Looking beyond yield: Tools for producers to capture and communicate the results of their soil health experiments in the semi-arid High Plains

Final report for SW23-952

SW23-952 (project overview)
Project Type: Research and Education
Funds awarded in 2023: $349,687.00
Projected End Date: 09/30/2026
Grant Recipients: FARMS; Kansas Black Farmers Association
Region: Western
State: Colorado
Principal Investigator:
Meagan Schipanski
Email
Colorado State University
Co-Investigators:
JohnElla Holmes
Email
Nicodemus Educational Camps
Ron Meyer
Email
Colorado State University Extension
Expand All

Project Information

Summary:

Regenerative Agriculture (RA) producers advocate for their systems-based approach to improving soil health, biodiversity and ecosystem functions from coffee shop conversations to conference panels. Yet there are important challenges to RA implementation in semi-arid environments often missing from these stories. In this project we will integrate producer-led on-farm research and outreach to develop a comprehensive understanding of the linkages between soil health practices and indicators, net profitability, and barriers to adoption for Historically Underserved (HU) producers. Importantly, we will build tools and capacity for producers to document and analyze the outcomes of their RA experiments. 

We will accomplish these goals through biophysical and sociological research. Using data from an existing network of 30 farms across the Central High Plains coupled with participatory research on 8 farms, we will identify soil health indicators most relevant to informing the outcomes of on-farm RA experiments in semi-arid environments (Objective 1). We will engage a broader group of producers that represent diverse scales, backgrounds, and production systems through qualitative research and outreach. HU producers have important RA success stories to share, however they face systemic barriers to accessing resources and support. We will define key barriers, best practices and effective strategies to support HU producers in adopting or scaling up soil health practices (Objective 2). 

Previous research and partnerships with producers across this multi-state region informed our education and outreach objectives. Producers are experimentalists, constantly testing new approaches and sharing the outcomes of these tests via producer-to-producer networks. Through our participatory research approach we will co-design and quantify the outcomes of RA experiments (Objective 1) while using iterative feedback to create a tool for producers to document, analyze, and communicate the outcomes of their RA experimentation (Objective 3). RA producers report feeling isolated and “groping in the dark'' because they have limited regional data on the agronomic or economic viability of RA practices. We will address this need by facilitating in-person educational events and producer-to-producer learning networks. This will include creating individual connections, enrollment in innovative online networking tools, and field days at diverse farming operations across three states (Objective 4). These networks will ensure that these impacts persist beyond the project funding timeline.

One key challenge to increasing adoption of RA systems is the need to adapt to the local context, including the social, environmental and economic context of the producer. This project addresses this challenge by empowering producers to design, conduct, document, and share their on-farm experiments. The resulting data and case studies will bolster their discussions with stakeholders including landlords, bankers, family members, and build a local, field-scale body of evidence for RA practices. 

In addition, we will identify and communicate programmatic, policy, soil health testing, and educational barriers to the adoption of RA practices. These efforts will enhance the adoption of RA practices across diverse farm types, with an emphasis on HU producers, build stronger farmer-to-farmer learning networks, and create new approaches and policies to support all producers.

Project Objectives:

Objective 1:  Identify soil health indicators that are most relevant for informing and quantifying outcomes of on-farm soil health experiments in semi-arid cropping systems.

Objective 2: Identify systemic barriers, best practices, and effective support strategies for historically underserved producers to adopt or scale up soil health practices.

Objective 3: Create a mechanism for producers to easily quantify and communicate the results of their soil health experimentation.

Objective 4: Facilitate producer-to-producer learning networks and knowledge sharing using innovative online and in-person educational tools and programs.

Cooperators

Click linked name(s) to expand/collapse or show everyone's info
  • Justin Casiquito - Producer
  • Steve Jones - Producer
  • Morgan Einspahr - Producer
  • Steve Flemons - Producer
  • Roger Fragua - Producer
  • Lauren Hafford (Researcher)
  • Stu McFarland - Producer
  • Joni Mitchek
  • Jennifer & Justin Howard - Producer
  • Curtis Sayles - Producer
  • Kevin Wiltse - Producer
  • Bryn Fragua - Producer
  • Clifford Fragua - Producer
  • Francessca Petrie - Producer

Research

Materials and methods:

Objective 1: Identify soil health indicators that are most relevant for informing and quantifying outcomes of on-farm soil health experiments in semi-arid cropping systems.

