Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity Advisory Panel

Home , Arable land, Rangeland

l-'" of nc/:\!IOIOO _.. _ ... u"' "'"'" ... _ -'-- Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland w, in'... . ' .....7 and Rangeland Productivity

August 1982

NTIS order #PB83-125013 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 82-600596

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Foreword

This Nation’s impressive agricultural success is the product of many factors: abundant resources of land and water, a favorable climate, and a history of resource- ful farmers and technological innovation, We meet not only our own needs but supply a substantial portion of the agricultural products used elsewhere in the world. As demand increases, so must agricultural productivity, Part of the necessary growth may come from farming additional acreage. But most of the increase will depend on intensifying production with improved agricultural technologies. The question is, however, whether farmland and rangeland resources can sustain such intensive use. Land is a renewable resource, though one that is highly susceptible to degradation by erosion, salinization, compaction, ground water depletion, and other processes. When such processes are not adequately managed, land productivity can be mined like a nonrenewable resource. But this need not occur. For most agricultural land, various conservation options are available, Traditionally, however, farmers and ranchers have viewed many of the conservation technologies as uneconomical. Must conservation and production always be opposed, or can technology be used to help meet both goals? This report describes the major processes degrading land productivity, assesses whether productivity is sustainable using current agricultural technologies, reviews a range of new technologies with potentials to maintain productivity and profitability simultaneously, and presents a series of options for congressional consideration. The study was requested by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and endorsed by the House Agriculture Committee, the Senate Appropria- tions Committee, and the Subcommittee on Parks, Recreation, and Natural Re- sources of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Office of Technology Assessment greatly appreciates the contributions of the advisory panel assembled for this study, the authors of the technical papers, and the many other advisors and reviewers who assisted us, including farmers, ranchers, agricultural scientists in industries and universities, and experts in other Government agencies. Their guidance and comments helped develop a comprehensive report. As with all OTA studies, however, the content of the report is the sole responsibility of the Office.

Director

III Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity Advisory Panel

David Pimentel, Chairman Department of Entomology, Cornell University

Delmar Akerlund Garry D. McKenzie Akerlund Farm Biological Enterprises Division of Polar Programs Valley, Nebr. National Science Foundation Steve Brunson William R. Meiners National Association of Conservation Districts Resource Planning and Management Associates, Inc. William Dietrich Meridian, Idaho Green Giant Co. John Moland, Jr. James V. Drew Center for Social Research School of Agriculture and Land Resources Southern University Management and Agricultural Experiment Station Richard E. Rominger University of Alaska Department of Food and Agriculture State of California George R. Hawkes Product Environmental Affairs Edwin L. Schmidt Ortho-Chevron Chemical Co. Department of Soil Science University of Minnesota Earl O. Heady Department of Economics F. C. Stickler Iowa State University Product and Market Planning John H. Herman Deere & Co. Attorney at Law Glover B. Triplett, Jr. Dayton, Herman, Graham & Getts Department of Agronomy Maureen K. Hinkle Ohio Agricultural Research and National Audubon Society Development Center William H. Hinton Ralph Wong Farmer Rancher Fleetwood, Pa. Marana, Ariz.

iv OTA Land Productivity Project Staff

Joyce C. Lashof* and H. David Banta, ** Assistant Director, OTA Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Program Manager Food and Renewable Resources Program

Bruce A. Ross-Sheriff, Project Director

Chris Elfring, Analyst and Editor Barbara Lausche, Senior Analyst Jessica Marshall, Intern~ Monica Roll, Intern Elizabeth A, J. Williams, Senior Analyst

Administrative Staff

Phyllis Balan, Administrative Assistant Marilyn Cassady Constance Clem Elizabeth Galloway Nellie Hammond Aneke Raneyt Gillian Raneyt Yvonne Wellst

OTA Publishing Staff

John C, Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Joe Henson

Until December 1981 * * From December1981 Temporary assignment Contents

Chapter Page I. Summary...... , ...... , ., , , 3 11. Land Productivity Problems, ...... , ...... 23 111, Rangelands ...... 67 Iv. Croplands ...... 91 v. Technology Adoption ...... , ...... 137 VI. Role of Government ...... 151 VII. Issues and Options for Congress...... 181 Appendixes A,The Innovators: The Stories of Five Agriculturalists and Their Commitments to Land Stewardship ...... 195 B, Virgin Lands ...... 220 C.Soil Productivity Variables ...... 225 D. Analytic Tools and Data Bases for Determining the Effects of National Policies on Land Productivity ...... 235 E.The Resources Conservation Act Preferred Program ...... 243 F. Commissioned Papers ...... 247 G. Glossary ...... 249 Index ...... 261 Chapter 1

Summary Contents

Page Land Productivity ...... “”~.. 3 Introduction: Technology and American Agriculture ...... 4 Conservation and production ...... ””?.” 4 Land Productivity Problems ...... !”. . . 7 Erosion ...... “O 7 Drainage ...... ”...””*+*””00””””. ““”” 9

Soil Compaction ...... OO ...... O+ .. ...OO .. 9

Salinization ...... 0...... 0.0.00084+ .. .oo. $g. OOOort 10 Ground Water Depletion ...... 11 Land Subsidence ...... It Soil Organic Matter ...... 12

Soil Organisms .. .OO...... O .. .O . .O ...... o. .o. o...... Q.o.o .. ..”..” 12 Soil Chemistry ...... 12 Benefits Other Than Crops and Forage ...... + ...... 13 Sustaining Rangeland Productivity ...... 13 Sustaining Cropland Productivity ...... 14 Technology Adoption ...... ””... 15 Government’s Role ...... ,..,~.,,.”””””” 16 Issues and Options ...... “...”” 18 Integrating Conservation Policy With Economic policy ...... 18 Improving the Effectiveness of Federal Conservation Programs ...... 18 Enhancing Federal Capabilities To Develop Innovative Technologies ...... 18 Reducing Pressure on Fragile Lands ...... ?...... 18 Encouraging State Initiatives c ...... 19 Chapter I Summary

LAND PRODUCTivity

Every year, the Nation’s cropland erodes at This study assesses how agricultural technol- an average rate of 7 tons per acre. Yet soil is ogies affect the inherent productivity of U.S. thought to form at a rate of only 0,5 ton per croplands and rangelands, It examines proc- acre a year or less, Thus, even though knowl- esses that affect the quality of croplands and edge of soil formation is grossly inadequate, it rangelands and addresses the question of appears that America’s agricultural soil is whether land productivity is sustainable under being eroded more than 10 times faster than various modern agricultural technologies, it is being formed, Erosion is not the only process that can dam- The report finds that certain productivity- age the productivity of the Nation’s croplands degrading processes, especially erosion, are and rangelands, though it is the most pervasive. widespread and serious. Yet for most agricul- Compaction and inadequate drainage can re- tural land, technologies exist that could achieve duce crop yields. Salinization (salt build-up in high production while maintaining land qual- soils) can force lands out of production. Mis- ity, There are, however, some particularly frag- management and overgrazing can degrade ile lands where no currently available ways rangeland productivity, Withdrawing too much exist to sustain high levels of production. These ground water can deplete underground sup- lands are used because it is profitable, under plies and limit future agriculture. Land sub- the present system of agricultural technologies, sidence, whether related to ground water with- markets, and policies, to “mine” the inherent drawal or other factors, can remove lands from productivity of the fragile cropland and range- production with little hope for restoration. land sites as if they were nonrenewable resources. In doing so, long-term productivity is Inherent land productivity, as used in this sacrificed for shorter term profits. report, means the ability of land resources to sustain long-term production of crops, forage, This assessment was requested by the Senate and a broad range of other benefits such as Committee on Environment and Public Works water quality, genetic resources, and wildlife and endorsed by the House Committee on Agri- habitat. Land is broadly defined to include not culture, the Senate Committee on Appropria- only soil but water and all the physical, chemi- tions, and the Subcommittee on Parks, Recrea- cal, and biological components of cropland and tion, and Renewable Resources of the Senate rangeland ecosystems. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Land productivity varies from site to site and The assessment was designed to exclude de- changes over time. It interacts with the other tailed study of: 1) problems that tangentially af- components of agricultural productivity, which fect agricultural lands but are not caused by are the productivity of capital, the productiv- agricultural technologies (e. g., air pollution); ity of labor, and the state of the art of technol- 2) impacts of agricultural technologies on lands ogy. Because of these interactions, land pro- other than croplands and rangelands (e. g., the ductivity is exceedingly difficult to measure, effects of chemical runoff on estuaries); 3) tech- Nevertheless, it is a distinct concept that farm- nologies and impacts covered by other OTA as- ers and ranchers understand to profoundly in- sessments [e. g., Integrated Pest Management, fluence the productivity of their capital and 1979; Biomass Fuels, 1980; and Applied Genet- labor resources. ics, 1980).

3 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

NTRODUCTION: TECHNOLOGY AND AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

This Nation’s agricultural successes are the much which is fragile and basically unsuited product of many factors: abundant resources to long-term production under conventional of land and water, favorable climate, and also technologies, a history of hard work, skill, and innovation. Recent generations in particular have benefited Conservation and Production from technological developments, U.S. agriculturalists and scientists have created a produc- Neither empirical evidence nor compelling tion system that not only meets our own needs logic show that agricultural production must but also provides a growing portion (about one- be harmful to the quality of the land resource. tenth in 1979) of the agricultural products used On the contrary, production and conservation by the rest of the world. can be mutually reinforcing, even on marginal lands, if appropriate production technologies The technologies that made this extraordi- are developed and used. nary production possible were developed primarily during the 1950’s and 1960’s, when fuel But present agricultural practices in the and capital costs were low and labor was com- United States are degrading the inherent pro- paratively expensive, These technologies made ductivity of large amounts of cropland and farmers extremely successful at replacing labor rangeland. Much agricultural land suffers from with cheap energy inputs. The principal prob- accelerated erosion, soil compaction, water lem policy makers faced was keeping abundant quality and quantity problems, or other adverse supplies of food and fiber from driving prices physical, chemical, and biological changes in (and profits) so low that farmers would be soil ecology, forced out of business. As a result, price sup- To date, losses in inherent productivity have ports and a variety of land retirement programs been masked by gradual increases in capital were adopted. inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and im- Agricultural policy makers now face prob- proved crop varieties. But productivity degra- lems quite different from those of the past. The dation is an accelerating and self-reinforcing 1970’s brought profound changes in the eco- process; this year’s losses contribute to increas- nomic and resource environments, Foreign de- ing losses in the years to follow, As capital mand for U.S. agricultural products grew costs rise, and losses in inherent productivity rapidly. Energy and fertilizer prices skyrock- become increasingly severe, it will become eted. Stockpiles of surplus commodities dwin- more difficult to sustain production on de- dled. Development of the interstate highway pleted agricultural land. system and related changing settlement pat- Nationally, soil erosion is the most important terns took large areas of prime farmland out process degrading inherent productivity. It is of production. At the same time, areas of mar- an acute problem on a relatively small part of ginal cropland began coming back into produc- the Nation’s cropland, and a chronic problem tion because stronger commodity markets on a much larger acreage. made price supports and the concomitant land set-aside programs less attractive. No one can estimate the precise amounts of fuel, fertilizer, and other nonsoil resources that By the end of the 1970’s, the United States are required to compensate for the erosion- was exporting 30 percent of its agricultural pro- caused losses in soil fertility, tilth, * and water- duction and expecting even higher exports in holding capacity. The future availability and the future. With virtually all the land previously affordability of these nonsoil resources are also idled by Government programs already returned to crops, exports are projected to be met *Tilth refers to the physical condition, texture, and aggrega- in part by cultivating more land, including tion of soil. Ch. /—Summary ● 5

Agricultural Production, 1960-78 140

Crops 130

f 120 “

110 — Livestock m-. * *# #

100 “

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 SOURCES 1960.1963 Agrlculfural Stat(st/cs 1975, U S Department of Agriculture (Washington, D C U S Government PrI nt !ng Office, 1975), table 618, p 440 1964-1978 Agrfcu/tura/ Statistics 1979, U S Department of Agriculture (Washington, D C , U S Government Prl nt ing Office, 1979), table 633, p 440 Data for 1978 are preliminary CEO Errv/rorr Trands, 1981 uncertain. Many of them, however, are non- from adopting even these proven erosion con- renewable and increasingly expensive. trol technologies. Many practices used to maintain or improve Some new, innovative technologies can save inherent soil productivity can reduce current soil and improve profitability for many farm farm profits. For example, planting erosive operations. The use of some of these technol- fields into hay or pasture slows soil erosion, ogies—for example, conservation tillage*—is but is less profitable than planting corn or soy- increasing, and they will play an important role beans. Terraces break long slopes and retain in maintaining inherent land productivity in eroding soil, but in many cases farmers can- the future. However, there are substantial im- not recoup high construction costs, even when pediments to their widespread adoption. Many they are shared by the Government. Contour *Conservation tillage refers to various wajrs of reducing the farming reduces soil erosion and can increase frequency and degree of tilling the soil, Conservation tillage yields, but it also increases labor and methods generally share three characteristics: I ) they use implements other than the moldhoard plow, Z) t}]ey leave crop residues machinery costs. Because erosion may not on the soil to mitigate erosion and help retain moisture, and noticeably affect crop yields for many years, 3] they depend on chemical rather than mechanical weed con- economic considerations discourage farmers trol, [See ch. IV for a complete discussion, ) 6 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

Agricultural Inputs, 1950”78 Time spent on farmwork HorseDower of farm machines

Billion hours H 3 \r: ‘)ower in millions t

200

100

o~ 0 1 I 4 1950 1960 1970 1{ 1950 1960 1970 198 Fertilizers applied Pesticides ap~lied Million tons Mill —.n pounds 25 750

20 Total pesticides 500 15 / Herbicides 10 / /’ 250 Insecticide: ,Fungicides4 Other pesticides= o! 1 1 I o~ 1 1950 1960 1970 19 1950 1960 1970 198 Water for irrigation Energy spent on farms Trillion 13tus 2,500

75 -

50 “ ‘ : :/ 1,000

25 “ 500 -

o 1 1 I o~ 1950 1960 1970 1 ) 1950 1960 1970 1980 SOURCES. Time spent on farmwork: Ctrarrges In Farm Production and EMcierrcy, 1977, USDA Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service (Washington, D C U.S. Government Prlntlng Office, 1978), statistical bulletin 612, p. 32. Horsepower of farm machines: Changes kr Farm Production and Effic/errcy, 1977, p. 31. Fertilizers applied: Changes in Farm Production and Efflc/ency, 1977, p. 27 Pesticides applied, 1964: Quantities of Pesticides Used by Farmers in 1%54, USDA Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Servce (Washington, D.C. US. Government Printing Office, 1968), agr. econ rep. 131, pp. 9, 13, 19,26 1966: Farmers Use of Pest/cIdes in 1971—Quant/ties, USDA Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service (Washington, D. C.: US Government Printing Office, 1974), agr, econ. rep. 252, pp. 8, 11, 15, 18. 1971 and 1976: Farmers Use of Pesticides in 1976, USDA Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service (Washington, DC U S. Government Printing Office, 1978), agr. econ rep 418, pp. 6, 9, 15, 20, Water for irrigation: Estimated We of Water in the United States in 1975, U.S. Geological Survey (Washington, D C : U S. Government Printing Office, 1977), circ, 765, p, 38 and previous quinquennial surveys. Energy spent on farms: The U.S. Food and F/bar Sector: Energy Use and Outlook, USDA Economic Research Service (Washington, D C : U S Government Printing Off Ice, 1974), p, 2. Btu converted from kilocalories (kcal), as published in “Energy Use in the Food System, ” J S. and C. E. Steinhart, Science 184309 (1974) (1 kcal = 3:968 Btu, 1 Btu = 0.252 kcal.) Time spent on farmwork includes crops, Iwestock, and overhead. After 1964, time used for horses, mules, and farm gardens was excluded. Horsepower Includes tractors only (excluswe of steam and garden) Fertlllzers Include nitrogen, phosphate, and potash nutrients used. Pesticides include amounts used on corps only, excludes pesticide use for livestock and other purposes Water used for irrigation refers to water consumed, not water withdrawn Energy spent on farms Includes fuel, electrlclty, fertlllzer, agricultural steel, farm machinery, tractors, and Irrigation Ctted In CEQ, 1981 Env/ron Trends. Ch. /—Summary ● 7

farmers and ranchers resist abandoning con- had mixed effects on resource conservation. ventional practices because the innovative While most such programs do affect the natural technologies often require more management resource base, they generally have not been de- expertise. Furthermore, farmers often are un- signed to provide collateral conservation ben- convinced that the new practices can be prof- efits. Little work, in fact, has ever been done itable for their particular farming conditions. to analyze the interrelationships between agri- Capital requirements for specialized mechan- cultural policy and conservation. Mathemat- ical equipment also impede the adoption of ical models that would permit policy makers to new technologies. analyze relationships among conservation, pro- Innovative farming and grazing methods are duction, and income objectives have not been being adopted, but not necessarily in the places adequately developed. In many cases, the basic where they are most needed. Farmers adopt in- physical and biological data necessary to build novative technologies first on lands where the such models are lacking. new methods will be most profitable—often Agricultural technologies have significant ef- these are the highly resilient lands with low fects on a number of public goods other than potential for productivity degradation. At the food and fiber production—e. g., water quali- same time, large parts of the Nation’s most ty, wildlife habitat, and recreational oppor- erosive and otherwise fragile cropland, pas- tunities. Sustaining production of these bene- tureland, and rangeland are not being treated fits does not have to conflict with sustaining with conservation practices. crop and forage production and could be an The scientific community is showing re- explicit objective in developing site-specific newed interest in the determinants of inherent agricultural technologies. land productivity, A new U.S. Department of On the whole, inherent land prouctivity is Agriculture (USDA) research program* is ex- deteriorating gradually. But neither the prob- pected to study the relationships among soil lems nor the potential solutions can be broad- erosion, substitution of other resources, and ly generalized. Throughout this assessment, crop yields. But much work is needed to dis- scientists, farmers, and other agricultural ex- cover how inherent land productivity is af- perts have stressed the regional diversity and fected by management of such factors as site-specific nature of both degradation prob- organic matter, soil biology, irrigation water, lems and technologies appropriate for dealing soil compaction, and soil chemistry. Further- with them, * If Federal policy is to be effective more, while Federal research efforts do devel- in preserving inherent land productivity, it op needed improvements in existing technol- must recognize the regional and local nature ogies, improved mechanisms are needed for of this issue. Dealing with acute localized prob- developing and implementing innovative tech- lems may require politically difficult decisions nologies. to reallocate Federal technical and financial Federal programs designed to affect crop assistance, research, and extension work. ——— —. — production and support farm incomes have *This report has highlighted Alaska as an example of a region 1 with special agricultural potent ials and problems. Most of this *The Soil Erosion-Soil Productivity Research Prolect. information is in app, B.

Erosion curring on U.S. croplands and rangelands. The national average— sheet and rill (water-caused) Loss of soil by wind and water erosion* is erpsopm remains in the same field, but farther downs lope. Soil the major productivity degradation process oc- is eventually lost, however, as it moves downslope off fields, into waterways, or onto noncroplands. Soil quality is affected by soil * Erosion rates do not represent net losses of soil because movement because organics and lighter materials are moved eroded soil does not Simply vanish. Much of the soil moved by first, leaving behind poorer soils. 8 • Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

erosion rate from row crop and small grain from a national perspective, the seemingly low cropland is 5.4 tons per acre. * When wind ero- rate of erosion on the majority of the land may sion is included, the average erosion rate for be more significant than the high loss rates oc- the Nation’s croplands is at least 7 tons per curring on a relatively small acreage, since the acre. Meanwhile, soil is thought to form at an latter lands account for a small proportion of average rate of only 0.5 ton per acre. Thus, total national farm production, even though knowledge of soil formation rates Less is known about the rates and effects of is grossly inadequate, it appears that soil is rangeland erosion. Wind and water erosion on eroded more than 10 times faster than it is non-Federal rangeland averages 4.6 tons per formed. acre. As is the case with cropland erosion, a Nationally, erosion exceeded 5 tons per large portion of the total tonnage eroded on acre* * on more than 112 million acres of crop- rangeland comes from a relatively small area— land, including 33 percent of the corn land, 44 on 91 percent of the non-Federal rangeland, percent of the soybean land, 34 percent of the wind erosion is less than 2 tons per acre. The cotton land, and 39 percent of the sorghum most susceptible 3 percent of the land, how- land. ever, erodes in excess of 14 tons per acre and accounts for 31 percent of the total wind ero- About 45 percent of the Nation’s total sheet sion. Because rangeland soils form so slowly, and rill erosion occurs on the most rapidly and because they are so difficult and expen- eroding 6.5 percent of the cropland. Since it sive to reclaim, even low rates of soil erosion is often unprofitable to protect highly erosive are cause for concern. Anecdotal evidence and sites, much of that land is farmed without the some data indicate that rangeland soils over benefit of any major erosion control technol- wide areas, particularly in the Southwest, are ogy. Aiming conservation efforts at the most so eroded that they can no longer provide ade- rapidly eroding sites could increase the cost ef- quate moisture storage to sustain a good cover fectiveness of programs designed to prevent of forage plants. soil loss. Maintenance of soil cover (by plants and Soil loss rates are not the same as produc- crop residues) and other farm management tivity loss rates, however. Many studies have practices (e.g., the type, frequency, and timing demonstrated that soil erosion reduces yields of tillage) are important ways to change crop- for specific crops. But most of these studies land erosion rates. The most important new were conducted decades ago. In the interim, technologies to control erosion in the near crop production technologies have changed future will be methods to minimize tillage on substantially and the old data on yield reduc- row crop and small grain croplands. However, tions have little relevance to modern farming. none of the available erosion control technol- Consequently, it is impossible to accurately ogies is likely to make row crop or small grain compare the costs of erosion control technol- farming sustainable on the most fragile crop- ogies with their benefits. When the cost of sub- land. The most effective means of controlling stituting capital inputs for eroded soil is con- erosion on such land is to cease using it for an- sidered, some farms with low erosion and thin nual crops, planting it instead to permanent soils may suffer more productivity loss than pasture, orchard, or wildlife habitat. For the farms with high erosion but deeper soil. Also, long term, it may be possible to develop other *In this report, “tons per acre” refers to “tons per acre per profitable crop systems using perennial plants. year. ” Erosion rates are from the 1977 National Resource In- ventories, USDA, as revised in 1980. On rangelands, erosion control methods in- **A rate of soil loss widely used as an objective for cropland erosion control programs is 5 tons per acre. This number, called clude establishing adequate plant cover, reduc- the “T value, ” was selected by the founder of the Soil Conser- ing or eliminating compaction on overgrazed vation Service, Hugh H. Bennett, and has since been reaffirmed sites and on overused animal and vehicle trails, by committees of Soil Conservation Service experts. However, there is essentially no research to scientifically establish the 5 and manipulating the soil surface to increase tons per acre T value. water infiltration, Ch. l—Summary ● 9

Acreage Where Wind and Water Erosion Are Greater Than Five Tons per Acre per Year, 1977

r -.

L\ \ f

1 Dot = 30 acres

SOURCE USDA, 1978

Drainage face drainage systems for the wet soils already used as croplands has declined over the past About 105 million acres of U.S. cropland 20 years, have wet soils. Although only some wet soils are classified as “wetlands, ” many of the 3.8 Many existing drainage systems were built million acres of wet soils converted to cropland in the early 1900’s and are outdated and need between 1967 and 1975 were indeed wetlands. repair. While repairing or replacing tile and Their conversion meant the loss of valuable ditch systems appears to be cost effective for habitats, reduced flood prevention, and the loss individual farmers, outlet systems commonly of natural cleansing mechanisms for water- demand collective management. Cleaning and sheds. maintenance need local funding. Cost sharing, On the other hand, drainage of wet cropland guaranteed loans, or developing farmers’ co- can enhance crop production significantly. operatives could aid in the rejuvenation of Wet soils often have high potential productivity outlet systems. because they contain more organic matter than soils that are not so wet. In the late 1960’s, con- Soil Compaction cern mounted over the loss of true wetlands, investment in drainage systems dropped, and Routine operation of tractors and other farm Federal cost sharing for drainage systems was equipment and trampling by livestock can terminated, As a result, investment in subsur- harm land productivity by damaging soil struc- 10 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

ture. On susceptible cropland soils, a persist- SalinizatiOn ent layer of densely compacted soil, a “traffic pan, ” may form just below the depth of tillage Irrigation can cause salinization of the land. operations. On rangelands, which are not nor- Cropland salinization is primarily a drainage mally tilled, animal trampling compresses sur- problem aggravated by incorrect application face soil so water cannot infiltrate and plants of irrigation water. On irrigated fields, the Sun cannot reproduce. and crops extract almost pure water, leaving behind salts that had been dissolved in the Concern over compaction has increased in water. If the salt is not flushed deeper into the recent years, partly because the heavy ma- ground by rainfall or additional irrigation, it chinery characteristic of modern farming is can concentrate in and on the surface soil, thought to cause more compaction than lighter ultimately destroying the land’s productivity. machines. Soil compaction can cause crop yield reductions as great as 50 percent. Some But flushing salt into the ground does not soil types are more susceptible to compaction necessarily solve the salinization problem. If than others, and susceptibility generally in- subsurface conditions are relatively porous, the creases with increased soil moisture. saltwater may contaminate the ground water supply. If subsurface conditions are relatively Timing field operations to avoid periods impermeable, the salty water may drain into when the soil is especially susceptible, and the nearest river and flow to irrigators down- plowing deeper than normal (“subsoiling”), are river. Saltwater may also accumulate beneath effective ways to alleviate compaction. How- the surface so that a salty, “perched” water ever, both can reduce short-term profits and table accumulates. This can eventually rise and information is often inadequate for farmers to damage crop roots. make the best possible decisions. Most crops cannot survive in saline en- On rangelands, the compaction problem is vironments. High salt concentrations harm not well understood and practical technologies plants directly by causing physiological stress to correct it are not well developed. Both vehi- and indirectly by destroying soil biota. Salini- cle traffic and the hooves of grazing animals ty has already constrained production on 25 can compact range soils. This constrains plant to 35 percent of the irrigated land in the growth, retards seed germination and seedling Western United States, or about 5 percent of emergence, and accelerates erosion. the total national cropland. This 5 percent is Techniques to control rangeland compaction especially important because yields here are include restricting vehicle traffic and intensive- higher, the growing season longer, and highly managing livestock to reduce their impact value crops predominate on irrigated lands. on wet and other susceptible soils. However, Salinization can have costly consequences. practical technologies to correct compaction For example, in the San Joaquin Valley, high, are not available and, as with croplands, data salt-contaminated watertables under 400,000 are inadequate to optimize site management acres are costing $32 million annually in re- and policy decisions. duced yields. Some 1 million to 2 million acres Expert opinion on the national significance of prime land in that region are expected to go of the compaction problem differs. Some scien- out of crop production during the next 100 tists allege widespread damage to productive years if salinization continues unchecked. lands in general, while others see damage oc- Salinization can be controlled with elaborate curring only on certain susceptible land. Data drainage and disposal systems. Smaller scale, have not been and are not being gathered to less expensive approaches include using im- indicate the location or extent of soil compac- proved irrigation techniques and converting to tion constraints on productivity, although ex- crops that use less water or tolerate more salt. perts indicate that national data collection is Although less costly, these management tech- feasible. nologies have proven more difficult to imple- Ch /—Summary ● 11 ment than large-scale, publicly funded engi- of local water to replenish supplies and the neering projects because they require attitude high energy costs involved in transporting changes and capital investments from many in- water from distant sources may preclude such dividual farmers. And whiIe small-scaIe tech- remedies. On a national scale, schemes for nologies can reduce the accumulation of saline long-distance water transport will have to be water beneath irrigated fields, they will not compared with the alternatives of bringing eliminate the need for drainage where subsur- marginal agricultural lands into production in face conditions inhibit downward percola- the more water-abundant East or intensifying tion—e.g., most irrigated areas in the Colorado production on prime agricultural lands. and San Joaquin has bains. The current lack of effective State and Fed- Ground Water Depletion’ eral policies to discourage wasteful water use works against widespread adoption of water- The next several decades will bring a marked conserving technologies. Ground water is a decrease in the availability and quality of the common property resource, so individuals Nation ground water resources. This will sig- have few economic incentives to practice con- nificantly reduce the productivity of much ir- servation as long as others continue rapidly rigated agricultural land, especially in the depleting the resource. Southwestern States. The most severe problems will probably be confined to the West, but Land Subsidence some Eastern States will suffer local water shortages and water quality problems that will Subsidence—the sinking or collapse of land affect agricultural productivity. surfaces—is likely to become more common in the United States as the use of ground water Various technologies can alter irrigation and and subsurface mineral resources intensifies. farming systems and prolong the productivity y Subsidence can occur in various circum- of ground water resources, These vary from stances: when cities, industries, and irrigated modest changes in the way water is applied to agriculture withdraw large amounts of ground major changes in farm management such as water; when coal and other mineral resources converting to perennial crops. Although chang- are mined; when there is solution mining of ing the technologies used can reduce water salt or other subsurface mineral deposits; or demands, the actual reduction in ground water when large amounts of petroleum are ex- withdrawals that will result probably will be tracted, All of these activities can result in slow small and will only postpone the exhaustion subsidence or the unexpected collapse of the of some major U.S. ground water reservoirs, land surface. If agriculture overlies these areas, The technological change most likely to it can suffer slow or immediate consequences. occur in Western regions during the coming The effect of subsidence on agriculture has decades will be the return of irrigated lands to been most extensive in areas where ground dryland farming or grazing, Such conversion water mining for irrigation is common. For ex- will cause sharp decreases in production, Also, ample, on 5,400 square miles of San Jacinta as wind erosion and other problems associated Valley cropland in California, where irrigation with dryland farming develop, a continuing, wells pump as much as 1,500 acre-ft of water gradual decrease in land productivity can be annually, land has subsided nearly 28 ft since expected, 1935. Subsidence damages irrigation systems, Although some schemes for recharging over- wells, buildings, drainage and flood control drawn aquifers* * have been proposed, the lack structures, and other improvements. Data on *0”1’A 1s (.on(]u(:ting a more detailed study of this topic in a this problem seem to be adequate for agricul- separate assessment, \trater-Related “i’e(:hnologif~.s fi)r .Sustaim tural planning purposes. Subsidence effects are ing ,@ri(:ulturf: in [ L .S. ,4rid and Sf?m iarid I,ands, * *An aquifer IS a water-hearing undergroun(l layer of perme- permanent and there are no attractive techno- able r(x:k, sand, or ~ra~el. logical solutions. 12 . /mpacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Soil Organic Matter among the agricultural sciences. In recent decades, however, this aspect of soil science has Soil organic matter is important to soil pro- been largely neglected. ductivity because it: Agricultural scientists generally are not contributes to the development of soil ag- alarmed about pesticides harming soil ecology gregates, which enhance root development in the near term. Current insecticides and her- and reduce the energy needed to work the bicides are tested for their impact on soil biota. soil; They inhibit some biological processes and increases the air- and water-holding ca- suppress particular types of biota, but generally pacity of the soil, which is necessary for the gross effect of each pesticide application plant growth, and helps to reduce erosion; seems neither great nor long-lived. releases essential plant nutrients as it decays; Frequent applications of toxic chemicals holds nutrients from fertilizer in storage probably change the composition of soil biota until the plants need them; and communities, favoring species that can adapt enhances the abundance and distribution to the new chemical environment. The impact of vital soil biota. of these changes on long-term land productivity is not known. Because methods are not well- The importance of these functions varies great- enough developed to make practical differen- ly from one soil type to another. tiation among microbe species in the field, and Soil scientists generally emphasize the pos- soil invertebrates are seldom studied, the itive influence organic matter has on land pro- cumulative effect of agricultural technologies ductivity, but it can affect productivity adverse- on productivity cannot be fully measured. ly in some cases. For example, because organic matter holds soil moisture, it sometimes acts Soil chemistry indirectly to shorten the growing season by delaying planting where moist soils warm The chemical composition of the soil also af- slowly in the spring. fects land productivity. The nutrients that cropland and rangeland plants extract from the soil Although modern farming practices can af- come naturally from decomposing organic fect organic matter content, this study found matter, from the weathering of soil minerals, no data to indicate whether organic matter and in the case of nitrogen and sulfur, from the levels have increased or decreased in the years atmosphere, Nutrients are removed from the since widespread use of fertilizers replaced the land by harvesting crops, livestock, and dairy use of crop rotations. Recent research has fo- products, and by erosion, leaching, and (in the cused on the production-enhancing effects of case of nitrogen) loss to the atmosphere. In ad- off-farm inputs, and as a result soil scientists dition, nutrients can be changed chemically or have not studied the management of organic be bound to soil particles, thus becoming un- matter to optimize land productivity under var- available to plants. ious modern farming systems. To replace depleted nutrients, farmers used Soil Organisms to apply manure and grow “soil-building” crops such as clover in rotation with “soil- Soil micro-organisms and larger soil in- depleting” crops such as corn. While manure vertebrates, such as earthworms and insects, is still returned to the land where it is available, perform functions essential for plant growth. it is almost always supplemented with various Before the widespread availability of commer- commercial fertilizers. Moreover, in recent cial fertilizers, nutrients recycled by the biota years many farmers have shifted to cash-grain were recognized as a major component of land operations, eliminating most or all of their live- productivity and thus soil ecology ranked high stock. Thus, modern farming depends heavily Ch. l—Summary ● 13 on nutrients provided by fertilizers from off- solely from nonagricultural land. The quality farm sources. of air, water, ground water, fish and wildlife habitats, and esthetic and recreational areas is On rangelands, erosion commonly removes directly related to croplands, pasturelands, and more nutrients than are naturally replaced, rangelands. Unlike crop farmers, however, rangeland managers generally do not try to replace deficient Furthermore, an agroecosystem does not end nutrients. Rather, they try to reduce erosion at the edge of a field or pasture, but includes rates to conserve the natural supply. the boundaries—fences, hedgerows, windbreaks, nearby fallow fields, riparian habitats, Wherever most of a farm’s production leaves and adjacent undeveloped areas. As the quali- the farm, or accelerated erosion occurs, nutri- ty and quantity of these areas is changed by ents are removed faster than nature can replace agricultural activities, the utilities obtained them, Short-term nutrient supplies can be from the land also change, maintained with commercial fertilizers, but the profitability of fertilizer use may decline in Land resources help maintain water and air future years because the manufacture of fer- quality by cleansing water as it infiltrates into tilizer depends on increasingly expensive fossil ground water reservoirs, discharging relatively fuel and other nonrenewable mineral re- clean water to streams and wetlands, cleans- sources. ing air of pollutants, and reducing the dust content of air. To a large extent, conditions that Technologies to deal with the long-term def- enhance long-term productivity for crops and icit in nutrient supplies include erosion con- forage also enhance air and watershed quali- trol, developing cropping systems that use the ty. For example, fertilizers increase plant nutrient reservoir more slowly and efficient- growth, thus increasing ground cover and rely, and using special crop varieties and soil ducing erosion. But there are tradeoffs. Chem- biota to improve the availability of stored ical applications appropriate for sustaining nutrients. production can pollute streams, wetlands, aquifers, or the atmosphere. Generally, existing Benefits her Than Crops and Forage data bases are inadequate for determining the best solutions to these dilemmas, Other signif- Agricultural lands are managed to produce icant utilities that society obtains from agricul- crops and forage, but other, less quantifiable tural lands, such as recreational, scenic, and services from the land are also vitally impor- archeological resources, are even more difficult tant to the Nation’s well-being. These benefits to measure but are affected by changes in land are often taken for granted or assumed to come use and land quality.

SUSTAINING RANG=LAND PRODUCTIVITY

There are approximately 853 million acres damaged productivity within a few decades of of rangeland in the United States. Excluding initial use. Because overgrazing effects are Alaska’s 231 million acres, over half the Na- most severe in dry areas where the land is least tion’s rangelands are seriously degraded and resilient, range conditions now are worst in the suffer from reduced productivity caused by Southwestern States. Data are inadequate to overgrazing, mismanagement, and erosion. assess broad trends in range conditions. The Only 15 percent of the ranges in the contiguous available erosion data, the findings of en- States are rated in good condition. vironmental impact statements, and the testimony of experts suggest that productivity is Current range problems have their roots in still being degraded and that present range early U.S. history. Throughout most of the arid management practices may not sustain produc- and semiarid regions in the West, overgrazing tivity, 14 ● Impactsd of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Overall, Federal ranges are in worse condi- Used in integrated systems with improved tion than private and State ranges because the fencing and water development methods, these Federal Government owns more land that is range management technologies could improve inherently less resilient and more arid. General- and help sustain the Nation’s range resources. ly, the Federal ranges are in static condition Managing rangeland productivity for multi- or are continuing to deteriorate, while range ple uses is the stated goal of Federal range ef- condition is improving on better situated non- forts, In practice, however, livestock produc- Federal lands, tion is usually the dominant objective on both Demands for rangeland products and serv- Federal and non-Federal ranges. Translating ices are expected to increase sharply in the general multiple-use, sustained-yield objectives next two decades, and these demands can only from laws into achievable field objectives is ex- be met through improved range management. tremely difficult, especially when two or more A variety of management technologies has legitimate uses of the land are in conflict. How- been developed to improve and maintain de- ever, there are some technologies available that teriorated rangeland. Broadly categorized, focus on other than livestock production. These these include: include fish and game management techniques, erosion control to decrease sedimen- • adjusting livestock numbers, tation of streams and reservoirs, and vegeta- •Q controlling animal use with grazing sys- tion manipulation to increase watershed yields. tems, Little information, however, is available on the ● promoting desired plant species, and opportunities and problems offered by such ● controlling noxious plant and animal spe- technologies. cies.

SUSTAINING CROPLAND PRODUCTIVITY

The United States has about 413 million adopted rapidly in certain parts of the coun- acres of cropland, including about 230 million try. Multiple cropping is already used to ex- acres of prime farmland. Productivity on these pand production in many regions. Organic lands can be damaged by a variety of processes agriculture, drawing on both old and new including compaction, salinization, inadequate knowledge, offers alternative farming systems drainage, subsidence, changes in the chemical with important conservation potentials. Com- composition of the soil, and erosion. These puter technologies and other developments in problems can be caused or aggravated when communications, education, and farm plan- crop production is increased. ning are rapidly gaining importance, Cropping perennial grains, on the other hand, is unlike- But agricultural production does not have to ly to be practical before the 21st century. Simi- be harmful to the quality of the land resource. larly, breeding crops for salt and other stress On the contrary, production and conservation tolerance is primarily a laboratory technology can be mutually reinforcing if appropriate tech- at present. Eventually other new productivity- nologies are developed and used, For many conserving crops might come into use as meth- sites, innovative farming techniques are avail- ods and markets develop. able that maintain or even enhance inherent land productivity without sacrificing short- Although various innovative approaches to term profits, conserving land productivity will become in- These innovations are in various stages of creasingly important in the future, existing development. Conservation tillage, the most conservation technologies will continue to play promising of the new technologies, is being a key role in good land stewardship. Contour Ch. /—Summary ● 15 farming, stripcropping, shelter belts, crop servation have had and can continue to have residue management, tillage management, ter- a widespread beneficial influence on many races, and other traditional approaches to con- acres of farmland.

Cropland Acreage

1 Dot = 25,000 acres

SOURCE USDA, 1978

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION

Developing and diffusing new agricultural of research funds, facilities, and personnel, * systems is a slow process. Advances in science Although agricultural scientists are besieged can accelerate the development of a new tech- with new and different ideas, practicality nique, but it still must be tested and adapted forces them to concentrate their limited re- to site-specific conditions before it can be sources on promising avenues of research, recommended to farmers. This need for extensive testing and evaluation partly explains why “Chronic funding shortages, research priorities, and other re- proponents of new technologies often consider search management issue\ arc analyzed i n a recent OTA assessment, ,411 .Assessment of the United States Food and Agricultural agriculture overly conservative. The conser- Research System, OTA-F-I 55 (Washington, DC.: U.S. Govern- vatism is also explained by chronic shortages ment Printing office, Decemher 1981). 16 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

which generally means on marginal improve- major existing crops and systems that have ments in conventional technologies, powerful constituencies among the electorate and scientists. Unfortunately, this approach can limit innovation. Scientists are protective of existing Some conservation practices, such as conser- projects and funding and seem reluctant to test vation tillage, have proven profitable, low cost, new ideas, especially if they come from out- and low risk, yet are not used by many farmers side the United States or from the trial-and- whose land is suitable for and in need of these error experience of farmers, For example, drip practices, Many factors, including the personal irrigation techniques developed abroad were characteristics of the farmer or rancher and the initially treated with great suspicion and little attributes of the technology, influence this deci- research here. It was only after many farmers sionmaking process, had begun using drip systems that USDA tested Methods to encourage the adoption of con- the method and began to assist its develop- servation practices include: 1) information and ment. Similarly, rigorous testing of organic education programs; 2) economic programs farming techniques is still resisted by some using subsidies, loans, privileged access to agricultural scientists. resources, investment credits, and tax incen- Thus, while work on mainstream research tives; and 3) regulations with economic and problems and priorities should continue, a legal sanctions. In many cases, these ap- need exists for more rapid development of new proaches have failed to motivate widespread and innovative technologies. If this is to occur, adoption because they have not been adapted improved mechanisms must be developed to to particular groups of farmers with special screen and test new ideas. At present, such social, economic, resource, and management ideas cannot compete for funding with the capability circumstances.

GOVERNMENT’$ ROLE

Government policies and programs that af- production, additional erosive or otherwise fect agricultural technology use and land pro- fragile land is coming into production, mak- ductivity generally fall into one of two ing the need for integration much more signif- categories: 1) those that promote economic icant. goals, either by developing and promoting pro- A number of hypotheses exist about how duction technologies or by manipulating short- commodity price supports, credit and in- term economic factors; or 2) those that promote surance programs, and tax policies interact conservation of natural resource productivity, with technology decisions and with the long- either by developing and promoting conserva- term trends in land use that affect conservation technologies or by subsidizing investment tion. For example, agricultural support pro- in conservation. The two types of Government grams are said to be a cause of land price in- activities often operate simultaneously. Both flation, This leads to increased debt, which influence farmers’ decisions about technology reduces the economic flexibility that farmers use and about resource conservation, but the and ranchers need to invest in conservation two influences are not always compatible. technologies. Some experts believe that commodity price supports and disaster insurance Historically, economic programs supported programs have promoted unsustainable uses prices primarily by keeping land out of crop of fragile land. It also appears that some tax production; hence no major effort was required and credit policies make agriculture an attrac- to integrate production and conservation pol- tive tax shelter for nonfarmer investors, en- icies. Now, with economic goals shifting to full couraging absentee ownership and tenant Ch.—Summary ● 17

farming. Although these kinds of relationships relative effects of various productivity- between policy and productivity are often dis- degrading processes. cussed, policy anaIysts and program adminis- One widely discussed proposal for integrat- trators have few analytical tools to predict how ing conservation policies with policies de- specific economic programs will influence signed to manipulate production is to make land productivity in the future. participation in the subsidy, insurance, and tax Congressional mandates exist that direct programs contingent upon adoption of conser- long-term resource appraisals to plan the vation practices. This “cross-compliance” development of cropland and rangeland re- strategy loses force when strong export mar- sources. These processes are important for for- kets make price support programs less signifi- mulating the policies that influence land pro- cant. However, greater constraints on the ac- ductivity. Both the Resources Planning Act cessibility of disaster insurance and agricul- (RPA) and the Resources Conservation Act tural credit programs could contribute to some (RCA) processes are gradually becoming more conservation objectives. Any conservation useful for these purposes. Political controver- strategy that uses incentives or penalties must sy over the findings has been a constraint, as be responsive to changing economic condi- has the sometimes narrow scope of the ap- tions, to the need for continuous (v. single-year) praisals. For example, the RPA report scarce- conservation management inputs, and to the ly mentions rangeland soil erosion and the special circumstances of the farmers who work RCA process failed to evaluate major Federal fragile lands. conservation programs, Some mathematical models exist to simulate A major effort supporting conservation has the interrelated aspects of the U.S. agricultural been the Agricultural Conservation Program, system, and these can improve understanding a cost-sharing program that has distributed $8 of the relationships between economic and billion since it was started in 1936. But Federal conservation policies. But these models are not cost-sharing programs for conservation prac- sufficiently developed or widely used for rig- tices are controversial, They have been criti- orous, comprehensive assessment of policy cized for supporting production rather than alternatives. If resource sustainability is set as conservation and for not directing funds to the an explicit goal of both the Government-funded

most susceptible land. The cost effectiveness technology development programs and the of programs to prevent soil erosion and pro- commodity and credit programs, and if productivity degradation could be improved if duction enhancement is made an explicit goal more resources were directed toward those of the programs to develop and implement con- lands that have the highest risk, However, such servation technologies, it should become possi- redirection would be very imprecise until sci- ble to improve agricultural production and in- entists learned to assess more accurately the herent land productivity simultaneously.

● Conservation and production need not conflict Profitable technologies exist that maintain high levels of production while conserving long-term prod~ctivity of the land, More such technologies could be developed, ● Federal conservation programs have been poorly coordinated with other Federal programs that manipulate the economics of agriculture. ● Data and analysis on how erosion and other processes enhance or degrade the productivity of land under various management systems are inadequate for making the best possible decisions on national agricultural policies. 18 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

ISSUES AND OPTIONS

Congress has two main channels to affect substantial debate is likely to continue. The how technologies are developed and used to redistribution of Federal conservation efforts sustain inherent land productivity: 1) through now occurring is expected to concentrate ef- legislation, including budget appropriations, to forts on those sites where soil loss is highest. establish new programs or to change existing Improved analysis of the site-specific relation- ones; and 2) through committee oversight of ships among erosion, other productivity-de- how existing laws and programs are adminis- grading processes, yield, and associated vari- tered. This assessment found that existing agri- ables eventually should enhance the cost effec- cultural legislation does provide a sound base tiveness of the program redistribution. for the Government activities that are needed Conservation practices and production tech- to accelerate the development and promotion nologies with proven effectiveness for sustain- of productivity-sustaining technologies. Con- ing productivity are not being used on many sequently, many of the options for congres- sites where they are needed. Farmers and sional activity are related to congressional ranchers often are not convinced that available guidance and oversight functions rather than conservation practices or productivity-sustain- new legislation. ing approaches are profitable or technically Opportunities for congressional action can feasible for their particular situations. The be categorized under five policy issues. problem is one of demonstration and education; therefore, Congress could improve pro- Integrating Conservation Policy With gram effectiveness by mandating in-service Economic Policy training and other programs that would enhance the capabilities of Federal, State, and Because agricultural production and conser- private sector agents to transfer technologies. vation of inherent productivity are not mutually exclusive, it should be possible to establish Enhancing Federal Capabilities TO farm economic policies that include conserva- Dovelop Innovative Technologies tion goals and to analyze the interactions of current and proposed conservation and eco- Farmers and ranchers correctly perceive that nomic programs. Options for accomplishing there are many sites that simply cannot sustain these ends include: 1) accelerating the develop- profitable use with the conservation technol- ment of analytical policy models that could be ogies now available. Hence, there is a great used in the existing RCA and RPA programs need for technology innovation and Congress to evaluate policy alternatives, and 2) establish- could act to accelerate the development of ing a policy analysis office within USDA that productivity-sustaining technologies. Congress’ would develop a systematic process to assess options include: 1) encouraging the federally how agricultural policies affect inherent land sponsored research network to make resource productivity. sustainability an explicit goal for their research programs and projects, and 2) directing par- Improving the Effectiveness of ticular USDA agencies and programs to eval- Federal Conservation Programs uate and test innovative technologies that may be outside the scope of mainstream research The Government’s conservation investments efforts. could be more effective if they were concentrated on land where productivity degradation Reducing Pressure on Fragile Lands is greatest and on the most effective technologies. However, there is political resistance to Some land now in row crops and small redistributing program efforts and funds, and grains, and some overgrazed rangelands, will Ch. /—Summary ● 19 not be able to sustain their current uses but Encouraging State initiatives could be converted to uses more compatible with the land’s inherent capability. However, Since soil erosion was recognized as a crit- short-term profits from the sustainable uses are ical issue in the 1930’s, most efforts in soil con- often so low that farmers cannot afford the conservation have been organized at the Federal version. Thus, Congress has the option to es- level. Recently, however, several States have tablish a limited set-aside program to compen- taken important initiatives and have developed sate farmers for such conversions. The pro- effective programs in cost sharing and other gram could pay farmers the difference between conservation approaches. The Federal Govern- what the land would earn from its most prof- ment is cooperating in these efforts, but there itable, productivity-sustaining use and what it are other opportunities to enhance existing now earns from the resource-consumptive use. State programs and to encourage similar de- In the long run, as new technologies are devel- velopments in other States. The options range oped, the need for such a subsidy could de- from low-cost efforts that would facilitate com- cline. Another long-term option that could re- munication among States to funding arrange- duce pressures on fragile lands would be to en- ments that would reimburse States for part of courage agricultural development of resilient the cost-sharing expenses. potential croplands and grazinglands that are in other uses now or are virgin. Chapter II

Land productivity Problems

Photo credits: USDA—Soi/ Conservation Service “Shoestring” erosion on very poor condition rangeland Row erosion in cornfield caused by heavy rains Page Soil Erosion ...... 23 List of Tables The Mechanics of Soil Erosion ...... 23 Table No. Page Estimating Soil Erosion Rates ...... 24 l.Wind Erosion on Cropland and Magnitude of Soil Erosion ...... 25 Rangeland in the Great Plains Areas With High Erosion Rates ...... 32 States, 1977...... 26 Effects of Erosion on Crop Production. . . 34 2. Annual Sheet and Rill Erosion on Tolerable Level of Soil Loss ...... 36 Cropland and the Amount of Erosion Other Costs Associated With Erosion . . . . 36 in Excess of5 Tons per Acre, by Conclusions ...... 37 Erosion Interval, 1977...... 27 Drainage ...... 38 3. Sheet andRill Erosionon Pastureland, by State ...... 28 Soil Compaction ...... 42 4. Sheet and Rill Erosion on Rangeland, 42 Process and Effects ...... by State, 1977...... 29 Research Needs ...... 45 5. Potential for Cropland Use According 45 Conclusions ...... to the 1977 National Resource Salinization ...... 46 Inventories ...... 31 Conclusions ...... 48 6. Summary of Buntley-Bell Erosion Study ...... 35 Ground Water Depletion ...... 48 7. Effect of Topsoil Loss on Corn field.... 35 Introduction ...... 48 Ground Water Overdraft...... 49 Degradation of Ground Water Quality . . . 51 List of Figures Reduced Streamflow and Spring Page Discharge Caused by Ground Water Figure No. Pumping ...... 53 l. Average Annual Wind Erosion on Conclusions ...... 54 Non-Federal Rangeland in the Great Plains States ...... 26 Subsidence ...... 55 2. Average Annual Sheet and Rill Erosion Conclusions ...... 56 on Non-Federal Rangeland, by State . . . . 30 3. Acreage for Domestic Use and Export, Utilities Other Than Crops and Forage . . . . 56 1940-80 ...... 31 Effects on Air Quality ...... 57 4. Cropland Sheet andRill Erosion, 1977 . . 32 Effects on Water Quality...... 58 5. Wet Soilsby State and Farm Effects on Ground Water Resources .,... 59 Production Region ...... 39 Effects on Fish and Wildlife ...... 59 Conclusions ...... 61 6.Water Budget for the Conterminous United States ...... 50 Chapter II References...... 61 7. Pesticides Applied...... 52 Chapter II

Land Productivity Problems

A variety of processes can damage the pro- lands out of production. Withdrawing too ductivity of the Nation’s croplands and range- much water from ground water supplies can lands. The greatest threat to land productivity limit future agriculture. Land subsidence, is erosion, but other influences can also be im- whether related to ground water withdrawal portant. Compaction and inadequate drainage or other factors, can harm productivity with can reduce crop yields. Salinization can force no hope for restoration.

SOIL EROSION

Congress first appropriated funds to study the water runs off the surface rather than soak- soil erosion in 1928. Research stations were ing into the soil, Even without the force of rain- established and both the process of erosion and drop splashes, runoff water can detach and its effects on crop yields were studied exten- carry away soil. Thus, the exposure of bare soil sively. By the early 1950’s, many studies in- and the rates and volumes of overland water- dicated how much yields would be reduced flow are the critical factors in water-caused with each inch of topsoil lost. U.S. Department erosion. of Agriculture (USDA) officials, judging the There are four major categories of water- data to be adequate on that aspect of the prob- caused erosion: 1) sheet erosion is the removal lem, closed out most of the research on how of a soil layer of fairly uniform thickness by erosion affects yields. But because there has runoff water; 2) rill erosion occurs as small since been a revolution in agricultural meth- channels form on the soil surface; 3) gully ero- ods, the old data on yield reductions are inade- sion is an advanced state of rill erosion, where quate for decisionmaking by Government or in- the channels become deeper than 1ft; and dividual farmers. 4) streambank erosion is the process of stream Research on the causes and rates of erosion widening. Of these types, sheet and rill erosion and on techniques for controlling erosion did cause the most damage. continue after the closing of the erosion re- Most serious erosion by water occurs where search stations, as much because of concern land has one or more of the following charac- about erosion-caused water pollution as be- teristics, and erosion control generally involves cause of concern about agricultural productiv- modifying these: ity, Thus, much is known about methods and direct costs of controlling erosion, but very lit- ● steep slopes or long slopes that allow run- tle about the benefits of such investments or, off water to gain momentum; conversely, about the short- and long-term Ž exposure of tilled, bare soil without pro- costs of allowing erosion to continue at its pres- tection by cover crops or organic residue, ent accelerated rates. This often occurs between the harvesting of one crop and the establishment of the The Mechanics of Soil Erosion next crop’s leaf canopy; ● row crops alined up and down steep or Water and wind cause soil erosion. The force moderate slopes; of raindrops striking exposed earth detaches ● runoff from upslope pastures flowing soil particles, which are then carried away if across cropland;

23 24 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Ž poor water absorption and poor drainage of such soil is not well understood. Nutrients that result in less water entering the soil transported with the eroded soil may benefit and more water running off; the site where the soil is deposited, but, con- ● poor stands of low-quality vegetation; and versely, superior soils may be buried by inferior . lack of vegetation along streams. material. Further, drainage can be impeded by deposited soil and soil particles carried by the Wind causes erosion when it blows across wind can severely damage vegetation and poorly protected soil with enough force to lift cause partial or complete loss of crops. and move soil particles. Drier and more finely granulated soil is more susceptible to wind ero- Erosion is a self-reinforcing process, It low- sion. Since soil is driest and vegetation poorest ers the fertility and water-holding capacity of during droughts, which are characteristic of the soil by removing nutrients and organic mat- the Great Plains and Western States, this is ter. As a consequence, plant growth is less and where the highest wind erosion rates occur. As the soil is less protected. So the erosion acceler- recently as 1977 several drought-stricken re- ates more and more, unless the cycle is broken gions experienced severe duststorms. Soil sur- by a change in farming practices or a change faces stripped of vegetation for dryland farm- in land use. ing and overgrazed rangeland provided much of the soil for these recent storms (Wilshire, et Estimating Soil Erosion Rates al., 1980) as they did for the infamous dust bowl storms during the prolonged drought of the The universal soil loss equation (USLE) re- 1930’s. lates measurements of five variables to estimate water-caused sheet and rill erosion. The vari- Although eroded soil is commonly described ables are: precipitation; erosion potential of the as “lost, “ it does not in fact vanish, Much of soil type (which depends on texture, structure, the soil moved by water remains in the same and organic matter content); length and steep- field, but farther down the slope. The portion ness of slope; type of plant cover and manage- of the soil that is actually lost from cropland ment conditions (tillage); and supporting prac- or forage-producing land varies from one site tices for erosion control (e. g., terraces, contour to the next, depending on the shape of the farming, and stripcropping). slopes and other factors. (On the average, about one-fourth of the cropland soil moved by water Research on USLE began in the 1940’s, and erosion each year becomes sediment in streams by 1965 Soil Conservation Service (SCS) per- and about 8 percent reaches the ocean (Miller, sonnel were able to use it to estimate sheet and 1981). The fate of wind-carried soil is less well- rill erosion rates accurately on most unirri- known, but the reported wind erosion rates do gated croplands and to predict how erosion not always represent net losses from the af- would be affected by changes in management fected region. or by specific conservation measures. Since 1965, more sophisticated computer models With both wind and water erosion, the ma- have been developed for more precise esti- terial that is most likely to be lost is the best mates, but USLE remains the most important part of the soil: water soluble plant nutrients, technique because it is based on a pragmatic lightweight organic matter, and tiny clay par- set of measurements and the calculations can ticles, which have the highest ability to store be done on site. USLE has been adapted for fertilizers and naturally occurring nutrients. erosion estimates on other land uses, but still These are moved first and farthest by both needs refinement for conditions such as ir- wind and water erosion. rigated land and for atypical sites where soils The soil that moves downslope in the field are highly weathered (e.g., the Caribbean is less fertile and more subject to drought than islands), poorly drained with long slopes (e. g., it was before it was moved. How croplands and the Mississippi Delta), or where precipitation rangelands are generally affected by deposits is atypical (as in parts of the Western States Ch. /l—Land Productivity Problems ● 25 where most erosion is caused by snowmelt run- covered by that NRI. The 1982 NRI will im- off). Recently, USDA increased the research prove on those weaknesses, and the data for budget for the soils laboratory at Purdue Uni- sheet and rill erosion are expected to be com- versity to further refine US LE. parable for the two surveys. Unless otherwise indicated, erosion rates cited in this report A similar equation to estimate wind erosion refer to the NRI estimated amount of soil (WEQ) uses measurements of five variables: eroded (in tons per acre) in 1977. soil erodability, soil ridge roughness, climate, width of field, and vegetative cover. Estimates from WEQ are not considered to be as accurate Magnitude of Soil Erosion as the USLE estimates and fewer SCS personnel are expert in its use, Consequently, wind Water-caused erosion on non-Federal land totals about 5 billion tons per year. Of that, 5 erosion data are lacking for much of the United percent is from roads and construction sites, States. 6 percent from gullies, 11 percent from stream- USLE and WEQ have vastly improved the banks, 3 percent is sheet and rill from pasture- reliability of erosion data for every level of con- land, 8 percent is sheet and rill erosion from servation decisionmaking. Conservation plans rangelands, 38 percent is sheet and rill erosion for specific farms rely heavily on erosion rate from croplands, and the remaining 29 percent predictions to indicate the appropriate level of is sheet and rill erosion from forests and other management conservation structure invest- land. Thus, the greatest sheet and rill erosion ment, At the regional and national level, the occurs on the 413 million acres of cropland. equations are now used in the National Re- No similar national data exist on wind- source Inventory INRI) conducted periodical- caused erosion. For the 10 Great Plains States ly by SCS to collect information for Govern- ment policymaking. where the wind erosion is greatest, an estimated 1.5 billion tons of soil are moved by the The accuracy of the NRI data depends not wind each year (fig, 1). Of that, 45 percent is only on the USLE and WEQ equations but also from the 10 States’ rangelands, and 55 percent on the design of the sample survey that deter- is from the croplands (table 1). mines what fields are measured for the inventory. The first year that the equations were pro- Cropland viding accurate estimates for the national survey was 1967, but the sampling procedure Erosion occurs on nearly all the Nation’s 413 was flawed and the 1967 data are not con- million acres of cropland, but a high propor- sidered to be reliable for comparison to more tion of both water- and wind-caused erosion recent data. The 1977 NRI was the first na- is concentrated on a relatively small propor- tional survey to use a valid sampling procedure tion of the land. The national average sheet and and the modern equations. The next NRI is un- rill erosion rate on cropland is 4.7 tons per acre der way in 1982. Until the 1982 data are avail- (USDA, NRI, 1980), but much of the land is able, the only reliable set of data on erosion eroding more slowly than this. Half the crop- rates at the national scale are from the 1977 land has sheet and rill erosion rates of 2 tons NRI. per acre or less. At the same time, the most rapidly eroding 2 percent of the land has ero- The 1977 NRI data are considered accurate sion rates over 30 tons per acre and accounts estimates of sheet and rill erosion on croplands for 25 percent of all the sheet and rill erosion and pasturelands for most States, rough esti- from cropland (see table 2). mates of sheet and rill erosion on rangelands in the Western States, and fair estimates of The distribution of wind erosion over the wind erosion in the 10 Great Plains States. landscape is similarly uneven. In the Great Wind erosion in the other States and gully and Plains States, wind erosion on croplands aver- streambank erosion in general are not well ages 5.3 tons per acre, but some 53 percent of

26 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

Figure 1. —Average Annual Wind Erosion the erosion occurs on 9 percent of the land. (tons per acre) on Non-Federal Rangeland in the This highly fragile cropland erodes at rates Great Plains States over 14 tons per acre.

Pastureland pasture is land where planted grasses, legumes, or other herbs are managed to produce forage. It is seldom tilled, so it has a perennial vegetative cover. Because the land must be rel- None atively well watered to repay the investment in management, the vegetative cover is typically abundant enough to protect the land from accelerated erosion. Thus, the national average erosion rate on pastureland is 2.6 tons per acre. Higher rates of pastureland erosion that do 0.9 occur are concentrated on a relatively small part of the land, where poor management, steep slope, low moisture-holding capacity or drought are typical. Most of the pastureland None has sheet and rill erosion rates below 2 tons, while the 11 percent of the land with rates over 5 tons accounts for half of the total sheet and rill erosion on pastureland. Wind erosion on pastureland is generally insignificant, but damage is reported occasionally, especially where overgrazing or drought destroys the plant cover (table 3). Approximately half the grazing capacity of private lands in the United States is on pasture. Erosion threatens relatively little of this land, but improved management—more fertilizing, NOTE The average IS 18 tons per acre liming, reseeding, and better livestock manage- SOURCE: 1977 National Resource Inventories ment—could increase forage production by as

Table 1 .–Wind Erosion on Cropland and Rangelanda in the Great Plains States, 1977 Cropland Rangeland a Erosion, tons per acre per year Erosion, tons per acre per year State 2 2-4.9 5-14 14 2 2-4.9 5-14 14 Total (1,000 acres) Colorado...... 4,849 1,788 2,037 2,419 23,258 55 82 406 34,894 Kansas...... 19,816 3,946 3,786 1,258 15,765 112 11 2 287 45,082 Montana...... 8,177 3,747 2,657 774 38,834 — — — 54,189 Nebraska...... 17,698 1,625 1,016 360 21,626 234 46 95 42,700 New Mexico...... 720 346 659 557 27,316 4,841 5,282 4,657 44,378 North Dakota...... 18,719 5,598 2,486 110 10,393 48 58 65 37,477 Oklahoma...... 8,233 1,379 1,543 628 14,537 15 14 – 26,349 South Dakota...... 9,873 5,620 2,356 343 22,191 7 — — 40,354 Texas...... 12,982 1,962 6,249 9,246 85,749 2,539 2,784 4,329 125,840 Wyoming...... 2,112 271 527 60 24,947 403 281 538 29,139 Grand total...... 103,179 26,282 23,316 15,755 284,616 8,254 8,659 10,377 480,402 a Non. Federal rangeland Only. SOURCE: 1977 National Resource Inventories Ch. /l—Land Productivity Problems ● 27

Table 2.—Annual Sheet and Rill Erosion on Cropland and the Amount of Erosion in Excess of 5 Tons per Acre, by Erosion Interval, 1977

Total erosion Cumulative Total sheet in excess of 5 percentageof Cumulative and rill erosion Cumulative tons per acre erosion in Erosion interval Total acres percentage (millions percentage (millions excess of 5 (tons per acre) (millions) of acreage of tons) of erosion of tons) tons per acre 0-1 ...... , . . . 131.6 31.8 49.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 1-2...... 74.6 49.8 110.6 8.3 0.0 0.0 2-3...... , . . . 51.5 62.3 127.5 14.9 0.0 0.0 3-4...... 35.9 71.0 125.0 21.4 0.0 0.0 4-5...... 26.0 77.3 116.3 27,4 0.0 0.0 5-6...... 17.6 81.6 96.2 32.4 8.2 0.9 6-7 ...... 12,6 84.6 81.8 36.6 18.6 2.9 7-8 ...... 9.3 86.9 69.4 40,2 23.0 5.4 8-9 ...... 7,3 88.7 62.0 43.4 25.4 8.1 9-10...... 5.8 90.1 54.6 46,2 25.8 10.9 10-11 ...... 4,8 91.3 50.2 48,8 26.3 13.7 11-12...... 3.7 92.2 43.1 51.0 24.4 16.3 12-13 ...... 3.0 92.9 36.9 52.9 22,1 18.7 13-14 ...... 2.8 93.6 37.1 54.8 23.3 21.2 14-15...... 2.4 94.2 34.6 56.6 22.7 23.6 15-20 ...... 7.8 96.1 134.8 63.6 95.8 33.9 20-25...... 4.4 97.1 98.0 68.7 76.0 42.1 25-30...... 2.9 97.8 80.6 72.9 65.8 49.2 30-50...... 5,5 99.1 209.9 83.8 182.4 68.8 50-75...... 2,3 99.6 133.8 90.7 122.5 82.0 75-100 ...... 0.8 99.9 64.4 94.0 60.6 88.5 100+ ...... 0.7 100,0 109.8 100.0 106.3 100.0 Total, ...... 413,3 – 1,925.8 929.2 SOURCE 1977 National Resource lnventories -

muchas 50percent(USDA, 1981)whilereduc- off. Overgrazing is the most common misuse ing erosion. Unfortunately, a more likely sce- of rangelands. It causes partial or complete de- nariois that a significant part of thelandused struction of the grass cover. The overall condi- for pasture in 1977 will be converted to use for tion of U.S. rangeland is discussed in chapter row crops and small grains, and that this shift III. will cause a significant increaseinerosion on that land (Miller, 1981). Sheet and rill erosion on the 414 million acres of non-Federal rangeland averages 2.8 Rangeland tons per acre (see table 4 and fig. 2). As on croplands and pastureland, much of the ero- Rangeland is land where the natural plant sion is concentrated on a relatively small part cover of grass, forbs, or shrubs produces for- of the land. The sheet and rill erosion rate is age for livestock and wildlife, but where man- over 5 tons on the most rapidly eroding 12 per- agement is typically limited to manipulations cent of the land. That 12 percent accounts for of livestock grazing patterns. Reseeding, fer- 57 percent of total sheet and rill erosion on non- tilization, tillage, and other inputs are uncom- Federal rangelands. mon. Erosion is the major force degrading the inherent productivity here, too. Neither is wind erosion evenly distributed on Because rangeland is located in the arid and rangelands. Most non-Federal rangeland has semiarid Western States and in Alaska, climat- wind erosion rates of less than 2 tons per acre, ic limitations on plant growth make the land but the most susceptible 3 percent of the land, highly susceptible to any misuse that leaves the eroding at 14 tons and more per year, accounts soil exposed to wind, rain, and snowmelt run- for 31 percent of the total wind erosion. 28 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

Table 3.—Sheet and Rill Erosion on Pastureland, by State (excluding Aiaska)

USLE, tons per acre per year State <2 2-4.9 5-13.9 14+ 1,000 acres Alabama...... 3,681 321 120 — Arizona...... 11 — — — Arkansas ...... 3,765 838 599 426 California ...... 1,028 57 38 4 Colorado ...... 1,317 128 107 46 Connecticut ...... 103 6 3 . Delaware...... 21 1 — Florida ...... 5,399 89 55 — Georgia ...... 2,960 221 40 13 Hawaii ...... 596 201 113 82 Idaho ...... 1,058 — 6 45 Illinois ...... 2,013 412 350 295 Indiana ...... 1,480 258 239 170 Iowa...... 3,101 678 573 178 Kansas...... 2,071 413 144 73 Kentucky ...... 3,624 835 686 590 Louisiana...... 2,759 107 59 20 Maine ...... 246 — 3 — Maryland ...... 388 60 25 13 Massachusetts...... 85 3 3 — Michigan ...... 1,116 76 24 14 Minnesota ...... 2,752 77 44 16 Mississippi ...... 2,994 589 279 179 Missouri ...... 8,352 1,881 1,747 843 Montana ...... 2,528 80 4 35 Nebraska...... 2,120 422 227 130 Nevada...... 260 — 38 . New Hampshire...... 95 — — — New Jersey ...... 139 1 — 4 New Mexico ...... 341 1 — 40 New York...... 2,050 130 75 31 North Carolina...... 1,607 252 163 8 North Dakota ...... 1,514 30 — — Ohio ...... 1,749 377 311 178 Oklahoma...... 7,064 1,132 440 77 Oregon ...... 1,678 84 5 — Pennsylvania ...... 1,386 206 118 87 Rhode Island ...... 16 2 — — South Carolina ...... 1,185 28 24 5 South Dakota ...... 2,384 21 8 — Tennessee ...... 3,920 964 405 185 Texas ...... 15,942 1,780 857 189 Utah ...... 580 46 — — Vermont ...... 456 34 3 12 Virginia ...... 2,114 475 434 251 Washington ...... 1,215 21 16 — West Virginia ...... 835 351 486 365 Wisconsin ...... 2,173 313 202 50 Wyoming ...... 701 25 10 — Total United States ...... 104,972 14,026 9,084 4,654 Caribbean ...... 289 107 173 294 Grand total ...... 105,261 14.133 9.257 4.948>- - SOURCE 1977 National Resource Inventories. Ch. //—Land Productivity Problems ● 29

Table 4.—Sheet and Rill Erosion on Rangeland,a by State, 1977

Hangelanf,, Erosion, tons per acre per year State <2 2-4.9 5-13.9 14+ 1,000 acres Alabama...... — — — — Alaska. ., ...... — — — — Arizona...... 25,544 5,417 3,981 149 Arkansas...... 90 61 53 44 California...... 9,607 2,439 3,049 2,459 Colorado...... 15,659 3,867 2,586 1,689 Connecticut...... — — — — Delaware...... — — — — Florida...... 3,002 15 — — Georgia...... — — — — Hawaii. ..., ...... , ...... — — — — Idaho. ..., ...... 6,315 171 89 14 Illinois...... — — — — Indiana ...... — — — — Iowa. ..., ...... — — — — Kansas...... 11,692 2,470 1,643 471 Kentucky ...... — — — — Louisiana...... 326 — — — Maine ...... ,...... — — — — Maryland...... — — — — Massachusetts...... — — — — Michigan, ...... — — — — Minnesota ...... 110 — — Mississippi...... 15 10 — 5 Missouri ...... 35 — — — Montana...... 32,088 3,609 2,110 1,027 Nebraska...... 15,378 4,129 1,953 541 Nevada...... 4,970 1,1!39 1,074 108 New Hampshire. . ..., ...... — — — — New Jersey. ..., ...... — — — — New Mexico...... 33,896 5,190 2,195 815 New York...... — — — North Carolina...... — — — North Dakota...... 9,736 394 229 205 Ohio ...... — — — — Oklahoma ...... 10,954 2,095 1,095 422 Oregon...... 8,615 1,195 285 15 Pennsylvania...... — — — — Rhode Island...... — — — South Carolina ...... — — — South Dakota...... 19,496 1,489 947 266 Tennessee ...... — — — Texas ...... 74,009 10,427 6,158 4,807 Utah ...... 7,271 1,090 646 378 Vermont...... — — — — Virginia...... — — — — Washington ...... 4,580 926 444 91 West Virginia ...... — Wisconsin...... 4 — — — Wyoming ...... 19,547 2,670 2,779 1,173 Total United States...... 312,939 48,863 31,316 14,679 Caribbean...... 1 11 8 44 Grand total ...... , ...... , . . . 312,940 48,874 31,324 14,723 a Non.Federal rangeland only SOURCE 1977 National Resource inventories 30 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Figure 2.—Average Annual Sheet and Rill Erosion on Non”Federal Rangeland, by State (tons per acre)

NOTE The national average IS 28 tons per acre

SOURCE 1977 National Resource Inventories potential Croplands cropland is inherently less suitable for farming, Thus, increased erosion can be expected As export demand for U.S. crops continues as these more susceptible lands are brought to grow, the Nation will see changes in crop- into use. In one study designed to examine this ping patterns and gradual increases in the acre- issue, Miller (1981) used the 1977 NRI data to age farmed (CEQ-NALS, 1981). Between 1969 project sheet and rill erosion rates that would and 1980, for example, increased demand occur on potential cropland should these lands caused a 22-percent increase in the acreage be cultivated for row crops and small grain planted to crops in this country. Land in row crops. crops increased by nearly 50 million acres, while wheat alone increased by 27 million First, the study looked at the 69 million acres acres. The amount of cropland planted to row of land classified as cropland that was actual- crops grew from 40 to 53 percent (fig. 3). ly being used for rotation hay, pasture, or other Generally, the best croplands are already in uses. If this land was converted to row crops use, so the land available for conversion to and small grains and cultivated with conserva- Ch. I/—Land Productivity Problems ● 31

Figure 3.— Acreage for Domestic Use and Export, 1940-80

250 c 1- .—o For domestic use 200

150

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1977 1980 SOURCE “Changes in Farm Product Ion and Efficiency ” USDA Prellmlnary ‘78-80 data —Economics and Statistics Service tion tillage, it was projected to erode an average age erosion rate would be 6.5 tons per acre, 20 of 9.9 tons per acre. This is 83 percent higher percent above the current average erosion rates erosion than current rates for row crop and for row crop and small grain cropland, small grain cropland. If conservation tillage were used to bring the Next the study examined acreage with high, 87 million acres described as having “medium medium, and low potential for conversion to potential” for conversion to croplands into pro- cropland (table 5). “High potential” land is land duction, the expected average erosion would with favorable physical characteristics where be 9.6 tons per acre, 77 percent more than the there is evidence of similar land nearby having current average erosion. been converted to cropland. There were 39 mil- The actual amount of land that will be con- lion acres of such land in 1977, most of it in verted to crops in the future depends both on use as pasture. If conservation tillage were demand and on how successful improved man- used to bring high potential land into row crop agement and technologies are in increasing and small grain production, the expected aver- yields from the cropland already in use. An estimated 36 million to 143 million acres of additional cropland may come into production Table 5.—Potential for Cropland use According to the 1977 National Resource Inventories (SCS) by 2000(Cook, 1981). Ideally, the first land con- (millions of acres) verted would be that with the lowest erosion potential, But analysis indicates that on the High Medium Low Zero average the lands that are available for conver- - Pastureland. ., ... , 18 33 47 35 sion are substantially more susceptible to ero- Rangeland ...... 9 30 98 271 Forestland ...... 7 24 109 230 sion than the lands already in use, so erosion Other...... 2 4 15 51 will increase. The newly cropped land will con- Total ...... 36 91 269 587 tribute greatly to the Nation’s production of SOURCE National Agricultural Land Study (1981) wheat, corn, and soybeans, but the cost in 32 ● impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

terms of soil losses and water pollution may sion under heavy rains, especially on sloping be substantial. land, In 1977, Hawaii cropland eroded at an average annual rate of 14.2 tons per acre. Areas With High Erosion Rases Southern High Plains.—Dryland and irrigated cotton farming dominates this region of Every year, the Nation’s row crop and small western Texas and eastern New Mexico. The grain cropland erodes at an average rate of 5.4 loamy soils are susceptible to wind erosion, tons per acre. Yet topsoil is thought to form at especially during winter and early spring wind- a rate of only 0.5 ton per acre or less. Thus, storms when the fields are bare, Annual wind even though knowledge of soil formation rates erosion here averages 20 to 50 tons per acre. is grossly inadequate, it appears that soil is lost at least 10 times faster than it is formed (Lar- The Palouse Basin.— This region covers parts son, 1981). Agricultural areas experiencing of eastern Washington and adjacent Idaho high erosion have been identified in most parts along the western border of the Idaho pan- of the United States (fig, 4). Some of the impor- handle, and is dryfarmed for wheat, barley, tant high erosion areas include: peas, and lentils. Most of the cropland is hilly and possesses erosive loess* soil with slopes Hawaii.—After native vegetation has been *Loess is a fine-grained, wind-deposited sediment of glacial stripped from semitropical soils for cultivation, origin that was formed some 10,000 years ago, whose composi- the soils are susceptible to sheet and rill ero- tion and texture is reasonably homogeneous.

Figure 4.—Cropland Sheet and Rill Erosion, 1977

/ . . . . ● .-

One dot equals 250,000 tons .● . of soil eroded annually; total annual . soil loss equals 2 billion tons. Most serious sheet and rill erosion occurs in the Corn Belt and Delta States and west Tennessee.

SOURCE: 1977 National Resource Inventories Ch. //—Land Productivity Problerns 33

from 15 to 25 percent. Runoff from melting of the cropland is sloping, some steeply, and snow and heavy rains causes erosion of 50 to row crops are grown without adequate conser- 100 tons per acre. vation practices. In 1977, Tennessee cropland experienced average sheet and rill erosion of Texas Blackland Prairie. —This region com- 17 tons per acre, and Mississippi cropland 11 prises an important farming area in east-central tons per acre. Texas. Two-thirds of it is cropped mainly in cotton and grain sorghum. Rainfall averages Aroostook County, Maine. -Potatoes are 30 to 50 inches and the terrain is gently roll- grown here on lands with slopes up to nearly ing. Many of the region’s soils are highly erod- 25 percent. Since cultivation began, the upper ible; sheet and rill erosion averages 10 to 20 2 ft of soil have been lost to erosion. Some slop- tons per acre per year. ing fields are losing as much as an inch of soil The Corn Belt States.–Iowa cropland eroded per year. (sheet and rill) at an average rate of 10 tons per The Caribbean,—Agricultural soils in Puerto acre in 1977, Illinois cropland at 6.8 tons per Rico and the Virgin Islands are eroding at ex- acre, and Missouri cropland at 12 tons per tremely high rates. The 1977 NRI indicates that acre. cropland here experienced average sheet and Southern Mississippi Valley.—The soils of rill erosion of 49 tons per acre, and rangelands this area are deep, fertile, and erodible. Much 50 tons per acre. 34 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Effects of Erosion on Crop Production if escalating energy prices make fertilizer, irrigation, and other inputs even less affordable Soil erosion reduces inherent land productiv- to farmers. Thus, there are hidden and very ity in a variety of ways: poorly quantified costs associated with erosion, loss of soil organic matter and of fine clays, and these costs are not reflected by crop yields and, thus, loss of plant nutrients and nutri- alone. ent-retention capacity; The studies that document the relationship ● loss of a soil’s water retention capacity as between erosion and yields can provide a organic matter is removed and soil struc- rough indication of the effect of current farm- ture deteriorates; and ing practices on inherent land productivity. ● loss of rooting depth as soil becomes thin. Hagan and Dyke (1980) compared estimated In the absence of fertilization (whether by yields on eroded and noneroded sloping soils commercial products or by animal or green using data from SCS soil surveys. For the Corn manure) or the application of other capital in- Belt, they estimated that for each inch of “A” puts, crop production suffers as erosion pro- horizon (topsoil) lost through erosion, corn gresses. Numerous studies have documented yields were reduced by 3 bushels per acre. this phenomenon, but few of them have been Other evidence shows that as soil erodes and conducted since the 1940’s. changes from the slightly eroded to the severely eroded class, yields are reduced 23 bushels per As the National Soil Erosion-Soil Productiv- acre for oats, and 1.1 tons per acre for hay ity Research Planning Committee of USDA has (McCormack and Larson, 1980). explained (Williams, et al,, 1981), there are two reasons for the lack of research on the effects In western Tennessee, crop yields from se- of erosion on crop production: 1) such ex- verely eroded Memphis loam formed on thick periments are costly and time-consuming and loess were 14 percent less than yields from the years of data are needed to evaluate the effects same noneroded soil, Yields from severely of the generally slow process; and ) crop pro- eroded Granada soil were 26 percent below duction has been adequate in the past, resulting those from its noneroded equivalent and the in little incentive for investment in this type yields from the severely eroded Brandon soils of research. A few recent field experiments were 50 percent less (table 6), Table 7 shows demonstrate that erosion can drastically reduce the direct relationship between topsoil losses crop yields. However, climatic characteristics and decreased corn yields. vary widely throughout the United States and Note, however, that studies conducted in the have important effects on both soil erosion and North-Central United States, in areas where crop production, Therefore, research con- soils are formed in thick loess, show that ero- ducted in one physiographic land area often sion has little or no effect on productivity. A cannot be generalized. study of three experimental sites near Coun- Some studies have examined the relationship cil Bluffs, Iowa, indicates that whereas corn between soil erosion and crop yields. But this yields were lower on the more eroded sites at is not necessarily the same as the relationship the beginning of the study, the yield differences between soil erosion and productivity because largely disappeared after a few years (Spomer, technology can mask the impacts of erosion. et al., 1973). A similar study, also in western Excessive erosion may or may not change crop Iowa, showed that even after some 7 ft of loess yields but it invariably requires farmers to ap- soil had been removed, crop yields were about ply more inputs (including fertilizers, seeds, the same as on the original soil surface (Mol- pesticides, irrigation, etc.). Substituting tech- denhauer and Onstad, 1975). Erosion of thick nology for soil entails a real cost because of the loess soils does little damage to crop yields in value of the resources, such as energy, used, the short term because the underlying material Such substitutions could become more difficult is similar to that which has been eroded. Where Ch. //—Land Productivity Problerns ● 35

Table 6.—Summary of Buntley-Bell Erosion Study (1976)

Crop yields Degree of erosion — Corn bu/acre Soybeans bu/acre Wheat bu/acre Cotton lb/acre Fescue tons/acre Memphis silt loam: 2 to 5 percent slope Noneroded...... 110 40 54 1,060 4.2 Eroded ...... 105 36 52 1,030 4.2 Severely eroded...... 95 32 48 940 4.0 Grenada slit loam: O to 5 percent slope Noneroded ...... 95 40 53 940 4.0 Eroded ...... 85 30 46 875 3.7 Severely eroded. ., . . . 70 24 40 750 3,2 Brandon silt loam: 2 to 12 percent slope Noneroded...... 80 30 49 815 4.0 Eroded ...... ’. . . 70 20 47 750 3.3 Severely eroded, ...... 45 16 38 535 2.7 SOURCE Buntley and Bell, 1976

Table 7.— Effect of Topsoil Loss on Corn Yield deeply weathered and lack the type of soil clay minerals that can hold fertilizer nutrients for Percent decrease plants. These soils rely heavily on organic mat- in corn ter for nutrient storage, so yields on eroded Original topsoil thickness 10 to 12 inches yield soils are measurably lower, even after nutrients 2 inches eroded (8 to 10 inches remaining), .‘. . . 7 are supplied by fertilizers. 4 inches eroded (6 to 8 inches remaining)...... 14 6 inches eroded (4 to 6 inches remaining). ., . . . . ,25 It is not clear whether the continued applica- 8 inches eroded (2 to 4 inches remaining), . .. ..,37 10 inches eroded (2 inches or less remaining). .. ,52 tion of chemical fertilizers to maintain produc- SOURCE Pimentel et al 1976 tivity will be economical over the long run as soils erode. Of growing concern are the rising amounts and costs of nitrogen and phosphate the loess is thin and the underlying material fertilizers required to maintain yields as less is dissimilar to the eroded loess, crop yields fertile subsoils are exposed and cultivated, And show dramatic decreases (Buntley and Bell, where the productivity of eroded soil declines 1976). for reasons other than nutrient loss (e. g., loss Scientists do not fully understand the mecha- of moisture retention capacity), it is sometimes nisms that cause yield reductions from erosion. difficult for farmers to identify the cause of the Certainly a major factor is the reduced water decline or its remedy. retention capacity of soils from which organic Overall, adequate knowledge about how’ vari- matter has been eroded, In addition, loss of ous soil types are affected by long-term erosion organic matter reduces the capacity of soils to is lacking. As long as only sparse data exist, store plant nutrients such as nitrogen, calcium, there is the risk that the productive capacity potassium, and, to a lesser degree, phosphorus. of the land will be impaired permanently. When reduced productivity results solely The recent formation of the National Soil from loss of nutrients, it can often be restored Erosion-Soil Productivity Research Planning by applying fertilizers. Studies have shown, for Committee within USDA is an encouraging de- example, that some eroded Corn Belt soils velopment. The committee was given three ob- recover most or all of their lost productivity jectives: with adequate application of chemical fertilizers. Soils of the Southeastern United States 1. to determine what is known about the behave differently, however, because these are problem of the effects of soil erosion on 36 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Rangeland Productivity

soil productivity by: a) defining it, b) iden- aged, permeable, medium-textured cropland tifying research accomplishments, and soils. At this rate, an inch of subsoil becomes c) identifying current research efforts; topsoil every 30 years. However, soil horizon 2. to determine what additional knowledge formation rates vary greatly, and are likely to is needed; and be much slower in soils of finer [i.e., higher clay 3. to develop a research approach for ad- content) texture. dressing the problem. It has been stated that the “fallacy” of this With adequate funding and followup, this ef- criterion is that it does not consider that the fort could be a significant step toward answer- root zone becomes more shallow as erosion ing the soil erosion/soil productivity question. occurs. Thus, the weathering of parent rock or deeper soil horizons is a distinctly different Tolerable Level of Soil Loss phenomenon from the formation of the “A” horizon, In most soils it proceeds much more “It is not possible to prevent erosion, ” notes slowly. Understanding root zone formation is a recent text on soil conservation, “but it is both vital to predicting the long-term effects of ero- possible and necessary to reduce erosion losses sion, but data on these rates are very scarce. to tolerable rates. Tolerable soil loss is the max- Renewal at 0.5 ton per acre per year is thought imum rate of soil erosion that will permit the to be a useful estimate for most unconsolidated indefinite maintenance of soil productivity” materials. For most consolidated material (Troeh, et al., 1980). [rock), rates are much slower (McCormack and Soil loss tolerances (T-values) are set by SCS Larson, 1980). and profess to consider the depth of soil, the In practice, however, it would be extremely type of parent material, the relative productiv- difficult—if not impossible—to limit erosion on ity of topsoil and subsoil, and the amount of most cropland to 0.5 ton per acre per year with- previous erosion. out either major reductions in production or The maximum tolerance loss, 5 tons per acre fundamental changes in the methods of agri- per year, is for deep, permeable, well-drained, culture. The T-value that USDA has designated productive soils, The minimum loss rate, 1 ton for most soils (almost 60 percent of the soil per acre per year, is for shallow soils having types] is 5 tons per acre per year. Because of unfavorable subsoils and parent materials that data inadequacies, this value may be too high severely restrict raot penetration and develop- for some soils and too low for others. ment (Troeh, et al., 1980), Soils that have expe- USDA’s T-values provide farmers with a rienced severe erosion receive a lower T-value realistic target at which to aim as they work than comparable noneroded soils, to reduce their soil erosion rates, but the values The USDA Soil Erosion-Soil Productivity Re- do not provide scientifically grounded criteria search Planning Committee (Williams, et al., for determining whether the long-term produc- 1981) has noted: tivity of the land is being sustained under today’s agricultural practices. SCS periodically reviews the soil loss tolerance limits (T-values) for all major soils , , . . Other Costs Associated With Erosion There is essentially no research base to support T-values; they were established and are Although they are difficult to quantify, there revised on the basis of collective judgments by are costs other than decreased crop yields asso- soil scientists (emphasis added). ciated with soil erosion. One cost is the fertil- The most important reason for setting the izer value of eroded topsoil. If the losses of the maximum T-value at 5 tons per acre per year major plant nutrients—nitrogen, available is that this fits the rough estimate of the year- phosphorus, and available potassium—in the ly rate of “A” horizon formation on well-man- 2 billion tons of soil removed by sheet and rill Ch. II— Land Productivity Problems ● 37

erosion each year are calculated at current A major commitment to an agricultural in for- prices, they would have an annual value of mat ion system and more research is unquea- roughly $8 billion (CAST, 1982). Some of these tionably necessary to support a nonpoint- nutrients are deposited on lower slopes; how- source pollution policy (White, 1981 ). ever, as much as half are lost from cropland areas. They contribute to water pollution or are deposited on flood plains not used for crop- Conclusions land. Erosion’s effects are not new. At its peak, If 25 percent of eroded soil is lost as sediment Mesopotamia supported a population of 25 mil- (Miller, 1981), a conservative estimate is that lion; by the 1930’s, Iraq, which now makes up the costs associated with the replenishment of a major proportion of the territory controlled fertilizer nutrients lost to erosion range from by that ancient civilization on, supported only 4 $1 billion to $4 billion each year. Dredging million. Much evidence points to soil erosion costs attributable to erosion have been esti- as a significant factor in the deterioration of mated at $60 million (McCormack and Larson, the culture (Troeh, et al., 1980). Elsewhere in 1980). the Mediterranean Basin are other examples of lands that were once grain-rich and grass- Flood plain overwash and sedimentation of rich that are now impoverished: North Africa reservoirs caused by eroded soil are other re- (Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco), the southern Ital- sults of erosion, but estimates of their costs ian peninsula and Sicily, and Asia Minor. vary enormously, from $50 million (CAST, 1975] to $1 billion (McCormack and Larson, Erosion is a self-reinforcing process. Erosion 1980]. CAST estimated the cost of water treat- causes a loss of soil fertility and as a result plant ment necessitated by erosion at $25 million for growth diminishes. This in turn results in less 1975. plant cover to protect the soil and less plant residue to enrich it. Consequently, more ero- The state of the art for estimating these types sion occurs, the land becomes progressively of costs is poorly developed. A team of agricul- less fertile, and the loop continues. Thus, ero- tural economists and agronomists recently ex- sion is an important problem for this Nation aminecl the relationship between increased to combat. crop acreage and nonpoint source pollution in Georgia. They concluded that the impacts of The fact that most of the country’s erosion erosion on sediment, water quality, and the occurs on a relatively small amount of land has health of humans and wildlife were hard to only recently been widely recognized by na- measure in dollar terms: tional policy makers. However, even the relatively lower erosion rates that occur on most Because of limited resources, the work was based on secondary data. Deficiencies in such cropland may be causing significant degrada- data became clear during the research. Data tion of land productivity because these lands on land use changes, input use. and chemical account for most of the Nation’s agricultural loadings were unavailable, which forced us to production. simplify assumptions. While a similar study in A conservative estimate of total cropland ero- the future could collect primary data on these factors, developing nonpoint-source pollution sion assumes that wind erosion is significant policy from the data currently available could only in the 10 Great Plains States and that gully be difficult and/or lead to considerable error. and streambank erosion do not affect cropland significantly. Thus, cropland erosion is esti- More research and analytical data are clearly needed in the area of nutrient and pesticide mated to be the sum of sheet and rill erosion loadings. The state of knowledge in this area plus Great Plains wind erosion, or 2.8 billion was so. deficient that weak assumptions were tons a year. This is an average of 7 tons an acre made to calculate nutrient loadings, and calcu- each year for the Nation’s total 413 million lation of pesticide loadings proved impossible. cropland acres. This soil erosion rate is much 38 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

greater than the most optimistic estimates of The extent to which cultivated land has been soil formation rates. affected adversely by erosion and has consequently reverted to pasture or rangeland, Because much of the research on the effects woodland, or brush is not known. The produc- of erosion on yields has been conducted in the tive capacities of most soils in the United States thickly Ioess-covered areas of the North-Central are reduced to some degree by erosion. An ac- United States, it is likely that the magnitude of tive research program into the damage suffered the adverse effects of erosion on crop yields and the causes of the damage to a wide range is underestimated for other important U.S. of cropland and rangeland soils is needed as croplands where the soils are thinner. In- a basis for formulating rational conservation creased research is needed to determine the ef- programs. fects of water and wind erosion on crop yields in these other areas. The land that is most likely to be brought into row-crop and small-grain production in the Information on the rates of soil formation for years ahead will erode at higher rates, on the important agricultural soils under specific cli- average, than the land now used, even if con- matic and technological conditions also is servation tillage practices are used. With Feder- needed. In addition, existing methods for esti- al conservation funds constant, or even low- mating soil erosion need to be improved. But ered as was predicted at the end of 1981, and conservation efforts cannot be deferred until with large amounts of land being brought into this information becomes available. Research more erosive agricultural use, the capacity of results should be used as they become available existing programs to check or reduce soil ero- to improve existing conservation programs and sion on U.S. farmlands will be greatly stressed. technologies, This will accentuate the need to find more cost- There are indications that some arid and effective means of reducing erosion, and the semiarid areas that have been converted to irri- need to take steps to discourage production of gation, especially center-pivot irrigation, may row crops and small grains on land where cost- be returned to dryland farming or grazing or effective measures will not result in acceptable may be abandoned because of rising pumping erosion rates. costs and declining ground water levels. If this becomes widespread, significant increases in wind erosion can be expected.

