The 'demise' of plow-based farming is coming as farmers use healthier ways to grow food

Jesse Stubs plowing, prepares soil to plant corn on newly-terraced land in Flint River Farms, Ga.,
in May 1939. (Marion Post Wolcott, Library of Congress Prints &Photos via the Post)

The enduring match of farms and plows seems destined for a breakup as more farmers incorporate no-till farming practices. "The demise of the plow and other tools that turn the soil is a rare good-news story in these depressing times for Planet Earth," writes Dana Milbank in his Washington Post opinion. "Modern, mechanized tillage [is] an ecological disaster, killing all that was alive in the soil while worsening erosion and runoff."

Over the past five decades, farmers realized how much harm tilling was doing and began to step away from their plows. Milbank explains, "In 1973, 82.2% of U.S. cropland was managed by conventional tillage, and only 2% was managed by 'no-till' methods, with the remaining 15.8% using reduced tillage. Half a century later, only 27% of U.S. cropland uses conventional tillage, with 38% now using no-till and 35% using reduced tillage."

Part of the shift to no-till includes a change in farming culture. Milbank adds, "If Big Ag destroyed the soil with its heavy use of chemicals and monster tilling equipment, the new agriculture is about building soil health so that it can nurture as it once did." The no-till resurgence takes its lessons from "traditional farming methods that existed for centuries before chemical fertilizers and pesticides. . . . and newer technologies, such as drilling seeds into the soil to preserve the soil’s structure."

John Piotti, head of the American Farmland Trust, which has been working on regenerative practices with big and small farmers and food companies including Land O’Lakes and General Mills, told Milbank, "It’s a very good trend — an excellent trend . . . . It’s really about whether we’re going to have a planet we can live on.”

Republicans float $50 billion in cuts to farm programs that Democrats want to preserve; top Democrat's role debated

Republicans have tentatively proposed $50 billion in possible cuts to farm programs, and all the Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee are objecting, while some worry about how the committee's top Democrat is handling negotiations with the Republican majority, Politico reports.

The cuts include money for conservation and climate-change-prevention programs that were included in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act passed by House Democrats when they were in the majority, "to make up budget shortfalls in other sections of the Farm Bill, like the commodity support title," Politico reports. Democrats "contend the money should be kept where it is because demand for the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, two programs boosted by the IRA, far exceeds the available funding."

Rep. Scott (Photo by Bill O'Leary, The Washington Post)

The list of possible cuts "was presented to Democrats by ranking member David Scott at a previously unreported meeting two weeks ago, and it raised new concerns about his ability to negotiate a Farm Bill with Republicans," Politico reported Friday. "Scott didn’t tell panel members where the $50 billion would come from before the meeting, only that the committee had found extra money to be used for bipartisan priorities," according to anonymous sources. "So Democratic members were flummoxed when Scott’s staff presented the list of climate and nutrition programs that would be hit."

The list includes "$15 billion in unspent funds from Democrats’ prized IRA climate-agriculture programs, limits on future updates to the Thrifty Food Plan and the Conservation Reserve Program," as well as "potential clawbacks to the Commodity Credit Corp., USDA’s internal bank," which "has come under intense scrutiny from both sides of the aisle after it was used to bail out farmers injured by former President Donald Trump’s trade war, and to stand up the Biden administration’s flagship Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program."

Grasslands fill up Conservation Reserve Program, which shows crop production and soil conservation can co-exist

Grassland in the program (Natural Resources and Conservation Service photo)

The largest federal program to preserve fragile land, the Conservation Reserve Program, has reached its enrollment limit for the first time in 10 years, reports Chuck Abbott of Successful Farming. "Thanks to surging interest in the Grassland CRP option . . . grasslands will become the largest element in the reserve, with more than 9 million acres enrolled." 

Farm policy expert Carl Zulauf of Ohio State told Abbott: "The new Farm Bill presents a generational opportunity to repurpose CRP." Abbott reports, "Grasslands will be the largest component of CRP, he said." Zach Ducheneaux, administrator of USDA's Farm Service Agency, added: "A carbon-capture CRP initially focused on grasslands may offer more potential to capture carbon than the much-debated, currently unproven carbon markets for the 318 million acres of principal crops in the United States. . . . Grassland CRP clearly demonstrates that conservation priorities and agricultural productivity not only have the capacity to coexist but also complement and enhance one another."

