University of Maryland Extension Winter Meeting Data 2023-2024 (FS-2024-0744)

The 2023-2024 winter meetings held by UME drew participants from 21 Maryland counties, Baltimore City, and out-of-state. These meetings aim to improve yields and profitability by updating farmers and agriculture service providers on relevant regulations and practices. The purpose of the surveys was to discover the following:

1. Demographics of those attending the meetings;
2. Farm production outcomes attributed to knowledge gained as a result of the meetings; and,
3. Impacts on the farm attributed to knowledge gained as a result of the meetings.

The surveys included a series of questions designed to learn more about the participants and their farms, including acreage, years of experience, and demographics. Survey participants farmed, on average, 605 acres (Figure 2), and 71% of participants have been farming for over 20 years (Figure 3). The majority of participants were full-time farmers (46%), with the next largest groups either part-time farmers (16%) or landowners (15%) (Figure 4). A small percentage of participants were also involved in agriculture through a university, government institution, or non-profit organization. Other participants included community gardeners and service providers.

Winter meeting survey participants self-identified as 82% male (322) and 92% (361) as white. Additionally, 11% of survey participants indicated that they had limited English proficiency, 8% were a protected veteran, and 5% indicated a disability.

Participants were asked to select their most significant farm challenges from a list and could choose as many as they wished. The most commonly selected challenges were input costs (66%), wildlife damage (54%), and regulations (53%) (Table 2).

* participants could select more than one therefore total is more than 100%

Participants were asked to indicate how much research and education they desired on various crop management topics. For each crop management topic listed, participants could check that they wanted “none at all,” “a little,” “a moderate amount,” or “a lot.” The majority of participants indicated that they were interested in “a moderate amount” to “a lot” of research and education on soil science and increasing soil health (81%), nutrient management technologies (75%), and current regulations and/or environmental laws (75%) (Table 3).

Participants were asked to indicate how they would like to receive educational information or training in the future. For each education or training method listed, participants could check that the method was “not preferred”, “a little preferred”, “preferred”, or “highly preferred.” A majority of participants indicated that they “preferred” to “highly preferred” half-day seminars or workshops (75%), Extension newsletters (66%), and/or hands-on training (65%) (Table 4).

Participants were asked to identify the five most troublesome weeds on their farm. The top seven weeds identified were marestail, pigweeds, johnsongrass, Palmer amaranth, morning glories, foxtails, and Canada thistle (Figure 5). Participants were also asked to indicate how often they applied specific weed management tactics in their weed management program. Most participants indicated that they sometimes or always use herbicides (93%), practice crop rotation (92%), and/or implement cover crops (81%) (Table 5).

Participants were asked about their experience with and application of pesticide applicator training. Responses indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that they had: 1) improved their ability to meet regulatory requirements (96%), 2) increased their use of safety practices (95%), 3) improved their ability to choose the most appropriate pesticides (94%), and 4) increased use of practices to benefit the environment (94%) (Table 6). Additionally, 79% of participants indicated that they have been able to reduce the use of pesticides on their farm because of pesticide training and education.

Participants were asked about their experience and application of nutrient management training. Responses indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that they: 1) use the training to meet regulatory requirements (96%), 2) better manage nutrients on the farm (93%), 3) keep better nutrient application records (92%), and 4) maintain or improve the condition of the soil (92%) (Table 7). Overall, 88% of participants indicated that they have been able to improve nutrient efficiency on their farm because of nutrient management training and education.

Winter meeting participants were asked how much they expected their yield to increase due to knowledge and skills gained from Extension programming. The average participant estimated an increase in yield per acre between 6.6% and 10.5% (Figure 6).

Winter meeting participants were also asked how much they expect their profitability to increase per acre due to knowledge and skills gained from Extension programming. The average participant expected to increase profitability between $16.23 and $25.23 per acre (Figure 7).

Approximately 45% of survey participants use irrigation in their operations, with 55% reporting that they do not use irrigation. Those participants who do use irrigation have a center pivot irrigation system (22%) or drip irrigation system (13%). Of those farms that do irrigate, the number of acres varied, with 25% irrigating less than 25 acres, followed by less than 23% irrigating 201-500 acres (Figure 8). When asked what crops were irrigated, survey participants reported corn (33%), soybeans (27%), vegetables (19%), and other crops (Figure 9). The water that survey participants used for irrigation came from an artesian well or groundwater (52%), a pond or lake (21%), streams (13%), or another source (14%) such as municipal water and reclaimed wastewater (Figure 10). Finally, participants said that they determined when to use irrigation by the condition of crops (43%), the feel of soil (26%), and soil moisture sensors (13%).

On-farm research is a collaborative process where farmers and researchers work together to test and evaluate agricultural practices, technologies, or systems directly within the farming environment. This research strategy allows for real-world application and testing under specific local conditions, providing practical and actionable insights. Questions were asked to understand more about farmers’ attitudes and participation in on-farm research.

When asked how important on-farm research trials are to agriculture, 47% of survey participants responded that on-farm research trials are “very important,” and 41% responded that on-farm research trials are “important” (Figure 11). Survey participants were asked how likely they were to participate in on-farm research in the future, with 66% saying they were likely or very likely to participate (Figure 12).

When asked to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with a list of potential reasons why they might be deterred from participating in onfarm research, many participants either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they were deterred by the time required (86%), complicated research protocols (69%), and the equipment needed (61%) (Table 8).

When asked to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with a list of potential reasons why they might be motivated to participate in on-farm research, many participants agreed to strongly agreed that they would be motivated by results that were relevant to the operation (92%), inputs or products supply (87%), and one one-on-one consultation (87%) (Table 9).

Participants could provide additional comments and feedback about the meeting. Many of the comments were related to the presentation topics and formats and the overall coordination of the meeting. Selected quotes about the day include:

• “It is very beneficial for all attendees to stay informed on new technologies, research, cost-sharing assistance programs, and government regulations and new laws”
• “Agronomy Day is always valuable. Keep up the good work!”

The University of Maryland Extension (UME) 2023-24 Winter Agriculture Production Meetings successfully provided updates and practical solutions to Maryland’s agricultural community. Reaching over 600 participants from diverse agricultural sectors the survey results highlighted the program’s impact, demonstrating its role in enhancing agricultural knowledge and practices that lead to the profitability and viability of this important sector. These winter meetings remain a cornerstone of UME’s mission to support Maryland agriculture, driving innovation and sustainability while fostering collaboration across the farming community. Future iterations will continue leveraging feedback and data to address emerging challenges and advance agricultural success.