Incentive Programs Doubled Cover Crop Use by Farmers

Sep 21, 2023

By Krishna Ramanujan and Cornell Chronicle

A survey of farmers in four Northeast states, including New York, found that incentive payments encouraged participants to plant twice as many acres of cover crops as they did prior to receiving funds – a change that can both improve their farms and mitigate climate change.

These incentive programs also had a lasting effect, with many farmers continuing the practice even after payments ceased.

Cover crops are crops that are planted for their on-farm benefits such as reducing soil erosion, improving soil health, pest control, nutrient cycling and nitrogen fixation, while also providing off-farm benefits of protecting surface water quality and mitigating climate change.

“Cover crops are one of the best tools we have for improving soil health, and helping farmers be more resilient to extreme weather events,” said Matthew Ryan, associate professor of soil and crop sciences in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

Ryan is senior author of a paper, “Incentive Programs Promote Cover Crop Adoption in the Northern United States,” published Aug. 11 in the journal Agricultural and Environmental Letters. Barbara Chami, M.S. ’18, a project manager at the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, is the paper’s first author.

Cover crops don’t provide farmers with immediate returns on their investments, unlike cash crops, which they can sell at the end of a season, Ryan said. “It’s really important to be able to provide funding to help farmers explore the use of cover crops, and get started and integrate them into their operations,” he said.

In the study, 328 farmers in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Vermont were surveyed. The online survey sought to understand what types of people participated in incentive programs and to assess the effect of incentive programs on cover crop adoption.

The results revealed that on average, farmers who engaged in incentive programs doubled the amount of land devoted to cover crops, from close to 51 hectares (125 acres) prior to engaging in an incentive program to 101 hectares (250 acres) after they started. Also, after payments ceased, cover crop use remained on average 37% greater than before a farmer enrolled in a program. “So there’s a lasting legacy effect,” Ryan said.

The survey found that participants were typically more experienced, male farmers with larger conventional farms.

“One thing we were thinking, if we want to reach a broader audience with these programs, we should target farmers who are different from those who have already participated,” Ryan said. These may include new and beginning farmers, women farmers, those operating smaller farms and organic farmers, Ryan said.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resources Conservation Service offers cover crop incentive programs in all states. New York also offers multiple programs through the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets.

Most of the programs, aside from one offered in Maryland, are not indefinite, with payments ceasing, highlighting the need to understand longer-term effects after engaging in a program.

The Inflation Reduction Act and new climate-smart commodity funding will make additional funding available for cover crop incentive programs through the USDA, Ryan said.

Co-authors include Stephen Parry of the Cornell Statistical Consulting Unit, and researchers from the University of Vermont, the University of Maryland and the USDA Agriculture Research Service in Beltsville, Maryland.

The study was funded by the USDA Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program and the New York Soil Health Initiative.

Source : cornell.edu

Video: Turning Plant Defense Into a Management Strategy

Turning Plant Defense Into a Management Strategy

Understanding how a plant responds to stress is one thing.

Using that knowledge to make better management decisions is another.

Systemic acquired resistance, or SAR, is the plant's more direct defense response. When stress or infection occurs, the plant begins signaling throughout its system and preparing defensive compounds.

But if we know that response exists, can we help prepare the plant before the stress arrives?

The answer starts with understanding what triggers the response and what the plant needs to carry it out.

The Trigger and the Fuel

Salicylic acid plays an important role in triggering the SAR pathway.

Think of it as turning the truck on.

The engine may be running, but it still needs fuel to do the work.

In this case, manganese plays an important role in supporting the enzyme systems involved in the plant's defensive response.

This makes manganese status an important part of the conversation. Whether a producer is using tissue testing, sap analysis, or simply scouting for visible deficiency symptoms, the goal is to make sure the plant has adequate manganese available.

Manganese is required in relatively small amounts, but that does not make its role small.

If the plant receives a signal to defend itself but lacks the nutrition needed to support that response, it may struggle to carry out the process efficiently.

The trigger matters.

The fuel matters too.

Prepare Before the Stress Arrives

The best time to think about stress management is before the plant is overwhelmed.

Once a crop is already struggling, management can quickly turn into a game of catch-up.

This is similar to nitrogen management. Once a plant becomes severely deficient, correcting the problem does not necessarily erase the time and yield potential already lost.

Plant defense can work the same way.

Low-rate, targeted approaches designed to support the SAR pathway may fit best ahead of an expected stress event rather than after significant damage has already occurred.

That requires producers to think about predictable stress.

We may not know exactly what the weather will do tomorrow, but we generally know summer heat is coming. We know certain field conditions increase disease pressure. We know a herbicide application can temporarily stress a crop as the plant processes the chemistry.

Even a properly timed and labeled herbicide application can create a temporary response in the plant.

That does not mean the herbicide is bad.

Weeds can create significantly more yield loss than the temporary stress caused by controlling them.

The question is not whether we should eliminate every stressor.

The question is whether we can better prepare the plant to manage necessary and predictable stress.

Not All Stress Is Bad

Stress is a normal part of plant growth.

A perfectly stress-free environment does not exist in the field.

In fact, some stress is necessary for normal plant development. A plant responds to wind, temperature, moisture, sunlight, and countless other environmental signals throughout the season.

The environment is stress.

The plant's job is to manage it.

Problems begin when the stress load becomes greater than the plant's ability to respond.

Extreme heat, drought, high salt concentrations, disease pressure, and even certain management practices can add to that load.

This is where understanding SAR becomes useful.

Instead of waiting until the plant is visibly struggling, producers can begin identifying periods when stress is likely and make management decisions around those windows.

ISR Starts With the Soil

While SAR is a more direct defense response, induced systemic resistance, or ISR, brings the conversation back to soil health.

The longevity of a farm is closely connected to the health of its soil.

Carbon plays a major role because it supports biological life within the soil. Bacteria, fungi, and other organisms interact with plant roots and influence how the plant grows, accesses nutrients, and prepares for stress.

This is why soil health cannot be reduced to one product or one application.

It is a system.

Keeping living plants in the field longer can support biological activity. Cover crops may fit some operations. Better water management can improve soil conditions.