Chart:: Future Friendly Farming: Seven Agricultural Practices To Sustain People and The Environment

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................3
CHART: Multiple benefits of agriculture and land
management practices ......................................................................4
1. Cover Crops...........................................................................................5
CASE STUDY: Minnesota Corn and Soybean
Farmer Grows Profits, as well as Water Quality
and Climate Benefits .........................................................................6
CASE STUDY: Cover Cropping North Dakota Grain and Cattle
Farmers Grow Profits, as well as Climate and Soil Benefits..........10
2. Conservation Tillage ...........................................................................13

CASE STUDY: Oklahoma Farmers, Conservationists and
Electric Cooperative Improve Farm Profitability, Stream
Quality and Global Climate ............................................................16
3. Organic Management ........................................................................20

CASE STUDY: The Next Generation of Farmers Grows on
an Organic Grain Farm in Massachusetts ......................................22
4. Grassland and Pasture Management ................................................25

CASE STUDY: New Mexico Rancher Cultivates More Cows,
Profit, and Environmental and Climate Benefits ..........................28
5. Sustainable Forest Management .......................................................30
6. Anaerobic Digesters ...........................................................................33

CASE STUDY: Five Star Dairy, Elk Mound Wisconsin ......................34
CASE STUDY: Wisconsin Dairyman Grows Profits While

Reducing Air and Water Pollution ..................................................36
7. Protecting and Restoring Land to Native Ecosystems.....................39
Agricultural and Land Management Carbon Offsets Opportunities .... 43

CASE STUDY: Intermittent Flooding of Rice Reduces
Water and Energy Use While Lowering Methane and
Carbon Dioxide Emissions ..............................................................45
Recommendations for Increasing the Adoption of

Future Friendly Farming Practices ..................................................50
Endnotes ..................................................................................................54
ii Future Friendly Farming: Seven Agricultural Practices to Sustain People and the Environment
Executive Summary
A
merica’s farmers provide food, fuel, and fiber for a
growing nation. They also provide other valuable
services like water management, water filtration,
soil protection, recreation, and wildlife habitat. Today,
people are placing increasing demands upon our lands for
more goods and services. As a result, America’s farmers
and foresters must obtain the most from our lands while
protecting these precious resources to meet the needs of
future generations. In order to sustain ourselves and future
Americans, farmers and foresters must take a fresh look at
how they manage the land.
Increased variability in commodity prices, input costs, and

weather patterns is leading to increased uncertainty for
farmers. In an ever-changing world and industry, those best
able to consistently produce while reducing costs will hold
a competitive advantage. The innovative future friendly
farming practices outlined in this report can help growers
gain an economic advantage by reducing their costs while
increasing their crop yields, productivity, and revenue.
In addition to providing tools to address increasing

uncertainty and production challenges for farmers, future
friendly farming practices offer solutions to pressing
environmental issues. The techniques discussed here—
cover crops, conservation tillage, organic management,
rangeland and grassland management, forest
management, anaerobic digesters, and increasing native
ecosystems—benefit nature in the following ways:
Cover crops increase water management capacity,
reduce erosion and nutrient loss, and improve wildlife
habitat.
Conservation tillage reduces erosion while increasing
nesting cover for birds and wildlife.
Organic farming eliminates chemical use, increases
soil fertility and increases wildlife habitat.
Grassland management boosts soil fertility, biodi-
versity, and grassland ecosystem health.
Forest management increases soil fertility and
biodiversity.
Anaerobic digesters reduce threats to water quality and
provide local renewable electric and thermal energy.
Future Friendly Farming: Seven Agricultural Practices to Sustain People and the Environment 1
Retaining and returning land to native ecosystems water, and wildlife resources. Consequently, it is important
increases biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and improves to recognize key tools for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
water quality. emissions and adapting to the realities of a changing
climate with more extreme weather events. Future friendly
The seven techniques highlighted in this report offer farming and forestry practices offer shovel-ready and highly
valuable ecosystem services that will save taxpayers, cost-effective emissions reductions and sequestration
farmers, and consumers money. Implementing these methods to begin decreasing atmospheric greenhouse
practices will reduce costs associated with water filtration, gas concentrations. The practices discussed here will prove
flood prevention, wildlife habitat preservation, and other useful to farmers seeking to reduce the uncertainty tied to
critical land management issues. climate change. These cost-effective strategies will be vital
in helping agriculture address and adapt to climate change,
Climate change poses a threat to current and future all the while improving profit margins for farmers and
generations, with serious implications for our food supply, sustaining opportunities for the next generation to farm.
Duck habitat at wetland edge. Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS
2 Future Friendly Farming: Seven Agricultural Practices to Sustain People and the Environment
Introduction
Future Friendly Farming—Agricultural
E
ver-increasing demands are being placed on farmers
and foresters to meet the food, fuel, and fiber
and forestry management techniques needs of the country. The lands that feed, clothe,
that optimize the provision of all products and power us also help maintaining soil fertility for future
generations, protecting clean water, sequestering carbon
(food, fiber, fuel) and services (carbon in the soil, and providing habitat for wildlife. Fortunately,
emissions management, air and water there are agriculture and forestry strategies that can
maximize and optimize the production of multiple goods
filtration, management of water levels)
and services we demand from the land. This report focuses
derived from the landscape. Benefits on seven techniques to maximize the benefits our land
provides to society today and to our children in the future.
include cleaner air and water, stronger and
These techniques include: cover cropping, conservation
more resilient ecosystems, greenhouse gas tillage, organic management, grazing land management,
sustainable forest management, anaerobic digesters, and
emissions reductions, increased long-term
returning and retaining land to native ecosystems. Finding
field and forest product production as well multiple benefits from the land is particularly important
considering that, although U.S. land resources are finite,
as more stable and improved farm and
people’s needs and desires for products and services
forest owner profitability. provided by the land continue to grow. It makes sense
to move toward land management that delivers as many
benefits on as many acres of land as possible.1
Future friendly farming practices have the potential to

yield numerous additional benefits worth many times
any initial up-front investment. These seven practices
will yield multiple benefits for years to come, including
reduced erosion and nutrient loss from farmland, improved
water quality in our waterways and drinking water supply,
improved flood mitigation in areas that have experienced
considerable loss due to floods, improved air quality,
increased biodiversity and wildlife habitat, reduced pest
management costs as farmers struggle to stay ahead of
changing pest dynamics, and increased farm productivity
with reduced costs.2 Additionally, as the realities of climate
change lead to increases in extreme weather events, farmers
face increasing uncertainty, costs, and risk to production.
The techniques outlined here offer them improved risk
management and mitigation, and in many cases, increased
yields. By incorporating these practices now, farmers can
establish a competitive advantage in volatile markets while
preparing their farms for sustained long-term productivity,
setting up future generations for long-term success, and
producing additional environmental benefits.
Multiple benefits of agriculture and land management practices
Effect on Landowner/ Potential

Future Friendly Environmental Wildlife
Definition Greenhouse Farmer Trade-Offs or
Practice Benefits Benefits
Gases Benefits Problems
Crops planted for the Sequesters carbon Decreased soil Increased nesting Increased profit Requires extra time
purpose of protecting in plants and soil. In erosion, improved areas for species such through reduced and knowledge to
and improving soil some regions, adding nutrient retention, as ducks, high quality fertilizer needs, manage; and some
and nutrients rather a cover crop to a increased soil organic food sources for many improved soil fertility, new techniques for
1 than for harvest as
a commodity,
conservation tillage
system can nearly
matter, improved
water quality
grassland bird and
game bird species
and easier control of
weeds
growing commodity
crops
Cover Crops particularly during double the rate of
a period in which carbon sequestration
the land would have
otherwise been barren
A system in which By disturbing the Reduced erosion, Increased bird nest Increased profits Potential increase
30% or more of the soil less, soil carbon reduced water density and nest through reduced fuel, in herbicide use;
2 crop residue remains
on soil after planting.
storage is increased
through enhanced soil
pollution success; increased
bird use and aquatic
equipment, and labor
costs
increased pest threats
in repetitive single
Conservation
No-till avoids tilling sequestration, reduced biodiversity commodity production
Tillage altogether CO2 emissions from
farm equipment
Uses crop rotation, Organic agriculture Improved nutrient Increased biodiversity; Increased profit Requires considerable
compost, and averages 60% less retention in soil, eliminating the use through premium knowledge, transition
biological pest direct energy use reduced soil erosion, of pesticides helps prices and period can be difficult
3 control to maintain
soil productivity and
compared to conven-
tional production
reduced nutrient runoff promote beneficial
insects, birds, nearby
stronger long-term soil
fertility through natural
Organic control pests without practices; organic aquatic organisms systems
Agriculture synthetic pesticides soils have been
and fertilizers found to sequester
more carbon than
conventional
Modification to grazing Increases carbon Decreased soil Improved habitat for Increased profit As with any good
4 practices that lead

to net greenhouse
storage through
enhanced soil
erosion and reduced
pollution
grassland birds (both
game and songbirds)
through more diverse/
native grasses and
grazing strategy,
requires careful
Grazing Land gas reductions (e. g., sequestration and may managed grazing management in some
Management rotational grazing) affect emissions of CH4 rotations areas with sensitive
and N2O species
5 Managing plants
to optimize wildlife
Increases plant growth Improves water
which increases quality and ecosystem
Enhanced fish and
wildlife habitat and
Sustained long-term
income generation,
Requires planning and
up-front consultation
Sustainable habitat, biodiversity, carbon sequestration resilience increased biodiversity may qualify for reduced
Forest wood production, and property taxes,
carbon sequestration depending on location
Management
Digesters extract Significantly Improved air quality, Biological oxygen Increased revenue High up-front costs;
6 methane from animal
waste; the methane
decreases emissions
of methane, which is
reduced odor demand and
pathogens greatly
streams through
electricity and carbon
may incentivize
large-scale confined
On-Farm can then easily be a potent greenhouse reduced, reducing credits, reduced animal operations
Anaerobic destroyed or used to gas. Can also lead to the threat of oxygen fertilizer costs
Digesters create electricity indirect reductions in depletion in water
fossil fuel consumption
Returning lands to Sequesters carbon Reduced erosion, Maintains or creates More profitable to Takes years to return
7 original ecosystem
conditions or
due to accumulation
and incorporation
improved water quality high value habitat place marginal or
sensitive lands in CRP
to native ecosystem,
foregone agricultural
Retaining or preventing them from of litter into surface than to cultivate production
Returning being destroyed soils as well as
Native increased plant root
Ecosystems development
1
Cover Crops
Cover Crops—non-commodity crops
O
n many farms, row crop fields lay bare after corn,
soy, wheat, or another commodity crop has been
planted in between rows of commodity harvested. Fields can stay bare for up to seven
crops or during fallow periods to prevent months until spring planting begins. For example, corn
farmers in Iowa usually harvest by the end of November.
leaching or soil erosion or to provide The soil is then left fallow until the first week of May, when
nutrients to feed commodity crops. they plant their next crop. Some farmers will plow or disk
the soil in the fall after harvest, minimizing the work to
Benefits include reduced erosion, reduced
be completed in spring. Barren or partially-tilled fields
fertilizer use, and increased wildlife habitat will lose nutrients and topsoil to wind and water erosion,
requiring additional amendments in the spring to ensure
and carbon sequestration.
enough nutrients for the next crop. Soil loses carbon to the
atmosphere when exposed to air for an extended length
of time while in a barren or tilled condition. As soil loses
carbon it loses the ability to hold and deliver nutrients and
water to crops.
After a commodity crop is harvested, cover crops are

planted to protect and improve soil quality. These plants
grow through early spring and may be plowed under or
rolled over with a crimper to add nutrients to the soil.
Farmers can also use cover crops during the growing season
as ground cover between rows of commodity crops.
Cover crops add nutrients to the soil and greatly reduce

erosion from wind and water, saving farmers time and
money. For example, many legume cover crops, such as
hairy vetch or sweet clover, maintain soil nutrients and add
up to 200 pounds of nitrogen per acre.3 This natural fertil-
ization process directly reduces fertilizer costs. When the
cover crops are followed by commodity crops, especially
nitrogen-hungry corn, the reduction of fertilizer costs can
single-handedly more than offset the costs of establishing
a cover crop.4 Additionally, by reducing erosion from wind
and water, cover crops reducing the amount of nutrients
farmers must replace.5
Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS
By providing vital soil protection, cover crops prevent

nutrients from eroding with soil particles left unprotected
to wind and water, leaching down into the ground out
of the root zone, or volatizing into the atmosphere
and adding to greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere. Cover crop uptake of soil nutrients allows
Cotton planted into rye cover. (continued on page 8)
CASE STUDY
Minnesota Corn and Soybean Farmer Grows Profits,

as well as Water Quality and Climate Benefits
Source: Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Energy and Sustainable Agriculture Program, Mark Zumwinkle.
Doug Keene, Fillmore County Resource Conservation Technician, examines a nicely growing winter rye cover crop
before soybean harvest on Tom Boelter’s farm.
T
om Boelter grows corn, soybeans, hay and beef before harvest, and then grazed the rye after soybean
on his farm in southeastern Minnesota, in the Root harvest. Tom allowed the rye to grow over the winter
River watershed. Tom has increased his profits and then grazed the rye again in the spring. He then
by using cover crops, while reducing sediment and planted the corn directly into the cover crop stubble.
nutrient loss, as well as removing carbon dioxide from The carbon and nitrate stored by the cover crops will
the atmosphere. Tom’s cover crops soak up nitrates that provide a lasting benefit to Tom’s farm. Soil carbon
would otherwise escape into the Root and Mississippi helps hold water and nutrients, and nitrate is a vital
Rivers and down to the Gulf of Mexico. He recently plant nutrient—so future cash crops will have access to
added winter rye, a commonly used cover crop, to his more water and nutrients, improving plant growth while
farm. He seeded the winter rye directly into his soybeans reducing fertilizer needs.
PROFITABILITY: of nitrates in drinking water can cause the deadly ‘blue
At a cost of just $38 per acre, the winter rye Tom planted baby syndrome,’ as nitrates make infant’s blood incapable
provided $85 per acre worth of spring feed for his cattle, of carrying sufficient oxygen. In the Gulf of Mexico,
providing Tom a profit of $47 per acre from his cover nitrates feed algae, which multiply rapidly and use up all
crops. Tom and his neighbors hired a pilot to apply rye the oxygen in the water. Without oxygen, fish and other
seed to their fields.i They planted 75 pounds of rye seed aquatic life die.
per acre, at a cost of $18 per acre. The helicopter and
pilot’s time cost $20 per acre, so total costs of seeding In Minnesota, each acre of cover crops sequesters on
were about $38 per acre. The rye cover crop produced average .6 metric tons of carbon dioxide.iii There are about
forage for 16 days of grazing for 25 pairs of cow/calves 182 million acres of land in the United States that could
in the fall from October 25 through November 10. In the be cover cropped. If each acre sequestered .6 metric tons
spring he grazed 80 cows for 21 days from April 30 to May of carbon dioxide, based on the example provided here,
20. Tom saved about $5,600 in spring feed costs through about 2% of the United States’ annual greenhouse gas
grazing 66 acres of cover cropped fields, and yields of the emissions would be taken out of the atmosphere.
following crops were maintained.
MORE RESOURCES:
Practical Farmers of Iowa:
Tom has increased his profits by using
http://www.practicalfarmers.org/assets/files/field_crops/
cover crops, while reducing sediment and cropping-systems/Cover_Crops_on_Crop_Yield_2009.pdf
O
nutrient loss, as well as removing carbon
Managing Cover Crops Profitably (USDA SARE):
dioxide from the atmosphere. http://www.sare.org/publications/covercrops/
covercrops.pdf
Farm Bill conservation programs such as the
Midwest Cover Crop Council:
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the
http://www.mccc.msu.edu/
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) can provide
incentives and cost-share assistance to farmers for imple-
Burleigh County Soil Conservation District:
menting cover cropping and other conservation practices.
http://www.bcscd.com
Minnesota farmers can get $32 per acre through EQIP
(Farmer interviews, Powerpoints, Papers)
cost-sharing for planting cover crops.ii In the future,
farmers may be able to sell the carbon sequestration or
water quality benefits of their cover cropping on a market.
For example, a water quality market is developing in the
ENDNOTES
Chesapeake Bay watershed, and a compliance market in
i
A helicopter needs at least 50 acres to be cost effective
greenhouse gas emissions is developing in the state of
for the pilot to seed a field. A helicopter can seed 50 acres in
California and in the Northeast.
thirty minutes. In the future, Tom is exploring using a high boy
tractor to apply rye, instead of relying on a helicopter pilot.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS:
The Root River watershed, the Mississippi River, and the ii
2009 Minnesota EQIP Conservation Practice Payment
Gulf of Mexico are all cleaner thanks to Tom’s use of cover Schedule, NRCS http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov//references/
crops. Soil tests conducted by the Minnesota Department public/MN/2009MNEQIPwRingDike71109.pdf
of Agriculture on neighboring farms compared to data accessed Dec. 27, 2010.
from Tom’s farm found that cover crops absorbed
two-thirds of the soil nitrate present after a crop. Nitrate iii
Anderson, J Beduhn, R et al “The Potential for Terrestrial
levels in the soil following cover crops were only 7 parts Carbon Sequestration in Minnesota” A Report to the
per million, compared to 23 parts per million on non-cover Department of Natural Resources from the Minnesota
cropped fields. Without cover crops, the excess nutrients Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Initiative February 2008
would escape to ground and surface water. Elevated levels University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
(Continued from page 5)
Nitrogen Inhibitors
for the slow release of those nutrients as the crop decays,
making more of the nutrients available for longer periods
to commodity crops throughout their growth cycle.6 Cover
crops also add additional nutrients, especially nitrogen, to
N itrogen fertilizer is a common input to row crop
production. Each year, over 63 million tons of
nitrogen fertilizer is applied to corn, wheat, cotton and
the soil.7
soybeans in major crop producing
states, with the vast majority going
Nitrogen Provided by Cover Crops
to corn acres.10 Unfortunately, less
250
than half of that applied nitrogen
Pounds of Nitrogen per Acre
200 will be used by crops.11 Much of

