricultural use.
Calumet County adopted Exclusive Agricultural Zoning in late 1984. In 2008 the
Planning Department drafted a new zoning ordinance. It is anticipated the ordinance will
be adopted in the fall of 2009. It also anticipated at least three of the towns will opt to
86
retain Exclusive Agricultural Zoning. Hopefully, for the benefit of the farmers, the fourth
town chooses to retain Exclusive Agricultural Zoning as well.
Agricultural Enterprise Areas (AEA)
An Agricultural Enterprise Area (AEA) is a new concept in Wisconsin established in
2009 as part of the state’s Working Lands Initiative. By definition an AEA is a
contiguous land area devoted primarily to agricultural use and locally targeted for
agricultural preservation and development.
In 2009 the Wisconsin Governor authorized a pilot program whereby 15 AEAs would be
established in the state, comprising no more than 200,000 acres. The pilot program is to
run two years. If successful, the state will allow up to 1,000,000 acres to be placed in
AEAs statewide.
If land is in an AEA, part of a Farmland Preservation Agreement, and meets eligibility
and conservation requirements, the farmer can receive a tax credit of $5 per acre. Land in
an AEA does not have to have Exclusive Agricultural Zoning.
The designation of an AEA is voluntary and can be initiated by land owners or local
governments by filing a petition with the State of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). Petitions filed with DATCP must meet
minimum criteria, but additional evaluation criteria may be used to review competing
petitions. As a minimum the land subject of the petition must be identified as being in a
farmland preservation area in the county’s Farmland Preservation Plan, be a contiguous
land area, and primarily be used for agriculture.
Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)/Purchase of Agricultural Conservation
Easement (PACE)
A Purchase of Development Right (PDR) program, also known as a Purchase of
Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) program, is a way of paying farmers for
their willingness to accept a deed restriction on their land that limits future development
for non-agricultural purposes. The land owners are compensated for the fair market value
of their land, based on the difference between what it could be sold for on the open
market with no restrictions and what it can be sold for once an easement is placed on the
land. An agricultural conservation easement is then placed on the property protecting the
agricultural use guaranteeing that there will always be land available for agricultural
practices. A goal of such a program would be to create blocks of protected agricultural
land, helping to guarantee the long-term viability
of agriculture and protection of the environment.
There is much misunderstanding about a
PDR/PACE program. There are several ways the
program can operate, but generally a county
government or a non-profit agency raises money
87
and offers to purchase a farmer’s development rights. The farmer then bids to have his
land considered to be in the PDR/PACE program. If his land is accepted, he receives the
difference in value of his land as farmland and what it is worth if it were developed with
housing (provided that is an option in the zoning district in which the land is located). In
return for the money, the farmer puts the land in a conservation easement that requires the
land to remain agricultural.
Some of the benefits of a PDR/PACE program are that fair market payment is given for
development value; the payment is used for debt payment, invested back into a farm, set
aside for retirement, or used for family needs. Usually land in a PDR/PACE program
results in a saving in estate taxes, property taxes, income taxes, capital gains, and
preserves the heritage of farming in the local community.
The land owner can continue to farm and is usually allowed to build whatever
agricultural buildings are necessary to keep the farm in an active state. Although in a
PDR/PACE program, the farmland can be bought and sold as long as it continues to be
used for farming purposes. The private property rights remain in tact and the only right,
which is sold, is the right to develop the land for non-agricultural purposes.
Cash from the sale of the development rights/conservation easement can be used for
reducing debt, lowering operating costs, improving or expanding farm operations, college
education, retirement, etc. Proceeds from easement sales are often recycled back into the
local economy. Property taxes and inheritance taxes are based only on the residual
agricultural value of the land rather than the full developmental value. It also makes
farmland more affordable for younger farmers and eases the transfer of property to future
generations. Land owners can still borrow against the reduced equity in their land.
Land owners are skeptical at first. Some might perceive that the county or non-profit
agency is buying their land. But they are not. They’re simply paying money so the
farmer does not develop the property. The farmer also believes they will be forced to sell
their development rights. Such is not true. Whether or not a farmer decides to sell his
PDR rights/give a conservation easement is purely voluntary. Lastly, a major
misconception is that land owners believe that once their development
rights/conservation easement is sold the land will become less valuable. Studies across
the nation that have PDR/PACE programs have shown this to be untrue. In the Eastern
United States where PDR/PACE programs have become quite popular, some farmers
have seen land worth $10,000 an acre, the development rights sold for $3,000 an acre,
and then when the land goes to market later as farmland, they still bring in $10,000 an
acre. The fact that the land is being preserved actually increases the resale value.
Identifying land that should be in a PDR/PACE program is an initial first step towards
having a successful program. Land should be prioritized to guarantee the most
productive and best-suited land is set aside and preserved through the program.
In 2007 the Center for Land Use Education at the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point
began a pilot project in the county whereby they would develop a mapping tool (the
88
“LESA model”) which could be used to determine which areas had the highest
agricultural value and should be preserved. The tool used by that project could help the
county when discussing which areas could be used for the purchase of development
rights/conservation easements. However, the tool probably should not be used as the sole
factor in deciding which lands to target for the PDR/PACE program, but should be used
as one of many tools to rely upon to make a sound list of lands to target.
Possible considerations when prioritizing lands for a PDR/PACE program are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
High priority should be given to lands such as those with productive farmland
that is considered to be prime or unique
Farmland which is faced with development pressure that will permanently
alter the productive capacity of the land
Farmland that will compliment and be part of a documented, long-range
effort or plan for preservation by the county or town
Agricultural land that compliments other preservation efforts by creating a
block of agricultural land
Agricultural land that utilizes other state programs, which help keep the land
in active production
Agricultural land that has matching funds from the government, private
money, or other sources to assist in the development rights/conservation
easement purchase
The Calumet County Year 2025 Smart Growth Plan advocates for a PDR program as a
way to preserve the county’s most valuable and threatened farmland. If the county
implements a PDR/PACE program, the maps in this document will be vital to mapping
possible targeted lands.
One of the most controversial things about a PDR/PACE program is paying for the
program. The funding source should be long-term, on-going, and earmarked. The
funding should be proportional to the need. In 2009 the State of Wisconsin established a
PACE program and committed to partial funding for the program. To receive the funding
from the state the county will need to match funds provided by the state. One idea to
fund such a program would be through a rezoning or “conversion” fee. Other examples
of how to fund a PDR/PACE program is through different taxes, in particular, taxing
items which are only possible due to farmland and farming activities. For example,
tobacco is an agricultural product; a cigarette tax would be a viable tool to fund a
PDR/PACE program. Other tax or revenue examples are a restaurant tax, property tax,
property transfer tax, building permit fee, farmland transfer tax, lawsuit settlements,
special assessments, and wind energy revenues paid to local units of government.
Despite how the program is funded, the community needs to look at the direct benefit of
preserving the land. The community directly benefits from such a program by ensuring
land is always available for agriculture. In Calumet County, the value agriculture plays
in the county is phenomenal. According to the UW-Extension 2004 publication Calumet
County Agriculture: Value and Economic Report, agriculture contributes $68.5 million
89
to the county’s total income. In addition, this number is generated by just 1.4 % of our
adult workforce (Source: US Bureau of the Census, 2000). Just imagine if more people
were employed in the agricultural industry and more farmland was being farmed! What
an impact farming would have in the local economy!
In addition, there are other community benefits from the economic activity not only
generated by agriculture, but by stable land use patterns, fewer infrastructure needs,
lower cost of community services and from the enhanced rural character which makes the
area desirable.
Anyone who questions the economic value of a PDR/PACE program should compare the
cost for local road construction, water and sewer construction, additional emergency
services like fire, police and ambulance, school construction and maintenance, drainage
construction and expansion, and other miscellaneous infrastructure needs to the cost of
farmland production. There is the cost of purchasing the development right/conservation
easement, but there is the added bonus of having family farms, a strong agricultural
economy, the ability to purchase foods locally, maintaining the rural character and
heritage, and ensuring that there’s always habitat for our wildlife.
As of the spring of 2008, there were only two active PDR/PACE programs in the state.
The Town of Bayfield established a program in 2002 and by January of 2005 had
protected 111 acres. The PDR program in the Town of Bayfield was paid for by property
tax, a gift from the Chamber of Commerce, money from the Farm and Ranch Lands
Protection Program (FRLPP), and local government contributions. The other program in
the state, although slightly older, is in the Town of Dunn. That program was established
in 1996. As of January 2005, 2,131 acres had been protected. The Dunn program was
funded through appropriations, bonds, county and state grants, private and foundation
contributions, property tax, and again, through the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection
Program.
The FRLPP was originally established in the 1996 Farm Bill. The FRLPP provided
matching funds to state, local and tribal agricultural easement acquisition programs. The
program was expanded in the 2002 Farm Bill to include certain non-governmental
organizations. If Calumet County is to establish a PDR/PACE program, it is strongly
recommended that they try to acquire FRLPP funds, coupled with funds from the state
and other sources.
If funding is acquired to support such a program, one option to stretch the money is to
allow for the county to use an installment payment arrangement, rather than purchase the
development right/conservation easement at the beginning when the deed restriction is
secured. Periodic payments would help the county acquire development
rights/conservation easements on more agricultural land and give the farmer constant
payments versus one initial larger sum of money.
As mentioned above, the Town of Dunn has a PDR/PACE program. Being close to
Madison, the Town of Dunn was very concerned about the loss of their farmland. Shortly
90
after the discussion about losing farmland, 300 lots became available for residential
development. The town decided to stop the loss of farmland and limit development to
one house per 35 acres owned. Many land owners argued their property rights were
being violated. However, the town as a whole decided farmland preservation was
important. In 1996, property taxes were raised 50 cents per $1,000 valuation so they
could begin buying development rights. In 1997, the town made its first purchase. As of
spring 2008, federal, state, and county governments pay 55% of the cost to Purchase
Development Rights in the Town of Dunn; the town pays the other 45%.
In summary, a PDR/PACE program allows farmers to sell their development rights for
cash to local units of government (or a non-profit organization) in order to preserve their
land. The price is set based on fair market value. The program works because farmers
don’t have to worry about financial pressures dictating that they sell their land for
development. Communities win because the cost of maintaining farmland is cheaper
than providing services for housing and commercial development.
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is a planning tool that allows municipalities
to develop specific areas or cluster development in specific locations in their community,
while preserving large sections of agricultural land or open space elsewhere. In essence,
the right to develop land is transferred from one area of a community to another. The
area where the development right is sold, or transferred from, is left undeveloped and
open for agricultural preservation, while the area the development right is transferred to is
used for development. The transfer of the development right is always voluntary, and the
owner is compensated for his/her right by a developer.
TDR programs are based on the idea that land owners have a bundle of different rights,
including the right to use land, lease, sell and bequeath it, borrow money using it as a
security, building on it, or mine it, subject to reasonable local land use regulations. Some
or all of these rights can be transferred or sold to another person. When a land owner
sells property, generally all the rights are transferred to the buyer. TDR programs enable
land owners to separate and sell just the right to develop land from their other property
rights.
The TDR program allows land to be preserved and a ‘development credit’ allocated to the
agricultural land owner so that his ‘credit’, or ‘right to develop’, can be purchased by
developers to increase housing density in areas better suited for residential development,
such as areas with sewer and water. Transfer of development potential is exchanged
from one parcel to another parcel.
If there are not areas currently suitable for a TDR program (areas developers want to
develop), a TDR ‘bank’ could be established. Land owners and farmers could designate
which lands they want to see preserved for farmland, and ‘bank’ those rights so that when
a developer wants to create a subdivision, they know there are willing land owners who
would sell their development right.
91
Typically, in a TDR program there are two key components: development units (also
known as ‘rights’ or ‘credits’) from ‘sending’ areas (the agricultural areas), which get
transferred to ‘receiving’ areas (developmental areas). The TDR creates a free market
selling and buying of development rights between the farmer and developer, rather than
involving government or other organizations, such as land trusts.
The TDR is a more comprehensive growth management tool than other farmland
preservation tools because it generally involves large areas of agricultural land and
designates growth areas in a community. Because Calumet County adopted their Smart
Growth Plan in 2007, current maps designate where higher densities of development are
desired. The Preferred Land Use Map in the Smart Growth plan could be used to
determine where land should be preserved (the development rights sold) and where land
should be developed (the area which would use the development rights to build). In
addition, the mapping tool, the LESA model, could be used as a tool to help identify
which lands should be targeted for transferring their development rights, and which areas
should receive those development rights.
The program allows owners to transfer the right they have to develop a parcel of land to a
different parcel of land. Typically, TDR programs are set up through local zoning
ordinances. The TDR is used to shift development from the agricultural areas to those
areas designated for growth, which are closer to or in areas served by municipal services.
As mentioned above, the parcel of land where the rights originate is called the ‘sending’
parcel. When the rights are transferred from a ‘sending’ parcel, the land is restricted with
a permanent conservation easement. The parcel of land to which the rights are
transferred to is the ‘receiving’ parcel. Buying the TDR rights generally allows the
owner to build at a higher density than ordinarily permitted by the base zoning or
applicable ordinance.
The program works best in areas where large blocks of land remain in farm use and there
is a high demand for land to develop. In communities with a fragmented agricultural
base, it is difficult to find acceptable ‘sending’ areas. Local units of government also
must be able to identify ‘receiving’ areas that accommodate the development to be
transferred out of the farming area. The ‘receiving’ areas must have the physical
capacity to absorb new units, and residents of those areas must be willing to accept
density development. Often, residents of possible ‘receiving’ areas must be persuaded
that the benefits of protecting farmland far outweigh the cost of living in a higher density
neighborhood. Of course without the market demand for housing, there is no ‘receiving’
area, thus no incentive for farmers to sell or transfer their development right.
TDR programs are different from other Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement
(PACE) programs because they involve the private market. The transactions are between
private land owners and developers. Local governments generally do not have to raise
taxes or borrow money to implement the program. Some jurisdictions have experimented
with public purchase ‘banking’ of developmental rights (eluded to earlier). A TDR bank
buys development rights with public funds and sells the rights to private land owners.
92
In Wisconsin, TDR programs need special legislation. As of the writing of this
document, it is questionable whether the state has the appropriate legislation needed to
make such a program a success. There is much support for the state clarifying whether
TDR programs can be established. Regardless, many communities are actively
researching the use of TDRs as a way to preserve farmland while still meeting housing
demands. One of the challenges some conservation or development right purchase
programs face is opposition from land owners when government tries to restrict the
development of farmland. The TDR program offers a potential solution to such
opposition. By allowing land owners to retain equity by selling development rights,
many tend to support the principle of the TDR program.
As explained earlier, main elements of a TDR program are ‘sending’ areas and
‘receiving’ areas. Also important is a successful zoning ordinance with some
environmental constraints which restrict development in certain areas. The county’s
current zoning code is outdated and is in the process of being rewritten. Providing the
county board adopts the proposed new ordinance, the new ordinance will be better suited
for such type of program implementation. Also important is a proper transfer mechanism
(such as deed restrictions and written regulations) with prohibitions and some allowances
for the person owning the farmland (for example, allowing the farm owner to retain
parcels for their children).
TDRs address the inequity of current zoning regulations by allowing developers to put
more homes in a developed area while leaving agricultural land untouched by developers.
The developers buy the development rights on agricultural land and use those rights in a
different area. For example, a farmer in a rural area may sell one unit of rights to a
developer who then uses that right to build two houses on a lot located closer to an urban
center where only one house was allowed before.
Very few lawyers, appraisers, and realtors know much about TDRs and, therefore, not
only is land owner and developer education necessary to make such a program a success,
but professionals will also need to be educated to make such a program work effectively.
Examples of how a TDR program could work are:
•
•
•
•
The developer applies for subdivision and site plan approval. The plan must
include a certain percentage of lots (TDRs) to show that the property is being
developed while preserving land elsewhere
The Planning, Zoning and Farmland Preservation Committee would approve
the plan but have the ability to reduce the number of units if deemed necessary
for environmental or compatibility purposes
The developer may purchase TDRs at any time during the process (purchasing
the TDR is done by buying them directly from the land owner)
Deeds of sale and easement documents are required to record the plat for the
TDR lots
93
The program involves private parties rather than a public entity (but would be
administratively recorded and monitored through local government subdivisions). This
program is different from the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR), known as a
Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE), and Lease of Development
Rights (LDR) programs (PDR/PACE are discussed earlier, LDRs to be discussed
following this section) in that it gives value to properties that are in areas best suited for
agricultural production.
The TDR program also protects the future of the agricultural industry in the community
as well as maintains the rural character of the landscape by focusing development in
specific areas and leaving agricultural lands open for farming purposes. The TDR
program allows communities to direct development to areas with less productive soils
and retains the areas with more productive soils for agricultural production, while at the
same time compensating both the agricultural area and the developing area in the
community.
In summary TDRs work because farmers receive payment for their development rights
and their land remains available productive agriculture. Builders can build more units
without purchasing additional land. Most importantly, builders pay for the development
rights and no federal, state, or local monies are needed.
Lease of Development Rights (LDR)
As an alternative to the sale of development rights/conservation easements on a
permanent basis, as done in a TDR or PDR/PACE program, the Lease of Development
Rights (LDR) option allows an agricultural land owner to make a long-term commitment
to protect the land from development for a specific period of time. Leasing the land
allows the owner the flexibility of ultimately using it for non-agricultural purposes, or,
keeping it in farming.
One negative implication of such a program is that it does not offer business and
agricultural related industries the guarantee they need to invest in a community.
Typically, a business sites in an area where they feel there is a stable product or work
force. Not knowing if a farmer, or group of farmers, will renew their lease, offers no
product stability to attract businesses.
The positive side of such a program is that it allows skeptical farmers or those unsure of
the future of the industry, an incentive to preserve the land, even if for a limited time. In
addition, depending how the program is established, it may also require conservation
plans or other mechanisms that can help the environment.
The implications of such an arrangement on future land contracts, mortgages and other
existing liens should be studied. The county, if they are to consider a LDR program,
should set minimum terms for a program, preferably to be no less than 30 years. At the
end of the term of a lease, the land owner should be able to elect if they want to
renegotiate the lease for another 30 years.
94
The state Farmland Preservation Agreements (discussed earlier) are similar to a LDR
program.
Land Protection Agreement (LPA)
A Land Protection Agreement (LPA), or conservation easement, contains restrictions that
a land owner voluntarily places on property to preserve the land’s natural features, such
as shoreland, wildlife habitat, woods or wetlands, or to preserve working farmland and
other ‘open’ spaces and scenic views. They differ from a Purchase of Agricultural
Conservation Easement (PACE) Program in that they include more than just agricultural
land. Also, land owners may voluntarily have an LPA with or without compensation.
Government or land trusts work with the land owner and are responsible for land
protection agreements that protect all types of features, identified as ‘conservation
values’. An LPA allows the owner to preserve the land, retain control of its use, and
realize significant income and estate tax savings. While Wisconsin law encourages
property tax relief, local assessors do not automatically do so.
The agreement is typically filed in the county courthouse as a conservation easement and
recorded as an addendum to the property deed. Because a typical LPA contains
limitations and restrictions on use of the property (i.e. giving up the right to subdivide,
build homes, or mine), recording it means that future purchasers will have notice and
likewise be bound by its terms.
Each LPA is individually negotiated and geared to the particular long-term protection
goals of the land owner. The owner either donates or sells the LPA to an organization
such as a land trust, or a unit of government, to monitor and enforce. Donors are eligible
for federal income and estate tax benefits, but in order for the property owner to claim
those benefits the LPA must be in perpetuity, include a public purpose (not necessarily
public access), and be held by a ‘qualified’ organization such as a land trust.
According to the Glacial Lakes Conservancy (a local land trust), the immediate financial
benefits are as follows:
•
Income Tax—Federal law and IRS regulations allow the donor of a perpetual
Land Protection Agreement (LPA), or conservation easement, to deduct its
value as a charitable contribution, provided the gift is made to a ‘qualified
organization’.
Valuation of the gift is sometimes a complex process, depending upon the
limitations, restrictions and permissions contained in the easement document.
Specialized training of real estate appraisers is desirable, as valuation usually
involves more than the typical real estate ‘comparables’ evaluation. For
example, where the easement specifically prohibits land disturbance or
minerals extraction, and the property is underlain with rich deposits of sand
95
and gravel, the appraiser must estimate the value of those deposits. Because
the easement donor often gives up multiple rights of property ownership, the
value of each must be calculated in order to arrive at the overall value of the
conservation easement. That value is the difference in value of the property
unencumbered by the easement to that with it in place.
Once the easement’s value has been established, and the easement has been
donated to a qualified organization (usually a non-profit organization such as
Glacial Lakes Conservancy, but could also be a government body), the donor
is entitled to deduct that amount, up to a maximum of 30% of adjusted gross
income, on the federal income tax return. If the 30% limitation means the
donor cannot deduct the entire easement value in the year in which the gift is
made, the law provides four additional years in which to deduct the remaining
amount.
•
Estate Tax—Placement of a conservation easement also devalues real
property for estate tax purposes. Computation of the easement’s value is
identical to that employed for income tax purposes. The value of the estate is
reduced by subtracting the value of the easement. The estate
administrator/executor has up to six months in which to place a conservation
easement in order to lessen the estate tax burden.
•
Property Tax—Wisconsin law requires the local property assessor to ‘consider
the effect’ of a conservation easement on property valuation for real estate tax
purposes. Experience has shown, however, that a reduction in assessed
valuation seldom happens. For those potential easement donors motivated
primarily by a need for property tax relief, it is important to understand that
tax relief is uncertain at best. While Glacial Lakes Conservancy will argue the
case on behalf of easement donors seeking downward adjustment of their
property valuations, results have been mixed.
In Calumet County there are two land trusts which can help a land owner with a LPA.
There is the Northeast Wisconsin Land Trust whose primary focus is on sensitive areas
on the west side of the county, and, as mentioned above, the Glacial Lakes Conservancy
which helps those on the east half of the county and focuses predominantly on preserving
farmland.
As of summer 2009 only one property owner in the county had placed their land in a
LPA. Dale and Renee Voskuil of the Town of Chilton were the first land owners in the
county to donate such an easement. The easement was donated in 2007 on 23 of their
acres and was done through the Glacial Lakes Conservancy. They named the area the
“Allan Voskuil Wildlife Preserve” in honor of Dale’s father. The preserve mostly
consists of prairie and swamp and features two wildlife ponds that were added with the
aid of funds from the DNR and Farm Services Agency (FSA). Although the easement
was not on farmland, it served as an example to others that LPA’s have benefit to the land
owner, the environmental community, and that they are relatively easy to establish.
96
Land Use Tax Credit (LUTC) Program
To encourage long-term stabilization of land in agriculture, the Land Use Tax Credit
(LUTC) program would offer eligible land owners a tax credit based on their property
taxes in return for acceptance of a conservation/preservation easement for a certain term
of time, such as a 30-year term easement. A LUTC is similar to the farmland tax credit
program currently offered by the state. Due to the uncertain economic future of the state
program, such a program at the local level may prove to be more effective. However,
such a program would require a willingness by the county to give the credit. Although
not proposed to the county prior to the drafting of this document, such a tool, especially if
coupled with other preservation tools, may prove to be the most effective at not only
preserving land for agriculture, but sending the message to the public that the county
cares about the future success of farming.
Ideas for such a program could include that, in order for the land owner to participate, the
land owner must:
•
•
•
•
Be eligible for farmland preservation tax credits
Agree to a 30-year conservation easement on his land
The property tax on the land be frozen at the time the property entered the
program and be extended for the term of the easement
The land owner could receive a tax credit for a percentage of the total property
taxes paid (including buildings) in the current tax year and for the 30-year
period
Of course for the program to be successful there must also be penalties for someone
withdrawing from the program. Possible penalties might include recapturing the taxes
saved plus interest; or requiring a percentage of the sale price of any land enrolled in the
program, which is sold out of agriculture, to be paid to the county or town.
Use Value Assessment
Wisconsin farms are facing other social, economic, and political issues as well. Some of
the most significant include soaring property values and the related property taxes, the
cost of health insurance coverage, and a growing set of federal, state, and local regulatory
programs. In 1974, the State Legislature amended the Rule of Uniform Taxation (Article
VIII, Section 1) in the Wisconsin Constitution to permit the preferential treatment of
agricultural land. The 1995-1997 Budget Act changed the standard for assessing
agricultural land in Wisconsin from market value to use value.
The goal of this legislation, known as ‘use value assessment’, was to protect Wisconsin’s
farm economy and curb urban sprawl by assessing farmland based upon its agricultural
productivity, rather than its potential for development. Specifically, the value of
agricultural land for assessment purposes was changed from market value to use value.
In a use value assessment system, the use of the land is the most important factor in
determining its assessed value.
97
Use value in Wisconsin is specific to land only. The use value legislation passed in 1995
requires that the assessed value of farmland be based on the income that could be
generated from its rental for agricultural use. Income and rental from farming are a
function of agricultural capability.
Because any land could theoretically be used for agricultural purposes, statutes and
administrative rules limit the benefit of use value assessment to only those lands that
qualify as ‘land devoted primarily to agricultural use.’ The implementation of use-value
assessment in Wisconsin has helped farmers maintain lower property taxes on their
agricultural land. As an example, equalized values for agricultural lands in Calumet
County were $88,984,700 in 1999, or 5.3% of total equalized value. The equalized
values dropped to $23,573,000 in 2003, which represents 1.0% of the total equalized
value. The total equalized value of real estate in Calumet County increased by
approximately 40% from 1999 to 2003. Although the actual market value of agricultural
land as represented by land sales increased significantly, the impact of use value
assessment is the reason for the decreasing percentage in the overall total of equalized
value. (Source: Calumet County Inventory and Trends Report, 2007)
Income Rewards
When it comes to farming, dairy in particular, low milk prices and high operating
expenses are sometimes cited as why a farmer should quit farming and convert the land
for development or other non-agricultural uses. It is often claimed that if the farmer
could get more money for their product they would keep farming. For farmers in this
situation, there is the alternative to diversify and find a crop which produces a higher
yield (diversification is discussed in Chapter Nine). However, in this section, this plan
will discuss income, and direct incentives to increase that income.
According to the Wisconsin Agriculture Statistics Service, farm income in Wisconsin
reached an all time low in recent years, yet agriculture remains Wisconsin’s largest
industry sector, contributing $18.5 billion in revenue each year and 174,000 jobs to the
state economy. Based on cash receipts received for commodities, milk, field crops,
98
vegetables and livestock are the most significant components of Wisconsin’s agricultural
economy. The following table outlines cash receipts in Wisconsin for the year 2001.
Table 6-1
Cash Receipts for Agriculture Commodities State of Wisconsin, 2001
Commodity
Thousands of Dollars
% of Total
Milk
3,243,272
55.0%
Field Crops and Vegetables
1,163,527
19.7%
Livestock
971,442
16.5%
Fruit and Specialty Crops
271,153
4.6%
Poultry and Eggs
249,473
4.2%
Total
5,898,867
100.0%
Source: Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service, 2001
Field crops and vegetables include: wheat, corn, hay, oats, tobacco, soybeans, beans (dry),
potatoes, snap beans, cabbage (fresh), cabbage (processing), carrots (fresh), sweet corn
(processing), cucumbers, onions, peas
Livestock includes: cattle and calves, hogs, sheep and lambs, honey, aquaculture, mink pelts
Fruit and specialty crops include: apples, cherries, cranberries, strawberries, maple products,
peppermint, spearmint, greenhouse and nursery, Christmas trees
Farm income varies from year to year and is reported annually by the University of
Wisconsin Madison Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. In 2002, farm
income (when adjusted for deflation) was at its lowest level since farm statistics have
been recorded in 1955. Farm income was expected to slowly improve in 2003 based on
climbing milk prices, higher corn and soybean prices, and various other factors.
However, this has not been the case.
As reported in the July 28, 2008 issue of DFA Today (DFA represents “Dairy Farmers of
America”), milk production costs have climbed higher. According to the issue, the
USDA Monthly Milk Cost of Production report states, “The cash expenses it takes the
average U.S dairy farm to produce 100 pounds of milk have increased for each of the last
six months, setting another record high in June of $20.22 per cwt [counterweight]. This
is $1.50 higher than the previous month and $5.51 (+37.5%) higher than last year. Total
feed costs were estimated to be 69.1% of the total cash expenses during June, an increase
of 7.1% from one year ago when feed costs were estimated to be 62%”.
Why is it that agriculture plays such a major role in our economy, keeps us fed and
clothed, yet some farmer’s income is so low? There are several theories as to why some
feel the farmer is not paid equitably for their product, but the bottom line is sometimes it
does not matter how well one manages their operation or how much they diversify,
equitable compensation is not possible. Should local or state government come in and
provide additional compensation?
There are programs available to assist low to moderate income families with food,
shelter, insurance, day care assistance and energy bills. But on a farm, a farmer can be
well below the eligible cut off limits for such services but still not qualify due to the
equity in their farm.
99
One suggestion is that when milk or commodity prices fall below a certain level, the
farmer would receive additional monies so they can continue to operate their farm in a
profitable manner.
The Governor, through his Grow Wisconsin plan, has indicated the state should develop
their specialty cheese craft and expand this market. As specialty cheese escalates in
popularity and price, perhaps the milk producer should be compensated by getting a
higher price. Perhaps milk compensation should be based on the average end product
sale price. Per a local newspaper, the Wrightstown Area Spirit, it takes 10 pounds of
whole milk to make one pound of whole milk cheese. In Wisconsin 2.5 billion pounds of
cheese are produced annually. (Source: Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board) In total that
means 25 billion gallons of milk are required annually (assuming the 2.5 billion is whole
milk cheese). Compensating the state’s farmers equitably for the 25 billion gallons of
milk could have a very positive impact on the county’s dairy producers.
Buying locally produced products is another way to directly compensate the farmer. The
‘Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin’ idea is discussed in Chapter Eight, but, it lends itself to a
brief overview here. If sold locally, without the ‘middle man’ expenses associated with
distribution centers, truckers, and marketing, farmers could be paid a more equitable
price for their product. Local and state government can impact the local farmer by
purchasing directly from the farmer the food products used for government owned and
managed programs.
State law has restrictions that limit when milk can be sold direct to the consumer. A
change in the state regulations should be considered to allow more flexibility. Imagine if
all the milk consumed in Calumet County’s schools, or the State of Wisconsin, were
purchased directly from a local co-op of farmers instead of a distributorship. According
to the School Nutrition Association of Wisconsin (SNA of WI), in the 2004-2005 school
year, an average of 536,742 Wisconsin children received lunch daily through the National
School Lunch Program. Every day another 71,594 students received a nutritious
breakfast through the School Breakfast Program. Last year school breakfast participation
increased 7% over the previous year. In addition, some Wisconsin schools also offer the
After School Snack Program, Special Milk Program, and Summer Food Service Program
for Children. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 data, there are 9773 school age
children (children between the ages of 5 and 19) in Calumet County. Imagine the support
we could give county, and state, dairy producers if this milk was all purchased locally!
Every small amount purchased locally would add up—even the Calumet County jail
inmates consume on average 3 gallons of milk a day—that’s over 1000 gallons a year!
A final direct financial farmland preservation incentive for government to consider is a
direct payment to any farmer whose land meets the state’s definition of ‘use consistent
with agricultural use’. Recognizing some studies report farmland pays more in taxes than
it requires in services, and knowing the farmer feeds and indirectly supports those who
build homes (which some studies report typically require more in services than they pay
in taxes), the farmer could be given a ‘tax justification’ reimbursement. Simply, as long
100
as the farmer’s land qualifies as being used ‘consistent with agricultural use’, they could
be given either a direct check, or tax reimbursement, as an incentive to farm their land
and support their residential neighbors. Perhaps it is only fair the person taking land out
of production pays to keep land in production.
There are already some direct payments given to farmers, but this plan proposes
alternative payments, targeting all types of farms, not just the larger dairy related farms.
In 2007 466 farms in Calumet County received direct payment subsidies with a total
subsidy value of $1,481,000. The maximum subsidy given was $40,000. (Source:
Environmental Working Group) Similar subsidies to smaller, non-traditional farmers
could help them succeed in their diversified approach to agriculture.
Miscellaneous Direct Programs
The county should consider other miscellaneous, sometimes viewed as unconventional,
tools which could be effective at preserving farmland.
1. The county could consider working with area lenders on the feasibility of
creating an interest buy-down program for farmland acquisition loans. To
encourage the purchase of agriculture land for new or expanding farm
operations, such a program would subsidize the interest paid on agricultural
acquisition loans in return for a permanent conservation easement on the
affected land.
2. Various other tax credit programs could help keep land in agriculture. A land
owner who participates in a Purchase of Development Rights or Conservation
Easement program could be then qualified for certain tax credits from the
county. For example, the county could offer tax credits of perhaps 50% or
less to qualified agricultural land owners and farm operators.
3. To help further some of the programs mentioned above, the county could
encourage land acquisition agencies to consider the protection of land through
the Purchase of Development Rights or conservation easements, rather than
fee simple purchases.
The purchases of land for such public purposes as parks, park buffers, wildlife
areas, floodplain areas and wellhead protection areas may be more efficiently
and economically handled by purchasing only the development rights or a
conservation easement on such land. Purchasing only an interest in the land
reduces acquisition costs, future management costs, maintains property tax
contributions, all while allowing the land to be privately owned. In those
instances where the affected land is active agricultural land, purchasing only a
conservation easement would help keep the land in, or available for,
agriculture.
