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
 

In my conversations with Northfield farmers, I encountered a sincere desire to exercise good land stewardship, and to reduce as much as possible the problems of soil erosion and contamination of surface and ground waters with sediment, fertilizer nutrients and pesticides.  Several common themes emerged as I conversed with farmers about conservation practices to achieve these goals.  Many emphasized that conservation practices they had undertaken were not only environmentally sound, but also made good economic sense.  By preserving the long-term productivity of the land and reducing input costs, farmers can conserve soil and water as well as financial resources. 

Another common theme that I encountered was that the selection of which conservation practices to implement involves environmental trade-offs.  In certain situations, implementation of a practice with particular environmental benefits may compromise environmental quality in a different way, or preclude the adoption of another beneficial practice.  In the challenge of preserving soil and water resources while maintaining a profitable operation, farmers face difficult choices.  Most farming practices and conservation technologies have both positive and negative implications for soil and water resources, which farmers must balance in their decisions. 

In the following section, I describe how the farmers I spoke with have sought to make the best possible environmental decisions given the possibilities and constraints inherent in farming in the Cannon River region.  Crop rotations incorporating perennial crops, conservation tillage, nutrient management, integrated pest management, vegetated conservation buffers, and other conservation structures (such as sediment basins) are among the efforts of farmers in the Northfield area to prevent soil erosion and runoff, reduce chemical fertilizer and pesticide use, and preserve water quality in the Cannon River Watershed. 

Note: All interviewees also received an Informed Consent form in which they specified their preferences for use of their names, specific information about their farms, and use of photos taken on their farms in the project.  On this page, some farmers are referred to by first and last name, some by first name only, and some are not referred to by name, according to their preferences.  Specific information about crops grown and farming methods used and photos of farms are included only with the interviewee’s permission.
 
 

Crop Rotation incorporating Perennial Crops and Small Grains
 

Edward Terry has received a River Friendly Farmer award for his conservation practices, including the incorporation of perennials and small grains into his crop rotation.

A number of the farmers I spoke with preserve environmental quality by including perennial legumes, small grains, and cover crops in their crop rotations.  By increasing ground cover and root area, these crops reduce soil erosion, enhance water infiltration, and reduce runoff and leaching of nutrients from farm fields (Altieri, 1987; L.L. Jackson, 2002; see Literature Review, Water Quality Benefits of Sustainable Agricultural Practices). 

Alfalfa is an example of a perennial legume. It is usually left on a field for three to four years, and the hay is cut three or four times per year.  Small grains include oats, winter wheat, and winter rye, while hairy vetch is strictly a cover crop.  Oats are typically planted in the spring and harvested for grain and straw.  Oats may also double as a nurse crop for underseeded alfalfa.  Winter wheat, winter rye, and hairy vetch are planted in the fall after corn or soybean harvest and become established quickly, then lie dormant as they protect the soil over the winter.  These small grains and cover crops will come up again in the spring and may be harvested for grain and straw bedding (winter wheat and winter rye), or disked into the soil to fertilize the crop prior to planting (winter rye and hairy vetch).  Because these crops become established in the fall, they also tend to out-compete weeds in the spring. 

The farm of Ray and Darlene Larson provides a good example of a diversified operation incorporating perennials and small grains.  They practice a five-year rotation consisting of Corn – Soybeans – Oats/Alfalfa – Alfalfa – Alfalfa.  Edward Terry also regularly incorporates oats and alfalfa into his corn-soybean rotation. 

