[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE BENEFITS OF PROMOTING SOIL HEALTH IN AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY,
AND FORESTRY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-23
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-881 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
STEVE KING, Iowa MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JIM COSTA, California
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BOB GIBBS, Ohio MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee FILEMON VELA, Texas
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
JEFF DENHAM, California JUAN VARGAS, California
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DOUG LaMALFA, California SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
TED S. YOHO, Florida
VANCE M. McALLISTER, Louisiana
________
Nicole Scott, Staff Director
Kevin J. Kramp, Chief Counsel
Tamara Hinton, Communications Director
Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota,
BOB GIBBS, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
VANCE M. McALLISTER, Louisiana SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Walz, Hon. Timothy J., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 3
Witnesses
Weller, Jason, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Larson, John, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of
Conservation Districts, Washington, D.C........................ 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Phillips, Shanon, Director, Water Quality Division, Oklahoma
Conservation Commission, Oklahoma City, OK..................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Harbach, James, Farm Manager, Schrack Farms, Loganton, PA........ 44
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Sackett, Jill L., Extension Educator, Agriculture Production
Systems, University of Minnesota Extension Regional Office,
Mankato, MN.................................................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Submitted Material
Jahn, Chris, President, The Fertilizer Institute, submitted
letter......................................................... 63
Sands, Jeff M., Director of Public Policy, Agricultural Retailers
Association, submitted letter.................................. 67
THE BENEFITS OF PROMOTING SOIL HEALTH IN AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AMERICA
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:30 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longsworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn
Thompson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Thompson, Gibbs, Crawford,
Lucas (ex officio), Walz, Nolan, DelBene, and Peterson (ex
officio).
Staff present: Brent Blevins, Josh Maxwell, Nicole Scott,
Tamara Hinton, John Konya, Liz Friedlander, Robert L. Larew,
Matthew McKenzie, Mike Stranz, Evan Jurkovich, and Riley
Pagett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, entitled, The Benefits of
Promoting Soil Health in Agriculture and Rural America, will
come to order. I would like to welcome everyone today. Good
morning. I really do want to welcome everyone to this hearing
of the Conservation, Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee on the
topic of soil health, or healthy soils, which is critically
important to American agriculture and strong farming
communities.
Congress has long recognized the importance of promoting
soil health across the country, starting with the establishment
of the Soil Conservation Service in 1935 as a permanent part of
USDA. The need for this agency came in response to a persistent
problem of soil erosion across the country, particularly in the
Dust Bowl region.
Now, the Soil Conservation Service, which eventually became
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, that we know today,
plays an important role in preserving soil health across the
country by providing producers with voluntary assistance in
monitoring and assessing soil conditions on their land. As our
predecessors did for us in the past, we owe it to future
generations to do what we can today, and understand and
recognize the importance of healthy soil.
The Earth's population is projected to grow to roughly nine
billion people by the year 2050. Given the growing demands on
farmland everywhere, we must invest in the necessary resources,
and best practices, to be certain that producers have the
capacity to meet this growing need. To that end, I am
particularly proud of this Committee's work on conservation
programs during the deliberation of the newly enacted farm
bill. We came together in a bipartisan fashion to reauthorize
and strengthen our title II programs, even in the face of
significant budget cuts.
It is heartening to see how farmers, ranchers, and
foresters across the country have made promoting the health and
sustainability of soil a fundamental priority. For example, I
see this all the time across the 5th District of Pennsylvania,
where farmers are engaging in innovative practices, including
no-till practices, cover cropping, and adhering to other best
practices in order to preserve the nutrients in the soil.
Additionally, it is important for us to remember that soil
health is closely linked with water quality.
In addition to the great work being done at the state and
county levels, I am proud that so many of the farmers and
foresters in Pennsylvania have taken voluntary steps to promote
soil health in order to do their part to assist in the recovery
of the Chesapeake Bay. Our farmers and ranchers are the best
stewards of the land. They continually adapt to protect our
natural resources, despite the overly burdensome regulatory
environment imposed upon them. And whether it is protecting our
drinkable water supply, keeping nutrients for the next crop
year, or maintaining a supply of forage for livestock, there is
no shortage of reasons why we must continue to innovate when it
comes to promoting soil health.
We have a great set of witnesses to testify today, and I
want to thank them for sharing their expertise with the
Subcommittee. It is good to see Chief Weller before us today.
He has the task of implementing all the work that we did in the
farm bill, and I look forward to hearing the agency's
perspective on this topic.
I am also pleased to welcome a constituent of mine, a
friend, Mr. Jim Harbach. I have said--long said that farmers
are the original environmentalists, and that belief has been
re-affirmed after having the opportunity to tour his farm,
among so many others in the region. And I want to thank him for
taking time to make the drive down from Clinton County this
morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to this hearing of the
Conservation, Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee to review the benefits
of promoting soil health in agriculture and rural America.
Congress has long recognized the importance of promoting soil
health across the country, starting with the establishment of the Soil
Conservation Service in 1935 as a permanent part of USDA.
The need for this agency came in response to a persistent problem
of soil erosion across the country, particularly in the Dust Bowl
region.
The SCS eventually became the Natural Resources Conservation
Service we know today, and plays an important role in preserving soil
health across the country by providing producers with assistance in
monitoring and assessing soil conditions on their land.
As our predecessors did for us in the past, we owe it to future
generations to do what we can today to understand and recognize the
importance of healthy soil.
The Earth's population is projected to grow to roughly nine billion
people by the year 2050. Given the strains on farmland everywhere, we
must invest the necessary resources to be certain that producers have
the capacity to meet this growing need.
To that end, I am particularly proud of this Committee's work on
conservation programs during the deliberation of the farm bill.
We came together in a bipartisan fashion to reauthorize and
strengthen our title II programs, even in the face of significant
budget cuts.
It is heartening to see how farmers, ranchers, and foresters across
the country have taken the lead on promoting the health and
sustainability of soil.
For example, I see this all the time across the 5th district of
Pennsylvania, where farmers are engaging in no-till practices and
adhering to other best management practices in order to preserve the
nutrients in the soil.
Additionally, it is important for us to remember that soil health
is closely linked with water quality.
I am proud that so many of the farmers and foresters in
Pennsylvania have taken voluntary steps to promote soil health in order
to do their part to assist in the recovery of the Chesapeake Bay.
Our farmers and ranchers are the best stewards of the land and
continually adapt to protect our natural resources despite the overly
burdensome regulatory environment imposed on them.
Whether it's protecting our drinkable water supply, keeping
nutrients for the next crop year, or maintaining a supply of forage for
livestock, there is no shortage of reasons why soil health is important
to rural America.
We have a great set of witnesses set to testify today, and I want
to thank them for sharing their expertise with the Subcommittee.
It's good to see Chief Weller before us today. He has the task of
implementing all the good work we did in the farm bill. I look forward
to hearing the agency's perspective on this topic.
I'm also pleased to welcome a constituent of mine, Mr. Jim
Harbarch.
I've long said that farmers are the original environmentalists, and
I believe that after having the opportunity to tour his farm.
I want to thank him for taking time to make the drive down from
Clinton County this morning.
I now want to recognize the Ranking Member for his opening
statement.
The Chairman. And I want to now recognize my good friend
and Ranking Member for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Chairman Thompson, and thank you
again for holding this bipartisan and important hearing. Chief
Weller, thank you for being here. Thank you for the work you
do. Also a thank you to the full Committee Chairman. Mr. Lucas
is here. He is passionate about this subject, and has made that
known for a very long time, since I have known him, and so I
thank you for continuing to make the importance of soil health
a priority.
Members have expressed a deep interest in this. Whether it
is flooding that happened early in the spring in my district,
or wildfires, or other things that impact soils, Members want
to know what the research is showing. They want to know what
happened. And we know, and we have the data to prove it. For
example, in 2012, average corn yield was 126.2 bushels where
cover crops were employed, 115 bushels without it. So we know--
understand that it works. It is an economic issue. It impacts
everything from water quality to the farmers' bottom lines, so
we need to make sure that we get that right.
One of the things I know that is somewhat of a challenge,
and we see it happen when we have flooding incidents and
things, is how do we employ cover crops and work through RMA,
FSA, and some of those issues that may preclude it, where a
farmer has to determine between crop insurance and cover crops
when those issues come up? It is not because they don't want to
get it right, and it is not because they don't understand the
importance of it. We just have to make sure that, as we put
regulations in place, they mesh with what are the best
practices.
I would also like to welcome and introduce one of my
constituents, Ms. Jill Sackett, who is a University of
Minnesota extension educator. With her passion, she will need
to talk to the Chairman afterwards. You two could talk for
hours on soil health and cover crops. But she comes to us from
Mankato, Minnesota, in Blue Earth County, where the soil is
literally so black it is blue, and some of the most productive
farmland in the country. I welcome you, and, as an educator, I
welcome you as the teacher's teacher.
You are here today to explain to us, and help us make
decisions based on science and best practices, to ensure, as
the Chairman so clearly pointed out, that we can continue
feeding the world, while continuing to figure out a way that we
can feed an ever hungrier, ever expanding world with fewer
producers on less landmass, so that land and that soil are
becoming more important.
So thank you all for being here today, thank you for this
work, and with that, I yield back my time to the Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. Now it is a
privilege and honor to recognize the Chairman of the full
Agriculture Committee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
opportunity to offer a few thoughts. First and foremost, thank
you to you and the Ranking Member, and all the Members of the
Subcommittee. All the hearings that you have held, all the work
that you did, laid the groundwork for an even stronger
conservation title in this year's farm bill. Had you not gone
through all those witnesses, handled all those questions, done
your work to enable the full Committee to do its work, we
wouldn't have the title and provisions that are indeed there,
so I very much appreciate that.
And I am particularly pleased, I will agree, that we have
this particular subject as something to look at today, the
soil. Any farmer will tell you that, right along with their
children and their grandchildren, they have no greater asset
than the soil on their farm. And that, like their children and
grandchildren, it is a living entity too. It has to be
addressed and nurtured, has to be taken care of, grown, and
improved. So thank you in that regard.
And, of course, to the Chief and to the Service, very--how
can you describe the history of what was the Soil Conservation
Service, the NRCS now? A group that, in many challenging times,
dealing with many diverse issues in many diverse parts of the
country, has consistently worked with farmers and ranchers to
make sure that our most valuable resources are preserved. Soil,
water, air quality, all of those sort of things. Just a huge
success story.
I look forward to the comments from the Chief about the
issues that he is addressing these days, and how he intends to
implement those provisions that affect soil health in the
Agricultural Act of 2014, as well as the second panel of
witnesses, who clearly are very knowledgeable people from
diverse backgrounds across the country, with this common
perspective of our soil. But ultimately, once again, gentlemen,
ladies, all of you, thank you for a very productive session,
and a very productive farm bill, and let us continue our work
here today. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now it really is a
privilege and honor to welcome our first witness to the table,
Mr. Jason Weller, Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service with the United States Department of Agriculture. Chief
Weller, please take as much time as you might consume, and
please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF JASON WELLER, CHIEF, NATURAL
RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Weller. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Thompson,
Ranking Member Walz, Chairman Lucas, and Members of the
Committee. My name is Jason Weller, and I appreciate the
flexibility and forbearance here of the Committee to allow me a
little extra time here. I have the presentation down to about
48 minutes. Hopefully that is okay.
The Chairman. Is there a Motion for Reconsideration?
Mr. Weller. I will try and keep it brief. But I thought it
would be good just to start at the outset and provide a little
bit--hopefully I exhibit some of the passion we have for this
topic. I will have to say, in my view, our renewed focus, is a
return to the past in some respects. Mr. Lucas referred to our
almost 80 year history as an organization, coming back to our
roots, literally, on soil. The palpable excitement and energy
it is creating not only within NRCS, but also with our brothers
and sisters in the Soil and Water Conservation districts across
the United States, and with farmers and ranchers themselves.
This approach to managing our soils as a living ecosystem, as
well as the physical and chemical properties of the soil, is
something that we are really excited about.
But before I begin, also, I just want to be really clear at
the outset too that this is not about any one agency. This is
not about NRCS. Overall we play a small role in this movement.
What this is is a broad coalition, a broad, exciting group of
folks, from--beginning with farmers and ranchers themselves, to
the land-grant universities, extension services, ag retailers,
foundations, private individuals, nonprofit groups, you name
it. There is a huge constellation of groups who are working on
this topic of soil health. They are bringing tremendous
innovation, new ideas, excitement, resources.
And this is something where--and, as an example, where we
are actually having to run to keep pace with producers.
Producers have been at this for a long time, in many cases
decades. They have been the true pioneers in these approaches
for soil health. We are learning from them. And this is an
example where we are having to run to keep pace with producers.
It is very exciting to be part of this movement. So with that,
let me begin here with the presentation.
So first let me just begin with the overall definition of
what is soil health? Soil health is the capacity of soil to
function as a vital, living ecosystem that sustains plants,
animals, and humans. So what we are doing when we focus on soil
health is we are trying to protect that ecosystem, the soil
ecosystem, to support the life within the ecosystem, as well as
the other properties of the soils, ultimately to benefit life
above the soil, the plants that grow the food and fiber we
depend upon. And soil is really important because it provides
some key functions that we rely on.
So, for example, it regulates the flow of water. When it
rains or snows, or when the irrigation water is applied, what
happens to that water? Does it leave the fields in runoff? Does
it infiltrate in with the soil structure? As it gets into the
soil structure, do the soils help to buffer and filter that
water? So it provides an important crucial component for
helping to clean the waters. Soils also then help cycle the
nutrients, nutrients that are applied to farm fields through
fertilizers, manures, and other sources, as well as the
nutrients that are available from the environment itself,
decomposition of the plant matter, and actually deposition from
the atmosphere itself.
It provides structures, supplies a medium for plants to
grow in, but also provides support for human structures. Some
of the most critical information, when you are an engineer, you
are designing a road, a highway, a railway, a runway, a
building, a stadium, you worry about what you are building on.
It is the soil structure itself we depend upon to help support
human economic activity.
And the fifth really critical component of soil is it
sustains life. At the end of the day, all life on Earth depends
upon soil, and the function soils provides to grow the feed--
the food, the fuel, the fiber we really need. It helps the
plants transform the energy from the sun itself. It depends
upon the soil medium for that conversion of the sun's energy
into energy that we then can use as life.
Talking about life--speaking about life, so, for many
years, our organization, many in our culture, have been focused
on the physical and chemical properties of soil. Some have
never lost sight, as Mr. Lucas pointed out. Many farmers and
ranchers know that the soil is alive. But we are increasingly
becoming aware of what is actually happening in that ecosystem
below the surface of the Earth, what is happening in the soils.
And what we are learning is that the life in the soils is among
the most verdant--abundant source of life--diversity of life on
Earth.
So in the soils, there are millions of species of
microorganisms, and billions of organisms in the soil itself
that are all interrelated in an ecosystem, a web. They
interrelate with each other, they feed each other, they
transfer nutrients and energy between themselves. Just--one
fact, for example. Just in 1 teaspoon of soil, there are more
microorganisms in that 1 teaspoon of soil than there are people
on Earth. Billions of microorganisms in that soil.
