Farmer-to-Farmer Cover Crop Network Complementing On-Farm and On-Station Trials

Objective 1.

Cooperating farmers and researchers have exchanged trial data and observations. Project participants shared their observations and data from their trials through 33 meetings used in the development and outreach of the project.

Improving soil quality and fixing nitrogen have always been a primary incentive for farmers to use cover crops. Conserving profits, moisture, and labor have remained priority management concerns. Two management factors have clearly risen as new priority management factors, getting consistent cover crop establishment and using the cover crops for grazing. Crop establishment concerns target weed control and good quality hairy vetch seed.

Scientists ranked similar management interests as farmers but tend to place less emphasis on labor requirements. Establishment success and grazing opportunities have become emerging new priority concerns.

Objective 2.

SARE COVER CROPS TRIALS -- ON-FARM RESEARCH DATA
by Rhonda Janke

Materials and Methods:
Nine farms were selected as research sites based on the interest of the cooperator in growing cover crops, in participating in the trial, and willingness to follow agreed upon protocols and collect yield data. Research staff collected the soil samples, leaves for tissue nutrient analysis, and cover crop biomass and nutrient data. Protocols were developed through a series of meetings with researchers and farmers.

Two winter annual cover crops were chosen; Austrian winter pea, and hairy vetch. In 1996, six farms used hairy vetch, and 3 grew Austrian winter pea. In 1997, 4 grew hairy vetch, three grew Austrian winter pea, and 2 farms had plots of each. All farms each year planted an adjacent control plot with no cover crop. Recommended rates of nitrogen fertilizer were used on the control plot. The same variety of grain sorghum (Pioneer 8505) was used in all plots in both years. Tillage in the cover crop plots and the control plots were identical within each farm each year, but varied slightly from farm to farm, with each farmer using their normal practice. In all cases except one, the cover crop was killed with the preplant tillage operation. One farmer killed the cover crop with herbicide prior to no-till planting the sorghum.

Soil samples were collected in the late fall after cover crop planting, but prior to maximum biomass production as a "before" measurement of soil nutrient status. Soil samples were again collected in the late fall, after sorghum harvest, as an "after" measurement. All soil samples were collected to a depth of 24" in increments of 0-6" 6-12" and 12-24" using a hand corer. One end of the experimental plots was designated for intensive sampling for all measurements. Five cores per plot were collected and bulked for analysis. Similar sub-samples were collected for cover crop % cover using a rope-knot counting method (2 transects per plot), cover crop biomass (4 ft. sq. sub-samples), and sorghum leaf tissue analysis at early heading (10 leaves per plot). Soil water content was measured using an 'Aquaterr' soil water capacitance probe at depths of 0-6" and 6-12" (5 samples per plot). All data were analyzed using analysis of variance, with two treatments (with vs. without cover crop) and nine replications, with each farm serving as a replicate.

Results:
Poor growing conditions for the cover crop in the fall and winter of 1995-1996 resulted in poor stand establishment of both cover crops on most farm sites. The average biomass of cover crops prior to spring tillage was less than half a ton, and the nitrogen contribution from the cover crop biomass ranged from only 2 lb/A to 71 lb/A (Table 1). The resulting sorghum yields in 1996 were quite a bit lower with cover crop as compared to without (20 bu per acre lower), though leaf tissue N status showed adequate levels in both treatments (Table 2). Soil water measurements during the growing season indicated lower soil moisture in the cover crop plots, perhaps because of spring depletion prior to when the cover crop was destroyed. This result was somewhat surprising in this particular growing season however, since late spring rains delayed cover crop killing and tilling.

Cover crop establishment was much better in the fall and winter of 1996-1997, resulting in an average of over a ton of cover crop above ground biomass, contributing 72 lb/A N (Table 3). The range was from a low of 22 lb/A, up to 164 lb/A N on one farm from vetch. Few conclusions can be made from a comparison of vetch and pea at this point in time, and was not an objective of this study, since the choice of cover crop depends more on how the cover crop fits into the overall farm system, and not just biomass or N produced as a rotation crop. However, on the two farms with both cover crops planted side-by-side, the vetch produced more biomass and N than the pea.