Farmland drainage has been the primary ag- Although only certain wet soils are classified ricultural water management and farm recla- as “wetlands,” much of 3,8 million acres of wet mation activity in this country. There are about soils converted to cropland between 1967 and 270 million acres of wet soils in the United 1975 were indeed wetlands (USDA-RCA, 1980). States, including about 105 million acres of Their conversion meant the loss of valuable cropland where wetness is the dominant con- wildlife habitat, reduced flood prevention, loss straint on production (USDA, NRI, 1980). Wet of the natural cleansing capacity of watersheds, soils can be extremely fertile and productive and other services. On the other hand, drainage because they commonly contain more organic of wet cropland enhances crop production sig- matter than soils that are not as wet. The South- nificantly. east has the largest acreage of wet soils, followed closely by the Corn Belt, the Great Lakes, Drainage provides benefits in six major and the Southern Delta States (fig. 5). areas: 40 ● Impacts of Technology On U.S. Crop/and and Rangeland Productivity

Photo credit USDA-SoiI Conservation Service

Till drainage system on Crosby silt loam, O to 3 percent slope, 100 ft spacing the roots of most cultivated crops will not pene- Drained fields can be planted earlier because trate saturated soil, poor drainage can also re- of earlier accessibility of machinery to fields sult in a shallower root spread and a commen- and higher soil temperatures. Improved drain- surate reduction in plant size, stability, and age will usually advance the potential planting yield. Deeper root growth helps crops with- or seeding date by 1 or 2 weeks (Irwin, 1981). stand drought, and lower water tables provide From May 1 to 15, each day of delay reduces a greater volume of soil from which plants may corn yields by 1 bushel per acre, and in the lat- obtain nutrients and moisture. Soil structure ter half of May, each day of delay reduces is damaged when tillage or harvesting opera- yields by 2 bushels per acre (USDA-SCS, 1975]. tions are done while the soil is too wet. Excess Furthermore, earlier planting broadens the water also increases the likelihood of compac- selection of crop varieties available for the tion and obstructs the loosening activities of farmer to grow, advances the maturity date, soil biota. and produces higher final yields. Drainage also Ch. //—Land Productivity Problems ● 41 offsets uneven field ripening of grain crops, Technologies developed in the mid-1960’s for allows more flexibility in harvest time, and in- more efficient and cost-effective installation of creases the potential for double cropping. drainage tiles represent the latest advances in the field, Corrugated plastic drainage tubing Water-saturated lands promote surface run- was developed to replace the heavier and off of rainwater, inducing erosion and increas- shorter-lived clay tiles, with significant cost ing the problem of flooding on downslope land. savings to farmers. This tubing can be installed A well-drained soil reduces erosion because more quickly and effectively using laser beam surface runoff is substantially reduced when grade control. In addition, trenchless ma- more water can infiltrate into the soil. The top chinery was developed to install tiles faster layer of soil is richest in organic matter and than earlier deep-trench operations. Two new applied chemicals, so using drainage to reduce technologies under study are well-point drain- runoff can reduce losses of sediment and some age for vertical, rather than horizontal, move- nutrients. This also reduces the contamination ment of excess water, and reversible drainage, of runoff waters and enhances the distribution which introduces as well as removes water of fertilizer nutrients through the upper soil through porous tubes, The latter technique layers. In areas of high salinity, drainage will would be especially applicable to the cli- promote leaching and removal of salts. matically variable Southeastern United States. Drainage of waterlogged lands can also help The dearth of drainage research during the control health hazards to man and livestock, 1970’s has resulted in a lack of data in many such as mosquito- and fly-borne diseases, cer- important areas. Few analyses are available on tain worms, and liver flukes. Removal of excess design procedures, system maintenance, and water removes the breeding ground or favorite integration of drainage with modern cropping habitat of these carriers and thus reduces their systems to maximize production. Such basic populations. information as the lifetime of drainage systems Good drainage makes the onland disposal of is not available. Furthermore, while informa- organic waste material, increasingly under tion on the costs and benefits of farmland consideration as an alternative to ocean dispos- drainage is available, it is frequently site al, environmentally safer. Adequate aeration specific and therefore is of little value to in- and warm soil temperatures are necesary for dividual farmers. Compounding this problem the efficient decomposition of wastes into usa- is a lack of synthesis of the research completed ble plant nutrients. in the 1960’s and before, and of the data available from other nations. Investment in farmland drainage systems occurred throughout the last century, peaking in The need for such information is growing. the mid-1930’s. Research to improve these sys- There are indications that the drainage systems tems was performed extensively by USDA agri- constructed in the early 1900’s, particularly in cultural research stations and land-grant col- the Midwest, are now out of date and in need leges until the late 1960’s. During the 1960’s, of repair. Drainage systems can often repay the however, growing concern over the loss or farmer’s investment within 2 to 4 years (Ochs, degradation of actual wetlands (v. wet soils) 1981), so farmers with adequate information discouraged investment in drainage systems. and capital would probably not allow subsur- As a result, drainage has been specifically ex- face drainage systems to decay seriously. The empted from USDA cost-sharing programs in outlets, however, are frequently municipal most instances, and SCS technical assistance waterways or other such systems demanding on drainage has been limited by personnel re- collective management. These canals and ductions and the pressure of higher priority ditches require occasional clearing of weeds demands for the expert’s time (Ochs, 1981). and accumulated sediments, as well as other 42 ● Impacts Of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

maintenance. Nondestructive and efficient ers’ cooperatives could aid in rejuvenating the techniques and machinery recently have been outlet system. Federally guaranteed loans could developed in Germany, but costs are high, Such speed the repair of both the drainage and outlet operations must be done locally. Cost-sharing systems to the benefit of farmers, consumers, programs with local municipalities, revolving and society. loan funds, and greater development of farm-

SOIL COMPACTION

Routine operation of farm machinery (“traf- effect of soil compaction is collapse of the large fic”) and trampling by livestock can harm land pores between soil particles. In most agricuhur- productivity by compacting the soil. In crop- al soils, it is desirable to maintain the larger lands, compaction can damage the structure pores because they allow ready movement of of the soil near the surface and can create a air and water, One of the chief functions of til- “traffic pan, ” which is a persistent layer of lage is to increase or restore these large pores densely compacted soil just below the depth in the soil. to which the soil is tilled. On rangelands, which are not normally tilled, compaction compresses Thus, water infiltration and percolation are surface soil causing an effect called “shingling” impeded by surface and subsurface compac- where wide areas have a surface so dense that tion. The consequences include poor drainage water cannot infiltrate and plants cannot re- or standing water in a field, increased water produce. Animal traffic and off-road vehicle runoff and soil erosion, and slower rates of traffic can form compacted pathways on range- crop residue decomposition. A compacted wet Iands where plants cannot grow and gully ero- soil may remain colder for a longer time dur- sion may begin. The severity of both cropland ing the spring, delaying planting or slowing and rangeland compaction varies with the seed germination. Compaction-caused drain- nature of the site’s soil. age problems also encourage higher rates of soil nitrogen loss through anaerobic microbial Concern over compaction has increased in denitrification. The presence of a traffic pan recent years, partly because the large, heavy can impede root penetration and the proper de- machinery characteristic of modern farming velopment of root crops such as potatoes and is thought to cause more compaction than sugar beets. Surface compaction reduces the lighter machines. In general, the role of tech- nitrogen-fixing nodule mass on soybean roots nology in causing and treating cropland com- (Voorhees, 1977b) and alters the geometry of paction is relatively well known; however, the root growth, keeping roots out of the upper- extent to which compaction is a constraint on most part of the soil profile where applied fer- U.S. cropland productivity is not so well tilizers are most available (Trouse, 1981). Traf- known. On rangelands, the problem is not well fic pans may keep roots from growing below understood and practical technologies to cor- the upper tilled layer and so deny access to rect it are not well developed. moisture during drought or to nutrients available below the tilled layer,

Process and Effects Under certain conditions, a moderate amount of cropland compaction has been Because the potential for compaction varies shown to be beneficial. Soybean yields on greatly among different types and conditions moderately compacted Minnesota soils have of soils, and because compaction affects differ- been 25 percent greater than on noncompacted ent plants in different ways, generalizations soil in dry years. In some soils, the wicking ef- must be made with caution. The basic physical fect of smaller, compacted capillary pores has Ch. n-Land Productivity Problems ● 43 the advantage of bringing water and dissolved per year the area is pressed; the type and fre- nutrients to germinating seeds, and it may aIso quency of tillage that loosens the compacted explain the higher toxicity of herbicides on soil; various features of the soil type (including compacted soils. Compacted soils, if dry, can texture and percent organic matter); and espe- warm more rapidly in the spring, and the pres- cially the moisture content at the time it is ence of a subsurface pan can help to retain pressed by machinery tires. The interaction of water that might otherwise percolate away these factors is site specific and usually dif- from roots. Corn grown on compacted soil has ficult to determine. been shown to mature earlier and to have a Certain soil types are more susceptible to lower ear moisture content. Traction is some- compaction than others. The sandy loam of times better on a compacted soil, but the great- California, the Mississippi Delta, and the er energy required to till such soil probably out- Southeastern Coastal Plain are especially sus- weighs the traction benefits (Voorhees, 1977a, ceptible to formation of traffic pans. Moisture 1977 C), is the most critical variable for any specific site, More typically, compaction reduces crop as compaction effects increase sharply when yields. * Yields of corn grown on clay soil are moisture content is above an optimal level. In decreased with increased machine contact certain soils, compaction can also increase be- pressure and number of field passes, some- cause of too little moisture times by as much as 50 percent (Raghaven, et Average tractor weight has more than dou- al., 1978). Deeper than normal tillage, called bled in the past three decades as a cause and subsoiling, is sometimes used to reduce com- a consequence of the increasing size and effi- paction in dry years and can increase corn ciency of U.S. farms. Modern four-wheel-drive yields by as much as 100 bushels per acre in tractors now weigh as much as 33,000 lb the Southeastern Coastal Plain (Cassel, 1979). (Voorhees, 1978). The pressure exerted by the In one study, yields for corn and cotton in tires, however, has not doubled because the Alabama rose 83 percent with subsoiling under tires are now wider and better designed. How- crop rows and controlled traffic (Trouse, 1981). ever, the pressure per square inch is generally The effects of compaction on overall produc- less important than the proportion of the field tivity sometimes may not be evident because that is compacted, The wider tires press more they can be masked by use of other inputs such soil on each pass, but make fewer passes to do as irrigation and fertilization. In crop rotations the same job, and the larger machinery can al- that do not foster significant buildup of organic low field operations to be timed to drier condi- carbon, wheel-traffic-induced soil compaction tions when compaction potential is relatively may increase soil aggregate size and stability low, Yet there is little evidence to indicate slightly, resulting in improved production even whether farmers consider compaction preven- though organic matter content is decreasing. tion in their use of machinery. More farmers Thus, by substituting for the aggregating effects may be using larger equipment—four-wheel- of organic matter, compaction may mask soil drive, dual-wheel tractors* in particular–to get deterioration (Voorhees, 1979). into fields under wet conditions (Robertson, 1981). TechnologicaI Causes and Remedies A trend that more surely indicates increased Factors that determine the degree of compac- compaction is the increasing proportion of tion occurring on a cropland site include: the cropland used for row crops that require more pressure (pounds per square inch) exerted by tillage than close-grown crops such as hay or machinery tires; the proportion of the field that oats. Fortunately, the compaction associated gets pressed by the tires; the number of times

*Voores’(1977c)states that dual wheels do not prevent com- * [luring 1981, OTA conducted extensive research on the CAP paction, they just change its distribution. Compaction from duals and Agricola serches of 1980, may not be quite as deep, but it can he more than twice as wide. ” 44 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

Photo cre~lt’ O~A staff Modern farm equipment has grown larger and heavier, raising concern that compaction may harm productivity on susceptible soils with this trend may be offset to some extent The practice of subsoiling—plowing deeper by increased use of conservation tillage and the than the conventional 7 to 8 inches to break no-till method. However, reduced tillage will up compacted soil layers—is becoming more generally not counteract subsurface compac- widespread in the Midwest as it has shown its tion that already exists and even no-till does effectiveness in counteracting compaction in not completely eliminate traffic and conse- the Coastal Plains States, California, and else- quent compaction effects. where. Subsoiling reduces soil density and hardness and increases the volume of macro- Some compaction is unavoidable in most pores to promote aeration, internal drainage, cropping systems, but farmers can modify their and more rapid infiltration of water (Cassel, operations to limit compaction. The least costly 1979). The practice takes significantly more adjustments include timing operations to drier tractor power, however, so the value of yield soil conditions, limiting the number of field gains must be compared to the increased fuel trips (the first pass over any spot accounts for cost. These tradeoffs change as compaction ef- 80 percent of total compaction), and confining fects accumulate and as relative prices change. wheel traffic to the same paths each pass. How- ever, sometimes it is not economically feasi- The most radical technological proposal for ble to rotate crops with meadow or to delay dealing with cropland compaction is develop- planting or harvest until soil moisture is ment of “wide span” equipment that would suitable because of the income and yield reduc- confine wheel traffic to a small part of a field tions associated with these practices. by spanning many rows with an arching, .

Ch. II—Land Productivity Problems ● 45 —

bridge-like tractor. Prototypes of the machine over much of the Western rangelands, and this are being developed (Trouse, 1981). “shingling” is a severe constraint on productivity. It prohibits water infiltration, resulting Research Needs in more arid conditions for the plants; it accelerates erosion; it severely constrains seed ger- Compaction on Croplands mination and the survival of seedlings when While considerable research has been con- seeds do germinate. Shingling is generally be- ducted in several regions of the United States lieved to be caused by the trampling of animal concerning the causes, effects, and cures of (mainly livestock) hooves. Another phenom- traffic pans (and, to a lesser extent, of the more enon that also contributes to the shingling ef- subtle soil structure changes in the plow layer), fect is soil capping. This is a thin crust caused no nationwide research effort has been by the force of raindrops striking unprotected mounted. Compaction is generally seen as a (lacking plant cover) soil surfaces, The direct regional problem. Thus, there is no data base impacts of livestock trampling are most harm- to determine the extent to which compaction ful in the spring when soil is moist, after the is limiting U.S. soil productivity, Experts sporadic heavy rains characteristic of much of disagree: Voorhees (1979) reports that: “except the semiarid range, and on the moist soils along for root crops, crop yields probably are not streams (Gifford, et al,, 1977; Cope, 1980), being suppressed yet as a result of normal soil compaction in the northern Corn Belt . . . . Re- The scientific literature on rangeland soil gardless, the relatively good soil tilth enjoyed compaction and capping is scanty. Soil scien- by farmers in the region should not be taken tists historically have concentrated their atten- for granted. Once soil is compacted, it maybe tion on croplands where the returns on re- more difficult to restore than previously. ” In search investments are more obvious, contrast, Trouse (1981) states that: “every acre that is plowed suffers some compaction, ” and “we have compaction even in our best fields, The usual way to improve compacted, over- and it is hurting us. ” grazed rangeland is to alter grazing pressure to be consistent with carrying capacity and, in More information is needed before these cases of severe land deterioration, to reintro- questions can be answered with any certain- duce desirable plants through reseeding. One ty. Data on compaction could be collected by method to deal with capping or compacted NRI, for example, although each item added crusts is to concentrate a herd of cattle on the to the inventory. affected area for a very short time (2 to 3 days) Little is known about how farmers perceive to churn up the soil surface. Another method the effects of compaction, In areas where traf- is to roll a “soil imprinter, ” a heavy, usually fic pans are important constraints on crop water-filled drum with a textured surface, over yields, some information is generally available the ground to break up the shingled surface to help farmers decide whether the yield in- (Dixon, 1977). However, fuel costs may make creases from subsoiling will pay for the extra this impractical. Where compaction is deep, fuel used. More complex decisions regarding there may be no technological solutions except timing of operations, for example, are less well tillage, which is likely to be expensive, and ex- supported by hard data. How well farmers di- cluding livestock. agnose and monitor cropIand compaction problems is another unknown, Conclusions Compaction on Rangelands Cropland compaction is probably a con- Even less is known about rangeland compac- straint on productivity in many regions, but tion. Overgrazing has led to dense soil surfaces technologies to deal with it do exist. No major 46 ● Impacts of Technology On U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Federal policy decision to increase the effort instituted. In some instances, however, par- to educate farmers about compaction, or to ticularly in the arid Southwest, reseeding of support their use of practices that would pre- desirable species must precede improved graz- vent or cure the problem, is likely as long as ing management in range rehabilitation. The little is known about its significance in relation problem of shingling and the processes of com- to other problems. paction and capping have not been high-priority research topics for range science. The con- On rangelands, the compaction and capping sequences of compaction are well understood, of soils is a constraint on productivity. General- but too little is know about its causes, preven- ly, overgrazed rangeland has good regenerative tion, or economic reparation. capacity once proper grazing management is

SALINIZATBON

Salinization is primarily a drainage problem Some data are available on specific areas aggravated by the misapplication of irrigation where salinization is a recognized problem. At water. Where water is applied to fields, the Sun present, it is severe on the western side of the and crops extract almost pure water, leaving San Joaquin Valley of California, one of the salts behind, If that salt is not flushed deeper country’s most fertile regions. Here, excess into the ground by rainfall or additional irriga- saline irrigation water accumulating beneath tion, it can gradually concentrate in and on the the surface is invading the root zone and is re- surface soil, first damaging and ultimately de- ducing crop yields on some 400,000 acres of stroying the land’s productivity. land. The cost of the resulting crop loss is estimated at $31.2 million per year (Sheridan, But flushing salt into the ground does not 1981). If the saline subsurface water is not necessarily solve salinization problems. If sub- drained from the cropland, it is projected that surface conditions are relatively porous, the 700,000 acres will have reduced output by saltwater may contaminate the ground water 2000, for an annual loss of $321 million. If un- supply from which the irrigating water is resolved by 2080, an estimated 1 million to 2 drawn. If subsurface conditions are relatively million acres of cropland in the San Joaquin impermeable, the salty water may drain into Valley will be salinized out of production. nearby rivers, Irrigators downstream will ultimately reuse it, The saltwater may also ac- Three alternative sinks for the valley’s salt cumulate beneath the surface so that a salty, are the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the “perched” water table builds up. This may Pacific Ocean, and local evaporation ponds, A eventually rise near enough to the surface to drainage system to carry the irrigation runoff contaminate the root zone. to the Delta, an estuary of the San Francisco Bay, would cost $1,26 billion for the central Most crops cannot survive in saline en- drains, plus the costs of underground drains vironments. The effect of salinity is to increase to carry the water from the farmers’ fields the osmotic pressure in the soil water, which (USDA–RCA, 1980). Further, the saline water works against the water extraction mechanism could cause serious environmental damage to of the plant roots. the estuary itself, which is the largest wetlands area on the west coast. In addition to its im- There are no data on the overall amount of portance as a wildlife and fisheries habitat, the cropland in the United States that has been estuary is the major source of water for mu- salinized or is undergoing salinization, An in- nicipalities, industries, and agricultural opera- formed guess is that 25 to 35 percent of the ir- tions located nearby. rigated croplands in the West have salinity constraints on productivity (van Schilifgaarde, Piping the drainage water to the Pacific 1981], could cost even more because of the high ener- Ch. /l—Land Productivity Problems ● 47

gy required to pump the irrigation runoff over of the water diverted from the river for use is the intervening mountains. If farmers were re- consumed, ultimately evaporating, while that quired to pay the entire price of these engineer- which is returned by irrigation drainage sys- ing solutions to the drainage problem, the costs tems is highly saline. would be on the order of $75 per acre per year (Sheridan, 1981). The problem is the disposal of the salt. Poten- tial solutions include expensive engineering ap- The third solution makes use of as much of proaches and less expensive but more difficult the drainage water as is possible in irrigation system management changes. Eventually, as of salt-tolerant crops, The best irrigation water Colorado River water use and reuse becomes would be used first on salt-sensitive crops, and more expensive, a combination of structural the increasingly salty runoff would then be and management approaches will probably be used to irrigate more salt-tolerant crops. Final- adopted. One possible engineering approach ly, the highly saline water would be drained is to build a desalinization plant near Yuma, into evaporation ponds, providing some wild- Ariz., to remove salt from the drainage water. life habitat, or be disposed of in other ways (van The river management approach, already being Schilifgaarde, 1981). The costs of establishing implemented by some farmers receiving Feder- this integrated irrigation system have not been al technical assistance and cost sharing from estimated, but would depend partly on the prof- USDA programs, begins with increasing irriga- itability of farming the salt-tolerant crops (see tion efficiency. Crop yields are maintained discussion in ch. IV). This use would reduce with less water use by improving on-farm sys- the volume of drain water requiring disposal. tems with such techniques as land leveling, Although the drainage problem is not elim- ditch lining, and alternative irrigation systems. inated, the reduced volume makes the options If enough farmers improve irrigation effi- for disposal more viable. This scheme would ciency, a significant improvement could be require substantial changes in farming prac- achieved. However, as nonagricultural use of tices, and getting farmers to participate may the Colorado River increases, farmers may still be as formidable a difficulty as paying the costs need to shift toward more salt-tolerant crops of more conventional engineering solutions. and to the use of drain sinks other than the A key issue in these schemes is who pays. river, such as local evaporation ponds. Costs of a drainage system would presumably Saline seeps are a soil-and-water problem oc- be shared among the Federal Government, the curring in Montana, North and South Dakota, State of California, and the San Joaquin farm- Wyoming, and Canada’s prairie provinces. ers. If the capital cannot be raised, there is This problem is the combined result of regional another solution to the drainage problem—to geology and farming practices. Farmers tradi- continue the present system until the soil tionally alternate strips of wheat with strips of becomes too salty, then to switch to more salt- fallow to conserve moisture. This summer-fal- tolerant crops, and eventually abandon 20 per- low system can actually conserve too much cent or more of this highly productive San water—in some places, the water thus saved Joaquin cropland. has infiltrated through the upper layers of soil, Another type of salinity problem has devel- picking up salts, and has formed a perched oped in the Colorado River Basin. Here, too, water table above an impermeable layer of the water is becoming more saline, and thus shale. In downslope areas, the salt-laden water less useful for irrigation and other purposes. seeps out, creating saline seeps—unproductive The source of about two-thirds of the salt in swampy areas. Some saline seeps are as large the river is natural drainage of salt-laden as 200 acres. They affect about 400,000 acres geological formations; the remaining third is in the Northern Plains of the United States; the saline runoff from irrigation (Frederick, 1980). total including Canada and parts of Texas and Salt concentration is increasing because most Oklahoma may reach 2 million acres. 48 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Saline seeps may be battled by using a crea- Conclusions tive management technology called “flexible cropping” developed by USDA scientists and The U.S. agricultural sector must continue cooperating farmers, Under flexible cropping, to develop innovative systems to conserve pro- water conditions are monitored carefully. Al- ductivity on land that is threatened by saliniza- ternative crops are planted, including alfalfa, tion. The proportion of cropland involved is safflower, and sunflower, each of which uses relatively small—30 percent of the irrigated more water and draws it from deeper in the land in the West amounts to only 5 percent of soil. Continuous cropping is practiced when- all the Nation’s cropland—but the land is dis- ever possible to avoid water accumulation in proportionately productive because of long the perched water table, but the option to fal- growing seasons and the high economic value low land remains if water is limited. This ap- of irrigated crops. (An assessment of water- proach demands more complex management related technologies to maintain agricultural than summer fallow, but participating farmers production in the arid and semiarid regions of have demonstrated that it can keep significant the United States was begun by OTA in July areas in production that might otherwise be 1981.) lost, (This technology is discussed in detail in app. A, “The Innovators.”)

Introduction The technological change most likely to occur in Western regions during the coming The next several decades will bring a marked decades will be the return of some irrigated decrease in the availability and quality of the lands to dryland farming or grazing, This con- Nation’s ground water, This could significantly version will cause sharp decreases in produc- reduce the productivity of much irrigated agri- tion. Also, as wind erosion and other problems cultural land, especially in the Southwestern associated with dryland farming develop, a United States. The most severe problems will continuing, gradual decrease in land produc- probably be confined to the West, but some tivity can occur, Eastern States will suffer local water shortages and water quality problems that will affect agri- Although some schemes for recharging over- cultural productivity, drawn aquifers* have been proposed, the lack of local water to replenish depleted supplies Technologies that alter irrigation and farm- and the high energy costs involved in transporting systems to conserve water while continuing water from distant sources may preclude ing to produce crops profitably can prolong the such remedies. Schemes for long-distance productivity of ground water resources, These water transport will have to be compared to technologies vary from modest but effective the alternatives of farming additional, poten- changes in the way water is applied to major tially erosive, croplands in the more water- changes in farm management such as convert- abundant East or intensifying production on ing to perennial crops or drip irrigation, Al- existing agricultural lands (Vanlier, 1980). though changing the technologies used may reduce ground water demands in some areas, the The data and information bases relating wa- actual reduction in ground water withdrawals ter and agricultural productivity are obtained that will result from new agricultural technol- largely by Federal and State agencies. At the ogies probably will be modest and will only postpone the exhaustion of some major U.S. *An aquifer is a water-bearing underground layer of permeable ground water reservoirs. rock, sand, or gravel. Ch. I/—Land Productivity Problems ● 49 local level, county agencies and quasi-govern- Withdrawing ground water from an aquifer mental units collect a variety of water data spe- in excess of the long-term rate of recharge is cific to their management needs. The informa- called ground water overdraft, mining, or de- tion is dispersed among a number of sources pletion. Ground water mining is common in including large Federal water data banks. The arid or semiarid areas of the United States data available are adequate for general plan- where precipitation is low and recharge rates ning, but considerable effort will be required are slow (fig. 6). Water is available from these to aggregate them into a format clearly adapted aquifers only because it has accumulated in the to policy makers’ and planners’ broader needs. ground over many thousands of years.

The Nation’s ground water resources could Ground water overdraft lowers ground water be affected adversely by a number of chang- levels, subsequently reduces the thickness of ing agricultural technologies and by future land water-saturated sediments, and in some places and water use policies as well as by the grow- degrades water quality. Declining water levels ing needs of water for energy development. reduce the total amount of water available. In The principal factors that will affect the avail- order to meet demands, pumps must be set ability and suitability of ground water for agri- deeper and larger motors installed. In some cultural use are: cases, new wells are needed. These in- ground water overdraft (mining), vestments increase operating costs. water-quality degradation, reduction in streamflow and discharge of Over the past several decades, ground water springs, and overdrafts have reduced agricultural productiv- subsidence and collapse of the land sur- ity. The greatest reductions, however, are ex- face. pected to occur in the next three or four decades. Most such losses in agricultural pro- Ground Water Overdraft ductivity will be permanent because alternative water sources already are fully committed to Hidden beneath the land surface in almost other uses. every part of the United States is water that fills the openings in beds of rock, sand, and gravel The major areas of ground water overdraft —called ground water. Studies of the U.S. Geo- are in Texas, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, logical Survey (USGS) indicate that more than Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and 97 percent of U.S. freshwater resources are lo- California. Major ground water overdraft prob- cated underground. The Nation’s ground water lems also are reported in the lower White River resource supplies about 70 percent of the irri- area of Arkansas and the Souris and Red River gation water for the 17 Western States (Lehr, basins in North Dakota and Minnesota (Van- 1980). lier, 1980). Shortages have raised conflicts in other regions as well. In many areas, ground water is a readily available source of potable water. Half the In Iowa, proposals have been considered to population in this country gets its drinking prohibit ground water use for irrigation water—either partly or completely—from because of acute shortages. In Nebraska, the ground water supplies (Costle, 1979). Because ground water situation is prompting officials ground water is a high-quality, low-cost water to consider allocating available ground water. source, its use grows at the rate of several per- In the first court conflict between ground water cent each year. Ground water use has grown users, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that from 35 billion gallons a day in 1950 (Murray, an irrigator can be held liable for costs incurred 1970) to an estimated 82 billion gallons a day as a result of disturbing a neighboring ground in 1975 (CEQ, 1980), water supply (Lehr, 1980). 50 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Figure 6.—Water Budget for the Conterminous United States

Streamflow to Pacific Streamflow to Ocean— Atlantic Ocean 300 bgd and Gulf of Mexico— 920 bgd

Subsurface flow— 25 bgd Subsurface flow— 75 bgd

. Streamflow to Mexico–1.6 bgd

NOTE bgd = billion gallons per day SOURCE Water Resources Council, 1978

One of the most dramatic instances of Percent of 177,000 mi2 Watertable drop in feet ground water depletion occurs in the Ogallala 14 ...... 10 to 25 Formation, an aquifer stretching approximate- 5 ...... 25 to 50 ...... 50 to 100 ly 1,000 miles from Nebraska to Texas. It 5 2 ...... 100 to 150 underlies roughly 150,000 square miles (mi2) (Weeks, USGS, 1981. ) and varies in thickness from 1 to l, ZOO ft. USGS, in an ongoing study of the Ogallala and The USGS reports that water levels in the certain associated aquifers, reports that 46 per- Ogallala Formation consistently have been cent of the 177,() 177,000-mi2 study area now has declining in regions where water is pumped less than 100 ft of water-saturated sediment. for irrigation (Berman, et al., 1977), Declines Ground water pumping, which began in Texas of 32 to 40 ft were monitored in Kit Carson in the 1930’s, has caused the following declines County from 1964 to 1972. In other areas in- in the region’s watertable: fluenced by irrigation, declines of as much as Ch. I/—Land Productivity Problems ● 51

16 ft were noted. The USGS findings confirm ground water can result in seawater intrusion an increasingly rapid water-level decline in into freshwater aquifers, and recycling irriga- parts of the Ogallala Formation since 1974. tion water to recharge aquifers may make More than 98 percent of the pumping from the water substantially less suitable for irrigation Ogallala is for irrigation agriculture, or other purposes than the aquifer’s original water, Because organic chemicals do not de- The Ogallala aquifer is recharged by direct grade efficiently in the slow-moving waters of precipitation at a rate of only 50,000 acre-ft per underground aquifers, recharge water may dis- year, while 7 million to 8 million acre-ft a year perse agricultural contaminants over broad of ground water are withdrawn. Thus, the areas where they may remain indefinitely, 93,000 wells pumping to irrigate as much as 65 percent of Texas croplands could exhaust Saltwater Contamination the aquifer, Some additional recharge is supplied from the eastern slopes of the Rocky Many aquifers contain both fresh and miner- Mountains. (Details of the Ogallala water alized (saline) ground water, The lighter fresh- budget will be included in the OTA water as- water in such aquifers “floats” on the denser sessment. ) saline water. Saltwater/freshwater aquifer systems are best known in coastal areas where In fact, ground water depletion in the High freshwater in the landward part of the aquifer Plains section of west and north Texas has is in contact with saltwater in the seaward part, been so extensive and expensive that it has but some also are present in inland areas. compelled abandonment of some once-produc- When freshwater is pumped from such aqui- tive farmland or the return to dryland farming fers, the saline water migrates toward the wells (Hauschen, 1980). and eventually replaces part or all of the aqui- Similar abandonments are occurring in other fer’s freshwater, This exacerbates problems of areas. In the Roswell Artesian Basin of New soil salinity that plague many irrigation Mexico, where ground water withdrawal has projects. exceeded recharge for many years, the Pecos Saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers Valley Artesian Conservancy District has been has occurred in many areas undergoing ground purchasing and retiring irrigated acreage, water irrigation. In the Roswell Artesian Basin About 3,000 acres have been retired under this of New Mexico, the artesian head has been de- program, In the Estancia Basin of Santa Fe clining for many years and now saline waters County, an estimated 5,900 acres will go out are encroaching in the aquifer north and east of production by 2000 (Vardier, 1980), of Roswell, Extensive ground water declines Nearly all major aquifers experiencing over- in the Carrizo aquifer in Dimmit and Zwala draft in the arid or semiarid areas of the coun- Counties, Tex., caused reversals in the aquifer’s try ultimately will be exhausted. This does not hydraulic gradient, thus allowing poorer qual- mean there will be no more underground water ity water to enter areas that previously had in those places, but that it will be so reduced good quality water (U.S. Water Resources that it cannot be profitably extracted, Lower Council, 1978). agricultural productivity and reduced eco- In some places, aquifers are degraded by nomic activity can be expected in these areas. water leakage from a saline aquifer into over- Degradation of Ground Water Quality lying or underlying freshwater aquifers via improperly constructed and maintained wells or

In addition to declining ground water avail- abandoned wells that have been improperly ability in many aquifers, degradation of ground plugged and sealed, For example, in Dimmit water quality from increasing salinity and con- County and adjacent areas of Texas, saline tamination by pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, water from the Bigford Formation is leaking animal wastes, and nonagricultural sources of through old well bores into the underlying Car- chemicals is on the rise. Heavy pumping of rizo aquifer, 52 ● Impacts of Technology On /J. S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Aquifer water-quality degradation has a neg- Figure 7.— Pesticides Applied ative impact on nonirrigation water uses, too. In the High Plains region, ground water quality Pesticides applied is declining as the Ogallala aquifer drops, and Million pounds in some parts of the region the water has become unsuitable for domestic use. This may have a serious adverse impact on the economy of the area (Vanlier, 1980). When withdrawals lower aquifer water levels, poor-quality surface waters can infiltrate. The problem of saline recharge to aquifers used for irrigation water is exacerbated locally by degradation of surface water quality, For example, in the Trans-Pecos region of Texas the ground water is becoming saline, in part from recycling irrigation waters. The U.S. Water Re- 1950 1960 1970 1980 sources Council noted that in the San Joaquin SOURCE Pesticides applied, 1964: Quantities of Pesticides Used by Fanners in 1964, USDA Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service Valley in California there is a need for a valley- (Washington: U.S Government Printing Office, 1968), agr econ. rep. 131, pp. 9, 13, 19, 26. 1966: Farmers Use of Pesticides in wide management system that would dispose 1971—Quantities, USDA Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Serv- of or reclaim saline water to help prevent deg- ice (Washington’ US. Government Printing Office, 1974), agr. econ. rep. 252, pp. 6, 11, 15, 18, 1971 and 1976: Farmers’ Use of Pesticides in 1976, radation of the San Joaquin River and ground USDA Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service (Washington. U.S Government Printing Office 1978), agr econ. rep 418, pp 6, 9, 15, water supplies. and 20. Cited in CEO, 1981 Envirorr. Trends. The contamination of freshwater aquifers by infiltration of saline surface waters and agricul- lamination discussion and research. Arsenate tural drainage has not received the attention compounds used in insect control in Maine’s given to other sources of ground water contam- blueberry fields have been detected in shallow ination, but it is a factor that must be consid- ground water, and chlorinated hydrocarbons ered in long-term planning for agricultural pro- used on Massachusetts cranberry bogs were re- ductivity. ported in a sand and gravel well, Soil samplings in the Houston black clay of three watersheds Pesticide Contamination in Waco, Tex., demonstrated that DDT had penetrated the soil and percolated down into USDA reports that more than 1,800 pesticide the ground water (Lehr, 1980). compounds are marketed and that an estimated 1.25 million tons will be applied on American A field study in which toxaphene (an insec- soils by 1985 (see fig. 7). Approximately 5 per- ticide) and fluometuron (a herbicide) were ap- cent of the pesticides will reach the Nation’s plied to the topsoil and observed for 1 year waters, A 1970 report of the Working Group showed that both compounds were found in on Pesticides cautioned that the potential for underlying ground water 2 months after appli- ground water contamination must be analyzed cation (LaFleur, et al., 1973). Residues persisted from the perspective of the properties of the throughout the l-year observation period. pesticide, hydrological traits of the disposal area, and the volume, state, and persistence of Contamination by Organic the pesticide. For example, greater hazard material and Pathogens occurs when high concentrations of pesticides In general, ground water does not have the are deposited near shallow wells or in regions natural cleansing mechanisms of surface wa- of thin and highly permeable soil. ter. Although most removal of readily degrad- Residues of DDT; 2,4-D; lindane; and herbi- able organic compounds occurs very near the cides are the focal point of ground water con- water’s point of entrance into the aquifer, some Ch. I/—Land Productivity Problerns ● 53 .— sorption (binding of organics to mineral sub- move downward slowly in the ground water strates) and biodegradation do occur within the (Gerba, 1981], while others may remain free in aquifer. Sorption affects the rate of travel of infiltrating water and enter the ground water organic contaminants and allows the accu- more quickly. Fecal coliform bacteria counts mulation of organic materials in or on subsur- are commonly used to monitor for contamina- face solids. Biodegradation depends on a num- tion by animal wastes. As livestock manage- ber of variables including pH, temperature, and ment is intensified, and as onland waste dispos- having a primary source of organic material al systems develop, consideration must be giv- on which the bacteria can subsist. Relatively en to potential infiltration of pathogens into the little is known about how organic materials de- ground water below. grade in ground water; possible interactions between primary and secondary substrates and bacteria are not known, nor are the effects of Reduced Streamflow and sorption on the rate of transformation, The Spring Discharge Caused by breadth of organic compounds that maybe re- Ground Water Pumping duced by biological activity are unknown and methods for assessing the potential of a specific Water-well pumping lowers ground water aquifer for microbial activity are also lacking levels in the well vicinity. In part, this may (McCarty, 1981). reduce the natural discharge of water from the aquifer, much of which is through springs and There are conflicting reports on the levels of seeps along and beneath streams. If ground fertilizer pollution in ground water. According water levels are lowered below the level of a to the General Accounting Office, heavy reli- stream, water can infiltrate from the stream to ance on fertilizer contributes to an estimated the aquifer, and areas along streams that under 1 million metric tons of dissolved nitrogen in natural conditions received water from the ground and surface waters, In the Seymour ground now accept water from the stream. The water-bearing formation in Texas, jumps in resulting decline in the streamflow reduces the nitrate levels of from less than 50 to 165 ppm availability of surface water for other uses, in- can be traced to fertilizer use (Lehr, 1980). Yet, cluding irrigation. nitrates from fertilizers and from natural reservoirs of nutrients in fertile soils are indistin- Sometimes the changes in the water regimen guishable, and some experts have claimed that, that can result from pumping ground water for apart from occasions when a spring applica- irrigation can be beneficial in that some of the tion of fertilizer nitrogen may be followed by water tends to accumulate in the ground and very heavy rain, the problem of high nitrate can be pumped later during the irrigation levels in drainage water (which can infiltrate season, Ground water irrigation, however, re- aquifers) is not so much one of fertilizers as of quires energy for pumping, whereas diversion soil fertility, especially after ploughing of surface waters generally is accomplished (Armitage, 1974). Because high nitrate levels through gravity flow. As energy costs increase in ground water used for drinking can present in future decades, irrigation systems with low- a health hazard for infants up to the age of 3 er energy requirements probably will take prec- months, this nutrient contaminant needs care- edence. ful monitoring. Standardized data on ground water quality Nearly half of all documented waterborne is needed for responsive policymaking. The disease outbreaks in the United States result USGS catalog of Information on Water Data from contaminated ground water. Certain might be useful as a prototype (Vanlier, 1980). viruses, some of which may constitute a health In it, ground water quality is outlined in terms hazard to humans or livestock, may be ab- of four traditional categories: physical, chem- sorbed onto soil organic matter and clays and ical, biological, and sediment related. Identified 54 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

within each category are a number of factors expected to change land values. For example, (e.g., turbidity, pH, coliform bacteria content, agricultural producers’ net income along the sediment particle size) that should be measured Colorado River would drop because of crop at regular intervals. Frequent measurement of yield reductions and increased production these indicators will promote the early detec- costs as salinity increases. On the other hand, tion of a contaminant by a monitoring system, the lands of a producer of the same crop in an Sufficient leadtime is important for corrective area without salinity problems would increase action. in relative agricultural value.

Conclusions Eventually, this imbalance will spur production relocation and passing of increased costs The continuing decline of ground water qual- on to consumers. The rural business communi- ity and quantity apparently is not caused by ty of banks and agricultural suppliers, too, is lack of data or knowledge. The probability that ultimately influenced through changes in serv- agricultural productivity in the High Plains ice demands and the tax base, And if the irri- region would decline during the latter part of gated dry Western States are compelled to re- the 20th century, and that economic problems vert to dryland farming, the ultimate effects on would consequently emerge, has been clearly food prices and the entire economy would be recognized locally and nationally for the last substantial. several decades (Vanlier, 1980). Rather, the decline is caused by a lack of a coherent, national The national agricultural policies that have resource-use philosophy and water manage- the greatest effect on ground water resources ment policy. This has led to a separation of are economic. For example, the quantity of policies toward surface and ground water. water used to irrigate rice in Arkansas doubled between 1970 and 1975 as a result of relaxa- The separation of ground and surface water tion of acreage controls (Halberg, 1977). It is issues results in administrative mismanage- not known if Government acreage controls and ment of both resources, These two elements are crop price-support programs increase ground mistakenly not seen as part of the same hydro- water pumping for irrigation where otherwise logic cycle. This insular treatment extends in it would be unprofitable, many cases to the laws pertaining to their use, to the Federal agencies and institutions that Most individual farmers understand the costs regulate and control them, and to the research and risks of their decisions to continue to pump and development that guides their future uses. water from aquifers that are experiencing overdraft or declining water quality. The individual To ignore a substantial hydrologic imbalance farmer, however, is left with little choice ex- costs money—money in production costs, farm cept to use the water under his own land to income, crop prices, food prices, etc. For crop- maximize his profits. If he does not pump the land affected by ground water depletion, salin- water, his neighbors will. Farmers cannot unite ity, and subsidence problems, a total calcula- to save water for some future date when each tion of ground water-related damage has not has made substantial individual investments in been compiled. land and equipment. The specter of low agri- Directly entwined with ground water eco- cultural prices and high production costs in nomic impacts is the ripple effect felt by soci- areas of major ground water overdraft un- ety. As ground water problems increase in doubtedly inhibits the individual farmer’s deci- severity, interactions between producers di- sion to invest in expensive technologies to save rectly affected and those not affected can be water. Ch. n-Land Productivity Problems ● 55 ——

SUBSIDENCE

Land subsidence could become more com- The effects of subsidence on agriculture have mon in the United States as the use of ground been most extensive in areas where ground water and subsurface mineral resources inten- water withdrawal for irrigation is common. sifies, Subsidence can occur in various circum- For example, water withdrawal has greatly af- stances: when cities, industries, and irrigation fected agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley of agriculture withdraw large amounts of ground California. During 40 years of irrigation pump- water; when coal and other mineral resources ing, some 2,500 mi2 in three main areas have are mined; when there is solution mining of suffered subsidence, Some areas sank as much subsurface mineral deposits, such as salt; or as 20 ft; in 1967, some land was sinking at rates when large amounts of petroleum have been up to 1ft a year (Marsden and Davis, 1967). extracted. All of these activities can result in The gradual lowering of the land surface dam- the slow subsidence or the unexpected collapse aged expensive water-well casings, irrigation of the land surface. If agriculture overlies these systems, buildings, drainage and flood-control areas, it can suffer slow or immediate conse- structures, and other manmade structures. As quences. the land subsided, flow directions were re- versed in irrigation canals that normally had Land subsidence is often the result of the slopes of 0.3 ft per mile and major structural combined influence of human activities and changes were required to maintain irrigated the land’s natural proclivity to such disturb- crop production. Such changes included rais- ances. Certain soils and terrains are much ing or rebuilding bridges, pipelines, and other more likely to suffer subsidence than others. associated structures. Costs are high for repair- Clays, for example, generally compact and sub- ing such damage. In California’s Santa Clara side more than coarser sediments such as silts Valley, subsidence costs are estimated at $15 and sands. Thus, it is often difficult to isolate million to $20 million (Lehr, 1980). the specific cause or causes of land subsidence. Similarly, in California’s San Jacinta Valley But how does ground water withdrawal, irri- approximately 5,400 miz of cropland have sub- gation, or perhaps the draining and farming of sided at the rate of 1.2 ft a year since measure- organic-rich soils cause subsidence? Because ments began in 1935. Subsidence has reached water commonly fills the spaces between the nearly 28 ft in areas where irrigation wells rocks and particles that make up underground pump as much as 1,500 acre-ft of water per sediments or sedimentary rock, it contributes year (Lehr, 1980). to the volume of land. When wells are drilled and ground water is removed faster than it is Withdrawal of large amounts of ground wa- replaced naturally, the ground water level ter from the gulf coast aquifer underlying the drops, The loss of the water’s buoyant support Houston-Galveston, Tex,, area parallels the Cal- of the rock and mineral grains leads to in- ifornia experience. In this case, most ground creased grain-to-grain stress in the aquifer water withdrawals have been for industrial and below. If the stress is great enough to cause the urban uses. Nevertheless, agricultural lands are individual grains to shift and move close to- affected adversely. Land subsidence there be- gether, land subsidence results. Subsidence can gan as a result of ground water withdrawal take place in small increments over decades starting as early as 1906. During a 26-year and, therefore, may go unrecognized in its period, 1943-69, in the Houston area, a region early stages, some 15 miles in diameter suffered 2 ft of sub- 56 ● Impacts of Technology On U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity sidence. An area with a diameter of about 60 delta area of northern California subsided 12 miles, much of it rural land, suffered at least to 14 ft between 1850 and 1950 (Flawn, 1970). 6 inches of subsidence during the same period, A similar situation exists in the Belle Glade These depressed land surfaces act as catch- area of Florida where half of a lo-ft peat depos- ments during heavy hurricane-associated rain- it has disappeared from agricultural fields fall and, thus, periodically limit the land’s through oxidation over a 50-year period, Under usefulness for crop production (Flawn, 1970). original conditions, the peat accumulated at about 1ft per 400 years (Shrader, 1980), Sub- Land subsidence can be halted, but not eas- sidence on organic soils in Florida’s Everglades ily, Water can be pumped back into the aquifers agricultural area varies from 1.5 to 3.1 cm/year to end subsidence, and a slight rebound of the depending on the land use (Lehr, 1980), land surface may occur. But in areas where water is scarce, what would be the recharge water source? Subsidence can be slowed by reducing ground water withdrawals or by pump- Land subsidence can affect agriculture ad- ing only from widely dispersed wells. These versely. These changes are typically perma- approaches have promise only where alterna- nent, and subsided land cannot be restored to tive sources of freshwater are available for irri- its original state. In most areas of land subsi- gation agriculture. Finding alternative water dence, relevant data are collected largely by sources is becoming increasingly difficult. State and local agencies. In California, for ex- Introducing irrigation water into very dry ample, USGS, in cooperation with the State, areas that are covered by alluvial or mud-flow maintains a network of land subsidence sta- sediments with large pore spaces can cause tions and wells. The data on subsidence seem reorientation of the sediment particles and thus to be sufficiently accurate and adequate for cause subsidence. A 27-month irrigation test most agricultural planning purposes. on such sediments along the western side of Agriculture’s investments in irrigation sys- the San Joaquin Valley in central California tems are expensive and normally are designed caused a 10.5-ft drop in the land surface, for a long useful life. But where ground water resulting in damage to roads, pipelines, and withdrawals for irrigation cause subsidence, transmission lines (Flawn, 1970). sustainability of the agriculture system is jeop- When drained, peat and other organic-rich ardized. Subsidence related to changes in or- soils are subject to oxidation and decompo- ganic soils affects land productivity, as well, sition of the exposed organic matter, thereby because continual changes in the topography causing shrinkage and subsidence. Drained of the land may interfere with irrigation sys- organic soils in the Sacramento-San Joaquin tems and other infrastructure,

UTILITIES OTHER THAN CROPS AND FORAGE

Agricultural lands are managed to produce all directly related to croplands, pasturelands, crops and forage, but other, less quantifiable and rangelands. services from the land are also vitally important to the Nation’s well-being. These benefits An agroecosystem does not end at the edge are often taken for granted or assumed to come of a field or pasture, but includes the bound- solely from nonagricultural land, The quality aries—fences, hedgerows, windbreaks, nearby of air, water, ground water, fish and wildlife fallow fields, riparian habitats, and adjacent habitats, and esthetic and recreational areas are undeveloped areas. As the quality and quanti- —.-

ty of these areas is changed by agricultural ac- for atmospheric N2O during periods of mod- tivities, the utilities obtained from the land also erate soil-water content. change. N2O is produced during denitrification in soils when the soil nitrate content is high, the Effects on Air Quality temperature is conducive to high respiratory oxygen demand by soil biota, and the water Vegetation and soil are major factors in the content causes restricted soil aeration. Any balance of gas cycles. Plants, through photo- agricultural activities affecting nitrate content, synthesis, remove carbon dioxide and are the water content, or soil temperature will affect primary source of atmospheric oxygen. Soil the yearly flux of nitrogen oxides. For exam- plays a less well-known role in the nitrogen ple, converting grassland to annual crops is cycle. Nitrogen oxides are an important fac- likely to release N2O to the atmosphere. tor in the destruction of stratospheric ozone, and agricultural activities affecting nitrous Soil micro-organisms can eliminate air pol-

oxide (N2O) are coming under increasing scru- lutants, such as carbon monoxide and various tiny. Soil can act both as a source and as a sink gaseous hydrocarbons, in the lower portion of 58 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Rangeland Productivity the atmosphere that comes into contact with Effects on Water QuaIity the ground (Alexander, 1980). In addition, plants are effective in removing pollutants such When properly managed, land acts as an effi- as sulfur dioxides (SO2), from air and con- cient “living filter” in the water cycle. Plant verting them to less toxic or harmless sub- roots absorb nutrients, microbes degrade complex organic molecules, and the soil’s organic stances. Plants absorb SO2, which then reacts with water to form phytotoxic sulfite. This is and inorganic colloids have tremendous ad- slowly oxidized within the plant cells to rela- sorptive capacity. Any agricultural activity that tively harmless sulfates. If too much gas is ab- reduces any of these three mechanisms reduces sorbed too rapidly, however, the plant suffers the land’s ability to provide clean water. Some the consequences of retaining a dangerous of the major forms of water pollution associ- level of the toxic sulfite within its cells (Dairies, ated with agriculture are silt from soil erosion, et al., 1966). It is difficult to measure the nutrient runoff from large feedlots, and con- amount of pollution with which an ecosystem centration of chemicals (including those from comes into contact, and more difficult still to pesticides and fertilizers) in return flows from measure how much of the pollution is re- irrigation systems. moved. Increased sedimentation of streams and Another way in which soil and vegetation other bodies of water, primarily a result of ero- help maintain air quality is by controlling wind sion, has many adverse effects. Fish feeding erosion. Wind erosion introduces 30 million and breeding areas may be destroyed by silt. tons of particulate to the U.S. atmosphere each Streams may become broader and shallower year. Soil organic matter and vegetation anchor so that water temperatures rise, affecting the the soil and keep it in place. Conventional till- composition of species the stream will support. age removes plant cover and pulverizes soil, Riparian wildlife habitats change, generally re- thus impairing its binding functions. Crop resi- ducing species diversity. due management, stubble mulching, no-till Pollutants and nutrients associated with farming technologies, irrigation, and appropri- eroded sediments can have adverse impacts on ate grazing management—technologies dis- aquatic environments. Concentrations of tox- cussed later in this report—can decrease wind ic substances may kill aquatic life, while nutri- erosion. ents in the runoff can accelerate growth of Forests, woodlands, shrubs, and the taller aquatic flora. This can aggravate the sedimen- farm crops also filter the suspended particulate tation problem and lead to accelerated eutro- matter from moving air masses and return it phication of the water bodies. Eutrophication to the soil, improving the layers of air im- is a process that usually begins with the in- mediately above the ground. When vegetation creased production of plants. As they die and is removed, as it was for the expansion of settle to the bottom, the micro-organisms that agriculture in the 1930’s, the effect on quality degrade them use up the dissolved oxygen. Sed- of air and life is dramatic: imentation also contributes to exhausting the oxygen supply, especially in streams and riv- More than 6 million acres were put out of ers, by reducing water turbulence. Thus, the production by dust storms; farmsteads were aquatic ecosystem changes dramatically. partially buried and damaged or totally destroyed and abandoned; the health of people Phosphorus and nitrogen are the major nutri- and livestock suffered; many animals died of ents that regulate plant growth, Soil nitrogen dust suffocation; machinery was damaged or is commonly found in water supplies. Phos- destroyed; ditches and waterways were filled; phorus, on the other hand, is “fixed” in the soil, valuable topsoil was lost; and soil fertility was so runoff typically contains relatively small seriously impaired for years to come (Walker, amounts, Under normal conditions, phos- 1967), phorus is more likely to be the limiting factor Ch. //—Land Productivity Problems ● 59 in aquatic plant growth. Since phosphorus and recharges ground water at a rate of approx- (along with potassium, calcium, magnesium, imately 300 trillion gallons per year (CEQ, sulfur, and the trace elements) is held by col- 1980). loid material, it is abundant in waters receiv- Reducing the percolation and filtration capa- ing large amounts of eroded soil. bilities of soils, contaminating surface waters, Natural eutrophication is generally a slow and lowering water tables all hinder aquifer re- process, but “cultural” (man-caused) eutrophi- charge. Improved grazing management, tech- cation can be extremely rapid and can produce nologies to reduce erosion and runoff into sur- nuisance blooms of algae, kill aquatic life by face water, controlled ground water with- depleting dissolved oxygen, and render water drawal, and artificial recharge with fresh or unfit for recreation. Replenishing the oxygen purified water are technologies that enhance supply is a costly remedy because of the energy the land’s ground water recharge function. required to mix and dissolve such a sparingly soluble gas into aqueous solutions. Effects on Fish and Wildlife The nutrients reaching water supplies from natural sources, however, vary widely depend- Wildlife are broadly affected by agricultural ing on the land and soil type, Water from highly activities. The most widespread problems are fertile, unfertilized agricultural lands can have a result of expanding cropping and grazing into a higher content of plant nutrients than water wildlife habitats, overgrazing of riparian areas, from heavily fertilized, well-managed cropland and agricultural activities that contaminate low in natural fertility, Nutrient losses from aquatic habitats. properly fertilized soils, in fact, can be less than As American settlers cleared forests and from soils to which no amendments are added, plowed prairie land for cultivation, many wild- since a vigorously growing crop will use the life species vanished, Some species that were available nutrients (Smith, 1967). adapted to open areas continued to prosper, Another aspect of water pollution from agri- The cottontail, bobwhite, crow, robin, red fox, cultural sources is the danger to human and skunk, and meadow mouse benefited as forests animal health by runoff from livestock feedlots. were opened to fields. Forest edge-loving Coliform and enterococcus bacteria living in species, such as the white-tailed deer, increased the fecal waste of the animals can reach water as more of their favored environment was supplies if the runoff from these feedlots is im- available, but later declined as forest clearing properly managed. If allowed to percolate increased. Other species could not adapt to the slowly through the soil, however, the coliform changed environments, however. and enterococcus bacteria are adsorbed on col- In the West, wilderness prairie animals— loidal material and die. This natural filtering bison, pronghorn antelope, mule deer, and grey mechanism is very efficient—more than 98 per- wolf—began to decline almost immediately as cent is removed in the first 14 inches of soil. their habitat disappeared, Large species and predators were especially affected, By the turn Effects on Ground Water Resources of the 20th century, wilderness animals had virtually vanished from the East, from much of Another essential service provided by a prop- the prairie further west, and from the more fer- erly managed environment is that it provides tile valleys of the Far West. clean recharge water for ground water aquifers. Most of the removal of readily degradable The abandonment of farms, particularly pollutants occurs near the water’s point of en- upland farms with sloping fields, sometimes trance into ground water reservoirs, provided improves habitat for wildlife, though the diver- the environment is conducive to microbial ac- sity of species is still greatly reduced from the tion. Precipitation filters through the ground original flora and fauna. Some conversion of 60 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity farmland to protected forestlands and vaca- per invasion in 1931, nearly eliminated the tionlands also occurs. newly introduced ring-necked pheasant. Pesti- cide pollution is also responsible for the emerg- As crop yields on sloping uplands decline ence of pesticide-resistant populations of agri- with erosion and fertility loss, farmers some- cultural pests. A shortage of data exists, how- times convert upland fields to pasture and ever, on the adaptations of these pests on a drain lowlands for crops. Wetlands drainage biochemical or genetic level. Thus, the long- removes habitats for migrating and resident term effects of pesticides on pest populations waterfowl, and can remove the last remaining are unknown (Winteringham, 1979). winter cover for some species of wildlife such as pheasants. The removal of fence rows and Cattle and sheep grazing and man’s control shelter belts also reduces wildlife habitat. of fires in the Western States have been responsible for changing large areas of grassland into Irrigation of drylands, though, actually pro- shrubland, thereby reducing the productivity vides new habitat into which pheasants and of those lands for wildlife and water resources other wildlife can expand, Habitat also is en- (Littlefield, 1980). Competition between some hanced by the more than 2 million acres of wildlife—e, g., bighorn sheep and American elk farm ponds, dugouts, and stock tanks that have —and livestock also can occur. been created, Especially where protected from livestock, these waters and their shoreline Overgrazing reduces the perennial native vegetation provide habitat diversity and niches grasses on which cattle thrive and allows for birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, and other sagebrush, a less nutritious forage, to increase. wildlife (Burger, 1978). Seedings of introduced grasses (e.g., crested wheatgrass) can provide good replacement for- Mechanization also has had a dramatic image for livestock, but wildlife generally does not pact on wildlife. For example, mechanical prosper in such monoculture. cornpickers leave more waste grain after corn harvests than handpicking. Canadian geese, Overgrazing of riparian habitats is particular- mallard ducks, and other field-feeding water- ly detrimental, both to the wildlife that depend fowl have benefited substantially from this new on streamside vegetation and to the aquatic life food source. As a consequence of this drainage in streams and lakes. Riparian habitats are gen- of wetlands, irrigation of drylands, and crea- erally more productive of plants and animals tion of waterfowl refuges, the migratory paths and are more diverse than the surrounding of many wildfowl have changed. range, Abuse or misuse of these more fragile waterside habitats thus can be especially dam- Land-forming, chemical treatments, and aging. other agricultural technologies often affect wildlife adversely, The replacement of contour Generally, sheep do little damage to riparian plowing and stripcropping by leveling and fill- habitats because they prefer open vegetation ing surface irregularities in fields removes areas. Cattle, however, are particularly damag- wildlife habitat on farmlands. Various agricul- ing to riparian habitats because they prefer the tural chemicals have deleterious effects on succulent growth and because they congregate wildlife. For example, bioaccumulated chlori- in large numbers over long periods, especial- nated insecticides produce eggshell thinning ly during the often critical periods of spring in several predacious birds. Other insecticides and summer. Deer and elk rarely congregate that have found their way into streams can enough to do damage (Cope, 1980) significantly reduce invertebrate populations Riparian soils generally have high infiltration on which many fish depend (NAS, 1974). capacities and release captured water slowly Adverse effects from chemical applications to streams. Cattle grazing in these areas, how- are not new. In Colorado, the pesticide Paris ever, reduces riparian vegetation, compacts Green, used by farmers to counter a grasshop- soils, and destroys overhanging streambanks, Ch. Ii—Land Productivity Problems ● 61 all of which promote erosion and increase the into aquatic systems may cause algal blooms sediment load of the stream. that reduce photosynthesis by aquatic plants, make less oxygen available to aquatic life, and Stable streambanks hold sediment, control release toxic wastes under anaerobic condi- water velocities, give cover to aquatic life, and tions. supply terrestrial foods to the ecosystem. When streambanks are broken down, sediments from Conclusions the debilitated streambank and from runoff on nearby lands pollute the stream. Thus, eutro- The food and fiber products supplied by the phication may begin along with all of the con- Nation’s agricultural lands represent only a comitant changes in the riparian and aquatic part of their value. Agroecosystems play an ecosystems. Fish production is suppressed by essential role in maintaining air and water elevated water temperatures, fish foods and quality, in recharging underground aquifers, spawning beds are buried by sediments, and and in providing fish and wildlife habitat. aeration is reduced. Game fish, such as trout, Although these benefits are often difficult to are reduced or eliminated, and replaced by measure, they are an important dimension that hardy but less desirable species (e.g., chubs) should not be underrated by agricultural pol- that can survive in shallower streams with icymakers. lower oxygen content. Grazing also can intensify bacterial and pesticide pollution. Flushing of animal feces

CHAPTER II REFERENCES

Alexander, M., “HOW Agriculture Technologies Af- Cope, O. B., “Impacts of Rangeland Technologies fect Productivity of Croplands and Rangelands and of Grazing on Productivity of Riparian En- by Affecting Microbial Activity in Soil, ” OTA vironments in the United States Rangelands, ” background paper, 1980. OTA background paper, 1980. Armitage, E. R., “The Run-Off of Fertilizers From Costle, Douglas, “Statement of Douglas Costle, Ad- Agricultural Land and Their Effects on the ministrator, Environmental Protection Agen- Natural Environment, ” Pollution and the Use cy, before the Subcommittee on Oversight and of Chemicals in Agriculture (Ann Arbor Mich.: Review, Committee on Public Works and Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., 1974), pp. Transportation, ” U.S. House of Representa- 43-60. tives, implementation of the Federal Water Po]- Ilorman, R. G., et al., “water Level Changes in the lution Control Act, hearing July 18, 1979. Northern High Plains of Colorado, 1956 to Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 1976, ” U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, “Soil Erosion: Its Agricultural, Environmental, Colo., Water Resources Division, 1977. and Socio-economic Implications, ” report No. 13untley, G. T,, and Bell, Frank F., Yield Estimates 92, January 1982. for the Major Crops Grown on Soils of West , “Land Resource Use and Protection, ” re- Tennessee, Agr. Expt. Sta. Bulletin 561, 1976. port No. 38, January 1975. Burger, George, “Agriculture and Wildlife, ” Wi~d- Council on Environmental Quality, “Environmen- life and America (Washington, D, C.: Council tal Quality: The Eleventh Annual Report of the on Environmental Quality, 1978), pp. 89-107. Council on Environmental Quality, ” Washing- Cassel, D. K., “Subsoiling,” (lops and Soils Maga- ton, D. C., 1980. zine, October 1979, pp. 7-10. “National Agricultural Lands Study, ” Cook, Kenneth A., “The National Agricultural Washington, D. C., 1981. Lands Study Goes Out With a Bang, ” in Jour- Dairies, R. H., Leone, Ida H., and Brennan, Eileen, nal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 36, No. “Air Pollution and Plant Reponses in the Z, March-April 1981, pp. 91-93. Northeastern U.S., ” Agriculture and the Qual- 62 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

ity of Our Environment (Washington, D. C.: McCarty, P. L., Rittman, B. E., and Reinhard, R., American Association for the Advancement of “Trace Organics in Ground Water,” Environ- Science, 1966), pp. 11-32. mental Science and Technology, 15(1):40-51, Dixon, R. M., “New Soil Implement Makes a Good January 1981, Impression, ” Crops and Soils Magazine, June- McCormack, D. E., and Larson, W. E., “A Values July 1977, Pp. 14-16 Dilemma—Standards for Soil Quality Tomor- Flawn, Peter T., Environmental Geology: Conser- row, ” presented at Soil Conservation Society vation, Land Use Planning, and Resource Man- of America, annual meeting, Dearborn, Mich., agement. (New York: Harper & Row, 1970.) August 1980. Frederick, Kenneth D,, “Irrigation and the Future Miller, Arnold, Expanding Crop Production and of American Agriculture, ” The Future of Soil Erosion: Land Resources, Conservation American Agriculture as a Strategic Resource Practices and Policy Changes, unpublished (Washington, D. C.: The Conservation Founda- manuscript, June 15, 1981. tion, 1980). Moldenhauer, W. C., and Onstad, C, A., “Achiev- Gerba, C. P., et al,, “Quantitative Assessment of the ing Specified Soil Loss Levels, ” JournaZ of Soil Adsorptive Behavior of Viruses to Soils, ” En- and Water Conservation, vol. 30, 1975, pp. vironmental Science and Technology, vol. 15, 166-167. 1981, pp. 940-944, Murray, C. Richard, “Estimated Use of Water in Gifford, G. F., Faust, R, H., and Coltharp, G. B., the United States in 1970, ” U.S. Geological Sur- “Measuring Soil Compaction on Rangeland, ” vey Circular 676, 1970, pp. 20-21, Journal of Range Management, 30:457-460, National Academy of Sciences, Productive Agricul- 1977. ture and Quality Environment, Washington, Hagen, L. L,, and Dyke, P. T., “Yield-Soil Loss Rela- D. C,, 1974. tionship, ” Proceedings of Workshop on In- Ochs, Malter, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil fluence of Soil Erosion on Soil Productivity, Conservation Service, personal communica- USDA-SEA-AR, Washington, D. C., 1980. tions, July 1981. Halberg, H. A., “Use of Water in Arkansas, 1975, Pimentel, David, et al., “Land Degradation: Effects Water Resources Summary 9, Arkansas Geo- on Food and Energy Resources, ” Science, vol. logical Commission, State of Arkansas, ” pre- 194, PP. 117-128, 1976, pared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooper- Raghaven, G, S. V., et al., “Effects of Soil Compac- ation with the Arkansas Geological Commis- tion on Development and Yield of Corn sion, 1977, (Maize),” Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:435-443, 1978. Hauschen, Larry D,, “Increasing Water Scarcity: Robertson, L. S., Department of Crop and Soil Sci- Some Problems and Solutions, ” Cross Section, ences, Michigan State University, personal 1980. communication, 1981. Irwin, R. W., “On-Farm Drainage Benefit,” Univer- Schwab, G. 0,, Fausey, N. R., and Weaver, C. R., sity of Guelph, Ontario, 1981, p. 14, “Tile and Surface Drainage of Clay Soils, ” LaFleur, K. S., “Movement of Toxaphene and Flu- Ohio Agricultural Research and Development romethoron Through Soils to Underlying Center Research Bulletin #1081, 1975. Ground Water, ” Journal of Environmental Sheridan, David, Desertification of the United Quality, 2(4]:515-518, 1973. States, Council on Environmental Quality, Larson, W. E,, “Protecting the Soil Resource Base, ” 1981, in Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. Shrader, W. D., “Effect of Erosion and Other Physi- 36, No. 1, January-February 1981, pp. 13-16, cal Processes on Productivity of U.S. Crop- Lehr, J. H., “Database on Ground Water Quality and Iands and Rangelands, ” OTA background Availability, ” OTA background paper, 1980. paper, 1980, Littlefield, Carroll D., Ferguson, D., and Holte, K, Smith, G. E., “Fertilizer Nutrients as Contaminants E., “The Impacts of Grazing and Rangeland in Water Supplies, ” Agriculture and the Qual- Management Technology Upon Wildlife, ” ity of Our Environment (Washington, D. C.: OTA background paper, 1980. American Association for the Advancement of Marsden, Jr., S. S., and Davis, S, N., “Geological Science, 1967), pp. 173-186. Subsidence, ” Scientific American, vol. 216, Spomer, R. G,, Shrader, W. D., Rosenberry, P. E., 1967, pp. 93-100, and Miller, E. L., “Level Terraces With Stabi- C/?. //—Land Productivity Prob/erns ● 63

Iized Backslopes on Loessial Cropland in the “Soil Tilth Deterioration Under Row Crop- Missouri Valley: A Cost-Effectiveness Study, ” pi~g in the Northern Corn Belt: Influence of Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. Tillage and Wheel Traffic,” Journal of Soil and 28, No, 3, 1973, Pp. 127-131. Water Conservation, July-August 1979, pp. Troeh, F. R., Hobbs, J. A., and Donahue, R. L., Soil 184-186, and Water Conservation for Productivity and Voorhees, W. B,, Senst, C. G,, and Nelson, W. W., Environmental Protection (Englewood Cliffs, “Compaction and Soil Structure Modification N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980). by Wheel Traffic in the Northern Corn Belt,” Trouse, A., Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Depart- Soil Science Society of America Journal ment of Agriculture, SEA-AR, personal com- 2:344-349, 1978. munication, 1981. Walker, Kenneth C., “Agricultural Practices Influ- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation encing Air Quality, ” Agriculture and the Qual- Service, “An Assessment of the Energy Sav- ity of Our Environment (Washington, D. C.: ing Potential of Soil and Water Conservation, ” American Association for the Advancement of April 1975. Science, 1967), pp. 105-112. U.S. Department of Agriculture—Resources Con- Weeks, J. B,, personal communication, 1980; and servation Act, The Soil and Water Resources Weeks, J. B., and Gutentag, E. D., “Bedrock Conservation Act: 1980 Appraisal (review draft Geology, Altitude of Base, and 1980 Saturated pt. 1), 1980. Thickness of the High Plains Aquifer in Parts — , “Basic Statistics: 1977 National Resources of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Inventory (NRI), revised February 1980. Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyo- U.S. Water Resources Council, The Nation Water ming, ” USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas Resources, 1975-2000, vol. 4, Texas Gulf Re- 648, 1981. gional (12], Washington, D. C., 1978. White, Fred C,, “Relationship Between Increased Vanlier, K. E., “Groundwater and Agricultural Pro- Crop Acreage and Non-Point Source Pollution: ductivity: The Information and Data Base, ” A Georgia Case Study, ” Journal of Soil and (3TA background paper, 1980. Water Conservation, vol. 36, No. 3, 1981, pp. van Schilifgaarde, Director, U.S. Salinity Labora- 172-176. tory, Riverside, Calif., personal communica- Williams, J. R., et al., “Soil Erosion Effects on Soil tion, 1981. Productivity: A Research Perspective, ” Journal Voorhees, W. B., “Soil Compaction, Our Newest of Soil and Water Conservation, 36:2, 1981, pp. Natural Resource, ” Crops and Soils Magazine 82-90. 29(5], 1977a. Wilshire, Howard, USGS, personal communication , “Soil Compaction, How It Influences Mois- in Desertification in the U. S., David Sheridan, ture, Temperature, Yield, Root Growth, ” Crops CEQ 1981. and Soils Magazine 29(6), 1977b. Winteringham, F. P. W., “Agroecosystem-Chem i- “Soil Compaction, Good and Bad Effects cal Interactions and Trends, ” E’cotoxico/ogy on’ Energy Needs, ” Crops and Soils Magazine and Environmental Safet~’ 3:219-235, 1979. 29(5), 1977c. Chapter III RangeIands

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture Page Introduction ...... 67 Condition of U.S. Rangelands ...... 68 Current Trends ...... 70 Monitoring Productivity...... 71 Productivity-Sustaining Technologies for Rangelands ...... 71 Integrated Brush Management Systems ...... 77 Short Duration Grazing...... 80 Grazing Potential for Eastern Woodlands ...... 82 Chapter III References ...... 87

List of Tables Table No. Page 8. Estimated Potential of Major Forest Communities to Produce Livestock Forage Under Extensive and Intensive Management—Northern Region . . 83 9. Estimated Potential of Major Forest Communities to Produce Livestock Forage Under Extensive and Intensive Management—Southern Region . . 83 10. Area, Including Change Over Time, of Commercial Timberland in the Eastern United States, by Ownership, Region, and Section, and for the Years 1952 and 1977...... 84 11. Area of Forestland in the Eastern United States Being Grazedby Livestock, Including Area Requiring Conservation Treatments ...... 85 12. Average Sheet andRill Erosion Ratesin Crop Production Regions of the Eastern United Statesin 1977 ...... 86

List of Figures Figure No. Page 8. U.S. Rangelands ...... 67 9. Rangeland Condition in the United States ...... 69 10. Cartwheel Pasture Arrangement Used in the Savory Grazing Method. . . . 81 Chapter III Rangelands

There are about 853 million acres of range- Figure 8. —U.S. Rangelands land in the United States. This includes natural Other grasslands, savannas, shrublands, most deserts, BLM tundra, coastal marshes, and wet meadows. Typical range vegetation includes grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, and shrubs. (Pasture- land, by contrast, is land improved for forage FS production by intensive management of the soil and vegetation.) In the contiguous United Private States, over half the rangelands are seriously State degraded (USI)A/RPA, 1980). owned Excluding Alaska, 97 percent of the Nation’s rangelands are located in the Great Plains and the arid and semiarid West. More than half of this land, 66 percent, is privately owned (see Rangeland, excluding Alaska fig. 8), These private rangelands generally have Total = 621,4 million acres the greatest inherent productivity and include most of the highly productive prairie and wet grassland ecosystems, Federal rangeland areas are administered as follows: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 24 percent; the U.S. Forest Service (USFS], 6 percent; and other Federal agencies (including the Fish and Wildlife Service and the military), 4 percent, Generally BLM lands are drier, less productive, and more fragile than private Alaskan rangeland lands. They include large desert ecosystems Total = 231 million acres with little or no carrying capacity for livestock and extensive shrubland of low productivity, NOTES Federal data are from the Resource Planning Act (RPA) 1979, non-Federal data are from 1977 National Resources Inventory (N RI), State land USFS rangeland includes substantial areas of estimated by Tom Frye USDA, Census of Agriculture statistics on total less arid, more productive mountain ecosys- range are imprecise N RI Indicates 621 million acres (outside Alaska) whereas RPA Indicates 588 million acres tems. Alaska contains 231 million acres of range- mined, USFS controlled about one-fifth of the land, much of it (79 percent) in good condition Alaskan rangelands, other Federal agencies because it has not yet been used for livestock had about two-fifths, and only about 2 percent grazing. Information on which agencies ad- was in private ownership (USDA/RPA, 1980.) minister Alaskan rangelands are imprecise because of landownership changes mandated in Demands for rangeland products and serv- the 1980 Alaska lands bill. The 1980 Resource ices are expected to increase sharply in the Planning Act report indicates that BLM is the next two decades (US DA/RPA, 1980 and major “owner,” managing over half the Alas- USDA/RCA, 1980], but opportunities for in- kan rangelands, When that figure was deter- creased production from U.S. rangelands are

67 68 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Rangeland Productivity

great. For example, the potential production In spite of these potentials, most rangeland of herbage and browse from rangelands out- ecosystems are not resilient when misused be- side Alaska is estimated at over 700 million cause they are typically arid and natural plant pounds per year while the present production growth is slow. The natural forces that tend to is less than half of that (USDA/RPA, 1980). In degrade ecosystems—i.e., wind, rainfall, and regions of moderate to high rainfall, water temperature extremes—are also especially yields from rangeland watersheds could be sig- powerful in dry areas. nificantly increased by appropriate vegetation management (Hibbert, 1974), Recreational use, too, can be increased substantially (USDA/ RPA, 1980).

CONDITiON OF U.S. RANGELANDS

In the contiguous United States, over half the Figure 9.— Rangeland Condition in the United States rangelands are seriously degraded and suffer from reduced productivity caused by the ill effects of mismanagement, overgrazing, and erosion. Only 15 percent of the range is rated in good condition. Ranges in fair condition constitute another 31 percent of U.S. rangelands; 38 percent are rated poor; and 16 percent are very poor (see fig. 9) (USDA/RCA, 1980).* “Range condition” is a complex and inexact measure where the present condition of the soils and vegetation is compared to what is Good condition I 160/0 / thought to be the ecological climax community as dictated by the climate, native vegetation, and original (pre-European settlement) soil type at the site. For rangelands where exotic vegeta- SOURCE USDA 1980, Resources Conservation Act tion has replaced the natural plant communities, as in most of California, range condition is determined by comparing the present soil two or three decades following settlement. For and vegetation to the potential for the site with- example, the first settler to the Salt Lake Valley, out irrigation or fertilization. Utah, arrived in 1847; just 32 years later, the Utah paper, Deseret News, reported: Overgrazing causes great loss of productivity on U.S. rangelands. While present trends The wells are nearly all dried up and have in range productivity are difficult to determine, to be dug deeper. At the present time the pros- the historical deterioration is well documented. pect for next year is a gloomy one for the farm- Almost all the Western arid and semiarid ers, and in fact, all, for when the farmer is affected, all feel the effects. The stock raisers ranges were severely overgrazed in the first here are preparing to drive their stock to *For this assessment, range is rated in four categories—good, where there is something to eat. This country, fair, poor, and very poor, depending on the difference between which was one of the best ranges for stock in the land’s present vegetation and the ecological potential of the the Territory, is now among the poorest; the site. Range rated “good” has vegetation between 61 and 100 percent of potential; “fair” range is 41 to 60 percent of potential; myriads of sheep that have been herded here “poor” range is 21 to 40 percent of potential; and “very poor” for the past few years, have almost destroyed range is 20 percent or less of potential (USDA/RCA, 1980). our range (Clegg, 1976). Ch. 111—Rangelands ● 69

The process by which rangelands deteriorate eaten more often. And riparian sites suffer is well understood. Cattle and sheep bite plants greatly from trampling because animals spend for food, consuming much of the aboveground more time in them and because their moist part of the plant before moving to the next soils are more susceptible to compaction. plant. In this they are like the enormous herds Overgrazing also reduces the proportion of of bison and other large wild herbivores that rain and snowmelt that soaks into the ground, once grazed the rangeland. But domestic live- Ungrazed rangeland on the southern Great stock can cause serious harm to plants, espe- Plains, for example, was found to have infiltra- cially grasses, whereas large wild herbivores tion rates nearly four times the rates on grazed generally did not (Littlefield, et al., 1980]. The rangeland of similar character (Brown and wild herbivores stayed in herds and moved to Schuster, 1969). Rainwater and snowmelt rush other ranges after ‘‘mowing” the forage once. off denuded or compacted land instead of Domestic livestock, on the other hand, scatter being absorbed into the soil. This, in turn, over the landscape and stay on the same gen- makes streamflows more erratic, tending eral site until the rancher moves them. If a toward a flood and drought regime. Whole rancher overstocks a site and does not move river systems can be changed. The Santa Cruz the herd, they are likely to return to a plant River in Arizona, for example, was a meander- again and again, never letting it regain enough ing perennial river that supported an abun- green material to maintain its root system or dance of fish and other wildlife until its water- to store energy against periods of drought shed and riparian areas were overgrazed. Now stress (Savory and Parsons, 1980). When the it is dry most of the time (Sheridan, 1981), palatable and overstressed perennial grasses Grassland restoration and conservation pro- die out, substantial changes in the ecology and grams can reverse these effects and improve hydrology of the land commence. Overgrazing streamflow significantly (Hibbert, et al., 1974). removes the grass cover and leads to less plant litter; increased runoff; sheet, rill, gully, and The increased runoff associated with over- streambank erosion; and less organic matter grazing also increases gullying, or “arroyo-cut- in the soil. The resulting denuded land is also ting, ” as it is called in the Southwest. Com- more susceptible to wind erosion, especially bined with the increased sheet erosion caused during drought. by overgrazing, gullying carries large amounts of silt into rivers such as the Rio Grande. In- Moreover, the degraded land can then be indeed, it is estimated that one of the Rio vaded by less productive plants, commonly Grande’s most overgrazed watersheds—the Rio called weeds and brush, Annuals, such as Rus- Puerco Basin in northwest New Mexico—pro- sian thistle (tumbleweed) and cheatgrass, take duces over 50 percent of that river’s total silt hold, and deep-rooted shrubs, such as mes- load while supplying only 10 percent of its quite, proliferate. In northern regions, water (Adams, 1979). sagebrush is the primary invader, Accompa- nying these vegetation changes are upheavals Historically, overgrazing effects have been in wildlife populations, Most species decline, most severe in arid areas where the land is least especially the ground-nesting birds, such as resilient. Thus, range conditions are now worst quail and grouse, and the herbivores, such as in the Southwestern States. Two-thirds of the bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, and Amer- rangelands of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, ican elk. A few wildlife species, such as the and California have range condition degraded kangaroo rat, jackrabbit, zebra-tailed lizard, to 40 percent or less of the original condition, and horned lark, prosper in overgrazed areas. (USDA/RPA, 1980). Livestock grazing can be particularly hard The loss of productivity from overgrazing in on riparian areas near streams, waterholes, and the Southwest is reinforced by climate changes. springs. Riparian plants are more appealing to Over the past 100 years, the natural vegetation grazing animals and more productive, so are on large parts of the Southwest has undergone 70 ● Impacts of Technology On U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity changes on a scale usually associated with tury. It is likely that climate and livestock com- geologic time, Vegetation zones at different bined forces to bring about the most dramatic elevations have changed noticeably. At low changes, By weakening the grass cover, domes- elevations, vegetation in the desert shrub and tic grazing animals have reinforced the general cactus communities have become sparser, tendency toward aridity by contributing to an while the desert grasslands have receded great- imbalance between infiltration and runoff in ly and have been replaced by desert shrubs, favor of runoff (Hastings and Turner, 1972). cacti, and mesquite. At higher elevations, mes- Average range condition figures for the quite has taken over oak woodlands, and the United States as a whole are not so negative timberline of spruce and fir trees has moved as the figures for the Southwestern States be- upward (Hastings and Turner, 1972). cause the climate in other regions gives the Scientific opinion differs on the cause of land more resiliency, Still, the overall condi- these profound changes. Some experts contend tion is not good. Excluding Alaska, over half that the changes are the result of a change in (54 percent) of the U.S. rangelands have range the region’s climate, which apparently has condition degraded by 60 percent or more, In become more arid, with rainfall decreasing Alaska, four-fifths of the rangeland still has about 1 inch every 30 years, Other scientists over 80 percent of its original productivity— contend that the prime cause of the vegetation most of it is still virgin. Less than 2 percent— changes was the huge influx of cattle and sheep just over 4 million acres—has been degraded that occurred in the latter part of the last cen- to 40 percent or less of the original condition.

CURRENT TRENDS

Experts do not agree on whether the overall cators rigorously, Most of their assessments in- trend in rangeland productivity is improving, dicate that stocking rates (grazing pressure) remaining static in its degraded condition, or must be lowered 20 to 75 percent to avoid fur- continuing to degrade, and there are inade- ther deterioration (Young and Evans, 1980), quate data to resolve the question, Nationwide studies of range condition were done in 1936, In general, range experts report that forage 1968, 1972, and 1976. Unfortunately, these do production on non-Federal land has gradual- not comprise a time series that can be exam- ly improved over the past 30 years, but that ined to discern the national trend. The studies these lands are still degraded from their eco- from 1976 and 1972 use much of the same data logical potential, The Federal rangelands are as the 1968 study. Comparing the 1936 data to apparently either static in their degraded con- the 1968 data is not useful because the methods dition or are continuing to deteriorate, There for measuring range condition have changed are some exceptional sites where atypical levels and because the earlier study measured condi- of management are improving Federal range tions under an uncharacteristic drought while condition. the later study measured conditions in a more normal period. Available data indicate that the area of Trends in range condition can be estimated rangelands has been declining in recent dec- without time series data by using indicators ades. By 2030, the total area of rangeland is pro- such as species reproduction, plant vigor, plant jected to decline 7 percent, The acreage lost litter, and surface soil condition. BLM, in the will come primarily from private lands as range process of making environmental impact as- is converted to cropland or pasture or devel- sessments for its range management plans, is oped for residential areas, highways, airports, now investigating range condition trend indi- and mines (USDA/RPA, 1980). Ch. 111—Rangelands ● 71

MONITORING PRODUCTITIVITY

One factor that seriously complicates the augmented by systematic monitoring of the evacuation of rangeland productivity trends is rangeland’s other vital signs, including: the highly variable weather characteristic of the reproduction rate of various species in the Western States, Rangeland plant produc- order to determine whether the plant com- tion can fluctuate more than 300 percent from munity succession is advancing or regress- one year to the next as a result of a variation ing; in precipitation (Box, 1980). Ideally, a large the rate of soil loss by water and wind ero- sample of sites in each rangeland region and sion; subregion should be monitored regularly the soil’s water infiltration rate, organic through several drought cycles to determine content, and degree of compaction and trends in rangeland productivity, Eventually, capping; * the Resource Planning Act and Resource Con- the water quantity and quality of aquifers servation Act processes of planning and assess- and their hydologic interaction with ment might include such a monitoring pro- streams; and gram. the population dynamics of native animals Meanwhile, however, improved monitoring (including fish) which depend on the is needed to help manage local sites. Esti- rangeland habitat for food, water, and mates of factors such as species composition, cover. forage output, degree of ground cover, and *‘‘Capl)ing’ refers to the formation of a thi II ( r~] St on th(l \oil symptoms of erosion—on which rangeland surface. I t o(:(:u rs in the more arid tlpes of ra ng(~ld n(i +, ( dIISLId mainl~r b}’ the act iorl of raind reps str]k i IIH t h(I io II s u rfa( (: ,in(l trend assessments have traditionally been by the (;llcn~ical-~)h}rsi( :al dynami(:t of soil (Iry in~. It l(~,i(lt to im based—would be more useful if they were creased runoff and (Iecreased i nfi]tration of rain a n{l ~nc)w’ rnt’lt,

PRODUCT9V9TY=SUSTAINING TECHNOLOGIES FOR RANGELANDS

A variety of management technologies has resource values are the management objectives been developed to improve deteriorated range- for public land. The laws establish resource- land. These may be broadly categorized as: inventory and land-use planning mechanisms for “the harmonious and coordinated manage- ● adjusting livestock numbers; ment of the various resources without perma- • controlling animal use with grazing sys- nent impairment of the productivity of the tems; land . . . .“ (FLPMA, sec. 103 (c)). Translating promo ing desired plant species; general multiple-use, sustained-yield objectives ● contro ling noxious plant species; and from laws into achievable management objec- ● contro Iing noxious animal species. tives is extremely difficult, especially when two or more legitimate uses of the land are in con- Congress has legislated objectives for use of flict. FLPMA specifically states that multiple- Federal rangelands. These are stated in the use management should consider the relative Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964, values of the resources and not necessarily the the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Re- combination of uses that will give the greatest sources Planning Act of 1974, the Federal Land economic return or the greatest unit output. Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, and the Public Rangeland Improvement Act of In theory, rangeland management strategies 1978. Generally, these laws state that multiple should include explicit statements of achiev- 72 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity able objectives, management programs to apply graze, Then grazing occurs with the indicated technologies, monitoring programs to measure livestock in the indicated seasons. After one progress toward the objectives, analysis meth- or more years of grazing, the range conditions ods to indicate how the management could be need to be carefully reassessed. If the range changed to enhance progress, and a mecha- shows indications of overgrazing or underglaz- nism to implement the changes indicated by ing, the intensity and timing of grazing are ad- the analyses, In practice, however, there are justed accordingly. The process can be re- often no statements of achievable objectives, peated to fine-tune the carrying capacity esti- no rigorous monitoring programs, no repli- mate. cable analysis methods, and no feedback mech- Adjusting stock rates to the land’s carrying anisms to facilitate adjustment of the tech- capacity sounds relatively simple, but in prac- nologies, tice there are severe difficulties. First, the ini- Most range management technologies are de- tial carrying capacity can only be estimated. signed to foster livestock production. However, In theory, the range manager calculates carry- some technologies exist that have other utilities ing capacity by measuring the site’s total an- as their major objective. These include game nual forage production. Then he subtracts the and fish management techniques, erosion con- forage that must remain ungrazed to protect trol to decrease sedimentation of streams and the health of plants and soil quality. The re- reservoirs, and vegetation manipulation to in- mainder is available for grazing, but the range crease watershed yields. These technologies manager must also consider that some forage are not well developed, however. Scientists and is likely to be eaten by wild herbivores. (In resource managers working with rangelands some cases this sharing of the forage between seem most concerned with livestock produc- wild and domestic animals is adjusted by re- tion technologies. Because livestock manage- ducing the wild animal numbers to decrease ment considerations dominate rangeland use, their share, or by manipulating the number or managers seeking to enhance wildlife or other timing of domestic animals’ grazing to increase values would probably be most effective if they the forage for wildlife.) When the total pounds focused on influencing the choice of livestock of forage available for livestock are known, that production techniques. This traditional focus weight is divided by the ration needed per ani- on livestock and the paucity of technologies mal per time unit. (Rations per animal can vary directed at other values may explain in part with the character of the site.) why livestock considerations continue to dom- The estimation of carrying capacity is com- inate Federal rangeland management deci- plicated by the vagaries of precipitation in the sions, even on ranges where livestock is not the arid and semiarid West, Since range managers dominant objective (e.g., on wildlife refuges) cannot foretell precipitation rates when plan- (Littlefield, et al., 1980), ning stocking rates, they need to determine if This discussion begins with an overview of the year that produced the forage crop meas- technologies appropriate for sustaining range ured was typical and then discount that to resources and concludes with more detailed allow for drier years, At this stage, the carry- descriptions of three promising new ap- ing capacity estimate changes from science to proaches: integrated brush management sys- art, and the value of estimates of factors such tems, short duration grazing, and grazing po- as the wildlife share of the forage becomes tentials in eastern woodlands. doubtful. c Adjusting livestock numbers is the most Rather than do such precise analyses, man- widely used range management technique. agers commonly measure total forage produc- First, the carrying capacity of the range site is tion and estimate that 50 percent of it is estimated to determine the numbers and types available for livestock grazing (Menke, 1981). of grazing animals and the seasons they are to Although the continuous reevaluation of range .