  • Identify fields and characterize the soils  
    • We used a participatory research approach through which producers identified their resource concern for one field using management history and baseline soil health information. Together we co-designed an on-farm experiment to evaluate management strategies to address that concern. 
    • We had 13 participants (representing 10 farming operations). For each field, we divided each treatment and control area into 3 zones based on soil type, field layout, and/or management history. From each zone, we collected and composited soil from the top 15cm in May and June of 2024. One farm was added, and one was skipped in Y1 due to field access issues. All soils were analyzed for soil texture, bulk density, a commercial Soil Health Assessment and a ‘minimum set of indicators’ from the North American Project to Evaluate Soil Health Measurements (Soil Health Institute). The lab-analyzed soil variables included: traditional chemically-extractable soil nutrients, soil organic matter and soil organic carbon, the fractions of carbon in POM and MAOM, pH, water extractable carbon and nitrogen, and soil aggregate stability. Producers additionally requested assays for biological soil health, and fertilizer recommendations informed by biological activity. The commercial lab’s test results were provided back to producers in July, and university lab results were provided in December. These were in a user-friendly format that provided regional benchmarking for users, so they could have some context to interpret their results with.  
  • Starting in Year 2 we included an evaluation of two in-field measures of soil health: the Tea Bag Index and the SLAKES app.
    • Based on our conversations with producers, our goal was to find a soil health indicator that is responsive and accessible enough to enable them to run field trials and answer their own research questions. We aimed to evaluate if measuring decomposition via mass loss of readily available substrates would be sensitive to producers’ single-season, farm-specific changes in management, and if these tests could be performed by land managers using only materials available to them commercially. Our three objectives were to: (1) improve upon the original tea bag index methods to reduce variability and make it accessible to land managers, (2) evaluate if the improved methods are sensitive to changes in soil health management, including single-season and long-term changes, and (3) compare the decomposition method with another accessible soil health indicator (SLAKES smartphone app) for relative sensitivity to these same management changes. We hypothesized that mass loss from decomposition would be greater in soil health plots compared to their control strips, in both single-season and long-term soil health test plots.
    • Methods:
    • Goal 1: Improve upon the original tea bag methods. To evaluate if the original tea bag material is durable to decomposition, we incubated them in soil at 25°C and 30% GWC (g H2O g soil-1) for 120 days and measured mass loss. To evaluate if the tea should be pre-leached of its water-soluble component before testing, we pre-leached samples using a running faucet and soaking for 3 durations, and measured mass loss. To evaluate effective ways to remove soil contamination from the samples retrieved from the field, we muddied samples then washed them. We estimated substrate lost during the washing process by washing pre-leached substrates which had not been muddied. We tried 5 methods for washing, including a gently running hose, two ways in a washing machine, a salad spinner, and soaking in a bucket. We estimated contamination remaining as the mass difference between pre-leached and washed substrate. Finally, we evaluated low-cost, consumer-grade scales from online retailers for their precision and repeatability.
    • Goal 2: To identify the most responsive substrate to decomposition in paired treatment and control soils, we incubated green tea, rooibos tea, cotton fabric and cotton balls in the laboratory and in the field across 3 experiments. We first tested responsiveness of the substrates in the laboratory. We down-selected to green tea only, incubating green tea in paired treatment/control plots on five producer fields and three Ag Experiment Station fields. Finally, we explored the temporal decomposition dynamics of green tea in field-moist soils to identify the most sensitive incubation time (defined as the time point where differences in decomposition were maximized between treatment and control soils) by incubating green tea in producer soils in the incubator in the lab.
    • Goal 3: To compare the data from green tea decomposition to another accessible soil health indicator (SLAKES), we used soils gathered from field sites at the time we retrieved the tea bags. We collected soil with a narrow spade to 10cm depth, and soils were sieved to 8 mm and air-dried for 7 days. Aggregate stability was estimated using image recognition of soil slaking under fast wetting conditions (Fajardo et al., 2016) using the smartphone application called Slakes, developed by the University of Sydney, Australia. Three pea-sized aggregates were selected and photographed, adjusting the app to capture the actual geometric extent in each photograph. They were transferred to a petri dish full of tap water, and photographed again immediately. After 10 minutes, a third photograph was taken, and an aggregate stability index between 0.1-1 (dimensionless) was calculated to estimate slaking, where 1 represents no change in geometric extent whatsoever.

Objective 2: Identify systemic barriers, best practices, and effective support strategies for historically underserved producers to adopt or scale up soil health practices.

  • Literature review  
    • Land tenure is a prerequisite for soil health work. Without an operation of one's own, the capital to invest in new equipment, and the capital to endure failed experiments, one cannot work on soil health easily. While researching RA practices amongst HU producers, we were struck by the magnitude of the land loss experienced by Black producers, as compared to their white counterparts enduring the same socio-economic and environmental challenges (Dust Bowl, Get Big or Get Out, capital intensification in farming). We used this literature review to understand the patterns of land loss among Black producers since the 1910's, discovering which of those patterns were specific to the South, and which were also at work in Kansas. 
  • Semi-structured interviews - BIPOC farmers
    • We used qualitative, semistructured, ethnographic interview methodology to obtain the stories, concerns, and practices of five BIPOC participating farmers. Participant selection criteria included: 1) participants are actively farming as an economic business; and 2) participants consent to the study purpose and goals. Five beginning and Black farmers were interviewed in October 2024. Interviews utilized open-ended questions to gain a deeper understanding of systemic barriers to RA practice adoption for HU producers. Interview topics included Knowledge, Awareness, Education, and Practices. All interviews were recorded with the permission of interviewees, transcribed, and reviewed by the interviewer. We used thematic analysis, and coded the interview data to draw out recurring themes. Dr. Freeman wrote a white paper and developed a video to summarize the findings and next steps. Human subjects research protocols were reviewed by the Office of Research Integrity at Colorado State University. 
  • Semi-structured interviews - the producers who used the soil health experimentation app
    • Our primary research question was: “How can we reshape the relationship between academics and producers to improve collaboration and the co-production of knowledge?” We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 17 soil health researchers in the semi-arid Great Plains and intermountain West of the US: seven producers currently experimenting with soil health, and ten academic researchers from land-grant institutions (both extension and research). Interviews were conducted between October 2025 and March 2026. The semi-structured interviews included asking about the soil health research and experimentation participants do, and where producers get support for this work. We then presented one on-farm experimentation model (Lacoste et al., 2022) and discussed reactions, hesitations, and interest in such research. All work was done in compliance with IRB protocols at Colorado State University. 
  • Veryl Switzer/KSU MANRRS AG Camp for Youth 2023: Data Analysis  
    • Since 2007, KBFA has hosted the annual Nicodemus Educational Camp for mostly urban students aged 10-17. The 4-day camp introduces Black youth to agriculture, helps them understand that agriculture touches every aspect of their lives, and helps them explore all the opportunities therein. This camp showcases agricultural careers including jobs and scholarships, and opportunities to visit with Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Sciences college students.  We collaborated with KBFA and KSU in analyzing results of pre- and postassessment surveys for the 2023 camp, using multivariate factor analysis to reduce the 16 variables (survey questions) to just a few interpretable factors. We provided a white paper to KBFA with an interpretation of the results to help improve the program and identify opportunities to support and engage African American youth in agricultural programs more broadly. Human subjects research protocols were reviewed by the Office of Research Integrity at Kansas State University.
Research results and discussion:

