Author: kal52

Exploring Winter Pea and Winter Lentil Pulse Production for the Northeast

Solveig Hanson1, Kristen Loria2, and Virginia Moore1

1 Plant Breeding and Genetics Section  2 Crop and Soil Sciences Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.

Figure 1. Winter-hardy pea (left) and lentil (right) growing at Peter & Hanna Martens Farm in Penn Yan, NY

Background

Due to high demand for Northeast-grown pulses for regional feed and food markets, a collaborative experiment was conducted to assess potential of winter-hardy grain pea and lentil production in the New York State. Production of winter pulses on Northeastern farms would support cropping system diversification and offer potential soil health benefits as fall-planted legume crops providing soil cover over winter.  Sustainable production in this region, however, is dependent on identification of material adapted to regional climate and identification of best agronomic practices. This information is currently lacking, with few commercial producers of winter pulse crops in the Northeast.  Preliminary variety trials and seeding rate trials were initiated in partnership with an organic grain farmer collaborator to open the door to increased production of winter lentil and winter pea in the Northeast, as well as inform future efforts to screen and develop winter pulse varieties adapted to the Northeast.

Methods

A winter pea variety trial and winter lentil seeding rate trial were conducted at two sites in both the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 growing seasons. At a Cornell research farm site each year, a spatially balanced randomized complete block design with all entries was implemented. At the on-farm location, a single replicate of the same trials was conducted using the mother-daughter participatory trial method, with only a subset of entries included for the winter pea variety trial and all seeding rates included for the lentil seeding rate trial. Management was conducted in accordance with National Organic Program standards, and on-farm trials occurred on certified organic land.

Winter Grain Pea Variety Trials

To identify regionally adapted winter grain pea cultivars, we compared performance of ten commercially available cultivars in two years of trials. All cultivars possess yellow or green seedcoats suitable for food or feed markets. Replicated trials on Cornell University Research Farms (Ithaca, NY area) were complemented by unreplicated trials at the Peter & Hanna Martens Farm in Penn Yan, NY. Pea plots were planted in mixture with triticale or winter oat; seeding rates were 175,000 pure live seeds (PLS)/ac for peas and 480,000 PLS/ac for triticale. Triticale (cv. ‘Chief’) was used as the companion crop at the research station trial both years, while an oat population selected on-farm for winter hardiness was used in Year 2 at the Martens Farm, sown at 60 lbs/ac. Pea varieties (Table 1) and ‘Chief’ triticale were sourced from ProGene. ‘Keystone’ winter pea was identified by farmer-collaborator Martens as a commonly used variety in New York State, and these trials were designed to identify varieties that might outperform ‘Keystone’.

Table 1: Varieties included in winter pea variety trials

Stand count and vigor were rated in both fall and spring; plant height, lodging, and disease were rated in early summer. Grain yield and biomass were harvested in mid-late summer, and crude protein analysis was performed after harvest. For yield data collection in the replicated trial , in Year 1 we hand harvested an 0.5 m2 quadrat sample from each 15’ x 4.5’ plot, but in Year 2 we used a mechanical plot harvester due to the plots’ high biomass. On-farm plots (approx. 0.2 ac each) were combine harvested using a flex header.

Results: Replicated Winter Pea Variety Trial

Year 1 (2022-23) was a normal-to-dry year, and we found significant differences among varieties for all traits (p<0.05 to p<0.001) except weed biomass (NS) in replicated trials. For most traits, analysis identified one or two lower-performing varieties but did not show much difference among the top-ranking 7 or 8 varieties. Shorter varieties with more stems – like Blaze, Vail, and Goldenwood – ranked higher for grain yield in both replicated and on-farm trials (Table 2).

Table 2: Year 1 replicated winter pea variety trial results, ranked by yield. ***, **, and * indicate fixed-effect ANOVA tests significant at p<0.001, p < 0.01, and p < 0.05, respectively. For leaf type, S = Semileafless and N = Normal Leaf.