150 that nitrogen leaches into the
ground, moves into waterways via
100
storm water runoff, or volatizes
50 when exposed to oxygen and
0 escapes into the atmosphere. The
Radish Cowpeas Crimson Hairy Sweetclover Nitrogen application of nitrogen fertilizer
Clover Vetch Required by
Corn for in large single doses, too much
Optimal Growth
for plants to immediately take up,
Cover crops have the potential to meet the high nitrogen causes this inefficiency. Nitrogen-
needs of corn production, presenting corn farmers with dependent plants require this nutrient throughout the
the opportunity to drastically reduce or even eliminate
growth cycle.
expensive fertilizer applications.8
Nitrogen inhibitors, chemicals that influence the

The process of building nutrients in the soil is assisted reaction of ammonium to nitrate, offer the potential
by small soil organisms called arbuscular mycorrihizal to slow nitrogen release over a few weeks. This allows
fungi, which feed on nutrients exuded by plant roots. row crops more time to absorb the nutrient rather than
Through a symbiotic relationship, these fungi help plants
losing the chemical element to leaching, runoff, or
absorb water and nutrients from the soil. Plants with these
volatilization that will contribute to climate change. If
fungi near their roots have higher water use efficiency,
higher rates of photosynthesis, and are more effective at coupled with precision agriculture, which uses global
moving carbon compounds to the roots.9 When crops are positioning systems and yield monitors on harvesting
harvested and the land lays barren or is tilled, mycorrihizal equipment to determine site specific nutrient needs,
fungi cannot survive. When the next commodity crop nitrogen inhibitors can play a role in reducing the total
is planted the following year, the fungi slowly rebuild in amount of fertilizer applied to row crops. This would
population. With cover crops planted between commodity reduce volatilization of nitrogen as well as the green-
crop growing seasons, the fungi can shift their relationship house gas emissions associated with the production of
to cover crop roots, allowing the fungi population to be
fossil fuel-based fertilizers. However, nitrogen inhibitors
maintained or continue to grow. When commodity crops
do not provide the additional benefits typical of cover
are planted during the next growing season, these fungi
can migrate to the commodity crops. And since more crops. Additionally, research has found that nitrogen
fungi survived between growing seasons, thanks to cover inhibitors do not provide substantial benefits in terms
crops, these fungi can have a bigger impact in helping of increased yields on dryland or irrigated corn on
commodity crops take up nutrients for plant growth. fine-textured soils in Minnesota, the Dakotas and other
states west of the Missouri River.12
Fundamentally, cover crops play an important role in
managing soil structure and making commodity crop growth
more successful. Cover crop roots help break up the soil for ground nesting species like ducks, especially in areas
and increase porosity throughout the root zone, as well as located near other vital habitat such as waterways, forests,
add organic matter that helps soil absorb and retain water. or wetlands. Furthermore, cover crop residue provides
Therefore, plants have a greater chance of surviving periods habitat and nutrients for earthworms and insects, two vital
of excess water as well as dry spells. As a result, commodity food chain links for higher level species.15 Generally, the
crops planted after cover crop can survive with less frequent key to successfully deriving wildlife benefits from cover
irrigation.13 In addition to the soil and water benefits cover crops is to plant vegetation that complements wildlife
crops provide farmers, these plants are also useful for weed needs and minimizes disturbance during nesting periods.
management. Cover crops reduce weed growth through Legumes such as red clover, white clover, and annual
competition for sunlight and by releasing phytotoxic lespedeza (Korean or Kobe) are often planted to produce
chemicals that inhibit weed growth.14 All of these positive summer cover. These cover crops not only address soil
agronomic characteristics add up to reduced costs for and plant nutrient issues for farmers, they also provide
farmers and higher profitability. Extension agents and crop high quality plant material and attract insects that provide
advisers can be useful resources for farmers implementing the high protein feed that young turkey and quail need to
cover crops. grow and develop. Small grain cover crops planted in the
fall provide food and protection for wildlife from late fall
Additionally, cover crops provide wildlife habitat and until early spring, increasing winter survival rates.16
food for multiple species. These plants supply homes (continued on page 12)
Lana Vetch cover in a CA date orchard. Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS
CASE STUDY
Cover Cropping North Dakota Grain and Cattle Farmers

Grow Profits, as well as Climate and Soil Benefits
P
atrick and Marlyn Richter are brothers who grew up June, saving $15.95 per acre. They save a total of S27.95
together on their family’s farm in Burleigh County, per acre from reduced herbicide costs.
North Dakota. The farmers produce corn, sunflowers,
wheat, peas, milk cows and beef cattle on 15 inches of In addition to decreased need for herbicide use, cover
rain per year. They decided to add cover crops to help crops also provided valuable nutrients that increased
address their concern about soil quality and to increase commodity crop yields following the cover crop. After
the organic matter on their land. Patrick says, “cover crops planting corn, the Richters discovered cover cropped
have worked to improve soil health and profitability on our fields had 82 bushels of corn per acre, and non-cover
farm.” As the third generation on their family’s land, the cropped fields had only 73.5 bushels per acre. At $3.50
Richters want to preserve the health of their soil for future per bushel of corn, the yield increase was worth $29.75
generations. In 2007, the brothers decided to implement per acre. At current corn prices near $7 per bushel, this
cover crops as a strategy to reduce herbicide costs, value would be almost $60 per acre. The cover crops
increase crop yields and increase land carrying capacity increased commodity crop profits by $24.70 per acre.
for cattle. By planting a multispecies cover crop mix, they
increased their profit. The cover crops also stored about Furthermore, the Richters were able to increase their
1.6 tons of carbon dioxide per acre per year, helping to profitability by using cover crops as forage for their beef
slow climate change while improving their soil health, herd. Pat and Marlyn worked with their Natural Resources
which will boost soil fertility and future yields. As an added Conservation Service agent, Jay Fuhrer, to develop a
benefit, the Richters’ found cover crops provided habitat diverse mix of cover crops. The mixture of species provided
and food for the wildlife they enjoy. a more complete diet for the cattle and extended the
grazing season, increasing cattle weight gain. Richters
PROFITABILITY: grazed 141 pair of cattle on the cover crop from October
The Richter’s increased their profit by $135.70 per acre by 1st to October 17th. The cattle gained an average of
implementing cover crops. This increase in profit came 101.8 lbs per acre, which at $1.09 per pound is worth
from decreased herbicide cost and increased yield and another $111 per acre. In total, the cover crops increased
grazing capacity of the land. Pat and Marlyn incorporated commodity crop and grazing profit by $135.70 per acre
cover crops onto one of their fields after harvesting field to the Richter farm. Farm Bill programs administered by
peas on July 4, 2007. They used herbicides to kill any the Natural Resources Conservation Service, such as the
weeds after the harvest to prepare for planting corn the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the
following year. They seeded a mix of millet, cowpea, Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), may pay farmers
soybean, turnips, radish, sunflower and sweet clover into to add cover crops to their crop rotation or provide cost-
the field pea stubble on July 7, 2007. The mix cost $20 share to add cover crops.
per acre, and seeding cost $13 per acre. The Richters
found the cover crops suppressed weeds more effectively The Richter brothers are setting themselves up for long
than herbicides by out-competing the weeds for sunlight. term profitability through cover crops. Since 2001, by using
In September of 2007, only the non-cover cropped field
required another herbicide application, which cost an
additional $12 per acre. In May of 2008, nine months after
planting cover crops, available water was roughly equal
in the cover cropped and non-cover cropped fields. The
brothers planted corn in May. The plant material residue
from the cover crops suppressed weeds, so the cover
cropped field did not need an herbicide application in
Patrick and Marlyn
Richter’s fields in
Burleigh County,
North Dakota.
On left, a cover
crop mix of millet,
cowpea, soybean,
turnip, radish,
sunflower and sweet
clover. On right,
bare fields. The field
at left would require
less herbicide and
produce more corn.
Source: Josh Dukart, Burleigh County Soil
no-till and cover crops, Pat and Marlyn have increased the cropping two years ago. And those soil biota and
average soil organic matter levels on their fields to 2.5% earthworms provide the food sources for growing
from an initial value of 1.5%. In 2010, their soil tests found wildlife populations.
soil organic matter levels above 3% in some fields for the
first time. The increased soil organic matter increases the The Richters’ no-till cover crop strategy sequesters 1.65
nutrient carrying and delivery capacity of their soil, making metric tons of carbon dioxide per acre per year. There are
the soil more productive and profitable. about 182 million acres of land in the United States in which
farmers could implement no-till and cover crops. If each
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS: acre sequestered an average of 1.6 metric tons of carbon
Cover crops can play a significant role in reducing erosion dioxide like what the Richters achieved, about 5% of the
and nutrient loss in two ways. First, cover crops provide United States’ annual greenhouse gas emissions would
excellent cover for the soil and provide roots that hold be stored. This carbon storage happens because in the
soil in place. With these plants, soil is less susceptible to absence of a cover crop, fields typically lay empty during
erosion. Second, cover crops absorb nutrients from the the fall and spring and no photosynthesis occurs during this
soil and make them available for cash crops. By locking time. Cover crops grow during those seasons, and remove
away nutrients in plant matter, the nutrients that normally carbon from the atmosphere, storing it in soils.
get lost to erosion or leaching instead get held in place
until subsequent cash crops can use them. MORE RESOURCES:
Managing Cover Crops Profitably (USDA SARE):
North Dakotans benefit from the Richters’ cover crops http://www.sare.org/publications/covercrops/
through an increase in wildlife. From earthworms and covercrops.pdf
birds to pheasants and deer, the brothers support an
Midwest Cover Crop Council:
abundant wildlife on their farm. Cover crops feed a
http://www.mccc.msu.edu/
healthy diversity of soil biota, including fungi, bacteria
and invertebrates. The Richters noticed earthworms Burleigh County Soil Conservation District:
in their soil for the first time since they began cover http://www.bcscd.com
In western Kansas, cover crops increased pheasant popula- Keys for Maximizing Benefits
tions by 80 percent compared to areas with bare ground.17
Researchers studying cover crops have shown that cover
from Cover Crops
crops can provide habitat and forage for wildlife without Reduce the amount of time soil lays barren by
significantly affecting the growth of the cover crop and the planting cover crops as soon as possible after
other benefits they provide.18 harvest, and in some cases, cover crops may be
planted before harvest.
By transferring carbon from the air to the soil, cover
crops improve soil health and commodity production and Plant cover crops suited for your climate, soils, and
reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. ecosystem.
Through the natural process of photosynthesis, cover crops To maximize the nutrient carrying capacity of soil,
absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the plant cover crops high in biomass.
carbon to develop biomass. Plants will also draw carbon
To maximize the carbon sequestration (and increase
down through their roots and place carbon into the soil.
in soil carbon), allow cover crops to
In one field test, bell bean, a winter cover crop, added 2.7
grow as long as possible in between commodity
tons of carbon per acre and sunn hemp, a summer cover
crop, added 2.1 tons of carbon per acre. By maintaining crop cycles.
plant presence on the soil for as long as possible, cover Various wildlife species use agricultural areas and
crops maximize the opportunity to use land to reduce cover crops differently. Plant the cover crop that
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. In more best suits the needs of the targeted species.
humid and warm climates like those found in the South
Consistent use of cover crops builds up soil
and Southeast, adding a cover crop to a conservation
structure to help grow commodity crops
tillage system nearly doubles the rate of soil carbon
while also consistently addressing other
sequestration.19 Carbon is a vital component to soil health
environmental issues.
and is greatly benefited by the presence of cover crops.
2
Conservation Tillage
Conservation Tillage—a range of
T
hroughout human history, societies have relied
on farmers to produce food. Historical leaps in
cultivation techniques designed to economic, social, and cultural growth can be tied
minimize disturbance of the soil only to technological advancements in food production. The
moldboard plow, which broke native sod with relative
to areas necessary for seed placement. ease, provided one of these leaps in the ability of farmers
Undisturbed soil and organic matter from to produce large amounts of food. When coupled
with tractors, farmers became extremely productive in
the previous crop help protect the soil
defeating plant species in competition with commodity
from erosion. Conservation tillage is the crops and in breaking open native lands to expand agricul-
tural production. The plow helped farmers achieve “clean
broader term for a range of techniques,
tillage,” a cultivation approach in which all competing
including minimum till, strip till, and plants were removed, making the field entirely void or
clean of residue. America experienced vast increases in
no-till. Benefits include reduced erosion,
food supply from these innovations.
reduced equipment, labor, and fuel costs
Over time, however, people began to notice the
for farmers, improved water quality, and
unintended consequences of clean tillage. The tragic
increased carbon sequestration. events of the 1930s Dust Bowl first taught the nation about
erosion resulting from intensive soil disturbance associated
with clean tillage. By the 1980s, some farmers began to
notice years of losing topsoil on intensively cultivated lands
led to nutrient deficiency, and in some cases, outright infer-
tility in fields that had just a generation earlier provided
ample bounty. Conservation tillage, or reducing tillage
intensity, has gained growing acceptance as a way to
prevent soil erosion and maintain soil fertility. The practice
jumped from use on 26 percent of U.S. cropland in 1989 to
41.5 percent by 2008.20 In Tennessee, for example, over 87
percent of all row crops were planted using conservation
tillage in 2010.21
Repeated intensive tillage can affect the soil’s ability to

retain water through reducing pores in the soil as well
as impairing the soil’s ability to bind together. These
two functions facilitate water drainage as well as water

