Progress 04/01/17 to 09/30/21
Outputs
Target Audience:This project was intended to provide the necessary scientifically valid information on the efficacy of cover crops and reduced tillage to producers as a means to promote adoption of conservation. Literature is limited that quantifies the economic, agronomic, and ecologic benefits of these practices in the study region. Therefore, our target audience included both academic and non-academic audiences. Various Extension events and activities were hosted through the duration of this projectto engage with our producer stakeholder community. These events and activities were attended by personnel from our Advisory Board and other agencies tasked with protection of natural resources. Results were also presented to academic audiences at conferences and in peer-reviewed literature as a means of communicating outcomes with other scientists. Changes/Problems:With the health situation, we modified the originally planned field day to deliver a webinar for stakeholder audiences. In addition, Dr. Baker and several Advisory Board members convened a listening session with participating producers and other guests. The purpose of the meeting was to gather feedback on producer experience with the research and Extension program, as well as their experiences using cover crops. The producers were also encouraged to share information with each other as a peer-to-peer learning opportunity. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?This project supported the work of two master's level graduate students. In addition,several undergraduate students participated in the project and gained skills and knowledge related to water quality sampling and assessment. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Again, our results were conveyed through multiple formal Extension opportunities and also through academic channels such as conferences and publications. Additionally, informal avenues were pursued through Extension engagement at other venues and meetings with individual landowners and other stakeholders. For instance, this work was featured in the University's agricultural research magazine that was mailed to a broad mailing list. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Impact:This project quantifies the benefits of transitioning from conventional row crop production practices in the mid-southern US to a system that utilizes winter cover crops and minimizes tillage. The status quo system relies on multiple tillage passes and bare fields during the winter months. This has led to a reduction in soil quality due to compaction and a reduction in water quality due to unabated runoff from agriculture fields. Adoption of conservation practices has the potential to remediate both situations, but producers are sensitive to the economic considerations associated with any change in their farm management. While these practices have demonstrated success in other regions, few attempts have made to document their efficacy in mid-South corn and soybean systems. We have demonstrated that adaptive management of cover crops in our corn and soybean production systems under minimal tillage can reduce the yield gap associated with practice change from conventional to conservation systems. Reducing the yield gap is essential if we want producers to adopt this conservation practice because the economic losses can make such practices unattractive. By making changes to procedures associated with termination of cover crops and planting of cash crops, we improved the economic return in each successive year of the project. We also saw decreases in water use, which while not statistically significant, would however be meaningful to producers. Further, this project was the catalyst for a series of additional awards in excess of $2.6M to support similar research efforts in the study region and to extend the research conducted under this award. Obj 1. All six study sites were soil sampled on a 2.5-ac grid at 0-6 in and 6-12 in depths in the springs of 2018, 2019, and 2020. The grid remained consistent over the course of the study. Standard chemical analyseswere conducted on these samples. These data were analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures. Site was used as a block for this statistical test. In an ideal world, organic matter would have increased in the treatment field (CCMT) relative to the control fields (FBM), this was not apparent in 0-6in samples. In fact, for all the elements tested, our significant outcomes were only for P, K, and Ca. These elements increased in CCMTfields over time at rates significantly different from FBM. At this time, more research is warranted to determine if these increases are the result of cover crops moving elements up from lower depths. This work is being prepared for publication and should be submitted early 2022. The differences in irrigation water use and yield between CCMT and FBM were not statistically significant.The full details of this analysis were published under Badon et al. (2021) listed in publications from this project. Obj. 2. An economic evaluation was conducted for all six sites for 2018 and 2019. Data included direct costs for seedand chemical inputs; indirect costs based on yield differences between CCMT and FBM multiplied by commodity price; and estimated costs for machinery and labor based on enterprise budgets for Mississippi cropping systems.The net economic return from introducing cover crops and reduced tillage on average across all site years was a loss of US$233/ha. The full details of this analysis were published under Badon et al. (2021) listed in publications from this project. Obj. 3. All study sites were instrumented with water sampling equipment designed to capture surface runoff. These samples were analyzed for typical water pollutants related to N, P, and solids. Data were analyzed in pairs that directly compared CCMT with its FBM counterpart for the same rain event. This stipulation reduced the data volume from