Final report for FW23-423
Project Information
The biggest challenge that annual cropland farmers face in California is how to keep their soil healthy and productive at the end of the annual crop cycle.
What are the opportunities and challenges of incorporating summer cover crops and livestock on conventional annual farming systems?
We will be studying the various impacts of three different treatments utilizing summer cover crops. This will promote healthy soils, livestock, and our environment. In the areas promoted we also hope to have a positive social impact by reducing our carbon footprint by regenerating soils. We hope by showing we can keep our soil productive in the "off season" that more growers will implement summer cover crops to promote healthy soils and increase economic value by either grazing or baling. We will share the outcomes of our project with on site fields days, newsletters, and local grower meetings.
The objectives of this project are to:
-
- Quantify the economics of three termination strategies for a summer cover crop including grazing, baling, and discing to incorporate residue into the field (control treatment).
- Quantify changes in soil health for three termination strategies for a summer cover crop including grazing, baling, and discing to incorporate residue into the field (control treatment).
Education and outreach objectives are to:
-
- Demonstrate opportunities to profitability incorporate livestock into annual rotations.
- Reduce barriers to summer cover cropping and livestock incorporation by increasing knowledge and awareness of how to manage these practices.
- Increase communication between farmers and ranchers in the region to further opportunities for grazing on annual cropland.
- These objectives will be accomplished through:
- Outreach events: a field day will be organized at the farm to discuss the project. This field day will help meet all three objectives outlined above by 1) visually demonstrating how to manage livestock on cropland and providing information about the economics of each treatment; 2) Ted and Ben will present on their experiences and observations with the project including the logistics of managing animals in a rotation; unexpected challenges and opportunities; considerations for scaling up the practice; 3) these events will be advertised widely through UC Cooperative Extension and partner collaborator networks in order to ensure good attendance. At these events time will be dedicated to discussion on the challenges and opportunities for both farmers and ranchers of livestock integration. Sarah Light led a farmer-rancher discussion on livestock integration in annual systems in 2021 and this project will build upon that outreach work.
- Written communication. Findings from this project will be written up and shared via UC Cooperative Extension newsletters and blogs. In addition, a story about the project will be submitted for consideration to other relevant publications in the state to increase the reach of this work. Sarah Light will post a project summary on her UC Cooperative Extension webpage within one year of project completion. Educational and outreach objectives 1 and 2 will be met by this written communication.
- Presentations: Technical Advisors Sarah Light and Josh Davy frequently give presentation to grower audiences and will incorporate information about this project into relevant talks about soil health or grazing. These presentations will help meet objectives 1 and 2.
- April - May 2024
- Project Initiation - Soil Sample and Analysis , PI (Ted Kingsley), TA (Sarah Light)
- June 2024
- Before Cash Crop planting - Soil Sample and Analysis , PI (Ted Kingsley), TA (Sarah Light)
- July 2024
- Plant and Irrigate cover crops PI (Ted Kingsley), Ben Carter
- September - December 2024
- Rotate animals through planted cover crops , PI (Ted Kingsley), TA (Josh Davy) (Treatment 1)
- Weigh livestock periodically for average daily weight gain, PI (Ted Kingsley), TA (Josh Davy)
- Cut, swath, and bale summer crop , PI (Ted Kingsley), Ben Carter (Treatment 2)
- Chop summer cover crop , PI (Ted Kingsley), Ben Carter (Treatment 3)
- Cut and sample cover crop for dry matter and nutrition analysis , PI (Ted Kingsley) , TA (Sarah Light and Josh Davy)
- May 2025
- Soil Sample and Analysis , PI (Ted Kingsley), TA (Sarah Light)
- Conduct field days and presentations from project and report results, PI (Ted Kingsley) , TA (Sarah Light and Josh Davy)
Cooperators
- - Producer
- - Technical Advisor
- - Technical Advisor
Research
The California Central Valley has a long growing season, allowing for the opportunity to maximize crop diversity, soil coverage, and a living root, through incorporation of cover crops into the rotation. A standard management practice with summer cover crops is to disc and incorporate the cover crop. This treatment is the control treatment. The objectives of this project are to:
-
- Quantify the economics of three termination strategies for a summer cover crop including grazing, baling, and discing to incorporate residue into the field (control treatment).
