The arguments to increase the number of publicly funded conservation employees has admittedly run its course. Therefore, the need to update technology in soil and water conservation is blatantly obvious. We know we all need to accomplish more with less. Let’s end the pretext for our lack of progress, and get on with improving technology. Before you respond and tell me why this is impossible, let me provide a response to the Top 5 arguments I hear for not improving technology.
#1: Soil and water conservation budgets are limited. Resources are limited, and the funds to invest in technology are not available.
All businesses/organizations/agencies have limited resources. Even tech companies, like Apple, will tell you they have limited resources. How companies use limited resources however, is the critical factor. Improving soil and water conservation technology is more about the lack of collaborative resources than about the lack of financial resources. If 20 states would collaborate to invest the cost of just one employee per state, ($100,000/year including benefits) they would have an available operating budget of $2 million/year. That $2 million/year could make a significant dent in a budget directed toward building a conservation technology platform. Yes, for the cost of one employee each, 20 states could finance a partnership that could build-out a state-of-the-art technology platform to deliver soil and water conservation.
#2: Soil and water conservationists are already using the best available technology.
The science of soil and water conservation far exceeds any technology available to conservationists. For example, the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in Oxford, MS has developed the science required to model sediment delivery, from an entire field, to a water body. Today, most technical conservationists can only calculate the level of erosion that is occurring in one point in a field. Better technology, that incorporates current science, would allow conservationist to show how different practices affect the amount of sediment leaving each part of the field and the total amount delivered to a stream. That piece of information would fundamentally change how we interact with farmers.
#3: New technology will only make the implementation of soil and water conservation more complicated.
No one wants technology that makes life more complicated. The real value of technology is taking complicated science and making life better, but also easier. The technology to make our smart phones work, is just one example. The processes running in the background of a smart phone are really, really complicated; well beyond what I can comprehend. But tech companies have used complicated computer science and built an easy-to-use device. When was the last time you read the owner’s manual before you used your smart phone? Technology to plan and design soil and water practices can be just as user-friendly.
#4: Conservationists could never trust software that is developed by a third party
When providing publicly funded recommendations to farmers, both conservationists and taxpayers need assurances these recommendations will reasonably meets USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) standards and specifications. This does not mean the software must be developed by government. However it does mean the inputs, methodology, and outcomes must be transparent, so a reviewer can evaluate the science and processes behind the technology and have confidence in the results.
#5: Technology will put conservationists out of work.
Conservationists have more work than they can possibly do. Even if their efficiency quadrupled, conservationists would still have too much to do. Before bringing on more conservationists to help with the work, we need to identify how best to equip them to improve efficiency. I believe more employees can’t make a dent in the work, without smart technology. But then there’s the question of cost.
For convenience, let’s say a state hired 2 new conservationists. One state agency person told me they budget $100,000/year/employee (benefits included). In most Midwestern states, there are approximately 80 counties. Two full-time employees, serving the entire state could only contribute the equivalent time of 6 days/county/year (see math below.) Those 6 additional days of employee time in each county seem rather insignificant when there is an average of 800 farmers/county. We cannot afford the staff necessary to accomplish our soil and water conservation goals if we keep doing what we have always done.
But what if we spent that $200,000/year on upgrading technology? If 10 states would collaborate, it would provide a technology budget of $2,000,000/year. If spent wisely, this could provide a lot of smart technology.
Do the math:
- 2 employees/state x $100,000/employee = $200,000/state
- 2 employees X 240 staff days/year ÷ 80 counties = 6 days/county/year of additional staffing
Conclusion:
If I have missed any arguments, please take the time to send them my way. I am yet to hear an argument, for staffing over technology, that is worth considering. If we are going to be serious about meeting our soil and water quality goals, we need to get serious about technology. Let’s quit stalling and get on with building, buying, and/or licensing technology that is going to make us all more efficient.
What did you accomplish with all that taxpayer money?
There is a lot involved with accomplishing sustainable conservation. Understandable technology, trained conservationists and land owners and operators willing to apply the practices. I feel our biggest obstacle is not technology, we have plenty of that, but getting owner/operators to be willing to install the practices needed to get sustainable conservation. The practices need to be able to give the owner/operators the most profitability possible. Technology needs to be able to show that.
George, thank you for you comments. It is always rewarding to hear from one of Iowa’s great conservation employees. We miss your service. You are absolutely correct we need farmers to step up and apply more conservation. However even those farmers who are implementing conservation appreciate faster and better service. No farmer should have to wait a week, let alone a month or a year, to get information or service. If any one of us went to an auto dealer to test drive a new truck and the dealer said they couldn’t set up a test drive for a week, a month, or a year, I am certain most of us would find another place to spend money. We need to be able to give farmers high quality estimates on the spot, so they can consider their long-term options.Designing any practice should take minutes; ertianly less than an hour. I’m sure you agree that providing better information, faster, is positive and would keep more people interested and close more deals.
