• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Errata
 Title Page
 Foreword
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Part 1: The northeast region
 Part 2: The north central...
 Part 3: The southern region
 Part 4: The western region
 Subject index
 Index of states and protectora...






Group Title: LISA 88-89 : : Low-input sustainable agriculture research and education projects funded in 1988 and 1989.
Title: LISA 88-89
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053867/00001
 Material Information
Title: LISA 88-89 Low-input sustainable agriculture research and education projects funded in 1988 and 1989
Alternate Title: Low-input sustainable agriculture research and education projects funded in 1988 and 1989
Physical Description: 133 p. : ; 28 cm
Language: English
Creator: United States -- Cooperative State Research Service. -- Office of Special Projects and Program Systems
Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture Program
Publisher: United States Department of Agriculture,Cooperative State Research Service, Office of Special Projects and Program Systems
Place of Publication: Washington DC
Publication Date: 1990
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural education -- United States   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Research -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre: federal government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture Program.
General Note: "January 1990."
General Note: Contains description and summary of LISA; state by state description of projects including project summary, participants, objectives, duration of project and amount funded.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00053867
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001541669
oclc - 21720335
notis - AHF5153

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Cover
    Errata
        Unnumbered ( 2 )
        Unnumbered ( 3 )
        Unnumbered ( 4 )
        Unnumbered ( 5 )
    Title Page
        Title
    Foreword
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Genesis of the LISA program
            Page 2
            Page 3
    Part 1: The northeast region
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Projects funded in 1988, not 1989
            Page 7
            Page 8
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
        Projects first funded in 1988, renewed in 1989
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
        Projects first funded in 1989
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
    Part 2: The north central region
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Projects funded in 1988, not 1989
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 45
        Projects first funded in 1988, renewed 1989
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
        Projects first funded in 1989
            Page 62
            Page 63
            Page 64
            Page 65
    Part 3: The southern region
        Page 66
        Projects funded in 1988, not 1989
            Page 66
            Page 67
            Page 68
            Page 69
            Page 70
            Page 71
            Page 72
            Page 73
            Page 74
            Page 75
        Projects first funded in 1988, renewed 1989
            Page 76
            Page 77
            Page 78
            Page 79
            Page 80
            Page 81
        Projects first funded in 1989
            Page 82
            Page 83
            Page 84
            Page 85
            Page 86
            Page 87
            Page 88
            Page 89
            Page 90
    Part 4: The western region
        Page 91
        Projects funded in 1989
            Page 91
            Page 92
            Page 93
            Page 94
            Page 95
            Page 96
            Page 97
            Page 98
            Page 99
            Page 100
            Page 101
            Page 102
            Page 103
            Page 104
        Projects first funded in 1989
            Page 105
            Page 106
            Page 107
            Page 108
            Page 109
            Page 110
            Page 111
            Page 112
            Page 113
            Page 114
            Page 115
            Page 116
            Page 117
            Page 118
        Table 1: Distribution of LISA funds by state and to organizations within each state, 1988 and 1989 combined
            Page 119
            Page 120
            Page 121
            Page 122
    Subject index
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
    Index of states and protectorates
        Page 132
        Page 133
Full Text




16Z


.T-





ERRATA: The data in Appendix Table 1 are for 1989 only. The 1988 and 1989 funding levels are combined
in the following table.

Appendix Table L Distribution of LISA Funds by State and to Organizations Within Each State, 1988 and
1989 Combiued

STATE AND ORGANIZATION LISA FUNDS

ALASKA:
University of Abaka $2,750

ARKANSAS:
University of Arkansas 96,50
Winrock International* 53,900
Ozark Foothills RC&D Council 15,000
164,450

ARIZONA:
University of Arizona 64,368

CALIFORNIA:
Committee for Sustainable Agriculture* 9,000
Lundberg Family Farms* 2,000
University of California 630,80
641,880

CONNECTICUT:
University of Connecticut 37,100

COLORADO:
Teluride Institute* 36,000
Colorado State University 17,750
53,750

DELAWARE:
University of Delaware 34,916

GEORGIA:
University of Georgia 122,700

HAWAII:
University of Hawaii 40,480

IDAHO:
University of Idaho 17,490

ILLINOIS:
University of Ieois 5,450

INDIANA:
Purdue University 53,000

IOWA:
Iowa State University 107,833

KANSAS:
Kansa State University 98,823
The Land Institute* 26,000
Kansas Rural Center* 38,597
T63,426


SThe amounts shown here are close approximations. Exact amounts going to each state and organization
may differ from these totals because of subcontracts used to disburse funds





LOUISIANA:
Southern University 100,000

MARYLAND
University of Maryland 149,900
USDA/ARS (Bedavie) 12,541
162,441

MASSACHUSETTS:
University of Massachusetts 102,480
Natural Organic Farmers Association* 84,650
New Alchemy Institute 90,300
277,430

MAINE:
University of Maine 85,796
Maine Organic Farmers Gardeners Assoc.* 8,760
94,551

MICHIGAN:
Michigan State University 24,500

MINNESOTA:
Land Stewardship Project* 46,100
Rodale Institute 11,975
University of Minnesota 120,200
178275

MISSISSIPPI:
Mississippi State University 88,250

MISSOURI:
University of Missouri 52,714

MONTANA:
Alternative Energy Resources Organization* 41,574
Montana State University 77,984
119,558

NEBRASKA:
University of Nebraska 80,633
Nebraska Sustainable Agri Society* 12,000
118,913

NEW JERSEY
Rutgers University (New Brunswick) 83,000
Rutgers University (Somerville Coop Ext.) 20,000
103,500

NEW MEXICO:
New Mexico State University 2,750
Talavaya* 45,000
47,750

NEW YORK:
Cornell University (Ithaca) 316,438
NY State Agri. Ext. Sta. (Geneva) 39,500
SUNY Syracuse 11840
Western NY Crop Mgt. Assoc.* 16,00
344,778





NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina State University 80,000
North Carolina A&T University 5,000
Carolina Farm Stewardship Assn.* 115,00


NORTH DAKOTA:
North Dakota StU University 151,670
Ten cooperating farmers 4,000


OHIO:
Ohio State University 68,300

OKLAHOMA:
Oklahoma State University 104,700
Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture* 16,500
121,200

OREGON:
Oregon State University 171,559

PENNSYLVANIA:
Pennsylvania State University 167,419
Rodale Research Center (Kutztown)* 98,725
Rodale Institute (Emmaus)* 95,000
361,144

PROTECTORATES:
American Samoa Community College 37,530
University of Guam 25,010
Pohnpei Agricultural Trade School 18,260
Northern Mariaas Community College 11,810
U.S. Forest Service (YAP) 12,690
College of Micronesia (Palau) 5,460
120,140

SOUTH CAROLINA:
Clemson University 7,000

SOUTH DAKOTA:
South Dakota State University 68,000

TENNESSEE:
Tennessee State University 5,000

TEXAS:
Prairie View A&M University 90,000
Texas A&M University 40,000
Texas Dept of Agriculture 22,900
Texas Agricultural Extension 25,200
178,100
UTAH:
Utah State University 2,750

VERMONT:
University of Vermont 234,440

VIRGINIA:
Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ. 170,000
Virginia State University 5,000
175,000





WASHINGTON:
Washington State University 358,105

WEST VIRGINIA:
University of Wea Virginia 25,700
USDA/ARS (Kearmeyvike) 5,000


WISCONSIN:
Wisconsin Rural Development Center* 62,000
University of Wisconsin, Madison 31,034
Michael Fields Institute* 25,000
118,034

WYOMING:
University of Wyoming 28,000

GRAND TOTAL $5,626,389


* Private organizations received a total of:


$953,581





United States
Department of
Agriculture
Cooperative State
Research Service
Office of Special
Projects and
Program Systems


LISA 88-89

Low-Input Sustainable
Agriculture Research
and Education Projects
Funded in 1988 and 1989


























The Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture Program
Suite 342
14th and Independence Avenue S.W.
Washington D.C. 20250-2200












This report was compiled and edited from materials submitted by coordinators of the
projects funded during 1988 and 1989 by the LISA Program. The editors are:

James Patrick Madden, LISA Field Operations Coordinator
P.O. Box 10338, Glendale, CA 91209

James A. DeShazer, North Central Region LISA Coordinator
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583

Frederick R. Magdoff, Northeast Region LISA Coordinator
Neil Pelsue, Interim Northeast Region LISA Coordinator
University of Vermont, Burlington VT 05405

Charles W. Laughlin, Southern Region LISA Coordinator
University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602

David E. Schlegel, Western Region LISA Coordinator
University of California, Oakland, CA 94612-3560

The USDA agencies primarily responsible for the LISA Program are:

Cooperative State Research Service:

Paul F. O'Connell, Deputy Administrator
W. Neill Schaller, LISA Program Manager
342 Aerospace Building
Washington, DC 20250-2200

Extension Service:
Vivan Jennings, Deputy Administrator
Dixon Hubbard, LISA Program Officer
Washington, DC 20250-0900


January 1990


Foreword ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^















Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

Genesis of the LISA Program
C current Status of LISA ........................................................................................... 2

Part 1. The Northeast Region............................................................................ 4

Projects Funded in 1988, not 1989: ........................................................................... 7
LNE88-1 Development of a Low-Input Apple Production System for the
N northeast ........................................................................................ .............. 7
LNE88-2 Improving Farm Profitability by Efficiently Using the Pasture Resource ...9
LNE88-3 Role of Cereal Grain Cover Crops in Nitrogen Management for the
Chesapeake Bay Region ...................................... ......................................... 11
LNE88-4 Accelerating the Adoption of Low Input Strateg- ies in Field Crops ........12

Projects First Funded in 1888, Renewed in 1989.................................... ........... 14
LNE88-5 Cover Crops For New England Vegetable Growers: On Farm
Research, Economic Analysis and Outreach............................................... 14
LNE88-6 Northeast Dairy Farm Forage Demonstration Project ...........................15
LNE88-7 Weed Control in Reduced Tillage Cropping Systems: Use of
Overseeded Cover Crops ................................................................................16
LNE88-8 Implementation of Electronic Decision Support Technology for
A pple Production ........................................................................................... 17
LNE88-9 Alternative Cropping Systems for Low-input Agriculture in the
N northeast ............................................................................................... 18-19
LNE88-10 Development, Evaluation, and Implementation of Low Input
Systems For Eastern Vineyards .............................................................. 20-21

Projects First Funded in 1989: ....................................... ...........................................24
LNC89-12 Ruminant Animal Production Using Tyfon Forage Brassica .................24
LNE89-13 Winter Cover Crops for Corn Production in the Northeast: N Balance
and Soil Moisture Status ............................................................................. 25
LNE89-14 Northeast Organic and Sustainable Farmer Network: Manual of
Current Practices, Extension Training and Field Days .................................26-27
LNE89-15 Eggplant: A Model System for Implementing the Integration of a
Biological Control Intensive Pest Management For the Major Insect and
Disease Pests of Solonaceous Crops in the Northeast ......................................28
LNE89-16 Evaluation of Alternative Strategies for Small Fruit Production ........29-30
LNE89-17 Improving Milk Quality and Animal Health by Efficient Pasture
M anagem ent ..................................................................................................... 31
LNE89-18 Marketability of Low-input Agricultural Produce ..............................32-33
LNE89-19 Reduced Tillage: Alternative Cropping System for Vegetable
Production in the Northeast ........................................................................ 34


iii


Contents ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^












Part 2. The North Central Region ...................................... ........................... 35

Projects Funded in 1988, not 1989: .................................................. ....... ..... 39
LNC88-1 Integration of Conversation Tillage, Animal Manures, and Cultural
Pest Control in Corn ........................................................ ........................... 39
LNC88-2 An Economic Analysis of Producer and Industry Level Impacts of
Low-Input Agriculture ......................................................................................... 40
LNC88-3 Low-Input Ridge Tillage System for the Corn Belt ............................... 41
LNC88-4 Sustainable/Low-Input Agriculture: An Overview Videotape ...................42
LNC88-5 Low-Input Agriculture and Cover Crop Workshop for Extension and
Research Personnel from Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri .................. 43
LNC88-6 Development of Organic Nitrogen Availability Functions for a Nitrogen
M management M odel ........................................................ ............................ 43
LNC88-7 Low-Input Database and Information System....................................... 44
LNC88-8 Sustainable Agriculture Educational Displays .................................... 45

Projects First Funded in 1988, renewed 1989: ..................................... ........... 46
LNC88-9 Agronomic and Economic Analyses of Alternative Small Grain/Row
Crop Production Systems for the Northern Plains ............................................46
LNC88-10 Substituting Legumes for Fallow in U.S. Great Plains Wheat
Production .......................................................................................... 47-48
LNC88-11 The Middle Border On-Farm Research Consortium ..................... 49-50
LNC88-12 Whole-Farm Economic and Nitrogen Budget Analysis on Low-
Chemical and Conventional Wisconsin Farms .......................................... ..51
LNC88-13 Evaluation of Integrated Low Input Crop- Livestock Production
System s ......................................................................................................... 52-53
LNC88-14 Beginning Farmer Sustainable Agriculture Project ........................... 54
LNC88-15 An Integrated Research/Extension Program in Low-Input Crop
Production for O hio ............................................................................................. 55
LNC88-16 Assessing Soil Phosphorus Availability in Low- Input Systems 65
LNC88-17 Effect of Tillage and Weed Control Alternatives on Crop Rotations ..... 56
LNC88-18 Making the Conversion from Conventional to Sustainable
Agriculture: A Videotape Series for Farmers ...............................................57
LNC88-19 Low-input Beef Cattle Systems of Production ................................58-59
LNC88-20 Performance and Economics of a Low-input Feeder Swine Operation .60
LNC88-21 Utilization of the Allelopathic Properties of Winter rye as a Method of
Weed Control in Soybean Production ....................................................... 60-61

Projects First Funded in 1989: ....................................... ...........................................62
LNC89-22 Development and Demonstration of Methods Toward Sustainable
A pple Production ..........................................................................................62
LNC89-23 Lisa Impacts: Social, Economic, and Demographic Impacts of
Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture Practices on Farms and Rural Communities
in the Northw est ........................................................................................ 62-63
LNC89-24 Crop Rotation, Legume Intercropping and Cultural Pest Control as
Substitutes for Purchased Inputs in a Cash Grain Cropping System ............... 64


iv












LNC89-25 Synchrony and Contribution of Legume Nitrogen for Grain
Production Under Different Tillage Systems ................................................65


Part 3. The Southern Region ....................................... ...........................................66

Projects Funded in 1988, not 1989:..................................................................... 66-68
LS88-1 Low-Input and Organic Pest Management for Apples and Peaches
Using Mating Disruption and Ground Cover Management ............................ 69
LS88-2 Whole-farm Low/Reduced Input Farming Systems and Educational
P program ..................................................................................................... 70
LS88-3 Planning Grant: Development of Low-Input Agricultural Technology
Demonstrations at the Sunbelt Agricultural Exposition Demonstration Farm ......71
LS88-4 Planning Grant: Development of a Farmer/Extension/Research Network
and Farming Systems Data Bases for Low-Input Agriculture .......................72-73
LS88-5 Planning Grant: Sustainable Agriculture for and with Small Farms:
Development of an 1890 Land Grant University Extension Demonstration
Endeavor in NC, TN, and VA.............................................................................74
LS88-6 Planning Grant: On-Farm Demonstration of Low- Input Farming ..........74-75

Projects First Funded in 1988, renewed 1989: .................................................. ....76
LS88-7 Low-input Reduced Tillage Crop Production Systems for the Southern
U united States ............................................................................................... 76
LS88-8 Development, Implementation and Evaluation of Low Input Crop and
Livestock Systems for the Southern Region .................................... ........... 77
LS88-9 A Comparison of Cropping Systems Managed Conventionally or with
Reduced Chemical Input ............................................................................. 78
LS88-10 Solarization and Living Mulch to Optimize Low-input Production
System s for Sm all Fruits............................................................................ .....79
LS88-11 Developing and Extending Minimum Input Strategies for Weed
Control in Agronomic and Horticultural Crops .............................................. 80-81

Projects First Funded in 1989: ....................................... ..........................................82
LS89-12 Enhancing Farmer Adoption and Refining of a Low- input
Intercropping Soybean-Wheat System ..........................................................82
LS89-13 Substitution of Cultural Practices for Herbicides to Control Annual
Ryegrass and Cheat in Small Grains................................................................83
LS89-14 On-Farm Demonstrations and Research of Low- input Sustainable
Farm ing ......................................................................................................... 84
LS89-15 Enhancement of the Stability of Southern Region Agroecosystems
Through Profitable Transition to Sustainable Agriculture ............................... 85-86
LS89-16 Development of a Low-input Multiple Cropping System for Small-
Scale Farm s................................................................... .................................. ....87
LS89-17 Communication and Information System for Low- input Sustainable
A agriculture ..................................................................... ................................88


v












LS89-18 Composting Poultry Litter Economics and Market Potential of a
Renewable Resource .......................................... ........................................89
LS89-19 Development of a Plan for Implementing a Low Input Sustainable
Forage Production System in the Oklahoma-Arkansas Ozark Highland
Region and Similar Land Areas .......................................................................90

Part 4. The Western Region ............................................................................. 91

Projects Funded in 1989 .......................................................................................91-93
LW88-1 Evaluation and Design of Low Input Vegetable/- Small Grain and
Small Fruit Systems of Western Oregon and Washington .........................94-95
LW88-2 Options for Reducing Production Inputs in the Cereal and Legume
Growing Regions of the Northwest ..............................................................96-97
LW88-3 Comparative Study of Established Low and High Input Vegetable
Production Systems in California...............................................................98-99
LW88-4 Native Crops Research Project ..........................................................100
LW88-5 Compiling a Database of Sustainable Producers for the Southern
Rockies Region .........................................................................................100-101
LW88-6 Care and Feeding of the Soil: Introducing Legumes and Other
Green Manures in Cropping Systems of the Northern Plains Rockies and
Interm mountain Region. ......................................... ............................................ 102
LW88-7 Planning Funds to Develop a Proposal to Study Low- Input and
High-Input Taro Production.......... .................................................................. 102
LW88-8 Planning Funds to Develop a Proposal on Low- Input Animal/Range
S yste m s ............................................................................................................. 103
LW88-9 Planning Funds to Foster the Development of a Consortium Network
Information System Providing Gateway Linkage Between Users an
Multiple Data Bases and Information Sources ....................................... ...103
LW88-10 Planning Funds to Support Development of a Proposal on Low-
Input Rice Production in Northern California ...................................................104

Projects First Funded in 1989 ................................................................................... 105
LW89-11 A Comparative Study of Low-input and High-input Taro Production
in the American Pacific with Special Reference to Pest Control .....................105
LW89-12 Farmer-to-Farmer Technology Transfer Using Sustainable Cropping
Systems Case Studies in the Dryland, Alternate Small Grains-Fallow Area
of the Northern Rockies and High Plains.........................................................106
LW89-13 Application of Low-volume Water Systems to the Cultural and
Biological Control of Root Diseases .............................................................107
LW89-14 Low-input Legume/Cereal Rotations for the Northern Great Plains-
Interm mountain Region ............................................................................... 108-109
LW89-15 Total Resource Budgeting of Lisa Farm Enterprises ............................110
LW89-16 Bio-Priming for the Control of Pythium Preemergence Damping-
O ff in Vegetable C rops ................................................................ .................111
LW89-17 Silvopastoral Alternatives for Fruit-Growers ..........................................112
LW89-18 A Comparison of Conventional, Low-input and Organic Farming
System s ...................................................................................................... 113-114


vi












LW89-19 A Conference on Maintaining the Nutrition and Health of Food-
Producing Animals While Reducing the use of Inputs such as Growth
Hormones, Antibiotics and Synthetic Wormers ............................................... 115
LW89-20 Cover Crop Information for Researchers and Farmers .........................116
LW89-21 Information Delivery System for use in Implementation of LISA
Research and Technology ....................................................................... 117-118

Appendix .................................................................................................................. 119
Appendix Table 1. Distribution of LISA Funds by State and to Organizations
Within Each State, 1988 and 1989 Combined .................................................. 119

Subject Index ......................................................................................................... 123

Index of States and Protectorates...................................................................... 32


vii












USDA's research and education grants program known as LISA (Low-Input/
Sustainable Agriculture) responds to an emerging interest by many farmers for a more
cost-effective and environmentally benign agriculture. There is growing public concern
about groundwater contamination, pesticide residue in foods, high cost of modern-day
agriculture, soil health, and lack of crop diversity for wildlife habitat. LISA research and
education projects are designed to help farmers substitute management, scientific
information, and on-farm resources for some of the purchased inputs they currently
depend on for their farming enterprises.

The LISA program has also responded to a Congressional mandate to involve a
broader spectrum of the agricultural community in administering the program and
carrying out the projects. Innovative methods are being used to enable scientists,
educators and farmers to work as teams in selecting projects to be funded, setting
research goals, designing and implementing the projects, and devising strategies to
ensure that the findings are made readily usable to producers and other audiences.

Scores of farmers who are successfully using low-input/ sustainable farming methods
of pest control and soil fertility management have become actively involved as
members of project teams in preparing LISA project proposals. On-farm experiments
are being designed and carried out by these project teams, using scientific methods
for setting up treatment plots and measuring the outcomes such as crop yields, soil
conditions, and the populations of pests and their natural enemies. These on-farm
studies are essential to the success of the program, in that they bring together the
findings obtained from laboratory and experiment station research. Together these
studies are beginning to provide the reliable, scientific information a farmer must have
to design a profitable strategy for reducing the farm's dependence on certain kinds of
off-farm inputs.

Even though the LISA program has received a total of only $8.35 million for its first
two years of operation, an amazingly large and diverse array of scientists, educators,
farmers, and other interested persons in the public and private sectors have already
become actively involved. And despite the short time it has been in existence (since
January of 1988) meaningful results are already becoming evident.

