Methodology
 

Literature Review

-- Sustainable Ag and 
    Watershed Conservation
-- Government Programs
-- Barriers to Conservation
    Farming
-- Creating an Enabling 
    Environment for 
    Conservation Farming
 

Research Project: Conservation Farming in Northfield, MN

--  Watershed Conservation
    on Northfield Farms
-- Government Programs
-- Barriers to Conservation
    Farming
-- Creating an Enabling 
    Environment for 
    Conservation Farming
 

In Pictures: Northfield Farms
 

Educational Program Development for Conservation Farming in Northfield, MN
 

Conclusions
 

Acknowledgements
 

Literature Cited
 

Water Quality Problems of Conventional Agricultural Practices

Numerous studies have documented that disturbed land covers, and particularly agriculture, are associated with higher levels of non-point source (NPS) pollution in nearby water bodies than natural forested or grassland areas (Allan et al., 1997; Hunsaker and Levine, 1995; Johnson et al., 1997; Omerick et al., 1981; Osborne and Wiley, 1988; Wear et al., 1998).  In a study of Midwestern stream ecosystems, Johnson et al. (1997) actually found the percentage of a watershed in row crop agriculture to be the dominant factor explaining stream water chemistry.  In a study of the effects of land-use on water quality in an agricultural watershed, Gregory and Primack (2003) also found that row crop agriculture was positively correlated with levels of sediment, nitrates, and soluble reactive phosphorous in streams.  However, the effects of agriculture on water quality are highly variable depending on physical conditions including climate, soils, subsurface geology, and topography, as well as cultural conditions including crops grown, tillage methods used, chemicals applied and conservation practices in place, such as riparian forest buffer strips (Anderson, 2001).  For example, Gregory and Primack (2003) actually found negative correlations between the percentage of land in no-till agriculture and levels of sediment, nitrates, and soluble reactive phosphorous in streams.  These variations should be borne in mind in any generalized discussion of the effects of agriculture on water quality. 
 

• Sedimentation

Soil erosion and nutrient losses due to leaching and runoff are strongly influenced by farming practices.  Erosion rates are highest where agricultural land-use practices such as monoculture row cropping and deep tillage expose soil to the mechanical disturbance of wind and water and deplete organic matter, which would otherwise stabilize soil particles (Poincelot, 1987; Wear et al., 1998). 
 

• Nutrient and Pesticide Pollution

Nitrates and orthophosphates are the limiting nutrients in biological communities, and excessively high levels can have deleterious effects on community diversity.  Nutrient enrichment, particularly with phosphorous, has been shown to decrease biodiversity in aquatic systems affected by nonpoint source pollution from agriculture.   Also known as eutrophication, the process of nutrient enrichment alters food webs and results in dominance of nuisance species such as blue-green algal blooms in freshwater systems (Tilman, 1999).  As decomposers metabolize dead plant material from algal blooms, they consume oxygen in the water, leading to low dissolved oxygen concentrations and fish die-offs (Uri, 1999; Wear et al., 1998; Follett and Delgado, 2002).  In addition to lethal effects on aquatic organisms, pesticides in runoff may have other negative effects.  Herbicides have been shown to hinder photosynthesis in aquatic plants, and pesticides at sublethal concentrations lower the resistance of fish to other stresses (Uri, 1999). 
 

Nutrients from fertilizers put on corn in Minnesota enter the Missouri River and eventually contribute to eutrophication and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.  This ‘dead zone’ threatens the livlihood of fishermen who depend on high enough levels of dissolved oxygen to support aquatic life.  (Photo from: MPCA.  2000.  Oxygen-poor ‘dead zone’ links Gulf of Mexico with Minnesota waters.  Minnesota Environment, Nov. 2000.  Accessed online at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/mnenvironment/fall2000/hypoxia.html. Used with permission.)

High nitrate concentrations in ground and surface water can also have negative impacts on human health, particularly in infants (Follet and Delgado, 2002).  When infants under 6 months old ingest ground water with high nitrate concentrations, bacteria in the stomach convert it to the more toxic nitrite form.  This leads to a reduced capacity of the blood to carry oxygen to the tissues, a condition known as methemoglobinemia, or ‘blue baby syndrome’ (MPCA, 1998). 
 