101
4. State tax incentives sometimes also prevent or minimize the amount of land
that gets preserved for production purposes. Sometimes the state tax
incentives, although well intended, result in the conversion of farmland.
Incentives for new businesses, technology, and renewable energy sources, as
an example, sometimes result in land being taken out of production to
accommodate such uses. One possible solution would be for the state to
change their policy and not give incentives if the result is a detriment to
agricultural land preservation.
Farm Labor
Many don’t view farm labor as a financial incentive, but to a degree it is. If a farmer can
hire help at a cost effective rate, it is more likely to help keep the farm in business, and
keep land in a productive state.
Calumet County has seen a significant increase in the amount of immigrant labor. Due in
part to the recent development of very large farms, it is possible the immigrants have
come to the county to seek labor on these dairies.
According to the Rural Assistance Center, the demographics of rural America are rapidly
changing. Spanish speaking immigrants, mainly from Mexico, are moving to rural areas.
While policy debates and demonstrations on immigration persists, and its effects are
measured, demographers are trying to sort out why Hispanics are moving all across the
country rather than settling in the southwestern United States, as they traditionally have
for years.
According to the USDA, Hispanics are the largest minority group in the United States,
surpassing the number of African Americans in 2003. Fourteen percent of the U.S.
population is Hispanic. By comparison, the majority of the population is non-Hispanic
white at approximately 70%. The USDA also reports that Hispanics remain the fastest
growing minority group in both metro and non-metro counties.
NAFTA
Although many farmers don’t think internationally, it is important for farmers, especially
dairy farmers, to follow the developments occurring through the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The agreement was implemented in 1994 and is to be
completed in 2008. Much of the agreement was structured to guarantee free trade
agreements between the United States and Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, and between
Canada and Mexico.
According to the Babcock Institute at the University of Wisconsin Madison, “NAFTA
already has reduced Mexico’s tariff to zero on certain U.S. dairy products. For example,
Mexico’s tariffs on U.S. fluid milk and cheese fell to zero in 2003. This made U.S.
cheese, in particular, more competitive since Mexico’s tariffs on cheese imported from
third countries remained at about 20% in 2003.” Additionally, “under NAFTA, Mexico
102
agreed to reduce tariffs on U.S. non-fat dry milk imports over a 15 year period ending in
2008. In 1994, Mexico had authorization under NAFTA to levy a 139% tariff on non-fat
dry milk imports from the U.S. exceeding 40,000 mt. In 2008 when NAFTA is fully
implemented, the tariff is scheduled to fall to zero for all U.S. non-fat dry milk imported
by Mexico”.
Mexico’s imports of U.S. dairy products were valued at $438 million in 2006, making
Mexico the largest destination market in value terms for U.S. dairy products. Obviously,
NAFTA is not the only one who should be credited with increasing imports from U.S.
dairy to Mexico. Price, demand, consumer incomes, and the agreement all contributed to
the increase of imports from U.S. dairy products to Mexico.
103
104
“The diligent farmer plants trees,
of which he himself will never see the fruit.”
~ Cicero
105
106
CHAPTER SEVEN
INDIRECT LAND PRESERVATION TOOLS
In the previous section of this plan direct financial incentives as a mean to preserve
farmland were discussed. The following are indirect tools which can be implemented to
help preserve farmland. Ideally, several of these tools, in combination with some direct
financial incentives, would be incorporated in the county to help preserve farmland.
There are many local food initiatives and new innovations that rely on agriculture and
result in land being retained for farming for human consumption or bio-mass agriculture.
These initiatives and innovations are growing in popularity and will be covered in depth
in the following sections of this plan. As such, even though they are considered indirect
preservation tools, they will be reviewed separately in the Food Initiatives section, the
Agricultural Diversification section, and the Innovations in Agriculture section which
follow the Indirect Land Preservation Tools section of the plan.
Growth/No Growth Policy
Currently Calumet County has a policy in place to limit the amount of growth in the
unincorporated areas of the county. Justly, the policy is referred to as the “Growth
Management Policy”. The policy is part of the county’s subdivision ordinance and is in
effect in all unincorporated areas of the county.
The purpose of the existing policy is to manage the rate of nonagricultural growth,
promote more efficient growth patterns, and to minimize the cost of non-agricultural
growth in the unincorporated areas by restricting the number and location of new
‘buildable’ lots created by all forms of dividing land.
The policy is as follows:
•
•
•
•
No "Major Subdivision" of ten (10) or more lots in size shall be permitted beyond
the corporate limits of any incorporated city or village.
"Major Subdivisions" of less than ten (10) lots in size may be permitted beyond
municipal corporate limits, but not beyond the boundaries of any "Growth Service
Area" shown on the Growth Management Policy map. Only "Minor Subdivisions"
shall be allowed beyond any "Growth Service Area" boundary.
Under no circumstances shall any "Major Subdivision" be permitted, unless all
the lots of such subdivision will either be served by state-approved sanitary
sewerage system, or contain sufficient area of soils, which are fully suitable for
placement of on-site sewage disposal systems.
Any subdivision plat located beyond a Growth Service Area boundary as shown
on the Growth Management Policy map, approved and recorded prior to the
effective date of these regulations, may be further subdivided (one time only)
subject to the following conditions:
107
•
1) That at least 75% of the lots comprising the pre-existing plat have been
developed with permanent, residential primary structures, or
2) That such further land subdivision shall contain no more than nine (9)
additional (new) lots.
Major subdivisions of ten (10) or more lots may be permitted beyond the
corporate limits, but within Growth Service Areas, subject to the following
conditions:
1) That such proposed new subdivision is contiguous to at least one other
preexisting subdivision of ten (10) or more lots in size; or
2) That state approved sanitary sewerage facilities are first provided for all lots of
the proposed new subdivision.
In effect, what the policy means to a rural land owner is that they can create only two lots
every five years. Throughout the county’s Smart Growth planning process the policy was
heavily discussed. What was concluded was that although effective at managing the rate
of growth, the policy wasn’t effective at preserving agricultural land. Therefore, the
Smart Growth plan recommend the policy, and the subdivision ordinance, be rewritten to
utilize density management to balance the demand for creating new lots with the need to
preserve agricultural land. The county is currently revising the subdivision ordinance to
reflect these recommendations.
The proposed growth/preservation policy of density management has had mixed degrees
of acceptance by the towns, but well embraced by the cities and villages. The
incorporated areas welcome density management around the perimeter of their
boundaries. However, cities and villages typically desire lower density levels for the
unincorporated areas than their neighboring towns. Although this difference of opinion
has been expressed, the towns are trying to establish limits which would effectively
preserve agricultural land, while allowing for minimal development. Only one city in the
county has vocally objected to its neighboring town’s proposed density levels. The city,
in cooperation with the town, and another town, do meet quarterly though to try and
resolve such conflicts, as well as to discuss other pertinent issues of concern.
There are some areas of the country with much more aggressive growth/no growth
policies. One such policy is found in Jefferson County, Wisconsin. Basically, their
policy is:
•
•
•
No new homes in the Exclusive Agricultural zoning district unless they are
replacing existing dwellings.
All new homes require zoning out of Exclusive Agriculture to a less intensive
agricultural zoning district.
Set maximum lots sizes, number of lots than can be created, and restrict what
number and location of lots based on soil type.
Portions of the Jefferson County policy should be reviewed by Calumet County to
determine if such policy could be effective in Calumet County. In that Calumet County
is the second fastest growing county in the state, the county needs to aggressively discuss
108
such possible methods of preserving agricultural land. Portions of the Jefferson County
policy, coupled with other tools proposed in this plan, such as the Purchase of
Development Rights, could help save what remaining valuable farmland is left in the
county.
Towns in Calumet County do want the flexibility to allow farmers the ability to create
lots. This desire sometimes conflicts with the goal to preserve agricultural land. Density
management, and the Jefferson County example, would allow such opportunities for lot
creation, as well as attain the goal of land preservation.
Growth/no growth policies shouldn’t just be the responsibility of county and town
government. Cities and villages need to review their policies as well to determine if they
are actively supporting farmland preservation. Of all the incorporated communities in the
county, which are bordered by land targeted for farmland preservation, all have expressed
a need to support farmland preservation in the unincorporated areas.
Recently the majority of the county’s cities and villages completed Smart Growth plans.
Those plans have adopted policies, goals and objectives, and recommendations
supporting farmland preservation, as well as policies on controlling unplanned or
inefficient growth within their boundaries. The plans promote infill development, the
conversion of farmland inside their incorporated limits prior to annexing land, limiting
extending sewer and water to areas not planned for such services, and reviewing land
divisions in their Extra-Territorial Jurisdictional areas as a method of managing growth
around the city or village.
The incorporated communities’ plans also advocate for open discussion and boundary
agreements so the city or village can be a part of any discussions about possible
development, or undesirable agricultural uses, near their incorporated boundaries.
Although the towns do not agree with all the ideas proposed by the cities or villages, they
are open to discussing concerns. As mentioned earlier, one city already meets with two
neighboring towns; another city has open dialog about various issues; while four of the
villages have met and discussed border issues in the past. Admittedly, most
disagreements aren’t about growth and development, rather they are about the potential
for a large livestock facility to be located near an incorporated community’s border.
Subdivision Management
Conservation Design
Wisconsin’s Smart Growth law defines a ‘conservation subdivision’ as “a housing
development in a rural setting that is characterized by compact lots and common open
space, and where the natural features of land are maintained to the greatest extent
possible.” Generally, conservation subdivisions, or conservation developments (fewer
lots than a traditionally sized subdivision) allow an alternative in the location of dwelling
units on a parcel of land as long as the total number of dwelling units does not exceed the
109
number of units otherwise permitted (either through density regulation or a zoning
ordinance).
The dwelling units are grouped or ‘clustered’ on only a portion of a parcel of land. The
rest of the parcel is preserved as open space, farmland, or as an environmentally or
culturally sensitive area. This clustering of the dwellings into a small area is made
possible by reducing the individual lot sizes. The open space is permanently protected by
deed and held in common ownership by the lot owners (occasionally it is owned by a
land trust or community). Sometimes additional dwelling units can be permitted if
certain objectives are achieved (typically known as ‘bonuses’).
Conservation subdivisions undoubtedly do allow more homes to be built in an
agricultural area. Therefore, their siting and development standards must be cautiously
evaluated. Allowing large conservation subdivisions, or developments, in an agricultural
area does protect the agricultural land on the main parcel from which the development
was created, but, it opens the door to incompatible land uses in an agricultural
neighborhood. In order to sustain an agricultural community and ensure farming as a
viable lifestyle, large blocks of contiguous land need to be protected and maintained.
Therefore, it is recommended that conservation developments, and cluster design
developments (discussed below) be limited in size (how many lots are created) and
location. Ideally such development would either be in incorporated areas or hamlets,
transition areas (municipal ‘buffer’ regions), or areas proven to successfully
accommodate a mix of dwelling units and agriculture (i.e. hobby farms amongst scattered
rural home sites).
Strict subdivision regulations can play a large part in managing where the residential lots
are created. Allowing conservation development or the clustering of lots, but restricting
them from the prime soil farming areas, will help restrict residential development in the
productive areas and help minimize land use conflicts and protect the farmer’s right to
farm.
If more incorporated communities would revise their codes to allow for conservation
developments in areas of the community with sensitive features (slopes, wetlands, etc.),
not only would these sensitive areas be protected rather than destroyed for development,
but there might also be less pressure to create lots in the unincorporated farming areas.
Many people want to feel they are in an ‘open’ area with vistas and space. Providing
such opportunities within our cities and villages takes the pressure off the rural areas and
indirectly preserves rural farmland.
Additionally, there is still some land being farmed within Calumet County’s incorporated
communities’ boundaries. As the communities grow, that farmland is in jeopardy of
being developed. Allowing conservation subdivisions/design in the cities and villages
helps protect not only the rural farmland (by taking the pressure off the rural farmer), but
also that farmland within the cities and villages targeted for eventual development. Prior
to pursuing any such development though, infrastructure must be evaluated to guarantee
such development is cost effective. Additionally, such development should not be
110
substituted for a community providing adequate park and open space for all residents of
the community.
Cluster Design
Another way to preserve open space and farmland while permitting residential
development is to allow for cluster development (a smaller concentration of lots than a
typical sized subdivision). Cluster development is done when homes are grouped on a
portion of a parcel, thereby preserving the remainder of the land for farmland or open
space. By grouping homes, the land owner is able to provide for smaller lot sizes while
reserving the remaining land for agricultural production.
Cluster development differs from traditional development whereby lots have to have a
minimum lot size and are not allowed to be clustered, and therefore, are scattered across a
larger parcel of land. By clustering homes on smaller parcels, there is more flexibility in
the lot sizes and design. Cluster development differs from conservation development
(discussed above) in the number of lots created, but also because the land held in open
space is typically owned and maintained by the developer (the farmer).
As with urban development pressures or the need to provide more housing in the rural
areas, cluster development options provide a means whereby the farmer can develop a
portion of his land, yet still maintain his farming operation. One of the trends in
Wisconsin and throughout the nation is to have fewer people on more land. Cluster
development allows for the housing demand while limiting the amount of landscape that
is actually consumed to meet the housing needs.
For clustering to be an effective tool for farmland preservation, the home sites should be
limited to the non-prime soils. No residential development or any portion of their lot
should be on the prime soils. Rather, the prime soils should in all circumstances, unless
on a steep slope, be reserved for agricultural production.
In the spring and summer of 2008, Calumet County had several density meetings where
clustering was discussed. Initial discussions revealed the preference was to allow for the
clustering of a few home sites, provided they are on non-prime soils. Initial discussions
also revealed the preference was that the farmer retains all open space and farmland so he
could continue his farming operation. If cluster development is to work in Calumet
County, it must be recognized that yes, clustering is a tool to allow for housing
development, but understood that the primary purpose is to use it as a tool to preserve
prime farmland.
Also, if Calumet County is going to support cluster development, they must do so in a
way that does not sacrifice environmental quality and resident’s health. Specifically, the
county has a well known groundwater quality problem. Clustering, unless on public
sewer and water, should not be allowed in areas with known groundwater concerns.
Allowing a concentration of homes in an area where there might be a possibility of
sanitary contamination or unsafe well water is not advisable.
111
In order for cluster development to be an effective farmland preservation and housing
tool, the county’s existing ordinances and policies will need to be revised. For example,
the county’s existing subdivision ordinance does not allow land outside a ‘Growth
Management Area’ (sewer service area) to be divided in more than two parcels in a fiveyear period. Additionally, the current zoning code requires minimum lot sizes of 35 acres
in some instances. Such zoning practices consume valuable farmland and take good land
out of agriculture production. It is anticipated both the subdivision ordinance and the
zoning ordinance will be revised and adopted by early 2009.
Clustering, as with conservation design, is well received because the residents of the
clustered homes not only enjoy the expansive open space, but take pride in knowing they
have clustered their home sites in an effort to preserve farmland for the future.
Density Management
Density management is a new concept in Calumet County and most of the State of
Wisconsin. Basically, rather than have minimum and maximum lot sizes, or regulate the
number of lots that can be created in a certain period of time, the density of an area is
regulated.
It is critical to understand the difference between how density is used to manage
development in comparison to minimum lot size requirements. Minimum lot size
requirements set how big individual lots have to be. Maximum density requirements set
how many new homes or lots can be divided from a larger parcel, regardless of how big
individual home sites or lots have to be. Establishing density standards typically works
in conjunction with minimum, and sometimes maximum, lot sizes to ensure the goals of
the area (such as very low density in the agriculture areas) are met while ensuring
standards are applied for health and safety (minimum lot size areas for adequate seepage
treatment and replacement).
Density can be an integral part of a conservation design ordinance or cluster development
regulations. Knowing the overall desired maximum density of an area helps the land
owner know their options, not only for development, but so they know the maximum
number of homes that can enter the agricultural community. Such advance knowledge
helps the farmer or agri-business plan their investments (for example, if there will be a lot
of homes the business will probably be reluctant to establish an agricultural co-operative
or other agri-business).
In May of 2007, Calumet County adopted a Smart Growth plan that directed the county
to use density management. In spring 2008, an ad hoc group was formed with
representatives from each town. That group met several times to make a formal
recommendation to the county on how to manage density in the unincorporated areas.
Their recommendations are reported in Chapter Five of this plan.
112
Urban Redevelopment
Urban redevelopment can also play a vital role in protecting farmland. The pressures that
are placed on the owners of agricultural land sometimes make it very enticing to take the
land out of production. The pressure on farmland and agriculture would be less if urban
centers would rebuild downtown or vacant areas and redevelop them. Public policy must
encourage and foster redevelopment and provide great incentives for businesses and
developers to locate in these urban areas.
Community Environment
The more attractive a community is the more people will want to live there. Make the
incorporated areas vibrant, full of culture, physical fitness challenges (trails, climbing
walls, and other innovative recreational opportunities), quality housing choices, and a
variety of businesses, services, and job opportunities and fewer people will have the
desire to leave and live outside the city or village.
The majority of the new development on vacant parcels in the rural areas in the county is
for housing. The maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock in Calumet
County is one of the most effective ways to ensure safe and generally affordable housing
without sacrificing land to new development. To manage housing stock maintenance and
rehabilitation, a community can monitor characteristics including price, aesthetics, safety,
cleanliness, and overall suitability with community character. The goal of ongoing
monitoring is to preserve the quality of the current housing supply with the hope of
reducing the need for new development, which has far greater impacts on community
resources.
A Smart Growth area is defined as “an area that will enable the development and
redevelopment of lands with existing infrastructure and municipal, state, and utility
services, where practicable, or that will encourage efficient development patterns that are
both contiguous to existing development at densities which have relatively low
municipal, state government and utility costs”. The county’s Smart Growth plan
encourages redevelopment in the Smart Growth areas not only as a way to strengthen
communities and improve the housing stock, but also to preserve farmland.
The Calumet County planning process and subsequently the Calumet County Year 2025
Comprehensive Plan is partially based on the following six principles as identified in the
American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report 479, The Principles of
Smart Development. The Smart Growth plan identified several opportunities for
redevelopment and for development of Smart Growth areas, as guided by locally adopted
comprehensive plans. These include the potential for infill housing and commercial
development within existing mostly developed areas, within existing city or village limits
that are presently undeveloped, within existing utility or sanitary district boundaries, or in
logical extensions of service areas as depicted on Calumet County’s Growth Management
Map.
113
•
Principle 1. Efficient Use of Land Resources
Smart development supports the preservation of land and natural resources. A
significant portion of Calumet County’s designated preferred land use is some
form of very low or low density within the agriculture enterprise, general
agriculture, and rural character areas identified on the Smart Growth Preferred
Land Use Maps. Cluster development and conservation design provisions are
recommended to minimize rural land consumption. Within the planned urban
transition areas (identified on the Preferred Land Use Maps) and within border
buffer areas long term development must be coordinated with public services
and area development plans. Most sensitive areas such as wetlands,
floodplains, and contiguous woodlands are protected through the existing
Calumet County shoreland/wetland zoning and floodplain zoning ordinances.
Conservation of the county’s natural and scenic assets is also recommended
because working farms and natural landscape assets contribute to the
economic vitality of the county. Future development should utilize the
existing road network and existing infrastructure to minimize additional local
road maintenance costs and infrastructure development costs. By actively
managing development, Calumet County can preserve its rural landscapes and
farmland while, at the same time, enhance the vitality of its existing
communities.
•
Principle 2. Full Use of Urban Services
Smart development means creating and maintaining neighborhoods where
more people will use existing services like public water and sewers, roads,
emergency services, and schools. Area development plans and review of
infrastructure service capability is recommended for development within
designated buffers surrounding incorporated areas, and in areas that are
planned to be developed such as infill or planned urban transition locations.
In most cases, urban service allocations occur and are identified within the
county’s cities and villages to accommodate growth and development. These
growth areas will also be used to accommodate the more urban needs of towns
in Calumet County. The support function of Calumet County’s cities and
villages as service centers to the surrounding rural farming area supports this
principle.
•
Principle 3. Mix of Uses
Compact neighborhoods that contain a mix of residential, commercial, and
recreational spaces within walking distance of each other promote a reduction
in auto use, increased community identity, a variety of housing types, a safe
environment for all age groups, improved urban character, and helps limit
demand for low density rural land development. Calumet County’s cities and
villages contain a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial development.
A greater challenge for Calumet County communities is the promotion of
114
growth in an attempt to create jobs through new industry and businesses.
Populations residing in adjacent rural towns are also partners in supporting a
variety of mixed uses within cities and villages.
•
Principle 4. Transportation Options
A well designed transportation network promotes safety, alternative modes of
transport, and less traffic congestion and air pollution. Calumet County’s
rural nature does not provide the density to support a wide variety of
specialized alternative modes of transportation such as public busing. The
rural land is predominantly farmland and by keeping it preserved for
farmland, there is less pressure to spend tax dollars building more roads.
Across Wisconsin, many downtown lots offer overnight parking, secure bike
rack parking, telephones for safety and convenience, and shelters for comfort
while waiting for a ride. Trails and bike racks in the downtown areas
encourage people to live where they work and play.
•
Principle 5. Integrated Community Design
This principle promotes a wide mix of housing types and land uses clustered
around one or more well-defined neighborhood centers, which support jobs,
commercial activity, and a range of services. In terms of the Smart Growth
plan, the local cities and villages address this principle through establishment
of neighborhood development and design standards. Several communities
have plan and ordinance language that encourages creative and high quality
designs for new or redeveloping neighborhoods. The county Smart Growth
Plan has recommendations that include clustering and conservation
neighborhood design. The cities of Menasha and Chilton have detailed
downtown development plans that include design principles and
redevelopment standards related to design and pedestrian movement. In other
communities, this principle was of limited importance due to the smaller size
and general lack of perceived need, but should be considered.
Calumet County’s history is evident by the number of historic buildings and
archeological sites found in the cities, villages and rural areas throughout the
county. Historic assets are identified and advocated for protection. This plan
encourages the rehabilitation and reuse of historic structures. Protecting
historic resources such as main streets is also important because historic
preservation is a powerful tool for economic revitalization that generates jobs
and attracts tourists and investors. In terms of design, 80% of everything ever
built in America has been built since the end of World War II.
The Smart Growth Plan advocates for communities to do more to ensure that
new construction – particularly chain stores, shopping centers, and franchises
– respects local character. By identifying what makes each community
115
unique, and what harms that uniqueness, localities can develop standards that
foster distinctive, attractive communities with economic vitality and a strong
sense of place.
•
Principle 6. Implementation
A community’s ability to adopt smart development principles will, of
necessity, require intergovernmental cooperation to apply the principles. We
need continued discussions and cooperation in order to properly plan and
develop ordinances that effectively improve downtown areas, limit sprawl,
and protect our rural areas from unnecessary development.
Controlling Sprawl
By improving our downtown areas, hopefully we can minimize the desire to develop our
incorporated communities’ buffers and preserve that farmland. It’s simple: We need to
control sprawl if farmland on the urban fringe is ever to be preserved. That preservation
can be done through various methods using one or several of the appropriate tools
mentioned above and throughout this plan.
Did you know?
•
•
•
•
When the towns participating with the county in the Smart Growth process
prepared their plans, one of the common discussions was people moving out
to the countryside. This problem is not just local, but it appears to be a
national problem. The Progressive Farmer magazine surveyed readers about
their biggest problems, and newcomers coming to the country appear to be the
number one concern. The Working Lands Initiative Focus Group (see
Chapter Four) identified the most common complaints made by nonagricultural residents about their agricultural neighbors. They include
tracking dirt from fields onto roads, flies, birds, smell, noise and plastic debris
from silage bags.
Nationally, six million acres were taken out of agriculture and developed
between 1992 and 1997. Those six million acres are equivalent to the size of
Maryland. (Source: American Farmland Trust)
The United States will add 100 million people to its population, bringing the
total to 400 million people over the next 32 years. (Source: The Progressive
Farmer Magazine) The nation, and Calumet County in particular, need to
determine how they will manage that growth while still preserving land for
agricultural purpose. The county Smart Growth plan adopted in 2007 will
help in deciding how best to use our land to manage growth and preserve it for
agriculture.
Many people believe that there will always be farmland, and therefore, why
should we as a county be concerned about managing our open space and
planning for the future of agriculture. From 1982 to 1997 the U.S. population
grew by 17% but land development grew by a whopping 47%. Since 1994,
116
55% of developed land went into 10 plus acre lots! (Source: American
Farmland Trust)
Zoning
Guaranteeing agricultural land and the right to farm are protected is vital to the success of
agriculture. Local regulations should be adjusted to guarantee the farmer’s right to farm
are protected. Zoning can help guarantee that right. Setting land aside in strict
agricultural zones helps the farmer maintain his rights. All too often the county hears
complaints from people who moved out to the agricultural areas and do not like the
agricultural activity that now is taking place around them. People need to be educated on
the agricultural economy and realize they will be bothered by manure, odors, dust, etc.
The safer guarantee for the farmer, though, is through land use regulation to not allow
residential development in the agricultural areas (unless of course the residence is for the
operator or their parent or children).
Currently the county has three agricultural zoning districts (and one shoreland
agricultural zoning district), with Exclusive Agricultural being the strongest district at
protecting agriculture.
The purposes of the Exclusive Agricultural district are to:
1. Preserve agricultural land for food and fiber production;
2. Protect existing farms from encroachment by conflicting, non-agricultural
land uses;
3. Maintain a viable agricultural base to support agricultural processing and
service industries;
4. Prevent conflicts between incompatible uses;
5. Reduce costs of providing services to scattered non-farm uses;
6. Properly time and shape non-farm growth;
7. Implement the objectives of the Calumet County Farmland Preservation Plan,
as adopted by the Calumet County Board of Supervisors;
8. Comply with Wisconsin's Farmland Preservation Law, to permit eligible land
owners to qualify for tax credits.
The state Farmland Preservation Program supports the principle of zoning to protect
farmland by making land covered under areas zoned for exclusive agricultural use (under
a certified ordinance) eligible for a tax credit. If zoned (and assuming other state required
criteria are satisfied) the land owner is eligible for the credits offered through the state
program.
Chapter 91 of the Wisconsin State Statutes establishes the minimum requirements for
zoning ordinances designating certain lands for exclusive agricultural use, allowing the
owners of such lands to claim the farmland preservation credit permitted by statute.
Calumet County is revising their zoning ordinance to reflect changes in the economy and
land use trends and to make sure it is compatible with the applicable statute.
117
Deed Restrictions
The county, or at least the more agricultural towns in the county, should discuss placing
right to farm deed statements on deeds when property is sold within one mile of an area
the county has identified to be preserved for agricultural purposes. This would require
the county, or town, to identify specific properties or areas they wish to preserve (i.e. land
for a PDR/PACE program).
Through the Smart Growth planning process that occurred between 2004 and 2007, most
of the towns that participated with the county in the process identified a desire to
somehow let new land owners know the realities of living near agricultural operations.
Some suggestions were identifying the area as agricultural on the deed or that new land
owners receive a flyer or other literature explaining the history of the area, the type of
agriculture in the vicinity, and the by-products of such agricultural activity.
The local UW-Extension Office and staff from the Calumet County Planning Department
created a flier the towns could use to educate new land owners about living in an
agricultural area. The flier was finalized for distribution in 2008.
Strengthen Small Farmers
Small farmers are as important to Calumet County’s economy, heritage and landscape as
large farmers. Often times the small farmer is in need of more assistance than the large
farmer, but at more of a disadvantage in accessing financial support, land and other assets
that keep him cost effective.
The need to create sustainable futures for our farmers, and give opportunities to small or
low-income farmers, is necessary to keeping land in farmland. As farmers retire and
there is the lure of converting farmland to residential development, there is also the
possibility that such farms could be sold to young, new, or low-income farmers. Keeping
these small farmsteads in agriculture not only helps preserve farmland but also provides
opportunities for specialty products or employment that normally would not exist.
In order to build sustainable futures for these farmers, the county needs to look at the
following:
•
•
Access to land and credit. Lack of access to land for small farmers is an issue
that must be resolved. Although much of the farmland is rented or cropped
and sold to large producers, there is a need to keep small farmland available
for those wanting to operate small or specialty farms. Some farmers need
credit so they can purchase equipment to operate. Providing credit to new
farmers is crucial to their success.
Market Access and Development. One of the primary obstacles for a small
producer is securing a stable market and fair price for their product. Policies
should respond to these needs by strengthening local and regional supply
chains and channels for distribution of goods and services. Programs such as
118
•
•
•
•
•
•
the ‘Buy Local Buy Wisconsin’ program and ‘Something Special from
Wisconsin’ could help market access for these producers.
Cooperative and Rural Development. Cooperatives and farm-based
businesses are important to promote the success of small-scale farmers.
Cooperatives allow them to pool resources and share expertise and risk.
Much like white-collar businesses, there is a need for mentoring and
cooperatives for small-scale farmers. The county should investigate targeted
funding or technical support for farmers looking for advice and other farmers
seeking a cooperative.
Protecting the rights of farm workers. Many large farms have changed the
nature or the rural workforce, hiring agricultural workers on a seasonal basis.
These workers typically are not paid as high as those who work year-round.
Laws need to be enacted to protect these workers and ensure that they have
access to more labor opportunities and health programs to guarantee they are
available for employment in the future for farming. The United Migratory
Opportunity Services Agency (UMOS) out of Green Bay can help the
seasonal workers obtain the same rights to work as U.S. citizens, providing
safe working conditions and fair wages.
Technical Assistance and Outreach Programs. The county should have funds
available to provide education and outreach opportunities for small, minority
or limited resource farmers to advance their technical capacity as farmers, and
educate them on programs that are available to them. To this point, the
educational sessions explaining available grants and programs have mainly
been attended by established, conventional dairy farmers. Targeting programs
toward new, minority or specialty producers would provide them with
information about the various opportunities available to them.
Equitable Access to Government Programs. All programs should be made
available to all farmers, regardless of income or minority status. The county
needs to make more attempts to reach out and provide access to the programs.
Protection of Native Seed. According to the Global Farmer Organization,
many of the world seed varieties have come under threat in recent years due to
the increasing market power of multi-seed national producers, and increased
bio-technology patenting. The Global Farmer Organization reports these
corporations create dependency among farmers with patented genetically
engineered seeds, as farmers are increasingly forced to buy new seeds and
input from the company, and forego planting native varieties. The
organization adds it would help farmers if government would ban both biopiracy and the engineering of life forms as practices that threaten the diversity
and safety of the food supply and the independence of farmers. In addition,
the county and other organizations could take measures to protect seed
diversity through local and regional seed banks, which farmers can tap into.
Land Rights and Indigenous Rights. Small farmers, and especially indigenous
people, have experienced forced removal from their lands and/or relocation
unto remote infertile land for political reasons, including commercial and
trade policies that favor large-scale productions. Although not common in
119
Calumet County, it is something the county should monitor and make sure
small farmers have access to the same prime farmland as large producers.
Know Your Neighbor
A strong sense of community makes for a desirable place to live. Communities where
neighbors know each other, and trust each other, can lead to tenure. Tenure tends to
reduce the number of times a parcel is transferred and can help keep family farms in
operation and being passed onto succeeding generations. With tenure also comes a value
in wanting to protect the farmer’s investment in his land and keep it in its most viable
state for agricultural production.
Sometimes in urban settings, neighbors don’t know neighbors and there is no desire to
stay located because there is not a sense of community. In agricultural communities it is
not uncommon for neighbors to not only know each other, but to share family
celebrations and friendships. Developing a strong bond with your neighbor can help
maintain the neighborhood ‘as is’, and reduce the desire to create lots for new residential
development. Such practices in turn keep the community strong and open for agriculture.
There are so many simple things that can be done to enhance neighbor relations and build
strong bonds. Some call it the ‘sugar principle’. Borrowing a cup of sugar means having
to call or stop at the neighbors, which usually means also enjoying a lemonade or cup of
coffee and friendly chatter. ‘Borrow’ means “to get temporary possession or use of
something belonging to somebody else, usually after asking permission”. (Source:
Encarta Dictionary) Since you are ‘getting temporary possession’ you must eventually
give it back. So, you make cookies and bring over a plate of them for your neighbor to
enjoy. And of course, this usually leads to more lemonade, or coffee, and more friendly
chatter.
Even neighborhood pot lucks, rummage sales, barn raising, calf sitting, or helping at
harvest all create an opportunity to develop good relations with neighbors and strengthen
an agricultural community.
Seed Exchange
Start a seed exchange. Exchanging seeds are the neighborly thing to do, and are an
interesting small scale agricultural practice that can be done for fun or to earn extra
income off even the smallest plot of land. A seed exchange keeps relationships open in
the agricultural community and can grow into a unique farming venture.
According to the Calumet County University of Wisconsin Extension Office, some
genetically altered crop seeds (corn, soybeans and alfalfa) have been patented and
therefore the seeds can not be shared. However, common garden varieties of corn along
with other garden seeds typically do not have such a limitation imposed on their
exchange.
120
There is actually a national organization devoted to seed exchanging. It is known as the
Seed Savers Exchange. It was founded in 1975 after a terminally-ill grandfather gave
two people the seeds of two garden plants, known to them as “Grandpa Ott's Morning
Glory” and “German Pink Tomato”. The plants came from seeds the grandfather’s
parents brought from Bavaria when they immigrated to St. Lucas, Iowa in the 1870s.
