Kernza® intermediate wheatgrass [Thinopyrum intermedium (Host) Barkworth & Dewey], the first perennial grain crop to come to market in North America, can provide a number of ecosystem services when integrated into cropping systems that are dominated by annual grain crops. However, grain yield from Kernza is lower than comparable annual cereal crops such as wheat and oats. Also, although Kernza is a long-lived perennial that can persist for decades, grain yield tends to decline over time as Kernza stands age leading most farmers to replant or rotate to a different crop after 3–5 yrs. Increased intraspecific competition as stand density increases with age has been reported to cause grain yield declines. We investigated the effect of strip-tillage applied at two different timings, between the third and fourth grain harvests, from a Kernza stand in upstate New York. Strip-tillage applied in late fall as plants were entering dormancy increased grain yield by 61% when compared to the control treatment without strip-tillage. However, total crop biomass was not reduced resulting in a greater harvest index for the fall strip-tillage treatment. Strip-tillage applied before stem elongation the following spring reduced overall tiller density and total crop biomass but did not impact tiller fertility or grain yield compared to the control treatment without strip-tillage. Increased grain yield in the fall strip-tillage treatment was due to an increase in the percentage of tillers that produced mature seedheads. This suggests that grain yield decline over time is at least partially caused by competition between tillers in dense stands. Results support further research and development of strip-tillage and other forms of managed disturbance as tools for maintaining Kernza grain yield over time.

Growing winter cereal rye (Secale cereale) (WCR) has been identified as an effective in-field practice to reduce nitrate-N and phosphorus (P) losses to Upper Mississippi River Basin, USA. In the Midwestern USA, growers are reluctant to plant WCR especially prior to corn (Zea mays L.) due to N immobilization and establishment issues. Precision planting of WCR or ‘skipping the corn row’ (STCR) can minimize some issues associated with WCR ahead of corn while reducing cover crop seed costs. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of ‘STCR’ vs normal planting of WCR at full seeding rate (NP) on WCR biomass, nutrient uptake and composition in three site-yrs (ARC2019, ARC2020, BRC2020). Our results indicated no differences in cover crop dry matter biomass production between the STCR (2.40 Mg ha−1) and NP (2.41 Mg ha−1) supported by similar normalized difference vegetative index and plant height for both treatments. Phosphorus, potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) accumulation in aboveground biomass was only influenced by site-yr and both STCR and NP removed similar amount of P, K, Ca and Mg indicating STCR could be as effective as NP in accumulating nutrients. Aboveground carbon (C) content (1086.26 kg h−1 average over the two treatments) was similar between the two treatments and only influenced by site-yr differences. Lignin, lignin:N and C:N ratios were higher in STCR than NP in one out of three site-yrs (ARC2019) indicating greater chance of N immobilization when WCR was planted later than usual. Implementing STCR saved $8.4 ha−1 for growers and could incentivize growers to adopt this practice. Future research should evaluate corn response to STCR compared with NP and assess if soil quality declines by STCR practice over time.

Pollination services are critical for food production. Although domesticated honey bees are important pollinators in agriculture, there is growing interest in supporting naturally occurring wild bees. Diversifying pollination management strategies by encouraging healthy wild bee communities may be especially useful for growers of insect-pollinated crops, such as apples. Although research has identified several land management practices that can enhance local pollinator communities on farms, there are few studies on the factors that influence growers to adopt pollinator-supporting actions on their land. Here, we surveyed 75 Canadian apple growers and used regression models to explore the influence of farm characteristics and perceptions about bees on the likelihood of adopting 15 unique pollinator-supporting practices. We also provide a descriptive analysis of growers' pollination management practices and self-assessed resourcefulness on the ability to improve habitat for wild pollinators on the farm. We found that an increase in three variables: awareness of wild bees, perception of the severity of threats facing wild populations, and the perception of the benefits provided by wild bees is associated with more pollinator-supporting practices on the farm. Overall, growers were less likely to adopt pollinator-friendly practices as the fraction of rented land increased and as the perceived costs of implementing these practices rose. We found ‘low-hanging fruit’ (i.e., pollinator-supporting practices that could be easily and inexpensively implemented) were adopted by less than one-third of growers and that the majority of those surveyed had little to no knowledge on what actions to take if they wanted to improve their farms for wild bees or where to go for that knowledge. Our results suggest that policies and programs that focus on raising grower awareness of wild bees, increasing grower perception of their benefits, and reducing the perceived costs of implementing pollinator-supporting practices may positively affect their uptake. A deeper understanding of grower perceptions will provide essential insight into how growers may contribute to wild pollinator conservation while potentially increasing agricultural production and reducing vulnerability borne of heavy reliance on managed pollinators.

