Soil Health Education for Massachusetts Agricultural Service Providers

We held an inaugural meeting to outline this project and our goals. In addition to 14 in-house ASPs, we were joined by several research faculty who expressed interest in participating in future programming. We were also joined by the research farm superintendent. Our total attendance was 20 individuals. 

This is an annual milestone. The initial programming in program year (PY) 1, ending 9/30/2021, was determined to be a better fit for ASPs and was less appropriate for our farmer audience. Targeted invitations were shared in-house and then re-shared to ASPs. We also invited colleagues at the University of Rhode Island and the University of Connecticut.

Programming in PY2 (10/1/21 – 9/30/22) and PY3 (10/1/22 – 11/30/23) was determined to be appropriate for a broader audience. In PY2 and PY3, our listservs for the agronomy and livestock extension team and the fruit and veg team were utilized to reach the 2000+ individuals on these lists. Announcements were also sent to directly to interested parties in house, and colleagues at AFT, NOFA MA, NRCS, and other state extension programs received and shared announcements with interested individuals. This allowed us to target the external ASP audience and increase awareness among external ASPs about our programming. The increased awareness also led to more requests for technical support and collaboration on soil health initiatives.

Note: PY = project year, follows the cycle of the project year ending in September. CY = calendar year, follows a Jan - Dec. timeline. 

In 2021, two research faculty, three Extension professionals, 1 outside ASP, and 7 graduate students attended 4 discussions prior to the completion of the PY1 end date (9/30/21). An additional seven meetings and discussions continued into PY2 (beginning 10/1/21) as a part of this series (ending concurrent with the university semester schedule in December, 2021). Discussions included the review of current soil health literature and methodologies. The motifs of discussion by this group included the following: principles of soil health, sampling and laboratory method evaluation, experimental assessment, cultural management practices, farmer adoption and perspectives, implications for climate change, and differences relative to land-use and ecosystem.

Note: We had hoped to run the journal club a second time in the fall of 2022. The course was co-taught in 2022 by 4 people (including Sam Corcoran). However, a key faculty member left the university in the summer of 2022. As a result, the group decided not to pursue the journal club in fall 2022.

We experienced some delays in PY1 (April - September 2021) establishing the formal working group. PY1 goals were shifted to the winter of 2021-2022. During that time, efforts included aggregating soil health methods and resources on our UMass Extension website, with the input of members of the soil health working group.

In PY2 (October 2022) through December of PY3 (2023), the working group evolved into a decentralized group. Our initial vision was for a group that would have some structure and regular meetings. However, we came to  believe that this vision of the working group was in misalignment with the state of individuals' perceived soil health knowledge and the ability to contribute at the time. Instead, we focused on collaborating with individuals on our programming and work. For example, we partnered with an UMass Extension entomologist and Yale ecologist to create a hands-on earthworms and soil health workshop, partnered with a UConn Extension livestock expert to create a virtual, discussion based workshop of the role of soil health and livestock management, and partnered with a graduate student working in the laboratory of a research faculty member to write a factsheet.

In each of the above examples, and several more not noted here, the partner did not consider themselves an expert in soil health. However, they were interested in the concept and interested in aligning expertise. As a result, we were able to create products that took the collaborators existing expertise and frame it in a soil health context. In this manner, the collaborators themselves actively participated in enhancing their knowledge and perception of soil health in the context of their field. Simultaneously, we were able to create soil health programming for our target audience. Bloom's Taxonomy of learning theory indicates that creation of original work is the highest form of learning. An unexpected - albeit pleasant - outcome of the working group is that it turned into a teaching tool in and of itself. 

In Jan - Dec 2022, approximately 16 meetings were held as a result of this SARE project to discuss concepts for the field and the laboratory, conduct work necessary to develop the educational programing for the year, and method consultation was provided for one awarded SARE graduate student grant with a soil health focus. Meetings ranged from 2 - 6 participants. These meetings are separate from (i.e. in addition to) the journal club meetings.