An ecological and economic study conducted on the Larson farm in the fall of 2003 indicates the benefits that accrue from their diversified crop rotation (Gregory et al., 2003).  In comparison with a conventional corn monoculture system in the same area, the soil of the Larson farm has higher organic matter and moisture levels, lower compaction, and increased abundance and diversity of invertebrates.  Runoff from the fields is extremely low, approximately 60 times less than runoff from the nearby conventional farm.  Furthermore, their fields have lower nitrate-N loss in runoff, most likely due to the use of primarily organic nitrogen sources (such as roots of the previous years’ alfalfa crop and manure) rather than high applications of soluble chemical fertilizers.  Other studies conducted in southeastern Minnesota have also shown 30-50% lower nitrate-N loss by leaching in a perennial alfalfa system compared to a corn and soybean system (Randall et al., 1997).  Thus, the diverse crop rotation practiced on farms such as the Larsons’ helps protect the watershed by reducing chemical inputs and reducing nitrate losses to both surface and ground water. 

The Larsons’ diversified crop rotation is not only environmentally sound, it is also economically profitable.  In studies comparing the Larson farm to a conventional corn monoculture in the same area, both Gregory et al. (2003) and Rogn (1996) found that corn and soybean yields were higher and input costs (fertilizer, pesticides, and fuel) were lower on the Larson farm compared to a conventional farm.  Due to the low market value of crops such as oats, the crop rotation had a slightly lower average production value when compared to the continuous corn farm, but greater average profit per acre due to decreased input costs. 

Other southern Minnesota farmers have also succeeded in using perennial crop rotations while maintaining profitable operations.  Chan-Muehlbauer et al. (1992) gives a profile of two such farms.  One of the farms uses a Corn – Soybeans – Oats/Alfalfa or Barley/Alfalfa – Alfalfa – Alfalfa rotation, similar to the Larsons’.  This farm uses no chemical fertilizers or pesticides, relying on liquid manure applications every 2-3 years and the residues of the previous year’s alfalfa to fertilize the corn crop.  The other family rotates Corn – Soybeans – Oats/Peas or Barley/Peas – Alfalfa – Alfalfa.  They also use no chemical fertilizers or pesticides.  Both these farms, like the Larson farm, have higher than average profits due to decreased input costs. 

 Alfalfa forms an integral part of the crop rotations practiced on the Larson and Terry farms.  However, many of the other farmers I spoke with, while primarily raising corn and soybeans, also grow small amounts of alfalfa for conservation purposes.  In their choice of land on which to grow alfalfa, these farmers rely on intimate knowledge of variations in soil type and topography.  Typically, they utilize the flattest areas for cultivation of corn and soybean row crops and plant alfalfa on the most erodible soils and areas with rolling topography.  Acknowledging that there is a very limited market for alfalfa given the decrease in livestock in southeastern Minnesota over the last 30 years (Randall, 2003), these farmers indicated that their primary purpose in growing alfalfa is to preserve soil on their most marginal lands. 
 

One of the farmers I spoke with, Matt, maintains a strip of alfalfa on some of his more rolling land.

Alfalfa provides much more ground cover than row crops, and is therefore used by farmers on more erodible soils or hillier land to prevent erosion

In addition to using perennials like alfalfa in crop rotations, several farmers I spoke with plant small grains or cover crops in the fall in order to prevent erosion over the winter.  For example, Ray and Darlene Larson plant winter wheat in the fall after soybean harvest, which comes up in the fall and acts as a cover crop over the winter.  They harvest the wheat for both grain and straw bedding for cattle in the summer and then plant alfalfa in the fall.  A vegetable farmer I spoke with plants winter rye and hairy vetch in the fall as a cover crop, then disks it into the soil in spring before planting.  Winter rye has the added benefit of producing allelopathic chemicals that suppress weeds, while hairy vetch is a legume that fixes approximately 150 pounds of nitrogen per acre, according to the farmer I spoke with. 
 

This winter wheat on the Larsons’ farm has protected the soil from erosion over the winter and is just emerging in this picture, taken in early spring.