Subsequent sorghum yields were higher in the cover crop plots in 1997 as compared to 1996, and were not significantly different than the fertilized control plots (Table 4). Leaf tissue N also indicated adequate nitrogen status in both treatments. Soil water measurements in 1997 also were not different between plots. Observations by the farmer participants indicate that the timing of N release seems to be different from the cover crop as compared to fertilizer, and in some cases the sorghum plots following cover crops did not get dark green until fairly late in the season.

Soil nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, pH, organic matter etc. levels were not different between the cover crop and control plots in either year within each farm site, and were also not different in the "before" samples as compared to the "after" (data not presented). Though not significant, there was a trend for lower mineral N levels following cover crops as compared to the fertilized plots. From this data, we do not know if the plots had lower N status overall, or if the N was simply tied up in organic forms (plant residue and microbial biomass). The study was also not able to determine if this potentially stored N could be released for crop growth later in the rotation cycle. Some samples were analyzed for soil quality factors such as water infiltration rate and water stable aggregates. After only one year of cover crop, no differences were seen in these factors, though other data sets have indicated that two or more cycles through the legume portion of the rotation may be required to change these soil physical factors significantly.

Conclusions:
More research is needed on the long term benefits of legumes in rotation, including perennial legumes as well as winter and summer annuals. On-farm data can give meaningful results, and complement field station data. Farmers benefitted from seeing how their farm compared to others in the trial, and several farmers commented that they plan to continue using cover crops. Most would not do replicated on-farm research, or even establish a "control" plot if there was not the incentive to pool their data with others. Many also would not have collected the required soils data without Rural Center and KSU researcher time and muscle power. The sharing of planting, tilling, and other problem solving experiences were a valuable part of the annual meetings where the actual field trial data was presented.

EFFECTS OF HAIRY VETCH WINTER COVER CROP TERMINATION DATE AND NITROGEN RATES ON GRAIN SORGHUM
by Mark M. Claassen

Summary
Dry matter yields of 2165 tons/a and 2.99 tons/a were produced by hairy vetch planted in mid-September following winter wheat and terminated on April 25 (DOT 1) and May 14 (DOT 2), respectively. The corresponding potential N contribution was 147 lb/a and 188 lb/a for the succeeding sorghum crop. In a season with ample rainfall, delayed vetch termination tended to result in higher sorghum leaf N levels and grain yields, but treatment differences were not always significant. The positive effect of DOT 1 and DOT 2 vetch on the yield of sorghum without fertilizer N was equivalent to about 70 lb/a and 89 lb/a of N. Sorghum yields after vetch averaged over N rates were 6 to 10 bu/a more than without a preceding cover crop.

Introduction
Interest in the use of legume winter cover crops has been rekindled by concerns for soil and water conservation, dependency on commercial fertilizer, and maintenance of soil quality. Hairy vetch is a good candidate for the cover crop role because it can be established in the fall when water use is reduced, it has winter hardiness, and it can fix substantial nitrogen (N). This experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of hairy vetch and N fertilizer rates on the supply of N to the succeeding grain sorghum crop as well as to assess sorghum yield response when the vetch is terminated at different time intervals ahead of sorghum planting.

Procedures
The experiment was established on a Geary silt loam soil on which unfertilized winter wheat was grown in 1995 and 1996. Reduced tillage practices with a disk and field cultivator were used to control weeds and prepare a seedbed. Hairy vetch plots were planted at 15 lb/a in 8 in. rows with a grain drill equipped with double-disk openers on September 13, 1996.

Rainfall shortly after planting favored hairy vetch fall stand establishment. Precipitation during the entire vetch growing season was near to or slightly above normal. Volunteer wheat was controlled by a mid-March application of Fusilade + crop oil concentrate (2 oz ai/a + 1% v/v). One set of vetch plots was terminated early by disking April 25. Hairy vetch in a second set of plots was terminated in like manner on May 14.

Vetch forage yield was determined by harvesting a 1 meter' area from each plot immediately before termination. Nitrogen fertilizer treatments were broadcast as ammonium nitrate on June 23, 1997. All plots received 35 lb/a of P205, which was banded as 0-46-0 at planting. Pioneer 8505 grain sorghum treated with Concep III safener and Gaucho insecticide was planted after rain delay at approximately 42,000 seeds/a on July 3, 1997. Weeds were controlled with preemergence application of Microtech + atrazine (2.5 + 0.25 lb ai/a). Grain sorghum was combine harvested on November 6.

