Newsroom

CORVALLIS - Under current farming systems, the U.S. cornbelt faces serious problems with soil erosion, poor water quality and loss of plant and animal diversity, but researchers say that new management approaches might address these concerns without significant loss of farm income.

This region of corn, soybean, hog and cattle farming is one of the greatest agricultural areas on Earth, but recent studies done at Oregon State University, in partnership with other universities in the Midwest, indicate the future may be one of ever-more-intensive agriculture, continued declines in soil and water quality, further incorporation of smaller farms into larger holdings, and species extinctions.

It doesn't have to be that way, the scientists say.

"Many people see these problems developing, but they don't believe we can do more than just tinker around the edges," said Mary Santelmann, a research scientist in the OSU Department of Geosciences and expert on landscape ecology. "It is difficult for most people to envision substantial change. But changing less than 5 percent of the watershed is not going to solve our larger problems. What we're trying to demonstrate is that we can have healthy agricultural ecosystems that make economic sense, protect the environment and may even bring more farmers back to the land.

"In other words, if we don't like what the future looks like, we don't have to go there," Santelmann said. "But the changes that need to be made must involve the whole landscape."

Santelmann and a group of scientists have outlined three basic scenarios for the future of this agricultural region 25 years in the future, upon which they've based a number of published studies on soils, water quality, economic viability, wildlife responses, community reactions and other topics.

The first scenario, based upon the continuation of current trends, shows a future focused on maximizing production of agricultural commodities and no increased investment in methods to protect the land. In this approach, farms become larger than ever, fertilizers and toxic chemicals continue to leach into groundwater and streams, some families move off the land, and up to 89 percent of the region is dominated by row crops that minimize woodlands, native prairie, or wetlands.

"Under this approach, which is what we're doing now, we'll continue to fill streams with sediments, crowd species to the brink of extinction, and add to the huge dead zone we already have in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of nutrient loading," Santelmann said.

But the second and third scenarios the researchers outlined include higher levels of stream protection, public investments in practices that improve water quality, use of innovative cropping systems, the re-introduction of some grazing animals, and other steps that could, over time, have a profound impact.

"We're not suggesting that everyone should change overnight the agricultural practices they've been using for decades," Santelmann said. "Many Midwestern farmers are already very concerned about land and water conservation, and we received a great deal of positive feedback from them. What we're trying to do is create new policies and public support to explore some options, encourage a broad range of new practices and make them economically feasible."

The scientists did not identify a magic solution that will solve all the problems, Santelmann said. Rather, the goal is to take existing concepts and use them more broadly and effectively. And some conservation practices, such as reduction of streambank erosion, can actually save taxpayers money by decreasing the need for frequent bridge replacements and stream channel dredging.

Among the possibilities:

• Use strip intercropping, an approach where corn, soybeans, and oats are all grown side-by-side at the same time, to provide perennial soil cover, enhance water quality, lessen the need for fertilizers by 30-50 percent, and provide by-products that are attractive to wildlife or grazing animals 
• Bring more livestock and wildlife back to the landscape, so long as they are fenced out of streams.
• Support farmers willing to employ such conservation practices and help make farm operations more profitable, and use rotational grazing or native grass plantings that increase biodiversity.
• Protect some land in prairie and wetland reserves, perhaps as much as 10 percent of an overall watershed, with the federal government or conservation groups paying to help take land out of production.

"Part of what becomes clear in these scenarios is that everyone has to look at protecting soil and having clean water as part of their responsibility," Santelmann said.

"These are things that benefit everyone in society and it's fair we should all help pay for them, not place our farmers in an impossible situation where their farm operations won't work economically and they are asked to pay by themselves for all of the economic burden of environmental improvements."

Under the scenarios the researchers have developed, one study indicated that the most aggressive approach to environmental protection could yield almost as much income 25 years from now as the approach that emphasized production - in one watershed, about $1.52 million total return with the environmentally sensitive methods versus $1.55 million under the status quo.

"It's difficult to predict with total accuracy exactly how things may pencil out 25 years into the future, considering all the variables of supply and demand, energy costs and other issues," Santelmann said. "But what does seem pretty clear is that we could make major changes and still be able to keep families on the land and farms making a profit.

"We could cut the sediment loads in these streams in half, while we bring back a blend of farms, prairie, woodlands, natural disturbance regimes, fewer chemicals and more people who want to live in these areas because they have such a natural beauty."

Other collaborators on these studies included scientists from Iowa State University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Michigan, and other agencies. A three-year, $1.2 million grant from the EPA supported the research.