Conservation Tillage: No-Till and Minimum-Till 

Some farmers in Northfield have converted part or all of their farms to no-till or minimum-till methods in an effort to reduce soil erosion.  In no-till and minimum-till systems, farmers leave more crop residue on the soil surface than in conventional moldboard plowing, in which the soil is dug up and inverted before planting.  By leaving more above-ground crop residue and below-ground root systems in place after harvest, no-till and minimum-till systems protect the soil from mechanical disturbance and provide organic matter that enhances soil aggregation.  This reduces soil erosion, enhances water infiltration, and reduces runoff and nutrient losses (Hansen et al. 2002; Holland and Coleman, 1987; Sharpley, 1993; Sharpley et al., 1992; USDA / NRCS, 1999; Uri, 1999; see Literature Review, Water Quality Benefits of Sustainable Agricultural Practices). 
 

These corn stalks on Dave Legvold’s farm have been left undisturbed since harvest last fall.  This spring, he will plant soybeans directly into the soil with a seed drill.

In no-till farming, the root structure of the previous years’ crop help hold the soil together and prevent erosion.

In this picture, residue from the previous falls’ soybean crop, as well as the corn crop from two years ago, protects the soil from erosion.

Dave and Ruth Legvold provide an excellent example of the use no-till technology to improve soil and water stewardship.  They maintain a corn-soybean (C-S) rotation and use a seed drill to plant directly into the soil through the residue of the previous year’s crop, which is left undisturbed following harvest.  Like the diversified crop rotation practiced on the Larson farm, the Legvolds’ conservation practices have many benefits for soil and water quality as well as economic productivity.  These benefits were evident in a study conducted on the Legvold farm in the fall of 2003 (Gregory et al., 2003).  In comparison with a conventional corn monoculture system in the same area, the soil of the Legvold farm has higher organic matter and moisture levels, lower compaction, and markedly higher abundance and diversity of invertebrates.  Runoff from the fields is approximately 35 times less than runoff from the nearby conventional farm.  Furthermore, the no-till system has lower nitrate-N and soluble P loss in runoff, most likely as a result of decreased erosion and a more porous soil structure that permits slow infiltration of rainwater into the soil, where nutrients can be taken up by the crops. 

The Legvold farm is also quite profitable.  In the study by Gregory et al. (2003), the Legvold farm had higher corn and soybean yields than conventionally tilled fields nearby and therefore a higher production value.  Furthermore, it had lower input costs for fertilizer, pesticides, and especially fuel, due to the elimination of machinery use for plowing.  Comparing conventionally tilled and no-till farms, several other studies in southeastern Minnesota have also found that there is little or no yield penalty associated with no-tillage agriculture in a corn-soybean rotation, and such systems actually maintain or enhance profitability due to cost savings (Randall et al., 2002). 

The majority of other farmers I spoke with were either experimenting with no-till on some parts of their farm, or were practicing some form of minimum tillage.  As with the planting of alfalfa, farmers practicing no-till on only parts of their farm sought to apply the conservation practice to more erodible soils or steeper slopes.  Since no-till farming is most successful on well-drained soils, farmers often tried the practice on their lighter soils first before no-tilling more of their farm.  Other farmers I spoke with practice forms of minimum tillage such as mulch till, in which residue is only partially incorporated using a chisel plow or field cultivator (USDA-NRCS, 1999). 
 

This mulch-tilled field still has a considerable amount of crop residue to protect the soil from erosion.

All the farmers I spoke with who had tried no-till or minimum-till emphasized the savings of time and money in addition to soil.  Dave Legvold explained that his initial decision to try no-till was strongly influenced by potential time savings: as a teacher, elimination of fall and spring tillage eased the workload during some of the busiest times of the year.  Another farmer described how in order to plant conventional soybeans, up to five trips over the fields with machinery were needed: a stalk chopper and tillage tool in the fall, followed by a field cultivator, rock picker, and another pass with the field cultivator in the spring.  By contrast, in order to plant no-till soybeans, no trips need to be made between combining the previous years’ corn and planting soybeans in the spring.  This translates into significant cost saving in maintenance of machinery as well as fuel. 
 
