Progress 09/01/22 to 08/31/23
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience reached through this reporting period include team members at Universities that were added to the team to strengthen our project expertise for our second CAP proposal submission. These include 2additional University scientists (research faculty) to join the full project team. The University team this annual cycle was comprised in total of 17 resarch and Extension faculty and staff across horticulture and plant and soil sciences from 11 Land Grant Universities in theEastern US, all with active high tunnel programs that were networked as a function of this project.We continued to engage our project advisory board, assembled during the last project reporting period which included6 experienced high tunnel producers representing conventional and organic farms, one director of an NGO training beginning farmer in Appalachia (Grow Appalachia, largely educationally and economically disadvantaged clientele), one direct of beginning farmer training for newly immigrated US farmers in the Upper Midwest (largely underrepresented minorities), and one mentoring women farmers in the Upper South. Changes/Problems:Unfortunately our project was not selected for funding in the 2023SCRI competition. This was a setback and our second rejection. As such, the team has continued to meet and is committed to coordinated, multi-regional research and Extension work in the area of sustaining soil health and productivity in high tunnels. The team is strategizing to break the project into smaller components and submit pieces to the SCRI and OREI programs, and explore additional funding pathways. It is a disappointing outcome after over three years of work but the networks developed out of this project will serve the project team and the specialty crop industry as a whole in the future. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The extensive network of collaborators and stakeholders has aided in the development of professional networks for all project team members. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We plan to submit the review paper for publication.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Objective 1&3. During this reporting period, information from activities in all grant objectives conducted during the previous two reporting periods were used to inform the development and submission of a CAP proposal to the SCRI program in 2023(Proposal No. 2023-05682, A Soils-Centered Approach to Sustaining High Tunnel Production, Project Director: David Butler). Unfortunately the proposal was not selected for fundingin 2023. We were able to meet in person for a planning grant meeting (Obj. 3) with University team members, having been in good contact over the past few years with advisory board members over the past two years. Objective 2. A review document that synthesizes information literature findings and interviews with key stakeholder informants (producers, farm service providers, NGO's) is in preparation for submission to an industry-relevant, peer-reviewed journal (e.g. HortTechnology).
Publications
|
Progress 09/01/20 to 08/31/23
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience reached through this project included 30 experienced high tunnel producers interviewed through case study and focus groups, including 6 in New England, 7 in the Great Lakes region, 11 in the Upper South and 6 in the Deep South. Stakeholders with policy interest in the project include Natural Resource Conservation Service state leadership (State Conservationists and/or Agronomists) were reached in 25 states through survey efforts (out of 31 invited) and 14 of these respondents (or their delegates) joined in a stakeholder listening session as part of our planning grant meeting efforts. Among this NRCS representation include three staff members representing NRCS National, Regional and State leadership in soil health roles that were recruited for the project advisory board. Stakeholders supporting high tunnel producers include eleven soil testing lab directors in 10 states in the eastern US were also convened in a focus group as part of our planning grant meeting efforts. Additional team members at Universities were also reached to strengthen our project expertise for a full proposal submission. These include 17additional University scientists (research and Extension faculty) to join the full project, and 1 additional to join the project advisory team. Additional advisory board members include audiences of 6 experienced high tunnel producers representing conventional and organic farms, one director of an NGO training beginning farmer in Appalachia (Grow Appalachia, largely educationally and economically disadvantaged clientele), one direct of beginning farmer training for newly immigrated US farmers in the Upper Midwest (largely underrepresented minorities), and one mentoring women farmers in the Upper South. Additionally, specialty crop producers and technical assistance providers were also engaged through conference presentations by project personnel throughout the project timeline. Changes/Problems:The primary change in this project and our proposed work plan reflects a shift to pandemic-era project implementation. This project was proposed during the waning pre-COVID days in 2019, and as such, our planning grant proposal included inperson stakeholder feedback and planning grant-meeting activities. We were fortunate to have been able to press on with our activities through this work, and to actually leverage the shift to online meetings to expand our initial project audience to include producers and agricultural professionals that may not attend the same professional meetings in-person, and bring these folks into the conversation via online meeting formats. The increasedregional buy-in from NRCS state leadership, soil testing lab directors, and HT producers in each region was an unexpected and positive outcome. We were somewhat delayed in beginning our producer focus groups and case studies due to delays in securing IRB approvals from all institutions with team members participating. This ended up being a minor delay, but did reduce our overall number of case study interviews. We also modified our number of case study interviews, as we found their primary utility was learning of the unique problems each highly experienced HT producer had, which was often very specific to their site and management. As such, we found more generalizable conclusions in the focus groups. Aside from shifts in process, the major problem to note with this final report was that our proposals were not successfully funded. Feedback from the review panels noted the proposals were well-crafted, but did not rise to high enough priority for funding. This project team and our stakeholder advisory board persists in maintaining the importance of the issue of sustaining soil health in high tunnels for producers, the specialty crop industry, and for the significant government (NRCS) investment in these systems. As such, as we close this project, the team is actively pivoting to additional grant programs and alternative ways to fund this work. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Literature review activities (Objective 2) provided one undergraduate worker (Brianna Stanley) and one research technician (Ryan Lark) training in literature review techniques and reference management, and one PhD student an opportunity take lead authorship on the synthesis document (Jacques Fils Pierre). These training activities were provided through one-on-one mentoring from PD Jacobsen. Professional development activities were offered to producers and technical support providers through conference presentations at the Organic Association of Kentucky Annual Conferences in 2022 and 2023 by project personnel (detailed in Other Products). Finally, through this work and interdisciplinary collaboration, members of the project team gained professional development through learning from each other's expertise. For example, our plant scientists gained a better understanding of underlying soil properties and processes in high tunnel environments, and similarly, soil scientists gained increased understanding of the above-ground processes (plant management) driving soil issues in tunnels. This experience and cross-talk informed our existing individual high tunnel research and Extension programs, apart from the work of this proposal process. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results of our planning activities were shared with a portion of the project advisory board at the planning grant meeting in summer 2021. The feedback from reviewers from the 2022 proposal were shared with the advisory board, and their feedback further informed our 2023 proposal. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?As the project closes, we plan to continue to disseminate and investigate this important area of need for the specialty crop industry. We will publish our review/synthesis paper. Further, after our unsuccessful second attempt at the SCRI CAP proposal, the team decided a better strategy for addressing this work is to perhaps break it into smaller projects. Members of the project team are activitely strategizing and applying for SCRI and other applicable USDA grant programs to address the objectives of this project in smaller, more targeted approaches.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
The primary goal of engaging in a comprehensive planning process to summarize the state of the science, stakeholder need, and assemble a multidisciplinary team of research and Extension scientists to prepare a SCRI proposal was accomplished. As detailed in our annual reports, although our planning process was altered due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the team grew from this initial planning group to a regionally and professionally diverse group of 17 scientists at 11 institutions with active high tunnel programs in the Eastern US. We submitted two SCRI CAP proposals for the 2022 and 2023 competitions. Unfortunately, neither of these proposals were funded. However, as we discuss below, this planning grant process has yielded substantial professional networking opportunities for this team and new collaborations that will extend beyond the lifetime of the project, including planned SCRI and OREI proposal submissions in 2024. Accomplishments specific to the planning grant objectives for this final report are summarized below: Objecitve 1: Producer Case Studies and Focus Groups.In the spring and early summer of 2021, we conducted 4 focus groups that included nearly 30 experienced high tunnel producers spanning regions across the eastern US (Great Lakes, New England, Upper South and Deep South) and three in-depth case studies (Great Lakes, Upper South, Deep South). This research process was conducted with IRB approval at all participating institutions, and led by co-PD Woods, who compiled emergent themes. These interviews provided us with a broad and representative perspective on the challenges producers face in sustaining production in their high tunnels. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and were facilitated by at least one plant/soils scientist and one agricultural economist with one additional note taker from the research team.Across all regions, soilborne diseases and fertility were the most noted production challenges. Specifically, nearly every producer indicated total soil salinity or nutrient imbalances impacted crops, especially tomatoes with impacts on both marketable yield and fruit size. Soil testing was widely practiced, but tests tailored to HT systems and subsequent best management approaches from results were variable. Most producers agreed that soil testing services available to them were inadequate for their purposes, and prioritized research needs on selection of fertilizer amendments and interpretation and management guidance based on soil test results. Disease issues that were problematic in all focus group regions included Sclerotinia affecting lettuces and other crops. Southern blight and downy mildew were also problematic pathogens for southern growers, while Rhizoctonia was cited more widely by northern growers. Overall, the experienced growers that we interviewed have developed effective HT management systems specific for their farms, soils, and crop rotations. The most experienced growers had developed soil health-oriented practices over time, and in response to management challenges (salinity, pests, and diseases). However, they expressed challenges that were unique to HT systems and a need for additional research and extension support. Further, producers notes that high tunnels were risk management tools that allowed for a stable production and reliable income in established