Field Technology & Water Quality Outreach

Proceedings Home | W2W Home waste to worth 2017 logo

Purpose

In 2015, Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) partnered with local and state agencies to help identify potential sources of fecal coliform bacteria that were impacting shellfish beds in northwest Washington.  WSDA and Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) program partners began collecting ambient, as well as rain-driven, source identification water samples. Large watersheds with multiple sub-basins, changing weather and field conditions, and recent nutrient applications, meant new sites were added almost daily. The increased sampling created an avalanche of new data. With this data, we needed to figure out how to share it in a way that was timely, clear and could motivate change. Picture of water quality data via spreadsheet, graphs, and maps.

Conveying complex water quality results to a broad audience can be challenging. Previously, water quality data would be shared with the public and partners through spreadsheets or graphs via email, meetings or quarterly updates. However, the data that was being shared was often too late or too overwhelming to link locations, weather or field conditions to water quality. Even though plenty of data was available, it was difficult for it to have meaningful context to the general public.

Ease of access to results can help inform landowners of hot spots near their home, it can link recent weather and their own land management practices with water quality, as well as inform and influence decision-making.

What Did We Do?

Using basic GIS tools we created an interactive map, to share recent water quality results. The map is available on smartphones, tablets and personal computers, displaying near-real-time results from multiple agencies.  Viewers can access the map 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

We have noticed increPicture of basic GIS tool.ased engagement from our dairy producers, with many checking the results map regularly for updates. The map is symbolized with graduated stop light symbology, with poor water quality shown in red and good in green. If they see a red dot or “hot spot” in their neighborhood they may stop us on the street, send an email, or call with ideas or observations of what they believe may have influenced water quality. It has opened the door to conversations and partnerships in identifying and correcting possible influences from their farm.

The map also contains historic results data for each site, which can show changes in water quality. It allows the viewer to evaluate if the results are the norm or an anomaly. “Are high results after a rainfall event or when my animals are on that pasture?”

The online map has also increased engagement with our Canadian neighbors to the north. By collecting samples at the US/Canadian border we have been able to map streams where elevated bacteria levels come across the border. This has created an opportunity to partner with our Canadian counterparts to continue to identify and correct sources.

What Have We Learned?

You do not need to be a GIS professional to create an app like this for your organization. Learning the system and fine-tuning the web application can take some time, but it is well worth the investment. GIS skills derived from this project have proven invaluable as the app transfers to other areas of non-point work.  The web application has created great efficiencies in collaboration, allowing field staff to quickly evaluate water quality trends in order to spend their time where it is most needed. The application has also provided transparency to the public regarding our field work, demonstrating why we are sampling particular areas.

From producer surveys, we have learned that viewers prefer a one-stop portal for information. Viewers are less concerned about what agency collected the data as they are interested in what the data says. This includes recent, as well as historical water quality data, field observations; such as wildlife or livestock presence or other potential sources. Also, a brief weekly overview of conditions, observations and/or trends has been requested to provide additional context.

Future Plans

The ease and efficiency of the mobile mapping and data sharing has opened the door to other collaborative projects. Currently we are developing a “Nutrient Tracker” application that allows all PIC partners to easily update a map from the field. The map allows the user to log recent field applications of manure. Using polygons to draw the area on the field, staff can note the date nutrients were identified, type of application, proximity to surface water, if it was a low-, medium- or high-risk application, if follow-up is warranted, and what agency would be the lead contact. This is a helpful tool in learning how producers utilize nutrients, to refer properties of concern to the appropriate agency, and to evaluate recent water quality results against known applications.

Developing another outreach tool, WSDA is collecting 5 years of fall soil nitrate tests from all dairy fields in Washington State. The goal is to create a visual representation of soil data, to demonstrate to producers how nitrate levels on fields have changed from year to year, and to easily identify areas that need to be re-evaluated when making nutrient application decisions.

As part of a collaborative Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) group, we would like to create a “Story Map” that details the current situation, why it is a concern, explain potential sources and what steps can be taken at an individual level to make a difference. A map that visually demonstrates where the watersheds are and how local neighborhoods really do connect to people 7 miles downstream.  An interactive map that not only shows sampling locations, but allows the viewer to drill down deeper for more information about the focus areas, such as pop-ups that explain what fecal coliform bacteria are and what factors can increase bacteria levels. We envision a multi-layer map that includes 24-hour rainfall, river rise, and shellfish bed closures. This interactive map will also share success stories as well as on-going efforts.