 

Nutrient Management

Nutrient management is another strategy used by farmers in Northfield to reduce losses of nutrients to surface and ground waters while maximizing the efficiency of investments in fertilizer.  Most of the farmers I spoke with perform soil tests on a regular basis in order to determine how much nitrogen is needed to obtain the expected yield, and apply fertilizer sparingly.  Several farmers practice banded spring nitrogen application, meaning that the fertilizer is applied with the planter so that nutrients are delivered directly to plant roots.  The spring application also alleviates nitrogen migration into subsurface layers of the soil, which can occur with fall fertilizer application (Randall and Schmitt, 1998).  Like no-till farming, which saves soil while reducing input costs through fuel savings, nutrient management also makes both environmental and economic sense.  By applying only the nutrients that are needed to produce the desired yield and applying them when they are being actively taken up by crops, nutrient losses in runoff and leachate are reduced and the farmer avoids excess fertilizer costs (see Literature Review, Water Quality Benefits of Sustainable Agricultural Practices). 

In addition to increasing the efficiency of commercial fertilizer use (which decreases the amount needed), many farmers in the Northfield area are also using biologically fixed nitrogen sources such as legumes and manure.  Farmers who include alfalfa in their rotations, such as Ray and Darlene Larson and Edward Terry, obtain soil nitrogen credits for the subsequent corn crop from alfalfa roots and thus require less commercial fertilizer.   Another farmer, David, plants alfalfa as a green manure crop to provide nitrogen for sweet corn.  Nitrogen from decaying alfalfa roots is released gradually, at a rate that can be efficiently taken up by the corn crop.  This reduces leaching of excess nitrates into ground water (L.L. Jackson, 2002). 

Farmers who keep livestock may also apply manure to their fields as a source of biologically fixed nitrogen as well as organic matter.  For example, Paul and Barbara Liebenstein of Wolf Creek Dairy inject cow manure into their corn fields as a fertilizer.  They determine application rates through testing of soil and manure nutrient levels, and they are careful not to apply manure every year in order to prevent the buildup of phosphorous and potassium in the soil (these nutrients are present in high levels in cow manure but are taken up more slowly than nitrogen).  The Liebensteins also provide manure to fertilize neighbors’ crop fields, and they calculate that the manure from their 400 cows been applied to over 1500 acres.   Since Wolf Creek Dairy is among the few farming operations raising livestock in the Northfield area, there have sufficient land assimilative capacity to prevent excess manure from being applied in any one location. 

Because manure must be incorporated into the soil, the Liebensteins cannot practice no-till agriculture on their corn fields, but they do leave a significant amount of residue by disking their cornfields rather than using a moldboard plow.  The trade-off between using manure rather than commercial fertilizer as a nitrogen source and practicing no-till agriculture is just one example of the difficulties inherent in implementing conservation on farms.  While it does preclude no-till, the use of manure has other beneficial environmental effects.  Fertilizers such as anhydrous ammonia are quickly converted to easily leached nitrate ions and tend to be inefficiently used by crops (Caporali and Onnis, 1992; Follet and Delgado, 2002; L.L. Jackson, 2002).  In contrast, Paul explained that cow manure is a ‘slow release’ fertilizer that becomes available in the soil gradually over the growing season as crop nutrient demands increase.  This synchronizes nutrient availability and nutrient uptake, thus preventing leaching of nitrates into groundwater. 
 

On the Liebenstein farm, cow manure provides a biologically fixes source of nitrogen fertilizer for crop fields.

Integrated Pest Management

Farmers practicing integrated pest management (IPM) in Northfield are contributing to conservation of the Cannon River watershed by utilizing alternatives to chemical pesticides.  One of the most important strategies used in IPM is crop rotation.  Farmers who use diverse crop rotations, such as the corn – soybeans – oats/alfalfa – alfalfa – alfalfa rotation used by Ray and Darlene Larson, can apply less chemical pesticides because rotations break pest life cycles.  The Larsons use no insecticides, and very low levels of herbicide are applied to corn and soybeans only.  Overall, their pesticide application is less than one-third that of a nearby conventional farm that does not utilize crop rotation (Gregory et al., 2003). 