Results
Initial soil nitrate N (0 to 2 ft) and available P (0 to 6 in.) averaged 19 lb/a and 40 lb/a, respectively, with an organic matter level of 2.1%. Hairy vetch provided excellent fall ground cover (63%) to provide protection from soil erosion (Table 1). At DOT 1, vetch was about 16 to 18 in. tall and had not reached bloom stage. A few plants were beginning to bloom at DOT 2. Average hairy vetch dry matter yield was 2.66 tons/a at DOT 1 and nearly 3.0 tons/a at DOT 2. The average N content was 2.76% and 3.15%, respectively. Consequently, the average potential amount of N to be mineralized for use by the sorghum crop was 147 lb/a and 188 lb/a.

Disking to terminate hairy vetch growth did not adversely affect soil moisture at the surface because of ample spring rains, which ultimately delayed planting. Sorghum stands averaged 39,560 plants/a and were relatively uniform across treatments (Table 2). At low N rates, leaf N at boot to early heading stage was higher in sorghum after vetch than in sorghum without a prior vetch cover crop. Highest leaf N values occurred in sorghum following DOT 2 vetch. However, the effect of vetch termination date on leaf N was not always significant or consistent. The overall effect of N rate on leaf N was significant. A trend of increasing leaf N as N rate increased was consistent in sorghum without prior vetch. However, approximately 66 lb/a of N fertilizer was required to significantly increase leaf N in the absence of the cover crop. In sorghum following vetch, leaf N did not increase meaningfully above an N rate of 30 lb/a. At the zero N rate, vetch from DOT 1 and DOT 2 increased sorghum leaf N equivalent to that of 27 lb/a and 66 lb/a of fertilizer N. Sorghum following vetch required 1 to 2 days less time to reach half bloom than sorghum without a preceding cover crop. Averaged over N rates, sorghum yields were 6 to 10 bu/a more after vetch than where no cover crop had been grown. Highest yields were attained with an N rate of 90 lb/a in sorghum without prior vetch and with 30 lb/a of N in sorghum following vetch. The positive effect of DOT 1 and DOT 2 vetch on the yield of sorghum without fertilizer N was equivalent to about 70 lb/a and 89 lb/a of N, respectively. A small, but significant increase in the number of heads per plant accounted for most of the treatment effects on yield.

HAIRY VETCH WINTER COVER C AND NITROGEN RATE EFFECTS ON GRAIN SORGHUM
by Mark M. Claassen

Summary
Hairy vetch planted in mid-September following winter wheat produced 2.05 tons of dry matter by the time it was terminated the following May. Vetch contained an average of 128 lb/a of nitrogen (N). Method of vetch termination (no-till vs disk) had no effect on grain sorghum flag-leaf N concentrations or on yields. Vetch significantly increased sorghum leaf N and also increased sorghum grain yield by nearly 22 bu/a in the absence of fertilizer N. The apparent N contribution to sorghum yield by the vetch was approximately 58 lb/a.

Introduction
Hairy vetch may be utilized as a winter cover crop after wheat and prior to grain sorghum planted in the following spring. The amount of N contributed by hairy vetch to grain sorghum in this cropping system remains under investigation. Termination of vetch by tillage prior to sorghum planting can cause significant loss of surface soil moisture. On the other hand, there are concerns that use of herbicides to terminate the vetch may not allow adequate release of N from vetch in the absence of tillage. This experiment was conducted to evaluate hairy vetch termination method and N rate effects on grain sorghum N uptake and yield.

