Contact: John Westra, LSU, 225-578-2721; JWestra@agcenter.lsu.edu
Bruce Vondracek, USGS, 612-624-8748; bvondrac@umn.edu
George Boody, LSP, 651-653-0618; gboody@landstewardshipproject.org

2/8/05
Farming systems that rely on perennial plants such as grass while incorporating hay, small grains and other resource-conserving crops could significantly improve water quality, according to a new modeling study of two watersheds. But these improvements are not likely to occur without significant changes in federal farm policy, concluded the study, which was published in the January issue of the journal BioScience (http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/mba/Multifunc_Jan05_BioSc.pdf).

“This study demonstrates how it is possible for farmers and the general public to benefit when farmers are rewarded for using innovative systems that produce major environmental benefits in addition to food and fiber,” said John Westra, an agricultural economist at the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center and one of the authors of the study. “Unfortunately, current federal commodity policy strongly discourages farmers from diversifying their production systems and planting resource-conserving crops to generate the multiple benefits farms can produce and that the public wants.”

The “Multiple Benefits of Agriculture” analysis found that on hilly land, replacing row crops like corn and soybeans with resource-conserving grass, hay and small grains such as wheat or oats could significantly reduce sedimentation, pollution runoff and flooding. It also found that through policy changes, benefits could be attained at less cost to taxpayers while benefiting farmers financially.

The analysis was conducted over a three-year period in southeast Minnesota's Wells Creek watershed, and a sub-watershed of the Chippewa River, in western Minnesota. Biologists, economists and rural sociologists from the U.S. Geological Survey, University of Minnesota, Minnesota State University-Mankato, Bemidji State University and Iowa State University conducted the study. The Land Stewardship Project coordinated the research; the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy also participated in the analysis.

Four scenarios were examined in the watersheds, ranging from continuing current trends of farms raising increasing acres of row crops, to converting a significant number of acres to grass and forage-based farming, as well as restoring other perennial systems such as wetlands. Under this last scenario, sediment levels in the waters of Wells Creek and the Chippewa River dropped 84 percent and 49 percent respectively. Nitrogen in the water, which can be a major pollution problem, plummeted by 74 percent in Wells Creek and 62 percent in the Chippewa under that scenario. These environmental benefits occurred even as the number of dairy and beef cattle were increased in both watersheds, according to the modeling.

“This study shows a direct correlation between getting more year-round plant cover on the land, reintegrating livestock onto farms, and improved water quality and fish health in the streams,” said Bruce Vondracek, a co-author of the BioScience paper and an aquatic biologist at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. “It also shows 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.”

The profitability of farmers in the watersheds rose as the diversity of their farming systems increased, according to the study. In general, pasture operations have lower production costs when compared to row cropping systems, and sales of livestock products can increase income. Under the scenario utilizing the most diverse plant systems, significantly fewer acres were planted to corn and soybeans, so government commodity payments for these row crops dropped. Even though federal Conservation Reserve Program payments for setting aside farmland as a buffer along streams and rivers increased under this scenario, the overall taxpayer cost was lower because of the decrease in commodity payments.

But transitioning into diverse conservation-type farming systems is not without its risks, according to George Boody, executive director of the Land Stewardship Project and co-author of the BioScience paper. Such transitions are not likely to take place on a large scale without changes in federal policies that currently penalize farmers for not planting row crops such as corn and soybeans, he said.

One significant step in the right direction, according to Boody, is the recently implemented Conservation Security Program (CSP), which pays farmers for utilizing production systems that result in environmental benefits such as cleaner water and more wildlife habitat. In an article published in the journal Agricultural and Resource Economics Review (http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/mba/westra.html), researchers with the Multiple Benefits of Agriculture initiative show that the Conservation Security Program, along with Conservation Reserve Program payments, could help produce significant environmental benefits while buoying farmer income.

“A program like CSP allows taxpayers to pay for the results they want, rather than paying once for commodities and again for clean-up costs for water pollution,” said Boody. “Unfortunately, USDA is currently ignoring Congress’ directive that CSP provide special incentive payments for resource-conserving crop rotations and rotational grazing systems. CSP will have little impact unless it is fully funded and reserves its highest payment rates for resource-conserving crop rotations, sustainable grazing systems and other conservation systems with high, multiple environmental benefits.”

-30-

CHARTS AVAILABLE: For charts in pdf format showing the relationship between perennial plant cover and water quality, visit http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/mba/water_qlty_chrts.pdf.