The Year 2 replicated trial was in a high-moisture field and showed very consistent stands. We saw no significant difference among varieties for spring stand, total biomass, or triticale yield (NS), indicating that we succeeded in establishing consistent stands across the field (Table 3). However, we did see significant differences in plant height, lodging, disease severity, pea grain yield, and percent crude protein (p<0.01 to p<0.001). Top yielding varieties were the Keystone/Icicle mixture and Icicle. Icicle is a vining and indeterminate cultivar that had mid-range to low yields in Year 1 in both monoculture and biculture with Keystone. In short, wet field conditions favored indeterminate, normal-leaf, vining varieties that could outgrow disease pressure but that were prone to lodging.

Table 3: Year 2 replicated winter pea variety trial results, sorted by yield. ***, **, and * indicate fixed-effect ANOVA tests significant at p<0.001, p < 0.01, and p < 0.05, respectively. For leaf type, S = Semileafless and N = Normal Leaf.

To analyze grain yield over both years, we calculated Standardized Grain Pea Yield for each variety, as a percentage of the average same-year yield. A combined two-year analysis identified two varieties – Kurtwood and Goldenwood – that provided above-average yield (about 117% of same-year yield) in two very different growing seasons (Figure 1). Blaze and Vail – two semi-leafless, compact varieties – yielded much better in Year 1’s drier conditions, while the Keystone/Icicle mixture and Icicle – Icicle being a normal-leaf, tall variety – excelled in Year 2’s high-moisture . Keystone, a commonly used variety in New York State, showed relatively stable performance over seasons but only about 84% of same-year yield. Interestingly, the Keystone/Icicle mixture produced higher yields than either individual variety in both years. While we can’t conclude that variety mixtures are always advantageous based on this evidence, it suggests that further study of grain pea variety mixtures could be helpful.Figure 1: Standardized grain pea yield in Year 1 and Year 2, calculated as the percent of mean same-year yield.

Results: On-Farm Winter Pea Variety Trial

In Year 1, on-farm yield rankings were very similar to those in the replicated trial. In Year 2, on-farm yield rankings were quite different from the replicated trial, but they were similar to Year 1 on-farm rankings (Table 4). That is, over two years of trials on a single farm, it was possible to identify varieties that performed consistently.

Absolute yields were roughly 20x higher on the Martens Farm in Year 2 than Year 1. This difference is partially explained by an improved spring stand in Year 2; average stand counts were 83% higher in Year 2 than in Year 1, which in turn led to  lower weed pressure in Year 2. In addition, the use of winter oat as a biculture crop in place of triticale, and/or the use of a newly acquired flex combine header to more effectively harvest grain from lodged .

The success of winter oat as a biculture crop for winter grain pea was notable. Not only did winter oat facilitate effective winter pea production, its grain maturity aligned better with winter pea than did triticale, allowing for a higher quality dual crop. In addition, oats offer food-grade market opportunities, which are more profitable than the triticale feed market. USDA average grain pea yields from 6 Western and Great Plains States range from 1000-2000 lbs/ac (USDA-NASS, 2024), aligning with yields from the more productive varieties in Year 2 on-farm trial, plus both years’ replicated trials.

 Table 4: Year 1 and Year 2 on-farm winter pea variety trial results, ranked by yield.

Winter Pea Trial Conclusions

Two-year analysis identified two winter grain pea varieties – Kurtwood and Goldenwood – that provided above-average yield in two very different growing seasons at both research and on-farm plots. Notably, these two varieties provided higher yields than Keystone, the commonly used regional variety, along with similarly stable yield in different environmental conditions. We identified Blaze and Vail as varieties that performed well in drier conditions and the Keystone / Icicle mixture as excelling in a wet, disease-prone environment.