Author

Kerri Love, Dairy Nutrient Inspector, Dairy Nutrient Management Program, Washington State Department of Agriculture

klove@agr.wa.gov

Additional Information

Results Map Link: http://arcg.is/1Q9tF48

Washington Shellfish Initiative: http://www.governor.wa.gov/issues/issues/energy-environment/shellfish

Mobile Mapping Technology presentation by Michael Isensee, 2016 National CAFO Roundtable

Sharing the Data: Interactive Maps Provide Rapid Feedback on Recent Water Quality and Incite Change by Educating the Public, Kyrre Flege, Washington State Department of Agriculture and Jessica Kirkpatrick, Washington State Department of Ecology,  2016 National Non-Point Source Monitoring Workshop

Whatcom County PIC Program: http://www.whatcomcounty.us/1072/Water-Quality

Skagit County, Clean Samish Initiative: https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/PublicWorksCleanWater/cleansamish.htm

Lower Stillguamish PIC Program: http://snohomishcountywa.gov/3344/Lower-Stilly-PIC-Program

GIS Web Applications: http://doc.arcgis.com/en/web-appbuilder/

Acknowledgements

The web application was a collaborative project developed by Kyrre Flege, Washington State Department of Agriculture and Jessica Kirkpatrick, Washington State Department of Ecology.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Performance of Mitigation Measures in the Dairy Sector under Future Climate Change

 

Proceedings Home W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose

Climate change is an economic, environmental and social threat, and worthy of scientific study. Immediate action must be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate negative impacts of future climate change. Proposed action can start at the farm level and has the potential of making a contribution to mitigation of climate change. Dairy farmers are able to significantly reduce their emissions by implementing better management practices, primarily through feed production, enteric fermentation, and manure management. We model the corresponding changes in emissions from proposed mitigation efforts to understand their impact on global climate change.

What did we do?

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for dairy systems have been identified and simulated using the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM). Simulations representative of a large New York farm (1500 cows) and a small Wisconsin farm (150 cows) estimated the emission of greenhouse gases for a whole farm system. Percent reductions were calculated by comparing a baseline scenario without any implemented mitigation, to scenarios that included the identified BMPs. Refer to Table 1 for emission and percent reduction estimates for the simulated BMPs.Table 1. Emissions and percent reductions from baseline for simulated mitigation strategies

Percent reduction estimates were then applied to a projected “business as usual” emission scenario. This scenario prescribes anthropogenic emissions through 2100 and excludes any climate action or policy after 2015. Taking 2020 as a reference year and 2050 as a target year, we applied the estimated percent reductions to the projected global agricultural emissions. Emission reductions were decreased linearly from 2020 to 2050, and held constant between 2050 and 2100 (Figure 1). This assumes that all farms globally can reduce emissions despite increases in production. To compare the performance of the mitigation measures under future climate change, we employed a fully coupled earth system model of intermediate complexity – the Integrated Global System Model (IGSM). The model includes an interactive carbon-cycle capable of addressing important feedbacks between the climate and terrestrial biosphere.

Figure 1. Global agricultural emissions for mitigation strategiesWhat have we learned?

Action taken globally in the agricultural sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the first half of the 21st century is likely to have an impact in mitigating global warming. Following a “business as usual” emission scenario without any climate policy or action beyond 2015, an increase in global mean surface temperature by the end of the 21st century (2081-2100) relative to pre-industrial (1961-1990) levels is projected to be 2.8 C to 3.5 C (Figure 2). This exceeds the 2 C temperature target described as the maximum warming allowed to avoid dangerous and irreversible climate change. An associated net radiative

forcing for the “business as usual” scenario is projected to be 7.4 W/m^2 by 2100 (Figure 3). Adopting the identified BMPs in the dairy sector and decreasing global agricultural emissions by 2050 is projected to decrease global mean surface temperatures for 2100 by 0.2 C and net radiative forcing by 0.4 W/! m^2 on av erage. In summary, this modeled experiment demonstrates that ongoing efforts to decrease greenhouse gas emissions in the dairy and agricultural sector are effective at reducing the overall warming of climate change.

Figure 2. Projected global mean surface temperature and changes for mitigation scenarios

Figure 3. Projected radiative forcing for mitigation scenarios over the 21st century

Future Plans

Future work will look further into the evolution of regional temperature and rainfall profiles for the mitigation scenarios. Then, ecological risk assessment methodologies will be applied to determine the probable impacts of climate change by each scenario on agricultural production.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Kristina Rolph – Graduate Student, The Pennsylvania State University.