Genesis of the LISA The LISA program was created in response to the 1985 Food Security Act, Subtitle
Program C-Agriculture Productivity Research. The program received its initial $3.9 million
appropriation in December of 1987. In January of 1988, the Secretary of Agriculture
issued a memorandum establishing Departmental policy regarding alternative (now
termed low-input/ sustainable) farming systems:

The Department encourages research and education programs and activities that
provide farmers with a wide choice of cost effective framing systems including
systems that minimize or optimize the use of purchased inputs and that minimize
environmental hazards. The Department also encourages efforts to expand the use
of such systems.


1


Introduction











































Current Status of LISA


The LISA program has been organized and directed by Cooperative State Research
Service of USDA, with the full cooperation of Extension Service and participation by
various other USDA agencies, especially Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural
Research Service, and the National Agricultural Library. The program has proven to
be responsive to the Congressional intent regarding involvement of a wide range of
public and private organizations. Specifically, the program has meaningful involvement
of farmers, interdisciplinary cooperation in research activities, functional integration of
research and extension, and a significant share of funds has been allocated to thirteen
private research and education organizations.

The program is administered through host institutions in four regions- University of
Vermont for the Northeast, University of Nebraska for the North Central, University of
Georgia for the Southern, and University of California for the Western region. LISA
project proposals are reviewed in each region by committees that include farmers,
State Experiment Station researchers, educators in Cooperative Extension Service,
Soil Conservation Service personnel, Agricultural Research Service scientists, and
others.

During the first year of the LISA program, a total of 371 projects were submitted to the
four regional host institutions. The review committees determined that 130 of these
proposals were acceptable in terms of relevance to the goals of LISA, appropriate
methods, and feasible plans for making the findings readily usable to farmers. Of
these 130 acceptable projects, the best 53 were selected for funding. Several similar
proposals were combined to form a total of 49 projects. If more funding had been
available, an additional 77 projects would have been funded, and a longer duration of
support would have been provided for the projects that were funded. The total cost of
fully funding the 130 acceptable proposals in 1988 would have been $16.6 million-
roughly five times the amount available.

In fiscal year 1989, Congress appropriated $4.45 million for LISA, a 14 percent
increase over 1988. Of 431 projects submitted, 56 were funded, including 29 new
projects, as shown in Table 1. If more funding had been available, about 35 more
projects would have been funded, and again more years of support would have been
provided for several of the long-term funded projects. Thus, the shortfall of funding to
support all acceptable LISA proposals is running about the same level as last year.
Most of the LISA projects funded are long-term studies requiring several years
development and replication before scientifically meaningful results can be obtained. A
few of the LISA projects have added to on-going studies, by providing resources for
additional treatments, more measurements of soil and biological attributes, economic
evaluation, and more effective means of getting the findings out to farmers. Other
projects are of a short-term nature, such as preparation of video tapes demonstrating
methods like ridge tillage and composting, preparation of computer software, or other
approaches for presenting already known findings and forthcoming results in ways that
will be readily usable to farmers and other clientele.


2












The LISA projects funded in each of the four regions are described in the next four
sections of this report, including both the 1988 and 1989 funding cycles. A brief
description of each project is presented, including progress reported by some of the
projects that have been under way for a year or longer. The project descriptions also
include the list of objectives, major participants, funding provided by LISA, and the
approximate matching contributions provided by the participating organize tions. LISA
funds going to each state are listed in the Appendix.

Table 1. Number of Proposals Submitted and Funded, 1988 and 1989.

1988 1989
Region Proposed Funded Proposed Funded

Northeast 78 11 51 15(8)
North Central 106 21 127 17(4)
Southern 120 11 110 13(8)
Western Z7 1 143b 1111

Totals 371 49c 431 56(29)

a Numbers in parentheses are new projects. The others are renewals of projects initially
approved in 1988.
bA total of 143 preproposals were submitted and evaluated. Of these, 32 were selected for
detailed proposal development, and 30 full proposals were submitted.
CA total of 53 projects were approved, but 4 projects were later combined, leaving a total
of 49.


3





Par 1. Th Nothas Regio


The Northeast Region includes Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and West Virginia. During the first two years, a total of 129 project proposals
were evaluated by the regional Technical Committee. Of these, 19 were selected for
funding as LISA projects. The federal allocation for projects in the Northeast Region
during the 1988 was $800,000. During the current fiscal year, $910,000 was allocated
to LISA projects, as shown in Table 2. Matching support provided by the participating
organizations, listed in the project descriptions, totaled $2.4 million over the two years.


Table 2. LISA Projects Funded in the Northeast Region

LISA Funding
Number Project Title and Coordinator 1988 1989

Projects Funded in 1988, not 1989:

LNE88-1 Development of a Low-Input Apple
Production System for the Northeast.
(2-year funding) L. P. Berkett, Univ. of VT $200,000

LNE88-2 Improving Farm Profitability by Efficiently
Using the Pasture Resource. (Two-year
funding) William M. Murphy, Univ. of VT 182,000

LNE88-3 Role of Cereal Grain Cover Crops in Nitrogen
Management for the Chesapeake Bay Region.
Russell Brinsfield, Univ. of MD 150,000

LNE88-4 Accelerating the Adoption of Low Input
Strategies in Field Crops. John R. Deibel,
Western New York Crop Management Assn.
Cooperative 16,000

Projects First Funded in 1988, renewed 1989:


Cover Crops for New England Vegetable
Growers On-Farm Research, Economic
Analyses and Outreach. (I year) John Quinney,
New Alchemy Institute, Falmouth, MA

Northeast Dairy Farm Forage Demonstration
Project. (I year) Joan Petzen, Cornell University
Ellicottville, NY


50,000 80,000



10,000 45,000


LNE88-5




LNE88-6


4













LISA Funding
Number Project Title and Coordinator 1988 1989


Weed Control in Reduced Tillage Cropping
Systems: Use of Over-seeded Cover Crops.
(1.75 years) Rhonda R. Janke, Rodale Research
Center, Kutztown, PA

Implementation of Electronic Decision Support
Technology for Apple production. (I year)
Edwin G. Rajotte, Pennsylvania State University

Alternative Cropping Systems for Low-input
Agriculture in the Northeast. (I year) Jane Mt.
Pleasant, Cornell University


27,000 80,000


55,000


55,000


60,000 80,000


LNE88-10 Development, Evaluation, and Implementation
of Low Input Systems for Eastern Vineyards.
(I year) David M. Gadoury, Cornell University


Taking Charge: Strategies for Agriculture
in the Northeast. (Video presentations) (I year)
James O. Morgan, Rodale Institute,
Emmaus, PA


40,000 39,000




10,000 60,000


Projects First Funded in 1989:

LNE89-12 Ruminant Animal Production Using Tyfon
Forage Brassica. (2 years) Mary Wiedenhoeft,
Univ. of Maine

LNE89-13 Winter Cover Crops for Corn Production in the
Northeast: N Balance and Soil Moisture Status.
(2 years) A.M. Decker, Univ. of MD

LNE89-14 Northeast Master Organic Farmer Network:
Manual of Current Practices, Extension Training
and Field Days. (2 years). Judith Green,
Cornell University


LNE88-7




LNE88-8



LNE88-9


LNE88-11


85,000


105,000


115,000


5












LISA Funding
Number Project Title and Coordinator 1988 1989

NE89-15 Eggplant: A Model System for Implementing the
Integration of a Biological Control Intensive Pest
Management for the Major Insect and Disease
Pests of Solonaceous Crops in the Northeast.
(I year) James Lashomb, Rutgers University 25,000

LNE89-16 Evaluation of Alternative Strategies for Small
Fruit Production. (I year) Barbara Goulart,
Pennsylvania State University 53,000

LNE89-17 Improving Milk Quality and Animal Health by
Efficient Pasture Management. (I year)
J. Woodrow Pankey, University of VT 58,000

LNE89-18 Marketability of Low-Input Agricultural
Produce. (I year) Clare S. Liptak, Rutgers
Cooperative Extension, Somerville, NJ 20,000

LNE89-19 Reduced Tillage: Alternative Cropping
System for Vegetable Production in the
Northeast. (I year planning grant) Robin
R. Bellinder, Cornell University 10,000

TOTALS $800,000 $910,000


6






Projects Funded in 1988, not 1989


Major Participants University of Vermont: Lorraine P. Berkett (Project Coordinator), J. F. Costante, Plant
and Soil Science Dept., Burlington, VT 05405;

University of Massachusetts: D.R. Cooley, Plant Pathology, and others in Plant and
Soil Sciences, Entomology, and Agricultural Economics, Amherst.

Rutgers Fruit Res. and Dev. Center, Cream Ridge, NJ: D.F. Pol, Dept. of Agricultural
Economics, and E.F. Durner, Dept. of Horticulture.

New York Agric. Exper. Station, Hudson Valley Lab., Highland, NY: D.A.
Rosenberger, Dept. of Plant Pathology, and others in Entomology, Dept. of
Natural Resources and Cornell Cooperative Extension Service.

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: L.S. Willett (Agricultural Economics)

Rodale Research Center, Kutztown, PA: C.D. Kauffman and other staff.


Overview Apples are the most extensively grown fruit in the Northeastern U.S., with
approximately 162,000 acres in production. It is a commodity that requires intensive
management to produce high quality fruit. Effective pest management is a critical
component in profitable apple production. Currently, apple production involves the use
of pesticides and fertilizers at an annual cost exceeding $250 per acre for bearing
orchards. Given that pesticide costs continue to escalate, many pests are now
resistant to some pesticides, and public concern about pesticide contamination of
food, air, and ground water, it is imperative that alternative, low input production
systems be developed.

This project is a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary, five- state research and
educational effort to (1) develop low input apple production systems for the Northeast,
and (2) disseminate the information that is generated to farmers and other research
and extension/outreach personnel. The orchard systems we propose to develop will
use disease resistant apple cultivars (DRC), a biological alternative to the use of
fungicides. Currently, fungicides are being questioned as environmental hazards and
are being evaluated for their oncogenic risks. Estimates of consequent potential
reduction in human and environmental exposure to fungicides through the use of DRC
are staggering considering that eliminating only one fungicide application per acre
already planted in the Northeast to disease-susceptible apple cultivars would result in
about 243 tons of formulated material not being applied annually (based on the
recommended rates of captain, metiram, or mancozeb). In the Northeast, a typical
spray regime for disease management on standard cultivars may include up to 20
fungicide applications.


7






The cornerstone of the cooperative research effort will be an orchard evaluation of
DRC which will be replicated in each state at sites representing diverse environmental
conditions (biotic and abiotic). The orchards will be designed to provide basic horticul-
tural data on tree growth and development, yield potential, fruit size and color, etc., all
of which will be used to determine commercial acceptability and potential of DRC.
State of the art IPM will be employed. In addition, orchard designs will be modified at
the various sites to examine different pest management and orchard floor
management strategies and their effects on pest and beneficial species within the
orchard ecosystem.

Fruit quality, storability, and marketability will be evaluated as fruit become available.
Economic profitability of low input apple production systems utilizing CRC will be
analyzed by comparison of production costs and marketing opportunities. While it is
important to assess the profitability of low input apple production, these production
systems will only be useful if the Northeast apple industry remains economically
viable. Thus, the economic consequences of adoption of low input apple production
systems on the Northeast's apple industry will be assessed using dynamic simulation.

Information generated from this project and from a thorough review of relevant
literature will be summarized in a joint publication that will be distributed to farmers,
organizations that are concerned about pesticide use reduction such as NOFA,
Audubon Societies, etc., and researchers and extension/outreach personnel working
in apple production at various private and public institutions in the Northeast.


Objectives 1. Reduce pesticide use in Northeast apple production through the development of low
input apple production systems that utilize disease-resistant apple cultivars and IPM
techniques.

2. Produce a compendium of information on low input apple production using
information generated in this study, published literature, and expert's observations.
This information will be made available via several methods, including talks and
demonstrations, a joint publication, and a computerized database.

Project Duration 2 years initial funding; long term plan.


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

University of Massachusetts $39,500 $46,936
Rutgers University 38,500 69,712
NY State Agri. Expt. Station 39,500 47,945
Rodale Research Center 43,500 59,829
University of Vermont 39,000 40,131

Totals $200,000 $264,553


Funding


8





*NE8- Improving Fam Pt b E
7~ ~ Usin the Patr Reorc


Major Participants


Cooperators




Overview
















Objectives


The University of Vermont: William M. Murphy (project coordinator, sheep farmer and
Agronomist) Dept. of Plant and Soil Science; Leonard S. Bull and James Welsh,
Animal Scientists, and K. Stuart Gibson, Dairy Extension Specialist, Dept. of
Animal Sciences; Andrew M. Condon, Agricultural Economics; Chester F.
Parsons, County Extension Agent, Cooperative Extension.

West Virginia University: William B. Bryan (Agronomist); Edward C. Prigge, Animal
Science; Gerard D'Souza, Agricultural Economics

State University of New York, Syracuse: Daniel L. Dindal, Soil Ecologist

University of Massachusetts: Kent Fleming, Farm Management Extension Specialist

John Brigham, Brent Brigham, and Austin Cleaves (dairy farmers); Brian Pillsbury
(Agronomist, Soil Conservation Service); William Reid (fence dealer and builder);
and Donald and Bette-Ann Lockhart, Perceptions, Inc. (Video Film Producers).


Mismanaged grazing has caused the vast acreage of pastureland that exists in the
United States to be wasted resource. In the Northeast alone there are 14 million acres
of pasture.and that are being used at a level far below their potential. Applying Voisin
rotational grazing management could greatly increase productivity of pastures in the
Northeast. Developing and incorporating this resource into livestock feeding programs
can significantly reduce production costs, thereby improving farm profitability and
sustainability. In this project we propose to assist farmers of the Northeast in using
Voisin grazing management, and to study and refine the method further for conditions
of our region.

The project includes developing materials for transferring existing knowledge of Voisin
grazing management to farmers. This project has been developed with the active
participation of dairy and sheep farmers, research scientists at various institutions,
Extension personnel, Soil Conservationists, and fencing industry representatives.


1. Evaluate grass/legume pasture production and quality under different frequencies
and intensities of grazing of well developed, Voisin-managed pasture.

2. Determine the economic implications and the effects on farm management of
incorporating well developed, Voisin-managed pastures, into dairy farm feeding
programs during 5 to 7 months of the year.

3. Transfer to farmers in the Northeast existing information on proper pasture
management, as well as new information developed in this project, as quickly as
possible, by farm walks, videos, television programs, meetings for farmers, popular
press articles, and fact sheets that summarize research results.


9












Project Duration


Funding


Major Participants


Overview


June 1, 1988 May 10, 1991

LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

Univ. of Vermont $131,940 $175,077
University of West Virginia 25,700 54,104
SUNY Syracuse 11,840 26,814
Univ. of Massachusetts 12,520 12,520

Totals $182,000 $268,515


LfNE88[3 RoleoCral Grin Cover Cropls ink Nit Mana'gement^*[J[
for the Chesapeake Bay Region


University of Maryland: Russell Brinsfield (Project Coordinator) Agricultural Engineer,
Wye Research Insti., P.O. Box 169, Queenstown, MD, 21658.

University of Delaware: William Ritter, Agricultural Engineer, Newark, DE.

Pennsylvania State University: Les Lanyon, Agronomist, University Park, PA.

Rodale Institute: James Morgan (Executive Director), Emmaus, PA


Recently, there has been increasing concern about the impact of agricultural
chemicals on ground water resources. This is particularly true in the Chesapeake and
Delaware Bay watersheds. One of the most prevalent issues is that of groundwater
contamination with nitrate originating from soil fertility management practices. Nitrate
in groundwater results from 'leaching of applied nitrogen, either directly or indirectly
and thus represents the loss of a resource required for crop production. For grain
production of corn, recommended fertilizer rates are based utilization efficiencies of
approximately 60 percent, however, suboptimum growing conditions can reduce the
percentage of applied nitrogen which is utilized by the crop to much lower levels.
These inefficiencies have been recognized for some time but until the recent
development of environmental issues, the unused portion of applied nitrogen was
largely neglected. The development of agricultural management systems which focus
on strategies for reducing the loss of nitrogen from the root zone must be considered.

Historically, cover crops were used to reduce soil erosion, fix nitrogen, and as a
source of forage in integrated agricultural systems. Since 1945, the development of
relatively inexpensive inorganic fertilizers, and the concurrent spatial separation of


10












livestock and grain production, has caused a dramatic reduction in the use of winter
cover crops. Although much of the recent research on cover crops has focused on the
use of legumes to supply nitrogen for future grain crops, long before nitrogen was
recognized as a problem in the environment, scientists had documented the ability of
cereal grain cover crops to reduce the leaching of nitrate from the root zone. However,
the successful integration of cereal grain cover crops into current cropping systems
will require an understanding of the dynamics of cover crop nitrogen uptake and
remineralization in order to minimize nitrogen losses to the environment while
providing maximum benefit to following grain crops. The proposed project will bring
together research, extension, and private agencies and farmers in a five year
coordinated effort.

The project will be a cooperative effort between the University of Delaware, University
of Maryland, Pennsylvania State University, and the Rodale Institute. Nitrate leaching
under different cover crop management systems including dairy manure and forage
production, poultry manure and irrigation, and continuous corn will be considered.
Selected management practices will also be evaluated on two farms in Maryland,
Delaware, and Pennsylvania to promote the use of cereal grain (rye) cover crops in
nitrogen management. Results from the on-farm research and intensive plot research
will be used to assess the economic impact of the different cover crop management
practices on the farming system.


Objectives 1. Evaluate the management of cereal grain (rye) cover crops to reduce the leaching
of nutrients to groundwater and to optimize nitrogen recycling on the farm.

2. Evaluate the economic impact of cereal grain (rye) cover crops on the farming
system.

3. Develop on-farm research to promote the use of cereal grain (rye) cover crops as a
tool for nitrogen management.


Project Duration 1988-1993 (2 years funding given in 1988).


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

Univ. of Maryland $44,900 $40,281
Pennsylvania State Univ. 35,184 15,526
Univ. of Delaware 34,916 28,163
Rodale Institute 35,000 27,606

Totals $150,000 $111,576


11


Funding











LE84Acclrtn th Adopto n of Lo Inu S trtge
in FildCrp


Major Participants Western New York Crop Management Association Cooperative, Inc., John R. Deibel,
Manager, East Aurora, NY

Cooperators: New York Field Crops Cooperative Extension Agents, Dale Dewing and
Bruce Tillapaugh


Overview The Western New York Crop Management Association (CMA) is a grower-owned,
non-profit cooperative organized as a result of integrated pest management programs
conducted from 1982-1985 in four counties of Western New York through Cooperative
Extension. The cooperative has successfully privatized into the first such organization
in New York. It serves 70 growers on nearly 20,000 acres of field crops with a
complete consulting program exclusively using land grant recommendations,
integrated pest management monitoring techniques, and a computerized crop records
analysis program where costs, returns, and inputs are analyzed on a per field, per
farm, and individual vs. group basis. Growers enrolled in this cooperative have been
implementing low input management strategies from the onset, and continue to further
develop such systems. The enclosed brochures illustrate the services and programs
offered, as well as grower testimonials to the results.

The situation which faces all of us interested in further developing the concept of
reduced input agriculture is two fold. First, the use of low input strategies needs to be
applied on the farm level, using field-scale studies to compare the cost and returns
benefit of reducing chemical inputs. Second, acceptance and adoption of such
practices has not occurred at the desired rate by the more progressive producers.

The Crop Management Association concept, when properly managed and
implemented provides several conditions which are needed for verifying, adopting, and
multiplying low input strategies. First, the principle reason for investing in a CMA is to
reduce input costs. Second, the CMA grower generally represents the more
progressive sector of the industry (the average milk production on CMA farms is in
excess of 18,000 Ibs/cow/year). Third, the CMA growers, because of their involvement
with the records program, is doing, a better job of recording field practices, input costs,
and yields. Fourth, a Memorandum of Understanding with Cooperative Extension and
Cornell University is presently in place with the CMA. As part of this agreement, all
information collected by the CMA is provided to Cooperative Extension and interested
staff at the college to enhance the educational mission of extension. This provides an
excellent multiplier for localized information to be published state-wide, as well as to
regional and national audiences.

The purpose of this proposal is to seize an opportunity to greatly impact the adoption
of low input strategies for field crop production in the Northeast through a concerted


12












effort involving our extension system and a cooperative organization of growers who
collectively want to increase the use of low input agriculture in New York State and the
Northeast while remaining more competitive in their commodity area.


1. Establish field-scale trials using selected low-input strategies and variations on
Crop Management Association farms, with intensive scouting programs and
portable scale measurement of yields.

2. Develop an economic analysis of each practice, showing costs and returns impact
of the practice or approach.

3. Disseminate findings by holding field days on farms, publishing booklet, and other
means.


LISA funds $16,500; matching funds $16,500.


13


Objectives


Funding






Projects First Funded in 1988, Renewed in 1989:


Major Participants New Alchemy Institute: John Quinney, Ph.D. (project coordinator) Executive Director,
NAI, 237 Hatchville Road, E. Falmouth, MA 02536. Organic Chemistry; Ralph
DeGregorio, Ph.D. candidate in weed science, Research Director; Mark
Schonbeck, Ph.D., Research Assoc., Crop Science.

University of Massachusetts: Kent Fleming, M.A., Extension Farm Management
Specialist, Dept. Agricultural & Resource Economics, UMASS, Amherst, MA
01003; Stephen Herbert, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof. Extension Agronomist, Dept. Plant
and Soil Sciences, UMASS, Amherst, Agronomy/Crop Physiology.

Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA): Eric Sideman, Ph.D.,
Director of Technical Services, MOFGA, P.O. Box2176, Augusta, ME 04330.

University of Connecticut: Karl Guillard, Ph.D., Dept. Plant Science, 1376 Storrs Road,
Storrs, CT 06269. Agronomist.

