Final report for FW22-405
Project Information
This project explores how no or low-till practices can increase drought resilience. Farms in dry regions of Oregon are heavily impacted by climate change, particularly drought. Many of these farms employ creative practices to adapt and conserve water, but research specific to their region is sparse. Additionally, due to geographic isolation and time constraints, many farmers face these challenges alone.
This project will establish a group of five small-scale vegetable farms in central and eastern Oregon to monitor the impacts of no/low-till practices on the level of plant-available water. Each farm will serve as a case study and will test two different practices while measuring water tension and collecting weather data. Since farmers don’t have time to visit each other during the growing season, videos will be taken at each farm site during the summer. Later in the off-season, the network will meet for discussion and share best practices. A video will be assembled as a multi-farm virtual tour and the cohort will present their findings at the OSU Small Farms Conference. The presentation and video will be converted to a blog post and webpage and distributed through regional agricultural networks.
Empowering producers with data and opportunities to network will be essential in our efforts to farm in a changing climate. Farmers east of the Cascades have much to offer the discussion as they are already experiencing severe water shortages. This project may result in a broader network of drought-prone farms to serve all regions in facing the challenges ahead.
Research Objectives:
Objective 1: Measured differences over one growing season in plant-available water between beds with no or low-till preparation and beds prepared with tillage.
Objective 2: Monitored rainfall, temperature, humidity, and wind over one season and analyze correlations to changes in water tension in the soil.
Education Objectives:
Objective 1: Established an educational network of five small-scale vegetable producers.
Objective 2 Developed case studies and a demonstration video from the network farms
Objective 3: Presented findings and final video as a panel at the OSU Small Farms Conference in February 2023.
Objective 4: Disseminated presentation and final video via five agricultural networks, including the Oregon Climate (OrCAN) and Agriculture Network and OSU Extension.
Objective 5: Hosted an online workshop to present research findings and case studies in partnership with OSU Extension and OrCAN.
April, 2022; Project begins.
April, 2022; Network Meeting #1: PI, Technical Advisor, producers.
April-October, 2022; Conduct trials using no/low till practices: PI, producers
October, November 2022; Network Meetings #2, #3: PI, Technical Advisor, producers.
November 2022-January, 2023; Compilation of data from trials: PI, data analyst.
December 2022-February 2023; Compilation of site videos/farm tours into one video: PI, Videographer.
January 2023: Network Meeting #4: PI, Technical Advisor, Data Analyst, producers.
February, 2023; Network Meeting #5: PI, Technical Advisor, producers. Session at OSU Small Farms Conference: PI, Technical Advisor, producers.
February-April, 2023; Work with partner organizations to disseminate video and case studies/research results through blog posts, websites, social media sites, listserves, etc.: PI, Technical Advisor.
March, 2023; Workshop on zoom: PI, Technical Advisor, producers.
April, 2023; Project ends.
Cooperators
- - Technical Advisor
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
Research
Objective 1: Measure differences over one growing season in plant-available water between beds with no or low-till preparation and beds prepared with tillage.
Each producer chose two different no till or low till bed preparation methods to trial. They prepared a minimum 25 ft bed for each method, for a total of two test plots and one control plot. The specific bed preparation methods varied based on each farm’s soil and climate conditions as seen in the case study details below. All of the beds were within close proximity to each other, if not adjacent. All were planted in the same annual vegetable or herb crop of the farmers choice at the same time and received the same quantity of irrigation throughout the season.
At the start of the season, the producers installed three Watermark water tension sensors (tensiometers) at three different depths into each bed. Soil water tension is an indicator of the effort needed for a plant root to extract water from the soil. A low reading means the plant is not working very hard and the soil is saturated and a high reading indicates the soil is dry. The tensiometers were attached to PVC pipe cut at three different lengths: 1’, 2’ and 3’ to see water availability close to the surface, in the root zone and below the root zone. Sensors attached to the PVC were inserted into the soil between plants within the crop row.
Using the Watermark meter, measurements were taken and recorded each week for 20 weeks (May to October). To take the measurement, each sensor was plugged into the handheld meter to display the kilopascals (kPa). This data was recorded on a spreadsheet provided to each farm and submitted to the data analyst mid-season and again at the end of the season. Producer observations were also recorded through written notes on the spreadsheet or pictures taken and sent to the PI.
