Removal and disposal of nonnative trees is expensive and time-consuming. Using these nonnative trees as a substrate to produce edible mushrooms could diversify farming operations and provide additional income to small-scale farmers. This research compared the production of shiitake mushrooms (Lentinula edodes) on nonnative tree logs to shiitake mushroom production on native oak (Quercus L.) logs, which are the traditional substrate. In a 2-yr study, we evaluated nonnative tree species as alternate substrates for growing shiitake mushrooms at farms in northern Florida and southern Georgia. A mix of native Quercus spp. and nonnative trees was targeted for removal on participating farms. Five nonnative tree species were initially tested for their ability to produce edible mushrooms, either shiitake or oyster (Pleurotus ostreatus var. florida). Of the nonnative trees we tested: Chinaberry (Melia azedarach L.), Chinese tallowtree [Triadica sebifera (L.) Small], silktree (Albizia julibrissin Durazz.), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. ex Benth.), and paperbark tree [Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) S.F. Blake], only T. sebifera produced shiitake mushrooms, and none produced native Florida oyster mushrooms. In on-farm trials, Quercus spp. logs produced more total mushrooms and more mushrooms per log and had a higher total mushroom yield per log. However, mushrooms produced on T. sebifera logs had higher mean weight per mushroom. Edible fungi can be used to recycle invasive, nonnative T. sebifera and transform their biomass from waste into an income-producing resource.

It is generally agreed that farm animal welfare is at a high level when the animals can behave naturally. Most of today's housing systems, however, differ considerably from the natural environment in which the behavioural organisation of the ancestors of our farm animal species evolved. Consequently, normal behaviour may be impaired in several ways. Frequency, duration or sequence of behavioural elements may be affected. Some normal behaviour patterns may not occur at all. The animals may also possibly behave in unnatural ways – in patterns that would never occur in nature. Furthermore, it is usual for farm animals to exhibit behaviour which is normal in form, but which is elicited by artificial structures within their housing system.

In view of these possible changes in normal behaviour, it is necessary to assess, for each farm animal species and each housing system, whether animal welfare is at risk in any way if the behaviour observed differs from the behaviour that would occur in a natural environment. In some cases the question can be answered by taking a theoretical evolutionary approach. In most cases, however, detailed knowledge about the behavioural organisation of the animals is necessary. Such knowledge is built up from animal motivation studies and investigations into the effect of environmental structures on animal behaviour.

A specific problem of on-farm animal welfare assessment is that there is often not enough time to collect sufficient data to make a judgement about the occurrence of normal behaviour. Resource-based assessment methods are appropriate as an alternative, provided that the resource standards used are based on evidence stemming from research into animal behaviour and motivation.

Successful organic farming requires crop varieties that are resilient to environmental variability. Assessing variety performance across the range of conditions represented on working farms is vital to developing such varieties; however, data collected from on-farm, participatory trials can be difficult to both collect and interpret. To assess the utility of data arising from participatory trialing efforts, we examined the performance of butternut squash (Cucurbita moschata L.), broccoli (Brassica oleracea L.) and carrot (Daucus carota L.) varieties grown in diverse organic production environments in participatory trials in Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and New York using adaptability analysis (regression of variety means on environmental index). Patterns of adaptation varied across varieties, with some demonstrating broad adaptation and others showing specific adaptation to low- or high-yielding environments. Selection of varieties with broad vs specific adaptation should be guided by farmers’ risk tolerance and on-farm environmental variation. Adaptability analysis was appropriate for continuous variables (e.g., yield traits), but less so for ordinal variables and quality traits such as flavor and appearance, which can be vitally important in organic vegetable crop variety selection. The relative advantages of adaptability analysis and additive main effects and multiplicative interactions are also discussed in relation to on-farm trial networks. This work demonstrated the unique challenges presented by extensive participatory vegetable trialing efforts, which, as compared to grain crops, require novel approaches to facilitating farmer participation as well as data collection and analysis. Efficient, precise and reliable methods for evaluating quality related traits in these crops would allow researchers to assess stability and adaptation across a wider range of traits, providing advantages for effective plant breeding and trialing activities within the organic sector.