- Quantify changes in soil health for three termination strategies for a summer cover crop including grazing, baling, and discing to incorporate residue into the field (control treatment).
Following summer cash crop harvest, a summer cover crop was planted. This project evaluates three methods of terminating a summer cover crop: grazing, baling, or discing and incorporation. All treatments were replicated three times. If there is no reduction in soil health, while providing an economic benefit, producers may be more likely to consider incorporating a summer cover crop into their rotations. Water is extremely limited in California and a summer cover crop requires irrigation for establishment and productivity. Understanding these tradeoffs is critical for farms in California. After summer cover crop termination, a winter cover crop was planted in the fall, followed by a summer cash crop in the spring.
Objective one will be met by weighing animals before and after they graze each grazing treatment plot or by observing body condition of the livestock. The economics of baling treatments has been quantified based on the yield per acre and will be translated into a dollar amount based on the price of hay during the project year. The discing and incorporation treatment is assumed to have no economic return. Costs associated with each treatment will also be quantified to generate a budget/balance per treatment.
Objective two will be met through soil sampling at three points during the project year: prior to project in initiation, prior to spring cash crop planting, and one year after project initiation. All soil samples will be collected in the top foot of the soil profile by walking the plot in a W pattern to get one composite sample per plot. Baseline soil samples and soil samples one year after project initiation will be analyzed for total carbon, total nitrogen, organic matter, as well as other soil fertility measurements that are relevant to producers (pH, soil fertility, EC). Soil samples collected in the spring prior to cash crop planting will be analyzed for plant available nitrogen (nitrate) and soil biology assessments (Haney test). The goal of these mid-project samples is to assess any differences in soil that would be relevant to a farmer going into the cash crop season including nitrogen tie up. Bulk density samples will be collected at project initiation and one year after project initiation to quantify any changes in total carbon or total nitrogen. Soil compaction measurements will be taken once during the cash crop growing season when crop roots are actively growing. In addition, cover crop biomass will be collected from the control plots prior to cover crop incorporation. Three meter square quadrants of biomass will be collected and analyzed for total nitrogen and total carbon to measure how much carbon and nitrogen is being added back to the soil on a per acre basis.
Our soil analysis did not show a statistical difference in terms of soil carbon or nutrients.
We did learn that depending on the year a producer will have to decide if baling or grazing is better utilized for the return to the farm. Baling will be better economics for the farm when forage prices are high. When cattle prices are high adding pounds to the calves will result in higher returns to the producer. We have analyzed some of the economics which we have listed below.
Research Analysis 1
Economics of Growing Summer Cover
Based on our observations and experience the tradeoff from grazing cattle vs baling forage ultimately comes down to price of forage during any given year. We were not economically viable when we brought custom grazed cattle onto the project because of the lack of available forage. Because the ranch farms cash crops on most of the acreage the available land is not enough to sustain the cattle for a long enough period to gain enough weight to pay for the cost of planting and growing the summer cover crop. Benden Farms does own approximately 75 head of cattle and we found that during the second year utilizing Benden's cows the feed had more value internally. If a farmer or rancher was only in the livestock business growing summer cover crops would be a good source of additional forage during times of historically short feed (ie late fall, early winter).
