Soil carbon storage and sequestration in Vermont Agriculture

In 2021, The State of Soil Health (SOSH) project measured indicators of soil health on 221 farm fields across the state of Vermont through a collaborative effort among many organizations. Soil carbon stocks to 30 cm depth were assessed on 191 of those fields. In this brief we share a summary of this new soil carbon stock data alongside data from a national assessment of soil carbon stocks performed by the NRCS from 2010 and highlight its relevance to current policy conversations within the state of Vermont. Key Ideas The protection of existing soil carbon stocks and support for increased carbon sequestration align with both environmental and agricultural goals. A collaborative effort to collect and share soil health information in 2021 provides needed state scale data on soil health and soil carbon in Vermont’s agricultural landscapes. Northeastern soils and climate are naturally conducive to high levels of soil carbon. When compared regionally and nationally, Vermont’s agricultural soil carbon levels are high. An average of 86 MT carbon per hectare and 4.3% organic matter was observed. A wide range in soil health scores and soil carbon levels observed in soil samples showed both that some fields have high levels of carbon storage, and many fields had low carbon levels indicating there are opportunities to further sink more carbon. Long term studies in Vermont have documented agricultural soil carbon sequestration rates at between 0.39 and 6.43 MT Carbon per hectare per year. That’s equivalent to a range of 1.4 to 23.6 MT CO2 per hectare per year. Increases in soil carbon are possible on Vermont farms, and can complement other strategies to reduce concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses. The permanence of soil carbon in our region is linked to agricultural economics, farmer capacity and capability. Permanence can be addressed in part through support of Extension technical assistance, policy and conservation incentive program design. Policy tools can help protect the high soil carbon stocks in Vermont. Incentives to maintain high levels of soil carbon for farmers, such as cost-shares or payment- for-ecosystem services programs, should be considered by policy makers. Additional research on common and innovative soil management strategies and their influence on soil carbon sequestration in Vermont agriculture is needed. Soil carbon changes are only one part of the whole farm carbon balance, and more research is needed to assess how soil carbon changes influence climate change mitigation compared to other interventions on farms in Vermont

Survey of northeastern hop arthropod pests and their natural enemies

The commercial production of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) in the northeastern United States is on the rise due to demand from local breweries. Several arthropod pests are economically damaging to hop yield and quality. Due to climate and landscape differences between traditional and resurging hop-growing regions, there is a need for region-specific integrated pest management (IPM). We first review hop pest and natural enemy biology and management strategies. Then the phenology, abundance, and peak date of arthropod pests scouted in seven Vermont hop yards is reported. Documentation of natural enemy abundance is also reported. Our 3-yr survey indicated that hop aphid (Phorodon humuli (Schrank)) populations were highest in the continually cool, wet season. Potato leafhopper (Empoasca fabae (Harris)) was a pest with an unpredictable arrival date and of special concern for first-year hop plants. Twospotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae Koch) was a pest of concern in hot, dry conditions and after some broad-spectrum pesticide applications aimed at leafhoppers. This survey was the first step toward developing appropriate IPM tactics for modern day northeastern hop production. Further research should be focused on adjusting arthropod pest thresholds, disease management, and developing alternative control options for both arthropod and disease management

The State of Soil Health in Vermont: Summary statistics from Vermont agriculture in 2021

This report shares the summary statistics of the soil health indicators evaluated in the 2021 State of Soil Health project on farms in Vermont. The aim of this report is to share the data in a simple format that can be accessed by farmers, advisors and policy makers. The State of Soil Health in Vermont is an initiative to measure soil health and soil carbon on farms across the state of Vermont. This project is coordinated by UVM Extension and has relied on field support, in kind- donations and data sharing from partnering organizations. The project has five primary objectives: Establish a baseline of soil health indicators, carbon stocks, and associated ecosystem services in Vermont’s agricultural landscapes Create soil health soil sampling standards across management types Provide farmers with contextualized information about soil health on their participating fields Support collaboration among the many organizations that work with farmers towards shared goals around soil health Build skills and capacity for measuring soil health and soil carbon stocks Collaborators include UVM Extension, UVM Department of Plant & Soil Science, the Gund Institute for Environment, Dartmouth College, the Vermont Environmental Stewardship Program of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets, the White River Conservation District, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts, Ben & Jerry’s Caring Dairy Program and The Nature Conservancy Vermont

