Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland

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 resourceful 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 Appropriations Committee, and the Subcommittee on Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources 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.

Directo r

III
Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and

Rangeland Productivity Advisory Panel

David Pimentel, Chairman

Department of Entomology, Cornell University

Delmar Akerlund

Akerlund Farm Biological Enterprises

Valley, Nebr.

Steve Brunson

National Association of Conservation Districts

William Dietrich

Green Giant Co.

James V. Drew

School of Agriculture and Land Resources

Management and Agricultural Experiment

Station

University of Alaska

George R. Hawkes

Product Environmental Affairs

Ortho-Chevron Chemical Co.

Earl O. Heady

Department of Economics

Iowa State University

John H. Herman

Attorney at Law

Dayton, Herman, Graham & Getts

Maureen K. Hinkle

National Audubon Society

William H. Hinton

Farmer

Fleetwood, Pa.

Garry D. McKenzie

Division of Polar Programs

National Science Foundation

William R. Meiners

Resource Planning and Management

Associates, Inc.

Meridian, Idaho

John Moland, Jr.

Center for Social Research

Southern University

Richard E. Rominger

Department of Food and Agriculture

State of California

Edwin L. Schmidt

Department of Soil Science

University of Minnesota

F. C. Stickler

Product and Market Planning

Deere & Co.

Glover B. Triplett, Jr.

Department of Agronomy

Ohio Agricultural Research and

Development Center

Ralph Wong

Rancher

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

I.

11.

111,

Iv.

v.

VI.

Summary. . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ., , ,

Land Productivity Problems, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . .

Rangelands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Croplands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Role of Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII. Issues and Options for Congress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendixes

A,The Innovators: The Stories of Five Agriculturalists and Their

Commitments to Land Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B, Virgin Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.Soil Productivity Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D. Analytic Tools and Data Bases for Determining the Effects of

National Policies on Land Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E.The Resources Conservation Act Preferred Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F. Commissioned Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

G. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

3

23

67

9 1

1 3 7

151

1 8 1

1 9 5

2 2 0

2 2 5

2 3 5

2 4 3

2 4 7

2 4 9

2 6 1
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+ .. .o o

. $ g. OOOort 1 0

Ground Water Depletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Land Subsidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It

Soil Organic Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Soil Organisms .. .O O

. .. .. .. 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

an average rate of 7 tons per acre. Yet soil is

thought to form at a rate of only 0,5 ton per

acre a year or less, Thus, even though knowledge of soil formation is grossly inadequate, it

appears that America’s agricultural soil is

being eroded more than 10 times faster than

it is being formed,

Erosion is not the only process that can damage the productivity of the Nation’s croplands

and rangelands, though it is the most pervasive.

Compaction and inadequate drainage can reduce crop yields. Salinization (salt build-up in

soils) can force lands out of production. Mismanagement and overgrazing can degrade

rangeland productivity, Withdrawing too much

ground water can deplete underground supplies and limit future agriculture. Land subsidence, whether related to ground water withdrawal or other factors, can remove lands from

production with little hope for restoration.

Inherent land productivity, as used in this

report, means the ability of land resources to

sustain long-term production of crops, forage,

and a broad range of other benefits such as

water quality, genetic resources, and wildlife

habitat. Land is broadly defined to include not

only soil but water and all the physical, chemical, and biological components of cropland and

rangeland ecosystems.

Land productivity varies from site to site and

changes over time. It interacts with the other

components of agricultural productivity, which

are the productivity of capital, the productivity of labor, and the state of the art of technology. Because of these interactions, land productivity is exceedingly difficult to measure,

Nevertheless, it is a distinct concept that farmers and ranchers understand to profoundly influence the productivity of their capital and

labor resources.

This study assesses how agricultural technologies affect the inherent productivity of U.S.

croplands and rangelands, It examines processes that affect the quality of croplands and

rangelands and addresses the question of

whether land productivity is sustainable under

various modern agricultural technologies,

The report finds that certain productivitydegrading processes, especially erosion, are

widespread and serious. Yet for most agricultural land, technologies exist that could achieve

high production while maintaining land quality, There are, however, some particularly fragile lands where no currently available ways

exist to sustain high levels of production. These

lands are used because it is profitable, under

the present system of agricultural technologies,

markets, and policies, to “mine” the inherent

productivity of the fragile cropland and rangeland sites as if they were nonrenewable resources. In doing so, long-term productivity is

sacrificed for shorter term profits.

