NF95-243 Soil Compaction Tips

This NebFact offers 50 tips to prevent soil compaction

NF95-243 Soil Compaction Tips

This NebFact offers 50 tips to prevent soil compaction

Determining the Student Services which Align with Undergraduate Student Expectations A Study of Student Perceptions and University Service Delivery

Extant research demonstrates that student support services are a vital link in the success of students and a major component in student per- sistence to graduation. This paper reports the results of an empirical study examining enrolled undergraduate student attitudes and expec- tations regarding student services at two-similarly-sized universities in a major metropolitan area in the southwestern United States. Using survey data and a sample of several hundred students at each school, it analyzes their knowledge of and attitudes about student services, such as health services, career counseling, computer laboratories, student organizations and clubs, and sporting events. This study compares student perspectives at private versus public universities and further analyzes possible differing student needs and expectations that may occur among various student demographic groups. The results of this study are important for several reasons. First, it compares student and administrator perspectives on university services to see if they are similar or if there are possible differences in their views. Since the data informs universities about student attitudes and expectations, the data can help universities to do a better job in aligning services to student perceived needs. Second, the study tests the view that students at private universities may have higher expectations of services versus public university students, and then we explore possible differences between various student demographic groups, clarifying how the needs and expectations may differ among these demographic groups. Finally, the results can help universities to determine the services that are viewed as most critical and invest in those services which are more successfully attracting and retaining those students

Stakeholder perceptions of primary school education about food sustainability and farm animal welfare in England

BackgroundThere is growing consensus on the negative impacts of food production on the natural environment and planetary viability. UK society is also increasingly concerned about the impact of intensive farming systems on the billions of sentient farmed animals within them. In liberal democracies and capitalist economies, enlightened citizens and informed consumers are key to the solution to environmental crises, such as anthropogenic climate change. Despite this, there is minimal provision for food sustainability and farm animal welfare in England’s National Curriculum.PurposeTo investigate the views of stakeholders on the provision of food sustainability and farm animal welfare education in English primary schools.SampleTen stakeholders selected for their knowledge or interest in food sustainability and farm animal welfare education.Design and methodsIn-depth, semi-structured interviews, analysed naturalistically within an interpretivist framework.ResultsBarriers to teaching food sustainability and farm animal welfare reported by stakeholders were restraints caused by the curriculum, the need and lack of funding, a lack of teacher knowledge about the topic, and concerns about its controversy. Best methods identified for teaching were teaching from an early age and throughout all of schooling, adopting a cross-curricular approach, facilitating learning in a hands-on way, and not waiting for change from government reform.ConclusionThis research informs the debate on the provision of food sustainability and farm animal welfare education in English primary schools. Given that the environmental crisis is a global one, and that sentient animals are farmed across the world, the research may also inform discussion on inclusion of food sustainability and farm animal welfare outside of the English education context

Tillage Systems for Row Crop Production

Selecting the tillage system best suited to a particular farming situation is an important management decision. Formerly, the traditional system was a moldboard plow operation followed by several secondary tillage operations before planting. This system can be appropriate for poorly drained soils having little or no slope and low erosion potential. However, plowing has several disadvantages . The potential for soil erosion is high on sloping lands, and labor and fuel requirements can be substantially higher than with other tillage and planting systems. Today, conservation tillage systems are used to reduce preplant tillage operations, thus reducing soil erosion and moisture loss while saving labor and fuel. The label conservation tillage represents a broad spectrum of farming methods, and is most often defined by the amount of residue cover remaining on the soil surface. The minimum amount recommended is 20 to 30 percent after planting. Research in Nebraska and other Midwestern states has shown that leaving at least this much residue will reduce erosion by more than 50 percent of that occurring from a cleanly tilled field. To achieve effective erosion control, this minimum residue cover should be maintained during the critical soil erosion period between spring seedbed preparation and crop canopy establishment. Conservation tillage does not necessarily require new equipment. Most conventional farm implements can be used. For corn, grain sorghum, or wheat residue, one or two passes with a field cultivator, disk, or chisel plow will usually leave more than the 20 percent minimum cover. Additional operations reduce the amount of residue, and thus reduce erosion control. Other tillage and planting systems such as ridge-plant (till-plant) and no till leave even more residue, and thus offer greater erosion control. However, no-till planting is the only method that consistently leaves the minimum surface cover in the more fragile and less abundant soybean residue. No single tillage system is best for all situations at all times. Selecting the best tillage system for a particular soil and cropping situation requires matching the operation to the crop sequence, topography, and soil type. Rotating systems to coincide with crop rotations often provides an excellent combination. For example, a no till system could follow soybeans while a chisel or disk system might follow corn. This tillage rotation provides the best erosion control following soybeans, and provides an opportunity for some tillage in the less fragile and more abundant corn residue