CRP pays landowners "an annual rent in exchange for taking fragile cropland out of production with  'the long-term goal to reestablish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat through contracts that run for 10 to 15 years,' said a USDA summary," Abbott notes. It was re-established in 1985, as a successor to the Soil Bank program of the 1950s and '60s, which was phased out due to concerns that it hurt farm economies in some places. Now, it's the "largest federal land-retirement program. . . . It costs close to $2 billion a year. . . . There were 23 million acres in the reserve at the end of May. The program cap is 27 million acres."

CRP acreage dipped around 2007 "due to factors that included a reduction in rental rates and higher commodity prices that made crop production more attractive," Abbott explains. "[It] was reduced repeatedly over the years by Congress. The 2018 farm law reversed course, starting at 24 million acres in fiscal 2019 and rising to 27 million acres this year. . . Grassland CRP pays an annual rent while allowing producers to graze livestock and harvest hay from the land. Rental payments were set at a minimum of $15 an acre. The USDA says the program helps sequester carbon in vegetation and the soil and increases resilience to drought and wildfire."

"Of the land accepted for Grasslands CRP, 430,899 acres were in Colorado, followed by 417,865 acres in Nebraska and 325,443 acres in South Dakota," Abbott adds. "For the CRP overall, the leading states were Colorado, with 2.45 million acres; Texas, with 2.16 million acres; and South Dakota, with 2.1 million acres."

Fast-rising sea slowly erasing coastal Virginia communities

Most of Hog Island has eroded into the Atlantic
Ocean. (Photo map by The Washington Post)

In 1892, the town of Broadwater, on Virginia's Hog Island, was a bustling community with hunting and fishing clubs, families and plenty of oysters. By the early 1900s, the effects of erosion could be seen along the coastline of the southern Delmarva Peninsula, and now "The remains of Broadwater have been lost to the Atlantic Ocean," and the town residents moved to is being threatened by rising sea level, report Chris Mooney, Zoeann Murphy and Simon Ducroquet of The Washington Post.

Buddy Bell, born on Hog Island, told the writers, "I was the next-to-last kid born on there. At one time the island was two miles wide, and now you can throw a shell across it." His family, like many on the island, barged their homes to Oyster, Va., and started over.

Now Oyster is "threatened by a fast-rising ocean, as is much of the U.S. East Coast," they write. "The menace today is different: human-caused climate change. But for some in Oyster, the question of the past echoes today: stay or go?"

Global warming is expanding the ocean, and it's impossible to know how high it will rise. Tide gauges have measured sea levels since 1927, and readings in places like nearby Hampton Roads have been grim. The Post reports, "Seas there rose by more than six millimeters annually over the past 30 years, compared with four millimeters per year during the three decades before."

Post map shows hotspot is sea-level rise.

Barrier islands change for many reasons, but Virginia's are changing at an accelerated rate. "Just 250 miles off Virginia, one of the world’s most dramatic sea-level-rise hot spots has emerged, revealed by satellite measurements that began three decades ago," the Post reports. "Signaling a shift in the Gulf Stream, a massive current that carries heat northward, it’s the most visible sign of a rapidly changing ocean." Kris Karnauskas, a sea-level-rise expert at the University of Colorado, told the writers, “That hot spot just happens to be the loudest symptom of something large-scale and grand going on."

"Oyster now sits near this emerging sea-level-rise hot spot," the reporters write, "and so does part of the legacy of life on Hog Island." The Virginia Coast Reserve Program for the Nature Conservancy, which owns much of the land around Oyster, is hoping to help the community develop a global warming relocation plan.

Vilsack rejects calls to open conservation land for crops to help avert global food shortage, says it would help little

The United States and allies have pledged to plant more crops this spring to avert a global food shortage from the war in Ukraine. But Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack "poured cold water on Republican and industry calls to pull land out of the Conservation Reserve Program and put it back into production," Ximena Bustillo reports for Politico's Weekly Agriculture.

Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa, wrote in a March 31 letter to the National Grain and Feed Association: "Quickly converting this land to crop production is clearly unfeasible, even if we were to overlook the negative consequences of increased erosion and reduced water quality, wildlife habitat reduction, and decreased carbon sequestration and storage."

Conservation Reserve, once called "the soil bank," pays farmers a yearly rate to allow land subject to erosion and other damage to go fallow for at least a decade to improve its health. "They can receive higher payments by adopting certain climate-friendly practices that improve water quality, increase carbon sequestration or protect wildlife habitats," Bustillo reports.

Vilsack said only 1.3 percent of land in the program is prime farmland ready for planting, much is experiencing "significant levels of drought," and most is grassland far better suited to grazing than crops. Not only would it be impossible to get all of it ready to plant this year, he said, but most of it would produce poorly, and growing crops would create a "significant and detrimental impact on producers’ efforts to mitigate climate change and maintain the long-term health of their land."