Tom–You are way ahead of most on this subject and I realize it is a lonely place to be. My instincts tell me to stay tuned for more. So thanks, and please keep thinking and sharing. By the way, we are definitely misappropriating our limited resources in many, many ways.
Roger, as you know we have a long ways to go. There are places we should not be spending our tax payer money. Instead those areas should be seeded to permanent vegetation. Furthermore we should be targeting the tax payer money on the practices that give us the most bang for our buck.
I like the idea of more bang for our buck. But I also think we need to discuss and better-define the kinds of “bang” we want and that the public wants. Your last mailing included a brief discussion of how to get more public support for farm conservation. I think a lot of people relate more to biota (wildflowers, pollinators, game animals, songbirds, butterflies, fisheries) than to numbers of tons of sediment loss prevented, though both have obvious and critical value, and of course the second is critical to the first.
I was very happy to discover and read the thoughts below by Matt Helmers, especially the part about the extra “bang” provided by good diverse prairie plantings. I’ve seen drivers slow down to look at my land and I’ve gotten questions about it. I doubt if they’d be interested if what my land had was a Eurasian bromegrass monoculture instead of diverse prairie plantings with about seventy kinds of flowers.
I skimmed a story not long ago about a Central Iowa city council discussing water quality. The consensus of the council members seemed to be that the city may want to pay for farm conservation upstream in the future, but only if the farm conservation provides benefits besides cleaner water (wildlife, beauty, recreation, etc.) It may not be just professional (and amateur) conservationists who are going to be defining farm conservation and water quality “bang” in the future.
***
I am an engineer and spend a lot of time writing and talking about new technology. However, this summer really highlighted to me that many of our fixes cannot be solved by technology alone. Instead, we need to strategically restore or implement more diverse natural systems where they can do the most good in terms of water quality, wildlife and overall land health. We are able to do these practices such as prairie strips and wetlands by combining technological advances with a solid understanding of the natural ecological system that was replaced with row crop agriculture and other development. Modern technology helps us know where to place the natural system for the greatest benefit. After that, the natural system will do all the work.
Both of the restored areas I visited near the Iowa Great Lakes are less than five years old. The local folks are doing a good job of ensuring diversity in the perennial plantings. I have seen other areas in Iowa under perennial vegetation that opted for monoculture grasses, mainly cool-season grasses. While the diverse native prairie restorations are more challenging to manage, the beauty alone makes it worth it to me. Factor in water quality, wildlife and land health benefits and it is a home run.
Cindy, as always your comment is very insightful. Thank you. As you have identified, conservationists need to understand the sales process and be better sales people. In the sales cycle we learn we should be selling to the customer based on benefits. Benefits, by definition, show the end result of what a product can actually accomplish. As with most products, conservation has multiple benefits; water quality, flood control, and yes biodiversity and beauty. For you, and many others, the beauty of wildflowers may well be the most advantageous benefit to highlight. We should use the most important benefit to motivate the individual to “buy”. However if our priority is water quality we need to first target practices based on the best outcome of water quality. We could spend a lot of money and time planting wildflowers, in low priority areas, and have no impact on water quality. We need technology to locate the disproportinate areas, or those areas that give us the most bang for our buck. Once we have prioritized the critical areas we need to identify cost effective practice for improving water quality. Once we have identified the area and the practice we can sell that practice(s) with any benefit that motivates the buyer. I appreciate your comment.
Tom – I always gain some insight hearing your thoughts and ideas as they come from the perspective of a smart, experienced and hopeful conservation professional. My $0.02 worth of perspective on your technology message based on what I see in MN is:
5. Technology can greatly aid the marketing of “what ifs” to potential customers by integrating the production and conservation aspects of their operation that ag producers must always consider.
4. Technology (and applied research) has greatly aided the prioritization, targeting and measuring of conservation practices in MN watersheds.
3. Technology can be a supplement to but is not a substitute for technically proficient and persuasive public and private sector conservation staff.
2. Technology is welcomed by most conservation professionals but it cannot contour land, grow soil organic content, plant and nurture grasses and pollinator species, restore a wetland or maintain and take care of all of the above for the decades ahead we need these public benefits to last.
1. Technology will not deliver greater conservation results without an increased dedication of public and private-sector funds that are necessary or expected to implement on-the-ground structural and management practices on private land that provide enduring public benefits. Investments in technology to enhance conservation promotion and sales are pointless if there are not sufficient and predictable resources to actually build, deliver and service on-the-ground conservation products.