This assessment was requested by the Senate

Committee on Environment and Public Works

and endorsed by the House Committee on Agriculture, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and the Subcommittee on Parks, Recreation, and Renewable Resources of the Senate

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The assessment was designed to exclude detailed study of: 1) problems that tangentially affect agricultural lands but are not caused by

agricultural technologies (e. g., air pollution);

2) impacts of agricultural technologies on lands

other than croplands and rangelands (e. g., the

effects of chemical runoff on estuaries); 3) technologies and impacts covered by other OTA assessments [e. g., Integrated Pest Management,

1979; Biomass Fuels, 1980; and Applied Genetics, 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

product of many factors: abundant resources

of land and water, favorable climate, and also

a history of hard work, skill, and innovation.

Recent generations in particular have benefited

from technological developments, U.S. agriculturalists and scientists have created a production system that not only meets our own needs

but also provides a growing portion (about onetenth in 1979) of the agricultural products used

by the rest of the world.

The technologies that made this extraordinary production possible were developed primarily during the 1950’s and 1960’s, when fuel

and capital costs were low and labor was comparatively expensive, These technologies made

farmers extremely successful at replacing labor

with cheap energy inputs. The principal problem policy makers faced was keeping abundant

supplies of food and fiber from driving prices

(and profits) so low that farmers would be

forced out of business. As a result, price supports and a variety of land retirement programs

were adopted.

Agricultural policy makers now face problems quite different from those of the past. The

1970’s brought profound changes in the economic and resource environments, Foreign demand for U.S. agricultural products grew

rapidly. Energy and fertilizer prices skyrocketed. Stockpiles of surplus commodities dwindled. Development of the interstate highway

system and related changing settlement patterns took large areas of prime farmland out

of production. At the same time, areas of marginal cropland began coming back into production because stronger commodity markets

made price supports and the concomitant land

set-aside programs less attractive.

By the end of the 1970’s, the United States

was exporting 30 percent of its agricultural production and expecting even higher exports in

the future. With virtually all the land previously

idled by Government programs already returned to crops, exports are projected to be met

in part by cultivating more land, including

much which is fragile and basically unsuited

to long-term production under conventional

technologies,

Conservation and Production

Neither empirical evidence nor compelling

logic show that agricultural production must

be harmful to the quality of the land resource.

On the contrary, production and conservation

can be mutually reinforcing, even on marginal

lands, if appropriate production technologies

are developed and used.

But present agricultural practices in the

United States are degrading the inherent productivity of large amounts of cropland and

rangeland. Much agricultural land suffers from

accelerated erosion, soil compaction, water

quality and quantity problems, or other adverse

physical, chemical, and biological changes in

soil ecology,

To date, losses in inherent productivity have

been masked by gradual increases in capital

inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and improved crop varieties. But productivity degradation is an accelerating and self-reinforcing

process; this year’s losses contribute to increasing losses in the years to follow, As capital

costs rise, and losses in inherent productivity

become increasingly severe, it will become

more difficult to sustain production on depleted agricultural land.

Nationally, soil erosion is the most important

process degrading inherent productivity. It is

an acute problem on a relatively small part of

the Nation’s cropland, and a chronic problem

on a much larger acreage.

No one can estimate the precise amounts of

fuel, fertilizer, and other nonsoil resources that

are required to compensate for the erosioncaused losses in soil fertility, tilth, * and waterholding capacity. The future availability and

affordability of these nonsoil resources are also

*Tilth refers to the physical condition, texture, and aggregation of soil.
Ch. /—Summary ● 5

Agricultural Production, 1960-78

140

Crops

130

f

120 “

110 —

*

100 “

Livestock

* # m - .

#

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 nonrenewable and increasingly expensive.