Ch, l/1—Rangelands ● 73

condition, trend, stocking records, and the ad- method can damage the long-term productivi- justment of animal numbers and timing are ty of the range. Other ranchers may stockpile critically important, this reevaluation and read- or purchase alternative sources of forage to justment is often not practiced. As a result, the feed livestock through drought, Losses in- rangeland is overgrazed, especially during curred by selling part of the herd in stressful drought, and sometimes undergrazed during times can be minimized if the age and sex ratio wetter periods (Box, 1980), of the herd are designed for economic flexibility (Scifres, 1980). Another difficulty with adjusting animal numbers is that ranching operations often are Yet another problem in range management not flexible and cannot accommodate changes is related to the issue of animal types. The car- in animal numbers or adjust seasonal grazing. rying capacity of most range ecosystems can If reduced grazing pressure is necessary at a be greater for a variety than for any one type time when livestock prices are low, the rancher of animal (Box, 1980). If a single species such might incur a substantial loss. To avoid this as cattle is stocked, the overall productivity of loss, some ranchers choose to overgraze the the rangeland can be less and overgrazing range, hoping the drought will pass quickly. more likely than if a variety, such as cattle with This is possible if the rancher controls range bison, sheep, or goats, could be used. It is also use by right of ownership or tenure, or if his possible to achieve higher productivity by lease is based on a carrying capacity estimate using a combination of domestic and wild ani- that did not foresee the drought. Obviously, this mals with different food preferences. In prac-

Photo credit U S Department of Agricul,ture The grass is always greener on the other side, These young heifers look longingly at a fenced-off fescue seed patch that was set aside for recovery 74 ● Impacts if Technology on (J. S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

tice, however, most range sites are managed so that in the series all units will benefit from for single species, usually cattle or sheep. the deferment. There are several reasons for the lack of mul- BLM reportedly is relying heavily on varia- tiple-species management. One is a lack of in- tions of the rotation systems and considerable formation on techniques and economics, but controversy has been generated. Critics say this lack of information is probably the result that if stock reductions do not accompany rota- of a more powerful constraint—the conservation grazing, harmful impacts on riparian areas tive attitudes of the ranchers, and of the insti- and regional hydrology will be amplified by tutions that support them, toward untried tech- periodically concentrating animals on par- niques that may affect their profits. ticular sites. Fences to restrict livestock access to riparian lands can be part of the grazing ● Grazing systems are technologies based on system, but some critics object to the increased intensely managing how animals use range physical injuries that fences can inflict on sites, The aim is to schedule systematically re- wildlife (Littlefield, et al. 1980). Others who are curring periods of grazing and nongrazing for subunits of the site on the premise that peri- concerned about the profitability of ranching object to the high cost of fences and to livestock odically removing the animals from the range being excluded from highly productive riparian gives the palatable plants a chance to recover sites, before being bitten again (Scifres, 1980). Some grazing systems strive to distribute livestock by season of use whereas others work to ● Rangeland vegetation can be manipulated achieve more even spatial distribution of live- to increase the abundance and vigor of desired stock by fencing, water development, or other plant species and thus accelerate range reha- means. bilitation. Under natural plant succession, degraded productivity can recover, though at For the objective of increasing livestock pro- varying rates. On high mountain sites with duction, grazing systems sometimes have not deep soil that receive 40 to 50 inches of rain- proven superior to continuous, year-long graz- fall a year, recovery may occur in a few years. ing at moderate stocking rates (Scifres, 1980; But on lands that receive only 20 or less inches Box, 1980). However, even when livestock proof rain, it may take plant communities cen- duction is not increased in the short term, the turies to recover from the severely degraded range is often improved so that, in the long conditions (Box, 1980). Rehabilitation tech- term, increased livestock production, as well niques to speed up the recovery process range as increased overall productivity, can result from “interseeding’ —introducing desired (Scifres, 1980). While grazing systems offer op- plant species without removing the existing portunities for improving rangelands, they are plant community—to intensive site prepara- site specific and no one system should be con- tion, reseeding, and sometimes temporary in- sidered a panacea for the problems of range puts of water or fertilizers to help desired degradation. plants become established. (If the intensive veg- One of the more simple systems is rotation etation management is a continuing process, grazing. This involves subdividing the range the site is no longer rangeland, but pasture.) and grazing one unit, then another, in regular succession, Another type of grazing system is Reseeding and interseeding are widespread called deferred grazing. This means delaying practices on private rangeland, Usually the ob- grazing in an area for a particular purpose, jective of seeding is to increase forage during such as allowing old plants to gain vigor or new a season when native ranges do not provide plants to become established. These two con- enough or are particularly susceptible to graz- cepts have been combined into a system called ing pressures. For example, in the mountain deferred-rotation grazing. In this system, differ- and intermountain regions, there is usually a ent parts of the range are deferred in rotation shortage of early spring forage, Native bunch- Ch. 11/— Range lands ● 75 grass should not be grazed because that will sons, such technology is as yet underused on stunt future growth, so extensive areas are the Federal rangelands. One problem is a lack seeded with introduced species such as crested of reasonably priced seed, but this constraint wheatgrass, which produces heavily during the might be resolved by willing entrepreneurs, A spring season and is more tolerant of spring more intractable reason for underuse of seed- grazing (Box, 1980), ing to accelerate recovery of diverse native communities is the chronic lack of funding for There are drawbacks to this “monoculture” Federal rangeland improvements. Congress technique. The introduced grass can so domi- recognized the need for accelerated rehabilita- nate the ecosystem that other species, production of range condition when it passed the tive at other seasons, are crowded out. Crested Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. How- wheatgrass, for example, has low nutritional ever, the act remains unfunded, value for fall or winter grazing livestock or wildlife. To compensate, other species that can ● Controlling noxious plants: excessive compete with wheatgrass can be introduced— cover of woody plants, the “brush” character- e.g., four-wing saltbush and other forage istic of degraded ranges, is one of the primary shrubs. These provide the protein and carotene deterrents to increased forage production. that the grasses lack in the fall grazing season There are three major approaches to brush con- (McKell, 1980). Another disadvantage of re- trol: chemical, mechanical, and fire, Chemical seeding programs where one or a few species control has certain advantages: it is effective, are introduced is that the resulting ecosystem various chemicals may be selected that are spe- has fewer niches for animal life. Less diverse cific to certain types of plants, and it is relative- plant and animal communities also may be ly cheap compared to other controls. Major dis- more susceptible to insect or disease damage advantages are that some chemicals, improper- (Littlefield, et a]., 1980). ly applied, may cause crop damage or health hazards. Current environmental concerns and Inadequate nitrogen is often a limiting fac- regulations have largely prohibited chemical tor on rangeland productivity, so interseeding use on Western Federal rangelands. legume species may be beneficial. In the United States, alfalfa has been used this way; in Mechanical control methods vary from hand- Australia and parts of Asia, interseeding with clearing or chopping individual plants to using the legume Townsville Stilo is reported to be big machines that plow or drag plants from the very successful. Legume shrubs and trees are ground. These methods are advantageous in important sources of nitrogen for rangelands that the plants are removed immediately while in Africa (Felker, 1981). There is little informa- the residue remains on the ground as organic tion available on the positive or negative im- matter. The disadvantages are that costs are pacts of legume interseeding on U.S. range- generally high and considerable soil disturb- lands, but it is known that forage can be ance occurs with most mechanical methods. significantly increased (Lewis and Engle, 1980]. Fire is a natural factor on all of Western For sites where multiple-use management is rangelands and it is gaining acceptance as a the objective, and if economics allow, reseed- major brush control technique. To its advan- ing or interseeding can introduce mixtures of tage, it is fairly inexpensive and can be quite grasses, herbs, and browse plants and can rely effective against nonsprouting species. It has more on native species so that the resulting disadvantages, however. Brush areas often can- ecosystem is more complex. Presumably this not support a fire, and since the burned land would be the method used on Federal range- is denuded for a short period of time, there is lands. In recent years there has been consider- an increase in the erosion potential, able research on methods to enhance, improve, and reseed or interseed vegetation for wild ani- Conventional vegetation control techniques mal use (Box, 1980). However, for several rea- have been criticized for being used without 7Ž Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Rangeland Productivity

regard to their effect on values other than one way to resolve conflicts among the ob- forage production for livestock. The effect of jectives of noxious animal control programs in brush control on wildlife depends on the rangeland ecosystems. technique used. When large areas of brush are removed, the effect on the wildlife species Wild horses and burros represent a particular adapted to brush is detrimental. But when nuisance and controversy on Federal range- alternate cleared and uncleared strips are left, lands. Without effective predators, they are populations of wildlife species, such as deer, capable of rapid increases in population and increase (Littlefield, et al., 1980). In general, can inflict heavy damage on range ecosystems. burning seems to find most favor with the Capturing and moving these animals is only a champions of wildlife. A newer approach, in- temporary control measure, since the popula- tegrated brush management, offers improved tion will quickly rebuild. Treating them with opportunities for enhancement of broad-scale fertility-controlling drugs seems to be effective, productivity. That approach is described later but very expensive. Selective killing of the in this chapter. animals is simple and effective, but some stockmen and others killed horses and burros with ● Programs to control noxious animals are unnecessary cruelty before the animals were used to achieve three range management objec- protected on public lands by the Wild Horse tives: 1) to protect livestock, 2) to reduce the and Burro Act of 1974. As a consequence there numbers of herbivores that compete with live- are now strong social and political constraints stock for available forage, and 3) to protect the to killing large numbers of these animals. A range from overgrazing and subsequent dam- report from the National Academy of Sciences age to productivity. The techniques used some- will review the state of the art in managing times serve one objective while detracting from these animals and will indicate what further another. research is needed. It will not defuse the po- Predators, particularly high populations of litical controversy, however (Dwyer, 1980; Box, coyotes, can decrease range productivity by 1980; Meiners, 1981). killing sheep or other livestock (Box, 1980; With the correct application of management Young and Evans, 1980), On the other hand, technologies, there is a great potential to im- when predator numbers are too low, they may prove productivity on many of the severely kill too few rodents and other wild herbivores, degraded rangelands. Rangeland management so that grazing pressures increase and range techniques, however, are very site specific and conditions deteriorate (Dwyer, 1980; Box, there is a potential for long-lasting harm to pro- 1980). Thus, the purpose of modern predator ductivity when technologies are misapplied. control programs is to optimize, rather than With degraded plant cover and compacted minimize, predator populations. soils, overgrazed rangelands are exposed to In the past two decades, Government agen- powerful erosion and further degradation, cies responsible for predator control have been Thus, careful monitoring of the soil and vegeta- studying new techniques for estimating pred- tion is necessary so that management technol- ator populations, judging what constitutes opti- ogies can be adjusted when needed. Congress, mum predator population levels for particular as the manager of policy for the Federal sites, manipulating the populations or, in some rangelands, recognized the need for informa- cases, the behavior of the animals, and moni- tion on soil and vegetation changes with the toring the effects of the actions. The overall Resource Planning Act and other legislation. state of the art for these techniques is primitive The data available are still inadequate, how- and their development is not well supported ever, to determine whether present policies will (Lewis and Engle, 1980). The integrated pest suffice to achieve the multiple-use objectives management approach, assessed in another that Congress has mandated for Federal range- OTA report (U.S. Congress, 1979), seems to be lands, Ch, III—Rangelands ● 77

In theory, the primary objective of multiple- agement schemes to combat brush problems use management is to sustain or enhance the and have developed a new approach called in- overall productivity of the resource base. Pro- tegrated brush management systems (IBMS). duction of livestock and other specific benefits Basic IBMS principles include: are secondary objectives. The rationale of such an approach is that managing for productiv- reducing dependence on any one method, ity will, in the long run, give the greatest pro- such as repeated herbicide treatments, in duction of all the multiple-use values. In prac- favor of coordinating techniques; tice, livestock production is usually the domi- using available techniques in a comple- nant objective for management plans on both mentary sequence to take advantage of Federal and non-Federal rangelands. The plans synergistic effects; to produce livestock are then adjusted to pro- patterning the application of selected treat- vide for maintenance or enhancement of some ment sequences to enhance livestock pro- nonlivestock values such as wildlife, fisheries, duction and habitat diversity for wildlife or water quality. simultaneously; developing treatment sequence alterna- Integrated Brush tives to make systems flexible for adapta- Management Systems tion to particular site circumstances and the producer’s operating constraints; Introdrution integrating actions with other management strategies, such as grazing systems, for maximum utility; and enhancing economic returns from brush management investments by increasing effective treatment life and optimizing output of products. IBMS incorporate existing and new technologies to take advantage of the unique strengths of each method while minimizing the inherent drawbacks. The systems are designed to consider multiple uses of the resource (e. g., forage production, wildlife, watershed, etc.) so that overall production is optimized rather than maximizing returns from one use to the detriment of others (Scifres, 1980). IBMS can be applied most effectively when they are orchestrated with other key practices, particularly grazing management. Brush management is futile when the range is overgrazed. In fact, brush management without grazing management may be more detrimental than beneficial in the long run by opening up more land to repeated overuse (Welch and Scifres, 1980), A planned, orderly sequence of treatments is important in IBMS results, For example, sup- pose a range livestock producer using a four- 78 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

pasture, three-herd grazing system* has deter- timated that an average of 1.5 million acres of mined certain brush species are limiting pro- Texas rangeland were treated for brush con- duction. The chosen control procedures and trol annually from 1956 through 1977 (Scifres, rationale might include (Scifres, 1980): et al., 1980). Junipers, mesquite, and sagebrush alone infest some 242 million acres of U.S. 1. An aerial spray, used to reduce the com- rangeland* (Klingman, 1962). petitive advantage of a weed species, considering: To be successful, IBMS require relatively ● Herbicides should be applied in the long planning horizons. For example, whereas fall when potential for spray drift the expected treatment life of a given herbicide damage to susceptible nontarget spray for mesquite control may be 7 years or species is minimized. less, brush management systems are designed ● The pastures should be treated in turn to span 15 or 20 years (Scifres, 1980). For the as they are scheduled for deferment next 10 years, IBMS are expected to receive from grazing in the fall, thus spread- most attention in States such as Oklahoma, ing the investment over 4 years and Texas, and New Mexico where the brush prob- taking advantage of regularly sched- lem is a priority concern among both Govern- uled deferments to maximize forage ment land managers and private ranchers. response. This also allows the pro- Much of the impetus for developing IBMS ducer to increase his livestock herd lies in recent Federal scrutiny of herbicides and gradually in response to the rate of im- the rising costs of conventional range improve- provement. ment methods. If these factors continue to be ● The herbicide should be applied in important, the rate of adoption of IBMS will patterns to retain some brush for probably increase rapidly during the next dec- white-tailed deer habitat and reduce ade. total land area sprayed. 2. The area should be burned 18 to 24 months Potential Impacts after spraying to remove standing woody debris, reinstate valuable broadleaves dam- The primary goal of IBMS technology is to aged or removed by the spray, improve bo- optimize range products on a sustained basis. tanical composition of the forage standby By expanding forage opportunities, IBMS may favoring the more productive grasses, sup- have the potential to double livestock carrying press brush regrowth that survived the capacities of many range sites (Thomas, 1970). spray, and improve the browse value of For example, combining use of a pelleted her- large, decadent, unsprayed brush. bicide with prescribed burning for whitebrush- 3. Repeat burning at 2- to 3-year intervals, infested rangeland in Texas increased the live- depending on weather, unless brush re- stock carrying capacity from 1 animal unit growth becomes excessive, in which case (AU)** per 35 to 40 acres to 1 AU per 12 to 15 individual plant treatments with herbi- acres in three growing seasons (Scifres, 1980). cides or treatment of local areas may be Other, similar increases have been reported. advisable. These levels of productivity, discounting weather fluctuations, are expected to hold as Potential Scale of Application long as the systems are operative and livestock management is maintained at a high level. IBMS should be applicable on almost any site now treated by single methods. It has been es- *Althou~h a four-~ astur~, three-herd ~ra~in~ syst~m was used “Another OTA assessment, “Water-Related Technologies for to relate 1 ~MS procedures, other ~razin~ mana~~ment systems Sustaining Agriculture in U.S. Arid and Semiarid Lands,” is ex- can be used effectively. Short duration grazing [SDG) appears ploring potential innovative uses for these and other range to be especially amenable to I13MS. However, there is no avail- species. able research or field experience to support a discussion of the * *An animal unit is the forage required to support a cow and integration of 1E3MS into SDG. a calf for 1 year, Ch. 111—Rangelands ● 79

The primary biological processes affected by cium, potassium, etc.) are returned to the IBMS relate to vegetational change, Wildlife soil in the ash. habitat quality is improved by developing a mosaic of vegetation types rather than total The net impacts of IBMS burns on rangeland suppression of brush. Increasing the ground soil have not proven detrimental, perhaps area covered by perennial native grasses because prescribed burns are generally less in- decreases sheet erosion during wet periods and tense than wildfires. the mulch cover increases water infiltration. This increases the amount of forage produced per increment of precipitation received Conclusions (Scifres, et al., 1977a). The costs of IBMS are the sum of the costs The impacts of the herbicides used in IBMS of each step in the treatment sequence and are are uncertain, Residual patterns of newer her- therefore highly variable. Indirect costs, too, bicides, such as tebuthiuron, have not been should be considered. For example, risks of established over a wide range of conditions, herbicide drift and the possibility of a pre- and add it ional research is needed. At applica- scribed burn getting out of control are indirect tion rates used in IBMS, herbicides such as costs, There are also indirect benefits. Improv- 2,4,5-rr (2,4,5 -trichlorophenozy acetic acid) are ing vegetation of one management unit within dissipated in the growing season of application, the ranch should relieve stress on adjacent and picloram [4-amino-3,5,6 -trichloropicolinic units and encourage their improvement. Other acid) should not be expected to carry over in- potential effects, such as increasing or reinstat- to the second growing season (Scifres, et al., ing streamflow, benefit users removed from the 1977 b). However, just what happens to the dis- actual site of brush management. sipated chemicals is not clear. The primary constraints to implementation The effects of fire on rangeland soils are as of IBMS are economic, environmental, and follows: technical. The major economic constraint is 1. Erosion potential: The greatest erosion oc- the capital required to initiate the first [and curs on steep slopes when a high intensity usually most costly) step in the sequence. Fed- storm follows a burn. This is of special eral cost sharing through agencies such as the concern with soils that seal readily and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation promote overland flow. However, erosion Service (ASCS) is of increasing importance, can be reduced by limiting burning to gen- especially for smaller ranches (Whit son and tle slopes (no greater than 5 percent] and Scifres, 1980). to Iate winter or early spring to promote early regrowth and rapid development of Technical constraints to wider use of IBMS cover. technology are significant because research is 2. Water relationships: The greatest differ- still in the formative stage and the rate of ence in water dynamics of burned v. un- testing treatment-sequence variations cannot burned rangeland is that lush new growth exceed the pace of natural seasons, For exam- consumes more water, This extra demand ple, prescribed burning must be explored in typically exists only through the first grow- more depth to capitalize on its full potential. ing season after burning, Herbicide use must be refined through new ap- 3. Nutrient status: Minor amounts of nitro- plication techniques for registered compounds gen, sulfur, and phosphorus are volatiliz- and development of improved compounds. ed by range fires, organic matter may be Low-energy mechanical methods for brush decreased somewhat depending on condi- management should be developed and refined. tions of the burn, and soluble salts [cal- The economic factors that affect IBMS adop- 80 Ž Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity tion must be identified and various tradeoffs ing, and poor summer weight gains. One way analyzed to determine optimum system designs to reduce stress is to reward the livestock for for various types of ecosystems and manage- moving between sites. In a Pavlovian ap- ment objectives. proach, the cattle can be trained to associate extra food with some stimuli, such as a horn Short Duration Grazing or call, that occurs before changing cells, Even- tually the livestock will lose their apprehension Considerable interest exists among both live- and will move without the extra reward, stock producers and range scientists in short duration grazing (SDG) systems. Such grazing The SDG systems might be most attractive systems may as much as double the carrying to larger ranches with the reserve capital capacity of certain ranges (Scifres, 1980). necessary to invest in adequate fencing and facilities. Larger operations, too, would be able SDG systems concentrate a relatively large to absorb the short-term reductions in sales that number of animals on a given area, but for might come with the transition to higher stock- much shorter times than in more conventional ing rates, This transition period can take deferred grazing systems. SDG also has shorter several years, depending on the size of the rest periods and other differences from tradi- system and characteristics of the ranch. tional grazing management, Proponents of the technology claim that the Rangelands and their management needs increase in livestock carrying capacity can vary widely, not only in a geographic sense occur without harming the range ecosystems, from the arid and semiarid West to humid either plantlife or wildlife. Unfortunately, there Southeast, and from the cool North to the mild is a paucity of research data to allow an objec- South, but also among specific sites within geo- tive assessment of these management strat- graphical regions, Any discussion of range egies. There is some concern that high stock- management, including SDG, must recognize ing rates could damage certain soils during wet the site-specific nature of range improvements. periods. If excessive compaction does occur in those situations, this negative impact should Most modern grazing management espouses be weighed against the previously mentioned the idea that periods of rest (removal of all graz- claims of beneficial impacts from trampling. ing animals) are necessary to prevent overuse and allow plants to recover vigor, The typical In terms of technology diffusion, SDG is in SDG system rotates herds through a series of the early stage of adoption in this country. One pastures several times (six or more) per year. type of SDG, the Savory grazing method (SGM), Grazing periods are short (7 days or less), and for example, was only introduced to the United rest periods generally are not longer than 60 States 3 years ago, although it has been used days. This concentration of relatively large abroad for a decade. SGM, sometimes called numbers of animals on a given area for a short the “cell system, ” arranges pastures in a cart- time followed by long rest periods is designed wheel design, with watering and handling fa- to simulate the grazing activities of the wild cilities in the hub (see fig. 10), Livestock are herbivores under which the range ecosystem herded through the various cells according to evolved. Consequently, SDG is sometimes con- a management plan that accommodates site sidered to be the most “natural” grazing variables in each cell. In preparing a SGM plan, method available. the rancher notes his particular needs (e.g., pastures for breeding, birthing, weaning, etc.) Because SDG entails frequent movement of and notes which cells will be unavailable at any stock and high stocking rates, ranchers must time for any reason, For instance, the rancher take precautions to minimize animal stress. may want to avoid having his heifers in close Livestock under stress can suffer low concep- proximity to a neighbor’s bull or too near tion rates, nutritional difficulties with wean- recently planted crops, Or he may wish to keep Ch. 111—Rangelands ● 81

Figure 10.—Cartwheel Pasture Arrangement Used 1. Who can use SGM? Theoretically, any in the Savory Grazing Method rancher could apply this method on his own without assistance. But in practice, SGM differs greatly from conventional range management and is also, because of its flexibility, quite complex. Accordingly, many who have tried it without prior training have had considerable difficulty. Under the guidance of private range consultants, increasing numbers of U.S. ranchers are succeeding with the methods. The agricultural educational community could be trained to provide this instruction. In fact, together Central facilities with inadequate data on its effective use, the lack of a trained cadre of instructors is the major barrier to the system’s adoption. 2. Are some soils unsuited to SGM? Certain soils may be particularly susceptible to compaction when wet. Other than this possible limitation, SGM has been used on many soil types without ill effects. To avoid compaction, ranchers must plan, insofar as possi- SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment ble, to use pastures only when they are relatively dry. Some desert margin soils may also have livestock out of certain cells when they are ex- problems under SGM. Even brief periods of pected to harbor poisonous plants or during livestock trampling seem to promote the breeding season for ground-nesting birds. growth of undesirable runner grass commu- The SGM system purports not only to pro- nities in small areas—typically 20 to 30 yards tect the land but actually to enhance it. Accord- in diameter—where the soil is most disturbed, ing to proponents, the physical impact of live- 3. Can SGM be used on steep terrain? Adapt- stock hooves has two interrelated beneficial ef- ing SGM to steep terrain may call for special fects, if properly managed. First, livestock layouts and fence arrangements. The usual hooves churning the soil surface can break up rule of thumb, however, is that if other range any crust formed by the impact of raindrops management methods can be used on the and runoff, This reduces erosion. Also, as more mountainous land in question, so can SGM, rainfall penetrates the soil, more moisture is 4, What are typical installation costs for an available for plant roots and for replenishing SGM grazing system? It is impossible to ground water supplies. generalize because construction costs are This method, developed in East Africa, is site specific. As an example, the cost of a beginning to receive relatively rapid accept- grazing cell system, installed as part of a ance among U.S. ranchers. However, Ameri- whole ranch development near Midland, can range scientists are only just beginning to Tex., was $4.80 an acre, including expenses investigate the system’s constraints and poten- for water, fencing, and labor, In the 2 years tials. Thus, many questions about the method’s since the system began operating, its stock- impacts, both good and bad, remain to be an- ing rate has more than doubled and survived swered. The following discussion answers the 1980 drought at that increased rate. some of these questions from the view of the 5. Does SGM require a great deal of paper- developer of SGM (Savory, 1981). work? These systems require more advance 82 Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

planning and recordkeeping, but the paper- intensively* managed for multiple purposes work burden is reduced as the ranchers be- (Byington, 1980). Under less rigorous, exten- come practiced in the use of the special sive* * management, potential forage is only recordkeeping systems, about 1 million AUs (tables 8 and 9). However, 6. When a grazing system has only one water- the technologies for intensive multiple-use ing point and that point is a natural stream, management have not been developed and pond, river, or lake, is there danger of seri- demonstrated for most Eastern forest com- ous riparian damage? Although more work munities, so the potential remains untapped, needs to be done on this question, propo- Farmers have grazed livestock in Eastern nents of SGM maintain that riparian damage woodlands to varying degrees since first set- can be avoided by designing the system so tlement. But most such grazing is environmen- that cattle use only part of the watering tally destructive because of overgrazing, ero- source at a time, and then for just a limited sion, compaction, and other damage to forest period. growth and reproduction. Further, most of this 7. Is the fencing necessitated by a full-blown unmanaged forest grazing is uneconomical, application of SGM detrimental to wildlife? Fencing in any range management Only limited progress is being made in devel- scheme can be detrimental to wildlife, but oping appropriate technologies for Eastern these effects can usually be limited by using grazing management because of the common- simple three-strand fences that allow most ly held attitude that native forages on Eastern wild species to jump over or crawl under forests simply cannot be produced and grazed them without injury, In addition, game gates in an economically and environmentally sound sited on SGM fence lines may be left open way. when domestic stock are not in the paddocks served by the gates. This facilitates wildlife Current Use count good movements. These systems The Eastern United States is blessed with wildlife management as an asset to the abundant rainfall, adequate growing seasons, rancher because it can have economic as and good soils needed to produce abundant well as esthetic benefits. vegetation. Most forage in the East comes from intensive crop and pasture management on cleared land, either from growing forage crops as part of a crop rotation or from allowing livestock to graze on residues and stubble left after razing for harvest. Native grazing lands, those forests and Eastern grasslands with naturally occurring vegetation suitable for livestock grazing, are of secondary lntroduction importance. If properly managed, Eastern forests could It is difficult to judge the current extent of provide substantial increases in economically grazing in Eastern forests because of problems and environmentally sound livestock grazing. The 310 million acres of forests in the East could support as much as 20 million AUs of *“Intensive management” makes investments in technologies and practices to maximize production, quality, and use of native forage (an AU is the forage required to support forages while maintaining the forest for wood products, wildlife, a cow and a calf for 1 year) if the land were and recreation. * *“Extensive management” controls livestock numbers with little effort to achieve planned distribution of livestock or to in- *The Eastern United States is defined here as that area east crease carrying capacity through alterations of the forest canopy. of the 97th meridian. This basically excludes the Great Plains Management investments are made only to protect the land from States but includes the forests in Oklahoma and Texas. damage. Ch. III—Rangelands ● 83

Table 8.—Estimated Potential of Major Forest Communities to Produce Livestock Forage Under Extensive and Intensive Management—Northern Region . . . ,. Average potential proctuction (total AU) Total grazable Extensive Intensive States in which community Potential natural community acres (000’s) management management is primarily located Great Lake spruce-fir...... 5,503 7,673 91,581 Minnesota, Wisconsin Great Lake pine...... 5,660 13,217 112,426 Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin Northeastern spruce-fir...... 11,934 31,838 646,478 Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont Northern floodplain...... 2,518 32,029 158,547 Minnesota Maple-basswood...... 1,690 0 122,693 Illinois, lowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin Oak-hickory...... 14,310 146,536 890,662 lowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Ohio Elm-ash...... 18,556 0 1,650,284 Indiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania Beech-maple...... 1,448 1,206 125,452 Michigan, Ohio Mixed mesophytic...... 5,039 0 132,520 Ohio, West Virginia Appalachian oak...... 15,309 0 424.419 Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia Northern hardwoods...... 38,665 34,921 2,596,887 Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Wisconsin, West Virginia Northern hardwoods-fir...... 7,891 0 511,218 Michigan, Wisconsin Northern hardwoods-spruce...... 10,421 43,370 334,452 Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont Northeastern oak-pine...... 1,471 31,209 88,817 Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York Oak-hickory-pine...... 3,587 8,528 305,214 Delaware, Maryland, Montana, West Virginia SOURCE Evert K Byington, “Livestock Grazing on the Forested Lands of the Eastern United States.”’ OTA background paper, 1980

Table 9.—Estimated Potential of Major Forest Communities to Produce Livestock Forage Under Extensive and Intensive Management—Southern Region

Average potential production (total AU) Total grazable Extensive Intensive States in which community Potential natural community acres (000’s) management management is primarily located Oak-hickory...... 32,113 294,369 1,846,497 Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas Mixed mesophytic...... 5,203 0 169,097 Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee Appalachian oak...... 20,788 0 415,760 Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Oak-hickory-pine...... 71,069 59,224 6,573,882 Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia Southern mixed...... 24,801 a 413,350 1,972,360 Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas Southern floodplain...... 25,607 21,339 832,227 Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee a About milllon acres of total are not suitable for intensive mamaefnent SOURCE Evert K Byington, “Livestock Grazing on the Forested Lands of the Eastern United States, ” OTA background paper, 1980 84 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity of definition and classification of land use and by farmers dropped 35 percent, though the total land type among the three primary agencies area of forest in the East remained relatively that collect such information. The Forest Serv- stable (table 10). Nearly 55 million acres of ice, Soil Conservation Service, and Department forests passed from farmers’ hands, much of of Commerce conduct some inventories of live- it into other private holdings less amenable to stock grazing in Eastern forests, but the infor- grazing (Byington, 1980). mation is limited and inconsistent. Estimates vary from the Forest Service’s high figure of History 100 million acres of grazed Eastern forest to Census of Agriculture statistics that indicate Throughout the East, native grazing lands only 26 million grazed forest acres. The incon- played an important role in settlement. The for- sistency is partly because the latter estimate ests and prairies provided inexpensive forage considers only a certain class of forest owners. to support livestock used for food, transportation, and animal power for tillage. However, Ownership is an important factor in the use there are major ecological and cultural differ- of forests for livestock grazing, Generally, four ences between the northern and southern classes of ownership are considered: public, halves of the Eastern United States that have forest industry, farmer, and other. Farmers affected the acceptance of woodland grazing. throughout the East graze livestock in a higher percentage of their forests than other classes During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, tim- of owners (Byington, 1980). ber industries denuded large acreages in the East and conflicts between cattle and lumber Overall, forest grazing has declined in recent interests increased. By the 1920’s and early years. The Soil Conservation Service’s conser- 1930’s, the Federal Government became in- vation needs inventory of 1967 estimated that creasingly concerned with land use, particular- over 80 million acres of forest in the East were ly on the cutover lands in the South. The Na- being grazed. The 1977 National Resource In- tional Forest System in the South was estab- ventories by the same agency estimated that lished, and research began on the interactions only 36 million acres were then being grazed. between forestry and livestock. The decline, however, is not because of any increasing unwillingness among farmers to graze In the Southern pines region, cattle were their woodlands; it is, in large part, caused by seen as an opportunity to bring clearcut forest- the changing pattern of landownership. Dur- land back into production. But in the Northern ing the past 25 years, the area of forests owned hardwoods, grazing was observed to damage

Table 10.—Area, Including Change Over Time, of Commercial Timberland in the Eastern United States, by Ownership, Region, and Section, and for the years 1952 and 1977

Percent change in 1952 1977 forest area, 1952-77 All ownerships Farm ownerships All ownerships Farm ownerships All Farm Region and section (000’s of acres) (000’s of acres) (000’s of acres) (000’s of acres) ownerships ownerships Northern region...... 167,768 64,567 169,353 44,431 1.0 –31 New England...... 30,936 7,842 31,015 2,391 0.3 –70 MiddIe Atlantic...... 42,099 15,114 48,215 10,013 15.0 –34 Lake States...... 51,838 14,227 49,356 11,345 –5.0 –20 Central States...... 42,895 27,384 40,767 20,682 –5.0 –24 Southern Region...... 192,083 91,311 188,433 57,217 –2.0 –37 South Atlantic...... 46,963 31,937 47,677 19,016 1.5 –40 East Gulf...... 42,104 23,134 40,142 11,006 –5.0 –52 Central Gulf...... 49,497 21,198 51,045 18,016 3.0 –15 West Gulf...... 53,519 15,042 49,569 9,179 –7.0 –39 Total ...... 359,851 155,878 357,786 101,648 –0.6 –35 SOURCE Adapted from table 2, “Forest Statfstlcs of the U S , 1977, ” Forest Service, USDA, 1978 Ch. III—Rangelands ● 85 the forest, so research was oriented toward Technologies for MuItlple-Use documenting livestock impacts. The results of Management of Forest Grazing various experiments and observations led to a Multiple-use management offers the best op- near-universal conclusion that grazing was portunity for expanding the production of both necessarily detrimental to Northern forests and wood and forage in Eastern forests. The most was not economically worthwhile. This split basic technology used for grazing lands is the in research approach is still visible. management of grazing animals. The technologies needed to develop the forage/livestock Conservation in Grazed Forests systems in forests include: Table 11 is a summary of non-Federal acres Technologies to manage livestock use of of forest being grazed and thought to require native forages that ensure: 1) livestock conservation treatment in 1967 and 1977. Two health and productivity is adequate, 2) the types of conservation treatments are recom- vigor of the plants is maintained, and mended: 1) to reduce or eliminate livestock 3) other resources are not damaged. These grazing, and 2) to maintain grazing but improve technologies include grazing systems, con- forage production. Reducing or eliminating trolling season of use, managing stocking grazing is the most recommended practice in rates, selection and mix of grazing ani- the Northern region, while increasing forage mals, use of feed supplements, and con- production is more often recommended in the struction of physical structures (fencing, South. water development, etc.). Most of the recommended conservation Technologies to improve forage productiv- treatments are directed at reducing erosion by ity and quality and to increase output per maintaining adequate ground cover. Table 12 acre to get adequate economic returns or contains summaries of erosion by land capabil- to restore vegetation on damaged land. ity class and land use and by the area being Technologies include seeding with im- grazed. This indicates that a considerable proved plant species; fertilization; water amount of erosion is caused by livestock graz- development; use of mixtures of cool- and ing in woodlands, particularly on land classes warm-season plant species, as well as V-VIII. shade-tolerant species in forests; and the

Table 11 .—Area of Forestland in the Eastern United States Being Grazed by Livestock, Including Area Requiring Conservation Treatments

1977 NRI Acres of grazed forest requiring conservation treatment Acres of forest Reduce or eliminate Improve forage Percent of grazed forestland Region and section grazed (000’s) grazing (000’s) (000’s) requiring conservation treatment Northern region...... 13,130 8,236 3,533 90 New England...... 231 81 59 61 Middle Atlantic...... 1,870 1,418 210 87 Lake States...... 3,264 2,051 753 86 Central ...... 7,765 4,686 2,511 93 Southern Region...... 22,967 6,081 10,239 71 South Atlantic...... 2,318 962 553 65 East Gulf, ...... 4,346 824 2,209 70 Central Gulf...... 5,549 2,283 1,400 66 West Gulf, ...... 10,754 2,012 6,077 75

SOURCE Derived from “Basic Statistics 1977 National Resource Inventories (NRl) revised 1980 “ 86 • Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Table 12.—Average Sheet and Rill Erosion Rates in Crop Production Regions a of the Eastern United States in 1977 (non-Federal land only)

Erosion by land use (ton per acre) Region and Ungrazed Grazed capability groupings forest forest Cultivated Hay Pasture Range Northeast Classes I-IV...... 0.27 1.42 6.33 0.79 0.96 — Classes V-VIII . . . . 0.54 4.60 11,75 1.27 3.79 — Lake States Classes I-IV...... 0.06 1.14 2.81 0.54 0.82 0.05 Classes V-VIII. . . . 0.39 12.42 6.94 2.65 2.74 0.44 Corn Belt Classes I-IV...... 0.66 5.47 7.56 1.72 2.43 0.37 Classes V-VIII. . . . 1.94 11.42 29.60 4.20 9.18 — Appalachian Classes I-IV...... 0.26 2.52 9.12 1.56 1.65 — Classes V-VIII. . . . 1.90 7.26 46.13 8.06 10.65 — Southeast Classes I-IV...... 0.16 0.53 6.95 0.38 0.47 0.27 Classes V-VIII. . . . 0.63 1.41 16.42 0.86 1.30 0.36 Delta Classes I-IV...... 0.18 1.56 6.86 0.78 1.33 1.90 Classes V-VIII. . . . 0.99 8.54 28.35 5.09 9.20 4.51 Southern Plains Classes I-IV...... 0.10 0.45 3.41 0.76 0.97 1.00 Classes V-VIII. . . . 0.71 1.62 4,58 0.44 2.15 5.22 Geographic regions and land capability groupings are as defined by the Soil Conservation Service. SOURCE USDA 1980 “Table 172” in Basic Statistics, 1977 National Resource Inventories, revised 1980

use of livestock, chemicals, fire, and appropriate technologies, Forest production in machines to control unwanted plant the East is based primarily on a philosophy of species. single dominant use, and although farmers use ● Technologies to manage the interactions their woodlands for grazing, it is at a low level of forage plants and livestock with other of management which typically is neither eco- land uses so as to reduce conflicts and nomically nor environmentally sound. Because maximize overall output of goods and serv- few techniques for intensive management have ices. Such technologies often involve been developed except in the Southern pine tradeoffs between uses and depend on the forest, the forest owner has little choice except judgment of the land manager. For exam- to manage for wood products, sell the land, or ple, the tree canopy limits light and water clear the forest to establish pasture. flow to the soil, and thus forage production. Opening up the tree canopy will in- Over 50 million acres of forested land have crease forage production but may reduce passed from farm ownership in the last 30 overall production of wood, Success in years, With increasing land values and higher selecting a technology to manage such in- taxes, farmers have often found that they can- teractions depends on the availability of not afford to keep forests for either woodland knowledge about how each resource will grazing or production of wood products. The respond, so that tradeoffs can be estimated future of these lands will depend on how the and evaluated. mix of economic and social factors changes the value that is placed on the various resources Conclusions these forests can supply. Intensive manage- The grazing potential of the Eastern forest ment of forest lands to produce both wood is a resource that has not been considered of products and livestock forage may make it prof- sufficient value to develop and manage with itable for farmers to retain their farm forests. Ch 111—Rangelands ● 87

CHAPTER 111 REFERENCES

Adams, Rex, Eastern New Mexico University, McKell, C, M., “Technology Issues in Developing 1979, communication to David Sheridan, cited Sustained Agricultural Productivity on Virgin in Desertification in the United States, Coun- and Abandoned Lands in the United States, ” cil on En\~ironmental Quality, 1981. OTA background paper, 1980. Box, Thadis W., “Impacts of Technologies on Meiners, William, range conservation consultant Range Productivity in the Mountain, Inter- and OTA advisory panel member, personal mountain and Pacific Northwest States, ” OTA communication, 1981. background paper, 1980. Menke, John, personal communication, 1981. Brown, J. W., and Schuster, J. L., “Effects of Graz- Savory, Allan, personal communication, 1981. ing on a Hardland Site in the Southern High Savory, Allan, and Parsons, Stan, The International Plains,” jour. Range Management, vol. 22, Stockmen School, Beef Cattle Handbook, \’ol. No.6, 1969, pP. 418-423. 17, 1980, PP. 222-244. Byington, Evert K., “I,ivestock Grazing on the For- Scifres, Charles J., “Emerging Innovative Technol- ested Lands of the Eastern United States, ” ogies for Rangeland, ” OTA background paper, OTA background paper, 1980. 1980, Clegg, H., “Range Improvements in Utah, ” Pro- Scifres, Charles J., et al., “Range Impro~Tement ceedings Utah Soil Conservation Society of Practices for the Coastal Prairie: Needs, Pres- America Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1976. ent Application, and Research Ad~rances, Pro- I)wyer, Don D., “Impacts of Technologies on Pro- ceedings First Welder Wildlife Foundation ductivity and Quality of Southwestern Range- Symposium, 1980, pp. 14-24. lands, ” OTA background paper, 1980. Scifres, C. J., Durham, G. P., and Mutz, J. L., “Range Felkcr, Peter, “Development of Low-Water and Ni- Forage Production and Consumption Follow- trogen Requiring Ecosystems to Increase and ing Aerial Spraying of Mixed Brush, Weed Stabilize Agricultural Production of Arid Land Science, vol. 25, 1977a, pp. 217-218. Developing Countries, ” Innotrati~re Bioiogica~ Scifres, C. J., et al., “Residual Characteristics of Technologies for Lesser Developed Countries: 2,4,5-T and Picloram in Sandy Rangeland An Office of Technology Assessment Work- Soils, ” Journal of Ent7ironmental Qualit~, vol. shop, September 1981. 6, 1977b, pp. 36-42. Hastings, James R., and Turner, Raymond M., The Sheridan, David, Desertification of the United Changing Mile, University of Arizona Press, States, Council on Environmental Quality, 1972, as cited in Sheridan, David, Desertifica- 1981. tion in the United States, Council on Environ- Thomas, G. W., “The Western Range and the Live- mental Quality, 1981. stock Industry It Support s,” Range Research Hibbert, A. R., Davis, E. A., and School, D. G., and Range ProbJems, Crop Science Society of Chaparral Conversion Potential in Arizona: America, Madison, Wis., 19i’o. Part 1: Water Yield Response and Effects on U.S. Department of Agriculture, Resources Conser- Other Resources, USDA-Forest Service, re- vation Act, The Soil and Water Resources Con- search paper RM-1 26, Rocky Mountain Forest servation Act: 1980 Appraisal (review draft pt. and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, I), 1980. Colo., 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Klingman, D. L., “Problems and Progress in Woody Rangeland Planning Act, An Assessment of the Plant Control on Rangelands, ” proceedings Forest and Rangeland Situation in the United Southern Weed Conference 15, 1962. States, 1980. Lewis, James K., and Engle, David M., “Impacts of U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies on Productivity and Quality of Pest Management Strategies in Crop Protec- Rangelands in the Great Plains Region, ” OTA tion, OTA-F-98, October 1979. background paper, 1980. Welch, T. G., and Scifres, C. J., “Integrating Range Littlefield, C. D., Ferguson, D., and Holte, K. E., Improvement With Grazing Systems,” Sympo- “The Impacts of Grazing and Rangeland Man- sium Proceedings, Grazing Systems for South- agement Technology Upon Wildlife, ” OTA west Rangelands, New Mexico State Univer- background paper, 1980. sity, in press (1980). 88g8 . /mPacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Whitson, R, E., and Scifres, C. J., “Economic Neces- Young, J. A,,A., and Evans, R. A., “California Annual sity of Federal Cost Sharing for Hone Mesquite Grassland s,” OTA background paper, 1980. Control in Texas, ” Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Apprais- ers, Inc., 1980, in press. Chapter IV

Croplands

......

-- .

'. ,.,

Photo credit: U.S. Department of Energy Page Introduction ...... 91 Productivity-Sustaining Technologies for Croplands ...... 92 Conservation Pillage...... 94 Organic Agriculture ...... 107 Alternative Cropping Systems ...... 111 Drip Irrigation ...... 117 Breeding Salt-Tolerant Plants ...... 119 Computers in Agricuhure ...... 121 Soil Amendments ...... 122 Current Cropland Erosion Control Technologies ...... 123 Water Erosion Control ...... 123 Wind Erosion Control ...... 126 Investment in Erosion Control Current Status and Effectiveness ...... 127 Potential for Modifying Current Technologies and Possibilities for New Technology...... 129 Conclusions ...... O. O...... 130 Chapter IV References...... 131

List of Tables Table No. Page 13. Percentageof Crop Area Treated With Pesticides and Percentageof Pesticides Used on Crops in the United States, 1976...... 94 14. Effect of Tillage Operations and Time on the Quantity of Surface Residues, Flanagan Silt Loam, Fall 1971-Spring 1972 ...... 95 15. Estimates of Conservation Tillage in the United States ...... 97 16. Total No-Till Acres and Percent of Acres Planted ...... 98 17. Perceived Characteristics of Minimum Tillage ...... 102 18. Reasons Given by Lake Erie Basin Survey Respondents for Adopting and Failing toAdopt Reduced Tillage Systems, 1979 ...... 102 19. Acreage Treated With Minimum Tillage and Crop Residue Practices in 1977 ...... 106

List of Figures Figure No. Page 11. Cropland Acreage...... 91 12. Projected Adoption of Conservation Tillage ...... 98 13. Water Consumption by Functional Use ...... 117 .

Chapter IV Croplands

INTRODUCTION

There are about 413 million acres of cropland the National Resource Inventories (NRI) data in the United States (excluding Alaska), in- were collected in 1977. Forty-two million acres cluding about 230 million acres of prime farm- of this were forest, 23 million were rangeland, land (see fig. 11), Generally, prime lands are and 40 million were pasture (CEQ-NALS, those with extremely desirable characteristics 1981). The 1982 NRI are expected to show that for growing crops, including good soil, mois- some of this land has since been put into crops. ture, climate, drainage, and slope, These at- Soil Conservation Service (SCS) experts es- tributes make prime land the most efficient and timated that 127 million acres of noncropland environmentally stable lands for food produc- in the United States had high or medium poten- tion. tial to be converted to cropland as of 1977. As Another 115 million acres of cropland clas- discussed previously, this land is generally sified as prime were not used for crops when more susceptible to erosion than croplands

Figure 11 .—Cropland Acreage

Dot = 25,000 acres

SOURCE U S Department of Agriculture

91 92 ● Impacts Of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity — already in use. Some of this land is productive Great Plains wind erosion, or 2.8 billion tons forage and timberland, so conversion to agri- a year. This is an average of 7 tons per acre culture would mean the loss of those products, each year for the Nation’s total 413 million On the other hand, about 23 million acres of cropland acres. agricultural land were converted to nonagri- Information about soil formation rates under cultural uses between 1967 and 1974—a rate cropland conditions is inadequate, but the of nearly 3 million acres a year. Of the 3 million highest likely rate on unconsolidated parent acres taken out of crops each year, about materials is probably 0.5 ton per acre. The rate 675,000 acres were prime farmland (CEQ- is much slower for consolidated materials NALS, 1981). (rock). Thus, average soil erosion is more than Technologies discussed in this chapter are 10 times greater than average soil formation designed to sustain or enhance production on U.S. croplands (Hall, et a]., 1982; McCor- while reducing erosion, the greatest threat to mack, et al., 1982). the Nation’s land resource. Sheet and rill erosion totaled about 2 billion tons of soil in 1977, Although erosion occurs to some extent on the only year for which accurate data are avail- all cropland, it is much worse in some areas able. Data on wind erosion are available only than in others. The severity of erosion varies for the 10 Great Plains States, where this prob- depending on the type of crop grown, the man- lem is most severe. Wind erosion in those agement system used, terrain, climate, and States, which comprise 40 percent of the Na- other factors. Row crop and small-grain crop- tion’s total cropland area, was 892 million tons Iand, which constitute 75 percent of all crop- (USDA-NRI, 1980). To calculate a conservative land, erode twice as much as other cropland estimate of total cropland erosion (wind and (5.4 compared to 2,5 tons). Further, a high pro- sheet and rill), assume that wind erosion is sig- portion of the Nation’s soil loss occurs on a nificant only- in the Great Plains States, and that relatively small portion of the cropland—only gully and streambank erosion do not affect 6 percent of the Nation’s cropland (24 million cropland significantly. Thus, total cropland acres) accounted for 43 percent of all sheet and erosion is the sum of sheet and rill erosion plus rill erosion.

PRODUCTIVITY=SUSTAININ TECHNOLOGIES FOR CROPLANDS

Neither empirical evidence nor compelling • production technologies based on bio- logic show that agricultural production has to logical approaches that use land, water, be harmful to the quality of the land resource. and energy resources efficiently, On the contrary, production and conservation Both types of technologies have been impor- can be mutually reinforcing, even on marginal tant in the revolution that has made U.S. lands, if appropriate production technologies agriculture so productive. An example of an are developed and used. important breakthrough in mechanical technol- For discussion purposes, it is possible to ogy is the centrifugal pump, which can lift ir- categorize agricultural technologies into two rigation water from deep aquifers. An impor- types to clarify how technologies might affect tant breakthrough in biological technology has productivity in the future (Wittwer, 1980): been the development of hybrid corn, Mecha- nization- and biology-based technologies are Ž production technologies based on a high combined in agronomy systems, and the sys- degree of mechanization and on consump- tem’s consumption of resources depends on tive use of land, water, and energy re- which type of technology is dominant. In the sources; and United States, land and water resources have Ch, IV— Croplands 93

been abundant and energy resources cheap, so ductivity. But no technology is a panacea; all development has been dominated by resource are site specific in their design and applica- consumptive technologies. In regions with tion. The new technologies generally require fewer natural resources, such as Japan and more sophisticated management than the re- parts of Europe, agronomic systems are dom- source-consuming technologies they would inated by land- and water-sparing biological replace. And they will take time to imple- technologies. ment. Wittwer foresees a shift in American agron- The technologies described here are in var- omy to the resource-sparing biological tech- ious stages of development, ranging from the nologies. This shift implies changed objectives early research stage (e. g., polyculture of peren- in technology development and promotion. nial plants) to the rapid adoption stage (no-till Now that land, water, and energy are no longer farming), .A brief review of common, current so abundant or so cheap, changes have begun conservation technologies is also included. All to occur, Rapidly increasing prices for fuel and these approaches have drawbacks, though agricultural chemicals have stimulated devel- these often are inadequately documented. For opment of new machinery, chemicals, and example, no-till agriculture relies heavily on cropping systems to make the capital inputs pesticides, and possible negative impacts on more efficient. Using newly designed ma- soil biota and water quality may offset some chines, farmers can till less frequently, and so of the technology’s erosion control benefits. use less fuel, while maintaining production. Other problems can result if a new technology They must use more herbicides, but other new is misapplied. This can prematurely discourage machines enable them to use the chemicals other farmers and ranchers from trying the more efficiently. New biological technologies technique. Such misapplication can happen are developing more slowly, but in the long when a complex technology is adopted by run, these are expected to be the basis of im- farmers or ranchers more rapidly than it is portant improvements in agronomic systems learned by the extension agents, university (OTA, 1979). faculties, Government scientists, or private To develop resource-sparing systems, agri- consultants from whom the innovative farmers cultural scientists will have to rely heavily on and ranchers seek advice. the potential inherent in the world’s genetic The new resource-conserving technologies, resources. Genetic selection to produce high however, are not being developed and imple- yields continues to be important, but much mented rapidly enough to prevent lasting more attention will have to be given to how damage to inherent productivity of the Nation’s genetic types vary in their ability to use the fer- croplands and rangelands. Such damage has tility of soils efficiently. Improved strains of the occurred already and is continuing where major crops will probably dominate the genetic processes such as accelerated erosion and work for decades, but these are unlikely to suf- ground water overdraft are mining resources. fice for sustaining productivity on the driest, Thus, the pertinent question is: Will such tech- most steeply sloping, and otherwise most frag- nologies be developed, improved, and im- ile croplands. Development of currently under- plemented in time to preserve enough of the exploited crops, new crop systems, and im- land’s inherent productivity to assure adequate proved symbiosis with soil microbes will be sustained production to satisfy consumer necessary to sustain productivity of such sites. needs? The answer depends on who the con- This chapter describes a number of new and sumers are (e. g., only U.S. residents v. anyone emerging technologies for agricultural produc- in the world who can pay), how needs are de- tion, These are resource-sparing technologies fined (e. g., what level of pollution is accept- that are designed and used not only for pro- able), the extent of application of conventional duction but also to maintain inherent land pro- conservation technologies, and other factors. 94 ŽTechnology Rangeland Productivity

From the more narrow point of view of this technologies may be more cost effective or technology assessment, whether new tech- more conserving of water and other resources, nologies will be implemented soon enough depending on specific local farming condi- depends largely on the institutions responsi- tions. The following discussion is not intended ble for developing and promoting agricultural to recommend any particular technology. technologies. Will they invest in screening, Rather, it is to illustrate some of the technol- testing, and developing production technologies that are designed to enhance production ogies that have resource conservation as a and conservation at the same time. primary objective? The institutions (e.g., agricultural experiment stations, agriculture schools in universities, the Federal Agricultural Conservation Tillage Research Service) seem to be conservative re- Spraying More, Tilling Less garding investment in new technologies. There is a rationale for that conservatism: It is based Prior to the development of chemical her- mostly on the fact that agricultural research bicides in the 1940’s, farmers relied on a variety and development funds are severely limited. of tillage practices to control unwanted plants If funds remain limited, some institutional (weeds) in their fields. It was not uncommon changes may be needed to ensure adequate de- for Midwestern corn farmers to make as many velopment of new resource-sparing technol- as 10 trips across their fields before harvest, ogies and farming systems. most of them to control weeds (Triplett and Van Doren, 1977). This report could include only some of the promising technologies for preserving inherent Today, most producers of the major field land productivity, Those selected hold great crops have substituted herbicides for some of promise, but there are others available that their tillage practices. Table 13 illustrates the might achieve the same ends. For example, magnitude of increase in herbicide use be- drip irrigation is a proven technology for re- tween 1966 and 1976 for the crops grown on ducing irrigation water consumption, but other most of the total U.S. cropland base. In every

Table 13.—Percentage of Crop Area Treated With Pesticides (active ingredients) and Percentage of Pesticides Used on Crops in the United States, 1976

Herbicides Insecticides Fungicides All pesticides Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of total total total total Percent herbicides Percent insecticides Percent fungicides Percent pesticides Area planted, Crop area treated used area treated used area treated used area treated used million acres— Major crops - - Corn ., ...... 90 53 38 20 1 NA 92 37 84.1 Cotton ...... 84 5 60 40 9 NA 95 14.5 11,7 Soybeans ... . 88 20 7 5 3 <0.5 90 14 50.3 Peanuts . . . . 93 1 55 1 76 16 99 2 1,5 Sorghurn ., ...... 51 4 27 3 — NA 58 3 18.7 Tobacco...... 55 <0.5 76 2 30 <0.5 97 3.6 1,0 Rice . . . 83 2 11 <0.5 – NA 83 1 2.5 Wheat...... 38 6 14 4 1 2 48 4.6 80.2 Other grainb ...... 35 5 1 2 NA 41 1 29.8 Alfalfa and other hay. 2 <;.5 — NA 8 1 61.0 Pasture and rangeland. . 1 2 <:.5 <:,5 – NA 2 1 488.2 Other cropsc ...... 67 5 79 20 44 81 NA 16 10.9 All crops, ...... 23 100 9 100 1 100 NA 100 839,9 Total usage, million lb. . 394.3 162.1 43.2 649.8 — – None reported NA Not Available a l ncludes miticides, fumigants, defoliants and dessicants, and plant growth regulators b lncludes oats, rye, and barley. C lncludes potatoes, other vegetables, fruits, and other minor crops SOURCE USDA, Farmers Use of Pesticides in 1966 1971, and 1976, Agricultural Economic Report Nos 179, 252, and 418, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, USDA, Washington, D C , 1970, 1974, 1978 Ch. /V—Croplands ● 95 case, the total quantity of herbicides used, the bean acreage is no longer moldboard-plowed; amount of land on which they were used, and most of this acreage is chisel-plowed or disked the amount of herbicide (active ingredient) ap- (Larson, 1981), plied per treated acre have increased markedly. For example, the amount of herbicide ap- The chisel plow is the primary tool of con- plied per acre of treated corn increased by 125 servation tillage. It is a series of curved, sprung, percent between 1966 and 1976. Over this same steel shanks that have points or “sweeps” period the herbicide application rates for cot- spaced 18 to 30 inches apart. The chisel plow ton went up 58 percent; for wheat, 40 percent; disturbs less surface soil and leaves a great deal for soybeans, 80 percent; and for all other more crop residue on the surface than does a crops, 75 percent (Eichers, 1981). And this her- moldboard plow (which cuts to the same depth bicide was being applied to many more acres. but turns over all of the soil in its path). Table In 1978, 90 percent of the corn acreage was 14 illustrates the effect of implements on the treated with herbicides, as was 84 percent of quantity of surface residues—residues which the cotton acreage, 88 percent of the soybean help retain moisture, reduce runoff and erosion acreage, and 38 percent of the land in wheat and provide a barrier to the erosive effects of (Harkin, et al., 1980). wind. Reliable national data do not exist on the number of acres tilled by various methods nor Conservation Tilkge and No-Till: on the average number of tillage passes made Descriptions with the wide variety of equipment available. But there is general agreement among experts A bewildering variety of definitions, descrip- that the types of tillage equipment employed, tions, and synonyms exists for conservation and the extent to which tillage is used, have tillage, For example, the term “reduced tillage” been undergoing considerable change. is sometimes used interchangeably with conservation tillage. But reduced tillage may mean This makes it difficult to characterize a par- merely that a farmer who previously made 10 ticular tillage system as “conventional.” The to 12 passes over his field in the course of a conventional is continually changing. In the season now, perhaps in response to higher fuel scientific literature, conventional tillage most costs, makes only 8 to 10, The farmer may still commonly means plowing (in fall or spring) be using the moldboard plow, maybe plowing with a traditional moldboard plow, then using under or removing his crop residue, and may a disk, harrow, or other implements to break therefore not be mitigating erosion on his land, up soil clods, smooth the seedbed, and destroy weeds. But a 1978 survey in Illinois shows that There are three characteristics that distin- approximately 56 percent of the corn and soy- guish conservation tillage:

Table 14.—Effect of Tillage Operations and Time on the Quantity of Surface Residues, Flanagan Silt Loam, Fall 1971-Spring 1972

Corn residues on soil surface (t/a)a Tillage system Nov. 3 Nov. 11 April 19 May 3 June 12 June 16 1. Fall chop & moldboard plow...... 2.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 2. Fall disk & twisted chisels...... 2.76 2.28 2.18 1.31 1.51 1.43 3. Fall coulter & twisted chisels...... 2.76 2.19 1.43 1.09 1.67 2.08 4. Fall chop & straight chisel ...... 2.76 0.78 0.49 0.86 0.96 0.79 5. Spring chop and moldboard plow. . 2.76 2.76 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 6. Spring chop & disk, ...... 2.76 2.76 2.73 0.98 1.63 1.68 Effect due to. ., ...... Initial stalk Fall tillage. Decompo- Spring Application Cultivation cover Wind sition over tillage and of NH3 action winter planting .———— aTons per acre SOURCE Unpublished data Departments of Agricultural Engineering and Agronomy, University of Illinois 96 ● Impacfs of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

.’ t:’

Photo credit. USDA—Soi/ Conservation Service A chisel plow and stalk chopper on a Minnesota farm keep old crop residue on or near the surface. This helps keep soil from washing or blowing away

1. Conservation tillage uses implements including chisel plows, subsoilers (V-sweeps, other than the moldboard plow. sweeps, rodweeders), one-way disks, field cul- 2. Conservation tillage leaves residues on the tivators, mulch treaders, strip rotary tillers, dif- soil surface to mitigate erosion and to help ferent types of no-till planters (sometimes retain moisture. The amount of residue re- called “zero” or “slot” till planters), and special tained depends on the type of tillage im- modified planters that accommodate the more plement, its manner of use, and the crop. rigorous conditions often encountered under Different crops naturally have different conservation tillage. amounts of residue available for posthar- vest retention. These and other conservation tillage implements vary considerably with respect to the 3. Conservation tillage depends primarily on herbicides for weed control. amount of residue they leave on the soil surface (from 5 percent for rotary rodweeders to Together, these concepts provide a useful 100 percent for no-till planters) (Fenster, 1973), description of conservation tillage, But it still and, therefore, their capacity to conserve soil includes a broad array of tillage implements and water varies, as well, In addition, certain Ch. IV—Croplands ● 97 systems are preferred in different regions. For ble. No-till is an extreme form of conservation instance, subsoilers are widely used on the tillage where the new crop is seeded directly southern coastal plain and no-till planters are into existing crop residue, A special planter is used mainly in eastern Nebraska, eastern South used that slices a minimal trench or slot Dakota, and western Iowa. The goal of these through the residue into which seeds are implements is to conserve fuel, labor, soil, and dropped. No other soil manipulation is neces- water, Their capacity to achieve these savings sary. Weeds are controlled with herbicides, is highly variable, Systems or even specific crop rotations, and plant competition (Giere, tools that perform well in one region often are et al., 1980). Again, the lack of a precise and impractical in others. Because the concept of commonly accepted definition, along with a conservation tillage embraces so many dif- paucity of data on the extent of no-till use, ferent techniques, it is difficult to make a hampers evaluations of its current and poten- general assessment of its impact on current tial effects on inherent land productivity, yields, farm profits, or long-term land productivity. This is particularly true because reliable Adoption of No-Till and data on the acreage do not exist, even for the Consevation TiIlage more widely used of these techniques. RATES OF ADOPTION Major conservation tiilage methods include: Two sets of national time series data exist on ● Strip tillage.—Seedbed preparation is conservation tillage, one from SCS, the other limited to a strip one-third or less of the from surveys of State agronomists or other of- distance between rows, A protective cover ficials conducted by the private sector journal of crop residue remains on the balance. IVo-7’ill Farmer. The former has been collected Tillage and planting are completed in the since 1963, the latter since 1973. Table 15 same operation, shows how divergent the two sets are. Both are ● Till plant.—Seedbeds are prepared with based on surveys of experts, rather than on pIowing and planting in one operation. physical measurements, so the estimates are Crop residues are mixed into the soil sur- rough at best. For discussing past trends and face between rows. for projection of future conservation tillage ● Chisel planting.—Seedbeds are prepared adoption, this report uses SCS data because it by chisel plowing, Some crop residue is has been collected longer and, when aggre- left on the soil surface; some residues are gated from the county level where it was col- mixed in the top few inches of soil. Seed- bed preparation and planting may, but Table 15.— Estimates of Conservation Tillage in the need not, be accomplished in the same op- a eration. United States (millions of acres) ● Disk plan ting.–Seedbeds are prepared by Year USDA No-Till Farmerb disking the soil, leaving a protective cover 1973 . . ... , , ...... 29.5 44.i - of crop residue on the surface and some 1975 ...... 35.8 56.2 residue mixed in the top few inches of soil, 1976 .< ...., ...... 39.2 59.6 1977 ...... 47.5 70.0 Seedbed preparation and planting may, 1978 ...... 51.7 74,8 but need not, be accomplished in the same 1979b ...... 55.0 79.2 a This table IS taken from Cross (1981) operation. bPreliminary ● Zero tillage, slot planting, or no-till. -Plant- SOURCES USDA data Gerald Darby, SOiI Conservation Service Based on reports ing disturbs only the immediate area of the from SCS field offices at county level SCS data were collected for ‘‘minimum tiIIage, ’ as defined in the text, but the agency now refers row. Crop residue is left on the surface for to this series as “conservation tillage. ” It Includes no-till Since 1977 data have not been collected by SCS on specific conservation prac. erosion control, tices, Including conservation tillage Thus, the numbers for 1978 and subsequent years are “extrapolations “ In this report, no-till is considered separate- NO Till Farmer Magazine data These data include no-till, as defined by the magazine, and limited tillage, ” where the total field surface ly from conservation tillage whenever possi- IS worked by tillage equipment other than the moldboard plow 98 Ž.Imporst of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

lected, maybe more reliable than the State-level the USDA projection assumed an upper limit data gathered by No-Till Farmer, for minimum tillage of 100 percent of cropland planted, OTA’S assessment uses a 75-percent No-Till Farmer defines no-till broadly to in- upper limit for conservation tillage adoption. clude many forms of conservation tillage and (This figure is a compromise between Cros- mulch tillage—no-till, till-plant, chisel plant, son’s estimated maximum of 50 to 60 percent rotary strip tillage, etc. Under this definition, adoption, and 84 percent estimated by the up to 25 percent of the surface can be worked Resources Conservation Act (RCA)). The result- and still qualify as no-till. Thus, the No-Till ing projection is shown in figure 12 as an adop- Farmer estimates are considerably higher than tion curve. The earlier USDA projection is in- they would be under a more strict definition. cluded in the figure for comparison. At present, Table 15 shows that conservation tillage is conservation tillage is on the very steep part becoming more widespread. The estimates for of the adoption curve. Because of the dif- 1978 and 1979 are based on 1977 data and pro- ference in assumed upper limits, by the year ject growth at 5 percent, The actual growth in 2000 the gap between the two curves is over 1978 and 1979, however, was slower—2 per- 10 percent of planted cropland—or anywhere cent per year. from 35 million to 40 million acres.

Table 16 shows that after a jump in the early conomic INCINTIVES FOR ADOPTION 1970’s, no-till use reached a plateau around 7 million acres. It is not possible to determine Most studies of conservation tillage and no- whether no-till use will remain at this level. till technologies indicate that farmers are These data, too, may not be entirely accurate adopting them primarily to improve the prof- because they were gathered from surveys of itability of their overall farming operations. Im- State conservationists rather than from field portant economic incentives include: censuses, No-till methods apparently en- ● Reduced labor requirement t. —Labo r re- countered obstacles in the 1970’s that slowed quirements for conservation tillage are their spread, and it is not clear whether they generally reported much lower than for have been overcome even though anecdotal re- conventional tillage. The reason is simple: ports indicate that no-till increased substantially in 1981 (Triplett, 1981). Figure 12.— Projected Adoption of Conservation Tillage In a preliminary assessment of the potential offered by “minimum tillage, ” the U.S. Depart- 90 ment of Agriculture (USDA) projected the maximum adoption of the technology (USDA, 80 1975). OTA repeated this exercise, but where

Table 16.—Total No-Till Acres and Percent of Acres Planted

Acres planted 40 No-till principal crops Percent Year (million acres) (million acres) no-till 1973 ...... 4.9 318.7 1.54 1974 ...... 5.4 326.5 1.65 1975 ...... 6.5 332.4 1.96 1976 ...... 7.5 336.3 2.23 10 1977 ...... 7.3 344.0 2.12 1978 ...... 7.1 334.5 2.12 0 1979, ...... 6.7 347.0 1.93 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1980 ...... 7.1 357.0 1.98 Year SOURCE No. Till Farmer magazine, Annual Survey, 1981 SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment and Congressional Research Service Ch. IV—Croplands ● 99 —— .———

Photo credit USDA — Soil Conservation No-till of a cornfield in Belknap, Ill. Rapid growth is shown where corn is planted in wheat stubble and competing weeds were chemically killed at planting time

fewer trips are required across the field. into fields earlier in the spring, when the Adoption of no-tillage methods can in- heavier equipment used for conventional crease the productivity of farmworkers as tillage cannot, is frequently mentioned as much as threefold (Triplett and Van Doren, a benefit of no-till, although moist soils 1977). under no-till sometimes remain cold and Most of the labor savings come at spring delay planting. or fall planting time, when labor is ex- ● Reduced preharvest tiel requirement. — tremely valuable to farmers. The time Fewer trips across the field also conserves saved may enable a farmer to plant more fuel in preharvest operations, lighter ma- land; to plant his land closer to the op- chinery can also save fuel. timum time for tillage, seed germination, Compared with conventional tillage, no- and weed control; or to plant a second (or, till requires 3 to 4 fewer gallons per acre in the Southeast, a third) crop on the same of diesel fuel equivalent. For other kinds land in the same season. The ability to get of conservation tillage the saving is on the 100 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

order of 1 to 3 gallons (Crosson, 1981). It tillage methods a higher proportion of this should be noted that these are savings in land can be planted to more profitable the preharvest, on-farm fuel use. Total crops. farm energy use may remain essentially The long-term implications of this potential unchanged, for fuel savings may be offset for row crop production on rolling terrain somewhat by the increased use of petro- could be profound. The present classification leum-derived herbicides, of land capabilities, used for planning by SCS ● Reduced machinery costs. —Conservation and other Government agencies, assumes a tillage and no-till often require smaller, less lower capability class for sloping land because powerful, and (when total equipment is of its susceptibility to erosion. With no-till considered) less expensive equipment than techniques, more sloping land could be used does conventional tillage. Maintenance for production without increasing erosion. costs for no-till equipment also may be lower. Machinery costs would be higher, BARRIIRS TO ADOPTION however, for farmers who want to main- Weed, Insect, and Disease Problems.—The tain on-farm capability for both conven- future expansion of conservation tillage and tional tillage and conservation tillage no-till depends on developing improved tech- (Trouse, 1981). niques for controlling weeds, particularly per- ● Potential for multiple cropping. —The time ennials (Crosson, 1981; Worsham, 1980; Owens and soil moisture saved under no-till and and Patterson, 1973). In fact, a 1979 survey of conservation tillage systems make multi- almost 1,000 farmers in the Lake Erie region ple cropping possible on some sites where showed weed control problems to he the num- climate previously prohibited it, This ber one barrier to adopting conservation tillage benefit may prove to be the most attrac- and no-till (Forster, 1979). tive economic feature of these tillage Continued use of conservation tillage, and of systems (Phillips, et al,, 1980; USDA, 1975), no-till in particular, seems to create an environ- Common double-cropping combinations ment favorable to perennial weeds because her- under conservation tillage or no-till in- bicides do not attack the root system of these clude wheat or other small grain (for grain, weeds as tillage does. Thus, the perennial silage, hay, or grazing) followed by corn, weeds have a competitive advantage over an- soybeans, sorghum, or millet (Hayes, nual weeds. Also, certain weeds such as john- 1973), Possible triple-cropping combina- songrass and bermudagrass cannot be con- tions in the Southeast include: barley-corn- trolled with available herbicides. soybeans; barley-corn-snapbeans; barley- sweet corn-soybeans, The No- Till Farmer Most experts agree that any shift away from (March 1981) estimated that about 75 per- conventional tillage requires increased her- cent of the no-till soybeans in 1980 were bicide use, both type and amount. First, more double cropped (approximately 1.96 mil- herbicides are needed for what is called the lion acres out of 2,61 million). “substitution effect:” herbicides are simply ● Expansion of row crops to sloping land. — substituted for tillage. Second is the “efficien- Triplett and Van Doren (1977) have ob- cy effect. ” More herbicide is required because some of that applied is intercepted by surface served: crop residues before reaching target weeds, Since erosion can be reduced a hundred- fold or more with no-tillage planting, the The third reason is termed the “environmen- production of row crops on rolling terrain tal effect, ” wherein weeds are said to thrive becomes practical, Although highly produc- under conservation tillage conditions because tive soils are found in many hilly areas, the greater soil moisture fosters weed germination practice has been to devote them to forage and growth. One or more of these effects can crops as a conservation measure. With no- increase weed problems on no-till and conser- Ch. IV—Croplancis ● 101 vation tillage acreage. The answer, however, moisture could be removed by evapotranspira- is not necessarily greater amounts of her- tion in the early spring. Indeed, in some drier bicides. New types and application methods regions, no-till is no{ feasible because an over- are also needed. wintering cover crop removes necessary soil moisture, One of the reasons for increased pest problems under no-till is that the crop residue left Diffusion of Information .—Several studies on the fields provides a habitat conducive to indicate that one barrier to the adoption of con- the growth of pests. Surface residue can also servation tillage and no-till is inadequate infor- increase disease problems. For example, the in- mation on the technologies: farmers either do cidence of southern corn leaf blight can in- not understand the advantages of the various crease because surface residues provide an in- systems, or they harbor misconceptions about oculum for bacteria (Boosalis and Cook, 1973). them. [The general process of technology adop- However, the greater disease hazard for crops tion is considered in ch. V.) under conservation tillage may not imply One recent study of Iowa farmers (Nowak, greater fungicide expenses. Instead, resistant 1980) dramatically illustrates the misperception plant varieties can be used. Disease problems problem, Farmers who had and had not could be a barrier to the spread of conserva- adopted “minimum tillage” methods were tion tillage if the development of resistant va- surveyed to find out their attitudes regarding rieties is too slow or if seed for these types is the technologies, and important differences comparatively expensive. were observed. Unfavorable Soil Conditions.—The capacity Table 17 shows the responses of users and of surface residues to conserve soil moisture nonusers of minimum tillage to questions about actually can be a disadvantage when conser- the cost, profitability y, and other aspects of the vation tillage or no-till is used on soils that are technology, Users of minimum tillage consid- poorly drained. Thus, it is generally held that ered the practice to have either no additional these technologies are best suited to well- cost or moderate additional cost, whereas one- drained soils. Cosper (1979) has estimated the quarter of the nonusers thought additional amount of land suitable to conservation tillage costs for minimum-tillage were “very high. ” for four States on the basis of soil characteris- Almost 60 percent of the minimum, till prac- tics—most importantly, soil drainage. He esti- titioners thought that returns exceeded costs mates that 47 percent of the “tillable acres” (for for the technology, compared with 31 percent practical purposes, the sum of cropland and of the nonusers. pasture) in Ohio is suited to conservation tillage; 53 percent in Indiana; 66 percent in Illi- Although experts estimate time and labor to nois; and 76 percent in Iowa. Data on conser- be lower for conservation tillage, and three- vation tillage from No-Till Farmer illustrate quarters of the users felt less time and labor that the proportion of land actually in some were required for the technology, only about form of conservation tillage increases from east half of the nonusers felt this way. Users and to west through these States, as does the drain- nonusers also felt differently about ease of use; age of the soils. Thus, drainage is already hav- 75 percent of the users thought it very easy, ing an effect on the distribution of the technol- compared with 50 percent of nonusers. Eighty ogy (Crosson, 1981). percent of the users found minimum tillage Moist soils also tend to remain cool for a compatible with their farm operation, while longer period in the spring. This limits conser- only 43 percent of the nonusers thought it vation tillage in Northern States where delayed would be. planting combines with a relatively shorter Finally, 80 percent of the users thought min- growing season. It is conceivable that with an imum tillage was improving their soil savings. active sod crop in a no-till system, such soil Only half of the nonusers held this view of 102 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Table 17.— Perceived Characteristics of Table 18.— Reasons Given by Lake Erie Basin Minimum Tillage Survey Respondents for Adopting and Failing to Adopt Reduced Tillage Systems, 1979 Minimum Tillage (N= 154) (N =35) Number of Characteristic Users Non-users Reasons responses Mean scorea cost for using Reasons for adopting reduced tillage No cost ...... 49.3 % 38.2 % 1. Reduced fuel costs...... 464 4.37 Moderate cost ...... 47.4 % 35.3 % 2. Conserve soil productivity 439 4.18 Very high cost ...... 3.3% 26.5% 3. Reduced labor cost . . . . . 455 4.00 4. 1 00.0“: 1 00.0% Reduced equipment costs 437 3.87 5. Increased yields ...... 427 3.79 Profitability 6. Reduced water pollution . 435 3.61 Costs exceed returns . . , . 7.8 % 21.9 % Reasons for failing to adopt reduced tillage Costs equal returns . . . . 32.5 % 46.9 % Returns exceed costs. . . . . 59.7 % 31.2 % 1. Weed control problems . . 392 4,14 — 2. Soil not conducive ... . . 375 3.89 100,0 % 1 00.0“b 3. Poor stands ...... 342 3.86 Time/labor requirements 4. Increased equipment costs 355 3.68 More time/labor ...... 7.8 % 20.0 % 5. Pest control problems . . 334 3.34 No change ...... 1 7.5“b 28.6 ‘% 6. Increased fuel costs . . . . . 326 3.27 Less time/labor ...... 74.7 % 51.4 ‘% 7. Increased labor costs . . 321 2.93

a 1 00.0“: 100.0”2, - Scale 1 to 5 where 1 is completely unimportant and 5 IS very Important SOURCE Forster, 1979 Ease of use Very difficult ., ... , ... . . 2.6 % 20,6 % Moderate...... 22.2 % 29.4 %, Very easy ., ...... 75.2 % 50.0 % 100.0% 1 00.0“h It is obvious that in these two surveys non- Compatibility users of conservation tillage hold views of the Not compatible ...... 3.9% 28.6% technology that differ markedly from the views Moderately compatible . . . . 15.6 % 28.5 % Very compatible ...... 80.5 % 42.9 ‘% of users, and in most cases the views of non- 100.0% 1 00.0‘% users are at odds with well-established conclu- Influence on soil erosion sions in the scientific literature. It is possible Worsened ...... 1.4% 0.0 % to make any number of speculations as to why No change ...... 1 6.8“h 50.0 % this may be so: simple lack of information, Improved ...... 8 1.8‘YO 50.0 % observed failures of the technology on nearby 1 00.0‘% 100.0% — farms, the “trashy” look of conservation tilled SOURCE Nowak, 1980 fields. Management Requirements.–Although minimum tillage; the other half thought the conservation tillage requires less labor, these technology would have no effect on erosion. systems do require better managers, Farmers Given the wide play in farm magazines and using these systems cannot fall back on addi- Government-sponsored education efforts on tional tillage operations to correct mistakes in the conservation benefits of minimum tillage, weed control or planting. In addition, they this gap between users and nonusers is espe- need to be more familiar with complex weed cially surprising. and insect problems and with different types of machinery. Similar confusion seems to exist among farmers in the Lake Erie Basin. Farmers who But this need for good management need not had adopted “reduced tillage” (meaning either be a major obstacle to the spread of conserva- no-till or tillage without the moldboard plow) tion tillage and no-till. The cost of acquiring cited as reasons reduced fuel cost, reduced no-till and conservation tillage skills is not pro- labor cost, and reduced equipment cost. Farm- hibitive. Indeed, experts and users of no-till ers who had not adopted reduced tillage listed technology (the most demanding in the conser- increased fuel cost, increased labor cost, and vation tillage spectrum from a management increased equipment cost as reasons (see table point of view), while acknowledging that a dif- 18). ferent set of skills may be required (i.e., more Ch. IV- Croplands . 103

knowledge of spray equipment), feel that these minimum tillage and conservation tillage used skills are not necessarily more difficult to ac- by SCS admits a broad array of technologies, quire than those for conventional farming. the erosion control effectiveness of which vary markedly. Furthermore, it seems that much of It is probably fair to say that nonusers are the land in conservation tillage did not have always skeptical of new technologies. Skep- severe erosion problems prior to the adoption ticism about no-till is probably related to the of the technology—i.e., motives other than ero- fact that the technology is still evolving and that sion control have influenced farmers to adopt early mistakes—poor stands, poor weed con- conservation tillage. trol, use of no-till on poorly drained soil, and overall low yields—remain fresh in the minds Eventually, use of no-till is likely to make it of farmers and, to some degree, agricultural ex- possible to cultivate slopes now in pasture or tension personnel, soil conservation techni- hay crops. This expansion of row-crop and cians, and farm implement and chemical deal- small-grain acreage is not without risk, how- ers. The only thing that will break this barrier ever. These sloping lands may be exposed to will be good performance of no-till in more ex- erosion hazards every 4 to 5 years if periodic perimental settings and on more farms. As this moldboard plowing is deemed necessary to begins to happen, no-till farming will move into combat weeds, insects, or disease. Further, by the rapid-increase part of the adoption curve, specializing in row crops, farmers may open as conservation tillage has already done. themselves to greater economic risk by losing farm diversity, Mixed crop and livestock opera- Environmental Effects (Soil Erosion).— tions, while perhaps less profitable in years of Conservation tillage has proven to be very ef- high crop prices, provided more stable income fective in the control of wind and water ero- in the long term by virtue of diversity. sion. A variety of field and experimental Finally, as more hilly land is brought into studies show that conservation tillage can row-crop production with conservation tillage, reduce erosion by 50 to 90 percent compared it could leave less pasture and hay acreage, thus to conventional tillage (Crosson, 1981; Phillips, increasing grazing pressures on both Western et al., 1980). The presence of crop residues on rangelands and Eastern forests. the soil surface presents a barrier to wind and retards water runoff. The formation of larger Nutrient and Pesticide Pollution.—Water soil clods that occurs with most conservation runoff from agricultural lands has been iden- tillage systems also serves as a further barrier tified as a major cause of pollution in fresh- to wind and water movement. No-till systems water streams and lakes. Conservation tillage also offer the additional protection of a nearly and no-till have proven very effective in reduc- continuous soil cover, particularly during ing one component of pollution in agricultural spring and fall when erosion potential is runoff—i.e., sediment, which constitutes (by greatest. weight) most of the pollution of freshwater bodies. However, a more complicated relation- This capacity to reduce erosion is one of the ship exists between tillage systems and pollu- most important features of conservation tillage tion from pesticides and nutrients. technologies. The scientific literature more than adequately establishes the superiority of Nutrients. -Additions of even small amounts these technologies over many conventional sys- of nutrients, particularly nitrogen (N) and tems for erosion control, particularly from an phosphorus (P), accelerate plant growth in economic point of view, aquatic systems, which in turn reduces oxygen concentrations when the plants are decom- However, available data on conservation till- posed by aquatic micro-organisms. The change age and no-till agriculture as practiced today in oxygen levels can dramatically alter condi- make it difficult to estimate whether the prom- tions of survival for fish. Although “eutrophica- ise of experimental findings is being achieved. tion” is a natural process, it can be greatly ac- For example, the rather loose definition of celerated by human activities. 104 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Nutrients in agricultural runoff are divided Some pesticides either are not very soluble into two forms: a portion adsorbed chemical- or they adhere tightly to soil particles. In these ly onto soil particles and a portion dissolved cases erosion reduction prevents or greatly rein the water. By reducing soil loss, conserva- duces the pesticide’s entry into surface waters. tion tillage and no-till reduce sedi- Thus, conservation tillage and no-till act to ment-associated nutrient pollution, However, lessen the impact of such pesticides, which in- there can be an increase in the concentration clude trifluralin, endrin, toxaphene, and para- of dissolved nutrients in runoff from fields quat, Several researchers have reported that where conservation tillage or no-till were in pesticide losses are virtually eliminated under use. no-till, although less drastic reductions in tillage have lesser effects. For instance, if crop residues are not incorporated into the soil, they are a source of ad- A problem can arise, however, where some ditional dissolved N and P in runoff. Similar- soils are not able to capture the herbicides, For ly, applying surface fertilizers can increase example, soil clays in wet tropical regions, such nutrient levels in runoff. And because nitrate as Puerto Rico, do not bind the herbicides to N is relatively mobile in the soil, tillage prac- their surfaces. In such environments, a large tices that increase infiltration and subsurface portion of the herbicide can be carried into flow may lead to increased N losses, thus re- water bodies regardless of the timing of appli- ducing crop production and increasing cation, ground water N levels (Wauchope, et al., 1981), There is also the problem of persistent tox- The net result of conservation tillage and no- icity of some of the herbicides and other till on nutrient pollution of surface and ground pesticides. whether the herbicide binding to water will vary under different conditions. For clays is permanent is unknown. It may be that example, Wauchope, et al. (1981) have noted the chemical can be released in some changed that losses for either system can be quite high form by microbial activity, with unknown con- if rainfall occurs shortly after fertilizers are ap- sequences for soil microbiology. Although most plied. The same is true of pesticide pollution. of the insecticides degrade rapidly, the toxici- There appears to be little basis for generaliz- ty of the compounds produced by the degrada- ing about the differences between conservation tion process is unknown, tillage and conventional tillage with respect to Conservation tillage and no-till reduce water delivery of nutrients to surface water bodies. runoff, but do not eliminate it. Thus, the same Pesticides. —Some contamination of surface question can be posed for pesticides as was waters is inevitable as long as pesticides are posed for nutrient losses: Do higher concen- used in agriculture, and they are widely used trations of pesticides in runoff offset reductions today. The extent of contamination depends on in the sediment-associated pesticides under the amount and type of pesticide applied, the these systems? Several studies suggest that con- area to which it is applied, and the timing of centrations of specific pesticides are greater in rainfall. lower runoff volumes, as happens under conservation tillage and no-till, possibly because The overall impact of pesticide runoff on sur- pesticides on crop residues are easily washed face waters is difficult to determine given the off. In other instances pesticides seem to be available data, Too little is known about filtered out as runoff passes over untreated soil dynamics of dilution, sediment exchange (the and vegetation. movement of pesticide molecules from soil particles), and pesticide effects on aquatic life. Because conservation tillage has such an in- Although accurate estimates of the actual field creased reliance on pesticides, particularly her- inputs into waterways are available, knowledge bicides, it is a greater threat to the environment of the impacts of those inputs is greatly lack- than conventional tillage as far as pesticide ing (Wauchope, 1978), damage is concerned (Crosson, 1981). Although Ch. /V—Croplands ● 105 many herbicides have low toxicity to human vation tillage reduced it 3.8 tons per acre beings, they or their metabolizes may have car- annually—a notable achievement, Morever, the cinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects. average cost of erosion reduction with conser- Greater use of pesticides also implies greater vation tillage was $0.98 per ton, well below the potential for it to drift in the wind to unin- average cost of $2,22 per ton for all practices. tended sites, An even greater soil savings and a lower cost per ton might have been achieved if more of Available data suggest that agricultural chemicals do not damage the ability of the the practices had occurred on more highly ero- croplands to produce crops in perpetuity; how- sive land. ever, data are sparse and little analysis on her- Under ACP, participating farmers have re- bicide impacts on soil ecology exists. The water ceived an average of $10 per acre to defray pollution effect of the increased use of chemi- roughly half the cost of equipment and chem- cals is another unknown. Quantitative informa- icals for conservation tillage. The remaining tion is inadequate on the amount of toxic half of the cost, it was assumed, would be made chemical applied with each of the many varia- up by expected savings in labor and fuel. Either tions of conservation tillage and no-till, and the Extension Service or SCS would recom- scientists have not estimated the overall in- mend which equipment or chemicals to use. crease in use of herbicides or pesticides that Cost sharing was extended to farmers for 2 is associated with these technologies. Even if years only. ASCS analysts feel conservation such data were available, an accurate environ- tillage has been and continues to be a cost- mental benefit/cost analysis could not be done effective practice and it has ranked high among because too little is known about the impacts the practices identified by ASCS for cost shar- of the chemicals. ing within States and counties. But the willingness of farmers to continue using conser- A rigorous assessment of conservation tillage vation tillage beyond the support period and no-till that makes some conclusion regard- depends to a great extent on their success in ing the tradeoff between the reduction of ero- these first 2 years (Nebeker, 1981), sion and the proliferation of toxic chemicals will not be possible until: 1) more adequate Another scheme, adopted by numerous con- mathematical models of agricultural systems servation districts around the country in con- are constructed to use the data that are avail- junction with private companies or the Envi- able, and Z) much better data are collected on ronmental Protection Agency, has been to buy the dynamics of soil chemistry and biology, es- a no-till planter (or other conservation tillage pecially research on the effects of pesticides device) and make it available free to district on so-called “nontarget” organisms, including farmers, with or without technical assistance. wildlife, aquatic plants and animals, humans, Anecdotal reports in farm magazines and from and soil flora and fauna. Meanwhile, most conservationists suggest this type of approach analyses of these technologies imply that the does work for spreading no-till. recognized erosion prevention potential out- Clearly, basic data regarding the use of con- weighs the plausible but unknown chemical servation tillage and no-till by American farm- hazards, ers are lacking, notably the extent and quality of the acreage on which these technologies are FEDERAL ROLE being used. Considering the degree to which A limited amount of cost sharing for conser- the conservation professionals are relying on vation tillage has been provided through the these technologies to protect land productivi- Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) ad- ty in the future, it is remarkable that there are ministered by the Agricultural Stabilization not more reliable data on the amount of acre- and Conservation Service (ASCS). For these age in no-till. These data would not be par- lands, the average annual erosion rate before ticularly expensive to obtain. By one estimate, assistance was 9.7 tons per acre, but conser- the acreage in no-till could be assessed by in- 106 Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity eluding a few questions on the spring planting predicted erosion rate jumps to 21 tons per acre survey conducted by the USDA Statistical Re- per year, or about the rate that would occur porting Service (SRS) at a cost of $100,000 or with moldboard plowing and two passes with less. Information on conservation tillage will a disk (Helm, 1980). Thus, farmers can obtain be provided by the 1981-82 National Resource the labor and fuel saving benefits of conserva- Inventories, but no-till practices will not be tion tillage and no-till without necessarily sav- separated from conservation tillage in general. ing much soil in the process. A special inventory of no-till has been con- The acreage of cropland treated with these sidered within SCS, but as yet has not been conservation technologies probably will con- performed. tinue to increase, OTA projections show that