retention. Intensively tilled soils have a reduced ability
to drain water down through the soil profile, causing
increased runoff. The ability for the land to absorb water is
also reduced, which makes it dry out faster. 22 Conservation
tillage allows for more water absorption; increasing soil
organic matter by just 1 percent increases water retention
Conservation tillage such as these soybeans planted by 2.5 percent.23 Consequently, crops grown using
using zero, or no, till protect natural resources while
maximizing farm profitability.
THE HIGH COSTS OF EROSION AND RUNOFF attribute over half a billion dollars of annual flooding costs
directly to erosion.25 Eroded sediment is often deposited
E rosion of soil by wind or water creates problems and

costs for farmers, whose fields have lost soil and
nutrients, and for the regions in which they live. States
in lower flow areas of rivers, contributing to bottleneck
problems. Moreover, decreased water infiltration rates
caused by conventional land management practices
must pay to clear sediment from ditches and culverts. coupled with the loss of thousands of acres of wetlands
Municipalities in erosion-heavy areas often require have reduced the land’s ability to absorb rainwater. As
special equipment and incur additional expense purging a result, severe flooding of waterways becomes more
sediment from drinking water. Similarly, taxpayers bear the frequent. A study conducted at Stanford University
costs of dredging to remove excess sediment from ports concluded that reducing runoff from agricultural lands
and barge traffic channels. Each year, businesses and
24
by just 10 percent could reduce flood peaks by up to
taxpayers incur billions of dollars in indirect costs due to 50 percent. This process would dramatically reduce the
erosion and sedimentation. costs associated with flood prevention and damage.26 By
implementing practices such as conservation tillage and
Soil erosion also contributes to increased financial cover crops on their land, farmers help to reduce flooding
burdens associated with flooding. In fact, researchers in their watersheds and downriver.
Clean tillage resulting in wind erosion. Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS
conservation tillage methods are better able to withstand employ conservation tillage typically have higher profit
both intense wet periods as well as extended dry periods.27 margins compared to their conventional counterparts.32
By addressing erosion and improving water retention,
Improved water management through conservation conservation tillage practices reduce nutrient loss from
tillage provides economic benefits for society at large and farm fields, reducing the need to add nutrients through
farmers choosing to implement the practice. Every year, fertilizers. While conservation tillage can sometimes result
the U.S. loses between $21 billion and $69 billion annually in increased use of herbicides, it nonetheless eliminates
in costs due to erosion.28 Increasing water retention and the intensive seedbed preparation that defines conven-
percolation can significantly reduce surface runoff from tional or clean tillage, eliminating between three and
agricultural lands. seven trips across each field. By reducing the number of
trips across a field, farmers can reduce fuel, equipment,
By improving percolation, conservation tillage decreases and labor costs substantially while increasing income.
the time needed for water to enter into the soil profile, One study shows farmers saved between $7.67 and
which reduces erosion, runoff, and sedimentation. No-till, $71.42 per acre by implementing conservation tillage.33
one version of conservation tillage, reduces the time Furthermore, farmers with irrigation systems will find
needed for one inch of water to infiltrate the soil from they do not have to irrigate as much after implementing
over 14 minutes with conventional till to less than two conservation tillage on irrigated lands, which improves
minutes.29 In 10 minutes’ time, rainwater that falls on their profit margins.34 Finally, farmers who switch from
conventionally-tilled fields will hit the ground, loosening clean to conservation tillage experience improved yields,
and carrying soil and nutrients to nearby streams and all the while reducing costs.35
rivers. During the same 10 minutes in a neighboring field
managed with conservation tillage, rainwater will infiltrate FUEL COSTS OF VARIOUS CULTIVATION METHODS36
the soil profile, become absorbed by organic matter, and
Carbon Emissions from
become available for plants to use through the next few Tillage System Fuel Use per Acre
Fuel Use
days. This increased ability to absorb precipitation rather
than allowing moisture to run off across the surface can Clean Tillage 3.31 gallons per acre 33.2 kg CO2 /acre/year
contribute to flood management and prevention systems. Conservation

2.91 gallons per acre 29.1 kg CO2 /acre/year
As a proven example, a project to increase conservation Tillage
tillage on 57,000 farmed acres in the Pine River Watershed No Tillage .93 gallons per acre 9.3 kg CO2 /acre/year
allowed the city of Richland Center, Wisconsin to reduce
peak discharge of a 100-year flood by 15 percent.30 Other ANNUAL COST REDUCTIONS OF CONSERVATION
water management techniques, like pasture and hay TILL (COMPARED TO CLEAN TILLAGE)37
land planting, timber stand improvement, stream bank
Labor $1.00–$7.74 per acre
protection, and wildlife upland habitat management also
contributed to the decline in runoff and severity of flooding. Fuel $1.45–$7.63 per acre
Machinery Repairs $1.12–$11.30 per acre
WATER ABSORPTION AND RUNOFF RATES OF Equipment Ownership $4.10–$44.75 per acre
CLEAN AND NO TILL SYSTEMS31
Total Reduced Costs $7.67–$71.42 per acre
Time needed for 1 inch of water to infiltrate
into the soil
Conservation tillage has a proven track record of increasing
Native soil Less than 1 minute wildlife populations by reducing soil disturbance.
No-till Less than 2 minutes Highlighting the effect disturbance has on wildlife, a study
in Canada found a direct correlation between duck nesting
Conventional (clean) till Over 14 minutes
success and reduced disturbance.38 Wildlife and biodi-
versity benefits are maximized as tillage operations are
Undoubtedly, conservation tillage is valuable to farmers’ minimized, especially during the nesting season. Retaining
bottom line. Numerous studies comparing conventional as much crop residue as possible after harvest similarly
and conservation tillage practices show that farmers who (continued on page 18)
CASE STUDY
Oklahoma Farmers, Conservationists and Electric Cooperative

Improve Farm Profitability, Stream Quality and Global Climate
Stacy Hansen, Oklahoma Conservation Commission

A cereal rye cover crop grows through recently harvested wheat.
F
armers, conservationists and an electric cooperative vation of farm fields with practices that leave most of the
in western Oklahoma discovered a way to improve soil undisturbed and applies slight tillage in narrow seed
farm profitability, restore streams and remove carbon bed strips at planting time.
dioxide from the atmosphere. Farmers in Blaine and
Canadian counties are earning about $20.40 per acre for Participating farmers achieved these benefits by
the water quality benefits and carbon dioxide storage transitioning a total of 8,700 acres of their land to no-till
they are providing on their farms by converting to no-till production and storing 3,485 metric tons (roughly .4
farming. This farming method replaces intensive culti- tons per acre) of carbon dioxide annually in the process.
Their use of no-till farming benefits Oklahomans by enables the ground to build up soil carbon and organic
reducing pollution to the North Canadian River, which matter, which improves the soil’s ability to absorb nutrients
improves water quality and fish habitat. The Western and release them to plants. In six watersheds where
Farmers Electric Cooperative (WFEC) is working with the Oklahoma Conservation Commission worked with
the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts to farmers to plant riparian buffer zones, transition to no-till
purchase carbon credits from the farmers for seques- and improve livestock management, the United States
tering the carbon dioxide. In addition, participating Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified that the
farmers qualified for Oklahoma’s 319 water quality watersheds, formerly polluted, now meet water quality
program, implemented by the Oklahoma Conservation standards. The EPA has recognized these achievements by
Commission, which provided some cost-share to offset ranking Oklahoma in the top five states in the country for
the costs of transitioning to no-till. reducing phosphorous and nitrogen pollution.
Farmers adopting no-till in Oklahoma store on average

Farmers in Blaine and Canadian counties
0.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide per acre per year.
are earning about $20.40 per acre for the Approximately half the carbon an annual plant removes
from the atmosphere through photosynthesis is stored
O water quality benefits and carbon dioxide in the soil. No-till protects carbon stored in the soil.
storage they are providing on their farms There are about 177 million acres of row crop farmland
in the United States that could be no-tilled, and if every
by converting to no-till farming.
acre sequestered an average of .4 metric tons of carbon
dioxide, over 1% of the United States’ annual greenhouse
gas emissions would be stored.
PROFITABILITY:
Farmers earned $19 per acre per year for three years
of no-till production. The carbon sequestered earned MORE RESOURCES:
them carbon credits which the Oklahoma Association of Stacy Hansen
Conservation Districts (OACD) purchased for $3.50 per Director, Oklahoma Carbon Program
ton. The OACD aggregated and sold these carbon credits Oklahoma Conservation Commission
to the Western Farmers Electric Cooperative for the same Office: (405) 522-4739
price. The Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC) www.conservation.ok.gov
provided verification of the carbon sequestration. Shanon Stacy.Hansen@conservation.ok.gov
Phillips, Director of Oklahoma Conservation Commission’s
Water Quality Division, found the Western Farmers
Electric Cooperative’s “voluntary purchase of carbon
credits was a way for the Co-Op to reward their customers
for conservation practices that protect water quality and
sequester carbon.” The Oklahoma Conservation Districts
participating in this pilot project purchased a no-till drill,
which they rented to farmers to help them convert to
no-tillage production without buying equipment.
Oklahomans benefit from improved water quality thanks
to implementation of no-till farming. In the nearby Lake
Creek, fish species diversity and the number of fish
doubled due to similar efforts. No-till production reduces
erosion, which keeps surface waters cleaner. Also, no-till
Precision Agriculture
T hanks to advancements in global positioning

systems, remote sensing data, and real-time soil
sensing equipment, precision agriculture is devel-
oping into an effective system for maintaining or
increasing yield with reduced inputs. Through precision
agriculture, farm implements are guided by GPS,
reducing operator error and field pass overlap. Data

from sensing technology, such as yield monitors and
on-the-go sensing electrical conductivity, combined
with remote sensing data from satellites are all drawn
together to correlate production yields to soil character-
istics. Armed with such information and new technology
that allows for fine-tuned metering of inputs such as
Water erosion from clean tillage.
seed, fertilizer, and pesticides, farmers using precision
agriculture have the opportunity to reduce inputs while
maintaining yield.39 This precision leads to reduced Abundance of non-pest insects has been shown to
be greater in no-till fields than in those that are clean
emissions from fuel use and volatilization of over-
tilled.41 The importance of the effects of tillage on insect
supplied nitrogen. Additionally, precision agriculture
abundance and wildlife populations is illustrated in a
shows promise in reducing nutrient runoff by matching study in which quail chicks gained weight when foraging
nutrient application to site-specific soil need.40 Further for insects in no-till fields but lost weight when foraging
development is still needed for precision agriculture for insects in tilled fields.42 No-till fields can attract greater
technology to become widely implementable. As diversity of bird species and lead to better nesting
it currently stands, precision agriculture requires success than clean tilled fields.43
significant investment in expensive equipment, yet this
rapidly advancing field offers great promise. In fact, under clean tillage, up to
O 80 percent of soil organic carbon is lost
over 40 to 50 years of cultivation.
Continued from page 15
maximizes benefits to wildlife by providing vital food and
In addition to preventing soil erosion, improving water
cover, especially during winter and early spring.
management and wildlife habitat, and decreasing
production costs for farmers, conservation tillage
Crops grown using conservation tillage practices can also play a role in addressing climate
methods are better able to withstand both change. The practice sequesters carbon into the soil and
O plants, locking it away for an extended period of time.
intense wet periods as well as extended This stands in stark contrast to clean tillage methods
dry periods. which sequesters carbon through plant growth, but
then releases that carbon back into the atmosphere
Conservation tillage fields provide stable nesting when the soil is intensively tilled on an annual basis. For
areas for wildlife and encourage higher populations of example, each spring in Iowa the atmospheric carbon
beneficial soil organisms that provide food for wildlife concentration rises as farmers conduct their spring tillage.
and improve soil structure vital to crop production. Additionally, clean tilled land will lose soil organic carbon
Sedimintation from erosion.
Keys for Maximizing Benefits

over time due to the continued release of carbon without of Conservation Tillage
efforts to counterbalance those losses. In fact, under
clean tillage, up to 80 percent of soil organic carbon is Coupling conservation tillage with cover crops
lost over 40 to 50 years of cultivation.44 increases soil building, erosion and flood
prevention, and field productivity benefits while
Farmers can sell their greenhouse gas benefits from reducing costs to farmers.
conservation tillage on carbon markets. Various estimates
Conservation tillage widely implemented across a
place carbon sequestration of conservation tillage
watershed can significantly mitigate flooding.
between .2 and .3 tons per acre per year.45 At this rate, if
200 million acres of conventional tillage were replaced with Conservation tillage provides the best benefits if
conservation tillage, up to 60 million tons of carbon would implemented consistently.
be sequestered every year. Farmers gain an additional
Transitioning to conservation tillage with cover
revenue source, and the nation benefits from improved
crops currently presents a difficult barrier for many
water quality, improved wildlife habitat, and biodiversity.
farmers.
3
Organic Management
O Organic Management—An agricultural

rganic farmers use techniques that rely on
biological systems to replace synthetic chemical
inputs. These techniques include the use of cover
system that promotes and enhances
crops, advantageous crop rotations, and manure and biodiversity and biological cycles through
compost nutrient sources to produce diverse products. The
term “organic farming” derives its name from soil organic
practices that work with ecological
matter, a key indicator of soil biological health. The United processes while minimizing the use of
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) certifies products
off-farm inputs. Benefits include elimination
from these farms. Consumers are increasingly attracted
to products labeled organic, often due to a perception of chemical inputs, improved soil health,
of health benefits from those products. Between 1997
increased wildlife habitat, and increased
and 2007, sales of organic food and beverages grew
from $1 billion to over $24 billion.46 Despite double digit farm profitability.
growth rates, certified organic production still represents
a relatively small percentage of market demand and
production acreage.
Farmers who use organic methods

O profit more per acre than those who use
conventional farming methods.
For farmers, organic production can be more profitable.

A 22-year study conducted at the Rodale Institute
compared conventional corn-soy production with an
organic corn-soy rotation and an organic corn-soy-pasture
rotation. The results showed that the organic systems had
higher profit per acre. The conventional corn-soy rotation
earned an average of $72 per acre while the organic corn-
soybean rotation earned, on average, over $89 per acre.47
Numerous studies conducted at land grant universities
further substantiate the conclusion that farmers who use
organic methods profit more per acre than those who use
conventional farming methods.48 These studies indicate
the profit advantage of organic production through
reduced input costs alone. Adding the price premium
for these products would further increase the profit
advantage of organic production. Moreover, organic
systems enjoy more stable profit margins with fewer years
of losses. In separate studies conducted by researchers
at Iowa State University and the University of Nebraska,
the organic systems had a higher average annual profit
compared to continuous corn, and they posted a profit
every year of the 10 and 8 year studies. Conventional
corn, however, experienced a net loss roughly one out of Further facilitating more stable production with reduced
every four years.49 The 2007 Census of Agriculture found dependence on off-farm inputs, organic farming maximizes
that organic farms had an average profit of $46,000 and beneficial organisms in the soil, which play important roles
non-organic profited $25,000.50 in facilitating nutrient exchange and managing pests.
Earthworms, for instance, play a vital role in aerating soil,
One of the reasons organic farmers enjoy more stable which increases root growth, facilitates water infiltration
and increased profit margins is organic agriculture’s focus and redistributes nutrients throughout the root zone.
on biological systems that reduces energy use. Organic (continued on page 24)
agriculture has on average 60 percent less direct energy
use compared to conventional production practices.51
Can Organic Provide?