Many practices used to maintain or improve

inherent soil productivity can reduce current

farm profits. For example, planting erosive

fields into hay or pasture slows soil erosion,

but is less profitable than planting corn or soybeans. Terraces break long slopes and retain

eroding soil, but in many cases farmers cannot recoup high construction costs, even when

they are shared by the Government. Contour

farming reduces soil erosion and can increase

yields, but it also increases labor and

machinery costs. Because erosion may not

noticeably affect crop yields for many years,

economic considerations discourage farmers

from adopting even these proven erosion control technologies.

Some new, innovative technologies can save

soil and improve profitability for many farm

operations. The use of some of these technologies—for example, conservation tillage*—is

increasing, and they will play an important role

in maintaining inherent land productivity in

the future. However, there are substantial impediments to their widespread adoption. Many

*Conservation tillage refers to various wajrs of reducing the

frequency and degree of tilling the soil, Conservation tillage

methods generally share three characteristics: I ) they use implements other than the moldhoard plow, Z) t}]ey leave crop residues

on the soil to mitigate erosion and help retain moisture, and

3] they depend on chemical rather than mechanical weed control, [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

Billion hours

t

o ~ 1950 1960 1970 1{

Fertilizers applied

Million tons

25

20

15

10 /

o! 1 1 I

1950 1960 1970 19

Water for irrigation

75 -

50 “

25 “

o

1 1 I

1950 1960 1970 1 )

HorseDower of farm machines

H 3

\r: ‘

200

100

0

)ower in millions

1 I 4

1950 1960 1970 198

Pesticides ap~lied

Mill

750

500

250

—.

n pounds

/

Total pesticides

/ ’

Herbicides

, 4

Insecticide:

Other pesticides=

Fungicides

o~ 1

1950 1960 1970 198

Energy spent on farms

Trillion 13tus

2,500

‘

:

: /

1,000

500 -

o

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 conventional practices because the innovative

technologies often require more management

expertise. Furthermore, farmers often are unconvinced that the new practices can be profitable for their particular farming conditions.

Capital requirements for specialized mechanical equipment also impede the adoption of

new technologies.

Innovative farming and grazing methods are

being adopted, but not necessarily in the places

where they are most needed. Farmers adopt innovative technologies first on lands where the

new methods will be most profitable—often

these are the highly resilient lands with low

potential for productivity degradation. At the

same time, large parts of the Nation’s most

erosive and otherwise fragile cropland, pastureland, and rangeland are not being treated

with conservation practices.

The scientific community is showing renewed interest in the determinants of inherent

land productivity, A new U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) research program* is expected to study the relationships among soil

erosion, substitution of other resources, and

crop yields. But much work is needed to discover how inherent land productivity is affected by management of such factors as

organic matter, soil biology, irrigation water,

soil compaction, and soil chemistry. Furthermore, while Federal research efforts do develop needed improvements in existing technologies, improved mechanisms are needed for

developing and implementing innovative technologies.

Federal programs designed to affect crop

production and support farm incomes have

1

*The Soil Erosion-Soil Productivity Research Prolect.

had mixed effects on resource conservation.

While most such programs do affect the natural

resource base, they generally have not been designed to provide collateral conservation benefits. Little work, in fact, has ever been done

to analyze the interrelationships between agricultural policy and conservation. Mathematical models that would permit policy makers to

analyze relationships among conservation, production, and income objectives have not been

adequately developed. In many cases, the basic

physical and biological data necessary to build

such models are lacking.

Agricultural technologies have significant effects on a number of public goods other than

food and fiber production—e. g., water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. Sustaining production of these benefits does not have to conflict with sustaining

crop and forage production and could be an

explicit objective in developing site-specific

agricultural technologies.

On the whole, inherent land prouctivity is

deteriorating gradually. But neither the problems nor the potential solutions can be broadly generalized. Throughout this assessment,

scientists, farmers, and other agricultural experts have stressed the regional diversity and

site-specific nature of both degradation problems and technologies appropriate for dealing

with them, * If Federal policy is to be effective

in preserving inherent land productivity, it

must recognize the regional and local nature

of this issue. Dealing with acute localized problems may require politically difficult decisions

to reallocate Federal technical and financial

assistance, research, and extension work.

