W 337-B

BEYOND PLASTIC POTS Part 2: Compostable and R3 Containers for Nursery Crop Production Quinn Cypher, Extension Associate Amy Fulcher, Assistant Professor Department of Plant Sciences

Part II of this four-part series, “Beyond Plastic Pots,” highlights results from recent research on compostable containers and containers made from recycled and/or bio-based plastics, including significant projects conducted in partnership with the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture. Growers interested in incorporating alternative containers including compostable, R3 and plantable containers into their production systems will find the information in this series helpful for understanding and comparing plant and container performance and implications of container type on production practices and economics.

Compostable Containers and Containers Made R3 refers to containers made from recycled or bioplastics that can be reused and/or recycled. From Recycled and/ They are generally not compostable; however, or Bio-based Plastic, those containing some natural fibers will R3 Containers break down into smaller pieces over time. Using compostable and R3 containers, those made from recycled and bio-based plastics, on fertilization, water use, plant growth, as alternatives to conventional petroleum- container longevity and compostability. 3 based plastic containers was introduced in Compostable and R containers are similar Part I of “Beyond Plastic Pots,” UT Extension to traditional petroleum-based plastic Publication “W 337-A: Compostable, containers in terms of requiring removal Plantable and Other Containers for Nursery before the plant is installed in the landscape Crop Production.” In Part II we expand (Figure 1). However, unlike traditional plastic on the economics of using and marketing containers, compostable pots will decompose these containers as well as the impact over time.

BEYOND PLASTIC POTS | Part 2: Compostable and R3 Containers for Nursery Crop Production 1 Some biocontainers can be torn up Recycled soda and water bottles are and placed in the hole with the plant combined with plant-based fibers to make during installation or placed in a home fabric containers, such as Root Pouch. composting bin, while others require Compared to other containers presented in industrial composting to degrade. this series, Root Pouch is unique because it is available in large (up to 25 gallons) sizes. Although these containers do not Bio-based plastic containers are containers that are made from plant- or decompose, their natural fibers allow them micro-organism-based plastics and generally to degrade into smaller pieces over time. contain some petroleum-based plastics. Because they are made from recycled plastic, they are also more eco-friendly than their virgin plastic counterparts. Other Some compostable containers appear containers, such as Jiffy CarbonLite, are plantable due to their natural look, whereas made of a mixture of plant-based and others look similar to plastic. Because petroleum-based plastics and mimic the appearances can be misleading, it is form and function of plastic containers. important for the garden center retailer to understand the different containers they market so that they can inform customers on the proper use of the containers. Likewise, it is important that landscape contractors know the container types they are working with and not base decisions on appearance alone. Compostable containers made from molded fiber (recycled paper and/or cardboard [Western Pulp and Kord Fiber Grow] and rice hulls [Rice Pot]) are commercially available and come in a range of shapes and sizes. While most alternative containers are made in the smaller sizes typically used in greenhouse production, molded fiber and rice hull containers are available in larger sizes that are appropriate for nursery production. Other bio-based materials, such as bamboo, soy and poultry feathers, have been used to produce biocontainers and may become commercially available soon.

R3 containers made from post-consumer waste or bioplastics are also available.

Figure 1. Compostable fiber container (photo credit: Diana Cochran)

BEYOND PLASTIC POTS | Part 2: Compostable and R3 Containers for Nursery Crop Production 2 Economics

Compostable Containers three to five seconds to de-nest, whereas Compostable containers are generally rice hull containers (both compostable and attractive to consumers, and the main plantable varieties) take about one second difference in production cost is the purchase — about the same amount of time as for price of the container itself. Of the total plastic containers. Molded fiber containers cost of production (including the pot, the have not been tested for de-nesting speed; liner [transplant], the substrate, labor and however, it is likely that they are slower shipping), a 1-gallon plastic container priced than plastic. Compostable containers at 40 cents was calculated to be 9 percent are typically stronger than plantable in the production of ‘Green Velvet’ boxwood containers, and in some cases stronger (Buxus sempervirens ×B. microphylla than plastic, and lose less water through siebold var. koreana). By switching to a the sidewalls than plantable containers. fiber container priced at 62 cents, the cost Molded fiber containers are porous and of production would increase from $4.42 absorb water when irrigated, which to $4.65, or a 23 cent increase. Although increases their shipping weight and may switching to alternative containers may lead to higher shipping costs. Furthermore, change other factors that contribute to these containers dry more quickly, which, the cost of production, such as substrate in addition to increasing their irrigation volume and fertilizer, the most significant requirements, results in the substrate drying factor is the cost of the container. faster than plastic during transport.