The Exchange is a nonprofit organization that saves and shares heirloom seeds. The
seeds create a living legacy that can be shared with future generations. The Exchange
believes “when people grow and save seeds, they join an ancient tradition as stewards,
nurturing our diverse, fragile, genetic and cultural heritage”. (Source: Seed Savers
Exchange)
The idea of leaving a seed legacy stretches far beyond the boundaries of Iowa, or
Calumet County. Globally there is a great interest in leaving a legacy. Rick Weiss, a
writer with the Washington Post (his story appeared in the June 19, 2006 edition) covered
the global effort. He wrote about a high-security vault, almost half the length of a
football field, to be carved into a mountain on a remote island above the Arctic Circle.
He reported more than 100 nations endorsed the vault's construction saying it would be
the most secure facility of its kind in the world. Its contents? Seeds. Millions and
millions of them from virtually every type of food on the globe.
He also reported crop seeds are the source of human sustenance, the product of 10,000
years of selective breeding dating to the dawn of agriculture. The ‘doomsday vault,’ as
some have come to call it, is to be the ultimate backup in the event of a global catastrophe
so humankind would not have to start again from scratch.
According to the terms of an international treaty that took effect in 2004, the vault was to
be built in 2006 and 2007 and was to start accepting deposits from smaller seed banks
and agricultural and scientific organizations by fall of 2007.
Weiss added that “scientists estimate there are 2 million varieties of plants used for food
and forage today. That includes an astonishing 100,000 varieties of rice, the major staple
of the human diet, and more than 1,000 varieties of banana, a nutritious fruit of global
importance”.
“Seeds from these crops, which can be smaller than poppy seeds and as large as coconuts,
are invaluable repositories of plant DNA. They are the raw material that farmers and
researchers rely on to develop more productive and nutritious plants that can cope with
climate change, new diseases or pests.”
Interestingly Weiss also wrote that about 1,400 seed banks already exist, including large
national collections in the United States and China; international ones maintained by the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), funded by the
World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the United Nations; and small
ones at universities and research labs.
121
…And what good would these seeds be without a place to plant them?
Leave a Legacy
Sharing seeds, especially heirloom seeds, are a great way to keep bonds strong in a rural
area, but passing on knowledge, experience, and land to a family member, friend, or
intrigued young farmer is probably a more effective way to preserve larger tracts of
farmland and an agricultural legacy. After all, where would we be without our fore
fathers determination to leave a legacy?
According to the Wisconsin Historical Society “wheat was the earliest and most
important cash crop for white settlers in Wisconsin. It required a small initial capital
investment and was fairly easy to grow, allowing farmers to harvest two crops a year.
The high rate of financial return made wheat an especially attractive crop for
homesteaders during the middle of the 19th century.
Wheat provided a way for new immigrants in Wisconsin to farm cheaply and to deliver a
product that many people needed. From 1840 to 1880, Wisconsin was considered
‘America's breadbasket’ because one-sixth of the wheat grown in the nation came from
Wisconsin. The early success of wheat farming helped Wisconsin's agriculture develop
more rapidly than it did in other states.
Despite its appeal, wheat also had risks and disadvantages. It was hard on the soil, which
it quickly depleted of nitrogen. Depending on the vagaries of the weather and insect
infestation, yield could vary substantially from year to year. By the late 1850s, the price
of wheat began to drop as Wisconsin yields and quality diminished and competition
increased from farmers in Iowa and Minnesota. Disaster struck in the 1860s, when tiny
insects known as chinch bugs began devouring Wisconsin wheat crops.
To meet these challenges, farmers began experimenting with a variety of alternatives to
wheat. Feed crops, rather than cash crops, were better suited to Wisconsin's soil and
climate, and came to characterize the state's agriculture in the late nineteenth century.
Charles Rockwell was one of the earliest cheese makers in Wisconsin, beginning
production at Koshkonong, near Fort Atkinson in Jefferson County, in 1837. Starting in
the mid-nineteenth century, dairying emerged as the most viable alternative to wheat.
The number of dairy cows increased rapidly and by 1899, more than 90% of Wisconsin
farms raised dairy cows. Much of the success of Wisconsin dairying can be attributed to
the efforts of William Dempster Hoard, who tirelessly promoted the industry for nearly
fifty years. The University of Wisconsin School of Agriculture also played an active role
in encouraging dairy farming throughout the southern part of the state.
The dairy industry expanded rapidly in Wisconsin for several reasons. Many of the
enterprising dairy farmers who settled in southern Wisconsin in the 1840s and 1850s
were New Yorkers. At the time, New York was the leading dairy producer in the nation
and they brought with them the skills needed for commercial dairying and butter and
122
cheese production. Although it was more difficult to produce, most of the earliest dairy
operations made cheese rather than butter because it kept longer.
Dairying was also helped by the University of Wisconsin, which actively promoted the
industry in the late 19th century through scientific research. The first professor of
agriculture, William A. Henry, used the university's farm to experiment with new
dairying methods. The university also promoted the use of cylindrical silos for storing
feed for cattle during the winter. Professor Stephen Babcock developed the first test for
butterfat content in milk, which allowed high quality butter and cheeses to be
manufactured consistently, and the university's College of Agriculture pioneered testing
for bacteria that led to practical methods of milk pasteurization.
In the 1870s, leaders of the growing Wisconsin cheese industry organized several
professional organizations to promote their product and to overcome farmer opposition to
the cheese industry. The transition from wheat husbandman to herdsman had been
difficult for many farmers, and the adjustment to the more regulated and confining
routine of the factory supplier had proved especially trying. Among the most famous of
the organizations was the Wisconsin Dairyman's Association, founded in Watertown in
1872. Though primarily a marketing association, the Dairyman's Association also
provided education in new dairying methods through its publications and meetings.
In the 1880s, the university began offering agricultural ‘short courses’ and ‘winter
courses’ in Madison to educate farmers on the benefits of dairying. Its Farmers'
Institutes, held around the state, also brought farmers and scientists together to share
ideas.
Finally, the dairy industry was helped by the German and Scandinavian immigrant
families who were quick to adopt dairying as a profitable way to farm. They also
specialized in the European-style cheeses that appealed to consumers, and Wisconsin
became known for its Swiss cheese. By 1915, Wisconsin had become the leading dairy
state in the nation, producing more butter and cheese than any other state.” (Source:
Wisconsin Historical Society)
Without a doubt the legacy and practice of dairy farming had a great effect on Calumet
County farmers. Dairying in the county has and still is a major part of our agriculture.
Milk leads as the county’s top commodity representing 55% of our total cash receipts.
(Source: Wisconsin Agricultural Statistical Service)
Passing on the farmland itself though remains a legacy in
itself. Historical county data from 1874 reveals many of the
same family names that we know today as being
agricultural land holders and farmers: Horn, Maile, Thiel,
Zahn, Hedrich, Aebischer, Kolbe, Dorn, Krupp, Lisowe,
and Bornemann.
123
What will the county records show in 100 years? Will we see the same names of our
farmers appear in agricultural data? Or will there be no agricultural data?
Education
The more educated people are about where their food comes from, how it was produced,
and farming in general, the more interest they may show in supporting agriculture and the
preservation of land for farming.
The UW-Extension has done an extraordinary job at educating people about the value of
agriculture, but there is so much more that can be done in the schools. Agricultural
education typically occurs in high school. Increasingly though such programs are
eliminated to make room for other non-agricultural programs. Making an agriculture
class a prerequisite for graduation can help people not only value farming, but open their
minds to an occupation or related field never considered. Supporting agricultural
programs in the elementary and middle schools can help instill understanding of and
support for farming.
Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards for Agricultural Education (1998) said it best,
“Agriculture, however, extends beyond production to include the financing, processing,
marketing, and distribution of agricultural products; farm production supply and service
industries; health, nutrition and food consumption; the application of science; the use and
conservation of land and water resources; development and maintenance of recreational
resources; and related economic, sociological, political, environmental, and cultural
characteristics of the food and fiber system”.
One’s future with agricultural knowledge opens the door for endless possibilities in
today’s society—not just for career planning but for helping communities realize the
value of their productive lands.
An example of an interesting approach to educating young people is through eco-literacy.
The ‘edible schoolyard’ is an eco-literacy educational program to help children learn
more about their food and how it is produced. Using food systems as a unifying concept,
students learn how to grow, harvest, and prepare nutritious seasonal produce. It is
believed experiences in the kitchen and garden foster a better understanding of how the
natural world sustains us, and promote the environmental and social well being of our
school community. (Source: The Edible Schoolyard, 2006)
124
“Where grows? --where grows it not?
If vain or toil, we ought to blame the culture, not the soil.”
~ Alexander Pope
125
126
CHAPTER EIGHT
FOOD INITIATIVES
There are several movements across the nation, and particularly in Wisconsin, all aimed
at promoting our locally grown foods. Supporting local farmers indirectly supports
farmland preservation. And, the more popular buying local becomes, the more the
demand for farmland. Preserving the land guarantees not only access to healthy local
food, but an income for the farmer.
This section will discuss the many food and marketing initiatives which indirectly place a
demand on setting aside farmland to meet consumer demand. With most of the county’s
farmland used for corn and forage, there is a growing demand for farmland to be used for
raising specialty animals and crops for human consumption. Although most human food
crops are grown on smaller farms, the demand is growing and the county will need to
diversify somewhat to meet these land needs.
Education is also an important part of these initiatives. The more educated the public is
on agriculture, its importance, and its recreational possibilities, the more understanding
people will be of farming. Also, it is possible that with such better education, people will
be more willing to support programs that are aimed at preserving agricultural lands.
Integrating education into the following ideas will help folks better understand how
consumption, farming, and land preservation are all interrelated. The development of a
Local Foods Council would be a great way of promoting the various food initiatives
discussed in this section.
Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin
Buying local is probably the biggest food initiative in the state. Recent trends in the state
have shown great support for buying locally grown foods and services. The foods are
usually healthier, fresher, have more flavor, and are more appealing because ‘buying
local’ means ‘supporting local’. With all the emphasis on health and reducing obesity in
the country, the desire for better nutrition will create an increase in demand and a greater
opportunity for local producers.
In 2006, a great idea was introduced which quickly spread across the State of Wisconsin.
The movement was called, ‘Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin’. The idea was that Wisconsin
consumers should buy products produced in their own state rather than buying products
from out of state. Such a measure would not only make local farmers more profitable,
but would help keep land in agriculture, thereby supporting farmland preservation.
Calumet County eagerly embraced the concept and worked with their International
Business and Economic Development Council for the region to rally for state support for
the program. The county took the effort one step further and has been promoting a ‘Buy
Local, Buy Calumet’ in an effort to help county farmers.
127
If supported, it was estimated the ‘Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin’ program in Wisconsin
could help retain $2 billion in Wisconsin’s communities, re-circulate upwards of $3.8
billion in local economies, help grow small and midsize farms, and help develop new
markets for products and services. It was predicted all of this could be achieved by
shifting just a mere 10% of consumer food spending to locally produced products.
(Source: Wisconsin Rural Partners)
Simple measures can support the movement. Earlier this
plan discussed the effect the schools could have on local
farmers if they purchased their milk from local producers.
Buying apples, pumpkins, or eggs at a farmer’s market or
road side stand, could also make a difference.
The Eastern Wisconsin Sustainable Farmers Network
(EWSFN) annually publishes the Farm Fresh Atlas of
Eastern Wisconsin highlighting locally grown food and
artisan products in the region. It also includes sections
highlighting farmers markets, Community Supported
Agriculture, Community Gardens, buy local stores and
Licensed Community Kitchens in the area. The Atlas is
widely distributed and helps support the buy local program.
In Calumet County it promotes a variety of foods, including the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
‘Free Range’ brown and white eggs
Apples, pumpkins, squash, unique food items, cider, and orchard experiences
(i.e. hay rides, cider pressing)
Organic raw milk and organic fresh produce, frozen foods, packaged and bulk
items
Natural pasture raised grass fed Hereford and Highlander cross beef
Homegrown pasture grass fed Dexter Beef
Natural, hand crafted, milled goat soaps, and artisan raw milk goat cheese
Locally grown lamb
Organically fed, pastured beef, chicken, turkey and pork
There are many initiatives which support the buy local effort, all of which were in
existence long before the formal buy local movement began. Farmer’s markets,
community supported agriculture, roadside stands and statewide marketing tools, all help
support local farmers and indirectly support farmland preservation. Some of these tools
will be discussed below.
Farm to School Lunch Programs
The Farm to School Lunch Program aims to connect schools with local farms. This
program seeks to introduce local and sustainably grown foods to children in the school.
One of the goals of the program is to increase children’s access to and acceptance of fresh
128
foods while creating new markets for local producers. Although the program was
initially focused on just the Madison School District, the program is now looking at
providing materials to school districts across the state that are interested in the Farm to
School Lunch Program.
At the present time it is known that only two schools in Calumet County are exploring a
Farm to School Lunch Program. As of fall 2008 the Combined Nutrition Program for the
Chilton and Hilbert Public Schools were inviting farmers and orchard operators to discuss
possible purchasing relationships. It is expected other schools in the area will follow the
lead set by these two schools.
Community Supported Agriculture
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is a marketing tool in which members of a
neighborhood or community invests in a local farm operation by committing to buying
produce, meats, and other goods from local farmers (they typically pay for goods up front
in return for a share of the harvest). CSAs first appeared in the United States in the late
1980s but have steadily been growing in popularity. Although Calumet County does not
currently have any CSAs, the nearest CSA is located in Plymouth in Sheboygan County.
There are multiple benefits to CSAs. They:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide households with fresh food picked when ripe and full of nutritional
value
They guarantee the farmer will have some income to cover the expenses
involved in producing the food
They provide opportunities for families to learn where food comes from
Help ensure environmentally sustainable family farms
Create a stronger local economy by keeping local dollars circulating in the
community
Preserve viable working agricultural lands
Build connections between urban and rural communities, helping urban
dwellers understand rural life
Although there are no CSAs in Calumet County, this is an opportunity for farmers to not
only sell food produced from their property, but an opportunity to interact with their
urban friends.
There are factors to consider when creating or joining a CSA:
•
•
•
Location: Consider how far a person would want to drive to be involved with
the on-farm activities, picking up goods, or having them delivered.
Size: CSA farms range in size based on membership, ranging from less than
10 to over 500 people sometimes.
Marketing: Some CSAs grow food exclusively for farmers markets or
restaurants.
129
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Price: Comparing each farm’s prices is difficult based on the type of crop,
farming methods, and seasons; farmers update their costs annually, and
educate their members on why prices may vary depending on seasonal
conditions.
Deliveries: The length of the season and number of deliveries varies among
farms. Usually deliveries are weekly. Some farms begin delivering in May,
some in June, and deliveries may end anywhere from October to November.
Depending on when you want your produce and the type of produce, will
determine what CSA you join. You may even want to create your own CSA.
Pickup Site: Pick up sites do vary. Pick up sites may be at the CSA, a
location in a city, at a farmers market, or delivered to your home. It is
important to have a pickup site that is near your home, school, or work.
Delivery day: Some farms deliver once a week. It is important to determine
what days and times are available for deliveries. Delivery can either be to the
pickup site, or to the home, depending on the farmer.
Types of produce and other food items: All CSA farms offer a wide variety of
goods. Finding a CSA with the goods you want to have delivered or picked
up is important. Some CSAs may include only fruits and vegetables; some
may include a mixture of honey, cheese, and eggs, or any combination.
Production practices: Some CSAs are very environmentally friendly, while
some use herbicides and pesticides. Some are certified organic, some are
considered natural. Finding a farmer with products related to your values is
important.
Involvement: Not all CSA farms encourage people to come to their property.
With the increasing concern over liability, some farmers may want to deliver
to a specific site or to the home. However, if interaction or education on
farming is important to you, you may want to consider creating a CSA that
does allow the public to visit the farm, or find a CSA that meets your
educational interests.
Examples of the type of goods which are produced and delivered at CSAs in Wisconsin
include: poultry, beef, produce, eggs, cheese, flowers, honey, herbs, and some CSAs
even include canned or handmade goods.
One of the most obvious things people like about a CSA is in knowing where their food
comes from. They can visit the farm and determine if it is produced in a clean
environment and who is processing the food, versus not knowing what state the food
comes from or how it was even produced.
Community Gardens
UW-Extension defines a ‘community garden’ as “anywhere that people are gardening
together on common ground”.
Community gardens are typically found in urban areas (although they can be established
anywhere). They are plots of land that people can rent or own and use for growing their
130
own produce and herbs. They are an excellent venue to allow city dwellers with limited
space an area to grow their own fruits and vegetables. They are also sometimes used for
growing food for or by individuals with limited incomes. Regardless, they teach
individuals and families the value of gardening and fresh food, thereby hopefully creating
a lifetime passion for fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables.
Calumet County has one community garden. It is the Hope Community Garden on
Hoover Avenue in Appleton. It is owned by a church but funded by gardeners and
grants. Eight gardeners use the garden and grow ornamentals/flowers, vegetables and
herbs. Calumet County staff or Calumet County UW-Extension should work with
communities and non-profit organizations to establish gardens elsewhere in the county
giving access opportunities to gardening to more sectors of the county.
Brown County (just north of Calumet County) has 8 UW-Extension operated rental
gardens. They also have a UW-Extension Organic Learning Center, a child care operated
garden, and an elementary school garden.
Like Calumet County, neighboring Fond du Lac County has one community garden. It is
a UW-Extension operated garden.
Outagamie County (to the northwest) has two gardens: one owned and operated by the
City of Appleton and the County, the other by a group of neighborhood residents.
There are no known community gardens in Manitowoc County (to the east).
UW-Extension is affiliated with the Food & Ecosystem Educational Demonstration Sites
(FEEDS) program. As of September 2008 they report statewide there are 4822 gardeners
working in 91 community gardens, 63 of which are FEEDS Demonstration Gardens.
(Source: UW-Extension, FEEDS, 2008)
Farmers Markets
Local marketing opportunities, such as farmers markets, are very important to the small
farmer who cannot compete globally. According to the USDA Economic Research
Service about 28% of the state’s population is considered rural. Marketing to the rural
population can be quite conducive to the farmer.
Farmers markets are growing in popularity. Once reserved for larger cities, they are now
common place in any community willing to promote their market and attract quality
producers and goods. Farmers come to a common location to sell their produce or goods
to consumers. Typically, the markets are one or two days a week and held during the
summer growing season. Several years ago such markets were quite uncommon in the
county. As of 2008, the county hosted markets in Brillion, Chilton, Kiel, New Holstein
and Stockbridge. A new trend in farmers markets is to hold them indoors during the
winter months as well. Currently, the majority of the farmers markets in Calumet County
are in operation July-October.
131
Some vendors who sell at the farmers markets also have road side stands or sell at various
random locations, such as at store parking lots. It is not uncommon to find such vendors
beyond the July-October season mentioned. Also, while fresh, locally grow produce may
not be available during the winter months, other locally made products such as soap, jam,
honey and syrup can be available for purchase year round.
In 1994, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) began publishing the
National Directory of Farmers Markets,
which lists all farmers markets operating
in the U.S. The USDA reports that from
1994 to 2006 there has been over an 18%
increase in the number of farmers markets
in the state.
A 2000 USDA study found:
•
•
•
•
•
Farmers markets are an important source of revenue
19,000 farmers reported selling their produce only at farmers markets
82% of markets are self-sustaining; market income is sufficient to pay for all
costs associated with the operation of the market (not including grant or inkind support)
58% of markets participate in WIC coupon, food stamps, local and/or State
nutrition programs
25% of markets participate in gleaning programs aiding food recovery
organizations in the distribution of food and food products to needy families
A recent issue of Fresh - A Wisconsin Perspective magazine (Volume 1, Issue 2) listed
advantages and disadvantages to selling at a farmers market. They report some
advantages to be minimal marketing start up costs, exemption from standard size and
packaging regulations, little or no packaging, minimal advertising and promotion costs,
better prices, ready cash, and direct feedback from the consumer.
The magazine lists some disadvantages as a one on one sales ratio (vs. selling too many),
highly perishable produce must be marketed quickly, long hours, space limitations,
product limitations, and local market rules.
Public Markets
Public markets differ from farmers markets in that they are open daily on a year-round
basis. Typically, the public markets are indoors. At the public markets, farmers can sell
132
their produce and other goods by renting display space. Due to the volume of people
needed to purchase the amount of goods sold at public markets, the public markets are
usually found in larger cities. In the State of Wisconsin, the public markets are found in
Milwaukee and Madison. However, small-scale public markets are a viable opportunity
for local producers to sell. Calumet County producers should consider partnering with
neighboring counties’ producers to have a regional public market in one of the larger
cities in the area.
Produce Auctions
Produce auctions are market outlets for farmers where they can sell their produce directly
to wholesale buyers. The farmers that participate in the auction typically are the ones
who own and control the auction. According to the UW-Extension, there are three
produce auctions in the state. They are located in Montello, Withee, and Cashton. Any
farmer, or group of farmers interested in produce auctions might consider contacting
these state auctions to get more information about the feasibility of such an auction here,
or, partnering in one of the existing auctions. Due to the limited amount of produce
currently being produced in the county, farmers might be better off partnering with
farmers from other counties. A partnership could allow a greater volume and variety of
produce which could be offered, thereby attracting more buyers.
Community Kitchens
‘Community Kitchens’ are a form of business incubator, specifically targeted toward
food. Community kitchens provide an area where food can be processed and gives
access to state certified kitchen facilities. Often times the community kitchens have
technical support to help the entrepreneur market their product.
There are several community kitchens in the area with the closest being in Appleton.
Green Bay and the Oneida Nation have kitchens as well. Although a bit further away, the
most established community kitchen is located in Kewaunee County in the City of
Algoma. That kitchen, the Farm Market Kitchen, does allow Calumet County residents
to utilize their facility.
Per the Farm Market Kitchen, they report they are a regional shared-use food processing
business incubator. Anyone wishing to produce and market a food product can find
everything they need to get started—from culinary supplies and equipment to food
marketing and business planning assistance. They offer:
•
•
•
•
A certified, commercially equipped kitchen for food preparation, cooking
demonstrations, or education and training.
An on-site farm market store providing an immediate sales opportunity for
food products produced within the Farm Market Kitchen.
Cooperative opportunities enabling users to access additional marketing and
networking assistance.
Meeting space for special events and community meetings.
133
The facility can either be used for home use (to prepare foods for the producer’s home
consumption), or, for business use (to prepare goods to be sold).
As of the writing of this document there are initial discussions regarding establishing a
kitchen just north of the City of Chilton.
Marketing Efforts
In addition to bringing the goods and services to a facility to directly sell or make
available to the consumer, there are tools available to market the products and have the
consumer contact the producer.
Collaborative Promotion
A collaborative promotion is a group of farmers partnering together to promote their
independent farms. The farmers use a variety of promotion strategies.
One of the most popular collaborative promotions is the ‘Buy Local Buy Wisconsin’
effort (discussed earlier). By grouping together, and promoting the idea of buying local,
the farmers create a demand for their services.
‘Savor Wisconsin’ is another collaborative promotion and is an online resource which
features producers, farmers markets, restaurants, events, and companies, which are
labeled ‘Something Special from Wisconsin’. Savor Wisconsin is a joint project
between DATCP, UW Extension, the Wisconsin Apple Growers Association and the
Farm Fresh Atlas. Savor Wisconsin is a by-product of the Governor’s Grow Wisconsin
plan, which encourages people to support the state’s economy by buying goods and
services produced in the state.
Another popular collaborative promotion is the Wisconsin Agricultural Tourism
Association (WATA). The Association’s primary focus is to educate, promote and
stimulate interest in agricultural tourism. The Association also encourages tourism
related businesses to work together to promote agricultural tourism and to cooperate with
other organizations to reach these goals.
‘Local Marketing Co-ops’ are another type of collaborative promotion. They consist of a
group of farmers working together to market their goods. It is a local effort, comprised
solely of those interested in marketing their products or services. Together they do a
series of different promotions all aimed at their specific goods and services. One
example would be a group of organic farmers placing ads to buy their goods at the local
market.
The county should conceptually support a cooperative marketing effort to promote foods
grown by Calumet County farmers. Consider the benefits to farmers and all related
businesses if Calumet County’s farmer’s markets and roadside stands/farms were
134
collaboratively promoted as the region’s food shopping destination. Farmers, coupled
with the grant seeking and marketing talents of county staff, could help such a vision
become a reality. Think about it: ‘Calumet—The Culinary Crop to Shop!’
Food Sovereignty
The basic principle behind food sovereignty is the concept that family farmers are
embraced not just in the United States, but also globally. Food sovereignty ensures that
agriculture in a community is fair and healthy for everyone. Food is produced in a
healthy manner and sold at a fair price. Those who support food sovereignty believe the
farmer should have the first right to local and regional markets and their products of
highest quality to benefit the communities’ consumers. Food sovereignty supports ‘Buy
Local’ philosophies and agricultural sustainability.
The National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) is an advocacy group that represents family
farm organizations nationwide. They are working on local, national, and international
projects and policies to help defend food sovereignty and the right of all people to choose
where and how their food is produced. The vision statement for the NFFC is, “We
envision empowered communities everywhere working together democratically to
advance a food system that ensures health, justice, and dignity for all…farmers, ranchers,
and fishers will have control over their lands, water, seeds, and livelihoods and all people
will have access to healthy, local, delicious food”. (Source: NFFC)
Slow Food
The ‘Slow Food’ movement is about food, which is naturally delicious, grown with care
from strong and healthy plants and animals. The food is grown and harvested using
methodology that has a positive impact on bio-diversity and ecosystems. The laborers
that help produce the food are treated with dignity and are justly paid for their labor.
Due to the industrialization of our society, many of the Slow Food practices have been
overlooked. We are so accustomed to speed and having everything at our disposal that
we forget the importance of savoring food and using it in a social manner, such as a long
meal with family and friends.
The Slow Food movement focuses on good, clean and fair food. According to Slow
Food USA, the movement believes food we eat should taste good; that it should be
produced in a clean way that does not harm the environment, animal welfare or our
health; and that food producers should receive fair compensation for their work; and that
all people should have access to this good and clean food. They consider themselves coproducers, not consumers, because by being informed individuals about how food is
produced and actively supporting those who produce it, those in the movement will
become a part of and a partner in the production process.
The Slow Food USA mission envisions a future food system that is based on principals of
high quality and taste, environmental sustainability and social justice. They seek to
135
catalyze a broad cultural shift away from the effects of an industrial food system and fast
life toward cultural, social and economic benefits of a sustainable society and regional
food traditions, the pleasures of the table, and all being in a harmonious rhythm of life.
(Source: Slow Food USA)
Although Slow Food is a national movement, it is also very organized. The movement
began shortly after 1986 in Italy and although extremely popular in the United States, it is
an international movement. They became a non-profit organization in 1989 and are
currently made up of nearly 1,000 chapters, with four being in the State of Wisconsin. It
has developed into a non-profit educational organization which celebrates and supports
the food traditions of North American programs and activities, which focus on taste
education and biodiversity, and, building food communities. One belief is that slowing
down and enjoying the pleasure and quality in everyday life, and respecting the traditions
and labor that went into producing our food, we can improve our overall society.
Although Slow Food began in 1986 in Bra, Italy with 62 founding members, it did not
reach the United States until 2000. In that year, Slow Food USA was born with a
national office in New York City.
The international headquarters for the movement is in Bra, Italy. Although Slow Food
works locally in Italy, they do work internationally with policy makers such as the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. It has made relationships with governments
across the world, consulting for Italy’s Minister of Agriculture, working with New York
City’s mayor, and collaborating with the Brazilian Government.
The mission of Slow Food is “through its understanding of gastronomy with relation to
politics, agriculture and the environment, Slow Food has become an active player in
agriculture and ecology. Slow Food links pleasure and food with awareness and
responsibility. The association’s activities seek to defend biodiversity in our food supply,
spread the education of taste, and link producers of excellent foods to consumers through
events and initiatives”.
As for the biodiversity aspect of the Slow Food movement, Slow Food believes the
enjoyment of good foods and wines should be coupled with efforts to save traditional
cheeses, grains, vegetables, fruits, and animal breeds that are disappearing due to the
popularity of convenience foods and agribusiness. Through various projects, the Slow
Food movement seeks to protect invaluable food heritages.
Through taste education, Slow Food aims to teach the pleasures of taste that are not
always learned through meals consumed in fast-paced settings. They express the need for
leisurely meals to make a conscious effort to explore, question and experiment with food.
Efforts to enhance education have been workshops, which offer guided tastings with food
experts, teaching Slow Food practices in schools, and proper training of gastronomes
trained at the University of Gastronomic Sciences.
136
Slow Food also aims to link producers and consumers by organizing fairs, events, and
farmer markets that showcase quality products. They have had great success through the
International Food Festival Salone Bel Gusto and other events such as Urban Harvest.
The activities sponsored by the organization range from visits to orchards, to daylong
food and wine trails. Through tasting new foods, visiting farms and engaging in classes,
members refine their awareness of flavors and expand their knowledge and appreciation
of the food’s production. By working with schools and producers, authors, and experts,
they bring taste education and awareness of current issues to the public.
The taste workshops allow participants to taste products while they are discussed and
explained by producers and experts. A workshop can concentrate on one specific
product, or compare different foods created in a similar way. There is an emphasis on
matching food with drink, whether traditional (such as wild game with red wines) or
innovative (such as beer with chocolate).
One example in the United States stems from St. Louis, Missouri. Beginning in 2004,
Slow Food Missouri has worked with the Center of Contemporary Arts to host an after
school program that exposes students of an inner city elementary school to food grown
locally and to teach them how the food should be prepared.
According to Slow Food USA, we currently rely on very few crop species for human
consumption. The organization reports that less than 30 plants provide 95% of the
world’s nutrition. In the past century, 250,000 plant species have gone extinct. Since the
beginning of the 20th century, America has lost 93% of its agricultural products, Europe
almost 85%.
By practicing Slow Food principles, there is a demand for better tasting foods and a better
diversity in food production. Such stimulus enforces the need to keep land available for
agriculture so diverse foods can be grown and explored.
Governor Doyle has expressed that the state should diversify and have more specialty
products, cheese in particular. Slow Food also supports the need for specialty cheese
production. Slow Food supports raw milk cheese. According to the organization,
“pasteurizing milk kills the potentially harmful microorganisms that can come from
leaving it at unsuitable temperatures or milking unhealthy animals. However, when
cheese is made with care on a small scale, pasteurization is an unnecessary step that kills
the beneficial micro flora that contributes to its unique flavor”.
Coupling dairy producers with specialty cheese makers can be a niche for Calumet
County. Cheese producers that use raw milk can have an advantage over traditional
cheese producers. Additionally, cheese production using raw milk helps bring awareness
to some of the legal battles raw milk producers face.
137
138
“We have become not a melting pot but a beautiful mosaic.
Different people, different beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes,
different dreams.”
~ Jimmy Carter
139
140
CHAPTER NINE
AGRICULTURAL DIVERSIFICATION
Traditionally, growing crops for grain or silage, and dairying, have been recognized as
the county’s prime agricultural industry. As described earlier in this plan, the dairy
industry has a long history in the state. Recent regulatory changes and fluctuations in
equitable milk prices have made dairying more challenging than in years past. Relying
primarily on dairy for the county’s agriculture can be viewed as ‘putting the eggs all in
one basket’. Without a diversified agricultural economy, the county’s agricultural
industry is at risk of tragic failure in the event of changes in dairy demand.
This section of the plan will review the status of dairy and crops in the county and discuss
ideas to help diversify the county’s agriculture. A diversified base helps keep land
preserved for farming, especially on those lands where traditional crops and dairying
posed too much of a challenge, or on those farms once operated by now retired farmers.
Dairy Farming
Wisconsin leads the nation in the number of dairy farms, with 14,265 farms reported by
the Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service, 2007. California leads the nation in the
volume of milk production, but has only a mere 2,400 dairy farms. Nonetheless, the
number of dairy farms in Wisconsin has been declining steadily for years. The
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) 2004
Dairy Producers Survey indicates that, by 2009, Wisconsin could see the number of dairy
herds decrease to 11,300—a 21% decline. (Source: National Agricultural Statistics
Service 2004)
In Calumet County, we have seen fewer farms, but larger farms. In 1997 the county had
342 farms with milk cows, but that dropped to 225 by year 2002. However, in that same
period the county went from 22,364 cows to 22, 499 cows. (Source: National
Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002) Since 2002, the county has seen three new very
large farms established. As of 2008, there were 5 dairy operations in Calumet County
with over 1,000 animal units and 14 with 500-1000 animal units. And despite the fact
that we are the second fastest growing county in the state, cows still out number
residents.
With over 230 dairy farms and several large
dairy manufacturing plants (there are currently
seven plants in the county that process dairy
products), all of which are supported by a
complex infrastructure, the dairy industry
continues to be the economic mainstay of
agriculture in the county. In 2006, Calumet
County led the state in milk production with over
20,000 pounds produced per cow. (Source:
141
Calumet County Land and Water Conservation Department and Calumet County Year
2025 Smart Growth Plan)
As reported by the UW-Extension, dairy is the largest part of Calumet County’s
agriculture economy. Calumet County milk producers and the dairy industry contribute
$142.9 million to the county’s economy. The on-farm production and sale of milk
accounts for $59.7 million in economic activity. The processing of milk into dairy
products accounts for another $83.2 million. On-farm milk production and dairy
processing account for 650 jobs. One dairy cow generates approximately $2,154 in direct
income to producers and $15,000 to $17,000 of economic activity.
