Soil for Water

Working group findings

The SARE Systems Research for Agriculture handbook recommends that systems research projects begin by "developing a conceptual model or map of the components and interactions that make up the system of interest" (p. 13). At the beginning of the project, each of our four working groups created a knowledge system map: a conceptual model of the components and interactions through which producers in their state learn and adopt new practices, including key organizations and their relationships. Through this exercise, each of the state working groups identified barriers, opportunities, and research questions that they thought had potential to improve the flow of knowledge in their state and accelerate rates of adoption. At the end of the project, each working group repeated the knowledge system mapping exercise to determine what had changed and what the group had accomplished.

In their final knowledge system mapping exercises in the summer of 2024, all four state working groups noted heightened awareness, interest, and signs of social change: greater knowledge, interest, and "buzz" about regenerative methods within their state, compared to what they had seen three years earlier. They named dozens of new actors (non-profits, university programs, producer groups, and mentors) who had stepped forward and could now be characterized as "leading the way." They also identified and described many new and strengthened partnerships that had resulted from our project, across non-profits, agencies, universities, and businesses.

To give a sense of the complexity of these relationships and how much they changed over the three years of our project, below are sample "Before" (2021) and "After" (2024) knowledge system maps from the Arkansas working group:

Comparing their final (2024) maps to their initial (2021) maps, all four working groups noted:

• Many new and stronger partnerships across "actor" types (agencies, non-profits, universities, and so on).
• An expanded, more connected, and more active network of regenerative grazing practitioners and supporters.
• Growing awareness, interest, and momentum for regenerative grazing among producers.
• Strengthened pathways between research and practice.
• The effectiveness of hands-on and on-farm learning opportunities, including mentorship.

Despite considerable variation among states, all four working groups found that the hardest barriers for producers to overcome were social and psychological more than technical, requiring a mindset shift and a willingness to put up with negative peer pressure from neighbors. Three barriers rose to the top:

1. The need for a mindset shift away from maximizing livestock production and towards maximizing forage production and soil health. This ecosystem-focused approach is often quite different from the way people learned to manage livestock from family, peers, agencies, and institutions.
2. The up-front investment of money, time, along with inherent risks in a new way of doing things. Returns on these investments are often slow to materialize and don't necessarily take the form of cash returns.
3. Persistent misconceptions and exaggerations about the costs and risks of the transition process. Long-term costs often decline as reliance on off-farm inputs is reduced. Making the transition requires learning new skills but these are not necessarily any harder. Labor often greatly declines over time as livestock become familiar and comfortable with rotations.

The best strategies the working groups found for overcoming barriers and encouraging adoption were variations on the theme of peer-to-peer learning. These four strategies rose to the top:

1. Mentorship by an experienced producer.
2. On-farm learning opportunities.
3. Hands-on learning opportunities.
4. Trusted messenger/educator.

Comparing its final (2024) map to its initial (2021) map, the Arkansas working group noted:

• A stronger regenerative grazing network, one that connected formerly isolated agencies and groups with each other.
• An increase in regenerative grazing information specific to Arkansas.
• Better and more coordinated communications about educational opportunities.
• A greater agency role (especially NRCS) in supporting regenerative grazing.
• Greater access to information-sharing peer learning networks, field days, and pasture walks.
• A stronger pipeline between research (universities/extension) and practice, through grazing school and collaborative educational events.
• Continuing challenges reaching conventional producers.

Some noteworthy achievements of the Arkansas working group were (1) reviving a statewide Grazing School that had been discontinued for many years; (2) greatly improving communication and coordination among organizations around the state that had rarely talked to each other; and (3) a close study of reasons for the success of the Arkansas-based Grassroots Grazing Group: an all-volunteer group that has persisted and been effective for over 25 years.

Read full results from Arkansas knowledge system mapping exercise

Read the ATTRA publication Regenerative Grazing in the South: Case Studies from Arkansas.

Comparing its final (2024) map to its initial (2021) map, the Mississippi working group noted:

• An increase in basic awareness and education about soil health, resulting in greater interest in learning new techniques.
• Greater involvement and support from Mississippi State University and Extension, resulting in more region-specific research and evidence.
• New training and mentorship opportunities.
• Continuing challenges with agency support (especially NRCS), in large part because agents were inexperienced and didn’t have the training to support producers interested in regenerative practices.
• Continuing challenges with producers who were discouraged or hesitant to sign up for USDA programs because of past bad experiences.