 

Water Quality Benefits of Sustainable Agricultural Practices

Practices that preserve soil, minimize the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and reduce runoff can significantly improve water quality by reducing both runoff volume and nutrient and pesticide flux in runoff.    Incorporation of perennial crops into a crop rotation, no-till agriculture, nutrient management, integrated pest management, and conservation buffers are five ways that farmers can practice stewardship of both soil and water resources on their farms. 
 

• Crop Rotation including Perennial Crops 

Water Quality Benefits.  Incorporation of perennials and small grains into a crop rotation can significantly reduce erosion, runoff, and leaching.  Perennials are especially effective in preventing erosion because plant litter, crowns, and roots remain in place from year to year, protecting the soil (L.L. Jackson, 2002).  However, both perennials and small grains increase ground cover and root area, thus decreasing erosion, enhancing water infiltration, and reducing runoff and leaching (Altieri, 1987).  For example, a University of Minnesota study found that the corn-soybean row crop system drains far more water a perennial alfalfa system (Randall et al., 1997).  In a study of three farms in Northfield, MN, Gregory et al. (2003) found that runoff volume / cm rain in a conventional corn monoculture system with annual tillage was about 60 times greater that runoff from a farm using a five year rotation incorporating perennial crops (corn – soybeans – oats/alfalfa – alfalfa – alfalfa).  Reduced runoff from the rotation farm was associated with higher soil organic matter content, a more porous and less compacted soil structure, and increased invertebrate activity. 
 

Compared with land in row crops, the soil of this alfalfa field is much less susceptible to erosion because of increased ground cover and roots that remain in place from year to year.

Crop rotation not only reduces runoff volume from farm fields, but also reduces nutrient losses to the watershed relative to monoculture systems.  Conventional monoculture farms typically require high fertilizer use in order to replenish nutrients depleted by growing continuous corn. In comparison to biologically fixed nitrogen, plants tend to use such fertilizer nitrogen inefficiently, leaving excess nitrate ions to be leached into the watershed as nutrient pollution (Caporali and Onnis, 1992; Follett and Delgado, 2002).   Conventional farms tend to experience high leaching due to rapid conversion of fertilizer ammonia nitrogen to the highly mobile nitrate form (Jackson, 2002) and shallow rooting systems of annual crops, which do not take up nitrogen throughout the soil profile (Woodmansee, 1984).  For example, elevated NO3- concentrations have also been observed in runoff from corn monocultures in Missouri (Blanchard and Lerch, 2000). 

On the other hand, rotation of corn and soybeans with alfalfa (a leguminous species that produces more nitrogen than it consumes due to nitrogen-fixing bacteria in its roots) decreases the amount of fertilizer that must be applied to obtain good yields, thus decreasing nutrient inputs to the watershed.  In a crop rotation incorporating perennial legumes, nitrogen is obtained from decaying organic matter from plant roots, which becomes mineralized gradually as the soil warms and plant nutrient demand rises.  Therefore, nutrient leaching is reduced because nitrogen availability and nitrogen uptake are better synchronized (L.L. Jackson, 2002).  Furthermore, the deep root systems of perennial crops can more effectively utilize soil nitrogen than shallow-rooted annual crops, because they are capable of taking up nitrogen in the lower soil horizons and during the winter when shallow-rooted summer cash crops do not (Woodmansee, 1984).  Drinkwater et al. (1998) found that loss of nitrogen due to leaching was 50% higher on conventional farm fields than on fields in incorporating perennial legumes into crop rotations due to the structural diversity of perennial root systems.  Gregory et al. (2003) also found lower N fluxes in runoff from a farm practicing crop rotation (corn – soybeans – oats/alfalfa – alfalfa – alfalfa) in comparison to a conventional corn monoculture.  The high nutrient losses from the conventional corn farm were accompanied by a much higher use of fertilizer nitrogen.  Increased nutrient uptake by the root systems of alfalfa combined with lower fertilizer use may explain the lower N fluxes observed in runoff from the rotation fields, as no fertilizer is applied during the years in which soybeans and alfalfa are grown (four out of every five years). 
 

• No-Till Agriculture

The corn stalks on this no-till farm are left on the fields after harvest to provide physical protection from wind and rain, thus decreasing erosion.

Water Quality Benefits.  Like crop rotations, less intensive tillage systems also tend to reduce runoff volume (Sharpley, 1993).  Crop residue left on the surface of no-till farms protects the soil from mechanical disturbance and provides organic matter that enhances soil aggregation and water retaining capacities, both of which reduce runoff and pollution of aquatic systems (Holland and Coleman, 1987).  In the study of three farms in Northfield, MN, Gregory et al. (2003) found that runoff volume / cm rain in a conventional corn monoculture system with annual tillage was about 35 times greater than that of a corn-soybean no-till system.  As in the five-year crop rotation, the no-till farm had higher soil organic matter content, a more porous and less compacted soil structure, and increased invertebrate activity compared to the conventional farm. 