Procedures
The experiment site was located on a Smolan silt loam on which a vetch-grain sorghum-winter wheat cropping system had been established initially in the fall of 1994. Wheat grown in 1996 had not been fertilized. In this second cycle, hairy vetch was no-till planted on September 13, 1996, into wheat stubble in which weeds and volunteer plants had been controlled with Roundup. A grain drill with double disk openers on 7 in. spacing was used to seed the vetch at 15 lb/a. In the following spring, vetch forage yield was determined by harvesting a I meter' area in 12 representative plots just prior to vetch termination. Vetch was sprayed on May 15 at very early boom stage with Roundup + 2,4-DLVE + Premier 90 nonionic surfactant (0.375 + 0.71 lb ae/a + 0.5%). Tillage plots were disked on May 17. Rains delayed N application and planting. Nitrogen fertilizer treatments were broadcast as ammonium nitrate on July 4. Pioneer 8500 grain sorghum treated with Concep 11 safener and Gaucho insecticide was planted at approximately 42,000 seeds/a on the same day. Weeds were controlled with preemergence application of Microtech + atrazine (2.0 + 0.25 lb ai/a). Grain sorghum was combine harvested on November 7.

Results
Fall rains promoted vetch emergence and stand establishment. Seasonal precipitation for vetch was near to or slightly above normal. At the time of termination, vetch was 22 to 25 in. tall and had produced an average dry matter yield of about 2 tons/a with an average N content of 3.12% (Table 3). As a result, the potential amount of N to be mineralized for use by the sorghum crop averaged 128 lb/a. Sorghum stands averaged about 36,700 plants/a and were not affected by tillage or vetch treatments. Rainfall during the summer months was above normal. Sorghum following vetch reached half bloom I day earlier than after no cover crop. Also, half bloom for no-till sorghum was about I day earlier in comparison with sorghum in tilled plots. Vetch significantly increased the N concentration of sorghum flag leaves at the zero N rate, but not at 60 lb N/a. In sorghum following vetch, leaf N response to fertilizer was inconsistent at the 30 lb N/a rate, but reached a maximum of 2.77 to 2.85 % with 60 lb N/a. Tillage had no affect on leaf N level in sorghum. Grain yields increased by nearly 22 bu/a in unfertilized sorghum after vetch vs no vetch. This positive effect of vetch was equivalent to approximately 58 lb/a of N. Yield increase correlated with a slight increase in the number of heads per plant. Both vetch and N fertilizer increased sorghum grain test slightly.

EFFECTS OF TERMINATION DATE OF AUSTRIAN WINTER PEA WINTER COVER CROP AND NITROGEN RATES ON GRAIN SORGHUM
by W. F. Heer

Summary
This was the first year for this rotation. The effects of the cover crop most likely were not expressed. Limited growth of the cover crop (winter peas) due to weather conditions produced limited amounts of organic nitrogen. Therefore, the effects of the cover crop when compared to fertilizer N were limited and varied. The rotation is being continued and the wheat crop has been planted for 1998 harvest. After harvest of the wheat a second cycle of the cover crop will be planted.

Introduction
There is a renewed interest in the use of winter cover crops as a means of soil and water conservation, a substitute for commercial fertilizer, and the maintenance of soil quality. One of the winter cover crops that may be a good candidate for the above is winter peas. Winter peas are established in the fall, over-winter, produce sufficient spring foliage, and are returned to the soil prior to planting of a summer annual. In that it is a legume, there is a potential for adding nitrogen to the soil system. With this in mind, research projects were established at the South Central Experiment Field to evaluate the effect of winter peas, sweet clover, and hairy vetch on their ability to supply N to the succeeding grain sorghum crop when compared to commercial fertilizer N.

Procedures
The research was conducted at the KSU South Central Experiment Field, Hutchinson. The soil in the experimental area was an Ost loam. The site had been in wheat prior to starting the cover crop cropping system. The research used a randomized block design and was replicated four times. Cover crop treatments consisted of fall planted winter peas with termination dates in April and May, and no cover crop (fallow). The winter peas were planted on September 14, 1995 at a rate of 35 lb/a in 10 inch rows with a double disk opener grain drill. Actual dates of termination (DOT) were May 16, 1996 (DOT1) and June 4, 1996 (DOT2). Prior to termination of the cover crop, above ground biomass samples were taken from a one square meter area. These samples were used to determine forage yield (winter pea and other), and forage nitrogen and phosphate content for the winter pea portion. Fertilizer treatments consisted of four fertilizer N levels (0, 30, 60, and 90 lb N/a). Nitrogen treatments were broadcast applied as NH4N03 (34-0-0) prior to planting of grain sorghum on June 17, 1996. Phosphate was applied at a rate of 40 lbs P205 in the row at planting. Grain sorghum plots were harvested on November 25 (reps 1 and 2) and December 8, 1996 (reps 3 and 4) to determine grain yield, moisture, and test weight, and grain nitrogen and phosphate content.