Cooperating Farmers or Farms: Andy Ayer, Earl Chase, Dave Colson, Jim and Megan
Gerritsen, Paul and Susan Harlow, John McCue (Highmoor Farm), David Holm,
Edwin Matuszko, Suzanne Cady, William Palmer, Ron Smolowitz, Alexandra
Stone, UMASS Research Farm, Don Wilson, Presque Isle Farm (Univ. of Maine),
and Earle Ferguson.

Overview As integral components of sustainable agriculture, cover crops can reduce soil erosion
and control weeds. In addition, nitrogen- fixing legume cover crops such as hairy vetch
will also reduce farmers' inputs of nitrogen fertilizer. Legumes have been shown to be
effective cover crops in warm climates, but perceived establishment and hardiness
problems have limited their utilization in New England. This project will conduct cover
crop research on New England vegetable farms. By collecting and analyzing on-farm
economic data, we will determine if legume cover crops can reduce input costs and
increase farm profitability. By implementing a series of extension activities such as
twilight meetings, seed distribution, and information services, we will ensure that our
research findings, and those of other researchers, are rapidly disseminated to farmers
throughout New England.

(1) Conduct on-farm research into new nitrogen-fixing cover crop systems that
Objectives effectively control erosion, suppress weeds and are adapted to New England
vegetable farms;
(2) Collect on-farm economic data for use in enterprise budgets that compare the
economics of conventional and alternative cover crop systems,
(3) Promote more effective cover crop systems for New England vegetable farms.


14












Project Duration


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

New Alchemy Institute $37,000 $29,650
Univ. of Connecticut 2,280 4,190
Maine Organic Farmer & 8,760 0
Gardeners Assoc.
Univ. of Massachusetts 31,960 40,580

Totals $80,000 $74,420


L_0 Nothas Diry Far Foag Demnsraion Proec


Major Participants


Overview







Objectives


Cornell University: Joan S. Petzen, (Project Coordinator), Cornell Cooperative
Extension Agent. Cattaraugus County, Parkside Drive, Ellicottville, NY, 14731;
Daniel Fox, Prof. of Animal Science, Animal Science Department, Ithaca, NY.

Seneca Trail Resource Conservation and Development: Edward Rayburn, Grasslands
Specialist, project director.

Northeast Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperative: Paul Serois, Director of Forage
Analysis Laboratory.

A whole-farm approach is used to further assess the input reduction and profitability of
a year-round forage management program, including the use of intensive rotational
grazing systems on small and mid-sized farms. Soil and water quality will be
enhanced because fewer acres need to be plowed. Harvest management reduces the
need for chemical weed control and fertilizers. Energy utilization and machinery costs
are reduced by implementation of a system that uses animals to harvest about fifty
percent of the forage.

(1) Teach farmers, feed dealers and consultants how to implement a total year round
forage management system utilizing intensive rotational grazing techniques and
progressive dry hay and fermented forage harvesting and storage techniques that
will allow dairy farms on marginal soils to improve their profitability by maximizing
the use of forages in their feeding program while reducing the needs for tillage of
highly erodible soils.

(2) Economic analysis of the impact of intensive rotational grazing systems on the
profitability of dairy farms in regions where soil resources and climate limit the
production of mechanically harvested forages.


15


1988 to 1990.


Funding












(3) Expand the database that has been developed to improve its accuracy and refine
calibration equations for near-infrared analysis of fresh forage samples and to
further test producer sampling and handling techniques for fresh forages analysis.

1988 1990
Project Duration
(CORNELL EXTENSION):
Funding
LISA Funds: $10,000 in 1988; $45,000 in 1989.
Matching Funds: $43,695 in 1988; $76,580 in 1989.






Rodale Research Center: Rhonda R. Janke, (Project Coordinator), weed ecologist,
Major Participants Agronomy Coordinator, Kutztown, PA 19530.

Extension Agent: Richard Kersbergen, Waldo County Extension Agent, Belfast, ME
04915.

University of Maine: Matt Liebman, Research Extension, Asst. Prof. of Sust. Ag.,
Orono, ME 04469.

Cornell University: Peter L. Marks, Prof. of Ecol. and Systematics, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853; Charles L. Mohler, Ecologist, Research Assoc., Section of Ecol.
and Systematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.

Farmer: Anthony Neves, Farmer, Freedom, ME 04941: grows dry beans and wheat.
Plans to try rye/no-till beans in 1989.

USDA-Agricultural Research Service: John Teasdale, Weed Scientist and Plant
Physiologist, USDA/ARS, Weed Science Laboratory, Beltsville, MD 20705.

Technologies are urgently needed by farmers for ecological weed control in cropping
Overview systems that allow them to conserve soil and water resources and observe
conservation compliance guidelines. The principles tested in these unique systems
include shading weeds with standing cover crops, smothering weeds with mown cover
crops, and generally preempting the niches that weeds tend to fill when the ground is
left bare, as in conventional cropping systems. Different sets of crop rotations are
designed for each location according to local cropping requirements (Maine, New
York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland). Farmers are an integral part of this project, and
will be involved in evaluation of the regional project, as well as active research
participants in Maine and Pennsylvania.


16












(1) Use mulch crops and relay cropping to significantly reduce the establishment of
annual and perennial weed seedlings and the spread of perennial weeds from
vegetative propagules.

(2) Develop reduced tillage systems without herbicides which provide adequate weed
control, reasonable yields and improved net profits for farmers, with zero risk of
ground water contamination from herbicides.


1988-1990


LISA Funds Matching Funds
Organization 1988 1989 1988 1989

Rodale Research Center $6,166 $14,234 $35,487
Cornell University 16,834 27,614 15,740
ARS/USDA Beltsville 4,000 8,541 9,438
University of Maine 0 29,611 26,732
Totals $27,000 $80,000 $16,500 $87,397


Tecnoog fo Appe Prdcto


Major Participants


Cooperators


Pennsylvania State University: Edwin G. Rajotte, Ass't Professor, Dept. of
Entomology, Grant Administrator; Wesley Musser and Carolyn Sachs, Assoc.
Professors, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology;

University of Vermont: Lorraine Berkett, Ass't Professor, Dept. of Plant Pathology;

University of Massachusetts: Daniel Cooley, Extension Plant Pathologist, Dept. of
Plant Pathology;

Rodale Research Center: Sarah Wolfgang, Project Leader/Orchard.

Pennsylvania State University: Timothy Bowser, Program Manager, Dept. of
Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology; Robert M. Crassweller, Ass't Prof. of
Horticulture; Larry A. Hull, Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Entomology; James W.
Travis, Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Plant Pathology;

University of Vermont: Patricia Downer, Res. Computer Specialist, Dept of Plant and
Soil Science;

Rodale Research Center: Kim Kroll, Agricultural Systems Modeler


17


Objectives


Project Duration


Funding











Overview


One year


LISA Funds Matching Funds
Organization 1988 1989 1988 1989


Pennsylvania State Univ. $40,000 $40,000 $45,562
Rodale Research Center 4,000 5,000 5,479
Univ. of Massachusetts 5,500 5,000
Univ. of Vermont 5,500 5,000

Totals $55,000 $55,000 $102,500 $51,041


LNE8-9Alentv Crppn Sysem fo Low-inpu
I ~Agrcltr in th Notes


Cornell University: Jane Mt. Pleasant (Project Coordinator) Ass't Professor, Agronomy
Department, Ithaca, NY; Tom Barker, Research Assoc., Plant Breeding
Department; Gary Bergstrom, Assoc. Professor, Plant Pathology Department; Bill
Cox, Ass't Professor, Agronomy Deparment; John Duxbury, Professor, Agronomy
Department; Stu Klausner, Senior Extension Assoc., Agronomy Department;
Charles Mohler, Research Associate, Ecology and Systematics Department; Tom
Scott, Professor, Agronomy Department; Elson Shields, Ass't Professor,


This proposal creates a mechanism to incorporate electronic decision support
technology (initially expert systems) into commercial apple production in the
Northeast. Expert systems and associated electronic technology have considerable
potential for low input agricultural production in organizing and integrating information,
knowledge, and managerial skills necessary to profitably reduce purchased inputs.
The overall project is comprised of two phases. Years one and two will address the
establishment of interdisciplinary, interregional and academic/ private sector
cooperation, and will provide for the establishment and evaluation of field testing
protocol. The second phase which is beyond the scope of the present proposal will
involve the expansion and improvement of this technology, the identification of
"knowledge gaps," the incorporation of new, research-based information and further
refinements of adoption approaches.

(1) Expand and modify field evaluation of expert system technology in Pennsylvania.

(2) Analyze farm level economic impacts

(3) Develop modules and modify existing modules for New England and organic
production; to be performed by the Universities of Vermont and Massachusetts
and the Rodale Research Center.


Objectives


Project Duration


Funding


Major Participants


18











Entomology Department; Margaret Smith, Ass't Professor, Plant Breeding
Department; Harold van Es, Ass't Professor, Agronomy Department; Keith
Waldron, IPM Coordinator, Dairy-Field Crops; RichardZobel, Research Plant
Geneticist, USDA, Agronomy Department

Cornell Cooperative Extension: Fred Bruech, Field Crops Agent, Schoharie County,
41 South Grand Street, Cobleskill, NY 12043; Jim Capron, Field Crops Agent,
Wayne County, 480 N. Main Street, Canandaigua, NY 14424; Elaine Dalrymple,
Field Crops Agent, Schuyler County, Rural-Urban Center, 208 Broadway,
Mondour Falls, NY 14865; Tom Kilcer, Field Crops Agent, Rensselaer County,
County Courthouse, Congress and 2nd Streets, Troy, NY; Jeff Miller, Field Crops
Agent, OneidaHerkimer Counties, P.O. Box 271, Herkimer, NY 13350; Bruce
Tillapaugh, Field Crop Specialist, Eric-Wyoming Counties, 401 North Main Street,
Warswaw, NY 14569

Empire Agri-Services: Mark Brown, Agricultural Consultant, Newark, NY;

Farmers: Hal and Kerry Adams, Black Brook Farm, 4556 Kyte Road, Shortsville, NY
14548; John Brubaker, R.D. #1, Kutztown, PA 19530; Calvin De Golyer (Dairy
Farmer), Table Rock Farms, 5554 De Golyer Road, Castile, NY 14427; Ed Gates,
Box 2, Montour Falls, NY 14865; Kenny Gehringer, R.D. #2, Box 243, Kutztown,
PA 19530; Gordon Gruber, R.D. #1, Kutztown, PA 19530; Warner Luenberger, Rt.
26, Oriskany Falls, NY 13425; David Shaul, Box 5, Fultanham, NY 12071;
Norman Vaill, Poplar Ridge, Aurora, NY;

Indigenous Permaculture Networking Center: Jorge Quintano, Chief Agronomist,
Crows Hill Farm, Berkshire, NY;

Pennsylvania State University: Wesley Musser, Assoc. Professor, and Spiro Stefano,
Ass't Professor, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Weaver Building,
University Park, PA 16802;

Rodale Research Center: Rhonda Janke, Agronomy Coordinator; Steve Peters,
Agronomist, R.D. 1, Box 323, Kutztown, PA 19530;

Western New York Crop Management Association Cooperative: John Deibel,
Manager, 21 South Grove Street, East Aurora, NY 14052

Overview Extension and applied research programs are needed to provide farmers with viable
low-input crop production practices and systems that reduce off-farm inputs while
maintaining productivity and conserving the natural resource base. Considerable
research data on individual components of reduced-input systems (i.e., tillage, manure
management, interseeding and cover crops) is available but research integrating
these practices into a cropping management strategy is lacking.


19












Objectives


One year


LISA Funds Matching Funds
Organization 1988 1989 1988 1989

Cornell University $47,800 $51,975 $56,726
Rodale Research Center 12,200 13,625 27,060
Pennsylvania State Univ. 0 14,400 31,785

Totals $60,000 $80,000 $41,285 $115,571


LNE8810 Devt En ad In o


Major Participants


Cornell University: David M. Gadoury (Project Coordinator), Assoc. Prof., Dept. of
Plant Pathology, NY State Agri. Expt. Station, Geneva, NY, 14456. (315)-787-
2328. Ithaca faculty: R.C. Pearson and R.C. Seem, Dept. of Plant Pathology; R.M.
Pool, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences; T. Henick-Kling, Dept. of Food Science and
Technology; and T. Dennehy and J. Nyrop, Dept. of Entomology.

The Pennsylvania State University: M. C. Saunders, Dept. of Entomology; J. W. Travis,
Dept. of Plant Pathology; and C. W. Haeseler, Dept. of Horticulture.


20


(1) Establish demonstration trials on research farms using low-input production
practices.

(2) Establish on-farm trials comparing conventional with low-input practices.

(3) Review, consolidate and extend to farmers and county extension agents
information from past and on-going research on alternate cropping systems which
maintain net farm income.

(4) Determine effects of alternative cropping systems with various tillage, weed
control, manure and cover crop practices on crop yields, nutrient utilization, crop
(including root) growth and development, pest levels, soil physical and chemical
properties, and soil cover.

(5) Utilize information on N dynamics within different cropping systems to maximize
the supply of N to crops while reducing losses from the soil-plant system.

(6) Identify important corn varietal traits for alternative cropping systems.

(7) Evaluate effects of alternative cropping systems on transitional and steady state
farm income for representative farms.


Project Duration


Funding












Overview This proposal addresses the need to reduce costs in the three most expensive
aspects of grape production in the northeast region: disease and insect management,
pruning, and ground cover management. Previous work by the various cooperators
has demonstr- ated that substantial savings can be made in all of these areas. Major
reductions in seasonal fungicide use have been achieved in experiments involving the
use of dormant treatments to destroy overwintering pathogens. The use of insect
mating hormones (pheromones) has been shown to be effective in controlling grape
berry moth in certain vineyards without the use of insecticides. Mechanical pruning
and minimal hand pruning have greatly reduced labor costs in these operations.
Finally, new approaches to ground cover management have eliminated or greatly
reduced the need to till vineyards. The experiments outlined in this proposal are
designed to provide the critical information that will allow the most promising grape
production strategies to be combined into a truly low-input system for grapes in the
northeastern United States.

Objectives (1) Refine the technique of using dormant eradicant sprays, thereby making it an
effective, practical method to replace or augment seasonal fungicide sprays.

(2) To conduct large-scale demonstrations of the effectiveness of the grape berry
moth pheromone and to compare the effectiveness of the GBM pheronome with
that of conventional insecticides.

(3) To illustrate that secondary pests seldom cause economic damage to processing
grapes.

(4) Develop an optimal vineyard design and management plan for low-input systems.

(5) Generate and deliver weather forecast with a high spatial resolution (1 km) to be
used for local management decisions on pest development, cultural management,
and timing of pesticide applications.


Project Duration One year


LISA Funds Matching Funds
Organization 1988 1989 1988 1989

Cornell University 25,000 31,865 $69,808
Pennsylvania State Univ. $15,000 $7,135 0

Totals $40,000 $39,000 $43,712 $69,808


21


Funding
















Major Participants Rodale Institute: James 0. Morgan, (Project Coordinator), VicePresident and
Executive Director, Emmaus, PA 18049; Rob Rooy Frederick, MD.

CONSULTATIVE Participants: Bob Anderson, V.P. Walnut Acres, Penn's Creek, PA;
Austin C. Cleaves, Dairy Farmer, East Montpelier, VT; Martin Culik, Extension
Agent, Canandaigua, NY; David Ferro, Extension Entomologist, Amherst, MA;
Judy Green, Alternative Agr. Specialist, Ithaca, NY; Robbin Haggle, Chesapeake
Wildlife Htge., Easton, MD; Paul Harlowe, Vegetable Grower, Bellow Falls, VT;
Steve Kaffka, Sunny Valley Foundation, New Milford, CT; Mike Kane, President,
NOFA-NY, Port Crane, NY; Matt Liebman, Sustainable Agr. Specialist, Orono,
ME; Murray McJunkin, Grain and Hog Farmer, Bellefonte, PA; Bill Murphy,
University of Vermont, Burlington, VT; Ron Prokopy, Extension Entomologist,
Amherst, MA; Maurice Tougas, Fruit, Berry Grower, Northborough, MA; Joanne
Whalen, Extension Agent, Dover, DE; Garth Youngberg, Institute for Alternative
Agriculture, Greenbelt, MD

Overview Experience has shown that farmers are reluctant to attempt a transition to a lower-
input method of farming unless they have the opportunity to study other farmers'
methods in a first-hand manner. Travel to a wide variety of sites where sustainable
agriculture systems have been implemented is impractical for most farmers. We
propose to make use of video technology to bring many farmers into contact with a
wide range of methods. The material presented will be the first-hand experiences of
farmers, findings from farm-based or farm-simulated research projects throughout the
Northeast, and the perceptions of various low-input specialists within the agricultural
community. An accompanying 12-page study guide will be prepared to provide
farmers with a distillation of the options presented in the video and with a list of
additional sources of information. The videos will be available for distribution by March
1,1990.

Objectives (1) Use video technology to offer Northeastern farmers encouragement, ideas, and
reliable information about making a transition to a lower input system.

(2) Address separately the needs of Northeastern farmers of two distinct kinds: a) the
large scale field crops and/or livestock farmer, and b) the high-value fruit,
vegetable, and ornamental growers.

(3) Address in separate, sequential programs, two distinct needs for each of the two
kinds of farmers: a) encouragement and b) reliable information.

(4) To complement the motivational and informational role of the videos by providing a
simple study guide that will assist in the farmers' decisonmaking process.


22












(5) To create an avenue for personal assistance by providing the viewer with an
address and telephone number for additional advice and information.

(6) To distribute the video presentations and the study guides through multiple outlets
for maximum effective coverage of the farming community.

Project Duration One year

Funding LISA funds: $60,000 Matching funds: $149,258


23








Projects First Funded in 1989:


Major Participants University of Maine: Mary Wiedenhoeft, (Project Coordinator), Asst. Prof. of
Agronomy, Dept. of Plant and Soil Science, Univ. of Maine, Orono ME 04469;
Barbara Barton, Assoc. Prof. Animal Science; Robert Hough, Ass't Extension
Educator and Livestock Specialist; Mr. Rupert Stafford, Ass't Agronomist;

University of Connecticut: Karl Guillard, Ass't Prof. in Residence of Agronomy, Storrs,
CT 06268.

Farmer: Mr. Dave Albert, Farm Manager, Sugar Hill Farm, Colebrook, CT.

USDA-Soil Conservation Service: Mr. Phil Burns, Economist; Mr. Christopher Jones,
Conservation Agronomist, graduate student

Farmers: Ms. Mary Burr, dairy farmer, Norridgewock, ME: Determining the quality of
milk from dairy cows grazing Tyfon-perennial ryegrass. Mr. Charles DeGrandpre,
Farm Manager, Wolfe's Neck Farm: Coordination of projects and Small Farms
Field Day; Ms. Janet Perry, sheep farmer, Ashland, ME: Growth trial with market
lambs; Mr. Mark Russell, dairy farmer, Litchfield, ME: Growth trial with dairy
(Jersey) heifers; Mr. Tom Settlemire, sheep farmer, Brunswick, ME: Project
design, trial evaluating body condition of ewes prior to and after breeding,
information dissemination, evaluation of project results; Mr. and Ms. Darel and
Sally Smith, dairy farmers, Bradford, ME: Growth trial with dairy heifers.

Overview The major costs to livestock operations in the Northeast are the purchase, production,
and handling of feed. Grazing is the most economical form of feed acquisition on most
farms. By growing and utilizing greater quantities of locally-produced, high-quality
forages, livestock production costs can be reduced without compromising productivity,
thus increasing on-farm profit and sustainability. Brassicas can supply additional or
supplemental forage, thus extending the grazing season in northern latitudes. When
integrated into existing forage systems, Brassica crops have the potential to reduce: 1)
the amount of purchased concentrates, 2) stored winter forage that needs to be
produced or purchased, 3) harvesting costs and labor by allowing the animals to
harvest the forage, and 4) costs and labor associated with manure disposal.

Tyfon, a Chinese cabbage-turnip hybrid, recently has gained considerable attention for
use as a pasture crop in commercial livestock operations. To integrate Tyfon into
existing forage systems in the Northeast, farmers need additional information on the
nutritional limitations of this crop and its effects on animal production and economic
profitability. Reductions in herbicide inputs and soil erosion will also add to improved
on-farm sustainability of Northeast farms that can integrate Brassicas into their present
forage system.


24












Objectives


Project Duration


Funding


(1) Determine the intake, digestibility, and subclinical health effects of a Tyfon-based
ration as influenced by various levels of hay roughage.

(2) Determine the growth, feed efficiency, carcass quality traits, and subclinical health
effects of lambs fed diets containing varying proportions of Tyfon and hay.

(3) Determine the consumer acceptance of milk from dairy cows fed Tyfon.

(4) Determine the potential of establishing Tyfon, via no-till, into pastures without
herbicides and the N fertility requirement in this situation.




Two years


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

Univ. of Maine $50,180 $69,277
Univ. of Connecticut 34,820 79,680

Total $85,000 $148,907


LN891 Wite Cove Crp0o onPrdcini h
Noteat N Balnc an Soi 0 ostr 0tatu


Major Participants


University of Maryland: A.M. Decker, (project coordinator), Professor, Forage
Management; M.S. Mclntosh, Assoc. Professor, Statistics; B.R. James, Asst.
Prof.,Soil Chemistry; Mr. F.R. Mulford, Faculty Res. Asst., Farm Manager; Dr.P.R.
Thomison, Asst. Prof., Grain and Oil Crops; R.R. Well, Assoc. Prof., Soil Fertility;
Mr. H.T. Badger, Manager, Beltsville Facility, Central Maryland R & E Center; Mr.
A.J. Clark, Grad. Student, Technician; Mr. Wayne Shaft, Wicomico County
extension agent.