——— —. —

*This report has highlighted Alaska as an example of a region

with special agricultural potent ials and problems. Most of this

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

cropland is 5.4 tons per acre. * When wind erosion is included, the average erosion rate for

the Nation’s croplands is at least 7 tons per

acre. Meanwhile, soil is thought to form at an

average rate of only 0.5 ton per acre. Thus,

even though knowledge of soil formation rates

is grossly inadequate, it appears that soil is

eroded more than 10 times faster than it is

formed.

Nationally, erosion exceeded 5 tons per

acre* * on more than 112 million acres of cropland, including 33 percent of the corn land, 44

percent of the soybean land, 34 percent of the

cotton land, and 39 percent of the sorghum

land.

About 45 percent of the Nation’s total sheet

and rill erosion occurs on the most rapidly

eroding 6.5 percent of the cropland. Since it

is often unprofitable to protect highly erosive

sites, much of that land is farmed without the

benefit of any major erosion control technology. Aiming conservation efforts at the most

rapidly eroding sites could increase the cost effectiveness of programs designed to prevent

soil loss.

Soil loss rates are not the same as productivity loss rates, however. Many studies have

demonstrated that soil erosion reduces yields

for specific crops. But most of these studies

were conducted decades ago. In the interim,

crop production technologies have changed

substantially and the old data on yield reductions have little relevance to modern farming.

Consequently, it is impossible to accurately

compare the costs of erosion control technologies with their benefits. When the cost of substituting capital inputs for eroded soil is considered, some farms with low erosion and thin

soils may suffer more productivity loss than

farms with high erosion but deeper soil. Also,

*In this report, “tons per acre” refers to “tons per acre per

year. ” Erosion rates are from the 1977 National Resource Inventories, USDA, as revised in 1980.

**A rate of soil loss widely used as an objective for cropland

erosion control programs is 5 tons per acre. This number, called

the “T value, ” was selected by the founder of the Soil Conservation Service, Hugh H. Bennett, and has since been reaffirmed

by committees of Soil Conservation Service experts. However,

there is essentially no research to scientifically establish the 5

tons per acre T value.

from a national perspective, the seemingly low

rate of erosion on the majority of the land may

be more significant than the high loss rates occurring on a relatively small acreage, since the

latter lands account for a small proportion of

total national farm production,

Less is known about the rates and effects of

rangeland erosion. Wind and water erosion on

non-Federal rangeland averages 4.6 tons per

acre. As is the case with cropland erosion, a

large portion of the total tonnage eroded on

rangeland comes from a relatively small area—

on 91 percent of the non-Federal rangeland,

wind erosion is less than 2 tons per acre. The

most susceptible 3 percent of the land, however, erodes in excess of 14 tons per acre and

accounts for 31 percent of the total wind erosion. Because rangeland soils form so slowly,

and because they are so difficult and expensive to reclaim, even low rates of soil erosion

are cause for concern. Anecdotal evidence and

some data indicate that rangeland soils over

wide areas, particularly in the Southwest, are

so eroded that they can no longer provide adequate moisture storage to sustain a good cover

of forage plants.

Maintenance of soil cover (by plants and

crop residues) and other farm management

practices (e.g., the type, frequency, and timing

of tillage) are important ways to change cropland erosion rates. The most important new

technologies to control erosion in the near

future will be methods to minimize tillage on

row crop and small grain croplands. However,

none of the available erosion control technologies is likely to make row crop or small grain

farming sustainable on the most fragile cropland. The most effective means of controlling

erosion on such land is to cease using it for annual crops, planting it instead to permanent

pasture, orchard, or wildlife habitat. For the

long term, it may be possible to develop other

profitable crop systems using perennial plants.

On rangelands, erosion control methods include establishing adequate plant cover, reducing or eliminating compaction on overgrazed

sites and on overused animal and vehicle trails,

and manipulating the soil surface to increase

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

About 105 million acres of U.S. cropland

have wet soils. Although only some wet soils

are classified as “wetlands, ” many of the 3.8

million acres of wet soils converted to cropland

between 1967 and 1975 were indeed wetlands.