Results
Winter pea cover crop and grain sorghum results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Soil conditions at planting of the winter peas were excellent with good moisture. However, the mid-September planting date was later than desired due to above normal rainfall in late August and early September. After planting temperatures cooled and limited fall growth in the winter peas occurred.

Fall ground cover ranged from 26 to 36 percent with no significant differences across treatments (table 1). The winter months were cool and dry. This limited growth and delayed the first date of termination (DOT1) from early April to May 16. Date of termination 2 (DOT2) was also delayed by wet conditions in May to June 4. Winter pea above ground biomass at DOTI was about one-half that of DOT2 (table 1). However, there were no significant differences in dry matter (DM) production within DOTs. Differences in the percent N in the DM existed in the treatments for DOT2. These differences are not related the treatment but to natural occurrence (no treatments were applied to the cover crop plots prior to termination).

Considerable nitrogen was produced by the winter pea cover crop. Nitrogen credited to the cover crop ranged from 9.48 to 30.70 lb N/ac. These N levels were considerably low and did not carry forward to increased grain yield in the grain sorghum crop. Only the no-N treatments with and without the cover crop and the DOT 1 no cover crop and cover crop plus 90 lb/a N treatments had significantly lower grain yields (table 2). Flag leaf N (%) and whole plant N (%) were decreased in the no-N treatments with or without cover crop. The highest flag leaf and whole plant N occurred in the April cover crop plus 90 lb/a N treatment. Thus, the overall effect of the cover crop and N fertilizer on flag leaf and whole plant N and grain yield was not always significant or consistent.

As with other N rate studies on the South Central Field, the first increment of fertilizer N had the greatest effect on leaf and whole plant N and grain yield. Sorghum yields in DOT1 were not significantly different by treatment. In DOT2 approximately 3 0 lb/a N as fertilizer was needed to produce a comparable sorghum yield to the cover crop with no added N. Highest sorghum yields occurred in the DOT1 no-cover crop plus 30 lb/a N and DOT2 cover crop plus 30 and 60 lb/a N treatments.

The project evaluator has participated in project meetings and conducted interviews with project collaborators.

Objective 3.

Kansas Center for Rural Initiatives
Carol A. Peak
Evaluation Report
For the Kansas Rural Center SARE project
"Farmer-to- Farmer Cover Crop Network Complementing On-Farm and On-Station Trials"
May 12,1998

The Kansas Rural Center contracted with the Kansas Center for Rural Initiatives (KCRI) to provide evaluation services for the SARE project "Farmer-to-Farmer Cover Crop Network Complementing On-Farm and On-Station Trials." KCRI was asked to interview project participant to assess the effectiveness of project methods and to serve as a process observer at farmer/scientist focus sessions.

The evaluation consisted of a qualitative study designed to answer the following evaluation questions,

• How can research partnerships between farmers and researchers best be established?
• How can meaning research projects be designed?
• How should valid data be collected?
• How should documentation occur?
• How should information be fed back to all stakeholders?

To learn the answers to these questions several evaluation activities were completed. The evaluator attended the farmer/scientist focus sessions to provide immediate feedback to the project director and to observe the interaction among the participants. Two site visits were conducted to interview the director of one of the participating agronomy research stations and three participating farmers. In addition, interviews with scientists located on the Kansas State University campus were conducted.

This report looks primarily at the interaction between one agronomy station scientist, two of his constituent farmers, and campus-based researchers participating in the project. The station scientist has held his position for a number of years and holds a Ph.D. in agronomy. He and his family live on the station and are active in the local community. The farmers working with this station live within a few miles of the facility. One farm family is active in the Heartland Network and is working to incorporate more sustainable farming practices into their operation. The female member of this farmer team has served as coordinator for this project, and for the Heartland Network cluster, in their area. This farmer family is identified as Farmer #1 in this report. The other farmer, Farmer #2, describes himself as "conventional" although his farming practice includes no-till. He has not been active in the local farmer cluster of the Heartland Network. The farmers are college graduates, one in agronomy. The campus-based scientists participating in the project have worked actively in support of the Heartland Network. They form the core of the small group of College of Agriculture faculty who are strongly committed to the sustainable agriculture movement.

