<%BANNER%>

Modeling North Florida Dairy Farm Management Strategies to Alleviate Ecological Impacts under Varying Climatic Condition...


PAGE 1

MODELING NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FA RM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ALLEVIATE ECOLOGICAL IMPACT S UNDER VARYING CLIMATIC CONDITIONS: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH By VICTOR E. CABRERA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Victor E. Cabrera

PAGE 3

To my wife Milagritos

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to start by recognizing the exceptional interdisciplinary and collaborative work of my supervisory committee. I would like to express my eternal gratitude and highest appreciation to Dr. Peter E. Hildebrand, my mentor and adviser, for his unconditional support, encouragement, and outstanding guidance. My special thanks go to Dr. James W. Jones for his advice and commitment, acute professional challenging, and always useful feedback during the entire research process. I am also extremely grateful to Dr. Robert McSorley for his permanent, detailed, and constructive critique; Dr. Albert De Vries for his valuable inputs and constant assistance; and Dr. Hugh Popenoe for his interesting and useful comments. This study would not have been possible without the collaboration of stakeholders, those representatives of many organizations who were actively involved in it. I would like to gratefully recognize the involvement and the unconditional help of Darrell Smith, coordinator of the Suwannee River Partnership (SRP), who was a major actor in the networking of people and organizations, and supporting the research from the beginning. I am also very appreciative of the help and dedication provided by Chris Vann, Clifford Starling, Russ Giesy, and Marvin Weaver, University of Florida Cooperative Extension agents, who were the liaison with the dairy farmers. I also recognize the valuable information, feedback, and help provided by Hugh Thomas (SRP), Justin Jones (IFAS REC at Live Oak), W.C. Hart (US Department of Agriculture, Lafayette), Joel Love (SRP), and David Hornsby (Suwannee River Water Management District). iv

PAGE 5

I would like to particularly thank all the dairy farmers, small, medium, and large, for providing time, data, and critical feedback during the processes of creation, calibration and validation of the models created in this study. This study was conducted with the farmers for the farmers. Their participation was crucial to the successful advancement and culmination of this research. For obvious reasons their names are omitted. Besides members of my supervisory committee, many other professionals from the University of Florida were very helpful, providing information, networking, and inputs in this study. I would like to recognize the collaboration of Dr. Lynn E. Sollenberger for information about forage systems; Dr. Jack Van Horn for information about dairy nutrient management; Dr. Jerry Kidder and Greg Means for information about soil series; Dr. Donald Graetz for information, feedback, and networking on the soil/water nitrate issue, Dr. Sabine Grunwald for providing geospatial data; Dr. Clyde Fraisse for feedback on crop models and climate components; Dr. Carrol Chambliss for information and feedback on forage systems, Dr. Ken Boote for information on species parameters of crop models; Dr. Shrikant Jagtap for meteorological information; Dr. Ramon Litell for help and inputs in statistical analysis; Dr. Norman E. Breuer for information about north-Florida forage systems and constructive feedback; Cheryl Porter for help running the crop models and using the DSSAT software, Stuart Rymph for support in creating and calibrating forage crop models; Marinela Capanu for support with statistical analyses using SAS software; Daniel Herrera and Sergio Madrid for touring dairy farms with me; and Amy Sullivan for constructive feedback. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Gerrit v

PAGE 6

Hoogenboom from the University of Georgia, for his comments on species files for the crop models. I want to express my appreciation to the interdisciplinary Sondeo team for their enthusiastic and productive work in the early stages of this study. Thanks to Diana Alvira, Sebastian Galindo, Solomon Haile, Kibiby Mtenga, Alfredo Rios, Nitesh Tripathi, and Jose Villagomez. I would like to gratefully acknowledge the support and unconditional help provided by a private enterprise, the Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. My sincere thanks to Dr. Del Bottcher, Dr. Barry Jacobson, and Suzanne Kish not only for their direct feedback and first-hand valuable information, but also for inviting me to participate on the monthly manure lunch that was a great opportunity for networking and collecting information. I want to express my thanks to Jesse Wilson, Bill Reck, and Nga Watts from the Gainesville office of the Natural Resources and Conservation Service (US Department of Agriculture) for providing feedback, constructive critique, and valuable information for the study. I hope I am not missing anyone, but if I do, I want to express my appreciation to all and each one who in some way or another contributed to this study. Your help has been highly valued and critical for the final outputs. This work was supported by a grant from NOAA (Office of Global Programs) through the South Eastern Climate Consortium (a Regional Integrated Science Application center) under the direction and guidance of Dr. James W. Jones and Dr. Peter E. Hildebrand. vi

PAGE 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................xii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................xiv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................xix ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................xxi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 1.1 Background........................................................................................................1 1.2 The Problematic Situation..................................................................................1 1.3 Research Area....................................................................................................6 1.4 Objectives..........................................................................................................6 1.5 Hypothesis..........................................................................................................8 1.6 Framework.........................................................................................................8 1.7 Methods............................................................................................................11 1.8 Relevance.........................................................................................................13 2 NITROGEN POLLUTION IN THE SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: REALITY OR MYTH?............................................14 2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................14 2.2 Evidence of N Increase in the Suwannee River Water Management District..............................................................................................................16 2.2.1 Assessments at the District Level...........................................................16 2.2.2 Assessments at the Watershed Level......................................................23 2.2.3 Assessments at the National Level.........................................................24 2.2.4 Assessments at the Dairy Farm Level.....................................................25 2.3 Human and Ecological Concerns because of N Pollution...............................29 2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................31 vii

PAGE 8

3 NORTH FLORIDA STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS TOWARD NUTRIENT POLLUTION, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, AND THE USE OF CLIMATE FORECAST TECHNOLOGY.........................................34 3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................34 3.2 Materials and Methods.....................................................................................36 3.2.1 Study Area..............................................................................................36 3.2.2 The Sondeo.............................................................................................36 3.2.3 Interviews................................................................................................38 3.2.4 Focus Groups..........................................................................................38 3.2.5 Analysis...................................................................................................39 3.3 Results and Discussion....................................................................................39 3.3.1 Stakeholder Perceptions of the N Issue..................................................39 3.3.1.1 Perception of water contamination................................................39 3.3.1.2 Reasons to mitigate contamination................................................42 3.3.1.3 Existing and potential means of mitigation...................................42 3.3.1.4 Implementation procedures for Best Management Practices (BMPs)...........................................................................................45 3.3.1.5 Impacts of BMPs on farms............................................................47 3.3.2 Perceptions of Regulations by Dairy Farmers........................................48 3.3.2.1 Farmers in disagreement with regulatory measurements...............49 3.3.2.2 Farmers who agree with regulations but criticize part of it...........53 3.3.2.3 Farmers who completely agree with regulations...........................56 3.3.3 Perceptions of Climatic Technology Innovation....................................57 3.3.3.1 Farmers that would use long-term climatic forecast......................57 3.3.3.2 Farmers who would not use long-term climatic forecast...............62 3.3.3.3 Farmers who are not sure they would use long-term climatic forecast.............................................................................63 3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................63 4 A METHOD FOR BUILDING CLIMATE VARIABILITY INTO FARM MODELS: PARTICIPATORY MODELING OF NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARM SYSTEMS........................................................................................67 4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................67 4.2 Materials and Methods.....................................................................................71 4.2.1 Main Framework.....................................................................................72 4.2.2 The Sondeo.............................................................................................74 4.2.3 Interviews................................................................................................75 4.2.4 Focus Groups..........................................................................................76 4.2.5 Other Stakeholder Interactions...............................................................77 4.2.6 Analysis of Information..........................................................................77 4.3 Results and Discussion....................................................................................78 4.3.1 Phase One: Initial Developments............................................................78 4.3.2 Phase Two: The Sondeo..........................................................................81 4.3.3 Phase Three: Greater Stakeholder Involvement.....................................84 4.3.4 Phase Four: The Prototype Model..........................................................88 viii

PAGE 9

4.3.5 Phase Five: The Final Model..................................................................93 4.4 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations..............................................95 5 HOW MUCH MANURE NITROGEN DO NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS PRODUCE?.................................................................................................98 5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................98 5.2 Materials and Methods...................................................................................102 5.3 Model Development.......................................................................................103 5.3.1 General Characteristics.........................................................................103 5.3.2 Markov-Chains, Culling Rates, Reproduction Rates, and Milk Production Rates..................................................................................103 5.3.3 Manure N Produced by Milking Cows.................................................108 5.3.4 Nitrogen and Crude Protein..................................................................110 5.3.5 Milking Times and Cattle Breeds.........................................................111 5.3.6 Manure N Produced by Dry Cows, Young Stock, and Bulls................113 5.3.7 Manure, Feces, Urine, and Dry Matter Intake Estimations..................114 5.3.8 Water Utilization for Manure Handling................................................116 5.3.9 Waste Management Handling Systems................................................117 5.4 Results and Discussion..................................................................................119 5.4.1 The Model (Livestock Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model, LDNFDFM).............................................................................119 5.4.2 Model Comparison with Other Widely Used Estimations...................120 5.4.3 Estimation of Manure N Produced in North-Florida Dairy Farm Systems................................................................................................122 5.5 Conclusions....................................................................................................128 6 FORAGE SYSTEMS IN NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS FOR RECYCLING N UNDER SEASONAL VARIATION............................................132 6.1 Introduction....................................................................................................132 6.2 Materials and Methods...................................................................................135 6.2.1 Survey, Focus Groups, and Additional Information.............................135 6.2.2 Location of North-Florida Dairy Farms and Their Soil Series.............135 6.2.3 Climate Information and El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Phases...................................................................................................138 6.2.4 Forage Crop Systems............................................................................138 6.2.5 Manure N Application..........................................................................142 6.2.6. Crop Simulations.................................................................................142 6.2.7 Analyses................................................................................................143 6.3 Results and Discussion..................................................................................143 6.3.1 Forage Crop Systems in North-Florida Dairies....................................143 6.3.1.1 Spring-summer crops...................................................................144 6.3.1.2 Summer-fall crops........................................................................144 6.3.1.3 Fall-winter crops..........................................................................145 6.3.1.4 Sequences of forages....................................................................145 6.3.1.5 Harvest and processing................................................................146 ix

PAGE 10

6.3.2 Calibration and Validation of DSSAT Crop Models............................146 6.3.2.1 Forage sorghum...........................................................................147 6.3.2.2 Pearl millet...................................................................................149 6.3.2.3 Silage corn...................................................................................151 6.3.2.4 Winter forages..............................................................................152 6.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis of Forage Crops to Manure N Application..........154 6.3.4 Variability by ENSO Phases.................................................................156 6.3.4.1 Nitrogen leaching in different ENSO phases...............................158 6.3.4.2 Biomass in different ENSO phases..............................................166 6.3.5 Variability by Crop Sequences.............................................................168 6.3.5.1 Nitrogen leaching and crop systems............................................170 6.3.5.2 Biomass and crop systems...........................................................171 6.3.6 Variability by Soil Types......................................................................173 6.3.6.1 Nitrogen leaching and soil types..................................................176 6.3.6.2 Biomass and soil types.................................................................179 6.4 Conclusions....................................................................................................181 7 AN INTEGRATED SIMULATION MODEL TO ASSESS ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGIC IMPACTS OF NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARM SYSTEMS................................................................................................................184 7.1 Introduction....................................................................................................184 7.2 Materials and Methods...................................................................................185 7.2.1 Conceptual Model.................................................................................185 7.2.2 Computer Implementation....................................................................188 7.2.3 Analysis of Synthesized Dairies in North-Florida................................188 7.3 Model Description.........................................................................................189 7.3.1 Overall Characteristics..........................................................................189 7.3.2 Components..........................................................................................190 7.3.3 The Livestock Model............................................................................191 7.3.4 The Waste Model..................................................................................197 7.3.5 The Crop Models..................................................................................198 7.3.6 The Economic Module..........................................................................203 7.3.7 The Optimization Module.....................................................................204 7.3.8 The Feasible Adjustments Component.................................................206 7.4 User Friendly Implementation.......................................................................206 7.4.1 General Characteristics.........................................................................206 7.4.2 The Livestock Module..........................................................................210 7.4.3 The Waste System Module...................................................................211 7.4.4 The Soil Module...................................................................................212 7.4.5 The Forage Systems Module................................................................212 7.4.6 The Climatic Module............................................................................213 7.4.7 The Economic Module..........................................................................214 7.4.8 The Optimization Module.....................................................................217 7.5 Results for Synthesized Farms.......................................................................218 7.5.1 Synthesized Small Dairy Operation......................................................218 7.5.2 Synthesized Medium Dairy Operation..................................................219 x

PAGE 11

7.5.3 Synthesized Large Dairy Operation......................................................221 7.5.4 Comparison of the Three Synthesized Farms.......................................222 7.6 Conclusions....................................................................................................225 8 ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGIC IMPACTS OF NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARM SYSTEMS: TAILORING MITIGATION OF NITROGEN POLLUTION............................................................................................................227 8.1 Introduction....................................................................................................227 8.2 Materials and Methods...................................................................................228 8.2.1 Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model..........................................228 8.2.2 A Synthesized North-Florida Dairy Farm.............................................229 8.2.3 Statistical Analyses...............................................................................229 8.2.4 Graphical Analyses...............................................................................230 8.2.5 Optimization Analyses..........................................................................232 8.2.6 Validation with Real Farms..................................................................232 8.3 Results and Discussion..................................................................................233 8.3.1 Statistical Analyses...............................................................................233 8.3.1.1 Nitrogen leaching.........................................................................233 8.3.1.2 Profit............................................................................................234 8.3.2 Graphical Analyses...............................................................................235 8.3.2.1 Soil series.....................................................................................235 8.3.2.2 Crop systems in sprayfields.........................................................238 8.3.2.3 Pastures and crude protein in the diet (CP)..................................240 8.3.2.4 Confined time (CT) and crude protein in the diet (CP)...............242 8.3.2.5 Isolated effects of single managerial changes in the Synthesized farm..........................................................................244 8.3.3 Optimization Analysis: Decreasing Environmental Impacts and Increasing Profitability........................................................................246 8.3.3.1 The Synthesized dairy farm as is..............................................246 8.3.3.2 Optimization of the Synthesized farm.........................................247 8.3.3.3 Feasible practices for the Synthesized farm.................................249 8.3.4 Examples of Applications of the DNFDFM to Specific Farms............253 8.3.4.1 Farm One.....................................................................................253 8.3.4.2 Farm Two.....................................................................................254 8.3.4.3 Farm Three...................................................................................256 8.4 Conclusions and Recommendations..............................................................257 9 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................260 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................271 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................283 xi

PAGE 12

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1. Stakeholder interactions, suggestions and changes made to model.......................91 5-1. Dry matter intake, manure, and N excretion by Florida dairy cattle based on milk production. (lbs cow -1 day -1 ) and low and high (NRC standards) crude protein (CP) content of diets.....................................................109 5-2. Water utilization by milking cows during months and percentage use relative to month of maximum use (July)............................................................117 5-3. Nitrogen lost in the waste management system: a baseline.................................119 5-4. Five hypothetical north-Florida dairy farms and their characteristics for manure N estimations..........................................................................................122 5-5. Estimated amounts of manure N to sprayfields in five hypothetical north-Florida dairy farms.....................................................................................125 5-6. Estimated amounts of manure N deposited on pasturelands in five hypothetical north-Florida dairy farms................................................................126 5-7. Estimated amounts of manure, DMI, and water use in five hypothetical north-Florida dairy farms.....................................................................................128 6-1. Soil types, some characteristics, and their sources of information used for the study...............................................................................................................137 6-2. Information sources for calibration and validation of forage crops in north-Florida dairy farm systems.........................................................................148 6-3. Coefficients values and coefficients definitions of modified crops in DSSAT.................................................................................................................150 6-4. Nitrogen leaching (kg ha -1 ) and ENSO phases, when all other factors are averaged...............................................................................................................160 6-5. Biomass (kg ha -1 ) and ENSO phases, when all other factors are averaged.........166 6-6. Nitrogen leaching (kg ha -1 ) and crop sequences, when all other factors are averaged...............................................................................................................171 xii

PAGE 13

6-7. Biomass (kg ha -1 ) and crop sequences, when all other factors are averaged.......172 6-8. Nitrogen leaching (kg ha -1 ) and soil types, when all other factors are averaged...............................................................................................................178 6-9. Biomass (kg ha -1 ) and soil types, when all other factors are averaged................180 7-1. State variables and monthly update of the livestock model.................................194 7-2. Dry matter intake estimations..............................................................................195 7-3. Manure excretion estimations..............................................................................196 7-4. Nitrogen excretion estimations............................................................................197 7-5. Nitrogen through waste system estimations........................................................198 7-6. Codification of ENSO phases, soil types, and forage systems from crop models..................................................................................................................200 7-7. Nitrogen applied estimated by the waste model and N applied in crop models..................................................................................................................202 7-8. Definition of variables in economic module (US$ cwt -1 milk -1 )..........................203 7-9. Monthly milk prices distribution in north-Florida as cumulative probability (US$ cwt -1 milk -1 )..............................................................................204 7-10. Crops in different fields.......................................................................................218 7-11. Comparison of three synthesized north-Florida farms and their estimated annual N leaching................................................................................................224 8-1. Characteristics of a Synthesized north-Florida dairy farm..................................230 8-2. Combination of management strategies simulated by the DNFDFM for the statistical analysis.................................................................................................231 8-3. Significance of factors and main interactions for N leaching..............................234 8-4. Significance of factors and main interactions for profit......................................235 8-5. Crops in different fields in the Synthesized farm................................................246 8-6. Management strategies selected by the optimizer...............................................248 8-7. Feasible crop systems in Synthesized dairy farm................................................250 xiii

PAGE 14

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1. North-Florida landscape representation...................................................................3 1-2. The Suwannee River Water Management District, the study area..........................7 2-1. Nitrate-N concentration in the SRWMD...............................................................17 2-2. Nitrate-N concentrations in three springs in the middle Suwannee River Basin......................................................................................................................19 2-3. Estimated annual mean of groundwater N load.....................................................20 2-4. Long term records of Nitrate-N for 4 Suwannee springs.......................................22 2-5. Long term records of Nitrate-N for 3 Lafayette springs........................................23 2-6. Nitrate-Nitrite and total ammonium plus organic N at different points in nine dairy farms in the middle Suwannee River Basin..........................................26 2-7. Dissolved Nitrate+Nitrite and Ammonium+Organic N in monitoring wells (3-m deep) in different areas of a dairy farm.........................................................27 2-8. Monitoring wells with higher than drinking water allowable nitrate levels (PDWS>10 mg L -1 ) in the four dairy farms...........................................................29 3-1. Farmers perceptions of environmental regulations in north-Florida....................50 3-2. Farmers perceptions of climate technology adoption...........................................58 4-1. Schematic of participatory modeling.....................................................................72 4-2. Methodology of participatory modeling................................................................73 4-3. Phases of the participatory modeling for creating the DNFDFM..........................78 5-1. Pregnancy rates of adult cows..............................................................................105 5-2. Culling rates of adult cows..................................................................................106 5-3. Milk production rates of milking cows................................................................107 xiv

PAGE 15

5-4. Manure N produced by low-CP diet cows according to milk production...........111 5-5. Manure excretion based on milk production.......................................................114 5-6. Dry matter intake (DMI) based on milk production............................................115 5-7. Nitrogen excretion by a low protein diet in a 100-cow dairy estimated by different models..............................................................................................120 5-8. Nitrogen excretion by a high protein diet in a 100-cow dairy estimated by different models..............................................................................................121 6-1. Study area, dairy farms, and soil types................................................................136 6-2. Daily rainfall (1956-1998) in north-Florida for different ENSO phases.............139 6-3. Distribution of monthly precipitation (1956-1998) in north-Florida for different ENSO phases.........................................................................................140 6-4. Daily precipitation in north-Florida (1956-1998) for different ENSO phases...................................................................................................................140 6-5. Daily temperature (1956-1998) in north-Florida for different ENSO phases......141 6-6. Daily solar radiation (1956-1998) in north-Florida for different ENSO phases...................................................................................................................141 6-7. Forage systems and their seasonality in north-Florida dairy farms.....................144 6-8. Forage sorghum: Observed and simulated biomass production, Bell, 1996-1998. Individual mean square error (MES) and overall Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)..........................................................................................149 6-9. Forage millet: Observed and simulated biomass production, Bell, 1996-1998. Individual mean square error (MES) and overall Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)..........................................................................................151 6-10. Forage millet: Observed and simulated biomass production, Quincy 1992........152 6-11. Silage corn: Observed and simulated biomass production, Bell, 1996-1998. Individual mean square error (MES) and overall Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)..........................................................................................153 6-12. Winter forages: Observed and simulated biomass production, Bell 1997-1998. Individual mean square error (MES) and overall Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)..........................................................................................154 xv

PAGE 16

6-13. Sensitivity response of N leaching and biomass accumulation to different rates of manure N applied for simulations in a Kershaw soil series during the season 1996/1997...........................................................................................155 6-14. Nitrogen leaching vs. biomass accumulation for different ENSO phases under two forage systems consisting of bermudagrass and millet-sorghum, four manure N applications (10, 20, 40, and 80 kg ha -1 mo -1 ), and two type of soils (Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper and Millhopper-Bonneau).............157 6-15. Nitrogen leaching vs. ENSO phases relative to absolute averages, when all other factors are averaged....................................................................................162 6-16. Probability distribution of N leaching by ENSO phases, when all other factors are averaged.............................................................................................163 6-17. Frequency distribution of N leaching and month of the year by ENSO phase, when all other factors are averaged..........................................................165 6-18. Biomass accumulation vs. ENSO phases relative to absolute averages, when all other factors are averaged.....................................................................167 6-19. Nitrogen leaching vs. biomass accumulation for different forage systems under different ENSO phases (La Nia, Neutral, and El Nio), two manure N applications (40 and 80 kg ha -1 mo -1 ), and soils of type Penney-Kershaw......169 6-20. Nitrogen leaching vs. crop sequences relative to absolute averages, when all other factors are averaged...............................................................................170 6-21. Biomass accumulation vs. crop sequences relative to absolute averages, when all other factors are averaged.....................................................................173 6-22. Nitrogen leaching vs. biomass accumulation for different soil types under different ENSO phases (La Nia, Neutral, and El Nio), two manure N applications (40 and 20 kg ha -1 mo -1 ), and forage system consisting of corn-sorghum-winter forage................................................................................175 6-23. Nitrogen leaching vs. soil types relative to absolute averages, when all other factors are averaged....................................................................................177 6-24. Nitrogen leaching vs. soil types relative to absolute averages, when all other factors are averaged....................................................................................181 7-1. Representation of the dynamic north-Florida dairy farm model.........................191 7-2. Representation of the livestock model.................................................................192 7-3. Data management of simulation of crop models.................................................201 xvi

PAGE 17

7-4. The process of optimization.................................................................................205 7-5. Main screen of the computer implementation of The Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM)....................................................208 7-6. The start message menu control...........................................................................209 7-7. The livestock module control...............................................................................211 7-8. The waste management control...........................................................................212 7-9. Dairy farm location and soil type by farm component control............................213 7-10. Forage systems component control......................................................................214 7-11. The climatic component control..........................................................................215 7-12. The economic component control........................................................................216 7-13. Distribution of milk prices in north-Florida.........................................................216 7-14. The optimization control......................................................................................217 7-15. Monthly estimations for Synthesized Small north-Florida farm.........................220 7-16. Small north-Florida farm, yearly estimated N leaching and profit......................221 7-17. Medium north-Florida farm, yearly estimated N leaching and profit..................222 7-18. Large north-Florida farm, yearly estimated N leaching and profit......................223 7-19. Overall N leaching from the synthesized farms...................................................225 8-1. Nitrogen leaching and profit for different soil types in north-Florida: Estimations for different ENSO phases for common crop systems.....................236 8-2. Nitrogen leaching and profit for different crop systems in north-Florida: Estimations for different ENSO phases for common pastures and soil types.....................................................................................................................239 8-3. N leaching and profit for different pasture crops and crude protein in north-Florida: Estimations for different ENSO phases for common sprayfield crops and soil type..............................................................................241 8-4. N leaching and profit for different confined time and crude protein: Estimations for different ENSO phases for common crop systems and soils......243 8-5. Impacts of management changes for the Synthesized farm with soils type 4 (Penney-Otela)..................................................................................................245 xvii

PAGE 18

8-6. Nitrogen leaching and profit with current practices for a Synthesized north-Florida farm................................................................................................247 8-7. Optimized vs. current practice yearly N leaching and profit for a north-Florida Synthesized farm...........................................................................249 8-8. Feasible yearly N leaching and profit for a Synthesized north-Florida farm......................................................................................................................251 8-9. Optimization of a Synthesized north-Florida farm, scenario One.......................251 8-10. Second feasible yearly N leaching and profit for a north-Florida Synthesized farm..................................................................................................252 8-11. Farm One: N leaching and profit for different management strategies...............254 8-12. Farm Two: N leaching and profit for different management strategies...............255 8-13. Farm Three: N leaching and profit for different management strategies.............257 xviii

PAGE 19

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AFO Animal Feeding Operations ASAE American Society of Agricultural Engineers AWMFH Animal Waste Management Field Handbook BMPs Best Management Practices CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation CARES County Alliance for Responsible Environmental Stewardship CP Crude Protein DBAP Dairy Business Analysis Project DHIA Dairy Herd Improvement Association DNFDFM Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model DM Dry Matter DMI Dry Matter Intake DRMS Dairy Records Management Systems ENSO El Nio Southern Oscillation EPA Environmental Protection Agency FDH Florida Department of Health FFB Florida Farm Bureau FGS Florida Geological Service FLDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FSR Farming Systems Research FSRE Farming Systems Research and Extension IC Initial Conditions for Simulation LDNFDMF Livestock Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model xix

PAGE 20

LN Lactation Number MCL Maximum Concentration Load MHB Methemoglobinemia MIM Months in Milk MIP Months in Pregnancy NAC Number of Adult Cows NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment 4NH -Org Ammonium + Organic N 3NO 23NO Nitrites + Nitrates NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRC National Research Council NRCS Natural Resource and Conservation Service NRM Natural Resource Management PDWS Primary Drinking Water Standard PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal RHA Rolling Herd Average RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal SRP Suwannee River Partnership SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management TWG Technical Working Group USDA US Department of Agriculture USEPA, EPA US Environmental Protection Agency USGS US Geological Service WARN Water Assessment Regional Network WATNUTFL Water budget and Nutrient balance for Florida xx

PAGE 21

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy MODELING NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ALLEVIATE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS UNDER VARYING CLIMATIC CONDITIONS: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH By Victor E. Cabrera August 2004 Chair: Peter E. Hildebrand Major Department: Natural Resources and Environment High levels of nitrogen (N) in water affect human health and ecosystem welfare. Dairy waste is considered an important contributor to increased water N levels in the Suwannee River Basin. The main aim of the study was to assess management options that decrease N leaching in dairy systems under different climatic conditions, while maintaining profitability. Whole-dairy-farm system simulations were used to study economic and ecologic sustainability, which would be impractical to test with regular experiments. Dynamic, event-controlled, and empirical models were coupled with process-based and decision-making models to represent and test management strategies. User-friendliness and stakeholder interaction were always pursued. Eight focus groups and 24 dairy farmer interviews were conducted, and a collaborative user-friendly decision support system was created. The Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM) uses Markov-chains to simulate probabilistic livestock reproduction, culling, milk production, and N excretion; process-based crop models to simulate forage production, N xxi

PAGE 22

uptake, and N leaching; and linear programming optimization to tailor management strategies. The DNFDFM is an environmental accountability tool for dairy farmers and regulatory agencies capable of simulating any individual north-Florida dairy farm. Results indicated that north-Florida dairy farmers could maintain profitability and decrease N leaching 9 to 25% by decreasing crude protein in the diet, adjusting confined time of milking cows, and adjusting sequences of seasonal forages. During El Nio years, when higher rainfall and colder temperatures are experienced, 5% more N leaching is estimated compared with Neutral years; and 13% more compared with dryer and hotter La Nia years. xxii

PAGE 23

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The presence of high levels of N in water is an environmental hazard because it affects human health and ecosystem welfare. The Suwannee River Basin has received much attention in recent years because of increased N levels in water bodies. Dairy waste is thought to be an important factor contributing to this water N pollution. Dairy farmers are now required to comply with stricter environmental regulations either under permit or under voluntary incentive-based programs. Dairy farmers are also aware that environmental issues will be among the greatest challenges they face in the near future. Evidence indicates that farms may reduce their total N loads by changing some management strategies. Improvements in long-term seasonal predictions (6 to 12 months) such as in El Nio and La Nia forecasts, can play an important role in implementing management strategies that dairy farmers in north-Florida may adopt in order to pursue economic and ecological sustainability. 1.2 The Problematic Situation Dairy farming is an important part of Floridas agricultural industry. The Florida Statistical Service showed that milk and cattle sales from dairies contributed $429 million directly into the Floridian economy in the year 2001. Florida is the leading dairy state in the Southeast; it ranks 13th nationally in cash receipts for milk, 15th in milk production and 15th in number of cows (Bos taurus) (Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, 2003). 1

PAGE 24

2 According to USDA, there were about 152,000 cows on about 220 dairy farms at the end of 2002, and more than 30% of the dairy operations (65 operations) and number of cows (> 45,000 cows) of the State of Florida are located in the Suwannee River Basin. Indeed, more than 25% of the dairy cows in the state are in four counties in north central Florida that bound the Suwannee River (Bisoondat et al., 2002): Gilchrist, Lafayette, Suwannee, and Levy. This dairy industry, according to Giesy et al. (2002), faces three significant challenges: production, economic, and environmental. Dairymen perceive that environmental issues will be the most stressful in the near future (Staples et al., 1997). Dairies face increased regulation because social pressure, while larger herds attract the attention of neighbors and activists concerned with odors, flies, and especially potential leaching of nutrients that might influence water quality (Giesy et al., 2002). The presence of N in surface water bodies and groundwater aquifers is recognized as a significant water quality problem in many parts of the world (Fraisse et al., 1996). The Suwannee River Partnership states that over the last 15 years, nitrate levels in the middle Suwannee River Basin have been on the increase; and these elevated nitrate levels can cause health problems in humans as well as negative impacts on water quality (Suwannee River Partnership, 2004a). Indeed, the Suwannee River Basin has received much attention in recent years because increased N levels in the groundwater-fed rivers of the basin could seriously affect the welfare of the ecosystem (Albert, 2002). According to Katz (2000), N levels have increased from 0.1 to 5 mg L -1 in many springs in the Suwannee basin over the past 40 years. Pittman et al. (1997) found that nitrate concentrations in the Suwannee River itself have increased at the rate of 0.02 mg L -1

PAGE 25

3 year -1 over the past 20 years. In a 53.1 km river stretch between Dowling Park and Branford, the nitrate loads increased from 2,300 to 6,000 kg day -1 They also estimated that 89% of this came from the lower two-thirds, where agriculture is the dominant land use. Soils in this region are generally deep, well-drained sands (Figure 1-1); and nutrient management is a major concern (Van Horn et al., 1998). Figure 1-1. North-Florida landscape representation. Source: Katz et al., 1999, p. 1. As Conway (1990) stated, farms in industrialized countries have become larger in size, fewer in number, highly mechanized, and highly dependent on external inputs; and can cause environmental problems by producing a number of wastes that might be hazardous. Recent evidence that agriculture in general, and animal waste in particular, may be an important factor in surface and groundwater quality degradation has created a strong interest in nutrient management research (Katz, 2000, Van Horn, 1997, Fraisse et

PAGE 26

4 al., 1996). Over-applying manure nutrients to land is considered a major cause of nitrates, converted from manure ammonia sources while in the soil, leaching to groundwater and contributing to surface runoff of N that contaminates surface waters. Concerns regarding nutrient losses from manure of large dairy herds to groundwater or surface runoff have been extremely acute in Florida (Van Horn, 1997). One of the most publicized concerns is N losses in the form of nitrate into the groundwater through the deep sandy soils of the Suwannee River Basin (Van Horn et al., 1998). Many soils in the Suwannee River Basin are excessively drained, deep, sandy, Entisols with low exchange capacity and low organic matter, which are prone to nitrate leaching (Woodard et al., 2002). Environmental regulation of livestock waste disposal has become a major public concern, and much of the focus for this issue in Florida has been on dairies. Dairymen are now required to develop manure disposal systems in order to comply with Florida Department of Environmental Protection water quality standards (Twatchtmann, 1990). This fact has led to considerable research emphasizing N recycling and addressing issues such as maximum carrying capacity and nutrient uptake by crops (Fraisse et al., 1996). Dairymen in the Suwannee River Basin have expressed their willingness to participate in initiatives that promote reduced environmental impacts. In fact, many of them are already involved in programs such as Better Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce nitrate overflow promoted by the Suwannee River Partnership (Smith, 2002, Pers. Comm.). Staples et al. (1997) interviewed 48 dairy farmers in Lafayette, Suwannee, Columbia, Hamilton, and Gilchrist counties. By far farmers rated their perception of anticipated costs of complying with upcoming environmental regulations as the top challenge to successful dairying in the future.

PAGE 27

5 Overflow of nitrates in these dairy systems is affected by adopted management practices and by environmental conditions. Changing management practices might have a great impact on overflow amounts. For instance, Albert (2002) found that by reducing the duration of the irrigation, reducing the fertilizer application rate, and improving the timing of fertilizer applications, N leaching can be reduced by approximately 50% while maintaining acceptable potato yields in sandy soils in north-Florida. It is unknown if similar large reductions are also possible in dairy farms. Many environmental conditions are also determined by climate factors such as rainfall, temperature, and radiation (which are variable and uncertain). Dairy operations are affected by changes in climatic components at many different levels, and in many different ways. Rainfall patterns might result in very different amounts of nutrient leaching. For example, higher temperature in winter can promote more biomass accumulation, and increase plant N uptake. Currently, better-quality long-term seasonal forecasts (6 to 12 months in advance) are available. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) can predictusing the El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) technologyaccurate long-term seasonal climate patterns. These are based on predicting El Nio, La Nia, or Neutral years (which determine rainfall and temperature patterns). The ENSO signal in Florida has been well documented, in terms of its effects on climatic variables (Jones et al., 2000). Precipitation in Florida is particularly variable, with an excess of over 30% of the normal seasonal total across much of the state during an El Nio winter. La Nia has the opposite effect, with deficits of 10 to 30% lasting from fall through winter and spring. Florida and the Gulf Coast can expect to see average temperatures 2 to 3F below normal during El Nio years. La Nia has the opposite effect, with temperatures 2 to 4F above

PAGE 28

6 normal during winter months. La Nia's effect on temperature is more pronounced in north-Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. Solar radiation decreases in association with higher rainfall during El Nio years. Notice also that climatic conditions in north-Florida allow year-round crop production, thus allowing more effluent-waste application, compared with dairy production systems in temperate areas (Bisoondat et al., 2002). Proactive use of seasonal prediction can be adopted by dairy farmers. The opportunity to benefit from climate prediction arises from the intersection of human vulnerability, climate prediction, and decision capacity (Hansen, 2002a). This benefit from the information can be used to decrease environmental impacts, while maintaining profitability in north-Florida dairy operations. 1.3 Research Area The study was performed inside the Suwannee River Water Management District, which encompasses all or part of 15 counties in north central Florida (Figure 1-2). The study was centered in five counties where N pollution is more problematic: Alachua, Levy, Gilchrist, Lafayette, and Suwannee. 1.4 Objectives The main aim of the study was to assess and test management options that decrease nutrient overflow under different climatic conditions in north-Florida dairy operations while maintaining profitability. To achieve this, it was necessary to Thoroughly understand the north-Florida dairy system through farmer interactions Conceptualize north-Florida dairy farms as systems Identify dairy farm system components Recognize interaction among these dairy farm system components Create a comprehensive dairy farm model adaptable to north-Florida dairies

PAGE 29

7 Simulate north-Florida dairy farms under different environmental conditions, different management strategies, and different climate conditions Identify climate-management interactions that result in lower nutrient pollution, especially less N leaching, while maintaining acceptable profit levels Suggest management strategies that individual north-Florida dairies could follow based on climate forecast Based on previous strategies, produce an extension circular with a bullet list of results to be available on paper and on the Internet for north-Florida dairy farmers and other stakeholders Create a user-friendly computer application with the simulation models that north-Florida dairy producers and other stakeholders can use for environmental accountability Figure 1-2. The Suwannee River Water Management District, the study area. Source: Land Use Survey, Suwannee River Water Management District, Florida Geographic Data Library, 1995. Note: Dots represent dairy farms and numbers indicate the number of dairy farms by county.

PAGE 30

8 1.5 Hypothesis North-Florida dairy farms can decrease their environmental impacts and still maintain profitability by changing management strategies, which include the use of improved long-term seasonal forecasts. This hypothesis can also be expressed as a research question: Can north-Florida dairy farms maintain profitability and decrease their environmental impacts by combining management strategies and seasonal forecasts? 1.6 Framework Most dairies in Florida manage animals under semi-intensive or intensive systems. Florida dairies are principally in the business of producing milk: decisions are based on profit maximization and operation regulations. North-Florida dairies are business enterprises and have full access to credit opportunities, information, and new technologies (Adams, 1998). Additionally, dairy farms (which produce both livestock and crops) are composed of interconnected units; any part of which is affected by and affects the behavior of other parts, including human management decisions and strategies. Since a whole-dairy-farm encompasses environmental, economic, and bio-physical components, its analysis is best accomplished by a systems approach (that accounts for the interactions of these components, and that can trace the consequences of an intervention through the entire system) (Kelly, 1995). While systems can be conceptualized at any of many scale levels, a systems approach defines a specific scale of interest and an appropriate boundary of analysis. Analysis in the systems approach is marked by recognition of the whole system and the interactions within that system rather than looking only at a system component. A systems approach uses specific techniques and tools (such as rapid appraisal, pattern analysis, diagrams, and modeling, often in a

PAGE 31

9 multidisciplinary fashion) to identify system boundaries and recognize component interactions (Kelly, 1995). The proposed systems approach was Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSRE) as described by Hildebrand (1990). The farm household in livelihood systems analyses are replaced by farm management (Hazell and Norton, 1986) for commercial or industrial farm dimensions such as north-Florida dairy farms. The farming system is an arrangement of subsystem components that function as units. These subsystems include economic subsystems and a number of agroecosystems. The agroecosystems, as described by Powers and McSorley (2000), include the populations and communities organized in ecosystems in relationship with the abiotic factors. To assess what would happen to the whole dairy operation and what would happen specifically to nitrate flow under different climate-management scenarios, models of these realities were set up (Thornley and Johnson, 1990). Models allow us to foresee results, when temporal or material conditions make it impractical to develop field experiments. Successful planning of an animal waste management system requires the ability to simulate the impact of waste production, storage, treatment, and utilization on the water resources; it must address overall nutrient management for the operation (Fraisse et al., 1996). Different simulation methods were needed to accurately represent the north-Florida dairy crop and livestock systems; and to test management strategies that yield the most desired outcomes. Whole farm scale simulation models include biophysical, environmental, and economic components and relationships of the dairy operation to climate variability. Complex systems demand the study of interactions among processes

PAGE 32

10 acting on multiple scales. Thus, these problems require innovative approaches, combining advances in dynamical theory, stochastic processes, and statistics (Levin, 1991). Budgeting nutrient flow through the total dairy farm system as conceptualized by Van Horn et al. (2001, 1998, 1994, 1991); NRCS (2001), Van Horn (1997); and Lanyon (1994) were adjusted, modified, and used for keeping track of dynamic N movement in all system components. Van Horn et al. (1998) mentioned the quantitative information needed on nutrient flow through all segments of the system. They listed the following critical research questions: How much of individual nutrients are excreted by dairy cows? How does the manure management system affect nutrient flow and nutrient recoveries for fertilizer use? What is the potential nutrient removal by plants? How can a manure nutrient budget be developed? What steps help to document environmental accountability? Agronomic measures of nutrient balance, and tracking of inputs and outputs for various farm management units, can provide the quantitative basis for management to better allocate manure to fields, to modify dairy rations, or to develop alternatives to on-farm manure application (Lanyon, 1994). Similarly to budgeting nutrients, The Netherlands has implemented the Mineral Accounting System (MINAS) which focuses on nutrient (N and phosphorus) flows on individual farms; and taxes farms whose nutrient surplus exceeds a defined limit. MINAS embodies a new approach to environmental problems caused by agriculture. According to Ondersteijn et al. (2002) focusing on individual farmers has two major advantages. First, individuals are considered polluters and are individually held accountable for their

PAGE 33

11 pollution, according to the polluter pays principle. Second, individuals have control over their pollution problem, and will be able to deal with it on an individual level (instead of being forced to comply with general measures that may be ineffective for their specific situation). After interviewing 240 farmers during 3 years, they also found large variation in N and phosphate surpluses within and between land-based farm types in The Netherlands. They surveyed farmers stated that MINAS provided enormous and often surprising insight into their management. Crop models (Jones et al., 2003, Jones et al. 1998) are process-based dynamic simulation models that allow biophysical and environmental conditions to be translated into agricultural outcomes (Philips et al., 1998). Crop models can be used to estimate monthly biomass accumulation and N leaching (by a number of crop and/or pasture sequences under different climatic conditions, depending on soil conditions, manure applications, and other managerial choices). Linear programming (LP) models are optimization models capable of devising alternative management choices that maximize (minimize) an objective function according to a set of restrictions (Hazell and Norton, 1986). The LP models have been widely used for analyzing farming systems. 1.7 Methods North-Florida dairy farmers were involved in the entire research process. They provided the base information, and they validated results of the analyses. Few studies to date have incorporated such first-hand data from interviews and validation interaction with dairy managers (which are believed extremely important). Other stakeholder agencies also participated actively as was the case for the Suwannee River Partnership (that involves 45 agencies in total); the Florida Cooperative Extension Service; and some

PAGE 34

12 private enterprises. These stakeholders provided relevant information and permanent feedback to the study. In all interactions, a laptop computer was used. There were two rounds of interviews and focus groups. For the first round, a prototype model was used (created by suggestion of one stakeholder) as a discussion, engagement, and data-collection tool. In both the interviews and focus groups, the interaction started by explaining the prototype model and demonstrating its functioning, followed by an interactive discussion of all specific points. The researcher recorded all suggestions and information. Some modifications were made during the process to the prototype model, however most of the suggestions were incorporated into a new model, which was then used in the second round. In the interviews of dairy farmers, an additional 1 to 2 hour conversation was used to collect information regarding biophysical farm factors, livestock, livestock feeding program, crops, crop fertilization program, waste management, perception of environmental regulations, perception of seasonal forecast use, and other factors. In several occasions after the interview, a tour of the farm followed. There were 21 interviews and six focus groups during this first round. A second round of focus groups and interviews was arranged to validate the functioning of the model. Two focus groups and three interviews confirmed that the model was performing inside the expected ranges, and that results were realistic. Local published data from related studies were also used as baseline in the modeling. An integrated, whole-dairy-farm simulation that links decision making with biophysical, environmental, and economic processes was developed, the Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM). The simulation approach included a Dynamic event-controlled simulation model (D, driver) connected to crop models (CM)

PAGE 35

13 and to optimization models (OM). The driver, which had many modules, followed a dynamic adaptation of the budgeting framework for tracking the flow of N through the entire system; and for tracking production and additional economical variables, according to a pre-defined set of management and climatic conditions. Crop models assessed the N recycled by plants and the amount of N leached according to management, genetic, soil, and climatic specific conditions. The optimization models consisted of linear programming models that either minimize N leaching, or maximize profit for specific farm conditions. The DNFDFM runs monthly for all the processes following user-friendly menus. 1.8 Relevance Results are expected to directly help Suwannee River Basin dairy operations by providing a decision tool that can be used to decrease environmental impacts by reducing nitrate pollution (currently one of the most important environmental concerns). Results should also contribute to overall Suwannee River Basin environmental health by reducing the total N load in the watershed, which has been rapidly increasing. Innovative frameworks and methodologies used in this research could serve as baselines for other studies in which interdisciplinary and participative outcomes are desired. For example a similar approach could be used to address the phosphorus problem in the Okeechobee area.

PAGE 36

CHAPTER 2 NITROGEN POLLUTION IN THE SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: REALITY OR MYTH? 2.1 Introduction In response to increased environmental concerns, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has increased regulatory controls for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) under the Clean Water Act. One of the changes is to require CAFOs that apply manure to land to meet application limits defined by a nutrient standard (USEPA, 2003). The goal of the nutrient standard is to minimize nutrient loss from fields receiving manure. Farms meet this standard by applying manure nutrients at a rate consistent with the agronomic needs of crops receiving manure. Nutrient standards can be N -or P-based, depending on the nutrient content of the soil. USDA is also encouraging the voluntary adoption of nutrient standards on all animal feeding operations (AFO) not subject to USEPA regulation (USDA, NRCS, 1999). The Suwannee River Partnership 1 (SRP) states that over the last two decades, nitrate levels in the middle Suwannee and Santa Fe river basins have been on the increase. The SRP is a coalition of state, federal and regional agencies, local governments, and private industry representatives with 46 partners working together to reduce nitrate levels in the surfacewaters and groundwater within the basins, or watersheds. The Suwannee River Basin has received much attention in recent years because increased N levels in the groundwater-fed rivers of the basin could seriously 1 www.mysuwanneeriver.com/features/suwannee+river+partnership 14

PAGE 37

15 affect the welfare of the ecosystem (Albert, 2002). The federal safety standard for nitrate-N in drinking water is 10 mg L -1 (Florida Department of Health, FDH, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, FLDEP). According to Hornsby (pers. comm.), a water quality analyst from the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) at Live Oak, nitrate levels in some areas have reached ranges of 20 to 30 mg L -1 Rising nitrate levels in north-Florida have been a growing concern because of the effect of nutrients on public health and the environment (Van Horn et al., 1998). Hornsby et al., 2002b alleged that the most likely contributors to contamination are farms, industry and human settlements in the region. Soils in this region are generally deep, well-drained sands; and one of the most critical concerns is N loss in the form of nitrate into the groundwater through these deep sandy soils of the Suwannee River Basin (Van Horn et al., 1998). Changes in agricultural land use and the intensification of this land use during the past 50 years have contributed variable amounts of N to the groundwater system. In general, four main sources of N to groundwater can be recognized: fertilizers applied to cropland, animal wastes from dairy and poultry operations, atmospheric deposition, and septic tank effluents (FLDEP, 2001). Despite the above arguments, it was found (by talking with local people) that some stakeholder groups believe that either the problem of N pollution is not as bad as many people perceive, or the problem does not exist at all. Therefore there is a feeling that the regulatory agencies are overacting and pushing excessively in protecting the environment.

PAGE 38

16 Under these circumstances, it is critical to clearly understand the problem and the concerns. Clarifying the real problem and the real actors would help in promoting realistic ways of solving it. The objective of this chapter is to discuss the evidence of increasing levels of N in water bodies in the Suwannee River Basin, explore evidence of N pollution by dairy farms, and briefly address potential ecological and human implications. 2.2 Evidence of N Increase in the Suwannee River Water Management District 2.2.1 Assessments at the District Level The Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) is the water authority in the study area. The SRWMD deals with quantity and quality of water. Regarding the quality of the water, it permanently monitors the quality of the ground and surface water, and every year produces a comprehensive report. The last available report is for the year 2001/2002 (Hornsby et al., 2003). The SRWMD has developed a comprehensive Water Assessment Regional Network (WARN) consisting of 97 Floridian aquifer wells for a trend network and 120 wells for a status network, distributed along the water management district. These are used to assess the groundwater quality in the District. In this last report (Hornsby et al., 2003) containing results only for the status wells between October 2001 and September 2002, nitrate-N concentrations above a background concentration of 0.05 mgL -1 existed for all or part of every county in the District. The possible nitrate sources were stated as fertilizers, animal waste, and human waste. Concentrations are elevated in the Middle Suwannee River Watershed (Suwannee and Lafayette Counties); and within an area generally defined along an axis starting in northern Jefferson County and ending in eastern Alachua County (Figure 2-1). However, the three samples that exceeded the

PAGE 39

17 Maximum Concentration Load (MCL) or the Primary Drinking Water Standard (PDWS) set at 10 mg L -1 were located in Levy County during May and June 2001 (10.6, 12.0, and 14.2 mg L -1 ). By comparing overall data with the other four water districts in Florida, the SRWMD has the largest area of elevated groundwater nitrate-N concentrations in the State. Figure 2-1. Nitrate-N concentration in the SRWMD. Source: Hornsby et al. (2003), p. 22. SuwanneeLafayette Gilchrist Alachua Levy Regarding surface water quality, the SRWMD has implemented the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program, a quality-monitoring network consisting of 67 water chemistry stations. In water year 2002 (October to September), 3,012 tons of nitrate-N were transported to the Gulf of Mexico by the Aucilla, Econfina, Fenholloway, Steinthatchee, Suwannee, and Wacasassa rivers; the Suwannee river alone

PAGE 40

18 accounted for 98.6% of it. The middle Suwannee River Basin that accounts for only 8.6% of the Suwannee River area accounted for 29.3% of the total loading; and the middle Santa Fe River that represents only 5.7% of the Suwannee River Basin accounted for 19.6% of the total loading; those are the N hotspots. In 2002, of the 35 springs whose water-quality standards were studied, 5 were classified as poor quality and 15 as fair quality. Of the 26 rivers (or river sections) identified in the District, 1 was classified as poor and 13 as fair quality. Using the SRWMD database of monitoring point water quality, graphs for 3 springs in the middle Suwannee River Basin were constructed. Figure 2-2 shows N levels in 3 central springs (Blue, Ruth/Little, and Troy) with data for the monitoring network of the SRWMD. There clearly is an increasing trend. In Figure 2-2C additional data from the US Geological Service (USGS) and from the Florida Geological Service (FGS) for previous years are presented. Figure 2-2C clearly shows an increase in the N levels in this surface water body; the line indicates the increasing trend. In previous water year, 2001, (Hornsby et al., 2002a) the total loading of nitrate-N going to the Gulf of Mexico was 3067 tons; and 97.8% was accounted for by the Suwannee River Basin. These numbers suggest a loading decrease from 2001 to 2002. However, in absolute numbers, loading was higher in 2002, since the discharge of the Suwannee River increased. The fact of increased loadings year to year is reported to be true also for many previous years. In 1999, the FLDEP (Copeland et al., 1999) after sampling 491 wells in the middle Suwannee River, found that wells located 300 ft from poultry or dairy farms had nitrate concentrations greater than the background, with a 25% chance of exceeding the MCL.

PAGE 41

19 00.511.522.533.5Apr-95Feb-96Dec-96Sep-97Jul-98May-99Mar-00Jan-01Nov-01Sep-02Jun-03Apr-04nitrate-nitrogen (mg/L) 02468101214Apr-95Feb-96Dec-96Sep-97Jul-98May-99Mar-00Jan-01Nov-01Sep-02Jun-03Apr-04nitrate-nitrogen (mg/L) 00.511.522.533.5Mar-60Aug-61Dec-62May-64Sep-65Jan-67Jun-68Oct-69Mar-71Jul-72Dec-73Apr-75Aug-76Jan-78May-79Oct-80Feb-82Jul-83Nov-84Mar-86Aug-87Dec-88May-90Sep-91Jan-93Jun-94Oct-95Mar-97Jul-98Dec-99Apr-01Sep-02Jan-04nitrate-nitrogen (mg/L) USGS FGS SRWMD Figure 2-2. Nitrate-N concentrations in three springs in the middle Suwannee River Basin. A) Blue, B) Ruth/Little, C) Troy. Source: Prepared with data from the SRWMD, FGS, and USGS. (A)(B)(C)

PAGE 42

20 The 2001 FLDEP report for the Suwannee River Basin states that 7 lakes (Cherry, Alligator, Crosby, Rowell, Sampson, Santa Fe, and Hampton), 1 stream segment in Swift Creek; several segments of the Santa Fe River; the Middle and Lower Suwannee Rivers, and their estuary are potentially impaired because of excess nutrient concentrations. This FLDEP water quality report is summarized in Figure 2-3. Figure 2-3. Estimated annual mean of groundwater N load. Source: FLDEP (2001), p. 81. A study by the FGS (1992) reports that the proportion of samples of water exceeding the PDWS for Florida of 10 mgL -1 is low (0.6% for superficial system, 0% for intermediate aquifer system, and 1% for the Floridian aquifer system); however, it

PAGE 43

21 mentioned that for the Suwannee River Basin high nitrate concentrations (up to 140 mg L -1 ) in monitoring wells associated with dairy operations have been found. A cooperative study between the DEP and the USGS measured monthly water samples of 14 wells in the middle Suwannee River Basin (Katz and Bohlke, 2000). This study found concentrations of nitrate-N ranging from 0.02 to 22 mgL -1 with large seasonal variations. The fluctuations were believed to be correlated mostly with agricultural practices and climate conditions; for example, higher concentrations occurred in winter when waste or fertilizer was applied. Additionally, the use of N isotope indicated that the most likely cause of nitrate in 5 wells were dairy and/or poultry operations (Katz and Bohlke, 2000). This coincided with the fact that these farm operations were close to the sampling sites. A long term and comprehensive study in the Suwannee River Basin developed by the USGS (Katz et al., 1999) indicated that N levels have increased from 0.1 to 5 mg L -1 in many springs in the Suwannee River Basin over the past 40 years. Several sources of non-point N (fertilizer, animal wastes, atmospheric deposition, and septic tanks) increased continuously in Gilchrist and Lafayette counties. Isotope analyses indicated that the source of N was mixed between organic and inorganic, attributing them to animal operations and crop fertilizer, respectively, from nearby operations. This study (Katz et al., 1999) compared long term trends in nitrate concentrations in selected springs with estimated inputs of N sources in Lafayette and Suwannee counties. It found a high correlation between the estimated quantity of fertilizer and the concentration of N in the springs. It showed for Suwannee a peak in the 1970s, a

PAGE 44

22 decreasing trend until the early 1990s, and finally an increasing trend again after 1993, while for Lafayette County there was a steady increase since 1960s. There are historical records for 4 springs in the Suwannee River (Hornsby and Ceryak, 1999): Charles (1973-97), Little River (1980-97), Running (1980-98), and Telford (1980-97) (Figure 2-4); and for 3 springs in Lafayette county ((Hornsby and Ceryak, 1999): Troy (1960-98), Lafayette Blue (1980-97), and Mearson (1980-98) (Figure 2-5). Figure 2-4. Long term records of Nitrate-N for 4 Suwannee springs. Source: Modified from Katz et al. (1999), p. 46. Pitman et al. (1997) reported that nitrate concentrations in the Suwannee River itself have increased at the rate of 0.02 mg L -1 year -1 over the past 20 years and that over a 53-km river stretch between Dowling Park and Branford, the nitrate loads increased from 2,300 to 6,000 kg day -1 Of this total, 89% appeared to come from the lower two-thirds, where agriculture that includes crops and livestock is the dominant land use. This study found that nitrate-N concentrations in the 11 measured springs ranged between 1.3 and 8.2 mg L -1 and nitrate-N concentrations for the river of 0.46 mg L -1 in Dowling Park, 0.46 mg L -1 in Luraville, and 0.86 mg L -1 in Branford; even though the nitrate-N

PAGE 45

23 concentration almost doubled from the upper to the lower part of the river, there was no noticeable difference among the contributors springs, suggesting that other sources might also be affecting the river in the lower part. Figure 2-5. Long term records of Nitrate-N for 3 Lafayette springs. Source: Modified from Katz et al. (1999), p. 46. 2.2.2 Assessments at the Watershed Level Asbury and Oaksford (1997) performed a study in 7 rivers in Georgia and Florida; the Suwannee River was one of them. This study found that the N input ranged from 2,400 kg yr -1 km 2 in the Withlacoochee river basin to 5,470 kg yr -1 km 2 in the Altamaha river basin, with the Suwannee input in the range of 3,939 kg yr -1 km 2 However, when these numbers were recalculated to in-stream loads, the Suwannee had the highest N loads (compared with the other 6): 476 kg yr -1 km 2 (with the range of the other 6 between 152 and 405 kg yr -1 km 2 ) and discharges in the order of 9,700 kg 10 3 (with the range of the others between 720 and 8280 kg 10 3 ). Additionally, the ratios between outputs/inputs of N were calculated for the 7 rivers (range 4.2% to 14.9%) and the Suwannee River was the second highest with 12.1%.

PAGE 46

24 Ham and Hatzell (1996) realized another comprehensive study of N pollution in surface waters of Georgia and Florida. This study found, for the 10 major river basins in the study, that median concentrations were below USEPA guidelines of 10 mg L -1 for nitrate and 2.1 mg L -1 for ammonia, with only one exception in Swift Creek (3.4 mg L -1 ammonia) in the Suwannee River Basin that was attributed to waste water discharges. Although in general the nutrient levels were low, long-term increasing trends of nutrients loads were found in most of the sites. Distribution of results of nitrate-N indicated that the Suwannee presented the third highest mean but the higher variability with the highest overall value of more than 70 mg L -1 Ham and Hatzell (1996) also performed a long-term trend for these 10 major river basins. They developed graph relationships between time and N concentrations. They found a slope of +0.02 for the Suwannee River Basin, between the years 1971-1991. This means a 4.61% yearly increase over the baseline of 0.5 mg L -1 This was the fourth greatest increasing trend regarding mg L -1 year -1 comparing with the other Basins. 2.2.3 Assessments at the National Level Berndt et al. (1998) published a USGS regional study of the Georgia-Florida coastal plain that includes the Suwannee River Basin. This study was part of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program that includes more than 50 of the nations largest river basins and aquifers. This study reports that in the 23 groundwater samples from the row-crop agricultural area in the upper Suwannee River Basin, 33% exceeded the drinking water standard. These samples were from aquifers that overlie the Upper Floridian aquifer, the major source of drinking water for the study area. This study also found that nitrate concentrations were generally higher in samples from agricultural

PAGE 47

25 areas and shallower wells and N isotope ratios indicated that both fertilizer and animal wastes were the predominant sources of nitrates in groundwater. The study of Berndt et al. (1998) found that the nutrient more frequently found in groundwater was N, which was mostly affected by land use, geology, soils, and topography. Especially in the Suwannee River Basin, the problem is aggravated because it is a karst region with well-drained soils that have a low water-nutrient holding capacity. Also Berndt et al. (1998) found no direct relation between land uses and N concentrations. However, they referred to the previous Pitman et al. (1997) study between Dowling Park and Branford (33-mile Suwannee River reach) including 11 nearby springs that showed much higher N levels in the springs ( x = 1.7, range 1.3-8.2 mg L -1 ) than in the river (between 1 and 2 mg L -1 ): the N levels increased when it moved to the lower parts. In this case, even though the water flow dynamics have a great effect, a clear association was found between the predominant agricultural land use and the N levels; however no specific type of farms could be identified as the sources. A comparison of the Suwannee River nutrient concentration with the NAWQA national standards, indicate that overall the levels of N in the streams and in the groundwater of the Suwannee River Basin are between the 75 th percentile and the median. 2.2.4 Assessments at the Dairy Farm Level Andrew (1992) did a comprehensive study of nine dairy farms in the middle Suwannee monitoring waste water lagoons, monitoring wells, and supply wells and their interactions with the different land uses inside the farms (waste water, intensive areas, intensive pasture, sprayfields, and low density pastures). This study tracked the N inside

PAGE 48

26 the dairy farms after cattle excretion, measuring it at different depths and in different land uses. The results are quite revealing and they are summarized in Figures 2-6 and 2-7. 0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230NO3+NO2NH3+OrgNNO3+NO2NH3+OrgNNO3+NO2NH3+OrgNNO3+NO2NH3+OrgN Waste WaterShallow GroundwaterDeeper GroundwaterNearby hydrogeologic unit mgL-1 NO3+NO2NH3+OrgN Figure 2-6. Nitrate-Nitrite and total ammonium plus organic N at different points in nine dairy farms in the middle Suwannee River Basin. Source: Prepared with data extracted from Andrew (1992). Two main forms of N were measured, Nitrite + Nitrate (-) and Ammonium + Organic N (-Org). In the waste water in the lagoon (effluent) the concentration of 3NO 23NO 4NH23 3NO NO was negligible because most of the N was in form of -Org (=150 mg L 4NH3NO _x -1 ) as seen in Figure 2-6. Because of fast decomposition and nitrification N is quickly converted to forms, which are evidenced in the monitoring wells (shallow groundwater at 3-m deep), in which the concentrations of are far higher than the -Org forms (= 22 vs. 2.2 mg L 3NO4NH 23NO 23NO _x -1 ). The trend continues in the deeper groundwater source wells (12 m) where the concentrations of

PAGE 49

27 3NO are substantially lower than in the shallow groundwater wells because of dilution processes, but still high for the water quality standards ( 23NO x3 =10 mg L -1 ). In these deep wells, the -Org concentrations are much lower than the waste water, but slightly higher than the shallow groundwater suggesting that some deep accumulation may occur. 4NH 051015202530mgL-1 Intensive A In the nearby hydrogeologic unit the concentrations of are very similar to those in the deep groundwater wells suggesting that the dairy might be responsible for such an impact. As expected -Org forms would be negligible on these components. NO 23NO 4NH reaSprayfieldWaste WaterIntensive PastureLow DensityPasture00.511.522.53mgL-1 Ammonium+Organic N NO3+NO2 Figure 2-7. Dissolved Nitrate+Nitrite and Ammonium+Organic N in monitoring wells (3-m deep) in different areas of a dairy farm. Source: Prepared with data extracted from Andrew (1992). Inside the dairy farms, the collected data demonstrated the movement of N downwards at different rates for different parts of the farm. Exploring the data from shallow wells, the intensive area, where cows deposited manure without regular

PAGE 50

28 collection, is the critical area where the highest concentration of is observed ( 3NO 23NO x = 26 mg L -1 ); this is followed by the sprayfields where intense applications of effluent are performed ( x = 23 mg L -1 ); followed by the wastewater area and the intensive pasture (both x = 11 mg L -1 ). The lowest concentration was found in the low density pastures ( x = 5.1 mg L -1 ) but this is still half of the allowable limits of the PDWS. The -Org concentrations are medium ( 4NH x = between 0.96 and 2.1 mg L -1 taking into account that 2.1 mgL -1 is the USEPA limit) in these shallow wells; being higher, as expected, below the wastewater lagoons. This also indicates that there was a downward infiltration of the wastewater. In another study from Andrew (1994), four dairy farms were closely monitored during four years (1990-1993) in the middle Suwannee. In this study, water samples were evaluated in 51 monitoring wells in these 4 typical dairy farms and 3 nearby springs in Lafayette and Suwannee counties. Results indicated that Water from the monitoring wells had median nitrate exceeding that in water from wells of the background groundwater quality network sampled by the FLDEP Nitrate concentrations near waste water lagoons and intensive livestock areas were the highest exceeding in the shallow wells the drinking standards of 10 mgL -1 Concentrations were substantially lower in pastures (less loading of manure) and in deep wells (dilution and/or denitrification) Nitrogen isotope ratios analyses demonstrated that animal waste was the main source of nitrates in groundwater adjacent to the lagoons and intensive areas, and animal waste and/or septic tanks were the principal source of nitrate at the three springs Nitrogen isotope ratios also demonstrated that synthetic fertilizers or combinations of synthetic fertilizer, soil N, and livestock wastes were the sources of nitrate in pastures and sprayfields.

PAGE 51

29 Figure 2-8 shows the average of nitrate concentrations above the 10 mgL -1 for the 4 farms. As reported in the conclusions of Andrew (1994), the wells nearby the intense areas and the wastewater lagoons are those with higher environmental menace. Nonetheless, it was noticed with these study data, that 2 of the farms presented wells below the 10 mgL -1 for waste water lagoons and 1 farm showed wells of less 10 mgL -1 for a monitoring well near the intense areas. Also, 2 of the farms presented high wells for pasture fields and 1 farm additionally a high well for a sprayfield. 01020304050607080IntenseIntenseWastewaterPasturePastureIntenseIntenseWastewaterIntenseSprayfieldPasture FARM 1FARM 2FARM 3FARM 4 mgL-1 Figure 2-8. Monitoring wells with higher than drinking water allowable nitrate levels (PDWS>10 mg L -1 ) in the four dairy farms. Source: Prepared with data from Andrew (1994). 2.3 Human and Ecological Concerns because of N Pollution High nitrate levels in drinking water can cause methemoglobinemia (MHB) or blue baby syndrome in infants, a condition that diminishes the ability of blood to absorb oxygen (Vigil et al., 1965; NRC, 1985) because the methemoglobin produced by nitrates cannot carry oxygen, causing symptoms of oxygen starvation that affects

PAGE 52

30 primarily infants younger than six months, who suffer cyanosis and, in extreme cases, death (Andrew, 1994). Nitrate is a precursor of carcinogenic nitrosamines, which are believed to cause stomach cancer and leukemia (NRC, 1978; Strange and Krupicka, 1984; Stewart, 1990; Mirvish, 1990; Forman, et al., 1985). Additionally, high levels of nitrates in drinking water are associated with birth defects (Fan et al., 1987), stress of the cardiovascular system with extreme artery dilatation (Vrba, 1981), enlargement of the thyroid gland, and increased sperm mortality (Scragg et al., 1982). Kross et al. (1992) mention that about 2,000 cases of MHB have been reported between 1945 and 1990 worldwide with a mortality rate of 10%; however the NRC (1995) found no studies reporting nitrate-induced MHB since 1990; nitrate induced MBH seems rather rare now, but these rare cases are due primarily to a lack of reporting requirements, and secondarily to a lack of physician awareness (Felsot, A. 1998). Several effects on reproduction, growth and development of animals have also been noticed because of high N levels, including mortality of larvae of Cutthroat trout, Chinook salmon and Rainbow trout and mortality of tadpoles in several frog species in Florida such as Chorus frogs and Leopard frogs (Edwards et al., 2002). In several species of frogs, reduced activity, weight loss, and deformed digestive tracts also have been detected (Edwards et al., 2002). In addition to making water unsafe for humans and many other animals, high nitrate concentrations can lower water quality in rivers and springs because elevated concentrations of nitrate in these water bodies can cause eutrophication, which can result in algal blooms and depletion of oxygen that affects survival and diversity of aquatic

PAGE 53

31 organisms (Katz et al., 1999). Eutrophication is a process in which algae growth is favored and consequently oxygen is depleted. This problem happens in the surface water-bodies, which receive inflows from groundwater from springs or diffuse seepage (Andrew, 1994). 2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations Several studies have demonstrated that there is a N pollution problem in the Suwannee River Basin. All studies reviewed for this paper agree on it. Even though the scopes, methodologies, timeframe, and location differed, all the studies found that the levels of N in groundwater and surface waters had, at the very minimum, higher N concentrations than the background. Studies are not conclusive to mention if major pollution exists in surface water sources or in groundwater sources. Temporal, spatial, and climatic conditions would have great effect on overall N pollution levels. When comparing the Suwannee River Basin with other basins in the state, in the Watershed (including Georgia), and across states, it was found that, overall, the water in the Suwannee presents lower quality because of N pollution. The Suwannee River Basin or parts of the Suwannee River Basin are consistently mentioned by the studies as examples of extreme polluted values of any form of N either in groundwater or surface water. Even though, in most of the cases, the N concentrations in the Suwannee River Basin are below the USEPA standards of 10 mg L -1 several studies that include long term comparisons, along with hard data collected from monitoring stations, show that there is a noticeable increasing trend in the N concentrations of the surface and groundwater bodies that would tend to increase even faster if the land use conditions persist. Therefore, actions to mitigate the problem are needed.

PAGE 54

32 By exploring hard data generated by monitoring efforts in the Suwannee, the middle Suwannee (between Suwannee and Lafayette counties) continues being the hotspot and the area with higher N pollution concerns; nonetheless, there are other areas and places where the N concentrations are showing as high or even higher than the middle Suwannee as is the case of areas in Jefferson, Levy, Gilchrist, and Alachua counties. The current effort to decrease N sources in the middle Suwannee should be expanded to other areas of concern. It is reported that the possible nitrate sources are chemical fertilizers, animal wastes, and human waste. There is no clear cut conclusion as to which one of these represents the most dangerous source. Dairy operations are many times found as the most likely source of nitrate-N by several studies either by spatial proximity, temporal analysis, and/or by the use of isotopes. However, there is no clear estimation of how much N comes from dairy farms either as a whole or on an individual basis. It is believed that dairy farms are big contributors because of large amounts of waste produced; however there are no conclusive reports that estimate and/or compare them with other sources. Higher efforts are required to distinguish between point vs. non-point sources of pollution and to make any industry environmentally accountable as a way to face the problem and their potential solutions. Two in-depth studies in dairy farms in the study area evidenced a high environmental impact of these operations regarding N pollution. These studies pointed out that there is a great variability between dairy operations and their environmental impacts. An appropriate approach for environmental solutions should be to treat dairy farms individually regarding their pollution concerns.

PAGE 55

33 Also, these dairy studies found no conclusive answers to what components inside the operation are the greatest N polluters. These also vary substantially among farms. Even though only a decade has passed since these studies, the dairy farm systems have changed substantially, most of them now Do not have the intense area Have a concrete lagoon Do not use or use very little synthetic fertilizer The intense area has become part of the confined area in a totally concreted covered space where all the manure is collected and where there is no infiltration. The manure goes to a concrete lagoon and from there to the sprayfields, in which usually only waste manure is used as fertilizer. Under this new structure, the sprayfields, primarily, and the pastures, secondarily, are the most likely zones inside dairy farms with higher N concentrations and consequently with higher N pollution impacts. Dairy farms as major actors in the N issue must be studied as a whole system with complete understanding of all their components under specific environmental and management options affected by varying climatic conditions. There is clear evidence that water N pollution affects humans, animals, and ecosystems. In the study area, even though there are no reported direct or indirect human effects, there is major evidence of animal and ecosystem effects because increased N levels.

PAGE 56

CHAPTER 3 NORTH FLORIDA STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS TOWARD NUTRIENT POLLUTION, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, AND THE USE OF CLIMATE FORECAST TECHNOLOGY 3.1 Introduction Rising nitrate levels in north-Florida's Suwannee River are a growing concern (Hornsby et al., 2003). Awareness is high given the potential of excess nutrients to affect the environment and public health (Albert, 2002). It is alleged that the most likely contributors to contamination are dairy farms, industry, and human settlements in the region (Andrew, 1994). The federal safety standard for nitrate-N in drinking water in the United States is 10 mg L -1 In some areas of the Suwannee River Basin, nitrate levels have reached ranges of 20 to 30 mg L -1 (Hornsby, Pers. Comm.). High nitrate levels in drinking water can cause methemoglobinemia or blue baby sickness in infants (NRC, 1985) and other health problems in humans such as enlargement of the thyroid gland, increased sperm mortality, and even stomach cancer (NRC, 1978; Strange and Krupicka, 1984; Stewart, 1990; Mirvish, 1990; Forman, et al., 1985). In addition to making water unsafe for humans and many other animals, high nitrate concentrations can lower water quality in rivers and springs, causing eutrophication resulting in algae blooms that consume oxygen needed by fish and other aquatic animals (Katz et al., 1999). Dairy farmers are now required to comply with stricter environmental regulations either under permit or under voluntary incentive-based programs. Dairy farmers are also aware that environmental challenges will be the greatest problem they will have to face in 34

PAGE 57

35 the near future. After interviewing 48 dairy farmers located in Lafayette, Suwannee, Columbia, Hamilton, and Gilchrist counties, Florida, Staples et al. (1997) found that the perception of anticipated costs of having to comply with environmental regulations was rated, by far, the top challenge to successful dairying in the future. Improvements in long-term (6 to 12 month) seasonal climate variability predictions such as those based on El Nio and La Nia forecasts (OBrien, 1999) can play an important role in formulating management strategies that dairy farmers in north-Florida may adopt in order to pursue economic and ecological sustainability. Specialized federal and state agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predict long term seasonal climate variability fairly accurately. These predictions are based upon the El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. ENSO phases determine El Nio, La Nia, or Neutral years, which are related to rainfall and temperature patterns. Dairy farmers may benefit from proactive use of seasonal climate variability prediction. The opportunity to benefit from climate prediction arises from the intersection of human vulnerability, climate prediction and decision capacity (Hansen, 2002a). This benefit from the information can be used to decrease environmental impacts while maintaining profitability in north-Florida dairy operations. This paper discusses the perspectives, perceptions, and attitudes of stakeholders regarding the issue of N pollution in the Suwannee River Basin, the current regulations, and the possibility of incorporating climate variability forecast technology to initiate mitigating strategies. The principal stakeholders are the dairy farmers. The

PAGE 58

36 methodologies included a Sondeo with stakeholders, 21 interviews with dairy farmers, and eight focus groups with stakeholders. Stakeholders perceptions regarding nutrient overloads, regulations, and the use of seasonal climate information as a way to mitigate the nitrate problem are critical baseline data for designing solutions. The information is even more valuable because it is gathered in a participatory and consensual manner. This study translates the mind-set of the stakeholders about the N pollution issue and of the dairy farmers regarding environmental regulations and the use of climate variability forecast technology. 3.2 Materials and Methods 3.2.1 Study Area The Sondeo was carried out in the Suwannee River Basin that encompasses all of nine and part of another six north-Florida counties. This represents an area of 7,640 mi 2 The area is comprised of 13 river basins and includes a population of 285,000. Within this area, the principal focus was on the middle Suwannee that includes Lafayette and Suwannee counties. These two counties are specific areas where the N issue is acute. In the middle Suwannee River there are hundreds of residential and commercial septic systems in rural areas. Some 300 row crop and vegetable farms also exist. Finally, 44 dairies with more than 25,000 animals and 150 poultry operations with more than 38 million birds are installed in the area (Suwannee River Partnership, 2003). Interviews and focus groups were undertaken in Lafayette, Suwannee, Gilchrist, Levy, and Alachua counties, where the number of dairy farms totals 64. 3.2.2 The Sondeo A Sondeo was conducted between the months of January and February 2003 by a multidisciplinary team of eight graduate students from the University of Florida (Alvira

PAGE 59

37 et al., 2003). The Sondeo (Hildebrand, 1981) is a team survey developed to provide information rapidly and economically about agricultural and rural problems. It is structured around a series of informal, conversational interviews between the team and stakeholders. It is a multidisciplinary process from data collection through report writing. Each team ideally includes members from the social and agricultural sciences, as well as other disciplines. When members write the final report there is much interdisciplinary cross fertilization. In the Sondeo, data are shared among the different teams and report writing is done as a group so that observations are confirmed, debated, and analyzed with members of the other teams. The results may be quantified or not but the accuracy of the findings is strengthened by the cross-checking process. During the Sondeo, 13 stakeholders were interviewed. This sounding out was undertaken to get a better understanding of the broad issue of N pollution in water and collect the perception of stakeholders regarding this issue in the study area. Sondeo team members represented a number of disciplines including agronomy, animal science, agricultural extension, natural resource management, forestry, and community development. Two to three-person teams conducted initial transects and stakeholders interviews. The interviews were conducted as informal, open-ended conversations. After a team introduced itself and explained the subject of the research, the stakeholder and the team conversed about any aspects of the topic that were relevant. This open-ended approach enabled topics to emerge and be pursued that might have been missed if the researchers had been constrained by a pre-formulated questionnaire. Despite the open-endedness, a set of core themes was discussed in almost all interviews. Notes were not taken. Following each interview, the partners wrote individual notes, compared them,

PAGE 60

38 and then wrote a joint report for the interview. Finally, the joint reports were shared and thoroughly discussed among all Sondeo members. Each team presented its findings, which could be clarified, challenged or contrasted with the results of the other teams. This process of reporting and discussion served as the opportunity to begin noting trends, gaps in information, sources of initial inferences, and identifying new questions to pursue. 3.2.3 Interviews Personal interviews (Bernard, 1995) were undertaken with dairy farmers and/or dairy farm managers during the fall/winter seasons of 2003/2004. Open-ended interviews were targeted to a purposeful sample of 21 farmers (30% population). The number of interviewees was chosen in order to attempt to capture the broad variability represented in the area in a collaborative manner with the Suwannee River Partnership and the University of Florida Extension Service agents in the area. A voice recorder was used in every interview after requesting permission from the interviewee. Interviews included a series of topics, but emphasized farmers perceptions regarding the N pollution regulation issue and the potential use of climate forecasts to address the problem. 3.2.4 Focus Groups Eight focus groups (Bernard 1995; Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990) with stakeholders were held between November 2002 and February 2004. Focus groups were open discussions among 5 to 15 people. Topics focused on perceptions regarding nitrate pollution, regulation, and seasonal climate forecast innovation technologies as an aid to mitigate the problem. Focus group participants ranged from specialists from official agencies such as the Suwannee River Partnership (SRP), the Suwannee River Water Management District

PAGE 61

39 (SRWMD), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FLDEP), the Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the University of Florida IFAS Cooperative Extension Service (CES), to private sector companies, technicians and farmers. These participants were typically called to meetings by the Suwannee River Partnership and/or by extension agents from different counties in the research area in coordination with the researcher. 3.2.5 Analysis All participatory interactions were recorded, classified, organized, analyzed, and described. This paper summarizes the results of all the above interactions in a descriptive/narrative manner. Names of the participants are not revealed to protect the anonymity of informants. Emphasis has been placed on a qualitative rather than quantitative description and analysis of farmer perceptions. The interdisciplinary approach to the complex problem of nitrate pollution in the Suwannee River Basin requires the use of methods from social sciences such as applied anthropology and rural sociology for a more holistic view. 3.3 Results and Discussion 3.3.1 Stakeholder Perceptions of the N Issue 3.3.1.1 Perception of water contamination During a discussion in an initial focus group, one stakeholder, supported by several participants, challenged two main points: does water quality degradation caused by N pollution really exist in the Suwannee River; and if the problem exists, how bad is it? Stakeholders argued that is not easy to know if there is a real problem, and even more difficult to determine the source of the problem. Additionally, an actual timeline of events that may have led to the current situation is unknown. Farmers present in the

PAGE 62

40 meeting perceived that the 10 mg L -1 standard of N concentration in water enforced by the regulatory agencies is too strict compared to other parts of the world (Europe for example, has a 40 mgL -1 limit). This perceived low threshold is also believed to exaggerate the real problem. The dairy producers expressed that to their knowledge, there are no indications of humans being affected by N concentrations in local water. Farmers also believed that eutrophication of local water bodies is not as evident as media reports suggest. In their eyes, the appearance of streams and springs is similar today as it has always been. Some farmers present at this meeting believed that there is a misconception of the link between the N issue and dairy farms. Participants indicated that dairy farms in the study area do not always have overflow problems. Most indicated that in general terms, large operations have higher chances of overflows. Additionally, many of the participants indicated that they were not convinced that dairy farms in general are the biggest polluters. Conversely to these opinions, the Sondeo found that ten years earlier, an increase of nitrate concentration was recognized by the Suwannee River Water Management District in the Suwannee River Middle Basin. The increase in nitrate concentration in the Suwannee River Middle Basin as a problem was clearly evident to all stakeholders who participated in the Sondeo. A veterinarian working for a dairy farm expressed his concern for the pollution, and its potential for driving them out of business in the future. It seems clear that dairy farming is perceived as the most contaminating activity in the area. Poultry is perceived to be the second source of contamination. Row crops are usually perceived as the least contaminating of all food producing activities in the area.

PAGE 63

41 However, one interviewee pointed out that greater leaching might result from fertilizer in row crops compared to the slower decomposition of manure from dairy operations. This would occur when precipitation follows an application of fertilizer in row crops, or if they over-irrigated. Moreover, the informant perceived that all farm activities might contaminate much less than non-agricultural industrial activities and waste outputs from concentrated urban dwelling in the area. Even though the main focus in the discussions had been N loads, phosphorus (P) was also mentioned as a potential contaminant by participants in the Sondeo. A problem expressed about both these contaminants is that they may take many years to reach the groundwater. Nutrient pollution has a long term cumulative effect that results from slow processes. This makes it much more difficult to pinpoint sources of contamination and consequently potential ways of mitigation. The Suwannee River Partnership was formed to determine the sources of N loads in the basin. The other important and connected objective was to work with local users to minimize future nutrient loading through voluntary, incentive-based programs. Therefore, the Partnership works under a non-regulatory precautionary approach. This is envisioned as being accomplished through monitoring pollution, education, promotion and adoption of best management practices (BMPs). The Partnership is focused on the middle river basin. The main activities in that area i.e., dairy, poultry, beef, and row crop farms are the foci of the Partnership. Currently, there is little population pressure since the middle river basin is not very densely urbanized. However, a recent geographic extension of the Partnership to the southern part of the basin towards the Santa Fe River includes more densely populated

PAGE 64

42 areas. A logical step then would be for the Partnership to focus more deeply on septic tanks and human dwelling waste outputs. 3.3.1.2 Reasons to mitigate contamination The main reasons identified by the stakeholders for mitigating water contamination are to preserve the ecosystem, protect human health, protect fresh water bodies that provide environmental services, and support economic activities such as tourism. It is important to note that nobody mentioned that the water quality has an impact on their herd, poultry, or crop. It is also recognized that pollution in the river basin can have a negative effect in shellfish production in the Gulf of Mexico. 3.3.1.3 Existing and potential means of mitigation Stakeholders were proactive about avoiding potential regulations, which did not seem a good choice for addressing the problem to them. Many farmers might find themselves in a difficult situation to fulfill imposed regulatory levels. Farmers did not want to be regulated to have to implement conservation measures. Lake Okeechobee (South Florida) regulations, which were imposed to reduce the P load level, were not successful in the sense that 50% of the dairy farms in that area went out of business. Based on this past misstep, stakeholders worked under a non-regulatory, preventive, or precautionary approach, through the creation of the Suwannee River Partnership (SRP). The recognition of rising nitrate concentrations was the leading factor behind the creation of SRP. The idea of forming a Partnership took years. According to some stakeholders, just a few people started the partnership in the mid 1990s. More institutions progressively joined in the following years. In 2003, there were 24 members, and currently (2004) the number of partners has increased to 45. The long-term goals of the partnership are to

PAGE 65

43 Reduce pollutant loading Establish interstate watershed management Increase number of acres covered by conservation and land management plans Assure flow of information Secure cooperative long-term funding to maintain a cooperative interstate program Improve water conservation between two states (Florida and Georgia). Several agencies and individuals are part of the Partnership that collaborate to monitor and to reduce the levels of nitrates in their groundwater and surface waters. For example, the USDA/ NRCS PL-566 Small Watershed Program for the Middle Suwannee assists dairy and poultry farmers to improve animal waste management and fertilization techniques. The NRCS inspects soil types, number of cows and area in pastures, and then decides the minimum set of measures to be followed. The Florida Farm Bureau (FFB), that represents farmers interests, is also involved in developing policies to mitigate nitrate pollution in the area. The FFB annually publishes a book containing all of its policies. The Farm Bureau supports technology-based BMPs and their voluntary implementation. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also has ongoing studies of water quality within the Suwannee River Basin The Partnership focuses on finding the most economical and technologically feasible management techniques (BMPs) available to help farmers and other land users to satisfy regulatory requirements for protecting public health and the environment. Through education and outreach programs, the group continues to increase public awareness of the issues, and encourage citizen and community participation in working together to find solutions. Other components of the initiative that are contributing to the Partnership's success include the BMP Quality Assurance Program, County Alliance for Responsible Environmental Stewardship (CARES), and the On-farm Research Programs

PAGE 66

44 As one component of Partnership activity, several University of Florida departments and centers, as well as state and federal agencies are cooperating on project 319 entitled "Effectiveness of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Animal Waste and Fertilizer Management to Reduce Nutrient Inputs into groundwater in the Suwannee River Basin." Project 319 addresses BMPs on a dairy, a poultry operation, and a vegetable farm in Lafayette and Suwannee Counties in the Middle Suwannee River Basin. Each farm has been instrumented with a groundwater monitoring well network. Wells and soil profiles are being intensively monitored to determine preand post-BMP nitrate concentrations on each of the farms. An one-year pre-BMP monitoring phase has been completed on all the farms, and BMPs are now being implemented to address the elevated nitrate concentrations observed in some of the monitoring wells. The overall goal of this project is to demonstrate that BMPs can be implemented to reverse the increasing trend of nitrate concentrations in the groundwater and springs of the Middle Suwannee River Basin. The BMP Quality Assurance Program verifies that BMPs are operated and maintained over a long period of time, and provides assistance to farmers in resolving problems with the BMPs. The Partnership, in cooperation with Florida Farm Bureau, has also initiated the CARES Program to certify and recognize farmers participating and following directives in the Partnership program. Finally, the Partnership has developed a joint strategy with the SRWMD to monitor groundwater and surface water on a regional basis to identify trends in water quality over time through an extensive network of monitoring points.

PAGE 67

45 Technicians from the Partnership visit farms on a regular basis to monitor their N loads and to help with the implementation of BMPs. One of these technicians pointed out that many farmers were formerly wasting money buying fertilizer. With new techniques such as use of a cement pool and mixer in the lagoon to separate solids from liquids, the farmers are able to recycle their own manure, buy less fertilizer, reduce costs, and reduce N loads. In general, farmers who have been applying BMPs feel comfortable with the results achieved. Most farmers are cooperative and eager to follow SRP directives and the suggested BMPs. Nevertheless, some practices (such as treatment lagoons or solid separators), require large investments. Money is required up-front to modify facilities, train personal and to make other adjustments. In most cases the SRP has funding available to cost-share initiatives that protect the environment. The modality of implementation for most BMPs is completely based on voluntary participation of farmers and aims at helping them avoid stricter regulations. However, certain activities are already subject to regulatory programs. 3.3.1.4 Implementation procedures for Best Management Practices (BMPs) BMPs for nitrate reduction in the Suwannee River Basin refer to good stewardship of land and water management that help farmers reduce nutrient contamination to water systems. There is general acceptance among stakeholders that such management practices are sound and positive for the environment. Management practices mainly include nutrient and manure management, disposal of wastes, irrigation water, technical design and engineering aspects in farming enterprises such as row crop, dairy, beef cattle and poultry farms. By large, the concerned stakeholders see BMPs as research-generated solutions to reduce potential environmental hazards from farm enterprises.

PAGE 68

46 Implementation procedures are specific to each program and farm enterprise. All programs aim at implementing BMPs that reduce the loading of N contamination to groundwater while helping farmers to remain profitable. It is worth mentioning that at present, attaining the twofold objectives is at an early testing period in which cost-sharing is crucial to ease associated risk for farmers. Based on the information gathered by the Sondeo, a picture of the step by step process of BMP implementation in the study area can be drawn. Creating and raising awareness among public agencies, landowners, agricultural producers and other stakeholders about existing water quality impacts resulting from human activities is the first step. It is necessary for recognizing that a new approach in management practices is needed to address the issue within the area. It is perceived that education on the issues and solutions, including effective transfer of knowledge and technology, are essential components of the implementation efforts of the technical working groups in the Partnership. As part of this process the Partnership conducts meetings for agricultural producers. During 2001 over 1000 farmers participated in such meetings. Gatherings included two row crop growers meetings, a forage field day, five dairy farmers meetings, two poultry growers meetings, a cattlemens meeting (beef), and a large-scale growers meeting. In the CARES program, growers fill out a self-evaluation regarding their farm operation to assess environmental practices. One objective of this self-assessment is to increase farmers awareness in perceiving their own status. The next step is that farmers show interest in joining the Partnership. At this stage agencies in the Partnership help farmers in selection and implementation of BMPs. The

PAGE 69

47 partnership has a Technical Working Group (TWG) in the areas of fertilizer, animal waste and human waste management. Each TWG assesses sources of nutrients within its area of expertise, develops and implements a plan of work to fulfill the mission of the Partnership, and provides updated recommendations for action. BMPs are highly decentralized and tailored to suit the diversity in size and complexity of farm operations. Initially, the focus is on management approaches, which are technically viable, economically feasible, and environmentally friendly. The study team feels that BMPs on dairy farms are far from being financially feasible. Up-front costs for implementation are especially hard to recoup. Additionally, BMP on-farm trials are conducted to verify the technical viability of the recommended practices. Financial commitment and debt responsibility is required from farmers during implementation of BMPs. To date, BMP implementation has been very successful. Out of 144 crop farms, 115 have adopted conservation measures; out of a 35 poultry farms 34 participate; and out of 44 dairy farms, 43 are involved in the SRP. Before the Partnership, only 3 dairy farms were able to pass environmental quality standards. After the farmers adopt BMPs that have been promoted by the participating agencies, a presumption of compliance with state water quality standards can be established. This places farmers in a much better standing of willingness to cooperate with environmental stewardship with authorities. 3.3.1.5 Impacts of BMPs on farms Most stakeholders perceive that farmer participation in BMPs has many economic, environmental and social benefits. Stakeholders agree that after the initial investment, dairy, crop and poultry enterprises save money by implementing BMPs since they recover their own nutrients, which have a value. In the case of dairy farms, the savings

PAGE 70

48 could be important since no fertilizers would be needed for crops. However, stakeholders perceive that poultry farmers have only modest economic benefits because the processing of dry litter does not return much income. An additional benefit indicated was that livestock farmers who implemented BMPs are usually allowed to expand herd or flock size. Regarding row crops, stakeholders indicated that the BMPs being promoted for crops reduce yields. This reduction in crop yields seems to be inevitable because of the reduction in fertilizer and irrigation contained in the BMP recommendation. Additionally they would require farmers to spend more time and money on management and equipment. Both aspects would decrease profitability. A major challenge then, is how to maintain row crop farmer profit margins while implementing BMPs. In spite of difficulties, adopting BMPs may help farmers to remain in business in the long run, which is critical to the Partnership. The initial investment that farmers are supposed to share may still be a big challenge considering the returns that farmers obtain as a result of adopting BMPs. But ultimately, middle Suwannee farmers will be able to choose from one of the three options: receive financial assistance to practice BMPs and stay regulated under incentive-based programs; receive a certain amount of money and leave the land; or comply with regulations under permit on their own. 3.3.2 Perceptions of Regulations by Dairy Farmers During the interviews, dairy farmers expressed their concerns that regulations are currently stricter than in the past, and that they will become even stricter in the future. At the same time, several farmers expressed that the manure and all its by-products have a tremendous commercial potential as a source of energy and nutrients. Potential benefits from by-product sales could mitigate stronger future regulations.

PAGE 71

49 Sixty-two percent of interviewed farmers participate in incentive-based regulatory programs. One third of them work under permit, and one farm has no regulation at all. Incentive-based programs are voluntary commitments between the farmer and the regulatory agency as promoted by the SRP. Farmers under permit are those that are enforced by the regulatory agency. Usually medium and small farms (up to 700 cows) are under incentive-based programs and larger farms are under permit. Also, it can be said that newer farms are under permit and older farms are more likely to be under incentive-based programs. All farmers expressed a clear message. They wanted to make sure the general public understands that producers are not trying to pollute the environment. Farmers only seek to earn their living and to do their best to protect the environment. Eighty-one percent of dairy farmers interviewed agreed or felt comfortable with current regulations. However, the remaining 19% disagree more or less with the current environmental regulation framework (Figure 3-1). The one farm that is not regulated is a small farm that received an invitation, but does not want to participate in the cost-share program because the owner believes that they can protect the environment in their own way. Fundamentally, the farmer does not want to be controlled at all times. He is confident the problem will not increase from present levels and that his farm will continue functioning as it has done for more than a half century. However he is aware that if they are forced into compliance with regulations, he would probably go out of business. 3.3.2.1 Farmers in disagreement with regulatory measurements One of the farmers in dissension was very disappointed and very upset about the regulatory agencies, especially with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection

PAGE 72

50 (FLDEP). He felt betrayed in the fact that he was once told that he runs an exemplarily clean farm and was even publicly recognized for that fact on one occasion. Later, after activists groups sued the FLDEP, the department requested he make a cumbersome investment on his own. The farmer stated Their stuff is not scientific, they listened to what people say and they got scared. They do not have any money for me, as they have been able to provide for many other dairies. They have put 18 people out of work on this farm because I had to reduce the herd size by half. If they place just one more regulation on me, I will be out of business The indispensable requirement for scientific studies in the eyes of this farmer is an interesting and novel point. Often, the opposite view might be expected. Apparently, the FLDEP in this case is regarded as a politically driven agency that does not necessarily back up their case with science. A perception of inequitable treatment on the part of the cost-share program with regard to this farm might be regarded as a strong motive for this farmers ill feeling toward the regulation process. N regulations 81 % B Agree completely Criticize part of it Administrative observations Technical observations Guarantee of sustainability Climate conditions not considered Rapid personnel turnover Not enforced severely Are BMPs really good? Listen more to public and news Dont treat farmers equally Too bureaucratic Too imposed Are BMPs really good? Whole farm system understanding Lack of soil science/scientists Dont Agree Agree 33 % 67 % 50 % 50 % Figure 3-1. Farmers perceptions of environmental regulations in north-Florida

PAGE 73

51 This farmer elaborated further saying that the FLDEP requested he install more concrete free-stalls to collect manure and more irrigation systems to dispose of the effluent in the fields. He thinks that is not a correct solution because it would create even more problems with neighbors concerned with odors. He added I did not even have a chance to discuss my options. The regulation was imposed. They told me: do all this or reduce your herd size. I decided to reduce the herd size because I felt that I could not trust the regulatory people any longer. It would not be surprising if, after I make all these investments on my own, after a few years they would come again and ask me to change all over again because the neighbors are not happy This farmer expressed a common complaint in processes of this nature. He was left out of the process and not consulted from the beginning. Furthermore, it is apparent to the farmer that no matter how hard he tries; the dairy farm is in a vulnerable position with respect to new regulations in the future. In this farmers opinion, the interests of the farmer will always be secondary to those of the neighbors. Another complaint regarding the regulations was from one relatively new farmer, who had to fight for more than two years to get a regulatory permit approved for a small dairy operation. The farmer considers himself to be over-regulated compared with other much larger dairies in the area. The farmer also mentioned that the approval process has been very costly and the farm could not count on any financial aid. He felt that he was forced to go through the process. This farmer mentioned I have fewer than 400 cows and they made me install and monitor six wells with all the expenses it implies while there are farms with thousands of cows who do not have this type of control. This farmer feels that reports in the news have been particularly prejudicial to his situation and probably one of the causes of this very strict permit. The other two farmers who do not agree with current regulations based their perceptions more on technical issues. Both considered that the

PAGE 74

52 suggested BMPs would not be the most appropriate either for the environment, or for the farms. One important point was the fact that the main BMPs promoted include a flushing system (dilution of manure to spray it in fields) that, to quote one of the farmers: Seems to be aimed at losing most of the N to the air instead of trying to use it as fertilizer. Besides, the promoted system requires a big investment and is fixed to a physical space. Why do they not promote a system, like the one in the northern part of the country that uses slurry (with minimum flushing) and gives the farmer the flexibility to apply it to different plots or even easily export it off the farm? The farmer offered a strong critique in this statement of the technical expertise of those in charge of designing and implementing BMPs. The producer apparently perceives that the system proposed simply postpones further regulation for the moment by converting a local negative externality into a diffuse global one. In essence, N is being spewed into the atmosphere instead recycling it for other uses. The other important point was the lack of understanding by those creating BMPs of the dairy farm as a whole system. One of the farmers mentioned that very capable people exist on the regulatory teams, but there is a lack of personnel with an interdisciplinary understanding of the dairy system. He has witnessed problems other dairies have had because the engineered designs did not take into account all the components of the system and their interactions. Indeed, he is aware that some BMPs are being revisited and redesigned after several failures have been detected. These two dairymen think that the soils are the main component in solving the N issue. They think that farms and regulatory agencies should work more aggressively with a focus on soils. They both believe there is a lack of soil scientists on the regulatory teams. The result is that regulatory agencies are not doing a good job protecting the environment taking into account soil dynamics. One of these farmers added that the

PAGE 75

53 regulatory agencies should clearly distinguish between real data and perception information regarding water pollution by N I am not completely sure if a real problem exists. Studies of the trends of N pollution are not completely conclusive. Nor do I recall were they conclusive in the case of the P issue in the Okeechobee area, where regulatory agencies imposed a limit of P run-off discharge lower than what common rainwater would have Some farmers hold a less than credible reputation of the FLDEP. This poor perception dates at least as far back as the years of regulation in the Okeechobee area. The loss of dairy farm livelihoods in that area was never proven conclusively to be the result of a tangible problem, at least in their minds. Another informant also corroborated this last point regarding mistaken regulation standards. The last two farmers mentioned apparently feel that precaution is not necessary and that only when science proves without a shadow of a doubt that something is harmful should regulations be imposed. These farmers apparently did not consider the notion that it might be too late for action by then. 3.3.2.2 Farmers who agree with regulations but criticize part of it Among respondents who agree with current regulations, some criticized some particular aspects related to the regulations. Two farmers mentioned that FLDEP fines farms without taking into account the climatic conditions that, for example, determine inevitably high N measurements in lysimeters when wet periods follow dry ones. Another point was the constant change of personnel in the regulatory agencies that could be disadvantageous to farmers. This is because over the years, officials become acquainted with specific farm situations. When new agents are hired, there is a period required for building-up new relationships and understanding site-specific problems. Besides this,

PAGE 76

54 new, usually young agents, tend to be more environmentally oriented. Often, they fail to grasp the fact that farmers also need to make a living. On the other hand there was also one farmer who criticized FLDEP and the regulations as being relaxed, implying that the regulations should be enforced more aggressively in order to avoid intervention by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He perceived EPA regulations and enforcement as potentially much stricter, which would be very difficult for all in the area. Another criticism of farmers who do agree with the regulations came from one farmer who believes that a third party plays a role too important in the regulations. This third party is a term used to refer to activist groups that raise public concerns about environmental issues. In this farmers opinion, FLDEP takes their opinions into consideration disproportionately. The argument was that these third parties have nothing to lose and that the FLDEP listens more to activist groups and the public, and takes farmers concerns and situations little into account. Other respondents corroborated the fact that the news media have a great impact on regulations and on FLDEP enforcement of regulations. In terms of regulations and enforcement, the opinion of one journalist could have a greater worth than the opinion of a number of farmers. Some other farmers, who in general agree with current regulations, mentioned their concerns about the scientific basis behind the requested technical actions, which may not be the most appropriate for specific farms. This is related to the previously mentioned perception that the regulatory agency is not looking at the overall system. One farmer expressed: some times it is easy for them to tell you what you have to do. But, usually

PAGE 77

55 they do not know how difficult it is to implement these actions, and what other impacts could result from implementing the management changes. Many of the farmers expressed their concerns regarding other non-point potential sources of pollution. The main argument was centered on challenging the fact that dairy farms are the most contaminating of all. They believe that this statement still needs to be proven, and in any case they ask why are not row crop farms, golf courses, human settlements, among others regulated in the same way as dairy, poultry or pig farms?. One farmer mentioned: they count every pound of N the cows excrete on this farm but they do not control the neighbors farm that uses two to three times more fertilizer than the recommended rates for vegetable crops. Another point mentioned by several farmers may have important implications for regulations. Many people are regularly moving to live in the countryside in Florida. Often, these newcomers find that they do not like the manure odors until after they are well established. Most farmers think that newcomers should be aware of what they are buying into, and expect and accept normal rural odors. However, there are a few farmers who actually believe that just because farmers were established first is not enough argument to disregard odor problems of newcomers and they should work trying to mitigate it. One farmer is convinced that in the future, odor problems, more than any other issue, will put his farm out of business. Farmers are also looking for permanence and consistency in the regulations. Some farmers are concerned about potential changes in the set of regulations that might turn out to be disastrous for their conditions. Farmers have learned to survive under current conditions as long as the FLDEP does not change the basic, initial guidelines. This fact is

PAGE 78

56 related to a concern expressed by several other farmers regarding the potential that regulations might become unreasonable or impossible to implement if they change. This eventuality is perceived as even more uncertain because farmers understand that the FLDEP follows directions from the EPA. Farmers feel a total disconnect from the federal agency. Almost all interviewed farmers agree that the compliance process with the regulatory agencies is not a money-making adventure. All are conscious that it costs money, but they have no choice but to comply. 3.3.2.3 Farmers who completely agree with regulations At least 33% of the 81% of producers that agree are completely at ease with the regulations. All of them believe that they are working towards a sustainable way of doing business. Thus, the regulations are perceived as a guarantee of survival in the long run. For many of them there is a history of success in north-Florida because of the cost-sharing program that is allowing them to work together with the research, extension, and regulatory agencies in searching for regional and site-specific solutions. One farmer mentioned: the Partnership and the incentive-based program in the Suwannee River Basin are wonderful things. These will help farmers to be better off in the future. Although many farmers realize that mistakes have been made in the past, they believe that all parties are learning from the experience and that everyone together is building expertise to protect the environment and keep farmers in business. From all these farms there is a sense of engagement in the program for protecting the environment that makes them proud and eager to implement environmental friendly practices even if they do not have an economic return. They believe in general that the regulations and mostly the participatory approach have been correct. Also, many of them

PAGE 79

57 appreciate the fact that the program is flexible and can be discussed with the regulatory agencies. One farmer mentioned that they are trying not only to comply with the current regulations, but are proactively seeking to exceed these regulations. This producer warns that he is not necessarily looking for a new set of rules, but rather embracing the regulations to become better stewards. This farmer predicts that FLDEP will be willing to face the public for a farmer if the farmer is on the right side at all times. This fact would be much more important in the future because regulations will become much stricter, not only in the dairy farm industry, but in all aspects of human life. This farmer feels farmers will be better prepared for those times thanks to the Partnerships efforts. 3.3.3 Perceptions of Climatic Technology Innovation Recent advances in atmospheric research have made it possible to predict climate variability with a relatively high level of probability. Knowledge of climatic conditions may allow improved seasonal management strategies for dairy production in Florida. Once again the opinions were divided. Of the 21 farmers interviewed, 14 (67%) mentioned that they would use improved forecast information, 5 (23%) would not use this technology, and 2 (10%) were not sure (Figure 3-2). 3.3.3.1 Farmers that would use long-term climatic forecast All 14 farmers who believe they would use improved long-term climate variation forecasts say that their main use of the information would be in planning crop systems. One producer mentioned he already uses ENSO phase information to plan the farms crops: I make decisions every year based on my beliefs of if the seasons will be dryer/wetter, cooler/hotter. For example, for winter, if I expect an El Nio, I will plant oats because they do well in moist conditions. If it will

PAGE 80

58 be a La Nia, I will choose rye because it handles drier conditions much better. Of course, I will always plant ryegrass and clover, no matter what the climate prediction This farmer thinks that forecasts would also be useful for adjusting planting dates in order to obtain better yields and more N uptake. He has yet to implement this management strategy. Another farmer also uses long-term forecasts but not based on ENSO phases. He relies instead on the experiential knowledge of an old, experienced person who predicts the up-coming seasons in terms of wetter/dryer and colder/warmer. This in turn determines the crops to be planted. This farmer was very interested in the ENSO forecast information and tools and inquired as to its availability. 14 % Do n t 100 % 36 % Climate Technology Would use Would not use 67 % 23 % Crop systems Livestoc k Non-flexible and/or satisfied with current system Other more important things to worry about Different crops/varieties Planting dates Area planted Drainage system Irrigation system Milking cow group rotation Breeding date planning Solids collection Not sure N utrient mg t Would like to have the forecasts Ag r 10 % Figure 3-2. Farmers perceptions of climate technology adoption In the same manner as the farmer who already uses ENSO forecasts, most of the farmers believe that the use of the forecast would be in crops. Mainly, the producers would use information for substituting crops in specific seasons and to change planting dates. For the winter season, oats and rye were mentioned several times as

PAGE 81

59 interchangeable crops. Most agreed that drier years (La Nia) are better for rye, and wetter years (El Nio) better for oats and/or ryegrass. However, some other producers mentioned that temperature is the most important variable, and that hotter winters with less chance of freezes (La Nia) would be better suited for oats. For the case of freezes, some farmers agree that if the prediction could address those events, they would be very useful because that would let them know how much crop production to expect in winter. Based on this they would adjust crop plans. For example, if there were going to be more than the typical 20-25 freeze days, winter forages would be affected. Therefore, they might plant more area in order to produce the required amounts of feed. Climate forecasts for the spring/summer season would be more beneficial for planning the planting date for corn. Those who plant corn say that the earlier you plant, the better the results. If farmers know there will be little risk of late freezes, they could plant as early as possible, for example in the first week of March. For the summer/fall season another important decision would be between planting a second crop of corn or sorghum. Farmers mentioned they would plant a sorghum crop if they know that drier than normal conditions are expected. Potential changes in choice of crops refer not only to different species, but also to cultivars within species. Some varieties have different responses to climate conditions. Farmers mentioned these possibilities without entering into specifics. Another group of informants mentioned an additional possible use of climate with respect to crops. One farmer mentioned they could use the prediction information to alter the area of planted crops. In wetter conditions area would increase. In drier seasons, less area would be sown. Another farmer mentioned that climate data would be useful for

PAGE 82

60 planning drainage systems, especially before a wetter summer. A further potential use mentioned was in planning irrigation systems management. Although these systems are mostly fixed, farmers could make some adjustments if they know what the seasonal climate would be like, especially regarding rainfall. Besides the use of forecasts for crops, another potential use of climate forecasts would be for the livestock. Three out of the fourteen interviewees who would use the forecast elaborated on this issue. One farmer mentioned that she could plan her cow rotations differently. Holstein cows are very sensitive to heat stress calculated by an index that takes temperature and humidity into account. When the index is high, in hot and humid months, milk production is affected negatively. If seasonal variability toward hot, humid conditions is known ahead of time they would be able to better plan the development of cow groups. This farm, like others, has comfort facilities where milking cows are protected from heat stress, that is, climate effect is diminished. However, on almost all farms, these milking cows spend part of their time outside. The farmer found it logical to think of planning ahead of time to provide the most protection time to the most productive group of cows. One more decision that could be managed in light of climate forecasts is breeding time. This would be done by changing the number of cows entering the milking group in a certain season according to the forecast. For example, if a mild summer were expected, then the farmer would breed the cows in time to have more milking cows than normal in production for that summer. Climate knowledge would allow higher than normal amounts of milk to be produced in summer. Similarly, decisions regarding purchases of replacements heifers could be improved based on expected climatic conditions.

PAGE 83

61 Typically, farmers buy replacements in fall. If spring or summer were going to be colder, they could take advantage to buy less expensive replacements before those seasons. An additional possible use of forecast mentioned for livestock was for the winter season. Specifically climate forecasts would be used to anticipate colder than normal winter seasons, which are also detrimental for the cows. In those situations, farmers could plan ahead of time to have more forage (either planted or purchased) available. Extra amounts of fiber would help cows stay warmer. Another two farmers mentioned the potential use of the forecasts for planning feedstocks. The inventory of feed is a major management task on dairy farms. Therefore, knowing the climatic conditions ahead of time would be important to preparing feedstocks (either produced or purchased). For example, one farmer mentioned that if he would know ahead of time that the next season is going to be dryer, he would plan to have more forage for his heifers and dry cows. The farmer mentioned additionally that not only would it be good to plan for feed shortages, but also to plan for excess feed produced. Too much feed on hand is also a problem. If the predicted conditions for next seasons are good for forage production, then producers could plan not to buy feed. They could also sell feed in advance, or decrease acreage planted. Additional to the use of forecast for crops and/or livestock, three farmers mentioned that the information could be used for improving N and P management on the farm. Waste management systems are mostly fixed, so considerable changes to this system is not an option. Farmers usually change daily management based more on daily weather than long-term climate, however there are some things that could be planned, as is the case of for example, of collecting or not collecting solids from the waste

PAGE 84

62 management system. These farmers mentioned that if they know that there will be wetter conditions, they would prefer to prepare the whole system to not collect solids because the pile of solids resulting from the collection would be difficult to handle under wetter conditions. This major change would determine that the effluent will have more solids in solution. Therefore, the irrigation must have higher pressure and the crops must be prepared to receive a slightly higher percent of N in the effluent. If they know that the conditions would be dryer than usual they would prepare to collect all the possible solids from the waste management system and together with this action they would plan what to do with these solids, apply to fields of the farm or export out of farm. 3.3.3.2 Farmers who would not use long-term climatic forecast Farmers that mention they would not use climate forecasts as a technology to help in decision-making argue that they have relatively fixed systems. In their rather tightlybound systems, no changes in management need be planned. One farmer mentioned: I am married to my system operation it works and I dont want to change anything that could mess things up. These farmers said that their decisions are based more on the short term. If they knew there was no rainfall predicted in the following week, they would cut hay. It is difficult for them to envision how they might change tasks months in advance. One producer noted: unless something as disastrous as a hurricane is forecast, I would not do anything different. Another farmer argued: we have much larger problems to worry about. When we solve those other problems we might start thinking about incorporating climate forecasts in our planning. Another farmer was very convinced that: We are not going to change anything even if we know that a very abnormal season is coming. Even then, we would continue to do as we

PAGE 85

63 always have, that is, adapt to the weather conditions, making changes to respond to the weather conditions Other farmers may share this farmers skeptical view of the technology. Those who are naturally averse to change or have not been exposed to new technologies will exist. 3.3.3.3 Farmers who are not sure they would use long-term climatic forecast The two farmers in this category had never previously thought about climate-related management changes. They mentioned that the entire concept was completely new to them, so they would need time to digest the idea. Initially, however, they were not sure if they could incorporate climate variability forecasts into their decision-making process. Both these farmers mentioned that, even though they did not know if they would use the technology, they would like to be aware of the forecast to consider it in regard to their performance in the following seasons. 3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations All stakeholders included in the Sondeo had a general consensus that growing N levels in the Suwannee River Basin is a real and current problem. However, stakeholders included in the focus groups, and especially dairy farmers challenged this fact during the personal interviews. People interviewed during the Sondeo showed more awareness of the real consequences of increased levels of N in water bodies. Dairy farmers and other stakeholders involved in the interviews and focus groups, even though they recognized that the presence of high levels of N is detrimental for the environment, showed a certain degree of skepticism regarding the gravity of the problem.

PAGE 86

64 Every effort needs to be made to communicate more clearly to the general public real trends of N in water bodies and their potential consequences. The message must be conveyed using consistent scientific data. Most of the informants perceived that dairy farms are the highest polluters. However, many stakeholders included in the Sondeo, focus groups, and interviews questioned this popular belief. Dairy farmers in particular, perceive that there is a misconception of the dairy farm industry and its environmental impact. Further research should be devoted to investigate the contribution to contamination from each potential source. It is important that individual operations be held accountable. Point vs. non point N source pollutions must be further studied. Analyses of long-term monitoring studies comparing different industries and their environmental impacts must be undertaken. Farmers are willing to participate in incentive-based programs such as those promoted by the Suwannee River Partnership. The principal driver behind this willingness is a desire to avoid being regulated by official agencies. The Suwannee River Partnership has a very positive perception and support from the stakeholders. Most of the stakeholders perceive that the promoted BMPs are beneficial to the environment but are not cost effective to the farms. Some farmers believe that the BMPs could be re-engineered to better serve their purposes according to specific farm conditions. Further research and validation of BMPs must be conducted. A guideline describing the steps to develop BMPs should be created, and an economic feasibility study on BMPs that takes heterogeneity of farms into account should also be conducted. Extra funds should be devoted to expanding the impacts of the Partnership.

PAGE 87

65 Farmers feel that environmental regulations are becoming stricter and more uncertain in time. These regulations represent one of the biggest challenges for the future. Farmers want to express that they are doing their best to protect the environment. A vast majority of them agree with current regulations but they have serious observations to make regarding the technical and administrative procedures. The Partnership is helping to change farmers attitudes, but still more communication and outreach work is needed to gain the complete understanding from farmers. Two-thirds of the interviewed farmers believe they can use climate variability forecast proactively. All of them would use it primarily for crop management. Additionally some could use it for livestock management. Some could use the seasonal climate variability information for feedstock management, and some could apply this technology to the management of the waste system. Further research calls for the inclusion of climate variability forecasts into existing BMPs experiments. Studies that explore the interaction between climate and nutrient overflow in dairy farm systems must be promoted. Farmers should be involved from the early stages of these research processes. The main barriers for potential adoption of climate forecast technology by farmers are the rigidity of dairy farms and the lack of management resources. Agencies interested in delivering climate forecasts as an innovation must identify the narrow niches where they may be used based on the experience of others. The technology should be translated into clear and rapid management adjustments that farmers could apply without involving excessive administrative transaction.

PAGE 88

66 The fact that some stakeholders have never before thought of the potential application of climate forecasts denotes a lack of awareness of available forecast innovations among the stakeholder community. Step one in any diffusion process, i.e., awareness of the existence of a given technology, is missing among dairy farmers in the study area. Commitment to extension and outreach programs that make this information available to all networks of stakeholders and especially to dairy farmers is essential to the future success of incorporating climate-based management into overall schemes to reduce N loading into the environment. The participative process described in this study underscores the critical need to include farmers and other major stakeholders in every stage in order to assess real perceptions that further will be used for consensual problem-solving. Its relevance is even higher when complex problems exist as is the case of the interactions of N pollution, its regulations, and the potential use of climate forecasts as a way of mitigate them.

PAGE 89

CHAPTER 4 A METHOD FOR BUILDING CLIMATE VARIABILITY INTO FARM MODELS: PARTICIPATORY MODELING OF NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARM SYSTEMS 4.1 Introduction Much work has been published on the mathematical description of models and model outputs. Conversely, little effort has been invested to date to describe a process of stakeholder interaction or participatory modeling that might be essential for increasing adoptability of models among end users. Models are often created to simulate real conditions, predict potential outcomes, and ultimately be a tool used by stakeholders. Many models have failed in this last requirement because they do not represent the conditions relevant to stakeholders nor do they comply with requirements of the final users for simplicity and user-friendliness. Substantial changes must be incorporated into all phases of model development to improve end-user adoption. One important aspect required is intensive and effective participation of all stakeholders (Stoorvogel et al., 2004). This study highlights the use of stakeholder interaction methodologiesoriginally developed for use in international rural developmentto first gauge the need for, then refine these management products and tools. Working with stakeholders in a learning process involving as many feedback loops as necessary will increase the probability of higher adoption rates. The traditional system analytic approach emphasizes the importance of quantitative modeling, rational planning, and economic analysis. This is closely linked with operational research that looks for optimal solutions for complex problems (Rosenhead, 67

PAGE 90

68 1989). However, the application of traditional system analytical methods to complex societal and policy problems has not always been helpful because problems of validation and because the absence of adequate social scientific theories and empirical data (Stoorvogel et al., 2004; Jones et al., 1997). One efficient way to elicit up-to-date and high quality empirical data is through stakeholder interaction (Geurtz and Joldersma, 2001). During the 1980s, systems analysts realized that much of the understanding of the problem is generated in the process of model building; consequently, participation of the stakeholders in the model building process is useful (Geurtz and Joldersma, 2001). Therefore, the participation of the potential final users should enable the researcher to enrich the model by including subjective sources of knowledge in addition to the objective knowledge derived from theories and empirical studies (Geurtz and Vennix, 1989; Verburgh, 1994). Systems approaches at the farm scale must include not only the biophysical component, but also the social, economic, political environment of the farm together with a bottom-up approach (Jones et al., 1997). Development in methods of modeling analysis and in practice shows a shift from a uni-central, analytic, scientific approach to a more multi-central, interactive stakeholder approach. These shifts are accompanied by a growing interest in participatory styles of policy making and participatory methods of policy analysis. The application of the participatory methods generally follows the paths of logic-in-use, which shows the need for a methodology for participatory policy analysis (Geurtz and Joldersma, 2001).