At a state level diary has similarly impressive numbers:
•
•
•
•
An average 250 cow dairy farm contributes over $1 million to the local economy
Each dairy cow generates over $17,000 per year in economic activity
There are over 1.2 million cows in the state
Milk is 8 times more important to Wisconsin than potatoes are to Idaho, and, 2
times more important to the state than oranges are to Florida
(Source: Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board)
Wisconsin’s dairy exports and dairy genetics are growing at rapid rates. In the first
quarter of 2008 dairy exports grew by 103% to a value of $65 million. Dairy genetics
rose 10% to $11 million. (Source: Wisconsin Public Service)
Although dairy and milk contribute so much to the rural landscape and county’s
economy, like any business, if a farmer does not keep current with the trends, the farmer
risks being competitive and making a decent profit. Diversification in the dairy industry
is as important as diversification in other arenas of agriculture.
Go Green
In today’s society, it seems everyone is thinking about the environment and how we can
improve operations to have less of a negative impact on the earth. Dairying is no
exception. The state’s Dairy Business Association and the state’s Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) recently signed a “Green Tier Charter Agreement”, which will help
promote green dairy processes in the state and serve as a model for farming.
Calumet County is honored to have a farm that participated in the DNR Green Tier
Program in 2005. Holsum Dairy in the Town of Rantoul follows the Green Tier
requirements. Holsum’s efforts have proven successful and can serve as an example to
other dairies in the county. Per the DNR, the following are some of the many processes
implemented at Holsum Dairy:
•
•
•
Clean water diversions
Established wetlands to filter runoff
Construction of wet sediment basin
142
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Peak storage leachate collection system
Waste oil collection, storage and disposal
Staff present at all times when refueling to prevent spills
Specific manure tank filling areas to reduce tracking on public roads
Grass waterways in place with additional grass waterways started
Quick manure incorporation to reduce runoff and nitrogen loss
Manure application to growing crops
14 months manure storage capacity with no application on frozen ground
Barn and digester designed to result in no frozen manure application during
winter
Emergency manure spill response plan developed
Utilize water that is delivered to cows to first cool milk and cool compressors
Water use monitored
Weekly and daily water leak inspection
Manure storage is at least 300 feet from wells
Manure digester on site that reduced odor 90 to 97%, reduce greenhouse gases
and methane emissions, reduce need for natural gas production and
transmission, and provides renewable electricity
Planted prairie grasses, flowers, and trees to dissipate odors. Additional 400
trees planted in nursery for planting
Additional feed placed on neighbors field to provide for pheasant and other
wildlife; installed bluebird boxes
Placed containers onsite for collection and proper disposal of waste
Cloth towels reused; saves 9,200 paper towels daily
Waste byproducts from human food and fiber product utilized as feed
products
Heat from generators to heat floors throughout the operation, reducing
propane use
Heat captured from cooling milk and compressors used to preheat water prior
to the water heater
Manure application with hose reduces diesel fuel use
Organic cow manure reduces need to use natural gas to produce commercial
nitrogen fertilizer
Other methods used to conserve energy:
ο Variable speed water and milk pumps
ο Low pressure water system
ο Variable speed vacuum pumps
ο Groundwater used to cool milk from 100 degrees Fahrenheit to 60 degrees
Fahrenheit prior to electrical compressor cooling
ο Energy efficient light bulbs
ο Timers and thermostats used minimized use of electricity for fans, lights,
and pumps
ο Timers used to shift electrical use to periods of off peak demand
ο Energy efficient air compressor system and cooling compressors
143
According to the Green Tier Program, Holsum Dairy produces approximately $400,000
of organic fertilizer for local farmers in the form of manure (not liquid waste). The
environmental benefit of using the organic fertilizer means less fossil fuels are used to
manufacture and ship commercial fertilizer to the county. Approximately $175,000
worth of natural gas would need to be used to produce the equivalent amount of nitrogen
fertilizer. The use of natural gas is considered one of the top five causes of global
warming. Two clay-lined ponds (40 feet of clay) are used to store manure until the fields
are ready for application of the organic plant nutrient (manure).
The farm is well known for their anaerobic digester for processing manure. The digester
has many benefits, one being the great reduction in odor, degradation of weed seed in
manure, reducing the level of herbicides used to control weeds common with use of
manure as a fertilizer, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends the use
of digesters for the control of flies. Most notably with the digester though, is the fact that
it uses manure as a renewable energy source creating approximately 700 kilowatts of
electricity. The environmental benefit is that less non-renewable coal is burned to
produce electricity and less methane gas is released into the atmosphere.
The dairy uses by products such as wet brewer’s grain and waste pizza crust from local
businesses as a feed source. The dairy utilizes local malt producer liquid from their grain
processing to produce additional electricity. Such measures reduce the pressure on the
nearby City of Chilton’s waste management plant by reducing the amount of liquid the
local malt producer is putting into the city’s waste management plant.
The dairy has increased the size of a local wetland on the farm. In addition, the dairy has
demonstrated good stewardship by planting approximately one-third acre of prairie
grasses and flowers on land around the dairy.
The dairy was designed to have 20% less peak runoff during heavy storms by using
measures such as waterways, retention basins and wet sediment basins. Overall, such
measures reduce downstream flooding.
The dairy also uses excellent water conservation practices. It conserves a substantial
amount of land for farming purposes, and has employed many local farmers.
Approximately 20 farmers provide forages to the dairy, totaling approximately $1.2
million. Additional feeds are purchased from local cooperatives; meaning crops are
purchased from approximately 4,000 acres of land that are in Calumet County (versus
being transported out of the area). The benefit is obvious in that fossil fuels are not
wasted shipping feeds outside the community, more local cropland is utilized, and more
local farmers have the ability to make a profit on their land. In addition to employing the
local farmers, the dairy employs 30 full time individuals from the community with a
payroll in excess of $1.2 million annually. The people employed are able to live and
work in the county rather than commute outside the area. The resulting effect is the
income is kept within the county.
144
Lastly, Holsum Dairy strives to be a sustainable operation. The food from the dairy is
healthy for consumers; the animals are well cared for; the environment and surface water
protection plays a significant consideration in the operation of the farm; they report
workers are treated with respect and fairness; and the dairy’s interaction with the
community is well received and the monies provided to local residents.
Not all farmers can follow the lead Holsum has set, but Holsum can be used as an
example for others. There are small things a dairy farmer can do to make their operation
more eco-friendly sometimes resulting in a more efficient operation.
Calf or Heifer?
According to the UW-Extension, raising of heifers accounts for 18% to 24% of the total
cost to operate a dairy farm. Often it’s the second largest expenditure on the dairy farm.
In 2007, UW Extension did an Intuitive Cost of Production Analysis (ICPA). The project
evaluated 49 Wisconsin operations, which included tie stall, free stall and custom calf
and/or heifer grower operations. The project covered 21 different counties and looked at
both calf and heifer enterprises.
For purposes of the study, a calf was considered an animal raised from birth until she is
moved to group housing. What the project discovered was the cost of raising a calf in
Wisconsin had an average daily cost of $5.42, and a total cost of $326.08. Overall, the
cost to raise a calf tie stall was higher than free stall.
The study also found that the total costs to raise a calf increased significantly since 1998.
In 1998 the labor and management costs per calf was $67.41, and required 9.2 hours per
calf. In 2007 those numbers increased dramatically to $153 per calf, and 12.3 hours per
calf. This meant that in a nine-year period, there was a 127% increase in cost per calf,
and a 33.4% increase in the time dedicated per calf.
The heifer enterprise was also analyzed. For purposes of the study, a heifer was
considered an animal raised in group housing to the time of freshening, or in the case of
the custom heifer grower, the time the heifer is returned to the producer.
The cost of raising a heifer in Wisconsin had an average daily cost of $2.04 with a total
cost of $1,322.71; significantly higher than the cost of the calf enterprise. The overall
cost for raising heifers was slightly higher for tie-stall versus free-stall.
The study compared the cost of heifer raising from 1998 to 2007, as it did with the calf
raising. What they found is that the heifer raising cost did increase in 2007 but not as
drastically as they had for the calf raising. The labor and management cost per heifer in
1998 was $144.36 with 9 hours per heifer. In 2007 the labor and management cost per
heifer was $243.93, with 9 hours per heifer. The increase was a 69% change over the
nine-year period, but the hours per heifer remained fairly stable (it was actually –0.4%).
145
The study provides a good benchmark for dairy producers and custom calf and heifer
growers. The study allows a grower or producer to compare themselves to the producers
and growers in the study. The study recommends that dairy producers take into account
each year what the costs are for raising replacement heifers. They should also pay close
attention to volatile areas (for example, milk replacer costs). Other things to be looked at
is the number of dairy replacements required to maintain herd size, quality of heifers
raised and how they will perform as milk cows, and the investment tied up in items such
as buildings and the number of animals due to management areas such as delayed age of
first calving.
The study concludes by noting that as for heifers and their investment in the future dairy
herd, they can provide high quality replacements for improving genetic progress, and,
opportunity to maintain and improve the dairy herd.
Dairy Goats
According to the Dairy Business Innovation Center, the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) is implementing an economic
development plan to strengthen the goat dairy industry in the state and to expand goat
milk supply.
Per the American Dairy Goat Association, goat milk has a more easily digestible fat and
protein content than cow milk. The increased digestibility of protein is of importance to
infant diets (both human and animal), as well as to invalid and convalescent diets.
Furthermore, glycerol ethers are much higher in goat than in cow milk which appears to
be important for
the nutrition of
the nursing
newborn.
As much as 70%
of the world's
population
depends on goat
milk as a food
source. The
Wisconsin Dairy
Goat Association
(WDGA) reports
goats were one of
the first animals
to be
domesticated by
man, and for
thousands of
years have
provided us with
food, drink, and
companionship.
Goats are a good
alternative for
farmers whose
land is marginal
in that unlike
dairy cows, dairy goats can efficiently produce milk on marginal brushy and swampy
land that would not sustain a cow, and they require less feed and space. (Source:
Wisconsin Dairy Goat Association)
Wisconsin is the largest producer of fluid goat milk in the country and produces enough
milk to support several specialty cheese manufacturing plants in the state, one fluid milk
146
processor, and two licensed farmstead cheese producers. Wisconsin Dairy Goat
Association members' herds range in size from a few goats for home milk consumption to
more that three hundred in several commercial dairies. There are about 165 milking
herds in the state including 19,506 milking does. Together, these animals produced 27.6
million pounds of goat milk in 2007. (Source: Wisconsin Dairy Goat Association)
As mentioned above, goat milk is rapidly growing in popularity. According to a joint
survey conducted by the DATCP and the Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service, 42%
of producers are relatively new to the dairy goat industry and have been milking fewer
than three years; 41% have more than five years of experience. The survey predicts goat
milk production is likely to grow significantly over the next five years, as 79% of
operations plan on increasing the size of their milking herds.
In 2007, the Dairy Goat Initiative, a sector of DATCP held three discovery sessions in
Wisconsin to generate ideas for supporting and expanding the dairy goat industry. The
discovery sessions were held in Menominee, Baraboo, and Chilton. Calumet County was
fortunate to have the session here, which allowed local dairy goat farmers to offer
comment. According to the Dairy Goat Initiative, the one-day sessions brought 39
people together to discuss the industry. Although the sessions focused on several topics,
this plan will address the concerns and ideas discovered at the session held in Chilton.
The Chilton discovery session was held in August 2007 and was well attended by 18
people. The session revealed a strong support for locally produced food, and
acknowledgement that rural businesses tend to be small or micro enterprises; people need
to be well educated on the financial aspects before pursuing involvement in the industry;
they need information on promoting healthy herds and preventing problems; noted the
incentives for high quality milk were available; stressed a desire to have a goat cheese
plant in northeast Wisconsin, and a need for better marketing, funding and partnerships.
The Chilton group stressed that volume in goat milk is not the goal.
The Chilton group’s recommendations to the Dairy Goat Initiative was a better market
development plan and to expand the production knowledge base (develop low cost
preventive techniques and a producer network).
According to the Report on Goat Industry Discovery Sessions, 2007, “The strong interest
and enthusiasm of the participants, the interchange of ideas, and recommendations
obtained from the three discovery sessions around the state, demonstrate that discovery
participants expect the goat industry to grow and to flourish in Wisconsin”.
A review of the ideas that came out of the discovery sessions shows there is much to be
done to grow, strengthen, and enhance the industry from production through marketing to
the consumer’s table. That work will need to be addressed by producers, veterinarians,
the UW-Extension, the Technical College System, lenders, economic and community
developers, processors, marketers, and others.
147
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (2020 data) Calumet County has
three farms which have milk goats. Probably the best known is the LaClare Farm in the
Chilton area.
The Organic Dairy Farmer
Organic dairying in the state, and in Calumet County, represents a small share of all dairy
farming in the state and the county. Although small, the number of organic dairy farms is
increasing. The public demand for organic products is driving a need for more organic
dairy farms or the expansion of existing ones.
Dairy farmers find they receive a higher price for their milk, and claim they are more
satisfied with the quality of life they experience in their farming operation. Per the
National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2005 Data, organic dairies represent 2% of all of
the state’s dairy farmers. Despite this low number, Wisconsin is one of the top two
organic dairy product producers for the United States markets (Source: Greene, 2006).
The state also boasts of the largest organic milk cooperative, ‘Organic Valley’, also
known as ‘CROPP Cooperative’. Due to the lucrative organic milk price premiums, the
state is experiencing more conventional farmers converting their operations to become
organic dairy farms.
According to the Program on Agricultural Technology Studies (PATS), College of
Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin Madison, organic dairy farmers
in 2003 reported receiving $19.50 per hundred weight for their milk, which was $7.20
higher than conventional operations. In addition, when the organic dairy farmers were
surveyed and asked what price they needed to remain profitable, the organic dairy
farmers reported they needed $16.80 per hundred weight.
Also according the PATS research, organic dairy farmers experienced much greater
improvements in income over the past five years than other types of dairy farms. Close
to 60% of organic dairy farmers report household income increases (‘some what’ or ‘a
lot’) between 1997 and 2003 while more than 50% of graziers and conventional dairy
farms reported income declines over that same period.
Although the price for organic milk is significantly higher, actual milk production per
cow is slightly lower than a grazier or conventional dairy farm. According to the PATS
research, organic dairy farm cows produce 52.3 pounds of milk per cow per day,
compared to 54.6 for a grazier and 64% for a conventional dairy farm. Although the
organic dairy farm is producing less milk per cow per day, the difference is minimal.
For the farmer tired of farming and not satisfied with his farming lifestyle, or, for the
farmer who seeks to have a different yield, organic dairying is one option available to
remain farming and keep his land in dairying.
148
(More information about other aspects of organic farming will be found later in this
section.)
The Amish Dairy Farmer
Today’s dairy farmer in Calumet County is slightly different than years past. The county
is seeing more Amish, and female, dairy farmers.
The Amish strive for sustainability and are an integral part of our alternative dairy sector.
As with organic producers, Amish producers have a lower average herd size, milk
productivity levels, and total acres in operation than conventional dairy producers.
According to the PATS research, the average Amish dairy farm is 81.4 acres, compared
to the average organic farm of 307.2 acres. The conventional type farm is 399.1 acres.
Organic farmers are similar to conventional farmers in that they utilize a number of
technology practices. However, the Amish are the least likely to utilize such practices.
The Amish are more likely to rely on pasture as a primary source of forage. Whereas,
Wisconsin Amish dairy farmers use 97.9% of pasture as their primary source of forage;
organic used just 65.4%; and conventional dairy farmers a mere 36.7%.
The Amish dairy farmer tends to be slightly younger than an organic or conventional
farmer, and have less experience operating their farm, and did not inherit the family farm.
For example, the average age of the Amish dairy farmer is 40.8 years, whereas, the
organic and conventional farmer is slightly older than 48 years (48.3 and 48.5
respectively). The average Amish farmer has operated his farm for 17.1 years, the
organic farmer 22.8, and the conventional farmer 26.4 years. For Amish dairy farms
13.6% of Amish dairy farmer’s parents owned the farm, whereas, a whopping 62.7% of
all organic dairy farms were owned by the parent, and 63.7% of conventional farms were
owned by the parents.
The Amish play an important role in
Calumet County’s farmland
preservation. Smaller farms,
sometimes over-looked by larger
conventional farmers, may be
adequately sized for the Amish.
Amish farming helps keep these
over looked farms in a productive
state.
Calumet County needs to diversify
its policies to show more
appreciation for this diversified
farming group. More road signage
making travelers aware of the Amish and their mode of transport (the horse and buggy),
149
buggy parking stalls made available at banks and other establishments (a wider and
longer stall would be more accommodating than typical car stalls), and changing zoning
codes to accommodate this farming sector could all help the Amish succeed in the
county.
The Female Dairy Farmer
Women have always had an important role in farming. Women were the first farmers.
When men left home to go hunt, the women foraged for food. It is no wonder women
have now made a distinguished mark in the dairy industry. In Calumet County this mark
is pretty evident: Calumet County is proudly home to one of the dairy industry’s best
female dairy farmers—a local New Holstein woman coveted the honor of World Dairy
Expo 2007 Dairy Woman of the Year!
Currently in the county there are 309 female farm operators (includes non-dairy).
Although the county does have a good share of women working on the farms, only a
small share are principal operators. In 1997, 41 women were the principal operator, but
that dropped to 40 in 2002. Likewise, so did the size of their farms. In 1997, female
farms comprised 4,801 acres, but in 2002 that dropped significantly to 2,279 acres.
Diversifying the sex of the operator, and accepting women in the dairying industry,
means more farms can continue in farming. Since the average life span of women
exceeds that of men, it only makes sense to accommodate this emerging sector.
Additionally, since Calumet County has slightly more women than men, there is an
opportunity to keep farms in operation well beyond the retirement year of the male
farmer.
Grain and Silage Crops
As mentioned earlier the majority of the crops grown in Calumet County are grown for
grain or silage. The majority of all wheat, oats and some barley are for grain purposes.
Corn is grown for both grain and silage purposes. Soybeans are also popular amongst
farmers, and are grown primarily for the beans.
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (2002 data) the most common
crop in the county is for forage. Forage is considered land used for all hay and haylage,
silage, and green chop. Forage is produced on 472 farms and covers 38,017 acres.
Forage is extremely important to the county’s agricultural industry in that it supports the
ever growing dairy industry. As forecasts show, dairying will continue to grow in the
state, meaning farms for forage will continue to be in demand. Saving land for forage is
vital to the success of the county’s dairy industry.
The second most grown crop in the county is corn. There are 337 farms that grow corn in
the county. Corn is grown on 29,509 acres. Corn is grown for both grain and silage. As
the popularity of ethanol increases, this crop may be more in demand (depending on its
competition to switch grass or other new crops). Competition amongst the crop’s use
150
may drive up the price of the crop. In the county there is a concern over an increase in
corn crops in that corn does not filter runoff as well as grasses. The karst features in the
county tend to allow pollutants to reach the groundwater quicker, and grasses tend to
filter such pollutants better than corn.
Despite county concerns, corn will probably remain a major crop. Corn is the most
widely produced feed grain in the United States, accounting for more than 90% of total
value and production of feed grains. Around 80 million acres of land are planted in corn.
Most of the crop is used as the main energy ingredient in livestock feed. Nationally corn
is also processed into a multitude of food and industrial products including starch,
sweeteners, corn oil, beverage and industrial alcohol, and fuel ethanol. The United States
is a major player in the world corn trade market, with approximately 20% of the corn
crop exported to other countries. (Source: USDA, Economic Research Service)
Cereal has always been a major state export. In the first quarter of 2008 cereal exports
grew in the state by 19% to $19.6 million. (Source: Wisconsin Public Service)
Following corn production in the county is soybeans. Soybeans are grown on 285 farms,
covering 24,750 acres. Close behind soybeans is wheat, being grown on 222 farms, but
grown on only 8634 acres. Oats are grown on 140 farms and 2732 acres. Some barley is
grown but it is grown on only 13 farms, covering 314 acres.
Aside from the crops mentioned, there is not much diversity in the crop farming industry
in the county (crop diversity possibilities are discussed below). Surprisingly, with the
presence of Kaytee Products, Inc. (a bird seed company) in the county, no farms report
growing sunflowers!
Organic Agriculture
Diversifying from predominantly dairy to a wealth of other crops and meat types helps
provide more jobs and products highly in demand. Recent health trends have
dramatically increased the consumers demand for anything considered organic or natural.
The market for organic products has increased by 20% per year for the past 12 years
(Source: Midwest Organic & Sustainable Education Service).
What exactly does ‘organic’ mean? Organic farmers use on-farm resources whenever
possible. Composts, livestock manures and plowed-down legume crops improve organic
matter and provide nutrients. Mechanical cultivation, crop rotations, use of mined soil
amendments and cover crops are used to control weeds and pests. Raw manure
applications to organic crops for human consumption are regulated to prevent pathogenic
contamination. Farmers promote animal health through sound nutrition based on organic
feeds; lush pastures, proper housing, minimal stress and preventative health care
practices. Allowing the animals to express their natural behavior, have freedom of
movement and access to the outdoors results in strong animal immune systems for all
species and exceptional longevity for organic dairy cattle. (Source: Midwest Organic &
Sustainable Education Service)
151
In early 2007 the state created a Wisconsin Organic Agriculture Advisory Council. The
12-member Agriculture Advisory Council was created in recognition of Governor
Doyle’s Grow Wisconsin agriculture effort. Wisconsin leads the nation in organic dairy
production and boasts more then 700 certified organic farms and 150 businesses certified
to process organic products. According to the Grazing and Organic Agriculture
Specialist Division of Agricultural Development in Wisconsin’s DATCP (2008 data), the
number of organic farms are increasing by 15 to 20% a year.
There are 10 certified organic farms in Calumet County (Source: DATCP, 2008). These
ten farms are depicted on Map N. The Grazing and Organic Agriculture Specialist
Division of Agricultural Development in Wisconsin’s DATCP (2008 data) also report the
county has two businesses listed as certified for organic processing:
•
•
Briess Malt and Ingredients Company; Chilton
Kaytee Products, Inc.; Chilton
Sargento Foods in Kiel (Manitowoc County), with a plant in Hilbert, is also certified for
organic processing. Although not certified for organic processing, Calumet County also
has one store devoted to selling organic goods (Grassway Organics Farm Store, LLC.,
New Holstein). There are no organic feed grain producers and handlers in the county.
According the Midwest Organic Dairy Producers Association (MODPA), a study
conducted by Dr. Luanne Lohr, University of Georgia, Athens Department of Agriculture
and Applied Economics, measured the economic, social, and environmental benefits
associated with organic agriculture in the U.S. Key findings of the measurable impacts of
organic farming include:
•
•
•
•
•
Organic farmers are more likely to be female, hold a college degree, and be
full time farmers. The average organic farmer is seven years younger than the
average U.S. farmer.
Retail price premiums for organic foods average 10% to 30% higher than
conventional. Farm price premiums are 70% to 250% more than what
conventional farmers receive.
Counties with organic farms have stronger farm economies and contribute
more to local economies through total sales, net revenue, farm value, taxes
paid, payroll, and purchases of fertilizer, seed, and repair and maintenance
services.
Counties with organic farms have more committed farmers and give more
support to rural development with higher percentages of resident full time
farmers, greater direct-to-consumer sales, more workers hired, and higher
worker pay.
Counties with organic farms provide more bird and wildlife habitat and have
lower insecticide and nematicide (a chemical pesticide to kill roundworms)
use.
152
•
Watersheds with organic farms have reduced agricultural impact and lower
runoff risk from nitrogen and sediment.
Findings of immeasurable impacts include:
•
•
Organic farming under current standards avoids social and economic costs
such as pesticide poisonings and cost of testing for genetically engineered
foods.
The market in organic foods is more efficient than for conventional foods,
because prices reflect more of the cost of producing socially desirable outputs,
such as clean water, as a by-product of food production activities. This
reduces the need for government intervention through taxes or subsidies to
obtain these benefits.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Wisconsin has the
second highest number of certified organic farms in the United States. USDA 2003 data
indicates that Wisconsin has surpassed Washington, previously second in the nation for
total number of certified farms. However, between 2001 and 2003, Wisconsin fell from
fourth to fifth in the nation for total certified crop acreage with over 91,000 acres.
Certified pastureland in the state increased 130% to over 28,000 acres.
Wisconsin still leads the United States in certified organic livestock, with 33% of the
nation’s organic milk cows (2005 USDA information). Wisconsin’s organic poultry
production increased dramatically between the 2001 and the 2003 surveys. The number
of layer hens increased more than 2000%, giving Wisconsin a top ranking. The number
of organic turkeys, however, fell by 35% to just over 5,200.
Wisconsin is also a leader in organic crop production. Wisconsin growers supplied 10%
or more of the U.S. total for corn (18%), oats (16%), barley (12%), sorghum (10%), rye
(15%), soybeans (10%), alfalfa hay (15%), and cultivated wild mushrooms (28%) in
2003. The pasture and hay acreage increased by over 1,000% between 2001 and 2003.
Dry pea and lentil acreage increased by 338%, sunflower production was up 334%, and
sorghum acreage increased by 322%. Certified acres in oats were up 126%, and total
vegetable acreage increased by 114%.
More people are choosing organic foods because of health concerns. A study, done in
2004 by Organic Agriculture in Wisconsin, reports that seven in ten Americans express at
least moderate concern about the health risks of pesticides and antibiotics in food
production. A number of scientific studies have found pesticide based health risks for
children based on what they eat, where they live, and their parents’ pesticide exposure.
In that approximately 13 million pounds of pesticides are applied to major agricultural
crops in Wisconsin each year, this is a valid concern and an area that needs further
research.
153
In 2003, University of Washington Researchers found that children who ate organic
fruits, vegetables and juices had nine-fold lower pesticide levels in their urine than
children who ate conventional food (Source: Cynthia L. Curl, et al, 2003)
In 1996, University of Minnesota Researchers did a long-term study of over 200,000
births in Minnesota comparing children of certified agriculture pesticide applicators to
children of the general population and found three things: (1) pesticide applicator’s
children had a significantly higher rate of birth defects; (2) birth defect rates were
significantly higher in the western agriculture region of the state; and, (3) a significant
majority of children with birth defects were born nine months after spring, suggesting
whatever was causing the birth defects was happening at a very early stage in fetal
development. (Source: V. Garry, et al, 1996)
Nitrates in the groundwater are a major health concern in Calumet County. It is believed
that organic farming may lower nitrate levels in the environment. Nitrate is actually a
plant nutrient and is the most widespread contaminant to our state’s groundwater. It is
increasing in its extent and severity in the state. Since 80% of nitrate inputs into
Wisconsin’s groundwater originate from manure spreading, agricultural fertilizers, and
legume cropping systems, it makes sense nitrate contaminated wells are found to be more
prevalent in agricultural districts. (Source: Wisconsin Groundwater Coordinating
Council Report to the Legislature, 2006)
To further organic agriculture in the county, the county should conceptually support
attracting an organic cooperative or feed supply business. Just a few years back Calumet
County had 11 agricultural cooperatives and private feed supply businesses, none of
which sold organic feed or seed. According to the UW-Extension, some of the
cooperatives have now merged, resulting in just two cooperatives. Existing cooperatives
and supply businesses and their locations are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agri-Partners (a cooperative), Town of Chilton
Calumet Feeds, City of New Holstein
Country Horizons (a cooperative), City of Kiel
Fox Valley Alfalfa Mill, Village of Hilbert
Milk Products, City of Chilton
Milk Specialties, City of New Holstein
Sherwood Elevator, Village of Sherwood
Potter Farm Supply, Village of Potter
Henry Carstens & Sons, Co., City of Brillion
Specialty Foods
Specialty foods are a new and rapidly growing trend in Wisconsin. In 2003 the state’s
Governor announced his Grow Wisconsin plan which laid the framework for growing our
economy and diversifying our agriculture (the plan also involves many other aspects of
improving the economy). Since that time the Governor has shown a lot of support for
specialty foods and the role they could play in making Wisconsin products known as
154
quality and special. The plan specifically calls for expanding the dairy artisan and
specialty cheese industry.
This is a market Calumet County has actively been participating in, and as the trend
proves successful, hopefully more farmers will diversify and go into the specialty food
market. Specialty foods have unique quality and features, and are targeted towards
consumers who are willing to pay a higher price for the product. Specialty cheeses,
gourmet foods, novelty products, organics, and health foods are all examples of specialty
foods that can be produced in Wisconsin. In Calumet County we are seeing more
organics produced as well as items such as honey, maple syrup, goat cheeses, goat meat,
specialty soaps, and raw milk.
As mentioned above, artisan dairies are one of the sectors the state has declared worth
pursuing. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, specialty cheeses
rose by 7% in 2005 to 355 million pounds produced. That means specialty cheeses now
comprise 15% of the state’s total cheese volume.
Organic foods are also considered a specialty food and are also being promoted and well
supported by state initiatives. This growing market is becoming evermore popular every
year. According to the Organic Trade Association, organic food sales grow by about
20% compared to 2 to 4% for the total food industry.
The following discusses some other specialty food venues Calumet County farmers could
pursue in an attempt to diversify the agricultural economy and support the preservation of
small or diverse working lands typically not suited for conventional dairy farming.
Cheese
Cheese has been made for over 5000 years. Researchers know the first cheese was
actually made from goat milk. The Greeks credit Aristaeus, son of Apollo, for teaching
men how to make cheese. Catholic monks are also given a lot of credit for developing
‘monastery cheeses’ like Jack, Port Sault and Beaufort. They developed them as a way to
preserve the nutrition in milk when the cows went dry. (Source: Dairy Business
Innovation Center, PowerPoint by Dan Strongin)
Specialty and artisan cheese production are highly promoted in the state as an economic
opportunity. ‘Specialty cheese’ is defined as cheese produced in limited volume, with
distinctive characteristics that result in high quality products, create added value and
command a premium price from consumers. ‘Artisan cheeses’ maximize hand
production and traditional cheese making practices. ‘Farmstead cheeses’ are produced on
the farm with milk from animals raised on that farm. ‘Commodity cheeses’ are cheeses
produced in large volume that appeal to a wide audience of consumers. (Source: UWMadison Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, Greenberg, 2005)
The Wisconsin Dairy Artisan Network assists current and future Wisconsin dairy food
artisans through education, promotion of the craft, and regulatory advocacy. Artisan
155
foods capture the flavor of the environment where they are produced. A dairy artisan
makes cheese or other dairy products using milk (from goats, cows or sheep) possibly,
but not necessarily, farmstead. Farmstead milk is milk produced on the artisan's own
farm. If the milk is not farmstead, the artisan can tell you where the milk came from and
how the animals are cared for. The dairy artisan's cheeses, and other products, are often
handmade or made using relatively small scale specialty techniques in small batches.
‘Artisan’ captures the uniqueness and special identity of each product as well as the
artisan who makes it. Examples of dairy artisan products include: butter, ice cream,
packaged milk, ice cream, yogurt and cheese.
As mentioned above cheese is a growing sector of the dairy and craft sector. To
understand the significance of cheese production in the state, it helps to compare the
state’s production to an area well known for wine and cheese—France. France produces
over 500 varieties of cheese, but Wisconsin produces over 600 varieties of cheese!
California produces only 250 varieties. (Source: Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board)
In Wisconsin, the number of cheese plants has decreased dramatically, yet the amount of
cheese produced has increased exponentially. There were over 300 cheese plants in the
state in 1981, but less than 120 plants 25 years later. Production however almost doubled
during that period. (Source: Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board) Here in Calumet County
there are no traditional cheese plants typical of years past, but there are processing
facilities. Facilities are: Foremost Farms USA in the Chilton area, Land O’Lakes Dairy
Foods in Kiel, Sargento Foods Inc in Hilbert, and Thiel Cheese Inc. in St. John. There is
one dairy wholesaler: Vern’s Cheese in Chilton.
Cheese production rose in the state from 116 million pounds produced in 1996 to 387
million pounds produced just ten years later. The specialty cheese production has
become an increasingly larger share of the state’s overall cheese production as well—
from 5.5% of total production in 1996 to 15.7% in 2006. (Source: Wisconsin Milk
Marketing Board)
The specialty cheese industry extends well beyond cheese produced from milk from
cows. Goat cheese is rapidly growing in popularity and getting state support as a
specialty cheese (discussed above). Specialty and artisan cheese production, whether
from dairy cows, goats, or in the form of organic cheese are an opportunity Calumet
entrepreneurs could greatly benefit from.
Honey
Apiary is the art of honey production. Once referred to as the ‘Nectar of the Gods’ by
Aristotle, honey is also a growing sector of the agricultural economy.
Honeybees, which produce the honey, are the only insects that produce a food consumed
by humans. To make one pound of honey, the 30,000 to 60,000 worker bees in a single
hive must forage nectar from millions of flowers.
156
Of interest to the producers is that the price of honey has been dramatically rising.
According to the National Honey Board, historically the retail price per pound was
slightly below $4.00. In 2007, that price escalated to over $4.00 per pound and has been
rising.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) estimates that there are
between 139,600 and 212,000
beekeepers in the United States. The
majority of the beekeepers (95%) are
hobbyist beekeepers that manage less
than 25 colonies. About 4% are part
time beekeepers that keep from 25 to
299 colonies. An estimated 1,600
commercial beekeepers manage more
than 300 bee colonies. In Calumet
County, beekeepers that produce
honey for sale are few. According to
the National Agricultural Statistics
Service (2002 data) only three farms produce honey for sale. (However, eleven farms are
reported as having colonies of bees.)
Honey production is a niche market Calumet County is beginning to explore. It has been
reported that some of the best honey produced in the county was produced along the
ridge of the Niagara Escarpment. Producers who farm on the escarpment have been
criticized for spreading manure to fertilize crops. The manure on this fragile feature has
been suspected to filter down to the groundwater. Crops and other practices, which use
manure on such fragile areas, may be better suited for other areas in the county. These
fragile areas can, however, be used for hobbies such as beekeeping and other markets (for
example, grape production).
