NRCS-Rich-Soil-feature
Nov 04, 2016 • By

How much money are we leaving in the ground?

This story was originally posted on Global Solutions, The Nature Conservancy’s site for opinion, analysis and news on the most pressing issues facing people and the planet.

Imagine changing farming practices on just one percent of America’s row-crop landscapes and unlocking more than $37 million of net economic gains for farmers. Then, add on top of that hundreds of millions of dollars of additional benefits to society including, for example, $226 million in water, environmental and climate benefits each year.

A new report published this week by The Nature Conservancy and General Mills details this compelling case for focusing on healthy soils in the United States.

The-Nature-Conservancy-logo

Since people first began tilling the soil, we have understood that its health can be key to our survival, with healthy soils facilitating 95 percent of all food production as well as providing crucial water filtration and storage, and support for biodiversity.

And over time we’ve come to understand the powerful carbon sequestration benefits of healthy soil as well.

However, a team of Conservancy scientists, environmental economists and agriculture experts estimates that the current societal and environmental costs of soil loss and degradation in the US are now as high as $85 billion each year.

This price tag is due to a range of unintended effects of soil loss and degradation on property, energy, endangered species, biodiversity loss, eutrophication, agricultural productivity, and climate resilience. Managing for improved soil health provides the most cost-effective approach to reducing this burden while creating improved economic returns for farmers.

The-Nature-Conservancy-Rethink-Soil-postcard

The report, “reThinkSoil: A Roadmap to U.S. Soil Health,” lays out a plan to transform the situation, including stimulating the adoption of soil health management systems on more than 50 percent of soy, wheat and corn cropland in the U.S. by 2025.

Under the base case scenario, for each 1 percent of cropland adopting an adaptive soil health system, annual economic benefits translate into the aforementioned $226 million of value for society in water, environmental and climate benefits, as well as $37 million of productivity gains for farmers.

At full adoption, the Conservancy team estimates that almost $50 billion of societal and on-farm benefits could be realized each year – taking a substantial bite out of the negative costs of current soil conditions.

Ten steps to transformation
Bringing about transformation on such an enormous scale requires strategic collaboration across three areas: science, economics and policy.

The roadmap lays out ten recommendations to support this transformation.

For example:
• Standardized methods for rapid measurement of soil health indicators would help farmers and landowners to make appropriate land management decisions.
• New lease arrangements that integrate soil health systems could cultivate better understanding between absentee landowners and farmers about the long-term value of the land – for society, farmers, and the landowner.
• Crop insurance could be reformed to shift premium subsidies based on underlying measures of soil health.
• Technological innovations such as sensors, drones, and precision agriculture software could advance adoption.

While the task may seem daunting, the potential pay-off is huge. Healthy soil practices applied across half of the U.S. row crops would reduce 344 million pounds of nutrient loss to the environment, eliminate 116 million metric tons of soil erosion, and create 3.6 million acre-feet of available water capacity in cropland soils.

These practices could also mitigate 25 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions—the equivalent of taking 5 million passenger cars off the road for a full year.

Rethink-soil-health-roadmap

Download a PDF of the soil health infographic.

One state, one hundred soils
To estimate the scale of benefits, the Conservancy team focused on three management practices – reduced tillage, cover cropping and crop rotations – to serve as proxies for adaptive soil health systems. Reduced tillage decreases disturbance of the soil, thereby improving its ability to retain nutrients and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Cover cropping between cash crop seasons maximizes the time each year that living roots are building soil nutrients and keeping the soil covered as nature designed. Diverse crop rotations build nutrients, limit erosion, and foster carbon sequestration.

Pete Sharpe, Hydrologist for the National Park Service talks about soil sampling in a wetland. On May 20 and 21, 2016, The Nature Conservancy and The National Parks Service partnered with National Geographic to execute the First State National Park's firs

Photo Courtesy: The Nature Conservancy – Devan King

Such practices are not new, but they are simply too rare. The Conservancy estimates less than 10 percent of croplands are managed this way, and measures are required to accelerate adoption across many more millions of acres of farmland.

The U.S. produces just under half of the world’s corn crop, so it’s no surprise that some of the leading soil health work is already under way in the middle of the Corn Belt. It is remarkable how productive the lands are across the Midwest, where sophisticated modern farming produces some of the highest yields around the world.

But the environmental impacts are also evident: we’re losing five to eight tons of soil per acre from our farmland; our waters are being degraded by water run-off containing nutrients; and the expanding Gulf of Mexico dead zone is primarily caused by these high nutrient loads. At the same time, here as everywhere, farmers are dealing with more extreme weather events – causing more severe and unpredictable floods and droughts.

Soil sampling a wetland in First State National Park. On May 20 and 21, 2016, The Nature Conservancy and The National Parks Service partnered with National Geographic to execute the First State National Park's first Bioblitz outside of Wilmington, Delawar

Photo Courtesy: The Nature Conservancy – Devan King

By focusing on improving soil health, it is possible to boost productivity and reduce those environmental impacts.

On a recent trip to Indiana, I learned that there are more than one hundred different types of soil in that one state alone – each requiring a specific set of actions to ensure optimum soil health. And no one knows how to steward the land better than our farmers, many of whom are poised to unleash a new wave of innovation in agriculture.

Mike Shuter is a corn, soybean and cattle farmer from Madison County, Indiana. He and his family have been no-tilling for 30 years, strip-tilling for 10 years and, for the last five years, have been integrating cover crops into their operation. Integrating these soil health practices is already helping farmers like Mike boost profitability while at the same time delivering significant environmental benefits.

Wouldn’t it be smart for society to determine how to reward farmers for delivering water, carbon and biodiversity services in addition to the crops they produce that feed us?

What is clear from the roadmap is that soil health is critical to meeting that challenge – and momentum is building for unlocking the win-win value of healthy soils for farmers, businesses and communities for generations to come.

For more information, visit nature.org/soil.

Learn more about the Soil Health Roadmap on GeneralMills.com and watch General Mills Chairman and CEO Ken Powell talk about the company’s commitment to sustainability at the 2016 BSR Conference, in this video.

Have an idea for a story you’d like to see on “A Taste of General Mills”? Please let us know in the comments below or via email at contact.blog@genmills.com.

Subscribe to “A Taste of General Mills” by email – here – and we’ll notify you about our latest posts.

By clicking "post" below, I affirm that I have read and agree to General Mills' Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Community Rules. I specifically agree that all information, suggestions, ideas, or other materials I provide are freely usable and transferable, including with attribution, by General Mills and all of its affiliates without compensation upon submission.

  • MA

    Dear G.M. I am very concerned about the “Genetic Engineering” on your food. Why is it that the farmers have to do what the government tells them to do, even though “Genetic Engineering” is not good for the consumers. Yes, the money is good, but you think the farmers sleep well every night? Its like eating cardboard with a dash of chemical to season it just right. I remember when cereal had actual flavor. I am just sayin.
    Concerned Consumer, Mark, West side, U.S.

    • Botini

      “Why is it that the farmers have to do what the government tells them to do, even though “Genetic Engineering” is not good for the consumers?” you asked. Because the genetic engineering industry has both the farmers and the government, and the mass media, in their back pocket (search online for “L-Tryptophan: The Truth About The FDA Tryptophan Recall Of 1989” by Rolf Hefti).