| Lbs/Gain/Day | Days | $/lb Gain | Total Head | ||
| 1.35 | 75 | 0.45 | 70 | ||
| In Weight | Out Weight | Total Gain | Total $/Head | Total $/TL | |
| 700 | 801.25 | 101.25 | 45.5625 | 3189.375 | |
| Crop year | 2024 | 52 | Total Acres | ||
| Field 114 | $/hour | hours | total | $/acre | |
| Land Prep | 102 | 62 | 6324 | 121.61538 | |
| Land Prep OT | 112 | 11.5 | 1288 | 24.769231 | |
| Planting Cover | 102 | 12.5 | 1275 | 24.519231 | |
| Planting Cover OT | 112 | 2.5 | 280 | 5.3846154 | |
| Irrigate | 26.5 | 83 | 2199.5 | 42.298077 | |
| Irrigate OT | 32.5 | 50 | 1625 | 31.25 | |
| Fencing | 26.5 | 34.5 | 914.25 | 17.581731 | |
| 13905.75 | 267.41827 | Per Acre Expense | |||
| Crop Year | 2023 | 62.5 | Total Acres | ||
| Field 306 | $/hour | hours | total | $/acre | |
| Land Prep | 102 | 3 | 306 | 4.896 | |
| Planting | 102 | 18 | 1836 | 29.376 | |
| Irrigate | 26.5 | 184.5 | 4889.25 | 78.228 | |
| Fencing | 26.5 | 92 | 2438 | 39.008 | |
| 9469.25 | 151.508 | Per Acre Expense | |||
| lbs per bale | 100 | ||||
| bales per acre | 25 | ||||
| Total Forage | 2500 | ||||
| Tons of Forage | 1.25 | ||||
| Hay Price | $/ton/acre | Cost/acre for Haying | 115 | ||
| 50 | 62.5 | ||||
| 75 | 93.75 | ||||
| 100 | 125 | ||||
| 125 | 156.25 | ||||
| 150 | 187.5 | ||||
| 175 | 218.75 | ||||
| 200 | 250 | ||||
| 225 | 281.25 | ||||
| 250 | 312.5 |
Research Analysis 2
Fall 2023 Soil Analysis
| Plot | Treatment | Block | OM | pweak | pstrong | k | Mg | Ca | Na | pH | CEC | Nitrate | Sulfur | Zinc | Mn | Fe | Cu | B | Solublesalt | totalc | totaln | shs | co2c |
| 1 | g | 1 | 2 | 12 | 75 | 133 | 740 | 2632 | 136 | 8 | 20.3 | 9 | 11 | 0.4 | 7 | 18 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 0.97 | 1193 | 11.8 | 69 |
| 2 | b | 1 | 2.2 | 10 | 68 | 132 | 732 | 2357 | 137 | 7.9 | 18.8 | 12 | 14 | 0.4 | 8 | 17 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 0.97 | 1186 | 13.3 | 86 |
| 3 | c | 1 | 1.6 | 8 | 61 | 120 | 701 | 2374 | 131 | 7.9 | 18.6 | 12 | 11 | 0.5 | 7 | 15 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.89 | 1191 | 12.1 | 82 |
| 4 | c | 2 | 2.1 | 10 | 63 | 131 | 691 | 2509 | 124 | 8 | 19.2 | 11 | 11 | 0.4 | 7 | 18 | 2.1 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.95 | 1229 | 12.9 | 86 |
| 5 | b | 2 | 2.1 | 7 | 53 | 126 | 721 | 2501 | 137 | 8 | 19.4 | 10 | 10 | 0.4 | 7 | 19 | 2.1 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.94 | 1205 | 12.8 | 86 |
| 6 | g | 2 | 2.1 | 12 | 57 | 148 | 748 | 2623 | 153 | 7.9 | 20.4 | 8 | 10 | 0.4 | 7 | 25 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 1312 | 12.7 | 74 |
| 7 | b | 3 | 2.2 | 26 | 79 | 190 | 801 | 2796 | 155 | 8 | 21.8 | 10 | 12 | 0.6 | 8 | 34 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 1.33 | 1504 | 14.2 | 86 |
| 8 | g | 3 | 2.5 | 26 | 93 | 186 | 751 | 2658 | 156 | 8 | 20.7 | 9 | 11 | 0.5 | 7 | 23 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 1.29 | 1591 | 14.4 | 93 |
| 9 | c | 3 | 2.6 | 31 | 88 | 198 | 740 | 2581 | 156 | 8 | 20.3 | 10 | 12 | 0.6 | 7 | 23 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 1.22 | 1559 | 13.7 | 86 |
| Total N | Pweak | Na | Mn | Soluable Salt | |||||||||||||||||||
| Response: totaln | Response: pweak | Response: Na | Response: Mn | Response: Solublesalt | |||||||||||||||||||
| Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Treatment 2 6794 3397 3.9855 0.1116490 | Treatment 2 9.56 4.78 0.688 0.55361 | Treatment 2 192.89 96.44 1.5404 0.31913 | Treatment 2 0.88889 0.44444 4 0.1111 | Treatment 2 0.0066667 0.0033333 2 0.25 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Block 2 225611 112805 132.3488 0.0002216 *** | Block 2 636.22 318.11 45.808 0.00175 ** | Block 2 764.22 382.11 6.1029 0.06092 . | Block 2 0.22222 0.11111 1 0.4444 | Block 2 0.0066667 0.0033333 2 0.25 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Residuals 4 3409 852 | Residuals 4 27.78 6.94 | Residuals 4 250.44 62.61 | Residuals 4 0.44444 0.11111 | Residuals 4 0.0066667 0.0016667 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total C | Pstrong | CEC | Fe | Soil Health Score | |||||||||||||||||||