Conventional strategies for developing component technologies are being challenged by the complexities of today's agricultural environment. The needs for support of adaptive research, for sufficient field sites to evaluate location specificity of technologies, and for testing components as parts of total farm systems are not easily met within the confines of the experiment station. On-farm research strategies involve the farmer and rancher in project design, field implementation, collection and evaluation of data, and interpretation of results. Farmer presentations in extension meetings and field tours involve these cooperators in the demonstration and technology sharing process. Farmers in Nebraska and Wisconsin have applied this process to research nitrogen levels in continuous and rotated cereals, the use of allelopathic chemicals from rye (Secale cereale L.) to reduce herbicide costs in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] production, on other alternative weed management strategies, and strip cropping to reduce soil erosion and meet government program compliance requirements. Useful in a wide range of ecological and economic circumstances, participatory methods using farming systems research and extension strategies have global applications.

Researchers interested in describing or understanding agroecological systems have many reasons to consider on-farm research. Yet, despite the inherent realism and pedagogical value of on-farm studies, recruiting cooperators can be difficult and this difficulty can result in so-called “convenience samples” containing a potentially large and unknown bias. There is often no formal justification for claiming that on-farm research results can be extrapolated to farms beyond those participating in the study. In some sufficiently well-understood research areas, models may be able to correct for potential bias; however, no theoretical argument is as persuasive as a direct comparison between a randomized and a convenience sample. In a 30-cooperator on-farm study investigating weed community dynamics across the state of Wisconsin, we distributed a written survey probing farmer weed management behaviors and attitudes. The survey contained 59 questions that overlapped a large, randomized survey of farmer corn pest management behavior. We compared 187 respondents from the larger survey with the 18 respondents from our on-farm study. For dichotomous response questions, we found no difference in response rate for 80% of the questions (α = 0.2, β > 0.5). Differences between the two groups were logically connected to the selection criteria used to recruit cooperators in the on-farm study. Similarly, comparisons of nondichotomous response questions did not differ for 80% of the questions (α = 0.05, β > 0.9). Exploratory multivariate analyses failed to reveal differences that might have been hidden from the marginal analyses. We argue that our findings support the notion that the convenience samples often associated with on-farm research may be representative of the more general class of farms, despite lack of bias protection provided by truly randomized designs.

A reason given by cash-grain farmers for not using manure from neighboring livestock operations is that manure may cause greater field weediness. To address this concern, trials were established in corn on 11 cash-grain farms, in which manure from six nearby dairy farms was spread for the first time in at least 10 yr. A split-plot design was used in which manured and nonmanured treatments were established as whole-plots, and split-plot treatments were either with or without the farmer's regular weed control. In the multisite analysis, weed seedling density at the time of corn emergence was not greater in the manured vs. nonmanured treatments. At 7 to 8 wk following planting, weed density was not greater in the manured plots. Just before corn canopy closure, weed biomass also did not differ between manured and nonmanured treatments. Although neither weed species richness nor species diversity differed significantly between manured and nonmanured treatments, these measures did have significant environment-by-manure interactions, indicating that weed species distributions responded differently to manure across the different trial environments. However, farmers' weed control practices were highly successful in both the manured and nonmanured plots. Large portions (280 m2) of all whole plots were visually inspected for introduced weed species after all weed control practices had been completed. The manured treatments did not differ significantly in the set of species observed, suggesting that manure did not introduce new weed species. Thus, this exploratory study showed that, contrary to some farmers' concerns, an application of dairy manure neither increased field weediness nor required alterations in the farmers' weed control programs.