CONCLUSIONS 75 percent of U.S. cropland may have some form of conservation tillage by 201o. Yet the Conservation tillage and no-till have a variety land most severely affected by erosion may still of effects on land productivity, By making pos- be missed, just as it has been missed by more sible more double or multiple cropping, both traditional conservation measures. Table 19 conservation tillage and no-till can help in- shows that in 1977, conservation tillage was crease production of major field crops without used on less erosive land. This poses several increasing the acreage cropped, even though policy questions. First, it is commonly said that more fertilizer, tractor fuel, herbicides, and so the benefits of reduced soil erosion with con- forth may be needed. In addition, conservation servation tillage and no-till outweigh the risks tillage and no-till enhance inherent cropland posed by greater herbicide use, But this trade- productivity by reducing and, in some cases, off is less justifiable if these technologies do virtually eliminating soil erosion. not find their way to land with acute erosion But how much soil will be saved depends on: problems where potential soil savings are great, the type of technology used, the way farmers Numerous studies on the costs and benefits use it, and the quality of the land on which it of various erosion control technologies indicate is applied. The many different types of equip- that conservation tillage and no-till are the most ment that can be used in conservation tillage effective and economically attractive methods and no-till vary greatly in the amount of sur- of erosion control for many farmers, Current face soil they disturb and in the amount of crop national policy proposals (such as RCA) have residue they leave on the surface. With two dif- included heavy reliance on these technologies ferent types of equipment—e.g., a chisel plow to reach future soil and water quality and con- and a till planter—farmers on virtually iden- servation goals. tical land may experience considerably different erosion rates, yet both may call their practice “conservation tillage. ” Table 19.—Acreage Treated With Minimum Tillage Another important consideration is the way and Crop Residue Practices in 1977 farmers use the technologies. For example, the (sheet and rill erosion only) soil savings possible with a no-till system are Acreage treated with enormously diminished if at harvest the farmer Expected erosion with minimum tillage and does not return crop residues to his land. conventional tillage crop residue Farmers in the basin of the main Patuxent (tons per acre per year) Million acres Percent River in Howard County, Md., for example, Less than 5 ...... 20.0 74.9 5 to 10 ...... 3.7 13.9 commonly use minimum or no-till technologies 10 to 15 ...... 1.1 4,1 to produce continuous corn on their moder- 15 to 25 ...... 0.9 3.4 ately sloping land. Those who retain surface Over 25 ...... 1.0 3.7 Total acreage treated residues can expect an erosion rate of approx- with minimum tillage imately 5 tons per acre. But if they use these and crop residue . . . . 26.7 technologies without retaining the residues, the SOURCE Miller, 1978. Ch. IV—Croplands ● 107

The greater use of agricultural chemicals, crop rotations, crop residues, animal manures, herbicides in particular, is not now known to legumes, green manures, off-farm organic be a major threat to environmental quality. wastes, mechanical cultivation, mineral-bear- However, there is a potential for greater ing rocks, and biological pest controI to main- pesticide runoff from farmland where conser- tain soil productivity and tilth, to supply pIant vation tillage technologies are used, and even nutrients, and to control insects, weeds, and though the pesticides involved are relatively other pests (USDA, 1980; Oelhaf, 1978]. more benign than their precursors, many of their effects are not fully understood and Organic agriculture encompasses a wide deserve further study. spectrum of practices, attitudes, and philoso- phies. Some producers avoid manufactured Neither conservation tillage nor no-till are chemical inputs without exception; others try panaceas to America’s erosion problem, On to minimize chemical application but selective- very fragile lands, these technologies need to ly use chemical inputs to deal with specific be used in conjunction with terraces, contour problems and conditions. Some reflect “coun- farming, and other traditional conservation ter-cultural” opposition to traditional agricul- measures. In some cases, even the combination ture. However, most organic producers employ might not suffice, Probably the most important practices and enjoy a profitability that differs point to remember about these technologies is less from conventional farmers (except for that their suitability is site specific, as are the chemical use) than is generally presumed. An soil and water savings they will achieve. But in-depth survey of organic farming in the Corn efforts to bring conservation tillage and no-till Belt found that over 80 percent of the operators to critically eroding areas could, if well de- had previously farmed with conventional meth- signed and adequately funded, significantly ods (Kohl, et al., 1981). Further, organic farmers reduce the Nation’s overall erosion problem tend to be experienced farm operators. Eighty and protect some of its most fragile lands. percent of a USDA sample of organic farmers had at least 8 years of farming experience and Organic Agriculture 44 percent had 30 or more years of experience. The same study found organic farmers were Introduction evenly distributed in all age categories and Although there is a paucity of good data on were generally well educated, with about 50 organic agriculture, recent studies suggest that percent having attended college (USDA, 1980). many organic farming practices are both eco- Organic agriculture is not limited by scale. nomically viable under current market condi- While some organic farmers are small-scale tions and effective in reducing soil erosion and operators with substantial off-farm income, nonpoint pollution (e. g., fertilizer and pesticide and small-scale organic farms (10 to 50 acres) runoff). Even though per-acre yields tend to be do predominate in the Northeast, there are a lower for organic agriculture than for conven- significant number of large-scale (100 to 1,500 tional farming, operating expenses on organic acres) operations in the West and Midwest farms also tend to be substantially lower. One (USDA, 1980). study found that net per-acre returns to organic farmers over a s-year period were virtually Organic agriculture reflects an attitude identical to those of their conventionally farm- shared by an increasing number of people, both ing counterparts (Kohl, et al., 1981). urban and rural, which holds that sustainable agriculture can best be attained through the use As defined by USDA, organic farming is a of technologies that are less demanding of non- production system that avoids or largely ex- renewable resources and less exploitive of soils cludes the use of synthetically compounded fer- (USDA, 1980). Organic farmers share an in- tilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, and creasing concern about the adverse effects of livestock feed additives. To the maximum ex- intensive production of cash grain crops and tent feasible, organic farming systems reIy on about the extensive, and sometimes excessive, 108 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Even their land to the most profitable crops (CAST, though data to substantiate their views in some 1980). Most organic farmers use crop residues, cases are not available, some of the specific animal manure, and crop rotations that include concerns most often voiced by organic practi- legumes and cover crops, to provide adequate tioners include: nitrogen for moderate-to-high crop yields. In fact, legume crops commonly covered 30 to 50 ● increased costs and uncertain availabili- percent of the cultivated acreage on the organic ty of energy and chemicals; farms surveyed by USDA. Organic farms ap- ● increased resistance of weeds and insects peared to use little of other organic inputs such to pesticides; as sewage sludge or processing wastes (USDA, ● decline in soil productivity from erosion 1980), and accompanying loss of organic matter and plant nutrients; Crop rotations used on nonirrigated organic ● pollution of surface waters with agricul- farms are similar to those used on farms 30 to tural chemicals and sediment; 40 years ago. Typically, farmers plant a heavy ● destruction of wildlife, bees, and beneficial green manure crop followed by a nitrogen- insects by pesticides; demanding crop such as corn, sorghum, or ● possible hazards to human and animal wheat. For example, in a corn-soybean area health from pesticides and feed additives; such as the Midwest, a rotation might include: ● perceived detrimental effects of agricul- oats/3 years of alfalfa/corn (or wheat) /soy- tural chemicals on food quality; beans/corn/soybeans. On more productive ● gradual depletion of finite reserves of con- soils, there might be an additional corn or centrated plant nutrients—e. g., phosphate wheat crop after the alfalfa (USDA, 1980). rock; and Large-scale organic farms are usually mixed ● decrease in number of farms, particular- crop and livestock operations, since the forage ly family-type farms, and disappearance of produced through crop rotation can most eco- localized and direct marketing systems nomically be used by the producer’s own live- (USDA, 1980). stock. Farmers then return the manure to the Organic agriculture is not, as is commonly land as fertilizer. Ninety percent of the organic assumed, simply a throwback to the past. farmers surveyed in the Corn Belt had substan- Although it is true that some past techniques tial livestock holdings (Kohl, et al,, 1981), remain important to modern organic farming, Organic livestock operations do not use hor- most of today’s organic producers use modern mones, growth stimulants, or antibiotics in farm machinery, currently recommended crop their feed formulations (except as needed to varieties, certified seed, sound livestock man- treat sick animals). Because such chemicals are agement, recommended soil and water conser- not used the livestock sometimes command vation practices, innovative methods of organic premium prices from certain consumer groups, waste and residue management, and many of However, the declining profitability of live- the other techniques of modern agriculture. stock farming in general could affect the profitability of diversified farms, including organic The technologies that make organic agricul- farms. ture different from conventional agriculture are primarily management technologies. The Organic farmers tend to pay less attention clearest distinction shows in the respective to the phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) com- sources of major nutrients used for crop ponents of the soil’s nutrient budget. Some growth—nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. organic farms are actually “mining” P and K Conventional farmers generally meet their from either soil minerals or residual fertilizers nitrogen needs through the input of commer- applied when the land was farmed chemical- cially produced fertilizers. These manufactured ly (USDA, 1980; Lockeretz, et al., 1976). While inputs allow farmers to plant more or all of these sources of P and K may sustain high crop Ch. IV—Croplands . 109

yields for some time (depending on soil, cli- greater for conventional farms (for corn and mate, and cropping conditions), it is likely that soybeans) than for several crop rotations grown some organic farmers eventually will have to on organic farms because of the large portion apply supplemental amounts of these two of land necessarily devoted to legume crops at nutrients. Rock phosphate and greensand (un- any one time (USDA, 1980). processed glauconite) are acceptable sources One study of economic performance and of P and K, respectively, for organic farmers. energy use on organic farms showed that But few organic farmers actually apply any organic producers had an average overall pro- mineral sources of phosphate and very few duction level 10 percent below that of com- apply any form of mineral potassium (USDA, parable conventional operations (in terms of 1980). market value of output per acre). However, Another major difference between conven- because operating costs also were lower for tional and organic farmers is in their approach organic farms, returns to crop production were to pest control, Conventional farming relies on virtually equal for the two groups. The conven- a variety of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, tional group was 2.3 times more energy inten- and the like to combat destructive pests, some- sive, primarily because of the energy needed times in combination with biological and cul- to produce conventional fertilizers. The tural controls. organic farmers avoid such organic group required 12 percent more labor chemicals and instead use more intensive man- per unit of market value of crops produced agerial, biological, and cultural methods to (Lockeretz, et al., 1976). Other studies confirm avoid or control pest outbreaks. Some organic this general pattern of reduced energy use and farmers use insecticides to fight epidemic out- slightly reduced yields for organic farms breaks or to control specific insects. Insects are (CAST, 1980). Continuing escalations in energy particularly difficult to control in vegetable and prices may have already enhanced the relative orchard crops, especially given existing con- profitability’ of organic farming methods. How- sumer quality preferences. Producers of such ever, data on yields and net per-acre returns crops use organic (nonmanufactured) insec- to organic farms for 1979 and later are not ticides and biological methods of pest control, available. Organic producers emphasize preventive Modest additions of nitrogen to organically methods for controlling weeds. The USDA managed corn fields might reduce their yield study noted surprising success with timely disadvantage relative to conventional fields, tillage and cultivation, delayed planting, and while preserving most of the lower production crop rotations. Some farmers contend that costs and reduced energy consumption char- weed problems were most serious during the acterizing these methods. Thus, cultivation early stages of transition and that they subsided systems that draw on the management prac- once the rotational cycle was established. Rota- tices of organic farming, while using small ad- tions also help counter insect infestations with ditions of manufactured fertilizer, may have relatively good results (USDA, 1980). substantial potential for maintaining high yields and reducing costs. Comparisons of conventional and organic agriculture also focus on differences in Organic farming may also have advantages economics, energy use, crop yields, and labor. for sustaining inherent land productivity that One problem that clouds the analysis, however, could in the long run compensate for short- is that accurate reformation about these topics term yield reductions. Careful land manage- is sparse or contradictory. On the average, ment, crop rotations, use of cover crops and organic farms are somewhat more labor inten- other conservation methods, and reduced non- sive but use less energy than conventional point pollution (e.g., nitrogen and pesticide farms (USDA, 1980). On the other hand, eco- runoff) cause organic farming to have fewer nomic returns above variable costs can be apparent adverse effects on environmental 110 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity quality than many conventional farming meth- on U.S. agriculture. On the other hand, if sig- ods (USDA, 1980). Preliminary estimates sug- nificant numbers of the conventional farms gest that organic techniques can reduce ero- currently producing more than $20,000 per sion by one-third or more in some areas (Kohl, year in continuous corn, soybeans, or other et al., 1981). If the additional costs of the crops converted to organic methods, the result- detrimental effects of production (e.g., erosion ing changes in cropping patterns could have and sedimentation) are considered, cost dif- substantial economic impacts, particularly if ferences between organic and conventional such changes occurred rapidly (USDA, 1980). systems may decrease in areas where these Such a shift would reduce U.S. exports, since problems occur (USDA, 1980). If, on the other corn and soybeans are important export crops. hand, yield reductions or other factors associ- The likelihood of such a shift, however, does ated with a shift to organic farming caused not seem great. farmers to bring new, less suitable agricultural Throughout the sometimes heated debate lands into production, erosion problems could surrounding organic agriculture, one fact has be aggravated rather than alleviated. gained prominence: many questions remain unanswered. Again and again, sections of Future of Organic Farming in the USDA’s comprehensive overview of organic United States farming concluded saying, “there is a need for The future extent of the role of organic farm- research to determine . . . .“ ing in American agriculture is uncertain. Much The USDA study strongly recommended that depends on the availability and price of fer- research and educational programs be devel- tilizer (especially nitrogen), farm labor, oped and implemented to address the needs producer-price relationships, domestic and and problems of organic farmers and to world demands for food, concern for soil and enhance the success of conventional farmers water conservation, concern for health and en- who may want to shift toward organic farm- vironment, and U.S. policies toward the devel- ing, adopt some organic methods, or reduce opment and promotion of organic practices. their dependency on agricultural chemicals. Many of agriculture’s current trends—for ex- The study advocated a holistic research effort ample, increased energy and input costs, or in- to investigate the organic system of farming, creased concern for long-term soil productiv- its mechanisms, interactions, principles, and ity—could prove strong incentives for a shift potential benefits to agriculture, especially con- toward organic agriculture. But a major shift sidering that there is a severe lack of well- from conventional to organic farming would designed, replicative research on this set of be limited by the availability of resources. Cer- technologies (USDA, 1980). tain parts of the United States simply do not Often this view is countered by saying that have an adequate and economic supply of or- many pieces of current agricultural research ganic wastes and residues or the soils and are already applicable to organic producers’ climate to support profitable organic agricul- needs. Work on biological nitrogen fixation, ture (USDA, 1980). sewage sludge, soil fertility, and mechanical USDA projections show that small farms, means of weed control are cited as examples. many of the remaining mixed-crop/livestock But considering the promise offered by organic farms, and farms with access to ample quan- methods and variations thereof, efforts to tities of organic wastes could be shifted to develop a more comprehensive research foun- organic methods without major effect on total dation for organic agriculture could provide agricultural production. All farms with sales valuable paybacks. Further, many of the “unless than $2,500 (more than 35 percent of the knowns” highlighted by the organic agriculture total number of farms in 1977) could be farmed study are fundamental to agriculture in gen- organically with little total economic impact eral, not just to organic approaches. Ch. IV—Croplands ● 111

Conclusions ready for implementation before the 21st century. Organic farming can, given suitable climatic conditions, markets, and required inputs, be Multiple Cropping a productive and efficient farming option in parts of the United States. Multiple cropping is an intensive form of agriculture where two or more crops are grown Organic farming techniques can reduce soil sharing land and resources. Such systems can erosion and nonpoint pollution because such enhance both land-use efficiency and long-term methods increase the use of cover crops and productivity, Multiple cropping is not a new rotations and decrease chemical inputs. technology but rather is an ancient technique Rising costs of chemical inputs are likely to that has been most developed in areas of high cause more conventional farmers to adopt rainfall in the tropics, where temperature and techniques being used by organic farmers. moisture are favorable for year-round crop If research supports the development and growth (American Society of Agronomy, 1976). improvement of such techniques, and if High cropIand costs and other economic pres- resource sustainability is an explict goal of sures have stimulated new interest in tem- that development, the shift toward organic perate multiple cropping systems. farming may help to sustain crop yields and to reduce energy use and attendant costs Today’s multiple cropping systems vary while preserving land productivity. greatly depending on the nature of the site being farmed. Traditional tropical multiple cropping systems differ from most U.S. sys- Alternative Cropping Systems tems because of differences in climate and farming scale, though both are based on the Changes in cropping systems have had same principles. In general, multiple cropping major, though not well understood, impacts on systems are managed to maximize total year- the inherent productivity of U.S. croplands. ly crop production from a unit of land, This The overall trend has been to greater produc- can be achieved by sequential cropping, which tion of fewer crops, fewer crop rotations, and is growing two or more crops in sequence on less crop variety. Some of the impacts on long- the same land area, and by intercropping, term productivity have been beneficial, such which refers to various ways of growing two as the reduced need for production from some or more crops simultaneously on the land. fragile lands, while some have been harmful, Generally, productivity in well-developed such as the increased erosiveness of row crops multiple cropping systems can be more stable Cropping systems will continue to change as and constant in the long run than in monocul- the social, economic, and environmental milieu ture. * Although individual crops in the mix- of agriculture changes. This section examines ture or sequence may yield slightly less than some cropping system changes that could work in monoculture, combined production per unit to sustain inherent land productivity on U.S. area can be greater with multiple cropped croplands. Multiple cropping is already prac- fields. The overall increased yields result ticed and is growing in popularity, partly as because the component crops differ enough in a result of the increased use of no-till tech- their growth requirements so that overlapping niques. New crops are receiving increased at- demands—whether for sunlight, water, or nu- tention, though for the most part they receive trients—are not critical constraints, Multiple little attention from the Federal Government, cropping, in effect, broadens the land’s produc- agricultural experiment stations, or agricul- tive capacity by more fully exploiting the tural faculties of universities. Finally, an ap- dimensions of time and space (Gliessman, proach that would integrate these two kinds of 1980), technologies, polyculture of perennial plants, is described. This technology is unlikely to be 112 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Only certain crop mixtures will produce bet- efficient use of the growing season and avail- ter yields under multiple cropping, Crop com- able water, and to avoid direct competition, a binations and sequences that make successful, second crop is planted after the first crop has efficient overall use of available resources are completed the major part of its development, considered complementary, One of the main but before it is harvested. Relay intercropping ways to achieve such complementarily is by of soybeans into no-till wheat is being practiced using sequential planting. For instance, in dou- as far north as Wooster, Ohio (Triplett, 1981). ble cropping, the second crop is planted soon The success of this intercropping depends on after the first crop is harvested. the correct combination of timing and other variables to avoid shading, nutrient competi- Double cropping soybeans after wheat or tion, or inhibition brought about by toxicity barley is a widely practiced multiple cropping produced by the decomposition of previous system for grain production in the longer grow- crop residues. ing seasons of the Southeastern United States. Recent advances in herbicides, short-season Farmers also can get complementarily in sys- cultivars (particularly soybeans), and no-till tems where two or more compatible crops are planting have led to increased double cropping grown simultaneously, either in rows, strips, in Delaware, Maryland, and the southern part or mixed fields. For instance, traditional corn, of the Corn Belt, including Kentucky, Illinois, bean, and squash systems grown in Mexico Indiana, and Ohio (American Society of show how three species can benefit from multi- Agronomy, 1976). ple cropping. All three crops are planted simultaneously, but each matures at a different rate. Double cropping requires careful manage- The beans, which begin to mature first, are ment—timely harvesting, the use of proper, followed by the corn and they use the young short-season varieties, alteration of standard corn stalks for support. The squash matures planting distances, and special selection of her- last, As the corn matures, it grows to occupy bicides to avoid residual toxic effects. In gen- the upper canopy, The beans occupy the mid- eral, climate and precipitation in the Western dle space and the squash covers the ground. United States are not suitable for most present Research shows that the system achieves im- systems of sequential cropping, North of lati- proved weed and insect control, And while the tude 37“N or above 600 m elevation, the short beans and squash suffer a distinct yield reduc- growing season limits the time available for se- tion, corn yields are higher than in comparable quential cropping, and rainfall is usually inade- monoculture. It is still uncertain whether the quate to permit good growth in a second crop, higher yields are the result of more efficient Further research with innovative crops, how- resource use or if some mutually beneficial in- ever, may change this picture. teraction is occurring between the crop com- The western regions of Washington, Oregon, ponents (Gliessman, 1980), and northwestern California are exceptions. In those regions, with their humid, cool summers ADVANTAGES and mild winters, multiple cropping is an The key to multiple cropping’s benefits is the established practice. The main combination intensity of the cropping pattern—i.e., draw- used is intercropping oats with red clover. In ing as much as possible from the land resource. fruit and nut orchards, small grains or annual Such systems need not abuse the land. With forage crops are grown between rows of new- proper design and operation, multiple-crop- ly established trees, Double cropping is also ping management can sustain soil fertility, practiced with vegetable crops, bush beans, or Depending on the multiple-cropping system sweet corn following early maturing annual used, potential advantages can include: crops. ● more efficient use of time and vertical Another way to grow complementary crops space, imitating natural ecological pat- is through relay intercropping. To make more terns, and permitting a more efficient cap- Ch. IV—Croplands ● 113

ture of solar energy and nutrients; ● difficulty building a fallow period into more organic matter available to return to multiple cropping systems, especially the soil system; when long-lived tree species are included; improved circulation of nutrients, in- ● increases in water loss caused by greater cluding “pumping” them from deeper soil root leaf surface areas; profiles when deep-rooted species are ● the possibility of unforeseen problems used; with one crop’s plant-produced toxins reduced wind and water erosion because harming other crops (allelopathy); of increased surface protection; ● damage to shorter plants from leaf, potential production from fragile lands branch, fruit, or water drop from taller when systems are designed to accom- plants; modate variable soil types, topography, ● higher relative humidity in the air than can and steeper slopes; favor disease outbreak, especially of fungi; reduced susceptibility to climatic variation, and especially precipitation, wind, and temper- ● possible proliferation of harmful animals ature; (especially rodents and insects) or plant reduced evaporation from soil surface; pathogens in certain types of systems. increased microbial activity in the soil; The most common objection to multiple more efficient fertilizer use through the cropping is that it does not fit into this Nation’s more diverse and deeper root structure in highly mechanized methods of agricuture. the system; However, as seen by the frequency of double improved soil structure, less likelihood to cropping in parts of the country, sometimes form hardpan, and better aeration and in- this is not true. Mechanization is easiest when filtration; farming operations can be performed uniform- reduced fertilizer needs because legume ly over the entire field. Most types of sequen- components fix atmospheric nitrogen; tial cropping require few modifications of nor- improved weed control because of heavier mal equipment. Machinery for producing two crop and mulch cover; and crops that are planted and harvested simul- improved opportunities for biological con- taneously and with the same implements,. as trol of insects and diseases because of is done with mixtures of forage crops, also re- component plant diversity. quires little modification. But when two or more nonforage crops are grown on the same DISADVANTA61S land at the same time, mechanization becomes Multiple cropping technologies can harm in- difficult because the operations done for one herent land productivity if misapplied. Sequen- crop must not damage the other crop(s) (Amer- tial cropping, for instance, of two or three ican Society of Agronomy, 1976, ) crops can mine the land of nutrients if fertilizer Although it seems that the biological and applications, legume rotations, green manures, physical advantages of multiple cropping often animal manures, or other fertility-building ac- outweigh the disadvantages, a range of social tivities are neglected. Other potential disad- and economic factors also influences the ac- vantages in multiple cropping in the United ceptance of multiple cropping technologies. In States might include: terms of social stability, multiple cropping competition for light, soil nutrients, or seems advantageous because it leads to a water; diverse agricultural system. Such a system is difficulties in mechanizing various opera- less susceptible to climatic fluctuation, en- tions (tillage, planting, harvesting, etc.); vironmental stress, and pest outbreaks. It also the potential to harm one crop component might be less vulnerable to swings in crop when harvesting other components; prices and markets. Multiple cropping also 114 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity demands more constant use of local labor and NEWLY DOMESTICATED CROPS provides a more constant output of harvested Several ways exist to broaden the plant re- goods over the course of the year. source base. First and most obvious, new Reported lower yields, complexity of ac- species could be domesticated. This presents tivities and management, higher labor de- both the greatest challenges and also the great- mands, and difficulty in mechanizing opera- est potential rewards, tions are factors that discourage modern farmers from some types of multiple cropping. All of today’s economically important crops Although these tangible disadvantages exist, were originally selected by pretechnological most of the problems involved in multiple crop- peoples. The traits for which they were se- ping are derived from lack of experience and lected, while refined in modern times, have knowledge of the workings of complicated shaped and dominated agricultural practices. agroecosystems. Additional research and Traits such as concentrated seed production, development could bring multiple cropping short ripening period, easy hulling, and into wider acceptance among U.S. farmers. palatability were selected because they made the plant more useful to humans. Some traits Potential New Crops necessary to the plant’s survival, such as pro- At present, less than 20 crops provide almost tective hull, were rejected in the process, 90 percent of the world’s food supply. Yet this however, and the plants became dependent on planet is believed to host 90,000 edible species. humans for survival. That means we rely on 0.025 percent of the available edible plants for our food (Myers, In developing new cultivars, different traits 1979), The number of species used to produce reflecting the needs of a technological and fiber is correspondingly small when compared land-limited society may need to be selected. with the number of plants available, Thus, cur- For example, the retention of naturally occur- rent food and fiber production for the world ring pest repellents may make economic sense rests on a narrow genetic base. An epidemic to a society capable of removing them during in any of the food and fiber species could cause processing, or the retention of perennial char- severe dislocations in local, national, and acteristics may make more sense to a society global economies, and could restrict the with permanent agriculture than to a pretech- amount of food and fiber available on the world nological slash and burn culture. Moreover, by market. Developing some new crops could help starting with plants that have never been do- avoid such catastrophes. mesticated, the entire germ plasm base of the Beyond broadening the food crop’s genetic species is available for manipulation. Geneti- base, new crops hold potential to expand our cists will not be faced with the problem of try- food supplies as world population continues ing to find and restore useful genes that were to grow. The ability to achieve such an increase selected against by their ancestors and lost to in a world with a paucity of new prime agri- the current gene pool. cultural lands, increasingly expensive energy, and impending water shortages may well de- Some plants that appear to have potential for pend on technological advances in new-crop domestication include the herbaceous peren- production. New crops could help establish nials of the high prairies, the salt-tolerant high levels of sustainable production from non- halophytes of the Southwest, and certain prime lands, drylands, and energy-constrained leguminous trees and shrubs adapted to en- farming operations. vironmental extremes. Ch. IV—Croplands ● 115

OLD CROPS REVISITED teristics, or the natural symbiotes of plants— The second way to expand the agricultural i.e., the bacteria and fungi of the soil—can be plant resource base is to revive cultivars that altered. In the former case, such characteristics had previously been cropped but which were as perennialism, salt tolerance, and cold tol- neglected or abandoned for reasons not related erance may be added to a cultivar’s genetic in- to their value as food, fiber, or fuel. The prime heritance. In the latter case, a number of example of the economic potential inherent in possibilities exist, including: 1) breeding sym- neglected “old” crops is the soybean. It was biotes for leguminous plants to maximize their spurned in the United States from the time of nitrogen-fixing capacity; 2) breeding free-living its introduction by Benjamin Franklin until nitrogen-fixing organisms adapted to specific University of Illinois scientists established two soil types and plants to maximize nitrogen comprehensive soybean research programs in availability; and 3) breeding those fungi, such the 1920’s. It is now the world’s premier pro- as mycorrhiza, that symbiotically inhabit root tein crop. hairs and not only prevent the intrusion of harmful organisms but also make available Traditionally grown crops can be lost to po- otherwise insoluble nutrients. litical and social pressures, Amaranth was outlawed by the explorer/conqueror Cortez in PoIymdture of Perennial Plants his efforts to subdue a culture. Winged bean has long been neglected because many con- Throughout the history of agriculture, with sider it a “poor man’s crop. ” Many times these few exceptions, tillage has rarely been prac- traditional crops are better adapted to the local ticed productively on the same site for more soil and climatic conditions than introduced than a few centuries. This occurs because till- species. Indigenous plants commonly are more age opens the land to erosion (slow, if careful- resilient to stress, as well, They have evolved ly practiced, and rapid, if poorly practiced), defenses for local disease and pest organisms A new technology being investigated in the and are efficient users of available resources, hope of developing a sustainable form of agri- whether water, soil nitrogen, or other nutrients. culture is based on the polyculture of her- In the Southwestern United States, which is baceous perennial plants (Jackson and Bender, faced with declining water tables and increas- 1980). Polyculture is the growing of two or ingly salinized soils, it seems appropriate to ex- more intermingled crops simultaneously. Of ploit such native resources as tepary bean, buf- course, polyculture of perennials has long been falo gourd, and jojoba whenever possible. In used for forage. But current research focuses order to do this, germ plasm from promising on grain production using plants not now re- plants would have to be gathered and assessed, garded as food crops but which, through ge- and the most promising strains identified. Then netic selection and perhaps genetic engineer- selective breeding and genetic manipulation ing, may become productive cultivars. Such could be used to develop economically viable cultivars are being sought because: 1) the strains that could be propagated rapidly search for genes to alter current high-yield through the use of cell culture or other modern grain crops into perennial plants has been un- techniques. successful and may be impossible because lit-

tle of the original genetic diversity of those MANIPULATING EXISTING PLANT% plants has been preserved; and 2) current A third way to expand the plant resource grains are adapted to grow in monoculture. base is to manipulate current cultivars so that Herbaceous perennials are nonwoody pkmts, they are better adapted to environmental such as grasses, that live for 3 or more years, stresses. Here again, modern genetic tech- regrowing each spring from existing roots or niques will play a major role: either the plant rhizomes. That means the seed can be har- itself can be manipulated for desired charac- vested without interfering with the next year’s 116 Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

growth potential. Several economically impor- to rejuvenate the following spring. However, tant cultivars, such as cotton and sorghum, are if breeding strategies are successful in increas- in fact tropical herbaceous perennials that are ing the overall biomass of the perennial, a grown in the United States as annuals. Peren- larger part of the photosynthate could be allo- nials should not be confused with biennials cated to seed production. which develop a rosette the first year and one The anticipated (albeit mostly hypothetical) or more reproductive stalks the second. benefits of a successful perennial polyculture Except for sorghum, which is grown as an include: annual, there has been little genetic selection 1, Because tillage essentially would be to improve seed yield of herbaceous perennials. eliminated, perennial agriculture would Research on these plants has been done main- reduce soil erosion risks and might actually by range agronomists who seek forage yield ly foster the accumulation of soil. increases. Thus, the perennials for which seed 2. The efficiency of water use and water con- yield data exist are those grasses that have been servation by the perennial ecosystem selected and managed to put their energy into would be near maximum. Irrigation could leaf production for forage rather than into seed decline, thereby helping to avert water production. Perennial grasses that have rel- shortage problems in ground water over- atively poor forage output but good seed yields draft areas. (1,000 lb/acre) generally have not been studied 3. The application of manufactured fer- or selected for. Thus, herbaceous perennials tilizers would be reduced because of the for which seed yields have been measured pro- use of legumes in the polyculture, the duce only one-third to two-thirds as much as decrease in the denitrification which oc- annual cultivars such as winter wheat. How- curs when a climax grass cover is in place, ever, the ability to improve these yields seems and the decreased loss of nutrients great with available plant breeding technolo- through soil erosion. gies. 4. The use of manufactured pesticides could While yields are lower, the protein content be reduced where polycultures replace per seed of many herbaceous perennials is monoculture because the latter are more much higher than for corn or wheat and may susceptible to damage. The new cultivars approach the protein level of soybeans. This could be bred to retain naturally occurring high protein content in the seed should be pest and disease resistance and the perma- maintained during breeding programs so the nent crop cover might eventually suppress plants would be valuable for both animal and growth of weeds. human nutrition. 5. Fuel consumption would be reduced because of the elimination of frequent tillage. It is encouraging to note that perennials cross 6. Substantial areas of land not used for more freely with close relatives than do an- crops because of serious erosion potential nuals and their hybrids are more likely to be could be brought into production, fertile. In addition, chromosomal sterility is rare in perennials—i. e., gene elimination, addition, or transfer is relatively easy. The incidence of polyploidy (having a chromosome Conclusions number that is a multiple greater than two) is Changes in cropping systems can have major high in perennials, and in the grass family, in impacts on land productivity. Multiple crop- particular, there is a correlation between effi- ping is one way, when practiced carefully, to cient vegetative reproduction and high percent- expand the land’s potential. Another option is age of polyploidy. to increase the size of the productive crop The most serious drawback to seed yield im- base—that is, to bring different types of crops provement in perennials may be the energy into wider use. Either option, in the proper cir- cost to maintain their roots over the winter and cumstances, could be used to enhance land —.

Ch. IV—Croplands ● 117 productivity, but further research and develop- share of the value of the crops produced in the ment efforts may be needed to fully exploit the United States. system’s potentials. The importance of adequate water supplies for agriculture will be highlighted in the up- Drip Irrigation coming decades as industry, urbanization, and recreation compete with agriculture for finite Irrigation is an important tool for improving water supplies (see fig, 13). And as water con- land productivity, The united States has more flicts become apparent, more attention will than 45 million acres of irrigated farmland. Ir- focus on various new water-conserving tech- rigated agriculture uses more than 150 billion gallons of water a day, accounting for nearly nologies for irrigated agriculture. 80 percent of the Nation’s total water use (U.S. One such technology is drip (sometimes Water Resources Council, 1978). Because ir- called trickle) irrigation. Drip irrigation is the rigated crops tend to be high-value products, frequent, slow application of moisture to the irrigated lands account for a disproportionate soil near the roots of a plant or tree in amounts

Figure 13.—Water Consumption by Functional Use

1.3% 7.8 % , 7.7 ”/0

1975 Total 2000 Total 140 ‘ I 135 133 130 — I I 120 — I 115 I 110 — 104 I I 100 “ Agriculture 90 — 80 — c Steam electric generation —o 70 — 60 — c I 50 I —o Manufacturing and minerals — I m 40 30 — I 20 “ I Public lands and other 10 — 9 0 i I i I I 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1985 2000

SOURCE U S Water Resources Council, 1978 118 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity just sufficient to meet its needs (University of Yield increases (generally). California, 01979). Systems vary in design, but Fewer weeds because of less wetted area and generally consist of a head or control station therefore less need to weed and use her- and main and lateral lines with openings at in- bicides. tervals along the length of the hosing or pipes, Fuel savings. Typically, these openings are fitted with emitters, nozzle-like devices that regulate water Reduced fertilizer inputs. flow from lateral lines into the soil, The system More efficient use of rainfall because drip also includes provisions for filtration with or irrigation does not saturate the soil to the without chlorination, since clean water is es- point where it cannot absorb more. sential to maintain open drip lines. In addition, a liquid fertilizer injector pump, a fertilizer Can be used on steep terrain when other holding tank, and hardware to regulate water forms of irrigation cannot—a particular pressure are usually necessary. bonus where industrialization and urbanization are encroaching on acreage formerly Some growers have equipment that permits devoted to farming. automated operation of the watering system, and some use the technology in conjunction Furnishes erosion control and offers shelter with plastic mulch to limit evaporation. Indeed, to livestock when used to establish wind- were it not for the development of suitable breaks in pastures and around homesteads, plastic components for the technology as a feedlots, and farms, whole, drip irrigation would probably still be in its infancy. Conclusions Drip irrigation is, however, not really a new Drip irrigation is, in general, a versatile tech- technology. It was developed in Germany and nology. Growers, however, must adopt systems elsewhere in Europe beginning about 1860, and particularly suited to their circumstances. by the 1950’s and 1960’s was in widespread use Systems choice varies not only with the crop in greenhouses in several countries. Commer- in question but also with the location and type cial outdoor applications were first achieved of soil, the local climate, the water source and in Israel during the 1960’s, In 1969, drip irriga- its distance from the field, and whether what tion was introduced to the United States on a is to be grown is an annual or a perennial, For 5-acre avocado orchard in northern San Diego example, sandy soils require more frequent ir- County (University of California, 1979; Gustaf- rigation than clay-rich soils because the latter son, 1980). By 1980, an estimated 494,000 acres have less capacity to hold water. Shallow, of U.S. farmland were irrigated by drip systems gravelly soils are not suited to trickle tech- (Howell, 1981). Although 305,000 of these acres nology. were in California, drip irrigation also is being Drip irrigation is initially more expensive to used in more than 30 other States, some not install than furrow or sprinkler irrigation and arid or semiarid (Hall, 1980). Drip irrigation is so is more capital-intensive (Schuhart, 1977). being used to reduce economic risk of seasonal The large amount of plastic pipe required, and or prolonged drought and to assure crop qual- the energy required to pump water through the ity, system, offset some of the energy savings when drip systems are compared with others. Thus, Advantages of Drip Irrigation although drip systems have been used for ● Water savings of 15 to 30 percent as com- alfalfa, cotton, feed corn, wheat, and sorghum pared with sprinkler or furrow irrigation on a demonstration basis, their major use to because of reduced runoff and evaporation. date in the United States has been for high- value crops. * ● Lower seedling mortality and greater uni- *A partial list of crops grown with drip irrigation includes: formity of plants, bushes, or trees. avocados, apples, table and wine grapes, strawberries, grapefruit, Ch, IV—Croplands ● 119

Once installed, drip systems must be main- mental Protection Agency exist that can be in- tained in good condition for efficient perform- jected into the lines. ance. This often entails flushing the lines and, The strengths and weaknesses inherent in where emitters are used, requires keeping them drip irrigation are not, however, the only fac- clean. Emitter clogging caused by chemical tors affecting its use. Institutional arrange- buildup from water contaminants or fertilizers, ments also act as either incentives or con- dirt, rock, silt, sludge, algae, slime, salt, or roots straints. For example, the availability of exper- is, in fact, one of the big problems associated tise from agricultural extension services, both with this technology. Federal and State, can help to build a clientele Drip irrigation is somewhat labor-intensive for new technology. Subsidies encourage dis- because the emitters must be inspected fre- semination, too. In some areas, USDA has of- quently and because breakdowns in the system, fered 50- to 75-percent cost sharing for the in- not being readily visible, easily can be over- stallation of trickle systems for certain pur- looked. Furthermore, drip may be inappropri- poses such as windbreaks (Conrad, 1981). ate where water has a high iron or sulfur con- Irrigation is an important tool in maintain- tent because the buildup of these eIements in ing and enhancing the productivity of U.S. the lines fosters the growth of slime-producing croplands. But water use efficiency varies bacteria that can clog emitters. greatly with the system used and how it is Drip systems also can have problems with managed onsite, Because drip irrigation sup- salinity buildup and damage to the water lines plies water directly to the plant root zone, it from wildlife, insects, or soil-dwelling animals. can provide increased water and energy effi- Salinity problems vary greatly depending on ciency as well as reduced erosion. the soil type and precipitation. Animal damage, too, varies by site. In some areas of Florida, for example, wire worms are such a threat to the Breeding Salt-Tolerant Plants lines that drip irrigation can be impractical. Similarly, in some areas gophers, mice, rabbits, Most commercial crops cannot survive in coyotes, and other creatures enjoy either play- salty soils, Until recently, little scientific atten- ing with the pastic lines and pipes, coiling tion was paid to this problem because fresh- themselves under them, chewing on them, or water and land seemed limitless. But now drinking from them. scientists have begun investigating salt-tolerant plants. Their efforts involve both identifying Some plastic materials are less attractive than the most salt-tolerant strains among conven- others to animals, and putting as much as pos- tional crop species and studying the genetics sible of the equipment underground tends to of wild species that live and reproduce in discourage land-roving animals. But these and oceans, seashores, estuaries, deltas, salt other measures, such as setting out water pans marshes, and saline desert soils, Studying these in the fields for visiting wildlife and spraying halophytes and how they have adapted to sa- repellents on the lines, are only partial reme- line environments may help scientists develop dies. No pesticides registered by the Environ- plant varieties, either through cross-breeding or genetic engineering, to survive in salty conditions. lemons limes ,roes, oranges, tangelos, macadamia nuts, papaya, peaches, pears, persimmons, walnuts, almonds, boysenberries, If salt-tolerant crops could be developed, the tomatoes, cucumbers, celery, potatoes, peppers, melons, sweet corn, asparagus, eggplant, peas, lettuce, ornamental trees and implications would be far-reaching: shrubs, bedding plants, cacti and succulents, bulbs, carnations, gladioli, poinsettias, chrysanthemums, radishes, apricots, pis- ● currently productive, irrigated land such tachios, plums, cherries, pecans, sugarcane, pineapple, bananas, as that found along the lower Colorado mangoes, olies, figs, passion fruit, Christmas tree, etc, Street River—e.g., the Imperial and Coachella medians and turf —both for homes and golf coures -- have also been successfully managed in this way, Valleys—could remain in crop production 120 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

even though its source of irrigation water was becoming increasingly saline; ● saline water drained from underneath irrigated fields in drainage-problem areas such as the San Joaquin Valley and the lower Gila River Valley, Ariz., could be reused or recycled, thereby reducing costs of saline-water disposal; and ● coastal areas where ground water overdraft has caused saltwater intrusion into aquifers—e. g., along the Gulf of Mexico— could continue to be agriculturally productive, as could arid inland areas where the ground water is naturally saline—e,g., the Pecos River Valley, Tex., or the Arkan- sas River Valley, Colo,, Salt-tolerant cultivars would not solve salinity problems, but they could provide an oppor- from the commercial cultivar by having unique tunity for enhancing the productivity of some ways of transporting ions and different ways lands. Research on salt tolerance is increasing, of accumulating and excluding salt. When the though not substantially. Epstein, et al. (1980), two cultivars were crossed, they produced a conducted research on barley, wheat, and to- plant that could survive, flower, and set fruit matoes to determine their tolerance to saline the size of a small cherry tomato when irrigated water. The findings on these three crops are with 70 percent seawater (Epstein, 1980], This promising, experiment is important because it indicates that salt tolerance can be transferred from wild Ongoing Research species to those of commercial value. Barley has long been known as a salt-tolerant Other research shows that tissue and cell grain. With only undiluted seawater for irriga- culture techniques may speed up the process tion, but supplemented with nitrogen and phos- of identifying and selecting salt-tolerant plant phorus, the most salt-tolerant barley had an cells, Through these techniques, individual average yield of 962 lb/acre, 23 percent more plant cells can be introduced into a culture than several standard cultivars tested. Normal medium that is designed to support the growth annual barley yields are under 1,780 lb/acre. of cells having a desired trait, such as resist- Wheat does not have as high a salt tolerance ance to high salt levels, Those cells that sur- as barley. Nevertheless, Epstein’s tests found vive are regenerated into whole plants, a possi- that 34 lines of spring wheat were able to pro- ble, though sometimes difficult task, Adult duce grain when using water having 50 per- plants then can be used to propagate additional cent salinity, a level lethal to commercial plants—all with the ability to withstand the wheat, Other researchers feel that they can im- desired stress selected for–namely, salt tol- prove these results. erance, While commercial tomatoes showed little salt Some evidence suggests that some salt-tol- tolerance, a wild variety, Lycopersicon erant crops may be enhanced by inoculating cheesmanii, from the high-tide level on the their roots with certain mycorrhizal fungi Galapagos Islands, shows promise. The small, (Menge, 1980). Such fungi are known to help economically useless tomato differs markedly plants obtain soil nutrients and survive during Ch. /V—Croplands 121 drought stress. In addition, some legumes can surface water regionally. If production occurs fix nitrogen from the air through a symbiotic close to freshwater resources, there is the risk relationship with rhizobial bacteria strains that that the freshwater would be polluted with salt. live in nodules on the plant’s roots. The ap- This might lead to an expanded salinization propriate selection of rhizobium may enhance problem, resulting in some negative economic, the salt tolerance of these plants (Epstein, et social, and environmental impacts. al., 1980). Conclusions Researchers know little about how salt- tolerant plants survive. The growing interest ● Salt-tolerant crops probably do not perform in genetic engineering should provide some as well as plants not under salt stress. There- answers, but for now the search for mild, salt- fore, it is important to prevent salinization tolerant relatives of modern crops will be im- of soils and not merely to rely on the possi- portant in selection and breeding activities. To bility of switching to salt-tolerant plants as date, screening existing varieties has only soils are ruined. limited potential because these plants have ● Salt-tolerant plants could help free high- been bred for certain desirable traits such as quality freshwater for conventional irrigated disease resistance and yield, and in the process have lost much of their original, natural crops or for human consumption. variability. A worldwide search for halophytes ● The search for wild, salt-tolerant relatives of such as the tomato in the Galapagos Islands modern crops will be important in the selec- could increase chances of developing other tion and breeding activities for developing c;rops with built-in salt tolerance. However, desired traits in plants. The tropics have the native vegetation in saline wetland and desert greatest variety of plant species but native ecosystems is under heavy pressure in the vegetation in these countries is being de- United States, and most lesser developed coun- stroyed rapidly. This is narrowing the tries, the part of the world having the greatest chances of finding the genetic variability variety of plant species, Destroying wild wet- needed for salt-tolerance research and agri- land and desert vegetation narrows the cultural research generally. chances for finding the genetic variability ● Locally, use of salt-tolerant crops probably needed for salt-tolerance e research. would lead to increased soil Salinization, increased salinity of the ground water, and in- Impacts creased salinity of surface water regionally. [f new varieties of crops that are substantially more tolerant to salinity can be developed, they Computers in Agriculture could be used most effectively on lands that are already nonproductive because of soil saliniza- Computers can affect land productivity by tion or on lands that have no major, readily enhancing a producer’s ability to make sound a~’ailable freshwater resources. These areas are management decisions. New applications for mostly in the West, where the increasing com- computers are emerging rapidly. However, petition over water for agriculture, energy, three areas that relate directly to land produc- mining, and growing urban populations makes tivity are visible today: 1) storing and making it unlikely that large quantities of freshwater available vast amounts of agricultural informat- will be available to reclaim salinized soils or ion, 2) assisting in farm management deci- to supply new agricultural areas. sions, and 3) continuing education. Widespread use of salt-tolerant plants could Computer-based information systems poten- lead locally to increased soil salinization and tially can offer farmers and ranchers quick ac- the increased salinity of ground water and cess to the thousands of bulletins, pamphlets, raiscs the chances of increasing the salinity of books, and periodicals generated annually for 122 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity the agricultural community. Because computer conveniently on disks or cassettes and used systems are updated easily and have thorough wherever appropriate facilities exist. Few indexing and search functions, they make it educational programs tailored for farm and possible for users to select relevant informa- ranch use have been developed, however, tion from the vast amounts available. Most of though computer question-and-answer courses the agricultural information systems now func- on a wide variety of topics have been included tioning are geared to specialists and research- in Control Data’s agricultural business center, ers rather than to farm operators. Farm-ori- If region-specific models are developed to ented systems, however, are being developed. help farmers calculate complex tradeoffs be- An experimental system in Kentucky, “Green tween short-term benefits and long-term costs, Thumb, ” is designed to disseminate weather, or vice versa, it is likely that agricultural uses market, and other production and management will be better matched to the capability of the information directly to farmers through devices land. However, the economics of making in- that print the information on home television teractive computer programs or models that screens. A private firm, Control Data Corp., has are site specific enough for such purposes have included interactive information services—in yet to be determined, If the models must be which the computer responds to a farmer’s made so specific that they cover a region with specific questions—as part of its prototype too few customers to pay for the development “agricultural business center” in Princeton, costs, Government subsidies may be necessary. Minn. As the work of risk-taking entrepreneurs pro- Computer programs to assist farmers in man- gresses, the economics of computers being aging farm production have been developed at used to enhance long-term land productivity several universities. Notable examples are will become more clear. Michigan State University’s Today’s Electronic Planning (TELEPLAN), the University of Soii Amendments Nebraska’s Agricultural Computer Network (AGNET), Virginia Tech’s Computerized Man- Soil amendments—also known as soil con- agement Network (CMN), and the Fast Agri- ditioners and soil additives—are materials cultural Communications Terminal Systems other than conventional fertilizers or organic (FACTS) in Indiana. Similarly, some commer- matter that are added to soils to change them cial firms are developing computer-based physically, chemically, or biologically to im- management aids for their clientele. Programs prove productivity, These products have pro- for determining optimum livestock feeding liferated as manufactured fertilizers have be- rates, irrigation timing, fertilizer applications, come more expensive, but the efficacy of most and pest management strategies are available, of them is doubtful, To some extent, they are as well as programs to help farmers compute associated with organic farming, though only profit potentials for full season and double some organic farmers use them and traditional cropping, and judge the economic feasibility farmers use them as well. of land and equipment purchases. The Control With rare exceptions, university agronomists Data prototype offers 10 computer-based man- who have tested these products have found that agement systems that can assist farmers in yield increases, if any, do not justify the in- keeping financial or production records and creased production costs. This does not mean marketing and loan applications, among other that all unconventional soil amendments are services. without promise. Some biological soil amend- The computer’s ability to allow direct dialog ments, such as inoculation with nitrogen-fixing between student and teacher, at any time and bacteria suited for a particular legume, or in- location, and at the student’s chosen pace, oculation with mycorrhiza after a soil has been gives it great potential as an educational fumigated, have proven to be cost-effective al- medium. Educational programs can be stored ternatives to manufactured fertilizers (Halliday, Ch. /V—Croplands ● 123

1981; Menge, 1980). Some chemical amend- cals before 1962, when the Federal Food and ments, such as water-holding starch copoly- Drug Act was amended to require scientifically mers (“super-slurper”) have shown great prom- acceptable evidence for efficacy of pharmaceu- ise in preliminary tests in soils where tree tical products before they could be offered in seedlings are planted. Certain zeolite minerals interstate commerce. Some States have moved have been proven to improve soil water-hold- or are moving toward a similar philosophy to ing capacity and to enhance fertility by increas- govern intrastate commerce in soil amending the soil’s ion exchange capacity. These ments, Oklahoma, for example, now requires naturally occurring fine-grained minerals have proof of effectiveness before an agricultural been the subject of intensive agricultural re- product of this kind may be registered for sale search in Japan, Bulgaria, and Russia, but have in the State. In Wisconsin, labeling claims can- yet to attract much attention from agricul- not be made without research data to back turalists in the united States. them up. Nebraska recently amended its law encompassing soil amendments to require But many of the soil amendments available manufacturers to list every ingredient on the have been called “snake oil’’ –that is, their label. value is very doubtful. The situation with soil amendments resembles that of pharmaceuti-

CURRENT CROPLAND EROSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

In the coming years, various innovative ap- vegetative controls such as winter cover crops, proaches to conserving land productivity will sod-based rotations, contour farming, and per- become increasingly important. But existing manent vegetative cover. This section briefly conservation technologies will continue to play describes these practices and comments on a key role in good land stewardship. Many of their potential. these technologies were developed in response to the 1930’s Dust Bowl. Planting belts of Engineering Practices sheltering trees to break the winds, learning to terrace sloping fields to control runoff and ero- TERRACES sion, improving on farm management to keep Terraces are earth embankments, channels, protective cover on the land—these are conser- or combinations of embankments and channels vation techniques with long useful histories. built across the slope of the land at suitable Although they sometimes are not enough to spacings and with acceptable grades. They re- protect the most fragile and erosive lands, such duce soil erosion, provide maximum retention traditional conservation technologies have of moisture for crop use, remove surface runoff been widespread, important influences on at a nonerosive velocity, reduce sediment con- many acres of American farmland. tent in runoff water, and/or reduce peak runoff rates. Water Erosion Control Terraces are the best mechanical erosion practices for controlling sheet and rill ero- control practice available that allows continu- sion fall in two broad categories: 1) engineer- ous row-crop production. They may trap up to ing practices, including the construction of 85 percent of the sediment eroded from the such structures as terraces, dams, diversions, field, although they cannot stop erosion be- or grade stabilization structures; and 2) manage- tween terraces. Analysis of the 1977 NRI data ment practices, including crop residue man- on terraced cropland shows that terracing was agement, seeding methods, soil treatment, till- responsible for reducing erosion an average of age methods, the timing of field operations, and 71 percent compared with similar untreated 124 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity land (Miller, 1981). The NRI data also indicate ft long. Extrapolations from the 1977 NRI data that 27.5 million acres of cropland had terraces show erosion rates on land treated with con- in 1977. tour farming average 61 percent less than on corresponding untreated land (Miller, 1981), However, several problems associated with The effectiveness of contouring, however, de- the terracing have not been overcome. Terrace clines as the inherent potential for erosion in- construction may cause extreme surface com- creases. In certain cases, climatic, soil, or topo- paction and remove topsoil from large areas graphic conditions limit the application of con- of the field. Uneven drying, pending, and se- tour farming. vere erosion in different parts of the same terrace channel are also common, especially for CONTOUR STRIPCROPPING the first 3 to 5 years after construction. In addition, problems with terrace alinement resulting In contour stripcropping ordinary farm in point rows and poor maneuverability of ma- crops are produced in relatively narrow strips chinery, and maintaining grass waterways, of variable or even width that alternate with have reduced terrace use. close-growing meadow crops. The strips are oriented approximately on the contour and per- The design and construction of a terrace sys- pendicular to the slope. Contour stripcropping tem are expensive and require skilled profes- reduces erosion about 50 percent more than sionals, Installation costs of $400 per acre are contour farming, The slowing and filtering not uncommon for uniformly spaced cut-and- action of the sod strips reduces runoff water fill terraces with necessary drains (Shrader, velocity and soil loss. The exact width of strips 1980), Further costs include loss of land to ter- needed for adequate erosion control depends race backslopes, loss of crops during construc- on soil types, percent slope, length of slope, and tion year, higher labor and energy costs to work the crop rotation, The practice is commonly terraced fields, and costs of controlling insect used in combination with diversions on long pests that may be harbored in backslope grass slopes of 400 ft or more. Contour strips are strips. In addition, maintenance is mandatory relatively inexpensive to install, but require to retain an adequate terrace cross section for farmers to keep headlands, waterways, and proper functioning of the system. turn strips in grass, thus reducing crop acreage.

DIVERSIONS GRASS WATERWAYS Diversions differ from terraces in that they Grass waterways are one of the most com- consist of individually designed channels mon conservation practices. They are simply across a hillside. They are used to protect bot- grass-covered strips of land running at inter- tomland from hillside runoff, to divert runoff vals the length of the fields. They provide a away from active gullies, to reduce the number path for surface runoff from fields, alone or in of waterways, and to reduce slope length so combination with diversions or terrace sys- that contour strips can control erosion. The tems. Maintaining grass cover is a major prob- 1977 NRI show that approximately 2.4 million lem in row-cropped fields because the exten- acres of cropland contain diversions. sive use of herbicides and their transport in surface runoff often kills the grass. Management Practices CONTOUR FARMING COVER CROPS The practice of planting on a line perpendic- Cover crops are crops planted between regu- ular to the slope of the land is termed contour lar cropping periods to protect the soil from farming. This practice can be used at relative- water and wind erosion. Fields planted in ly low cost, Contour tillage can reduce average tobacco, potatoes, vegetables, and silage corn soil loss by 50 percent on moderately sloping can benefit from planting cover crops once the fields (2 to 8 percent slope) not more than 300 major crop is removed, .-

Ch, /V—Croplands ● 125

— m“ —------/-—.—

. z - ~..--->- ‘ . . .—v——.—— .- -

I —-*-:-f””- I -—--.-+a- .- , ‘“ ‘“% ......

..- . . . -. . .

Photo credit USDA —Soil Conservation Service

Contour stripcropping on Class II Kenyon and Ostrander silt loam

The crop selected should be adapted to the distributed over the rotation. On many soils, soil, climate, and the quantity of organic mate- crop rotations favor higher yields and im- rial produced, and easily worked into the soil proved crop quality. at the time of seeding. Cereal grains (rye, oats, anci winter wheat) are popular cover crops. The use of sod-based rotations can be traced to such notables as Thomas Jefferson, How- CROP ROTATIONS ever, sod-based rotations have decreased signif- Sod-based crop rotations, growing dense, icantly in popularity under modern agricultural ground-cover crops in rotation with other conditions, in part because severe reductions crops, are used to minimize wind and water in the number of farmers engaged in livestock- erosion. They also can be used to provide some based agriculture have reduced the need for nitrogen for later crops, Total soil loss is greatly forage crops normally planted in such rota- reduced, although soil losses are not equally tions. 126 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

MANAGIMINT OF SOIL FERTILITY erosion and conserving soil moisture become High soil fertility allows greater numbers of more apparent. Extrapolations from 1977 NRI plants, and larger plants, at all stages of growth. data show erosion rates on erosive lands The resulting increase in plant cover provides treated with minimum tillage alone average 69 additional soil protection, particularly during percent less than the corresponding rates for the critical early period when soil is most ex- untreated cultivated land (Miller, 1981). posed (Troech, et al., 1980). Cover Crops Fertility management in modern agriculture often depends on precise soil testing and tailor- Cover can also be maintained by planting ing practices to specific fields, soils, and crops. cover crops when land is bare between regular But estimates of fertilizer needs based on gen- crops. Cover crops hold soil in place and thus eral knowledge of crop requirements, soil type, reduce erosion. Cover crops are well suited to and a field’s erosion, crop, and fertilization his- humid areas and may also be used on irrigated tory are likely to be imprecise. This can lead land where irrigation water can give quick ger- to underfertilization or overfertilization, which mination and growth. They are less practical may be extremely costly and result in subopti- in drier areas where wind erosion can be mum yields, increased erosion, and increased severe because they compete for limited sup- water pollution. Major techniques to enhance plies of soil moisture. However, one practical fertility include the use of manufactured or method to avoid the moisture depletion prob- nonmanufactured fertilizers, the use of addi- lem is to plant crops that grow before winter tives such as lime or gypsum to control soil pH, kill, leaving plant residues for protection with technologies for controlling soil moisture, crop no additional water requirements, Similar re- rotation, and the use of adapted crop varieties. sults also can be obtained by using a herbicide to kill a crop after it has provided some pro- Wind Erosion Con-rol tective growth.

A number of practices are used to control Mulches and Nonvegetaive Cover wind erosion, many of which parallel or are Mulches, nonvegetative, and processed cov- similar to practices for controlling water ero- ers can protect areas of severe wind erosion sion. Establishing and maintaining cover is the or areas with high economic return potential. “cardinal” rule of wind erosion control. Costs prohibit widespread application of this method of wind erosion control, However, it Stubble Mulch and Minimum TiIlage is applicable for dune stabilization, providing Stubble mulch and other variations of mini- erosion control on vegetable and speciality mum tillage are used to maintain as much crop crop lands, and to “blow out” or “hot spot” ero- residue on the land surface in a standing or sion problems in the large dryland agricultural near-erect condition as is compatible with areas. planting procedures for the next crop. The Reduction of Field Lengths residues slow the wind at ground level, reducing its power to detach and carry soil particles, Another fundamental way to reduce wind This technology has been known for decades, erosion is to reduce field lengths along the pre- but is becoming more feasible with the develop- vailing wind direction. ment of improved herbicides and new conservation tillage machinery (see previous discus- Stripcropping sion of conservation tillage and no-till). Wind erosion can also be reduced with strip- The acceptance of stubble mulch and mini- cropping, where strips of erosion-resistant mum tillage continues to grow each year as the crops are alternated with strips of ero- methods’ advantages for both controlling wind sion-susceptible crops. Stripcrops run at right Ch. IV— Croplands ● 127 -—— angles to the prevailing W inds. The actual interfere with the large machinery and center- width of strips needed to control wind erosion pivot irrigation systems. Plants used for wind- varies with topographic features such as the breaks also can compete for water and com- length, degree, and exposure of slope in rela- monly produce no increases in crop yield. For tion to prvailing winds, and with factors af- these reasons, many shelterbelts planted in the fecting field erodibility~.g., soil texture, clod- 1930’s have been torn out and few new shel- diness, roughness, and wind velocity and direc- terbelts are being planted. tion. Stripcropping has disadvantages, however, as less acreage is available for the highest PRODUCE SOIL CLODS OR AGGREGATES profit crops and insect problems may increase. AND ROUGHEN THE LAND [compatibility with modern, large farm Rougher, more aggregated soils are less likely machinery also has made stripcropping objec- to suffer wind erosion. During regular tillage tionable to some farmers. and planting operations, the soil will be rougher if minimum or stubble mulch tillagc prac- Windbreaks and Shelterbelts tices are used. Special planters such as the fill Windbreaks and shelterbelts which reduce planter for row crops and the deep furrow or field lengths and lower windspeeds also help hoe drill for small grains also produce effec- control wind erosion. The effectiveness of any tively rough soils. Emergency or “last resort” barrier depends on the wind velocity and direc- tillage can produce roughness and cloddiness tion and on the shape, width, height, and por- on both cropped and fallow land. It can be ac- 0sity of the harriers. Nearly any plant that complished with a number of common t ill age reaches substantial height and retains its lower implements, including chisel plow’s and field leaves can be used as a harrier. Tree wind- cultivators. breaks have most application on sandy soils and in areas where there is substantial rainfall. LEVEL OR BENCH LAND Narrow rows of tall-growing field crops, peren- Land is often leveled or benched for purposes nial grass barriers, snow fences, solid wooden of water erosion control, irrigation and mois- and rock walls, and earthen hanks ha havee also ture conservation. These land modifications been used for windbreaks. also provide substantial wind erosion control The US e) of windbreaks to control wind ero- because field lengths are shortened and erosion sion is declinin, in part because windbreaks forces may be reduced on slopes and hilltops.

INVESTMENT IN EROSION CONTROL: CURRENT STATUS AND EFFECTIVENESS Studies investigating the effectiveness, pro f- Data from USDA on natural resource invest- itability, and investment trends in conservation ments in agriculture show’ that ‘‘soil and water practices show a marked decline in the use of conservation improvments on U.S. farms, ‘‘permanent conservation structures and a which experienced rapid expansion from 1935 tendency for such practices to be uneconom- to 1955, are now deteriorating in ovrall value ical for many farmers under a wide variety of and probably also in effectiveness. ” Net invest- (conditions. At the same time, the use of these ment in permanent conservation measures on conservation practices which are an integral farms, accounting for estimated depreciation, part of crop production systems has increased declined from $9.9 billion in 1955 to $7.9 billion rapidly and has been shown to be profitable in 1975 (hot h figures are 1972 dollars. ] [There under a broad range of earning conditions. is some disagreement over these figures; the 128 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity rate of disinvestment depends on assumed de- Such management practices have spread rap- preciation rates.) Total private or non-Federal idly throughout the U.S. agricultural sector. investment in permanent conservation meas- They tend to require smaller initial investments ures on all lands declined from $4.95 billion than permanent erosion control methods, with in 1955 to $4.3 billion in 1975 (USDA/ESCS, much of the investment made in special equip- 1979). ment required to implement the practice. (Con- sequently, such investments do not show up These figures reflect a tendency for farmers as conservation investments in the Economics, to remove, or not maintain, permanent meas- Statistics, and Cooperatives Service figures ures such as terraces, diversions, windbreaks, quoted above.) Some management practices, and permanent vegetative covers, as well as such as contour plowing, involve higher oper- decisions not to expand such methods to unim- ating costs than conventional practices and proved land. The high costs of such methods, may not produce sufficient gains in land pro- their incompatibility with large machines, and ductivity to maintain profits on a short-term the lack of demonstrable yield improvements basis (USDA Land and Water Task Force, associated with the practices act against their 1979). use. Although Federal cost sharing has been and continues to be available to implement Because costs for conversion to productivity- such practices, long-term projections indicate conserving systems—e. g., equipment pur- that in many cases farm incomes can decline chases and higher current operating costs— because of installation of the permanent soil are incurred over an indefinite period of time, conservation structures. cost sharing to promote them is difficult. Loan Recent studies of the economic feasibility of programs or tax credits to promote equipment installing terraces, in particular, document purchases might prove to be more effective in- losses to farmers who use them, One study of centive mechanisms. However, the major con- Illinois farmland found that over the expected straints to installing these practices do not ap- 20-year life of a terracing system, construction pear to be up-front costs but rather the lack of on gentle slopes incurred a net cost because documented evidence that the benefits of the the erosion prevented was not great enough to practices exceed their costs, and the high levels significantly alter crop yields. On steep slopes, of management (and education) required for initial building costs were so high that losses carrying out the practices successfully (USDA in yield could not offset the costs, even though Land and Water Task Force, 1979). severe erosion was occurring (Mitchell, et al., One study found that the use of chisel plow- 1980). ing in all areas of the Corn Belt where it would While the public benefits of installing ter- be profitable—77 million acres of farmland— races and other structural or permanent prac- would reduce average soil losses by 43 percent, tices may justify their costs, current incentives from 5.17 to 2.96 tons per acre per year (Taylor, for their use do not appear to be sufficient to et al., 1978). Conservation tillage practices motivate private producers. have, in general, been shown to reduce production costs, particularly those associated with Land management that integrates conserva- labor and fuel. tion practices into normal cropping activities, on the other hand, appears to be capable of Integrated erosion control practices also ap- maintaining (and, in some cases, increasing) pear to have greater potential for reducing ag- farm income while providing conservation gregate amounts of erosion than permanent benefits. Such practices may include conser- control measures. An analysis of the 1977 NRI vation cropping systems, use of cover and data, based on the universal soil loss equation, green manure crops, subsoiling, crop residue demonstrates that without existing “supporting manipulation, conservation tillage, intensive practices” (contour farming, stripcropping, grazing management, and range seeding, and terraces), erosion would have been only Ch. /V—Croplands ● 129 . .—

~ percent higher than it was in 197’7. But with- Producers’ economic incentives to use I~rac- out the use of “cover and management practices that control erosion call for installing t ices, ” which proiride greater conservation ben- these practices on lands where the potential efits than conventional methods, erosion could return is greatest. These lands are not necessar- have been 13 percent higher than it was in 1977 ily the same as those that are most susceptible (Miller, 1981). to erosion. Thus, an appreciable part of the most fragile cropland is being farmed without any major erosion control practices. Of the 146 However, extrapolations from NRI data also million acres of cropland with an inherent ero- suggest that no erosion control practice, or sion potential* of over 15 tons per acre per combination of practices, would be capable of year, 20 million had terraces installed as of bringing soil losses to conventionally accept- 1977, and 51.7 million were being treated with able tolerance values on the Nation’s most ero- contour farming, minimum tillage, or crop- sive land. The NRI show 23.5 million areas of residue use, leaving 74.3 million acres, or 51 croplanci to be eroding at rates of over 15 tons percent of the land considered fragile under per acre per year—these acres account for fully this definition, without these practices (Miller, 77 percent of the erosion exceeding conven- 1981). tional T-values of 5 tons per acre per year. The T-value represents a useful management target Although 73 percent of the terraces existing for soils eroding in excess of 5 tons per acre as of 197’7 had been installed on land ~vith an per year, but it is generally considered to be inherent erosive potential of over 15 tons per higher than actual soil formation rates. (A more acre per year, only 34 percent of the contour- extensive discussion of erosion impacts on pro- ing, minimum tillage, or crop residue use oc- ductivity is presented in ch. 11 of this report.) curred on these lands (Miller, 1981). Yet even the most effective combination of practices—e. g., a combination of contour farming, minimum tillage, and crop-residue use— would not reduce erosion rates on these soils to 5 tons per acre per year (Miller, 1981).

AND POSSIBILITIES FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES Projections for technological advances in the such systems, thereby providing protection to control of erosion focus primarily on improv- additional thousands of acres. New design of ing and refining current control methods. Im- subsurface sweep tillage to incorporate vibra- provernents that enhance the feasibility and tory action to the blades’ movement through profitability of currently known practices have the soil could increase weed kill and produc- significant potential for influencing rates of tion of cloudiness on the soil surface and pres- adoption by farmers ancl increasing aggregate ent erosion, Similarly, improving the design of amounts of farmland protected from water and planting equipment to provide easier, more ef- W’ ind erosion. ficient planting in heavy residues could in- The greatest potential for improving current crease acceptance of conservation tillage systems and protect more acres from erosion. technologies lies in improving conservation tillage systems. Increased effectiveness of chemi- Cover crops may hold promise of providing cals for cent rolling weeds without damaging greater erosion control if technologies for seed the following crop through residual pesticide pelletization and encapsulation are improved carryo~er could increase the acceptance of to assure that seeds have water and nutrients 130 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

for quick and even germination and vigorous quantifying erosion standards for reporting seeding establishment. severity of erosion, would improve erosion control by providing concrete information on Basic research to determine optimum poros- the value of control techniques for maintain- ity of narrow windbreaks and efforts to select ing soil productivity. and develop more hardy adaptable tree and shrub species and perennial grass barriers for New technology for forecasting wind erosion use in narrow windbreaks could revive farmer could greatly improve our ability to cope with interest in using this method of controlling the problem. Using probability functions to wind erosion. convert basic wind erosion equations to sto- chastic projections would be required. Remote The effectiveness of emergency or “last- sensing support would also be needed. resort” tillage could be improved by research to provide guidelines on the use of different im- Continued efforts in weather modification plements. Also, development and design of might have potential for reducing the wind ero- new machines capable of forming clods sion problem, especially those aimed directly through compaction and then stabilizing them at preventing drought by enhancing precipita- with an adhesive before spreading them back tion. But weather modification is justifiably on the land surface could greatly improve ero- controversial. Improved irrigation technologies sion control. to reduce seepage, evaporation, and transpiration losses could also reduce wind erosion in- Effectiveness of land modification tech- directly, by conserving scarce ground water re- niques can be improved by additional investi- sources, thereby reducing the need to revert gation of the influence of topography on ero- to dryland farming in many areas of the sion and by developing better design criteria country. for benching or other topographical modifications. Improved methods for calculating optimum site-specific fertility management decisions Methods for reducing crop residue decay by could aid farmers in achieving maximum crop exercising control over microbial activity and cover to minimize erosion and produce optimal by treating residues with petrochemicals simi- yields, The increasing availability of computers lar to wood preservatives could provide im- makes improvements in mathematical models proved erosion control. Impacts on the microb- for analyzing fertility –e.g., models that ac- ial population would have to be assessed to count for the fertility effects of soil moisture avoid any adverse consequences to soil produc- management—of significant practical value to tivity from their loss. agricultural producers. Developing improved data on the impact of erosion on long-term soil productivity, and

CONCLUSIONS

Farmers and agricultural scientists have de- and shelterbelts—have become less common as veloped a range of technologies to protect the U.S. agriculture has undergone a fundamen- inherent productivity of the Nations’s crop- tal change, becoming more and more produc- land. Yet several processes, erosion being fore- tive, more labor efficient, and more dependent most, continue to degrade this essential re- on fossil fuels. The apparent correlation of source. Many of the conservation practices these trends seems to suggest that production were developed decades ago, and some of the and conservation are antithetical. However, a most important of these—for instance, terraces closer look at some innovative farming tech- Ch. IV—Croplands ● 131 niques suggests that production and long-term depends partly on public funding. However, productivity can be maintained or enhanced the development of technologies to increase si mu] t a neously, production while sustaining inherent productivity may not occur until this is made an ex- These productivity-sustaining technologies plicit, primary goal for the agricultural re- are generally changes in management rather search system and until some mechanisms arc than additions of engineering structures, and developed for screening and testing fundamen- often their conservation significance is over- tally new technologies. looked. Improved management of soil fertili- tj~, which leads to better crop cover and thus Both the new productivity-sustaining tech- reduces erosion, is one example, Perhaps the nologies and the traditional conser~~ation prac- most promising of the productivity-sustaining tices typically are used first and most on the technologies for the near term is conservation Nation’s best croplands, This means that crop- tillage. lands with steep slopes, drought hazards, poor The product it’ity-sustaining technologies typ- drainage, and other problems—the sites where icaIly require new management skills and may the improved technologies are most needed— come into use slowly for this reason. Many are are often not benefiting from conscr~~ation still in early stages of development and require technologies. Thus, the adoption of produc- more research before they can be widely used. tivity-sustaining technologies b} o~~ncrs anc] Whether this research will be done in time to operators of these lands is a critically impor- avert further degradation of U.S. croplands tant goal for Government polic~.

CHAPTER IV REFERENCES

~merican Societ]’ of’ i!gronomj, “Multiple Crop- Department of Agriculture 1966 and 1976 ~)es- ping, Procee{lings of .5~mposium, Special ticide surveys, 1981. Pub]i(;ation No. 27, 1976. Epstein, E., “Impact of A~)plied Genetics on A,gri- Boosa]is, M. G., and Cook, C. E. “Plant Diseases, ” cultura]ly Important Plants: M i neral Metabo- Conscr~ation Tiliage: The Proceedings of a Na- lism, ” OTA background paper, 1980. tional Conff~rence, Soil Conservation Society Epstein, E,, et al., “Saline Culture of Crops; A of America, 1973. Genetic Approach, ” science 210:399-404, 1980. Conrad, Daniel 1.., U.S. Department of Agriculturc- Fenster, Charles R., “Stubble Mulching, ” Con.~er- SCS, persona] communication, January 1981. ~’ation Tillage: A Handbook for Farmers, Soil (;osper, Harold R., “Soil Taxonomy as a Guide to Conservation Society of America, 1973, pp. Economic Feasibility of Soil Tillage Systems 29-34. in Reducing Non Point Pollution, ” Natural Re- Forster, D. Lynn, “Adoption of Re(]uced Tillage and sources Economic Division, Economics and Other Conservation Practices in the I,ake Erie Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agricul- Basin, ” Department of Agricultural Economics ture, 1979. and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State U n i\’er- Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, sity and Ohio Agricultural Research and De- Organic and Conventional Farming Com- velopment Center, unpublished m imeo, 1 ~ 79, pared, report No. 84, october 1980. Giere, John P., Johnson, Keith M., and Perkins, JobIl Council on Environmental Quality, National Agri- H., “A Closer Look at No-Till Farming, ” En-

cultural Lands Study, Interim Report No. 4, vironment, July-August 1980. Soil Degradation: Effects on Agricultural Pro- Gliessman, Stephen R., “ Multiple Cropping Sys- ducti~it~, 1981, tems: A Basis for De~eloping an Alternati~re Crosson, Pierre, Con.mrvation and Con~,entional Agriculture, ” OTA background paper, 1980. Tillage: A Comparati~~c Assessment, Soil Con- Gustafson, C. Don, “1 Iistory and Trends in Drip Ir- servat ion Society of America, 1981. ligation, ” Atocado Gro~irer IV(1 2), De(; ember Eichers, Theodore, personal communication, Eco- 1980. nomi(; s and Statistics Service, data from U.S. Ha]], B. J., Farm Advisor, University of California, 132 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

San Diego, personaI communication, February Menge, J. A., “Mycorrhiza Agriculture Technolo- 1980, including “Labor and Cultural Manage- gies, ” OTA background paper, 1980. ment of Drip Irrigation” and “Management of Miller, Arnold, “Expanding Crop Production and Drip-Trickle Irrigation, ” undated mimeo- Soil Erosion: Land Resources, Conservation graphed material. Practices and Policy Choices, ” U.S. Depart- Hall, G. F., Daniels, R. B., and Foss, J. E., “Rate of ment of Agriculture, Office of Budget, Plan- Soil Formation and Renewal in the USA,” in ning, and Evaluation, draft, June 15, 1981. Determinants of Soil Loss Tolerance, Soil Sci- “Impact of Expanding Agricultural Produc- ence Society of America Symposium, Fort Col- tion of Soil Erosion: Land Resources, Produc- lins, ASA Special Publication No. 45, 1982, tion Practices and Policy Choices, ” prepared Halliday, Jake, “Agrotechnologies Based on Sym- for the Structure of Agriculture Project, U.S. biotic Systems That Fix Nitrogen, ” in Innova- Department of Agriculture, 1978. Computed tive Biological Technologies for Lesser DeveJ from National Resource Inventories data, oped Countries, an Office of Technology As- USDA-SCS. (In preparation) sessment report for the U.S. Congress, Sep- Mitchell, J. Kent, Branch, John C., and Swanson, tember 1981, Earl R., “Costs and Benefits of Terraces for Harkin, J. M,, Simsiman, G. V., and Chesters, G., Erosion Control,” Journal of Soil and Water “Description and Evaluation of Pesticidal Ef- Conservation, September-October 1980, pp. fects on the Productivity y of the Croplands and 233-236. Rangelands of the United States, ” OTA back- Myers, Norman, The Sinking Ark Pergamon Press, ground paper, 1980. 1979. Hayes, William A., “Double Cropping, ” Conserva- Nebeker, Gordon, personal communication, 1981. tion Tillage: Handbook for Farmers, Soil Con- IVo-TilZ Farmer, March 1981. servation Society of America, 1973, pp. 35-4o. Nowak, Peter J,, “Impacts of Technology on Crop- Helm, Jack, Soil Conservation for Howard Coun- land and Rangeland Productivity: Managerial ty, Md., personal communication, 1980. Capacity of Farmers, ” OTA background paper, Howell, T. A,, Bucks, D. A., and Chesness, J. 1980, data cited were taken from “Effect of L,, ’’Advances in Trickle Irrigation, ” Proceed- Agricultural Land Use Practices on Stream ings of Second National Irrigation Symposium, Water Quality: Sociological Factors in the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Adoption of Best Management Practices, ” 1981, pp. 69-94. study conducted by Iowa State University Jackson, Wes, and Bender, Marty, “New Roots for under EPA grant No. R806814-01-2. American Agriculture, ” OTA background Oelhaf, Robert C., Organic Agriculture: Economic paper, 1980. and Ecological Comparisons With Con ven- Kohl, Daniel H,, Lockeretz, William, and Shearer, tional Methods (Montclair, N. J.: Allanheld, Georgia, “Organic Farming in the Corn Belt, ” Osmun & Co. Publishers, Inc., 1978). Science 24, Feb. 6, 1981. Office of Technology Assessment, Pest Manage- Larson, William E., “Protecting the Soil Resource ment Strategies, Volume I, Summary, October Base, ” journal of Soil and Water Conservation 1979. 36(1):13-16, January-February 1981. Owens, Harold I., and Patterson, Ralph E., “Infor- Lockeretz, W. R., et al., “Organic and Conventional mation and Education, ” Conservation Til]age, Crop Production in the Corn Belt: A Com- Soil Conservation Society of America, 1973, parison of Economic Performance and Energy pp. 227-230. Use for Selected Farms, ” Center for the Biol- Phillips, R. E., et al., “No-Tillage Agriculture, ” Sci- ogy of Natural Systems, Washington Universi- ence 208, June 6, 1980. ty, St, Louis, Me., June 1976. Schuhart, Anne, “Irrigation Drop by Drop, ” Soil McCormack, D. E., Young, K. K., and Kimberlin, Conservation 43(3), U.S. Department of Agri- I.. W., “Current Criteria for Determining Soil culture, October 1977. Loss Tolerance, “ in Determinants of Soil Loss Shrader, W. D., personal communications, 1980. Tolerance, Soil Science Society of America Taylor, Robert, Frohberg, Klaus K., and Seitz, Symposium, Fort Collins, ASA Special Publica- Wesley D., “Potential Erosion and Fertilizer tion No. 45, 1982. Controls in the Corn Belt: An Economic Anal- Ch. IV—Croplands ● 133

)sis, ” ]our. of Soil and t’lTafer Conser\’ation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, I.and and Water July-August 1978. Task Force, 1979, pp. 326-327. Triplett, Jr., G, B., and Van Dorcn, Jr., D. M., “Agri- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office [~f Planning (;ulture Without Till age, Scion tific American, and Evaluation, hfinim um Tillage: A Prelinl- Januar} 1977. inar~~ Technolog~’ Asscssmen t, Ma~’ 1975. Triplett, Gloter, member of project ad~isory panel, U.S. Water Resources Council, The IVation U’aier personal [communication, 1981. Resources: 1975-2000, \ol. 1, summarjr, De(:em- Troe(:h, F. R., Hobbs, J. Arthur, and Donahue, Roy ber 1978. L., Soil and Water Conscr~~ation for Producti\i- Universit}r of California, Di\ision of Agricultural t~r and En~ironn]enta/ Protection (Englewood Sciences, Drip Irrigation, leaflet No. 2740, Cliffs, N. J.: Prenti(;e Hall, 1980). April 1979. Trousc, A., U.S. I)epartment of Agriculture Tillage Wauchope, R. D., McDowell, L. 1.., and Ilagen, 1,. I.aboratory, Auburn University, persona] com- J., “Weed Control in I.imited Ti]]a~e S~stems,” munication, 1981. forthcoming in Weed Control in ].imited 7’ill- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Sta- a,gc S~rsfems, draft, 1981. bilization and Conservation Scrxice, “National Wauchope, R. D., “The Pesticide Content of Sur- Summary Evaluation of the Agricultural Con- face Water Draining From Agricultural Fields scr~~ation Pro,gram—Phase 1, 1981, p. 80. –A Review, ” Jour. of En~7, Qua]. 7(4), October- U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Basic Statisti[;s: December 1978. 1977 National Resource Inventories (N RI],” re- Witt\ver, Sylvan 1]., ‘‘Research and Technolog~ vised February 1980. Newis for the 21st Centur~,” in Gk)bal AspecIts U.S. I)epartrnent of Agriculture, Study Team on Or- of Food Production, and Michigan Agricul- ~an ic Farming, l?eport and Re[Jon]x~zenda~ior]is tural Experiment Station Publication No. 9502, on Organic Farming, July 1980. September 1980. LI. S, Dtll)artment of Agri(:ulturc, Economics, Sta- Worsham, A. D., “No-Till Corn-Its out look for the tistics, and Cooperatives Service, “National Re- 80’s, ” J%oceedin,gs of the corn and sorghum source Capital in U.S. Agriculture, ’ G. Parelis, Research and ProductitTitJT (;OII i~?ron(:e, 1980. 1979. Chapter V

Technology Adoption

Photo credit” U.S. Department of Agriculture Contents

Page Introduction ...... !...... ~.... 137 Land Tenure and Ownership ...... ! ...... 137 Managerial Capacity ...... 139 Information Diffusion ...... + ...... 140 Communications Technologies ...... 141 Emerging Communications Technologies ...... 142 Constraints on Technology Adoption ...... 144 Conflicting Goals ...... 4 ...... 144 Inadequate Information ...... 145 Farmers Unable to Adopt Practices ...... 145 Influencing Technology Adoption ...... t. . . . . 146 147 Conclusions ...... + ...... O . 990 .. 00 Chapter Preferences ...... 148

List of TabIes Table No. Page 20. Adoption of Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland by Type of Owner and Land Quality ...... 138 21. Most Important Source of Soil Conservation Informationby Users of Conservation Practices ...... Q . . . 690 ..690...... 141 22. perceived Characteristics of Soil Conservation Practices ...... 146

Figure Figure No. 14. Farm and Nonfarm Population by Age, 1979 ...... 139 .— .— ..——

Chapter V Technology Adoption . .—

INTRODUCTION

Why do some farmers adopt technologies, ment skills. Actually, though, many farmers while their neighbors do not? What attracts and ranchers lack some or all of these re- some farmers to publicly subsidized conserva- sources, For instance, a conservation program tion programs? Could these programs be mod- may use loans or cost sharing to make various ified to attract more participants or different conservation practices affordable or profitable participants? Considering that a number of the for farmers. But if a farmer lacks management major technologies with great potential to pre- skills or fails to integrate the practice into the serve and enhance agricultural land produc- overall farming operation, his yields and prof- tivity are neither new nor extremely compli- its may actually drop. As a result, even if a cated, quest ions such as these assume consid- farmer receives cost-share funds from the Fed- erable importance. eral Agricultural Conservation Program to con- Many factors affect how quickly farmers and vert part of his cropland to no-till farming, it ranchers adopt new technologies, Various does not mean that he will stick with the new characteristics, including age, education, man- system. If he does not master the technology agement capacity, and the size and type of farm in the first 2 years, or suffers weed problems that reduce yields and profits, he may revert operation may predispose a producer’s views toward a given technology. Other important to conventional methods when the cost shar- factors are the cost of the technology and the ing is discontinued. And he may become con- rate of return on the investment, the complex- vinced that the fault lies in the conservation ity of the technology, its compatibility with cur- practice, and so be more likely to reject future rent farm size and operating methods, and the new technologies or programs. Clearly, under- accessibility of information. standing the producers’ managerial capacity and other factors that influence their decisions In the past, conservation programs often on the adoption of productivity-sustaining tech- were designed as though all farmers had simi- nologies is an important step in influencing the lar abilities and motivations, and similar re- management of the Nation’s agricultural lands. sources of capital, knowledge, and manage-

LAND TENURE AND OWNERSHIP

Farm ownership in the United States is con- tion of their acreage to other farmers (Lee, centrated. Even though more than half the 1980), acres in the country are farmland, they are owned by just 3 percent of the population As farm ownership and farm operation have (USDA, 1981). Only 25 percent of the Nation’s become increasingly separate, questions have farmland is owned by full owner-operator arisen regarding the effects of this trend on (those who own and operate all their own land conservation. Some experts have hypothesized without renting extra acres). Another 30 per- that 1arger corporate farm structures will have cent is owned by nonoperator lancllords. The unfavorable consequences on land steward- remaining land is owned by farmers who rent ship. They suggest that landlords, particularly supplemental acreage or who rent out a por- absentee landlords, are more likely to plan for

137 138 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

short-term objectives and to favor maximum tions having less erosive land as well as more current income over investments in resource conservation practices. * protection (Lee, 1980). Nonfamily corporations appear average in Some research has supported this view. One their adoption of minimum tillage and residue- study, for example, found that a significant management practices, Family corporations number of absentee landlords in the Corn Belt and partnerships with family members general- were unaware that conservation measures ly had higher use of those conservation prac- would improve farm income over time. Re- tices than did other owners (table 20]. Because search in Iowa showed that owner-operators these practices have been promoted as energy are more likely than renters to use conserva- and labor saving as well as soil conserving, tion practices because owners are more likely they may not be the best indicators of an own- to reap the long-term benefits. Similarly, er’s conservation ethic. owner-operators benefit more from institu- In summary, the relationship between land tional factors, such as economic incentives and tenure and conservation remains unclear. It ap- regulations designed to improve the short-term pears, however, that farm structure alone has profitability of conservation practices (Nowak, little direct relationship to soil loss rates, 1980). In light of the increasing significance of Recent research at the national level, how- absentee landownership, more information is ever, finds no significant differences in soil needed on the relationship between various losses among different types of ownership leasing arrangements and the use of conserva- groups. This work, which used the 1980 Na- tion practices. Tenancy arrangements deter- tional Resource Inventories data and 1978 data mine the distribution of the costs and benefits from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s of conservation investments between owners (USDA’s) Land Ownership Survey, did find dif- and operators, and so may encourage or dis- ferences in average erosion by ownership in courage conservation. The shift from crop- 4 of the 10 U.S. farm production regions, but share leasing to cash leasing, for example, may attributed the differences to physical rather influence conservation efforts, As cash leasing than management factors (Lee, 1980). increases, it could create an incentive for the In 5 of the 10 regions studied (the Northeast, exploitation of soil resources. Corn Belt, Delta, Southern Plains, and Moun- Further research is necessary before policy- tain regions), there was a relationship between makers can be certain about how land tenure higher incomes and lower erosion rates, In the affects land stewardship. And while a national Corn Belt, for example, full owner-operators perspective on land tenure issues relative to with net incomes of $20,000 to $49,000 aver- aged 9.4 tons an acre less erosion than did own- ‘ Nati{)nall}, onl}’ 4(] ]]cr[:ent (If [.ulti~:lt~xi ( roi)lan(i [)i~ned I)} oi)crators i n the $2(),00(3 to $49, ()[)() ra IIHC is [ ] a \s i fiw I as ha~ i ng ers with farm incomes below $3,000. The cor- a n [!ros io n IIaza r(i, wt] I Ic 5{) i)f;r( .t!n t () ~ ( u I t I ~at [xi c roi)la nd relation seems to result from the larger opera- () w’ 11 [:ci h~’ (Ji)erato rs I)(;1 (J\N’ $3, ()()() is l;tt)f;lf;{l f] rosi Oil-p ro nc,

Table 20.—Adoption of Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland by Type of Owner and Land Quality

Erosion hazard land with Nonerosion hazard land with Type of owner conservation practices conservation practices Percent of acreage Sole proprietor 48.0 531 Husband-wife 45.0 47.3 Family partnership 51.6 589 Nonfamily partnership 46,4 532 Family corporation 566 55.4 Other corporation . . 470 51.3 Other . 49,3 504 SOURCE Linda K Lee, “Relationships Between land Tenure and Soil Conservation, ” OTA background paper, 1986 . . . . .

Ch. V— Technology Adoption 139 —

soil conservation would be useful for policy essary for implementation of conservation planning, regional and local analyses are nec- strategies.

MANAGERIAL CAPACITY A producer makes management decisions in Figure 14.— Farm and Nonfarm Population three major areas: production and organiza- by Age, 1979 tion, administration, and marketing. In fulfill- ing these management functions, the operator can supplement his own capabilities, and those 90 of his family and employees, with professional 80 Farm Nonfarm management services and institutional re- 70 sources supplied through Government pro- 60 grams, financial institutions, educational institutions, and farm cooperatives. 50

Age and education are associated with man- 40 agement capacity and with attitudes toward the adoption of conservation technologies. The 30 U.S. farm population has an older age struc- 20 ture than the nonfarm population (fig. 14). In 10 1979, the median age of the farm population was about 34 years compared with about 30 0 Under 20 20 to 34 35 to 64 65 and over years for nonfarm residents. Farm populations also had a lower proportion of young adults Age categories SOURCE Peter J Nowak, “Impacts of Technology on Cropland and Rangeland and a higher proportion of middle-aged per- Productivity Managerial Capacity of Farmers OTA background paper sons than the nonfarm group (Nowak, 1980). 1980 The relation between age and managerial ca- Farmers with more education often translate pacity as it relates to maintaining productiv- this into greater managerial skills that are re- ity often depends on the “newness’ of the flected in larger and more prosperous farms. technologies employed (Nowak, 1980). Govern- Importantly, there also is a direct relationship ment conservation strategies that involve between managerial capacity and the use of adopting and maintaining new technologies productivity-enhancing soil conservation prac- may be less successful among older farmers. tices (Rogers, 1980). On the other hand, many conservation practices hale been in existence for some time. One trend that could have great impact on Older farmers with experience using these sustained land productivity is the genera] practices often can integrate them successful- movement among farmers and ranchers to- ly into their overall farming operations, ward continuing education, or life-long learning. Today’s producers are better educated and Age and education among farmers are highly are more open to information than werc earlier correlated. In 1970, 72 percent of farmers aged generations. 55 to 64 years had not finished high school. However, only 12 percent of young farm op- It cannot be assumed that information nec- erators (20 to 24 years) had failed to finish high essarily changes attitudes and behavior. But in- school, and more than 25 percent had some col- formation is a first step toward action; if a lege training (USDA, 1980). In general, the farmer or rancher receives a thorough brief- amount of forma 1 education is directly associ- ing on, for instance, some innovative, land- ated with managerial capacity (Nowak, 1980), sustaining technology such as conservation till- 140 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Rangeland Productivity

age, he is more likely to adopt that technology mot; one simulation suggests that information than if he does not. Many variables, including added an average of 12 percent to a farmer’s the adequacy of the information, will affect his annual profits (Debertin, et al., 1976). decision. Although many potentially valuable new It is difficult to measure the value of infor- communications technologies exist or are mation. Some experts estimate that 25 to 60 being developed, in general they seem to offer percent of the expected returns on public in- more than they deliver—i.e., designing new vestment in agricultural research would not be communications tools seems easier than put- realized without extension involvement (Araji, ting them to use. This seems especially true of et al., 1978). Both intuition and research in- efforts to bring some of the new electronic dicate that at an individual level, the farmer media into rural areas, and illustrates that it or rancher who receives information will be is important to address both technological and a more capable manager than the one who does sociological questions simultaneously.