Farmers may also reduce the need to apply chemical fertilizers simply by maintaining healthy soils with large populations of beneficial invertebrates that contribute to biological pest control.  Dave and Ruth Legvold’s no-till farm provides an example of how fertile soils can help reduce pesticide use.  Decreased soil compaction and disturbance (due to less trips over the fields with heavy machinery) and increased habitat diversity (provided by crop residues) has contributed to high invertebrate populations on this farm in comparison to a farm practicing conventional tillage, which had no invertebrates in the top 20 cm of soil.  Greater invertebrate populations corresponds with reduced pesticide application on the no-till farm, which applied less than half the amount of pesticides used on the conventional farm (Gregory et al., 2003). 

The organic farmers I interviewed, who raise primarily vegetables, also use a wide variety of pest control practices to alleviate the need for chemical pesticides.  In addition to crop rotation, they may plant ‘smother’ crops, such as buckwheat, in order to prevent weeds from growing.  Winter rye is also planted by these farmers in order to control weeds, as this crop produces allelopathic compounds that inhibit weed growth.  Rose Ann Steenhoek also uses row covers for squash and melons.  These are strips of thin synthetic material that let sun and rain through but protect young plants from cucumber beetles.  She also hand picks pests such as potato beetles.  Another organic farmer in Northfield explained that he does use organically approved insecticides, but only in a ‘crisis’ situation, and then only in the most problematic areas.  He explained that these naturally derived insecticides, such as rotenone, pyrethrin, and Bt, are relatively benign chemicals that degrade quickly in the soil. 
 

Rose Ann Steenhoek controls pests like the potato bugs through row covers and hand picking. (Photo by the Clemson University Department of Entomology, Soils, and Plant Science, Cooperative Extension Service.  Accessed online at the webpage of the Clemson University Department of Entomology: http://entweb.clemson.edu/cuentres/cesheets/veg/ce25.htm.  Used with permission.)

Another weed control strategy used by this farmer in lieu of herbicides is mechanical cultivation.  He uses fall plowing and rotary hoeing in the spring before the corn and green bean crops come up in order to suppress weeds and insect pests.  He explained that fall plowing eliminates the overwintering sites of many insect pests in crop residue on the soil surface.  However, while mechanical cultivation conserves water quality by reducing pesticide inputs, the farmer I spoke with acknowledged that it may contribute to wind erosion by leaving the soil exposed.  Although he attempts to control wind erosion as much as possible by maintaining windbreaks, the trade-off between preventing the use of pesticides and preserving soil illustrates the environmental trade-offs inherent in farmers’ decision-making about conservation practices. 
 
 

Conservation Buffers

Many farmers in Northfield maintain some of their land in permanent vegetation, such as grass waterways, windbreaks, fencerows, and tree plantings.  These vegetated conservation buffers contribute to water quality by slowing water runoff and filtering out sediment, nutrients, and pesticides before they reach streams and lakes (USDA / NRCS, 1999; see Literature Review, Water Quality Benefits of Sustainable Agricultural Practices). 

According to SWCD staff in both Rice and Dakota County, grassed waterways are among the most common soil and water conservation practices on Northfield farms.  These channels seeded with bromegrass and red clover are constructed in order to carry surface water at a nonerosive velocity.  They are often combined with filter strips in order to trap sediments and adsorbed nutrients, thus preventing contamination of surface waters (USDA-NRCS, 1999).  Farmers I spoke with mentioned the importance of maintaining the grass waterways once they are installed, as accumulated sediment must be periodically removed from the waterway and spread back on the fields. 

Some Northfield farmers have also planted or maintained rows of trees as windbreaks around their fields, which helps prevent wind erosion.  Other farmers, like Mike Ludwig and David, have planted grasses and trees on their property.  This not only reduces erosion by providing ground cover and deep root systems, but also enhances wildlife habitat. 
 