No-till farming also reduces sediment and associated nutrient losses to aquatic systems (Hansen et al. 2002; Sharpley, 1993; Sharpley et al., 1992).  This is because crop residue provides physical protection from wind and rain, thus decreasing erosion (Uri, 1999).  Some studies indicate that no-till agriculture can reduce erosion by 94% (USDA / NRCS, 1999).  Given that about 75-90% of P exported from cultivated lands is adsorbed to soil particles eroded in runoff, decreased erosion on the no-till farm due to plant residues on the soil surface could substantially reduce P loss (McDowell et al., 2001).  Such conclusions are borne out by the findings of Gregory et al. (2003): they found lower N and P fluxes in runoff from a no-till farm in comparison to a conventionally tilled farm.  Reduced erosion and nutrient loss in runoff from no-till farms do appear to translate into better surface water quality.  In the study of the effects of land-use on water quality in streams, Gregory and Primack (2003) found a negative correlation between the percentage of no-till agriculture in a buffer region adjacent to streams and the levels of sediment and nitrates in stream water samples. 
 

• Nutrient Management

Water Quality Benefits.  By testing soil and plant tissue to determine the amount of fertilizer actually needed by the crops, and considering all sources of crop nutrients (i.e., atmospheric deposition, manure, crop residue, and legume crops), nutrient management can significantly reduce or even eliminate the application of chemical fertilizers.  By applying only the amount of fertilizer that will be taken up by the crop and applying it at the correct time, nutrient losses to the watershed are greatly reduced.  Nutrient management is most effective when integrated with other conservation practices, including crop rotation with a variety of rooting types to best utilize available nutrients in the soil, and no-till to reduce erosion and nutrient-rich runoff (USDA / NRCS, 1999). 
 

• Integrated Pest Management

Water Quality Benefits.  By promoting the use of cultural and biological controls, integrated pest management can reduce or even eliminate the use of chemical pesticides, thus reducing inputs to the watershed (USDA / NRCS, 1999).  In their comparison of conventional, rotation, and no-till farms, Gregory et al. (2003) found that the farm practicing crop rotation (corn – soybeans – oats/alfalfa – alfalfa – alfalfa) had the lowest pesticide use (less than one-third that of the continuous corn farm).  This was the result of diversified crop rotation, which has the effect of breaking pest life cycles and preventing buildup of pest populations.  The no-till farm also had much lower pesticide application (less than half that of the continuous corn farm), most likely due to enhanced biological control as a result of greater invertebrate populations. 
 

• Conservation Buffers

Water Quality Benefits.  Maintaining conservation buffers as part of a diversified agricultural landscape can help mitigate non-point source (NPS) pollution.  Permanent vegetation facilitates the removal of suspended sediments and nutrients from overland storm and floodwaters, and also protects stream banks from erosion (Perry et al., 1999).  Fine roots and microbial communities on the soil surface, as well as above-ground plant structures, trap particulates and assimilate dissolved nutrients.  Anaerobic soils at the land-water interface and inputs of organic materials by vegetation also facilitate below-ground redox processes (such as denitrification) that remove excess nutrients from runoff before it enters a stream (Tabacchi et al., 1998).  The findings of Gregory and Primack (2003) support the effectiveness of riparian forest buffers in improving water quality: they found that forest buffer strips of 1 – 200 m widths adjacent to streams significantly reduced levels of sediment, nitrates, and soluble reactive phosphorous in stream water samples.
 

Riparian forest buffers filter out excess sediment and nutrients from runoff before it enters a stream.  (Photo from:  NRCS.  1997.  Riparian forest buffer conservation practice job sheet.  Accessed online at: http://www.unl.edu/nac/jobsheets/ripjob.pdf)

Government assistance for conservation on farms began in 1985 with the creation of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), a program that pays farmers to take highly erodible land out of production and maintain natural vegetation cover (Hosansky, 2002).  The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) contains provisions for a number of conservation programs intended to provide cost-share, incentive payments, and technical assistance for farmers to maintain natural vegetation that will improve water quality and wildlife habitat, as well as implement conservation practices on working farmland (NRCS, 2002ab). 
 