| Response: totalc | Response: pstrong | Response: CEC | Response: Fe | Response: shs | |||||||||||||||||||
| Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Treatment 2 0.015200 0.007600 2.6824 0.182445 | Treatment 2 104.22 52.11 1.4364 0.33872 | Treatment 2 1.8289 0.91444 1.8941 0.26378 | Treatment 2 34.667 17.333 0.8739 0.4843 | Treatment 2 0.5067 0.25333 0.9806 0.45024 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Block 2 0.196467 0.098233 34.6706 0.002975 ** | Block 2 1296.22 648.11 17.8652 0.01014 * | Block 2 4.6822 2.34111 4.8493 0.08527 . | Block 2 152.000 76.000 3.8319 0.1176 | Block 2 4.7400 2.37000 9.1742 0.03204 * | |||||||||||||||||||
| Residuals 4 0.011333 0.002833 | Residuals 4 145.11 36.28 | Residuals 4 1.9311 0.48278 | Residuals 4 79.333 19.833 | Residuals 4 1.0333 0.25833 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Nitrate | K | Sulfur | Cu | CO2C | |||||||||||||||||||
| Response: Nitrate | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Response: Cu | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Treatment 2 76.2 38.1 0.413 0.686980 | Response: Sulfur | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Response: co2c | |||||||||||||||||||
| Treatment 2 9.5556 4.7778 10.75 0.02461 * | Block 2 7186.9 3593.4 38.942 0.002386 ** | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Treatment 2 0.06889 0.034444 1.1071 0.4143 | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Block 2 3.5556 1.7778 4.00 0.11111 | Residuals 4 369.1 92.3 | Treatment 2 2.6667 1.3333 1.1429 0.405 | Block 2 0.57556 0.287778 9.2500 0.0316 * | Treatment 2 91.556 45.778 0.9385 0.4632 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Residuals 4 1.7778 0.4444 | --- | Block 2 4.6667 2.3333 2.0000 0.250 | Residuals 4 0.12444 0.031111 | Block 2 136.222 68.111 1.3964 0.3468 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Residuals 4 4.6667 1.1667 | Residuals 4 195.111 48.778 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| However, Tukey HSD shows this: | Mg | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| treatments | Tukey HSD | Tukey HSD | Tukey HSD | A= grazed | Response: Mg | Zinc | Boron | ||||||||||||||||
| pair | Q statistic | p-value | inferfence | B=Control | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Response: Zinc | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | ||||||||||||||||
| A vs B | 4.2866 | 0.0521 | insignificant | C=Baled | Treatment 2 2950.9 1475.44 3.6035 0.1274 | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Treatment 2 0.008889 0.004444 0.5714 0.60494 | ||||||||||||||||
| A vs C | 3.6742 | 0.0898 | insignificant | Block 2 3528.2 1764.11 4.3085 0.1005 | Treatment 2 0.006667 0.0033333 2 0.25000 | Block 2 0.222222 0.111111 14.2857 0.01508 * | |||||||||||||||||
| B vs C | 0.6124 | 0.9 | insignificant | Residuals 4 1637.8 409.44 | Block 2 0.046667 0.0233333 14 0.01563 * | Residuals 4 0.031111 0.007778 | |||||||||||||||||
| Residuals 4 0.006667 0.0016667 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| OM: | Calcium | --- | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Response: OM | Response: Ca | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Treatment 2 0.01556 0.007778 0.1207 0.8894 | Treatment 2 33865 16932 1.4511 0.3359 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Block 2 0.38889 0.194444 3.0172 0.1589 | Block 2 76232 38116 3.2665 0.1442 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Residuals 4 0.25778 0.064444 | Residuals 4 46675 11669 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Spring 2023 Soil Analysis