While vining, indeterminate pea cultivars performed well in higher-moisture conditions, harvest was only feasible with equipment capable of picking up large, lodged plants. Both triticale and winter oat were viable companions for pulse-cereal biculture. According to USDA reports, conventionally-grown Western state dry pea yields averaged between 1025 and 1922 lbs/ac in crop years 2021-2023. This study showed that Northeast farms are capable of producing dry pea yields competitive with Western and Great Plains states.

Winter Lentil Seeding Rate Trial

There is currently one commercially available cultivar of winter-hardy lentil, “Morton”, released by the USDA-ARS and belonging to the red market class, is typically consumed as a dehulled whole or split red lentil. “Morton” has been shown to consistently overwinter in zone 5b, with temperatures below -25 Fahrenheit (Green Cover Seeds).

   Table 5. Winter Lentil Trial Management

In both research station and on-farm trials in Year 1, plots suffered from high weed competition as well as inconsistent winter survival in the on-farm trial, and showed no difference among treatments in stand count, grain yield, or biomass (NS, results not shown).

Table 6. Research station trial results: Year 2

In Year 2, in which lentil was co-seeded with 70 pounds per acre of oat, establishment, weed suppression and winter survival was much improved, with significant differences in spring stand observed between the highest and lowest seeding rates in the research station trial (p<0.001) as well as observed differences in the on-farm trial. However, differences in lentil plant density among seeding rate treatments did not result in significant differences in weed biomass or lentil yield (NS) in the research station trial (Table 6). In Year 2, characterized by an exceptionally mild winter, overwintering was observed in the oat nurse crop both on-farm and in the research station trial. As a result, yields are reported for oat grain as well as lentil grain in the research station trial. Research trial results reflect hand-harvested yield, which does not account for expected yield loss during combine harvest. All on-farm plots were combine harvested using a flex header.

Table 7. On-farm winter lentil seeding rate trial results: Year 2

 

On-farm and replicated results suggested that modest-to-no yield is gained from plant populations greater than approximately 486,000 plants per acre. This approximate stand count was achieved with 40 pounds per acre in both replicated and unreplicated trials in Year 2, and additional plant density in the replicated trials did not produce substantially greater yield (Table 7).

Notably, use of an oat nurse crop facilitated successful establishment of winter lentil and reduced winter annual weed pressure, as well as possibly contributing to better winter survival. USDA reports lentil  yield from 4 western states (likely predominantly spring-planted), and conventionally-grown yields averaged between 600 and 1100 lbs/ac for 2021-2023.  This indicates that Northeast-grown fall-planted organic lentils can yield comparably to Western production regions.

Winter Pulse Profitability

Below is a partial budget analysis for winter pea and winter lentil, taking into account variable costs associated with production as represented by the on-farm trials conducted. Custom operation and post-harvest handling rates are taken from Ohio Farm Custom Rates 2024 (Ward et al.) or in personal communication with the farmer collaborator. Land rent value used was New York state average for 2024 (NASS). Income is calculated using these prices and average yields from the on-farm trials in Year 2.

A per acre yield value of 866 pounds reflects the on-farm trial average in 2023 for the 40 pounds per acre seeding rate. Price reflects an estimated value of food-grade NYS-grown certified organic lentil of $1.05 per pound when markets move beyond initial exploratory production (Martens, personal communication). Grain drying values reflect 5 percentage points of moisture removed (to 10% moisture), and on-farm storage for 6 months.

Table 8. Winter lentil partial budget analysis

With relatively few inputs and field preparation, winter lentil has potential for favorable partial returns given the high value of the crop being sold in regional marketplaces, with our analysis showing a net partial return of $643.63 per acre. However, as differences in year-to-year trial results indicates, managing weeds, efficiently harvesting this small-statured crop, effectively separating a cereal-pulse biculture, and ensuring access to markets for your harvested crop are all important considerations when considering this new specialty crop.