Although container cost is a key concern Plants sold in these containers generally when assessing the economic viability bring a price premium, and, therefore, the of alternative containers, other notable additional cost can be recouped at the factors affect the cost of production as point of sale. As with adopting any new well. Because compostable pots are not production practice, there is a learning curve, reusable, nursery producers who typically which will likely affect the labor associated reuse their containers will assume the with the cost of production; however, this expense of buying a new container every adjustment period is anticipated to be brief. time. However, using a new plantable or compostable container eliminates the need for container sanitation and reduces the risk of pathogen contamination.

The different materials used to make alternative containers affect how they fit into the production system. Containers with rough sidewalls tend to stick together, which affects how quickly they can be de-nested. Plantable peat and manure containers take

Figure 2. Root Pouch (photo credit: Robert Geneve)

BEYOND PLASTIC POTS | Part 2: Compostable and R3 Containers for Nursery Crop Production 3 R3 Containers (containers made from recycled and bio-based plastic Plant Growth that can be reused or recycled) Compostable Containers As these containers mimic the form and Compostable containers generally have a function of traditional petroleum-based small positive effect or no effect on plant plastic containers, the factors affecting the growth, making them a suitable alternative profitability of these containers are the cost to plastic containers. The physical properties of the container and the price premium they of compostable containers have the bring at the point of sale. The exception to potential to affect plant growth. Porosity this is cloth containers, which have similar and chemical makeup, including their breathability characteristics and, therefore, ability to affect substrate pH and provide similar water usage characteristics, to nutrients to the plants, all provide means of plantable/compostable containers. Figure influencing growth. Available container size 2 shows an example of a cloth container must also be taken into account, as some made from recycled plastic by Root Pouch. compostable containers are not available in If these containers deviate from standard the exact size of their plastic counterparts. container sizes, the amount and thus cost of the fertilizer, substrate, shipping and other Probably the most important factor to inputs to produce each plant changes. consider when switching to compostable containers is their sidewall porosity, Helping the Environment which leads to moisture loss and lower and the Bottom Line substrate temperatures. When substrate Consumers are willing to pay a premium price temperatures exceed 104 F, plant growth for an environmentally sustainable product, is suppressed and root death can occur. and it is likely that the increased cost of the Compostable containers have cooler container can be recouped at the point of substrate temperatures due to color and sale. Compostable and recycled containers porosity. They are typically lighter in color typically do not develop algae and fungal than traditional black plastic containers growth that can be common on peat and and thus absorb less of the sun’s heat. manure plantable containers, which can lead Additionally, their porous sidewalls allow to a cleaner and generally more attractive moisture to evaporate and cool the root zone. plant. Considering that in an experimental auction where real money and product Cooler substrate temperatures can be exchanged hands, consumers were willing both positive and negative depending on to pay 58 cents more for chrysanthemums the situation. Climate must be considered in 4-inch rice hull pots than those in 4-inch when choosing alternative containers. In plastic containers; recouping an additional 23 warmer, southeastern states, using a porous cents to produce ‘Green Velvet’ boxwood in a container can prevent roots from being fiber container in the example above should exposed to high temperatures that are be feasible and in some markets profitable. harmful to plant health. However, in cooler, northern states, early-season growth may