Objective 1: Identify soil health indicators that are most relevant for informing and quantifying outcomes of on-farm soil health experiments in semi-arid cropping systems.

  • Soil health testing results
    • We had strong soil texture and longitude gradients across the 10 field sites. From our principle components analysis, we found that several of the measures of soil health as well as the overall Ward Lab soil health score were highly correlated with texture, which makes them less useful for farmers who want to use these tests to help them make management decisions, Figures 1 and 2. However, mineral associated organic matter carbon (MAOM C), in particular, as well as water extractable C and aggregate stability were less sensitive to texture. Thus, these metrics may be potentially more useful and responsive to management than other metrics in our region.
A principle component analysis of soil health data. Many soil health measures correlate to texture.
Figure 1: Principle components analysis of the 2024 baseline soil health test results across the 10 collaborating farms, showing correlations between several measures of soil health and soil texture.
A graph showing a negative correlation between % sand of a soil, and soil health score.
Figure 2: The Ward Lab Soil Health score across 10 collaborating farms in 2024 was negatively correlated with soil sand content.
  • Farmers’ research needs vs. publishable research in academia

    • We also explored the disconnect between farmers’ own research questions, and the work that would be considered “publishable” in academia. For instance, one of the farmers wanted to know what better use he could put his field to, considering his neighbor dumps his cattle carcasses on his land. His questions are centered around remediating the soil: “What happened to my soil under these carcasses? How bad is it? How do I fix it?”

A farmer holds a shovelful of soil in a pasture in Kansas.

    • The data showed trends that we would expect (high nitrates, sodium, and phosphorus, Figure 3); this is not novel. In addition, this situation doesn’t allow for replication: there are no nearby white farmers with this same issue, so we can’t expand our study to include more sites. This is not a publishable result, but he still wanted to know what to do to repair the soil under the carcasses.

Bar chart showing soil test results from under cattle graveyard.
Figure 3: The relative differences in soil properties (log scale) under a cattle corpse dumping ground (Rep A) and other areas of the same field (Reps B and C).

    • With support from the Kansas Black Farmer’s Association and other groups, he was able to confront the farmer, get the carcasses removed, and hopefully prevent further dumping. He’s currently letting the land rest and letting precipitation draw the nitrates deeper into the soil profile, and will continue to monitor with soil testing.

  • Tea bag index and SLAKES app

    • We found that decomposing green tea was not sensitive to producers’ changes in soil health management. Even in long-term experiments with known differences in soil health, we only detected differences in green tea decomposition for 22% of the treatment contrasts, and there were contrasting results for whether compost stimulated or suppressed decomposition, Figure 4. The SLAKES app was unable to detect any differences between the treatment contrasts in this study, Figure 5. Both methods lacked the sensitivity to changes in management and reliability of results that producers need to evaluate the impacts of their soil health experiments. There remains a need to test accessible tools for their capability as single-season, field-specific soil health indicators for semi-arid soils. Such an indicator would be a boon to land managers in the High Plains region, giving them the quantitative data they need to navigate the thousands of decisions that must be made in order to successfully implement soil health practices on their operations.

Bar chart of tea bag incubation data in field sites. Only clovis covers and McFarland sites are significant.
Figure 4: Mass remaining (%) after 31-34 day decomposition of green tea in the field, August 2025, n=4-16; asterisks indicate significant differences between substrates buried in trt vs ctrl (*p < 0.05). Sample size and treatment/control pairs are: Akron and both Clovis soils, compost/no compost; n=16. B.Fragua, fallow/sorghum root zone soils; n=6. C.Fragua, deep-planted and fertilized/traditional planting; n=6. Casiquito, no-till perennial orchard/annual cropping with tillage; n=4. Wiltse, cover crops/fallow; n=6. McFarland, minimal tillage/no-till; n=6.
Aggregate stability as measured by SLAKES; no sites are significant.
Figure 5: Aggregate stability for treatment and control field soils (0-10 cm depth), when measured on air-dried aggregates in the laboratory, n=5. Box plots represent aggregate stability index measured by the SLAKES app (unitless), which has a resolution of 0.1. No treatment/control pair was significant to the p<0.05 level.