| Treatment | OM | Nitrate | Total C | Total N | CO2C | Soil Health Calculation | P1 Weak Bray | P2 Strong Bray | Potassium | Magnesium | Calcium | Sodium | pH | CEC | K | Mg | Ca | H | Na | Sulfur | Zinc | Manganese | Iron | Copper | Boron | SolubleSalts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| % | ppm | % | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | meq/100g | % | % | % | % | % | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | mmhos/cm | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | ||
| Control | 1.77 | (0.09) | 2.67 | (0.33) | 1.11 | (0.11) | 1033.67 | (43.91) | 170 | (2.00) | 23.37 | (0.30) | 20.67 | (1.76) | 80.33 | (2.40) | 143.67 | (6.36) | 528.00 | (39.51) | 1590.00 | (93.36) | 34.33 | (2.03) | 6.90 | (0.00) | 12.83 | (0.81) | 34.23 | (0.10) | 6.90 | (0.00) | 61.70 | (0.44) | 0 | (0.00) | 1.17 | (0.07) | 8.67 | (0.33) | 3.00 | (0.12) | 13.00 | (1.00) | 34.00 | (2.00) | 3.27 | (0.24) | 0.47 | (0.03) | 0.23 | (0.03) | |
| Grazed | 1.63 | (0.03) | 2.00 | (0.00) | 1.03 | (0.22) | 902.67 | (54.68) | 150 | (2.00) | 20.87 | (0.32) | 17.67 | (1.33) | 71.33 | (5.70) | 143.67 | (6.36) | 542.67 | (19.47) | 1586.67 | (38.32) | 34.33 | (1.76) | 6.93 | (0.03) | 12.97 | (0.38) | 34.87 | (0.03) | 6.93 | (0.03) | 61.13 | (0.28) | 0 | (0.00) | 1.13 | (0.03) | 8.67 | (0.33) | 3.03 | (0.07) | 12.67 | (0.33) | 35.00 | (2.08) | 3.53 | (0.22) | 0.47 | (0.03) | 0.20 | (0.00) | |
| Baled | 1.83 | (0.09) | 2.00 | (0.00) | 0.88 | (0.09) | 931.67 | (88.20) | 165 | (16.80) | 22.60 | (1.64) | 18.67 | (1.45) | 74.33 | (1.86) | 139.33 | (3.93) | 567.33 | (24.59) | 1646.00 | (49.11) | 35.67 | (0.88) | 6.87 | (0.03) | 13.47 | (0.47) | 35.10 | (0.03) | 6.87 | (0.03) | 61.13 | (0.43) | 0 | (0.00) | 1.13 | (0.03) | 7.67 | (0.67) | 2.80 | (0.06) | 12.33 | (0.67) | 35.00 | (1.53) | 3.47 | (0.15) | 0.47 | (0.03) | 0.20 | (0.00) | |
| Significance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Treatment | 0.1736 | 0.1111 | 0.5947 | 0.5067 | 0.4607 | 0.2904 | 0.4444 | 0.3705 | 0.7363 | 0.27387 | 0.55042 | 0.7859 | 0.25 | 0.43085 | 0.08779 . | 0.1948 | 0.4778 | - | 0.8711 | 0.25 | 0.2891 | 0.44444 | 0.390625 | 0.16184 | 0.442 | 0.4444 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Block | 0.1975 | 0.4444 | 0.4754 | 0.8486 | 0.6215 | 0.4467 | 0.4444 | 0.6147 | 0.1544 | 0.02905 * | 0.06431 . | 0.3349 | 0.25 | 0.04359 * | 0.52893 | 0.1182 | 0.2727 | - | 0.6049 | 0.25 | 0.7695 | 0.02041 * | 0.002713 ** | 0.01047 * | <2e-16 *** | 0.4444 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Soil Sample Results 2024
| NEUTRAL AMMONIUM ACETATE (EXCHANGEABLE) | PERCENT BASE SATURATION (COMPUTED) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plot | Sampling Depth | Bulk Density (g/cm(^3) | N (Total) | C (Total) | OM (LOI) | P (WEAK BRAY) | P (STRONG BRAY) | K | Mg | Ca | Na | pH | CEC | K | Mg | Ca | H | Na | ||||||||||||||||||