USDA-Agricultural Research Service: J.J. Meisinger, Research Soil Scientist,
Beltsville, MD.

Farmers: Mr. Robert Ellis, Salisbury, MD: Will evaluate crimson clover winter cover on
20 acres; Mr. Calvin Serman, Salisbury, MD: Will evaluate crimson clover winter
cover on 9 acres; Mr. Norman Brittingham, Pittsville, MD: Will evaluate hairy vetch
winter cover on 12 acres.


25












Overview Winter annual legumes can provide most or all of the N required by no-tillage corn.
Small grain covers can recycle more unused fertilizer nitrogen (FN) than legumes,
thus reducing potential for leaching and groundwater contamination, but the high C:N
ratio of cereals can lower N availability to subsequent crops. When spring rainfall is
low, cover crops can deplete soil moisture and jeopardize corn germination and early
growth. This project will evaluate the management of hairy vetch, cereal rye and vetch/
rye mixtures in cover crop-corn systems in terms of cover N production, N recycling,
groundwater quality, and soil moisture in order to optimize profits without damage to
the environment. Research plots will be established at Maryland Coastal Plain and
Piedmont locations. Demonstrations on three commercial grain farms and two
Experiment Station farms will include field scale plantings of selected treatments from
research plots. Field days and twilight meetings will be held at research locations and
on-farm demonstration locations.

Objectives (1) Extend field plot research findings to field size research/demonstration program on
commercial farms.

(2) Determine effects of kill dates of hairy vetch, cereal rye and vetch/rye mixtures,
plus no-tillage corn planting dates on nitrogen status of soils and crops, soil
moisture availability during germination and early growth, and shallow ground
water quality.

(3) Develop predictive models to identify viable management alternatives for cover
crop use in corn production systems.


Project Duration 2 Years

Funding LISA funds $105,000 Matching funds $142,748


Major Participants Cornell University: Judith J. Green (Project Coordinator) Extension Support Specialist,
Farming Alternatives Project, 422 Warren Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853.

Natural Organic Farmer Association: Edwin N. McGlew I11, Dairy Farmer and
Treasurer of the NOFA Interstate Council, 140 Chestnut Street, West Hatfield, MA
01088

Organic and Sustainable Farmers Network, State Coordinators: The following organic
farmers (listed alphabetically by state) will serve as coordinators of the farmer
network and will help to develop criteria for selecting the master farmers, oversee


26












their selection, organize and publicize the farm field days in their respective
states: Alton Eliason, 214 Parsonage Hill, Northford, CT 06472. Maureen Blasco,
Bittersweet Farm, 683 River Road, Winchendon, MA 01495. David Colson, 470
Davis Road,Pownal, ME 04069. David Trumble, Old Country Road South,
Francestown, NH 03043. Al Johnson, RD #1, Box 263A, Pennington, NJ 08534.
Elizabeth Henderson, Rose Valley Farm, Rose, NY 14542-0149. Will Stevens,
Golden Russet Farm, RD #1, Box 94, Bridport, VT 05734. (A list of other
participating farmers is available from the Project Coordinator.)

Writer/ Consultant in Organic Agriculture: Miranda Smith, 63 LaFountain St.,
Burlington, VT 05401 will oversee the research, writing, review and publication of
the manual of current practices in organic farming in the Northeast Region.

University of Massachusetts: Karen Idoine, Associate Extension Agent for Agriculture,
238 Main St., Greenfield, MA 01301 is coordinator (with Grace Gershuny) of
Extension in-service training program.

GAIA Associates: Grace Gershuny, Principal, organic farm service, Box 84, RFD 3,
St. Johnsbury, VT 05819.

State Extension Contacts: Latif Lighari, CT; Richard Brzozowski, ME; Karen Idoine,
MA; Bruce Clement, NH; Clare S. Liptak, NJ; Martin N. Culik, NY; Stu Gibson, VT.

Overview There is no comprehensive source of information on organic farming and other low-
input farming systems readily available to farmers, agricultural agents or researchers.
This project was designed by a committee of the Natural Organic Farmers' Associa-
tion (NOFA) Interstate Council to fill this substantial gap in information. This project
will remedy this lack in three ways: 1) establish a network of experienced organic and
sustainable farmers in the northeast states who will provide information for research-
ers, hold field days for other farmers and farm demonstrations for agricultural
Extension Agents; 2) write, publish, and distribute a manual of current practices on
farms using organic and sustainable methods; and 3) design and disseminate an in-
service training program for Extension agents and other agricultural consultants on
organic and sustainable farm production systems and management.

Objectives (1) Create a network consisting of at least three organic and sustainable farmers in
each Northeast state and conduct a series of field days for farmers and farm
demonstrations for extension agents at 15 of these farms.

(2) Produce a manual documenting the production practices currently in use on
certified organic farms in the Northeast: Organic farming represents one end of a
continuum from chemical-intensive to chemical independent agricultural systems.

(3) Expand the range of options which Cooperative Extension agents can suggest to
the increasing numbers of conventional farmers who are inquiring about low-input


27















Project Duration


Funding


systems, by training agents in the production, management and marketing issues
involved in organic and sustainable agriculture.

1989-1991


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

NOFA $84,650 $ 60,054
Cornell University 30,350 21,260

Totals $115,000 $81,314


LNuE89-15 Egpat oe ytmfrIpeetn h
Inegato of a Biologia Coto Inesv Pest
Maaemn Fo th Majo Inec and Disas
Pet of Sooaeu Crop in th Nothas.


Major Participants


Overview


Rutgers University: James Lashomb (Project Coordinator), Assoc. Prof. Entomology
(Research and Teaching); George Hamilton, Asst. Prof. Entomology Extension;
Steve Johnston, Assoc. Prof. Plant Pathology (Extension and Research); Robin
Brumfield, Asst. Prof. (100% Extension); Pritham Dhillon, Assoc. Prof. Agricultural
Economics and Marketing (Teaching and Research); Philip Nieri, County Agent
Glouscester County; Peter Probasco, County Agent Salem County; Jack Rabin,
County Agent Cumberland County.

USDA-Agricultural Research Service: Debbie Fravel, Research Plant Pathologist
Biological Control of Plant Disease Laboratory.

New Jersey Department of Agriculture: William Metterhouse, Director of Plant
Industry. Robert Chianese, Chief of Beneficial Insects Laboratory.

Vegetable Farmers:Sam Ballinder and Mullica Hill, Glouscester County; Daniel Deola,
Robert Ferrari, and Donald Tarrabio, Vineland Cumberland County; William
Horer Sweesboro, Glouscester County; William Lillya and John Musemeci,
Woodstown, Salem County; Sam Walker Porchtown, Salem County.

The Colorado potato beetle (CPB) and verticillium wilt are profound pests of tomatoes,
potatoes, and eggplant in the Northeast. The beetle is highly insecticide resistant. CPB
was resistant to second and third generation pyrethroids before they were out of the
research laboratory. Population growth is very explosive, often completely defoliating a
crop before any economic returns are realized.


28












Many growers rely on the very expensive and environmentally hazardous soil
sterilizing fumigants to control verticillium. Rotation is used by potato and vegetable
farmers with limited success, since the infective stage can remain viable in the soil for
at least 5 years. Biological Control Intensive Pest Management (BCIPM) is a
promising alternative for both problems: a parasitic wasp lays its eggs in the beetles
eggs, and verticillium can be controlled by a soil antagonist.

Objectives (1) Refine a BCIPM delivery system of a parasitic wasp (Edovum puttleri) for
protecting eggplant yield against Colorado potato beetle (CPB) populations.

(2) Demonstrate the benefits of a soil borne antagonist (Talaromyces flavus) against
Verticillium dahliae in eggplant as a model for wider use in potato.

(3) Determine the economic feasibility of using BCIPM for Colorado potato beetle and
verticillium wilt in eggplant as a model system for further implementation in potato
and tomato.

Project Duration One Year

Funding LISA Funds (Rutgers University): $25,000 Matching Funds: $145,650


Major Participants The Pennsylvania State University: Barbara L. Goulart, (Project Coordinator), Asst.
Prof. of Pomology (extension and research Department of Horticulture, University
Park, PA 16802; James W. Travis, Assoc. Prof. of Plant Pathology (extension and
research); Edwin G. Rajotte, Asst. Prof. of Entomology (extension and research);
Stephen J. Dahm, Programmer/analyst, Extension, Agricultural Information
Services.

Cornell University: Marvin P. Pritts, Asst. Prof. of Pomology (extension and research)
Department of Pomology, 134-A Plant Science Bldg., Ithaca, NY 14853. Wayne
Wilcox, Asst. Prof. of Plant Pathology (extension and research) Department of
Plant Pathology, NYSAES, Geneva, NY 14456; Joseph Kovach, Integrated pest
management specialist. NYSAES, Geneva, NY.

NY Extension: Mark A. Castaldi, Regional extension specialist. Hudson Valley
Laboratory, P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528; Warren Smith, Extension fruit
specialist, Hudson Valley Lab, Highland, NY.

NY Farmer: Roderick Dressel, Grower. Rt. 208, New Paltz, NY 12561: to cooperate in
New York studies.


29












University of Massachusetts: Dan Cooley and Sonia Schloemann, Integrated pest
management specialist and coordinator, Department of Plant Pathology, Fernald
Hall, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003.

MA Farmers: T. Nourse (Nurseryman), M. Tougas, Daniel Tawzinski, E. Hatch, A.
Cowles, and R. Valonen, Growers, cooperating on predator mite and yeast control
of Botrytis on strawberry; Tony Andrews, Grower, 298 Old Meetinghouse Road, E.
Falmouth, MA 02536. Cooperator on non-chemical fumigation project.

New Alchemy Institute: Ralph E. DeGregorio, Weed specialist, 237 Hatchville Road, E.
Falmouth, MA 02536.

University of Maine: David Handley, small fruit Extension specialist, Highmoor Farm,
Box 179, Monmouth, ME 03824; James F. Dill, Extension pest management
specialist, Pest Management Office, 491 College Ave., Orono, ME 04473.

Maine Farmers: John J. McCue, Farm supervisor, Highmoor Farm, P.O. Box 179,
Monmouth, ME 04259. Oversee and maintain research plots at Highmoor Farm.

USDA-Agricultural Research Service: Fumiomi Takeda, Research horticulturist and
Wojciech Janisiewicz, Research plant pathologist, Appalachian Fruit Res. Sta., Rt.
2, Box 45, Kearneysville, WV 25430.

Overview Five northeastern states (MA, ME, NY, PA, WV) are cooperating on a multi-
disciplinary project exploring the biological and economic feasibility of production
practices that show potential for increasing net profit by either reducing purchase
inputs or increasing yield of small fruits (strawberries, blueberries and brambles).

Objectives (1) Screen small fruit germplasm for productivity, insect and disease sensitivity, and
pest/predator presence.

(2) Evaluate non-chemical pest control methods such as ground cover management,
solar fumigation and weed control in strawberry; non-traditional fungicides in
brambles; biological materials (yeasts, bacteria, and a biological derivative of
Pseudomonas) for pre- and postharvest fruit rot control; and the use of row covers
as a means of mechanically excluding tarnished plant bug and strawberry clipper,
two potentially devastating insect pests.

(3) Devise and test production and pest management practices that reduce the need
for purchased inputs such as pesticides and fertilizer, in order to improve the
sustainability of small fruit production in the Northeast.

(4) Evaluate the economic feasibility of these newly developed "low input" practices
as compared to "standard practices."

(5) Transfer technological advances by demonstrating the feasibility, profitability and
rationality of alternative practices to existing and potential small fruit growers.


30












Project Duration


Funding


Major Participants


Cooperators


One year funding; long term plan.

LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

Penn State Univ. $15,700 $26,466
Cornell Univ. 15,000 74,478
Univ. of Maine 6,000 17,675
Univ. of Mass. 8,000 0
New Alchemy Institute 3,300 3,300
ARS/USDA 5,000 38,650

Totals $53,000 $160,569


LNE891 Improving Milk Qa


University of Vermont, Dept. of Animal Sci.: J. Woodrow Pankey, Res. Prof., Mastitis
Microbiology (Project Coordinator)

Farmers (Vermont dairies and UVM herd): John R. Kunkel. Ext. Vet.; Edward
E. Wildman. Ext. Dairy Specialist.

New York State Mastitis Control Program, Ithaca: Philip Sears. Director.

Bovine practitioners: Steve Wadsworth. St. Albans; Joe Klopfenstein. Vergennes; and
Mark Catlin. Barre: Monitor cooperator farms, conduct clinics, collect mastitis,
reproduction and health data, retrieve DHIA data for monthly analysis

Dairy farmers: John Brigham. Brent Brigham and Austin Cleaves (Cooperators in VT
LISA): Record data for mastitis, reproduction, health and economics. Provide
producer insight into the project. Additional cooperator farmers will be obtained
through veterinarians and coop field representatives.

Agri-Mark Milk Coop.: Yvon Lanoue. Field Services, Obtain monthly milk quality data
through coop quality testing labs and collect BTM samples for analysis by the
Quality Milk Research Lab(QMRL), UVM. Assist in economic evaluations based
on the milk quality incentive program.

Vermont Quality Milk Enhancement Program (VQMEP), Vermont Dept. Agriculture:
Dan Scruton, Assist in farm evaluation of milking management, collection of
monthly BTM samples for analysis by UVM QMRL, economic evaluations and
dissemination of results through VMQEP.


31












Overview


Objectives


Project Duration


Funding


Increased profit through low-input management can mean the survival of more
Northeast dairy farms. This project will use 30 Vermont and New York dairy farms to
compare effects of Voisin controlled grazing, continuous grazing and confined housing
management systems on profit as relates to milk quality, incidence and prevalence of
mastitis, reproductive efficiency and animal health. A reduction in contamination of
cow teats and udders through use of Voisin grazing could increase milk quality and
decrease losses due to mastitis. Grazing, exercise and less cow- hours on concrete
could improve reproductive efficiency, reduce metabolic diseases, minimize lameness
and decrease involuntary cull rate.


(1) Compare economic effects of Voisin grazing, continuous grazing and confined
housing systems on milk quality parameters.

(2) Determine incidence of mastitis in dairy cows managed under Voisin grazing and
confined housing systems.

(3) Compare effects of Voisin grazing, continuous grazing and confinement on
reproduction.

(4) Compare effects of these systems on animal health.

(5) Determine economic implications for farms when applying these systems.

(6) Disseminate results to the Northeast dairy industry.

One year


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

University of Vermont $53,000 $61,292
Cornell University 5,000 0

Totals $58,000 $61,292


LN 89 1 Ma ke a ilt of Lo -i pu A grc l u a Pr d c I


Major Participants


Rutgers Cooperative Extension Service: Clare S. Liptak,(Project Coordinator),
Somerset County Agricultural Agent, P.O. Box 3000, Somerville, NJ 08876


32


















Consultants


Cooperators


Overview









Objectives


Project Duration

Funding


Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Cape May County: Dan B. Strombom, Agricultural
Agent;

New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station: Robert E. Wyse, Senior Assoc. Director,
P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, NJ, 08903

Rutgers University: Basil Englis, Ass't Prof. of Marketing, School of Business, New
Brunswick, NJ 08903

Robert Wood Johnson Medical School: Michael Gallo, Prof. and Chief, Division of
Toxicology, New Brunswick, NJ 08903

Farmers: Tom Everett, Ever-Lea Farms, 258 Beekman Lane, Somerville, NJ 08876;
Bob Eurick, Mill Lane Farms, Mill Lane, Neshanic, NJ 08853; Peter Quick,
Windward Farm Whiton Road, Neshanic Station, NJ 08853; Matthew Fierst,
Sunhaven Farms, 1018 Orchard Drive, Somerville, NJ 08876; Gary Mount,
Terhune Orchards, 330 Cold Soil Road, Princeton, NJ 08540;

Rutgers Cooperative Extension: Extension Specialists: Donald J. Prostak, Extension
Specialist in Pest Management; Steven Reiners, Extension Specialist in
Vegetable production; Joseph Fiola, Extension Specialist in Small Fruits; Robin
Brumfield, Extension Specialist in Farm Management, Cook College, Rutgers
University, P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, NJ 08903;

New Jersey Dept. of Agriculture: John J. Repko, Director, Division of Markets, CN330,
Trenton, NJ 08625

The question of marketability is of particular concern to farmers considering raising
fresh produce in such programs as integrated pest management where attempts are
made to reduce chemical inputs by substituting other techniques. There is
considerable uncertainty as to how such produce might be marketed, specifically in
pricing, advertising, and promotions. This project will investigate the marketability of
low-input fresh vegetable and fruit produce through a set of consumer surveys and
market tests in New Jersey. The project team includes researchers, extension
professionals, and farmers.

(1) Complete surveys to evaluate consumer perceptions and attitudes concerning
fresh produce in regard to factors such as quality, local vs. non-local source,
appearance and production methods.

(2) Combine attitudinal data with demographic data to identify market segments at
which promotional and advertising efforts should be aimed.


One year

LISA funds $20,000. Matching funds (NJAES) $40,621.


33






LN 891 Reue ilg:AtratvSrpigSse o
r -eetbl Proucio in th otes


Major Participants Cornell University (Research/Extension): Robin R. Bellinder(Project Coordinator),
Department of Vegetable Crops, Ithaca, NY 14853; Darlene Wilcox-Lee,
Department of Vegetable Crops, Long Island Hort. Res. Lab 39 Sound Ave.,
Riverhead, NY 11901; Curt Petzoldt, Asst. Dir., IPM Program NYS Ag. Expt. Sta
Dr., Geneva, NY.

University of Connecticut: Richard Ashley, Department of Plant Sciences, 1376 Storrs
Road, Storrs, CT 06268.

New York Farmers: Mr. Lyle Wells (Grower), Member of the Board of Directors of the
State Vegetable Growers Association, Riverhead, NY; Mr. Paul Wafler, Wolcott,
NY;

Ontario Co. Coop. Extension: Laura Pedersen, Cooperative Ext. Agent, 480 N. Main
St., Canandaigua, NY 14424.

USDA- Soil Conservation Service: Mr. Alan Connell, DistrictConservationist U.S.D.A.,
Riverhead, NY


Overview Use of reduced or strip-tillage and inter-row cover crops for vegetable production will
be investigated at research facilities and growers fields in Upstate and on Long Island
in New York, and in Connecticut. We will evaluate different grass and legume mulch/
cover crop species for their ability to suppress weeds, conserve soil moisture and
control soil erosion. Herbicide rates will be reduced by use of mulches. The studies will
be conducted on a wide range of crops that are grown throughout the Northeast and
North Central regions of the U.S, such as tomatoes, cabbage or cauliflower, snap
beans, sweet corn and pumpkins.



Objectives (1) Develop an extension and applied research program that provides farmers with
viable crop production practices that reduce off-farm inputs while maintaining
productivity and conserving the natural resource base.

(2) Determine the effects of alternative cropping systems with various tillage, weed
control, and cover crop practices on crop yields, nutrient utilization, crop growth
and development, weed levels, soil physical and chemical properties, and soil
cover.

(3) Utilize information on N dynamics within different cropping systems to maximize
the supply of N to crops while reducing losses from the soil-plant system.

Project Duration One year

Funding LISA funds (to Cornell) $10,000. Matching funds $30,953.


34





I P 2 T .r C


The North Central Region includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. A
total of 233 proposals were evaluated by the regional Technical Committee in 1988
and 1989; of these only 25 were funded as LISA projects. During 1988, 21 projects
were funded. Thirteen of these received additional funding in 1989- only four new
projects were funded. The following is a brief description of the North Central projects
that have been funded during the first two years of the LISA program.