Beekeeping can be a year-round occupation. Beekeepers work long hours in spring and
summer, monitoring their hives to ensure the colony has a healthy queen and that the
colony is clean and free from disease. Beekeepers harvest honey in late spring to early
fall, depending on the plants in the area and their blossoming times. In fall, beekeepers
prepare the hives for winter ensuring that each hive has enough honey left on to feed the
colony. Some beekeepers actually move their hives to warmer states during the winter
months. According to the National Honey Board, about one half of all commercial
beekeepers are migratory beekeepers, renting bees to farmers, moving hives to pollinate
various crops, or relocating their hives near blossoms for honey production.
One of the challenges with beekeeping and honey production is protecting the hive from
disease. One of the biggest threats to honey production has been the recent discovery of
“Colony Collapse Disorder”. Some believe that the disorder was linked to a virus from
imported bees. More research needs to be done on this disease that threatens the viability
of beekeeping. Other initiatives to help protect beekeeping is to get federal assistance to
157
have honey producers included on the list of those eligible for federal disaster relief (in
the event of a disaster).
According to the American Beekeeping Federation, there are also efforts to recognize the
importance of wild and managed pollinators and pollinator habitat in USDA
Conservation Programs. Such recognition would bring awareness to the agriculture
activity and offer them some protection, which could help the viability of beekeeping.
Honey production is a niche market capitalized on by only a few Calumet County
farmers. Although only a few harvest the honey, the bee activity is an integral indirect
part of almost every farmer’s operation; therefore, protecting bees and their habitat is
important to the county. As bees travel from blossom to blossom in search of nectar, they
transfer pollen from plant to plant, thus fertilizing the plants and enabling them to bear
fruit. The USDA estimated that about 1/3 of the human diet is derived from insect
pollinated plants and that the honeybee is responsible for 80% of this pollination. A 2000
Cornell University Study concluded that the direct value of honeybee pollination to U.S.
agriculture is more than $14.6 billion. (Source: National Honey Board)
There are several national organizations to help beekeepers. Some of the more popular
organizations are the American Beekeeping Federation, National Honey Board, and
American Honey Producers. At the State level there is the Wisconsin Honey Producers,
which was organized in 1864.
Maple Syrup
According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, two maple syrup producers were located in
the county. As of 2008, there were over 500 maple syrup producers in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin’s 2008 maple syrup production of 130,000 gallons increased 73% from 2007’s
production of 75,000 gallons. However, the sugar content of the sap decreased from last
year, requiring 37 gallons of sap to produce one gallon of maple syrup.
Producers received $35.70 per gallon for their 2007 production, $4.50 more than a year
earlier. Nationally, the price per gallon in 2007 was $33.20.
The estimated number of taps set during the 2008 season was 540,000, an increase of
15% over the 2007 season. The average yield per tap for Wisconsin producers was 0.241
gallons, up from 0.160 in 2007, but down slightly from the 0.250 gallons in 2006.
(Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Meat
Beef, chicken and pork are traditionally viewed as popular farm produced meats.
However, goat, emu, ostrich, lamb, elk, buffalo, bison, pheasant and other more
uncommon animal meats lend diversification to an agricultural economy. Their
uniqueness also tends to yield a higher price per pound than traditional meats.
158
Few farms in Calumet County have seized the diversified meat market opportunity. The
following has been reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2002
data:
•
•
•
•
•
As of 2002, only five farms had meat goats.
The number of turkey farms has not changed with four reported in 1997 and in
2002. 2002 sales report 452 turkeys sold.
In 2002, it was reported there were only 8 farms with ducks, 1 with emu, 3
with pheasants, 2 with bison, and 4 with llamas; none of which reported sales.
No farms were reported as having ostrich, elk or deer.
Aquaculture (fish) was nonexistent in the county.
Unfortunately, NASS also report hogs and pigs have decreased significantly. In 2002, 40
farms reported having 1004 hogs and pigs, almost half of what was reported in 1997.
Poultry, although not significant, has increased in the county. Poultry and other meat
type chickens increased with 14 farms in 2002, up from 3 in 1997. In 2002, 1790 such
poultry was sold.
In addition to the data reported by NASS, some specialty meats are being raised which do
not appear in the statistical data. Specifically, there are a few elk herds in the county
which are being managed for meat purposes.
Some animals are valued more for their hair or hide. The NASS report also revealed:
•
•
20 farms with sheep and lamb in 2002, up from 17 in 1997. There was a total
of 676 sheep and lamb in 2002, compared to just 277 in 1997. In 2002, 16 of
the farms reported selling 5397 pounds of wool, up 32% from 1997.
There were 12 mink farms reported in 2002 selling 47,838 pelts.
One way to diversify meat production is to incorporate or utilize more grazing. Many
folks favor meat from graziers because it is viewed as a more natural product with less
fat. Human autoimmune diseases, such as celiac disease or lupus, were almost unheard
of when all meat came from graziers. Some claim the world has seen an increase in such
diseases due to the decreased amount of grazing and the increase in feeding animals for
slaughter chemically altered food.
In Calumet County 8 farms are registered as graziers (farms whose animals are grass
fed). Said farms raise Holstein (6), Beef (1), Jersey (1), Brown Swiss (1), Cross Cows
(1), and poultry (2). (Source: Glacierland Resource Conservation and Development,
Inc.)
Fruits
Horticulture has become more popular as the health movement strengthens in the nation
and fresh fruits and vegetables become more in demand. Wisconsin is in a position to
159
compete for some of these ‘crops of demand’. Calumet County itself is conducive to
some of these fruits and vegetables and pursuing some of these crops could prove to be
very viable in diversifying the agricultural economy and utilizing areas poorly suited for
the traditional crops grown in the county.
•
Grapes
Viticulture is the study and production of grapes which deal with the series of
events that occur in the vineyard. Grapes are one example of a diversified
crop which would fair well in the county but has minimal presence at the
current time.
Although grape growing and viticulture in general are a niche market growing
rapidly in popularity, they are also a great agricultural opportunity for those
that have access to fragile farmland. As indicated in the section on
beekeeping, the Niagara Escarpment has been recognized as a fragile area
where perhaps manure application and other intensive land uses should be
limited. Although this area may not be suitable for practices that require
manure application, it is highly desirable for grape production. It has been
recognized in Wisconsin and historically in Canada as an excellent climate for
grape production.
In 2007, a graduate student (Christine Pelkey) under the guidance of the East
Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission conducted a study into the
potential of viticulture along the Niagara Escarpment. The study included that
stretch of escarpment in Calumet County. Results of that study indicated that
the escarpment area did indeed have “the most suitable terroir for grape
growing in the county.” (Note: According to the analysis done by Christine
Pelkey, ‘terroir’ was defined as a combination of all the factors that go into
growing excellent grapes including, soils, geology, and climate.)
Calumet County has a great opportunity to produce premier grapes. Although
the Niagara Escarpment stretches throughout northeast Wisconsin, it is the
Calumet County region that appears to be more suited for growing grapes.
According to Pelkey, the escarpment area in Fond du Lac, Dodge and Calumet
counties were well suited to wine-grape growing. However, the escarpment
areas in Brown and Door counties were less prime for growing grapes.
According to Pelkey, each potential site must be analyzed to determine its
suitability for growing grapes. It must be physically examined for factors
such as soil chemistry and other factors and that proper conditions are
adequate before investing in viticulture.
Calumet County has gone on record in support of the county, and neighboring
areas, being dubbed a premiere grape growing region. In 2007 the county
passed a resolution supporting a petition to the Tobacco Tax and Trade
160
Bureau to establish an American Viticultural Area by the name of “Niagara
Escarpment of Wisconsin”. Such designation could benefit local grape
producers and potential county wineries in having a marketing advantage.
As the world’s climate changes and areas become warmer, the grape industry
is threatened. Cooler regions are sought for the production of quality grapes.
Calumet County and its escarpment region have an opportunity to produce
premier grapes. In addition, with the latest trend and popularity of buying
local, locally grown grapes could get a premier price over out of state grapes.
Viticulture also has the advantage of producing other niche markets, such as
local wineries (known as ‘viniculture’). A symbiotic relationship between
grower and wine producer could be a market Calumet County residents should
seriously explore.
To date, there are some grape growers establishing in the county; however,
only one is known as considering producing wine. Unlike other state
wineries, all wine produced on site will be made from Wisconsin grown
grapes. The first commercial harvest is expected in fall of 2009.
For more information about the grape industry contact the newly formed
Wisconsin Grape Growers Association.
•
Bramble Fruits and Other Berries
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (2002 data) only one
farm in the county reports harvesting berries. This number is down from three
farms reporting to do so in 1997. Again, berry production and sale are one
opportunity county farmers have not yet taken advantage of, but should
consider as a means of agricultural diversification, profit, and utilization of
farmland possibly not considered for preservation in the past.
Raspberry plants yield 1 to 2 quarts of berries per plant (2500 to 3000 pounds
of fruit per acre) are common and provide a ready source of fruit for
supplementary income from direct on-farm or pick-your-own sales.
Commercial berries should be limited to red and purple cultivars and should
be developed on favorable sites near pick-your-own and pre-picked markets.
Raspberries require good air circulation so berries can dry after dew or rain.
Ideally raspberries should be planted on a slope or hillside so that the heavier
cold air can drain and settle into lower areas. Again, raspberries offer a good
crop alternative for sites often deemed too hilly for traditional Calumet
County crops or grazing. (Source: Growing Raspberries in Wisconsin;
Smith, Mahr, McManus, and Roper)
Strawberries are very popular amongst consumers. They are the most popular
small fruit grown in home gardens throughout the state. They are easy to
161
grow and adapt well to most soils, thereby making them an easy agricultural
diversification crop. One plant can yield 1 to 1 ½ quart of fruit if cared for
properly. Water is key to successful strawberry growing and therefore crops
should be planted where irrigation is available. Soil depth is not important in
that the root system is shallow. Sandy loam soils work best offering good
drainage and adequate water holding capacity. (Source: Growing
Strawberries in Wisconsin; Smith, Mahr, McManus, and Roper)
Blueberries are the most widely grown fruit crop in the U.S. They can be
adapted to most soils, including clay, by adding either sulfur or lime. (Source:
National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service) According to the
North American Blueberry Council nearly half of the cultivated blueberries
grown are sold as fresh blueberries.
One option for Calumet County farmers interested in growing blueberries is to
consider growing organic blueberries. Organic blueberries typically sell for
about 20% more than conventionally grown blueberries. Nationally, a survey
conducted by the Organic Farming Research Foundation showed that organic
blueberry growers received between $1.00 and $3.50 per pound for fresh
berries in 1997 and that wholesale prices for fresh organic blueberries were
20% to 100% higher than for conventional blueberries, depending on supply
and demand.
Blueberries typically start producing in the third season, and yields increase
annually for the next four years. At full capacity, blueberries yield about 3
tons per acre. As blueberries are expensive to establish and maintain, growers
often do not realize a return on their capital investment until the seventh year.
Well-maintained blueberry bushes remain productive for at least 15 to 20
years. (Source: National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service)
•
Sustainable Specialty Fruits/Berries
Another agricultural market Calumet County
farmers have not embraced is that of growing
non-traditional specialty fruit crops with high
sustainability potential. There are several fruits
that can be easily grown and marketed for their
uniqueness and flavor. Berries such as Aronia,
Sea Buckthorn, European Black Currant,
American Elderberry, Saskatoon, Gooseberries,
Currants (red, pink and white) and Russian
Quince are some of the uncommon fruit crops
the University of Wisconsin Madison Center
for Integrated Agricultural Systems have been
promoting as having a high sustainability
potential.
162
The University of Wisconsin Madison, in cooperation with a berry farmer (not
from Calumet County), has been evaluating 42 unusual fruit species since
2003 to determine their environmental, social, and economic sustainability.
Their goal is to find fruits that can easily be grown without a lot of labor or
chemicals. Together they have helped create fruit lists the University of
Wisconsin Madison Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems has been
promoting for sustainability. According to the berry farm owner, Dale Secher,
the fruits must provide economic viability for the farm, which can lead to
local job opportunities and feed into a cycle of regional development.
Secher has been developing a ‘short list’ of unusual fruits that farmers can
grow to develop local markets and local food systems. He scored each fruit
on several attributes and gave them a ranking. The eight fruits mentioned are
the fruit crops that have ranked highest for environment, social, and economic
sustainability.
Aronia leads the eight fruits for commercial production potential. It is easily
grown and has great health benefits. It is adaptable, has good pest resistance,
is firm, and has a long hang time after maturity, allowing for a long harvesting
season.
Sea Buckthorn is also grower friendly. Mechanical harvesting could be a
challenge. One non-producing male pollinator is required for each eight highyielding female plants. This is a cold, hearty plant that tolerates drought, poor
soils and even saline conditions. Sea Buckthorn is a nitrogen-fixing shrub
with no significant pest concerns. Processing potential and health benefits are
important to its marketability.
European Black Currant may have the highest overall quantity and balance of
minerals, vitamins and phytochemicals of any known fruit. A management
program is necessary to control pesticides and diseases. This plant also has an
extremely high vitamin and mineral content.
The American Elderberry ranks fourth on the list prepared by Secher and is
considered grower friendly. It has limited fresh market appeal but is good for
processing. Its health benefits are considered excellent and are popular as a
cold and flu remedy. The American Elderberry version appears quite pest
resistant and could be grown without pesticides, with little risk. Although
considered a fruit with great potential in southern Wisconsin, the remainder of
Wisconsin could be tested with trial plants to determine the elderberry success
in the Calumet County region.
Saskatoon is also known as Juneberry or Serviceberry. They have a similar
nutritional content as blueberries. Pest intervention may be required.
Saskatoon contains more protein, fat and fiber than most other fruits.
163
Gooseberries are moderately grower-friendly but are well adapted to grow in
Wisconsin. They are good for eating fresh and processing. They do have
disease issues that must be addressed. American Gooseberry mildew is a
serious disease which must be addressed when growing this fruit. Their
vitamin and mineral content is considered excellent.
Red, Pink and White Currants cannot compete with black currants for the
nutricutical value, but rank high compared with other commonly grown fruits.
They are the most grower-friendly of the currants and less tart, meaning they
have a better market appeal. They are well adapted to our region, are not an
invasive threat, and pest issues can be addressed using organic management
practices. Their vitamin and mineral content is considered excellent.
Russian Quince is also grower-friendly but is susceptible to fire blight. They
adapt good to the region, and bloom late, which helps avoid spring freezes.
They also appear to be pest resistant. Quince does have fewer carbohydrates
and higher nutritional value than apples and are used to add flavor to
applesauce. The fruits are dense, firm and aromatic with some fresh market
appeal. The fruits are extremely large, approximately one pound each, and do
not bruise easily. Freezing temperatures may improve their texture and longterm cold storage may be possible.
In conclusion, exploring uncommon fruit crops such as those Secher studied,
may help farmers find a viable crop, which allows them to farm their land and
still make a good profit. Such diversity helps keep land in agricultural
production.
•
Tree Bearing Fruit
The county has a few orchards, but they are declining and limited in size,
bearing trees, and varieties of fruit. As of 2002 the county had five ‘orchards’
(farms registered with the USDA as having tree bearing fruit), those orchards
comprised a total of 66 acres with 62 of the acres actually used for tree
bearing fruit. Compared to just five years earlier there were seven orchards in
1997 with 136 acres. (Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Almost all of the orchard acreage in the county is dedicated to growing apples.
One orchard grows cherries, one grows peaches, and one grows pears;
however, the amount is minimal. No orchards report growing apricots or
plums. (Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service) All of the fruits
mentioned can be grown in the state and pose opportunities to Calumet
County farmers. In addition, the areas well suited for fruit trees sometimes
tend to be those areas not well suited for dairying or field crops (due to slope).
Utilizing ‘undesirable’ farmland for tree bearing fruit helps diversify the
economy and utilize farmland otherwise over looked for agriculture.
164
Although stone fruit plants (cherries, plums, apricots, etc.) are sensitive to
freezing temperatures, they can be grown in Wisconsin. The cherry tends to
be the hardiest and is probably why it is more popular in Wisconsin orchards
than other stone fruits.
When it comes to apples Calumet County is typical of the state—apples are
the most widely planted tree fruit in Wisconsin. (Source: UW-Extension)
The presence of the Niagara Escarpment and nearby hills make the county
viable for apple growing, especially in the west and southern hilly areas of the
county where soils, combined with slope, lend for conducive conditions. Per
the Department of Agriculture and Aquaculture, Brunswick, Canada, apples
can be grown on slopes of 20% or less, slopes typically not considered for
other crops. Beyond a 20% slope material application and use of equipment
on the landscape becomes too difficult.
The ideal site for apple trees is on land with a gentle slope so that cold air can
settle into adjacent lower areas. The bottoms of valleys are ‘frost pockets’ and
may be several degrees colder than nearby hillsides. Hilltops are undesirable
as they may be very windy. Apples grow best in fertile sandy loam soils,
though they will grow in all but the rockiest or heaviest clay soils. The soil
must have good internal water drainage, as apple trees will not grow with
saturated roots. The soils should be slightly acidic to neutral. Apple trees
require full sun at least three quarters of the day. Shady locations are not
suitable for apple trees. (Source: Growing Apples In Wisconsin; Roper,
Mahr, and McManus)
Vegetables
Come fall one can not help notice the commercial pumpkin fields that dot Calumet
County’s major highways. Vegetable growing is a horticultural activity some Calumet
County farmers have already found valuable. The National Agricultural Statistics
Service (2002 data) reports 59 farms in the county producing vegetables for sale utilizing
a whopping 4,571 acres of land (fewer farms than in 1997, but more acreage involved).
The majority of the vegetables in the county are produced on larger farms ranging from
25 to 250 acres in size. However, small farms do play a significant role in vegetable
production. Vegetable growing is a good way to utilize smaller farms sometimes
overlooked for agricultural value (due to their limited size of the fields or non-contiguous
land to other farms). According to the 2002 U.S. Census of Agriculture, nationally
vegetable and melon farms are largely individually owned and relatively small, with
nearly three-fourths harvesting fewer than 25 acres.
Production of vegetables and melons in the United States continues to trend higher with
output this decade running about 12% above that of a decade earlier. While total
vegetable output has continued to rise over the past decade, acreage has declined slightly,
165
indicating increasing productivity per acre. (Source: USDA, Economic Research
Service)
Vegetable and melon output likely will continue to rise faster than population growth
over the next decade due largely to continued emphasis on health and nutrition, resulting
in expanding consumer demand. In 1992, the fruit and vegetable industry, in cooperation
with the National Cancer Institute, embarked on a campaign, the “National 5-A-Day”, to
increase awareness of, and substantially expand, U.S. fruit and vegetable consumption.
This effort has been joined by the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004, which,
among other things, seeks to enhance the domestic consumption of vegetables, melons,
and fruit. These programs, together with grassroots industry promotion efforts and the
strengthened message of the redesigned USDA Food Guide Pyramid, will continue to
educate consumers on the benefits of a balanced diet that includes a variety of vegetables
and melons. (Source: USDA, Economic Research Service)
In Calumet County the vegetables grown range from green peppers to squash to sweet
corn. The majority of the crops are canning crops. Calumet County is typical of the
upper Midwest states (Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota) which grow a large portion
of the peas, snap beans, and sweet corn used in commercial canning. (Source: USDA,
Economic Research Service)
In addition to the canning vegetables and typical garden style crops sold through road
side stands and farmers markets, Calumet farmers could try diversifying and growing
crops that utilize farmland and spaces that are being converted to non-agricultural uses.
Again, as mentioned many times in this plan, diversification helps keep land in farming,
especially lands considered invaluable for traditional county agriculture.
•
Mushrooms
Mushrooms are a crop that can be grown in old agricultural buildings
(provided they are sterilized and a clean environment is maintained). Other
than the spawn (spores), they are sustainable to a degree in that they can use
old bedding straw, and their compost can then be used on farm fields. This
cyclical growth pattern makes them less expensive to grow, and offers an
alternative crop to anyone interested in more sustainable forms of farming.
Local gourmet mushrooms and mushrooms cultivated for medicinal purposes
are growing in popularity as people seek better tasting locally grown foods
and become more health conscious. Mushroom growing though is not for the
farmer looking for a quick return or easy crop. Mushrooms are labor intensive
and require very sanitary conditions. There are several national organizations
willing to help anyone interested in pursuing this diverse crop.
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the national
value of the 2006-2007 mushroom crops was up 7% from the previous
season. Value of sales for the 2006-2007 season was $956 million—and
166
that was produced by 279 growers (down 27 growers from the ’04-’05
season). The average price per pound of mushrooms was $1.16, up 11
cents from the previous year.
Specialty (Shiitake, Oyster and all other exotics) and organic mushrooms are
also fairing well nationally. A specialty grower is defined as having at least
200 natural wood logs in production or some commercial indoor growing
area, and $200 in sales. The average price per pound received by specialty
mushroom growers, at $3.16 (2006-07 season), was up 14 cents from the
previous season.
Nationally, the value of sales for commercially grown specialty mushrooms in
2006-07 was $40.4 million. Sales of Shiitake mushrooms totaled 6.70 million
pounds for the 2006-07 season. Price per pound received by growers, was
$3.36, up 11 cents from 2005-06. Sales volume of Oyster mushrooms in ’0607 was at 4.75 million pounds and the price per pound received by growers,
was at $2.41, up 26 cents from the previous season. Sales of exotic
mushrooms, other than Shiitake or Oyster, were 1.37 million pounds, up 15%
from the 2005-06 season. However, price per pound for these other
mushrooms (received by growers), was at $4.75, down 10 cents from 200506. (Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Like most organic crops, organic mushrooms also saw a rise in sales.
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, certified organic
Agaricus and specialty mushroom growers sold 36.2 million pounds of
mushrooms that were certified organic during the 2006-07 growing season,
11% above 2005-06. Out of the 36.2 million pounds, 8.57 million pounds, or
24% of the total were sold as certified organic mushrooms, while the rest were
sold without the certified organic label. This compares with 8.78 million
pounds, or 27% sold as certified organic during the 2005-06 crop year.
Agaricus mushrooms accounted for 78% of the mushrooms sold as certified
organic, while all specialty mushrooms made up the remainder. These
certified organic sales represent 1% of the 2006-07 total mushroom sales. The
number of certified organic mushroom growers totaled 38, up 5 from the
previous season. These growers represent 14% of the 279 total mushroom
producers.
•
Asparagus
Asparagus is another niche crop that could help Calumet producers gain an
edge in the market. Asparagus can be grown in our region and has excellent
potential as a fresh crop for local markets. According to Pick-Your-Own
Farming (a handbook on truck farming and direct marketing by Wampler and
Motes), asparagus has been among the top ten moneymakers. To estimate
how many acres to plant, farmers must first determine the population residing
within 25 miles of the farm. One acre of asparagus for every ten thousand
167
people is a good rule of thumb. (Source: Appropriate Technology Transfer
for Rural Areas; Kuepper and Thomas)
Asparagus is not for every location in the county however. Asparagus
requires deep, well drained soils. Therefore their production is limited to
specific areas.
Floriculture
The USDA considers ‘floriculture’ to be cut flowers, potted flowering plants, bedding
and garden plants, outdoor perennials, indoor foliage plants, and propagative material.
Wisconsin has a strong floriculture industry, but nationally is not a leader. The top five
producing states, California, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and New York, comprised 53% of
total wholesale sales in the nation. Wisconsin's floriculture industry wholesale value of
sales totaled $86.5 million in 2005, an increase of 5% from the revised 2004 estimate of
$82.8 million. The total number of growers also increased, from 390 to 399. (Source:
National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Although the state is not a leader nationally, the impact floriculture has on the economy is
significant. The ‘green industry’ (includes both floriculture, trees, shrubs and sod) in
Wisconsin has a $2.7 billion annual economic impact on the state. The state’s
commercial flower growers account for $250 million of that total, based on 2002
Wisconsin Agricultural Service Statistics. (Source: Landscape Management; WGIF
Executive Director Brian Swingle) According to the report, Economic Impact of
Wisconsin’s Green Industry, the ‘green industry’ in Wisconsin consists of 4,700
businesses and employs over 43,000 workers.
In Calumet County, old farm buildings could be retrofitted to greenhouses and some of
the lands not currently cropped used to expand the state’s floriculture industry. Currently
the county has a very weak presence in the industry. The National Agricultural Statistics
Service (2002 data) reports no farms producing foliage plants, aquatic plants, flower
seeds, or bulbs, and only one farm producing potted flowering plants.
Woodland crops tend to be more popular with county farmers than flowers, bedding and
garden plants. Two farms reportedly grow Christmas trees, two farms produce maple
syrup and six nursery stock. None produce sod.
Controversial Crops
The following are miscellaneous crops people probably have not considered as a crop
suitable for Calumet County. Some of these crops will be vital to our bio-economy, some
need adaptation to our climate, and some are very controversial. The following is meant
to be for informational purposes to let farmers know there are crops being grown
elsewhere that could have a unique, and valuable place, in our economy.
168
•
Switchgrass
In 2006 the President of the United States mentioned in his State of the Union
Address that switchgrass was the future bio-mass crop.
Switchgrass is being hailed by many as the new alternative to corn based ethanol.
With corn the starch is converted to sugar and the sugar then fermented to make
fuel. According to the Fall 2008 issue of the Arco Advantage, switchgrass also
has sugars but they are ‘locked up’ more tightly in the plant and harder to release.
Lignin, the glue that holds the cells together, makes it difficult to access the
sugars. Currently researchers are working to determine what enzyme will break
down the lignin in the switchgrass so the plant sugars can be used for ethanol.
According to the Arco Advantage many researchers hail switchgrass citing its
many advantages as follows:
o It has a very high yield per acre. The plant grows 10 to 12 feet in height
and when grown the crop is very thick and difficult to walk through. By
the third year of growth switchgrass yields 6 to 10 tons per acre.
o Energy potential is high. It is estimated one ton of dry matter can produce
70 gallons of ethanol. At a yield of 7 tons per acre that would be 490
gallons.
o Once established the plant requires little maintenance and fertilizer inputs.
o It will grow in cooler climates and in marginal farmland not suitable for
row crops.
o Switchgrass yields 5.4 times more net energy than it takes to grow.
o The life cycle of switchgrass ethanol, which includes growing the crop,
making the fuel and burning it in vehicles, emits 94% less planet warming
carbon dioxide than the life cycle of gasoline.
o Hay farmers can use existing equipment to grow and harvest switchgrass.
o Switchgrass can also be used as feed for livestock. A farmer can cut an
early crop for feed, a late harvest for bio-fuel.
Despites the advantages of switchgrass, it appears there may be an even more
advantageous grass in the field…
•
Miscanthus
Miscanthus (‘Miscanthus x giganteus’) is a giant perennial grass (about 14 feet
high) which appears to far outperform current bio-fuel sources. It is reported that
using Miscanthus for ethanol production will provide a higher yield and be of
greater value for ethanol than corn or switchgrass.
According to Science Daily (August 2008), “Using corn or switchgrass to produce
enough ethanol to offset 20% of gasoline use--a current White House goal--would
take 25% of current U.S cropland out of food production, the researchers report.
169
Getting the same amount of ethanol from Miscanthus would require only 9.3% of
current agricultural acreage.”
Professor Stephen P. Long, a researcher with the University of Illinois and editor
of Global Change Biology, states, “What we’ve found with Miscanthus is that the
amount of bio-mass generated each year would allow us to produce about 2½
times the amount of ethanol we can produce per acre of corn.”
Miscanthus requires few pesticides and less labor than corn, and produces more
bio-mass than corn because it produces green leaves earlier in the season that last
later in the season (it stays green until late October). Although switchgrass has a
similar growing season, it is not as efficient as Miscanthus at converting sunlight
into bio-mass. Once established it requires little fertilizer, something important to
Calumet County and its concern over excess nitrates being applied through some
fertilizers.
Once the crop is established, Miscanthus returns annually. It is a perennial grass
which accumulates more carbon in the soil than corn or soybeans. Per Long, “in
the context of global change, that’s important because it means that by producing
a bio-fuel on that land you’re taking carbon out of the atmosphere and putting it
into the soil”.
Miscanthus is a crop Calumet County farmers need to watch closely. Due to the
limited labor involved in the crop, the high yield, and its future in the bioeconomy, such a crop could prove profitable for farmers, while good for the
environment (good as a fuel source, few fertilizers, and quality nesting habitat for
birds). Additionally, research has shown it can be grown in very poor soils—
giving purpose to preserving land once considered questionable as valuable
farmland.
So why isn’t it grown here already? Miscanthus is grown commercially in
Europe; it has been grown in Denmark for over 30 years. Its use as a bio-fuel is
considered relatively new and therefore has sparked the interest of U.S
researchers. It is costly to establish, but it is predicted such costs will decline with
its popularity. Also, there is a concern that Miscanthus could become an invasive
plant (some related strains can become invasive).
•
Kenaf
Wisconsin ranks number one in the nation for paper production. Wisconsin has
led the nation in papermaking for more than 50 years. More than 5.3 million tons
of paper and over 1.1 million tons of paperboard are produced annually. Pulp,
paper and allied firms employ more than 40,000 men and women, representing
one in every 12 Wisconsin manufacturing jobs. (Source: Wisconsin Paper
Council)
170
One of the concerns with paper production is the amount of trees used in its
production. Innovative ideas for an alternative crop would certainly help save
northern forests. One crop has been found to be viable for paper, as well as other
products. That crop is ‘kenaf’. Although kenaf is a warm climate crop, there is
the potential to diversify or greenhouse the crop. The current kenaf market is in
the south, but with our paper industry, if diversified, kenaf could become a
valuable resource in our area. Innovative Calumet County minds, coupled with
risk taking farmers, could make kenaf an extremely profitable crop here in
Wisconsin.
Kenaf has multiple other uses. Getting kenaf to its respectable markets is the
challenge in that a wealthy crop would be needed to justify transportation costs.
Again though, climate is probably the biggest obstacle to growing it in Wisconsin.
According to the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service kenaf is a
warm-season annual fiber crop related to cotton, okra, and hibiscus. The plants,
which reach heights of 8 to 20 feet, are harvested for their stalks from which the
fiber is extracted.
A native of east central Africa, kenaf is adapted to most of the southern U.S. and
parts of southwest California. Farmers are currently growing it on small acreages
in several southern states and California.
Grower interest in kenaf arises primarily from its potential as a commercial fiber
crop. Kenaf is planted, after the danger of frost has passed, with modified rowcrop planters or grain drills. It reaches maturity in about 150 days. Several
herbicides are labeled for use in kenaf, and early season cultivation is an option
for weed control. Farming equipment adapted to kenaf harvest includes forage
choppers and sugarcane harvesters.
Industry derives two distinct fibers from kenaf stalks: long, jute-like bast fiber
from the bark, and short, balsawood-like fiber from the stem core. End-use
products depend on the fiber portion used. Bast fiber goes to make such products
as burlap, carpet padding, and pulp. The short-fibered core is processed into
poultry house bedding, packing material, oil-absorbent mats, and other items.
Another market for kenaf is in pulp for the American newsprint industry. Kenafbased newsprint is strong (and thus well adapted to modern newsprint machinery),
has good ink retention, and does not yellow with age as readily as wood-pulpbased newsprint. Of course, kenaf fiber must compete directly with wood pulp
prices, since both are used to produce newsprint.
Kenaf can also be used for bean stakes, animal litter, a fiberglass substitute in
molded plastic, a fiber source for improving recycled paper quality, a bulking
agent for composting sewage sludge, a cellulose fiber for composition panels and
boards, and a potting-mix ingredient.
171
Kenaf also makes excellent animal forage. The crude protein levels in kenaf
leaves range from 15 to 35%. Kenaf harvested as livestock feed should be cut 75
to 100 days after planting to gain optimum protein production per acre.
Generally, after 80 days of growth, fibers build up in the stem, the leaf-to-stem
ratio changes, and the protein level drops.
Commercial markets for kenaf are expanding. Three processing plants are on-line
for kenaf; these are located in Texas, Mississippi and Georgia. Most of the
acreage is contract-grown. Consequently, there is no open-market price for kenaf.
•
Industrial Hemp
Industrial hemp is probably one of the most controversial crops in ‘existence’ (in
quotes due to regulations of the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency prohibiting its
growth in the United States). Industrial hemp is not to be confused with
marijuana.
Industrial hemp is considered by some as one of the world’s foremost renewable
energy sources and has a long impressive list of attributes. It grows successfully
without the use of chemical pesticides or fertilizers. Where other crops rob the
soil of nutrients, hemp actually replaces them, making it an excellent rotation
crop. It is the strongest vegetable fiber grown and the most versatile. It has been
used for thousands of years to produce fabrics, paper, ropes, and food. It can be
used as a wood replacement and a bio-fuel.
Hemp has four times the strength and twice the abrasion resistance as cotton. Per
acre hemp out produces cotton by 200%. Where cotton is the leading user of
pesticides, hemp requires virtually none.
One and one half acres of rain forest are lost every second due to timber value.
The average American uses seven trees a year. That is over 1.5 billion trees a
year. Trees are needed for oxygen and to reduce carbon dioxide. While most
trees take 50-500 years to grow, hemp takes 100 days. One acre of hemp
produces as much paper as 4.1 acres of trees. Hemp can yield 3-8 dry tons of
fiber per year, which is 4 times what an average forest can yield. Because hemp
is naturally white it does need to be bleached like wood based paper.