Their conversion meant the loss of valuable

habitats, reduced flood prevention, and the loss

of natural cleansing mechanisms for watersheds.

On the other hand, drainage of wet cropland

can enhance crop production significantly.

Wet soils often have high potential productivity

because they contain more organic matter than

soils that are not so wet. In the late 1960’s, concern mounted over the loss of true wetlands,

investment in drainage systems dropped, and

Federal cost sharing for drainage systems was

terminated, As a result, investment in subsurface drainage systems for the wet soils already

used as croplands has declined over the past

20 years,

Many existing drainage systems were built

in the early 1900’s and are outdated and need

repair. While repairing or replacing tile and

ditch systems appears to be cost effective for

individual farmers, outlet systems commonly

demand collective management. Cleaning and

maintenance need local funding. Cost sharing,

guaranteed loans, or developing farmers’ cooperatives could aid in the rejuvenation of

outlet systems.

Soil Compaction

Routine operation of tractors and other farm

equipment and trampling by livestock can

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 persistent layer of densely compacted soil, a “traffic

pan, ” may form just below the depth of tillage

operations. On rangelands, which are not normally tilled, animal trampling compresses surface soil so water cannot infiltrate and plants

cannot reproduce.

Concern over compaction has increased in

recent years, partly because the heavy machinery characteristic of modern farming is

thought to cause more compaction than lighter

machines. Soil compaction can cause crop

yield reductions as great as 50 percent. Some

soil types are more susceptible to compaction

than others, and susceptibility generally increases with increased soil moisture.

Timing field operations to avoid periods

when the soil is especially susceptible, and

plowing deeper than normal (“subsoiling”), are

effective ways to alleviate compaction. However, both can reduce short-term profits and

information is often inadequate for farmers to

make the best possible decisions.

On rangelands, the compaction problem is

not well understood and practical technologies

to correct it are not well developed. Both vehicle traffic and the hooves of grazing animals

can compact range soils. This constrains plant

growth, retards seed germination and seedling

emergence, and accelerates erosion.

Techniques to control rangeland compaction

include restricting vehicle traffic and intensively managing livestock to reduce their impact

on wet and other susceptible soils. However,

practical technologies to correct compaction

are not available and, as with croplands, data

are inadequate to optimize site management

and policy decisions.

Expert opinion on the national significance

of the compaction problem differs. Some scientists allege widespread damage to productive

lands in general, while others see damage occurring only on certain susceptible land. Data

have not been and are not being gathered to

indicate the location or extent of soil compaction constraints on productivity, although experts indicate that national data collection is

feasible.

SalinizatiOn

Irrigation can cause salinization of the land.

Cropland salinization is primarily a drainage

problem aggravated by incorrect application

of irrigation water. On irrigated fields, the Sun

and crops extract almost pure water, leaving

behind salts that had been dissolved in the

water. If the salt is not flushed deeper into the

ground by rainfall or additional irrigation, it

can concentrate in and on the surface soil,

ultimately destroying the land’s productivity.

But flushing salt into the ground does not

necessarily solve the salinization problem. If

subsurface conditions are relatively porous, the

saltwater may contaminate the ground water

supply. If subsurface conditions are relatively

impermeable, the salty water may drain into

the nearest river and flow to irrigators downriver. Saltwater may also accumulate beneath

the surface so that a salty, “perched” water

table accumulates. This can eventually rise and

damage crop roots.

Most crops cannot survive in saline environments. High salt concentrations harm

plants directly by causing physiological stress

and indirectly by destroying soil biota. Salinity has already constrained production on 25

to 35 percent of the irrigated land in the

Western United States, or about 5 percent of

the total national cropland. This 5 percent is

especially important because yields here are

higher, the growing season longer, and highvalue crops predominate on irrigated lands.

Salinization can have costly consequences.

For example, in the San Joaquin Valley, high,

salt-contaminated watertables under 400,000

acres are costing $32 million annually in reduced yields. Some 1 million to 2 million acres

of prime land in that region are expected to go

out of crop production during the next 100

years if salinization continues unchecked.