This grass waterway running through a  field of soybean stubble on the Legvold farm will help reduce erosion and nutrient losses.

This line of American chestnut trees produces a nut crop each year,and in conjunction with a larger windbreak provides protection of fields from wind erosion.

Mike Ludwig has planted grasses and trees on his farm in order to attract wildlife.

Conservation Structures

Sediment basins and farmable terraces are two other commonly employed conservation practices employed by Northfield farmers to reduce sediment loading in nearby waterbodies.  These structures involve constructing ridges of soil at periodic intervals along the contour of sloping farms fields, which helps reduce the distance that runoff water (and its associated sediment load) travels over the fields.  Like grassed waterways, sediment basins and farmable terraces must be periodically maintained and the accumulated topsoil spread back out over the fields. 
 

This farmable terrace on David’s farm helps halt  the flow of runoff water.

View along the length of a farmable terrace.  The terrace slopes down gently on either side to act as a  barrier to the movement of runoff water  and its associated sediment.

According to Rice and Dakota County SWCD staff, as well as the farmers I spoke with, the most frequently used government technical and financial assistance programs in the Northfield area are the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and a state cost share program. 
 

Technical and Financial Assistance Programs for Conservation Farming

• Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

The Continuous CRP was also used by two farmers in order to establish grassed waterways with tile drainage.  This program provides cost share and rental payments to establish conservation practices on working farmland in conservation priority areas.  Both of these farmers expressed appreciation for the technical assistance they received from NRCS staff in designing the waterways.  They also felt that the cost share payment was a “really good deal,” as it assisted them in establishing a practice that would not only reduce contamination of surface waters with sediment and nutrients, but also help prevent erosion and thus maintain the fertility of their land.  Thus, conservation programs such as the CRP appear to be mutually beneficial for farmers and the broader society. 
 

David used the General CRP program to plant 15 acres to grass and trees.

• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

• Conservation Security Program (CSP)

The consequences of such limited funding for conservation programs were apparent in the interviews I conducted.  Two of the farmers I spoke with explained that because they were already practicing no-till on their lands, they were ineligible to receive CSP assistance.  Another farmer stated that he had hoped that CSP payments might be able to aid with the higher fertilizer costs associated with practicing no-till farming, but funding had not become available.  (He explained that when practicing conventional tillage, they broadcast urea as a nitrogen fertilizer and then incorporated it into the soil with a field cultivator.  Under no-till they would side dress a liquid fertilizer with 28% nitrogen directly into the rows of corn.  While side dressing avoids disturbing the soil, 28% nitrogen fertilizer is more expensive than urea.)  As with farmers who had experienced rejection of EQIP applications, these farmers expressed no bitterness or resentment, but they were aware that the administration of programs like the CSP at times fails to reward farmers who have already made efforts to practice conservation on their farms. 
 
 

Barriers to Use of Government Programs for Conservation Farming

While programs like the CRP and EQIP were helpful to a few of the farmers I spoke with, the majority had not made extensive use of government programs providing technical and financial assistance for conservation farming practices.  In my conversations with farmers, most recognized the potential benefits of these programs, but cited the exclusive eligibility (see above explanations), extensive paperwork, meeting time with NRCS staff, and inconsistency in program rules and funding as factors preventing them from making more use of these opportunities. 

Several of the farmers I spoke with who had not made use of government programs also worked full-time off the farm, and thus found it difficult to complete the necessary paperwork and meet with NRCS staff during the day.  The farmers who had used the programs also acknowledged that the extensive paperwork and numerous meetings required to participate could discourage some farmers.  Other farmers noted that the conservation incentive program rules and funding are inconsistent from year to year, making it difficult to justify taking land out of production or accepting lower yields without assurance that conservation payments will make up the difference. 
 