In the final year of the project, we began with a plan to maintain the decentralized working group approach. Large group meetings were deemphasized, and organic collaboration was prioritized around a shared initiative. However, the hope was that as soil health interest and confidence built, we would reach a more regular working group dynamic in the future. We entered the last year of the project with a core group of individuals within Extension and research faculty who were ready and willing to collaborate when there were specific asks.

Ultimately, we incorporated the suggestion to see our decentralized working group as a “community of practice”. This can be defined as a group of people with similar interests and concerns, coming together to share their knowledge and support to reach collective action and problem solving. The suggestion, and the process to recognize this was an effective approach for our group, did meet core project goal. For example, it helped prepare us as an Extension program to effectively engage with new soil-health related positions that were filled in October 2023 and that are not directly assigned to a commodity team. The cross-functional nature of the positions quickly nested within the community of practice.

Of the two positions, one is a soil health educator, and the other is the lab manager for the Extension Soil and Plant Nutrient Testing lab. Both positions – the latter filled by Sam Corcoran – support multiple teams and commodities. As an effect of the work supported by this grant, the program was primed and ready to work with these two new positions, thus accelerating the pace at which both roles could begin meaningful, collaborative work.

The success of these efforts was reflected in a working group meeting/workshop for extension to introduce our new “Soil Health Testing Kit and Guidebook”. The kit was developed from educational workshops offered throughout the grant programming. The kit and guide were finalized through the direct collaboration of Sam during the completion of the grant and the new soil health educator. The meeting was attended by 11 extension professionals (1 emeritus) and 1 post-doctoral fellow. Notably, the group included three other new extension hires (urban agriculture, small fruit, weed management). As we concluded this grant work with this final meeting, we also began to lay the foundation for a new generation of work.

Evidence of this new generation of work became quickly available. After the grant concluded, but inspired in part by the goals outlined in the original grant application, a formal soil health advisory committee was formed to collaboratively identify soil health priorities supported by these new positions. The formal working group includes three team leaders, the Extension agriculture program director, the lab manager, and the soil health educator.

In October of 2022 and 2023 (both events falling within program year three), the annual meeting of regional soil laboratory directors was attended. Valuable discussions were held relating to soil health testing, methods, and recommendations. In follow up, relationships formed at the meetings have supported further discussions that influenced the UMass testing laboratory.

Prior to the fulfillment of the lab manager position, we also provided technical support to the Extension Soil and Plant Nutrient Testing laboratory team. Support facilitated the purchase of  several new instruments relating to soil health analysis, including organic carbon and aggregate stability. The work supported by this grant ensured resources were in place once the lab manager position was in place, again expediting our ability to provide the support that ASPs and farmers have been requesting.

Throughout the final program year, we engaged in approximately 20 work sessions and consultations to support in-house efforts and the work of external ASPs.  

We hosted a virtual soil health school in February of 2022 (program year 2). Dr. Annise Dobson of Yale, followed by Dr. Jodi Johnson-Maynard of the University of Idaho, spoke about the role of earthworms in nutrient cycling and soil health in two webinars. Freya Chay with Carbon Plan discussed the non-profit organization's work with soils and carbon sequestration, and how they bridge the gap between policy and a still evolving science. Dr. Amrith Gunasekara, Science Advisor to Secretary Ross at the California Department of Food and Agriculture - and a UMass Amherst alumni - diccussed California's Healthy Soil Initiative.

39 individuals attended this event. The audience during the live session included 10 ASPs outside of Extension, 14 individuals associated with Extension (both educators and Extension faculty), 8 farmers, 3 private sector, 1 state, and 3 researchers. The individual webinars were recorded and posted to our website, where they have since received a total of 123 views. Although not documented, it is believed that some of these views are from registrants not able to attend on the day of the live broadcast.

In March of 2023 (program year 3), we hosted a hybrid soil health mini-school. The school consisted of four workshops. Two workshops were hands-on, and two were virtual presentations from speakers. There were 26 attendees at the in person location that attended all four workshops, and approximately 25 additional attendees who joined remotely for the two virtual presentations. Virtually, Elli Blaine of the Indiana Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts presented, “Developing an Urban Soil Health Program” and Dr. Eugenia Pena-Yewtukhiw, director of the West Virginia State Extension Soil Testing Lab presented, “Soil Health: Fact or Fiction?”. In person, Dr. Masoud Hashemi of UMass Amherst presented “Creative Composting”, which included hands-on demos for building aerated composting systems as well as compost tea. Sam Corcoran presented, “Accessible Methods for Measuring Aggregate Stability”, and participants tried three different methods.