Some noteworthy achievements of the Mississippi working group were (1) engaging limited-resource producers and providing scholarships allowing six of them to attend Understanding Ag's Soil Health Academy; (2) demonstrating the feasibility and affordability of regenerative grazing for small and limited-resource producers; and (3) launching the first-ever training initiative of Holistic Management International in the state of Mississippi.

Read full results from Mississippi knowledge system mapping exercise

Read the ATTRA publication Regenerative Grazing in the South: Case Studies from Mississippi.

Comparing its final (2024) map to its initial (2021) map, the Texas working group noted:

• An increase in the number and availability of hands-on learning opportunities.
• The success of Safe-to-Fail Trials as an effective strategy for facilitating adoption, breaking down barriers, and inspiring landowners.
• Support from a few leading NRCS agents, although in general NRCS’s role in promoting regenerative practices continued to be weak.
• Conventional organizations getting more involved in regenerative practices, most notably the "breakthrough" creation of a new Center for Grazing Lands and Ranch Management at Texas A&M.
• A need for more support enabling producers to transition from conventional practices.
• A need for more regionally specific and data-supported evidence and recommendations.

Two noteworthy achievements of the Texas working group were (1) aggressively promoting the use of Safe-to-Fail trials; and (2) conducting annual rangeland monitoring and soil sampling at 20 ranches, some of which had already been monitored for almost a decade. Among other findings, monitoring results substantiated the drought-resilience benefits of healthy soil. As extreme drought conditions continued to grip central Texas in 2023-24, the working group measured high indicators of rangeland health (such as species diversity and the presence of native plant species) at well-managed locations that also scored high on soil health indicators such as organic matter level and aggregate stability.

Read full results from Texas knowledge system mapping exercise

Read the ATTRA publication Regenerative Grazing in the South: Case Studies from Texas.

Comparing its final (2024) map to its initial (2021) map, the Virginia working group noted:

• A significant expansion in the number and availability of experienced trainers and regenerative grazing mentors offering support and quality peer learning opportunities.
• Virginia Tech "substantively embracing" regenerative grazing and emerging as a leading player regionally and nationally.
• Progress in outreach to small, underserved, and historically marginalized producers, along with great continuing needs among these producers.
• A need for agencies to "walk alongside" producers, since agencies often have "a lot of learning to do themselves."
• A continuing barrier and need for a "paradigm shift" on the part of many producers: a change in mindset oriented toward "environment, ecology, systems thinking, and decision-making."

Two noteworthy achievements of the Virginia working group were (1) the launching of a new Regenerative Grazing track at the annual Virginia Association for Biological Farming conference; and (2) case studies of 11 producers, exploring the mental and emotional journey that led them to adopt regenerative practices.

Read full results from Virginia knowledge system mapping exercise

Read the ATTRA publication Regenerative Grazing in the South: Case Studies from Virginia.

Other working group findings and comments:

⇒ Increased profitability—especially as a result of reduced usage of fertilizer and other off-farm inputs—was a top motivator for adopting regenerative practices.

⇒ All groups saw striking confirmation of the value and effectiveness of peer-to-peer and social modes of learning.

• “We’re seeing peer-to-peer learning happening at pasture walks really effectively…This includes informal networks, people who text each other.”
• “I have found peer-to-peer learning very beneficial in our pasture walks…putting the producer forward, putting the champions on the stage. They learn from each other a lot better."
• "Producers sharing their stories and showing what it looks like in practice (i.e. through pasture walks, field days) helps."
• Producers need to "see it to believe it," which is why pasture walks, field days, and hands-on demonstrations are so effective.
• "Peer-to-peer learning is more powerful than technical assistance."

⇒ While scientific research must be foundational, science alone is often not an effective facilitator to adoption.

• "When it comes to scientific research and evidence, producers need to trust in it. The research itself needs to be relevant to their needs, and it needs to be translated to meet producers where they are at, often through a trusted organization."
• "It’s important that those promoting regenerative grazing practice empathy...Adopting new and unfamiliar practices is hard, and those promoting it need to meet producers where they are at and appreciate the challenges."
• "Agencies and technical assistance providers need to be on the same journey...Many agents are not experienced in regenerative practices, and they need training to be able to support adopters."
• “You ideally need both things: supportive, like-minded peers who have practical, real-world experience and researchers who can get into the nitty gritty of the science.”