   Back to top

In conversing with farmers about barriers to conservation farming, economics constantly emerged as the common denominator unifying the challenges they face in working toward sustainability.  None of the farmers I spoke with were in farming to become wealthy, but they all did wish to make a living to support a family and in many cases send children to college.  Therefore, elements of farm policy that make crop rotation less profitable and keep food prices low, local soil conditions that are perceived to lower yields under conservation tillage, and the large capital investments required to transistion from conventional to sustainable agriculture may all be seen as barriers to conservation farming. 
 

Farm Policy

Current farm policy, with its emphasis on supporting corn and soybean row crops and keeping food prices low, was cited by both agricultural educators and farmers as a deterrent to sustainable agricultural practices such as crop rotation and conservation buffers.  This is consistent with a Land Stewardship Project survey of sustainable farmers in Minnesota and Wisconsin, which found that farm policy was the second most commonly cited barrier to sustainable agriculture after lack of experience (LSP, 2003d). 
 

• Focus on Program Crops Discourages Soil-Conserving Crop Rotations 

• ‘Cheap Food’ Policy: Subsidies Based on Production and Neglect of Farmworkers in Labor Regulations

The organic farmers I interviewed, who depend on direct marketing, noted that government policy also plays a role in the low prices they receive for fruit and vegetable produce.  They explained that given the low price of conventional produce in grocery stores, many consumers are unwilling to pay prices representative of the labor time and conservation practices required to produce fruits and vegetables in an environmentally sound manner (i.e., handpicking pests instead of using chemicals, planting cover crops and allowing fields to lie fallow in order to replenish fertility, etc.).  However, these farmers defended higher prices for organic produce, maintaining that the low prices charged for conventionally grown fruits and vegetables are only possible because taxpayers assume the externalities associated with environmentally damaging production methods.  These ‘hidden costs’ of food production include tax payments for cleanup of polluted rivers and lakes and health care for illnesses contracted as a result of exposure to toxic pesticides.  They also made connections between environmental degradation and socially unjust practices.  Organic farmers explained that corporations growing the cheap produce available at grocery stores – many of which grow their crops in monocultures and use large amounts of heavy applications of pesticides – are able to maintain low prices by paying migrant farmworkers meager wages.  Indeed, as a result of political lobbying by agribusinesses such as Cargill and YUM (the parent company of Taco Bell) the agricultural industry is exempt from many standard labor regulations.  For example, most farmworkers receive below-minimum wage pay for their labor, earning a weekly average of $150.  They also are typically denied overtime pay, medical insurance, sick leave, and even the right to organize into labor unions.  Furthermore, Congress has prohibited Rural Legal Services from representing undocumented workers, making it difficult for migrant farmworkers to defend their rights to sufficient pay and safe working conditions (Bowe, 2003ab).  Weak enforcement of labor laws in agriculture thus allows environmentally and socially irresponsible corporations to charge very low prices for their produce, making it difficult for organic farmers to compete and still earn a living wage themselves. 
 
 

Economic Considerations: Perceived Lower Yield and Initial Capital Investments

While federal farm policy certainly exercises considerable influence over decisions about cropping patterns and the economic viability of organic farms, local soil and climatic conditions are also important in Northfield farmers’ decisions about conservation practices such as no-till.  Much of the Northfield area has fairly heavy clay soils, which makes no-till more difficult than on well-drained soils.  As many farmers and SWCD staff explained, the crop residue left on the surface of no-till fields slows warming and drying of heavier soils in the spring, which delays planting dates.  In Minnesota, where cold weather and frost come earlier than in other parts of the Midwest, farmers would understandably like to be able to plant as early as possible.  The concerns of Northfield farmers regarding the applicability of no-till farming to their local soil conditions are similar to those of southern Ontario farmers, who also fear that yields under no-till will be reduced due to poorly drained clay soils and a short growing season (Wandel and Smithers, 2000).  Most Northfield farmers I interviewed recognize the potential benefits of no-till in reducing erosion and saving time and fuel, but they must gradually develop confidence in new methods. 
 