PAGE 91

69 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) describes a growing family of approaches and methods to enable local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act. PRA has sources in activist participatory research, agro-ecosystem analysis, applied anthropology, field research on farming systems, and rapid rural appraisal (RRA). Natural resource management (NRM) and agriculture are fields in which PRA finds applications (Chambers, 1994). Farming systems research (FSR) advocates for interdisciplinary/participatory approaches to deal with farm scale simulations (Norman and Collison, 1985). Nevertheless, some authors have pointed out that FSR is often location specific and descriptive (Dent and McGregor, 1994; Jones et al., 1997). An alternative approach is to study the complete regional production system in close interaction with farmers. Vereijken (1997) developed prototyping as an alternative to the more model-oriented and farming system approaches. Prototyping procedures have a participatory character of scientists directly collaborating with farmers. Simulation-aided discussion about crop management has underpinned advances in farming systems analysis as a vehicle for management intervention (Keating and McCown, 2001). Similarly, McCown (2001) and Hammer et al. (2000) both argue that connectivity and dialogue among key players is essential for achieving relevant and significant intervention. In this sense, the dialogue around the simulation process could be as important as the underpinning models, although it is clearly reliant on their existence and influenced by their reliability (Nelson et al., 2002). Meinke et al. (2000); Robertson et al. (2000); Keating and McCown (2001); and Meinke et al. (2001) provide examples of participatory approaches using simulations to drive relevant and significant

PAGE 92

70 results. These approaches are not about science simply providing the answers for management to practitioners, but rather employing cooperative learning to develop solutions (Nelson et al., 2002). Direct participatory action research with farmers has helped establish credibility of models and simulation analyses (Meinke et al., 2001). According to Archer et al. (2002) if the model simulation software is created for farmers, extension agents, and/or farm advisers, it should be designed to be user-friendly and to require minimum data inputs. Also, Archer et al. (2002) argue that it is not only important that the model be able to predict what is required, but also to make the predictions quickly and easily, in a readily accessible form, for site-specific conditions, in real time. Both the participatory and the user-friendly approach were used as the methodological basis for developing a climate-influenced dairy farm model for North-Florida. The benefits of involving farmers in research to encourage engagement and learning for scientists and farmers are well documented (Paine et al., 2002; Onema et al., 2001). North-Floridas climate is highly affected by El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (OBrien, 1999). Since agriculture is the activity most vulnerable to climate variability (Hansen, 2002b), farmers might benefit from new methods of seasonal climate forecasts connected to system simulation models to tailor management options regarding agricultural, economical, and/or environmental outputs. Intensive technologies offer a broad range of options for adaptive responses to climate information (Hammer et al., 2000). Dairy production in sub-tropical north-Florida is a very intensive system. The Southeastern Climate Consortium (formerly Florida Consortium) was created as an interdisciplinary, multi-institutional partnership involving researchers from 6 universities

PAGE 93

71 in the states of Florida, Georgia and Alabama. The research group found that it is critical to involve stakeholders actively from the beginning of a process to understand the effects of climate variability on water and agriculture. Agencies with strong established relationships and trust with end-users must be engaged to improve the chances of delivering operational applications of climate information to final users (Jagtap et al., 2002). One such application to emerge is the dairy model whose development process is the subject of this paper. It is not the aim of this paper to describe the mathematics of a dairy farm model. The main aim is to describe the process of collaborative creation of a regional north-Florida dairy farm model adaptable to any individual farm. The purpose of the model is to tailor management strategies for different climatic conditions by estimating monthly rates of N leaching and profit. An overriding objective of the model as expressed by stakeholders was to decrease environmental impacts while maintaining profitability. Specifically, the study sought to engage stakeholders in the process of creating, calibrating, and validating a whole north-Florida dairy farm model (Figure 4-1). 4.2 Materials and Methods The study was undertaken in north-Floridas Suwannee River Basin, covering part or all of Alachua, Gilchrist, Levy, Lafayette, and Suwannee counties. An adaptation of the emerging approach in Farming Systems Research and Extension presented by Bastidas, 2001 (Figure 4-2) was used. Interviews and focus group meetings were carried out on a continuous basis, divided into five phases. Phase One consisted of the initial developments. Phase Two was about the sounding out or rural appraisal. Phase Three consisted of greater stakeholder involvement. Phase Four included meetings and interviews to elicit feedback from stakeholders on the prototype model. And in phase

PAGE 94

72 Five, the tentative final model was taken to stakeholders for the validation, their final suggestions, and recommendations. PrototypeModel Farmers Regulatory Agents Extension Agents University Faculty Final Model Researchers Figure 4-1. Schematic of participatory modeling 4.2.1 Main Framework In Figure 4-2, all stakeholders involved in the issue of N pollution in groundwater by dairy farms are referred to as users. Users must be identified and their differences recognized. Diverse users have specific and diverse needs. These needs must be identified and considered before starting the modeling/simulation process. PRA methods are ideal for initiating and maintaining high stakeholder involvement. This can be characterized as a continuous learning process. In Figure 4-2, arrows among users, needs, and PRA indicate the iterative and dynamic process among researchers and stakeholders to determine felt needs that must be incorporated in the modeling. A following step includes the integration, creation, and improvement of models. Once again, the arrows indicate the iterative and dynamic

PAGE 95

73 researcher-stakeholder process to improve models in order to make them more amenable to final users. Inclusion of prototype models during this time is useful. The process in which adjustments to models are made in order to better represent reality is called calibration. Because it is a continuous process, calibration moves seamlessly into validation when fewer and fewer major changes are required. Validation is the part of the process that is undertaken after researchers and stakeholders agree the model fits real conditions adequately. At this point testing models against independent data, i.e., data from stakeholders who had not participated in the creation of the original models is used. Figure 4-2. Methodology of participatory modeling. Source: Adapted from Bastidas (2001), p. 19. After final adjustments and validation, a final product flexible enough to fit the diversity of all users is the goal of the interactive process. Because it has been a

PAGE 96

74 participatory product, higher than normal adoption is expected along with higher than ordinary usefulness. 4.2.2 The Sondeo A rapid rural appraisal or Sondeo (Hildebrand, 1981) was conducted between the months of January and February 2003 by a multidisciplinary team of eight graduate students from the University of Florida (Alvira et al., 2003). During the Sondeo 13 stakeholders were interviewed. This sounding out was undertaken to get a better understanding of the broad issue of N pollution in water. Another objective was to understand the dairy farm systems in the Suwannee River Basin and initially identify the type of modeling products that might be helpful for proactive management in light of climate variability forecasts. The Sondeo team consisted of graduate students from a number of disciplines including agronomy, animal science, agricultural extension, natural resource management, forestry, and community development. Two to three-people teams conducted transects and stakeholders interviews. The interviews were conducted as informal, open-ended conversations. After a team introduced itself and explained the subject of the research, the stakeholder and the team conversed about any aspects of the topic that were relevant. This open-ended approach enabled topics to emerge and be pursued that might have been missed if the researchers had been constrained by a pre-formulated questionnaire. Despite the open-endedness, a set of core themes was discussed in almost all interviews. Notes were not taken. Following each interview the partners wrote individual notes, compared them, and then wrote a joint report of the interview. Finally, these joint reports were shared and thoroughly discussed among all Sondeo members. Each team presented its findings, which could be clarified, challenged

PAGE 97

75 or contrasted with the results of the other teams. This process of reporting and discussion served as the opportunity to begin noting trends, gaps in information and new questions to be pursued. 4.2.3 Interviews Personal interviews were undertaken by the researcher with dairy farmers and/or dairy farm managers during the fall/winter seasons of the years 2003-2004. Open-ended interviews (Bernard, 1994) were undertaken with a purposeful sample of 24 farmers (~35% of population) with the main aim of engaging these actors. Specific operation information was elicited and obtained as feedback in the modeling process. The sample size and the people to be interviewed were chosen in order to obtain as much of the existing variability as possible. Selection of participants was done in a participatory manner with the coordination of the Suwannee River Partnership (SRP) and the University of Florida Extension offices in the area. Interviews started with the presentation of either the prototype or the final model on a laptop computer. A voice recorder was used in every interview after requesting permission. The first step was to explain the purpose of the visit and then to provide a general description of the model. This was followed by a detailed explanation of every component in the model, including those that were as yet not active, and their mechanics. After discussing similarities and differences between the model and the farmers specific production units, a demonstration of the running of the model was presented and discussed. Later, dairymen had the opportunity to input their specific data and run the model for their own specific conditions. Similarities and differences with what farmers expected were recorded and taken into account. If observations were easy to adjust for, they were

PAGE 98

76 tried on-the-fly, taking advantage of the user-friendliness of the models interface. If specific comments would require more work, they were incorporated in the lab and tested in later interviews. Interviews highlighted farmers reactions to the models. All possible suggestions to be incorporated in the models were taken into account in successive steps. Two rounds of interviews were conducted. Twenty-one farmers observed the prototype model in October-November of 2003. In February-March 2004, the definitive model was used for validation purposes with 3 farmers. 4.2.4 Focus Groups Eight focus groups (Bernard 1994; Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990) with stakeholders were held between November 2002 and February 2004 in the study area. Focus groups consisted of open discussions among 5 to 15 persons. A stakeholder in coordination with the researcher called these meetings. The researcher facilitated the meetings around the different topics of research. The first two focus groups did not include any model as a basis for discussion. Rather, because the creation of a prototype model was suggested and encouraged during the second focus group, one was created and became the focal point for discussion in all groups save the last. In the last focus group, the final model was discussed. Focus group participants ranged from specialists from official agencies such as the Suwannee River Partnership (SRP, www.mysuwanneeriver.com/features/suwannee+ river+partnership), the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD, http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FLDEP, http://www.dep.state.fl.us), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, http://www.usda.gov) Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS,

PAGE 99

77 http://www.fl.nrcs.usda.gov), the University of Florida IFAS Cooperative Extension Service (CES, extension.ifas.ufl.edu), to private sector companies, technicians and farmers. These participants were usually called to a meeting by the Suwannee River Partnership and/or by extension agents of different counties in the research area. Focus groups lasted between two and three hours and their main purpose was to listen to feedback on the modeling process and to actively increase involvement and diffusion of the research to a more target public. 4.2.5 Other Stakeholder Interactions The principal researcher approached many other stakeholders between fall 2002 and spring 2004 in order to receive additional inputs into the modeling process. Initially, the discussion centered on the intended idea of a proposed simulation methodology. In a second phase, the discussion was based on the prototype model. Finally, interaction with the clientele was based on the final model and its final tune-ups. These interactions were meetings with specialists in the issue of the N leaching and the dairy industry and included private consultants, officials from regulatory agencies, and university faculty, among many others. 4.2.6 Analysis of Information All participatory interactions were recorded, classified, organized, analyzed, and described. The feedback received was included in the modeling process in one way or another in successive steps. This paper summarizes the results of all the above interactions in a descriptive/narrative manner. Names of the participants and some organizations and companies are not revealed to protect the anonymity of interviewees. A summary of stakeholder interactions can be found in Table 4-1.

PAGE 100

78 4.3 Results and Discussion Results of interactions are described in five phases that detail the iterative process, step by step, of creating, calibrating, and validating the dynamic north-Florida dairy farm model, DNFDFM with participation of stakeholders. This process is summarized in Figure 4-3. Figure 4-3. Phases of the participatory modeling for creating the DNFDFM 4.3.1 Phase One: Initial Developments In July 2002, four well-known scientists in Florida, each from a different discipline, were approached looking for specific information and at the same time ideas about the original research idea. The scientists were from the areas of forages on dairy farms, dairy waste management, soils, and crop modeling, respectively. During this first exploration, confidence was gained in the fact that most of the soil series in Florida are contained in a database that could be accessible to use in later phases of the research (G. Kidder, pers.

PAGE 101

79 comm.). Also, the current system of crop models contained in the Decision Support System for Agricultural Transfer (DSSAT) (Jones et al., 2003) would be ideal to use in the research for the estimation of N leaching according to climate variability, after major adjustments. Furthermore, it was known of the existence of a growing body of research related to environmental issues and dairy farms in Florida and north-Florida that the study should take advantage of (annual reports on water quality from the SRWMD, basins status report from DEP, water resources investigation series from the USGS, water quality assessments from the EPA, studies on natural resources management from the NRCS, among others). Above all, important contact information with end users and other stakeholders was gained that would be needed in the following phases. In August 2002, a telephone conversation was held with a dairy farm manager to get an initial grasp of the N issue on dairy farms and how it is potentially affected by climatic variability. The conversation was enlightening in capturing the sensitivity of dairy farmers to the issue of N pollution and the need for alternative ways to estimate environmental accountability of dairy farms. This manager set forth the notion that climate variability would have little effect on livestock performance. However climatic variability was thought to have a very high impact on forage field yields. In September 2002, 3 contacts were made with soil scientists working in the study area in a project regarding N pollution from farm activities, including dairy farms (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2004). These scientists provided further contacts and references to add to the research. Additionally, suggestions from the contacts led to one-day field visits and participation in the collection of soil and water samples was achieved through the contacts suggestions. This last task was very

PAGE 102

80 important to help understand the methodology being used in current experiments and the implications that results might have on the modeling process. During September and October, stakeholders in the research area were contacted for the first time to get them acquainted with the research project and, most of all, to get them involved in the project. Stakeholders whose farms were located in the heart of the research area, the middle Suwannee River Basin, were very receptive to the idea because environmental degradation from dairy farms is an issue that is very much on the agenda of official agencies. Contacts included members of the SRP and CES agents. During the first contact a verbal idea together with a small paragraph of intention was handed to the stakeholders. Discussions were based on an initial idea. While support for the main idea was expressed, a fuller understanding of the research was still lacking. Nevertheless, the general reaction on the part of stakeholders was let us begin and involve more stakeholders so we can all better understand the project and define further steps. This was the beginning of a very rich feedback loop process with stakeholders. In November 2002 the first focus group was held in the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) at Live Oak. The SRP called the meeting officially and 6 people attended. Attendees included members of the SRWMD, the SRP, and the CES. This meeting was critical to understand the interests that all sides had in the project and where the project was heading. It was agreed that there were commonalities between the proposed work and current work already underway within the Partnership. Interest existed in supporting the research and benefiting from the outputs. Specifically, the group committed to contacting farmers and convincing them to participate in the research. It was agreed that a purposeful sample of 20 farms (out of 64 in the area) would be enough

PAGE 103

81 to get acquainted with the diversity present in these systems. The stakeholders all agreed that the researcher should prepare a short document explaining the potential outcomes of the research together with a list of topics to be included in interviews. Topics could be handed to farmers ahead of time in order to gain insights even before the interviews were conducted. A time limit of one hour for interviews was established because dairy farmers are really busy people and they dont have much time. The protection of the anonymity of participants was set forth as a must because the nitrate issue is very sensitive. Neither farmers nor their management practices regarding estimations of waste should be identified in the work. Also in November 2002, a visit to a dairy farm and an informal interview with its owner was conducted to gain general insights of the dairy farm systems, the recycling of nutrients, and the potential to benefit from climatic forecasts. This visit was very instructive to understand activities that are dynamically happening in the system and that can be represented by simulation models. The owner highlighted the fact that the farm was following environmentally friendly practices suggested by regulatory agencies. 4.3.2 Phase Two: The Sondeo The very participatory and interdisciplinary approach revealed many characteristics that needed to be incorporated into the participatory modeling process. Background information indicated that ten years ago an increase in nitrate concentration was recognized by the SRWMD in the middle Suwannee River Basin (Hornsby et al., 2002a). Sondeo results found that it was believed that if the problem were not solved, there would be a time when the government would impose regulations. Regulations were perceived as one of the main drivers for farmers to uptake Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Katz and Bohlke, 2000). If regulatory measures had been imposed at that time, some farmers

PAGE 104

82 would not have been able to comply. This could have forced them out of business as happened earlier with some dairy farmers in the Lake Okeechobee area of southern Florida (Alvira et al., 2003). The SRP was formed to determine the sources of N loads in the basin, and to work with local users to minimize future nutrient loading through voluntary, incentive-based programs. The Partnership works under a non-regulatory, preventative approach, through monitoring pollution, education, promotion, and adoption of BMPs (FLDEP, 2001). Informants in the Sondeo generally recognized that the problem of the increase in nitrate concentration in the middle Suwannee River Basin was very evident and that dairy farming was perceived as the most contaminating activity. Even though farmers were aware of the presence of nutrient contamination, they had differing views on the primary source of contamination (point versus non-point source pollution) and potential effects on human health (Alvira et al., 2003). The SRP group is focusing on finding the most economically and technologically feasible management techniques (BMPs) available to help farmers and other land users to satisfy regulatory requirements for protecting public health and the environment. These management practices mainly include nutrient and manure management, irrigation water, technical design and engineering aspects in dairy farming (Suwannee River Partnership, 2004b). By large, the concerned stakeholders see BMPs as research-generated solutions to reduce potential environmental hazards from farm enterprises. From the simulation point of view, modeling would be in essence an opportunity to help these stakeholders to experimentally test BMPs without disturbing the actual dairy farms. Simulation could reproduce farm conditions and test the environmental and economic impacts of intervention, without risking the normal functioning of a farm. Outputs of the

PAGE 105

83 simulations could be used to verify technical viability of BMPs before their implementation by state, federal, and private agencies. Adopting BMPs may help farmers to remain in business, which is critical to stakeholders. However, initial investment in BMPs, even though costs could be shared with official agencies, can be cumbersome (DEP, 2001; Ribaudo et al., 2003). Therefore, it is important that the proposed practices to protect the environment be cost effective taking into account that dairy farmers first will look for survival strategies and then for good stewardship, just as any other enterprise. This last statement would have great implications in the modeling process since the economic outputs of the whole farm would be vital in determining which practices a north-Florida dairy could implement as a technological choice. It was commonly agreed by participants in the Sondeo (Alvira et al., 2003) that the model must have an important economic component and this component must be taken into consideration for potential proposed practices. The Sondeo team had several interesting findings. It concluded that Perceived benefits exist in implementing BMPs However no data exist to support the fact that BMPs are economically and ecologically viable in the long run for farmers Further research and validation of BMPs needs to be conducted A guideline describing the steps to developing BMPs is needed An economic feasibility study on BMPs that takes heterogeneity of farm sizes and types into account also merits research Further research should be devoted to investigate the contribution to contamination from each potential source or to investigate the point-source pollution sources that make each party accountable for their contribution to the overall problem.

PAGE 106

84 The powerful implications mentioned in the above paragraph definitively implied the development of the modeling work in successive steps. First, BMPs require validation. The model or the models would help in this task. Second, the simulation has to be performed in a way that incorporates diversity of farms and allows for individual farm analysis as complete and separate units. 4.3.3 Phase Three: Greater Stakeholder Involvement In February 2003, 3 dairy farms in the study area were visited. From these visits the components of a dairy system in north-Florida to be used in the model took shape. All dairies have a livestock component, forage fields, feed facilities, and some means of disposing of waste produced by confined cows. Some differences exist on specifics, e.g., some farms do not raise heifers or some farms raise more forage crops than others. Nevertheless, it was believed that common components could be found in order to represent all north-Florida diaries in one general model that could be adjusted for any peculiarities to represent specific farms. Farmers noted the only thing dairy farmers have in common is that they all produce milk other than that they can be very different. Also in February 2003, a second focus group with eight stakeholders was held. This meeting was very powerful for the next advances in the research. First, a deeper discussion on the climate component was achieved. These key stakeholders felt that uncertainty and low accuracy in climate (or seasonal) variability forecasts could create problems in the models. It was proposed that a way to handle uncertainty and low skill forecasts was to present results in a probabilistic way. However, a consensus of farmers was that they wanted to have outputs available in as simple a form as possible. It was agreed by all that deterministic results would be the default output but an option to also

PAGE 107

85 see results under other climatic scenarios would be created. If for example an El Nio prediction exists, the model should present the results for an El Nio year. Additionally, an option to present results in case it is not an El Nio year but La Nia or Neutral is necessary. It was argued that not all El Nio years are the same in intensity so there should be a distribution of results instead of just one outcome. Farmers counter-argued to be very careful not to over-complicate the already existing uncertainty. They warned that if it happened, farmers would lose interest. It was during this discussion that that a producer proposed that a probabilistic distribution should instead be applied to milk prices in the economic portion of the model. Farmers clearly understood that there is no true factor that explains price variations and they are in fact, stochastic. Another important point of this second focus group was that the participants better understood the research idea and found similarities between it and the nutrient budgeting approach that the Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) is using for planning environmental accountability (NRCS, 2001). The NRCS was invited to become involved with the research project and also participate actively in order avoid duplicate efforts. Also in this meeting it was re-affirmed that user-friendliness of the model is extremely important. It is also very important to stakeholders that the model(s) be easily adaptable to different farms because no two dairy farms are the same. Another important decision was taken during this meeting. A stakeholder, supported by all others including the researcher, suggested that a prototype model be created to clearly show what it was intended to accomplish. The idea was to have a prototype model to use as a tool for increasing farmer and other stakeholder involvement.

PAGE 108

86 The model should be constructed in a user-friendly manner so that it could be shaped and molded through further stakeholder interaction. Finally, farmers encouraged continuing with the work, since they were beginning to see how they could benefit from the final product. They mentioned that they could directly test BMPs on their system and that this would be useful to them. Large dairy farms that usually do not participate in cost-share programs might see the advantage of decreasing potential risk of fines from regulations. Additionally, dairy people were eager to see the economic impacts of any potential management changes. At the beginning of March 2003 a meeting with a private consulting company was held. The company worked with some dairies in north-Florida on the N issue. They prepared compliance reports, advised farms on how to decrease environmental concerns, and carried out experiments to gain more insights on the pollution issue. Company professionals quickly understood the aims of the research. The consulting firm expressed its interest in the outputs and was willing to share their expertise and information for the creation of the simulation models. Furthermore they provided other important contacts. Both companies suggested the research might benefit from the incorporation of a hydrological-soil model called GLEAMS that stands for Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems (Leonard et al., 1987). This would facilitate the estimation of N leaching in the soil. This idea was later aborted because crop models would be used, however the consideration is worthwhile to mention. This meeting with the private consultants highlighted 3 other important points. These were the incorporation of the climate component, the economic module, and contact with another network of stakeholders. The consultants agreed that climatic

PAGE 109

87 variability would affect dairy farm outputs through its effect on crops. According to their experience, even when crops are irrigated, they respond to rainfall patterns and temperature. The incorporation of crop models would be extremely important for taking these responses into account. Private consultants also mentioned that if the research includes a strong economic module, it would be an important addition. Inclusion of this module might be sufficient to gain farmers attention and eventual adoption of the models. Finally it should be noted that the consultants regularly promote and participate in a network of stakeholders on the nutrient issue. An invitation to form part of these meetings was extended. On a monthly basis meetings are held and novel aspects of the nutrient problem are discussed. Also during March 2003, a third focus group was held, this time at the facilities of the NRCS-USDA in Gainesville, FL. A discussion based on the research proposal was opened and specialists were able to input their expertise. Three professionals very knowledgeable on the topic agreed that the research was relevant even though a similar product, The WATNUT software (NRCS, 2001) or Worksheets for Water Budget and Nutrient Management), already existed. They clearly understood that the research was going beyond the WATNUT application because it would have dynamic, economic, and user-friendly components that are not included in WATNUT. The USDA researchers expressed a willingness to work collaboratively in order to obtain a relevant final product. Researchers provided literature and the WATNUT v 2.0 software for use as a baseline on the modeling enterprise. At the end of March 2003, a second meeting with the private consulting company was held. During this meeting the company provided a CD with detailed information of

PAGE 110

88 several years of experiments on a dairy farm in the study area. The CD contained spreadsheets with records of experiments on waste handling and crop systems. This information is not published and was delivered under the consent of the dairy owner. All this information was a very useful reference for the further modeling process. 4.3.4 Phase Four: The Prototype Model In May 2003, a fourth focus group was held in Live Oak, FL with the participation of 6 people. The prototype Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM) was presented for the first time. Specialists, extensionists, and technicians participating were impressed with the model performance, considering it was still a prototype. The following adjustments were suggested before the model should be presented to more dairy farmers: Improve the visuals, including more figures and visual aids that would attract farmers attention Use clear labels for the different components and if possible reduce the number of cells to make it easier for farmers to understand Slow down the run so it could easily be tracked by farmers Put money components in green and the N leaching in red to call farmers attention Include number of times cows are being milked in a day It was suggested that after the adjustments the prototype be shown to a list of suggested producers. They would provide rich feedback. In May the model and its documentation were discussed with a specialist at the University of Florida. The main suggestion was that it should be presented at a scientific meeting because the framework could be useful for many people and there could be very interesting feedback that could be incorporated in the final model. In this way, types of stakeholders involved in

PAGE 111

89 providing feedback to models would be expanded beyond farmers, extension agents, government agents and private consultants to the scientific community. In July 2003, the fifth focus group was held in Mayo. Seven people participated, including 4 farmers, 2 extension agents, and 1 technician. The prototype model was presented and explained. A number of unanticipated uses were suggested for the model such as to keep economic records and as an accounting tool. One farmer, especially interested in the work, asked to input his own data into the model to see how well it would perform. After running the model he took a hand-held calculator and started making calculations to compare with the model outputs. The farmer put forth several questions for general discussion. The farmer finally concluded that the model output numbers were reasonably good and that he would like to see more and would be glad to work directly in calibrating and validating the model. Many suggestions were collected at this important meeting. Among them: The model was estimating that the number of replacements should be between 60 and 70% of the adult cow total. The correct range should be between 50 and 60% The model was estimating that the number of freshening cows was about the same the year round, however in reality roughly 60% of births occurs between August and December, so that seasonality should be incorporated Farmers thought that prices received for milk were overestimated in the model since official prices were used. The model should use mailbox prices that farmers would be glad to provide Farmers liked the stochastic component in the prices, but asked if it would be possible to have the option for the user to choose between fixed and stochastic prices for the final model It was realized that not all the options of crop/forage sequences were included in the model. These should be in the final version It was also suggested that the confined time milking cows spend on concrete should be divided by seasons since this changes with conditions through the year

PAGE 112

90 The model required input of specific cow categories before starting. This process was overly time consuming. Farmers wanted to be able to obtain similar results with less input data The model raised all heifers on farm. Farmers suggested the option to not raise or only raise part of the heifers on farm Even though most of the cattle used in the area are Holstein, the model should incorporate an option to handle other breeds In August 2003, the sixth and in September 2003, the seventh focus groups were held at the county extension offices of Suwannee and Lafayette counties, respectively. At the Suwannee meeting a great deal about crop and forage rotations was learned and noted to take into account in the model. At the Lafayette meeting, a group of 5 farmers, a technician and, an extension agent participated. Once again feedback was elicited and collected. The main suggestions were There is a need to clearly include all options of crop/forage rotations in the study area. It was agreed that the stakeholders would make a comprehensive list of practices The prototype model included only sprayfields where effluent was applied, however dairy farms have many pastures where dry cows, heifers and milking cows (when not confined) graze and deposit manure directly and these should also be incorporated in the model The model should maintain an already existing option that lets the user input specific data regarding N content of the manure effluent at different points of the handling system In September 2003, a specialist in climate applications to reduce risk in agriculture from the Southeast Climate Consortium had the opportunity of seeing the prototype model and to input relevant ideas. Input regarding how to incorporate the climatic component using crop models from the DSSAT family (Decision Support System for Agricultural Transfer; Jones et al., 2003) was obtained. These function with daily weather data. In order to incorporate this component in the model, climate would

PAGE 113

91 be analyzed for a long time series (50 years) and results would be classified by ENSO phase (OBrien, 1999). Years would be divided into El Nio, La Nia, and Neutral year categories. An important contribution obtained was that crop models should be pre-run and organized in a database, then incorporated in the dairy farm model. Table 4-1. Stakeholder interactions, suggestions and changes made to model Date Interaction Format Participants Changes Suggested and Incorporated July 2002 Interaction 4 UF Scientists Use soil series data Use DSSAT August 2002 Interview 1 farm manager Climate important for crop yields September 2002 Interview 3 soil scientists Participate in sample collections September-October 2002 Interviews 3 farmers Involve other farmers November 2002 1 st Focus group 6 stakeholders Use 20-farm sample One-hour limit to interviews November 2003 Dairy farm visit 1 farmer Main components of a dairy farm Jan.-Feb. 2003 Sondeo 13 stakeholders Take heterogeneity of farm sizes and types into account. Use model to test economic feasibility of BMPs February 2003 Dairy farm visit 3 owners Diversity stressed February 2003 2 nd Focus group 8 stakeholders Deterministic outputs requested March 2003 Meeting with private consulting company 2 consultants Importance of crop models, economic module and climate component March 2003 3 rd Focus group 3 people WATNUT offered as data March 2003 Private consulting company 2 consultants Waste management and experimental data provided May 2003 4 th Focus group 6 stakeholders Improve visuals. Slow down runs. Use color. Follow herd flow July 2003 5 th Focus group 7 stakeholders Adjust replacement and freshening coefficients. Raise heifers off farm. Reduce prices. Use deterministic prices as well. Include more crop sequences August 2003 6 th Focus group 5 stakeholders Include more crop rotations September 2003 7 th Focus group 5 stakeholders Include all sprayfields. Need a place to input N data September 2003 Meeting 1 Climate specialist Refined use of DSSAT with daily weather data September 2003 Meeting 2 Dairy Specialists Importance of user friendliness October 2003-January 2004 Meetings Farmers Outputs in tables and graphs. All coefficients calibrated February 2004 8 th Focus Group 8 stakeholders Keep model in Excel. Keep model user friendly. Use Markov chain flow model Also in September 2003, a meeting with two dairy specialists was held to discuss the implications of the model and to gain more access with farmers in other counties. During this meeting it was suggested that a component similar to N should be incorporated for P in the final model. After discussion of the scope of the study and the importance of concentrating only on the current problem (N), it was agreed that the

PAGE 114

92 current model could provide a useful framework for P in future research. The fact that user-friendliness had to be maintained at all cost and that the final model would be an important tool for farmers was emphasized. The specialists offered to arrange contacts with stakeholders from other counties, mostly Alachua, Gilchrist, and Levy, all in the Suwannee River Basin. In the first round of interviews with farmers many feedback points already discussed during previous focus groups were repeated. Farmers encouraged continuing with the dynamic simulation in monthly steps instead of weekly or yearly. Also, user-friendliness was again highlighted in all. Farmers and extensionists were surprised that the model could be handled in a program that most of them frequently use, Excel Producers asked that the use of Excel be maintained because that would insure that they themselves would be able to use the model. Two interviewed mentioned that they would use the model as a complement to tools they already possess for their nutrient balance (Van Horn et al., 1998; NRCS, 2001). The opinions regarding the use of climatic information to change management strategies were split. About 67% of interviewees believed that they could proactively use climatic variation information for decreasing N leaching and/or increasing profitability. Farmers who favored the use of climate forecasts were inclined to include it as a user choice option. The interviews were very useful for sensitivity analysis and calibration of the model since all the different conditions observed in these varied farms were run in the model. In the same way, hard data such as number of cows, size of land, type of waste management systems, crop systems, etc. were recorded for future modeling use.

PAGE 115

93 4.3.5 Phase Five: The Final Model A new model was built taking in account all possible previous suggestions of stakeholders and the prototype experience. Four main components were new and all the rest were completely revisited. The new components were The Markov-chain probabilistic simulation of the cow flow The climate forecast interface The crop models, and The optimization module that helps in decision making These new components were included in response to needs expressed during the many meetings. With the incorporation of feedback from all stakeholders, the new model began to take shape. This did not end the participation process, rather, interaction continued as actively as during the first phases. The farmers suggested that a forage crop specialist from the University of Florida should be incorporated in the discussions. A meeting was held and the sequences of forages were completely determined in their final form to be included in the model. It included the list of sequences tillage options, the intercropping options, and the harvesting choices. Between September and November 2003 a new cow-flow model was created with help and feedback from a dairy science professor who was able to validate it for North-Florida conditions. Intense work on climate and crop models started in order to incorporate them into the main shield or interface of the north-Florida dairy farm model. Because the detailed nature intrinsic to this phase work, more specialized people were contacted for feedback at this time. Between October 2003 and January 2004, some 10 meetings were held and several contacts made by email. Even though during this time no model was presented, contacts were already aware on the project behind it and were able to collaborate. Input was provided not only for the specific crop models or climatic components, but also for

PAGE 116

94 the whole simulation approach. During these exchanges feedback loops were incorporated into the model and decisions were made regarding the pre-run simulations of crop models. These are closely linked to the climatic component since they use daily weather. At the end of January 2004, a specialist validated the main results of the crop models before they were incorporated into the main model. In February 2004, the eighth focus group was held at Live Oak with 8 stakeholders. The meeting was a discussion of the final Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model, which was presented in detail during an one-hour meeting. An one-and-half hour discussion followed. Attendants were encouraged to test the model to its limits in order to find any potential deficiencies that could be corrected. Farmers attempted to confound the model but fortunately the model responded very well. All appreciated the reduced need for initial data to start runs. Farmers also approved of the improved user-friendly interface, and the integration of models in a simple Excel application. An example of a hypothetical farm was run and results were compared using the optimizer. Stakeholders appreciated the possibilities to arrange management options in order to decrease N leaching without decreasing profit. At the end of the meeting farmers asked for and received a copy of the model. The ultimate validation of the DNFDFM was through interaction with 3 additional farmers. Producers were able to compare outputs from the model with their own farms. Farmers agreed that although the output numbers did not correspond exactly to the real data from their farms, the similarity of the outputs to real numbers gave them confidence that the model worked correctly. They expressed their willingness to adopt and use the model in their management strategies.

PAGE 117

95 4.4 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations Participatory modeling can enhance the creation of adoptable and adaptable user-friendly models that include environmental, economic and biophysical components. Multiple feedback loops were used during a two-year process of interaction with stakeholders. An iterative process involving creation of a prototype, interaction with stakeholders, improvement of prototype models according to suggestions at meetings was undertaken. Improvements included the incorporation of climate, crop, cow-flow, and optimization. Many adjustments were made to coefficients originally obtained from secondary data. Expert advice was incorporated from specialists in the government, private, extension, university and production sectors, following suggestions made by farmers during focus group meetings. The reality of using secondary information as a starting point and then calibrating and validating in the field has especially strong implications for adoption and long term use of the model. A feeling of ownership was created within the focus groups by listening attentively to all suggestions. An especially strong interaction among farmers and researcher occurred during the calibration and validation process. Models were run with default data and farmers compared outputs with their personal knowledge of farm outcomes. The researcher and farmers were then able to backtrack into the model to adjust coefficients that were deemed to be skewing results. Producers expressed reasonable ranges within which model parameters should be confined. Through this process each farmer felt included in contributing to the success of the final model. Climate is especially relevant as a problem considered by all members during many meetings. In the past, it has been difficult to get extension agents and producers to buy into the idea that management can be tailored in light of climate forecasts based on

PAGE 118

96 ENSO phenomena. By working together on the model and incorporating typical rainfall and temperature data for different ENSO phases, producers were able to understand the effects of seasonal variability on production and N leaching. Understanding the climate-cow-crop-nitrate interaction at the early stages of model development will greatly increase the probability of proactive use of climate information to mitigate negative environmental impacts. After undergoing an arduous but fruitful stakeholder interaction process to develop the North-Florida dairy farm model the following is recommended as a procedure for participatory model development. Initial contacts should be made with local producers to sound out felt needs. If models are useful for addressing the felt needs, a prototype should be developed using secondary data if available. The prototype model should be thoroughly discussed using focus groups or other methods common in Participatory Rural Appraisal. The concept of stakeholder should be understood in its broad context. A stakeholder analysis is useful for learning the relative position and networks that exist. Farmers, private consultants, extension agents, officials of government agencies, university faculty, and the researchers, among others, should be included in the model building process. After adjustments to the prototype, a final model should be developed and taken back to the stakeholders. Researchers should elicit comments on structure and function, parameters, coefficients, and individual modules from stakeholders. In order to insure long-term adoption of the model, good science must be used to respond to specific concerns of stakeholders. When farmers or consultants suggest that crops will be highly affected by climate variability, then modelers should respond by using state of the art crop models such as DSSAT. When producers call for a user

PAGE 119

97 friendly, simple interface, modelers should respond by using visual basic to create an interface that is usable from the farmers point of view. By following these relatively simple steps, which are not always in the mindset of scientists, use of climate-based agriculture and natural resource models can be greatly improved.

PAGE 120

CHAPTER 5 HOW MUCH MANURE NITROGEN DO NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS PRODUCE? 5.1 Introduction The presence of high levels of N in water is an environmental hazard because it affects human health and ecosystem welfare (Fraisse et al., 1996). The Suwannee River Basin has received much attention in recent years because increased N levels in water bodies (Albert, 2002; Katz et al., 1999; Pitman et al., 1997). Dairies have been identified as an important source of nitrates in the Suwannee River Basin (Andrew, 1994; Katz and DeHan, 1996; Berndt, 1998). It is critical to accurately estimate the amount of manure N production because it directly impacts environmental accountability of dairy farms, and the expense of farmers to comply with regulations. It is also important to perform these estimations seasonally because this determines potential for nutrient recycling, utilization, or loss because climate variability through the year. Other important estimations are those of manure N produced by non confined milking cows, dry cows, young stock, and bulls; interviews showed evidence that these could also be important factors in analyzing entire systems. For Florida, two approaches are being widely used to estimate manure N produced by dairy cows. One is that proposed in several publications by Van Horn et al. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2001) that consists of a sink-source balance, and the other is that presented by the Natural Resource and Conservation Service, NRCS, through an application called WATNUTFL Version 2.0 (NRCS, 2001), that is based on body weight of ruminants. 98

PAGE 121

99 According to Van Horn et al. (1998, 2001) the undigested (or unutilized) amount of N by the digestive system of a cow is the amount that will be present in the manure (feces and urine) of this cow, and undigested N can represent as much as 67% of the ingested N. In other words, the amount of N excreted by a cow will be the difference between the quantity ingested and the quantity of digested or utilized. N, which cows use to produce milk, gain weight, and reproduce. N(excreted) = N(feed) [N(milk) + N(tissue) + N(off spring)] [5-1] This relatively simple approach requires estimations of total amounts of N entering the system and total amounts of N leaving the system. Farmers have detailed records of milk production and they could estimate the quantity of N contained in this milk. They also know the total dry matter intake (DMI) for the whole herd and thus the total amount of N entering the system. But it is difficult to specify what group of cows received what quantity in each season of the year. Nennich et al. (2003) also criticizes this methodology indicating that errors in the estimations may occur since nutrients consumed by animals could vary greatly from what was formulated because cows select feed and the feed mixing process always has errors. The gross yearly differences in feed input and output would also include errors in measuring starting and ending inventories and the individual nutrient content of feedstuffs (Nennich et al., 2003). WATNUTFL, the application created by the NRCS, uses standardized estimations based on live weight of animals (NRCS, 2001). This methodology allows the user to standardize different species of animals by the common factor of body weight and benchmark parameter values. This methodology disregards a very important factor in manure N excretion, i.e., milk production, which many researches have pointed to as the

PAGE 122

100 driving factor in N excretion (Nennich et al., 2003; Van Horn et al., 1998, 2001; Tomlinson et al., 1996). In fact, milk production level, under intensive dairy farm systems, is the single most important factor to take into account regarding N excreted (Nennich et al., 2003). Both Van Horn and NRCS methods use standardized book values (benchmarks) of manure, DMI, water used, basic N excretion, and other parameters from those listed by the Agricultural Waste Management Handbook (AWMFH) of the NRCS (USDA, 1992a, 1992c, 1996), and its AWMFH Florida supplements (USDA, 1992b); several documents from the Department of Environmental Protection (FLDEP) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); those from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE, 1990); and other standards like those of digestibility of feed sources and N in diets from the National Research Council (NRC, 2001). These standards are the best sources or book values for which estimations can be supported and these are continuously being reviewed and updated; in some cases, location-specific values are also being released. This present study also bases the values of estimations on these standards. Van Horn et al. (2001) and NRCS (2001) estimate N excretion in whole-year values, ignoring completely the inherent seasonality present in north-Florida dairy farm systems. Dairy cows are highly sensitive to seasons, and in subtropical climate conditions such as north-Florida dairy cattle are negatively affected by high temperature and high humidity. Reproduction and milk production are completely changed by seasons of the year. For example, lowest milk production as well as lowest conception rates occur in summer (De Vries, 2004; personal interviews); consequently, a much higher rate of manure N is expected to be excreted during winter months, not only because milking

PAGE 123

101 cows are more actively producing milk at that time, but also because many more cows are in the high-peak milking production stage because there is a higher proportion of freshening cows in late fall. Manure N produced in mid spring will have more opportunity to be used by rapidly growing plants than that produced in a very cold winter season where less chance of plant utilization would exist and higher amounts of manure N applied in rainy seasons would be more prone to leach. That is why, for example, a study with application of dairy effluents to pastures in New Zealand (Williamson et al., 1998) concluded that effluent applications should be avoided in winter when they detected highest amounts of N leaching by soil lysimeters. The present study included inherent seasonality based on historical Florida dairy herd data (Dairy Herd Improvement Association (DHIA), De Vries, 2004) contained in seasonal conception rates, seasonal culling rates, and seasonal milking production rates. Nennich et al. (2003) suggest, after studying data from several universities in the United Sates for a series of historical records, that separate categories should be used to estimate excretion and nutrient content for calves, replacement heifers and mature cows. Even though previous studies made an effort to include them in balances, this study emphasizes their inclusion for a more accurate estimation of the manure N at the farm level. The objective of this study was to estimate monthly N levels that north-Florida dairy farms deposit onto their farmland. The specific objectives were to perform a survey of dairy farmers to collect information; develop a model that allows final users to have an easy but accurate monthly manure N estimation for specific farms, based solely on number of adult cows (NAC) and milk production (rolling herd average, RHA); compare

PAGE 124

102 the performance of this model with the Van Horn and WATNUT approaches; and assess the monthly N amounts applied to sprayfields and pasturelands by a number of north-Florida dairy farms. 5.2 Materials and Methods The study was conducted in cooperation with dairy operations of the Suwannee River Basin in the counties of Suwannee, Lafayette, Gilchrist, Levy, and Alachua (21' 30' N, 82' 83' W) during the period October, 2002 to December, 2003. Information from 21 dairy farms was collected by a survey. Additional secondary information was obtained from the Dairy Business Analysis Project (DBAP) of Florida (http://www.animal.ufl.edu/dbap), the Dairy Herd Improvement Association (DHIA) (http://www.dhia.org and http://www.animal.ufl.edu/dhia), the Dairy Records Management Systems (DRMS) (http://www.drms.org), and many other published studies. A sample of 21 dairy farms (~35% of the population) to participate in the interviews was obtained in coordination with the Suwannee River Partnership and the University of Florida Extension offices in the area. The sample was intended to cover the variability in north-Florida dairy farm systems with respect to herd size, farm size, manure handling systems, management operations, and environmental conditions. Interviews were arranged to be conversational in nature without an instrument, but with a guideline of topics. Interviews lasted between one and two hours and in several occasions, tours to the farm followed. Conversations were recorded, transcribed, and classified.

PAGE 125

103 5.3 Model Development 5.3.1 General Characteristics A Markov-chain cow-flow model was created to account for the growing, probabilistic reproduction, and probabilistic culling of young stock (calves and heifers) and for adult cows in different lactation cycles (1 to 9). Additionally, the model was set up to use monthly milk production rates according to production curves for Florida. Milk production, culling rates, and reproductive rates were adjusted using real data collected by the southeast DHIA in Florida (De Vries, 2004). The model starts in September of the first year and it run monthly for as many years as desired. The user must input the total number of adults cows (NAC) and the rolling herd average (RHA); however for more customization the user can input other information. Using these initial conditions, the model is capable of self-adjusting to reach a seasonal steady state of cow flow. That is the way north-Florida dairy farms operate, and any planned change to increase or decrease herd size can be accounted for by different model runs. 5.3.2 Markov-Chains, Culling Rates, Reproduction Rates, and Milk Production Rates St-Pierre et al. (1999) indicated that herd milk production through time can be modeled as a discrete stochastic process using finite Markov-chains. Markov-chains are widely used to predict economic outputs (De Vries, 2001; Mourits et al., 1999; Mayer et al., 1996). Cows at time t = 0 are assigned to homogeneous production cells in three-dimensional arrays with coordinates determined by months in milk (MIM = 1 to 32), months in pregnancy (MIP = 0 to 9, where 0 is not pregnant), and lactation number (LN=0 to 9, where 0 are calves and heifers). The processes of aging, pregnancy, involuntary cull, voluntary cull, abortion, dry-off, and freshening from month i-1 to

PAGE 126

104 month i for any month i are accounted for using seasonal probabilities. Estimates of transition probabilities are derived from historical herd data from the databases of the Florida DHIA (De Vries, 2004). Moving animals from one production cell to the next, based on the transitional probability assigned allows the inclusion of the inherent probabilities in the process of reproduction and culling in a dairy operation. Markov-chains represent the cycles that milking cows follow. When a female calf is born, she will be raised and will gain weight for 12 months. When she is 12 months old a pregnancy program starts for her through artificial insemination (AI) or by bulls. The pregnancy rate of heifers is much higher than adult cows: about 60% of the heifers will be pregnant on the first attempt. The estrus cycle in cows lasts 21 days, which is the time needed to know which heifers are pregnant. In the next attempt another 60% of the rest (40%) will become pregnant, etc. If the heifer is not pregnant when she is 24-months old, after 12 attempts, that heifer will be voluntary culled. The proportion of voluntary culling of heifers for not being pregnant is very low. After 9 months of pregnancy the heifer will deliver her first offspring, and she will become a fresh cow, first lactancy, first month, open cow in the milking group. The survey found that not all farmers raise their own replacements needed to maintain the herd size. In those cases, the model can be easily adjusted by a percentage of estimated replacements raised on-farm, with a range of 0% (no replacements at all) to 100%. During the first lactation cycle, Markov-chains divide cows into different categories according to whether or not they are pregnant, how many months they are pregnant, and how many months they have been milking. Similar situations will happen in the following lactation cycles. The number of possible categories in which cows can

PAGE 127

105 stay at any point in time depends on the model dimensions: 10 (lactation stages) x 32 (months growing or in milk) x10 (pregnancy stages) = 3,200. A voluntary waiting period (VWP) of 45 to 60 days will be observed before starting the reproductive program again in this first lactation cow. For adult cows in milking stage, the probability of reproduction is considerably reduced, and it depends on the season. An average value for Florida is 16%, meaning that only 16% of the cows of first lactation (or higher) will get pregnant in an attempt, De Vries (2004). But this varies and the model accounts these variations using DHIA data as seen in Figure 5-1. The pregnancy rate that encompass heat detection and conception rate decreases with months in milk and increases with colder months. 0.100.110.120.130.140.150.16234567891011month in milkpregnancy rate 0.600.700.800.901.001.101.201.301.40SepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugIndex B A Figure 5-1. Pregnancy rates of adult cows according to A) month in milk; and B) seasonality index of pregnancy rate by month of the year. Source: Prepared with data from De Vries, 2004. If after 12 months in milking the cow is not pregnant, she will be voluntarily culled from the herd; adult cows have much greater chance of being culled for reproductive problems than heifers. Two months prior to the delivery, the cow is dried off, preparing her for delivery. As soon as she delivers, she enters as a fresh cow, first month, open cow of second lactation. The offspring, if female, will enter the calf group. Calves will

PAGE 128

106 become heifers, heifers will become cows, and cows will age through successive lactation cycles. Fewer cows will arrive at higher lactation cycles because there is always a chance for any cow to be involuntarily culled. The involuntary culling rate depends of cow stage: heifer or adult, months in milk, and the season, as can be seen in Figure 5-2. For example, higher culling rates are expected in warmer months and in the first months of milking. 0.200.250.300.350.400.451234567891011121314151617181920month in milkculling rate 0.700.800.901.001.101.201.30SepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugIndex B A Figure 5-2. Culling rates of adult cows according to A) month in milk; and B) seasonality index of culling rate by month of the year. Source: Prepared with data from De Vries, 2004. Adult cows as well as young heifers or calves always have a probability to leave the herd for many reasons. Farmers call involuntary culling as the probability that an animal leaves the herd by an unfortunate event such as death, sickness, injury, etc. and voluntary culling as the probability that the animal becomes unpractical or un-economical to keep in the herd as in the cases of low production or low fertility. There are several studies and controversies about the theory of culling cows; for this study, involuntary culling was adjusted to the DHIA Florida averages (De Vries, 2004) as seen in Figure 5-2. The voluntary culling was based on months after which the cow is not pregnant: for adult cows at 12 months and for heifers at 24 months.

PAGE 129

107 Under this model structure, milk production standards for Florida were installed using information from the DHIA (De Vries, 2004). Since the model bases further calculations on milk production ratios, this was a very detailed component. Cows produce different amounts of milk depending on lactation number, months in milk, and season of the year. Curves show this seasonality according to months in milk for different lactations, Figure 5-3. 1st lactation curves: Jan, Mar, May, Jul, Sep, Nov4050607080JanMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMaylbs/day 2nd lactation curves: Jan, Mar, May, Jul, Sep, Nov4050607080JanMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMaylbs/day A B 3rd+ lactation curves: Jan, Mar, May, Jul, Sep, Nov4050607080JanMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMaylbs/day C Figure 5-3. Milk production rates of milking cows according to A) month in milk and season of the year for cows in first lactation; B) cows in second lactation; and C) cows in third to ninth lactation. Source: Prepared with data from De Vries, 2004. Figure 5-3 shows average rates of milk production for Florida based on lactations, months in milk, and seasonality. These milk production values can be adjusted for every specific farm based on the rolling herd average (RHA, average milk produced by a cow

PAGE 130

108 in the herd over the last 12 months) by running the model and comparing total milk production with the RHA target. The model will self-adjust to reach the RHA for that specific herd with less than 1% of error. 5.3.3 Manure N Produced by Milking Cows Well documented studies such as Van Horn et al. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2001), Tomlinson et al. (1996), Wilkerson et al. (1997), Nennich et al. (2003) have found that excretions are highly variable depending on many things, among them dry matter intake (DMI), nutrient concentration, and digestibility. Different approaches to estimate manure N in Florida have included these factors as well as estimated body weight as predictors (Van Horn et al., 1998; NRCS, 2001). However, all these data are not always available and/or are not totally reliable. This study proposes a simpler way to estimate manure N based only on milk production. Knowing the digestibility (N used in milk, maintenance, and offspring) (Van Horn et al., 1998; Wu et al., 2001), we can estimate the N excretion as a function of the amount of milk produced. A study carried out across the United States (Nennich et al., 2003) found that the single best predictor for N and manure excretion is milk production. Nennich et al. (2003) concluded that milk production drives feed intake and ultimately nutrient excretion values reflect the relationship among feed intake, milk production (nutrient utilization), and nutrient excretion. Crude protein content in the diet also affects the N flow amounts. Wu et al. (2001) mention that 25 to 35% of the N consumed in cows will go with the produced milk, almost entirely the difference (65 to 75%) will be in the manure. Several studies (reported by Van Horn et al., 1998) have found that milk production is correlated with manure production and most importantly with N excretion. Higher manure production in higher milk production months (winter) also has been reported in the direct farmer interviews.

PAGE 131

109 Table 5-1 shows a direct relationship among milk production, DMI, and excretions. High milking cows will consume more dry matter (DM) and excrete more manure and more N. If these high producers consume less DM for any reason, they will produce less milk and consequently less manure and N. Low milking cows will consume less DM and produce less milk compared to high milking cows and consequently excrete less manure and less N. Table 5-1. Dry matter intake, manure, and N excretion by Florida dairy cattle based on milk production. (lbs cow -1 day -1 ) and low and high (NRC standards) crude protein (CP) content of diets N Excretion milk DMI manure low CP high CP 100 55.8 195 0.899 1.030 70 46.3 160 0.727 0.846 50 39.2 125 0.601 0.698 0 25.2 80 0.364 0.439 Sources: Modified from Van Horn et al. (1998), p. 3.;USDA (1992a), p. 8., USDA (1992b), p. 8. Note: NRCS uses these values for estimations. If high and low producers are fed more than required they will not produce more milk but they will tend to gain body weight and will excrete more manure and N. This is not desired by the farmers (found in the interviews) because it is a waste of money and an unhealthy choice for the cows (fat cows have more health problems and higher risks in pregnancy and delivery). Thus, farmers will always try to give only enough feed to achieve optimum performance. Therefore, farmers group cows by production performance, preparing different rations, and giving different feed amounts. It is assumed for the model that the amounts of feed are based on milk production rates and farmers will feed their cows accordingly. Van Horn et al. (1998, 2001) and NRCS (2001) estimate the total N excreted assuming fixed days in lactation stages in continuous identical cycles for all cows. In this study, great effort has been devoted to incorporating milk production by north-Florida

PAGE 132

110 herds using historical data of culling, reproduction, and milk production rates based on seasons. These calculations are used to estimate N excretion. 5.3.4 Nitrogen and Crude Protein Nitrogen is a component of amino acids and ultimately proteins, therefore, protein content of the diet has direct repercussion on quantities of excreted N. Evidence exists that farmers may over-enrich cow diets with proteins; consequently it would be possible to decrease amounts of N overflows in dairy systems by decreasing cow protein intake without decreasing productivity (Van Horn et al., (1998, 2001); Wu et al. (2001); Jonker et al., (2002); Brsting et al. (2003)). Also, studies indicate that the source of N or protein can make a difference in the quantity of excreted N (Wu et al. (2001); Brsting et al. (2003)). Van Horn et al. (1998) present a table with the differences in N excreted by two different ratios of crude protein (CP) in the diet based on the NRC indexes: one that uses high protein to assure that true protein needs are met and the other low that minimizes dietary N intake. For cows producing 100, 70, 50, and 0 lbs of milk the high CP rations were 17.5, 16.4, 15.3, and 12%, respectively and the low diets were 16, 14.8, 13.8, and 11%, respectively. With these two formulations, the milk production remained steady, but the amount of N produced changed. Van Horn et al. (1998) estimate for a year, for a 1400-lb cow, producing 20,000 lbs of milk and consuming 15,099 lbs of dry matter, an N excretion of 234 lbs with the low CP diet, while it would be 273 lbs with the high CP diet. This would mean that a 15% of change in N excretion would be expected by these changes in diets. Additionally, CP in the diet will impact the feeding costs. Wu et al. (2001) conducted a study on dietary manipulation to reduce N excretion by lactating cows in Pennsylvania, concluded that dietary protein can be moderately

PAGE 133

111 manipulated without affecting milk production. They recommended other means of balancing rations for maximal microbial protein production using synthetic limiting amino acids. Strategies to reduce N excretion may include eliminating excess dietary protein, maximizing microbial protein production, and using protected amino acids for reductions in total protein that needs to be fed. Using these estimates, and based on milk production for every cow group in the model, good estimations of DMI, manure, and N can be calculated for high and low CP diets (Figure 5-4.). y = -3E-07x3 + 6E-05x2 + 0.0024x + 0.36400.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91020406080100Milk Production (lbs/day)N excreted (lbs/day) Figure 5-4. Manure N produced by low-CP diet cows according to milk production The function presented in Figure 5-4 can be corrected based on overall CP in the diet (weighted average of crude protein received by the 100, 70, 50 and 0 milking cow groups) that are estimated as 13.947 for a low-CP diet and 15.034 for a high-CP diet (NRC averages). A function with a slope of 0.096 for the average CP diet above 13.937 performs this correction. 5.3.5 Milking Times and Cattle Breeds There is a dilemma regarding the effects of number of milking times per day on milk production. Farmers in north-Florida use two or three times a day milking (2X-3X),

PAGE 134

112 or even, in exceptional cases, four times (4X). Using 3X compared with 2X is reported for Florida to increase milk production (Giesy, R. 1995. Another look at 2x-3x milking. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Unpublished. Dep. of Animal Science, Gainesville, FL.), although these results are not conclusive (Hoekema, 1999). It seems that 3X will produce more milk, but at an elevated production cost, which is why some dairies prefer to reduce 3X to 2X in summer months when overall lower production rates are observed. Direct effects of different milking times on manure N production were not included in the model since it only depends on the quantity of milk produced regardless of the times cows were milked. Another dilemma is variation in N production with cattle breeds. All estimations are based on experiments with Holstein cows, which are dominant in the study area (probably 95% of cows in north-Florida are Holsteins). However, there are a few farms that manage Jersey, Shorthorn, or, more commonly, crosses of these breeds with Holstein. There will be differences between herd breeds and manure N produced. For example Jersey cows are expected to produce less N, but based on previous assumptions, the best indication is the amount of milk produced, which will determine manure, N and DMI. In fact, Knowlton (2000) affirms that Jerseys and Holsteins metabolize nutrients similarly and consequently the amount of manure and N excreted per body unit weight is the same in both breeds; results shown by Knowlton (2000) also demonstrate that the direct relationship between milk production and waste excretion are similar in both breeds. Additionally, using Jonker et al. (2002) assumptions of manure N production by different breeds, including Holstein, Brown Swiss, Ayrshire, Guernsey, Jersey, and

PAGE 135

113 Milking Shorthorn, we can safely estimate manure N production across breeds based solely on milk production. 5.3.6 Manure N Produced by Dry Cows, Young Stock, and Bulls Less information regarding manure N production is available for dry cows, young stock and bulls because they are not usually recognized as environmental hazards. They produce less manure N proportionally, and they are usually kept in open areas under grazing conditions (contrary to confined areas as is the case of milking cows). This study emphasizes the importance of accounting also for these sources of manure N inside the dairy farm system, but through less elaborate estimations. For dry cows, the estimations were based on several references (Van Horn et al. (1998, 2001), NRCS (2001)) that indicate that a dry cow produces 0.364 lbs of N day -1 and this value can be corrected as above, according to CP intake. Estimations for calves and heifers are made using body weight, assuming that a newborn calf weights 90 lbs and gains approximately 40 lbs per month. For this group, book values from Table 4-5 of the AWMFH (USDA, 1992a) for heifers indicate that a heifer of 1,000 lbs produces 0.31 lbs of N (in 85 lbs of manure). With this information as a benchmark, and interpolating by body weight, the model estimates that a heifer of 5 months that weighs 90 + 5 40 = 290 lbs, would produce (290 0.31) / 1000 = 0.0899 lbs of N in (290 85) / 1000 = 24.65 lbs of manure. There are no correction numbers for low/high CP according to NRCS (2001) because their diet is assumed to be standard. For bulls (which are used for reproductive purposes in many dairies) there is not much information about their DMI and/or manure N production. They could be estimated based on their bodyweight and under the parameters of heifer cows in distinct stages. Bulls are usually larger than cows; they weight 10 or 20% more than the 1400-lbs for

PAGE 136

114 average cows. But because they do not produce milk or become pregnant, they require lower feed intake and, consequently their manure N production would be less. It is estimated that bulls consume similarly to dry cows or heifers in relation to their body weight, 25.2 lbs of dry matter/day and produce 80 lbs of manure with 0.364 lbs of N for each 1400 lbs of body weight. Bulls go with the milking cows in order to breed them; their manure joins that of the milking cows. 5.3.7 Manure, Feces, Urine, and Dry Matter Intake Estimations The amount of manure excreted by milking cows can be estimated with the function presented in Figure 5-5 based on values presented by Van Horn et al. (1998), Table 5-1. An estimation for cows producing 20 lbs of milk in a day has been added considering that a milking cow always will produce more manure than a dry cow (more than 80 lbs) and that there will not be milking cows producing less than 20 lbs/day. y = -0.0003x3 + 0.0525x2 1.3708x + 98.750204060801001201401601802002030405060708090100Milk Production (lbs/day)Manure Excretion (lbs/day) Figure 5-5. Manure excretion based on milk production Manure produced by dry cows can be estimated as proposed by Van Horn et al. (1998, 2001) and NRCS (2001) at 80 lbs/cow/day. For heifers, the estimation can be performed similarly to that of N, based on body weight (age) and according to Table 4-5

PAGE 137

115 of the AWMFH (USDA, 1992a). From the total manure, according to Van Horn et al. (1998, 2001), 61.35% and 38.65% are the proportions of feces and urine in the manure, respectively. Dry matter intake (DMI) for milking cows can be estimated based on milk production following the function presented in Figure 5-6, based on Van Horn et al. (1998), Table 5-1. y = -2E-05x3 + 0.0033x2 + 0.1621x + 25.201020304050600204060801Milk Production 00 ( lbs/da y) DMI (lbs/day) Figure 5-6. Dry matter intake (DMI) based on milk production Amounts of DMI by heifers were estimated based on body weights using averages of adult cows. Adult cows, according to Van Horn et al. (1998, 2001) consume on average 15,099 lbs of DMI in a year (1400-lb cows); this is about 3% of their body weight in a day as DM. Interpolating that to calves and heifers, a recent born, 90-lb calf will consume 2.7 lb DM and a 32 month old heifer (40 32 = 1280 lb) will consume as a dry cow = 25.2 lbs. Therefore, for a 16 month old heifer the DMI will be 2.7 + 0.7031 16 = 13.95 lb. DMI for bulls is assumed to be similar to dry cows, 25.2 lbs/day.

PAGE 138

116 5.3.8 Water Utilization for Manure Handling Many components determine the total amount of water (drinking water for cows, cleaning equipment, cooling system, flushing manure, etc.). Van Horn et al. (1994) estimated that the amount of water used for a milking cow in a day could vary from 49 gallons (187 L) for minimum usage (no flushing) to 171 gallons (650 L) in high usage (with flushing). Further, this has a direct relationship with the season of the year: hotter months will require more water than cooler months. Water is critical for the dairy operation; in the case of the north-Florida waste management systems it is also the carrier of the manure and N. All farms studied had some kind of flushing system. Using the above values, an interpolation can be performed to estimate the amount of water used by milking cows, assuming that approximately the use of water in the coldest month will be half of that in hottest month (found from farmers during interviews), and therefore the amount of water used in every month can be expressed as a percentage of the amount used in the hottest month. Amounts of water required by heifers and dry cows will be much less than the milking cows and those will not enter the manure flushing system. These estimations are presented in Table 5-2. Some dairies recycle water from the manure system. Recycle means that they use the flushing water more than once, saving fresh water in the process. Because there are great differences among farms, a user-defined input in the model allows the user to adjust the amount of water they use as a function of the maximum water used in a single month and the percent of water recycled. Water usage for any month will be estimated by multiplying the maximum water used in the hottest month, the percentage of use in a specific month, the number of milking cows, and the percent of water recycled.

PAGE 139

117 Table 5-2. Water utilization by milking cows during months and percentage use relative to month of maximum use (July) Gal cow -1 day -1 % September 146.93 85.90 October 134.87 78.85 November 122.81 71.79 December 110.75 64.74 January 98.68 57.69 February 110.75 64.74 March 122.81 71.79 April 134.87 78.85 May 146.93 85.90 June 158.99 92.95 July* 171.05 100.00 August 158.99 92.95 *Month of maximum water utilization. 5.3.9 Waste Management Handling Systems All visited north-Florida dairy farms handle their waste through a liquid manure system, but there are variants according to how they collect, store, process, transport, and utilize the waste. These variants are important because they determine how much manure is recovered and how much is potentially lost to the air. North-Florida dairy farms have some variants from a usual waste management system, consisting of a water flushing system, a storage pond, and an irrigation system. Additionally they may also have a solid screener and/or a treatment lagoon. The flushing system uses great amounts of water to move the manure (feces and urine) deposited in the concrete; the storage pond receives and stores the liquid manure for variable time; and the irrigation system applies the liquid manure to the crop systems. Both, the solid screener and the treatment lagoon are designed to separate solids from the flushed manure: the first one by mechanical action and the second one by gravity or precipitation. Both, if present, are located before the storage pond.

PAGE 140

118 As soon as the manure is deposited on the concrete, variable rates of ammonia will be lost to the air as volatilization. If solids are screened, the manure that reaches the storage pond (in which it remains a variable time) will be a solution with less than 5% solids. Nitrogen in this liquid manure will be ammonium and organic compounds in solution. Extra amounts of ammonia will still be lost by volatilization to the air during the holding time in the storage pond and during the spraying application in the fields. If solids are not screened, the liquid manure will have greater than 5% solids but it still will be sprayed on the fields using high pressure equipment and an agitator to maintain it liquid. The proportion of solids collected by separators varies greatly among systems; for example a stationary separator can take 20 to 30% of the solids, while a well-designed gravity separator can collect up to 60% of the total solids (Van Horn et al., 1998). However, at least 80% of the N is contained in the liquid solution and is not possible to recover through solids (Tomlinson et al., 1996). If the separation is through a stationary separator, the solids collected will have 72% moisture and from the remaining 28% of DM, only 1 to 1.6% will be N (Van Horn et al., 2001). If it is separated by gravity, the separation has more moisture and is unlikely to be used as bedding, feed or composting; this is usually spread on the land (Van Horn et al., 1994). Even in the most controlled manure systems, loss of N in relatively high quantities will be expected. Between 41 and 50% of the N in manure is in the form of urea or ammonia, which can easily be volatilized (Van Horn et al., 1998). Urea in contact with the ureasa enzyme, present almost everywhere, will convert to ammonia (NH 3 ), and the ammonia as a gas, volatilizes to the air. Even though the fecal form of N, mostly in the

PAGE 141

119 feces, is more stable, it could also be freed up by anaerobic digestion. Alkaline conditions in the collection pathways and lagoons will result in more volatilization, while acidic conditions will decrease volatilization. Once the liquid manure reaches the irrigation system, a last amount of volatilization, proportional to the water evaporation during irrigation can be expected. Amounts vary greatly in different management systems, but Van Horn et al. (1998) presents the result of several University of Florida studies throughout the state (Table 5-3), in which the following indexes of N lost were calculated:` Table 5-3. Nitrogen lost in the waste management system: a baseline % Volatilization before flushing 2.38 Collected solids 6.5 Volatilization in lagoon and or pond 9.21 Sludge accumulation in lagoon and/or pond 5.74* Volatilization during irrigation 11.48 Total N lost during manure handling 35.32 Estimated based on surveyed north-Florida operations. Source: Several University of Florida studies, Van Horn et al. (1998). According to these values, 35.32% of the manure N is lost, and the difference 64.68% reaches the crop fields. Because these great variations, it is important to let the user select his/her system and N indexes. The model allows the user to input these values based on real analyses and reports made to the regulatory agencies. 5.4 Results and Discussion 5.4.1 The Model (Livestock Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model, LDNFDFM) The main result of this study was the Livestock Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model. The LDNFDFM is capable of giving accurate manure N estimations solely based on number of adult cows (NAC) and rolling herd average (RHA) of any north-Florida

PAGE 142

120 dairy farm. NAC and RHA are always available in any north-Florida dairy farm and they are highly accurate. An approximation of the amount of crude protein (CP) in the diet, degree of seasonality in operation, confined time, and characteristics of the waste management system can also be manipulated to better mimic specific farm conditions. The LDNFDFM was implemented in Excel using Visual Basic programming as a user-friendly application. 5.4.2 Model Comparison with Other Widely Used Estimations Estimations of Van Horn et al. (1998 and 2001) and WATNUTFL (NRCS, 2001) were compared with estimations from the model. To achieve such comparisons, a hypothetical farm was set up with the following characteristics: the farm had 100 producing cows, which weigh 1400 lbs on average and were confined 100% of the time. A first comparison was performed using low protein diets for cows with a RHA of 18,250 lbs of milk/year. Results are shown in Figure 5-7. 1,7501,8001,8501,9001,9502,0002,0502,100sepoctnovdecjanfebmaraprmayjunjulauglbs of nitrogen VAN HORN NRCS LDNFDFM total=23,400 total=21,973 total=23,281 Figure 5-7. Nitrogen excretion by a low protein diet in a 100-cow dairy estimated by different models

PAGE 143

121 Overall yearly estimation of the LDNFDFM (23,281 lbs of N) was between values estimated by Van Horn (23,400 lbs of N) and NRCS (21,973 lbs of N), but closer to that estimated by Van Horn. Since Van Horn and NRCS calculate values on a yearly basis, they assume steady monthly values as seen in Figure 5-7. However, the DNFDFM shows a more realistic seasonal variation throughout months of the year, following the common seasonality in dairy operations. Another comparison was performed using high protein diets for cows with a yearly milk production of 21,900 lbs. Results are shown in Figure 5-8. 1,9502,0002,0502,1002,1502,2002,2502,300sepoctnovdecjanfebmaraprmayjunjulauglbs of nitrogen VAN HORN NRCS LDNFDFM total=26,371 total=25,723 total=25,550 Figure 5-8. Nitrogen excretion by a high protein diet in a 100-cow dairy estimated by different models Annual estimation by the LDNFDFM (25,723 lbs of N) was between Van Horn (26,371 lbs of N) and NRCS (25,550 lbs of N), but this time estimation was closer to that of the NRCS. Figure 5-8 shows these three estimations and the seasonality present only with the LDNFDFM model.

PAGE 144

122 5.4.3 Estimation of Manure N Produced in North-Florida Dairy Farm Systems In order to keep confidentiality of dairy farms, five hypothetical farms were constructed using data from the farm interviews. Hypothetical farms were created to give real information about the manure N production of north-Florida dairy farms without pointing to specific farms. For every dairy, inputs consisted of a set of information that included the total number of adult cows (NAC), number of bulls, the percentage of replacement animals raised on the farm, the rolling herd average (RHA), the estimated percentage of confined time of milking cows, the general characteristics of the waste management system, and the area of land devoted to sprayfields and pasturelands. This information was used in each case as the initial conditions (IC) inputted in the model before running (Table 5-4). The ratios of N per area (lbs ac -1 ) to be applied to sprayfields and to be deposited in pastureland were estimated for each of these hypothetical farms. Table 5-4. Five hypothetical north-Florida dairy farms and their characteristics for manure N estimations Farm 1 2 3 4 5 NAC, Number of Adult Cows 1,000 150 600 1,500 800 BULLS Head 50 8 65 75 38 HEIFERS % 20% 0% 100% 0% 50% RHA, Rolling Herd Average lbs yr -1 cow -1 16,500 13,000 20,075 16,800 21,000 CONFINED % 62.50% 30.00% 70.00% 40.00% 60.00% WASTE SYSTEM code* 1 2 2 2 1 AREA SPRAYFIELDS 90 130 45 240 120 AREA PASTURELAND ac 440 130** 45 120 250 SPRAYFIELD per COW 0.09 0.87 0.08 0.16 0.15 PASTURELAND per COW 0.44 0.87 0.08 0.08 0.31 TOTAL AREA per COW ac cow -1 0.53 0.87 0.15 0.24 0.46 *1=separate solids; 2=not separate solids. **Are the same sprayfields Farm 1 is a medium-large semi-intensive operation with medium productivity of milk. It has shortage of sprayfields, but more abundant pastureland. Its waste system is efficient and has the facilities and the comfort to manage confined animals. Farm 2 is a

PAGE 145

123 small grazing system where animals spend more of the time outside; the breed is Jersey or Jersey cross that endures heat stress in summer, but has low milk productivity. This farm has plenty of land for its herd, which serves at the same time as sprayfield and pasture (this is unusual). This farm prefers not to raise heifers; it sells all off-spring and buys replacements. Farm 3 is a medium-size intensive operation with high milk productivity; all heifers are raised on-farm and animals spend most of the time confined. This farm puts high pressure on the land not only because of the intensity of the operation, but also because of the shortage of land in both sprayfields and pasturelands. Farm 4 is a mixture between intensive and grazing farm, large in size, medium intensive with medium milk productivity, and low time cows spending over concrete. It has abundant sprayfields, but a shortage of pastureland. It does not raise heifers and the waste system does not include solid collection. Farm 5 is a medium-size intensive system with high milk productivity that keeps cows confined an average time, and seems to have a shortage of sprayfields and pastureland; it raises only half of its heifers and has an advanced waste system that collects solids. For simplicity, the only variations in waste systems accounted for in Table 5-4 are code 1 (they separate the solids), and code 2 (they do not separate solids). Using values previously presented as a baseline in Table 5-3, it was estimated that with code 1 there is 35.32% N lost and with code 2 there is 28.82% N lost through the manure handling system. Specific farms can and should enter their own specific values.

PAGE 146

124 Usually sprayfields receive liquid manure and the pastureland direct excretions of the dry cows, and young stock, and the milking cows and bulls during non-confined time, but there are a few cases where the fields can receive both as is the case of Farm 2, where the sprayfields are also the pasture fields. For all farms a low protein diet was assumed and water was estimated using the ratio 171.05 gallons maximum amount used by a cow per day in the hottest month, and that water is not recycled. Particular farms should enter their own specific data. Tables 5-5, 5-6, and 5-7 present the estimated results for these five hypothetical farms. The first glance indicates that there is great variability among farms. Table 5-5 shows how much manure N the sprayfields receive on a monthly basis according to the characteristics of each of these operations. There is a farm that applies as little as 3 lbs per acre in a month (Farm 2) and a farm that has to apply as much as 136 lbs per acre in a single month (Farm 3). Greater amounts of manure N are sprayed in winter months and lower amounts in summer months, although the amount of variation in seasons also varies according to the characteristics of each farm; some farms have very small variations throughout the year (Farm 2 or Farm 4) while another has greater variations (Farm 3). This difference in seasonal variations is explained by the interaction between natural seasonality of the cow-flow and productivity, and the CT; the lower the CT, the lower the seasonality noticed in the sprayfields because less manure N is going through the waste system. The opposite is also true as in the case of Farms 3 and 5 that have higher seasonality. Amounts of manure N per acre in a whole year are also highly variable among farms. There is a farm that has to apply more than 1,540 lbs of N per acre in a year (Farm

PAGE 147

125 3), while there is a farm that only requires applying 45 lbs of N per acre in a year (Farm 2). All factors in Table 5-4, except percent of heifers raised and land for pastures, affect these amounts. When a higher land per cow ratio, lower RHA, and lower CT the total N per acre per year will be lower as can be seen in Farm 2 and the opposite for Farm 3. The waste system impacts the final amount of manure N reaching the sprayfields since different amounts of N will be lost; in Table 5-4, waste system 1 loses more N than system 2. Therefore, Farms 2, 3, and 4 would decrease amounts of N in sprayfields if they would implement solid collection in the waste system (change from system 2 to system 1). Table 5-5. Estimated amounts of manure N to sprayfields in five hypothetical north-Florida dairy farms Farm 1 2 3 4 5 September 70.22 3.46 119.75 28.08 47.42 October 74.04 3.65 126.08 29.60 49.92 November 73.39 3.62 124.78 29.34 49.41 December 78.53 3.88 133.24 31.39 52.76 January 80.50 3.98 136.41 32.18 54.02 February 75.71 3.74 128.29 30.27 50.81 March 80.73 3.99 136.84 32.27 54.19 April 77.27 3.82 131.09 30.89 51.92 May 78.41 3.87 133.20 31.35 52.76 June 73.24 3.61 124.67 29.28 49.38 July 72.92 3.60 124.34 29.16 49.25 August lbs ac -1 mo -1 71.79 3.54 122.50 28.70 48.51 Total Nitrogen lbs ac -1 yr -1 907 45 1541 363 610 Nitrogen per Cow lbs cow -1 yr -1 82 39 116 58 92 The contribution of each cow to the amount of N applied to sprayfields varies greatly among farms. The model estimates that in Farm 2 the amount of manure N that reaches sprayfields is 39 lbs per cow. This amount is substantially lower than the others and the lowest of all. Farm 2 has the lowest ratio because its RHA is the lowest, reducing the amount of manure N produced for each animal and the confined time of the cows is

PAGE 148

126 also the smallest compared with the others (30%). This low rate of N to sprayfield happens even though this farm does not collect solids from the manure. On the other hand, Farm 3 applies 116 lbs of manure N to sprayfields per each cow. This is substantially higher than the others and the highest of all. Three reasons explain this fact: the high RHA (20,075 lbs cow -1 year -1 the second highest); the high CT (70%, the highest of all); and the waste system does not collect the solids, so more manure N goes to sprayfields. Although the NAC and the RHA have the greatest impact on the overall amount of manure N produced, the waste system and the available sprayfields determine how much manure N reaches these fields. Table 5-6 presents the results of the estimations of the monthly manure N that pastureland would receive in each of the farms. There is also a great difference in the amounts of manure N received among pasture fields. Table 5-6. Estimated amounts of manure N deposited on pasturelands in five hypothetical north-Florida dairy farms Farm 1 2 3 4 5 September 18.96 13.41 140.98 140.90 34.62 October 19.44 13.88 145.06 145.60 35.67 November 18.61 13.44 139.88 140.71 34.40 December 19.03 13.96 143.91 145.75 35.47 January 18.78 13.95 142.88 145.46 35.27 February 17.41 12.98 133.27 135.35 32.86 March 18.61 13.86 142.70 144.47 35.13 April 18.05 13.37 138.20 139.56 34.00 May 18.86 13.84 143.44 144.65 35.30 June 18.53 13.38 139.91 140.10 34.35 July 19.45 13.81 145.72 144.88 35.68 August lbs ac -1 mo -1 19.59 13.83 145.93 145.10 35.75 Total Nitrogen lbs ac -1 yr -1 225 164 1702 1713 418 Nitrogen per Cow lbs cow -1 yr -1 99.14 141.87 127.64 137.00 130.78

PAGE 149

127 Exploring Table 5-6, the first conclusion that can be drawn is that these amounts are not small; in fact, the quantity of manure N applied to the fields through direct excretion could surpass those amounts applied on the sprayfields in some cases (Farms 2, 3, and 4). This fact has profound implications because it discovers a source pollution that should be taken into consideration; current major efforts are addressed mostly to sprayfields and waste systems. Some pastures receive manure N excretions with as little as 13 lbs of N in a month (Farm 2), but others receive excretions with as much as 145 lbs of N in a month (Farms 3 and 4). The quantity of N deposited on pasturelands also has seasonality through the year, but usually different from that of the sprayfields. Higher amounts are expected in summer and fall and lower amounts in winter and spring following the cycle of dry cows and heifers; there would be more cows milking in winter and consequently fewer dry cows on pasture, and more heifers will freshen during fall months, moving them from pastureland to more confined areas. However, as Table 5-6 indicates it varies greatly also because other factors such as the percent of heifers raised on-farm or the confined time of milking cows. The amount of manure N deposited with the excretion in pasturelands varies from 164 lbs of N in a year (Farm 2) to more than 1,700 lbs of N in a year (Farms 3 and 4). Land area in pastures together with the number of heifers, dry cows, and non-confined time of milking cows and bulls determines these amounts. Additionally, the RHA is important depending on how much time milking cows spend on pasture. The amount of N per cow that is deposited in pasture fields depends on the RHA; the number of bulls; the percent of heifers raised on-farm; and the CT. The CT is very

PAGE 150

128 important since it determines how much time milking cows spend in pastures; e.g., Farm 2, that has the lowest CT of all, presented the lowest manure N per cow in sprayfields, however it shows the highest N deposited per cow in pasture fields. Table 5-7 presents additional information estimated by the DNFDFM for the five hypothetical farms regarding the manure produced, dry matter intake, and water use. Table 5-7. Estimated amounts of manure, DMI, and water use in five hypothetical north-Florida dairy farms Farm 1 2 3 4 5 Total Manure Confined 26,333,116 1,663,958 20,889,635 25,570,629 24,397,989 Total Manure Deposited 30,913,417 4,370,231 18,020,830 43,232,565 23,611,177 Total Dry Matter Intake lbs yr -1 17,147,309 2,400,529 11,339,436 25,873,975 15,259,717 Water Use gal yr -1 43,706,188 6,555,930 26,223,723 65,559,310 34,964,950 Table 5-7 summarizes estimations for a whole year. The total manure confined is the wet weight of urine and feces deposited on concrete during the confined time by milking cows and bulls that will reach the waste management system. The manure deposited refers to the amount of feces and urine directly deposited on pasturelands. The total DMI includes all the feedstuff on a dry matter basis for all animals and the water usage is for the confined animals. These estimations are based on livestock characteristics and not on the available land. As in the case of N, estimations of these variables give an idea of the magnitude of variation of these operations regarding the amounts of materials into and out of the system. 5.5 Conclusions A user-friendly model to accurately estimate manure N production by north-Florida dairy farms has been developed. It is called the Livestock Dynamic

PAGE 151

129 North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (LDNFDFM). The LDNFDFM estimates on a monthly basis the amount of N that reaches the sprayfields and the pastureland on a farm with minimal dataset input required. Estimations using LDNFDFM were more easily and quickly performed than with the other two models widely used in Florida (Van Horn et al., 2001; NRCS, 2001). Estimations by the LDNFDFM, although relatively close to the others, are believed to be better because they take into account the real dynamics of dairy cows and additionally include seasonality. The LDNFDFM model requires less information than the others since it does not use body weight or dry matter as parameters of estimation. Comparison of the LDNFDFM with models used in Florida demonstrates that the DNFDFM performs inside the expected ranges but with advantageous characteristics by the inclusion of Florida dairy parameters. This comparison might suggest that previous models either overestimate or underestimate N excretion. Another distinctive characteristic of the LDNFDFM is that this model not only estimates manure N produced by adult cows, but also that produced by young stock and bulls; additionally the estimations not only include amounts of manure N of the waste management system, but also that deposited in pastures. Using the model, estimations for 5 hypothetical north-Florida farms were performed. Results indicated great variability showing that some fields could receive as little as 3 lbs and as much as 145 lbs of manure N per acre in a month according to seasonality of the year, and that these amounts are independent of being a sprayfield or pastureland. Herd size, milk production, and farm size are critical variables affecting these results. The fact that pasture fields can receive large amounts of manure N, found

PAGE 152

130 by simulating these hypothetical farms with the model, has profound implications in policy making and regulations towards decreasing N impacts from dairy farms. After the simulation of the 5 hypothetical farms, it can be concluded that the main factors that lead the N discharge in the fields in a dairy farm are, in order land area/number of animals; milk productivity or intensity of the farm; characteristics of the waste system; confined time; and interactions among previous factors. The number of bulls and the percentage of heifers raised on-farm have lower impacts. Farms with more land available per cow (either in pasture or sprayfields) will have less environmental problems because manure N can be distributed over a higher land area, so the amount of N per unit of area decreases. However the commitment of more land to dairy production has an economic cost. It is also clear that farms with higher ratios of productivity (milk per cow) require more feed, which brings more N that cows intake and excrete. Farms with high productivity have more N in the system and carries a higher environmental impact. Farms have to balance the trade-offs between productivity and environmental impacts. Low milk productivity could be a valid option depending on the compliance costs; it will not be surprising that in the future more farms adopt this alternative if they are able to maintain an acceptable profit level. The waste system and the confined time are closely related since the first determines how much of the confined manure N arrives at the sprayfields, and the latter determines how much manure N pastures receive (plus additions from heifers and dry cows). At the moment, the higher the collection or loss of N from the waste system, the lower the environmental impact. However, this might change in the future when probably every pound of N will have to be accounted, no matter where it goes. The confined time

PAGE 153

131 and the environmental impact vary also according to the available land for sprayfields and pastures; in general, if the sprayfield cow/land ratio is higher than the pasture, it would be environmentally favorable to have a high confined time. User-friendliness of the model was desired and achieved. The DNFDFM works as an Excel file and only requires the initial conditions of the farm to run. It could be recommended to be introduced and compared with traditional methods by farmers and other stakeholders in the issue of N pollution by dairy farms in the Suwannee River Basin.

PAGE 154

CHAPTER 6 FORAGE SYSTEMS IN NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS FOR RECYCLING N UNDER SEASONAL VARIATION 6.1 Introduction The presence of N in water is an environmental hazard because it affects human health and ecosystem welfare. The Suwannee River Basin has received much attention in recent years because increased N levels in water bodies. Dairy waste may be an important factor contributing to this water N pollution. Dairy farmers are now required to comply with stricter environmental regulations either under permit or under voluntary incentive-based programs. Evidence indicates that the main way farms have to reduce their total N loads is through forage crop systems that are able to recycle an important part of this N produced on the farm. Improvements in climate or seasonal weather predictions (lead times of 6 to 12 months) can play an important role in devising management strategies that dairy farmers in north-Florida could adopt regarding forage crop systems to pursue economic and ecological sustainability. Although exporting manure off the farm is an option, few farms are using this practice and only for a small part of their waste. Evidence from interviews indicates that dairy farmers must to deal with their manure inside the farm gate. Manure is applied to fields through spraying systems and/or through direct animal depositions. Amount of N in this manure is usually high compared with normal agronomic applications. Therefore, efficient crop systems are necessary to uptake as much N as possible and decrease environmental problems. Climatic parameters such as temperature, solar radiation, and 132

PAGE 155

133 rainfall will direct and indirectly affect the crop-soil-environment and interaction with N flow. A few studies have evaluated the manure N uptake and loss in forage systems of dairy farms. In Georgia, Hubbard et al. (1987) found N concentrations between 10 to 50 mg L -1 of NO 3 -N at 2.4 m below the soil surface in a forage system of bermudagrass (Cynodon spp)-ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) when 530 to 1080 kg ha -1 of N in effluents were applied. Johnson et al. (1991) presented data indicating that bermudagrass uptakes between 107 and 130 kg N ha -1 rye (Secale cereale L.) between 140 and 250 kg N ha -1 and corn (Zea mays L.) between 178 and 237 kg N ha -1 when applied rates of manure N were between 385 and 1,000 kg N ha -1 Vellidis et al. (1993) found N concentrations between 0 and 14 and between 4 and 21 mg L -1 in a system of bermudagrass-rye applied with 400 and 800 kg ha -1 respectively. A follow up of this study, reported by Newton et al. (1995), found that N uptake by corn, bermudagrass, and rye were 86, 143, and 91 kg ha -1 respectively with application of 400 kg N ha -1 and 157, 137, and 169 kg ha -1 respectively, with application of 800 kg N ha -1 For north-Florida conditions, French et al. (1995), presented in Van Horn et al. (1998), found that a crop sequence of perennial peanut (Arachis glabrata Benth.) rye uptakes 430, 470, and 485 kg N ha -1 year -1 receiving 400, 455, and 500 kg N ha -1 year -1 from manure effluent, respectively. The rye forage in this system accumulated 4, 4.7, and 4.5 Mg ha -1 of dry matter containing 60, 80, and 92 kg of N, respectively. Woodard et al. (2002) performed an extensive experiment for four years (1996-2000) in a north-Florida dairy with distinct forage systems under different rates of effluent application (500, 690, and 910 kg N ha -1 year -1 ). They found for these rates of N, the

PAGE 156

134 accumulated dry biomass was 20.5, 20.9, and 21.2 Mg Ha -1 for the bermudagrass, 13.4, 12.6, and 12.8 Mg Ha -1 for the corn, 9.6, 8.7, 9.4 Mg Ha -1 for the sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.), and 3.4, 3.9, and 4.4 Mg Ha -1 for the rye. The N removal of these forages was 390, 430, and 467 kg N Ha -1 for bermudagrass, 148, 152, 166 kg N Ha -1 for corn, 111, 111, and 120 kg N Ha -1 for sorghum, and 55, 70 and 85 kg N Ha -1 for rye. The rye was in both a bermudagrass-rye system and a corn-sorghum-rye system and it performed similarly in both regarding N uptake and biomass accumulation. For this experiment, lysimeters were installed 1.5 m below the surface and measurements were taken every 14 days: in the bermudagrass-rye system, the NO 3 -N levels never exceeded 10 mg L -1 during the time of the bermudagrass (April-November) but they went above 10, 20 and 30 mg L -1 during the time of the rye (December-March). For the corn-sorghum-rye system, the measurements were much higher: they reach levels of 20 to 40 mg L -1 during corn growth (April-July), 20 to 60 mg L -1 during sorghum growth (August-November), and 30 to 60 mg L -1 during rye growth (December-March). The main aim of the present study was to assess the potential N leaching from forage systems under intensive application of dairy manure in north-Florida. The specific objectives were to estimate The capacity of north-Florida forage systems of accumulate biomass and remove N from the soil The risk of N leaching under different conditions of Climate Crop systems Soils Manure N applications

PAGE 157

135 6.2 Materials and Methods The study was conducted on dairy operations of north-Florida in the Suwannee River Basin, considering their most common forage systems, under the different soils conditions, over a period of 43 years (1956-1998), and with a wide range of manure N application rates by using crop simulation models contained in the Decision Support Systems for Agricultural Transfer, DSSAT v.4.0 Software (Jones et al., 2003). 6.2.1 Survey, Focus Groups, and Additional Information A sample of 21 dairy farms (30% of the population) participated in the interviews. This sample was obtained in cooperation with the Suwannee Partnership and the University of Florida Extension offices in the study area. The sample was intended to cover the variability in north-Florida dairy farm systems with respect to forage systems and their management. Interviews were arranged to be conversational in nature without an instrument, but with a guideline of topics. Interviews lasted between one and two hours and on several occasions, a tour of the farm followed. Conversations were recorded, transcribed, and classified. More general information was obtained by eight focus groups conducted with farmers and other stakeholders such as extension agents, technical people, personnel from government and regulatory agencies, private consultants, among others. Interviews and focus groups were conducted during summer and fall 2003. Additional secondary information was obtained from published studies, dairy farm records, and official records. 6.2.2 Location of North-Florida Dairy Farms and Their Soil Series The study was conducted in dairy operations of Suwannee, Lafayette, Gilchrist, Levy, and Alachua counties in the Suwannee River Basin (21.30 to 30.37 N, and 82.43 to 83.35 W), and included 10 different soil types.

PAGE 158

136 There are 64 dairy farms in the study area: 25 in Lafayette, 19 in Suwannee, 7 in Gilchrist, 7 in Levy, and 6 in Alachua. These were located using the land use survey (1995) of the Suwannee River Water Management District, contained in the Florida Geographic Data Library (1995). Figure 6-1. Study area, dairy farms, and soil types

PAGE 159

137 The soil series for each of the farms were located overlaying it to the soil series maps from the Soils Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (2002). Figure 6-1 and Table 6-1 present the soils of the studied dairy farm systems, which were summarized in 10 soil types. Table 6-1. Soil types, some characteristics, and their sources of information used for the study Drainage 1 CEC 2 pH 3 Type Series County Rate meq 100 g -1 Survey 1 Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper Alachua 0.75 6.0 5.9 Thomas et al., 1985 2 Arredondo-Jonesville-Lake Alachua 0.65 5.0 6.3 Thomas et al., 1985 3 Bonneau-Blanton-Eunola Gilchrist 0.80 6.6 5.6 Weatherspoon et al., 1992 4 Penney-Otela Gilchrist, Lafayette 0.80 3.6 4.9 Weatherspoon et al., 1992 5 Penney-Kershaw Gilchrist 0.75 3.2 4.7 Weatherspoon et al., 1992 6 Millhopper-Bonneau Levy 0.85 7.0 5.0 Slabaugh et al., 1996 7 Otela-Jonesville-Seaboard Levy 0.75 5.5 5.3 Slabaugh et al., 1996 8 Blanton(high)-Lakeland Suwannee 0.60 2.7 5.1 Houston, 1965 9 Blanton(low) Suwannee 0.80 7.4 5.3 Houston, 1965 10 Blanton-Ortega-Penny Lafayette 0.75 5.1 5.3 Weatherspoon et al., 1998 Note: Drainage, CEC, and pH are only for the first soil layer. 1 0.60 (well), 0.75 (somewhat excessive), 0.85 (excessive). 2 Cation Exchange Capacity < 3.0 (extremely low), 3.1-5.0 (very low), 5.1-7.0 (low), 7.1-10.0 (medium). 3 < 5.0 (very strongly acid), 5.1-5.5 (strongly acid), 5.6-6.0 (moderately acid), 6.1-6.5 (slightly acid). The 10 soil types are summarized in Table 6-1, where there is a brief characterization of each of them regarding drainage, cation exchange capacity, and pH. For more

PAGE 160

138 information, there is a reference to the specific soil survey publication. Datasets consisting of several layers of information for each type of soil were collected and organized for the study. These specific data were converted to the format needed by the DSSAT v4.0 system, using SBuild software (Uryasev, 2003), where the soil water holding limits were corrected using Saxton et al. (1986). 6.2.3 Climate Information and El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Phases Daily weather information was selected from Levy (29.42 N, 82.82 W), located in the central south part of the Suwannee River Basin, between the years 1956 and 1998 (Mavromatis et al., 2002) to be representative for the study area. During this time, 11 years were classified as El Nio years, 10 as La Nia years and 23 as neutral years. Each, El Nio, La Nia, or neutral year is defined as beginning in October and running through September of the next calendar year according to the Japan Meteorological Index (JMI) of sea surface temperature (OBrien et al., 1999). Daily weather information of rainfall, minimum and maximum temperature, and solar radiation between October 1 st (day 274 (275 for leap years)) and September 30 th (day 273 (274 for leap years) were selected, classified, and organized for the different ENSO years. Figures 6.2 to 6.6 show these daily values for rainfall, temperature, and solar radiation as an indication of the weather information used for the simulation. The DSSAT v4.0 crop models were fed with daily information of these four climatic parameters during the 43 years (1956-1998). 6.2.4 Forage Crop Systems Part of the study was devoted to identify and understand forage systems used in north-Florida dairy farms, including fodder plans, management practices, and sequences. Then, they were calibrated and validated using the DSSAT v4.0.

PAGE 161

139 Rainfall in LA NIA years051015202530274286298310322334346358416284052647688100112124136148160172184196208220232244256268Day of the Year (DOY)Rainfall (mm)LA Nia years: 55,56,64,67,70,71,73,75,88,98 Rainfall in NEUTRAL years0.005.0010.0015.0020.0025.0030.00274286298310322334346358416284052647688100112124136148160172184196208220232244256268Day of the Year (DOY)Rainfall (mm)Neutral years: 58,59,60,61,62,66,68,74,77,78,79,80,81,83,84,85,89,90,92,93,94,95,96 A B Rainfall in EL NIO years0.005.0010.0015.0020.0025.0030.00274286298310322334346358416284052647688100112124136148160172184196208220232244256268Day of the Year (DOY)Rainfall (mm) 34.1EL Nio years: 57,63,65,69,72,76,82,86,87,91,97 C Figure 6-2. Daily rainfall (1956-1998) in north-Florida for different ENSO phases. A) La Nia; B) Neutral; and C) El Nio years.

PAGE 162

140 Figure 6-3. Distribution of monthly precipitation (1956-1998) in north-Florida for different ENSO phases 051015202530274286298310322334346358416284052647688100112124136148160172184196208220232244256268Day of the Year (DOY)Rainfall (mm) La Nia El Nio Neutral 34.1 Figure 6-4. Daily precipitation in north-Florida (1956-1998) for different ENSO phases

PAGE 163

141 05101520253035274286298310322334346358416284052647688100112124136148160172184196208220232244256268Day of the Year (DOY)Temperature (C) La Nia El Nio Neutral La Nia years: 55,56,64,67,70,71,73,75,88,98MaximumTemperatureEl Nio years: 57,63,65,69,72,76,82,86,87,91,97MinimumTemperatureNeutral years: 58,59,60,61,62,66,68,74,77,78,79,80,81,83,84,85,89,90,92,93,94,95,96 Figure 6-5. Daily temperature (1956-1998) in north-Florida for different ENSO phases 0510152025274286298310322334346358416284052647688100112124136148160172184196208220232244256268Day of the Year (DOY)Solar Radiation (MJ m-2 d-1) La Nia El Nio Neutral Figure 6-6. Daily solar radiation (1956-1998) in north-Florida for different ENSO phases

PAGE 164

142 6.2.5 Manure N Application Dairy farm fields receive a highly variable amount of manure N depending on herd size, land available, and waste management system. Simulating dynamic cow flows by integrating real data from seasonality, culling rates, reproduction rates, and milk production of north-Florida dairies, collected by the Dairy Herd Improvement Association (FL-DHIA) summarized by De Vries (2004); and survey information, in a Markov-chain model (Chapter 5), monthly rates of manure N received by fields were estimated for all variety of north-Florida dairy farms. These rates varied between 20 and 160 kg ha -1 month -1 Considering that sprayfields usually have two applications in a month, four treatments were arranged at 10, 20, 40, and 80 kg ha -1 application -1 in the DSSAT v4.0 system. 6.2.6. Crop Simulations Forage crop simulations were performed using adapted crop models in the Decision Support System for Agricultural Transfer, DSSAT v4.0 (Jones et al., 2003). These crop models are dynamic process models that simulate crop growth and yield in response to management, climate, and soil conditions. They include light interception, photosynthesis, N uptake, soil water balance, evapotranspiration, respiration, leaf area extension, growth of component parts, root growth, senescence, N mobilization, and crop development processes. For the soil C and N components, the Century model (Parton et al., 1979) implemented in the DSSAT by Gijsman et al. (2002) was used. This model estimates soil N balances that include soil and surface organic matter, inorganic N, additions and removals of N, and all the processes that include the N cycle in the soil, such as decomposition, mineralization, N leaching, etc. Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) and bermudagrass (Rymph, 2004) are the only forage crops developed for the DSSAT system, therefore, part of the study consisted in

PAGE 165

143 adapting, calibrating, and validating crop models based on the closest existing models. For corn forage, maize was utilized; for forage sorghum, grain sorghum; for pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum), grain millet; and for winter forage small grains, wheat (Triticum aestivum). These models were utilized after altering their cultivar coefficients. Calibration and validation against local, actual and current studies followed as well as a sensitivity analysis of the N leaching. These procedures are described in detail in the results section. Forage systems were arranged to mimic dairy farm systems in three growing seasons: spring-summer, summer-fall, and winter. All potential forage combinations were run for four N effluent ranges, ten types of soils found in the study area, and for 43 years of daily weather data (1956-1998). Residual organic matter from one crop to the next one was accounted for as well as other management choices that are common in these systems such as extra irrigation and harvests. 6.2.7 Analyses Daily cumulative N leached (kg ha -1 ) and biomass (kg ha -1 ) outputs from the simulations were compiled in monthly rates for the span of the study period (1956-1998). All months were classified according to ENSO phases and results were summarized by the factors incorporated in the simulations: 12 months x 3 ENSO phases x 4 Manure N applications x 10 soil types x 11 forage combinations. 6.3 Results and Discussion 6.3.1 Forage Crop Systems in North-Florida Dairies Forage crop systems in north-Florida dairies can be summarized by seasons of the year. There are three marked seasons in the north-Florida forage calendar. Spring-summer: from late March or early April to mid July; summer-fall: from late July or early August to

PAGE 166

144 early or mid November; and fall-winter: from late November or early December to mid March (Figure 6-7). 6.3.1.1 Spring-summer crops Three crops were reported during this season in dairy farm fields: corn, bermudagrass, and bahiagrass. Sorghum or pearl millet could also be an option in this season, but were not reported. Corn is planted for silage and always as a part of a sequence of crops. Bermudagrass and bahiagrass are used for either hay, haylage, or grazing and they are also usually part of a sequence of crops. It is possible to over plant bermudagrass or bahiagrass with corn in this season. One to three cuttings are expected for the grasses during this season (two are usual), if they are not grazed. MARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARPERENNIAL PEANUT* **FALL WINTERCORNBERMUDA GRASSBAHIA GRASSSORGHUMMILLETCORNRYEOATSWHEATSORGHUM*MILLET*BERMUDA GRASSBAHIA GRASSSPRING SUMMERSUMMER FALLRYEGRASSCLOVER** Figure 6-7. Forage systems and their seasonality in north-Florida dairy farms. Not found in the interviews, but they are possible. ** Not common and not simulated with DSSAT. 6.3.1.2 Summer-fall crops There are more options to grow during summer-fall. Sorghum and millet are very common, although continuation of grasses from the previous season is also common. Some farmers also grow corn for silage in this season or let the bermudagrass or bahiagrass re-grow, if they were over-planted in spring-summer. Another option, mentioned by only one farmer, is the re-growth of perennial peanut forage during this season. Sorghum, millet, perennial peanut, and the grasses can be used either for hay or haylage or for grazing. One

PAGE 167

145 to three cuttings will be expected for the grasses and one to two cuttings for the sorghum and millet if they are not grazed. 6.3.1.3 Fall-winter crops Winter forages are common in the crop sequences of dairy farms in north-Florida. They are usually small grains or ryegrass; small grains often used are rye, oats (Avena sativa) or wheat. Although bermudagrass and bahiagrass are perennial, they are dormant during this season, where they can be over-seeded or multi-cropped with other species. If there are perennial grasses already established in the field, these winter crops are usually non-till over seeded. Small grains are used for hay or haylage, ryegrass is preferred for silage. Winter small grains could be cut one to four times (two cuts are usual), if they are not grazed. Clover (Trifolium spp.) was also mentioned as an option by one farmer, intercropped with several other grasses. 6.3.1.4 Sequences of forages If bermudagrass or bahiagrass is established and allowed to re-grow in the spring-summer, they will continue growing in the summer-fall season, and no other crops will be possible on the same field until fall-winter season. However, if corn is grown in spring-summer over-planted on one of those grasses, the grass will be allowed to re-grow in the summer-fall season. If corn, sorghum, or millet is planted in spring-summer, any summer-fall crop (from Figure 6-7) will be possible to follow. In fall-winter any small grain or ryegrass could follow any summer-fall crop. If perennial grasses are not established, the most common sequence of forages is silage corn in spring-summer followed by sorghum or millet in the summer-fall, and any small grain or ryegrass in the fall-winter. If grasses are established, a very common

PAGE 168

146 sequence is grass-grass-small grain or ryegrass, for the same seasons. Bermudagrass is much more common than bahiagrass and they both are much more common than perennial peanut. Rye, oats, and wheat are very similar forages and farmers use them indistinctly. Ryegrass was indicated as having better-quality forage, but requires more care and time. It is very common to mix these winter forages in the fields. Farmers try to have a crop in the field at all times, with brief windows between the growing seasons. The regulatory agencies strongly recommend this practice in order to ameliorate the risk of N leaching. 6.3.1.5 Harvest and processing With the exception of corn, all other forages have the option of being grazed directly by the animals. All forages can be cut and processed as hay, haylage, or silage. Hay consists of drying directly in the field. Haylage is an intermediate process of silage performed directly in the field by wrapping up bales with plastic. The silage is a more elaborate process that usually takes place in specially designed facilities. Any forage could follow any of these processes after cutting, but corn and ryegrass are much appreciated for silage and the bermudagrass and bahiagrass are usually intended for hay. 6.3.2 Calibration and Validation of DSSAT Crop Models Models must be calibrated and validated using real data; biophysical models such as crop simulation models contained in the DSSAT v4.0 must be tested to make sure that they represent real plant behavior under specific environmental conditions. Pertinent and trustworthy information from different sources was collected for this purpose. Previous studies, farm records, and survey information were used as baseline information to adjust and compare behavior of these forages on north-Florida dairy farms.

PAGE 169

147 Especially designed experiments for this purpose contain the ideal information against which these models can be calibrated and validated. Thanks to very recent studies (Rymph, 2004), the DSSAT v 4.0 has two forage crops adjusted for Florida conditions, the bermudagrass and the bahiagrass. However, experimental information is not available for the other forage crops; indeed, there are no genotypic experimental coefficients available for them. Fortunately, close relatives for most of these forages exist: for silage corn, grain maize; for forage sorghum, grain sorghum; for pearl millet, millet; for winter forages, wheat. Since the main objective in this study was to assess potential N leaching, biomass accumulation (that determines the N uptake) was used as the driver in the calibration and validation processes. Because the main interest in these crops is their potential use as forages, the cultivar coefficients are not as important and therefore they could be manipulated to emulate a desired behavior (G. Hoogenboom, pers. comm.). And, even when some used crop species are not forages per se, biomass and N uptake are equivalent when species produce or do not produce grain. Consequently, models can be simulated ignoring whether or not they would be producing grain (K. Boote, pers. comm.). The most important data sources used for calibration and validation are listed in Table 6-2. 6.3.2.1 Forage sorghum Woodard et al. (2002) found that forage sorghum between early August and early November will produce between 7.3 and 11.1 Mg ha -1 of dry matter and will uptake between 99 and 150 kg N ha -1 under strong N applications of manure effluents. Environmental conditions of the actual experiment were emulated with the DSSAT v4.0. Soil data of the series Kershaw for Gilchrist County were obtained from the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) from USDA, NRCS.

PAGE 170

148 Table 6-2. Information sources for calibration and validation of forage crops in north-Florida dairy farm systems Study/Source Location Weather Soil Series Observations Woodard et al. (2002) North-Florida Holsteins Farm, Inc. Bell. 29.73 N, 82.85 W 1996-1998 Kershaw Several forages: corn, sorghum, rye. Manure effluent applied in rates of 500, 690, and 910 kg N ha -1 year -1 Fontaneli et al. (2000) (2001) Forage Field Evaluation Laboratory. Gainesville. 29.08 N, 82.42 W 1996-1997 Sparr Cool season forages: comparing winter multi-crops. Warm season forages: comparing three varieties of millet and two varieties of sorghum Wright et al. (1993) North-Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy. 30.40 N, 84.27 W 1992 Norfolk Millet and sorghum. Different treatments and purposes Johnson et al. Tifton, GA. 31.43 N, 83.89 W Before 1991 Tifton Corn and rye with different rates of Manure effluent applied Survey north-Florida dairy farms Suwannee River Basin Several years Several types Not always precise information, but real and trustworthy Daily weather data of Levy (29.42 N, 82.82 W) compiled by Mavromatis et al. (2002) were used for the study. Manure effluent was set up to be applied as described in the study: two applications every month containing 21, 29, or 38 kg N ha -1 each one, for a total in a year of 500, 690, and 910 kg N ha -1 The sorghum crop received 6 applications with a total of 132, 174, and 228 kg N ha -1 As described in the study, in addition to the water in the liquid manure applied, extra irrigations were realized, so the crop would have most of the water requirements with some minimal stresses. A new cultivar was created, the forage sorghum, by changing some cultivar coefficients. The final cultivar had the coefficients detailed in Table 6-3. With these coefficients, the validation comparison was realized between the simulated and the experimental data as seen in Figure 6-8. Figure 6-8 shows the comparison between simulated versus observed data. Overall values are inside the expected ranges and they follow the same pattern as the observed data.

PAGE 171

149 0.002.004.006.008.0010.0012.00132 N174 N228 N132 N174 N228 N132 N174 N228 N1996199619961997199719971998199819980.400.060.112.410.011.802.250.140.00 Mg/ha Observed Simulated MSE 2.68 RMSE2.68 Figure 6-8. Forage sorghum: Observed and simulated biomass production, Bell, 1996-1998. Individual mean square error (MES) and overall Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) 6.3.2.2 Pearl millet Fontaneli et al. (2001) presented results of a study carried out at the Forage Evaluation Field Laboratory (24 Km NE of Gainesville, 29.08 N, 82.42 W), where three cultivars of pearl millet and two of sorghum were tested at different planting dates. The experiment realized during spring-summer-fall of 1996 and 1997 revealed that no significant differences exist between millet and sorghum regarding biomass accumulation. Millet would be a higher producer, but very slightly. Also, in both sorghum and millet, the planting date greatly affected the biomass accumulation, which varied between less than 5 Mg ha -1 to nearly 8 Mg ha -1 Also, Chambliss (1997) suggests that millet and sorghum would be very similar forage crops under Florida conditions. Under this premises, sorghum data could be used to validate millet considering the lack of detailed experimental information for this forage.

PAGE 172

150 With similar information on environmental conditions of sorghum, a new cultivar was created, the forage millet, by changing some coefficients. The final cultivar had the coefficients shown in Table 6-3. Additionally, the conversion of solar radiation (in the species file) was set at 0.42, which was originally 0.50, in order to diminish a higher than expected growth. Using these coefficients, the validation comparison was realized between the simulated and the experimental data and results can be seen in Figure 6-9. Table 6-3. Coefficients values and coefficients definitions of modified crops in DSSAT Forage P1 P1V P1D P2 P20 P2R P5 G1 G2 G3 PHINT sorghum 500.0 10.5 90.0 540.0 5.0 6.0 44.0 millet 600.0 10.0 90.0 540.0 5.0 6.0 44.0 Corn 200.0 0.52 940.0 620.0 8.5 38.9 winter forage 47.0 64.0 360.0 28.0 25.0 1.3 80.0 P1: Thermal time from seedling emergence to the end of the juvenile phase (expressed in degree days above a base temperature (10 o C sorghum, 8 o C millet and corn) during which the plant is not responsive to changes in photoperiod. P1V: Relative amount that development is slowed for each day of unfulfilled vernalization, assuming that 50 days of vernalization is sufficient for all cultivars P1D: Relative amount that development is slowed when plants are grown in a photoperiod 1 hour shorter than the optimum (which is considered to be 20 hours). P2: Extent to which development (expressed as days) is delayed for each hour increase in photoperiod above the longest photoperiod at which development proceeds at a maximum rate (which is considered to be 12.5 hours). P20: Critical photoperiod or the longest day length (in hours) at which development occurs at a maximum rate. At values higher than P20, the rate of development is reduced. P2R: Extent to which basic development leading to panicle initiation (expressed in degree days) is delayed for each hour increase in photoperiod above P20. P5: Thermal time (degree days above a base temperature (10 o C sorghum, 8 o C millet and corn, 1 o C winter forages) from beginning of grain filling (3-4 days after flowering) to physiological maturity. G1: Scaler for relative leaf size (sorghum and millet); Kernel number per unit weight of stem (less leaf blades and sheaths) plus spike at anthesis (winter forages) G2:Scaler for partitioning of assimilates to the panicle (sorghum, millet, corn); Kernel filling rate under optimum conditions (winter forages) G3: Kernel filling rate during the linear grain filling stage and under optimum conditions (corn); Non-stressed dry weight of a single stem (excluding leaf blades and sheaths) and spike when elongation ceases (winter forages) PHINT: Phylochron interval; the interval in thermal time (degree days) between successive leaf tip appearances Forage millet was also tested using another set of information from Wright et al. (1993) of a study realized in Quincy, Florida (30.40 N, 84.27 W) during 1992 on soils of the series Norfolk. An experiment in DSSAT v4.0 to try to mimic the experimental conditions was set up. Even when this experiment was done outside of the boundaries of the study (soils are very different), a more general comparison could be achieved providing

PAGE 173

151 more support for the previous validation. Experimental data (with a variety of treatments) showed a range of millet production of biomass under these conditions between 12.5 and 14.4 Mg ha -1 Figures 6-9 and 6-10 show the results of the observations and simulations. Overall values are inside the expected ranges and they follow the same pattern as the observed data. 0.002.004.006.008.0010.0012.00132 N174 N228 N132 N174 N228 N132 N174 N228 N1996199619961997199719971998199819980.361.001.216.760.040.816.760.640.16 Mg/ha Observed Simulated MSE17.74 RMSE4.21 Figure 6-9. Forage millet: Observed and simulated biomass production, Bell, 1996-1998. Individual mean square error (MES) and overall Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) 6.3.2.3 Silage corn Woodard et al. (2002) found that corn forage grown between early April and mid July will produce between 10.8 and 15.2 Mg ha -1 of dry matter and will uptake between 119 and 200 kg N ha -1 under strong N applications of manure effluents. Environmental conditions of the actual experiment were emulated as in the case of forage sorghum and millet. Manure effluent was set up to be applied as described in the study: the corn crop received 7 applications with a total of 147, 203, and 266 kg N ha -1

PAGE 174

152 0.002.004.006.008.0010.0012.0014.0016.0025-Jun05-Jul15-Jul25-Jul04-Aug14-Aug24-Aug03-Sep13-SepDate Simulated Observed Figure 6-10. Forage millet: Observed and simulated biomass production, Quincy 1992 A new cultivar was created, the silage corn, on which the calibration was performed. The final cultivar had the coefficients summarized in Table 6-3. Using these coefficients, the validation comparison was realized between the simulated and the experimental data as can be seen in Figure 6-11. Overall values are inside the expected ranges and follow the same pattern. 6.3.2.4 Winter forages Farmers refer to winter forages as a group of forages that include the small grains and ryegrass. Small grains are commonly wheat, rye, and oats; rye is the most common. It is usual that farmers mix these crops in winter with ryegrass. Using information provided during the interviews these forages can be simulated as a single crop. DSSAT v4.0 has the wheat coefficients, which were used as the baseline to simulate winter forages.

PAGE 175

153 0.002.004.006.008.0010.0012.0014.0016.0018.00147 N203 N266 N147 N203 N266 N147 N203 N266 N1996199619961997199719971998199819980.0221.3611.900.0913.488.3116.520.190.02 Mg/ha OBSERVED SIMULATED MSE71.89 RMSE8.48 Figure 6-11. Silage corn: Observed and simulated biomass production, Bell, 1996-1998. Individual mean square error (MES) and overall Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) Woodard et al. (2002) found that rye forage produced between late November and mid March will produce between 2.7 and 5.0 Mg ha -1 of dry matter and will uptake between 46 and 89 kg N ha -1 under strong N applications of manure effluents. Environmental conditions of the actual experiment were emulated with the DSSAT v4.0 as in previous cases. Manure effluent was set up to be applied as described in the study; the small grain forages received 7 applications with a total of 147, 203, and 266 kg N ha -1 Biomass production was compared to the years 1996/97 and 1997/98. A new cultivar was created, the winter forage, upon which the calibration was performed. The final cultivar had coefficients that are shown in Table 6-3. Using these coefficients, the validation comparison was realized between the simulated and the experimental data. Figure 6-12 shows the results of such a comparison. Overall values are inside the expected ranges and follow the same pattern as the observed data.

PAGE 176

154 0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.00147 N203 N266 N147 N203 N266 N1996/971996/981996/991997/981997/991997/1001.270.220.031.170.000.47 Mg/ha Observed Simulated MSE3.16 RMSE1.78 Figure 6-12. Winter forages: Observed and simulated biomass production, Bell 1997-1998. Individual mean square error (MES) and overall Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) 6.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis of Forage Crops to Manure N Application A sensitivity analysis of biomass accumulation, N uptake, and N leaching was conducted in which extreme values of manure N were used on the crops to be used for this study. Six rates of manure N were tested in all crops 0, 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 kg per application (2 applications per month), or 0, 240, 480, 960, 1440, 1920, and 2400 kg year -1 Irrigation was arranged as usual in dairy farms and it was tested for 1996/1997 (a Neutral climatic year where results from previous calibration and validation are known) and for Kershaw soils as in the Woodard et al. (2002) experiment. Corn was planted on April 4 th and harvested on July 16 th and received 7 manure N applications. Sorghum was planted on August 14 th and harvested on November 13 th 1996. During this period the crop received 6 manure N applications. Winter forage was planted on December 3 rd and harvested on March 11 th 1997. During this time the crop received 7 manure N applications. Millet was planted on August

PAGE 177

155 14 th and harvested on November 13 th 1997 and received 6 manure N applications. Bahiagrass and bermudagrass were grown from March 30 th to November 16 th 1996 and received 22 manure N applications. 0.002.004.006.008.0010.0012.0014.0016.0018.0020.00070140280420560700MANURE N APPLIED (Kg Ha-1)BIOMASS (Mg Ha-1)01020304050607080N LEACHED (Kg Ha-1) BIOMASS N LEACHED CORN 0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.00060120240360480600MANURE N APPLIED (Kg Ha-1)BIOMASS (Mg Ha-1)0510152025N LEACHED (Kg Ha-1) BIOMASS N LEACHED SORGHUM 0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.00070140280420560700MANURE N APPLIED (Kg Ha-1)BIOMASS (Mg Ha-1)0510152025303540N LEACHED (Kg Ha-1) BIOMASS N LEACHED WINTER FORAGE 0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.0010.00060120240360480600MANURE N APPLIED (Kg Ha-1)BIOMASS (Mg Ha-1)0102030405060N LEACHED (Kg Ha-1) BIOMASS N LEACHED MILLET 0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.0010.00015030060090012001500MANURE N APPLIED (Kg Ha-1)BIOMASS (Mg Ha-1)0102030405060708090100N LEACHED (Kg Ha-1) BIOMASS N LEACHED BAHIA 0.002.004.006.008.0010.0012.0014.00015030060090012001500MANURE N APPLIED (Kg Ha-1)BIOMASS (Mg Ha-1)-551525354555N LEACHED (Kg Ha-1) BIOMASS N LEACHED BERMUDA F A B C D E Figure 6-13. Sensitivity response of N leaching and biomass accumulation to different rates of manure N applied for simulations in a Kershaw soil series during the season 1996/1997. A) corn; B) sorghum; C) winter forage; D) millet; E) bahiagrass; and F) bermudagrass. As expected, biomass accumulation increases with manure N application, but at a decreasing rate as it reaches a maximum. There is no noticeable effect of toxicity with the high amounts of N. According to the parameters of the soil there is some organic matter

PAGE 178

156 that would provide some N at the beginning, that is why in the zero N application a low but not extremely low biomass and uptake are expected, similarly to the N leached. N leaching increased faster with higher manure N application, consistent for all crops. 6.3.4 Variability by ENSO Phases N leaching increased and biomass accumulation decreased from La Nia years to Neutral and to El Nio years. Lowest N leaching (highest biomass accumulation) was always observed in La Nia years and highest N leaching (lowest biomass accumulation) was always observed in El Nio years. This fact was consistent for different type of soils, for different forage rotations, and for different manure N applications. As an example, a trade-off of N leaching vs. biomass accumulation for two forage systems, two type of soils, and four manure N applications is shown in Figure 6-14. Figure 6-14 shows, for different ENSO phases, a similar increasing trend for both N leaching and biomass accumulation, responding to the increase of manure N application. At the beginning, this N leaching trend was smooth and slow, but it jumped up abruptly when the manure N changed from 40 to 80 kg ha -1 mo -1 Something similar, although less marked happened with the biomass accumulation change from these manure N levels. Different from the sensitivity analysis, it is deduced from these graphs that biomass accumulation had not yet reached a peak with this maximum manure N application. Notice that graphs in Figure 6-14 have different scales for the N leaching in order to show the trend, even though substantial differences in N leaching existed between the soil types and the forage systems. Differences between graph A) and B) are attributed exclusively to the type of soils and differences between graphs A) and C) are exclusively because forage system.