DIFFUSION

Diffusion of agricultural technology to the aged process of dissemination, training, U.S. producer is accomplished mainly through and provision of resources and incentives. sector, three broad channels: the private public This centralized system is effective in pro- institutions, and peer groups. Private tech- moting certain types of innovations. But it may to nology suppliers tend develop and support not innovations that can adequately disseminate only those technologies that make substan- evolve as they diffuse and those that originate tial profits. On the other hand, public research from sources other than the center. Diffusion is and information more generally dissemi- processes also need to be shaped by user de- nated for those technologies being developed mands, in interactive arrangements where and supported by public institutions. problems are solved by innovations and The third channel, peer group action, is par- sources of information among the users, Such ticularly important because even the most in- a decentralized diffusion system would depend dependent farmer is subject to peer approval mainly on peer networks for transferring tech- or disapproval. Changes in conservation be- nological innovations among local groups havior that are not supported or reinforced by (Rogers, 1980). or the farmer’s neighbors community opinion- Research into producers’ rates of adoption leaders are unlikely to occur or be maintained of new technologies suggests that innovative (Nowak, 1980). producers often hear about new ideas from The dominant system in the United States to agricultural experts and specialized technical diffuse agricultural technology is the USDA’s publications. Those who are slower to adopt Federal Extension Service, in coordination new practices usually get their general infor- with the 50 State agricultural extension serv- mation from mass media, Early adopters tend ices. This is the world’s largest public invest- to use the more expert sources at all stages in ment in a diffusion system and is guided by the adoption process, while slower adapters three basic principles (Rogers, 1980): tend to use peer sources (Bohler, 1977). ● the innovation to be diffused is fully de- According to an Iowa study that related veloped prior to its diffusion; farmers’ information sources to the number of ● information diffuses from a center of ex- conservation practices being used, those farm- pertise out to its ultimate users; and ers who had adopted five to eight practices ● diffusion is directed by a centrally mar- were much more likely to use Government — —

Ch. V— Technology Adoption ● 141

agencies as their major source of conservation (Nowak, 1980). And information is passed via information (table 21). On the other hand, there specific communication networks to which in- was a more random distribution of information dividuals have differential access. Further- sources and a dependence on friends and rela- more, individuals have different base levels of tives among the medium and low users of con- knowledge as well as the capacity to assimilate servation practices (Lee, 1980). This suggests new knowledge. that decentralized diffusion may be an impor- Thus, merely increasing the flow of knowl- tant approach for promoting technological in- edge into a group of farmers, the typical pro- novations among certain producers in U.S. cedure in current educational programs, may agriculture. magnify existing knowledge gaps rather than Access to knowledge and information are not decrease them. General education programs distributed homogeneously across any group will not necessarily inform farmers equally of of farmers or ranchers. Producers have vary- the existence of a problem, create a need to do ing circumstances and capacities for effective something about it, or instill the capacity to ac- adoption and implementation of technologies. cept and implement technical or economic as- Information is neither available nor diffused sistance. simultaneously through all parts of a system

Table 21 .—Most Important Source of Soil Conservation Information by Users of Conservation Practices — Sources of information (percent of total) Friends and TV, radio, and Farm supply Farmer Govern-ment - Use relatives print media dealers organizations agencies Currently using one or two practices...... -13.6 9.1 13,6 4.5 59,1 Currently using three or four practices. . . . 17.8 14.3 3.6 7,1 57,1 Currently using five to eight practices. . 0.0 15.0 5.0 0.0 80.0 SOURCE Linda K Lee ‘Relatlonshlp Between Land Tenure and SOII Conservation. ” OTA background Paper 1980 Information iS from interviews with 135 induviduals

COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES Agricultural communications is in a period various new electronic media, especially com- of rapid change. Worldwide there has been a puters and other interactive systems, seem par- staggering increase in the volume of scientific ticularly suited to fulfill these needs. information produced, agriculture being no ex- Communications technologies are one step ception. And the information is more special- removed from actually affecting land produc- ized and changeable than ever before, with tivity. They affect the farmer, making him more new research, even new fields of inquiry, being or less willing to adopt new technologies, The added every day. most basic communications medium in agri- The other strong influence on the growing culture, word-of-mouth, is still the producer’s and changing content of agricultural com- primary way to gain, share, and evaluate in- munications is its clientele. There are fewer formation. But woven around primary inter- agricultural producers today than ever before— personal communications is a complex, dy- a decline from a peak of 13.6 million in 1916 namic system for moving agricultural informa- to about 3.9 million in 1978 (Evans, 1980). As tion to and from farmers and ranchers and a total of the U.S. population, the farm segment helping them make management decisions. fell from 23,2 percent in 1940 to 3,7 percent Some of a producer’s sources are public, such in 1978 (USDA, 1980). Yet because of the nature as agriculture study programs in schools, the of modern agriculture, farmers have greater in- local, State, and Federal extension systems, and formation demands than ever before. Thus, the other State and Federal agencies. Farmers and 142 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity ranchers also receive information through non- public media, including the telephone (found in 93 percent of U.S. rural farm homes); commercial farm periodicals (about seven are received in the average U.S. farm home); various breed organizations, commodity groups, and other agricultural organizations; agricultural supply and service dealers and marketers; and radio, television, and newspapers (Evans, 1980). But beyond these traditional communications methods lies a whole range of new communications channels born of recent advances in electronics. This does not mean that the importance of interpersonal and print communications will diminish in the future. Rather, the new electronic media complement the mainstay channels of voice and paper.

Emerging Communications Technologies

Computer Applications Computer technologies are already affecting farms and ranches in many ways, although few producers actually own personal systems. Ac- cess to computer information is through farm management decision aids, computer-based information systems, computer-based instruc- Photo credit U S Department of Agriculture tion, and personal computers. Computers are Douglas Duey, Extension Service farm management especially useful because they are highly adapt- specialist and Wayne Nielsen of Lincoln, Nebr., look over computer printouts, with which Duey will help Nielsen able, easy to update, and allow the user to tailor analyze his cash flow and overall farm business situation information and tasks to his individual needs.

Radio ly available to sell agricultural information to stations that cannot afford farm reporters. Radio is a prime information source for producers because it supplies timely reports of Telephone=ReIated Systems news, weather, and commodity market prices. As farm populations have declined, however, Telephones are one of the main communica- broadcast stations have reduced farm program- tions links for rural people. They are interac- ing, Today, relatively little information about tive, accessible, easy to use, flexible, and technical aspects of farming is aired. Also, the relatively low cost, Phones can be used to link kinds of stations most active in farm program- the home television with a computer data base ing have changed from clear-channel and other (known variously as viewdata, videotext, and large stations toward smaller rural stations. wired teletext). For instance, Green Thumb, There has been some increase in farm broad- sponsored jointly by the National weather casting on FM stations in recent years, but it Service, USDA, and the Kentucky Cooperative is not prominent. Independent commercial Extension System, is a pilot information serv- program services—farm radio networks that ice for farmers, With a TV and relatively inex- distribute news and features—are increasing- pensive telephone/TV interface device, the Ch. V— Technology Adoption ● 743 . —— farmer has access to area news, local weather, like viewdata, however, this is a one-way, and timely data on pest management, agricul- noninteractive system and can handle only a tural economics, forestry, animal science, plant limited data base. Television broadcast trans- pathology, and horticulture, However, the cost lator stations are low-power stations that of such systems is still unknown, receive incoming TV or FM signals, amplify them, convert them to a different output fre- Other phone-computer links might also prove quency, and retransmit them locally. They re- useful. “Advance calling, ” for example, allows quire relatively low capital inputs and low an extension advisor to call a computer, enter maintenance at total cost much lower than a message about impending pest infestations, cable systems, especially in rural areas. A ver- approaching storms, etc., then enter the phone sion of translator technology—mini-TV-has numbers of all those those should receive the proven successful in bringing TV to rural message. Alaska. Mini-TV, teamed with videocassettes, Finally, the telephone still has great poten- gives local users greater control over program- tial in its basic “voice” format, especially for ing than standard translator systems. continuing education and extension. TeleNet, for example, links county and regional exten- Cable and Satellite Transmission sion offices throughout Illinois with specialists Cable television (TV) may be the most signifi- a t the University of Illinois; it also operates as cant of the new mass communications technol- a “party line” for group calling, educational ogies because it greatly expands the scope of meetings, etc. The audio can be supplemented available programing. Interactive cable, such with written instructional materials. as QUBE in Columbus, Ohio, offers special promise for educational uses. But while cable Audio Cassettes programing could provide a range of informa- Audio cassette technology is unsophisticated, tion useful to farmers and ranchers, its poten- yet holds valuable potential in this era of in- tial is limited by the high capital costs involved creasingly. specialized agricultural information, in laying lines in rural areas. Farm subscribers Cassettes are widely used for continuing educa- are therefore an unpromising market for com- tion and arc particularly attractive because of mercial cable. Further, there is concern that their low cost, simplicity, and mobility, mak- pay-TV may weaken the present “free” coming it possible for a user to listen to a tape while mercial radio and TV stations on which many doing chores or driving a tractor. Cassettes are rural people depend for information. inexpensive and easy to produce, so extension Agricultural producers already benefit from can distribute timely information at little cost, satellite systems that permit the monitoring of Television Technologies weather and crops, but other benefits may arise, Direct satellite broadcasting of TV pro- Adaptations of current video technologies graming is technically feasible and has proven may hold potential for farm and ranch audi- value in delivering education and social serv- ences, Standard TV broadcasting (commercial ices in Canada. A demonstrate ion project in and public] does not address farm audiences Alaska shows some potential, especially for as much as radio because farm viewers ac- adult education. Limitations, including cost, count for such a small share of the total au- user-resistance, inadequate software, etc., dience. Farm advertising occurs far more fre- make direct satellite broadcasting less promis- quently than farm programing. However, TV ing in the short run than some other technol- has other uses, Broadcast teletext offers many ogies available to U.S. farmers and ranchers. of the same advantages as wired teletext (view- Regulatory and public policy questions also data-it 1 inks the home with computer data will be important to the future of this tech nol- bases for immediate, timely information. Un- ogy. 144 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Videodisc and Videocassette ticated binding systems each subscriber receives an issue tailored to his specific site and Although relatively few individuals own such needs, This technique has great potential for systems, videodiscs and videocassettes are improving the kinds of information a particular useful in agricultural education through farmer or rancher receives. schools, extension, and other organizations. The primary disadvantage is high initial cost. Print reference services, either commercial Videocassettes offer the advantage of allowing or public, are uncommon in the United States. the user to record programs from TV and, with Elsewhere, however, this ringbinder-notebook the addition of a camera, of producing one’s style of indexed information sheets offers own shows. Videocassettes, however, cost several advantages over traditional printed ex- more than videodiscs, cannot be accessed ran- tension publications. It can generate a wide domly, and wear out faster than discs, For in- range of highly specific information pieces structional purposes, videodiscs may be more quickly, at lower cost, and is easily updated. useful, especially when linked with computers. The farmer, however, must be willing to maintain his files. Expanded Print Media Electronic publishing—newspapers, and Print media are becoming increasingly spe- other periodicals experimentally joining a na- cialized and directed to specific audiences. tional computer data network such as that be- More and more, “free controlled circulation” ing assembled by Computer Service Informa- is used by publishers to send their publications tion and Associated Press—is blurring the free to producers who meet certain geographic, boundaries between print and electronic demographic, economic, or other criteria. In- media, Publishers see this as a way to reduce creases in direct mail, newsletters, and publish- printing and postal costs; readers get timely ing of periodicals by farm organizations also news but lose the portability of print. Within are channels for reaching target groups. Farm agriculture, electronic publishing may find ear- publications are pioneering the concept of the ly applications in directories, catalogs, and “individualized issue, ” where through sophis- classified advertising (Evans, 1980).

CONSTRAINTS ON TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION

Some producers are unwilling or unable to ability. Profitmaking must be a primary con- adopt practices that preserve long-term land cern or the farm-business would soon cease to productivity. Moreover, there are significant exist. Thus, only if the level of profit is such differences between those who cannot and that conservation costs do not jeopardize the those who will not adopt recommended prac- farms’ economic viability could policy makers tices. employ disincentives such as fines, penalties, and taxes for resource degradation, Where ConfIicting Goals these strategies would threaten financial stability, more voluntary implementation strat- One reason why producers may be unwill- egies are appropriate. ing to adopt a recommended practice can be that a conflicting goal, such as a desire to main- Adopting conservation practices has broad tain traditional farming methods, may be social benefits beyond the view of most pro- valued more highly than conservation goals. ducers and not reflected in farm markets. Thus, Producers justify their unwillingness to use it may not be feasible or fair to place the en- resource-conserving practices because of their tire responsibility for conservation on the real or perceived effect on immediate profit- shoulders of the producer. A recent study of —.—

Ch. V— Technology Adoption ● 745

a 5.3-million-acre area in southern Iowa found Inadequate Information that the immediate costs to the producer of reducing soil erosion to tolerable levels using Another reason why producers may be unavailable techniques were three times greater willing to adopt recommended practices is that than immediate benefits. As the study con- they lack adequate information. They may need cluded, this benefit-cost ratio leaves farmers to know more about implementing the practice, unable to finance erosion control without cost how it fits into the larger operation, or the con- sharing or similar public investment (Shrader, sequences of using the practice. Evidence sug- 1980). gests that farmers who are unwilling to adopt a recommended practice may gain information Current economic conditions make farmers and change their perceptions if they adopt the discount future benefits heavily. Many have ex- practices on a trial basis. Thus, implementa- tensive financial obligations and must max- tion strategies that focus on trial adoption imize this year’s profit to pay this year’s mort- could encourage the acceptance of recom- gage. Moreover, many have based their invest- mended management practices. ments in land and/or equipment, expecting high inflation rates to continue, rather than by Moreover, users and nonusers may perceive calculating efficient input/output ratios (Wood- different conservation practices quite different- ruff, 1980). Current high interest rates also play ly. Studies of farmer perception of three prac- a key role in shortening farmers’ planning hori- tices—minimum tillage, contour planting, and zons, in effect making farmers work for short- terracing—in Iowa suggest that users and non- term goals and neglect long-term conse- users have significantly different percept ions quences. of the characteristics of the practices (table 22). For instance, a quarter of the farmers not using Recognizing these shortened individual plan- minimum tillage viewed the technology}’ as hav- ning horizons for agricultural decisions is ing very high costs, while only 3 percent of the critically important in examining the effec- users viewed it as expensive (Nowak, 1980). tiveness of policy alternatives. For instance, some past analyses from the Center for Agri- Farmers Unable to Adopt Practices cultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University have assumed that long- When individuals are unable to adopt recom- run costs and benefits are variables of primary mended practices, a different situation exists. importance to farmers in their soil manage- Farmers may be unable to adopt a practice be- ment decisions. However, recent CARD stud- cause they lack the necessary management ies suggest a very different conclusion: that skills. Reduced tillage, for instance, has impor- agricultural producers have a planning horizon tant conservation effects. But while fewer op- closer to 1 year than to 25 years (Dairies and erations are involved in reduced-tillage farm- Heady, 1980), ing, the sequence of operations and the correct- ness of each action is more critical than with Yet practices that may not return the farmer’s conventional tillage. Educational strategies investment for even 25 years may be of great may be most appropriate to encourage adop- concern to the public as a whole. The public tion by this group of farmers, as neither penal- stake in the effects of stream pollution, reser- ties nor incentives would address the underly- voir sedimentation, water-supply contamina- ing problem. tion, erosion, and ground water overdraft are sound reasons for public investment. Social Farmers also may be unable to adopt recom- planning horizons can take into account the mended practices because they lack the nec- Nation’s responsibility to maintain the produc- essary capital and/or land. Small-scale, part- tive capacity of the resource base for future time, or marginal farms often have cash-flow generations. problems that prohibit investment in additional 146 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity — —.

Table 22.— Perceived Characteristics of Soil Conservation Practices

Minimum tillage Contour planting Terraces Characteristic Users Nonusers Users Nonusers Users - Nonusers Cost for .ushg No cost...... 49.3% 38.2 % 52.6% 21.0 % 22,2 % 2.6 % Moderate cost ...... 47.4 % 35,3 % 43.1 % 54.8 % 51 09% 17.8 % Very high cost ...... 3.3 % 26.5 % 4,3 % 24.2 % 25.9 % 79.6 % 1 00.0% 100.0 % 1 00,0“6 1 00,0“h 1 00.0‘h ‘- 1 00.0% Profitability Costs exceed returns...... 21,9 % 5,2 % 45.9 % 20,0 % 58.2 ‘% Costs equal returns ...... 46.9% 44,4 % 37.7 % 32,0 % 27.4 % Returns exceed costs . . ... 31.2 % 50,4 % 16.6% 48,0 % 14.4 ‘% 100.0“[ 100.0170 1 00,0‘k 1 00.0‘% 1 00,0% 1 00,0“: Time/labor requirements More time/labor...... 7.8 % 20.0 % 66,4 % 89.1 % 53,8 % 78.8 %

No change ...... 1 7.5% 28.6 % 28.4 % 10.9 c% 46.2 % 1 8.6“b Less time/labor ...... — 74.7 % 51.4 % 5.2 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 2.6 % 1 00.0% 100.0% 1 00.0“h 1 00,0‘% 1 00.0“6 1 00.0“h Ease of use Very difficult ...... 2,6 ‘% 20.6% 1 9.0‘! 54,0 % 33.3 % 63.9 ‘% Moderate ...... 22.2% 29.4 % 36.2 % 36,5 % 33.4 % 25,8 % Very easy ...... 75.2 % 50.0 % 44.8 % 9,5 % 33.3 % i 0,3 100.0% 100.0 % 1 00.0“h 1 00,0% 100.0% --100,0 100.0% Compatibility Not compatible ...... 3.9 % 28.6 % 11 .2“[ 63.9% 18,5 66.5 Moderately compatible ...... 15.6 % 28.5 % 25,9 % 24.6 % 33,4 21.2 Very compatible ...... 80.5 % 42.9 % —62,9— % 1 1.5“b 1 00.0% 1 00.0% 1 00,0“;J 100.0 % 1 00.0“: In Influence on soil erosion Worsened ...... 1.4% 0.0 % 1.8% 0.0 % 0.0 No change ., ...... 1 6.8‘1 50.0% 27.0 % 61,0 % 12.5 45.0 Improved ...... 81 .8% — 50.0 % 71.2 % 39,0 % 87.5 55.0 100.0% 1 00.0% 1 00.0% 1 00.0‘% 1 00.0‘% “: SOURCE Peter of Farmers, ” report to OTA, Dec 19 1 !380 farm implements or time-consuming practices. the number of producers who are put into the Their existing machinery limits their adoption position of being unwilling or unable to adopt of new agronomic practices. Further, off-farm recommended practices. Consequently, conser- employment may limit the amount of time vation policy needs to include implementation these farmers have to establish new manage- strategies that explicitly recognize why pro- ment procedures. Yet these types of farmers ducers are not adopting the recommended may be the owners of a disproportionately practices and that attempt to remove obstacles large share of the highly erosive or otherwise to adoption. Strategies must be flexible to ac- fragile land. commodate critical social and economic variations among farm operations. Strategies to maximize the effectiveness of conservation initiatives must try to minimize

INFLUENCING TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION

When farmers assess new products or prac- tage. Relative advantage generally is judged by: tices, their adoption decisions generally will be 1) the usefulness of the technology in terms of based on their judgment about relative advan- the producer’s basic values, 2) the economic Ch. V— Technology Adoption ● 147 costs relative to benefits, and 3) the payoff time Integrate any economic incentives into (Bohler, 1977). educational programs that are built around the above strategies, Present the innovative A technology’s apparent advantages or disad- technology as part of an overall program vantages can be greatly influenced by how that designed to increase the profitability of the technology is presented to the farming public. farm operation. For instance, presenting minimum tillage as a Minimize the connection between man- way to enhance profits is likely to make it more datory Government regulations and agri- attractive than promotional efforts that stress cultural conservation practices. Integrate the system’s ability to prevent erosion. In other the mandatory regulations into the eco- words, a technology is more appealing if it does nomic incentives that support agricultural things rather than prevents things from hap- conservation practices. It is important that pening. Promoting a practice as a preventive conservation practices not be identified measure may emphasize characteristics that with “bureaucratic red tape. ’ hinder adoption such as high initial costs, low Redefine organizational goals and agency profitability, unknown risks, few tangible involvement so that conservation pro- rewards, and increased management complex- grams are presented in terms of economic ity (Korsching and Nowak, 1980). gain rather than environmental degradation—e. g., Farmers Home Administration By emphasizing the positive benefits, conser- or Small Business Administration involved- vation programs and promotions might garner ment rather than the Environmental Pro- greater attention. Changes could include: tection Agency. Increase involvement of commercial orga- • Emphasize the monetary and energy sav- nizations and the Cooperative Extension ings made possible by various techniques Service in promoting soil conservation ef- of conservation tillage and the fact that forts, More social recognition and rewards adoption of these techniques conserves the for conservation efforts should be imple- soil’s natural fertility, reducing depend- mented in USDA-assisted group s-e, g., ence on expensive fertilizers. FFA, 4-H. Conservation awards should not • Minimize the idea that adopters (probe a separate category but should be com- ducers) are reducing pollution; rather, em- bined with production awards-e. g., the phasize that the}’ arc conserving their own highest production with an active conser- resources. vation plan (Korsching and Nowak, 1980).

CONCLUSIONS

The main factors a fecting farmers’ decisions farmers’ prior experiences, beliefs, and to adopt agricultural innovations include: values; the complexity of the innovation; visibility of results; and ease of’ trial uses 1. The personal and economic character- [Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). istics-of the farmer, such as farm size, formal education, age, availability of capital, It is not clear how land tenure problems af- managerial capability, degree of contact fect conservation behavior. In some instances, with extension, and exposure to mass absentee landowners seem to have less motiva- media (especially farm magazines). tion to invest in protecting the land, but little 2. The perceived characteristics of the agri- research supports this hypothesis, A more per- cultural innovation, such as the relative ad- tinent factor seems to be farm income: the vantage of one practice over another (es- higher the income, the more prelalent is con- pecially profitability); compatibility With servation. Age and education, too, are associ- 148 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

ated with management capabilities and open- To be more effective, conservation promo- ness to innovation. And importantly, access to tion efforts need to be tailored to the particular information influences technology adoption circumstances of the farmers who have the and is the principal means by which policy- most severe conservation problems. Conserva- makers can promote the use of productivity- tion programs seem most successful when they sustaining technologies. The communications emphasize the economic advantages of produc- fields, in fact, will play increasingly vital roles tivity-sustaining technologies rather than the in informing and educating farmers and in im- environmental disadvantages of not applying proving farm management. the recommended practices.

CHAPTER V REFERENCES

Araji, A. A., Sire, R, J., and Gardney, R. L., “Returns Tenure and Soil Conservation, ” OTA back- to Agricultural Research and Extension Pro- ground paper, 1980, grams: An Ex-Ante Approach,” American Nowak, Peter J., “Impacts of Technology on Crop- Journal of Agricultural Economics 60(4):968, land and Rangeland Productivity: Managerial 1978. Capacity of Farmers, ” OTA background paper, Bohler, Joe M., “Education and Training for Adop- 1980. tion and Diffusion of New Ideas, ” from Dimen- Rogers, Everett M., “The Adoption and Diffusion sions of World Food Problems, E. R. Duncan of Technological Innovations in U.S. Agricul- (cd.) (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, ture, ” OTA background paper, 1980. 1977). Rogers, Everett, and Shoemaker, Floyd F., Com- Dairies, David R., and Heady, Earl O., “Potential munication of Innovations (New York: Free Effects of Policy Alternatives on Regional and Press, 1971). National Soil Loss, ” Center for Agricultural Shrader, W. D., “Effect of Erosion and Other Phys- and Rural Development, No. 90, 1980. ical Processes on Productivity of U.S. Crop- Debertin, David L., Rades, R. J., and Harrison, lands and Rangelands, ” OTA background Gerald A., “Returns to Information: An Adden- paper, 1980. alum, ” American Journal of Agricultural Eco- U.S. Department of Agriculture, A Time To nomics 58(2):322, 1976. Choose: Summary Report on the Structure of Evans, James F., “Impact of Communications Tech- Agriculture, January 1981. nology on Productivity of the Land, ” OTA “Farm Structure: A Historical Perspective background paper, 1980. of Changes in the Number and Size of Farms, ” Korsching, Peter, and Nowak, Peter, “Preventive Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and For- Innovations: Problems in the Adoption of Agri- estry, U.S. Senate (Washington, D, C,: Govern- cultural Conservation Practices, ” prepared for ment Printing Office, April 1980). the Environmental Protection Agency, 1980, Woodruff, N. P., “Wind Erosion and Control Tech- Lee, Linda K., “Relationships Between Land nology, ” OTA background paper, 1980. Chapter VI Role of Government

. Page Programs and Policies Designed for Economic Goals ...... 151 Commodity Programs...... 151 Credit Programs ...... ~...... 154 Tax Policies and Programs ...... 156 Resource Conservation Programs ...... 157’ Evolution of the Federal Role...... 157 Resource Appraisal and Protection ...... 161 Federal Cost Sharing ...... 167 State Initiatives ...... 173 Soil Conservation Districts ...... 173 State Soil Conservation Planning ...... 4 ...... 173 State-Funded Cost-Sharing Programs ...... 175 Coordination of Commodity and Credit Programs With Conservation Programs ...... - 176 Conclusions ...... ~ ...... 176 Chapter VI References ...... 176

List of Tables Table No. Page 23. Evolution of the Federal Role in Resource Conservation...... 158 24. Conservation Programs and Their Purposes ...... 167 25.Cost Per Ton of Erosion Reduction by Practice and Erosion Rate ...... 169

Figure Figure No. Page 15. Administrationof Federal Rangeland Excluding Alaska ...... 163 Chapter VI Role of Government

Government policies and programs that af- influence farmers’ decisions about technology fect agricultural technology use and land pro- use and about resource conservation, but the ductivity gcnerally fall into one of two catego- two influences are not always compatible. ries: 1 ) those that promote economic or social This chapter reviews the major Government goals, either by developing and promoting pro- programs and policies related to these two duction technologies or by manipulating short- goals—economic manipulation and conserva- term economic factors; or 2) those that promote tion. It focuses primarily on Federal activities conservation of natural resource productivity, and concludes with a description of some State either by developing and promoting conserva- conservation initiatives that illustrate the tion technologies or by subsidizing investment potential for increased local involvement. in conservation. The two types of Government act iv i ties often operate simultaneously. Both

Commodity Programs reduced to world market levels without reducing the total income support to farmers. Set- Federal commodity and conservation pro- asides and crop diversion programs have grams were closed associated when they began ranged from long-term commitments that within the 1930’s, but during and after World War draw acreage from production to l-year agree- 11 they evolved in separate directions. Com- ments that divert portions of a farm’s acreagc mod it y programs generally focused on helping from one crop to another. Under the Agricul- farmers adjust to changes in short-term market ture and Food Act of 1981, the Secretary of conditions with a minimum of economic dislo- Agriculture could require farmers to set aside cations, while conservation programs assisted some of their wheat, feed grains, or upland cot- farmers with long-term land productivity prob- ton acreage as a condition of receiving com- lems. The explicit economic goal of most commodity program benefits. The Secretary is also mod it y policies has been to raise farm incomes empowered to make payments to farmers who closer to average non farm incomes. voluntarily divert cropland to so ii-conserving Since the establishment of the quasi-govern- crops, whether or not set-asides have been de- mental Commodity Credit Corporation in 1933, clared. Set-asides for wheat and feed grains re- farm income has been supported through arti- moved 19 million acres from production in ficial commodity pricing-supporting prices 1978, and 12 million acres in 1979 (Cook, for certain products above what the market 1980a), would otherwise pay. Other programs have Disaster relief programs were initiated on the since been developed to support farm income, premise that agriculture’s unique dependence including production controls (such as direct on biological processes and the weather re- income-support payments, cropland set-asides, quires that the risks of natural disaster be and crop acreage diversions), disaster relief shared by society. Over the years, several dis- payments, and, recently, subsidies for ,gasohoI aster relief programs have been created, some production, in response to specific disasters. At present, Direct income-support payments were initi- some 20 aid programs offer a fairly comprehen- ated in the 1970’s so price supports could be sive response to agricultural disasters.

151 152 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity —- -—

Subsidies to produce biomass for gasohol are tivities on natural resources, even though over a recent development in farm income support 80 percent of the sheet, rill, and wind erosion programs. The Energy Security Act of 1980 occurring on U.S. croplands takes place on (Public Law 96-294) provides subsidies to oper- land used to grow the major crops covered by ations that convert biomass to ethanol for use those commodity programs: wheat, feed grains, in gasohol. Because of the economic incentives soybeans, and upland cotton (Benbrook, 1980). created by these subsidies, the demand for Recently, research has begun to identify cer- grains, especially corn, is increasing (USDA, tain commodity programs and policies that en- 1981 b), courage land-use practices that conflict with conservation objectives. An underlying, sometimes explicit, social goal of the commodity programs has been to Commodity programs seem to have pro- assure a plentiful, reasonably priced supply of moted specialization in farming by reducing agricultural products for consumers. The ra- economic risks and uncertainty for farmers tionale is that wide fluctuations in the profit- and ranchers (Emerson, 1978). Income protec- ability of agriculture would drive many, per- tion afforded for acreage planted in program haps most, farmers out of business if some sta- crops adds a powerful incentive for farmers to bility were not provided by Government pro- put more acres into those crops than they grams. Thus, society would be left with too few would if they bore all the risks. This causes a producers and too little production. Largely decline in mixed-crop livestock operations in because of increases in off-farm employment, favor of less diverse, cash-grain operations. average farm incomes are now on par with av- Cropland specialization reduces the use of crop erage nonfarm incomes in the Nation, so the rotations including cover crops, and thus in- income level goal of commodity programs is creases erosion and other land degradation becoming less important, The income stabil- processes. ity goal is likely to become even more important, however, if the role of U.S. agriculture as Controlling Production a supplier of world food continues to increase Even though the main objectives of the com- as expected. modity programs have been the economic ef- Because farm incomes depend directly on fects, the set-aside and crop acreage diversion market prices, farm economic policies and sup- programs also have had significant conserva- porting programs historically have fluctuated tion effects. Generally, participants have been with commodity price variations. This has gen- required to plant set-aside land in some cover erally been on a crisis-oriented basis which is or soil-conserving crop. Because farmers tend not conducive to long-term income stability. In to place their less productive land in these pro- recent years, rapid market changes have inten- grams, the production control effect is com- sified these fluctuations. As a result, new farm promised somewhat (Cook, 1980a), However, programs have been formulated almost on an the less productive land is often more erosion- annual basis. As one U.S. Department of Agri- prone or otherwise fragile, so the conservation culture (USDA) report concludes: effects are enhanced. Times of a studied, deliberate approach to Conservation benefits are reduced to some the design of a forward-looking farm policy, extent if farmers take less than the required rather than adjustment of the previous statute, amount of land out of production when set- have been rare. Careful attention to more than asides are in effect. Enforcing such programs the immediate national effects of the programs is difficult. Short-term production control pro- used to implement policy has likewise been grams (recently, most have lasted only 1 year) scarce (USDA, 1981 b). may also substantially reduce long-term con- A dearth of information or analysis also ex- servation effects, Also, such benefits are only ists on the effects of commodity program ac- realized when production controls are in effect, Ch. Vi—Role of Government ● 153 and diversions and set-asides were not used in when compared with improvident farmers. 1974, 1977, or 1980. With increasing foreign There have been reports of farmers plowing demand for U.S. agricultural products, produc- under grass in order to increase their normal tion control programs probably will not be crop acreage (Cook, 1980a). While USDA/ common in the future. ASCS, the agency which oversees commodity programs, recognizes this conflict, no analysis Disaster Relief of the actual effects has been made.

Unlike production control programs, disaster Another conflict between commodity pro- relief may encourage cultivation of fragile gram implementation and certain conservation lands. Disaster relief payments are calculated technologies exists regarding organic agricul- on the basis of total acreage planted and estab- ture, Little explicit Federal, State, or local lished yield-per-acre figures. The yield figures public policy deals with organic farming prac- are set by local committees of farmers orga- tices, although these practices often incor- nized by the Agricultural Stabilization and porate conservation technologies. A 1980 Conservation Service (ASCS). In arid and semi- USDA study, however, discovered that price arid regions, these yield F’igures are likely to be support programs administered by the local higher than the average yields over a drought ASCS committees discriminated against organ- cycle. Thus, disaster relief payments made for ic farmers. Criteria for eligibility in these pro- water stress and wind erosion damage in these grams included requirements for certain tillagc areas are not so much insurance programs as practices and commercial fertilizer applica- they are subsidies, keeping farmers in the un- tions unacceptable to organic farmers (Geisler, economic business of farming erodible land et al., 1980]. with inappropriate row crop and small-grain technologies. Another problem is that basing Gasohol subsidy programs and policies raise the payments on acreage planted to the eligi- additional considerate ions for conservation. ble crop discourages the use of stripcropping Perhaps the most serious implication of an or stubble strips that could help control ero- alcohol-fuels program will be the pressure to sion (Sheridan, 1981 ). convert erosion-prone or otherwise fragile land into grain acreage. Without careful planning, The system used to determine qualifying policies that subsidize alcohol fuels could in- acreages for commodity program payments crease land degradation and loss of productivi- may itself conflict with conservation objectives. ty. This potential problem is examined in The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, for ex- OTA’s report Energy From Bioiogical Proc- ample, replaced a n earlier allotment scheme esses (U.S. Congress, 1980a). with a new concept, the normal crop acreage for wheat, feed grains, and upland cotton. In- Commodity policies and programs have a stead of being established for individual crops number of unplanned impacts on the structure planted over a historical period, the normal and operation of the U.S. agriculture sector, crop acreages are established for total acreage and these probably have subsequent un meas- planted to program crops in the previous sea- ured effects on land productivity. These in- son. The old system to determine allotments clude: 1) program benefits becoming attached had included a provision for a “conserving to the land, thus contributing to land price in- base, ” a portion of acreage that was to be flation and inhibiting entry of new or young fallow, in forage, or in crops grown for soil im- owner-operators. This increases the trend provement, but that concept was eliminated. toward tenant farming and concentrated The 1981 farm act, like the 1977 one, does not wealth. 2) Artificially high commodity prices allow grass strips planted for conserivation pur- causing farmers to plant row crops and small poses to be included in determining commodi- grains on more land, and presumably on more ty benefit eligibility. As a result, farmers who fragile land, than they would if responding only set aside such strips had reduced eligibility to free market prices. 3) Farmers using more 154 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity —— —— fertilizer and other inputs than they would if of the economy. Federal initiatives have pro- responding only to market prices (USDA, vided access to funds at cost through the non- 1981 b). profit Federal Credit System (FCS) banks and to subsidized loans from public lending agen- The combined effects of these unplanned in- cies, In addition, agricultural customers have fluences caused by commodity programs may become attractive to private lenders because outweigh the effects of Federal conservation Federal emergency lending programs, price programs. Commodity programs do not have supports, and other commodity programs have conservation of resource productivity as a pri- reduced farming risks. The plentiful and favor- mary goal, and only some acreage set-asides able supply of funds has encouraged farmers and diversions have had conservation as ex- to increase their reliance on borrowed money, plicit secondary goals. Even in the few pro- to invest heavily in capital-intensive technol- grams where conservation or land productivity ogy, and to expand their use of purchased pro- was an explicit aim, there has been no built-in duction supplies (e.g., fertilizers and pesticides) strategy to evaluate the programs to determine (USDA, 1981 b). whether the conservation goal was being achieved. For these reasons, the interactions In recent years, a less direct effect has be- between commodity programs and agricultural come evident, Easy credit at good terms gave technologies, and the consequences for land, more purchasers the ability and incentive to have never been well understood. One impor- pay higher prices for land, thereby contributing tant area to investigate is the relationship be- to inflation. Consequently, land prices have tween conservation decisions and the im- risen so high that beginning farmers are in- provements in net farm income and income creasingly unable to pay for land from its cur- stability achieved by the commodity programs. rent cash earnings. As a result, cropland has become concentrated under the ownership of Credit Programs established farmers and speculators (Schmies- ing, 1980), The ability of farmers and ranchers to obtain credit through private and public lenders has Farmers with nonprime land that is suscep- become an increasingly important factor in tible to productivity damage often have tight U.S. agricultural decisionmaking. As a percent- budgets and little economic flexibility. For age of net farm income, total farm debt in- these farmers, high land costs become an im- creased from 91 to 428 percent from 1950 to portant constraint on the adoption of expen- 1977 (Schmiesing, 1980). Moreover, demand sive conservation practices, though not on the for borrowed funds is expected to continue in- adoption of conservation tillage (USDA, 1981b; creasing as the agriculture sector strives to Lee, 1981). meet growing global demands for food at the In the last two decades, most agricultural same time that operation costs are rising rapid- credit has come from the private sector, with ly (USDA, 1981 b). FCS being the largest source of credit and The effects of credit policies on individual related services to farmers, ranchers, and their farms and ranches and on the resource base cooperatives. FCS holds about one-third of the are not well understood. However, concern is Nation’s total farm debt. It consists of three growing that credit policies and programs, cou- separate banking systems—Federal Land pled with other economic factors such as infla- Banks, Federal Intermediate Credit Banks tion, are significantly shortening farmers’ and (FICBS), and Banks for Cooperatives, Under ranchers’ planning horizons and so reducing FICBS, local Production Credit Associations conservation investments. have also been authorized to serve as retail outlets for credit. Generally, farmers have had access to plentiful credit at competitive costs, often at rates In the public sector the Farmers Home Ad- lower than their counterparts in other sectors ministration (FmHA) is the largest Federal Ch. V/—Role of Government ● 155 agency lending directly to farmers and ranch- less necessary as one transfers risks to the Gov- ers. The Small Business Administration has a ernment. The likely consequences are less effi- relatively new and limited program. Besides cient use of resources in the short run and administering farm-operation and farm owner- adoption of technologies that are wasteful and ship loans, in 1979 FmHA also was responsi- resource-depleting in the longer term. ble for at least 21 other programs, including Federal credit programs, like commodity pro- emergency-disaster, economic emergency, in- grams, have profound impacts on the planning dividual housing, rural rental housing, water horizons and technology decisions of farmers, and waste, and business and industrial devel- and thus have indirect but important impacts opment loans. on land productivity. In the recent past, inexpensive and easily available credit seems to Credit Programs for Production have contributed to the inflated costs of farm- What role do lenders play in influencing ing, making profit margins so low that farmers farmers’ production and conservation deci- cannot forgo current profits to conserve future sions? Generally, financial institutions assess productivity. Today’s more expensive credit re- current cash flows to evaluate credit applica- sults in higher discount rates and fewer funds tions, This approach puts productivity-sustain- being available for investment in conservation ing technologies at a disadvantage because it technologies. does not account for possible future changes Programs that make credit availabIe for cur- in inputs and commodity prices or the long- rent production also can have positive conser- term effects of soil conservation. Although the vation effects, For example, if farmers have producer may eventually be penalized for hav- funds to apply optimum fertilizer, then crop ing failed to use soil conservation practices, the residues and organic matter will increase, soil implications of resource degradation may be- microbiology will improve, and erosion will di- come evident in the loan evaluation process minish. The overriding problem is that main- only after the producer has neglected conser- taining land productivity is not an explicit ob- vation for several years. jective with most agricultural credit programs. The historic purpose of FmHA agricultural So, as with commodity programs, the substan- loan programs has been to assist farmers and tial negative and positive conservation effects ranchers who need, but cannot obtain, credit of past programs are poorly understood and the from commercial lenders. As a lender of the analytical methods to foresee impacts of cur- last resort, FmHA has been the major provider rent or future programs have not been devel- of subsidized credit and emergency loans. This oped. image apparently has caused applicants to take more risks with their production and market- Credit Programs and ing plans, According to a recent USDA report, Conservation Practices the emergency lending programs of FmHA Although many credit programs are directed “tend to reduce the overall threats farmers and to current production, there are some pro- ranchers face from the weather and the mar- grams that provide credit explicitly for conser- ket . . . . (They) have been referred to as free in- vation, In the private sector’s FCS, full-time surance programs, with the overuse that pre- farmers are eligible for credit for a range of dictably accompanies any ‘free’ goods” (USDA, agricultural purposes including conservation 1981 b), investments, while part-time farmers can get credit for agricultural conservation practices Federal credit subsidies that encourage be- but have restricted access to credit for other havior beyond that reasonably prudent for an purposes (GAO, 1980a). average operation have serious implications for producer decision making and land productiv- Credit institutions’ policies, however, may ity. Resource planning and wise use become discourage the adoption of innovative conser- 156 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity vation technologies. For example, financial in- the cash accounting rules for farms, have un- stitutions are generally reluctant to lend money known impacts on long-term land productivity. for a farmer to convert to organic farming, In general, tax programs affect long-term though they willingly assist in a shift to con- land productivity positively when they make ventional agriculture. Thus, organic farmers it economically attractive for producers to use are likely to pay more for their capital needs, longer planning horizons for their technology and those who have chosen to farm organical- investments, and negatively when they make ly have done so in spite of financial incentives shorter planning periods necessary. Tax poli- rather than because of them (Geisler, et al., cies also affect landownership and land use in 1980; Oelhaf, 1978]. ways that may have significant impacts on use No-till illustrates another credit problem. or disuse of productivity-conserving technol- Whether a switch to no-till is financially attrac- ogies, tive to a farmer is influenced by initial invest- Tax programs generally have greatest influ- ment costs. For instance, a new no-till planter ence on taxpayers who have substantial tax 1ia- costs more than a conventional planter. For bility or income to offset. Thus, tax programs small-farm operators in particular, the decision designed to aid family farms have made agri- to buy is strongly influenced by credit availabil- culture an attractive tax shelter for affluent ity, yet their access to credit is generally more nonfarmers, for limited partnerships, and for restricted than for large operations (Geisler, et other types of investment groups. Landowner- al. 1980; Pereleman, 1977). The labor savings ship and farm operation are likely to be sepa- offered by no-till may not be sufficiently attrac- rated when nonfarmer investors are attracted tive to the small-farm operator to compensate to agriculture, and this change may lead to for his relatively high capital cost. Thus, decreased long-term investments in conserva- preferential access to credit makes it more like- tion. Tax policies have contributed to the trend ly that larger farms switch to no-till, but the toward concentrating U.S. agricultural produc- steeply sloping land where the conservation ef- tion and wealth among fewer producers fects of no-till are most significant are more (USDA, 1981 b), but no data exist to indicate characteristic of small farms. whether the redistribution of land and wealth is causing changes in use of productivity-con- Tax Policies and Programs serving technologies. Tax policies also have been a causal factor in the shift to more capital- Congress frequently uses tax programs to intensive (v. labor- or land-intensive) agricul- stimulate economic activities in directions that tural technologies (USDA, 1981 b). will enhance particular policy goals. In recent years, many major agricultural tax programs Preferential estate tax provisions enacted as have been intended to support family farm op- part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, and more erations. There is an implicit, and occasional- recent revisions of tax laws, substantially rely explicit, social goal of ensuring continuation duce the estate-tax burden (Harl, 1980). The op- of an agriculture structure that is based on portunity for reduced tax liabilities has a mixed owner-operator family farms. effect on the maintenance and enhancement of land productivity. The most obvious effect Tax programs designed to achieve this and is to lengthen a family’s planning horizon. If other social and economic goals interact with a farmer knows that his heirs will receive the conservation in various ways which are not benefit of his conservation efforts, he should well understood. Some of these tax programs, be more willing to make investments or sacri- such as preferential estate tax treatment for fices of current income. Offsetting this benefit farms, are thought to increase the use of con- somewhat is the possibility that preferential servation practices, though they may also have treatment for farm estates helps inflate land less direct effects that partially offset the con- prices, which is thought to have a generally servation benefits. Other tax policies, such as negative effect on conservation. Ch. Vi—Role of Government ● 157

Income tax provisions that allow producers — Tax law seems to encourage capital struc- to use cash accounting for the costs of develop- tures with a higher ratio of debt to assets ing an asset, while taxing future income de- and greater use of debt capital relative to rived from those assets as long-term capital other resources than would otherwise exist. — gains, provide high tax benefits where there is Because labor is taxed while capital investments receive tax breaks, farmers have an substantial current income to offset. For exam- incentive to substitute capital for labor. ple, certain perennial crops provide special tax — Recent changes in tax policy encourage in- shelters. Under the tax code, the costs of devel- creased use of corporations as a Way of or- oping certain trees and vines that produce ganizing agricultural operations. fruits and nuts can be deducted as current cost Management— practices may be chosen be- from ordinary income, while proceeds from cause they allow the best use of tax rules, these assets when sold can be treated as capital They may not be the best crop and animal gains. Because the income and expenses may management. The overall impact could be be reported under cash-accounting rules, the less efficient use of resources. taxpayer has substantial freedom in choosing As a consequence, conservation may suffer, the time when the tax liabilities, if any, must as when large labor-saving tractors (generally be paid. Again, these provisions should encour- not well adapted to terraces, contour farming, age a longer planning horizon that would make stripcropping, and other conservation struc- conservation investments more attractive, but tures] are used in place of smaller machines may also attract nonfarmers seeking tax shel- that require less capital and more labor. On the ters and so drive up the price of cropland and other hand, some conservation practices and the incidence of tenant farming. some production techniques that conserve pro- Other tax policies favor capital investments ductivity require substantial capitaI invest- by reducing investment costs through appreci- ments and benefit significantly from the tax ation-depreciation rules and special investment programs that encourage such investment. tax credits. These policies encourage and re- These include the shift to no-till farming and ward capital investments, including expanded the installation of well-designed irrigation and use of machinery and equipment, rather than drainage systems, increased expenditures for labor and manage- Thus, if tax programs are to be an effective ment. Such policies could also encourage in- tool for encouraging conservation of land pro- vestment i (conservation structures, such as n ductivity, they should be quite specific about terraces or fences. which types of capital equipment, structures, The 1981 USDA report on the structure of or land improvements qualify. Careful analysis agriculture reaches a number of general con- of the likely consequences of tax programs clusions about Federal tax programs and pol- must be conducted ahead of their implementa- icies (USDA, 1981 b): tion to avoid unplanned, counterproductive impacts. . Tax law tends to perpetuate ownership of farm assets, particularly land.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Evolution of the Federal Role However, the concept of direct Federal action to control and prevent soil erosion did not gain Federal soil conservation efforts began with major support until the late 1920’s and early the establishment of the Bureau of Chemistry 1930’s, when hard economic times for the agri- at USDA in 1894. During the first decades of cultural producers and severe drought and the 20th century, USDA issued publications duststorms in the Great Plains combined to at- and conducted some research on soil erosion. tract national attention. Since then, the Federal 158 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Government’s role in natural resource conser- The first Soil Erosion Service, established in vation has grown in breadth and intensity. 1933, became the Soil Conservation Service Table 23 shows the major Federal legislation (SCS) of USDA in 1935 with passage of the Soil through which Congress has established the Conservation Act, That law authorized the Sec- Federal role. retary of Agriculture to survey and investigate

Table 23.—Evolution of the Federal Role in Resource Conservation

Authorizing Public U.S. Us. Date of Resource Iegislationa Lead agency Conservation program Law Stat. Code enactment Soil and Agricultural Credit AS-CS/Fm HA Emergency conservation 95-334 92 Stat. - 16 U.S.C. 1978 Water Act to control wind erosion, 433 2204 conserve water, rehabilitate farmland harmed by erosion, floods, or other natural disasters; loan assistance Natural Federal Pesticide Act EPA Program to streamline 95-396 92 Stat. — 1978 Environ- pesticide registration 820 ment through generic registration, conditional registration, data compensation, & trade secret revisions Rangeland Forest & Rangeland USFS Research & 95-307 – – 1978 Renewable Resources dissemination of findings Research Act to support resource protection & management Rangeland Public Rangelands BLM Mandates on-the-ground 95-514 92 Stat. 43 U.S.C. 1978 Improvement Act improvement programs 1803 1901 et for public grazing lands seq. & increases funding for this effort Rangeland Renewable Resources US FS/Science Renewable Resources 95-306 92 Stat. 16 U. SC. 1978 Extension Act & Education Extension Program for 349 1671 Administration private landowners, natural resource conservation education Soil and Surface Mining Control Scs Conservation treatment 95-87 91 Stat. 30 U.S.C. 1977 Water & Reclamation Act of rural abandoned sec. 460 1236 or inadequately reclaimed 406 — mined lands & waters Soil and Soil & Water Scs Resource Appraisal & 95-192 91 Stat. 16 U.S.C. 1977 Water Resources Program Development 1407 2001 et Conservation Act seq. (RCA) Water “” Clean Water Act of EPA/SCS Rural Clean Water 95-217 91 Stat. 33 U. SC. ‘1977 - 1977 Program to control sec. 1579 1288 nonpoint pollution from 208 agricultural sources; financial & technical assistance Rangeland Federal Land Policy BLM Organic Act for BLM 94-579 90 Stat. 43 U.S.C, 1976 & Management Act management & disposal 2743 1701 et of public lands; seq. inventory, planning, and management for grazing leases Rangeland Forest & Rangeland USFS Resource Appraisal & 93-378 88 Stat, 16 U.S.C. 1974 Renewable Resources Program Planning & 476 1601-10 Planning Act (RPA) Development Ch. Vi—Role of Government . 159 — . ——

Table 23 .—Evolution of the Federal Role in Resource Conservation-Continued ——-—— Authorizing Public Us. Us. Date of Resource Iegislationa Lead agency Conservation program— Law Stat. Code enactment Soil and Agriculture & ASCS Cost-sharing & technical 93-86 87 Stat, 16 U.S.C. 1973 Water Consumer Protection assistance under the 241 1501 et Act Agricultural Conservation seq. Program (excludes certain Great Plains Conser- vation Program participants) Natural Federal Environmental EPA Comprehensive registra- 92-516 86 Stat. — 1972 Environ- Pesticide Act tion of pesticides by use 973 ment & enforcement authority over misuse Soil and Rural Development SCS/Fm HA Land inventory & monitor- ‘92-419 86 Stat. 7 U.S.C 1972 Water Act ing; loans for soil 670 1010a & water conservation Water Water Bank Act ASCS Water Bank Program to 91-559 84 Stat. 16 U.S. C 1970 conserve surface waters 1418 1301 et & wetlands seq

– -- Natural National Environrmen- CEQ Environmental impact 91-190- - = 1969 Environ - tal Policy Act assessments of Federal ment projects; national policy to minimize environmental damage Soil and Appalachian Regional ASCS ‘Appalachian Land 89-4 79 Stat, — 1965 Water Development Act Stabilization & Conserva- 5 tion Program (cost- sharing & technical assistance for erosion, sediment control, & other conservation measures Water Water Resources Water Conservation, develop- 89-90 79 Stat. 42 U.S.C. 1965 Planning Act Resources ment, & use of water & 244 1962 et Council related land resources; seq. formation of river basin commissions to coordinate, plan, & study resource Rangeland Public Land Law Public Land Appraisal of Federal land 88-606 78 Stat . 43 USC. 1964 Review Commission Law Review laws to improve 982 1391-1400 Organic Act Commission Federal Government’s custodian role to meet .-—— _—— current & future needs Soil and Food and Agriculture SCS/Fm HA Resource Conservation 87-703 76 Stat. 7 U.S.C, 1962 Water Act and Development (loans 607 1010-11 a & technical assistance to develop & carry out conservation plans) Soil and Consolidated Farmers Fm HA Conservation loans to 87-128 75 Stat. 7 U.S.C 1961 Water Home Administration individuals 307 1921 Act Rangeland Multiple-Use USFS ‘Mandate to develop” 86-517 74 Stat. 16 US C 1960 Sustained-Yield Act renewable surface 215 528-31 resources of the national forests for multiple use & sustained yield Soil and Great Plains SCS Great Plains Conservation 84-1021 70 Stat. 16 U. SC. 1956 Water Conservation Program Program (long-term cost- 1030 sharing & technical assistance) 160 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Table 23.—Evolution of the Federal Role in Resource Conservation-Continued

Authorizing Public U.S. Us. Date of Resource Iegislation a Lead agency Conservation program Law Stat. Code enactment Soil and Agriculture Act of 1956 USDA Soil Bank Program 84-540 — — 1956 Water Water- - Watershed Protection SCS/Fm HA Watershed planning, 83-566 68 Stat. 16 U.S.C. 1954 sheds & Flood Prevention operations, & emergency 666 1001 et Act assistance; certain seq. technical & financial assistance; river basin surveys & investigations; watershed loans Water- - ‘Flood Control Act Scs Emergency watershed 81-516 64 Stat. 33 U.S.C. 1950 sheds operations sec. 184 701 b-1 216 Natural Federal Insecticide, USDA Pesticide registration in 80-104 61 Stat. — 1947 Environ- Fungicide, & interstate commerce 163 ment Rodenticide Act Water- – Flood Control Act Scs Installation of 78-534 58 Stat. 33 U.S,C. 1944 sheds improvements in 11 887 701-1 et watersheds & emergency seq. watershed operations W-ate r- Flood Control Act Scs Watershed protection & 74-738 49 Stat. 33 U.S.C. 1936 sheds flood protection (surveys 1570 701a et & investigations to seq. prevent soil erosion on watersheds) Soil and Soil Conservation & ASCS Agricultural Conservation 74-461 49 Stat. 16 U,S.C. 1936 Water Domestic Allotment Program (ACP), provision 1148 590g-p Act of payments & grants in (m), 590q aid to carry out approved soil & water conservation measures Soil and Original Soil SCS Technical assistance, soil 74-46 49 Stat. 16 U.S.C. 1935 Water Conservation & surveys, snow surveys, 163 590a Domestic Allotment water supply forecasting, Act & research relating to soil erosion & measures to prevent it Soil and Soil Conservation & SCS Plant Material Centers 74-46 49 Stat. 16 U,S.C. 1935 Water Domestic Allotment 163 590a-f Act Rangeland Organic Act of 1897 U.S. Forest National Forest Systems — 30 Stat. 16 U.S.C. 1897 Service (FS) 473-482 aAuthorizing legislation refers to basic athorities for each activity anddoes not Include amendments to the orginial Acts. SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment soil erosion processes and the measures neces- The 1935 act was amended and expanded by sary to prevent and control those processes. It the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment also authorized the Secretary to enter into Act of 1936. This provided cost-sharing assist- agreements with any agency or person for the ance for approved conservation practices and purpose of soil conservation, and established authorized payments to farmers who shifted the Conservation Operations Program. The acreage from “soil-depleting” to “soil-conserv- program’s initial activities emphasized projects ing” crops. The Agricultural Conservation Pro- to demonstrate erosion control methods but gram (ACP) was established to carry out the soon evolved to emphasize more direct service 1936 act. It initially focused on short-term to individuals, relying heavily on local Soil needs, but in the 1940’s its direction shifted Conservation District organizations. toward more long-range needs, and permanent Ch. V/— Role of Government . 161 — —.——— conservation investments became the main long-term planning were emphasized by the purpose of the Federal cost-sharing programs Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, the under ACP. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, and the Federal Lands Congress also increased its attention to re- Policy Management Act of 1976. Regulation of newable resources other than cropland soil in agricultural chemicals, control of nonpoint the 1930’s, Decades of uncontrolled overgraz- source agricultural pollution, and the preserva- ing had ruined many public rangelands. In the tion of environmental quality also received more environmentally fragile arid regions, for- broad and intensive legislative attention. age production was greatly reduced. Then the drought of the 1930’s drastically cut forage pro- The major laws enacted during the past two duction in the Great Plains, which until then decades that directly or indirectly affect range- had been less arid and more resilient, The com- land and cropland resource use and productiv- bination of reduced forage and low livestock ity include: prices meant economic ruin for many ranch- Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, ers. It also resulted in calls for an active Federal Clean Air Act of 1963 (amendments 1970 role in applying the newly emerging principles and 1977), of ‘‘range science” to the vast, publicly owned Wilderness Act of 1964 (amendments 1972 rangelands in the Western States. In 1934, Con- and 1977), gress passed the Taylor Grazing Act and gave National Environmental Policy Act Of the Secretary of Interior broad powers for mul- 1969, tiple-use management of rangelands in the Federal Environmental pesticide Control public domain. It provided the basic authori- Act of 1972, ty for classifying, protecting, administering, Federal Water pollution Control Act regulating, and improving tile rangelands Amendments of 1972 (amendment—The under the jurisdiction of the Crazing Service, Clean Water Act–1977), later the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Endangered Species Act of 1973, Watershed protection and flood prevention Forest and Rangelands Renewable Re- also began to receive increased congressional sources Planning Act of 1974 (amend- attention during the 1930's. As erosion proc- ments 1976), esses came to be better understood in the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1974, 1930's and 1940's Congress passed a series Of Archaeological and Historic Preservation laws authorizing investigation and improve- Act of 1974, ment of watershed,s and providing emergency National Forest Management Act of 1976, measures for flood control, Financial and tech- Federal Land Policy and Management Act nical support for conservation and land im- of 1976, provements increased in 1954 with passage of Soil and Water Resources Conservation the Watershed Protection and Flood Preven- Act of 1977, tion Act. Through the 1950’s and 1960’s, Con- Forest and Rangeland Resources Exten- gress established programs for regions with sion Act of 1978, and especially severe problems of resource degra- Public Rangelands Improvement Act of da t ion, including the Great Plains Conserva- 1978. tion Program and the Appalachian Regional Development Act. Resource Appraisal and Protection During the 1970’s, Congress produced several major legislative packages reflecting grow- The Conservation Operations Program, ad- ing national concern over the adequacy of ex- ministered by SCS, has been responsible for isting programs to ensure long-term resource developing farm-level and local conservation productivity. Natural resource appraisal and plans for encouraging the use of soil and water 162 Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Rangeland Productivity conservation techniques. ACP, administered any department or agency to avoid self-critical by ASCS, provides cost-sharing assistance for evaluations, since these can be used by Con- conservation investments, These programs, gress or the Office of Management and Budget however, are voluntary, and participation has as a rationale for cutting out the programs. Yet, been inadequate to control resource degrada- without such evaluations the agencies are un- tion on the Nation’s croplands and rangelands, likely to make good use of the continuing re- This inadequacy was widely recognized in the source appraisal process. 1970’s, and this led to enactment of the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977. Rangelands The Federal Government’s role in managing Resources Conservation Act rangelands has concentrated mainly on the 214 The 1977 Resources Conservation Act estab- million acres of federally owned rangeland out- lished a process for natural resource appraisal side Alaska. Excluding Alaska, * 64 percent of and planning, That process is popularly known U.S. rangeland is outside Federal ownership, as “RCA. ” The purpose of RCA is to provide but does get some service from SCS and ASCS a mechanism for informed, long-range policy programs. The rangeland work of those agen- decisions regarding the conservation and im- cies is minor compared with their work on provement of the Nation’s soil, water, and re- croplands and improved pastures. lated resources. It is intended to serve not only BLM administers 70 percent of the Federal the Federal Government but also State and lo- rangeland outside Alaska, and the U.S. Forest cal governments and private landowners and Service (USFS) has jurisdiction over 17 per- land users. The legislation mandates a continu- cent, The remainder is administered by various ing resource appraisal and inventory which is agencies in the Departments of Defense and the to be the basis of a comprehensive national pol- Interior (fig. 15) (USDA, 1980 b). The Taylor icy. That policy is to include priorities for a na- Grazing Act of 1934 was the guiding mandate tional soil and water conservation program. Fi- for administering BLM lands for decades, and nally, there is to be continuing program evalua- the Organic Act of 1897 was the basis of USFS tion to keep the program responsive to chang- land management, Various laws influenced ing priorities. Federal rangeland management from the The RCA appraisal was published in the 193o’s through the 1960’s. The Soil and Water summer of 1981. The proposed RCA program Resources Conservation Act provided some was distributed for public review in late 1981. funds to restore productivity of the public The final program and publication are unlike- lands, and the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield ly to be issued before late 1982. Meanwhile, Act of 1960 mandated administration of the there is some indication that the RCA process USFS lands for uses other than timber and is not yet meeting the intent of Congress. A forage. In the 1970’s, however, Congress rec- 1980 General Accounting Office (GAO) evalua- ognized that these laws were inadequate for tion of the ongoing RCA found that 2 years and sustaining the productivity of the public lands, $11 million after beginning the process, USDA and six important new laws were passed to had not fully evaluated each of its 34 soil and guide the work of BLM and USFS, water programs, The GAO report focused on whether RCA was developing useful and ac- THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT curate information for water program deci- ACT AND PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT ACT sions, and found considerable fault with the RCA analysis of conservation programs, tech- Congress enacted two major pieces of legisla- niques, and changing needs (GAO, 1980b). The tion dealing with long-term planning and man- program evaluations will be a key issue in “ ‘1’here are 231 million acres of land classified as range in assessing the soundness of the final RCA rec- Alaska, most of it federally owned, hot that land is not heavily ommendations, There is a strong tendency for used or managed, Ch. VI—Ro/e of Government . 163

Figure 15.—Administration of Federal Rangeland plans for all lands by tractor area, and 3) devel- Excluding Alaska oping management allotment plans for the lands designated during the planning stage as available for grazing. The land-use planning activity is guided by nine directives, including a mandatory provision for compliance with pollution laws and standards, and a requirement to balance long- and short-term benefits. To strengthen the FLPMA program, Con- gress enacted PRIA. This act authorized substantially increased funds for restoring and improving Federal rangelands. In its declaration of policy, Congress recognized that rangelands are still in unsatisfactory condition and may decline further without more funds and improved management. It declared that such “un- SOURCE’ U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, “An Assessment of satisfactory conditions on public rangelands Forest and Rangeland Sitution in the United States,” 1980 present a high risk of soil loss, desertification, and a resultant underproduction for large acre- agement of land administered by BLM: the ages of the public lands” (43 U.S.C. 1901 (a)(3)), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of In PRIA, Congress mandated improved man- 1976 (FLPMA—Public Law 94-579) and the agement and more funds to be raised through Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 fees collected from livestock grazing permits (PRIA–Public Law 95-514). The two acts give and leases on public lands. Fees have been express policy recognition to the plight of charged for decades, but traditionally they have public rangelands, mandate land-use plans, been below fair market value. While generating and provide funds for on-the-ground improve- considerable debate prior to enactment, the leg- ments. islation does specify that the fees charged are FLPMA is the result of congressional con- to represent “the economic value of the land cern over the deterioration of Federal lands to the user;” it designates the base and formula and over the numerous, often-conflicting, and to be used for determining the fair market value sometimes-antiquated acts related to public (43 U.S.C, 1905(a)). Furthermore, the act man- lands. Indeed, a major purpose is to give BLM dates that over 80 percent of the funds gener- enough authority to effectively carry out the ated are to be spent for on-the-ground range public lands goals and objectives established rehabilitation, maintenance, and the construc- by other laws. tion of range improvements (43 U.S.C. 1904(c)).

The complete act has six titles with provi- THE RESOURCE PLANNING ACT sions ranging from broad types of BLM author- The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Re- ity to specific policies on issues such as pro- sources Planning Act of 1974, which generated tecting wild horses and burros, managing the the RPA process, is landmark legislation that California desert area, and managing BLM’s requires USFS to engage in long-term planning. wilderness land. Congress enacted the law to improve the col- FLPMA specifies that the Secretary of In- lection and analysis of data so that legislative terior will carry out resource planning for the and administrative decisions on policy and BLM-controlled public lands by:1) preparing program design and funding will more ade- and maintaining a resource inventory of all the quately meet future demands on forests, rangelands, 2) developing and maintaining land-use lands, and associated renewable resources. 164 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

RPA requires that the administration prepare 1978 mandates a comprehensive program of an updated inventory and assessment of reforest and rangeland research and dissemina- sources and a detailed program for investment tion of the findings. Again, this act is express- in, and use of, the forest system. The updated ly intended to complement RPA. inventory and program are to be submitted to Another complementary law is the Renew- Congress for review every 5 years for the next able Resources Extension Act of 1978 (Public four decades and a progress report is to be pre- Law 95-306), which requires the Secretary of pared by the administration annually. This re- Agriculture to prepare a 5-year plan. A princi- source assessment and planning process is to pal purpose of this act is to use education to encourage the development of all the federal- increase the yield of privately owned forest and ly owned forest, range, and related lands as a rangeland renewable resources, but it has unified system dedicated to long-term benefit broader implications. Jurisdiction distinctions for present and future generations. The scope among the various agencies constrain the coor- of the RPA resource assessments reported thus dination of forest, range, and cropland policies far has not been limited to land administered and programs, but Congress recognizes that by USFS, but the Forest Service is the lead these resources are intimately interrelated, agency, and so far the RPA program planning This is evidenced, for example, by the act’s di- process has related mainly to USFS lands. rective that the 5-year plan include programs The legislation sets the year 2000 as the target for managing trees and shrubs in shelterbelts year: because these “protect farm lands from wind and water erosion, ” The legislation states that: . . . when the renewable resources of the Na- tional Forest System shall be in operating pos- to meet national goals, it is essential that ture whereby all backlogs of needed treatment all forest and rangeland renewable resources of their restoration shall be reduced to a cur- including fish and wildlife, forage, out- rent basis and the major portion of planned in- door recreation opportunities, timber, and tensive multiple-use sustained-yield manage- water, be fully considered in designing educa- ment procedures shall be installed and operat- tional programs for landowners, processors, ing on an environmentally sound basis (16 and users , . . , (16 U.S.C. 1671(2) (1978)]. U.S.C, 1607 (1974)). These legislative developments guide man- THE NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT agement support of the practices and technologies necessary to ensure future productivity A major amendment to RPA occurred in of publicly owned rangelands. In essence, it is 1976 with the enactment of the National Forest a congressional mandate for land stewardship. Management Act (Public Law 94-588). While A congressional white paper issued after the RPA provided the philosophy and factfinding first series of RPA reports were submitted by basis for long-term planning, this amendment the administration in June 1980 declared: contains a more specific framework for developing and implementing multiple-use manage- . . . the role of the Federal Government in ment plans for sustained yield use of specific managing the National Forests is to protect resources. A key objective of the legislation is and enhance the land, and to provide goods to develop USFS management programs that and services from those lands to the Nation’s “will not produce substantial and permanent people. But the first consideration must be the enhancement and protection of the land, both impairment of the productivity of the land” (16 forest and range (U.S. Congress, 1980b). U.S.C. 1604( g)(3) (C)(1976)). Even though the policy seems clear, imple- THE FOREST AND RANGELAND RENEWABLI mentation is not. No comprehensive analysis RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT AND THE RENEWABLE to determine the adequacy and completeness RESOURCES EXTENSION ACT of the RPA process as a long-term planning in- The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Re- strument has been undertaken, However, in sources Research Act (Public Law 95-307) of mid-1980 GAO reviewed BLM and USFS land Ch. Vi—Role of Government “ 165 management activities and found that congres- Environmental Protection sional expectations were not being achieved. During the 1970’s, several types of programs BLM has a mandate for resource inventory and were implemented to safeguard or restore the land-use planning, but no mandate to develop Nation’s general environmental quality. Three long-range resource programs. As a result, of these are particularly significant for crop- BLM has no rigorous basis for determining the land and rangeland productivity: pesticide reg- production levels required to meet the Nation’s ulation, nonpoint source pollution control, and long-term needs for the various benefits pro- environmental impact assessment. duced from its land. GAO found that “neither the Bureau nor the PESTICIDE REGULATION Forest Service have land management plans for The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Ro- sizable portions of their lands” (GAO, 1980b). denticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947 regulated label- While both agencies have been working to de- ing and registration of pesticides sold inter- velop better land management plans and plan- state, The primary purpose of that law was to ning procedures, many of the existing plans are protect pesticide users from fraud. Since 1950, inadequate because they: however, there has been a prodigious increase in the use of pesticides, which are potential are based on incomplete or obsolete re- pollutants of food, drinking water, and fish and source inventory data or wildlife habitat, * By the early 1970’s Congress . do not identify specific actions required had recognized the need for Federal safeguards to meet production goals while achieving for the general environment and protection of environmental protection objectives. the public from misuse of these dangerous GAO recommended that Congress amend chemicals. In 1972, FIFRA was amended to FLPMA to require a long-range renewable reestablish a sophisticated regulation system in- source program development process for BLM. volving Federal, State, and local government Improvements in the planning process are agencies. In 1978, further amendments expe- being made and more comprehensive plans are dited the registration and classification process in progress, but these will take several years for pesticides by allowing generic chemical to complete. In the meantime both agencies registration, conditional registration, special “will continue to be guided by substandard data-use compensation, State primary use en- plans or by the intuition and best guesses of forcement, and special trade secret exceptions. land managers” (GAO, 1980b). The 1978 act further requires the Environmen- tal Protection Agency (EPA) and USDA to co- Finally, for both BLM and USFS, staff and ordinate efforts in integrated pest management. funds have not kept pace with the new respon- Because of these amendments and careful con- sibilities and specific tasks assigned to the gressional oversight, EPA has made important agencies by legislation, Executive orders, and strides to implement more responsive and effi- court decisions. For example, the Renewable cient programs in pesticide regulation which Resources Extension Act of 1978 remains un- protect the public and the resource. funded. The problem is particularly acute in BLM, where since 1970 responsibilities for NONPOINT S0URCE POLLUTION major resource management programs have increased rapidly while the agency’s limited The Federal Water Pollution Control Act resources have hampered completion of even (FWPCA) of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), as the most pressing mandates. The GAO report amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, deals emphasizes the need to link agency program with the problem of nonpoint source pollution, mandates to the budgeting process (GAO, *U.S. production of pesticides rose from 680 million lb in 1962 1980b), to 1,420 million lb in 1980 (Harkin, et al., 1980). 166 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

It cites agricultural activity as one of the many, technical expertise are limited. Also, the ben- diffuse sources of such pollution. Section 208 efits of agricultural water pollution control ac- of FWPCA is intended to affect the technologi- crue slowly to a widely dispersed set of bene- cal practices used on croplands and range- ficiaries who may not recognize the benefits lands. It calls for areawide water quality man- when they occur. agement plans to achieve the goals of the act, including complete elimination of pollutant ENVIRONMWTAL IMPACT ASSESSEMENT discharge by 1985 where technically, econom- The National Environmental Policy Act of ically, and socially achievable. More specifical- 1969 (NEPA—Public Law 91-190) requires Fed- ly, the plans are to identify and set forth proce- eral agencies to prepare an environmental im- dures and methods to control agricultural non- pact statement (EIS) when a proposed action point pollution sources. significantly affects the quality of the human EPA is responsible for administering environment. Even if a full EIS is not needed, FWPCA. It has indicated that State govern- there must still be preliminary data collection ments should develop and implement “best and analysis to support a finding of no signifi- management practices, ” described by section cant adverse impact. Consequently, where Fed- 208 as: eral involvement exists, NEPA generally will trigger at least some data collection and anal- ,., the control techniques that a State con- ysis of how the project is expected to affect siders most reasonable and effective and natural resources. which are suitable to local conditions at the time of implementation. Such practices in- The principal purpose of NEPA is to inform clude crop rotation, less intensive cropping decisionmakers about the likely environmen- systems, conservation tillage, and structural tal and natural resource consequences of pro- controls, It is significant to note that these posed major actions before the actions are best management practices are preventive taken, and where serious negative conse- measures—they are directed toward control- quences are anticipated, to encourage consid- ling soil erosion on-site rather than dealing eration of alternative actions. NEPA has re- with sediment after it has eroded (EPA, 1978). sulted in more complete environmental impact The “208 planning process” has been under consideration for many projects than would way since before 1978, when detailed manage- otherwise have occurred. The fundamental ment plans and implementation schedules for purpose of promoting informed decisionmak- the States were due. The 1977 Clean Water Act ing has seldom been faulted. However, at times expanded section 208 by establishing a new the application of NEPA has led to controver- program authorizing USDA to provide techni- sy and criticism. cal and financial assistance to farmers, ranch- For example, in the mid-1970’s, a citizens’ ers, and other rural land operators for installa- organization brought a lawsuit against BLM tion and maintenance of the FWPCA best man- challenging the adequacy of its programmatic agement practices, This cost sharing is to sup- grazing statement for public lands under its port implementation of the State water quali- jurisdiction. The suit was settled in 1975, with ty management plans for control of nonpoint a decision that BLM should prepare, by 1989, source pollution. Programs have now been es- 145 EISS to cover its projects on over 170 mil- tablished by many States, although the cost- lion acres of public lands. The subsequent EIS sharing funds have subsequently been reduced, process has been expensive, consuming a large Overall, the section 208 program has moved portion of BLM’s limited funds and, especial- slowly. EPA became more active after the 1977 ly, of its limited expert personnel, and causing amendments and relied heavily on USDA cost significant delays in needed rangeland develop- sharing. Many States opposed the program ment, Whether the EISS need to be so expen- originally, however, and the progress will con- sive is doubtful, but certainly the process tinue to be slow, in part because funds and caused more thorough planning than occurred Ch. VI—Role of Government . 167 before the lawsuit. The EISS have revealed lands and rangelands must be used. But society more severe range degradation than had for- does not pay high enough prices to the pro- merly been recognized—or admitted—and it ducers, relative to their costs, to implement the seems likely that the improved information will conservation practices needed to protect the result in improved programs, It is possible that long-term productivity of these fragile lands. without being forced to prepare EISS, BLM still (And it is not clear that if society did, the would have improved its planning as it worked farmers would use the money for that purpose.) out programs in response to the mandates of So, to the extent that society places a high value FLPMA and PRIA. on future production, it must directly pay a share of the cost for conservation practices. Federal Cost Sharing This rationale is convincing and widely ac- Cost sharing has been an integral component cepted. A 1979 Harris Poll indicated that 72 of Federal conservation policy since 1936. The percent of the American public supported the rationale is that each year society wants more concept of public funding to help pay for soil row crops, small grains, beef, and other prod- conservation practices on private land (Cook, ucts than farmers and ranchers can produce 1980a). Eight USDA programs have offered from the most resilient prime agricultural cost sharing to landowners for conservation lands. Therefore, nonprime and fragile crop- purposes (table 24), Yet this has been the most

Table 24.—Conserwation Programs and Their Purposes —— I I Conservation purposea I

Agency Conservation program 1 Cost sharing — - 4 Cost ——.—sharing ‘ — ‘2 5 4 5 3 3 Cost sharing 5- 3 1 5 5 3 Loans 4 3 3 5 4 3 Loans -5 3 4 4 5 3 3 Loans .— 4 3 3 5 5 3 1 Loans State and private forestry ‘- 4 “3 3 5 3 3 .2 1 2 Technical assistance USFS -- National forest system 3 4 4 4 5 4 2 3 5 Resource management SEA-E Conservation education 4 1 3 5 3 4 2 4 4 4 Education Conservation operations -– .- 3 4 3 5 4 4 3 5 2 5 1 Technical assistance – Watershed operations 4 4 2 4 2 3 3 Cost sharing/technical assistance 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 Cost sharing/technical assistance.— Cost sharing/echnical assistance 3 Cost sharing/technical assitance

i Cost sharing/technical assistance xs::~$.r ” ‘:- “’:’: ; ~.-==.—. a The most important purpose of each program Is assigned a value of 5 with 01 her purposes rated relative to this one on a scale from 1 to 5 If no rating IS shown the purpose IS not relevant to the program SOURCE Overview Program Linkages, USDA Land and Water Conservation Task Force, Washington, D.C , December 1978, U S General Accounting Off Ice Report to Congress A Framework and Checklfst for Evaluating SOiI and Water Conservation Programs (Washington D C March 1980) p 15 168 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity controversial of the Government approaches ever, until improved models of land produc- to the maintenance of agricultural land productivity and agricultural policy are developed. tivity. Further controversy centers on whether com- Recent evaluations of the largest cost-sharing pletely voluntary approaches to conservation programs have indicated that they have not will ever involve enough farmers. One pro- been a cost-effective approach to soil conser- posed alternative is to make inclusion in the vation. The controversy is over why this is so various commodity and credit programs con- and what should be done about it—not over the tingent on participation in the conservation basic rationale of cost sharing. The principal programs. This approach is referred to as reasons offered for the lack of cost effective- “cross compliance. ” ness are: 1) that funds intended for technologies to enhance long-term conservation have Agricultural Conservation Program been used instead to increase short-term production and 2) that funds are spread so broad- ACP is the country’s largest cost-sharing pro- ly and administered so loosely that they main- gram, Roughly $8 billion in Federal funds have ly subsidize conservation practices on land been distributed to farmers through the pro- with few conservation problems and rarely gram, which is available in every county in the reach the land with severe problems (Cook, Nation. In recent years the total annual pro- 1980a), gram budget has been about $200 million divided among about 300,000 participating The proposed solution to the first problem, farms. already implemented to a considerable extent, is to have stricter guidelines for use of cost- The program is administered at the national sharing funds to exclude production-oriented level by USDA’s ASCS, but most of the impor- technologies. The conservation effect of some tant administrative decisions are made by “production” technologies such as drainage, farmer-elected county committees. The author- however, may have been discounted too much. ity of the county committees includes identifying conservation problems, setting priorities, The proposed solution for the second prob- selecting appropriate cost-share practices, set- lem—i.e., “targeting” the cost-sharing pro- ting levels of cost sharing, approving applica- grams on regions of the Nation with the most tions, entering into contractual obligations, and severe conservation problems and on particu- making payments for completed conservation lar farms with the most fragile lands—is receiv- work (USDA, 1981a). ing increased support, but will be politically difficult. Farmers have become used to conser- In 1976-77, GAO found that less than half of vation cost-sharing programs in every county— ACP funds actually had been used for soil con- in every congressional district—and any major servation-oriented measures. Most of the redistribution of funds or personnel is sure to money had supported measures that, although be resisted. And experts do not all agree that eligible for funding, were primarily production- “targeting” is the most effective approach, oriented or that resulted in minimal soil con- Much of the Nation’s most productive land suf- servation. The GAO report noted that most fers constant, but not necessarily alarming, ero- county committees did assign priority to the sion and loss of productivity which might be practices for which Federal cost-sharing funds neglected under the “targeting” approach. Fur- were to be spent, but these commonly were not ther, comparing the long-term importance of followed. In some cases, practices designated preventing a small amount of soil loss from by county committees as high-priority or highly productive land to the importance of critically needed to control erosion received saving more soil on less productive land is an only a small percentage of the available funds, important, unresolved issue. This issue cannot whereas other practices considered to be probe resolved for national policymaking, how- duction-oriented or of a temporary nature were Ch VI— Role of Government 169 approved by the committees and heavily USDA’s main cost-sharing program could be funded on the basis of popular demand (GAO, substantially more effective in controlling ero- 1977). sion if funds were reallocated among States, counties, and farms in proportion to their rela- ASCS conducted its own evaluation of ACP tive erosion problems. Achieving improve- in 1977 (USDA, 1981a). This study added a new ments this way depends not only on the will- dimension to the criticism, for it indicated that ingness of the farmers with severe erosion many of the practices specifically intended to problems but also on their ability to pay their control erosion were placed on land without share and to implement the practices, The nec- severe erosion problems, Data collected na- essary socioeconomic studies to identify the tionally on nine erosion-control practices re- opportunities and constraints for directing vealed that 52 percent of the erosion-control cost-sharing programs have not been done, practices installed under ACP have gone on however. land where annual sheet and rill erosion was below 5 tons per acre, Moreover, ACP-funded ACP cost sharing has also been criticized for practices had not effectively reached lands investing too much in the less efficient conser- where sheet and rill erosion were known to be vation practices and too little in the most effi- most severe, The ACP evaluation stated: cient ones (table 25), Stricter guidelines for the Effectively targeting erosion control funds county committees to adhere to priorities and according to the potential for erosion reduc- select eligible practices could help eliminate tion could more than triple the amount of soil this problem, saved through the program. Achieving these improvements hinges on the willingness of Even before this evaluation was released, farmers with severe erosion problems to par- steps had been taken to direct funds to criti- ticipate in the program (USDA, 1981a). cally eroding areas and to ensure that the most

Table 25.—Cost Per Ton of Erosion Reduction by Practice and Erosion Rate

Type of practice Average annual Establishing Improving Vegetative soil loss permanent permanent Competitive cover on Average cost before treatment vegetative vegetative Interim Conservation shrub critical for all (tons per acre) cover — cover Stripcropping Terrace Diversions cover till age cont rol areas practices —Average cost per ton of erosion reduction in dollars— 0-1 . . ... 57.48 69.80 7.57 9.48 28.98 65.52 63.47 11.20 68,39 45.40 1-19. , ...... 15.97 9.01 7.10 6.91 18.52 61.39 4.98 3.16 5.77 14.23 2-2.9 .., ...... 6.36 4,91 6,28 3.43 11.24 31.53 2.35 1.58 — 5.05 3-3.9 ...... 4.32 3.04 2.15 3.14 12.18 29.13 1.76 3.64 0.29 4.19 4-4,9 .., . . . . . 3.81 2.76 0.92 4.13 9.91 18,43 1.50 0.83 4.38 4,70 5-5.9, ... . . 2.93 2.05 1.61 3.60 3.04 15,30 0.90 0.78 4.37 3.10 6-69. , . . . 1.89 1.72 1.14 2.68 2.98 15.19 0.98 0.51 2,96 3.46 7-79, . . . . . 1.81 1.38 0.52 2.57 4.67 9.49 0.53 0.61 0.38 2.33 8-8,9 .., 1,60 1.21 0.88 2.66 1.52 7,69 0.53 0.46 0.44 2,40 9-9.9 ...... 1.31 1.07 1.07 2.08 3.79 7.21 0.61 0.13 0.89 2,16 10-10 .9 ...... 1,20 1.03 1,43 1.68 2.16 6.77 0.39 0.33 8.4 2.16 11-11,9 ..., 1.00 0.84 — 1.95 0.49 5.77 0.39 0.33 0.59 1.57 12-12.9 ., 0.85 0.66 0.30 1.43 0.57 5,95 0.83 0.66 0.21 1.54 13-13.9. , . . . . 0.89 0.64 1.07 1.12 0.99 3.99 0.61 1,06 0.49 0.94 14-14.9. , 0.80 0.57 — 1.21 0.54 3.90 0.21 0.30 0.42 1.12 15-19,9 .., . . . . . 0.59 0.54 0,69 0.99 0.61 3.94 0.32 0.19 0.27 0.84 20-24 .9 ...... 0.45 0.45 0.06 0.87 0.44 3.07 0.29 0.32 0.21 0.54 25-29 .9...... , . . . 0.38 0.36 — 0.76 0.63 2.38 — 0.03 0,26 0.48 30-499 ...... 0.26 0.24 0,02 0.44 0.29 1.81 0.08 0.31 0.23 0,39 50-74 .9....., . . 0.17 0.14 — 0.15 0.14 2.21 0.13 — 0.46 0.24 75-99 .9.., . . . 0.14 0.13 — 0.03 0.08 2,19 0.04 — 0.15 0.22 over 100 ...... 0.10 0.06 0.01 — 0.07 1,36 — 0.01 0.16 0.21 SOURCE National Summary Evaluation of the Agricultural Conservation Program, Phase I USDA, ASCS, 1981 Data from a sample of Agricultural Conservation Pro- gram activities in 171 counties, 1975-78 170 Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

cost-effective erosion control measures would The Great Plains area was chosen because be used, However, the decision to reallocate of its susceptibility to serious wind erosion. ACP funds significantly resides with Congress. The program proposes to rehabilitate agricul- Data from the 1977 National Resource Inven- ture so that farms and ranches use more pro- tories (NRI) provide an accurate basis for di- gressive soil and water conservation tech- recting funds at sheet and rill erosion on crop- niques. In 1961, amendments to the program lands and improved pastures. The 1982 NRI extended contract authorization to land not in is expected to improve substantially the data farming or ranching, but where severe erosion bases on wind erosion and gully erosion on hazards were a threat to cropland or grazing croplands and pastures and to make some im- land, provement in the data on rangeland erosion. RCA appraisals of problems, opportunities, GAO has criticized GPCP for making unsat- and priorities at the State level could be used isfactory progress in alleviating soil erosion. to reallocate the program resources among Reasons included: 1) the frequent funding of States. The State and county committees would projects that are locally popular rather than remain vitally important because the NRI and those that have highest conservation priority, RCA processes cannot be made precise to the 2) insufficient effort to promote the program county level, and conservation problems are in areas with highest conservation priority, and always site specific. 3] inadequate extension work to encourage producers to maintain grass cover on the areas Great Plains Conservation Program most susceptible to erosion. Further, much of the land that had been seeded into permanent An alternative to redistributing ACP funds vegetative cover was being converted back into is to establish new programs for areas where cropland at the expiration of the contract pe- land productivity is being most severely de- riod. GAO concluded that the program was graded. The Great Plains Conservation Pro- making slow progress in attaining its primary gram (GPCP) is a model for this approach, This objective—wind and water erosion control cost-sharing program was created in 1956 and (GAO, 1977). has been extended through September 30, 1991, It authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, In 1974, USDA evaluated GPCP using linear through SCS, to make contracts with landown- programing models to examine the most cost- ers and operators in the designated Great effective practices and funding distribution for Plains area. The contracts, effective for periods optimal erosion control. The program was of up to 10 years, provide cost-sharing assist- found to be achieving 56 percent of the tech- ance for conservation practices necessary to nologically possible level of erosion reduction conserve, develop, protect, and use the soil and for the $11.5 million cost-sharing level then in water resources, effect. According to that analysis, reallocation of funds among States and optimal combina- The program is completely voluntary. How- tions of practices within each State could ever, each contract approval depends on the significantly improve erosion reduction and producer’s plan of farming operations, in- lower the associated Federal cost-share per ton cluding schedules for proposed changes and (Cook, 1980b). implementation of conservation measures, The plan must incorporate soil and water conser- For either the nationwide ACP or regional vation practices for maximum mitigation of the programs modeled on GPCP, the importance area’s climate hazards. It must also include of evaluation and adjustment is clear. ACP and practices and measures for: 1) enhancing fish, GPCP would probably benefit by eliminating wildlife, and recreation resources; 2) promot- or curtailing the cost-sharing eligibility of the ing economic use of the land; and 3) reducing less cost-effective conservation practices— or controlling agriculturally related pollution though this might best be done at the State level (16 U.S.C. 590 p(b)(l)), because of the site specificity of conservation Ch. VI— Role of Government • 177 problems. Possible approaches to encourage adverse social effects, occur on farms receiv- farmers with severe erosion problems to par- ing the commodity and credit program bene- ticipate include giving them preference in fits. So farmers who desire the society’s pro- other ACP cost-sharing programs, raising the tective farm programs might, in return, be ex- limit on total Federal spending per participant pected to protect the socially valued resources, (currently $3,500 a year) for them but not for This rationale has some public support, A 1979 others, and increasing the Federal share of Harris public opinion poll, part of the RCA their costs, Another approach would be to dis- process, indicated that 41 percent of re- courage participation by those farmers who do spondents believed that cross compliance not have severe erosion problems, These ap- would be fair to both farmers and taxpayers. proaches were suggested by the GAO evalua- In the spring of 1980, however, USDA re- tion of GPCP, but most remain untried. ceived nearly 110,000 comments on the RCA draft’s discussion of cross compliance. Overall, CrOsS Compliance 49 percent of the comments supported the Among the novel policy proposals presented strategy and 51 percent were opposed. Envi- to Congress by Secretary of Agriculture ronmental groups generally supported the idea, Charles F. Brannan in 1949 was the idea of re- as did farm organizations in the Northeast and quiring approved conservation practices as a Midwest, whereas members of farm organiza- condition for farmer eligibility in Federal com- tions in the South and West opposed it (USDA, modity programs (Rasmussen and Baker, 1979). 1980a), This was the first public proposal for cross One cross-compliance proposal would re- compliance, The idea, rejected in 1949 (along quire participants to adhere to acceptable with most of the “Brannan Plan”), subsequent- regional and crop-specific management prac- ly has not received much consideration by Con- tices to qualify for commodity program bene- gress. fits. Participating farms would have, as an ad- In the 1980 Resources Conservation Act re- dendum to their commodity program con- view draft, USDA discussed cross compliance tracts, an approved plan specifying an ade- as a possible conservation strategy. It noted quate conservation strategy consisting of that land users could be required to meet a cer- management practices compatible with the tain standard of conservation performance, or farm’s equipment and livestock feed needs. to carry out certain conservation measures, in Specific practices would be recommended or order to qualify for USDA program benefits required as the farm’s erosion potential war- (USDA, 1980a). The report suggested that ranted, but practices contributing to excessive USDA could remove all program benefits from erosion would be explicitly prohibited (Ben- land users who fail to comply, or it could offer brook, 1979; 1980). The incentives offered special additional benefits and subsidies to could include slightly higher target prices or those individuals who do comply. The range loan rates, upward adjustment of disaster pay- of benefits offered for compliance might in- ments, relaxation of payment limitation, use of clude subsidized interest loans, crop or flood higher yield levels in payment formulas, and insurance adjustments, commodity payments, tax credits or deferrals. and payments for income foregone or for main- Even a cross-compliance mechanism that tenance of conservation practices. might be politically palatable to farmers and The rationale for cross compliance is fairly to Congress could contain important practical straightforward, The Federal Government, difficulties. First, some of the land needing con- through its commodity and credit programs, servation treatment is not enrolled in Federal assumes part of the individual farmer’s eco- commodity programs. One USDA report indi- nomic risks, At the same time resource prob- cates that only about 25 percent of the land lems (primarily soil erosion), which have needing conservation treatment would be cov- 172 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

ered by a cross-compliance requirement be- Because some practices such as terracing tween USDA’s commodity and conservation would be costly to install, or would reduce the programs (USDA, 1980a). This is a rough farm’s cash crop acreage by requiring crop estimate because the conservation status of rotation or stripcropping, owners of smaller commodity program participants is poorly doc- farms might be unable to participate. If small umented. A large share of commodity program farms did drop out, program benefits would be benefits is paid to a fairly small number of skewed to an even greater degree toward larger large, high-income farms. Generally, these farms. Recognizing this dilemma, most pro- farms are thought to have the better quality posals for cross compliance have stressed the land, while smaller farms, having lower par- need to retain complementary cost sharing, or ticipation in Federal commodity programs, are loan or tax incentives for participating farmers. often situated on more erosive land. Conse- A final, important drawback of cross com- quently, cross compliance might be more suit- pliance would arise if Government commod- able for depletion problems other than soil ero- ity programs were to become less active in the sion, such as water conservation in the Great future. This could happen as the export de- Plains region. mand for major crops expands. In such a case, Second, many farmers elect not to participate target prices, set-asides, and diversion pay- in commodity programs in periods of high mar- ments would be needed less often. However, ket prices because program benefits are then some cross-compliance leverage will remain negligible. Thus, they might discontinue con- available in the future for certain commodities, servation practices in those years. Yet these are such as cotton or tobacco. Also, disaster- the years when production pressures are great- payment or crop-insurance programs under- est on agricultural resources, Thus, for cross written by the Federal Government possibly compliance to be effective, conservation and could tie conservation to credit and commodity commodity programs would have to be insti- policy. As commodity programs become tuted on a multiyear basis, instead of the an- oriented more toward achieving economic sta- nual basis traditionally used. Were such a pol- bility for farmers (v. achieving higher income icy in effect, some farmers would probably levels), there may remain a place for some drop out of the program, with the result that cross-compliance strategy. other, traditional commodity program goals Generally, the design of a cross-compliance would be compromised. For example, if the strategy would depend on how the productiv- conservation requirements caused larger farms ity y-conserving practices imposed on the farm- to withdraw, supply-control efforts would be ers or ranchers affect their profits. If the con- hampered; a relatively small number of these servation practices do not jeopardize the eco- larger farms make up a large proportion of nomic viability of the farm, a penalty-oriented program-controlled acreage and production, implementation strategy may be appropriate, This is a familiar policy dilemma of any pro- Fines, cross compliance with USDA produc- posal that would affect large farms (USDA, tion subsidies, taxes, and penalties for ex- 1981 b). cessive soil loss and water resource depletion Smaller farms are more likely to be affected might be considered. But if the conservation adversely by cross-compliance schemes. These practice creates financial hardships, an incen- farms tend to have lower quality land, and re- tive-oriented strategy would be more appropri- quire more expensive conservation practices. ate. Ch. VI—Ro/e of Government . 173

STATEINITIATIVES

Soil Conservation Districts provisions. Had local controls been more widely adopted to regulate farmers’ actions on many In 1935, following passage of the first major of the lands suffering from severe erosion, soil conservation legislation, a USDA Commit- needs might be fewer today. tee on Soil Conservation recommended that all erosion control work on private lands by the Notwithstanding these criticisms, the local newly formed SCS be undertaken only through conservation districts approach has been valu- a legally constituted Soil Conservation Associa- able in bringing conservation efforts to the tion. Thus began the concept of the Soil Con- land. Over the years, many local conservation servation District, and in 1937 the President districts have expanded their roles and respon- sent a model act for creating Soil Conservation sibilities to address a broader range of resource Districts to each State Governor. By 1947, all problems, including preparing agricultural States had enacted some form of enabling leg- plans for water quality, sediment control, coast- islation. Today, nearly 3,000 Soil Conservation al zone management, and rangeland improve- Districts exist, covering more than 99 percent ment (USDA, 1980c). Soil Conservation Dis- of the Nation (USDA, 1980c). tricts are an institutional base already in place coordinating Federal and State policies and These local conservation districts are gov- programs at the local level. Through their State erned by local citizens and are independent of and National associations, they are in a posi- Federal Government programs. However, SCS tion to communicate to policy makers the provides technical assistance through agree- changing needs and priorities of local comments with the districts. The conservation dis- munities. As such, they are likely to become trict committees also work with the local com- increasingly useful. mittees that oversee programs of ASCS, and with the staffs and advisory committees of the Extension Service and of FmHA. In areas with State Soil Conservation Planning Federal lands, districts are encouraged to carry 208 Plans out cooperative efforts with USFS and BLM. With the passage of FWPCA, State and local The existing system of Soil Conservation Dis- governments were called on to deveIop long- tricts has been criticized. First, a majority of range water quality management plans (call- the enabling statutes provide for district bound- ed “208 plans” in reference to the section of aries to conform to county lines rather than to the act dealing with these plans). Several States watershed boundaries, the approach favored completed the agricultural parts of the 208 by SCS. This creates more districts than might plans through agreements with the conserva- have been necessary. Perhaps more important- tion districts or State soil conservation agen- ly, this creates conflicts between counties over cies. Most plans had been certified and ap- conservation efforts in the same watershed and proved by EPA by the end of 1979. sometimes results in an inability to deal with the needs of an entire watershed. Second, a In 1973, the Council of State Governments number of States did not authorize districts to published a Model State Act for Soil Erosion enact land-use regulations as provided for in and Sediment Control. It presented the basic the Standard Act; others have never used those requirements for amending State soil and 174 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

water conservation district laws to extend ex- Iowa and Oregon were the first States to isting programs and to make them more effec- complete their long-range programs as part of tive. As of mid-1980, 20 States, the District of the RCA process; their plans were released in Columbia, and the Virgin Islands had enacted 1980. Iowa relied on citizen meetings to iden- erosion and sediment control laws and many tify statewide concerns and to plan actions, included provisions set out in the model act. Oregon compiled its summary document from All of the laws contain some provision for en- each conservation district’s updated program forcement of conservation requirements, and and public hearings. These two States, with many include mechanisms to regulate compli- very different topography, climate, and land ance with established soil loss limits. use, exemplify the range of resource problems at the State level. RCA=Funded Long-Range Plans Since the 1930’s, local Soil Conservation Dis- IOWA’S FIVE-YEAR RESOURC~ tricts have been charged with preparing long- CONSERVATION PLAN range programs for conservation of their areas’ Iowa’s 5-year plan contains specific actions resources. State-level long-range programing recommended by task forces organized in Iowa was not used for many years, in part because as part of the RCA appraisal process. The plan Federal assistance went directly to the districts. identifies Iowa’s major land productivity prob- In the late 1970’s, however, with grants from lems. The top three problems cited are soil ero- USDA under the RCA process, State agencies sion, water quality, and land use. In Iowa’s increased their involvement in resource plan- plan, soil erosion receives extended review and ning. In 1979, the National Association of Con- planning attention in areas including cost shar- servation Districts developed a sample outline ing, technical assistance, lengthening conser- for States to consider in formulating their long- vation construction periods through long-term range programs. agreements of 3 to 10 years, increasing landowners’ awareness and acceptance of conser- Two general types of planning are being used vation practices, tax incentives, soil loss limits, to develop the State long-range programs. One and urban soil erosion. develops a statewide summary drawn from the long-range programs of each conservation dis- The plan contains specific recommendations trict. The second relies on citizen meetings in each of its program areas. In 1979, to sup- where statewide concerns are identified, prior- port the plan, the Iowa General Assembly en- ities established, and actions planned. Both acted into law two of the plan’s recommended planning processes use extensive citizen in- State cost-sharing programs: the Iowa Till Pro- volvement, but the second process is less de- gram and the Wind Erosion Control Incentive pendent on the existence of a long-range pro- Program. Other recommendations include an gram in every conservation district. A few investment credit of up to 75 percent of the cost States have completed their long-range plan- of installing permanent erosion control prac- ning; most others have it under way, A few tices and strengthening existing soil loss limits probably will not be developing plans. Some legislation by expanding the complaint author- States may have difficulty completing their ity to include State and other government offi- plans because their initial RCA grants may run cials. Previously, only a farmer’s neighbors had out before the planning is completed. the authority to complain about his soil maintenance, The planning processes vary, but the common goal is to develop statewide, long-range conservation programs that will foster closer ORWON’S NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION working relationships among landowners, the COMMITMENT, 1980-84 districts, their State soil conservation agencies, Oregon’s plan applies primarily to 28 million SCS, other State and Federal agencies, and the acres under private ownership. It also takes public. note of public land management and the need Ch. Vi—Role of Government ● 175 for coordination between responsible State and Program and the Wind Erosion Control Incen- Federal land management agencies. tives programs. The Till Program authorizes Soil Conservation Districts to nominate tracts The plan identifies eight major concerns: of land where owners of at least 80 percent of rangeland management, forest management, the land area agree to manage 50 percent of soil erosion, drainage, irrigation water manage- their row-cropped acres to maintain crop res- ment, pasture and cropland management, wa- idue cover. For acreage with appropriate cover, ter quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. It iden- the States make one cost-share payment of $30 tifies practices to help revitalize deteriorated an acre, if that acreage is maintained under the rangeland, emphasizing management plans tillage practice for 5 years. Funds come from that schedule proper stocking rates and peri- the State general fund and are limited to 10 per- odic development input. cent of the State cost-sharing funds allocated The Oregon plan contains fewer formal rec- annually ($5 million in 1979-80) (USDA, 1980c). ommendations than does the Iowa plan, Ore- The Wind Erosion Control Incentive Pro- gon’s plan is a broad policy document that rec- gram was enacted by the Iowa legislature in ognizes State resource problems and suggests 1979. This program authorized one payment some preferred practices to overcome them, of $1,000 an acre for field windbreaks (trees) The document calls for cooperative action maintained for 10 years, one payment of $500 among individuals, organizations, and agen- an acre for grass windbreaks maintained for cies to address problems and set priorities that 5 years, and one payment of $30 an acre for will result in effective and enduring conserva- “Iowa Till” as described under the Iowa Till tion, Program, Funds are derived from State road use tax revenue. State=Funded Cost=Sharing Programs Minnesota amended its Soil and Water Con- In recent years, possibilities for State cost servation Law in 1977 to include the State Cost sharing for practices that control erosion and Share Program. Approximately $3 million in sedimentation have received increased atten- cost-sharing funds comes annually from the tion. This reflects a growing awareness that State general funds. The money is allocated to States receive long-term benefits from such districts by the State Soil and Water Conserva- measures and that the immediate costs may be tion Board, based on approval of each district’s more than an individual producer can reason- comprehensive plan. The State board considers ably be expected to bear. its priority areas to be controlling soil erosion, sedimentation, and related water quality prob- As of July 1980, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, lems. Practices cost-shared by districts must Wisconsin, Ohio, and Kansas all had cost- be on the approved list, which in 1980 included sharing programs. Funds come from both State erosion control structures, stripcropping, ter- and local sources. The programs are adminis- races, diversions, storm-water control systems, tered in addition to and in cooperation with and critical area stabilization. Maximum cost- USDA’s conservation programs. share levels are set by the State board. Cost- In 1973, Iowa became the first State to begin share levels on individual practices are set by financing a cost-share program for conserva- the districts, so long as they do not exceed the tion, To supplement this effort, Iowa launched maximum level. The maximum level for 1980 two experimental programs in 1979: The Till was 75 percent of the total cost, 176 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

COORDINATION OF COMMODITY AND CREDIT PR0GRAMS WITH CONSERVATION PR0GRAMS

In the past, the programs that manipulated Thus, the 1980’s appear to be a necessary agricultural economics and the programs to time for integrating agricultural programs. conserve resources seldom have had common State programs such as those recently devel- objectives, As noted by the National Associa- oped by Iowa and Oregon have made substan- tion of Conservation Districts (USDA, 1980a): tial progress toward effective integration of agricultural programs. It may also be a time Changing annual targets of commodity pro- when integration at the Federal level is feasi- grams contrasted with the long-term objectives of conservation plans confuse and distort land ble; policies and programs will be undergoing management decisions. Some farmers have fundamental changes to adapt to major eco- found themselves penalized by USDA pro- nomic changes. Analysts generally expect the grams when they carried out the USDA-en- principal goals for commodity and credit pro- couraged conservation plans. grams to change from production control and income enhancement to production stimula- In light of increasing demands on the Na- tion and income stability. If this is the case, tion’s resource base, it becomes more urgent new strategies probably will put more pro- to coordinate goals and strategies. Food and grams on a multiyear basis, a change that fiber demands are growing because of: 1) rapid- would help integrate them with conservation ly increasing foreign demand, 2) the nascent programs. Production stimulation, however, demand for biomass energy production, and may conflict with conservation if it causes frag- 3) increased concern for national self-reliance ile lands to be brought into row crop or small- —i.e., producing crops that are imported now, grain production with conventional farming such as rubber. Prices and supply/demand fluc- technologies. tuations increasingly will be affected by international forces outside the control of the Amer- ican producer.