Organic agriculture has on average
O 60 percent less direct energy use compared
to conventional production practices.
M any scientific studies indicate organic agriculture
can match and sometimes exceed production
from non-organic agriculture.55 However, in the first
years of organic production, also known as the transition
period during which soil health builds, farmers often
In addition to reducing emissions through less energy use,
organic agriculture builds up carbon and other nutrients experience lower production. This results from nitrogen
in the soil at impressive rates. The farming method utilizes deficiency which occurs when inorganic fertilizers that
practices that maximize soil organic matter, which uses provide short term boosts in nitrogen are no longer
carbon sequestered from the atmosphere to improve applied. Nitrogen from organic sources requires more
soil nutrient holding and delivery capacity. Each time soil time to establish and build up in the soil. After the
is exposed to the air, the carbon in SOC volatizes and transition, which takes roughly two to five years, organic
escapes into the atmosphere. This volitization is particularly
agriculture can consistently match or out-produce
extensive with the cultivating or breaking of lands in native
conventional agriculture.
ecosystems—lands which have had years to build up
carbon in the soil. Major differences in soil, biological and
environmental characteristics occur between fields with low Three studies comparing conventional and organic
SOC and those managed to maximize soil organic carbon. production provide valuable insight into the issue
Fields with high SOC retain and make nutrients available of organic farming. In one of the longest running
for subsequent crops, resist erosion, and exhibit better agricultural trials in England comparing conven-
percolation. Increasing SOC makes more water available to tional and organic systems, the organic system
crops to better survive droughts while reducing the impact produced 1.4 tons of wheat per acre while the
and incidence of flooding by more effectively directing
conventional system produced 1.38 tons per acre.
excess water into the ground rather than across the surface
In Pennsylvania, the Rodale Institute completed a
landscape.52 A nine year study conducted by John Teasdale
at the Beltsville, Maryland Agricultural Research Service 22-year study comparing conventional and organic
compared the carbon sequestration ability of minimum production systems. After a transition period for
till organic systems to no-till production. Examining these organic agriculture, both corn and soybean yields
systems in corn, soybean, and wheat production, the were equivalent for years 6 through 22 of the study.56
organic system was found to build more soil organic carbon In a 17-year study in Minnesota, rotations using
(SOC) than no-till methods.53 The organic system added organic methods had higher alfalfa, oats, and corn
organic matter to the soil and reduced inputs that destroy production.57 Because organic systems build up soil
living matter.54 Building healthy soil allows organic farmers
fertility and increases future productivity, there is
to experience more consistent yields without having to rely
little question that organic can produce as much as
on inputs such as fertilizer and other soil amendments that
conventional agriculture.
can often experience rapid price volatility.
CASE STUDY
The Next Generation of Farmers

Grows on an Organic Grain Farm in Massachusetts
Source: Ben and Adrie Lester

Loaves of bread at Wheatberry Bakery, grown, harvested
and eaten in Amherst Massachusetts.
B
en and Adrie Lester are young farmers using organic will grow grain in an extended rotation of corn followed by
practices that improve their profitability, remove oats followed by winter wheat, followed by about 3 years
greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and provide of perennial grass, followed by a legume like dry beans.
habitat for local wildlife. Ben and Adrie are not your typical He plants rye, oats, and clover as a cover crop during the
farmers—while the average American farmer is 57 years winter season between the summer annual grain crops. The
old, Ben and Adrie just turned 30. Secretary of Agriculture Lesters’ sell their products directly to the local community.
Tom Vilsack called for 100,000 new farmers, and the couple
is happy to step up to the plate. The Lesters represent PROFITABILITY:
not just youth, but a new awareness in farming. Ben says, By selling directly to the local community, the Lesters are
“every young grower I know is motivated by concerns able to increase their profit margin, receiving $3-5 per
about climate change and other environmental problems.” pound of grain and $7 per pound of local organic bread,
rather than the $.10 per pound of grain or $4 per pound
The Lesters grow grain, eggs and wool organically on 4.5 of bread the farmers might receive in the commodity
acres in the Pioneer Valley of western Massachusetts. They market. The young organic farmers sell their products in
two ways. First, the Lesters manage a Community
Supported Agriculture program in which 119
members pay $375 at the start of the growing
season to the couple and three other local grain
farmers. In return, the members get a ‘share’ of
the grain harvest, which varies depending on
yields in a given year. In 2010, each customer paid
around $3.50/pound for heirloom beans, wheat,
spelt, rye, buckwheat and heritage grain corn.
Second, the Lesters operate Wheatberry Bakery
in downtown Amherst, where they sell local bread
and vegetables.
The people of western Massachusetts benefit Source: Ben and Adrie Lester
Perhaps a future farmer?
from the Lesters’ farming practices. No herbicides
or pesticides, which can kill and mutate amphibians
and fish, are present in waters leaving the couple’s farm. perennial crops and cover crops, and adding nutrients
Their reduced tillage reduces soil erosion, keeping local for soil health, organic farmers sequester carbon in many
waterways free from excess sediment. Reduced tillage ways. Plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
also increases the population of soil biota like earthworms, through photosynthesis. They store about half that carbon
which provide another food source for wildlife like in the soil, where they give the carbon, in the form of
birds. Furthermore, the increased diversity of crops on sugar, to soil organisms in exchange for nutrients and
the Lesters’ farm and their preservation of natural and water. Each kind of crop has its own set of soil organisms
semi-natural areas provide habitat and food for beneficial it connects with, so by maximizing crop diversity,
insects. Studies have found wildlife species richness on organic farmers maximize the number of carbon rich soil
organic farms increased by an average of 30%, and wildlife organisms. Perennial crops grow during a longer portion
populations increased by an average of 50%. of the year than annual crops, and divert more carbon to
their roots where it is more easily stored for longer periods
Organic farms in the northeast like Ben and Adrie’s have or put into the soil for even longer storage. Cover crops
been shown to store about two metric tons of carbon give carbon to soil organisms in exchange for nutrients
dioxide per acre. Through diverse crop rotations, planting and water during times of year when nothing else would
be growing. By practicing minimum tillage, Ben and Adrie
reduce disturbances to soil organisms and carbon stored
in the soil. They are interested in future experimentation
with other cutting edge farming practices with climate
benefits, such as burning biomass in a low oxygen
environment for energy, and then using the resulting
biochar as a fertilizer. This willingness to experiment
may be crucial in identifying tomorrow’s profitable future
friendly practices.
Source: Ben and Adrie Lester
MORE RESOURCES:
The Greenhorns:
http://www.thegreenhorns.net/
National Young Farmers Coalition

http://www.youngfarmers.org/
Bats can be sensitive to pesticides
while also providing alternative
means of insect control for farmers
worth billions of dollars every year.
Some wildlife are so sensitive to

pesticides they can become sick
and even die simply by ingesting
plants covered with the chemicals.
Once animals become sick from
pesticide exposure, they are more
likely to die if exposed again.61 Less
use of agriculture chemicals allows a
greater variety of plants and insects
to develop in and around farmed
lands, increasing plant diversity and
insect populations vital to wildlife
and resilient ecosystems.
Photo by Andy King, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Organic farms have a higher

(Continued from page 21) abundance and species richness of bats and birds, both
Populations of these worms can be as much as twice as of which provide excellent means of controlling insect
abundant in soils of farms that use organic management populations.62 By employing alternative pest management
compared to conventional tillage methods.58 methods, organic farming reduces negative impacts to
beneficial insects and wildlife.63 Meanwhile, the devel-
Organic production provides numerous benefits to farmers opment of balanced natural ecosystems and food chains
and society, as well. Through the use of biological systems, provide a check on agricultural pests, allowing for farm
crop rotations, cover crops and other methods to manage production to not only continue, but thrive.
weeds and pests and increase soil health, organic farming
lowers costs placed upon society by more input-intensive
systems. For example, organic agriculture replaces the use
of chemical herbicides like atrazine with non-synthetic or of Organic Farming
biological alternatives. Because it is highly effective and
relatively cheap, atrazine is one of the most commonly used Organic farming requires 60 percent less energy use
herbicides on non-organic farms, which has led to contami- compared to conventional production.
nation of waterways in farm communities. In sampling When implemented with a crop rotation, organic
conducted by the U.S. Geologic Survey, 97 percent of farming can consistently produce yields similar to
streams in agricultural areas had atrazine present. Atrazine conventional production.
was the most frequently detected chemical and at the
Reduced fluctuation of input costs, coupled with
highest concentrations in water samples from agricultural
more stable production, results in more consistent,
areas. In total, almost 10 percent of streams in agricultural
areas had chemical concentrations above the human health and often higher profit for farmers.
benchmarks established for water by the Environmental Transitioning to organic production requires
Protection Agency.59 Even at low levels, atrazine in water farmers to incur upfront costs before they enjoy the
can cause hermaphroditism in amphibians, affecting their long-term benefits.
reproductive capacity.60
4
Grassland and
Pasture Management
Grassland and rangeland management—
B
efore European settlement of North America, six
million bison roamed the lands, adding nutrients and
applying plant and animal management pushing biomass into the ground by grazing large
techniques on pastures and other animal sections of grasses. With this huge herd of grazers, water
quality and soil health was excellent. Periodic fires swept
grazing areas to maximize plant health through the landscape, returning nutrients to the soil.
and diversity while increasing animal Modern management of grasslands prevents adequate
cycling of nutrients while inhibiting carbon sequestration,
carrying capacity of the land. Benefits
biomass production, and wildlife habitat. However,
include reduced erosion, reduced grassland and pasture management can be optimized to
provide more of the benefits provided by native prairie
chemical and fertilizer applications and
while continuing to provide grazing to cattle.
runoff, increased carbon sequestration,
One of the most commonly used grazing practices is
and increased farm profitability.
known as continuous grazing, which allows animals to
graze the same field or area for months at a time. This
practice limits plant growth and recovery,
producing a homogenous grass community
of single species able to survive perpetual
harvest. Weeds and invasive species are
more likely to out-compete native grasses
under continuous grazing, reducing forage
production and wildlife habitat in the process.
In many cases, continuous grazing reduces
the total productivity of the plant community.
Some farmers are turning to rotational

and mob grazing to address these issues
Abe Collins
and increase production and farm profit-

ability. Rotational grazing, also known as
Dairy cows mob grazing a small portion of a pasture Management Intensive Grazing (MIG), limits
after it has been given ample time to regrow. the amount of land available to animals at any one time,
and entails moving animals to new fields every two to
five days. Pasture sections are then given adequate time
to recover and regrow a healthy stand of grass mixtures
and native plants. By allowing the land adequate time to
rest, grass re-growth improves significantly. Mob grazing
involves an even faster rotation than rotational grazing.
Rather than moving every few days, most mob grazers
move their animals daily or a few times a day, keeping the
animals packed closely together.
Farmers can see tremendous benefit from improved

grassland management. Rotational grazing increases the
Management of native grasses such as this switchgrass in Union County, Iowa,
maximize farm profit and environmental services.
total volume of plant biomass produced on grazed acres, experiencing nature and wildlife first-hand on a daily basis.
allowing farmers to increase herd size while operating on For that Missouri farmer, high intensity grazing made the
the same number of acres. Additionally, rotational grazing difference from having to sell his farm in bankruptcy to now
often extends the growing season for grazed grasses, succeeding as a profitable grazing operation.65
allowing farmers to increase the length of time animals
may graze in an area. This decreases farmers’ need to When farmers manage grasslands well, they provide many
purchase or produce feed for the offseason. Because feed benefits to everyone. Effective management of grasslands
is often the largest cost to dairy and meat farmers, this can can improve water supply and water quality and reduce
represent significant cost savings for them. More diverse flooding. Increased grass cover and soil structure also
fields, particularly those with native grasses, can more ably improves water infiltration and storage. Rain that falls on
exclude exotic invasive and weed species, reducing and well-managed pastures quickly enters the soil (infiltration)
sometimes eliminating herbicide and fertilizer costs. These and stays safely in groundwater for longer periods of time
native plants also provide improved nutritional value to (storage), reducing runoff while recharging groundwater
grazing animals. Some farmers report that the improved sources. Improved infiltration and absorption over many
nutritional value of diverse native grasses reduced their grassland and rangeland acres can affect surface water levels
need for providing nutritional supplements to their herds.64 miles from the managed areas. By mitigating wind and water
erosion and associated nutrient loss, improved grassland
In beef and dairy markets with tight profit margins, lower management also helps reduce dead zones in bodies
costs can determine the difference between a profit and of water. Grasslands with excellent plant growth derived
loss for a year. On Greg Judy’s Green Pastures Farm in through improved grazing practices and the use of native
Rucker, Missouri, 20 miles northwest of Columbia, high grasses will see increases in soil organic carbon. The extra
intensity grazing allowed him to double his beef animal carbon improves the soil’s ability to absorb water and hold
production per acre while cutting his seed costs by $5,000 onto it longer, attenuating flooding conditions down river.
per year. Additionally, by returning his land to native
ecosystems, whitetail deer, quail, wild turkey and songbirds By mimicking the natural systems that maximize the growth
returned to the land. This provided a new revenue stream of native grasses, improved grassland and rangeland
from hunting leases, not to mention the enjoyment of management can reduce the need for chemical and
nutrient applications. Historically, farmers and ranchers suggests grasslands with more diverse groups of grass
have turned to chemical herbicides to limit weeds. species have a three-fold benefit. First, plant diversity
Some farmers implementing rotational grazing methods feeds and encourages diverse soil biota which more ably
report halving or eliminating their use of fertilizer and store carbon than in a monoculture. Second, animals that
herbicides.66 Better grazing techniques and more suitable eat these diverse mixes enjoy a more nutritional diet,
mixtures of native grasses prove effective in making it which they are better able to digest, improving overall
harder for weeds to take root. Scaling back chemical herd health and reducing the amount of methane these
and nutrient applications reduces chemicals in run-off, animals directly release.70 Third, by incorporating more
improves water quality and wildlife habitat of nearby water diverse mixtures of native grasses, grasslands and pastures
bodies, and saves farmers money. . are better able to withstand changes in climate, allowing
for continued production in an uncertain climate future.
Grasslands with excellent plant growth Gene Goven, a North Dakota beef rancher and wheat
producer, sees these benefits firsthand. Gene often seeds
derived through improved grazing
ten different species at once. He mixes legumes, tall
practices and the use of native grasses grasses, and warm-season and cool-season grasses to fill
will see increases in soil organic carbon. all the niches in the ecosystem. Coupled with a transition
O to high intensity rotational grazing, Gene has better soil
The extra carbon improves the soil’s health, with a four percentage point increase in soil organic
ability to absorb water and hold onto it carbon. The beef rancher also has increased his herd size,
which increases his profitability.71
longer, attenuating flooding conditions
down river. Keys for Maximizing
Tailoring rotational grazing systems around native Benefits from Grassland
ecosystems can improve habitat for local wildlife while
maintaining the productive capacity of the land.67 For and Pasture Management
example, farmers can design a rotation that avoids disrupting
Mixed species of grasses and plants that replicate
bird nesting habitat during the nesting season. Once birds
original ground cover often provide the most
have raised their broods, grazing animals may return to that
benefit to landowners through increased production
area without causing harm to young bird populations. In
and wildlife habitat. Downstream residents also
fact, well-managed native rangelands have higher levels of
benefit from better water management and water
bird diversity than unmanaged rangelands. Diverse grazing
quality, and the environment benefits through
practices create the full gradient of vegetative structures
needed to maintain many grassland bird species.68 increased carbon sequestration.
Increasing the grazing rotation and reducing the

Farmers adopting these improved grazing management amount of time an area is grazed will increase plant
techniques build up soil organic carbon and enhance regrowth, lessen the opportunity for weeds to
soil health. These practices also help to address climate establish, and allow for healthier soils and plants
change through carbon sequestration. Typically, farmers
and increased herd sizes.
using these techniques will see carbon sequestration rates
between .1 and 2.5 tons of carbon per acre per year.69 With Grassland and pasture management that
these improved carbon sequestration rates, grasslands restricts grazing or harvesting during peak bird
could reduce total domestic emissions by over one percent nesting periods will dramatically increase the
per year. benefits to wildlife.
Rotational grazing and native plant mixtures

Increasing plant diversity on grasslands and pastures will
typically increase farm profitability.
also result in improved land carrying capacity, carbon
sequestration and climate change adaptation. Research
CASE STUDY
New Mexico Rancher Cultivates More Cows,