For the winter pea profitability analysis, the per acre yield used was 30.1 bushels (or .928 tons), the mean yield of the top 5 performing entries from the 2023 on-farm trial. A price of $700 per ton for organic feed-grade yellow pea in New York state was used. Grain drying was calculated at 4 percentage points moisture removed, with grain storage time of 6 months. Winter pea also showed favorable net partial returns at $412.04 per acre, and feed-grade organic yellow pea markets are more firmly established in the Northeast region, though most product is currently sourced from other production regions.

Table 9. Winter pea partial budget analysis

Conclusions

Preliminary results indicate that both winter grain pea and winter-hardy lentil can produce viable yields in the Northeast region. However, variable crop establishment and weed suppression resulted in variable crop yields between Year 1 and Year 2 of the trials in both species. This variability indicates that agronomic management as well as environmental conditions, especially winter conditions affecting survival and precipitation affecting disease infestation and seed quality, is likely to affect crop yield, ease of harvest and ultimate profitability. Results from these trials indicate that a companion or nurse crop for both winter pea and lentil may be important to controlling weeds in organic systems, due to the poor weed competitiveness of the legume species when fall-planted. A companion crop may also facilitate ease of harvest and disease control. However, when using a companion crop consideration is required of how the two crops will be separated after harvest. In the case of winter pea, the large pea grain is easily sieve separated from a winter cereal due to size difference. However, ‘Morton’ lentil was difficult to separate fully from triticale due to similar seed size. In Year 2 when intercropped with an overwintering oat crop, seed density was sufficiently different to facilitate separation using a gravity table. Overall, winter pulse crops hold promise for diversifying food and feed production in the Northeast and offering farmers new options for crop rotation and markets.

References

Green Cover Seeds. https://store.greencover.com/

Martens, P. Personal communication November 2024.

USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2024. Crop Production 2023 Summary. Accessed 8 April, 2025: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/k3569432s/ns065v292/8910md644/cropan24.pdf

USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2024. Land Rent Report 2024. Accessed 8 April 2025.

Ward, B; Richer, E; Barker J and A. Bennett. Ohio Farm Custom Rates 2024. The Ohio State University.

This project was funded by a Partnership Grant from Northeast SARE (Project # ONE22-424). Thanks to collaborator Peter Martens for project conception, hosting of on-farm trials and advising on experimental design and interpretation.

 

Profitability of contrasting organic management systems from 2018-2021 in the Cornell Organic Cropping Systems Experiment

Kristen Loria1, Allan Pinto Padilla2, Jake Allen1, Christopher Pelzer1, Sandra Wayman1, Miguel I. Gómez2, Matthew Ryan1

1School of Integrative Plant Science, 2Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.

About the Cornell Organic Cropping Systems Experiment

The Cornell Organic Cropping Systems (OCS) experiment was established in 2005 at the Musgrave Research Farm in Aurora, New York to serve as a living laboratory for organic field crop management systems and provide practical insights to farmers. This ongoing long-term experiment compares four management systems along a dual spectrum of external inputs and soil disturbance over a multi-year crop rotation. An advisory board consisting of a dedicated group of organic farmers provides guidance on management decisions. The four systems are compared in terms of several sustainability indicators including yield, profitability, soil health and greenhouse gas emissions.

Both external input and soil disturbance gradients of the four treatment systems range from an extensive approach (low input) aimed at maximizing profitability by reducing costs via efficient resource use, to an intensive approach (high input), aimed at maximizing profitability by maximizing yield. Risk associated with low input management includes reduced crop production from inadequate soil fertility or weed competition, which can lead to decreased returns despite low input costs. Risk associated with high input management include diminishing returns where productivity increases are insufficient to justify additional cost.

The four management systems of OCS are: 1) High Fertility (HF), 2) Low Fertility (LF), 3) Enhanced Weed Management (EWM), and 4) Reduced Tillage (RT). In 2018, the crop rotation was modified from a three-year rotation to a  four-year rotation based on advisor input.: This article includes an economic analysis of the complete four-year crop rotation cycle from 2018-2021, which consisted of: 1) triticale / red clover, 2) corn / interseeded cover crop mix, 3) summer annual forage mix / cereal rye cover crop, 4) soybean (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Four-year crop rotation for the OCS phase 2018-2021.