Of the 2023 attendees, 21 attendees were ASPs. Of the 21, 4 were associated with Extension and the remainder were external to UMass. The remaining attendees (in-person and online) were farmers. The ASP attendees represented approximately 4500 acres of land for which they consult annually, not including one Midwest Extension attendee who reported consulting on soil health matters for 30,000 acres annually. The farmers reported approximately 200 acres of land under their direct management.

The response to the 2023 school was overwhelmingly positive. Attendees resoundingly asked for a longer day with even more workshops and longer time blocks allotted to trying out the hands-on activities. This feedback dispelled the common myth that ASPs and farmers are not interested in methods and they just want boiled down recommendations. The audience was happy to receive new information, engage in the work, and learn how to use methods to refine recommendations on their own. As a result of this feedback, a soil health mini-school is actively being planned for March 2024. For the foreseeable future, we plan to make this a staple offering in our annual programming.

Completion of the post assessment after the 2022 soil health school was underwhelming, with a 23% completion rate. At the end of 5 hours of virtual time together, most attendees were quick to sign off without completing the post assessment. In review, we believe this is due to 2 reasons: 1. these sessions do not provide CE credits. When attendees are required to complete assessments to receive credits, completion increases. 2. survey completion is much higher at in-person events as a final activity. 

Of the limited survey completion, respondents indicated their learning had increased and they had changes in perception; this was especially true for the information pertaining to earthworms. All respondents demonstrated an increase in knowledge by completing a pre and post assessment test on the subject material. One farmer followed up directly for additional consulting. 

In the registration, completed by all attendees, registrants were asked to indicate what they believe the biggest barrier is to soil health adoption. Interestingly, the responses were highly variable, and a clear pattern did not emerge with view point relative to job (i.e. farmer vs Extension). Of those who attended the workshop, the responses were as follows: 19% believe we need financial incentives for farmers to focus on soil health; 19% believe farmers need easier access to relevant equipment; 15% believe we need more information on best management practices; 11% believe we need more research on soil health; 7% chose "other". The remaining 30% believe we need improved access to soil health testing itself. 

The results of the aforementioned survey, and the high interest in earthworms in follow up to the workshop, were highly integrated into workshops in the summer of 2022. 

At the 2023 workshop, paper surveys were given at our in-person event, and this improved our data capture for verification of this milestone. ASPs were asked if any of the following statements applied to them: they learned something new, changed their thinking, found a new interest, their interest increased, or if they would like to look into a topic more. 23 responders checked at least one box, all but two responders checked 2 or more boxes, the majority of responders (over 50%) checked more than 2 boxes. 

Responders also indicated that they expected a total of 150 acres to be directly impacted in the future/or had already been impacted by the knowledge they gained at a UMass Soil Health event. 

Approximately 1/3 of responders indicated that they would like to be involved in contributing to advancing soil health knowledge in general. This included interest in writing grants, helping conduct on-farm demonstrations, and contributing to methods evaluation for assessing soil health. 

Accomplishments:

In PY1 (April 2021 – September 2021), two workshops were organized for PY2 (October 2021 – September 2022).

The first webinar was with Joseph Amsili of the Cornell Soil Health Lab, titled, "Soil Health Research and Extension Update from your Neighbors in New York". 30 individuals registered for the event and 19 attended day of; those not in attendance received a link to watch the recorded session at a later time. 17 ASPs participated in this workshop. In addition to UMass ASPs and researchers, we also received registrations from UMaine, UNH, UVM, UConn, USDA, and American Farmland Trust.

The second webinar was with Dr. Cristine Morgan of Soil Health Institute, titled, "Assessing Soil Health at Scale". 25 individuals registered for the event and 18 attended day of; those not in attendance received a link to watch the recorded session at a later time. 11 ASPs participated in this workshop. In addition to UMass ASPs and researchers, we also received registrations from UMaine, UConn, and American Farmland Trust.