This farmer is conducting an on-farm experiment to determine if soybean yields are similar using conventional methods and no-till methods.  On the left, no-till soybeans will be directly planted into the cornstalks of last year’s crop.  On the right, soybeans will be planted into this tilled soil using conventional methods.

As discussed previously (see Watershed Conservation on Northfield, MN Farms, Conservation Tillage), many farmers I spoke with began experimenting with reduced tillage on lighter, better-drained soils.  Others began by planting no-till corn into soybean residue, which is not as thick as the residue of corn stalks and thus permits more rapid warming and drying of fields in spring.  Five of the farmers I interviewed have been gradually putting more and more acres into no-till agriculture and will plant no-till soybeans into corn stalks this year.  One of the farmers explained that if he obtains similar yields on his no-till and conventionally tilled acres, he plans to plant all of his soybeans using no-till technology in the future. 

Several farmers I spoke with also emphasized the capital investments required to invest in no-till machinery, echoing southern Ontario farmers who cited the cost of owning conservation tillage equipment as the third most common barrier to the adoption of this practice (Wandel and Smithers, 2000).   A no-till planter costs about $26,000, which may be a difficult expense for farmers to justify if their conventional planter is still functioning well.  However, no-till drills may be rented from the Dakota County SWCD, or farmers may ask friends owning no-till drills to perform custom planting for them.  This allows them time to develop confidence in no-till methods of farming before investing in their own seed drill. 
 

   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 

Farmer after farmer emphasized that a fair price for their produce would be extremely helpful in increasing the economic sustainability of their farms.  Higher prices for agricultural produce would increase profit margins per acre, allowing farmers to leave land in natural vegetation and thus reduce sediment and nutrient inputs to surface and ground waters (see Literature Review, Conservation Buffers).  The organic fruit and vegetable farmers I spoke with also felt that the development of a local food system would aid in increasing the economic sustainability of their farms.   Increasing membership in community-supported agriculture farms (CSAs), augmenting citizen awareness of farmer’s markets, and direct marketing to restaurants are all strategies that have allowed sustainable farmers to remain economically viable and could aid Northfield’s organic farmers (Campbell, 1997; D.L. Jackson, 2002; Korfmacher, 2000; see Literature Review, Increasing the Economic Viability of Sustainable Agriculture: Local Food Systems). 

Several farmers articulated a need for greater public education in order to enable the development of viable local food systems.   They noted that most American consumers are far removed from the planting, growing, harvesting, processing, and transportation of their food, a point developed by Streit (2003).  In a country in which only 2% of the population is involved in agriculture, we as a society have fallen prey to what Aldo Leopold (1949) referred to as “the spiritual dangers in not owning a farm,” namely, “the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery.”  As discussed previously, many consumers are currently unwilling to pay higher prices for food produced in an environmentally sound and socially just manner (see Barriers to Conservation Farming in Northfield, MN – ‘Cheap Food’ Policy).  If we are to work toward agricultural sustainability, we must educate consumers as well as farmers.  If consumers recognized taxes for cleanup of polluted rivers and health care for people affected by pesticide poisoning as part of the costs of conventionally produced food, they may be more willing to seek out sustainably produced food and pay a price reflecting the cost of the labor and conservation practices necessary to produce it. 
 
 

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

Agricultural educators and farmers alike recognized the need for a change in U.S. farm policy in order to encourage production systems that effectively preserve soil and water resources and facilitate the development of local food systems.  For example, Dakota County SWCD Resource Conservationist Brad Becker believes that “a change in farm policy would have the biggest effect on helping farmers work toward sustainability.  Rewarding ‘clean’ and efficient production as opposed to rewarding maximum production is the best place to start.”  University of Minnesota soil scientist and Extension agent Gyles Randall agrees: “The Federal Farm Bill is the main driver.  Until a better balance between commodity support and conservation support is reached, it will be an uphill battle.” 
 

• Support for Soil-Conserving Crops

• Compliance-Based Conservation Incentive Programs

• Family Farm / Rural Development Focus

   Back to top