Combining cattle and sheep on the same farm can be a promising way for farmers to face uncertainties and produce in an agroecological manner. Previous studies showed benefits of mixed-species grazing on animal health and pasture use. However, few studies have examined how farmers truly manage the two species on their farms and why. The purpose of this study was to explore this issue by surveying 37 farmers who combined meat sheep and beef or dairy cattle on their farms. We chose a systemic and comprehensive approach to the functioning of mixed-species livestock farming systems (MSLF) by considering all dimensions of the system influenced by mixing species (i.e., system configuration, grazing, marketing of products, work and adaptive capacity) and by considering the farmers' viewpoints. The benefits of mixing species that farmers mentioned concerned economic stability and optimal use of grassland resources. Although farmers usually mentioned workload as a disadvantage, the facts are not so clear, and mixing species also benefits work. Farmers cited the pleasure of varied work and the flexibility of work organization. We identified four types of combining cattle and sheep on pasture that express a gradient of the interaction between the two species (from no to high interaction) and are influenced by field configuration (grouped or scattered) and cattle production (dairy or beef). Regarding work organization, ways to combine the two species concern distribution of work required for each species among workers (versatility or specialization) and over the year. Three modes of temporal organization of the work required for each species, which corresponded to different strategies for organizing animal-production cycles, the availability of labor and the willingness to use resources, were identified. To adapt their farm to climatic, economic and workforce-related hazards, farmers used mechanisms related to the combination of the two species: modifying the ewe/cow ratio, breeding periods, worker versatility, grazing management and allocation of resources between species. Our study showed the interest of a systemic and comprehensive approach to MSLF that are promising for the agroecological transition but poorly documented. In particular, it highlighted the need to consider work as part of the system to be configured, managed and adjusted along with the other parts and not simply as a set of constraints.

Soil suppressiveness which is the natural ability of soil to support optimal plant growth and health is the resultant of multiple soil microbial components; which implies many difficulties when estimating this soil condition. Microbial benefits for plant health from repeated digestate applications were assessed in three experimental sites surrounding anaerobic biogas plants in an intensively cultivated area of northern Italy. A 2-yr trial was performed in 2017 and 2018 by performing an in-pot plant growth assay, using soil samples taken from two fields for each experimental site, of which one had been repeatedly amended with anaerobic biogas digestate and the other had not. These fields were similar in management and crop sequences (maize was the recurrent crop) for the last 10 yr. Plant growth response in the bioassay was expressed as plant biomass production, root colonization frequency by soil-borne fungi were estimated to evaluate the impact of soil-borne pathogens on plant growth, abundance of Pseudomonas and actinomycetes populations in rhizosphere were estimated as beneficial soil microbial indicators. Repeated soil amendment with digestate increased significantly soil capacity to support plant biomass production as compared to unamended control in both the years. Findings supported evidence that this increase was principally attributable to a higher natural ability of digestate-amended soils to reduce root infection by saprophytic soil-borne pathogens whose inoculum was increased by the recurrent maize cultivation. Pseudomonas and actinomycetes were always more abundant in digestate-amended soils suggesting that both these large bacterial groups were involved in the increase of their natural capacity to control soil-borne pathogens (soil suppressiveness).

The scientific community and most mainstream agriculturalists typically design fertilizer recommendations to provide a ‘sufficient level of available nutrients’ to meet the annual N, P and K requirements of common field crops. Soil balancing is another approach to managing soil fertility that focuses on the levels of Ca, Mg and K to achieve a desired base cation saturation ratio (BCSR). Soil balancing is believed to be practiced frequently by organic and other alternative farmers but is viewed skeptically by conventional agricultural scientists due to a lack of support for the idea in the published scientific literature. This study represents a pioneering effort to collect systematic data on the extent of soil balancing, how it is practiced and the types of outcomes reported by organic farmers. Our survey of over 850 farmers who grow certified organic corn in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania found that over half report using a soil-balancing approach based on BCSR. Their practice of soil balancing frequently includes more than management of base cations, but also uses a wide range of soil amendment products (such as purchased organic NPK fertilizers, micronutrients, microbial stimulants and soil inoculants) other than those applied specifically for cation balance. Farms that rely on vegetable and dairy production for most of their income, and Amish farmers who rely on horses for fieldwork, were more likely to report using a soil-balancing program. Self-described soil balancers perceived positive agronomic outcomes from the use of a BCSR program, including improvements in soil physical and biological properties and improved crop health and quality. Although farmers in our study report extensive use and positive perceived outcomes from soil-balancing methods, the scientific research literature has been unable to reproduce evidence that manipulating soil base cation levels has any systematic effect on crop yield. Future research could consider the interacting effects of BCSR with other field management practices to more closely approximate the actual practices of farmers.