Both the station scientist and the farmers describe their interaction on farming issues as limited prior to this project. They were acquainted, partially due to having lived in the same school district. However, the station scientist reported that Farmer #1 had never attended a field day held on the station prior to the project. Both the station scientist and Farmer #1 were open in stating that their relationship prior to the project was limited and characterized by suspicion and doubt. Farmer #2 reported more contact with the station scientist prior to the project but this contact was limited to visits to field days on the station. This farmer and the station scientist had a higher level of agreement on farming-philosophy and practice.

Early in the project, the interaction between farmers and the station scientist could be described as hierarchical. The first farmer/scientist focus session exemplified this traditional model of communication. The meeting consisted of the farmers listening to the scientist "experts." The first evaluation site visit confirmed the presence of this paradigm- The scientist declared his willingness to assist in on-farm research but expressed skepticism about farmer ability to conduct research that would produce valid and reliable results. Likewise, the farmers were supportive of the project but were fairly insistent on remaining independent in the research design and data interpretation. There was a definite gap in expectations on the research methodology.

There seemed to be an attitude of mutual respect between the campus-based scientists and the station scientist. It should be noted that the scientists from both participating stations appeared to have little communication between them. They were aware of the work being done on either station but worked independently of each other. The attitudes of all participants were well known to the project director providing an excellent opportunity to explore the hypotheses stated tn the SARE project-proposal.

Interviews and site visits conducted near the end of the project have provided the following information on the effectiveness of this project in building farmer/scientist relationships.

What were the major benefits of this project?

• This project allowed the station researchers to express interest in a research topic that was not delegated from the campus faculty. The station scientists took a risk in participating in this project without the direct support of their departmental superior$.
• Farmers are more aware of the challenges faced by the station scientists and the need to be supportive of their local research station,
• Some positive cooperative work occurred between the farmers and the station scientist, However, the farmers still feel that the station scientist is doubtful of on-farm trials. The station scientist remains unconvinced that farmers understand the research process.
• The project has definitely facilitated communication between farmers and station scientists. The invisible barrier that seemed to exist prior to the project has been broken. The station scientists were "forced to listen."
• Farmers gained a great deal of information that they are applying on their own farms. However, it is not clear that the on-farm data and the replicated trials on station are being integrated into a holistic picture,
• The involvement of farmers in the project has kept it focused on farmer interests and needs.

Are there failures or aspects of the project in which you are disappointed?

• The farmers still express frustration at the research standards that they feel are unrealistic and unhelpful in their quest for information. They feel that their "experiential data" is not used as a tool for comparison or to help raise new research questions. They also felt that the station researchers in this project incorporated too many variables making the results too complex and less useful to farmers. "Data collection was overwhelming."
• The station scientists remain unconvinced that on-farm data is "scientific" and can be trusted.
• The project demonstrated the extent to which station scientists are isolated--not only from farmers and from the campus-based community.

There is the feeling on the part of both the farmers and the scientist that the campus scientists have quickly moved on to other research topics leaving the station and the farmers on their own without support or assistance in continuing the learning process initiated through this project.

There was frustration expressed at the lack of interest and cooperation among farmer participants. This was not a surprising attitude from the scientist, However, the farmers also expressed some frustration at the difficulty in getting farmers to agree on the "rules" and then follow them. One possible reason for this problem was that only a few farmers did the planning and as participants were recruited more differences began to emerge.

What would YOU do differently if you could start over again?

• The major theme expressed in response to this question was the need for more time.
• Farmers expressed a need for more lead-time to successfully implement a project of this type. In their opinion, this would allow better opportunities to select plots on farms that would be used throughout the project leading to more consistent results, This would also allow farmers to be more involved in the planning, creating more ownership and commitment to the project.
• Scientists expressed a great deal of frustration at the length of the project.
• Everyone expressed misunderstandings about time expectations of other parties. Farmers felt researchers would not devote enough time to complete replicated trials. Station scientists felt farmers would not use their services because they could not produce results fast enough, Campus scientists believe farmer questions take longer to answer then questions generated by researchers.
• Campus based scientists felt that there should have been more farmer/scientist focus sessions and that the sessions should have been longer to aid in the communication and trust building.