| ppm | % | % | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | ppm | meq/100g | % | % | % | % | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 0-12" | 1.445 | 858 | 0.56 | 0.9 | 41 | 122 | 109 | 247 | 1645 | 6.8 | 10.6 | 2.6 | 19.4 | 78 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | 0-12" | 1.42 | 513 | 0.38 | 0.4 | 39 | 108 | 95 | 198 | 1651 | 151 | 6.9 | 10.8 | 2.3 | 15.3 | 76.3 | 0 | 6.1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | 0-12" | 1.305 | 555 | 0.48 | 0.8 | 43 | 116 | 111 | 225 | 1746 | 190 | 7 | 11.7 | 2.4 | 16 | 74.5 | 0 | 7.1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | 0-12" | 1.34 | 822 | 0.65 | 1.7 | 45 | 109 | 138 | 312 | 1792 | 6.8 | 11.9 | 3 | 21.8 | 75.2 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | 0-12" | 1.335 | 946 | 0.67 | 1.3 | 49 | 114 | 151 | 329 | 1822 | 145 | 6.8 | 12.9 | 3 | 21.3 | 70.8 | 0 | 4.9 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | 0-12" | 1.345 | 782 | 0.74 | 1.6 | 68 | 114 | 150 | 326 | 1818 | 167 | 6.6 | 13.7 | 2.8 | 19.8 | 66.4 | 5.7 | 5.3 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | 0-12" | 1.29 | 872 | 0.77 | 1.2 | 59 | 125 | 159 | 369 | 1963 | 190 | 6.5 | 15.2 | 2.7 | 20.2 | 64.6 | 7.1 | 5.4 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | 0-12" | 1.36 | 751 | 0.76 | 1.5 | 45 | 109 | 152 | 397 | 2134 | 204 | 6.8 | 15.3 | 2.5 | 21.6 | 70.1 | 0 | 5.8 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 9 | 0-12" | 1.395 | 786 | 0.72 | 1.2 | 40 | 125 | 128 | 377 | 2134 | 200 | 6.8 | 15 | 2.2 | 20.9 | 71.1 | 0 | 5.8 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Note: BD collected 10/10/24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NEUTRAL AMMONIUM ACETATE (EXCHANGEABLE) | PERCENT BASE SATURATION (COMPUTED) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plot | Block | Treatment | N (Total) | C (Total) | OM (LOI) | P (WEAK BRAY) | P (STRONG BRAY) | K | Mg | Ca | Na | pH | CEC | K | Mg | Ca | H | Na | ||||||||||||||||||
| lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | meq/100g | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 1 | Bale | 3371.491126 | 22005.0703 | 35365.2915 | 161.1085503 | 479.3961741 | 428.312975 | 970.580779 | 6463.9894 | 6.8 | 10.6 | 102166.398 | 762318.506 | 3064991.93 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | 1 | Graze | 1980.945811 | 14673.6727 | 15445.9712 | 150.5982195 | 417.0412233 | 366.841817 | 764.575576 | 6375.32463 | 583.085414 | 6.9 | 10.8 | 88814.3346 | 590808.4 | 2946319.01 | 0 | 235551.061 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | 1 | Mow | 1969.565284 | 17034.0781 | 28390.1302 | 152.59695 | 411.6568883 | 393.913057 | 798.472413 | 6196.14592 | 674.265593 | 7 | 11.7 | 85170.3907 | 567802.605 | 2643830.88 | 0 | 251962.406 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | 2 | Mow | 2995.3219 | 23685.6355 | 61947.0466 | 163.9774763 | 397.189887 | 502.864261 | 1136.9105 | 6529.9475 | 6.8 | 11.9 | 109318.318 | 794379.774 | 2740245.83 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | 2 | Bale | 3434.308368 | 24323.3257 | 47194.5125 | 177.8870085 | 413.8595708 | 548.182414 | 1194.3842 | 6614.49244 | 526.400331 | 6.8 | 12.9 | 108910.413 | 773263.935 | 2570285.76 | 0 | 177887.008 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | 2 | Graze | 2860.196846 | 27065.8014 | 58520.6516 | 248.7127692 | 416.9596425 | 548.631109 | 1192.35828 | 6649.40904 | 610.809301 | 6.6 | 13.7 | 102411.14 | 724193.063 | 2428607.04 | 208479.821 | 193849.658 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | 3 | Bale | 3058.954951 | 27011.4141 | 42095.7103 | 206.9705758 | 438.4969827 | 557.768162 | 1294.44309 | 6886.15662 | 666.515414 | 6.5 | 15.2 | 94715.3483 | 708611.124 | 2266152.41 | 249066.286 | 189430.697 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | 3 | Mow | 2777.446687 | 28107.3167 | 55474.9671 | 166.4249013 | 403.1180943 | 562.146333 | 1468.23746 | 7892.23865 | 754.459553 | 6.8 | 15.3 | 92458.2785 | 798839.526 | 2592530.13 | 0 | 214503.206 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 9 | 3 | Graze | 2981.697901 | 27313.2632 | 45522.1054 | 151.7403512 | 474.1885975 | 