The bacteria that lived in the rhizosphere, around the root
structure, that help feed nutrients into the plants, and in
return the plants feed carbohydrates, literally the sugar, to
those bacteria, you could fit 40 million of those bacterium on
the head of a pin. An incredible array of life. That life
includes bacteria, fungi, algae, arthropods and other insects,
protozoa, larger vertebrate animals, and they all are there
working together to bring energy, and life, and food throughout
this whole structure. And, at the end, having a robust life
force within the soil itself helps support the production of
cropland whether it is for food, whether it is just for
vegetation for wildlife.
And the role of those life forms are really critical. They
help shred--the surface of the Earth. They help shred the
biomass that resides in the soils. They help decompose that
biomass, turn it into humus. Turn it into the really rich
organic structure of the soils themselves. They create micro-
pores and macro-pores for water to infiltrate into the soil
structure. They create actual room for the microbes and little
organisms to live. They help cycle nutrients out of the
atmosphere, in the soil itself, and fertilizers that are
applied to the soils. They help make the soil more efficient in
the processing, the cycling of those nutrients. And,
ultimately, they also help clean the water, as the water moves
through the soil structure. So the organisms are crucial
overall not just to help the soils, but, really, to the health
and quality of our environment.
Mr. Chairman, you referenced a challenge that we are
looking at in the coming years. What this is is a chart from
the United Nations estimating world population growth. And, as
you talked about, within the next 40 years, we estimate there
are going to be nine billion people, an additional two billion
people on Earth. This is both an incredible challenge, but also
an incredible opportunity for American agriculture.
So, in order to feed these additional two billion people
over the next 40 years--okay, one fact that is just
continually--kind of blows me away is that we are going to have
to grow as much food in the next 40 years as we have, as a
world civilization, over the last 500 years. So if you think
back to before Magellan was even thinking about the Earth being
round, before he even circumnavigated the globe, you think
about all lifetimes and the food that was grown over that time
period, we are going to have to grow in half a lifetime the
same amount of food to feed that surging world population, and
we are having to do that on a smaller land base.
Just here in the United States, in the last 30 years,
upwards of 43 million acres of land have been converted from
agricultural lands to non-ag lands, economically developed,
which is part of economic development. That is great. But out
of those 43 million acres, a land area the size of the State of
Washington, 14 million acres are the prime soils, the most
productive soils on Earth. That is land area the size of the
State of West Virginia which has been paved over and converted
to other uses.
So we have a massive challenge to grow food, we have less
land to do it on, how are we going to do it? And here is the
opportunity. This is a call to action to help support farmers
and ranchers to begin investments today in improving and
protecting the vibrancy and the health of their soils so they
can be sustainable and grow that food and fiber, not just
maintain yield, but boost yield, for decades to come.
So I talked a little bit about some of the benefits of soil
health, touched upon this. Healthy soil helps improve the water
infiltration. So, when it rains, the water actually doesn't run
off the field, it gets into the soil itself. It improves the
water holding capacity of the soil. So by increasing the
organic matter and the porosity of the soil, you get more water
in the root zone, where the crops can get at that water.
It helps improve water quality, protects our streams and
rivers, and also our aquifers. It increases the nutrient
availability of fertilizers, and manure, and poultry litter,
but also just the decomposing biomass. It helps cycle those
nutrients, makes them available again for what we need those
nutrients for, which is to grow food. It helps save energy.
Producers can be more efficient with their use of their farm
equipment, the irrigation pumps. It helps save wear and tear on
their equipment, which is, at the end of the day, saving them
money, putting more cash in their pockets. And it helps improve
the health of the plants, the crops themselves. It makes those
crops more drought resistant, also more tolerant of high water
events. It helps--makes those fields and those crops more
resistant to pests and disease. So all the way around we
believe there are a tremendous number of benefits you can
garner from healthy soils.
We view soil as a living factory, and when that factory is
optimized, when you have all those critters working together,
helping to feed the--cycle of the nutrients, feed the crops,
you can then optimize the yield coming off those crops, off the
farm fields. As a producer put it, succinctly, and probably
most articulately, anything can have quality, but only living
things can have health. And that is what we are focused on, the
health, and how do you nurture the health of the
microorganisms, the ecosystem below the surface of the soil.
We have four basic principles when we talk about soil
health from a macro perspective. What are the four basic
principles that, when we work with a farmer or rancher, that we
can then help apply on the land? Number one is minimize
disturbance. So there is the physical, the biological and
chemical disturbance of the soil, so you can minimize the
disturbance.
Number two is you want to maximize the diversity of the
plants living and having their roots in the soil. So, as we
have learned from ecologists, ecosystems that are diverse in
their populations are more resilient to stress, to drought, to
pests, to disease. So the more diversity you have in your crops
in the soil, the more diversity of the microorganism you are
going to have below, in the surface of the soil itself.
The third is you want to keep your soils covered for as
much as possible to protect them from the erosive effects of
wind and water. And also, fourth, you want to have living roots
in the soil for as long as possible. So when, traditionally,
folks would fallow their fields, if you can instead, have
living roots there to capture the solar radiation, the energy
from the sun to actually feed the organisms in the soil for as
long as possible, again, you are maximizing the energy that is
going to be stored in banking that soil, making it again
available for crop production.
So one of the key principle--one of key practices,
Chairman, you have already referenced is no-till. This
addresses two of those key principles, in terms of minimizing
disturbance of the soil, but also maintaining a residue on the
soil. So it is actually an interesting fact recently learned
that today we estimate across the U.S. there are about 67
million acres of cropland that is in continuous no-till. That
is roughly 23 percent, 24 percent of the U.S. crop--overall
crop size.
In--just in terms of avoiding lost carbon to the
atmosphere, so keeping the carbon in the soils, where it is
helping protect the vibrance of the soils to grow crops, that
is about 8.8 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent
emissions that are avoided, that we are actually keeping in the
soils. That is equivalent to burning 990 million gallons of
gas, or powering 1.9 million passenger vehicles per year that
are now being kept in the soils to help protect crops, and help
with the organic content--maintain the organic content in the
soils. So we view no-till practices as one of the greatest
approaches to improving the health of the soils.
Here is a close-up of what a no-till operation looks like
in the field. I know you are very familiar with this. Today's
farming implements can penetrate through that plant residue,
drill the seeds in to the soil structure. And that mulch you
see there on the surface, then, it has a number of benefits.
Number one, it protects those soils from the erosive power of
wind, and from water. It helps shade out weeds, so you have
less pressure from weeds coming in and crowding out the
valuable cash crop. It keeps that soil cool.
Actually, when you have bare soil, on the hot summer
months, you can actually cook the microbes in the soil itself.
You can actually kill the microbes. It also increases the
drying out of the soils and the plants, creating plant stress.
The mulch itself can actually serve, then, as the biomass, as
the fungi, and the mites, and other critters decompose that
biomass into organic matter. So that also serves as a feedstock
to help boost the organic matter in your soils.
And why does organic matter matter? So here is a chart that
shows what happens when you increase the organic matter.
So across the bottom there you see the percent of organic
matter in your soils. And as you increase that organic matter
over time, you can actually boost the water holding capacity of
your soils. More organic matter means more water. You create a
reservoir in your fields to hold water when it rains or snows,
or when you irrigate. So a rough rule of thumb, for every one
percent increase in organic matter, you increase the water
holding capacity of an acre by 25,000 gallons of water. So soil
health is a great way to help capture--when you irrigate, or
when it rains, it helps create more drought resiliency for your
crop fields.
Here is a side by side comparison of two fields of
different tillage practices. This comes from Brookings County,
South Dakota. On the left you see a no-till operation. On the
right you see a conventional till operation. This is--this
photo, I understand, was taken a couple hours after 1" rain. So
on the left you could see the water has infiltrated. There is
no evidence of water on that field, and you see no evidence of
soil transport, no movement of the soils. On the right you
could still see--even several hours after, you still see
ponding of water. You see it is slick. You see the actual--
there--in this photo you can eyeball, there is--literally tons
of soil have moved in that field, in some cases probably off
that field. That water isn't getting into the root zone. It is
not being stored in that soil for future growing seasons in the
warmer summer months. It has probably been moved off--down off
the field, where that water, and the nutrients, and very
expensive inputs the farmer has invested in are now lost.
Another key practice that we use is cover crops. A lot of
folks have been talking about cover crops. What you see here is
a shot of a field of rye. In this case, it has actually been
rolled down. It has been crimped, so the crop has been
terminated. But instead of harvesting that biomass, what this
farmer is doing is keeping that biomass in place to serve as a
mulch. So cover crops serve, again, the core principles. In
this case, you are having--you are maximizing--you are leaving
the roots. You are bringing root diversity to the soil, and you
are helping, again, to keep that soil covered. So when you have
the shot of that rye grass that has been rolled down, it again,
serves as that mulch to moderate temperatures, protect the
soils, serve as the feedstock for organic matter. Cover crops
are a really valuable tool.
So we are trying to get to what happens? What does this
do--so what? What does this mean for actual production of food?
So if you remember, back in 2012, we had one of the worst
droughts in half a century, impacted almost the entire Union,
in terms of the drought. And so some partners at the
Sustainable Ag Research and Education Program at USDA, as well
as the Conservation Technology Information Center, they did a
survey from producers in the Central Midwest, here in these
seven states, and they reached out to 759 producers, and they
asked, what was your use of cover crops, and if you used cover
crops. What happened to your yield? Well, we actually learned
it was positive.
So what you see here is a comparison from those who
responded to the survey, producers that used cover crops as
part of their rotation, they had about 11 percent higher yield
off their drought-stricken fields than folks that did not use
cover crops as part of the rotation. Again, it is about
improving the health of the soils through all the benefits of
cover crops, mulching, the biomass, that they get an 11
bushel--11 percent increase in yield. And for soybeans, it was
even higher. It was over 14 percent increase in yield for
soybeans for folks that use cover crops.
So, again, here is an example of how cover crops can help.
At the end of the day, in my view, it is one of the best risk
management tools we can offer a farmer or rancher from our
quiver of conservation practices, but this is a great risk
management tool. It helps not only maintain yield, but also
protects farmers in periods of stress.
Another core practice is nutrient management. So, part of
an overall effective soil health management system is how you
manage the nutrients of your soils. So there are the nutrients
you apply through fertilizer, manure, poultry litter. It is the
available nutrients that are left over from last year's
application of fertilizers. It is the biomass, the residue that
is left over from the crops. It is the actual deposition of
nitrogen from the atmosphere, and how the microbes attenuate
and incorporate those nutrients.
So a nutrient management plan, using the 4R's of the right
source, at the right time, the right rate, the right amount,
using the 4R approach is part and parcel of an effective soil
health management system. And this is something that NRCS is
working very closely with foundations, research community,
certified crop advisors, institutes, you name it. There is a
broad array of folks who are working with producers to
incorporate effective nutrient management into the soil health
systems.
Beyond row crop, though, I have talked a lot about row
crops, we also are very interested and excited about--how do
you improve soil health on range and pasture? So we have talked
about how tillage is a disturbance to the soil. Well,
overgrazing also is a disturbance of the soil. It is a
biological disturbance. When you overgraze, you are stressing
the plants. You actually have smaller root mass below the
soils. You get more opportunity, then, to heat the soils, to
cook those microbes, create drought stress in the plants--you
provide more opportunity for weed penetration, invasive
penetration.
So what you see here, again, is out of South Dakota, a side
by side comparison. On the left you have a pasture/range area
that is in continuous grazing, and on the right you see a shot
of a pasture that is in rotational grazing. So you are still
getting the biomass and the necessary feed for livestock off
rotational grazing, it just requires more intensive management
of the livestock so they don't overgraze.
Well, what does grazing have to do with it? How does it
impact soils? What this shot is is a side by side of similar
soil, same soil type out of South Dakota. On the left is a
continuous grazing, and on the right is a rotational grazing.
Same soil type. And you can see on the right the color--the hue
of that soil is richer and deeper. That is reflective of more
organic matter that is in that soil. And it is kind of hard to
see there, but you can actually see the roots from the grasses
that penetrated not inches, but feet deep into that rotational
grazed soils.
That is important, because those roots then create pores
for water to infiltrate in, and for the nutrients, better
access deeper into the soil profile. More habitat, again, for
those microbes. So at the end of the day, the soils on the
right are going to be more drought resistant, more resistant to
invasives and weeds. And so, overall, you are going to have a
more sustainable yield of forage off those lands than you would
off a continuously grazed system.
At NRCS, because of our focus on soil health, I just wanted
to share something--very excited about, and it is kind of a big
deal. For the first time, as I am aware, anywhere on Earth, we
actually have mapped out the soil carbon stock for a continent.
So what we completed over the last couple years is a survey
across the United States. And we then, using our knowledge of
soils, we have mapped out here what is the current stock, our
banking of organic matter across the United States. These
different colors here, those hues, the darker the blue, the
more organic soils.
You can see down, for example, in Florida, in the
Everglades, or in northern Minnesota, in the forests of
Northern Minnesota, high organic soils, so there is going to be
a lot of organic matter there. In the desert, Southwest,
obviously not much organic matter in the desert environment. As
you can see, then, the gradiation of the organic content.
Why is this important? So, for a conservation planter, or
an agronomist, a farmer, you want to understand, what is my
organic matter? What is my organic content? So now that we have
that base underlying understanding of the soil pattern--or
content--organic content, we also know the carbon carrying
capacity for those soils. So then we can prescribe the most
effective soil health management system to help not only
protect the organic matter, but also boost organic matter in
your soils.
What this is, this reflects what you all have accomplished.
This reflects the investment that this Committee has made
through its vision, its support for conservation, and how
conservation is critical to the success of soil health, and the
implementation, that it is not just in corners of the country,
but in literally all 50 states.
What you see here are plots of EQIP contracts,
Environmental Quality Incentives Program contracts, and
conservation stewardship program contracts over the period of
2009 through 2013, and was basically called out the soil health
beneficial practices. So conservation crop rotation, cover
crops, rotational grazing, mulch, no-till. So we looked at what
are the core soil health practices, and the geo-plot of them,
and this is what it looks like. Turns out we entered into over
74,000 contracts on over 44 million acres across the United
States. This is what your investments in working land programs
looks like when you look at it from the lens of soil health.
Beyond dollars, and tons, and acres, what it really,
though, amounts to is us working with farmers and ranchers,
with people, with producers. And so we are working very hard
with partners, like with the National Association of
Conservation Districts, with other organizations, to identify
leaders in soil health across the country. So when we have been
profiling producers, one of the best ways to actually share
this information is to get other producers up to speed, excited
about--engaged in soil health is they hear it from another
farmer or rancher themselves. So we have examples of--profiles
of these pioneers in soil health from across the country.
Now, I wanted to highlight one of these pioneers. It is a
farming operation. This is Ricky and Russell Wiggins out of
Alabama. They are cotton and peanut farmers. They farm about
2,700 acres in Alabama. And when they started in the soil
health journey, their soil organic matter was around .75
percent, less than one percent soil organic matter in their
soils. Well, they decided, well, we wanted to try out some new
soil health practices, so they converted to conservation
tillage systems. They use high residue cover crops. You can see
from the field there, they leave the rye grass in the fields to
provide high residue to protect their soils, and provide better
organic matter. And over time, over several years of using the
soil practices, they have now increased their soil organic
matter to over three percent.
Well, what does that mean? It means their soils are, first,
number one, easier to work with. They are more pliable. So
then, when they have peanuts, they want to plow the fields, it
is easier to pull those plows. They have to burn less fuel.
They have to replace their implements, their tips and their
plows, less often. Their terraces need less working, less
maintenance cost in the terraces. When it does rain, the
terraces flow clean. That means there is less maintenance in
their ditches, in their water conveyance canals. So overall it
is saving them money, saving them wear and tear, saving them
fuel. And, in periods of drought like they experienced a couple
years ago, when other producers in their area were not able to
plant because the soils were dry, they could plant. They got a
crop in the ground, they are able to get a harvest, because of
their approach for soil health.
And I would just like to conclude with just a real focus on
why you--this Committee funds our agency. As the Chairman and
Mr. Lucas pointed out, we work with America's farmers and
ranchers. The programs that you fund help us work one on one
with families. These are investments in businesses, in
communities, in the economic success of these folks. And you
are making investments in infrastructure, in the infrastructure
of America's capacity to feed not only itself, but feed the
world for generations to come.
And, upon reflection, to me, something that is simple, but
so easily overlooked as soil, it turns out it is fundamental,
it is intrinsic to our ability to feed ourselves, to ensure the
quality of our environment, and to ensure, ultimately, our
economic well-being as a nation. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I
would be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you
for the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jason Weller, Chief, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Walz, and Members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to
discuss the importance of soil health for our nation's agriculture, our
environment, and our future.
Introduction
For almost 80 years, the Natural Resources Conservation Service has
been a pioneer in voluntary conservation, working with agricultural
producers; forest managers; local, state, and Federal agencies; local
communities; and innumerable partners to maintain healthy and
productive working landscapes.
Largely in response to the devastating effects of the Dust Bowl, on
April 27, 1935, Congress passed Public Law 74-46 in which it recognized
that ``the wastage of soil and moisture resources on farm, grazing, and
forest lands . . . is a menace to the national welfare,'' and it
directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) as a permanent agency in USDA. As President
Franklin Roosevelt expressed in a letter to all state governors in
1937, ``The nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself.''
In 1994, Congress changed SCS's name to the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) to better reflect the broadened scope of
the agency's focus. However, NRCS continues to fulfill the conservation
legacy established in 1935 by Hugh Hammond Bennett, even as it adapts
to changing concerns and takes on new responsibilities to address
present and future challenges.
Today, our focus on soils goes beyond erosion to include the
overall health of our nation's soils. When we speak of improving soil
health, we are talking about actually enhancing the soil's capacity to
function as a vital, living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals,
and humans.
Previously, we were mostly concerned with the chemical and physical
qualities of soil, so focusing on soil health reflects a fundamental
shift in the way we view and manage soils. As one farmer recently
observed, ``Anything can have quality, but only living things can have
health.''
Improving soil health simultaneously addresses many of our nation's
most pressing natural resource needs. A healthy soil has better water
holding capacity and therefore resilience to extreme weather like
drought and heavy precipitation. Because improving soil health promotes
water infiltration, this helps recharge the subsoil with water so more
is available in time of need, and this greater infiltration means less
nutrient and sediment runoff to our streams, lakes, and oceans.
Conservation systems that enhance soil health also help increase carbon
sequestration and organic matter, enhance nutrient cycling, provide
pollinator habitat, reduce energy use, and produce the food, fiber, and
bioenergy needs of our rapidly growing population. Farmers tell us that
enhancing soil health also increases their profitability, thereby
strengthening rural economies.
NRCS Role
NRCS has developed and launched an integrated campaign that
emphasizes conservation planning that focuses on soil health and builds
the information, tools, and knowledge needed to help producers enhance
the health of their soils. There are many components of this effort
that build upon one another. To date, we have focused on:
Ensuring that the scientific basis for improving soil health
is reflected in agency conservation practice standards.
Reviewing scientific literature and case studies to provide
information needed by farmers on the benefits of soil health
management systems to their ``bottom line''.
Modeling efforts at the national scale to help inform
estimates of environmental benefits that may be achieved
through accelerated soil health management adoption.
Aligning funding priorities of our Conservation Innovation
Grant Program to support soil health adoption needs.
Leveraging NRCS's network of Plant Materials Centers to
conduct coordinated evaluations of cover crop mixes and their
impacts on soil health across different regions, and to use
these Centers as soil health training sites.
Ensuring that all field staffs across the U.S. are trained
in the basics of soil health. In just 6 months, we trained over
2,000 NRCS staff and partners on the fundamental principles for
improving soil health.
Establishing an on-line training library that currently
holds 28 soil health webinars conducted by university and
government scientists, farmers, and other partners. The
training library is available to agency staff as well as the
general public. Since January 2013, over 11,500 people have
participated in or viewed these soil health training webinars.
In addition, NRCS has established a Soil Health Division
responsible for acquiring, transferring, and implementing the latest
technologies for increasing soil health. Soil Health Specialists across
the country will work directly with producers, NRCS field staff, and a
wide array of partners to assist in soil health management system
implementation. Our Plant Materials Centers and partner field sites
will be used as a national network of training and demonstration areas
to promote adoption. While our initial focus is on cropland, we are
already making plans for enhancing soil health on range and forest
lands.
Partnerships in Soil Health
Partnerships are key to the success of improving the health of our
nation's soils. The soil health movement is exciting to be part of due
to the speed of innovation and adoption by farmers and ranchers, as
well as because of the huge array of partners--including agricultural
production associations, universities, Soil and Water Conservation
Districts, Federal agencies, and nonprofit conservation organizations--
that are leveraging each other's expertise and resources. Collectively,
we are bringing forward new ideas, solutions, and practical on-the-
ground know-how to support producers.
For NRCS, the core of our partnership is with individual farmers
and ranchers with whom we work daily to plan and implement soil
conservation measures that help them achieve their economic and
conservation objectives. These producers are making positive soil
health decisions field by field that together are generating benefits
for not only their operations, but also at larger geographic scales
such as in river or lake basins.
The conservation programs supported by the 2014 Farm Bill are
making a crucial difference in helping producers start soil health
management systems on their operations. Soil health management is a
systems approach that brings together suites of conservation practices
that minimize soil disturbance, diversify soil biota, and maintain
living roots and soil cover year round. Since 2009, significant numbers
of producers have implemented soil health management practices through
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) as shown in the chart below.
Occurrences of Select Soil Health-Related Practices Applied in EQIP
Contracts Fiscal Years 2009 to 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Amount
Practice Code Practice Name Contracts (Acres)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
328 Conservation Crop 3,468 707,256
Rotation
329 Residue and Tillage 4,514 3,040,608
Management, No-Till/
Strip Till/Direct Seed
340 Cover Crop 9,541 2,294,294
484 Mulching 3,000 114,015
512 Forage and Biomass 13,062 939,807
Planting
528 Prescribed Grazing 6,575 10,072,933
590 Nutrient Management 13,742 5,212,792
---------------------------
Grand Total..... 53,902 22,381,705
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occurrences of Select Soil Health-Related Practices in CSP Contracts
Fiscal Years 2010 to 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practice/ Number of Amount
Enhancement Code Practice Name Contracts (Acres)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
328 Conservation Crop 497 290,333
Rotation
329 Residue and Tillage 389 192,765
Management, No-Till/
Strip Till/Direct Seed
340 Cover Crop 313 85,522
CCR99 Resource-Conserving Crop 1,484 577,622
Rotation
PLT0Monitor key grazing 6,904 13,364,174
areas to improve
grazing management
SOE05 Intensive no-till 217 104,463
(Organic or Non-organic
systems)
SQL04Use of Cover Crop Mixes 2,848 916,493
WQL10Plant an annual grass- 1,959 667,171
type cover crop that
will scavenge residual
nitrogen
WQL13High level Integrated 5,567 5,640,044
Pest Management to
reduce pesticide
environmental risk
WQL21Integrated Pest 115 61,417
Management for Organic
Farming
---------------------------
Grand Total..... 20,293 21,900,003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS is also partnering with diverse organizations, such as USDA's
Risk Management Agency and Farm Service Agency, the National Soybean
Association, Midwest Cover Crops Council, National Wildlife Federation,
Univ. of Missouri, National Crop Insurance Services, Inc., and others
to develop national guidelines for cover crops to ensure their
beneficial use in crop production.
NRCS is also working with the National Association of Conservation
Districts to leverage the expertise and local delivery capacity of
Conservation Districts to develop an inventory of demonstration sites
to promote adoption of soil health management systems across the
nation.
To accelerate the knowledge of and exposure to soil health
practices on farming and ranching operations, we partnered earlier this
year with USDA Sustainable Agriculture, Research, and Education (SARE),
the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, and the Soil and Water Conservation
Society to hold a National Cover Crop and Soil Health Conference that
reached over 6,000 producers in a single day on the benefits of cover
crops and soil health management systems.
We are partnering with the National Corn Growers Association,
Monsanto, The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, USDA's
Agricultural Research Service, and numerous universities in
establishing and evaluating soil health demonstration field sites to
encourage adoption of soil health promoting practices.
Finally, NRCS is partnering with the Farm Foundation and the Samuel
Roberts Noble Foundation to encourage adoption and elevate awareness of
the economic, environmental, and production benefits of soil health
management systems. And we are partnering with the National Grazing
Lands Coalition to begin efforts to increase soil health knowledge and
adoption on rangelands and pastures.
Benefits for Agriculture and the Environment
The benefits of healthy soils are tangible for the producer, the
environment, and ultimately the public. Farmers and ranchers in nearly
all parts of the country, across a wide range of climate zones and
cropping systems, are reporting that they see connections between
improved soil health and more consistent (and often higher) yields,
higher profit margins, and more weather-resilient operations.
Weather resilience in soils has always been important and will
continue to be even more so as we work to improve our natural defenses
against climate change and extreme weather, such as extended droughts
and severe storms, as well as indirect effects such as changing threats
from pest populations and plant diseases. Healthy soils will be a key
component for agricultural producers to successfully adapt to these
challenges and will help ensure that we can continue to meet the food
demands of a growing population. We are already seeing specific
examples of how healthy soils are making a difference.
Following the historic drought in 2012, USDA-SARE and the
Conservation Technology Information Center surveyed over 750 farmers
about their use of cover crops. Cover crops, which are grown during the
off-season to reduce erosion, conserve moisture, and build organic
matter, are an important tool for enhancing soil health. In the seven
states hit hardest by drought in 2012, farmers using cover crops in
their production mix had corn and soybean yields that were 11-14
percent higher than those without a cover crop.
In addition to survey information from producers, NRCS has learned
of positive soil health results directly from individual producers. For
example, Steve Groff farms 225 acres in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania,
where he grows corn, soybeans and small grains, as well as pumpkins.
Through more than 30 years of using no-till and multi-species cover
crops, Mr. Groff reports that he has increased his soil organic matter
from two percent to almost five percent, and has obtained yields that
exceed local averages by ten percent.
Gabe Brown, who farms about 2,000 acres near Bismarck, North
Dakota, keeps soil covered with dense, diverse plants and cover crops,
while also integrating livestock into his soil health management
system. Mr. Brown reports that he has more than doubled his soil's
organic matter content, and these healthy soils have resulted in higher
than county-average yields.
In Carroll, Ohio, Dave Brandt farms a corn-soybean-wheat rotation
on 1,500 acres. For more than 35 years, he has used a soil health
management system with no-till, diverse cover crop mixes, and crop
rotations; and has increased his soil's organic matter from two percent
to over five percent. Even during the drought of 2012, Mr. Brandt
reported that he averaged 170 bushels of corn per acre, which was
nearly twice the yield of his conventional farming neighbors.
Ray Styer, who grows corn silage and multi-species cover crops on
80 acres in Rockingham County, North Carolina, reports that he has more
than tripled his soil organic matter and obtained yields that are 4
tons per acre above the county average.
While these examples show that soil health is making a difference
in the lives of individual farmers, their families, and their
profitability, the broader public value of the conservation investment
should also be recognized. The value of soil health for resilient food
production systems is seen in the marketplace every day. Benefits to
the environment are also demonstrable.
Our Conservation Effects Assessment Project, which has now
evaluated conservation impacts covering over 300 million acres of
cropland, has estimated that the same practices we use to enhance soil
health--such as no-till, cover crops, and crop rotation--have reduced
edge-of-field sediment loss by 47-73 percent, phosphorus loss by 33-59
percent, and nitrogen loss in runoff by 35-58 percent.
Yet, there is more to be done. Events like drought in Texas and
California and algal blooms in Lake Erie and Lake Champlain, coupled
with the need to meet the demand for food, fiber, and fuel for a
growing population, tell us the time is now to enhance the health of
our nation's soils.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying that I believe improving
the health of our nation's soils is one of the most important things
that we can do for this and for future generations. That is because
improving soil health not only supports growing the food, fiber, and
fuel needed by a rapidly expanding world population, but it also allows
us to simultaneously address some of our nation's most pressing natural
resource needs. It allows us to increase resiliency to extreme weather
events, improve water quality, increase carbon sequestration, enhance
habitat for pollinators and other wildlife, increase farm
profitability, and we believe also reduce economic risk associated with
crop production.
I thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I will be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
PowerPoint Presentation
The Chairman. Thank you, Chief, I very much appreciate your
testimony. The chair would like to remind Members that they
will be recognized for questioning in order of seniority from
Members who were present at the start of the hearing. After
that, Members will be recognized in order of arrival, I
appreciate the Members' understanding. And I am--after saying
all that, I am going to defer to last. I will recognize the
Chairman of the full Agriculture Committee for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, tell us, from
your perspective, your vantage point, kind of on the front line
of all these issues, how you see the resources that you have at
the Service, how you see the needs evolving out there, how you
see the science coming together. Tell us, and I am asking you a
general purpose question for a general purpose answer, how you
see the response out in the community. And we will hear more
from that from the second panel. Just give us a feel where you
believe we are in this endeavor to bring a greater focus to the
living soil.
Mr. Weller. Thank you. I think where I began my testimony,
in part the excitement and the energy, is really--you can feel
it. And the passion that we have focused within NRCS that
really believe with all their fiber this is the right thing to
do, and they are very excited about it. And in part these
folks, like Mr. Ray Archuleta may be some of you may have met,
he has been working--he is a conservation agronomist with NRCS,
and he has been talking about soil health for decades. And the
fact this is all now coming to fruition has helped energize
NRCS employees.
But because we are now taking, the last several years, a
real focus on now--beyond just talking about it, but actually
providing training for folks, that it is really energized our
field folks, who have been very busy and very focused on
delivering program assistance and planning assistance. But it
has helped a lot of folks re-orient back to the creation of our
agency, and it is there--farmers and ranchers, and to help them
improve and manage their soils. I think that return that--
literally getting our hands dirty in the soil has really been
energizing and enervating for NRCS.
But from the producer side, this is an example where,
instead of having to push a wet rope uphill, try this out, we
are actually getting pulled up the hill. We are trying to hold
on to the rope as hard we can because the producers are very
motivated, very excited. They are innovating. They are the ones
that are coming up with a lot of these different practices.
They are doing strip trials in their fields. They are using
different cocktails of cover crop mixes. They are willing to
subject their fields to different experiments, and all this,
and they are coming back with great information that then they
are sharing with their neighbors, and other producers in their
communities, and within their own agricultural associations.
The level of excitement and the momentum is only building,
and that has been very rewarding to be part of, and to help
NRCS play that role. The resources this Committee provides, and
Congress provides our agency, are, in my view, critical, and
very much part and parcel of helping to get soil health
practices implemented. It is that one on one technical
assistance planning which is so crucial to help impart that
knowledge.
But then, in some cases, it is folks who want to give it a
try, but they are leery of the cost, or it may be encumbering
risk. It is a transition to a different cropping system. We can
help offload some of that risk, and allow them to experiment
with different nutrient management approaches, and cover crops,
and tillage practices to help them get up to speed. I think we
are well equipped for it. We have a ways to go, but we have had
a great start, and there is a lot of opportunity.
Mr. Lucas. In my home area, Chief, the advance in
technology, the private industry, the people who produce our
seeds, and build our equipment, the general phrase is precision
agriculture. It just goes hand in hand with this, wouldn't you
agree? The technology that has been developed out there by
industry that enables us to literally do, foot by foot, acre by
acre, what is appropriate for the soil.
Mr. Weller. And precision agriculture is a definite example
where--this is where our agency really has got to pick up pace,
where I think the degree of innovation that is coming out of
the research community, but particularly from the agricultural
implement dealers, and the researchers, it is incredible. In
precision agriculture, it absolutely is part and parcel, and
can definitely--even make soil health even more effective. You
can optimize your use of nutrients, and manage your soils most
effectively. So, yes, precision agriculture is a great tool for
improving the health of your soils.
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman, I would simply note that, from the
founding of--from the first arrival of Europeans, perhaps the
way to describe it, until a century ago, the concept of mining
the soil existed. It was a resource that you utilized, then you
moved on. Starting in the 1930s, perhaps, with a particular
focus in my region and the southern, the Great Plains, and the
east side of the Rockies, and the evolvement of the Soil
Conservation Service, the predecessor to the NRCS, the focus
began to shift that this was something that was not to be used
and thrown away, but it was to be truly nurtured. And now we
are apparently taking the next step, so progress is a positive
thing, and we are in that direction. With that, I yield back to
the Chairman my remaining time.
The Chairman. I thank the Chairman for yielding back. I now
recognize the gentleman from Ohio for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chief, for being
here. You need to ratchet up that passion a little bit more. It
is great, because obviously it is--but I have been doing no-
till probably for 20 years, so you are not--don't have to tell
me. It has been great--back in the 1990s, and--Soil and Water
Conservation Board. And the partnership with NRCS, and the
county conservation districts is the way to really go, and the
EQIP program, when it all comes together, it works really good.
And in my area, it is almost all no-till. I live in eastern
central Ohio. Probably pretty hard to see an old--plow anymore.
But in your written testimony you talk about events like
drought in Texas, and California, and the algae blooms in Lake
Erie, and I want to talk about that a little bit, because, as
you know, we have algae bloom problems, especially on the
western part of the lake, but a couple years ago it was
throughout the lake, because Lake Erie is the most sensitive
lake because it is so shallow. And here, not--just several
weeks ago, City of Toledo had to shut down the drinking water
to half a million people for 3 days.
And I want to give kudos to the--Howe Farm Bureau. They are
putting in a million dollars to try to address the problem,
because farmers want to find a solution. They want to be part
of the solution, and--and I think there are other causes. And
one thing that frustrated me, we don't know what all the causes
might be. We are speculating. We have the sewage treatment
plants, and combined sewer overflows, and you have runoff, and
all that.
But for my first question, I know Robert E. Latta, my
colleague from Ohio, has a bill out there to try to address
causes. I am looking at it, as my Chairman of the Committee I--
trying to look at--causes and solutions. What--obviously no-
till helps mitigate the spread, or the erosion, but we are
starting to see, and I want to see if you concur with this,
during heavy rain events, I mean talking, like, getting 4" or
5" in an hour's time--I am sure Chairman Lucas would like to
have some of that water. We get it once or twice a year.
You know, that does a couple of things. If our sewage
treatment plants end up over capacity--they have direct
discharges. And--even all the practice we do in agriculture,
those kind of events, it is a challenge. Would you agree that
that is where a lot of the--we have--I guess--the conservation
we are putting in to address normal weather activities. It is
those extremes is where the problem is, or am I just----
Mr. Weller. My understanding is, yes, at the end of the
day, if it rains so much, there is only so much that a field
can attenuate, and so the basic conservation systems, like no-
till, is an effective way for normal precipitation. When you
have extreme weather events, yes, you are going to have--no
matter what, you are going to have water--but it is also, then,
looking at a systems approach for conservation, so it is
looking about how you buffer your fields.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
Mr. Weller. To the extent you have till lines, you are
draining the fields through--water management practices, you
could, again, help attenuate what comes out of the till lines.
It is looking at cover crops as part of the overall no-till
operation. It is the nutrient management I talked a little bit
about earlier.
Mr. Gibbs. Let me just follow up: and I don't know the
answer to this. I am not certain. In my area, like I said, we
do all no-till. We don't have heavy soil. I have HAL ground,
highly arable land. Now, out in northwestern Ohio, I guess the
soils are heavier. I know in some parts it is really heavy.
What is--is no-till hard to adapt in those heavy soil, or does
it work as well, or----
Mr. Weller. I--my understanding is it is effective, that
folks are using no-till, even in those heavier soils. It is
perhaps a different management approach, and it takes some
adjustment, but it is something that can be adapted, even
through a heavier soil environment.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Because that would be helpful to address
this issue, especially in northwestern Ohio, in that--in the
Maumee Watershed up there--so that is--Mr. Chairman, I just
wanted to bring that up because it is a huge challenge, and it
is--of course, it is not just in Lake Erie. We--you mentioned
here, and I know in the Chesapeake Watershed, and there are
some other areas that we have that. There are other factors,
such as weather.
And, like I said a moment ago, it is good to see that
organizations like Ohio Farm Bureau putting up a million
dollars to partner with Ohio State University and others, EPA
and all the others, to try to address this and find solutions.
But agriculture wants to find a solution, to be part of the
solution, so I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for your--I also thank
the gentleman for--as someone who now--certainly within my
Congressional district shares Lake Erie with the good Members
in Ohio, and I appreciate you bringing up the impact, and how
this could help mitigate the most recent situation there.
Chief, thanks so much for your testimony, and, as Mr. Gibbs
said, your passion. It was very evident, and I thank you for
that. Chief, can you discuss--you had made reference to the
work that we did with the 2014 Farm Bill. You know, what impact
do you expect from those provisions that we have provided you,
those tools we provided you? What do you expect the new law to
have on soil health?
Mr. Weller. So starting with just--thank you very much.
Title II is an incredibly strong title. Starting with the
streamlining of the programs, and consolidating basically into
the financial assistance program, into a stewardship program,
and then into an easement program, that streamlining is going
to help our folks in the field, reduce some confusion for
producers. And we want to focus on soil health. We then sort of
have the financial assistance program that helps get the
practices in place, the stewardship, which will then help
take--allow producers to take their nutrient management, and
their tillage, and their cover crop use to the next level, in
terms of overall stewardship.
And then you included the Regional Conservation Partnership
Program, which is this overarching smorgasbord of opportunity,
and that, then, allows for innovation. And--so we held an
original sign-up earlier this summer. We are having a two-step
approach here to the first RCPP sign-up. We have received close
to 600 applications to the new Regional Conservation
Partnership Program, and many of those applications include a
focus on soil health.
And what is exciting here is because this program then
turns the keys over to the partners, they devise where they
want to work, how they want to work, what programs they want to
use, who is enrolling in the program. They can then devise new,
innovative ways to practice soil health, to get it on the
landscape, to get it into a river basin.
What title II has provided us is to give the agency a lot
of flexibility to go out and do the good work, in this case, of
helping producers apply soil health, but then it also has
energized and provided a lot of impetus to the conservation
community, through the regional program, to get their
resources, ideas, excitement, energy, partnership to the table,
and they can then also push out, and move out, and demonstrate
what can be done in soil health as well.
The Chairman. Excellent. And how about--can you give us an
update of--sounds like we have provided you some pretty
effective tools. Was there--it is good to hear. That is very
affirming. Just kind of an update, in terms of implementation,
we know that--when there are changes made it takes time in
order to align the resources with the implementation. They--any
kind of insight, in terms of implementation of those
provisions?
Mr. Weller. Well, hopefully you are hearing good
implementation. I would like to think, our agency, one of the
hallmarks is we are no drama mamas at NRCS. We have actually
gotten title II implemented. So we haven't yet gotten the regs
implemented, but because in title II you included language
there that allowed us to use our underlying regulation, as long
as we updated our programs to fit with the new law, the new
statute.
We have enrolled EQIP. We have done--we are about to
complete enrollment with CSP. We are going to get close to 10
million acres in CSP. We have pushed out all $300+ million of
ACEP money across the United States, enrolling 129,000 acres in
ACEP. We have the voluntary public access money out the door.
We have the Watershed Rehab Program. We are going to get almost
all of the $250 million invested into hundreds of projects
across the United States. So we have implemented.
What we are now, then, moving into is the actual following
up with the regulations. And so those regulations will be out
early this fall. We already have one out of the chute, which is
sort of a catch-all regulation that sort of covers some of the
miscellaneous issues, and we have three more, then, regulations
that are coming, the Conservation Stewardship Program rule,
EQIP program rule, and the new easement program, ACEP, rule.
Those will be out this fall.
The Chairman. Excellent. Well, I personally believe, and I
think the Members here would agree that the environment has
benefitted so much by the voluntary effort and work of our
farmers and ranchers, in collaboration with--from USDA, the
professional--USDA, which we are very appreciative of. I think
it is a much more productive approach, using a spirit of
collaboration, as USDA is known for, than perhaps maybe a
sister agency, such as the EPA, which seems to take a more
punitive approach.
But that said, what do you see as the--we are not 100
percent onboard with some of these practices. They haven't
really been embraced. Why do you think they are--is there
resistance out there to some of this--it is not new science. It
is kind of old science that has kind of resurfaced. What do you
see as the barriers to enlisting more--with your collaboration,
more farmers and ranchers to engage?
Mr. Weller. At the end, when you were asking a farmer to
change how they work their land, and in some cases it is--this
is what their dads did, and their granddads, and their great-
granddads, it works. And the old adage, don't fix what is not
broken, if they can get a crop, they are making a living, they
are doing okay, why introduce what could potentially be a risk
to trying something different?
And that is where we at NRCS, and the broader coalition of
folks who are looking at this, need to really get our arms
around the science and economics of soil health. First, beyond
just anecdotally, we really have to have robust peer reviewed
science that talks about the actual risk management. Second, we
have really got to get down to dollars and cents. At the end of
the day, the most effective conservation is conservation that
helps save money, or actually makes money. That's because you
are talking to businesspeople. They have to make a living. They
have to pay a mortgage. They want to send their kids to school.
So if you are asking them to invest a lot of money out of their
own pocket, it has to make sense, and work on their operation.
And getting our arms around the economics, and
demonstrating again that soil health practices not only manage
risk, but can also help make money, or at least save money, at
the end of the day, you have a net gain in the profit of that
business, and those are the two critical things that we are
really focused on getting answers to.
The Chairman. Great. Thanks, Chief. At this point we are
willing to yield any additional time to my colleagues for
additional follow-ups.
Mr. Lucas. Just simply, Mr. Chairman, that I would note
that the Chief is doing an outstanding job, and the agency is
working through a lot of things that we have thrown at them,
but clearly they are on the right track, and incentive-based
voluntary conservation is still what life is all about.
The Chairman. It is working. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. Chief,
thank you very much for your----
Mr. Weller. Thank you.
The Chairman.--leadership, your passion on this. And we
look forward, as a Subcommittee, to continue to work with you
in a strong partnership, as well as the full Committee.
Mr. Weller. Thank you, sir. We very much appreciate that
partnership.
The Chairman. My pleasure. The--I now--would like now to
welcome to the table our second panel of witnesses, Mr. John
Larson, CEO, National Association of Conservation Districts,
Ms. Shanon Phillips, Director of Water Quality, Oklahoma
Conservation Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Mr. Jim
Harbach, Farm Manager, Schrack Farms, Loganton, Pennsylvania,
Sugar Valley, Ms. Jill Sackett, Extension Educator, Ag
Production Systems, University of Minnesota Regional Office,
Mankato, Minnesota.
I want to thank the witnesses for making the time and the
investment to come here to share your perspectives on this very
important issue. And I now recognize Mr. Larson for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN LARSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Larson. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Thompson,
Chairman Lucas, and Members of the Committee. I am John Larson.
I welcome the opportunity to be here, and to talk about this
important topic of soil health. I am the Chief Executive
Officer of the National Association of Conservation Districts,
and I have worked directly with conservation districts for more
than 18 years, prior to which I worked full time as an
agricultural producer, running my family's irrigated farm in
Royal City, Washington.
NACD is a nonprofit organization that represents America's
3,000 conservation districts, their state and territory
associations, and the 17,000 men and women who serve on their
governing boards. Districts are the local government part of
the conservation delivery system, and work with millions of
cooperating land owners and operators to help them manage and
protect land and water resources on all private lands, and many
public lands, in the United States, utilizing that voluntary,
incentive-based approach. I like to think of the conservation
districts as the original pioneers of soil health. Soil health
is, and has been, one of the top priorities of conservation
districts across the nation since their creation in the 1930s.
In fact, soil health is the very reason that districts were
created.
Long term nationwide conservation and production practices
have resulted in better protection of our precious soil and
water resource base, the foundation of our nation's food
supply. Conservation districts play a key role in this process
by working with local producers and land owners to implement
critical conservation practices on the ground. In Indiana,
districts are key members of the multi-partner Conservation
Cropping System Initiative that has vaulted that state to a
leading position in the soil health movement. In North Dakota,
the Burleigh County Conservation District adopted soil health
as its major focus 20 years ago, and today national and
international visitors have come to the district for soil
health tours and workshops. Other districts are renting no-till
drills, supplying cover crop seed, facilitating farmer-led soil
health advocates, providing no-till test plots, and much, much
more.
Through these, and other efforts, conservation districts
across the nation are helping producers and land owners get the
tools that they need to continue caring for the land and
provide food, feed, fiber, and fuel for the world. We firmly
believe that it is better to invest in long term conservation
practices today than to be forced to pay the escalated cost of
repair in the future.
The benefits of improving soil health reach far beyond the
farm. Health soils lead to higher water quality, by allowing
for better nutrient cycling, and reducing sediment runoff, a
better ability to manage water, reduce flood damage, an
increase in the amount of soil carbon sequestration that the
soil does itself. The benefits of nutrient management on soil
fertility within a productive and healthy cropping system
utilize soil health practices that are assisting producers. As
the Chief mentioned, the 4R's nutrient stewardship approach, in
which producers apply the right source of nutrients at the
right rate, at the right time, and in the right place, fits
perfectly into soil health.
In the past several years NACD and its member conservation
districts and associations have been working hard to put a
renewed focus on soil health. These efforts include partnering
with NRCS on an integrated campaign to increase the adoption of
soil health management practices by America's farmers and
private land owners. By increasing the health of our soils, the
campaign ultimately seeks to produce systematic, continental-
scale improvements in soil, water, air, wildlife, all while
enhancing the long term agricultural productivity, and
providing the best return on the nation's conservation
investment over the long term.
However, while we are seeing improvements nationwide in
both the recognition and the need for the adoption of best
management practices for soil health, there is still work to be
done. Specifically, we see five main areas that need--that are
needed in the future: (1) developing specific soil health
conservation practice criteria; (2) increasing soil health
research, both the scientific and economic; (3) training NRCS
conservation district and other partners and employees; (4)
ensuring farm bill programs facilitate farm bill health--
healthy soils adoption; and (5) communicating the benefits of
soil health to both the agriculture and urban audiences.
In summary, to make measurable improvement in soil health
at the national level, will require a locally led voluntary
coordinated effort. Because of their strong relationships with
local land owners, as well as with their strong reputation as a
trusted source of conservation planning and implementation at
the local level, conservation districts are well poised to
continue to play a leading role in these efforts in the
partnership with local, state, and Federal partners.
Mr. Chairman, as you stated, the population is expected to
hit nine billion by 2050. We believe that the widespread
adoption of soil health practices is what will make us
successful in meeting that need. If we act now, we have the
chance to make a difference on the land that will last for
generations. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today,
and for holding this hearing to help shine a spotlight on the
important issue of soil health. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Larson, Chief Executive Officer, National
Association of Conservation Districts, Washington, D.C.
Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Walz, and Members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
important topic of soil health. I am John Larson, Chief Executive
Officer of the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD). I
have worked directly with conservation districts for more than 18
years, prior to which I worked full-time as an agriculture producer,
running my family's irrigated farm in Royal City, Washington.
NACD is the nonprofit organization that represents America's 3,000
conservation districts, their state and territory associations, and the
17,000 men and women who serve on their governing boards. Conservation
districts are local units of government established under state law to
carry out natural resource management programs at the local level.
Districts are the local government part of the conservation delivery
system and work with millions of cooperating landowners and operators
to help them manage and protect land and water resources on all private
lands and many public lands in the United States.
The association was founded on the philosophy that conservation
decisions should be made at the local level with technical and funding
assistance from Federal, state and local governments and the private
sector. As the national voice for conservation districts, NACD supports
voluntary, incentive-based natural resource conservation programs that
benefit all citizens.
I like to think of conservation districts as the original pioneers
of soil health. Soil health is, and has been, one of the top priorities
of conservation districts across the nation since their creation in the
1930s. In fact, soil health is the very reason why districts came into
being.
In the early 1930s, along with the greatest depression this nation
ever experienced, came an equally unparalleled ecological disaster
known as the Dust Bowl. Following a severe and sustained drought in the
Great Plains, the region's soil began to erode and blow away, creating
huge black dust storms that blotted out the sun and swallowed the
countryside. Thousands of ``dust refugees'' left the black fog to seek
better lives.
But the storms stretched across the nation as soil blown from the
Great Plains reached east to New York. Dust even sifted into the White
House and onto the desk of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
On Capitol Hill, while testifying about the erosion problem, soil
scientist Hugh Hammond Bennett threw back the curtains to reveal a sky
blackened by dust. Congress unanimously passed legislation declaring
soil and water conservation a national policy and priority and creating
the Soil Conservation Service to fight it. Because nearly \3/4\ of the
continental United States is privately owned, Congress realized that
only active, voluntary support from landowners would guarantee the
success of conservation work on private land.
In 1937, President Roosevelt wrote the governors of all the states
recommending legislation that would allow local landowners to form soil
conservation districts. Today, nearly every county in the U.S. and
several territories, are served by a conservation district.
As many of you will remember, 2 years ago, our nation experienced a
drought of proportions we haven't seen since the 1930s and 1950s.
However, despite this extreme drought, we didn't enter into a modern-
day Dust Bowl situation. There's a good reason for that--and it's
something that all of us in the conservation community can be proud of:
careful, long-term nationwide conservation and production practices
that started mainly in response to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. The
implementation of these practices has resulted in better protection of
our precious soil and water resource base--the foundation of our
nation's food supply.
While we can't control weather conditions, strong, locally-led
conservation planning can help alleviate the impacts of extreme weather
events in the future. Conservation districts play a key role in this
process by working with local producers and landowners to implement
critical conservation practices on the ground.
For example, in Indiana, districts are key members of the multi-
partner Conservation Cropping System Initiative that has vaulted the
state to a leading position in the soil health movement. In North
Dakota, the Burleigh County Soil Conservation District adopted soil
health as its major focus 20 years ago; today, national and
international visitors have come to the district for soil health tours
and workshops. Other districts are renting no-till drills, supplying
cover-crop seed, helping to organize aerial seeding of cover crops,
facilitating farmer-led soil health cadres, providing no-till test
plots, and much more.
Through these and other efforts, conservation districts across the
nation are helping producers and landowners get the tools they need to
continue caring for the land and providing food, feed, and fiber for
the world. We firmly believe that it's better to invest in long-term
conservation measures today, than to be forced to pay for the escalated
costs of repair in the future. Without question, we believe that soil
health is the key to the future productivity of agriculture and the
protection of our natural resources.
``Soil health'' is defined as ``the continued capacity of soil to
function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and
humans.'' Healthy soil ecosystems allow for increased water
infiltration, improved water-holding capacity, enhanced nutrient
cycling and sequestration, and increased biodiversity.
Historically, soil management activities focused on the physical
and chemical functions of the soil. Today's emphasis on soil health
recognizes the critical importance of biological function in the soil.
``Soil Ecology'' emphasizes that soil is a living ecosystem. This
ecosystem is impacted by chemical (i.e., fungicides), biological
(monocultures) and physical disturbance (tillage) that diminish soil
function.
There are four key management principles to improve soil ecosystem
function: (1) minimize the chemical, biological, and physical
disturbance in the soil; (2) keep the soil covered as much as possible
throughout the year; (3) maintain a living root, growing for as long as
possible, to feed the soil microbes and transfer more solar energy into
the soil; and (4) increase crop diversity above ground to add
biological diversity to the soil. These basic management activities are
central to improving soil health.
The benefits of improved soil health reach far beyond the farm.
Healthy soils lead to higher water quality, by allowing for better
nutrient cycling and reducing sediment runoff; a better ability to
manage water and reduce flood damage; and an increase in the amount of
carbon sequestered in the soil itself.
Due to its increased water-holding capacity, healthy soil is more
resilient against drought; it is also naturally less prone to disease
and pest problems, thereby allowing farmers to optimize their use of
crop protectants. And because healthy soil requires fewer petroleum-
based products for tillage it also saves on energy use and costs.
In the past several years, NACD, and its member conservation
districts and associations, have been working hard to put a renewed
national focus on soil health. These efforts include partnering with
the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service on an integrated
campaign to increase the adoption of soil health management practices
by America's farmers and private landowners. We anticipate conservation
districts providing guidance to determine their local soil health needs
and finding ways to best implement a suite of practices aimed at
improving soil health. It is important that districts remain the boots
on the ground to help solve local natural resource issues. By
increasing the health of our soils, the campaign ultimately seeks to
produce systemic, continental-scale improvements in water, air, and
wildlife--all while enhancing long-term agricultural productivity and
providing the best return on the nation's conservation investment over
the long term.
NRCS and conservation districts are not alone in this effort--we're
seeing an increasing interest from a wide range of stakeholder groups,
organizations and businesses that recognize the potential benefits of
healthy soil to production improvements, sustainability, profitability
and resource protection--all of which are advantageous to their
stakeholders. Many of these organizations are poised to help spread the
word about the basics and benefits of soil health and to encourage
their adoption.
NACD also recently was awarded, a $750,000 Conservation Innovation
Grant to promote soil health over a 3 year period. Through this
project, we seek to significantly scale up the number of farmed acres
nationwide that are managed for soil health. The project addresses two
main barriers: a shortage of economic and cost-benefit information on
soil health management; and insufficient transfer of knowledge to
farmers of available, innovative practices and technologies for local
conditions.
Through the formation of a national ``farmer advocate'' network-
organized by NACD and facilitated by its local districts, and state and
territory associations--this project will raise awareness of and
increase the adoption by farmers and landowners of soil health
practices. This includes farmer-to-farmer information on the use of new
soil testing procedures, timing of cover cropping practices,
considerations on what practices to use for wet and cool soils, on-farm
demonstrations, and the development of strategies to broaden and
accelerate action. The project will also provide a series of economic
case studies to serve as the basis for an expert-reviewed economic
analysis on the value of soil-health practice implementation.
Through these and other efforts, conservation districts are proud
to be leading the way in soil health.
However, while we are seeing improvements nationwide in both the
recognition of the need for, and the adoption of, best management
practices for soil health, there is still work to be done.
Specifically, we see five main areas of need for the future: (1)
developing specific soil health conservation practice criteria; (2)
increasing soil health research--both scientific and economic; (3)
training NRCS, district and partner employees; (4) ensuring farm bill
programs facilitate soil-health adoption; and (5) communicating the
benefits of soil health to both agriculture and urban audiences.
In summary, to make measurable improvements in soil health at the
national level will require a locally-led, voluntary, coordinated
effort. Because of their strong relationships with local landowners, as
well as their strong reputation as a trusted source of conservation
planning and implementation at the local level, conservation districts
are well poised to continue to play a leading role in these efforts, in
close partnership with local, state and Federal partners.
Mr. Chairman, if population growth projections are correct, in a
few short decades our population will hit nine billion. To feed this
many people will require a significant increase in food production, and
we will have to do it while coping with erratic weather conditions and
while still conserving our natural resources. We believe that the
widespread adoption of soil health practices is what will make us
successful. If we act now, we have a chance to make a difference on the
land that will last for generations.
A recent resolution, H. Con. Res. 95, underscores this very point--
expressing the sense of Congress that voluntary, incentive-based,
private land conservation, provided in partnership with local soil and
water conservation districts, is necessary to sustain natural
resources, meet the needs of a growing population, and ensure safe,
abundant, and adequate resources for current and future generations. We
are extremely pleased to see our Representatives in Washington
expressing support for locally-led, natural resource conservation and
its critical value to our nation's economic and food security. The
cause of conservation crosses geographic, political and economic
boundaries; it is truly something that everyone can support. Caring for
our soil and other natural resources is one of the greatest legacies we
can leave for our future generations. We urge all of you to support
this commonsense, bipartisan resolution.
Thank for you the opportunity to be here today and for holding this
hearing to help shine a spotlight on the important issue of soil
health. I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Larson. Thank you for your
testimony.
Ms. Phillips, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SHANON PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR, WATER
QUALITY DIVISION, OKLAHOMA CONSERVATION
COMMISSION, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
Ms. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members.
My name is Shanon Phillips. I am with Oklahoma Conservation
Commission, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak
with you this morning about soil health, and its relationship
to water quality. I think many of us appreciate how critical
soil health is towards a strong agricultural industry, but,
unfortunately, fewer people seem to appreciate how critical it
also is towards supporting and protecting the nation's water
supplies.
And we have already talked about how soil health can reduce
water pollution, because healthier soils have greater
infiltration rates, which means there is less runoff of
pollutants that then enter our nation's waterways. Healthier
soils require less supplemental fertilization, which also means
lower opportunities for pollution of nutrients to our nation's
waterways. And, finally, healthy soils are living soils, which
promote a multitude and variety of microbial communities, which
also break down some pollutants into compounds that are less
problematic when they enter our waterways. And we know, from
data that has been provided by states to the U.S. EPA, that at
least 60 percent, shown here by the colored wedges on the pie
chart, of the pollutants which cause impairments to water
bodies and our nation's waters are related to pollutants that
come from soils.
Now, water bodies are recognized as being impaired when
they are not meeting the Clean Water Act goals, which means
that they are not fishable, they are not safe for swimming, or
they are not--they don't provide safe drinking water. And we
have already talked this morning about some of the more
significant consequences related to the situation in Toledo
this summer, when they were--when they had to turn off the
taps. But those types of toxic bloom and algae blooms are
happening all over the nation, from New York State, to
Wisconsin, to Oregon, down to Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma.
And those--but the good news about those types of water
quality problems is we do know how to solve these water quality
problems, and we can do so through voluntarily conservation
programs, such as those that are provided for in the farm bill.
And we know that through our partnership with the U.S. EPA that
in over 500 streams all across this nation we have solved those
types of water quality impairments through these types of
voluntary programs.
And I am very happy to report that in Oklahoma, in fact, we
are one of the most successful states in the nation at
demonstrating this type of success. There is only one state in
the nation, in fact, that has more success than Oklahoma does
at showing how these voluntary conservation programs that bring
a partnership of local landowners, conservation districts,
USDA, NRCS, and FSA, and the State Conservation Agency together
to implement these conservation practices and solve water
quality problems.
One of the reasons that we have been so successful in
Oklahoma is because we have also made EPA a part of that
partnership. And I recognize that that makes a lot of people
very nervous, but what we are doing with EPA is we are
utilizing their funds from the Section 319 Clean Water Act
program to provide technical support to support water quality
monitoring. We are using their technical support to design that
water quality monitoring, and we are using that data to prove
to EPA and others that these conservation programs not only
assist farmers in maintaining their operations, but they also
solve water quality problems without additional regulation.
So, with that, I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Phillips follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shanon Phillips, Director, Water Quality
Division, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma City, OK
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the
relationship between soil health and water quality. I'm certain you're
aware of the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) campaign
to raise awareness about the importance of soil health and to provide
private landowners the knowledge, skills and tools to protect this
resource. The impetus behind this campaign lies with the increasing
demands on our soil resources and the agricultural community to cost-
effectively feed the world. We can thank progressive farmers and
agricultural experts all around the globe who have developed methods,
knowledge, and skill sets to help address this problem and we can thank
the NRCS for bringing these tools to the U.S. agricultural community.
The importance of protecting our national soil resources, which
were built over geologic time and heavily impacted through settlement
and development of our continent, is relatively obvious as it relates
to the promotion of a strong agricultural industry, which, in turn, is
critical for a healthy national economy. Scientists estimate that as
much as 60% of carbon has been lost from agricultural soils since the
1800s. This loss in organic matter affects a soil's capacity to absorb
and hold nutrients and water, which are critical for production of
crops and livestock forage. However, protection of our soil resources
is also mandatory for protection of the nation's water resources.
Erosion of soil particles, washing of compounds from the soil, and
changes in soil structure which affect water infiltration are some of
the most significant sources of water quality problems in the U.S.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, approximately
777,759 or 67 percent of impaired miles of U.S. streams and rivers and
9,794,360 or 40 percent of impairments to acres of lakes, reservoirs
and ponds are caused by pollutants related to soil erosion or leaching
of pollutants from soils such as excess nutrients, sedimentation,
turbidity (suspended particles), pathogens, and pesticides.