PAGE 179

157 42312413132420022024026028030012,00015,00018,00021,00024,00027,00030,00033,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Biomasskg/year N leachingkg/year Manure N applied kg/ha-mo 1 102 203 404 80 FORAGE SYSTEM: bermudagrass-bermudagrassSOIL SERIE 1: Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper FORAGE SYSTEM: bermudagrass-bermudagrassSOIL TYPE 1: Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper ABC 29012,00015,00018,00021,00024,00027,00030,00033,000 Biomass kg/year 42312413132427029031033035037039041012,00015,00018,00021,00024,00027,00030,00033,000 Biomass kg/year N leaching kg/year FORAGE SYSTEM: millet-sorghumSOIL SERIE 6: Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper FORAGE SYSTEM: sorghum-millet SOIL TYPE 1: Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper 132431424231340390440490540 N leaching kg/year FORAGE SYSTEM: bermudagrass-bermudagrassSOIL SERIE 6: Millhopper-Bonneau FORAGE SYSTEM: bermudagrass-bermudagrass SOIL TYPE 6: Millhopper-Bonneau Figure 6-14. Nitrogen leaching vs. biomass accumulation for different ENSO phases under two forage systems consisting of bermudagrass and millet-sorghum, four manure N applications (10, 20, 40, and 80 kg ha -1 mo -1 ), and two type of soils (Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper and Millhopper-Bonneau)

PAGE 180

158 The soil type 6 (Millhopper-Bonneau) showed substantially higher N leaching than the soil type 1 (Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper). It would be expected that soil type 6 has lower biomass accumulation because more N is being leached and consequently not up-taken by the crops, however higher biomass accumulation was also observed in soil type 6. It seems that low retentive and shallow soils such as soil type 6 provide better forage growth conditions (under these conditions of high nutrients) together with a higher risk of N leaching. A forage system consisting of bermudagrass-bermudagrass leaches substantially less N than sorghum-millet, but sorghum-millet accumulates substantially higher biomass amounts. The rate of N leaching increasing for Neutral years is distinctive from the other two phases when sorghum-millet rotation is present; this is more marked between 40 and 80 kg ha -1 mo -1 Nevertheless, the pattern of highest N leaching during El Nio years and lowest during La Nia years persists. Notice also that the magnitude of change between manure N application treatments in soils type 6, compared with soils type 1 and in rotation bermudagrass-bermudagrass, compared with rotation sorghum-millet varies considerably, indicating that there is interaction among ENSO phases, manure N application, soil types and forage rotations. 6.3.4.1 Nitrogen leaching in different ENSO phases Substantially higher (~10%) N leaching (kg ha -1 year -1 ) was predicted for El Nio (357.25) than for La Nia years (322.29). For Neutral years expected N leaching was between La Nia and El Nio years (342.90), very close to the overall average (341.84), Table 6-4. Winter months, especially January and February, are critical because the N leached in these two months represent more than 50% of the total N leached in a year. Significantly (p<0.05) higher N leaching (Coefficient of Variability, CV) was predicted in

PAGE 181

159 January for El Nio years 127.35 kg ha -1 (21%) when compared to either Neutral 108.9 kg ha -1 (30%) or La Nia years 83.19 kg ha -1 (35%) and also significant (p<0.05) differences were predicted when comparing La Nia with Neutral years in this month. For February, more N leaching (CV) was expected for La Nia years 84.22 (9%) than El Nio years 71.6 (20%), with significant differences (p<0.05). Even though no more significant differences were found in other months, there are substantial differences among ENSO years and different months that can be appreciated in Figure 6-15. Figure 6-15 shows the relative variation with respect to the average of different ENSO phases: El Nio phase presented more overall variability through the year and maximum N leaching in the months of December, January, August, September, and November. The Neutral phase presented maximum N leach amounts during the months of April, May, June, and October; and for La Nia phases more N leach was expected in the months of February, March, and July. The highest N leaching in a month was matched with specific years in order to explain the driving factors. The three highest rates in January in El Nio years (187, 152, and 140 kg ha -1 year -1 ) were found to happen in the years 1964, 1987, and 1970, when the Japan Meteorological Index (JMI) (Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, 2003) indicated ocean temperature of 0.7, 1.0, and 0.8C, respectively. For Neutral years, the three highest rates were 173, 158, and 156 kg ha -1 year -1 in the years 1979, 1991, and 1994 with JMI of 0.0, 0.4, and 0.2. In La Nia years the highest amounts were substantially lower (108, 107, and 107 kg ha -1 year -1 ) and they happened in 1965, 1972, and 1971, with the JMI of -0.8, -0.7, and -1.11. An attempt to correlate these JMI indexes with the N leached failed and corroborates what previously was found: that there is no significant

PAGE 182

160 relationship of these indexes either with biomass accumulation or N leaching under the study parameters. The same happened when comparing the highest JMI, for example 2.7 or 3.1 for El Nio years that indicated N leaching less than the highest amounts (86 and 117 kg ha year). -1 -1 Table 6-4. Nitrogen leaching (kg ha) and ENSO phases, when all other factors are averaged -1 All Years La Nia Neutral El Nio N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV Dec 10.59 98% 13.15 93% 7.69 15.64 127% Jan 108.42 80% 32% 83.19* 35% 108.90* 30% 127.35* 21% Feb 78.57 24% 84.22* 9% 79.94* 29% 71.60* 20% Mar 20.86 49% 23.54 56% 20.55 42% 19.28 45% Apr 5.81 97% 4.90 78% 6.42 71% 5.45 70% May 12.18 12.39 103% 12.94 59% 10.61 72% Jun 23.22 43% 22.01 45% 25.13 38% 20.69 50% Jul 16.65 44% 18.42 33% 17.09 48% 14.33 37% Aug 17.05 40% 16.99 40% 15.65 38% 19.71 36% Sep 21.22 39% 19.34 44% 20.33 34% 24.50 39% Oct 20.27 33% 19.02 35% 20.79 36% 20.35 21% Nov 7.00 59% 5.11 42% 7.47 58% 7.75 62% Year 341.84 322.29 342.90 357.25 73% Significant differences (p<0.05). CV is coefficient of variation. It was found, as suspected, that N leaching is highly related to precipitation associated with climatic ENSO phases: for most of the months the highest precipitation by ENSO phase presented the highest N leached (Figure 6-3), however it does not happen for February, March, and June. For example, the mean rainfall for January in the study area was 104 mm, and varied for El Nio years (148 mm), for Neutral years (111 mm), and for La Nia years (54 mm) explaining the variation in N leached. Also, matching the highest N leaching with rainfall, we found that the N leached will be highly related to the total amount of rainfall and to the occurrence of extreme rainfall events. For the highest El Nio events the rainfall amounts were 315, 194, and 140 mm; for the highest Neutral years, these were 269, 242, and 239 mm; and for the highest La Nia

PAGE 183

161 years these were 118, 101, 70 mm, respectively, These rainfall amounts were substantially higher than normal, and in the cases when this not happened, as in the third highest El Nio and third highest La Nia, extreme rainfall events occurred which had high amounts of rainfall concentrated in small time periods (e.g., rainfall >20 mm in a day). For February and March, higher leaching in El Nio years would be expected because considerably more precipitation is observed, but more N leaching was predicted for La Nia years. Possible causes would point to the rainfall distribution, other climatic factors such as temperature and solar radiation, and soil N dynamics; during February and March, in La Nia years, the precipitation patterns indicate that the rainfall events were intense (although not as much as El Nio) and infrequent. This could cause the water in the soil to be highly variable (more than in El Nio and Neutral years) because there are drought and flooding periods (different from other years when water is permanent) making the system more unstable and consequently more prone to N leaching. Other possible causes are the higher temperatures and higher solar radiation observed during these months for La Nia phases; and even though both of these factors will induce higher plant growth rates and consequently higher N uptake by plants, it seems that they may increase even more the decomposition and mineralization processes of the N inducing its leaching. Additionally, the dynamics of N in the soil would influence this behavior, meaning that the high amount of N leached in January in El Nio years would leave less N prone to leach the following months and that the relatively lower amount leached in La Nia years during January, leaves more N prone to leach in February. In June, when more N leaching would be expected for La Nia years, substantially more N leaching is predicted for Neutral, followed of El Nio years and the only possible explanation is the rainfall distribution and intensity of the events, because

PAGE 184

162 there are no apparent differences in temperature and solar radiation. Effectively, in Neutral years there are very intense events, just days before and during the month of June. 0.600.700.800.901.001.101.201.301.401.50DECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVRELAVIVE N LEACHING La Nia Neutral El Nio Figure 6-15. Nitrogen leaching vs. ENSO phases relative to absolute averages, when all other factors are averaged In order to analyze the interactions among N leaching, month of the year and ENSO phase, cumulative probabilities were estimated and plotted (Figure 6-16). In Figure 6-16, the lines are cumulative probabilities of N leaching for the ENSO phases; the Y-axis represents the percent or probability of occurrence. If for example, we would like to know the chance that there will be at most 50 kg ha -1 N leached in January, 50 kg ha -1 in February, and 20 kg ha -1 in all the other months, we would find that: having as little as 50 kg of N leached per ha is very unlikely in the months of January and February; indeed only 25% of the time in La Nia and only 5% of the time in January in Neutral years it would occur. This goal would be reached for February only

PAGE 185

163 10% of the time in El Nio and Neutral phases, respectively. There is no chance for El Nio in January and for La Nia in February that the leaching be less than 50 kg ha -1 For April, August, September, and November the N leaching would always be lower than 20 kg ha -1 independently of the ENSO phase, however for the remaining months the chances would vary depending on climatic conditions. 02040608010002040608 0 Neutral La Nia El Nio DECEMBER % kg/ha 020406080100050100150200 JANUARY % kg/ha 020406080100050100150 FEBRUARY % kg/ha 02040608010002040 60 MARCH % kg/ha 020406080100024 6 A PRIL % kg/ha 02040608010001020 30 MAY % kg/ha 02040608010001020 30 JUNE % kg/ha 02040608010001020 30 JULY % kg/ha 02040608010005101520 A UGUST % kg/ha 0204060801000510 15 SEPTEMBER % kg/ha 0204060801000510 15 OCTOBER % kg/ha 02040608010005 10 NOVEMBER % kg/ha Figure 6-16. Probability distribution of N leaching by ENSO phases, when all other factors are averaged

PAGE 186

164 In December, there is very little chance that the leaching exceeds 20 kg; in La Nia years there would be an 18% chance, in El Nio years a 10% chance, and in Neutral years less than 5%. Similarly for March, the probabilities of having more than 20 kg leached would be 50%, 40%, and 30% for Neutral, La Nia, and El Nio years, respectively. Another way to analyze the interaction among N leaching, month of the year and ENSO phase is through exploring monthly N leaching distributions for El Nio, Neutral, and La Nia years (Figure 6-17). First, for most of the months the distributions were skewed to either the left or the right, or they were far from being normal, with the exception of June and July. For Neutral years, it was consistent to observe, in all months, that its distribution was sparse throughout all the values and it was close to be a normal distribution, meaning that almost any value can be seen in Neutral phases. For December, for any ENSO phase, highest will be the chance that N leaching were between the ranges 3 to 17.1 kg ha -1 however there was a chance that this would be higher than 24 kg ha -1 ; and it would be about 25% for La Nia years, 10% for El Nio years, and 5% for Neutral years. In January where highest amounts of leaching are expected for all phases, in La Nia years the leaching would be at most 112.3 kg ha -1 with a 50% chance of being even lower than 81.9. For neutral years the distribution indicates that most of the time the amount leached would be between 112.3 and 142.6 kg ha -1 and for El Nio years it would have more than 70% chance to be above 142.6 kg ha -1 For February, another high N leaching month, in La Nia years there would be more than 81.5 3 kg ha -1 and a chance of more than 70% that this would be even 99.7 kg ha -1 of N leaching or higher. For El Nio years there is a chance of more than 25% that the leaching would be lower than 63.3 kg ha -1 but about another 25% of chance that it would be 99.7 kg

PAGE 187

165 ha -1 or higher. Neutral ENSO phase for February presents the sparsest distribution; the leaching could be much lower, but it could also be also much higher than La Nia or El Nio years. DECEMBER0204060801003.010.017.124.2More Neutral La Nia El Nio % JANUARY02040608010051.681.9112.3142.6More % FEBRUARY02040608010045.163.381.599.7More % MARCH0204060801008.617.326.034.7More % APRIL0204060801000.11.22.23.2More % MAY0204060801000.94.68.412.2More % JUNE0204060801006.210.915.520.1More % JULY02040608010010.312.915.518.0More % AUGUST0204060801003.76.08.410.7More % SEPTEMBER0204060801002.54.36.28.1More % OCTOBER0204060801003.35.67.910.1More % NOVEMBER0204060801001.43.45.37.3More % Figure 6-17. Frequency distribution of N leaching and month of the year by ENSO phase, when all other factors are averaged

PAGE 188

166 6.3.4.2 Biomass in different ENSO phases Biomass accumulation by forage systems changes by season and crop. The highest accumulations were in spring-summer months (April-July), followed by the summer-fall months (August-November). While in spring, summer and fall a variety of forages were possible, in winter only small grains (rye-ryegrass and relatives) are possible. The biomass accumulation (CV) varied from 86 kg ha -1 (32%) in December to 4,908 kg ha -1 (13%) in June. Biomass accumulation (CV) was higher for La Nia years and lower during El Nio years compared to Neutral, Table 6-5. Table 6-5. Biomass (kg ha -1 ) and ENSO phases, when all other factors are averaged All Years La Nia Neutral El Nio Biomass CV Biomass CV Biomass CV Biomass CV Dec 86 32% 102 30% 77 28% 92 41% Jan 1,367 17% 1,563* 13% 1,319* 14% 1,301* 22% Feb 2,292 10% 2,343* 11% 2,346* 7% 2,151* 9% Mar 1,439 28% 1,329* 23% 1,561* 30% 1,297* 14% Apr 959 35% 1,094 28% 938 32% 883 27% May 4,546 12% 4,691 7% 4,487 16% 4,533 7% Jun 4,908 13% 4,997 9% 4,818 19% 4,997 9% Jul 3,232 13% 3,280 9% 3,173 18% 3,300 8% Aug 1,649 27% 1,660 16% 1,654 20% 1,631 28% Sep 2,784 11% 2,821 10% 2,811 10% 2,704 12% Oct 3,127 12% 3,211 15% 3,060 11% 3,180 9% Nov 811 49% 833 63% 754 51% 899 44% Year 27,202 27,924 26,999 26,968 Higher biomass (kg ha -1 year -1 ) was predicted for La Nia years (27,924) than for Neutral (26,999) or El Nio years (26,968), Table 6-5. Most of the months consequently were predicted to have higher biomass accumulation (CV) in La Nia years, however for February and March the prediction indicates that they would be slighter higher in Neutral years, 2346 (7%), and 1561 (30%). Similarly for June, the accumulation (CV) would be close for La Nia and El Nio years 4,997 (9%), and in July it would be slightly higher for El Nio years, 3,300 (8%), Figure 6-18. This indicates that the accumulation is sensitive to

PAGE 189

167 the ENSO phases but not in the same way as it is with the N leaching. Overall, the crops did not respond to higher rainfall with higher yields; indeed higher biomass accumulation was seen with low or medium rainfall patterns for winter (La Nia and Neutral), for spring-summer (La Nia and El Nio), and also for summer-fall (La Nia). Temperature and radiation also affected the accumulation of biomass. In La Nia years there are consistently higher temperatures and more radiation in the last months and in the first months of a year (fall-winter) coinciding with the higher accumulation rates. 0.800.850.900.951.001.051.101.151.20DECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVRELAVIVE BIOMAS S La Nia Neutral El Nio Figure 6-18. Biomass accumulation vs. ENSO phases relative to absolute averages, when all other factors are averaged Biomass accumulation in Neutral and El Nio years was significantly (p<0.05) lower than La Nia in January, El Nio events were significantly lower (p<0.05) than Neutral and La Nia years in February and March, respectively, and El Nio events were significantly lower (p<0.05) than Neutral years in March.

PAGE 190

168 6.3.5 Variability by Crop Sequences Crop sequences performed substantially different regarding N leaching and biomass accumulation, Figure 6-19. For example, forage system number 11 (bermudagrass-bermudagrass-winter forage) consistently showed the lowest N leaching rate, but low biomass accumulation. The system bahiagrass-bahiagrass-winter forage showed the lowest biomass accumulation, independently of the ENSO phase and the amount of manure N application rate. Rotations consisting of sorghum-millet and millet-sorghum presented the highest N leaching rates with medium biomass accumulation. Rotations that included corn-corn and corn-millet showed the highest rates of biomass accumulation with medium levels of N leaching. And rotations of corn-millet and sorghum-corn showed a medium N leaching together with a medium biomass accumulation. When corn was followed by bermudagrass and/or bahiagrass, the N leaching was low and the biomass accumulation was medium. As in previous cases, it was consistent that higher N leaching (lower biomass accumulation) occurred in El Nio years and lower N leaching (higher biomass accumulation) in La Nia years. By comparing the two graphs in Figure 6-19, the effect of higher N application (40 to 80 kg ha -1 mo -1 ) can be observed. The measurements moved to the upper-right, indicating that with higher N applications, higher N leaching is expected together with higher biomass accumulation. Three facts deserve mention when comparing graphs A) and B) in Figure 6-19. The bahiagrass-bahiagrass sequence seemed to change drastically with the N application change, showing a higher vulnerability to N leaching under high pressure of N applications; this rotation was one of the lowest N leaching with 40 kg ha -1 mo -1 and it

PAGE 191

169 became the highest with an application of 80 kg -1 ha -1 The bermudagrass-bermudagrass rotation was the most resilient of all to N leaching under higher N applications and the most preventive for N leaching; even though all the other rotations (except bahiagrass-bahiagrass) increased proportionally from Graph A) to B), the bermudagrass rotation increased its N leaching but considerably less than the others. And, the rotation millet-corn responded more than the others with respect to biomass accumulation becoming the highest 55112763918451169374182281493671124029034039044049014,00019,00024,00029,00034,00039,00044,00049,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Biomasskg/ha-yr N leachingkg/ha-yr Crop systems: 1 bahiagrass-bahiagrass2 corn-bermudagrass3 corn-bahiagrass4 corn-millet5 corn-corn6 sorghum-millet7 millet-sorghum8 sorghum-corn9 millet-corn10-corn-sorghum11-bermudagrass-bermudagrass SOIL TYPE 5: Penney-KershawMANURE N: 40 kg/ha-mo SOIL TYPE 5: Penney-Kershaw MANURE N: 40 kg ha-1 mo-1 AB 55112763918451169374182281493671124029034039044049014,00019,00024,00029,00034,00039,00044,00049,000 Biomasskg/ha-yr N leachingkg/ha-yr SOIL TYPE 5: Penney KershawMANURE N: 80 kg/ha-mo SOIL TYPE 5: Penney-Kershaw MANURE N: 80 kg ha-1 mo-1 Figure 6-19. Nitrogen leaching vs. biomass accumulation for different forage systems under different ENSO phases (La Nia, Neutral, and El Nio), two manure N applications (40 and 80 kg ha -1 mo -1 ), and soils of type Penney-Kershaw

PAGE 192

170 in biomass accumulation after the higher manure N application. It seemed that the millet accumulation rate increases faster than the corn with higher N applications. Additionally, the magnitude of the changes (the spatial positions) of the measurements between graphs in Figure 6-19 indicates high interactions among ENSO phases, crop rotations, and N application rates. 6.3.5.1 Nitrogen leaching and crop systems Overall N leaching (kg ha -1 ) in an entire year varied from 281 (bermudagrassbermudagrass) to 397 (sorghum-millet), Table 6-6. 0.000.501.001.502.002.50MARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVRELATIVE N LEACH BE-BE CO-SO MI-CO SO-CO MI-SO SO-MI CO-CO CO-MI CO-BA CO-BE BA-BA Figure 6-20. Nitrogen leaching vs. crop sequences relative to absolute averages, when all other factors are averaged. Note: abbreviations are two first letters of rotations in Table 6-6. N leaching was predicted to be low when the rotation starts in spring with bermudagrass or corn, followed in the summer by bermudagrass, corn or bahiagrass; it was medium if it started with bahiagrass or corn and if they were followed by either bahiagrass, sorghum or millet; and it was high if the sequence started with millet or sorghum and continued with corn, sorghum, or millet (Figure 6-20).

PAGE 193

171 Table 6-6. Nitrogen leaching (kg ha -1 ) and crop sequences, when all other factors are averaged bermudagrass corn millet sorghum millet sorghum bermudagrass sorghum corn corn sorghum millet N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV Mar 19.44 51% 19.57 52% 22.59 45% 23.77 43% 22.59 45% 23.77 43% Apr 1.21 146% 2.10 114% 12.30 50% 13.16 51% 12.30 50% 13.16 51% May 6.13 91% 9.06 77% 18.99 59% 19.10 60% 18.99 59% 19.10 60% Jun 14.77 42% 19.94 41% 29.57 45% 32.51 46% 29.57 45% 32.51 46% Jul 15.50 22% 15.06 42% 14.69 60% 19.52 52% 14.04 63% 18.87 54% Aug 9.83 30% 19.76 42% 15.85 43% 15.85 43% 19.76 42% 19.68 42% Sep 6.43 39% 31.31 43% 17.35 36% 17.35 36% 31.31 43% 33.55 42% Oct 6.52 35% 29.98 30% 17.44 37% 17.44 37% 29.98 30% 31.57 29% Nov 3.12 57% 7.42 71% 9.20 55% 9.20 55% 7.42 71% 6.86 62% Year 281 352 356 365 384 397 Table 6-6. Continued corn corn corn corn bahiagrass corn millet bahiagrass bermudagrass bahiagrass N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV Mar 19.57 52% 19.57 52% 19.57 52% 19.57 52% 19.44 51% Apr 2.10 114% 2.10 114% 2.10 114% 2.10 114% 1.23 146% May 9.06 77% 9.06 77% 9.06 77% 9.06 77% 6.42 93% Jun 19.94 41% 19.94 41% 19.94 41% 19.94 41% 16.74 45% Jul 15.71 41% 15.06 42% 15.94 41% 15.93 41% 22.88 26% Aug 15.85 43% 19.68 42% 15.13 38% 14.69 38% 21.50 33% Sep 17.35 36% 33.55 42% 15.64 37% 14.23 35% 15.42 41% Oct 17.44 37% 31.57 29% 14.24 33% 10.82 30% 15.91 34% Nov 9.20 55% 6.86 62% 6.17 53% 3.93 51% 7.59 56% Year 324 355 315 308 325 6.3.5.2 Biomass and crop systems Overall biomass accumulation (kg ha -1 year -1 ) varied from 14,061 kg ha -1 for bahiagrass-bahiagrass to 39,099 kg ha -1 for the corn-corn system. Also on the high side were the sorghum and millet crops and on the low side bermudagrass, Table 6-7. All crops performed better in the springsummer, when higher accumulation was predicted, June being the single month with the highest biomass accumulated. On a monthly basis, kg ha -1 (CV), the corn substantially outperformed all the others, reaching an

PAGE 194

172 accumulation of 6,700 kg ha -1 (10%) in June or 5,873 kg ha -1 (7%) in September. Millet followed the corn, which could accumulate up to 4,996 kg ha -1 (20%) in the month of June or 4,690 kg ha -1 (20%) in September. A little lower was the sorghum with 4599 kg ha -1 (22%) accumulated in June or 3,529 kg ha -1 (7%) in September. After those crops, bermudagrass and bahiagrass followed. Table 6-7. Biomass (kg ha -1 ) and crop sequences, when all other factors are averaged Bermudagrass Corn Millet Sorghum Millet Sorghum Bermudagrass Sorghum Corn Corn Sorghum Millet Biomass CV Biomass CV Biomass CV Biomass CV Biomass CV Biomass CV Mar 1,435 27% 1,435 27% 1,437 29% 1,447 29% 1,437 29% 1,447 29% Apr 2,078 19% 349 33% 1,441 30% 925 33% 1,441 30% 925 33% May 3,159 10% 6,450 7% 4,788 19% 3,061 18% 4,788 19% 3,061 18% Jun 2,129 6% 6,700 10% 4,996 20% 4,599 22% 4,996 20% 4,599 22% Jul 1,966 6% 3,214 7% 3,565 20% 3,514 19% 3,509 20% 3,458 19% Aug 1,641 7% 111 73% 5,002 8% 5,005 8% 111 26% 33 92% Sep 1,116 15% 3,058 6% 5,809 8% 5,873 9% 3,058 7% 2,685 22% Oct 775 18% 3,529 7% 4,803 10% 4,919 15% 3,529 12% 4,690 20% Nov 229 34% 1,112 26% 540 87% 582 87% 1,112 55% 1,471 51% Year 18,274 29,703 36,125 33,669 27,726 26,114 Table 6-7. Continued Corn Corn Corn Corn Bahiagrass Corn Millet Bahiagrass Bermudagrass Bahiagrass Biomass CV Biomass CV Biomass CV Biomass CV Biomass CV Mar 1,435 27% 1,435 27% 1,435 27% 1,435 27% 1,435 27% Apr 349 33% 349 33% 349 33% 349 33% 1,419 24% May 6,450 7% 6,450 7% 6,450 7% 6,450 7% 2,304 9% Jun 6,700 10% 6,700 10% 6,700 10% 6,700 10% 1,280 7% Jul 4,042 10% 3,214 11% 4,042 10% 4,487 9% 1,139 6% Aug 5,005 8% 30 59% 2,078 7% 3,084 8% 1,014 5% Sep 5,873 9% 2,621 17% 1,065 8% 1,793 8% 868 10% Oct 4,919 15% 4,574 11% 844 9% 1,404 8% 663 15% Nov 582 87% 1,430 46% 288 19% 481 17% 195 30% Year 39,099 30,547 26,994 29,927 14,061 Even though bermudagrass and bahiagrass were in the lower end of biomass accumulation, when they were associated with corn in the spring-summer season, they

PAGE 195

173 could accumulate amounts close to or above the overall average. Another distinction about bahiagrass and bermudagrass was that they maintain a smoother rate of accumulation throughout their growing months. This was different from the other crops that present more variability during the growth season. 0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50MARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVRELATIVE BIOMAS S BE-BE CO-SO MI-CO SO-CO MI-SO SO-MI CO-CO CO-MI CO-BA CO-BE BA-BA Figure 6-21. Biomass accumulation vs. crop sequences relative to absolute averages, when all other factors are averaged. Note: abbreviations are two first letters of rotations in Table 6-7. During May June and July corn performed much better than the others; during August, September, and October millet and sorghum accumulated better than the others, together with corn. 6.3.6 Variability by Soil Types In Figure 6-22 it is possible to explore the variability among soil types regarding N leaching and biomass accumulation under different ENSO phases, two manure N

PAGE 196

174 application ratios and with a crop rotation consisting of corn-sorghum. Evidently, the crops in soil type 2 (Arredondo-Jonesville-Lake) leach the least N with a medium biomass accumulation rate and crops in soil type 6 (Millhopper-Bonneau) leach the most N and at the same time accumulate the most biomass. Also, consistently, crops in soil type 4 (Penney-Otela) and soils 10 (Blanton-Ortega-Penny) leach and accumulate medium levels. Crops in soil 3 (Bonneau-Blanton-Eunola), followed by soil type 9 (Blanton (low)) had the lowest biomass accumulation rates with a medium-high level of N leaching. As in previous cases, consistently less N leaching and more biomass accumulation were found in El Nio ENSO phases and the opposite in La Nia years. It is important to notice that the N leaching in soil type 6 is substantially higher than the others together with higher rates of biomass accumulation. These soils have the highest drainage rate and it may be the main reason for these differences, as was previously discussed. Comparing the two graphs A) and B) in Figure 6-22, it can be observed that not much difference is found in N leaching between the two different rates of manure N applied (20 and 40 kg ha -1 mo -1 ), but the difference is marked in the biomass accumulation, indicating that the crops are still up-taking extra amounts of manure N applied. Additionally, the higher amounts of organic matter because of higher manure N applications can help prevent N leaching; this potential explanation would not hold, however, for the case of even higher manure N applications, where much higher N leaching was noticed (Figure 6-22). It can be also observed, by comparing the graphs, that the relative spatial positions of the measurements changes because the interactions of soils, ENSO phases, and manure N

PAGE 197

175 application as can be seen, for example, by the biomass accumulation for soils 6, 4, 10, 9, 8, 5, 4 and 3 in Neutral years, which is lower than the El Nio years for manure N application of 20 kg ha -1 mo -1 compared to the higher application of 40 kg ha -1 mo -1 55276391810456937411082210814936724029034039044049054020,00022,00024,00026,00028,00030,00032,00034,00036,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Soil Series 1 Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper2 Arredondo-Jonesville-Lake3 Bonneau-Blanton-Eunola4 Penney-Otela5 Penney-Kershaw6 Millhopper-Bonneau7 Otela-Jonesville-Seaboard8 Blanton(high)-Lakeland9 Blanton(low)10-Blanton-Ortega-Penny Biomasskg/ha-yr N leachingkg/ha-yr ROTATION: corn-sorghumMANURE N: 40 kg/ha-mo SEQUENCE: corn-sorghum MANURE N: 40 kg ha-1 mo-1 AB 55541081936722810147396763941810224029034039044049054020,00022,00024,00026,00028,00030,00032,00034,00036,000 Biomasskg/ha-yr N leachingkg/ha-yr ROTATION corn-sorghumMANURE N: 20 kg/ha-mo SEQUENCE: corn-sorghum MANURE N: 20 kg ha-1 mo-1 Figure 6-22. Nitrogen leaching vs. biomass accumulation for different soil types under different ENSO phases (La Nia, Neutral, and El Nio), two manure N applications (40 and 20 kg ha -1 mo -1 ), and forage system consisting of corn-sorghum-winter forage

PAGE 198

176 6.3.6.1 Nitrogen leaching and soil types N leaching, besides the amount of manure N deposited, depends on the permeability, the water holding capacity, the exchange capacity, the temperature, and the pH of the soil. N leaching is favored when soil conditions present nitrates (), the N compound more readily leached, and low water holding capacity. Nitrates () are more likely to occur in soils with low exchange capacity, moderate or high temperature, and higher pH. Overall, north-Florida soils are highly vulnerable with respect to N leaching because they are very sandy and present low exchange capacity. The pH is an important factor. The pH of these soils varies from slightly acid to very strongly acid. The slightly acid soils are more prone to N leach than the very strongly acids (Table 6-1). Strongly acid or very strongly acid soils (pH 5.5) tend to lose less N because much of the N is converted to ammonium,, which can be adsorbed and stabilized by the exchange complex of the soil. However, soils with higher pH (moderately or slightly acid, pH > 5.5) tend to lose more N because the N can be converted to either ammonia () or to nitrate (). Whilevolatilizes to the air and is not a direct threat to water, is easily leached when soils have low water holding capacity. 3NO3NO3 4NH 3NHNO NO 3NH 3 Additionally, soil temperatures in north-Florida are warm enough to not stop or decrease considerably the processes of mineralization or nitrification of the waste N sources that conduce N leaching. Overall, yearly N leaching (kg ha -1 year -1 ) presented substantial variation for the different soil types found in North-Florida; it ranged from 272 kg ha -1 for soils type 2 to 480 kg ha -1 for soils type 6, Table 6-8. This fact can be mostly attributed to the drainage that is the lowest for soil 2 and the highest for soil 6 (Table 6-1). Exploring more in depth

PAGE 199

177 the N leaching and soils, it can be seen that, comparing soils with the same drainage rate (soils 1, 5, 7 and 10 with 0.75 drainage and soils 3, 4, and 9 with drainage 0.80, Table 6-1), more N leaching occurred on those soils with lower cation exchange capacity and/or in those with higher pH, as would be expected. The months with the lowest rates of N leaching, December and April, are those with the maximum variability. As in previous discussions, January and February presented the highest rates of N leaching independently of the soil type. 0.000.501.001.502.002.50DECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVRELATIVE N LEAC H SOIL1 SOIL2 SOIL3 SOIL4 SOIL5 SOIL6 SOIL7 SOIL8 SOIL9 SOIL10 6.04 Figure 6-23. Nitrogen leaching vs. soil types relative to absolute averages, when all other factors are averaged. Note: Soil numbers refer to soil types defined in Table 6-1. When crops are initiating their cycle they heavily use nutrients and therefore, there is less available N for leaching. Soil type 3 is an exception that showed a high N leaching rate even during the starting months, probably because of a very poor retentive soil system along with a low depth profile. There was quite a variation among soils in the other

PAGE 200

178 months, but N leaching was the highest during winter in February and March, followed by September and October and next for June and July. Table 6-8. Nitrogen leaching (kg ha -1 ) and soil types, when all other factors are averaged Soil1 Soil2 Soil 3 Soil 4 Soil5 N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV Dec 1.46 489% 1.82 460% 63.98 43% 3.33 370% 14.57 171% Jan 89.04 43% 90.05 37% 128.08 18% 113.35 34% 127.26 20% Feb 84.33 25% 70.94 26% 47.14 28% 84.46 25% 49.57 33% Mar 21.82 54% 16.70 56% 11.57 44% 21.20 52% 11.80 49% Apr 3.53 121% 3.68 118% 13.93 45% 4.96 110% 7.60 78% May 8.73 80% 9.04 79% 16.99 43% 10.87 76% 12.68 49% Jun 18.37 43% 17.42 44% 22.42 42% 20.85 44% 18.51 39% Jul 13.26 45% 11.82 47% 15.85 45% 14.63 47% 12.70 49% Aug 12.82 45% 12.51 45% 24.52 29% 16.36 42% 18.42 30% Sep 17.45 40% 17.08 40% 20.91 38% 20.00 42% 17.27 35% Oct 16.84 33% 15.61 34% 16.83 38% 18.24 36% 14.94 35% Nov 5.59 61% 5.05 62% 6.09 65% 6.02 65% 5.46 59% Year 293 272 388 334 311 Table 6-8. Continued Soil6 Soil7 Soil8 Soil9 Soil10 N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV Dec 3.37 403% 1.43 494% 1.90 436% 6.45 280% 2.00 380% Jan 133.46 33% 86.08 47% 88.15 42% 135.04 26% 97.85 37% Feb 105.05 23% 97.17 21% 83.02 23% 77.71 29% 86.32 22% Mar 27.56 48% 29.83 46% 23.04 50% 19.05 52% 25.55 50% Apr 6.63 121% 3.76 171% 3.56 139% 6.58 97% 4.29 130% May 19.33 77% 10.31 91% 8.02 88% 14.86 60% 11.43 77% Jun 42.04 43% 25.46 44% 16.74 48% 26.86 39% 24.78 42% Jul 31.05 45% 19.07 43% 12.11 48% 17.41 43% 18.71 41% Aug 23.62 43% 14.02 50% 12.84 47% 19.45 36% 15.12 43% Sep 36.03 41% 22.39 43% 16.88 44% 22.64 37% 21.25 38% Oct 38.40 33% 23.88 33% 15.62 36% 20.86 32% 21.89 30% Nov 13.90 60% 8.16 58% 5.11 65% 6.98 58% 8.11 58% Year 480 342 287 374 337 Note: Soil numbers refer to soil types defined in Table 6-1. Monthly variation of N leaching in different soil types (Figure 6-23) showed that with exception of December, April, and August, soil 6 would leach the highest. It is interesting to notice that there was a temporal variation for different soil types and N

PAGE 201

179 leaching as is the case of soil 3 that presented the third highest N leaching rate in January (128.08 kg ha -1 ), but it also presented the lowest N leaching rate in February (47.14 kg ha -1 ). The possible explanation lies in the dynamic of the soils meaning that a high amount of leaching in January would leave less N available for leach in February or vice versa. With the exception of soil 3 that evidently is an outlier, and soil 6 in November, the variation of the mean regarding leaching went from 90% above and below depending of the crops and the season of the year. For the months with more than 10 kg ha -1 mo -1 leached (Table 6-8) there was quite a variation for different soils. Soil 1 was consistently below the average of leaching for all the months except February and March, soil 2 was always 10 to 80 % below the average, and soil 4 was most of the time between 0 and 10 % below the average. 6.3.6.2 Biomass and soil types Overall biomass accumulation (kg ha -1 year -1 ) varied from 24,441 for soils type 3 to 31,297 for soils type 6. Greater biomass accumulation was predicted with soils of type 6 and 7 and less biomass accumulation was observed with soils of type 3 and 9 (Table 6-9). Apparently, the high permeability and low water holding capacity besides promoting higher N leaching also promotes better plant growth and development under the conditions of spray fields in north-Florida dairy farm systems with these high nutrient applications. For example, for soils of type 6 that leached the most, the biomass accumulation was also the highest: for soils of type 2 that had the lowest N leaching, the biomass accumulation was the third lowest (Figure 6-24).

PAGE 202

180 In winter, during February and March soil 6 showed the highest accumulation and soil 3 the lowest. Also during spring-summer soil 6 yielded the most and soil 3 the least. During summer-fall there was less variation among soils. Table 6-9. Biomass (kg ha -1 ) and soil types, when all other factors are averaged Soil1 Soil2 Soil3 Soil4 Soil5 N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV Dec 86 31% 86 31% 86 30% 86 31% 86 31% Jan 1,369 17% 1,313 17% 1,242 15% 1,381 17% 1,441 17% Feb 2,227 10% 2,138 10% 1,987 10% 2,308 10% 2,389 10% Mar 1,401 30% 1,372 29% 1,313 30% 1,449 29% 1,452 31% Apr 977 39% 960 38% 868 34% 973 39% 934 36% May 4,575 11% 4,459 12% 3,875 10% 4,667 11% 4,353 11% Jun 4,842 12% 4,801 13% 4,358 12% 5,017 12% 4,711 12% Jul 3,202 12% 3,170 12% 2,946 12% 3,306 12% 3,111 12% Aug 1,657 31% 1,623 31% 1,532 29% 1,684 31% 1,599 29% Sep 2,778 11% 2,726 11% 2,560 10% 2,855 11% 2,706 10% Oct 3,083 12% 3,043 13% 2,901 12% 3,194 13% 3,020 12% Nov 796 46% 791 46% 773 46% 821 46% 787 46% Year 26,992 26,481 24,441 27,741 26,589 Table 6-9. Continued Soil6 Soil7 Soil8 Soil9 Soil10 N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV N Leach CV Dec 85 31% 86 31% 86 31% 86 31% 86 31% Jan 1,505 20% 1,410 18% 1,336 17% 1,282 16% 1,327 17% Feb 3,007 9% 2,464 10% 2,202 10% 2,034 10% 2,188 10% Mar 1,799 24% 1,545 27% 1,406 29% 1,346 29% 1,396 29% Apr 1,005 42% 988 40% 954 38% 942 37% 961 39% May 5,308 12% 4,857 12% 4,494 11% 4,282 11% 4,544 12% Jun 5,649 12% 5,243 12% 4,865 12% 4,655 13% 4,873 13% Jul 3,602 12% 3,424 12% 3,213 12% 3,092 12% 3,217 12% Aug 1,810 35% 1,729 32% 1,631 30% 1,585 30% 1,645 32% Sep 3,115 12% 2,941 11% 2,759 11% 2,650 11% 2,768 11% Oct 3,534 13% 3,318 13% 3,088 12% 2,955 13% 3,089 13% Nov 879 48% 846 47% 802 46% 782 46% 801 46% Year 31,297 28,850 26,835 25,689 26,895 Note: Soil numbers refer to soil types defined in Table 6-1.

PAGE 203

181 0.850.951.051.151.251.35DECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVRELATIVE BIOMASS SOIL1 SOIL2 SOIL3 SOIL4 SOIL5 SOIL6 SOIL7 SOIL8 SOIL9 SOIL10 Figure 6-24. Nitrogen leaching vs. soil types relative to absolute averages, when all other factors are averaged. Note: Soil numbers refer to soil types defined in Table 6-1. 6.4 Conclusions North-Florida dairy farm systems use 11 possible crop/pasture sequences for a year in three main crop seasons (spring-summer, summer-fall, and winter). The most common winter forages (WF) are the small grains such as rye, oats, wheat, or ryegrass. The sequences are bermudagrass-bermudagrass-WF; corn-sorghum-WF; millet-corn-WF; sorghum-corn-WF; millet-sorghum-WF; sorghum-millet-WF; corn-corn-WF; corn-millet-WF; corn-bahiagrass-WF; corn-bermudagrass-WF; and bahiagrass-bahiagrass-WF. Although only bermudagrass and bahiagrass have currently available models, all of the above crop/pasture sequences are possible to simulate using the DSSAT v4.0 by adapting crop coefficients from closely related crops: silage corn from maize, forage sorghum from grain sorghum, pearl millet from millet, and winter forages from wheat and calibrating and

PAGE 204

182 validating them against experimental data. This study found crop coefficients to represent north-Florida forage crops. A sensitivity analysis of N leaching and biomass accumulation of the north-Florida forage systems to extreme effluent manure N application (0 to 200 kg N month -1 ) indicated that the rate of N leaching will increase while the rate of biomass accumulation will decrease to zero when the rates of N applied with the manure increase. When the application is approximately 120 kg N month -1 the biomass accumulation reaches a maximum and the leaching of N increases at a higher rate. Higher (lower) N leaching (biomass accumulation) is predicted for El Nio years than Neutral years or La Nia years, attributed mostly to the number and intensity of rainfall events. An attempt to relate the leaching with the Japan Meteorological Index, used to predict the El Nio Southern Oscillation phases, showed little correlation. Winter in general, and specifically January and February are the critical months for N leaching when more than 50% of annual N leaching is predicted. This is the same time that low biomass accumulation is noticed. Biomass accumulation is the highest for corn, millet, and sorghum, followed by bermudagrass and bahiagrass. However, higher stability and consequently less variability is noticed in the systems when they include either of the perennials (bermudagrass or bahiagrass). The best forage systems to prevent N leaching are those that start in spring-summer with bermudagrass or corn; have bermudagrass, bahiagrass or corn in summer; and finish with winter forages. The systems that leach the most are those that include millet and/or sorghum. Bahiagrass could also leach high N in conditions of high manure N application.

PAGE 205

183 There is great variability in the interaction of soil types and months of the year regarding N leaching and biomass accumulation. Water holding capacity, pH and permeability of soils are believed to hold most of the causes for these differences. Soils with very low permeability and higher pH will facilitate the leaching of N, which also will vary throughout the year, and at the same it will determine higher biomass accumulation. There is more biomass accumulation for soils with higher N leaching rates because in these intense systems there will be little stress because lack of N, other nutrients, and/or water because these fields have irrigation systems that deliver the manure effluent and artificial irrigation as needed. The use of crop simulations were critical in recognizing trends, interactions, and identifying absolute values of N leaching and biomass accumulation under different conditions of climate, manure N applications, soil types, and forage systems. It would be impossible to design and conduct a real experiment of these magnitudes.

PAGE 206

CHAPTER 7 AN INTEGRATED SIMULATION MODEL TO ASSESS ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGIC IMPACTS OF NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARM SYSTEMS 7.1 Introduction Environmental concerns for dairy systems, N leaching specifically, for north-Florida are recognized as the most important factors for successful business in the future (Staples et al., 1997; Fraisse et al., 1996; Van Horn et al., 1998). Because the increasing concern regarding N levels in the Suwannee River Basin, north-Florida dairy farms are being more closely scrutinized by regulatory agencies (Twatchtmann, 1990), and effective tools to estimate point-source pollution of specific operations as well as potential ways to mitigate the problem inside the farm gate is an imperative need. The complexity of dairy farms in north-Florida justifies the creation of a whole-farm model, integrating several modeling approaches, in order to better analyze these systems (Herrero, 2000). Participatory and interdisciplinary methodologies can be pursued along with model creation, calibration, and validation in order to have better acceptance by final users (Geurtz and Joldersma, 2001). The objective of this paper is to describe the EXCEL-based Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM). The DNFDFM is a simple event-controlled, dynamic model coupled to crop and optimization models created to assess N leaching from north-Florida dairy farm systems and the economic impacts of reducing it. The model responds to specific environmental (climate and soils) and managerial characteristics of dairies (total number of cows, milk production, crop rotations, waste system, etc.) and 184

PAGE 207

185 can be used to study the economic and ecologic sustainability of these systems. The driver of the DNFDFM is a dynamic adaptation of the framework balance and/or budgeting of nutrients in dairy farms, commonly used in Florida (Van Horn et al. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2001) and NRCS (2001) (Chapters 1 and 5). The DNFDFM incorporates Markov-chain probabilistic simulations of cow-flows (Chapter 5), crop simulation models (Jones et al., 2003) (Chapter 6) for historical climatic years for El Nio Southern Oscillation (OBrien, 1999) (Chapter 6), automated linear programming optimization of managerial options (Hazell and Norton, 1986), participatory modeling (Geurtz and Joldersma, 2001) (Chapter 4), and user-friendliness. 7.2 Materials and Methods 7.2.1 Conceptual Model Most dairies in Florida manage animals under semi-intensive or intensive systems and are essentially businesses producing milk: decisions are based on profit maximization and operation regulations (Adams, 1998). North-Florida dairies are business enterprises and have full access to credit opportunities, information, and new technologies (Adams, 1998). Additionally, dairy farms, which produce both livestock and crops, are composed of interconnected units; any part of which is affected by and affects the behavior of other parts, including human management decisions and strategies (Adams, 1998). Since a whole-dairy-farm encompasses environmental, economic, and bio-physical components, its analysis is best served by a systems approach that accounts for the interactions of these components, and that can trace the consequences of an intervention through the entire system (Kelly, 1995). While systems can be conceptualized at any of many scale levels, a systems approach defines a specific scale of interest and an appropriate boundary of analysis; analysis in the systems approach is marked by

PAGE 208

186 recognition of the whole system and the interactions within that system rather than looking only at a system component (Kelly, 1995). A systems approach employs specific techniques and tools, such as rapid appraisal, pattern analysis, diagrams, and modeling, often in a multidisciplinary fashion, to identify system boundaries and recognize component interactions (Kelly, 1995). In order to assess what would happen with the whole dairy operation and what would happen specifically with nitrate flow under different climate-management scenarios, models of these realities were set up (Thornley and Johnson, 1990). Models allow foreseeing results when temporal or material conditions make it impractical to develop field experiments. The successful planning of an animal waste management system requires the ability to simulate the impact of waste production, storage, treatment, and utilization on the water resources; it must address overall nutrient management for the operation (Fraisse et al., 1996). The systems approach used is Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSRE) as described by Hildebrand (1990). The farm household in livelihood systems analyses is replaced by farm management (Hazell and Norton, 1986) for commercial or industrial farm dimensions such as north-Florida dairy farms. The farming system is composed of an arrangement of subsystem components that function as units. These subsystems include biophysical, environmental, and economic components as well as relationships of the dairy operation to climate variability. These agroecosystems, as described by Powers and McSorley (2000), include the populations and communities in relationship with the abiotic factors organized in ecosystems.

PAGE 209

187 The Van Horn et al. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2001), NRCS (2001), and Lanyon (1994) approaches were adjusted, modified, and used for keeping track of dynamic N movement in all system components. Van Horn et al. (1998) mentioned the quantitative information needed on nutrient flow through all segments of the system. They list the following critical research questions: How much of individual nutrients are excreted by dairy cows? How does the manure management system affect nutrient flow and nutrient recoveries for fertilizer use? What is the potential nutrient removal by plants? How can a manure nutrient budget be developed? What steps help to document environmental accountability? Agronomic measures of nutrient balance and tracking of inputs and outputs for various farm management units can provide the quantitative basis for management to better allocate manure to fields, to modify dairy rations, or to develop alternatives to on-farm manure application (Lanyon, 1994). For instance, identifying where pollutants are being directly discharged and taking measures to reduce these discharges are more easily accomplished than controlling the indirect sources or non-point source pollutants (Environmental Literacy Council, 2002). Indeed, historically, scientists have been able to track single, or "point" sources of pollution, but tracking multiple, or non-point sources has been difficult (Ondersteijn, 2002). Crop models (Jones et al., 2003, Jones et al. 1998) are process-based dynamic simulation models that allow translating biophysical and environmental conditions into agricultural outcomes (Philips et al., 1998). Crop models can be used to estimate monthly biomass accumulation and N leaching by a number of crop and/or pasture sequences

PAGE 210

188 under different climatic conditions, depending on soil conditions, manure applications, and other managerial choices. Linear programming models (LP) are optimization models that can devise alternative management choices that maximize (minimize) an objective function according to a set of restrictions (Hazell and Norton, 1986). LP models have been widely used in analysis of farming systems, beginning about the time of the Heady and Candler book in 1958. Different simulation methods were needed to represent accurately the north-Florida dairy crop and livestock systems, and test management strategies that yield the most desired outcomes. Complex systems demand the study of interactions among processes acting on multiple scales, and consequently new and innovative approaches are needed to deal with these problems, coupling advances in dynamical theory, stochastic processes, and statistics (Levin, 1991). 7.2.2 Computer Implementation The model, Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM) was developed in Excel using embedded Visual Basic in order to produce a user-friendly final product for farmers, Extension services, and regulatory agencies. The crop models were previously run by using the Decision Support System for Agricultural Transfer, DSSAT v4.0 (Jones et al., 2003) and the results were implemented to be reproduced in the DNFDFM in Excel. The optimization component is automatically set up and solved taking advantage of the solver tool that ships with Excel. 7.2.3 Analysis of Synthesized Dairies in North-Florida The model was run for 3 synthesized farms; synthesized farms were created using real data. Because of the sensitivity of the topic, synthesized farms have been created

PAGE 211

189 as examples for small, medium, and large operations. These synthesized farms combine many real characteristics of dairies in the study area without pointing out any specific farm information for which the DNFDFM can be run to perform relevant analyses. Outputs of simulating these farms are presented in the results sections. Statistical, optimizations, and other analyses of results are presented in the next chapter (Chapter 8). 7.3 Model Description 7.3.1 Overall Characteristics The Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM) is an integrated, whole-dairy-farm simulation that links decision making with biophysical, environmental, and economic processes. The main objective of the DNFDFM is to predict monthly N leaching and profit in response to environmental (climate and soils) and managerial characteristics of farms (livestock management, waste management, and crops management). The DNFDFM can be used to study the economic and ecologic sustainability of these systems, as well as to diagnose sources of problems and search for feasible alternative management practices. The simulation approach includes a dynamic event-controlled simulation model connected to crop models and to optimization models. The driver, that has the livestock and waste modules, follows a dynamic adaptation of the budgeting framework of tracking the flow of N through the entire system along with production and additional economic variables, according to a pre-defined set of management and climatic conditions. Crop models assess the N recycled by plants and the amount of N leached according to management, genetic, soil, and climatic specific conditions. The optimization model consists of a linear programming model that either minimizes N leaching or maximizes profit for specific farm conditions. The DNFDFM incorporates Markov-chain

PAGE 212

190 probabilistic simulation of cow-flows and crop simulation for historical climatic years (El Nio Southern Oscillation), automated optimization of managerial options, participatory modeling, and user-friendliness. 7.3.2 Components The main components of the DNFDFM are displayed in Figure 7-1. The livestock model simulates the cow-flow and manure N excretion. The waste model receives inputs from the livestock model and simulates the manure N flow through the waste handling system. The crop models receive inputs from the waste model to simulate N leaching and biomass accumulation in the crop fields. The livestock, waste, and crop models run in parallel dynamically in monthly steps. Each one of them is a function of a set of management practices. Crop models are additionally sensitive to climate conditions and soil characteristics. The outputs of crop simulations are measured in monthly estimations of overall N leaching and biomass accumulation in a dairy farm. An economic component goes across the livestock, waste, and crop models to estimate monthly overall profit. The optimizer is a linear programming model that solves a matrix built with outputs of several simulations. The optimizer changes management scenarios and controls multiples simulation runs. The optimizer that is an automated tool that triggers the linear programming modeling, minimizes N leaching or maximizes profit under a set of restrictions. Suggested management strategies by the optimizer can be compared with feasible farm practices in consultation with the farm manager to find the feasible adjustments in

PAGE 213

191 each particular case in an iterative process of changing input managements and re-run the simulation. Figure 7-1. Representation of the dynamic north-Florida dairy farm model Following are the specifics of each one of the DNFDFM components regarding model creation and implementation. For more details other chapters can be also reviewed. Chapter 1 deals with overall characteristics of models, the north-Florida dairy farm characteristics, and the conceptual theory in the modeling. Chapter 5 describes in detail the parameterizations of the livestock and waste models. Chapter 6 is comprehensive in the simulation of forage systems using crop models. 7.3.3 The Livestock Model The livestock model simulates the cow-flow (C ijk ); milk production (Mk); water consumed (Wc); manure excreted in concentrated areas (Mc), in pasture (Mp), and in the

PAGE 214

192 waste system (Mw); and N excreted in concentrated areas (Nc), in pasture (Np), and in the waste system (Nw) (Figure 7-2). Additionally, the livestock model estimates the dry matter intake (DMI) and the N inputted in the feed (Nf). Required inputs as initial conditions are: total adult cows (TAC), total number of bulls (TNB), percent of heifers raised (PHR), rolling herd average (RHA), percent of seasonality (POS), amount of crude protein (ACP), percent of confined time (PCT), time spend in concentrated areas (TCA), maximum water usage (MWU), and the amount of water recycled (Rc). In Table 7-1, i is the months in milk after delivery (1-18) for adult cows or the months of age after birth (1-32) for heifers; j is the pregnancy months (0-9); k is the lactation cycle (0-9), and m is the month of the year. Figure 7-2. Representation of the livestock model

PAGE 215

193 imkX Y, and represent three dimensional matrices that include the parameterization of the culling rates, reproduction rates, and the milk production rates, respectively, according to north-Florida dairy farms conditions (De Vries, 2004). A fourth dimension common to these matrices is the seasonality level. This seasonality level goes between 0% (minimum variation of milk production throughout the year) and 100% (maximum variation of milk production in seasons of the year). By default the seasonality level is 100% because that is the way most north-Florida dairy farms operate. Milk production is additionally adjusted to match the inputted RHA, after the model starts to run. imk imkM imkM Equation [7-1] simulates the cows that do not become pregnant, while equation [7-2] represents cows that become pregnant in a determined month. Equation [7-3] updates cows that were already pregnant and Equation [7-4] deals with cows that are freshening (having calves) and entering a superior lactation cycle. Every month there are cows that are involuntary culled, but additionally, if cows are not pregnant after 12 months in milk or heifers are not pregnant when 24 months of age, they are voluntarily culled. Milking cows are adult cows that produce milk, including cows of first lactation or higher and between 0 and 7 months pregnant, Equation [7-5]; dry cows are adult cows of first lactation or higher, between 8 and 9 months pregnant, Equation [7-6]. Heifers are young livestock that include all animals in lactation 0 plus the female off-spring that are 50% of all born. The number of heifers is adjusted by the PHR, Equation [7-7]. imkX Milk production is estimated by the productivity rates of milking cow groups,, and the number of cows at each stage of productivity. Milk production is adjusted by the imkM

PAGE 216

194 Table 7-1. State variables and monthly update of the livestock model Name State Variable Units t+1 # Cow category ijkC Heads imkimkjkiYXC 1)1( imkimkkjiYXC)1)(1( 1)1)(1( jimkkjiXC 93211)1(9jimkikiXC [7-1] [7-2] [7-3] [7-4] Milking cows )91)(70(iC Heads 1817091iijkjkC [7-5] Dry cows )91)(97(iC Heads 1819891iijkjkC [7-6] Heifers )0(ijC Heads 2/93211)1(9321090jimkikiiijjXCPHRC [7-7] Milk Mk lbs month -1 mimkiijkjkWMC.1817091 [7-8] Water consumption Wc Gallons month -1 mmiijkjkWRcRWMWUC1817191 [7-9] Dry matter intake DMI lbs month -1 BHDMDMIDMIDMIDMI [7-10] N inputted in feed Nf lbs month -1 BHDMNfNfNfNf [7-11] Manure waste system Mw lbs month -1 ))((mBMPCTMM [7-12] Manure conc. areas Mc lbs month -1 ))(1)((TCAPCTMMmBM [7-13] Manure pasture Mp lbs month -1 DHmBMMMTCAPCTMM )1)(1)(( [7-14] Nitrogen waste system Nw lbs month -1 ))((mBMPCTNN [7-15] Nitrogen conc. areas Nc lbs month -1 ))(1)((TCAPCTNNmBM [7-16] Nitrogen pasture Np lbs month -1 DHmBMNNTCAPCTNN )1)(1)(( [7-17]

PAGE 217

195 number of days in each month of the yearW, including a differentiation between regular and leap years, Equation [7-8]. m The livestock model requires a time for self adjustment, in which it runs in the background to find a steady state of the cow-flow and the objective inputted RHA. Equation [7-9] estimates the monthly water usage based on the number of milking cows, the MWU, the ratio of monthly usage,, and the amount of water recycled, Rc. This is adjusted to the number of days in each month,W. mRW m The dry matter intake is the sum of the independent DMI of the milking cows ( M ), the dry cows ( D ), the heifers ( H ), and the bulls ( B ) as noted in Equation [7-10]. The specifics can be seen in equations [7-17] through [7-20] in Table 7-2. Functions in Table 7-2 use book values parameterized for north-Florida conditions. The partition of the manure in different parts of the farm is estimated using Equation [7-12] for manure that goes through the waste system, Equation [7-13] for manure deposited in concentrated areas, and Equation [7-14] for manure deposited in pastures. Table 7-2. Dry matter intake estimations Variable Units t+1 # MDMI DDMI HDMI BDMI lbs month -1 18135237091)(2)(3.3)(16.2.25imijkimkimkimkjkWCMMM 9198912.25kmijkjkWC miijjWPHRCi321090)70.0(7.2 ))()(2.25(mWB [7-17] [7-18] [7-19] [7-20]

PAGE 218

196 Notice that manure from milking cows and bulls ( M B ) can be deposited in any of these compartments, however manure from heifers and dry cows ( H D ) is only deposited in pastures. The PCT can be constant across months or can be inputted as a function of the month of the year (PCT m ). The functions of waste excretion by different group of cows can be observed in Equations [7-21] through [7-24] in Table 7-3, which are based on book values and milk production levels. Table 7-3. Manure excretion estimations Variable Units t+1 # MM DM HM BM lbs month -1 1813327091)(3)(05.)(37.175.98imijkimkimkimkjkWCMMM 181989180imijkjkWC miijjWPHRCi321090)4.3(5.76 ))()(80(mWB [7-21] [7-22] [7-23] [7-24] The excretion of N in different parts of the farm is estimated using Equations [7-15] through [7-17] in Table 7-1 and the specifics are detailed in Equations [7-25] through [7-28] in Table 7-4. The partition of N excreted that goes to the waste system is expressed in Equation [7-15], the N excreted that goes to the concentrated areas is shown in Equation [7-16], and the N excreted in pastures is accounted for by Equation [7-17]. Following the same pathway as the manure, N manure from milking cows and bulls ( M B ) can be deposited in any of these compartments, however N manure from heifers and dry cows ( H D ) is only deposited in pastures. Functions shown in Equations [7-25],

PAGE 219

197 [7-26], [7-27], and [7-28] are based on book values for Florida and parameterizations of N excreted based on milk production. The N inputted in the feed, Equation [7-11], is estimated similarly as the sum of specific functions of animal groups represented in equations [7-25] to [7-28] in Table 7-4, but in this case each one divided by the constant of undigested N in feed of 0.67 (Van Horn et al., 1998). Table 7-4. Nitrogen excretion estimations Variable Units t+1 # MN DN HN BN lbs month -1 181372537091)(3)(6)(4.236.imijkimkimkimkjkWCMMM 181989136.imijkjkWC miijjWPHRCi32102290)2.1(8.2 ))()(364(.mWB [7-25] [7-26] [7-27] [7-28] Additionally, the N inputted in feed (Nf), Equation [7-11] and the N excreted by the animals (Nw, Nc, Nw), Equations [7-15], [7-16], and [7-17] are corrected by a factor of the amount of crude protein in the diet low (13.9370%) or high (15.0342%) according to NRC standards by Equation [7-29] and Equation [7-30]. MN = + (ACP-13.9370)(.0956) MN MN DN =+( ACP-13.9370)(.0956) DN DN [7-29] [7-30] 7.3.4 The Waste Model The waste model follows the flow of the manure N in the concentrated areas, the pasture, and the waste system after its excretion and before its utilization. Essentially, the waste model balances the manure N that reaches the crop fields after loss in different

PAGE 220

198 parts of the system: volatilization before flushing (VBF), solids collected (SC), volatilization in lagoon (VL), volatilization in storage pond (VP), sedimentation in sludge (SS), volatilization during irrigation (VI), and volatilization in the soil after being applied (VS). These are percentage rates required as initial conditions to be inputted before running the model. Table 7-5. Nitrogen through waste system estimations Variable Units t+1 # fMw fNw fMc f Nc fMp fNp lbs month -1 SSSCMw VSVISSVPVLSCVBFMw Mc VSNc Mp VSNp [7-31] [7-32] [7-33] [7-34] [7-35] [7-36] In Table 7-5, Equations [7-31] through [7-36] estimate the manure and manure N at the final point of utilization (f) for the waste system, the concentrated area, and the pastures. This model estimates the manure and manure N movement in successive steps and results in the model can be explored at any of the points of this continuous flow. Notice that the amount of manure for concentrated areas and pasture remains the same as that estimated in the livestock model. 7.3.5 The Crop Models The crop models from the Decision Support Systems for Agricultural Transfer (DSSAT v4.0, Jones et al., 2003) use daily weather information of temperature, irradiation, and precipitation along with soil characteristics, manure effluent applied, and other management choices to estimate monthly biomass accumulation and N leaching for

PAGE 221

199 specific crop sequences that are common in north-Florida dairy farm systems. Dynamic, process-based crop simulation models quantify interactions between environmental physical conditions of soils and climate, genetic physiological conditions of crops, and management conditions (Boote et al., 1996) and they are being widely used to experiment with in situations when limitations of time, space, or finances do not allow a field experiment. Crop models simulate light interception, leaf-level photosynthesis, N uptake, soil water balance, evapotranspiration, respiration, leaf area growth, growth of component parts, root growth, senescence, N mobilization, carbohydrate dynamics, and crop development processes. For the soil component, the Century model (Parton et al., 1979) implemented in the DSSAT by Gijsman et al. (2002) was used, which estimates soil N balances that include soil and surface organic matter, inorganic N, additions and removals of N, and all the processes that include the N cycle in the soil such as decomposition, mineralization, N leaching, or denitrification. Specific data for each of the soil types were converted to the DSSAT v4.0 system using SBuild software (Uryasev, 2003), where the drained upper limit values were corrected using Saxton et al., (1986). Forage crops were adapted, calibrated, and validated for north-Florida dairy farm conditions and all potential forage combinations were run for all N effluent ranges, 10 types of soils found in the study area (Table 7-6), and for 43 years of daily weather data (1956-1998). Residual organic matter from one crop to the next was accounted for as well as other management choices that are common in these systems such as extra irrigation and harvests.

PAGE 222

200 Daily cumulative N leached (lbs acre -1 ) and biomass (lbs acre -1 ) outputs from the simulations were compiled in monthly rates for the span of the study period (1956-1998). All months were classified according to ENSO phases and the main factors incorporated in the simulations (Figure 7-3). Table 7-6. Codification of ENSO phases, soil types, and forage systems from crop models e, ENSO phase f, Forage Systems 1 La Nia 1 Bermudagrass Bermudagrass 2 Neutral 2 Corn Sorghum 3 El Nio 3 Millet Corn s, Soil Types 4 Sorghum Corn 1 Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper 5 Millet Sorghum 2 Arredondo-Jonesville-Lake 6 Sorghum Millet 3 Bonneau-Blanton-Eunola 7 Corn Corn 4 Penney-Otela 8 Corn Millet 5 Penney-Kershaw 9 Corn Bahiagrass 6 Millhopper-Bonneau 10 Corn Bermudagrass 7 Otela-Jonesville-Seaboard 11 Bahiagrass Bahiagrass 8 Blanton(high)-Lakeland 9 Blanton(low)10 Blanton-Ortega-Penny In order to couple the crop models with the livestock and waste models two matrices were created with outputs of the crop models, one for N leaching () and the other for biomass accumulation () (lbs acre mesfnNl mesfnBa -1 month -1 ). Each of these matrices has 5 dimensions: month of the year m, ENSO phase e, soil type s, forage system f, and manure N applied n. The values for e, s, and f are inputs (that the user enters according to his/her own farm conditions) while m and n are estimated (calculated by the by the simulation). Coefficients of the N leaching () and for biomass accumulation () (lbs acre mesfnNl mesfnBa -1 month -1 ) are coded according to Table 7-6 and Table 7-7.

PAGE 223

201 Figure 7-3. Data management of simulation of crop models Estimations of N leaching () and biomass accumulation () are summarized in Equations [7-37] and [7-38]. and at the farm level are the sum of or in the pasture fields t plus the or in the sprayfields q. To estimate these in each pasture or spray field with a determined forage system f, a coefficient from the matrix or is obtained according to m, e, s, f, and n and multiplied by the area of the field, , respectively. Nl Ba NlBa Ba Nl BamesfnNl Nl mesfnBatPFa qSFa

PAGE 224

202 N leaching Nl lbs month -1 farm-1 QqqmesfnFfTttmesfnFfSFaNlPFaNl1111 [7-37] Biomass accumulation Ba lbs month -1 farm -1 QqqmesfnFfTttmesfnFfSFaBaPFaBa1111 [7-38] For the pasture fields, a correction is performed based on the fact that these fields receive direct deposits of manure and they are not irrigated. By using local knowledge and farm registers in the area, it was estimated that the N leaching is reduced 25% and biomass accumulation 40% in pasture fields, compared to sprayfields. The parameter n that represents the manure N applied to the fields that is estimated by the waste model does not necessarily match the amounts used in the experiments that were run with the crop models contained in the matrices and They are interpolated between the points in which the crop models were run, which are coded as n in Table 7-7. mesfnNl mesfnBanNa Equation [7-39] represents a general interpolation to find the in sprayfields, which can be modified to perform the same estimations for pastures replacing with or for Ba replacing with Nl fNw fNp Nl Ba Table 7-7. Nitrogen applied estimated by the waste model and N applied in crop models fNw or fNp n nNa < 8.9218 1 0 8.9218-17.8436 2 8.9218 17.8436-35.6872 3 17.8436 35.6872-71.3743 4 35.6872 71.3743 5 71.3743 fnfnnnmesffnmesfnfmesfnNwNaNwNaNaNlNwNlNaNwNl11)1()1(/ [7-39]

PAGE 225

203 7.3.6 The Economic Module This module estimates the overall profit (US$ month -1 ) of the simulated farm, based on a profitability ratio of milk productivity. Table 7-8 defines the variables involved in the calculations, all of them are inputs. The profit is estimated as the difference between the revenues less the expenses, Equation [7-40]. Equations [7-41] and [7-42] that calculate the R and E include the value of the biomass (Ba) and N (Nl) as a revenue and an expense, respectively. Table 7-8. Definition of variables in economic module (US$ cwt -1 milk -1 ) Revenues R Cow Sales Rc Heifer Sales Rh Gain on purchased livestock Rg Crop sales Rf Other revenues Ro Expenses E Personnel Ep Feed purchased Es Milk marketing Em Crop expenses Ef Other expenses Eo Other Inputs Milk price Mp N value Nv (US$ cwt -1 ) Crop value Cv (US$ cwt -1 ) ER [7-40] BaCvRoRfRgRhRcMpMkR [7-41] NlNvEoEfEmEsEfEpE [7-42] The value of the milk sold as revenue is expressed as the multiplication of the milk produced by its market price. More than 90% of the revenue on north-Florida dairy farms comes from the milk sold; therefore the model is highly sensitive to this factor. The model can run with a fixed milk priceinputted or by using a stochastic milk price Mpthat is estimated by a stochastic milk price generator included with the Mkf Mp oMp

PAGE 226

204 economic module. The stochastic functionresembles the distribution found in monthly prices of milk in the last 10 years in north-Florida, which can be seen in Table 7-9. fMp rmMp The stochastic price function generates a random number r (0 < r < 1) which together with the month of the year is used to predict the stochastic price as shown in Equation [7-43]. fMp Table 7-9. Monthly milk prices distribution in north-Florida as cumulative probability (US$ cwt -1 milk 1 ) Cumulative Probability Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.10 14.80 14.40 14.40 14.10 14.50 15.10 14.80 14.70 14.70 14.40 14.80 13.50 0.20 14.90 14.80 14.80 14.30 15.10 15.20 14.90 15.10 15.10 14.90 15.70 14.70 0.30 15.20 14.90 14.80 15.00 15.30 15.40 15.00 15.40 15.20 15.20 16.00 16.00 0.40 16.30 15.60 15.70 15.00 15.30 15.70 15.70 15.60 15.30 15.50 16.00 16.20 0.50 16.40 15.90 15.80 15.60 15.40 15.80 15.70 15.60 16.10 16.10 16.20 16.20 0.60 16.50 16.20 16.30 15.60 15.50 15.80 15.90 16.20 16.70 17.30 18.00 16.40 0.70 16.70 16.30 16.50 16.20 16.20 15.80 16.10 16.30 17.90 19.30 18.70 16.60 0.80 17.00 16.90 16.60 16.30 16.50 16.80 16.20 18.30 19.40 19.80 20.00 17.90 0.90 17.40 17.70 17.30 17.00 16.70 17.40 18.30 18.90 19.80 20.20 20.10 18.90 1.00 20.30 20.30 19.30 17.00 17.70 18.40 18.60 19.00 20.00 20.30 20.70 21.30 Source: Prepared with data from Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, 2003. fMp [7-43] 7.3.7 The Optimization Module The optimization process is conceptualized in Figure 7-4 and starts by selecting management options that a dairy farm potentially could change. The next step defines the levels of each management practice to be tested. A further task combines all levels of any management practice with all levels of all management practices, forming the scenarios. The simulation module is run for each of these scenarios and monthly results of profit and N leaching are organized in a matrix and then optimized for different ENSO phases using a linear programming model.

PAGE 227

205 Figure 7-4. The process of optimization The optimization module is a mathematical linear programming model that maximizes profit () or minimizes N leaching () of multiple scenario simulation runs s under restrictions of at most average or at least average Nl Nl respectively, as seen in following Equations [7-44], [7-45] and [7-46]. SsmmsmsXCNl1121,minmax, [7-44] subject to __121NlAXmsmms __121msmmsAX [7-45] and 0msX [7-46] msCA is the profit or the N leaching per unit of activity in a month m and in a scenario s. are the technical coefficients obtained by the simulation of multiple scenarios. msX ms __Nl

PAGE 228

206 and are the average of all scenarios selected in the optimization process. Optimization is repeated independently for each ENSO phase: La Nia, Neutral, and El Nio years, so results and suggested practices are a function of predicted climate conditions. __ The final results of the optimization process are maximum levels of profit or minimum levels of N leaching at the farm level together with the combination of scenarios suggested as management practices that the farm could implement in order to decrease N leaching and/or increase profit, under different climate forecast conditions. 7.3.8 The Feasible Adjustments Component The feasible adjustments refer to the feasible practices a dairy farm could implement pursuing an objective (i.e., decrease N leaching). It is a user-friendly concept of taking advantage of the simulation and the optimization components of the DNFDFM. It is not automated and requires interaction with the farmer or farm manager. After the optimization module proposes a set of management practices to minimize N leaching with a defined level of profitability, the farmer can decide which practices and their levels it would be possible to implement. The DNFDFM simulation module is then run again, several times as needed, to find an environmental/profitable level for a farm that is superior to the current situation, by implementing only those practices that are feasible in the eyes of the farmer. 7.4 User Friendly Implementation 7.4.1 General Characteristics The model was developed in Excel using embedded Visual Basic in order to produce a user-friendly final product for farmers, extension services, and regulatory agencies. Users only need to open a file of Excel and the model is ready to work.

PAGE 229

207 Excel software is one of the most widely used computer programs. The DNFDFM takes advantage of this fact and delivers an application that will be easier to adopt for final users as an Excel file (xls extension). The DNFDFM does not change any of the normal capabilities of a normal Excel software; it only locks the codes and some cell contents in order to protect the application from unintended changes, but leaves intact all the other Excel capabilities, so the users can utilize the Excel as usual when they want to make spreadsheet calculations, printouts, or take any other action along with the model. 2 The main components of the DNFDFM simulation package are the livestock module, the waste management handling system, the location control, the crop controls, the climate controls, the economic components, and the optimization module. For user-friendliness all modules and their connections are graphically represented in the starting spreadsheet of Excel (Figure 7-5). A button inserted in this spreadsheet triggers a user-friendly menu that guides the user through the use of the application. This menu first appears showing a tab called start with a message welcoming the user to the system, briefly explaining the purpose of the application, and suggesting the help file be read before starting the runs. This welcoming tab also gives the contact information to obtain support and the date that will be used for the printouts. Both, the welcome page and the start spreadsheet have a button to trigger the help file. The user-friendly menu (Figure 7-6) has eight tabs (top) and a common section (bottom). Besides the welcoming start tab, there are tabs for: livestock, N, soil, crop, climate, economics, and optimize; in each of which the user can navigate for reviewing, 2 The model can be downloaded by clicking in the link: DNFDFM.xls (3.44 MB). It requires at least Windows XP and Office XP.

PAGE 230

208 inputting and/or selecting specific data. The common section consists of a drop-box menu, buttons of view selection, and a button called run. The drop-box menu allows the user quickly to customize small, medium, or large farms to represent a typical north-Florida farm of any of these sizes; and the view buttons allow the user select between seeing graphs or numbers in real time of simulation. These global options are useful for analysis purposes when several runs are intended as is the case of optimizations, but also are useful to use as templates to begin the specific customization of each farm. The run button triggers a simulation run of the DNFDFM. The livestock tab deals with the cow-flow and milk production variables; the N tab is about the waste management system and water usage; the soil tab deals with the farm Figure 7-5. Main screen of the computer implementation of The Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM)

PAGE 231

209 location and the type of soils; the crop section defines all the farm fields, their size and their crop sequences. The climate module allow the user define the number of years of simulation together with the climatic years (El Nio, La Nia, or Neutral climatic years, according to ENSO); the economic section allows the user to personalize the revenues and expenses for specific farms; and the optimization tab can be used to define and trigger the optimization task. Figure 7-6. The start message menu control

PAGE 232

210 For all modules, there are default values to start with as a help to the user for introducing information. Additionally, there are other buttons, figures, check boxes and other objects to help the user fill in customized information. After the initial information is inputted, the user can hit the run button and the model will start simulating; a time lag will proceed to let the model self adjust and then the results will be seen in real time by numbers and/or graphs changing in the screen. After running, the user can review the results by moving a scrollbar changing the timeline of the run. Also the user can review the database generated from the results. 7.4.2 The Livestock Module The livestock model could represent the dynamics of the cows and the seasonality of milk production and manure N of a north-Florida dairy farm very well by only inputting the total number of adults cows and the rolling herd average; however for more customization and for other estimations the user can input other layers of information such as the total number of bulls, the percent of heifers raised on the farm, the percent of seasonality, the amount of crude protein in diet, the percent of confined time, and the percent of time milking cows spend in concentrated areas (Figure 7-7). For the confined time, there is an additional button that allows the user to enter monthly variations of confined time if desired. The livestock module communicates directly with the feed component to retrieve information about the dry matter intake and the protein amounts and moves its outputs to the modules that handle the waste in the concentrated areas, the pasture fields, and the waste management system.

PAGE 233

211 Figure 7-7. The livestock module control 7.4.3 The Waste System Module This module allows the user to customize and define specific farm parameters about the N lost in the waste system and each one of its components and the water utilization by the farm (Figure 7-8). Numbers vary greatly in different management systems. For example Van Horn et al. (1998) presents an average system for Florida in which there is an estimated total loss (total N lost, TNL) of 28.81% of N through the waste system with specific characteristic in all components. These values are used as default, but ultimately the users must change them to better mimic their known specific conditions.

PAGE 234

212 Figure 7-8. The waste management control 7.4.4 The Soil Module In order to run the crop systems, the user first selects the location of the farm either by clicking in a map or by selecting from a menu (Figure 7-9). Through this soil control, the user locates the farm, which in turn determines the type of soils in which the forage crops will be grown. The all soils option means the average results across all ten different soil types. 7.4.5 The Forage Systems Module The crop systems are defined in a user-friendly menu located in the crop tab (Figure 7-10). The forage system control allows the user to input data in up to 10 fields,

PAGE 235

213 which detail field size, the type of field (sprayfield or pasture), and the sequence of forage crops. Figure 7-9. Dairy farm location and soil type by farm component control 7.4.6 The Climatic Module The climatic module defines the forecasted climatic conditions under which the forage systems will grow. It is a user choice based on a classification of climatic years based on El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in El Nio, La Nia, and Neutral years. The climatic component allows the user to select the starting year of the simulation and run for a selected number of years, Figure 7-11. -yr Average option means the average climatic conditions for 43 years (1956-1998) of crop model simulations. Graphs that

PAGE 236

214 describe the climatic conditions under different ENSO phases are available for the user to review after clicking a button located in this tab. After selecting the run timeline, the user can select the forecasted climatic years. The concept is to devise management options that would yield more desirable outputs according to ENSO phases. Figure 7-10. Forage systems component control 7.4.7 The Economic Module The economic module requires current farm economic data inputted at the beginning (Figure 7-12). Profitability is estimated every month and is sensitive to the manure N recycled on-farm and the amount of biomass produced as feed inside the farm gate. This module estimates a monthly balance of revenues less expenses based on

PAGE 237

215 detailed information inputted by the user. As a guide for the user, it shows at the beginning an average for Florida farms published by the DBAP (De Vries et al., 2000); the user must personalize these values. Figure 7-11. The climatic component control The user has the option to fix or use stochastic milk prices. The stochastic milk price is a monthly random function based on 10 years of information (1993-2002); a graph that describes these monthly distributions is available for the user to review by hitting a button located together with the stochastic choice, and is shown in Figure 7-13. Additionally, the economic menu has the option of inputting the estimated value of N as fertilizer and the value of the dry matter produced on the farm.

PAGE 238

216 Figure 7-12. The economic component control Figure 7-13. Distribution of milk prices in north-Florida

PAGE 239

217 7.4.8 The Optimization Module The optimization function is triggered by a button called optimization located in the tab called optimize (Figure 7-14). Figure 7-14. The optimization control The optimization module builds and solves a linear programming matrix with the monthly results of N leaching along with the profitability of several runs. When finished, it shows N leaching minimized for average levels of profit. Results are presented comparing N leaching and profitability by current practices and by optimum practices and the suggested changes in order to reach these levels.

PAGE 240

218 7.5 Results for Synthesized Farms 7.5.1 Synthesized Small Dairy Operation This farm has 400 adult cows, 16 bulls, and raises 100% of its heifers. The rolling herd average is 17,000 lbs yr -1 the milk production is 100% seasonal, and the amount of crude protein in the diet is high. The milking cows spend 80% of their time confined. The total N lost through the waste management system is 28.81% and it is estimated that there is an extra 30% N volatilized from the soil when applied; the volatilization by direct deposition in soils is estimated at 40%. The small dairy farm has 70 acres of sprayfields and 80 acres of pasture fields with diverse crops as indicated in Table 7-10. Table 7-10. Crops in different fields Field Area (Ac) Type Spring Summer Winter 1 10 SPRAYFIELD CORN SORGHUM RYE 2 20 SPRAYFIELD CORN MILLET RYEGRASS 3 10 SPRAYFIELD SORGHUM MILLET WHEAT 4 20 SPRAYFIELD BAHIAGRASS BAHIAGRASS OATS 5 10 SPRAYFIELD MILLET SORGHUM RYE 6 20 PASTURELAND BAHIAGRASS BAHIAGRASS RYE 7 10 PASTURELAND BERMUDAGRASS BERMUDAGRASS RYEGRASS 8 20 PASTURELAND BAHIAGRASS BAHIAGRASS WHEAT 9 10 PASTURELAND BERMUDAGRASS BERMUDAGRASS OATS 10 20 PASTURELAND BAHIAGRASS BAHIAGRASS RYE The DNFDFM simulation was run for the above conditions, using the average soil type and the overall net income at 0.89 US$ cwt -1 milk produced -1 The simulation started in October 2004 and followed three consecutive years with 2004/2005 being a La Nia year, 2005/2006 a Neutral year, and 2006/2007 an El Nio year. Results contained in Figure 7-15 indicate that the overall N leaching in a year would be the lowest for La Nia years (13,528 lbs or 90.2 lbs per acre), followed by Neutral years (7% higher) and by El Nio years (13% higher).

PAGE 241

219 On a monthly basis, the N leaching varies from 150 lbs in April for La Nia years to 6,033 lbs in January for El Nio years with January and February the months with the highest leaching rates (Figure 7-15A). Accumulated biomass increases, as expected, towards the summer months (Figure 7-15B) when higher temperatures and rainfall determine greater plant growth, and profitability is highest between the months of April to July (maximum in May for La Nia years) because the higher N recycled and/or higher biomass accumulation. Figure 7-16 shows the N leaching and profit variability on a yearly basis for different ENSO phases. Always the overall N leaching is greater in El Nio years than Neutral years and Neutral years will present more leaching than La Nia years. The profitability is inversely related to the N leaching, La Nia years have the highest profitability and El Nio years present the lowest (Fig. 7-16). 7.5.2 Synthesized Medium Dairy Operation This farm has 800 adult cows, 30 bulls, and raises 100% of its heifers. The rolling herd average is 19,000 lbs yr -1 the milk production is 100% seasonal, the amount of crude protein in the diet is high and the milking cows spend 80% of their time confined. The total N lost through the waste management system is 35.31% and it is estimated that there is an extra 30% N volatilized from the soil when applied; the volatilization by direct deposition on soils is estimated in 40%. The medium dairy farm has 163 acres of sprayfields and 150 acres of pasture with the same crop combinations and the same proportions as indicated in Table 7-10. This arrangement was run under the same soils and profitability conditions of the previous Small farm.

PAGE 242

220 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000OCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPLBS N LEACHED La Nia Neutral El Nio 050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000OCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPLBS BIOMASS ACCUMULATED La Nia Neutral El Nio 3,0003,5004,0004,5005,0005,5006,0006,5007,000OCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPUS$ PROFIT La Nia Neutral El Nio A B C Figure 7-15. Monthly estimations for Synthesized Small north-Florida farm. A) N leaching. B) Biomass accumulation. C) profit.

PAGE 243

221 12,50013,00013,50014,00014,50015,00015,500La NiaNeutralEl NioLBS N LEACHED65,40065,60065,80066,00066,20066,40066,600US$ PROFIT PROFIT Figure 7-16. Small north-Florida farm, yearly estimated N leaching and profit Results for the different ENSO phases on a yearly basis are presented in Figure 7-17. Overall N leaching varied from 25,096 to 28,389 lbs yr -1 for La Nia and El Nio years, respectively. 7.5.3 Synthesized Large Dairy Operation This farm has 3,000 adult cows, 120 bulls, and raises 100% of its heifers. The rolling herd average is 20,000 lbs yr -1 the milk production is 100% seasonal, the amount of crude protein in the diet is high (NRC standard), and the milking cows spend 80% of their time confined. The total N lost through the waste management system is 40% and it is estimated that there is an extra 30% N volatilized from soil when applied; the volatilization by direct deposition in soils is estimated at 40%.

PAGE 244

222 The large dairy farm has 642 acres of sprayfields and 1090 acres of pasture with the same crop combinations and the same proportions as indicated in Table 7-10. This arrangement was run under the same conditions of the previous small and medium farms of soils and profitability. 23,00024,00025,00026,00027,00028,00029,000La NiaNeutralEl NioLBS N LEACHED147,000147,500148,000148,500149,000149,500US$ PROFIT PROFIT Figure 7-17. Medium north-Florida farm, yearly estimated N leaching and profit Results for different ENSO phases regarding N leaching and profitability are shown in Figure 7-18 The N leaching is estimated in 81,741 lbs yr -1 and the profitability is estimated as US$ 597,397 for a Neutral year. 7.5.4 Comparison of the Three Synthesized Farms It is important to understand that dairy farms in north-Florida are highly variable and a comparison of them is only an indication of their potential impacts with these synthesized farms; the estimations should be conducted on a specific farm basis. Also, the comparison should be performed on a whole-dairy-farm basis, since they must be

PAGE 245

223 accountable for their total impacts rather than per acre or per head of livestock; however having these estimations as well as the absolute values are believed to be illustrative. 70,00072,00074,00076,00078,00080,00082,00084,00086,00088,000La NiaNeutralEl NioLBS N LEACHED594,000595,000596,000597,000598,000599,000600,000601,000602,000603,000604,000US$ PROFIT PROFIT Figure 7-18. Large north-Florida farm, yearly estimated N leaching and profit Table 7-11 presents the main management differences among the 3 synthesized farms, the cow/land ratios, and the N leached estimated for the overall farm and the ratios of N leached per cow and per acre of land. The overall environmental impact from N leaching of a large farm is much higher (~80,000 lbs yr -1 ) than the medium (~26,000 lbs yr -1 ), and the medium than the small farm (~14,000 lbs yr -1 ) (Figure 7-19). Because the crop rotations were held proportionally equivalent in the three farms, the ENSO impacts are proportionally similar in the three, with the N leaching highest in El Nio years and lowest in La Nia years. From Table 7-11, the number of head per unit of land is higher on the small farm and lower on the large farm and because of this, the amounts of N leaching when

PAGE 246

224 measured per unit of area or per unit of animal are higher for the small farm than the large farm; it is estimated that a cow in the small farm would leach ~36 lbs N yr -1 while a cow in the large farm would leach ~27 lbs N yr -1 When the comparison is switched to N leached per acre, the differences are even more pronounced, the estimated N leached per acre in the small farm is ~96 lbs N yr -1 while this estimation is ~47 lbs N yr -1 for the large farm. Table 7-11. Comparison of three synthesized north-Florida farms and their estimated annual N leaching Small Medium Large TAC head 400 800 3000 BULLS head 16 30 120 RHA lbs yr -1 17,000 19,000 20,000 Total N Lost Waste System (TNL) percent 28.81 35.31 40 SPRAYFIELDS acre 70 163 642 PASTURE acre 80 150 1090 TOTAL LAND AREA acre 150 313 1732 COWS PER ACRE SPRAYFIELDS head 5.71 4.91 4.67 COWS PER ACRE PASTURE head 5.00 5.33 2.75 TOTAL COWS PER ACRE head 2.67 2.56 1.73 La Nia lbs 13,528 25,096 76,318 Neutral lbs 14,429 26,774 81,471 El Nio TOTAL N LEACHED lbs 15,275 28,389 86,319 La Nia lbs 33.82 31.37 25.44 Neutral lbs 36.07 33.47 27.16 El Nio N LEACHED PER COW lbs 38.19 35.49 28.77 La Nia lbs 193.25 153.96 118.88 Neutral lbs 206.13 164.26 126.90 El Nio N LEACHED PER ACRE SPRAYFIELD lbs 218.21 174.16 134.45 La Nia lbs 169.09 167.31 70.02 Neutral lbs 180.36 178.49 74.74 El Nio N LEACHED PER ACRE PASTURE lbs 190.94 189.26 79.19 La Nia lbs 90.18 80.18 44.06 Neutral lbs 96.19 85.54 47.04 El Nio N LEACHED PER ACRE OF TOTAL LAND lbs 101.83 90.70 49.84

PAGE 247

225 010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000100,000SMALLMEDIUMLARGE La Nia Neutral El Nio Figure 7-19. Overall N leaching from the synthesized farms 7.6 Conclusions The present study demonstrates the feasibility of integrating complex models in a user-friendly application in an interdisciplinary approach that includes socio-economic, bio-physical, and environmental components, the Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM). The DNFDFM is capable of assessing N leaching from dairy farm systems and the economic impacts of reducing it, with minimum data inputs through the use of simple commands. Different from previous approaches, the DNFDFM estimates seasonal annual and inter-annual climatic variations responding to environmental and managerial dairy characteristics and can be used to study the economic and ecologic sustainability of dairy farms in north-Florida. Specifically, the DNFDFM is a decision

PAGE 248

226 support system that includes livestock, waste system, crop models, economic, climatic, soil, and optimization components. This paper describes all the DNFDFM components, the details among their interactions, and the specific equations that define their dynamic simulation. From running the simulation part of the DNFDFM for 3 synthesized north-Florida dairy farms, it was found that great differences exist among systems regarding environmental impacts and profitability. Across all of them, higher N leaching occurs in El Nio than Neutral and in Neutral more than La Nia years; the N leaching varies between 13,000 and 86,000 lbs N year -1 farm -1 25 and 33 lbs N year -1 cow -1 and 44 and 102 lbs N year -1 acre -1 Since the model and all its components are well documented and are based on previous models created and/or used by regulatory agencies in Florida, the DNFDFM could serve as an environmental accountability tool for farmers and regulatory agencies as well as an educational tool for Extension.

PAGE 249

CHAPTER 8 ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGIC IMPACTS OF NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARM SYSTEMS: TAILORING MITIGATION OF NITROGEN POLLUTION 8.1 Introduction The presence of high levels of N in water is an environmental hazard because it affects human health and ecosystem welfare (Fraisse et al., 1996). The Suwannee River Basin has received much attention in recent years because increased N levels in water bodies (Albert, 2002; Katz et al., 1999; Pitman et al., 1997) and dairies have been identified as an important source of nitrates in the Basin (Andrew, 1994; Katz and DeHan, 1996; Berndt, 1998). It is critical to keep individual dairy farms environmentally accountable (Ondersteijn et al., 2002), to distinguish between non-point and point sources of pollution (Andrew, 1992), and to test management options that may decrease environmental impacts of dairy farms (Suwannee River Partnership, 200 3 ). The objective of this paper is twofold Present and discuss the ecologic and economic impacts of the north-Florida dairy farm systems under different management strategies based on the results of simulating them by using the Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM) Test combinations of management options that may decrease N leaching in specific dairy farm systems while maintaining profitability First, a statistical analysis of the main sources of variation based on the results from simulating multiple management strategies in a Synthesized north-Florida dairy farm system is presented. Second, the sources of variation in N leaching and profitability of the Synthesized dairy farm system are graphically discussed. Third, an analysis of 227

PAGE 250

228 optimization that includes reduced N leaching and potential increased profit for the Synthesized farm is presented. And fourth, some cases of real-life applications of the DNFDFM on north-Florida dairy farms are discussed. Any north-Florida farm is a unique production unit in several aspects. It is recommended that the DNFDFM be used separately for each specific case. Results of this paper are indicative of the usefulness of the model in practical applications. 8.2 Materials and Methods 8.2.1 Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model The DNFDFM as described in Chapters 5 and 7 was used as a diagnostic and analytic tool to simulate N leaching and profit under existing conditions and then to optimize practices under different farm scenarios. The DNFDFM is a simple event-controlled, mechanistic, dynamic model coupled to crop and optimization models created to assess N leaching from north-Florida dairy farm systems and the economic impacts resulting from reducing it. The DNFDFM responds to dairy-specific environmental (climate and soils) and managerial characteristics (total number of cows, milk production, crop land, crop rotations, waste system, etc.) The driver of the DNFDFM is a dynamic adaptation of the framework balance and/or budgeting of nutrients in dairy farms, commonly used in Florida: Van Horn et al. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2001); NRCS (2001). The DNFDFM incorporates Markov-chain probabilistic simulation of cow-flows and crop simulation for historical climatic years (El Nio Southern Oscillation), over a period of 43 years (1956-1998); automated optimization of managerial options for different ENSO phases; participatory modelling; and user-friendliness.

PAGE 251

229 The DNFDFM has both simulation and optimization functions. For effects of analyses, simulation refers to a dynamic run of the model for a year and optimization means the process of solving a linear programming optimization matrix built by the results of multiple simulation runs that combine chosen dairy management scenarios. 8.2.2 A Synthesized North-Florida Dairy Farm In order to study the sources of variation in N leaching and profitability as related to managerial options in a whole north-Florida dairy farm while maintaining confidentiality of specific farms, a Synthesized farm was created using real data. This Synthesized farm combines many real characteristics of dairies in the study area for which the DNFDFM can be run to perform relevant analyses. This farm has 400 total adult cows (TAC), 16 bulls, and raises 100% of its heifers. The rolling herd average (RHA) is 17,000 lbs cow -1 yr -1 and milk production is 100% seasonal. The waste management system includes flushing-lagoon-spraying and has a total N loss (TNL) of 28.81%. When effluent is applied to spray fields, an estimated additional 30% of N is volatilized. When cows directly deposit manure in pastures, an estimated 40% of N is lost through volatilization before it becomes available for the crops. The farm has 70 acres of sprayfields and 80 acres of pasture divided into several fields. There is an overall net income of US$ 0.89 cwt milk -1 (Table 8-1). The Synthesized farm was used for the statistical, graphical, and optimization analyses from sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5; while real farm operations were used for analyses in section 2.6. 8.2.3 Statistical Analyses The DNFDFM was run for the Synthesized farm and various potential environmental and managerial options as scenarios that could impact N leaching and

PAGE 252

230 profitability. Scenarios were created by combinations of 10 north-Florida dairy farm soil types, three ENSO phases (La Nia, Neutral, and El Nio climatic years), two levels of confined time (CT, 80% and 60%), 2 combinations of forage sequences in pasture, 10 combinations of forage sequences in sprayfields, and 2 levels of protein in the diet (low and high) (Table 8-2). Table 8-1. Characteristics of a Synthesized north-Florida dairy farm TAC head 400 Bulls head 16 Heifers percent 100% RHA lbs year -1 17,000 Seasonality percent 100% TNL percent 28.81% N Volatilized Sprayfields percent 30% N Volatilized Pasture percent 40% Sprayfields Acre 70 Pasture Acre 80 Net Income US$ cwt -1 milk 0.89 The number of combinations for these scenarios was: 12 (months) x 10 (soils) x 3 (ENSO phases) x 2 (CT) x 2 (Pasture) x 10 (Sprayfields) x 2 (CP) = 28,800. Results were measured as monthly estimations of N leaching and profit. Statistical analyses were performed based on the 28,800 combinations by fitting mixed effects models (Litell et al., 1996) using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS (SAS institute, 1992). All factors were analyzed as well as their interactions with a 0.05 level of significance. 8.2.4 Graphical Analyses Graphical analysis was used to visualize and help diagnose the effects of the main factors in the trade-off of N leaching and profit. A series of graphs with selected factor levels was prepared to show the combined effects of these factors with emphasis on

PAGE 253

231 ENSO climatic phases and Soil series and crop systems in sprayfields; pastures and crude protein in the diet; confined time and crude protein in the diet Table 8-2. Combination of management strategies simulated by the DNFDFM for the statistical analysis Soil Types 1 Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper 2 Arredondo-Jonesville-Lake 3 Bonneau-Blanton-Eunola 4 Penney-Otela 5 Penney-Kershaw 6 Millhopper-Bonneau 7 Otela-Jonesville-Seaboard 8 Blanton(high)-Lakeland 9 Blanton(low) 10 Blanton-Ortega-Penny ENSO Phases 1 La Nia 2 Neutral 3 El Nio Confined Time (CT) 1 80% 2 60% Forages Pasture (PASTURE) 1 bahiagrass-bahiagrass-winter forage 2 bermudagrass-bermudagrass-winter forage Forages Sprayfields (FIELDS) 1 Bahiagrass-Bahiagrass-Winter Forage 2 Corn-Bermudagrass-Winter Forage 3 Corn-Bahiagrass-Winter Forage 4 Corn-Millet-Winter Forage 5 Corn-Corn-Winter Forage 6 Millet-Sorghum-Winter Forage 7 Sorghum-Corn-Winter Forage 8 Millet-Corn-Winter Forage 9 Corn-Sorghum-Winter Forage 10 Bermudagrass-Bermudagrass-Winter Forage Crude Protein (CP) 1 Low 2 High In order to compare complete sets of management options, data were compiled in yearly outputs regarding N leaching and profit as the total sum of the individual months from October of one year to September of the next year. The information was summarized in a database from which queries were used to retrieve specific information in order to prepare meaningful figures.

PAGE 254

232 8.2.5 Optimization Analyses This section analyzed potential management strategies the Synthesized farm might implement to decrease environmental impacts while maintaining profitability. After the farm was simulated, the optimization tool from the DNFDFM was used to minimize (maximize) N leaching (profit) in the Synthesized farm. The Synthesized farm, with an initial set of crop sequences in pastures and sprayfields, was optimized by changing crude protein (CP), confined time (CT), crop sequences in pastures, and crop sequences in sprayfields. These options were selected for the optimization because they are the practical ways north-Florida dairy farms can change their management choices in the short or medium run. A comparison of current farm practices with practices suggested by the optimizer was performed. This comparison is designed to help the farm management decide on feasible modifications environmentally superior to the initial conditions. This set of feasible practices was used again to simulate the farm with the DNFDFM and compare these results with those of the original farm practices. 8.2.6 Validation with Real Farms The simulation and optimization process described above was then performed individually with three real farms in north-Florida. Each owner was visited and the process of simulation and optimization, with discussion and analysis of feasible modifications was achieved with each one of them. Each farmer collaborated with the process by inputting detailed data on their operations to feed the model. After filling in the appropriate information, a simulation run was performed to show the performance of the model and validate the results with the

PAGE 255

233 reports and knowledge from the farmers. This on-site validation was crucial to gain confidence of the farmers in the performance of the model. Once the validation was concluded, the optimization tool was explained and used to optimize each farm situation. Followed, the results of the optimization were discussed with the farmers. From this discussion, a feasible set of management choices was selected and the DNFDFM simulator was run again in order to obtain the final results. For anonymity purposes, the results are presented in absolute numbers with only the required details on the characteristics of each one of the farms. The main objective of this section, besides validation, was to demonstrate the utility of the DNFDFM for practical applications in real-life situations. 8.3 Results and Discussion 8.3.1 Statistical Analyses 8.3.1.1 Nitrogen leaching Results of the significance of the factors and their main interactions regarding the estimation of N leaching are presented in Table 8-3. The statistical model has an R-square equal to 0.9989 and is significant at the 0.01% probability level There are significant differences for all main factors: soils, month of the year, ENSO phase, confined time, pasture, sprayfields, and crude protein. For example, ENSO phases and their associated climatic patterns determine significantly different amounts of N leaching. Some interactions among factors were also statistically significant as was the case of interactions among month and ENSO phases, sprayfield rotations, soils, crude protein levels, confined time levels, and pasture rotations; interactions among pasture rotations and sprayfields rotations, crude protein levels, and confined time levels; interaction

PAGE 256

234 among sprayfield rotations and confined time; and interactions among month, pasture rotations, and crude protein levels. This means that there are statistically significant differences among these interaction combinations as is the case for example of month of the year and soil types, in which, the N leaching among types of soils are statistical different in each month of the year. Table 8-3. Significance of factors and main interactions for N leaching Source DF Type I SS Mean Square Pr > F Soil 9 287.36 31.93 111352 <.0001 Month 11 6100.83 554.62 1934266 <.0001 ENSO 2 3.48 1.74 6075 <.0001 CT 1 10.89 10.89 37966 <.0001 Pasture 1 19.11 19.11 66638 <.0001 Sprayfields 9 119.98 13.33 46492 <.0001 CP 1 26.76 26.76 93310 <.0001 Month*ENSO 22 99.32 4.51 15745 <.0001 Month*Sprayfields 99 311.10 3.14 10959 <.0001 Pasture*Sprayfields 9 0.63 0.07 243 <.0001 SOIL*Month 99 738.79 7.46 26026 <.0001 CT*Sprayfields 9 2.38 0.26 923 <.0001 Pasture*CP 1 0.00 0.00 14 0.0002 CT*Pasture 1 1.86 1.86 6485 <.0001 Month*CP 11 0.14 0.01 45 <.0001 Month*CT 11 5.00 0.45 1585 <.0001 Month*Pasture 11 24.57 2.23 7790 <.0001 Month*Pasture*CP 11 0.01 0.00 1.96 0.0281 F Value Interactions among month of the year with sprayfield or pasture rotations for the months December, January, and February were not significant; this was because the crop rotation in winter months is the same, as explained in the model description. The potential combinations of other factors not presented in Table 8-3 were not statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 8.3.1.2 Profit Similar statistical analyses were performed for the profit variable (Table 8-4). This model has an R-square of 0.9941 and is significant at the 0.01% probability level.

PAGE 257

235 Table 8-4. Significance of factors and main interactions for profit Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F 9 287.36 31.93 111352 <.0001 Month 11 6100.83 554.62 1934266 <.0001 ENSO 2 3.48 1.74 6075 <.0001 CT 10.89 10.89 37966 <.0001 Pasture 1 19.11 19.11 66638 <.0001 Sprayfields 9 119.98 13.33 46492 <.0001 CP 1 26.76 26.76 93310 <.0001 Month*ENSO 22 99.32 4.51 15745 <.0001 Month*Sprayfields 99 311.10 3.14 10959 <.0001 Pasture*Sprayfields 9 0.63 0.07 243 <.0001 Soil*Month 99 738.79 7.46 26026 <.0001 CT*Sprayfields 9 2.38 0.26 923 <.0001 Pasture*CP 1 0.00 0.00 14 0.0002 CT*Pasture 1 1.86 1.86 6485 <.0001 Month*CP 11 0.14 0.01 45 <.0001 Month*CT 11 5.00 0.45 1585 Soil 1<.0001 Significant effect exist in the estimated profit for all main factors and for the interactions among month and ENSO phases, sprayfields rotations, and soils; soil and ENSO phases and sprayfield rotations; and for the interaction among soils, months and ENSO phases. All the individual interactions shown in Table 8-4 were highly significant (P<0.001), with the exception of the months of December, January, and February for the sprayfield and pasture rotation interaction, again because the crop rotation in winter does not change. 8.3.2 Graphical Analyses 8.3.2.1 Soil series Figure 8-1 illustrates N leaching and profitability for soil types in north-Florida dairy farms. Soils of type 6 (Millhopper-Bonneau) are those that leach the most N, but with a medium-low profit level. Soils of type 3 (Bonneau-Blanton-Eunola) are the second highest in N leaching and those with the lowest net return.

PAGE 258

236 552763918104569374101822810493678,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,00067,00068,00069,00070,00071,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Soil Series 1 Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper2 Arredondo-Jonesville-Lake3 Bonneau-Blanton-Eunola4 Penney-Otela5 Penney-Kershaw6 Millhopper-Bonneau7 Otela-Jonesville-Seaboard8 Blanton(high)-Lakeland9 Blanton(low)10-Blanton-Ortega-Penny Profit US$/year N leachinglbs/year CT = 80%; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BERMUDAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = BERMUDAGRASS 6620,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO 55541081936722811047397394108210,00012,00014,00016,00018,000 8,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,00067,00068,00069,00070,00071,000 Profit US$/year 555410819367228110473967639410828,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,00067,00068,00069,00070,00071,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Profit US$/year N l eac hi nglbs/year CT = 80%; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BAHIAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = BERMUDAGRASS CT=80%; CP=HIGH PASTURE=BAHIAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=BERMUDAGRASS C A B N l eac hi nglbs/year CT = 80%; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BERMUDAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = CORN-SORGHUM CT=80%; CP=HIGH PASTURE=BERMUDAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=BERMUDAGRASS CT=80%; CP=HIGH PASTURE=BERMUDAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=CORN-SORGHUM Figure 8-1. Nitrogen leaching and profit for different soil types in north-Florida: Estimations for different ENSO phases for common crop systems

PAGE 259

237 These soils (6 and 3) are very sandy and with very low water holding capacity; soil type 6 is the shallowest and because of that the highest N leaching. This, however, is in certain measure favorable for plant growth and because of that the profitability is not as low as with soil type 3. On the other hand, soils of type 2 (Arredondo-Jonesville-Lake) has the least N leaching of all, followed by soils type 1, 8 and 10 (Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper, Blanton (high)-Lakeland, and Blanton-Ortega-Penny), which also have the greatest N uptake and biomass accumulation expressed in farm profitability. Also in Figure 8-1 the marked differences among ENSO phases can be observed; there will always be higher N leaching and lower profitability for El Nio years than Neutral years and in Neutral years more N leaching and less profitability than La Nia years. By exploring the circles with the same number (same soil type) in Figure 8-1, it can be noticed that there is greater difference between La Nia and Neutral years than El Nio and Neutral years, meaning that N leaching and profit are substantially superior to the normal or neutral years during La Nia years. It can also be observed that the distance among different ENSO phases (Figure 8-1 A, B, and C) varies slightly under different scenarios of changing pasture crop systems and/or crop systems in the sprayfields. By using crop systems that include bermudagrass in spring and summer in both pastures and sprayfields, the lowest N leaching is observed (Figure 8-1A). The inclusion of a corn-sorghum rotation in the sprayfields would increase the profitability, but it would also increase N leaching (Figure 8-1B). If the change includes bahiagrass in the pasture, this would increase slightly the N leaching and decrease the profit (Figure 8-1C).

PAGE 260

238 8.3.2.2 Crop systems in sprayfields Figure 8-2 displays the relationships among 10 different crop systems in the sprayfields. Evidently, rotation 1 (bermudagrass-bermudagrass) outperforms with the least N leaching system with a medium-low profitability. It is followed by crop system 9 (corn-bermudagrass) which has medium-to-high profitability. Rotations 8 (corn-bahiagrass), 6 (corn-corn) have low-medium N leaching and medium-high profitability. Crop system 10 that includes bahiagrass-bahiagrass has low-medium N leaching, but the lowest profitability of all. On the other hand, system 5 (millet-sorghum), followed by crop systems 7 (corn-millet), and 2 (corn-sorghum) presents the highest levels of N leaching with medium-high profit. The most profitable crop system is rotation 3 (millet-corn) that has a medium level of N leaching. As in the previous case, higher N leaching and lower profitability are observed for El Nio, followed by Neutral years. La Nia years presents the lowest N leaching and the highest profit. Even though the differences among ENSO phases across scenarios seem to be similar, there are slight differences that are attributed to other factors such as crops in pastures and soil types (Figure 8-2 A, B, and C). It is also noticeable that the relative differences among ENSO phases vary among crop systems: i.e., there is less difference in crop system 6 between El Nio and Neutral years compared with crop systems 10 and 1. Confirming the results from Figure 8-1, there is less N leaching with soils type 2 (Figure 8-2C), more with soils type 6 (Figure 8-2B), and medium with soils type 4 (Figure 8-2A). Additionally, bermudagrass in pasture (Figure 8-2C) results in lower N leaching than bahiagrass (Figure 8-2 A, B). With soils type 2 and bermudagrass in pastures, a slightly higher profitability is observed (Figure 8-2C).

PAGE 261

239 5527639181045693741108221081493678,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00022,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,00067,00068,00069,00070,00071,00072,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Profit US$/year N leachinglbs/year Crop systems: 1 bermudagrass-bermudagrass2 corn-sorghum3 millet-corn4 sorghum-corn5 millet-sorghum6 corn-corn7 corn-millet8 corn-bahiagrass9 corn-bermudagrass10-bahiagrass-bahiagrass CT = 80%; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BAHIAGRASSSOIL SERIE 4: PENNEY-OTELA 5552473734220,00022,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO 410819367281019669181010,00012,00014,00016,00018,000 8,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,00067,00068,00069,00070,00071,00072,000 Profit US$/year 5527639181045693741108221081493678,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00022,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,00067,00068,00069,00070,00071,00072,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Profit US$/year N l eac hi nglbs/year CT = 80%; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BERMUDAGRASSSOIL SERIE 2: ARREDONDO-JONESVILLE-LAKE CT=80%; CP=HIGH PASTURE=BERMUDAGRASS SOIL SERIE 2=ARREDONDO-JONESVILLE-LAKE N l eac hi nglbs/year CT = 80%; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BAHIAGRASSSOIL SERIE 6: MILLHOPPER-BONNEAU ABC CT=80%; CP=HIGH PASTURE=BAHIAGRASS SOIL SERIE 4=PENNEY-OTELA CT=80%; CP=HIGH PASTURE=BAHIAGRASS SOIL SERIE 6=MILLHOPPER-BONNEAU Figure 8-2. Nitrogen leaching and profit for different crop systems in north-Florida: Estimations for different ENSO phases for common pastures and soil types

PAGE 262

240 8.3.2.3 Pastures and crude protein in the diet (CP) Figure 8-3 shows four management options of the combinations of two pasture crop systems (bermudagrass and bahiagrass) and two CP choices (low and high). Consistently, option 4 (bermudagrass and low CP) has the lowest N leaching and the highest profit; conversely, option 1 (bahiagrass and high CP) has the highest N leaching and the lowest profit. The CP in the diet has greater effect on N leaching than the pasture crop as evidenced in the fact that option 2 (bahiagrass and low CP) presents less N leaching than option 3 (bermudagrass and high CP). However the pasture crop has greater effect than the CP over profitability: option 3 results in higher profit levels than option 2. As in previous cases, the lowest N leaching and the highest profit are observed in La Nia years; Neutral and El Nio years that are closer together present higher N leaching and lower profitability. Having bahiagrass or corn-corn in the sprayfield would leach N very similarly, with corn-corn being slightly lower (Figure 8-3 A, C); however, the profitability changes substantially with these two choices. For example, with bahiagrass the estimated profitability for option 3 in a Neutral year would be lower than US$ 63,000 while it would be more than US$ 66,000 when corn-corn is the system in the sprayfield for this Synthesized farm. The millet-sorghum rotation in the sprayfield would leach substantially higher amounts than the other sprayfield options (bahiagrass and corn-corn) and it would present profitability slightly lower than the corn-corn rotation (Figure 8-3B).

PAGE 263

241 1324314242318,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,00067,00068,00069,00070,00071,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Profit US$/year N leachinglbs/year Management options: 1 Pasture = bahiagrass CP = high2 Pasture = bahiagrass CP = low3 Pasture = bermudagrass CP = high 4 Pasture = bermudagrass CP = low CT = 80%SPRAYFIELD = BAHIAGRASSSOIL SERIE 9: BLANTON (low) 20,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO 42312413132410,00012,00014,00016,00018,000 8,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,00067,00068,00069,00070,00071,000 Profit US$/year 1324314242318,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,00067,00068,00069,00070,00071,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Profit US$/year N leachinglbs/year CT = 80%SPRAYFIELD = CORN-CORNSOIL SERIE 9: BLANTON (low) CT=80% SPRAYFIELD=CORN-CORN SOIL SERIE 9=BLANTON (LOW) CT = 80%SPRAYFIELD = MILLET-SORGHUMSOIL SERIE 9: BLANTON (low) ABC CT=80% SPRAYFIELD=BAHIAGRASS SOIL SERIE 9=BLANTON (LOW) CT=80% SPRAYFIELD=MILLET-SORGHUM SOIL SERIE 9=BLANTON (LOW) N leachinglbs/year Figure 8-3. N leaching and profit for different pasture crops and crude protein in north-Florida: Estimations for different ENSO phases for common sprayfield crops and soil type

PAGE 264

242 8.3.2.4 Confined time (CT) and crude protein in the diet (CP) Figure 8-4 displays four management options of the combinations of two possible CT options (80% and 60%) and two CP choices (low and high). Option 4 (CT=60% and CP=low) leaches the least and has the second highest profit and option 1 (CT=80% and CP=high) leaches the most and has the lowest profit. The effect of the CP in the diet is higher than the 20% CT decrease (from 80 to 60%) in the N leaching because option 3 (CT=80% and CP=low) leaches less N than option 2 (CT=60% and CP=high). However, option 3 presents the highest profitability of all and option 2 has the second lowest profit. By comparing graphs A, B, and C in Figure 8-4 it can be noticed that the lowest N leaching is for the option of having bermudagrass in the pasture and be located in a soil type 5 (Penney-Kershaw). This is closely followed by the option of changing the pasture to bahiagrass, indicating that the effect of reducing N leaching of bermudagrass over bahiagrass in the pasture is not as marked as happens in the sprayfields. The option that includes bermudagrass (Figure 8-4C) has more profit. With the same crop systems, soil type 5 shows substantially greater N leaching and decrease in profit compared with soil type 3. N leaching is the lowest and profit is the highest when La Nia ENSO phases occur, however this is more marked for soil type 5 than soil type 3. Also, the highest N leaching and the lowest profitability in El Nio years is more marked with soil type 3 (Figure 8-4 B, C). By exploring relative positions among points in Figure 8-4 A, B, and C, it can be observed that, depending of the management options, there are slight differences in the spatial distributions of the circles.

PAGE 265

243 4231241313248,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,00067,00068,00069,00070,00071,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Profit US$/year N leachinglbs/year Management options: 1 CT = 80% CP = high2 CT = 60% CP = high3 CT = 80% CP = low 4 -CT = 60% CP = low PASTURE = BAHIAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = CORN-MILLETSOIL SERIE 5: PENNEY-KERSHAW 20,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO 13243142423110,00012,00014,00016,00018,000 8,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,00067,00068,00069,00070,00071,000 Profit US$/year 1324314242318,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,00067,00068,00069,00070,00071,000 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Profit US$/year N leachinglbs/year PASTURE = BERMUDAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = CORN-MILLETSOIL SERIE 3: BONNEAU-BLANTON-EUNOLA PASTURE=BERMUDAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=CORN-MMILLET SOIL SERIE 3=BONNEAU-BLANTON-EUNOLA N leachinglbs/year PASTURE = BERMUDAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = CORN-MILLETSOIL SERIE 5: PENNEY-KERSHAW ABC PASTURE=BAHIAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=CORN-MMILLET SOIL SERIE 5=PENNEY-KERSHAW PASTURE=BERMUDAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=CORN-MMILLET SOIL SERIE 5=PENNEY-KERSHAW Figure 8-4. N leaching and profit for different confined time and crude protein: Estimations for different ENSO phases for common crop systems and soils

PAGE 266

244 This means that the management options not only change the overall N leaching and profit, but also they have interactions with the climate, the CT and the CP. For example, management option 1 that always has the most leaching, is more different between El Nio and Neutral years and less different between Neutral and La Nia years in Graph C compared with Graphs A and/or B, In Graphs B and C, it presents the lowest profitability. However in Graph A, it appears to be the second lowest in profit. 8.3.2.5 Isolated effects of single managerial changes in the Synthesized farm Figure 8-5 displays the impacts of four management changes, one at a time, regarding A) sprayfield crop system, B) pasture crop system, C) CT, and D) CP for the Synthesized farm. The initial conditions were set up to be sprayfield rotation = millet-sorghum, pasture = bahiagrass, CT = 80%, and CP = high. All the tested changes in Figure 8.5: A) sprayfield crop system = bermudagrass, B) pasture crop = bermudagrass, C) CT = 60%, and D) CP = low decrease the overall N leaching. However this decreasing of N leaching is, by far, greater when the change is in the sprayfield rotation indicating the high sensitivity of the farm to the crop systems installed on sprayfields. The second highest decrease in N leaching occurs when the CP is decreased from high to low levels. The third highest decrease is by changing the CT (from 80 to 60%). The least decrease in N leaching happens when the pasture system is changed from bahiagrass to bermudagrass, indicating that dairy systems may not be as sensitive to the pastures as to the other factors. The effect of these changes in the overall profit varies. For the case of maximum N leaching decrease (sprayfield sorghum-millet to bermudagrass), there is also a maximum decrease in the profitability of the farm. For the change in the CT, there is no variation in

PAGE 267

10,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,00016,00064,00064,50065,00065,50066,00066,50067,00067,50068,00068,500 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Profit US$/year N leachinglbs/year CT = 80%; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BAHIAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = MILLET-SORGHUM CT = 80%; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BAHIAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = BERMUDAGRASS 10,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,00016,00064,00064,50065,00065,50066,00066,50067,00067,50068,00068,500 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Profit US$/year N leachinglbs/year CT = 80%; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BAHIAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = MILLET-SORGHUM CT = 80%; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BERMUDAGRASS SPRAYFIELD = MILLET-SORGHUM 10,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,00016,00064,00064,50065,00065,50066,00066,50067,00067,50068,00068,500 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Profit US$/year N leachinglbs/year CT = 80%; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BAHIAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = MILLET-SORGHUM CT = 60% ; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BAHIAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = MILLET-SORGHUM 10,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,00016,00064,00064,50065,00065,50066,00066,50067,00067,50068,00068,500 LA NIA NEUTRAL EL NIO Profit US$/year N leachinglbs/year CT = 80%; CP = LOW PASTURE = BAHIAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = MILLET-SORGHUM CT = 80%; CP = HIGHPASTURE = BAHIAGRASSSPRAYFIELD = MILLET-SORGHUM CT=80%; CP=HIGHPASTURE=BAHIAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=SORGHUM CT=80%; CP=LOW PASTURE=BAHIAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=SORGHUM 245 A B C D CT=80%; CP=HIGHPASTURE=BAHIAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=SORGHUM CT=80%; CP=HIGH PASTURE=BAHIAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=BERMUDAGRASS CT=80%; CP=HIGHPASTURE=BAHIAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=SORGHUM CT=80%; CP=HIGH PASTURE=BERMUDAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=SORGHUM CT=80%; CP=HIGHPASTURE=BAHIAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=SORGHUM CT=60% ; CP=HIGHPASTURE=BAHIAGRASS SPRAYFIELD=SORGHUM Figure 8-5. Impacts of management changes for the Synthesized farm with soils type 4 (Penney-Otela). A) Sprayfield crop system. B) Pasture crop system. C) Confined time (CT). D) Crude protein (CP).

PAGE 268

246 the profitability level. And for the other options (change in pasture and CP) there is a slight increase in farm profitability. Even though in Figure 8-5 the changes in N leaching and profitability seem to be of similar magnitudes, they are quite different in terms of proportions. As a percent, the decrease in N leaching is five or six times greater than the change in profitability. This has great connotation for the potential changes farmers could adopt in order to pursue environmental and economic sustainability. 8.3.3 Optimization Analysis: Decreasing Environmental Impacts and Increasing Profitability 8.3.3.1 The Synthesized dairy farm as is The Synthesized north-Florida dairy farm was simulated with the following management practices: crude protein in the diet high, CT 80%, and the forage crops described in Table 8-5. This is a common scenario for many north-Florida dairy farms. Table 8-5. Crops in different fields in the Synthesized farm Field Area (Ac) Type Spring Summer Winter 1 10 SPRAYFIELD CORN SORGHUM RYE 2 20 SPRAYFIELD CORN MILLET RYEGRASS 3 10 SPRAYFIELD SORGHUM MILLET WHEAT 4 20 SPRAYFIELD BAHIAGRASS BAHIAGRASS OATS 5 10 SPRAYFIELD MILLET SORGHUM RYE 6 20 PASTURELAND BAHIAGRASS BAHIAGRASS RYE 7 10 PASTURELAND BERMUDAGRASS BERMUDAGRASS RYEGRASS 8 20 PASTURELAND BAHIAGRASS BAHIAGRASS WHEAT 9 10 PASTURELAND BERMUDAGRASS BERMUDAGRASS OATS 10 20 PASTURELAND BAHIAGRASS BAHIAGRASS RYE The yearly results for profit and N leaching are summarized in Figure 8-6. There is lower N leaching in La Nia years than Neutral years (6.67%) and Neutral years have lower N leaching than El Nio years (5.86%). El Nio years present 12.92% more N leaching than La Nia years (Figure 8-6). Conversely, profit is lower in El Nio years

PAGE 269

247 than Neutral years (1.47%) and Neutral years present lower profit than La Nia years (0.45%). El Nio years result in 1.47% less profit than in La Nia years. N leaching varies from 13,528 lbs for the whole farm for a La Nia year to 15,275 lbs for an El Nio year. An estimated 14,429 lbs of N are leached in a Neutral year. Profit varies from US$ 65,480 for an El Nio year to US$ 66,455 in a La Nia year. An intermediate figure of US$ 65,773 was obtained for a Neutral year. 10,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,00016,000La NiaNeutralEl NioLBS N LEACHED65,40065,90066,40066,90067,40067,90068,40068,900US$ PROFIT PROFIT Figure 8-6. Nitrogen leaching and profit with current practices for a Synthesized north-Florida farm 8.3.3.2 Optimization of the Synthesized farm The linear programming optimizer included in the DNFDFM included combinations of the following management options: confined time (CT), crude protein (CP), pasture forage rotations, and sprayfield forage sequences. The optimizer found a set of management practices with better characteristics of N leaching and profit when compared with the baseline situation of the farm. The selected management options are

PAGE 270

248 summarized in Table 8-6 and results comparing with the original situation are presented in Figure 8-7. The management strategies selected by the optimizer were a low CP level; a variable level of CT, 60% of CT for cows that will use 59% of the pasture and 80% of CT for cows that use 41% of the pasture; a bermudagrass-bermudagrass-winter forage sequence for all pasture land; variable areas of forages for sprayfields for different ENSO phases; as seen in Table 8-6. With these combinations, the optimizer estimated that N leaching would vary from 10,146 lbs year -1 for a La Nia year to 11,497 lbs year -1 for an El Nio year. An intermediate figure of 10,838 lbs year -1 was the outcome for a Neutral year (Figure 8-7). Table 8-6. Management strategies selected by the optimizer CP low CT 60% 59% of the pasture 80% 41% of the pasture Pasture bermudagrass-bermudagrass-winter forage Sprayfields Acres La Nia 22.72 corn-corn-winter forage 15.44 bermudagrass-bermudagrass-winter forage 13.51 corn-bermudagrass-winter forage 9.57 millet-corn-winter forage 8.75 corn-bermudagrass-winter forage Neutral 20.90 corn-corn-winter forage 16.74 bermudagrass-bermudagrass-winter forage 12.22 corn-bermudagrass-winter forage 11.22 millet-corn-winter forage 8.93 corn-bermudagrass-winter forage El Nio 21.52 corn-corn-winter forage 15.97 bermudagrass-bermudagrass-winter forage 12.99 corn-bermudagrass-winter forage 11.20 millet-corn-winter forage 8.33 corn-bermudagrass-winter forage

PAGE 271

249 Comparing these values with the previous results of the farm as is, substantial variations are noticed. N leaching could be decreased up to 25% and profit could still be increased by approximately 3.15%, in all ENSO phases. 8.3.3.3 Feasible practices for the Synthesized farm In reality, farmers cannot easily change all practices proposed by the optimizer. For instance, the slight changes in areas of the sprayfields may not be feasible. However, dairy farmers would be able to change some or part of the proposed practices. The optimization results serve as the guidelines for making such changes, taking into account that these optimization results would present better environmental outputs. By cross-referencing results achieved by the optimizer with the proposed practices, changes that are feasible for farmers can be determined. Current Practice Current Practice Current Practice Optimized Optimized Optimized Profit (Current Practice) Profit (Optimized)10,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,00016,000La NiaNeutralEl NioLBS N LEACHED65,40065,90066,40066,90067,40067,90068,40068,900US$ PROFIT Figure 8-7. Optimized vs. current practice yearly N leaching and profit for a north-Florida Synthesized farm

PAGE 272

250 Scenario One. The optimization proposes a decrease in CP in the diet from high to low. This is a possible change for a dairy farmer to make. Next, the optimization proposes to switch the CT between 80 and 60% for different group of cows. It is believed that it would be difficult for the farmer to implement this specific change, so CT levels would remain at 80%. Finally, the optimization proposed a series of crops for different ENSO phases. It is assumed that the farmer can rather easily implement similar, though not identical, changes to the farm management practices. Feasible crop systems for the farm are shown in Table 8-7. This implements bermudagrass instead of bahiagrass in pastures and sprayfields, and includes more in corn than sorghum and/or millet in sprayfields. With these feasible combinations the DNFDFM simulation was re-run. Results estimated that the N leaching would vary from 10,410 lbs year -1 for a La Nia year to 11,820 lbs year -1 for an El Nio year. A Neutral year would result in N leaching of 11,130 lbs year -1 (Figures 8-8 and 8-9). Table 8-7. Feasible crop systems in Synthesized dairy farm Field Area (Ac) Type Spring Summer Winter 1 23 SPRAYFIELD CORN CORN RYE 2 15 SPRAYFIELD BERMUDAGRASS BERMUDAGRASS RYEGRASS 3 14 SPRAYFIELD CORN BERMUDAGRASS WHEAT 4 19 SPRAYFIELD CORN CORN OATS 5 80 PASTURE BERMUDAGRASS BERMUDAGRASS OATS Comparing these N leaching values with the original, farm as is, it is noticed that N leaching could be greatly reduced by using a feasible set of practices instead of the as is practices. By implementing these practices, N leaching would be reduced in the order of approximately 23% in all ENSO phases, and the profit could still increase by 2.5%.