New virtual platform set up by land-grant universities lets farmers help other farmers with greener farming practices

A new virtual platform allows farmers to swap tips and tutorials on greener farming practices.

"One Good Idea was created to increase farmer-to-farmer learning about methods to improve soil, land and finances. Topics cover an array of subjects such as cover crops, conservation tillage, rotational grazing and nutrient management," Jordan Strickler reports for the University of Kentucky's College of Agriculture, Food and Environment. Farmers can submit videos, podcasts or ideas in other formats sharing how they successfully adopted such practices.

Farmers can share how they improve soil health and other such practices to help farmers considering similar practices, Strickler reports. The project is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and is a collaboration of land-grant universities: UK, Mississippi State University, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Arkansas and the University of Illinois.

Iowa State professor gets 'genius grant,' will study water quality, sustainable row crops, biodiversity, soil conservation

Lisa Schulte Moore

Lisa Schulte Moore, an Iowa State University professor of natural resource ecology and management, has won a MacArthur Fellowship, sometimes called a "Genius grant." As a 2021 fellow, Schulte Moore will get $625,000 to spend as she pleases to further her study of sustainable agriculture. The MacArthur Foundation website says she'll use those funds to implement "locally relevant approaches to build soil, improve water quality, protect biodiversity, and strengthen the resilience of row-crop agriculture."

At Iowa State, Schulte Moore has "conducted groundbreaking research as a landscape ecologist working closely with farmers to build more sustainable and resilient agricultural systems," says an Iowa State press release. "She pushes the boundaries of her field by incorporating other disciplines traditionally thought of as beyond the scope of ecology – economics, engineering and sociology, for instance – to address critical challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, water quality and rural depopulation."

A prairie strip on an Iowa farm (Iowa State University photo)

Much of her work addresses integrating native prairie plants into farms to improve production and conserve resources and species. She has been instrumental in the university's Prairie STRIPS program, which aims to protect soil and water while providing narrow bands of habitat for prairie species. "She and her team's research have shown that strips of native prairie in agricultural fields can tremendously reduce soil loss and runoff of nitrogen and phosphorous by having more roots in the ground to hold soil and nutrients in place," Phillip Sitter reports for the Ames Tribune. "Prairie strips are now used on more than 115,000 acres of fields in 14 states, and the conservation practice has been federally recognized as eligible for government financial support by the 2018 Farm Bill."

Schulte Moore said, "I think of my work as putting together a puzzle, and I’m always looking for the missing puzzle piece. Where do I have to go or what do I have to learn to get the next piece? I’ve found that sometimes you have to build and paint the puzzle piece yourself, and that’s part of the fun of science."

All of U.S. has climate issues, and decisions made now will determine conditions in 30-40 years, ag-policy analysts write

By Harwood D. Schaffer and Daryll E. Ray
Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, University of Tennessee

The widespread flooding of this spring and early summer that resulted in delayed and prevented planting along with the extreme dry conditions and devastating fires last summer in California have raised the visibility of the issue of climate change for many people.

While this is a controversial issue in some agricultural circles, it is an issue that must be dealt with. All indications are that the annual average global temperature is rising to levels that will affect local rainfall and temperature patterns and thus have a significant impact on agricultural production.

On Aug. 7, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a special report, “Climate Change and Land” that includes a Summary for Policymakers. This report covers the issues of “desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.” These issues are of concern not just for farmers in vulnerable areas of the world, but for farmers and consumers in every corner of the U.S. as well.

We may think that desertification is something that concerns those living along the edge of the Sahara, but farmers from California to Texas to points north are facing increasingly dry conditions as well. Sustainable land management is an issue that has moved from a small cluster of innovative farmers to a concept that has to be at the heart of the daily work of every farmer.

Making sure that we produce and distribute food in ways that eliminate hunger is a responsibility that moves beyond the individual farmer to the whole of society and to the nature of the food and agricultural policy that we adopt as a nation and world.

We may think about greenhouse gas fluxes when a whiff of anhydrous ammonia burns our nasal passages, but the concept includes everything from the photosynthesis that removes carbon dioxide from the air to the respiration of all plants and animals.

The conditions people will face 30 or 40 years from now depend on the decisions we make today. These decisions include the way we tackle the post-harvest loss of “25 to 30 percent of total food produced” and the sad fact that 2 billion adults are obese or overweight while 821 million are still undernourished. These involve not farm-level decisions but ones that have to be made at the individual and societal levels.