Looking back: key takeaways from past OCS cycles

Caldwell et al. (2014) compared the yields and the profitability during and after the initial phase of organic transition in OCS following two three-year rotation cycles (corn-soybean-winter spelt/red clover) from 2005-2010. The first three years were considered as transitional production years in which crops could not be sold as certified organic, while crops produced from 2008 to 2010 could be sold as such. They used flexible interactive crop budgets to calculate relative net returns based on crop yields, tillage, weed management and fertility practices and, after the three-year transition period, compared relative net returns of organic production with concurrent organic price premiums to Cayuga County yield averages with conventional crop production inputs and prices. With a 30% organic price premium, the relative net return of organic production in all systems except RT was positive. The RT system was excluded from most analyses due to major challenges with experimental ridge-till practices resulting in decreased crop competitiveness. For both corn and soybean phases averaged across entry points, relative net return in the HF system was significantly lower than LF or EWM, due to higher input costs without corresponding higher yields in the HF system. For the spelt phase averaged across entry points, relative net return was higher in HF than LF and EWM (though not significantly so), with increased input cost in the HF system corresponding with a yield increase. The HF system led to higher weed biomass over time than the EWM and LF systems.

Trial design and system differences

The Cornell Organic Cropping Systems experiment uses a split-plot randomized complete block design with four blocks. The main plot treatments are the four management systems, whereas subplot treatments are two crop rotation entry points (A and B) . Entry points A and B represent different phases of the crop rotation. For example, in 2018 entry point A was planted to triticale while entry point B was planted to soybean.

Treatment systems are arranged along a fertility gradient as well as a soil disturbance gradient (Figure 3). For triticale, summer forage, and corn, the HF system had a 50% higher fertilization rate than RT and EWM. LF received fertilizer rates 50% lower than RT and EWM on the same crops. Intermediate fertilizer rates were applied to both EWM and RT. With respect to soil disturbance, EWM received additional weed management operations in several crops, while RT and LF incorporated an organic no-till soybean phase. Overall number of primary tillage events was not substantially different between systems, though mechanical cultivation was reduced in the soybean phase for RT and LF.

Figure 2. Contrasting management approaches in four systems.

Crop yields across management systems

No matter the management system, crop yield is a key component of profitability. Yields across all four years of the cycle comprising five harvested crops are summarized below. Ryelage was only harvested in EWM and HF systems as the cereal rye cover crop was rolled-crimped for no-till soybean in LF and RT systems. Triticale was grown as a grain crop in EWM and HF and taken for forage in the LF and RT systems. Organic no-till practices were implemented in RT and LF systems only, with soybean planted into tilled soil in HF and EWM. In entry point A soybean yields were comparable across systems, but in entry point B organic no-till soybean yields were nearly half of cultivated yields, likely due to dry conditions in the soybean phase in 2018.

Table 1. Mean yields for all harvested crops across four management systems and crop rotation entry point from 2018-2021. Within an entry point, systems sharing a letter were not significantly different (p < 0.05). Means were not compared between entry points. Triticale in RT and LF systems was harvested as forage (lbs DM/ac) while in HF and EWM it was harvested as grain (lbs/ac). Means were not compared.

Net return of management systems

Net return subtracts total variable costs (TVC) of production (inputs + labor + equipment-associated costs) from gross income (crop yield x price). Prices for corn and soybean were obtained from the USDA organic grain report (USDA National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report, February 4, 2022). As commodity price references for triticale grain, cereal rye forage and summer annual forage were unavailable, prices were based those typically fetched for organic forage in NY (MH Martens and P Martens, personal communications, 2022). All operation-related costs were taken from Pennsylvania’s 2022 Custom Machinery Rates (USDA NASS 2023). To correct the absence of an inflation adjustment, crop prices and input costs used in this study were converted to real values using the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI), with 2016 as the reference year.