At the end of the season, the data from the water tension meters indicated the water available at various depths and demonstrated differences between the beds prepared with no or low-till methods and the one prepared using traditional tillage.
Below is a detailed description of each farm case study:
Sweet Union Farm (Klamath Falls, OR) created new beds from pasture and prepared the test beds as follows:
Crop -Paste tomatoes transplanted late May
Test plot 1 - No till: Occultation with a tarp over the winter, added 3” of compost on top in the spring. Transplanted paste tomatoes into the compost and placed landscape fabric along each side of the bed.
Test plot 2 - Low till: Occultation with a tarp over the winter, BCS power harrowed the top 2 inches of the soil and added 3” of compost on top. Transplanted paste tomatoes into the compost and placed landscape fabric along each side of the bed.
Control plot - Tillage: Occultation with a tarp over the winter, BCS tilled top 4 inches of the soil in first pass, added 3” of compost and incorporated with a second pass of BCS tiller. Transplanted paste tomatoes into the compost and placed landscape fabric along each side of the bed.
Fibonacci Farm (Redmond, OR)
Crop - Zinnia Mix transplanted in mid June.
Test plot 1 - Low till: Occultation with a tarp over winter 2021/22. Broadforked in spring 2022, added 2” of compost, tilthed and planted into compost.
Test plot 2 - No till: Cauliflower was growing over fall 2021. Pulled cauliflower, composted and planted into compost.
Control plot - Tilled: Occultation with a tarp over winter 2021/22. Raked and hoed heavily to simulate tillage in spring before planting.
Sungrounded Farm (Terrebonne, OR)
Crop - Yellow onions transplanted late April
Test plot 1 - Level bed: Add ¾” compost to the top of bed and harrow to create smooth bed top.
Test plot 2 - Raised bed: Add ¾” compost to top of bed, plow pathways to raise bed and throw soil on top of compost, harrow to create smooth bed top.
Control plot - Add ¾” compost and rototill.
Sakari Farm (Tumalo, OR):
Crop - Golden beets transplanted mid June
Test plot 1 - Plant windrow of flowers next to bed for wind protection, transplant beets on protected side of windrow in bed raised using shovel with no tillage and 2” compost applied on top.
Test plot 2 - Create sunken/depressed bed by raising pathways with shovel and leaving bed untilled, adding 2” compost on top.
Control plot - Apply 2” compost and use tractor tiller to form bed and till.
Nella Mae’s Farm (Cove, OR):
Crop - Lettuce, direct seeded mid July
Test plot 1 - No-till: Apply 3” of finished compost. Apply 2” of potting soil over compost and broadfork.
Test plot 2 - Low-till: Apply 3” of finished compost. Apply 2” of potting soil over compost and incorporate with tilther.
Control plot - Tillage: Till 4” deep. Apply 3” of finished compost and 2” of potting soil. Incorporate soil, compost and potting soil with BCS tiller.
Objective 2: Monitor rainfall, temperature, humidity, and wind over one season and analyze correlations to changes in water tension in the soil.
Each farm site received a weather station at the same time as the tensiometers and installed them near the site of the test and control plots. For the same 20 weeks (May - October) as the tensiometers, the weather data was transmitted wirelessly to a synced app on the producer’s phone or tablet which allowed real-time access to the weather updates as well as provided a record for the full season. At the end of the season, the data analyst downloaded the weather data from each farm and organized the information to compare weather data from farm to farm and to correlate weather events to patterns in the tensiometer readings.
Objective 1: Measure differences over one growing season in plant-available water between beds with no or low-till preparation and beds prepared with tillage.
A detailed presentation of each farm's data can be found in the Dec16th Meeting powerpoint. Below is a summary for each farm:
Sweet Union Farm (Klamath Falls, OR) created new beds from pasture and prepared the test beds as follows:
Crop -Paste tomatoes transplanted late May
Test plot 1 - No till: Occultation with a tarp over the winter, added 3” of compost on top in the spring. Transplanted paste tomatoes into the compost and placed landscape fabric along each side of the bed.
Test plot 2 - Low till: Occultation with a tarp over the winter, BCS power harrowed the top 2 inches of the soil and added 3” of compost on top. Transplanted paste tomatoes into the compost and placed landscape fabric along each side of the bed.