the total collected such that 65 events were included in analyses.CCMT had no effect on N or P transport (p>0.10 for all nutrient loads), discharge (p>0.10), or loss of suspended solids (p>0.10). CCMT reduced sediment and nutrient concentrations in runoff for total N (p=0.05) and total inorganic P (p=0.09) but had no effect on other nutrients of interest. While CCMT decreased total N concentration by 36%, this reduction was only seen when the cover crop had above ground biomass present (p=0.07). Regardless of whether or notcover crop biomass was present, CCMTdecreased total inorganic P concentration by 27% (p= 0.09). Full analysis details and results will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication in Dec 2021. Obj. 4. Two modeling platforms were attempted to generate a predictive model. The first was a downscaled landscape evolution model. Difficulties arose with obtaining the input data. Although the State of MS had planned to update their LiDAR dataset, this collection was delayed indefinitely. As an alternative, digital surface models generated from unmanned aerial systems were attempted. The high resolution of this surfaces was a poor match for the model which was not designed for the large image file sizes. These surfaces were downscaled to reduce file size, but this led to another problem (which also isultimately what affected the other model attempted) - as these fields are land leveled to have only the slightest slope, they struggled to model movement of sediment as an essentially flat slope creates powerful incentive for sediment particles to remain in place in these models. The other model attempted was RUSLEr in collaboration with ARS scientists. At the end, the results were highly suspect, and their experience suggested it was owing to the lack of slope. Obj 5. Extension products arising from this project included 3 field days, 1 producer listening session, 1 economic model for producers, and 4 webinars. It additionally generated 3 conference abstracts, 2 theses, and what will be 3 peer-reviewed journal articles. Through this process, the project team built a relationship with influential producers and had the opportunity to interact with agency personnel and other stakeholders to share the knowledge obtained from this project.
Publications
|
Progress 04/01/20 to 03/31/21
Outputs
Target Audience:With the limitation on face-to-face meetings our audience engagement was largely limited to academic audiences at professional conferences (held virtually). Following the easing of some travel and meeting restrictions, Dr. Baker was able to conduct a few one-on-one visits with participating producers, but this was quite limited. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The graduate student at Mississippi State University supported on this project successfully defended his thesis research related to the project. He graduated the following semester and began a Ph.D. in a similar research area at Virginia Tech. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results were disseminated via scientific publication and presentation generally due to limited Extension opportunities. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Goals for the remaining period of performance include submission of water quality results for publication, analysis and submission of soil property and sediment modeling results for publication, and one final Extension effort to transfer knowledge to stakeholders.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
IMPACT:We have demonstrated that adaptive management of cover crops in our corn and soybean production systems under minimal tillage can reduce the yield gap associated with practice changethat was observed in the first year of study. Reducing the yield gap is essential if wewant producers to adopt this conservation practice because the economic losses can make such practices unattractive. By making changes procedures associated with termination of cover crops and planting of cash crops, we improved the economic return from what was observedin 2019. Note that these returns do not account for financial assistance programs that could be used to offset these losses. We also saw decreases in water use, which while not statistically significant, would however be meaningful to producers. Obj 1. Improvements to soil properties. All soil data have been collected and are awaiting analysis. Obj. 2. Economic benefits This work was completed and reported in Badon et al. 2021 (see publications list). Obj. 3. Surface water quality This work was completed and is being prepared for submission for peer review (expected July 2021). Obj. 4. Long-term outcomes All management plans were created for use with the WebSim version of RUSLEr, created by USDA ARS. Working with Dr. Dalmo Viera we were able to run this model to compare sediment outflows from treated versus untreated fields and compare the results with collected field samples. Some inconsistencies were noted and more work is underway to identify the cause of these inconsistencies. Obj. 5. Extension and outreach With the lingering health crisis, Extension activities have not been allowed beyond webinars and other digital, remote means. Therefore we have been unable to host a field day as planned during the reporting period.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
Badon, T. B., Prince Czarnecki, J. M., Krutz, L. J., Shockley, J. M., & Baker, B. H. (2021). Cover crop and minimum tillage effects on yield, irrigation water use, and net returns. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment, 4(2), e20158. https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20158
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2020
Citation:
Badon, T. B., Prince Czarnecki, J. M., Shockley, J. M., & Hill, M. (2020, July 27). Yield and economic assessment of a cover crop/minimum tillage practice in Mid-South corn/soybean rotation. 75th Soil and Water Conservation Society International Annual Conference, Virtual.
