Conservation Agriculture Comes to a Close

Typography
An experimental program designed to demonstrate and document the economic, environmental and social benefits of "holistic" farming practices is a good first step, say its leaders.

FARGO, N.D. — An experimental program designed to demonstrate and document the economic, environmental and social benefits of "holistic" farming practices is a good first step, say its leaders.


The program was sponsored by The Natural Resources Trust over four years. The trust paid about $600,000 of its $1.1 million cost, part of which paid the farmers for completing various conservation measures, according to coordinator Sharon Clancy.


Conservation Agriculture's programs were created by an eight-member advisory board and involved four demonstration farms in North Dakota.


Those farms were Tom and Kathleen Langemo, Fingal; Bruce and Sandy Teubner, Cando; Clark and Susan Lemley, Hope; and Darrell and Deborah Odegaard, Egeland.


Each of the farmers worked under a "whole farm plan" that was developed voluntarily by the farmer and a local, six- member expert resource analysis team. The experts were volunteers.


Among other things, the local teams helped the farmer glean programs from available federal, state and local programs that help to implement conservation.


While conventional farm analysis focuses largely on economics, this program was designed to look at such things as quality of life and ecological impacts. The program concepts came from a Land Stewardship Project in Minnesota.


The concepts later became part of the Conservation Security Program of the 2005 farm bill, so the CA is something of an on-farm test of that legislation.


Farmer-cooperators were chosen, among other things, for landscape diversity, enterprise diversity (crops, livestock, grass) and diversity of watersheds.


The program's overall advisory board created 10 practices for the program including Conservation Tillage, Wetland Bank, Saline Wetland Buffer and Stream Bank Buffer programs. Other programs established grass on prime farmland for erosion control, flood storage or recreational benefits. There also was a legume program, with various regimens for various purposes, including erosion control.


Here are some of the overall results:


--Wetlands: Buffer wetlands increased in bird diversity over time, while cropped and CRP wetlands remained essentially the same.


Invertebrate numbers and diversity were largest in wetlands with grass buffers, as opposed to CRP and crops.


Wetlands were monitored for water quality and salt transfer to cropped acres.


--Carbon sequestration: Organic carbon increased for all three wetland types, but statistically significant increases only were seen on Conservation Reserve Program sites. CRP uplands and wetlands increased carbon storage by 22 percent to 24 percent during the four years of the study. A net change in carbon stored in wetlands from 2001 to 2004 was 1.2, 5 and zero tons per acre per year, respectively, for wetlands surrounded by buffer, CRP and crops.


--Bird population: The increase in breeding birds from 2001 to 2004 increased from 8 percent to 21 percent, depending on the farm.


--Cropland: Since expenditures for farm inputs are variable, the impact of CA practices was "difficult to determine."


"Use is reported in dollars, not in pounds per acre, so the overall input usage was not able to be documented."


--Farm management/economics: There are "few clear economic impacts" from the program because it is too short and farm income varies substantially from year to year, analysts acknowledge. For three out of four of the farmers, farm debt declined during the five-year period, and all four had lower-than-regional debt averages. Conservation payments as a share of total government and conservation payments were 45.8 percent of total payments, for 2004.


"This is dramatically higher than regional averages." In one case, the study says, "The major economic impacts of the project were in the form of incentive payments." A secondary impact was from reducing fuel costs.


Some of the farmers increased their reduced-till and no-till practices and financed equipment with the incentive payments. It wasn't always clear whether they would keep buffer strips as buffers after the program ended.


Some used IPAQ with Arc Pad software and satellite imagery to identify field areas that produced good or poor crops.


All farmers in the study indicated that it had been worth their time, but they want future programs to be voluntary and not based on long-term enrollments.


The project staff has made recommendations for local, state and federal levels based on lessons learned in the program.


"We're working out solutions that have an immediate positive impact for the farmer and the environment, but we're also striving for solutions that have long-term, far- reaching impacts," Clancy says. "That's the bigger goal of this program, and it's working."


FACES OF CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE: Here are mini-profiles of the farmer-cooperators in the five-year Conservation Agriculture Program:


--Clark and Susan Lemley, Hope, N.D. 2,500 acres farmed, in Maple River watershed.


Crops: Dry beans, barley, corn, soybeans, sunflowers, durum, spring wheat, canola and Christmas trees.


Most significant CA-inspired change: Helped initiate reduced and no-till practices on a quarter-section, where Lemley saw some improvement in water infiltration. During the period, the Lemleys purchased a no-till drill and have saved on fuel costs and equipment wear.


Program helped him use IPAQ for tracking field information rather than notebook.


He also is using a GPS system that will lead to variable-rate seeding and chemical work.


"I guess I'm looking at things just a bit differently now," Clark says after the program's end. "Granted we have to look at the economics of it because we have to derive our living from farming. I haven't changed markedly, but I've changed some.


I've tried to become more sustainable. I think we still have a long way to go."


--Tom and Kathleen Langemo, Fingal, N.D. South Maple sub-basin of the Sheyenne River in Barnes County. Farm is 1,640 acres, including 960 owned acres.


Crops: soybeans, sunflowers and spring wheat. Among other things, Langemo used 80 acres of grass filters to protect 42 acres of wetlands where there had been "saline creep."


Three years of sampling showed an improvement from the practice, extending into the field. Langemo became more familiar with new technologies -- an IPAQ with Arc Pad software and satellite imagery. During the program, the Langemos increased profitability, productivity and increased diversification.


"Participating in Conservation Agriculture was well worth our time," Tom says.


Adds Kathleen: "Once you get used to some of these things (tools used in CA) you don't want to go backward. You say, OK, we have to do this on our own."


--Darrell and Deborah Odegaard, Egeland, N.D. 2,900 acres in the Mauvis Coulee of Devils Lake Basin. Fifty Angus brood cows, wheat, malting barley, flax, canola, soybeans, peas, oats and corn.


Biggest change was that the Odegaards adopted a mulch-till approach that leaves as much "trash" as possible, which received a CA incentive payment during the program and will continue the program under incentives from the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Environmental Quality Incentive Program.


He also cut back to a single tillage pass in the fall and improved fall weed control. The Resource Team helped them plan a cross-fence in a pasture to graze more effectively.


"I look at the marginal areas, and I wouldn't say I've got them all conquered, but you can see what you can do with them and avoid dumping money into them and getting nothing back."


--Bruce and Sandy Teubner, Cando, N.D. This Devils Lake Basin farm raises sunflowers, durum, spring wheat, canola and borage.


Biggest changes because of CA: Shift toward minimum tillage on to-thirds of his farmed land and more extensive use of soil testing, with an emphasis toward applying appropriate nitrogen levels.


Residue incentives under CA offered a big economic impact, but so did fuel savings from fewer trips and using smaller cultivator shovels, as well as increased yields.


Among the wildlife changes during the program's tenure was a reported 21 percent increase in bird breeding behavior.


"We're paying a lot closer attention to the amount of nitrogen and trying not to overapply," Bruce says. "With the price of nitrogen, we can't afford to do that. It definitely pays to soil test."


To see more of Agweek, or to subscribe to the magazine, go to http://www.agweek.com.


Source: Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News