BEYOND PLASTIC POTS | Part 2: Compostable and R3 Containers for Nursery Crop Production 4 be slowed by cooler substrate temperatures. (Hemerocallis) had increased growth (‘Aztec Substrate temperature in compostable Gold’) or improved appearance and increased containers remains below air temperature number of flowers (‘Stella de Oro’) compared during the heat of the day when root to those grown in traditional plastic damage is most likely to occur, whereas containers. The fiber containers were treated the temperature of black plastic containers with SpinOut, a copper-based treatment for exceeds the air temperature. Keratin, wood preventing circling roots and were compared pulp fiber (Western Pulp), coir (plantable) to black plastic containers with and without and fabric (Root Pouch) containers all had SpinOut treatment. Untreated fiber containers lower substrate temperatures than plastic were not tested. The SpinOut treatment on containers in Texas, Mississippi, Kentucky black plastic containers did not affect growth. and Michigan. Keratin, the least porous alternative container, had the highest A prototype container made from a 50/50 substrate temperatures among the alternative blend of polylactic acid (PLA — a plant-based containers, while the fabric container had material) and soy provides nitrogen to the the lowest temperature. These trends of plants. Initial fertilization is necessary until lighter, less porous containers (keratin) roots are able to grow toward the container having higher substrate temperatures than walls and benefit from the released nitrogen. the darker, more porous fabric suggest that However, these containers have the potential evaporation is the main cause of cooling. to provide an economic and environmental benefit by reducing the amount of synthetic Porous sidewalls can also lead to improved fertilizer necessary to finish a crop. For growth and survival, especially for woody example, by using the prototype soy-PLA species that are prone to root rot. In southern blend container, marigolds and tomatoes Georgia, ‘Otto Luyken’ laurel plant growth of equal size and quality to ones grown in a increased 53 percent and survival nearly plastic container were produced with an 87 doubled when grown in a molded fiber percent and 44 percent reduction in fertilizer, (recycled paper) container compared with a respectively. Furthermore, these containers plastic #1 (1-gallon) container. The increased can be broken into pieces and buried near growth and survival was attributed to an the roots of the plants to release nitrogen environment more supportive of root growth as they degrade and result in higher plant — lower temperatures, increased aeration performance. Containers made solely with and better drainage. Furthermore, fibrous soy-based plastic (not blended with PLA) root development improved in porous supply excessive fertilization, which can containers and was thought to be due to have a negative effect on plant growth and increased air exchange within the growing container longevity. The prototype PLA substrate. Improved root growth may result containers also offer the benefit of pruning in better plant performance in the landscape. roots and reducing root circling due to their chemical makeup. Fiber containers can improve the growth of perennials as well. For example, daylily

BEYOND PLASTIC POTS | Part 2: Compostable and R3 Containers for Nursery Crop Production 5 R3 Containers in a nursery setting likely due to their light Plant growth in R3 containers that mimic color and nonporous nature. Vinca water use the form and function of plastic containers during greenhouse production was slightly is likely to be similar to that in plastic lower when grown in 4-inch solid rice hull containers. As long as the porous sidewalls containers compared to plastic containers, of fabric containers are taken into account, likely due to the rice hull container’s lighter plant growth equivalent to that of plants color. However, this slight advantage over produced in plastic pots can be achieved. plastic was eliminated when containers In several states, ‘Green Velvet’ boxwood were placed in shuttle trays, which slightly growth was the same in fabric bags as in improved the water usage of both plastic plastic pots. However, in Texas, irrigation and solid rice hull and eliminated any water was based on volume rather than plant usage difference between the two. Shuttle water needs, and this resulted in smaller trays (Figure 3) reduced the irrigation ‘Green Velvet’ boxwood compared to those requirements of all container types tested; grown in plastic. As mentioned above, however, the greatest benefits were seen the porous sidewalls of fabric containers in the more porous plantable containers, result in evaporation that lowers substrate which are further discussed in Part III, UT temperatures more than plastic containers. Extension Publication “W 337-C: Plantable Containers for Nursery Crop Production.”

Cultural practices can reduce the water Water Use losses associated with porous sidewalls, in some cases to the level of plastic pots. Compostable Containers For example, in pot-in-pot systems, water Plants produced in molded fiber containers requirements and substrate temperature with porous sidewalls require additional will be comparable to plastic containers. In- water to match the growth of plants grown ground production insulates the container in plastic containers. When the water that is and protects it from exposure to the sun, lost through the sidewall is not replaced with therefore reducing the evaporation from the additional irrigation, there is a potential for sidewalls and moderating the temperature. water stress and, as a result, smaller plants. R3 Containers Generally, pots constructed from solid Many recycled/recyclable containers are rice hulls perform similarly to plastic made to mimic the form and function of pots in terms of water usage. It is also plastic containers and thus do not affect possible for biocontainers to outperform plant water use and growth. Porous plastic containers in terms of water use. fabric containers (Root Pouch) are the For example, a study found that keratin exception, as they lose water through containers, a prototype, resulted in lower the sidewall, resulting in lower substrate water use than their plastic counterparts temperatures and increased irrigation