Control plot - Tillage: Occultation with a tarp over the winter, BCS tilled top 4 inches of the soil in first pass, added 3” of compost and incorporated with a second pass of BCS tiller. Transplanted paste tomatoes into the compost and placed landscape fabric along each side of the bed.
Results:
- In general, the no till beds held moisture best.
- In September, irrigation was cut off to encourage tomato ripening. For an unknown reason, the low till bed sensor readings spiked more than the others, especially at the 36" depth.
- Farmer noticed that sensor readings were very low all the way up until August, which showed the plants didn't need quite as much irrigation as they assumed earlier in the season. These observations made them more observant of actual moisture levels and more intentional in irrigation decision making rather than sticking with regular schedule.
Fibonacci Farm (Redmond, OR)
Crop - Zinnia Mix transplanted in mid June.
Test plot 1 - Low till: Occultation with a tarp over winter 2021/22. Broadforked in spring 2022, added 2” of compost, tilthed and planted into compost.
Test plot 2 - No till: Cauliflower was growing over fall 2021. Pulled cauliflower, composted and planted into compost.
Control plot - Tilled: Occultation with a tarp over winter 2021/22. Raked and hoed heavily to simulate tillage in spring before planting.
Results:
- For the majority of the season, the no till bed held moisture best, with early July and mid August being exceptions.
- Found that sensor readings affirmed their irrigation decisions and gave them confidence in the plant health and prevented overwatering during stressful heat waves.
- Leaving the previous crop in the no till bed helped control weeds, although there was an accumulation of aphids by the time they pulled it.
Sungrounded Farm (Terrebonne, OR)
Crop - Yellow onions transplanted late April
Test plot 1 - Level bed, low-till: Add ¾” compost to the top of bed and harrow to create smooth bed top.
Test plot 2 - Raised bed, low-till: Add ¾” compost to top of bed, plow pathways to raise bed and throw soil on top of compost, harrow to create smooth bed top.
Control plot - Add ¾” compost and rototill.
Results:
- Sensor data was not very conclusive, although the deeper sensors show the raised, low till beds drying out more than the others.
- The farmer not notice any major differences between beds, seemed to behave similarly. Overall it was a bad onion year, possibly due to early maggot pressure.
- Practically, the non-raised bed was difficult to transplant into.
- Sungrounded has limited irrigation supply and has to prioritize during the hottest time of the year. The sensor readings gave them more confidence when they had to withhold water from the onions and prioritize other crops.
- Sensor readings at the lowest, 18" depth, stayed lower than the more shallow sensors.
Sakari Farm (Tumalo, OR):
Crop - Golden beets transplanted mid June
Test plot 1 - Plant windrow of flowers next to bed for wind protection, transplant beets on protected side of windrow in bed raised using shovel with no tillage and 2” compost applied on top.
Test plot 2 - Create sunken/depressed bed by raising pathways with shovel and leaving bed untilled, adding 2” compost on top.
Control plot - Apply 2” compost and use tractor tiller to form bed and till.
Results:
- For the most part, the no till depressed bed had the lowest sensor readings. This may be because the sensors, buried at 6, 12 and 18 inches in all beds, were technically deeper in the depressed bed (see graphic in presentation).
- The farmers observations were that the top of the tilled bed dried out the fastest.
- The sunken bed was protected from the wind and, based on the farmer observations and the data, held onto water the longest. However, digging out the bed caused weed seed to be brought up and had the most weed pressure along the edges. It was also difficult to weed with the wheel hoe because of the sunken nature.
- The no till raised bed with bachelor buttons along edge consistently had highest (driest) readings.
- The use of the sensors gave the farmer more peace of mind during water shutoffs in the hot part of the season and helped prioritize limited irrigation.
- Sensor readings at the lowest, 18" depth, were more steady and consistent.
Nella Mae’s Farm (Cove, OR):
Crop - Lettuce, direct seeded mid July
Test plot 1 - No-till: Apply 3” of finished compost. Apply 2” of potting soil over compost and broadfork.
Test plot 2 - Low-till: Apply 3” of finished compost. Apply 2” of potting soil over compost and incorporate with tilther.
Control plot - Tillage: Till 4” deep. Apply 3” of finished compost and 2” of potting soil. Incorporate soil, compost and potting soil with BCS tiller.