This assessment finds that there are technol- tainability is set as an explicit goal of both the ogies being developed that can enhance short- Government-funded technology development term production and long-term productivity programs and the commodity and credit pro- concurrently. In some cases, the beneficial ef- grams, and if production enhancement is made fect on the resource base has been serendipi- an explicit goal of the programs to develop and tous, such as fertilizers’ effect of increasing soil implement conservation technologies, it should cover and crop residues. In other cases the ben- become possible to increase total agricultural efits have been planned as a goal of the tech- production and inherent land productivity nology development, as with the erosion con- simultaneously, trol effect of minimum tillage. If resource sus-

Benbrook, Charles, “An Examination of the Fledg- “Integrating Soil Conservation and Com- ling Alliance of Soil Conservation and Com- modity Programs: A Policy Proposal, ” Jour. modity Price Support Programs, ” N. Cen, Jour. Soil and Water Cons., July-August 1979, pp. Ag. Econ. 2(1):1-16, January 1980. 160-167. Ch. Vi—Role of Government . 177

Cook, Kenneth A., “Influences of Commodity Pro- States (Washington, D. C.: Council on Environ- grams on Long-Term Land Productivity,” OTA mental Quality, 1981), background paper, 1980(a). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “On the Horizon for RCA,” Jour. of Soiland Energy From Biozogica] processes, OTA-E-124 Water Cons. 35(1) January-February 1980(b). (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Emerson, Peter M., “Public Policy and the Chang- Office, July 1980(a)), ing Structure of American Agriculture, ” Con- U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, gressional Budget Office, 1978. Nutrition, and Forestry, Subcommittee on En- Geisler, Charles C., Cowan, J. Tadlock, Hattery, vironment, Soil Conservation, and Forestry, Michael R,, and Jacobs, Harvey M., “Sustained White Paper entitled “The Forest and Range- Land Productivity: Equity Consequences of land Renewable Resources Act,” Congression- Technological Alternatives,” OTA background al Record, p. S108018 et seq., Aug. 5, 1980(b). paper, 1980. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Sta- Harkin, J. M., Simsiman, G. V., and Chesters, G., bilization and Conservation Service, National “Description and Evaluation of Pesticidal Ef- Summary Evaluation of the Agricultural Con- fects on the Productivity of Croplands and servation Program, Phase 1, 1981(a). Rangelands of the United States, ” OTA back- U.S. Department of Agriculture, A Time to Choose, ground paper, 1980. Summary Report on the Structure of Agricul- Harl, Neil, “Influencing the Structure of Agricul- ture, 1981(b). ture Through Taxation, ” paper presented at “Resources Conservation Act: Appraisal Iowa State University, Mar. 12, 1980, 1980,” 1980(a). Lee, Linda K., “Relationship Between Land Tenure U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and Soil Conservation, ” OTA background “An Assessment of the Forest and Rangeland paper, 1981. Situation in the United States, ” 1980(b]. Oelhaf, Robert C,, Organic Agriculture (New York: RCA Draft Appraisal, Part I, 1980(c). Allenheld, Osmun, 1978), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Alterna- Pereleman, Michael, Farming for Profit in a Hun- tive Policies for Controlling Nonpoint Agricul- gry World, (New York: Allenheld, Osmun, tural Services of Water Pollution, ” No, 8, 1978. 1977). U.S. General Accounting Office, “The Farm Credit Rasmussen, Wayne D., and Baker, Gladys L., System: Some Opportunities for Improve- “Price-Support and Adjustment Programs ment,” CED-80-12, 1980(a). from 1933 through 1978: A Short History, ” “Framework and Checklist for Evaluating 1979, p. 32. Soil and Water Conservation Programs, ” Schmiesing, Brian H., “Credit and Credit Institu- PAD-80-15, Mar. 31, 1980(b), p, 134. tions as Factors Affecting the Long-Term Pro- “TO Protect Tomorrow’s Food Supply, Soil ductivity of U.S. Rangelands and Croplands, ” Conservation Needs Priority Attention, ” OTA background paper, 1980. CED-77-30, Feb. 14, 1977. Sheridan, David, Desertification of the United Cllapler VII

Issues and Options for Congress Contents

Page Issue 1: Integrating Conservation Policy and Economic Policy ...... 181 Issue 2: Improving the Effectiveness of Federal Conservation Programs ...... 183 Issue 3: Enhancing Federal Research Capabilities ...... 186 Issue 4: Reducing Pressures on Fragile Lands ...... 188 Issue 5: Encouraging State Initiatives ...... 1$10 Chapter VII Issues and Options for Congress*

The U.S. Government affects agricultural opportunities to change legislation to make ex- technology decisions through an extensive isting conservation programs more effective body of law, policy, and precedent, This in turn and to cause other agriculture programs to sup- affects long-term inherent land productivity. port the objective of sustaining inherent land productivity, Congress has two main channels to affect the development and use of agricultural technol- Opportunities for congressional action relate ogy: through legislation, including budget ap- to five policy issues: propriations; and through committee oversight of how existing laws and programs are admin- 1, integrating conservation policy with eco- istered. Generally, this assessment finds that nomic policy, existing agricultural legislation provides a 2, improving the effectiveness of Federal sound basis for Government activities needed conservation programs, to accelerate the development and use of pro- 3, enhancing Federal research on technol- ductivity-sustaining technologies. Consequent- ogies that help sustain land productivity, ly, many of the congressional options listed are 4, reducing pressure on fragile lands, and related to oversight functions. There are also 5. encouraging State initiatives,

ISSUE Issue 1 INTEGRATING CONSERVATION POLICY AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Various factors influence farmers’ and billion of this was cost sharing for conserva- ranchers’ choices of technologies and their tion practices. The other $22 billion supported land management decisions, but economics is programs intended to affect agricultural eco- the overriding influence. Recognizing this dec- nomics for other purposes. Still other Federal ades ago, Congress established several cost- programs do not make direct payments to sharing and other programs to make conserva- farmers but change the economics of farming tion practices more economically attractive for in other ways—e. g., by increasing foreign de- land managers. Payments to farmers from mand for U.S. crops. these programs undoubtedly have had a signifi- Thus, the Federal Government has tremen- cant impact on agricultural economics and dous influence on agricultural practices. But thus on technology decisions. From 1969 to only a relatively small part of this influence is 1979, total Federal payments to farmers and used to achieve the goal of sustaining land pro- ranchers were about $25.6 billion, Only $3,6 ductivity. This is not to say that the programs designed to affect production levels, stabilize “While the draft of this report was being reviewed by U.S. De- prices, improve farm incomes, or accomplish partment of Agriculture cp[USDA) agencies and by many other experts during September, October, and early November of 1981, other short-term economic goals all cause long- USDA released the 1981 Program Report and Environmental term deterioration of inherent land productiv- Impact Statement (revised draft). That report, which is part of ity. On the contrary, some of the programs to the process required by the Resources Conservation Act (RCA), contains a chapter titled “Preferred Program” that offered some limit production have been credited with con- recommendations quite similar to certain options identified in serving soil and water resources and with en- this OTA assessment. The “Preferred Program” chapter of the hancing wildlife habitat. However, others, such RCA report is included as app. E to this report and the options in this chapter that are similar to the RCA options are identified as the disaster relief programs, have been ac- with an asterisk. cused of encouraging cultivation of fragile

181 182 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity land. The key words here are “credited with” would affect the inherent productivity of and “accused of. ” In fact, little is known about agriculture’s natural resource base. how long-term productivity is affected by the To some extent, this is being done as a part important short-term economic influence of the 1977 Resources Conservation Act (RCA) wielded by Congress through the U.S. Depart- process, which mandated continuing evalua- ment of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) programs. tion of each of USDA’s 34 soil and water con- Existing agricultural economic programs, servation programs. Evaluations already com- proposed new programs, and program modifi- pleted have revealed opportunities to improve cations are not regularly or systematically ana- program effectiveness and presumably more lyzed to forecast their long-term effects on land conservation programs will be evaluated for quality. Neither the administrative mechanism the 1985 RCA report. Several major mathemat- nor the analytical methods exist for such evalu- ical modeling efforts are being undertaken ation. Conservation cost-sharing programs only under the auspices of the RCA program. I-low- now are beginning to be evaluated to determine ever, only one of these is a modeling program their effectiveness in achieving intended con- designed specifically to analyze policy impacts servation goals, and these evaluations are lead- and Congress has not directed the RCA to eval- ing to more enlightened public and congres- uate the larger and more powerful USDA eco- sional debate over how to modify the programs. nomic programs that are not considered con- The other, much larger, agricultural economics servation programs. programs do not have conservation as a goal and so their evaluations seldom include an A new effort to develop simulation models assessment of their long-term effects on the to evaluate existing programs, program modi- land resource. fications, and alternatives could be undertaken without necessitating a major new allocation OPTION 1 of funds to USDA. However, such an effort Congress could direct USDA to routinely would have costs—personnel would have to be and rigorously evaluate the long-term im- taken from other program efforts. The actual pacts of not only conservation programs but model development might be done by contrac- also all other programs that have a major ef- tors, but USDA analysts would need to be as- fect on agricultural economics. signed to run such a project. If new funding The information generated from such evalua- were not available, the idea would be resisted tions would foster more enlightened policy by offices whose funds might be diverted to it. debates. It could greatly improve policy deci- One appropriate source of funds and person- sionmaking, even without regulations requir- nel could be the commodity, loan, and insu- ing that programs not cause long-term harm rance programs that comprise most of the Fed- to agricultural productivity. There is a danger eral effort to influence agricultural economics. that mandating a routine evaluation would lead to a slow, expensive, and complex process, in A disadvantage to developing and using which case the information might be too cost- mathematical models is that too much cre- ly or might not be available soon enough to be dence may be given to the accuracy or preci- useful for policy decisionmaking. Developing sion of the analytical results. In fact, predic- improved mathematical policy models, how- tions made with complex policy models are not ever, could enable USDA analysts to avoid that necessarily more precise than predictions from problem. the “mental” models of experienced policy experts. The advantage of the mathematical mod- OPTION 2 els is that when experts disagree, they can use Congress could direct USDA to develop models to diagnose the causes of their disagree- analytical models suitable for evaluating ment and to communicate these objectively to how proposed program policy decisions Members of Congress and other policy makers. Ch. V1l—issues and Options for Congress ● 183

OPTION 3 tivity. The debates regarding whether the social Congress could initiate a policy to require or economic objectives of such programs are all new agricultural programs to include: worth the cost in long-term productivity could I) explictly stated, attainable objectives, one be enlightening, but might be expensive. This of which would be to sustain the inherent option, too, could lead to an expensive analysis productivity of agriculture’s natural re- process, but that could be avoided if appropri- sources; 2) management plans for achieving ate mathematical policy models were devel- the objectives; 3) monitoring mechanisms to oped. measure how well the program activities are achieving the objectives; and 4) a mechanism Any action requiring explicit program goals through which the monitoring of results and monitoring is likely to cause some agen- could be used to make changes. cy objections and political repercussions. Dis- Explicitly stating that conserving the produc- advantages include: 1) political advantages that tivity of renewable resources is a major policy may be gained from using programs for implic- objective would force recognition that conser- it goals, such as distribution of funds to a large vation and production are not conflicting goals. or special constituency, could be lost; 2) data Designing programs to include monitoring from monitoring programs could be used to mechanisms would keep agricultural programs end programs before they have had a realistic flexible so that cost effectiveness could be im- opportunity to achieve their goals (this is espe- proved continually and full use could be made cially likely with conservation programs, of technology or management innovations. which are usually long-term solutions to long- term problems); 3) politicians and upper man- This approach to integrating conservation agement could lose some control over program and agriculture programs is more demanding operations (with technicians gaining some con- than the program evaluations suggested by the trol) if programs were made flexible enough to first option. There may be some programs that allow constant improvements in cost effective- Congress deems necessary but that come into ness. conflict with conservation of inherent produc-

OF FEDERAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

USDA conservation programs are adminis- The National Resource Inventories of 1977 tered to provide technical and financial assist- provided, for the first time, statistically reliable ance to agriculturalists. But the programs have data which indicate that very rapid soil erosion not been effectively concentrated on the most is concentrated on a relatively small propor- severe land productivity problems, and USDA tion of America’s agricultural land. The data technology development and promotion efforts now make it possible to determine, with con- are not effectively focused on the most cost- siderable precision, the geographic location of effective erosion control techniques. The Soil highly erosive land. In 1979 and 1980 USDA Conservation Service did use national inven- recognized that there was still a paucity of pre- tories of conservation needs in 1957 and 1967 cise information on how erosion relates to agri- to allocate some funding and personnel, How- cultural productivity for each major soil type, ever, the political need to provide assistance Thus, two new research efforts have been to the maximum number of farmers has re- started to translate erosion rates into produc- mained an important factor in distributing pro- tivity loss rates. one will provide quick prelim- gram efforts, inary estimates of the relationship between ero- 184 . Impacts of Technology on (J. S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

sion and losses in yield; the other, longer study cost effectiveness of these funds by directing will more precisely describe these relationships the program efforts to the worst sites would with simulation models that reflect the com- seem imperative. However, if appropriations plexity of modern farming. As these analyses remain level (implying a decline in real funds), develop, it should be possible to rank regions as they have over the past decade, any concen- and specific sites by the severity of their tration of technical and financial assistance on erosion-caused productivity losses. Meanwhile, critical areas will reduce or eliminate assist- the available data on erosion rates can substi- ance elsewhere. The “targeting” option has tute for more exact information on productivity another problem: all conservation programs loss. are voluntary and there is no guarantee that farmers of highly erosive lands will use the The information now becoming available has financial or technical assistance made avail- set the stage to redirect Federal conservation able. Some data suggest that much of the ero- efforts (technical and financial assistance) to sive and otherwise fragile lands are concen- achieve improved erosion reduction—the so- trated in the hands of farmers with less capaci- called “targeting” approach, which formed the ty to manage the complex productivity-sustain- cornerstone of the conservation program pro- ing farming technologies and/or less available posed by the Secretary of Agriculture in Octo- capital to finance their share of the conserva- ber 1981. The emergence of water pollution tion practices. control as a major national policy objective also shows a need to reorient Federal erosion con- If cost sharing were directed to land simply trol programs to achieve the greatest possible according to erosion rates, it might miss lands reductions in erosion rates rather than the wid- with other significant productivity problems. est geographic diffusion of program efforts. There are areas that have shallow soils, poor The political motivation to distribute programs subsoils, and other problems, and that thus in- widely still remains, however. cur high rates of productivity degradation in spite of relatively low erosion rates. Nor are OPTION 1 the areas with high erosion rates the only threat to water quality. Sedimentation and nutrient Congress could direct the Agricultural Sta- bilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and pesticide runoff, for example, can be and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to severe in areas where erosion rates are low to concentrate increased financial and techni- moderate. The relationship between erosion cal assistance on agricultural land with se- and these environmental problems varies great- vere erosion problems. ly among watersheds, The new research programs to determine relationships between ero- Such a concentration of effort could enhance sion and yield reduction will resolve some of the effectiveness of these programs. For exam- these uncertainties in redirecting the program ple, ASCS has estimated that the Agricultural efforts, but will leave the water quality issues Conservation Program (ACP) could triple the largely unanswered. amount of soil kept in place through its expenditures (mainly cost sharing) by directing ero- This program redistribution option may not sion control funds to highly efficient tech- achieve greater cost effectiveness if the limit niques and to land with high potential for ero- on the amount of assistance allowed per farmer sion reduction, SCS estimates that if 25 percent per year (currently $3,500 for ACP cost shar- of USDA’s technical and financial aid were re- ing) is not raised. This is because many ero- directed to “national priority areas,” it would sion control practices (such as terraces) neces- reduce gross national erosion by 300 million sary for highly erosive sites are expensive to tons (6 percent) annually. Many soil conserva- implement. Another problem is that the cost tion policy experts anticipate a continued de- of relocating field personnel presumably would cline in the buying power of the Federal con- come from the agencies’ existing budgets, servation budget. If this occurs, improving the thereby reducing the funds available for other Ch. VIl—issues and Options for Congress ● 185

functions. Finally, any major redistribution of dislocations could result. (For example, local Federal funds among States to reduce erosion land improvement contractors who have done might weaken other State and Federal efforts past work recommended by SCS and cost to conserve agricultural productivity. shared by ASCS or other agencies probably would have less business. ) OPTION 2 Congress could appropriate additional OPTION 3 funds, or redirect existing funds, to expand Congress could direct the Farmers’ Home in-service training programs for SCS and Ex- Administration (FmHA) to provide increased tension Service field personnel to improve loan support for conservation practices, and their expertise with innovative productivity- to give preference among conservation loans sustaining technologies. to applicants who need capital for the initial New agricultural production technologies costs of implementing new, more cost-effec- and new conservation practices are being de- tive management technologies for resource veloped that can conserve inherent land pro- conservation. Congress also could direct ductivity effectively and simultaneously main- FmHA to make conservation plans a criterion for ownership and operating loans. tain or enhance farm or ranch profits, Often these technologies are not reaching farmers as Historically, FmHA agricultural loan pro- quickly as they might because Extension agents grams primarily have assisted farmers and and SCS field personnel lack experience in the ranchers who have had difficulty obtaining new methods. Some of the Federal personnel, credit from commercial lenders. Maintaining while having considerable engineering exper- the farms’ renewable resources has been one tise, are not adequately prepared to advise of several explicit goals for six of the agency’s farmers in new management approaches that loan programs: the Operating Loan, Farm might solve the same problems at lower cost. Ownership Loan, Soil and Water Loan, Re- For example, in the last 5 to 10 years private source Conservation and Development Loan, industry and State-level research scientists Emergency Loan, and Economic Emergency have made substantial advances in designing Loan programs. No rigorous evaluation of how no-till farming equipment, yet many Federal well these programs are achieving conserva- personnel still resist the technology because of tion goals is available, but data on program ex- early development problems that have since penditures suggest that only a small part of been solved. these programs’ funds actually are used for conservation. Improved promotion and consequent wider adoption of technologies that are already “on Increased emphasis on supplying startup the shelf could greatly enhance the cost effec- costs for innovative crop or range management tiveness of the overall Federal conservation ef- techniques (as contrasted with building engi- fort. And if training efforts were coordinated neering structures) could increase the cost ef- to include both SCS and Extension personnel, fectiveness of the conservation loan programs farmers would be less likely to receive conflict- and might substantially increase the pool of ing advice about solving their production prob- conservation loan applicants. lems while sustaining land productivity. If conservation plans are required, they need The disadvantage to this option is that in the not interfere with the agricultural production absence of new funds for conservation technol- and income stability objectives of the loan pro- ogy training, money would have to come from grams because technologies are available that existing programs. Also, if such training results can conserve resources while maintaining in greater emphasis on conservation tillage, im- farm profits in most situations. However, a proved water distribution or timing, and simi- loan program that requires conservation plans lar management techniques, certain economic probably would have increased administrative 186 ● Irnpacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

costs since the plans would have to be prepared loan or for follow-up loans, Federal personnel and reviewed. Also, if implementing the plan would be needed to certify the implementation was made a requirement either for the initial effort.

Issue at ENHANCING FEDERAL RESEARCH CAPABILITIES

This assessment, and other recent studies gress could encourage USDA to: 1) broaden such as USDA’s report on organic farming, the models to include processes of productiv- have found a surprising lack of data on what ity change other than erosion, and utilities would seem to be fundamental issues for devel- of agricultural land other than crop yield oping agricultural production technologies that (such as forage and water quality); and 2) simplify them for integration with policy can sustain the quality of the natural resource models directly useful to Congress. base while simultaneously producing commodities for the Nation and profits for farmers and The soil erosion-soil productivity modeling ranchers. For example, little is known about program now under way should greatly ad- soil formation rates under modern farming sys- vance scientific understanding of the relation- tems. Little is known about what impacts agri- ships between erosion and inherent land pro- cultural chemicals have on soil microbe ductivity. USDA has initiated the program with ecology or on species-specific microbe func- enthusiasm and, apparently, an adequate com- tions. Little is known about the dynamics of mitment of funds and personnel. However, like erosion or hydrology on rangelands under vari- any agricultural research program, the results ous management systems. will not be immediate and the agency commitment could wane as other priority needs for Some of the gaps in the data base are the scarce funds and personnel are identified. By result of agricultural research priorities devel- exercising vigilant oversight and by avoiding oped during the era of relatively inexpensive imposition of new responsibilities on the same energy and fertilizers. Options for improving agencies without concomitant additions to the overall planning and coordination of agri- funds and personnel, Congress can ensure that cultural research are presented in some detail the scientists will not be distracted from this in the OTA report An Assessment of the U.S. important program. Food and Agricultural Research System. The options given here relate more narrowly to the The modeling program is analyzing the most issues of research for inherent land productiv- important process of productivity degradation ity. —soil erosion—first. It is defining the bounds of its study by considering crop yield the main OPTION 1 dependent variable. This should produce a useful model within a reasonable budget and time In exercising its oversight responsibilities for agricultural research, Congress could en- frame. If the model is ready to be used for the courage and closely monitor the modeling 1985 Resources Conservation Act report, that program proposed by the USDA National report’s usefulness to Congress will be greatly Soil Erosion-Soil Productivity Research enhanced. Yet important gaps in the under- Planning Committee in 1980, assuring that standing of inherent land productivity will re- the program receives adequate funds and suf- main. ficient expert personnel. Further, once the research models can adequately describe the Precision in understanding erosion is impor- relationship between erosion and yield, Con- tant, even essential, for adequate policy decisions regarding how Federal conservation pro- I Office of Technology Assessment, An Assessment of the U.S. gram resources are distributed both geograph- Food and Agricultural Research System, OTA-F-155 (Washing- ically and among particular technologies. How- ton, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1981). ever, other processes such as aquifer depletion, Ch. V1l—issues and Options for Congress . 187 salinization, compaction, and changing range- The private sector paid to develop the no-till land ecology also are influencing the inherent techniques largely because of the potential for productivity of U.S. croplands and rangelands. profits from sales of patented inputs (e.g., her- For all these processes, little is known about bicides). However, neither no-till nor any other technological causes, national extent, or rela- single technological approach is suitable for tionships to long-term agricultural production. every fragile agricultural environment. Private Policies on how to distribute funds among pro- funding cannot be relied on to develop the wide grams that work with these productivity- array of innovative cropping systems needed change processes are based mainly on intui- to sustain the inherent productivity of dry, ero- tion and on political pressures, rather than on sive, or otherwise fragile agricultural lands. science. The intuition of scientists and experi- Some of the technologies needed will take too enced analysts is a good basis for interim policy long to develop; others will not include any decisions, but it should not be accepted as a potential profits from exclusive sales of inputs long-term substitute for scientific knowledge. to repay the development costs. Many aspects of productivity-change proc- Developing new crops—or improving old esses, such as the hydrological effects of range crops—produced from perennial plants (trees, deterioration, have yet to be measured ade- shrubs, and herbaceous perennials) is an exam- quately. However, the most immediate need is ple of technology development that might re- to use the data that already exist for compre- duce the need for tillage or irrigation. Develop- hensive analyses to indicate which data gaps ing new, more profitable uses for crops that are most significant for policy decisions and provide perennial cover is another example. for technology development. Subsequent re- (As one scientist advising this assessment sug- search could then be concentrated on those gested: “we need a research program to do for questions. Simulation modeling, the approach alfalfa what George Washington Carver did for being used in the soil erosion-soil productivi- peanuts.”) ty study, is ideally suited for this kind of Congressional instructions to USDA’s Coop- analysis. That program should expand its scope erative Research Service (CRS) for implement- beyond erosion and yield to other processes af- ing the Competitive Research Grants Program fecting inherent land productivity as soon as in 1977 included “research to develop and it has described erosion-yield relationships demonstrate new, promising crops” as one of with sufficient precision. four priority areas, Congress could provide additional recommendations to CRS to support OPTION 2 research on crops that help sustain inherent Congress could direct the Agricultural Re- land productivity. search Service to expedite research and development for potentially profitable cropping Congressional oversight authority could also systems that reduce the need for tillage on be used to promote such a research network. highly erosive soils or that reduce the need OTA’s recent assessment on the U.S. food and for high irrigation rates in areas where agricultural research system found that the ground water resources are being severely Federal research network for agriculture lacks depleted. explicit goals. Congress might choose to make The most promising innovative technology sustaining the renewable resource base an ele- for reducing tillage, and thus reducing erosion, ment of such goals. on highly erosive land is “no-till,” which substitutes herbicides and other agricultural chem- OPTION 3 icals for weed, insect, and disease control. This Congress could direct USDA to develop a technology has been developed by private sec- program for screening innovative technol- tor and State-level scientists and tested by risk- ogies that might sustain land productivity, taking farmers, with little Federal involvement. conducting preliminary tests of those that 188 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

have a sound scientific basis, and getting This option is not dissimilar to the charge those that seem promising into the main- given USDA’s Competitive Research Grants stream of technology development. program, except that sustaining inherent pro- Agricultural scientists necessarily concen- ductivity was not an explicit criterion for that trate their efforts on rather specialized subjects program. The program met a great deal of re- for long periods in order to contribute signifi- sistance because it was not funded with new cantly to agricultural technology development. appropriations, but rather used funds diverted The institutions that employ such scientists suf- from established programs. Any new program fer from chronic funding shortages and can or program change designed to include screen- hardly afford to risk funds or personnel on fun- ing and preliminary testing of innovative tech- damentally new approaches to agricultural pro- nologies for sustaining inherent productivity duction, This partly explains the seemingly probably would meet similar resistance and conservative, methodical pace of agricultural might ultimately fail without new appropria- technology development. “Breakthroughs,” tions. fundamentally new shifts of vision or tech- A related problem with this option is that if nique, do occur, however. No-till farming is Congress gives the function to USDA’s Agricul- one of many examples. But given the projected tural Research Service, it could distract the demand for U.S. agricultural products and the agency from other important tasks such as im- degree of erosion, ground water depletion, and proving data analysis. The Agricultural Re- other negative effects that seem inevitable con- search Service and the network of associated sequences of available production technol- federally sponsored research agencies cannot ogies, there is a great need to accelerate tech- perform an expanding agenda of responsibil- nological development. A program to provide ities without expanding funds and expert per- objective, deliberate screening of innovative sonnel. However, if Congress should expand agricultural technologies and ideas developed the Federal agricultural research establish- both by scientists and nonscientists might serve ment, it should not be assumed that the new this purpose. Various peer-review processes for funding and resources would automatically be research proposals and journal articles now used to promote productivity-sustaining tech- screen ideas, but without an explicit commit- nologies. The need for congressional vigilance ment to locate and test fundamentally different and oversight in this regard will remain. approaches.

ISSUE 4: REDUCING PRESSURES ON FRAGILE LANDS

A relatively small part of the Nation’s range land diversion programs on the scale of former and cropland accounts for a large portion of programs are not foreseen. As long as highly the Nation’s soil erosion. In the 1950’s and erosive lands are tilled for row crop or small- 1960’s, Federal land diversion and set-aside grain production with conventional agricultur- policies, intended primarily to control produc- al technologies, they will continue to be a major tion, provided substantial incentives for farm- cause of the Nation’s soil losses and a major ers to remove highly erosive and otherwise cause of the Nation’s water quality problems. fragile land from production. However, over the past decade, growing demands for agricul- OPTION 1 tural commodities have virtually eliminated the Congress could authorize ASCS to institute incentives to keep land out of production. Con- a special land diversion program for highly tinued growth in demand will cause additional erosive or otherwise fragile lands that would land with high erosion hazards to come into reimburse farmers for removing these lands production during the coming decades, and from row crop and small-grain production Ch. V1l—issues and Options for Congress ● 189

whenever crop supplies are deemed by the diversion program, This could increase pro- Secretary of Agriculture to be adequate for gram costs and, in years when the diversion domestic and export needs. payments were canceled, degrade land produc- Cost-sharing programs focused on the most tivity where it would otherwise have been pro- erosive lands might enable some farmers to tected. That problem perhaps could be avoided protect that land from high erosion rates, but by the use of some baseline year for eligibil- for much of the most erosive cropland, such ity, but that could leave fragile lands now called protection is extremely expensive, no matter “potential cropland” out of the program. Final- who pays for it. For such sites, paying the ly, from the farmer’s view, such a program farmer the difference between the per-acre could make it difficult to maintain equipment profit from the crops that cause erosion and and flexibility enough to produce both row or the profit from alternative soil-conserving land small-grain crops and land-conserving crops uses, such as hay or pasture, may be a less ex- on the same land. pensive and more effective way of protecting long-term land productivity. Such a diversion OPTION 2 could also serve to buffer farm prices in periods Congress could direct USDA to develop an of surplus commodity production, reducing the incentive program to promote the intensive need for periodic set-asides. The diversion use of those lands able to sustain row crop could be canceled when low supplies are ex- and small-grain farming or livestock grazing pected, thus avoiding pushing row crop and that are not now used for those purposes. small-grain prices up to levels that are either The 1977 NRI indicated that some 36 million too high for U.S. consumers or too high for the acres of land in the United States (excluding diversion program to afford. Alaska) had “high potential” for development as cropland. This included some land with rel- A principal disadvantage to a diversion pro- atively high erosion potential, but which is suit- gram with conservation as its primary objec- able for sustained, intensive crop production tive is that it creates a need for additional ap- as long as conservation practices are appIied, propriations. The program might reduce the How much of this land may have been con- need for expenditures in the Federal cost-shar- verted to cropland since 1977 is not known, but ing and technical assistance programs for con- the 1982 NRI should give updated information servation, but diverting funds from those pro- on the potential cropland remaining. SCS has grams probably would cause a long-term and identified another 18 million acres of potential substantial reduction in the Federal capability cropland in Alaska that is suitable for sustained to provide technical service. Thus, services production with appropriate conservation would be reduced for conscientious farmers practices. Similarly, underused grazing land who are willing to pay part of the costs for im- resources have been identified in Alaska and plementing conservation practices. Also, rein the Nation’s Eastern forests. ducing the Federal capacity to provide technical conservation services would be a signifi- Production from these land resources, as cant risk, since the diversion program might they are developed, should help to meet the not attract enough farmers or commodity growing demand for agricultural commodities prices might dictate that the diversion not be and, thus, help reduce pressure to grow row in effect during many years. crops and small grains on those erosive or otherwise fragile lands where production costs There are other problems with this option. are high or yields are low. Availability of funds for farmers who retire fragile land from row crop and small-grain pro- Most of the potential cropland and grazing duction could be an incentive for farmers to land, including that identified as “high poten- plant land now in pasture or hay to such crops tial” in the 1977 NRI and the land in Alaska, in order to make such land eligible for the paid will not sustain intensive use without conserva- \

190 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

tion practices. Any accelerated development require some redeployment of SCS personnel of this land will increase needs for SCS field or of other USDA conservation program activ- personnel and technical services. It may also ities.

ISSUE 5: ENCOURAGlNG STATE INITIATIVES

Soil conservation became a major public pol- planning process has been completed in sev- icy issue in the 1930’s. When it became appar- eral States. ent that States were not able to cope with the problems of land productivity degradation, the In addition to long-range, comprehensive Federal Government began providing most of planning, there have been State legislative in- the public investment in agricultural resource itiatives. As of mid-1980, 20 States had enacted conservation, But the Federal investment has erosion and sediment control laws, prompted been shrinking over the past decade by 6 per- in part by a Model State Act for Soil Erosion cent per year for financial assistance and 0.1 and Sediment Control published by the Coun- percent per year for technical assistance—in cil of State Governments in 1973. A few States spite of increasing pressures on the resources have recently begun programs in cost sharing, as additional fragile lands are brought into technical assistance, conservation education, production. tax incentives, and various regulation approaches to promote conservation technolo- This also has been a decade of increasing gies. In October 1981, the Secretary of Agri- State activity in land resource conservation. No culture proposed shifting some Federal conser- data exist that measure how well State efforts vation funds to States via grants for technical have offset declines in Federal investment or and financial assistance or for other purposes how well State programs are meeting the in- related to federally approved State conserva- creased conservation needs necessitated by in- tion programs. creased cropland in production, To date, most State initiatives have been planning efforts and OPTION 1 not all States are involved. Since much of the State activity seems to have been stimulated by Congress could encourage State initiatives specific congressional actions, there is good to enhance inherent land productivity by: 1) directing USDA to establish a special pro- potential for further congressional action to gram to assist States in formulating long- promote State activity. term conservation plans and legislation; Over the past decade, Federal legislative re- 2) providing small incentive grants to States quirements have prompted some major long- that request assistance for formulating such range planning efforts by States. For example, plans and legislation; and 3) appropriating additional funds, or redirecting existing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of funds, to provide substantial matching 1972 requires State and local governments to grants to States either for designated or develop long-range water quality management unrestricted use in agricultural resource con- plans. The Resources Conservation Act pro- servation programs. vided grants for States to plan long-range resource conservation programs. Some States A coordinating program in USDA to gather have completed these planning programs and and disseminate information from States have begun to implement them–the Iowa Till where long-term plans and special conserva- Program and the Wind Erosion Control Incen- tion legislation have been successfully devel- tive Program are among the first fruits of this oped could save officials in other States from process. Unfortunately, the RCA grant funds having to “reinvent the wheel,” and allow them are expected to run out before the program to focus on the unique needs of their particular Ch VII—/ssues and Options for Congress . 191

State. This should be a relatively inexpensive sult in the Federal funds going disproportion- and cost-effective option. Extending the RCA ately to the States that need them least. grant program for States’ conservation pro- Transferring increased responsibility to State gram planning would necessitate additional ap- governments could be used as a rationale for propriations, but could accelerate the transfer continued reduction in Federal funding for of agricultural resource conservation respon- programs, especially if funding is transferred sibility to the States. This program has been ef- directly from the Federal programs to match- fective for initiating promising resource con- ing grant or other types of Federal grants to servation programs in those States that have the States. Any severe cuts in the Federal pro- taken full advantage of it. grams are likely to undermine efforts to im- Matching grants to the States to implement prove Federal effectiveness by concentrating conservation programs would be an expensive efforts in the areas with the greatest conserva- option for the Federal Government, Such tion needs. The processes stimulated by the grants could encourage State legislatures to Resources Conservation Act and other recent provide technical and financial assistance for legislation are helping develop systems to farmers and for strengthening the institutions monitor the effectiveness of Federal conserva- necessary to support large-scale conservation tion programs, States may not develop such assistance programs. States could also benefit monitoring systems, and State programs may from unrestricted grants to initiate innovative be even more susceptible than national pro- planning, pilot projects, and other activities grams have been to political pressures for dis- that neither the States nor the Federal Govern- tributing services to the maximum constituen- ment currently support. cy or to special farmer groups other than those who have land with the greatest potential for Each of these approaches to stimulate State conservation program effectiveness. Finally, conservation activity has disadvantages. If any many of the State programs that are being im- detailed criteria or strict Federal review pro- plemented are designed to complement pre- cess is part of Federal grants for conservation existing Federal programs, If sufficient money planning or programs, it may be viewed as a cannot be appropriated by Congress to main- subtle step toward Federal land-use planning. tain the Federal programs while supplying Another problem is that financially strapped grants to the States, the grants may simply be or urban-dominated States may not be able to used to replace diminished Federal services. appropriate their share of funds for matching This would imply no new conservation benefits grant programs year after year. This could re- but adds another layer of administrative costs. Appendlx.es Page Appendix A.—The Innovators: The Stories of Five Agriculturalists and Their Commitments to Land Stewardship ...... 195 Appendix B.—Virgin Lands ...... 220 Appendix C.–Soil Productivity Variables ...... 225 Appendix D.—Analytic Tools and Databases for Determining the Effects of National Policies on Land Productivity...... 235 Appendix E.–The Resources Conservation Act Preferred Program ...... 243 Appendix F.—Commissioned Papers...... 247 Appendix G.–Glossary ...... 249 Appendix A The Innovators: The Stories of Five Agriculturalists and Their Commitments to Land Stewardship

Skill is still the key, but hard labor is no longer enough. More than any other generation of agricul- Howard Hanford, Nicholas Cihylik, and Roger turists, these men have at their disposal a vast Gallup are farmers. Lazaro Urquiaga and Bob Skin- arsenal of technological help. How they use some ner raise cattle. Ernie Brickner farms trees on of these tools to the benefit of their land’s long-term eroded croplands. Each works the land, and cares productivity is the basis for five case studies (fig. for it, in his own way. These men are both similar A-1) conducted on farms and ranches in: to and very different from the breed that used cow, corn, and sweat to transform this land from wilder- ● Treichlers, Pat—no-till farming with Nick ness to international power. Cihylik,

Figure A-l .—Case Study Sites

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

195 196 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

● Jordan Valley, Oreg.–range rehabilitation with barley, and safflower to timber—and cultivate less Lazaro Urquiaga and Bob Skinner. marketable potentials such as recreation, educa- ● Edelstein, III.—conservation farming with tion, and esthetic qualities. Roger Gallup. Yet despite the differences, these farmers and ● Whitehall, Wis.—farm rehabilitation with Ernie ranchers express a number of common concerns— Brickner. desires for more current and better information to ● Fort Benton, Mont.—saline seep prevention help them manage their operations; worries about with Howard Hanford. money, indebtedness, and fair pricing; and concern Five examples could never accurately represent about the future—both about their ability to main- the staggering diversity present in American agri- tain the quality of their land and their frustrations culture. Nor should the conclusions drawn from with governmental constraints on passing the land these studies be thought generally applicable to on to their children. farmers and ranchers throughout the Nation. But The purpose of these case studies is twofold. these five illustrations offer insight into the use of First, the studies illustrate a range of beneficial, land-sustaining technologies in agriculture. They often innovative, land-sustaining technologies and provide a firsthand view of the many economic, their appropriateness for certain situations. Sec- cultural, environmental, and ethical considerations ond, the studies explore how farmers and ranchers that affect a farmer’s commitment to land steward- make decisions about implementing land-sustain- ship. ing technologies—what public and private advisors The farmers profiled may not be “typical.” In- they use and what role economics and attitudes stead, each was chosen because he had a reputa- play in determining the technologies that will be tion for innovativeness and serious concern for the used on the land. Because technology is increasing- long-term productivity of his land. Each of the men ly the essential link between man and land, deci- runs a very different operation. They farm on differ- sions regarding its use are fundamentally impor- ent scales and show different landownership pat- tant to the short-term productive capacity of agri- terns—some rent, some own. They raise a variety culture and the long-term productivity of the land of products—from cattle, corn, soybeans, wheat, itself. App. A— The Innovators ● 197

NO-TILL FARMING-TRE9CHLERS, PA.

To the thin, life-sustaining layer called soil, water and gives a farmer more flexibility in timing his is both midwife and assassin. As midwife, rain planting and harvest operations. coaxes green growth from seemingly barren ground No-till, however, is no panacea; potential disad- and nurtures it. As assassin, rain can attack the soil, vantages exist in that no-till can increase weed, sweeping it away and degrading the land. pest, and disease problems, increase dependence Erosion is an ever-present, natural process, yet on agricultural chemicals, reduce crop yields, and when aggravated or accelerated by human activi- lower soil temperatures, thus delaying planting. ties, it can cause serious problems: hillsides That means a producer must think carefully before stripped to bedrock, lost soil nutrients, degraded switching to no-till. Soil type, climate, terrain, type water quality, and reduced crop outputs. For farm- of farming operation, even the farmer’s manage- ers, the threat is real; erosion can steal a farm’s ment skill, must be considered before a farmer con- wealth and bankrupt it. verts to no-till. Tillage—plowing, disking, and harrowing—are “I started no-till 10 years ago, before anyone real- generally thought to be synonymous with farming, ly knew much about how it would work, ” Nick But these operations hasten erosion by leaving un- remembers. “1 was like a bumblebee that’s too protected soil exposed to water and weather. heavy to fly on the size of his wings but does “Plow-disk-harrow. It’s tradition and it’s hard to anyway—I didn’t know enough about the difficul- break with tradition. ” explains Nick Cihylik, 40, a ty of no-till farming to be wary. ” corn farmer. “But tradition isn’t always best. Some Nick, who farms more than 1,300 acres in the of my land is 17 percent slope; all of it is rolling. hilly Lehigh Valley, rents almost all of his land, so With the erosion I was getting I decided there had traditional high-investment erosion controls, such to be a better way. ” as terracing, were out. Contour and stripcropping The better way he chose was “no-till,” a reduced were not workable for his large, all-corn operation, tillage system that eliminates all tillage passes and either. So Nick went into no-till willing to sacrifice leaves a protective cover of crop residues on the some yields for erosion control. But he did not have land. Instead of turning the soil with moldboard or to. His yields are actually slightly higher now than chisel plow, a no-till farmer’s implements merely before the switch. cut a narrow slit in last year’s stubble and drop in “No-till is a deceiving word, though, because it seeds. Advocates purport that no-till not only re- says what you don’t have to do. It should be called duces erosion but reduces energy use and labor re- ‘extra work farming, ’ What you’re doing is chang- quirements (thereby allowing a farmer to work ing the type of work—and taking on a lot more man- more acreage), increases water efficiency, extends agement decisions, You’ve got to be organized way drought tolerance, reduces machinery investments, in advance, you have to do alI the soil tests, and figure out weed problems before they happen, and keep on top of your chemicals. ” Agricultural chemicals take on added importance in no-till farming because without tillage, weed and pest control is left entirely to herbicides and pesticides. No-till’s development, in fact, lay relatively static between the first experiments in the 1940’s until the 1960’s when Chevron Chemical Co. introduced Paraquat, a powerful contact herbicide that kills green plant tissue (whether weeds or a sod cover), then is quickly inactivated because it binds with clay in the soil. Nick turned to Paraquat, and Chevron, for help early in his switch to no-till. Unlike most reduced tillage initiates, Nick did not experiment with small acreage trials before jumping full force into no-till. Photo credit” OTA staff In 1970 he tried one season with no-till soybeans, barely managed to produce enough to pay back the Nick Cihylik working in a no-till field on his seed, and then gambled 500 acres all to no-till corn Pennsylvania corn farm the next season. 198 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

“Getting into no-till was like a wedding night. In looking at no-till, either as a land-sustaining You had no idea what you were walking into,” Nick technology or a means to reduce energy costs, a recalls of his sudden, large-scale trial. “After my farmer must be careful to consider the specifics of first season, I wanted more information but nobody his operation in light of current knowledge about knew much to help so I went into it alone. ” the management system. The first criteria seem to It was a local Chevron representative who sat be environmental—whether no-till can be success- down with Nick and helped him lay out a thorough ful with his terrain, soils, and climate. In poorly plan for his farm. Through the company Nick be- drained soils, crop yields can suffer under no-till. came involved in some of the first local and region- And because a layer of crop mulch covers the soil, al no-till conferences, meetings where early no-till ground temperatures may remain cool in the spring farmers could trade stories and supposedly learn and may delay planting. In short-season, northern the latest about managing their new systems. climates, this delay can hurt yields. Some farmers “Those first meetings were mostly advertising, will also have questions about the increased use of but it was all we had. Ag extension didn’t actively toxic chemicals and possible environmental reper- promote no-till, though they were willing to help cussions. where they could, ” says Nick, who speaks highly The next thing a farmer might consider would of Pennsylvania State University and its current no- be operational–is he willing to change the way he’s till research. been farming all his life and is he skilled enough “Chevron and Paraquat are one. And Paraquat to manage a no-till system successfully? is no-till. It was in their interest to promote no-till; “You have to be a good conventional farmer to they got actively involved in my operation because be a good no-till farmer,” stresses Glen Ellenberger, they wanted an example, ” Nick explains. “A suc- Nick’s county extension agent, now retired. “It cessful example, And I needed the help. ” takes extensive management—a precise use of “Of course we had selfish reasons for getting in- chemicals, careful monitoring of pest and disease volved, ” interjects David Cote, Nick’s Chevron rep- possibilities, soil tests, and planning. It’s not a lazy resentative and friend. “We make chemicals. We’re man’s operation. ” a business and we want to show a profit. But our The environmental and technical pros and cons underlying concern is with the farmers’ best inter- are only some of many factors that can influence ests—the economic and conservation benefits of no- a farmer’s decision to try no-till. In general, the ac- till. We want to keep them in business because if ceptance of any new idea or technology can be in- the farmers aren’t in business, a lot of us aren’t, fluenced by: either. Selling isn’t all we care about; we do tests 1. the relative advantage offered by the change, and give advice about more than just Paraquat. It’s 2. the compatibility of the innovation with the sort of like the Santa in the movie ‘Miracle on 34th farmer’s needs and type of operation as well Street. ’ “ as his past experiences and his values, David and Nick recall that during the early years, 3. the complexity of the change, Chevron may have been overly zealous to “convert” 4. the degree to which the innovation could be farmers, but the company straightened out quick- experimented with on a limited basis, as it is ly as they started looking at no-till as a serious, sus- less risky to move piecemeal into a new system tainable system of agriculture. If farmers were than jump totally from old to new, and going to stick with no-till for the long-term, they 5. the degree to which the results of a new tech- needed a workable, economically viable system, nology or idea are visible to prove its value, For and Chevron decided to help develop one. Also, as instance, the adoption of preemergent weed- Pennsylvania State University and other public in- killers was slow in spite of its relative advan- stitutions became more involved in no-till research, tage because there were no dead weeds for po- farmers had other information sources to turn to tential users to see. for confirmation of Chevron claims. And as for con- In Nick’s case, the long-term advantage offered verts, they’ve become easier and easier to find, so by reduced soil erosion was enough to offset the the hard sell has become unnecessary. increased managerial complexity, He acknowl- “With fuel prices what they are, all farmers are edges that his increased chemical use might cause forced to look for alternatives,” Cote explains, “and environmental problems but feels that erosion is a they’re all looking at some point to reduced tillage. more real threat, Because no-till slows runoff, he Not necessarily strictly no-till, but at least to reduc- feels it also reduces the amount of his chemicals ing the number of tillage passes they make over a that slip away to contaminate waterways. But while field. They’ve got to. ” no-till is gaining relatively rapid acceptance in App. A— The Innovators ● 199 many parts of the country, few of Nick’s neighbors are small in no-till, banks have less influence on have followed his lead. The reason is more socio- farmers switching to no-till than on farmers want- logical than technological. ing to try more capital-intensive new technologies. “Nick is different from his community, He’s pro- “A well-managed investment in the land pays for gressive and he stands out, ” explains Ellenberger. itself in time, Maybe not tomorrow . . . I do have “He was born here, but he’s not a native like his children interested in farming, and I’m glad for neighbors. They like clean, traditional fields, and that. I have to start something for them, ” says Nick. no-till looks really messy, like you’re not a good “Your land, your farm, is your life. You’ve only farmer<” got so many inches of topsoil—when you have an Despite their reputation for independence, the opportunity to help it stay put, you do it. The agricultural community has subtle and direct influ- chance may never happen again. ” ence on farmers, even innovative farmers such as Nick broke with the plow-disk-harrow tradition Nick. For instance, it is a rare farmer today who because he felt his land would benefit from less does not rely heavily on banks, credit associations, erosive management. The system he chose to adopt and the like for loans to make his operation work. —no-till—proved to be both agriculturally and eco- And the power of the purse strings can control nomically sound, as Nick’s erosion losses are neg- what a manager can and cannot do on his land. ligible now and his yields are as good or better than “Our involvement in farm management is mini- ever. mal. We don’t tell a farmer to switch from corn to No-till is in many ways a good example of an in- beans, ” says Alan Greiss, of the Production Credit novative, land-sustaining technology. It can be good Association Nick uses. “But we can refuse loans, for the land—used properly and in the right situa- either because we think a scheme is harebrained tions. It can be economically viable, again, when (like the guy who wants to buy Clydesdale horses it is matched with operational and environmental to walk treadmills to generate electricity) or because dictates. No-till shows, too, that the solutions to our the farmer has low equity. ” agricultural problems will not be quick in coming; In other words, though the bank has some money rather, many of the promising new technologies are to risk, they tend to want to finance sure-fire ven- managerially complex and are more demanding of tures. This can have a large impact on young farm- the farmer’s dedication, as well as his skills. And ers who, unlike Nick, have not built up much equi- no-till illustrates that it is possible, even practical, ty and do not have longstanding reputations as for a farmer to take his stewardship seriously and good farm managers. Because initial investments still succeed from an agribusiness viewpoint. 200 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

RANGE REHABILITATION-JORDAN VALLEY, ORE@.

The land around Jordan Valley, Oreg., is rugged unique; in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific States and harsh—great expanses of dusty soil littered (excluding Alaska and Hawaii), the Federal Govern- with rock and clumps of parched bunchgrasses. But ment controls an average of 47 percent of all range- it is valuable land. To the rancher, it is home to lands, whether through BLM, the Forest Service, family and livelihood. To the Bureau of Land Man- or other agencies. In Oregon, 59 percent of the agement [BLM), this area—the Vale District—is a rangeland is managed by Federal authorities. showcase of new range management ideas. BLM, by law, manages its lands for the American Ranchers such as Lazaro Urquiaga and Bob Skin- people, trying to balance the environment’s capac- ner are part of a determined breed that settled this ities with the needs of cattlemen, recreational users, range despite the harshness. The isolation and the wildlife, and other interests. For the ranchers who great distances that separate them from town and lease grazing rights from BLM here, the quality and friends go unquestioned. They know the land, both availability of the range is no light matter. Cattle its limitations and its potentials. They raise cattle are the center of their world and have been for gen- because that is what the environment will tolerate. erations. So men such as Lazaro and his neighbor And that is what their families have done here in Bob Skinner are rightfully concerned about BLM’s Jordan Valley for many generations. choice of management technologies for the range. Most of the land around Jordan Valley, and in fact “This is some of the finest range you’ll see in the 70 percent of Malheur County, is part of the Vale Vale District, ” Lazaro, 30, points out, But it wasn’t District of BLM–a 6.5-million-acre rectangle, 60 by always so, Over 11 years, from 1963 to 1974, $10 175 miles (100 by 280 km), in the southeast corner million poured into the Vale Rangeland Rehabilita- of Oregon. Such a strong Federal presence is not tion Program. It transformed the district into a showplace of range management and restoration experiments—innovative seedings, water development, fencing, brush control, and grazing systems, And for the most part, BLM staff and local cattlemen agree that the restoration program for the once-abused range is an avowed success. BLM and the ranchers did not always get along so well. Their disagreement over the management of the Vale range, in fact, is what initiated the rehabilitation program in 1963. “Nobody really argued that the range wasn’t overgrazed, ” remembers Bob Skinner, a 60-year-old Jor- dan Valley rancher who owns a sizable home spread and runs cattle on BLM land for 7 months each year. “It was the BLM’s first proposal—to cut grazing an average of 58 percent—that got the ranchers to raise such a stink, That would’ve driven people out of business. ” The suggested reductions in grazing that angered Skinner and many of his neighbors were not the first of the Vale area’s range controversies, Exploi- tive use of the range, especially around limited water supplies, probably began even before the home- steading boom of the 1880’s, and by 1900 range deterioration was severe. Since the land was public domain–open to cattlemen, itinerant sheepherders, miners, and settlers alike—little could be done to stop the degradation and erosion. By law, the land belonged to all, Yet no one was responsible for Photo credit” OTA staff sound land use. Lazaro Urquiaga comparing crested wheatgrass, Area residents were not oblivious to the growing an introduced species, with native forage problems. Oregon ranchers spearheaded the drive App. A—The Innovators ● 201 for the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, legislation de- well, first take 60 to 70 percent of the cattle out signed “to preserve the land and its resources from there and wipe them off the slate—the old range destruction or unnecessary injury, to provide for couldn’t have supported them. Then take all the tan- the orderly use, improvements, and development gential impacts on town and the rest , . . the proj- of the range. ” The act marked the end of the open ect was a success, alright. ” homestead era, but not the end of controversy. Range is range because of its physical limitations; Settled ranchers used the act to halt migrant the land simply cannot support more intensive use. sheepherders, whose herds would strip the range Ranchers and range managers learn to work within mercilessly. But the powerful ranchers who sat on those limitations. Southeast Oregon, including the new Grazing Service’s advisory board were not the Vale District and the Skinner and Urquiaga entirely altruistic; when it came to allocating graz- ranches, is a dry, inhospitable environment. Pre- ing rights, they did so on the basis of past use and cipitation averages only 7 to 12 inches per year, commensurate property, not on the carrying capac- Vegetation is sparse; dependable surface water is ity of the range. So while the ranchers were eager scarce. Although there is some irrigated agriculture to maintain their ranges to stay in business and in the bottomlands, for the most part cows are the sometimes buiIt fences, developed water, and even only viable “crop” for the environment. controlled sagebrush, for the most part they were Depending on the quality of the range, it can take interested in practical matters—low grazing fees from 2 to 5 acres of range just to support one cow and high profits from running as many head as pos- for a month (called an AUM, or animal unit month). sible. But rangelands, like croplands, can be improved By the late 1950’s, the Vale range was in poor con- through proper management. The question in Vale dition and everyone knew it. What neither cattle- was where do you start? The Vale District encom- men nor B I,M staff knew for certain, however, was passes almost 6.5 milIion acres [2.6 million ha). Not how to save the range. only cattle but pronghorn antelope, waterfowl, rap- The easy answer was to reduce the herds. “There tors, mule deer, hunters, and fishermen had to be was no question that something had to be done, but accommodated under BLM’s multiple-use mandate not straight-out reductions, ” remembers Domi- and its broad definition of land productivity. Obvi- nique Urquiaga, Lazaro’s father. That action would ously, there was no one “right” management tech- have hurt more than just the cattlemen, Malheur nology for all that terrain. In fact, there was no way County is cattle country, and indirectly everyone— to actually treat the entire, immense acreage. bankers, merchants, and townspeople–was a part Instead, the district’s plan was to intensively treat of the cattle industry, They all opposed drastic cuts. only part of the range—scattered tracts totaling Grazing cuts were a threat to their economic live- about 10 percent of the land. They hoped that these lihoods and to a century of tradition. treated sites, combined with overall sound manage- “The ranchers felt threatened, rightfully, by the ment and some temporary herd reductions, would proposed cuts, ” says Bob Kindschy, the Vale Dis- alleviate grazing pressures on degraded native trict wildlife biologist who has been at Vale through range and give it time to recover. Some of the treat- the entire project. “In 1962, a group of them got ments—for instance, seedings of introduced grasses together and requested a congressional inquiry, such as crested wheatgrass—were not expected to which Congressmen Unman and Morse held here. be permanent improvements, just stop-gap meas- BLM seized the opportunity to write up an alterna- ures to provide good forage while the native ranges tive proposal—a plan to rehabilitate the range, We rested. It was an added plum, then, when during brought in all sorts of experts to present ideas and the course of the decade-long program the district got everybody interested in a compromise ap- staff discovered that the introduced seedings preach. ” adapted perfectly, reproduced, and became self- “Conservation is like apple pie; you can’t be sustaining pastures. against it,” he remembers. “The Congressmen took “We’re trying for sustained yields. The grazing the idea back to Washington and pushed it through. program’s goal is to make the range available for- And we got a chance to show that with coopera- ever; we strive to manage for the long-term. We say tion and funding, you can do great things with dete- we can graze this country and keep its productiv- riorating range. ” ity high and stable, for cattle and otherwise, ” ex- “The thing that hits home hardest,” Skinner adds, plains Phil Rumple, a range manager. “If cattle are “is that now we’re actually harvesting all the forage one bite ahead of the grass, you have to lower their we pay for. If we went back to the way things were, numbers until they are one bite behind. ” 202 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

The mix of management practices and land treat- Range managers also experimented with sprayed ments used differed among the 164 tracts desig- herbicides for brush control, but not without con- nated for rehabilitation. Sites were selected by their troversy. potential for improvement, not degree of deteriora- “Paraquat could be a tremendous help here, but tion. Treatments were planned through the com- it’s banned on Federal range, ” explains Lazaro. bined efforts of the district’s range conservationists, “It’s an economical way to control a burn—you wildlife biologist, and watershed engineers. spray the perimeter and then you can safely burn Brush control is an important first step in range the area within the border. But we can’t use it. ” rehabilitation. As native range is overgrazed, more “I wouldn’t ignore legitimate environmental and more of the desirable forage plants are eaten; problems, ” he adds, “what I don’t understand, what grows in their place are less palatable species. though, is why something is okay on private land Once established, most brush species are extreme- but not on Federal. Is there a different safety fac- ly difficult to remove. tor for some reason?” The rangeland disk-plow—a special tool designed Burning, the method that historically kept the with each disk mounted on an independent shaft sage in balance, proved to be an effective brush con- for rough terrain—was developed early in the Vale trol technique, too. In fact, areas that suffered either program to help control brush. Big sagebrush—a experimental controlled burns or wildfires had the common, unpalatable species—had invaded many lowest average density of sagebrush of any treat- denuded pastures and taken over, compounding ment, the degradation. But two passes with a plow could To reestablish good pastures, a special rangeland kill 90 percent of the nuisance plants as well as drill was developed to drill seed into the rugged ter- prepare the ground for seeding. rain. After many trials with a variety of grasses in-

Photo credit. Bob Kindschy Rangeland disk-plowing App. A— The innovators ● 203 eluding pubescent wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, many species of bird and animaI life that congre- western wheatgrass, and various clovers, crested gate there. wheatgrass emerged as the most consistently suc- “A carpenter needs tools—a hammer and saw— cessful grass to plant. Crested wheatgrass, a species to practice his trade. Similarly, seeding, fencing, native to Siberia and adapted to animal grazing, brush control, and water developments are tools to was greeted with some skepticism by area ranchers allow intensive range management. You work with when it was first planted; some called it “macaroni these tools to get a good distribution of grazing grass” and belittled BLM for bothering with it. pressures,” explains Vale Wildlife Biologist, Bob “When the first seedings went in, some of us re- Kindschy, fused to run our cattle in them. We weren’t going Range managers use such tools together with to run our cows in ‘broom straw. ’ “ Skinner re- their knowledge of animal and plant science to set called. “Then Max Laurance, from BLM, came up sustainable grazing systems. No longer do down in person and basically begged us to try a ranchers simply release cattle onto the growing pas- seeding. Once we’d tried it, you couldn’t get us not tures of early April and round them up with the first to use it. It was that good, ” snow. Instead, they work with range managers to To various extents, the success of many of the plan for the cattle to be rotated throughout the treatments and the overall range management range, alternately using and resting pastures and schemes used at Vale depended on water. Manag- enhancing the sustainable productivity. ing the range meant managing the land and water Lazaro favors close working relationships be- resources. For no matter how good the range— tween BLM managers and cattlemen who use the native or introduced—no cows will graze without range, He thinks that both sides would benefit from adequate water. And, conversely, the cattle will a new’ kind of policy regarding stewardship for the concentrate, and often abuse, the range nearest land—a way to encourage ranchers to make im- available water. Grazing pressures were especially provements on the Federal range. severe on fragile riparian environments and the “There is a ‘stewardship experiment’ in Challis, 204 Ž Impact of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Photo credit’ OTA staf Developing adequate water supplies is essential to sound range management

Idaho, that shows what I mean, ” Lazaro explains. wildlife, Another wildlife watering device, called “If the range supports 1,000 AUM, and a rancher a “guzzler” or “bird bath,” is a small catchment and improves that to 3,000 AUM, that rancher would tank that stores precipitation. More than 30 have get the extra rights, He’d still pay for them. This been built on the range, strictly for wildlife. This way you create more user involvement, more per- way all the life on the range gains from the restora- sonal involvement, You’d need a written agree- tion. ment, of course, so that you get a stable position The various range treatments and rotations are on the range and a guarantee that you’d actually not without their shortcomings. Managing for mul- benefit from your labors. ” tiple uses inevitably causes some conflicts. Some- To increase water availability at Vale and hence times change itself—no matter how benign—is re- broaden the cattle’s range and widen management sisted in favor of tradition. Even the physical man- options, BLM staff built a number of new wells, agement techniques—seedings, plowing, and brush pipelines, and reservoirs. But they had more than control methods—can cause problems. Plowing at cattle in mind, the wrong time can bury native, desirable seed too In keeping with BLM’s multiple-use mandate and deep to grow. Planting only one species can elimi- their commitment to diverse and sustained land nate the diversity needed for wildlife browse and use, BLM planned for wildlife as well as cattle shelter. New fences, even those built with an un- when they developed water. “Noodle bowls, ” for barbed bottom wire to reduce hide cuts on antelope, instance, are hilltop water catchments fed by can kill some animals who charge unaware into the springs that distribute water by gravity pipelines obstructions. And controversies over fire and herbi- to surrounding pastures. Range managers keep cide use seem unlikely to subside. these reservoirs open through the dry season, even Problems arise, too; Bob Skinner points out that when cattle are on other ranges, for the benefit of it is not uncommon to see game, whole herds of App. A—The Innovators . 205

Photo credit OTA staff BLM experimental range showing a reseeded section v. native grasses. Note predominance of unpalatable sagebrush on left deer, from the BI.M range feeding heartily on near- tant record of what can and cannot be done for by, privately owned alfalfa. deteriorating rangelands. Vale’s experiments have not solved every prob- Like the other case study sites, the Vale District lem on the range, but the work done there has pro- illustrates that sustaining land productivity requires vided other range managers with some new and a greater, and sometimes more laborious, sense of useful tools, They have learned what grasses to use stewardship. It requires more managerial skills, in seedings, how to manage riparian areas more more openness to change, and often more finan- carefully, and how to diffuse grazing pressures, im- cial and philosophical commitments. But unlike prove forage, and incorporate wildlife needs early most farmers, the Vale ranchers do not hold pri- into the management strategy. And, importantly, mary responsibility for managing their range. Deci- the Vale Range Rehabilitation Program proved that sions about how technology will be used to restore severely degraded range could be improved and and maintain the grazinglands and accommodate maintained without undue local hardship—given the many, sometimes competing demands rest with support, knowledge, and cooperation. BLM, And responsibility for careful use is shared The lessons learned at Vale can guide sound by the more than 400 ranchers who run cattle on range use elsewhere in the intermountain-type the “commons.” Such joint stewardship poses spe- ranges—the “cold desert steppe” rangeland that ex- cial problems; it calls for cooperative planning and tends through Oregon, Washington, and parts of a strong sense of commitment from all the people Montana. Some broader lessons, too, are transfer- benefiting from the shared resource. able to different types of range throughout the “The BLM is a stabilizing influence on the range Nation. and is necessary, ” Lazaro says, “The idea of local Though the major thrust of work at Vale has control is misleading because realistically you still ceased, the district stands as an example of sound need the same people—watershed people, range resource management. Research continues—ex- specialists, wildlife people. But what we do need, perimentation with new grasses, new fencing all of us here, is a stable relationship with the Feds. techniques, sophisticated grazing systems, and the That would be an important step toward better like—but slowly. The work makes Vale an impor- range use. ” 206 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

CONSERVATION FARMING-EDELSTEIN, ILL.

It was a powerful piece of paper that lured Joseph themselves on top of some of the richest farmland Gallup halfway across the country, from Connec- in the world. But in the meanwhile early settlers ticut to Illinois, in the 1850’s. And it is that same such as the Gallups stayed near the prairie fringe— property deed that ties Roger, his great-great-grand- along the rivers and in the hilly, wooded lands. son, to crazy-quilt contour farming on hilly land Today, 43-year-old Roger and his father, Dwight, while just 2 miles down the road his neighbors plow sometimes wish their farm were out on the flatlands straight rows on level fields, fence row to fence their neighbors till. But it’s too late to move. The row. Gallups’ equipment, their buildings and storage fa- For Joseph and his wife, those 200 acres of roll- cilities, and their way of farming are tied to their ing grassland and woodland were just what an own land. “Besides,” Roger says simply, “this is 1850’s pioneer family needed. The soil on the near- home. ” by prairie was rich and deep, but drainage on that Roger; his wife, Sharon; and their children, Renee level land was poor. Besides, there was no easy way and Loren, live in a big, sturdy brick house built to breakup the root-bound prairie sod, And a home- by Roger’s grandfather, a man who clearly planned steading farmer needed timber close by for build- to stay. Two miles west, on the edge of the farm, ing, fencing, and fuel; prairie land was treeless. Roger’s father, Dwight, and his wife, have built a It would take the steel-moldboard plow, drainage modern ranch-style home—the kind you see more technology, and a transportation system to lure the and more on the farmscape. next wave of settlers out onto the prairie” a plow Next to Dwight’s house looms a massive steel to turn the heavy soil, drainage to carry off water grain storage bin, the elevator at its peak connected formerly taken up by prairie grasses; and roads and to smaller bins by metal pipes splayed out like the a railroad to haul in fuel, lumber, and other sup- legs of a giant spider. The Gallups can store up to plies. Once the prairie was tamed, its farmers found 60,000 bushels of grain here until the market price App. A— The Innovators ● 207 is to their liking. Much of the Gallups farm lies be- U.S. productivity and for the land, but the returns tween Dwight’s new house and his son’s place. The for stock compared to crops just don’t justify the Gallup land, now 860 acres, is part of twin bands switch for most farmers. ” of rolling topography, 4 or 5 miles wide, that edge So the Gallups plowed under the green hillside the Illinois River. Water running off the flatlands pastures and planted row crops. But with the slopes converges and gains momentum near the river, laid bare much of the year, the Gallups faced a carving gentle hills in the landscape. Slopes here major problem—erosion. range as high as 13 percent. Though erosion is partial to sloping land, it nib- Until about 1960, this land supported a variety bles away flatland fields, too. But flatland fields are of livestock: dairy and beef cattle, hogs, sheep, and blanketed with a thick layer of topsoil–glacial till poultry. The steepest hillsides were maintained in covered with loessial (windblown) particles and permanent pastures. Only the more gentle slopes enriched by organic matter from thousands of years were plowed and planted to annual row crops such of prairie growth. So on flatland the annual thievery as corn and small grains, Even this modest acreage is more subtle; it can be masked by improved crop of row cropland was “rested” by regularly return- varieties and heavier fertilizer applications. ing the fields to pasture and hay crops. When the Gallups’ hillsides were protected by But cornbelt farming has undergone a major perennial pasture, erosion was easier to handle. change in the last two decades, and Roger and They controlled grazing intensity and held back Dwight had to change their operation to keep in the runoff with fence wire and straw barriers strung black. across waterways, But row cropping leaves whole Today the Gallups grow cash crops—corn, wheat, hillsides vulnerable, so Roger and Dwight have to and soybeans—and nothing else. “We gradually take major erosion control measures. They plow moved away from livestock,” Roger says. “We sim- and plant on the contour rather than straight up ply reached a point where there was no return on and down the slopes so that each furrow catches cattle. More livestock would be better for overall and holds runoff. They do plow in the fall, but with

Photo credit OTA staff

Combining corn along a terrace that follows the contours of the Gallups’ hilly Illinois land 208 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity a chisel plow, which fluffs up the soil, leaving air not sink money into expensive land-moving proj- spaces in the top layer and trash on the surface, ects that promise to protect long-term productiv- Chiseling can leave more than 2,000 lb of residue ity while contributing nothing to immediate prof- on an acre of cropland. That is enough to reduce itability. soil erosion by roughly 50 percent on sloping land. Roger points out the dilemma faced by a tenant Another necessary conservation measure has farmer working land he knows should be terraced. been more difficult and more costly. Contour farm- The traditional sharecropping agreement between ing, even with conservation tillage, is not enough tenant and landowner assumes that the owner is to hold the soil on the steeper slopes. For better pro- responsible for long-range improvements. “And if tection, Roger and his father also had to construct the land is owned by an elderly person who has no terraces on much of their land, Terraces are step- children to inherit it, ” Roger asks, “how could you like soil embankments bulldozed up along the con- honestly convince her (or him) to invest in a long- tour of a slope. Like individual furrows plowed on range improvement like terracing? In this case, the the contour, the terrace is designed to hold back land is strictly an investment–a retirement fund. ” and slow runoff, but on a much larger scale. The tenant, on the other hand, has no incentive to Roger says terraces will last about 15 years with pay for improvements because he has no assurance proper maintenance. During the last 5 years, the the rental agreement will be lasting. Gallups put in nearly 7,000 ft of terraces covering Simple conservation tillage is a less costly tech- about 100 acres. Though these new barriers are nique that offers varying degrees of erosion con- broader and more compatible with larger equip- trol, depending on the slope, soil type, and amount ment than old-style terraces, they still limit the of residue left on the surface. But conservation till- width of field implements the Gallups can use and age has tradeoffs. With moldboard plowing, the are awkward to maneuver around, especially where share actually folds over the top layer of soil, bury- rows converge. And terrace farming is not so profit- ing crop residue, insect eggs and larvae, and dis- able as flatland farming. ease-carrying micro-organisms. Chiseling, when “Take all our waterways and terraces . . . they’re done properly, merely “stirs” the soil. Insect eggs completely wasted land, ” Dwight complains. “We and weed seeds, as well as soil-protecting crop resi- can’t crop them, yet they’re taxed just like the rest dues, remain on the surface, so the farmer may of the land. And it takes more fuel and roughly have to increase the rate of his pesticide applica- twice as long to farm terraced land. ” tions. Chiseled soil can take longer to warmup and Terraces are expensive, In Illinois it costs an aver- dry out in the spring, too. And for farmers accus- age of $200 to $400 to protect an acre with terraces. tomed to tidy, trash-free fields, chisel plowing is But the Government will pay up to 75 percent of hard to accept just on the basis of appearance. the construction cost, which Roger thinks is an Roger looks forward to the day when he can aban- equitable arrangement. “The general public has to don a few terraces in favor of no-till farming. (See accept both some of the responsibilities and some previous case study in this appendix for full ex- of the costs in return for the long-term benefits of planation of no-till farming.) Right now he is will- soil erosion protection and improved water qual- ing to give it a try on a field or two, but he is not ity. ” ready to tear out his terraces. “We’re waiting for For Roger and Dwight, terracing is more than a the machinery manufacturers to perfect the equip- costly project that may pay off some day. It is part merit, ” Dwight says. “And for the chemical com- of their land ethic—the craft of farming. For less panies to come up with more herbicide flexibility successful farmers, however, terracing and land in a no-till system, ” Roger adds, stewardship can be unaffordable luxuries. “Hun- Looking into the future, Roger sees two innova- dreds of thousands of acres that are now in row tions that may rescue soil-conserving farmers from crops should not be because the soil erodes too eas- dependence on terracing or no-till. Someday it may ily, ” says Harold Dodd, president of the Illinois pay to seed rye from an airplane as a winter cover Farmers Union. “But a farmer has to put every inch crop and as green manure, Roger projects. Or a pe- of land into those kinds of crops just to make ends rennial biomass crop with soil-holding and income- meet. ” And he is encouraged to do so by a Nation generating capacity may be developed. that depends on his produce to help pay rising en- Changes in technology are never without costs, ergy costs and to add muscle to diplomatic policy, Roger says. First, it is costly to purchase new tech- Bankers will not finance terracing if a farmer is nology. Second, adopting a new cropping system short on available cash. And many landowners will is an anxious time for the careful farmer, so it is App. A—The Innovators ● 209 — cost ljr i n frayed nerk”es. Finall~r, unfamiliar tcchnol- size is now about 420 acres. A recent [ ]SIIA st ud}’1 og}’ i n t’ i t es management mistakes. For instance, the projects that if current trends persist, the middle- adta nt ages of the [:h isel [)I[)w’ are lost unless the size farm will be nearly obsolete b~T th[~ year ZOOO. farmer kno~~’s hc~;~ (lee~] t{) set the chisels for his It is hard to say tvh ich comes first ~~’itb f’armers: part i(:ular soil t}’pe and moisture and for the horse- more land or the technology to farm more land. ])[jwer of his t ra(:t or. tlnd he may (jif~r(:orll~)ensat(: Roger points out that sometimes it makes sense to W’ i th herb i[:i{le for the [;xtra weeds h[! exi)c[;ts the bLly bigger equipment with the intention of finding (:h i sel t () lea\’e. compensatory land. Few’ can borro~v enough mon - A farmer must kw~) abreast of tcchnologica] a(]- ~j’ and ser~’ice the debt on a simultaneous acquisi- i’an(:es. Tra(l it ion a 11}’, his most trusted sources for tion of additiona] land and, for example, a $100,000 information are his f’e]low farmers. WJhen twro farnl- combine nee(ied to coyer more tcrritor~r. Instead, ers m[!et the (:[)ntr[}rsat ion ini’arial)l~’ turns to farm- expansion usually takes place i n a seesa~~’ fashion- ing. Th[~} (:onl])are notes on n[!t~’ ti]]age equipment first land, then equipment, then Ian(], an(~ so on, or a nf~tt’ herbicide (j(]rnbirlati(~n, or perha~~s a nlod- or krice versa. ifi(:at ion one has made in an implement. Roger, like Illinois Farm Business hlanagemcnt Recor(is2 most farmers, also turns to other s(]ur(:es including shorn’ that reach ine and labor costs ])er a(:re decline equipment an(l fcrt i] izer dealers or pesticide and up to about 800 acres. For exam ~)le, m a[:b i ncr}’ seed [;oml)ar]j’ rei)rescntat ik’es. I ie reads agricultura- costs on a 214-acre grain farm run rou ghl}’ $(52 a n 1 ~)ub]i(;at ions, mostl} in the ~tinter, and for par- acre; on a farm four times bigger they run about t i(:ularl}. (;onfou n(i ing ~)roblems he ma}’ turn to ex- $53 an acre. I.abor costs a~craged $~:] ~)er a(; re on perts at the LJni\ersit~’ of Illin[~is. the smaller farm; on a farm four times bigger, th~:~r Hut the adiris[~r Roger turns to most often is his ran an estimated $24 per acre, less than half as father. “I soun(l {)ut i(leas and (Iw:isions with I)ad, ” much. s The Gall ups use larger equipment to farm Rogt~r sa~s. I)ii’ight brings together not (~nl}r Ibc ex- their expanded acreage, but it takes rou~hls’ the perien(:es an(l i nsig.ht of a 1 ifet i me, be adds to that same number of management decisions and equi\Ta- a wisdom t bat a(jcu mulates in a fa rnil~’ that has lent amount of labor to farm 850 acres as it would st a~’e(i put for generations. to farm half that much lan(l. ‘1’hough s(~rne farmers ma~ not seek the banker’s Net return after taxes also f’ators farm ex])ansi on. counsel, the costs of new te(jhnolog}’, compounded Taxes do not rise as fast as income. Farmers sL]ch hjr inllat ion an(] fornlidabl~” high interest rates, hate as the Gallups are i n a bctt er posit i o n t h a n s m a 11 made th [: ban k the f’a rrner bu si ncss partner. For farmers to use in~rest rnent credit and to de])re(;ia[e Midwestern farmers, the credit line has become the equipment faster. 1,ike~i’ i se, the implement dealer umtj il i(:al cor(l that tics them incxt ricabl}, to ~’arious can give a big fa rmcr a better cfeal because hc bu~~s finan(: ia] institutions. These institutions put them more, And it is easier for the larger lando[~’ncrs t o i n bLI si ness and keep (:ap ita] flowri ng to meet oper- borrow money and get lower interest rates. at i ng ex pe n scs and i nl’est mcnts i n land and equip- Another reason ~~hy a farmer nla~ feel obligated ment. The cre(l it le~’erage enables banks and sav- to increase his acreage is if be ~~’ants to pass on i ngs and loan estab] ishrnents to assert powerful in- eno[lgh land to allow more than one of his offspring fluen(:e o~er the farmer’s investments, his grain and to get a start in farming, “I (Ion’t ~~rant nl~ kids to li~rcstock sales, even his management decisions. think they have to farm to please Dad, ” RogeI ad- What has kept many farmers afloat, and what has mits. But just in case, he is making sure there ~t’ill ~)umped money into farm expansion, is equitJ- be enough land to split into ttvo tiab]c units, cquitj from land that tripled in value in the 197o’s This year Roger and ilwight will farm 860 acres. as a r(!s u 1 t o f a short-1 ived lea p i n grain prices, fa rnl - ~1~ cornbelt standards that is moderate acreage. crs [:om ]wt i n g for land, and ri~ral i n~restors sceki ng Roger waited 20 years to annex ]and to the 500-acre a he(lge a~ainst inflation, farm his father had established, but it ~~as not lack “’1’he trend today is toward larger farms, ” Dwight of money that held him back. Because Roger’s land saj’s, ~~rit b a hint of nostalgia. “There is no other t~’a~r it (;a n go. It used to be a family COUI(I li~’e on 160 acres. But toda} IOU couldn’t affor(i nla(;hiner~ Wr ith just 160 acres. Since 19~0, the acrwagc of the at’erage Illinois farm has doLIbled. Nationwide the airerage farm 210 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity — is valued at over $3,000 an acre, and because he work. Dwight recalls that when he was a boy there is known as a skillful farm manager, his credit line was no ‘‘off-season, even in winter, When all the can stretch to cover a land purchase. What post- other work was done, there was always firewood poned the investment was the scarcity of nearby to cut. farmable land for sale. (Gallup’s equipment is too “I’m glad those days are over, ” says the 67-year- big to conveniently move cross-country.) While he old, semiretired farmer. “I mean, the other day it waited, Roger leased the land he needed. was snowing and blowing, and I could just sit in In some cases, a farmer recognizes the home the house, warm and cozy, and watch TV. ” property is too small to provide income for both “Yes, but the pressure is just as bad, ” Dwight’s him and an offspring who wants to farm. And wife, Hazel, interjects. “With all the modern equip- heavy debt makes land sale the only way to retire ment, you still have the responsibility to maintain securely. For other families, inheritance taxes prove every thing.” more than the sons and daughters can afford. So Maintenance was not much of a problem in the they must sell some, or most, of the land to retain past. For the most part horses maintained them- the rest, If the remaining unit is too small to gener- selves, although you had to set aside a sizable porate a living, it must be rented out or sold. tion of your land for their feed. But with the bless- Still another factor encourages the established ing of modern equipment comes the burden of farmer to add to his holdings. U.S. tax policies maintenance. Roger and Dwight must be expert allow the big farmer to buy land and write off a big motor mechanics, welders, sheet metal workers, chunk of the cost. “We give enormous subsidies, machinists, and much more. With the large amount carefully hidden in the tax code, to persons who of land that they must work in a limited time and are sheltering income, ” said former Agriculture with limited manpower, there is no time to take a Secretary Bob Bergland. “That’s one of the major broken-down tractor to the dealer’s shop. And you reasons why young people have an impossible time cannot afford to keep a spare piece of expensive buying land in competition with people who can equipment on hand. So repairing and maintaining pay more for the land than it’s worth as an income modern farm equipment probably is the single most producer. ” important part of farming. Roger’s enormous main- The complexities of big farm management have tenance shop is a steel structure, resembling a risen with the costs. When labor shifted from man Quonset hut, big enough to hold the combine and to machine, it brought about many changes in agri- a couple of tractors. culture. Thirty years ago the Gallup work force was Economics dictate that a farmer must closely larger and more elastic than it is today. It included match equipment size to crop acreage. Equipment three families, a full-time hired man, and a crew that is too small may not cover enough ground dur- to help at harvest time. The modern Gallup farm ing the critical period dictated by weather, soil con- is almost twice the size it was 30 years ago, yet it ditions, or the sensitivities of a particular crop. supports only two families. Now Roger and Dwight Older equipment is, generally, more prone to break- alone do most of the work, with help as needed downs that can cut yields. On the other hand, a from a seasonal hired man, the Gallup wives, and farmer who is overequipped is wasting capital- Roger’s two children—and, of course, the equip- that is, unless he intends to offset his equipment ment. When Dwight was a boy, 10 draft horses pro- size with more acreage. But if a crop fails or the vided the power. Today Gallup’s fleet of tractors grain market plunges and his credit line snaps, the and the implements they pull have the power of farmer’s overextension may get him in trouble. hundreds of horses and do the work of dozens of John Fuelbirth, farm loan advisor with Herget Na- men. tional Bank in Pekin, Ill., says, “Farmers tend to As the complexities of management have grown, be conservative. But they want to spend too much farmwork patterns have changed, The farming on machinery. And the investment tax encourages Roger and Dwight knew as boys was based on live- them to spend it. ” stock; it was 365 days a year of chores. The year’s In the past, farm efficiency has been gaged too work on today’s cash crop farms is squeezed into often by the amount of food a farmer could pro- 6 or 7 hectic months of plowing, fertilizing, plant- duce, no matter what the energy or resource re- ing, cultivating, crossing fingers, repairing equip- quirements. Rut the Gallups, and people like them, ment, and harvesting. Much of the rest of the year recognize that, in order to sustain production rates is spent maintaining equipment and buildings, mar- in the long term, the definition of efficiency must keting the grain, and planning the next season’s include the protection of the root source of this App. A— The Innovators ● 211 — -.— bounty-the land itself. The future’s challenge is to this land, and to encourge farmers to adopt a land improve and spread soil-saving technology with the stewardship ethic—by making it pay. same energy with which our forebears opened up 212 Ž Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

FARM REHABILITATION-WHITEHALL, WIS.