485.569124 | 1430.15281 | 8095.34774 | 758.701756 | 6.8 | 15 | 83457.1932 | 792843.335 | 2697184.74 | 0 | 220023.509 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Note: N (lb/acre) = (g soil/cm^3)*(g N/100 g soil)*depth (cm)*(10000cm^2/m^2)*(4046.86m^2/acre)*(0.00220462lb/g) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Note: PPM to (lbs/acre) = ((g soil/cm^3)*(g N/100 g soil)*depth(cm)*(10000cm^2/m^2)*(4046.86m^2/acre)*(0.00220462lb/g))/10000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1% = 10000 ppm | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NEUTRAL AMMONIUM ACETATE (EXCHANGEABLE) | PERCENT BASE SATURATION (COMPUTED) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Depth | Treatment | N (Total) | C (Total) | OM (LOI) | P (WEAK BRAY) | P (STRONG BRAY) | K | Mg | Ca | Na | pH | CEC | K | Mg | Ca | H | Na | |||||||||||||||||||
| lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | lb/A | meq/100g | lb/A | lb/A | meq/100g | lb/A | lb/A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 0-12" | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | Avg | SE | ||||
| Bale | 3288 | (116.07) | 24447 | (1446.52) | 41552 | (3425.61) | 182 | (13.40) | 444 | (19.11) | 511 | (41.65) | 1153 | (95.74) | 6655 | (123.53) | 575 | (70.06) | 6.7 | (0.10) | 12.9 | (1.33) | 101931 | (4099.46) | 748064 | (19978.14) | 2633810 | (232782.19) | 83022 | (83022.10) | 195634 | (5771.84) | ||||
| Graze | 2608 | (315.29) | 23018 | (4172.56) | 39830 | (12756.18) | 184 | (32.52) | 436 | (19.06) | 467 | (53.29) | 1129 | (194.73) | 7040 | (533.56) | 651 | (54.51) | 6.77 | (0.09) | 13.2 | (1.24) | 91561 | (5641.24) | 702615 | (59312.00) | 2690704 | (149485.70) | 69493 | (69493.27) | 216475 | (12168.22) | ||||
| Mow | 2581 | (312.01) | 22942 | (3218.10) | 48604 | (10278.19) | 161 | (4.26) | 404 | (4.20) | 486 | (49.27) | 1135 | (193.35) | 6873 | (518.76) | 692 | (40.10) | 6.87 | (0.07) | 13 | (1.17) | 95649 | (7151.13) | 720341 | (76279.88) | 2658869 | (43299.69) | 0 | 0.00 | 223140 | (18729.60) | ||||
| Significance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Treatment | 0.1342 | 0.76948 | 0.47792 | 0.6983 | 0.2698 | 0.329224 | 0.956191 | 0.55748 | 0.144 | 0.365 | 0.904469 | 0.1392 | 0.8028 | 0.9604 | 0.6901 | 0.05259 . | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Block | 0.1955 | 0.02954 * | 0.02987 * | 0.4185 | 0.42 | 0.009089 ** | 0.006954 ** | 0.03731 * | 0.076 . | 0.2336 | 0.006419 ** | 0.02649 * | 0.2157 | 0.2586 | 0.6901 | 0.08606 . | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Block effect: | C (Total) | OM (LOI) | K | Mg | Ca | CEC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Block # | Signif letter | Block # | Signif letter | Block # | Signif letter | Block # | Signif letter | Block # | Signif letter | Block # | Signif letter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Note: | Block 1 = Rep 1 | 3 | a | 2 | a | 3 | a | 3 | a | 3 | a | 3 | a | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Block 2 = Rep 2 | 2 | ab | 3 | ab | 2 | a | 2 | a | 2 | ab | 2 | b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Block 3 = Rep 3 | 1 | b | 1 | b | 1 | b | 1 | b | 1 | b | 1 | b | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
What I can say about the soil samples from this year 2024 is this:
Baseline soil samples indicate that the field was blocked appropriately. There are significant differences in certain soil measurements due to an alkalai heavy part of the field in one of the blocks. This experimental design will enable us to quantify any treatment effects for future soil samples because the inherent variability of the field will be captured in the block effect.