Anything that is made out of wood or plastic can be made out of hemp. A 1935
Popular Mechanics article noted hemp to be the new billion dollar industry which
could be used in over 25,000 products. Hemp can even be used to make
automotive composites.
Hemp seeds are ideal for human nutrition. They have fiber, protein, and essential
fatty acids. They have high levels of unsaturated fatty acids. You can use the oil
172
for salads and cooking, the meal as flour. You can also use it to make vegetable
burgers, buns and cheese, not to mention just eating the seeds roasted.
The oil of the hemp seed is gaining popularity in the health care industry because
the level of fatty acids makes them ideal in lotions and moisturizers.
Planting only 6% of the continental United States with biomass crops such as
hemp would supply all current domestic demands for oil and gas. Farmers could
gross in excess of $325/acre, compared to $135/acre for corn.
Industrial hemp is the number one biomass producer on earth. Hemp has four
times the biomass and cellulose potential of its closest competing crop-corn. The
cycle of growing and burning biomass crops keeps the world’s carbon dioxide
level at a perfect equilibrium, which means that we are less likely to experience
the global climactic changes brought about by excess carbon dioxide and water
vapors after burning fossil fuels.
The first hemp law was in 1619 when it made it illegal for Virginia farmers not to
grow hemp. The same law later became effective in Massachusetts, Connecticut,
and then in the mid-1700’s the Chesapeake Colonies. By the mid-1700’s, hemp
was the world’s leading crop.
In 1937, industrial hemp (aka fiber hemp) was affected by the U.S. Congress. At
that time, congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act whose intent was to prohibit the
use of marijuana. Due to all the red tape, the production of industrial hemp was
affected and it became almost impossible to produce industrial hemp. In 1970,
the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act repealed the
Marijuana Tax but kept the definition of ‘marijuana’. The tax was repealed but
effectively the new act made all Cannabis cultivation illegal by establishing a zero
tolerance for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
Cannabis produces two major cannabinoids—THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) and
CBD (Cannabidol). THC is responsible for getting marijuana smokers ‘high’—it
is the chemical that creates the psychoactive effect. CBD, on the other hand, has
recently been shown to block the effect THC has on the nervous system.
Industrial hemp contains less than 3/10s of 1% of the narcotic THC. Marijuana
plants contain 10 to15% THC. Cannabis with THC below 1% and a CBD/THC
ratio greater than one is therefore not capable of inducing a psychoactive effect.
Some refer to industrial hemp as the ‘anti-marijuana’.
Although hemp can not be grown in the United States, it is widely used in the
United States. According to the Hemp Industries Association, the domestic
market for hemp based food products in 2004 was over $12 million. The retail
health care market, including lotions and oils, is estimated to sell over $30 million
worth of hemp products in the United States annually.
173
Worldwide research and development has sparked an increase in new, innovative
uses for hemp. In sharp contrast to the United States’ elimination of the crop,
some 30 countries worldwide have continued to grow and process industrial
hemp. World leaders of hemp production include Canada, Germany, England and
France. In total, thirty four countries grow hemp for commercial use. According
to the Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance, Canada's production of hemp has
increased from 4,000 acres in 2002 to over 24,000 acres in 2005.
Twenty five states have signed bills and resolutions supporting hemp production
in the United States. States supporting the commercial use of hemp include:
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee,
Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
In conclusion, before county farmers can consider growing industrial hemp,
Wisconsin will need to join the list of states supporting change in national
regulations which prohibit production of industrial hemp. If regulations change,
farmers could see a new crop which could solve many of the countries problems.
(Note: The majority of the above information is taken from a presentation on
industrial hemp by William Vervoort, Oneida Community Integrated Food
Systems Coordinator, Oneida Nation. Other sources of information below include
the North American Industrial Hemp Council, Inc; Agricultural Marketing
Resource Center; and the Global Hemp Website.)
•
Poplar Plantations
With the shortfalls in wood supply, and the increasing demand for wood, it makes
sense farmers consider rapid growing wood crops. Hybrid poplars are a fast
growing species of tree which can help meet demands.
Poplars were once considered ‘weed’ trees in that they had a tendency to sucker
(produce new shoots off the roots) and produced a messy ‘cotton like’ flower.
They were also prone to disease. Hybrid poplars however seldom sucker and are
disease resistant. Because most hybrid poplars are male, they don’t produce the
messy flower the older poplar varieties produced. Hybrid poplars also have high
growth rates, good form and are good for fiber and are valuable as a wood source.
Due to their rapid growth hybrid poplars are ideal as a form of short rotation
intensive culture. In Wisconsin the variety has been known to grow up to 8 feet
in a single year, meaning a quick turnaround on the investment in the crop.
174
Equestrian Agriculture (Horses)
The equine industry is extremely popular and profitable in the eastern United States.
Areas such as Delaware have demonstrated the success of proper equine agriculture.
Although nowhere near the intensity of the equine industry in the eastern United States,
the county has seen the increasing popularity of this industry in Calumet County.
The equine industry has been confined to hobbyists who have horses for riding, with a
few who use them for agricultural production. In the western part of the county, there has
been a trend in horse stables and interest in residential development targeted at equine
enthusiasts.
In some areas of the United States, the equine industry has been scrutinized as not being
‘true agriculture’ and not to be considered for farmland preservation programs. However,
equine can ensure land is not consumed for development, even if it is solely used for
pasture purposes. Additionally, hay production and other essential crops used in the
equine industry do demand agriculture land, thereby keeping some land in agricultural
production.
Aside from pasturing horses and riding them for pleasure,
horses do play a very significant role in our rural heritage.
With the trend toward sustainability, we turn to a simpler way
of life, and the influx of Amish to the area, farming with
horses is gaining in popularity in the county. These horses help
cultivate and prepare agricultural land. For some farms, albeit
smaller farms, their role in agricultural preservation is
significant.
Calumet County can become more supportive of the equine
industry by revising subdivision regulations to allow equine
developments, support trail networks that allow for the leisure
riding of horses, and provide buggy stalls at commercial
establishments (such as banks, grocery stores) to accommodate
those who desire to take a horse and buggy to the commercial establishment rather than a
fuel consuming car. The role horses play in reducing greenhouse gases and consuming
fossil fuels will become increasingly important in the county and the United States.
Although not discussed at great length in this document, the logging industry can greatly
benefit from the use of horse labor. In muddy or rough terrain areas impassable by
traditional vehicles, horses can play a valuable role in logging.
Agri-tourism, a niche market discussed in this document, can also benefit immensely
from the equine industry; public riding stables, petting zoos or other tourism attractions
that utilize horses will see a financial benefit.
175
As discussed elsewhere in this plan, mushroom production is a niche market that can be
explored in the county. Interestingly, mushroom production and the equine industry can
have a valuable symbiotic relationship. Straw used by horses can be recycled for
mushroom production, and the mushroom bedding waste used as fertilizer on fields
which grow hay and straw for the horses.
Agri-Tourism
When it comes to making a living, some farmers tend to think cattle or crops. They need
to start thinking ‘experiences’.
‘Agri-tourism’ is generally defined as activities that include visiting a working farm or
any agricultural, horticultural or agribusiness operation to enjoy, be educated or be
involved in what is happening at that locale.
A few typical agri-tourism examples are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
farm tours for families and school children
day camps
hands-on chores
self-harvesting of produce
crop art or barn art
rural weddings
hay or sleigh rides
overnight stays in a bed and breakfast
Other examples not typically thought of as agri-tourism, but classified agritourism by the
USDA, include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outdoor recreation (fishing, hunting, wildlife study, horseback riding)
Educational experiences (cannery tours, cooking classes, wine tasting,
on-farm museums)
Entertainment (harvest festivals, barn dances, ‘petting’ farms)
Hospitality services (overnight farm or ranch stays, guided tours)
On-farm direct sales (‘pick-your-own’ operations, roadside stands, farmers’
markets)
(Source: Farm-Based Recreation: A Statistical Profile, Economic Resource
Service, USDA, 2007)
Some people have become involved in agri-tourism as a way of supplementing their
income, while others desire an opportunity to educate the public and introduce people to
farming.
Based on USDA estimates, about 52,000 U.S. farms or 2.5% of total farms earned
income from agri-tourism in 2004. The study indicated the southern United States
176
accounted for more than half of all farms receiving recreational income. The Midwest
accounted for about one quarter of all farms in agri-tourism. This exploratory study used
two USDA databases, the 2004 Agricultural Resource Management Survey and the 2000
National Survey of Recreation and the Environment. (Source: Agricultural Marketing
Resource Center)
According to the Travel Industry Association of America, travel and tourism is a $703
billion industry in the United States that has directly generated more than 7.5 million
jobs. It ranks as the first-, second- or third-largest retail-sales industry in 29 states.
Travel and tourism generates $104.9 billion in tax revenue for federal, state and local
governments, with the restaurant industry accounting for the majority of this economic
activity. Travel and tourism is the nation's largest services export industry, the thirdlargest retail sales industry (following auto and food store sales) and one of the largest
U.S. employers. (Source: Agricultural Marketing Resource Center)
In Calumet County, tourism adds $39
million to the local economy and
creates 838 full time jobs. (Source:
Wisconsin Department of Tourism,
2007) It is difficult to determine how
much of that spending is attributable
to agri-tourism, but one familiar with
the county can safely assume the
majority of the tourist dollars are
spent on farm or nature based
experiences. The county has a
popular petting zoo, orchard and field
experiences, caves, nature centers and
wildlife areas and popular rural parks.
Rural America is a popular tourist destination. According to a recent survey, nearly twothirds of all adults in the nation, 87 million people, have taken a trip to a rural destination
within the past 3 years. Almost 9 out of 10 trips were for leisure purposes, with baby
boomers more likely than younger or older travelers to visit non-metro destinations for
purposes other than seeing family and friends. (Source: Travel Industry Association of
America, 2001)
According to the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, Entertainment
Farming and Agri-Tourism, there are three agri-tourism basics: have something for
visitors to see, something for them to do, and something for them to buy. Things to do
are often offered for free, but there is still a lot of money to be made selling to visitors.
Research shows that tourists buy mainly food, beverages, and souvenirs.
‘Eco-tourism’ is closely related to agri-tourism in that it highlights many of the same
features, but focuses on sustainable tourism venues with little to no impact on the natural
environment. It is often tagged ‘sustainable tourism’. “Eco-tourism involves visiting
177
natural areas with the objectives of learning, studying or participating in activities that do
not bring negative effects to the environment; whilst protecting and empowering the local
community socially and economically.” (Source: EcoTour)
‘Agro-tourism’ is a combination of agri-tourism and eco-tourism and encourages visitors
to experience agricultural life first hand. Visitors have the opportunity to work in the
fields alongside real farmers and wade knee-deep in the sea with fishermen hauling in
their nets. Although sustainable activities and attractions are promoted, agro-tourism
does not limit itself to purely sustainable attractions or experiences. Agro-tourism tends
to focus on educational activities. Agro-tourism is often deemed ‘nature tourism’.
‘Relationship marketing’ is an agritourism trend that is becoming more popular in the
state. Relationship marketing serves to make a long-term relationship between the
producer and their customers. One of example of relationship marketing is Community
Supported Agriculture (CSA) (discussed earlier in this plan) where people join a ‘club’ so
to speak whereby the farmer delivers goods produced on the farm to the doorstep of the
person who pays for this good.
‘Ethnic marketing’ is also growing in the state, and is in its early stages of playing an
important role in Calumet County’s agriculture. As people immigrate to this state, they
seek the same foods they were accustomed to back home. Sometimes it is difficult to
locate such foods, and therefore, immigrants look for ethnic marketers. Producing
diverse foods and supplying them at ethnic markets opens the door to diversifying the
agricultural opportunities in the county.
Value Added Agriculture
‘Value added’ agriculture can be defined as, “Any activity that allows producers to
capture greater value than would normally be secured through conventional commodity
channels. The additional value can come from production, marketing, and processing
strategies that distinguish the products from standard agricultural commodities.”
(Source: PATS, 2005)
With the growing trend for consumers demanding healthier and locally grown products, it
is only wise to pursue value added agriculture. Value added agriculture not only meets
consumer demand, but is a growing market in Wisconsin. Value added agriculture can
often offer the consumer an agricultural experience or relationship with the producer that
normally cannot be obtained elsewhere. Although value added farms seem to be smaller
in size than traditional farms, value added farms are more manageable and fill a niche by
utilizing smaller vacated farmsteads.
Value added farmers use several methods to market their products to local consumers.
Community supported agriculture, agri-tourism, the internet, home delivery, specialty
stores, you pick stands, on farm stands, and farmer’s markets all provide the farmer with
great visibility to local consumers.
178
It is estimated that in 2004, there were 6,700 farms in Wisconsin that were classified as
‘value added’. This number is slightly less than one half as many farms as found in the
dairy sector (at that time there were approximately 16,000 dairy farms in the state).
It appears the value added agriculture sector has a relatively smaller impact on the
landscape compared to other parts of the agricultural industry. According to the Program
for Agricultural Technology Studies (PATS) 2004 Research, the average value added
farm had 141 acres of cropland, while the average dairy farm had 357 acres of cropland.
Therefore, the land use impacts of value added agriculture appear to be less. “In terms of
sales, one half of value added farms sell less than $17,500 per year in products. Very few
(3%) of the farms have more than $80,000 in total farm sales. While it is hard to estimate
actual per farm profit from sales data, it is very clear that few of these operations would
make enough profits from farming alone to put an average sized family above the poverty
level. Nevertheless, it is this small size and relatively high amount of sales per acre that
makes value added agriculture of particular interest in some of the more urban areas of
the state.” (Source: PATS, 2004)
Of interest is the production practices used on valued added farms in Wisconsin. The
PATS (2004) research indicated that almost half the farms used conventional practices,
one third used organic production practices, and slightly less than one quarter used
sustainable production practices. It is interesting that valued added farms tend to apply
several different practices but no one practice dominates the industry.
The USDA has shown support for the value added producers. Recently, the USDA Rural
Development Program created a Value Added Producer Grant Program. This program’s
primary purpose is to enable eligible agricultural producers to develop businesses that
produce and market value added products.
Through the Value Added Producer Grant Program, grant funds can be obtained for
planning projects and working capital projects. The maximum amount of grant award for
a planning project is $100,000, whereas, $300,000 is the maximum amount for working
capital. A match is required in that the applicant must provide cash or confirmed
financial commitment at least equal to the grant amount. Other federal grants cannot be
used as the matching funds.
•
Women in Value Added Agriculture
Historically, women have always played an integral role in the farm economy.
The dual role of working on the farm while maintaining the household has
always been part of our heritage. However, the number of female primary
operators on Wisconsin farms has nearly doubled between 1992 and 2002.
(Source: The Status of Wisconsin Agriculture, 2006)
This Wisconsin trend is consistent with the national trend. Women farmers
engaged in value added agriculture often have a different set of skills than
those involved in conventional agriculture. The women tend to have more
179
formal education, with about one half having completed at least a four-year
degree. In addition, many do not have extensive farm experience. More than
two thirds have no farming background, and only about one out of four have
parents that were involved in farming. The women are relatively new to the
farming business, having been involved for significantly fewer years than
their male counterparts. (Source: The Status of Wisconsin Agriculture, 2006)
The UW-Extension has a program called “Heart of the Farm”, which is a
series of sessions for women in agriculture. Women interested in going into
the agriculture business, or diversifying their existing business, may want to
consider attending one of the conference series or education provided by the
UW-Extension.
Sustainability
According to the USDA, sustainable agriculture describes farming systems that are
“capable of maintaining their productivity and usefulness to society indefinitely. Such
systems….must be resource conserving, socially supportive, commercially competitive,
and environmentally sound”.
Sustainable agriculture is becoming extremely well known and was addressed by
congress in the 1990 Farm Bill. Since that time, many federal and state agencies have
begun to educate the public on sustainable practices. Under the 1990 Farm Bill, the term
sustainable agriculture means “an integrated system of plant and animal production
practices having a site specific application that will, over the long term satisfy human
food and fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon
which the agricultural economy depends; make the most efficient use of non-renewable
resources and on farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological
cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm operations; and enhance the
quality of life for farmers and society as a whole”. (Source: USDA)
Common practices being adopted to enhance farm sustainability are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Integrated pest management, which helps minimize economic, health, and
environmental risks.
Rotational grazing that provides high quality forage and reduced feed costs
while avoiding manure build up.
Soil conservation that uses practices to help prevent loss of soil due to wind
and erosion.
Water quality and wetland maintenance, which improve the quality of
drinking and surface water, as well as protect wetlands.
Cover crops, such as rye, clover or vetch after harvesting a grain or vegetable
crop; help improve soil nutrients, soil quality, suppress weeds, and control
erosion.
Having crop and landscape diversity can contribute to soil conservation,
wildlife habitat and increased populations of beneficial insects.
180
•
•
•
Nutrient management helps reduce the need for purchased fertilizer.
Agro-forestry is better managing woodlots and windbreaks and using trees
and shrubs along buffer strips and planting shade loving specialty crops.
Alternative marketing allows farmers and ranchers to explore innovative
marketing strategies to improve products.
Three USDA supported programs provide farmers a wealth of information on how to
practice sustainable agriculture. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
(SARE) program provides grant opportunities, research and education, guides and
bulletins, and disperses information to farmers. The Appropriate Technology Transfer
for Rural Areas (ATTRA) answers questions about specific farming practices, alternative
crop and livestock enterprises and marketing approaches. The Alternative Farming
Systems Information Center (AFSIC) collects, organizes and distributes information on
alternative agriculture and provides high level searching and information services from
the National Agricultural Libraries databases. The alternative farming systems
information center specializes in identifying resources about sustainable food systems
and practices in support of the USDA’s effort to ensure a sustainable future for
agriculture and farmers worldwide.
Bio-Dynamic Farming
Bio-dynamic farming is a complex agro-science involving plant diversity, crop rotation,
composting, and season rotations. Its purpose is for every farm to serve as its own entity,
meaning all of the plants, animals, and practices on the farm serve to sustain one another.
Bio-dynamic farming is similar to sustainable agriculture and should be used in
partnership with sustainable practices. One example of bio-dynamic farming is when the
resident sheep and chickens provide not only meat and eggs for people to eat, but also
control the farm’s weed and pest population during their free roaming days. Educational
organizations, such as the Glacierland Resource Conservation and Development Council,
can help educate farmers on such farming practices.
181
182
“What is a weed?
A plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered.”
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
183
184
CHAPTER TEN
INNOVATIONS IN AGRICULTURE
Agriculture has come a long way in the last century, not to mention decade. From the
steam engine to the battery or bio-fuel powered tractor farmers are experiencing change
at a rapid pace. To improve efficiency, lessen the negative impact on our planet, and
increase profits, innovative ideas and practices almost have to be considered to maintain a
competitive edge in the market. The changing agricultural and global trends could
determine whether a farm can compete and whether modifying operations to adapt to
such trends will keep land in production.
A new innovation in the agriculture sector is the emergence of the ‘bio-economy’. A bioeconomy is dependent on the availability of agricultural lands that produce various types
of ‘bio-mass’. The U.S. Department of Energy defines bio-mass as “any plant derived
organic matter available on a renewable basis, including dedicated energy crops and
trees, agricultural food and feed crops, agricultural crop wastes and residues, wood
wastes and residues, aquatic plants, animal wastes, municipal wastes, and other waste
materials.” The bio-mass is then used in the creation of ‘bio-energy’ or ‘bio-fuels’. Bioenergy and bio-fuels are very similar in definition. They both use renewable biomass
resources to produce an array of energy related products including electricity, liquid,
solid, and gaseous fuels, heat, chemicals, and other materials.
Bio-Economy
Growing crops for bio-fuels is important to agricultural sustainability and helping reduce
our dependence on traditional fuels. However, some have questioned whether more
energy is used to grow and process corn or other raw materials and turning it into ethanol
than is beneficial in the ethanol itself. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has
been studying this very issue since the late 1970s, and of that, estimated the net energy
value of corn ethanol. There have been some differing opinions regarding the data, but
based on the 1995 report, The Agricultural Economics Report, Number 24, July 1995,
“We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.4”. If
the energy ratio was a negative number, ethanol production would be inefficient.
Some have claimed that switch grass is the answer to our bio-fuel questions. According
to the USDA, agricultural fiber is a potential source of energy that can be pelletized
through conventional pelletine plants and burned in pellet stoves to heat homes. Switch
grass in particular has attracted attention as a fiber source for bio-fuel since it will
typically result in lower ash content than other fiber sources.
As with any new technology, one has to weigh the benefits of the new technology.
USDA extensively has examined bio-fuels and bio-technology and compared the benefits
through several cost analysis comparisons. The research and technology portion of the
USDA’s website can answer questions a farmer may have. The cost benefits should be
carefully evaluated prior to a farmer venturing into the field of bio-fuels and bio-
185
technology. What may be good for one farmer may not necessarily be a good venture for
a second farmer. Farming practices and agriculture knowledge play an integral part in
determining the success of crops used for bio-fuels and bio-technology. By definition
‘bio-technology’ is “any technique or technological application that uses biological
systems or living organisms to create or modify products and processes of food
production, sustainable agriculture, fisheries, and forestry. This includes recombinant
DNA technology, transgenic crops and animals, genetically modified foods, bio
pharmaceuticals, bio- remediation, and more”. (Source: USDA)
Without a doubt, bio-fuels and bio-technology play a vital role in farmland preservation.
The need to grow crops or use farmland to further bio-fuels and bio-technology directly
places a demand on the need for farmland. Guaranteeing land is available for such new
technologies will become increasingly important to reduce our dependence on foreign
goods and services.
About 25 million households worldwide receive energy for lighting and cooking from
bio-gas produced in household scale plants (called ‘anaerobic digesters’). In addition to
providing energy for cooking and lighting, bio-gas has improved the livelihood of rural
households in indirect ways. For example, an analysis of the benefits of bio-gas in Nepal
shows a reduction of workload for women and girls of three hours per day per household,
an annual savings of kerosene of 25 liters per household and annual savings of fuel wood,
agricultural waste, and dung of three tons per household. (Sources: Renewable Energy
Policy Network for the 21st Century, and, India Ministry of New and Renewable Energy,
2007).
The Department of Energy has created bio-energy research centers in the United States
and partnered with some universities to further study bio-energy. Fortunately, in
Wisconsin, we have a Department of Energy center called the “Department of Energy
Great Lakes Bio-Energy Research Center” located at the University of Wisconsin in
Madison. One of the partnering agencies is also located in Wisconsin and is the Lucigen
Corporation in Middleton. Together, the center and corporation work cooperatively with
other institutions and centers across the United States to further the research of bioenergy. The largest of the bio-energy research centers in the United States is the center
located in Madison. The Department of Energy has dedicated themselves to researching
cellulosic bio-mass (developing crops dedicated to bio-fuel production) having it go
through the sugar process and converting it to bio-fuels.
The Madison Center is organized into five focus areas:
•
•
•
•
•
Improving plan bio-mass
Improving bio-mass processing
Improving bio-mass conversion
Fostering sustainable bio-energy practices
Creating technologies to enable more advanced bio-energy research
186
The strategy for improving plant bio-mass is that in addition to investigating how genes
affect cell-wall digestibility in model plants, cornstalks and switch grass, researchers will
be breeding plants that produce more hemicelluloses, starches, oils, or new forms of
lignin that are easier to process into fuels. Plant oils have twice the energy content of
carbohydrates and require little energy to extract and convert it into bio-diesel. Soybean
oil is used primarily to produce bio-diesel in the United States. However, oil yield per
acre of soybeans needs to be improved. (Source: US Department of Energy Office of
Biological and Environmental Research)
Improving bio-mass processing is extremely important to the researchers in that they
need to improve the enzymes and figure out how to decrease the cost of producing and
using enzymes to break down cellulose in the plants. They are working on enzymes in
the stems and leaves of corn and other plants, designing the plants to ‘self-destruct’ once
in the bio-fuel production facility.
Improving the bio-mass conversion means researching the need to increase the quantity,
diversity, and efficiency of energy products derived from plant bio-masses. One of the
major focuses is the conversion associated with cellulosic ethanol. However, the center
also aims to improve both biological and chemical methods for converting plant material
into hydrogen, electricity, or other chemicals that can replace fossil fuels.
Fostering the sustainable bio-energy practices involves education on a variety of issues,
including complex issues in agriculture, industry, and behavioral systems. To help
determine the best practices for bio-fuel production, researchers will need to study issues
such as minimizing energy and chemical inputs for bio-energy crop production, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from the entire bio-fuel production life cycle, and
understanding the environmental impacts of removing leftover stalks, stems, and leaves
from food crops.
Creating technologies to enable more advanced bio-energy research crosses all the areas
of research the center is doing. This research will involve a wealth of technologies that
enable researchers to discover and create solutions needed to advance the bio-energy
research, which is so important to our global economy and environment.
•
Bio-Fuel
A bio-economy is one comprised of industries and technologies that convert
organic matter into fuel, energy, chemicals and materials (i.e. plastic). Biofuel is a major component of the bio-economy.
According to the Agricultural Innovation Center, President George Bush
recognized the important role ethanol could play as an alternative to
petroleum-based fuels. The President specifically singled out cellulosic
ethanol. In the United States, ethanol is typically made from the sugar or
starch found in a kernel of corn. Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from a
187
variety of sources including the entire corn plant, agricultural waste, pulp and
sawdust from paper and mills, and even grasses, like switch grass.
One of the problems with cellulosic ethanol, however, is that it cannot be
produced economically compared to conventional ethanol or petroleum. To
help further the possibility of cellulosic ethanol, the U.S Department of
Energy made a commitment to allocate $250 million over a period of five
years for researchers to discover new ways to convert cellulosic material more
efficiently to ethanol. The State of Wisconsin is fortunate that the University
of Wisconsin Madison is one of the institutions chosen to research cellulosic
ethanol.
Having land available to produce crops, which can be used in cellulosic
ethanol, will become increasingly important.
Turning manure into energy is becoming more important. Anaerobic
digesters can capture the methane released from manure and turn it into
energy. The methane is burned to generate electricity. The use of the manure
for energy purposes becomes increasingly important as we attempt to reduce
our dependence on foreign energy sources. In addition, as the rural areas see
more homes in the countryside, less land is available for the handling and
disposal of manure. Using digesters, farmers now have the ability to treat
manure in a different manner, while capturing that methane gas.
According to the Agricultural Innovation Center, Roger Casper (Wisconsin
DATCP) reports that in 2006 in Wisconsin, there were 18 farm digesters
operating, representing five 975kw of rated capacity. That capacity is enough
to power around 4,000 homes. Casper says that another five farm digesters
were under construction or in startup, representing 1,850kw of rated capacity
plus 400kw of peak capacity. Casper also noted that 15 additional farm
digesters were in the planning stages. All of the farms currently using
digesters are large dairy operations between 730 and 3,000 cattle. There was
one exception, the exception being a duck operation.
The Agricultural Innovation Center goes on to report that the estimated
market potential of anaerobic digesters in Wisconsin is promising. If all 186
farms in Wisconsin with 500 to 999 cows installed digesters, they would
generate enough energy to power 22,000 homes.
More information about anaerobic digesters can be found later in this chapter.
•
Bio-Technology
Another important part of the bio-economy is bio-technology. According to
the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, ‘bio-technology’ is
“any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms,
188
or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific
use”.
Bio-technology is used in the medical field, for genetic engineering, and for
other uses, one being tissue culturing. Wisconsin is active in bio-technology
research. Again, keeping land open for agricultural purposes, keeps the door
open for more bio-technology research. Some of the biological systems in our
plants can be used for medicinal or other bio-technology purposes. As more
research is done, it is anticipated it will become even more important to have
access to land to produce the necessary systems.
•
Closed Loop Systems
A new idea in the bio-economy is something called the ‘closed loop system’.
There is a company in Wisconsin that is developing a closed loop system
called ‘symbiosis’. The idea is to reduce waste thereby having less of an
impact on the environment, creating more product, and resulting in more
profits. The system only uses a few inputs, such as cattle, corn, and bio-mass.
In the particular Wisconsin example, the facility will produce finished beef,
ethanol, flowers, distiller’s grain, carbon dioxide, ammonia products,
electricity and the raw material for fertilizers.
According to the CEO of the Agricultural Innovation Center, which designed
the closed loop system, the manure from 5,000 head of beef (about 14.1
million gallons worth per year) will flow into the nation’s largest anaerobic
digester and produce 2 billion cubic feet of bio-gas annually. The gas will
power boilers, and generate enough energy to run the plant and sell electricity
to the surrounding power grid.
If the closed loop system proves successful, it may be an idea Calumet County
producers should consider. Reducing our impact on the environment while
providing strong profits to farmers is always a welcome idea worth
considering.
Anaerobic Digestion
According to the UW-Extension, a cow can generate 10,000 gallons of manure every
year. One method of managing these nutrients is through the use of an anaerobic digester
and the anaerobic digestion process. As of summer 2008, there were 18 anaerobic
digester facilities in the state. Two of which are located in Calumet County, one in the
Town of Rantoul, the other in the Town of Chilton.
•
How does an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Work?
The digestion process takes place in a warmed, sealed airless tank (the
digester), which creates the ideal conditions for the bacteria to ferment the
189
feedstock material in oxygen-free conditions. The digestion tank needs to be
warmed and mixed thoroughly to create the ideal conditions for the bacteria to
convert the feedstock into biogas (a mixture of carbon dioxide, methane and
small amounts of other gases).
During the AD process, 30-60% of the digestible solids are converted into
biogas. This gas must be burned and can be used to generate heat or
electricity or both. It can be burned in a conventional gas boiler and used as
heat for nearby buildings including farmhouses, and to heat the digester. It
can be used to power associated machinery or vehicles. Alternatively, it can
be burned in a gas engine to generate electricity. If generating electricity, it is
usual to use a more efficient combined heat and power (CHP) system, where
heat can be removed in the first instance to maintain the digester temperature,
and any surplus energy can be used for other purposes. Larger scale CHP
plants can supply larger housing or industrial developments, or supply
electricity to the grid.
As fresh feedstock is added to the system (i.e. manure, industrial food
processing waste), digestate is pumped from the digester to a storage tank.
Biogas continues to be produced in the storage tank. The residual digestate
can be stored and then applied to the land at an appropriate time without
further treatment, or it can be separated to produce fiber and liquor. The fiber
can be used as a soil conditioner, compost or bedding. The liquor contains a
range of nutrients and can be used as a liquid fertilizer, which can be sold or
used on-site as part of a crop nutrient management plan. (Source: Anaerobic
Digestion of farm and food processing residues Good Practice Guidelines)
•
Benefits of Anaerobic Digestion
As stated above, there are several environmental and economic benefits of
digesters. While biogas is the main product of an anaerobic digester and often
the economic stimulus for their construction, other environmental and
economic benefits of digesters include the collection of greenhouse gas
emissions (GHGs), reduction in the potential for surface and groundwater
contamination from bacteria, odor control and recycling of nutrients.
ο GHGs
— Livestock manure, left to decompose naturally, emits two particularly
potent GHGs, nitrous oxide and methane. According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nitrous oxide warms the
atmosphere 310 times more than carbon dioxide; methane does so 21
times more. (Source: Cow Power Could Generate Electricity for
Millions, Science Daily) By capturing these GHGs through a well
managed AD process and utilizing the methane as fuel, emissions are
reduced because the gas is not released into the atmosphere.
190
— AD provides an energy source with no net increase in atmospheric
carbon. Using fossil fuels for energy production creates carbon
dioxide, which causes climate change, resulting in a warming of the
planet. By replacing energy from fossil fuels, AD can help reduce
overall quantities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and reduce
dangers of climate change and its potential impacts including sea level
rise, storms, drought and flooding.
ο Bacteria
The AD process has the potential to significantly reduce bacteria numbers
in the fiber. Therefore, when land applications of these fibers occur, the
probability for this source of water pollution is lowered.
ο Odor Control
Anaerobic microorganisms break down many odor-causing compounds in
manure as it moves through the digester, which significantly reduces the
smell. For some farm operators, odor control can be a primary reason for
installing a digester. (Source: Methane Gas Recovery on the Farm,
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation)
ο Recycling of Nutrients
AD products such as fiber and liquid fertilizer, if correctly applied, can
reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers. Liquid fertilizer can also be
spread more readily and heavily on the crop without causing the crop to
burn therefore reducing the amount of acreage needed for spreading.
Furthermore, AD destroys virtually all weed seeds, so the products can be
spread with minimal rise of weed spread, reducing the need for costly
herbicide and other weed control measures.
•
Challenges of Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion projects, as with any development, will create some risks
and have some potential negative environmental impacts. These need to be
removed wherever possible or at least minimized. The specific potential
problems with AD projects are outlined below.
With good design and proper management of digesters, and the appropriate
technology in the right place in the right circumstances, all the potentially
negative environmental and economic implications of AD can be minimized
or removed completely.
191
ο Costs
AD has significant capital and operating costs. Given these, it is unlikely
that AD will be financially viable as a source of renewable energy alone
and therefore must always be seen as an integrated system. However, it is
likely to be cost effective for those who can use (or have or can develop a
market for) the other products of AD (i.e. fiber and fertilizer). Typically, a
minimum herd of 300 dairy cows or 2,000 swine is needed to make such a
system feasible. Furthermore, pay back from electricity generation can
take anywhere from a few years to more than 10 years. (Source: Methane
Gas Recovery on the Farm, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation)
ο Potential emissions
AD produces certain emissions and effluents, to air, ground and water,
which need treatment to avoid damage to human health and the
environment. Proper management should ensure that all these risks are
controlled, and the best available technology should be used in all cases.
