Innovative Agricultural Extension Partnerships in California's Central San Joaquin Valley

Introduction

In 1995, the West Side On-Farm Demonstration Project was initiated by 14 large-scale San Joaquin Valley (SJV) row crop farmers, University of California (UC) Cooperative Extension (CE) researchers (AES), Natural Resource Conservation Service conservationists, and private-sector consultants. The project was sponsored by the University of California's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program's Biologically Integrated Farming Systems (BIFS) initiative. The BIFS program was made possible with financial support provided by California State Assembly Bill 3383 from the US Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. This program was modeled in large part after the Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems (BIOS) Project that had begun in 1994 as a grass-roots effort of almond farmers, walnut farmers. and UCCE in Merced and later expanded to Stanislaus, Solano, and Yolo Counties in California to evaluate and implement sustainable agricultural production practices (Dlott, 1996).

Key features of the BIOS participatory research and Extension model include:

• Experienced mentor or lead farmers who voluntarily share information about their production systems with other interested farmer participants, consultants, and researchers;
• On-farm side-by-side demonstration evaluations of conventional and alternative management practices;
• A small management team that provides technical assistance and project leadership made up of mentor farmers, consultants, and UC academics;
• Customized information support to facilitate evaluation of alternative production practices; and
• An emphasis on providing opportunities for "co-learning" environments in which farmers, researchers and agricultural consultants share insights (Dlott, 1996).

Objectives of the West Side On-Farm Demonstration Project were to:

1. Facilitate information exchange among West Side farmers, consultants, and researchers on soil management practices and options for reduced reliance on agrichemical inputs;
2. Monitor and evaluate on-farm demonstrations of soil management practices, including cover cropping and organic soil amendment inputs;
3. Determine the extent to which Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices are used in row crops in the SJV's West Side region and identify constraints preventing further adoption of biologically integrated pest management practices;
4. Provide community-based demonstrations of existing technologies to overcome constraints while making use of participatory research teams to develop and refine additional information;
5. Provide technical assistance to farmers and pest control advisor (PCA) participants; and
6. Provide intensive pest management monitoring of cotton fields enrolled in the project and introduce and utilize the maximum number of biointensive pest management practices possible.

A conspicuous feature of California State Assembly Bill 3383 was the expectation that BIFS projects would demonstrate, monitor and evaluate crop, soil and pest management alternatives that may reduce agrichemical inputs relative to current conventional practices. This legislation explicitly identified demonstrations of practices that reduce agrichemical inputs as a requirement for support through the State's BIFS program. Therefore, considerable data from participating farmers about annual inputs were collected. These data included fertilizer and pesticide records as well as irrigation and crop rotation information (Andrews et al., In review).

Project Background

The West Side BIFS Project was initiated in August 1995 following a series of individual and group meetings with participants conducted in May and June 1995. During the very early stages of development of the project, informal discussions were held with potential participants to identify major management issues facing West Side farmers and to determine whether the BIFS model might provide a useful means of addressing the priority issues of these farmers. In June 1995, a facilitated group meeting was held at which 14 of 15 farmers agreed to participate in the project. Meeting participants identified two areas of emphasis as critical project components: soil quality and pest management.

The cropping systems of farmers involved in this project consist of large, diversified row crop farms in Western Fresno County. The West Side of the SJV is one of the world's most productive agricultural regions, producing over one-third of the county's annual $3 billion agricultural output, and Fresno County is recognized as the largest producing county in the U.S. (Calif. Agric. Stat., 1998). The dominant cropping patterns of this area include rotations of a number of annual crops, including processing tomatoes, cotton, onions, garlic, melons, wheat, sugar beets, and lettuce. In recent years the region's leading crops of processing tomatoes, cotton, onions, garlic, cantaloupe, and lettuce have been grown on over 570,000 acres annually.