Corresponding author email

kar5469@psu.edu

Other authors

Chris Forest – Associate Professor of Climate Dynamics, The Pennsylvania State University.

Rob Nicholas – Research Associate, Earth & Environmental Systems Institute.

Additional information

  1. The Sustainable Dairy Project, funded by the USDA, researches alternative management practices in the dairy industry. http://www.sustainabledairy.org
  2. The Integrated Farm System Model simulates all major farm components to represent the many biological and physical processes on a farm. https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/up-pa/pswmru/docs/integrated-farm-system-model/
  3. The MIT Integrated Global System Model is a fully coupled earth system model of intermediate complexity designed to analyze interactions between human activities and the Earth system. https://globalchange.mit.edu/research/research-tools/global-framework

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2013-68002-20525. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Analysis of total Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus Contents in Soil Cores Over 10+ Years from Horicon Marsh in Dodge County, Wisconsin


Why Look at Marsh Soil Nutrients?

The purpose of this project was to evaluate changes in carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) in samples from identical locations taken ten years apart from Horicon Marsh in Dodge County, Wisconsin.

The area surrounding the marsh is primarily agricultural and has the potential to contribute nutrients to the marsh, affecting the fertility of the soils and changing the ecosystem.

What did we do?  

We hypothesized that carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus would show significant increases over the ten-year interval between samplings.

Sample sites were positioned every ¼ mile along east-west transects throughout the marsh. A soil core was obtained at each sample site in the winter of either 2002 or 2003. The same sites were revisited and new samples collected in winter of either 2012 or 2013, ten years after the initial visits. The top five centimeters of each soil core were oven dried at 105°C for 72 hours.

Total carbon and nitrogen were analyzed by combustion using a PerkinElmer 2400 series II CHNS/O Analyzer. Total phosphorus was analyzed by the Olsen P-extraction method on a QuikChem FIA+ 8000 series Lachat analyzer.

A paired t-test (α=0.05) was used to compare nitrogen and phosphorus values. Carbon data were compared with a Mann-Whitney ranked sum test at the 95% confidence interval.

What have we learned?  

Carbon and nitrogen did not increase significantly over the time period. Carbon is generally bound in soil organic matter; in histic wetland soils, changes attributable to land use might be difficult to detect due to the already high organic matter content. Nitrogen accumulation was likely mitigated by denitrification processes.

Phosphorus concentrations were greater in the second set of samples. Phosphorus adsorbs tightly to sediment and organic material, which would prevent its removal by flowing water. Changes in land use, especially row crop agriculture in the Horicon marsh area, could contribute runoff inputs of soil particles carrying phosphorus with them. This may explain significantly increased phosphorus levels between the start and end of the study period.

Future Plans  

Future studies might quantify land use changes, their extent, and their impacts on the marsh ecosystem; analyze spatial patterns of phosphorus accretion to determine if it is cycling equally throughout the marsh; and determine the impact of denitrifying bacteria and anaerobic conditions on nitrogen accumulation. Additional research could include testing the water column of the marsh for dissolved nutrients; and sampling the Rock River at its inlet to and outlet from the Horicon Marsh to determine nutrient flux to the stream from the marsh.

Authors

Ashley Hansen, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point ashleyhansen891@gmail.com

Anna Radke, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point; Sarah Shawver, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

Additional information

Ashley Hansen, ahans891@uwsp.edu; Anna Radke, aradk591@uwsp.edu; Sarah Shawver, sshaw497@uwsp.edu

Acknowledgements

Dr. Robert Michitsch

Soils Professor and Research Advisor

Dr. Kyle Herrman

Water Resource Professor and Research Advisor

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Sources of Agricultural Greenhouse Gases

The conversation about climate change largely revolves around greenhouse gases. Agriculture is both a source and sink for greenhouse gases (GHG). A source is a net contribution to the atmosphere, while a sink is a net withdrawal of greenhouse gases.  In the United States, agriculture is a relatively small contributor, with approximately 8% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, as seen in Figure 1.

Most agricultural emissions originate from soil management, enteric fermentation (microbial action in the digestive system), energy use, and manure management (Figure 2).  The primary greenhouse gases related to agriculture are (in descending order of magnitude) methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide.