Salinization can be controlled with elaborate

drainage and disposal systems. Smaller scale,

less expensive approaches include using improved irrigation techniques and converting to

crops that use less water or tolerate more salt.

Although less costly, these management technologies have proven more difficult to imple-
Ch /—Summary ● 1 1

ment than large-scale, publicly funded engineering projects because they require attitude

changes and capital investments from many individual farmers. And whiIe small-scaIe technologies can reduce the accumulation of saline

water beneath irrigated fields, they will not

eliminate the need for drainage where subsurface conditions inhibit downward percolation—e.g., most irrigated areas in the Colorado

and San Joaquin has bains.

Ground Water Depletion’

The next several decades will bring a marked

decrease in the availability and quality of the

Nation ground water resources. This will significantly reduce the productivity of much irrigated agricultural land, especially in the

Southwestern States. The most severe problems will probably be confined to the West, but

some Eastern States will suffer local water

shortages and water quality problems that will

affect agricultural productivity.

Various technologies can alter irrigation and

farming systems and prolong the productivity y

of ground water resources, These vary from

modest changes in the way water is applied to

major changes in farm management such as

converting to perennial crops. Although changing the technologies used can reduce water

demands, the actual reduction in ground water

withdrawals that will result probably will be

small and will only postpone the exhaustion

of some major U.S. ground water reservoirs,

The technological change most likely to

occur in Western regions during the coming

decades will be the return of irrigated lands to

dryland farming or grazing, Such conversion

will cause sharp decreases in production, Also,

as wind erosion and other problems associated

with dryland farming develop, a continuing,

gradual decrease in land productivity can be

expected,

Although some schemes for recharging overdrawn aquifers* * have been proposed, the lack

*0”1’A 1s (.on(]u(:ting a more detailed study of this topic in a

separate assessment, \trater-Related “i’e(:hnologif~.s fi)r .Sustaim

ing ,@ri(:ulturf: in [ L .S. ,4rid and Sf?m iarid I,ands,

* *An aquifer IS a water-hearing undergroun(l layer of permeable r(x:k, sand, or ~ra~el.

of local water to replenish supplies and the

high energy costs involved in transporting

water from distant sources may preclude such

remedies. On a national scale, schemes for

long-distance water transport will have to be

compared with the alternatives of bringing

marginal agricultural lands into production in

the more water-abundant East or intensifying

production on prime agricultural lands.

The current lack of effective State and Federal policies to discourage wasteful water use

works against widespread adoption of waterconserving technologies. Ground water is a

common property resource, so individuals

have few economic incentives to practice conservation as long as others continue rapidly

depleting the resource.

Land Subsidence

Subsidence—the sinking or collapse of land

surfaces—is likely to become more common in

the United States as the use of ground water

and subsurface mineral resources intensifies.

Subsidence can occur in various circumstances: when cities, industries, and irrigated

agriculture withdraw large amounts of ground

water; when coal and other mineral resources

are mined; when there is solution mining of

salt or other subsurface mineral deposits; or

when large amounts of petroleum are extracted, All of these activities can result in slow

subsidence or the unexpected collapse of the

land surface. If agriculture overlies these areas,

it can suffer slow or immediate consequences.

The effect of subsidence on agriculture has

been most extensive in areas where ground

water mining for irrigation is common. For example, on 5,400 square miles of San Jacinta

Valley cropland in California, where irrigation

wells pump as much as 1,500 acre-ft of water

annually, land has subsided nearly 28 ft since

1935. Subsidence damages irrigation systems,

wells, buildings, drainage and flood control

structures, and other improvements. Data on

this problem seem to be adequate for agricultural planning purposes. Subsidence effects are

permanent and there are no attractive technological solutions.
12 . /mpacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Soil Organic Matter

Soil organic matter is important to soil productivity because it:

contributes to the development of soil aggregates, which enhance root development

and reduce the energy needed to work the

soil;

increases the air- and water-holding capacity of the soil, which is necessary for

plant growth, and helps to reduce erosion;

releases essential plant nutrients as it

decays;

holds nutrients from fertilizer in storage

until the plants need them; and

enhances the abundance and distribution

of vital soil biota.

The importance of these functions varies greatly from one soil type to another.