From the ridgetop, the deep gouges in the slope look like soft, tree-covered folds. But a closer in- spection reveals the unmistakable scars of decades of abuse. Eighty years of farming this western Wisconsin land had almost destroyed it. A parade of owners and occupants had stripped the hilly land of its protective vegetation and fertility with cows and row crops until yields dropped so low that the land could no longer support the farm families. By the late 1950’s the hillsides were bare except for an occasional gnarly old oak. The farm stood abandoned and what poor soil remained was washing away at a fierce rate. Poor-quality land such as this often gets swal- lowed up by bigger farms. The ridges are cropped, the slopes pastured, and the farmer is content to let productivity limp along. But this Whitehall, Wis., farm is different. It was purchased in 1959 for $25 an acre by a man who said he wanted “a place to plant some trees. ” And that he did. To date, Ernie Brickner has planted 160,000 trees on those 229 acres. The 70-year-old planted 135,000 of them by machine and carried another 35,000 up the steepest slopes and planted them by hand. “It wasn’t easy, ” Ernie admits. Some of his slopes approach a 45-degree angle; they were skirted by the glaciers that scoured and smoothed other regions of the State. Before man shaved the surface and began cultiva- Photo credit OTA staff tion, prairie grasses dominated the landscape. They gathered nourishment from the soil and, in turn, Ernie Brickner pruning a red pine to encourage straight, enriched and protected the land. knot-free growth Then came a procession of farm families, each trying and failing to earn a livelihood from what The only way to transport grain down from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources forest- ridgetop fields was along a horse trail—called a er Ed Godel calls a “two-story farm. ” The upper dugway. It was so steep that even teams pulling story—the ridgeland—and the lower story—the val- empty wagons had to be rested three or four times ley–-were planted to row crops; the sloping land on the way up the incline. This discouraged haul- in between was pastured by some of its caretakers ing manure up to fertilize the ridgeway, so the fer- and cropped by others. tility gradually ebbed. It was a malevolent partnership of man and na- The land’s history speaks of the failure of nine ture. Man planted his row crops on cleared hillsides owners and four renters to generate income from and grazed his livestock on wooded ones. The tilled the craggy terrain. And the deep gullies, some big soil often lay bare to the forces of erosion. Livestock enough to bury a barn, reveal the damage incurred tramping on the wooded hillsides ate away protec- by unrestrained use of agricultural technology, tive underbrush and packed the spongy soil into a Ernie says the land would have been easier to hard, inpenetrable surface. As these pastured slopes manage as a farming unit had it been parceled out lost their ability to soak up water, runoff from according to natural boundaries, such as creeks and spring rains stole soil and flooded the valleys below. ridges, instead of the surveyor’s 1 inc. But Wiscon- App. A— The Innovators ● 213 sin was part of the ,\’orth ivest Territory, so farms ~’ested timber in exchange for a property tax defer- ~~rere laid out i n 1 t30-ac rc squares. ral. But with or without the 1 a~v, Ernie has no desire But ~~hen the land is planted to trees, nature’s to hoard his ~voodland. It is open }’ear-round, b} boun(iaries do not pro~c so formidable. With the permission, to hunters, snow’mobilers. skiers, hellj of ~[~dcl, his county forester, Ernie prepared hikers, berry pickers, and bird~~’atchers. a d c t a i 1 cd p 1 a n f’o r t h c I and, The m e n plot t e(i wh cre Ernie probabll gets the greatest joy out of the e(iu- the pine 1)lantat ions should stand, where the black cational value his woodland pro~ides. “ I reall)’ get ~va 1 nuts should be ~)lanted, and wrh ich hardwoods a lot of pleasure out of walking through here and Ernie would cull and ~~hich he would preserve for telling people ~vhat I know about forest managt?- ~~ril(l 1 i fe f’ood a II(1 hat)it at or sa~’e for eventual ment . . . cspeciall}’ the kids. ” Ernie r[; memt)ers the har~est. thank-you note he received from one ~T()~ln~ \isit or In drafting the ~)]an t hej’ considered soil type and ti’ho had trekked the hills and fi rcla n(~,s \\’it h his slo~)e; m a rket \Ta lue for tree species; t i me span se~ent h grade classmates: ‘‘I rea]]~’ ]ike }’OLI r b(!fore trees ~~roul(l rea(;h marketable age: and, most \\’oods,‘‘ the boy wrote, “especial)’ the fire of all, Ern ie’s dream for the Ian(l. escapes. I]is (I ream t~’as mu(;h bigger than planting trees Ernie is willing to share his pro pert} ~iith neigh- [’or timbf:r l)ro(iuct ion. A former teacher and super- bors and friends and tvith groups of al] sorts-en- i nt [)nd[~nt of s(: h ()()1s i n \Vh i t eh all, and I at er educ a- trironmenta] organizations. church grou [)s, (:() m- t ion offi(;(:r in charge of a }outb conservation pro- munity clubs, 4-H ‘ers, farmer groul)s, ])rof’essional gram in I he Su~~eri[)r ,\’ational Forest in Minnesota, and student foresters, conser~’at ion (:lass(:s. a n(i t h[: Erni[) use(i f[)r[:st r} [)roje(:ts to ex(:itc t>o~s disillu- like. s i c) n ccl Ltr i t h f:] a ss rc)() rJI 1 ea rn i n:. ~] r n i e returned to P[:rhal)s th[: most i mp[)rta nt IIS[) of” ~{ I’11 i(!’s ~ l’(?(~s. his Bllffalo (Jount}’ lan(l st[!e])e(l in multiple-use in the long run, is to ~)rotect th(] lan(] I)as(! f’rom [:rm [)hiloso~)h~ t[)~~ard i~’oodland management. sion and to keep ~~’ater and nutrients from flood” i ng \t’ith his submarginal a(:reage he coLlld put the the low’] and fielcis do~~~n the i’all [~}’. hioreo~er, COIIC[:pt to ii r igoroLls test . 1{(! W’OL1l(] plant, (: L1]], Ernie’s land no longer contributes to the s(:d i nlen- thin, an(l ~)run[; trees not jllst for timber produc- tat ion and [;LltrO1)lli[::itiorl” of 1~’ater (lo~inst r[)arn to t ion but fc)r ~~rater-qual it}’ (;ont rol (lo~lnstream+ Trempealeau River and, ultimate}’, the h~ ississi])~}i. t~’ i Id I i f[; h :ihi tat, re(;r(:at ional US(:, and-his specia 1 Ernie’s woodland. howe~’er, is a snlall islal)(] i rlt[!r[)st—f?cl~l(:iit ion al o~)l)ort lln it ics. amidst farm fields and i~’ooded lxlst L1 r[:s t bat s lJr(:[i [ 1 I n just 22 Jroars, h[: h:)s succeeded. He thinn[xl on all sides. It is not that t re~:s are s(:arct; i n H L1 f’- his ~)ine i)lantat ion 2 }rears a~~) and sold the imma- falo Countl-roughl}’ ~0 percent of th[? Ian(l is t u r{; trunks f’[)r ~)[)sts, ~)()][;s, a 11[] ~)u]l). H e ]eft the tvooded, What is i n sh[jrt su ~)~)l~T is ij’[)()[ll;i!]ci ~)i no t ()~)s an(l trimmings on th(~ groun(] as (:oirer fenced off from the munchin~ an(i stoml)in: of for gr{)use and rabbit. Ile has cut “weed” species d ai r~f cattle. a n d (] a m a ged h a rd \\r o o(! trees to leave m o r e s L~ n- Dairyin~ is big business in this part of” \\’is(:on- Iigbt, spa(;e, water, a n d nutrients for their more sin. “And the milk check is the thing that the farmer com mer(:iall~’ taluable neighbors. From the cut- is interested in right no~v, ” sa}rs Brick n[:r. “ I ]e’s not tings, some logs are made into raiiroad ties or sha[’- too interested in what t~ill (:ome of’f that land ~() i ngs for li~’estock bedding; others become firewood. or 40 }’ears from no~k’. ’ Hut Ernie is careful to leave a fe~t’ ‘Llvc)lf’ trees “Big farmers-successful farmers-are tied LIp in a n d ‘‘(1 [: n‘ trees standing. Wolf trees are t h e g i a n t their farming acti~ities, ” sa}s forester (10(1(:1, b’Th(~}r old /Ja I ri a r(:bs of the forest, ancestors to many of ha~e little time for woodland r~l:~]li~g[)I~lt:I~t.” th[? niitura]ljr i)rO1)a~ated trees, Den trees are often It is [!stimatcd that LIp to 50 tim[;s more runoff hollo~i” an(i (]~ring, but thejr are still valuable to Ernie flo~irs from grazed woodland than from ungrazed for t h[: shelter the~ affor(i wildlife. ~~’oodland. Ernie sa~~s grazing (:reat (:s a t l~recf’old I n fa(;t, Ernie’s forest is a wildlife paradise; hick- problem: soil compaction, loss of {lrl(i[;l’~r(]~ttll, an(] or] and ~t’alnut are the squirrels’ delight, Then damage to established trees. there are raccoons, fox, ring-necked pheasant, The average dairy cour ~~reighs about 1,400 ]b. hawks, eien eagles. Ernie has (;ounte(l at leas{ 35 That ~v[?ig}~t, c~)n[:cntrated under the hootes, CKCK(,5 spe(; ies of son gb i r(is on the propert~’. i] ~ r~:a t f’o IX: e o n t h (: so i 1, I J n d e r repeat ed p res su re, The i~’ildlifet in turn, drat~s bunters, Un(ler l\’is- soi 1 1)art icles ar{? compressed until, ei’entuall~’. the (;onsin’s F{)r~;st (: ro~) 1,at~’, Ernie agre~!s to open his earth (: an neither absorb rainfall qu i(:kl~’ nor leai’e ]an(i for hunting an(] l)ays a sf)~erance lax on har- a d (}() {1;1 t [} ~):1 SSa~C\\’ EiJ’ f’01’ r(jot S . 214 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Also, cattle have a penchant for tender under- But unlike the annual payback that dairy cows growth. They eat the more desirable young trees, and row crops offer, a tree is slow to bring a finan- such as maple and oak, and leave undesirable special reward, In fact, it will be beyond Ernie’s life- cies, such as black locust. time when the walnuts he planted and pruned yield “By eating shrubbery that’s necessary for the ac- their precious veneer. And it wasn’t his sons that cumulation of humus, cattle are eating prospective he had in mind when he planted them . . . it was mulch, ” Ernie says. In ungrazed woodland, soil their children. acts like a sponge, absorbing and holding water. “Growing trees makes you farsighted,” Ernie And, healthy trees consume more water and keep says, “You have to look to the future when you the water table lower, plant trees. ” “And frost doesn’t penetrate as deep under thick Besides the economic value of the trees, Ernie mulch. ” Consequently, more melting snow can wants to hand down to his children and grandchil- seep into the soil. dren a place to enjoy the things that would have A healthy understory also softens the impact of fulfilled him, raindrops on the soil. Direct hits by these drops can “I’ve enjoyed the woods throughout my life— gouge out soil particles. “On unprotected land, I’ve hunting and fishing—and that’s what has given me seen chunks of soil 4 or 5 ft across—peat soil, it’s the feeling of stewardship toward the land. ” lighter and will float-torn away in my valley and Some woodland owners think of management float all the way down to Independence and wash and preservation as at cross purposes, To them, out into the pasture where the floods were coming culling trees and harvesting mature timber destroy down, enough in one big chunk to fill a manure the pristine quality of a forest, But Ernie’s woods spreader, to say nothing about the smaller pieces offer ample testimony that you can manage wood- that are torn away. ” land for both esthetics and timber improvement. Farmers often solve the flooding problem not by And such management can greatly enhance the treating the cause but by bandaging the wounds. productivity of U.S. lands. Wing dams built into hillsides impound runoff and Although the net annual timber output has in- can prevent flooding. creased 56 percent in the last 30 years, according “These dams hold the water back so it doesn’t cut to Rexford Resler, vice president of the American down through their farms and do the flooding right Forestry Association, the Nation’s forests are only on the farm, ” says Ernie. “But it would be a waste producing about three-fifths of the net growth per of my money for me to build dams. The water stays acre that could be obtained with proper manage- right on these wooded hillsides. ” ment of natural stands. But few people see the Most agronomists and foresters agree that it is potential. usually best to divorce tree-growing from cattle- “Most intensive woodland management on pri- raising. University of Wisconsin forester Dr. Gor- vate lands is done by someone who makes his in- don Cunningham points to research that shows that come from another source, ” Godel points out. Peo- good-quality open pasture yields about 30 times ple such as Ernie Brickner who are firmly en- more protein than wooded pasture. trenched in the conservation ethic are not tied to Foresters and ardent tree farmers such as Ernie the land for immediate income . . , they often make espouse a simple remedy for reducing runoff and the best stewards and managers of timber acreages, improving timber quality: keep the cows out and he says, harvest the trees when they are ready. By doing so, Ernie remembers that 20 years ago you could a landowner can gather firewood and harvest qual- stand on the ridge and look down on bare hillsides ity timber. “Mother Nature has lots of time, ” Godel eroded by decades of unwise farming. Today the insists, “and the woodland damage will repair itself steep slopes and valleys are cloaked with trees— if you take the cows out. ” pine, spruce, birch, and other hardwoods. “Trees aren’t nearly as demanding of nutrients Ernie’s dream has been to reclaim some dying as agricultural crops, ” Godel explains. “A tree has land, reforest it, and make it valuable again—valu- an extensive root system. And unlike an annual able not only for the timber it can produce but for crop that concentrates its nutrients in the grain wildlife, recreation, and education. His commit- head which is removed in harvest each year, a tree ment and dedication epitomize the forces driving keeps adding organic matter to the soil.” the land ethic emerging in American society, App. A— The Innovators ● 215

SALINE SEEP CONTROL-FORT BENTON, MONT.

When farmers on Montana’s Ilighwooci Bench portance for Montana and much of the northern real ized that the~’ i~’ere losing zo percent of their Great Plains. land-zo, ()()() a[;res-the} got angry. Enough is “All the farmers around here had seeps. E;vcr~- enough. So some 75 of them gathered one night in body knew that they got bigger in uet years, that 196{1 an[i decided it was time to act. they were progressively getting worse, hut nobod~ The culprit ~~’as not the Government. It was not put things together, ” explains Howar(l. lan(l speculators. It Lvas nature, gone slightly amry. The story of saline seeps is a mire of geologic, .S a 1 i n e seep s— re ce n t 1 y d e vel o p ed o u t crops o f wet, hydrologic, and technological variables. It is an ex- sa]t~r soi]s on nonirrigated lands-were breaking out ample of the role that technolog~’, in this case cro~) a II(1 SI) readi ng o n man}’ o f t h e i r fields, more than management, can play in both causing and resolv- e~’cr before, and rendering the land infertile. No ing resource problems. one wras (Jerta i n ~~rh }’, or what to d o t o stop them. “The Highwood Bench south of Fort Benton was Th[) farmers decided it was high time to find some one of the first areas in Montana to really suffer a nswrers. the effects of saline seeps, ” explains Dr. h~ar~in I io~vard I lanfor(l relates the histor~ of the High- Miller, a hydrogeologist with the hlont ana Bureau ttoo(l Alkali (Jontrol Association (1 iACA) with of Mines and Technology. “They had Z0,000 acres some ])rid[:-his father ~vas one of the organizers in salt in 1971. ” a n(l Ifl ot~’ a rd h i m self has been chairman of t h e Many factors can foster the formation of saline ,grou ~). And it was the HACA initiatiire—the~’ seeps on individual sites, but two elements pIa}’ key taxed themsel~res to support needed research-that roles: local geology and summer fallotv crop man- brought State, F~:(]eral, and ]o(:al people together agement. Summer fallow (sometimes called croll- to ~~ork on a ~)rot)lem c]f increasing setrerity and im- fallow) is a traditional crop management scheme

Phofo cred~t OTA sfaff Howard Hanford using soil moisture probe to assess the available moisure supporting his growing barley crop 216 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

used almost exclusively on the Montana plains Figure A.2.— How Dryland Saline Seepage Occurs since the major land openings of the 1940’s. The system is designed to conserve moisture in dryland regions where precipitation is not adequate to guarantee successful continuous crops. Under summer fallow, the farmer crops half his land each year and leaves half fallow, alternating cropped and bare strips each planting, The unplanted strips accumulate moisture in the soil to be used by the next sea- discharge area son’s crops, But this common crop management . seeped technology has proven inappropriate for the . and terrain. sallne

Advantages of Summer Fallow Impermeable layer Higher yield per planted acre. SOURCE Dryland Sallne Seep Control AGDEX 518-5 Alberta Ag Ext Offices, More stable production. 1979 Higher soil water content. Greater supply of available nitrogen in the “The problem affects a whole geologic region in- soil. cluding much of Montana, South Dakota, North Aid in distributing the farmers’ work load. Dakota, Wyoming, and Canada’s prairie provinces, Reduction of insect and disease problems. with seep acreage growing by about 10 percent a year,” he adds (see fig. A-3). Disadvantages of Summer Fallow More than the land is degraded by saline seeps; Greatly increased wind and water erosion. the salinization has disastrous effects on water qual- Increased air and water pollution. ity as well. Local ponds no longer support fish in Lower soil water storage efficiency. the Bench area, and the few residents who still Lower water use efficiency. maintain cattle must truck water in because farm Greater soil fertility decline under certain ponds are far too salty to drink. And as a headwater soil and management conditions. recharge area for all the downstream States in the Missouri River Basin, the implications of Mon- tana’s seep-caused water pollution could be serious. The saline seep problem arises because summer fallow can work too well, When more water is stored than the following crop can use, moisture Figure A.3.— Northern Great Plains Region, builds up in the soil. This water then infiltrates Showing Area of Potential Saline Seep Development through the soil and reaches an underlying, impermeable layer of shale [see fig. A-2), Here the water accumulates, creating a “perched” water table (a Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba secondary water table perched above the normal ground water level). Because of the nature of the soils, the water picks up numerous salts during this process, Eventually the salt-laden water migrates North Dakota downslope, Where it breaks to the surface, either Montana in lowlands or where the shale outcrops, a saline seep forms. As more and more water accumulates, the seep grows. South Dakota “Right now we have about 200,000 acres of farm- \ land forced out of production by seeps, over 80,000 acres in Montana alone. And that’s totally unusable. Area of potential saline seep You can’t even farm across it because your machin- development ery will stick in the mire, ” says Dr. Paul Brown, a USDA soil scientist who, until his retirement, was SOURCE Saline Seep in Montana, Loren L Bahs, ecologist, Marvin R Miller the backbone of seep research in the region. hydrologist, 1979 App. A— The Innovators ● 217 ——

When a seep first breaks out, it can look innocu- the winds. His fields stretch, seemingly unbroken, ous—just a small, wet pothole you have to skirt with all the way to the base of the Highwood Mountains the planter, Generally, farmers do not even realize to the north. they have a problem until a seep grows to a quarter The fact that the growth goes unbroken is notable; acre or so. But depending on the site, saline seeps the alternating strips of fallowed land so common have grown as large as 200 acres, and that is a sub- on the Montana landscape are missing. Under the stantial amount of land to lose. During dry weather, cropping management system Howard uses—flexi- seeps look something like black bathtubs with white ble cropping-whether he plants or not is dictated salt rings—that is how much salt can actually ac- by the environment rather than by tradition. It is cumulate on the surface as the seep water evap- a system that makes Howard an innovator in the orates. Most seeps will be barren, almost swampy. fight against saline seeps. Sometimes Kochia, a salt-tolerant weed, will grow Flexible cropping, as the name implies, casts around the edges, but most plants cannot live in aside fixed cropping patterns. Instead, this method such a saline environment. calls for the farmer to decide whether to plant or “Montana farmers have an inherent disbelief that fallow a field based on the actual amount of stored excess water could be a long-term problem on their soil moisture in the root zone and the average grow- land, ” Dr. Miller says. After all, theirs is a notori- ing season precipitation, ously dry climate. And they grew up with stories “Measuring soil moisture is pretty easy with the of the great droughts, the giant dust clouds, and the soil moisture probe that Paul Brown invented, ’ many who were forced ‘‘bust’ by the lack of water. Howard claims. The probe is a simple tool-a solid So it can take some convincing to show certain metal rod with a small auger at the tip. The farmer farmers that too much water could be a problem. merely twists the rod down into the ground; when Howard Hanford was one farmer who did not the pushing gets difficult, the probe has reached the need convincing. The 1,500 acres that he farms bottom of the moist soil layer. The auger then with his wife, two small children, and one full-time brings up a small soil sample, hired hand is a model of what can be done to stop For example, wheat needs about 9 inches of soil and reclaim saline seeps. water. If the average rainfall is 6 inches, there needs To give visitors a feel for his land, Howard some- to be 3 inches of stored soil water available to raise times invites them to lunch atop his flat grain bin. a good crop. If adequate water is not available, From there, you get a sweeping view of his ocean— farmers using flexible cropping are still free to leave an ocean of grain, still richly green, undulating in the field fallow. The new system’s flexibility extends to what crops are grown, too. Beyond the region’s usual wheat and barley crops, this system includes rotations with alfalfa and oil seed crops such as safflower and sunflower. Such crops use more water and draw it from deeper in the soil, and so play a special role in the management of seep recharge areas. By taking full advantage of all available moisture, flexible cropping allows farmers to grow’ more crops because they no longer leave half their land fallow. “Of course, it’s not so simple as doubling your acreage and doubling your income. Some 20 percent of your land may be in sunflower or safflower, which don’t generate the same income. And you don’t plant as much wheat and barley, ” Dr. Miller explains, “But you have an advantage-five crops for five markets. If one market is clown, you still have four others. ” But perhaps more importantly, flexible cropping helps farmers prevent saline seep formation. By managing both soil and water more carefully, Mon- Large saline seep broken out on traditional tana’s farmers can avoid losing land-and produc- summer-fallow land in Montana tivity-to seeps. 218 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

But there are tradeoffs. First and foremost in flexible cropping cannot succeed if the costs of con- many farmers’ minds, flexible cropping demands trol exceed the cost of doing nothing. So far, the more work in planning and in operating the farm. new cropping pattern seems relatively successful, “My 1,500-acre farm in summer fallow would be “The successes up here on the Bench are impor- a cinch, ” says Howard. “With continuous crops, tant examples for the rest of the State, ” Dr. Miller you need more manpower, more equipment. You comments. “These people have a genuine sense of have to move fast; you’ve got 2 weeks to plant all concern for their land, a pride. ” your acreage. You’ve got to harvest it all before In Chouteau County, which includes the High- some hailstorm lays the whole crop flat. ” This need wood Bench, more than 60 percent of the farmers for speed often urges farmers to bigger equipment are involved in seep control. Overall in the State, and therefore added investments. however, total involvement is closer to 1 percent. And because the system is flexible, it requires The high acceptance in Chouteau is because the more managerial decisions: planning to avert po- Bench was the original focal point for seep research tential seep problems or reclaim existing ones, test- and control and because of the strong presence of ing to monitor moisture and fertility, extra commit- HACA and local, State, and USDA/SEA-AR special- ment to combatting weeds and diseases, and special ists. efforts to find markets for hay and oil seed crops To promote seep control over a wider area, the in a region tuned to a small-grain economy. Triangle Conservation District, including 10 seep- In long-term economics, saline seep causes de- prone counties, was formed. The strength of the flated land values, higher operative costs, lost crop district’s efforts are its field personnel—people such income, lost tax money to the State, and lost wheat as Ted Dodge and Jane Holzer who spend their time to the Nation. But seep control methods such as traveling in the district, meeting with farmers, and

Photo cridit OTA staff Dr. Marvin Miller checks a well, monitoring subsurface water levels App, A— The Innovators ● 219 discussing strategies for their particular problems. with salt-tolerant crops and gradually bring it back “We work farm by farm, ” Mr. Dodge explains. into production. Many large seeps, however, can- “After a farmer applies for our help, we go out for not be reclaimed with present methods. an on-site visit. We’ll map the seeps, drill a grid of “Controlling seeps requires a delicate balance, ” wells to determine water movement below the Dr. Miller says. “A little mismanagement , . . and ground, determine where the problem recharge and you could be right back where you were. discharge areas are, and help with planning con- “The more progressive farmers are beginning to trol measures. ” realize that they can’t farm just by what on the Proximity and visibility give real boosts to farmer surface, adds Herb Pasha, the president of the Tri- acceptance of seep management. ‘‘Our biggest angle Conservation District. draw is the drill rig. You get that out in one man’s “We’re learning that the technological fix often field and all his neighbors will appear, like a parade, brings unforeseen consequences, ” says Dr. Miller. to follow along and watch, ” Mr. Dodge recalls, The “For seeps, the hardware approach said ‘if you have district almost always receives more applications a problem with too much water, drain it. ’ But that after that. doesn’t work, We tried draining an acre seep to re-

Land lost to saline seeps is difficult to reclaim+ claim it; what we did was create a 5-acre seep fur- “You can’t just clean up after the problem, you have ther downslope. ” to prevent it, ” explains Dr. Brown. But experts have “We have to look at the consequences of our ac- made progress i n designing management schemes tions first; you don’t forge ahead without thinking to prevent seeps and even bring some degraded ahead, ” he adds, land hack into USC. “It’s one thing to define the problem; it’s another First, the cause of the seep needs to be eliminated. to get solutions established on the land, ” says Dr. To do this, the field team traces ground water Brown. movement to find the fielc] or fields that are accu - For some, and not just the scientists, continued mulating water. Since most seeps break out within research is the key: “As long as that goes on, we a few hundred yards of their recharge area, the keep learning, ” Howard Hanford insists. “That’s mapping is relatively localized. It is helpful that the why HACA was formed. But it‘s hard to get the scale of cause and consequence is so small; very Government to understand us; letters go back and often, seep recharge and discharge areas are on the forth, but we can’t sem to connect. When Paul re- same farm, making control easily When seep prob- tires, I hope we don’t lose our research base- lems do cross properity lines, it can be more difficult there’s too much more that needs to be done. ” to convince both landowners to participate in the “A farmer is not your average character, ” cleanup . Howard explains. “He is a little bit stubborn and “Generally, though, we've had really good luck stuck in his ways. A n article i n some paper won't getting neighhors to work together to mutual advan- convince him. He needs to see the field personnel, t age, says Ms.Holzer. to see proof. ” Once the cause is determined, the prevention op- Proof in the field is especially important when tion chosen most often is to recrop the offending some long-accepted practice such as summer fallow field with deep-rooted, water-loving perennials— is in question. Saying it is an inapriate tech- for example, alfalfa. The hay crop will act as a sort nology is not enough; the alternative--flexible crop- of sponge, soaking up moisture from deep below ping-must be opened to scrutiny, tested, and re- the soil. The plants’ leaves wick the excess water fined for practical use, After all, it is not unreason- away into the a i r. Once the water regime is stabi- able for farmers to ride with proven methods, even lized, the farmer often can return the field to more if they have certain negative repercussiojn, if the profitable crops as long as he monitors moisture alternative is an unknow n. levels carefully and alternates grains with high- Maintaining land productivity will be a continue- water-use oil seed crops and hay. Some recharge ing challenge for American agriculture one that areas, however, may have to remain in pasture or can be both enhanced and hindered by technology. revert to natural grasslands to guarantee seep As illustrated in Fort Benton, the most sustainable pretvention methods may not always be easiest. But when the When the flow of excess water is stopped, exist- threat is highly visible, salty potholes swallow- ing seeps should stop growring. But they are unlike- ing the land-and the people are truly concerned, ly to disapear. Sometimes, as the seep area dries, farmers and agriculture, and do change the farmer can begin planting the edges of the patch Appendix B Virgin Lands

lntroduction Alaska% Virgin Lands

When potentially productive virgin lands are How much of Alaska’s virgin lands are potential brought into use, the relative profitability of farm- croplands is not known precisely. The Soil Conser- ing or ranching on lands with lower inherent pro- vation Service (SCS) cites 18.5 million acres of ductivity can be reduced. Thus, one indirect conse- Alaska land suitable for farming (USDA-SCS, 1980) quence of developing high-quality virgin lands may (see fig. B-l). This is Class 11 and 111 land with soils be that some fragile lands are protected, perhaps that have no severe erosion hazard, but that gener- converted from row crops to pasture as happened ally do require conservation measures to sustain in New England when the fertile lands of the Mid- productivity. But previous analyses of the same west were developed. Sometimes opening new data reported that Alaska had 8.9 million potentially high-quality lands also can reduce the rate at which arable acres. The substantial increase in the esti- pasture sites are converted to cropland. mate of potentially arable land from 8.9 million to Some 36 million acres of non-Federal land had 18.5 million acres was not the result of new data a high potential for conversion to cropland in 1977 on the extent of land available but rather a changed (see table B-l), according to the National Agricul- understanding of what constitutes arable land tural Lands Study (CEQ, 1981). This land had fav- under Alaskan climate conditions. orable physical characteristics to support high-yield There is a mistaken perception that the Alaskan crop production and would require minimal efforts climate precludes substantial agricultural develop- to be converted, Most of this land was used as pas- ment. Although this is generally true of areas in the ture in 1977; presumably much of it already has arctic climate zone, much of the State is in the con- been converted to cropland. Another 91 million tinental climate zone, where the frost-free growing acres of non-Federal land were identified as hav- season is about 100 to 110 days (Epps, 1980; Alaska ing a medium potential for conversion to cropland. Rural Development Council, 1974.) This is a short Most of this was pasture or rangeland; some was season relative to most other parts of the United forest, Clearing, erosion protection, or other costs States, but it is adequate for many crops. Soil and would make development of this land significant- air temperatures during the growing season can ly more expensive than on the high-potential land. constrain the growth of some crops, such as corn, The issue of converting land into and out of agri- but there are other including barley, oats, some culture, and from one use to another within agri- wheat cultivars, potatoes, vegetables, and the oil- culture, has been investigated by the National Agri- seed canola that produce well in this climate. Some cultural Lands Study, and so it is not treated in of these, notably barley, oats, canola, and several detail in this report. That study did not, however, vegetables, apparently can take advantage of the consider the potential for agriculture development very long hours of sunlight during the Alaskan sum- in Alaska, where large areas of potentially arable mer (up to 20 hours per day). Barley yields, for ex- lands are found. ample, can double those achieved in the Midwest. Alaska has some active cropland—about 380 Table B-l .—Potential Cropland of farms with 30,000 acres of crops in 1980. (For com- Non”Federal Land (million acres) parison, cropland in the lower United States totals 413 million acres.) The State government is com- Conversion potential: High Medium Low Zero mitted to converting 500,000 more acres to crop- Pastureland ...... 18 33 47 35 Iand by 1990. To do this, the State is subsidizing Rangeland ...... 9 30 97 271 rapid agricultural development with large-scale Forestland ...... 7 24 109 230 pilot projects. The largest of these is the Delta Proj- Other land ...... 2 4 15 52 ect in the Tanana River drainage, where 22 farmers Total ...... 36 91 268 588 took ownership of about 2,600 acres each in August SOURCE U S Department of Agriculture, “Resources Conservation Act Ap. 1978. Clearing and development proceeded rapid- praisal 1980, ” 1980 ly and over half of the 58,000-acre project was in

220 App, B— Virgin Lands 221

.\”

K? N

, 222 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

production by 1981. The project is to be expanded Alaska probably has more control over farmers’ by 60,000 acres. Other pilot projects include the implementation of conservation practices and 15,000-acre Point MacKenzie dairy project with 31 choice of production methods than any other State tracts for farms ranging from 300 to 640 acres each. because the State government still has title to most Another project is planned near the town of land that will become farmland (see table B-2). This Nenana, where SCS has identified 175,000 acres of power is being used to protect the sustainability of soils with “excellent” potential (Alaska Agricultural the resource base. The State requires that individual Action Council, 1981a and b). farm conservation plans be prepared with the local Alaska also has a large livestock potential but cur- soil conservation subdistricts and approved by the rently a small livestock industry. About 1.2 million State Department of Natural Resources. The plan acres of range were used for livestock grazing in is recorded as a covenant against the title, so it must 1978 (Epps, 1980), but the rangeland potential in- be carried out. cludes some 10 million to 13 million acres of grass- In the main pilot project near the Delta-Clear- dominated ecosystems where cattle, sheep, and water area, for example, the soils have a silt-loam horses could graze and an estimated 100 million texture and are shallow and subject to seasonal dry- acres of lichen- and shrub-dominated ecosystems ing (Knight, et al., 1979). SCS officials rate these possibly suited for reindeer grazing. (For com- soils with a relatively low tolerance for soil loss. parison, rangelands in the lower United States Original surveys in the area indicated that the soils total 621.4 million acres.) The livestock industry were moderately erodible, but data collected in may grow in tandem with grain farming, providing 1978, the year when lands were allocated to farm- a local market for some barley production and by- ers, indicated higher credibility than originally products from grain or oilseed processing, estimated. These problems were foreseen, however. Alaska imports more than 90 percent of its food A number of institutions, including the State’s Agri- supply, including most red meat. But the economic cultural Experiment Station, SCS, and the Alaska constraints on developing in-State agriculture are Department of Natural Resources, have been coop- formidable. With current markets, imported food erating in research on environmental variables and generally is less expensive than Alaskan-grown soil management alternatives under Alaskan condi- food. This is caused principally by the lack of tions. Thus, a number of appropriate technologies marketing and distribution structures to accom- including conservation tillage, stripcropping, shel- modate local production (Epps, 1980). Such struc- terbelt, and other practices are included in the new tures have not developed because existing farms farms’ conservation plans. cannot support processing, distribution, and mar- The Delta-Clearwater soils are typical of the po- keting investments. Thus, there is a development tentially arable lands of interior Alaska in that they bottleneck that the State government is trying to are mainly wind- or water-deposited soil materials remedy with various subsidies. (It should be noted that are susceptible to erosion. Because much of the that development of agriculture in other parts of terrain is level or gently sloping, water erosion the United States has also been subsidized by Gov- hazards are generally minimal. Wind erosion, how- ernment. ) ever, can be a problem. Most of Alaska’s potential cropland is located in the interior along the drainages of the Yukon, Tanana, Copper, Matanuska, and Susitna rivers. Table B-2.—Landownership in Alaska as of Developing this agricultural potential will mean September 1981 (millions of acres) that some of that land’s present production of — Distribution of timber and wildlife will be foregone. The value of landownership this production cannot be quantified accurately to when Federal Current transfers are distribution of compare it with the projected value of agricultural Landowner complete a landownership crops. Because the land is still in Government own- U.S. Government. . . . 225.5 302.4 ership, and because substantial development is un- Alaska State government . . 104.5 53.0 b likely without Government subsidies, the tradeoffs Indian corporation . . ., . . . 44.0 18.6C Private ...... 1,0 1.0 will be weighed in the process of State politics in — Total ...... 375.0 375.0 Alaska. In any case, development will be a delib- —— a Tabel does not include tranfers from State to private lands erate and gradual process that could profit from the b Alaska State government selection period ends January 1994, c balance of Indian Corp lands has been selected but title transfer has not study of development mistakes made in other States The and from advances in the understanding of agri- yet been approved SOURCE Beaumont McClure, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Programs cultural ecology. Staff, September 1981 App. B— Virgin Lands ● 223

With range ecosystems, as with croplands, the en- to start new plants, Thus, winter sites are rested vironmental parameters that determine which Alas- for 4 to 8 years in the new grazing systems (U. kan land is suitable for grazing are still being deter- Alaska, 1980)). SCS and the University of Alaska mined. The 1979 RPA report notes that Alaskan initiated resource surveys on tundra rangelands in ecosystems generally have low productivity levels. 1976 using imagery from Landsat, the National Only the shrub thickets and the Aleutian moist tun- Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Earth re- dra with the tall blue joint reedgrass produce over sources satellite, and extensive field surveys. Con- a ton of herbage and browse per acre on their best servation range plans are now nearly complete for sites, The report indicates that there are about 19 15 million acres of the Seward Peninsula. million acres in these two types of rangelands but does not say what part comprises the best sites Some native animals that are well adapted to tun- (USDA, 1979). (One ton of herbage per acre is a fair- dra and other Alaskan habitats probably are suit- ly setcre test–only about one-eighth of the range- able for domestication to produce food and fiber. For example, small-scale husbandry of musk oxen, lands in the contiguous States are expected to pro- which produce high-quality wool, has demon- duce at this level, even when in top condition.) The grass-dominated, rangeland ecosystems lo- strated some potential. However, intensified man- cated in the south-central coastal region and on the agement of caribou or other animals now’ con- eastern Aleutian Islands did not evolve under in- sidered to be “game” would require a philosophic; al tensive grazing by native herbivores. Thus, the ex- attitude change on the part of the public and resource management professionals (U SDA-RPA, isting plant communities may change substantially if grazed by domestic livestock. Secondary en- 1979), vironment al effects will need to be monitored care- The impact of cropland development and increas- fully as the livestock industry expands. Another ing herds of exotic livestock on the nativee wildlife consideration is the rate of nutrient cycling under resources of Alaska is likely to remain an issue as Alaskan rangeland conditions. Research on native the State develops its resource potentials. For ex- hay yields indicates that once-per-year harvests ample, a large part of the State’s potentially tillable without fertilization tend to cut production in half’, land is located in the Upper Yukon Basin, an area and persistent use by livestock could have more with extraordinarily productitve waterfowl habitat. severe effects ( Mitchell, 1974). Fertilizer can sus- The waterfowl reproduce in poorly drained flood tain production, but fertilizing rangelands is rare- plains which abound with oxbow and pothole lakes. ly economically feasible. Above these flood plains, however, there are some Tundra rangelands are much more extensive 3 million acres of well-drained tillable soils (Drew than grasslands, and reindeer, which graze the 1979). Whether to plan eventual developrnent of the lichen- and shrub-dominated tundra and are phys- Upper Yukon Basin’s tillable soils has been a point iologically adapted to survive the long winters with of contention and the topic of congressional hear- little supplemental feeding, could be used to expand ings (U.S. Congress, 1979). Agriculturalists recog- the livestock industry in Alaska. Reindeer were in- nize that draining and clearing the pothole areas troduced to Alaska in 1891. The herds increased of Yukon Flats would be an error, but believe the to over 600,000 head by 1932, but declined in the option of developing some of the well-drained lands next two decades to about 25,000 and have in- should be kept open. They note that some wildlife creased only slightly since. Overstocking and con- and agriculture can coexist and predict that pro- sequent range failure are cited as partial reasons ducing small grains could enhance waterfowl hab- for the decline of reindeer ranching (USDA, 1980). itat. Other experts are less optimistic about the Lichens and shrubs take decades to recover from coexistence of agriculture and wildlife. They are overgrazing but are now in good condition again. concerned, for example, that agricultural develop- Recently there has been renewed interest in rein- ment in the Upper Yukon region would eventually deer, and range management plans now are being bring pressures to regulate the flow of the river, deesigned to avoid overgrazing, Forage on summer which in turn would harm warterfowl reproduction range is plentiful and the main range management Other conflicts may arise as agriculture develops. problem is to provide sufficient winter range t o Irrigation is likely for some arable areas, and allow for long rest periods in a rest-rotation graz- ground water use could become controversial in ing system.. (After a lichen has been disturbed by permafrost regions. Irrigation and agricultural reindqeer, it takes 2 years for remaining fragments runoff also could affect salmon spawning areas. 224 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Conclusions Appendix B References

Many important questions remain to be answered Alaska Agricultural Action Council, “Alaska’sAgricul- about both farming and livestock enterprises in ture: A Positive Future, ” Annual Report to the Alaska. The State is in the unique position of be- Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, 1981( a]. ing able to learn from the decades of agricultural , Expanding Alaska Agriculture, A Positive Com- experience in the lower 48 States. But direct trans- mitment (Juneau, Alaska: Office of the Governor, 1981(b)). fer of agricultural technologies from lower latitude Alaska Rural Development Council, “Alaska’s Agricul- research and development is not sufficient because tural Potential, ” publication No. 1, 1974. crop production and range management in Alaska Burton, W. E,, “Historical Perspectives in Alaskan Agri- involve significantly different soil temperatures, culture, ” Alaska Agricultural Potential (Fairbanks, climate, and growing seasons. The ecology of agri- Alaska: University of Alaska Cooperative Extension culture—dynamics of nutrient cycles, soil forma- Service, 1974), pp. 1-9. tion, and plant physiology, for example—need to Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Department of be better known in order to design farm and range Agriculture, et al., “National Agricultural Lands management programs that will sustain the initially Study, Final Report, ” 1981. high productivity of Alaska’s virgin agricultural Drew, J. V., “Agricultural Resources of the Yukon Flats Alaska National resources. and the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, ” Znterest Lands—Part Z, hearings before the Subcom- A major threat to the long-term maintenance of mittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and Alaska’s inherent land productivity is the prospect the Environment of the Committee on Merchant of making decisions with inadequate data. For ex- Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, ample, the majority of Alaska’s potential agricul- 96th Cong., serial No. 96-5, 1979. tural soils are intermingled with or adjacent to Epps, Alan C., “Technology Issues in Developing Sus- forestlands and yet only very limited assessments tained Agricultural Productivity on Alaskan Virgin have been made of the interrelationships between Lands,” OTA background paper, 1980. forest management and agricultural land manage- Knight, Charles W,, et al., “Delta Dust?: Soil Management ment, Inadequate climate data is another example, on Agricultural Land in Interior Alaska, ” Agro- borea)is, January 1979, pp. 35-37. Under cool weather growing conditions, the timing Mitchell, W. W., “Rangelands of Alaska, ” Alaska Agri- of chemical inputs and other farming practices is cultural Potential, Alaska Rural Development Coun- critically important. But knowledge of microcli- cil, publication No. 1, Cooperative Extension Service mates and data bases for weather forecasting are (Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska, 1974). inadequate to support optimum decisions. The soils U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine data used to identify the 18.5 million acres of poten- and Fisheries, “Hearings Before the Subcommittee tially tillable soils is a preliminary survey, adequate on Fisheries and Wildlife, Conservation and the En- for broad planning but not for project- or farm-level vironment, ” 1979. decisions. Similarly, not enough is known about the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Resources Conserva- ground water hydrology of the potential agriculture tion Act: Appraisal 1980, ” 1980. lands to foresee the conflicts that may arise. U.S. Department of Agriculture-RPA, “An Assessment of the Forest and Range Land Situation in the United Thus, Alaska must maintain a strong research States, ” 1979. program if it is to develop its agricultural potential U.S. Department of Agriculture-SCS, Alaska Agricultural and help to reduce the economic pressure to con- Land Development Fact Sheet, compiled by Doug sume land resources elsewhere. The role of the Sellers, June 1980. Federal Government will be to support the neces- University of Alaska, Cooperative Extension Service, sary research for site-specific management deci- “What’s Developing, Land Ownership Changes: sions and to provide sufficient expert personnel in How Will They Affect Reindeer Grazing Leases?” such agencies as SCS to continue the conservation June 1980, pp. 6-7. planning momentum that has characterized the accelerating agricultural development of the past 3 years. Appendix C

Soil Productivity Variables

Organic Matter The main natural source of nitrogen for plant growth is soil organic matter. Mineral soils or- Soil organic matter is important to soil produc- dinarily contain about 400 to 6,000 lb per acre of tivity because it: 1 ) contributes to the development nitrogen in the plow layer and somewhat lesser of soil aggregates, which enhance root development amounts in subsoils. However, most of the nitrogen and reduce the energy needed to work the soil; 1) is in soil organic matter and is unavaiable to plants increases the air- and water-holding capacity of the until it is converted into ammonia and nitrates by soil, which is necessary for plant growth and helps micro-organisms (Allison, 1973). to reduce erosion; 3] releases essential plant Soil organic matter may contain from 15 to 80 nutrients as it decays; 4) holds nutrients from fer- percent of the total soil phosphorus, an important tilizer in storage until the plants need them; and plant nutrient. Micro-organisms use inorganic 5) enhances the abundance and distribution of vital phosphorus and synthesize organic phosphorus, soil biota. The importance of these functions varies subsequently providing an important link in the greatly from one soil type to another. soil/phosphorus plant chain. Like nitrogen, there The best soils for plant production possess sub- are active and inactive forms of phosphorus in soil stantial water-holding and ion-exchange capacities, organic matter. The active substances chiefly are good physical structure, and thriving populations residues that have not yet been transformed by mi- of bacteria, fungi, and invertebrates. These at- crobial processes. A substantial amount of organic tributes are highly correlated with soil organic mat- phosphorus released during the plants’ growing ter content derived from plant remains and micro- season comes from decomposition of this soil or- bial synthesis. Good soil structure depends on ag- ganic matter. The literature contains numerous gregation of colloidal clay minerals held together statements that the addition of farmyard manure by organic molecules. These organic molecules are and green manures will increase the availability of being consumed continually by microbes and other soil phosphorus to plants; however, experimental invertebrates, so maintaining soil organic matter evidence to support such statements is scarce requires a steady influx of plant biomass from root (Allison, 1973). decay and aboveground organic residues (Jenny, Soil organic matter helps control the supply of 1980). potassium for plant growth. Potassium is adsorbed on organic colloids and is present in organic resi- Effects on Productivity dues and living micro-organisms (Mulder, 1950). As these reservoirs of available potassium are depleted, Increased soil organic matter commonly im- they are replenished both by potassium released proves water infiltration, decreases evaporation, from inorganic compounds and from added organ- fosters more extensive and deeper root systems ic residues. Under many conditions, the organic which may make more moisture available to crops, residues are the important factor in maintaining the and improves the efficiency of water use by the soil’s plant-available potassium. crop. Even though required in only small amounts, the Major benefits to soil fertility are derived from micronutrients sulfur, calcium, magnesium, iron, soil organic matter largely through its effect on ag- copper, manganese, zinc, boron, and molybdenum gregation of soil particles. Increased particle aggre- also are essential for general plant growth. Here, gation lowers soil bulk density, consequently im- too, soil organic matter plays a major role in assur- proving tilth, increasing soil percolation and aera- ing that these trace elements remain available for tion characteristics, and improving soil drainage, plant uptake. microbial activity, and temperatures. Fine-grained organic matter and soil clay minerals form soil col- Maintenance and Loss of loids, which play major roles in supplying nutrients Soil Organic Matter to plants. Some soil colloids have the ability to hold abundant plant nutrients on their surfaces where Farming practices affect the organic matter con- the nutrients are easily exchangeable with hydro- tent of soil. Where the land is plowed, soil organic gen ions produced by plant roots. matter decreases through oxidation. Keeping fresh-

225 226 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

ly broken virgin land bare for long periods marked- Information Needs ly decreases soil organic matter, The decrease occurs mostly in the first 25 years after the soil is Improved data and understanding in a number broken; after that a new, but lower, steady state of of areas will assist in determining the long-term im- organic matter content is reached. pacts of new and old technologies on soil produc- Under cultivation, much of the vegetation pro- tivity, Further information is needed on how soil duced is removed, water and wind erosion are ac- organic matter affects soil productivity under vari- celerated, and frequent cultivations favor oxidation ous cultural practices and climatic conditions, and of organic matter, The reduction of soil organic on how cultural practices affect organic matter, Im- matter content can be reduced significantly by proved data are needed on optimum levels of soil adopting cropping systems that reduce the frequen- organic matter for specific sites, specific crops, and cy and degree of tillage and keep the soil protected specific cropping systems. As the cost of commer- by vegetation as much of the time as possible. Field cial fertilizers increases, new data on the interrela- experiments at Mandan, N. Dak., showed that the tionships of soil organic matter and commercial fer- loss of nitrogen during the first 33 years of crop- tilizers will become increasingly important, Simi- ping was 34 percent for continuous corn while the larly, by enhancing soil tilth, organic matter ulti- loss with continuous small grains was 14 percent mately may help reduce the amount of fossil fuel (Allison and Sterling, 1949). Where grass sods are used during plowing, planting, and other such field maintained, even in regions of heavy rainfall, there activities. is little loss of nitrogen or organic matter, As organic wastes, some containing high levels The smaller the crop and the more completely it of toxic heavy metals, are introduced into agricul- is removed from the soil, the more rapidly the soil tural practices, further understanding of how soil humus will decrease, and conversely, the larger the organic matter holds or releases these toxic sub- crop and the more of it that is returned to the soil, stances will become increasingly important. the higher the level of organic matter that can be maintained. Nevertheless, the level in any tilled soil Biota usually will be considerably below that of the original virgin soil. Most soils are inhabited by a diversity of life forms. The soil biota include numerous microbes, Research on Changes in a wide variety of invertebrate animals, and a few Soil Organic Matter vertebrates. Most soil biota are microscopic or, at the largest, tiny to the naked eye. Some larger soil Changes in the amount of organic matter in soils invertebrates such as earthworms, ants, other soil occur relatively slowly. Research of several years’ insects, and land snails and slugs are also impor- duration is required for properly documenting the tant. Small mammals are the dominant vertebrate effect of cropping systems, soil treatments, and animals found below ground, but some amphibians, other management practices on the soil organic reptiles, and even a few birds live at least a part matter. Few such studies have been initiated in re- of their lives within soils. cent years, in part because many agronomists and Soil organisms often modify and enhance the soil soil scientists feel that the effects of many manage- by their activities. They are vital to the formation ment practices on soil organic matter are reason- and maintenance of the natural soil system and per- ably predictable. Another reason is that funding for form functions essential for plant growth. Before long-term research generally is not as available as the widespread availability of commercial fertiliz- for shorter term research. ers, nutrients recycled by the biota were recognized Data on the effects of management practices on as a major component of land productivity and so soil organic matter come mostly from studies ini- soil ecology ranked high among the agricultural sci- tiated years ago, many of which now have been ences. In recent decades, however, there has been discontinued. However, some long-term studies much less emphasis on soil biology. still are under way, notably the Morrow Plots in Scientists generally are not alarmed about the Illinois and Sanborn field in Missouri. European possibility of pesticide use causing severe harm to studies include those of Rothamsted Experimental soil ecology in the near future, Insecticides and her- Station in England, and those at Grignon, France. bicides in use are tested for their impact on soil App. C—Soil Productivity Variables . 227 ——

biota, Inhibition of some biological processes and deliberately or inadvertently released into agricul- suppression of particular groups of biota occur, but tural soils and water, including pesticides, industri- generally the gross effect of each pesticide applica- al wastes, and air pollutants. Micro-organisms con- tion seems neither great nor long-lived. Pesticides vert many chemicals to inorganic products. The do cause changes in soil insect and earthworm pop- breakdown process may lead to detoxification of ulations, but the impact of these changes on long- toxic chemicals, the formation of short- or long- term land productivity is not known. lived toxicants, or the synthesis of nontoxic prod- Frequent applications of toxic chemicals prob- ucts, Scientists have investigated only a few of the ably are changing the composition of soil biota multitude of chemicals to determine what break- communities, favoring species that can adapt to the down products are formed when micro-organisms new chemical environment. However, methods are encounter chemicals in natural systems (Alexander, not well-enough developed to make practical differ- 1981). entiation among microbe species in the field, and Some data are available on micro-organisms and soil invertabrates have been studied so little that their effects on soil chemistry, but numerous and many are still unknown. Thus, the cumulative ef- considerable voids exist in the data base. The proc- fects of agricultural technologies on productivity esses most frequently studied are the decomposi- will not be measured until advances are made in tion of soil organic matter, nitrogen mineralization, the science of soil biology. vitrification, the decomposition of added organic materials, and nitrogen fixation. Micro-organisms Most of the major technological innovations that might affect the microbiology of agricultural and Soil micro-organisms include bacteria, fungi, ac- rangeland soils have been evaluated for their im- tinomycetes, and protozoa. A critical function they pacts on microbiology, at least in part. Thus, the perform is to generate nutrients essential for plant likely impact of a particular type of technological growth. Micro-organisms are either the sole or change or agricultural operation on soil microbiol- chief natural means for converting unavailable ogy can be predicted, but only in relatively gross, forms of nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, and other qualitative terms. The studies generally have not elements in soil into products that plants use. Thus, been conducted in a fashion that would allow ex- the rate at which micro-organisms convert organic trapolation from the particular in~’estimation to con- nitrogen and other nutrients to inorganic products ditions prevailing elsewhere. Thus, generalizations determines the rate of plant growth. Hence any ac- cannot be made on the quantitative responses of tion deleterious to microbial processes critical to microbial populations in different soil types, differ- plant nutrition would have adverse consequences. ent climatic regions, and areas that have different Soil micro-organisms also modify soil structure types of vegetation [Alexander, 1980). by forming humus that binds minute soil particles Essentially no models have been devised to pre- into larger aggregates. These larger structures are dict how agricultural technologies will affect the beneficial because they promote root development, aggregate of microbial activities that are important improve soil aeration, and lead to improved soil to crop production and rangeland management. moisture. Specific interactions among micro-organisms, and Microscopic forms of life are responsible for de- between microbial predators and their prey, are not composing organic matter and releasing elements known. Thus, practical methods do not exist for sci- not used directly as plant nutrients. Some of these entific advisors, farmers, and policy makers to pre- elements may be converted to gaseous form, as in dict the impact of existing or alternative technol- the case of carbon and nitrogen. By such conver- ogies on microbial plant production or soil fertil- sions, micro-organisms in part regulate the chemis- ity (Alexander, 1980). try of the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. Mi- Because policy makers, public interest groups, crobial decay of plant remains is useful because and sometimes Federal agencies have been acting some crop residues contain naturally occurring tox- largely with inadequate information, the impacts ic substances that at high concentrations are delete- on microbial activities may sometimes be over- rious to plants (Alexander, 1980). dramatized, whereas in other instances a signifi- Further, soil micro-organisms are responsible for cant problem may be wholly ignored. In addition, decomposing a wide array of synthetic chemicals this lack of data on microbial populations and activ- 228 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity ities means that the risks, costs, or profits that farm- tion, and harvests, thus hindering needed control. ers incur by applying new agricultural technologies Third, the sheer numbers of soil organisms per sam- are largely unknown (Alexander, 1980). ple can become overwhelming to assess. For example, a soil sample 5 cm in diameter by 3 cm deep Sell Invertebrates and Vertebrates in a central Ohio field may have a range of 30 to 1,000 individual microarthropods in it (Dindal, Soil invertebrates include such animals as earth- Felts, and Norton, 1975). worms, slugs, land snails, ants, and other insects. The massive number of organisms in a soil sam- These animals carry out the early stages of the phys- ple increases the problems of sorting, counting, ical and chemical decomposition of all types of or- identifying, and determining the ecological roles of ganic debris in or on the soil. Most soil inverte- these creatures within a reasonable time, and de- brates also act as carriers of microbial propagules mands extreme patience and technical knowledge. (e.g., seeds, spores] and so they inoculate the organ- To complicate such research further, between 5 and ic matter as it is passed through their bodies, The 25 percent of the microarthropods alone found on final stages of biochemical decomposition are also most new study sites will be species never before accomplished by microbes, thus recycling nutri- described taxonomically. Further, the available tax- ents, forming humus, and fostering soil particle ag- onomic keys to identify soil biota are European or gregation (Dindal, 1980). Russian and do not apply adequately to many U.S. Historically, most research on the biology and fauna. Life history details of these new forms also ecology of soil invertebrates has been carried out are unknown, thus demanding further time-con- in Europe and Russia. Although there were occa- suming laboratory and field consideration (Dindal, sional American publications on soil organisms be- 1980]. Finally, soil invertebrates and vertebrates ex- fore the late 1960’s, it was not until then that a ma- ist as part of a microcommunity within the soil. The jor research thrust was initiated in this country. structure and function of this community, too, must Even today, few U.S. colleges and universities of- be assessed. fer courses in soil biology. Consequently, much of Despite the lack of quantitative data on the im- the understanding of the general functions of soil pact of agricultural technology on invertebrates in invertebrates comes from the works of foreign sci- most U.S. soils, some qualitative information exists. entists. This is exemplified by the recent Interna- The situation is not the same for soil vertebrates, tional Colloquium of Soil Zoology held in Syracuse which include such animals as moles, gophers, in 1979, “Soil Biology as Related to Land-Use Prac- mice, other burrowing mammals, and some reptiles tices. ” Of the 96 papers presented, 20 dealt with and amphibians. Even though some people worry effects of agriculture on soil fauna, and only one that agricultural technologies may harm beneficial of these 20 papers described work conducted in the soil invertebrates, the activities of soil vertebrates United States (Dindal, 1980). are commonly and narrowly viewed as negative— This dearth of research in the United States can e.g., making burrows in which farm machinery can be explained by several factors: 1) agricultural prac- become entrapped, or consuming valuable grain or tices in the United States have not been developed forage. Some studies of soil vertebrates suggest that to take advantage of soil organisms; 2) a lack of they may also have beneficial impacts, such as funding and of an organization with “lead agency” breaking up hardpan a foot or more below the sur- status to oversee research in this area; 3) a lack of face, thus improving drainage and increasing root- employment opportunities in this field of research; ing depth (Ross, et al., 1968). Unfortunately, such 4) a lack of cooperation between Federal agencies ecology studies typically are conducted on virgin and soil invertebrate ecologists; and 5) the lack of land and are difficult to relate to agricultural pro- research is partially a result of the nature of the re- ductivity, search itself (i. e., procedures may be extremely rig- Soil animals play an integral, if limited, part in orous, tedious, and time-consuming). humus formation. Their chief contribution to land Research on soil invertebrates generally encoun- productivity lies in the degree that microbial activ- ters one or more of the following problems. First, ity is enhanced by their activities. Together, soil to get useful data on how changes in soil inverte- fauna and microbiota play an indispensable role in brate ecology occur, many (generally 10 or more soil formation, soil profile modification, nutrient per site) small samples per year must be taken from release, and the mixing of organic and inorganic treated and control areas. Second, few croplands materials. Holistic field studies of invertebrate-soil, have been sampled for soil fauna because the soil vertebrate-plant productivity associations are prac- is regularly disturbed by plowing, planting, cultiva- tically nonexistent. Until such studies have been App. C—Soil Productivity Variables ● 229 undertaken on different soils under various agricul- on-farm energy expenditures for food production tural conditions, scientists and farmers will lack the in 1977, 36 percent was for fertilizer (Pimentel, et information needed to design and implement farm- al., 1973; Olson, 1977). Thus, the on-farm producing systems that can make optimum use of scarce tion costs of food can be expected to continue to resources. rise with the cost of energy as long as present energy-intensive fertilizer technology is used. Soil Chemistry Commercial Fertilizers Each agricultural crop, whether plant or animal, that is removed from the land carries with it some Commercial fertilizers generally are synthesized soil nutrients. This nutrient loss is in addition to or manufactured through various industrial proc- the losses from soil erosion, leaching, denitrifica- esses and contain one or more of the essential plant tion, and volatilization of certain elements. If the nutrients (Fertilizer Institute, 1976). These include nutrient supply is not replenished, the soil’s fertility important soluble compounds of nitrogen, phos- will decrease. phorus, and potassium. Limestone, gypsum, dolo- Commercial fertilizer helps maintain the supply mite, greensand (glauconite), rock phosphate, and of soil nutrients needed for continued agricultural granite are common rocks that when ground to a production. Most people are aware that large fine particle size also can be added to cropland soils amounts of commercial fertilizers are applied to to provide calcium, magnesium, potassium, and U.S. lands each year, but are less aware of the soil phosphorus. These finely ground, less soluble nat- nutrients that are taken from the land in the form ural materials usually are not included in the cate- of agricultural products. For example, 30 lb of phos- gory “commercial fertilizers. ” They were the basic phorus are removed with 50 bushels of wheat (3,000 inorganic soil nutrient inputs prior to industrial lb) (Shacklette, 1977). Similarly, Hawaii exports synthesis of commercial fertilizers. Because conl- 2,200 tons of potassium each year in its pineapple mercial fertilizers are synthesized, highly soluble, crop alone. Losses of nitrogen and sulfur follow the and concentrated, some people are concerned that same general trend as those of phosphorus and po- such fertilizers may have certain long-term adverse tassium. Even well-maintained organic farms that impacts on soils, the soil biota, water supplies, and carefully collect and return the farm’s unused crop other parts of the natural resource base. The follow- residues and animal wastes to the soil can only re- ing discussion briefly examines the impacts of the duce but not eliminate nutrient losses. common commercial fertilizers on land product i\’- Natural weathering produces new soil and re- ity. leases additional nutrients, but the process is exceedingly slow and thus unable to keep pace with NITROGEN FERTILIZER modern agriculture’s needs. Whether soil nutrient replacement is accomplished by addition of natural The nitrogen fertilizers used today are acid-form- or commercial fertilizers is an individual’s choice, ing. This can be a benefit or a potential problem but agriculture has to replace what it has taken depending on the specific soil. In naturally alkaline from the soil if it expects to accomplish long-term, soils, acid-forming fertilizers can increase produc- sustainable crop production. tivity. However, in naturally acid soils, fertilizers Judicious use of fertilizers is the key. Additions can increase the soil’s acidity and reduce crop that are too low result in nutrient deficiencies in yields unless lime is applied to neutralize the acidi- the soil and lower crop yields. Where fertilizers are ty. Thus, depending on soil properties and manage- applied too heavily, chemical excesses in the soil, ment, the residual acidity formed could be a prob- runoff, and ground water not only are unnecessary lem, but one that is easily managed. capital expenses but also detriments to other parts The rate of application of fertilizer nitrogen to of the natural resource base. croplands can influence the amount of nitrate leav- Most of America’s croplands are fertilized so that ing fields via subsurface waters or drain tiles, When the exchangeable concentration of nutrients re- the percentage of the applied nitrogen used by the mains at a level that will sustain high yields. Nor- crop decreases, the amount available for leaching mally, fertilization requires frequent [usually annu- increases. Fertilizer use on cultivated crops can in- al) input of nutrients. The cost of fertilizing is spiral- crease the nit rogen loss from soils, but how this ef- ing because its production is highly energy inten- fects nitrogen concentration in streams is still un- sive, especially nitrogen fertilizers. In fact, of the clear. 230 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Nitrogen can be lost through surface runoff, too. Although some phosphorus is lost by movement Most of the nitrogen removed by surface runoff is into ground waters through leaching, the amounts organic nitrogen associated with sediment. Even generally are insignificant from both agronomic though it is possible to lose significant fertilizer and water-quality standpoints. However, signifi- nitrogen in surface runoff if heavy rains immediate- cant phosphorus may enter ground water where the ly follow application, this accounts for only a small water table is high or approaches the plow layer. proportion of nitrogen lost from soils or of the fer- Similarly, flooding may provide anaerobic condi- tilizer nitrogen applied (Mengel, 1980). Neverthe- tions in soils, and in such cases phosphorus con- less, spring measurements of nitrate in surface wa- centrations can be fairly large in effluent from tile ters in Illinois showed that at least 55 to 60 percent drains and can be a ground water pollutant. originated from fertilizer nitrogen (Kohl, et al., Like phosphorus, potassium from fertilizers can 1971). accumulate in soils over time. Soils in humid areas The amounts of fertilizer nitrogen either lost to, of the United States are inherently low in potassi- or found in transit to, ground water are quite vari- um, so yields can be enhanced by potassium appli- able. In general, in the Southeastern United States cation. Many soils in the more arid regions contain nitrate enrichment of shallow ground water does adequate potassium levels, and potassium fertiliza- occur, though no enrichment of deep ground water tion can actually decrease yields (Rehm, et al., is known. Denitrification of nitrate in shallow 1979). Thus, care is needed to ensure that potassi- ground water also has been noted. In the Midwest, um is applied only on soils with low natural potas- significant amounts of nitrogen can be found below sium levels. Potassium fertilizer does not appear to the root zone (Mengel, 1980). be a potential source of pollution for either surface The problem of leaching nitrates from fertilizer or ground water. to ground water is greater in irrigated areas. Nitro- gen fertilizer use on irrigated sandy soils shows a high correlation with nitrate-contaminated aquifers COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER EFFECTS ON SOIL (Spalding, et al., 1978; Reeves and Miller, 1978). INVERTEBRATES ON MICRO-ORGANISMS Although little-studied, fertilizers seem to have PHOSPHORUS AND POTASSIUM considerable effects on soil invertebrates through Unlike nitrogen, which has a relatively short re- alterations of plant species diversity and composi- sidual activity in soils, phosphorus tends to accum- tion (Morris, 1978). Field studies of fertilizer-caused ulate in soils in relatively insoluble inorganic forms. changes in the diversity of invertebrate populations Thus, phosphorus fertilization leads to increased show that the impacts diminish in successively soil phosphorus levels over time. In many intensive- higher levels in the food chain (Hurd and Wolf, ly managed soils, particularly where high-value 1974), Similarly, the population of microarthropods crops such as vegetables are grown, phosphorus in several test plots treated with commercial fertiliz- levels have become quite high. The questions then ers or with manure showed a small population in- asked are: at what level is soil phosphorus high crease with the commercial fertilizer and a large enough that no additional phosphorus is needed one with manure (Wallwork, 1976). Combinations and how long can soil reserves adequately supply of commercial and organic fertilizers may produce plant needs? Fertilization emphasis thus shifts to the most beneficial effects. maintaining soil phosphorus at a level adequate for The activities of soil micro-organisms, and the im- optimum crop growth. pact of commercial fertilizers on them, have been Phosphorus buildup is of practical significance. studied extensively in other countries, but less in Soil test reports indicate that soil phosphorus levels the United States. Convincing data for a long-term are increasing in some States, and in many in- detriment caused by synthetic fertilizers do not ex- stances have become adequate to supply the phos- ist, Although individual studies do in fact show phorus needed for crop production with only small temporary inhibitions of microbial activity, the sup- additions (Mengel, 1980). Only a very small amount pressions do not appear to be long term or to af- of fertilizer phosphorus is lost from soils if erosion fect significantly the microbial processes important is controlled. However, even these small amounts to soil fertility, This does not mean that detrimen- can be significant and can accelerate surface water tal effects do not occur, however. It may be that the eutrophication. Phosphorus loss can be minimized science of soil biology is not able to detect the ef- through proper erosion control. fects, App. C—Soil Productivity Variables ● 231

The commercial fertilizer anhydrous ammonia is ated with pesticide use and their long-term impacts. a special case because of the high concentrations Pesticides are potential pollutants of food, drink- that normally are applied to a narrow region of the ing water, and fish and wildlife habitats. The im- soil. It is toxic to specific microbial processes for pacts of pesticide use on the environment are deter- a short period after application. However, the am- mined by the environmental transport of the chemi- monia is converted in several days or weeks to the cals, their persistence, degradation, and dissipation nontoxic product nitrate so that it is not certain in the environment, and the hazards associated whether the inhibition has long-term significance with pesticides and the products created when they (Alexander, 1980). are decomposed or metabolized.

Pesticides PESTICIDE EFFECTS ON GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER, AND PRECIPITATION Pesticides are chemicals used primarily to combat pests that affect food and fiber production or The presence of pesticide residues in surface run- cause a public health hazard. They are broadly clas- off is well documented, and numerous short-term sified on the basis of the kinds of pests they con- environmental impacts are noted such as fishkills, trol—namely, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, contamination of mollusks, etc. (Ehrlich, et al., nemat icicles, rodent icicles, and miticides. Also, 1977), Longer term impacts that could affect overall chemicals used for defoliation, desiccation, soil land productivity include the effect of pesticides fumigation, and plant-growth regulation also are carried by surface water into marsh and estuarine classified as pest icicles (Hark in, et al., 1980). ecosystems that provide the breeding grounds for Most pesticides are organic chemicals. Some are many animal species, including many which are manmade and some are of natural origin, Many economically important (Heckman, 1982). Pesticide contain chlorine, nitrogen, sulfur, or phosphorus pollution of ground water has been documented which serve to determine the toxicological impacts (see ground water section). The problem seems to of the compounds. be most severe for shallow ground water and sites The U.S. consumption of pesticides represents 45 having sandy, permeable soils. The contamination of rainfall by pesticides has percent of total world USe. Approximately 36,000 pesticide labels are now registered with the U.S. been documented for the organochlorinated com- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), although pounds. Recent studies show that toxaphene can only a few’ substances are used extensively. The be carried long distances from its use site and de- agricultural sector is the major user of pesticides posited through rainfall elsewhere in concentra- and the amounts used are increasing at a more rap- tions high enough to damage fisheries. Transporta- id rate than use by homeowners, industry, institu- tion of the chemical seems to result from vaporiza- tions, and Government. tion and subsequent adsorption on airborne parti- During the past decade a significant shift oc- cles (Bidleman, et al., 1979). curred in the agricultural use of insecticides with PESTICIDE EFFECTS ON SOIL INVERTEBRATES an increase in the use of organophosphorus and carbamate compounds and a decline in the use of The effects of pesticides on soil fauna is a highly organochlorine compounds. The decline in organo- complex issue and researchers have had difficulty chlorine insecticides will continue as a result of making generalizations. Variables include: 1) the Government restrictions on their use because of abundance of biocidal compounds from various their adverse environmental impacts. chemical families, 2) great differences in persist- Mankind has benefited markedly from the use of ence of pesticide compounds i n the environment, pesticides, notably in terms of high production of 3) the diversity of invertebrate organisms in dif- food and fiber at relatively low cost and in im- ferent soil communities, 4) metabolic(: products of proved public health. The demand for pesticides different organisms that ingest pesticides, 5) the is expected to continue to increase because there many chemical and physical varicties of different are few feasible alternatives for pest control. Inte- agriculatural soil ecosystems, and 6) t h e psyschologi- grated pest management, if widely practiced, could cal, cultural, and traditional agricultural practices reduce pesticide use on croplands [U.S. Congress, of people who use pesticides (Dindal, 1980). OTA, 1979). Where effects of pesticides have been observed Since the early 1960’s when environrnental and analyzed, the biotic responses are equally vari- awareness became acute, increasing concern has able: 1 ) soil fauna may exhibit either a direct re- been expressed over the potential hazards associ- sponse to pesticides or more often an indirect sec - 232 Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

ondary response; 2) only certain organisms are af- per unit of land area is small and the compounds fected in a detrimental fashion, some populations are reasonably selective for target plants, so little actually increase; 3) certain pesticide residues ac- or no inhibition of other soil processes has been cumulate in tissues of some soil organisms with no noted. In some instances, herbicides alter microbial apparent ill effects; and 4) certain sensitive species activities, but such changes probably are associated are killed from acute or chronic exposure to bio- with suppression of target plant species which lim- cides. In almost all cases, the structures and func- its organic nutrients needed by the micro-orga- tions of soil communities are modified by pesticide nisms around its roots. These effects seem slight use (Dindal, 1980). and have not warranted questioning the use to par- Although much knowledge exists on the effects ticular chemicals (Alexander, 1980). Herbicide use of individual pesticides, much more research is in no-till agriculture, however, is a matter of in- needed to determine the combined effects of many creasing concern because of the increased amounts pesticides used on the same site, applied. The general consensus among soil microbiolo- EFFECTS ON SOIL MICROBES gists seems to be that a few of the registered pesticides affect microbial processes in the short term, Although pesticides are designed to control pest but the influence is not sufficient to warrant ban- species, the extent of their selectivity for pests in ning the chemicals. Continual assessment of the ef- some cases is not great and other organisms are in- fects of new pesticides on microbial processing as jured, including soil micro-organisms, required by current EPA regulations is certainly Inhibitions of microbial activity are most pro- worthwhile. nounced from fungicides and fumigants and the suppression may remain for long periods. The impact may be so great that the natural balance among Effects of Toxic Wastes the resident soil microbial populations is upset and new organisms, such as plant disease vectors, be- The addition of toxic waste products to agricul- come prominent. Moreover, certain nutrient cycles tural land can occur inadvertently when waste regulated by micro-organisms are inhibited by fun- materials are applied as fertilizers, Some toxic sub- gicides and fumigants in such a way that signifi- stances such as heavy metals, polychlorinated bi- cant adverse effects on plant growth and nutrition phenyls (PCBS), and other industrial chemicals can become evident. The lack of widespread concern reach agricultural land through the atmosphere or for these antimicrobial agents is not because of their surface water. lack of toxicity but rather because they are not as Collectively, such toxic wastes provide a wide widely used as are the other two major classes of spectrum of pressures on all living creatures. Some pesticides (Alexander, 1980), organic toxicants on or in the soil can be decom- Insecticides have received most attention in the posed or at least modified by biological decompos- past, These compounds may be applied directly to) es, but others cannot. Some of the compounds, soil for the control of soil-borne insects, or they may however, are able to sublimate, volatilize, or dis- reach the soil from drifting sprays or when treated perse throughout the soil microenvironment. The plant remains fall to the ground or are mixed with cause-and-effect relationships between many of the the soil during normal farming practices. Inhibi- priority pollutants and soil biota are yet to be inves- tion of some microbial processes or suppressions tigated (Dindal, 1980). of individual populations of bacteria, fungi, or acti- Heavy metals, from whatever source, can threat- nomycetes occur. On the other hand, the toxicity en soil biotic systems. Research in Holland shows is generally not marked, and the beneficial effects that earthworm growth and reproductive capacity of the insecticides in controlling insect pests argue can be reduced by copper and worms were eradi- for their use. U.S. regulatory agencies have not cated from soils having copper accumulations over acted on the basis of possible long-term harm insec- 80 parts per million (Rhee, 1969), Interestingly, ticides might have on microbial processes, but few other preliminary studies show that other heavy instances of major suppressions of microbial activ- metals may accumulate to high levels in earth- ities in the field have been noted, so that a change worms without being lethal (Dindal, 1980). in policy in regard to their use does not appear war- Much is known about the toxicity of cadmium, ranted (Alexander, 1980). zinc, copper, nickel, lead, mercury, and certain Herbicides are designed to control the growth of other elements, individually and in combination, seed-bearing plants. The amount of herbicide used on several major soil microbial processes, including App. C—Soil Productivity Variables ● 233 decomposition of litter and soil organic matter, cer- soil to conduct a comparison study; the disap- tain steps in the nitrogen cycle, and enzymatic ac- pearance of many of the crop varieties eaten tivities. Moreover, a variety of individual microbial by our ancestors; and changes in weather and groups has been tested showing that heavy metals increases in air pollution. indeed inhibit microbial processes at low concen- The question of whether cultural techniques trations. The extent of the toxicity depends on the cause the levels of either naturally or adventitious- particularly heavy metal, its concentration, soil ly occurring compounds to vary is difficult, though type, soil pH, and the individual microbial process answerable. Tests for sensory qualities have been or group (Alexander, 1980). developed to a level of sufficient accuracy to allow for meaningful comparisons. The levels of naturally impacts of Soil Chemistry Changes on occurring toxins in plants, as well as harmful contaminants such as heavy metals, pesticides, or Human and Animal Nutrition chlorinated hydrocarbons, now can be detected, A persistent rumor holds that modern food is not measured, and discriminated among with accu- as good as it used to be. But whether this is true racy. However, no data base comparing agricultur- is not known. The chemical makeup of plants varies al techniques with the presence of these factors exists. with: I) the chemical and physical makeup of the soil on which the plant is grown, and 2) climatolog- ical factors. Nutrient deficiencies in soil tend to Summary restrict growth and yield of plants so that the plants that survive and produce well enough to harvest There are no economically feasible substitutes for show little, if any, nutrient deficiency. the significant agricultural productivity functions Until recently no systematic work had been un- of organic matter and soil biota, so their mainte- dertaken to determine if variation in cultural tech- nance in croplands and rangelands is critical. Soil niques—e. g., organic v. conventional farming meth- organic matter can be regenerated in degraded soils ods—affects the nutritional content of crops. There- by using various agricultural practices. By doing fore, there are little data to shed light on this ques- so, general soil structure, soil nutrient-holding cation. pacity, and the soil’s resistance to erosion can be However, reasoning a priori, it is possible to improved. make the following statements: Soil clay minerals also have a nutrient-holding ca- 1. The bulk of the-crops grown in this country are pacity, but once these fine-grained materials are lost grains. Variations in soil and weather condi- to erosion, they cannot be regenerated quickly by tions are most likely to affect the nonseed part known agricultural methods. Generally, the soil of the plant; therefore, it is unlikely that the clays play a less dominant role in maintaining good nutritional content of grain products eaten by soil structure than does soil organic matter. Conse- humans is changed by cultural techniques. quently, maintaining soil organic matter in produc- 2, Most of the grain raised in the United States tive soils and regenerating it in degraded soils prob- is fed to animals which subsequently nourish ably is one of the most economically efficient ways humans. Generally, the makeup of mammalian of sustaining the land’s agricultural productivity. muscle and milk and avian eggs are genetically Soil invertebrates and micro-organisms assist in determined; therefore, the probability of any breaking down plant remains, which produces new nutritional difference in a plant being passed organic compounds that promote good soil struc- on to humans through animal products is ture and converts soil nutrients to forms usable by small. Mammalian liver is the one animal prod- plants. The microbes are also necessary to break uct whose nutritional content could be affected down pesticides and other toxic chemicals. Without significantly by diet. the soil biota, the organic matter from plant resi- 3. It is impossible to determine the extent to dues and manure would be of little use. which U.S. soil is more or less able to produce Commercial and natural fertilizers must be added nutritious crops than when it was virgin be- to most soils to sustain present and projected levels cause of several factors: the lack, until recent- of crop production. Commercial fertilizers are be- ly, of sufficiently sensitive assay procedures to coming increasingly costly, so maximum benefit of detect such differences accurately and repro- their application is being sought and this depends ducibly, especially with regard to the vitamins in part on improved knowledge of the dynamics of and trace elements; the lack of available virgin soil organic matter and soil biota. 234 Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity —

Appendix C References in a Corn Belt Watershed, ” Science 174:1331-1334, 1971. Mengel, David B., “The Effects of Long-Term Fertilizer Alexander, Martin, “Biodegradation of Chemicals of En- Use on Soil Productivity, ” OTA background paper, vironmental Concern, ” Science, vol. 211, 1981, pp. 1980. 132-138. Morris, M. G., “Grassland Management and Invertebrate , “How Agricultural Technologies Affect Produc- Animals—A Selective Review, ” Sci. Proc. Royal tivity of Croplands and Rangelands by Affecting Mi- Dublin Soc. Ser. Assn., Proceedings of Symposium crobial Activity in Soil, ” OTA background paper, on Grassland Fauna 6(11):247-257, 1978. 1980. Mulder, E. G., AnnuaJ Review of Plant Physiology, vol. Allison, F. E., Soil Organic Matter and Its Role in Crop 1, 1950, pp. 1-24. Production: Developments in Soil Science, No. 3 Olson, R, E., “ Fertilizers for Food Production vs. Energy (Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Needs and Environmental Quality, ” Ecotoxicology 1973), p. 637. and Environmental Safety, vol. 1, 1977, pp. 311-326. Allison, F. E., and Sterling, L. O., Soil Science 67:239-252, Pimentel, David, Hurd, L. E., Bellotti, A, C,, Forester, 1949, M. J., Oka, 1. N., Sholes, O. D., and Whitman, R. J., Bidleman, T.F,, Christensen, E. J., and Harder, H. W,, “Food Production and the Energy Crisis, ” Science “Aerial Deposition of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in 182:443-449, 1973. Urban and Coastal South Carolina, ” 1979. Reeves, C. C., and Miller, W. D., “Nitrate, Chloride and Dindal, Daniel L., “Data Base Assessment of Effects of Dissolved Solids, Ogallala Aquifer, West Texas, ” Agricultural Technology on Soil Macrofauna and the Ground Water, vol. 16, No. 3, 1978. Resultant Faunal Impact on Crop and Range Produc- Rehm, G., Daigger, L., and Olson, R. A., “Crop and Soil tivity, ” OTA background paper, 1980. Response to Applied P and K in a Long-Term Build- Dindal, D. L., Felts, D. D., and Norton, R. A., “Effects up/Depletion Study, ” Soil Science Research Report, of DDT on Community Structure of Soil Microar- Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, thropods in an Old Field, ” J. Vanek (cd.), Progress Lincoln, 1979. in Soil Zoology, 1975, pp. 503-513. Rhee, J. A,, “Effects of Biocides and Their Residues on Ehrlich, P, R., Ehrlich, A. H., and Holdren, J. P., .Ecosci- Earthworms, ” Med. Rijksfac. Laudbouww Genet., ence: Population, Resources, Environment (San 34(3): 682-689, 1969. Francisco: W, H. Freeman & Co,, 1977). Ross, B, A., Tester, J. R., and Breckenridge, W. B., The Fertilizer Institute, The Fertilizer Handbook+ William “Ecology of Mima-Type Mounds in Northwestern White and Donald Collins (eds.), Zd cd., Washington, Minnesota, ” Eco]og~ 49:172-177, 168, D. C., 1976, Shacklette, Hansford T., “Major Nutritional Elements in Harkin, J. M., Simsiman, G. V., and Chesters, G., “De- Soils and Plants: A Balance Sheet, ” USGS circular scription and Evaluation of Pesticidal Effects on the 768, Proceedings of the Geology and Food Con- Productivity of the Croplands and Rangelands of the ference, 1977. United States,” OTA background paper, 1980. Spalding, R. F., Gormly, J. R,, Curtiss, B. H., and Exner, Heckman, C. W., “Pesticide Effects on Aquatic Habitats, ” M. E., “Nonpoint Nitrate Contamination of Ground Envir. Sci. and Tech. 16(l) 48a-57a, 1982. Water in Merrick Country, Nebraska, ” Ground Hurd, L. E., and Wolf, L. L., “Stability in Relation to Nu- Water, vol. 16, No. 2, 1978, pp. 86-95. trient Enrichment in Arthropod Consumers of Old- U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Pest Field Successional Ecosystems, ” Eco]. Monogram Management Strategies in Crop Protection, 44:456-482, 1974. OTA-F-98 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Jenny, Hans, “Alcohol or Humus?” Science 209:444, Printing Office, October 1979), 1980. Wallwork, J, A., The Distribution and Diversity of Soil Kohl, D. H., Shearer, G. B., and Commoner, B., “Fertilizer Fauna, Academic Press, London and New York, Nitrogen: Contribution to Nitrate in Surface Water 1976. Appendix 0 Analytic Took and Data Bases for Determining the Effects of National Policies on Land productivity

0TA’s analysis indicates that one pressing short- other hand, can undergo rigorous testing for inter- term need is to develop mathematical models that nal consistency and for consistency with historical can estimate the effects of Federal, State, and local data. Further, different models can be compared. policies on land productivity. Knowing the pro- Two major model types are used to analyze agri- bable impacts of education programs, cost-sharing, cultural policy: econometric models and systems tax incentives, subsidies, regulations, and other simulation models. Econometric models are based measures could help the Nation shape effective on widely accepted principles of economic behav- policies to check cropland and rangeland degrada- ior—for instance, that individuals. firms, and in- tion. dustrial sectors will continue to increase their use Mathematical models provide a documentable, of an input until the cost of purchasing it equals explicit, and replicable method to analyze the ef- the price received for the output it produces. These fects of an act ion or series of actions on a complex models have been developed extensively. Many are system. Models use equations to represent relation- mathematically complex and costly to run, Because ships among components of an agricultural system. they are based primarily on economic analysis, they They reduce system to their most important ele- typically are used to describe one-way, cause-effect ments and estimate how changes in one or more relationships, or “open” systems, but economic components of the system will affect other com- models can be designed to account for some feed- ponents. Models can be particularly useful to com- backs. pare the expected effects of different policy options. Econometric models generally arc quite sensitive The alternative to model-based analysis is intui- to errors in the data used in their equations. Their t ion-the use of mental models. Even though math- strength lies in their ability to consider the econom- ematical models often appear bewilderingly com- ic basis of behaviors at many levels, from individual plex, mental models can be equally [or more) com- producers to that of the national economy. Such plex. Mental models cannot, however, be as explicit models can break down, or “disaggregate, ’ their nor can they be replicated by other analysts. anaIysis to account for differences in variables such Mathmetical models cannot replace the judgment as soil types, farm operations, and local economies, of experienced people. They also cannot analyze and then reintegrate the outcomes to National, cause-effect relationships that cannot be quantified. State, or regional levels. For an individual farm or ranch, the operator’s Systems simulation models are valuable primarily mental model may predict more accurately than a for their breadth and integrative capabilities. These mathematical model. However, when numerous de- models are well suited to analyze nonmonetary ben- (csionrnakers are involved, as is the case with efits and costs, including changes in qualities such policymaking and program administration, it as wildlife habitat quality, water quality or changes becomes difficult to rely on mental models. Men- in plant genetic resources. They generally are not tal models of complex systems can seldom be as ex- used for detailed analysis of the economic implica- plict or objective as mathematical models, and so tions of actions or policies. are less valuable tools for policy makers. Systems simulations have one particular advan- Different mental models are difficult or impossi- tage for studying land productivity. Changes in the ble to compare. Thus when policymaking is based behavior of a system can be simulated using “feed- on mental models of complex interactions, as is the back loops”-a mechanism that relates changes in case with most current agricultural policy, the ideas the cause-effect variablcs of a system to changes in championed by the more articulate or more power- the system’s underlying modes of behavior. Feed- ful analyst are likely to prevail, whether or not they back loops are useful to reflect, for example, that are the most accurate, M a the matical models on the both soil enhancement and soil degradation are