BEYOND PLASTIC POTS | Part 2: Compostable and R3 Containers for Nursery Crop Production 6 requirements. When this water loss is fiber-recycled paper and/or cardboard replaced through additional irrigation, biocontainers) retained strength for a plant growth is generally not affected. one-year pot-in-pot production of river birch (Betula nigra), although after two years roots had penetrated the container Strength and bottom (Figure 4). Solid rice hull containers retained sufficient strength after 12 weeks Longevity of greenhouse production under overhead irrigation and 15 weeks of ebb-and-flood Compostable Containers irrigated greenhouse production. Although Most of the compostable containers perform untested, solid rice hull containers may nearly as well as plastic containers under be suited for longer production cycles. normal production cycles of up to one year. For example, in strength tests, containers Not all compostable containers are created made of molded fiber (recycled paper equal; even two containers that are made and/or cardboard), keratin and coir fiber from the same material can differ in strength. retained sufficient strength during a one- For example, thin-walled fiber containers year production of ‘Green Velvet’ boxwood (1-3mm, ~1/32-1/8 inch) are not suitable for (Buxus sempervirens ×B. microphylla siebold production cycles longer than six months, var. koreana) and Dark Knight bluebeard whereas thick-walled containers (5-6mm, (Caryopteris ×clandonensis) to be a suitable ~1/4 inch) will remain intact. Although the alternative to plastic containers. Kord Fiber above containers are no longer available, Grow and Western Pulp (both molded similar results showing the variability in

Fig. 3 Fig. 4

Figure 3. Shuttle tray (photo credit: Robert Geneve)

Figure 4. Pot degrading after two years in pot-in- pot production (photo credit: Guihong Bi)

BEYOND PLASTIC POTS | Part 2: Compostable and R3 Containers for Nursery Crop Production 7 strength are available for containers currently available in a variety of stated strengths in the marketplace. Tests of two molded from the manufacturer (Root Pouch). fiber containers (recycled paper and/ Root Pouch containers tested after 15-20 or cardboard) used outdoors in nursery months in production suffered from low production in Mississippi, Texas and Michigan tensile strength, suggesting they would showed notable differences in strength likely break during handling after one year although both were suitable for nursery in production. This factor highlights the production. They generally performed fact that container strength ratings from at least as well as plastic containers in manufacturers should not be taken at face terms of strength, and in some locations, value. Fabric containers (Root Pouch) have substantially better than plastic after 12 the difficult task of retaining strength during months in production. Strength varied by production and then breaking down after geographic location, indicating that growing the plant is removed. Environmental factors conditions (temperature, precipitation, affecting the rate of degradation should solar radiation, etc.) have an impact on the be evaluated for use at a given location. strength and longevity of biocontainers.

Irrigation amount and frequency influence the strength/longevity of fiber containers Home or Industrial because longer saturation results in faster breakdown. Furthermore, ebb-and-flood Composting? irrigation is known to weaken biocontainers. Tests conducted on long-term (15 weeks) The terms “biodegradable” and greenhouse crops found that bioplastic and “compostable” mean different things solid rice hull containers were weakened by to different people. Although all of the the end of the study; however, they were containers listed here as compostable still strong enough to withstand handling will eventually decompose, their rate of and transport and were deemed a viable decomposition may be slower than expected. container for greenhouse production. Some biocontainers require industrial The absorptive nature can increase the composting, necessitating transportation and weight and affect shipping costs. Weight of additional energy consumption. Containers molded fiber containers (#1 size) increases with a home compost option have a lower approximately 20 percent when wet. environmental footprint. For example, two brands of molded fiber containers were R3 Containers found to meet composting standards of Recycled containers or containers made from 90 percent degradation when ground; a mixture of bioplastic and petroleum-based however, when cut into 1-cm squares they plastic have not been strength tested but failed to be compostable after 90 days. will likely perform similarly to conventional Growers and retailers should be aware that plastic containers. Fabric containers are some compostable containers may not degrade quickly in a home compost pile.