Table 3. LISA Projects Funded in the North Central Region

LISA Funds
Number Project Title and Coordinator 1988 1989


Projects Funded in 1988, not 1989:

LNC88-1 integration of Conversation Tillage,
Animal Manures, and Cultural Pest
Control in Corn. David A. Andow,
Univ. of MN $98,500
LNC88-2 An Economic Analysis of Producer
and Industry Level Impacts of Low-
Input Agriculture. Michael Duffy,
Iowa State University 25,000
LNC88-3 Low-Input Ridge Tillage System for
the Corn Belt. Randall Reeder,
Ohio State University 24,300
LNC88-4 Sustainable/Low-input Agriculture:
An Overview Videotape. Charles
Francis, Univ. of NE 16,800
LNC88-5 Low-Input Agriculture and Cover
Crop Workshop for Extension and
Research Personnel from Nebraska,
Iowa, Kansas and Missouri. Z.R.
Helsel, University of Missouri 16,500
LNC88-6 Development of Organic Nitrogen
Availability Functions for a Nitrogen
Management Model. D.R. Keeney,
University of Wisconsin 14,009
LNC88-7 Low-Input Database and
Information System. Zane Helsel,
Univ. of Missouri 5,000
LNC88-8 Sustainable Agriculture Educational
Displays. Clive Edwards, Ohio
State University 4,000


35












LISA Funds
Number Project Title and Coordinator 1988 1989


Projects First Funded in 1988, renewed 1989:

LNC88-9 Agronomic and Economic Analyses
of Alternative Small Grain/ Row Crop
Production Systems for the Northern
Plains. James D. Smolik, South
Dakota State Univ. 66,700 60,000

LNC88-10 Substituting Legumes for Fallow in
U.S. Great Plains Wheat Production.
John C. Gardner, North Dakota
State Univ. Carrington Research
Extension Center 74,000 82,000

LNC88-11 The Middle Border On-Farm Research
Consortium. Patrick J. Moore, Land
Stewardship Project 75,000 107,697

LNC88-12 Whole-Farm Economic and Nitrogen
Budget Analysis on Low Chemical
and Conventional Wisconsin Farms.
Margaret Krome, Wisconsin Rural
Dev. Center 25,000 62,000

LNC88-13 Evaluation of Integrated Low Input
Crop-Livestock Production System.
J.C. Gardner, ND State Univ.
Carrington Research Ext. Center 50,000 82,700

LNC88-14 Beginning Farmer Sustainable
Agriculture Project. Ron Krupicka,
Center for Rural Affairs. 16,848 26,280

LNC88-15 An Integrated Research/Extension
Program in Low-Input Crop Production
for Ohio. Donald J. Eckert, Ohio
State University 38,000 40,000

LNC88-16 Assessing Soil Phosphorus Availability
S in Low-input Systems. Steve J. Thien,
Kansas StateUniversity 18,949 19,742


36












LISA Funds
Number Project Title and Coordinator 1988 1989


LNC88-17 Effect of Tillage and Weed Control
Alternatives on Crop Rotations.
Richard M. Cruse, Iowa State
University 40,000 40,000
LNC88-18 Making the Conversion From
Conventional to Sustainable
Agriculture: A Videotape Series for
Farmers. Jerald R. Dewitt, Iowa
State University 20,000 30,000

LNC88-19 Low-Input Beef Cattle Systems of
Production. Terry Klopfenstein,
University of Nebraska 76,500 76,000

LNC88-20 Performance and Economics of a
Low-Input Feeder Swine Operation.
Carlos Pijoan, University of MN 42,100 21,700

LNC88-21 Utilization of the Allelopathic
Properties of Winter Rye as a Method
of Weed Control in Soybean
Production. James Tjepkema,
Rodale Institute 31,150 29,000

Projects First Funded in 1989:

LNC89-22 Development and Demonstration of
Methods Toward Sustainable Apple
Production. Stuart H. Gage, Michigan
State University 24,500

LNC89-23 LISA Impacts: Social, Economic, and
Demographic Impacts of Low-Input/
Sustainable Agriculture Practices on
Farms and Rural Communities in the
Northwest Area. David L. Watt,
North Dakota State University -65,300

LNC89-24 Crop Rotation, Legume Intercropping
and Cultural Pest Control as Substitutes
For Purchased Inputs in a Cash Grain
Cropping System. David B. Mengel,
Purdue University 53,000


37












LISA Funds
Number Project Title and Coordinator 1988 1989


LNC89-25 Synchrony and Contribution of Legume
Nitrogen for Grain Production Under
Different Tillage Systems. J. L. Havlin,
Kansas State University 95,081

TOTALS $800,000 $915,000


38





Projects Funded in 1988, not 1989:


Major Participants University of Minnesota: David A. Andow, Entomology (Project Coordinator); John F.
Moncriefand James B. Swan (Soil Science); St. Paul, MN

Cooperating Farmer: Dale Flueger

Overview One potential cropping system that could reduce soil erosion, limit nitrate and
pesticide contamination of groundwater, and improve farm profitability is ridge-tilled
corn fertilized with manures. Three major issues need to be addressed before we are
certain that these benefits will accrue. First what is the optimal amount of manure to
apply to corn given a past manure history to reduce nitrogen loss in ridge tilled corn?
Second, under these rates of application, how much nitrogen is lost to leaching and
what role do macropores play in ridge-tilled can chisel plowed corn? Third how do the
major pests (northern corn rootworm, European corn borer and foxtail) respond to
manures in ridge-tilled corn and can pesticide use be reduced? We propose on-farm
experiments, observations and activities in southeastern Minnesota to answer these
questions, to engage farmers in testing their perceptions of the utility of manures, and
to spread our results so the more farmers can use them.


Objectives 1. Explore and evaluate management alternatives for low-input corn production using
ridge-tillage and farm manures.


2. Investigate the potential for reducing nitrate and pesticide pollution of ground
water by substituting manures for anhydrous ammonia.

3. Determine whether reasonable rates of applications of manure and different tillage
practices affect survival of corn rootworms, attack by European corn borer and
weed populations


Project Duration long-term plan; initial funding for two years.

Funding LISA funds $98,500. Matching $132,236


39















Major Participants Iowa State University: Michael Duffy (Project Coordinator) Assoc. Prof. of Economics.
James Kliebenstein, Assoc. Prof. of Economics.

University of Nebraska: Glenn Helmers, Prof. of Agricultural Economics. Azzeddine
Azzam, Ass't Prof. of Agricultural Economics.

Overview The basic focus of this research project is to develop baseline data along with cost,
return and income budgets for low- input agricultural production alternatives. The
second phase is to provide a farm system economic assessment of low input
agriculture on individual farms by size and type of farm. Information analyzed by type
and size of farming system will include income level, labor needs, risk assessment,
management responsibilities, soil erosion, fertilizer and pesticide use, energy use
along with water and air pollution. The third phase is an analysis of impacts of alterna-
tive government programs on low input agriculture. This will focus on an industry or
sectoral analysis. The analysis will focus on industry income and risk, production
patterns and adjustments, energy use, labor needs, and pollution.

Objectives 1. Establish baseline data for economic analysis of resource use and efficiency in
low-input agriculture.

Survey farmers.
Identification of technologies presently in use.
develop cost and return budgets.

2. Evaluate through systems analysis farm level management alternatives and
production strategies for low input crop and livestock production.

Income generation.
Labor needs and use.
Risk assessment.
Management responsibilities.

3. Sectoral analysis of agricultural policies which result in wide-spread use of low
input agriculture.

Agricultural prices and production.
Income level.
Labor utilization.
Soil conservation.
Pollution.
Industry structure.
Rural community impact.


40















LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

University of Nebraska $12,500 15,412
Iowa State University 12,500 16,412

Totals $25,000 $31,824


LN8- Lo-nu Ride Tilag Syte fo th Cor Bel


Major Participants


Overview


Ohio State University: Randall Reeder (Project Coordinator) Agricultural Engineering;
Don Eckert, Agronomy; Craig Fendrick, Farm Operations; Larry Whiting, Head,
Information; Allan Lines, Agricultural Economics; Clive Edwards, Ben Stinner and
Nancy Creamer, Entomology; Robert Holmes and Erdal Ozkan, Agricultural
Engineering;

USDA-Agricultural Research Service: Norman Fausey

Purdue University: Don Moore, Cooperative Extension; Samuel Parsons and Donald
Griffith

Farmers: Dale McNelly, Ohio farmer; Donn Klor, Illinois farmer; John Alexander,
Indiana farmer; Carl Eppley, Indiana farmer.

To demonstrate the control of soil erosion and the reduction of cultural inputs of
inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, a low- input ridge tillage cropping system will be
established on 175 acres of typical Corn Belt farmland along 1-70, 25 miles west of
Columbus. The site is part of the 996-acre Molly Caren Agricultural Center where the
Ohio State Farm Science Review is held each September. (At least 50 acres will be
ridged in 1988, more if this proposal is accepted by early June.) Analyses of soil
properties, plant tissue and system economics will be completed.

At least 90,000 farm owner-operators will visit the Farm Science Review each year
with the opportunity to directly compare, side-by-side, the low-input system on corn
and soybeans to conventional tillage and other major cropping methods. Typically,
total attendance includes 75% of all the VO-AG students in Ohio and visitors from 15
to 20 states and at least 30 countries.

During the three-day Farm Science Review, a special Low-Input Ridge Till Day (Sept.
22, 1988, Sept. 21, 1989 and Sept. 30, 1990) will feature a program of expert
speakers. Field demonstrations of ridge till machinery will occur every day. National


41


Project Duration


Funding


One Year.












Low-Input Ridge Till Field Days will be held annually at the farm (mid-June and late
August).

Objectives 1. Establish a permanent low-input ridge tillage system on 175 acres of continuous
corn and corn-soybean rotation at the site of the Ohio State Farm Science
Review.
2. Educate farmers in Ohio, the North Central Region and the world about Low-input
ridge tillage.

Project Duration One Year.

Funding LISA funds (Ohio State Univ. $24,300; Matching $70,899





Major Participants University of Nebraska: Charles Francis, Myra Wilhite, James W. King

Overview Low-input or sustainable agriculture faces an educational challenge equally as
important as those in production practices, economic analysis, and institutionalization
of the process. The name is confusing and poorly understood; some mistake low-input
for low management or low profits. The technical committee meeting in Lincoln put
high priority on development of an overview videotape which will describe sustainable
agriculture in terms of modified production practices, economics, and environmental
impact. This video is directed toward education of farmers and ranchers involved with
crop and livestock production, students at high school and college level, legislators,
agribusiness leaders, and educators within the land-grant system. One general
overview videotape of 11-15 minutes is proposed with footage from several bioregions
in the North Central zone. Possible cooperating states might be Iowa, Missouri, Ohio,
and Minnesota. The objective of this videotape project on sustainable/low-input
agriculture would be to provide and educational videos for audiences which will:

Objectives 1. Give a suitable definition of sustainable agriculture, and describe examples of
sustainable farming practices.

2. Discuss sustainable agriculture issues and practices in differing regions.

3. List ways to use sustainable agricultural techniques in some specific farming
systems with emphasis on the profitability and long-term ecological advantages of
sustainable agriculture.

4. Edit and publish this overview in Nebraska; duplicate and distribute to all land-
grant universities in the North Central region and several other organizations.

Funding LISA funds $16,800. Matching funds $24,187


42















Major Participants University of Missouri: Z R. Helsel (Project Coordinator) Agronomy Department,
Columbia, MO 65211

University of Nebraska: Richard Ferguson (soil science), Roger Selley (economics)
and Charles Francis (agronomy)

Kansas State University: David Whitney (agronomy)

Iowa State University: Regis Voss (agronomy)

Objectives 1. The workshop will provide participants with latest information on various
agronomically related subject matter relevant to low-input agriculture.

2. Participants will prepare teaching materials appropriate for use in training other
scientists and extension field staff in their respective states. Subsequent training
sessions and educational programs for agri-organization leaders and producers
respectively should follow.

3. As a specific 2-day part of the workshop, researchers from the four states will
discuss current activities in the area of cover crops and develop research plans for
future efforts. A joint session will provide an overview of reported cover crop
research and general known information outside the region.

Project Duration one year

Funding LISA funds $16,500. Matching funds $8,156





Major Participants University of Wisconsin: D. R. Keeney, (Initial Project Coordinator, now in Iowa), soil
science, L. G. Budy (soil science and U.W. extension) and R. M. Klemme
(agricultural economics and U.W. extension).

Overview This request is to evaluate Midwest experiments on availability of N in organic sources
to corn and add organic N availability functions in a user-oriented N management
model under development at Wisconsin. Development was initiated in 1986. The
model has a large database for continuous corn but a small database for corn yield
response to organic and N uptake from organic N sources such as legume residues,
manure and sludge. The proposed research is to assemble available field data in the
upper Midwest relating to use of organic N sources for crop growth, publish these as a
regional review, and incorporate them into the model. The user model, termed the
Nitrogen Management Decision Support System (NMDSS) is currently being formatted


43












and will be tested by consultants and farmers yet this year. It is based on soil series,
cropping history, past N management, and historic yield goal. Past weather, fertilizer
N management, and tillage are being incorporated as the model develops. The
request is for a graduate student to work on the literature review and to be included in
the team with the responsibility of developing the organic N response functions for the
model.

1. Develop a comprehensive nitrogen management model capable of providing
predictions for maximizing crop use of available soil nitrogen, particularly N from
organic sources through selection of optimal combinations of management
variables. The model will also serve to minimize environmental problems,
particularly groundwater contamination by nitrate associated with excess use of N.

2. Integrate research program with extension to facilitate development of the model
for the needs of the users and the rapid transfer of the technology and will be
user-tested.


LISA funds $14,009. Matching funds $20,809


8-7 Low-inputDatabaseandIInformation 0 Sys0


Major Participants


Overview


Objectives


University of Missouri: Zane R. Helsel, (Principal Investigator) State extension
Agronomist; Victoria Shade, Farm Management Specialist.

University of Nebraska: Charles Francis, Extension Crops Specialist.

Initiation and advancement of any new program must determine what is already
known and provide that information to involved participants. We propose to develop a
north central regional low- input agriculture database/information system. The
database will then become a part of a proposed national database.
Representatives from the 12 north central states will develop plans to organize and
produce an interactive computerized database and information retrieval system for
low-input agriculture, the system /will allow for the input and retrieval of both published
and unpublished (reputable information) research and field trial data. The information
system may also include references to video tapes, slide sets, calendar of events, etc.
Funds are needed to develop the framework for data acquisition, software
management system, information input and user access. It will be necessary for
representatives from the 12 states and other appropriate parties to meet several times
to plan for the database development and eventual implementation.

1. Representatives from the North Central states will coordinate activity by
conference call and a regional meeting. Each will submit a state plan for
contribution and management of the database system.

2. The system will interface, where appropriate, with private organizations, the
National Agricultural Library, ATTRA, and the other three regions.


44


Objectives


Funding












Project Duration


Funding


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

University of Missouri $5,000 in kind


Major Participants Ohio State University: Clive Edwards, (Principal Investigator), and Nancy Creamer,
Entomology Department; and Bill Lyon (Extension Entomology).

Cooperators (sustainable agriculture project, entomology) and other faculty in farm
science review board, agronomy, agricultural engineering, plant pathology,
agricultural economics, dairy science and animal science.

Overview This request, though relatively small, has the potential of impacting up to 120,000
people in one year alone. Farm Science Review, the "Showcase of Ohio Agriculture"
is coinciding this year with the International Conference on Sustainable Agricultural
Systems to be held in Columbus from September 19-23, 1988. Because of this and
increased public interest in Sustainable Agriculture, the Farm Science Review Board
has agreed to make Sustainable Agriculture a main theme this year. A committee has
been formed (listed above) with a representative from almost every department in the
College of Agriculture. the committee will be designing educational displays on
Sustainable Agriculture to be used as part of their departmental displays. In addition, a
centralized display aimed at introducing the issues and defining "What is Sustainable
Agriculture" will be constructed. The amount request ($4,000.00) will be used for
graphic arts students time and materials for the displays and will be divided equally
among the departments. The displays will be made with high quality materials so that
they will be able to be used at other upcoming events.

All of the National and International participants at the major Conference, (sponsored
by Ohio State University, North Carolina State University, and Pennsylvania State
University) will attend the Farm Science review and be exposed to these displays.
This should make a major contribution to publicizing North Central Region Sustainable
Agriculture.

Objective Design and construct educational displays for use first at the 1988 Farm Science
Review; also available for future events.

Funding LISA funds $4,000. Matching funds $44,000


45


One Year.








Projects First Funded in 1988, renewed 1989:


LC89Agrno i and Economi Anaye of Altenaiv
^^|II. II|HI^EES^^uI -.SA 00 00 00! 11 0 ^^^^^^^^^^BH
Small Grain/Ro Cro uction-Systems for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^the Norithern- Plains^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Major Participants






Cooperators






















Overview










Objectives


South Dakota State University: James D. Smolik (Project Coordinator), Plant Science
Department; George Buchenau, Biological Control, Plant Science Department;
Thomas Dobbs, Ag Economist, Plant Science Department; Diane Rickeri, Soil
Management, Plant Science Department; Donald Taylor, Ag Economist, Econ. Dept.;
Leon Wrage, Weed Special., Plant Science Dept., Box 2109, Brookings, SD 57007;


University of Minnesota: Kent R. Crookston, Dept. of Agronomy,St. Paul, MN;

North Dakota State University: John C. Gardner, Research/Extension Center,
Carrington, ND;

South Dakota State University: Robert G. Hall, Extension Agronomist, Plant Science
Dept.; David D. Walgenbach, Professor, Research Entomologist, Plant Science
Dept.;

University of Nebraska: Warren W. Sahs, Institute of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, Lincoln, NE;

Montana State University: James R. Sims, Professor, Department of Plant and Soil
Sciences, Bozeman, MT;

Conventional Farmer: Kris Johnke, Madison, SD;

Organic Farmers: Allan Johnson, Madison, SD; Charles Johnson, Madison, SD; Fred
Kirschenmann, President of Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society,
Windsor, ND

This project is a continuation of a long-term investigation of alternative, low-input
agriculture initiated in 1984 by South Dakota State University. The overall objective of
this multidisciplinary effort is to compare the agronomic and economic sustainability of
alternative, conventional, and reduced-tillage farming systems. The alternative
systems use primarily on-farm resources to meet crop nutrient needs and to control
pests. One complete cycle of all crop rotations in the replicated experimental systems
was completed in 1988. Investigations include agronomic and whole-farm economic
analyses of the experimental farming systems and also of producers' systems.


(1) Measure inputs, yields, soil physical and biological properties, earthworms,
mycorrhizal associations, and pests. Farming systems are being modeled to
determine whole-farm impacts in regard to labor and managerial requirements,
farm production costs, profits, solvency, and liquidity.


46












(2) Estimate the effects of different livestock enterprises, Federal farm program
provisions, crop yields and prices, and agrichemical prices are included in the
models.

(3) Analyze transition effects and of comparisons of alternative and conventional
farms will be completed.

(4) Continue networking with Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, and South Dakota, and
the Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society.

(5) Continue extending information through field tours, progress reports, producer/
researcher workshops, media news releases, newsletters and journals.


Project Duration


Funding


1 year continuation of long term project.


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

South Dakota State University $60,000 $66,500


LN 881 Susittn Legu e for Fallo in U.S Grea
Plain Wha routo


Major Participants


North Dakota State University Carrington Research Extension Center: John C.
Gardner (Project Coordinator); Blaine Schatz, Research Agronomist; Dave Watt,
Research Economist; Vern Anderson, Research Animal Scientist; Frank Sobolik,
Extension Area Agronomist, Box 219, Carrington, ND 58421;

Michael Fields Agricultural Institute: Steve Guldan, Research Agronomist, East Troy,
WI (presently located at the NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center, Box
219, Carington, ND 58421;

Kansas State University: John Havlin, Agronomy Dept., Throckmorten Hall,
Manhattan, KS 66506; Alan Schlegel, Research Appointment in Soil Fertility and
Management, Tribine Unit, Southwest Kansas Branch Experiment Station, Box
307, Tribune, KS 67879;

University of Nebraska: Robert Klein, Extension appointment specializing in cropping
systems, West Central Extension Center, Route 4, Box 46A, North Platte,
NE 69 101;
NDSU Agricultural Economics Department: Dave Watt, Research Economist, Morrill
Hall, Fargo, ND 58105;


47












Farmers: David Podoll, Fullerton, ND; Kent Ableidinger, Kensal, ND; Charles Nelson,
Ayr, ND; Don Dufner, Buxton, ND; Terry Jacobson, President, NPSAS, Wales,
ND; Dan Thomas, Karlsruhe, ND; Bob Neevel, Litchville, ND; Eugene Haakenson,
Bismarck, ND; Dennis Montgomery, Carrington, ND; Carmen Fernholz, Madison,
MN

Overview Wheat-fallow production systems have been widely used for nearly a century in the
Great Plains to conserve soil moisture and control weeds. However, fallow leaves a
sizeable acreage idle each year and contributes to wind and water erosion. In humid
areas, companion crop production systems featuring cereal grains and legumes keep
the soil covered, fix atmospheric nitrogen, reduce inputs of pesticides and fertilizers,
reduce weed competition, and provide improved grazing potential, conserve and
improve the soil resource, and increase net return per acre. Only limited success has
been demonstrated in semi-arid conditions using traditional legume species, such as
sweetclover and alfalfa. Alternative species which use less water, such as black medic
(Medicago lupulina L.), will be evaluated for use in companion cropping systems in the
spring wheat region of central North and South Dakota. This project has the potential
to make a large impact on the chemical use, soil erosion, and the long-term
sustainability of farming in the U.S. Great Plains.

Objectives (1) Demonstrate and conduct on-farm and experiment station research of a biennial
black medic (Medicago lupulina L.)/cereal production system in the spring cereal
region of the U.S. Great Plains.

(2) Using on-farm cost/return data, in combination with experiment station grazing and
quality data, compare whole-farm budgets for conventional versus alternative
legume production systems.

(3) Determine through small-plot research, the suitability of alternative legumes as
companions in a cereal/legume production system in both spring and winter wheat
regions.

(4) Using the most promising legumes, develop management systems in combination
with wheat, other locally adapted crops, and livestock to substitute for fallow in the
spring and winter wheat regions of the Northern Great Plains.

Project Duration One year continuation of a long-term project.


48













LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

North Dakota State University $23,000 $46,188
Michael Fields Institute, Wisconsin 25,000 1,500
Each of ten farmers gets $400 4,000 23,440
Kansas State University 15,000 28,872
University of Nebraska, Lincoln 15,000 10,000

Totals $82,000 $110,000


LNC88-1 The Midl Bode OnFr Reeac Consrtiu


Major Participants


Overview


Land Stewardship Project: Patrick J. Moore (Project Coordinator), 14758 Ostlund Trail
North, Marine, MN 55047; Audrey Arner, Director, LSP Western Minnesota
Program, 109 W. Nichols, Montevideo, MN 56265;

Kansas Rural Center: Dave Ebbert, Coordinator, 304 Pratt Street, Whiting, KS 66552;

University of Nebraska: Charles Francis, Agronomist, ExtensionCrops Specialist,
Lincoln, NE 68506;

Farmers: Larry Olson, Rte. 1, Granite Falls, MN 56241; Edward Reznicek, Rte. 2,
Goff, KS 66428;

Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society: Sam Welsch, Director, NSAS, P.O. Box
736, Hartington, NE 68739

The Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society, the Kansas Rural Center and the
Minnesota-based Land Stewardship Project, have formed a partnership to conduct on-
farm demonstrations, carry out research and disseminate information about low-input/
sustainable agriculture practices to farmers in the "Middle Border" of the United
States. For the purposes of this project, the "Middle Border" is defined as
southwestern Minnesota, eastern South Dakota, Nebraska and northeast Kansas.
Each organization in this consortium has arranged to cooperate with University and
Extension researchers in carrying out low- input/sustainable agriculture programs in
their respective geographic area. Each local program includes elements of low input/
sustainable agriculture on-farm research, demonstration, the refinement of on-farm
research documentation and financial record keeping and the development of farmer-
to-farmer information exchange networks. Over the next two years, the consortium will
also cooperate in the organizing of low-input/sustainable agriculture workshops, farm


49


Funding












tours and in the production of newsletters, pamphlets, handbooks and video tapes and
in the distribution of these materials to the farmers of the Middle Border.
Most importantly, each organization in the Consortium is composed of farmer
members, advisors and networks who will determine research priorities, carry out the
research and evaluate the results. Consequently, the profitability of each low-input
method will have high priority, there will be more direct technology transfer, and new
relationships will be established between farmers and University researchers. In
addition, the Consortium itself will contribute to the inter-organizational exchange of
information, publications, research findings, and the development of network-to-
network farmer visitation programs.