Technical and Financial Assistance Programs for Conservation Farming

• Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) / Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

A 17-county area in southeast Minnesota will also be a part of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), pending USDA approval of the state’s application (CRWP, 2003).  CREP combines federal monies with support from the state’s Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve program.  This additional funding will help farmers set aside sensitive agricultural land to reduce erosion and sedimentation and preserve ground and surface water quality (FSA, 2003).
 

• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

• Conservation Security Program (CSP)

• Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)

Evaluation of Conservation Programs

While these conservation programs could or have made significant contributions to the implementation of watershed conservation practices on farms, several provisions in the rule-making and appropriations for the CSP and EQIP in particular limit their potential to promote good land stewardship and watershed conservation on working farmland. 

In the proposed 2004 USDA budget, appropriations for CSP have fallen short of what is needed to make it an effective program available to all farmers wishing to implement conservation practices.  The proposed budget caps CSP funding at $2 billion over 10 years, which would remove its status as an entitlement program (LSP, 2003a).  Enrollment is now limited to selected watersheds (NRCS, 2003a).  The proposed budget for CSP also sets base payments at .5 - 1.5% of local rental rates, instead of the 5 - 15% required by law.  Cost-share payments are set at 5% of out-of-pocket costs, in comparison with the 75% or 90% (for beginning farmers) required by the law (LSP, 2004b).  Furthermore, the proposed rules issued by the USDA in January 2004 fail to reward soil-conserving crop rotations in enhancement payments (LSP, 2004a). 

The administration of the EQIP program also has some problems that may limit its potential to help small and medium-sized farmers implement watershed conservation practices on their operations.  In the EQIP reauthorization in the 2002 Farm Bill, 50% of conservation spending will go to the EQIP program, where individual operators or corporate owners of large farms may now receive $450,000.  Many environmental and rural advocacy groups feel that this cap is too high to effectively ensure that conservation funding will accrue to small- and medium-sized farms, which are often excellent stewards of soil, water, and biodiversity resources (Bell-Sheeter, 2003; EWG, 2003c; LSP, 2003a; Mittal, 2002; Rural Coalition, 2002). 

Overall, while the conservation provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill have great potential to enable farmers to improve watershed conservation on their lands, inadequate funding and problematic rulemaking with a bias against sustainable practices and small and medium-sized family-owned farms may compromise this potential. 
 

   Back to top

Lack of Experience, Knowledge, and Information

In a survey of sustainable farmers in Minnesota and Wisconsin conducted by the Land Stewardship Project, lack of experience was the most frequently cited challenge to implementing sustainable practices on their farms, with 49% of the respondents.  The #3 and #5 responses were lack of knowledge regarding sustainable farming practices (35%) and difficulty finding information (24%) (LSP, 2003d). 
 
 

Farm Policy

The second most widely cited challenge to implementing sustainable farming practices in the LSP survey was current farm policy, with 43% of the farmers (LSP, 2003d).  Several aspects of the structure of commodity payments work against watershed conservation practices (such as soil-conserving crop rotations) and small and medium-sized family farms that effectively preserve soil and water resources. 
 

• Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payments: Focus on Program Crops Discourages Soil-Conserving Crop Rotations and Agroforestry

Perennial tree crops (such as fruits) and vegetables are not eligible to receive subsidies in the 2002 Farm Bill (Bell-Sheeter, 2002; Gray, 2002b; Hansen, 2003).  Fruits and vegetables are also excluded from the planting flexibility provision that allows producers to plant alternative crops on base acreage and still receive direct and counter-cyclical payments for the covered crop.  The Secretary of Agriculture may assess a penalty for the planting of base acres to fruits and vegetables, thus discouraging diversification into agro-forestry systems that incorporate trees into the agroecosystem (Bell-Sheeter, 2002; Gray, 2002ab). 

Therefore, because row crops are associated with high levels of erosion and fertilizer and pesticide use, and the focus on program crops in commodity payments encourages continuous planting of row crops and discourages soil-conserving crop rotations and agroforestry, the current structure of farm subsidies may be considered a barrier to watershed conservation on farms (see Literature Review, Water Quality Benefits of Sustainable Agricultural Practices). 
 