Historical yield data for five major crops of this region are given in Table 1. The productive capacity of this region is made possible by intensive irrigation practices and agrichemical inputs, including fertilizers and pesticides. Farms participating in the West Side Project averaged about 8,000 acres. Farmers have become concerned about soil quality and are searching for ways to improve their soil. Farmers also are concerned with agrichemical costs as labor costs rise and prices for their crops decline. The cropping system is complex, so applying the lessons and Extension model of BIOS into an intensive, multiple crop environment was a major challenge to the West Side On-Farm BIFS Project.

Table 1
Fresno County Crop Yields 1970 - 1994¹

Year Cotton (lbs lint/acre) Tomato (ton/acre) Onion (ton/acre) Garlic (ton/acre) Melon (ton/acre) 1994 1,490 41.6 18.3 8.8 10.2 1990 1,356 35.5 10.2 9.5 9.7 1985 1,350 31.5 16.6 8.4 10.1 1980 1,294 30.5 22.0 6.8 8.3 1975 1,100 26.4 17.2 none 8.5 1970 1,000 21.4 13.0 none 7.5 1 Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner's Annual Report, Fresno, CA

Project Organization

BIFS projects typically include the following key components (BIFS Request for Proposals, 1999):

• Voluntary on-farm demonstrations of various innovative biologically-based farming practices;
• A collaborative Extension model, including public and private partnerships for sharing information about the alternative management systems; and
• An organized program of monitoring key biological and economic variables for on-farm decision-making and project evaluation.

Based on the BIOS Extension model that was developed and refined over the last several years for almond production systems (BIOS for Almonds, 1995), these projects were designed to involve public-private cooperation and facilitate collaborative learning and information exchange among participants.

A management team that had extensive experience with the local farming systems coordinated the West Side BIFS Project. This management team provided technical support to the participants through various means, including meetings with farmer participants, customized plans of farm management alternatives, group meetings, newsletters, on-farm monitoring, and timely farmer-hosted field days.

The management team of the West Side BIFS Project consisted of two leading farmers from within the West Side region, one Cooperative Extension/Agricultural Experiment Station Specialist, two UC Regional IPM Advisors, three Fresno County CE Advisors, a private consultant, a licensed PCA, and the project's full-time coordinator. This team met monthly to set the general direction of the project, coordinate educational activities, and to act as a liaison with the project's funding agencies.

On-Farm Demonstrations

On-farm demonstrations of different soil, crop, and pest management alternatives were the cornerstones of the West Side BIFS Project. Because of the dynamic nature of the annual cropping systems in the region as well as the specific management goals and constraints of participating farmers, a wide variety of on-farm comparisons were implemented as part of the project.

Soil Management On-Farm Demonstrations

Side-by-side comparisons of conventionally managed (conventional) versus organic amendment (alternative) production systems were established at 16 sites at the 12 participating farms in the fall of 1995 to:

• Investigate the potential for improving soil quality, productivity and profitability,
• Improve the management of nutrient cycling relationships, and
• Optimize and eventually reduce mineral fertilizer inputs in West Side production systems.

In certain cases, a farmer allocated more than one comparison site to the project. These sites consisted of adjacent, homogeneous fields that were randomly designated conventional and alternative. The demonstration areas ranged in size from 40 to 80 acres.

At the initiation of the project in August 1995, plans for managing conventional and alternative fields were discussed with individual farm participants as well as in a group setting of all farmers and scientists. The consensus developed from these discussions was that cover crop and compost or manure amendments would be integrated into each alternative field site whenever feasible and that the conventional field would be maintained without these deliberate organic amendment inputs (Table 2). Detailed data summarizing these on-farm soil quality monitoring efforts have been published in different forums for a variety of audiences (Mitchell et al., 1999; Mitchell & Goodell, 1999; Andrews et al., Submitted).