235 236 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity — —..— — ———

processes in which this year’s change causes a that perfect, unbiased information is available greater change next year. A positive feedback loop to farmers. can model the concept that erosion is a self- ● The Interaction of the Technology and Chang- perpetuating process—i.e., that continuing erosion ing Social Values. Changes in farmers’ plan- makes topsoil increasingly erodible. * Conversely, ning horizons, * how such changes affect tech- a negative feedback loop will describe the stabiliz- nology choice, and the relationship between ing effects of land conservation practices. planning horizons and social and economic Just as no single farming technology can solve all trends must be included. conservation-related problems, no single modeling In addition to these elements, some additional technique can provide all the information necessary characteristics of a useful policy decision model for policy analysis. But they can provide decision- include: makers with valuable guidance. Systems and econ- The planning horizon of the model must be at ometric models have different capabilities and their least a generation to register significant trends results need to be linked to provide comprehensive in soil productivity and long-term social and information on questions relating to land productiv- economic consequences. ity and policy. Because individual universities tend Any formal model should explicitly portray the to specialize in developing and advancing one par- important feedback effects occurring through- ticular modeling approach, attempts to combine the out the system. strengths of different modeling methods have been A useful, understandable model for national limited. policy analysis must necessarily be aggregate, testing generic types of technologies and pol- Necessary Elements for a icies. For implementation purposes, it may be Poiicy Analysis Model necessary to examine policies at the regional level. The high degree of variation even within A model capable of assessing the effects of agri- regions means that “representative” data sets cultural technologies on land productivity must in- would likely have to be constructed. clude the following elements: Representation of the Natural System, The State of the Art of major physical, chemical, and biological proc- Mathematical Models esses must be represented and causally linked. It is not sufficient to represent erosion rates Iowa State University alone. Mechanisms to show both increasing Linear Programing Model and decreasing productivity must be included to determine the sustained land productivity The most advanced of the current agricultural level for any technology mix. policy models is the Iowa State University Linear Explicit Linkage of Technologies to Natural Programing (ISU-LP) Model. The model projects System Elements. At whatever level of detail factor* * demands, crop and livestock output, farm a policy study is made, the direction and mag- income, and some environmental effects for 105 nitude of the effect of each class of technology producing areas, 28 market regions, and 8 major must be identified. zones in the United States. Designed to minimize The Macroeconomics of Technology Choice. the cost of crop and livestock production, model The economics of an operator’s technology projections are based on estimates of total demand, choice, which determine the magnitude of use subject to such constraints as crop rotation re- and the economic conditions under which the quirements, limitations on water supply, and con- technology may tend to proliferate, must be servation practices. analyzed. The analysis should not presume * Planning horizon—A farmer’s planning horizon is the length of time he considers when making an investment of his capital, labor, or land *The soil erosion “feedback” loop is often overlooked in analyses of resources, It may be as short as one crop season or as long as his the economics of erosion, but its significance may be great. For exam- children’s lifetimes. The term includes the concept of discounted value ple, 30 inches of topsoil would take 450 years to erode completely away that the farmer places on future income or future costs compared to pres- if net erosion were a steady l/l5th inch per year. However, it would take ent income or costs. The terms “planning period, ” “payback period, ” only 171 years if the net erosion rate is l\15 inch/year at the beginning and “time horizon” are often used interchangeably with “planning of the analysis and each year’s rate is just 1 percent greater than the horizon, ” preceding year’s If the rate of increase were 10 percent a year, the 30 * * Factor: A good or service used in the process of production, thus inches of soil would last only 40 years. factor demand is the demand for an input to production. App. D—Analytic T OOIS and Data Bases for Determining the Effects of National Policies on Land Productivity . 237

The model’s chief environmental projection is to changes in productivity, 3) technologies besides estimate the erosion resulting from a given crop conservation practices that increase or decrease rotation, management practice, and geographical rates of change in productivity, 4) farmers’ deci- setting, as calculated by the universal soil loss equa- sions regarding choice and implementaton of tech- tion. The model can test the cost of a given conser- nologies, 5) social and economic factors that influ- vation policy and will calculate resulting shifts in ence the farmers’ planning horizons and the tech- such things as crop patterns, factor inputs, and nology choice options, and 6) Government pro- transportation requirements. grams that affect, directly or indirectly, farmers’ U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) analysts decisions (USDA-RCA, 1980; Benbrook, 1980; chose the IS U-LP Model to provide information Picardi, 1981). about future resource needs in the congressional- Efforts are under way at USDA and Iowa State ly mandated RCA report (USDA-RCA, 1980). The University to develop more comprehensive re- report was produced in response to provisions in search tools for assessing soil productivity. the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of Recognition of the inadequacies in the Y/SL. ap- 1977 (RCA), directing the Secretary of Agriculture proach has spurred the development of other to carry out a continuing appraisal of the soil, models to deal with a wider variety of soil produc- water, and related resources of the Nation. tivity processes. However, such models are primarily research tools and are probably too complex to Yield/Soil Loss Simulator aid in policy development. Although improvements to the Y/SL model have been suggested, the model In order to expand the capabilities of the ISU-LP seems to have been shelved and no substitute policy Model for dealing with causes and consequences analysis tool is being developed at USDA (Ben- of changes in land productivity, a USDA team de- brook, 1981). veloped an additional model-the Yield/Soil Loss Simulator (Y/SL)-specifically for the RCA analysis. Phonological ModeIs The Y/SL model permitted USDA analysts to forecast changes in crop yield resulting from soil losses Recently UDSA’S Science and Education Admin- associated with various cropping and management istration’s Wheat Yield Group began designing a practices. The model calculated effects of water series of “phonological models” that simulate the erosion and conservation practices on soil depth dynamics of plant (crop) growth and how this is af- and linked expected future yields to rates of change fected by physical and biological processes and the in soil depth. environment [Dyke, 1980). The models will analyze The resulting analyses for the RCA report are the the effects of runoff, soil texture, organic matter, best and most comprehensive available; still, they nutrient cycles, infiltration, and residue decomposi- fall short of the goal set by Congress for USDA’s tion. No soil biota analysis is planned. In this appraisal of the agricultural resource base. Substan- modeling approach, agricultural technologies will tial questions have been raised about the accuracy be linked to the specific process that they affect in- of the Y/SL modeI’s characterization of the relation- stead of merely correlated with yield. The models ship between soil depth and yield (Benbrook, 1980). will be crop- and soil-specific and have a 50- to Effects on productivity such as changes in soil tex- 100-year” planning horizon to simulate long-term ture and water-holding capacity are not accounted productivity changes. The models for sorghum and for, nor can they be incorporated into the model wheat are already operational. with existing data. Comparisons of Y/SL estimated This approach will be better able to capture the crop yield reductions per inch of eroded soil with feedback dynamics of the natural system including actual studies show Y/SL loss estimates to be rela- nutrient cycles and organic matter dynamics. These tively conservative. models are intended to be linked to the ISU-LP The ISU-LP Model, as supplemented by Y/SL, is model. If successfully merged, they will provide im- the most complete representation of technological portant feedback simulation that has been missing impacts on productivity available. However, it does from the present ISU-LP structure. not analyze the dynamics of natural soil systems A disadvantage of the phonological model is that, nor the effects of technologies on the components even though they deal only with natural systems, of intrinsic productivity. It cannot account ade- they are extremely complex, with over 400 subrou- quately for causal interactions among: 1) factors tines, and they can only deal with one crop and one besides soil depth that comprise land productivity, location at a time. The models are research tools 2) processes besides water erosion that cause more than policy analysis programs (Picardi, 1981). 238 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

However, scientists working with the phonological Data Availability and Requirements models hope to have them sufficiently complete by for Further Model Development 1985 to be useful for drafting the 1985 Resources Conservation Act report. To develop policy models, two kinds of data are needed: 1) causal interaction information describ- Current DeveIopments and Future Needs ing how each element of a system affects each other element, and 2) time-series descriptive data about The Center for Agricultural and Rural Develop- important variables—e.g., changes over time in lev- ment (CARD) at Iowa State University is rapidly els of soil organic matter or levels of application moving to develop linked econometric and simula- for various technologies. Generally, to be usable in tion models. One recently completed model esti- national policy models, data must also: 1) be in the mates farmer and consumer reaction vis-a-vis such form of electronically readable data sets, having na- factors as changes in land and water use, produc- tional coverage, 2) have been collected in a consist- tion, conservation, and erosion. Estimates are pro- ent fashion or selected according to a consistent set vided by region and specific location, and can ac- of criteria, and 3) contain information usable for count for interregional interactions. Another model assessing technological impacts on soil productiv- under development for the International Institute ity. of Applied Systems Analysis relates crop produc- Table D-1 describes 12 major data sets that meet tion systems, conservation practices, tillage meth- the latter three criteria. The sets are representative ods, etc., to livestock systems, soil loss, and yield of available data but do not comprise a complete and productivity changes over time. The model is list. Although other sets contain useful data–e.g., intended to trace the effects of erosion and/or tech- on specific technologies, specific crops, national nology on yield over time. weather data, or regional water inventories—it is Both academic institutions and USDA are focus- fairly certain that none is significantly better suited ing on complex, scientifically advanced modeling. for assessing productivity than those listed in table This approach is likely to further the state of D-1. The table describes the type of data included knowledge about the underlying processes involved in the set but does not catalog all the information in land productivity. However, the policy analysis included. needs of Congress and program administrators are The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) performs not being met by these efforts. Two needs require soil surveys containing a wealth of information on particular attention: soil classes, subclasses, and series, and provides 1. Models that relate land productivity to fac- chemical, physical, and land-use information for tors beyond crop yields—i.e., benefits such as 12,000 different soil types, Soil surveys have clas- genetic diversity of resident plant species, sified and located soils for 65 percent of the coun- wildlife habitat, and water quality effects. ties in the United States. Much of the descriptive Losses in these areas have major long-term information on soil classes has been computerized economic implications for agriculture, recrea- in the “Soils V“ data base (table D-1, #l O); however, tion, and human health but cannot be reliably “Soil V“ does not include geographic location data quantified with existing techniques. (USDA, 1979). 2. Quick, inexpensive models to estimate national Geographic area and soil type can be linked effects of resource policy decisions that have through the two data sets: The Agricultural a simple structure and clear documentation Research and Inventory Surveys through Areal and are readily understandable not only by Remote Sensing (AgRISTARS) (table D-1, #12), and economists, but also by analysts trained in the National Pedon Data System (table D-1, #6). other disciplines. (Without this clarity, a mathe- AgRISTARS contains data on the most represent- matical policy model is no more explicit to ative soil type in 25-mile squares for a national grid, most policy analysts than is a mental model.) whereas the National Pedon Data System inventor- Current models deal with regional and subre- ies all the soils that are received by the National gional variation but often sacrifice ease of use Soils Survey Lab in Lincoln, Nebr. Efforts are being and cost-efficiency for richness of detail. Con- made to coordinate the two systems by selecting gressional scrutiny of alternative policy initia- the most representative soil type in each county for tives could be enhanced if models were avail- analysis and inclusion in the National Pedon Data able that focus directly on Federal program System. When they are completed, these data sets capabilities to enhance or degrade soil produc- are expected to serve as general resource bases for tivity, research purposes. .App, D—Analytic Took and Data Bases for Determining the Effects of National Policies on Land Productivity Ž239 —.— —.— —

Table D-l.— Characteristics of Various Agricultural Data Sets Related to Soil Productivity

FIPS a Policy Data set Date Author Location Electronic Public code models Aggregation Data 1 Conservation Needs 1967” Soil DC Yes Yes None County Land class, present use, slope Inventory (CNI) Conservation management factor, and irrigation Service (Scs) 2 Potential Cropland 1977 SCS DC Yes Yes Yes National Primary Potential arable cropland, present Study Agricultural sampling use, potential for reconversion to Lands unit cropland, Universal Soil Loss Equa. Study tion parameters, soil and water (NALS) problems 3 National Resources 1977, SCS DC Yes Yes NALS, Major land R-factor, slope, length, present use, Inventory (N RI) 1982, RCA, resource soil class, conservation practice, ongoing lowa LP area treatment needs potential cropland, erodability, type irriaga- tlon, ownership, crop management, dominant problems, and associated water bodies 4 Crop Consumptive 1976 SCS DC Yes Yes, No Used–in Crop Irrigation requirements net of rainfall irrigation public ISU. LP specific for each crop in each county Requirements access in each via county extension 5 Agricultural 1974, Department D C Yes Limited Yes Inputs to Water Farm Income, production, value of Census, OBERS 1978, of Commerce distrtbution NIRAP Resource farm, outputs, factor Inputs, land 1982 (DOC), ESS for labor model Council cropped, Irrigated land, tenure every of DOA statistics Regions and employment four ESS data years public 6 National Pedon Ongoing National Lincoln, Yes Yes Yes - None– - Site. Site description slope, drainage, cul- Data System Soils Survey Nebr specifically specific tural uses, 7 horizon files, physical Lab, DOA with and chemical lab tests, mineralogy geographic data, some engineering data, CIOS. coordina- est weather station, cl I mate data tion Most representative soils in each country being coded first 7 Yield/Soil Loss 1980 DOA DC Yes Yes Yes Yield;soil Soil 240,000 observations, variety of Simulator data SEA Loss mapping crops, texture, slope, class, (Y/SL) Simulator unit country, SCS yield, and Model, normalized yield SEA 8 Crop Reporting Yearly Economics &“ D C Yes Yes Yes Yearly crop County Yield data for all major crops, and Board Statistics yield factor Inputs Service, projections DOA 9 Phenological Being SEA of DOA Temple, Yes Yes Yes Input to Crop and Physical, chemical and botanical data Model Data devel. Tex Iowa State soil type relating technologies to yields, oped LP model specific hydrology and soil class to erosion and productiviity 10 Soils v Ongoing SCS DC Series. “Yes No Yield/Sol~ No 12,000 soil series records, cultural yes Loss geographic data on use suiability survey Maps-no reference maps show soil types for loca. tions, 65 percent of country classified, yield and performance ratings, cost of restoration Soil survey information such as slope, texture, capability class, use, erosion phase, and irrtgation practice 11 National Woodland Ongoing SCS Fort Yes 7 Not None yet Site Growth rates of trees on specific Data System, Collins, yet specific kinds of soil for over 20,000 sites, Range Data System Colo range data system contains forage production and species composition 12 Agricultural On-going DOA Temple, Yes Yes Yes Pheno. 25x25 mile Information on the most representa Research and SEA Tex Iogical grid tive Soil Series in each 25. mile Inventory Surveys models square for a National grid, soil through Areal survey i n format ton, land use, cuIti. Remote Sensing, vation practice, Iocation of nearest AgRISTARS weather station aFlPS Federal Information processing standard code, which allows users to label data entries consistently among all Government agencies

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 240 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Available land inventory surveys include the Con- the Agricultural Census. Relevant types of data servation Needs Inventory (1958, 1967), the Poten- available from these sources include: tial Croplands Interim Study (USDA, 1977), and the ● yields, prices, and the values of all factor in- National Resource Inventory (NRI), which began puts in the agricultural sector for deriving mar- in 1977 and will continue periodically (USDA, ginal values of products; and ESCS, 1980). ● ESS forecasts of expected prices and factor These surveys use sampling techniques to select costs for estimating expected profitability. sites for rigorous observation by SCS personnel of SCS maintains a data base on crop consumptive existing land use, crops, irrigation, soil type, poten- water needs which, in conjunction with climato- tial for reconversion to cropland from nonagricul- logical data (available from the National Oceanic tural uses, erosion status, and needed conservation and Atmospheric Administration) can be used to practices, Each successive inventory has become estimate irrigation requirements. This file contains more intensive, covering a wider range of land- no information on actual water consumed. More- related concerns, and less extensive, directly sur- over, no uniform nationally compiled information veying a smaller fraction of the land base. The data system on irrigation water application rates exists from the 1967 Conservation Needs Inventory and (Lehr, 1980), This SCS data base does include esti- the 1977 NRI were used to calculate sheet and rill mates of irrigation needs that could aid in deter- erosion rates for each sampled point, and these cal- mining ground water extraction rates. culated rates were aggregated to indicate regional Data developed to estimate coefficients for the erosion rates. The 1967 sampling procedure was Y/SL have been stored as an independent data set, seriously flawed, however, and its erosion rate fig- although all of the data can be found in previously ures are grossly different from the 1977 figures. (For mentioned sources. Information on erosion rates, instance, the national average erosion rate from the management practices, and yields is included, but 1967 survey is nearly twice the rate from the 1977 these data do not appear sufficient for a causally survey.) Thus, no time-series data are available for structured model, since causal models specify that trend analysis. The 1982 NRI should provide the erosion rates result from changes in chemical, first time-series data on a national scale. physical, and biological properties as well as from The soil surveys and national inventories provide management practices (Hagen and Dyke, 1980). the following kinds of information required for The National Woodlands Data System quantifies assessing soil productivity: production or yield response to soil type for a wide soil type, including organic matter content range of forest and forage species. This type of data and nutrients available; may be used to develop yield equations for models. yields and crop patterns that would allow The Production Records/Range Data System weighted average yields; (RDS) is a plant materials data system with over information necessary for calculating sheet 3,000 entries for rangelands of the Western and and rill erosion; Southeastern United States. Most information is present technology inputs recognized as con- identified with range sites, soil series, and land servation or irrigation practices (but not actual capability classes to the State level. The system also water application rates); records production as influenced by climate, eleva- land-use conversion rates and information tion, and condition class. This information is to be relating to some of the social and economic computerized by 1985. It is expected to be very forces affecting planning horizons and the useful for management decisions; whether it will profitability of farming; prove useful for a policy model of rangelands is not information about erosion problems, owner- clear yet. ship, type of restorative treatment needed, and Finally, the Agricultural Research Service of irrigation practices; and USDA is developing a data base to use with the indices that allow data to be aggregated at crop-specific phonological simulation models, For various geographic levels. each major soil class and crop rotation, informa- County-specific data on yield and economic tion modules are to be developed to simulate crop parameters are collected and computerized annual- growth, soil runoff, soil texture, organic matter, ly by the Crop Reporting Board at the Economics nutrient levels, water infiltration, and residue and Statistics Service (ESS) of USDA and decomposition. This data set will thus be the only periodically by the Department of Commerce via computerized file that relates yields to soil produc- App. D—Analytic Tools and Data Bases for Determining the Effects of National Policies on Land Productivity ● 241 tivity and, in turn, relates productivity to the phys- ● Data on water withdrawals from aquifers. In ical, chemical, and biological processes at work. addition, the causal linkages between chemical Data useful to assess land productivity will be: application and aquifer pollution have yet to ● the physical, biological, or chemical impacts be developed and organized in a way useful for of a specific technology on the natural system; policy analysis. ● ● the causal mechanisms underlying erosion, or- Data on the socioeconomic determinants of: ganic matter accumulation, and decomposi- 1) ground water use for irrigation, and 2) rever- tion; sion to dryland farming or abandonment when ● the dynamics of the nitrogen and phosphorus farmers are faced with the combined effects of nutrient cycles; and water costs, pollution, subsidence, and salini- ● the linkage between the natural system and zation. runoff, which is necessary to estimate pollu- ● Data on the links between farm profitability tion loads in streams and ground water re- and farmers’ planning horizons, on how these charge. and other social factors combine to change fac- Other relevant data sets not described here in- tor inputs, and whether such changes will ac- clude the Soil Vegetation Inventory Method of the celerate or slow changes in profitability. Bureau of Land Management; the Plant Informa- ● Data on how farmers perceive and value long- tion Network, covering Colorado, Montana, Wyom- term effects of technology use on productivity. ing, and North Dakota; Run Wild, covering wildlife ● Data on the extent to which short-term input and vegetation for Arizona and New Mexico; the decisions result from social, ecological, health, Forest-Range Environment Study, containing data and other “noneconomic” concerns. on forest and rangeland resources, and the National ● Data on inherent land productivity by area in Water Data Exchange index of water-related data the United States and on the role of inherent sets. land productivity in total factor yields. ● Data on the cause-effect interactions between Missing Data vegetative systems and the ground water system. Some individual linkages may be quanti- In summary, a number of national, accessible fied, such as the effect of water on yields, but electronic data sets are available. These data sets no information exists on important links such provide some of the qualitative or quantitative in- as how deteriorating water quality affects formation necessary for determining: yields, or on how crop or range cover affects ● long-term land-use change rates; ground water recharge. Local hydrological ● levels of factor input use; and cycles are only beginning to be modeled in suf- ● some causal factors affecting determinants of ficient detail to permit assessments of the sys- productivity such as erosion and the level of temwide effects of aquifer pollution and over- organic matter. draft (Vanlier, 1980; Lehr, 1980). This data is largely descriptive, however. It Causal data exist on physical-chemical soil rela- should be possible to use data from the ESS Crop tionships for specific soils in specific regions, but Reporting Board to estimate time-series informa- it needs to be organized, standardized, and assessed tion such as levels of factor inputs and yields. Ero- in order to give reasonably accurate estimates of sion time-series data and other information from cause-effect dynamics for an aggregated policy the various land inventories might be developed, model. The USDA wheat yield group at Temple, although this could be a difficult task. Data are lack- Tex., is involved in such data development for its ing for a number of important areas: phonological models. For actual productivity and ● Data on soil formation rates. Information is for rates of soil formation, however, many neces- needed on both the rates at which the top layer sary scientific experiments have yet to be done, In of soil is enriched to become what is called the area of economic decisionmaking, there is an “topsoil” and on the rates at which parent almost total lack of data on how farmers perceive materials form subsoils to be able to assess productivity y and what this means for their decision- long-term effects of wind and erosion. making. Information is also lacking on the role of ● Data on soil fauna and flora. Biological productivity in long-term decisionmaking regard- organisms are significantly linked to rates of ing the conversion of productive cropland to other decomposition, tilth formation, and nitrogen uses. fixation, 242 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity — ..—————— —

The quantitative extent to which inherent land Appendix D References productivity has been changing is unknown. Al- though it is known that productivity declines are Benbrook, Charles, “Erosion vs. Soil productivity,” strongly correlated with relatively high erosion Journal of Soil and Water Conservation rates, less is known about system changes that 36(3):118-119, 1981. result in enhanced productivity. “An Appraisal of the Yield-Soil Loss Because of missing data in the above areas, the Simulator and its Application in RCA, ” draft models that can be developed to test agricultural manuscript prepared at Council on En- technologies will be incomplete, Data gaps should vironmental Quality, 1980. not, however, be used as a rationale for reducing Dyke, Paul T,, “The Influence of Soil Erosion on modeling efforts. Present information is sufficient Soil Productivity—SEA Viewpoint, ” U.S. De- to allow models to improve current policy decision partment of Agriculture, National Soil Erosion- processes substantially and to facilitate the integra- Soil Productivity Research Planning Commit- tion of production-oriented policies and programs tee, unpublished manuscript, 1980. with conservation-oriented policies and programs. Hagen, Linda L., and Dyke, Paul T., “Merging Further, models can be used to identify the relative Resource Data From Disparate Sources, ” Agri- importance of missing or inadequate data to policy- cultural Economics Research 32:4, October related information needs. This analysis can im- 1980, pp. 45-49. prove the cost-effectiveness of resource inventory Larson, William E., Walsh, L. M., Stewart, B, A., efforts, allowing agencies to direct data-collection and Boelter, P. H., “Executive Summary, ” Na- resources toward the data most needed for policy- tional Workshop on Soil and Water Resources making. Research Priorities, Soil Science Society of Mathematical models may eventually be devel- America, Madison, Wis,, 1981. oped to understand various influences on inherent Lehr, Jay H., “Data Base on Ground Water Quality land productivity. Such models would also need to and Availability: Effects on Productivity of U.S. incorporate other elements to examine total agricul- Croplands and Rangelands, ” OTA background tural production. Until that time, national agricul- paper, 1980, tural research priorities will be set mainly from the Picardi, Anthony C,, “Data Availability for the mental models of agricultural scientists and policy Assessment of Technologies and Public Poli- experts. cies Relating to Agricultural productivity, ” In February 1981 natural resources and agricul- OTA background paper, 1981, tural scientists convened a national workshop to U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Resources Con- determine research priorities for the Nation. The servation Act: Appraisal 1980, ” Washington, list of priorities that was developed is described in D. C., 1980. a publication from the Soil Science Society of U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Sta- America (Larson, et al., 1981). The workshop did tistics, and Cooperatives Service, “Measure- not rank the priorities, but organized them accord- ment of U.S. Agricultural Productivity: A Re- ing to subject, Areas included: sustaining soil pro- view of Current Statistics and Proposals for ductivity, developing conservation technology, Change,” technical bulletin No, 1614, Washing- managing water in stressed environments, protect- ton, D, C., February 1980. ing water quality, improving and implementing U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation conservation policy, and assessing soil and water Service, Soil Conservation Service Data Base resources. User’s ManuaZ, Washington, D, C., 1979. This OTA assessment cannot improve on the pri- “Soil Erosion Inventory Primary Sample orities identified by the more than 100 technical U~it and Point Data Worksheet,” Washington, and policy experts who participated in that work- D. C., June 1977. shop. However, for the policymaking needs of Con- Vanlier, Kenneth E., “Ground Water and Agricul- gress, OTA concludes that two of the data gaps are tural productivity: The Information and Data critically important: soil-loss tolerance and social Base, ” OTA background paper, 1980. and economic factors affecting the implementation of productivity-sustaining technologies, Appendix

The Resources Conservation Act preferred Program”

CHAPTER 7 THE PREFERRED PROCRAM

After considering the alternatives as presented in chapter 6, the Secretary of Agriculture selected alternative 3 as the one most likely to approach, within the overall budgetary guidelines of this Administration, the requirements for protection of the Nation’s soil and water resources.

The preferred program is based on cooperative actions among local and state governments and the federal government for solving resource problems. Cooperative solutions to resource problems are not new. Local conservation districts, county Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation (ASC) committees, and extension advisory committees work closely with the local offices of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), and Extension Service (ES) to provide technical assistance, financial assistance, and information and education services to land owners. The preferred program retains these existing organizations and relationships to expand the capacity of state and local governments to recognize and solve resource problems.

The preferred program moves away from the “cafeteria,” or “first come, first served,” approach of traditional conservation programs conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture. It addresses instead specific national resource conservation priorities. The top priority is the reduction of soil erosion, and the second priority is the reduction of upstream flood damages. The cornerstone of the preferred program is the targeting of soil conservation actions to reduce soil erosion and related conservation problems that impair the Nation’s agricultural productivity.

USDA developed the preferred program after carefully considering the responses received during the 1980 RCA public comment period and views obtained from the 1979 public opinion survey conducted by Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. These activities show that the public favors a program that achieves conservation objectives through voluntary participation with more emphasis on decisions made at local and state levels. People view soil, water, and related resources as national assets that should be used but not wasted and are concerned that not enough is being done to preserve the capacity of the Nation’s resources to meet future needs. The public says that adopting specific objectives would lead to more effective action on addressing critical resource problems and that agricultural use should be given priority over other uses of these scarce resources.

Most of all, the public expects a cooperative partnership among land owners and users, local and state governments, and the federal government in meeting national priorities and protecting the public interest in the conservation of soil and water resources. Therefore, the preferred program is the most responsive and practical approach for meeting national, state, and local needs as identified in the appraisal, the analysis of alternatives, and the public’s comments,

7-1

*From U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act: Program Report and Envi- ronmental Impact Statement,” revised draft, 1981.

243 244 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

This chapter presents an overview of the preferred program. To review a full description of alternative 3, see again pages 6-18 through 6-33.

Highlights of the Preferred Program

The preferred program--

0 establishes clear national priorities for addressing problems associated with soil, water, and related resources over the next 5 years. The highest priority is reduction of soil erosion to maintain the long-term productivity of agricultural land. The next highest priority is reduction of flood damages in upstream areas. Water conservation and supply management, water quality improvement, and community related conservation problems have next priority. Fish and wildlife habitat improvement and organic waste management are an integral part of solutions to these problems.

o strengthens the existing partnership among land owners and users, local and state governments, and the federal government. This partnership will identify needs and develop and implement soil and water conservation programs. Through this partnership, the program--

provides federal matching block grants to states for an expanded role in developing and implementing conservation programs, the federal funds to be obtained by reducing current federal conservation program funds.

provides for a Local Conservation Coordinating Board made up of representatives of the conservation district, county ASC committee, extension advisory committee, and other interested parties. This board will appraise local conditions and needs, develop programs, and work through existing local, state, and federal institutions. The local board will concentrate on solving problems and achieving program objectives.

provides for a State Conservation Coordinating Board, with members appointed by the Governor, to appraise overall state conditions and needs. The state board will use programs adopted at the local level to develop and implement state soil and water conservation programs.

establishes a USDA National Conservation Board to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on conservation matters.

bases state and federal cooperative conservation actions on an agreement between each Governor and the Secretary of Agriculture.

o provides for increased and more efficient cooperation and budget coordination among USDA agencies with conservation program responsibilities.

0 continues or initiates the following program actions to achieve conservation objectives. The program--

7-2 App. E— The Resources Conservation Act Preferred Program . 245

targets an increased proportion of USDA conservation program funds and personnel to critical areas where soil erosion or other resource problems threaten the long-term productive capacity of soil and water resources.

emphasizes conservation tillage and other cost-efficient measures for reducing soil erosion and solving related problems.

calls for evaluation of tax incentives as an inducement to increased use of conservation systems.

increases emphasis on technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers who plan and install needed and cost-efficient conservation systems.

targets USDA research, education, and information services toward immediate and long-term objectives that will protect and maintain the productive capacity of agricultural lands.

permits and supports the use of pilot projects to evaluate solutions for persistent resource problems and to test potential new solutions.

requires conservation plans consistent with locally determined standards for recipients of Farmers Home Administration loans.

minimizes conflicts among features of USDA programs that limit achievement of conservation objectives.

strengthens collection and analysis of data on resource conditions and trends and conservation needs and provides data useful at the state and local levels.

provides for systematic evaluations and analyses of conservation programs to determine their effectiveness and progress in achieving conservation objectives.

expands the use of long-term agreements in providing technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers.

Effectiveness of the Preferred Program

Evaluations of current soil and water conservation programs were considered in formulating the preferred program, as discussed in chapter 5. Therefore, the preferred program--

0 establishes clear program objectives to increase efficiency.

o sets priorities to help field personnel plan and schedule their work to improve program implementation.

7-3 246 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

o recognizes the diversity of resource conditions and formulates national policies and procedures that can be adapted to state and regional needs to increase program effectiveness.

o encourages the involvement of individuals and organizations in changing the program to make it more effective and acceptable.

o emphasizes increased research, education, and technical assistance to develop resource management and conservation systems that are cost-efficient.

o provides for better coordination among USDA agencies to achieve unanimity of purpose in planning and budgeting for conservation programs.

o requires monitoring and evaluation that lead to prompt adjustments in the program to achieve maximum effectiveness, and acceptability.

Funding for the Preferred Program

The distribution of federal funds under the preferred program over the next 5 years is shown in table 7-1.

Chapter 8 shows the expected consequences of implementing the preferred program.

Table 7-1. --Projected fifth-year dlstrlbutlon of funds among major components, preferred program ~/

1981 Fundinq Major component (base Level Upper lower — year ) fundinq bound bound (millions of dolIars)

1. Technical assistance---- 198 211 212 185

2. Financial assistance: a. Cost shares to opera tars ------278 164 166 179 b. For project activities------177 167 211 134 C. Subtotal financial ass i stance ------(455) (331) (377) (313)

3. USDA matching funds ------105 175 30

4. Education/ lnformation (Extension Service)----- 12 14 15 10 5. Research and technology development ------74 80 88 71 6. Data COIIection and analysis------81 79 87 72

Emergency programs z/--- 17 17 17 17

TOTAL ------837 837 971 698

Loans ------(77) (72) (82) (60) — ~/ All funds are shown in millions of constant 1979 dollars rounded to the nearest million. 2/ Held constant because it is impossible to predict emergencies,

7-4 Appendix F Commissioned Papers —

The discussions, findings, and options presented in this report are in a large part based on 35 technical papers commissioned by OTA for this assessment. These papers were reviewed and critiqued by the study’s advisory panel and numerous outside reviewers. The papers will be available in late fall of 1982 through the National Technical Information Service. (Requests for papers from the National Technical Information Service should be directed to NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22151.) The papers included are:

1 How Agricultural Technologies Affect Produc- 10. Impact of Communications Technology on Pro- tivity of Croplands and Rangelands by Affect- ductivity of Land ing Microbial Activity in Soil –James F. Evans: Office of Agricultural Com- —Martin Alexander: Department of Agronomy, munications, University of Illinois Cornell University 11. Land-Use Planning Technologies Applied to 2 Impacts of Technologies on Range Productivi- Croplands and Rangelands ty in the Mountain, Intermountain and Pacific –Janet Franklin, Alan H. Strahler, and Curtin Northwest States E. Woodcock: Geography Remote Sensing —Thadis W. Box: College of Natural Resources, Unit, University of California Utah State University 12. Sustained Land Productivity: Equity Conse- 3. Livestock Grazing on the Forested Lands of the quences of Technological Alternatives Eastern United States —Charles C. Geisler, J, Tadlock Cowan, and —Evert K. Byington: Winrock International Michael R. Hattery: Department of Rural So- I.ivestock Research and Training Center ciology, and Harvey M. Jacobs: Department 4. Problems of Cost-Sharing Programs for Long- of City and Regional Planning, Cornell Uni- Term Conservation: The Example of the Agri- versity. cultural Conservation Program 13. Multiple Cropping Systems: A Basis for Devel- —Kenneth A. Cook: Agricultural Policy Con- oping An Alternative Agriculture sult ant —Stephen R. Gliessman: College of 5. Influences of Commodity Programs on Long- Environmental Studies, University of Califor- Term Land Productivity (Conservation) nia —Kenneth A. Cook: Agricultural Policy Con- 14. Description and Evaluation of Pesticidal Effects sultant on the Productivity of the Croplands and Range- 6. Impacts of Rangeland Technologies and of lands of the United States Grazing on Productivity of Riparian Environ- –J, M. Harkin, G. V. Simsiman, and G. ments in United States Rangelands Chesters: Water Resources Center, Universi- —Oliver B. Cope: Rangeland Consultant, ty of Wisconsin Golden, Colo. 15. New Roots for American Agriculture 7. Data Base Assessment of Effects of Agricultural —Wes Jackson and Marty Bender: The Land In- Technology on Soil Macro-Fauna and the Re- stitute, Salina, Kans. sultant Faunal Impact on Crop and Range Pro- 16. An Overview of Major Legal and Policy Issues ductivity Related to the Impact of Technology on the Pro- —Daniel L. Dindal: SUNY College of Environ- ductivity of the Land mental Science and Forestry —Barbara J. Lausche: Natural Resources Law- 8. Impacts of Technologies on Productivity and yer Quality of Southwestern Rangelands 17. Relationships Between Land Tenure and Soil —Don D. Dwyer: Range Science Department, Conservation Utah State University —Linda K. Lee: Department of Agricultural 9. Technology Issues in Developing Sustained Economics, Oklahoma State University Agricultural Productivity of Alaskan Virgin 18 Database on Ground Water Quality and Avail- Lands ability: Effects on Productivity of U.S. Crop- —Alan C. Epps: University of Alaska lands and Rangelands

247 248 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity —

–Jay H. Lehr: National Water Well Association, —Anthony C. Picardi: Charles River Associates, Worthington, Ohio Inc., Boston, Mass.

19< Impacts of Technologies on Productivity and 27. The Adoption and Diffusion of Technological Quality of Rangelands in the Great Plains Re- Innovations in U.S. Agriculture gion —Everett M. Rogers: Institute for Communica- –James K. Lewis and David M. Engle: Depart- tion Research, Stanford University ment of Animal Science, South Dakota State 28. Credit and Credit Institutions as Factors Affect- University ing the Long-Term Productivity of U.S. Range- 20, The Impacts of Grazing and Rangeland Man- lands and Croplands agement Technology Upon Wildlife —Brian H. Schmiesing: Department of Business —Carroll D. Littlefield, Wildlife Consultant; and Agribusiness Management, Southwest Denzel Ferguson: Malheur Field Station, State University Princeton, Oreg.; and Karl E. Holte: Biology 29. Emerging Innovative Technologies for Range- Department, Idaho State University land 21, A Review of Current Water Erosion Control —Charles J. Scifres: Department of Range Sci- Technologies, Including Potential Changes To ence, Texas A&M University Enhance Their Effectiveness 30 Effect of Erosion and Other Physical Processes —Leonard R. Massie: Department of Agricul- on Productivity of U.S. Croplands and Range- tural Engineering, University of Wisconsin lands 22. Technology Issues in Developing Sustained —W, D. Shrader: Professor Emeritus, Iowa Agricultural Productivity on Virgin and Aban- State University doned Lands in the United States 31. Changes in the Capacity of Croplands and —Cyrus M. McKell: Plant Resources Institute, Rangelands to Sustain productivity of Environ- Salt Lake City, Utah mental Services 23 The Effects of Long-Term Fertilizer Use on Soil —Robert L. Todd: Department of Agronomy Productivity and Institute of Ecology, [University of —David B. Mengel: Department of Agronomy, Georgia Purdue University 32 Groundwater and Agricultural Productivity: 24. The Data Base for Assessment of the Impacts The Information and Database of Technologies on Productivity of Rangeland —Kenneth E. Vanlier: Hydrogeologist, Reston, Resources Va. –John W. Menke: Department of Agronomy 33. Productivity of Soil as Related to Chemical and Range Science, University of California; Changes - and C. Wayne Cook: Department of Range —L. F. Welch: Department of Agronomy, Uni- Science, Colorado State University versity of Illinois 25. Impacts of Technology on Cropland and Range- 34. Wind Erosion and Control Technology land Productivity: Managerial Capacity of —N. P. Woodruff: Facilities Planning Office, Farmers Kansas State University —Peter J. Nowak: College of Agriculture, Iowa 35. California Annual Grasslands State University –James A. Young and Raymond A. Evans: 26 Data Availability for the Assessment of Tech- USDA/SEA-AR nologies and Public Policies Relating to Agri- cultural Productivity Appendix G Glossary

Most of these definitions are adapted from the Arable land: Land so located that production of Resource Conservation Glossary of the Soil Con- cultivated crops is economical and practical. servation Society of America, 2d ed., 1976. Arid: Regions or climates that lack sufficient moisture for crop production without irrigation. Nonliving, basic elements and compounds Abiotic: The limits of precipitant ion vary considerable} ac- of the environment. cording to temperature conditions, with an up- Atmospheric precipitation that is com- Acid rain: per annual limit for cool regions of 10 inches or posed of the hydrolyzed byproducts from oxi- less and for tropical regions as much as 15 to 20 dized halogen, nitrogen, and sulfur substances. inches. Aggregation, soil: The cementing or binding Available nutrient: That portion of any element or together of several to many soil particles into a compound in the soil that readily can be absorbed secondary unit, aggregate, or granule. Water- and assimilated by growing plants (not to be con- stable aggregates, which will not disintegrate fused with exchangeable). easily, are of special importance to soil structure. Basin: 1. In hydrology, the area drained by a river. Agrichemicals: Chemical materials used in agricul- 2. In irrigation, a level plot of field, surrounded ture; sometimes used erroneously to emphasize by dikes, which may be flood irrigated. a supposed difference between “chemical mate- Bedrock: The solid rock underlying soils and the rials” and “natural materials. ” regolith in depths ranging from zero (ehere ex- Land in farms regularly used for Agricultural land: posed by erosion) to several hundred feet. agricultural production; all land devoted to crop Biennial plant: A plant that requires 2 years to or livestock enterprises—e. g., farmstead lands, complete its lifecycle. drainage and irrigation ditches, water supply, Biological control: A method of controlling pest or- cropland, and grazing land of every kind on ganisms by means of introduced or naturally oc- farms. curring predatory organ i sins, sterilization, the Agricultural pollution: Liquid and solid wastes use of inhibiting hormones, or other methods, from all types of farming, including runoff from rather than by chemical means. pesticides, fertilizers, and feedlots; erosion and Biomass: 1. The total amount of living material in runoff from plowing, animal manure and car- a particular habitat or area. 2. An expression of casses; and crop residues and debris. the total weight of a given population of orga- Pertaining to material that is transported Alluvial: nisms. and deposited by running water. Biome: A major biotic unit consisting of plant and Animal unit month (AUM): A measure of forage animal communities having similarities i n form or feed required to maintain one animal for a pe- and environmental conditions. riod of 30 days. Biota: The flora and fauna of a region. Annual plant: A plant that completes its lifecycle and dies in 1 year or less, Biota influence: The influence of animals and Appraisal, range: An evacuation of the capacity of plants on associated plant oranimal 1ife as con- rangelands to produce income, which includes trasted with climatic influences and edaphic (soil) not only consideration of grazing capacity but influences. also facilities for handling livestock, accessibil- Browse: Twigs or shoots, with or without attached ity, and relation to other feed sources. The clas- leaves, of shrubs, trees, or woody vines available sification and evaluation of a range from an eco- as forage for domestic and wild browsing ani- nomic and production standpoint. mals, Aquifer: A geologic formation or structure that Brush: A growth of shrubs or small trees. transmits water in sufficient quantity to supply Brush management: Management and manipula- the needs for a water development; usually sat- tion of stands of brush by mechanical, chemical, u rated sands, gravel, fractures, and cavernous or biological means or by prescribed burning. and vesicular rock. The term waterbearing is Buffer strips: Strips of grass or other erosion- sometimes used synonymously with aquifer resisting vegetation between or below’ cultivated when a stratum furnishes water for a specific use. strips or fields.

249 250 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Camping: A form of recreation in which living out- Conservation: The protection, improvement, and of-doors in a more-or-less close relationship with use of natural resources according to principles the natural environment is significant. that will assure their highest economic or social Capital: All the durable and nondurable items used benefits. in production. Conservation district: A public organization Capital goods: Tangible economic goods, other created under State enabling law as a special-pur- than land, that are used in production. pose district to develop and carry out a program Carrying capacity: 1. In recreation, the amount of of soil, water, and related resource conservation, use a recreation area can sustain without dete- use, and development within its boundaries; rioration of its quality. 2. In wildlife, the max- usually a subdivision of State government with imum number of animals an area can support a local governing body. Often called a soil con- during a given period of the year. servation district or a soil and water conserva- Cash-grain farm: A farm on which corn, sorghums, tion district, small grains, soybeans or field beans, and peas Conservation plan for farm, ranch, or nonagri- account for at least 50 percent of the value of cultural land unit: The properly recorded deci- farm products sold. sions of the cooperating landowner or operator Chiseling: Breaking or loosening the soil, without on how he plans, within practical limits, to use inversion, with a chisel cultivator or chisel plow. his land in an operating unit within its capabili- Chisel planting: Seedbed preparation by chiseling ty and to treat it according to its needs for main- without inversion of the soil, leaving a protective tenance or improvement of the soil, water, and cover of crop residue on the surface for erosion plant resources, control. Seedbed preparation and planting may Conservation tillage: Any tillage system that or may not be in the same operation. reduces loss of soil or water compared to un- Chisel plow: Plow consisting of a series of curveci, ridged or clean tillage. sprung steel shanks with teeth spaced 18 to 30 Contact herbicide: A herbicide that kills primari- inches apart. Because design does not turn soil ly by contact with plant tissue rather than as a over, the chisel plow disturbs less surface soil and result of translocation. leaves more crop residue on the surface than Continuous grazing: Domestic livestock grazing a does a traditional moldboard plow. specific area throughout the grazing season. Not Claypan: A dense, compact layer in the subsoil hav- necessarily synonymous with year-long grazing. ing a much higher clay content than the over- Contour farming: Conducting field operations, lying material from which it is separated by a such as plowing, planting, cultivating, and har- sharply defined boundary; formed by downward vesting, on the contour. movement of clay or by synthesis of clay in place Contour stripcropping: Layout of crops in com- during soil formation. Claypans are usually hard paratively narrow strips in which the farming op- when dry, and plastic and sticky when wet. They erations are performed approximately on the usually impede movement of water and air, and contour, Usually strips of grass, close-growing the growth of plant roots. See Hardpan, crops, or fallow are alternated with those in cul- Clean tillage: Cultivation of a field so as to cover tivated crops. all plant residues and to prevent the growth of Conventional tillage: The combined primary and all vegetation except the particular crop desired. secondary tillage operations normally performed Compaction: 1. To unite firmly; the act or process in preparing a seedbed for a given crop grown of becoming compact. 2, In geology, the chang- in a given geographical area. ing of loose sediment into hard, firm rock. Cover: 1. Vegetation or other material providing 3, [n soil engineering, the process by which the protection, 2. Fish, a variety of items including soil grains are rearranged to decrease void space undercut banks, trees, roots, and rocks in the and bring them into closer contact with one water where fish seek necessary protection or another, thereby increasing the weight of solid security. 3. In forestry, low-growing shrubs, material per cubic foot, vines, and herbaceous plants under the trees. Companion crop: A crop sown with another crop. 4. Ground and soils, any vegetation producing a Used particularly for small grains with which for- protecting mat on or just above the soil surface. age crops are sown. Preferred to the term “nurse 5. Stream, generally trees, large shrubs, grasses, crop. ” or forbs that shade and otherwise protect the App. G—G/ossary ● 251

stream from erosion, temperature elevation, or usually relatively few individuals represent any sloughing of banks. 6. Vegetation, all plants of all one species. Areas with low diversity are char- sizes and species found on an area, irrespective acterized by a few species; often relativey large of whether they have forage or other value, numbers of individuals represent each species. 7. Wildlife, plants, or objects used by wild animals Drainage: 1. The removal of excess surface water for nesting, rearing young, resting, escape from or ground water from land by means of surface predators, or protection from adverse environ- or subsurface drains. 2. Soil characteristics that mental conditions. affect natural drainage. Cover crop: A close-growing crop grown primari- Drainage, soil: As a natural condition of the soil, ly for the purpose of protecting and improving soil drainage refers to the frequenc’ and duration soil between periods of regular crop production of periods when the soil is free of saturation—for or beteeen trees and vines in orhards and vine- example, in well-drained soils the water is re- yards. moved readily but not rapidly; in poorly drained Cropland: [and used primarily for the production soils the root zone is waterlogged for long periods of adapted, cultivated, close-growing fruit or nut unless artificially drained, and the roots of or- crops for harvest, alone or in association with sod dinary crop plants cannot get enough oxygen; in c reps. excessively drained soils the water is removed Crop residue: The portion of a plant or crop left so completely that most crop plants suffer from in the field after harvest. lack of water. Crop residue management: Use of that portion of Dryland farming: The practice of crop cultilvation the plant or crop left in the field after harvest for in low rainfall areas without irrigation. protection or improvement of the soil. Ecology: The study of interrelationships of Crop rotation: Growing different crops in recur- organisms to one another and to their environ- ring succession on the same land. ment. Cultivar: An assemblage of cultivated plants which Ecosystem: A community, including all the con~- is clearlly distinguished by its characters (mor- ponent organisms, together with the environ- phological, physiological, cytological, chemical, ment, forming an interacting system. or others) and which when reproduced (sexually Ecotone: A transition line or strip of vegetation be- or asexually) retains those distinguishing charac- tween two communities, havin~ characteristic; s ters. The terms ‘‘cultilvar" and ‘‘variety’ are ex- of both kinds of neighboring vegetation as well act equvilents. as characteristics of its own. Deferred grazing: Discontinuance of livestock graz- Edaphic factor: A condition or characteristic of the ing on an area for a specified period of time dur- soil (chemical, physical, or biological] which in- ing the growing season to p remote plant repro- fluences organisms. duction, establishment of new plants, or restora- Environment: The sum total of all the external con- tion of vigor by old plants. ditions that may act on an organism or communi- Deferred-rotation grazing: A systematic rotation ty to influence its development or existence. of deferred ,grazing. Erosion: 1. The wearing away of the land surface Diversion terrace: Diversions, which differ from by running water, wind, ice, or other geologi[;al terraccs in that they consist of individually de- agents, including such processes as ,gra\’itational signed channels across a h inside; may be used creep. 2. Detachment and mo~’ement of soil or to protect bottom land from hillside runoff or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or gra~rity, may be needed above a terrace system for pro- The following terms are used to describe dif- tection against runoff from an unterraced area; ferent types of water erosion: may also divert water out of active gullies, pro- Accelerated erosion: Erosion much more rapid tect farm buildings from runoff, reduce the num- than normal, natural, or geologic erosion, pri- ber of waterways, and sometimes used in con- marily as a result of the influence of man or, nection with stripcropping to shorten the length i n some cases, of other ani ma]s or natural c a- of so that the strips can effectively cntrol tastrophes that expose base surfaces-for ex- erosion. See Terrace. a m p] e, fires, Diversity: The variety of species within a given as- Geological erosion: The normal or natural erosion SOciaiation of organisms. Areas of high diversit~ caused by geological processes acting over are characterezesl by a great variety of species: long geologic periods and resulting in the 252 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

wearing away of mountains, the building up Farm: Any place from which $1,000 or more of of flood plains, coastal plains, etc. Also called agricultural products were sold, or normally natural erosion. would have been sold, during the census year. Gully erosion: The erosion process whereby Farm management: The organization and admin- water accumulates in narrow channels and, istration of farm resources, including land, labor, over short periods, removes the soil from this crops, livestock, and equipment. narrow area to considerable depths, ranging Fertility (soil): The quality of a soil that enables it from 1 to 2 ft to as much as 75 to 100 ft. to provide nutrients in adequate amounts and in Natural erosion: Wearing away of the Earth’s sur- proper balance for the growth of specified plants face by water, ice, or other natural agents when other growth factors, such as light, mois- under natural environmental conditions of cli- ture, temperature, and the physical condition of mate, vegetation, etc., undisturbed by man. the soil, are favorable. Also called geological erosion. Fertilizer: Any organic or inorganic material of Normal erosion: The gradual erosion of land used natural or synthetic origin that is added to a soil by man which does not greatly exceed natural to supply elements essential to plant growth. erosion. Fixed costs: Costs that are largely determined in Rill erosion: An erosion process in which advance of the year’s operati~n and subject to lit- numerous small channels only several inches tle or no control on the part of the farmer or busi- deep are formed; occurs mainly on recently nessman—e. g., rent of land or buildings, payment cultivated soils. of taxes, interest on borrowed money, and up- Sheet erosion: The removal of a fairly uniform keep of buildings, fences, and drains; costs not layer of soil from the land surface by runoff affected bv the amount of use, water. Fodder: The ”dried, cured plants of tall, coarse grain Splash erosion: The spattering of small soil par- crops, such as corn and soybeans, including the ticles caused by the impact of raindrops on wet grain, stems, and leaves; grain parts not snapped soils. The loosened and spattered particles may off or threshed, or may not be subsequently removed by sur- Forage: All browse and herbaceous food that is face runoff. available to livestock or game animals, used for Erosion classes (soil survey): A grouping of ero- grazing or harvested for feeding, sion conditions based on the degree of erosion Forage production: The weight of forage that is or on characteristic patterns; applied to ac- produced within a designated period of time on celerated erosion, not to normal, natural, or a given area. The weight may be expressed as geological erosion. Four erosion classes are rec- either green, air-dry, or oven-dry. The term may ognized for water erosion and three for wind ero- also be modified as to time of production such sion. For details see Soil Survey Staff, U.S. De- as annual, current year’s, or seasonal forage partment of Agriculture, Soil Survey Manual, production. 1951. USDA Handbook 18, U.S. Government Forb: A herbaceous plant that is not a grass, sedge, Printing Office, Washington, D,C. or rush. Eutrophication: A means of aging lakes whereby Grass: A member of the botanical family aquatic plants are abundant and waters are defi- Gramineae, characterized by bladelike leaves ar- cient in oxygen, The process is usually accel- ranged on the culm or stem in two ranks. erated by enrichment of waters with surface run- Grassed waterway: A natural or constructed water- off containing nitrogen and phosphorus. way, usually broad and shallow, covered with Evapotranspiration: The combined loss of water erosion-resistant grasses, used to conduct surface from a given area and during a specific period water from cropland, of time by evaporation from the soil surface and Grasslike plants: A plant that resembles a true by transpiration from plants. grass—e. g,, sedges and rushes—but is taxonomic- Fallow: Allowing cropland to lie idle, either tilled ally different. or untilled, during the whole or greater portion Grazable woodland: Forestland on which the of the growing season. understory includes, as an integral part of the Family farm: A farm business in which the oper- forest plant community, plants that can be grazed ating family does most of the work, most of the without significantly impairing other forest managing, and takes the risks. va11] es. App. G—Glossary ● 253

Grazing: The eating of any kind of standing vegeta- Interplanting: 1. In cropland, the planting of sev- tion by domestic litestock or wild animals. eral crops together on the same land—e, g., the Grazing capacity: The maximum stocking rate planting of beans with corn. 2. In orchards, the possible without inducing damage to vegetation planting of farm crops among the trees, especial- or related resources. ly while the trees are too small to occupy the land Grazingland: Land used regularly for grazing. The completely. 3. In woodland, the planting of young term is not confined to land suitable only for trees among existing trees or brush} growth. grazing. Cropland and pasture used in connec- Interseeding: Seeding into an established \’egeta- t ion with a system of farm crop rotation are usu- tion. ally not included. Irrigation: Application of water to lands for agri- Grazing permit: A document authorizing the use cultural purposes. Different systems include: of public or other lands for grazing purposes Center-pivot: Automated sprinkler irrigation under specified conditions, issued to the live- achieved by automatically rotating the sprink-

stock operator by the agency administering the ler pipe or boom, supplyin g water to the lands. sprinkler heads or nozzles, as a radius from the Grazing season: The portion of the year that live- center of the field to be irrigated. Water is de- stock graze or are permitted to graze on a given livered to the center or pivot point of the sys- range or pasture. Sometimes called grazing peri- tem. The pipe is supported above the crop by od, towers at fixed spacings and propelled by Grazing system: The manipulation of grazing ani- pneumatic, mechanical, hydraulic, or electric mals to accomplish a desired result. power on wheels or skids in fixed circular Green manure crop: Any crop grown for the pur- paths at uniform angular speeds. Water is ap- pose of being turned under while green or soon plied at a uniform rate by progressive increase after maturity for soil improvernent, especially of nozzle size from the pilot to the end of the nitrogen additions. line. Single units are ordinarily about 1,250 to Growing season: The period and/or number of 1,300 ft long and irrigate approximately a 130- days between the last freeze in the spring and the acre circular area. first frost in the fall for the freeze threshold tem- Drip: A planned irrigation system where all perature of the crop or other designated tempera- necessary facilities have been installed for the ture threshold. efficient application of water directily to the Habitat: The environment in which the life needs root zone of plants by means of applicators (or- of a plant or animal organism, population, or rices, emitters, porous tubing. perforated pipe, community are supplied. etc. ) operated u rider low pressure, The a p- Halophyte: A plant adapted to existence in a saline plicators may be placed on or below the sur- environrnent, such as greasewood (Sarcobatus face of the ground. saltgrass (Distichljs), and the saltbushes (A triplex Sprinkler: A planned irrigation system where all Spp. ). necessary facilities have been installed for the Hardpan: A hardened soil layer in the lower A or efficient application of water for irrigation by in the B horizon caused by cementation of soil means of perforated pipe or nozzles operated particles with organic matter or with materials under pressure. such as silica, scsquioxides, or calcium carbon- Irrigation application efficiency: Percentage of ir- ate. The hardness does not change appreciably rigat ion water applied to an area that is stored with changes in the moisture content, and pieces in the soil for crop use. of the hard layrer do not flake in water. Irrigation lateral: A branch of the main canal con- Herbicide: A chemical substance used for killing veying water to the farm ditches, sometimes used plants, especially weeds. in reference to farm ditches. Impervious soil: A soil through which water, air, Land: The total natural and cultural environment or roots cannot penetrate. No soil is impervious within which production takes place; a b roadcr to water and air all the time. term than soil. In addition to soil, its attributes Indigenous: Born, growing, or produced natural- include other physical conditions, such as miner- ly in a region or country; native. al deposits, climate, and mater supply; location Intensive cropping: Maximum use of the land by in relation to centers of commerce, populations, means of frequent succession of harvested crops. and other land; the size of the individual tracts 254 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

or holdings; and existing plant cover, works of by the Government, to the various forms of tenan- improvement, and the like. cy or holding of land owned by another. Land capability: The suitability of land for use Legume: A member of the pulse family, one of the without permanent damage. Land capability, as most important and widely distributed plant fam- ordinarily used in the United States, is an expres- ilies. The fruit is a pod that opens along two su- sion of the effect of physical land conditions, in- tures when ripe. Leaves are alternate, have stip- cluding climate, on the total suitability for use ules, and are usually compound. Includes many without damage for crops that require regular till- valuable food and forage species, such as peas, age, for grazing, for woodland, and for wildlife. beans, peanuts, clovers, alfalfas, sweet clovers, Land capability involves consideration of: 1) the lespedezas, vetches, and kudzu. Practically all risks of land damage from erosion and other legumes are nitrogen-fixing plants. causes; and 2) the difficulties in land use owing Loamy: Intermediate in texture and properties be- to physical land characteristics, including cli- tween fine- and coarse-textured soils; includes all mate. textural classes with the words “loamy” or Land capability class: One of the eight classes of “loam” as a part of the class name, such as clay land in the land capability classification of the loam or loamy sand. Soil Conservation Service; distinguished accord- Loess: Material transported and deposited by wind ing to the risk of land damage or the difficulty and consisting of predominantly silt-sized parti- of land use; they include: cles, Land suitable for cultivation and other uses: Macro-organisms: Those organisms retained on a CkMs 1: Soils that have few limitations restricting U.S. standard sieve No. 30 (openings of 0.589 their use. mm); those organisms visible to the unaided eye. Class 11: Soils that have some limitations, reduc- See Micro-organisms. ing the choice of plants or requiring moderate Micro-organisms: Those organisms retained on a conservation practices. U.S. standard sieve No. 100 (openings of 0.149 Class 111: Soils that have severe limitations that mm); those minute organisms invisible or only reduce the choice of plants or require special barely visible to the unaided eye. See Macro-orga- conservation practices, or both. nisms. Class IV: Soils that have very severe limitations Minimum tillage: Limiting the number of soil-dis- that restrict the choice of plants, require very turbing operations to those that are properly careful management, or both. timed and essential to produce a crop and pre- Land generally not suitable for cultivation (with- vent soil damage. out major treatment): Moldboard plow: A traditional plow with a curved Class V: Soils that have little or no erosion hazard, plate attached above a plowshare to lift and turn but that have other limitations, impractical to the soil. Invented by John Deere; first implement remove, that limit their use largely to pasture, to successfully break prairie sod. range, woodland, or wildlife food and cover. Monoculture: Raising crops of a single species, Class VI: Soils that have severe limitations that generally even-aged. make them generally unsuited for cultivation Mulch: A natural or artificial layer of plant residue and limit their use largely to pasture or range, or other materials, such as sand or paper, on the woodland, or wildlife food and cover. soil surface. Class VII: Soils that have very severe limitations Mulch tillage: Soil tillage that employs plant resi- that make them unsuited to cultivation and that dues or other materials to cover the ground sur- restrict their use largely to grazing, woodland, face. or wildlife. Multiple use: Harmonious use of land for more Class VIII: Soils and Iandforms that preclude than one purpose—i.e., grazing livestock, wildlife their use for commercial plant production anci production, recreation, watershed, and timber restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, water production. Not necessarily the combination of supply, or esthetic purposes. uses that will yield the highest economic return Land tenure: The holding of land and the rights or greatest unit output. that go with such holding, including all forms of Niche: A habitat that supplies the factors necessary holding from fee simple title embracing all possi- for the existence of an organism or species. ble rights within the general limitations imposed Vitrification: The biological oxidation of ammoni- — App. Glossary •255

urn to nitrite and the further oxidation of nitrite Pan, pressure or induced: A subsurface horizon to nitrate. or soil layer having a high bulk density and a low- Nitrogen assimilation: The incorporation of nitro- er total porosity than the soil directly above or gen compounds into cell substances by living or- below it as a result of pressure applied by nor- ganisms. mal tillage operations or by other artificial means; Nitrogen fixation: The conversion of elemental frequently referred to as plow pan, plow sole, till-

nitrogen (N2) to organic combinations or to forms age pan, or traffic pan. readily usable in biological processes. Pasture: An area intensively managed for the pro- Nitrogen-fixing plant: A plant that can assimilate duction of forage, introduced or native, and and fix the free nit rogen of the atmosphere with harvested by grazing. the aid of bacteria living in the root nodules. Percolation: The downward movement of water Legumes with associated rhizobiurn bacteria in through soil, especially the downward flow of the root nodules are the most important nitrogen- water in saturated or nearly saturated soil at hy- fixing plants, draulic gradients of the order of 1.0 or less. Nonpoint pollution: Pollution whose sources can- Perennial plant: A plant that normally lives 3 or not be pinpointed; can best be controlled by prop- more years, sending forth shoots each spring er soil, water, and land management practices. from roots or rhizomes. Nonrenewable natural resources: Natural re- Permeability, soil: The quality of a soil horizon that sources that, once used, cannot be replaced. enables water or air to move through it. The per- No-tillage: A method of planting crops that in- meabil it y of a soil may be limited by the presence volves no seed bed preparation other than open- of one nearly impermeable horizon even though ing the soil for the purpose of placing the seed the others are permeable. at the intended depth. This usually involves open- Pesticide: Any chemical agent used for control of ing a small Slit or punching a hole into the soil. specific organisms, such as insecticides, herb i- There is usually no cultivation during crop pro- icicles, fungicides, etc. duction. Chemical weed control is normally used. Planning horizon: A farmer’s planning horizon is Also referred to as slot planting or zero tillage. the length of time considered when making an Noxious species: A plant that is undesirable investment of capital, labor, or land resources, because it conflicts, restricts, or otherwise causes It may be as short as one crop season or as long problems under the management objectives. Not as his children’s lifetimes. The term includes the to confused with species declared noxious by concept of discounted value that the farmer laws. places on future income or future costs compared Nutrients: 1. Elements, or compounds, essential as with present income or costs. The terms ‘‘plan- raw materials for organism growth and develop- ning period, ” “payback period, ” and “time ment, such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phos- horizon” are often used interchangeably with phorus, etc. 2. The dissolved solids and gases of “planning horizon. ” the water of an area. Plow: An implement used to cut, lift, and turn over Organic content: Synonymous with volatile solids, soil, especially in preparing a seedbed. except for small traces of some inorganic materi- Plow layer: The soil ordinarily}; moved in tillage; als, such as calcium carbonate, that lose weight equivalent to surface soil or surface layer. at temperatures used in determining volatile sol- Point row: A row that forms an angle with another ids. row instead of paralleling it to the end of the field. Organic fertilizer: Byproduct from the processing A row that “comes to a point, ” ending part way of animal or vegetable substances that contain across the field instead of at the edge of the field. sufficient plant nutrients to be of value as fertil- Polyculture: Growing more than one crop on the izers, same land in 1 year, or growing two or more Overgrazed range: A range that has lost its produc- crops simultaneously. Variations include multi- tive potential because of overgrazing. ple cropping, intercropping, interculture and Overgrazing: Grazing so heavy that it impairs mixed cropping. future forage production and causes deteriora- Postemergence (crop production): Application of tion through damage to plants, soil, or both. chemicals, fertilizers, or other materials and op- Palatability: Plant charactcristi(; or condition that erat ions associated with crop production after stimulates a Selective response i n animals. the crop has emerged through the soil surface. 256 • Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Rangeland Productivity

Preemergence (crop production): Application of Row crop: A crop planted in rows, normally to chemicals, fertilizers, or other materials and op- allow cultivation between rows during the grow- erations associated with crop production before ing season. the crop has emerged through the soil surface. Runoff (hydraulics): That portion of the precipita- Prescribed burning: The deliberate use of fire tion on a drainage area that is discharged from under conditions where the area to be burned is the area in stream channels. Types include sur- predetermined and the intensity of the fire is con- face runoff, ground water runoff, or seepage. trolled. Saline soil: A nonsodic soil containing sufficient Prime agricultural land: Land that is best suited soluble salts to impair its productivity but not for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oil- containing excessive exchangeable sodium. This seed crops, and also available for those uses; in- name was formerly applied to any soil contain- cludes cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest- ing sufficient soluble salts to interfere with plant Iands, but not urbanized land or water. It has the growth, commonly greater than 3,000 parts per soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply million. needed to produce sustained high yields of crops Sedimentation: The process or action of depositing economically when treated and managed, includ- sediment. ing water management, according to modern Selective grazing: The tendency for livestock and agricultural methods. other grazing animals to graze certain plants in Range condition: The present state of the plant preference to others, community on a range site in relation to the po- Selective herbicide: A pesticide intended to kill tential natural plant community for that site. only certain types of plants, especially broad- Range condition class: One of a series of arbitrary leafed weeds, and not harm other plants such as categories used to classify range condition, usual- farm crops or lawn grasses. ly expressed as either excellent, good, fair, or Shrub: A woody or perennial plant differing from poor. a tree by its low stature and by generally produc- Rangeland: Land on which the native vegetation ing several basal shoots instead of a single bole. (climax or natural potential) is predominantly Siltation: The process of depositing silt, See Sedi- grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable mentation, for grazing or browsing use. Includes lands re- Slope: The degree of deviation of a surface from vegetated naturally or artificially to provide a for- horizontal, measured in a numerical ratio, per- age cover that is managed like native vegetation. cent, or degrees. Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas, Soil: I. The unconsolidated mineral and organic shrublands, most deserts, tundra, alpine commu- material on the immediate surface of the Earth nities, coastal marshes, and wet meadows. that serves as a natural medium for the growth Range management: A distinct discipline founded of land plants, 2, The unconsolidated mineral on-ecological principles and dealing with the hus- matter on the surface of the Earth that has been bandry of all rangeland and range resources. subjected to and influenced by genetic and envi- Reduced tillage: A tillage sequence designed to re- ronmental factors of parent material, climate duce or eliminate secondary tillage operations. (including moisture and temperature effects), Renewable natural resources: Resources that can macro- and micro-organisms, and topography, all be restored and improved. acting over a period of time and producing a Rest-rotation grazing: A form of deferred-rotation product—soil—that differs from the material grazing in which at least one grazing unit is from which it is derived in many physical, chemi- rested from grazing for a full year, cal, biological, and morphological properties and Riparian land: Land situated along the bank of a characteristics, 3, A kind of soil is the collection stream or other body of water. of soils that are alike in specified combinations Rotary tillage: An operation using a power driven of characteristics. Kinds of soil are given names rotary tillage tool to loosen and mix soil. in the system of soil classification. The terms “the Rotation grazing: System of use embracing short soil” and “soil” are collective terms used for all periods of heavy stocking followed by periods of soils, equivalent to the word “vegetation” for all rest for herbage recovery during the same season; plants. generally used on tame pasture or cropland Soil amendment: Any material, such as lime, gyp- pasture. sum, sawdust, or synthetic conditioner, that is App. G—Glossary . 257

worked into the soil to make it more amenable treatment for plant production or for other pur- to plant growth. poses; and their productivity under different Soil classification: The systematic arrangement of management systems, soils into groups or categories on the basis of Stripcropping: Growing crops in a systematic ar- their characteristics. Broad groupings are made rangement of strips or bands which serve as bar- on the basis of general characteristics, subdivi- riers to wind and water erosion. See Buffkr strips, s ions on the basis of more detailed differences Contour stripcropping. in specific properties. Strip tillage: Tillage operations for seedbed prepa- Soil conditioner: Any material added to a soil for ration that are limited to a strip not to exceed one- the purpose of improving its physical condition. third of the distance between rows: the area be- Soil conservation: Using the soil within the limits tween is left untilled with a protective cover of of its physical characteristics and protecting it crop residue on the surface for erosion cent rol. from unalterable limitations of climate and topog- Planting and tillage are accompanied in the same raphy. operation. Soil-conserving crops: Crops that prevent or retard Stubble: The basal portion of plants remaining after erosion and maintain or replenish rather than de- the top portion has been harvested; also, the por- plete soil organic matter, tion of the plants, principally grasses, remaining Soil-depleting crops: Crops that under the usual after grazing is completed. management tend to deplete nutrients and organ- Stubble mulch: The stubble of crops or crop resi- ic matter in the soil and permit deterioration of dues left essentially in place on the land as a sur- soil structure. face cover during fallow and the growing of a Soil erosion: The detachment and movement of soil succeeding crop. from the land surface by wind or water. See Subsidence: A downward movernent of the ground Erosion. surface caused by solution and collapse o f under- Soil fertility: The quality of a soil that enables it lying soluble deposits, rearrangements of par- to provide nutrients in adequate amounts and in ticles upon remet’al of coal, or reduction of fluid proper balance for the growth of specified plants, pressures within an aquifer or petroleum res- when other growth factors, such as light, mois- ervoir. t re, temperature, and physical condition of soil, Subsoil: The B horizons of soils with distinct pro- are favorable. files. In soils with weak profile development, the Soil-formation factors: The variables, usually inter- subsoil can be defined as the soil below’ the related natural agencies, active in and responsi- plowed soil (or its equivalent of surface soil) in ble for the formation of soil. The factors are usu- which roots normally grow. Although a common ally grouped as follows: parent material, climate, term, it cannot be defined accurately. It has been organisms, topography, and time. Many people carried over from early days when ‘‘soil” was believe that activities of man in his use and ma- conceived only as the plowed soil and that under nipulation of soil become such an important in- it was the “subsoil. ” fluence on soil formation that he should be added Subsoiling: The tillage of subsurface soil, without as a sixth variable. Others consider man as a n inversion, for the purpose of breaking up dense organism. layers that restrict water movement and root pen- Soil loss tolerance: The maximum average annual et ration. soil loss in tons per acre per year that should be Terrace: An embankment or combination of an em- permitted on a given soil. bankment and channel constructed across a Soil management: The sum total of all tillage opera- slope to control erosion by divererting or storing tions, cropping practices, fertilizer, lime, and surface runoff instead of permitting it to flow un- other treatments conducted on, or applied to, a interrupted down the slope. Terraces or terrace soil for the production of plants. systems may be classified by their alignment, gra- Soil survey: A general term for the systematic ex- dient, outlet, and cross-section. Alignment may amination of soils in the field and in laboratories; be parallel or nonparallel. Gradient maybe level, their description and classification; the mapping uniformly graded, or variably graded. Grade is of kinds of soil; the interpretation of soils accord- often incorporated to permit paralleling the ter- ing to their adaptability for various crops, races. Outlets may be soil infiltration only, vege- grasses, and trees; their behavior under use or tated waterways, tile outlets, or combinations 258 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

thereof, Cross-section may be narrow base, broad tion schedule. As such, they may be largely con- base, bench, steep backslope, flat channel, or trolled by the operator. Examples are the use of channel. fertilizer and insecticides, hauling grain, etc. Terrace outlet channel: Channel, usually having Water management: Application of practices to ob- a vegetative cover, into which the flow from one tain added benefits from precipitation, water, or or more terraces is discharged and conveyed water flow in any of a number of areas, such as from the field. irrigation, drainage, wildlife and recreation, wa- Tile, drain: Pipe made of burned clay, concrete, ter supply, watershed management, and water or similar material, in short lengths, usually laid storage in soil for crop production. with open joints to collect and carry excess water Water table: The upper surface of ground water or from the soil. that level below which the soil is saturated with Tile drainage: Land drainage by means of a series water; locus of points in soil water at which the of tile lines laid a specified depth and grade. hydraulic pressure is equal to atmospheric pres- Tillage: The operation of implements through the sure, soil to prepare seedbeds and root beds. Water use efficiency: Crop production per unit of Tilth: The physical condition of soil as related to water used, irrespective of water source, ex- its ease of tillage, fitness as a seedbed, and imped- pressed in units of weight per unit of water depth ance to seedling emergence and root penetration. per unit area. This concept of utilization applies Undergrazing: An intensity of grazing in which the to both dryland and irrigated agriculture. forage available for consumption under a system Windbreak: 1. A living barrier of trees or combina- of conservation pasture management is not used tion of trees and shrubs located adjacent to farm to best advantage. or ranch headquarters and designed to protect Undesirable species: 1. Plant species that are not the area from cold or hot winds and drifting readily eaten by animals, 2. Species that conflict snow. 2. A narrow barrier of living trees or com- with or do not contribute to the management ob- bination of trees and shrubs, usually from one to jectives. five rows, established within or around a field Universal soil loss equation: An equation used to or for the protection of land and crops from design water erosion control systems: A == wind. RKLSPC wherein A is average annual soil loss Wind erosion: An equation used for the design of in tons per acre per year; R is the rainfall factor; wind erosion control systems: E = f (IKCLV) K is the soil erodibility; L is the length of slope; wherein E is the average annual soil loss, ex- S is the percent slope; P is the conservation prac- pressed in tons per acre per year; I is the soil tice factor; and C is the cropping and manage- erodibility; K is the soil ridge roughness; C is the ment factor. (T = soil loss tolerance value that climatic factor; L is the unsheltered distance has been assigned each soil, expressed in tons per across the field along the wind erosion direction; acre per year.) and V is the vegetative cover. Utility: The ability of a good to satisfy human Wind stripcropping: The production of crops in wants. relatively narrow strips placed perpendicular to Variable costs: Costs subject to the year’s produc- the direction of the prevailing winds. Index INDEX

Africa, 75, 81 Bulgaria, 123 Agricultural Conservation Program (AC P), 160-161 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 67, 70, 161, agriculural land benefits, 13, 56-61 163-166, 203-205 agricultural technology, 15-16, 139 alternative cropping systems, 111-117 cadmium, 232 communication of, 141-144 calcium, 35, 59, 79 conservatism of, 15 California, 43, 44, 47, 49, 52, 55, 56, 68, 69, factors affecting adoption of, 137-148 112, 118, 163 Federal research on, 186-188 Canada, 47, 143 information diffusion on, 140-141 canola, 220 limitations of, 93 carbon dioxide, 57 limited innovation in, 14-15 carbon monoxide, 57 misapplication of, 93 Caribbean, 24, 33 organic agriculture, 107-111 Center for Agricultural and Rural Develpment role of government in, 16-19, 151-177 (CARD), 145, 238 air quality, 57-58 centrifugal pump, 92 Alabama, 43 cheatgrass, 69 Alaska, 67, 68, 143, 162, 189 Chevron Chemical co,, 197-199 Aleutian Islands, 223 chisel planting, 97 condition of rangeland in, 70 chlorinated hydrocarbons, 52 landownership in (table), 222 chlorine, 231 State Agricultural Experiment Station, 222 Cihylik, Nicholas, 195, 197-199 State Department of Natural Resources, 222 Coastal Plains States, 44 University of, 223 Colorado, 49, 60 virgin lands in, 220-224 Colorado River, 47, 54 alfalfa, 48, 75, 108, 118, 205 Commodity Credit Corp., 151 Algeria, 37 commodity policies, 153-154 4-amino 3,5,6 -trichloropicolinic acid [see piclorarn) commodity programs, 151 aquifers computers, 121-122, 142 biodegradation of organic materials in, 53 Congress, 162, 163 Carrizo, 51 acts of (see legislation) definition of, 48 issues and options for, 181-191 Estancia Basin, 51 legislation for Federal rangelands, 71, 76 Ogallala Formation, 50-51, 52 major legislation establishing Federal role in recharging of, 48, 59 resource conservation (table], 158-160 Roswell Artesian Basin, 51 opportunities for action by, 18-19 Seymour Formation (Texas), 53 conservation Arizona, 49, 69 Agricultural Conservation Program (AC P), 168-170 Arkansas, 49 coordination of commodity and credit programs Arkansas River Valley [Arizona], 120 with, 176 Aroostook County (Maine), 33 cross compliance as a strateglr for, 171-172 arsenic, 2 in farming, 206-211 Asia Minor, 37 Federal cost sharing in, 167-172 Federal role in, 157-161 Banks for Cooperatives, 154 Great Plains Conservation Program (C PC P), 170-171 barley, 32, 100, 112, 120, 220 improving effectiveness of Federal programs for, benching, 127 183-186 bermudagrass, 100 influence of type of farm ownership on, 138-139 blueberries, 52 in Iowa, 174 Brannon, Charles F., 171 National Association of Conservation Districts, Brickner, Ernie, 195, 196, 212-214 174, 176 Brown, Dr. Paul, 216, 217, 219 in Oregon, 174-175 buffalo gourd, 115 Soil Consertation Association, 173

261 262 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

Soil Conservation Districts, 173 investment in systems for, 41 State initiatives in, 173-175, 190-191 methods of, 9, 38, 41 conservation tillage, 14, 31, 44, 94-107, 129, 147 research on, 41 adoption rate of, 97-98 barriers to adoption of, 100-105 Ellenberger, Glen, 198 characteristics of, 95-96 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 105, 119, 147, 165, 166, 231 economic incentives for adoption of, 98-100 environmental protection Federal role in, 105-106 environmental impact assessment, 166-167 herbicide use in, 94-95 nonpoint source pollution, 165-166 major methods of, 97 pesticide regulation, 165 and no-till farming, 95-107 erosion, 7-8 contour farming, 14, 124 areas with high rates of, 32-33 Control Data Corp., 122 causes of, 24-25 copper, 232 characteristics of land most subject to, 23-24 Copper River (Alaska), 222 control of, 123-130 corn, 31, 34, 43, 92, 95, 100, 108, 110, 118, 220 of croplands, 8, 24, 25 effects on crop production, 34-36 Corn Belt, 33, 35, 38, 45, 108 of fragile lands, 188-190 Cortez, 115 gully, 23, 37, 92 Cote, David, 198 magnitude of, 25-32 cotton, 32, 33, 43, 95, 118 of rangeland, 27 cranberries, 52 rill, 23, 25-27, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 92, 123, 169 credit programs, 154-156 as a self-reinforcing process, 24, 37 crested wheatgrass, 75 sheet, 23, 25-27, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 92, 123, 169 cropland, 14-15, 46, 91-133 from snowmelt runoff, 24-25 area in united States, 14, 91 streambank, 23, 37, 92 conversion of virgin land to, 220-224 Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE], 24 water-caused, 7-8 conversion of wetlands to, 9 wind, 7, 24, 25-26, 27, 32, 37, 92, 126, 170 erosion control technologies for, 123-127 eutrophication, 59 growth of, 30-32 potential in United States, 220-224 Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), 147, 154-155 productivity-sustaining technologies for, 92-123 loan programs of, 185 sustaining productivity of, 13-15 farm rehabilitation, 212-214 crops Fast Agricultural Communications Terminal Systems abandoned or neglected types of, 115 (FACTS), 122 genetics of, 114, 115 Federal Agricultural Conservation Program, 137 polyculture of perennial plants, 115-116 Federal Credit System [FCS], 154 Federal Intermediate Credit Banks (FICBS), 154 potential new, 114-117 Federal Land Banks, 154 residue management, 15, 58 fertilizers, 34, 35, 42, 107 rotation of, 108, 125 fish and wildlife salt-tolerant, 47, 119-121 in Alaska, 223 species under cultivation, 114 effects of agricultural activities on, 59-61 effects of overgrazing on, 69 wild burros, 76, 163 2,4-D, 52 wild horses, 76, 163 dams, 123 fish (see fish and wildlife) data bases, 238-242 flexible cropping, 48 DDT, 52 Florida, 56 Delaware, 112 fluometuron, 52 disaster relief, 151, 153-154 forests disk planting, 97 detrimental effects of grazing in, 82 Dodd, Harold, 208 extent of grazing in Eastern, 82-84 Dodge, Ted, 218, 219 technologies for multiple-use management of drainage grazing in, 85-86 benefits of, 9, 38-41 Franklin, Benjamin, 115 effects on wildlife, 60 Fuelbirth, John, 210 Index ● 263

Galapagos Islands, 121 Integrated Brush Management Systems (IBMS), 77-80 Gallup, Dwight, 206-211 intercropping, 112 Gallup, Hazel, 210 International Institute of Applied Systems Gallup, Roger, 195, 196, 206-211 Analysis, 238 gasohol, 152. 153 Iowa, 33, 34, 101, 140 General Accounting Office (GAO), 53, 162, 164, 165, Iraq, 37 168, 170, 171 irrigation, 34, 50, 58, 92 Georgia, 37 area of farmland under, 117 Germany, 42 drip systems for, 117-119 Gila River (Arizona), 120 effects on wildlife, 60 glossary of terms used in this report, 249-258 soil salinization from, 10, 46-48 Godel, Ed, 212, 213 in the Southwest, 48 grasses, 115, 116 Italy, 37 grazing Japan, 93, 123 in Eastern forests, 82-84 Jefferson, Thomas, 125 effects on wildlife, 60-61 johnsongrass, 100 excessive, 13, 27 jojoba, 115 Savory method of, 80 short duration, 80-82 Grazing Service, 161 Kansas, 49 Great Lakes States, 38 Kentucky, 112, 122 Great Plains, 37 Kentucky Cooperative Extension System, 142 Great Plains Conservation Program, 161 Kindschy, Bob, 201, 203 Green Thumb, 142 Greiss, Alan, 199 ground water Lake Erie, 102 allocation of, 49 land productivity availvility and quality of, 48, 49 effect of erosion on, 34 contaminantion of, 52-53 problems, 7-14 definition of quality of, 53-54 role of government in, 151-177 degradation of, 51, 54 Laurance, Max, 203 depletion of, 11, 48-54 lead, 232 overdraft of, 49 legislation as percent of total freshwater resources, 49 Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, 151 policies toward surface water and, 54 Alaska Lands Bill, 67 protection of, 11 Appalachian Regional Development Act, 161 saltwater contaminantion of, 51-52 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of streamflow” reduction from pumping of, 53-54 1974, 161 growth regulators, 107 Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964, 71 Gulf of Mexico, 120 Clean Air Act of 1963, 161 Clean Water Act of 1977, 165-166 Hanford, Howard, 195, 196, 215-219 Endangered Species Act of 1973, 161 Harris Poll, 167 Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of Hawaii, 32 1972, 161 hay, 34, 43 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act herbicides, 100 of 1947, 165 application rates for various crops, 95 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, in brush control, 78 71, 161, 163 contamination of ground water by, 52 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 161, Highwood Alkali Control Association, 215 165-166, 190 Holzer, Jane, 218, 219 Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, 153 hydrocarbons, 57 Food and Drug Act, 123 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources IHMS (see Integrated Brush Management Systems) Planning Act of 1974, 71, 161, 163-164 Idaho, 32 Forest and Kangeland Renewable Resources Illinois, 33, 101, 112 Research Act of 1978, 164 Indiana, 101, 112, 122 Forest and Rangeland Resources Extension Act of information diffusion, 140-141 1978, 161 insecticides Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 161, 162 effects on birds, 60 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 161 effects on fish, 60 National Forest Management Act of 1976, 161, 164 264 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

organic Act of 1897, 162 National Agricultural Lands Study, 22o Public Rangeland Improvement Act of 1978, 71, 75, National Resources Inventory (NRI), 25, 30, 33, 91, 161, 163 123, 124, 129, 138, 170, 183, 189 Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978, National Soil Erosion-Soil Productivity Research 164-165 Planning Committee (see U.S. Department of Resources Conservation Act (RCA) of 1977, 98, 106, Agriculture) 171, 182, 243-246 National Weather Service, 142 Resource Planning Act (see Forest and Rangeland Nebraska, 49, 122, 123 Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974] Nevada, 49 Resource Planning Act of 1980, 67 New Mexico, 49, 51, 69, 78 Soil Conservation Act of 1935, 158 nickel, 232 Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of nitrates, 53 1936, 160 nitrogen, 35, 36, 42, 58, 79, 104, 109, 229-230, 231 Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of inadequacy as a limiting factor on rangeland 1977, 161, 162 productivity, 75 Tax Reform Act of 1976, 156, 157 oxides of, 57 Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 161, 162 North-Central States, 34, 38 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of North Dakota, 49 1954, 161 Northwest Territory, 213 Wilderness Act of 1964, 161 no-till farming, 58, 197-199, 208 Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1974, 161 legumes, 75 oats, 34, 43, 112, 220 lentils, 32 Office of Management and Budget, 162 Iindane, 52 Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), 48, 98, 106, 153, 242 magnesium, 59 papers commissioned for this study, 247-248 Maine, 33, 52 Ohio, 101, 112, 143 Maryland, 106, 112 Oklahoma, 47, 49, 78, 123 Massachusetts, 52 Oregon, 112 Matanuska River (Alaska], 222 organic agriculture, 14, 107-111 mathematical models attitudes toward, 107-108, 109 econometric, 235 comparison with conventional farming, 109-110 Iowa State University Linear Programing Model definition of, 107 (ISU-LP), 236-237 feasibility of, 110 necessary elements for policy analysis, 236 future of, 110-111 phonological, 237-238 livestock operations in, 108 systems simulation, 235 research in, 110 Yield/Soil Loss Simulator, 237 oxygen, 57, 59 mercury, 232 ozone, 57 Mesopotamia, 37 mesquite, 69 Pacific Ocean, 46 Michigan, 122 Palouse Basin, 32-33 Miller, Dr. Marvin, 215, 217 paraquat, 202 millet, 100 pastureland Minnesota, 42, 49 conversion to cropland, 27 Mississippi, 24, 33, 43 erosion rate of, 26 Mississippi River, 213 Patuxent River [Maryland], 106 Mississippi Valley, 33 peas, 32 Missouri, 33 Pecos River (Texas), 120 Missouri River, 216 Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District Morocco, 37 (New Mexico), 51 mulches, 126 Pennsylvania State University, 198 multiple cropping, 14, 111-114 pesticides, 34, 107 advantages and disadvantages of, 112-114 conservation tillage and, 104-105 definition of, 111 effects on ground water, surface water, and in Mexico, 112 precipitation, 231 relay intercropping, 112 effects on soil organisms, 12, 231-232 phosphorus, 35, 36, 58-59, 79, 104, 108, 230, 231 National Aeronautics and Space Administration picloram (4-amino-3,5,6 -trichloropicolinic acid), 79 (NASA], 223 potassium, 35, 36, 59, 79, 108-109, 230 Index . 265

potatoes, 33, 42, 220 conversion of wetland to cropland, 38 predators, 76 drainage of, 38-42 Production Credit Associations, 154 effects on air quality, 57-58 productivity effects of chemistry changes on nutrition, 233 v. crop yields, 34 effects of toxic wastes on, 232-233 loss rates, 8 erosion of, 23-38 Puerto Rico, 33 fertilizer effects on, 229-232 Purdue University, 25 fertility management of, 126 fertilizer value of eroded, 36-37 rangeland formation rates of, 8, 36 area of, 13, 67, 70 nutrient depletion in, 12-13 brush control on, 77-80 organisms in, 12, 226-229 condition of, 13, 68-70 organic matter in, 12, 225-226 effects of fire on, 79 salinization of, 46-48 erosion of, 27 shingling of rangeland, 45 Federal and private control of, 67-68 tolerable loss of, 36 grazing on, 74, 80-82 T-values of, 36, 129 legislation affecting, 71 variables in productivity of, 225-234 livestock on, 72-74 wet soil prevalence, 38, 38 management of, 14, 71-77 Soil Erosion Service, 158 multiple use of, 76-77 Soil Science Society of America, 242 noxious animals and plants on, 68-70, 75-77 soil types (see also soil] productivity of, 14-15, 70, 71 Brandon, 34 products and services of, 14 clay, 36, 43, 55 technologies for, 71-86 Grenada, 34 vegetation on, 67, 74-75 loess, 32, 34, 35 RCA process, 162 Memphis loam, 34 Red River, 49 sandy loam, 43 Rio Puerco Basin (New Mexico), 69 sorghum, 33, 100, 116, 118 Roswell Artesian Basin [New Mexico), 51 Souris River, 49 Russia, 123 Southeastern Coastal Plain, 43 soybeans, 31, 42, 95, 100, 108, 110, 112 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 46 stripcropping, 126-127 safflower, 48 strip tillage, 97 salinization, 10-11, 46-48, 120 stubble mulch, 58 consequences of, 10 subsidence, 11, 55-56 control of, 10-11 causes of, 11, 55 saline seep, 47-48, 215-219 control of, 56 saltbush, 75 effects of, 11 Salt Lake Valley (Utah), 68 sugar beets, 42 San Francisco Bay, 46 sulfur, 231 San Joaquin River (California], 46, 47, 52, 120 sunflower, 48 Santa Cruz River (Arizona), 69 Susitna River (Alaska), 222 satellites, 143 Secretary of Agriculture, 151, 158, 170 2,4,5-T, 79 Secretary of Interior, 161, 163 Tanana River (Alaska], 220, 222 shelterbelts (see windbreaks and shelterbelts) tax policies and programs, 156-157 Sicily, 37 technology (see agricultural technology) Skinner, Bob, 195, 196, 200, 201, 204 Tennessee, 33, 34 slot planting, 97 tepary bean, 115 Small Business Administration, 147, 155 terraces, 15, 129, 208 snapbeans, 100 for water erosion control, 123-124 soil Texas, 47, 49, 55, 69, 78, 81 amendments, 122-123 Bigford Formation, 51 area of wet, 38 Black] and Prairie, 33 capping of rangeland, 45 Dimmit County, 51 chemistry of, 229-232 Kit Carson County 50 chemical composition of, 12- I 3 Trans-Pecos region of, 52 compaction of, 9-10, 40, 42-46 Zwala County 51 conservatopmof, 19 tillage management, 15 266 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

till plant, 97 U.S. Forest Service (USFS], 67, 84, 162, 164 Today’s Electronic Planning (TELEPLAN), 122 Working Group on Pesticides, 52 tomatoes, 120, 121 U.S. Department of Commerce, 84 toxaphene, 52 U.S. Department of Defense, 162 trace elements, 59 U.S. Department of the Interior, 162 Trempealeau River, 213 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 67 Triangle Conservation District (Montana), 218 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS], 50, 51, 56

2,4,5 -trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (see 2,4,5-T) Information on Water Data (catalog), 53 tumbleweed, 69 U.S. Water Resources Council, 52 Tunisia, 37 Utah, 68

University of Illinois, 209 Virginia, 122 University of Nebraska Agricultural Computer Virginia Tech Computerized Management Network Network (AGNET), 122 (CMN), 122 Urquiaga, Dominique, 201 Virgin Islands, 33 Urquiaga, Lazaro, 195, 196, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205 USDA (see U.S. Department of Agriculture) Washington (State), 32, 112 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 18, 23, 25, water budget, 50 41, 47, 98, 107, 108, 110, 119, 127, 142, 152, 155, water quality 157, 165, 166, 167, 169, 171, 172, 182, 183, 190 effects of vegetation and soil on, 58-59 Agricultural Research Service, 187, 188 wheat, 31, 32, 47, 95, 108, 112, 116, 118, 120, 220 Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service wheatgrass, 203 (ASCS], 79, 105, 153, 162, 168, 184, 188 wildlife (see fish and wildlife) Bureau of Chemistry (1894), 157 windbreaks and shelterbelts, 15, 127 Committee on Soil Conservation, 173 winged bean, 115 conservation groups assisted by, 147 Wisconsin, 123 Conservation operations Program, 160, 161-162 woodlands Cooperative Extension Service, 147 grazing potentials for Eastern, 82-86 Cooperative Research Service, 187 development of flexible cropping by, 48 Yukon River (Alaska), 222 Federal Extension Service, 140, 185 Yuma (Arizona), 47 Land Ownership Survey, 138

National Soil Erosion-Soil Productivity Research zero tillage, 97 Planning Committee, 34, 35, 36, 186 zinc, 232 Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 24, 34, 36, 41, 84, 91, 97, 106, 158, 162, 183, 184, 185, 190, 220, 222, 223, 224