There are critical issues that face the agricultural community:

• Soil erosion from agricultural fields is estimated to be currently 10 to 20 times (no tillage) to more than 100 times (conventional tillage) higher than the soil formation rate.
• Global warming has led to shifts of climate zones in many world regions, including expansion of arid climate zones and contraction of polar climate zones
• Agriculture, forestry and other land-use activities accounted for around 13% of CO2, 44% of methane (CH4), and 82% of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from human activities globally during 2007-2016, representing 23% … of total net anthropogenic emissions of [greenhouse gases].
• The stability of food supply is projected to decrease as the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events that disrupt food chains increases. Increased atmospheric CO2 levels can also lower the nutritional quality of crops.

But none of this is chiseled in stone. There are multiple ways we can respond. We can make choices that mitigate the risks we face. The first step in this process is to understand the risks.

With that in mind, the IPPC report is not a lecture designed to shame us into action. Rather it describes the current situation and lays out the potential consequences of the choices we make.

Wisconsin project works with farmers to reduce phosphorus runoff, hopefully reducing Great Lakes algae blooms

A four-year pilot project near Green Bay, Wisconsin, is trying to see if farmers can reduce phosphorus runoff while still remaining profitable. It's an important question because phosphorus, an ingredient in  fertilizers, triggers algae blooms in lakes, rivers and oceans that sicken people, kill animals, and hurt tourism.

"The Silver Creek Pilot Project began downstream, at the treatment plant handling the city of Green Bay’s wastewater. The state of Wisconsin told the Metropolitan Sewerage District — known as NEW Water — that it must cut back drastically on the phosphorus in the effluent it discharges into the bay," Stephanie Hemphill reports for Ensia, a non-profit climate news organization. "A 2012 state plan requires industries in the watershed to cut their phosphorus by about half. That plan also calculated that farms in the watershed contributed almost half of the nearly 275 tons (250 metric tons) of phosphorus entering the bay each year."

The treatment plan would normally have responded to the state's new mandate by spending $100 million in added filtering, but that wouldn't have addressed the overall problem, said Erin Houghton, NEW Water's watershed specialist. Instead, the district decided to work with other stakeholders to help farmers reduce their phosphorus runoff, Hemphill reports. 

Popular methods of reducing phosphorus runoff include using cover crops, low-till or no-till farming, using lands that are prone to erosion for rotational grazing instead of row crops, and planting buffer zones of grass or perennials along streams. "The problem is, all these methods work differently depending on soil conditions, crop type, climate and weather. There are many variables, and few controlled studies, so researchers have been unable to pinpoint with confidence how well they work," Hemphill reports. The project aims to get solid data on which methods work best in which kinds of conditions.

NEW Water is mostly paying for the project with a $1.67 million grant from the Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The Oneida Nation is a major partner in the project, since the creek lies within its land and it owns more than half of the land involved in the project, which it leases to many non-Oneida farmers, Hemphill reports. Other partners include: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Wisconsin Green Bay, the Brown County and Outagamie County Land and Water Conservation Departments, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and some private agronomists.

House finally but narrowly passes Farm Bill, with SNAP work requirements that appear doomed in the Senate

The House passed its version of the Farm Bill yesterday by a razor-thin margin of 213-211, weeks after the last version failed to pass because of Republican infighting over immigration.

"The farm bill got its votes, all Republican, after House leadership agreed to hold votes on immigration bills championed by conservatives. The initial immigration bill that GOP members wanted still failed earlier in the day," Chris Clayton reports for DTN/The Progressive Farmer. "Democrats remained unified against the House version of the farm bill because of changes in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that will make it more difficult for people without children to continue receiving assistance unless they are working or going through job training. The bill also makes it harder on states to raise income caps for people to remain on SNAP assistance," formerly known as food stamps. 

The Senate version of the Farm Bill has no such provisions, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has scheduled floor action on it next week. Once the Senate version is passed, the House and Senate will have to iron out the differences in the two bills and negotiate a final bill before the current farm law expires Sept. 30.

In addition to the SNAP provisions, the House bill also changes the way the Agricultural Risk Coverage program uses crop-insurance data to calculate yields, and eliminates individual farm coverage under ARC. It would also make changes in the two largest soil-conservation programs.

"The House bill would eliminate new signups under USDA's largest conservation program, the Conservation Stewardship Program," Clayton reports. "The contracts for the current 72 million acres in CSP would continue until they expire, but no new enrollment would be allowed. Instead, the bill would investment more in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program." A similar program, the Conservation Reserve Program, "would increase by 5 million acres, to 29 million acres, but would reduce rental rates to 80 percent of the current average county rental rate for ground. USDA would require more frequently updated rental rates under CRP as well," Clayton writes. "The Senate version of the bill would go to 25 million acres and lower rental rates to 88.5 percent of the county rental rate."