Objective 2: Identify systemic barriers, best practices, and effective support strategies for historically underserved producers to adopt or scale up soil health practices.

  • Literature review
    • We found that the two main drivers of Black land loss were racism at the USDA (ref. USDA's Civil Rights Implementation reports), and exploitation of heirs property. We explored the ways in which the Kansas Black Farmers Association and Nicodemus, the most prominent all-Black settlement in the West, impacted those patterns, and recent efforts by KBFA and the legislature to combat this issue and rebuild Black land ownership at rates on par with what demographics would suggest.
  • Beginning & Black Farmers and Regenerative Ag interviews

    • This study explored the intersection of regenerative agriculture and beginning, Black farmers through interviews and a review of recent literature on sustainable farming practices. Findings revealed that while farmers recognize the importance of soil health, many face obstacles in accessing the education and resources needed to implement regenerative practices. 

  • Soil health experimenters interviews

    • We examined the viewpoints of soil health academics and producers in the semi-arid Great Plains and intermountain West of the US. We discovered that managing a regenerative agricultural operation is perceived by producers as more complex than managing a conventional one because producers are managing ecological systems to be self-sufficient and built holistically. Second, producers did not mention academia or soil health testing as a resource to address the complexity of regenerative agriculture, and academics face structural barriers to supporting producers in the ways in which they might want to. Third, highly collaborative on-farm research was lauded as a powerful tool which all participants valued, and wanted to be more involved in. All researchers anticipated issues with on-farm research, including building trustworthy relationships, finding the time, and balancing workload commitments. Therefore, finding solutions to sustainable agricultural operations in the semi-arid Great Plains must be a team effort. By coming together, soil health researchers can ask better questions, run better experiments, and build realistic pathways for broader adoption of soil health practices across the landscape. 

  • Veryl Switzer/KSU MANRRS AG Camp for Youth Data Analysis
    • From our analysis of the summer camp survey data, we found trends of youth feeling inspired to farm, and feeling excluded from AgSci. In general, Black women and older youths scored higher on feeling excluded, and lower on inspiration to be in AgSci, Figure 6. This demographic haven’t been welcomed in the AgSci world historically, either by USDA policy or other farmers, and the feelings of exclusion generated by these realities are going to be tough to address. This camp does a great job of showcasing and celebrating many great examples of successful Black AgSci professionals, which will hopefully address these feelings of exclusion. 
A principle component analysis graph, with Inspired to Farm as the x-axis and Feeling Excluded as the y-axis. The individual scores are plotted, and colored by gender.
Figure 6. Overall, females score higher on the “feelings of exclusion” factor than do males, and lower on “inspired to farm.”
Participation summary
13 Farmers/Ranchers participating in research
2 Ag service providers participating in research

Research outcomes

Recommendations for sustainable agricultural production and future research:

We identified a need for an in-field, farmer-friendly, accessible and responsive soil health test. This would enable farmers to evaluate the effects of the soil health management decisions that they are making. We cannot recommend either the tea bag index or the SLAKES app to meet this need in semi-arid regions.

As a result of our interviews and data analyses with Black farmers, we identified that educational resources, financial incentives, and market structures need to align to support this transition. For Black, beginner farmers, particularly those in Kansas, this study highlights the need for targeted outreach programs to help them understand and implement regenerative practices effectively.

As a result of our interviews and data analyses with the producers who used the soil health testing app and academics involved in soil health work with farmers, we further identified the need for an in-field, accessible, and responsive soil health test. We learned that producers are not looking to academia to help them solve their ecosystem-level, complex, landscape-scale soil health challenges. However, we identified that both producers and academics are eager to participate in more on-farm research, in collaboration with each other, and in ways that support each other as co-researchers.

Education and Outreach

45 Consultations
1 Curricula, factsheets or educational tools
2 Journal articles
2 On-farm demonstrations
2 Online trainings
4 Published press articles, newsletters
2 Tours
23 Webinars / talks / presentations
5 Workshop field days
5 Other educational activities: The Experimenter App (alpha release). Tabled at High Plains No Till conference. Hosted Miranda and Irene for WSARE grant opportunities hybrid event. Fielded questions from 10 producers about compost tea, connected with the field day. Our project website which we'll upload our project results to, as they become available.

Participation summary:

30 Farmers/Ranchers
10 Agricultural service providers
45 Others
Education and outreach methods and analyses:

Objective 3: Create a mechanism for producers to easily quantify and communicate the results of their soil health experimentation.

  • Define requirements and build app
    • Our team wrote an app using the Python programming language to help producers run their own on-farm experimentation, track outcomes and generate case studies reports. All of the collaborating producers engaged in the Objective 1 on-farm research are included in testing the app and providing feedback.
    • We evaluated the success of this objective using one-on-one interviews with participating producers. We gauged producer interest, comfort with the app interface, and sharing behaviors of the case studies. We gathered two rounds of user feedback. The first round was gathered immediately after onboarding to ensure that the app was capable of delivering the needed services, and the second round was gathered during the interviews evaluating the app’s success.

Objective 4: Facilitate producer-to-producer learning networks and knowledge sharing using innovative online and in-person educational tools and programs.