Who is using the data?

• Farmers are learning from observing and network with each other~ Station date has not been that useful.
• Station scientists have produced volumes of data but it has not been presented in a format that makes it useful to farmers.
• Campus-based scientists gained valuable information and developed relationships with farmers for the future but have moved on to other funded projects. They do not feel that they will be used as a resource in the future.

This project has opened doors for communication and cooperation among farmers and station scientists. All parties fell that participation has been a positive experience. However, all parties agree that the project length has been too abbreviated to produce the desired results.

The project has planted the seeds for changing the research paradigm but at this point, attitudes have not changed, In fact, as the frustration over lack of time to adequately complete the research during the funding cycle has built, expressions of doubt have become more numerous. All participants understand and expressed the need for continuation of this process. However, all participants placed the responsibility for continuation on another individual or group. This clearly raises the questions of incentives for participation in a change process and the critical role of a facilitator such as the Kansas Rural Center (KRC).

Funding for participation is not an adequate incentive. The funding may have initially provided a catalyst for both farmers and scientists, but the complexities of the project soon made it apparent that no one could participate based on this incentive. The leadership of the project director brought all players to the table and kept the project moving, even in spite of crop failures during year one that produced disappointing results in the data. As the project has come to a close, farmers and scientists have described the role of the Kansas Rural Center as pivotal. It is clear that KRC remains an important linking mechanism among all the participants.

The role of the KRC in encouraging participation has been critical. The farmers place a great deal of trust in the project director and participated in large part based on that trust. The campus-based scientists who participated were also motivated partly out of trust but also out of their philosophy and strong support for the sustainable agriculture movement. The participation of the station scientists was due in part to their interest in the research topic but also out of concern for the previously strained relationship with the KRC and its farmer constituents and the recognition of the importance of local farmers to the continued viability of the stations.

The success of this project is most clearly demonstrated by the appreciation and learning expressed by the farmers. All farmers gained information that they have put to use as part of their individual farming practices. They have also strengthened their networks and cooperative learning opportunities. In addition, they have gained some practical on-farm research skills. In several cases, new relationships, although tentative, have been established with station scientists. Hopefully, these relationships will be maintained and strengthened through the identification of common interests that are mutually beneficial. This project has helped both the scientists and the farmers to understand the challenges, constraints and rewards that they face. This new understanding will help to nurture continued relationships in the future.

Additional evaluative comments by the project coordinator:
An interaction process that helped stimulate interaction was a "show and tell" activity where everyone brought samples of their own cover crops to a few meetings. This allowed the more quiet individuals to speak about their observations with cover crop management. It also allowed for a more friendly, joking environment.

The relationships improved with time. Both station researchers extended the research beyond what was supported by SARE funding. One researcher collected data on a neighboring farmer on the use of cover crops in livestock grazing - something not covered in the project but a priority interest of the cooperating farmer. As a demonstration of the success of this partnership, one Heartland Cluster is providing $3000 of their own money for continued hairy vetch research at the Hesston KSU station over the next two years. Another collaborating researcher is committing a graduate student to study soil quality benefits of legumes in long term rotations. Again this is beyond the scope of this project. Most collaborating KSU researchers voluntarily attended separate farmer cluster meetings out of personal interest. All these outcomes indicate a growing partnership between farmers and researchers.

Decision making on what data should be taken where was very difficult. There was some disagreement about what was "good" research. It took some time to be realistic in the data-collection process. Farmers remained hesitant to committing to placing in controls and assisting with data collection even with compensation. At the end of the project, farmers were unwilling to volunteer to continue using controls in their fields for future farmer trial research. However, the one cluster decided upon their own internal farm demonstrations that they cost share with their own cluster money they would require a control check to enlist better monitoring of treatment effectiveness.

An unresolved issue is what data is best collected on farms and stations. In this project the energy invested in organizing and collecting farm data collection was significant. This is a barrier to future complementary research projects. Farmers gained an appreciation for the value of station research that can more tightly control variables and conduct more in depth research. Researchers learned to appreciate the value of farmer input into research priorities.