LSP in the News: New report: Livestock farms good for water quality,

The Pilot-Independent

http://www.walkermn.com/placed/index.php?story_id=195248&view=text

3/3/05

New report: Livestock farms good for water quality, habitat

Outdoors with Babe Winkelman

Babe Winkelman

A retired waterfowl biologist from the Great Plains says it is never a good sign when cattle trucks start leaving the prairie.

Translation: When cattle leave, so too does the grass — grass that's most often converted to row crops that, as history has shown us time and time again, can have dire and dramatic consequences for fish, wildlife and the environment.

Ground-nesting bird populations plummet. Sedimentation increases. More pollutants enter our waterways. Water quality suffers. Fish spawning habitat is degraded. Aquatic insects take a hit. The entire food chain is disrupted. My point: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Many times that reaction is bad; sometimes it is instructive. Here's a case in point. A new study just released by the Land Stewardship Project (LSP), conducted in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and three Minnesota universities, illustrates how one action (conservation-minded farming) can have a positive reaction (improved water equality and wildlife habitat).

According to George Boody, LSP Executive Director, the study showed that farming practices that rely on "perennial plant systems such as grass and hay while incorporating dairy cows and other livestock could significantly improve Minnesota's water quality."
More specifically, the study found that sedimentation reduction occurred on hilly landscapes when row crops such as corn and soybeans were replaced with grass, hay and other diverse crop rotations.

"These results show the positive benefits of getting more dairy cows out on the landscape eating perennial plants like grass and hay," said Boody, who helped write the study. "But farmers need to be given specific incentives and support for making transitions into such systems."

Boody said the research holds promise for other states as well. "The study was limited to Minnesota, but it does suggest that this approach to farming can have positive impacts well beyond Minnesota."

The Multiple Benefits of Agriculture study was conducted over a three-year period in Wells Creek, a southeast Minnesota watershed, as well as a sub-watershed of the Chippewa River in the state's prairie region.

According to Boody, two main scenarios were examined in the watersheds. The first was the status quo — fewer farms raising more and more row crops. The second was putting more grass on the landscape and using other perennial systems such as wetlands.

The last scenario, as you might suspect, improved water quality. But it did so dramatically. For example, sediment levels in Wells Creek and the Chippewa River dropped 84 percent and 49 percent, respectively. What's more, nitrogen levels nosedived, 74 percent and 62 percent, respectively. These important environmental benefits occurred, Boody said, even though livestock numbers more than doubled in both watersheds.

"This study shows a direct correlation between getting more year-round plant cover on the land and improved water quality and fish health in the streams," said Bruce Vondracek, an aquatic biologist for the USGS. "It also shows that these benefits can be gotten on working farmland — permanently removing livestock and idling acres near streams isn't the only way to improve water quality."

Farmers should take note, because the study also shows that profits increased "as the diversity of their farming systems increased." Why? Generally speaking, pasture operations have lower productions costs compared to row-crop farming, and sales of livestock can increase income. Another point: Utilizing the conservation-oriented farming model saves taxpayers money, because it reduces row crops (corn and soybeans, etc.) and, by extension, the commodity price supports that's part of the 2002 federal Farm Bill. Under this conservation model, taxpayers would still be on the hook for Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) payments, but those are far less than commodity payouts and benefit all citizens.

Still, there are big risks to farmers converting their operations from row crops to cattle and grass operations. Uncle Sam pays big bucks (subsidies) to farmers who plant corn and soybeans, and any transition to a more land-friendly farming system would have to be accompanied with more and better conservation program payments. That's a fair
and equitable trade-off, and one that should be explored by lawmakers.

"We need to put more money into working lands conservation programs, programs that don't penalize farmers for not growing corn and soybeans," said Boody. "It's a win-win for everyone. And, based on the results of our study, the public supports paying farmers who are willing to protect and enhance water and wildlife habitat resources."

True enough. The public, based on opinion polls, has always supported subsidies that keep farmers on the land, provided they get conservation benefits (fish and wildlife habitat) in return.

The LSP study is required reading for farmers second-guessing their addiction to row crops farming and the public subsidies that come with it.
The wild card here is the Bush administration's recent announcement to cut farm programs.

To be sure, the proposed cuts will be fought by farm groups and sympathetic lawmakers. That's happening right now. That said, if the proposed cuts actually happen, more farmers will be forced to diversify their revenue streams, perhaps by enrolling their acres into working lands conservation programs.

After all, for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Babe Winkelman is a nationally known outdoorsman who has been teaching people to fish and hunt for 25 years. Watch his award-winning "Good Fishing" television show on WGN-TV, Fox Sports Net, The Men's Channel, Great American Country Network and The Sportsman's Channel. Visit http://www.winkelman.com for air times.

top