Fact sheet: Contribution of Greenhouse Gases: Animal Agriculture in Perspective (look below the preview box and title for a download link)

U.S. GHG Inventory Figure 1: U.S. greenhouse gas inventory with electricity distributed to economic sectors (EPA, 2013) 

Ag Sources of GHGs

Figure 2: U.S. agricultural greenhouse gas sources (Adapted from Archibeque, S. et al., 2012)

Animal Agriculture’s Contribution to Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Within animal production, the largest emissions are from beef followed by dairy, and largely dominated by the methane produced in during cattle digestion (Figure 3).

Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock in 2008

Figure 3: Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock in 2008 (USDA, 2011)

Excess nitrogen in agriculture systems can be converted to nitrous oxide through the nitrification-denitrification process. Nitrous oxide is a very potent greenhouse gas, with 310 times greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide.  Nitrous oxide can be produced in soils following fertilizer application. This includes both commercial, inorganic fertilizer as well as organic fertilizers like manure or compost.

As crops grow, photosynthesis removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stores it in the plants and soil life. Soil and plant respiration adds carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere when microbes or plants breakdown molecules to produce energy.  Respiration is an essential part of growth and maintenance for most life on earth. This repeats with each growth, harvest, and decay cycle, therefore, feedstuffs and foods are generally considered to be carbon “neutral.”

Some carbon dioxide is stored in soils for long periods of time.  The processes that result in carbon accumulation are called carbon sinks or carbon sequestration.  Crop production and grazing management practices influence the soil’s ability to be a net source or sink for greenhouse gases.  Managing soils in ways that increase organic matter levels can increase the accumulation (sink) of soil carbon for many years.

Enteric Fermentation

The next largest portion of livestock greenhouse gas emissions is from methane produced during enteric fermentation in ruminants – a natural part of ruminant digestion where microbes in the first chamber of the stomach, the rumen, breaks down feed and produces methane as a by-product. The methane is released  primarily through belching.

As with plants, animals respire carbon dioxide, but also store some in their bodies, so they too are considered a neutral source of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Manure Management

A similar microbial process to enteric fermentation leads to methane production from stored manure.  Anytime the manure sits for more than a couple days in an anaerobic (without oxygen) environment, methane will likely be produced.  Methane can be generated in the animal housing, manure storage, and during manure application. Additionally, small amounts of methane is produced from manure deposited on grazing lands.

Nitrous oxide is also produced from manure storage surfaces, during land application, and from manure in bedded packs & lots. Related: Archived webinar on GHG Emissions Research in Animal Ag

Other sources

There are many smaller sources of greenhouse gases on farms. Combustion engines exhaust carbon dioxide from fossil fuel (previously stored carbon) powered vehicles and equipment.  Manufacturing of farm inputs, including fuel, electricity, machinery, fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, plastics, and building materials, also results in emissions.

To learn more about how farm emissions are determined and see species specific examples, see the Carbon Footprint resources.

To learn about how to reduce on-farm emissions through mitigation technology and management options, see the Reducing Emissions resources.

Carbon Footprint

Definition: carbon footprint is the total greenhouse gas emissions for a given person, place, event or product.

Carbon footprints are created using a process called life cycle assessment. Life cycle assessment or LCA is a method of resource accounting where quantitative measures of inputs, outputs and impacts of a product are determined.

Life cycle assessment is commonly used to:

  • find process or production improvements
  • compare different systems or products
  • find the ‘hot spots’ in a product’s life cycle where the most environmental impacts are made
  • help businesses or consumers make informed sourcing decisions

diagram

Key Assumptions

boundaries of the system: each higher tier provides a more complete picture of the product’s impacts, however requires more time and resources to complete.

  1. Gate to Gate (LCA Tier I) – inventories the direct emissions for a single product of process
  2. Cradle to Gate (Tier II) – inputs are taken back to the initial extraction as natural resources up to a certain point in the product’s life such as its sale from the farm, i.e. farm gate.  This will include both direct  and indirect emissions from the product.
  3. Cradle To Grave (Tier III) – the product is followed through the consumer to its eventual recycling or disposal.

Sources of variation

Different researchers may get different results when performing a LCA on the same product. This can happen for many reasons:

  • System boundary definition
  • Inclusion/exclusion of secondary/ indirect sources
  • Inclusion/exclusion of biogenic carbon (stored in organisms)
  • Inclusion/exclusion of carbon dioxide from fuel combustion
  • Functional relationships used
  • Global warming potential indexes
  • Inclusion/exclusion of carbon sequestration

Related: Six archived webinars on the sources of animal ag ghg’s (some are general and some are species-specific)

Educator Materials

If you would like to use the video, slides, or factsheet for educational programs, please visit the curriculum page for download links for this and other climate change topics.

