Growing the Impacts of Climate-Smart Agriculture
“We’ve got to listen to them, and realize we’re not going to force changes in this industry — we have to work with them as partners,” he said. “They’re very willing partners — their livelihoods depend on the success of taking care of the Earth and being good stewards over the Earth.”
A Two-Pronged Approach to Climate
The two main greenhouse gases emitted by U.S. agriculture are methane from livestock production and nitrous oxide, which is produced in soil by microbes and affected by how farmers manage fertilizers, explained Keith Paustian of Colorado State University.
On the other hand, agriculture in the U.S. is not a major source of CO2 emissions, he said. “Our agricultural lands currently are a small sink — in other words, slightly more carbon dioxide is taken up on average than is emitted.” A few million tons of carbon are accumulating in U.S. grassland and cropland soils each year, he noted.
Agriculture needs to take a two-pronged approach to climate — lessening its own nitrous oxide and methane emissions, and expanding its carbon sink in order to absorb more carbon emitted by other sectors, Paustian said.
Deepthi Kolady of South Dakota State University pointed out that practices devoted to those goals often have direct benefits for farmers too. For example, no-till agriculture — in which farmers don’t till the soil before planting — can sequester carbon, improve soil health, reduce runoff, and also reduce fuel and labor costs for farmers. “These practices have synergistic environmental and economic benefits,” she said.
Expanding the Use of Climate-Smart Practices
Hora agreed that the practices can be good for farmers financially — a message that isn’t always adequately conveyed to them. “Cover crops, no-till … these conservation programs have been branded to the farmer wrong,” he said. “They’ve been branded and marketed as defensive management tools — defense against erosion, defense against water quality issues.”
Instead, these practices should be described as offensive management tools that can directly help improve a farm’s profitability, said Hora.
“The key thing is to really help them to understand how to go about making this profitable on its own, because it absolutely can be,” he said. “A lot of stuff that we do on our farm — we’re getting zero cost-share payments and really making it work. We’re more profitable now than ever because we’re more resilient, we’ve cut our costs on a lot of things.”
For example, cover crops are Hora’s fertilizer program and part of his herbicide, soil management, and moisture management programs. “Also, it sequesters carbon and improves soil health,” he said. “But right now, it helps me pay the bills, helps me to be more profitable.”
Cost-share dollars — offered through the federal Conservation Stewardship Program and other programs — can help farmers as they try new approaches, said Hora. Just as important is providing farmers with the right advice as they pursue these practices. Universities, extension services, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service are trying their best to keep up and offer information and support, but a lot of farmers still need to be reached, he said.
Also key to the effort will be developing better, fine-tuned models and scoreboards that help farmers monitor their progress in reducing carbon, Hora said — just as there are currently scoreboards available to help farmers track yield.
“Farmers are stewards of their own lands … but they are constrained by economic constraints, geographic constraints, weather constraints,” noted Kolady in closing. “They are doing their part. It is on us — the researchers, the policymakers — to work with them to have innovative policies and programs and institutional collaborative partnerships to scale up these climate-smart agricultural practices.”