⇒ Face-to-face interactions were more effective than virtual meetings.

• The project began under COVID-19 restrictions that did not ease until late 2022. Being limited to Zoom calls was a barrier to team-building and made it difficult to establish the kind of rapport conducive to successful systems research.
• All working groups noted the striking advantages of face-to-face meetings where team members enjoyed getting to know each other, became more comfortable working together, and established friendly working relationships.
• Especially in rural Mississippi, some of our participants did not have reliable Internet access or were not comfortable meeting online, making face-to-face meetings essential.

⇒ There was great value in connecting producers and researchers who do not ordinarily talk to each other, including across state lines:

• “This project has really seemed to create some intentionality and a collaborative focus in the region…harnessing collective energy towards the building of a movement.”
• The Arkansas grazing school “brought in people from all over.” Teachers were also diverse, causing “spinoff effects” and a “breath of fresh air.” “We can learn so much when we get out of our own level.”

⇒ A welcoming atmosphere was key to successful events and groups, along with mutual support, ready access to like-minded peers and experts, and a refuge from negative peer pressure.

• “What stands out to me is the success of the state leaders in building relationships and trust…really embedding yourselves in your region.”
• “The process of putting on a grazing school [in Arkansas] really brought a lot of people together that wouldn’t normally work together…And the grazing school itself was a huge success because of all those different voices and inputs…Women were more represented than usual maybe in grazing things, and that made it comfortable for women participants. Participants from that group have continued to keep in touch.”

⇒ Small "Safe-to-Fail" grazing trials were extremely effective as a way of encouraging on-farm research.

• “In general, on-farm trials are super hard …People have good intentions and then they can’t follow through.”
• “We need to help them design it so it’s small enough and easy enough that they can follow through...A safe-to-fail grazing trial is a one-day event…It’s a very easy trial.”

⇒ Ecological monitoring is valuable when it’s easy for producers to collect and they can see the benefits. Effective monitoring is focused on (1) reading the land; (2) the power of observation; and (3) the idea of putting "principles before practices."

⇒ Long-term relationships and support will be necessary to bring about lasting change.

• “We live in a microwave society, but nature works at a crockpot pace."
• "Important that we have long-term relationships and do a little bit of hand holding.”
• Support organizations need to "put in the time and show up without an agenda to build trust." Producer engagement is often most effective when it happens organically, and conventional producers remain difficult to engage at all.
• Although it has taken many years, networks built by the Soil for Water program in Texas are “crossing into the mainstream” and "on the cusp of becoming really powerful."

Findings from university partners

Dr. Dirk Philipp at the University of Arkansas conducted a research trial to test the hypothesis that well-managed grazing will lead to water conservation in soil. Over a two-year period, he studied the effect of grazing height on gravimetric/volumetric soil water content in a fescue pasture, comparing three treatments: fully grazed (by sheep), 50% of canopy grazed, and non-grazed. Each experimental unit (approximately 0.3 acres in size) was grazed by sheep during variable-length grazing cycles and defoliation treatments, with ongoing measurements of forage mass, seasonal water use efficiency, soil water, and soil health.

Dr. Philipp found it difficult to measure either a significant reduction or increase in soil water correlated to grazing intensity in the real-world conditions of the study: tall fescue grazed by sheep in a temperate and humid climate. In these conditions, soil moisture remains most of the year within a range enabling perennial forage plants to maintain normal metabolism and water uptake. Proper grazing techniques benefit plant health and growth, but many complex factors influence soil moisture. Healthy forage stands will lead to optimal plant root growth and thus potentially increased carbon sequestration and improvements in water-holding capacity over time. On the other hand, a very low canopy (overgrazed) may transpire less water, potentially causing increases in soil moisture. Overgrazing can also change pasture species composition over time, encouraging less palatable, taller weeds that shade the surface. Overall, managing soil water status via grazing intensity (manipulation of the canopy) seems difficult in an environment that is humid most of the time and maintains sufficient year-round soil moisture in silt-loam soils.

While the overall finding from Dr. Philipp's research was negative—not measuring improvements in soil moisture as a result of well-managed grazing—his study showed the complexity and site-specific nature of interactions between climate, soils, water, and vegetation. These interactions are sometimes oversimplified by advocates for regenerative grazing.