Aquaponics technology has recently been offered as a good option for sustainable food systems among small-scale farmers, particularly those seeking an organic production or dealing with land quality constraints, such as urban farmers. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence for the capacity of small farmers to adopt the technology. The unique requirements of aquaponics may create technical, economic and even cultural constraints and opportunities. This paper uses empirical evidence gathered with small-scale farmers in São Carlos, State of São Paulo, Brazil, to present the capacity of adoption for the technology, including possible limiting factors and incentives for farmers. The study conducted interviews with owners of ‘agriculturas familiares’ (Portuguese for small family owned farms) within 30 km of São Carlos. The interviews revealed that there is widespread interest in the potential profitability of aquaponics systems, significant interest in environmentally friendly practices, familiarity with organic production and hydroponics and a large base of agricultural knowledge in the community that can drive adoption. However, lack of initial financing, limited human power and concerns about product placement were significant barriers to adoption. For settlement farmers (those working on land formerly abandoned) poor soil quality and water scarcity are key issues that could be alleviated by the technology. The city of Sao Carlos present program for purchasing specific types of products from these farms could be used as a model for increasing aquaponics adoption and relieving success concerns.

There is increased interest in cover crops on farms; those planted during the fallow period or in place of a cash crop to improve soil and water quality. Despite extensive research suggesting that the practice can enhance on-farm resilience, cover crop use is not widespread, especially across the dryland wheat-growing region of the USA inland Pacific Northwest. Cover crops are being promoted across this region as a means to improve agronomic conditions and farmer livelihoods. Yet, there is limited producer-centered social science research to understand the regional and field-level challenges associated with the practice. To address this gap, we draw from the diffusion of innovations theory to examine the perceived relative advantage (the degree to which cover crops are compatible with the current agricultural system), and trialability of cover crops. Trialability encompasses the relative complexity and observability of the practice. Interviews (n = 28) were conducted with producers to better understand perceptions on relative advantage and how cover crop characteristics may contribute to barriers to adoption. Based on the results from interviews, focus groups (n = 48) were conducted to explore potential avenues for improving the integration of cover crops into existing cropping systems. Analysis of interviews with dryland crop and livestock producers suggested that perceptions of low relative advantage, including low compatibility with common regional management systems, perceived lack of profitability and increased cost of inputs act as deterrents to cover crop integration. Low trialability was associated with the complexity of experimentation, a lack of directly observable results and inflexible regional policies. These perceptions were compounded by a lack of region-specific agronomic and economic information on cover crops. Analysis of focus groups with crop and livestock producers and agricultural stakeholders suggested that there are several opportunities to improve potential adoption strategies and improve perceptions of relative advantage and trialability. Understanding the unique management goals of producers within the environmental, social and economic context in which they operate will better inform regional policies, outreach and future adoption strategies.

How can agricultural mechanization be accomplished in a sustainable and equitable way? This question has gained increased prominence in mechanization research over the past few years. In this study, we apply the question to mechanized maize shelling in Tanzania as a case in point. Data from a survey with 400 farmers and from semi-structured interviews with 21 key informants are combined for a gender analysis that relies on Kabeer's concept of four institutional sites (household, community, market and government). The findings reveal that although mechanization reduces men's and women's perceived drudgery of shelling, relief depends on gendered patterns of labor allocation and decision-making at the household level. As a result, the transformation of inequitable norms emerges as paramount. Key informants identified additional aspects that would make mechanized shelling more equitable and sustainable, such as mainstreaming gender and mechanization in comprehensive agricultural training, or the sensitization of mechanized input suppliers and manufacturers to farmers' preferences (including gender-sensitive machine design). Concerted efforts in multiple institutional sites are needed to achieve lasting change in respect of equity in mechanization.

Conventional cotton production has been associated with the extensive use of agricultural chemicals, leading to environmental and health problems, decreased effectiveness of pesticides and higher costs of production. Organic bans the use of most pesticides while providing premiums for growers, and therefore may be a beneficial alternative for growers. Unfortunately, there has been a paucity of research examining the specific practices used by organic cotton growers and the environmental aspects of those practices. This study surveyed organic cotton producers and processors to document specific approaches and techniques used in organic cotton production and processing, the environmental impacts of those techniques and challenges facing organic cotton growers. We discuss the environmental impacts of organic management techniques and methods for conserving water and reducing dependence on irrigation. We also highlight the challenges to organic production identified in the survey, including management for weeds, insects and diseases, genetic contamination of organic crops from genetically modified cotton, organic seed availability, climate change, chemical drift and marketing of organic cotton. Finally, we suggest that investing in research to produce higher-yielding organic varieties, improved methods for organic weed management, and supporting carbon-sequestering practices will improve conversion to organic production.