As you say we all need to accomplish more. That cannot happen with less – but it can happen with more: more investments in technology and the public/private sector expertise to apply it, more landowner participation – including from those in the increasing absentee category, and more cost-share funding to incentivize both management and structural conservation practices that deliver lasting results with broad benefit.
As always, appreciate the constructive dialogue you initiate via your messaging.
8-31-18.
John, I appreciate your commitment to conservation and I understand your comments. I agree we need resource professionals on the ground. Very little conservation has ever been implemented without a conservation professional helping (in some capacity). Heck, I am one of those resource professionals. However equipping resource professionals with good technology is critical to accomplishing our mission.
Sure, we can wait around for our public officials to fund more staff, but is that realistic? Ever government department wants more staff; teaching, social workers, department of transportation, public health, recreation, workforce development, etc. But even if we could double our staffs it will not have a meaningful impact on our mission. Look at any workload analysis. The numbers are staggering. And with climate change I expect we are going backwards not forwards. I respectively disagree that we cannot expect to accomplish more with less. Yes, we need trained professionals, but with high quality technology to make them efficient.
The world is full of examples where technology has allowed people to do more with less. Conservation is not that unique. In 1993 I bought a Gateway Computer for $1,200. Today I get way more computer, for far less money, and I can be way more efficient. Now I have internet and email to mention just a few things. There is no question technology makes us more efficient. We should never be so locked into MORE staff that we don’t consider how technology can help us do more for less. We have limited resources, but we need to make the best use of limited resources. Quality resources professionals with great technology is the best path forward.
I agree that better technology can help us achieve better conservation. I agree that resource professionals on the ground are also critical.
Story County recently became the first Iowa county to evaluate all the HUC10 watersheds that lie wholly or partly within county boundaries. The result was a huge amount of useful information for county officials. For the amount of money the county spent, the county got a real bargain. The consultant did a good job.
However, only desktop mapping was done to indicate exactly where better farm conservation could do the most good, and that kind of mapping has limitations. I checked the mapping of my own land and discovered that the map suggested installing a bioreactor on a site where there is already a six-acre wetland. And grassed waterways were recommended for a tract that is all diverse prairie, no rowcrops. Story County has made a good start but is going to need more technology and more professionals to make use of our new information.
As previous commentors pointed out, Iowa also really needs landowners and producers to step up. I see farm media stories about landowners and producers who are doing exactly that, which is wonderful.
But I also hear some stories that don’t get into farm media, about landowners and producers who show little interest in conservation, watershed meetings that are sparsely attended, and at least a few landowners and producers who have been directly approached because their land is disproportionately contributing to resource problems, and who say, when asked to take action, “no.”
And finally, I see media stories about the major successes in the Chesapeake Bay, where fisheries are improving, seagrass beds are expanding, oysters are increasing, etc., etc. Serious steady progress is being made in that watershed, where there are standards, deadlines, detailed plans, and requirements.
In a metaphorical water-progress marathon race between the Bay and Iowa, the Bay still has a long way to go but has run several miles of the route. Meanwhile, Iowa is still loping along way back where the parking lot is still in sight.
Cindy, thank you for your comment. Iowa does have a long ways to go.
I see lots of talk and even more rhetoric from the ag community relative to conservation but zero action. Some non-ag friends see ag (i.e., big business and its farmer collaborators) as just another example of the tobacco wars. They make a good case.
Ask the local ag service provider why they deliver anhydrous ammonia to farmers when the soil temperature is below 50 degrees and they are typically quite honest – if they don’t, their competitor will. Where is the law which would stop this practice overnight? No delivery = no application
For 25 years, I have asked soil scientists how much soil is washing down the open tile line intakes on our fields. No one has the answer. Am told that maybe RUSLE3 (which can read high resolution LIDAR DEM’s) MAY be able to do this. Some conservationist’s and university staff are still willing to say that there isn’t any.
25 years ago, Blackmer and others recognized that nitrogen could be provided to corn at multiple points in time over the growing season – and that by doing so could reduce nitrate losses. The technology exists to apply nitrogen (liquid or granular) as needed during the growing season, but ask a crop consultant (university or private) to provide a prescription based on actual PSNT data and you will NOT get an answer.
Ask any agronomy group to use a lab that is NAPT certified and to do some basic QA/QC monitoring and you will be asked – WHY?
These are all plays out of the tobacco wars. It is crazy because the technology needed to resolve water issues exists, is not particularly expensive, and in most cases, can actually make the farmer money.
Lon, thank you for your comments. I wish that RUSLE3 could model soil going down open intakes but I have my doubts.