systems. However, the economic reliance on high tunnels by some producers make it difficult for even large growers to take tunnels out of production for 'sustainable control' practices. This may be especially true for smaller growers with fewer tunnels. From these results our team posits that there is an established need for improved decision support tools for fertility management, additional research on sustainable control methods for soilborne diseases and pests, and that technical support solutions should also be evaluated with production economics firmly embedded in any natural science-related studies. Finally, we noted there is significant opportunity for community building and peer-to-peer networking in HT producer communities. This desire for community building greatly informed ourExtension approach in our full grant proposals. Objective 2:Synthesis document. The data collection for the synthesis document has been completed during this reporting period. This includes the findings from our producer interviews and stakeholder roundtables, survey of NRCS state leadership, and a comprehensive literature review of 75 peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles, and 50 public-facing Extension documents. A manuscript is in preparation at the time of this writing and is in the 90% completion phase. The intention is to submit to a producer and technical support-facing peer-reviewed journal (e.g. HortTechnology) to serve as a "state of the science" and knowledge gaps that were synthesized as a result of this project and review. Objective 3:Planning grant meeting.Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we significantly altered our planning grant organizational and meeting structure, which was robust over the duration of this project and our attempts to obtain funding. In lieu of the original in-person planning grant meeting we proposed, we conducted our initial planning grant meeting from June 29 - July 1, 2021 via Zoom. We altered the format to Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic but were able to bring in a broader group of stakeholders than we would have been able to due to the format. We expanded the meeting to three half-days to avoid Zoom fatigue and included synthesis of our planning activities to date (Day 1), stakeholder roundtables with NRCS state leadership, soil testing lab directors, and private consultants (Day 2), and a planning session with draft objectives (Day 3). The planning grant meeting was recorded on Zoom and packaged into summary notes by sessions with videos of the sessions available to the full team and advisory board (these are itemized and listed in the "Other Products" section of this report). In preparation of our re-submission for the 2023 SCRI competition, we held a hybrid meeting in Lexington, Kentucky on February 26-27, 2023. This meeting was primarily for project personnel to meet and re-envision and re-tool project objectives and methods for the re-submission.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
2023. High Tunnel Management with Matt Kleinhenz, Paul Wiediger, and Annette Wszelsaki. Organic Association of Kentucky Annual Conference. January 26-28, 2023, Frankfort, KY. Pre-Conference Workshop January 26, 2023.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2022
Citation:
2022. Sustaining Soil Health in High Tunnels. Presenter Krista Jacobsen. Organic Association of Kentucky Annual Conference. March 17-18, 2022, Hopkinsville, KY.
|
Progress 09/01/21 to 08/31/22
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience reached through this reporting period include team members at Universities that were added to the teamto strengthen our project expertise for ourfull proposal submission. These include 6 additional University scientists (research and Extension faculty) to join the full project, and 1 additional to join the project advisory team. Additional advisory board members include audiences of 6 experienced high tunnel producers representing conventional and organic farms, one director of an NGO training beginning farmer in Appalachia (Grow Appalachia, largely educationally and economically disadvantaged clientele), one direct of beginning farmer training for newly immigrated US farmers in the Upper Midwest (largely underrepresented minorities), and one mentoring women farmers in the Upper South. Changes/Problems:Unfortunately our project was not selected for funding in the 2022 SCRI competition. This was a setback, but the team has re-grouped and is preparing for another submission for the 2023 competition. Project Director Jacobsen felt the proposal needed new leadership and a fresh perspective to improve the competitiveness of the proposal. Project leadership (PD, co-PD) roles for the 2023 proposal will reside at the Univ. of Tennessee (co-PD Wszelaki and PD Butler) who have been engaged and providing leadership throughout the proposal process. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The project offered the opportunity for the graduate student assisting the project director to take primary authorship role on the literature review in preparation, with the support of the PD and team. The extensive network of collaborators and stakeholders has aided in the development of professional networks for all project team members. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We plan to submit the review paper for publication during this reporting period. Additionally, we plan to prepare another proposal for submission in the 2023 SCRI competition.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Objective 1-3. During this reporting period, information from activities in all grant objectives conducted during the previous reporting period were used to inform the development and submission of a CAP proposal to the SCRI program in 2022 (Proposal No. 2022-05315, High Tunnels from the Ground Up: A Soils-Centered Approach to Sustaining High Tunnel Production, Project Director: Krista Jacobsen). Unfortunately the proposal was not selected for funding, but the team and extensive stakeholder engagement persisted and decided to pursue an application for in 2023. Objective 2. A review document that synthesizes informationliterature findings andinterviews with key stakeholder informants (producers, farm service providers, NGO's) is in preparation for submission to an industry-relevant, peer-reviewed journal (e.g. HortTechnology).