The third presentation occurred in January of 2022 with Dr. Stephen Wood of The Nature Conservancy, titled "Soil Health Myths: Perspectives from the Nature Conservancy". The seminar was jointly sponsored by Extension and the Stockbridge School of Agriculture. Dr. Wood met with faculty and the Director of Extension during his visit, and also had lunch with graduate students in the Department. The seminar was attended by approximately 30 individuals in person and virtually. Six individuals with Extension/ASP responsibilities were in attendance, along with 10 faculty members. The remainder of the attendees were predominantly graduate students.

In spring 2022, a virtual workshop was given in collaboration with the Tri-State SARE project titled "The value of soil health: soil, plant, and animal interactions". The event was organized by the Tri-State project, and the individual presentation was a collaboration with a UConn Extension educator. The workshop presented soil tests and walked participants through their interpretation. In small breakout groups, participants were given a soil test to discuss in small groups. In these groups, participants considered what the test meant in general, its meaning in context of the farm scenario, and what should be done in response to the test results.

Three in-person workshops were also offered in PY2. The educational plan was slightly altered to better respond to the barriers to soil health adoption identified by the 36 responders to the Soil Health School registration survey and general interests expressed as a result of the school.

The first workshop was "Soil Health Day" at the research farm where best management practices were demonstrated along with relevant equipment demonstrations; some of this equipment can be lent out to farmers, these lending programs were also discussed (re: barrier = best management practice and access to appropriate equipment). The event was a collaboration among Extension teams, and involved multiple Extension educators and researchers.

The second workshop provided in-field training of the USDA-NRCS Cropland in-field Soil Health assessments (re: barrier = access to soil health tests). The challenge of using weeds as indicators was also addressed using empirical data, meeting our learning goal to address possible "myths" in soil health. Participants observed demonstrations and then practiced taking their own samples and working through the IFSHA. Participants also learned how to use pH paper to take a simple, in-field pH sample. The event was a collaboration with two presenters from American Farmland Trust.

The third workshop began with a classroom training on the role of earthworms in soil health, and their use as a soil health indicator. Participants learned methods for earthworm sample collection in the field, and then collected their own samples in a tilled vegetable field, a perennial pasture, and a forested area. Participants then brought the earthworms back into the classroom where they used microscopy and keys to identify their earthworms. Each of the three small groups (veg field, pasture, forest) then presented their findings to full the group. The environmental niche of the earthworms was used to draw conclusions about the possible nutrient and organic matter cycling of the systems. (re: expressed interest in learning more about earthworms as a result of soil health school). The event was a collaboration with UMass Extension faculty and a colleague at Yale.

As noted, some adjustments were made to the PY2 curriculum. Deviations from the proposed plan were responses to feedback of attendees of our virtual events. The pivot allowed us to maintain our learning goals while providing more targeted content. However, the original curriculum was repurposed for students in the Research and Extension Experiences for Undergraduates (REEU) program, a USDA initiative that trains students "such that upon graduation they may enter the agricultural workforce with exceptional skills".

REEU students spent a half day in the classroom learning about soil health and then went to two farms (dairy corn field and beef perennial pasture). There, they took soil samples, performed the IFSHA, and interviewed one farmer. Students spent a second day in a research laboratory preparing and analyzing their soil samples. On the last day, students reviewed soil health tests from each farm and learned to interpret them. They then combined the soil health test, IFSHA, and laboratory data to create a report with recommendations for each farm.

In the final year of our program, we had planned to offer a three part workshop as a capstone to our programming. This turned out to be too ambitious a plan for the capacity funded by this grant. In addition, this plan assumed a more cohesive cohort of participants over the course of three years, whereas in reality,  participants took advantage of the a la carte nature of the offerings and were therefore not all in need of the same final offering. And, in addition, our views on effective soil health testing and interpretation changed throughout the course of our programming. Although we did not complete this milestone, the work done under this grant has built our capacity and prepared us to seriously consider offering more intensive cohort-based soil health programming in the future.