  • In-person programs: In collaboration with CCTA, KBFA and FHI, we facilitated annual field days and one-to-one on-site visits between producers or with agricultural professionals. In Year 1, the field day was held at collaborator Sayles’ farm in Seibert, CO with facilitation by CSU extension (Meyer) and FARMS (Mitchek). In Years 2 and 3, the field days were held in historic Nicodemus, Kansas, and featured an array of speakers, including soil health educators and the local producers. They were organized by Kansas Black Farmers Association (Holmes).  The Y3 field day (KBFA's Second Annual Soil Health and Organic Day) brought together farmers, researchers, and community partners for a day of learning and collaboration focused on regenerative practices, organic transition, and long-term soil stewardship. We were honored to welcome guest speakers Una VanDuvall, Dr. Meagan Schipanski, and Lauren Hafford, who shared practical insights and research to support producers in building healthier soils and resilient farming systems. 

  • Online programs: We hosted periodic virtual project team meetings, to deliver project updates, educational topics such as compost, perennials, interpreting your soil health results, and open-format discussion between participants.

  • Continuing education programs: We contributed to webinars, factsheets, and online educational materials to address producer-identified need for continuing education resources related to regenerative agriculture. In Year 1, our staff were invited by Flower Hill Institute to present a webinar as part of their existing AgriCULTURE webinar series. In Year 2, we were invited to present at KBFA’s Garden Glow-Up workshop for urban farmers and gardeners. In Year 3, we presented at the High Plains No Till conference.
    • As part of the KBFA’s High Tunnel Farm Field Day, representatives from the Twin Creeks Extension District in Norton, Kansas, conducted soil sampling of the cropland located within KBFA’s high tunnels. The testing provided an important assessment of the soil’s fertility and its readiness for intensive specialty-crop and produce production. 
  • Community outreach: Additionally, we delivered presentations to students at Colorado State University and Front Range Community College. We presented at the Kansas Black Farmers Association Town Hall and at the Denver Rotary Club. Outreach events were advertised through our partnering organizations communication outlets, including the KBFA newsletter and membership emails, FHI communications, and CCTA and Extension network communications.

 

Education and outreach results:

Objective 3: Create a mechanism for producers to easily quantify and communicate the results of their soil health experimentation.

  • Define requirements & build alpha version
    • The alpha version of the app was tested by project staff (Meagan Schipanski, Joni Mitchek). We did a short cycle of app updates to fix the bugs they found.
  • Beta version
    • The beta version of the app was launched, and 8 producers were on-boarded. They designed their soil health experiments, selected the location and size of their test and control plots, and input their project schedules.
    • A static demo of the app is available. Here is an example of the data that could be collected in the app. From that starting point, the producer and our project staff could sit down and write something like this fact sheet together.
  • After launch, we gathered two rounds of user feedback. The first round was gathered immediately after onboarding to ensure that the app was capable of delivering the needed services, and updates were made to the app. The second round was gathered during the interivews evaluating the app’s success, and those updates were captured as possible future features, should this app be developed further.
  • App usage results from the 2025 season showed that on-farm realities prevented 50% of users from implementing their experiments. Only 25% of users used the app during the growing season. Post-experiment interviews suggested that all producers were hungry for the output of the app: the experimental reports from other producers’ experiments. All were eager to share their collected data except for one. However, low usage during the growing season suggests that this app is not enough by itself to encourage producers to spend more time implementing or documenting their experiments. Often these soil health experiments do not take priority over the sheer number of in-season field activities that need to occur. Instead, one producer suggested that we could add more time for a farmer by adding more personnel: creating a new professional role that is part-agronomist, part-research assistant to the farmer. This person would add value through their agronomy consulting, and also be available on-farm to help implement and document the trials that producers are dreaming up and funding. In that scenario, this app would be a helpful tool for that research assistant to gather and organize data. 

Objective 4: Facilitate producer-to-producer learning networks and knowledge sharing using innovative online and in-person educational tools and programs.

  • Field days

    • In collaboration with CCTA (Mitchek) and Extension (Meyer), we hosted the Y1 field day at Curtis Sayles’ farm in Seibert, CO. We invited Doug Steffen (Crofton, NE) as the guest speaker. We had a hands-on compost pile build and microscopy event. Participants brought samples of their compost, and they analyzed them using several microscopes from CSU. Facilitators helped interpret the microbes that were found. We had 15 participants who filled out the WSARE survey instrument, plus 7 kids. 8 participants were farmers, 3 from government, and 2 from the nonprofit sector. 100% said they gained knowledge from the workshop, and would use that knowledge. In total, the participants estimated that they would share this information with 182-294 other people. The kids were especially helpful in prepping the compost pile materials before the workshop.

Workshop participants and facilitator stand near tubs of materials that will make a compost pile

    • Kansas Black Farmers Association hosted the Y2 and Y3 field days in historic Nicodemus, KS. They were both exciting and informative field days for farmers, agricultural professionals, and community members. Our speaker lineup was stellar both years, and both times they were great days of learning, networking, and sharing practical information. In Y2 we featured Ed Reznicek from Central Plains Organic Farmers, and in Y3 we featured Una Van Duvall, Board Chair of the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute.
      • Y2: We had 39 participants who filled out the WSARE survey instrument. Thirteen participants were farmers, 4 from extension/CD/state, 6 from the nonprofit sector, one funder, and 15 from ‘other’. Note, some urban farmers might not self-identify as “Farmer/Rancher.” 100% said they gained knowledge from the workshop, and 70% would use that knowledge. In total, the participants estimated that they would share this information with 1151-1631 other people.