Read Dr. Philipp's final report.

View a presentation about Dr. Philipp's research.

Dr. Rocky Lemus at Mississippi State University conducted numerous outreach programs to producers and also carried out intensive pasture evaluations at cooperator sites in Michigan City, Tupelo, Beulah, and Tylertown. At each location, Dr. Lemus evaluated forage species and soil quality indicators: determining pasture composition and species diversity, measuring compaction to a depth of six inches, collecting soil samples, and sending them to the Cornell University Soil Health laboratory for analysis. Results showed that the systems were very different from each other, and each required specific management approaches and grazing strategies to balance soil nutrient levels and improve biological activity by shifting species composition.

Two key findings of the study were:

• It is important to recognize that it will take several years for degraded soils to turn around, depending on many complex factors.
  • Soil biological processes are complex, and they interrelate with the microbial species, soil moisture, temperature, soil structure, organic matter, forage species, and livestock classes.
• Soil quality depends on plant root growth, grazing management, and forage species diversity.
  • Assess your forage resources.
  • Understand your soils and soil nutrient balance.
  • Develop a grazing management strategy that fits your operation and needs.
  • Implement a well-executed rotational grazing system that also allows the recycling of plant nutrients in the paddocks.
  • Develop a targeted weed control program.

View a presentation about Dr. Lemus's research.

Dr. Eric Bendfeldt, Kim Niewolny, Katie Trozzo, and other partners at Virginia Tech completed 11 intensive case studies focused on land stewardship and stories about why people adopt regenerative grazing methods. These interviews were published as a series of 11 professional-quality videos. Additionally, Virginia Tech conducted four community forums (one in person and three virtual) to encourage and extend the sharing of participating farmers' stories and insights.

Some key findings from their study were:

• The protection, conservation, and regeneration of soil and water resources continues to be extremely important.
• Understanding farmers’ and ranchers’ agroecological values and their stories is critical for creating resilient ecosystems, profitable agricultural systems, and the exchange of meaningful educational experiences.
• Asset mapping, mentoring, diversification, and stacked complementary enterprises can enhance grazing and business success.
• Farmers and graziers have varied stories and dynamic experiences.
• Context and commitment are integral to regenerative grazing and soil health-building systems.
• No two farms or situations are the same.
• Values-centric and systems-based approaches can unearth deep motivations for conservation and stewardship of natural resources.
• Regenerative agriculture is a journey and can seem trendy to some farmers and ranchers.
• Educators and technical service providers should embrace complexity rather than a more reductionist approach to educational programming and outreach.

Watch the Soil for Water Case Study videos.

Read a summary of the 11 case studies.

Read Dr. Bendfeldt's final report.

Findings from non-profit partners

Project partners at the Virginia Association for Biological Farming (VABF) offered these conclusions:

• Regenerative grazing is catching on, but we need more support and outreach for farmers who are "on the fence."  Labor issues and worries about lag in production are the two biggest obstacles, as well as lacking markets that pay for high quality animals raised regeneratively.
• In many cases, the agencies and institutions who serve farmers are not well versed in regenerative grazing practices and therefore do not have the knowledge to help farmers and grazers experiment to learn.  Many are still stuck on the standard conservation methods or "rotational grazing" models, which focus solely on water quality improvements and do not help producers build health, diversity and resilience into their upland grazing systems. 

Read VABF's final report.

Project partners at Holistic Management International (HMI) had originally planned to compare the effectiveness of in-person trainings, live webinars, and one-on-one technical assistance, evaluating and comparing changes in knowledge, attitude, and intention by producers receiving one, two, or all three modes of training. Based on producer feedback to some initial trainings, HMI changed course and focused its efforts on carrying out Regenerative Agriculture Mentoring Programs (RAMP) in Arkansas and Mississippi. As a result of these mentoring programs, HMI noted"significant breakthroughs in producer engagement and planning capabilities and motivation." Over 75% of participants from the Mississippi RAMP group and over 85% from the Arkansas RAMP Group completed their programs, reporting substantial learning and implementation success. "Participants highlighted newfound clarity of purpose, enhanced environmental understanding, and the transformative power of Holistic Goal setting."

Read articles about the HMI peer learning program in Arkansas and Mississippi.