• Loan Deficiency Payments Based on Production

While the highest yield of a single crop is often obtained by planting it in a monoculture – which is one reason farmers seeking the highest loan deficiency payments may choose to plant their fields in this manner -- such practices also leave bare ground in between crop rows vulnerable to erosion and weed infestation, requiring high inputs of fertilizers and herbicides (Rosset, 1999).  Monocultures also make a crop more susceptible to pests and diseases, requiring high pesticide inputs that are likely to find their way into the watershed in runoff.  In contrast, crop rotation and intercropping make it more difficult for the pathogens and pests to build up and spread among their host plants.  More diverse agroecosystems also support higher populations of beneficial insect predators, which function to control insect pests (Cunningham and Saigo, 2001; Pimentel et al., 1992).  By encouraging monocultures and discouraging crop rotation and intercropping, loan deficiency payments contribute to higher inputs of sediment, fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides to watersheds. 

Another way that loan deficiency payments discourage watershed conservation is by promoting the planting of program crops ‘fence post to fence post’ and the expansion of production onto marginal lands  (Hoefner, 2002; Mittal, 2002).  Such practices, while increasing crops eligible for subsidy payments, neglect the conservation benefits of leaving field edges and marginal farmlands in native vegetation that filters out sediment and nutrients from runoff water (see Literature Review, Water Quality Benefits of Sustainable Agricultural Practices). 

Therefore, because loan deficiency payments tied to production provide incentives for planting of chemical-intensive monocultures, discourage crop rotation and intercropping with non-program crops, and encourage crop expansion onto field edges and marginal farmland, such subsidies pose a threat to watershed conservation by promoting practices that increase erosion and increase inputs of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides to the watershed in runoff. 
 

• Lack of Effective Cap on Subsidies Biases Payment to Large Farms

The bias in farm subsidy payments toward large farms owned by corporations or absentee landowners results in an increase in land prices and large farms outbidding of small and medium-sized family farms in the purchase of land (Hansen, 2003; Hassenbrook, 2002; Hosansky, 2002).   The relatively little support allocated for conservation programs in the 2002 Farm Bill (23% of Farm Bill funding as opposed to 73% for commodity payments) will further marginalize small and medium-sized farmers, as they tend to benefit from conservation programs (EWG, 2003ab).  Consolidation of large farms and a decline in family ownership ultimately results in a decrease in environmental stewardship and watershed conservation.  This is because in comparison to large monoculture farms owned by corporations seeking to maximize production of a single crop, small and medium-sized family farms are highly diversified, producing a variety of crops for regional markets.  Because the people that work the land have a vested interest in sustainability of soil resources, family farms also maintain more land in woodlands and cover crops that prevent erosion and watershed contamination (Rosset, 1999). 

Therefore, because of policies unfavorable to small and medium-sized, diversified, family-owned farms in the 2002 Farm Bill commodity payments policies, this production-oriented rather that conservation-oriented farm policy fails to promote sustainable agriculture and watershed conservation. 
 
 

Economic Considerations: Perceived Lower Yield and Initial Capital Investments

While farm policy is commonly cited as a barrier to soil-conserving crop rotations, lack of confidence in yields is often a primary concern in adoption of conservation tillage.  In a study in southern Ontario, Wandel and Smithers (2000) noted that yield concerns were articulated with regard to the specific conditions of poorly drained clay soils of the region being studied.  Thus, even with research demonstrating the agronomic and economic viability of no-till farming, in a profession with very narrow profit margin farmers understandably worry whether these results are applicable to their local soil type and climate. 

The initial capital investment involved in switching to more sustainable farming methods is another formidable economic barrier, as the transition to sustainable agriculture often requires a switch in expensive machinery (for example, from a moldboard plow to a no-till seed drill) (Brennan, 2003).  Sustainable farmers in the Land Stewardship Project survey (25%) named the lack of external funding for such initial investments as an impediment to sustainable agriculture.  The survey also revealed that while 89% of farmers see ‘sustainable farming’ as equally or more profitable than conventional farming, only 35% of lenders shared this belief (LSP, 2003d).  Therefore, farmers desiring to adopt conservation agriculture may have a more difficult time obtaining loans to procure the initial capital to do so. 