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2022
Citation:
Rudolph, R., R. Lark, and K. Jacobsen. (2022). Soil Salinity in High Tunnel Production. CCD-FS-24. Lexington, KY: Center for Crop Diversification, University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, Food and Environment. Available: http://www.uky. edu/ccd/sites/www.uky.edu.ccd/files/soilsalinity.pdf
|
Progress 09/01/20 to 08/31/21
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience reached through this reporting period include 30 experienced high tunnel producers interviewed through case study and focus groups, including 6 in New England, 7 in the Great Lakes region, 11 in the Upper South and 6 in the Deep South. Stakeholders with policy interest in the project include Natural Resource Conservation Service state leadership (State Conservationists and/or Agronomists) were reached in 25 states through survey efforts (out of 31 invited) and 14 of these respondents (or their delegates) joined in a stakeholder listening session as part of our planning grant meeting efforts. Among this NRCS representation include three staff members representing NRCS National, Regional and State leadership in soil health roles that were recruited for the project advisory board. Stakeholders supporting high tunnel producers include eleven soil testing lab directors in 10 states in the eastern US were also convened in a focus group as part of our planning grant meeting efforts. Additional team members at Universities were also reached to strengthen our project expertise for a full proposal submission. These include 6 additional University scientists (research and Extension faculty) to join the full project, and 1 additional to join the project advisory team. Additional advisory board members include audiences of 6experienced high tunnel producers representing conventional and organic farms, one director of an NGO training beginning farmer in Appalachia (Grow Appalachia, largely educationally and economically disadvantaged clientele), one direct of beginning farmer training for newly immigrated US farmers in the Upper Midwest (largely underrepresented minorities), and one mentoring women farmers in the Upper South. Changes/Problems:The primary change in this project and our proposed work plan reflects a shift to pandemic-era project implementation. This project was proposed during the waning pre-COVID days in 2019, and as such, our planning grant proposal included in-person stakeholder feedback and planning grant-meeting activities. We are so fortunate to have been able to press on with our activities through this work, and to actually leverage the shift to online meetings to expand our initial project audience to include producers and agricultural professionals that may not attend the same professional meetings in-person, and bring these folks into the conversation via online meeting formats. The increases regional buy-in from NRCS state leadership, soil testing lab directors, and HT producers in each region was an unexpected and positive outcome. We were somewhat delayed in beginning our producer focus groups and case studies due to delays in securing IRB approvals from all institutions with team members participating. This ended up being a minor delay, but did reduce our overall number of case study interviews. We also modified our number of case study interviews, as we found their primary utility was learning of the unique problems each highly experienced HT producer had, which was often very specific to their site and management. As such, we found more generalizable conclusions in the focus groups. With the shift to an online planning process with no physical meeting at this time, our project expenses have been greatly reduced compared to the initial travel-heavy budget initially proposed. We received a one year project extension and are leaving the option of an in-person meeting open, depending on how our 2022 proposal fares in review. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Literature review activities provided one undergraduate worker (Brianna Stanley) and one research technician (Ryan Lark) training in literature review techniques and reference management. These activities were provided through one-on-one mentoring from PD Jacobsen. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results of our planning activities were shared with a portion of the project advisory board at the planning grant meeting in summer 2021. The project planning results will be shared with reviewers at the SRS and full proposal stages in the 2022 project proposal cycle. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We will continue to work with our advisory board and project team to develop a proposal for the 2022 funding cycle. We plan to continue work on the literature review document for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in 2022 as well.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
In our one-year progress to date, we have assembled a project team including research and extension faculty from 10 universities, leading high tunnel (HT) production research and technical support, to guide a SCRI CAP proposal for the 2022 funding cycle. We have assembled and have a committed project advisory board with broad representation of HT stakeholders, including: 6 leading HT producers from across the project regions; 3 NGO farmer-educators supporting HT production training for underrepresented minorities in agriculture; 2 industry representatives; 1 University Extension educator; and 3 NRCS representatives including 2 national and regional soil health leads and one State Agronomist who oversees the NRCS HT Initiative program. We have conducted a suite of planning grant activities, including IRB-approved farmer focus groups and case studies, stakeholder listening sessions, and broad coalition building among technical support providers. We have conducted a comprehensive literature review that includes all resources we could identify in peer-reviewed literature, Extension publications, and industry resources. This work represents the broadest stakeholder and coalition building around HTs that has existed to date, as far as we are aware. From these efforts, we have learned that there is a tremendous need for support for HT producers, and