Scientists and policy experts at the American Farmland Trust and Sierra View Solutions have written about the importance of conservation practices and compiled data about the adoption of such practices by American farmers. They note that the USDA’s former Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC) program is now being re-launched as the “Advancing Markets for Producers” (AMP) initiative. This is likely due to the negative connotations the word “climate” has for Republicans who now control Congress and the executive branch. The rebrand announcement by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins called the former a Biden-era climate slush fund that benefited NGOs more than farmers, using the partisan insult that it was part of the “green new scam.”
The American Farm Trust (AFT)
emphasizes three vital practices for conservation of soil, air, water, animal,
and energy (SWAPA-E). These are cover crops, no-till or reduced tillage, and
nutrient management. Citing the 2022 census, they note that there has been a
17% increase in the use of cover crops on American farms since 2017. However,
there has been no change since then of no-till/reduced tillage acres. Despite
the benefits of no-till/reduced tillage, they suggest that reasons for the lack
of change are risk, cost, and lack of information and implementation support.
AFT analyzed PSCS data to determine the top 10 practices selected in projects,
which are shown below.
Below is a table by the USDA NRCS of resource conservation concerns for SWAPA-E.
Most conservation practices,
about 60%, actually conserve all six SWAPA-E resources. Typical co-benefits from AFT are
shown below.
The three most vital
conservation practices are also the most popular since they are effective. I
will cover each in more detail.
Cover Crops
Cover crops have many
benefits and address all six SWAPA-E resources. They reduce several different
types of soil erosion and preserve soil organic matter and soil organism
habitat. They increase aggregate stability and improve soil structure. The
roots of the cover crops help to increase water infiltration and soil aeration.
They also help to reduce sediment, nutrient, and pesticide transport to surface
waters and help decrease particulate matter and greenhouse gases. They improve
crop productivity and health, and they reduce pest pressure. They provide
terrestrial habitat for wildlife and invertebrates, and can improve the energy
efficiency of farming.
According to the 2022-2023
National Cover Crop Survey Report by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education (SARE) program, there was a 6.3% yield increase for corn and soybean
farmers with 10 or more years of cover crop experience. Farmers with less cover
crop experience showed less gains: soybean farmers showed a 3.4% improvement,
but there was no change among corn farmers. This suggests that a long-term
approach to cover crops will yield the best results.
“The impact of cover crops on net income can depend on how farmers incorporate cover crops into the overall farm. In the SARE survey, farmers who integrated livestock grazing into their cover crop program reported a 76% net increase in profit from the practice. Horticultural crop producers who participated in the survey found cover crops to be neutral or positive to their net income; 46% reported a minor or moderate increase, and 31% reported no change.”
Some results from the survey are shown below:
A section of the 2018 volume
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems titled ‘Cover crops use in Midwestern US
agriculture: perceived benefits and net returns,’ notes that cover crops can
and should become more widely adopted in the U.S. Midwest than they currently
are.
“Despite being generally accepted as a promising
conservation practice to reduce nitrate pollution and promote soil
sustainability, cover crop adoption in Midwestern US agriculture is low.”
The paper shows,
unfortunately, that cover crops often result in higher costs for farmers in the
short term, which likely accounts for the lower adoption rates in some areas.
In addition, the economic effects of cover crops vary by region, so economic
analyses need to take those variations into account.
“Our results highlight the complicated nature of
integrating cover crops into the crop production system and show that cover
crops affect whole farm profitability through several channels besides
establishment and termination costs. Despite farmers’ positive perceptions
about cover crops and the availability of cost-share programs, calculated
annual net returns to cover crops use were negative for most participants.”
The economic benefits of
cover crops are not instantaneous but improve as overall soil health improves
over time. This is a good argument for continued incentives to farmers to
implement these practices.
No-Till and Reduced Tillage
Like cover crops, reduced
till/no-till methods conserve all six SWAPA-E resources. Also similar to cover
crops, reduced tillage/no-till offers reductions in sheet, rill, and wind
erosion, and improvements in soil organic matter, soil organism habitat,
aggregate stability, and reductions in sediment, nutrient, and pesticide
transport to surface water. These methods offer significant reductions in
particulate matter and greenhouse gas emissions due to less usage of the diesel
power required for tilling. Plant productivity and health, and terrestrial
wildlife invertebrate habitat, also improve with these practices. Reduced
tillage/no-till practices offer the quickest return on investment since the use
of diesel to power tilling is reduced.
