Throughout my career I have vacillated in my support of structural practices versus management practices. You could say that I was fickle, or that I didn’t have a good grasp of the material. But in hindsight, I see my support, or non-support, depended on where I was working at the time. Early in my career, I worked in Eastern Iowa, where shallow to bedrock soils prompted us to focus more on management practices such as no-till and contour strip-cropping. From Eastern Iowa, I moved across the state to a western Iowa county where terraces and flood control structures (ponds) were, and still are, the 600 pound gorilla. In my first year in Woodbury County, we built 600,000 feet of terraces and were rewarded for our work. Wanting to duplicate this success, I carried this structural bias to my last assignment in west central Iowa, again focusing on growing the county’s terrace program.
Then Conservation Compliance came along. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it became obvious to me that if farmers were going to achieve Conservation Compliance goals, they had to up their game and start implementing more management practices. Using data from our county’s most prolific terrace-building year, I calculated it would take over 50 years to reach Conservation Compliance using terraces alone. To me, and likely to most, that 50-year time estimate was unacceptable. Furthermore, the associated cost to install that many feet of terraces was staggering.
In the summer of 1993, a 500-year flood slammed us. If you didn’t witness it, it is hard to describe the destruction leveled across Iowa from this historic rainfall; cities without water, interstates closed, bridges wiped out, homes inundated, crops stripped from fields, and terraces sliding down hillsides. Yet to me, it was visibly apparent that those watersheds with significant structural practices sustained considerably less flood damage. And my regard for structural practices was renewed – again.
My experience has taught me that bias for structural versus management practices is often rooted in conservation tradition and directly related to a geographic area. But we need to change that way of operating. Imagine if we placed all our financial eggs in management practices and due to weed resistance we lost the ability to use cover crops and/or no-till. That is a scary, but realistic thought. Conversely, if we promote only structural practices, it will take forever for us to achieve soil and water conservation.
Today, I no longer believe management or structural practices are more or less beneficial. We should consider both systems and focus on which practices meet the needs of the resource while meeting the needs of the customer. Yes, we need more Precision Conservation.
Soil Conditioning Index…a better way to determine soil health
Yes, Tom, and included in the management side is adding small grains in to the crop rotation. We have to admit that row crops (C & SB) are bad for conservation (and we are killing the price with our overproduction in the Upper Midwest). Even with cover crops and no-till, we can be fighting an uphill battle when it comes to soil erosion and water quality. If we introduce a 3rd crop in to our rotations, maybe one year of oats or cereal rye for CC seed, for example, then we may be bringing more benefits to our soil and water quality. What do you think?
Lee, you make an excellent point. We need to find out how we can make small grains profitable. It is an essential part of the equation.
Thanks Tom,
I like the way you think.
It I would say practices (somewhere between methods and systems) come into play after a lot of planning and information gathering; the tools that become part of your overall, ongoing management.
Karl Hakanson
Karl, thankyou for your comment.
A conservation-minded farmer told me years ago that terraces pretty much guaranteed that the terraced land would always be rowcropped, and that he felt uncomfortable with that because a lot of the sloping land that was being terraced in his area was much better suited to cattle pasture in terms of soil and water resources, and he hoped that cattle would come back some day. Maybe his concern is no longer relevant — Iowa is even more corn-and-bean intensive now than when he talked to me, and maybe cattle are essentially gone from his area for good.
Cindy, you make a good point. It is hard to predict future land use. Unfortunately less and less land remains in pasture. It is a good thing these steep fields are still, and probably always will be, protected by terraces.
Tom,
Shouldn’t the focus of soil and water conservation be on permanent practices? They are the only thing that provides lasting protection. Western Iowa is full of terraces and ponds that have existed for 10, 20, 30, 40, even 50 years.
Ryan, I agree much of Western Iowa is permanently protected with terraces. For those how have not seen it, the terracing is impressive. Fortunately farmers in that area have continued to protect their soil with no-till and cover crops. As you know, each geographic area is different and each farmer is different. There is no silver bullet. This is something that soil conservationists have recognized throughout the years. In 1946, Hugh Hammond Bennett, first leader of the Soil Conservation Service wrote in the very first volume of the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, “Effective soil conservation is a result of intelligent use of the land resource. This may mean contour cultivation and terracing to hold soil and conserve rainfall. It may mean seeding grass or planting trees to meet the needs of bare, steep slopes or of shallow soil overlying rock. It may mean grass or surface mulch to protect fields from wind erosion. It may bean changing a rotation to increase soil productivity, and so on.” This is wisdom that is time-tested.
Good article, Tom, and I fully agree that it will require a combination of structural and management practices to achieve our conservation goals. One additional complicating factor, however, is the bias of funding agencies, at least in some cases. There is a certain bureaucratic mindset that says, “Structures are permanent, and I can see them, and count them, so I can provide documentation that dollars have been spent appropriately. Management practices can change, so I can’t count on their effectiveness and will therefore not fund them.” This mindset is particularly troubling when we deal with issues, like nutrient runoff, where management changes will make much larger and faster changes than any structures.
Keith, excellent comment. I agree sometimes structural practices are favored simply because they more visual and easier to manage. That is a poor reason to favor one practice over another. That being said, I do think that are structural practices that have a more positive result on nutrient runoff than some of the managmenet practices; at least in the Upper Midwest. Structural practices like wetlands, saturated buffers, and bioreactors are very effective at removing nitrogen and much more permanent.
Tom Excellent thoughts. What has happen over time is management by metrics rules. How much money is obligated and spent is a easy measurement. Estimate of soil erosion in tons saved without consideration another typical measurement, what matters is the lost of of inch when only three or six remain should be given consideration. Then there is consequence of the runoff. Some have even said that measurement of water quality etc. is too hard. Your article has given much more thought than this off the cuff response, but I think changes in program metrics is important.
David, I agree we need the right metrics. I think we should consider some type of pay for performance. https://precisionconservation.com/pay-for-performance/