In a 6-yr study on four farms (36 fields) in Ontario, Canada, we tested the effects of tillage (moldboard, chisel plow, no tillage) and crop rotations (continuous corn, corn-soybean, corn-soybean-winter wheat) on emerged and seedbank weed species diversity and density. Aside from the imposed experimental treatments, all other management was generally consistent among farms. Tillage had the largest effect on weed diversity and density. No tillage promoted the highest weed species diversity, chisel plow was intermediate, and moldboard plow resulted in the lowest species diversity. These results are consistent with ecological succession theory. The increase in weed species diversity resulted from 20 species being associated with no tillage systems, 15 of which were winter annuals, biennials, or perennials. Emerged weed density was affected only by tillage. Over 6 yr, seedbank declined in no-tillage systems from 41,000 to 8,000 seeds m−3. Crop yields were not affected by tillage or crop rotation. In practical terms, reduced tillage in combination with a good crop rotation may reduce weed density and expenditures on weed management.

GESTINF is a decision tool for postemergence weed control based on the equivalent density approach. Using observed weed densities just before treatment, the program estimates the economic return from the treatment, thus indicating whether to treat or not and, if a treatment is needed, the most economical weed control solution. Each treatment is also characterized by an environmental pollution index. GESTINF has been tested in wheat and soybeans on a farm in northeastern Italy with a total cropping area of 60 ha of wheat and 40 ha of soybean. For both crops, weed control followed the suggestions of GESTINF, whereas the remaining cropped areas were treated according to standard farm weed control practices. To compare the two weed control systems, weed control efficacy, average crop yield, and the extra time required for scouting and treatments were measured. In both crops, the treatments suggested by GESTINF showed good efficacy, and yields proved to be no different from those obtained in the fields treated with standard farm weed control practices. In most cases, GESTINF selected treatments with a lower environmental effect. The most critical point was the time required to scout the weed population that, in low-value crops or when very cheap treatments were available, reduced the weed control economic return. In wheat, GESTINF indicated that fewer fields needed to be treated than did the conventional system. However, extra costs due to both scouting and more expensive treatments balanced the savings obtained from nontreated areas. For soybean, the treatments adopted by the farm were based on a combination of pre- and postemergence practices. In this case, GESTINF identified cheaper but still efficacious treatments, significantly reducing the total cost of weed control.

Organic agriculture continues to expand in the USA and in the European Union (EU), particularly in Italy, which had 48,650 organic farms in 2014 compared with 19,474 in the USA. Additionally, EU support for organic research is nearly double than that of the USA. Along with increased support for organic research, the EU organic community has achieved recognition at the European Commission policy level for a dedicated innovation platform, advocating the practice of farmer-first models for participatory research. The US land-grant universities have a long history of on-farm research, primarily through the Extension Service, but the need exists for more inclusive, second-loop, co-research with organic farmers. A survey was conducted of organic farmers and researchers in Italy and in the USA to ascertain the extent of participatory organic research activities and experiences, and explore the vision each group had for the future of co-innovation between organic farmers and researchers. Results indicated that, despite the higher level of organic research support in the EU, the percentage of researchers involved in on-farm/participatory organic research was equivalent in Italy and the USA, presumably due to the more recent emphasis in Italian/EU agricultural research agendas on the importance of farmer knowledge and participation in organic research. Overall, 60% of surveyed organic researchers in both countries cited involvement in on-farm/participatory organic research, with ‘farming systems’ and ‘nutrient/pest management’ the main research focus in the USA, compared with ‘farming systems’ and ‘equipment’ in Italy. Both countries’ researchers expressed their vision of participatory research as helping to improve communication between researchers and farmers, to enable work on relevant research, and to allow farmers to adapt technologies to their own conditions. Organic farmers in Italy completed survey questionnaires as part of a field day activity, leading to more Italian farmers responding to the survey, compared with USA counterparts who were queried via e-mail. Organic farmers in Italy identified ‘knowledge-sharing’ as a critical value of participatory research, and were conducting on-farm research with less compensation than US farmers. The ‘lack of time’ was cited as the most important constraint limiting participatory research by Italian and US farmers, although the ‘lack of common language’ also was rated as potentially impairing full participation. Lessons shared between EU and US organic researchers as a result of this project included methods to institute policies aimed at increasing support for organic research and co-innovations with organic farming communities, and connecting experienced on-farm researchers in the US with Italian colleagues to enhance collaborative activities with organic farmers.