Research indicates that financial resources may indeed play an important role in farmers’ ability to adopt conservation farming practices.  While smaller farms may leave more land in natural vegetation and show greater adoption of labor-intensive conservation practices, studies in the Midwest (Napier et al., 2000), southern Ontario (Wandel and Smithers, 2000) and the Pacific Northwest (Upadhyay et al., 2003) showed that larger farms are actually more likely to adopt new technologies such as conservation tillage.  Furthermore, off-farm income (Napier et al., 2000; Upadhyay et al., 2003) and higher farm receipts (Napier et al., 2000; Wandel and Smithers, 2000) contributed positively to conservation tillage and other conservation practice adoption.  This may indicate that farmers with more finances to invest were able to purchase conservation tillage equipment, while farmers with few financial resources may experience more difficulty in making the initial investments required to transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture.  In the southern Ontario study, the cost of owning conservation equipment was the third most frequently cited barrier to adoption of conservation tillage among the farmers interviewed (Wandel and Smithers, 2000). 
 
 

Social Pressure

Finally, social pressures from landowners and peers to continue with traditional practices may present a barrier to adoption of new practices such as no-till farming.  This factor was cited by 22% of farmers participating in the Land Stewardship Project survey on barriers to sustainable agriculture (LSP, 2003d).  In his interviews with a number of farmers in the Northfield, Minnesota area, Streit (2003) noted that the corn stalk and bean plant residue left on the surface of no-till fields to protect against erosion is referred to by the farmers as ‘trash’ and is often seen in a negative light by neighbors with neatly plowed fields. 
 

   Back to top

Education: Farmer Information Networks, Extension Services, On-Farm Research

• Farmer Information Networks

• Extension Education

• On-Farm Research

Increasing the Economic Viability of Sustainable Agriculture: Local Food Systems 

Many economists feel that the survival of small and medium-sized farms will depend upon their ability to develop markets among concerned citizens seeking to purchase food produced in an environmentally sound and socially equitable manner (Hansen, 2003).  There are several promising developments in regional marketing that can have a significant impact on improving the economic viability of sustainable agriculture.  Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is a model in which customers buy a share from a farm in their area, and then receive a bag or box of in-season produce each week throughout the growing season.  CSAs tend to be small, family farms that use organic (chemical-free) or other environmentally sustainable methods of production (D.L. Jackson, 2002).  Farmer’s markets are another option that have allowed many sustainable farmers to remain economically viable (Campbell, 1997; Korfmacher, 2000). 
 
 

Incentives for Conservation and Community Development: Changes in U.S. Farm Policy

Farm policy has tremendous influence over the crops farmers choose to plant and the production practices that they employ.  At present, farm policy encourages monoculture production of row crops, thus leading to soil erosion and heavy application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides while discouraging soil-conserving crop rotations, intercropping, and agroforestry.  Therefore, changes in U.S. farm policy are needed in order to ensure the economic viability of alternative production systems that effectively conserve soil and water resources. 
 

• Support for Soil-Conserving Crops

• Compliance-Based Conservation Incentive Programs

Past experience has shown that tying soil and watershed conservation to farm subsidies is the most effective way to conserve these resources: soil erosion has decreased by 40% since the 1985 Farm Bill stipulated that farmers on highly erodible land must implement conservation practices in order to receive federal support.  However, over half the cropland that is currently eroding faster than soil is being regenerated (that is, above the soil tolerance level ‘T’) is not highly erodible land.  Expanding conservation compliance requirements to non-highly erodible land and offering technical and financial assistance to all farms could help ensure that soil and watershed conservation concerns are addressed more broadly (Cox, 2001). 
 

• Family Farm / Rural Development Focus

As discussed previously (see Literature Review, Increasing the Economic Viability of Sustainable Agriculture: Local Food Systems), marketing locally produced crops produced in an environmentally sound manner is a key factor in making farms that protect watersheds also economically viable. To this end, increased funding for the Community Food Security Program, which provides grants to community-based organizations to implement programs that will improve local food security, could enable small farmers in poor communities diversify their production to meet local needs while conserving soil and water resources.  While the 2002 Farm Bill doubled funding for this program to $5 million per year, at the time only 20% of applicants were granted funding, indicating a need for even more support (Rural Coalition, 2002a).  Funds should also be set aside for the development of cooperatives and farmer-owned value-added processing facilities in order to ensure the viability of small farms (Rural Coalition, 2002b).  Finally, funding is needed for programs that ensure equitable access to local food produced in an environmentally sound way (Rural Coalition, 2002b).  For example, increased funding for the Women, Infants, and Children and Senior Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) under the 2002 Farm Bill is currently enabling low-incomes groups to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables directly from sustainable producers (Rural Coalition, 2002a).  Such programs should be continued and expanded both for their direct social benefits and indirect environmental benefits (i.e., support for diversified farms that conserve soil and water resources). 
 

   Back to top