Tillage Systems for Row Crop Production

Selecting the tillage system best suited to a particular farming situation is an important management decision. Formerly, the traditional system was a moldboard plow operation followed by several secondary tillage operations before planting. This system can be appropriate for poorly drained soils having little or no slope and low erosion potential. However, plowing has several disadvantages . The potential for soil erosion is high on sloping lands, and labor and fuel requirements can be substantially higher than with other tillage and planting systems. Today, conservation tillage systems are used to reduce preplant tillage operations, thus reducing soil erosion and moisture loss while saving labor and fuel. The label conservation tillage represents a broad spectrum of farming methods, and is most often defined by the amount of residue cover remaining on the soil surface. The minimum amount recommended is 20 to 30 percent after planting. Research in Nebraska and other Midwestern states has shown that leaving at least this much residue will reduce erosion by more than 50 percent of that occurring from a cleanly tilled field. To achieve effective erosion control, this minimum residue cover should be maintained during the critical soil erosion period between spring seedbed preparation and crop canopy establishment. Conservation tillage does not necessarily require new equipment. Most conventional farm implements can be used. For corn, grain sorghum, or wheat residue, one or two passes with a field cultivator, disk, or chisel plow will usually leave more than the 20 percent minimum cover. Additional operations reduce the amount of residue, and thus reduce erosion control. Other tillage and planting systems such as ridge-plant (till-plant) and no till leave even more residue, and thus offer greater erosion control. However, no-till planting is the only method that consistently leaves the minimum surface cover in the more fragile and less abundant soybean residue. No single tillage system is best for all situations at all times. Selecting the best tillage system for a particular soil and cropping situation requires matching the operation to the crop sequence, topography, and soil type. Rotating systems to coincide with crop rotations often provides an excellent combination. For example, a no till system could follow soybeans while a chisel or disk system might follow corn. This tillage rotation provides the best erosion control following soybeans, and provides an opportunity for some tillage in the less fragile and more abundant corn residue

G91-1046 Conservation Tillage and Planting Systems

Tillage system descriptions and comparisons are included here. Moldboard plowing, followed by such secondary tillage operations as disking and harrowing, was once the most common, or traditional, tillage system before planting. Soil erosion potential from rainfall on sloping lands was great and requirements for labor and fuel were high compared to other tillage and planting systems. One of the most commonly used tillage systems in Nebraska today is two diskings followed by field cultivation. Unfortunately, the potential for soil erosion may be great because the number of tillage operations involved may not leave adequate residue cover for erosion control. Today conservation tillage systems reduce soil erosion and moisture losses while saving labor and fuel. Conservation tillage can represent a broad spectrum of farming methods, provided at least 30 percent of the soil surface remains covered with crop residue following planting. Research in Nebraska and other midwestern states has shown that leaving at least 30 percent residue cover reduces erosion from water by more than 50 percent, as compared to a cleanly tilled field

G91-1046 Conservation Tillage and Planting Systems

Tillage system descriptions and comparisons are included here. Moldboard plowing, followed by such secondary tillage operations as disking and harrowing, was once the most common, or traditional, tillage system before planting. Soil erosion potential from rainfall on sloping lands was great and requirements for labor and fuel were high compared to other tillage and planting systems. One of the most commonly used tillage systems in Nebraska today is two diskings followed by field cultivation. Unfortunately, the potential for soil erosion may be great because the number of tillage operations involved may not leave adequate residue cover for erosion control. Today conservation tillage systems reduce soil erosion and moisture losses while saving labor and fuel. Conservation tillage can represent a broad spectrum of farming methods, provided at least 30 percent of the soil surface remains covered with crop residue following planting. Research in Nebraska and other midwestern states has shown that leaving at least 30 percent residue cover reduces erosion from water by more than 50 percent, as compared to a cleanly tilled field

The role of reward and reward uncertainty in episodic memory

Declarative memory has been found to be sensitive to reward-related changes in the environment. The reward signal can be broken down into information regarding the expected value of the reward, reward uncertainty and the prediction error. Research has established that high as opposed to low reward values enhance declarative memory. Research in neuroscience suggests that high uncertainty activates the reward system, which could lead to enhanced learning and memory. Here we present the results of four behavioural experiments that examined the role of reward uncertainty in memory, independently from any other theoretically motivated reward-related effects. Participants completed motivated word learn- ing tasks in which we varied the level of reward uncertainty and magnitude. Rewards were dependent upon memory performance in a delayed recognition test. Overall the results suggest that reward uncer- tainty does not affect episodic memory. Instead, only reward outcome appears to play a major role in modulating episodic memory