Trump calls mayor of shrinking island that gave him 87% of vote, tells him not to worry about sea level

The mayor holds a crab with oysters growing on it.
(Photo via Chesapeake Bay Foundation)

The mayor of a Chesapeake Bay island that is shrinking by 15 feet a year got a call from President Trump telling him not to worry about rising seas from climate change, reports Travis Andrews of The Washington Post.

The call to James "Ooker" Eskridge was prompted by a CNN story that reported, "The residents here are extremely scared that if something isn't done soon, their homes and livelihoods will be washed away." It included Eskridge saying, "We've depended on the Chesapeake Bay for a couple hundred years or more, and now it's the Chesapeake Bay that's the greatest threat to our existence. . . . Donald Trump, if you see this, whatever you can do, we welcome any help you can give us." He added later, "I love Trump as much as any family member I got."

willtravelwithkids.wordpress.com

The story noted that Trump got 87 percent of the island's vote. “He said we shouldn’t worry about rising sea levels,” Eskridge told the Post. “He said that ‘Your island has been there for hundreds of years, and I believe your island will be there for hundreds more.’” Eskridge said he agreed that rising sea levels aren’t a problem for Tangier, because “I’m on the water daily, and I just don’t see it.” He blames the island's shrinkage on the waves of the bay causing erosion of beaches and soil.

"The Army Corps of Engineers is scheduled to begin building a jetty on the west channel of the island some time this year to protect it from the harsh currents," Andrews reports. "But Eskridge said they need a jetty, or perhaps even a sea wall, around the entire island. He believes Trump will cut through red tape and get them that wall."

UPDATE, June 16: In a Skype interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Eskridge said "Sea-level rise may be occurring, but it's a slow pace," while wave erosion is seen weekly. "The island is settling, sinking, but we can pump material onto the island to build the island up." He added, "I know there's changes in the climate . . . I'm just not totally convinced that it's man-made."

Heartland farmers becoming climate-change realists who avoid saying 'climate change'

Kansas wheat farmer is environmentally conscious,
but strays away from saying "climate change."
(NYT photo by Christopher Smith)

Farmers in the heartland—where climate change naysayer Donald Trump was largely popular—have become climate-change realists who shy away from using the term "climate change," Hiroko Tabuchi reports for The New York Times.

For example, fourth-generation Kansas wheat farmer Doug Palen "has embraced an environmentally conscious way of farming that guards against soil erosion and conserves precious water. He can talk for hours about carbon sequestration—the trapping of global-warming-causing gases in plant life and in the soil—or the science of the beneficial microbes that enrich his land." Palen, who didn't say who he voted for, only that it wasn't Hillary Clinton, told Tabuchi, “If politicians want to exhaust themselves debating the climate, that’s their choice. I have a farm to run.”

Tabuchi writes, "Here in north-central Kansas, America’s breadbasket and conservative heartland, the economic realities of agriculture make climate change a critical business issue. At the same time, politics and social pressure make frank discussion complicated. This is wheat country, and Donald J. Trump country, and though the weather is acting up, the conservative orthodoxy maintains that the science isn’t settled. So while climate change is part of daily conversation, it gets disguised as something else."

"Many people here in particular resent how, in the polarized political landscape of recent years, conservative Americans have been painted as hostile to the environment," Tabuchi writes, "The Trump campaign successfully seized on that schism, painting Democrats as overzealous environmentalists with little sympathy for the economic realities or social mores of rural America."

Trump told FarmFutures.com, “Many of our federal environmental laws are being used to oppress farmers instead of actually helping the environment. Farmers care more for the environment than the radical environmentalists.”

Miriam Horn, author of a recent book on conservative Americans and the environment, Rancher, Farmer, Fisherman, told Tabuchi, “It would be a huge mistake to think people voting for Trump were voting against the environment,” and if Trump aggressively follows an anti-environment agenda, “There will be a big backlash in the heartland.”

Battles loom, some among Republicans, about farm and food policy under Trump and new Congress

The presidential election saw little discussion of farm and food issues, "Plenty of people in Washington, including powerful factions within the Republican majority in Congress, are hoping to change a wide variety of food-related policies, and believe that the new administration offers a prime opportunity to make those changes happen," Allison Aubrey and Dan Charles report for NPR's "The Salt." Kip Tom, a farmer in Indiana who was a member of Trump's advisory committee on agricultural policy, recently told The Salt that this is a time to 'swing for the fences'."