Alternatively, increased emphasis was placed on one-on-one support in aforementioned meetings and consultations. For example, an NRCS agent reached out in follow up to the mini-school for support in enhancing a long-term, on-farm cover crop and not till trial. We provided guidance on trial design and helped take the baseline samples at the field, providing direct training to the individual for their future use. In another example, support was provided to a conservation district in determining how to collect samples and what resources should be made to farmers in their district to take samples of their own.

Through our one-on-one support and feedback from our events, we chose to build our “Soil Health Testing Kit and Guidebook”. The kit includes all the basic tools that can be used to conduct in-field assessments. The kit was designed to be a “grab and go” resource, no Extension agent or soil health expert required. In addition to the tools themselves, the guide simplifies many existing resources to help users know what tests to use, why to use them, and how to interpret them. The kit and guide were introduced at an in-person working meeting for extension educators.

Following the conclusion of the grant, the new soil health educator is managing the lending of the kit. To support the use of the kit, and demonstrate our long-term commitment to supporting our extension colleagues in soil testing and interpretation, we used grant funds to purchase 100 routine soil tests plus organic matter and 10 total sorbed metals tests. Each Extension team has tests earmarked for their use. To claim their samples, Extension agents are asked to report how the tests are being used to support soil health. This ongoing reporting enables us to continue collecting data on soil health needs, and ensures soil-health minded relationships continue among our Extension community. These tests also help our new Extension hires form relationships with their stakeholders, and form relationships with their new colleagues. In this manner, the work supported by this grant again continues to live on far past the grant period itself.

Additionally in 2023, we again taught the soil health module for summer REEU students. The same model was used in 2023 as 2022. Notably, one of the 2022 participants is now one of our new Extension fruit educators, who has been very engaged in the soil health programing since beginning their position; this demonstrates the importance of considering our potentially future ASPs and Extension agents in our programming.

Assessments were completed throughout the programing in accordance with this milestone. High level summaries are included in the learning outcomes. 

Webinar: "Soil Health Research and Extension Update from your Neighbors in New York".

29 registrants provided pre-evaluations.

Webinar: "Assessing Soil Health at Scale".

23 registrants provided pre-evaluations.

All participants received an evaluation survey. Of the collected responses, 37% attended both webinars, 37% attended "Assessing Soil Health at Scale" only, and 26% attended "Soil Health Research and Extension Update from your Neighbors in New York" only. Of all responses, 81% of participants reported an increase in their knowledge or a change to their thinking about soil health. 60% of responders were ASPs, and 83% of responders reported that soil health is a primary focus for both them and their stakeholders.

70 attendees of Soil Health Field Day completed evaluations, and self assessed their changes in knowledge and likelihood of using the information in their future work. 

100% of attendees at the Earthworm Sampling and Identification Workshop completed the workshop assessment, and 100% of attendees reported an increase in knowledge as a result of the workshop.

80% of attendees of Soil Health Mini-School (2023) completed assessments of the event; all indicated increased knowledge of and interest in soil health. 

100% of attendees at the Soil Health Kit and Guide introduction workshop (11) indicated an intent to borrow the soil health kit or make others aware of the kit.

100% of Extension educators that were allocated soil health tests indicated an intention to use the tests to support soil health work and relationships with stakeholders.

In addition to the initial goal, we also gathered information on what resources or actions were believed to be most necessary to improve soil health. This feedback was used to finetune future programming in this project. In brief, the results showed that 85% of  responders believe more farmer outreach and education to be important. 75% of responders believe more labs to analyze soil samples, research-based management recommendations, and conducting more field research are important. 70% of responders believe training ASPs about soil health and how to interpret soil health tests is important. Conducting more laboratory research was considered least important, and only 30% of responders believe this to be critical to advancing soil health in MA specifically and the region at large. 

We also used responses to learn more about our different audiences and their interests.

• In analyzing repeat versus original attendees, we found a trend that suggested that the audience interested in the basic tenants and science of soil health was not the same audience interested in hands-on application. 
• We found that approximately 20% of our audience attended more than one in-person event. All repeat attendees were either ASPs or researchers conducting on-farm soil health related work.
• In one survey, 100% of survey respondents confirmed that in-field/hands-on learning improved their understanding of the concepts. This is highly in-line with tenants of active learning, which finds that people learn best by demonstration and doing, rather than by lecture style education.
• An interesting outcome of some surveys was a significant number of attendees self-reporting that they "did not know as much as they thought they did". This reflection encourages deeper investigation of existing knowledge. 
• From the earthworm workshop: A major learning outcome was: Earthworms can indicate healthy soil because they like to live where healthy soil is; earthworms do not necessarily create health soil. There is an important difference between creation of health soil versus indication of health soil. 
• Participants provided many ideas for future workshop content that they would like to see, and were very positive about the mixed classroom, field, microscopy, and discussion format. The topics recommended and this learning format were incorporated into Soil Health School 2023, which received very positive workshop evaluations. 
• From the soil health mini-school, a major learning outcome was: You can send the same soil health sample to multiple soil health testing laboratories and get very different interpretations back. Who is right? Be wise in what you spend your money on, and have a plan for how you will interpret/use the test results. Know that soil scientists are still very much working on this!
• From a department seminar: There is no "ideal" soil organic matter. The ideal amount for an irrigated system with ample nitrogen is not the same as the ideal for a rainfed system with conservation nitrogen applications.
• From a webinar on urban agriculture: Soil health in urban agriculture doesn't just apply to "farms operating in an urban area". Urban soil health also means the safety of the soil and the community that it serves. It's a part of the infrastructure. It connects to greenspace and general enjoyment of the natural world.

Final update: The Year 2 Impact survey was not conducted after the March mini-school event, in part because of the lack of overall cohort development described above.

The Year 3 Final Impact Survey was conducted after the end of the extended grant period in order to include all events and participants. Participation was low, at only 23 out of 162 participants. Of these, nine were farmers, seven were Extension ASP's, and only one other ASP took the survey. A total of nine survey respondents reported reaching 241 farmers and affecting management of 1,281 acres. Of these, five Extension ASP's reported reaching 228 farmers, and three of these Extension ASP's reported 630 acres affected. Thus, for Extension personnel, the survey results exceed expectations for farmer numbers but fall short on acres. Unfortunately, low response from other ASP's limits our ability to meet this milestone based on the final survey alone.

However, the attendance and feedback reported elsewhere demonstrates that at least 100 non-Extension ASP's participated. While we do not have consistent and reliable figures on the number of farmers they reached using knowledge they gained, it is unlikely to be less than the five farms per ASP that we assumed when writing the proposal. 

While not a primary metric for the final evaluation, we can report that all respondents gained "some" or "a lot" of knowledge gained from their participation in one or more offerings. None of the respondents reported that they have not used knowledge gained to help farmers at all, while 39 percent said they have used that knowledge "a little," 50 percent have used it "regularly," and 11 percent have used it "frequently."  Popular applications of knowledge gained were reported at in-person educational events, site visits and consultations, and on the respondents' own farms. 

Accomplishments:

A newsletter article was written in response to the high fertilizer prices of 2022. The article was disseminated in the CDLE newsletter, and included the importance of building soil organic matter to provide nutrient credits and offset the cost of fertility inputs.

A factsheet was written on the rate of building soil organic matter and posted to the agronomy website.

Two factsheets were written to support the work of the 2023 soil health school, printed copies were shared at the event and by email, and they have been posted to our website. One fact sheet relates to compost tea, while the other summarizes aggregate stability and accessible methods of measurement.

The guidebook for the “Soil Health Test Kit and Guide” was disseminated at our internal workshop, a hard copy is included with the kit, and it is posted on our website. A mass email to make the kit and the guide itself widely available is forthcoming as new grant is currently pending that, if supported, would allow us to build and distribute more kits throughout MA and alter our messaging and lending strategy.

A summary article was written for Decode 6,  which is the translational science and outreach arm for American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America. The article is published on their website. The article summarized research results from a previous study on no-till and cover crop management practices.