Objectives (1) Over the next three growing seasons, the Consortium's regional farmer's networks
will carry out on-farm research and demonstrations on a wide variety of
economically sound LISA practices, including, but not limited to:

Biological and cultural control of Alfalfa weevil;

Comparisons that demonstrate the varying capabilities of raw manure, compost
and legumes to build and maintain soil fertility;

Ridge-till corn and soybeans using no, or greatly reduced, purchased chemical
inputs;

Use of rotary hoe for control of weeds in row crop production;

Overseeding of legumes as a winter cover crop and a spring plowdown green
manure;

The use of rye as a cover crop and natural herbicide.

(2) Disseminate information on low-input/sustainable agriculture (LISA) to the farmers
of the Middle Border through Consortium-sponsored workshops and farm tours.

(3) Work with University and Extension researchers on the development and
refinement of documentation and methodology for farmer-involved on-farm
research.

(4) Develop farmer-to-farmer, on-farm research networks to conduct and promote
widespread LISA research and demonstrations.

(5) Integrate information collected from on-farm research and demonstrations into
mainstream Extension meetings, publications, and University-sponsored research.

(6) Publish books, reports, and video tapes on low-input sustainable practices for
distribution to the farmers of the Middle Border.

Project Duration One year continuation of long-term project.


50













Organization LISA Matching
funds funds

Land Stewardship Project $46,100 $50,000
Kansas Rural Center 38,597 28,458
University of Nebraska 11,000 3,000
Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society 12,000 27,600

Totals $107,697 $109,058


LNC88-12* Whole-Farm Economic and NitrogenBudget
Analys -is on Low-Chemical andConventional
Wisconsin Farms *


Major Participants


Overview


Objectives


Wisconsin Rural Development Center (WRDC): Margaret Krome,(Project
Coordinator), Sustainable Agriculture Program; Jess Ennis, Agricultural
Economics, P.O. Box 504, Black Earth, Wisconsin 53515;

University of Wisconsin, Madison: Richard M. Klemme, Agricultural Economics; Larry
Bundy, Soil Science; Bimal Rajmandhary, Agricultural Economics/Environmental
Studies, Madison, WI 53706;

University of Wisconsin-River Falls: Stan Schraufnagel, Agricultural Economics, River
Falls, WI 54022;

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture: Ken Rineer, Sustainable Agriculture
Demonstration Project, Trade and Consumer Protection, P.O. Box 8911, Madison,
WI 53708

Many farmers are interested in reducing agricultural chemical use, but fear that in
doing so they risk decreasing farm profitability. In contrast, many low-chemical
farmers attribute their economic survival to these practices by reducing input costs.
Instead of opinion, farmers need sound information on which to base decisions on
chemical use. This project has begun to generate such information by conducting
whole-farm economic analyses of both high- and low-chemical southwest Wisconsin
farms. The next phase of the project is to expand the geographic scope and number
of participating farmers, and to study nitrogen uptake on participating farms to avoid N
application in excess of the crop's ability to take it up, thereby reducing environmental
damage and an unnecessary cost to farmers.

(1) Compare costs and returns of various low and conventional chemical input
methods.


51


Funding












(2) Conduct economic analysis of participating farms.


Project Duration


Funding


Major Participants


Overview


(3) Develop nitrogen budgets and evaluate crop uptake of applied N and potential for
N loss to the environment on all low-chemical and conventional farms in the study.

(4) Confirm differences in applied N uptake and N loss potential between selected
farms in the study group through on-farm measurements of N gains and losses.

(5) Examine relationships between farm profitability and efficient N use.

(6) Expand the network of farmers and institutions involved in sustainable agriculture
research and information exchange.

One year


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

Wisconsin Rural Development Center $62,000 $65,140


8-13~~~~~~0 Evlaino neraeSo nu rp


North Dakota State University (NDSU) Carrington Research Extension Center: J.C.
Gardner (Project Coordinator); B.G. Schatz, Plant Science; V.L. Anderson, Animal
Science, Box 219, Carrington, ND 58421;

NDSU Fargo Research Extension Center: S. Boyles, Animal Science; D. Watt, Ag.
Economics; H. Meyer, Entomology; D. Kopp, Entomology, Box 5346, Fargo, ND
58102;

NDSU Hettinger Research Extension Center: T. Faller, Animal Science, Box 507,
Hettinger, ND 58639;

University of Missouri: R.A. Weinzieri, Entomology; 1-87 Ag Bldg, Columbia, MO
65211;

University of Illinois: T. Faller, Entomology, 607 E. Peabody, Champaign, IL 61820


Diversifying the biology and the economy of Northern Plains agriculture could be done
by discovering new ways of integrating and re-introducing livestock back into the


52











agroecosystem. While the inclusion of ruminant animals in the production system may
not be essential for the development of a more sustainable agriculture, several factors
suggest that integrated crop-livestock production systems would be beneficial. Cereal
grain straws are abundant in the Northern Plains farming areas. Legume hay crops are
often included in low input cropping systems for nitrogen fixation and conservation.
Legume hay, screenings and weather damaged grain crops complement crop residues
in ruminant diets. Integrated enterprises not only maximize use and value of crop
products as livestock feed, but also insure employment throughout the year. Economic
viability, however, is necessary to continue operation regardless of production
methods. Adding livestock to a crop farm will require additional management of
manure and control of insects, particularly flies that feed on livestock and reproduce in
manure. Increasing horn fly resistance to insecticides, EPA bans, and consumer
concerns suggest a need for study of non-chemical approaches for fly control.

Objectives (1) Determine the carrying capacity, animal performance and unique management
needs of beef cows and sheep supported by low-input crop production systems.

(2) Compare economic returns of low-input farms from crops versus crops-livestock
production systems.

(3) Quantify nitrogen and carbon movement, and effects, from removing crop products
and returning manure to low input cropping systems.

(4) Evaluate the relative effectiveness and economics of mechanical fly control versus
conventional chemical fly control for beef cows.

Project Duration One year continuation funding
Funding LISA Matching

Organization funds funds

North Dakota State University $71,370 $62,103
University of Missouri 5,880 15,000
University of Illinois 5,450 15,897

Totals $82,700 $93,000


53
















Major Participants Center for Rural Affairs: Ron Krupicka (Project Coordinator);Larry Kreil, Sust. Ag/
Range Science, P.O. Box 736, Hartington, NE 68739;

Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society: Sam Welsch, P.O. Box 736, Hartington, NE
68739;

University of Nebraska, Mike Adelaine, Dept. of Ag Ed, Ag Hall, Room 300, Lincoln,
NE 68583-0709

Agricultural Extension: Chris Carlson, Battle Creek, NE 68715

Overview Young and beginning farmers and livestock are both important components to the
success of sustainable agriculture practices. The current trend in livestock production
has been to use capital-intensive, confinement-related technologies to concentrate
production on a declining number of large farms, while ignoring low-cost sustainable
livestock technologies that are appropriate for beginning farmers. The Center for Rural
Affairs has a twelve year history of working with farm families in developing
sustainable agricultural practices. In this project, CRA is coordinating activities with
other sustainable agriculture and farm organizations in the North Central Region, to
develop instructional material on more sustainable crop and livestock production prac-
tices, and to demonstrate how these practices can be used to help young farmers
enter agriculture.

Objectives (1) Assessment by cooperating farmers of a walk-through fly trap for cattle,
performance of dairy cattle on a program of timecontrolled grazing, and other low-
cost sustainable livestock practices.

(2) Establish joint efforts with sustainable agriculture groups, land grant universities,
vocational agriculture programs, livestock producer groups and farmers to develop
instructional material on more sustainable crop and livestock production practices
and how these practices can be used to help young farmers enter agriculture.

(3) Work directly with small- to moderate-scale farms and organizations, with special
emphasis on beginning farmers, to identify and develop livestock production
practices that will take the whole-farm into consideration while at the same time
conserving natural resources and improving the profitability of the farm.

(4) Share developed materials and results with vocational agriculture programs, land
grant universities, sustainable agriculture organizations, farmers, and other farm
groups.

Project Duration One year continuation


54













LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

Center for Rural Affairs $26,280 $29,698


LNC88-15 ~An Inerae ReerhExeso Prgami
I~~. Lo-ipu Cro Prdcto fo 00i


Major Participants


Overview












Objectives


Project Duration

LISA Funds


Ohio State University: University: Donald J. Eckert (Project Coordinator), Soil Fertility;
Rattan Lal, Soil Physics; Dept. of Agronomy, 2021 Coffey Rd., Columbus, OH 43210.

This project lays the foundation for continuing research and educational programs in
low-input agriculture in Ohio. The project proposes to maintain a set of successfully
established research/demonstration plots located in two major land resource areas in
Ohio, which will allow evaluation of the interactive effects of differing crop rotation
sequences and levels of input on crop productivity, soil and ecosystem characteristics,
and profitability. Rotations include corn-soybean and corn-soybean-wheat-legume,
with each crop in each rotation appearing each year. Treatments (with 3 replications)
include no chemical inputs, chemical inputs at recommended levels, and substitution of
manure for fertilizer. Plot experiments will also allow continued monitoring of the
evolution of different systems, providing a basis for recommendations dealing with low-
input systems at different stages of development.

(1) Establish a duplicate set of replicated plots at two locations in Ohio to compare two
crop rotations under several level of external input and provide continuing sites for
developing less chemical-intensive crop production systems.

(2) Investigate changes in crop performance, biological activity, soil characteristics
associated with low input production strategies on different soil types.

(3) Disseminate best available information on low input systems to farmers of Ohio,
through field days, a reference bulletin, and other Extension activities.


1 year renewal; indefinite continuation

(Ohio St. Univ.) $40,000 Matching Funds: $13,500


55


Funding














Major Participants Kansas State University: Steve J. Thien (Project Coordinator), Soil Biochemistry, Dept.
of Agronomy, Throckmorton Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506; A. Paul Schwab, Soil
Chemistry; Roger Myers, graduate student.

Overview Low-input and sustainable systems require reliable knowledge of a soil's phosphorus
supplying ability for effective management of phosphorus nutrition. For soils that do
not regularly receive fertilizer-phosphorus input, current soil tests do not reliably
predict phosphorus availability. Plants tend to rely on organic soil P in low-input
systems. When inputs of inorganic P are reduced, the readily available soluble pools
of orthophosphate will decline and crops will depend more on the mineralization of
organic P to provide adequate nutrition. Under these circumstances, a test which
evaluates only the inorganic status of the soil will likely be inadequate to describe the
P supplying power of a soil. We propose to develop a soil test which will account for
both the inorganic and organic fractions of P in the soil which are available for plant
uptake during the course of the growing season. A successful soil test needs to
emulate the plant uptake process either by a) quantifying the labile organic phases or
b) measuring the rate of mineralization.

Objectives (1) Develop a soil test capable of predicting the phosphorus supplying power of a soil
in a low-input system.

(2) Evaluate this new soil test on a wide variety of soil types, for its ability to predict
which soils will respond to fertilizer inputs.

Project Duration July I, 1989 June 30, 1991

LISA Funds (Kansas St. Univ.) $19,742 Matching Funds: $21,475


Major Participants Iowa State University: Richard M. Cruse (Project Coordinator), Soil Mgt. Research,
3212 Agronomy, Ames, Iowa 50011; James L. Baker, Water Quality Research,
Agricultural Engineer; Michael D. Owen, Extension Weed Control Specialist

USDA-Agricultural Research Service: Donald C. Erbach, Tillage and Machinery
Design Research, 219 Davidson Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011.

Practical Farmers of Iowa: Richard Thompson, Farmer, President, Route 2, Box 132,
Boone, Iowa 50036.


56












Overview


Project Duration


Funding


One year. Five-year funding anticipated.


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds
Iowa State Univ. $40,000. $43,628


Famr Is-A ** *


Major Participants



Overview


Iowa State University: Jerald R. DeWitt (Project Director),Assoc. Director, Phone: 515-
294-7801; Garren O. Benson, Extension Agronomist-Crop Production; Roger H.
Brown, Extension Video Production Specialist.

Farmers in the Midwest are currently faced with two types of problems: (1)
environmental hazards to the family and natural resources and (2) lingering financial
difficulties. Farmers must learn to use crop and livestock systems and agricultural
inputs that maintain economic and social viability while preserving the high


57


The information base required to integrate conservation tillage and legume-base crop
rotations into effective and efficient low input farming systems is woefully small.
Conservation tillage is not a new technology. Neither is the use of crop rotations for
soil, water, and energy conservation and enhanced crop production. However,
combining conservation tillage and crop rotations, while reducing inputs, is a new goal
for the farm community. The challenge facing researchers and farmers is to integrate
conservation tillage practices and more diverse crop rotations such that the
advantages of conservation tillage an be realized which pesticide inputs are reduced.

(1) Determine the degree of weed control success obtained using different weed
control strategies for a corn-soybean-oats/alfalfa rotation managed with three
different tillage systems.

(2) Determine the effect of tillage systems on crop yields and legume N production in
a corn-soybean-oats/alfalfa rotation.

(3 Determine the potential for small grain production with ridge tillage.

(4) Evaluate the effect of nitrogen incorporation in the ridge and herbicide banding
with ridge tillage on surface and subsurface drainage losses of nitrate and
herbicides.


Objectives











productivity and quality of natural resources. To make the conversion from
conventional to sustainable agriculture, farmers need practical information about
technical aspects of the conversion process (i.e., plant nutrient needs, cover crops,
insect management, weed management, tillage, rotations, livestock, forages,
economics, and others).

Objectives (1) Form a multi-state coordinating committee.

(2) Develop 3 broadcast-quality videotapes, 25 to 28 minutes each.

(3) Deliver the videotapes to farmers in the Midwest and nationally.

Project Duration One year renewal. A proposed seven additional
videotapes will require additional time and funding

LISA Funds (Iowa State Univ.) $30,000. Matching Funds: $30,891


Major Participants University of Nebraska: Terry Klopfenstein (Project Coordinator), C220 Animal
Science, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0908; Jim Gosey, Beef Extension; Rick Rasby,
Beef Extension; Bruce Anderson, Forage Extension & Research; Rick Stock, beef
research & Extension; George Pfeiffer, Ag. Econ. research & extension.

University of Missouri: John Paterson, beef nutrition research, S111 Animal Science
Center, Columbia, MO 65211; Jack Whittier, beef extension & research; Monty
Kerley, beef research; Jim Forwood, forage research;

Iowa State University: Jim Russell, Beef Nutrition Research, Dept. of Animal Science,
Ames, IA 50011; Allen Trenkle, beef research; Daniel Loy, beef extension; Daryl
Stobehn, beef extension; Walter Wedin, agronomy research; Stephen Barnhart,
agronomy extension; J. Arne Hallam, Ag. Econ. research;

Overview Beef producers can become more competitive by increasing the economical use of
forages and by reducing input costs. The areas of southern Iowa, northern Missouri
and eastern Nebraska are similar in erodability of the soils, the mix of row crops and
pastures on most farms and the production of beef as cow/calf or yearlings. The
direction of the beef industry has been toward large cattle, fast gains and high grain
feeding (including corn silage which is 1/2 grain). This type of cattle doesn't necessari-
ly fit with the resources available on many farms. We propose to study systems of beef
production which emphasize the use of forages, minimize harvest of feeds and
minimize input costs for supplemental feeds. It is important to optimize the use of the


58












forages and crop residues produced in cropping sequences that include forages,
especially legumes to supply lower cost nitrogen to the soil and to minimize soil
erosion.

(1) Iowa will develop cow/calf production systems that maintain beef cow reproductive
efficiency with minimum use of hydrocarbon fuels. Summer pastures compared
will be all grasses versus grass legume mixtures. Fall and winter grazing will
include stockpiled fescue plus alfalfa pastures and residues from a 3-crop rotation
(corn, oats, alfalfa).

(2) Missouri and Nebraska will develop forage-based, low-input beef growing-finishing
systems. Year-round beef production will be compared from weaning to market
via fall grazing, winter feeding, summer grazing and feedlot finishing.
Conventional feedlot systems will be compared to systems using crop residue
grazing, stockpiled cool-season grasses, hays and by-product feeds.

(3) Animal performance and system economics will be calculated.

(4) Information on low input, economical beef production systems will be transmitted
to producers. Field days will be held annually in each state and a 3-state
symposium for producers and extension personnel will be held the second year.


Project Duration


Funding


One year funding (5 years total, 1988-1992)


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

University of Nebraska $25,333 $38,500
University of Missouri 25,334 40,743
Iowa State University 25,333 55,320

Totals $76,000 $134,563


59


Objectives












LNC88-20 ~ ~~~~~ Pefomac an cnmc*o o-nu


Major Participants


University of Minnesota: Carlos Pijoan (Project Coordinator), College of Veterinary
Medicine, 1919 University Avenue, 5th floor, St. Paul, MN 55104; L. Jacobson, Ag
Engineering, Extension; J. Pettigrew, Animal Science, Nutrition; and Vernon
Eidman, Agricultural Economics.


Farmer: A. Olson, Nerstrand, MN


Overview


The project involves the construction and study of an alternative swine housing unit
and the comparison of the performance, both in production and total economics,
between this system and a conventional confined unit. The alternative system consists
of outside pen gestation with straw bedding and solid floors. In addition, a large 40 x
30 foot room has been constructed, which will be used as a farrowing/nursery facility.
In this room, 10 sows will be allowed to farrow in the area of their choice. A deep bed
of straw will provide insulation for the piglets and will allow sows to exercise nesting
behavior. The sows will be weaned at 6 weeks and the piglets will stay in the room
until 9 weeks of age, at which time they will be sold as feeder pigs. The system
minimizes the major inputs used in confined units: Capital expenditures for buildings
are reduced 75% compared to confined units. Energy utilization is reduced 90%, as no
heating is provided. Drug usage is minimized and no feed antibiotics are used. Finally,
animal welfare is enhanced through the use of open areas, and straw, with no crates.

(1) Evaluate behavior and performance of pigs housed in an alternative, low-input
system compared to a fully confined system.

(2) Perform a complete economic analysis of the two systems under study.


Objectives


Project Duration

LISA Funds


One year funding (anticipated funding through 1991)

(Univ. of Minn.) $21,700. Matching Funds: $43,129


LNC8821 Ut n of te P r of W


Major Participants


Rodale Institute: James Tjepkema (Project Coordinator), Midwest Coordinator of On-
Farm Research, Box 128, Clarksgrove, MN 56016

University of Wisconsin: Jerry Doll, Extension Weed Specialist, Agronomy Dept.,
Madison, WI 53706; Tom Bauer, Graduate student, Agronomy;

Farmers: Richard Thompson, Rt. 2, Box 132, Boone, IA 50036; Robert Fogg, 3043
Olds Rd., Leslie, MI 49251; Ron Harmon, Rt. 2, Box 115, Salisbury, MO 65281;
Terry Holsapple, Rt. 1, Box 289, Greenup, IL 62428; Richard Bennett, 7-740, P3,


60















Overview


Objectives


Project Duration


Funding


Rt. 5, Napoleon, OH 43545; Rudy Bauer, Rt. 1, Box 301, Brownsville, WI 53006;
Gary Zicafoose, Rt. 2, Meade, NE 68041.

Winter rye (Secale cereale) is an annual grass species that has the potential to
control weeds through the release of allelopathic chemicals from its residues. Farmers
could significantly reduce the use of herbicides if they could somehow incorporate rye
into their crop rotations and take advantage of these allelopathic properties. Other
benefits of sowing rye in the fall are controlling soil erosion, keeping nitrogen residues
from leaching into the groundwater, adding organic matter when residues are
incorporated into the soil.

(1) Conduct a series of trials (seven on commercial-scale farms and three small plot
trials on a university research farm) testing the use of the allelopathic properties of
rye as a weed control method for soybeans under different management and
climatic conditions.

(2) Study and assess other properties of the rye cover crop which may benefit the
environment.

(3) Compare the economics of using a rye cover with conventional chemical and
mechanical methods of weed control.

(4) Conduct an effective outreach program with farmers, Soil Conservation Service
and extension personnel as the targeted group.

2 years

LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

Rodale Institute, Minnesota Office $11,975 $18,042
University of Wisconsin 17,025 8,625

Totals $29,000 $26,667


Projects First Funded in 1989


61











LN892 Devlopen an Deontato of Methods
I Toar Sutial Appl eO Productio


Major Participants


Overview


Objectives


Project Duration


Michigan State University: Stuart H. Gage (Project Coordinator), Department of
Entomology, East Lansing, Michigan 48824;

Rodale Institute: James Tjemkema, Midwest Coordinator, On-Farm Research, Box
128, Clarksgrove, MN 56016;

Farmer: John Van Newenhizen, Newenhizen Farms, Benton Harbor, Michigan

This proposal on sustainable apple production is in response to concern by ecologists
and more recently by the public that the amount of chemicals used in the production of
the apple crop is unwarranted. A quantitative biological monitoring and delivery system
will be developed which will provide orchardists the ability to collect and quantify
standardized observations on pests and apple production so that treatments can be
compared across a network of apple growers interested in reducing chemical inputs to
the apple ecosystem. This project will examine and evaluate alternative plant and
animal systems in the apple orchard ecosystem to increase biological diversity for pest
reduction and enhancing predator effectiveness in orchards.