Table 2
Use of Organic Soil Amendments by BIFS Project Farmer Participants 1995 - 1998

Year	Compost/Manure	Cover Crop	Compost/Manure & Cover Crop	Total
1995	12 (75%)	2 (12.5%)		14 (87.5%)
1996	5 (31.25%)	4 (25%)	2 (12.5%)	11 (68.75%)
1997	8 (50%)	3 (18.75%)		11 (68.75%)

Monitoring soil properties at these on-farm comparisons provided the basis and the impetus for several other adjunct soil quality projects, including:

1. Development of a soil quality index for the region (Andrews et al., Submitted),
2. Use of pre-sidedress soil nitrogen testing as a means for optimizing nitrogen management of processing tomatoes (Krusekopf et al., 2000),
3. On-farm assessments of the impacts of cover cropping on West Side water balances (Joyce et al., Submitted), and
4. Determinations of decomposition, mineralization and nutrient release dynamics of cover cropped materials in the West Side region.

Pest Management On-Farm Comparisons

Intensive on-farm monitoring and demonstrations of biointensive pest management practices in cotton fields of farmer participants were also key features of the West Side BIFS Project. A facilitated meeting was conducted with PCA's and crop consultants to explore current and alternate approaches to insect pest management. The general approach developed from this meeting was to:

• Identify specific pest problems and provide possible solutions in a group setting;
• Establish a group of participants who would follow a set of mutually agreed upon practices and provide land for a side-by-side demonstration;
• Test different biologically intensive pest management practices, including least disruptive insecticides, use of buffer strips to mitigate insect migration and release of insect natural enemies;
• Closely monitor fields and provide summary to supplement information farmers and their PCA's use for decision making;
• Consult with the farmers and PCA's prior to any insecticide treatments;
• Summarize and deliver information to participants within 24 hours of field sampling; and
• Summarize all fields and provide weekly status reports to the community at large through a weekly newsletter, Outstanding in your fields.

Extension Accomplishments

The West Side BIFS Project exposed farmers to a wide range of topics related to biological integration and agroecosystem function within the West Side SJV context and facilitated discussion on these topics among participants. Eight farmer-hosted on-farm discussions were held during the course of the 3-year project that provided direct exchanges between project participants and opportunities for farmers to learn from each other's experiences. Formal classroom style meetings were held that brought University of California academic and Extension representatives to the West Side, including six out-of-state speakers. These meetings covered both soil and pest management subjects. Collectively, these discussions and meetings constituted a substantial increase of Extension and educational exchanges with an estimated 500 clientele contacts.

Quarterly newsletters provided updates to BIFS participants as well as the larger community. In addition, 22 weekly updates were distributed that summarized the cotton insect and crop development situation.

Impact assessment of the West Side BIFS Project was accomplished by a variety of means. Interviews were held in November 1998 at the completion of the project with 10 of the 12 original farmer participants. (The other two had sold their farm and were no longer part of the project.)

Respondents deemed the project successful in terms of exchanging and extending information (Table 3). A majority of participating farmers reported a general increase in their knowledge about the function, selection, and management of cover crops and soil management during the project. All respondents would be interested in continuing to participate in the project should opportunities arise.

As a result of the project, greater use of cover crops in the West Side region will occur in the future, as contrasted to current established practices within the SJV. Six of 10 respondents reported that their use of cover crops will increase over the next 5 years, while four said it would stay about the same.

In a similar, but separate survey, management team members, including UCCE and private and public agency representatives, rated the overall success of the project 1.33 (n = 13) on a 1 - 4 scale in terms of exchanging information among West Side farmers, where 1 = very successful, 2 = moderately successful, 3 = slightly successful and 4 = not successful.