Soil scientists generally emphasize the positive influence organic matter has on land productivity, but it can affect productivity adversely in some cases. For example, because organic

matter holds soil moisture, it sometimes acts

indirectly to shorten the growing season by

delaying planting where moist soils warm

slowly in the spring.

Although modern farming practices can affect organic matter content, this study found

no data to indicate whether organic matter

levels have increased or decreased in the years

since widespread use of fertilizers replaced the

use of crop rotations. Recent research has focused on the production-enhancing effects of

off-farm inputs, and as a result soil scientists

have not studied the management of organic

matter to optimize land productivity under various modern farming systems.

Soil Organisms

Soil micro-organisms and larger soil invertebrates, such as earthworms and insects,

perform functions essential for plant growth.

Before the widespread availability of commercial fertilizers, nutrients recycled by the biota

were recognized as a major component of land

productivity and thus soil ecology ranked high

among the agricultural sciences. In recent decades, however, this aspect of soil science has

been largely neglected.

Agricultural scientists generally are not

alarmed about pesticides harming soil ecology

in the near term. Current insecticides and herbicides are tested for their impact on soil biota.

They inhibit some biological processes and

suppress particular types of biota, but generally

the gross effect of each pesticide application

seems neither great nor long-lived.

Frequent applications of toxic chemicals

probably change the composition of soil biota

communities, favoring species that can adapt

to the new chemical environment. The impact

of these changes on long-term land productivity is not known. Because methods are not wellenough developed to make practical differentiation among microbe species in

soil invertebrates are seldom

cumulative effect of agricultural

on productivity cannot be fully

Soil chemistry

the field, and

studied, the

technologies

measured.

The chemical composition of the soil also affects land productivity. The nutrients that cropland and rangeland plants extract from the soil

come naturally from decomposing organic

matter, from the weathering of soil minerals,

and in the case of nitrogen and sulfur, from the

atmosphere, Nutrients are removed from the

land by harvesting crops, livestock, and dairy

products, and by erosion, leaching, and (in the

case of nitrogen) loss to the atmosphere. In addition, nutrients can be changed chemically or

be bound to soil particles, thus becoming unavailable to plants.

To replace depleted nutrients, farmers used

to apply manure and grow “soil-building”

crops such as clover in rotation with “soildepleting” crops such as corn. While manure

is still returned to the land where it is available,

it is almost always supplemented with various

commercial fertilizers. Moreover, in recent

years many farmers have shifted to cash-grain

operations, eliminating most or all of their livestock. Thus, modern farming depends heavily
Ch. l—Summary ● 1 3

on nutrients provided by fertilizers from offfarm sources.

On rangelands, erosion commonly removes

more nutrients than are naturally replaced,

Unlike crop farmers, however, rangeland managers generally do not try to replace deficient

nutrients. Rather, they try to reduce erosion

rates to conserve the natural supply.

Wherever most of a farm’s production leaves

the farm, or accelerated erosion occurs, nutrients are removed faster than nature can replace

them, Short-term nutrient supplies can be

maintained with commercial fertilizers, but the

profitability of fertilizer use may decline in

future years because the manufacture of fertilizer depends on increasingly expensive fossil

fuel and other nonrenewable mineral resources.

Technologies to deal with the long-term deficit in nutrient supplies include erosion control, developing cropping systems that use the

nutrient reservoir more slowly and efficiently, and using special crop varieties and soil

biota to improve the availability of stored

nutrients.

Benefits her Than Crops and Forage

Agricultural lands are managed to produce

crops and forage, but other, less quantifiable

services from the land are also vitally important to the Nation’s well-being. These benefits

are often taken for granted or assumed to come

solely from nonagricultural land. The quality

of air, water, ground water, fish and wildlife

habitats, and esthetic and recreational areas is

directly related to croplands, pasturelands, and

rangelands.