Profit, and Environmental and Climate Benefits
K
elly Boney raises cattle in western New Mexico.
Her ranch, 13 miles south of Bard in Quay County,
has been in her family since 1907. She has a
typical western cow/calf operation, breeding beef cattle
for sale to feedlots and consumers. Kelly has been able
to increase her herd to 1.25 animals per 100 acres from
an initial amount of just .66 animals per 100 acres by
concentrating her animals and increasing the rotation or
movement frequency. The animals are concentrated in
a paddock for a short period of time, from 12 hours to
3 days, and then that area is given 80 or more days to
Source: Peggy Cole, www.holisticmanagement.org

recover before regrazing. Kelly, like many mob grazers,
uses the rule that half of the grass should be grazed,
and half should be trampled into the ground by the
animals in order to promote soil health and improved
grass regrowth. In the parts of her ranch where she
implemented this practice, Kelly observed increases in
grass production and diversity and less bare soil. Like
innovative ranchers around the country implementing
mob grazing, Kelly Boney has simultaneously increased
production and profits while removing carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere and improving biodiversity.
PROFITABILITY:
Boney doubled the amount of cattle she produces with
using cheaper portable electric fencing. By combining
minimal increases in costs, significantly boosting her
portable electric wiring with her existing fencing infra-
profitability. The rancher’s mob grazing requires careful
structure, Kelly is able to create many small paddocks
planning of paddock layout and rotation strategy. Creating
within one large one. These smaller paddocks enable
a mob grazing plan enables her to concentrate her animals
her to achieve the animal concentrations she needs to
in each paddock to ensure a beneficial impact on soil
improve the health of her soil, the quality of her grass and
and grass. The strategy also
the number of animals she can graze.
includes plenty of time for
that paddock to regrow,
typically around 80 days,
New Mexicans benefit from the hard work of ranchers
depending on rainfall.
like Kelly Boney. By covering bare soil, increasing grass
She needs to allow
cover and increasing carbon, mob grazing helps to build
enough regrowth so
stable soil that more effectively holds water. Boney uses
that when her cows
long rest periods to encourage grass growth and diversity
return, they have
while lowering the amount of bare ground on her ranch. In
plenty of grass to eat
dry regions like New Mexico, having more grass growing
and trample into the
means she can store more rainfall and carbon in the soil.
soil. Kelly increases
The average rainfall in Quay County, where her ranch is
animal concentration
located, is only around 10 inches per year. Continuously
A rancher and his son examine the signs of animal impact during a grazing class at the Ford Ranch
near Brady, Texas May 3, 2011.
grazed land leaves bare soil exposed, allowing the produce significant carbon storage. There are approxi-
occasional rainstorms that sweep through the Southwest mately 410 million acres of rangeland in the United States,
to cause damaging erosion. This erosion process threatens if every acre achieved this sequestration rate, the carbon
food security as productive land becomes barren. Erosion sequestered would offset about 10 percent of the United
also damages lakes and streams as they become increas- States’ annual greenhouse gas emissions.
ingly clogged with sediment.
RESOURCES:
Additionally, increased ground cover improves wildlife Holistic Management International:
habitat, especially for vital species such as the sage www.holisticmanagement.org
grouse. The animal is facing declining habitat because of
suburban sprawl, increased oil and gas production and Burleigh County Soil Conservation District:
competition from invasive species as a result of poor land http://www.bcscd.com
management.
Natural Resources Conservation Service: Practice
Ranches in nearby west Texas managed with mob grazing Standard, Animal Enhancement Activity: Ultra high density
like Boney’s have recorded carbon sequestration rates of grazing system to improve soil quality.
1.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide per acre per year over http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/2011/
sequestration rates from continuous grazing. As perennial animal-pdfs/ANM30_Ultra_high_density_grazing_
grasses store most of their carbon underground, they can system_to_improve_soil_quality.pdf
5
Sustainable Forest
Management
F Forest management—planning and

orests are under increasing threats from insect
infestation, fire, and reduced plant and animal biodi-
versity. In 2009, forest stakeholders highlighted the
administration of forest resources
negative trends affecting the nation’s forests, including for sustainable harvest, multiple use,
a decline in forest health, increases in conversion to
non-forest uses, and increasing dependence on private
regeneration, and maintenance of a
lands and foreign imports to meet needs. Typically, these healthy biological community. Benefits
sources do not experience the same level of management
include increased wildlife habitat, carbon
to maintain forest health in light of increased demand. To
address these negative trends, a number of forest stake- sequestration, wood production, water
holders have identified the importance of conservation and
filtration, and ecosystem resilience.
sustainable management of the nation’s forests.72
Forest management is
vital not only to forest
health, ecosystem
resilience, wildlife, and
water quality, but it is
a vital management
technique to maximizing
timber production. Many
current problems are
linked to overstocking and
excessive accumulation of
woody material.73 Selective
thinning is one forest
management technique
commonly used to correct

overcrowding and boost
growth of remaining trees
for the benefit of the forest
and wildlife.74 Thinnings
can then be used for
biomass energy operations
to displace fossil fuel use.
White fir is thinned from a stand of timber under
a forest management practice in Arriba County,
Forest management plays an important role in
New Mexico.
maintaining forest health, increasing biodiversity, and
improving wildlife habitat. Through selective harvesting,
understory plant species and young trees gain
opportunities for growth throughout a forest ecosystem.
Variation in understory and canopy structure, as well as
age of plant species, create wildlife habitat opportunities
not present in forest ecosystems dominated by a single
age of plant species.75 A layered forest that includes tree
canopy, dead “snags,” young trees, understory plants How Clear Cutting Forests
and leaf litter is central to the sustainability of many
species. This tree and understory species diversity in
Leads to Carbon Emissions
various locations and sizes throughout a forest ecosystem
maximize wildlife habitat options.
F orest clear cutting leads to carbon emissions from
the soil.79 When forest soil is exposed to sunlight,
the heat rapidly speeds up decomposition of forest
Diversifying plant species and spatial arrangement offer
further benefits to ecosystem health. Fostering biodiversity floor material, releasing carbon stored in the soil. Clear
contributes resistance to disease that can decimate less cutting a forest can release between 2-8 tons of carbon
diverse forests. Additionally, species and age diversity can per acre for up to 20 years after the cutting. In many
help forests withstand and recover faster from severe wind situations, this carbon release can exceed the carbon
and other extreme weather events that are becoming more sequestration rates of the growing timber stand.
common with climate change.76 Selective thinning can be
used to manage fuel buildup, limiting the severity and risk
of wildfire. In all three of these potentially destructive situa-
tions (disease, wind-down, and fire) carbon stored in either
the biomass or the soil will be released. Species-diverse
and age-diverse stands are most capable of resisting such 27 times the amount of CO2 emitted in the U.S. each year
destruction and massive carbon releases. through consumption of fossil fuels.80 The carbon already
banked by forests in the United States is an investment
Less sustainable management methods like patch clear worth maintaining and enhancing as a vital component to
cutting lead to forest fragmentation, or the segmentation any plan designed to address climate change.
of a whole forest into smaller forest sections interspersed
with non-forest areas such as grasslands. This results in a In the U.S. alone, forests store the
significantly negative impact on forest wildlife and biodi-
equivalent of over 165 billion tons of
versity. Fragmentation dramatically decreases the habitat
for some sensitive species. In fragmented forest situations, O carbon dioxide–nearly 27 times the
sensitive species such as the scarlet tanager become
amount of CO2 emitted in the U.S. each
much more vulnerable to predators. Fragmentation can
result when large, contiguous forests are divided by year through consumption of fossil fuels.
development or forest conversion to other uses, such as
to pasture or other agricultural production. Fragmentation Forest management methods are best tailored to the
can also result from clear cutting blocks of mature forest, unique ecosystem characteristics and needs of a particular
creating sizeable areas of edges between cleared areas site. In many forest types, proper management of native
and remaining forest. Edges create excellent perch ecosystems can enhance plant growth and carbon storage.
locations for predators, greatly reducing the survivability of The sustainable management of mature forests that reach
sensitive species. To protect at-risk species, fragmentation carbon equilibrium can actually lead to increased carbon
should be avoided. Moreover, disturbance should be sequestration, while unmanaged forests may face a carbon
concentrated along existing edges while maintaining a sequestration plateau.81 Mature trees can later be selec-
diverse understory.77 tively harvested to provide growth opportunity for younger
trees to renew the forest, as well as provide the forest
Globally, forests sequester an estimated three billion tons owner with income. Late-successional tree species are able
of carbon each year. The multiple levels of vegetation to accumulate higher levels of soil carbon than pioneer
within a forest—ranging from forest canopy to understory tree species, which often exhibit faster rates of growth at
and forest floor—maximizes the photosynthetic and carbon earlier ages.82 Sustainable management maximizes the mix
sequestering capacity.78 In the U.S. alone, forests store the of older and younger trees, improving long term carbon
equivalent of over 165 billion tons of carbon dioxide–nearly storage as well as wildlife habitat and other additional
benefits. Diverse stands can sequester as much and
sometimes more carbon than monoculture stands of fast Keys for Maximizing the
growing tree species.83
Benefits of Forest Management
Forest owners accrue many benefits from implementing
Maximizing plant diversity through forest
a forest management plan that optimizes carbon
management increases tree growth, timber
sequestration, wildlife habitat, and biodiversity. Increased
production, and carbon sequestration.
wildlife can lead to increased recreational opportunities,
including hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing—which Trimmings from managed forests may be used as a
may also provide additional income through hunting biomass source for energy.
leases. Through sustainable forest management, Wildlife benefits of managed forests are maximized
landowners can increase long-term profits from periodic by maintaining large blocks of forest.
and sustainable timber harvests compared to clear
Managing understory plants is an important
cutting. The regularity of harvest in a sustainable manner
component of ensuring a strong forest ecosystem.
will yield consistent income while maintaining the health
of the forest to ensure future income, all the while Managed forests with mixed species will mitigate
maintaining carbon sequestration capacity and other better against climate change.
ecosystem services.
Steve Hillebrand, USFWS

Clear cutting forests such as this clear cutting in Oregon will result in erosion, carbon emissions,
and dramatic loss of wildlife habitat.
6
Anaerobic Digesters
Anaerobic digestion—a process in which
A
s livestock farms increase in size, they face the
challenge of managing larger quantities of
micro-organisms break down organic animal waste. When waste management systems
material in the absence of oxygen, with become overburdened, the nutrient-rich waste can cause
considerable odor, as well as water and air quality issues.
methane resulting from the process. These factors can threaten human health and ecosystem
health. Meanwhile, animal manure in large concentrations
emits methane, a greenhouse gas that is 23 times more
potent than carbon dioxide. When manure is stored in
liquid lagoons, the waste from each dairy cow produces
an estimated five tons of carbon emissions equivalents
each year.84 Increased awareness of these issues, coupled
with improved technology, is leading to growing interest
in anaerobic digesters. Anaerobic digesters offer a robust
solution to problems arising from waste management as well
as new revenue and cost reduction opportunities for farmers.
Anaerobic digesters use natural

O biologic processes to extract methane
from animal waste.
On farm anaerobic digester located at Five Star Dairy
in Elk Mound, Wisconsin. Anaerobic digesters use natural biologic processes to
extract methane from animal waste. Rather than sit in
an open lagoon, liquid animal waste is pumped into the
Anaerobic Digester—an enclosed tank and digester’s large sealed tank. Digesters are heated to
encourage growth of microorganisms. These microor-
associated equipment in which organic ganisms, which are already present in manure, play the
material such as manure or food scraps are important role of breaking down the waste. That process
creates methane gas that rises to the top of the digester
broken down by microorganisms with the and is collected and cleaned of sulfur. Once the chemical is
resulting methane collected and burned removed, biogas, the cleaned version of methane, behaves
much like natural gas. In fact, natural gas is 87 percent
to create electricity or heat. Benefits methane. After the biogas has been separated from the
include: improved water quality, reduced waste, digesters destroy the methane by burning it with a
flare or in an internal combustion engine.
greenhouse gas emissions, considerable
elimination of odor, reduced threat of Farmers can also use biogas to help power their farm.
When fueling an engine, biogas can be used to create
pathogens entering the water supply, electricity. Farmers can then sell that electricity to the grid,
reduced need for fertilizers, as well as the adding another income stream, or use it on-farm, reducing
the need to purchase electricity. By producing electricity,
provision of distributed electricity and heat anaerobic digesters can offset, or reduce, the amount
to offset fossil fuel-based energy sources. (continued on page 37)
CASE STUDY
Five Star Dairy, Elk Mound Wisconsin
Anaerobic digester at Five Star Dairy.
T
ucked into the rolling hills of western Wisconsin, Manure collected in the freestall barns is pumped into a
Five Star Dairy unites modern technology with small storage tank. Every 18 minutes, manure is pumped
agrarian stewardship. Lee Jensen, Operations from that tank to the digester. At the same time, additional
Manager and co-owner, combines his considerable waste oils and greases, which are stored in a separate tank
experience in agriculture with a sustainable vision and brought in from off-farm sources, are also pumped
for dairying. Four years ago, he added an anaerobic into the digester to maximize methane production. In
digester to the 10 year old, 900-head facility. In a unique the complete mix digester, material is stirred constantly
partnership with the local electric cooperative, Five to help microorganisms produce methane. Methane
Star Dairy owns the digester. The gas scrubber, engine, collected at the top of the tank is scrubbed and then
generator, and associated electrical equipment are directed to the engine to generate electricity. Meanwhile,
owned by the electric cooperative. The entire process is digested material located at the top of the liquid surface
managed off-site by the digester equipment installer. This in the tank flows to a solids separator. The separated
partnership maximizes expertise while spreading the risk solids (now pasteurized from the digester) are used as
among multiple stakeholders. bedding, reducing costs as well as consumption of other
This lagoon gas collection
system at Five Star Dairy
prevents additional green-
house gases from reaching
the atmosphere.
Lagoon covers such as this

one at Five Star Dairy not
only reduce emissions, but
prevent rainwater from filling
up the lagoon, reducing
operating costs.
materials. The remaining liquid flows to a lagoon to be while improving the fertilizing capacity of the digestate,
stored until it can be applied to crop fields. To further and thus reducing fertilizer needs. Lee hopes to see
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Lee installed a rubber increased soil health through years of adding digestate.
cover, as well as a gas collection system under the cover. The lagoon cover not only keeps in methane, but prevents
This system collects the methane and burns it with a flare. 1.2 million gallons of rainwater from entering the lagoon
each year, reducing the need to run pumps and trucks
The on-farm benefits of Five Star Dairy’s digester truly to empty the lagoon. Because the digestate does not
add up. Once the solids are separated out of the waste, get diluted, Five Star Dairy can incorporate more of the
digestate is more easily applied to the land through an fertilizing material into each acre of cropland, reducing the
injection process, reducing runoff and volitization risks need for adding nutrients through fertilizers.
CASE STUDY
Wisconsin Dairyman Grows Profits