(1) Develop a biological monitoring system for assessment of sustainable apple
production with cooperators in Rodale Farm Network.

(2) Evaluate plantings to enhance predatory insects and use animals to manage
weeds and control insects in fallen apples.


2 years


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

Michigan State University $24,500. $14,750


0N892 Lis Imacs Soil Ecnmc a0nd e orpi
Im at of Lo -nu Sutial Agricltur


Major Participants


North Dakota State University, Fargo: David L. Watt (Project Coordinator), Department
of Agricultural Economics; Gary A. Goreham, Rural Sociology, Fargo, ND 58105;


62


Funding












South Dakota State University: Linda Baer, Rural Sociology, Brookings, SD;


Farmer: Terry Jacobson, Wales, ND

Overview The impacts of Low-Input/Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) on farm economics, farm
families, farming communities, regional centers, and state revenues is addressed in
this proposed research. Paired comparisons will be made between LISA and non-
LISA farming operations. During the first summer, questionnaires will be designed and
tested. LISA farmers will be paired with non-LISA farmers to provide research controls
and to allow for comparisons of the two groups. A longitudinal series of farmer surveys
will be conducted in North Dakota, Nebraska and Minnesota, starting in early spring of
the first year, and repeated a year later to determine the viability of LISA activities and
to detect the stability of farmer attitudes towards LISA farming methods. groups.
Based on the data collected from the two groups of farmers, models will be developed
to determine the impact of LISA farming on local communities and on regional areas
as it compares with non-LISA farming. Farmer involvement is critical for the design of
the questionnaire, interpretation of the results, enhancing the acceptance of the
findings by other farmers.

Objectives (1) Compare selected characteristics of operators who have adopted low-input/
sustainable agriculture (LISA) practices with those of their neighbors who are not
involved in LISA practices.

(2) Analyze factors that affect the economic viability of LISA practices on farm/ranch
operations.

(3) Determine the impact of the adopters of LISA practices on the community through
purchasing and expenditure patterns and voluntary social involvements.

(4) Determine the impact of various degrees of adoption of LISA practices at the
multi-county and state level. Impacts to be addressed include taxes and changes
to businesses and employment.

Project Duration 2 years


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

North Dakota State University $57,300 $57,300
South Dakota State University 8,000 8,000

Total $65,300 $65,300


63


Funding
















Major Participants Purdue University: David B. Mengel (Project Coordinator), Soil Fertility, Crop
Production, Purdue University, Dept. of Agronomy, West Lafayette, IN 47907;
James J. Vorst, Crop Physiology; Michael Pitzer, Crop Production.

Overview Little data is currently available in the literature which compares both the agronomic
and economic advantages of cash grain cropping systems which utilize varying levels
of purchased chemicals and fertilizers. This study will compare four alternative
cropping systems, at varying levels of purchased inputs. Comparisons made will focus
on productivity of the systems using traditional yield measurements, profitability of the
systems in both short and long-term economic terms, and the effects of these systems
on the long-term productivity of the soil. Cropping systems used will include
continuous corn, a corn/soybean rotation, a corn/soybean/wheat rotation, and a corn/
oats/canola rotation. Within each rotation four levels of purchased chemical and
fertilizer inputs will be used. Level one will involve no purchased inputs and will rely
totally on cultural weed and pest control. Level two will attempt to produce 90% of the
yields of the more input-intensive systems with less than 50% of the purchased
fertilizers and chemicals. Where appropriate, legume intercrops will be included in
both levels one and two. Level three will use "normal" input usage as recommended
by the Indiana Cooperative Extension Service, and level four will use input levels
commonly recommended by the more aggressive dealers in the state. An additional
component of the three year rotations will be how the time after harvest of wheat or
canola will be utilized. In input levels one and two, this time will be utilized for legume
production. However in input levels three and four, a cash crop such as soybeans or
sorghum will be grown.

Objectives (1) Determine the effect of crop rotation, at different levels of purchased chemical and
fertilizer input, on the productivity and profitability of the cropping system.

(2) Determine the effects of crop rotation, legume intercropping and varying levels of
purchased fertilizer inputs on the fertility and productivity and physical properties
over time.

(3) Determine the influence of crop rotation and varying levels of chemical and
mechanical weed control on weed populations and species shifts over time.

Project Duration Two years

LISA Funds (Purdue Univ.) $53,000 Matching Funds: $50,000


64
















Major Participants Kansas State University: J.L. Havlin (Project Coordinator), Dept. of Agronomy,
Manhattan, KS 66506; C.W. Rice, Soil Microbiology; J.P. Shrover, Crop Science;
D.L. Devlin, Weed Science Extension; D.L. Regehr, Weed Science;

The Land Institute: P.A. Kulakow, Plant Breeding, 2440 E. Water Well Rd., Salina, KS
67401;

The Kansas Rural Center: D. Ebbert, Agronomist, 304 Pratt St. Boix 133, Whiting, KS
66552

Overview Successful low-input sustainable agriculture systems will depend on sufficient
quantities of available nitrogen (N) from legume crops preceding non-legume crops.
Ideally, the period of maximum N mineralization rate should overlap or coincide with
the period of maximum rate of N uptake for the non-legume crop. Synchronization of
N mineralization and crop N uptake for potential low-input sustainable crop rotations
needs must be quantified to improve the scientific basis for recommendations to
farmers. In addition, reduced dependence on herbicides also is a critical component of
LISA systems. Increased emphasis on reduced tillage systems on highly erodible
lands will influence weed control management and N management. This project will
evaluate and quantify the effects of several legume crops on the contribution and
synchrony of legume N to winter wheat and grain sorghum produced under three
tillage systems.

Objectives (1) Quantify N mineralization from forage and grain legumes and subsequent N
availability to non-legume grain crops.

(2) Evaluate the influence of tillage on the quantity of N mineralization and availability
to grain sorghum and winter wheat.

(3) Describe and quantify the synchrony of soil and legume N mineralization and N
uptake by non-legume grain crops.

(4) Evaluate the potential use and N balance of mono- and polyculture production of
perennial grain crops.

Project Duration Two years funding (long-term continuation anticipated)


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

Kansas State University $64,081
The Land Institute 26,000

Total $95,081 $113,375


65


Funding





Par 3.Th Souhr Region


The Southern Region consists of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Virgin Islands. Some 230 project proposals were
evaluated by the Southern Region's Technical Committee during 1988 and 1989.
The top 19 of these were funded. Five projects funded last year were given an
additional year of funding in 1989, a total of $330,000. Eight new projects were funded
this year, including two planning grants.

Table 4. LISA Projects Funded in the Southern Region

LISA Funding
Project Title and Coordinator 1988 1989

Projects Funded in 1988, not 1989:

LS88-1 Low-Input and Organic Pest Management for
Apples and Peaches Using Mating Disruption
and Ground Cover Management.
F.F. Hendrix, Univ.of Georgia $100,000
LS88-2 Whole-farm Low/Reduced Farming Systems
and Educational Program. Hoover Carden,
Prairie View A&M University 90,000
LS88-3 Development of Low-Input Agricultural
Technology Demonstrations at the Sunbelt
Agricultural Exposition Demonstration Farm.
William S. Farrington, Univ. of GA 14,700
LS88-4 Development of a Farmer/Extension/Research
Network and Farming Systems Data Bases for
Lowlnput Agriculture. F.E. Busby, Winrock Int'l
Institute for Agricultural Development 15,000
LS88-5 Sustainable Agriculture for and with Small Farms:
Development of an 1890 Land Grant University
Extension Demonstration Endeavor in NC, TN,
and VA. Daniel S. Godfrey, North Carolina
A&T Univ. 15,000
LS88-6 On-Farm Demonstration of Low-Input Farming.
W.W. Dow, Carolina Farm Stewardship
Association 15,000

Projects First Funded in 1988, renewed 1989:

LS88-7 Low-Input Reduced Tillage Crop Production
Systems for the Southern United States (GA,SC)
W.L. Hargrove, University of GA (88-108-1) 150,000 65,000


66





Par 3.Th Souhr Region


The Southern Region consists of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Virgin Islands. Some 230 project proposals were
evaluated by the Southern Region's Technical Committee during 1988 and 1989.
The top 19 of these were funded. Five projects funded last year were given an
additional year of funding in 1989, a total of $330,000. Eight new projects were funded
this year, including two planning grants.

Table 4. LISA Projects Funded in the Southern Region

LISA Funding
Project Title and Coordinator 1988 1989

Projects Funded in 1988, not 1989:

LS88-1 Low-Input and Organic Pest Management for
Apples and Peaches Using Mating Disruption
and Ground Cover Management.
F.F. Hendrix, Univ.of Georgia $100,000
LS88-2 Whole-farm Low/Reduced Farming Systems
and Educational Program. Hoover Carden,
Prairie View A&M University 90,000
LS88-3 Development of Low-Input Agricultural
Technology Demonstrations at the Sunbelt
Agricultural Exposition Demonstration Farm.
William S. Farrington, Univ. of GA 14,700
LS88-4 Development of a Farmer/Extension/Research
Network and Farming Systems Data Bases for
Lowlnput Agriculture. F.E. Busby, Winrock Int'l
Institute for Agricultural Development 15,000
LS88-5 Sustainable Agriculture for and with Small Farms:
Development of an 1890 Land Grant University
Extension Demonstration Endeavor in NC, TN,
and VA. Daniel S. Godfrey, North Carolina
A&T Univ. 15,000
LS88-6 On-Farm Demonstration of Low-Input Farming.
W.W. Dow, Carolina Farm Stewardship
Association 15,000

Projects First Funded in 1988, renewed 1989:

LS88-7 Low-Input Reduced Tillage Crop Production
Systems for the Southern United States (GA,SC)
W.L. Hargrove, University of GA (88-108-1) 150,000 65,000


66












LS88-8


Enhancing Farmer Adoption and Refining of a
Low-Input Intercropping Soybean-Wheat System
(MS, AK). Normie Buehring, Mississippi State
University (89-55-1)

Substitution of Cultural Practices for Herbicides
to Control Annual Rye-Grass and Cheat in Small
Grain (OK). John B. Solie, Oklahoma State
University (89-23-2)


On-Farm Demonstration and Research of Low-
Input Sustainable Farming (NC). William W. Dow,
Carolina Farm Stewardship Association (89-26-3)

Enhancement of the Stability of Southern
Region Agroecosystems Through Profitability
Transition to Sustainable Agriculture (TX, OK, AK).
Paul B. Martin, Texas Department of Agriculture
(89-79-4)


- 120,000


80,000


- 100,000





- 120,000


67


Development, Implementation and Evaluation
of Low-Input Crop and Livestock System for the
MidAtlantic Region (VA). John Luna, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University
(88-96-2) 90,000 120,000

A Comparison of Cropping Systems Managed
Conventionally or with Reduced Chemical Input
(NC). Larry King, North Carolina State University
(88-32-3) 190,000 65,000

Solarization and Living Mulch to Optimize Low-
Input Production Systems for Small Fruits (TX,
MS, GA). Kim Patten, Texas Agricultural
Experimental Station (88-87-4) 40,000 40,000

Development and Extending Minimum Input
Strategies for Weed Control in Agronomic and
Horticultural Crops (AK). Ford L. Baldwin, Univ. of
Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service
(88-16-5) 50,000 40,000


LS88-9




LS88-10




LS88-11


Projects First Funded in 1989:


LS89-12




LS89-13


LS89-14



LS89-15











LS89-16 Development of a Low-Input Multiple
Cropping System for Small-Scale Farms
(LA). Owusu Bandele, Southern University
Louisiana (89-70-5) -100,000

LS89-17 Communication and Information System for
Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture (AK). F.E.
Busby, Winrock Int'l Institute for Agricultural
Development (89-21-6) 31,000

LS89-18 Composting Poultry Litter- Economics and
Market Potential of a Renewable Resource (NC).
L.M. Safley, Jr., North Carolina State
University (89-9P-1) 15,000

LS89-19 Development of a Plan for Implementing a Low-
Input Sustainable Forage Production System in the
Oklahoma-Arkansas Ozark Highland Region and
Similar Land Areas (AR, (OK). Roy Hayden, Ozark
Foothills RC&D Council (89-56P-2) 15,000

TOTALS $769,700 $911,000


68








Projects Funded in 1988, not1989:


LS8- Lo-nu an Orgni Pes Maaemn for
Applsb and~ PeacheslU iiIUsI1ing Mating Diisrupt~iionii
and Grun Coe Management


Major Participants


Overview








Objectives


Project Duration


University of Georgia: F.F. Hendrix, (Project Coordiantor) Plant Pathology; Don
Horton, Entomology, Georgia Extension Service; Norman McGlohon, Plant Pathology,
Georgia Extension Service;

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Douglas Pfeiffer, Entomology;
Richard P. Marini, Horticulture, Jeffrey F. Derr, Weed Science;

Mary Washington College: Joella C. Killiam, Biological Sciences

Apple has been one of the more heavily sprayed crops in North American agriculture.
For various reasons (resistance, regulatory, economic), there was a net loss of 13
pesticides in the current tree fruit recommendations. This does not bode well for the
sustainability of the status quo in fruit production. Overall goals of this research are to
reduce the pesticide load by devising non-insecticidal control tactics for key pests,
thereby inducing fewer secondary pest outbreaks, and also to encourage populations
of the natural enemies of pests, by applying fewer toxic materials to the orchard
canopy and ground cover.

(1) Control coding moth and variegated leafroller through mating disruption achieved
by pheromone permeation.

(2) Determine ground cover management practices, constrasting conventional and
biological farmers, and effects on the mite system, tree growth and yield.

(3) Determine toxicity of a broad range of herbicides to Neoseiulus fallacis (Garman).

(4) Disseminate to conventional and organic growers the current information on
reduced pesticide input and organic pest management systems.

(5) Develop new methods for controlling pests using reduced input and organic
techniques.


Two years (June 1, 1988 May 31, 1990)


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

University of Georgia 50,000 223,882
VPI 50,000

Totals 100,000 223,882


69


Funding












LS88-2~~~~ Whl-fr Lo/eue Inu amn


Major Participants


Overview
















Objectives


Prairie View A & M University: Hoover Garden, (Project Coordinator) Administrator of
Cooperative Extension Service; Alden Reines, Director, Cooperative Research
Center; Alfred Wade, Asst. Adm, Cooperative Extension Program; Bennie L.
Lockett, Asst. Adm., Cooperative Extension Program; Terry Menges, Cooperative
Extension Program; Arthur Mangaroo, Cooperative Research Center; Juanito
Reyes, Cooperative Research Center, Billy Higginbotham, Cooperative Extension
Program;

Texas A & M University: Garland Mcllveen, Agricultural Extension;

Farmers: Maurice Owens, Waller County, Texas; Ralph Lindsey, Cherokee County,
Texas, Perry Leutge, Milam County, Texas;

Texas Department of Agriculture: Gus Townes, Marking Director, Austin, Texas

Most small farmers are producing only one or two major enterprises, without choosing
among efficient and profitable alternatives. Most farmers fail to take the time to
analyze the potential profitability that can be gained through adoption of low/reduced
input agricultural concepts. There exists a need for a comprehensive resource
management program designed to address these issues in which the generated data
are documented through research/demonstration, in a realistic production situation,
i.e., on the farm. This project will consist of a coordinated multi-agency effort in
providing educational and technical assistance to Texas farmers through the
implementation to whole-farm low- or reduced-input agricultural research and
demonstrations, both on the Prairie View A & M campus and within two hundred miles
of campus through field days, seminars, staff training and clientele workshops. This
project will include comprehensive investigations into reducing farmer reliance on off-
farm purchased inputs, thereby minimizing environmental impacts, while maintaining
productivity through soil management, conservation and utilization of natural
resources in improved farming systems.

(1) Implement research projects addressing "low/reduced input" farm resource
management practices. Projects will include crop rotation, intercropping systems,
soil management practices, specialty crops (oriental vegetables, low-chill apples,
etc.) and reduced levels of fertilizers in combination with legumes and cover
crops.

(2) Investigate crop resistance to common pests that may be prevalent in this type of
farming system.

(3) Investigate the affect of spray solution pH on the efficacy of various common
chemicals in an attempt to reduce pesticide applications where use is necessary.


70












(4) Implement small-farm, whole-farm demonstrations in various geographic areas
across Texas to evaluate low/reduced input resource utilization and conservation
systems.

(5) Assist small-scale farm producers in analyzing existing operations and identifying
potential areas for improvement in resource utilization and conservation. This will
include such areas as farm pond management, Christmas tree production on non-
producing land areas, and evaluation of the potential for wildlife management for
profit.

(6) Develop and evaluate strategies and materials necessary for converting from high
input to low/reduced input farming systems.

(7) Make available technical assistance to aid producers and Cooperative Extension
personnel in understanding, disseminating and adapting the technology from the
data base generated in this project.

Project Duration Three years (June 1, 1988-May 31, 1991)

LISA Funds $90,000 Matching Funds: $40,345


Major Participants University of Georgia: William S. Farrington, (Project Coordinator) Extension
Specialist, Rural Development Center; Charles Douglas, Agronomy Department,
Coastal Plain Experiment Station; John P. Beasley, Extension Agronomist, Rural
Development Center

Overview A comprehensive approach the selection, screening and development of
demonstrations of low input agricultural systems. The annual agricultural exposition
operates a 540 acre farm, on which over 160 demonstrations are conducted each
year. This planning project will assemble a Council of Advisors comprised of
researchers, educators and farmers from eight southeastern states (VA, NC, SC, GA,
TN, FL, AL, MS) to identify and screen low input agricultural technology and systems.
Furthermore, this Council of Advisors will provide direction for successful "on farm"
demonstrations of that technology or those agricultural systems most effective in
reducing use of off-farm input resources.


71












(1) Identify research with potential for rapid application to low-input farming systems
for southern farmers.

(2) Screen identified research for its relevance to southeastern farming systems and
evaluate the research on its ability to be readily adopted by farmers

(3) Develop demonstration methodologies for application of selected low-input
research at the Sunbelt Agricultural Exposition Demonstration Farm, to be
proposed for LISA funding in 1989.

One Year Planning Grant staring June 1, 1988

Funding LISA Funds: $14,700 Matching Funds: $33,900






Major Participants Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development: Frank H. Baker, Regional
Director; Robert Havener, President

University of Arkansas: Ted Jones, Director, Cooperative Extension Service; Gerald
Musick, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Director, Agricultural Experiment
Station; Ron Johnson, Assoc. Director, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
and Agricultural Experiment Station

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas-ATTRA: Ann Sinclair Program
Manager

Small Farm and Technical Assistance Center: Corbet Lampkin, Head

East Arkansas Produce Marketing Association: Leroy S. Lacy, Director

Heifer Project International: Armin Schmidt, Director of Programs Global Services

Ozark Small Farm Viability Project: Gordon Watkins, President

Meadowcreek Project: Jim Lukens (formerly Agricultural Director;
now with ATTRA)

Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture: James Home, Vice President

Arkansas Land and Farm Development Corporation: Calvin R. King, Executive
Director

Arkansas Land Stewardship Project: Nick Brown, Director


72












Arkansas South Central States Representative: Janet Bachmann, Rodale Institute


International Agricultural Programs: Tom W. Westing, Assoc. Dean

Overview This proposal requests funding for the implementation of a planning process which will
develop plans for two major comprehensive project components, or sets of
components: 1) a farmer/extension/research network, and 2) necessary databases
concerned with low-input agriculture in Arkansas, Oklahoma and appropriate adjacent
areas. The network will serve as a mechanism for communication among farmers,
extension workers, and researchers and, as such, will be the major mechanism for
data accumulation and information dissemination, as well as for identification of high
priority research questions. Database development will use an analytic inventory of
existing databases and database methodology to determine how to prepare and store
new databases. A farm management database focusing upon costs and returns of
actual practices in use will be the first developed. The process outlined which will
follow key elements of the Farming Systems Research/Extension approach
represents a cooperative effort of university researchers and extension personnel,
farmers, and public/private sector organizations, some of whom are already heavily
committed to low-input and sustainable agriculture. These organizations and agencies
are identified in the proposal. Lead responsibility for implementing the planning project
will be taken by Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development.
Completion of the planning process will result in specific implementation plans for the
establishment of the farmer/extension/research network and low-input databases, as
well as the creation of an on-going planning and coordinating mechanism for low-input
research and extension activities in the target region.

Objectives (1) Bring together interested organizations, agencies, and persons in the region
composed of Arkansas, Oklahoma and appropriate adjacent areas to engage in a
planning process for the identification, elaboration, and development of low-input
agricultural techniques and production in the region.

(2) Produce a detailed plan for the cooperative achievement of the above, using a
Farming Systems Research/Extension (FSR/E) approach, which emphasizes
farmer involvement together with multi-disciplinary and multi-agency collaboration.

(3) Produce: (a) comprehensive project proposals) for multi-year funding, which will
be implemented cooperatively by the planning group, and/or by individual
agencies or groups from the planning group, and (b) a mechanism for identifying,
prioritizing, and funding individual component project phases that are proposed.


Project Duration June 1, 1988 May 31, 1989

Funding LISA Funds: $15,000 Matching Funds: $34,858


73


















Overview The present proposal requests funds to develop a multi-institutional Extension project
to promote the use of sustainable agriculture methods by small farms in NC, TN and
VA. Funds are requested to permit the development of a multi-year project for that
end. The money would be used to involve 1890 Research and Extension staff in North
Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia, county Extension professionals and
paraprofessionals in the discussion of the appropriate ways to achieve that goal.
There will be two planning meetings and a conference in each state.