In August of this year, the City of Toledo, Ohio was in the news
related to toxins from bluegreen algae blooms which made the city water
supply from Lake Erie unusable. Bluegreen algae blooms, which sometimes
produce deadly toxins, happen all over the U.S., from New York to
Oregon and from Wisconsin to Texas. A July fourth holiday bloom in 2011
in Grand Lake, Oklahoma dramatically impacted the local community and
made the news for sickening one of our Senators. At least 38
waterbodies in New York had suspected or confirmed bluegreen algae
blooms this summer, and toxin production above safe levels was
confirmed in at least seven of those systems.
Algae blooms occur and persist when a waterbody receives more
nutrients than it can naturally assimilate. These excessive nutrients
are often related to soil erosion and the washing of pollutants from
land surfaces. Agriculture, although certainly not the only source, is
one of the most significant sources of nutrients in the U.S.
The good news is that we know and have demonstrated how to reduce
these nutrient and sediment-related impacts from agriculture. These
successes have been demonstrated all over the nation and many of them
are chronicled on the EPA Nonpoint Source Success Story Website at:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/. This website highlights
at least 508 waterbodies across the nation where water pollution
problems have been solved. Most of these programs relied on voluntary
conservation programs to help states and local partners clean up
waterbodies affected by pollution which resulted from soil erosion or
the washing of pollutants from the soil.
I'm especially proud of the Oklahoma record of demonstrating
success at addressing these water quality problems. Oklahoma is a
national leader at building partnerships among private landowners,
conservation districts, NRCS, the state conservation agency (Oklahoma
Conservation Commission), and the EPA to solve nonpoint-driven water
quality problems.
Nonpoint source pollution results when rainfall or snowmelt washes
pollutants off or out of the land and into streams. It is much more
difficult to measure or control than point source pollution, which is
generally thought of as pollution from a defined source, such as a pipe
at a waste-water treatment plant. In states like Oklahoma where the
majority of land is privately held and used for agricultural
production, conservation programs to protect and reduce the impacts
from agriculture have been very successful. In fact, only one other
state in the nation has more success at addressing water quality
programs through voluntary, nonpoint source programs. The EPA Nonpoint
Source Success Story webpage currently lists 39 different Oklahoma
watersheds where voluntary, agriculturally-based conservation programs
have solved water quality problems and another six are pending in the
coming months.
These successes have been possible through the partnership formed
as a response to solve the economic and natural resource devastation
associated with the Dust Bowl. This partnership among the local
landowners, local conservation districts, NRCS, and the state
conservation agency has a long history of effectively working to
address soil erosion. However, by including EPA in this partnership,
we're able to definitively document that this partnership is also
successful at addressing water quality impacts that are, at least in
part, associated with agricultural production.
States are provided funding through the EPA Clean Water Act Section
319 Program which can be used to monitor waters for nonpoint source
pollution-related impacts and to document water quality improvements
from conservation programs. These funds can also be used to support
boots on the ground personnel who can help the ever-shrinking NRCS
staff work with landowners to implement conservation practices.
Finally, the 319 funds can be used to supplement cost-share dollars
available to landowners to help them install and maintain these
effective conservation practices.
Without the EPA partnership, there would not be a Nonpoint Source
Program in Oklahoma, nor would there be any documented Nonpoint Source
Success Stories. We would not be able to prove that voluntary programs
can successfully address water quality problems on our agricultural
lands because our limited state and Federal funds from other programs
are focused on other purposes. Finally, the EPA oversight and technical
support for the 319 program is both beneficial for the overall program
and critical toward legitimizing program results.
Thank you for your attention today and for your support for
voluntary-based conservation programs such as those provided for in the
farm bill. Meaningful, measurable progress towards protecting our
nation's economic and natural resources health is possible due to this
support. Please also recognize EPA as a critical, beneficial partner in
this effort as well. I am pleased to answer any questions that you
might have.
PowerPoint Presentation
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Phillips, for your testimony.
Mr. Harbach, once again, welcome to Washington, and go
ahead and proceed with your testimony for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES HARBACH, FARM MANAGER, SCHRACK FARMS,
LOGANTON, PA
Mr. Harbach. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Lucas,
Chairman Thompson, and Members of the Committee. I would like
to thank everyone here today for the honor of sharing some of
my life experiences, and especially Congressman G.T. for his
confidence in me. I am very fortunate to have been part of
agriculture for more than 40 years. On our operation, I have
witnessed the transition from conventionally plowed ground to
no-till. Some of our fields have been--not been plowed for 40
years. We have seen firsthand the transformation of our soils,
and the positive results when you farm in nature's image.
In the last decade, with the addition of cover crops, and
the belief that plants feed the soil, instead of soil feeding
the plants, we have seen incredible results. Some examples
include organic matter increases of one percent in 3 years, and
steady state infiltration rates that average 4\1/2\" per hour.
I have no fancy degrees, no financial incentives to be here
today, and I don't enjoy public speaking, but I have a passion
for our soils, and the land around the world. I am not an
organic farmer, although we no longer use insecticide or
fungicides, and only a fraction of the herbicides and
fertilizers that we once applied. I used to be part of the
group of traditional thinking farmers, but by attending
national conferences, field days, and visiting open-minded
farmers around the country, I now have an understanding of the
important symbiotic relationships that are achieved when you
farm in nature's image. Our farm is part of a like-minded
nationwide soil health community that believes that soil health
holds the answers to all of our problems.
Agriculture today is farming a degraded resource, and has
accepted this as normal. Despite our best efforts, our soil has
lost the ability to effectively absorb rainwater, are void of
biological life, and are depleted of nutrients. Our soils are
so degraded that we must rely on industrial inputs to keep our
farmlands productive.
We now have a broken water cycle as a result of a broken
carbon cycle. The loss of soil organic matter has contributed
to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere because we have
robbed the soils of its carbon. Soil organic matter has many,
many functions, water infiltration, water holding capacity,
groundwater recharge, and its ability to cycle and store
nitrogen, along with other nutrients.
On this slide, our soils have infiltration rates of over
4\1/2\" per hour. And I would like you to notice this slide
here, notice the rapid infiltration into soil, instead of
creating--erosion, this field--above the road this field has
drains--in the shop area, so the water is a little bit muddy
coming off of a shield area. There is 18" pipe there bailing
water out into this field, and it dissipates within 100 yards.
And this is some of the things that we have been seeing. On our
farms we no longer have water leaving our fields. Even with 4"-
4\1/2\" of rain events, we don't see any erosion.
Conservation programs have historically reacted to resource
concerns, instead of being proactive to address the source of
the problem. We need to start promoting proactive conservation,
instead of reactive conservation. NRCS has embraced soil health
as one of their core programs. It is a good start, but what we
need is a mammoth soil health education program to teach
farmers, Federal and state agencies, regulators, universities,
children, and the general public. Farmers need to understand
how the soil functions before they will value it as a resource,
but government programs need to motivate farms to adopt soil
health principles. Many do the opposite. They enable poor
stewardship.
As we look to the future direction of government crop
insurance programs that guarantee price and yield, we need to
have a premium structure that promotes soil building
techniques, and, conversely, provides a disincentive for soil
degrading practices. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for
supporting production agriculture that exports more topsoil
nutrients and soil carbon than actual crop products.
The benefits of healthy soil need to be acknowledged in the
regulatory process. We need regulatory agencies to recognize
that well managed farms with healthy soils are the key to
reducing agricultural problems.
In this slide, you can see the--a distinct line there where
manure was applied. The following day we had a 3" rain event.
You can see where the--none of the nutrients moved along that
line, which tells us that, in order to keep the nutrients on
the land, we need to keep the water on the land. This field
also has excellent water infiltration capacity.
Thank you for this opportunity. I will be looking forward
to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harbach follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Harbach, Farm Manager, Schrack Farms,
Loganton, PA
I would like to thank everyone here today for the honor of sharing
some of my life experiences and especially Congressman G.T. for his
confidence in me. I am very fortunate to have been part of agriculture
for more than 40 years. On our operation, I have witnessed the
transition from conventionally plowed ground to no-till. Some of our
fields have not been plowed in 40 years. We have seen firsthand the
transformation of our soils and the positive results when you farm in
nature's image. In the last decade, with the addition of cover crops
and the belief that plants feed the soil instead of the soil feeding
the plants, we have seen incredible results. Some examples include,
organic matter increases of one percent in 3 years and infiltration
rates that average 4\1/2\" an hour.
I have no fancy degrees, no financial incentives to be here today,
and I don't enjoy public speaking, but I have a passion for our soils
and the land around the world. I am not an organic farmer, although we
no longer use insecticides and fungicides and only a fraction of the
herbicides and fertilizer that we once applied. I used to be part of
the group of traditional thinking farmers, but by attending national
conferences, field days, and visiting open minded farmers around the
country, I now have an understanding of the important symbiotic
relationships that are achieved when you farm in nature's image. Our
farm is part of a like-minded nationwide soil health community which
believes that soil health holds the answer to so many problems.
Agriculture today is farming a degraded resource and has accepted
this as normal. Despite our best efforts, our soils have lost the
ability to effectively absorb rainwater, are void of biological life,
and are depleted of nutrients. Our soils are so degraded that we must
rely on industrial inputs to keep our farmlands productive.
We now have a broken water cycle as a result of a broken carbon
cycle. The loss of soil organic matter has contributed to carbon
dioxide levels in the atmosphere because we have robbed the soils of
its carbon. Soil organic matter has many ,many functions: water
infiltration, water holding capacity, ground water recharge, and its
ability to cycle and store nitrogen along with other nutrients.
Conservation programs have historically reacted to the resource
concerns, instead of being proactive to address the source of the
problem. We need to start promoting proactive conservation instead of
reactive conservation. NRCS has embraced soil health as one of their
core programs. It is a good start but what we need is a mammoth soil
health education campaign to teach farmers, Federal and state agencies,
regulators, universities, children and the general public. Farmers need
to understand how the soil functions before they will value it as a
resource. Our government programs need to motivate farmers to adopt
soil health principals. Many do the opposite, they enable poor
stewardship. As we look to the future direction of government crop
insurance programs that guarantee price and yield, we need to have a
premium structure that promotes soil building techniques and conversely
provides a disincentive for soil degrading practices. Tax payers should
not be on the hook for supporting production agriculture that exports
more topsoil, nutrients, and soil carbon than actual crop products.
The benefits of healthy soils need to be acknowledged in the
regulatory process. We need regulatory agencies to recognize that well
managed farms with healthy soils are the key to reducing agricultural
pollution.
Food for Thought
More independent, government funded studies need to be conducted on
the effects of fertilizer, herbicides, GMO's and pesticides on the soil
community and human health. We cannot rely on industry to fund these
studies and produce unbiased results.
Each state needs to have long term, no-till farms that exhibit
improvements in soil health. These farms need to be central in soil
health research and education programs. Soil health farms need to
monitor improvements in profitability, water infiltration and
retention, soil organic matter increases and soil generation.
Can agriculture sequester enough soil carbon to make a measureable
difference in atmospheric CO2 concentrations? In the book
Cows Save the Planet and Other Improbably Ways of Restoring Soil to
Heal the Earth, Dr. Christine Jones states that every 1 tonne increase
in soil organic carbon represents 3.67 tonnes of CO2
sequestered from the atmosphere.
Can healthy soils significantly reduce rain water runoff?
Do healthy soils leak nutrients or does this only occur in poorly
structured and poorly managed soils?
Changing weather patterns are linked to soil management. Bare,
exposed, dry soils put more heat into air and change flow patterns
above the fields. Bare soils do not cycle the water, lowering the
ability for the plants to contribute to local moisture.
New soil testing technologies like the Haney Soil Health Tool and
Solvita CO2 Burst that measure biological life and nutrient
availability need to be promoted and incorporated into crop nutrient
recommendations.
What will motivate farms to achieve good soil health and increase
the soil organic matter--regulations or education and gaining a better
understanding?
If you promote soil health principles, be prepared for a huge push
back from the agriculture industries that sell products to farmers.
Once a farm restores healthy soils, few of these products are needed
and it will reduce industry sales.
Farmers that contract with NRCS and are given incentive payments
for installing practices (EQIP, CREP, CRP, WRP) should be required to
attend soil health trainings and education programs.
We need to develop Soil Health Management Plans that take into
account the soil infiltration rates, soil organic matter, and soil
enhancing practices on the farm.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Harbach, very much. Your
testimony is appreciated.
Ms. Sackett, welcome, and whenever you are ready, go ahead
and proceed with your 5 minutes of testimony.
STATEMENT OF JILL L. SACKETT, EXTENSION EDUCATOR,
AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, UNIVERSITY OF
MINNESOTA EXTENSION REGIONAL OFFICE, MANKATO, MN
Ms. Sackett. I would like to start by thanking the
Chairman, and all Committee Members, for inviting me here today
to testify, and to be able to share a Minnesota cover crop
story with each of you.
I started my professional career with cover crops basically
the minute I started my professional career with Extension. I
did my best to hit the ground running, and, thankfully enough,
I had some really good resources out there on a national level,
like SARE, on a regional level, like the Midwest Cover Crop
Council, and then probably about 20 years off and on of cover
crop research from the state, some great soil and water
conservation districts, and some wonderful farmers. At that
time, adoption rates of cover crops were very low. But we all
forged ahead, and we were hosting education events. We were
doing demonstration plots, and we were working with some
amazing farmers that had innovative ideas.
We quickly figured out that there are two main focuses for
why Minnesota farmers are interested in cover crops, the first
of which is soil health, which is why we are here today. Now,
when you ask a farmer, why are you interested in trying cover
crops, the phrase soil health may not actually be what comes
out of his or her mouth, but what they do describe definitely
makes up quality, healthy, productive soils. They share with us
that they would like to see a decrease in soil erosion, an
increase in soil organic matter, an increase in natural
nutrient cycling. They want to see more water infiltration.
During drought, they want to be able to have higher water
holding capacity in that soil, all of which are part of what
makes a soil healthy.
The second point, and not surprising for the Land of 10,000
Lakes, is water quality. What we noticed in Minnesota the last
few years, unfortunately, is that we tend to have far too much
water in the spring, and far too little water in the summer and
fall. Cover crops are one of the few practices that actually
allow us to deal with both of those issues.
The use of cover crops allows us to take up excess water,
to take up excess nutrients, and the roots help hold our soil
in place, all of those things we want in our fields, where we
need them most. On the flipside, when it comes to drought, a
living plant can actually shade the soil, a dead cover crop can
mulch the soil, both of which help decrease soil evaporation.
This brings us to an excellent story that shows the
interrelationship of cover crops, soil health, and water
quality. In 2013 it wouldn't stop snowing and raining, and a
lot of our farmers in southeast Minnesota weren't even able to
plant their cash crops. Some of them decided to plant cover
crops, many for the first time ever, in order to keep their
soil in place, and to keep any nutrient that they had put on
that soil in that field. The farmer in question here decided to
use oilseed radish, and in September he called and said, I
don't know what to do. It is really dry, and yet these plants
are growing robustly. The roots are 3" in diameter, the leaves
are bushy and about 2\1/2\ tall. What do I do? My neighbors
are telling me that I need to just plow it under and get rid of
it. My NRCS person is telling me, no, leave it be, you need to
protect that soil.
