Abstracts of Second‐ and Third‐Place Undergraduate Papers

“Developing Enterprise Budgets for Sustainable School Gardens: Service Learning in a Global Context.” Ashley D. Jones, University of Arkansas–Fayetteville, second‐place paper. Service learning programs are becoming a part of curricula in universities throughout the United States. The University of Arkansas–Fayetteville (UAF) established a service learning program that targeted the educational, health, social, and agricultural needs of a community. This research aimed to provide students, faculty, community members, and school officials with a template for crop budgets to evaluate the costs and returns of producing multiple crops at a school. Crops produced in a sustainable garden must meet three criteria: (1) exhibit minimal negative environmental impact; (2) provide just‐in‐time production of crops to meet school needs; and (3) be solvent, either generating net positive revenue from the sale of crop or providing cost savings by growing crops at the school rather than purchasing them elsewhere. This proposal focuses on developing enterprise budgets for four crops: chili peppers, cabbage, corn, and tomatoes using an interactive Excel ® budgeting tool. The design of the interactive budgets is to provide a framework that students at the University of Arkansas–Fayetteville can use in their service learning courses when examining the costs and benefits of agriculturally based projects, while also being a functional aid for the recipients of the service learning program. “Effect of Low and High Concentrate Supplementation on Milk Production, Milk Quality, and Overall Profitability in a Pasture‐based Organic Dairy.” Stephanie Horton, California State University, Chico, third‐place paper. Decreasing levels of concentrate supplementation and increasing consumption of forage offer a way for organic dairy farmers to reduce input costs. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the effect of low and high concentrate supplementation on milk production, milk quality, and overall profitability in a pasture‐based organic dairy. Two concentrate levels L and H (12% and 24% of dry matter intake [DMI], respectively) were investigated in a herd of seventy‐six Holstein/Jersey cross cows for a forty‐one‐day treatment period. Milk yield, percentage fat, and somatic cell counts were comparable between groups. Protein percentage differed ( p < 0.05) among group L (3.04 ± 0.04) and H (3.18 ± 0.05). A difference ( p < 0.05) in percent solids nonfat between group L (8.78 ± 0.04) and H (8.93 ± 0.05) was identified. Overall, decreasing the concentrate supplementation levels from 24% to 12% of DMI was shown to have no impact on milk yield and little impact on milk quality in an intensively managed, pastured‐based dairy. The income over feed costs (IOFC) were also significantly ( p < 0.01) greater for the low supplementation group, making intensive grazing a viable option for organic dairy farmers with high‐quality pastures.