Objective (1) Develop a multi-year, multi-discipline Extension-based program to involve small
and part-time farmers in their respective states in sustainable agricultural
endeavors.
Project Duration One Year (June 1, 1988 May 31, 1989)

Funding LISA Funds: $15,000 Matching Funds: 0


Overview The methods of low-input, sustainable agriculture and the positive results of new
research must be successfully demonstrated on actual working farms in order to be
widely adopted. A process is needed whereby other farmers interested in changing
their practices can see and learn from successful practical applications by farmers like
themselves. This is a proposal for a one-year planning grant to set up a program for
on-farm demonstration of low-input agriculture in North Carolina. Farms would be
chosen from each region of the state to reflect a diversity of agricultural enterprises,
including horticultural crops, agronomic crops, and mixed farming. Because new
methods may require new crops and markets or offer the possibility of premium
prices, appropriate alternative marketing channels will be researched to assist
farmers. An effort will be made to involve Extension personnel and vocational
agriculture teachers working in the counties of participating farmers.

Objective (1) Plan and begin to implement a program for creating on-farm demonstrations of
low-input farming systems at several locations throughout North Carolina. The on-
site part of this project will be accompanied and enhanced by marketing and
educational components.


74












(2) Demonstration of methods to facilitate the transition from conventional agriculture
to alternative methods will be emphasized through on-farm demonstration of low-
input methods, recruitment of extension personnel and Vocational Agriculture
teachers for low-input presentations, and identification of consultants to advise
project demonstration and farmers in transitions to low-input agriculture.

(3) A three-year project proposal will be developed, in conjunction with the
participating farmers and those who have been identified as advisors and
consultants.

Project Duration One Year Planning Proposal (August 1, 1988 to July 31, 1989)

Funding LISA Funds: $15,000 Matching Funds: $5,500


75








KProhjects Firt Fu(eEh1s~undeI~dein 188,rIeneed199


LS8- Lo-nu Redce Tilg Cro Prdcto


Major Participants


Overview








Objectives


Project Duration


University of Georgia: W. L. Hargrove, Agronomy Department, Georgia Agricultural
Experiment Station; J. R. Allison, Agricultural Economics Department, Georgia
Agricultural Experiment Station; D. C. Coleman, Institute of Ecology;

Clemson University: J. H. Palmer, Agronomy Department, South Carolina Cooperative
Extension Service

Reduced tillage potentially can play a key role in sustainable agriculture production
systems by reducing soil erosion, decreasing fossil fuel use, decreasing weed
pressure through maintenance of surface mulch, and enhancing soil productivity
through crop residue and organic matter maintenance. Reduced tillage technologies
have not been incorporated into low-input cropping systems. The overall thrust of this
project is to develop low-input wheat/soybean/corn production systems which
incorporate reduced tillage technologies.


(1 Evaluate combinations of three levels of three important factors in sustainable,
low-input production systems, namely tillage, nitrogen fertilizer, and herbicides.

(2) Determine the profitability of the systems evaluated in the field.

(3) Demonstrate profitable low-input, reduced tillage production systems on a field-
scale.

(4) Optimize relay intercropping technologies, including weed management.

(5) Evaluate crop rotation benefits with respect to pest management and control

(6) Evaluate legume germ plasm for use as nitrogen-supplying cover crops.


Three years (June 1, 1988 May 31, 1991)


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

University of Georgia $58,000 $130,000
Clemson University 7,000 35,000

Totals $65,000 $165,000


Funding


76











LS88-8 ~ ~ I -eveomet Imlmntto an vluto
of Lo Inu Crop an Lietc Sytm fo
th 0othr Reio (-8802)


Major Participants







Cooperators and
Consultants









Overview













Objectives


Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: John Luna (Project Coordinator),
Dept. of Entomology; Lee Daniels, David Parrish, and Vivien Allen, Dept. of
Agronomy; Joe Fontenot, Dept. of Animal Science; Gordon Groover and Dan Taylor,
Dept. of Agricultural Economics; David Vaughan, Dept. of Agricultural Engineering;
Nicholas Stone, Dept. of Entomology; Scott Hagood, Dept. of Plant Pathology,
Physiology, and Weed Science, Blacksburg, VA 24061

Extension: Mr. Harold Roller, Rockingham Co.; Joe Derting, Washington Co.;

Farmers: Floyd Childress, Beef Producer, Christiansburg, VA.; C.E. Allison, Dairyman,
Glade Spring, VA.; Dale Heatwole, Dairyman, Harrisonburg, VA.; Kyle Bishop,
Dairyman, Riner, VA.;

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Chuck Miller, Manager, Dairy
Center; Dan Brann, Extension Agronomist; Erik Stomberg, Extension Plant
Pathologist

This project is comprised of three distinct, yet closely interrelated activities: A large (30
hectares), replicated crop and livestock farming systems study; evaluation of winter-
annual legumes and small grains as cover crops in ridge-tillage and other
conservative tillage systems; and an Extension education program. This
interdisciplinary project will compare a conventional crop/livestock system with an
experimental, low-input system. Twenty-four steers will graze or be fed crops grown in
each system. Comparisons between systems will include total purchased inputs and
marketed outputs, as well as farming system impacts on soil structure, stability and
fertility, as well as pest and natural enemy population dynamics. Integration of winter-
annual legume cover crops into ridge-till systems is a key aspect of this project, with a
particular emphasis on developing new equipment to plant cover crops on ridges and
to mechanically kill these cover crops prior to corn planting.

(1) Develop and evaluate crop/livestock farming systems that minimize reliance on
non-renewable inputs while maintaining or improving profitability, improving long-
term soil productivity, and minimizing undesirable environmental impact.

(2) On four cooperating farms, evaluate and demonstrate the role of winter-annual
legume/small grain polyculture cover crops in reducing nitrogen fertilizer,
herbicide, and insecticide inputs in corn production.

(3) Evaluate the potential of ridge-till systems for corn production in the southeastern
United States.

(4) Develop and implement Extension educational programs to promote the adoption
of low-input farming technologies, practices, and systems.


77












June 1, 1988- May 31, 1991


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds


VPI $120,000 $175,923
Tennessee Valley Authority 0 10,000
Farmer Cooperators 0 6,500

Totals $120,000 $192,423


LS8- 0 Co prio of Crppn Sysem 0Managed
Covnioal or wit Reue Chemical
Inu0 8 -3


Major Participants




Overview









Objectives


North Carolina State University: Larry King (Project Coordinator), Soil Science; Keith
Cassel, Soil Science; Maurice Cook, Soil Science; Udo Blum, Botany; Dana Hoag,
Economics and Business; Donald P. Schmitt, Plant Pathology; Arthur G. Wollum;
Soil Science; A. Douglas Warsham, Crop Science;

This project expands an ongoing experiment on reduced chemical input cropping
systems. The long-term study was started in the Fall 1985 on a 6-hectare site in the
Piedmont near Raleigh, NC. Continuous corn, continuous grain sorghum, corn-wheat-
soybeans, and corn-wheat-soybean-corn-red clover cropping systems are managed
conventionally (recommended rates of commercial fertilizer and pesticides) and with
reduced chemical inputs (legumes for N, cultivation for weed control, no insecticide).
The study is envisioned as an outdoor laboratory in which investigators from various
disciplines monitor specific aspects of the experiment.

(1) In an ongoing field experiment, maintain four cropping systems managed
conventionally or managed with reduced rates of commercial fertilizer and
pesticides (hereafter referred to as "low-input." Monitor crop yield, cycling of N, P,
and C in the soil-plant system; concentration of allelopathic compounds (phenolic
acids) in soil; shifts in composition and number of soil arthropods and nematodes;
microbial population and activity; soil infiltration capacity and recharge of plant
available water; and economic viability of each cropping system.

(2) For conservation tillage and natural reseeding systems, develop or adapt
equipment to mechanically kill strips in winter green manure crop, no-till plant into
kill strip, or allow green manure to mature seed and then cultivate through green
manure residue to control weeds, leaving as much residue as possible on the soil
surface.


78


Project Duration


Funding












(3) Develop response functions based on various inputs (legumes, reduced fertilizer
rates, cultivation, soil properties, etc.) and apply them to actual North Carolina
farms to determine the effect of low-input methods on crop yields.

(4) Determine the economic impact of various reduced low-input methods on farm
profitability.

(5) Develop extension programs to increase awareness of Extension agents and
specialists regarding the scope and purposes of low-input agricultural systems;
provide Extension agents and specialists with current and applicable research
information on low-input agriculture from other studies.
Project Duration June 1990 June 1992.

LISA Funds: (NC State Univ.) $65,000. Matching Funds: $117,856


Major Participants Texas Agricultural Experimental Station: Kim Patten (Project Coordinator) fruit
research, Overton; Ray Smith, legume breeder, Overton; Vince Haby, soil fertility,
Overton; Jim Starr, plant pathologist, College Station; David Bender, vegetable
research, Lubbock;

Texas Agricultural Extension: Calvin Lyons, Fruit Extension Specialist, College
Station; Marty Baker, Horticultural Extension Specialist, Overton;

USDA-Agricultural Research Service: Barbara Smith, small fruit plant pathologist,
USDA Small Fruit Research Station, Poplarville, MS;

University of Georgia: Gerard Krewer, Fruit Extension Specialist

Overview Developing management intensive, but chemically input-free production systems for
small fruit in the South provides not only for an important marketing advantage
(organic produce certification), but fosters long term soil productivity and conservation
of natural resources, and reduction of groundwater contamination by pesticides.
Traditional production systems for small fruit in the South rely heavily on chemical
inputs. For blueberries and strawberries however, there is the possibility to develop
chemically independent production systems through the use of living mulch, cover
crops, and soil solarization.

Research is proposed to evaluate orchard floor vegetative management systems for
blueberries. These systems would utilize production of winter legume and summer
annual forages in the row middles. After mowing, the forage would be windrowed for
mulch. The use of mulch for blueberries is indispensable for good commercial
production; however, it is usually cost prohibitive. A living mulch system could


79












generate up to 20,000 Ibs. per acre of dry matter for mulch and 110 Ibs. of nitrogen
per acre with only minor costs. In addition, herbicide inputs would be replaced by
using the mulch barrier and allelopathy for weed control. Fertilizer inputs would be
replaced by nutrients supplied through the mulch.

Research is also proposed for an annual strawberry production system which relies on
cover crop production and solarization to eliminated fertilizer and fumigation inputs.
Our current data indicate that crop yield and control of weeds and soil-borne diseases
with soil solarization is just slightly less than with fumigation and significantly greater
than non-treated soil. In addition, a crimson clover and cowpea cover rotation prior to
solarization could fix sufficient nitrogen for annual strawberry production (about 200
Ibs/ac).

Objectives (1) Investigate the feasibility of eliminating fertilizer and herbicide input on blueberries
grown in the South through the use of a combination of legumes and annual
summer forage crops as living mulch systems.

(2) Evaluate solarization as a replacement for fumigation and cover crop production
as a replacement for synthetic chemical herbicides and fertilizers in growing
strawberries.

Project Duration Three Years (June 1, 1988-May 31, 1992)

Funding LISA Funds: (TX Ag. Expt. Sta.) $40,000. Matching: $40,000


Major Participants University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service: Ford L. Baldwin (Project
Coordinator), Extension Weed Scientist, Section Leader Pest Management;
John W. Boyd, Extension Weed Scientist, Little Rock, Arkansas;

University of Arkansas: Lawrence R. Oliver, Professor, Agronomy Department,
Altheimer Laboratory; Ronald E. Talbert, Professor, Agronomy Department,
Fayetteville, Arkansas

Overview Research and Extension personnel at the University of Arkansas have developed a
minimum input weed control program for use in soybeans. This is the fourth year for
printed recommendations containing herbicide rates as low as one-fourth those on the
manufacturers' label. This is also the second year for a computer program to select
these minimum input programs. Minimum input weed control programs for soybeans
in Arkansas have saved growers $7 million annually and also resulted in a substantial
reduction in the annual herbicide load in the environment.


80












This is a project that expands both the Research and Extension programs for
minimum input weed control programs in soybeans and extends the programs into
other agronomic and horticultural crops. In addition, research and in-service training
guidelines will be developed for use in other states desiring to develop similar
programs.

(1) Develop a database for the minimum herbicide rates required to control broadleaf
and grass weeds causing the major economic losses in the major agronomic and
horticultural crops in the South.

(2) Integrate the minimum herbicide rates with non-chemical methods of weed
control.

(3) Develop minimum input weed control programs for multispecies weed situations
in the major crops using combinations from (1) and (2) above.

(4) Develop written information and computer programs to facilitate the minimum
input weed control technology adoption.

(5) Conduct extensive on-farm test demonstrations to facilitate adoption.

(6) Develop research guidelines and in-service training package for use in the states
desiring to implement similar programs.


Project Duration


Funding


Three Years (June 1, 1988 to May 31, 1992)


LISA Matching
Organization funds funds

University of Arkansas Coop. Ext. Serv: $20,000 $83,250
Altheimer Lab. 20,000 29,000

Totals $40,000 $112,000


81


Objectives






Projects First Funded in 1989:


Major Participants Mississippi State University: Normie W. Buehring, (Project Coordinator) Senior
Agronomist, Miss. Ag. & Forestry Experiment Station

Mississippi State University: Alan Blaine, Area Agronomist Cooperative Extension
Service; Stan R. Spurlock, Department of Agricultural Economics
Overview Research and Extension personnel at Mississippi State University have developed a
low-input soybean-wheat intercropping system which involves mechanically planting
soybeans between standing rows of wheat spaced 15-16 inches apart at the time the
wheat grain is in the medium-soft dough stage. The year 1988 was the sixth year of
research and development work on this system for planting soybeans into wheat using
an established tractor wheel track skip (30-inch skips 2/20 ft. planter swath) the
system reduces soil erosion potential, tillage and herbicide input costs, increases
soybean yield and results in higher net returns than conventional monocrop soybeans
and other soybean-wheat double-cropping systems. The system has practical
application to small and medium size farms through improved net returns on the same
land area without increasing acreage farmed.

This project involves of USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Soil Conservation
Service, farmers, Extension and Research personnel in Mississippi, and farmers and
Extension personnel in Arkansas. The purpose is to enhance the adoption of this low-
input intercropping system and participate in further refinement of this system for small
to medium size farms in these two states. Information on this technology will be
presented through field days, video production, and published bulletins by Arkansas
and Mississippi Extension personnel, developed and made available to farmers and
Extension personnel in Mississippi, Arkansas and other states desiring to develop
similar intercropping systems.

Objectives (1) Enhance small and medium size farm adoption of a low-input reduced-tillage
intercropping system for relay interplanting of soybeans in wheat.

(2) Refine this system by evaluating narrow wheat row spacings alone and in
combination with reduced herbicide inputs and cultivation for enhanced wheat
yield and weed control.

(3) Demonstrate lower input costs and enhanced profitability for low-input soybean-
wheat intercropping system.

(4) Evaluate this system on soils with poor surface drainage using a wide-bed system.


82












Project Duration


Funding


Major Participants



Overview




















Objectives


Twenty-eight months starting March 1, 1989

LISA Matching
Organization funds funds


Mississippi State Univ. $86,250 $211,133
University of Arkansas 33,750 33,750

Totals $120,000 $244,883


Conro Annual Rygs and Cha in0 Small


Oklahoma State University: John B. Solie (Project Coordinator), Agricultural
Engineering Dept.; H. Willard Downs, Agricultural Engineering Dept.; Thomas F.
Peeper, Agronomy Dept.; Francis M. Epplin, Agricultural Economics Dept.

Winter wheat is grown on a large portion of the acreage dedicated to crop production
in the entire Southern Region of the United States. Attempts to introduce conservation
tillage practices have always led to rapidly increasing infestations of weedy Bromus,
Lolium, and Hordeum species. Farmers are increasingly abandoning conservation
tillage practices or are turning to herbicides to control these weeds. The introduction of
new cultural practices including the modification of existing harvesting and planting
equipment is a viable alternative to herbicides for controlling light-seeded weedy
grasses in small grains.

The proposed research and extension project will develop and demonstrate quickly
adoptable cultural methods with substantial potential for preventing pandemic
infestations of cheat and annual ryegrass, two of the most common grassy weeds
found in the Southern Region. Practices include: (1) preventing the return of annual
ryegrass and cheat seeds to fields during harvesting, (2) increasing the natural ability
of wheat to compete against annual ryegrass and cheat by using new seeding
techniques, (3) identifying wheat cultivars with greater natural abilities to compete
against weedy grasses. A complete economic analysis will be performed to evaluate
the economic feasibility of the proposed practices. Farmers will be included in the
planning, research, and on-farm demonstration phases of the project.

(1) Develop and demonstrate equipment to collect seed of weedy annual grasses
discharged from grain combines to prevent their return to the field, and analyze
the collected material to determine its potential feed value.


83












(2) Design and construct a grain drill opener and metering unit, compatible with
existing drills, that improves wheat competitiveness by: equally spacing wheat
seed in ultra-narrow rows, and injecting small quantities of water to stimulate
emergence.

(3) Compare winter wheat cultivars, seeding densities, plant spacing, and water
injection at planting to identify the combinations that optimize the crop's
competitiveness.

(4) Construct a mathematical programming model representing a family farm firm
which accounts for the externalities associated with the use of herbicides and
evaluate the economic and environmental consequences of production systems
using alternative weed control strategies relative to conventional herbicide
systems.
Project Duration 15 months funding; project duration 3 year
Funding LISA Funds: $80,000 Matching Funds: $67,876







Major Participants Carolina Farm Stewardship Association: William W. Dow

Overview Most farmers in North Carolina (NC) are interested in decreasing their dependence on
chemical inputs, but do not know what alternatives are available to replace synthetic
fertilizers and pesticides without reducing farm profitability. They need to see how
these alternatives work on actual farms with constraints similar to their own before
they are willing to risk their time and resources to make changes from conventional to
lower-input practices.

The proposed project will encourage growers with small to medium-sized farms to
substitute more sustainable, lower-input practices for heavy use of synthetic
chemicals. Project staff and consultants will work with demonstration farmers to plan
appropriate reduced-input transition sequences for their farms, established on-farm
demonstrations and applied research of alternative farming systems, and coordinate
outreach programs to help other farmers adopt low-input practices. Networks of
farmers, researchers, agricultural educators, and technical and marketing consultants
will support demonstrations and outreach programs. This project will build on
groundwork already established with a 1988-89 Planning Grant from the USDA Low/
Input Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, and the Carolina
Farm Stewardship Association (CFSA)'s working relationship with other agricultural
organizations and institutions. It will integrate with ongoing NC projects in sustainable
agriculture to maximize its educational impact.


84












Objectives (1) On-farm demonstrations and applied experiments of sustainable low-input farming
practices will be established.

(2) Farm-specific transition sequences from conventional to sustainable low-input
farming will be documented.

(3) Marketing resources needed by farmer participants for crops raised with less or no
synthetic pesticides or fertilizer will be developed.

(4) Interaction between farm participants and technical advisors who can help growers
draft farm plans and solve specific farming or marketing problems will be
coordinated.

(5) Outreach programs to publicize demonstrations farms and disseminate information
about possible transition methods will be administered.

Project Duration 35 months starting March 1, 1989
Funding LISA Funds: $100,000. Matching Funds: $100,500









Major Participants Texas Department of Agriculture: Paul B. Martin (Project Coordinator) Sustainable
Agriculture Program, P.O. Box 12847, Austin, TX 78711

Oklahoma State University: Bob Cartwright, Department of Entomology; Jonathan
Edelson, Director of Wes Watkins Experiment Station.

Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture: Teresa Maurer, Plant Ecologist & Research
Coordinator

Carlson Farms: Jim Carlson

Valley Farmer's Cooperative: Richardo Castilleja, President Board of Directors

Rio Farms, Inc.: Andy Scott, Director of Research

Texas A & M University, Texas Extension Service: Alton N. Sparks, Jr., Extension
Entomologist; Jonathan Edelson, Department of Entomology; Robert P.
Wiedenfeld (Cooperator), Assoc. Prof. Soils

Winrock International: F.E. Busby, Director, U. S. Programs


85












Ozark Small Farm Viability Project (OSFVP): Gordon Watkins, President and operator
of Rivendell Gardens

University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service: Gail S. Lee, Extension
Horticulturist-Vegetable

Overview Cooperators from Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas, including farmers, researchers,
marketing, financial and extension specialists propose a transitional approach to low-
input sustainable agriculture (LISA) focused on integrated pest management (IPM) of
onions, sweet corn and cabbage in whole-farming systems. Informational searches (yr
1) will be undertaken by the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) in collaboration
with farmers, Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development (WI), Kerr
Center for Sustainable Agriculture (KC), and the respective Land Grant Universities
(LG). Research cooperators including farmers will investigate various IPM tactics on
small plots (yr 1...) and choose the most promising methods for future larger on-farm
demonstrations (yr 2). Critical analysis by farmers (F) at all levels will ensure that the
methods selected to lower inputs, sustain soil and other resources and maintain
product quality will also be practical for on-farm application. Inputs will be monitored
and managed during the course of the project. TDA's marketing staff will investigate
and promote markets for LISA products (yr 1,2). Winrock and TDA will develop
innovative mechanisms of financing LISA farming systems (yr 1,2). Finally, information
developed in this project will be distributed to producers and consumers (yr 1,2).

The goals of this project are (1) increase the economic and ecological stability of
agriculture by investigating and identifying methods to encourage and support LISA
systems; and (2) assist producers in making a profitable transition to sustainable
systems by coordinating efforts of public and private organizations and agencies in
developing and disseminating LISA information.

Objectives (1) Identify and evaluate current information relevant to profitable transition to LISA
vegetable production in the southern region.

(2) Develop on-farm tests to determine the agroecological effects of various pest and
fertility management approaches in LISA production systems for onions, sweet
corn and cabbage.

(3) Evaluate market/economic viability of LISA vegetable production. Conduct instore/
market surveys to determine regional marketability and consumer acceptability of
onions, sweet corn and cabbage grown in the on-farm trials.

(4) Identify and evaluate financial management strategies to help vegetable
producers make the transition to or use of LISA production methods.

(5) Develop and implement educational programs to transfer LISA production and
marketing technology to growers and promote products grown in LISA production
systems to consumers.


86




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs