Excess manure running off of farmlands into waterways is a significant issue across the nation, negatively impacting the quality of soil, water, and wildlife. In Wisconsin, county conservationists play a major role in working with farmers who wish to develop crop rotation and other nutrient management practices to reduce the runoff. The conservationists also often find state and federal funding to help farmers implement these nutrient reduction methods.

However, proposed cuts in Wisconsin’s upcoming budget may mean fewer county conservationists across the state, leading to less encouragement for farmers to voluntarily engage in conservation programs. The proposed budet calls for funding cuts for two programs in the Agriculture Resource Management Division of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). The first is a carryover from the previous budget, which reduces funding for county conservation offices. Critics fear that this will lead to staffing cuts. The second slashes DATCP’s budget for soil and water resource management by 50 percent. This fund provided financial assistance to farmers who wished to utilize soil and water conservation programs.

Although DATCP Secretary Ben Brancel claims that the conservation programs can survive with less funding, others aren’t so sure, pointing to a state law that requires DATCP to develop conservation practices that meet the DNR’s performance standards for farms. In its fiscal estimate, DATCP projected that this effort would require an additional 40 county conservation staffers.

If you are interested in learning more, DATCP will hold five public hearings on the proposed changes. A hearing will be held from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m., Thursday, April 4, in the State Agriculture Building, Room 106, located at 2811 Agriculture Drive in Madison.

Photo: USDA NRCS

Farmland conservation efforts take double hit in Walker budget

By Jessica Van Egeran, The Cap Times

Earlier this month, after a substantial rainfall on top of the snow-covered farm fields across Dane County, an all-too-familiar problem arose that pulled Dane County conservationist Pat Sutter away from a conference where attendees were discussing the very situation he was headed off to fix: manure runoff.

As Sutter knows all too well, the slick conditions caused by the rain work against keeping manure, in this case liquid manure, in its place.

“It’s like putting waste on top of a parking lot,” he says. “It can’t be absorbed. It’s going to run off.”

The result was nine calls from Dane County residents to his office. The liquid manure from nearby farmland had flowed onto the callers’ properties and in one case into the basement of a house.

“This is not the first conference I’ve had to split on to address calls,” says Sutter, who manages Dane County’s Land Conservation Division. “We didn’t have enough folks to address the problems and we like to get out within 24 hours. It’s amazing how a day can change things if you don’t respond timely to situations.”

In Dane County, 111 farms encompassing 67,000 acres of land have permits that allow the spreading of liquid manure when the ground is frozen or snow-covered. This activity is only allowed with a permit. Read more …

Wisconsin is experiencing some deep budget cuts to land and water conservation efforts, which is being felt by state conservation offices at the county level. As the article below states, cuts at the county level will have an immediate impact on Wisconsin agriculture.

Cap Times writer Margaret Krome traveled around Wisconsin, asking farmers how these budget cuts will affect their farms:

Sam Zimmerman, a Marathon County dairy farmer is concerned that this will negatively affect the conservation tradition his grandfather started on the farm. In addition, county conservation staff have acted as the catalyst for Zimmerman receiving state and federal assistance for various conservation projects.

Joe and Christy Tomandl said that county conservation funding helped their farm, and others, get off the ground. They also cite county conservationists for helping them implement a grazing plan, as well as keeping their farm up to environmental standards.

For Richard Wagner, as well as the Tomandls, their relationship with county conservationists is mutually beneficial. Farmers can benefit financially from conservation practices and the county and state can, too.

Robert Grove, a crop farmer in Racine County, said that county conservationists help him achieve much more than what he would be able to do on his own.

“It doesn’t seem fair that the state is always pushing for conservation but then they cut the exact help we need to make it happen,” Grove said.

Wisconsin is just an example of the impacts budget cuts can have on conservation efforts. It’s clear that cuts to county conservation offices will hurt farmers, ranchers, and foresters on a number of levels.

Photo: USDA NRCS

Farmers explain how land conservation cuts hurt

By Margaret Krome, The Cap Times

Wisconsin’s agricultural economy was most recently estimated as bringing $52 billion into the state each year. Across the state, with manure from all of those cows, hogs, sheep and goats, and with the millions of acres of plowed ground, it’s the land conservation department in each county that works with Wisconsin farmers and other landowners to protect the natural resources that are the foundation for this industry and that are crucial to state residents, while helping farmers stay profitable.

Because of their crucial role statewide, county conservationists are funded largely from the state budget. Unfortunately, Gov. Walker’s proposed budget was not kind to local land conservation, making permanent cuts to that funding, from about $9.3 million in the 2009-2011 budget down to $8 million, in addition to cutting by over half other funding to protect water quality.

This matters, because soil erosion rates are increasing, reversing decades of progress. Not only is the impact readily seen in lakes and streams, but increasing runoff also erodes the foundation of Wisconsin’s agricultural economy.

These cuts would come on top of previous cuts; any flexibility that existed in the system has long since been removed.

I talked with farmers of various sizes and kinds across Wisconsin about these cuts. They make the case better than anyone of the powerful importance of county conservation staff to the state’s economy and its long-term agricultural prospects. Read more …

A recent report states that agricultural producers in the United States are capable of meeting the world’s growing need for food, as well as enhance natural resources, by 2050. But, the authors stress that changes must be made in our nation’s approach to land management.

The report, titled Developing a New Vision for United States Agriculture, Forestry, and Conservation is a product of the Solutions from the Land Initiative, funded by the Farm Foundation and The Nature Conservancy, which is a coalition of stakeholders who are examining sustainable solutions to climate change, food security, economic development, and biodiversity conservation.

Challenges listed in the report include:

• Loss of working lands, with 11 million acres of U.S. cropland, 12 million acres of pasture and rangeland and 16 million acres of forestland converted to development between 1982 and 2007.
• Conflicting policies and inadequate rewards for ecosystem services.
• Declining investments in research and innovation, and inadequate dissemination and use of existing research.
• The changing climate and potential negative impacts on livestock and crop production.
• Managing risk, market volatility, and multiple demands, as globalization and the growing link between energy prices and agricultural commodity prices lead to greater market volatility.

The authors stress the need for collaboration between farmers, ranchers, foresters, and conservation groups that will work toward several goals. They propose the following:

• Implement landscape-scale solutions and partnerships. This would involve setting regional objectives for land management and building coalitions of land managers, regulators, scientists, and civil society to develop policies that meet economic, social, and environmental objectives.
• Harmonize policy frameworks to eliminate conflicting regulations and redundant paperwork, while advancing the use of ecosystem service markets and sustainable supply chains.
• Reward stewardship of ecosystem services. The report says new markets for ecosystem services have the potential to substitute for conservation payments, but are rarely structured to adequately provide returns comparable to traditional production.
• Energize and coordinate research. A designated research council or overarching organization should set a research agenda that integrates agricultural, forest, and conservation goals. Research should be focused on real-life applications and decision makers, with improved methods for transforming research findings into on-the-ground results.
• Transform and modernize information networks. The authors say this requires moving away from a provider-centric information system, in which research results are communicated outward in the hopes of finding an audience, to a user-centric system where information is readily available to users when they want it. This would require better monitoring systems for regional-level systems such as air quality, water quality, and biodiversity, with new “meta-metrics” serving as broad indicators of sustainability.

We are most encouraged by the authors’ call for increased development of private-public partnerships. Meaningful change cannot be achieved without bringing all of the key stakeholders to the discussion table.  Also, the use of market-based incentives for ecosystem services has great potential.

From a natural resources conservation perspective, we have seen both of these approaches work effectively through Sand County Foundation’s Agricultural Incentives program and the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative. Both efforts involve private-public partnerships that pay incentives to farmers who implement practices to reduce nutrient runoff into waterways.

Download the full report

A vision for 2050

By John Maday, Dairy Herd Network

U.S. farmers and ranchers have the capability to meet the world’s growing need for food, fiber and energy by 2050 while protecting and improving environmental health, according to a new report. But achieving that vision will require a new, collaborative approach toward land management.

The report, titled “Developing a New Vision for United States Agriculture, Forestry, and Conservation,” comes from the Solutions from the Land initiative, which “brings together a broad range of stakeholders to explore the development of integrated sustainable solutions to the challenges of climate change, food security, economic development, and biodiversity conservation.” The initiative is funded by Farm Foundation and The Nature Conservancy.

The report lays out the challenges involved in sustainably increasing food production while using less land, water and other resources, and offers short- and long-term recommendations for overcoming those challenges. Read more … 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been SLOWLY making its way through the list of candidates for the Endangered Species list. There is a current backlog of over 260 imperiled species that are awaiting a decision from the agency, some have been waiting for over 20 years.

Due to a 2011 settlement of two lawsuits filed by conservation activists, a federal judge ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service must work its way through the backlog by 2018.

The backlog is blamed on a number of issues, including lawsuits over protected habitat for listed species, budget cuts, and past mismanagement.

Individuals and organizations on both sides of the Endangered Species Act are highly interested in the outcome of these decisions and some are highly controversial, especially the sage-grouse. Sage-grouse habitat in the Western Plains has been negatively impacted by development, but private landowners and energy companies are fighting the listing of the species due to the potential restrictions that could be placed on energy exploration and agriculture.

Therefore, some western landowners and energy companies are working together, through groups, such as the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative, to help restore sage-grouse habitat. The sage-grouse, however, is certainly not the only controversial species awaiting a decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service, so the next 5 years is likely to spark a lot more discussion about the merits of the Endangered Species Act.

Endangered or not, but at least no longer waiting

By Michael Wines, The New York Times

Perhaps it does not seem cause for celebration that the Oregon spotted frog, a four-inch-long amphibian that prefers the Pacific Northwest’s dwindling marshy spots, is to be considered this year for federal protection as an endangered species.

Tell that to the frog. It has been languishing for 22 years — since 1991 — awaiting its day in the bureaucratic sun.

The eastern massasauga rattlesnake has been a candidate for protection since 1982, a legless bridesmaid, never a bride. Ditto the elfin-woods warbler. Like them, the Dakota skipper butterfly, a cucumber-bodied flier that zips unusually fast (for a butterfly) over the Minnesota and Dakota prairies, is dying out as development shrinks its habitat. It nevertheless has hung on, its candidacy deferred since 1975.

Belatedly, the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service is giving them all — and 258 more — a thumbs up or down for protection under the Endangered Species Act, the 1973 law that was among the early triumphs of the environmental movement.

It is evidence of the law’s travails that it took a federal judge to get them to this point.

Under a 2011 settlement of two lawsuits by conservation activists, the wildlife service has pledged to decide the fates of all the backlogged species by 2018. A schedule issued by the service on Feb. 8 promised to decide by September whether to add 97 species to the endangered list, including 70 covered by the lawsuit settlement. Read more …

The Farm Bill we had hoped Congress would act on last year is still pending. One of the conservation issues under discussion has been conservation compliance – the requirement that farmers receiving farm program payments maintain a conservation plan to limit damage to highly erodible land and wetlands.

Some have argued that, with direct farm program payments becoming less important in an era of high crop prices, conservation compliance ought to be extended to the heavily used federal crop insurance program.

A report by former USDA Deputy Secretary Jim Moseley is particularly timely in this context. The report, entitled Conservation Compliance: A 25-Year Legacy of Stewardship, is summarized in the Oklahoma Farm Report article linked below.

Download the full report

- Joseph Britt, Sand County Foundation

Report Reveals Success of Conservation Compliance in Protecting Soils and Wetlands

Oklahoma Farm Report

Over the last 25 years, one of the least-publicized farmland conservation efforts has actually been one of the most effective, says a new report by former USDA Deputy Secretary and Co-Chair of AGree Jim Moseley. Conservation Compliance: A 25-Year Legacy of Stewardship explains how conservation compliance, which has historically required farmers to implement conservation measures in return for federally funded farm support, helped save millions of wetland acres while keeping billions of tons of soil on farms. As a result, millions of marginal, erosion-prone lands have remained healthy and productive.

“Few conservation programs can boast the success rate of conservation compliance,” said Moseley, who served as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 2001 to 2005. “This program has helped farmers save 295 million tons of soil per year and kept an estimated 1.5 million to 3.3 million acres of vulnerable wetlands from being drained. The results of this compact between farmers and taxpayers have been astounding.”

The report urges Congress to reattach conservation compliance to crop insurance premium assistance in the next farm bill reauthorization. As federal farm policy is updated, it is increasingly likely that some commodity programs will be phased out in favor of a strengthened crop insurance program that is becoming the core component of the farm safety net. Therefore, according to Moseley, it seems essential that conservation compliance also be updated to apply to the crop insurance premium assistance. Read more …

In a recent study, researchers from South Dakota State University have documented a sodbusting trend in the Central Plains states. Due largely to rising commodity prices, the Western Corn Belt has lost  1.3 million acres of grassland over the past 5 years, which is a rate that hasn’t been seen since the 1930′s.

The authors found that farmers and ranchers in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota are taking advantage of the doubling of corn and soybean prices, at the expense of native grassland, by converting those lands to crop production.

Aside from the loss of native prairie, there are other troubling environmental impacts. Grassland is often plowed up on marginal lands that are highly susceptible to erosion and vulnerable to drought. Also, crops in Minnesota and the Dakotas are increasingly being planted near wetlands, which is having a detrimental impact on waterfowl habitat.

Lawmakers in Minnesota and South Dakota, with an endorsements from groups like Ducks Unlimited and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, have introduced legislation to try to slow down this trend. The “Protect Our Prairies Act” would reduce crop insurance on newly broken grassland for four years.

Read the entire study

Photo: Kevin Kiley

Study documents conversion of grassland to crops

Associated Press

A new study documents a loss of 1.3 million acres of grassland over a five-year period in the Western Corn Belt — a rate not seen since the 1920s and 1930s.

The research by Christopher Wright and Michael Wimberly of the Geographic Information Science Center of Excellence at South Dakota State University said a recent doubling in commodity prices has created incentives for landowners in South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota and Iowa to convert grassland to corn and soybean cropping.

“Historically, comparable grassland conversion rates have not been seen in the Corn Belt since the 1920s and 1930s, the era of rapid mechanization of US agriculture,” the authors wrote.

The study is published in Tuesday’s edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Read more … 

Unfortunately, it often takes a natural disaster or series of disasters, to make policymakers take notice. Such is the case with the agricultural industry, which has been struggling with severe drought amidst other hardships.

On February 14, the Senate Agriculture Committee held a hearing called, “Drought, Fire, and Freeze: The Economics of Disaster for America’s Agricultural Producers.” The first panel of witnesses included representatives from the USDA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The second panel consisted of a rancher from Montana, a corn and soybean farmer from Indiana, a Michigan cherry farmer, and a Nebraska crop and livestock producer.

The majority of the discussion centered on crop insurance and conservation. The main point about crop insurance was that it needs to apply to all types of farmers. It was noted that specialty crop producers in some states don’t have access to crop insurance. In terms of conservation, the farmers taking part in the hearing were asked to discuss how government-sponsored conservation programs have helped them cope with disaster. The testimony focused on the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP). Most of the producers said that practices such as no-till, cover crops, and buffer strips, helped them get through droughts, floods, and deep freezes.

The important takeaway here is the look of crop insurance and conservation programs is dependent on the Farm Bill. As it stands now, these programs are in danger of being dropped, so it’s encouraging that producers, such as those involved in this hearing, are making their voices heard.

Natural disasters spur cop insurance and farm conservation discussion

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

On Thursday, February 14, the Senate Agriculture Committee held a hearing on “Drought, Fire, and Freeze: The Economics of Disasters for America’s Agricultural Producers.”  The first panel of witnesses consisted of Dr. Joe Glauber, USDA’s Chief Economist, and Dr. Roger Pulwarty, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Integrated Drought Information System.  The second panel included Leon LaSalle, a rancher from Montana, Anngie Steinbarger, a corn and soybean farmer from Indiana, Jeff Send, a cherry farmer from Michigan, and Ben Steffen, a diversified crop-livestock producer from Nebraska.

Crop Insurance

Much of the testimony and the questions that followed focused on the need for an improved crop insurance program, one that works for all types of producers.  In fact, Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) repeatedly noted that specialty crop producers in many states do not have access to crop insurance.

The hearing was a good reminder that if risk management and crop insurance is to be the primary farm safety net, it needs to work for all of agriculture, including young and beginning farmers, fruit and vegetable growers, organic farmers, and those involved in dairy and livestock production. Read more …

For many years, the amount of American family farms has been in steady decline. The average age of farmers continues to rise and fewer and fewer young people are choosing farming as a career.

The article below cites census data that tell us that the amount of farmers that have been farming 10 years or fewer has declined by 10 percent since 1982. The situation is further complicated by the increase in large, industrial farms that make it difficult for smaller, family farms to compete.

The USDA, however, seems willing to combat this trend. U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack recently announced a “microloan” program intended to help beginning farmers. The loans, of up to $35,000 are aimed at new/young producers, particularly minority farmers and veterans interested in agriculture, who want to have a direct-to-consumer type of business. Secretary Vilsack believes that this will help bolster the local and regional food movements, citing a 60 percent increase in these types of growers over the past three years.