Recommended Reading – How Many Greenhouse Gases Does Agriculture Emit?

U.S. Agriculture Emissions

International Agriculture Emissions

Carbon Footprints and Life Cycle Analysis

Greenhouse Gas Regulations for Animal Agriculture

Visit Climate Change Regulation, Policy, and Market Opportunities

Acknowledgements

Author: Crystal A. Powers – University of Nebraska-Lincoln cpowers2@unl.edu

This material was developed through support from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) under award #2011-67003-30206.

Impacts of the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) is a holistic approach to environmental protection. It helps farmers evaluate their entire operation, regardless of size or commodity, and make sustainable management decisions balancing society’s needs, the environment, and economics. MAEAP is a partnership effort that aims to protect natural resources and build positive communities by working with farmers on environmentally responsible agricultural production practices.

To become MAEAP verified, farmers must complete three comprehensive steps: educational seminars, an on-farm risk assessment, and development and implementation of an action plan addressing potential environmental risks. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) conducts an on-farm inspection to verify program requirements related to applicable state and federal environmental regulations, including the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs). MAEAP benefits Michigan by helping to protect the Great Lakes by using proven scientific standards to improve air, water, and soil quality. Annual phosphorus reduction through MAEAP is over 340,451 pounds per year which is enough to grow almost 85,104 tons of algae in lakes and streams.  Farming is an environmentally intense practice and the MAEAP-verification process ensures farmers are making choices that balance production and environmental demands. The measures aimed at protecting air, soil, water, and other environmental factors mean that MAEAP-verified farmers are committed to utilizing farming practices that protect Michigan’s natural resources.

Purpose

The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) is an innovative, proactive program that assists farms of all sizes and all commodities voluntarily prevent or minimize agricultural pollution risks. MAEAP is a collaborative effort of farmers, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Michigan Farm Bureau, commodity organizations, universities, conservation districts, conservation groups and state and federal agencies. MAEAP teaches farmers how to identify and prevent environmental risks and work to comply with state and federal environmental regulations. Farmers who successfully complete the three phases of a MAEAP system (Farmstead, Cropping or Livestock) are rewarded by becoming verified in that system.

What Did We Do?

To become MAEAP-verified, farmers must complete three comprehensive steps: educational seminars, a thorough on-farm risk assessment, and development and implementation of an action plan addressing potential environmental risks. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) conducts an on-farm inspection to verify program requirements related to applicable state and federal environmental regulations, including the Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices. To retain MAEAP verification, a farm must repeat all three steps including MDARD inspection every three years.

Local MAEAP farm verified in the Cropping System

What Have We Learned?

The MAEAP program is positively influencing Michigan producers and the agriculture industry. Annually, an average of 5,000 Michigan farmers attend an educational session geared toward environmental stewardship and MAEAP verification. To date, over 10,000 farms are participating with over 1,500 MAEAP verifications. On a yearly basis, over $1.2 million is spent for practice implementation by producers working towards MAEAP verification. In 2012; the sediment reduced on MAEAP-verified farms could have filled 28,642 dump trucks (10 yards each), the phosphorus reduced on MAEAP farms could have grown 138,056 tons of algae in surface waters, and the nitrogen reduced on MAEAP farms could have grown 45,515 tons of algae in surface waters.

An example of the partnership between MAEAP and Michigan Farm Bureau

Future Plans

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has taken a vested interest in the value of the MAEAP program. In March of 2011, Governor Snyder signed Public Acts 1 and 2 which codify MAEAP into law. This provides incentives and structure for the MAEAP program. It is a goal of Governor Snyder’s to have 5,000 farms MAEAP-verified by 2015. Most importantly, through forward thinking MAEAP strives to connect farms and communities, ensure emergency preparedness and protect natural resources.

Authors

Jan Wilford, Program Manager, Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development – Environmental Stewardship Division,    wilfordj9@michigan.gov

Shelby Bollwahn, MAEAP Technician – Hillsdale Conservation District

shelby.bollwahn@mi.nacdnet.net

Additional Information

www.maeap.org – MAEAP Website

http://michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1567_1599_25432—,00.html – MDARD MAEAP Website

http://www.facebook.com/mimaeap – MAEAP Facebook Page

Acknowledgements

MDARD MAEAP Program Office Communications Department

Michigan Farm Bureau

Michigan Association of Conservation Districts

Hillsdale County Farm Bureau

Hillsdale Conservation District

Handout version of the poster (8.5 x 11; pdf format)

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.