17 pages, Southern Australian farming systems operate predominantly under Mediterranean climatic conditions, which limit the choice of cover crops suitable for enhancement of ground cover and soil moisture retention, erosion control, atmospheric soil nitrogen (N) fixation, and weed suppression between cash crop rotations. Given that the successful establishment of cover crops is climate-driven and also influenced by edaphic factors such as soil pH and salinity, there has been increased interest by southern Australian producers in identifying potential cover crop species well adapted to specific Australian farming systems, which provide vital ecosystem services and sustainable economic benefits through the improvement of soil properties. This review summarises recent findings on cover crop inclusion in diverse farming systems in southern Australia, including continuous and mixed broadacre cropping as well as viticulture and horticulture systems, to identify opportunities and limitations related to their use. Cover crop inclusion in viticulture and pasture systems with lower moisture stress was observed to benefit the subsequent cash crop through enhanced production potential. Long-term, multi-site field experimentation incorporating summer cover crops in winter crop rotations showed that cover crops enhanced ground cover and soil water infiltration in some locations across southern Australia while sometimes increasing winter crop yield, suggesting that soil type and regional climatic conditions greatly influenced the delivery of multiple cover crop benefits. Collectively, these studies have suggested a need for longer-term field evaluations using multiple cover crop species and investigations of termination options under varying environmental and soil conditions to better quantify the legacy effects of cover crops.
10 pages, Agricultural environment in many developing economies has become increasingly unpredictable in recent decades as a result of climate change, increasing the risk of crop failure. Access to meaningful information is required to mitigate the negative effects of the changing environment. This study examined the impact of agricultural extension services on the adoption of soil and water conservation (SWC) practices using data obtained from farming households in Northern Ghana. A multivariate probit model was used to assess the simultaneous or/and substitution adoption of SWC practices, while endogenous switching probit (ESP) was used to estimate the impact of extension services on adoption of SWC practices to account for observed and unobserved heterogeneities. The results showed that most of the SWC practices were adopted jointly, and factors such as non-farm economic activites and farm size influence the adoption of SWC practices. Moreover, farmers who accessed agricultural extension services had a higher probability of adopting most of the SWC practices (crop rotation, contour ploughing and manure application), and those who did not benefit from extension services would have had an equally higher likelihood of adopting the SWC practices had they accessed the services. The findings of the study imply that enhancing agricultural extension services will reduce adoption gaps in SWC practices, and consequently reduce farmers’ exposure to climate-related agricultural production risks. With growing information and communication technologies, pluralistic extension service delivery that mixes governmental and private-sector-led approaches to extension operations to foster demand-driven extension delivery services are highly recommended.
24 pgs, Increasing interest in farmers’ local soil knowledge (LSK) and soil management practice as a way to promote sustainable agriculture and soil conservation needs a reliable means to connect to it. This study sought to examine if Visual Soil Assessment (VSA) and farmer workshops were suitable means to engage, communicate and preserve farmers’ LSK in two mountainous communes of Central Vietnam. Twenty-four farmers with reasonable or comprehensive LSK from previously studied communes were selected for the efficacy of VSA and farmer workshops for integrating LSK into a well-accepted soil assessment tool (VSA). In field sites chosen by the farmers, VSA was independently executed by both farmers and scientists at the same time. Close congruence of VSA scores between the two groups highlighted that farmers could competently undertake VSA. Farmers’ VSA score was compared with their perception of field’s soil quality. For the majority of farmers’ perception of soil quality was consistent to their VSA score (62.5%), while the remainder perceived their soil quality was lower than their VSA score. For most farmers their assessment of soil quality using VSA valued their LSK, and the two measures were well aligned. Soil colour and presence or vulnerability to erosion were common soil characteristics mentioned by farmers and affected the final VSA score. Farmers’ participation in VSA and workshops strengthen farmers’ confidence in their LSK and provided guidance on the impact of their soil management on soil improvement and conservation.
14pgs, The adoption of soil conservation practices by farmers offers the potential to greatly improve soil health and water quality at large geographic scales. In considering the potential benefits of soil conservation practices to improve ecological outcomes on farms, it is important to ascertain where farmers get their information about soil conservation and what type of information they are exposed to and by whom. One primary way that farmers learn about soil conservation practices is via agricultural trade publications (ATPs). We conducted a content analysis using a computational text analysis method to analyze all the online soil conservation coverage from four influential ATPs in Wisconsin. We focused on 10 different soil conservation practices and found that the most frequently covered soil conservation practices were tillage, manure, and grazing. Additionally, we analyzed the thematic categories for how each soil conservation practice was covered in terms of agricultural, environmental and economic benefits. Generally, articles tended to mention environmental and economic benefits more than agricultural benefits across all soil conservation practices. We also unpacked the subcategories of environmental benefits using cover crops practice as an example to demonstrate how it was covered in terms of subcategories such as biodiversity, sustainability, climate change, water quality, and soil health. Our analysis also looked at how agricultural technology was featured in the stories about soil conservation and found that this category was regularly mentioned for each practice. Finally, we examined the message sources for stories on soil conservation and found that extension and the federal government were the most the frequently cited entities. We also discussed how this form of computational content analysis can provide longitudinal insights about trends in a particular soil conservation practice like cover crops, which showed a clear upward trend in coverage in ATPs for the time period studied. These nuanced content analyses provide insights into what types of thematic categories are featured about soil conservation practices covered in ATPs in Wisconsin. Advocates of soil conservation practices can use our results to determine if some practices could benefit from more attention in ATPs as well as which benefits and themes have received more media coverage. Additionally, stakeholders from entities that serve as different message sources can determine how their organizations are doing as the spokespeople for the soil conservation practices being advocated.