ο Noise
AD projects can generate noise. Consideration needs to be given to
potential noise from deliveries, pumps, compressors, the power plant and
the overall scheme should be designed to minimize noise.
ο Health and Safety
There may be some risk to human health from the pathogenic content of
the feedstock and digestate. There may also be some risk of fire and
explosion, although no greater than with systems using natural gas.
ο Animal Health
There may be some risk of animal disease transmission between farms
using a community digester through cross contamination from vehicle
movements and centralized collection of feedstock. Strict quality control
measures are likely to be needed.
ο Visual Impact
Larger digesters may have some visual impact, although the digester can
be partially sunk into the ground to reduce visual impact and make it
easier to load. Screening with trees can also reduce the visual impact of
AD plants.
192
ο Input and Output
While AD is a method of treating various types of feedstock like manure
or food processing residuals, whatever amount of feedstock is inputted, is
the same amount of digestate that is outputted. Farm operators should not
assume that an AD system will lessen their manure handling because that
is not the case. (Source: Anaerobic Digestion of farm and food processing
residues Good Practice Guidelines)
•
Community Digesters
All farm operators who may be interested in pursing an AD system must first
have a technical feasibility study completed to evaluate its costs and benefits.
Since an AD system is dependent on a high feedstock intake, smaller or
midsize farm operations may not be able to support their own. However, a
community digester, as a co-operative enterprise between several farm
operators all with strong equity, may be a viable option.
For a community digester to be successful, the distance between the
participating farms and the digester must be minimal to keep transportation
costs low. Therefore, the digester must be in a centralized location. Locating
concentrations of livestock would be a simple of way of determining which
farm operations could be involved with a community digester. Ensuring the
quality of the feedstock is also an important aspect of a community digester
both for maintaining the quality of the AD products and protecting livestock
from bio-security threats that could be transported between farms.
•
Grant Funding
Because the expense for an AD system is a multi-million dollar investment,
farm operators should explore various funding options. Grant funding may be
available from various organizations such as Focus on Energy, the Wisconsin
Office of Energy Independence, the United Stated Department of Agriculture
(USDA), or a local utility provider.
The Last Straw
As our population increases, and the size of households decrease, we will see more
homes with fewer occupants. Land is needed for space, and land and resources are
needed to build the homes. Using land wisely (using density management, retro-fitting
old neighborhoods, etc.) will help minimize urban sprawl and the wasteful consumption
of land. Using resources wisely can help reduce carbon emissions (partially responsible
for global warming) and save trees, water, and minerals. While it may not be obvious,
thinking of ‘green building’, as a tool to save farmland, makes sense.
193
Utilizing population projections provided by the East Central Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (ECWRPC), it is predicted by year 2030 the county will need
11,094.4 acres of land to meet our housing needs; 2,749.5 acres for commercial demand;
and 885.1 acres for institutional demand. Presumably the majority of that demand will be
filled by developing vacant land. How the county reacts to the demand will determine
the county’s position on the value of farmland. The county will need to make choices—
preserve farmland for farming or develop wiser?
Innovations in building can help reduce dependence, and depletion of our natural
resources. Innovations in agriculture help develop new products to further the
innovations in building.
Buildings are the single largest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions, accounting for
39% of emissions in the U.S. Many levels of government have enacted legislation
requiring new or retro-fitted buildings to be LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) Green Building certified to help reduce emissions and the impact
on our resources. Currently 12 federal agencies or departments, 28 states, over 120 local
governments, 12 public school jurisdictions and 36 higher education institutions have
made policy changes to encourage LEED. (Source: U.S. Green Building Council)
Sometimes green building is expanded upon to teach not just environmentally sound
building practices, but a way of life. For example, the Center for Maximum Potential
Building Systems, established in 1975, is a non-profit education, research, and
demonstration organization specializing in ‘life cycle planning and design’. They utilize
both green building and education to make a difference. They undertake projects based
on their potential contribution to site, regional and global sustainability and human
health. Projects emphasize regional contexts as its basis for responsible resource use
relative to materials, energy, water, waste, food, and meaningful employment.
This philosophy, coupled with technology, is really making a difference in the building
industry. The Development Center for Appropriate Technology works to enhance the
health of the planet and our communities by promoting a shift to sustainable construction
and development through leadership, strategic relationships, and education. They believe
technology is the application of ideas, energy and resources to solve problems and create
change. Appropriate technology is that which strives to minimize negative consequences
to all life, and connects people with each other and the Earth.
Green building (using recycled plastics, environmentally friend paint, natural products
rather than man made, etc.) is not the only innovation in building reducing the
consumption of natural resources. ‘Natural building’ uses unchanged natural products
produced from the earth. Natural building is gaining in popularity, especially in the more
destitute areas of the country and the world.
There are some organizations devoted to building solely with natural products. “Builders
Without Borders” is an international network of ecological builders who advocate the use
of straw, earth and other local, affordable materials in construction. They believe that the
194
solution to homelessness is not merely housing, but individuals and communities trained
to house themselves.
Although products such as straw may be useful in building homes for the homeless, they
are also used to build homes and agricultural buildings for the efficient minded. Straw is
very versatile and gaining in popularity in Wisconsin. As demand for straw construction
increases, so will the demand to use farmland for straw production.
Think outside of the box, or the bale, that is. Straw is one commodity that is often
overlooked for its use and value. According to John Ivanko and Lisa Kivirist of the book
Rural Renaissance straw houses are organic and can offer energy efficiency. Straw
houses can have an R-value ranging from R-35 to R-50. R-value is “the measurement of
how effectively a material resists the transfer of heat via conduction. The higher the Rvalue, the less heat transfer can take place” (Source: Energy Services Office). Straw bale
walls are very strong, provide better fire resistance, and can help avoid new building
syndrome (an illness reported by occupying new construction).
195
196
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children.”
~Native American Proverb
197
198
CHAPTER ELEVEN
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Farmers work closely with the environment to jointly produce and raise the healthiest
crops and herds possible. They have a symbiotic relationship where Mother Nature
provides the resources to the farmer, trusting he will take care of her resources and return
them in good condition. The healthier the resources, the more productive and higher
yield to the farmer.
Environmental stewardship is a way of life in farming. It is also a strong component in
the state’s farmland preservation program. As mentioned earlier in this plan, nutrient
management planning and following best management practices are an integral part of
the state’s program. Managing land appropriately helps preserve farmland in a sound
manner.
The following are further considerations for farmers who strive to be good to their
mother…Mother Nature that is!
(Note: Farmers should always check with the Calumet County Land and Water
Conservation Department and/or other governing body to determine if the regulations
mentioned in this chapter are still in effect or if they’ve been revised.)
Groundwater Quality
As many farmers know, Calumet County has a lot of karst features, which allow
contaminants to reach the groundwater quickly. In Calumet County, the karst actually
resembles a ‘Swiss cheese’ type subsurface. Thin soils, sinkholes, and exposed bedrock
make it easy for materials spread, piled, buried, or stacked on the surface to end up in the
groundwater. To improve the quality of the drinking water, land managers need to
improve their land management techniques in the sensitive areas of the county where
karst features are present.
As a result of the karst features, and the contaminants reaching the groundwater, the
water tested from private wells have shown the presence of unsafe levels of nitrates and
bacteria. These unsafe levels are a concern in that high or elevated levels can cause
illness and in some cases, death. Map O depicts where high nitrates have been found in
the county. Map P shows where the high levels of bacteria have been found.
Groundwater is a limited resource, and both its quality and quantity are important
characteristics. These characteristics are primarily influenced by local geology and
local land use. Precipitation percolates through the soil and bedrock where it eventually
reaches a saturated zone known as an aquifer. It is from these aquifers that wells draw
their water.
According to the Calumet County Land and Water Conservation Department, most of the
199
groundwater in Calumet County is stored in fractured bedrock. Wells tap these fractures
to access the water.
As indicated pollutants such as nitrates and bacteria in groundwater are an issue of high
concern in Calumet County. Nitrates are odorless, colorless, and tasteless and are the
result of decaying organic matter. Nitrates are found in animal and human waste and are
also found in fertilizers. Nitrate levels of less than two parts per million are considered
naturally occurring and levels of two to 10 parts per million are considered elevated
levels due to human activities. A nitrate level over 10 parts per million is considered
unsafe for infants and is the enforcement standard.
The second common groundwater pollutant of concern is bacteria. Tests are completed
for the presence of coliform bacteria which is an indicator for the presence of more
harmful bacteria. Sites that are positive for coliform are then tested for E. coli bacteria.
Any level of E. coli bacteria (found in animal and human waste) is considered harmful.
Calumet County is particularly susceptible to groundwater contamination because
fractured dolomite underlies most of the county. These fractures allow water and
pollutants to move more efficiently and rapidly. There are also several large areas
of the county which have thin soils over bedrock. Pollutants spread, stored, or spilled on
thin soils can easily move through the thin soil layer and enter the groundwater. Unused
wells can serve as direct pipelines to the groundwater. Contaminants at or near the
surface, such as animal and human wastes or lawn and agricultural fertilizers, can enter
the groundwater easily through unused wells, sinkholes, and the fractured dolomite.
Calumet County draws all of its water from the same aquifer (the Silurian Niagara
Dolomite). This water is influenced by activities on the surface that occurred in the last
year or two. Groundwater movement through the fractured dolomite is multidirectional.
It is difficult to trace the specific path and origin of pollutants. Thus, all areas and all
wells are susceptible to some extent. The source of contamination is often less than one
mile from the well itself.
For more information about the county’s nitrate and bacteria problem the reader is urged
to contact the Groundwater Specialist located in the Calumet County Land and Water
Conservation Department.
Performance Standards
In the summer of 2007, Calumet County adopted performance standards to help protect
water quality. The performance standards are conservation and land management
practices and are purely voluntary at this time. However, the land manager should
remain in contact with the Calumet County Land and Water Conservation Department to
determine if the standards have become mandatory.
Specifically, according to the Calumet County Land and Water Conservation
Department, the performance standards urge that manure not be applied on:
200
•
•
•
•
•
•
Saturated soils
Frozen ground (phase in with winter spreading plan)
Ice covered or snow covered ground (phase in with winter spreading plan)
Soils with less than three feet of depth over bedrock
Land within 100 feet of sinkholes, bedrock openings, and areas of focused
infiltration and delivery channels to these features
Land within 100 feet of a private well and 1,000 feet of a municipal well
For those who apply manure on soils with a depth of three to five feet over bedrock, it is
recommended they have:
•
•
•
Split applications (two per year and at least two weeks apart)
Each application does not exceed 7,000 gallons per acre (17.5 tons) or half the
volume or weight called for in a nutrient management plan
Manure be incorporated within four hours of application to a depth of less
than 10 inches
For manure applications on deeper soils, it is recommended that the manure be
incorporated within four hours of application.
Nutrient management plans should include maps that identify observable sinkholes,
bedrock openings, closed depressions, areas of focused infiltration, wells, areas of soil
depths less than three feet to bedrock, and areas of soil depths three to five feet to
bedrock. These maps should be used to incorporate the performance standards when
applying manure. Additionally, the land manager should develop a spill response plan
for manure transport and application.
It is recommended that for outside animal lots and milking centers:
•
•
For lots and centers in water quality management areas the manager should:
ο Divert clean water runoff from land and buildings away from lots, and
treat, filter or capture waste before they run off or soak down into the
ground, using one or more site specific conservation practices
ο Design, construct, and maintain lots according to current technical
standards
ο Dig test holes for construction to at least five feet below the surface
ο For unconfined manure piles, it is recommended that they not be located
in the water quality management areas (phase in with stacking plan)
In other areas:
ο Do not pile manure in one location for more than eight months and move
annually
ο Limit use of a particular site to one year out of three years
ο Limit pile volume to less than 15,000 cubic feet
ο Locate pile on soils that are not sandy, gravelly or wet (hydrologic soil
group B or C)
201
ο Locate pile on soils with at least three feet of soil over any seasonal high
groundwater table
ο Do not locate pile where land slope is greater than 3%
For manure storage facilities, it is recommended:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inspect facilities built prior to 1989 for structural soundness and potential
leakage
Upgrade or properly close facilities that do not pass inspection or pose a threat
to public health or groundwater
Properly close unused facilities
Divert clean water runoff from land and buildings away from facilities in
water quality management areas
Build or alter facilities for at least nine months storage capacity
Develop a written spill response plan for facilities and manure handling
In areas with sinkholes and exposed bedrock it is recommended:
•
•
•
The manager not crop or dump waste in or on them
To not divert runoff or outlet tiles to them
To use one of the following conservation practices with a 100 foot area
around sinkholes:
ο Vegetative buffer strip
ο Alfalfa strips four out of every six years
ο Maintain 30% residue cover with reduced tillage
ο Divert runoff with berms, tiles, or waterways
ο Properly close them
Technical standards and construction plans for livestock operations should:
•
•
Use the most current technical standards for design, construction, and
implementation, and maintenance of conservation practices
Identify and clearly label observable sinkholes, bedrock openings, closed
depressions, areas of focused infiltration, wells, areas of soil depths less than
three feet to bedrock, and areas of soil depths three to five feet to bedrock on
construction site plans
For more information about the performance standards, contact the Calumet County Land
and Water Conservation Department.
Well Abandonment
In the last several years, a majority of private wells have been found to have water
considered unsafe to drink. There are reports of brown and smelly water coming out of
kitchen taps. At least three wells were replaced in 2007 because of manure
202
contamination. Due to the possibility of manure or other contaminants, such as human
septage, reaching the groundwater it is recommended that private wells be tested on an
annual basis for, at a minimum, bacteria and nitrates. Sometimes modifications are
required to the well, but in some cases the well needs to be abandoned.
In addition to poor well construction allowing contaminants in the well, there are old
unused wells that serve as pipelines allowing contaminants to rapidly travel from the
surface to the groundwater. Such wells should be abandoned to prevent further
contamination.
What many land owners do not know is that Calumet County has an Abandoned Well
Ordinance whereby wells that are no longer in use are required to be abandoned. The
Well Abandonment Ordinance is administered by the Calumet County Planning, Zoning
and Land Information Office.
There are three main reasons why a farmer should be concerned about old, unused wells.
They are:
1. Water Quality – Old wells act like pipes directing dirty surface water right
down to our groundwater resources. Over 90% of the residents in the county
use groundwater for drinking water. Whatever gets washed down that ‘pipe’
can end up in someone’s water glass.
2. Safety – Old wells are a huge safety concern for livestock, tractors, and
people. Improperly sealed wells can be holes in the ground that livestock or
people fall down or get stuck in. Tractor wheels are known to get stuck in
them causing damage to the tractor or injury to the driver.
3. It’s the law – State code and the county ordinance say that any well that has
not been used for at least three years should be properly abandoned.
Additionally, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is
proposing regulations (to be effective summer of 2008) whereby any time
property is transferred, the property must be inspected to determine if there
are any old unused wells on the property. If old, unused wells are found, they
must properly be abandoned.
There is also a program to help pay for the cost of abandoning the old wells, the Calumet
County Well Abandonment Cost Share Program. This program is administered by the
Land and Water Conservation Department.
Surface Water Quality
Farmers are very concerned about the quality of the surface water. In 2007 the UWExtension surveyed 167 dairy farmers in the Lower Fox River Watershed. That survey
revealed “a large majority of farmers thought that their behavior could have a direct
impact on water quality and that it was their personal responsibility to protect it”.
(Source: Our Watershed, Volume 1, Issue 2, 2008)
203
There are many reasons to be concerned about surface water quality. Excess nutrient
application and excess phosphorous on fields and lawns can all degrade surface water
quality. If applied on frozen ground or shortly before a heavy rainfall, even proper levels
of nutrient applications and phosphorous can become dangerous if a quick thaw or heavy
rain event forces application quickly off the field. Such heavy concentrations all too
often end up in the county’s waters, most of which are impaired already.
Improper waste disposal, whether it be industrial, agricultural, or human waste, on field
or off field, can all be extremely detrimental to the surface water. In 2008 Calumet
County adopted an Illicit Discharge Ordinance to try to deter the improper disposal of
hazardous chemicals. The Planning, Zoning and Land Information Department, together
with the Emergency Management Department, are responsible for the enforcement of the
ordinance.
Also in 2008 the county adopted stormwater runoff and erosion control ordinances, both
targeted at minimizing pollutants and sediment from reaching surface water. Those
ordinances are administered by the Planning, Zoning and Land Information Department.
In addition to the ordinances mentioned, the county has other regulations designed to
protect surface water quality.
Runoff Management Rules
Agricultural performance standards and prohibitions are found in the regulations of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, NR 151, Subchapter II. This section of the
Administrative Code contains the runoff pollution performance standards and
prohibitions, implementation and enforcement provisions, and a process to develop and
disseminate non-agricultural technical standards.
The NR 151 Agricultural Performance Standards and Prohibitions are intended to protect
water quality by minimizing the amount of soil erosion, nutrients from manure and
croplands, and other non-point source pollutants that enter waterways.
Compliance with the performance standards and prohibitions is not required for existing
facilities and practices unless cost sharing is offered. At least 70% of the cost that
qualifies for cost sharing must be made available to an operation in order to require that a
facility correct performance standard violations. The funds may be provided by state,
local, or any other sources. The cost share rate must be increased up to 90% in cases of
economic hardship. Cost sharing is not required for new facilities or for practices needed
for a livestock operation regulated by a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit (WPDES).
The performance standards and provisions help ensure erosion is limited, water is
protected, and that the farmer gets the most value out of his land. Although many
204
farmers object to the increased regulations and standards they must constantly adhere to,
such regulation is considered necessary to prevent pollution and erosion.
Details about the standards are found early in this plan and therefore not repeated in this
section. Also, for more information about the NR 151 Agricultural Performance
Standards and Provisions, contact the Calumet County Land and Water Conservation
Department.
Other Environmental Practices
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service has created A Guide to
Environmentally Sound Practices for Farmers which should be considered by Calumet
County farmers to help maintain the quality of their cropland. So many factors affect the
farmer and his cropland. Soil, hydrology, slope, nearby woodland and wetlands, pasture
areas, and nutrient management are just a few which create the sometimes overwhelming
checklist a farmer must consider when trying to manage his land to protect groundwater,
control erosion, and still remain economically a viable operation.
The practices mentioned in the guide will be outlined below. However, it is highly
recommended the farmer acquire a copy of the guide to get more information about the
practices mentioned.
•
Crop Rotation
Crop rotation typically includes corn, legumes, and small grains. Rotations
that include small grains and alfalfa can significantly reduce soil erosion.
Alfalfa and other legumes in the rotation can save fertilizer costs because they
replace the nitrogen, corn, and other grains removed from the cropland soil.
Rotations help reduce pesticide use by naturally breaking the cycle of weeds,
insects and diseases. Changing the crops growing in a field should usually
happen in a planned sequence. The farmer should consider the potential for
herbicide carryover to avoid crop failure, and, consider the nitrogen credit
when replacing a legume with corn or other grains.
•
Crop Residue Management
Crop residue left on the surface protects the soil from rain and wind until
emergent plants provide a protective canopy. The crop residue also improves
soil tilth, adds organic matter, and may even result in a little grain being left
for wildlife. Less tillage reduces soil compaction and saves the farmer time in
the field.
According to the guide, there are three basic crop residue management
systems common in the state: mulch-till, no-till and zone or strip-till.
205
•
Contour Buffer Strips
Contoured buffer stripping involves maintaining strips of grass or other
permanent vegetation in a contoured field to help trap sediment or nutrients;
similar to contour strip cropping except that the grass strips are narrower.
Because the buffer strips are established on the contour, runoff flows slowly
and evenly across the grass strip, reducing sheet and till erosion. The
vegetation can also provide habitat for small birds and animals. In some
cases, buffer strips might be an inexpensive substitute for terraces.
To maintain the contour buffer strips, control weeds and brush in grass strips,
and fertilize as needed (based on soil test results). It is also recommended the
farmer keep vegetation tall in spring to slow runoff, and delay mowing until
July 15 to protect ground-nesting birds. Lastly, it is recommended the farmer
move the buffer up or down the slope as needed to reestablish vegetation.
•
Contour Farming and Strip Cropping
‘Contour farming and strip cropping’ is tilling and planting across the slope
following the contours of the land and breaking the field into alternating bands
of row crops and hay or small grains.
Farming on the contour creates small ridges that slow runoff water. In strip
cropping the small grain or hay strips slow water runoff, allowing infiltration
and filtering of sediment. Farming on the contour rather than up and down
reduces field consumption and is easier on the farmer’s equipment.
To help maintain the contour farming and strip cropping, it is recommended
the farmer keep strip widths consistent from year to year. Additionally, in
contour farming, the farmer should establish a narrow, permanent strip of
grass along each key contour line to avoid having to lay out new lines every
year.
•
Cover Crops
‘Cover crops’ are a close growing crop that temporarily protects the soil
during the period before the next crop is established. Cover crops such as
cereal rye, oats and winter wheat are planted as soon as possible after harvest
on fields where residue will not adequately protect the soil from wind and
water erosion during winter and spring. Cover crops can also be used on
sandy soils to reduce nitrate leaching. In some situations, a cover crop can be
planted after the last cultivation to provide a longer growing period.
To help maintain the cover crop, it should be killed in spring by mowing or
herbicide application. (Natural herbicides are recommended.) Tillage is not
206
recommended because it will bury the residue. Early kill is important to
reduce the risk that the cover crop will deplete moisture needed by the grain
crop. Lastly, grazing should be restricted if necessary.
•
Field Borders
‘Field borders’ are a strip of grass or legumes at the edge of a field used in
place of end rows. Perennial vegetation is established at the outside edges of
a field where the edges show signs of erosion. The grass or legume strips
replace crop and rows, which would be planted up and downhill. The
vegetation prevents erosion, helps filter runoff from the field, and provides
habitat for small birds and animals. The border provides equipment turning
and travel lanes.
To help maintain the field border, it is recommended the farmer shut off
sprayers when turning on a field border, and insist that custom applicators do
the same. The farmer should fertilize and reseed as necessary to maintain
vegetative cover. It is recommended the farmer delay mowing field borders
until after July 15 so as to allow nesting birds’ time to leave their nests.
•
Managed (Rotational) Grazing
‘Managed (Rotational) grazing’ is considered planting forage and using
grazing rotation among different fields to maximize production and reduce
sediment and nutrient runoff.
A land owner develops a management plan for grazed land to improve forage
quality, livestock health and water quality. In a managed grazing system,
livestock are moved often among pasture divisions or paddocks based on the
quality of forage and livestock’s nutritional needs. Portable fencing allows
each paddock to rest and re-grow until the next grazing rotation. Compared to
traditional continuous grazing, managed grazing can provide a healthier plant
community, decreased erosion and runoff, better livestock health and
performance, and reduced costs to the farmer.
To help manage or maintain the rotational grazing, it is recommended lime
and fertilizer be applied as indicated by a soil test. Hay may be necessary
during heavy growth periods. It may be necessary to invest time in repairing
the portable fences. It is also recommended that the watering systems, which
drain the pasture, be removed during winter. Lastly, it is recommended the
land manager revise the rotation schedule and the size and number of
paddocks as herd size and other factors change.
207
•
Pasture Planting
Planting grasses or legumes in low-producing pasture or as a replacement for
a cropped field help establish heavy sod cover and provides quality forage for
livestock, stabilizes eroding areas, provides wild habitat cover, and filters
runoff water.
To help maintain good pasture plantings, it is recommended the farmer
fertilize as needed based on the soil test. He should mow weeds when they
reach a height of six to eight inches, and control persistent weeds with
herbicides. (If at all possible, the farmer should use environmentally
approved herbicides.)
•
Grass Waterways
A natural drainage way is graded and shaped to form a smooth, shallow
channel and then it is planted to sod-forming grasses. The drainage way
carries runoff water from the field and the grass prevents the water from
forming a gully. The vegetation may also trap some sediment washed from
cropland, absorb some chemicals and nutrients in the runoff water, and
provide cover for small birds and animals.
To help maintain the grass waterway the farmer should lift equipment out of
the ground and shut off spray equipment when crossing the waterway. Such
measures would help minimize disturbance to the waterway. The waterway
should never be used as a roadway. The farmer should fertilize if needed and
mow periodically, but wait until after July 15 when birds are done nesting. He
should also be careful not to till into the edges of the waterway, and, avoid
end rows planted along the waterway (because they may allow gulleys to form
on the waterway edge).
•
Grade Stabilization Structure
An earthen, concrete or other structure built across a drainage way can prevent
gulley erosion. A dam or embankment built across a gulley or grass waterway
drops water to a lower elevation while protecting the soil from gulley erosion
or scouring. Structures are typically either a drop spillway or a small dam or
basin with a pipe outlet.
To maintain a grade stabilization structure it is recommended that all trees and
shrubs be removed within 30 feet of the structure. Such removal will prevent
the roots from disturbing the structure. Keep burrowing animals away from
the earthen structure and repair any cracks found in the concrete. Lastly, keep
inlets, outlets and the area 50 feet downstream of the outlet free of debris.
Such maintenance will help ensure the integrity of the structure.
208
•
Water and Sediment Control Basin
A small earthen embankment built across the bottom of a drainage way helps
temporarily store runoff. An earthen embankment acts similar to a terrace. It
traps water and sediment running off cropland up slope from the structure, and
reduces gulley erosion by controlling flow within the drainage area. The
basin releases water slowly, usually through infiltration or a pipe outlet and
tile line. Basins can be effective in reducing sedimentation of nearby waters,
especially in areas where residue management or other practices are
impractical.
To maintain a water and sediment control basin, it is recommended the owner
reseed and fertilize the basin as needed to maintain the vegetation.
Additionally, the basin should be checked after large storms to determine the
need for sediment removal. Lastly, the land owner should make necessary
repairs to the embankment, especially when erosion or other problems are
evident.
•
Critical Area Planting
Planting grass, legumes, or other vegetation helps protect small, badly eroding
areas. Permanent vegetation stabilizes areas such as over-grazed hillsides,
terrace backslopes, or gulleys. While the primary goal is erosion control, the
vegetation can also serve as nesting cover for birds and small animals.
As with the other measures described, it is recommended that all mowing be
delayed until July 15 to protect ground-nesting birds. Livestock should be
excluded from the steep slopes. In areas where grazing would be allowed, it is
advisable not to allow grazing for a year after planting, and prevent
overgrazing once the permanent cover has been established. Native grasses
may benefit from periodic burning, which stimulates new growth and controls
competing plants.
•
Diversion
Diversion is typically done through an earthen embankment and channel,
similar to a terrace, constructed across a slope to collect water, diverted to a
stable outlet and protected area downslope.
A diversion keeps excess runoff away from areas with concentrated pollutants
such as barnyards or feedlots and fields with easily eroded soils. A diversion
at the base of a slope can help keep bottomlands drier and more productive.
Similar to terraces, the permanent vegetation on a diversion provides habitat
for birds and small animals.
209
To ensure the diversion functions properly, it is advisable to keep outlets clear
of sediment and debris. Maintain vegetation on the diversion ridge and
fertilize as necessary. It is advisable to control burrowing animals in the
diversion. Never use the diversion as a road in that it will damage the
diversion. As mentioned frequently, delay mowing until after July 15 to
protect ground nesting birds.
•
Terrace
A ‘terrace’ is considered an earthen embankment that follows the contour of a
hillside breaking a long slope into shorter segments and intercepting the flow
of water.
Terraces serve as small dams on a hillside, intercepting runoff water and
guiding it to a safe outlet. Some terraces are designed to collect water and
temporarily store it until it can filter into the ground or be released through a
stable outlet. Other terraces are designed as a channel to slow runoff and
carry it to a stable outlet, such as a grass waterway. Terraces reduce erosion
on steep slopes and the permanent grass on the front or back slopes make
great nesting habitat.
To maintain the terrace, the land owner should remove accumulated sediment
from channels and around pipe intakes. Repairs should be made to sections of
the terrace embankment or channels that have eroded or have settled
excessively. The repaired sections should be reseeded and fertilized to
maintain good vegetation. As a matter of common sense, due to the possible
damage that may occur to the terrace, do not drive on or over terraces.
Control burrowing animals, weeds, brush, and trees to minimize damage.
Lastly, avoid farming close to intakes and repair or replace any damaged
intakes.
•
Manure Storage and Runoff Control
‘Manure storage and runoff control’ are structural practices that can help
protect water quality and make manure management more convenient for the
farmer.
Along with a nutrient management plan, most farmers use manure storage
structures and barnyard runoff controls to improve manure management and
protect water quality. Storage allows manure to be safely stockpiled until
conditions are environmentally safe for spreading. Runoff controls such as
settling basins, filter strips, diversions and rain gutters help keep clean water
from flowing over manure-covered areas and clean up runoff water before it
reaches a waterway.
210
Runoff controls require routine maintenance. Gutters need to be cleaned,
filter strips cut and reseeded as necessary, and the yard and outlet box should
be scraped regularly and cleaned. Manure storage structures need to be
checked for leaks or structural damage. Leaking structures can pose a
significant threat to surface and groundwater quality.
•
Nutrient Management
Careful management of all aspects of soil fertility to meet crop needs and
minimize impacts on water quality is essential to success.
Typically agricultural land owners develop farm nutrient management plans.
The plan is based on realistic crop yield goals, soil tests to determine the
nutrients in his fields, and taking credit for nutrients from legumes and
manure application. The plan may also list areas of special concern such as
floodplains and steep slopes. Nutrients are applied at the proper time of year
using the appropriate application method. Sound nutrient management
reduces fertilizer cost and protects water quality by minimizing overfertilization or poor fertilization.
A necessary part of nutrient management is to test the soil of all cropland
fields every three years. It is important the farmer keep records of manure
applications so he can calculate manure nutrient availability. Lastly, stored
manure should be tested before applied to determine its nutrient level.
•
Pest Management
Although time consuming, using a pest management strategy that identifies
specific treatments for specific pests on specific areas of a field to
economically protect the crop and minimize environmental damage is
beneficial to the farmer and his land.
Crops are evaluated to determine the type of pests (whether it be insects,
weeds, disease, or invasive species), and their stage of development. The
potential damage from the pest is weighed against the cost of control. If
control is economical, alternatives are evaluated to select the best treatment in
terms of effectiveness, cost, and environmental impact. Specific treatment
only when needed saves money, prevents over treatment, and protects water
quality.
Pest management should be looked at on a routine basis. Annually, the land
owner should scout for pests and identify or prioritize the pest and effective
controls. Crop rotations should be designed to minimize pests.
Since pest management applications can be dangerous to human health,
farmers should notify adjacent property owners when spraying activities will
211
occur. Efforts to eliminate spillover of pesticides or any other chemicals onto
organic lands should be discussed with the operator of the organic farm.
For more information or assistance with controlling invasive species, contact
the Calumet County Invasive Species Coordinator located in the Calumet
County Planning Department. For help with controlling other pests, contact
the Calumet County UW-Extension Office.
•
Well Abandonment
Well abandonment is discussed above, but elaborated on more here because it
is discussed in A Guide to Environmentally Sound Practices for Farmers,
which this section of the plan addresses.
Many farms have unused wells. Pollutants that enter these wells move
quickly and without filtration to groundwater. Large open wells themselves
can pose a safety hazard to children and animals. Abandoned wells are sealed
by removing pumps, piping and debris, and filling the hole with a slurry of
cement or bentanite chips.
To find unused wells, one may look for pipes sticking out of the ground
around a farmstead or old windmills. These often indicate well locations.
Other locations may not be as obvious and the land owner may have to check
for depressions in the ground, look in basements, under front steps, or near old
cisterns. Depending on how the well was constructed depends on how the
well should be sealed. The State of Wisconsin has well regulations that
require when a well is sealed a report be filed with the state. Before sealing a
well, the DNR should be contacted to determine the exact requirements. (The
Calumet County Planning, Zoning and Land Information Office help
administer the DNR regulations. They serve as a local contact for anyone
interested in abandoning a well. As mentioned elsewhere in this document,
the County Land and Water Conservation Department also offers cost sharing
to help abandon a well.)
•
Riparian Buffer
‘Riparian vegetative buffers’ are strips of grass, trees or shrubs established
along rivers, streams, ditches, wetland or other water bodies. Riparian buffers
trap sediment, filter nutrients, and provide good habitat in corridors for fish
and wildlife.
To maintain a riparian buffer, it is advised that rills or small channels be
repaired and reseeded as they develop in the grass areas. Weeds and brush
should also be controlled in the grass buffers. Sediment should be removed
from the grass buffers and the buffer reseeded periodically. Lastly, as
212
mentioned earlier, delay any mowing of the grass areas until after July 15 to
protect nesting birds.
•
Stream Bank and Shoreline Stabilization
Where stream banks are eroded, they are reshaped and seeded, and sometimes
protected with rock riprap or seeded with bio-engineering materials. In some
cases, a special wood structure is fitted into the bank to stabilize it and provide
habitat for fish. Stabilizing the shoreline or stream bank protects water
quality, improves habitat for fish, and the additional vegetation provides
additional habitat for small birds and animals. Fencing restricts livestock
access to the bank or shore, with the exception of controlled areas for drinking
or crossing.
Stabilization is very effective but needs maintenance like any other of the
practices mentioned. Fences need to be repaired and maintained. Off stream
watering systems should be removed in winter, if necessary. Lastly,
undesirable tree growth should be controlled and removed when necessary to
prevent destroying the stabilization measures.