PAGE 273

251 10,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,00016,000La NiaNeutralEl NioLBS N LEACHED65,40065,90066,40066,90067,40067,90068,40068,900US$ PROFIT PROFIT Figure 8-8. Feasible yearly N leaching and profit for a Synthes ized north-Florida farm Figure 8-9. Optimization of a Synthesized north-Florida farm, scenario One. A) Current, optimized, and feasible practices and B) percent of N leaching and profit variation from current to feasible practices. Scenaould be resistant to change the CP in the diet. The DNFDFM was run maintaining the A B rio two. Another potential scenario simulated the case where the farmer w

PAGE 274

252 CP in. In the the high mode and holding all the other management choices as scenario Onethis scenario the major changes between the original as is farm and the proposed management strategy lies in the crop systems in the pastures and sprayfields. Crop systems were based on those proposed by the optimization runs, in the same way asprevious feasible practices that are stated in Table 8-7. 15,00016,000 10,00011,00012,00013,00014,000La NiaNeutralEl NioLBS N LEACHED65,40065,90066,40066,90067,40067,90068,40068,900US$ PROFIT PROFIT Figure 8-10. Second feasible yearly N leaching and profit for a north-Florida Synthesized farm Results of this simulation demonstrate that the farmer would still be able to decrease N lely and marginally increase the profitability of the farm, even g es, small changes can aching substantial though the farmer does not want to change the CP in diet. Expected N leachinvaried from 11,195 lbs year-1 in a La Nia year to 13,549 lbs year-1 in an El Nio year. N leaching was 12,723 lbs year-1 for a Neutral year. Compared with the original practices, the overall decrease in N leaching would be more than 11% and profit would increase slightly more than 2% fo r all ENSO phases (Figure 8-10). Although the best management practices reached with the optimizer and the feasibility of the farm worked similarly for the different ENSO phas

PAGE 275

253 be stir, raised on-farm, 00 lbs year-1 cow-1. The amount of CP was high. This is mostly a grazin N Nia years to 1,802 in Neutral years to 1,879 in El Nicrease y changing some manage ll implemented for better results according to different ENSO phases. Howevethese specific analyses should be performed for each farm on an individual basis, because site-specific interactions of the livestock, waste management systems, and the environmental parameters can have a great impact on results. 8.3.4 Examples of Applications of the DNFDFM to Specific Farms 8.3.4.1 Farm One This is a small farm with about 400 TAC, 10 bulls, 0% of heifers and a RHA of 15,0 g farm with only 37% CT. The estimated N lost from the waste system was 30.81%and, it has soil type 2. This farm ha s 2 sprayfields; one of 40 acres and the other of 80, but in both of them the crop rotations are the same: sorghum-sorghum-winter forage. As pasture, this farm has 120 acres of bahiagrass-winter forage rotation. The farmer mentioned that at the moment the net income for the farm was US$ 0.00 cwt-1 milk-1. That is, the farm was just breaking even. A simulation run for this farm with its current conditions indicated that estim at edleaching per year varied from 1,668 in La o years. Estimated net profits varied from US$ 5,868 to 5,848 to 5,839, respectively (Figure 8-11). Though a small amount of profit was indicated in the simulation, it satisfied the farmer that the model was very good. The solution presented by the optimizer estimated that N leaching could deapproximately 20% and profit could increase approximately 5% b ment practices. The optimizer suggested decreasing the CP level from high to low; maintaining confined time at 37%; changing the pasture field rotations to

PAGE 276

254 bermudagrass-winter forage; and introducing millet, bermudagrass, and corn in difields and seasons in the sprayfields. After seeing these results, the fa fferent rmer mentioned that probably not all the proposed change s could be implemented. The farmer said that it would be worthwhile to try the proposed changes in the pasture and sprayfields. So the simulation model was run againfor only these proposed feasible changes. The feasible practices showed that for this farm, N leaching could be decreased up to 9%, while profit could still be increased approximately 3% (Figure 8-11). Figure 8-11. Farm One: N leaching and profit for different management strategies s a medium-sized farm with 600 TAC, 22,400 lbs cow-1 of RHA, no bulls, 1 8.3.4.2 Farm Two Farm Two i 00% of heifers raised on-farm, high protein in the diet, and 100% CT. This farmhas a 35.31% estimated loss of N during waste handling, soil type 1, 155 acres of

PAGE 277

255 sprayfields with sorghum-millet-winter forage, and 300 acres of pasture with bahiagrass-bahiagrass-winter forage, and an estimated net income of US$ 0.80milk-1. cwt-1 For this second farm, the DNFDFM simulation estimated that N leaching would be 13,9d to 14, 14,954, and 15,466 lbs N year-1 for La Nia, Neutral, and El Nio years, respectively. Using the optimizer, it was determined that these rates could be decrease9,633, 10,375, and 10643, respectively (Figure 8-12). This would represent an overall decrease in N leaching of more than 30%. Regarding profit, the optimization found thatwith this combination of factors, profit would have a small increase of about 0.5%. Figure 8-12. Farm Two: N leaching and profit for different management strategies change Also, The optimization proposed changes in cropping patterns. One management was to substitute sorghum for corn in the spring-summer season. Another proposed adjustment was to substitute bahiagrass for bermudagrass in the pastures.

PAGE 278

256 the optimizer proposed adjustment in CP and CT. The farmer said that it would be possible to change the diet and some of the crops, but that confined time was fixed.A re-run of the model with these feasible parameters showed that N leachin g could b n, operation in the study area with the following characteristics: 3,000 s at this farm would release 92,008, 98,059 and 104,326e 89, y. patterns, CT, and CP levels in the diet. The farmer confirmed that this farm would be e reduced by changing crops and crude protein in this farm. The solution found that this farm could decrease N leaching up to 20% by changing only feasible practices.However, in this specific farm, the farmer would give up 2% of estimated profits by implementing these management changes. The farmer felt comfortable with that optiostating that a 2% decrease in net income would not be threatening to the farms survival; however, decreasing N lost by 20% would be a plus for sustainability. 8.3.4.3 Farm Three This is a large TAC, 20,000 lbs cow-1 of RHA, 80% CT, 120 bulls, 100% of heifers raised and a CP high. It has 450 acres of sprayfields with corn-sorghum-winter forages, and 800 acreof pasture with bahiagrass-bahiagrass-winter forage. The net income was estimated by the farmer as US$ 1.12 cwt-1 milk-1. Simulation results s h owed t h lbs of N year-1 for La Nia, Neutral, and El Nio years, respectively (Figur8-13). The optimizer f o und that N leaching could be decreased to 67,531, 73,771, and77,562 lbs of N year-1 for La Nia, Neutral, and El Nio years, respectively. This approximately 25% decrease in N leaching could be performed while still slightly increasing profit (<1%) from US$ 585,018 to 590,336, from US$ 580,270 to 585,3and from US$ 578,375 to 583,880, for La Nia, Neutral, and El Nio years, respectivelThe optimization found that these levels could be achieved by changing cropping

PAGE 279

257 willingld and capable to change to the suggested practices. Therefore, in this case, the optimized solution was equal to the feasible solution. This big dairy operation woube able to decrease its N pollution by 25% and still slightly increase profitability. Figure 8-13. Farm Three: N leaching and profit for different management strategies The proposed and feasible changes included millet and bermudagrass in the the summ N leaching and profit are significantly sensitive to parameters of all main fonsequently, the perfoh sprayfields in the spring season, and replace sorghum with corn and bermudagrass in er season; replace the bahiagrass with bermudagrass in the pasture; reduce the CTto 68%; and change the CP to low. 8.4 Conclusions and Recommendations Statistical analyses showed that actors and several combinations of them. C rmance of the DNFDFM is highly sensitive to specific dairy farm parameters. Estimations of N leaching and profitability of the DNFDFM change substantially wit

PAGE 280

258 different farms; therefore the analyses should be performed on an individual basis wspecific farms. Graphical representations of different farm management options regarding N leaching and pro ith fit indicated consistently that N exactly the opposite happens for El Nio years There are marked differences for soil types, with soil series of the types Millhopper, ies Penny less prone to leach N Decreasing the amount of crude protein in the diet impacts by decreasing the N Decreasing the confined time for a Synthesized farm decreases the N leaching and it Individual management changes in the Synthesized farm showed that there is higher north-Florida dairy farm demonstrated the power of the model in proposing ecologically and eions. For the 3 farms itrogen leaching is the lowest and profit the highest for La Nia ENSO phases; Bonneau, Blanton, Eunola more prone to leach N and have less profit, and soil serof the types Arredondo, Jonesville, Lake, Ortega Crop systems that include bermudagrass, corn, and bahiagrass leach less N and crop systems that include millet and sorghum tend to leach more N leaching and increasing profitability could also slightly decrease the profitability. sensitivity of the N leaching to changes in sprayfields and lower sensitivity to changes in pastures The optimization analysis using the DNFDFM with data of a synthesized conomically sound alternatives to specific dairy farms. For the case of a north-Florida Synthesized farm, the optimizer was able to combine factors to decrease up to 25% the N leaching and still increase profitability more than 3%. The applications of the DNFDFM in real farms, besides serving as a validation of the model, confirmed the usefulness of the model in practical applicat in which it was tested, the optimizer was able to find practices better than current practices that would have lower environmental impacts and still maintain profitability

PAGE 281

259 levels. By using the concept of feasible practices, which are those practices proposed by the optimizer that the farmer feels are feasible to implement, it was possible to reducthe N leaching by 9%, 20%, and 25% in a small, a medium, and a large farm, respectively, in north-Florida. These farms would reduce their N leaching while maintaining their profitability levels. The optimization analyses found that some practices would work across north-Florida dairy farm operations in e reducing N leaching. These are to change the crude proteiasture n to low standards and promote bermudagrass instead of bahiagrass in pand sprayfields. The other crop systems, the confined time, and other potential management choices would present different outputs to specific dairy farm conditions.

PAGE 282

CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Suwannee River Basin has received much attention in recent years and more so in recent months because increased N levels in water bodies. Dairy waste is an important factor contributing to this water N pollution, but dairies may reduce their total N loads by adjusting management strategies. Improvements in climate variation predictions (lead times of 6 to 12 months) can play an important role in devising management strategies that dairy farmers could adopt to pursue economic and ecological sustainability. The main aim of this dissertation was to test management options that decrease nutrient overflow in dairy systems under different climatic conditions while maintaining profitability through the creation and use of simulation and optimization models. Whole-dairy-farm system simulation was used to test alternative management strategies that would not be practical to test under regular experimental designs. Dynamic, event-controlled, process-based, and empirical models were coupled with optimization models to represent north-Florida dairy farms. User friendliness of models and high interaction with stakeholders were always pursued. The Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM) was intended to be an environmental accountability tool for dairy farmers and regulatory agencies capable of simulating and optimizing any individual north-Florida dairy farm. Economic and ecological impacts were studied along with the effects of seasonal or climate variability for different dairy farm types. General results indicated that north-Florida dairy farms could substantially decrease N leaching and maintain profitability levels by adjusting crop sequences in sprayfields, 260

PAGE 283

261 crop rotations in pastures, crude protein in the diet, and confined time of milking cows. Climatic conditions greatly affect N leaching: during El Nio years, when higher rainfall and colder temperatures are experienced, higher N leaching is estimated than in La Nia years, when lower rainfall and hotter temperatures are observed; in Neutral years, medium N leaching is registered. Farmers could vary crop proportions to better prepare for these different climatic forecasts. In Chapter 2, an intense literature review was used to explore the hypotheses that An N pollution problem exists in the Suwannee River Basin Dairy farms are major contributors to this problem Results clearly indicated that not only does the problem of N pollution exist, but also there is an increasing trend of N concentrations in ground and surface waters. Although the N levels are currently below the regulatory standards (<10 mg L -1 ), they are always above the background, and so measures of mitigation are needed to avoid uncontrollable situations in the near future. Dairy farms are indeed major contributors to the problem through manure applications that exceed the carrying capacity of the soils and crops. However, substantial differences exist among dairy farms because of temporal, spatial, and climatic conditions. It is highly recommended, therefore, to assess point sources of pollution and keep individual dairy farms environmentally accountable. Components inside dairy farms and their interactions also vary greatly in their environmental impacts and these need to be taken into consideration when analyzing complete dairy farm systems. In Chapter 3 a Sondeo, a Survey, and several Focus Groups were used as instruments to capture the Suwannee River Basin stakeholders perceptions regarding Water contamination Current environmental regulations Potential adoption of climate forecast innovations

PAGE 284

262 It was found that most of the stakeholders perceived that there is an environmental problem of water pollution that needs to be addressed. However, some farmers, technicians, and extensionists challenged this fact and showed skepticism of the gravity of the problem. Major efforts are needed to clearly communicate to all groups of stakeholders, especially to the skeptical ones about the real problem and its potential consequences. Most of the farmers agree with current environmental regulations and many of them are very thankful to have the opportunity to participate in incentive-based programs. Nonetheless, most of them also believe that regulations will be the major challenge they will have to face in the future. Some farmers are in disagreement with current regulations because of technical and/or administrative aspects. Therefore, regulatory agencies should work collaboratively with all stakeholders groups to test the economic and ecologic feasibility of promoted best management practices, BMPs. Two-thirds of dairy farmers would use climate forecast products in crop decisions for selecting forage crops, changing planting dates, and/or planning areas of forage; some of them would additionally benefit from this climate forecast use in livestock, feedstock, and waste management. The main barriers to climate forecast adoption is the lack of flexibility of north-Florida dairy farms and the management resources required for their implementation. Consequently, forecast innovations must fit narrow niches of application and require realistic management efforts in order to be adopted. Further research calls for the inclusion of climate variability forecasts into BMP experiments. Commitment in extension and outreach programs to deliver climate forecasts together with their regular products is also required to diffuse these climate innovation products.

PAGE 285

263 Chapter 4 describes the collaborative process of building the Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM) with the stakeholders. Multiple feedback loops were used during a two-year iterative process that included initial developments, creation of a prototype model, and calibration and validation of a final model that simulates monthly N leaching and cash flows on north-Florida dairy farm systems affected by a climatic component determined by the El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. Participatory modeling can enhance the creation of adoptable and adaptable user-friendly models that include environmental, economic and biophysical components. These component models were embedded in the DNFDFM. By providing farmers, policy makers, and other stakeholders with a more holistic view of current practices, common ground among them was more easily identifiable and collaboration was therefore fostered. By having stakeholders participate in the creation and development of the models, there is increased chance that the final product will better represent the reality and interests of stakeholders, and consequently a greater chance that the model will be adopted by interested users. Chapter 5 tested the hypothesis that there could be better ways to estimate N excretion from dairy cows than those commonly used. This chapter described and analyzed the creation of a new model, the north-Florida livestock model, which is the driver of the DNFDFM. This model introduced dynamic components, parameterization of north-Florida herd environmental and management conditions, minimum requirement of initial data, and calibration with farmers participation. Results of this model regarding N received by land (lbs acre -1 ) were compared with those yielded by the two most commonly used approaches in Florida. This comparison suggested that previous models have either overestimated or

PAGE 286

264 underestimated N excretion and did not account for seasonality. This new model is believed to be more accurate because it captures more realistic and relevant characteristics of north-Florida dairy operations. Results showed great variability in manure N production due principally to season of the year, number of cows, milk production levels, and size of farm. Values indicated that some fields may receive as little as 3 lbs N acre -1 month -1 and other fields may receive as much as 145 lbs N acre -1 month -1 Chapter 6 assessed the potential N leaching of north-Florida dairy forage systems under the premise that these crop systems are the main means of recycling the always abundant manure N produced as a consequence of milk production. Findings were summarized for incorporation into the DNFDFM. Eight focus groups with stakeholders and 21 interviews with dairy farmers were performed in order to collect information about the forage systems and their parameters; additional information was collected from published sources, farm records, and official regulatory agencies. It was found that the common forage systems in north-Florida dairy farms include a spring/summer forage (corn, sorghum, millet, bermudagrass, or bahiagrass), a summer/fall forage (corn, sorghum, millet, bermudagrass, or bahiagrass), and a fall/winter forage (rye, oats, wheat, or ryegrass). Crop models contained in the Decision Support System for Agricultural Transfer, DSSAT v4.0, were used to predict monthly N leaching and biomass accumulation in these forage crop systems under different parameters of Crop sequences Manure N received Seasonal climatic conditions Soil characteristics Other variable management specifications

PAGE 287

265 After creating, calibrating, and validating the common forage systems for north-Florida, these crop models were run for 43 years of daily weather data (1956-1998). Results indicated that higher N leaching and lower biomass accumulation are predicted for El Nio followed by Neutral years; La Nia years showed the lowest N leaching and the highest biomass accumulation. Winter in general, and January and February, specifically, are the critical months with the highest N leaching. The best forage systems to prevent N leaching are those that start in spring-summer with bermudagrass or corn; have bermudagrass, bahiagrass or corn in summer; and finish with winter forages. Systems that leach the most N are those that include millet and/or sorghum. Water holding capacity and pH among soil types may explain most of the great variability found in N leaching. Chapter 7 describes the DNFDFM, a simple, event-controlled, mechanistic, dynamic model that couples livestock, crop and optimization models created to assess N leaching from entire north-Florida dairy farm systems and the economic impacts resulting from reducing it. The model responds to dairy-specific environmental (climate and soils) and specific characteristics of Herd management Waste handling system Crops in sprayfields Crops in pastures Economic/financial situation The DNFDFM is used to simulate an existing system, optimize management options to diagnose sources of problems and suggest improvements in the system, and then simulate the modified system to compare it with the existing system. The model could also be used for pre-testing BMPs for specific farms and also for designing new dairy farms.

PAGE 288

266 The driver of the livestock and crop portions of the DNFDFM is a dynamic adaptation of the framework balance and/or budgeting of nutrients in dairy farms, commonly used in Florida. The DNFDFM incorporates Markov-chain probabilistic simulation of cow-flows and crop simulation for historical climatic years (El Nio Southern Oscillation). It also includes automated optimization of managerial options, participatory modelling, and user-friendliness. This chapter discussed the model structure, its components, its functioning, and its limitations. The DNFDFM should be used on an individual farm basis with the specific environmental and managerial conditions of each dairy farm. As an indication, outputs of running the model for some representative, but synthesized north-Florida dairy farms indicated that a small dairy farm would leach between 34 and 38 lbs N year -1 cow -1 ; while a medium farm would leach between 31 and 35 lbs N year -1 cow -1 ; and a large operation would leach between 25 and 29 lbs N year -1 cow -1 for La Nia and El Nio years, respectively. Chapter 8 presents and discusses results of simulating and optimizing synthesized and real dairy farms in north-Florida using the DNFDFM. The chapter included statistical, graphical, optimization, and application analyses. Results indicated that there is significant and great variability among soil types, i.e. soil type 6 (Millhopper-Bonneau) leaches the most N and soil type 2 (Arredondo-Jonesville-Lake) leaches the least N. A crop system that included bermudagrass-bermudagrass had the least N leaching and those that had sorghum-millet leached the most N. Higher crude protein in the diet or 20% higher confined time of milking cows created significantly higher amounts of N leaching.

PAGE 289

267 The optimization analysis using the DNFDFM with data from a Synthesized north-Florida dairy farm demonstrated the capability of the model in proposing ecologically and economically sound alternatives for specific dairy farms. The optimizer was able to combine factors to decrease N leaching up to 25% and still increase profitability by 3%. The applications of the DNFDFM in real farms, besides serving as a validation of the model, confirmed its usefulness in practical and real applications. For the 3 farms, in which it was validated, the optimizer was able to find better than current practices that would have lowered environmental impacts and still maintained profitability levels. By using the concept of feasible practices, which are those proposed by the optimizer that the farmer feels can be implemented, it was possible to reduce by 9%, 20%, and 25% the N leaching in a small, a medium, and a large farm in north-Florida. The optimization analyses found that some practices would be especially useful to north-Florida dairy farm operations in reducing N leaching. These are to decrease the crude protein in the diet and promote bermudagrass instead of bahiagrass in pastures and sprayfields. The other crop systems, the confined time and other potential management choices would present different outputs to specific dairy farm conditions. The DNFDFM can help farmers and other major stakeholders in making complicated decisions in optimizing both profitability and sustainability. Some practical, real-life envisioned applications are listed below. The DNFDFM has been conceived and developed with farmers, consequently it is expected that most of the benefits of its direct use return to these dairy farmers:

PAGE 290

268 The DNFDFM can be an important tool devising management strategies dairy farms could follow according to predicted long-term climate conditions The DNFDFM could help farmers maintain or gain compliance while maintaining profitability levels It can help in the design and testing of best management practices (BMPs) at the farm level. The virtual testing of these practices would decrease the risk of failure, save money, and decrease the time of implementation and re-design The DNFDFM could be used as a tool in the decision of design and implement a new dairy operation. Similarly, the model could be helpful in the decision of locating new or moving farms The model could be especially important in the reporting process dairy farms need to do to the official regulatory agencies. Dairy farmers could use it as a tool of individual environmental accountability The DNFDFM would allow farmers to demonstrate their stewardship towards environmentally sound practices and account for individual point-source pollution The model could also be used as an administrative tool, inside the dairy farm, for record keeping and/or planning administrative activities, since it computes economic outputs, along with all major activities The utility of the DNFDFM would be diminished if regulatory agencies would not accept and/or not use the model. It is envisioned that the regulatory agencies would find relevant uses for it: The DNFDFM could be used by the regulatory agencies to assess all the points expressed above, and additionally The model used on several farms could help regulatory agencies devise regional environmental practices according to forecasted climate conditions Regulatory agencies would be able to assess the economic impacts of proposed BMPs and the need of having financial help for farmers in order to comply The model could be important as an accountability tool for the regulatory agencies to demonstrate to activist groups and the general public the effectiveness of the regulations and the proposed practices

PAGE 291

269 It is also believed that activist groups (i.e., environmental groups) and the public in general would appreciate the model and its use: These groups could use it for most of the above uses, and additionally These groups may be interested in assessing potential regional impacts of the dairy industry according to climate conditions It would give them a more holistic view of the dairy farm enterprise and its components, and realistic options towards decreasing environmental impacts It is also envisioned that the model would serve the scientific community in some meaningful ways: It may help scientists assess trends/relationships between N pollution in water and estimated dairy farm releases by the DNFDFM Scientists could follow parts of the methods/frameworks used in the conception, design, implementation, and use of the DNFDFM to be applied to other studies The DNFDFM could still further be improved in order to better serve its purposes. Modifications, without losing user-friendliness that would improve its functionality are listed below. The livestock and waste components would be improved by the inclusion of farm-specific culling/reproduction rates Specific details inside the livestock component could still be adjusted for major accuracy. Some examples are Include an exponential function of calves/heifers gain of weight by using exponential parameters instead of the current constant rate. This incorporation would only have very slight changes in the pasture component and negligible overall impacts in the farm The general dietary protein function included following the NRC standards could be broken down to include information about the use of total crude protein, rumen protected amino acids, non-protein N, and ruminally degradable and undegraded protein. This incorporation would require parameterize experimental data and a higher level of inputs for running the model

PAGE 292

270 The DNFDFM should be capable of handling an increase/decrease in herd size and/or field size inside a run in order to simulate the desire or the real conditions of expansion/reduction of a farm and perform analyses under those conditions The model would benefit from higher customization of the crop model results. It would imply increasing the number of factors used to run the crop models and implement the results in the model. Especially important would be to: Include daily weather information for other meteorological stations in the study area. Include direct manure deposition in pastures Seasonality of crops according to climate conditions Seasonality of crop for harvesting Specific winter forages The model would improve with the inclusion of more detailed economic factors such as fixed costs and the initial costs as well as the value of the infrastructure and their depreciation and the specific costs of compliance The DNFDFM would benefit by including stochastic results according to climate ENSO phases. It would imply reassembling the distribution of crop model results for different climate years into a probabilistic function The optimization process could be faster if adjustment variables would be kept from one simulation to the next one Optimization could be improved if more decisions could be chosen. Also optimization could be improved if non-linear optimization methods and multi-objective approaches are used.

PAGE 293

LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, A.L. 1998. Dietary fat effects on rumen fermentation, milk production, and reproduction of dairy cattle, and economic implications for dairy production. Ph.D. thesis, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Albert, M. 2002. Monitoring and modeling the fate and transport of nitrate in the vadose zone beneath a Suwannee River Basin vegetable farm. M.S. thesis, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Alvira, D., Cabrera, V.E., Galindo, S., Haile, S., Mtenga, K., Rios, F., Tripathi, N., Villagomez, J.A. 2003. Nutrient management in the Suwannee River Basin: perceptions of stakeholders. University of Florida, Food and Resource Economics Department, Staff Paper Series, SP 04-2. Gainesville, FL. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1990. Manure production characteristics. Engineering practices subcommittee, ASAE Agric. Sanit. Waste Manag. Comm. ASAE Standard D384.1, Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI. Andrew, W.J. 1994. Nitrate in ground water and spring water near four dairy farms in north Florida 1990-1993. US Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4162, 63 p. Tallahassee, FL. Andrew, W.J. 1992. Reconnaissance of water quality at nine dairy farms in north Florida, 1990-1991. US Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4058, 39 p. Tallahassee, FL. Archer, D., Eklund, J., Walsh, M., Forcella, F. 2002. WEEDEM: A user-friendly software package for predicting annual ryegrass and wild radish emergence. In: Spafford, J.H., Dodd, J., Moore, J.H. (eds.), WEEDS: "threats now & forever? p. 252-253. In Proc. 13 th Australian Weeds Conf., Perth, WA, September 8-13, 2002. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Government of Tasmania. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Asbury, C.E., Oaksford, E.T.1997. A comparison of drainage basin inputs with in stream nutrient loads for seven rivers in Georgia and Florida, 1986-90 US Geological Survey Water Resources-Investigations Report 97-4006, 8 p. Tallahassee, FL. Bastidas, E. 2001. Assessing potential response to changes in the livelihood system of diverse, limited-resource farm households in Carchi, Ecuador: modeling livelihood strategies using participatory methods and linear programming. Ph.D. thesis, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. 271

PAGE 294

272 Bernard, H.R., 1994. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage. Newbury Park, CA. Berndt, M.P., Hatzell, H.H., Crabdall, C.A., Turtora, M., Pitman, J.R., Oaksbord. 1998. Water quality in the Georgia-Florida coastal plain, Georgia and Florida, 1992-1996. Circ. 1151. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Bisoondat, M., Woodard, K.R., Sollenberger, L.E., French, E.C., Portier, K.M., Graetz, D.A., Prine, G.M., Van Horn, H.H. 2002. Dairy effluent effects on herbage yield and nutritive value of forage cropping systems. Agron. J. 94, 043-1049. Boote, K.J., Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G. 1998. Simulation of crop growth: CROPGRO model. In Peart R.M., Curry R.B. (eds.) Agricultural systems modeling and simulation. Marcel Dekker, New York. Brsting, C.F., Kristensen, T., Misciattelli, L., Hvelplund, T., Weisbjerg, M.R. 2003. Reducing N surplus from dairy farms. Effects of feeding and management. Livest. Prod. Sci. 83,165-178 Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies. 2003. ENSO index according to JMA SSTA (1868-present). COAPS-Florida State University. Accessed January, 2004 ftp://www.coaps.fsu.edu/pub/JMA_SST_Index/ Chambers, R. 1994. The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev. 22, 953-959. Chambliss, C.G. (ed.). 1997. Florida forage handbook. Florida Coop. Extension Service, IFAS, Electronic Data Information Source, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Available at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/AG/AG17000.pdf Conway, G. R. 1990. Agroecosystems. In: Jones J.G.W., Street, P.R. (eds.). Systems theory applied to agriculture and the food chain. Elsevier Applied Science, New York. Copeland, R., David, J., Hansard, P. 1999. Nitrate source impacts on private drinking well waters in northwest Lafayette County, Florida. p. 1-6, Ambient Monitoring Section, FL Department of Environmental Protection. Ambient Newsletter 3, 3, August, 1999. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/docs/news/news9908.pdf. Dent, B.J., McGregor, M.J., 1994. Rural and farming systems analysis. A European perspective. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 2001. Florida water conservation initiative. Agricultural working group. A report of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Orlando, FL. De Vries, A. 2004. Economic value of late replacement when cow performance is seasonal. J. Dairy Sci. In Press.

PAGE 295

273 De Vries, A. 2001. Statistical process control charts applied to dairy herd reproduction. Ph.D. thesis. University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN. De Vries, A., Giesy, R., Ely, L., Webb, D., Andreasen, A., Broadus, B., Miller, P., Seabright, T, Vann, C., de Araujo, A. 2000. Dairy business analysis project: 2000 financial summary. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, AN 135. Gainesville, FL. Edwards, T.M., Barbeau, T.R., Guillette, L.J. Jr. 2003. Effects of nitrate contamination on reproduction growth, and development of animals associated with Floridas Springs. In Proc. Florida Springs Conference. Gainesville, FL. Feb. 5-7, 2003. Florida Center for Library Automation, Gainesville, FL. Environmental Literacy Council. 2002. Non-point source pollution. The Environmental Literacy Council, Washington DC. Accessed December, 2003 http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/413.html. Fan, A.M., Wilhite, C.C., Book, S.A. 1987. Evaluation of the nitrate drinking water standard with reference to infant methemoglobinemia and potential reproductive toxicity. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 7, 135-137. Felsot. A. 1998. Re-examining the Link between Nitrates and "Blue-Baby" Syndrome: A Necessary First Step For Managing Ground Water Quality to Protect Public Health. Cooperative Extension, Washing State University. Accessed April, 2004, http://www.aenews.wsu.edu/Oct98AENews/aenewsoctober98.htm#anchor545063. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. 2003. Livestock, dairy and poultry page. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed March, 2004, http://www.nass.usda.gov/fl Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FLDEP). 2004. EPA 319 Grant Program. Accessed, May, 2004 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/319h.htm. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FLDEP). 2001. Basin status report: Suwannee. Division of Water Resource Management. Bureau of Water Management, Tallahassee, FL. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/suwannee/ status/SUWANEE.pdf Florida Geographic Data Library. 1995. Data download. Accessed October, 2002 ftp://ftp1.fgdl.org/pub/county/ Florida Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources. 1992. Floridas ground water quality monitoring program background hydrogeochemistry. Florida Geological Survey Special Publication No 34. Tallahassee, FL. Fontaneli, R.S., Sollenberger, L.E., Staples, C.R. 2001. Yield, yield distribution and nutritive value of intensively managed warm-season annual grasses. Agron. J. 93, 1257-1262.

PAGE 296

274 Fontaneli, R.S., Sollenberger, L.E., Staples, C.R. 2000. Seeding date effects on yield and nutritive value of cool-season annual forage mixtures. Soil Sci. Soc. Florida Proc. 59, 60-67. Forman, D., Al-Dabbagh, S., Doll, R. 1985. Nitrates, nitrites, and gastric cancer in Great Britain. Nature 313, 620-625. Fraisse, C.W., Campbell, K.L., Jones, J.W., Boggess, W.G. 1996. GIDM: A GIS-based model for dairy waste management analysis. In Proc. Symposium on GIS and Water Resources, Ft. Lauderdale, Sep 22-26, 1996. American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, VA. Geurtz, J.L.A., Joldersma, F. 2001. Methodology for participatory policy analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 128, 300-310. Geurtz, J.L.A., Vennix, J. 1989. Verkenningen in Beleidsanalyse: Theorie en Praktijk van Modelbouw en Simulatie. Kercke-bosch, Zeist. Giesy, R., de Vries, A., Bray, D. 2002. Florida dairy farm situation 2002. Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Gijsman, A.J., Hoogenbomm, G., Parton, W.J., Kerridge, P.C. 2002. Modifying DSSAT crop models for low-input agricultural systems using soil organic matter-residue module from CENTURY. Agron. J. 94, 462-474. Ham, L.K., Hazell, H.H. 1996. Analysis of nutrients in the surface waters of the Georgia-Florida coastal plain study unit, 1970-1991. US Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4037, 67 p. Tallahassee, FL. Hammer, G.L., Nicholls, N., Mitchell, C. 2000. Applications of Seasonal Climate Forecasting in Agricultural and Natural Ecosystems: The Australian Experience. In: Hammer G.L., Nicholls, N. and Mitchell, C. (eds.). Applications of seasonal climate forecasting in agricultural and natural ecosystems the Australian Experience, Kluwer Academic, The Netherlands. Hansen, J.W. 2002a. Applying seasonal climate prediction to agricultural production. Agr. Syst. 74, 305-307. Hansen, J. W. 2002b. Realizing the potential benefits of climate prediction to agriculture: issues, approaches, challenges. Agr. Syst. 74, 309-330. Hazell P.B.R., Norton, D. 1986. Mathematical programming for economic analysis in agriculture. Macmillan, New York. Herrero, M., Fawcett, R.H., Silviera, V., Busqu J., Bernus, A., Dent, J.B. 2000. Modelling the growth and utilisation of kikuyo grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) under grazing. 1. Model definition and parametrisation. Agr. Syst. 65, 73-97.

PAGE 297

275 Hildebrand, P.E. 1990. Farming systems research-extension. p. 169-180. In: Jones J.G.W., Street, P.R. (eds.). Systems theory applied to agriculture and the food chain. Elsevier Applied Science, New York. Hildebrand, P.E. 1981. Combining disciplines in rapid appraisal: The Sondeo approach. Agri. Admin. 8, 423-432. Hornsby, D., Ceryak, J., Zwanka, W. 2003. Groundwater quality report. Department of Water Resources, Suwannee River Water Management District. Live Oak, FL. Hornsby, D., Ceryak, J., Zwanka, W. 2002b. Groundwater quality report. Department of Water Resources, Suwannee River Water Management District. Live Oak, FL. Hornsby, D., Ceryak, R., 1999, Springs of the Suwannee River Basin in Florida: Suwannee River Water Management District Report WR99-02. Live Oak, FL. Hornsby, D., Mattson, R., Mirti, T. 2002a. Surface water quality and biological annual report. Department of Water Resources, Suwannee River Water Management District. Live Oak, FL. Houston, T. B., Hazen, M.W., Mathews, T.C., Brown, G.A. 1965. Soil Survey of Suwannee County, Florida. USDA Natural Resour. Conserv. Serv., Washington, DC. Hubbard, R.K., Thomas, D.L., Leonard R.A., Butler, J.L. 1987. Surface runoff and shallow ground water quality as affected by center pivot applied dairy cattle waste. Trans. ASAE 30, 430-437. Jagtap, S.S., Jones, J.W., Hildebrand, P., Letson, D., O'Brien, J. J., Podest, G., Zierden, D., Zazueta, F. 2002. Responding to stakeholders demands for climate information: from research to applications in Florida. Agr. Syst. 74, 415-430. Johnson, J.C., Newton, G.L., Butler, J.L. 1991. Recycling liquid dairy cattle waste to sustain annual triple crop production of forages. p. 41-50. In Proc. 28 th Annual Florida Dairy Production Conf., Gainesville, FL. 9-10 Apr. 1991. Dairy Sci. Dep., CES, IFAS, Gainesville, FL. Jones J.W., Hansen, J.W., Royce, F.S., Messina, C.D. 2000. Potential benefits of climate forecasting to agriculture. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 82, 169-184. Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Boote, K.J., Batchelor, W.D., Hunt. L.A., Wilkens, P.W., Singh, U., Gijsman, A.J., Ritchie, J.T. 2003. The DSSAT cropping system model. Eur. J. Agron. 18, 235-265. Jones J.W., Thornton, P.K., Hansen, J.W. 1997. Opportunities for systems approaches at the farm scale. p1-18. In Teng et al., (ed.) Applications for systems approaches at the farm and regional levels. Syst. Approaches for Sustainable Agric. Dev. 5. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

PAGE 298

276 Jones, J.W., Tsuji, G.Y., Hoogenboom, G., Hunt, L.A., Thornton, P.K., Wilkens, P.W., Imamura, D.T., Bowen, W.T., Singh, U. 1998. Decision support system for Agrotechnology transfer: DSSAT v3. p. 155-177. In Tsuji, G.Y., Hoogenboom, G., Thornton, P.K. (eds.). Understanding options for agricultural production. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Jonker, J.S., Kohn, R.A., High, J. 2002. Dairy herd management practices that impact N utilization efficiency. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 1218 Katz, B. 2000. Sources of nitrate contamination of spring waters, Suwannee River basin, Florida. In Proc. Florida Springs Conference, Gainesville, FL. Feb. 9-10, 2000. Florida Center for Library Automation, Gainesville, FL. Katz, B., Hornsby, D., Bohlke, F., Mokray, M. 1999. Sources and chronology of nitrate contamination in spring waters, Suwannee River Basin, Florida. US Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4252, 54 p. Tallahassee, FL. Katz, B.G., Bohlke, J.K. 2000. Monthly variability and possible sources of nitrate in ground water beneath mixed agricultural land use, Suwannee and Lafayette counties, Florida. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 00-4219, 28 p. Tallahassee, FL. Katz, B.G., DeHan, R.S. 1996. The Suwannee River basin pilot study: Issues for watershed management in Florida. Fact Sheet FS-080-96. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA. Keating, B.A., McCown, R.L. 2001. Advances in farming systems analyses and intervention. Agr. Syst. 70, 555. Kelly, T.C. 1995. A bioeconomic systems approach to sustainability analysis at the farm level. Ph.D. thesis, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Knowlton, K.F. 2000. Are Jerseys part of the answer? The Jersey Journal 47, 81. Kross, B.C., Ayebo, A., Fuortes, L.J. 1992. Am. Fam. Physician 46, 183-188. Lanyon, L.E. 1994. Dairy manure and plant nutrient management issues affecting water quality and the dairy industry. J. Dairy Sci.77, 1999-2007. Leonard, R.A., Knisel, W.G., Still, D.A. 1987. GLEAMS: Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems. Trans., Amer. Soc. of Agric. Engrs. 30,1403-1418. Levin, S.A. 1991. The mathematics of complex systems. p. 215-226. In: Mooney, H.A., Medina, E., Schindler, D.W., Schulze, E.D., Walker, B.H. (eds.). Ecosystem experiments, scope 45. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England. Litell, R.C., Milliken, G.A., Strouop, W.W., Wolfinger, R.D. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.

PAGE 299

277 Mavromatis, T., Jagtap, S.S., Jones, J.W. 2002. El Nio-Southern Oscillation effects on peanut yield and N leaching. Climate Res. 22, 129-140. Mayer, D.G., Belward J.A., Burrage, K. 1996. Use of advanced techniques to optimize a multi-dimensional dairy model. Agr. Syst. 50, 239-253. Meinke, H. Baethgen, W.E., Carberry, P.S., Donatelli, M, Hammer, G.L., Selvaraju, R., Stockle, C. 2001. Increasing profits and reducing risks in crop production using participative systems simulation approaches. Agr. Syst. 70, 493. Meinke, H., Hochman, Z. 2000. Using seasonal climate forecasts to manage dryland crops in northern Australia experiences from the 1997/98 seasons. pp. 149. In: Hammer G.L., Nicholls, N. and Mitchell, C. (eds.) Applications of seasonal climate forecasting in agricultural and natural ecosystems The Australian Experience, Kluwer Academic, The Netherlands. Mirvish, S.S. 1990. The significance of human health of nitrate, nitrite, and N-nitroso compounds. In Nitrate Contamination: Exposure, Consequence, and Control. NATO ASI Series, Vol. G30. Bogardi et al. (Eds.). Springer Verlag, Berlin. Mourits, M.C.M., Huirne, R. B.M., Dijkhuizen, A.A., Kristensen, A.R., Galligan, D.T. 1999. Economic optimization of dairy heifer management decisions. Agr. Syst. 61, 17-31. National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Nutrient Requirement of dairy cattle (7 th Ed.). National Academy Press, Washington, DC. National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Nitrate and nitrite in drinking water. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. National Research Council (NRC). 1985. The health effects of nitrate, nitrite, and N-nitroso compounds: National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. National Research Council (NRC). 1978. The health effects of nitrate, nitrite, and N-nitroso compounds: National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002. Soil survey geographic (SSURGO) database. Accessed December, 2002 http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/branch/ssb/ products/ssurgo/ Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2001. Water budget and nutrient balance worksheet, WATNUTFL Vers. 2.0. Part 650, Engineering Field Handbook. 210-VI-EFH. Gainesville, FL. Nelson, R.A., Holzworth, D. P., Hammer, G. L., Haymand, P. T. 2002. Infusing the use of seasonal climate forecasting into crop management practice in North East Australia using discussion support software. Agricultural Systems 74, 393-414.

PAGE 300

278 Nennich, T., Harrison, J.H., Meyer, D., Weiss, W.P., Heinrichs, A.J., Kincaid, R.L., Powers, W.J., Koelsch, R.K., Wright, P.E. 2003. Development of standard methods of estimate manure production and nutrient characteristics from dairy cattle. ASAE 701P1203, 263-268. Newton, G.L., Johnson, J.C., Davis, J.G., Vellidis, G., Hubbard, R.K., Lowrance, R. 1995. Nutrient recoveries from varied year round applications of liquid dairy manure on sprayfields. p. 113-122. In Proc. 32 nd Annual Florida Dairy Production Conf., Gainesville, FL. April, 1995. Dairy Sci. Dep., CES, IFAS. Gainesville, FL. Norman, D., Collison, M. 1985. Farming systems research in theory and practice. pp16-30. In: Remenyi J.V. (ed.) Agricultural systems research for developing countries. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Proceedings No. 11, ACIAR, Canberra, Australia. OBrien, J.J., Zierden, D.F., Legler, D., Hansen, J.W., Jones, J.W., Smajstrla, A.G., Podest, G., Letson, D. 1999. El Nio, La Nia and Floridas Climate: Effects on Agriculture and Forestry. The Florida Consortium: The Florida State Univ., the Univ. of Florida, University of Miami. Tallahassee, FL. Ondersteijn C.J.M., Beldmanb, A.C.G., Daatselaar, C.H.G., Giesen, G.W.J., Huirne, R.B.M. 2002. The Dutch mineral accounting system and the European nitrate directive: implications for N and P management and farm performance. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 92, 283-296. Onema, J., Koskamp, G.J., Galama, P.J. 2001. Guiding commercial pilot farms to bridge the gap between experimental and commercial dairy farms: the project cows and opportunities. Neth. J. Agr. Sci. 49(2-3), 277-296. Paine, M., Weatherly, J., Crawford, A., Champion, S. 2002. Farmlets as learning platforms: a national approach to farming systems research, development and extension in the Australian dairy sector. p. 729-738. In Proc. Fifth IFSA European Symposium, Florence, Italy 8-11 April 2002. International Farming Systems Association, European Group, Dip. di Economia Agraria e delle Risorce Territoriali, Facolta di Agraria, Universita degli Studi di Firenze, Florence, Italy. Parton, W.J., Schimel, D.S., Cole, C.V., Ojima, D.S., 1979. Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in Great Plains grasslands. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51, 1173-1179. Phillips, J.G., Cane, M.A., Rosenzweig, C. 1998. ENSO seasonal rainfall patterns and simulated maize yield variability in Zimbabwe. Agric. For. Meteorol. 90, 39-50. Pittman, J.R., Hatzell, H.H., Oaksford, E.T. 1997. Spring contributions to water quantity and nitrate loads in the Suwannee River during base flow in July 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4152. 12p. Tallahassee, FL. Powers, L.E., McSorley, R. 2000. Ecological principles of agriculture. Delmar, Albany, New York.

PAGE 301

279 Ribaudo, M., Gollehon, N., Aillery, M., Kaplan, J., Johansson, R., Agapoff, J., Christensen, L., Breneman, V., Peters, M. 2003. Manure management for water quality costs to animal feeding operations of applying manure nutrients to land. Agricultural Economic Report 824. Resource Economics Division. Economic Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC. Robertson, M.J., Carberry, P.S., Lucy, M. 2000. Evaluation of a new cropping option using a participatory approach with on-farm monitoring and simulation: a case study of spring sown mungbeans. Aust. J. Agr. Res. 51, 1. Rosenhead, J. (Ed.), 1989. Rational analysis for a problematic world: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester, UK. Rymph, S., Boote, K.J. 2004. Modifying the Code of CropGro to Predict Growth of a Perennial Tropical Forage Grass. p. 66-67. In Proc. Biological Systems Simulation Conference, Gainesville, FL. 8-10 March 2004. University of Florida, IFAS, Gainesville, FL. St-Pierre, N.R., Thraen, C.S., Jones, L.R. 1999. Forecasting herd structure, milk production and their variances for production risk management. Extension Research. Special Circ. 169-99. The Ohio State University. Columbus, OH. SAS Institute. 1992. SAS/STAT software: Changes and enhancements. Release 6.07. SAS Tch. Rep. SAS Inst., Cary, NC. Saxton, K.E. Rawls, W.J., Romberger, J.S., Papendick R.I. 1986. Estimating generalized soil-water characteristics from texture. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 50(4), 1031-1036. Scragg, P.K.R., Dorsch, M.M., McMichael, A.J., Baghurst, P.A. 1982. Birth defects and household water supply. Med. J. Australia 2, 577-579. Slabaugh, J.D., Jones, A.O., Puckett, W.E., Schuster, J.N. 1996. Soil survey of Levy County, Florida. USDA Natural Resour. Conserv. Serv., Washington, DC. Staples C.R., Tervola, R.S., French, E.C. 1997. Forage Production Practices by Dairy Producers in the Suwannee Valley. Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, P.N. 1990. Focus groups: theory and practice. Sage. London. Stewart, J.C. 1990. Drinking water hazards: how to know if there are toxic chemicals in your water and what to do if there are. Envirographics Publishing. Hiram, OH. Stoorvogel, J.J., Bouma, J., Orlich, R.A. 2004. Participatory research for systems analysis: prototyping for a Costa Rican banana plantation. Agron. J. 96(2), 323-336. Strange, M., Krupicka, L. 1984. Farming and cancer, in Its not all sunshine and fresh air. Center for Rural Affairs, Walthill, NE. p. 41-53.

PAGE 302

280 Suwannee River Partnership. 2004a. Suwannee River Partnership Background. Suwannee River Water Management District. Accessed May, 2004, http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us/ features/suwannee+river+partnership/background.htm Suwannee River Partnership. 2004b. Suwannee River Partnership Background. Suwannee River Water Management District. Accessed May, 2004, http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us/ resources/22x11.pdf Suwannee River Partnership. 2003. Suwannee River Partnership Programs and Research. Suwannee River Water Management District. Accessed February, 2003, http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us/features/suwannee+river+partnership/programs+and + research.htm Thomas, B.P., Cummings, E., Wittstruck, W.H., 1985. Soil survey of Alachua County, Florida. USDA Natural Resour. Conserv. Serv., Washington, DC. Thornley, J.H.M., Johnson, I.R.. 1990. A mathematical approach to plant and crop physiology. Clarendon Press. Oxford. Tomlinson, A.P., Powers, W.J., Van Horn, H.H., Nordstedt, R.A., Wilcox, C.J. 1996. Dietary protein effects in N excretion and manure characteristics of lactating cows. Trans. ASAE 39(4),1441-1448. Twatchtmann, D. 1990. Regulation of dairies in Suwannee River basin. Memorandum. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, FL. Uryasev, O. Gijsman, A.J., Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G. 2003. SBUILD Create/edit soil input files for evaluation and application on crop simulation models for DSSAT v4. Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations; Final Rule. Federal Register. 68(29), 7175-7274. Feb. US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1999. Nutrient Management Policy, NRCS General Manual, Title 190, Part 402. Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/gm-190. US Department of Agriculure (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Agricultural waste management field handbook, Chapter 11: Waste utilization. Soil Conservation Service. 210-VI-NEH-651.11. Available at: http://www.info.usda.gov/ CED/ftp/ CED/ neh651-ch11.pdf

PAGE 303

281 US Department of Agriculure (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1992a. Agricultural waste management field handbook, Chapter 4: Agricultural waste characteristics. Soil Conservation Service. 210-VI-NEH-651.04. Available at: http://www.info.usda.gov/CED/ftp/CED/neh651-ch4.pdf US Department of Agriculure (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1992b. Agricultural waste management field handbook, Chapter 4: Agricultural waste characteristics. Amendment FL-9, FL651.1004(f). Soil Conservation Service. 210-VI-NEH-651.04-FL-9, FL651.1004(f) US Department of Agriculure (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1992c. Agricultural waste management field handbook, Chapter 6: Role of plants in waste management. Soil Conservation Service. 210-VI-NEH-651.06. Available at: http://www.info.usda.gov/CED/ftp/CED/neh651-ch6.pdf. Van Horn, H.H. 1997. Manure Issues: Identifying nutrient overload, odor research report. Department of Dairy and Poultry Sciences, Univ. Florida. Gainesville, FL. Van Horn, H.H., Newton, G.L., Kidder, G., French, E.C., Nordstedt, R.A. 2001. Managing dairy manure accountability: worksheets for nutrient budgeting. Coop. Ext. Serv. Circ. 1196, Univ. Florida. Gainesville, FL. Van Horn, H.H., Newton, G.L., Nordstedt, R.A., French, E.C., Kidder, G.K., Graetz, D.A., Chambliss, C.G. 1998. Dairy manure management: Strategies for recycling nutrients to recover fertilizer value and avoid environmental pollution. Florida Coop. Ext. Serv. Circ. 1016. Univ. Florida. Gainesville, FL. Van Horn. H. H., Nordstedt, R.A., Bottcher, A.V., Hanlon, E.A., Graetz, D.A., Chambliss, C.F. 1991. Dairy manure management: strategies for recycling nutrients to recover fertilizer value and avoid environ-mental pollution. Florida Coop. Ext. Serv. Circ. 1016, Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL. Van Horn, H.H., Wilkie, A.C.,Powers,W.J., Nordstedt, R.A. 1994. Components of dairy manure management systems. J. Dairy Sci. 77, 2008-2030. Vellidis, G., Davis, J. Lowrance, R., Williams, R. 1993. Soil water nutrient concentrations in the vadose zone of a liquid dairy manure land application site. Paper no. 93-2549. In 1993 Int. Winter Meeting, Chicago. 14-17 Dec. 1993. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI. Verburgh, L.D., 1994. Participative policy modeling, applied at the health care insurance industry. Ph.D. thesis. Benda, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Vereijken, P. 1997. A methodological way of prototyping integrated and ecological arable farming systems (I/EAFS) in interaction with pilot farms. Eur. J. Agron. 7, 235-250. Vigil, J., Warburton, S., Haynes, W.S., Kaiser, L.R. 1965. Nitrates in municipal water supply cause methemoglobinemia in infant: Public Health Report, v. 80, no 12, p 112-119.

PAGE 304

282 Vrba, J. 1981. General aspects of ground-water nonpoint pollution. In Van Duijvenbooden, W. (eds.). Quality of groundwater. Proceedings of an international symposium. Studies in Environmental Science 17. London, U.K. Weatherspoon, R.L., Anderson, K., Anzalone, W., Bednarek, W., Chibirka, J., Cummings, E., Dahl, R., French, C., Jakel, D., Johnson, W.R., Neilson, R.W., Shurtliff, D. 1998. Soil survey of Lafayette County, Florida. USDA Natural Resour. Conserv. Serv., Washington, DC. Weatherspoon, R.L., Cummings, E., Wittstruck, W.H. 1992. Soil survey of Gilchrist County, Florida. USDA Natural Resour. Conserv. Serv., Washington, DC. Wilkerson, V.A., Glenn, P.B., McLeod, K.R. 1997. Energy and N balance in lactating cows fed diets containing dry or high moisture corn in either rolled or ground form. J. Dairy Sci. 80, 2487-2496. Williamson, J.C., Taylor, M.Z.D., Torrens, R.S., Vojvodic-Vukovic, M. 1998. Reducing N leaching from dairy farm effluent-irrigated pasture using dicyanamide: a lysimeters study. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 69, 81-88. Woodard, K.R., French, E.C., Sweat, L.A., Graetz, D.A., Sollenberger, L.E., Macoon, B., Portier, K. M., Wade, B.L., Rymph, S.J., Prine, G.M., Van Horn, H.H. 2002. N removal and nitrate leaching for forage systems receiving dairy effluent. J. Environ. Qual. 31, 1980-1992. Wright, D.L., Teare, D.L.., Rhoads, I.D., Sprenkel, R.K. 1993. Pearl millet production in a no-tillage system. North Florida research and education center, Quincy. Florida Agric. Exp. Stat. Journal Series No: R-03054. North Florida Research and Education Center, Quincy, FL. Wu, Z., Tozer, P.R., Groff E.B. 2001. Dietary manipulation of to reduce phosphorus and N excretion by lactating dairy cows. Department of Dairy and Animal Science. Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA.

PAGE 305

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Victor E. Cabrera was born on February 9, 1969, in Cusco, Peru. He received his B.S. and Engineering degrees in agronomy in 1993, from La Molina Agrarian University, in Lima. Victor did a postgraduate course in management of agricultural schools in Spain and France, in 1995. Victor received his M.S. degree in agricultural education and communication from the University of Florida, in 1999. Currently, Victor is finishing his Doctoral degree in interdisciplinary ecology in the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Florida. He will graduate in August 7, 2004. Victor E. Cabrera has worked as faculty, extension agent, extension programmer, consultant, manager, and research assistant. His website is http://plaza.ufl.edu/vcabrera 283