He had gotten my phone number from his soil and water
conservation district, and he gave me a call because he knew I
had had some experience with oil seed radish. And, in my
experience, the chemical makeup of this particular plant allows
it to decompose quickly in the spring, so I encouraged him to
not listen to his neighbors, and listen to his NRCS agent
instead, and leave it be. And that is where we left our
conversation. This June I was pleasantly surprised to find an
e-mail from him, where he told me that the oil seed radish had
basically dissolved by planting time, and that the soil
conditions were some of the best he had ever seen in his 41
years of planting. But my favorite line from the e-mail was,
``We showed them.''
I would like to end today with just a few thoughts. The
efforts of a few have become the efforts of many in the last
few years. NRCS, with the EQIP program, the ag media, soil and
water conservation districts, extension, nonprofits, we are all
working together, and we are doing our best to give a unified
message out there about cover crops and soil health. We know
this is only a small part of the conservation puzzle, but we
also know that, for high quality soils, for good quality water,
cover crops can be one of the ways we can reach those two
goals. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sackett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jill L. Sackett, Extension Educator, Agriculture
Production Systems, University of Minnesota Extension Regional Office,
Mankato, MN
A Minnesota Cover Crop Story
Ms. Jill L. Sackett
Extension Educator, Agriculture Production Systems--University of
Minnesota Extension
State Co-coordinator, Minnesota--USDA Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education
I began my career with University of Minnesota Extension thanks, in
part, to a USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education grant
that focused on cover crop demonstration and education. Cover crop use
at that time was very low, but research and farmer experiences from
around the Midwest were making a valid argument for why farmers should
be using them. I had some personal experience with cover crops due to
my location in south central Minnesota; numerous vegetable canning
facilities are located there and some farmers choose to plant cover
crops after these early harvested cash crops. Even more importantly,
however, I had the expertise of the Midwest Cover Crop Council; local
research from University of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of
Agriculture, and USDA Agricultural Research Service; and a few
experienced Soil and Water Conservation District personnel and farmers
to guide me in my efforts. Some of these resources already had 15 or
more years of cover crop experience. In the beginning there was some
polite skepticism, some eye-rolling and, in some cases, actual sleeping
in the back row. But, I can honestly say there was also genuine
interest in the message I was sharing.
Minnesota's interest in cover crops is driven by two things: soil
health and water quality. Those of us who work with cover crops have
learned that each situation is unique and the first question we need to
ask an individual farmer is, ``why are you interested in using cover
crops?'' The phrase ``soil health'' is rarely what comes out of a
farmer's mouth, but what he or she does say definitely points towards a
desire for healthy, quality soil. Many of these farmers will mention
being concerned about soil erosion from wind and rain, wanting to
increase soil organic matter percentage, or a desire to increase their
soil nutrient levels. Cover crops can help with these, and many more,
issues. I distinctly remember a Carver County farmer telling me that
his soil just wasn't what it used to be. It was no longer a dark, rich
color; it was difficult to work up; and his yields were no longer what
he felt they should be. He had very real concerns over the health of
his soil and it's the reason he started looking into adding cover crops
to his farm operation.
Minnesota is known as the ``Land of 10,000 Lakes.'' We actually
have 11,842. And, we're home to 6,594 rivers and streams. All told, we
have just over 13 million acres of surface water. ``Water, water,
everywhere,'' and yet we also have had to deal with our fair share of
drought conditions. Too often lately, there are places in Minnesota
that deal with flooding in the spring and then drought in the summer
and fall. Needless to say, Minnesota knows water, and we're well aware
of how important it is to our 26 million acres of agricultural land as
well as to our drinking needs and recreational activities. Research and
common sense show that having growing plants on the land as long as
possible helps to use excess water and nutrients and also helps keep
the soil in place. During dry periods, the shading action of a green
plant or the mulching action of a dead plant can help decrease soil
water evaporation. With their potential to assist in water quality and
quantity, cover crops are definitely starting to draw attention.
One particular example comes to mind. During the spring of 2013,
the snow and rain were so heavy and constant that much of southeastern
Minnesota was unable to plant their cash crops. Some farmers made the
decision to plant a cover crop for the first time ever so that their
fields wouldn't be bare. One particular farmer had come to me that
September, after having dealt with an incredibly wet spring and a
summer drought that had hit quite hard, concerned over how to manage
his cover crop of oil seed radish. The radishes were growing robustly
and he was concerned about how they would affect soil moisture levels
and spring planting. His neighbors were encouraging him to till them
under. His local NRCS person was encouraging him to leave them. I
shared my experiences with oil seed radish and encouraged him to leave
the radishes and forego any fall tillage. In most years, the radish
would easily winterkill with the advent of Minnesota's cold winter
temperatures and the spring thaw would trigger a quick decomposition of
the dead plants. I suggested that if he didn't feel comfortable with
that decision, he could till some of the radishes under while leaving
some alone. He could then compare the two management options in the
spring. That was how we left our conversation and then this June I
received an unexpected e-mail from him. Against the opinions of a few
of his neighbors, he decided to leave those radishes alone last fall.
He said that the dead radishes ``dissolved by planting time.'' He went
on to share that he was surprised to find that he only needed one light
pass with a field cultivator before planting his 2014 cash crop and
that the field's soil tilth was ``about as good as I've seen in 41
years of planting.'' My favorite quote of the message, however, was
``we showed `em.''
Cover crop adoption in Minnesota is still low, but the last 2 years
have seen a marked increase in interest. The original groundbreakers
have continued their work with cover crops, but others have also joined
the efforts. The number of groups working with cover crop research and
education has drastically increased and efforts are being made to work
together as much as possible to ensure a uniform message. More
workshops and field days than ever before are being held and the number
of interested farmers attending these events is also increasing. The
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service has increased cover crop
funding via their Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The
agriculture news media is inundating print and Internet news sources
with cover crop stories. The efforts of a few have now become the
efforts of many. Continued effort, however, depends on funding. To
increase interest in cover crops, more education is needed. To better
answer farmers' questions, more demonstration and research projects are
needed.
Cover crops are only a piece of the puzzle, however. We also need
to see an increase in conservation tillage practices like strip till or
no-till; additional crops in our rotation instead of only one or two;
and an increased use of best management practices. Minnesota wants
soils that are healthy and productive and water resources that are
managed for high quality and appropriate quantity. Cover crops can help
reach these goals.
PowerPoint Presentation
The Chairman. Ms. Sackett, thank you very much for your
testimony. We will now proceed with questioning, and once again
I will recognize the Chairman of the full Agriculture
Committee, Mr. Lucas, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. I would
ask this question of the panel. In the challenges you face out
there, what are the greatest challenges? Is it lack of
cooperation between entities back home? Is it persuading the
very traditional farmers to try something new? Just what are
your chief challenges in moving your message forward? And
whoever wants to go, whoever wants--I have 4\1/2\ minutes. I am
listening.
Mr. Harbach. I will take that one. We are very active in
Pennsylvania with the PA No-Till Alliance, and we spend a lot
of our time--given a lot of our time to education, and
seminars, and field days. And the biggest problem we have is
just getting people to understand. There is a lack of
understanding. I live in a valley with a lot of Amish
community, and they are not ones to come out to this kind of
stuff, so to penetrate them is difficult. But, basically, it is
just the lack of understanding from the farmers' perspective.
It took me several years, and I am probably a slow learner,
but it took me several years to get where I am today, and it is
really hard to expect a farmer to get there overnight. It is
going to take a long time to get that level of understanding.
Mr. Lucas. I will admit to you I still remember my freshman
Agronomy class at Oklahoma State, this is a third of a century
ago, and going home, and having a long discussion with my
maternal grandfather, who I farmed with, about just what was
going on in that soil. I still remember that discussion, so I
appreciate what you are saying.
Mr. Larson. Chairman Lucas, one of the things that we have
to be cognizant of is that, when we are talking about
agricultural production, we are talking about a business, and
so this is a business decision. And with that, we can't just go
off of anecdotal information. We need to have good, sound
research. We need to have case studies. We need to have the
ability to demonstrate not just from the perspective of many
that have done it, but from the perspective of how it fits into
that business decision that is going to impact, potentially,
their economic viability.
Because the value of the practices we are talking about can
be demonstrated to be a sound economic decision. We just need
to come up with a more consistent way to partner together. And
I am very proud of the work that conservation districts do to
be that collaboration point around the country to give that
information to folks that has the science behind it, that has
the research behind it. And that is a part of every aspect of
what we can do in a partnership. I am very proud to work with
SARE, and with Rob Myers, on the national work group for cover
crop and soil health.
And it is conservation districts, it is extension, it is
soil societies, it is agronomists. It is the entire spectrum of
ag retailers and others working together to come up with this
information that we can share on a consistent level, and in a
consistent way, that gives confidence, and that producers can
put trust in. And if we can get there, and we are getting
there, then we are really going to see improvement.
Mr. Lucas. Ms. Phillips, do you think that part of the
reason we have such a coordinated effort in Oklahoma, a
willingness in both public and private to work on these issues,
is still a legacy of the miserable Dust Bowl, and what our
predecessors went through, and the suffering that they
encountered?
Ms. Phillips. Yes, I do agree that the Dust Bowl showed us
how we could come together and work cooperatively on a problem.
I mean, we have been working that same way, and applying those
same principles, ever since. It is something that we can't
forget.
Mr. Lucas. In my hometown, we had 14,000 people on the
Census roll in 1930, after the Dust Bowl of the Depression, of
the 1930s, the droughts of the 1950s all left, we are not quite
back to 4,000 people yet, so the quality of soil will impact
the ability of your citizens, your fellow neighbors, to be able
to create a livelihood. The ulcerations you can still see if
you fly over much of my part of western Oklahoma, in spite of
all of the decades of efforts, so--anyway, I thank you all for
being here. I appreciate your observations, and it is good that
we do learn from our past, and move forward in a more positive
fashion. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the Chairman for yielding back. Now
recognize the gentleman from Ohio for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I have to start
and ask Mr. Larson a question. I think you might know one of my
constituents. He was President of your organization a few years
ago, Gary Mass?
Mr. Larson. Absolutely.
Mr. Gibbs. Now you know why we have such good conservation
practices in my area, right? Hey, I wanted to ask--well, first
I wanted to say to Mr. Harbach, in your slide, you said you had
4.7" of rainfall in an hour, and you were able to prevent
runoff in the field. Could you just expound on that a little
bit?
Mr. Harbach. We have done some extensive water infiltration
tests, and we have the ability--that is our average water
infiltration capability. That is a steady state, until we can
absorb that water. But we have had rainfall events that have
been over 3" and 4" in an hour, and not had issues--not having
water leaving the fields. And that photo is one of the--is a
good way to explain what is happening.
We have not seen that up and until the last couple years.
Even though we have been no-tilling for 40 years, it wasn't
until we started cover cropping that we saw those real
advantages. And Chief Weller had mentioned that it is a systems
approach, and----
Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
Mr. Larson.--we need to understand that it takes all of
those to make it work.
Mr. Gibbs. What we are going to find out--in my questions
to the Chief--we have the algae bloom problem, especially in
Lake Erie, it is from these big event--rainfall events. You
know, it is the sewage treatment plants overflowing. I think it
is probably the agricultural--there are preliminary testing
results. I think we are starting to see that. I think that is
going to be a finding, so this is really key, Mr. Chairman, to
address that. When I heard you say that, I thought that is
pretty remarkable, and you have something going good there, and
we can--we need to learn more about that.
I wanted to ask Ms. Phillips particularly, the proposed
waters of the United States rule that has come up with the U.S.
EPA and the Army Corps, how does that--how do you see that--is
that affecting conservation programs?
Ms. Phillips. Well, I am probably not the best person to
speak on that because I work entirely in a voluntary program,
and so we don't implement any regulation.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, the reason that I am asking you that is
because I understand you run a voluntary program, but the
proposed rule is--they had to do this interpretive rule, then,
to exempt your--the programs, and I just question whether you
have that, because everything--supposed to be general farming
practice is supposed to be exempt.
I guess my words of wisdom to you would be I think it will
have an impact on conservation programs in a negative way, and
could open the door for farmers not wanting to be more amenable
to working with NRCS and others, and that concerns me just--
maybe----
Ms. Phillips. I think certainly, as you have stated, that
there are a lot of people who are very concerned about the
proposed rule, and they are concerned about the way that it was
formulated, and that states weren't brought into the process.
And so it would seem that many people--and I would agree with
this recommendation, that EPA needs to step back and pull
partners back into the process, and take a new--take--start
over.
I think that they should have--we have learned--they should
have learned from many of their other approaches toward rules
of this type is that you are most successful when you bring
your partners to the table from the beginning, and work
together.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. And, of course, the House, I guess it was
last week, passed a bill that said time out to--and go back to
the states. And in my subcommittee hearing here a few weeks
ago, as far as we could tell, not one state EPA or counterpart
supports the proposals--excuse me, the proposed rule, so that
is a red flag to me.
Mr. Larson, on the--working with farmers, and doing
conservation practices, how do you--do you see different things
going on in different areas of the country? You know, different
challenges, but different--maybe different practices might work
in Oklahoma, might not work in Ohio? How do you address that?
Are there any problems, challenges, in Washington that make it
more difficult?
Mr. Larson. Well, the part that I look at is that the true
value of conservation districts is that they are part of that
local community. And of those boards, those are volunteer
members. They are elected or appointed members that serve on
those conservation district boards, and they have perspective
of their local community. So they help to come up with a suite
of practices that is based on working with our Federal and
state partners of what works there.
And the Burleigh County example is a very good one, because
they have been, for 20 years, highlighting, and demonstrating,
and refining the guidance that they give to the rest of the
community. And that is critically important, because it is a
site specific issue. The 4.7 infiltration rate is great, but we
know that there are other soils not very far away that would
never reach that potential unless under very careful
management, utilizing soil health practices that potentially
aren't the same, or implemented. So that is one of the pieces
that--at that local level.
Mr. Gibbs. Right. Yes. Just a comment--quick comment, Mr.
Chairman. I agree with you 150 percent, because when I was in
my local conservation soil and water board, they instituted a
nutrient training program, in conjunction with Ohio State
University, and the Ohio EPA, and the NRCS, and it is working.
We are actually decreasing the TMDL loads in the watershed, and
we are able to keep--in--the jobs in place, and actually grow
that business, and actually decrease the load. So you are
absolutely right. Like I said earlier, this structure we have
is the right structure to work for, and we need to make sure we
protect that. So I yield back, thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I will take the
liberty of my 5 minutes now.
Ms. Sackett, as the product of another great land-grant
university, who is currently 3-0 in the Big Ten, I just want to
say, the--I wanted to check with you--obviously you have a
very--a passion for this. You have done your preparation, you
are an asset and a resource. You are part of the boots on the
ground with our NRCS partners. You know, the importance of
ensuring that our ag extension staff are trained in the basics
of healthy soils, any idea--can you give us some idea, how are
we doing with that task, with our ag extension? What is the
bigger picture with our ag extension staff across the nation?