Table 3
BIFS Project Impact Assessment of Participating Farmers (n=10)

A)Would you rate the project's success as (1) very successful, (2) moderately successful, (3) slightly successful, (4)not successful
Project Objective	Success Rating
	1	2	3	4
Exchanging information among West Side farmers, researchers, and consultants	4	6	0	0
Demonstrating on-farm cover cropping	3	4	3	0
Demonstrating on-farm organic soil amendment inputs	5	2	3	0
Determining the degree to which IPM practices are utilized in row crops on the West Side	3	6	1	0
Identifying constraints preventing adoption of biologically intensive pest management practices	4	4	1	1
B)Has your farm operation improved (1) greatly, (2) moderately, (3) slightly, or (4) not at all as a result of the project?
Aspects of Farm Operation	Improvement Rating
	1	2	3	4
Development of long-term farm management goals	1	4	4	1
Access to a greater pool of information sources	3	5	2	0
Interaction with other farmers involved with the project	3	3	4	0

At the conclusion of the project, a survey was conducted that allowed the enumeration of pest management practices and the length of time these practices were in use. The goal was not only to evaluate the adoption of practices introduced through the BIFS program, but also, to estimate the number of IPM practices in use. The results of the survey indicated that newer approaches (use of light activated sprayers, release of natural enemies, and buffer crops to mitigate insect migration) were used by between 20 and 50% of all BIFS growers. Of the 15 elements developed by the facilitated group discussion (Table 4), nine were in use by at least 70% of the participants. These results also indicated there is a high level of incorporation of available practices already adopted by the cotton producers in the project.

Table 4
BIFS Practices in Cotton, Insect, and Weed IPM, Percent of Participant Sites Incorporating These Practices (n=10) and Number of Years in Use.

Suggested IPM Practice	Percent Now Using	Average Number Years in Use
Plant cotton according to soil temperature and 5-day forecast	100	9.3
Planting at densities no more than 45,000 - 55,000 plants/ac	60	--
Use of resistant varieties where appropriate and available	80	--
Twice weekly inspections for insects and mites	100	6.4
Pest density to reach action thresholds before pest control	90	9.7
Follow 1998 Insecticide Resistance Management Guidelines	90	--
Monitor insecticide resistance with bioassays	70	11.6
Use of cowpea buffer strip on upwind edge of field	50	1.8
Release of natural enemies	30	1.7
Conservation of natural enemies	30	11.3
Consider the condition of neighboring crops for managing pests	90	9.5
Crop termination as early as dictated by plant monitoring indices	90	8.0
Attend UCCE summer production meetings and BIFS field days	100	8.2
Provide alternative habitat for natural enemies	20	8.0
Use of light activated sprayer	20	3.0

Further details are available about this intensive insect monitoring program (Mitchell & Goodell, 1999) and evaluations of IPM practices among the BIFS participants (Goodell, 1999).

When asked if their knowledge of IPM was greater at the end of the project than 3 years before, when the project began, seven participants responded that it was slightly more, two responded that it was moderately more, and one responded that it was a lot more at the end of the project. Six farmer participants indicated that they were more interested in the possibility of using IPM or enhancing their current use of IPM in cotton in the coming years, while three expressed that their interest would be about the same for the 1999 season as it was in 1995.

The weekly newsletter, Outstanding in your fields, which provided real-time summaries of insect populations for enrolled project fields, was favorably received by project participants (Table 5). Based on 1998 survey results, most farmers agreed that the information provided in the newsletter helped them to better understand pest situations in their fields, learn new concepts, and make better decisions. The weekly data helped them develop a better understanding of the pest situation in the larger surrounding area by providing another insect population estimation in their fields, additional information about natural enemies in their fields, and more information about cotton growth and development.

Table 5
West Side BIFS Farmer Participants' Evaluations of the Weekly Newsletter Outstanding in your fields

Outstanding in your fields	Strongly Agree	Somewhat Agree	Somewhat Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Helped me to understand my fields better	3	6	1	0
Introduced me to new concepts	4	5	1	0
Helped me to make better decisions	4	5	1	0
Helped to reduce my insecticide use	2	6	1	1
Helped me to understand the situation in the surrounding area	6	4	0	0
Provided a check on sample estimations	7	3	0	0
Provided more information about natural enemies in my field	9	1	0	0
Provided more information about cotton growth and development	7	1	2	0

Summary

The West Side BIFS Project was successful as an Extension program. The project focused the attention of farmers, researchers, and consultants on a wide range of alternative soil, crop, and pest management practices that involve greater biological integration and understanding of agroecosystem function,  and it identified obstacles to further adoption of biologically integrated practices within the West Side SJV region. Most notably, farmer participants gained experience and familiarity with a number of alternative practices.