“Reducing tillage offers the quickest return on
investment as fewer trips across the field (e.g., cutting corn passes from 5 to
2) saves on machinery costs (wear-and-tear) and diesel fuel, and offers
considerable time savings to the producer.”
While slightly lower crop
yields can be an early downside to reduced tillage/no-till practices, the
long-term benefits will cancel out that downside over time since the practices
conserve and increase soil organic carbon (SOC). A 2025 study in Nature
Scientific Reports showed that over a 21-year period (2000-2021) SOC in four
states studied (Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota) increased by about
410 lb. per acre per year and yields increased by 63% for corn and 38% for
soybeans over that time period. The table below from the study shows the amount
of non-harvested biomass and non-harvested carbon that remains in the field
with reduced tillage/no-till practices, which increases SOC over time.
Nutrient Management
Nutrient management addresses
soil, water, air, and plant conservation, but does not affect energy and animal
conservation. It reduces organic matter depletion and improves soil aggregate
structure. Importantly, it reduces the runoff of nutrients and pathogens from
manure. It reduces particulate matter, greenhouse gases, including N2O, and
objectionable odors.
One method of nutrient
management that shows good results is called variable rate technology (VRT).
Most conventional nutrient management practices use a constant rate of
fertilizer application with the goal of providing an equal dose of fertilizer
to each plant. However, this often results in over-fertilizing some parts of a
field and under-fertilizing other parts, and often higher than desired rates of
fertilizer runoff. A July 2023 paper in the International Journal of Agricultural
and Biological Engineering studied the two main types of VRT: sensor-based VRT
and map-based VRT.
“The nutrient management depends on selection of
nutrient, application rate and placement of nutrient at the optimal distance
from the crop and soil depth. Variable rate technology (VRT) is an input
application technology that allows for the application of inputs at a certain
rate, time, and place based on soil properties and spatial variation in the
field or plants. There are two approaches for implementing VRT, one is sensor
based and another is map based. The sensor based approach; with suitable sensors,
measures the soil and crop characteristics on-the-go calculating the amount of
nutrients required per unit area/plant and micro controlling unit which uses
suitable algorithms for controlling the flow of fertilizer with required amount
of nutrient. In map based approach; Grid sampling and soil analysis are used to
create a prescription map. According to the soil and crop conditions, the
microcontroller regulates the desired application rate. The sensor-based VRT
system includes a fertilizer tank, sensors, GPS, microcontroller, actuators,
and other components, whereas the map-based system does not require an
on-the-go sensor.”
VRT has been shown to
increase fertilizer utilization efficiency and to reduce losses through
leaching and evaporation. It also has significant environmental and economic
benefits. The first table below from the paper shows the results of different
VRT methods for different crops. The second table shows the multiple and
significant environmental and economic benefits.
A March 2021 paper in Science
of the Total Environment shows that effective nutrient management can result in
increased nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) with corresponding economic and
environmental benefits. Highlights of the paper and a graphical representation
of economic benefits are shown below. Importantly, it confirms that nutrient
management can reduce nitrogen loads to nearby water bodies.
Combining and Comparing the Three Vital Conservation
Practices
AFT reports that:
“…a study by Jacobs et al. showed that when both no-till
and cover crops were used, the cost of cash crop production in the conservation
system was 43% less than the cost of the conventional system ($29.67 per Mg of
crop yield or $1.05 per bushel in the conventional till + bare to $17.04 per Mg
of crop yield or $0.60 per bushel in the no-till + cover system), though yields
did vary.”
The highlights and comparison chart from that April 2022
paper in Soil and Tillage Research are shown below.
AFT has also compiled 21 case
studies of various combined effects of these three vital practices along with
crop rotations, compost applications, and mulching for different crops. In
addition, they note that the Soil Health Institute (SHI) has 30 similar case
studies indicating beneficial economic results of these conservation practices.
They also include grazing. SHI’s studies show that there is considerable
geographic and regional variation on the effects of conservation practices in
different areas. Crop yields may be increased in some soils and regions and
decreased in others. This shows the importance of adopting practices suitable
to the local soil, climate, and geography. Even so, the benefits of
implementing soil health management systems (SHNSs) are quite significant.
“Improving soil health can help farmers build drought
resilience, increase nutrient availability, suppress diseases, reduce erosion,
and reduce nutrient losses. Many soil health management systems (i.e., a suite
of soil health practices) also benefit the environment by storing soil carbon,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving water quality. However,
investing in soil health management systems(SHMS) is also a business decision.”