- Type:
Theses/Dissertations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2020
Citation:
Badon, T. B. 2020. Agronomic, economic, and ecological response of corn and soybean production systems to winter cover cropping and minimum tillage management in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. MS Thesis, Mississippi State University.
|
Progress 04/01/19 to 03/31/20
Outputs
Target Audience:During the reporting period we engaged with both producer and professional stakeholders. We routinely interacted with producers in the field trials to gain access to property for sampling and to coordinate cover crop planting, termination, cash crop planting, and collecting yield data. In August (2019) we held a producer focus group meeting. The purpose of the focus group was two-fold. First, to present the collaborating producers with their customized water quality results. Second, to garner information from them regarding where they had questions, concerns, and suggestions about how we might make our reporting more accessible and useful to them. Also to determine where they were identifying an economic gains that we were overlooking with our economic analysis. We further presented preliminary results from water quality analysis at professional conferences in July (2019) and again in February (2020). Changes/Problems:As previously noted, the health crisis has impacted some plans for Extension activities, but we've made plans to move forward if the situation does not improve sufficiently to allow face-to-face contact. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results have been disseminated through the Extension activities mentioned under Objective 5, as well as the publications and products noted in those sections. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?With the current health crisis, plans for additional in-person stakeholder engagement are on hold. If we are unable to hold additional in-person meetings, we will develop plans for virtual options. Other Extension products to be developed include a popular article, podcast episode, and a webinar for extension agents, conservation professionals, and landowners. Following successful completion of a two Masters Theses, we will move forward with publication of peer-reviewed research to report results to the scientific community. We've also moved into the modelling phase and have begun preparing the data for modeling to determine how the collected data may be used for prediction of longer term effects.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
IMPACT: This project quantifies the benefits of transitioning from current row crop production practices in the mid-south US to a system that utilizes winter cover crops and minimizes tillage. The status quo system relies on multiple tillage passes and bare fields during the winter months. This has led to a reduction in soil quality due to compaction and a reduction in water quality due to unabated runoff from agriculture fields. Adoption of conservation practices has the potential to remediate both situations, but producers are sensitive to the economic considerations associated with any change in their farm management. While these practices have demonstrated success in other regions, few attempts have made to document their efficacy in the mid-South corn and soybean systems. Thus, research must be conducted to determine how these conservation practices can integrate into existing management programs and what benefits will be realized for the environment and the individual producer, both agronomically and economically. The outcome of this project is a demonstration of the role cover crops and minimum tillage can play in the current corn and soybean production systems of the mid-South. A successful demonstration will increase adoption of these practices where warranted, thus increasing the sustainability of these systems. Objective 1.Quantify improvements in soil physical, chemical, and biological properties due to incorporation of cover crops in mid-South production systems.Field study was concluded with the final cover crop terminated in spring 2020.Plant tissue samples were collected in-season for 2019 cash crop. Irrigation volumes were recorded for 2019 cash crop. Yield data were collected for 2019 cash crop. Soil samples were taken prior to planting of 2020 cash crop.For each individual site, the irrigation volume from the treatment side of the field was compared to the control side of the field. There were problems with the field equipment that monitored irrigation at some sites. Thus these results are from only a portion of the fields and should be interpreted with care. No differences were noted between treatment and control sides for irrigation water volume. This seems to indicate the soil water holding capacity may not have been significantly improved to allow reduction in irrigation water needed in the research fields. No improvements to irrigation water use efficiency were detected, however, this may have more to do with yield (which is part of the calculation) than water applied or soil physical status. No significant differences in yield were seen between treatment or control fields. Objective 2. Quantify economic benefits of incorporation of cover crops into mid-South production systems.Economic evaluation of the cover cropping system in the mid-South was completed by graduate students on the project.Economic data included seed cost, machinery costs, and grain crop prices were collected during this period.Cover cropping in the mid-South was not