Ms. Sackett. Well, I can only speak for Minnesota, because
that is obviously what I know best, but, in Minnesota, we have
local extension educators, regional extension educators, and
then our state specialists, and we are encouraged to focus on
certain areas. So, for instance, my focus is conservation
sustainable ag. A colleague of mine, it is soils. So you can
kind of see how, even though we are all focusing on these
different bits and pieces, we most definitely see where we are
coming together.
And just because one of us is focused on cover crops, for
instance, doesn't mean that we are not sharing with each other.
We regularly have staff development meetings. Each of us have
funds to attend professional development. I go to regional
cover crop and soil health events. Some of my other colleagues
are also attending those things.
We are doing our best to educate ourselves about these
efforts on a national, regional, and state level, and then we
are doing our best to talk to each other. And you can't leave
out the farmers, and the other partners in the whole puzzle. It
definitely comes down to working together and having that
communication, so that we are all on the same page.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Larson, how can conservation districts better leverage
Federal programs to get the maximum success of dollars to make
the biggest impact? For example, using both the 319 funds from
the EPA and the NRCS funding.
Mr. Larson. Well, I think that Shanon has an excellent
example from Oklahoma, in the way that they have taken the
different Federal programs, and then matched it up with state
programs to get right to the heart of the matter. And having,
again, the conservation districts engaged that have that local
knowledge, and ability to identify issues.
And with these conservation practices, part of it is, and I
think that Jim would agree, that it is potentially an increase
in management responsibility by the producer, and so one of the
things is to have willing participants. And so working with
those that are willing, that want to do this, it is going to
help to then show the value of soil health. The voluntary
incentive-based approach is going to work when you have willing
participants, that--then we are going to see that escalation of
stewardship.
The challenging part in the scenario, and one that I am
very--and I thank the Chairman and the Members of the Committee
for the work on the 2014 Farm Bill, is that the conservation
title was escalated, and it was given more importance. When you
look at it in relationship to title I, it is the first time in
history where we have more funding in title II than we had in
title I. And we certainly see that as a movement in the right
way for not only those wishing to do conservation, and the
incentive-based approach, but also for the justification and
defense of what we are trying to do with this program, to the
value of the American public.
Here is a program that is providing clean water, that is
providing clean air, that is providing wildlife habitat, that
is providing those natural resources that we need. And so
whatever we can do to help to get others within the halls to
understand the value of that, that certainly is something that
is a goal that we should try and achieve.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Harbach, Jim, you have been
using this practice for some time. Did you--I mean, using these
practices, do you deplete or do you enrich the nutrition and
quality of your soil through the practices that you are using,
and specifically related to some of the really basic parts of
soil nutrition, like nitrogen?
Mr. Harbach. Well, we have learned, just in the last year,
is that, through healthy soils, and the organic matter levels
that is in there, there is a system through the--root system,
and through the photosynthesis that allows for nitrogen to be
taken out of the atmosphere, and we have lost that ability to
do that through tillage, and through the fact that we don't
keep crops growing 365 days a year. That can't--without that
crop growing, we can't support that system that gets the free
nitrogen from the air. So that is why we are more--that is why
we are so reliant on inorganic fertilizers.
And when you hear people talk about--you hear the soil
health enthusiasts that say that--well, I am using less
fertilizer now. That is why. And I am not sure if that answered
your question, but, no, those--the soil health only adds in
every aspect.
The Chairman. Yes. And you were kind enough to invite me to
your farm not too long ago, about a month ago or so, and if I
recall right, I believe it was--was it nitrogen that you have
increased by one percent over time?
Mr. Harbach. Well, that would be the soil organic matter
levels that we have been able to increase in our soils. And the
old school thought is that that is not possible. But what we
have found is that--and people talk about the advantages of
cover crops, but the cover crop, from--the advantage that we
see is that we are able to harvest sunlight 365 days a year to
grow that--to allow that process to happen. And it is the
plants feeding the soils that is accomplishing those soil
organic matter gains.
And that is critical, and that is the systems approach
things that we are talking about, when we are talking about
people not being willing to do that for economical reasons. But
once they understand how the soil functions, then they start
asking the questions, how do I do that? Because they can't
afford not to do that. It is the understanding that we need to
get people to get to.
The Chairman. You mentioned that you no longer use
insecticides and fungicides, and only a fraction of the
herbicides and fertilizer that you once used. What are the
direct benefits or challenges you see with using so much less
fertilizer and herbicides?
Mr. Harbach. It is not really a challenge. Initially it is,
to make that first big step, but there is so much research
done. And I have to say, from ARS, and I know you guys support
ARS, there are a lot of good things coming out of there,
because that is research that is done that is not industry
funded, and we we need to increase that.
By not using the insecticides or as many chemicals, it is
all that systems approach thing, that once you achieve soil
health, you have the beneficial bugs, you have the ones that
take out the critters that you are applying an insecticide for,
or maybe a fungicide, the fungicide is very hard on soils, and
we need to get people to understand that once you have achieved
that certain level of soil health, that some of these other
input costs can go away.
The Chairman. All right. I want to thank all the witnesses
for great testimony on an important topic. And, before we
adjourn, I want to invite--the Chairman yields--I do want to
say that this is a bipartisan issue. I know that both the
Ranking Member of the full Committee was hoping to be able to--
he was here for a time, and didn't have, really, the window to
offer his support in kind of an opening statement. And my
Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, this is very important to
him as well. They just had conflicts that occur here,
unfortunately, and they very much appreciate all the witnesses'
testimony today.
I have heard healthy soils described as harvesting
sunlight, and using the natural processes of photosynthesis,
where, in the past, when we thought of agriculture, we thought
it depleted the soil. Now it is very apparent that with certain
agricultural practices, we can actually grow soil, for the
benefit of everyone. So thank you so much for all the
witnesses.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional materials and supplementary written responses from
witnesses to any questions posed by a Member. This hearing of
the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned].
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Chris Jahn, President, The Fertilizer Institute
September 18, 2014
Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Timothy J. Walz,
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Re: Hearing entitled: ``The benefits of promoting soil health in
agriculture and rural America''
Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Walz:
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) is the leading voice of the
fertilizer industry, representing the public policy, communication and
statistical needs of producers, manufacturers, retailers and
transporters of fertilizer. The Institute's members play a key role in
producing and distributing vital crop nutrients, such as nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium, which are used to replenish soils throughout
the United States that in turn produce healthy and abundant supplies of
food, fiber and fuel. TFI, on behalf of its members, appreciates the
opportunity that today's hearing presents for our industry to talk
about the important role that fertilizer plays in improving and
maintaining soil health.
The World's population is predicted to reach 9.4 billion people by
2050. Industry experts agree that increased food production will be
achieved by intensified crop production and not by an expanded arable
land base. As a result, commercial fertilizers have a critical role to
play in boosting crop production to the levels necessary to meet the
demands of this rapidly growing world population. Crop nutrients such
as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and secondary and micronutrients
such as calcium, zinc and iron are responsible for between 40 and 60
percent of today's total food production and will be a necessary
component in producing nutritious food in the most environmentally
sensitive manner possible.
Fertilizer is a Key Contributor to Soil Health
Fertilizers play an important role in soil health. Research
indicates that larger crops resulting from balanced crop nutrition
significantly benefit soil organic carbon. In short, larger crops
return a greater amount of carbon to the soil system than those limited
by poor fertility. Halverson, et al. (1999) noted that increasing soil
organic carbon with increasing nitrogen fertilization contributed to
improved soil quality and productivity, as well as improved carbon
sequestration. Additionally, Chu, et al. (2007) evaluated balanced
versus nutrient-deficiency fertilization on soil microbial biomass,
activity, and bacterial community structure in a long-term (16 years)
field experiment. Long-term fertilization greatly increased soil
microbial biomass and dehydrogenase activity. Soil organic matter
contributes significantly to soil health. Relative to crop nutrition,
soil organic matter enhances nutrient cycling by acting as a reservoir
of nutrients that can be released to the soil under optimum conditions.
For a high yielding corn production system (250 bu/acre), a soil with
2.5 percent organic matter could provide 20 percent of the annual
recommended nitrogen. The average estimate of available nitrogen, used
by agronomist, is 20 pounds of available nitrogen for every 1% of
organic matter.
* Halvorson, A.D., C.A. Reule, and R.F. Follett. 1999. Nitrogen
fertilization effects on soil carbon and nitrogen in a dryland
cropping system. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63:912-917.
* Chu et al. 2007. Soil microbial biomass, dehydrogenase activity,
bacterial community structure in response to long-term
fertilizer management. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39(11): 2971-2976
4R Nutrient Stewardship
Meeting global food demand is not enough and the fertilizer
industry today is also committed to promoting science-based,
sustainable fertilizer best management practices that boost crop
production while minimizing impacts to the environment. At the heart of
that commitment is what is known as 4R nutrient stewardship, a
framework to achieve cropping system goals, such as increased
production, increased farmer profitability, enhanced environmental
protection and improved sustainability.
The 4R nutrient stewardship principles are the same globally, but
how they are used locally varies depending on field and site specific
characteristics such as soil, cropping system, management techniques
and climate. The scientific principles of the 4R framework include:
Right Source--Ensure a balanced supply of essential nutrients,
considering both naturally available sources and the characteristics of
specific products, in plant available forms.
Right Rate--Assess and make decisions based on soil nutrient supply
and plant demand.
Right Time--Assess and make decisions based on the dynamics of crop
uptake, soil supply, nutrient loss risks, and field operation
logistics.
Right Place--Address root-soil dynamics and nutrient movement, and
manage spatial variability within the field to meet site-specific crop
needs and limit potential losses from the field.
It is important to stress that all four ``Rs'' must be used
together because there is no single practice or ``silver bullet'' that
will prevent nutrients from being lost to the environment.
In 2011, the USDA revised their standard for managing farm
nutrients with a goal toward employing new technologies to reduce
runoff and improve water quality. The 4Rs are a component of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard
Code 590. For more information on 4R nutrient stewardship, I invite you
to visit http://www.nutrientstewardship.com.
4R Research Fund: Demonstrating the Impacts of 4R Nutrient Stewardship
In addition the 4R nutrient stewardship program, the fertilizer
industry has established the 4R Research Fund with the goal of
establishing sustainability indicators and environmental impact data
for implementation of 4R nutrient stewardship across North America. It
provides needed resource support with a focus on measuring and
documenting the economic, social and environmental impacts of 4R
nutrient stewardship.
Having just completed its first year in existence, to date the fund
has granted nearly $2.4 million in support of science-based research
aimed at addressing cropping system productivity and concerns regarding
nutrient losses into the environment. USDA's Agricultural Research
Service (ARS), for example, has been awarded funds for a project in
partnership with Heidelberg University, Ohio State University, The
Nature Conservancy and the International Plant Nutrition Institute
(IPNI) to evaluate the impacts of adopting practices associated with 4R
Nutrient Stewardship, as well as the impact of the Western Lake Erie
Basin (WLEB) 4R Certification program on crop productivity and
profitability, water quality, and perceptions of growers, nutrient
service providers and residents. For additional information on the 4R
Research fund and the list of current projects, I invite you to visit
http://www.nutrientstewardship.com/funding.
Fertilizer Use Efficiency
Data released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in May 2011,
shows that between 1980 and 2010, U.S. farmers increased corn
production 87.5 percent while using four percent fewer fertilizer
nutrients. Although the factors that contribute to increasing food
prices and food scarcity are complex, one thing is for sure--the use of
fertilizer is a necessary component in the solution to further increase
efficient and environmentally sensitive production of food for the
world.
TFI would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
submit these comments for the record. We look forward to continuing to
work with you on this and other important agriculture issues. If you or
your staff would like to discuss this letter or the enclosed materials,
please contact Clark Mica via e-mail at [Redacted] or telephone at
[Redacted].
Sincerely,
Chris Jahn,
President.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Submitted Letter by Jeff M. Sands, Director of Public Policy,
Agricultural Retailers Association
9/25/2014
Hon. Glenn Thompson, Hon. Timothy J. Walz,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Subcommittee on Conservation,
Energy, and Forestry, House Energy, and Forestry, House
Committee on Agriculture, Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Walz, and distinguished
Subcommittee Members:
The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), suppliers to
America's farmers, would like to commend the House Agriculture
Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry for holding the
recent hearing entitled ``The Benefits of Soil Health in Agriculture
and Rural America.'' The hearing was an appropriate demonstration of
oversight on the recently passed Agricultural Act of 2014 and
highlighted the importance of an agronomic concept that is rapidly
being adopted by growers across the country.
ARA membership is largely comprised of crop input suppliers that
provide not only the products needed to grow a crop but also the
trusted agronomic counseling that growers depend on to keep a
profitable and sustainable farming operation. It would not be an
overstatement to say that soil health is at the core of every
transaction and interaction that takes place through an ARA member
facility. The concepts that serve as the foundation for the soil health
movement have been embedded within our agronomy services for some time
and we are elated to see Congress discuss this important topic.
An exciting area of opportunity in soil health arose as the hearing
proceeded was partnerships. Between the recently passed farm bill and
the amplified interest in improving soil quality, we have seen an
incredible uptick in the amount of partnerships between the agriculture
industry, government, and conservation-oriented groups. A testament to
this trend is the recently formed National Working Group on Cover Crops
and Soil Health that current ARA Chairman, Gary Farrell of Ag
Enterprise Supply, serves on to promote those very important concepts.
Gary also helped to create and serves as Co-Chair of the Washington
Soil Health Working Group but while Gary is a leader, he is certainly
not the only agricultural retailer to be interested in advancing soil
health.
Partnerships that bring stakeholders together and utilize core
competencies of each group will be the key to helping the soil health
campaign reach ultimate fruition. The membership of the Agricultural
Retailers Association, with their depth and breadth of agronomic
knowledge, experience, and technology, have a great deal to offer this
cause and would hope to be a source of information to the House
Agriculture Committee as you consider this topic further. This
subcommittee's great work in crafting the Conservation title of the
2014 Farm Bill has provided ARA membership with the opportunity to work
closer with USDA and other partners to provide growers with the
information they need to unlock their soils potential. As a result of
the Regional Conservation Partnership Program and other provisions, we
are proud to say that our relationships with groups such as the
National Association of Conservation Districts, Conservation Technology
Information Center, and USDA-NRCS are the strongest that they have ever
been and we are eager to see the work product that results from these
alliances.
At a time when agricultural production is crucial to our economy
and environmental stewardship is essential to preserving our natural
resources, soil health is perhaps more timely a topic now than ever
before. The Agricultural Retailers Association thanks Chairman Thompson
and Ranking Member Walz for their dedication to this important cause
and would encourage committee members and staff to look to ARA as an
additional resource should you seek more information on soil health
efforts taking place at the farm gate.
Thank you for your consideration of our perspective. Should you
have any questions, please contact ARA at [Redacted] or [Redacted].
Jeff M. Sands,
Director of Public Policy,
Agricultural Retailers Association.