While Reducing Air and Water Pollution
J
ohn Vrieze’s family has farmed their land near foot greenhouse. The produce grown in the greenhouse
Baldwin, Wisconsin for 104 years, and John has been provides more profit than generating and selling electricity
part of the operation his whole life. He feels, “our at the going rate. In finding a more profitable avenue for
dependence on foreign sources of energy is the Achilles the biogas, John has dramatically sped up the return on
heel of the United States.” John would prefer to use investment and he is on track for that digester to fully pay
renewable energy produced in the United States rather for itself in four or five years.
than importing a vital resource. In addition, throughout his
time on the farm, he has observed winters getting shorter In addition to adding new income streams for the
and milder, providing concrete observations that justify Wisconsin dairy farmer, the digesters increase the value
his concern about climate change. For all these reasons, of manure for John’s farming operation. When digested,
John has installed two anaerobic manure digesters, manure is altered by micro-organisms, making the
which captures methane gas emitted from his dairy cows’ nutrients easier for plants to consume. Vrieze injects his
manure. The gas is cleaned so that it can be burned corn fields with digested manure, and has been able to
to produce local renewable electricity and heat. The totally eliminate commercial fertilizer, saving an average of
Wisconsin farmer sells the electricity to a utility and uses $75 per acre. John also saw yield increases on the fields
the heat for a vegetable-producing greenhouse. John where he applies the digested manure. On one corn field,
also sees increased benefit from the digested material, yields increased from 125 bushels per acre to 175 bushels
which provides more nutrient value to his corn fields per acre. At $6 per bushel of corn, this is a value of $300
and increases his yields. John Vrieze is producing home per acre.
grown energy, saving money and increasing profits while
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting water Numerous funding sources are available to assist farmers
quality on his dairy farm. He has eliminated methane in implementing digesters. The Rural Energy for America
emission from manure, reduced nitrous oxide emissions Program currently provides grants of up to 25% towards
from fertilizer and is storing carbon dioxide in his soil. the costs of an anaerobic digester. The Environmental
Quality Incentives Program also provides technical and
PROFITABILITY: cost-sharing assistance for on-farm digesters. By burning
John’s manure digesters will pay for themselves in about methane, digesters reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
seven years, and thereafter they will provide$186,000 in Those reductions can be sold as credits on greenhouse
annual profit. Each digester costs a little over $1.3 million gas emissions markets in the Northeast and California,
and handles waste for 1,300 cows. Digesters capture bringing in additional income.
methane that is naturally released from manure and turns it
into biogas, which can be used to produce electricity. John ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS:
currently uses one digester John’s manure treatment not only helps reduce emissions,
to generate electricity but it also reduces threats to human health. Raw manure
purchased by a contains dangerous pathogens, so any accidental leak or
utility at an average spill can make local water unsafe for people. Digesting
rate of around 7.5 manure kills those pathogens, greatly reducing the
cents per kilowatt potential for contaminants to enter water supplies from
hour. Vrieze is using an accidental manure spill or manure run off from farm
the biogas from the fields. Also, large quantities of raw manure can release
second digester to toxic odors and volatile organic compounds that exceed
heat a 27,000 square air safety standards. Anaerobic digestion removes
of electricity produced by fossil fuels. Moreover, exhaust
heat from the engine can also heat farm buildings, further
decreasing a farm’s consumption of fossil fuels. Anaerobic
digestion can eliminate over one ton of indirect carbon
most of these compounds from the digestate. dioxide emissions per cow per year.85
Wisconsinites enjoy cleaner air and water thanks to
farmers like John Vrieze. Digesting manure can lower risks to farmers of litigation or
fines brought on by a manure spill or an over application
Vrieze’s use of anaerobic digesters to treat his of manure to fields. Animal waste can enter waterways
animals’ manure nearly eliminates methane through storm water runoff, when lagoons overflow, or
emissions from his manure storage facilities. when waste is accidentally released during transportation
Manure is typically stored in uncovered lagoons, for land application. When animal waste enters waterways,
which produce large amounts of methane, a bacteria in the waste quickly consume large amounts of
greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than dissolved oxygen from the water. This consumption uses
carbon dioxide. Methane emissions from manure up all of the oxygen in the water, which suffocates fish and
are eliminated because the anaerobic digester leads to massive fish kills that affect both aquatic and land
extracts and uses the methane to produce thermal ecosystems.86 Waste that has been through a digester, on
or electric energy. the other hand, is essentially pasteurized of bacteria that
would cause this high biological oxygen demand, dramati-
By injecting the digested manure into the soil, cally reducing the threat of fish kills. Some studies show up
John causes a climate benefit of about 1 metric to a 97 percent reduction in the biological oxygen demand
ton of carbon dioxide equivalent per acre per year. of digestate.87 Therefore, in the event of a digestate spill,
This comes from carbon dioxide stored in the soil the threat of a fish kill is greatly reduced.
(.8 metric ton) due to manure additions and reduc-
tions in nitrous oxide emissions (.2 metric ton).
Waste that has been through a digester,
Nitrogen in synthetic fertilizer or manure applied
to crop fields can volatize to release nitrous oxide, on the other hand, is essentially
a greenhouse gas that is about 298 times more
pasteurized of bacteria that would
potent than carbon dioxide. Agricultural fields are O
the single largest source of nitrous oxide emissions cause this high biological oxygen
in the United States. Replacing synthetic fertilizer demand, dramatically reducing the
with injected manure typically avoids nitrous oxide
emissions equivalent to about .2 metric tons of threat of fish kills.
carbon dioxide emissions per acre per year. This
is because the nutrients in the manure are not In addition to avoiding fish kills in the event of manure
exposed to the air, and are thus less likely to entering waterways, anaerobic digesters can also help
volatize into nitrous oxide. to decrease the hazards livestock waste poses to human
health. Normally, a number of diseases and bacteria reside
MORE RESOURCES: in animal manure, including E-Coli, Salmonella, fecal
AgSTAR coliforms, and Cryptosporidium. These dangerous micro-
www.epa.gov/agstart organisms can survive for extended periods, creating the
risk of contaminating drinking water sources, especially if
Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy
manure enters surface waters. High temperatures between
www.usdairy.com
100 and 120 degrees Fahrenheit in methane digesters lead
Vrieze Farm to a reduction in fecal coliforms by 99.9 percent and over
www.afuturefarm.com 95 percent of other pathogens are completely eliminated.88
Dairy wastes can sometimes lead to expensive human
health damages. For example, in 1993, over 400,000 farmers using digestate as a crop nutrient source often
Milwaukee, Wisconsin residents were sickened by drinking experience reduced need for synthetic fertilizers. Some
water contaminated with the bacteria Cryptosporidium. farmers have even reported complete elimination of
This cost residents over $31 million in medical bills fertilizers, greatly reducing their operating costs and
and businesses over $65 million in lost productivity.89 improving their carbon footprint. Additionally, by
Researchers attribute the source of the bacteria to dairy applying more useable forms of nutrients, plants can take
farm runoff that overwhelmed the drinking water treatment up the nutrients faster, increasing nutrient use efficiency
process. Digesters provide a wise solution to this problem and reducing the threat of nutrient runoff into waterways.
with additional benefits to farmers, nearby towns and Soil organisms can take over two years to fully process
cities, and nature, as well. all of the nutrients in animal waste. When plants are not
growing, or are not even present, which is typical under
Anaerobic digestion provides multiple environmental clean tillage, nutrients have nowhere else to go but into
and agronomic benefits. Not only do digesters destroy the air through volatilization, into surface water through
methane, the offensive odor from manure is also elimi- runoff, or into ground water through leaching.
nated. Methane, after all, is the main source of manure
odor. The more complete process of decomposition
improves the nutrient availability of the digestate, making
it more useful for crops. Typical manure contains nutrients
useful for plant growth. However, much of that nutritional from Anaerobic Digesters
value is locked in forms plants cannot use. Instead,
plants must rely on soil organisms to convert nutrients Digesting manure provides more nutrient value to
to useable forms. Often, the nutrients get washed away crops, reducing fertilizer needs.
before the soil organisms can convert them for plant use Electricity generation from digesters creates local
or the growing season is completed before the nutrients
energy from a waste source.
become available, making obsolete much of the nutritional
value provided by manure. Microorganisms in anaerobic Digesting manure greatly reduces the threat of fish
digesters provide that same nutrient conditioning service kills if the digestate enters waterways.
as soil microorganisms, but much more rapidly and
Digested manure reduces pathogen content.
completely under ideal conditions.
Digesters decrease methane emissions from
The conversion of nutrients to a more useable form livestock facilities.
provides significant environmental benefits. First,
7
Protecting and
Restoring Land to
Native Ecosystems
Native ecosystem—an ecosystem
I
t would be foolish to suggest a return of all lands to
pre-settlement conditions. However, challenges to
which remains in its original, unaltered habitat and biodiversity loss can be addressed through
state or is returned to its original or innovative solutions that also meet our food, fiber, fuel,
carbon sequestration and other ecosystem service needs.
near original condition. Benefits include Within this context, there are land management options that
increased biodiversity, optimized carbon can maximize the provision of resources. Biodiversity and
wildlife habitat can be incorporated into agriculture while
sequestration, and maximized wildlife
maintaining production and contributing to carbon seques-
habitat and ecosystem stability. tration. However, retaining existing native ecosystems
and native plant communities represent the best means
of ensuring biodiversity and wildlife habitat while also
maximizing carbon sequestration. To take full advantage of
environmental benefits, ecosystem restoration should occur
in ways consistent with sound soil and water conservation as
outlined in Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Standards and Specifications.90
Preserving native ecosystems such as this tallgrass Photo by Scott Bontz permission from The Land Institute.
prairie provide multiple benefits. Retaining areas of native ecosystems, as well as restoring
marginally productive land to native systems, takes on
Restoring marginal cropped lands great importance when considering the overwhelming
loss of major ecosystems in the coterminous United
to native ecosystems through the
States since settlement began. Between pre-settlement
Conservation Reserve Program stands as times and the start of the 21st century, 30 ecosystems
O the most effective means of protecting lost 98 percent of their area. In Iowa, for example, less
than 30,000 acres of tall-grass prairie remain from over
and increasing native ecosystems and 29 million acres that originally covered the state.91 A
tremendous loss of biodiversity and carbon sequestering
the services they offer.
A 30 acre wetland restoration project in Minnesota provides water filtration, Photo source: USFWS
flood mitigation, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities.
capacity occurs when native ecosystems are diminished Restoring marginal cropped lands to native ecosystems
or eliminated. The loss of wildlife and biodiversity is also through the Conservation Reserve Program stands as the
a legacy lost for future generations. most effective means of protecting and increasing native
ecosystems and the services they offer. Re-establishing
One great way to preserve plants and animals for future other specific ecosystems, such as grasslands and
generations is linking disconnected wildlife areas to wetlands, through land easements or federal programs
create larger ecosystems and wildlife habitats. When small such as the Grassland Reserve Program and Wetland
habitats are connected via wildlife corridors, the benefit of Reserve Program, also present effective avenues for
the connected area is greater than the sum of the benefits protecting native ecosystems and the multiple benefits
of the connected parts. Increased connectivity allows for they provide to society.
animal and pollinator movement that can strengthen the
health and total population of both plants and animals.92 Loss or degradation of native ecosystems can occur through
One way to create wildlife corridors in an agricultural converting land to agricultural production, introducing
system would be by utilizing buffers appropriately. forest plantations onto native prairie or other naturally
Converting two million miles of existing conservation tree-less areas, clear cutting native forest and planting a
buffers into forest riparian buffers, where ecologically monoculture of exotic or non-native tree species, or draining
appropriate, would sequester 1.5 million metric tons a wetland or peatland for development or agriculture. The
of carbon per year while creating many of the wildlife introduction of exotic plants can be particularly detrimental
corridors necessary to connect ecosystems.93 to ecosystems by displacing the native species.95 The intro-
duction of genetically modified native species could pose
Another avenue of maximizing the wildlife habitat and even more problems because so little is known about how
biodiversity capacity of agricultural lands includes planting these altered plants will affect the native plant community or
windbreaks along field edges. By planting five percent the ecosystem as a whole.
of field area to windbreaks in the north central U.S.,
where ecologically appropriate, not only would wildlife To maximize ecological benefits, land restoration should
experience increased habitat opportunities, but these incorporate native plant species most suited to the
windbreaks would sequester over 2.9 million metric tons of ecosystem in which the land is located and with as many
carbon per year and protect farmland from erosion.94 plant species as possible. Soil type should determine
the species of plants used in the restoration, with trees
The Climate and Environmental
restricted to woodland or transitional soils and grasses/
forbs to prairie or transitional soils. Additionally, existing Benefits of Peatlands
native ecosystems must be protected to ensure adequate
habitat for wildlife.
Restoring wetlands, especially within agricultural areas,

P eatlands are wetland areas that contain a
considerable buildup of plant material. Due to
permanent water saturation, plant material decays
can provide an often overlooked benefit to society.
very slowly. The peat that accumulates sequesters
Wetlands exhibit a remarkable ability to filter agricultural
a considerable quantity of carbon. Peatlands cover
runoff, proving much more effective than other processes
only three percent of the earth’s land area, yet
at removing common agricultural chemicals, particularly
the herbicide atrazine. The slow water movement of they store over 550 gigatonnes of carbon, twice as
wetlands allows for sediment to settle, providing a natural much as the amount of carbon stored in the world’s
catchment of material and chemicals from surface runoff. forests.99 Additionally, peatlands filter and maintain
Numerous studies have shown wetlands speed up the large amounts of water, with the organic material
acting like a sponge to soak up excess water and
Losing peatlands causes the loss of some
then slowly release it in drier conditions. Peatlands
of the best and cheapest water filtration also provide unique habitat not found in any other
and flood mitigation systems available, setting. Because of their sponge-like characteristics,
O peatlands are often inaccessible for larger predatory
resulting in more localized flooding,
animals, making them vital habitat for bird species
lower water quality, and more expensive such as the Kestrel, Red Grouse, and Golden Plover.
water treatment.
Unfortunately, the United States has been losing
atrazine degradation process to less than 70 days, while important peatlands since the 19th century.
it may take years for similar atrazine destruction to occur Remaining peatlands must be protected. Currently,
in open bodies of water. Conventional water treatment significant quantities of peat are mined for use in
processes typically remove less than 15 percent of atrazine,
gardening. Peatland losses also result from suburban
leaving millions of people susceptible to ingesting atrazine
sprawl and conversion to agricultural lands, particu-
found in their drinking water. Considering the high mobility
larly in the Florida Everglades and throughout the
and recalcitrance of the herbicide, wetlands can play a
vital role in greatly reducing the common chemical from plains. These losses result in considerable carbon
farmland runoff before it enters lakes and waterways where emissions as the carbon-rich plant material oxidizes
it experiences little breakdown, persisting for years in large once water is drained from the area. In 2008,
bodies of water such as the Great Lakes.96 peatland losses in the U.S. resulted in over 70 million
metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions while also
Since European settlement, one-half of U.S. wetlands reducing the lands’ ability to sequester carbon.100
have been lost to urban sprawl or draining for agricultural
Additionally, losing peatlands causes the loss of
use. This conversion of wetlands has greatly diminished
some of the best and cheapest water filtration and
lowland areas’ ability to absorb excess water and regulate
flood mitigation systems available, resulting in more
its release into lakes and rivers. A number of studies have
quantified the water management value of wetlands, localized flooding, lower water quality, and more
including the value of water retention and flood mitigation, expensive water treatment.
between $121 per acre per year for South Dakota seasonal
wetlands and $9,500 per acre per year near metropolitan
areas.97 More recent analysis places the value of wetlands
much higher, as scientists become more aware of the
ability of wetlands to regulate water flows.98
Longleaf Pine Reforestation
Proving Worthwhile
T he ecological gains
accruing from longleaf
pine restoration efforts in the
Southeastern United States
provide an excellent example
of the multiple benefits that can
be provided through ecosystem
restoration. Of the nearly 94
million acres in the Southeast
that were once covered by
longleaf pines, less than 3
million acres remain.101 Unlike
the forests that replaced the
original ecosystem, longleaf
pine trees are more resistant to
disease and insects, are easily
maintained through prescribed
fire, are inexpensively renewed
by natural regeneration and
support an understory of native
grasses and forbs. Longleaf pine Mixed age long leaf pine
trees continue to grow and sequester carbon even
after 150 years, long after other trees have stopped
growing and sequestering carbon. In addition, the Keys for Maximizing Benefits
growth form of the tree (tall and straight) and density
through Ecosystem Retention
of the wood makes longleaf pine more suitable for
use in wood products such as pilings and poles, and Restoration:
which are higher value products compared to the
Avoid conversion of remaining native ecosystems,
pulpwood market typical of other southern pines. such as forests, prairies and wetlands.
Although managed on a wider spacing (i.e. fewer per
Restore native ecosystems on marginally-productive
acre), the stumpage value can be 50 percent greater
agricultural land.
than for other southern pines. Importantly, longleaf
pine ecosystems are among the most biodiverse Utilize only native plants suited to the soil type and
ecosystems outside of the tropics and support 140 ecosystem.
plant species and wildlife such as the eastern wild Maximize restoration benefits by connecting with
turkey, gopher tortoise, red-cockaded woodpecker other native areas.
and others. Restoring longleaf pine forests can play Management is necessary to maintain the long-term
a vital role in restoring ecosystem health to the health of the ecosystem.
Southeastern United States while also increasing
Consult a resource professional before restoring or
economic opportunities for landowners in the region. managing native plant communities.
Agricultural and Land Management
Carbon Offsets Opportunities
M
ost people are aware that carbon is released
into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels in
cars for transportation and in power plants for
electricity. However, few people are aware that carbon can
be released into the atmosphere from land as well. This
can happen in several different ways. When plant matter
is not returned to the soil, or is burned, the carbon that
was once absorbed by plants is released back into the
atmosphere. Furthermore, when the rich ecosystem that
lives in soil is disturbed, like when
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emmissions in the United States the earth is tilled, the dying soil
microorganisms and plant matter
Transportation are broken down into carbon
Electricity Generation dioxide. Such releases comprise a
Residential significant portion of total global
carbon emissions. Finally, breaking
Commercial
new ground, or converting natural
Industry
landscapes of grasses and forests
Soil Management into row crops has a particularly
Enteric Fermentation large carbon impact. In the first year
Rice cultivation
after the soil is broken, between
60 and 75 percent of the carbon
Manure Management
originally stored in the ground is
released into the atmosphere.103
Agriculture practices emit roughly six percent of all In fact, deforestation and land use
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.102 change from agriculture and sprawl account for 20 percent
of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions around the
world. Carbon is not the only loss here—once native grass-
lands are broken, wildlife habitat is lost and the ecosystem
can never be fully restored back to its natural state.104
Breaking new ground, or converting Many agricultural production practices create additional
greenhouse gas emissions. Synthetic fertilizers, often
natural landscapes of grasses and forests
derived from natural gas, along with chemicals for pest
into row crops has a particularly large and weed management and fuel for tractor and equipment
operation, all add to the carbon footprint of agriculture.
O carbon impact. In the first year after the Nitrogen, a vital ingredient for plant growth, can turn into
soil is broken, between 60 and 75 percent a gas once applied to the land if it is not absorbed by
of the carbon originally stored in the plants or held by organic matter in the soil. This process
emits nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas with 298 times the
ground is released into the atmosphere. heat trapping ability of carbon dioxide. Because nitrogen
is applied to croplands in single, large doses, on average
over half is lost to the atmosphere.105 Emissions can be
reduced when row crop farmers plant nitrogen fixing cover
Lagoon on Georgia hog farm. Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS
crops that lower or entirely eliminate dependence on fossil facilities have the opportunity to implement technology
fuel-based fertilizers. that not only eliminates much of the methane emissions
from waste storage facilities, but can actually be used to
displace fossil fuels used to produce electricity.
Deforestation and land use change from
agriculture and sprawl account for 20 Just as agriculture can lose carbon to the atmosphere,
O percent of all anthropogenic carbon improved agricultural practices increase the amount of
carbon removed from the atmosphere and sequestered
dioxide emissions around the world. into the earth. Soil carbon provides substantial benefits to
environmental, plant, and soil health, ultimately yielding
Livestock production is another agricultural practice that numerous benefits to society and to farmers and landowners
produces significant greenhouse gas emissions. The direct in particular. Increasing the amount of carbon in the soil
release of methane by cattle, called enteric fermentation, also provides a number of advantages for crops. Soil carbon
contributes 25 percent of all methane emissions in the increases the ground’s ability to hold onto nutrients and
U.S.106 Manure storage and field application contribute provide them to growing crops. Soil carbon also improves
an additional eight percent of methane emissions. While soil structure, which helps soil to hold onto water longer,
there is some opportunity to lessen emissions from enteric making it available for crops through dry periods. Soil
fermentation through changes in diet, the big oppor- carbon also helps soil shed excess water down farther into
tunities for emissions reductions, along with providing the ground, allowing crops to better survive extended
additional benefits, are in addressing manure management wet periods while also reducing the threat of flooding for
techniques. Livestock producers using manure storage communities. Increasing soil carbon not only helps offset
CASE STUDY
Intermittent Flooding of Rice Reduces Water and Energy Use