Aside from these loans, there are other reasons for optimism. Farm Services Agency loans have increased since 2009 with 40 percent of those going to small farmers. In addition, enrollment in agricultural programs at several colleges and universities appears to be increasing.

Will this be enough to slow the loss of family farms? That remains to be seen, but we know that assistance programs like this, combined with a young, passionate, energized, and innovative agricultural community (we’ve met plenty of them) can only help improve matters.

Is the USDA sparking a sustainable ag revolution?

By Steve Holt, Take Part

For years, the dominant trend in United States farming has not been a positive one: The crop of veteran farmers is at or nearing retirement age, and the next generation is less willing to fill their shoes.

Census data has shown that the percentage of beginning farmers—those in their current farming operation for less than ten years—has declined steadily, by more than ten percent, since 1982. This is happening, in part, because the nationwide shift away from family farms to large, industrial operations means that many would-be small farmers simply cannot justify investing in a declining industry.

But a new federal policy, announced by United States Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack last week, aims to change that calculus by offering smaller loans to farmers who are just starting out. The best news? The microloans could bolster sustainable agriculture in a big way.

Read more …

U.S. Representative Martha Roby (R-Alabama) recently introduced a bill that aims to limit the types of farmland that would be eligible for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP, as we know it today, was officially established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill as a program in which the government provides financial assistance to farmers and ranchers who take steps to enhance the natural resources that are in their care.

The original intention  of the program was to provide funds for the conversion of less than optimal farmland to grassland or timber. However, recently, funds have been used to enroll productive farmland, which then lays dormant, in a time when farmland is becoming more scarce.

The Roby bill would reduce the number of acres enrolled in the program by 24 million over four years, ending payments for the most highly productive farmland.

The bill is supported by a number of organizations: Alabama Farmers Federation, National Grain and Feed Association, American Feed Industry Association, Agricultural Retailers Association, National Chicken Council, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, North American Millers’ Association, and The Fertilizer Institute.

Roby bill would tighten CRP enrollment requirements

By Debra Davis, Alabama Farmers Federation

A bill filed last week by U.S. Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., tightens enrollment requirements in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).

The CRP was originally implemented to prevent erosion and protect sensitive farmland by providing funding for landowners to convert marginal cropland to grass or timber.

Recently, however, the program has tended to enroll high-quality and otherwise highly productive land, all at a time when farmland is becoming scarce, Roby said.

“We need to apply smart erosion prevention and conservation techniques on marginal lands, but using taxpayer money to encourage landowners to let quality cropland lay dormant doesn’t make sense,” Roby said. “This legislation restores common sense to the Conservation Reserve Program and saves taxpayers’ money.”

Read more …

Japan has finally listed a ban on U.S. beef imports that it put in place in 2003 in response to the “mad cow” scare. Japan was the largest importer of U.S. beef in 2003, so this is great news for American beef producers. However, as the article below points out, it is a silver lining in the midst of other hardships facing cattle ranchers. They must also contend with rising feed prices and a persistent drought that has diminished water supplies and harmed grazing lands.

However, America’s farmers and ranchers are resilient folks. We hope the lifting of this ban is the start of a string of good news for beef producers.

Photo credit: Kevin Kiley

A break for embattled ranchers

By Stephanie Strom and Hiroko Tabuchi, The New York Times

Reflecting diminishing fears over mad cow disease, Japan eased its decade-old restriction on imports of American beef on Monday, but industry experts said beef producers faced many more challenges to reverse a prolonged slump that has pared the nation’s herd to its lowest level in 60 years and sent prices soaring.

A Japanese government council that oversees food and drug safety cleared a change in import regulations that would permit imports of meat from American cattle 30 months old or younger, rather than the current 20 months.

The change is set to take effect on Friday for American beef processed after that date, and shipments could start arriving in Japan in mid-February, according to the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

Japan, the world’s largest net importer of food, instituted the ban in 2003 after bovine spongiform encephalopathy, an illness more commonly known as mad cow disease, was found in a single cow in Washington State. Humans are thought to catch the disease’s fatal human variant, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, by eating meat, including the brain and spinal cord, from contaminated carcasses.

Japan eased the ban in 2006 but only for meat from cattle 20 months or younger. Japanese officials argued that the incidence of the disease was higher in older animals.

Read more …