economically viable without government subsidy programs. Objective 3.Quantify surface water quality benefits of incorporation of cover crops into mid-South production systems.Field monitoring of water quality was concluded in March when the cover crops were removed from the fields. Edge-of-field water quality was sampled for nitrogen and phosphorus species, as well as sediment following precipitation events.Final data sets were subject to quality assurance and control, data cleaning, organization, analysis, and reporting were completed.For each individual site, the edge-of-field water quality from the treatment side of the field was compared to the control side of the field. Specific components of interest were total suspended solids (TSS), total inorganic phosphorus (TIP), total nitrogen (TN), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and nitrate-nitrite (NO3-NO2). The inclusion of a fall cover crop had no effect on TSS (p = 0.53), TIP (p = 0.30), or TN (p = 0.25) loads, but did reduce concentrations of TIP (p = 0.018), TN (p = 0.011), and NO3-NO2 (p = 0.007). Seasonal evaluation between treatments indicated observed differences to be greatest during the winter months, when cover crops were actively growing in the treatment fields. Concentration data indicate a potential for environmental degradation from nutrient- and sediment-laden runoff that could have downstream ecological consequences, despite beneficial reductions observed with conservation practice implementation. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously, as they are limited to their scope in space and time.Data suggest that cover crops and minimum tillage systems have the potential to reduce nutrient concentrations to downstream waters which would improve aquatic ecosystem health. While nutrient loads measured indicate that overall loading of nutrients (low concentrations in large amounts of surface discharge), would not be improved, and could still contribute negatively to waterbodies that may be vulnerable to eutrophication. Additionally, variability in nutrient transport also indicates that in-field sampling procedures may need to be refined to better capture the first nutrient flush, without impeding measurements where sedimentation/siltation from fields is likely. Objective 4.Synthesize data into long-term outcomes which inform future policies and programs.High-density hourly rainfall data and elevation data were obtained from external sources to support model development. Objective 5.Engage in effective extension and outreach to transition results to practice.A producer focus group meeting was held in August 2019 with collaborating producers. Producers were also asked to share their observational data so that the project team could get a better sense of the intangible costs and savings they were experiencing. Farmers expressed underlying concerns/perceived barriers in the following areas: How planting cover crops in relation to policy constraints within prevented planting and crop insurance guidelines; potential changes to RMA and if there will be crop insurance premium reductions for those growing cover crops How wet winters require getting cover crops out earlier in the spring to get fields prepped for planting Open acknowledgement that "CC may be more likely to work if you are trying for real instead of trying to get your payment". Some producers expressed discomfort planting green, while others with more experience were comfortable with it One grower noted a challenge of slugs in cover crop fields, no solution was available yet, the slugs were more prominent in soybean fields than corn fields Farmers also shared between them, management strategies to overcome challenges, and observational cover crop benefits: Utilizing row cleaners and ensuring planting precision helped to accommodate good emergence following cover crop implementation One grower noted that because he aimed for long cover crop growth and planting green, that he also adjusted his cash crop varieties to those of a shorter maturity to accommodate a shorter growing season Other farmers shared that even with a poor cover crop stand, the presence of pigweed was almost none One farmer aerial seeded cereal rye with moderate success Another farmer noted savings in herbicide and less weed pressure, and reducing irrigation events One farmer noted visual increase in earth worms, another noted a increase in loamy texture in one field One farmer experimentally reduced P and K on trial cover crop field The project team worked with one of the on-farm trial producers who is the most invested in his cover crop system and now has the most experience, to highlight his practices and experiential learning through his own on-farm trials. This exchange occurred in February 2020 and it was another Extension and educational opportunity for neighboring farms to see how an alternative system is working in the region.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Badon, T., Prince Czarnecki, J.M., Baker, B.H., Krutz, L.J., Hill, M., 2019. Reducing sediment concentrations from agricultural surface water runoff using winter cover crops. Presented at the Southern Region Water Conference, College Station, TX.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2020
Citation:
Badon, T., Czarnecki, J.M., Baker, B.H., 2020. Analyzing the effectiveness of winter cover cropping of reducing pollutant loads in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Presented at the American Society of Agronomy Southern Branch Annual Meeting, Louisville, KY.