But just what that means is open for debate in the Republican Party. Some conservative Republicans will probably try again to separate the Farm Bill from food and nutrition legislation, but "Farm groups and poverty advocates are likely to mount a fierce counterattack. The stakes are high," Aubrey and Charles report. Also on the food front, "There could be attempts to roll back parts of the school-lunch reforms ushered in during the Obama administration."

Farm labor is another divisive issue for Republicans and president-elect Donald Trump. "Hostility to illegal immigration was central to Trump's campaign," NPR notes, "but farm groups, many of them bedrock supporters of the Republican Party, are adamantly opposed to any wholesale deportation of immigrants who aren't in the country legally. Many large-scale dairy farmers, and growers of fruits and vegetables, rely heavily on immigrant labor. This promises to be a delicate backroom negotiation."

When it comes to environmental regulations, Aubrey and Charles write, the question is "Which will go first?" A prime candidate is the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, but "Other environmental regulations that are less well-known but probably more significant may also face scrutiny. Among them are the 'conservation compliance' provisions of the Farm Bill. Under this law, farmers who plow up native grasslands or drain wetlands can lose their federal crop subsidies. The EPA also could reduce the number of large-scale animal feeding operations that it regulates as 'point sources' of pollution."

Environmentalists are concerned about what Trump's EPA will mean for bees and other pollinators. "Scientists are concerned that the widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides on crops such as corn and soybeans is linked to bee decline. Under the Obama administration, the EPA has been reviewing the safety of neonics. The Sierra Club is watching this issue closely," saying in an email to supporters that "The fate of bees — and all the crops and ecosystems that depend on them — may come down to a standoff between the Trump administration and science itself."

USDA improves conservation program, does poor job telling story, writer says; signups due Feb. 27

Department of Agriculture officials have improved the federal Conservation Stewardship Program, which offers $100 million to landowners who take steps to conserve soil and other natural resources, but is doing a poor job of telling farmers about it, with a Feb. 27 signup deadline approaching, Bruce Knight writes for Agri-Pulse.

USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service "highlighted some pilot CSP initiatives that focus on providing habitat for at-risk species, such as the sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken, or focus on conserving water and improving water quality in the Ogalala Aquifer.  There is also a longleaf pine conservation effort in Southern states," Knight reports. "Those are the ones the agency is talking about because of its political priorities. But what excites me are the enhancements that embrace modern precision agriculture technology, soil health, cover crops and fertilizer management, which are much improved."

"The changes NRCS has made are definitely a step in the right direction, and I'd like to be sure that everyone knows about them," Knight writes. "It's almost like NRCS is trying to keep this signup and all its improvements a secret.  As a farmer, if you have looked at CSP in the past and found it inflexible or a poor match for your needs, this may be the time to give it a new look.  With tough grain prices on the horizon, CSP payments could be what it takes to keep cover crops and other conservation innovations in your rotation."

Oil from Colorado drilling sites contaminating soil

"Colorado's intensifying oil and gas boom is taking a toll on soil—200 gallons spilled per day seeping into once-fertile ground—that experts say could be ruinous," Bruce Finley reports for The Denver Post. "But with support from state regulators, oil companies increasingly are proposing to clean contaminated soil on site using mixing machinery and microbes. This may be cheaper for the industry—and could save and restore soil. But it is not proven."

"At least 716,982 gallons (45 percent) of the petroleum chemicals spilled during the past decade have stayed in the ground after initial cleanup—contaminating soil, sometimes spreading into groundwater, a Denver Post analysis found," Finley writes. "That's about one gallon of toxic liquid every eight minutes penetrating soil. In addition, drillers churn up 135 to 500 tons of dirt with every new well, some of it soaked with hydrocarbons and laced with potentially toxic minerals and salts. And heavy trucks crush soil, suffocating the delicate subsurface ecosystems that traditionally made Colorado's Front Range suitable for farming." (Post graphic)

Eugene Kelly, chief of soil and crop science at Colorado State University, said, "The overall impact of the oil and gas boom 'is like a death sentence for soil.'" Kelly told Finley, "We need to be very mindful of the way we're using soil. It could be the next limiting component when we talk about feeding the planet and having a sustainable lifestyle—because all the good stuff is gone and soil is being degraded. Some day the fossil fuels will be gone. Is our soil going to be healthy?"