Farmer perspectives on administrative burdens and potential compensation structures: A short summary report of farmer interviews from spring 2022. Vermont Payment for Ecosystem Services Technical Research Report # 3c

Interviews with 35 Vermont farmers explored their perspectives on compensation associated with a soil health payment for ecosystem services (PES) program in 2022. This report summarizes thematic analysis of those interviews. Farmers’ willingness to participate in a soil health PES is linked to both the burden of enrollment paperwork and the payment level, among other factors. If deciding whether to participate in a soil health PES program, nearly all farmers said they would weigh the time and energy put into the administrative workload against the perceived benefits and value of the program, i.e., the payment level or technical assistance provided. Farmers appreciate straightforward program applications and paperwork that are aligned with their interests and schedules. Understandable language and access to technical assistance is also important to farmers when applying to programs and/or handling paperwork. A PES program should be as straightforward as possible to ease administrative burdens. At a minimum, compensation should reflect the paperwork and engagement burden for farmers. 100% of the farmers we interviewed highly valued soil health on their farms. Most farmers liked the idea of a PES program which compensates them for soils with good health. They appreciated how a program could enable and/or incentive them to maintain or improve soil health on their farms. Farmers identified the importance for a soil health program to consider differences between farms and soils when setting reasonable performance expectations and payment rates. Farmers expressed a wide variety of different perspectives and preferences about what payment rates would be meaningful to them in a PES program. There did not seem to be a ‘one-size-fits- all’ level of payment, and associating payment levels with soil health metrics proved challenging for some farmers. While many farmers were able to provide estimates of the level of payment they would be willing to accept, some were either unwilling or unable to determine appropriate levels of payment based on soil health metrics. Most farmers thought about the investment of time and resources needed when thinking about payment rates. Overall, the average level of payment that would be meaningful at the whole farm level described by interviewees was $9,322.00 per farm. However, significant differences in payment levels were detected by farm acreage. Farmers with fewer acres tended to require higher per acre payment rates than farmers with more acres. Conversely, farmers with larger acreage tended to require higher total payment. Approximately 90% of farmers interviewed were supportive of per acre payments in a soil health PES program. Nearly 50% of interviewees expressed concerns about how undifferentiated per acre payment rates across different farm types would favor the participation of farms with more acres and those which were less intensively managed. The potential value of a soil health PES program was widely recognized to be more than just monetary. Farmers expressed interest in both the monetary and non-monetary benefits that a potential program might offer them. Most were interested in the program providing some combination of financial payments, access to farm-specific data, connection to a farmer network/learning community, and technical assistance

Alternative organic fungicides for apple scab management and their non-target effects

A major challenge in organic apple production in humid production regions is the available fungicide options for apple scab [Venturia inaequalis (Cooke) Wint.] management. The standard sulfur/lime sulfur fungicide program can be injurious to the applicator, the apple ecosystem, and the apple tree itself. The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy of three potential alternative fungicides [potassium bicarbonate (PB), neem oil (NO), and Bacillus subtilis (Bs)] with a standard organic sulfur/lime sulfur (SLS) fungicide program and a non-treated control (NTC) for management of apple scab and to evaluate potential non-target impacts on pest and beneficial arthropod populations. The five treatments were applied to \u27Empire\u27 trees arranged in a completely randomized design with five single-tree replications at the University of Vermont Horticultural Research Center in South Burlington, VT. Fungicides were applied with a handgun to drip using maximum label rates. Applications began on 26 Apr. 2007 and 23 Apr. 2008 and continued on approximately a weekly schedule through the end of June and then every 2 weeks through 23 July 2007 and 17 July 2008, respectively. The standard SLS treatment resulted in the best scab control in both years. TheNOtreatment reduced foliar and fruit scab compared with the NTC and the other alternatives at the end of the 2008 growing season and had insecticidal activity. However, both the SLS and NO treatments had disadvantages, including phytotoxic burning on the fruit and/or significantly more russeting on the fruit at harvest. In each year of the study, one or more of the alternative treatments, particularly Bs, resulted in higher insect damage than the non-fungicide-treated control. This research showed that PB, Bs, and NO do not offer advantages over the standard SLS fungicide program in organic apple production and in some cases offer distinct disadvantages in terms of non-target impacts. Chemical names used: potassium bicarbonate (Armicarb O ), Bacillus subtilis (Serenade MAX), neem oil (Trilogy), sulfur (Microthiol Sulfur)/lime sulfur (Miller Lime Sulfur)