On-farm research (OFR) has increased in popularity in the U.S. in recent years due to heightened interest in sustainability issues, the likely decline in resources available for agricultural research, and increasing pressures for accountability and responsiveness to state and local needs. Information relating to OFR was obtained from 431 commercial Kansas farmers. Data were analyzed to determine the degree of OFR being implemented, and three models were estimated to identify which farmer/farm characteristics influenced its implementation. The results indicate that OFR is commonly implemented, and that several farm/farmer characteristics are related to the degree of OFR initiated. It is proposed that to maximize the return from externally initiated OFR, there would be merit in focusing attention on farms/farmers with those characteristics.

Crop producers are challenged to operate profitably, use resources efficiently, meet high standards of quality and protect the environment, while sustaining rural economies and societies. Cropping systems are generally fine-tuned and improved through changes that have small effects which can often be verified only through research. The processes and successes of two farmer research projects were studied. Results of these studies, information from other sources and the authors' reflections on their own experiences were integrated to develop guidelines for the implementation of farmer research projects for alternative agriculture and multi-functional agro-ecosystems with diverse stakeholders. Surveys were mailed to 118 farmers currently or previously participating in a farmer research project, and to 15 advisors. Responses show that involvement in a farmer research project was profitable, stimulating, enjoyable and worthwhile, despite a substantial time requirement. Tillage and soil fertility research had greater impact on annual farm profit than research on other topics. Farmers and advisors emphasized the importance of the farmers' roles in identification of research topics, research planning and implementation, and interpretation of the results. Replicated trials conducted over 2 or 3 years were recognized as necessary to adequately verify practices for the corn–soybean rotation of eastern Nebraska, USA. Such trials may need to be complemented with alternative research approaches for improving alternative agriculture and multi-functional agro-ecosystems where knowledge about some system components is relatively scarce and there is a need to evaluate long-term effects. In conclusion, organized farmer research is an efficient means to cropping system improvement. Guidelines are given for initiation and implementation of farmer research projects.

Emergent research shows how some farmer groups in the United States are gaining visibility as a critical knowledge community, making important contributions to the ecological health and overall sustainability of the natural resource base. This study focuses on funded farmer research projects in the north central region, to analyze the process and outcome of local inquiry embodied in the discursive contents of reports to a funding agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program. The analyses suggest that farmers' locality-specific agricultural practices may constitute a reflective and learning community, generating local knowledge keenly attuned to an underlying value system that supports actions towards sustainability.

Strip intercropping seeks to capture the biological efficiency of intercropping in traditional agricultural systems and is compatible with agricultural equipment used in the U.S. This efficiency stems from complementary use of resources by constituent crops and is a function of crop selection, strip width and orientation, weed control, and other factors. Strip intercropping requires a high level of management; further, some reports suggest the gains and losses more-or-less balance in actual production situations. These questions are best addressed by the performance of strip intercropping as implemented by farmers in production situations.

Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI) members have worked with Iowa State University agronomists to evaluate strip intercropping. For three years six farmers compared strip intercropping to field blocks of individual crops. The strip intercrop systems employed three crops: corn, soybeans, and small grains with a forage legume underseeding. The comparison systems, crops grown in sole-crop blocks, consisted of the same three crops on four farms (planting pattern comparison) or, on two farms, just corn and soybeans in rotation (systems comparison). Yields and field operations were recorded and entered in the Iowa State University Crop Enterprise Record System (CER) to derive gross profit, total production cost, and net profit for each crop component and for each cropping system on every farm. Strip intercropping net profit was generally greater than that in field blocks, and intercropping compared favorably with CER results obtained from corn-soybean rotations on other farms around Iowa. Land equivalent ratios (LER) were usually greater than 1.0, indicating satisfactory biological efficiency. Despite occasional problems, in this set of 18 site-years strip intercropping was associated with greater stability of net profit.