|
Progress 04/01/18 to 03/31/19
Outputs
Target Audience: During the reporting period we engaged with stakeholders through field days which showcased results and recommendations following project progress. An outdoor/indoor field day was hosted in July 2018 with participants free to attend either or both segments of the field day. Because of potential difficulties with terrain and heat stress for some, having both portions was thought to improve the ability of individuals to attend without safety concerns. Attendance at the field day event included 51 non-project staff attendees, from 5 states, including 12 MS counties. Surveys collected indicated individuals managed approximately 82,000 acres, 7,000 of which were currently involved in cover cropping. In the outdoor portion, attendees were able to visit one of the study fields, with the entry point set at the dividing line between treatment and control portions of the field. This allowed the attendees to see differences in the physical development of the soybeans on each side. Two soil cores were pulled for examination and one of the advisory board members for this project, an NRCS Soil Scientist, was present to discuss differences between the soil and developments observed after 1 year. The farmer spoke about his experience over the year, sharing lessons learned, and observations from the season. Water quality results were also presented. Moving indoors, presentations were offered around the theme of planting. Presentations were offered covering variety selection, equipment selection, and considerations for "planting green." Most presentations were given by advisory board members. Another field day was held in March 2019. It was purely an indoor field day because weather had been challenging for some time, and bad weather could not be ruled out. The field day was hosted at the facility of Delta Precision, an equipment company offering precision planting equipment, as well as custom planting equipment. Topics for the day included an overview of the cash crop results from year 1 and lessons learned, presentation of new cover crop planting equipment options including customization opportunities, and finally the economic results from the year 1 and demonstration of the cover crop cost tool developed as part of this project. Attendance at the field day event included 20 non-project staff attendees, from 3 states. Surveys collected indicated individuals collectively managed approximately 31,000 acres, 8,300 of which were currently involved in cover cropping. Average respondent years of experience with planting cover crops was 1-5 years. 75% of respondents reported have additional conservation on their managed acres, including soil, water, nutrient and wildlife conservation. On Average, respondents reported increased knowledge related to topics discussed. Aside from field days, project staff presented in their capacity as Extension specialists. Dr. Shockley has given 6 presentations to approximately 500 attendees to showcase the economic aspects of cover crop systems, as well as a presentation at the North Central Farm Management conference. Changes/Problems:As indicated, with the wet winter, we had some difficulty in establishing covers on one field. Additionally, planting has been a hard fought battle with the torrential rains, late frosts, and heavy flooding in our study area. It will likely make for less than ideal data collection and quality. I believe we'll need to ask for a no-cost extension to complete tasks given the situation. Our collaborator, Dan Prevost, of Delta FARM, has taken another position. He still supports the project in his capacity at his new job, however, we are now working with JC Clements at Delta FARM to lead the farmer's advisory board and oversee many aspects of the field management on our sites. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Both Mississippi State University and University of Kentucky have supported graduate student education with project funds. The graduate student at MSU is conducted thesis research using data from Objective 3. The student's thesis will analyze water quality differences between cover and control, quantify differences in irrigation management between cover and control, and develop a rubric for categorizing economic vs. ecologic efficiency in these systems. The graduate student at UKY has developed the economic cost tool. This tool identifies the direct costs associated with planting cover crops, including seed costs, chemical costs, and labor/equipment costs. Having the expected per acre costs allows a producer to evaluate if there is room in the budget to introduce covers. The graduate student also presented this tool at the winter field day, and thus gained experience in communicating science to target audiences. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results have been disseminated through the two aforementioned field day opportunities and extension presentations. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The economic cost tool will be further improved by incorporation of areas of potential savings. Farmer focus group meetings will be conducted to elucidate where these savings are occuring so that they can be considered for inclusion in the tool to counterbalance costs. Additional Extension presentations will be given by project staff.