Farm Benchmarking: The Application of Business, Conservation and Labor Indicators

Farm benchmarking programs will move Vermont’s food system towards important sustainability outcomes by establishing enhanced monitoring of priority indicators and facilitating the adoption of best practices. Farmers, researchers, policy agencies and development professionals agree there is a lack of regular and consistent data available to guide private and public initiatives. This paper identifies and contextualizes over forty priority indicators capable of measuring business performance, conservation, farm labor and community development. Benchmarking methods need to be adapted to better represent the diversity of enterprises present in Vermont’s agricultural portfolio. The integration of University Extension objectives with food systems research priorities can catalyze collaborations, educational support and dissemination that ensure both rigorous research and increased likelihood of behavioral change at the enterprise level. This paper describes data collection methods, informational technology, agricultural sector context and features of analysis findings that are appropriate for a range of populations and research goals. Furthermore, this paper demonstrates the necessity of linking enterprise level indicators with broader community and economic development indicators to assess and deploy strategic public policy responses that embody the desired food system values. Small cohort business benchmark programs and a single conservation data research clearinghouse are proposed as appropriate next steps for the UVM‐ARS Center for Food Systems to pursue

Whole Farm Net Zero: approaches to quantification of climate regulation ecosystem services at the whole farm scale. Vermont Payment for Ecosystem Services Technical Report #7

In this report, approaches to the quantification of climate mitigation ecosystem services at the whole farm scale are reviewed and summarized for easy comparison. Eight quantification tools, and three case studies demonstrating possible tool applications, are summarized to fulfill the requirements of the Technical Services Contract—Task 7. Information from a combination of literature review and expert interviews served to document the inputs, outputs, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for each quantification tool. This research was conducted in service to the Vermont Soil Health and Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Working Group (VT PES working group). It is our hope that this report provides productive information and insights for the implementation of whole farm scale payment for ecosystem services programs, Vermont’s Climate Action Plan, and similar efforts elsewhere. Emissions reductions on farms are of interest to farmers in Vermont and will be required by the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). Management changes that reduce emissions at the farm scale could possibly be supported and encouraged through a PES program. Given the work and goals of the PES Working Group and the requirements to implement the GWSA it is critical to understand the degree of accuracy and scope of currently available greenhouse gas assessment tools that could possibly be implemented to measure and monitor outcomes from VT agriculture. Section 2 of this report describes the methods used to collect information reviewing eight tools for quantifying agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration rates, including the CarbOn Management & Emissions Tool (COMET)-Farm, COMET-Planner, COOL-Farm, DayCent, DNDC (DeNitrification-DeComposition), Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) & APEX Agricultural Policy / Environmental eXtender (APEX), Holos, and the Integrated Farm Systems Model (IFSM). These eight tools were each reviewed using a systematic literature review, interviews with experts who are well-versed in using the specific tools, and a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis. Section 3 presents some larger-context considerations for choosing an appropriate tool. Section 4 gives a high-level overview of the SWOT analysis performed for each tool reviewed for this task. Section 5 describes three example applications of emissions modeling tools.Section 6 contains concluding remarks. The report’s Appendix section includes the SWOT analyses for each tool to allow for more in-depth review, as well as a series of tables to present a high-level comparison of the tools

Field scale soil health scenarios. Vermont Payment for Ecosystem Services Technical Report #2

