Last month at a round table discussion, Paul Meints, Minnesota Corn Growers Association, stated that farmers are fatigued from the “one more thing.” When farmers are asked to do a conservation practice and they do it, they think this thing is going to solve their environmental problems. Then 5 years later, 3 years later, or even 6 months later, they are asked again to do one more thing. They do another one more thing and the cycle continues.
Mr. Meints’ comments reminded me of when Peggy and I bought our house; a house we love. Naturally, we were excited to be new homeowners. We knew the house would need work; it was 80 years old. But as we began remodeling, we found that every time we fixed one thing there was another thing needing just as much work. It was disheartening, but we didn’t give up. We always thought the next repair would be the last. But it never was the last. I remember the day we took a full inventory of our house projects and settled on a 5 year plan. It was a bit overwhelming, but it was a relief to have a plan… even if we knew it could change as time went on.
Farmers need a conservation plan that provides them with a long-term planning horizon, just as Paul Meints suggests. Farm plans should identify and prioritize critical resource concerns and layout alternative solutions based on the best available science that fits into the farm business plan. Obviously, the landowner and/or farmer should select the best management practices (BMPs) to implement in their system. And with help, farmers can make those important informed decisions.
Iowa Entrepreneur
There are too many “one more thing” demands of our farmers. But as long as environmental extremists groups have excessive influence over the legislative process, as long as the courts continue to legislate from the bench and as long as the federal and state bureaucracy continue to abuse and ignore the administrative rulemaking laws farmers cannot make the long range conservation plans described.
Here is an example. On June 22 the US Army Corps of Engineers released for immediate application the Iowa Stream Mitigation Method, Iowa SMM. It was a modification of a draft guidance written by the Iowa DNR at the request of the Corps. The policy treats drainage ditches, private and public, the same. Suddenly dumped on property owners who may want to deepen or widen an existing drainage ditch on their farm or in their drainage district, is the requirement to provide mitigation which by the Iowa SMM includes a mandated minimum 50 feet wide permanently vegetated native grass buffer on each side of the ditch. For every mile of ditch deepened or widened that takes 12+ acres of cropland at a cost in excess of $100,000.
This sounds great, Tom. Can you tell me if it works for folks raising livestock on pasture, or is it mostly for crop farmers? If it works for pasture, our readers might be interested as well.
Kathy, I think the same ideas work regardless of whether it is row crop or pastureland. We don’t have a lot of tools built for pastureland, but the same concepts should apply.