While Lowering Methane and Carbon Dioxide Emissions
E
arl Kline is a rice farmer who reduced his irrigation Rice irrigation.
costs by $15 per acre, lowered greenhouse gas
emissions by about .92 metric tons carbon dioxide
equivalent per acre, and cut pesticide run-off by 60%. He
and his uncle farm rice, soybeans and corn near Cleveland,
Mississippi. Earl reduced his water use by over one third
by replacing the traditional practice of maintaining rice
fields in a constantly flooded condition with the practice
of intermittent flood management regime. This change Joe Massey
in practice increases rainfall capture and reduces over-
pumping, so less water is used. Through this practice, Earl rice farmer reduced his water use by 30%. As the alluvial
saves about $15 per acre, and rice yield and milling quality aquifer under Mississippi provides water for much of the
are not affected by intermittent flooding. He says he is south, Kline’s water conservation enables future genera-
saving water so that his sons can “have the same opportu- tions to enjoy water for drinking and irrigation.
nities I have had, if they choose to farm.”
By using intermittent flooding, Earl Kline reduced his
PROFITABILITY: greenhouse gas emissions by .92 metric tons of carbon
By using less irrigation water and diesel fuel to run the dioxide equivalent per acre. This comes from reductions in
water pumps Earl saved $15 per acre. Typically, rice carbon dioxide emissions due to reduced diesel use and
farmers spend about 10% of their budget on energy from reductions in methane emissions caused by saturated
for irrigation. Reducing energy costs for irrigation is an ground conditions. Rice production is a significant source
exciting opportunity for farmers to offset rising costs for of methane gas globally, as flooded rice fields typically
fertilizer and seed. Rice farmers in Mississippi commonly produce conditions where methane is released. Methane
apply 36 to 40 inches of irrigation water per acre of rice. is produced by bacteria that thrive in the absence of
With an intermittent flood management regime, Earl oxygen. Draining rice fields allows oxygen to reach the soil,
applies 22 inches of water per acre, and in the relatively reducing the amount of methane produced. Preliminary
wet 2009 season, he used only 15 inches on several fields. measurements have found methane reductions of approxi-
Pumping less water enables Kline to reduce his diesel fuel mately 30% over conventional rice flooding. These reduc-
use by about 9 gallons per acre. The rice farmer saved $27 tions in methane emissions are equivalent to about .83
per acre at current diesel prices due to his 14 acre-inch metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. In addition to the
reduction in irrigation water use. He spends about $12 per reduced methane emissions, there are also lower emissions
acre on materials and labor to implement this system, for from reduced diesel fuel used for irrigation. For every
a net savings of approximately $15 per acre. Earl worked inch of water not pumped on an acre of rice, the burning
with Mississippi State University Agronomist Joe Massey of about 0.7 gallon of diesel fuel is avoided. By reducing
to ensure this technique would maintain his crop yields. his water use by 14 acre-inches, Earl has achieved reduc-
tions of approximately .09 metric tons of carbon dioxide
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS: emissions per acre from reduced diesel use.
The farming techniques Earl applies benefits his wallet
and the health and well-being of everyone in Mississippi. FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Pesticide run-off from his fields is reduced by 60%, as Joseph H. Massey, Associate Professor
the water he applies to his land soaks into the ground, Plant & Soil Sciences Dept., 117 Dorman Hall
reducing runoff into surface waters. This reduction in Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
chemical runoff improves habitat conditions for local 662-325-4725 (tel) 662-325-8742 (fax)
populations of fish and amphibians. Additionally, the jmassey@pss.msstate.edu
Helping farmers switch to these future
friendly production techniques will be vital
O to achieving the many benefits provided
by new agricultural production and land
management techniques.
loss from fields into America’s lakes and rivers. Vital

nutrients and agricultural chemicals often travel with
the soil, creating additional problems in local drinking
water sources as well as in distant bodies of water.
Additionally, pests have developed resistance to numerous
chemical controls relied upon in conventional agricultural
production. New land management and agricultural
practices can play a major role in addressing many of the
environmental issues we face today: gulf zone hypoxia,
water quality, water availability, pest resistance to chemical

controls, air quality, the greenhouse gas problem, and
wildlife habitat loss. However, it can be quite difficult for
farmers to transition away from old production methods
since many are heavily invested in conventional agricultural
production equipment. Helping farmers switch to these
future friendly production techniques will be vital to
The accumulation of dark soil in the rootzone of grass achieving the many benefits provided by new agricultural
on land in Minnesota enrolled in the Conservation
production and land management techniques.
Reserve Program provides visual evidence of the
carbon sequestration process.
THE BENEFITS OF CARBON SEQUESTRATION
TO FARM AND FOREST OWNERS
greenhouse gas emissions, but it also plays a significant role In many ways, carbon sequestration addresses a range
in helping crops withstand more extreme weather, which is “of environmental issues. Through years of intensive
becoming more common with climate change. tillage and other management techniques, America’s
agricultural lands lost soil organic carbon (SOC), which
Properly managed forests provide increased carbon
is the sequestered form of carbon dioxide. SOC is a key
sequestration, as well as timber production and improved
ingredient to sustained soil fertility. Soils with high SOC
wildlife habitat.107 Forests accounted for 84 percent of
are more able to retain and make nutrients available
carbon sequestered in the United States in 2008.108 Forests
for subsequent crops, resist erosion, and exhibit better
also play a role in climate maintenance through evapo-
percolation. Increasing SOC makes more water available
transpiration, or the release of water vapor, and associated
to crops to better survive droughts while reducing the
cloud formation. Both processes help cool the earth.109
impact and incidence of flooding by more effectively
Healthy, biodiverse forests also provide tremendous
directing excess water into the ground rather than across
benefits to wildlife.
the surface landscape.110
Conventional land management and agricultural
production practices frequently result in environmental By encouraging and rewarding particular carbon
problems that were not recognized when such practices sequestering practices, society will accrue numerous
were developed. Years of intensive cultivation of the environmental benefits including cleaner water,
land led to considerable soil erosion and with it nutrient increased biodiversity, cleaner air, and an increased
abundance of wildlife. These positive effects will be inappropriate changes in land use while causing carbon
long-lasting, and will ripple out into other areas of emissions leakage, or forcing carbon emitting practices
society as well. For instance, vibrant natural resources onto other lands resulting in no total reduction in carbon
will lead to increased recreational opportunities, which emissions. In such a scenario, grasslands, wetlands, and
will boost struggling economies. Consumers will see other natural ecosystems could become threatened
an even more stable food supply with healthier food by afforestation, reducing those ecosystems and the
while witnessing a dramatic shift toward less fossil fuel ecosystem services they provide.
consumption in the food production process. Farmers
can reduce operating costs while improving their Changing land use from its native cover has lasting
long-term food production capacity and ability to consequences that impact more than just wildlife habitat.
overcome weather variations. Finally, through changes Studies show that foresting lands that never held forests
in land management that result in carbon sequestration, results in soil salinization and increased soil acidity.112 When
lands will increase water percolation, resulting in a forest plantations are planted on grasslands or shrublands,
dramatic reduction in the impact and incidence of the increased water demand decreases in-stream flow
flooding of downstream areas, particularly urban centers by approximately 38 percent.113 Reforesting flood plains
located near waterways. While these changes will not once dominated by savannah forests, however, can make
occur overnight, these investments offer long-term a beneficial use of the increased water demand. Not only
economic and environmental returns. would vital habitats be returned to their original condition,
but these reforested flood plains would provide better flood
PROBLEMATIC CARBON SEQUESTRATION mitigation while improving the water filtering capacity.114
PROPOSALS/TECHNIQUES
While most carbon sequestration activities provide
additional benefits, there are also carbon sequestration
options that could result in negative environmental conse-
quences, damaging water quality or quantity, biodiversity,
or wildlife habitat. While projects such as afforestation of
non-forest land and monoculture grasses offer verifiable
carbon sequestration projects at a relatively low upfront
cost, a deeper look into their environmental impacts show
that such projects may actually cause an overall detriment
to ecosystem health and society. These short-sighted
projects, such as afforestation of non-forest land and the
use of monoculture systems, should be avoided.
AFFORESTATION OF NON-FOREST LAND

Afforestation—Artificial establishment of forest
on lands that previously did not carry forest
within living memory.
Reforestation—returning tree species to lands

that previously hosted forest ecosystems.
Carbon sequestration incentives that fail to fully consider

the other impacts of sequestration practices could result Wildlife such as the Western Meadowlark are pushed out
in properly incentivizing reforestation, but also improperly of their native areas when grasslands are inappropriately
incentivizing afforestation.111 Such scenarios could lead to converted to forest or row crops.
Afforestation that results in conversion to sequester carbon at rates that rival the sequestration
rates of introduced plantations, all the while requiring
or fragmentation of prairie would be a few inputs. It makes little sense to replace these natural
O particular detriment to biodiversity and systems with land cover that offers slightly increased
carbon sequestration rates at the price of causing an
wildlife habitat that has already been immediate release of carbon from the soil, reduced water
subjected to considerable decline. quantity, degraded soil health, and loss of biodiversity and
wildlife habitat.
Afforestation that results in conversion or fragmentation MONOCULTURE

of prairie would be a particular detriment to biodiversity
and wildlife habitat that has already been subjected
Monoculture—any land area dominated by a
to considerable decline. Since pre-settlement times, single perennial or annual plant species and
the Great Plains of North America has experienced
tremendous loss of native landscape. Tall grass prairie
lacking natural ecosystem characteristics.
declined by 96 percent, mixed-grass prairie by 64 percent,
Many researchers and developers studying biofuels target
and short-grass prairie by 79 percent.115 Grassland birds
single, high biomass producing species as the best means
associated with these ecosystems show greater and more
of achieving a fast growing, high-yielding crop that can be
geographically widespread declines than any other guild
readily converted to transportation fuel. Likewise, carbon
of North American bird species. Breeding bird surveys
sequestration researchers are searching for fast growing,
from 1966 to1993 indicated that nearly 70% of the 29
easily established plantations that create verifiable carbon
grassland bird species surveyed had negative population
sequestration. Such developments often fail to consider
trends.116 The great prairie systems of North America are
the broader environmental consequences establishing
highly diminished due to historic conversions to agriculture
these plantations. Monocultures in either a grass species
and suburban sprawl, making it all the more imperative
for biofuels or tree species for carbon sequestration can
to conserve remaining prairie and associated biodiversity,
have considerable negative impacts. When compounded
including wildlife such as the prairie chicken, western
with the use of non-native, invasive, or genetically altered
meadowlark, lark sparrow and others. Native prairie
species, the threat of damages only rise.
plants, when left alone in diverse stands, can continue
Large areas of land put into monocultures dramatically alter

wildlife habitat. Plants play an obvious role in providing
food and shelter to wildlife, and plant diversity is critical
for providing wildlife habitat. Conversely, monocultures
essentially create large swaths of area lacking in any plant
species diversity, and thus, monocultures provide very
little habitat for wildlife. The interdependent relationships
formed among most species means that once one type
of species—whether plant, animal, or microorganism—is
forced out of an area, the remaining species will see an
indirect decrease in habitat value due to the loss of that
directly affected species. If top predators are forced out of
Photo courtesy of USFWS
an area, prey populations sometimes explode, destabilizing