“This project has demonstrated the consistently positive
economic benefits reported by farmers that have adopted soil health management
systems. The wide range of farms, production systems and climates included in
this project indicates that many more farmers may also benefit economically
from adopting these systems, thereby expanding the associated environmental
benefits for society and our natural resources.”
The Importance of Continued Public Investment and Science
& Technology Support
Typical conservation
management, according to AFT, involves USDA NRCS field agents, Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, and conservation NGOs working directly with farmers and
ranchers across the country to develop conservation plans and provide cost
share in the form of reimbursement to adopt and implement practices that
address those concerns. AFT emphasizes the importance of maintaining
conservation technical assistance. These programs are very popular. They
recommend two important actions that Congress can take to continue support for
these vital and other important conservation practices:
1) Transferring
remaining Inflation Reduction Act conservation funding into the Farm Bill to
increase the baseline for future funding for EQIP, CSP, RCPP, and ACEP—as has
been included in both the House and Senate 2025 Reconciliation bills making
their way through Congress now, and
2) Maintaining Conservation Technical
Assistance funding in this and future annual
appropriations processes.
References:
Why
Conservation Matters for the AMP Redesign and the Hill’s Reconciliation Bill. Michelle
Perez, Ph.D. June 28, 2025. American Farmland Trust. Why
Conservation Matters for the AMP Redesign and the Hill's Reconciliation Bill ·
American Farmland Trust
NRCS/USDA
Resource Concerns Table. ResourceConcernsTable_2022_reduced.xlsx
National
Cover Crop Survey Report: Agricultural Advisors. Conservation Technology
Information Center, Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education, and
American Seed Trade Association. March 2025. CTIC_Cover_Crop_Report_2025.pdf
Cover
crops use in Midwestern US agriculture: perceived benefits and net returns. In ‘Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems’. Cambridge University Press. April 29, 2018. Cover
crops use in Midwestern US agriculture: perceived benefits and net returns |
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems | Cambridge Core
Variable
rate fertilizer application technology for nutrient management: A review.
Pranav Pramod Pawase, Sachin Madhukar Nalawade, Girishkumar Balasaheb Bhanage, Avdhoot
Ashok Walunj, Pravin Bhaskar Kadam, Anil G Durgude, and Mahesh G Patil. International
Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering 16(4):11-19. October 2023. 2023VariableratefertilizerapplicationtechnologyfornutrientmanagementAreview.pdf
Increased
nitrogen use efficiency in crop production can provide economic and
environmental benefits. Matthew Langholtz, Brian H. Davison, Henriette I. Jager,
Laurence Eaton, Latha M. Baskaran, Maggie Davis, and Craig C. Brandt. Science
of The Total Environment. Volume 758, 1 March 2021, 143602. Increased
nitrogen use efficiency in crop production can provide economic and
environmental benefits - ScienceDirect
Tillage
intensity reductions when combined with yield increases may slow soil carbon
saturation in the central United States. Deepak R. Joshi, David E. Clay, Ron
Alverson, Sharon A. Clay, Shaina Westhoff, Jane M. F. Johnson, Tong Wang &
Heidi Sieverding. Scientific Reports volume 15, Article number: 10697 (2025). Tillage intensity
reductions when combined with yield increases may slow soil carbon saturation
in the central United States | Scientific Reports
Soil
Health Case Studies. American Farmland Trust. Soil
Health Case Studies - FIC
Cover
crops and no-tillage reduce crop production costs and soil loss, compensating
for lack of short-term soil quality improvement in a maize and soybean
production system. A.A. Jacobs, R. Stout Evans, J.K. Allison, E.R. Garner, W.L.
Kingery, and R.L. McCulley. Soil and Tillage Research. Volume 218, April 2022,
105310. Cover
crops and no-tillage reduce crop production costs and soil loss, compensating
for lack of short-term soil quality improvement in a maize and soybean
production system - ScienceDirect
Economics
of Soil Health Systems on 30 U.S. Farms. Soil Health Institute. Economics
of Soil Health Systems on 30 U.S. Farms - SHI
USDA
Cancels Biden Era Climate Slush Fund, Reprioritizes Existing Funding to Farmers.
USDA. April 14, 2025. USDA
Cancels Biden Era Climate Slush Fund, Reprioritizes Existing Funding to Farmers
| Home
No comments:
Post a Comment