Cover crop performance depends largely on management factors that must be customized to particular farm situations and, therefore, is suited for on-farm research, with farmers involved in both management and evaluation. Cover crop sequences that were successful in a research station study were tested over a variety of soils and management strategies in collaboration withfarmers. The two-year cover crop sequences consisted of a short-season crop followed by a cover crop in year one and corn in year two. The cover crops themselves were evaluated by their agronomic and economic performance and their acceptance by farmers. Four cover crop systems (companionseeded red clover, sequentially seeded hairy vetch, sequentially seeded oat, and fallow) were compared for ground cover, above-ground biomass and above-ground nitrogen yield, subsequent corn grain yield, and N fertilizer replacement value (N-FRV). Cover crops were essential for erosion control following vegetable crops and tillage, but were not necessary following small grains. Companion-seeded red clover produced the most ground cover, yielded up to 133 kg N/ha, and had a higher average N-FRV than sequentially seeded hairy vetch on sandy loam soils, but was not preferred by farmers who harvested small grain straw as well as grain. Sequentially seeded hairy vetch gave excellent cover when no-till seeded, produced more than 125 kg N/ha in half the siteyears, and had a higher average N-FRV than companion-seeded red clover on silt loam soils. First-year N-FRV for the legume cover crops averaged 67 kg N/ha over both soil types. The participating farmers indicated that their decisions to adopt cover crops would be based primarily on their need for ground cover, and secondarily on the profitability of using cover crops as an N source. However, when valued solely as an N source for the next year's crop (and not for any potential long-term benefits), cover crops were not an economical alternative to N fertilizer. We suggest focusing future cover crop research and extension efforts on outreach to farmers growing crops that do not provide sufficient ground cover, such as short-season vegetable crops, and optimizing the cover crop system to maximize its erosion control benefits and increase its profitability over N fertilizer.

The most important source of increased crop yield in the Middle East has probably been the increase in irrigated area although it has been accompanied by other inputs such as chemical fertilizers, improved varieties, mechanization, and pesticides. Palestine, which in this paper encompasses West Bank and Gaza, has had a similar emphasis on irrigation although only 5% of West Bank agricultural land is irrigated. However, the possibility of further expanding or even maintaining present water use for fostering agricultural growth in this dry region is diminishing. There now is a growing understanding that future sustainable agriculture in the Middle East may depend on shifting emphasis to rainfed farming; in the past, this was not considered possible because of its perceived low productive potential. Recent research, however, has evaluated the status of rainfed farming in Palestine and targeted areas that need improvement. Experiments and demonstrations have shown the potential to vastly improve rainfed farming's production, economic return and status. Following up on these initial steps should be an important priority in maintaining food production in this region.

The Illinois Soil Quality Initiative (ISQI) is a multidisciplinary effort to develop accurate, practical, and meaningful measures of soil characteristics that farmers can incorporate in strategies to sustain soil resources over the long term. We discuss how the project integrates soils and social research and involves farmers and others in guiding its research activities. A board of farmers, farm managers and conservation agency personnel and a panel of soil scientists, agronomists, and social scientists established ISQI's goals and monitors its progress. ISQI technical staff gather data at 35 participating farms to assess the accuracy and practicality of several measures of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of soils under varying tillage and environmental conditions. They communicate findings to farmers and the ISQI board through regional farmer meetings, a project newsletter, and statewide conferences. Participating farmers assess the measures' meaningfulness and practicality, suggest strategies for communicating soil quality information, and recommend new directions for research. These observations have been made at the end of ISQI's first year: definitions of and beliefs about soil quality vary widely, making it inadvisable to think of “soil quality” as a single, inclusive concept; farmers and other land managers want to understand better the relationships among soil qualities, productivity, and sustainability, and to ham how to enhance their soils' structural and biological characteristics; soil quality measures must be accompanied by research and education on how soil qualities are affected by management practices or systems and how they affect yields and the environment; many farmers are only mildly interested in self-administered soil quality measures, preferring instead to purchase such data from commercial sources.