their own food resources and leading to a cascade of
ecological effects.117 In monoculture agricultural systems,
the exodus of prey species encourages the growth of pests,
causing subsequent problems.118 Similarly, if the habitat can
Prairie chickens and other wildlife lose vital habitat areas no longer support a certain species the effects will trickle all
when monocultures replace diverse native ecosystems. throughout the food web, nutrient cycle and ecosystem.119
Monocultures such as this plantation restrict biodiversity and are more susceptible to disease and pest infestation.
As species diversity declines, natural systems are thrown The interdependent relationships formed
out of order.120 Even introduced monoculture species face
increased difficulty because a lack of natural predators among most species means that once one
may result in increased attacks from pests. Within natural type of species—whether plant, animal, or
ecosystems where no one species dominates, biodi-
versity provides natural barriers that inhibit pests and O microorganism—is forced out of an area,
viruses from spreading throughout entire ecosystems.121 the remaining species will see an indirect
Plantations with dense stands of a single plant species
lack these natural boundaries, resulting in greater vulner- decrease in habitat value due to the loss of
ability to disease and pest problems. Non-native and that directly affected species.
invasive species destabilize ecosystem balances when the
ecosystems they enter lack a natural predator system for
keeping the new species in check, increasing the need symbiosis that occurs among species maximizes plant
for non-natural chemical inputs into the system. In such growth and nutrient cycling without requiring inputs.
circumstances, pests can develop resistance to chemical Moreover, natural ecosystems with considerable biodi-
controls. Already, there are over 200 reported cases of versity have a much better ability to maintain system
resistance to various herbicides. Relying on such inputs to balance in the face of outside forces such as climate
control pest populations can have impacts on non-target change. In fact, as biodiversity increases, multiple species
species, increasing the chaos brought about by human can play similar roles in the ecosystem, ensuring that
attempts to manipulate the ecosystem.122 each role will be provided if some species experience
declines.124 Therefore, even though monoculture planta-
Native, biodiverse ecosystems can sequester as much tions offer an easy means of implementing rapid carbon
or more carbon and produce more biomass with fewer sequestration projects, the negative effects outweigh
inputs than any current monoculture crop variety.123 The the positive.
Recommendations for Increasing the Adoption
of Future Friendly Farming Practices
T
he seven practices described in this report provide to half of the cost of establishing natural covers on these
benefits to soil, water, wildlife, as well as farmers’ lands to protect soil, water and wildlife. Taking marginal,
bottom lines. Unfortunately, a number of barriers often carbon-depleted farmland out of production and
exist that limit the ability of these agricultural and forestry putting it into grasses or forest cover sequesters significant
practices to become widespread. For some landowners quantities of carbon in soil and vegetation. This also
and farm managers, simple unfamiliarity with the discussed eliminates the need to fertilize or use other agricultural
techniques prevents adoption. Similarly, lack of knowledge inputs on these unproductive lands, reducing greenhouse
of the impacts of current techniques prevents farmers gas and emissions and water pollution. Farmers will see an
and land managers from seeking out new methods. improvement in profit by enrolling marginal and unpro-
Additionally, there can be a long transition period to these ductive lands in CRP while at the same time improving the
more sustainable practices. In these times of uncertain environment. USDA has recently modified how it ranks
profit margins, few farmers and land managers are willing potential offers from landowners to enroll in the program,
to consider options that do not offer an immediately placing greater weight on certain practices that sequester
evident profit potential. A number of solutions exist that carbon, such as installing vegetative covers and planting
can begin to address these diverse barriers towards bottomland hardwood trees.
adoption of future friendly farming. These options include:
government cost share or environmental value incentive There are a variety of well-established,
programs, tax incentives, carbon markets, and education.
voluntary USDA conservation programs
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS that address soil, water, wildlife and air
Federal programs that incentivize future friendly farming
practices can provide an effective aid to overcoming any
quality concerns. The practices incentivized
transition period. There are a variety of well-established,
O through these programs also result in
voluntary USDA conservation programs that address soil,
significant carbon sequestration while also
water, wildlife and air quality concerns. The practices
incentivized through these programs also result in improving the long-term profitability for
significant carbon sequestration while also improving
farm and forest owners.
the long-term profitability for farm and forest owners.125
These programs, like the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands The Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) assists participating
Reserve Program, Grasslands Reserve Program, Healthy farmers in restoring, protecting, and maintaining wetlands
Forests Reserve Program, and Conservation Stewardship on their property. Lands restored under WRP are marginal,
Program, have been successful at helping farmers protect high risk, flood-prone areas that are often difficult to farm,
natural resources while implementing profitable farming providing marginal and sometimes no profit to farmers.
techniques. An expansion of funding for these programs The WRP enables landowners to take these places out
to allow enrollment of the backlog of applications would of production and restore them to their original wetland
increase the opportunity for farmers to transition to future condition. Restoring wetlands also provides benefits to
friendly farming practices while providing significant the public through improved water storage, filtration,
benefits to taxpayers through protection of soil, water, air carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat and recreational
and wildlife. opportunities.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pays farmers The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) enables landowners
annual rental payments through 10 or 15 year contracts to to restore or protect native grasslands on portions of
set aside marginal land and provides cost-sharing for up their property through 10 or 20 year rental contracts or
long term easements. Maintaining and restoring these Transitioning lands to operate within
grasslands helps to preserve a declining ecosystem nature, and less against it, reduces
while ensuring the use of the land for grazing, which can
often provide higher profit margins for farmers. Restored costs over the long term for landowners
grasslands provide numerous benefits including improved O while making farms more resilient to
water quality, water management, carbon sequestration,
and wildlife habitat. Unfortunately, program funding is increasingly extreme weather brought on
extremely limited at this time, hampering the effectiveness by climate change.
of the program in keeping grasslands in grazing rather
than getting converted to row crop production.
sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Additionally, CTA provides inventories and evaluations
provides financial and technical assistance to farmers and of soil, water, animal, plant, and other resources to help
ranchers to implement conservation practices on their farm landowners make the most informed decisions in choosing
or ranch. The program pays up to 75 percent of the cost land management strategies and conservation plans.
of installing eligible conservation practices. The activities CTA does not provide financial or cost-sharing assistance.
described in this report are eligible for EQIP funding.126 However, by providing technical assistance to develop
Focusing EQIP on the practices outlined in this report can a conservation plan, Conservation Technical Assistance
maximize farmer implementation by helping to overcome provides a vital component in initiating the first step in
an initial barrier of upfront cost. getting more conservation and future friendly farming
implemented on the ground.
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) provides
financial and technical assistance to landowners volun- The Conservation Stewardship Program provides financial
teering to implement practices that improve the wildlife and technical assistance to farmers, ranchers and forest
habitat quality of their land for targeted species. Like owners to help them address resource concerns on
other conservation programs, WHIP may focus on a their land and continue conservation practices already
particular benefit, but additional environmental benefits in place. Through five year contracts, participants can
are provided by the activities designed to increase receive annual payments based on their conservation
wildlife habitat. Such activities include adding particular performance. Supplemental payments are also available
ground cover suitable for habitat for targeted species, for resource conserving crop rotations. Nearly all of the
increasing the biodiversity of plant species to better activities mentioned in this report would qualify for the
reflect natural ecosystems, and providing fish passages CSP program.
in waterways. WHIP may cover up to 90 percent of the
cost to install wildlife habitat practices in long-term The Healthy Forests Reserve Program assists landowners in
agreements. Transitioning lands to operate within nature, restoring, enhancing and protecting forestland resources
and less against it, reduces costs over the long term for on private lands through easements, 30-year contracts
landowners while making farms more resilient to increas- and 10-year cost-share agreements. The objectives of
ingly extreme weather brought on by climate change. the program are to promote recovery of endangered and
threatened species, improve plant and animal diversity,
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) provides and to enhance carbon sequestration. This program
landowners including farmers, ranchers, city, county, and helps forest owners establish management practices that
state governments, and citizens groups with assistance in increase long-term wood production and profitability of
developing conservation plans for a wide range of property their forests. Unfortunately, the program has very limited
sizes from individual properties up to entire communities funding and is only available in a few states.
or watersheds. These conservation plans guide landowners
in implementing conservation practices that provide There are numerous smaller programs available through
multiple benefits to the landowner and the environment various federal agencies, such as the State and Private
including water quality, flood mitigation, carbon Forestry program of the U.S. Forest Service and the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program of the U.S. Fish and a greenhouse gas emission market which will come into
Wildlife Service. Conservation Technical Assistance from effect in 2012. In both markets, greenhouse gas emissions
the Natural Resources Conservation Service or certified from large point sources are regulated. These entities
Technical Assistance Providers can also help landowners may purchase carbon credits from farmers who implement
draft conservation plans. Increasing the numbers of greenhouse gas emissions reductions projects. The
Technical Assistance Providers would help many farmers Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative accepts emissions
overcome the first barrier to implementing more future reductions credits from sequestration due to afforestation
friendly farming, namely establishing a plan and guidance and avoided methane emissions from animal manure
for transitioning to new management practices. operations in the participating northeastern states. Two
future friendly farming practices that qualify include
Increasing the numbers of Technical reforestation and anaerobic digesters. Starting in 2012,
farmers across the country will be able to sell greenhouse
Assistance Providers would help many gas emissions credits to California companies that must
O
farmers overcome the first barrier to meet emissions reductions requirements. Carbon credits
may provide an added financial incentive that can help
implementing more future friendly farming. farmers transition to future friendly farming practices.
TAX INCENTIVES EDUCATION

Landowners who donate conservation easements on their For some farm and forest managers, simple unfamiliarity
land are eligible for federal income tax deductions and with future friendly farming practices prevents adoption.
may be eligible for estate tax benefits. Additionally, many Many have training and experience in more common
states and localities offer tax benefits for conservation or conventional management techniques. Even if other
easements. Conservation easements can help secure the barriers are addressed through policy, calling on farm and
numerous services provided by natural ecosystems by forest managers to shift away from those comfortable
ensuring the land stays in its natural state into the future. and familiar techniques in favor of the unfamiliar will
nonetheless result in little change. New efforts must be
CARBON MARKETS developed to train existing farmers through extension and
Providing incentives for practices that sequester carbon other continuing education opportunities. Additionally, we
into the soil is one way to incentivize future friendly farming must prepare future farmers through 4-H programs, Future
practices which have each been identified as providing Farmers of America, and other agricultural education
carbon sequestration or emissions reductions. Greenhouse efforts at the secondary and post-secondary level to
gas emissions markets use the power of free markets increase their knowledge and comfort with agricultural
to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions far practices that offer stronger, more consistent profit
more cheaply than direct government regulations. There potential with lower input costs while benefiting the air,
currently exists no mandatory federal market for green- water and wildlife around us.
house gas emissions. Nonetheless, there are regional and
state level markets that provide farm and forest owners Research and demonstration farms can offer more research
with opportunities to sell carbon credits earned through on future friendly farming practices and approaches,
improved management practices. Tremendous oppor- allowing farmers to feel more comfortable with these
tunity exists to sequester carbon and avoid greenhouse techniques. Finally, agriculture and forestry support
gas emissions from agricultural production and forestry, networks, including crop and forest advisors, agricultural
improve profitability for landowners, and provide so many credit lenders, animal nutritionists and others can play a
other valuable benefits to society. role in advancing future friendly farming practices. These
stakeholders can promote these efforts by becoming
There are two major greenhouse gas emissions markets more comfortable with these practices so they may
in the United States. In the northeast, ten states have provide more effective and insightful advice and services
created the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. In the to farm and forest managers seeking to implement them.
west, the state of California passed AB 32, a bill to create Agricultural and forestry publications can profile successful
adoption of future friendly practices and help
make landowners and managers more aware of
these options that have been shown to improve
profit margins, provide more consistent returns
for farmers, and reduce vulnerability to increasing
extreme weather events.
CONCLUSION
Through the seven techniques described in this
report, farmers and forest owners can increase
their productivity and income while addressing
multiple environmental threats, from water and air
quality degradation to biodiversity loss to climate
change. Agriculture has a real opportunity to play
a role in addressing all of these issues. A number
of agriculture and land management strategies
offer true win-win opportunities for land owners
and the environment. There are numerous land
management techniques, from reforestation to
conservation tillage to cover crops and others that
can play significant roles in addressing environ-
mental problems while offering increased profits
to land owners. To maximize implementation of
these techniques we recommend:
Developing further research on all land
management techniques regarding their
impact on water quality, water management,
air quality, wildlife habitat, climate change,
techniques that provide solutions to multiple environ-
and biodiversity.
mental issues.
Developing better analysis quantifying the direct
Expanding efforts to develop credit trading markets
and indirect costs and benefits of different land
for environmental benefits such as carbon seques-
management techniques.
tration, biodiversity enhancement, water quality
Expanding outreach programs to educate farmers and
improvement, and wetlands protection and creation.
others in the agricultural industry about the multiple
Placing minimum “do no harm” provisions on all
benefits of future friendly farming practices.
carbon sequestration projects, preventing actions
Expanding programs to assist farmers in transitioning
that cause harm to the ecosystem or wildlife, such as
to practices with multiple benefits. Federal working
afforestation of lands that should not be forested.
land conservation programs such as the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program’s organic crossover
The choice is ours to make. We can either ignore the
provides one example of such transition assistance.
problems we face and accept the consequences of
Increasing funding for the Conservation Reserve continued environmental degradation or we can develop,
Program, Wetland Reserve Program, and Grassland reward, and implement future friendly agriculture and land
Reserve Program, which help landowners protect management techniques that provide multiple solutions,
vital native ecosystems and the multiple benefits all the while increasing landowner income and reducing
they provide. costs to businesses, consumers, and tax payers, while
Establishing market systems and parameters to reward protecting the health of the planet and the ability of future
farmers who implement positive land management generations to provide for their needs.

Chart:: Future Friendly Farming: Seven Agricultural Practices To Sustain People and The Environment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chart:: Future Friendly Farming: Seven Agricultural Practices To Sustain People and The Environment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chart:: Future Friendly Farming: Seven Agricultural Practices To Sustain People and The Environment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................1

2. Conservation Tillage ...........................................................................13

3. Organic Management ........................................................................20

4. Grassland and Pasture Management ................................................25

5. Sustainable Forest Management .......................................................30

6. Anaerobic Digesters ...........................................................................33

CASE STUDY: Wisconsin Dairyman Grows Proﬁts While

7. Protecting and Restoring Land to Native Ecosystems.....................39

Agricultural and Land Management Carbon Offsets Opportunities .... 43

Recommendations for Increasing the Adoption of

Increased variability in commodity prices, input costs, and

In addition to providing tools to address increasing

Duck habitat at wetland edge. Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS

Future Friendly Farming—Agricultural

Future friendly farming practices have the potential to

Effect on Landowner/ Potential

4 practices that lead

Cover Crops—non-commodity crops

After a commodity crop is harvested, cover crops are

Cover crops add nutrients to the soil and greatly reduce

By providing vital soil protection, cover crops prevent

Minnesota Corn and Soybean Farmer Grows Proﬁts,

200 will be used by crops.11 Much of

Nitrogen inhibitors, chemicals that influence the

Lana Vetch cover in a CA date orchard. Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS

Cover Cropping North Dakota Grain and Cattle Farmers

Source: Josh Dukart, Burleigh County Soil

Conservation Tillage—a range of

Repeated intensive tillage can affect the soil’s ability to

two functions facilitate water drainage as well as water

E rosion of soil by wind or water creates problems and

Clean tillage resulting in wind erosion. Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS

contribute to ﬂood management and prevention systems. Conservation

Oklahoma Farmers, Conservationists and Electric Cooperative

Stacy Hansen, Oklahoma Conservation Commission

Farmers adopting no-till in Oklahoma store on average

T hanks to advancements in global positioning

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS

Keys for Maximizing Beneﬁts

O Organic Management—An agricultural

Farmers who use organic methods

For farmers, organic production can be more proﬁtable.

Can Organic Provide?

The Next Generation of Farmers

Source: Ben and Adrie Lester

National Young Farmers Coalition

Some wildlife are so sensitive to

Organic farms have a higher

Grassland and rangeland management—

Some farmers are turning to rotational

and increase production and farm proﬁt-

Farmers can see tremendous beneﬁt from improved

Increasing the grazing rotation and reducing the

Rotational grazing and native plant mixtures

New Mexico Rancher Cultivates More Cows,

Source: Peggy Cole, www.holisticmanagement.org

F Forest management—planning and