BEYOND PLASTIC POTS | Part 2: Compostable and R3 Containers for Nursery Crop Production 8 Compostable and R3 Containers — Viable Alternatives

Nursery and greenhouse growers interested in increasing the sustainability of their businesses while meeting consumer demands for high-quality, environmentally friendly products have many choices for alternative containers that will meet or exceed the performance of traditional plastic containers. Recent research shows that consumers are willing to pay a price premium for green products and that alternative containers can survive the rigors of production and provide a profitable, high-quality end product to retailers, landscapers and end consumers.

For general information on alternative containers, see Part I (W 337-A), and for more details on plantable containers, see Part III (W 337-C). For a table format comparison of key features of alternative containers, consult Part IV (W 337-D).

BEYOND PLASTIC POTS | Part 2: Compostable and R3 Containers for Nursery Crop Production 9 References and Resources

Beeks, S.A. and M.R. Evans. 2013. Growth of Evans, M.R., A.K. Koeser, G. Bi, S. Nambuthiri, R. cyclamen in biocontainers on an ebb-and-flood Geneve, S.T. Lovell, and J.R. Stewart. 2015. Impact of subirrigation system. HortTechnology 23:173-176. biocontainers with and without shuttle trays on water use in the production of a containerized ornamental Beeks, S.A. and M.R. Evans. 2013. Physical greenhouse crop. HortTechnology 25:35-41. properties of biocontainers used to grow long- term greenhouse crops in an ebb-and-flood Fulcher, A., D.R. Cochran, and A.K. Koeser. irrigation system. HortScience 48:732-737. 2015. An introduction to the impact of utilizing alternative containers in ornamental crop Brumfield, G.R., A.J. DeVincentis, X. Wang, production systems. HortTechnology 25:6-7. R.T. Fernandez, S. Nambuthiri, R.L. Geneve, A.K. Koeser, G. Bi, T. Li, Y. Sun, G. Niu, D. Cochran, A. Gilman E.F., C. Harchick, and M. Paz. 2010. Fulcher, and J.R. Stewart. 2015. Economics of Effect of container type on root form and growth utilizing alternative containers in ornamental crop of red maple. J. Environ. Hort. 28(1):1-7. production systems. HortTechnology 25:17-25. Hall, C.R., B.L. Campbell, B.K. Behe, C. Camberato, D. and R. Lopez. 2010. Biocontainers Yue, R.G. Lopez, and J.H. Dennis. 2010. The for long-term crops. Greenhouse Grower 28:27-28. appeal of biodegradable packaging to floral consumers. HortScience 45:583-591. Center for Applied Horticultural Research. 2009. Effect of biocontainer type on shoot and Ingram, D. and S. Nambuthiri. 2012. Using plantable root growth of tomatoes and coir pot effect on containers for selected groundcover plant production. field establishment on tomato plants. 31 Dec. ASHS Annual Meeting. HortScience 47(9):S22 (Abstr.). 2013. cfahr.org/center/AnnualReport.html Ingram, D.L., T.A. Woods, W. Hu, and S. Center for Applied Horticultural Research. 2010. Nambuthiri. 2015. Willingness-to-pay comparisons Performance of biopots under greenhouse conditions. for flats of groundcover plants in plantable 17 April 2015. cfahr.org/2010AnnualReport/Part9.pdf containers: Consumers versus commercial buyers in Kentucky. HortScience 50(3):408-411. Conneway, R., S. Verlinden, A.K. Koeser, M. Evans, R. Schnelle, V. Anderson, and J.R. Stewart. 2015. Use Jiffy Pots. 2015. Jiffy CarbonLite. 12 January 2015. of biocontainers for long- and short-term greenhouse jhttp://www.jiffygroup.com/assets/files/ crop production. HortTechnology 52:26-34. ProductSheets/Jiffy%20CarbonLite/Jiffy% 20CarbonLite_USA_Salesheet%201% Curry, C., J. Schrader, K. McCabe, W. Graves, 20sided-06-10LR.pdf D. Grewell, G. Srinivasan, and S. Madbouly. 2014. Soy containers: Growing promise, growing Khachatryan, H., B. Campbell, C. Hall, B. Behe, C. plants. GrowerTalks February, p. 60-65. Yue, and J. Dennis. 2014. The effects of individual environmental concerns on willingness to pay for Evans, M.R., and D.L. Hensley. 2004. Plant growth sustainable plant attributes. HortScience 49:69-75. in plastic, peat, and processed poultry feather fiber growing containers. HortScience 39:1012-1014. Koeser, A.K., G. Kling, C. Miller, and D. Warnock. 2013. Compatibility of biocontainers Evans, M.R., and D. Karcher. 2004. Properties in commercial greenhouse crop production. of plastic, peat and processed poultry feather HortTechnology 23:149-156. growing containers. HortScience 39:1008-1011.