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110113_AAAABH INGEST_TIME 2011-01-13T10:09:33Z PACKAGE UFE0005581_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 135511 DFID F20110113_AAAUTA ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH cabrera_v_Page_297.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
9b6505046705332a85d3b5be5bd0b952
SHA-1
1ac17cd74bb58d2e121de310b2302e6748d3ce27
73725 F20110113_AAATWH cabrera_v_Page_226.QC.jpg
19bbbbcdf78a31a8e526574e95144236
fbc52dcd2a7b602097df14c8ffbbe38a55ab93f5
25271604 F20110113_AAAUAW cabrera_v_Page_302.tif
68ca45ade31270d97874753733981f64
578e52f3ab39462544e906f10f1df1d7a4679560
135437 F20110113_AAAUTB cabrera_v_Page_298.jp2
83f2fac23d8fe9eb673a246b309f36ad
a774968e13e58f90c5c733f3ba411542484c2346
74181 F20110113_AAATWI cabrera_v_Page_239.QC.jpg
5c9a589cb746f3e1c9cb317a3fc8f400
94b197f76ed8d73f64259a1928bc184c624c92d9
50112 F20110113_AAAUAX cabrera_v_Page_138.pro
c689c7b5638b1c51dba96bc8cbd46b05
ec9982c292500f4dd69de05ee6f62f12193202f4
1051984 F20110113_AAAUTC cabrera_v_Page_299.jp2
c16d8ae05b4e428aa543c596e7f3a28f
087a993dce88d85e3fffdbee20cdf90a236474f5
104045 F20110113_AAATWJ cabrera_v_Page_008.pro
d7eeb9364c7a462361793366e0bcd2a3
bde9920e4401ac6520950f34c3901095960ac276
31754 F20110113_AAAUAY cabrera_v_Page_131thm.jpg
cb6e6d3d7aa7d08e81b4ea5b79ef5209
e29f591623623358dd24bb3f0fcc737c700daac1
149007 F20110113_AAAUTD cabrera_v_Page_300.jp2
c1a56ee51c02aa07cf5622720d8d4dd3
fb4d166aed4481b7d782c93c59042e070cf33e9a
293218 F20110113_AAATWK cabrera_v_Page_300.jpg
58fc15a860a7817b32d98e6116bbd0b8
d5dbf493d0353ad70f27aae2a6c7b160220b4801
1828 F20110113_AAAUAZ cabrera_v_Page_241.txt
568c0dcd80ed164a1d912e220c78aa0f
c4e056f3f7b52fc347a37f739b645ea9862f9dca
1051967 F20110113_AAAUTE cabrera_v_Page_301.jp2
a5a51ba360a91a33f974609b5cd58f4c
d6f118aa3a7ca50dbac16440cb099373ab09a872
147012 F20110113_AAAUTF cabrera_v_Page_303.jp2
75c5c62d15cd8ec266508f9b1e771a95
eac188dbae8a606cceb342e116dfdcaa2ee7031e
79418 F20110113_AAATJA cabrera_v_Page_160.QC.jpg
c0eec448fa8b3222e6f14eea0f88723c
d7eba6aeb8ae301b5e0b875d8e0a75efad632824
85834 F20110113_AAATWL cabrera_v_Page_175.QC.jpg
8807de02327330ef94a607c3223378b9
0cd2e28201017d3c5413bbf4490c8e3656c1a7ff
503458 F20110113_AAAUTG cabrera_v_Page_305.jp2
3b362477732af7565dc733e9579deee2
cae73b79d244e8dc4e31043ee67f3c5ddc0734ab
26651 F20110113_AAATJB cabrera_v_Page_273.pro
7e894cd68a77ecf3808c0f59e182f043
56e3abc6264e2b1e542a31d30a4341d1e31550ba
80295 F20110113_AAATWM cabrera_v_Page_083.QC.jpg
7a6a5ed5c8dac12b18bae8db190f8dfd
cdadeaa93718535daba5957eb85759072aa5ea38
2028 F20110113_AAAVQA cabrera_v_Page_229.txt
79ee4c743cc091be6dc1ea24d797e774
a8f0fb2a9ba1bddbbebe56ba97b4b66527a33b11
78255 F20110113_AAATJC cabrera_v_Page_137.QC.jpg
68cb6106d711f17069049dcaa454b67f
9c58086054aefc28a4cc5d0b6ed065561d063797
51228 F20110113_AAATWN cabrera_v_Page_229.pro
010dcd9e2f60dbb9dd9a279c288a24f7
8fad311f38e36ee6d7bfd096d95a2fbd6de62eb3
1799 F20110113_AAAVQB cabrera_v_Page_232.txt
298ac9ad2fe55be58d920dd8efba6c52
de91dd870355e801f7b8395785d9d1f7e366feb3
1053954 F20110113_AAAUTH cabrera_v_Page_001.tif
9c0d58a9bf337470b964a949f08ada0c
0cf274e1de54811a5908e7cf6e1c8195f47cba6e
65664 F20110113_AAATJD cabrera_v_Page_127.QC.jpg
3af2adf816d02a49fab7f7552b02a1de
3e8a12079b6d2b1ba8a0a44322de283413d61f26
76169 F20110113_AAATWO cabrera_v_Page_112.QC.jpg
a81dc7d2e428207faf2024fd6e7fc9eb
c350fe93e901d9702eedd107d965edd51ae0ce10
1839 F20110113_AAAVQC cabrera_v_Page_233.txt
edb38b385359f9a56e6030a21c35f056
a08dd14ceedd89e9c6375afafcf119d32c654991
F20110113_AAAUTI cabrera_v_Page_002.tif
64fe9d62f6d2de38c76411b02ed90904
587c2d450cac08fdce2ef52557ece05b24c0f0a7
F20110113_AAATJE cabrera_v_Page_192.tif
0d0df4cdae2ae763043c7dd2a0a1b514
c7087650990455d2782613cb23f7a7c5b306f747
75730 F20110113_AAATWP cabrera_v_Page_016.pro
c090ebe5e25378c5bffd68a3832bb978
f0680e8356fe94583efbb9767c94ac7de0a8c591
F20110113_AAAUTJ cabrera_v_Page_003.tif
04904020da24162a0aca7c2f676aae81
f1201d3763b704d7624bf1dd2c2ba634a4f57b64
1045 F20110113_AAATJF cabrera_v_Page_213.txt
68d85506a71fd2a60f10644561337973
6f91b5a43d723cb75362362f9f8f24f26e847d8e
160816 F20110113_AAATWQ cabrera_v_Page_217.jpg
616694ba5af2281304a4ab92b85eb644
91853853be15de810e05280b58d7075c12cbbea5
2344 F20110113_AAAVQD cabrera_v_Page_236.txt
a395daa7ce2f86af3df57f3ba9c3798f
3cdcdbf3a3727a162eb81a4712d15fbfb28549fc
F20110113_AAAUTK cabrera_v_Page_007.tif
7cf207434fd810b91f3ffa2bad6c754d
1ae140fdb2e34014b4a2d5ceeb31d9f68eb198ef
737646 F20110113_AAATJG cabrera_v_Page_179.jp2
01e84da57707dcec13417b4aa1f13266
e98f2b8a0262608fe91f41aa8dae67d5c662d633
109303 F20110113_AAATWR cabrera_v_Page_266.jp2
b134260b48a7cd3f0ebdd53dba09d3ba
0a77d8eeb398ad34a6ff1bac2857dfe53fc72a25
1973 F20110113_AAAVQE cabrera_v_Page_237.txt
5055ab18ee93d90fd58b64160907bdad
80334453a90061203792e9a44dc15765925e0b1b
F20110113_AAAUTL cabrera_v_Page_009.tif
c742a673d471b3825790617158625114
651a0ee7d2d3491b6c742b93cf0cc5e219ae525c
107872 F20110113_AAATJH cabrera_v_Page_178.jp2
b39045c91c1f9770a246bd5be8cb0776
516aea0c146a23df32de5ff8f77cb97395b5f2a4
213182 F20110113_AAAUGA cabrera_v_Page_091.jpg
316988c6bcb893cc7c3f7f4c11d11fea
3d4b93810ea1a885d048ffe0eca1142decd5b99d
86105 F20110113_AAATWS cabrera_v_Page_195.QC.jpg
1187452c9a64d00703c6784a65f268f4
683d70debb9bcad465263151b2c4150d1255790a
1119 F20110113_AAAVQF cabrera_v_Page_239.txt
da6b18078531fe9e1cc076ef35d7bdaa
aab286da63745018ab149c7eca163d243d8076c9
F20110113_AAAUTM cabrera_v_Page_010.tif
4c9e323c86d71dbb0ddffdaee3935c27
3e09b20ebd1ffa78d0c33f86c7102c5308297c0f
63904 F20110113_AAATJI cabrera_v_Page_296.pro
4887baf67a8b039c0f9e0e80c8e13deb
b2ef5a536283aa341388c8108f9c11ad0f1c8385
211206 F20110113_AAAUGB cabrera_v_Page_092.jpg
d2361c30c2e6974fec9add372bcd2676
ee21a8f5d37e19d2599d21cc639a88d0115330fc
646174 F20110113_AAATWT cabrera_v_Page_263.jp2
c3e10e2eb1f679f0fc5bc4a8f1257407
131a8b046cbf9efe9258a26df9d2ab3defcfe035
2118 F20110113_AAAVQG cabrera_v_Page_240.txt
5536ff73aee2e172cc3ce57cb7c7a7bd
42f3c48963e758be83727507d5eb7008bf341cf6
F20110113_AAAUTN cabrera_v_Page_011.tif
c6e5fc238e26df4e9b6276505009ed28
cf56456f67ec20d41ae3d3c5b689c2000dcebc36
46897 F20110113_AAATJJ cabrera_v_Page_275.pro
8ad8302958618d20567f47f5770a45ec
0edf1172030a14785afd7468666152631d512fec
164491 F20110113_AAAUGC cabrera_v_Page_094.jpg
d5aa2bfac06b2265ea1ea82611f1aebb
09df764e4eddbfacebb427f36364368ceabd69db
22810 F20110113_AAATWU cabrera_v_Page_089thm.jpg
541a980cd4e704e4d0c30794a2ed11bb
80c452b689131b40c603bf339550fb83c201afca
1866 F20110113_AAAVQH cabrera_v_Page_243.txt
e238e067cffce4fe7ec0926206cbd6e8
694bdbb7ba60ae651685649216deeee367433bb2
F20110113_AAAUTO cabrera_v_Page_012.tif
aea4c0611a9030f85c487d4edeaf7b82
31a7b1412c9feab68ed7e471863b04cd58445b78
48496 F20110113_AAATJK cabrera_v_Page_125.pro
32320becdede6b6c83756643e7364ec5
ad4709aecca0f93d4127f1e5f6a677a0177c0fc7
204048 F20110113_AAAUGD cabrera_v_Page_095.jpg
c78027ad0f3353189a13a19f2ed19763
de08951d1f230e6176848561df5088728a86720c
126717 F20110113_AAATWV cabrera_v_Page_293.jp2
2c94dd192f9576e9621c743d00277288
a581c315688aec1fd20040e77db8075ad68d9304
1915 F20110113_AAAVQI cabrera_v_Page_244.txt
d6601e92f994b02c32a376d217caabfe
e72ea7b3a0882239d83187479f5e12b108e1af35
F20110113_AAAUTP cabrera_v_Page_013.tif
495f0fd1444202221fd040b1d916bfb3
d9035fbf60f9d9316c86535254abb3be41469c2d
70947 F20110113_AAATJL cabrera_v_Page_089.QC.jpg
1056adb4137dd5cc20e61b479e322d4a
0aa4442861386525515a029590cb7c1899c81aee
225283 F20110113_AAAUGE cabrera_v_Page_097.jpg
6d2dc0d3d7b1158097afeecbfa29eb91
fadd354e1192dccfb44516cf5cebef83fd53cf54
24582 F20110113_AAATWW cabrera_v_Page_069thm.jpg
7073ed4049b2b0f31b1d684d3b7ac7f9
383f3a4e0d93d899533bb07be67aed01e7aaf13a
2397 F20110113_AAAVQJ cabrera_v_Page_245.txt
30b87fd12bb404a0fc0f1122f31c8e16
f194ef16b01d55a492abd24485f9855e8433c39d
F20110113_AAAUTQ cabrera_v_Page_014.tif
22a258fe336e77d8ea7d0cdaa2831432
800c3f3e8b41502f52845877f95d1698176e6eb8
247649 F20110113_AAATJM cabrera_v_Page_042.jpg
e7b7cc65b02e463e3bcb6812e6045825
461f096c25da1b5de17a6872da4ff0da6e409c2f
201263 F20110113_AAAUGF cabrera_v_Page_098.jpg
a1202bf70d1cc3ff2f6fa5c97ba1b95b
a525cde0ce2818147d29ed826dc571a38381727b
100134 F20110113_AAATWX cabrera_v_Page_240.QC.jpg
76149c01589149e831626c5db585d95a
c31742067c87da269935f60a2f56e79a0f327bdd
1965 F20110113_AAAVQK cabrera_v_Page_246.txt
3d4297f696cad21ab29760038ec8952a
b7f73c9a81bbb7c5cebeb0091ee2e43012c856de
F20110113_AAAUTR cabrera_v_Page_015.tif
5eb4ed34b04127fb05a814ba9136573d
fa93aa960edba974bbe7e530971e948084732062
F20110113_AAATJN cabrera_v_Page_109.tif
6132d4d3f0af714ad5b31e032ffcc40b
2f304345904ebad2f299f2427c8698f9e4b1d573
188868 F20110113_AAAUGG cabrera_v_Page_100.jpg
9e9c1e5486825bdad79d219ae6291534
24591e3c232e2182b8f17c2befb8c070629b720b
34092 F20110113_AAATWY cabrera_v_Page_182thm.jpg
c68708f208b841d582e736e971ebeb63
6136d61f367e1bb8bd77d0a801499a28bafb6fdf
1081 F20110113_AAAVQL cabrera_v_Page_248.txt
f005ce13863fdea23db21512f6283f85
64a22b97f593a2fe4f0e14f7210c260d4a2d9455
F20110113_AAAUTS cabrera_v_Page_017.tif
a1370e59a21a5ebb15e4cb9de2dae371
6ff56ac34ca9e6a5b93d11ca9c4dc5d3b9fcbfa5
23621 F20110113_AAATJO cabrera_v_Page_005thm.jpg
cfcc939fe073025f03dedd243689acdc
c46d26c0506402b569c7062fed8e2ed7d033993d
213644 F20110113_AAAUGH cabrera_v_Page_101.jpg
7ce8e78a1563cf6c53f47e35826e874d
d53d64e76661197ecd6914c817c9d25bc12e82c4
82970 F20110113_AAATWZ cabrera_v_Page_113.QC.jpg
11ea4d7c52b226ebda010f50d1bab4f1
04d5278abd6e0a23da0c22556e43bc2fe209088e
49178 F20110113_AAAVDA cabrera_v_Page_063.pro
1b9b65191804ef5080d5316672259931
ed37f5ce26a4b4f84b83481524b3294637477d25
1580 F20110113_AAAVQM cabrera_v_Page_253.txt
16fd7e6a975035b5941c7395e76f286d
44e660373df15835b5952a7f42330fb9ad27edbb
F20110113_AAAUTT cabrera_v_Page_019.tif
3f21782b89a25b004430839c69649756
7f10a3c5f03aa1837a082309c6c0a269bee242e0
47172 F20110113_AAATJP cabrera_v_Page_061.pro
431c77d81837bc903e325b10ec812470
f3c626e9604634f9725cdef5cbec1e068dc407da
217506 F20110113_AAAUGI cabrera_v_Page_103.jpg
7bd6e006a13188537dad84fef33336a5
5f8ad41581cf2c1cbaddb58d84315378dd720997
48938 F20110113_AAAVDB cabrera_v_Page_064.pro
428cbfdb34e4d88ef0df781802693199
c089d84e4821dd487c33bf2da46a122a7caa83da
1871 F20110113_AAAVQN cabrera_v_Page_255.txt
90611f9250a2e4b88175558439b2f4b0
1ee1d7ddafabbbbf57f144ee17ee13874e27d11d
F20110113_AAAUTU cabrera_v_Page_020.tif
d0ee88ba6db4666929c2f88f6045b807
956058ca5a56c0b1cd0a69c70e73bf8e35296fb3
55662 F20110113_AAATJQ cabrera_v_Page_016thm.jpg
cf961764d08e5c64daeac64312eeabe1
2b596674d76907184823deb3ee6bb72f38780ba7
218592 F20110113_AAAUGJ cabrera_v_Page_104.jpg
af6d1d0994cf6dfb26aa1cd22473dba8
113e09da171839895f9d39b586c3736271b596fe
45395 F20110113_AAAVDC cabrera_v_Page_066.pro
310a4c904e8ebea8fa2a3c645efb4710
f2eca7d2ca3d3b2a124527ed2512a4693409a419
2401 F20110113_AAAVQO cabrera_v_Page_256.txt
be80d7c2d3a35ac8c7448ac576a69aa5
6b5cf4eb06c152f43078d531a9b13a7eea079094
F20110113_AAAUTV cabrera_v_Page_021.tif
ba1ad5537f49dd3a45c0f6e5e1d3eba0
0effb283b3bea18d576860047463b8111502af7f
24020 F20110113_AAATJR cabrera_v_Page_086thm.jpg
ce984eb9897285a815a37c3402b0263f
78ed29fcb93a4b5decf898c3e9b2c7e265011376
200005 F20110113_AAAUGK cabrera_v_Page_105.jpg
d4aa6613c34bebcbe528811c7aa82b4b
2ae1959f6946ffd1d4eddd3aff60250c001e5e6a
48643 F20110113_AAAVDD cabrera_v_Page_068.pro
532f909a51dc257c4e39a9f012561ea0
ee5cef62dc45bf9e43011888c2c6553e984c586b
1383 F20110113_AAAVQP cabrera_v_Page_258.txt
18b88210ea2a035f4157fe4144e748d1
e71af1df303389140c6122115deac6451e2dcaf0
F20110113_AAAUTW cabrera_v_Page_022.tif
9c7eebe890e530d1309fdfdcb5d47b3f
bb89368e9fbd7f0cf53f77ef0d97a50ff85a9039
69081 F20110113_AAATJS cabrera_v_Page_154.QC.jpg
ff46e832fd78c1062ebbe175484a031f
a85b242985e02bb329b36d322b9ac482aef9a49b
209888 F20110113_AAAUGL cabrera_v_Page_106.jpg
04c25424b9aa095cdc9b1c1ac39bb9eb
d18180b4288a9faf873ae5e8f4399b32951493ca
50476 F20110113_AAAVDE cabrera_v_Page_069.pro
0c979f5fc6f620abff21d32c9fad3bea
1b0b043fc41979bc40f43f9af8df005972646390
1971 F20110113_AAAVQQ cabrera_v_Page_260.txt
474d8f452db53b1d9d7261405d347085
013638c51efdd6b1a726898cf5e2ab198b89d609
F20110113_AAAUTX cabrera_v_Page_023.tif
60075616f06430b3eaac1694438ea097
40b12edd6ff644bde3430d3f6e60486ad3ebf538
51076 F20110113_AAATJT cabrera_v_Page_302thm.jpg
eac0250d5d5b0c0c1eb148992f6e2b91
02d5030727294f79ac114ab2fc9814e8f72ba2cf
208557 F20110113_AAAUGM cabrera_v_Page_107.jpg
37dec51fae90e06185c4c45d384e0fd4
86ba8cf7eb76c8f0d59089c57542539991fd09c2
50721 F20110113_AAAVDF cabrera_v_Page_070.pro
7dd5f67f2b3ca2aabd204f45f628d928
edfbfda077e04b32f0c1006299f7aa4d4d33a4b1
1726 F20110113_AAAVQR cabrera_v_Page_262.txt
49561ae253513c45db369cbcf3a0bf6b
74fa22435da8129a054a3f6fa8cd1834de5ad474
F20110113_AAAUTY cabrera_v_Page_026.tif
321bd4d2f6baa3c47f8545572ad07d1c
6797d736be236d4f384a0ed7cae1d9b0f54eb063
25875 F20110113_AAATJU cabrera_v_Page_242.pro
0388d322edb0364ff528fab746f02fde
672f2cd5285e3daf6aea801cf8766dc9a0f12e6e
196060 F20110113_AAAUGN cabrera_v_Page_110.jpg
3998e8a8db747e637c3c1e3243df25ab
ce5374191f8c81b7d48ff2fe29c2bc1c9ecb7299
46346 F20110113_AAAVDG cabrera_v_Page_072.pro
8e239ac8813a7e1561ea117db66d7fe3
a0f9ffa9970eab3f53d24489540c6fe888074124
89915 F20110113_AAAWAA cabrera_v_Page_172.QC.jpg
7d651d4bce4afe3cd63ef2567d6407f9
337595515548594ae43a8487cbe9bf905d48605c
1332 F20110113_AAAVQS cabrera_v_Page_263.txt
5e1d829ffd25d5caa7613982aa960c28
6635ace79b7723c94ddc89818dc1dd0f99cb7abe
F20110113_AAAUTZ cabrera_v_Page_027.tif
fb03d0ad1bc507523fef8176b7728c34
c458ef486bacb747e9db2c541b0a37bc59548be2
46656 F20110113_AAATJV cabrera_v_Page_051thm.jpg
e490c746d90e7132b406298b0ff41dfb
1466c8b57707b538ca9c80a9017973344d115749
233764 F20110113_AAAUGO cabrera_v_Page_113.jpg
4e3c05200a12474c0c7a774f32592802
0ef4d84c3b7e30e8027cf7c239a8072749c44324
56738 F20110113_AAAVDH cabrera_v_Page_073.pro
c1c933813a0d7387902784d66549f17e
5561433f957d54f1dba1b3bf76de8b73c6113105
15211 F20110113_AAAWAB cabrera_v_Page_174thm.jpg
cfe2b056b691f9eb5a9a24454f442d73
4b08447464c02a5d040512ec48f3f04129250642
1711 F20110113_AAAVQT cabrera_v_Page_267.txt
95cce1c12a816464de2fa10077a098af
7b79784e76a54b1ccf6440384fbb21064c957707
1919 F20110113_AAATJW cabrera_v_Page_168.txt
39d42c25487dc13b44b58c43bc1a678d
d0796491365067de77e5e7a2b8d584c532b2649c
235363 F20110113_AAAUGP cabrera_v_Page_115.jpg
6f33d0bd8c06417ecd4ea8dbd52dec9d
39f01c13f22c054ab92e2eb00237dc6d397b5c3b
55332 F20110113_AAAVDI cabrera_v_Page_074.pro
5b2ae13f79942ee9f0ab4b1b5e1e8fcc
9c9789069847e4a3b00666022615c5e604abc0e0
46140 F20110113_AAAWAC cabrera_v_Page_174.QC.jpg
4fbdbaf99e71409c569bf812f833459a
1764cb4d963ab4c169884d2841a45db1027b571b
2151 F20110113_AAAVQU cabrera_v_Page_268.txt
47a06cfb17c2ba069855f65270744bc3
99ed7481149d01e4f83d53a815195ef2aeaaaebe
46958 F20110113_AAATJX cabrera_v_Page_246thm.jpg
042fea58e67bbff6c9259c662fd118c9
9b6c74e81e1207ec8735a87caaafa82a4de81ca7
205733 F20110113_AAAUGQ cabrera_v_Page_116.jpg
e112b64468ca50bd55629f74e5346f9f
d02a8635bed909628c220ec4a8e1122c7e1099f4
50326 F20110113_AAAVDJ cabrera_v_Page_075.pro
e9967ba973ffbe70fea0f699db436656
a23f7ebef58dfb86194873ca88959c8d125c7c53
46473 F20110113_AAAWAD cabrera_v_Page_175thm.jpg
5d44a0964ee1de17c41e8288742cb948
f2a384a8822770acce1d50d22ed8fe2aee4324ab
1940 F20110113_AAAVQV cabrera_v_Page_269.txt
d444b2918ace70862a80d1f2d45df8b0
964ff6216efbeaf77481bb66954329f46e622aef
44969 F20110113_AAATJY cabrera_v_Page_037.pro
ff29d4dca1774da70fb429eff37d6f11
e6c04e279b37604f35820c57abd8d4ae4076edf2
217825 F20110113_AAAUGR cabrera_v_Page_117.jpg
a856fdeb6460080bc43aa7f7e6fde5b6
b81fcefcda25a5129b68211b890127a46da2a145
48152 F20110113_AAAVDK cabrera_v_Page_076.pro
f9b49bf8125319a1872268684a2fd824
405ed81d2863c7fd4f490655323f51787b9434c0
47215 F20110113_AAAWAE cabrera_v_Page_176thm.jpg
fc0e10b96567d37a332ed48d5c7fc6df
68cd36be8c1a59d4f725d47da8e80fcc1c6e63d4
1829 F20110113_AAAVQW cabrera_v_Page_270.txt
7866b2b796f37fdceb9aa92628c58eec
06ddc8033cd9d8f5922f18fbbe05f60269f725a7
79238 F20110113_AAATJZ cabrera_v_Page_038.QC.jpg
a1b98bd6114801379760b6bd38733c9c
c53d5dc557bcf298c2b2b4813141938ad69bc733
212463 F20110113_AAAUGS cabrera_v_Page_118.jpg
02508b52043369ff896f17b23e6f8ebd
9b3594a9912daf7a9906c19d9a68662ec1986bf5
49639 F20110113_AAAVDL cabrera_v_Page_077.pro
68f9d92a6b523aa44866de3b8b7f0f53
7391d866e1b8cf35422efd5378766ed61beed80d
88255 F20110113_AAAWAF cabrera_v_Page_176.QC.jpg
cbe88a41a584911626ce4691b7cf058d
79ee47f5a91c0eb1a0a602ad73ed6cb6604ba41f
2145 F20110113_AAAVQX cabrera_v_Page_271.txt
7531cba5b9ee01640b4356e2723dad9d
abb2931bcb324ed90fad7be6f1f2de2b1b545e04
43569 F20110113_AAAUGT cabrera_v_Page_119.jpg
82ff812b0c4d3368ba30fac1c58a87f1
0ddee9b9d80445f377df0f15ca75278929bee7c8
50192 F20110113_AAAVDM cabrera_v_Page_078.pro
2e6afce0f3d5cd4d39db83e67efd5cd5
9c6995cf267a16a66cb779382616f83499c200d7
27521 F20110113_AAAWAG cabrera_v_Page_177thm.jpg
8e097885ed20eed1988970fd85d18882
b012108dbb77d757c239709373ab59df75aee93d
1530 F20110113_AAAVQY cabrera_v_Page_273.txt
ec825c47cdf01de78b407124e03902ae
feaccb90cb9f293fb55b13af188825f96a06faff
185163 F20110113_AAAUGU cabrera_v_Page_120.jpg
619f7a2a3a071dfeaa8ab4d7483a0cc6
cd4271bbbe323a6ac062972e644c035361c4f059
49565 F20110113_AAAVDN cabrera_v_Page_079.pro
2f5e7a7a6f6dcee07cc4efc1b2934859
9a0839d8451783668ea93778f9b5ef03e6ba50ce
71803 F20110113_AAAWAH cabrera_v_Page_177.QC.jpg
d1740df5d511b8577c110b0d3c003a92
4e557d544231841d42f583b376c9dd5c7a84bbb4
1860 F20110113_AAAVQZ cabrera_v_Page_275.txt
282f3e4877a9ef3a9260f8fe49b8b51f
7b4b6d79acd06f4cc62b87ee84a722d994934447
212637 F20110113_AAAUGV cabrera_v_Page_122.jpg
11de0f14d85132b80c68373bd9cd285d
cbcd21dbe7d90913b9f9dc47ad0ef7715d5cbecd
46223 F20110113_AAAVDO cabrera_v_Page_080.pro
ab548de603d7e0a75efe9f4fda4ca646
696740a5b632b3737089f3ed452cd0fa9d773c4c
25021 F20110113_AAAWAI cabrera_v_Page_178thm.jpg
9b73e35b7bdf65f15000e2949745c0fa
0ce6af3cbf0146796cd23dbbe11a58c023cec812
207551 F20110113_AAAUGW cabrera_v_Page_123.jpg
79fdc1aeddf898e20d4f63064caaa4c1
b7479bbd10111ada67bf4a147ecf3867d38d3f7a
51181 F20110113_AAAVDP cabrera_v_Page_081.pro
990fe1459cbe85c6b144d032391c86c5
3b1c287df69fa6d94fa7c11043a53b77aa4007a6
76722 F20110113_AAAWAJ cabrera_v_Page_178.QC.jpg
9a1fca37508631e6b32b72da5c210fb8
bda9120be4dfe8be84c2e17d7c580faac90a8bcd
178269 F20110113_AAAUGX cabrera_v_Page_124.jpg
5a4219e964103346bd28248ddd70f9ee
c9af4b74ab1c25fd6d496e76fd26ced70261448c
F20110113_AAAUZA cabrera_v_Page_218.tif
f57f428ce92ac63651852dee334813b0
94ec41bbb66dc6f247bce2c169fb6d7a6971dbbe
49950 F20110113_AAAVDQ cabrera_v_Page_082.pro
cc9010104418832c4551ec402bccad0a
e7b3939efc76d074fa022269554bedcf92b7e269
42156 F20110113_AAAWAK cabrera_v_Page_179thm.jpg
afc91e7d2e37c490ad76eb9af1b68224
136750ae7e4b6650df35da33e59fc548d46ded27
238498 F20110113_AAAUGY cabrera_v_Page_126.jpg
cd1379b9b96b99cf633cd77929a412aa
26c7970b7c838ea98ea3ade6069517fe36a91e43
F20110113_AAAUZB cabrera_v_Page_219.tif
7006849fb31d6ac3038594cc111a50fc
935b4ac54d0eb9b3cbe2d1b52ce9e72c4ad8e8f7
47484 F20110113_AAAVDR cabrera_v_Page_086.pro
51b9eee6dd133dbc8232976279028a6e
c8b84d6f3f99877476b8297a950a2c05f971b120
24183 F20110113_AAAWAL cabrera_v_Page_180thm.jpg
8a848af3c1f30448e4a0930c27395acd
db2e6cb6898e26671e98c1e862e2de8863052746
179138 F20110113_AAAUGZ cabrera_v_Page_127.jpg
6055cc360fb855357cd8eecbe1369768
cd22c76f2925c425de68f10e234e311ec45c625c
F20110113_AAAUZC cabrera_v_Page_221.tif
c35186e524dcae243d3acfc4443763d3
4a6c5420809948db73e829a00e24b6eb9908d506
28080 F20110113_AAAVDS cabrera_v_Page_088.pro
18573a635fa336c4baa1fe12790d0329
8890a3f540f1cfd2c19694d4f91149613536ba03
83035 F20110113_AAAWAM cabrera_v_Page_180.QC.jpg
c4e2761523740740545146fb3211d0c1
3abc8a43e8e683cb04e93ad988286703bde8fcca
8423998 F20110113_AAAUZD cabrera_v_Page_222.tif
b665bba21f6c8161a22fe2fb67e36500
86867eb6e3b15dfd03d47d10093dc8db4e0abbc8
43414 F20110113_AAAVDT cabrera_v_Page_089.pro
b01e8e935123f537dd5535f797e41eff
dcd9f46c423c7eb76f8dc2f7a42d21be81190ca1
81918 F20110113_AAAWAN cabrera_v_Page_181.QC.jpg
67283e775de6e81d5a91521054028555
97bba5bbcdf12845b6c2903e4c41f2baad6459bf
171334 F20110113_AAATPA cabrera_v_Page_128.jpg
06ee590e78a186b6093ec0b1973d22ca
0c4ace16650fb17b7eec94465fa6c6c79c1207e2
F20110113_AAAUZE cabrera_v_Page_225.tif
a8d94ad9cfd2d0cc43162ca84e0002e2
ddbf0d7675f4e8fc19aae4bf603965a4febe7ba5
49839 F20110113_AAAVDU cabrera_v_Page_091.pro
8ea6f8a5e608fd75b138478394476285
3306dc8707b2017ff1b8e2692dbb29600d53d61c
89948 F20110113_AAAWAO cabrera_v_Page_182.QC.jpg
5963ae0eb77608b5cde0d08c43502d32
14c557a8491e0eda5908f9e6df5f55f56ef79543
49219 F20110113_AAATPB cabrera_v_Page_062thm.jpg
702d13c6d8f7ded6c127ddd1be918a6c
ae1f977281e402973aaa78513af1483acf3cdb10
F20110113_AAAUZF cabrera_v_Page_226.tif
777026609adc2666917d27fa624b6283
6004f4c67ac43bf6261ff6edbb27d72014c08846
50404 F20110113_AAAVDV cabrera_v_Page_092.pro
90750ab8b3ccb17265cd9dc21e2b393c
cc3bb1886fe3d1b963b4926257fe6f731379e06c
85215 F20110113_AAAWAP cabrera_v_Page_183.QC.jpg
a6f545a4356623f1a1ff1d27c2265009
9ef763d7f8407ec22cdfa2322e078803ee02a1cf
24334 F20110113_AAATPC cabrera_v_Page_259thm.jpg
d6cf6918ed0c98c2cd00acde8b4b9f3c
4016e5665e2f360cb1c6823564cb1f2713efda9c
F20110113_AAAUZG cabrera_v_Page_227.tif
e1dfba2345383478f58cac84f6d167a4
57dfe777ea99aa910ca25db276fb6d599888f45f
48881 F20110113_AAAWAQ cabrera_v_Page_184thm.jpg
d3a1ae022a6c36d1c94ca11f1151f5bc
d2462357c68ec921e325166658038d37767debdb
14683 F20110113_AAAVWA cabrera_v_Page_088thm.jpg
a118ebf4cf6fa8e9eb668decf3f96b58
381b36218f5d2aee94d3fb7ff11a935291b7ac8c
25420 F20110113_AAATPD cabrera_v_Page_122thm.jpg
20c7b29d96ffd380b50ead8c08b2a386
348cc5764e5b9ac7652500d634ce8f580ca8df59
F20110113_AAAUZH cabrera_v_Page_228.tif
6b77ee74615dd78f91326849d84801cb
a5297888e82d6dd5eedfe80c9c3da98a8dd48964
51267 F20110113_AAAVDW cabrera_v_Page_093.pro
2211cfe5a7ca55a6ec7f4546c0ad9279
ac987a855dcd2b8f72c80bfde029eeb7fed77831
94097 F20110113_AAAWAR cabrera_v_Page_184.QC.jpg
d45f2881dedd888fd89390296cc111a6
a1df95b93739e0488b8539570a1505b1718d3666
70871 F20110113_AAAVWB cabrera_v_Page_090.QC.jpg
1d0e6c01aa08656d3b8d5f84582d5a3b
bb9728dca3677be0b2604f57626ea0319f0ca87d
F20110113_AAAUZI cabrera_v_Page_229.tif
2ab155f75f139cb2a712bcabc276eb0e
55f2b48f290fe713dee4649e6a70410984ed8ed3
29194 F20110113_AAAVDX cabrera_v_Page_094.pro
f7f7fabf3395c6dc1e337a480eb11b87
c75a5885c7e63c7d68335dc4244d92006d42a65b
24946 F20110113_AAAVWC cabrera_v_Page_091thm.jpg
de113164d8d259da100258ca864c2836
730f355ff781b854eaf4796bf45fd83e3d1db2e7
F20110113_AAATPE cabrera_v_Page_202.tif
524dc767003d0be4069d2b931278a1f2
14955f44a93dea407321df9dcfff4276362a0c73
F20110113_AAAUZJ cabrera_v_Page_230.tif
ecc5501ca1e78ca835c0cf27f545735d
e1460293152357794b405ef780f709133f08dcad
34150 F20110113_AAAVDY cabrera_v_Page_095.pro
e8e23fe3a7dab2f93a0417f3d1f734df
eb1f4b8854c5a3c688f35fbd1627983e1183377e
95648 F20110113_AAAWAS cabrera_v_Page_185.QC.jpg
0e616cbb2bfdd111e4193377388b8156
2b1cc4679049e4a1aadafac968d85d5c6ac2a0ca
24951 F20110113_AAAVWD cabrera_v_Page_092thm.jpg
1452e390db96154695ae62670355c7f7
474200173462f33edc251916445ab0583b83069a
F20110113_AAATPF cabrera_v_Page_031.tif
279efd9f7a4812e89398d73398f7d19b
1ffc198a084606103d5d8c4da810b37b7661499f
F20110113_AAAUZK cabrera_v_Page_231.tif
488309348bc8d308aa47491839f1d382
9d2b62c27eb442d8bfebd518c78e2cfa0e69d56e
48351 F20110113_AAAVDZ cabrera_v_Page_097.pro
223bb42c29c9503cea4663e7efeae57c
6fc25b92717b9dacb10c3ad86d10ee8751dd003d
82582 F20110113_AAAWAT cabrera_v_Page_186.QC.jpg
01ae605c7708e93c0111f59730cf0b92
49bff1caaa347de0f8e485242ff2557c61713b1b
83175 F20110113_AAAVWE cabrera_v_Page_093.QC.jpg
7cca1454abcd1f0e27d36ffee6b4b6af
757949d8dbfedf9b815709a5db57a082cdaa6189
2002 F20110113_AAATPG cabrera_v_Page_266.txt
b9dd2f826cf8b8140821aef9cb8d3459
388e9ff1e380f78f6a7abe0c4b4d738e3107c4c0
F20110113_AAAUZL cabrera_v_Page_234.tif
2672f46d58f9ed655f02616d3ca5baf2
dd66c3260e84277ce53e64fd1a84bf32ab3d5897
48036 F20110113_AAAWAU cabrera_v_Page_187thm.jpg
62a253f3f2892a625307dfa48c3cc988
51b4173557f73990b7434546af05dd3d38865278
63013 F20110113_AAAVWF cabrera_v_Page_094.QC.jpg
63928cf1c81e7b161f3997df36d2b728
98c6bc1fe961a3a0f7164635367ba0b8aca00436
204883 F20110113_AAATPH cabrera_v_Page_096.jpg
73b227960c58b6e0a718935a9a4bbd45
0f268610fd332dd1223b47e6545c927f05418e71
92464 F20110113_AAAUMA cabrera_v_Page_021.jp2
3e53b187392841337162e189c91c5a98
0b617ba137ca50b03abf112167cb33d0b7f7c3b5
F20110113_AAAUZM cabrera_v_Page_235.tif
441cf5ab836aeb042987ebb2085be91c
2e73a9b53efe5ad602a042a57e474280a2a826cb
93852 F20110113_AAAWAV cabrera_v_Page_188.QC.jpg
f2cd1331223661b00a6fdbad52235485
d26cab7c0e4c2051948715ae8342620c9c0fcd66
48768 F20110113_AAAVWG cabrera_v_Page_095thm.jpg
b86d4fa6b22b9d921009d628a17fccbd
2e524b138614ae74b22dfa87b280f8fff9c1f905
43176 F20110113_AAATPI cabrera_v_Page_056.pro
3bd83c6351b4284ad15f5e6152621ea4
743e179a6a79802f53029951a96f747ae53db449
44273 F20110113_AAAUMB cabrera_v_Page_022.jp2
521ca95781301433779f4c16438518ba
263ed66095633522b6ba61fb1798ba708f92ad3a
47773 F20110113_AAAWAW cabrera_v_Page_189thm.jpg
9d0bb19c055514e82c8639c7fd06d7f9
e7bf4494b4b68b5c4d0a3e149d2aeb9574eae37f
94384 F20110113_AAAVWH cabrera_v_Page_095.QC.jpg
62530b6053a0b105eac5235dea17f3e2
dd94a152ecfaa936be2b637b75939a2245390dc0
F20110113_AAATPJ cabrera_v_Page_199.tif
8789cd055be8c529e08d466fbc03c688
eccd941c1730dec7706c578c953cd3a1b562d433
86746 F20110113_AAAUMC cabrera_v_Page_023.jp2
0820ae3d415cdfb7f6b2680f9e024f29
f6ff745c4484094c9457740a1fa2b750a88076f4
F20110113_AAAUZN cabrera_v_Page_236.tif
fe49a06a32a348950eab48c7b6414892
85ae418490b70cd043f23b45d46e9670e6490a53
93632 F20110113_AAAWAX cabrera_v_Page_189.QC.jpg
df830f15e0b8d72de525490b7c925a72
07a055714ee756bbdb711f39ce38bbcbd8f97712
24255 F20110113_AAAVWI cabrera_v_Page_096thm.jpg
b6dfc1125aa54f34da0dcbaef80c5ad9
37b51552c9be1965923c5098e6c5550f4aefa0eb
93698 F20110113_AAATPK cabrera_v_Page_045.QC.jpg
cba5ac3831ed6a03e5a25793e95c0f4a
73c20dd800a0f9df5a371838620a7530f7c51419
109286 F20110113_AAAUMD cabrera_v_Page_024.jp2
d8195bfab3de81da79171e76564ca75f
6679f4952cd2aa374841ebda2c40f421ebfab670
F20110113_AAAUZO cabrera_v_Page_237.tif
ea9ca77327edd59f14564f3a9a17151e
6c1e9f3265f2099e23a41e3f9b5cbcbf080e4c10
75792 F20110113_AAAWAY cabrera_v_Page_190.QC.jpg
16451affdb2a11ad8aed778e0bf07975
23ca7bf2538c3868ec8a23ea0261651f9cf4d37e
23336 F20110113_AAATPL cabrera_v_Page_282thm.jpg
73daec98d7dd5fc7b2b1719307572430
640caa3aa5cf5a809f3c2141fb1d72103aea1f60
111145 F20110113_AAAUME cabrera_v_Page_026.jp2
3475d3cb7cd45434b54ecb2fd6d70e58
2f8ac97165d90e611f6445a39e8b46d8a92da551
F20110113_AAAUZP cabrera_v_Page_238.tif
deb5cf778189f794b09b5d4fe9fc3a14
c39b7c131d4b5840ace578016dabb5f912a884b9
45259 F20110113_AAAWAZ cabrera_v_Page_191thm.jpg
d53bfbafcf331edb736f64dc3bbbf58f
4021f19050dd8e4ee7efe4f8d98ada8007493506
75376 F20110113_AAAVWJ cabrera_v_Page_096.QC.jpg
de0d4cc9c397969f09522102a14f0a6f
3241418acf53a0e0f2d40594c024bc5c532ad07f
200853 F20110113_AAATPM cabrera_v_Page_184.jpg
ecf2fea02054d4577cbc0e8bc25573ad
c0af88f4bf524c1dc97d6a02b1fc08fc2b8949d5
98143 F20110113_AAAUMF cabrera_v_Page_028.jp2
18b63737c163b82ecdf00338d1307227
b383d2f48451324e818397ad298714d7c443237b
F20110113_AAAUZQ cabrera_v_Page_239.tif
42dfbc4c6bf110c727083d8b107f9a7f
b45aa382dff1ccb9c9e80060ce43580af07c0abe
49034 F20110113_AAAVWK cabrera_v_Page_097thm.jpg
8a6526cae75bae46555e13749fe5c8a2
525d76699e1377b52ac8f907ded146b6f65a8495
1505 F20110113_AAATPN cabrera_v_Page_035.txt
b171fe6223771406e144363586dcbe62
4206ae0fcc8d16260fd22a2df838e4b61fe61567
1051959 F20110113_AAAUMG cabrera_v_Page_029.jp2
cbbb32daa3f8a29d6ba1013a1d47aea8
22df43bbfbae11c64b406be0e06f7e1d30891936
F20110113_AAAUZR cabrera_v_Page_240.tif
0a3a083cc58e87b2c8f25f697b4fb2d5
ad8c07e2f5636b8bc7f8578bdcf2590f7876e51f
75832 F20110113_AAAVWL cabrera_v_Page_098.QC.jpg
4ec9b3b6faa1b26b2e96aed4769cbbed
15ce4f39f6f1a20f05602fa2499560be4dc46b05
75121 F20110113_AAATPO cabrera_v_Page_054.QC.jpg
700082b02bbbb66399db928438ead55b
228421db87f73912d7efdc0d54190e0e0052ec53
102266 F20110113_AAAUMH cabrera_v_Page_032.jp2
665f8b03022213743bbfbe07e3c08f79
c04186d94563bc6db04fa28d57bd736ebc081946
34374 F20110113_AAAVJA cabrera_v_Page_279.pro
9c61ae5fb66cc2cd0f0b9424517c288c
251201bf9e8620ac50b98da1955dcc74112c0276
1051923 F20110113_AAATCD cabrera_v_Page_199.jp2
ab9030eb0e8ee65864418c130721c1e4
1c63e8b0a1edbb8a2ed33e0a5657b301430b53b4
F20110113_AAAUZS cabrera_v_Page_241.tif
2bf1180a0b85c00c30ea2fac78e83d5a
bc48ce2c692625c4f69571992a7b0af2760d6983
73709 F20110113_AAAVWM cabrera_v_Page_099.QC.jpg
a5dc1e5884c006ced3e5b884505bb404
ac63e441d0cda988beb150e1be97efacd7035a34
76254 F20110113_AAATPP cabrera_v_Page_068.QC.jpg
5e47effc2ddf43604bd7d87710467d3b
149e34246e6b9fc52f925d485cf28ce5d3685b93
106941 F20110113_AAAUMI cabrera_v_Page_033.jp2
cfa82d45e54a3a22a3a4dfbb936dd0cd
d6079b6fdf4827875d14016b244355efcc265b89
51685 F20110113_AAAVJB cabrera_v_Page_280.pro
6ebece19d622fa278ed0d1ac12f97219
40c88f0ade0b1b7081a10b10c3d8b79eccc22e75
79347 F20110113_AAATCE cabrera_v_Page_211.QC.jpg
10527d7193e01dc3245bb3f9dbf31b43
89d0df9265066a826f4fbce64c05941200a2f6d5
F20110113_AAAUZT cabrera_v_Page_243.tif
45048deff14d319bec6fb79508aeeae2
e4fc0441f698fd6e0fb9cb279455ac521f0cccd1
79937 F20110113_AAAVWN cabrera_v_Page_101.QC.jpg
b2b028ef5512985a390804889e46cbc9
d6b978e08f12721770d350795afc63abcfb4ec90
50176 F20110113_AAATPQ cabrera_v_Page_012thm.jpg
b28d6342fa53dc36c7aae8b74077db76
09762a1b94fbef8a8e49db93dd0b662896ca31b7
110521 F20110113_AAAUMJ cabrera_v_Page_034.jp2
ffdaffa390b0c3bc34e3ce908084df24
d872e7d8f043fb2876e2b70c5a263371a51deadb
21031 F20110113_AAAVJC cabrera_v_Page_281.pro
9c095699abcb11ba4b2b31b0081da21e
47ef31b294151ea459012f152beacaca52b8a2a7
1989 F20110113_AAATCF cabrera_v_Page_169.txt
be0de198845bae12c95b4cd354a42802
dab007b8a1c86a55f14fb9eb6821954f6ba385c7
F20110113_AAAUZU cabrera_v_Page_246.tif
f17478bf8af46500770099b35105be6c
ab96c54b613ef5cd97158c8c0d341599a4a9c3d0
25962 F20110113_AAAVWO cabrera_v_Page_102thm.jpg
e34712607726d02cd09ed9e68b1a5d01
9e425c2f00c8b4f42819ed50b7c1fac56ad330d0
2000 F20110113_AAATPR cabrera_v_Page_034.txt
469012265eacc79df9741e56096ac110
b3e40b90734d902fcbe1893cdbb77756d8b57954
97878 F20110113_AAAUMK cabrera_v_Page_037.jp2
1f3517d9064ee72c71ab5b12f2195054
4fcd1bf5860f4b10827d9041581e977017f13ac5
50841 F20110113_AAAVJD cabrera_v_Page_283.pro
f0c11534e0584282cc7117278824ec38
cf482e2797d23de48021e906c8dbb1ccb45d3aee
69448 F20110113_AAATCG cabrera_v_Page_161.QC.jpg
0270a36ecd272852db89c637ca207029
06dba0f365332b4f69cdbb38cf190e670a29995e
F20110113_AAAUZV cabrera_v_Page_248.tif
c3fbe3350f624cf01a6ba61ea13dc09a
0710ece5ca0a78eb49b02b4aaf4aa80d530d6a26
82048 F20110113_AAAVWP cabrera_v_Page_102.QC.jpg
508732acfc6044a2f64bc6f17c1ee186
f0ab0b2bb14758a6fd8f08c503758148aca73589
110951 F20110113_AAATPS cabrera_v_Page_285.jp2
e3263bcebf74b59172cc53af96f5b9f4
cbceabbbb6498fc364d5589a1336a6131fa8a556
109083 F20110113_AAAUML cabrera_v_Page_038.jp2
945c9f33a97df0425fe197c1b1c39d3f
6b9880c369618d97010318cc51c025862236bdba
50744 F20110113_AAAVJE cabrera_v_Page_285.pro
1a9287abb238bc4f9d07fc5e61008edc
da7c1b1692dc33ba632e73b09acb4011235b6bf9
78058 F20110113_AAATCH cabrera_v_Page_092.QC.jpg
314c86b0b17d8a82c9ab7e79fd53456b
1187527aa2b1e1fdb3c3d7182f603a58ba69d91d
F20110113_AAAUZW cabrera_v_Page_249.tif
2fb4a90df78adf779799b5a64a758d58
ee622570183e0af478d50d61e0ee6ac62d3720bd
83528 F20110113_AAAVWQ cabrera_v_Page_103.QC.jpg
06f157325883e2451ba765e5b951d454
f11ff171a3420d930d16ed516e0bc5058c12a79a
134185 F20110113_AAATPT cabrera_v_Page_016.QC.jpg
52969c912d4e1a00e88768176f65372b
85bcdde2b7509fccad9643575bd1fedb1d103312
1051983 F20110113_AAAUMM cabrera_v_Page_039.jp2
4bc2f899cf7db24c34f3892e4c39016e
9cf639d24ab87e975a125b1b2de888a157ca398e
45570 F20110113_AAAVJF cabrera_v_Page_286.pro
8c0c01132961dd652955186028dc3986
ece0a81c5ae407f5eca2fe169142e538d668a06c
1936 F20110113_AAATCI cabrera_v_Page_196.txt
5e66437ab477c5839556de542fb420c2
ebe071f744625576f889f62efcdf2aa7afccc6e6
F20110113_AAAUZX cabrera_v_Page_251.tif
35accd8622761c450b533bf96a3b4821
30c65edb84e42d8c173faed23544b39e9f990c62
25657 F20110113_AAAVWR cabrera_v_Page_104thm.jpg
3f4c4f5fde4e3435c3084f45a9aa375e
895039c76c4b1aad412a1cbffb6c154694ad443e
1889 F20110113_AAATPU cabrera_v_Page_228.txt
101feba4635eae3ab81c8b40cbb9ad30
2d8d74af71ceaf60415eb1ad7831586092b27497
107414 F20110113_AAAUMN cabrera_v_Page_040.jp2
19067aa9a9dc90563f8aa72c90111193
a096b6948884f6a712e488f73e913588f1f2edee
46876 F20110113_AAAVJG cabrera_v_Page_288.pro
8e3727aa026a5561545a89ecb56cab3a
f47b3cbdea884896e266f6d25f15bd6daaa8c382
77798 F20110113_AAATCJ cabrera_v_Page_284.QC.jpg
b06e323f276a9a5c8bc247faaac1dc2e
b7dc94e9a2cd5c37e7b6b5b88a81e610e422f111
F20110113_AAAUZY cabrera_v_Page_252.tif
2a0deeb89fb6d6f13d614d4fcd99b8c2
3416a735ca2ba9cb8bed80796ac237f5c10feb6f
88826 F20110113_AAAWGA cabrera_v_Page_297.QC.jpg
ded479f6b043bd776dbdc3366470160f
e1e4f46c7d681443fe74248a861d6a1962026d53
81896 F20110113_AAAVWS cabrera_v_Page_104.QC.jpg
396b7368597d5086d817c7ea42914707
90aafe9ebd941415a2b5ace859b1d4a2c3862070
24629 F20110113_AAATPV cabrera_v_Page_068thm.jpg
6dec267f08e863b0a3f3aeef25712723
a4095752d7873bb881a1e2602f2e4b350a806374
685136 F20110113_AAAUMO cabrera_v_Page_041.jp2
d459af38e78d143a084aa6471bcd0b84
b6a3ae4e1b5327832be56d2d3af9e33fa0c8340c
45967 F20110113_AAAVJH cabrera_v_Page_289.pro
a4e1b04c26bdc9c8d4e81ddfb75012ec
adb87073377854d139b50bbab8c071168fe2b3a4
164245 F20110113_AAATCK cabrera_v_Page_292.jpg
db3b7ecfa9bd11406ae663c77326453f
eb976e2cee6431edbb7dc9dcf0d5d642b4c5b31a
F20110113_AAAUZZ cabrera_v_Page_254.tif
dd7745a3d842e6df86e6387d89062ce2
6bd1678aa41e4052fee6ad7c429b6daf86e51338
25635 F20110113_AAAWGB cabrera_v_Page_298thm.jpg
c6123e09beabf88cf450234c2fed7fac
cf038d831a89d810a252a5bfa56bbf94df86ebeb
71923 F20110113_AAAVWT cabrera_v_Page_105.QC.jpg
1743c96216fa41861c162f3907da62ab
3c49482324ef16bd5c9bbaf72b454fd787a76288
47758 F20110113_AAATPW cabrera_v_Page_279thm.jpg
b4d6ab999005eea865db62ff9b6ff0e1
92a33576d1a2a30d9c577fbdc04f56a6fdac57ed
103202 F20110113_AAAUMP cabrera_v_Page_043.jp2
4632d85a5ba7641ec0593a5a2f2da426
9962ff7fff5ec8041ba51b2d778d4162fe9a96ba
51542 F20110113_AAAVJI cabrera_v_Page_291.pro
a86951cf1453f1829a043bf67a5c62a2
2aab53830dc2df76e126129bbde58836b0f533b7
30539 F20110113_AAATCL cabrera_v_Page_163.pro
4f23f5469a474d1eb8e89ce10a6b6120
8fe76b57514b54e26ed6d47359708dca995d726d
86317 F20110113_AAAWGC cabrera_v_Page_298.QC.jpg
aecdc1d87cd0ff663a66baae4562e2f9
0de1ec3ab55868fcb199d9213f44a6353192177c
25109 F20110113_AAAVWU cabrera_v_Page_108thm.jpg
daba83b23494b692ad26454131b4f26a
f9355d3315685d08c65b3bbb1d1f2a672f3a3e53
1035836 F20110113_AAATPX cabrera_v_Page_141.jp2
538e613f11826bf5b47fc2c74d205f64
32e04364f448ebf1bce1ba6916f53b63cd03264c
1046266 F20110113_AAAUMQ cabrera_v_Page_044.jp2
c8741337bbdb7e1be6fc8fe1827d16b7
daeab6d45b55fde93b0a1260b2c15ad28fde2309
61478 F20110113_AAAVJJ cabrera_v_Page_293.pro
d8397f12f3c812623f509ee244960a2e
db83830b20c505e9ae0a3d956731a97d0dab2a82
77086 F20110113_AAATCM cabrera_v_Page_075.QC.jpg
15739502c53d7cbc31dbe8acef696b9a
48ba3501cbc1b4e0f1d7ab92ba5c799a6f9aed16
51399 F20110113_AAAWGD cabrera_v_Page_299thm.jpg
4ccaf4698145d41b1e364495a716e8b6
2af1ac5d510889b6713ba3824bdb4351b772bc53
78599 F20110113_AAAVWV cabrera_v_Page_109.QC.jpg
8828d819a5778dbb5dfe4beb2d155fed
f07c4cd8eaeac1dbe77909132d1f34fb061d412b
22981 F20110113_AAATPY cabrera_v_Page_241thm.jpg
e777414a5b921f4520aa26abd6986a64
5fc585578c10c20fce4c77708b3f0857d0b8377b
940989 F20110113_AAAUMR cabrera_v_Page_045.jp2
4aefa82c157addf9d45e7cc8802402ed
b658e3d4fcdaf33cff4d33611467cc7f31a311e0
65030 F20110113_AAAVJK cabrera_v_Page_294.pro
a2ba7e86092f153a0e61ecbfce482e1f
efc9c4d190f5d323352d282981ad4b14be361353
239091 F20110113_AAATCN cabrera_v_Page_202.jpg
661b9054675cf445293cc44f0ceebde0
8a972c5c7b4c6739573df38775552b92d1f0c9ae
113265 F20110113_AAAWGE cabrera_v_Page_299.QC.jpg
1a6a603fd5fb73db6bf1abaa2c8f3620
62d78f6f83f3605135dc64b6508767cf99771027
25019 F20110113_AAAVWW cabrera_v_Page_110thm.jpg
90212a67e2591b2ad36163e87963c7a3
a302d44f4db752a83288ede3c79e4fbde8b2f871
84177 F20110113_AAATPZ cabrera_v_Page_187.QC.jpg
c254e4040dd02717c4cb2c271aa66f2c
300a3cb22625b0cd75d72faeb095054a1249b92b
108079 F20110113_AAAUMS cabrera_v_Page_046.jp2
ea9860bd1498e3b20d97c6e7b7ad96e9
f56cdb08084014c73c719879cbe4963ab7cf7c59
67603 F20110113_AAAVJL cabrera_v_Page_295.pro
a722df10f3d07923dd061994f2d08681
c0517fd1218df6deb575058f7547e34fcdd44634
104249 F20110113_AAATCO cabrera_v_Page_230.QC.jpg
fee8646cd7cc2bd01e22ebff10a52096
f84a6ac037f33ee49d9ec00ab6700a2b2b37ef52
94742 F20110113_AAAWGF cabrera_v_Page_300.QC.jpg
68451b4ade0a7522a487c6f7e35d0ed9
46b8847ac22d05db1f3780051c9fc54f24dc2a45
80841 F20110113_AAAVWX cabrera_v_Page_111.QC.jpg
f5cae9d787f85a9b7b503def2f49c0b4
eb0b1bfd3b6bc7a0684f45096f153defa1f0bf1b
857272 F20110113_AAAUMT cabrera_v_Page_048.jp2
793b889aad1d823b1014439986bfe27f
b4ab877fb90c5edf03998795970caf39ce7eb074
66367 F20110113_AAAVJM cabrera_v_Page_297.pro
fa8a504dfa793fd4513c7dac42bd5c52
eeb26f1ac5aee84b8aaea88076bb3d194d0d341d
127250 F20110113_AAATCP cabrera_v_Page_008.QC.jpg
a27bc5b8b85f1a5753b31a1545e61750
668a44339b4906f8347954d18582403a137ee1a3
53701 F20110113_AAAWGG cabrera_v_Page_301thm.jpg
95ac4a0c3cddebc544c4c936be76714c
891c2ae8d3c06b855267db8a5b8c38fa75b83eba
25183 F20110113_AAAVWY cabrera_v_Page_112thm.jpg
3cf6fd1624703cf8b05435eb28296871
eadb87cd3842427d7f40c73572c4db6bb3935bd3
781391 F20110113_AAAUMU cabrera_v_Page_049.jp2
277f212ba0b5edff52857277d6ae40cf
a110b8ea21a66ece45816033c5ddb8d9368af015
65867 F20110113_AAAVJN cabrera_v_Page_298.pro
9bf58d0a9e602191bd997db57d750e61
9aadb675c48c1023f48eaadd8c1aed280423e0ac
24468 F20110113_AAATCQ cabrera_v_Page_067thm.jpg
29f83ff22722aa9bc863e5d8c834a73a
003b93a5a3bef049b709dae3a05b53bfc4400e21
27449 F20110113_AAAWGH cabrera_v_Page_303thm.jpg
e4310ed6e36f13cee4f3f5742783ab6e
2539fddd0566a40e870e1a1b08ff24cc37760a1b
24586 F20110113_AAAVWZ cabrera_v_Page_113thm.jpg
681b16c8eafd4cc87d97c09cb2e15861
a230a69c0cc5df45b0881a09cb69b735550b78f5
108427 F20110113_AAAUMV cabrera_v_Page_050.jp2
aa2f448c70823f9038196dc5ced204ad
2773834a616064995f7857a22b43800121c687ec
65115 F20110113_AAAVJO cabrera_v_Page_299.pro
b7ca0433d3a4a86ebef765e5e62da26f
db2be6c21fba35cff54a089620462553af9d63c0
25285 F20110113_AAATCR cabrera_v_Page_117thm.jpg
7841716009157e619e99f647e5241aba
8ffafc0c778eef75eccd3d0aa1ba6250d93a7ccb
94393 F20110113_AAAWGI cabrera_v_Page_303.QC.jpg
f3a1808b8e1ddc6e162f18e600979bb4
8f1f45cddda195a9d70699f160e91fc8c5dd0329
944257 F20110113_AAAUMW cabrera_v_Page_051.jp2
a69329dc43c30a609cafc3e8dcebf2a3
3837f3a31386482413892d9af00fafc6b6271859
F20110113_AAAVJP cabrera_v_Page_301.pro
ebfcd3a21c16b56798fc5da8d2f7f99c
a4c76498a7e7c92719335f68bc81da0a2b948eee
52441 F20110113_AAATCS cabrera_v_Page_010thm.jpg
6ba8cf7890e5286ba443d218f4d93631
e6159027bcdc71203eb89ed8c97f3bfa9f2cd671
62643 F20110113_AAAWGJ cabrera_v_Page_304.QC.jpg
2a50403d707103423947acd0e0814c24
30830d7e0f42a47a9ae4aeb7192763a290174bb6
104408 F20110113_AAAUMX cabrera_v_Page_053.jp2
9e14bfaba73868b3eb50f5f5c400bd33
b0b178413e40fd40692bd83096413692213d0d5f
72831 F20110113_AAAVJQ cabrera_v_Page_303.pro
d58b483a0093c6526fb97d60a2aec3c6
01e3bd7c3fba809fea7aa53c2c5d3e839ff65184
197772 F20110113_AAATCT cabrera_v_Page_246.jpg
fdaad28c214a113f40079bb3ede592fb
a3502dcd96b28764153349e7baccddd7148f9fac
63273 F20110113_AAAWGK cabrera_v_Page_305.QC.jpg
d8ffa5bb4319ef4d6253102c58366596
a2012d16651470ed6e5e5c99e15ce1997ebac471
81386 F20110113_AAAUMY cabrera_v_Page_055.jp2
9c6a3944951fb9bb098848e117bcea0e
431305caea8474b62a542be5a1aca6fea20a49f4
47817 F20110113_AAAVJR cabrera_v_Page_304.pro
90747baba22609ce7a88dd87b8183cb6
11d1ab891c7f2cce1e28e5613d10895e1ccb9131
1398 F20110113_AAATCU cabrera_v_Page_238.txt
e2c9c94e1b4c94e653a39fa94ce31a8b
34f80465ec412f572dd75d3b7051f31b1c2fc889
350740 F20110113_AAAWGL UFE0005581_00001.mets FULL
4fcd0b723ff6eb1e4aa7b2cb113291b5
c8cb2802cd25a48b755635e0e55f174ca63db9aa
995198 F20110113_AAAUMZ cabrera_v_Page_056.jp2
75c2993dcfb5d9c92c229088453fdc2c
573f6fa073331cb3c0d31b05f7ddf93df62c2d76
20703 F20110113_AAAVJS cabrera_v_Page_305.pro
c434b9a6a3ddb8b3e3d0525f1938669f
2faa229f53a0aab67a56980e095dce1dee035d62
F20110113_AAATCV cabrera_v_Page_116.tif
9cb8a33e9ff2f4402e1c4c989fb419a7
649e13b3ab37b5aab4014308f963708ae6dec990
537 F20110113_AAAVJT cabrera_v_Page_001.txt
7430e2f0f8fb1e9d00bf05b670394557
ddd96e0727216599d911f788118295b54d8e7f64
91027 F20110113_AAATCW cabrera_v_Page_080.QC.jpg
bb8812cc61eeb347e071e8a6509398d8
9a951b63c507c57ecd81b928332e3d3bba1d0412
1779 F20110113_AAAVJU cabrera_v_Page_004.txt
d86b1c09b5c28ed298bfbca65c9835d9
6f53bc7a0814f2c0e87d1a79508eb3b58fa6f206
25094 F20110113_AAATVA cabrera_v_Page_106thm.jpg
bc92eae44ca77029d9b51ead6cf68804
04532cd4d7b337ce63dabbca13d7babdf4e37a82
1884 F20110113_AAAVJV cabrera_v_Page_005.txt
d43ef4a93b037cb317cf1e9d951c3a16
3e1be2acf9f649eae6309b8a9596cc454453795c
24553 F20110113_AAATCX cabrera_v_Page_160thm.jpg
7a6fddf7a5e3384dfeb1ca1aa7c694d7
69bb3cd5436db38482ed12f80162b79cfab4649b
124814 F20110113_AAATVB cabrera_v_Page_009.QC.jpg
149f414d2579522232e45935d108b339
703026eec84c691a5e5483137a113bd4e0719e58
4256 F20110113_AAAVJW cabrera_v_Page_009.txt
42134b01a75d56033527d6020a6c185d
946fd24d0576fcc41009ddfa660f223c22f26978
F20110113_AAATCY cabrera_v_Page_069.tif
da131af782ea2f2fe7287e93b966c9f5
1249b75c0ee37dbef784c949463f4beebdbd2ac7
1051985 F20110113_AAATVC cabrera_v_Page_042.jp2
19aaa37dcc8e29d69f77a0e985f8d5c4
db76cb658b8b95da2c49815a5ae7a6d7976ce122
4564 F20110113_AAAVJX cabrera_v_Page_010.txt
3ae11cd9dd165873c6d9d108b782403e
9a7bb078ad949e90da50ac79b0071b9b83f2a357
205341 F20110113_AAATCZ cabrera_v_Page_146.jpg
133e1be1f3599255a6a179144b3789fb
d13b8bc656c10bb4c33db27c2f9dbac03334a665
F20110113_AAATVD cabrera_v_Page_224.tif
9d7d09e903e6987c4c646a3d55ac13b8
e12e5fbbce73d046ceed5df7f8d7e84119879e2b
4034 F20110113_AAAVJY cabrera_v_Page_011.txt
bc4f49f88979ae332487f0aad36067bd
c4127aecebc59c927c3c48fb8adea576a045d92b
100416 F20110113_AAATVE cabrera_v_Page_289.jp2
ba3f59cc22c241b23618261b51d88718
86381d1e59d7ab68f2b4e0dc777aecf5b8b7d1b7
2577 F20110113_AAAVJZ cabrera_v_Page_012.txt
7e0ea1bebf1cca49aab09bc96fec03fb
e3e3e13feecd64454cb2d8026356be0244f362c9
75773 F20110113_AAATVF cabrera_v_Page_030.QC.jpg
67c2cdc7968a1ab0303c580cff5dcb30
cb4e44def93c7c80b5ff24ac70fe15661b1de233
F20110113_AAATVG cabrera_v_Page_005.tif
193660d31ff3c69d20af0a66bf73a7ec
9a668d753623a94e3d5695d09c06cfb2f90aea4c
1013157 F20110113_AAAUSA cabrera_v_Page_249.jp2
6f3c68990c980507d21be79cc22feea7
62a9b481c131619fd397cf888a0119d24910b61c
236913 F20110113_AAATVH cabrera_v_Page_070.jpg
ea57c19e57997ee06375c3e0197da857
b72d15bf7d421590c3da552e4e1885b99889586c
99660 F20110113_AAAUSB cabrera_v_Page_250.jp2
3ccf5d40780fdf9e06906dbe9bb76b11
2404d93d18759301bcc5ed987c35d1fabdd6b24d
21923 F20110113_AAATVI cabrera_v_Page_094thm.jpg
058704d8128f2527ba9ea751c948d9e3
db0e58555731ddae7b89181fc466c03715b1bcef
913386 F20110113_AAAUSC cabrera_v_Page_252.jp2
c06adb39f7dafb51f87cd6883eb98b1c
5f539153de064227c79daa8ff6344fb30673fd23
24743 F20110113_AAATVJ cabrera_v_Page_040thm.jpg
7432c1284a79461e4bf9728cb2572c44
25435127a172a0c57ac3dc64ca81c553aa5fab79
902857 F20110113_AAAUSD cabrera_v_Page_253.jp2
dc0d8941b0d8eb118e7adbc0ca17d3a3
d746d4b95068f0b053da8c84a731bd924e8fd492
1022595 F20110113_AAAUSE cabrera_v_Page_254.jp2
901436a009d84de5f946ec9135de2c7e
e3791cba3624b304d9884472ca7e9ef1f59e68ba
F20110113_AAATVK cabrera_v_Page_298.tif
8f4268d5cb368a4672e4b2856d9a1ee1
0e3a1bbf355e7cd699db7f1eb7ce967ab38ad9f5
1021965 F20110113_AAAUSF cabrera_v_Page_255.jp2
d202bad619bac0e821627df44050aab1
5de0e4712fc9b4e131349a137bb3f15cba14840b
107413 F20110113_AAATIA cabrera_v_Page_123.jp2
8a841a25399573c29de70663cca6a4ee
1d5ed3620e36448ed92b68042f5b76932629fe54
23579 F20110113_AAATVL cabrera_v_Page_190thm.jpg
f91215f4496ee0cc5f79d0b26155527d
d2ec880f1a3894d4bdb9a961eacfd6ff50ca5173
207912 F20110113_AAATIB cabrera_v_Page_211.jpg
4a1f3ba4c4cf6ff5f64f9b8d3b49de15
5eae367abb6a511c90f88001079b1c500f8ed838
F20110113_AAATVM cabrera_v_Page_124.tif
311b31bbb03e7271a566496efc4803e0
27677e4a5f8cedce54db6b625e95db3b5fbfc79b
987131 F20110113_AAAUSG cabrera_v_Page_256.jp2
afb35a5d958a7e87dcf212059b034912
6b94cc4be3712ee9d883335a2c3832197c712d14
1885 F20110113_AAAVPA cabrera_v_Page_190.txt
cb0961a333464e64225bed84e508ddde
a3a00c1946c643d13e950ad27f4e4ae6a217c58c
97454 F20110113_AAATIC cabrera_v_Page_079.QC.jpg
33915402ba905cc83e70ba307f3d10da
afdd358fdb3feaa602b482f33e54c4d522be5ac1
194618 F20110113_AAATVN cabrera_v_Page_289.jpg
753f7278657a972e9ea98ca92eb108c0
e3fa5bc303edac9993a2597636efcf6be6499603
89132 F20110113_AAAUSH cabrera_v_Page_257.jp2
a92e9dcf288f421d8aa0757fbc664753
ce93cac209e30cea19c4147491624bb40e49a942
F20110113_AAAVPB cabrera_v_Page_191.txt
73bfc1966acbf150343398d34a4084f3
5d60a34e3e1d2cb661a6360a78154287f683b394
F20110113_AAATID cabrera_v_Page_099.tif
5ac54ee3d60c28beaf6014c0fe58d6cb
4d87464d07a50471809564adfe2562aff29057c6
F20110113_AAATVO cabrera_v_Page_131.tif
0be9d11a8e61a3a132d63e21e36cc218
081679577fcc7ef000aa399f778ce94f86a5afc0
753569 F20110113_AAAUSI cabrera_v_Page_258.jp2
52b2ecb2fff1de76acc28a024ba18bd1
e539ae680d0cabb23389ef5056d9bf08d9132a60
202287 F20110113_AAATIE cabrera_v_Page_192.jpg
a91386541ec943b465328b2f72b9193a
bddeb65c3eb9e2fe62193760a1af850359d9131d
24003 F20110113_AAATVP cabrera_v_Page_211thm.jpg
e7078aeb16010b11c04b0782358817f4
0f650900d77f248ab580fbef3b9cdd370bb01ab1
104418 F20110113_AAAUSJ cabrera_v_Page_259.jp2
15811dd0fd9c017c9a1850ebbbaa991e
d3a3df06a8bed708b8ff0def1fec18beb45f7a40
2299 F20110113_AAAVPC cabrera_v_Page_193.txt
65dbe3abba45092803fb6e1c6aeb1022
3007452600456041986f9f1f184f1fc9de59b5f1
113093 F20110113_AAATIF cabrera_v_Page_103.jp2
2588f455e8735c5bf1f044d52873514a
02643725f39a080b6b984ee5f0299960c52b7ffa
F20110113_AAATVQ cabrera_v_Page_062.tif
5d9356cce55e35c1f75e67cf541fc10b
725dcced58f344e00602c5c471d4347059a6b1b1
779908 F20110113_AAAUSK cabrera_v_Page_261.jp2
d323af3bceeac57434b0b3a3efebe03a
0f2b35fc83017c03fa091579a1f7fddbe0ecea57
1183 F20110113_AAAVPD cabrera_v_Page_195.txt
f189cf582823bf8d3658672d6e585b10
3e6aae3b39e377a743e85c48a3e343012c4de0fc
77938 F20110113_AAATIG cabrera_v_Page_040.QC.jpg
c8cef7f3abca197dbe9939a59efec5cc
ecc76b8ed9d965785c9000d21f380ad0e01c4329
38663 F20110113_AAATVR cabrera_v_Page_136.pro
667c80632f3586d065e1915cf5659154
d52e2a508f7c70a9736f0114ae1b0100c364e28f
94904 F20110113_AAAUSL cabrera_v_Page_262.jp2
c7e57ee8d9c1c7a40ce85a094d53243c
d3da201f03086760a85652dc582a5a1ab4278e2c
1974 F20110113_AAAVPE cabrera_v_Page_198.txt
3d74014223ffdd524eb91d8833151b85
3db19d54837b4f1cd3277a35052c4a803d63927a
162426 F20110113_AAATIH cabrera_v_Page_179.jpg
63a70b58d74cb0ccdf4325d92b01c6e7
ee3b7e6d66c16e2761d67aae5184d834a2b5743e
217365 F20110113_AAAUFA cabrera_v_Page_056.jpg
a3d02faac0a8f65fb7f019933a2c7d3f
02a301c855e1cdccf4f4f455bd2a803e922032cb
102834 F20110113_AAATVS cabrera_v_Page_275.jp2
b37d86f517b3d0ea22b4505522facd92
3419efd7528573a5cbce959a4b4598157dcf2894
761503 F20110113_AAAUSM cabrera_v_Page_267.jp2
38a0d0926899b34f22edb8e25b120016
99e25c8ae7fb104069da9f05192687ffcacd8b46
2152 F20110113_AAAVPF cabrera_v_Page_199.txt
f72d00204cf8530f82a0f23e1fe776eb
b4cc5d79e25b261a82c327f19236e4ad823e8c7c
1535 F20110113_AAATII cabrera_v_Page_231.txt
e66f302dfb87ceb82527a26576cff5e3
e8c7195db80fa1fef894e6498442777ace36b624
197328 F20110113_AAAUFB cabrera_v_Page_057.jpg
634bc0e34435c1012af1e5f67175ad03
90dd9ce6aab55d8dfbdec48d5094a18bf378f18c
72357 F20110113_AAATVT cabrera_v_Page_043.QC.jpg
240b74f78990695cc07af68833bf8587
04ccabb5cc5a772f43080c480df1b05fde3f24ef
761613 F20110113_AAAUSN cabrera_v_Page_269.jp2
6bc3d3a3a21b013eb5d2ad5728a65c90
e11271b3ca98260f2bd8cd4531679e1ada18cad2
2469 F20110113_AAAVPG cabrera_v_Page_200.txt
72e5ea8dde86090a0daf94197d358639
83cdbee92736ade1ad62acbcff98046172bff4a4
F20110113_AAATIJ cabrera_v_Page_018.tif
a880b8b2bab1cb374233aac73c1ce247
e0f54ff3e9331dbff5e4cad4a12afb097968a167
198381 F20110113_AAAUFC cabrera_v_Page_058.jpg
1b194f95437d4f78c5575d67ddabdae1
ac37e5f332e8d4b458d81272b7cbb89792be51d0
1051974 F20110113_AAATVU cabrera_v_Page_268.jp2
2a8eca57f1ca164c7e50bed8fd9730c5
2a8b77200d1623636abc13f036331d3edc5a52b6
780759 F20110113_AAAUSO cabrera_v_Page_270.jp2
4940dfc95e5c6c04ad11c61250334d63
253b58044141ff14d3fb56c59573584afe356cbe
2074 F20110113_AAAVPH cabrera_v_Page_202.txt
76e7dedee4fbcbfc41a4617549061e30
bbdb3b8147cef6a373126d9c4fb7293484d9e894
73109 F20110113_AAATIK cabrera_v_Page_289.QC.jpg
6a357e6e518803de0ac3b7e1786d224c
1cb6174df7f10058cb796c15178ff1611b617e04
239851 F20110113_AAAUFD cabrera_v_Page_059.jpg
1d71679c206d1cd7fb1371009e5ed960
18c0da279b50f8d6e8d5c696f9cb9062a5a6168c
218786 F20110113_AAATVV cabrera_v_Page_130.jpg
bf65b9f3cf1c1358d148c12993de2fa0
27cb36f43c2c5abba3560747947acbeea451d3e1
1022691 F20110113_AAAUSP cabrera_v_Page_272.jp2
12eafdb3c8e43c0890f8944434a21c90
217c4a3cddae6cb9506ae711732da1609a21bead
1862 F20110113_AAAVPI cabrera_v_Page_204.txt
4a6f2a798895bc083101678f1203e576
e2b6c7dcb7eebabcf1359dcaddaaab769870b6fa
24377 F20110113_AAATIL cabrera_v_Page_050thm.jpg
0da171ec93709412eac5c4fdb4bf2970
5af7cd6252a64819352e38f37015bde39c09a936
224005 F20110113_AAAUFE cabrera_v_Page_060.jpg
7bb965e5c8f3109f2712792efada7607
6f3e90f32400919414007f13a6e5bb8262436251
71195 F20110113_AAATVW cabrera_v_Page_212.QC.jpg
61a8bd86106ee3b8ea0601e81e3f9a6e
60f65609f2c520822eaf0f8fbbff0d5105eea3f8
784083 F20110113_AAAUSQ cabrera_v_Page_273.jp2
55d51091d0b8daff5b79deecff0a8f26
4ed182264a20f833c705d18ff6c4b56f85db69c6
1120 F20110113_AAAVPJ cabrera_v_Page_205.txt
657f0b665365be7d687ac5428f49978e
58d963994b818444fbfbf13beba188df47e5c4c5
23319 F20110113_AAATIM cabrera_v_Page_204thm.jpg
29998e220cafe172f8af282be7000c6c
befa914754d6572269ce122241d2aea8beeb0d2f
230275 F20110113_AAAUFF cabrera_v_Page_062.jpg
d7391a76fef43cbc1aca1242c1bea46b
963cee98e6881f98e6639cabba5b95ee298b1bcd
1051924 F20110113_AAATVX cabrera_v_Page_073.jp2
07535af2a58692a47554425335452e1a
d7e9de55d2bc54bb3c83f4cd7f6b5b5c6532d8ab
48549 F20110113_AAAUSR cabrera_v_Page_281.jp2
4681995d8b82e0e59732d287970a6b1e
d9d1c34335963ea64ee5e57699f8d3da5a659451
1798 F20110113_AAAVPK cabrera_v_Page_206.txt
0ee21d1d2ba1bd5a1ef9a5dbd2f1b70e
5e05e993717f14d7e5b7d561847277760850b022
23267 F20110113_AAATIN cabrera_v_Page_209thm.jpg
54bf568e3de16763d1a1fffa1916416b
f4223695210806cc7466e3aec08d2b46eea8b248
205203 F20110113_AAAUFG cabrera_v_Page_063.jpg
163fc7c18d60b0e3ff51c4d2bbe17b0e
dc962993a254555625258a47850a231878826933
210075 F20110113_AAATVY cabrera_v_Page_160.jpg
21137c34523a0227358e465f38dbecb9
6fed336789c60d2bb431ae8e9e269af5b714236d
2001 F20110113_AAAVPL cabrera_v_Page_207.txt
d3e864dc2d37d315720ed6f822329ebc
deba7358539f4ffcf241c165f99b41656807309f
45169 F20110113_AAAVCA cabrera_v_Page_028.pro
3a1cbd96a5c08012c7a91a93a5911fab
fd9ffc0989eff92455e9e722eac6b2fcda94a063
102002 F20110113_AAAUSS cabrera_v_Page_282.jp2
c45ef38f2873e0b30408ba1b40ac9da9
729984746274f51418868668a6a3baca675f1ff0
1773 F20110113_AAATIO cabrera_v_Page_133.txt
02efe045939a0a535ebb8d706c39a6a3
9fbc7a65aadfa16a434108de688df20389e0fd1e
229438 F20110113_AAAUFH cabrera_v_Page_064.jpg
950a6548cfd9cb2fb84f6e3ca7c2d52f
c6acc118940a7f8e2e186a4277442c7049c0ee45
50342 F20110113_AAATVZ cabrera_v_Page_070thm.jpg
8312ea2034a436173b63ba524af8a7a2
147a2551cecf23b74a4cf49e40ac38fda066d24e
1831 F20110113_AAAVPM cabrera_v_Page_210.txt
e6ae27868fc27c38d9b20d58f8e0f210
388ade90005d3c93ac1d62cde827bbd03c5a817d
28374 F20110113_AAAVCB cabrera_v_Page_029.pro
f8c1d336233360bb8fa2b327dbfdf55a
b3197de4c66e814970add3e195995ac77ab569f0
109579 F20110113_AAAUST cabrera_v_Page_283.jp2
799f64c6edbbfdf8104a31816b8a8119
e56678b90257889b32f80295dd55af6961b58f6e
F20110113_AAATIP cabrera_v_Page_285.tif
68e4a6b79ac05d87224d951cec57def8
aa2a83474062473cb7db562e66ec38364908fd67
218176 F20110113_AAAUFI cabrera_v_Page_065.jpg
5bf7d1ee796c50aed51103e72f382157
546a34d26420e0a4a6280ad1b503dbf54a174ce3
1962 F20110113_AAAVPN cabrera_v_Page_211.txt
b6dd2ef87cf2b6c695023e321ccee07e
b2db8c8e7b93828135d91215a41e8f3d6c871e54
49097 F20110113_AAAVCC cabrera_v_Page_033.pro
2679774117b3ca14ae4585f2caf28520
0ca91daca7d9ec0cbdafde13b969d77605d17e68
99486 F20110113_AAAUSU cabrera_v_Page_287.jp2
802261a6f9b63c370db363d6b9106ccd
938664b2e20cdb0d31ace138fdf6d377ac71d2ae
89648 F20110113_AAATIQ cabrera_v_Page_127.jp2
651f3e12e3befcee978408062a7fa55b
5aee8f967540e264d72d16501bf3722aef52b13a
198538 F20110113_AAAUFJ cabrera_v_Page_066.jpg
5dd72867f53b4b19ed53364ee41b594b
e20124060d5f5ca75c812714d8065aa399879e8c
F20110113_AAAVPO cabrera_v_Page_212.txt
63e59a9146efedfef69d4ef7b5e3ff51
649f7484eadeef1489b336559802d1169d9f90bb
50753 F20110113_AAAVCD cabrera_v_Page_034.pro
a7f40f1fac41105f1a258c7d01f86c0e
fedc518a618cd37d6e8b3478990d7952a188ea4a
101996 F20110113_AAAUSV cabrera_v_Page_288.jp2
551bc2e2260cfd8ab6dae33bce15fabc
fa6e125756b707261fe0cfbb79d2d0664b5b5e19
109315 F20110113_AAATIR cabrera_v_Page_083.jp2
ddf5d0746a88fe0e31d03d0f6ebff5c8
8b5b9c6c8f676226e13d5cd41de173e8ce179745
209698 F20110113_AAAUFK cabrera_v_Page_067.jpg
83d64797ae455ee73b7f94bdb8cbe99b
02f8dcc3f3ad397e322270ceba97db37bd20fd1a
1050 F20110113_AAAVPP cabrera_v_Page_214.txt
8c875112f95cc3f3f2bea6ee37696f85
c614aa76fe32e9907b029351fe308a1f2736eef0
107626 F20110113_AAAUSW cabrera_v_Page_291.jp2
9de41e867ace0c90d037fdd651166e03
cefeed2cb9972becccd963452e4aeb74614f0a54
77880 F20110113_AAATIS cabrera_v_Page_106.QC.jpg
d01c016630b21b459b947995ad79d1f7
449bcf6e84f71a947cdc2471620517d774cc442f
204602 F20110113_AAAUFL cabrera_v_Page_068.jpg
c7de075031f676f6777d423b1fe45f9e
90f7dfeb273641958d5beecfab3b0554e479a85c
36620 F20110113_AAAVCE cabrera_v_Page_035.pro
b8312a41f19c50a517a39e0dd772d2e4
9d49e28ee8711394cb8a10f1892f6cc9838be6ab
1910 F20110113_AAAVPQ cabrera_v_Page_215.txt
bd86612d49b364212f32efdb7a95556a
5371368913ad848cdb51e5b541841424d5888551
80713 F20110113_AAAUSX cabrera_v_Page_292.jp2
23b7fbd7ffffa4b0d79e021a0e62055a
c3dead6e2a4ea9dba0fe9f2d35aa0b6f3644c3ce
F20110113_AAATIT cabrera_v_Page_088.tif
fd46f6c615a62b22d77bb33d67fe6135
00b9ae69fbe15ada5c1dc24a094247b76879f5bc
213062 F20110113_AAAUFM cabrera_v_Page_069.jpg
c892ecf8c600bea947df8c55a68dc12e
55b4f28aa16a853fa2ca44dfbd86f883869776a3
41834 F20110113_AAAVCF cabrera_v_Page_036.pro
153a1e5239cce0b45d420c46bf2392af
165e61bed4920e5740b8e5ccd0df218fd039a503
1803 F20110113_AAAVPR cabrera_v_Page_216.txt
59bcdca8c35fbec9f6c3ba598d0420f0
64ebdec837390446474e212e369a73cbc9c935a5
135017 F20110113_AAAUSY cabrera_v_Page_294.jp2
aeffa2d5be2b35d8c9fa420088fb04fc
083a3894b30d2f4d6d8058edf936a989fb740163
112390 F20110113_AAATIU cabrera_v_Page_180.jp2
fac62443c8c56a816317cb5f3f19a64a
a0ca43c29eaa088c944ad2358eecf4e44a06cf6a
209185 F20110113_AAAUFN cabrera_v_Page_071.jpg
6962f28ecc9f8028fae9672226220eb1
51c843b9fee77e5b3f8d4fd873c8cf8a0a374232
49570 F20110113_AAAVCG cabrera_v_Page_038.pro
edb52f6f766bdc7c35c789101426b73d
1bbf11220d9dc262af6ba54d7dcdd98a5efc5001
1667 F20110113_AAAVPS cabrera_v_Page_218.txt
81dc9cfd123668cad9db4a61d066d613
0587bd4b237bb3186db9d2db6dddb68a6e638745
1051871 F20110113_AAAUSZ cabrera_v_Page_295.jp2
1a49677dec915c96dd57d2f7cb3384b7
25effddd29610cd06065cf8d9d42191c49b48366
858704 F20110113_AAATIV cabrera_v_Page_136.jp2
fe9a575513ddb223d91d2f4cf1d41805
b30878d7cde2afd37d66247feeab034ff7227474
194441 F20110113_AAAUFO cabrera_v_Page_072.jpg
e0b0d14024370fbaf66755995ed89b4f
348d11b78d41e0eba86752308404926f186b159a
28281 F20110113_AAAVCH cabrera_v_Page_039.pro
edcf794d7d02640bd1e975e8d2895a5c
b63740af566a346d7ea01552a7314236e7feda68
1832 F20110113_AAAVPT cabrera_v_Page_219.txt
8a5601cb4e592a6510e871a70c21cfd1
a7278a9d0254bef65b2d2d1f35a9c25929b437d8
22760 F20110113_AAATIW cabrera_v_Page_105thm.jpg
9b44400138dd6ded1049d8fc3fc8807f
9fd327b754af0891b8d83bd2b83fd7e0bdc3cdfa
253325 F20110113_AAAUFP cabrera_v_Page_073.jpg
bd473037ed7a3254e564eeecd769517d
c7fb4264ee629607234a9dbbb8cb3e40a519e3bf
48748 F20110113_AAAVCI cabrera_v_Page_040.pro
1bbb145a255c873600b65db3e5eb319c
1f8781b3047a978d6ae6b2c6789562bd0c3ba2da
1842 F20110113_AAAVPU cabrera_v_Page_221.txt
15ad077e473aae928b2f2f8546ad543b
0585269d59803b17b84a16085bb4e3bf8dc61052
48842 F20110113_AAATIX cabrera_v_Page_202.pro
3798d5e32cd6534672ac259fc8904942
19edde9dff8b97d7532dd15b7ba98d717d77fa5e
251503 F20110113_AAAUFQ cabrera_v_Page_074.jpg
b6a9d9ef480b1316404f38273145ca88
5cc90332d258b9acaa8cae9feb59c389ba76ee9f
20652 F20110113_AAAVCJ cabrera_v_Page_041.pro
cb8f90bc0b7c0ca103baf25c8f0cd8ef
0b7a78c441ca06067f99816fdc9dd8967932509d
2047 F20110113_AAAVPV cabrera_v_Page_222.txt
665be911345c48166b45f199eac8dccf
7765049ee9935e0013edc6a80ec64974fa1faecc
48205 F20110113_AAATIY cabrera_v_Page_215.pro
bc5428d85975e692f26e0b84cb094d49
37161b428800683bb9f8028099a84ca205b23435
208934 F20110113_AAAUFR cabrera_v_Page_075.jpg
e0b0950b5f7cde02fbb618e01b86db55
d2744cff48a274a6e2848aa7c40f3563b5f5f42d
25872 F20110113_AAAVCK cabrera_v_Page_042.pro
e142f400d819a2f20b892b7219f10ced
1047d992b17fe99d0b8f9e4b19c103b563c4053c
1533 F20110113_AAAVPW cabrera_v_Page_223.txt
6fe7b168169b19bb0e8adaa0acf5faaa
7f59fecdc962f4bb34783a4baa48510b62afcd25
1970 F20110113_AAATIZ cabrera_v_Page_046.txt
29c241aa3a64b43c7105b8a7de01a3d9
6b39311f716383a828a63e2fef5fdec8277e77dd
226331 F20110113_AAAUFS cabrera_v_Page_076.jpg
3513adce7e7650fc17bb6c1ec27b6c66
60713650f0001ff0c49791bf8ff7f22cc88e139c
47393 F20110113_AAAVCL cabrera_v_Page_043.pro
769c373686c727ea2cd9c047fad61cf0
fa7122f646e4f2d9049416a47cc89573221cb8a4
1847 F20110113_AAAVPX cabrera_v_Page_224.txt
9795662c9611141ee21b996c1992d477
6daa2661d7f1c0ae9f68e9335ac3484516e8b2c8
230755 F20110113_AAAUFT cabrera_v_Page_077.jpg
2af10619fe02bb5c2cf2e3faacce867b
86519be94fccd816296307b8eb539e07bb27efe0
40813 F20110113_AAAVCM cabrera_v_Page_044.pro
da74470eecdb4ed7717f0bdfa2ad1fd1
c90f8423614d3a449923e06295e451c602476b20
2234 F20110113_AAAVPY cabrera_v_Page_225.txt
b8361d5fa11b653b3c22fa659717131b
2283c53bac21917539b04ee72a645043ae9460cd
234394 F20110113_AAAUFU cabrera_v_Page_082.jpg
480ac827249ea2d9c1d91a1f95d1bf21
1d0571ac179542fa38a46f048911dd763b9af741
37191 F20110113_AAAVCN cabrera_v_Page_045.pro
181c127c81eb3933126a79653a79a3a1
359b90c0b60c6dfa50edbb0da9992c4d9f133211
2431 F20110113_AAAVPZ cabrera_v_Page_226.txt
8d84364242d3e4119c3c0c38ef4f5bf5
3fa01b04945ec447db6bcd429382b112e658401c
210762 F20110113_AAAUFV cabrera_v_Page_083.jpg
9a384264c26ae86707cf774f587304b2
d791a09e685c09f689e15f10e0e7271274f76d56
49888 F20110113_AAAVCO cabrera_v_Page_046.pro
797460b3bce48ba0dc7327d96dd29d48
5a758bbb09f76591a39553eaf21d6b8027f3091e
206243 F20110113_AAAUFW cabrera_v_Page_085.jpg
fe79ca24abb007d7d762794ca27d6093
c04163feb6feea10b711b6cd9852f5f91c8aad69
47709 F20110113_AAAVCP cabrera_v_Page_047.pro
2548411dac7cef8553b60fc058be6b51
10ca293a2aed82d0b573c31b4685691a92adc6e3
194708 F20110113_AAAUFX cabrera_v_Page_087.jpg
b1963ce0c1167e1c63d4aa09c15c48bd
27bb6bd60859fd74583fb24368b8e0fcf64164c6
F20110113_AAAUYA cabrera_v_Page_175.tif
99f330f81060b1f5f2be4bf286bc964e
c7bc6fd55d5157bb780827ee371a888801f5b45e
31126 F20110113_AAAVCQ cabrera_v_Page_049.pro
f7c1c3139f7240340ebcca5484f3ec56
e7713154a25e69705b6665a84ee4d5855677869c
120335 F20110113_AAAUFY cabrera_v_Page_088.jpg
4c9fa23ccadebbabf81f10adecb242bb
58788b219c8e9f7367ac95d1602ac3a880d490b0
F20110113_AAAUYB cabrera_v_Page_176.tif
f82ac462b6fec135f1e229a42eb72591
0eaffd8d42675a574275b4fe56a246d5a8157f96
51459 F20110113_AAAVCR cabrera_v_Page_050.pro
b81bf020da3251cec0887d62dcf138d8
df5664b77c7a80d8238c87d1f834111f750f565e
F20110113_AAAUYC cabrera_v_Page_178.tif
d21c8941799d22ac2d9384d82b15fc1a
97c129a99decd4c269b872b2a1bc0424fb12eda1
48011 F20110113_AAAVCS cabrera_v_Page_053.pro
8914b490434bfa788d60c5e44be2c174
45f4bf700950733d985ca73d91aa3d3ffd6b5849
190864 F20110113_AAAUFZ cabrera_v_Page_090.jpg
2c2a620a8be5be52d82bf2c92643f26c
0a13f5f515314f8679520157c3faf877deaf034a
F20110113_AAAUYD cabrera_v_Page_179.tif
4a5a6fb95825ea56d9aa02bcf42fb907
c8e893f78e154dc375155a6f7d2cda1fe4df776b
48208 F20110113_AAAVCT cabrera_v_Page_054.pro
1af6f790befdb9c59b79fdb41011d641
0b195ba6d01c3bf786b577749ba8cb533f5f681d
104511 F20110113_AAATOA cabrera_v_Page_082.QC.jpg
5ceaf69c761d7bb6e3c2c9070aedb21d
040ffd5b4caf31c2d1936fc32a66caa88a8569dd
F20110113_AAAUYE cabrera_v_Page_180.tif
425e11f7d46e5f59de2cfef70603d14f
0afc3b2687eae4650155561040b8304a259cecfe
36661 F20110113_AAAVCU cabrera_v_Page_055.pro
8a8e3a19655553e3d974413b3535094b
b304173601177f56bb15d22e709514e026654a55
2137 F20110113_AAATOB cabrera_v_Page_274.txt
631ba5777bc85d030c73aa6e1c76d2fc
a41baf5efc31a8b075bbca904e37067fc2869f06
F20110113_AAAUYF cabrera_v_Page_181.tif
cc206a4257cee2ed18cc340aaf4609ed
5c402c80acf4911b7faca4074c0de6af3d48c6aa
1051954 F20110113_AAATOC cabrera_v_Page_064.jp2
89dbaa1eb859b6a1a89d3c416c262c1d
7d30aa4c6c41a33b784e259b45fc2badbf6e56d1
F20110113_AAAUYG cabrera_v_Page_185.tif
39cc7b7cdb93537b338361ee3fb05b9e
0f78bab8623965f2fc7a7bed7d4bce6a5ebd223f
46957 F20110113_AAAVCV cabrera_v_Page_057.pro
e749d20a3117b6cbac3c2d975b5842b4
8595b14603c3bdc102d90e041d978787192c3722
49350 F20110113_AAAVVA cabrera_v_Page_064thm.jpg
599573c4bcc552e0c3c02b75cef1d2c8
7bb8299802889a03877c52c5ce6f83d2ec02c267
F20110113_AAAUYH cabrera_v_Page_186.tif
a6ed0f9b62bae932e872fc6cf2521edd
47c0348f913cd44715949118187c41376aac76b6
47141 F20110113_AAAVCW cabrera_v_Page_058.pro
2e74d5f20d80254c0f54ae6467c4ef59
fffd1dcdf1c5fe685c5f320cf2c4413cb920f25a
24367 F20110113_AAAVVB cabrera_v_Page_065thm.jpg
aac38137869cd6a4650c11e53e47cbd1
e1d2a9b56f0a74af49480545419e0d00823d34b2
66675 F20110113_AAATOD cabrera_v_Page_142.QC.jpg
a84fffc65403430c655aa730d2d04f5e
448ed009b5ce56228d9662a4527b12fc6f2450f9
F20110113_AAAUYI cabrera_v_Page_187.tif
bfa85afffb56b1f8f1692764335bb259
b537b693a2f70f327587398f58a69b0ea7da4982
51769 F20110113_AAAVCX cabrera_v_Page_059.pro
029a740b32b89e22f2b4ea34f795eef2
dc5eccad46e6096402508260f7aec67177d384e3
22842 F20110113_AAAVVC cabrera_v_Page_066thm.jpg
97598488bfaeab007e3f2341fb9aa073
4c4c9af00c04d1d561ec9d46cf1634496cc52dfd
187084 F20110113_AAATOE cabrera_v_Page_232.jpg
ef479911e0083e61e60a44b43c25be00
bd18ba89e850544a60995c2b235f784d7224af4b
F20110113_AAAUYJ cabrera_v_Page_188.tif
2f36aaf8275ece619c31605f6f0949e6
c92dbb354a35845ea5e454b632d82c1a5cf73363
46852 F20110113_AAAVCY cabrera_v_Page_060.pro
4daed8add1c6a36bd0c5a41374329023
4695b97d42d28a47c53cc3907ffee9e025a681e6
72586 F20110113_AAAVVD cabrera_v_Page_066.QC.jpg
791cfb0d776da884d56ec4b62954e29b
a5ea370cac9f6da1bed77cb91f0a4b16e0785ec6
95412 F20110113_AAATOF cabrera_v_Page_199.QC.jpg
26687f260346754c36d0bec2d7caccfd
2f6b8b6f24c7928eec1272564c99b55fbd3ff333
F20110113_AAAUYK cabrera_v_Page_191.tif
e8c846e07575dd548922cb882950cb90
f2b45829c3356366bf48ecc6eab264dd9f1cea38
49148 F20110113_AAAVCZ cabrera_v_Page_062.pro
9fc4411d3337cc9004cb078346f0b9e5
0f1c1bc4dbf9cc1305e61af228ac303f31f7ca08
80037 F20110113_AAAVVE cabrera_v_Page_069.QC.jpg
a90ab5c9d268beb8808b8275a5026598
bf423b9c8f4f16454492746be1c6c9f96dc70e64
20590 F20110113_AAATOG cabrera_v_Page_218thm.jpg
30f1a8b3dbb263fb21425cd8a3d92410
4f771da1f25769932ea7afee5250f58a770d57b8
F20110113_AAAUYL cabrera_v_Page_194.tif
201c5c38d461240ee045472abf6bbe89
902a51df5e7fa6912762154850b357b1b9b1c0f5
104970 F20110113_AAAVVF cabrera_v_Page_070.QC.jpg
0cc9044380360a7b62afbfc0a98e584f
c866d59acf9f78504b978fd767fe5d328aa9068a
1933 F20110113_AAATOH cabrera_v_Page_149.txt
5f65dff4e8b4bcb79663b009b9d5561b
9ea61b3370f51f8410a628573e4a0eeee947cc63
273455 F20110113_AAAULA cabrera_v_Page_296.jpg
7cf62e91d7a61cf4765d6748ddb900f7
6a2c77bb12881adf4e7712b5d8febad1f8babe6b
23769 F20110113_AAAVVG cabrera_v_Page_071thm.jpg
355db85648ff551f37b4c9cd40cad784
4139708d219f91be504703c285fcd47099b88a26
23684 F20110113_AAATOI cabrera_v_Page_053thm.jpg
c60ad9cc16d653a0e7032844b67147ed
81c30632627098c44b4148005d1ced570bb147d5
273433 F20110113_AAAULB cabrera_v_Page_297.jpg
152809602374b39cbc86c772e987dab1
9201291aa17008047ca055fd8ab7d51ec51d014b
F20110113_AAAUYM cabrera_v_Page_195.tif
6383fc985551e49810437a5f49c9ea17
56ce758f54690cfd3173e52f3a471fa2aafde8a8
78329 F20110113_AAAVVH cabrera_v_Page_071.QC.jpg
b66df5f6491b45ffe082a4395c7b0cf9
826a7746ae08a6c1b352cc6355e1bbaa52552f6a
25348 F20110113_AAATOJ cabrera_v_Page_101thm.jpg
04558a9e3019211d84fb1c55ea105675
281f0aff3dd6cf5f1d7a658c0a339f941ae9646a
265097 F20110113_AAAULC cabrera_v_Page_298.jpg
f75b21d90399eb4b9429c31962ad2414
2fa37d5cf97124a147c84e27b2d722be65d6521d
F20110113_AAAUYN cabrera_v_Page_198.tif
7aa910ec16c6c9b0b7f5a64c21e0bd21
87acc716ec6782fbbc9fb95c16a53b1294fc27f9
29947 F20110113_AAATOK cabrera_v_Page_258.pro
e82699eb2a20cd7a2fc100778ab1e6b7
13cbb6b3172a991a8772deb3739563dd339f9d2f
298789 F20110113_AAAULD cabrera_v_Page_299.jpg
43dc15b3bbffcc5bae0a0353f5297d72
84e5c3c2161a86c154c0bc8c79884faa565e1a5e
F20110113_AAAUYO cabrera_v_Page_200.tif
226adb93cc4226e983e62616581b94ed
170740325c161615a6d928750b80428c98f6d166
68662 F20110113_AAAVVI cabrera_v_Page_072.QC.jpg
8a6bcf14c287e792db06219d14aa790d
23b12dc5da9c1797c1f87ed2e4e4be021fca2225
1005629 F20110113_AAATOL cabrera_v_Page_036.jp2
2707504cbf38559aa9a878ec2d3c712c
260959dfd2bb28cc9be69ca26940d3d416802316
304897 F20110113_AAAULE cabrera_v_Page_301.jpg
cfe1b5b4b99f407a0bb91ec8ebbb9cb5
77c0376b45cb84fc990d8cb2c80232baf95b44e8
F20110113_AAAUYP cabrera_v_Page_201.tif
d98de13de6dafcf9ef0c80d7ba34bac7
dae25a70dc93b3d43ae13b4ff2ea10b6819c3d33
107508 F20110113_AAAVVJ cabrera_v_Page_073.QC.jpg
dd16037e55d1fb721b8b26f1f4827561
41829e369b212236c0a57d1ae7b1371f992afca9
198518 F20110113_AAATOM cabrera_v_Page_204.jpg
05dfd054212a6028e7f2608078d94139
2c7704b3d34ef71d4e10964b48948c53cc82847c
293421 F20110113_AAAULF cabrera_v_Page_302.jpg
f52ff9a182066ea3926bd8a0721fdc19
da6f2c205371f6abc1437763905d31763ad56e69
F20110113_AAAUYQ cabrera_v_Page_204.tif
682e498ace11c106ffeaaa8c658aa7c0
dca078627c171edc3e188beeca86bd6ea2cf6a49
50443 F20110113_AAAVVK cabrera_v_Page_074thm.jpg
d04b6b1b87ebccf4599b67ec3708ea41
20a614950f67a2045cc64e3f5939b11b425327c8
2046 F20110113_AAATON cabrera_v_Page_102.txt
b1b9d0677ae4e16255e41ba18e09b5d7
506c5ed7c6676b06bfc540e547c9ea70390f6592
302144 F20110113_AAAULG cabrera_v_Page_303.jpg
f3c63fd3794dcd9d22e5a712340ebad4
558fbc90b02d1dd69628a7f3754a15796cad4860
F20110113_AAAUYR cabrera_v_Page_205.tif
5fad131cfb48f0c2f233ce825027bffe
d1c5840862fd60652b560d09db6d395471302b88
105592 F20110113_AAAVVL cabrera_v_Page_074.QC.jpg
bca97987d66956f91428ce9513fa978d
44109af30411ba7979563794ba51699458bbb44b
21680 F20110113_AAATOO cabrera_v_Page_212thm.jpg
6265c720238e137c1544ac54d173bd9d
0c123530d5d3af987950a77167313f8e58170843
29616 F20110113_AAAULH cabrera_v_Page_001.jp2
1642357fd875454f8b82126e34c26537
d082da550017cfbea65a0ed46416f14d2a0329a8
45957 F20110113_AAAVIA cabrera_v_Page_241.pro
c38bfcb73241ca4ff764e138a7d72e8e
1c2c200a4d6c1419bd55dd8cbe3f1a888fb68b2e
F20110113_AAAUYS cabrera_v_Page_206.tif
0abf1e384b0eda947895887fb068c281
fd8a5f9d4bafbba28f79d3a08712681288a32802
23384 F20110113_AAAVVM cabrera_v_Page_075thm.jpg
5013d8a6ced567d3d7552c606fa8a676
d598cf2bc06931aec353096eecd78f5cb5275d73
2007 F20110113_AAATOP cabrera_v_Page_181.txt
67a6c200acdc96d61fa3e553b7e4a35f
66aa363eb3ece3fa223bffb6ecc75b1a0516439c
5621 F20110113_AAAULI cabrera_v_Page_002.jp2
607003d7ba4cd4613cc99fed40982c65
b97238c50abecb1089fad66e41404b244e0f769d
35272 F20110113_AAAVIB cabrera_v_Page_243.pro
57d0706bdd9b6d7c31710540adc841a5
922f2257e810f7c0e24b5b5eed390d43ae404761
F20110113_AAAUYT cabrera_v_Page_207.tif
b960f36d1003c3ee133a5514b97e8f9e
2ecd8b4fb76b431c40b73b1c1422971db2a05410
98971 F20110113_AAAVVN cabrera_v_Page_076.QC.jpg
4e948905a92781a228364a217c768709
1e314294da2becee38f8ea413ee4f5a98467197b
196446 F20110113_AAATOQ cabrera_v_Page_208.jpg
bac282ac698da3f13397d5fc8aa6ffe4
ba4fe1c11513f500e0fb90d24c298250e066b915
4717 F20110113_AAAULJ cabrera_v_Page_003.jp2
4962ad754b2d50245a721b7fed132e52
b6aa6dc7086f40325d89dc27dca0b4b36fb9b203
36456 F20110113_AAAVIC cabrera_v_Page_244.pro
4f9e4e7025e67dca3994832504fe5e25
74a967fc10da49ff7bcc556f98b8bdc62214cac7
F20110113_AAAUYU cabrera_v_Page_209.tif
65499382a46534242580589af717dc40
750580930ac759c2a8f4ec96f4acfc9363e0ff1f
50497 F20110113_AAAVVO cabrera_v_Page_077thm.jpg
a2edcd12581c569cd8de66b42dbea34c
27ca35634a14d2c43458a708037fec86aac2d97a
F20110113_AAATOR cabrera_v_Page_300.tif
4061a1c1ea88bb9685c5ccc124381a28
4bd246e3fd5511c2edf13483d56ad873926ea239
1003651 F20110113_AAAULK cabrera_v_Page_004.jp2
5455006e4d2f2cfdd27309697d098f38
803132cf16efd965d67ef11416b9bec07d60aa6a
45643 F20110113_AAAVID cabrera_v_Page_245.pro
477dabd9d8a7734806e46dc7b705aa06
c378599d4945553d36fdd3b1163643648017b638
F20110113_AAAUYV cabrera_v_Page_211.tif
08f362ed63adb9d71f8cf55ef745aa30
72fa083b5d59877b271247e64be7ceb56955bce0
78400 F20110113_AAAVVP cabrera_v_Page_078.QC.jpg
4c02d12cad65183811efab2f582d94a4
8ff84de7eec9a361c53ec1d1f5f7e26f8465ae7b
37152 F20110113_AAATOS cabrera_v_Page_305thm.jpg
6ce9ae2168f261f25e2f16722ee5c9bb
fa7f455310f07a29874ab7a5aae602b334b34738
103934 F20110113_AAAULL cabrera_v_Page_005.jp2
bbf2df373c11bc7ca87c10176e175356
5ec591cfdd579588dacd5a1d89992ad305349ea1
43524 F20110113_AAAVIE cabrera_v_Page_246.pro
799c501d467efc0fd5b71bfa78b24b16
ffe1d0e89dfa094c795f84b43f641d25cd522759
F20110113_AAAUYW cabrera_v_Page_212.tif
98febb2f8ee48899418750180f6449e9
6292bdd8565654347b199b210fb2ebcbbc870fbe
46378 F20110113_AAAVVQ cabrera_v_Page_080thm.jpg
1441750b5b476124f7520952a257de5c
550e6c00db08acabf74d3ca0edf978a0c1710b78
201026 F20110113_AAATOT cabrera_v_Page_086.jpg
0e9217c1a918c2e650c82bfeb1675406
b40d2fc69363b291039127203adedbf443866247
91958 F20110113_AAAULM cabrera_v_Page_006.jp2
7ee8e8dc37834eb8ea29584864ec2b73
37ac7f058a414c1e8e51f93fe1dc2101361bd6ab
27409 F20110113_AAAVIF cabrera_v_Page_247.pro
a32b747c04c2ebbd504958685f95f5d9
25893ad67cd933ba781edb4b324155e58cc49a23
F20110113_AAAUYX cabrera_v_Page_214.tif
9b850804ea6c8d9b5027e765762a0674
c4289a00a3c59a2e4cd22e2ed2881abbed156a23
24968 F20110113_AAAVVR cabrera_v_Page_081thm.jpg
bd1759c619ea15f2e41e880926002228
4be43ca375010f01a94f4c7a31218c0c559be6fa
F20110113_AAATOU cabrera_v_Page_162.tif
fbd5f04db413bf6ff94e584cf1d5aed9
63bb0f18ee523cecd6f1512f5903066711053f3a
1051977 F20110113_AAAULN cabrera_v_Page_007.jp2
55f9e0b1adc54770342b2df0076983e3
3f1e069d75542b3a1906322193a2b28af5491c28
26785 F20110113_AAAVIG cabrera_v_Page_248.pro
d61195b7ef71b65e2d3e000871f02f30
8ac4585250403ba38ec24e0d2ea0fab3c503e718
F20110113_AAAUYY cabrera_v_Page_215.tif
a5edc5132ec52e44dfb60d4571425cae
89f06816b7e9f36d6d3fa168bda663d0c3f35e9a
88337 F20110113_AAAWFA cabrera_v_Page_274.QC.jpg
8e0deb1f94348f49d3b729a12a6d646d
5408d8fbefecd9c72030e8b003c45bc6b853194a
78346 F20110113_AAAVVS cabrera_v_Page_081.QC.jpg
77026dbcfc24ca16fbaa2381dfb7b6ad
11e0614daf90229c0617e77132769fea238afacc
F20110113_AAATOV cabrera_v_Page_051.tif
a6213e531161fed14950fb2e3bfc9c73
bdc3ebf59f7fcea9e728bb127af3a8644b17f81f
F20110113_AAAULO cabrera_v_Page_008.jp2
88697e4238040065c3c290e66f89851b
0aefa747fbba2f9bd55eecc71912807ea939d6b0
44044 F20110113_AAAVIH cabrera_v_Page_249.pro
771a1ca23a1175334988b47f715901d5
3670f24535d045a74f24013d859e40c75df87f78
F20110113_AAAUYZ cabrera_v_Page_216.tif
3d3d0a0543094d8379760b28d6576beb
4deed03389efecaacf94d29f77427659b2a9b55d
22771 F20110113_AAAWFB cabrera_v_Page_275thm.jpg
23147e41f5e050d7979bd73623b57948
d3092319d7e69c37f5a44589fc765ecd5655a3e1
51094 F20110113_AAAVVT cabrera_v_Page_082thm.jpg
5f4850a6c45f1c629e96f491000a10da
55ebbcbc09d96c57e907996162499482d8a89f1a
F20110113_AAATOW cabrera_v_Page_210.tif
a7f9dc1f76cbbcc06eff93e15a6cf7b9
a4474ee3a2eaf85d6fc51c325524f3d996b4db62
1051979 F20110113_AAAULP cabrera_v_Page_009.jp2
96873f8a6a530b26cfee9308d9a41fb7
6e1dbcb129f1391a57b45d8b34ba2a1087eb0e55
48054 F20110113_AAAVII cabrera_v_Page_251.pro
22d055f381fe8065fbc4f3cf20880588
66e06a8b5fe06d6f5bb5776571212af1124751d9
47743 F20110113_AAAWFC cabrera_v_Page_276thm.jpg
98d0eb2be09391d551e3091698ace60e
579f15d0232280fa9292e6b56f5037bed4fdfb68
25062 F20110113_AAAVVU cabrera_v_Page_083thm.jpg
bfbba4f5de2ffcbc30665287b00f5f7a
2a5e7da1e0d50edb69a15e293b6e85a2ea4ef28d
77739 F20110113_AAATOX cabrera_v_Page_247.QC.jpg
641075b3294a877fb27fed1e2a51ea21
c2d2bb4348520591f6a1d765a19fde2b0fb0227a
1051940 F20110113_AAAULQ cabrera_v_Page_010.jp2
6b6bab686ebe601d11a051829aa8d387
66fb50ee2224f53b6d3cc91d6269e6b93ce5759d
40239 F20110113_AAAVIJ cabrera_v_Page_253.pro
b1d011fad41be60de5a7a57147835759
29802c1148f2df45bb7b2593f65cdf89af60d026
93270 F20110113_AAAWFD cabrera_v_Page_276.QC.jpg
2b1ae5489c441966c15e9c9c62a30f17
ec7ad774679bfb1f47ae2398bac518cc9a3202a9
25580 F20110113_AAAVVV cabrera_v_Page_084thm.jpg
b801bc46282a4b63e7583f55ae4351fd
ff0f7c0aa34ec76dcdee0641416d3ccabbb6a496
982531 F20110113_AAATOY cabrera_v_Page_226.jp2
21355d93499f8c4c4bc4fd08fd592c47
2f7f63b933a27453c9c6f23cde3c4c8eb8cdb8eb
1051962 F20110113_AAAULR cabrera_v_Page_011.jp2
f578da951f7b080bfa8dd4c973796cba
723c5d4d7691df58845bccda57ccbed841c3c7ab
46170 F20110113_AAAVIK cabrera_v_Page_255.pro
488acbd63933336ad5f25c74d4210853
af064c4abb4fb4749ddfc4e6a5fcfa81d541b4cd
95296 F20110113_AAAWFE cabrera_v_Page_277.QC.jpg
b234debfe3ad945a5965df43c218de6a
aef7243aeb223cbf56597ae58d1655b794b46f37
77866 F20110113_AAAVVW cabrera_v_Page_084.QC.jpg
d5fb7a82e8297793a6eb9a54cb29a0e7
6df73f4ac0546dc8d9d121466aa915b969362cac
967980 F20110113_AAATOZ cabrera_v_Page_095.jp2
69fd98fecfbca381de222b186702987f
0f1132cdaac850d86f842af55606d5188fea36d9
F20110113_AAAULS cabrera_v_Page_012.jp2
a1d3f6d5905b46780ffe9f2fcd881c12
144a1570c5886d87513d319b2842e1e795b97774
51658 F20110113_AAAVIL cabrera_v_Page_256.pro
2061996d08294e174de893574f72932f
1f8bb3e257b0710177260c41da059fa9b1b7c25e
25308 F20110113_AAAWFF cabrera_v_Page_278thm.jpg
dcde220c66b86e7a9816886f9970b2e6
9a3933da248d9dd9b90139c9616e733b4c95da76
46747 F20110113_AAAVVX cabrera_v_Page_085thm.jpg
6c8a8d814387a0ab0554f97e3d20ab64
08b511141da191a7258af4194eac19bb4ce48d24
1051980 F20110113_AAAULT cabrera_v_Page_013.jp2
571f0eee19c1f7f3e22834eefeaa113c
a27381a5004137bb33bcc2270cc6a5f3b1b58b63
48552 F20110113_AAAVIM cabrera_v_Page_259.pro
886f46d2ab7cbdce0d8199748b26cdc1
b60fce6d8079b703b9a356fb27c8411f299f0e8d
78027 F20110113_AAAWFG cabrera_v_Page_278.QC.jpg
a72637943085646ae66ebcc2f40f795b
d24c11980d6394d42e1bf0f788f36ea159b47e09
89555 F20110113_AAAVVY cabrera_v_Page_085.QC.jpg
bf003d44a6d85570c0a770306b3602ce
b0d7c0afdd09046a3ccbc49a5896dad519903545
1051972 F20110113_AAAULU cabrera_v_Page_014.jp2
bc4dbe6c269a464085dc8a779658f7d0
63af79a765f2e9959580eccdd3d6de24c4301c1a
49768 F20110113_AAAVIN cabrera_v_Page_260.pro
3f9759b5861f1d48134b0104dce7fb67
9ced71bfdb367bdc0f3998c16e03d30e4e938df5
95513 F20110113_AAAWFH cabrera_v_Page_279.QC.jpg
12e43ce78b044c1d3a6d9e5e177017c5
392299c1735c1aec98e9c13f2d1aa5f19a0b986a
74129 F20110113_AAAVVZ cabrera_v_Page_086.QC.jpg
dfe08ae89d4f57025a18fccfdad2996f
9e075189db219e60c156358db4a1d41565201d27
F20110113_AAAULV cabrera_v_Page_015.jp2
bdafb7fb8808c63e13ab50e5dddc8f2c
093bf7bbb84dce21f5eb3b04229172203132c639
29402 F20110113_AAAVIO cabrera_v_Page_261.pro
8eb9d1532b36c0ca0c8624d06f2b2a0d
a0ea1110ae7f2e17abad7411830cf1f277c8ea92
23631 F20110113_AAAWFI cabrera_v_Page_280thm.jpg
4cd3e5387daf188ecb93ce1b0e5f5845
74bef1a86401b6d9d9e6576049e12df000fce891
1051955 F20110113_AAAULW cabrera_v_Page_016.jp2
d9e8df2a070159913fffc320dee036f3
59da496df9dbbedc70e5223d0d2bb2e92ba1a2c0
46816 F20110113_AAAVIP cabrera_v_Page_264.pro
c69b1209c4bbbb0d3471cd70a1a41013
81b5cc7b937ccc330b0923d7d9a648df2086afe6
73853 F20110113_AAAWFJ cabrera_v_Page_280.QC.jpg
aec8fc4e546f73e19384c7e4b3c1d442
ed13acb70bba1d8edb63d277214e165e78c4dafa
F20110113_AAAULX cabrera_v_Page_017.jp2
e0e20f0cb64db92be616b225748b96c7
4486bb56bae5565e59247d756b88e9309b01be4a
24927 F20110113_AAAVIQ cabrera_v_Page_265.pro
bc7861c544248e5da47cd7f19ccb201d
f5c0dda96646aabd69df3dddb1fbf8f9d292dd49
12537 F20110113_AAAWFK cabrera_v_Page_281thm.jpg
b07a6300a811a1090b46dea1ece88ed5
bc1ed242d1867c2ac3c4228d013f3222256e2229
1051957 F20110113_AAAULY cabrera_v_Page_018.jp2
4a746e50902781f01f9e5fb3e3c8fd4b
21cb1fa08a45aaef23a8f405bb4231b335c47f81
36591 F20110113_AAAVIR cabrera_v_Page_267.pro
1e2cc8254821e298b307b7cff003bc90
2bb009f58a224426e75f5f492c28dd1c0397aac3
35523 F20110113_AAAWFL cabrera_v_Page_281.QC.jpg
4bf5b62e8089ba2d50931d18065d1c66
5c0299532dfbcb7b380f2e12d83430d230788ffb
60649 F20110113_AAAULZ cabrera_v_Page_020.jp2
97753192a4f4468be592c67b3dc34dc0
637d2c30b9f35260f64cfc5e01e488ae9475f2b5
49572 F20110113_AAAVIS cabrera_v_Page_268.pro
f6aa682741adf401c87aca525b83d3e0
3fc178ecc1001133cb3ad7747927cf37af781349
77060 F20110113_AAAWFM cabrera_v_Page_283.QC.jpg
d34b55cdc74cccbb27bcf0f0ec7acfef
a8c063e635b576be30d9ef11bc4d3f2e29bc2cc1
37043 F20110113_AAAVIT cabrera_v_Page_269.pro
8dc4c6e40df38cc6869a7fc50d38a075
8bc66da6c3f133556f4ccf6d2f404c0294432f07
25310 F20110113_AAAWFN cabrera_v_Page_285thm.jpg
535f94d95d5d81a013abd057cdf43a06
34695bb79e5c06aff3f857b8f9b9df7868a4919a
40637 F20110113_AAAVIU cabrera_v_Page_270.pro
384db125c8aec1448e407a09759f1a0e
73e09c34975d004b0837d0a26026f0edc2806f12
50433 F20110113_AAATUA cabrera_v_Page_131.pro
d9d6e8d7f4d023bf1a819345b6eae28f
8996346843ce5213b7962209dffad4a0b3cfd90c
80381 F20110113_AAAWFO cabrera_v_Page_285.QC.jpg
1e6867674360528681e3a057faf1bcbe
7b2ff053a010b28249d58b53af7ce5d43912f921
39437 F20110113_AAAVIV cabrera_v_Page_271.pro
11a4d096c38845a8d622416d57479ee6
bc63c52e723a4597e9945cda1c54e6f47017bd9c
47686 F20110113_AAATUB cabrera_v_Page_005.pro
014efb56b664d8487acf0023ce8f14cd
9820c54328b1399d323273870dfe81187cb802e2
22079 F20110113_AAAWFP cabrera_v_Page_286thm.jpg
799b4452985cb9ec907dca8f4aa234c4
03686792c99cb597e884daa5469b0b3d7a328996
47259 F20110113_AAAVIW cabrera_v_Page_272.pro
12ab092330e29025f4529d180603e9a3
e00a88d890090e538467e4a6626172ab132ca985
F20110113_AAATUC cabrera_v_Page_090.tif
1aa29797445de0c1708b7e5d42952264
c6bb2d80c652345ec9a9e62783c41770d997d563
71607 F20110113_AAAWFQ cabrera_v_Page_286.QC.jpg
0b2816be52ed8c32becd49a18d37a42a
dc23b138909e323fd0a62e43963f43e512172207
40057 F20110113_AAAVIX cabrera_v_Page_274.pro
23090607ae3799335c8c25b37c0bb1a4
bdfe8cb7e4348ec800b72002b0728442c3bb1cf1
F20110113_AAATUD cabrera_v_Page_008.tif
6fff45b139e47ba030b532177c2f7f89
f01de7df58b0c78bb55dd372e6061bc93b7155a4
22890 F20110113_AAAWFR cabrera_v_Page_287thm.jpg
d8c4b9d19514b30522d9ee70ad02f91f
812766fd19d35bcd3d48160f7bfb7ffd9b298131
31085 F20110113_AAAVIY cabrera_v_Page_277.pro
d74605f35a7ebb69a99f3b976e97fcae
1db3f8bd54e7a51cf354cc6f409d0cd203d539d9
61012 F20110113_AAATUE cabrera_v_Page_248.jp2
d0a54d24446fb960a109c0870a96ba4c
d8061637801bb2f5658f286649a2d3fd7f5c604b
74007 F20110113_AAAWFS cabrera_v_Page_288.QC.jpg
e2e5f5ccc590d309a47c7e2570bdd2bd
5c773964cab0c202b855b20df571b4f972c86aa9
50750 F20110113_AAAVIZ cabrera_v_Page_278.pro
75dcf573f2f1d58cb87613eb89f3975c
9fb73ec8d1be1d317a73c4e5f06e11c91279bd1f
50630 F20110113_AAATUF cabrera_v_Page_067.pro
f37da1beb1ff650c2fc582b635f49dab
e00dd5f9bb9812b4e16d37144078a37cf553fb6b
76454 F20110113_AAAWFT cabrera_v_Page_290.QC.jpg
70a88ad52e0061fdd0cf6186dfdc8373
d1ed12baeda016f8015299dad6baa75e14bcaf16
2026 F20110113_AAATUG cabrera_v_Page_152.txt
2c3da441696e7ba3fe045dbb7e18d433
5e7bf302ef387a05e781fe2cf8afa17bdd6ef039
24245 F20110113_AAAWFU cabrera_v_Page_293thm.jpg
f0bc8308257ff7eaf649352cf33b85d0
0ab04880134dff52da96d78859da33111ba7731e
84908 F20110113_AAAURA cabrera_v_Page_218.jp2
2c70c3b11b27a5edff90f4e43be09fa3
b115527b72b0dbad327500538866f8a8dbd922d9
206476 F20110113_AAATUH cabrera_v_Page_279.jpg
cfd3ba647c50f10245b549fe4efd6e7a
14cef855f53b555a0842265d847fa4f30a6b8278
25859 F20110113_AAAWFV cabrera_v_Page_294thm.jpg
6a57078725a2c52b77572bb1d0b65242
e1a120ffb7330b531146969d974042b48d51e269
81315 F20110113_AAAURB cabrera_v_Page_219.jp2
440e0c7818a28bf6d9671f124a61ff93
0d8115ff333c409cf1205d14752de495c973eabc
78740 F20110113_AAATUI cabrera_v_Page_164.QC.jpg
50c711e786384f27f15be0ba11e33781
adf5a2bb173f95d4e9bc278a85897228148f1868
86687 F20110113_AAAWFW cabrera_v_Page_294.QC.jpg
9aa9182df3337698da3cdc3d41587db1
b13c89ba2567be5b73016f238d4eb836508e6df5
84053 F20110113_AAAURC cabrera_v_Page_220.jp2
1d961d3f256efd0544205ecbe5f1297b
045d19d54dd925f7cefaeb9a4167f1495d8a6ffc
102304 F20110113_AAAURD cabrera_v_Page_221.jp2
e1ec2b1e428eb52ddcd598c8974fce84
743d626f629736afe00f57db8a7e4951574e20b2
204294 F20110113_AAATUJ cabrera_v_Page_125.jpg
5db7c6d1a18a874a64b5f4a03f2bfd62
93e63c4bee28897467cd3cf95ab93894f3db9876
114603 F20110113_AAAWFX cabrera_v_Page_295.QC.jpg
059bf7e19256129f045c496ea043544e
7020953ecbae81b747c6076fc7e63f39025174b7
935947 F20110113_AAAURE cabrera_v_Page_222.jp2
e280c32ed44dea089db0cfc180531e8c
f79d023e89d360a719faaedc1a47e363bc9557ea
1051920 F20110113_AAATUK cabrera_v_Page_062.jp2
6db1f8ebfa611c4ecb6eb3d6786a5233
6ab84cdadccc869cd6c61ffffcb88328b1b3903b
88367 F20110113_AAAWFY cabrera_v_Page_296.QC.jpg
6a66e17ad83693605a5893f2bc58d9aa
9ddcd971abc4bb3412734c541f8c84795e4cf0f3
F20110113_AAATHA cabrera_v_Page_034.tif
c10f0df49d2ece3bf9adf80219c23555
ad280310dbdfb8d45cb347cae1cfaec5fa0f560f
1051970 F20110113_AAATUL cabrera_v_Page_231.jp2
9483c18f0220bdf97b4b1e501d2ad1db
264e953862945c61b5663ae34f5567049f48b1d2
25652 F20110113_AAAWFZ cabrera_v_Page_297thm.jpg
9faf5e8d7da7821602754d6ff6444b59
e12723f75da46464f7d68c89293600fbe6c5cc67
744934 F20110113_AAAURF cabrera_v_Page_223.jp2
163a6c7bd323cd60e6dbe005d47aeba1
8bec2aba691a50ccab12236cf5fd4ef6fb7ef8e1
217911 F20110113_AAATHB cabrera_v_Page_135.jpg
eae787187f05288456591f490971871f
5bb214cf4da082308b7366ea8b1a913ccaed29d5
44684 F20110113_AAATUM cabrera_v_Page_173thm.jpg
e1d97f255b4a979464c37e98d2e29e07
e7ce186d4cfa86d60e69044ef520f44e38b10b45
822973 F20110113_AAAURG cabrera_v_Page_224.jp2
81a53882a5904ee7043b48f12ed6c0b8
c9286bea533d0e63844499a972fdaf341c3de504
1905 F20110113_AAAVOA cabrera_v_Page_151.txt
2b099c494cfb7833cc17d11f8cd6c4e3
ed0b066c98909d2bac406275687615439460ca2e
2012 F20110113_AAATHC cabrera_v_Page_135.txt
d5f0218b6e65ea80b55843f638372ddc
9dee96fc92b539a533578e3f87fd53988107bd87
F20110113_AAATUN cabrera_v_Page_182.tif
d44d6548aa95db9bfffa088ea66d7904
e3eb458e1dbeec71d5294aa00dd77a882268a6b7
79495 F20110113_AAAURH cabrera_v_Page_225.jp2
f5a5ec794979dba639455ec54e1e57e6
f0ba03361c76aaf128667fdfab45a91de537109f
1051978 F20110113_AAATHD cabrera_v_Page_277.jp2
58fb23c7ec867dd7402281eabb491a84
c4a1663da09a05fc3b13f968a418efec3c520d9a
82615 F20110113_AAATUO cabrera_v_Page_100.QC.jpg
1a493bd06589477eeb0365d777d16ac8
f798621ccc4b73e8b4d6b812be3c380fcbb2bd83
795575 F20110113_AAAURI cabrera_v_Page_227.jp2
2dc871730bdc7cdaeeb229079f769e37
6f5f5887a62ba37e925c168c25fcf4dab7fb21a3
665 F20110113_AAAVOB cabrera_v_Page_153.txt
46ab1a6780a7c1483267d0445b62a3b7
ec91d14ed25406ffcd017d77d7b73afd08fcb957
1879 F20110113_AAATHE cabrera_v_Page_043.txt
56e53cbf09872335fbc56cb3acf9351c
1a386e02ea81f5a147c2fffda8f04541a0da186c
F20110113_AAATUP cabrera_v_Page_016.tif
78a8826cd212e4c84d85be4dc18b9fd5
232e2f754dd8c4c23ba5a8e01748e03b19bacfda
100330 F20110113_AAAURJ cabrera_v_Page_228.jp2
78ec806d3306eb6dae1e15044d5005ad
50fb39f5de5ce87aa18c05d0e8e382d5786f0d7e
1946 F20110113_AAAVOC cabrera_v_Page_155.txt
0d0d56a922ce8d2154bf6547050626b6
8086f3d5ba24fb53e541d82f27beb5a62bb0204b
22738 F20110113_AAATHF cabrera_v_Page_001.QC.jpg
f7d543e51a0b4bf6e17de538fac24e75
a1a18b80cf7ace2c8133c7eeedf7c49d96c3a69a
877619 F20110113_AAATUQ cabrera_v_Page_213.jp2
7423b47adf33fe4b30ec2e5e1ee69a39
39649f3a7bee5a4eade452659df4de8a2a81a536
1051965 F20110113_AAAURK cabrera_v_Page_229.jp2
6fc53a761c1e5cdbf0bbcb38ff6d14de
1b871571f1dfd58d06895d41be458282cb8e8d1d
1952 F20110113_AAAVOD cabrera_v_Page_157.txt
facc3af541711f4815e6a0b8044f63dd
279aa14a0c52e8807f5e239bec5cd76235c241e7
121652 F20110113_AAATHG cabrera_v_Page_305.jpg
e5f9eae1bb6010b4582484846d953e66
84a30dfb3f1af3875fe5a2513044bb2039027174
1861 F20110113_AAATUR cabrera_v_Page_167.txt
bd99ce082c5e9be5f59da388bb173e09
7fdfbf8270c2ae49b8da80ae5332981f6d7a6b31
1051986 F20110113_AAAURL cabrera_v_Page_230.jp2
a272a7c2e7b6afe48ca26ed17008252a
97a6ff92e7ae58f9e0833cd8e3abcd7800093713
368 F20110113_AAAVOE cabrera_v_Page_158.txt
40ec6087599df09faab305da49312777
c03d869ce1dc0a75eff89220362197f8fd03c6ff
88885 F20110113_AAATHH cabrera_v_Page_234.QC.jpg
e37e1dfbed1be865549645845631e4a5
8f051b98ae85ae1adf617e96b6bff7f8314fc586
374536 F20110113_AAAUEA cabrera_v_Page_016.jpg
3c15e61372ccf453e8950829e4066deb
0238cb9434713214c66ed4a5a08dcab630859f1d
1908 F20110113_AAATUS cabrera_v_Page_235.txt
5d6ce98df6ab39625f23babdf945ac2a
9c6ae8f318f14e3eb44ac8d56bc3abc48546e303
95055 F20110113_AAAURM cabrera_v_Page_232.jp2
d0d9b18381b5a62f9ae5792d7dbb6696
8c487649958a23fb7bfd26cfd732270545757f1c
1797 F20110113_AAAVOF cabrera_v_Page_159.txt
cbd882624cea2d95f5632bbf815e80d8
8cafd4cc8d8aebc4257fc5b24a581e9090f53d91
F20110113_AAATHI cabrera_v_Page_258.tif
c4ebf97bdecf412f3523d3ac3b43d04b
1f6a1904a72324f1fa6b70b61386a7c9e6cca7c4
332756 F20110113_AAAUEB cabrera_v_Page_017.jpg
1d9a24e131423f6ef61037afffcdeafd
067dfa1f38d463f5a27a96529c09291ce9f34bcd
327826 F20110113_AAATUT cabrera_v_Page_015.jpg
7eeb90e6d0d9e935f4e9d79f514a2d0e
3a9db38af674ee0f5841fe688f3c9a5cf3c303f2
F20110113_AAAURN cabrera_v_Page_234.jp2
230879fd652f9d394def26c74dbfb4d0
88eba0616e1184d6b78a7604b905a3335a4d42cd
1956 F20110113_AAAVOG cabrera_v_Page_160.txt
7fc6d683c9d3e03fc0850709ec4bab07
a6e7f6c92f6b2bcd995e7d76032d29259ca14fd6
1476 F20110113_AAATHJ cabrera_v_Page_055.txt
d4b30aecb3f7c6f5c361cd46b07569d7
be9850bffd3f87c7dd85eeb62a5feef1b8dcb46a
127297 F20110113_AAAUEC cabrera_v_Page_019.jpg
3c8a3d6e0a4c19cf6c0fbfcd3d2431c0
3798501881bc0ad9447fb693c11087977e8710e5
84836 F20110113_AAATUU cabrera_v_Page_233.QC.jpg
3b90c2da416558d5716f27eb72a6a2d7
80c24468d127108f5e5481c2d610aa6dfe5932f5
F20110113_AAAURO cabrera_v_Page_235.jp2
84b59a4cc0c799332a8fd68f2fe89a70
9e441aa2f089582a8a1399214ecafa1246638c34
965 F20110113_AAAVOH cabrera_v_Page_161.txt
e67bf35fb8ebb91c038309beed5fcb44
23a7681310e8e080850cb6d746f4f6acdb9c14d5
200008 F20110113_AAATHK cabrera_v_Page_114.jpg
384bac34982a9d12add9bf4391f2567c
4de6f19785a6ca4a55494c02c964573464e258c9
123661 F20110113_AAAUED cabrera_v_Page_020.jpg
274905704ef0aa00e56ce6a0970e029b
42803c48b35c6bec19e55aa947c1cf35be4f8a2e
1976 F20110113_AAATUV cabrera_v_Page_272.txt
bc700b614ab15d73460b3d4edd2ae275
10dcd70a126828d2516db953d9bd3177de42723d
1051863 F20110113_AAAURP cabrera_v_Page_236.jp2
f305b6d68fd9439d0ed633d57a1673a9
6f2c07d2c4e009a1aac61b0df6d8809e23ae9aca
1184 F20110113_AAAVOI cabrera_v_Page_162.txt
6ea350fa732e69898986c472ed8155d0
1e413d4f217bcd7723131596dfa9b0c39fe3c595
183210 F20110113_AAATHL cabrera_v_Page_156.jpg
4e9e4293b79f27143add5df75a123055
250caf257151cca40557d22c8bafff0631bc6d86
190598 F20110113_AAAUEE cabrera_v_Page_021.jpg
098846e5d05ce706e1202bc282123c33
ecb033905ce3acec80e97f2eb088fc917e0c7c56
1280 F20110113_AAATUW cabrera_v_Page_265.txt
d22ec1cfa9d4435db17b91bbe5578c04
07200a6c33a85c79ded99f48f6acb72d4286a74f
1051963 F20110113_AAAURQ cabrera_v_Page_237.jp2
da343cd3d3556387a3aecc46bad116e8
20241c0a1c167e49b27eb65895f0e13c7e17984e
1461 F20110113_AAAVOJ cabrera_v_Page_163.txt
7165e846c36925f93478bcac00144c70
e7275c908bc68afb9dd0421f4d780b82d1acd0ef
F20110113_AAATHM cabrera_v_Page_080.tif
85353e397cdad2211be7373c885a28ea
e7562ed567fb54e6001f452c1932367446c68d4e
85636 F20110113_AAAUEF cabrera_v_Page_022.jpg
37e0f15bbf4dda9d67036244cc4cf050
7a786ceb775148db11d2a2b9ffd47788bfc3d485
200363 F20110113_AAATUX cabrera_v_Page_053.jpg
1193d0a1aa2da5e2ab8c24348f359ea7
0db5873caf4f1bfdbba5358432674ab84d347548
948457 F20110113_AAAURR cabrera_v_Page_238.jp2
a96b535ea064aaade3b8a8f09e488caa
dc70c2ff90c56c3b2e9e9c493fe357238da4deb5
F20110113_AAAVOK cabrera_v_Page_165.txt
9b3d8721f72074950a03072e50243408
6c26d597dc22306fde8d7153b5fff671919baa1d
190463 F20110113_AAATHN cabrera_v_Page_089.jpg
542fe1ffa9a5e93bd6f36af71a7abb49
cbf8e6050dc5d14d7ff9671d444ce33bec3b629c
169059 F20110113_AAAUEG cabrera_v_Page_023.jpg
16621899e36ae8e8bb0e06d8a9a4a951
8cd404d94a4ac0fc9bfb68907a1c4c23efa3b88e
F20110113_AAATUY cabrera_v_Page_107.tif
11d462dd0a46b6bf7900feaf67d6a3c8
842531193e2d9905657b029a430d367b686ff105
F20110113_AAAVBA cabrera_v_Page_294.tif
4b7352655216a5b400e65b06f77bc233
805af5e2c980714aa4a51a36836db08884687d53
790252 F20110113_AAAURS cabrera_v_Page_239.jp2
ff9b6a9dbf1efc06305df50317e60e8b
793aa3f078d3a7b94d8c9e82b715138322a0864f
2126 F20110113_AAAVOL cabrera_v_Page_166.txt
9f55f0b4cd45405f8571c53c6b1e0434
7b81c33c7a14090fc7dfaae0d039374e4632ae2e
110340 F20110113_AAATHO cabrera_v_Page_278.jp2
5f39d9466b238cb7eef32e0c0ff9e237
b902abc5f0113abf0b59f412080d77530a57e4d6
209682 F20110113_AAAUEH cabrera_v_Page_024.jpg
cad9c25edb3407dffcea1400d3f35a94
a4de88d2fc40f8e837d6f3ce36ec278c2cf88b94
31441 F20110113_AAATUZ cabrera_v_Page_147thm.jpg
f9f3ae4935717854952336c2f1d6203b
02449b97ac3b857377e415909c244a60dbff578e
F20110113_AAAVBB cabrera_v_Page_296.tif
f92de8d1c6b47baf1b94aaa5c04e2e65
52674075abcdfae3c890fa49df9037d2531298c5
1042575 F20110113_AAAURT cabrera_v_Page_240.jp2
2c39bad2b3cd3368c8671378c9b94c57
c4fd1fca76c730e1042e11063d81e799745beba4
2773 F20110113_AAAVOM cabrera_v_Page_170.txt
2a24f3ec322cf1cfe8808252b6e7a4ef
e14917b8496159f6c2506ef8e5137be2b5ec31e1
34263 F20110113_AAATHP cabrera_v_Page_142.pro
30642a8bfdad4c210d594d266d3ea4c1
7a3879f15ed19c37606c96bccd53a5c58177e106
230474 F20110113_AAAUEI cabrera_v_Page_025.jpg
2e7b32b9d4ea9e907d065313f97342a7
0192196e486f902e95b7f33ed523d88525fefa30
F20110113_AAAVBC cabrera_v_Page_297.tif
2d398b88048770a739a1dd2b6a3f4ff2
0fd528717aa398bf99ab483eadeefdf109958786
99483 F20110113_AAAURU cabrera_v_Page_241.jp2
34da786041a957c4638aa778f688e0ad
f0ad567192cf2714939c18b1fdae277361e29ff3
1206 F20110113_AAAVON cabrera_v_Page_171.txt
6f1c282e8ffe9ed0b9a633511f5643e2
606e303ffbea5d177415f0f98a77e7b9c2784e4d
853736 F20110113_AAATHQ cabrera_v_Page_274.jp2
9fffcab7b23692dc1d9c09af4855cb59
968260a7e2b887922a137f526fd7699510e93fbd
192195 F20110113_AAAUEJ cabrera_v_Page_028.jpg
6fbf663166abfd5676edae7a5067eddc
ebe1a361dde0b3ae2a2722eb8fbf0ab8ee5c0e1f
F20110113_AAAVBD cabrera_v_Page_301.tif
2c8748c4efb9372afcd5fbc4743f7464
ba468c8e0aff72fc94f1ac2ca4e6efbe03b3bfe6
F20110113_AAAURV cabrera_v_Page_242.jp2
570ac6dafb09bc08dd880d02b2c95500
1f8f2e96d07466311637858edbfc5e46a8b57de6
3564 F20110113_AAAVOO cabrera_v_Page_172.txt
86c99d15d1233831016db28b9dc0b647
06dcf0ccdd4339e2e306968f47409c4b0e489b55
149553 F20110113_AAATHR cabrera_v_Page_265.jpg
8171d32883e150796a34cafaec3a2062
6153d4f8ec8c61752b54fedfce250fc2ec54caf6
239834 F20110113_AAAUEK cabrera_v_Page_029.jpg
3727bb321123c3b2f3ceebed6baebd08
03409531ae41d1b169c782b1884fb03d89c8a3b0
F20110113_AAAVBE cabrera_v_Page_303.tif
1399d7c8ccb26d1d6560038df96046b1
6c23d788c7d37a51fe9f0aef3539f573188dd611
671074 F20110113_AAAURW cabrera_v_Page_243.jp2
07efa7f60037fea05115d4ec265cd697
16719ff684609d05fa29fd75336fcaab9d0a696a
1675 F20110113_AAAVOP cabrera_v_Page_173.txt
94ec7b0106d2200c99a8dae849b31229
e977e6895178908aa7f26f1689f51c3ff1f8ca58
F20110113_AAATHS cabrera_v_Page_057.txt
84c0e843ac3908070d439d0426a8a9c7
e9f6c9859fc2f2e1a32a43e8e1bc1f8bd4d16e58
205504 F20110113_AAAUEL cabrera_v_Page_030.jpg
8faf113372e76cb796320c35b49cff1f
e69e04b4572726e5bc345fb1a1b8efa2e070efd2
10225 F20110113_AAAVBF cabrera_v_Page_001.pro
ba6f490989287f2543439ed51322634b
d2e1ba2fd922516eb200ef774885d177bef7f4bf
834037 F20110113_AAAURX cabrera_v_Page_245.jp2
b0bfe314b1da860f8d51e2fa121b2af3
6c63f13762d364ed2dc43aa602a38915c78e8f76
1328 F20110113_AAAVOQ cabrera_v_Page_174.txt
abf3ca1cce3cfdd72a017cd03bd0a456
9488da14d76e3e2f77479fd732a19ae3637554bd
22650 F20110113_AAATHT cabrera_v_Page_099thm.jpg
35c10994c576492ad0d23c5c4c674e28
529b357cc724730dc74aa73e670bf1a865c28103
201229 F20110113_AAAUEM cabrera_v_Page_031.jpg
cdeb17dc14124c96f32abd179771d269
0825fe31078f882bddc497f2b1ab3a153217dce3
1227 F20110113_AAAVBG cabrera_v_Page_002.pro
4a3487ed8308420e9e6c0a21db92059e
8705a6d194cb7047e3b393ec5c65277ef5929da3
850730 F20110113_AAAURY cabrera_v_Page_246.jp2
4625812d531c75a3eab042b0461a0c59
b92d69a20b4c06539514db76dd696ec783d4bb12
1352 F20110113_AAAVOR cabrera_v_Page_176.txt
f71ec9d5d05f709d92899eba1fb1148a
69ebfc6dc95c8248bd792b51dc8bc3106bc5aa12
82526 F20110113_AAATHU cabrera_v_Page_272.QC.jpg
2caf8929c1d9c240c7fdf0fa7cec4133
a1b172bbcaa6425014c25ea8f15214ad4fd40cd7
206461 F20110113_AAAUEN cabrera_v_Page_033.jpg
f87c71614f7844ea475b2ece392b5d9a
e4e82002cef29c02b34b3459e822f65086e5fad8
833 F20110113_AAAVBH cabrera_v_Page_003.pro
8b40e7d8e802956186341402a8905fe3
cf6c71e51a91dff2de9fb12cf4750b610909513a
711276 F20110113_AAAURZ cabrera_v_Page_247.jp2
d19832438d30677cd67261a4047e073e
bad9f019537e2039fce949d7cdbd75e376300334
1735 F20110113_AAAVOS cabrera_v_Page_177.txt
8ef5d7737d04315b3d02ed8a96821d67
aabf878d2cd535ff534a3ced16c2c85e27a1915e
118369 F20110113_AAATHV cabrera_v_Page_013.QC.jpg
1ab240a4180c8c7258250f59137def25
d9e5acbcb08de197cce6d2fcbb759ff574a5124d
211743 F20110113_AAAUEO cabrera_v_Page_034.jpg
d86ee968a665a5d9e1ab579da39bdda8
3918402bfdf7272d2dd5ed398e94c884f22f31d5
44247 F20110113_AAAVBI cabrera_v_Page_004.pro
79df4c00a47cbe290fe0239c1eccc5ed
797b87f0389bf6fc69f5dab050a3dcbc87531e95
1934 F20110113_AAAVOT cabrera_v_Page_178.txt
dd2fdab7637328d08aca2071c17bbf03
f0ffd66fdd605713a315976b0c9606f1a5b3777d
44300 F20110113_AAATHW cabrera_v_Page_216thm.jpg
1480f43e6e8ef88e5e9c863dfa29cd83
0fe81459b2f0b52e17ee227c2af1d90c3daeb22a
207342 F20110113_AAAUEP cabrera_v_Page_036.jpg
d896ffed8750f20fc4ed981c1c0904ed
fb30d24afb1744ba5a728a78c2d1fc2f79ecd95f
41605 F20110113_AAAVBJ cabrera_v_Page_006.pro
ef54df13a1c96706fd4aeecaea732a56
7cfcc463113af4837ff20bf07b3a732931cfbc32
1118 F20110113_AAAVOU cabrera_v_Page_179.txt
b6c2df785490fabb4baea15733494aa2
a710c0275c17e794f2bdd1278032c925d2debdcb
1935 F20110113_AAATHX cabrera_v_Page_040.txt
9d1a7f881c3a5ca307e0a93a1ee4f7ef
7aae76d3902c89cf6ba0e49b6cab18c76152ee25
257782 F20110113_AAAUEQ cabrera_v_Page_039.jpg
1c1b5c860882d864c6faa906201ebdf6
3957eaf8e78e908b78d7bccd6e20cef8d2aab16c
60858 F20110113_AAAVBK cabrera_v_Page_007.pro
29f9619367126eb6b99f64135b27855b
3042ba1d43e6541426cd5de7cff8960547bcbd52
2032 F20110113_AAAVOV cabrera_v_Page_180.txt
71a03bfe4bff992ce8b05d0104dac887
c4925831589c1748797c9a8939e7e0a355cd101b
99824 F20110113_AAATHY cabrera_v_Page_087.jp2
e64a14bec690b1a93d2a12c00f7c6fb9
fbf6db9af5f6e86b8ffb5455b9b5ac2260d77351
207621 F20110113_AAAUER cabrera_v_Page_040.jpg
4aa149edbc7b6597763f812cc675658f
eca27c525f9e854f7518c973abcd6df083844e82
101215 F20110113_AAAVBL cabrera_v_Page_009.pro
b173a0f62aa12931f3eeb35b62ca40c0
b6e6db54e064325eb32c971e8a20a16d7e88d11e
1627 F20110113_AAAVOW cabrera_v_Page_184.txt
06ee58e26ffcb44aeaf2569c1bf280b5
653e7a1bbe1950f5d755a3db1aad8be49169a032
1295 F20110113_AAATHZ cabrera_v_Page_185.txt
5a7c12a341e508ddf84d52ddbfe9f704
4539c8e0dadb44eacd6b0cf003ab98979adcdae6
201155 F20110113_AAAUES cabrera_v_Page_043.jpg
6893212bc337f25aa5734d490652fcfe
755ab1126cf064e4c43ed7764133b6778dca8272
94930 F20110113_AAAVBM cabrera_v_Page_011.pro
843fc503598d2cc16539ef9cb54ebf3c
90d4a4bfd4aa31fe10c5cd5a7eec0ff771968c01
2072 F20110113_AAAVOX cabrera_v_Page_186.txt
535228f70260c086222f848cad4be884
e1bfc0674a4703e21c15ebc80e515a688a976965
195082 F20110113_AAAUET cabrera_v_Page_047.jpg
be6c249e149f19314ceca848486b85c0
6ef88083ae7c54e46e610c7ca22d634bf8037830
63265 F20110113_AAAVBN cabrera_v_Page_012.pro
5ef834fe15bdf79223e5267e1bc1a23b
d3236e9da46439c399da793ebafa342b3fbb4e3c
1381 F20110113_AAAVOY cabrera_v_Page_187.txt
67d83282df90e894cf973e4c334fba88
e0bb87f13fce7bec4bae512ed9f102f25e5512e2
205160 F20110113_AAAUEU cabrera_v_Page_048.jpg
4141a971add98b27461d889cccb48f7d
e2636452037c1ac015e0adcd61cd68ebf26dbbb4
70410 F20110113_AAAVBO cabrera_v_Page_013.pro
7fce51790bc61086514615227e38cc98
c52fe1263677280da75adce6872a9ac6179aadce
1577 F20110113_AAAVOZ cabrera_v_Page_189.txt
06b9b9a95045194411806ad48474ba68
9e12cebba0063edc3af4b7817c4b690a79c3f01c
174767 F20110113_AAAUEV cabrera_v_Page_049.jpg
ba3f8b59ae79b9019fab14dd1b58c01a
1f730ce3643531afef2b470d646aefedd3544f67
58232 F20110113_AAAVBP cabrera_v_Page_014.pro
ad8ec1bbecd185f81b6ffeac217b8ef7
b6230d4839a1a8ddab14d736da334f2eef309fa4
194286 F20110113_AAAUEW cabrera_v_Page_051.jpg
d84c57d71336652accbe7f3245422596
ccf3d68ba52af7c8229c22ab5f1e0aeec089af8b
199210 F20110113_AAAUEX cabrera_v_Page_052.jpg
bc59409ebb05bb068fbaac684410e490
b0f662ec53ff2887395d84f615249d01a696b833
F20110113_AAAUXA cabrera_v_Page_138.tif
c7002fa2d9ce765a0b614d6c9600557c
a8507dd6ed29fa46da22771e36ff3b145030e34c
70948 F20110113_AAAVBQ cabrera_v_Page_015.pro
ea6c09ac3162fa0b6605a5c47c193bc2
13d64a805b4815d34dca076446b98e0fdf6cf34a
F20110113_AAAUXB cabrera_v_Page_139.tif
32a8bb698a51b1c6cdf12b0528a57a04
6b341b4b536eb5700dc5559cad5abe79f586a1b7
70514 F20110113_AAAVBR cabrera_v_Page_017.pro
d2e8d3a9a4589696cf2470d96cad75b1
91239ddbd792edec8b387ec778c473723980d0e6
201900 F20110113_AAAUEY cabrera_v_Page_054.jpg
27aaa2647b3eb4b4c6148937feefac01
ce22dbac5444069e6b15d7b7b468e9790faa3d06
F20110113_AAAUXC cabrera_v_Page_140.tif
296030987de5e7f31749338ec645f00c
5bda2e7c178b9a92012a41c66779cdd5ffe522b0
28261 F20110113_AAAVBS cabrera_v_Page_018.pro
0e48b0aa9a5b982bff78e4379f1d307a
0fb8589636b87ae939427cedf382328f46aaee28
153714 F20110113_AAAUEZ cabrera_v_Page_055.jpg
78f9cb3ef52a5fff2bc81ff268459a8f
b9d89d6aa7e954ae26b85e557a2665a79bf085ea
F20110113_AAAUXD cabrera_v_Page_141.tif
65f36f5d528f742da1d665c5de9c26ff
4dfc9b235fd8bf68132c4b4f45ac5a30f4f98961
24425 F20110113_AAAVBT cabrera_v_Page_020.pro
c35e814c1968532e65505b364b25158d
0d0843598a5b5012ba77012411e8469213f1c5aa
F20110113_AAATNA cabrera_v_Page_024.tif
0a236d3e0d2567a736fcc8b7e04462d4
5e6c23ccf0036ee4127240d2719e815f7f135350
F20110113_AAAUXE cabrera_v_Page_142.tif
7272ae2252e7a8cea26e847f0565427e
831abf7ff947e69537dd12aab81c31e29f77756e
45995 F20110113_AAATNB cabrera_v_Page_210.pro
de16429461bd138df0ff7ba861fd2b6c
0cb8fb6af9de037b84ecd9b5451cd5b486f67733
F20110113_AAAUXF cabrera_v_Page_143.tif
a851f81712aa7948729a651bba212beb
951408da80e409559d3888078c02bb1797385746
41112 F20110113_AAAVBU cabrera_v_Page_021.pro
7974131f44d09dfe9364068e886f5669
f0ff09ab552c59751b29b9dbf040713e30cc8e8f
F20110113_AAAUXG cabrera_v_Page_144.tif
4bc06e1fc3844e7febfd3d4a450df616
fed8fecac758816fb3d4daf7652e72349a84bfb3
40106 F20110113_AAAVBV cabrera_v_Page_023.pro
098a5faea2032d6668ca34564e45c920
2b211fc72b239127efb7905bbda5957d55307156
48847 F20110113_AAAVUA cabrera_v_Page_042thm.jpg
5ae847d85aaca673e0a40e60f842ff1d
d3c9df31d4d805e4c9d7a1f92b18865f7b945864
F20110113_AAATNC cabrera_v_Page_290.tif
97e55d88b2632688318af37900384888
415d9d983847f70e8efb80e676748619d08bef2a
F20110113_AAAUXH cabrera_v_Page_145.tif
025b595dc2dc4b91a71ba9f98d1b2e9e
917cd296db4eea48741d884b52eef204b2fd9abb
50567 F20110113_AAAVBW cabrera_v_Page_024.pro
e455cb0b3339a099893a685ffaee43b4
9e7f3972f042d3599a3dc2b89cda60de80aad868
24028 F20110113_AAAVUB cabrera_v_Page_043thm.jpg
4a5b93c61fd6bb22a5760a9aa23be8b4
1797a15a979340a717a21a431e961dc7decedc55
48740 F20110113_AAATND cabrera_v_Page_240thm.jpg
885b642567b82f43e04ddc13e28378a2
b8fb817413fe670af63d294a40ee94cebcf353ad
F20110113_AAAUXI cabrera_v_Page_147.tif
d0947b3cf82b346e0de984a632fb1946
9fd56065bb6c99a8b1423720ba35ecf336ced355
31050 F20110113_AAAVBX cabrera_v_Page_025.pro
22803efdd8ef7c04ace0bed2df71eccc
9d1f48164a2db266472cf8e0cc39e7bc70e0db45
47569 F20110113_AAAVUC cabrera_v_Page_045thm.jpg
a9d8ce493d76195aab208dad1757580d
8aca4be462cc06cf95b04b7382269ad5deba2d21
78790 F20110113_AAATNE cabrera_v_Page_033.QC.jpg
68b42afa4a2d3c6a49fbd7bf4339d793
03c76d2247a68147da488ed8bb55d188835e2e47
F20110113_AAAUXJ cabrera_v_Page_148.tif
6a88040bfce10130cc8ff04083a9c192
7d79beaa59c4b19c58a7ffd8103e1d63ffc35602
50927 F20110113_AAAVBY cabrera_v_Page_026.pro
226123f5cf9a0a70fa78e9597e688654
8034942e5c36522edd9c490e668f5bf59275c35b
24373 F20110113_AAAVUD cabrera_v_Page_046thm.jpg
5e65ab5a5db695c94a221f4d094f8276
a75bdf9083a24679834e75d3c582d3e3e0eb254e
F20110113_AAATNF cabrera_v_Page_045.tif
92ab139c55f0cc3b2077f1a9277c30c5
7d9d1826a4630692bf6c94710fdb6ce11548b19d
F20110113_AAAUXK cabrera_v_Page_149.tif
bd3b53a6992dbe25ed350ef17aa73575
105f615213f816021e68b59a0276a60b6bd665f5
53007 F20110113_AAAVBZ cabrera_v_Page_027.pro
614d109de952b7d1dbe3abc58d3b1c6d
71eeaa5a4bb588e6edd6f581acbb19cb18af8572
80107 F20110113_AAAVUE cabrera_v_Page_046.QC.jpg
071295f615ead3db52415fedd98e2185
e8a7f271ce162142fe38fe1ae3a0bc6a80a467d4
79277 F20110113_AAATNG cabrera_v_Page_065.QC.jpg
293b5eb9a074b37ed2c58911ffdcd243
8109128c2b95d84138a4fd29dea4c063b1f91370
24805 F20110113_AAAVUF cabrera_v_Page_047thm.jpg
9a710ff716423391b753a6698d574cd0
e418d7dafbd5a915ae2359e06cfe1af04b8841c1
50993 F20110113_AAATNH cabrera_v_Page_181.pro
bdd0bcfd011f052b91aa37b8947e1dab
f30c578d2d7195524b3967d4200ba3b972c7285c
161564 F20110113_AAAUKA cabrera_v_Page_258.jpg
83c11ac76c64d4110a4b495acdb0e4e5
05ec47be00532469e08a5e3cec4f2a2bd344ff27
F20110113_AAAUXL cabrera_v_Page_151.tif
d010eb0ebdead6758b37f49443e9f1b9
1232f0b142eb1dd08651ad09af7de8430b68dcbf
74813 F20110113_AAAVUG cabrera_v_Page_047.QC.jpg
ad03a7c8c13dfeead33aba1f3fbee87e
77f37169ef83667e348083c39c2b8ff7c6961fa0
109797 F20110113_AAATNI cabrera_v_Page_122.jp2
7622b13180eeda13d4f645362ed5e482
5d1f0417abaa73ee480545b847c348bf28c7acad
203531 F20110113_AAAUKB cabrera_v_Page_259.jpg
b495990f2f19de4fe212e189ce937119
c2b3108f10d5d244db0da38c76578433110890ef
F20110113_AAAUXM cabrera_v_Page_154.tif
ec7b23c550a10b2580c865e0063aecc1
6a37a54e4c828dfe66d235a6101e360a3a5b73c5
11147 F20110113_AAATNJ cabrera_v_Page_022thm.jpg
37a1cf307a83f24396d65738bacde4ec
313bd126950bbb43d7a04f83f93b3a856c644d91
211711 F20110113_AAAUKC cabrera_v_Page_260.jpg
f8efbfbea62d51e6f3c78ac0a9707d59
e5bc17ed95209dd1d9e51f21692988b25b02d49b
F20110113_AAAUXN cabrera_v_Page_155.tif
91d9edf2c77d6353643e05f758273217
ab8c841a2f4e46989725e779ff8e2a9b47d5431d
45562 F20110113_AAAVUH cabrera_v_Page_048thm.jpg
1a1e247cb9a81fede24ca62ebc288022
f5e7dff76b23a1dbb96a05847f81eb5c7a7bcd4f
52998 F20110113_AAATNK cabrera_v_Page_182.pro
9a7a5cadde943809b0d9696f31eba642
a1ee256b3d1080566d1f56d510e4f51ef89faede
162189 F20110113_AAAUKD cabrera_v_Page_261.jpg
216d6b81de476e88748cee05029a3a71
dfa5f1e2e93cf687f59190d3a08c7ab605ea1586
F20110113_AAAUXO cabrera_v_Page_158.tif
1c3552446c8da6b076a0218a1680b8c0
44d9c522bc06fcd17be01c0bbeca748450b3d090
87472 F20110113_AAAVUI cabrera_v_Page_048.QC.jpg
94cd844a7648a74e4325e35f9f89f6f5
c1e4abd2a6c10d978cfde9b3d9d3035e65ddd173
111905 F20110113_AAATNL cabrera_v_Page_101.jp2
6a75122e849409cf1f2149a920c82e2d
ca8e878d775603e10b9875aa1951b9b316341cd1
179942 F20110113_AAAUKE cabrera_v_Page_262.jpg
976f4eda9cff505174d4ccddc56fa488
4528ba7d25660397a5d7082490a157615c98fc13
F20110113_AAAUXP cabrera_v_Page_160.tif
6535dff08fd6ddecdebd9dc943e5d0c0
1b20274ac3e92a4b4b1b08fc93bed8a149600af9
45909 F20110113_AAAVUJ cabrera_v_Page_049thm.jpg
2f1cb7032e8e1569d34b0316caec9ab5
8777c42c5c3d17c202312a16de303174f3d18326
228872 F20110113_AAATNM cabrera_v_Page_240.jpg
c3b201e98453e7b058c590102bfc4b10
41792a9c197ccc0bf67976c4e37d155f83d94f7a
156335 F20110113_AAAUKF cabrera_v_Page_263.jpg
5fee2304b2cc9382fe16c671f31a3095
a068404f9acd2a9e1473b67f74f1c1182481dbf3
F20110113_AAAUXQ cabrera_v_Page_163.tif
285b30310c444c414d1d894bd29019f9
f058aaa97d66d3f8b42ec92e91540ad31fc73535
80497 F20110113_AAAVUK cabrera_v_Page_049.QC.jpg
79ff41a364d073144b4c82a2c3cccca3
598132850c80ea07747fafb4f5e7230f306fafdd
199335 F20110113_AAATNN cabrera_v_Page_175.jpg
864571fe35484c92d3dc7be1edfd0ff4
9767f942fdfe0b7cdfda8d848a7e8c19ac0f55b4
203220 F20110113_AAAUKG cabrera_v_Page_264.jpg
8ca15a8a441ba0504b7ef9e2b661aeab
37ad02f240ba0a26b2f096e6502f2f048bf0f219
F20110113_AAAUXR cabrera_v_Page_165.tif
c6c100b54b3d02565a523f44f5a54c40
45b02161cd0662fd757370097b755815218dd0fe
69432 F20110113_AAAVUL cabrera_v_Page_050.QC.jpg
c86cf4239e9745a1d44523867e4a2f8c
c4169d5d19a12b7fde59b3bd182faf3c2e1c45ef
43549 F20110113_AAATNO cabrera_v_Page_263thm.jpg
b985f43b6f07391ad3ce5063e933c7f7
75405b4a151e34e674818d059a7424ff5df3e753
235564 F20110113_AAAUKH cabrera_v_Page_268.jpg
d7d8d449268c3950fdc27ab44b2d532d
da3195d75c8ce3866ade0853eeccba927533547a
45788 F20110113_AAAVHA cabrera_v_Page_208.pro
c31fb5a7f84c1f2ddd5c16086c009024
07785ad07abca98e2fc39826117ce764e0b593fc
F20110113_AAAUXS cabrera_v_Page_166.tif
581a179703014e9301e1135b2ca5a8c3
7227097764111193614fcc37c6607463feaf4aa4
74496 F20110113_AAAVUM cabrera_v_Page_052.QC.jpg
7ab31628656202855a0966763c40ecf2
6061d2b291a43d8d705d2a82215eee33532dee42
186298 F20110113_AAATNP cabrera_v_Page_214.jpg
b1fd49d1f4a90314ac74ab69000d8d12
30900ce852e989c90b0d18a88bbf448050101d7c
171446 F20110113_AAAUKI cabrera_v_Page_269.jpg
10c0e9df2eed650450eee97b1bfc002c
149d3c30e10ecf5372533f2328167b3989737084
47170 F20110113_AAAVHB cabrera_v_Page_209.pro
2719840591755c584ad25be200c92074
0da70c22dd945ccf9549d28097acd56311f20780
F20110113_AAAUXT cabrera_v_Page_167.tif
988aa43f1af933630c693779001353c9
08cddb549927b135d699f73050441ec8ac349a77
75470 F20110113_AAAVUN cabrera_v_Page_053.QC.jpg
69ad00205e373abd3f54b8aa27d92ef2
a1e491cef709f2686d102f65e6284c23c1638e71
20306 F20110113_AAATNQ cabrera_v_Page_257thm.jpg
ac889f43dd9bb4fd49e31341e097cfe3
24a8175b4255aa432577c959f11f9fe408395949
161289 F20110113_AAAUKJ cabrera_v_Page_270.jpg
a4213cd3b4e6841cb619b39426c28893
60c05ededd053a0101b2f2dd655e16439469f810
49004 F20110113_AAAVHC cabrera_v_Page_211.pro
bc99513619be0e097a663750a881550a
241b8110b49be32f4a7742f75ab9690ebeaa5546
F20110113_AAAUXU cabrera_v_Page_168.tif
ce4bb7b85b01d8a9da08f80489a81f8e
57ca8293f351afd2f0097ab130add81f12dd9900
23811 F20110113_AAAVUO cabrera_v_Page_054thm.jpg
c5542c511e17ad6d5dfde7d2e7475a4f
8ecf65be15ddd710460a5a4e04553b1ab49093cb
50561 F20110113_AAATNR cabrera_v_Page_073thm.jpg
7186e127fdd3a52fce7b7960212d8bae
fc2cdd769d35476f110ea6192667a48747ef6aa2
182202 F20110113_AAAUKK cabrera_v_Page_271.jpg
62bb3516e5a009d64b0ce9a5149b7aa5
26ed9fbac46314cb3f0cfa4f8543d7b106fba20f
42625 F20110113_AAAVHD cabrera_v_Page_212.pro
bcfb7c24e24e0edaa2939ed49180bf17
2153a5f3815b96419a1f2986653a75ee09bb8641
F20110113_AAAUXV cabrera_v_Page_169.tif
fa400547e48805a0728dbc75d73ccf7b
9bdb223f49747c77deab876dc97007c2e34651d2
18405 F20110113_AAAVUP cabrera_v_Page_055thm.jpg
ffa64c4075ded603132d4b09cfee4148
bf2146958c9ea835d72f8c4d9a9a1721e650347a
109854 F20110113_AAATNS cabrera_v_Page_280.jp2
89707dab47186a39ef1a785f4042c290
0651113223dc7012e712ca33e0b89a8b80d94f58
207680 F20110113_AAAUKL cabrera_v_Page_272.jpg
d72fa6a2887dd7a7873aa3f9b18f81a9
9042789f1d111e7813f1b6c9f600f113b4f2809d
23785 F20110113_AAAVHE cabrera_v_Page_214.pro
9cf6567051f69957909e4da557145cf7
3ae16e8ffcb03a122a1ef4a70d982559adda7b03
F20110113_AAAUXW cabrera_v_Page_170.tif
502babab01f62e186c625f4d4b8cd280
51652bdb3e093bf66cb9bb1074698ed887cf96d5
56967 F20110113_AAAVUQ cabrera_v_Page_055.QC.jpg
d8dc47772da8ec117b5169ce3f34c25f
bda0ffcf1f388cb9f85afcd5eb84999fa2c97d0d
F20110113_AAATNT cabrera_v_Page_278.tif
3b3deca32edd5482b6518cd226714cf1
5dd2e517b9192eecc5f664fabef90d0df87eb01f
163737 F20110113_AAAUKM cabrera_v_Page_273.jpg
a9b87c8c2e8cff4adba37e867e5619a0
b52012ad239ca41ef45a78cfdf088d878ea1e4ee
31226 F20110113_AAAVHF cabrera_v_Page_216.pro
27069132e30a048fc07ddd17dc14d11d
fa4246e31d31e1844d22505e24ccced59c5a5f3b
F20110113_AAAUXX cabrera_v_Page_171.tif
cf00e9d1216f0b888428fa812c78a28b
f951cd237f41e597a6844b190e053f5f3a14a437
47452 F20110113_AAAVUR cabrera_v_Page_056thm.jpg
b5d838ebfed31325bd61e185da2482db
a95de45aa4052c72628a33342880bb256a17a5fe
93950 F20110113_AAATNU cabrera_v_Page_203.QC.jpg
74a0f19923e87d1cda1375bbf4ed4ac8
aed4e5e82d45ac8ed3534e7d2d1392ecc6f4322b
186837 F20110113_AAAUKN cabrera_v_Page_274.jpg
b5c450de6a426c87d94db4a38b61106a
e84879f9c5c2333b9add98238a04371f931666be
39090 F20110113_AAAVHG cabrera_v_Page_217.pro
d6ab99a0ca79c08dbf20e1cd5c9ec74e
706da2991c5b7df1ecdbb22ad878bfd278bd1b97
F20110113_AAAUXY cabrera_v_Page_173.tif
1d395875e5afe17f06e538fbb32b45b9
f8ba0602f16ca0e6d6b5a41f01241454a9cf5fe7
95944 F20110113_AAAWEA cabrera_v_Page_255.QC.jpg
3ae8f15d0a90a7de00e89fc55225dee0
7a62fe1900e6341962ddcc2699a0df38155663e3
93877 F20110113_AAAVUS cabrera_v_Page_056.QC.jpg
fdb88eba90cea035c5b43d65c863b2fa
5e0ea88cc36819877dcda8b184289d680f1cee4b
21577 F20110113_AAATNV cabrera_v_Page_006thm.jpg
9c6a1894103a0332c7766853d8f8cb96
89fedbf42506bbf44b2be0bd9c9cc3226a0c58a4
198190 F20110113_AAAUKO cabrera_v_Page_275.jpg
9a0b76543ea900697869aa81ce0ad1c1
4529e8e836e32dfc6dedd2c8b20117699c8fa2d9
39256 F20110113_AAAVHH cabrera_v_Page_218.pro
63eb5b7fbabef8253faaf2ee2127c429
86071f48e04e7eeadeac73608ec7f3b42d2d5bb4
F20110113_AAAUXZ cabrera_v_Page_174.tif
732a9f9fb9ccd9219bf5e3b96341e3c5
f26d937dddf5b345182c7dac3eaba25db823f3de
47113 F20110113_AAAWEB cabrera_v_Page_256thm.jpg
b677792928c2072db9ddce9a2c95bc21
1e2c50442598a76edbe03e7873c0bd8599b0ba13
74341 F20110113_AAAVUT cabrera_v_Page_057.QC.jpg
8e865cc59dbbc230c6bf36c666db0122
34231b80983373a69701824d88c3b3d8b051f546
159664 F20110113_AAATNW cabrera_v_Page_035.jpg
eee744634781dafcf6873ba4c7a23231
8d2ce8fb39234e919c1b9944999b7b67f79d63e0
210404 F20110113_AAAUKP cabrera_v_Page_277.jpg
01647a32ed461a195a4f7c73ba9e82bf
c20ad09a24d785c8b4e3f29c092e3293b96b2962
38043 F20110113_AAAVHI cabrera_v_Page_219.pro
e9a63eb680d2a599f9dc34ef72b3426e
44467251c2804925b14caa94f7982190652369c1
62182 F20110113_AAAWEC cabrera_v_Page_257.QC.jpg
963266f350e5fed6f1cc1813168a7f33
e6620a19dc13cdeb841b6838f7edf940d061f69a
24166 F20110113_AAAVUU cabrera_v_Page_058thm.jpg
ac2cec10907010979b7947fded71f589
ca01744246df0ebe8be7821df1fa19500ba9f745
237104 F20110113_AAATNX cabrera_v_Page_182.jpg
a2e265437784766d14d97b8405222435
6d82a358d7997bf2953e4a541bfd9561505f53b2
212888 F20110113_AAAUKQ cabrera_v_Page_280.jpg
5cd1907714236a28b80659589f72beb9
0aeaa7c5666adb6db6df348d643db9bf3033e488
41937 F20110113_AAAVHJ cabrera_v_Page_220.pro
3275ee96632ba795e2663ab3853a25ce
1ef098527558880c3906a465ce4dc28197c9a5fc
41211 F20110113_AAAWED cabrera_v_Page_258thm.jpg
6df6b59b2bb5c981184b6a3358c55fb8
682bf9900d075ab4661e0c1d6c28894ab21d8273
51241 F20110113_AAAVUV cabrera_v_Page_059thm.jpg
ca249832adf59383b113cc46ade6c0f5
06bf9c9cd7bb98304e1e98cc85ebcd14484ff36d
25119 F20110113_AAATNY cabrera_v_Page_109thm.jpg
414fb20c976e4396d945ba805c32b0cd
4932d15aaf2d972d5a624362716499bde774dfc9
94924 F20110113_AAAUKR cabrera_v_Page_281.jpg
85fc571ad0202827069248dce746cd92
45d0546a8aa28a424ef0ae626f0d85b668fcc75e
23189 F20110113_AAAVHK cabrera_v_Page_223.pro
29f3d104bac4c85ceecce45c3634e523
f0cb08e182b09d9635d46e3ab209517d79c27811
70612 F20110113_AAAWEE cabrera_v_Page_258.QC.jpg
4f9b11183ee37f41fdc54839994c3bb6
e8be6e727c69acba067d906fe539c8d9b8c73551
106015 F20110113_AAAVUW cabrera_v_Page_059.QC.jpg
8f8991838f47b4ff7b77b1e0911e8f78
576ff319ba6ceae02245b5a7507615def53a6e58
34877 F20110113_AAATNZ cabrera_v_Page_051.pro
1dd619dd20749234345cd573f7922dd1
56260b1301dd7378c5be1d7f972a1c76b498abde
199131 F20110113_AAAUKS cabrera_v_Page_282.jpg
ff7a12cf8a64e3e7fb989fa7b8e41fca
46087c2c168b6907771ff417334352b35656e1f9
38357 F20110113_AAAVHL cabrera_v_Page_224.pro
e8e0a0ac37e04914972017d63a48318d
651bbfd8136afc2cfa307473162fe571bf35c88e
74351 F20110113_AAAWEF cabrera_v_Page_259.QC.jpg
033d6e954a8189d03e75c3537f71d883
59a18b61b832617d68e5c5b50a96b05cef4ebb90
49021 F20110113_AAAVUX cabrera_v_Page_060thm.jpg
c88073d087f7a1b9ef8cf88b134ffdcc
1583ef33dff2633fca6bd9847aa412f0f4c40efa
211169 F20110113_AAAUKT cabrera_v_Page_283.jpg
b4904421f781d61a61635724506839aa
71b689fe0a1fb7f4e0aa5ce9dda731a96e1cc239
42064 F20110113_AAAVHM cabrera_v_Page_225.pro
905f107060013a889f8fae0596d5ca95
d8beaae20910ced616a1c1a97c1df8a8f00f2ff5
23328 F20110113_AAAWEG cabrera_v_Page_260thm.jpg
7e89b5acd23d59cd43c644494ac67224
ba1b32ba70697094e7ec26025e45152de315d45d
49054 F20110113_AAAVUY cabrera_v_Page_061thm.jpg
d92fa8c2b1c1e5dff7f33bd5ac197289
b1132a61a2cc21ee14063e9f007cffea8d558112
210336 F20110113_AAAUKU cabrera_v_Page_284.jpg
0b98736bc355ca60a8f6a88c6918f884
4aab94d5f0738c18bb0efd928022d2003456962a
54398 F20110113_AAAVHN cabrera_v_Page_226.pro
b7ed29950a9e91a8cb803f299079e858
f086d4f4006258bb481783b4d2f771517ebcbffd
78178 F20110113_AAAWEH cabrera_v_Page_260.QC.jpg
04083dfc3e32d940672b1f81e427a886
9906ec15061a6126cfbcf25d4dbf4acc2d32cc14
76797 F20110113_AAAVUZ cabrera_v_Page_063.QC.jpg
8cfb1182d93f716a7d52a87859d539d7
963aaa2d482247208d10a6ff48a4d6533326c37b
215948 F20110113_AAAUKV cabrera_v_Page_285.jpg
a532f2ad7f3cabb43c8178f5865d98fb
4f7c1e4d875609b67d625ba21122eafc52fa51f4
46637 F20110113_AAAVHO cabrera_v_Page_228.pro
78bdfd8d8b29023cc1e5feaedd2fe020
cc6e54b859db17a4cf2c9211d97d15556054508e
43518 F20110113_AAAWEI cabrera_v_Page_261thm.jpg
d72a17471ddc447ab9397e57b164e505
e2c2e6650aefb318c9c5f0efab0982f0a6bf424a
189857 F20110113_AAAUKW cabrera_v_Page_287.jpg
9319cf43e1bdb35764e08aacae54e5fb
50b91d01c7a10e571d104b2e3bdf4db279185670
26990 F20110113_AAAVHP cabrera_v_Page_230.pro
74601ea93ad50253ae22f98f15c8a5e4
189dbfcb154159ab2f1ea821900643fe20b55227
72721 F20110113_AAAWEJ cabrera_v_Page_261.QC.jpg
56311fc5d28c21e50d285be609dc4b77
1d44d86821dc5ad5eba7f9b7f95e60ffdae1b6c6
202734 F20110113_AAAUKX cabrera_v_Page_288.jpg
f845b70575399e59baa34dc9d1e1e4dd
d5f8744a62ac14da9083d2e80597cd89dc8ff61a
36459 F20110113_AAAVHQ cabrera_v_Page_231.pro
882b891ccc03fea7b588041b4d376b99
4ab1015b5b7ca16ea9bf510dc5ca0e19639e89de
21451 F20110113_AAAWEK cabrera_v_Page_262thm.jpg
288f78255f51aba004ccd647eead6b3c
765d79cf9ce4f1ed12e2dac5f8fadd6bf8a0d84b
269586 F20110113_AAAUKY cabrera_v_Page_294.jpg
ee76e8ece6bdf7d676656e8e9ab45a66
13637e3d44f41bbb5c338948c23240a9ff0cc298
45145 F20110113_AAAVHR cabrera_v_Page_232.pro
9751a28b7779202b2f4a3255fdce4226
d6fee73904539f4bd1dcfb96c277a1fb7e32666b
65057 F20110113_AAAWEL cabrera_v_Page_262.QC.jpg
efc4dcefdba742469a634780d00c24e8
928d5817e32d035ae631e3c2087bd025d4d7177e
317892 F20110113_AAAUKZ cabrera_v_Page_295.jpg
f5ce14f1bf3843f4bc204613f4906f8b
52ae59e231a51c76c46b668c05bc863aa305fc86
36816 F20110113_AAAVHS cabrera_v_Page_233.pro
42d2a85f3aac0e9731e8d475e193c323
f06594d9fc236f59753b012d1d98de565b89a704
23857 F20110113_AAAWEM cabrera_v_Page_264thm.jpg
988dda17f60ca10ca21475627d16cb30
435767221176c1c1c59b8b89cb4713c32d58942a
37381 F20110113_AAAVHT cabrera_v_Page_234.pro
3f821d077b6cbd1b9f9c5d2e810980b0
ee500f14affedf23796598c857443bdd81689e7a
74289 F20110113_AAAWEN cabrera_v_Page_264.QC.jpg
79d71c317b612773b518fba5c959f5ab
e9a5aedc2ffb68f33d3ed290d8209c0bd0832250
64972 F20110113_AAATTA cabrera_v_Page_218.QC.jpg
19c33780cd53a155591043b43eb979bf
d4a226f053784ff977232b75669398c567ed8c2c
34537 F20110113_AAAVHU cabrera_v_Page_235.pro
db334518fb1917d3cd665e39584ff4bc
c4d8b2872adc0d1c00d7f496b1b448d3d357dcaa
42031 F20110113_AAAWEO cabrera_v_Page_265thm.jpg
6c5395d7005611517cc9b6df6dce15b3
967893607f3cbe73a4e728fdc2e7a944259ae61f
34533 F20110113_AAATTB cabrera_v_Page_173.pro
50c63a77b0e8ba9ce5afeef0c945b638
d2afbf4afbe9dcf1cca0e2f8bec616994ce535bf
49817 F20110113_AAAVHV cabrera_v_Page_236.pro
08bad143993a00e53c2d43e825a00abb
c33c2f39454957066083e26dd9183ceab5c4c927
68756 F20110113_AAAWEP cabrera_v_Page_265.QC.jpg
d2d956de553cbceeb1d361b7f6531393
f78630681ce0d99382ac8f5697a3dfbc7975b5b8
74190 F20110113_AAATTC cabrera_v_Page_282.QC.jpg
9d4e32888b6e640cdb865dda1ea1783b
8b947fe844fc0cb862bdb3c7c5950b90c8e626e4
37467 F20110113_AAAVHW cabrera_v_Page_237.pro
c6d56f9119756500053ee71ae1ded86e
fb8a3ec5ed1a67343c0c0de24c31fe53fa7adb12
23908 F20110113_AAAWEQ cabrera_v_Page_266thm.jpg
624980e2dea9ba5ff257dfcbb958b518
d72fcdf66984827b5e91980e1fa01300ca305e04
32230 F20110113_AAATTD cabrera_v_Page_150thm.jpg
0ec558b146be638442c402bf4cf0dbf7
61b76a7fd071ee6567e6416d3f4624dbd27d7631
21967 F20110113_AAAVHX cabrera_v_Page_238.pro
01bf2b5510f3067c85a935c3d545ea86
3d9f5c592258cce2cc6df146f80d2fcfee81d9ca
81091 F20110113_AAAWER cabrera_v_Page_266.QC.jpg
18e76fe94fa88373b3498d9eed549f27
5c5320534c693d171de16ee875e2f9efc2154a40
98490 F20110113_AAATTE cabrera_v_Page_025.QC.jpg
f7087e4079362ea148229962b1709064
ab2b1f28589cdaed2b991c7afbb47a7f97ea8d9e
26778 F20110113_AAAVHY cabrera_v_Page_239.pro
34c44df516a051eb9ab4f68d2b9e1658
3700259612f4eec9aca392547f13da97e42a9a3b
99517 F20110113_AAAWES cabrera_v_Page_268.QC.jpg
010b8116de1e94ee72830318001402cd
325d1a33f1495f749e1a2966be4c27a135e3a122
24335 F20110113_AAATTF cabrera_v_Page_063thm.jpg
9498407eef58c46ce89ad8216d96ae31
cd03e9f497b5d51294b26ea4515a7e4c5c8c522e
48575 F20110113_AAAVHZ cabrera_v_Page_240.pro
7f6577690494f7e04f248c2e6d100f6b
899f0f4e4f33ff79dc3f0ee49357bd2dd76ddc6e
43845 F20110113_AAAWET cabrera_v_Page_269thm.jpg
45a48c584d0f424dd02cd624dc9bd7ff
50d7f5d9cda5e416ea9266dedf8f09a4b082950e
383943 F20110113_AAATTG cabrera_v_Page_008.jpg
6d83ece988c08de59eb5ca9585ca6d20
72d3b80826ccfb6008560675045df9e07f55e99b
83976 F20110113_AAAWEU cabrera_v_Page_269.QC.jpg
c959996118ed3d9f95bbac2c69295356
6478cb151cb7ba065cf844bca580928774592718
222557 F20110113_AAATTH cabrera_v_Page_044.jpg
0b4efbb793f55f93774345904763cbf5
f58b0bf94c378dc3c3344655a0e26cbacb4dbe98
869897 F20110113_AAAUQA cabrera_v_Page_176.jp2
7988c430e2399d53c3de8f278d3fb1f8
c38c1e4bd0c7fcfef029769d1ee4bef7a5c67b2d
25227 F20110113_AAAWEV cabrera_v_Page_270thm.jpg
32d95efb19d955d58463b1c8a4ffec24
3714c9b95b7da4aa19d25e13d3a5bd37bdb6b68f
110747 F20110113_AAAUQB cabrera_v_Page_181.jp2
92896132b095e9bb9d8ad4a8d60ab2f9
8d4b079a3459a4aa44099a8f7a00f763b655b250
1051925 F20110113_AAAUQC cabrera_v_Page_182.jp2
afbe827c93713f3fc8d955e765cf80f7
02b33f9aca22eb163548cfb065951ed91c3ce4e5
F20110113_AAATTI cabrera_v_Page_253.tif
f69592f02569ee55d64b4a85cee1541d
7f948da3deaa01d44e97b9d3859fbb763035259a
62771 F20110113_AAAWEW cabrera_v_Page_270.QC.jpg
438cafe95c6244c9109090c3ef941f69
a7fd3974d66fec46eb555095fcf1143198bedf01
980641 F20110113_AAAUQD cabrera_v_Page_184.jp2
21bcb01f703798342df35938be5df0ec
f637462fd61849666700605fc187ab8e9d631290
206103 F20110113_AAATTJ cabrera_v_Page_151.jpg
4daf7f96e55f1c9039e477acf0817111
efabb4f8666f99e4a8ff4257f7d88811b9ba3ccb
31794 F20110113_AAAWEX cabrera_v_Page_272thm.jpg
22c45f2ac60c54c51a6b5b58a6f91445
19358fae6f344bc6a11bab0f532185883acbce38
45636 F20110113_AAATTK cabrera_v_Page_087.pro
094ff70741b14122c90c0e8da09e3a75
b70ee10dcfb16298f980de5c34ceeb2ce202a033
45183 F20110113_AAAWEY cabrera_v_Page_273thm.jpg
0018a8bbf5eb168c146c1478cbbf8d5b
144620405697805d06ee65d6fe2ca1b46246d40c
990953 F20110113_AAAUQE cabrera_v_Page_185.jp2
bcae36d3085bbf641a7970cebcd6631a
9d51ddfd9d857b3da43f68ec57026c5cfd12ed38
102316 F20110113_AAATGA cabrera_v_Page_064.QC.jpg
a4d10804170ee544443b623aecb3406b
10147a2c4de3e8e63245a7a49b85e1a11a1f9fbc
86 F20110113_AAATTL cabrera_v_Page_003.txt
e1eb81f521ac519559c3abbc68fca763
2555c458780a15a8f9f5bd76b3b1b6cdfe35f20d
76510 F20110113_AAAWEZ cabrera_v_Page_273.QC.jpg
7d80f298249b814f560789984917655a
d97dafcc17a7b43d9deb29ba7521e3b60ccc492a
112320 F20110113_AAAUQF cabrera_v_Page_186.jp2
17c7dbc97ce3cd952ef90f2ce21eabda
40d8b70ad4b889268488ec5ef866aeec2f972ced
82348 F20110113_AAATGB cabrera_v_Page_171.QC.jpg
dc3ddbda851d9c63745649a3e2a08df4
5907f03dd41b31fa23c8b3e0c6229e78f843c4c2
193683 F20110113_AAATTM cabrera_v_Page_099.jpg
35f09d5761fbda56f2ba1fac5c254ef8
dc5e721d5992068f9c3227714624e86e5f46d82f
902828 F20110113_AAAUQG cabrera_v_Page_187.jp2
f58f8512540a3e39826b8dd54132ef1f
2fe76ccfb41d3335c859b2051c42fc85de78ffe1
F20110113_AAATGC cabrera_v_Page_172.tif
02062ffcbf849f0828a74031fc8c602b
dfc18fd6e3b38d2e288d257444079a7faee63da2
120156 F20110113_AAATTN cabrera_v_Page_205.jpg
67449262f300ea5b53ba1a0303f3b058
9199cffebe266ee85810d8e259a4c710b68cec83
1051982 F20110113_AAAUQH cabrera_v_Page_188.jp2
c6dc959abe553ab8a9c8a53e987c76aa
540cb18861c58689405ab21e71eb480ae984ea8f
F20110113_AAAVNA cabrera_v_Page_114.txt
9ae39fe61908a492bed0d0977d3e09f8
49959482d0a47901179649cdb02e3bf9bd2241f9
98035 F20110113_AAATGD cabrera_v_Page_060.QC.jpg
0c695dd9eab84a90fc30f47714c533b3
9e85c85010c4c409c525b61068f076dd6809ba3c
79124 F20110113_AAATTO cabrera_v_Page_091.QC.jpg
519196a688a4b6d8e0a90816224d6ecb
1b7ba71da804ef66dccdae1af5839db7ce7607f8
1051944 F20110113_AAAUQI cabrera_v_Page_189.jp2
708dcf32f22691029960077fc5f090b5
d11ed72032939bab452ed4118a2ba2b3dbc905e3
1927 F20110113_AAAVNB cabrera_v_Page_116.txt
acca00be6ae846155280ee152eaafa7b
5ee6934b72350d0aa6790ca7ae22aebac0906e06
210286 F20110113_AAATGE cabrera_v_Page_078.jpg
762d6d1834bbc03de7c9b86f81c1328d
26a7efba80e58208b10d63cee7547619d62ca899
196491 F20110113_AAATTP cabrera_v_Page_032.jpg
b954b54114d825dead4dd080d3636d68
0fe09dc0c807ed71542cc38ff39779f6ebe24d3c
106050 F20110113_AAAUQJ cabrera_v_Page_190.jp2
13e38a6b95af44a1430a29a43624ca5d
d132152f5e70d0b8adef00783f9aa78a02b3861d
2057 F20110113_AAAVNC cabrera_v_Page_117.txt
7661276e68cbab13f13f5fec8cc1b0f1
ab216e5ef04641a23d3eaa20a3f868ab43925e16
48635 F20110113_AAATGF cabrera_v_Page_096.pro
5ebcd6ed135a6569d7fa8a3bc3ee72d2
e34be075956c9d2e469c326500e757bb85b9d934
F20110113_AAATTQ cabrera_v_Page_190.tif
e111381784f2c50f7864c2ade7dcb1ca
7562eacf4e40d96d45dc5fed4f092c63c3e97d58
889642 F20110113_AAAUQK cabrera_v_Page_191.jp2
1654b757d1af889fcd39d6df25ff6946
b06058cb0bb241350261820c4448bd4721bc1a24
1990 F20110113_AAAVND cabrera_v_Page_118.txt
c28484ec36e187eb10d38e8ca08e25be
4d15a36fc0ca190c65cd730fa61a7eb351e50988
68465 F20110113_AAATGG cabrera_v_Page_001.jpg
5c9431ad8900223819bfe34026fb23db
bd1b85051def78eb3114d34dd30bfed64787eeeb
115393 F20110113_AAATTR cabrera_v_Page_267.jpg
66f81eb2a7a3dde1fd8c3fd3f588b2fb
d2945e3a804483a8337f28fcbb2a9c36f67bba50
F20110113_AAAUQL cabrera_v_Page_193.jp2
02e8473a07144811be50a132ad3abd84
086f3b640710ef23e975839ee7a8c72ace4a9cd8
1781 F20110113_AAAVNE cabrera_v_Page_120.txt
a63a7944219796e631482e06e60fbf38
abe2e98a66f1ee8cf13d37a9f1823c53a9d8236c
2606 F20110113_AAATGH cabrera_v_Page_298.txt
665b1f9e2a5e9faee298a93d47fab66a
4989eced08a37f980f74f27c0bfebd26a7aeea0e
F20110113_AAAUDA cabrera_v_Page_074.jp2
c423498d3b4ebea0a98e893bbb9a3e66
102a5c12471f778a2532596e66d739f26892db7c
24088 F20110113_AAATTS cabrera_v_Page_098thm.jpg
492b0cb006663582786056514c5f3f89
324ca3ae617c6b83f3ae9c019e87ad3228d2aa39
761438 F20110113_AAAUQM cabrera_v_Page_197.jp2
45044b8628f3b804f3e8d02e3d4cb5eb
a42f7d13d181f78e9f65a818c23871b1a3aa4667
F20110113_AAAVNF cabrera_v_Page_121.txt
19bc820470a10db8912697a3060d49fb
62f9012f3a511e4e7855768c7b8537b9ea04b97f
108825 F20110113_AAATGI cabrera_v_Page_092.jp2
fab0accbfe30886533f53ac56cba1351
43748e8916a608df7b9c317a926105ab409adaaa
971 F20110113_AAAUDB cabrera_v_Page_041.txt
af06798fc702beef10e07677076bba0b
acd4a2434aba278dafa0674323648044d821dfbc
6391587 F20110113_AAATTT cabrera_v.pdf
2322273b299a7db588548636b5aaacc4
75408386d1e02b70aaa92c1df19d44da1e76b335
BROKEN_LINK
DNFDFM.xls
107236 F20110113_AAAUQN cabrera_v_Page_198.jp2
61a8d685af2df225ca52ae2a5a63d439
c4069fd32ba159c261195ddca4e4dd9a46f0a2b0
1957 F20110113_AAAVNG cabrera_v_Page_122.txt
f908c572fedbfc3f09e065e30046d0bb
bcc560002057951c63d20527ac71af124986d251
1776 F20110113_AAATGJ cabrera_v_Page_201.txt
4d8de3b83f087f9ac4ebdcc1417b7c50
a621f7e6c4aea4ac0110aaae2501b5753e65186d
51387 F20110113_AAAUDC cabrera_v_Page_104.pro
4032eae60d3faeec71db6063d4ba8b58
58bf0c787e95ccb462208fdee0e15221d61cc757
65246 F20110113_AAATTU cabrera_v_Page_224.QC.jpg
55b9321ba58ab15271a856bfdd99efa7
5238b49c3391b25d3e14e2b69d6299d137185dd8
F20110113_AAAUQO cabrera_v_Page_200.jp2
5d6d52249c1274d627eee2171307c515
258ae505ec1bd5d30ba319ac48b78cb8f867fec0
1657 F20110113_AAAVNH cabrera_v_Page_124.txt
4a008343b4322acfa7a993598a1222c0
b449961fd1023e2566610123c6b6a68c0caea44b
27402 F20110113_AAATGK cabrera_v_Page_185.pro
b66c12663b05b8fa6b5e593c824e5d02
2d613d31ee48bfbcfa81613c2fa6ac7a6dcec96e
1904 F20110113_AAAUDD cabrera_v_Page_058.txt
c6fd0d15662719a9361e15616d2046e7
168cb9bad9bb19171647f13393caffcb0deb3854
F20110113_AAATTV cabrera_v_Page_123.txt
25317cb7953a97725075895653cdf768
bc357524afa1e4ff685ce0859e0dd2ea2b240958
97588 F20110113_AAAUQP cabrera_v_Page_201.jp2
a7ed3c2dd0092dfe3b194a02d09fa483
432e01c5aaf47655b10457ed971e8cd3caab13c9
1941 F20110113_AAAVNI cabrera_v_Page_125.txt
0b63979b5bc52fc8d5a4c30bd2104cb1
71208a5fb414ccff93f1416a3374675945093e20
151470 F20110113_AAATGL cabrera_v_Page_018.jpg
238eb60950b5d0b6d4a050f49c2111a8
b4612ec5f092a581b0ed13cfaee3ab8b226242ee
104040 F20110113_AAAUDE cabrera_v_Page_054.jp2
0be1eedaf948d7fb8abe618e6574aac5
25296172f27cf61c488f12edab9a3bc02cc32616
2017 F20110113_AAATTW cabrera_v_Page_104.txt
884edc2bee26e735cc2a4cab8599ce31
38d8f6051b4cae09568d65ca220856ad2094d32e
1051946 F20110113_AAAUQQ cabrera_v_Page_202.jp2
e93cc6b4a776f421dfe97051d540cf39
fd2552da2a0ff78d004170aa2937d7083f047691
F20110113_AAAVNJ cabrera_v_Page_126.txt
d5462ba7d800c46c7c02fdc1a64a98cd
afad6a83368d14ad5f01730c7d79f9e2a7653d7b
102855 F20110113_AAATGM cabrera_v_Page_264.jp2
9ebe7afbc10b4fe3ca6f41d971b8cc95
a48626c74bab157b6371e0290b0fcc2dbe8da533
F20110113_AAAUDF cabrera_v_Page_047.tif
52ff3b56ac7f43c75683bf6096b7ee5d
08c816a281a864ac33109cb0ac2ae44f99aa667b
2083 F20110113_AAATTX cabrera_v_Page_027.txt
96ba567ea10e587637cc9077bde321ec
0c4a71b0ba7249ab3fefd5a7b77c9ef3ef5ff7ca
102362 F20110113_AAAUQR cabrera_v_Page_204.jp2
0e7d0906fa3d492bda048b4bf61a6115
ee71c5bfe96362d7a7c5ef6ff3846f64ab55f376
2166 F20110113_AAAVNK cabrera_v_Page_127.txt
fdd996311155f6b8fcf0b8faa1a9a620
2de56dec7a3484080315f0a1a654c684ee22e308
76683 F20110113_AAATGN cabrera_v_Page_293.QC.jpg
bf7b8a5a0cde4bf7edf2b3357a7c70f6
587fcf104e43730979a8da4ade82256a76841aa8
2514 F20110113_AAAUDG cabrera_v_Page_144.txt
82f02a384332bb65f52e48434630894e
79788370a4d29674178992619d9dde6952fb0edc
76838 F20110113_AAATTY cabrera_v_Page_107.QC.jpg
28cd3716ba37b503d3d4ae800c092cd1
a9eb9a26e8b98b721180f7c842483017bd908aea
F20110113_AAAVAA cabrera_v_Page_255.tif
a26362104a45811fa19fe09cfd512014
76f88dcb0574fbee1238a54afb2b736f15cd3b9b
62572 F20110113_AAAUQS cabrera_v_Page_205.jp2
50c6611aa5b2bebaf714fe6856865bc5
7e554f4d8ef631764d9595fa9cfa0e992fc7c7de
2148 F20110113_AAAVNL cabrera_v_Page_128.txt
ea7c18a2a19719eac784c086a5852e44
39aa764de9a940742ab348fc23e6528e449ef733
28146 F20110113_AAATGO cabrera_v_Page_300thm.jpg
e591a7916eec7a1ba6f3d2608fc1bc9e
55061068f72f2887bb46e2fb1aca0adf3aaa671a
113 F20110113_AAAUDH cabrera_v_Page_002.txt
7e18c9f2b4208fd55a63fb27ad1fced0
a67452135ab37c8c9fd87effb857ea3eedfeb2d0
209993 F20110113_AAATTZ cabrera_v_Page_081.jpg
e249fe37ff79fe18ff7327b7bbcd6666
7c09c5b07b4998317738cf5a9d78167f942667ca
F20110113_AAAVAB cabrera_v_Page_257.tif
72689bcfff79f2a671ad3bd0598a69d8
6a0bbe9a0f2d717f3a0f4728c8a6b47c0f951d16
95882 F20110113_AAAUQT cabrera_v_Page_206.jp2
b07afbc25cfb137a998d38dbea0eeca6
960e4b569d64cc6b5685d332611335f8fe2447e5
F20110113_AAAVNM cabrera_v_Page_129.txt
a220118f8ec250045d27b7e28e0b2124
33898dd4949cc3c16f27278cf7b5875c24a86082
31281 F20110113_AAATGP cabrera_v_Page_159thm.jpg
7df64f75250ef54f3aa7328cb420ca4c
70c927a9ad385864f69245c5186f63bd24b91d41
2156 F20110113_AAAUDI cabrera_v_Page_131.txt
a3f625289a0ebbb353f2be1c59041be1
7b87591e8e3b4137c885e8578a915dc4ee10f2c5
F20110113_AAAVAC cabrera_v_Page_259.tif
5c112fdb35cf0ac44d6b07d6b4eb75fd
9d9269e536a11eaf008c2a66cecdfd310f97eedc
110754 F20110113_AAAUQU cabrera_v_Page_207.jp2
9588f501827a983e564a90c65fbca049
dc86915517e7db7c3d84bc6790cb746c44823393
2056 F20110113_AAAVNN cabrera_v_Page_130.txt
462101f3fffcbe4801bcedb7942b9e07
d32a5b1d35eadbcc40826ab662891bbf9ca87749
F20110113_AAATGQ cabrera_v_Page_153.tif
7e6294ce4a7a7e86c885759a1e2e407d
1d3f9498d31d47a294c71ef13a500fe8b781a7f5
1796 F20110113_AAAUDJ cabrera_v_Page_089.txt
24fbce0d5fed84072673dad456796639
561812d9a1b7c0c8a163b8fe881a0f6f84172a3b
F20110113_AAAVAD cabrera_v_Page_260.tif
aebc87476d4e644a79d213d50065733a
b911cab2d19d36dd8c61f8c31edf09f97e119eda
102099 F20110113_AAAUQV cabrera_v_Page_209.jp2
8d4df79be95591b82f2f479fb1885b0f
734d4f6086f8edc20313003cdb5edd6a25ec2f6a
2025 F20110113_AAAVNO cabrera_v_Page_132.txt
db132134f851fb6c50bf11146d18eb26
36ef8212b00bd74c28e1cac5fb841722e1b20d62
31539 F20110113_AAATGR cabrera_v_Page_175.pro
2b2b14d075d3a24d2b472211afd11008
b5d4f10d7f10bb7a3f069dd2dacba2054717d39c
F20110113_AAAUDK cabrera_v_Page_025.tif
97af1c3c6c8d47419520148d279916c3
31e56c86c4c81cf46b8479edb5850543dd07650f
F20110113_AAAVAE cabrera_v_Page_261.tif
6e50f7052cc4a56c770d876e980ebf60
b68649c9f28c02475ce0a4ce5908374bd79778b0
108314 F20110113_AAAUQW cabrera_v_Page_211.jp2
18e3f6b00646f5e75ffdcd57531dd979
2003a4dc9b6a09958d6b0c2dd09db0fba3960f6a
1418 F20110113_AAAVNP cabrera_v_Page_137.txt
165087414cb4b08270393f05bc3190b0
19114e09db473057c8302967596c77c0667a3a7c
42260 F20110113_AAATGS cabrera_v_Page_120.pro