All values are denominated in U.S. dollars and represent the average annual revenue, production costs, and net return over four years. In the case of crop rotation entry point A, the LF cropping system exhibited the lowest Total Variable Cost (TVC). Conversely, the HF system had the highest TVC, which despite higher grain and forage yields, resulted in lower net return than LF, EWM and RT systems (Figure 4).

Overall, across four years of the crop rotation and in both crop rotation entry points (i.e., temporal replications of the trial) the EWM system maximized net return via intermediate fertility rates and relatively high yields, though the HF system yielded higher in both entry points Net return for RT and LF systems was more variable between crops and entry points, possibly indicating higher weather-related risk associated with those system approaches, i.e. reliance on cover crops for fertility in LF, and use of organic no-till management for LF and RT (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Comparison of net return and components across four systems in entry point A.

In entry point A, LF demonstrated higher net return than both HF and RT despite lower yields due to reduced input costs. Net return in RT narrowly surpassed HF due to lower input costs as well. In entry point B, LF ranked lowest in net return due to low grain yields across the rotation. HF ranked second and RT ranked third, with RT characterized by intermediate to low yields with intermediate input costs.

Figure 5: Comparison of net return and components across four systems in entry point B.

When net return of each management system is summarized by entry point, high variability in profitability was observed across entry points, largely due to yield differences between growing seasons of the same crop. Because management was nearly identical for each crop within each system across entry points, temporal variation in net return can be attributed to yield response from seasonal environmental or climatic factors either directly or in interaction with management. This highlights the complexity of systems experiments given year-to-year variation (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Net return comparison of all four cropping systems and two entry points.

Conclusions

Differences in yield and subsequent net return between systems varied significantly across entry points, making it difficult to draw conclusions on the most profitable system overall. However, the HF system had the lowest net return across entry points, indicating that input levels were likely higher than optimum and yield gains to justify increased inputs were not realized. EWM had the highest net return across entry points, indicating that intermediate levels of fertility combined with additional cultivation passes in the row crop phases and full tillage soybean production “paid off” as a management strategy, with increased labor or fuel costs outweighed by increased yields. Of course, this assumes availability of labor required which may be out of reach for some farms, and can be challenged by finite weather-related windows conducive to field operations.

Variability in net return between entry points was particularly high for the LF and RT systems, largely driven by yield variation in the soybean phase between temporal replications. For entry point B, intermediate corn yields and low organic no-till soybean yields drove low profitability in LF, while relatively high corn yield in RT partially made up for low organic no-till soybean yield. This variation in soybean yield highlights a challenge with an organic no-till management approach that dry conditions can reduce yields to a greater extent compared to a tillage-based approach. However, in an extremely wet year where adequate weed control was not possible, no-till management may pay off.

By accounting for system profitability only, this article does not consider other tradeoffs between systems such as soil health outcomes or greenhouse gas emissions from contrasting management, additional sustainability metrics to evaluate organic production system success.

References

Caldwell, B; Mohler, CL; Ketterings, QM; and DiTommaso, A. (2014). Yields and profitability during and after transition in organic grain cropping systems. Agronomy Journal, 106(3):871–880.

Gianforte, L personal communication. 2022.

Jernigan, A. B., Wickings, K., Mohler, C. L., Caldwell, B. A., Pelzer, C. J., Wayman, S., and Ryan, M. R. (2020). Legacy effects of contrasting organic grain cropping systems on soil health indicators, soil invertebrates, weeds, and crop yield. Agricultural Systems, 177:102719.

USDA National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report, February 4 2022. Agricultural Marketing Service.

Martens, MH personal communication. 2022.

Martens, P personal communication. 2022.

Pennsylvania’s 2022 Machinery Custom Rates. USDA NASS.

For more results from the Cornell Organic Systems Experiment visit the Sustainable Cropping Systems Lab website.