BEYOND PLASTIC POTS | Part 2: Compostable and R3 Containers for Nursery Crop Production 10 Koeser, A.K., S.T. Lovell, M.R. Evans, RootPouch 2015. RootPouch frequently asked and J.R. Stewart. 2013. Biocontainer questions. 17 April 2015. rootpouch.com/faq water use in short-term greenhouse crop production. HortTechnology 23:215-219. Ruter, J.M. 1999. Fiber pots improve survival of ‘Otto Luyken’ laurel. Proc. Southern Koeser, A.K., S.T. Lovell, A.C. Petri, R.G. Brumfield, Nursery Assn. Res. Conf. 44:37-38. and J.R. Stewart. 2014. Biocontainer use in a Petunia ×hybrida greenhouse production system: Ruter, J.M. 2000. Biodegradable fiber A cradle-to-gate carbon footprint assessment of containers improve the growth of two secondary impacts. HortScience 49:265-271. daylily cultivars. Acta Hort. 517:271-274.

Li, T., G. Bi, G. Niu, S. Nambuthiri, R. Geneve, Schrader, J., G. Srinivasan, D. Grewell, K. X. Wang, T. Fernandez, Y. Sun, and X. Zhao. McCabe, and W. Graves. 2013. Fertilizer effects of 2015. The feasibility of using biocontainers in soy-plastic containers during crop production and a pot-in-pot system for nursery production transplant establishment. HortScience 48:724-731. of river birch. HortTechnology 25:57-62. Sun, Y., G. Niu, A. Koeser, G. Bi, V. Anderson, K. Lopez, R.G. and D.M. Camberto. 2011. Growth Jacobsen, R. Conneway, S. Verlinden, R. Stewart, and development of ‘Eckespoint Classic Red’ and S.T. Lovell. 2015. Impact of biocontainers on poinsettia in biodegradable and compostable plant performance and container decomposition containers. HortTechnology 21:419-423. in the landscape. HortTechnology 25:63-70.

Nambuthiri, S., A. Fulcher, A. Koeser, R. Geneve, Wang, X. 2013. Irrigation management and and G. Niu. 2015. Moving towards sustainability alternative containers for more sustainable nursery with alternative containers for greenhouse production. Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MS thesis. and nursery crop production: A review and research update. HortTechnology 25:8-16. Wang, X., R.T. Fernandez, B.M. Cregg, R. Auras, A. Fulcher, D.R. Cochran, G. Niu, Y. Sun, Nambuthiri, S., R.L. Geneve, Y. Sun, X. Wang , G. Bi, S. Nambuthiri, and R.L. Geneve. 2015. R.T. Fernandez, G. Niu, G. Bi, and A. Fulcher. 2015. Multi-state evaluation of plant growth and Substrate temperature in plastic and alternative water use in plastic and alternative nursery nursery containers. HortTechnology 25:50-56. containers. HortTechnology 25(1):42-49.

Nambuthiri, S., R. Schnelle, A. Fulcher, R. Geneve, A. Koeser, S. Verlinden, and R. Conneway. 2013. Alternative containers for a sustainable greenhouse and nursery crop production. Univ. Kentucky Coop. Ext. Serv. HortFact-600. This publication series was possible due to support from the USDA Specialty Crop Research Privett, D.W. and R.L. Hummel. 1992. Root and Initiative project No. 2010-01190 and the shoot growth of ‘Coral Beauty’ cotoneaster and University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture. leyland cypress produced in porous and nonporous containers. J. Environ. Hort. 10:133-136.

BEYOND PLASTIC POTS | Part 2: Compostable and R3 Containers for Nursery Crop Production 11 W 337-B 11/15 16-0011 Programs in agriculture and natural resources, 4-H youth development, family and consumer sciences, and BEYOND PLASTICresource POTS development. | Part 2: UniversityCompostable of Tennessee and R3 Containers Institute offor Agriculture, Nursery Crop U.S. Production Department of Agriculture and county 12 governments cooperating. UT Extension provides equal opportunities in programs and employment.