      • Aerial photo of soil health field day participants in a field

        Dr Holmes speaking at the field day KBFA staff and volunteers
      • Y3: We had 21 participants who filled out the WSARE survey instrument. Six participants were farmers, 2 from extension/CD/state, and 13 from ‘other’. Note, some urban farmers might not self-identify as “Farmer/Rancher.” 95% said they gained knowledge from the workshop, and 81% would use that knowledge. In total, the participants estimated that they would share this information with 208-254 other people.
      • Field day participants examine an aggregate stability sample
      • KBFA field day photo credits to Visuals by Kingsley 
  • Presentations
    • We delivered an aggregate stability workhsop at the High Plains No Till conference in Burlington, CO on Feb 3, 2026.
    • We presented the results from the on-farm soil health indicator research at the Regenerate Conference in Santa Fe, NM on Nov 6, 2025, and at the CANVAS conference on Nov 9. 2025.
    • We presented the results from the semi-structured interviews at the Soil and Water Conservation Society Annual Meeting in St Louis, MO on July 29. 2026.

  • Facilitate producer networking; 1-to-1 support

    • Facilitated farmer networking. We have connected new collaborating producers involved in this WSARE project with producers that are part of our previous FARMS farmer-to-farmer network.

    • Due to demand, we increased the number of producer-to-producer webinars to monthly during the winter months (Dec-March). In March, we invited Jim Williams from South Dakota to speak about compost and compost extract, and the ways he’s implementing these on his farm.

    • KBFA have collaborated closely with two farmers to facilitate evaluations of their land by both NRCS and Nutrien, with a focus on crop planning and compost development. These same farmers have also submitted applications for High Tunnel systems to extend their growing seasons and enhance soil health. Moreover, they recently completed the Farm Viability Fund mini-grant process through KBFA’s Land Access, Marketing, and Capital grant, which will improve operational sustainability. We are especially proud to share that one farm couple has now achieved both GAP and FSMA certification. With these credentials, they are eligible to participate as producers in our Sodexo Magic and FreshPoint Marketing program, where they will sell their produce directly to institutional buyers.

    • In 2026, the Kansas Black Farmers Association (KBFA) continued its commitment to improving soil health, strengthening farm viability, and providing hands-on technical assistance to designated farmers. KBFA expanded its agricultural programming with the addition of two training farms and a high tunnel demonstration project located on the Nicodemus, Kansas townsite. To support these efforts, KBFA hired a Farm Manager with extensive experience in soil health and sustainable agricultural practices. Throughout the year, KBFA provided educational opportunities for its membership, including farm field days, soil health activities, and hands-on high tunnel installation and construction days.

    • From March 10–13, 2026, KBFA hosted 11 volunteers who assisted with completing the construction of High Tunnel #1 and framing High Tunnel #2. To strengthen soil-health monitoring across participating farms, KBFA purchased soil health testing buckets from the Kansas Soil Health Alliance and coordinated additional soil testing on the newly acquired training farms and within the high tunnels. These activities provide KBFA and participating producers with valuable baseline information for evaluating soil conditions and guiding future soil-health management practices.

    • Through their Increasing Land Access Grant, KBFA also provided Farm Viability Fund mini-grants to 26 urban, peri-urban, and row-crop farmers, with individual awards ranging from $1,500 to $5,000, based on each farmer's approved project and demonstrated need. As a condition of participation, each farmer was required to complete soil testing or request a waiver when soil testing was not applicable, specifically for certain urban raised-bed and hydroponic production systems. This requirement reinforces KBFA's commitment to incorporating soil health assessment into farm planning, conservation, and long-term viability.

    • Results from the soil testing done during KBFA's High Tunnel Farm Field day indicated that the soil was of high quality and demonstrated strong fertility characteristics suitable for growing healthy, productive vegetable crops. K-State soil-testing guidelines evaluate key indicators including soil pH, phosphorus (P), potassium (K), nitrogen, and organic matter. For vegetable production, K-State classifies phosphorus levels of 100 ppm or greater and potassium levels of 250 ppm or greater as “high,” while a soil pH generally around 6.0–7.0 provides favorable conditions for most vegetable crops. The assessment of KBFA’s high-tunnel soil showed that the cropland met high standards for successful produce production, providing a strong foundation for continued organic and specialty-crop development. These findings also demonstrate the value of routine soil testing as KBFA works to maintain soil fertility, monitor nutrient levels, and implement sound soil-health practices for long-term production. 

KBFA high tunnel soil test results

  • Publications

    • McFarland, S., Hafford, L. (2026) Would you eat what you grow? Tilling in a no-till system to replace persistent herbicides. Case Study.

    • Hafford, L., Casiquito, J., Fragua, B., Fragua, C., Ghimire, R., McFarland, S., Mikha, M. M., Wiltse, K., & Schipanski, M. E. (2026). In search of a responsive and accessible on-farm soil health indicator for semi-arid soils: The Tea Bag Index. Applied Soil Ecology, [Article in preparation], Colorado State University.

    • Hafford, L., Mitchek, J., Schipanski, M. E., & Sbicca, J. (2026). Who will answer their questions? A mixed-methods study on supporting the research needs of producers innovating in soil health. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, [Article in preparation], Colorado State University.