Results:
- Sensor data was not conclusive and had very low readings. This was mostly due to the need to overhead water, despite low sensor readings, in order to keep the top surface moist for seed germination.
- The potting soil dried out quickly and caused weed problems since it was not sterile.
- Sensors were not as useful for a crop requiring surface moisture. It serves a better purpose for understanding moisture levels at lower depths.
- Once plants were established, the sensors did help the farmer make irrigation decisions and led to shorter and less frequent irrigation times
Other interesting results:
- Broadforking was mentioned at two farms as having a significant positive impact on plant health and yields.
- No till is more feasible for single season crops, rather than crops that require many quick successions
- Irrigation storage ponds are used on the majority of the farms and are an essential tool in irrigation management in dry climates.
Objective 2: Monitor rainfall, temperature, humidity, and wind over one season and analyze correlations to changes in water tension in the soil.
Graphs of the weather data collected over the season can be seen in the Dec16th Meeting powerpoint. In these graphs, the farms are compared to one another based on temperature, temperature swings, humidity, wind and rainfall. As all of the farms are located east of the cascades, there are a lot of similarities, such as high winds in spring, drastic temperature swings, and hot, dry summers. A few outliers were the significantly stronger spring winds for Sweet Union Farm, which did not appear to affect the sensor readings and the higher cumulative rainfall for Sakari Farms, which may explain a drop in sensor readings in the more shallow depths after significant rainfall.
Overall, all of the farms experienced their highest temperatures and lowest humidity in late July through August, which unsurprisingly correlates with the higher sensor readings. Another factor to consider is during the hottest time of year is when irrigation water is shut off. Specifically for Sakari Farms and Sungrounded Farm, some of their higher sensor readings are due to a lack of irrigation water at that time.
Research Outcomes
Agricultural applications:
New tools improved irrigation efficiency
Provided the tools like the sensors and weather stations, with financial incentive and technical support available, the participating farms were able to fully utilize the new tools quickly and change their irrigation behavior in real time. Rather than sticking to old patterns during the rush of the season, the sensors gave them a sense of what was happening below the surface of the soil and were more responsive to actual conditions, more intentional about when and how much to irrigate. Some farms ended up irrigating less, either less frequently or for shorter periods, than they normally would have. Irrigation accuracy is incredibly important and will continue to be essential for growing vegetables in the extreme, dry climate East of the Cascades. All farmers said the sensors and weather stations were very useful throughout the season and they will continue to use them going forward. Some will monitor soil water tension around specific crops and some plan to more closely monitor different zones around their property. One farmer mentioned they would like to establish thresholds for irrigation and use that to train employees to more effectively make irrigation decisions on their own.
Better data made more confident and conscientious farmers
All of the participating farms stated that they became more observational and intentional in their irrigation practices due this study. For multiple farms, they faced difficult decisions when they had limited or no irrigation available during peak season. The data from the sensors helped them more confidently prioritize which crops received what water they had. All of the farms said that in general, having the data from the sensors simply gave them more peace of mind throughout the season, specifically during extreme heat and drought irrigation cutoffs common east of the Cascades. Even the farms that had steady irrigation during this season, felt more accountable and were more careful due to the presence of the data. One farm, Sungrounded Farm, only gets a limited amount of irrigation once per week. Typically they overhead water everything about one inch per week, but they were able to move that water around more intentionally due to the sensor data. Additionally, the weather station data helped the farms have a more accurate picture of their weather patterns. Accurate, site-specific weather data is always hard to find and many times farms are dependent on trying to guess how their weather will vary from looking at a combination of forecasts.
Regionally specific network of farmer community of practices builds climate resilience
This project illustrated the potential benefits for developing farmer networks that are specific to region and climate. The accountability provided by the group, in addition to the tools provided and compensation, resulted in consistent and reliable participation, inevitably leading to increased benefit for the farm participants. The group meetings were intentionally timed around the farmer schedules and having experts present, such as Maria Zamora from OSU, made our time together very effective and practically helpful. Farms were able to share ideas, questions and observations with each other. Sharing best practices within the region was helpful, but equally important was giving the group a platform to share with other regions. Small vegetable farms east of the Cascades are not frequently heard from at large statewide gatherings. However, farms in this region have accumulated important adaptive strategies in their extreme climate that are useful to share with other regions who are facing continually more extreme weather patterns due to climate change. Based on this experience, it seems the development of a region-specific network not only helps farmers share best practices within the network, but provides a platform for them to share outside of the region to build climate resilience across a broader geographic area.