This report illustrates how changes in management on Vermont farms can influence soil health metrics at the field scale. We’ve used regionally relevant science-based scenarios to demonstrate how selected soil health metrics that are associated with ecosystem services could change on farms in response to management practices at the field scale. These field scale management scenarios demonstrate that many practices in use by farmers in Vermont can have positive impacts on the soil health indicators of interest to the Vermont Soil Health & Payment for Ecosystem Services Working Group. The scenarios document potential for tradeoffs among soil health properties. Specifically, some of the scenarios illustrate how bulk density and compaction can worsen in instances when other soil health properties improve. Long-term research that measures multiple indicators of soil health and ecosystem services on recommended soil health management practices in Vermont is needed to support the evidence-base for soil health and ecosystem services incentive programs

Measuring ecosystem services from soil health. Vermont Payment for Ecosystem Services Technical Research Report #1

There are a multitude of approaches to evaluating soil health and the soil processes influenced by soil health. As the state of Vermont explores innovative programs that compensate farmers for soil health and associated ecosystem services, the selection of soil health indicators and quantification methods is a foundational first step that influences other aspects of program design. What is measured determines the ecosystem services that can be inferred, the accuracy of data that informs decisions, and programmatic transaction costs. Simply put, what is measured matters. The PES Working Group identified organic matter, bulk density, aggregate stability, greenhouse gas flux from the soil surface and soil biodiversity as the soil health indicators that would be most closely related to the desired ecosystem services, and contracted with UVM to provide more information on the measurement considerations for these indicators. In this report, the available methods and costs of measurement for these soil health indicators are discussed in detail. In addition, modeling options are identified. Finally an index that could combine multiple soil health indicators is explored as an option. Overall, this foundational research identified the need for the PES program to integrate both soil health measurements with modeling to validate soil health. Costs for laboratory analysis and labor for these selected metrics were approximately $250 per field, and we identified three analytical laboratories that could provide the soil health analysis. The contents of this report are intended to support decision-making on the part of the Vermont Soil Health and Payment for Ecosystem Services Working Group about what will be measured in a PES, but do not constrain the group from adding other metrics should they so desire. This decision must balance accuracy and complexity with the cost of measuring the best indicators of performance. These decisions are foundational to other aspects of PES program design

eOrganic: The organic agriculture community of practice for eXtension

eOrganic is the organic agriculture community of practice (CoP) and resource area for eXtension. eOrganic\u27s primary community of interest (CoI) is organic farmers and the agricultural professionals who support them. The 250 members of the eOrganic CoP include farmers, researchers, certifiers, and extension/other agricultural professionals. eOrganic\u27s mission is to build a diverse national CoP and use web technologies to synthesize existing information, emerging science, and practical knowledge into information resources and training materials for its CoI. eOrganic strategies to achieve that mission include collaborative publication, stakeholder engagement, community development, projectmanagement, evaluation, and fundraising. eOrganic\u27s public site currently offers 240 articles, 250 videos, 80 webinars and broadcasts, and 100 frequently asked questions (FAQs). eOrganic CoP members have answered more than 1000 \u27Ask an Expert\u27 questions. eOrganic authors collaboratively develop articles in eOrganic\u27s collaborative workspace, which undergo review by two anonymous reviewers andNational Organic Program (NOP) compliance review. eOrganic will offer online courses in 2012. eOrganic stakeholders evaluated eOrganic articles and videos in 2010 and overall they stated that they were relevant, science-based, and useful. Three quarters of webinar and broadcast participants said the webinar improved their understanding of the topic, and 83% said they would recommend the webinar to others. Sixty-nine percent of webinar survey respondents stated that they changed practices or provided others with information as the result of the webinar. eOrganic surveyed active CoP members in 2011. Members view eOrganic as important because it is the only national organic agriculture resource with direct ties to university research and they considered all of eOrganic\u27s core activities important. eOrganic is supported by small grants from eXtension and subawards in more than 20 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) research/extension projects. To enhance its financial sustainability, eOrganic will work to solidify its partnership with NIFA programs and diversify its funding sources to include course fees and underwriters