What I can say about soil samples from last year is:
We did not collect winter and spring samples from this field due to the prussic acid and need to replicate the trial in year three.
What I can say about soil samples from year one (2023) is:
We did not observe significant treatment effects on any of the three soil sampling dates in year one of this project. Changes to soil health metrics often take multiple years to be measured. None of the treatments had a negative effect on soil health.
Research Outcomes
Lessons learned.
Here we will include several lessons learned from our project last year (2023-2024)
- We chose sudan grass as a main ingredient in our summer cover crop for several reasons. Those reasons include fast growing species, substantial biomass production, low cost of seed, and high feed quality. However in our project environment the sudan is not an acceptable variety because of prussic acid produced by the plant during senescence. Moving forward we will consider other species such as grass or perhaps small cereal grains to replace the sudan.
- We are integrating the summer cover crop during the time of year row crops are being harvested, managing labor and resources are a logistical challenge.
Lessons Learned 2024-2025
- Field lessons - We have learned and shared valuable information about establishing and utilizing summer cover crops in California. First is that the timing and season of planting summer cover crops are crucial. This last year we were not able to get a good germination of our cover crop and had to compete with various weeds minimizing our ability to graze and bale the crop. Second is that depending on the seed mix, seasonal challenges are present when other field crops are being grown, irrigated, and harvested.
- Market Economy - When we started our project California was in the midst of a tenous drought. Cattle prices were low and forage prices were high making the baling of the forage lucrative for the farm financially. Currently in 2024-2025 cattle prices are high and we have received enough rain to graze cattle in the foothills, causing hay/forage prices to come back to normal levels. Thus making this year a good year to utilize the forage for grazing and adding pounds to our animals.
- Year to year - Through our project we have learned that every year is different and can not be repeated easily. Producers must weigh planting and/or grazing decisions based on individual years
Education and Outreach
Participation Summary:
We requested an extension on our project because the sudangrass in our summer cover crop mix produced prussic acid, which is toxic to livestock. We got the extension and plan to execute the project again this coming summer. We met with the project team and decided to wait to have a field day until we have results to share.
We are working on a mid-project summary to share as a newsletter article this spring.
We held a field day on September 30, 2024. Particpants were as follows
5 - Growers/Producers
7 - Government Agency people
2- Ranchers
2-Others
field day agenda for 9.30.24 April2024
Bullet point summary of survey results:
- 94% of attendees rated the meeting good or excellent
- 100% of attendees gained useful information from the meeting
- 88% of attendees intend to use what they learned in the next 12 months.
Farmers and ranchers can be hard to get out on the ground on any given day as they are usually either working, hunting, or on vacation. The best way to get producer attendance is to call local producers who you have a personal relationship with and invite them. Working with extension service was also a great asset as they have more colleagues engaged in the research environment.
Education and Outreach Outcomes
We held our field day on September 30, 2024 and had good participation. Most attendees would like to hear more about grazing challenges, seed mix, and multispecies grazing. Some participants would have liked to spend more time looking at the individual treatments. Overall they rated the field day as a success.
Multi Species Grazing