Research and agricultural support applications:
Benefits and challenges of the case study approach
Research outcomes varied from farm to farm due to the case study approach of this project. One challenge to the research was both the variability within each farm and across the farms. Farmers were given a lot of freedom to make choices about their tillage methods and which crop to test which made it even more difficult to narrow down to a single variable or draw any clear conclusions regarding the effectiveness of no or low till systems. This was a benefit in that it made participating in the research accessible and practically useful for a working farm, but it did make comparisons across farms difficult. However, there were patterns and lessons learned within each farm case study that could be useful to other small-scale vegetable farms in the Western U.S.
Opportunities for participatory research
We found that the design of the project provided the support farmers needed to get comfortable using a new tool fairly quickly. Providing the sensors and weather stations, plus paying and supporting the farmers in the setup and regular monitoring of the sensors made it easy for them to participate. The farms get to keep the equipment and plan to continue to do their own trials independently. Additionally the development of the cohort of the farmers plus technical experts provided extra accountability and support. As stated above, there were downsides to the case study approach, but the flexibility of the project design made it more accessible and practically useful for the farms to participate. Coincidentally, all of the participating farms are considered beginning farmers with ten years or less experience. It seemed to be particularly effective to involve beginning farmers in a study like this as they are still learning and adapting in many ways and are excited to participate in something with broad impacts. They also tend to be in need of more resources, which is true generally but even more accentuated in the high desert climate where a lot of costly season extension supplies and infrastructure are needed to get started.
Potential for future studies
As stated above, there is a lot of potential for participatory research that empowers farmers to adopt new tools through financial and technical support. We recommend engaging farmers in this way to make on-farm research more accessible. As stated above, all of the farmers found the sensors to be useful on their farms and plan to use them in the future. Future studies could be done by expanding the number of farmers using the sensors. Although the conditions vary from farm to farm, more farmers using the sensors can lead to finding collective patterns. An expansion of the use of sensors should come with an expansion of the network with a dedicated coordinator to facilitate farmer to farmer discussions to share best practices. The sensors could also be used across many farms to monitor the same crop in order to get more comparable results.
Even if funding for more sensors if unavailable, the expansion of the network would be useful to build a community of practice. We recommend focusing the network on region and climate rather than specific agricultural practices.
A more affordable option would also be a single, mobile tensiometer tool that only provides direct measurement. It simply gets inserted into the soil manually and can be moved around as needed. More information is available about different moisture monitoring tools in the OSU publication Intro_Irrigation_Small-Scale_Vegetable_Farms_2021
Education and Outreach
Participation Summary:
Objective 1: Establish an educational network of five small-scale vegetable producers.
This project brought together five small-scale mixed vegetable farms, located east of the Cascades, to serve as case studies for new, innovative water conservation methods and to discuss strategies, ideas and trial results with each other. To do so, the network participated in the following over the project period:
Spring Meeting on 5/18/22: All project team members attended this Zoom meeting. Each producer introduced themselves and their farm and shared their specific no or low-till methods they would be trialing. We also reviewed the logistics of the project and received consultation from Maria Zamora on how to install the sensors, discussed weather station install and app setup. The project data analyst, Lucas Nebert, reviewed the data collection plan and received feedback from producers on how to adjust the spreadsheets to make them easier to use. Meeting notes: 5_18 mtg Notes.docx
Fall/Winter Meeting on 12/16/2022: All project team members attended this Zoom meeting. During this meeting, a virtual farm tour was given for each farm using a video created for each farm over the summer. Afterwards, data results were shared by Lucas Nebert and the farmer shared their observations as well. This was followed by a group discussion on the results, specific strategies or tools they felt worked or didn’t work, and to answer any related questions. Meeting notes: Fall Mtg Notes
PI Check-ins: In April and August, the PI had phone call check-ins with each farm to establish a relationship, make sure they felt supported and understood the goals of the project.
Objective 2: Develop case studies and a demonstration video from the network farms
Virtual farm tours were conducted in September at each farm site. In August, the PI had a phone call with each producer to check in on the trial and to discuss the key takeaways to feature in the farm tour. The PI visited each farm to take photos and video recordings of the farmer explaining key aspects of the trial and their no/low-till methods. Other team members, Maud Powell and Lucas Nebert, joined the PI for the Central Oregon farms. Before visiting each farm, the PI received consultation from the videographer on best practices for filming and developed an outline for each farm's video.
Afterwards, the videographer developed a five minute farm tour video for each farm to be shared at the fall/winter meeting. This allowed the network of farmers to share their farm with each other in the off season. After the fall/winter meeting, the videographer took the notes from the group discussion and data compiled to create a final demonstration video which described the project, highlighted each farm and the key takeaways from the project as a whole. This video has served as our main educational tool when distributing information to the public about our project.
Farm tour videos of each farm can be found HERE.
Final demonstration video can be found HERE.
Objective 3: Present findings and final video as a panel at the OSU Small Farms Conference in February 2023.
1/27/2023 Meeting: All project team members who planned to present at the OSU Small Farms Conference attended this Zoom meeting. We developed a presentation outline and discussed important talking points. We also watched the final project video and provided feedback for the videographer.
Four of the five producers presented their case studies at the 2023 OSU Small Farms Conference in late February. Maud Powell was the panel facilitator and the producers plus Maria Zamora served as the panel presenters. We showed the 84 attendees the demonstration video, discussed each farm's practices and trial findings and showed the group the sensors we used. There were a lot of questions and interest from the attendees and new connections were made with other farmers in dry climates. Maria Zamora shared about her work with irrigation and ways farmers can find support through OSU and Maud Powell shared about the SARE Farmer/Rancher grant and encouraged farmers to apply for the next round.
Objective 4: Disseminate presentation and final video via five agricultural networks, including the Oregon Climate (OrCAN) and Agriculture Network and OSU Extension.
The project results were disseminated through the following channels:
- Sweet Union Farm website: A landing page with a summary of the project, the final demonstration video and the project data presentation was developed on Sweet Union Farm's website instead of the OSU Extension website due to ongoing upgrades to the OSU website.
- Growing for Market magazine: An article was written by one of the farm participants, Nella Mae, and published in the April 2023 magazine. The article was shared widely across the Growing for Market social media and website. They plan to share the video on their website as well.
- Oregon Climate and Agriculture Network (OrCAN): The article was adapted by OrCAN to create a blog post about the project in late April, which includes a link to the video. The blog post was shared with their email list.
- Regional listservs: The link to the OrCAN blog post and video was shared with the local OSU Extension listservs in the Klamath Basin and is awaiting approval before being sent out to the Southern Oregon and Central Oregon email listservs.
Objective 5: Host an online workshop to present research findings and case studies in partnership with OSU Extension.
On October 19, 2022, the PI and advisor presented at the OrCAN online workshop entitled Climate Resilience Training for Oregon Ag Professionals. We described each farm, the project design and key findings. The powerpoint presentation can be found here: OrCAN presentation_climate resilience and a recording of the workshop can be found here.
Objective 1: Establish an educational network of five small-scale vegetable producers.
All five producers that were originally asked to be a part of the project successfully participated and engaged in the project through the end, including attending all meetings. Some of the producers already knew each other, but by the end of the project, new relationships were formed or strengthened. This network of farms seeks support and advice in others ways from each other via text or email. They also have developed relationships with the rest of the team, including multiple OSU staff and technical experts.
We found the communication approach to be successful in engaging the producers in the project in a way that was accessible and realistic. Here are a few key ways they were engaged:
- The project timeline was developed around farmer schedules. The group meetings were intentionally timed to be before and after peak farm season.
- Farmers had input in the beginning stages of the project design, so they were interested in the project and the outcomes.
- Farmers were paid for their time, plus the provided supplies/tools were provided and they got to keep them after the project ended.
- Phone call check-ins with the PI were scheduled around the farmer schedule and early in the project. The PI asked about communication preferences and what they needed to feel supported through this project, which helped open communication and establish trust.
- Hiring a data analyst and allowing farmer feedback on the data collection method early on made it more realistic for farmers to successfully record data. The data analyst was also able to provide support throughout the season through reminders and providing up to date graphs that would incentivize the farmer to keep up the record keeping.