13 pages, Participatory action research involving farmers and researchers is crucial to enhance the adoption of farming innovations and ensure the long term sustainability of agroecosystem restoration. However, the factors for successful participatory research for agroecosystem restoration are not always clear and have been rarely evaluated from the perspective of the subjects from whom change is expected. Despite the increasing call for agroecosystem Living Labs, farmers are still seldom involved in structured and shared co-monitoring and co-evaluation of farming innovations as part of participatory monitoring programs. Therefore, we developed a participatory monitoring and evaluation project to evaluate the impacts of regenerative agriculture between farmers and researchers in the Mediterranean drylands of Spain. Here we present and evaluate the project outcomes by reporting farmers’ monitoring results using a co-developed visual soil assessment (VSA) manual, and by documenting farmers’ evaluation of the VSA and other key aspects of the participatory monitoring and evaluation in the third year since the beginning of the project. Farmers’ VSA results pointed out regenerative agriculture as a promising solution to restore degraded agroecosystems in Mediterranean drylands with insights that are complementary to the scientific monitoring. Farmers’ evaluation of the participatory monitoring process revealed the need to enhance farmers’ support for implementation of VSA tools in initial stages, and to include farmers in the design of VSA tools to adjust them to farmers’ priorities, possibilities and needs. Farmers highlighted the importance of the participatory monitoring and evaluation process to enhance knowledge exchange, learning, and capacity building regarding soil quality management to adapt and adopt regenerative agriculture. Our results confirm that including farmers in the design, decision-making and evaluation of research projects for agroecosystem restoration is imperative to enhance efficient, sound and inclusive transitions towards long term sustainable agroecosystems.
26 pages, Farmers’ perception on soil erosion has not adequately reported in the conditions of Ghana though its causes and effects are time and site-specific. The objective of this study was to assess farmers’ perception on soil erosion and implication for developing soil management strategy in the Eastern and Northern Regions of Ghana. A total of 130 household head farmers were interviewed and complemented with field observation and group. Data was analyzed using descriptive, chi-square test, T-test and binary logistic regression. The results show that there was significant variation in socioeconomic, farm and institutional attributes among the farmers`in the study regions. In the Eastern and Northern Regions, significantly higher proportions of the farmers (95.7% and 86.7%, respectively) perceived soil erosion as serious problem. Significantly higher proportions of the respondents (80%) perceived severe erosion problem at homestead land in the Eastern Region whereas severe erosion in the Northern Region was more noticed at distance farmlands (85.0%). In the two regions, the major causes of severe erosion as perceived by most farmers were over-cultivation, deforestation and heavy rainfall events. In the Eastern and Northern Regions, 58.6% and 75.0% of the farmers perceived, respectively, that soil erosion severity has been increased since the past 10-years. Perceptions of most frequently noted indicators of soil erosion were declined productivity, shallow soil depth, presence of rills, sheet erosion, soil loss from farmland, and change in soil color. Results of the binary logistic regression indicate that there is heterogeneity in the factors accounting for the perception of soil fertility. In developing promising soil management strategy in the study area, attention must be given to key socioeconomic, biophysical, farm and institutional factors.
12 pages, Conservation Agriculture (CA) has been widely promoted as a pathway to sustainably intensify agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Yet despite decades of promotion, CA uptake in SSA remains sparse with only few analyses of its impacts on farming and rural livelihoods. This study, which focuses on areas in Central Malawi considered to have a relatively high uptake of CA, uses analyses of satellite images, field observations, interviews with farmers, extension workers and other people involved in CA promotion, as well as a household survey, to investigate how CA has been adapted. We find that the three CA principles – (1) continuous minimum tillage, e.g. no-ridging, (2) permanent ground cover, and (3) crop rotation/intercropping – were not practiced as intended. First, one-third of non-ridged land was tilled during the growing season, and half was again ridged in the following season. Second, unless crop residues were added, the soil’s surface of non-ridged plots was usually bare at planting, causing weed control problems, and an increased risk of erosion. Most farmers added large volumes of crop residues to their non-ridged plots. They collected these from the surrounding fields, but this practice severely restricted the size of these plots. Third, crop rotation/intercropping was practiced less when farmers stopped ridging. Thus overall, very few farmers practised all of the three CA principles simultaneously. CA promotion appeared to only increase yields on plots where mulch was added, but this practice is not scalable. CA promotiondoes not seem to have provided substantial benefits for overall farm productivity, labour-savings or soil cons
9 pages, A new method for evaluating the influence of Extension programming involves exploring whether Extension clientele differ from others in knowledge and behavior related to a particular topic. Analysis of South Dakota farm survey data allowed for the assessment of potential impacts of Extension through comparison of knowledge and adoption regarding soil conservation practices among farmers who did and did not use Extension. Results suggest that, controlling for some farmer and farm characteristics, use of Extension is associated with higher levels of knowledge and greater adoption rates. The new evaluation methodology can be used for assessing broad-scale impacts across Extension program areas.
Online from publisher. 3 pages., In 2019 cover crop report, SHP dives into cover crop adoption practices. Summary of findings from a survey among 80 farmers in 11 states in the Soil Health Partnership network.