Soil and water conservation and improved crop management programs were initiated in 1983 to increase the productivity of a dryland vertisol watershed in the state of Andhra Pradesh in the semi-arid tropical region of India. This was one of 47 model watersheds developed by the Government of India. The integrated program consisted of measures to conserve soil and water, such as a percolation tank, grading, checks, and deep tillage, on which were superimposed improved crop management practices (e.g., cultivars, fertilizers, and timeliness in operations), carried out with the farmers' cooperation and partial payment. All participants were surveyed in 1983, before starting the program, and 1988, after completing the program. The equilibrium water levels in open wells increased about 50 cm, which allowed sugarcane to be introduced. About 10% additional area was reclaimed and cultivated after construction of a diversion dam. Fodder supply improved because of the growth of natural grasses on terraces formed by stone checks in waterways. Soil and water conservation efforts reduced runoff about 26%. Ground cover increased by 38% because of increased cropping intensity, and income per capita grew by 67% per year. Thus, the integrated approach conserved natural resources and improved productivity.

Biodynamic and organic farming are similar in that both are ecologically oriented and do not use chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The main difference is that biodynamic farmers add eight specific amendments, called preparations, to their soils, crops, and composts. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in biodynamic farming practices and systems because they show potential for mitigating some detrimental effects of chemical-dependent conventional agriculture. Only a few studies examining biodynamic methods or comparing biodynamic farming with other farming systems have been published in the refereed scientific literature, especially in English. This paper summarizes data from previous studies, both published and unpublished (theses), that have compared biodynamic and conventional farming systems with respect to soil quality or profitability. These studies have shown that the biodynamic farming systems generally have better soil quality, lower crop yields, and equal or higher net returns per hectare than their conventional counterparts. Two studies that included organic management treatments with and without the preparations showed that the preparations improved biological soil properties and increased crop root growth. However, more research is needed to determine whether the preparations affect soil physical, chemical, and biological properties and crop growth and, if so, their mode of action.

Research on agricultural production has been largely the domain of an institutional system established especially for the purpose. However, the complexities and diverse character of agriculture require diversified modes of research. Such a strategy might be better pursued by a more diversified set of research institutions. Non-land-grant institutions, although lacking the land-grant system's strong experience in agriculture and its close ties with farmers, potentially represent a large pool of scientific expertise in a broad range of fields relevant to agriculture. Also, they are under different institutional constraints, and may be in a better position to do more speculative, long-range research that does not promise immediate practical benefits. Although such research has been criticized by people in the sustainable agriculture movement who believe that research should be more directed at farmers' current problems, a truly sustainable agriculture will require a deeper grasp of how agricultural systems work. Achieving this will demand a breadth of understanding that extends beyond the production-oriented studies that dominate current sustainable agriculture research programs.

Sustainable agricultural research and education have gained acceptability within the land-grant system, but they still must be fully integrated into its fabric. Challenges remain in three key areas: knowledge generation, research and education, and funding. New biological and ecological knowledge is needed on plant-animal-human-environment interactions from the microbial level on upward so that we can move beyond anecdotal evidence of biological integration efficiencies to scientific understanding of the underlying processes and opportunities for human intervention. Socioeconomic research must address human motivations to change farming methods and the likely impacts of these changes on farmers, consumers, other species, and the quality of the environment.

Generating this knowledge will affect the integration of research and education. Having farmers set the research and outreach agenda dissolves the old distinction between research and extension. This situation is complicated by budgetary stress and uncertainty about the dividing line between public and private responsibilities. The funding of sustainableagriculture creates a dilemma. Earmarked funding has helped legitimize sustainable agriculture in the land-grant university, but if it fails to become integrated into the routine land-grant research and education agenda, it will lose its newly gained momentum in the event those funds disappear.