6693da504b8762901590eb7577c30dc9
44137cfa2e916e905c111ba1d7d7950e099f063a
20351 F20110113_AAAUDL cabrera_v_Page_021thm.jpg
8b3b695738ca313a2524724facf3e043
86c2ab504c81b3a111f427c4fb427c238afdc8e3
F20110113_AAAVAF cabrera_v_Page_262.tif
bb4a9fd8aa87af4cfe1914cee66b8a8c
83442ca90dcefe9f33300750082736153139abcd
94536 F20110113_AAAUQX cabrera_v_Page_212.jp2
aec6ec131f6c59c45aa618520edaa572
bc8775210bc81172339d08484f37a24ce6fb1ac4
F20110113_AAAVNQ cabrera_v_Page_138.txt
626f389ed3c2e19f16fb98522e9fad96
1ac5b0130084da4faa373f61d72ac39b8b4be8da
46254 F20110113_AAATGT cabrera_v_Page_195thm.jpg
83837ba8a56d444304ac55ca7ce002cd
8d248f50170323d0ff85a9bcf975247cc6cd0343
2037 F20110113_AAAUDM cabrera_v_Page_050.txt
0e36e11d2e99ee4c5aee3cafe1ad86bb
4bbcf3258892c32c7f39bfa52e9a0fc3a771653f
F20110113_AAAVAG cabrera_v_Page_264.tif
3655d1345500ba2a48c2305ded504baf
924a2332ff13e1476759fd31fa13ffce53c86329
104268 F20110113_AAAUQY cabrera_v_Page_215.jp2
c71cb3a72904a284765042fe2c0b712a
511066d2b1f08decf23b635a6e6fa98909ececd0
1996 F20110113_AAAVNR cabrera_v_Page_140.txt
c97d60f2ad7541b39dd2a00a819c6add
4cc8618a61b3584c7d25f6a678e2299d68f4634c
F20110113_AAATGU cabrera_v_Page_220.tif
53ba262f96ff13bd00bc8fd159d416c3
f22f5d536653ce78f0dd65a38ba06f6c5a97d346
50392 F20110113_AAAUDN cabrera_v_Page_083.pro
032b10fdbac5e9c3976c3f4e3790fea1
aca307f96633a38a7b7e320bc82853619d3dd1d8
F20110113_AAAVAH cabrera_v_Page_265.tif
e3d58e95cf55f91890240544d658f96b
511e13b8994c6d72675443b55ec63411d0c72e5d
816969 F20110113_AAAUQZ cabrera_v_Page_216.jp2
44d5ce2850c31da6a49313fdb3f3e00e
35d24b37d53428615179bd4700293809ab18c098
2033 F20110113_AAAVNS cabrera_v_Page_141.txt
7078d1b53b580b47d292f8daa38df694
533f790f6054dc274a9006479ede490cdeeded85
45134 F20110113_AAATGV cabrera_v_Page_287.pro
9f32ba0dc71167c3c82aaac8c5f10304
f8944a1b8d07c0281fea13696b487e917646d827
455305 F20110113_AAAUDO UFE0005581_00001.xml
28b18b4ef25ac547144a4d6f6e5d3f0c
112bcc7fe679303cf58906a8bbb959368b27597b
F20110113_AAAVAI cabrera_v_Page_266.tif
e757083af7b5d1c4b1df6214e3ed9d36
b778ba947e21b9e4075cda82c9c68cc7629f6ae1
1787 F20110113_AAAVNT cabrera_v_Page_142.txt
550de6fcc32e03dfa6ed478d6e97d372
e2c9747e554d67652c28f4cb283bc7001081829e
45302 F20110113_AAATGW cabrera_v_Page_252.pro
365d0c1322471b9436504f75627c5924
fb7ac3038aac4883653e773219ba6528a40361ce
25265604 F20110113_AAAVAJ cabrera_v_Page_267.tif
d56465a89395e79fe605529cc43a1c17
94e6d42882e1396cd519c836251be86db6744253
F20110113_AAAVNU cabrera_v_Page_143.txt
cf64ae5b2074b2d2d4123692328a5308
8bb946ea13553e6e4cf0c20db2a33f2809d723ec
209730 F20110113_AAATGX cabrera_v_Page_108.jpg
dbcde6552f4cfa624e5e544dfa125956
9599c0ce7c6130f9d4a2f22e67f20062c0133102
249235 F20110113_AAATZA cabrera_v_Page_188.jpg
c88607cb93d5da800da4d45deecd2159
c69b1dd9c02cdd8226e9fb670736f7f9bbb368dd
F20110113_AAAVAK cabrera_v_Page_268.tif
08ee856bc977d57538ead75c84497985
a89f93cf6e9adf4fc5b8d294fb0d6e3defad9742
F20110113_AAAVNV cabrera_v_Page_145.txt
a40d74aabc98fb59f41e81b5f87c1792
789e64343a35deb822c418eb368069713a50910b
72924 F20110113_AAATGY cabrera_v_Page_087.QC.jpg
8e52aa99fd10ff8b4478833ebd0f1945
38762ebc33e68979160e57eacd51eb62346b8307
F20110113_AAATZB cabrera_v_Page_304.tif
a933fab5bf18f4923de007e30a13c7ba
10f27c6b867726b38212ea8de96e04948637ef9f
12948 F20110113_AAAUDR cabrera_v_Page_003.jpg
28d7e5579618c16752a6c400501bdfbd
65278c06fc2f713121c1b657b02ebef89519b89c
F20110113_AAAVAL cabrera_v_Page_269.tif
537a280ce5a9228321d566db5b49ffc3
09b95d78fdae0f43436103a4f1784a3dba044364
1979 F20110113_AAAVNW cabrera_v_Page_146.txt
a5dd0c05313dc1bc336dc57b682f6353
d7b915704ed4299e8716e8f9665b19da9c826178
F20110113_AAATGZ cabrera_v_Page_134.tif
afce66e1bd7db3e9d123f88bcc2d4ffa
eff187b3298f8a8111b90b48d0d54d66d373f395
48797 F20110113_AAATZC cabrera_v_Page_277thm.jpg
a90d87eacfab2466b45df155dcaa8296
fd7ce342d95e2e04374696efc1dce685c48bd8f9
212717 F20110113_AAAUDS cabrera_v_Page_004.jpg
12ae0d5bb3c8bca095561f805820e6d7
4c28f87b5429e0840033aa5afde442ab0e0b7762
F20110113_AAAVAM cabrera_v_Page_270.tif
fe2dff36720ecb0ec5d25d0cfb17648d
7909b669df0778ccf7b4dd0144c433517fcaaf80
2546 F20110113_AAAVNX cabrera_v_Page_147.txt
663536e20314543ee053bc8fdff03f65
b28c762f3a0005ed39b5d0e819bdd57752c1a395
783057 F20110113_AAATZD cabrera_v_Page_142.jp2
61213a9a5998909543b0c3b5d5534afa
633b916ccc2f3c9170f75a71ceddd508c238fb1b
200683 F20110113_AAAUDT cabrera_v_Page_005.jpg
94d66e5f81501239da65eee82444b39d
c391f7b2ca04e3969c9d662109730822c7220f54
F20110113_AAAVAN cabrera_v_Page_271.tif
3fe9478e396077d12574027e41fefed1
2d03e381a3cf4ab70ba18d218eb0970014d6c797
2390 F20110113_AAAVNY cabrera_v_Page_148.txt
632e9efbada21eab2f136f3b3d26adb8
fc0807f455b093f37954aa1070723f4de711b776
2784 F20110113_AAATZE cabrera_v_Page_013.txt
94b608a27448f41f4543aaecc7fe7f31
4044472fd999a412a640a794ecfe646d303598dd
180168 F20110113_AAAUDU cabrera_v_Page_006.jpg
84f9a7a5e7e59bf78712ef082c19c67e
f18bd843e16dda362e1fa2cb082d7650a71a05d1
F20110113_AAAVAO cabrera_v_Page_272.tif
d1ef0e34c85847316f1bed5375e433b9
5eb42be8223cfa12630c8c7ad8d35da6669b2454
2052 F20110113_AAAVNZ cabrera_v_Page_150.txt
bab89c4de4d9dd6f5493788c78549d6a
7bd24397d1e0f5982e5447c88818bb473dfc77cf
43337 F20110113_AAATZF cabrera_v_Page_143thm.jpg
e78b8632140c42bd415b902c62055a86
030e08a5277e688060c4207b0707027f386de96d
375196 F20110113_AAAUDV cabrera_v_Page_009.jpg
216737f4e71798e7d3f0b2343415cc9a
bc840293e88f5531e3e937f6732b08f4f10511ee
F20110113_AAAVAP cabrera_v_Page_274.tif
c95072daf47b2e66323911b8539de677
b548a8a7c7a10e31ab3586cd318f1116b8e26c9d
F20110113_AAATZG cabrera_v_Page_208.tif
8229266623580d4fb4313aa7aeadab28
467b0a553588cdf1c7da04b1de7ac3fd03a094f3
384665 F20110113_AAAUDW cabrera_v_Page_010.jpg
df0860e573f19de9ce9efa5bb20124e5
2cac9ca89ce61d91302542a86e8788682f4ea04a
F20110113_AAAUWA cabrera_v_Page_100.tif
13f3f868fe474b695c4a287efebf1332
fe21aa0c6f635604cb26781d686abd8032431b00
F20110113_AAAVAQ cabrera_v_Page_276.tif
53aa2d013162dc182fd3c06d5a2c9de6
689166e1d1a3bb56c2b59135d1a78eb31790ec1d
134114 F20110113_AAATZH cabrera_v_Page_172.jp2
3a9439094bf5570004d6756d685d7a6a
ac321a52ed66b57dcfe2ac99bc0e3cf921271bf9
F20110113_AAAUWB cabrera_v_Page_101.tif
0a1163de0e6c75da86c9a75063d4f0ee
373c784a8fc36532a495a6a1aac16b825eeea778
F20110113_AAAVAR cabrera_v_Page_277.tif
8528c81acd4443f96e08455da7165c45
a386a69e0dcac609d321bb2885d51ec5dae908b9
21836 F20110113_AAATZI cabrera_v_Page_291thm.jpg
8c86c0d41177db76ed4a37ad63804ac5
c81d09a294b8d5a547320b8421dadfd74ca4e60e
342765 F20110113_AAAUDX cabrera_v_Page_011.jpg
60bd740a1cd4888775091e756d7adf77
183f47f19cb3436eaaee625ae4c40fca9ab344f6
F20110113_AAAUWC cabrera_v_Page_102.tif
9eff6377a3985d495a1d548332296b82
19df4ca412a17163aea545fa7e80041b6c7448dd
F20110113_AAAVAS cabrera_v_Page_279.tif
8b30fa35e8bb4cc7df902ab28457168d
33aa7cf24ca7e585fc8cc8899fd88195dfc7d8f2
23011 F20110113_AAATZJ cabrera_v_Page_145thm.jpg
2e7a246552868f6f219e3ed6ec931ad8
d165d0f2dba350809ac47c8bfad643b6ae1c719f
299136 F20110113_AAAUDY cabrera_v_Page_013.jpg
97e9d5d661f6ce7e0ffaeb84d5ba3dc2
d683045d89486bdda96f68dd3fe45a905966fd54
F20110113_AAAUWD cabrera_v_Page_103.tif
d2bb92e246dd18aa53bc7ccfa75184a7
c3ec636aa9de891fbec93f23c16c214530bff024
26962 F20110113_AAATZK cabrera_v_Page_183thm.jpg
668e03f6b10a10120a287c1922f73baa
3281e6109bc186d26711e2c6712583c0e01a3e2b
261343 F20110113_AAAUDZ cabrera_v_Page_014.jpg
24354b5ddc39e72b1012113e2018399a
607e85aacb17d8e86e71a92f2eaf638dfb28c526
F20110113_AAAUWE cabrera_v_Page_106.tif
58348c61ce732762bbb5c529644c2b3b
298279d2541f38c4bd6cb08a535f6eba21fc245c
F20110113_AAAVAT cabrera_v_Page_283.tif
d3e720162a726ae0f3f88226a768aa3c
070841f99b5e2bfad0d5b71770456e2aa68d849b
1966 F20110113_AAATMA cabrera_v_Page_115.txt
a81d94ae616a78e7b8be07009281505c
682d0007b8bd3d36c633dbc1d60886c22c6018f8
826887 F20110113_AAATZL cabrera_v_Page_271.jp2
cba897d12d55aedefa1eb055e591b0bd
fecef7a99eddcad8a20a1cbb59450e57e9a7cc3d
F20110113_AAAUWF cabrera_v_Page_108.tif
a9c3bf61103720f10f72c866b2f3178c
0f37a911d75dba7bdf2800899f2b3683252edead
F20110113_AAAVAU cabrera_v_Page_286.tif
cf90eb5973c383b96d060d4a0e7a8674
e0f1719be66f758cb44c92c85f6679cf36f3b01e
117185 F20110113_AAATZM cabrera_v_Page_301.QC.jpg
f30d9e636b008ad130d30feda7fee0cf
af2143c1412067b2d15d2d355c92cc73c76afaaa
F20110113_AAAUWG cabrera_v_Page_110.tif
641781cab314c41e7bc27f4c347e5610
7c3f1d7b3df3a363fc61d9e40721d5bc62756e44
F20110113_AAAVAV cabrera_v_Page_288.tif
0b9f09405f1c4cae79e23f87cf7e9de8
faa9ce7c273b03ab01489372b382adf6d4b6b726
100841 F20110113_AAATMB cabrera_v_Page_251.QC.jpg
23c33b442788cef37d484e1351beb2f1
117a321319b309a381cd7237355268d529f7256b
49254 F20110113_AAATZN cabrera_v_Page_251thm.jpg
1296e4e995a2cd3acc76170fe4d12e53
72cc7c1f154973614c1a9cd65ce0b0a8b3d1aaa1
62499 F20110113_AAAVTA cabrera_v_Page_023.QC.jpg
62fe7a1a33da414650db94432fd2d06f
3ac77b692d117284cd1e92c336c2949080cd6a9c
F20110113_AAAUWH cabrera_v_Page_111.tif
439b34f797a5b7855ff53ac2d6267669
669f56f3fa347ad28088d4af030ce3a0162a5b8e
F20110113_AAAVAW cabrera_v_Page_289.tif
48bf4bcec07ee0aa8a8d1086ebbaccc2
57183e09874acc20fda543684524a17e4899b63d
106035 F20110113_AAATMC cabrera_v_Page_030.jp2
4a9b99b7961fea563228247f0a97a4d2
06440164b47f298e22bea8f939e151eebdf0d70c
24601 F20110113_AAAVTB cabrera_v_Page_024thm.jpg
62a42190ccb4629cd4283d1b73146aec
d41d598b23fe5f57d79e159a5ede7cb160c89d91
F20110113_AAAUWI cabrera_v_Page_112.tif
90c488c24b4d17d0d7d734bcefe062f4
7708ece08256934286c92ac03827f80711e5e2c1
F20110113_AAAVAX cabrera_v_Page_291.tif
35f1677aecd065f1d4717247dc558051
207eab1ba13201cdb30ba0df88c24e87fa568070
F20110113_AAATMD cabrera_v_Page_196.tif
f76867c83c01b64400869500b9b00ee1
d766b1f6bdf7bd1b030383ab0eb5f8498d6b9a60
42868 F20110113_AAATZO cabrera_v_Page_085.pro
77ad96a29e3190422204a4dd2d7e8f59
ff61665d1a9adbaf87350b8ef00c2fafbf34e154
77914 F20110113_AAAVTC cabrera_v_Page_024.QC.jpg
39a8dc4c6634f4203f38daf44aecbccd
8c139e444bc87faabafc7db9c2e9fab96afd6c6d
F20110113_AAAUWJ cabrera_v_Page_114.tif
a94e2b5d661b7b3984488140a1f846ae
ffa17bcc8e950c8c3b5786d649e09e6abcf4e389
F20110113_AAAVAY cabrera_v_Page_292.tif
1115568afd40ccaf427b3739a52c88b1
e0e2dc68ff157e12c59a56f1fadda7b9bc888345
46820 F20110113_AAATME cabrera_v_Page_167.pro
52c0c0b6b009304c5c06fee1244b3217
c6e13d836f8bd88a6cd18e7d76247663963f5556
21668 F20110113_AAATZP cabrera_v_Page_220thm.jpg
cd3f55b10c4f1c54d11bc9792cbda965
92079de0af39fd51edd5ca317c2c2e833384592e
48010 F20110113_AAAVTD cabrera_v_Page_025thm.jpg
0ae9f89a342f283455cffacc3f78edc0
ee757dcb5346af364edc971c8a44b225bf04c845
F20110113_AAAVAZ cabrera_v_Page_293.tif
9ff2d90847a2cd8355cf0c57945e8115
d71c81b06dffe30dcd7787f4155de50fbff2939e
F20110113_AAATMF cabrera_v_Page_157.tif
469dc2603631f1b590c2e67d6eefc82e
f21a282e1780b8358e52ae283fa2f00830d23707
3181 F20110113_AAATZQ cabrera_v_Page_002thm.jpg
69d2442e8a1bbfde2beaee2ed1ffd65f
f3a0d2b9a865258f4bb20a2ca3df6931a902fb59
25325 F20110113_AAAVTE cabrera_v_Page_026thm.jpg
bf6002d63671427f2428ca9bf86060ac
ab3a51d07bc0cfdb382eeea05b7cd56b79324c50
212828 F20110113_AAATMG cabrera_v_Page_080.jpg
cb93a933489df9483114238f076ea142
1ea3f44ad3ffb75e374491d51aafb350ca27c187
88015 F20110113_AAATZR cabrera_v_Page_172.pro
c821701406b729b3763af4042d39f872
326218aea0d12ef942e884ab858ce22b978fc2c1
F20110113_AAAUWK cabrera_v_Page_115.tif
f1d2245f7a222e048862cfb4cba0d1b7
e692f45405c84a15732cf0f957204b5d5a39198a
80333 F20110113_AAAVTF cabrera_v_Page_026.QC.jpg
621c538b8756f86809937b8dce1dbd8a
1a0b59731ff5153ddd5d9732b45f9088e31a8251
F20110113_AAATMH cabrera_v_Page_203.txt
4a5cbdb83bafe162ee4477d6d9c28093
7b6d62046fa0ca1d1663a68bfad775b07b231cc7
145089 F20110113_AAAUJA cabrera_v_Page_223.jpg
db7740fb09231b9019cecf5bbc044353
f1d7385826e1c2dd3c599b7a2b3c5080d04b3886
F20110113_AAATZS cabrera_v_Page_232.tif
94b4bfdb36136022935b5d0e1674803e
c7716a4dd0119c0c066c53331e6b4a29b01e2399
F20110113_AAAUWL cabrera_v_Page_117.tif
84d50aba62b8f17d0f907e3d97d3dba3
1ceafd25bb4c26e2d5923f0322e9de83c2016ace
79163 F20110113_AAATMI cabrera_v_Page_067.QC.jpg
c356341e28b6ed620e5c4d74fae7a6fc
e07bbb8758f933d14530720390935f17f7740523
165144 F20110113_AAAUJB cabrera_v_Page_224.jpg
95a3ed28613085ee99b207b543d97576
5293bf3e23d715184b33edb418bf04aaf02c6aa0
91688 F20110113_AAATZT cabrera_v_Page_051.QC.jpg
b789f22d34f5bfbd90332f0952f07109
3f6b6b3cca055004d55f671ae453cf372b9d6ccb
F20110113_AAAUWM cabrera_v_Page_118.tif
52811b26b47991164acbbab54df656ed
d88c00b569ce4c4f36ef0403f0c1c2ddd0f7a8e2
25979 F20110113_AAAVTG cabrera_v_Page_027thm.jpg
36b56418763dc550e0ba08ba2d97cf42
2d58808148bfdaa5b8e9612afadc679738f0797f
199799 F20110113_AAATMJ cabrera_v_Page_276.jpg
e9189be65ab084b4c906a65d79054e40
293cfb7c4f101e811f0bb5ea9b5d08e311aec609
201408 F20110113_AAAUJC cabrera_v_Page_226.jpg
21348157d1ba613197e0666ab46aade6
a6e848f55fc7398828d7427917b55a89043cc74f
84425 F20110113_AAATZU cabrera_v_Page_133.QC.jpg
d9a623f0767e555c2894bc5dc4fc6ef2
c4c7f7fc016d0ea12fb7ba9be7d223fec7b8c8af
F20110113_AAAUWN cabrera_v_Page_119.tif
cc004e24cb6c4064e9b2186727eadc85
a7ccef1d27dcc97d99353db9acac360699780172
82911 F20110113_AAAVTH cabrera_v_Page_027.QC.jpg
661fe3837a9d3e66b0df28f609eaf134
3b5283a27e823156ed0496c2d20e56487dc1e278
181656 F20110113_AAATMK cabrera_v_Page_159.jpg
85f775f49e923639ed8f769ae28a3fa9
562630e9d68319ff4bad0c0f5a0066770e6428ea
156333 F20110113_AAAUJD cabrera_v_Page_227.jpg
3c648c17d894a1e78b349da5030f0bc4
b22357e99c1800b9a8b914836d51fdfb35331492
205511 F20110113_AAATZV cabrera_v_Page_234.jpg
7c4a3704b182674299dfc3583b59f093
7aa149df5864bd197d57b3112806cdf761291437
F20110113_AAAUWO cabrera_v_Page_120.tif
33e44e5f0ebf5cefe41bb2b5380ef9c5
2213bb38f418b8784f1c22345adab9c534a6adc4
23118 F20110113_AAAVTI cabrera_v_Page_028thm.jpg
26dbd782febd566be1fd2b1eb4b81fb9
34645e8af6d48da62dde7bff338273748fdabc93
109071 F20110113_AAATML cabrera_v_Page_081.jp2
c2b2d8a13f0c7acd7e3cdbbc6cd5c93b
5fc8ac34ef8e74ae100280cd5ce8d5ce0a043bed
195126 F20110113_AAAUJE cabrera_v_Page_228.jpg
763555805113faa2278e29c82335d095
fda22b5c62ca8d5b190c7576d0450614af610618
24297 F20110113_AAATZW cabrera_v_Page_019.pro
36f21c48bfeef308c485f7e6517f9dba
9a2fb4e600197015032fa4efe94e8ef23e7d034f
F20110113_AAAUWP cabrera_v_Page_122.tif
ece538f9be5d6607104937f6301b7270
d279217659845ee5cf8ff72a016467aa01e43f25
69014 F20110113_AAAVTJ cabrera_v_Page_028.QC.jpg
780a4b48b7d39de0825e04e8b6d9d31d
63f550fe17c25242516c48336b8a0cdb5a70d178
22140 F20110113_AAATMM cabrera_v_Page_119.jp2
fa880b211d0362ed0581e26b177e88dd
f50c5abdf4f53bdade86d99b5c52275fe90498b1
238964 F20110113_AAAUJF cabrera_v_Page_230.jpg
24bcb9f9cd8b35956f135de8d6d30256
d4bdee114f6b6ef466885fd1d6315fefdb99f2cf
2176 F20110113_AAATZX cabrera_v_Page_192.txt
3562d9aa045e8105b241f867b400d84a
7313eedfdd3359ac7e9d137f8442d9e90bdd6bd5
F20110113_AAAUWQ cabrera_v_Page_123.tif
e060cf28e1fd71c748607dd19bc853cb
fa623e4cef72a45c67fd52ca912168443cb3da5c
50678 F20110113_AAAVTK cabrera_v_Page_029thm.jpg
1096bdcaa4de1ba6b81907e6ba74fae1
e4d2a3ed8fd8737820f8aca839e0280cfd184777
23527 F20110113_AAATMN cabrera_v_Page_215thm.jpg
40ab27e3d1de2af5245c053ce7ecd9c1
4141c9794a1c66f8f7e3f8f7a06ba44834ad590a
205224 F20110113_AAAUJG cabrera_v_Page_231.jpg
8406d65758326344cf4e62f6babb8358
6920092c344a532065dd7557b74ced2263bf52e0
103169 F20110113_AAATZY cabrera_v_Page_047.jp2
d5c4aeb6fa0429637f78b8b30ad8e327
0b93648a2b8a7c57c05d077d33a8e9358efe76a4
F20110113_AAAUWR cabrera_v_Page_125.tif
6c9156f5e5776a2636342ee59603f8a8
654227015439341e771ee7fdb416b5ead44a742d
100651 F20110113_AAAVTL cabrera_v_Page_029.QC.jpg
f05317d6277edf406887f86e322cbc83
1414f1c4deaf79e763a75f88c3b766735865353b
115067 F20110113_AAATMO cabrera_v_Page_290.jp2
7311b8633f954da3bc3620998ebdce3c
58f0337fbe7c560d68bd065cc21a760077fb3266
199321 F20110113_AAAUJH cabrera_v_Page_233.jpg
7164cb244472fc04af1fefd28627db6b
ea2b19f7ec460bea2d313517a366b1f287ee8b8e
47840 F20110113_AAATZZ cabrera_v_Page_194.pro
780a3bf64f93e50cb0443eda3e242bcc
b071480ef551b4865aa9bc72d5824df24c11588a
56658 F20110113_AAAVGA cabrera_v_Page_170.pro
f57ecf188a2358cf1f5c2c498d0484b1
95d55526a2943e323f7dc02cfa19df7c64f98272
F20110113_AAAUWS cabrera_v_Page_126.tif
e859043cac275c4de0d3952857198cab
e20681b3588f1164d434fa31640662af1daad427
23748 F20110113_AAAVTM cabrera_v_Page_030thm.jpg
178918255a430eacbe7d4d95b7adaf5f
c0b60f32eff22e1d0313bb1994e2a8e8bad7ba7b
230169 F20110113_AAATMP cabrera_v_Page_111.jpg
6dae4afbd41e34ddc6c00fd415e3e94b
04b26f37e44ba3210809cf33b9b6fde8f41e4c67
219013 F20110113_AAAUJI cabrera_v_Page_235.jpg
3c5b9ae0643f63a1cc1abb02c50e32e8
9a22fd724b08c538360928c37f12917215bcead0
29641 F20110113_AAAVGB cabrera_v_Page_171.pro
162dd317683d37357fbff1585e78587b
1f9e98159535c6c39eb4e8643448e8d929372e67
F20110113_AAAUWT cabrera_v_Page_127.tif
6a8f361806468cff9c4c37419ccc0b7f
326111b3f67f6e9b8ebeb48495cd7d29985f4bbd
24374 F20110113_AAAVTN cabrera_v_Page_031thm.jpg
2dc5839cb5e726029de808eac9557c14
bb107a058fa9bbab433e98cc03a22969a52b891c
50157 F20110113_AAATMQ cabrera_v_Page_065.pro
980ae817dbe05c7640a769f1f8d6e0fb
7a83b7330931565a01a3c76694975f05cd1af5fb
236515 F20110113_AAAUJJ cabrera_v_Page_236.jpg
9cfc3aff7ce579216d6e97fa62cdfcff
fa1553901c18a49ba75b915d37c1701ff18d957d
26880 F20110113_AAAVGC cabrera_v_Page_174.pro
222c678ae80e446529f21141cb260bd8
d67f4c1bc48ee8375d9ad28a03d392cee9ca1154
F20110113_AAAUWU cabrera_v_Page_128.tif
f577fa4eac63163d73f462aa1c4dd345
97dc503752c7187ad8f9a22ecd201881d0dfeebb
73490 F20110113_AAAVTO cabrera_v_Page_032.QC.jpg
4cfd78da5d133a258eec730aaf8399f5
314f3228b0e6443ecedaf1f6f90d28b0fa901b3c
208239 F20110113_AAATMR cabrera_v_Page_109.jpg
6a0f772d0bb18ea53d954fbec1b660bb
2eeb6c87717b0aeb5d6685b938849f353bcc6371
211482 F20110113_AAAUJK cabrera_v_Page_237.jpg
b7b22af8fabcbcd8b680424e07c2120d
9970fc61d7b64e8f03c831887ccceb6caa1ce679
33347 F20110113_AAAVGD cabrera_v_Page_177.pro
32cde25d658eb2906b9422fc28f13fa2
58721ab734dcd654e2ed568ea41a9de6e3be6778
F20110113_AAAUWV cabrera_v_Page_130.tif
c626660efc1e1e101f6fb0e75d4da9bd
3405e734bdfd21030784cc0bce47e546f2a6224c
23500 F20110113_AAAVTP cabrera_v_Page_033thm.jpg
caf1a53069514e282ac21694f784336c
373b62804799a433a833518663896171d752c7e1
F20110113_AAATMS cabrera_v_Page_247.tif
06e19ec9f7f5d9430e9846a4126ab6d1
75beacddd13e24de665e4cd39174c0d1f823f829
184827 F20110113_AAAUJL cabrera_v_Page_238.jpg
2e81b026160e8280c8a952b9d2957994
f8e5eb5a8a4501140038018c0ca64fc203d63c09
23603 F20110113_AAAVGE cabrera_v_Page_179.pro
28baf8bd5ca066369bd9a9bbbbf96de6
bc065400bef6e640aafe0c8991a609d23edfe162
F20110113_AAAUWW cabrera_v_Page_132.tif
c42998ebb945386e08bff8842c463107
ec4d2974636fc648c8296f332d31ee676c37ee07
25239 F20110113_AAAVTQ cabrera_v_Page_034thm.jpg
b05ca471b6019f590b68d6579141872b
11bd4a6e33ff9fc34ba5a1a54611f7b8bcda4c3c
50451 F20110113_AAATMT cabrera_v_Page_126thm.jpg
6bc5ff9edc59b58d5c2a969a4c8b2fd2
a2351df22c95b6fb3280fe16a49199aeb3bede6d
195342 F20110113_AAAUJM cabrera_v_Page_241.jpg
98745a574b2e833979ee2cb1e3a89075
a3afe838536fd78a7271f8dc4646ee2b7c755fe1
54884 F20110113_AAAVGF cabrera_v_Page_183.pro
4c0a1854e5e06ed93ab2e34d394a72ee
81e6562fa7a7a4b271df91820ace247bc39cdf06
F20110113_AAAUWX cabrera_v_Page_133.tif
a9d77fe382d27141cf5cea759d978197
f5ce86c34418637fc444c883915dbdcde9b85cc9
79951 F20110113_AAAVTR cabrera_v_Page_034.QC.jpg
2cba83af773788572d2f8fa837d08d6f
40653793a07925e6f9ba041fa929588ad22cd240
F20110113_AAATMU cabrera_v_Page_132.jp2
adc440e935536853a6d6b84fe341dee0
914f5c8421eec776662ea7e938a54116bba547c8
143790 F20110113_AAAUJN cabrera_v_Page_242.jpg
172d24da5a9552386b247df15bdc5a2d
f76b4d500ab0b11f702be0aa106fb6ca405a2b10
35219 F20110113_AAAVGG cabrera_v_Page_184.pro
21d8d110c73e6c8a96e852b088d3a6fd
6b2355742e534d30e8e8b90920c1337890c7d122
F20110113_AAAUWY cabrera_v_Page_135.tif
d347e4c91e125cb58966a54f4ff7d4c1
10e1c8cde02f0c536ab291c5f36468b1dcf3f906
95779 F20110113_AAAWDA cabrera_v_Page_235.QC.jpg
86a82d05cbeb1353b9b15a714b9e943e
c0a5fefb9c383cd368fdf61ab9d2b988d3f4b6f2
19121 F20110113_AAAVTS cabrera_v_Page_035thm.jpg
45744a19aa94ea2af16e229cb5072585
c87f3ce88285ba5cfb0b166eea07b27d52d8afc1
F20110113_AAATMV cabrera_v_Page_251.txt
5b0211536ef8f855cc3b8b8563758266
8ffacd9eb2240e3212739da043a7bd626a484385
154769 F20110113_AAAUJO cabrera_v_Page_243.jpg
333bf08e32715aa1fc0f6824f71a4970
7c011d1cb4f9450c73bf2047e464e562450f5da3
52628 F20110113_AAAVGH cabrera_v_Page_186.pro
de40393b3fb0be1bd0e143e2a3daa029
338a528936594cc4f1b429bc03b369aec52eba2b
F20110113_AAAUWZ cabrera_v_Page_136.tif
729259cab6c70302fde89e60862843c6
c7eac9da8ee4e441fa7798afd1f1abe246e021eb
47782 F20110113_AAAWDB cabrera_v_Page_236thm.jpg
681b57a7912fef254948f5282894f77d
afd54efc5bdeaf23ae2097a9100433d1fd227cf6
58248 F20110113_AAAVTT cabrera_v_Page_035.QC.jpg
46e545d77fcc37b39d9d9c93e6f1c541
f051ef589f116f0db287d5011b865dbb85111a43
84302 F20110113_AAATMW cabrera_v_Page_191.QC.jpg
23c37391aaf77d0f9274d62d49b42c4c
9d2fe396de67919d33724188ea72b47e8d27d506
171004 F20110113_AAAUJP cabrera_v_Page_244.jpg
3a07725fbd28535d68073db522b5a71b
33ae8aa4142255896872b6e142d218a01f2de01d
26890 F20110113_AAAVGI cabrera_v_Page_187.pro
eef6ee2733f443886f9833fd42ed010a
9486609f6edd3b7b6736325de6a70554f59bdafa
98033 F20110113_AAAWDC cabrera_v_Page_236.QC.jpg
3fc8e9945481ba0431f4c59bc198cb0c
4448a8a16cf57cdb3e278abf819761ea619830fe
47496 F20110113_AAAVTU cabrera_v_Page_036thm.jpg
a717c6a9e4f2743c6c1338d46c0dba3a
cf9da5f94faaf08104dfa80a06f16fca536c2de8
207609 F20110113_AAATMX cabrera_v_Page_140.jpg
f83c9f07fc9f340b5ff7e3770c0ec7aa
f6980e466821c0223a8d877b8626096c94c85979
185555 F20110113_AAAUJQ cabrera_v_Page_245.jpg
564d235b69d94631d1a137a9eb5260bd
9487d1c7466da1ba48196bc5b6fb2b88068f2c72
53251 F20110113_AAAVGJ cabrera_v_Page_188.pro
12d4c6fe8deb95829f60087243411224
7aad95807ed3f96a6520401fae666abc785657cf
90521 F20110113_AAAWDD cabrera_v_Page_237.QC.jpg
30d296090cb6071a48021df47a273937
ec3f19aa1145f5ed457dc04d5b88a56315bbf1c6
23178 F20110113_AAAVTV cabrera_v_Page_037thm.jpg
a0d2053db08d39d4cf7440abe2dbb08b
8aca6bb91dc02b88e40f1ef233346c5ea1fc404b
73249 F20110113_AAATMY cabrera_v_Page_210.QC.jpg
4ca1c6358b05906182c7544714bd66fe
ff85a9d564013c4004bb36cda728629d6860bb60
164587 F20110113_AAAUJR cabrera_v_Page_247.jpg
04954219af4b8ea62597fb0b69e2d14b
5903b36cc8be9a548a9ea97e44e6f09329d05a79
35490 F20110113_AAAVGK cabrera_v_Page_189.pro
6323f0badb1ec2c70014939944e0a519
c8fbe56719ff9cce6bf31dd30575c8da3ea3ede9
82291 F20110113_AAAWDE cabrera_v_Page_238.QC.jpg
1f36acec8d95367aa09a69b168accf58
7c3d32e078f9f4601b18d8662dbb2003c702a2c8
72843 F20110113_AAAVTW cabrera_v_Page_037.QC.jpg
64ffdc43d931a221c739a510469fc401
ce84880ca4fa4f4fe83d3b56575619b58840abe1
F20110113_AAATMZ cabrera_v_Page_063.tif
6ab053975ea922d7ca2ef213d130d606
dfac08714458eebf43abbdb5dc521937c7cee65f
117740 F20110113_AAAUJS cabrera_v_Page_248.jpg
22bba424a47622c89a1a58d7c3048e39
8d41651990e8894b514112555fd1d3ecaae0f06e
47308 F20110113_AAAVGL cabrera_v_Page_190.pro
11f77634d0f9dd675b4ec02bfb604d4c
7e9ba5a53fe8ae00ae6d8ba8a70a32260fa5b64d
41555 F20110113_AAAWDF cabrera_v_Page_239thm.jpg
5645eaed6d58d133d8c70dde633d001f
93b86cf766d743080d2d862a80955e22a49507bf
24121 F20110113_AAAVTX cabrera_v_Page_038thm.jpg
ac74591b11a679cf4dbf46bc46fef17d
61fd0c3fda05d155abb8635483efce3104bbfe2e
220664 F20110113_AAAUJT cabrera_v_Page_249.jpg
f59bc507a12e37b008a292ff92c54bb4
e95ece43457f69d179e892605c9efba81b85859b
34155 F20110113_AAAVGM cabrera_v_Page_191.pro
15fb7f2670078daab98c42b6c929fb0d
dc796da44aa64e12a0c86d3bf284bfcb25f0a9df
72938 F20110113_AAAWDG cabrera_v_Page_241.QC.jpg
0c5fba9bb0f30ca788e751da0ebb132e
fba2687f3f4eb0b5983716c081cbe9f5a025a60c
51521 F20110113_AAAVTY cabrera_v_Page_039thm.jpg
b92264be0efdabe51670b38d68dc12db
b2ab27a33f5a3d2f382fc6b32296c07271795eb7
194747 F20110113_AAAUJU cabrera_v_Page_250.jpg
777c41ad5e90da3fbdc34e0e079145dd
1d55f42f9cd8aef8daeba9571c2635d977f5424b
41234 F20110113_AAAVGN cabrera_v_Page_192.pro
01b946765fa8cff708d498d02b16fd6b
aaeaaace2efd5bcb7254c03f21f40a96d9769720
66916 F20110113_AAAWDH cabrera_v_Page_242.QC.jpg
72e72adba430392e478edfe032200aa3
238ed55db77db629171a33542dad647e0e69f48b
110166 F20110113_AAAVTZ cabrera_v_Page_039.QC.jpg
2a65a60cf79bda9b3eebd71988a1e3cf
9d65a260f510af01032bdcba8e41cd4c2f549207
226492 F20110113_AAAUJV cabrera_v_Page_251.jpg
6b37dea4df41e1f48d49c4fa2e388977
cf2b8e2838db24d55e3e8ebdf91bfa96fe719479
49145 F20110113_AAAVGO cabrera_v_Page_193.pro
5526a0770f82b474a24ec8b94513f1b5
10695db202685d4c89758bbdca581f785fda2b7c
43227 F20110113_AAAWDI cabrera_v_Page_243thm.jpg
6467de061874e7c28c65e67515b978ec
a803a99c60a479d53ed855ea67c88fa6b0bc4d6d
201909 F20110113_AAAUJW cabrera_v_Page_252.jpg
53c9fd9e499060dc86f7269340e4c45c
9f64377dbae13746e07df2aa12d7366c1a3be902
28205 F20110113_AAAVGP cabrera_v_Page_195.pro
f9cd8b37c89b73c54198e58ad0537668
0a0812c55a248971c5c47f19882b9bd2d8ac71cc
73440 F20110113_AAAWDJ cabrera_v_Page_243.QC.jpg
6be8f1884b7a999ec5418e3c40de7684
681e2c59a9c4b80833fc3a5c90c478e5e9ea1cfd
188010 F20110113_AAAUJX cabrera_v_Page_253.jpg
00d71582245eff0407866ea9d52a70cc
b56607de66fe301e126ffd4f987a47571a9af579
48419 F20110113_AAAVGQ cabrera_v_Page_196.pro
e3ec6456582323f6b62a6a5369bf3552
0e61380fc962b12cf7af094d0474ae10069571bb
45581 F20110113_AAAWDK cabrera_v_Page_244thm.jpg
5c57af1fb0186859a40337a69fbbd5c2
352676bba5720dd3c2003f6be985f74b3ed3a951
218434 F20110113_AAAUJY cabrera_v_Page_254.jpg
94157d432c0d446fca708524ba720445
1233675da77dec9f7e9ca900ba4c93e3bc4739ad
30338 F20110113_AAAVGR cabrera_v_Page_197.pro
bd139fe7631f8048a6b33c0b3aece921
f98140800cb50cf0301358d2d59a3acdf1e1c0a1
84358 F20110113_AAAWDL cabrera_v_Page_244.QC.jpg
76b44d8c1a6462c12dca79e01a25dbfc
569db8a765d20da2e4437596cfb760d0782240fc
182306 F20110113_AAAUJZ cabrera_v_Page_257.jpg
05b168809aef823dc0277031b180ca46
34ec2ffb1fd01610b40cd4ee92c79d03930513df
50074 F20110113_AAAVGS cabrera_v_Page_198.pro
f81b5c5ed1d608f9f6866a327a17dfc0
1ad0e6d6286f882544a34286eb3d361f2b0aaafa
89514 F20110113_AAAWDM cabrera_v_Page_245.QC.jpg
7d102f16be866ed45bab83e4b38e44b7
780276f30619fa395c95d2028dcc49639448c133
38362 F20110113_AAAVGT cabrera_v_Page_199.pro
02ba71f5ce3024f15986419bb0d4da30
bbe224c04308599ef481d4ba8cf5fd3b610d7210
88853 F20110113_AAAWDN cabrera_v_Page_246.QC.jpg
23af09ee9704ea4f2a8eb67701deed7f
da89645ad49406efef23778192bd57da80b40d46
2371 F20110113_AAATSA cabrera_v_Page_182.txt
298122c4bf1c03e3503ae251445981b5
a5f858a71a3f6ad14f7fe5ecd262a0b5264d4426
54326 F20110113_AAAVGU cabrera_v_Page_200.pro
3832d0b1d991d5b89c6d7087b1ed878e
6bc742624eaf462f0e97d98ef38586548520846e
44235 F20110113_AAAWDO cabrera_v_Page_247thm.jpg
2c25b4eb1baee45f443917b0fa655c82
d22c345317b7615805f85741e37c2d8321bfe021
71701 F20110113_AAATSB cabrera_v_Page_058.QC.jpg
2b9dfadc784f20ecd55f5df97f4516de
4115df2da96b2e46b125adf3506cb72f88ab57ab
44608 F20110113_AAAVGV cabrera_v_Page_201.pro
fc14d94e04b04a8061f643066f3a926f
840f59d89da801a9ecf179f7aa3f18acad49c4d0
14977 F20110113_AAAWDP cabrera_v_Page_248thm.jpg
f564fb856ed81381e650488fbcd1303a
4f91cbde4b2ea8d493979509018a043036f9b93a
72137 F20110113_AAATSC cabrera_v_Page_041.QC.jpg
29c32556101a055c690650846f9b33bf
17c30a696860f609b1cee59fbb84648897a1c36a
47106 F20110113_AAAVGW cabrera_v_Page_204.pro
2b752cf3da76fba29f7493499f6d5933
7b0ceba25cd012ea54fe8c16b13afd4edcaa5de2
43127 F20110113_AAAWDQ cabrera_v_Page_248.QC.jpg
9231546d46a84a841a347273fb625049
8b7a6644cd51649c6129bc7bf726f532ae77076d
80426 F20110113_AAAVZA cabrera_v_Page_152.QC.jpg
e148a16545f89592947c32eb178423d1
759bd4f81faeba496c8e0c012efa1e62687b14e1
92481 F20110113_AAATSD cabrera_v_Page_256.QC.jpg
ce7db689174665605ed848be5d1f839f
12b26416afc36ab02dbee4d4a86fb7dbb5183df9
28002 F20110113_AAAVGX cabrera_v_Page_205.pro
96134a049d6032b3c97bf6cd2f2541bb
9701d29ef0e4eda3ac40583ae3156d5a9568f1c7
47798 F20110113_AAAWDR cabrera_v_Page_249thm.jpg
38c1e44d9f01bd1687a1a7b43106f8f1
d41d76a2926a08d1c71b9fb32a37ffb71590aa05
28349 F20110113_AAAVZB cabrera_v_Page_153.QC.jpg
5f75be37b3b6e53414e4e7dbe66a1d8f
b7bfc57d6cf1e17f99f8254cb7888c2696786d2e
47262 F20110113_AAATSE cabrera_v_Page_004thm.jpg
f48a67dfc782e0796faa5d62435d87dc
a4d0eb6e4b7dfe2e2bde0b5d8047f6d2cf99a70e
43302 F20110113_AAAVGY cabrera_v_Page_206.pro
52cca07c293746927fb03633b8d33bf6
b9518bf5ec9d8cb658fe4c5244640a42c661fc70
21983 F20110113_AAAWDS cabrera_v_Page_250thm.jpg
926868c0152380b5da1b6d5bddb41e12
e3f910aceb698ab7b034abe1c820f04469bc336f
22321 F20110113_AAAVZC cabrera_v_Page_154thm.jpg
7a7d91b0fa7963b0f29fecc49815ff40
d9b78df42e673755a94a0481655cb9396a5ee103
2191 F20110113_AAATSF cabrera_v_Page_257.txt
bcd55ae9d77a41e1c99645b3fc4b369b
9a4dcc41e4186156c41b363a903b5ee83b012ca9
74052 F20110113_AAAWDT cabrera_v_Page_250.QC.jpg
b8ba3bbbc3865399559118a00a69a6c9
dfee63c7584785552ad775da226300c98f97203a
21018 F20110113_AAAVZD cabrera_v_Page_156thm.jpg
48fb2ff4cc01c5113309ecb6c836fba2
05c7da889335bbb70bd443eddca644e1afbf0a3b
46526 F20110113_AAATSG cabrera_v_Page_274thm.jpg
6dc58e9961dae5b9791fd51f45293454
92920e89b1ff2171657840b070610ac973c76312
50095 F20110113_AAAVGZ cabrera_v_Page_207.pro
5382ade5d88fd9bfe39b68c12368b8ff
bb9711a1141981c135d8ad0efa6fbdf0ccfaaa21
45665 F20110113_AAAWDU cabrera_v_Page_252thm.jpg
0662ef51576c918a17fea3f5404c2f9c
80907373c79d61be3479176e6f01beaea2ef0ac4
23185 F20110113_AAAVZE cabrera_v_Page_157thm.jpg
81dbecf981b6b501cffb25842c316c30
3c53b98320c094d12fd59d7e3131e674feed6f32
873551 F20110113_AAAUPA cabrera_v_Page_139.jp2
9b02c4b8af962d1a43e8e47c16e473c5
92474ec944b4d27de2e1e05b135b9072ae38d874
75603 F20110113_AAAVZF cabrera_v_Page_157.QC.jpg
c273a1eb0349a2dada190748d66da1a9
0f3e6a0d4ed7fbcb7bae0353f242d976755a1ef2
F20110113_AAATSH cabrera_v_Page_105.tif
eb084506d8b54d1e761e8f446d135ab3
b43435b744ae723fb000dfcc2cfbbb89f4032ce3
742215 F20110113_AAAUPB cabrera_v_Page_143.jp2
8e8596f97c17bb907a38edd3f6c89ad7
6c880adb1fc52aa63c21af0efc8523ec495674e6
93712 F20110113_AAAWDV cabrera_v_Page_252.QC.jpg
ca5d64861680eb8ca89dab50f6bc82ca
5530e5fb178808a2cfa553a3e64e12ebf875144e
75939 F20110113_AAAVZG cabrera_v_Page_159.QC.jpg
c94afb86d891fc693888c16981279d45
17743c9378093f953d1abe5fa8e3d01c07bceee1
F20110113_AAATSI cabrera_v_Page_287.tif
79fa085d40ab62435322a011c77aefe7
dd9802c5ac58ec256e404b80a65c75be2b882122
1051960 F20110113_AAAUPC cabrera_v_Page_144.jp2
c436bbcbac840e83dfeebba5385fdd8c
ca6fcd6b94a45c17d0986b2a48e18a62ce3ef559
71043 F20110113_AAAWDW cabrera_v_Page_253.QC.jpg
2c5bb32769a67a7eb46458e718feea65
ad82d4a68ed977d6ef75e573bb049f11c1208a31
39705 F20110113_AAAVZH cabrera_v_Page_161thm.jpg
e79888792ac3db5a87f18904bea6f69a
d4d7651615d204c4aa2a4651bd8e5633d33fc209
102269 F20110113_AAATSJ cabrera_v_Page_115.QC.jpg
af9b6a2d2d5c172df8ecec07d12c78b2
02bafb60214bdcc8a9795818b913bc9c7986c3a7
48446 F20110113_AAAWDX cabrera_v_Page_254thm.jpg
54434169c31737dddde43ccf9166b30b
ddbb031657db237b5113934b7dc1c19990541d52
46885 F20110113_AAAVZI cabrera_v_Page_162thm.jpg
942c80874166791db7ffac6b8171217d
9e067e460180441999ae8bfd365ee175eb42fa35
1323 F20110113_AAATSK cabrera_v_Page_247.txt
1eb1f4a5f5899ff1d4d6ab02786d45cd
c4cfff83e9719c15a057bb5a3f32e4f7a1d0fc30
995247 F20110113_AAAUPD cabrera_v_Page_147.jp2
db08dce10067635d80a1f30aa0b16a2a
ccc8e4ff75a9fe2be877fe1c689f4ffca858ffc5
97528 F20110113_AAAWDY cabrera_v_Page_254.QC.jpg
e2ec62a68e742b6fc36535ff3ac26477
a4d0b0385abca42c119d01f66a590b90252b59ad
89367 F20110113_AAAVZJ cabrera_v_Page_162.QC.jpg
4279259a9633a9bb33179af0d615ef47
9052f654983145ca1ab8ebb8153bac8d90994c44
55921 F20110113_AAATSL cabrera_v_Page_267.QC.jpg
66b8d0f002f023b64a28e9b1718f08ad
7f2f777cd7ce5ffb9cb89a805525f27a7bb055c2
910190 F20110113_AAAUPE cabrera_v_Page_148.jp2
55acb09b86d7dd332895099bb352762e
38cc2f751166ee9cd64286230adbe0d5e9ea11ff
F20110113_AAATFA cabrera_v_Page_223.tif
b67047e8d66ec3564b032a05964f7cbd
e70b529b5ac25d20847e3c2c6a6b38daf5d859e3
48206 F20110113_AAAWDZ cabrera_v_Page_255thm.jpg
103f965deaf4b8c4601e86d6acb9c9ea
7728916bca490e874f53b974b7f040aed46ad871
46713 F20110113_AAAVZK cabrera_v_Page_163thm.jpg
3a49b77150339fe100395dbe8a0b2881
30d6f3d22de0f5fea45785fe402d4b31154860da
2036 F20110113_AAATSM cabrera_v_Page_101.txt
3829eb23e5178e207538f3bccfbb80f0
d233fdb2603f4c4097e9a6e8076835c85795df3a
104536 F20110113_AAAUPF cabrera_v_Page_149.jp2
0bbd148ba81f9c956d3139d9795579e5
705373fbc7f94e6db0f05945a75bc646745d9103
395 F20110113_AAATFB cabrera_v_Page_119.txt
8eb655bd1ea831c17763bc00796b653f
47d38aa3d26645ff7572c3c632aac0e1147240b1
93740 F20110113_AAAVZL cabrera_v_Page_163.QC.jpg
e8da26bf0205c1a29610d11c2aa6cf71
a6741ff36b1ae7c12539ff45c7c78c48e65bb256
F20110113_AAATSN cabrera_v_Page_150.tif
259a664b54195df6826b92d0634ebead
c551432c3b6e88401f30edcb3e8eca9298b9c8ea
1005167 F20110113_AAAUPG cabrera_v_Page_150.jp2
1024c881ec9d2a6fbc286fdfacfe6c1a
03d195e51c5ada025c8ff8e51ddd3f80201c9ca5
44384 F20110113_AAATFC cabrera_v_Page_238thm.jpg
a36dc6f3ea3cb9874820f7ec5b994872
fdf5c48cef84653392429165069ef23f469efa16
F20110113_AAATSO cabrera_v_Page_250.tif
c602600b5d07bac12a6602c81112b350
9a84bd0f9e701a3512acc9aaa3bfe90efe719971
104569 F20110113_AAAUPH cabrera_v_Page_151.jp2
44213376f684315b1c415294f02cdd5b
d55c7fe09214363969e80625f88966764f5c6a4b
2020 F20110113_AAAVMA cabrera_v_Page_081.txt
d97df997c471664071c2a0c9a3a98437
b550175439ce05726ed8df1b7bd7ee6141dcc1c9
155775 F20110113_AAATFD cabrera_v_Page_041.jpg
2d7a0fa24b0f38609629ba353d638921
6b49ccc2fd216ddaf9c9233e88afcbbfeaa55a28
25439 F20110113_AAAVZM cabrera_v_Page_164thm.jpg
e1297fd3b9615741a5e3fdcb9b17ded8
654c1b8aad315e9ee4f04a124b8672ccb851ecb7
96359 F20110113_AAATSP cabrera_v_Page_145.jp2
e4e0968870dbca444d54b13cfa7b5a6e
d1b5d8fcd11d5442c4a0d49195af37633e97a9da
109270 F20110113_AAAUPI cabrera_v_Page_152.jp2
6a97d5df2ef58bbb2a2591af97ef1235
ba9bc724aa467a1e7d172ff51699ad94849d740f
1968 F20110113_AAAVMB cabrera_v_Page_082.txt
8fc70e23b870aa3dc9cf59e898a724e9
2d4af93e81d38eb6ac9bc8c9c953f7f57be59955
105038 F20110113_AAATFE cabrera_v_Page_229.QC.jpg
8cc062afcdb385f47eaeb32b8c71b9a5
58d6677ec4b93fd511c6c4e547bed6a761b1c3ec
22708 F20110113_AAAVZN cabrera_v_Page_165thm.jpg
3ae78022aef239b0fd49b9f9e8a50c30
c8e628834c49d22e719c5207f9a77ce6b90995bc
236370 F20110113_AAATSQ cabrera_v_Page_121.jpg
189d6bdf9d690ccd345106919affc537
c4974f195dc48bbe954eeb3cb03c9bb6245603c5
36891 F20110113_AAAUPJ cabrera_v_Page_153.jp2
be6eda46d41be36096ead415645af84d
f6e8073b242085c6452c5044707574a2b55bbb30
F20110113_AAAVMC cabrera_v_Page_083.txt
3982b14eefab3585582db3ce748bd497
3235a22ee6adf2702345ad29d4a5c6a948a591a4
208716 F20110113_AAATFF cabrera_v_Page_199.jpg
0694c1ece9e88e522d59c156b698343c
58b4aa3b7e3214fe2bad8277882bc1a83e888e7b
75471 F20110113_AAAVZO cabrera_v_Page_165.QC.jpg
8b04674d5373935880999de378b21934
cd3485ca8a17b84ac1985e79261d48c998b2fc2e
49129 F20110113_AAATSR cabrera_v_Page_014thm.jpg
958ed5a0d3edf165ea398789c21b14ac
38c97cf04446f1ce25c81ea34363578327a02e19
95254 F20110113_AAAUPK cabrera_v_Page_154.jp2
69c7d11d4df0f2dddc05fe0002508bc5
d646fe964bd0dd9bd448ef3bdd4369eb04dfa065
2023 F20110113_AAAVMD cabrera_v_Page_084.txt
ece23e7d6fb50d119b9726975080bbb4
26b105696537c778f3e2d71474e70617a6ae9146
1610 F20110113_AAATFG cabrera_v_Page_261.txt
8def76bbd07401903cf9d593b2ce823b
9ac072bd3f9c5f629ef3617a7d5319003605bdca
30016 F20110113_AAAVZP cabrera_v_Page_166thm.jpg
12c6bca140f21da596288df546a1e9c4
e751d24985519e59778712dbd4a9db48961b4162
108093 F20110113_AAATSS cabrera_v_Page_010.pro
8285b4e788f1ed6a4e638fffe9a149fa
2d2e49dd62f1684c698847cbecadaf0085dca52f
91308 F20110113_AAAUPL cabrera_v_Page_156.jp2
38cb689d87db51401b3875621ee2e412
44faa10a46f0ed0c81affc1bd9fd52d2d512fa1f
1747 F20110113_AAAVME cabrera_v_Page_085.txt
eb9ec5119c8bb62d9dbd1e511e6efb34
626b20ce580c64cbfb9b842dc668f2077152827d
23054 F20110113_AAATFH cabrera_v_Page_087thm.jpg
acb7646c17e2005d9ee76ee28eda572e
e9da2054c03b54f58b19e1bad2c43ca460c462dd
32675 F20110113_AAAUCA cabrera_v_Page_176.pro
98718b57aa14f47d559ac3423d43b524
5bd71364446acc5cfd2729f6c73f2f5a03a936e1
76450 F20110113_AAAVZQ cabrera_v_Page_166.QC.jpg
dd27d993643d988b6da258660cf50b74
30f819fd652cebe0d3bc11c3bff1a0408ef517f6
107128 F20110113_AAAUPM cabrera_v_Page_157.jp2
1baffe05cca2ed20893a4b92d9b11ff8
a278a7218843f1e1e45a54c2b030857d911a8472
F20110113_AAAVMF cabrera_v_Page_086.txt
665bfba5065398f3294724f2b2e4c937
e28eb27b8470a148db4b0dacd840cc40bf0d8e43
F20110113_AAATFI cabrera_v_Page_282.tif
3d9753cb6dcf5a8fabd604afb6798e03
bba4ba11e36430e5eabd496edda5e863a15dd7cc
1072 F20110113_AAAUCB cabrera_v_Page_227.txt
892fedcfc9122cd528d09e4d9308229e
e0dd629031dc4de40be72b49fa760ec262712f4d
47949 F20110113_AAATST cabrera_v_Page_052.pro
3a7ccacedbe239fe1711486cf8c7c545
49283cad24c0a7f46c475b3a89b2d68fb7c76935
22830 F20110113_AAAVZR cabrera_v_Page_167thm.jpg
340fecde91f8d75c2b0bc153512962f6
85e91e7ebd79f9f18c6d287aef388f847474421b
F20110113_AAAUPN cabrera_v_Page_158.jp2
258d93a25beb7d10a4500ed16f2bf802
c288f1fa28882ac00268743da0160a038657ff03
1820 F20110113_AAAVMG cabrera_v_Page_087.txt
8cb0c3786faf10e7e63f3ddd2f4b5f7d
987fd840a9ce372fdd6a0db20ba2e3ee5d20a2d9
54983 F20110113_AAATFJ cabrera_v_Page_290.pro
b04b59a97e5137cbe4e8d50d4bc3ef6c
dba6221dd9e617bc4fa9a7acad691778e00bbdae
1874 F20110113_AAAUCC cabrera_v_Page_209.txt
0b36805b47d1ec57e3d16c97eae8f47a
9e29302d7a6ada31c19b28115a8c201a6c061af3
F20110113_AAATSU cabrera_v_Page_233.jp2
0b331bba6be37b7dee26bc850f9555c2
9d133c886f6efce7ca83d80765f0bc5605d62f6c
72236 F20110113_AAAVZS cabrera_v_Page_167.QC.jpg
fab9e800d7d7c85488e47ae65791b52b
52cbbfb1c78e4a52181ea6b2bbc687bf3dee7275
882169 F20110113_AAAUPO cabrera_v_Page_159.jp2
41bc65dcf6f86e5dda7f0573739f27f7
e1927dddaf93f66f68de3ff58f8a947ce62721a0
1127 F20110113_AAAVMH cabrera_v_Page_088.txt
07e53814e39ae67022057cb72cf9df48
d2ad26e15009ec8b5dcf82ddb26e95db7ff0318f
49881 F20110113_AAATFK cabrera_v_Page_108.pro
275f2f188102b1a49a39b7fd071248f2
9a35ca24304bc92c3c2654e7994df127cdb12fd1
22807 F20110113_AAAUCD cabrera_v_Page_090thm.jpg
f080993eac519e8ae375b1f22057786a
5f162679aa21fc0b1c67254361c1a4463b5926ac
F20110113_AAATSV cabrera_v_Page_245.tif
b9978126718fe4ead6f1afa7a1929a83
7d29835e25020be214e0b9c5fac690f82f1df6c7
24438 F20110113_AAAVZT cabrera_v_Page_168thm.jpg
457d74f21d881785b4af07bd0439de4d
e5dbaa06a2f4e8fcfd8e02c75b4dd83cb9247588
609057 F20110113_AAAUPP cabrera_v_Page_161.jp2
8b9484a1cd21281d7e13b0c6fb65d3fc
cbb7172b16dd536c2f6f7fb0d86a2b42567cf3c6
1793 F20110113_AAAVMI cabrera_v_Page_090.txt
69cc7ffe51c9f6efff91ec0984b28d30
df169e505994a243debd9f48f964b8df80fa3ca7
102637 F20110113_AAATFL cabrera_v_Page_062.QC.jpg
203591f772fb081ac42b117400e789ed
25077784ca3d95a1ec64ef213f6211ac06f405c9
191422 F20110113_AAAUCE cabrera_v_Page_286.jpg
270bcab2aa087c8ca5f2fbf66e0f8e8e
ec54ffe645db831224b76277fb56c4fa96ad1dce
24557 F20110113_AAATSW cabrera_v_Page_093thm.jpg
c8503c237b7b86c475ae55d0c0f354e1
0ffdf60dfe7c424dbf8ce105925adf7b093e666d
73890 F20110113_AAAVZU cabrera_v_Page_168.QC.jpg
46f184035c4d2d3037d5483f35082467
b387a0ba916b93a4e6227bd512664839ed82ed5e
F20110113_AAAUPQ cabrera_v_Page_162.jp2
d24fb7a3594a33388b3a8f1d59e36662
987f28f81838931e1070cdf7376877f9fdcf9f12
F20110113_AAAVMJ cabrera_v_Page_091.txt
750901b1f5aeed22b6668380098eca7c
eed1978765a0e1bc707ca2e492d0a9e97859418b
108699 F20110113_AAATFM cabrera_v_Page_160.jp2
7fb92d14a950a579e8e3f539066a23bd
4273e4ced3af32919f90700523fba56140c41b94
72367 F20110113_AAAUCF cabrera_v_Page_110.QC.jpg
35e2bf4137be648f9dec0dc425992434
7edfd32bc5ff8fe330db119ec4705f33dae7b4ef
49588 F20110113_AAATSX cabrera_v_Page_071.pro
9de9f68652789f15655c3020441f3fef
0bc14709f02889526e0890f906fb0c6dd8629836
23986 F20110113_AAAVZV cabrera_v_Page_169thm.jpg
3c998260fa60a9b353424f87b4266e84
5b02d17a4872578d3d2bab8171900a455dd9ac1f
1051971 F20110113_AAAUPR cabrera_v_Page_163.jp2
4401fa4d751a828964ead20cc4b67cb5
61c22b9547448795eb50a90acd307a04dc191d4d
1984 F20110113_AAAVMK cabrera_v_Page_092.txt
6023a59763e591b0b5688b8742b68391
9c6d3a0a45cec8622ef4a42b2aeb5b6408c3852b
18581 F20110113_AAATFN cabrera_v_Page_022.pro
5e84e75c3dc65bdacb0c9f06e37d6bc2
33a08f72d58ae1b719a7c8c50f16b722c2681d64
F20110113_AAAUCG cabrera_v_Page_305.tif
fd9b551a49916ea4095dffbcc902c842
9329bac99a01748afc08d096a954c1e3d9bdb7d3
F20110113_AAATSY cabrera_v_Page_203.jp2
10a8d6f312b288fe6c8a9426863a8648
14a63c2f2bd196802eb442ad2e378bc6d0a59e96
80608 F20110113_AAAVZW cabrera_v_Page_169.QC.jpg
8e7cc7ae87ece8e4c209dbaf6d709371
86401fd85cdfea81cb1e92e5ad2c2e1410aef456
110547 F20110113_AAAUPS cabrera_v_Page_164.jp2
90d417004bb85d44dac246151820997a
421914c2a8397f81b3b33902df38029792b82faa
2043 F20110113_AAAVML cabrera_v_Page_093.txt
2d5f3273ad95a07caf77370425141781
d71a866a0ae01139c0705161639357b7873e18e7
1827 F20110113_AAATFO cabrera_v_Page_136.txt
d6edef9f7de58758c9f4b88a0711dc51
2e060a0627445b17b1acd841549f6d922a4a1d4b
F20110113_AAAUCH cabrera_v_Page_281.tif
e581d37809fa8ef69f0638730741dc71
bee596766f0437d3397eb31e0992e150e5794f07
23292 F20110113_AAATSZ cabrera_v_Page_290thm.jpg
d26564b6d62a40602512718d50eee058
895c82c093300d1e32443245fd1d7d14f1abe5b9
32645 F20110113_AAAVZX cabrera_v_Page_170thm.jpg
7dad128b8c2fe126ff69ced070a937b9
0f94bf5b4eae7b547e0904b20e27207d85a8a927
102208 F20110113_AAAUPT cabrera_v_Page_165.jp2
6610e14a1fa5db15e8af0fefa2199be7
3fadb4e343d2f2db77b5114e1e2923516cc92a80
1329 F20110113_AAAVMM cabrera_v_Page_094.txt
579099f59d285cdaadc8724388e86575
8fb743f22321eb2adeeb697625a689060011e79b
1027757 F20110113_AAATFP cabrera_v_Page_279.jp2
2ed994d4418f04422496741f4e739cc6
e9df0b9ccdfd42954b876e7fb245339c60a3b692
25489 F20110113_AAAUCI cabrera_v_Page_296thm.jpg
49197d9a47c1aa7aa00259866aaac7ef
000d3daf24b2f7b0f4014429edb44b75ecb08e4e
44471 F20110113_AAAVZY cabrera_v_Page_171thm.jpg
8888ac38f2886590e219d54db78343e7
50ed754d6a88ea57f79ab7d22b8b1e7ecb1528a9
999121 F20110113_AAAUPU cabrera_v_Page_166.jp2
2732bd64a37e9187301bf8d265b1da16
b499a61f3a6d3c210392bcf011f242b10a5a4d11
1758 F20110113_AAAVMN cabrera_v_Page_095.txt
3c0ff06486a584ba3efe7927401e2921
55d05b9165ff7093db34e2be94ee30ccba23b538
217659 F20110113_AAATFQ cabrera_v_Page_181.jpg
5d33fcc53f03c8de9b50ed94a2b7741d
73078954ee3a8298a71fe074eec32001244c7521
759718 F20110113_AAAUCJ cabrera_v_Page_244.jp2
ecc87f578fb39bffa614c1cf9cf30b7d
5c9731b2f9a050997b48384bb8b4ccb2f3c7358b
26169 F20110113_AAAVZZ cabrera_v_Page_172thm.jpg
d03c6adb32646d9010ef7eda16b991b8
8dadc59d08b2f8ef44f84a073ae9a09ba9cead92
101007 F20110113_AAAUPV cabrera_v_Page_167.jp2
947b8bcc77635698b60a902f32c75099
3a30dce777ed52528c8b107aadbb5281938a61ea
1912 F20110113_AAAVMO cabrera_v_Page_096.txt
ebaf853c12c22aeb384c126238104644
7b38e52fb79a70209edd13fbe83f92f8ff704a6b
108041 F20110113_AAATFR cabrera_v_Page_260.jp2
e0cb3e41974a1f1f4951beeb2b3eae8f
5639e104d8e3958ea2e0b3f2b21f5d581f1d95ee
46315 F20110113_AAAUCK cabrera_v_Page_150.pro
de1f89d8504b2475921920b54101fa9a
3e3efd6668bc0d12ec7ebdd1529386a4a50704d9
105922 F20110113_AAAUPW cabrera_v_Page_168.jp2
30be98218b5e0ae6895104ad9e2f926f
adff6114a85be543f63ff9829d2f02af43bdca86
1913 F20110113_AAAVMP cabrera_v_Page_097.txt
34cac7f7062e5402b72c78c8610bb1bb
02d5ed7ae8053fe98b27a95a8f3392d286b20303
205510 F20110113_AAATFS cabrera_v_Page_178.jpg
104b815ce38f5cf4334ccc432560c9fa
5c7e79ed85f1b45cb2e6290b9feedc91a235735e
F20110113_AAAUCL cabrera_v_Page_213.tif
8ec0432ba30770db85e33692e62ff73b
b5b463b3bcf5123ab4c93ecd1131a5cca63e1be7
812781 F20110113_AAAUPX cabrera_v_Page_171.jp2
22b591b0088726305f41c73e7c6d1c94
51e0f49e2d67e432ab52f9e74798b86c7bf0bf45
1869 F20110113_AAAVMQ cabrera_v_Page_098.txt
cef96dfcef94ed99431b314c5045c1f3
6fe214787353b4ca9487f8c8c87b6328bb0ad3a9
112952 F20110113_AAATFT cabrera_v_Page_102.jp2
046f5ec8c8f393830061b3e0335443c5
082faa2e4895bf69ce806190f0f6d6b4a2208470
1013256 F20110113_AAAUCM cabrera_v_Page_276.jp2
04d0e7aea53bea27947db548bd64882b
3cb602aeaf71476b7625c6ee1406f6a93a63ef81
795051 F20110113_AAAUPY cabrera_v_Page_173.jp2
78d2d41d9f1d2930af467a934171fa98
220a666129693c93b50a13f1cbef2efe6e2e760b
1826 F20110113_AAAVMR cabrera_v_Page_099.txt
4b7d93a256b1b0693e2239cf779f4f00
c159694353ecbf492e02e4e78e944d72bed5483f
F20110113_AAATFU cabrera_v_Page_057.tif
6a6f301fdc2c3d1b7ce4814070f386e2
ede7665fa7db69f03c6498598e39044b03eab93a
105623 F20110113_AAAUCN cabrera_v_Page_031.jp2
1b32e1626d6b1b1b56814ac7805f9ea9
fdff68aea5cf7c8b4ad82e44f13f12df3d1efc46
874770 F20110113_AAAUPZ cabrera_v_Page_175.jp2
c1b98f255902bfe51d989fc469f3d23d
86607a225feec78a3afc63fe14a5183df9d3e484
3184 F20110113_AAAVMS cabrera_v_Page_100.txt
d5fb9b74e71ed516730c072effc18bcc
66af103ab590f744b22ede06babd5b76ca0718d8
1291 F20110113_AAATFV cabrera_v_Page_175.txt
c5438dbf68926ca3543c28fb375e0cf7
5367c0d55d85b2dc4004c8bf61e8dcda6e7b6f09
50481 F20110113_AAAUCO cabrera_v_Page_266.pro
b254a54d34ce2e1dc768dfdc6246a837
921e06f194a1af3fbfe13ce4ee45fd9c3cde3093
F20110113_AAAVMT cabrera_v_Page_103.txt
1f3daec9d07eefb71bc86225d762511b
0dfc6d8cf5153a031ad3b17e31bc773de3c89f64
1867 F20110113_AAATFW cabrera_v_Page_220.txt
08e92df7023e579b2ec13aa9192a10c5
244d121b8ca51112133355e66b578bde05837fa5
45397 F20110113_AAAUCP cabrera_v_Page_222.pro
0501ab395034f032f3710ba697a5db0c
e169d1ade9ff34fd8f0e2a2a7fbf13e45822ac56
1901 F20110113_AAAVMU cabrera_v_Page_105.txt
7ff703112188544f3b88a8d7f58cd022
ae4a07675886848a72187b037d6d5b1725a6ee80
105684 F20110113_AAATFX cabrera_v_Page_052.jp2
596f6a7d32467ee1b955eb5a02011ed4
8820ced54ab0218c1d4bb086f1b5efb39110dd73
27883 F20110113_AAATYA cabrera_v_Page_253thm.jpg
a82bda2315220daa9f115826d7400700
f76924fa01e56ab8fcb3cf38c29b2520734edd12
F20110113_AAAUCQ cabrera_v_Page_077.jp2
e5de0becbe2894ed50f48abcbaef1c72
8720b9f12dab21ccbea04671a145dff7376d3b28
F20110113_AAAVMV cabrera_v_Page_106.txt
2f5cdce85c9fdd623ce5c960e59c4b1e
f4f24c440d0f67510ebfc6c3ebe97022491cb0dc
9482 F20110113_AAATFY cabrera_v_Page_153thm.jpg
015958e7382e69cf4dfbf490c5dcfee0
da7bfeb0b61cebd04cc836e13948769dcd22ef5b
25397 F20110113_AAATYB cabrera_v_Page_207thm.jpg
51c4a384b8c635a21dd8146baf14ec51
66d107445856f234f5a8ca70f973bcd201df259f
1143 F20110113_AAAUCR cabrera_v_Page_018.txt
2cfcf8e6806aa27e74d979d53824dce9
3d528f38ae96b5c9bd890cb365fc14fa415670a0
F20110113_AAAVMW cabrera_v_Page_109.txt
c02c5ea95944a57cf5db65de3a523a32
538a610826af3c7e569417ed34df7e0dce922029
27622 F20110113_AAATFZ cabrera_v_Page_263.pro
3b085e7fb8b35dca132c18c6250a6f84
37ce7a51c5c1f4b5465c403d5dc1174902aa6c6f
1048 F20110113_AAATYC cabrera_v_Page_019.txt
6eb4de8756ef801e37c2a885e66b8d10
2a57d2fd144ff50f2e0fb806246edd734efc48c5
44709 F20110113_AAAUCS cabrera_v_Page_100thm.jpg
7163492cbfc86a96d87a980141154f6c
3b9b5a80bd73adbb16bb6f48c19fd4c49f9c9ec7
2200 F20110113_AAAVMX cabrera_v_Page_111.txt
133df2969ad82bde0e5260e5394ee689
2d541fe68994ec316e427d61158f756e8b50bdbf
198531 F20110113_AAATYD cabrera_v_Page_165.jpg
dac7426a244741e780c375892b06604b
f10680ae6b1fce6aee996c7f13e2de4e4a602553
F20110113_AAAUCT cabrera_v_Page_049.tif
822619b804a8d3fc570e7ae2c8486920
464a3c074a632bb65f909aa90dd92ed41ab3e008
2149 F20110113_AAAVMY cabrera_v_Page_112.txt
655c2b0ead3ad786a04fc035449bd087
fdd3f37ad1c4eb212ce5d2d0b4f5e65761ee3c43
286427 F20110113_AAATYE cabrera_v_Page_012.jpg
23ad359b2f51d28449a5566ed54436d4
fc445dd4b60bb56b0bf47d8ed24e73014207bdf6
93376 F20110113_AAAUCU cabrera_v_Page_249.QC.jpg
0dbb4fedb795626eba3934c7fee80df4
a9e029d567385aa737590c4ba4c828364e4dcda5
4306 F20110113_AAAVMZ cabrera_v_Page_113.txt
c6263006f826cf3da3cb0e29ac2bae94
5a41d3fb23d0a3adb8a716aaa6e76df91bcdb122
F20110113_AAATYF cabrera_v_Page_295.tif
f9b94215c0b88eeede77a176cd758fff
4bb3b535279dc85edebff61890bbde3ddbe1c62d
74278 F20110113_AAAUCV cabrera_v_Page_179.QC.jpg
e32b05541b3e119bfd7762743f500c87
00b5a6651fded01ba35946def706b5667899b32b
110220 F20110113_AAATYG cabrera_v_Page_169.jp2
77c6cd22eb25d84589df40cc5977b35f
556c668dc0f92d55be0fe0d86118c3c73ee1c035
F20110113_AAAUVA cabrera_v_Page_065.tif
c8902c8134a37ca0c3f44629dd9c502a
a1ffca206a352bcbe7c922f2ad598f115eafacd1
213621 F20110113_AAATYH cabrera_v_Page_152.jpg
6596f03554a10288803a7454a44fe542
53d32c7be1c37aec4ef695b98f7be0f899f78fae
14722 F20110113_AAAUCW cabrera_v_Page_002.jpg
f4996feb606f46263a59164ba0a27508
defaad508b889037bbb3853a4c614b970459fcfe
F20110113_AAAUVB cabrera_v_Page_066.tif
77420d05d2726d7945f18b7e1ab82424
8f75ba9357508ae81d6ef796279af525192967b6
59162 F20110113_AAATYI cabrera_v_Page_219.QC.jpg
e98b642e0753a5852a88d1a33084c325
40932bf4c1a8e697dea68d5efc1a503c95ed79a4
209400 F20110113_AAAUCX cabrera_v_Page_138.jpg
be4c6b1d5e1f807d555465a3325e3183
5df5536438d527715f8ec3ab9ff51f1470729915
F20110113_AAAUVC cabrera_v_Page_067.tif
e27e32d3102ddd4f4b8996b36bf98991
e5adcfd6b17fc5087bc17e03799aa2ca232d64bf
87754 F20110113_AAATYJ cabrera_v_Page_170.QC.jpg
75fa28313c6e6d2aa5a8e292d8b5f689
2e21feaf1b5dd9d72be95aeeadacd1eb9e4547ac
74850 F20110113_AAAUCY cabrera_v_Page_275.QC.jpg
46e32088ea2b186c7b824ef882dcaf10
686498b92c96eb9c2029ed97a9ae9c2c5bf547b2
F20110113_AAAUVD cabrera_v_Page_068.tif
6a70817636975e79a3362aee616709f4
3740115bebca7a76d605b4f44309b6af9b71721b
F20110113_AAATYK cabrera_v_Page_079.jp2
74fc7b78510d0d316e1a49528883fea1
8dd49c8ea9dc97f8971e5013da07ebc78a055d21
75029 F20110113_AAAUCZ cabrera_v_Page_300.pro
7fc081a6efc6005bab76a041d098acb3
c0dab3cac3760148ed91007b847b9bf74aca6c87
F20110113_AAAUVE cabrera_v_Page_070.tif
27ef118d5639537482dbde127f3a20c0
4c20c1b014bf3c74727a1e3e45a008ce502f161e
24824 F20110113_AAATYL cabrera_v_Page_078thm.jpg
25be228ff81c9393af058ab5e15f3219
a1dd8bfe8cb8d25280978212ebe59293bcc99af7
F20110113_AAAUVF cabrera_v_Page_071.tif
af887c79c797bfd3a794ddf62dc89850
9ecbca4fee5f4bb09c204f4644ebc39024aec75f
47344 F20110113_AAATLA cabrera_v_Page_257.pro
31719a7030603a0ae8a94bb7c814dcb4
d24a4ab19d72369f626d01a0abc777eaa1b17c8e
4406 F20110113_AAATYM cabrera_v_Page_008.txt
f6bd2aadf6c3ba7d3b93a5b9d6de55d0
f78150ba2643b583fd102d2d526aef657c51fdd5
F20110113_AAAUVG cabrera_v_Page_072.tif
4078c8d3ba87c81af026ed005dd54f9c
a82190adeb261fb3c06f8719e272aa9e76fbf3bf
23401 F20110113_AAATLB cabrera_v_Page_052thm.jpg
395361f8ac309c34174d57c2c558dfee
d96d519b7162b4aee96222e88c7ca9ea129534ad
2752 F20110113_AAAVSA cabrera_v_Page_003thm.jpg
aeffbeaf5263dcb03fac8f82be23036a
71cf8034cbcc857b3e86420472ba87764e0f4345
F20110113_AAAUVH cabrera_v_Page_073.tif
ed561116f87e1beb3b7694d60750215d
42004e131a1ba79ec02ff40278d1436a7c6f5287
27544 F20110113_AAATLC cabrera_v_Page_224thm.jpg
ecc2cbc85afc85943e05eddd04722c39
3c3757efcd53b359109081b8d7f83e9168278f9e
190623 F20110113_AAATYN cabrera_v_Page_167.jpg
a0c41c5bb42327bf89117a8bf6ae19fa
4c10a7abd8da0d6194a6377263ba66fd166e6ef4
4760 F20110113_AAAVSB cabrera_v_Page_003.QC.jpg
64a36f0d8a60dbfc075647b362535b21
1daaba4586a4ad0b956c7fd20fa4c41fc81c9c89
F20110113_AAAUVI cabrera_v_Page_074.tif
2cc2bdc70499201cb0d511a9a1ca9d50
a1a3283c90e8e75c8adf2535202e0ae466498cfb
1075 F20110113_AAATLD cabrera_v_Page_230.txt
e6bc560fd119298d4753619b6d0cd3bf
16e11ea7a56afe8e37246633e46709ae8cb56d97
179523 F20110113_AAATYO cabrera_v_Page_177.jpg
959b7e9c427ac6b0d49c0c8aa30ea57c
58e2c97bc7c1cb9ee4a10fe3cbcc1829a11427dc
95891 F20110113_AAAVSC cabrera_v_Page_004.QC.jpg
ec9d73050ef2e05dc9aca1828ca79d9d
c9f656d58964fd7719e19a10a897e0296077d989
102404 F20110113_AAATLE cabrera_v_Page_077.QC.jpg
a170e5263aeb52455e95cc488896662c
b6f5293d23fad9fc2b22cd44d35aa4900ec60e33
75840 F20110113_AAATYP cabrera_v_Page_227.QC.jpg
4819eb05c3158febf1456e0d1e7fc1d3
1f7246e150b049bb8d48b55230aa1dc7d434b7b1
73639 F20110113_AAAVSD cabrera_v_Page_005.QC.jpg
11e60c810b44f6c5dd96eb7be046226f
2f4e89d897ae332e843b3f15c104b62a2015255d
F20110113_AAAUVJ cabrera_v_Page_075.tif
bb291991b2b50789098d2f90336b5598
80e3fea79bd062d33c4d712caedb3e6567a80284
1807 F20110113_AAATLF cabrera_v_Page_154.txt
520d01a62d3e840524d862bd3de791e4
cf0c7aa3253c1168295a184e9ab5456d993b7161
26047 F20110113_AAATYQ cabrera_v_Page_142thm.jpg
92565da888af5104c737fe33f807ca81
b6c209be515df5705517bf71a92ba44840b8634e
65479 F20110113_AAAVSE cabrera_v_Page_006.QC.jpg
bfd174dd6385be37f04999a6f715e645
14f710d03e7c1a13892e4dc3380495d036090c91
F20110113_AAAUVK cabrera_v_Page_076.tif
ac04fc4ee3c9a087dfdc01836652827d
491d3a1fb87f2b559d6775ea5fa376ee594027cf
F20110113_AAATLG cabrera_v_Page_275.tif
63f4073c9d8dc70f3cf12845359a868d
6da8fc0369bf50b2f39fc3dd8677b4a5ce80fd2f
2444 F20110113_AAATYR cabrera_v_Page_293.txt
02c7a72359daa3f54ff097346ad890b7
86e5e940dc75dea198f9aa394242db7439bb6002
F20110113_AAAUVL cabrera_v_Page_078.tif
b06e99f057d6836d5c469d55dd1db82c
b725cc55106216505304fa97c176230b8cdd1d07
19262 F20110113_AAATLH cabrera_v_Page_304thm.jpg
2e59b497e05e2ce3d085e597580c0afc
bd25301c9be6b6a5f853200e2a93b270b74438d2
186861 F20110113_AAAUIA cabrera_v_Page_173.jpg
504dd1c0acf86c078db2b428ba036907
1e9a4a1a5b6d484ea3481f1e2b5711a834c5a6ca
102916 F20110113_AAATYS cabrera_v_Page_097.QC.jpg
1856381dc681c59aeb9947aa5d3d9f81
d406028792e50a810f71c47810cf1ed780e97837
43565 F20110113_AAAVSF cabrera_v_Page_007thm.jpg
f9d375d6cb2bd06bfc40a22846e5327f
8bbb84d77f9896ce9cc508f03528ff35d1c2d639
F20110113_AAAUVM cabrera_v_Page_079.tif
3aa2fc88d13a815558e629021af60db9
fd6c5fe7cd8b65239b2e809ad40d8109ca497a7b
F20110113_AAATLI cabrera_v_Page_121.tif
2455882011849c3fc85b43b1108a9381
3a1287f613bb790156b8659d3704b1b35e962d6c
124184 F20110113_AAAUIB cabrera_v_Page_174.jpg
191331bdaeb84fded3eec4df5c90a311
e36ffbce4d143c854dcb2b7c6b3ec1b5a3efa1ff
108302 F20110113_AAATYT cabrera_v_Page_284.jp2
88c9c870edb087461df96ff07aeef4e6
d5e7d67712e954a288a6d1ef9618dcf0f5ab1d9a
89366 F20110113_AAAVSG cabrera_v_Page_007.QC.jpg
f1d1bf236cfb48aa7aaa2805b4252e3b
6134afa8198236917c70f192501ce894b4ba3bd1
F20110113_AAAUVN cabrera_v_Page_082.tif
a223837639fecfa5ede9422b80cd4952
728262c95922f1366c2dd46427e37a8d852aa2b5
F20110113_AAATLJ cabrera_v_Page_233.tif
3865364a3b19bc4f65519824c91a46a9
5a4ebfa4dd9e74a4c26664bec18cedc1299e6851
196315 F20110113_AAAUIC cabrera_v_Page_176.jpg
1a3fd4795dcaf6edfacd454f200e0444
a3ed8ba8f12591a21ef59fdd4dbe6708c6c4382c
F20110113_AAATYU cabrera_v_Page_081.tif
960595d503f71011b29f4cb501df65ff
adc5133180934785e043436a33469cae9b279f26
53748 F20110113_AAAVSH cabrera_v_Page_008thm.jpg
ebd68443e7a7a24b620de915f2a061fb
1fa0b70de4fe00b27bbb47755d12b252b0c4d366
F20110113_AAAUVO cabrera_v_Page_083.tif
e067c8d60d86fe78e2726f527ba2f5a2
bb872503adf59093c6de278b5949b7b0b6438f30
88976 F20110113_AAATLK cabrera_v_Page_202.QC.jpg
309a5e12ff3f135f2bf9ea4c84b9df94
30643d7e214c88dfe0253851980175e8971734ce
217406 F20110113_AAAUID cabrera_v_Page_180.jpg
aacbbd15b00775be0e63087251c99a7f
346954b27feccad4cd6dba2303bb626ac62c1ba5
46490 F20110113_AAATYV cabrera_v_Page_088.QC.jpg
802a781b21e549216929698f5db23ab3
5d4af9eb831636179f1bef3240e1a44df69c9e98
53467 F20110113_AAAVSI cabrera_v_Page_009thm.jpg
4a6910a8742806defd07fd28b1d85dca
2074f9b26447e9a2ee37fddacd7fd99ede143185
F20110113_AAAUVP cabrera_v_Page_085.tif
5afc073cb151d42f7550a47165e2b69f
d6434bbb42952518046e35825ae5f88b0bb95f77
23892 F20110113_AAATLL cabrera_v_Page_125thm.jpg
22f42bced486ea1ad645a8b05eda1b02
98dcc8198ae6f3249a750521a077151e71ec7e10
195925 F20110113_AAAUIE cabrera_v_Page_185.jpg
ddb3e2a84b0fe145304db4e9e6461541
61a808dad4eb904ef69538a0f85d9addd8df9722
248395 F20110113_AAATYW cabrera_v_Page_293.jpg
89e374fbacefb46579c3345432509f92
94165d224c7c85e34f499e2e9d45b566373fa8c5
123957 F20110113_AAAVSJ cabrera_v_Page_010.QC.jpg
ef501078796e499db44d8806a448c91b
f7db64698ea30e9a01bf40507c2a171c2e2e5fc0
F20110113_AAAUVQ cabrera_v_Page_086.tif
ad7d4e0a0c965068ac721d8562fff286
df178dff28b787bbdb1a70511ac5ce8c05243075
45156 F20110113_AAATLM cabrera_v_Page_090.pro
79ae101b2692d16612d50e963b063014
4d70a269737af0ff87a6f8f52fcdcd4d433e413a
222214 F20110113_AAAUIF cabrera_v_Page_186.jpg
97eed1b95f8e8cc313a15126b0db5545
3210f6827f0e7bb2846ad7ddb92b05eaf480d5ff
50647 F20110113_AAATYX cabrera_v_Page_121thm.jpg
11810c70c3a2ddda58e525ab17304dea
807ff227f10e96c671fb66f59b15fcb2d3b61ed5
51080 F20110113_AAAVSK cabrera_v_Page_011thm.jpg
800d2b626894a0355022e792b1554b94
2b5485f5a86124544885496d15608da9dc22a8fb
F20110113_AAAUVR cabrera_v_Page_087.tif
812a7cc4d97caf44014ba793f4732804
f9b941911deb2fa230c62748fb58aa45bffb5834
24227 F20110113_AAATLN cabrera_v_Page_284thm.jpg
9299113a549b9686f1aab7af752db7b6
4ca0628f0b30f9ff484978be93e38004c75cc3c7
170652 F20110113_AAAUIG cabrera_v_Page_187.jpg
5b83b2f03f0ad7a213fa6dd9e50722c1
cb1653f75b89239d96bb6624bfa2c94696ecfbec
F20110113_AAATYY cabrera_v_Page_217.tif
301b8a0cb52383e31fa53381c91d8bea
deaa2abde15f6cd4665fdeb5b1e51a5af42563ad
117940 F20110113_AAAVSL cabrera_v_Page_011.QC.jpg
1088f7124be973a0b19fb28c6cd867b3
fc258d297762904e121e57c1882dc4f8c6705aee
F20110113_AAAUVS cabrera_v_Page_091.tif
3456d4e54887dac82bf94952d1eb3502
05ab4778053961b2bb6a5348770267923076fe66
F20110113_AAATLO cabrera_v_Page_107.txt
a0784938fe90880723a4cad43ea90283
e45bc0e3662dea25d15656d226aab721063b449d
208095 F20110113_AAAUIH cabrera_v_Page_189.jpg
916c553038ebdb2eece44fcdd5f75841
d324982cbdaee60acddaa73a524bdd344882d92e
F20110113_AAATYZ cabrera_v_Page_006.tif
420e4c0bb41c029822ab949164dc54d6
6e3f7c095a25c4cf77a37f524b55dbd2fd79322b
36987 F20110113_AAAVFA cabrera_v_Page_133.pro
4a566ff505fab186331874853c9d5811
3bc97f58c5d631decace6f34ef1ba93514e42fbb
110165 F20110113_AAAVSM cabrera_v_Page_012.QC.jpg
9c7d57360941bd5e8babd8395f4efc5f
f119543db17a0df5e7e809df6ee31dfb59c57037
F20110113_AAAUVT cabrera_v_Page_092.tif
c010ca379776c71f9b364a2fb64bd341
d93c810493fa3919cd7d78bef43a75e909819e9c
191317 F20110113_AAATLP cabrera_v_Page_037.jpg
9ea16eeeed5ff127ed57f5393edbebaf
0eaa408462b73b5142a7eb432b25fbe1fb3d5876
207908 F20110113_AAAUII cabrera_v_Page_190.jpg
d812cb5ef1cb7c268c8bcb8dbc8e5b02
127b6fb4033929da8f11de3021a48cd9cb5b92b5
48566 F20110113_AAAVFB cabrera_v_Page_134.pro
0bc4a50e68ce5245307d1aade0ac41dd
0cbd3ead5075d18e631f0805908974b00752a23d
54350 F20110113_AAAVSN cabrera_v_Page_013thm.jpg
52c1044d55afefbeac1fb709183aea45
c4ac436a0b952b27df66a49d064410ffb5d841d9
F20110113_AAAUVU cabrera_v_Page_093.tif
12d112a9f47bb08a1602eb93cb65bc76
f35501c324dde1ddc224dbd399b6b67443840b7a
2103 F20110113_AAATLQ cabrera_v_Page_291.txt
8b5015c0a8ef1edac8b929af904b984c
b510ce25ce90e9febfb41c5c6dc0c8fb142ea3f7
258110 F20110113_AAAUIJ cabrera_v_Page_194.jpg
61fcf1034e337e08c46d5ae5d9f45b4f
4434ab41e1504e85dac0c55748e058242fcb08da
50992 F20110113_AAAVFC cabrera_v_Page_135.pro
65e913eaccf8d883255141ba759d4b61
865ee57b41d751ec98104c778969112759d62a0d
105686 F20110113_AAAVSO cabrera_v_Page_014.QC.jpg
3471e69b699a5fd79e9c0e1285da82c8
e9d4534afbfbf90039365e524ed9a4c4f163f9b3
F20110113_AAATLR cabrera_v_Page_284.tif
f96b401fdaff1b28da2f66431bd2fca7
abd266526a294d92c7599e232da1f15ad4263109
186320 F20110113_AAAUIK cabrera_v_Page_195.jpg
32fcdc2ed19dff8b6c851e627a3e16a1
6256e7be28bbe2c2c470fdf7da3c5286550ba5ff
40357 F20110113_AAAVFD cabrera_v_Page_139.pro
e8cea3c5d001a3767924e937a36431bb
90a678608987da2e35aafacfbdded8fe11fc3f65
F20110113_AAAUVV cabrera_v_Page_094.tif
185ce23a72e3954498c08f1fa1edb923
c0e42670aa2c1765357a082a03409dcd45663aff
54628 F20110113_AAAVSP cabrera_v_Page_015thm.jpg
2bb106103c607c9d02d9f1958824ee46
363a21c4a2fb44939e30e20053ebd13448a1bb37
1849 F20110113_AAATLS cabrera_v_Page_110.txt
977f6250952669c589eaf044c3467e5b
8b973677badba155064a7f855357e5a13d25c8e1
204500 F20110113_AAAUIL cabrera_v_Page_196.jpg
88d21b3319ccc224319ed0acec1a916f
d13a6729e130318a4c0b535a27b50c438ee55925
50548 F20110113_AAAVFE cabrera_v_Page_140.pro
5bd3b36af1546995f5a8c432e7d232bf
1c2c8e6654ad52d75f52e41e92b44020a3967072
F20110113_AAAUVW cabrera_v_Page_095.tif
03de6938bc10f68ce59eab2b3c859fdc
7c0ee9fb4c30afdb6566157416b57e719f96395c
122728 F20110113_AAAVSQ cabrera_v_Page_015.QC.jpg
94364be52eb18e6e9ea3198e07da04a7
d0f029b05ae8a6eb2e99646a4b3816c908afd78c
65936 F20110113_AAATLT cabrera_v_Page_021.QC.jpg
f6203b835c9c94c43186a6a3d2383116
3b029c85b7c161274de2316dcb6e0be935a4a4da
165682 F20110113_AAAUIM cabrera_v_Page_197.jpg
1a57781bdd8a3169e6b07a7fd3a033a6
23ba016c04d615a9647d0576000c4a40473191c7
47237 F20110113_AAAVFF cabrera_v_Page_141.pro
7a900043d3518a438426bd5673c2ba4a
cb88ba36601538f52b595af4b416fa0271ad33b4
F20110113_AAAUVX cabrera_v_Page_096.tif
de8a5b1919ff2142aae06e73749d6bc2
a89bab8700f149db823bf400223cf58edaa129e1
54377 F20110113_AAAVSR cabrera_v_Page_017thm.jpg
c2eb79c9193d751770658ac13d5c5039
b162549c730be1a372b06693d70d2dac5f9f9903
F20110113_AAATLU cabrera_v_Page_183.tif
79bc63b0fdf31b67989a47016eb86a63
601387e37880fd23aba6dfdbd71722e78701d7b3
210855 F20110113_AAAUIN cabrera_v_Page_198.jpg
d23fe6bb63e93b30188705d4f7c58dd1
e8bda23e56a364553773460bdc661ac6db9b06ef
31618 F20110113_AAAVFG cabrera_v_Page_143.pro
0dea1998faaa2db90c71466ce2dea24b
935f6e2fdad84b66d8178a0a60ba6ffb414e565b
F20110113_AAAUVY cabrera_v_Page_097.tif
7ee6d5042cdc0bd6228bb684d71cc632
cc77edd57e0c3b007c816e2025ef945bac717546
46034 F20110113_AAAWCA cabrera_v_Page_214thm.jpg
37ba5c076544e6a990b82f3075e50d67
1d88f891fc9df9b895167a698d53ff079fe44ff3
124499 F20110113_AAAVSS cabrera_v_Page_017.QC.jpg
931787163e6b976489876ae132a11923
a05110e8404b626f3e9b0483d73bcccedf3a1626
113711 F20110113_AAATLV cabrera_v_Page_112.jp2
da373877b857f9430edd4ebeee72caf9
b3a0572bb3cdf0ca71ee540886edb935615d6bc3
269321 F20110113_AAAUIO cabrera_v_Page_200.jpg
ff0cf746d5bf29b16a30ef3b3881f0e0
aa06992943f032f9cafda2623dc315e16cd74212
56915 F20110113_AAAVFH cabrera_v_Page_144.pro
74e0df372ad609993b145dcd23c92ae6
c7ee3fb1fdada6d89ef71dc52fb020c9447c8c1e
F20110113_AAAUVZ cabrera_v_Page_098.tif
1add924828746bd82b6129cb65c8acdd
4bb646f43f10318b1d5453857e7ddb6a2cb4fc5d
87769 F20110113_AAAWCB cabrera_v_Page_214.QC.jpg
2419731ed20fdb3d6770326bbd228d85
155794cf51d03a45ade85a1dbe69e6754d37d3dc
38506 F20110113_AAAVST cabrera_v_Page_018thm.jpg
80562e2958e3558be13a70904080161a
986c55e7a1ac9396230cebd551f6df1de1dcaba3
16818 F20110113_AAATLW cabrera_v_Page_292thm.jpg
f98196656446a8133d39ba6c03794e92
add3bd702fdd763dec0aed70ad93fc368e4d3446
211754 F20110113_AAAUIP cabrera_v_Page_203.jpg
0ac4e555b4bb4b36663b5e0b2d9bf973
2efbbb28a8f4218f62cf65a1d97bda6c25558407
49676 F20110113_AAAVFI cabrera_v_Page_146.pro
2fb4831dd1ada5bf33cf0c62c2cb37a0
8546cb850dd7d1c020ee691e32d56ed74c3c4abc
82917 F20110113_AAAWCC cabrera_v_Page_216.QC.jpg
3a1414e8d3482e808da04c9a27b49e21
6b01467c572f1b252430a76663460ab4c897e6fa
69959 F20110113_AAAVSU cabrera_v_Page_018.QC.jpg
50e31fdd5c8acfaa799251a7bb696c3a
71b0657b88936fd0ca90418b16b2403f4c2980e2
93916 F20110113_AAATLX cabrera_v_Page_036.QC.jpg
99f0d78f61ea36c7a5c32b80512a414d
a9dde7ee8eca7a8e9c02fceea722e650d7913b2b
189065 F20110113_AAAUIQ cabrera_v_Page_206.jpg
b341d2dab39cbf7f7af90de8ca43f8b5
1877181720d53905d9b8bdbb8a95285d892fa815
51185 F20110113_AAAVFJ cabrera_v_Page_148.pro
b8d11872812bfd2babce2169e0d14943
64f194ed2db40bc81a1ec0944314270be86c6eb0
20515 F20110113_AAAWCD cabrera_v_Page_217thm.jpg
6704377a86316fa6f4b4b0b1c4f25316
8d9fa931003720075e38b0acdece971e3efbdca0
15948 F20110113_AAAVSV cabrera_v_Page_019thm.jpg
ea040964d900c95d8ca68dc9731c42d3
3124f578180acd3054da6269712637c0671d00f6
22107 F20110113_AAATLY cabrera_v_Page_072thm.jpg
7f24de48464dba465b072f4ddf80bf38
8745ff704fa573f46ceb5cbc35790c03a9b3a655
203742 F20110113_AAAUIR cabrera_v_Page_209.jpg
d99f2389d1d5802bc0b3dfd9b3b91467
1b2b27d59aa995a85001036fb360fc6a7b20441a
48725 F20110113_AAAVFK cabrera_v_Page_149.pro
e2d36381dc4df1b7c1517f9e91089730
59402139790deb25b626d89fe52fee50b1e96004
60225 F20110113_AAAWCE cabrera_v_Page_217.QC.jpg
b09ae2186c3868afb6554d2baa8b6bc9
7e6160107bb5fd2814959e9ec286d72a96d1f701
44117 F20110113_AAAVSW cabrera_v_Page_019.QC.jpg
d18cfdd4fc0ba96374fcac3dbbee6e92
b0d4dda519ab3d1a96e6b65111eb89373f634ef6
215945 F20110113_AAATLZ cabrera_v_Page_278.jpg
378b34fe17578427c8ce5e142b9c8fcf
78e2ba219e6423b8b2565d852f80ba051d8bcc5d
194287 F20110113_AAAUIS cabrera_v_Page_210.jpg
3ef576dde203bdf5f064f13ca22030a7
203668e760b4eacdf265bfb2dd9d6ce834532db7
51336 F20110113_AAAVFL cabrera_v_Page_152.pro
9f314161269cd1288ddd4ea54ad6ff2b
a1a74c8ce1da13ea2ed52d9871e231268e6c84d6
20633 F20110113_AAAWCF cabrera_v_Page_219thm.jpg
856325ac3e927cd233ea4f7e07fb7114
c91c7d2f8697efbb4234734250ed7ebd2590f278
15369 F20110113_AAAVSX cabrera_v_Page_020thm.jpg
b8cd87cac9e5c8f4b03406387159acab
250208eca05013f11e84836a089378785e1ce64c
179271 F20110113_AAAUIT cabrera_v_Page_212.jpg
8387f3486a8b821a4286aa51177ee857
f072bf9dd916584b68b17928f3b543a181e13352
15530 F20110113_AAAVFM cabrera_v_Page_153.pro
b0a90c576010bb184121e6a7ff892b2e
76e9e6125b141a676134dae73b88ca3f89465fbd
63752 F20110113_AAAWCG cabrera_v_Page_220.QC.jpg
947f28ac892db20e48bbb9f4ee0af1c2
104039cadade58452a434f927c0104ac4ccca7f2
32503 F20110113_AAAVSY cabrera_v_Page_022.QC.jpg
385e7ab66eea73b8f4ba9e0ce5e89e98
b5735854f8566674b09169d3133270172e6e008e
202835 F20110113_AAAUIU cabrera_v_Page_215.jpg
c357cd71ed5ade8be2aacffc84a4a77a
70f3108a118ee7536458c565b4a10337d669ff14
43274 F20110113_AAAVFN cabrera_v_Page_154.pro
5e51a206c8b2c256c965461dffe06ab6
c21317b6c88a95c9a1873c771cb2c00bf934f475
23280 F20110113_AAAWCH cabrera_v_Page_221thm.jpg
785b902e426c40ef5551188138464a43
5ff509421a0cc9d85fb6d1403187d0beb99824ad
19405 F20110113_AAAVSZ cabrera_v_Page_023thm.jpg
9f92a4b274c514a0da0ad8aef0502e32
ae816c3310bf37640fa663190ba2f1b0c486325f
166229 F20110113_AAAUIV cabrera_v_Page_218.jpg
64f96e79345c7533849274c3556ecfaa
0b2260b51127038e85c053469feb6ccf5be1853e
49251 F20110113_AAAVFO cabrera_v_Page_155.pro
6096f95f80bfa50a05e99d77460221ff
a78972c8bea72a84595a3a06d3e938fbaa9e3715
72238 F20110113_AAAWCI cabrera_v_Page_221.QC.jpg
a5bfe74f4148451bce6220d105e669e4
33bf0b955a14464507219123ac5a03a9ae794175
159556 F20110113_AAAUIW cabrera_v_Page_219.jpg
f53ada9106edf886252dd95a43b6f167
60003c70f7c8e5d2f08e966364d5a87c3fb90c70
41260 F20110113_AAAVFP cabrera_v_Page_156.pro
2cf213fda25bcc741c4102a4d56b0e99
fb51de95873010f2b0765817c6517923a4628a66
78399 F20110113_AAAWCJ cabrera_v_Page_222.QC.jpg
e7b476066c18a6df19bc8c7558100d75
593c684d173547d1f4e1027cd4fe563af172638e
166657 F20110113_AAAUIX cabrera_v_Page_220.jpg
f3858b1cd4cc2ad5db532c86326d99d6
21fe20a91bf90e69468a4b9c3a32c12c72578a1b
48458 F20110113_AAAVFQ cabrera_v_Page_157.pro
2bbf7194ffbc36c410b8094a4a205c4e
d799091ac51569f5e871d57bd1707da4f31a5243
40629 F20110113_AAAWCK cabrera_v_Page_223thm.jpg
7060f56d5ea21aea3df9b18d4e6221b8
94934abf2ced6d2496144b1c4da2cf4d7e3d9776
196043 F20110113_AAAUIY cabrera_v_Page_221.jpg
bbf71c35e03e716d6c84c526e7513bbd
e2471097b90a5453ae15b9dd8ef69971c46815f2
9122 F20110113_AAAVFR cabrera_v_Page_158.pro
f49b91af0a4acb2ecdf3ada1405b94b8
18d46e18b186ad157ec06886aa53f800f1b4612f
72797 F20110113_AAAWCL cabrera_v_Page_223.QC.jpg
9fe4186e654c9d062366cd368e662349
c734cb5b1644215a4257e26044a042f84d2a0f00
188830 F20110113_AAAUIZ cabrera_v_Page_222.jpg
bd2b4211427a94bcc60eec3507d40c23
a392c6b122733497b185401a13bee57b28400230
40554 F20110113_AAAVFS cabrera_v_Page_159.pro
2befdc17a0016a09f336ccc22a5e7526
21a670a0a1be47665d5e3ba8617cf0aa844f5cb8
19210 F20110113_AAAWCM cabrera_v_Page_225thm.jpg
36071a5ab846cd91ecdc5ce422e3102d
b0721feb0615aacf32d826b9e2500b94b180551a
49204 F20110113_AAAVFT cabrera_v_Page_160.pro
cf533134e17aeb59a6990d5d50ca602b
da74ce57f19565e9f13c929c441b0767efceab25
58843 F20110113_AAAWCN cabrera_v_Page_225.QC.jpg
2d7d616962ab2ef4885f6fa4c6878795
d8b7ab73ffa17bfee5687367c6dd3366bfeed7f3
F20110113_AAATRA cabrera_v_Page_197.tif
03656a23eaee4985b81dbdeacf26fcef
a8a6949916b6c8f299197a80882811bc138baa71
20595 F20110113_AAAVFU cabrera_v_Page_162.pro
c3da16cf97a0d6e102161f74f56a6946
fc18517a6c0c337c950b5e6f6c3cae85760aaddd
29318 F20110113_AAAWCO cabrera_v_Page_226thm.jpg
aa54de15e2bfef7e45f9bb854ad0e1f8
84783997462564d8be20ada741a0d83b561bcb06
F20110113_AAATRB cabrera_v_Page_059.tif
1048df0240647b004a9242bdd4b72e81
0099ed65ceedde96740a8ad2110dc49afc1bb5c5
50228 F20110113_AAAVFV cabrera_v_Page_164.pro
a15b89d459071aad52defa57b8b3a644
a3db080a339642c3d8846f8f97f0cf7f9bd882f1
43941 F20110113_AAAWCP cabrera_v_Page_227thm.jpg
9f9de2c71f1e57c003a124980c690d5e
446163323d23f35a5b28ed5e7d1a5379c38639a3
F20110113_AAATRC cabrera_v_Page_242.tif
79534f7142c01e338d859f3e0fb2d812
25313573b59aa46044c43e924bb081e416729d4b
46802 F20110113_AAAVFW cabrera_v_Page_165.pro
e4d7f39f40ebe3c4999101a43d47ae37
eebd4380dc0fa2fe6a40c6d18659ebee16f48ff9
23774 F20110113_AAAWCQ cabrera_v_Page_228thm.jpg
6c0ef7280be42907c63c4b1b619273d9
aee16526eaf41b488373f38b219397368538d111
105803 F20110113_AAAVYA cabrera_v_Page_132.QC.jpg
4ad367ba3ace1ecb0ca629984cfb0176
45b79e5c694e05a9a3737595f6fe358d7249ccb0
51945 F20110113_AAATRD cabrera_v_Page_158thm.jpg
2330c672f746ca9f96ae17a6bea80ffd
f593a526f1ffacb704b0018e1489d2327949dc3f
48450 F20110113_AAAVFX cabrera_v_Page_166.pro
b9f1fef4f7fdc5b37f6d728f4108a486
da1c067865244a037ccf8b531faf9baa41f2aac9
67842 F20110113_AAAWCR cabrera_v_Page_228.QC.jpg
083a79afe5a6961514651b7ce84251fd
164553a9899a55962e68adaee506cf0eda9c44c6
45853 F20110113_AAAVYB cabrera_v_Page_133thm.jpg
74c810a3d4ec20396c135f6cd74afb20
1ed231635ac967acce84ef01b243203a53236d84
49731 F20110113_AAATRE cabrera_v_Page_185thm.jpg
93ce6e0d3961ced2a08d0685c6a8663a
e091e1dc35db13af9a28b3cb8500dfcbd8a99e2f
49993 F20110113_AAAWCS cabrera_v_Page_230thm.jpg
d28e71f11786e46c6732c7e388740066
7a8af54f190a76bba2cfe926b723b5f282d4e4d4
24455 F20110113_AAAVYC cabrera_v_Page_134thm.jpg
c09db06feb7136dc57ec23e11b915313
18637142e628e6e98fff00757a17df792f3b8722
2580 F20110113_AAATRF cabrera_v_Page_299.txt
b741de8523cde18eb258e56e9d6566cf
c718307922a88b8ac350194b45263720cc138e44
48421 F20110113_AAAVFY cabrera_v_Page_168.pro
ad5c44b387735148112c354ae4a57db5
c5d2ef501d4707cb93d5c6949c86f7caf9814e9e
45480 F20110113_AAAWCT cabrera_v_Page_231thm.jpg
cf46730e5d8c7bdf2604ffec80930862
6b21a07122d3d2e6354a7e6e625ca44f1775c0b8
24712 F20110113_AAAVYD cabrera_v_Page_135thm.jpg
1e19ba40fde4f26d6eee7eb2852f47e2
e866f5511296ac2c2ab05d3e34b72d0753acb752
50204 F20110113_AAAVFZ cabrera_v_Page_169.pro
3ba254d2a5fdc196965e17fd09bb324d
d2ff31e2139dae14fd9afad49dbbcdfaba078e0f
45425 F20110113_AAAVYE cabrera_v_Page_136thm.jpg
586870f6e9a713bbeb7b2c83b3fb4319
e33810341ddc6386c82ccfe526d3f2e7f2fa622b
46700 F20110113_AAATRG cabrera_v_Page_110.pro
5a83edc003d013a667c4b10b1a181b03
0fe3cec25e14e5b2605b9f954a271bff7beb5131
106494 F20110113_AAAUOA cabrera_v_Page_096.jp2
b45cb94a322e9c3b5d46b7245715a3cd
126acb6452468e4ba90d41553e9623adbb316fc3
89833 F20110113_AAAWCU cabrera_v_Page_231.QC.jpg
2fab3f39251d2f2152991cfdbc4f071c
c8fe9ce5de02cea24c52f6817c191c57b3c08551
42824 F20110113_AAAVYF cabrera_v_Page_137thm.jpg
4f58bbc0f818260271a1838543c545f2
8ca89289ad8e4e10b38f59971167cc19dfcf2da2
46226 F20110113_AAATRH cabrera_v_Page_245thm.jpg
1a2686b9d021de211a6bfb52ed8aac0f
757f036d8fbbcc6a3dd992f0ffe1be7b89e3360d
F20110113_AAAUOB cabrera_v_Page_097.jp2
323ccf55c3ae84cb23b68f2167655fa6
46c5037f99351dbcac993779e9ec02c410e5914d
23128 F20110113_AAAWCV cabrera_v_Page_232thm.jpg
b3bb7cc40ab5cf828922759fed39b928
999ba755937da8552d990c9d338ae3db3b9662c0
24479 F20110113_AAAVYG cabrera_v_Page_138thm.jpg
3875c40a445cfe27b4496b427bdb9e31
622b8d7ce46dd957b24f7baa4635121e432ea6a8
204410 F20110113_AAATRI cabrera_v_Page_304.jpg
4abaf3ab83924f698463ad8f987bb569
81c0e8a41c8b326401c1153cd9864add5088c622
68143 F20110113_AAAWCW cabrera_v_Page_232.QC.jpg
94df0370d96a434bef2e7bab0409c4c5
71b54dd2611551ab7ae5a69c4a8245ffa232ac44
F20110113_AAAVYH cabrera_v_Page_138.QC.jpg
113793c83383539d3a13fdc5f1da3e22
85647887b38ed4622b3c577a4c325877fec9d5fd
75435 F20110113_AAATRJ cabrera_v_Page_031.QC.jpg
ba027a3deb182d0ec1ced747e3d9b21b
efa0712d6c40fdfa5fa4e4d24e375184f483947a
106279 F20110113_AAAUOC cabrera_v_Page_098.jp2
f844a32aabb53d505a9ee8bf4202960b
98cbac75ceeb265f79affac9f7d7e30618aa13cb
44480 F20110113_AAAWCX cabrera_v_Page_233thm.jpg
1fbec683f508a2396873e8dfb1596d8c
cf40bfa3b9fa83f86ca75c1fedcd72db3b12327a
27930 F20110113_AAAVYI cabrera_v_Page_139thm.jpg
6718177b537b77d39cf41159f3696931
d2a0513e1834413fc16ee1e1ec025f16ff2321c1
F20110113_AAATRK cabrera_v_Page_289thm.jpg
befce6d486304af9621ba686b05edf79
53bbc7f8ad64fe801d0ef02c04cba7ea63afa037
100789 F20110113_AAAUOD cabrera_v_Page_099.jp2
75cc4c9b6a526628fe81df885b7832f1
c6640451b78a4708685e456c5ce023f3797dd1a4
45272 F20110113_AAAWCY cabrera_v_Page_234thm.jpg
7f8eb3885e449626386c7244f0454ad2
73658b0e70fe3013d04809196abb2d8dc182c6f8
70385 F20110113_AAAVYJ cabrera_v_Page_139.QC.jpg
aef21d4dfb676cac32819967bd568196
972bfbe2e1813ac18ec60a468701f3e8276a5b0c
100250 F20110113_AAATRL cabrera_v_Page_286.jp2
7ebce03e2e78a7b5b1c502bf7bfbbb58
cd87b1f44adffe1b0c9a96e26b06538d91280877
1024586 F20110113_AAAUOE cabrera_v_Page_100.jp2
5bbd4b521c8caa8126a6a885a3997c06
da81fff3716cdb82f05a689ff822a346118eabdb
24930 F20110113_AAATEA cabrera_v_Page_181thm.jpg
323f80391693cebeba438877fddf9ff5
12b37d195cf82132d326c155a4441dbc4421ca19
49225 F20110113_AAAWCZ cabrera_v_Page_235thm.jpg
25175fe738427d871ea9e43ebf0e7e9a
2c359217b7ac15b8d844fe3cf6d3c24d2a86be40
25276 F20110113_AAAVYK cabrera_v_Page_140thm.jpg
0ad7ebcfdf815825e0fd05e35481cc6d
2e329dc8e02e48a274b4d1b3c926554b587f2450
60630 F20110113_AAATRM cabrera_v_Page_302.pro
ee275958709666b7db5c788895ea98c2
29dfa03b79dcea65453a8e0f3c93bff9c8d63e63
108558 F20110113_AAAUOF cabrera_v_Page_106.jp2
015990b37aa292980b0437ef8aa329f0
5a1643e93b6ef32f78ebc137294f701722a55c51
44694 F20110113_AAATEB cabrera_v_Page_145.pro
54ad9a700e033cc9e46d983dc1812f3b
2aecf99a5aa1cfd9dbba3fecd881f6c954b4b0bc
F20110113_AAATRN cabrera_v_Page_195.jp2
ec13b68cb2dd513e5d6722ce48d0571f
9d5c515fb1a418e2305bc77300d71eea3b17e920
106314 F20110113_AAAUOG cabrera_v_Page_107.jp2
5a7727dcb7d97e82c6b2f9d34a842975
db99a593e6a4ab4a0f587a84570c69b137da0866
F20110113_AAATEC cabrera_v_Page_263.tif
cc574926edfe44b4a25b47518330bed6
a2ffb04a44672e46797d9ef58ba4986b329ccc0f
77963 F20110113_AAAVYL cabrera_v_Page_140.QC.jpg
b69c73b7f4e22c62a7882f86dec52004
8ee2b8826d982bcddce93c02a9a5343deff95fc4
47666 F20110113_AAATRO cabrera_v_Page_268thm.jpg
6295571ae6d405e46b49f364edf40ff0
0fac2f89e3306a0454208df003331f56e10811f2
108635 F20110113_AAAUOH cabrera_v_Page_108.jp2
0a0a328c61f6b7e3ecb8482084ffdd08
d33f297a8174f69f61c9e32a2dcaee7b51e03ddd
F20110113_AAAVLA cabrera_v_Page_051.txt
a50dae4fe7ce2d8ca0285a5414d32c5e
59d4df264b6580584a6b0ee202c921672aa5c013
1728 F20110113_AAATED cabrera_v_Page_217.txt
741b283a67c246dbe3ce1e14beb760d3
9270b87922cfeb3f3730b211f89fa03043b63006
31069 F20110113_AAAVYM cabrera_v_Page_141thm.jpg
49d5342b3bab7c8b31b21e5fc75b8db8
a4ea9a2c1e6063d539f865dbe6d41c07cbb14871
F20110113_AAATRP cabrera_v_Page_302.jp2
844abee138866d05d78c0f048e03c6d9
755b4f385bb5086622d3d865aef5d888d26670f1
107345 F20110113_AAAUOI cabrera_v_Page_109.jp2
b5f6428640ba3b8820f9084f45de47c4
cabc1a8daf39fad9bef9323d0fa9e355a73ee680
1902 F20110113_AAAVLB cabrera_v_Page_052.txt
ba392ad7ef30a80ee5e9599be4abe2bb
1a5206140fa30e29a6e0e063808009b97253a5c5
2143 F20110113_AAATEE cabrera_v_Page_183.txt
cf9aad89ca1e475e369755c2c8af7339
f6f5db06a732265cb3ad0c54669ed3ab974a38ed
80075 F20110113_AAAVYN cabrera_v_Page_141.QC.jpg
5703684a290c8d199f0c60d56c8333fa
3e8c20af2f6a147699e863904f679992e4796076
51154 F20110113_AAATRQ cabrera_v_Page_084.pro
1b940a2690ede5644e4c780b87ddf955
503d8fb7576d40dca42bea108052f3a9f8f47ec0
100999 F20110113_AAAUOJ cabrera_v_Page_110.jp2
d2a54ebfc44cd0f53238c5e1eae60572
afa277e0458bef363f2fcaca4643888babed52a4
F20110113_AAAVLC cabrera_v_Page_053.txt
8724fcbba9a2d6447d50371dbaeebd80
595c5c78d6728ab4ff7f43ccaafec3e3ebcb5c7d
189797 F20110113_AAATEF cabrera_v_Page_136.jpg
47c902e43ddc9e3b339188577c44cea5
d5d33fc8fb2e4e902a9cc5369ca44aea17349bf3
80999 F20110113_AAAVYO cabrera_v_Page_143.QC.jpg
6ab2189fdabfe0eed3a8d31d51368302
32f4d127f779f84168ed198b271705541c2b554a
F20110113_AAATRR cabrera_v_Page_249.txt
bcce13c8f3ec8b013ec70d6fcdc748a2
41dc52108494a9101edae7eb34cd2c93cfd5ed39
118300 F20110113_AAAUOK cabrera_v_Page_111.jp2
4eed99bea3962e759143d0f61671b6a4
dfea3c9dc92952a4c93523120dd32d57ad9b87c9
F20110113_AAAVLD cabrera_v_Page_054.txt
27c427fc2d7d24c4e1c4b0548b9feddc
1800b0a717cdb7ae4ab1b0879a2762fd1a183e60
F20110113_AAATEG cabrera_v_Page_280.tif
bbe8123ba6b01b8911e8122a7db10d88
176ba9373d1a5175ba41205e7a9d429fa22e8973
32479 F20110113_AAAVYP cabrera_v_Page_144thm.jpg
1bbcaf9951d5b8e2106b3d3f96d86d31
ac9f3731cc80b3037ba0bdcf03c12aeca62f05ad
19150 F20110113_AAATRS cabrera_v_Page_161.pro
711a3aa2580550e264648bcfac5783da
bdec58adabd5b49297038676cb87aa64c7e2f4cf
131338 F20110113_AAAUOL cabrera_v_Page_113.jp2
109b23d0bb784ba9f00475093f15462e
3c5dd2580156f2069717c9d3e773969f9888693f
1811 F20110113_AAAVLE cabrera_v_Page_056.txt
699858b3b7e8c1ad785730fe4a03260d
4b0d5b00dea20af96ac51ad33dc5dc68c810685b
252313 F20110113_AAATEH cabrera_v_Page_193.jpg
a44479d351b51221e5f885343694791b
2f7f7c8d16ecee9b2b4e085001dc096f482535d4
104575 F20110113_AAAUBA cabrera_v_Page_158.QC.jpg
bb006d6e97e4bd23890edabd8a9425d8
8d6673091024db15dda48d956a4aae17d1e4d781
86140 F20110113_AAAVYQ cabrera_v_Page_144.QC.jpg
2937991d285ba7717ec23a5fb2c5dadf
43bb5f1bf5ee69e6fc45fa39d89da444ad802369
F20110113_AAATRT cabrera_v_Page_256.tif
22073410c9819bc1f9c12c7f936d5dc1
8c9558dded86cd9179f00b50f03f86a5466336d6
102679 F20110113_AAAUOM cabrera_v_Page_114.jp2
080ca58c7da5834602c412af0a45a5c3
6d3db92b713f3217749b97f0678d6c26e2805e2a
2031 F20110113_AAAVLF cabrera_v_Page_059.txt
b406670e89c77e6611ea319e942ae711
c035c033412268c46650e75dc0cf46d9f11a8a08
1858 F20110113_AAATEI cabrera_v_Page_264.txt
2f94e43e3e5739bb2265a34a37c775d4
c365812c67c16d93b81a67f1a6d67bc3054d75a6
107031 F20110113_AAAUBB cabrera_v_Page_138.jp2
564b0b790b040cb948c298c01aa54d4e
52fe5ed3bdf5aeff8e9706302116271f17609855
F20110113_AAAVYR cabrera_v_Page_146.QC.jpg
a65797e3dca85210d1c29ddece2e4c45
dd82203dddf2c0ef534f0ccbe974f620fc320f53
38469 F20110113_AAATRU cabrera_v_Page_203.pro
357050c1025eefb12ed2acc7f63bf6fe
1818d93a602eb01a4341435aa452952a5451a248
F20110113_AAAUON cabrera_v_Page_115.jp2
9f5d9feb299afc6711d4bc4f1cd46e63
13c6d794f2a8d5a201bd39b8d228931706a112dc
1857 F20110113_AAAVLG cabrera_v_Page_060.txt
23a901de8799d8554320b6ce4518954e
a4db45f6756523b91e13491157f03b750c7bf07c
49931 F20110113_AAATEJ cabrera_v_Page_284.pro
7be1bfc286cf6ccdda83bec2b2e7a9aa
ca684bc4b6cba55a0550a1213f0962b9013dbb36
F20110113_AAAUBC cabrera_v_Page_089.tif
77706d856be9182139600d5a0b9a1172
8707ff01073fbb2bb8fa6d1b7172b352ad69236b
79569 F20110113_AAAVYS cabrera_v_Page_147.QC.jpg
701c51c698cee866cca1b07b5cb49e37
0927ebc6cca930bd768630fa4ee6c650bb37a216
23813 F20110113_AAATRV cabrera_v_Page_283thm.jpg
bf3d61e75f76d1f257ff135d1eefea5c
ac2d08feb5bac93d83ca94a8e340c00dcf99476d
110275 F20110113_AAAUOO cabrera_v_Page_118.jp2
9693018aaa79c245fbcb3539635183a3
2c7de9aac99401673631182dc98fa50aff286edc
1893 F20110113_AAAVLH cabrera_v_Page_061.txt
b47d7a89020ed2c9dc174bb9a17551b0
a98486db9951a93db0316bfbbe4cbc21000be37c
116191 F20110113_AAATEK cabrera_v_Page_183.jp2
e153e190a27aaab14be0e3c6edc309f6
ae29a4fe97344d227831aac3821d407f5881101c
1051936 F20110113_AAAUBD cabrera_v_Page_025.jp2
30f20770a4d353f5750e9c3ee7a072a3
16b809eb264e1606113d41d893c17b84badeec6a
29357 F20110113_AAAVYT cabrera_v_Page_148thm.jpg
a37a072c525ca88c4240ac45bbcd87bc
2777d46a0f7ca628b28e168353abf4b236c8365e
88775 F20110113_AAATRW cabrera_v_Page_271.QC.jpg
717b45de78dcb7e1454ea3ebf5e2915a
381968b2c240eb0af9cb22e467b64683879c0d4f
93066 F20110113_AAAUOP cabrera_v_Page_120.jp2
42a605bb0316c8f299913d2db53a20b0
8c3e23b1548744bf3edebc8bcb46ff2bbb9903e9
F20110113_AAAVLI cabrera_v_Page_062.txt
ef99f94df9d1c23e5d02dd0ce235ae12
e2a501711cf49c96e2abe3a0d9e62afdbb5a492f
31499 F20110113_AAATEL cabrera_v_Page_267thm.jpg
62846208daa0b931d7185df1d8987156
89a70204dd1eba59528ba6b10477c9b5aabcf77f
45327 F20110113_AAAUBE cabrera_v_Page_254.pro
395b5178c685e23b93dbe20f0ea7713d
c24366929d26713a89c1f9c3e70c34506c13f3f8
74746 F20110113_AAAVYU cabrera_v_Page_148.QC.jpg
b6128b7650de84749cd77d654a407314
8e994e8a0e204c89539c74707f496bc61fecbfb5
923921 F20110113_AAATRX cabrera_v_Page_214.jp2
14e45ffc2b913177e0d4ea547823f796
2bde0826982e0b8482197384dc30604401504e09
F20110113_AAAUOQ cabrera_v_Page_121.jp2
8c5b8a90c4b238c97b5646ee4e663520
f2c2710a10dbe13efc68028a87e2b2100cd9aa90
1943 F20110113_AAAVLJ cabrera_v_Page_063.txt
5554ceacb65dad12a3f3101cd757c1c3
043be53c7f00d17d6f1db0afac2ecaeaa4521d59
190211 F20110113_AAATEM cabrera_v_Page_191.jpg
4c3bfa205a59ccac73b104542937d877
2f60159fdcde5fd2b0d8eab4f63f61a82873d3fe
76810 F20110113_AAAUBF cabrera_v_Page_155.QC.jpg
316449c89760de0052be45c605777812
22a7cb39b4904a9b51e6000505b70ba8bafab266
24763 F20110113_AAAVYV cabrera_v_Page_149thm.jpg
352b553fe48e4c76aae4ac5f952c93b2
0d0ce6c7feb4e16d9bb1c6d81a4a32001b55ccd2
652912 F20110113_AAATRY cabrera_v_Page_265.jp2
c5994cd1df41a4593f0f54706999a5eb
0a706776cb792c7db00496e3d1bffe7eee05801a
104328 F20110113_AAAUOR cabrera_v_Page_125.jp2
f43d796465f5f6dd0d4ed56bf5cc01d8
c90a105b48bc3bbb8555562c8e0f7b73facbc1a9
F20110113_AAAVLK cabrera_v_Page_064.txt
1c7f89e29eb61f952b8d02b495178880
cc242fd25568fdaa67e34db6ad3f6c86c2626c0c
48197 F20110113_AAATEN cabrera_v_Page_151.pro
69d760fc391570ae331267c1a5022215
2e210653686fd84cff2d2a0536d17b4a2a1158ed
159707 F20110113_AAAUBG cabrera_v_Page_239.jpg
19e9120607e65ed3dadf6bdddc744e98
c2c2b2bba6c9ad0d62afcdf9d97553fcb63c4cc1
77022 F20110113_AAAVYW cabrera_v_Page_149.QC.jpg
8edfe3c955ac031420ea39a64dcedf20
d0b988e6d535c19070e803e54cc94d943637c313
47477 F20110113_AAATRZ cabrera_v_Page_237thm.jpg
67d4164f7b90e8ecaa46c4c5f4856745
996dc7a8d17d0f37fbf69d136868d9f31cb2a79b
1051892 F20110113_AAAUOS cabrera_v_Page_126.jp2
60bbf8bcc38c259b1f9374467cce3d4d
3d518f9ab55bbf8444a28f1f70104453bdb540d3
1975 F20110113_AAAVLL cabrera_v_Page_065.txt
b6b486155cb05a68728c4ea062ce8e36
6f0ee5fb1dbd993753bd96ac7b78bd3664f40e5d
F20110113_AAATEO cabrera_v_Page_156.tif
5fec3cfc7f08ee1aa0e9f150bb3f27cb
c6837b2a21433400855003c02b6365be3f7acdc4
2308 F20110113_AAAUBH cabrera_v_Page_188.txt
7fdeb8090d652c962c648212d1f4a168
4f09e10ff2994a4ebaf03032b0f9e600de2c4dff
82589 F20110113_AAAVYX cabrera_v_Page_150.QC.jpg
07c28e25539685f1f9a10f65045c48e7
ddf3498a4d1d40c52ea08f9f0a31a69804933eb5
88237 F20110113_AAAUOT cabrera_v_Page_128.jp2
c94525df2fd5e2741a77aadad5934cda
2df3878676e427ee0191c7bdc2beb4664cb03537
1801 F20110113_AAAVLM cabrera_v_Page_066.txt
f4edb0a59533a0fc6c0408473cd84f44
431f9ede5ab82c8408503c78f45de39a7cb25a65
F20110113_AAATEP cabrera_v_Page_146.tif
5631cc88fbd4b37423289271bbe4b001
c16a647ac821387672cb69761f0cf65042a99e29
818343 F20110113_AAAUBI cabrera_v_Page_129.jp2
bfa6decfa06edd73f5bc5b2949bdc712
72a102914447a250018161845059c5133880eea0
25261 F20110113_AAAVYY cabrera_v_Page_151thm.jpg
d7fd5378e5ec4ca40fbea2366d6cf06e
59753872979d61635bac9c558c90775d17cc831e
111342 F20110113_AAAUOU cabrera_v_Page_130.jp2
fa795852b220ceaaa5c48a5b2bcd3ba4
47a9ebf27bf686a787f8a25b522ef00cbc3ababe
F20110113_AAAVLN cabrera_v_Page_067.txt
ea5c3de0eaf5841231caf759f02107c5
8b5b9cf79c9e4aadae2560c19cb31da86d2e0ece
79424 F20110113_AAATEQ cabrera_v_Page_135.QC.jpg
abe0510f9658b20160f82da489f721db
ebdfad7d754c0d6cccf86591ea432b6016b97685
45936 F20110113_AAAUBJ cabrera_v_Page_271thm.jpg
ad9b4a19ac5c1c1e882419a56ae20a3e
39cb94a715cc02b27e43568143f171c734af5f95
25331 F20110113_AAAVYZ cabrera_v_Page_152thm.jpg
c81ce459262092f2af29ccf4b08b834c
62620978573f234474c95f7bfcf75745b93c0fd8
1051961 F20110113_AAAUOV cabrera_v_Page_131.jp2
47187156989da83e1b82024cc094a86b
58d4f7d550a3d8e1442afdaa8aa083e79eb5cdba
1930 F20110113_AAAVLO cabrera_v_Page_068.txt
422fc72aa161623b5ae7597880b312a5
69efde9e659c52c9ba44a675ae9cfb180669af90
46972 F20110113_AAATER cabrera_v_Page_032.pro
b0d4d026719c5eb4f39cc9551dead766
57cd3e0a06275fd7f56efe9281376756c34f8154
48148 F20110113_AAAUBK cabrera_v_Page_030.pro
03b28aa17a1ea088ab4a42fe68ea77d6
e7da6144068f85a7b52d4064ed1cc108f1e4b70a
838571 F20110113_AAAUOW cabrera_v_Page_133.jp2
da3f816c58a0bf28e327ced9a0a38b26
bac9fed51464095a9c48b8ba6bafe11c634880c7
1993 F20110113_AAAVLP cabrera_v_Page_069.txt
7f1c2cd45344ba9d302bd86eb12d48c9
5da8d3aec2c5a257bd646a2924237fae6b12bc86
32612 F20110113_AAATES cabrera_v_Page_276.pro
0b9a30ab787a958d445adb4c1a2d9c33
837008e1ff98deec59c63b01c43af3e4f7bae6ee
F20110113_AAAUBL cabrera_v_Page_104.tif
31ac4830f0ade16b4ed7f36d68dc5ac2
ed615fcd73c77123705f083607651254367429dc
105871 F20110113_AAAUOX cabrera_v_Page_134.jp2
5fc7e2322d549760c12a72d81e69aa65
5cfcc6af1c44a6e18fd53b95ab5aefd656f4c5d8
1999 F20110113_AAAVLQ cabrera_v_Page_070.txt
88465079b3dc02eff9281713276a395c
095c9435fdb9d6328bb5a753ed0e3850ba789f78
132623 F20110113_AAATET cabrera_v_Page_296.jp2
6368f5cb61e0f29bea816b3988911c2f
c285145c7e5502e10dc331e8a060f6e9c4dda100
51540 F20110113_AAAUBM cabrera_v_Page_295thm.jpg
e98f5692a70753b4a592fc99cd27a71c
ce8656a7bc792268df359263947a697796b86cab
111215 F20110113_AAAUOY cabrera_v_Page_135.jp2
ff3453d81ccc2a62a7e045275b3b0737
bee632530dbffb288b7c73ef061e97ef7523be71
1972 F20110113_AAAVLR cabrera_v_Page_071.txt
8033863ea35b469894c2403bdfdb0485
ca3d8434aaee8f5d1d3b1db961c2aae8f7e738e1
233478 F20110113_AAATEU cabrera_v_Page_079.jpg
a5b9a5ffe0d9da7be4fbc9cddfd27e7d
a37e21b57742046442dab3f0a8027962fa8b529b
225962 F20110113_AAAUBN cabrera_v_Page_112.jpg
e5dde5e73bee281ffb503fa06e91ad06
e49de60187613425aedec04c9e24ac5298996dd8
691430 F20110113_AAAUOZ cabrera_v_Page_137.jp2
d8128fa4d858d3c382a6b0a19b3d0a36
f6070dfd75904f7e2f04949da05cfeed7b7fd839
2272 F20110113_AAAVLS cabrera_v_Page_073.txt
7696a7bccb998e9b4b43da5e944176ef
7f919f0d1fe964d35626c48ac436964f2c835e4b
1814 F20110113_AAATEV cabrera_v_Page_208.txt
c170291541104aa75144dc988ed2b900
a56ab02d6971c99f971d3baf2d7e9a7312e3f591
24546 F20110113_AAAUBO cabrera_v_Page_155thm.jpg
757c7e9b897b8d7c6b0f1f3e1096a1e8
1b559433ec1a5f6fabf3f46ef89d147034266ed5
2219 F20110113_AAAVLT cabrera_v_Page_074.txt
c45da3783a1feb13a7e8708905d8b4e9
a66f6923d8f4a0cba119c015e33d311ef2865811
1925 F20110113_AAATEW cabrera_v_Page_259.txt
187c586eede53cf6dc96c7d5b5484025
2f44d2e0ded8913f6ec0aaa5b0d22101fff20a60
25802 F20110113_AAAUBP cabrera_v_Page_186thm.jpg
4bdc234e76b15f3ca385499ba16ea730
5b90336add9369f4883485667ac72cbe4bb8020c
F20110113_AAAVLU cabrera_v_Page_075.txt
2c813d73f16fa7f2e5d721764e61b972
1713fff4dd92819b90dded38e46f83ed758f1315
F20110113_AAATEX cabrera_v_Page_189.tif
538566d2b10ef0c5ed16caa787e499dc
a9493206769050ee8069e6538c1e415f334139b0
F20110113_AAATXA cabrera_v_Page_244.tif
11bf8256202c780f748d2fcc6fbc728b
aa2fc268c8109868e7b23f28c797980b17678eb7
1812 F20110113_AAAUBQ cabrera_v_Page_254.txt
4b8aa6811613f73252ef133a5b917459
22b9a88d6006c399dda02f47c11fa21b22d28a14
1909 F20110113_AAAVLV cabrera_v_Page_076.txt
0fab776350232d17576fed868af813c7
2b36e60c8238bbf56c86fea52953176c83157d88
46819 F20110113_AAATEY cabrera_v_Page_282.pro
0e1f4675fe429fa0bb69e1667a03fed4
bf24c7f1363eee12567af8252670aa8b95c58046
211914 F20110113_AAATXB cabrera_v_Page_169.jpg
72a7406951c235704df0c88be1d1971e
53eb527d1fd8e0ed1ee9422b3ea9aa4d483f092f
81080 F20110113_AAAUBR cabrera_v_Page_217.jp2
49cdb71c55d6cae8358c25ba69266b0a
cddc71f73eb8fc8f50fd40f1422d63ae8057edab
1958 F20110113_AAAVLW cabrera_v_Page_077.txt
427273e7619eca261bdd5963cc626a98
f61fa76cdd9430a51a863ce0283b45930a7a6b43
F20110113_AAATXC cabrera_v_Page_113.tif
bd91f694ccdcf03021c1d63912ee10f5
367e9e7dd895db92a479d50e1630a02c95b09cd3
242606 F20110113_AAAUBS cabrera_v_Page_132.jpg
a15ba2af540886f6dcd4390d6f57d1cb
899896e038b0e225f8402e1540146297b427f12f
1980 F20110113_AAAVLX cabrera_v_Page_078.txt
ee81125cb92c8dc0508a3129fe7237e9
c91e1bdd15f824c85abadc12cf137abc1dc68986
111653 F20110113_AAATEZ cabrera_v_Page_104.jp2
6be8fa414c14cf64b46388088bc4c8d5
0203708bc34fcbc80728204f2ca05c51943cd14f
16895 F20110113_AAATXD cabrera_v_Page_119.QC.jpg
e218e64afa231add0c402e1457170d60
03d4907fd2698a015b9a86d73dc1e39f4834ee08
8868 F20110113_AAAUBT cabrera_v_Page_119.pro
23a87d3f6691dfe74a50e8728c4d015a
27ae8b8a3126fd042e5c767ff08e3e867e1315f7
1978 F20110113_AAAVLY cabrera_v_Page_079.txt
862190c9c25d351554f5e38ea99feecf
514af1ac2aa7048a38c813f17a03795f4ff29dfa
68367 F20110113_AAATXE cabrera_v_Page_263.QC.jpg
352dacb0ddeaa981f18d2e26d2c83044
49f6717f25c2645893d893fc22b09671c2ffeef3
219268 F20110113_AAAUBU cabrera_v_Page_102.jpg
a91870b776bfe8760ab5dc50bbc9c073
72aef995a519bf30a8d30fb84c2871892403edd0
2279 F20110113_AAAVLZ cabrera_v_Page_080.txt
a12bf4db8588f92743dae65fe5db47da
7edb5d9241ecc82324ec1f31f4607c0dfb88cece
211485 F20110113_AAATXF cabrera_v_Page_207.jpg
c3464a9c0f8ea3a015fa3bfec8a25f5b
1c6ade112c583c8d5bacb038a5342a527eb16b91
106128 F20110113_AAATXG cabrera_v_Page_071.jp2
3bdcd4a20aa41ffdfd629db63600f8c0
06c72a43a2401c36b1a3992817f351263be68a99
F20110113_AAAUBV cabrera_v_Page_129.tif
9e1285fe3b46e013b21293120ce3eb83
929240b5969966f7cb480af9f5b1f4c23b710c99
F20110113_AAAUUA cabrera_v_Page_028.tif
2be513a16ca815b63cf1f36d86cb66f5
4aa14a17dc98b17d82284f2e82c04408f7eb0a71
49381 F20110113_AAATXH cabrera_v_Page_044thm.jpg
aaaa3d054f44a1d686bb5bf4564a52d9
b0066c671c2114b19a69a2367886c4f564d14991
F20110113_AAAUBW cabrera_v_Page_170.jp2
27c318e73fecf53676347c8e0d17689b
3b93515796af6ca0750a03f1702635efd5f092f1
F20110113_AAAUUB cabrera_v_Page_029.tif
168cb868d1ca1bbf90f31c2cf1885b6e
d1344211492836e5ee0f44c1140b60a0e1afaced
2208 F20110113_AAATXI cabrera_v_Page_194.txt
1150c816a5df75373223e855b5cca775
99d1cfe451d115ec722f04e2b1e103e271f9f76c
219874 F20110113_AAAUBX cabrera_v_Page_256.jpg
5351904292cde6fce51d2534d906f259
7877413c8dd784d12c09fb4ded10d19fd3c8ff84
F20110113_AAAUUC cabrera_v_Page_030.tif
183e481ea674ec2ed3757700a8c21626
95ad3a6f47b5c2ad03256a5dbf4177c900c9d1d1
2075 F20110113_AAATXJ cabrera_v_Page_139.txt
c82f7754b93aebf2157f4bc53a2ad68d
60a94e1fe6270790a2d6077f5b9115382acc9a22
24273 F20110113_AAAUBY cabrera_v_Page_196thm.jpg
330ca6a046271890701971db655b90e6
ed75ed67706d4720ccf0cbd61c97379d35dc3324
F20110113_AAAUUD cabrera_v_Page_032.tif
133c0b0ffdb8403deb8767a28a5308b7
c502aa4281054f620f74b7565072f9eb501a411b
F20110113_AAATXK cabrera_v_Page_137.tif
251f0b903022703707a182c80c09f2d0
dbbfd3879aca3560c7c18a305fcdc7ccaa2c6b29
208463 F20110113_AAAUBZ cabrera_v_Page_038.jpg
799a8be4b828bc5c63f1d40c52da9a93
c8a4baf0ddc13f492c4fd080ad77d60ef2d54775
F20110113_AAAUUE cabrera_v_Page_033.tif
eb3b05db8e706c884a87b2a31017855c
28efbd1fcbca5662704df7b3365984c4742ee035
2571 F20110113_AAATXL cabrera_v_Page_007.txt
0eec0ee3023d26f6707d82d37301bb87
3d8997cf31ea92e8e4bcc9294929d1b30b8b13a4
F20110113_AAAUUF cabrera_v_Page_035.tif
ae833fb284015fc43d3b14f05c3de10f
8a4eae030903e3e54e8ea44a44160840b093ae61
43291 F20110113_AAATKA cabrera_v_Page_262.pro
67eeec4d350746006fd75663bc2a7ce7
cac728c091d75f8522e646fde81a850c83e0c650
F20110113_AAAUUG cabrera_v_Page_036.tif
da9fbca375f908d54f039e0bef8dc73e
f67bea0fb682e742b866ab6489b4791a524c0359
87938 F20110113_AAATKB cabrera_v_Page_136.QC.jpg
5ff317bca80b0bcadba5186acde0f5e3
ca8e476beeeb4891a1be1a29d51fd2871dd07adc
F20110113_AAATXM cabrera_v_Page_213.pro
00e2c7b33da6cd80cb084099e84a23a1
f2ada4b45d60213db7bd91b4117ba745a83f2502
F20110113_AAAVRA cabrera_v_Page_276.txt
adc1743702f86292080e84e509b42caa
87ea99f59651b37df325b7815e479d349ed1bd58
F20110113_AAAUUH cabrera_v_Page_037.tif
accce675022ffb8e6958d91f388663d8
7532060380f6c0aed573fca0e1059666d1db023a
F20110113_AAATKC cabrera_v_Page_004.tif
f96543d8455ea08747e9b685a018fcc4
26be0dad98150d2602431c7f5b4995cf65a15dfb
1658 F20110113_AAATXN cabrera_v_Page_156.txt
39a156001d5d3beecc21aca2c6eba7f5
8f1940914687a6ec62f2da944f434a64de08f13b
1330 F20110113_AAAVRB cabrera_v_Page_277.txt
30a5e0f446686a686682034b486aba14
df9de1aaecdfc6c5779e8652e933988170339283
1985 F20110113_AAATKD cabrera_v_Page_164.txt
14ac7215b6cb5d14007851885619ae6a
744daec2634071e680198ce8d87721dcf212eb22
876812 F20110113_AAATXO cabrera_v_Page_177.jp2
6d25dab06aa04504c715cf485f1f5882
30b644fabcec7cae26644bf1cb910524d37a5b25
F20110113_AAAVRC cabrera_v_Page_278.txt
0597ae151be0dd81336827fadfcd8c5c
43a4162e83232e89d0428779136f4fbfbcada7bf
F20110113_AAAUUI cabrera_v_Page_038.tif
e19c248724e18ee10225be45ea54cfc9
0991b59f931c87bb3cf4376332c77c6f5381949f
2189 F20110113_AAATKE cabrera_v_Page_290.txt
8c3eea9acd64b92cd60bd8719306975d
519da705ec0282df223bc22c595f2b76906f2d3a
2975 F20110113_AAATXP cabrera_v_Page_300.txt
7a0a42996faf3e807097d6bc880fe115
f86046cedc8ad3276211c3691b7a3c8ddb966269
1511 F20110113_AAAVRD cabrera_v_Page_279.txt
56ac3ae8993d2090c2a85c6b65ba762f
0196927312f4dda962a984a2663954c4c360111d
F20110113_AAAUUJ cabrera_v_Page_039.tif
a2458f18bcd272161e46dce6daab7833
64ee900ef60ea3a5a2ea05462c8760bb849d8fde
30431 F20110113_AAATKF cabrera_v_Page_222thm.jpg
e121c66b814e0762b32887fc9cdb5a9e
c2b4d9da706b877b922e951f96ad166650aa04b2
F20110113_AAATXQ cabrera_v_Page_299.tif
674c8c0494908419ad0afc7e51d504be
de24a0f57886d0e5381418c2692d916d5818bda8
F20110113_AAAUUK cabrera_v_Page_040.tif
5fdd06b12eb533ccc8c51103549efb0b
6aa2d332082c5e92331c950e6ebb61c0b3ae33a3
F20110113_AAATKG cabrera_v_Page_251.jp2
263a0b7c1c7dc4d2e7a0a098f06945de
8b0c6ebe32874083bc890995c3bed83539b74b10
99062 F20110113_AAATXR cabrera_v_Page_044.QC.jpg
4a6d35dcb8203e2dfec4015b8d10294c
e9c0f55410b49be13fd1ec329eab2ef5fb50438f
F20110113_AAAVRE cabrera_v_Page_280.txt
5f9e0f228551d33de8fe5be0fde8c281
62a21be8b7594ad7bd545c17395399b1aab981d2
F20110113_AAAUUL cabrera_v_Page_042.tif
862bdbda00cffad4b263ca869c807b23
fcf2add14f4dd40c0d77959ff9b8e5731b7d7b98
164699 F20110113_AAATKH cabrera_v_Page_225.jpg
04f9aa711f913216924b31bf555ea8e3
c2c5819ffca9c86ee0c5f4f41413f643bbdc6353
164004 F20110113_AAAUHA cabrera_v_Page_129.jpg
89d8c3f0d4225e5343d3362908a3bf94
9b40f677c77738242ee4a6d32e4bbfdaf5a823b0
177770 F20110113_AAATXS cabrera_v_Page_213.jpg
46217320d220944cce4a143c1bbf32b6
574ddc4a855a1dc984f86e14f6147f4ca125fdc7
839 F20110113_AAAVRF cabrera_v_Page_281.txt
31129510f01340b38bec77b167ada7de
7f56c275e19425d8cdd2e44d1b207cf977f2c3f1
F20110113_AAAUUM cabrera_v_Page_043.tif
0545d29635bfac6bbb4dc3b3718985db
8210bee88f780cb9ffff8c735f15dcf35f690842
47362 F20110113_AAATKI cabrera_v_Page_031.pro
3002a4e4bce84cee52c53be74c87c620
258b0ea0f77d944a7da34f61fb8012ec67aaa16d
218847 F20110113_AAAUHB cabrera_v_Page_131.jpg
f0e4bc20231e3be47faec6074bc65c4c
cb63cfecc69a020afd37f9c32cc0c2741deff360
1821 F20110113_AAATXT cabrera_v_Page_250.txt
784c40bdf232fb5d2b03f2f8738494c4
35680a4ba74cc8cb60b57fdd91bbdaea119e35ff
F20110113_AAAVRG cabrera_v_Page_282.txt
6f293998904a6498222080f7e7c0e296
14f8ebe62a947274ff26ac8e903087c41a5a2532
F20110113_AAAUUN cabrera_v_Page_044.tif
90fae9909b1b66d5ea2e8a84d08a3c2e
8ea1e6a5f4215d9b78b9c8da0f49a5feb785175c
228398 F20110113_AAATKJ cabrera_v_Page_183.jpg
3c9ff12089b4d45a33dd9691f5b30e75
9f0ef6482c77609cb2c724844c63441bd42558d7
192742 F20110113_AAAUHC cabrera_v_Page_133.jpg
91c84f4483b4c1fcf473b96cb99940e3
0ecf004d7ff8065475873db984dfccaa14698446
23326 F20110113_AAATXU cabrera_v_Page_288thm.jpg
77d5fc2ce17bcf4fb4d0582aaa0d65bc
b9347e7d925d82de431af0a5c7bd91b46c0d97a3
2011 F20110113_AAAVRH cabrera_v_Page_283.txt
dcf46983d32e73c5fadc69538db8aed6
3417ae74cf5a405949bd6007ec1677b7dfa2a42f
F20110113_AAAUUO cabrera_v_Page_046.tif
e06c41ac80c27fa05046e55685fdb088
c97efd5713f393b0893e6631fc8a96307dc6a098
74053 F20110113_AAATKK cabrera_v_Page_198.QC.jpg
28a4c48b77818fc465e4024b6969819e
6032aa500d9bd38b36056a2efc0c959d27874c33
208429 F20110113_AAAUHD cabrera_v_Page_134.jpg
4007a616e2cb34fe2cd23e8c8de5f240
0f85026fece02ff64dd1b0909730bdf01916354c
215574 F20110113_AAATXV cabrera_v_Page_255.jpg
7f2a93fe3ad1864f5d05f4993afcb436
403924edbf15c1cf1cac7e15d4c5a24b23efded2
1964 F20110113_AAAVRI cabrera_v_Page_284.txt
c878f647ecf639f7432d12016ace8460
720d797e51fc2d488e40de208f202b8fc9211d8c
F20110113_AAAUUP cabrera_v_Page_048.tif
47c3e47f948290fa2e3847b631923ae8
d59c482445ceaecf44acae1468abe719d867de80
47392 F20110113_AAATKL cabrera_v_Page_192thm.jpg
68dc0092f5b80413850806316620d214
790ca14232c0207b2717313ac73c75be1f93c43b
160561 F20110113_AAAUHE cabrera_v_Page_137.jpg
2a5ed8c144b4b34276bed2511dd0d38e
1b6a38fd62526ee0db7d82e2dfe7008d9170b231
211825 F20110113_AAATXW cabrera_v_Page_266.jpg
59b493718172483c09c3cd6af93f8062
7784b43428223c1535c44a2942fccc7e221fc75c
F20110113_AAAVRJ cabrera_v_Page_285.txt
63bad47b882fe2a138b72bfb5fcdd8bc
f9d1a210f88732b7dff1b3fc86fa8673dc405f33
F20110113_AAAUUQ cabrera_v_Page_050.tif
cbd7c9442e45311c32d8ce5af5945333
87a73ec877767a5f38c16a0c2a4446d02e15cd7b
56678 F20110113_AAATKM cabrera_v_Page_147.pro
ae68bc92e78391683a07b1635382f8a8
c670a19836eee97796978cc49aa63a1fcd1bce34
176984 F20110113_AAAUHF cabrera_v_Page_139.jpg
d45f793e0a112209bdd4a7178ac4cbeb
8224341ee6d71fd675970b3c0c918818b964324e
208874 F20110113_AAATXX cabrera_v_Page_291.jpg
b465dfc797e97f16b39ff36f9b74b8d1
1adef34d1c7c9f4db601677a6aa04e40aba69cb9
1800 F20110113_AAAVRK cabrera_v_Page_286.txt
18ae79a617bfb7c67dd4f8915c2190b6
e5f23187fce35e00f355bdd7f1f3836d35f6cac9
F20110113_AAAUUR cabrera_v_Page_052.tif
0306649b39b9263d8db81b99be49c3f3
2d40a46bd3874d8df038a36c8cb824b6c1a17047
33725 F20110113_AAATKN cabrera_v_Page_193thm.jpg
755186bb99698b824f8ef1a2e00683df
4d8bae1391dae8674cc740012411e0f84b85cfae
201045 F20110113_AAAUHG cabrera_v_Page_141.jpg
235308a28ae54311c6f368630f3bb334
36579c16a4f0204eb0f79032841870578f12e1b3
49280 F20110113_AAATXY cabrera_v_Page_076thm.jpg
1c4b25043cee2afcaef55f6f9720e6e5
75dd90228acef1d0b34e790d24b721edeb4b0189
F20110113_AAAVRL cabrera_v_Page_287.txt
f4c75d6de33a80650456669326607a1a
7ef5c1245b24f3ddce8282f67946053858aec6b8
F20110113_AAAUUS cabrera_v_Page_053.tif
5b404240b1befcf2e9185ef6d106e5eb
27ea3fc29971c30a8317394754d15fb3f8811830
30438 F20110113_AAATKO cabrera_v_Page_137.pro
fbb25caf9a34aa869eb3167b0077e4d3
25a34b97c9280eb6a227a4f9e0629d8de1033d9e
159717 F20110113_AAAUHH cabrera_v_Page_142.jpg
3f990ba05a59a634df6f427aefec43c5
646befeea10a085a7058c4358cd53cea17b062fd
100320 F20110113_AAATXZ cabrera_v_Page_042.QC.jpg
7ae5e1b85a8415a8179848dea0d7b6c4
0dfe6daf341db40acb1630743e9a7055c21a30db
47364 F20110113_AAAVEA cabrera_v_Page_098.pro
b219380fc4a326a8ab1bdcae328b8601
860d429bb538a29374833cfae004331dab1d1631
1856 F20110113_AAAVRM cabrera_v_Page_288.txt
87ba18c5b4ca562117b3dca6549fc390
c21f7c3ddcf995561adf2dfef69d54f50a33df63
F20110113_AAAUUT cabrera_v_Page_054.tif
e601944d82cfaffb7e7231b7b93f3e35
1a8d557ccdf544b52c942471bc138e034bd8e158
F20110113_AAATKP cabrera_v_Page_184.tif
79727428e6c8cd036d88f9b4186aca15
854b962b47fe970854c13a1e614fc74d51fd5026
223249 F20110113_AAAUHI cabrera_v_Page_144.jpg
6f35abe077447082bab0360bfe781671
61e5bada1b32c6f867bda36ab1cf322be551518a
46022 F20110113_AAAVEB cabrera_v_Page_099.pro
028bfa8b16a1827fc086ac8acc0cab9b
3d5ce167526fc4f5b7c49aed162c490faef4fd91
1830 F20110113_AAAVRN cabrera_v_Page_289.txt
a5b8968a53666791d688bfcdedf1b9d3
af8d11f3868b02919c4d08aa2629198658bcfbad
F20110113_AAAUUU cabrera_v_Page_055.tif
94ca9a400a6089523d04520d8a85a251
eb04e7959f6cf552bcf50bf06cf73cd255f593e1
72706 F20110113_AAATKQ cabrera_v_Page_291.QC.jpg
6086eb50b9367e180f25fe6008bd7795
ee66f329c5588a2adb49cc26cf76cdf5ca1d3ddb
186496 F20110113_AAAUHJ cabrera_v_Page_145.jpg
a2e77bb4967e36252df6ed4878ac50c5
edf28d33c796ec1e50ed9b8e52a3d2157d058fc4
54565 F20110113_AAAVEC cabrera_v_Page_100.pro
77aa8310e17ceeb777304f40d5d85262
4c4edafb7e7c4bfc14e2f2c40734b14e73ea6c43
1584 F20110113_AAAVRO cabrera_v_Page_292.txt
63ad3574a0f3ee27e3376ebe0a537c6e
82ed737695d863ecce3d39abfc49e957ad8c33e2
F20110113_AAAUUV cabrera_v_Page_056.tif
88ee5ae43c9364042b57b0bc7936ad0c
260f00769c605a8cb03c039b2b61ab18dd1dda9b
F20110113_AAATKR cabrera_v_Page_164.tif
7fcd50f12f53c7b63fc518fbb73933e9
361dc3466ec710c955db50100223a7edd2257adc
203826 F20110113_AAAUHK cabrera_v_Page_147.jpg
1f50fa04151e78a0b9253b17f96ae8fc
d58c6b4bc1fd9fabb9c00dc63ff19296b5746793
51747 F20110113_AAAVED cabrera_v_Page_101.pro
aaebf6086ef80e320c0b4c3bb2bfecf2
4ff7c183354853502405eeec3c49831d9502adda
2585 F20110113_AAAVRP cabrera_v_Page_294.txt
9df4ac20e74e0ed4bd5ab9b2ca22b6a7
a8f6a3f22014a715347ee7f7dfd7705f7d710fb2
F20110113_AAAUUW cabrera_v_Page_058.tif
7146681e0e0f2d4d275f32ebc924ca88
cfed9f33576b3efd65f65f9095d6271ad549811f
175955 F20110113_AAATKS cabrera_v_Page_216.jpg
12f2f4489eb68188234ed222bd34e6d4
a8621a00f623f39901bb573f8cc593b4cd567cc7
190544 F20110113_AAAUHL cabrera_v_Page_148.jpg
3d72801bf70476d4297ef3476f2af258
6f40407d67266d46d289c407b55c0209ce12391d
47901 F20110113_AAAVEE cabrera_v_Page_105.pro
0e544771634e38f2c2799061ef543220
beeaa12145073fb486a33eeb24de62526f581372
2539 F20110113_AAAVRQ cabrera_v_Page_296.txt
209b63817bdc60b6417fe9884a6e131b
b987693d49e54aaefc035e5c5018446c57c76cc7
F20110113_AAAUUX cabrera_v_Page_060.tif
5ef845428a0fe41441089df3d6ed39ad
d3b2b5b656e7403c6fc3bf1af2418d5a673da43c
F20110113_AAATKT cabrera_v_Page_084.tif
86f9bd5e9142fc83802dec23d159c946
c5e1277a687e26301d968cc316c08acbc8452324
202127 F20110113_AAAUHM cabrera_v_Page_149.jpg
7fd747b5d0159394a4b15a97c359d6b5
ec0a449450c21a90ce1d555e81f06cf50f1438c2
50840 F20110113_AAAVEF cabrera_v_Page_106.pro
c07eb6a9d2a655c98eadd15e9d634969
22cd59ee4b00b0d9f63b4d935c4965d57efccdc5
2628 F20110113_AAAVRR cabrera_v_Page_297.txt
951a1cdc8555c4c9e83d0d0ce7c2a54f
738b50b5c4d9b11528dbd6fc21d4812a2ec7d6db
F20110113_AAAUUY cabrera_v_Page_061.tif
2b38944a04901f39bd1ef55c39307546
fef7e08d7c621b0d9dab01b63f880f0c869ca7d5
52022 F20110113_AAATKU cabrera_v_Page_102.pro
985d7af0336540f0d605ebf4567cae9a
af18d7f15ba20152b0fdd01d0acfcf796f3b7b0b
70928 F20110113_AAAUHN cabrera_v_Page_153.jpg
79904dc4ce3692789468b2ccc8be50af
9b41cd6a89d06c8877acd553446acd27571394d4
50113 F20110113_AAAVEG cabrera_v_Page_107.pro
634e85d779be035f2f641cad2003d2bb
aebaba22bcdfa6bc315d8e35db34daf08421b62f
89604 F20110113_AAAWBA cabrera_v_Page_192.QC.jpg
6b651e386cda168817512e677a1ab60a
59806218c4596b2e10f12329e1d8553ef2bcf27d
2726 F20110113_AAAVRS cabrera_v_Page_301.txt
10da7593003b62d5b86f0a04f06ef0d2
014af597b9db780262ffab1e8a844c43ab3297bd
F20110113_AAAUUZ cabrera_v_Page_064.tif
bc93f7ac69dc5aae994c2b6917363cff
c8601e77f1644305945c3ad8548050e854ec2af3
1552 F20110113_AAATKV cabrera_v_Page_234.txt
afa4edf5e1d8938748b4b6323a949548
517bbff54d398e0efcf16132aedfbde5e6e69e4d
186867 F20110113_AAAUHO cabrera_v_Page_154.jpg
04e4337509eba9771874dc4199ac4e97
9ccdff30a4c6a09da1bd62182441f6ea4aef5c15
48959 F20110113_AAAVEH cabrera_v_Page_109.pro
02d2b86ac9a753d95aa91ee192f7d3b2
d75f1049a384f9de8aaabdc3c87ceb6930c8ea04
91244 F20110113_AAAWBB cabrera_v_Page_193.QC.jpg
7a04526505cc72a1ec81194bcb5d83ca
78deac19a29f2e068d5525693e0967e2c1f03943
2419 F20110113_AAAVRT cabrera_v_Page_302.txt
e7fd532539a4ffc7a8af9adeea0a9bf3
2471e15535047a4a8b496eb4dbea7822f6d33afb
92156 F20110113_AAATKW cabrera_v_Page_124.jp2
1560c8c80c4d7218788cc09df1816798
6ac4918a21e77915bae52d51e57780d1e4aef045
208353 F20110113_AAAUHP cabrera_v_Page_155.jpg
a614d9f1ab758c38fc28109761046087
2121d94641421040b7c0c498fd516ae92584cb15
55534 F20110113_AAAVEI cabrera_v_Page_111.pro
e571cbd1304976360c0512d09e0e3f18
c2cdbfcf393fa691506a578aaed56b1493df8b28
33744 F20110113_AAAWBC cabrera_v_Page_194thm.jpg
f4891962fd86788a2228ccea5f2477e5
5a4f03a297a664255ec5801aae43aaabb19645ba
2881 F20110113_AAAVRU cabrera_v_Page_303.txt
e8b1b3f3b2c226f8bc6f6c0bf762e7b0
0e5c16e872cf058d6c4feb1cfe28838e63fb8942
52371 F20110113_AAATKX cabrera_v_Page_103.pro
56aa4ad6ebd91cbbaa40bf1ba470dd1a
a1c75ac3f450f5d0b950bb630ff9759dff6d166b
239564 F20110113_AAAUHQ cabrera_v_Page_158.jpg
68ef7ca712054e7c5c243bb274c42827
2c84f450da2a32d008afc03836a36c76668a08ca
53743 F20110113_AAAVEJ cabrera_v_Page_112.pro
6a5ff8a2e9b1229ffe112e44842ff262
71b0b5439849d802a9d382e198ea86a508b2be00
96560 F20110113_AAAWBD cabrera_v_Page_194.QC.jpg
a25634139ec1f51e6d5c9c99f7fc1d73
fa1c11a7d3cd5f8e774ba383f34d7698a7f78ebb
1920 F20110113_AAAVRV cabrera_v_Page_304.txt
468f442fed79e102619a03aeb3ab1331
b243ca9987d6f86ab1ddccfcc71174c2b2800087
F20110113_AAATKY cabrera_v_Page_194.jp2
03730e43ebabf75a1a6a759bcfce570a
b02cd87e8db6ccb34f0401dc6662fc2be7bcf3fa
157490 F20110113_AAAUHR cabrera_v_Page_161.jpg
5dc1e7c1564b9f8a28e0544fec83bf4b
efcad0f9ea205bd962971f3b8506dd2e017e328c
69867 F20110113_AAAVEK cabrera_v_Page_113.pro
8ec7f67c3a6848e4b3af785f1e3d911f
452cde3a955ef9f33dbd086c18c5c5513637b4c9
78075 F20110113_AAAWBE cabrera_v_Page_196.QC.jpg
cd6803b5395b470ccc36e705facb35a4
8aa0ef8caa6917de8affe435381def12b61b808d
876 F20110113_AAAVRW cabrera_v_Page_305.txt
ed2c67f2f8f4505777d17a7049abcc6e
59f8863368c6b1b636e32fad1e8f9546d1b3f53d
38929 F20110113_AAATKZ cabrera_v_Page_292.pro
fe418c741f56ced5526d4d215a58111c
1ae70a2eefb6672d4b0c3a669ea9e73f75f0aeef
209859 F20110113_AAAUHS cabrera_v_Page_162.jpg
7f8d3356faaf1ab21389c62c76d01b1d
79a1bcdd1efa04fcb329f9920eedb3b76803c6dd
47389 F20110113_AAAVEL cabrera_v_Page_114.pro
14e23fdfdf03295de961f4ec9cec28ed
e2f03c8bf646744e596e780aae77efda7fefcf70
42694 F20110113_AAAWBF cabrera_v_Page_197thm.jpg
d0f9512a1984d820f36d6886bf7d1b33
8034117587518d0f4e804a46132172378f47cfd0
3920384 F20110113_AAAVRX dnfdfm.xls
9be213ebb3cefaae92305d903ffa4f5b
a8e091132b4ba9d7fb8316771048d3ab45759c41
215293 F20110113_AAAUHT cabrera_v_Page_163.jpg
40131c23f188534843666012ba11d4bc
a8904e7bd7028a56a9d407b7c4509c0b00679b33
49831 F20110113_AAAVEM cabrera_v_Page_115.pro
17d054e3c380861a3fb03116078558e7
b366bdd11c96deeab92200239d9dad20f905a1c2
75220 F20110113_AAAWBG cabrera_v_Page_197.QC.jpg
14b256885b58235548163619d0b600e0
a0b2eca89da9418ee9c78b096333772f0944bce6
7822 F20110113_AAAVRY cabrera_v_Page_001thm.jpg
3355e8ffc131cf213ea1bba6b8126690
1e8c2c43da5c4bd8359cf6d4553ba703c2cdcb63
216459 F20110113_AAAUHU cabrera_v_Page_164.jpg
f33b145d6ed9d119357d7c09fdbe56d8
39cea9e24d29f2709bf474fb2e7bf16361537350
48786 F20110113_AAAVEN cabrera_v_Page_116.pro
c8ae3c7e74f2fb9050cde28c6a98292c
64399e08a88ff88a993657e0d73c9dce25c24d06
24841 F20110113_AAAWBH cabrera_v_Page_198thm.jpg
3c1d01added49fc27cf9db4d3294b7fe
4d6f67fd4717e0d7b9aa5342a315c14769b30390
5757 F20110113_AAAVRZ cabrera_v_Page_002.QC.jpg
e1a1995ec0bbc9c592f62c6605b90e03
1e1f69889366f680b4b0816d20fe46ea46032a89
195335 F20110113_AAAUHV cabrera_v_Page_166.jpg
80469c4f0e05ac11b80b269bc991de75
938c58d1752363fa1ff88276055b47d16f7df189
51791 F20110113_AAAVEO cabrera_v_Page_117.pro
dbcf529434a1de80c8f688ad88787830
03328de3cc8020c39d138b29369e33ab9f0c0640
47905 F20110113_AAAWBI cabrera_v_Page_199thm.jpg
7974ef2f685b25fb23fbdf713d09833a
19092247954b5fbf01f89d1bc7063c4d1828cb6a
201989 F20110113_AAAUHW cabrera_v_Page_168.jpg
445ca9960774410d5e23ca6d254ea6bf
b7dc3e492d20db5518be87ffb38d8a6f1d0fdc7f
50542 F20110113_AAAVEP cabrera_v_Page_118.pro
1aac80143ab38a7deee3fd27bf5aa158
eb3c2f6981a23f501a24f65e7f5936a0fbf6dcba
32980 F20110113_AAAWBJ cabrera_v_Page_200thm.jpg
1ad5933c97b6e8b001c910b08cb9f4cc
ecc19f3b3d8893baa0fd541b73278d3a3538cadd
224006 F20110113_AAAUHX cabrera_v_Page_170.jpg
3abf0a1369936564607bfd08184b6586
dcded131b48d85c920408bc5ede7ba7d34f1341e
50191 F20110113_AAAVEQ cabrera_v_Page_121.pro
d99436be96aefa35abaa4bf1e2572334
5b05697971b95bcdade6a14901c31e63317103ba
98308 F20110113_AAAWBK cabrera_v_Page_200.QC.jpg
1280b4028a8c6263c7e83a343835cc41
fca3fb88b7b78511f1fcb7d20a755d09c8f3808e
187609 F20110113_AAAUHY cabrera_v_Page_171.jpg
cf1e5124a36a3927bc5bdc0a00534edc
0f924ea82d8971313cf6f06db445d5ae4f4a111a
49729 F20110113_AAAVER cabrera_v_Page_122.pro
6dc1aea0297454612c68dd1c26792eed
c7619bc72868ec8e7f17c8a51ecb4b83620e2b41
23079 F20110113_AAAWBL cabrera_v_Page_201thm.jpg
f8093be407a3474c7483e421f31d980e
5ce961e217c387f88245aea79db8c4246c1d8530
246326 F20110113_AAAUHZ cabrera_v_Page_172.jpg
6f21cbb36a2468f7ae0b085eff79895f
3a572c48ccfd1daa09526e5770a57dad1a1637a1
49708 F20110113_AAAVES cabrera_v_Page_123.pro
9f165aca5f4238a1878443174d090e78
af18f8a8734807aebe2074ae487a88681db5cb2f
70234 F20110113_AAAWBM cabrera_v_Page_201.QC.jpg
a336aad9810993523357cc08eeeadbca
18e7e7889adda38a7b3a081e987a57a8250639dc
40822 F20110113_AAAVET cabrera_v_Page_124.pro
b75850fff1ba468543e775d5fef4e684
5cf5c1da38947bc40b68ae152964ecbfcbdb89f7
31155 F20110113_AAAWBN cabrera_v_Page_202thm.jpg
e708399ada58ef8418af40a754b0ad04
8ef4dc14aa54b55f5ec3320c716c658f920bc8a8
1790 F20110113_AAATQA cabrera_v_Page_037.txt
118724a1e61a77c4d4459c728faca1fd
0d07c90e24f8832b725faeef6a546f858ce2028e
51516 F20110113_AAAVEU cabrera_v_Page_126.pro
1064800776143e9d91017ce460721adc
6ce12136a205b6c65c288e5aac9ed21d8dba4591
47292 F20110113_AAAWBO cabrera_v_Page_203thm.jpg
fbdde44ccc31fb5911b93d3646036b08
f210b0c84b6711247149884751e77b3f08175931
48812 F20110113_AAATQB cabrera_v_Page_178.pro
02ec8f4802502b785dd37a3ee30e02a6
618b7835ed38573ab63d3e43eec7fd38ecda3fa6
44914 F20110113_AAAVEV cabrera_v_Page_127.pro
1977427224070806a1fa05691fee35f3
ce34391e27f95db2959b667081824ec362e68594
71638 F20110113_AAAWBP cabrera_v_Page_204.QC.jpg
f128ba029fb51c26864fde1a423c35b9
b716402b270c643e074474e2794dbccd39f05b0e
45017 F20110113_AAATQC cabrera_v_Page_250.pro
919cc5a1eca85873bd1ba10821e1be08
a1cf5f959efb3ce44b0615c6af379b1ca0e63c6d
44473 F20110113_AAAVEW cabrera_v_Page_128.pro
af18d9d2a3be5007f47f9925108dd344
d8b0da944cd23263c92c179a95df464d26bdc140
14699 F20110113_AAAWBQ cabrera_v_Page_205thm.jpg
8e1523d5f341d882c193b91d858d39cb
fee0c7f882830e4456009f2965d5fce38c221700
23611 F20110113_AAAVXA cabrera_v_Page_114thm.jpg
5a155912ec40ee8b796889827abf9bd3
f8987e12b453efd7ea3864c9cc26ec1b89ecbae6
105519 F20110113_AAATQD cabrera_v_Page_196.jp2
d85c4c41f5aa7570a92461bf361c86bd
cde48fddaa64d6eef1dca59c5500dbba5b4a59ee
23056 F20110113_AAAWBR cabrera_v_Page_206thm.jpg
da3dac982592c6c297eb0f4a1e372957
9a9745b612c04f269fe2afe9b025d0a918256fc0
74036 F20110113_AAAVXB cabrera_v_Page_114.QC.jpg
1df1c186cd4c536cbacfb9cc91fb4701
dfd56c8c3a3ca9216cf735525ce3e8addefcbd22
24272 F20110113_AAATQE cabrera_v_Page_107thm.jpg
ccc0ec2a132aca52e846a4d0e182974f
d7b003607139aa52eb0092986171ce7fee207f60
35504 F20110113_AAAVEX cabrera_v_Page_129.pro
a333d441db082abe69e447384465da36
d5ac2df043806b35c9e4b67de44437a46a77571c
68735 F20110113_AAAWBS cabrera_v_Page_206.QC.jpg
097bedbfb7c0cbe4399c8ca9c45f905e
7d7ffd1e6417d8989efa91260c1bcdb8064fb6d3
49690 F20110113_AAAVXC cabrera_v_Page_115thm.jpg
ce4dbb820d8ba81510c02b4b5ff22c23
46f36dd873cc9f84f8199160db00e2e5a5b2607c
52358 F20110113_AAAVEY cabrera_v_Page_130.pro
c532697560414adc0ec74aad60f96b53
d2b6341a7037984949fd2705536e467e94aa14d5
24836 F20110113_AAAVXD cabrera_v_Page_116thm.jpg
5d2cb09e2d4a2d2fb56fc1c0d78e631a
d4ac46d61069b582a67d202c5aeb7d3617b8d563
67888 F20110113_AAATQF cabrera_v_Page_156.QC.jpg
9ac539863fd0e8bb0416fca0aae30a7b
1408956660c68f57d9f4c8846992a52af7fa615c
51462 F20110113_AAAVEZ cabrera_v_Page_132.pro
a3708457a6adfd8f659250b1ceab49b8
6f64434e1972ab76e44d4124e069513b59be7a14
78394 F20110113_AAAWBT cabrera_v_Page_207.QC.jpg
fea8a2e658827164b8b091219189c0fb
29bba5cdba73eded70c9d856a9fda19537bc7cfa
77017 F20110113_AAAVXE cabrera_v_Page_116.QC.jpg
8c8f1c75f5a661976af1c10434efe7ad
1ee4a957730ab4a1ff0f5a0f4b2c9bd93426f3b4
191432 F20110113_AAATQG cabrera_v_Page_201.jpg
8edba0a4fca9feabf2b187605ad9673a
df59f37c10d5ce091ea61f0ed7ae750d78160ff0
101952 F20110113_AAAUNA cabrera_v_Page_057.jp2
59e44991439fd5894a5e6f38f790495e
f4dd590f385b9a4a1551da0473a22c70008a899d
23519 F20110113_AAAWBU cabrera_v_Page_208thm.jpg
4f72a0c5788f457872f873adb3b00416
223eca87ec875a458ecb1a5dce5b50bde64df7d2
78977 F20110113_AAAVXF cabrera_v_Page_117.QC.jpg
2b7a39bd9c5275585266db1bf71c6df0
3f39955677b6c1dfb3d0db32db5dfad1b9bc1450
74136 F20110113_AAATQH cabrera_v_Page_215.QC.jpg
ab25131dcc60e22f0169a2498a51eec0
5daca73bb527c40c16bd06aa7037a97c1ad26e46
73047 F20110113_AAAWBV cabrera_v_Page_208.QC.jpg
dfa70b9d24e2234edabffb3b64cc8e22
fbf8831f1e2992ed3612be5833395b0a3cad7608
25120 F20110113_AAAVXG cabrera_v_Page_118thm.jpg
ec48a99af0420bc6f77f1325e834dd71
eaca884e302b044891c0733567203a4fb14180ca
211367 F20110113_AAATQI cabrera_v_Page_157.jpg
9fcc10d3da5e6bbfc025d4a295e0820a
56b0979c3b77b587bdf6403b2510011904fb761d
103286 F20110113_AAAUNB cabrera_v_Page_058.jp2
1e65aee18d4bded7d20fd7db759aa3c4
4f4d017e9247681ffdbfe437b8e84619df925b82
77396 F20110113_AAAWBW cabrera_v_Page_209.QC.jpg
4903ec52c58c925c0a3596bc70702499
f6f9d3711755272c9941a26178d0bacfa0e38d18
6754 F20110113_AAAVXH cabrera_v_Page_119thm.jpg
01a200a063685edf76422d076093937f
dff41f61174773f4fd3d6ea2e784e8b353f94066
1409 F20110113_AAATQJ cabrera_v_Page_242.txt
49e84f2d402c0793406459820ab60f48
74f220444a5ed9cbdd081a5da5998de40a8a264b
1051976 F20110113_AAAUNC cabrera_v_Page_059.jp2
e9b709baf5556b6c5daca0aa5d5a3a42
4526c1762f50e761427cc15e30663c6970eef8ba
22924 F20110113_AAAWBX cabrera_v_Page_210thm.jpg
563c0ae6e00aa92be431b40a16bc8d79
6a80c06def220480b414277d0a43492bd2077e3d
22559 F20110113_AAAVXI cabrera_v_Page_120thm.jpg
f8db0c73f0e3f44438cdc82a62fac414
e8c2abb16da0df121a8148f13e63a3d4f2881bb2
37527 F20110113_AAATQK cabrera_v_Page_048.pro
aba3e4380fbe9c28961d6e45d54e18bd
e3966f71bbb1b28af52736cfccd92d5c2d3cc308
1051915 F20110113_AAAUND cabrera_v_Page_060.jp2
f631afc4de6a6ed88460f5e31b9bc1b0
a2217175f4a6a281392eced58c14a22de6a1c2fe
45171 F20110113_AAAWBY cabrera_v_Page_213thm.jpg
30b1b87a2a5be3de12b9dcca51dff6f7
97e3eb06766cd8a7d9c758d139313e4ddaa2bbba
67730 F20110113_AAAVXJ cabrera_v_Page_120.QC.jpg
8dc02172335c041ab3d1550cebfbff08
e33502e7f00be893131855c68e60f7c49aefab65
79323 F20110113_AAATQL cabrera_v_Page_108.QC.jpg
26eb83898a78d293174443d238ba3377
703ecaafeddd9a862e952386dd316b00ad5f4d41
F20110113_AAAUNE cabrera_v_Page_061.jp2
17de941b75e91a5558b8946c67dee984
d014915bbde0f6886c8f18881740d140c1f9b69e
F20110113_AAATDA cabrera_v_Page_273.tif
2fdb1d6b33ae4f3f092538f094863782
48f6e0cd40e3408d98cb535a4e908713d5acbfec
81676 F20110113_AAAWBZ cabrera_v_Page_213.QC.jpg
20323a43f5b57cd85098070ff94df6b4
918553f2fdcab19dac7b61e7aa28ef587812b8bd
46365 F20110113_AAATQM cabrera_v_Page_221.pro
b5cec13441856b2756467258b4361719
8e51e5e59e6c83b88bb6b773e3eeb2a542e6521d
105578 F20110113_AAAUNF cabrera_v_Page_063.jp2
f695269416c91b814f181084160516c0
499b620250baaa4cecfb19b05642f5e8ebf5e446
44821 F20110113_AAATDB cabrera_v_Page_020.QC.jpg
4043c5eb21c9f32f1959188cf04f6020
97b6898d7b21bced9d3ceb4968b188991ff51b96
104250 F20110113_AAAVXK cabrera_v_Page_121.QC.jpg
77f57aac6881f37db69cb697d7087cd3
1327ef11edcb9fabda43a877e800b32c144ab3f5
F20110113_AAATQN cabrera_v_Page_203.tif
95326962864d3e1b40d0636bfcbcb369
1825921318ecbf35ee669d9fded8a73c8ec94a31
110205 F20110113_AAAUNG cabrera_v_Page_065.jp2
6488afcfe895005d316b014becc186ee
b7a5ac9cd66fbec09547172427d4f665c9e33624
221556 F20110113_AAATDC cabrera_v_Page_027.jpg
65e03035c5b31b8b94f55d64112d0ad0
213ffdd94e371eb2d11bc437f7afb4b2bd08bb8e
80265 F20110113_AAAVXL cabrera_v_Page_122.QC.jpg
13dd95bebd5cdfb7df80fd5cccea9378
f15462d0cedbaddf3bb6c830540d8d21a2cfb0eb
F20110113_AAATQO cabrera_v_Page_152.tif
d2ea4ff0a753bc7431c14cf34da2fb4c
14dec821b10547be7b64f5a37b97ddc026623242
100952 F20110113_AAAUNH cabrera_v_Page_066.jp2
68e90ace1bf5a00571f8e77b70282098
8621c81d35cce2f3e7431ec13e70db7d753dea76
2349 F20110113_AAAVKA cabrera_v_Page_014.txt
34bfd3ade53712875fd91a98d03c6d73
d79083798ead51faacf988f55f74a523481d9739
23413 F20110113_AAATDD cabrera_v_Page_057thm.jpg
4251f1be807547af3c2e1f087d8c9e0b
5798ee7397237b322593bb7611d7abf03f8466eb
24461 F20110113_AAAVXM cabrera_v_Page_123thm.jpg
7e6f6c37ea7ce2e53d1c9ca0d970588d
f7147116334f53e93380d3671ca715deb9e8042e
F20110113_AAATQP cabrera_v_Page_134.txt
d74d463888fc9d340e8e6f8bcc18afa7
bf2527bacad281e54b23dbf6566c546a8c6f378d
110453 F20110113_AAAUNI cabrera_v_Page_067.jp2
50cb810e56d58efc47fa389d43281815
01d60bbbeed41e60fbaad9bf4c1c20b6535c69e2
2855 F20110113_AAAVKB cabrera_v_Page_015.txt
c63b7c123246475c0b82a9135b72389d
049eea63b338e761247c371fae17f4cacc55d91d
49531 F20110113_AAATDE cabrera_v_Page_079thm.jpg
65c05e77e92950600525c7cd525a1a6c
77f2d7fe3ba7283977da269b43a5a7fbeaa85168
77246 F20110113_AAAVXN cabrera_v_Page_123.QC.jpg
890bbcf108938430e7dcafb075674932
c39168a984aceb59a3b9973a05963a69cc31cf8b
F20110113_AAATQQ cabrera_v_Page_041.tif
4c8f88124273d3c43a328984cdebeda7
362754ab3787ce042b0bee9e8c378079c948b7f5
109309 F20110113_AAAUNJ cabrera_v_Page_069.jp2
d1a54a62ce6d4cd28a87a7cea76b704c
8e6db0a4a0e370b65cea79ae5c94d3d5d3fdfa6c
3062 F20110113_AAAVKC cabrera_v_Page_016.txt
d2ba892027580f2e9c1c8867404ab950
2861cc50c3a6c64974712ea009d3919d46faad40
226255 F20110113_AAATDF cabrera_v_Page_290.jpg
a860b960c82397a75d56c10fb8cfaac4
10bb03621dd4b2a9742354400def3c4e12d67c1a
21585 F20110113_AAAVXO cabrera_v_Page_124thm.jpg
489e31dc78daab70046262b85f80cece
026e7eea521117630f6247478c4b67d8c80a9848
1671 F20110113_AAATQR cabrera_v_Page_006.txt
c6b1ce33f9ee6e23948722800d5c0616
34a398c79ce4604a9bc842317d68029ac222046d
F20110113_AAAUNK cabrera_v_Page_070.jp2
67cb5285023f16916fe063b740b8537a
b8ac65e0474bace8b736d257123d85316f9bc9c8
2789 F20110113_AAAVKD cabrera_v_Page_017.txt
b72d626bfc7151ce0f727f5aaabdd30f
5b44b7d88af3ce21da2170f250dcbf622d4c03d5
34091 F20110113_AAATDG cabrera_v_Page_188thm.jpg
fffbbab16bc253868bca4d83560f4a46
459c21cb0530d848f3ffc72c220afb61b85af104
67287 F20110113_AAAVXP cabrera_v_Page_124.QC.jpg
c420bf5097b91736166521a407e7f26e
93413e1a86680bd8f9ffd097c4bf1a4b9ef42ec4
41468 F20110113_AAATQS cabrera_v_Page_041thm.jpg
1d49a480226704ada49b6a7dd4afb7a5
62488981ae542c09687ed983febcf2f759fc6d81
96056 F20110113_AAAUNL cabrera_v_Page_072.jp2
a484aa9201d0b2b02d14a54db415b6f4
4b5ddc91611c1dd5e7d4f78560340e7d6a366dc1
1056 F20110113_AAAVKE cabrera_v_Page_020.txt
36106c344ecd1bac97e1e44cf5163645
54fe03cfbaeb65f9d657392d9be7d782fcda02d5
236048 F20110113_AAATDH cabrera_v_Page_007.jpg
c3223c7651cf534dbe9e35ae6dfc5de8
e7d63e6534b4951f44478820c62c8cceb9e91690
64868 F20110113_AAAUAA cabrera_v_Page_174.jp2
a4304d0158d79bf32d163a3ab44a4393
df5287e633d45c209dc03ec204eee51615ab0912
77061 F20110113_AAAVXQ cabrera_v_Page_125.QC.jpg
3606c0433998c335a230785ac91b8ec0
9a5ae57f5be442f87aee77594c483d0f20516f1b
F20110113_AAATQT cabrera_v_Page_177.tif
facd0d2ee0c8092c152027063a0dddd8
7f5abec7b0fb2ec7d293982248663eeecbc9ebec
107335 F20110113_AAAUNM cabrera_v_Page_075.jp2
05216b64e40441b1a0ce4b6286883356
19b697a801d430100866c0155b8c236ebc49d827
1786 F20110113_AAAVKF cabrera_v_Page_021.txt
b3edae9408004105fa9b388d05eaeff6
05e1cdca3689aa9c306957f2256cf84abea34c83
113373 F20110113_AAATDI cabrera_v_Page_117.jp2
42c9cf67f9bd02766da132a3698cc184
6c0e1c64900bb44a700b2d173bd1cb048ac89afc
214492 F20110113_AAAUAB cabrera_v_Page_026.jpg
eb05f00682803d383f63300e87885eea
e6b48ad007783709b774d8ddc8060f2fb2f7f0fb
104707 F20110113_AAAVXR cabrera_v_Page_126.QC.jpg
b03ed0535f1d0de0ab31d54dfc9ce11d
9a024a8d246da7f4cdf36820cd3219506e4bb4af
105999 F20110113_AAATQU cabrera_v_Page_146.jp2
bc67238bfa1eda4a512d7fdcb7b327c2
71a5353f6f4311aa7fbba9d06525d161248debc5
F20110113_AAAUNN cabrera_v_Page_076.jp2
b92563c942536b83ff680b23a9fc9123
29a42bc9f5ed73f76cf5cde5d56ec35d617eb554
740 F20110113_AAAVKG cabrera_v_Page_022.txt
358112557cedc748bc9cd6ae9d8d2e42
91c75ad3688fc2ff5d47917727db5a8aa222d514
106378 F20110113_AAATDJ cabrera_v_Page_068.jp2
8a21c02f3764f0f4bf1fe5849ca8b44d
043f868bb5eff596ae4b3a07341fb81d1a19257c
102253 F20110113_AAAUAC cabrera_v_Page_210.jp2
f5314240b34bb9034aeb068b97724e5a
6a64de19cd5451fb63a72f38272943afb5b4e14d
21316 F20110113_AAAVXS cabrera_v_Page_127thm.jpg
b174e9bf4ad3fd10d1ef7152e51f5f41
4111072d30e111367273698f573112501436d0f2
101342 F20110113_AAATQV cabrera_v_Page_061.QC.jpg
3e8a33d12780a7573aa08a6e34b7d044
6846b527da8dbc106f630e0a843c463194fcc86b
108141 F20110113_AAAUNO cabrera_v_Page_078.jp2
6b2e968ff79c4ddad3aba69bf055c57d
5a588581af49a120437fd3e47289461ebc4c8ac0
1733 F20110113_AAAVKH cabrera_v_Page_023.txt
7fd2d37ec7bb4b7a02ea0cc079ea4ed4
c16060cf19fbe1f81179999d7cd44d93a21b4ca2
40833 F20110113_AAATDK cabrera_v_Page_242thm.jpg
619acaf861869c8fad3dea3dd56ef6da
c5a36ffdb0bfa852a10228689ccad34441898bfa
2159 F20110113_AAAUAD cabrera_v_Page_072.txt
69ee3003a9360386456ff059ccdc5f9c
451cf31349d9b8422d167859337a09a027c02c37
20264 F20110113_AAAVXT cabrera_v_Page_128thm.jpg
6202275bd814e8046488e32021e07733
20dde053b9bfb121d7f283e8b2fb456f5c1bd7b8
227012 F20110113_AAATQW cabrera_v_Page_061.jpg
b34bf83e5d9744faceada8b87377765e
c715df5967272d4402649d3ffc89919acd7a7237
949540 F20110113_AAAUNP cabrera_v_Page_080.jp2
5a5d0e17e23cb0da5e414317310db32f
805d27ba48295fad67a1018be71f9305487a61aa
1991 F20110113_AAAVKI cabrera_v_Page_024.txt
16b05ea42d0758595f6f8ce72984374b
e7644400bd490f097f0b42966dbbca6688494aa9
114335 F20110113_AAATDL cabrera_v_Page_027.jp2
177e78d9d97d6aa16d31f7c979cb049c
aad444ca6ce1305b7f3e4e306929590612a84b91
70362 F20110113_AAAUAE cabrera_v_Page_287.QC.jpg
437c09161f56b580700e1c1946cf9476
671f02c59ea852b81ac5b6d00cc442d84a1e8038
65954 F20110113_AAAVXU cabrera_v_Page_128.QC.jpg
d901010f72938bb0bd250fc4c256f29c
aa5710a91df18412afcda61c586ce5a5189e479d
241539 F20110113_AAATQX cabrera_v_Page_229.jpg
32f65a4cc2483f929c627bfb6ee7b6c2
f99a89e1647ec10a57ba85e89bb31b3c7ec73b30
1051933 F20110113_AAAUNQ cabrera_v_Page_082.jp2
d0b8655a24ba2aec69cc576872355e91
8021335a2f4f4024dff22d087ec30a0816712c76
1345 F20110113_AAAVKJ cabrera_v_Page_025.txt
f272dd282de33b36eacc385a4839751a
14d0fc31bd12f66b56cdec704b0e124e32f25222
106142 F20110113_AAATDM cabrera_v_Page_116.jp2
5aab8dcd8a64e458ac635847905b28f3
0fa1f95b2ca0148efbf08b38bc35610a6677218a
102398 F20110113_AAAUAF cabrera_v_Page_105.jp2
ae7ca93bbe2a4c4ba447810b35c23b9c
26c8f13b98d060d04f6b8efddef759688e96a0bd
26705 F20110113_AAAVXV cabrera_v_Page_129thm.jpg
502b87d75f9a46a672b3c76e913ed9ff
916630c725eb2fb5255db4ed62948087f301d161
169254 F20110113_AAATQY cabrera_v_Page_143.jpg
0669ff2768c4c2dd43eb8a9d9707a1ef
56f0275be6b76b7b01319f68057bcb66898a9677
108889 F20110113_AAAUNR cabrera_v_Page_084.jp2
26599c5ba5f84a06942f27b3e4c61724
630a7286a3cfaa0bd903c3035ea14141c1f609dd
2008 F20110113_AAAVKK cabrera_v_Page_026.txt
94de758b7b107a70ca08335ce544789c
8a86590d492f223c51c44fc12e006bd250df2961
F20110113_AAATDN cabrera_v_Page_173.QC.jpg
806ef6981fd95938d450c0b450663511
47147b51ada230b64b1e4dcb94b4a77bec3dd6f5
101888 F20110113_AAAUAG cabrera_v_Page_208.jp2
365f323198857f43e5f22d8b2e0368f4
bef785b199722fc4c09967a651bf20f497d69d5f
63766 F20110113_AAAVXW cabrera_v_Page_129.QC.jpg
5519a0423d55420aeccf88ae3bae47bd
8d68e61626349d49268b55a960ae3c9af9a7a808
2070 F20110113_AAATQZ cabrera_v_Page_252.txt
2adf7dcdc31162411ca1b3faf124cbe4
c3c68eb6457e53d9b192322ffdcd260879676bee
971706 F20110113_AAAUNS cabrera_v_Page_085.jp2
67e0ed846aac22f97d06287bd4e7751f
86403c93fbd8d846c021748eb0cdf794cad34521
F20110113_AAAVKL cabrera_v_Page_028.txt
116ead2db6041970226f0b282b2aa304
e1c7143ef58ff20d1ba3eabe24d11a61f1d84192
107825 F20110113_AAATDO cabrera_v_Page_155.jp2
df3c3808110472f81e58259bb14b72ad
0e623091087b3b1ac1aef8e527943667e4ee6301
2687 F20110113_AAAUAH cabrera_v_Page_295.txt
9c46482a8d7031e2d6faf43cb815ff0f
7b84f019f910594bc3a34c17b8c87ae8aacaf68f
25464 F20110113_AAAVXX cabrera_v_Page_130thm.jpg
31d8dfd4791523cf471de22aebd72ded
c276c64bd9547b6afdfc11fcccaaa4f9830fe27e
102953 F20110113_AAAUNT cabrera_v_Page_086.jp2
bd6e23a013109315288a65bab7e8e55e
b3d92a071b42445ad65bf2df7834a334100c33f4
F20110113_AAAVKM cabrera_v_Page_029.txt
a7bbdd94b415f9203bbf9e82b7fb628e
b00402347e076d6dcb7d23480bc313b0f73ce44c
51446 F20110113_AAATDP cabrera_v_Page_180.pro
25048fda797b5cc497eb44993eb02521
77cde1b6fad1229a0c04829cc07ff4193b6a08ec
78100 F20110113_AAAUAI cabrera_v_Page_118.QC.jpg
62efeb61f99ef926898d5cb51c2fa421
418420a9bea602822a45cc4ad1b0db73ca4ea896
82834 F20110113_AAAVXY cabrera_v_Page_130.QC.jpg
65914e0537ec0e9ae0e870d3ecfba94a
73a813769b23d3e4e8808c8e14f155e15ad5effd
63393 F20110113_AAAUNU cabrera_v_Page_088.jp2
e94a95a3dddd3e63c2744963f1f7b046
ee9a528532fa379d3c72795f7eec68f9987fd5ef
F20110113_AAAVKN cabrera_v_Page_030.txt
de9f8f5aa3870422296db529ace11eea
57cc23ae07e9523252f5d7a794fa5483981ef794
19130 F20110113_AAATDQ cabrera_v_Page_227.pro
d456a21c503bb689613320a127c4bce3
6047238b148cd9d1e746fc779a652865d094f0fc
23047 F20110113_AAAUAJ cabrera_v_Page_032thm.jpg
eea4c3f87069bbce106a7520e0f722a2
fc2781bb7d9629014faf15b61c89f43bab5c8ac6
85397 F20110113_AAAVXZ cabrera_v_Page_131.QC.jpg
58c2e6544e728bf95f256b0c26f58bc2
9a3019b8128483c8ad2c2d78ecab2bc93514e72f
95868 F20110113_AAAUNV cabrera_v_Page_089.jp2
33d689f8bc51d8c97c1f0a4839352408
f7a256245d8d0a1415c348be593e4b2d1f635072
1873 F20110113_AAAVKO cabrera_v_Page_031.txt
1b3a58407a4ad88df6b1d7cdc608797d
a2b399406c8e172fb69344f1c048c1ebd6a33a90
200519 F20110113_AAATDR cabrera_v_Page_150.jpg
b648ea9969b5073d69f4db0b38dce2ef
7cbec4bc6d1cca7e832e936cc6fbaacc4b5827a4
F20110113_AAAUAK cabrera_v_Page_159.tif
d4ff60973840632cb5820a1455e361a2
17e607feaa49012b4bf00934e3eff54a7423bfeb
99625 F20110113_AAAUNW cabrera_v_Page_090.jp2
c89ad9394576aab6c1a663206ef9d538
bf6d82d490fcb8f446a9486adc65911495750c4f
F20110113_AAAVKP cabrera_v_Page_032.txt
05f66f6a6105bd7dd9fe996c57f42973
85b3533150786ae8130dee743695f61e0a11cb00
106533 F20110113_AAATDS cabrera_v_Page_140.jp2
cd46f904fd2764abd5e541d3ea19a810
8a68a34682ae151c5c5d07f8af97f1701c9d9877
110596 F20110113_AAAUAL cabrera_v_Page_302.QC.jpg
d09a122c74774628121aaf376c5c3b01
47a363ac10e3ed94a75233fc4f495c373ad05ef4
111027 F20110113_AAAUNX cabrera_v_Page_091.jp2
954359ef6be91eb6394e03545ac8f77a
f3e8519ea67a1847ceb7e9b13dc9165c15caef4f
F20110113_AAAVKQ cabrera_v_Page_033.txt
6a4908366871f6068df6ca57aa75b4d1
62b9822d4e18dd8fd29d49b0f05aa7c53692fbb3
213021 F20110113_AAATDT cabrera_v_Page_084.jpg
112a7c9d3bd9805767143a6e85d95905
9740774fde579714407cd9d6cc52507dab866d52
99305 F20110113_AAAUAM cabrera_v_Page_304.jp2
d2e22c28114a56ecfb618565787394ac
518ba31d62d78e276121bbf7eca46fdda1d13353
110735 F20110113_AAAUNY cabrera_v_Page_093.jp2
b5cb99fb772d022f4765ce9e3ef62868
512340f134a4207bf1bb445843bd8c3d36b7b880
1751 F20110113_AAAVKR cabrera_v_Page_036.txt
13135c0dfb773aa9a11c9d0c3ed3752b
e82c1db1d27fa9c89f85e28560dc1bd1f1b3ab99
58714 F20110113_AAATDU cabrera_v_Page_019.jp2
8d95c65699f95bfdbf17ea8c5b978046
711fdae527906b492f0b1d40ef62674deadba70d
214922 F20110113_AAAUAN cabrera_v_Page_050.jpg
aa60bdcf4876f9efba24de95a861b137
be0af5c89fbda853a643fef176c87ee9a960fbe8
82943 F20110113_AAAUNZ cabrera_v_Page_094.jp2
f691c3f987ad4bc7c3606034bab3d294
7b4104183c3136d9a59453dd361f5172ad589b9a
1960 F20110113_AAAVKS cabrera_v_Page_038.txt
9c8aece4ec92f92f1e1b0df8816c2686
0d7a9bce8c5c7a72e54827cc5370bb9b2b1d1874
F20110113_AAATDV cabrera_v_Page_108.txt
b6a281fa3cf7feaf4f79932f5a42882a
cdc9472dc3d5c112cce3441fe2348723539acb5d
25722 F20110113_AAAUAO cabrera_v_Page_103thm.jpg
17d6a8f15b69c0f603ae4ba824563ace
7431c030dbc514374ad3de23669a43ab830b9071
1134 F20110113_AAAVKT cabrera_v_Page_039.txt
e34bc54ad19e9106b271e4b4f39ee768
0bdb5776b446d57210f92326a4e0321d84949781
F20110113_AAATDW cabrera_v_Page_193.tif
9c82d04cf7df3011c969ee28092fa788
5455f2ca36e22ca946c308efae8943da0346edf8
211148 F20110113_AAAUAP cabrera_v_Page_046.jpg
655c448101c6d2370796a0adb6b5fd41
44d70a1afd2aa016718dfae61d24e17366b9fcd3
1197 F20110113_AAAVKU cabrera_v_Page_042.txt
94d10768f5f64029a92cd7a8684eb051
0d288ac41d553a6d5fceab758764d1ed5cb5d3b3
52940 F20110113_AAATDX cabrera_v_Page_292.QC.jpg
a45b8a4acf719d885c8f3c2e2b9cdf70
cf7796b511a3cbe638f70b9e2ec9a833b31fac26
79247 F20110113_AAATWA cabrera_v_Page_151.QC.jpg
f95c3c3cb28f0ab9d2240a9a8bc899de
d16b063541e76912a142b8fbc16675d1662ac56a
24477 F20110113_AAAUAQ cabrera_v_Page_111thm.jpg
08864a9c40208d20edfb8b47f77e7e19
d4b5840e840893ee94442ded3e4469410a6c8f7e
1713 F20110113_AAAVKV cabrera_v_Page_044.txt
927bd9c1b28372d8244aba94261acfa5
138b0f43dabb870e9e4c4eb01e30a7dd25db5b9d
82999 F20110113_AAATWB cabrera_v_Page_035.jp2
2219ada3b1628ca2dc9a52fe46c5a29e
736a14f65b0761a1333924d2365f74b6d7fd1b80
24687 F20110113_AAAUAR cabrera_v_Page_146thm.jpg
dbca1509e4cb1c511e1e41db290bd993
de99fabdef517ef924ae29e29028e90b7de31d80
1561 F20110113_AAAVKW cabrera_v_Page_045.txt
40578d8a2f7c3d3917d8f731f9b30691
f831f033739e0d3e3ad67e85e625da0cd37be560
51020 F20110113_AAATDY cabrera_v_Page_132thm.jpg
be2e29ea940fbef9c1d0c8c4f3aa7731
89ea2090f85a7ec1d6fda2aed250ecc0b7753b7b
216375 F20110113_AAATWC cabrera_v_Page_093.jpg
1141f78ebc7b6579867c8eedec28ef14
cbc985ef2125d790a77c2654edecddbe1a28d80b
F20110113_AAAUAS cabrera_v_Page_197.txt
4ecc7743728493f463452908cbfc454d
8bbf9c72b55ebff2d4675b6050965762aac32770
1886 F20110113_AAAVKX cabrera_v_Page_047.txt
cb5b7e957f7de02dab1236c93291aefe
5f3be59faea2d3111fac29b5131e206ef6ab0a1d
F20110113_AAATDZ cabrera_v_Page_161.tif
32cad0adeb43075ab760f423a6617020
6fb382bf0a662953e4cd502215333ec32456d1ec
1051958 F20110113_AAATWD cabrera_v_Page_192.jp2
a5bd0e6438f0d023f309fa8a2cb2f7c1
ed530c67407ebbf670c9e99fb4832c85a725ee97
76964 F20110113_AAAUAT cabrera_v_Page_134.QC.jpg
c33c36b5e0d679a9577002afe3b2d513
716a7c6bca0661dcc5a709757e075c23b5a1cc2c
1710 F20110113_AAAVKY cabrera_v_Page_048.txt
c75c875b59614a495ec3470d519c1f83
332355a7068f03c6a66ff3bd8ad3aafb6df88371
45268 F20110113_AAATWE cabrera_v_Page_205.QC.jpg
d6b4183523573f8a5f831319c0124960
53dc9605dc3d85bb37848e855be00f271f489a56
F20110113_AAAVKZ cabrera_v_Page_049.txt
2e3c350e0fb7a63be18c379476c1450c
71457e6ebddb2c3aea07549f34e27270f67d2673
70439 F20110113_AAATWF cabrera_v_Page_145.QC.jpg
ca444ce18feb94b0a84a68658e96fa09
34837529eafc596084cc53bbc95a6fb312a62c5f
201860 F20110113_AAAUAU cabrera_v_Page_045.jpg
897ed3be6f4ac3fb2746a667fbbf8343
27183332fb0874ac26178c55b0f1d7cf582ea2d5
49816 F20110113_AAATWG cabrera_v_Page_229thm.jpg
b1463b30cfb815321d1b0a65a9796d68
3663c6f505a10e94fdf90da2e92db917e60fbec7
F20110113_AAAUAV cabrera_v_Page_077.tif
4c37b51ecbd5eb77c0761db6028efacd
d4acdc3d455ed1044244d54b5f33b85238664dbb


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0005581/00001

Material Information

Title: Modeling North Florida Dairy Farm Management Strategies to Alleviate Ecological Impacts under Varying Climatic Conditions: An Interdisciplinary Approach
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0005581:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0005581/00001

Material Information

Title: Modeling North Florida Dairy Farm Management Strategies to Alleviate Ecological Impacts under Varying Climatic Conditions: An Interdisciplinary Approach
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0005581:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












MODELING NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO
ALLEVIATE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS UNDER VARYING CLIMATIC
CONDITIONS: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
















By

VICTOR E. CABRERA


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

Victor E. Cabrera

































To my wife Milagritos















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to start by recognizing the exceptional interdisciplinary and collaborative

work of my supervisory committee. I would like to express my eternal gratitude and

highest appreciation to Dr. Peter E. Hildebrand, my mentor and adviser, for his

unconditional support, encouragement, and outstanding guidance. My special thanks go

to Dr. James W. Jones for his advice and commitment, acute professional challenging,

and always useful feedback during the entire research process. I am also extremely

grateful to Dr. Robert McSorley for his permanent, detailed, and constructive critique;

Dr. Albert De Vries for his valuable inputs and constant assistance; and Dr. Hugh

Popenoe for his interesting and useful comments.

This study would not have been possible without the collaboration of stakeholders,

those representatives of many organizations who were actively involved in it. I would

like to gratefully recognize the involvement and the unconditional help of Darrell Smith,

coordinator of the Suwannee River Partnership (SRP), who was a major actor in the

networking of people and organizations, and supporting the research from the beginning.

I am also very appreciative of the help and dedication provided by Chris Vann, Clifford

Starling, Russ Giesy, and Marvin Weaver, -University of Florida Cooperative

Extension agents, who were the liaison with the dairy farmers. I also recognize the

valuable information, feedback, and help provided by Hugh Thomas (SRP), Justin Jones

(IFAS REC at Live Oak), W.C. Hart (US Department of Agriculture, Lafayette), Joel

Love (SRP), and David Hornsby (Suwannee River Water Management District).









I would like to particularly thank all the dairy farmers, small, medium, and large,

for providing time, data, and critical feedback during the processes of creation,

calibration and validation of the models created in this study. This study was conducted

with the farmers for the farmers. Their participation was crucial to the successful

advancement and culmination of this research. For obvious reasons their names are

omitted.

Besides members of my supervisory committee, many other professionals from the

University of Florida were very helpful, providing information, networking, and inputs in

this study. I would like to recognize the collaboration of Dr. Lynn E. Sollenberger for

information about forage systems; Dr. Jack Van Horn for information about dairy

nutrient management; Dr. Jerry Kidder and Greg Means for information about soil series;

Dr. Donald Graetz for information, feedback, and networking on the soil/water nitrate

issue, Dr. Sabine Grunwald for providing geospatial data; Dr. Clyde Fraisse for feedback

on crop models and climate components; Dr. Carrol Chambliss for information and

feedback on forage systems, Dr. Ken Boote for information on species parameters of crop

models; Dr. Shrikant Jagtap for meteorological information; Dr. Ramon Litell for help

and inputs in statistical analysis; Dr. Norman E. Breuer for information about north-

Florida forage systems and constructive feedback; Cheryl Porter for help running the crop

models and using the DSSAT software, Stuart Rymph for support in creating and

calibrating forage crop models; Marinela Capanu for support with statistical analyses

using SAS software; Daniel Herrera and Sergio Madrid for touring dairy farms with me;

and Amy Sullivan for constructive feedback. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Gerrit









Hoogenboom from the University of Georgia, for his comments on species files for the

crop models.

I want to express my appreciation to the interdisciplinary Sondeo team for their

enthusiastic and productive work in the early stages of this study. Thanks to Diana

Alvira, Sebastian Galindo, Solomon Haile, Kibiby Mtenga, Alfredo Rios, Nitesh Tripathi,

and Jose Villagomez.

I would like to gratefully acknowledge the support and unconditional help provided

by a private enterprise, the Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. My sincere

thanks to Dr. Del Bottcher, Dr. Barry Jacobson, and Suzanne Kish not only for their

direct feedback and first-hand valuable information, but also for inviting me to participate

on the monthly "manure lunch" that was a great opportunity for networking and

collecting information.

I want to express my thanks to Jesse Wilson, Bill Reck, and Nga Watts from the

Gainesville office of the Natural Resources and Conservation Service (US Department of

Agriculture) for providing feedback, constructive critique, and valuable information for

the study.

I hope I am not missing anyone, but if I do, I want to express my appreciation to all

and each one who in some way or another contributed to this study. Your help has been

highly valued and critical for the final outputs.

This work was supported by a grant from NOAA (Office of Global Programs)

through the South Eastern Climate Consortium (a Regional Integrated Science

Application center) under the direction and guidance of Dr. James W. Jones and Dr. Peter

E. Hildebrand.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS
page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TA BLE S .................................. ........... ............. ................ .. xii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ....................... ........ ....... ........... xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATION S ............................................................ .............. xix

ABSTRACT ........ .............. ............. .. ...... ..................... xxi

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

1.1 B background ........... ......... .................... .. .. .......................
1.2 The Problem atic Situation....................................................... ............... 1
1.3 Research A rea .............. ............... ............... ......................
1.4 O bjectiv es ....................................................... 6
1.5 H ypothesis.............................................. 8
1.6 Fram ew ork ......... ...... ........ ...... ................ ....................... 8
1 .7 M e th o d s ............. .. ......... .............. .. ..............................................1 1
1 .8 R e le v a n c e ...................... .. .............. .. ............................................1 3

2 NITROGEN POLLUTION IN THE SUWANNEE RIVER WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: REALITY OR MYTH? ........................................14

2.1 Introduction .................................... 14
2.2 Evidence of N Increase in the Suwannee River Water Management
District ................ ...................... ........ ..................... 16
2.2.1 Assessments at the District Level ........................................ ....16
2.2.2 Assessments at the Watershed Level .......................................... 23
2.2.3 Assessments at the National Level ........................................ ...24
2.2.4 Assessments at the Dairy Farm Level .........................25
2.3 Human and Ecological Concerns because of N Pollution .............................29
2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................... ............. 31









3 NORTH FLORIDA STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS TOWARD
NUTRIENT POLLUTION, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, AND
THE USE OF CLIMATE FORECAST TECHNOLOGY .......................................34

3.1 Introduction .............. ...... .... ..... ..... ............ ................ 34
3.2 M materials and M ethods.......................................................... ............... 36
3 .2 .1 Stu dy A rea .................................................................. 36
3 .2 .2 T h e S on d eo ............................................... ................ 3 6
3.2.3 Interview s......................... ......... ....................... ............... 38
3.2 .4 F ocu s G roups ........................ .. ................................ .... ..... ...... 38
3 .2 .5 A n aly sis.............................................. ................ 3 9
3.3 Results and Discussion .............................. ..................39
3.3.1 Stakeholder Perceptions of the N Issue ........ ................................39
3.3.1.1 Perception of water contamination ..............................................39
3.3.1.2 Reasons to mitigate contamination..............................................42
3.3.1.3 Existing and potential means of mitigation ...............................42
3.3.1.4 Implementation procedures for Best Management Practices
(B M P s) ....................................... ........... ............ 45
3.3.1.5 Im pacts of BM Ps on farm s ................................. ................ 47
3.3.2 Perceptions of Regulations by Dairy Farmers ....................................48
3.3.2.1 Farmers in disagreement with regulatory measurements..............49
3.3.2.2 Farmers who agree with regulations but criticize part of it ..........53
3.3.2.3 Farmers who completely agree with regulations .........................56
3.3.3 Perceptions of Climatic Technology Innovation ..................................57
3.3.3.1 Farmers that would use long-term climatic forecast....................57
3.3.3.2 Farmers who would not use long-term climatic forecast .............62
3.3.3.3 Farmers who are not sure they would use long-term
clim atic forecast ........................... ...... ............... .............. 63
3.4 Conclusions and Recomm endations ..................................... ............... 63

4 A METHOD FOR BUILDING CLIMATE VARIABILITY INTO FARM
MODELS: PARTICIPATORY MODELING OF NORTH FLORIDA
D A IR Y FA R M SY STE M S ............................................................. .....................67

4.1 Introduction ................................................... ..................... ..... ....... 67
4.2 M materials and M ethods.......................................................... ............... 71
4.2.1 M ain Fram ew ork.......................................................... ............... 72
4 .2 .2 T he Sondeo ........................ .. ....................... ...... .. ........... 74
4.2.3 Interview s.............................................................................. 75
4.2.4 Focus G roups ................................ ..... ... ...... .. ... .. ............ 76
4.2.5 Other Stakeholder Interactions .................................... ............... 77
4.2.6 A analysis of Inform ation ...................................................................... 77
4.3 R results and D discussion ............................................................................. 78
4.3.1 Phase One: Initial Developments............... ..........................................78
4.3.2 Phase Tw o: The Sondeo........................................... ............... .... 81
4.3.3 Phase Three: Greater Stakeholder Involvement ...................................84
4.3.4 Phase Four: The Prototype M odel .................................. ............... 88









4.3.5 Phase Five: The Final M odel ........................................ .....................93
4.4 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations................... .....................95

5 HOW MUCH MANURE NITROGEN DO NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY
F A R M S P R O D U C E ? ........................................................................ ...................98

5.1 Introduction ........... ........ ........ ...............98
5.2 Materials and Methods ............ ............. ............... 102
5.3 Model Development ............. .... ............................... 103
5.3.1 G general Characteristics ................................................................... 103
5.3.2 Markov-Chains, Culling Rates, Reproduction Rates, and Milk
Production R ates .................................................................. ........... .... 103
5.3.3 M anure N Produced by M ilking Cows............. ................................. 108
5.3.4 Nitrogen and Crude Protein .......... ....... .. .... ........ .. .. ............ 110
5.3.5 M ilking Times and Cattle Breeds .......... .. ............... ................. 111
5.3.6 Manure N Produced by Dry Cows, Young Stock, and Bulls..............113
5.3.7 Manure, Feces, Urine, and Dry Matter Intake Estimations ................14
5.3.8 W ater Utilization for M anure Handling...............................................116
5.3.9 W aste M management Handling Systems ...............................................117
5.4 Results and Discussion .......................... ........ .. ................... 119
5.4.1 The Model (Livestock Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm
M odel, LDNFDFM ).......................... ........ ..................119
5.4.2 Model Comparison with Other Widely Used Estimations .................120
5.4.3 Estimation of Manure N Produced in North-Florida Dairy Farm
System s ................................... .......................... ... ...... 122
5.5 Conclusions .................................... ............................. .........128

6 FORAGE SYSTEMS IN NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARMS FOR
RECYCLING N UNDER SEASONAL VARIATION ................. ... .................132

6.1 Introduction ...................................................................... ......... 132
6.2 Materials and Methods................................... ..................135
6.2.1 Survey, Focus Groups, and Additional Information.............................135
6.2.2 Location of North-Florida Dairy Farms and Their Soil Series............. 135
6.2.3 Climate Information and El Nifio Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
P h ases ............................................... ........ ..... 13 8
6.2.4 Forage Crop System s ................................................................ ...... 138
6.2.5 M anure N A application ........................................ ....... ............... 142
6.2.6. Crop Sim ulations ........................................................................... 142
6.2.7 A analyses ................................... .......................... ... ...... 143
6.3 Results and Discussion ............................. .... ... ............... 143
6.3.1 Forage Crop Systems in North-Florida Dairies .................................. 143
6.3.1.1 Spring-summer crops .................................... ............... 144
6.3.1.2 Sum m er-fall crops................................... ........................ 144
6.3.1.3 Fall-w inter crops .............................................. ......... ...... 145
6.3.1.4 Sequences of forages................................................................. 145
6.3.1.5 H arvest and processing ............................................................ 146









6.3.2 Calibration and Validation of DSSAT Crop Models..........................146
6.3.2.1 Forage sorghum ........................................ ........ ............... 147
6.3.2 .2 P earl m illet............ .... ............................ ...... ...... . ........... 149
6.3.2.3 Silage corn .......................... .. .. ........ ........ ........ ......151
6.3.2.4 W inter forages........................................................................ 152
6.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis of Forage Crops to Manure N Application..........154
6.3.4 Variability by ENSO Phases.................................. ............... 156
6.3.4.1 Nitrogen leaching in different ENSO phases.............................158
6.3.4.2 Biomass in different EN SO phases.............................................166
6.3.5 Variability by Crop Sequences .................................. ............... 168
6.3.5.1 Nitrogen leaching and crop systems ......................................... 170
6.3.5.2 Biomass and crop systems .................................. ........... 171
6.3.6 Variability by Soil Types ................. ..... ...............173
6.3.6.1 Nitrogen leaching and soil types ......... .....................................176
6.3.6.2 Biomass and soil types..... .................................179
6 .4 C on clu sion s ............................................... ................ 18 1

7 AN INTEGRATED SIMULATION MODEL TO ASSESS ECONOMIC
AND ECOLOGIC IMPACTS OF NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARM
S Y S T E M S ........................................................................ 18 4

7.1 Introduction ............. ..... .... .... .............................. .......... 184
7.2 Materials and Methods ........... ...... ......... .................. 185
7.2.1 Conceptual M odel ...... .............................................. .. ............... 185
7.2.2 Computer Implementation ............................. .... ............... 188
7.2.3 Analysis of Synthesized Dairies in North-Florida ............................. 188
7.3 M odel D description .................................... ................. ....... ... 189
7.3.1 Overall Characteristics.................... ...... .......................... 189
7.3.2 C om ponents .................................... ................... ....... 190
7.3.3 The Livestock M odel ........................................ ........................ 191
7.3.4 T he W aste M odel ...................................................................... .. .... 197
7.3.5 The Crop M odels ............................................................................ 198
7.3.6 The Econom ic M odule...................................... ........................ 203
7.3.7 The Optim ization M odule.................................. ....................... 204
7.3.8 The Feasible Adjustments Component............................................... 206
7.4 User Friendly Implementation ..... .................... ...............206
7.4.1 General Characteristics ..... ..................... ...............206
7.4.2 The Livestock M odule ................... .. .... .............. ............... 210
7.4.3 The W aste System M odule ................................ ................ 211
7.4.4 The Soil M odule ........................................................ ............... 2 12
7.4.5 The Forage System s M odule ..................................... ............... ..212
7.4.6 The Climatic M odule ................... .. .... ............. ............... 213
7.4.7 The Econom ic M odule...................................... ........................ 214
7.4.8 The Optim ization M odule.................................. ....................... 217
7.5 Results for Synthesized Farms............................ .... ............... 218
7.5.1 Synthesized Small Dairy Operation............................... ..... ......218
7.5.2 Synthesized Medium Dairy Operation.............................. ...............219









7.5.3 Synthesized Large Dairy Operation....................................................221
7.5.4 Comparison of the Three Synthesized Farms ............ .. .............. 222
7 .6 C on clu sion s.......................................................................... ............... 22 5

8 ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGIC IMPACTS OF NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY
FARM SYSTEMS: TAILORING MITIGATION OF NITROGEN
P O L L U T IO N .............................................................................. .. ................ .. 2 2 7

8.1 Introduction ...................................................................... ......... 227
8.2 M materials and M ethods..................................................................................228
8.2.1 Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model .............. .... ...............228
8.2.2 A Synthesized North-Florida Dairy Farm..........................................229
8.2.3 Statistical A nalyses .................................... ............................ ......... 229
8.2 .4 G raphical A naly ses ................................................................... ....230
8.2.5 O ptim ization A nalyses...................................... ........................ 232
8.2.6 V alidation w ith Real Farm s ...................................... ............... 232
8.3 R results and D discussion ............................................................................ 233
8.3.1 Statistical A naly ses ................................................................... ... ..233
8.3.1.1 N itrogen leaching ............................. .... ... ............... 233
8 .3 .1 .2 P ro fit ...................................................................................... 2 3 4
8.3.2 Graphical Analyses ....... .......................................................... 235
8.3.2.1 Soil series ................................................... .......... 235
8.3.2.2 Crop systems in sprayfields .......................... ...... ......... 238
8.3.2.3 Pastures and crude protein in the diet (CP)...............................240
8.3.2.4 Confined time (CT) and crude protein in the diet (CP) .............242
8.3.2.5 Isolated effects of single managerial changes in the
Synthesized farm ............................................... ............... 244
8.3.3 Optimization Analysis: Decreasing Environmental Impacts and
Increasing Profitability ............................................. ............... 246
8.3.3.1 The Synthesized dairy farm "as is"...........................................246
8.3.3.2 Optimization of the Synthesized farm ............. .....................247
8.3.3.3 Feasible practices for the Synthesized farm..............................249
8.3.4 Examples of Applications of the DNFDFM to Specific Farms............253
8 .3 .4 .1 F arm O n e .......................................................... ....................2 5 3
8.3.4.2 Farm Tw o ............. ................... ....................................... .. ..254
8.3.4 .3 F arm T hree............. ........................ .......... .... .... ........... 256
8.4 Conclusions and Recomm endations ................................... .................257

9 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................260

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ...................................................................... .....................27 1

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................ ............................................283
















LIST OF TABLES


Table pge

4-1. Stakeholder interactions, suggestions and changes made to model....................91

5-1. Dry matter intake, manure, and N excretion by Florida dairy cattle based
on milk production. (lbs cow-1 day-) and "low" and "high" (NRC
standards) crude protein (CP) content of diets ................................................109

5-2. Water utilization by milking cows during months and percentage use
relative to m onth of m axim um use (July)........................................................... 117

5-3. Nitrogen lost in the waste management system: a baseline..............................119

5-4. Five hypothetical north-Florida dairy farms and their characteristics for
m anure N estim nations ................................................ .............................. 122

5-5. Estimated amounts of manure N to sprayfields in five hypothetical
north-Florida dairy farm s............................................. ............................ 125

5-6. Estimated amounts of manure N deposited on pasturelands in five
hypothetical north-Florida dairy farms ......................................................126

5-7. Estimated amounts of manure, DMI, and water use in five hypothetical
north-Florida dairy farm s............................................. ............................ 128

6-1. Soil types, some characteristics, and their sources of information used for
the study ....................................................................... ..........137

6-2. Information sources for calibration and validation of forage crops in
north-Florida dairy farm systems.................................. ..............148

6-3. Coefficients values and coefficients definitions of modified crops in
D SSA T ................................................................ .... ..... ......... 150

6-4. Nitrogen leaching (kg ha-1) and ENSO phases, when all other factors are
averaged ............................................................... ... .... ......... 160

6-5. Biomass (kg ha-1) and ENSO phases, when all other factors are averaged......... 166

6-6. Nitrogen leaching (kg ha-1) and crop sequences, when all other factors are
averaged ............................................................... ... .... ......... 171









6-7. Biomass (kg ha-1) and crop sequences, when all other factors are averaged.......172

6-8. Nitrogen leaching (kg ha-1) and soil types, when all other factors are
av eraged ..................................................... ............................ 178

6-9. Biomass (kg ha-1) and soil types, when all other factors are averaged..............180

7-1. State variables and monthly update of the livestock model..............................194

7-2. D ry m atter intake estim nations ..................................................... ... .......... 195

7-3. M anure excretion estim nations ..................................................... ... .......... 196

7-4. N itrogen excretion estim nations ........................................ ........................ 197

7-5. Nitrogen through waste system estimations ................................ ............... 198

7-6. Codification of ENSO phases, soil types, and forage systems from crop
m o d els ...................................... ................................................ 2 0 0

7-7. Nitrogen applied estimated by the waste model and N applied in crop
m o d els ...................................... ................................................ 2 0 2

7-8. Definition of variables in economic module (US$ cwt-1 milk-1)..........................203

7-9. Monthly milk prices distribution in north-Florida as cumulative
probability (U S$ cw t-1 m ilk-1) ................................................... ........ ....... 204

7-10. C rops in different fields ............................................................ .....................2 18

7-11. Comparison of three synthesized north-Florida farms and their estimated
annual N leaching ...................... ...... .......... ............... .... ....... 224

8-1. Characteristics of a Synthesized north-Florida dairy farm ...............................230

8-2. Combination of management strategies simulated by the DNFDFM for the
statistical an aly sis...................................... ................. ....................... 2 3 1

8-3. Significance of factors and main interactions for N leaching.............................234

8-4. Significance of factors and main interactions for profit .....................................235

8-5. Crops in different fields in the Synthesized farm .............................................246

8-6. Management strategies selected by the optimizer ............................................248

8-7. Feasible crop systems in Synthesized dairy farm ..........................................250















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pge

1-1. N orth-Florida landscape representation........................................ .....................3

1-2. The Suwannee River Water Management District, the study area........................

2-1. Nitrate-N concentration in the SRW M D .................................... ............... 17

2-2. Nitrate-N concentrations in three springs in the middle Suwannee River
B a sin .............................................................................. 19

2-3. Estimated annual mean of groundwater N load ...............................................20

2-4. Long term records of Nitrate-N for 4 Suwannee springs.................. ............22

2-5. Long term records of Nitrate-N for 3 Lafayette springs.............. ... .............23

2-6. Nitrate-Nitrite and total ammonium plus organic N at different points in
nine dairy farms in the middle Suwannee River Basin........................................26

2-7. Dissolved Nitrate+Nitrite and Ammonium+Organic N in monitoring wells
(3-m deep) in different areas of a dairy farm.............. ...... ...............27

2-8. Monitoring wells with higher than drinking water allowable nitrate levels
(PDWS>10 mg L-1) in the four dairy farms .............................................. 29

3-1. Farmers' perceptions of environmental regulations in north-Florida.................50

3-2. Farmers' perceptions of climate technology adoption........................................58

4-1. Schematic of participatory modeling ...... ......... .....................................72

4-2. M ethodology of participatory modeling .................................... .... ..... .......... 73

4-3. Phases of the participatory modeling for creating the DNFDFM..........................78

5-1. Pregnancy rates of adult cow s................................................... .....................105

5-2. Culling rates of adult cow s ............................................................................ 106

5-3. M ilk production rates of milking cows............... ............................................. 107









5-4. Manure N produced by low-CP diet cows according to milk production ...........111

5-5. M anure excretion based on milk production ....................................................... 114

5-6. Dry matter intake (DMI) based on milk production ................. ................115

5-7. Nitrogen excretion by a "low" protein diet in a 100-cow dairy estimated
by different m models .................. ............................ ........ .. ............ 120

5-8. Nitrogen excretion by a "high" protein diet in a 100-cow dairy estimated
by different m models .................. ............................ ........ .. ............ 121

6-1. Study area, dairy farm s, and soil types ..................................... ............... ..136

6-2. Daily rainfall (1956-1998) in north-Florida for different ENSO phases ...........139

6-3. Distribution of monthly precipitation (1956-1998) in north-Florida for
different EN SO phases............................................... .............................. 140

6-4. Daily precipitation in north-Florida (1956-1998) for different ENSO
phases ............................................................... .... ..... ......... 140

6-5. Daily temperature (1956-1998) in north-Florida for different ENSO phases......141

6-6. Daily solar radiation (1956-1998) in north-Florida for different ENSO
phases ............................................................... .... ..... ......... 141

6-7. Forage systems and their seasonality in north-Florida dairy farms.....................144

6-8. Forage sorghum: Observed and simulated biomass production, Bell,
1996-1998. Individual mean square error (MES) and overall Root Mean
Squ are E rror (R M SE ) ............................................................... ..................... 149

6-9. Forage millet: Observed and simulated biomass production, Bell,
1996-1998. Individual mean square error (MES) and overall Root Mean
S qu are E rror (R M SE ) ............................................................... ..................... 15 1

6-10. Forage millet: Observed and simulated biomass production, Quincy 1992........152

6-11. Silage corn: Observed and simulated biomass production, Bell,
1996-1998. Individual mean square error (MES) and overall Root Mean
S qu are E rror (R M SE ) ............................................................... ..................... 153

6-12. Winter forages: Observed and simulated biomass production, Bell
1997-1998. Individual mean square error (MES) and overall Root Mean
Square E rror (R M SE) ................................................ .............................. 154









6-13. Sensitivity response of N leaching and biomass accumulation to different
rates of manure N applied for simulations in a Kershaw soil series during
the season 1996/1997 .................................... .............. .. ..... .. ........ .. .. 155

6-14. Nitrogen leaching vs. biomass accumulation for different ENSO phases
under two forage systems consisting of bermudagrass and millet-sorghum,
four manure N applications (10, 20, 40, and 80 kg ha-1 mo-1), and two type
of soils (Arredondo-Gainesville-Millhopper and Millhopper-Bonneau) ............157

6-15. Nitrogen leaching vs. ENSO phases relative to absolute averages, when all
other factors are averaged ........................................................ ............. 162

6-16. Probability distribution of N leaching by ENSO phases, when all other
factors are averaged ............................................ .. .... .... ............... 163

6-17. Frequency distribution of N leaching and month of the year by ENSO
phase, when all other factors are averaged .................................. ............... 165

6-18. Biomass accumulation vs. ENSO phases relative to absolute averages,
when all other factors are averaged ........................................ ............... 167

6-19. Nitrogen leaching vs. biomass accumulation for different forage systems
under different ENSO phases (La Nifia, Neutral, and El Niho), two manure
N applications (40 and 80 kg ha-1 mo-1), and soils of type Penney-Kershaw...... 169

6-20. Nitrogen leaching vs. crop sequences relative to absolute averages, when
all other factors are averaged ...................................................... ........ ...... 170

6-21. Biomass accumulation vs. crop sequences relative to absolute averages,
when all other factors are averaged ........................................ ............... 173

6-22. Nitrogen leaching vs. biomass accumulation for different soil types under
different ENSO phases (La Nifa, Neutral, and El Niho), two manure N
applications (40 and 20 kg ha-1 mo-1), and forage system consisting of
corn-sorghum -w inter forage ........................................... ......................... 175

6-23. Nitrogen leaching vs. soil types relative to absolute averages, when all
other factors are averaged ........ ................... ................. ... ............... 177

6-24. Nitrogen leaching vs. soil types relative to absolute averages, when all
other factors are averaged ........ ................... ................. ... ............... 181

7-1. Representation of the dynamic north-Florida dairy farm model ....................191

7-2. Representation of the livestock model .......... .. ............ ........... ........ ........... 192

7-3. Data management of simulation of crop models .............................................201









7-4. The process of optim ization ..................................................................... ..... 205

7-5. Main screen of the computer implementation of The Dynamic
North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM).............................208

7-6. The start message menu control ...............................................209

7-7. The livestock module control.......................... ......... .................... 211

7-8. The w aste m anagem ent control ........................................ ....................... 212

7-9. Dairy farm location and soil type by farm component control..........................213

7-10. Forage systems component control.................. ... .... ................. 214

7-11. The clim atic com ponent control ............................................... ............... 215

7-12. The economy ic com ponent control.......... .................................... ..... ............. 216

7-13. Distribution of milk prices in north-Florida................................................... 16

7-14. The optim ization control ......... ................. ................................. ............... 217

7-15. Monthly estimations for Synthesized Small north-Florida farm .......................220

7-16. Small north-Florida farm, yearly estimated N leaching and profit................221

7-17. Medium north-Florida farm, yearly estimated N leaching and profit..................222

7-18. Large north-Florida farm, yearly estimated N leaching and profit................223

7-19. Overall N leaching from the synthesized farms ......... ................................... 225

8-1. Nitrogen leaching and profit for different soil types in north-Florida:
Estimations for different ENSO phases for common crop systems.....................236

8-2. Nitrogen leaching and profit for different crop systems in north-Florida:
Estimations for different ENSO phases for common pastures and soil
types ............................................................... ..... ..... ........ 239

8-3. N leaching and profit for different pasture crops and crude protein in
north-Florida: Estimations for different ENSO phases for common
sprayfield crops and soil type ........................................ ......................... 241

8-4. N leaching and profit for different confined time and crude protein:
Estimations for different ENSO phases for common crop systems and soils......243

8-5. Impacts of management changes for the Synthesized farm with soils type
4 (Penney-O tela) ...................... .................. ................. .... ....... 245


xvii









8-6. Nitrogen leaching and profit with current practices for a Synthesized
north-F lorida farm ............ ............................................................. .... .... .... .. 247

8-7. Optimized vs. current practice yearly N leaching and profit for a
north-Florida Synthesized farm ........................................ ....................... 249

8-8. "Feasible" yearly N leaching and profit for a Synthesized north-Florida
farm ........................................................ ............... ........... 251

8-9. Optimization of a Synthesized north-Florida farm, scenario One.......................251

8-10. "Second feasible" yearly N leaching and profit for a north-Florida
Synthesized farm.................... ..................... ............ 252

8-11. Farm One: N leaching and profit for different management strategies .............254

8-12. Farm Two: N leaching and profit for different management strategies.............255

8-13. Farm Three: N leaching and profit for different management strategies...........257


xviii
















LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS


AFO

ASAE

AWMFH

BMPs

CAFO

CARES

CP

DBAP

DHIA

DNFDFM

DM

DMI

DRMS

ENSO

EPA

FDH

FFB

FGS

FLDEP

FSR

FSRE

IC

LDNFDMF


Animal Feeding Operations

American Society of Agricultural Engineers

Animal Waste Management Field Handbook

Best Management Practices

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

County Alliance for Responsible Environmental Stewardship

Crude Protein

Dairy Business Analysis Project

Dairy Herd Improvement Association

Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model

Dry Matter

Dry Matter Intake

Dairy Records Management Systems

El Nifio Southern Oscillation

Environmental Protection Agency

Florida Department of Health

Florida Farm Bureau

Florida Geological Service

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Farming Systems Research

Farming Systems Research and Extension

Initial Conditions for Simulation

Livestock Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model










LN

MCL

MHB

MIM

MIP

NAC

NAWQA
NH, -Org
No-_N2-
NO3- NO

NOAA

NRC

NRCS

NRM

PDWS

PRA

RHA

RRA

SRP

SRWMD

SWIM

TWG

USDA

USEPA, EPA

USGS

WARN

WATNUTFL


Lactation Number

Maximum Concentration Load

Methemoglobinemia

Months in Milk

Months in Pregnancy

Number of Adult Cows

National Water Quality Assessment

Ammonium + Organic N

Nitrites + Nitrates

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Research Council

Natural Resource and Conservation Service

Natural Resource Management

Primary Drinking Water Standard

Participatory Rural Appraisal

Rolling Herd Average

Rapid Rural Appraisal

Suwannee River Partnership

Suwannee River Water Management District

Surface Water Improvement and Management

Technical Working Group

US Department of Agriculture

US Environmental Protection Agency

US Geological Service

Water Assessment Regional Network

Water budget and Nutrient balance for Florida















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

MODELING NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO
ALLEVIATE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS UNDER VARYING CLIMATIC
CONDITIONS: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH

By

Victor E. Cabrera

August 2004

Chair: Peter E. Hildebrand
Major Department: Natural Resources and Environment

High levels of nitrogen (N) in water affect human health and ecosystem welfare.

Dairy waste is considered an important contributor to increased water N levels in the

Suwannee River Basin. The main aim of the study was to assess management options that

decrease N leaching in dairy systems under different climatic conditions, while

maintaining profitability. Whole-dairy-farm system simulations were used to study

economic and ecologic sustainability, which would be impractical to test with regular

experiments. Dynamic, event-controlled, and empirical models were coupled with

process-based and decision-making models to represent and test management strategies.

User-friendliness and stakeholder interaction were always pursued. Eight focus groups

and 24 dairy farmer interviews were conducted, and a collaborative user-friendly decision

support system was created. The Dynamic North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM)

uses Markov-chains to simulate probabilistic livestock reproduction, culling, milk

production, and N excretion; process-based crop models to simulate forage production, N









uptake, and N leaching; and linear programming optimization to tailor management

strategies. The DNFDFM is an environmental accountability tool for dairy farmers and

regulatory agencies capable of simulating any individual north-Florida dairy farm.

Results indicated that north-Florida dairy farmers could maintain profitability and

decrease N leaching 9 to 25% by decreasing crude protein in the diet, adjusting confined

time of milking cows, and adjusting sequences of seasonal forages. During "El Niho"

years, when higher rainfall and colder temperatures are experienced, 5% more N leaching

is estimated compared with "Neutral" years; and 13% more compared with dryer and

hotter "La Nifia" years.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The presence of high levels of N in water is an environmental hazard because it

affects human health and ecosystem welfare. The Suwannee River Basin has received

much attention in recent years because of increased N levels in water bodies. Dairy waste

is thought to be an important factor contributing to this water N pollution.

Dairy farmers are now required to comply with stricter environmental regulations

either under permit or under voluntary incentive-based programs. Dairy farmers are also

aware that environmental issues will be among the greatest challenges they face in the

near future.

Evidence indicates that farms may reduce their total N loads by changing some

management strategies. Improvements in long-term seasonal predictions (6 to 12 months)

such as in El Nifio and La Nifia forecasts, can play an important role in implementing

management strategies that dairy farmers in north-Florida may adopt in order to pursue

economic and ecological sustainability.

1.2 The Problematic Situation

Dairy farming is an important part of Florida's agricultural industry. The Florida

Statistical Service showed that milk and cattle sales from dairies contributed $429 million

directly into the Floridian economy in the year 2001. Florida is the leading dairy state in

the Southeast; it ranks 13th nationally in cash receipts for milk, 15th in milk production

and 15th in number of cows (Bos taurus) (Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, 2003).









According to USDA, there were about 152,000 cows on about 220 dairy farms at the end

of 2002, and more than 30% of the dairy operations (65 operations) and number of cows

(> 45,000 cows) of the State of Florida are located in the Suwannee River Basin. Indeed,

more than 25% of the dairy cows in the state are in four counties in north central Florida

that bound the Suwannee River (Bisoondat et al., 2002): Gilchrist, Lafayette, Suwannee,

and Levy.

This dairy industry, according to Giesy et al. (2002), faces three significant

challenges: production, economic, and environmental. Dairymen perceive that

environmental issues will be the most stressful in the near future (Staples et al., 1997).

Dairies face increased regulation because social pressure, while larger herds attract the

attention of neighbors and activists concerned with odors, flies, and especially potential

leaching of nutrients that might influence water quality (Giesy et al., 2002).

The presence of N in surface water bodies and groundwater aquifers is recognized

as a significant water quality problem in many parts of the world (Fraisse et al., 1996).

The Suwannee River Partnership states that over the last 15 years, nitrate levels in the

middle Suwannee River Basin have been on the increase; and these elevated nitrate levels

can cause health problems in humans as well as negative impacts on water quality

(Suwannee River Partnership, 2004a). Indeed, the Suwannee River Basin has received

much attention in recent years because increased N levels in the groundwater-fed rivers

of the basin could seriously affect the welfare of the ecosystem (Albert, 2002). According

to Katz (2000), N levels have increased from 0.1 to 5 mg L-1 in many springs in the

Suwannee basin over the past 40 years. Pittman et al. (1997) found that nitrate

concentrations in the Suwannee River itself have increased at the rate of 0.02 mg L-1









year1 over the past 20 years. In a 53.1 km river stretch between Dowling Park and

Branford, the nitrate loads increased from 2,300 to 6,000 kg day-1. They also estimated

that 89% of this came from the lower two-thirds, where agriculture is the dominant land

use. Soils in this region are generally deep, well-drained sands (Figure 1-1); and nutrient

management is a major concern (Van Horn et al., 1998).


.4







rg ir in n n n n r r ,
..... "",,,^ W t ..


-W ~ jf -, --. "_ < a _- .








Figure 1-1. North-Florida landscape representation. Source: Katz et al., 1999, p. 1.

As Conway (1990) stated, farms in industrialized countries have become larger in

size, fewer in number, highly mechanized, and highly dependent on external inputs; and

can cause environmental problems by producing a number of wastes that might be

hazardous. Recent evidence that agriculture in general, and animal waste in particular,
may be an important factor in surface and groundwater quality degradation has created a

strong interest in nutrient management research (Katz, 2000, Van Horn, 1997, Fraisse et









al., 1996). Over-applying manure nutrients to land is considered a major cause of nitrates,

converted from manure ammonia sources while in the soil, leaching to groundwater and

contributing to surface runoff of N that contaminates surface waters. Concerns regarding

nutrient losses from manure of large dairy herds to groundwater or surface runoff have

been extremely acute in Florida (Van Horn, 1997). One of the most publicized concerns

is N losses in the form of nitrate into the groundwater through the deep sandy soils of the

Suwannee River Basin (Van Horn et al., 1998). Many soils in the Suwannee River Basin

are excessively drained, deep, sandy, Entisols with low exchange capacity and low

organic matter, which are prone to nitrate leaching (Woodard et al., 2002).

Environmental regulation of livestock waste disposal has become a major public

concern, and much of the focus for this issue in Florida has been on dairies. Dairymen are

now required to develop manure disposal systems in order to comply with Florida

Department of Environmental Protection water quality standards (Twatchtmann, 1990).

This fact has led to considerable research emphasizing N recycling and addressing issues

such as maximum carrying capacity and nutrient uptake by crops (Fraisse et al., 1996).

Dairymen in the Suwannee River Basin have expressed their willingness to

participate in initiatives that promote reduced environmental impacts. In fact, many of

them are already involved in programs such as Better Management Practices (BMPs) to

reduce nitrate overflow promoted by the Suwannee River Partnership (Smith, 2002, Pers.

Comm.). Staples et al. (1997) interviewed 48 dairy farmers in Lafayette, Suwannee,

Columbia, Hamilton, and Gilchrist counties. By far farmers rated their perception of

anticipated costs of complying with upcoming environmental regulations as the top

challenge to successful dairying in the future.









Overflow of nitrates in these dairy systems is affected by adopted management

practices and by environmental conditions. Changing management practices might have a

great impact on overflow amounts. For instance, Albert (2002) found that by reducing the

duration of the irrigation, reducing the fertilizer application rate, and improving the

timing of fertilizer applications, N leaching can be reduced by approximately 50% while

maintaining acceptable potato yields in sandy soils in north-Florida. It is unknown if

similar large reductions are also possible in dairy farms. Many environmental conditions

are also determined by climate factors such as rainfall, temperature, and radiation (which

are variable and uncertain). Dairy operations are affected by changes in climatic

components at many different levels, and in many different ways. Rainfall patterns might

result in very different amounts of nutrient leaching. For example, higher temperature in

winter can promote more biomass accumulation, and increase plant N uptake.

Currently, better-quality long-term seasonal forecasts (6 to 12 months in advance)

are available. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) can

predict-using the El Nifio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) technology-accurate

long-term seasonal climate patterns. These are based on predicting El Niho, La Nifia, or

Neutral years (which determine rainfall and temperature patterns). The ENSO signal in

Florida has been well documented, in terms of its effects on climatic variables (Jones et

al., 2000). Precipitation in Florida is particularly variable, with an excess of over 30% of

the normal seasonal total across much of the state during an El Nifio winter. La Nifia has

the opposite effect, with deficits of 10 to 30% lasting from fall through winter and spring.

Florida and the Gulf Coast can expect to see average temperatures 2 to 30F below normal

during El Nifio years. La Nifia has the opposite effect, with temperatures 20 to 40F above









normal during winter months. La Nifia's effect on temperature is more pronounced in

north-Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. Solar radiation decreases in association with

higher rainfall during El Nifio years. Notice also that climatic conditions in north-Florida

allow year-round crop production, thus allowing more effluent-waste application,

compared with dairy production systems in temperate areas (Bisoondat et al., 2002).

Proactive use of seasonal prediction can be adopted by dairy farmers. The

opportunity to benefit from climate prediction arises from the intersection of human

vulnerability, climate prediction, and decision capacity (Hansen, 2002a). This benefit

from the information can be used to decrease environmental impacts, while maintaining

profitability in north-Florida dairy operations.

1.3 Research Area

The study was performed inside the Suwannee River Water Management District,

which encompasses all or part of 15 counties in north central Florida (Figure 1-2). The

study was centered in five counties where N pollution is more problematic: Alachua,

Levy, Gilchrist, Lafayette, and Suwannee.

1.4 Objectives

The main aim of the study was to assess and test management options that decrease

nutrient overflow under different climatic conditions in north-Florida dairy operations

while maintaining profitability. To achieve this, it was necessary to

* Thoroughly understand the north-Florida dairy system through farmer interactions
Conceptualize north-Florida dairy farms as systems
Identify dairy farm system components
Recognize interaction among these dairy farm system components

* Create a comprehensive dairy farm model adaptable to north-Florida dairies









* Simulate north-Florida dairy farms under different environmental conditions,
different management strategies, and different climate conditions

* Identify climate-management interactions that result in lower nutrient pollution,
especially less N leaching, while maintaining acceptable profit levels

* Suggest management strategies that individual north-Florida dairies could follow
based on climate forecast

* Based on previous strategies, produce an extension circular with a bullet list of results
to be available on paper and on the Internet for north-Florida dairy farmers and other
stakeholders

* Create a user-friendly computer application with the simulation models that
north-Florida dairy producers and other stakeholders can use for environmental
accountability


Figure 1-2.


The Suwannee River Water Management District, the study area. Source:
Land Use Survey, Suwannee River Water Management District, Florida
Geographic Data Library, 1995. Note: Dots represent dairy farms and
numbers indicate the number of dairy farms by county.









1.5 Hypothesis

North-Florida dairy farms can decrease their environmental impacts and still

maintain profitability by changing management strategies, which include the use of

improved long-term seasonal forecasts. This hypothesis can also be expressed as a

research question: Can north-Florida dairy farms maintain profitability and decrease their

environmental impacts by combining management strategies and seasonal forecasts?

1.6 Framework

Most dairies in Florida manage animals under semi-intensive or intensive systems.

Florida dairies are principally in the business of producing milk: decisions are based on

profit maximization and operation regulations. North-Florida dairies are business

enterprises and have full access to credit opportunities, information, and new

technologies (Adams, 1998). Additionally, dairy farms (which produce both livestock

and crops) are composed of interconnected units; any part of which is affected by and

affects the behavior of other parts, including human management decisions and

strategies.

Since a whole-dairy-farm encompasses environmental, economic, and bio-physical

components, its analysis is best accomplished by a systems approach (that accounts for

the interactions of these components, and that can trace the consequences of an

intervention through the entire system) (Kelly, 1995). While systems can be

conceptualized at any of many scale levels, a systems approach defines a specific scale of

interest and an appropriate boundary of analysis. Analysis in the systems approach is

marked by recognition of the whole system and the interactions within that system rather

than looking only at a system component. A systems approach uses specific techniques

and tools (such as rapid appraisal, pattern analysis, diagrams, and modeling, often in a









multidisciplinary fashion) to identify system boundaries and recognize component

interactions (Kelly, 1995).

The proposed systems approach was Farming Systems Research and Extension

(FSRE) as described by Hildebrand (1990). The "farm household" in livelihood systems

analyses are replaced by "farm management" (Hazell and Norton, 1986) for commercial

or industrial farm dimensions such as north-Florida dairy farms. The farming system is an

arrangement of subsystem components that function as units. These subsystems include

economic subsystems and a number of agroecosystems. The agroecosystems, as

described by Powers and McSorley (2000), include the populations and communities

organized in ecosystems in relationship with the abiotic factors.

To assess what would happen to the whole dairy operation and what would happen

specifically to nitrate flow under different climate-management scenarios, models of

these realities were set up (Thomley and Johnson, 1990). Models allow us to foresee

results, when temporal or material conditions make it impractical to develop field

experiments. Successful planning of an animal waste management system requires the

ability to simulate the impact of waste production, storage, treatment, and utilization on

the water resources; it must address overall nutrient management for the operation

(Fraisse et al., 1996).

Different simulation methods were needed to accurately represent the north-Florida

dairy crop and livestock systems; and to test management strategies that yield the most

desired outcomes. Whole farm scale simulation models include biophysical,

environmental, and economic components and relationships of the dairy operation to

climate variability. Complex systems demand the study of interactions among processes









acting on multiple scales. Thus, these problems require innovative approaches,

combining advances in dynamical theory, stochastic processes, and statistics (Levin,

1991).

Budgeting nutrient flow through the total dairy farm system as conceptualized by

Van Horn et al. (2001, 1998, 1994, 1991); NRCS (2001), Van Horn (1997); and Lanyon

(1994) were adjusted, modified, and used for keeping track of dynamic N movement in

all system components. Van Horn et al. (1998) mentioned the quantitative information

needed on nutrient flow through all segments of the system. They listed the following

critical research questions:

* How much of individual nutrients are excreted by dairy cows?

* How does the manure management system affect nutrient flow and nutrient
recoveries for fertilizer use?

* What is the potential nutrient removal by plants?

* How can a manure nutrient budget be developed?

* What steps help to document environmental accountability?

Agronomic measures of nutrient balance, and tracking of inputs and outputs for

various farm management units, can provide the quantitative basis for management to

better allocate manure to fields, to modify dairy rations, or to develop alternatives to

on-farm manure application (Lanyon, 1994).

Similarly to budgeting nutrients, The Netherlands has implemented the Mineral

Accounting System (MINAS) which focuses on nutrient (N and phosphorus) flows on

individual farms; and taxes farms whose nutrient surplus exceeds a defined limit. MINAS

embodies a new approach to environmental problems caused by agriculture. According to

Ondersteijn et al. (2002) focusing on individual farmers has two major advantages. First,

individuals are considered polluters and are individually held accountable for their









pollution, according to the "polluter pays" principle. Second, individuals have control

over their pollution problem, and will be able to deal with it on an individual level

(instead of being forced to comply with general measures that may be ineffective for their

specific situation). After interviewing 240 farmers during 3 years, they also found large

variation in N and phosphate surpluses within and between land-based farm types in The

Netherlands. They surveyed farmers stated that MINAS provided enormous and often

surprising insight into their management.

Crop models (Jones et al., 2003, Jones et al. 1998) are process-based dynamic

simulation models that allow biophysical and environmental conditions to be translated

into agricultural outcomes (Philips et al., 1998). Crop models can be used to estimate

monthly biomass accumulation and N leaching (by a number of crop and/or pasture

sequences under different climatic conditions, depending on soil conditions, manure

applications, and other managerial choices).

Linear programming (LP) models are optimization models capable of devising

alternative management choices that maximize (minimize) an objective function

according to a set of restrictions (Hazell and Norton, 1986). The LP models have been

widely used for analyzing farming systems.

1.7 Methods

North-Florida dairy farmers were involved in the entire research process. They

provided the base information, and they validated results of the analyses. Few studies to

date have incorporated such first-hand data from interviews and validation interaction

with dairy managers (which are believed extremely important). Other stakeholder

agencies also participated actively as was the case for the Suwannee River Partnership

(that involves 45 agencies in total); the Florida Cooperative Extension Service; and some









private enterprises. These stakeholders provided relevant information and permanent

feedback to the study. In all interactions, a laptop computer was used. There were two

rounds of interviews and focus groups. For the first round, a "prototype" model was used

(created by suggestion of one stakeholder) as a discussion, engagement, and

data-collection tool. In both the interviews and focus groups, the interaction started by

explaining the prototype model and demonstrating its functioning, followed by an

interactive discussion of all specific points. The researcher recorded all suggestions and

information. Some modifications were made during the process to the "prototype" model,

however most of the suggestions were incorporated into a new model, which was then

used in the second round. In the interviews of dairy farmers, an additional 1 to 2 hour

conversation was used to collect information regarding biophysical farm factors,

livestock, livestock feeding program, crops, crop fertilization program, waste

management, perception of environmental regulations, perception of seasonal forecast

use, and other factors. In several occasions after the interview, a tour of the farm

followed. There were 21 interviews and six focus groups during this first round.

A second round of focus groups and interviews was arranged to validate the

functioning of the model. Two focus groups and three interviews confirmed that the

model was performing inside the expected ranges, and that results were realistic. Local

published data from related studies were also used as baseline in the modeling.

An integrated, whole-dairy-farm simulation that links decision making with

biophysical, environmental, and economic processes was developed, the Dynamic

North-Florida Dairy Farm Model (DNFDFM). The simulation approach included a

Dynamic event-controlled simulation model (D, driver) connected to crop models (CM)









and to optimization models (OM). The driver, which had many modules, followed a

dynamic adaptation of the budgeting framework for tracking the flow of N through the

entire system; and for tracking production and additional economical variables, according

to a pre-defined set of management and climatic conditions. Crop models assessed the N

recycled by plants and the amount of N leached according to management, genetic, soil,

and climatic specific conditions. The optimization models consisted of linear

programming models that either minimize N leaching, or maximize profit for specific

farm conditions. The DNFDFM runs monthly for all the processes following

user-friendly menus.

1.8 Relevance

Results are expected to directly help Suwannee River Basin dairy operations by

providing a decision tool that can be used to decrease environmental impacts by reducing

nitrate pollution (currently one of the most important environmental concerns). Results

should also contribute to overall Suwannee River Basin environmental health by reducing

the total N load in the watershed, which has been rapidly increasing.

Innovative frameworks and methodologies used in this research could serve as

baselines for other studies in which interdisciplinary and participative outcomes are

desired. For example a similar approach could be used to address the phosphorus problem

in the Okeechobee area.














CHAPTER 2
NITROGEN POLLUTION IN THE SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT: REALITY OR MYTH?

2.1 Introduction

In response to increased environmental concerns, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) has increased regulatory controls for concentrated animal

feeding operations (CAFO) under the Clean Water Act. One of the changes is to require

CAFOs that apply manure to land to meet application limits defined by a nutrient

standard (USEPA, 2003). The goal of the nutrient standard is to minimize nutrient loss

from fields receiving manure. Farms meet this standard by applying manure nutrients at a

rate consistent with the agronomic needs of crops receiving manure. Nutrient standards

can be N -or P-based, depending on the nutrient content of the soil. USDA is also

encouraging the voluntary adoption of nutrient standards on all animal feeding operations

(AFO) not subject to USEPA regulation (USDA, NRCS, 1999).

The Suwannee River Partnership1 (SRP) states that over the last two decades,

nitrate levels in the middle Suwannee and Santa Fe river basins have been on the

increase. The SRP is a coalition of state, federal and regional agencies, local

governments, and private industry representatives with 46 partners working together to

reduce nitrate levels in the surfacewaters and groundwater within the basins, or

watersheds. The Suwannee River Basin has received much attention in recent years

because increased N levels in the groundwater-fed rivers of the basin could seriously


1 www.mysuwanneeriver.com/features/suwannee+river+partnership









affect the welfare of the ecosystem (Albert, 2002). The federal safety standard for

nitrate-N in drinking water is 10 mg L-1 (Florida Department of Health, FDH, and Florida

Department of Environmental Protection, FLDEP). According to Hornsby (pers. comm.),

a water quality analyst from the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD)

at Live Oak, nitrate levels in some areas have reached ranges of 20 to 30 mg L1.

Rising nitrate levels in north-Florida have been a growing concern because of the

effect of nutrients on public health and the environment (Van Horn et al., 1998). Hornsby

et al., 2002b alleged that the most likely contributors to contamination are farms, industry

and human settlements in the region. Soils in this region are generally deep, well-drained

sands; and one of the most critical concerns is N loss in the form of nitrate into the

groundwater through these deep sandy soils of the Suwannee River Basin (Van Horn et

al., 1998).

Changes in agricultural land use and the intensification of this land use during the

past 50 years have contributed variable amounts of N to the groundwater system. In

general, four main sources of N to groundwater can be recognized: fertilizers applied to

cropland, animal wastes from dairy and poultry operations, atmospheric deposition, and

septic tank effluents (FLDEP, 2001).

Despite the above arguments, it was found (by talking with local people) that some

stakeholder groups believe that either the problem of N pollution is not as bad as many

people perceive, or the problem does not exist at all. Therefore there is a feeling that the

regulatory agencies are overacting and pushing excessively in protecting the

environment.









Under these circumstances, it is critical to clearly understand the problem and the

concerns. Clarifying the real problem and the real actors would help in promoting

realistic ways of solving it. The objective of this chapter is to discuss the evidence of

increasing levels of N in water bodies in the Suwannee River Basin, explore evidence of

N pollution by dairy farms, and briefly address potential ecological and human

implications.

2.2 Evidence of N Increase in the Suwannee River Water Management District

2.2.1 Assessments at the District Level

The Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) is the water authority

in the study area. The SRWMD deals with quantity and quality of water. Regarding the

quality of the water, it permanently monitors the quality of the ground and surface water,

and every year produces a comprehensive report. The last available report is for the year

2001/2002 (Hornsby et al., 2003).

The SRWMD has developed a comprehensive Water Assessment Regional

Network (WARN) consisting of 97 Floridian aquifer wells for a trend network and 120

wells for a status network, distributed along the water management district. These are

used to assess the groundwater quality in the District. In this last report (Hornsby et al.,

2003) containing results only for the status wells between October 2001 and September

2002, nitrate-N concentrations above a background concentration of 0.05 mgL-1 existed

for all or part of every county in the District. The possible nitrate sources were stated as

fertilizers, animal waste, and human waste. Concentrations are elevated in the Middle

Suwannee River Watershed (Suwannee and Lafayette Counties); and within an area

generally defined along an axis starting in northern Jefferson County and ending in

eastern Alachua County (Figure 2-1). However, the three samples that exceeded the










Maximum Concentration Load (MCL) or the Primary Drinking Water Standard (PDWS)

set at 10 mg L-1, were located in Levy County during May and June 2001 (10.6, 12.0, and

14.2 mg L-1). By comparing overall data with the other four water districts in Florida, the

SRWMD has the largest area of elevated groundwater nitrate-N concentrations in the

State.


Nitrate-nitrogen (mg/L)
is a measure of the amount
0 5to 1 0 of nitrate dissolved in the
ground water expressed in
terms of the amount of
nitrogen in the form of
005 to05 nitrate.


Figure 2-1. Nitrate-N concentration in the SRWMD. Source: Hornsby et al. (2003), p. 22.

Regarding surface water quality, the SRWMD has implemented the Surface Water

Improvement and Management (SWIM) program, a quality-monitoring network

consisting of 67 water chemistry stations. In water year 2002 (October to September),

3,012 tons of nitrate-N were transported to the Gulf of Mexico by the Aucilla, Econfina,

Fenholloway, Steinthatchee, Suwannee, and Wacasassa rivers; the Suwannee river alone









accounted for 98.6% of it. The middle Suwannee River Basin that accounts for only 8.6%

of the Suwannee River area accounted for 29.3% of the total loading; and the middle

Santa Fe River that represents only 5.7% of the Suwannee River Basin accounted for

19.6% of the total loading; those are the N hotspots.

In 2002, of the 35 springs whose water-quality standards were studied, 5 were

classified as poor quality and 15 as fair quality. Of the 26 rivers (or river sections)

identified in the District, 1 was classified as poor and 13 as fair quality.

Using the SRWMD database of monitoring point water quality, graphs for 3

springs in the middle Suwannee River Basin were constructed. Figure 2-2 shows N levels

in 3 central springs (Blue, Ruth/Little, and Troy) with data for the monitoring network of

the SRWMD. There clearly is an increasing trend. In Figure 2-2C additional data from

the US Geological Service (USGS) and from the Florida Geological Service (FGS) for

previous years are presented. Figure 2-2C clearly shows an increase in the N levels in this

surface water body; the line indicates the increasing trend.

In previous water year, 2001, (Hornsby et al., 2002a) the total loading of nitrate-N

going to the Gulf of Mexico was 3067 tons; and 97.8% was accounted for by the

Suwannee River Basin. These numbers suggest a loading decrease from 2001 to 2002.

However, in absolute numbers, loading was higher in 2002, since the discharge of the

Suwannee River increased. The fact of increased loadings year to year is reported to be

true also for many previous years.

In 1999, the FLDEP (Copeland et al., 1999) after sampling 491 wells in the middle

Suwannee River, found that wells located 300 ft from poultry or dairy farms had nitrate

concentrations greater than the background, with a 25% chance of exceeding the MCL.













3.5

S3
--
2.5

S2


1
1.5



S0.5

0--
Lt
0')
Q_

14

12

S10

S8
0
2 6

- 4

2

0--


Q(0 (0 1- 0 0 0 C CC
0') 0') 0') 0') 0 R 0 ? I? 0 I? 0
L >n
o c a -0
U- C O M Z CO )


SRVVrM.


FGS


0( N o r. O00) M N CO LO O (0) 0 0 Y- CDI CO O 0-0 C-- CO -T to 0 M N


|~o >,._ ^ 1 'g-S ^ 5l l '"G | o lo >. |_.,-- .
(.(.0 (0(0)( (U Z)))))) )W 00 M<-


Figure 2-2. Nitrate-N concentrations in three springs in the middle Suwannee River
Basin. A) Blue, B) Ruth/Little, C) Troy. Source: Prepared with data from the
SRWMD, FGS, and USGS.


(0 (0 r 0 0 0 N M 0
-5 c" 0 c o o o
o -


LO
0')
Q0


3.5 -

3
-J
S2.5

= 2

2 1.5

d 1
- USGS


to

. **








The 2001 FLDEP report for the Suwannee River Basin states that 7 lakes (Cherry,

Alligator, Crosby, Rowell, Sampson, Santa Fe, and Hampton), 1 stream segment in Swift

Creek; several segments of the Santa Fe River; the Middle and Lower Suwannee Rivers,

and their estuary are potentially impaired because of excess nutrient concentrations. This

FLDEP water quality report is summarized in Figure 2-3.





















Ground Water Nitrogen Load
in ThousanC Kilograms





Figure 2-3. Estimated annual mean of groundwater N load. Source: FLDEP (2001), p.
81.

A study by the FGS (1992) reports that the proportion of samples of water

exceeding the PDWS for Florida of 10 mgL1 is low (0.6% for superficial system, 0% for

intermediate aquifer system, and 1% for the Floridian aquifer system); however, it
,."un Ii ta .-." ge ^~ad
-nTosn iorm
1 J ."_


















intermediate aquifer system, and 1% for the Floridian aquifer system); however, it









mentioned that for the Suwannee River Basin high nitrate concentrations (up to 140 mg

L-1) in monitoring wells associated with dairy operations have been found.

A cooperative study between the DEP and the USGS measured monthly water

samples of 14 wells in the middle Suwannee River Basin (Katz and Bohlke, 2000). This

study found concentrations of nitrate-N ranging from 0.02 to 22 mgL-1, with large

seasonal variations. The fluctuations were believed to be correlated mostly with

agricultural practices and climate conditions; for example, higher concentrations occurred

in winter when waste or fertilizer was applied. Additionally, the use of N isotope

indicated that the most likely cause of nitrate in 5 wells were dairy and/or poultry

operations (Katz and Bohlke, 2000). This coincided with the fact that these farm

operations were close to the sampling sites.

A long term and comprehensive study in the Suwannee River Basin developed by

the USGS (Katz et al., 1999) indicated that N levels have increased from 0.1 to 5 mg L-1

in many springs in the Suwannee River Basin over the past 40 years. Several sources of

non-point N (fertilizer, animal wastes, atmospheric deposition, and septic tanks)

increased continuously in Gilchrist and Lafayette counties. Isotope analyses indicated

that the source of N was mixed between organic and inorganic, attributing them to animal

operations and crop fertilizer, respectively, from nearby operations.

This study (Katz et al., 1999) compared long term trends in nitrate concentrations

in selected springs with estimated inputs ofN sources in Lafayette and Suwannee

counties. It found a high correlation between the estimated quantity of fertilizer and the

concentration of N in the springs. It showed for Suwannee a peak in the 1970s, a









decreasing trend until the early 1990s, and finally an increasing trend again after 1993,

while for Lafayette County there was a steady increase since 1960s.

There are historical records for 4 springs in the Suwannee River (Hornsby and

Ceryak, 1999): Charles (1973-97), Little River (1980-97), Running (1980-98), and

Telford (1980-97) (Figure 2-4); and for 3 springs in Lafayette county ((Hornsby and

Ceryak, 1999): Troy (1960-98), Lafayette Blue (1980-97), and Mearson (1980-98)

(Figure 2-5).

3.5


E 25
2-0
S.5 CHARLES SPRING
10 LITTLE RIVER SPRING
RUNNING SPRING
0.5 TELFORD SPRING
0 I I I I I
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Figure 2-4. Long term records ofNitrate-N for 4 Suwannee springs. Source: Modified
from Katz et al. (1999), p. 46.

Pitman et al. (1997) reported that nitrate concentrations in the Suwannee River

itself have increased at the rate of 0.02 mg L-1 year- over the past 20 years and that over

a 53-km river stretch between Dowling Park and Branford, the nitrate loads increased

from 2,300 to 6,000 kg day-. Of this total, 89% appeared to come from the lower

two-thirds, where agriculture that includes crops and livestock is the dominant land use.

This study found that nitrate-N concentrations in the 11 measured springs ranged between

1.3 and 8.2 mg L-1, and nitrate-N concentrations for the river of 0.46 mg L-1 in Dowling

Park, 0.46 mg L-1 in Luraville, and 0.86 mg L-1 in Branford; even though the nitrate-N









concentration almost doubled from the upper to the lower part of the river, there was no

noticeable difference among the contributors' springs, suggesting that other sources

might also be affecting the river in the lower part.

3,10 1-

J 2.5 BLUE SPRING.
SLAFAYETTE COUNTY
E 2, MEARSON SPRING -
Z TROY SPRING


Z
0.5

0
1050 %i90 970 $980 990 2000

Figure 2-5. Long term records of Nitrate-N for 3 Lafayette springs. Source: Modified
from Katz et al. (1999), p. 46.

2.2.2 Assessments at the Watershed Level

Asbury and Oaksford (1997) performed a study in 7 rivers in Georgia and Florida;

the Suwannee River was one of them. This study found that the N input ranged from

2,400 kg yr1 km2 in the Withlacoochee river basin to 5,470 kg yr1 km2 in the Altamaha

river basin, with the Suwannee input in the range of 3,939 kg yr- km2. However, when

these numbers were recalculated to in-stream loads, the Suwannee had the highest N

loads (compared with the other 6): 476 kg yr1 km2 (with the range of the other 6 between

152 and 405 kg yr- km2) and discharges in the order of 9,700 kg 103 (with the range of

the others between 720 and 8280 kg 103). Additionally, the ratios between outputs/inputs

of N were calculated for the 7 rivers (range 4.2% to 14.9%) and the Suwannee River was

the second highest with 12.1%.









Ham and Hatzell (1996) realized another comprehensive study of N pollution in

surface waters of Georgia and Florida. This study found, for the 10 major river basins in

the study, that median concentrations were below USEPA guidelines of 10 mg L-1 for

nitrate and 2.1 mg L-1 for ammonia, with only one exception in Swift Creek (3.4 mg L-1

ammonia) in the Suwannee River Basin that was attributed to waste water discharges.

Although in general the nutrient levels were low, long-term increasing trends of nutrients

loads were found in most of the sites. Distribution of results of nitrate-N indicated that

the Suwannee presented the third highest mean but the higher variability with the highest

overall value of more than 70 mg L1.

Ham and Hatzell (1996) also performed a long-term trend for these 10 major river

basins. They developed graph relationships between time and N concentrations. They

found a slope of +0.02 for the Suwannee River Basin, between the years 1971-1991. This

means a 4.61% yearly increase over the baseline of 0.5 mg L-1. This was the fourth

greatest increasing trend regarding mg L-1 year- comparing with the other Basins.

2.2.3 Assessments at the National Level

Berndt et al. (1998) published a USGS regional study of the Georgia-Florida

coastal plain that includes the Suwannee River Basin. This study was part of the National

Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program that includes more than 50 of the

nation's largest river basins and aquifers. This study reports that in the 23 groundwater

samples from the row-crop agricultural area in the upper Suwannee River Basin, 33%

exceeded the drinking water standard. These samples were from aquifers that overlie the

Upper Floridian aquifer, the major source of drinking water for the study area. This study

also found that nitrate concentrations were generally higher in samples from agricultural









areas and shallower wells and N isotope ratios indicated that both fertilizer and animal

wastes were the predominant sources of nitrates in groundwater.

The study ofBerndt et al. (1998) found that the nutrient more frequently found in

groundwater was N, which was mostly affected by land use, geology, soils, and

topography. Especially in the Suwannee River Basin, the problem is aggravated because

it is a karst region with well-drained soils that have a low water-nutrient holding capacity.

Also Berndt et al. (1998) found no direct relation between land uses and N

concentrations. However, they referred to the previous Pitman et al. (1997) study

between Dowling Park and Branford (33-mile Suwannee River reach) including 11

nearby springs that showed much higher N levels in the springs (x = 1.7, range 1.3-8.2

mg L1) than in the river (between 1 and 2 mg L-1): the N levels increased when it moved

to the lower parts. In this case, even though the water flow dynamics have a great effect,

a clear association was found between the predominant agricultural land use and the N

levels; however no specific type of farms could be identified as the sources.

A comparison of the Suwannee River nutrient concentration with the NAWQA

national standards, indicate that overall the levels of N in the streams and in the

groundwater of the Suwannee River Basin are between the 75th percentile and the

median.

2.2.4 Assessments at the Dairy Farm Level

Andrew (1992) did a comprehensive study of nine dairy farms in the middle

Suwannee monitoring waste water lagoons, monitoring wells, and supply wells and their

interactions with the different land uses inside the farms (waste water, intensive areas,

intensive pasture, sprayfields, and low density pastures). This study tracked the N inside







26


the dairy farms after cattle excretion, measuring it at different depths and in different land


uses. The results are quite revealing and they are summarized in Figures 2-6 and 2-7.


230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150 -..-.. .................. -
140 -
130 I
1 120 -
E 110
100
90 -
80
70
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -
N03+NO2 NH3+OrgN N03+NO2 NH3+OrgN N03+NO2 NH3+OrgN N03+NO2 NH3+OrgN
Waste Water Shallow Groundwater Deeper Groundwater Nearby hydrogeologic unit


Figure 2-6. Nitrate-Nitrite and total ammonium plus organic N at different points in nine
dairy farms in the middle Suwannee River Basin. Source: Prepared with data
extracted from Andrew (1992).


Two main forms of N were measured, Nitrite + Nitrate (NO3 NO2 ) and


Ammonium + Organic N (NH4 -Org). In the waste water in the lagoon (effluent) the


concentration of NO- N02 was negligible because most of the N was in form of



NH4 -Org (x =150 mg L-1) as seen in Figure 2-6. Because of fast decomposition and


nitrification N is quickly converted to NO3 N02 forms, which are evidenced in the


monitoring wells (shallow groundwater at 3-m deep), in which the concentrations of


NO NO2 are far higher than the NH4 -Org forms (x = 22 vs. 2.2 mg L1). The trend


continues in the deeper groundwater source wells (12-15 m) where the concentrations of










NO3 NO2 are substantially lower than in the shallow groundwater wells because of


dilution processes, but still high for the water quality standards (x =10 mg L-1). In these

deep wells, the NH4 -Org concentrations are much lower than the waste water, but

slightly higher than the shallow groundwater suggesting that some deep accumulation

may occur.

In the nearby hydrogeologic unit the concentrations of NO3 NO02 are very similar

to those in the deep groundwater wells suggesting that the dairy might be responsible for

such an impact. As expected NH4 -Org forms would be negligible on these components.


3
nlnl.:.r,,Ln l *r.Q g3, Ir

2.5


2


1.5
E




0.5


rea Sprayfield Waste Water Intensive Pasture Low Density
Pasture


Figure 2-7. Dissolved Nitrate+Nitrite and Ammonium+Organic N in monitoring wells
(3-m deep) in different areas of a dairy farm. Source: Prepared with data
extracted from Andrew (1992).

Inside the dairy farms, the collected data demonstrated the movement ofN

downwards at different rates for different parts of the farm. Exploring the data from

shallow wells, the intensive area, where cows deposited manure without regular









collection, is the critical area where the highest concentration of NO3 -NO2 is observed

(x = 26 mg L-1); this is followed by the sprayfields where intense applications of effluent

are performed (x = 23 mg L-1); followed by the wastewater area and the intensive

pasture (both x = 11 mg L-1). The lowest concentration was found in the low density

pastures (x = 5.1 mg L-) but this is still half of the allowable limits of the PDWS. The

NH' -Org concentrations are medium (x = between 0.96 and 2.1 mg L-1, taking into

account that 2.1 mgL1 is the USEPA limit) in these shallow wells; being higher, as

expected, below the wastewater lagoons. This also indicates that there was a downward

infiltration of the wastewater.

In another study from Andrew (1994), four dairy farms were closely monitored

during four years (1990-1993) in the middle Suwannee. In this study, water samples were

evaluated in 51 monitoring wells in these 4 typical dairy farms and 3 nearby springs in

Lafayette and Suwannee counties. Results indicated that

* Water from the monitoring wells had median nitrate exceeding that in water from
wells of the background groundwater quality network sampled by the FLDEP

* Nitrate concentrations near waste water lagoons and intensive livestock areas were
the highest exceeding in the shallow wells the drinking standards of 10 mgL-1

* Concentrations were substantially lower in pastures (less loading of manure) and in
deep wells (dilution and/or denitrification)

* Nitrogen isotope ratios analyses demonstrated that animal waste was the main source
of nitrates in groundwater adjacent to the lagoons and intensive areas, and animal
waste and/or septic tanks were the principal source of nitrate at the three springs

* Nitrogen isotope ratios also demonstrated that synthetic fertilizers or combinations of
synthetic fertilizer, soil N, and livestock wastes were the sources of nitrate in pastures
and sprayfields.










Figure 2-8 shows the average of nitrate concentrations above the 10 mgL-1 for the 4

farms. As reported in the conclusions of Andrew (1994), the wells nearby the intense

areas and the wastewater lagoons are those with higher environmental menace.

Nonetheless, it was noticed with these study data, that 2 of the farms presented wells

below the 10 mgL' for waste water lagoons and 1 farm showed wells of less 10 mgL'1 for

a monitoring well near the intense areas. Also, 2 of the farms presented "high" wells for

pasture fields and 1 farm additionally a "high" well for a sprayfield.


70
60
50 -
S40
E
30
20 -
10
0



FARM


I I- I


I1
w


0 -) 05) ) 0) 0) V 0)5
0) 0)
FARM 2 FR 3 -AR
-pa a, a
"aa aa

FARM 2 FARM 3 FARM 4


Figure 2-8. Monitoring wells with higher than drinking water allowable nitrate levels
(PDWS>10 mg L-1) in the four dairy farms. Source: Prepared with data from
Andrew (1994).

2.3 Human and Ecological Concerns because of N Pollution

High nitrate levels in drinking water can cause methemoglobinemia (MHB) or

"blue baby" syndrome in infants, a condition that diminishes the ability of blood to

absorb oxygen (Vigil et al., 1965; NRC, 1985) because the methemoglobin produced by

nitrates cannot carry oxygen, causing symptoms of oxygen starvation that affects









primarily infants younger than six months, who suffer cyanosis and, in extreme cases,

death (Andrew, 1994).

Nitrate is a precursor of carcinogenic nitrosamines, which are believed to cause

stomach cancer and leukemia (NRC, 1978; Strange and Krupicka, 1984; Stewart, 1990;

Mirvish, 1990; Forman, et al., 1985). Additionally, high levels of nitrates in drinking

water are associated with birth defects (Fan et al., 1987), stress of the cardiovascular

system with extreme artery dilatation (Vrba, 1981), enlargement of the thyroid gland, and

increased sperm mortality (Scragg et al., 1982).

Kross et al. (1992) mention that about 2,000 cases of MHB have been reported

between 1945 and 1990 worldwide with a mortality rate of 10%; however the NRC

(1995) found no studies reporting nitrate-induced MHB since 1990; nitrate induced MBH

seems rather rare now, but these rare cases are due primarily to a lack of reporting

requirements, and secondarily to a lack of physician awareness (Felsot, A. 1998).

Several effects on reproduction, growth and development of animals have also been

noticed because of high N levels, including mortality of larvae of Cutthroat trout,

Chinook salmon and Rainbow trout and mortality of tadpoles in several frog species in

Florida such as Chorus frogs and Leopard frogs (Edwards et al., 2002). In several species

of frogs, reduced activity, weight loss, and deformed digestive tracts also have been

detected (Edwards et al., 2002).

In addition to making water unsafe for humans and many other animals, high

nitrate concentrations can lower water quality in rivers and springs because elevated

concentrations of nitrate in these water bodies can cause eutrophication, which can result

in algal blooms and depletion of oxygen that affects survival and diversity of aquatic









organisms (Katz et al., 1999). Eutrophication is a process in which algae growth is

favored and consequently oxygen is depleted. This problem happens in the surface

water-bodies, which receive inflows from groundwater from springs or diffuse seepage

(Andrew, 1994).

2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

Several studies have demonstrated that there is a N pollution problem in the

Suwannee River Basin. All studies reviewed for this paper agree on it. Even though the

scopes, methodologies, timeframe, and location differed, all the studies found that the

levels of N in groundwater and surface waters had, at the very minimum, higher N

concentrations than the background. Studies are not conclusive to mention if major

pollution exists in surface water sources or in groundwater sources. Temporal, spatial,

and climatic conditions would have great effect on overall N pollution levels.

When comparing the Suwannee River Basin with other basins in the state, in the

Watershed (including Georgia), and across states, it was found that, overall, the water in

the Suwannee presents lower quality because of N pollution. The Suwannee River Basin

or parts of the Suwannee River Basin are consistently mentioned by the studies as

examples of extreme polluted values of any form of N either in groundwater or surface

water.

Even though, in most of the cases, the N concentrations in the Suwannee River

Basin are below the USEPA standards of 10 mg L-1, several studies that include long

term comparisons, along with hard data collected from monitoring stations, show that

there is a noticeable increasing trend in the N concentrations of the surface and

groundwater bodies that would tend to increase even faster if the land use conditions

persist. Therefore, actions to mitigate the problem are needed.









By exploring hard data generated by monitoring efforts in the Suwannee, the

middle Suwannee (between Suwannee and Lafayette counties) continues being the

hotspot and the area with higher N pollution concerns; nonetheless, there are other areas

and places where the N concentrations are showing as high or even higher than the

middle Suwannee as is the case of areas in Jefferson, Levy, Gilchrist, and Alachua

counties. The current effort to decrease N sources in the middle Suwannee should be

expanded to other areas of concern.

It is reported that the possible nitrate sources are chemical fertilizers, animal

wastes, and human waste. There is no clear cut conclusion as to which one of these

represents the most dangerous source. Dairy operations are many times found as the most

likely source of nitrate-N by several studies either by spatial proximity, temporal

analysis, and/or by the use of isotopes. However, there is no clear estimation of how

much N comes from dairy farms either as a whole or on an individual basis. It is believed

that dairy farms are big contributors because of large amounts of waste produced;

however there are no conclusive reports that estimate and/or compare them with other

sources. Higher efforts are required to distinguish between point vs. non-point sources of

pollution and to make any industry environmentally accountable as a way to face the

problem and their potential solutions.

Two in-depth studies in dairy farms in the study area evidenced a high

environmental impact of these operations regarding N pollution. These studies pointed

out that there is a great variability between dairy operations and their environmental

impacts. An appropriate approach for environmental solutions should be to treat dairy

farms individually regarding their pollution concerns.









Also, these dairy studies found no conclusive answers to what components inside

the operation are the greatest N polluters. These also vary substantially among farms.

Even though only a decade has passed since these studies, the dairy farm systems have

changed substantially, most of them now

* Do not have the "intense area"
* Have a concrete lagoon
* Do not use or use very little synthetic fertilizer

The "intense area" has become part of the "confined area" in a totally concreted

covered space where all the manure is collected and where there is no infiltration. The

manure goes to a concrete lagoon and from there to the sprayfields, in which usually only

waste manure is used as fertilizer. Under this new structure, the sprayfields, primarily,

and the pastures, secondarily, are the most likely zones inside dairy farms with higher N

concentrations and consequently with higher N pollution impacts. Dairy farms as major

actors in the N issue must be studied as a whole system with complete understanding of

all their components under specific environmental and management options affected by

varying climatic conditions.

There is clear evidence that water N pollution affects humans, animals, and

ecosystems. In the study area, even though there are no reported direct or indirect human

effects, there is major evidence of animal and ecosystem effects because increased N

levels.














CHAPTER 3
NORTH FLORIDA STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS TOWARD NUTRIENT
POLLUTION, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, AND THE USE OF CLIMATE
FORECAST TECHNOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Rising nitrate levels in north-Florida's Suwannee River are a growing concern

(Hornsby et al., 2003). Awareness is high given the potential of excess nutrients to affect

the environment and public health (Albert, 2002). It is alleged that the most likely

contributors to contamination are dairy farms, industry, and human settlements in the

region (Andrew, 1994).

The federal safety standard for nitrate-N in drinking water in the United States is 10

mg L-1. In some areas of the Suwannee River Basin, nitrate levels have reached ranges of

20 to 30 mg L-1 (Hornsby, Pers. Comm.). High nitrate levels in drinking water can cause

methemoglobinemia or "blue baby" sickness in infants (NRC, 1985) and other health

problems in humans such as enlargement of the thyroid gland, increased sperm mortality,

and even stomach cancer (NRC, 1978; Strange and Krupicka, 1984; Stewart, 1990;

Mirvish, 1990; Forman, et al., 1985). In addition to making water unsafe for humans and

many other animals, high nitrate concentrations can lower water quality in rivers and

springs, causing eutrophication resulting in algae blooms that consume oxygen needed by

fish and other aquatic animals (Katz et al., 1999).

Dairy farmers are now required to comply with stricter environmental regulations

either under permit or under voluntary incentive-based programs. Dairy farmers are also

aware that environmental challenges will be the greatest problem they will have to face in









the near future. After interviewing 48 dairy farmers located in Lafayette, Suwannee,

Columbia, Hamilton, and Gilchrist counties, Florida, Staples et al. (1997) found that the

perception of anticipated costs of having to comply with environmental regulations was

rated, by far, the top challenge to successful dairying in the future.

Improvements in long-term (6 to 12 month) seasonal climate variability predictions

such as those based on El Nifio and La Nifia forecasts (O'Brien, 1999) can play an

important role in formulating management strategies that dairy farmers in north-Florida

may adopt in order to pursue economic and ecological sustainability. Specialized federal

and state agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) predict long term seasonal climate variability fairly accurately. These

predictions are based upon the El Nifio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon.

ENSO phases determine El Nifio, La Nifia, or Neutral years, which are related to rainfall

and temperature patterns.

Dairy farmers may benefit from proactive use of seasonal climate variability

prediction. The opportunity to benefit from climate prediction arises from the intersection

of human vulnerability, climate prediction and decision capacity (Hansen, 2002a). This

benefit from the information can be used to decrease environmental impacts while

maintaining profitability in north-Florida dairy operations.

This paper discusses the perspectives, perceptions, and attitudes of stakeholders

regarding the issue of N pollution in the Suwannee River Basin, the current regulations,

and the possibility of incorporating climate variability forecast technology to initiate

mitigating strategies. The principal stakeholders are the dairy farmers. The









methodologies included a Sondeo with stakeholders, 21 interviews with dairy farmers,

and eight focus groups with stakeholders.

Stakeholders' perceptions regarding nutrient overloads, regulations, and the use of

seasonal climate information as a way to mitigate the nitrate problem are critical baseline

data for designing solutions. The information is even more valuable because it is

gathered in a participatory and consensual manner. This study translates the mind-set of

the stakeholders about the N pollution issue and of the dairy farmers regarding

environmental regulations and the use of climate variability forecast technology.

3.2 Materials and Methods

3.2.1 Study Area

The Sondeo was carried out in the Suwannee River Basin that encompasses all of

nine and part of another six north-Florida counties. This represents an area of 7,640 mi2

The area is comprised of 13 river basins and includes a population of 285,000. Within

this area, the principal focus was on the middle Suwannee that includes Lafayette and

Suwannee counties. These two counties are specific areas where the N issue is acute. In

the middle Suwannee River there are hundreds of residential and commercial septic

systems in rural areas. Some 300 row crop and vegetable farms also exist. Finally, 44

dairies with more than 25,000 animals and 150 poultry operations with more than 38

million birds are installed in the area (Suwannee River Partnership, 2003).

Interviews and focus groups were undertaken in Lafayette, Suwannee, Gilchrist,

Levy, and Alachua counties, where the number of dairy farms totals 64.

3.2.2 The Sondeo

A Sondeo was conducted between the months of January and February 2003 by a

multidisciplinary team of eight graduate students from the University of Florida (Alvira









et al., 2003). The Sondeo (Hildebrand, 1981) is a team survey developed to provide

information rapidly and economically about agricultural and rural problems. It is

structured around a series of informal, conversational interviews between the team and

stakeholders. It is a multidisciplinary process from data collection through report writing.

Each team ideally includes members from the social and agricultural sciences, as well as

other disciplines. When members write the final report there is much interdisciplinary

cross fertilization. In the Sondeo, data are shared among the different teams and report

writing is done as a group so that observations are confirmed, debated, and analyzed with

members of the other teams. The results may be quantified or not but the accuracy of the

findings is strengthened by the cross-checking process.

During the Sondeo, 13 stakeholders were interviewed. This sounding out was

undertaken to get a better understanding of the broad issue of N pollution in water and

collect the perception of stakeholders regarding this issue in the study area. Sondeo team

members represented a number of disciplines including agronomy, animal science,

agricultural extension, natural resource management, forestry, and community

development. Two to three-person teams conducted initial transects and stakeholders'

interviews. The interviews were conducted as informal, open-ended conversations. After

a team introduced itself and explained the subject of the research, the stakeholder and the

team conversed about any aspects of the topic that were relevant. This open-ended

approach enabled topics to emerge and be pursued that might have been missed if the

researchers had been constrained by a pre-formulated questionnaire. Despite the

open-endedness, a set of core themes was discussed in almost all interviews. Notes were

not taken. Following each interview, the partners wrote individual notes, compared them,









and then wrote a joint report for the interview. Finally, the joint reports were shared and

thoroughly discussed among all Sondeo members. Each team presented its findings,

which could be clarified, challenged or contrasted with the results of the other teams.

This process of reporting and discussion served as the opportunity to begin noting trends,

gaps in information, sources of initial inferences, and identifying new questions to

pursue.

3.2.3 Interviews

Personal interviews (Bernard, 1995) were undertaken with dairy farmers and/or

dairy farm managers during the fall/winter seasons of 2003/2004. Open-ended interviews

were targeted to a purposeful sample of 21 farmers (30% population). The number of

interviewees was chosen in order to attempt to capture the broad variability represented

in the area in a collaborative manner with the Suwannee River Partnership and the

University of Florida Extension Service agents in the area. A voice recorder was used in

every interview after requesting permission from the interviewee. Interviews included a

series of topics, but emphasized farmers' perceptions regarding the N pollution regulation

issue and the potential use of climate forecasts to address the problem.

3.2.4 Focus Groups

Eight focus groups (Bernard 1995; Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990) with

stakeholders were held between November 2002 and February 2004. Focus groups were

open discussions among 5 to 15 people. Topics focused on perceptions regarding nitrate

pollution, regulation, and seasonal climate forecast innovation technologies as an aid to

mitigate the problem.

Focus group participants ranged from specialists from official agencies such as the

Suwannee River Partnership (SRP), the Suwannee River Water Management District









(SRWMD), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FLDEP), the Natural

Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) from the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA), the University of Florida IFAS Cooperative Extension Service

(CES), to private sector companies, technicians and farmers. These participants were

typically called to meetings by the Suwannee River Partnership and/or by extension

agents from different counties in the research area in coordination with the researcher.

3.2.5 Analysis

All participatory interactions were recorded, classified, organized, analyzed, and

described. This paper summarizes the results of all the above interactions in a

descriptive/narrative manner. Names of the participants are not revealed to protect the

anonymity of informants.

Emphasis has been placed on a qualitative rather than quantitative description and

analysis of farmer perceptions. The interdisciplinary approach to the complex problem of

nitrate pollution in the Suwannee River Basin requires the use of methods from social

sciences such as applied anthropology and rural sociology for a more holistic view.

3.3 Results and Discussion

3.3.1 Stakeholder Perceptions of the N Issue

3.3.1.1 Perception of water contamination

During a discussion in an initial focus group, one stakeholder, supported by several

participants, challenged two main points: does water quality degradation caused by N

pollution really exist in the Suwannee River; and if the problem exists, how bad is it?

Stakeholders argued that is not easy to know if there is a real problem, and even more

difficult to determine the source of the problem. Additionally, an actual timeline of

events that may have led to the current situation is unknown. Farmers present in the









meeting perceived that the 10 mg L-1 standard ofN concentration in water enforced by

the regulatory agencies is too strict compared to other parts of the world (Europe for

example, has a 40 mgL1 limit). This perceived low threshold is also believed to

exaggerate the real problem. The dairy producers expressed that to their knowledge, there

are no indications of humans being affected by N concentrations in local water. Farmers

also believed that eutrophication of local water bodies is not as evident as media reports

suggest. In their eyes, the appearance of streams and springs is similar today as it has

always been.

Some farmers present at this meeting believed that there is a misconception of the

link between the N issue and dairy farms. Participants indicated that dairy farms in the

study area do not always have overflow problems. Most indicated that in general terms,

large operations have higher chances of overflows. Additionally, many of the participants

indicated that they were not convinced that dairy farms in general are the biggest

polluters.

Conversely to these opinions, the Sondeo found that ten years earlier, an increase of

nitrate concentration was recognized by the Suwannee River Water Management District

in the Suwannee River Middle Basin. The increase in nitrate concentration in the

Suwannee River Middle Basin as a problem was clearly evident to all stakeholders who

participated in the Sondeo. A veterinarian working for a dairy farm expressed his

concern for the pollution, and its potential for driving them out of business in the future.

It seems clear that dairy farming is perceived as the most contaminating activity in the

area. Poultry is perceived to be the second source of contamination. Row crops are

usually perceived as the least contaminating of all food producing activities in the area.









However, one interviewee pointed out that greater leaching might result from fertilizer in

row crops compared to the slower decomposition of manure from dairy operations. This

would occur when precipitation follows an application of fertilizer in row crops, or if

they over-irrigated. Moreover, the informant perceived that all farm activities might

contaminate much less than non-agricultural industrial activities and waste outputs from

concentrated urban dwelling in the area.

Even though the main focus in the discussions had been N loads, phosphorus (P)

was also mentioned as a potential contaminant by participants in the Sondeo. A problem

expressed about both these contaminants is that they may take many years to reach the

groundwater. Nutrient pollution has a long term cumulative effect that results from slow

processes. This makes it much more difficult to pinpoint sources of contamination and

consequently potential ways of mitigation.

The Suwannee River Partnership was formed to determine the sources of N loads in

the basin. The other important and connected objective was to work with local users to

minimize future nutrient loading through voluntary, incentive-based programs. Therefore,

the Partnership works under a non-regulatory precautionary approach. This is envisioned

as being accomplished through monitoring pollution, education, promotion and adoption

of best management practices (BMPs).

The Partnership is focused on the middle river basin. The main activities in that

area i.e., dairy, poultry, beef, and row crop farms are the foci of the Partnership.

Currently, there is little population pressure since the middle river basin is not very

densely urbanized. However, a recent geographic extension of the Partnership to the

southern part of the basin towards the Santa Fe River includes more densely populated









areas. A logical step then would be for the Partnership to focus more deeply on septic

tanks and human dwelling waste outputs.

3.3.1.2 Reasons to mitigate contamination

The main reasons identified by the stakeholders for mitigating water contamination

are to preserve the ecosystem, protect human health, protect fresh water bodies that

provide environmental services, and support economic activities such as tourism.

It is important to note that nobody mentioned that the water quality has an impact

on their herd, poultry, or crop. It is also recognized that pollution in the river basin can

have a negative effect in shellfish production in the Gulf of Mexico.

3.3.1.3 Existing and potential means of mitigation

Stakeholders were proactive about avoiding potential regulations, which did not

seem a good choice for addressing the problem to them. Many farmers might find

themselves in a difficult situation to fulfill imposed regulatory levels. Farmers did not

want to be regulated to have to implement conservation measures. Lake Okeechobee

(South Florida) regulations, which were imposed to reduce the P load level, were not

successful in the sense that 50% of the dairy farms in that area went out of business.

Based on this past misstep, stakeholders worked under a non-regulatory, preventive, or

precautionary approach, through the creation of the Suwannee River Partnership (SRP).

The recognition of rising nitrate concentrations was the leading factor behind the

creation of SRP. The idea of forming a Partnership took years. According to some

stakeholders, just a few people started the partnership in the mid 1990s. More institutions

progressively joined in the following years. In 2003, there were 24 members, and

currently (2004) the number of partners has increased to 45. The long-term goals of the

partnership are to









* Reduce pollutant loading
* Establish interstate watershed management
* Increase number of acres covered by conservation and land management plans
* Assure flow of information
* Secure cooperative long-term funding to maintain a cooperative interstate program
* Improve water conservation between two states (Florida and Georgia).

Several agencies and individuals are part of the Partnership that collaborate to

monitor and to reduce the levels of nitrates in their groundwater and surface waters. For

example, the USDA/ NRCS PL-566 Small Watershed Program for the Middle Suwannee

assists dairy and poultry farmers to improve animal waste management and fertilization

techniques. The NRCS inspects soil types, number of cows and area in pastures, and then

decides the minimum set of measures to be followed. The Florida Farm Bureau (FFB),

that represents farmers' interests, is also involved in developing policies to mitigate

nitrate pollution in the area. The FFB annually publishes a book containing all of its

policies. The Farm Bureau supports technology-based BMPs and their voluntary

implementation. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also has ongoing studies of water

quality within the Suwannee River Basin

The Partnership focuses on finding the most economical and technologically

feasible management techniques (BMPs) available to help farmers and other land users to

satisfy regulatory requirements for protecting public health and the environment.

Through education and outreach programs, the group continues to increase public

awareness of the issues, and encourage citizen and community participation in working

together to find solutions. Other components of the initiative that are contributing to the

Partnership's success include the BMP Quality Assurance Program, County Alliance for

Responsible Environmental Stewardship (CARES), and the On-farm Research Programs









As one component of Partnership activity, several University of Florida

departments and centers, as well as state and federal agencies are cooperating on project

319 entitled "Effectiveness of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Animal Waste and

Fertilizer Management to Reduce Nutrient Inputs into groundwater in the Suwannee

River Basin." Project 319 addresses BMPs on a dairy, a poultry operation, and a

vegetable farm in Lafayette and Suwannee Counties in the Middle Suwannee River

Basin. Each farm has been instrumented with a groundwater monitoring well network.

Wells and soil profiles are being intensively monitored to determine pre- and post-BMP

nitrate concentrations on each of the farms. An one-year pre-BMP monitoring phase has

been completed on all the farms, and BMPs are now being implemented to address the

elevated nitrate concentrations observed in some of the monitoring wells. The overall

goal of this project is to demonstrate that BMPs can be implemented to reverse the

increasing trend of nitrate concentrations in the groundwater and springs of the Middle

Suwannee River Basin.

The BMP Quality Assurance Program verifies that BMPs are operated and

maintained over a long period of time, and provides assistance to farmers in resolving

problems with the BMPs. The Partnership, in cooperation with Florida Farm Bureau, has

also initiated the CARES Program to certify and recognize farmers participating and

following directives in the Partnership program. Finally, the Partnership has developed a

joint strategy with the SRWMD to monitor groundwater and surface water on a regional

basis to identify trends in water quality over time through an extensive network of

monitoring points.









Technicians from the Partnership visit farms on a regular basis to monitor their N

loads and to help with the implementation of BMPs. One of these technicians pointed out

that many farmers were formerly wasting money buying fertilizer. With new techniques

such as use of a cement pool and mixer in the lagoon to separate solids from liquids, the

farmers are able to recycle their own manure, buy less fertilizer, reduce costs, and reduce

N loads.

In general, farmers who have been applying BMPs feel comfortable with the results

achieved. Most farmers are cooperative and eager to follow SRP directives and the

suggested BMPs. Nevertheless, some practices (such as treatment lagoons or solid

separators), require large investments. Money is required up-front to modify facilities,

train personal and to make other adjustments. In most cases the SRP has funding

available to cost-share initiatives that protect the environment.

The modality of implementation for most BMPs is completely based on voluntary

participation of farmers and aims at helping them avoid stricter regulations. However,

certain activities are already subject to regulatory programs.

3.3.1.4 Implementation procedures for Best Management Practices (BMPs)

BMPs for nitrate reduction in the Suwannee River Basin refer to good stewardship

of land and water management that help farmers reduce nutrient contamination to water

systems. There is general acceptance among stakeholders that such management practices

are sound and positive for the environment. Management practices mainly include

nutrient and manure management, disposal of wastes, irrigation water, technical design

and engineering aspects in farming enterprises such as row crop, dairy, beef cattle and

poultry farms. By large, the concerned stakeholders see BMPs as research-generated

solutions to reduce potential environmental hazards from farm enterprises.









Implementation procedures are specific to each program and farm enterprise. All

programs aim at implementing BMPs that reduce the loading of N contamination to

groundwater while helping farmers to remain profitable. It is worth mentioning that at

present, attaining the twofold objectives is at an early testing period in which cost-sharing

is crucial to ease associated risk for farmers.

Based on the information gathered by the Sondeo, a picture of the step by step

process of BMP implementation in the study area can be drawn. Creating and raising

awareness among public agencies, landowners, agricultural producers and other

stakeholders about existing water quality impacts resulting from human activities is the

first step. It is necessary for recognizing that a new approach in management practices is

needed to address the issue within the area. It is perceived that education on the issues

and solutions, including effective transfer of knowledge and technology, are essential

components of the implementation efforts of the technical working groups in the

Partnership. As part of this process the Partnership conducts meetings for agricultural

producers. During 2001 over 1000 farmers participated in such meetings. Gatherings

included two row crop growers' meetings, a forage field day, five dairy farmers'

meetings, two poultry growers' meetings, a cattlemen's meeting (beef), and a large-scale

growers' meeting.

In the CARES program, growers fill out a self-evaluation regarding their farm

operation to assess environmental practices. One objective of this self-assessment is to

increase farmers' awareness in perceiving their own status.

The next step is that farmers show interest in joining the Partnership. At this stage

agencies in the Partnership help farmers in selection and implementation of BMPs. The









partnership has a Technical Working Group (TWG) in the areas of fertilizer, animal

waste and human waste management. Each TWG assesses sources of nutrients within its

area of expertise, develops and implements a plan of work to fulfill the mission of the

Partnership, and provides updated recommendations for action. BMPs are highly

decentralized and tailored to suit the diversity in size and complexity of farm operations.

Initially, the focus is on management approaches, which are technically viable,

economically feasible, and environmentally friendly. The study team feels that BMPs on

dairy farms are far from being financially feasible. Up-front costs for implementation are

especially hard to recoup. Additionally, BMP on-farm trials are conducted to verify the

technical viability of the recommended practices.

Financial commitment and debt responsibility is required from farmers during

implementation of BMPs. To date, BMP implementation has been very successful. Out

of 144 crop farms, 115 have adopted conservation measures; out of a 35 poultry farms 34

participate; and out of 44 dairy farms, 43 are involved in the SRP. Before the Partnership,

only 3 dairy farms were able to pass environmental quality standards.

After the farmers adopt BMPs that have been promoted by the participating

agencies, a presumption of compliance with state water quality standards can be

established. This places farmers in a much better standing of willingness to cooperate

with environmental stewardship with authorities.

3.3.1.5 Impacts of BMPs on farms

Most stakeholders perceive that farmer participation in BMPs has many economic,

environmental and social benefits. Stakeholders agree that after the initial investment,

dairy, crop and poultry enterprises save money by implementing BMPs since they

recover their own nutrients, which have a value. In the case of dairy farms, the savings









could be important since no fertilizers would be needed for crops. However, stakeholders

perceive that poultry farmers have only modest economic benefits because the processing

of dry litter does not return much income. An additional benefit indicated was that

livestock farmers who implemented BMPs are usually allowed to expand herd or flock

size.

Regarding row crops, stakeholders indicated that the BMPs being promoted for

crops reduce yields. This reduction in crop yields seems to be inevitable because of the

reduction in fertilizer and irrigation contained in the BMP recommendation. Additionally

they would require farmers to spend more time and money on management and

equipment. Both aspects would decrease profitability. A major challenge then, is how to

maintain row crop farmer profit margins while implementing BMPs.

In spite of difficulties, adopting BMPs may help farmers to remain in business in

the long run, which is critical to the Partnership. The initial investment that farmers are

supposed to share may still be a big challenge considering the returns that farmers obtain

as a result of adopting BMPs. But ultimately, middle Suwannee farmers will be able to

choose from one of the three options: receive financial assistance to practice BMPs and

stay regulated under incentive-based programs; receive a certain amount of money and

leave the land; or comply with regulations under permit on their own.

3.3.2 Perceptions of Regulations by Dairy Farmers

During the interviews, dairy farmers expressed their concerns that regulations are

currently stricter than in the past, and that they will become even stricter in the future. At

the same time, several farmers expressed that the manure and all its by-products have a

tremendous commercial potential as a source of energy and nutrients. Potential benefits

from by-product sales could mitigate stronger future regulations.









Sixty-two percent of interviewed farmers participate in incentive-based regulatory

programs. One third of them work under permit, and one farm has no regulation at all.

Incentive-based programs are voluntary commitments between the farmer and the

regulatory agency as promoted by the SRP. Farmers under permit are those that are

enforced by the regulatory agency. Usually medium and small farms (up to 700 cows) are

under incentive-based programs and larger farms are under permit. Also, it can be said

that newer farms are under permit and older farms are more likely to be under

incentive-based programs.

All farmers expressed a clear message. They wanted to make sure the general

public understands that producers are not trying to pollute the environment. Farmers only

seek to earn their living and to do their best to protect the environment.

Eighty-one percent of dairy farmers interviewed agreed or felt comfortable with

current regulations. However, the remaining 19% disagree more or less with the current

environmental regulation framework (Figure 3-1).

The one farm that is not regulated is a small farm that received an invitation, but

does not want to participate in the cost-share program because the owner believes that

they can protect the environment in their own way. Fundamentally, the farmer does not

want to be controlled at all times. He is confident the problem will not increase from

present levels and that his farm will continue functioning as it has done for more than a

half century. However he is aware that if they are forced into compliance with

regulations, he would probably go out of business.

3.3.2.1 Farmers in disagreement with regulatory measurements

One of the farmers in dissension was very disappointed and very upset about the

regulatory agencies, especially with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection










(FLDEP). He felt betrayed in the fact that he was once told that he runs an exemplarily

clean farm and was even publicly recognized for that fact on one occasion. Later, after

activists groups sued the FLDEP, the department requested he make a cumbersome

investment on his own. The farmer stated

Their stuff is not scientific, they listened to what people say and they got
scared. They do not have any money for me, as they have been able to
provide for many other dairies. They have put 18 people out of work on
this farm because I had to reduce the herd size by half. If they place just
one more regulation on me, I will be out of business

The indispensable requirement for scientific studies in the eyes of this farmer is an

interesting and novel point. Often, the opposite view might be expected. Apparently,

the FLDEP in this case is regarded as a politically driven agency that does not necessarily

back up their case with science. A perception of inequitable treatment on the part of the

cost-share program with regard to this farm might be regarded as a strong motive for this

farmer's ill feeling toward the regulation process.


Agree completely
33 %
-I Agree --

81% %-
Criticize part of it
67 % --

N regulations


SAdministrative observations
50 %

S Don't Agree

R Technical observations
50 %


Guarantee of sustainability


Climate conditions not considered
Rapid personnel turnover
Not enforced severely
Are BMPs really good?

Listen more to public and news
Don't treat farmers equally
Too bureaucratic
Too imposed

Are BMPs really good?
Whole farm system understanding
Lack of soil science/scientists


Figure 3-1. Farmers' perceptions of environmental regulations in north-Florida


L









This farmer elaborated further saying that the FLDEP requested he install more

concrete free-stalls to collect manure and more irrigation systems to dispose of the

effluent in the fields. He thinks that is not a correct solution because it would create even

more problems with neighbors concerned with odors. He added

I did not even have a chance to discuss my options. The regulation was
imposed. They told me: do all this or reduce your herd size. I decided to
reduce the herd size because I felt that I could not trust the regulatory
people any longer. It would not be surprising if, after I make all these
investments on my own, after a few years they would come again and ask
me to change all over again because the neighbors are not happy

This farmer expressed a common complaint in processes of this nature. He was left

out of the process and not consulted from the beginning. Furthermore, it is apparent to

the farmer that no matter how hard he tries; the dairy farm is in a vulnerable position with

respect to new regulations in the future. In this farmer's opinion, the interests of the

farmer will always be secondary to those of the "neighbors."

Another complaint regarding the regulations was from one relatively new farmer,

who had to fight for more than two years to get a regulatory permit approved for a small

dairy operation. The farmer considers himself to be over-regulated compared with other

much larger dairies in the area. The farmer also mentioned that the approval process has

been very costly and the farm could not count on any financial aid. He felt that he was

forced to go through the process. This farmer mentioned I have fewer than 400 cows and

they made me install and monitor six wells with all the expenses it implies while there are

farms with thousands of cows who do not have this type of control. This farmer feels that

reports in the news have been particularly prejudicial to his situation and probably one of

the causes of this very strict permit. The other two farmers who do not agree with current

regulations based their perceptions more on technical issues. Both considered that the









suggested BMPs would not be the most appropriate either for the environment, or for the

farms. One important point was the fact that the main BMPs promoted include a flushing

system (dilution of manure to spray it in fields) that, to quote one of the farmers:

Seems to be aimed at losing most of the N to the air instead of trying to
use it as fertilizer. Besides, the promoted system requires a big investment
and is fixed to a physical space. Why do they not promote a system, like
the one in the northern part of the country that uses slurry (with minimum
flushing) and gives the farmer the flexibility to apply it to different plots
or even easily export it off the farm?

The farmer offered a strong critique in this statement of the technical expertise of

those in charge of designing and implementing BMPs. The producer apparently

perceives that the system proposed simply postpones further regulation for the moment

by converting a local negative externality into a diffuse global one. In essence, N is

being spewed into the atmosphere instead recycling it for other uses.

The other important point was the lack of understanding by those creating BMPs of

the dairy farm as a whole system. One of the farmers mentioned that very capable people

exist on the regulatory teams, but there is a lack of personnel with an interdisciplinary

understanding of the dairy system. He has witnessed problems other dairies have had

because the engineered designs did not take into account all the components of the

system and their interactions. Indeed, he is aware that some BMPs are being revisited and

redesigned after several failures have been detected.

These two dairymen think that the soils are the main component in solving the N

issue. They think that farms and regulatory agencies should work more aggressively with

a focus on soils. They both believe there is a lack of soil scientists on the regulatory

teams. The result is that regulatory agencies are not doing a good job protecting the

environment taking into account soil dynamics. One of these farmers added that the









regulatory agencies should clearly distinguish between real data and perception

information regarding water pollution by N

I am not completely sure if a real problem exists. Studies of the trends of
N pollution are not completely conclusive. Nor do I recall were they
conclusive in the case of the P issue in the Okeechobee area, where
regulatory agencies imposed a limit of P run-off discharge lower than
what common rainwater would have

Some farmers hold a less than credible reputation of the FLDEP. This poor

perception dates at least as far back as the years of regulation in the Okeechobee area.

The loss of dairy farm livelihoods in that area was never proven conclusively to be the

result of a tangible problem, at least in their minds.

Another informant also corroborated this last point regarding mistaken regulation

standards. The last two farmers mentioned apparently feel that precaution is not

necessary and that only when science proves without a shadow of a doubt that something

is harmful should regulations be imposed. These farmers apparently did not consider the

notion that it might be too late for action by then.

3.3.2.2 Farmers who agree with regulations but criticize part of it

Among respondents who agree with current regulations, some criticized some

particular aspects related to the regulations. Two farmers mentioned that FLDEP fines

farms without taking into account the climatic conditions that, for example, determine

inevitably high N measurements in lysimeters when wet periods follow dry ones. Another

point was the constant change of personnel in the regulatory agencies that could be

disadvantageous to farmers. This is because over the years, officials become acquainted

with specific farm situations. When new agents are hired, there is a period required for

building-up new relationships and understanding site-specific problems. Besides this,









new, usually young agents, tend to be more environmentally oriented. Often, they fail to

grasp the fact that farmers also need to make a living.

On the other hand there was also one farmer who criticized FLDEP and the

regulations as being relaxed, implying that the regulations should be enforced more

aggressively in order to avoid intervention by the federal Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA). He perceived EPA regulations and enforcement as potentially much

stricter, which would be very difficult for all in the area.

Another criticism of farmers who do agree with the regulations came from one

farmer who believes that a third party plays a role too important in the regulations. This

"third party" is a term used to refer to activist groups that raise public concerns about

environmental issues. In this farmer's opinion, FLDEP takes their opinions into

consideration disproportionately. The argument was that these third parties have nothing

to lose and that the FLDEP listens more to activist groups and the public, and takes

farmers' concerns and situations little into account.

Other respondents corroborated the fact that the news media have a great impact on

regulations and on FLDEP enforcement of regulations. In terms of regulations and

enforcement, the opinion of one journalist could have a greater worth than the opinion of

a number of farmers.

Some other farmers, who in general agree with current regulations, mentioned their

concerns about the scientific basis behind the requested technical actions, which may not

be the most appropriate for specific farms. This is related to the previously mentioned

perception that the regulatory agency is not looking at the overall system. One farmer

expressed: some times it is easy for them to tell you what you have to do. But, usually









they do not know how difficult it is to implement these actions, and what other impacts

could result from implementing the management changes.

Many of the farmers expressed their concerns regarding other non-point potential

sources of pollution. The main argument was centered on challenging the fact that dairy

farms are the most contaminating of all. They believe that this statement still needs to be

proven, and in any case they ask why are not row crop farms, golf courses, human

settlements, among others regulated in the same way as dairy, poultry or pig farms?. One

farmer mentioned: they count every pound of N the cows excrete on this farm but they do

not control the neighbor's farm that uses two to three times more fertilizer than the

recommended rates for vegetable crops.

Another point mentioned by several farmers may have important implications for

regulations. Many people are regularly moving to live in the countryside in Florida.

Often, these newcomers find that they do not like the manure odors until after they are

well established. Most farmers think that newcomers should be aware of what they are

buying into, and expect and accept normal rural odors. However, there are a few farmers

who actually believe that just because farmers were established first is not enough

argument to disregard odor problems of newcomers and they should work trying to

mitigate it. One farmer is convinced that in the future, odor problems, more than any

other issue, will put his farm out of business.

Farmers are also looking for permanence and consistency in the regulations. Some

farmers are concerned about potential changes in the set of regulations that might turn out

to be disastrous for their conditions. Farmers have learned to survive under current

conditions as long as the FLDEP does not change the basic, initial guidelines. This fact is









related to a concern expressed by several other farmers regarding the potential that

regulations might become unreasonable or impossible to implement if they change. This

eventuality is perceived as even more uncertain because farmers understand that the

FLDEP follows directions from the EPA. Farmers feel a total disconnect from the

federal agency.

Almost all interviewed farmers agree that the compliance process with the

regulatory agencies is not a money-making adventure. All are conscious that it costs

money, but they have no choice but to comply.

3.3.2.3 Farmers who completely agree with regulations

At least 33% of the 81% of producers that agree are completely at ease with the

regulations. All of them believe that they are working towards a sustainable way of doing

business. Thus, the regulations are perceived as a guarantee of survival in the long run.

For many of them there is a history of success in north-Florida because of the

cost-sharing program that is allowing them to work together with the research, extension,

and regulatory agencies in searching for regional and site-specific solutions. One farmer

mentioned: the Partnership and the incentive-based program in the Suwannee River Basin

are wonderful things. These will help farmers to be better off in the future. Although

many farmers realize that mistakes have been made in the past, they believe that all

parties are learning from the experience and that everyone together is building expertise

to protect the environment and keep farmers in business.

From all these farms there is a sense of engagement in the program for protecting

the environment that makes them proud and eager to implement environmental friendly

practices even if they do not have an economic return. They believe in general that the

regulations and mostly the participatory approach have been correct. Also, many of them









appreciate the fact that the program is flexible and can be discussed with the regulatory

agencies.

One farmer mentioned that they are trying not only to comply with the current

regulations, but are proactively seeking to exceed these regulations. This producer warns

that he is not necessarily looking for a new set of rules, but rather embracing the

regulations to become better stewards. This farmer predicts that FLDEP will be willing to

face the public for a farmer if the farmer is on the right side at all times. This fact would

be much more important in the future because regulations will become much stricter, not

only in the dairy farm industry, but in all aspects of human life. This farmer feels farmers

will be better prepared for those times thanks to the Partnership's efforts.

3.3.3 Perceptions of Climatic Technology Innovation

Recent advances in atmospheric research have made it possible to predict climate

variability with a relatively high level of probability. Knowledge of climatic conditions

may allow improved seasonal management strategies for dairy production in Florida.

Once again the opinions were divided. Of the 21 farmers interviewed, 14 (67%)

mentioned that they would use improved forecast information, 5 (23%) would not use

this technology, and 2 (10%) were not sure (Figure 3-2).

3.3.3.1 Farmers that would use long-term climatic forecast

All 14 farmers who believe they would use improved long-term climate variation

forecasts say that their main use of the information would be in planning crop systems.

One producer mentioned he already uses ENSO phase information to plan the farm's

crops:

I make decisions every year based on my beliefs of if the seasons will be
dryer/wetter, cooler/hotter. For example, for winter, if I expect an El
Niio, I will plant oats because they do well in moist conditions. If it will










be a La Nifia, I will choose rye because it handles drier conditions much
better. Of course, I will always plant ryegrass and clover, no matter what
the climate prediction

This farmer thinks that forecasts would also be useful for adjusting planting dates

in order to obtain better yields and more N uptake. He has yet to implement this

management strategy. Another farmer also uses long-term forecasts but not based on

ENSO phases. He relies instead on the experiential knowledge of an old, experienced

person who predicts the up-coming seasons in terms of wetter/dryer and colder/warmer.

This in turn determines the crops to be planted. This farmer was very interested in the

ENSO forecast information and tools and inquired as to its availability.


Figure 3-2. Farmers' perceptions of climate technology adoption

In the same manner as the farmer who already uses ENSO forecasts, most of the

farmers believe that the use of the forecast would be in crops. Mainly, the producers

would use information for substituting crops in specific seasons and to change planting

dates. For the winter season, oats and rye were mentioned several times as


Crop systems -- Different crops/vat
100 % -- Planting date,
| Would use
--C7 Area planted
67 %
-- C Drainage system
-- | Irrigation system

Climate Milking cow group
Technolg- Livestock
Technology 36 Breeding date plain

-- | Nutrient mgt 1 Solids collect(
14%

-- | Not sure ]--] Would like to have the forecasts
10 %
Non-flexible and/or satisfied with current system
-- Would not use
23 oo Other more important things to worry about


rieties
s


m
m

rotation
inning

n









interchangeable crops. Most agreed that drier years (La Nifia) are better for rye, and

wetter years (El Nifio) better for oats and/or ryegrass. However, some other producers

mentioned that temperature is the most important variable, and that hotter winters with

less chance of freezes (La Nifia) would be better suited for oats. For the case of freezes,

some farmers agree that if the prediction could address those events, they would be very

useful because that would let them know how much crop production to expect in winter.

Based on this they would adjust crop plans. For example, if there were going to be more

than the typical 20-25 freeze days, winter forages would be affected. Therefore, they

might plant more area in order to produce the required amounts of feed.

Climate forecasts for the spring/summer season would be more beneficial for

planning the planting date for corn. Those who plant corn say that the earlier you plant,

the better the results. If farmers know there will be little risk of late freezes, they could

plant as early as possible, for example in the first week of March.

For the summer/fall season another important decision would be between planting a

second crop of corn or sorghum. Farmers mentioned they would plant a sorghum crop if

they know that drier than normal conditions are expected. Potential changes in choice of

crops refer not only to different species, but also to cultivars within species. Some

varieties have different responses to climate conditions. Farmers mentioned these

possibilities without entering into specifics.

Another group of informants mentioned an additional possible use of climate with

respect to crops. One farmer mentioned they could use the prediction information to alter

the area of planted crops. In wetter conditions area would increase. In drier seasons, less

area would be sown. Another farmer mentioned that climate data would be useful for









planning drainage systems, especially before a wetter summer. A further potential use

mentioned was in planning irrigation systems management. Although these systems are

mostly fixed, farmers could make some adjustments if they know what the seasonal

climate would be like, especially regarding rainfall.

Besides the use of forecasts for crops, another potential use of climate forecasts

would be for the livestock. Three out of the fourteen interviewees who would use the

forecast elaborated on this issue. One farmer mentioned that she could plan her cow

rotations differently. Holstein cows are very sensitive to "heat stress" calculated by an

index that takes temperature and humidity into account. When the index is high, in hot

and humid months, milk production is affected negatively. If seasonal variability toward

hot, humid conditions is known ahead of time they would be able to better plan the

development of cow groups. This farm, like others, has comfort facilities where milking

cows are protected from heat stress, that is, climate effect is diminished. However, on

almost all farms, these milking cows spend part of their time outside. The farmer found it

logical to think of planning ahead of time to provide the most protection time to the most

productive group of cows.

One more decision that could be managed in light of climate forecasts is breeding

time. This would be done by changing the number of cows entering the milking group in

a certain season according to the forecast. For example, if a mild summer were expected,

then the farmer would breed the cows in time to have more milking cows than normal in

production for that summer. Climate knowledge would allow higher than normal

amounts of milk to be produced in summer. Similarly, decisions regarding purchases of

replacements heifers could be improved based on expected climatic conditions.









Typically, farmers buy replacements in fall. If spring or summer were going to be colder,

they could take advantage to buy less expensive replacements before those seasons.

An additional possible use of forecast mentioned for livestock was for the winter

season. Specifically climate forecasts would be used to anticipate colder than normal

winter seasons, which are also detrimental for the cows. In those situations, farmers could

plan ahead of time to have more forage (either planted or purchased) available. Extra

amounts of fiber would help cows stay warmer.

Another two farmers mentioned the potential use of the forecasts for planning

feedstocks. The inventory of feed is a major management task on dairy farms. Therefore,

knowing the climatic conditions ahead of time would be important to preparing

feedstocks (either produced or purchased). For example, one farmer mentioned that if he

would know ahead of time that the next season is going to be dryer, he would plan to

have more forage for his heifers and dry cows. The farmer mentioned additionally that

not only would it be good to plan for feed shortages, but also to plan for excess feed

produced. Too much feed on hand is also a problem. If the predicted conditions for next

seasons are good for forage production, then producers could plan not to buy feed. They

could also sell feed in advance, or decrease acreage planted.

Additional to the use of forecast for crops and/or livestock, three farmers

mentioned that the information could be used for improving N and P management on the

farm. Waste management systems are mostly fixed, so considerable changes to this

system is not an option. Farmers usually change daily management based more on daily

weather than long-term climate, however there are some things that could be planned, as

is the case of for example, of collecting or not collecting solids from the waste









management system. These farmers mentioned that if they know that there will be wetter

conditions, they would prefer to prepare the whole system to not collect solids because

the pile of solids resulting from the collection would be difficult to handle under wetter

conditions. This major change would determine that the effluent will have more solids in

solution. Therefore, the irrigation must have higher pressure and the crops must be

prepared to receive a slightly higher percent of N in the effluent. If they know that the

conditions would be dryer than usual they would prepare to collect all the possible solids

from the waste management system and together with this action they would plan what to

do with these solids, apply to fields of the farm or export out of farm.

3.3.3.2 Farmers who would not use long-term climatic forecast

Farmers that mention they would not use climate forecasts as a technology to help

in decision-making argue that they have relatively "fixed" systems. In their rather

tightly-bound systems, no changes in management need be planned. One farmer

mentioned: I am married to my system operation... it works and I don't want to change

anything that could mess things up. These farmers said that their decisions are based

more on the short term. If they knew there was no rainfall predicted in the following

week, they would cut hay. It is difficult for them to envision how they might change

tasks months in advance. One producer noted: unless something as disastrous as a

hurricane is forecast, I would not do anything different. Another farmer argued: we have

much larger problems to worry about. When we solve those other problems we might

start thinking about incorporating climate forecasts in our planning. Another farmer was

very convinced that:

We are not going to change anything even if we know that a very
abnormal season is coming. Even then, we would continue to do as we









always have, that is, adapt to the weather conditions, making changes to
respond to the weather conditions

Other farmers may share this farmer's skeptical view of the technology. Those

who are naturally averse to change or have not been exposed to new technologies will

exist.

3.3.3.3 Farmers who are not sure they would use long-term climatic forecast

The two farmers in this category had never previously thought about

climate-related management changes. They mentioned that the entire concept was

completely new to them, so they would need time to digest the idea. Initially, however,

they were not sure if they could incorporate climate variability forecasts into their

decision-making process. Both these farmers mentioned that, even though they did not

know if they would use the technology, they would like to be aware of the forecast to

consider it in regard to their performance in the following seasons.

3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

All stakeholders included in the Sondeo had a general consensus that growing N

levels in the Suwannee River Basin is a real and current problem. However, stakeholders

included in the focus groups, and especially dairy farmers challenged this fact during the

personal interviews. People interviewed during the Sondeo showed more awareness of

the real consequences of increased levels of N in water bodies. Dairy farmers and other

stakeholders involved in the interviews and focus groups, even though they recognized

that the presence of high levels of N is detrimental for the environment, showed a certain

degree of skepticism regarding the gravity of the problem.









Every effort needs to be made to communicate more clearly to the general public

real trends of N in water bodies and their potential consequences. The message must be

conveyed using consistent scientific data.

Most of the informants perceived that dairy farms are the highest polluters.

However, many stakeholders included in the Sondeo, focus groups, and interviews

questioned this popular belief. Dairy farmers in particular, perceive that there is a

misconception of the dairy farm industry and its environmental impact. Further research

should be devoted to investigate the contribution to contamination from each potential

source. It is important that individual operations be held accountable. Point vs. non point

N source pollutions must be further studied. Analyses of long-term monitoring studies

comparing different industries and their environmental impacts must be undertaken.

Farmers are willing to participate in incentive-based programs such as those

promoted by the Suwannee River Partnership. The principal driver behind this

willingness is a desire to avoid being regulated by official agencies. The Suwannee River

Partnership has a very positive perception and support from the stakeholders. Most of the

stakeholders perceive that the promoted BMPs are beneficial to the environment but are

not cost effective to the farms. Some farmers believe that the BMPs could be

re-engineered to better serve their purposes according to specific farm conditions. Further

research and validation of BMPs must be conducted. A guideline describing the steps to

develop BMPs should be created, and an economic feasibility study on BMPs that takes

heterogeneity of farms into account should also be conducted. Extra funds should be

devoted to expanding the impacts of the Partnership.









Farmers feel that environmental regulations are becoming stricter and more

uncertain in time. These regulations represent one of the biggest challenges for the

future. Farmers want to express that they are doing their best to protect the environment.

A vast majority of them agree with current regulations but they have serious observations

to make regarding the technical and administrative procedures. The Partnership is helping

to change farmers' attitudes, but still more communication and outreach work is needed

to gain the complete understanding from farmers.

Two-thirds of the interviewed farmers believe they can use climate variability

forecast proactively. All of them would use it primarily for crop management.

Additionally some could use it for livestock management. Some could use the seasonal

climate variability information for feedstock management, and some could apply this

technology to the management of the waste system.

Further research calls for the inclusion of climate variability forecasts into existing

BMPs experiments. Studies that explore the interaction between climate and nutrient

overflow in dairy farm systems must be promoted. Farmers should be involved from the

early stages of these research processes.

The main barriers for potential adoption of climate forecast technology by farmers

are the "rigidity" of dairy farms and the lack of management resources. Agencies

interested in delivering climate forecasts as an innovation must identify the narrow niches

where they may be used based on the experience of others. The technology should be

translated into clear and rapid management adjustments that farmers could apply without

involving excessive administrative transaction.









The fact that some stakeholders have never before thought of the potential

application of climate forecasts denotes a lack of awareness of available forecast

innovations among the stakeholder community. Step one in any diffusion process, i.e.,

awareness of the existence of a given technology, is missing among dairy farmers in the

study area. Commitment to extension and outreach programs that make this information

available to all networks of stakeholders and especially to dairy farmers is essential to the

future success of incorporating climate-based management into overall schemes to reduce

N loading into the environment.

The participative process described in this study underscores the critical need to

include farmers and other major stakeholders in every stage in order to assess real

perceptions that further will be used for consensual problem-solving. Its relevance is even

higher when complex problems exist as is the case of the interactions of N pollution, its

regulations, and the potential use of climate forecasts as a way of mitigate them.














CHAPTER 4
A METHOD FOR BUILDING CLIMATE VARIABILITY INTO FARM MODELS:
PARTICIPATORY MODELING OF NORTH FLORIDA DAIRY FARM SYSTEMS

4.1 Introduction

Much work has been published on the mathematical description of models and

model outputs. Conversely, little effort has been invested to date to describe a process of

stakeholder interaction or participatory modeling that might be essential for increasing

adoptability of models among end users. Models are often created to simulate real

conditions, predict potential outcomes, and ultimately be a tool used by stakeholders.

Many models have failed in this last requirement because they do not represent the

conditions relevant to stakeholders nor do they comply with requirements of the final

users for simplicity and user-friendliness.

Substantial changes must be incorporated into all phases of model development to

improve end-user adoption. One important aspect required is intensive and effective

participation of all stakeholders (Stoorvogel et al., 2004). This study highlights the use of

stakeholder interaction methodologies-originally developed for use in international rural

development-to first gauge the need for, then refine these management products and

tools. Working with stakeholders in a learning process involving as many feedback loops

as necessary will increase the probability of higher adoption rates.

The traditional system analytic approach emphasizes the importance of quantitative

modeling, rational planning, and economic analysis. This is closely linked with

operational research that looks for optimal solutions for complex problems (Rosenhead,









1989). However, the application of traditional system analytical methods to complex

societal and policy problems has not always been helpful because problems of validation

and because the absence of adequate social scientific theories and empirical data

(Stoorvogel et al., 2004; Jones et al., 1997). One efficient way to elicit up-to-date and

high quality empirical data is through stakeholder interaction (Geurtz and Joldersma,

2001).

During the 1980s, systems analysts realized that much of the understanding of the

problem is generated in the process of model building; consequently, participation of the

stakeholders in the model building process is useful (Geurtz and Joldersma, 2001).

Therefore, the participation of the potential final users should enable the researcher to

enrich the model by including subjective sources of knowledge in addition to the

"objective" knowledge derived from theories and empirical studies (Geurtz and Vennix,

1989; Verburgh, 1994).

Systems approaches at the farm scale must include not only the biophysical

component, but also the social, economic, political environment of the farm together with

a "bottom-up" approach (Jones et al., 1997).

Development in methods of modeling analysis and in practice shows a shift from a

uni-central, analytic, scientific approach to a more multi-central, interactive stakeholder

approach. These shifts are accompanied by a growing interest in participatory styles of

policy making and participatory methods of policy analysis. The application of the

participatory methods generally follows the paths of logic-in-use, which shows the need

for a methodology for participatory policy analysis (Geurtz and Joldersma, 2001).









Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) describes a growing family of approaches and

methods to enable local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and

conditions, to plan and to act. PRA has sources in activist participatory research,

agro-ecosystem analysis, applied anthropology, field research on farming systems, and

rapid rural appraisal (RRA). Natural resource management (NRM) and agriculture are

fields in which PRA finds applications (Chambers, 1994).

Farming systems research (FSR) advocates for interdisciplinary/participatory

approaches to deal with farm scale simulations (Norman and Collison, 1985).

Nevertheless, some authors have pointed out that FSR is often location specific and

descriptive (Dent and McGregor, 1994; Jones et al., 1997). An alternative approach is to

study the complete regional production system in close interaction with farmers.

Vereijken (1997) developed prototyping as an alternative to the more model-oriented and

farming system approaches. Prototyping procedures have a participatory character of

scientists directly collaborating with farmers.

Simulation-aided discussion about crop management has underpinned advances in

farming systems analysis as a vehicle for management intervention (Keating and

McCown, 2001). Similarly, McCown (2001) and Hammer et al. (2000) both argue that

connectivity and dialogue among key players is essential for achieving relevant and

significant intervention. In this sense, the dialogue around the simulation process could

be as important as the underpinning models, although it is clearly reliant on their

existence and influenced by their reliability (Nelson et al., 2002). Meinke et al. (2000);

Robertson et al. (2000); Keating and McCown (2001); and Meinke et al. (2001) provide

examples of participatory approaches using simulations to drive relevant and significant









results. These approaches are not about science simply providing the answers for

management to practitioners, but rather employing cooperative learning to develop

solutions (Nelson et al., 2002). Direct participatory action research with farmers has

helped establish credibility of models and simulation analyses (Meinke et al., 2001).

According to Archer et al. (2002) if the model simulation software is created for

farmers, extension agents, and/or farm advisers, it should be designed to be user-friendly

and to require minimum data inputs. Also, Archer et al. (2002) argue that it is not only

important that the model be able to predict what is required, but also to make the

predictions quickly and easily, in a readily accessible form, for site-specific conditions, in

real time. Both the participatory and the user-friendly approach were used as the

methodological basis for developing a climate-influenced dairy farm model for

North-Florida. The benefits of involving farmers in research to encourage engagement

and learning for scientists and farmers are well documented (Paine et al., 2002; Onema et

al., 2001).

North-Florida's climate is highly affected by El Nifio Southern Oscillation (ENSO)

(O'Brien, 1999). Since agriculture is the activity most vulnerable to climate variability

(Hansen, 2002b), farmers might benefit from new methods of seasonal climate forecasts

connected to system simulation models to tailor management options regarding

agricultural, economical, and/or environmental outputs. Intensive technologies offer a

broad range of options for adaptive responses to climate information (Hammer et al.,

2000). Dairy production in sub-tropical north-Florida is a very intensive system. The

Southeastern Climate Consortium (formerly Florida Consortium) was created as an

interdisciplinary, multi-institutional partnership involving researchers from 6 universities









in the states of Florida, Georgia and Alabama. The research group found that it is critical

to involve stakeholders actively from the beginning of a process to understand the effects

of climate variability on water and agriculture. Agencies with strong established

relationships and trust with end-users must be engaged to improve the chances of

delivering operational applications of climate information to final users (Jagtap et al.,

2002). One such application to emerge is the dairy model whose development process is

the subject of this paper.

It is not the aim of this paper to describe the mathematics of a dairy farm model.

The main aim is to describe the process of collaborative creation of a regional

north-Florida dairy farm model adaptable to any individual farm. The purpose of the

model is to tailor management strategies for different climatic conditions by estimating

monthly rates of N leaching and profit. An overriding objective of the model as

expressed by stakeholders was to decrease environmental impacts while maintaining

profitability. Specifically, the study sought to engage stakeholders in the process of

creating, calibrating, and validating a whole north-Florida dairy farm model (Figure 4-1).

4.2 Materials and Methods

The study was undertaken in north-Florida's Suwannee River Basin, covering part

or all of Alachua, Gilchrist, Levy, Lafayette, and Suwannee counties. An adaptation of

the emerging approach in Farming Systems Research and Extension presented by

Bastidas, 2001 (Figure 4-2) was used. Interviews and focus group meetings were carried

out on a continuous basis, divided into five phases. Phase One consisted of the initial

developments. Phase Two was about the sounding out or rural appraisal. Phase Three

consisted of greater stakeholder involvement. Phase Four included meetings and

interviews to elicit feedback from stakeholders on the prototype model. And in phase









Five, the tentative final model was taken to stakeholders for the validation, their final

suggestions, and recommendations.


Researchers


Regulatory
Farmers Prototype Agents
[0 Model













Figure 4-1. Schematic of participatory modeling

4.2.1 Main Framework

In Figure 4-2, all stakeholders involved in the issue of N pollution in groundwater

by dairy farms are referred to as "users." Users must be identified and their differences

recognized. Diverse users have specific and diverse needs. These needs must be

identified and considered before starting the modeling/simulation process. PRA methods

are ideal for initiating and maintaining high stakeholder involvement. This can be

characterized as a continuous learning process.

In Figure 4-2, arrows among users, needs, and PRA indicate the iterative and

dynamic process among researchers and stakeholders to determine felt needs that must be

incorporated in the modeling. A following step includes the integration, creation, and

improvement of models. Once again, the arrows indicate the iterative and dynamic









researcher-stakeholder process to improve models in order to make them more amenable

to final users. Inclusion of prototype models during this time is useful.

The process in which adjustments to models are made in order to better represent

reality is called calibration. Because it is a continuous process, calibration moves

seamlessly into validation when fewer and fewer major changes are required. Validation

is the part of the process that is undertaken after researchers and stakeholders agree the

model fits real conditions adequately. At this point testing models against independent

data, i.e., data from stakeholders who had not participated in the creation of the original

models is used.




End products Specific and
Users Diverse
needs




Calibration and
Seating Validaio Participatoryi
Prototype Rural
products Appraisals


Models
Climate \4 Crop
Data models


Figure 4-2. Methodology of participatory modeling. Source: Adapted from Bastidas
(2001), p. 19.

After final adjustments and validation, a final product flexible enough to fit the

diversity of all users is the goal of the interactive process. Because it has been a









participatory product, higher than normal adoption is expected along with higher than

ordinary usefulness.

4.2.2 The Sondeo

A rapid rural appraisal or Sondeo (Hildebrand, 1981) was conducted between the

months of January and February 2003 by a multidisciplinary team of eight graduate

students from the University of Florida (Alvira et al., 2003). During the Sondeo 13

stakeholders were interviewed. This sounding out was undertaken to get a better

understanding of the broad issue of N pollution in water. Another objective was to

understand the dairy farm systems in the Suwannee River Basin and initially identify the

type of modeling products that might be helpful for proactive management in light of

climate variability forecasts.

The Sondeo team consisted of graduate students from a number of disciplines

including agronomy, animal science, agricultural extension, natural resource

management, forestry, and community development. Two to three-people teams

conducted transects and stakeholders' interviews. The interviews were conducted as

informal, open-ended conversations. After a team introduced itself and explained the

subject of the research, the stakeholder and the team conversed about any aspects of the

topic that were relevant. This open-ended approach enabled topics to emerge and be

pursued that might have been missed if the researchers had been constrained by a

pre-formulated questionnaire. Despite the open-endedness, a set of core themes was

discussed in almost all interviews. Notes were not taken. Following each interview the

partners wrote individual notes, compared them, and then wrote a joint report of the

interview. Finally, these joint reports were shared and thoroughly discussed among all

Sondeo members. Each team presented its findings, which could be clarified, challenged









or contrasted with the results of the other teams. This process of reporting and discussion

served as the opportunity to begin noting trends, gaps in information and new questions

to be pursued.

4.2.3 Interviews

Personal interviews were undertaken by the researcher with dairy farmers and/or

dairy farm managers during the fall/winter seasons of the years 2003-2004. Open-ended

interviews (Bernard, 1994) were undertaken with a purposeful sample of 24 farmers

(-35% of population) with the main aim of engaging these actors. Specific operation

information was elicited and obtained as feedback in the modeling process. The sample

size and the people to be interviewed were chosen in order to obtain as much of the

existing variability as possible. Selection of participants was done in a participatory

manner with the coordination of the Suwannee River Partnership (SRP) and the

University of Florida Extension offices in the area.

Interviews started with the presentation of either the prototype or the final model on

a laptop computer. A voice recorder was used in every interview after requesting

permission. The first step was to explain the purpose of the visit and then to provide a

general description of the model. This was followed by a detailed explanation of every

component in the model, including those that were as yet not active, and their mechanics.

After discussing similarities and differences between the model and the farmers' specific

production units, a demonstration of the running of the model was presented and

discussed.

Later, dairymen had the opportunity to input their specific data and run the model

for their own specific conditions. Similarities and differences with what farmers expected

were recorded and taken into account. If observations were easy to adjust for, they were









tried "on-the-fly," taking advantage of the user-friendliness of the model's interface. If

specific comments would require more work, they were incorporated in the lab and tested

in later interviews.

Interviews highlighted farmers' reactions to the models. All possible suggestions to

be incorporated in the models were taken into account in successive steps. Two rounds

of interviews were conducted. Twenty-one farmers observed the prototype model in

October-November of 2003. In February-March 2004, the definitive model was used for

validation purposes with 3 farmers.

4.2.4 Focus Groups

Eight focus groups (Bernard 1994; Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990) with

stakeholders were held between November 2002 and February 2004 in the study area.

Focus groups consisted of open discussions among 5 to 15 persons. A stakeholder in

coordination with the researcher called these meetings. The researcher facilitated the

meetings around the different topics of research. The first two focus groups did not

include any model as a basis for discussion. Rather, because the creation of a prototype

model was suggested and encouraged during the second focus group, one was created and

became the focal point for discussion in all groups save the last. In the last focus group,

the final model was discussed.

Focus group participants ranged from specialists from official agencies such as the

Suwannee River Partnership (SRP, www.mysuwanneeriver.com/features/suwannee+

river+partnership), the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD,

http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection

(FLDEP, http://www.dep.state.fl.us), the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA, http://www.usda.gov) Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS,









http://www.fl.nrcs.usda.gov), the University of Florida IFAS Cooperative Extension

Service (CES, extension.ifas.ufl.edu), to private sector companies, technicians and

farmers. These participants were usually called to a meeting by the Suwannee River

Partnership and/or by extension agents of different counties in the research area.

Focus groups lasted between two and three hours and their main purpose was to

listen to feedback on the modeling process and to actively increase involvement and

diffusion of the research to a more target public.

4.2.5 Other Stakeholder Interactions

The principal researcher approached many other stakeholders between fall 2002

and spring 2004 in order to receive additional inputs into the modeling process. Initially,

the discussion centered on the intended idea of a proposed simulation methodology. In a

second phase, the discussion was based on the prototype model. Finally, interaction with

the clientele was based on the final model and its final tune-ups. These interactions were

meetings with specialists in the issue of the N leaching and the dairy industry and

included private consultants, officials from regulatory agencies, and university faculty,

among many others.

4.2.6 Analysis of Information

All participatory interactions were recorded, classified, organized, analyzed, and

described. The feedback received was included in the modeling process in one way or

another in successive steps. This paper summarizes the results of all the above

interactions in a descriptive/narrative manner. Names of the participants and some

organizations and companies are not revealed to protect the anonymity of interviewees. A

summary of stakeholder interactions can be found in Table 4-1.








78



4.3 Results and Discussion


Results of interactions are described in five phases that detail the iterative process,


step by step, of creating, calibrating, and validating the dynamic north-Florida dairy farm


model, DNFDFM with participation of stakeholders. This process is summarized in


Figure 4-3.




Phase 14nitial Developments

Firml conlctarouild-up of network
*Main* 5ur u eol ,nfliTnatan
*Adjusit reFsearr rarnewc mrnjolecrwves
Collaborllive commimernt of parts

Phase 5-The final model
*Model revistea anr new :ornmonenls of
*Madirk- *ClInmaT component
*Crop models
*Opbmrmtiaon Phase 2-The Sondeo
*Frinal m ini calibrated ana valndaleao -S n t
bltakeholdre Sunannoa Piver Pa tnrhiMp and
tK Cooperam-e Ertension Semnce on Doard
Conceptual.zabon of EMPs
*Wayi ol N pollbJorn rritationr
lord ofmod l Dieild up with staehoiaers
.Cornrnamar,nof parts in furtherF wrk






Phase 4-The prototype model
Phase 3-Grealer stakeholder
*Sewvpml eadbahc.s on prumloype mode L involvement
*Eperts parea consulted about prcloie i Undi .andinq f!Ndair fwsnatsr
*Pnoposed praiirled Ln Icmertti meeal.ng- .Dolein.nBnaclvIoc hr,'c model doinitcns
*Collcorn l im spln decif.c daU *el J Ialcn ol priohtype mrIel
*NRCS and private companion on board


Figure 4-3. Phases of the participatory modeling for creating the DNFDFM


4.3.1 Phase One: Initial Developments


In July 2002, four well-known scientists in Florida, each from a different discipline,


were approached looking for specific information and at the same time ideas about the


original research idea. The scientists were from the areas of forages on dairy farms, dairy


waste management, soils, and crop modeling, respectively. During this first exploration,


confidence was gained in the fact that most of the soil series in Florida are contained in a


database that could be accessible to use in later phases of the research (G. Kidder, pers.