that there is "low hanging fruit" in connecting our local NRCS agents with Extension to support HT producers in sustaining soil health and crop production across the life cycle of their tunnels. This technical training and network building will ensure the policy impact of the significant investment the agency has placed in HTs across the country. Similarly, we have found that soil testing lab directors are seeing a great need for soil testing packages that capture the unique nutrient dynamics and crop production needs in HTs, which differ from the open field after only a few years in production. Through literature synthesis and assembling a team of soil ecologists, horticulturalists, irrigation specialists and agricultural economists, we have identified key knowledge gaps in soil processes in HTs, key practices producers are using to solve unique problems with little technical guidance, and the vast lack of knowledge on the economic costs and benefits of sustaining soil health in HTs. In summary, the impact of this work has been to illuminate the great need for this work across the greater universe of agricultural researchers, Extension and technical support providers to better understand and support sustained production in HTs through stewardship of the soil resources upon which production depends. Preliminary case study and producer focus groups. In the spring and early summer of 2021, we conducted 4 focus groups that included nearly 30 experienced high tunnel producers spanning regions across the eastern US (Great Lakes, New England, Upper South and Deep South) and three in-depth case studies (Great Lakes, Upper South, Deep South). These interviews provided us with a broad and representative perspective on the challenges producers face in sustaining production in their high tunnels. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and were facilitated by at least one plant/soils scientist and one agricultural economist with one additional note taker from the research team. The general themes that emerged were compiled by Co-PD Woods. Across all regions, soilborne diseases and fertility were the most noted production challenges. Specifically, nearly every producer indicated total soil salinity or nutrient imbalances impacted crops, especially tomatoes with impacts on both marketable yield and fruit size. Soil testing was widely practiced, but tests tailored to HT systems and subsequent best management approaches from results were variable. Most producers agreed that soil testing services available to them were inadequate for their purposes, and prioritized research needs on selection of fertilizer amendments and interpretation and management guidance based on soil test results. Disease issues that were problematic in all focus group regions included Sclerotinia affecting lettuces and other crops. Southern blight and downy mildew were also problematic pathogens for southern growers, while Rhizoctonia was cited more widely by northern growers. Overall, the experienced growers that we interviewed have developed effective HT management systems specific for their farms, soils, and crop rotations. The most experienced growers had developed soil health-oriented practices over time, and in response to management challenges (salinity, pests, and diseases). However, they expressed challenges that were unique to HT systems and a need for additional research and extension support. Further, producers notes that high tunnels were risk management tools that allowed for a stable production and reliable income in established systems. However, the economic reliance on high tunnels by some producers make it difficult for even large growers to take tunnels out of production for 'sustainable control' practices. This may be especially true for smaller growers with fewer tunnels. From these results our team posits that there is an established need for improved decision support tools for fertility management, additional research on sustainable control methods for soilborne diseases and pests, and that technical support solutions should also be evaluated with production economics firmly embedded in any natural science-related studies. Finally, we noted there is significant opportunity for community building and peer-to-peer networking in HT producer communities. This desire for community building is informing our Extension approach in our full grant proposal in development. Synthesis document. The data collection for the synthesis document has been completed during this reporting period. This includes the findings from our producer interviews and stakeholder roundtables, survey of NRCS state leadership, and a comprehensive literature review of 75peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles, and 50public-facing Extension documents. After discussion with soil testing lab directors, including a new addition to our project team, we opted not to collect high tunnel soil sample data as there was not a consistent methodology for doing so across states and testing labs. However, through speaking with subject matter experts (testing lab directors, Extension faculty, private consultants), we have identified common issues with high tunnel soils across the eastern US. These include high pH, low potassium levels, high phosphorus levels, and cation imbalances including elevated magnesium and calcium. A manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal (likely HortTechnology) is in preparation. Planning grant meeting. We conducted our planning grant meeting from June 29 - July 1, 2021 via Zoom. We altered the format to Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic but were able to bring in a broader group of stakeholders than we would have been able to due to the format. We expanded the meeting to three half-days to avoid Zoom fatigue and included synthesis of our planning activities to date (Day 1), stakeholder roundtables with NRCS state leadership, soil testing lab directors, and private consultants (Day 2), and a planning session with draft objectives (Day 3). The planning grant meeting was recorded on Zoom and packaged into summary notes by sessions with videos of the sessions available to the full team and advisory board (these are itemized and listed in the "Other Products" section of this report).
Publications
|