•
Wetland Restoration
Where wetlands have been drained and farmed, subsurface and surface drains
are plugged or removed so water can refill the area. In other cases, low-lying
areas are scraped to form a shallow basin, and small dikes or embankments
are installed to establish and maintain water levels. Native wetland vegetation
can be planted to enhance existing plants. The wetland temporarily holds
runoff and filters sediment, nutrients and chemicals before the water recharges
groundwater. Temporarily holding runoff helps reduce flooding downstream.
In that waterfowl rely on wetlands, as do hundreds of species of plants,
amphibians and native birds, it is imperative that the wetland be maintained.
Proper maintenance of a wetland would be replanting wetland vegetation until
a good stand is established. Beavers and muskrats should be controlled to
prevent burrowing rodents. Debris should be removed from pipe inlets and
outlets. The land owner should inspect and repair pipes or water control
structures.
•
Wind Break
Planting multiple rows of trees can help protect a farmstead, feedlot or open
field from wind and snow. Pine trees or the like may be used along with one
or two rows of shrubs. The established trees and shrubs slow wind on the
downwind side of the windbreak. The windbreak reduces wind erosion,
conserves energy used for heating and cooling, serves as a sound barrier, and
provides wildlife habitat.
213
Maintaining a windbreak is relatively easy and inexpensive. Probably the
most important maintenance measure is to control competing vegetation.
Vegetation can be controlled through tillage or herbicides before planting and
for the first three years after the windbreak is planted. Livestock should be
fenced so they do not destroy the windbreak.
•
Woodlot Management
Improving the quality and quantity of existing woodland trees and
groundcover to conserve soil and water enhance wildlife and produce valuable
timber. Land devoted to timber production is managed to provide income,
protect soil and water, approve wildlife habitat, and create opportunities for
recreation. Twigs, limbs, leaves and other debris filter nutrients and
chemicals from surface runoff and help reduce erosion.
Pruning may be necessary to help maintain the woodlot. The local DNR
Forester should be contacted to determine the high value species in the
woodland and they should be appropriately pruned. Trees with the best
potential should be left to grow, and competing trees should be removed. On
a routine basis, the woodlot should be examined to inspect for damage from
insects, rodents, diseases, or invasive species that could damage the woodlot.
(For assistance or more information about identifying and controlling
woodland invasive species contact the Calumet County Invasive Species
Coordinator located in the Calumet County Planning Department.)
•
Tree Planting
Establishing and maintaining trees in fields or under stocked woodlands is
vital to a healthy farm. Tree species are matched to existing soil types, site
conditions and the land owner’s objectives. Planting trees on marginal
cropland prevents soil erosion, protects water quality, and improves wildlife
habitat and may provide a break against wind and drifting snow. Increasing
the number of trees on a poorly stocked, thin woodlot can increase the
woodlot’s productivity and farm income.
Mowing or applying herbicides may be necessary to control competing weeds.
Such measures should be taken to control competing weeds until the trees are
three to four feet in height. The trees should be checked periodically for
damage from disease, insects, rodents and invasive species. Tree survival
should be reviewed after the first and third years to determine the need for
replanting. If the survival rate is less than 60%, inter-planting or replanting
may be necessary. Fallen leaves and debris should be removed from seedlings
in the fall.
214
(For assistance in controlling invasive species contact the Calumet County
Invasive Species Coordinator located in the Calumet County Planning
Department. For assistance with pest management contact the Calumet
County UW-Extension Office.)
•
Wildlife Food Plot
Establishing a variety of plants that provide food for wildlife is helpful to
maintaining a healthy agricultural environment. Food plots can be established
within an existing crop field or in a separate location. A few rows of corn left
standing after harvest or a small plot planted elsewhere will help wildlife
through the winter when food is in short supply.
If herbicides are needed to control
noxious weeds in the food plot, the
land owner could spot spray and
avoid herbicides that will endanger
adjacent seedlings or the wildlife.
•
Upland Wildlife Habitat
Planting trees, shrubs, warm season
grasses and other vegetation that
provide food and cover will attract wildlife to an area. The perennial ground
cover reduces soil erosion, filters runoff and increases infiltration. Carefully
planned wildlife habitat can add value and beauty to a farm.
Weed management should be used to maintain desirable plant species.
Prescribed burning may be essential to help regenerate growth and control
undesirable plant species. Vegetation should be replanted if the habitat is
damaged by disease, invasive species, or poor weather.
(For assistance in controlling invasive species contact the Calumet County Invasive
Species Coordinator located in the Calumet County Planning Department. For assistance
with pest management contact the Calumet County UW-Extension Office.)
Crop Pollinating
Bees can be valuable crop pollinators and help increase crop yields. In addition, proper
farm management can aid in supporting a healthy bee population for the beekeeper and
his honey industry. The healthier the farm crop, the higher the yield, the greater the
desire to keep farming and keep land in farmland production.
There are simple practices farmers can use to increase their crop yields while helping the
bee industry.
215
A non-profit organization that aims to protect biological diversity through the
conservation of invertebrates has been working with farmers and scientists across the
country to protect bee habitat and support pollinators. The organization, the “Xerces
Society”, has produced a guide to help increase crop yields while providing bee habitat.
According to the society, the following simple measures could help protect the industry
while increasing crop yields:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Repairing buffers provide habitat along streams and contain a diversity of
plants that nourish bumblebee queens in the spring.
Keeping dead tree stands provides shelter for native bees. Some solitary bees
build nests in abandoned beetle tunnels in the tree snags.
Fallow fields, especially when sown with native flowers, can offer important
resources for bees.
Creating hedgerows with a wide variety of plants with overlapping flowering
periods provide bee habitat throughout the growing season and strengthen
populations of natural enemies of crop pests.
Natural or undeveloped areas harbor native bees needed to pollinate farm
crops. Working with neighboring property owners to ensure natural habitat
areas exist will help provide bee habitat.
Gardens with a diverse assortment of plants are a good source of food for the
pollinators. Gardeners are to be wary of fancy hybrids, though, that may
produce little pollen or nectar.
Planting fields with canola or other inexpensive seed, or allowing crops such
as lettuce, kale or broccoli to bolt, will supply bees with nectar and pollen.
Ponds or ditches with leftover piles of excavated soil provide nesting areas for
ground-nesting bees. Planting clumps of native flowers near these nesting
sites will attract more pollinators.
Untilled areas adjacent to fields that remain unsprayed help support flowering
plants and provide nest sites for ground-nesting bees.
Certain legumes can be included in cover crop mixes to supply pollen and
nectar.
Building houses for wood-nesting bees is another way to increase the number
of native bees in your agricultural landscape.
Be wary of insecticides that kill pollinators and herbicides that destroy plants
important for food and shelter. It is preferable the farmers minimize their use
of pesticides and carefully choose products and application methods.
The USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides both financial
and technical assistance to help conservation efforts for pollinators and other wildlife on
farms. The programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve
Program, and the Conservation Security Program, can all help producers establish
pollinator friendly plantings.
216
“Many a man curses the rain that falls upon his head,
and knows not that it brings abundance to drive away the hunger.”
~ Saint Basil
217
218
CHAPTER TWELVE
HELPFUL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
Farmland preservation program tax credits, miscellaneous other farmer incentives,
diversification and changes in technology are not enough to help some farmers keep
valuable agricultural land in production. The following is a list of some miscellaneous
programs available to Wisconsin farmers. (For further information about these programs
the farmer is encouraged to contact the Calumet County Economic Development
Specialist in the Planning Department or visit the economic development website:
www.CalumetBusiness.com.)
Financial Programs
•
Grants
Dairy 2020 Early Planning Grant Program— Awards grants for business and
feasibility planning to dairy producers and processors considering a
modernization or expansion project. Grants of up to $3,000 may be awarded
for professional services to develop a comprehensive business plan for the
start-up, modernization, or expansion of a Wisconsin dairy farm.
Dairy 2020 Milk Volume Production Program (MVP)—Designed to assist
dairy producers that are undertaking capital improvement projects that will
result in a significant increase in Wisconsin’s milk production. Only those
projects that have a comprehensive business plan and can demonstrate that
they will have a long term sustainable impact upon Wisconsin’s milk
production will be successful. Since 2003, Calumet County has had three
farms that have expanded their operations and opted to utilize the Wisconsin
Department of Commerce’s Milk Volume Production (MVP) program. Over
half a million dollars of assistance was granted to the three farms. With that
assistance, over 1,000 cows were added to milk production and created over
20 new jobs in the county. The MVP program offers a low interest loan of
4% to farmers who are looking to increase the size of their herd. All dairy
farmers in the state who are planning significant capital improvements that
will result in increased milk production and creation of jobs should consider
this program. MVP loans have a term of seven (7) years with a fixed interest
rate of 4% for the life of the loan. Repayment is deferred for the first year,
followed by interest only payments in the second year. Principal and interest
payments will be made during years three (3) through seven (7).
Dairy 2020 Multiple Entity Early Planning Grants—The goal of this program
is to assist two or more independent entities to pool their financial and
management resources and start a new Wisconsin dairy business. Grants of
up to $7,500 may be used for professional services to develop a
comprehensive business plan.
219
Grow Wisconsin Dairy: Commodity Competitiveness Grant Pilot Program—
Grants may be awarded to commodity processors for major initiatives to add
value or cut costs in their businesses. Projects involving collaboration
between processors and dairy farmers that promote supply chain value are
encouraged. Projects must show potential for improving dairy
competitiveness. Examples of types of projects might include: reducing
hauling or distribution costs, meeting a major new long-term customer
demand, making a major new facility investment or joint venture.
Grow Wisconsin Dairy: Dairy Farm Modernization Pilot Grant Program—
Grants of up to $7,500 may be awarded for professional services related to the
siting, engineering, design, layout and diagrams of new barns, parlors and
other farm structures related to new modernization and expansion projects.
Also eligible is consulting for risk management, financial management and
labor management; financial management software and training in
conjunction with modernization, expansion or efficiency projects. Funding
must be connected to new modernization projects (within one year of business
plan completion).
Grow Wisconsin Dairy: Dairy Farm Organic; Grazing or Farm Entry
Transition Pilot Grant Program—Grants of up to $7,500 may be awarded to
help dairy farmers get started in business or for existing dairy farmers to
transition to or enhance organic or intensively managed grazing operations.
Cow, goat or sheep operations may apply. Projects must incorporate financial
analysis and planning. Examples of types of projects might include:
professional services costs for grazing system design and financial planning,
milking parlor engineering, engineering and design of water drinking system,
assist with non-covered conservation planning costs.
Grow Wisconsin Dairy: Local Dairy Development Pilot Grant Program—
Grants of up to $25,000 may be awarded to local organizations (co-ops, nonprofit, Chambers of Commerce, etc.) that enhance the development of
modernized dairy farming in the area through unique, innovative projects.
Education or outreach may not be the primary objectives of the proposed
program. Examples of types of projects might include: creation of agricultural
development zones that promote dairy farm development, creation of new and
innovative systems to provide capital for dairy modernization, or programs
that identify, promote and create specific supply chains for producers and
processors that result in value added products or cost savings.
Grow Wisconsin: Value Chain Development Pilot Grant Program—Grants of
up to $50,000 may be awarded to dairy business entities who are 1)
introducing new dairy products or entering new markets and who demonstrate
that the new product or market has potential for increased profitability; or 2)
implementing innovation or efficiencies in their supply chain that have
220
potential to significantly reduce costs. Examples of types of projects might
include: launching a new product or product line, entering a new or
differentiated market arena, or development of a system for reducing costs
within the business supply chain.
•
Loans
Farm Service Agency (FSA): Beginning Farmer Loans and Guarantees— The
Farm Service Agency directs a portion of their direct loan programs at
beginning farmers and ranchers. These loans are targeted at farmers and
ranchers who have operated for more than 3 years and less than 10 who are
unable to obtain financing from commercial lenders. Loans may be used for
farm ownership and operating costs. The FSA provides direct and guaranteed
loans to beginning farmers and ranchers who are unable to obtain financing
through commercial credit sources.
This is a pilot program to assist beginning farmers and those selling their
farm. The intent of the program is to determine if land contracts are a viable
alternative for facilitating land transfers to the new farmers and ranchers. The
program was piloted in Wisconsin from 2003 through 2007. Each year the
FSA would approve a certain number of land contracts, subject to the
availability of funds.
To be eligible for the program, the buyer had to be a beginning farmer or
rancher, and be the owner of a family-sized farm or ranch after the contract
was completed. The buyer had to participate in the business operations of a
farm or ranch for at least three years. They also had to have an acceptable
credit history and demonstrated debt repayment. Lastly, the buyer had to be
able to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere, without a guarantee, to finance their
actual needs at reasonable rates and terms. The program has been considered
a success and has been extended.
FSA: Direct Loans—Direct loans are made and serviced by FSA officials,
who also provide borrowers with supervision and credit counseling. Farm
ownership and operating loans are the main types of loans available under the
direct loan program. With a direct farm ownership loan, you can purchase
farmland, construct or repair buildings and other fixtures. Operating loans
may be used to purchase items such as livestock, farm equipment, feed, minor
improvements to buildings, family subsistence, and to refinance debts under
certain conditions.
FSA: Guaranteed Farm Loans—FSA guaranteed loans provide lenders (i.e.
banks, farm credit system institutions, credit unions) with a guarantee of up to
95% of the loss of principal and interest on a loan. Farmers and ranchers
apply to an agricultural lender, who then arranges for the guarantee. The FSA
guarantee permits lenders to make agricultural credit available to farmers who
221
do not meet the lender's normal underwriting criteria. With a direct farm
ownership loan, you can purchase farmland, construct or repair buildings and
other fixtures. Operating loans may be used to purchase items such as
livestock, farm equipment, feed, minor improvements to buildings, family
subsistence, and to refinance debts under certain conditions.
FSA: Guarantees for Operating and Real Estate Transactions—The FSA
guarantees loans made by conventional agricultural lenders for up to 95% of
the loan amount. Farmers must apply with a lender, who then arranges for the
guarantee. FSA will guarantee loans for both farm ownership and operating
purposes. Farm ownership loans may be made to purchase farmland,
construct or repair buildings and other fixtures, or to refinance debt.
Operating loans may be used to purchase items such as livestock, farm
equipment, feed, minor improvements to buildings, family subsistence, and to
refinance debts under certain conditions.
Harvest of Hope, Community of Hope--Provides financial assistance to needy
farm families to: 1) purchase seed, fertilizer, fuel & other supplies for spring
planting; 2) meet emergency needs for food, shelter, medical expenses.
WHEDA: Beginning Farmer Bonds—A Wisconsin Housing and Economic
Development Authority program whereby bonds can be used to purchase a
first farm including land, equipment, livestock, or buildings. Bonds can be
used for transactions between related persons.
WHEDA: Crop—A Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development
Authority loan program. The loan can be used to buy animal feed, seed,
fertilizer, pesticides, or to pay land rent, custom hire, crop insurance, feeder
animals, tillage services, equipment rental and repair, or utilities for
commodity production.
WHEDA: Farm—A loan program for the producer who wants to expand or
modernize an existing operation. The loan can be used to purchase
agricultural assets including machinery, equipment, buildings, land, and
livestock. The money can also be used to make improvements to farm
buildings and land for agricultural purposes.
•
Loan Guarantee
WHEDA: Agribusiness Guarantee Program—A Wisconsin Housing and
Economic Development Authority program which provides loan guarantees
for projects developing products, markets, method of processing or marketing
for a Wisconsin-grown commodity. The maximum guarantee of 80% on
loans can be used for equipment, land, buildings, working capital, inventory
and marketing expenses.
222
•
Environmental Regulation Assistance & Programs
Wisconsin Focus on Energy—A partnership created by the Wisconsin
Department of Administration in coordination with the Wisconsin Public
Service Commission and the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, provides
services to farmers and businesses, local governments and non-profit
organizations.
Wisconsin Public Service—Offers programs to increase the energy efficiency
of farming operations.
Technical Assistance
•
Programs
AgrAbility of Wisconsin—AgrAbility of Wisconsin is a partnership program
between UW-Extension, Cooperative Extension and the Easter Seals
Wisconsin FARM Program. AgrAbility works to promote success in
agriculture for people with disabilities through the development of a
customized assistance plan based on the type of farm operation, type of
disability, and the needs of the individual with a disability and their family.
This plan could include: equipment and worksite modification, farm job
restructuring, community and health care coordination, peer support
involvement, etc.
Center for Dairy Profitability—The Center for Dairy Profitability develops,
coordinates and conducts effective interdisciplinary educational and applied
research programs, emphasizing business management, human resource
management, production systems, and finance and marketing systems that
enhance dairy profitability. In keeping with this mission statement, the
Center's website has a variety of software programs, spreadsheets, and CDROMS to improve production efficiency and profitability. The Center also
has a real-time internet financial benchmarking site.
Dairy 2020 Initiative—A state, business, and education partnership that works
to enhance the competitive edge of the Wisconsin dairy industry.
Dairy Business Innovation Center (DBIC)—The DBIC is a non-profit
Wisconsin corporation offering technical assistance to dairy producers and
cheese processors for product development, business planning, market
development and other services. The Center boasts a team roster of more than
15 world-class dairy experts and is led by a stakeholder board.
Milk Money—Milk Money is a UW-Extension outreach program of the
University of Wisconsin Department of Dairy Science supported by the
Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board and offered to all Wisconsin dairy
producers. Milk Money uses the ‘team’ management concept to help
223
producers improve milk quality.
Wisconsin Agribusiness Council—The Wisconsin Agribusiness Council is a
statewide trade association for agribusinesses. They strive to protect, promote
and support Wisconsin's agricultural industry through lobbying and
educational initiatives.
Wisconsin Dairy Artisan Network—The Wisconsin Dairy Artisan Network
assists current and future Wisconsin dairy food artisans through education,
promotion of the craft, and regulatory advocacy.
Wisconsin Farm Center—The Wisconsin Farm Center offers a convenient
resource for farmers and their families. In addition to serving as an
information clearinghouse, they provide services in the areas of financial
counseling and analysis, mediation, employment and training, farm succession
and two-generation linking, legal information related to FSA programs and
Rural Electric Power Services. Their staff of professionals, who come from
farm backgrounds, is assisted by more than 150 volunteer advisors and
mediators around the state.
Wisconsin Farmer’s Resource Guide—The Resource Guide is a directory for
farmers and rural citizens to find helpful information and services offered by
public and private agencies across the state. Whether you need legal aid or
want to apply for a loan, seek job training or financial counseling, this guide
will help you find the right person to talk to.
•
Marketing
Savor Wisconsin—Savor Wisconsin is an online directory and resource to
connect producers and consumers across the world to find food and
agricultural products and services.
Wisconsin Common Market—The Market is an internet cybermall developed
to help up to 400 Wisconsin members owning very small businesses to
increase their markets through e-commerce sales.
•
Young Farmers Programs
Farm Link—The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection Farm Link Program provides farm succession information and
assistance linking farmers with other farmers and beginning farmers. The
program is a coordinated network of resources available to assist new dairy
farmers and also assists retiring farmers. The mission is to “develop and
sustain a coordinated network of resources and policies to assist dairy farm
entry and transfer in Wisconsin”.
224
Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation Young Farmer Program—Wisconsin
Farm Bureau Federation Young Farmer Program is a leadership program for
farmers under the age of 35. The Young Farmer Program provides leadership
and skills development opportunities, along with the chance for young farmers
to meet and network with other young farmers.
Wisconsin Youth Apprenticeship Program—The Governor's Work-Based
Learning Board Youth Apprenticeship is a rigorous one- or two-year program
for high school students. The program combines classroom instruction with
paid, mentored, on-the-job experience.
•
Environmental Regulation Assistance & Programs
Business Sector Specialists—The Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
recently created Business Sector Specialists to work with specific industrial or
commercial sectors. Sector Specialists serve as the first point of contact for
businesses, providing coordinated, cross-media technical and compliance
assistance.
Discovery Farms—Discovery Farms is a University of Wisconsin program
designed to address the environmental research needs of agricultural
producers. Through addressing those needs, Discovery Farms is working to
assure a healthy environment and a healthy farm economy. Discovery Farms
is part of UW-Extension and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at
UW-Madison, and have a relationship with the Wisconsin Agriculture
Stewardship Initiative.
Environmental Regulations and Permits—Commerce can assist with
expedited environmental permits and help resolve delays and communication
problems.
Flammable, Combustible or Hazardous Liquids Assistance—Businesses
storing or handling flammable, combustible or hazardous liquids can receive
compliance assistance and consultation (includes waste oil).
Small Business Clean Air Assistance—Provides small businesses with
information on air pollution regulations and other environmental issues and
helps with air permits and compliance requirements.
Solid and Hazardous Waste Education Center—Enhances Wisconsin’s
environment and economy by providing education and technical assistance
programs to business and communities on source reduction, recycling, solid
waste management, and pollution prevention.
Wisconsin Business Environmental Assistance Partnership (WBEAP)—The
Partnership helps Wisconsin business and communities understand
225
environmental regulations, prevent pollution, and establish continuous
improvement. WBEAP is a working partnership between the Department of
Commerce (Small Business Clean Air Assistance Program), Agriculture,
Trade, & Consumer Protection (Agrichemical Program), and the UWExtension (Solid and Hazardous Waste Education Center). WBEAP can help
with air pollution regulations, environmental innovation, environmental
management systems, fertilizer & pesticide management, industrial &
community recycling, renewable energy & energy conservation, stormwater
control plans, and waste minimization.
Wisconsin Energy Center—Dedicated to improving energy efficiency through
energy efficient programs, research and education.
Wisconsin Focus on Energy—A partnership created by the Wisconsin
Department of Administration in coordination with the Wisconsin Public
Service Commission and the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, provides
services to farmers and businesses, local governments and non-profit
organizations.
Wisconsin Public Service—Offers programs to increase the energy efficiency
of farming operations.
226
“We now know more about what we don’t know.”
~Alfred E. Neuman
227
228
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
THE ACTION PLAN
This plan has provided the reader with a wealth of information about the State of
Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Program; agricultural requirements, statistics and other
programs; Calumet County goals and objectives; and various ideas on how to sustain,
diversify or improve agriculture in the county. This chapter takes all the previous
information contained in this plan and summarizes it into an “action plan”, an
implementation guide.
Step One
Support the main principles of the Calumet County Year 2025 Smart Growth Plan and
the State of Wisconsin Working Lands Initiative by adopting zoning and land division
regulations which limit the conversion of valuable farmland to development, and, protect
valuable farmland. To achieve this task the county needs to accomplish the following:
•
•
Limit the number of new lots that can be created on prime farmland targeted for
preservation by utilizing density management, reducing the size lot required for
residential development in rural areas, allow for compact development in hamlets
and transitional areas.
The county should also develop a working group to consider stricter development
regulations, such as has been done in Jefferson County, Wisconsin (see Chapter
Seven of this plan).
The county has drafted a comprehensive revision to their zoning ordinance and
subdivision ordinance. The new versions of the codes include language with regard to
density management in the rural areas and the allowance for compact, smaller lot sizes.
Step Two
Maintain valuable farmland in Exclusive Agriculturally zoned areas by prohibiting the
rezoning of agricultural lands which have the potential to negatively impact agriculture or
create incompatible neighboring land uses. Any land owner proposing to rezone property
shall comply with the public hearing requirements of the Calumet County Zoning
Ordinance and the Wisconsin State Statutes. (Pursuant to Chapter 91, Wis. Stats., the
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection shall be notified
of all rezonings pertaining to the Exclusive Agricultural district.) Prior to the Board of
Supervisors rezoning land, the land owner shall prove the following:
•
•
•
The proposed rezoning would allow uses reasonably consistent with the
comprehensive plan and the certified farmland preservation plan.
The land subject of the rezoning request is not suitable for agriculture and the
rezoning would allow uses better suited for the land.
The rezoning would not impair or limit agricultural use of other nearby protected
farmland.
229
•
•
•
•
•
The zoning district proposed for the site will not allow uses, either by regular
zoning permit, conditional use, or through site plan review, which could be
incompatible with agricultural use.
The proposed rezoning will not allow a use that would cause unreasonable air and
water pollution, soil erosion, adverse affects on rare or irreplaceable natural
resources, or negatively impact the surrounding agricultural uses and farming
industry in general.
Adequate public facilities to accommodate development either exist or will be
provided within a reasonable time.
Provision of public facilities to accommodate development will not place an
unreasonable burden on the ability of affected local units of government to
provide them.
The land proposed for rezoning is suitable for development, and development will
not result in undue water or air pollution, cause unreasonable soil erosion, or have
an unreasonably effect on rare or irreplaceable natural areas.
As allowed by changes made in 2009 to the State of Wisconsin Farmland Preservation
Program, the county is required to collect a conversion fee on behalf of the state for any
land rezoned out of an Exclusive Agricultural Zoning district. According to DATCP the
county can impose an additional fee for farmland preservation purposes. The county
should consider a fee sufficient to fund a Purchase of Agricultural Conservation
Easement program, as well as administrative expenses.
Step Three
Support areas in the county with a strong agricultural history or economic viability. The
incentive to invest in an area is correlated to the stability of the agricultural industry.
Areas reserved exclusively for agriculture should attract agriculturally related industries.
The county should develop a working group which utilizes tools, such as the LESA
model, to prioritize land for the following:
•
•
•
Areas to be petitioned as Agricultural Enterprise Areas.
Lands to be targeted for a Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements
program (aka, Purchase of Development Rights).
Other ideas covered in Chapter Six of this plan.
Step Four
Once the areas in Step Three have been identified, the county should develop a working
group to determine:
•
•
The details of a Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement program. Such
discussions need to involve local land trusts.
How the county can offer greater financial incentives or loan programs to farmers.
Incentives and programs should be developed and made available to all farmers,
with a greater incentive being offered to those in Exclusive Agricultural Zoning
and the Agricultural Enterprise Areas.
230
•
Strongly advocate the programs and services identified in Chapter Twelve of this
plan.
Step Five
There is an abundant amount of land which is well suited to diversified forms of
agriculture. Such lands should not be minimized in value or excluded from the incentives
and loan programs mentioned in Step Four. However, many farmers are not aware of the
multitude of agricultural opportunities which could flourish on their land. To educate
farmers on the various forms of diversified agriculture, the county should support:
•
•
•
•
Educational groups which work with farmers. The county needs to join or retain
its membership in, or contributions to, those groups which provide direct,
individual consulting services and information to farmers. Such groups may
include, but are not limited to Glacierland Resource Conservation and
Development, Inc., UW-Extension, and miscellaneous organic and specialty
farming organizations. As an alternative, the county should pursue their own staff
person to work with graziers, organic farmers, and other specialty crop producers.
Advocacy and publicity which promote agricultural diversity.
New ideas or programs which can aid in agricultural diversification of the county,
as described in Chapter Nine of this document.
Organize a Local Foods Council to advocate food initiatives described in Chapter
Eight of this plan.
Step Six
The world is at a crossroads where we are no longer sustainable and we consume more
than we can provide. The county needs to support biomass and other factors of the
agricultural bio-economy. The county should:
•
•
•
Develop a “think tank” comprised of inventive land owners, farmers, and
engineers to strategize on new ideas. The county needs to support such ideas
when proposed to the state, and, support grant applications for new agriculturally
related bio-technology.
Be “open minded” about unconventional agricultural bio-ideas and not condemn
any agriculturally related bio-product/service without research. A county biocrew could be formed to do thorough investigations on new ideas, rather than
accept undocumented presentations which may hinder the county’s farmers’
sustainability.
Offer workshops on ideas discussed in the latter half of Chapter Nine and all of
Chapter Ten in an effort to stimulate a greater interest in the bio-economy.
Step Seven
Because Calumet County is the second fastest growing county in the state, and, because
the county’s groundwater has high levels of bacteria and nitrates, the county needs to
aggressively take measures to protect the natural resources, and, improve their condition
when possible. A healthy environment helps sustain agriculture. To help our
environment, the county is encouraged to:
231
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prohibit all non-farm residential development on prime agricultural soils targeted
for preservation.
Support filtration areas by prohibiting all forms of development in or near
wetlands.
Adopt strong policies to prohibit, or limit, the spread of agricultural and industrial
by-products on sensitive areas which tend to permit groundwater contamination.
Adopt a mandatory well testing program to determine the full extent of the
county’s groundwater contamination.
Prohibit the drilling of new wells in areas with known groundwater
contamination. Such prohibition will aid in minimizing the potential for
consumption of contaminated groundwater by limiting residential development in
areas with thin soil over karst and in other areas with known groundwater quality
concerns.
Require shared wells whenever possible to limit the number of new borings into
the aquifer.
Prohibit private on-site waste disposal systems (aka, septics) on lands considered
unsuitable, or on soils or topography where if the system failed, the potential for
groundwater contamination would be minimal.
Monitor all existing systems for possible failure and groundwater contamination,
and, support legal action to abandon and replace faulty systems.
Improve surface water quality by restricting the use of phosphorous or other
fertilizers which are known to cause damage to the environment if not properly
applied.
Improve surface water quality by increasing budgets or increasing fees to
allow/encourage more soil conservation practices.
Support the protection of certain species known to enhance the environment and
the enjoyment and quality of rural life.
Support the environmental considerations listed in Chapter Eleven of this plan.
Final Steps
This farmland preservation plan replaces a plan completed over twenty years ago. The
county needs to remain current on ideas and strategies and is therefore encouraged to
review this plan every three years, with a comprehensive update every ten years. By
updating the plan the county will be forced to evaluate policies and codes and determine
if they are effective at preserving farmland and helping the farming community remain
profitable, while balancing the needs of the community and the environment.
Note: If an individual believes the content of this plan should be amended, prior to the
scheduled review mentioned above, the proposed amendment should be brought to the
attention of a member of the Planning, Zoning and Farmland Preservation Committee, or,
the staff of the Calumet County Planning Department. Proposed changes will be
discussed by staff and or/the committee and scheduled for a public hearing. All hearings
shall be held in accordance with State Statutes. A fee for legal notice publication and
processing may be charged. After the public hearing the Planning, Zoning and Farmland
Preservation Committee will discuss the proposal, and, if they vote in favor of the
232
amendment, they will make a recommendation to the Calumet County Board of
Supervisors the plan be appropriately amended. The Board of Supervisors will schedule
the matter for a public meeting and discuss and vote on the proposal.
233
234
“Only he can understand what a farm is, what a country is,
who shall have sacrificed part of himself to his farm or country,
fought to save it, struggled to make it beautiful.
Only then will the love of farm or country fill his heart.”
~ Antoine De Saint-Exupery
235
236
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
LAST, BUT NOT LEAST
Calumet County anticipates this plan will be a useful tool to the agricultural community.
In addition to this plan, the county urges the farmer or ‘agri-neur’ (agricultural
entrepreneur) to consult other county and state plans and documents which will help the
land owner maintain their land in the most productive, environmentally responsible
manner. Below is a summary of some of those documents.
Calumet County Land and Water Management Plan
The Management Plan serves as a guiding document on how government
and citizens will work together to improve the land and water resources of Calumet
County. In addition, it is a strategic plan on how county government, partnering
agencies, and residents will work together to improve and protect the county’s land and
water resources.
Some of the issues addressed in the plan are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identifies county resource concerns and problems
Strategies for implementing state standards on runoff
Increase public awareness of groundwater quality
Increase use of nutrient management planning
Reduce polluted runoff and sediment delivery to Karst features
Ensure the proper abandonment of old unused wells
Promote water conservation
Reduce polluted runoff and sediment delivery to surface waters
Increase public awareness of soil quality and erosion
Reduce soil erosion on cropland to tolerable levels
Reduce soil erosion on construction sites to tolerable levels
Control soil erosion along streams and Lake Winnebago shoreline
Calumet County Smart Growth Plan
The Smart Growth plan outlines how the county can develop and use its resources wisely
without jeopardizing the efficiency of its infrastructure, maintain and diversify its
economy, and preserve valuable farmland. The document can be viewed online through
the county’s website, or available for a small fee through the Calumet County Planning,
Zoning and Land Information Office.
Calumet County All Hazards Mitigation Plan
The All-Hazards Mitigation Plan identified past and potential natural hazards that occur
in the county and recommendations on how to mitigate them. Of interest to farmers was
237
the coverage on flooding and drought. Hazards identified in the plan are eligible for
funds to mitigate the situation so damage does not occur in the future. For example, if a
barn continually floods, funding may be available to relocate or elevate the barn to
prevent future flooding damage.
Wisconsin’s Next Generation Agriculture Plan
Dairy and agriculture is growing in
Wisconsin. This could be in part to
the Governor’s many agricultural
initiatives created in his tenor.
According to a report by the
Wisconsin Public Service, state dairy
exports have increased by 89% since
2006.
Wisconsin’s Next Generation
Agriculture Plan provides $33
million to help producers improve or
modernize their plants, attract
international markets, and tap into
renewable technologies. The agricultural plan includes a $13 million nutrient
management program to help farmers reduce runoff pollution and explore new ways to
manage wastewater, a grazing lands conservation initiative that offers $800,000 to
farmers to become more efficient and better stewards of the land, $1.3 million in dairy
plant investment tax credits to help farmers purchase equipment and new technology, and
$1 million in tax credits to modernize meat processing plants.
238
“The farmer is the only man in our economy who buys everything at retail,
sells everything at wholesale and pays the freight both ways.”
~ John F. Kennedy
239
240
APPENDIX
(This Appendix is Reserved for Maps A-P)
241
242
A special thank you to all the farmers who preserve their working lands
so we may be fed, clothed, and enjoy the awe
of a beautiful landscape to gaze upon
~The Calumet County Board of Supervisors
243
244