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Objective 1. Agronomic benefits Using these funds, as well as other funds that were leveraged with this project, all fields were sampled on a 1-acre grid for 150 variables, including chemical and physical properties of the soil. Cash crop planting was conducted with Precision Planting Smart Firmer equipment, such that additional soil properties were captured across the field during planting. Fields were planting to cash crop immediately prior to the reporting period. Crop tissues were additionally sampled for micro and macro nutrients at five points during the growing season. Fields were scouted weekly during the cash crop season to document in-field issues. Corn fields were monitored for emergence. Some differences in emergence timing between covered and control sides of the test fields were observed. However, these differences did not result in statistically significant differences in yield due to emergence timing. That is not to say that yield did not differ between covered and control sides. In fact, yield was substantially lower in covered sides. Reasons for this difference are unique to each field site. Generally, corn fields were affected by plant debris in the furrow at planting. The residual cover crop interfered with planting, and the crop was behind from the onset. Legacy soil management within the field also impacted yields. At one site, field cuts from landleveling created an area with traditionally lower yields. By chance, that portion of the field is on the cover side, and when this area is removed from the calculation, the average yield increases by 20 bu/ac. In another field, the drainage ditch was modified and rodents, who had been harboring in the ditch, moved into the field and began eating the crop. Again, by chance, this was on the cover side of the field. For this reason, looking solely at yield doesn't tell the whole story, and it's important that the changes in soil properties be highlighted or the proposition for cover crop adoption will be limited. Following harvest of the cash crop, fields were again planted to covers for the winter. Unfortunately, frequent rains kept fields wet. We were not able to plant one of the study fields. Other options such as air seeding were considered, but even this approach was not feasible. In other fields, the wet conditions did not allow the cover crop to flourish. Biomass samples were collected to document the condition of each field, and aerial imagery was collected as well. Objective 2. Economic benefits Collection of the economic cost data from study sites was completed. The Excel-based economic cost tool was developed and beta tested with farmers and advisory board representatives. From there, the economic tool was presented to farmers during a the winter field day. In addition, the economic tool was utilized to determine the costs of implementing cover crops at the selected study sites and results were presented at a field day. The development and delivery of the economic tool was part of the objectives for the funded MS graduate student at UKY. Objective 3. Ecologic benefits Data collection continued on the six established farms (12 paired sampling sites). In addition to the 90 samples collected during the first reporting period, approximately 68 additional samples have been collected through the first quarter of 2019, when data was summarized. Samples are continually collected, analysis, and added to the ongoing database. All samples were collected, delivered to the lab, and processed by the MSU team. Water quality analysis is on schedule, data management is ongoing. Objective 4. Long-term outcomes Data from the first year of study have been compiled for broader analysis. A systems analysis was conducted to determine what natural clusters existing within the data. The results of this analysis indicated that data were (as expected) well separated between corn and soybean fields, and site (i.e., individual producer) was not a significant factor. A geodatabase framework was created to house all data for future analysis, and to serve as scalable long-term storage for project data. The LiDAR data necessary for the 10-year horizon model has been delayed in its release from the State. To address this, an alternative will be to use the elevation information collected by the planting equipment. Objective 5. Extension and outreach As indicated, field days were held in winter and summer to provide outreach to landowners and other interested audiences. Advisory board members were involved in efforts at both field days to maintain relevance of materials presented to our two stakeholder groups (producers and professionals). In addition, six county and statewide extension presentation were completed in Kentucky highlighting the economics of cover crops and promoting the excel based economic tool. Finally, a cover crop pocket guide for producers in the mid-south is being developed and we expect the document to go out for internal and external review by August 2019.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Shockley, Jordan. 2018. Economics of cover crops. Presentation at the 2018 North Central Farm Management annual conference.
|
Progress 04/01/17 to 03/31/18
Outputs
Target Audience:During the reporting period, we engaged with stakeholders through field days hosted on research sites. Many of the attendees were research personnel from other agencies and universities who have their own cover crop research programs. At our field day near Rolling Fork, MS, we were able to demonstrate several benefits of cover crops due to weather. We had a rare snow in Mississippi which left the bare fields too frozen to dig demonstration holes. Once they were warmed by the sun, the field turned quite muddy. In contrast, soil temperatures were warmer in the cover cropped field and no one had muddy boots following their trip into the field. It was not a planned demonstration, but it served as another demonstration of the visible benefits of cover crops. We asked one of our Advisory Board members to address the group and she capitalized on this situation nicely and added it to her planned discussion. Dr. Baker and our collaborator at Delta FARM, Mr. Dan Prevost, have attended multiple meetings with state agency personnel. They have promoted the project within these circles, and have had additional resources committed to support establishment of more test sites. One of the comments from our review panel was a desire to see more sites, and thanks to their efforts and other funding sources, this will be possible. Additionally, reviewers felt that additional soil data and more soil sample sites would add to the validity of results. We have increased the density of soil sampling, and leveraged efforts with other research teams to obtain more soil parameters. The buy-in from researchers and agencies working in the same arena with similar goals is encouraging and will exponentially improve the reach and impact of this project. Changes/Problems:As we were awarded in April, our cover/cash crop cycle is out of phase with the funding and reporting cycle. We'll likely need a no cost extension to conclude the project as we'll be going into our last cash crop cycle at the time the project officially ends. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?One MS level student began working on the project in January. Additionally, undergraduate student labor and a University-funded Extension Associate have been instrumental in preparing field sites, equipment installation and maintenance, and collecting samples. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Project design and goals were shared at the initial field with attending stakeholders. Dr. Baker also presented project goals and initial findings at three SARE-funded Cover Crop field days. These events were held at a REACH research farm outside of this particular project on February, 23rd where 40 different stakeholders attended, and at SARE-funded cover crop field days hosted by MSU Extension Agronomist, Bill Burdine, outside of Starkville, MS, on April 5, 2018, and in Thorn, MS, on April 12. The project was also highlighted during presentations at two soil health meetings hosted by Louisiana State University in January 2018. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?In the next reporting year, we will establish and manage our cash crop. The crop will be harvested and cover crops replanted. A full cycle of cover and cash crop data will allow us to move ahead with impact reporting to our stakeholders. Additionally, a MS level graduate student will begin work at Mississippi State University in support of this project. We will also hold our first board meeting to receive feedback from representatives of our two target audiences. With their guidance, we will disseminate messages that resonate with their peers.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Impact: We have had $1.46M in additional funding and in-kind effort added to this project. Our professional stakeholders have invested themselves in this project. We have never had a better opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of cover crops in our mid-South production systems. Overall: Under the terms of our award, 6 research sites were developed. The farms are located along Hwy 61 between Rolling Fork and Clarksdale, Mississippi. All farms are in a corn and soybean rotation. Field sizes range from 30 to 80 acres. All fields were divided in half for study, which addresses another reviewer comment about the effects of previous management on results. One half was selected as control and the other for treatment. Collaborators at Delta FARM assisted producers with pipe installation, where necessary, to ensure proper field drainage for research. Cover crops were established with a no-till drill between Oct 15 and 22. Again, addressing reviewer comments, all fields received the same mix. The cover crop mix included cereal rye (20lb/ac), black seeded oats (20lb/ac), vetch (4lb/ac), and Austrian winter field pea (4lb/ac). Objective 1. Two fields going into corn had their cover crops terminated at planting, while cover crops in one field were terminated 4 weeks prior to planting. Corn was planted between March 23 and 26. All fields were soil sampled from 0-6 and 6-12 inches on a 1-acre grid, and samples were sent to 2 soil labs for standard nutrient analysis using Mehlic 3 and Lancaster extraction methods. Additional sampling at 0-3 and 3-6 inches was conducted by a collaborating researcher for microbial testing and soil texture analysis. Cover crops on two fields going into soybean will be terminated at planting, while one field was terminated 4 weeks prior to planned planting date. Soybean fields are on schedule to be planted by April 20. After review panel request and discussion by the research team, cover crop biomass data were also collected at the time of cash crop planting. Samples were collected in 1/2m^2 areas on a 1-ac grid. Unmanned aerial systems were also used to obtain percent cover for cover crop stand. Progress is in accordance with work plan. Objective 2. The University of Kentucky secured a MS level student to who began working on the project January 2018. Exhaustive literature review on cover crop economics is underway. Budget development is underway to develop a cover crop budget which features combinations of costs for planting and termination of cover crops. As cost information has become available related to this project specifically, this information has been transferred to UKy. Progress is in accordance with work plan. Objective 3. All sites were instrumented with water quality sampling equipment. Equipment is designed to sample field runoff for personnel collection and transport to MSU Water Quality Laboratory for nutrient analysis and calculation of concentrations and loads of N species, P species, and suspended solids. Telemetery systems have been developed to provide results to researchers and producers within 48 hours. Over 80 samples from 11 precipitation events have been collected. Progress is in accordance with work plan. Objective 4. Data compilation has begun. Awaiting soil test results and economic data to move forward. Progress is in accordance with work plan. Objective 5. All activities and events were conducted and attended as planned. A field day was hosted at one of the on-farm experimental fields near Rolling Fork, MS. Despite inclement weather, 19 professionals attended from agencies including Mississippi State University, USDA-NRCS, USDA-ARS, Louisiana State University, Delta FARM, and producers. Twelve surveys were returned following the workshop, which included data related to conservation delivery and adoption, knowledge gained, relevance of field day material, and feedback for content revision prior to the summer field day. Planning for the summer field day is underway. Progress is in accordance with work plan.
Publications
|
|