With the 1960’s slogan Power to the People, young members of the United States expressed an aspiration for a society that was more participatory, more transparent, and more inclusive. These young people wanted to feel they had some control rather than all the power residing in The Establishment.
I think that is how farmers must feel today. They must feel like that the environmental process lacks transparency. They must feel they have very little information to make decisions. Please note, that I am not making excuses for farmers. No question about it, farmers need to be better stewards of the land. The U.S. has severe environmental problems and agriculture must do its part. However, I do feel, in general, farmers lack the environmental knowledge to make good sound decisions.
I remember back to the late 1990’s when I was a District Conservationist working for NRCS. My job was to write 175,000 acres of Highly Erodible Plans by December 31, 1989. I remember starting the process in 1988 thinking I was going to develop a transparent process that truly educated farmers about soil erosion and the conservation choices they could make. But, then I got tired. I got really tired. By the end of the process, I pretty much had it down to a canned one-way discussion. It was the same for every farmer. I would say, “It looks like you have D-Slope land (9 to 14% slopes). Your choices are to terrace it or no-till it. What do you want to do?”
Wow, what a choice, huh? Looking back, I realize farmers were frustrated and they had every right to be frustrated. They had no power. They had no knowledge base from which they could propose other options. As a District Conservationist, I was the master of the soil loss equation. I could operate it and they could not. Furthermore, there was no third party who could help them understand if I was giving them correct information. I ruled from a position of knowledge and they had no alternatives. So much for Power to the People!
I don’t know of one environmental model that a layperson can easily run. They are complicated. The interface is even complicated. The databases are complex. The results are confusing. If you don’t think so, take a look at the most extensively used erosion model, the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, also known as RUSLE2. The RUSLE2 interface is complicated. There are at least five databases to manage. The outputs are nearly meaningless. In fact, it is so complicated most Soil and Water Conservation District employees don’t feel comfortable estimating soil erosion with RUSLE2. If most employees don’t feel comfortable when they work with soil erosion day in and day out, how can a farmer or an agronomist ever hope to master soil erosion modeling.
Yes, in a perfect world all farmers would be able to correctly operate RUSLE2 and could estimate their own erosion. However, at a minimum, farmers should be able have a third party to consult with. They should be able to go to their most trusted service provider, their ag chem dealer for a second opinion on soil erosion estimates and soil conservation options. This is the end that I am working towards.
Soil Triage
Thank you, Tom, for the insight! I am just becoming a TSP and these folks have been great at helping me work through the process. I am just getting my taste of RUSLE2! My first impression is that it is a complicated process.
Relative to your comment, “They should be able to go to their most trusted service provider, their ag chem dealer for a second opinion on soil erosion estimates and soil conservation options. ” I simply have to say that this is a professional whose day is usually over-booked to begin with. How they would be compensated as they are employed by another employer is another issue.
Cliff, I agree we need to figure out how to compensate ag retailers for this work. But if we are going to make an substantial gains in getting more conservation on the ground we have to get ag retailers, TSPs, and all ag consultants involved in promoting conservation.
Tom,
You know I agree whole heartedly with you on this. Would like to take it a step further and have third parties doing plans with/for the farmer that systematically address soil and (increasingly important) water issues and opportunities to minimize soil and nutrient losses. Also think there is a needed role for third party assessment and verification of practice/system implementation, operation and maintenance over time. As I proposed last week during the Des Moines visit, really think all of this wrapped up into a long term, incremental continuous improvement program, delivered by 3rd parties is my method of choice (of course, showing a little Water Stewardship bias there.
Good to see you and Stan last week! Tom S
All that you say is doable but if consumers are unwilling to pay a premium for sustainable products then we need to develop a high quality conservation plans with the “EASY BUTTON”. Developing a plan has no value to anyone. It is only when farmers implement the conservation plan that we see any value. Therefore the time needs to be spent on the explanation, follow-up, and implementation of the plan, and not the development of the plan. We need to reduce the time that people sit in front of the computer writing a plan, but still keep it high quality, and more time providing real technical assistance to the farmer. That’s at least what I learned about conservation planning when I worked for NRCS 20 years ago.
Tom
Nice to visit with you. I tend to think the last few years the basic answer for a landowner with D-slope was just to no-till even if in crop rotation. The conservationist took the farmer yield number and used it across the whole field for a crop residue guide. If the sloped land was knob knocked during sodbusting or just has low organic matter, the yields are usually significantly lower on these slopes so the crop residue guide should more accurately follow a yield map.
Also the soil map used for infiltration won’t be accurate of the hills have been knocked down.
Need to use a daily soil erosion index to more accurately measure rainfall intensity and continually study RUSLE II or just do on site inspections. Has been too lax in the past.
Bob