Search
Displaying 111 - 120 of 379
September 30, 2009
Agribusiness Papers
connectivity of social networking sites with the
outcome-focused …
August 5, 2016
Breakout session presentations
developed methods to analyze
site-specific yield monitor data … developed methods to analyze
site-specific yield monitor data …
Breakout Sessions
developed methods to analyze
site-specific yield monitor data … developed methods to analyze
site-specific yield monitor data …
May 1, 2018
Production Publications, KFMA Research
3
reported a decrease in yields. Approximately 23% to 33% reported no change in yield depending upon the crop
(Table 1).
Table 2 reports the respondents’ observed changes associated with continuous no‐tillage adoption. Ninety‐
five percent of the no‐till users reported a decrease in soil erosion, and 65.8% reported lower weed pressure. The
percent reporting an increase in soil fertility was 55.9%. No‐tillage did require more intensive management as 66.4%
reported an increase in management intensity. However, 34.9% reported no change or less time (23.7%) required to
manage the crop. For off‐farm environmental benefits, 67.8% reported greater off‐site environmental impact (Table
2). The greater the environmental impact, the more off‐farm environmental benefits occurred due to reduced soil
erosion, nutrient leaching, and carbon emissions. Further, 65.8% reported higher yields, 40.1% reported lower
production costs and 69.7% reported higher net returns.
A focus group questionnaire was used by a moderator to facilitate conversation among the same individuals
who completed the survey. We had a total of 22 groups, with the size of the focus groups ranging from 6 to 16 with
an average of 10 participants. In this report, we concentrate on whether or not the participants had experienced any
unintended or unexpected benefits from adopting no‐tillage practices. Focus group participants were pleased with
no‐tillage practices overall and many saw unintended benefits from adopting no‐tillage. Ninety‐three total responses
from the focus groups were related to unintended benefits, with common answers arising between focus groups to
the aforementioned question.
Less time in the field and using less labor were the two most common responses shared among focus groups
participants. Of the 93 unintended benefits responses, less time and less labor were mentioned in 15 out of the 22
groups or 68%. The ability to expand and farm more acres resulted in seven responses or 7.5%. Another unintended
benefit that also had seven responses was the combination of higher and more consistent crop yield. In addition to
unintended benefits being shared across different focus groups, there was almost always some agreement among the
individual groups when an unintended benefit was mentioned. Expanding and farming more acres was a response
shared in seven of the 22 groups or nearly 32%.
Kansas State University Department Of Agricultural Economics Extension Publication …
June 9, 2020
Ag Law Issues
growing season to address off-site drift. The EPA approved … could be
damaged by off-site drift that could result in …
November 1, 2012
Animal Well-Being
processing records and injection site maps 15. Feed delivery records …
March 1, 2010
Cattle Finishing Returns
Management Association web site
(www.agmanager.info/kfma …
February 1, 2010
Cattle Finishing Returns
Management Association web site
(www.agmanager.info/kfma …
May 21, 2010
practices?
• Would ‘site unseen’ meat from other …
January 13, 2017
Center
12/29/16
7
http://www.agmanager.info/sites/default/files/pdf/DifferencesBetweenHighMediu
mLowProfitCow-CalfProducers_2011-2015.pdf
8
9
Variability …