The project provided information on alternative production practices that may eventually be more widely adopted and lead to greater biological integration, tighter resource cycling, and possibly reduced reliance on pesticide inputs throughout the area. It resulted in changed production practices during the time it was implemented, with the likelihood that some of these changes (e.g., use of organic soil amendments) will persist into the future.

The project also provided quantitative baseline data on chemical use patterns and key soil quality properties of project participants that will serve as benchmarks for monitoring future changes. The extent to which agrichemical inputs may be reduced at farms of participants in the future as a result of the project will depend, however, upon a number of factors, including location, annual pest population fluctuations, and specific production expectations. The level of sophistication and innovation of West Side farming operations is already quite high, given the information-intensive decision tools that were already being implemented (Table 3). Rapid adoption of new techniques in the short time span of the BIFS Project is further demonstration of the sophistication and innovation of these farmers.

Perhaps the best indication of success of this project was the relationships between farmers, PCA's, consultants, UC Extension researchers, and representatives from other public agencies that were formed through this participatory process. A high priority of this effort was to encourage and value the experience and ideas of all participants. The interactions and discussion resulted in an environment that allowed free exchange of ideas between scientist and farmer. With scientists providing basic biological and mechanistic information and farmers providing experience-based, pragmatic knowledge, implementation and the time required before implementation and adoption occurs may be substantially shortened.

References

Andrews, S. S., Mitchell, J. P., Mancinelli, R., Karlen, D. L., Hartz, T. K., Pettygrove, G. S., Horwath, W. R., Scow, K. M., & Munk, D. S. (In Review)  On-farm assessments of soil quality in California's Central Valley. Agronomy Journal.

BIOS for almonds. A practical guide to biologically integrated orchard systems management. (1995). The Community Alliance with Family Farmers. Davis, CA.

Biologically integrated farming systems (BIFS) projects request for proposal. (1999). The University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Davis, CA.

California Agricultural Statistical Review for 1998. Calif. Dept. Food and Agr. Sacramento, CA.

Dlott, J. (1996.) California, USA:  Merced County BIOS project. In New partnerships for sustainable agriculture. World Resources Institute. Washington, D.C.

Goodell, P. B. (1999). Cotton IPM in California: What does it mean to use IPM? In Proceedings from the Levi Strauss Field to Fashion Cotton Conference. San Francisco, CA.

Hutmacher, R. & Goodell, P. B. (1999). 1998 season review. California Cotton Review. Vol. 50:1-3.

Joyce, B. A., Wallender, W. W., Mitchell, J. P., Huyck, L. M., Temple, S. R., Brostrom, P.N., & Hsiao, T. C. (In Review)  Seasonal changes in infiltration and soil water storage in conventional and alternative agricultural systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal.

Krusekopf, H. H., Mitchell, J. P., Hartz, T.K., May, D. M., Miyao, E. M., & Cahn, M. D. (2000). Pre-sidedress soil nitrate concentrations and yield response to N fertilizer applications in California processing tomato production. HortScience. 35(3). Abstract.

Mitchell, J. P., & Goodell, P. B. (1999). Final Report. Extending biologically integrated farming practices within the San Joaquin Valley's West Side. Submitted to the University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, Davis, CA.

Mitchell, J. P. Pettygrove, G. S., Hartz, T. K. Horwath, W. R., Scow, K. M. Munk, D. S., Karlen, D., & Andrews, D. (1999). Soil quality issues and initiatives in California's Central Valley. Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Pacific Division. 80^th Annual Meeting of the AAAS:  Pacific Division. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA.