Search

A range of content analyses have recently sought to define the term “regenerative agriculture”, which has gained a surge of attention in the last few years. However, these studies have not incorporated the voices of those using the term to define their work: the farmers, private companies, researchers, and NGOs giving energy to the movement. In this study, we conducted qualitative interviews with 19 stakeholders from across the United States. Key points of consensus were that regenerative agriculture moves beyond sustainability, is outcomes-based, and, as such, is context-specific: focusing on outcomes provides opportunities to be adaptive to a specific context and that, depending on one’s context, different practices may be used to achieve target outcomes. We identified three categories of outcomes: climate adaptation and mitigation, socio-economic benefits, and integrated systems. We also found several opportunities within the energy of the movement. First, regenerative agriculture remains a “big tent” that is still accessible to a broad range of farmers. Participants also underscore the need to move toward systems-based research as opposed to reductionist research. Finally, we present participants’ mixed perspectives on the role of government, the private sector, and third parties in moving regenerative agriculture forward.

Short-term probabilistic forecasts of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States have served as a visible and important communication channel between the scientific modeling community and both the general public and decision-makers. Forecasting models provide specific, quantitative, and evaluable predictions that inform short-term decisions such as healthcare staffing needs, school closures, and allocation of medical supplies. Starting in April 2020, the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub ( https://covid19forecasthub.org/ ) collected, disseminated, and synthesized tens of millions of specific predictions from more than 90 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. A multimodel ensemble forecast that combined predictions from dozens of groups every week provided the most consistently accurate probabilistic forecasts of incident deaths due to COVID-19 at the state and national level from April 2020 through October 2021. The performance of 27 individual models that submitted complete forecasts of COVID-19 deaths consistently throughout this year showed high variability in forecast skill across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Two-thirds of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions further into the future, with probabilistic error at a 20-wk horizon three to five times larger than when predicting at a 1-wk horizon. This project underscores the role that collaboration and active coordination between governmental public-health agencies, academic modeling teams, and industry partners can play in developing modern modeling capabilities to support local, state, and federal response to outbreaks.

C over crop management can sequester soil carbon (C), but the potential of cover crops to do so across the United States has not been clearly quantified. With concern about the rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth's atmosphere, solutions that sequester atmospheric CO2 are being sought. The soil has significant potential to store C (Batjes 1996), and the potential contribution of agricultural practices like cover crops to sequestering C in the soil is of particular interest to farmers, scientists, and policy-makers across the globe (Lal 2015). Though several studies have shown the ability of cover crops to sequester C on experimental plots and across the globe (Franzluebbers 2010; Lal 2015; Lal et al. 1998; Poeplau and Don 2015; Ruis and Blanco-Canqui 2017), research is still needed that addresses the regional and national impact cover crops can have on C sequestration across cropland in the United States. The United States surpassed 4 × 106 ha (10 × 106 ac) of cover crops in 2012, and farmers are projected to plant 8.1 × 106 ha (20 × 106 ac) or more of cover crops by 2020 (USDA 2014; CTIC 2016). This publication summarizes the results of a literature review and…

There is evidence that cover crops can bring both environmental and yield benefits to a farm operation, yet according to the USDA9s Census of Agriculture, in 2012 less than 5% of the nation9s total row crop land was planted to cover crops. In 2014, the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE) and the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) collected data on cover crop use from producers across the United States. Using data from early adopters of the practice, we examine the factors associated with higher percentage of land planted to cover crops and reliance on cost-share assistance. In addition, we provide rare insight into the number of producers discontinuing their use of cover crops and examine whether this group is distinguishable from continuous users. By understanding how producers use and finance cover crops, and identifying those most likely to continue their use, we provide insights into how policymakers and conservation staff can modify their strategies and increase the number of long-term cover crop users. Continuous use among early adopters is associated with a willingness to self-learn and experiment through trial and error, whereas the small number of producers in our sample discontinuing the practice typically operate large farms and perceive adoption to be limited in their area by the increased difficulties and costs cover crops bring to farm management. Promoters of cover crops should attempt to combat these perceptions by showcasing local examples where limitations have successfully been overcome. Despite evidence of concerns over the cost of cover crops, many current users are continuing to expand their cover crop land without the use of cost-share funding.