The 578 reported spills in 2013 was the highest in 10 years and contaminated an estimated 173,400 tons of topsoil, Finley writes. Analysis shows that 45 percent of the spills stay in the soil, and 12.3 percent of the last 1,000 spills "already had contaminated groundwater before companies began cleanup." (Read more)

Climate report says change already affecting cultures and economies of rural areas; warns of more floods, lower corn and soybean yields

Climate change is already happening throughout the entire U.S., according to the National Climate Assessment released Tuesday by a scientific panel overseen by the government. Justin Gillis reports for The New York Times that the panel found "water growing scarcer in dry regions, torrential rains increasing in wet regions, heat waves becoming more common and more severe, wildfires growing worse and forests dying under assault from heat-loving insects."

"One of the report’s most dramatic findings concerned the rising frequency of torrential rains," Gillis writes. "The proportion of precipitation that is falling in very heavy rain events has jumped by 71 percent in the Northeast, by 37 percent in the Midwest and by 27 percent in the South, the report found." The report also found that "severe, long-lasting heat waves were likely to become much more common," and "bitterly cold winters will continue to occur, even as they become somewhat less likely." (Read more)

Climate change can help and harm agriculture, the report says. The length of growing seasons could increase, allowing more diverse crops, but an increase in the number of dry days, especially in the West and South, could negatively affect both crops and livestock. "The trend toward more consecutive dry days and higher temperatures will increase evaporation and add stress to limited water resources, affecting irrigation and other water uses." (National Climate Assessment graphic: Crop yields decline under hotter temperatures)

"Warming, climate volatility, extreme weather events and environmental change are already affecting the economies and cultures of rural areas," the report says. "These changes will progressively increase volatility in food commodity markets, shift locations where particular economic activities can thrive, alter the ranges of plant and animal species and—depending on the region—increase water scarcity, exacerbate flooding and coastal erosion and increase the intensity and frequency of wildfires across the rural landscape."

"Rural America has already experienced impacts of climate change related weather effects, including crop and livestock loss from severe drought and flooding, damage to levees and roads from extreme storms, shifts in planting and harvesting times and large-scale losses from fires and other weather-related disasters," the report says. "These impacts have profound effects, often significantly affecting the health and well-being of rural residents and communities, and are amplified by the essential economic link between these communities and their natural resource base."

The report also found that "hunting, fishing, bird watching and other wildlife-related activities will be affected as wildlife habitats shift and relationships among species change" and that areas that rely on winter tourism, especially in the West, Northeast and Southwest, could be hurt by warming temperatures. To read the full report click here.

Demand for corn threatening milkweed, and thus the monarch butterfly, which lives off the plant

Scientists and conservationists in the Great Plains are leading a crusade to save milkweed, and in turn, the monarch butterfly, which lives solely on the plant, Michael Wines reports for The New York Times. While there are many theories for the demise of the two, the main concern is that a rising demand for corn is destroying the land where milkweed thrives. (Pentagraph photo by Steve Smedley: Monarch feeds on milkweed)

In the summer of 2010, the University of Northern Iowa counted 176 monarchs in its 100 acres of prairie grass and flowers, but this year, counted only 11, Wines writes: "The decline has no single cause. Drought and bad weather have decimated the monarch during some recent migrations. Illegal logging of its winter home in Mexico has been a constant threat. Some studies conclude that pesticides and fungicides contribute not just to the monarchs’ woes, but to population declines among bees, other butterflies and pollinators in general."

The greatest threat, though, "is its dwindling habitat in the Midwest and the Great Plains, the vast expanse over which monarchs fly, breed new generations and die during migrations every spring and autumn," Wines writes. And this is due in large part to a rising demand in corn. "Since 2007, farmers nationwide have taken more than 17,500 square miles of land out of federal conservation reserves," a federal program that pays growers to leave land fallow for wildlife and soil conservation. "Iowa has lost a quarter of its reserve land; Kansas, nearly 30 percent; South Dakota, half."

"A study published in February in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzed land use in five states — Iowa, Minnesota, the Dakotas and Nebraska — in the broad arc of farmland where corn and soybeans are intensively planted," Wines writes. "Over the five years from 2006 to 2011, the study concluded, 5 percent to 30 percent of the grasslands were converted to corn and soybean fields, a rate it said was 'comparable to deforestation rates in Brazil, Malaysia and Indonesia.'”

Some groups are pushing for federal legislation to save monarch habitats, Wines writes. Others want to education or encourage businesses to work safely around the butterflies, or provide habitats for them. But Laura Jackson, a University of Northern Iowa biologist and director of its Tallgrass Prairie Center, worries that people will forget about the butterflies. She told Wines, “Monarchs are just like other iconic species. Once people stop being accustomed to seeing them, they stop caring and they forget. Support drops like a ratchet.” (Read more)

No-till farming trend shows no sign of slacking

No-till farming is becoming more common, Brad Plumer writes for The Washington Post. Plowing and tillage cause soil erosion and release carbon dioxide into the air, increasing concerns about global warming. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, no-till farming is growing at a pace of about 1.5 percent every year.

Herbicides like atrazine and paraquat gave farmers ways to kill weeds without plowing up more soil, and seed drills and other equipment invented in the 1960s let farmers plant with little disturbance to the soil. The 1985 Farm Bill and higher oil prices encouraged farmers to adopt no-till. "As the technique became more widely used, U.S. farmers found that they could conserve water, reduce erosion and use less fossil fuel and labor to grow crops," and U.S. cropland erosion dropped almost 40 percent between 1982 and 1997, Plumer writes.

No-till does have disadvantages. It leads to increased use of chemical herbicides for weed killing, and the specialized equipment to make it happen costs more upfront. Still, USDA "expects no-till operations to keep spreading in the United States in the year ahead," Plumer reports. If no-till farming became common around the world as well, it could have positive effects on the climate. Governments should provide research, training or financial support to encourage the adoption of no-till farming and smooth the transition, according to a recent report from the U.N. Environment Program.

"The UNEP estimates that no-tillage operations in the United States have helped avoid 241 million metric tons of carbon dioxide since the 1970s. That's the equivalent to the annual emissions of about 50 million cars," Plumer writes. (Read more)

Iowa scientists say climate change is threatening the state's highly productive agriculture

Scientists in Iowa say climate change is posing a threat to the future of the state's farms. In their report, entitled "Iowa Climate Statement 2013: A Rising Challenge to Iowa Agriculture," the authors write: "Our state has long held a proud tradition of helping to 'feed the world.' Our ability to do so is now increasingly threatened by rising greenhouse gas emissions and resulting climate change. Our climate has disrupted agricultural production profoundly during the past two years and is projected to become even more harmful in coming decades as our climate continues to warm and change." (Map by Union of Concerned Scientists: How Iowa's climate could become more like that of Kansas, then Arkansas)

Iowa ranks first in the U.S. in corn and soybean production, and the state produces 28 percent of the nation's pork and much of its cattle, according to Iowa Farm Bureau. Changing weather, which can indicate climate change, is a major concern for producers. This spring was the wettest in the 140 years the state has kept records, "creating conditions that hampered the timely planting of corn and soybean fields," which led to 62 of Iowa's 99 counties experiencing severe enough storms and flooding to be declared federal disaster areas. The wet spring was followed by a hot and dry summer, with the extreme change in temperatures causing severe problems to crops. The report states: "In a warming climate, wet years get wetter and dry years get dryer and hotter. The climate likely will continue to warm due to increasing emissions of heat‐trapping gases."

Intense rain increases soil erosion, and "the increase in hot nights that accompanies hot, dry periods reduces dairy and egg production, weight gain of meat animals, and conception rates in breeding stock," the report states. "Warmer winters and earlier springs allow disease‐causing agents and parasites to proliferate, and these then require greater use of agricultural pesticides. Iowa’s soils and agriculture remain our most important economic resources, but these resources are threatened by climate change."

The report was signed by 156 scientists specializing in areas such as agronomy, biology, chemistry, biochemical engineering and geography. To read the full report, click here.

Farm Bill lobbies reject means testing for crop insurance, but adopt conservation compliance

One week after the Environmental Working Group released a study concluding that taxpayers overpaid nearly $7 billion to farmers for crop insurance, more than 30 agriculture, conservation and wildlife groups have come together to insure the proposed Farm Bill allows them to continue receiving crop-insurance benefits.

The groups want to remove language from an amendment to reduce premium subsidies by 15 percent for farmers who earn more than $750,000 in adjusted gross income, reports Chris Clayton for DTN/The Progressive Farmer. The amendment would affect only 1,500 farm operations and is estimated to save around $1.2 billion over 10 years.

"In return for getting rid of means testing for crop insurance, the agricultural groups agreed to a plan that would tie conservation compliance to crop insurance with stipulations involved," reports Clayton. The groups stated in a letter, "In the spirit of compromise and in the interest of completing a 2013 Farm bill this year, each of the groups has committed not to support amendments beyond this compromise that might weaken the crop insurance program or amendment that might not link conservation compliance with crop insurance premium assistance." The groups also state they are not willing to make any changes to their proposal. (Read more)

UPDATE, May 9: "House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas is opposed to the agreement," Clayton reports. Lucas said he has a philosophical problem with various lobby groups "tying strings to how farmers farm" and dictating terms to producers when the farm bill is supposed to be about raising food and fiber. . . . Lucas said he is concerned about provisions such as the compliance agreement that would possibly reduce farm production right now."