- Zoom meetings removed the geographic barrier.
- Presenting at the Small Farms Conference together drove more cohesion amongst the group members.
Objective 2: Develop case studies and a demonstration video from the network farms
As can be seen by the presentation in Dec16th Meeting, each farm successfully completed their case study. Each farm had a video that served as a virtual farm tour in our Fall/Winter meeting.
Farm tour videos of each farm can be found HERE.
Final demonstration video can be found HERE.
Objective 3: Present findings and final video as a panel at the OSU Small Farms Conference in February 2023.
Four of the five participating farms plus OSU Extension irrigation specialist, Maria Zamora, did a panel presentation with OSU Extension agent, Maud Powell, as the facilitator. You can see our presentation description on the Small Farms Conference website. We showed the final demonstration video and followed this outline: Managing Drought East of the Cascades outline.docx. There were a total of 84 attendees at the presentation, sufficiently filling the room. The audience was engaged in the discussion and there were a lot of questions from the audience at the end. We recorded the presentation, but ran into technical difficulties and are not able to access the recording. Farmers from the audience were interested in no-till or farming in dry areas - all of the farmers on the panel had one on one conversations with various attendees afterwards.
One challenge to this presentation was the follow up. We did not have our landing page ready before this presentation and were not able to easily provide a way for attendees to follow up with us later.
Objective 4: Disseminate presentation and final video via five agricultural networks, including the Oregon Climate (OrCAN) and Agriculture Network and OSU Extension.
You can see a description of the channels the educational materials were distributed through above. Below are estimates for each:
- Sweet Union Farm website: 193 unique site visits in last 30 days
- Growing for Market magazine: 5,000 magazine subscribers, 38.4k Instagram followers and over 21k Facebook followers.
- Oregon Climate and Agriculture Network (OrCAN) blog: Sent to 415 e-newsletter subscribers
- Regional listservs:
- Southern Oregon - 337 subscribers
- Klamath Basin - 25 subscribers
- Central Oregon Ag Newsletter - unknown
Much of this information was distributed in late April, so the full impact is yet to be seen.
Objective 5: Host an online workshop to present research findings and case studies in partnership with OSU Extension.
Our presentation at the OrCAN online workshop, "Climate Resilience Training for Oregon Ag Professionals" had 55 folks attend. The recording of the presentation has 40 views so far. Attendees included: NRCS, SWCD staff, OSU Extension and researchers, state agency staff, nonprofits and other producers from all across the state. OrCAN received a lot of positive feedback about our presentation and asked, attendees "What information or ideas shared during the case study panel presentations today could be helpful for how you navigate what you’re working on with producers?". Below are some samples of responses:
- Tensiometers and equipment. Rich stories and farmers realizing that they maybe don’t need to irrigate in an area. Understanding what’s happening below ground provides confidence and reassurance.
- Making equipment mobile so people can go around the field and understand what’s happening on a landscape level. Possible to have some of these at Extension stations and rent them out?
- Framing information in ways that farmers are open to. The farmer experience is going to move us forward and so getting them to build community in the same area is essential moving forward.
- Compensation for time
- Equipment sharing
- Folks sharing best practices can get ideas from others they are sharing with
- Incentives for trying new things - inspiring to hear about the tensiometers
Education and Outreach Outcomes
Building and expanding a farmer network
Although it was a relatively small network of 5 producers, we found that engaging the farmers in the design process, providing financial incentive and technical support and coordination with communication that was sensitive to farm schedules were all essential pieces to success. A paid coordinator could take this small cohort and grow it successfully if they continued these practices. Establishing a network also provides a better platform for producers to share educational materials.
Disseminating research results to broader audience
Farmers presenting the project results to other farmers at the OSU Small Farms Conference was very effective in engaging a larger group of producers. Additionally, using visual media like the final demonstration video successfully communicated the project design and results with a broad range of people ranging from producers, agricultural support professionals as well as the general public. It also provided a way for the farmers to share these practices with their customers in an accessible way. One way the dissemination could have been improved was by utilizing the social media of all the participating farms more effectively. Partnering with organizations like OrCAN and Growing for Market proved to be a very effective way to get the information out since they have an established audience.
Irrigation practices
No till practices
Use of new tools: soil water tension sensors and weather stations