    • Hafford, L. M. (2026). Who Will Answer Their Questions? A Mixed-methods Study on Supporting the Research Needs of Producers Innovating in Soil Health (Master's thesis, Colorado State University).

    • We contracted Helios Design to develop a case study presenting the overall structure of a Growing Group, as well as an outreach flyer about the Kansas Black Farmers Association’s growing group 

    • The Y1 field day and several of the members of our team were featured in the cover article “GROUND LEVEL: Examining soil health as a key to successful farming and environmental well-being,” in the STATE magazine. Two participating farmers, Stu McFarland and Curtis Sayles were featured, as well as the CSU soil health team.

    • Dr Holmes published an op-ed in Civil Eats, "Black Producers Have Farmed Sustainably in Kansas for Generations. Let’s Not Erase Our Progress." She discusses KBFA’s commitment to regenerative agriculture practices and highlights the practical approaches they've adopted across the KBFA farming network.

    • Project press release, and the press release for the field day, was published in multiple news outlets

    • We launched our project website, hosted on the FARMS Project's website: https://farmsproject.org/wsare/
  • 13 invited presentations:
    • Schipanski, M. “Conserving soil and water resources in semi-arid regions.” UN FAO World Soil Day Celebration, New York, NY. December 7, 2023.
    • Hafford, L., and Mitchek, J., Presented at Colorado Conservation Tillage Association's High Plains No Till pre-conference FARMS Workshop, Burlington CO, Feb 5, 2024.
    • Hafford, L. “Soil Health on the Farm.” Flower Hill Institute: AgriCULTURE meeting, online webinar, February 21, 2024.
    • Presented to the NRCS State Technical Advisory Committee in Colorado. Broomfield CO, March 13, 2024. Lauren Hafford and Joni Mitchek
    • Hafford, L. “Regenerative Agriculture: the challenges and opportunities.” Denver Cherry Creek Rotary Foundation Weekly Meeting. Denver, CO, October 22, 2024.
    • Hafford, L. “Intro to Regenerative Agriculture and Soil testing.” Kansas Black Farmers Association: Garden Glow-Up Workshop, Katy, TX. March 8, 2025.
    • Schipanski, M. “No-till: The gateway practice to sustainable soil management.” Department of Plant and Soil Sciences Seminar Series, University of Kentucky, March 28, 2025.
    • Schipanski, M. “Soil health: Lessons learned from the higher and drier Central Great Plains.” University of Nebraska Soil Health Meeting—Keynote address, Hastings, NE. January 29, 2025.
    • Schipanski, M. “Diversifying systems to build soil health in the water-limited High Plains.” Universities Advancing Soil Health: Green Cover Seed webinar. Bladen, NE. April 22, 2026
    • Hafford, L. “Intro to Regenerative Agriculture.” Environmental Sociology, Front Range Community College, Westminster, CO, March 10, 2026
    • Holmes, J. and Hafford, L. Kansas Black Farmers Association Town Hall Meeting. Olathe, KS, October 24, 2025
    • Hafford, L., "Responsive On-Farm Testing: Aggregate Stability" Colorado Conservation Tillage Association's High Plains No Till Conference, Burlington CO, Feb 5, 2026.
    • Hafford, L. “Who will answer their questions? A mixed-methods study on supporting the research needs of producers innovating in soil health.” Soil and Water Conservation Society International Annual Conference, St. Louis, MO, July 29, 2026
  • 6 presentations internal to Colorado State University
    • Hafford, L. "What is Agro-Ecology?" Agroecology Lab Meeting, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, April 11, 2024.
    • Hafford, L. "Multivariate analysis of Nicodemus camp data." Applied Multivariate Analysis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, April 25, 2024.
    • Hafford, L. "How can soil health research support producers?" Graduate Research Communication, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, November 13, 2024.
    • Hafford, L. "How can soil health research support producers?" Presentations for Scientific Audiences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, November 19, 2024.
    • Hafford, L. “Intro to Regenerative Agriculture.” Economics of Food Systems, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, September 23, 2025.
    • Hafford, L. “Supporting the Research Needs of Producers Innovating in Soil Health.” Master’s thesis defense, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, May 21, 2026.
  • Other
    • Hosted a webinar for Miranda and Irene from WSARE to promote their different grant opportunities. We had 21 attendees: CSU students and faculty, producers, and folks from the nonprofit sector. June 20, 2024.
    • Extension (Meyer) has fielded questions from 10 producers about compost extract, connected with the field day. July and August, 2024.
    • Tabled a booth at the High Plains No Till conference, and spoke with approximately 15 producers about their soil health goals and our project. February 4 and 5, 2025.

 

Education and Outreach Outcomes

35 Farmers/Ranchers gained knowledge, skills and/or awareness
8 Agricultural service providers gained knowledge, skills and/or awareness
50 Others gained knowledge, skills and/or awareness
8 Farmers/Ranchers intend/plan to change their practice(s)
8 Farmers/Ranchers changed or adopted a practice
Recommendations for education and outreach:

The producers in our project group are very diverse in operation types, experience farming, and experience with soil health. It can be difficult to design outreach activities that meet everyone’s needs, and here are some of our lessons learned so far:

  • We found that when we go to them, instead of asking them to come to us, we get better participation. We try to personalize outreach to the individuals who are participating, and we can do this because we’ve formed relationships with each of them. Smaller projects allow this type of personalization. 
  • When personalizing, we’ve found that we get better feedback when offering folks a suite of things to choose from. We get richer responses when they are responding to something tangible, than when we ask them to invent something from scratch. We have also found that people’s needs change as they explore and build, and so we leave plenty of room for their minds to change later. 

 

The producers in this project emphasized the complexity of managing whole systems of soil health and viewed issues as symptoms they could use to understand the functioning (or lack thereof) of the larger ecological system. Previous studies note that there is no guidebook for managing a complex suite of goals when implementing soil health practices, and producers emphasized the importance of biological indicators, collaboration with ecological systems, systems thinking, and descriptions of self-organizing systems that built on each other towards a more functional landscape (Gordon et al., 2022; Jackson-Smith et al., 2018; Klein et al., 2024). Producers’ own knowledge systems in this study and previous studies tended to be holistic and explicitly incorporate the complexity inherent in the system. However, these knowledge systems have not always been valued in academia (Blesh & Schipanski, 2024; Klein et al., 2024; Lacoste et al., 2022), whose underlying knowledge system (e.g., Western science) can be reductionist and linear.

This mismatch in knowledge systems reduced the credibility of academic research for the producers in this study, who pointed to academia’s simplified abstraction as a powerful shortcoming. Academia frames the outputs of experiments primarily through statistics which suit scientific orthodoxy, but results framed in this way are not always interpretable or meaningful to producers (Lacoste et al., 2022). Further, multiple studies on the same topic can have conflicting yet statistically significant results. To make sense of such research is challenging, and not many producers in this study ascribed credibility to the findings in those types of studies. Instead, when defining highly credible research, the producers pointed to other producers experimenting with new soil health practices who have built financially and ecologically stable agricultural operations. This is echoed strongly in the literature, where peer-to-peer information was found more trustworthy than extension or academia (Anderson et al., 2019; Lacoste et al., 2022; Rust et al., 2022). Informed by our results, we suggest that graduate students and agroecological scientists might benefit from training in scientific topics which explicitly handle the complexity inherent in natural systems, such as complexity science and ecological complexity (Gomiero et al., 2006; Vandermeer & Perfecto, 2017). Related to this, building mechanisms to connect researchers to more powerful statistical tools beyond linear regression can enable more complex and nuanced interpretations of results, and allows researchers to broaden out from reductionist approaches. In addition to this, previous studies found that producers are increasingly less satisfied with the traditional information transfer of land-grant research findings, which is typically one-directional: from academia, mediated by extension, and delivered to producers (Klein et al., 2024; Pires et al., 2024; Rodgers et al., 2026; Waithaka, 2005). The interviewees strongly echoed these sentiments, describing a dearth of technical support from these entities in topics relevant to them.

Resulting from this perceived lack of support, many of the producers in this study turned to doing their own research to understand the holistic effects of their soil health practices. However, these efforts were hampered by few quantitative tools to help guide that research. Current soil health tests are typically measuring single factors at a time and are often not sensitive enough in semi-arid soils to show meaningful changes in short timescales (Bruyn & Abbey, 2003; Klein et al., 2024; Singh et al., 2024; Victoria et al., 2025). The producers in this study were aligned in their assessment of commercial soil health indicators, describing their utility in measuring limited single factors, but not useful in describing holistic or system-level changes in the functioning of their soils.

Therefore, academia needs to find new ways of collaborating with producers innovating in soil health and learn how to co-create knowledge. Researchers are calling for integrated and participatory approaches which balance reductionism and holism to co-produce knowledge (Blesh & Schipanski, 2024). The benefits of such approaches include fostering processes of inquiry, the value that academia can add with specialist skills or external perspectives, and supporters argue that this model leads to innovation, not mere diffusion of static information (Lacoste et al., 2022). Producers’ own experimentation is happening at a scale that drastically exceeds land-grant funded research, which creates an opportunity for replication across myriad soil types and climatic conditions (Hansson, 2019). We found strong support for such research in this study from both academics and producers, which aligns with several previous studies (Jackson-Smith et al., 2018; Lacoste et al., 2022; Pires et al., 2024). However, many interviewees in this study had strong opinions about how challenging and time-consuming collaborative research is. One recent study details some of the challenges that can arise with this type of research and provides guidance for how to shape the project to best address the needs of all the collaborators (Rodgers et al., 2026). These include aligning the project to meet the goals of both researchers and producers, additional resources and time allocations needed, experimental design, and managing risks. A strong theme in the literature and in the findings from this study was the role of trust and relationship building prior to the initiation of the project (Blesh & Schipanski, 2024; Rodgers et al., 2026; Rust et al., 2022). Ideas related to these challenges and complications of on-farm research, and especially highly collaborative on-farm research, were raised by all of the academics we interviewed, and nearly half the producers. Informed by our results, we suggest that agroecology researchers might try to explicitly work with producers as co-researchers by designing research programs based on shared goals and budgeting for the extra time needed to collaborate as equals. This is challenging work, and in some cases structurally thankless work. Despite this, there was overwhelming support for more highly collaborative on-farm experimentation.

Key areas taught:
  • Fostering soil health in a vegetable system that includes tillage
  • Composting types, options, and methods
  • Soil health principles, and how they can be applied differently depending on context
Key changes:

  • Appreciation for the extra barriers facing BIPOC producers, compared to the farmer who inherited his land

Information Products

Return to Project Overview
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.