BACKGROUND: Platelet (PLT) storage adversely affects PLT structure and function in vitro and is associated with decreased PLT recovery and function in vivo. In pediatric transfusion medicine, it is not uncommon for small residual volumes to remain in parent units after aliquot preparation of leukoreduced apheresis-derived PLTs (LR-ADP). However, limited data exist regarding the impact of storage on residual small-volume LR-ADP. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Standard metabolic testing was performed on residual volumes of LR-ADP after aliquot removal and PLT aggregometry using a dual agonist of ADP and collagen was performed on stored, small-volume aliquots (10-80 mL) created from an in vitro model of PLT storage. RESULTS: Seventy-seven LR-ADP underwent metabolic (n = 67) or metabolic and aggregation (n = 10) studies. All products maintained a pH value of more than 6.89 throughout storage. Lactate and pCO2 increased proportionally with longer storage time. Regardless of acceptable metabolism during storage, aggregation in 10- to 20-mL aliquots was impaired by Day 4 and aliquots less than 40 mL demonstrated the most dramatic decrease in aggregation from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Despite maintenance of acceptable metabolic conditions, residual volumes of LR-ADP develop impaired aggregation in vitro that may adversely affect PLT survival and function in vivo. At volumes below 40 mL, LR-ADP revealed reduced aggregation. As a result, it is recommended to monitor and record volumes of LR-ADP used for pediatric transfusion. Moreover, once LR-ADP attain a volume of 50 mL or less on Day 4 or Day 5 of storage, consider discarding these products until their in vivo efficacy can be studied.

Double-cropping provides a method of diversifying the rotation, maximizing production, and increasing the profit potential of a cropping system. We assessed agronomic and economic performance of five alternative crops in comparison to the no-till wheat-soybean double-cropping system prevalent in the southern Corn Belt. Canola has shown potential as a profitable winter crop, but its effects on the subsequent crop in a no-till double-crop system required further study. Amaranth, buckwheat, sunflower, and pearl millet were planted after the harvest of canola or wheat, or after fallow. Alternative double-crop grain yield, production costs, and net returns were compared with those of double-crop soybean.Wheat yielded more than canola. Sunflower grain yields did not differ significantly after winter-crop treatments at any site. Yields of amaranth, buckwheat, soybean, and pearl millet differed after winter crops at some sites. At three study yield levels, net returns were positive and greatest for double-crop wheat-amaranth, canola-amaranth, wheat-sunflower, and canola-sunflower systems. All double-crop systems except canolapearl millet had positive net returns at median study yield levels. Low or negative net returns resulted from the combination of low yield and low price for some double crops. Canola was shown to be an economically feasible alternative to wheat in a doublecropping system for central and southern Missouri. Buckwheat and sunflower were shown to be agronomically and economically competitive alternatives to soybean following either canola or winter wheat, with buckwheat most valuable in late-season planting conditions.

Amaranth is an alternative grain crop that shows significant promise in the U.S. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to analyze the most suitable regions for growing amaranth in Missouri. GIS software provides tools to manipulate and display geographically based information, in this case the factors affecting amaranth's suitability. Of several such factors considered, the ones used were soils, rainfall, sorghum production, disease potential, and labor availability. Soil, rainfall, and disease information were assumed to be direct factors in yield potential. Current sorghum production areas were considered likely areas for amaranth production, given the similarities between the crops. Labor availability also was assumed to affect adoption, since amaranth requires more labor than traditional grain crops. The analysis showed that central and southeastern Missouri would be the most favorable areas for amaranth production. Other suitable areas are along the Mississippi and Missouri river valleys and in western Missouri. This GIS approach can be modified to include additional factors and refinements, and could be used with other alternative crops or for other regions of the country.

Over the past few years innovation has become a major subject of discussion in the press, academia, the halls of government and corporate offices.