Furthermore, an agroecosystem does not end

at the edge of a field or pasture, but includes

the boundaries—fences, hedgerows, windbreaks, nearby fallow fields, riparian habitats,

and adjacent undeveloped areas. As the quality and quantity of these areas is changed by

agricultural activities, the utilities obtained

from the land also change,

Land resources help maintain water and air

quality by cleansing water as it infiltrates into

ground water reservoirs, discharging relatively

clean water to streams and wetlands, cleansing air of pollutants, and reducing the dust content of air. To a large extent, conditions that

enhance long-term productivity for crops and

forage also enhance air and watershed quality. For example, fertilizers increase plant

growth, thus increasing ground cover and reducing erosion. But there are tradeoffs. Chemical applications appropriate for sustaining

production can pollute streams, wetlands,

aquifers, or the atmosphere. Generally, existing

data bases are inadequate for determining the

best solutions to these dilemmas, Other significant utilities that society obtains from agricultural lands, such as recreational, scenic, and

archeological resources, are even more difficult

to measure but are affected by changes in land

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 enStates 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 producand 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 condition than private and State ranges because the

Federal Government owns more land that is

inherently less resilient and more arid. Generally, the Federal ranges are in static condition

or are continuing to deteriorate, while range

condition is improving on better situated nonFederal lands,

Demands for rangeland products and services are expected to increase sharply in the

next two decades, and these demands can only

be met through improved range management.

A variety of management technologies has

been developed to improve and maintain deteriorated rangeland. Broadly categorized,

these include:

• adjusting livestock numbers,

•Q controlling animal use with grazing systems,

● promoting desired plant species, and

● controlling noxious plant and animal species.

Used in integrated systems with improved

fencing and water development methods, these

range management technologies could improve

and help sustain the Nation’s range resources.

Managing rangeland productivity for multiple uses is the stated goal of Federal range efforts, In practice, however, livestock production is usually the dominant objective on both

Federal and non-Federal ranges. Translating

general multiple-use, sustained-yield objectives

from laws into achievable field objectives is extremely difficult, especially when two or more

legitimate uses of the land are in conflict. However, there are some technologies available that

focus on other than livestock production. These

include fish and game management techniques, erosion control to decrease sedimentation of streams and reservoirs, and vegetation manipulation to increase watershed yields.

Little information, however, is available on the

opportunities and problems offered by such

technologies.

SUSTAINING CROPLAND PRODUCTIVITY

The United States has about 413 million

acres of cropland, including about 230 million

acres of prime farmland. Productivity on these

lands can be damaged by a variety of processes

including compaction, salinization, inadequate

drainage, subsidence, changes in the chemical

composition of the soil, and erosion. These

problems can be caused or aggravated when

crop production is increased.

But agricultural production does not have to

be harmful to the quality of the land resource.

On the contrary, production and conservation

can be mutually reinforcing if appropriate technologies are developed and used, For many

sites, innovative farming techniques are available that maintain or even enhance inherent

land productivity without sacrificing shortterm profits,

These innovations are in various stages of

development. Conservation tillage, the most

promising of the new technologies, is being

adopted rapidly in certain parts of the country. Multiple cropping is already used to expand production in many regions. Organic

agriculture, drawing on both old and new

knowledge, offers alternative farming systems

with important conservation potentials. Computer technologies and other developments in

communications, education, and farm planning are rapidly gaining importance, Cropping

perennial grains, on the other hand, is unlikely to be practical before the 21st century. Similarly, breeding crops for salt and other stress

tolerance is primarily a laboratory technology

at present. Eventually other new productivityconserving crops might come into use as methods and markets develop.

Although various innovative approaches to

conserving land productivity will become increasingly important in the future, existing

conservation technologies will continue to play

a key role in good land stewardship. Contour
Ch. /—Summary ● 1 5

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

systems is a slow process. Advances in science

can accelerate the development of a new technique, but it still must be tested and adapted

to site-specific conditions before it can be

recommended to farmers. This need for extensive testing and evaluation partly explains why

proponents of new technologies often consider

agriculture overly conservative. The conservatism is also explained by chronic shortages

of research funds, facilities, and personnel, *

Although agricultural scientists are besieged

with new and different ideas, practicality

forces them to concentrate their limited resources on promising avenues of research,

“Chronic funding shortages, research priorities, and other research management issue\ arc analyzed i n a recent OTA assessment, ,411 .Assessment of the United States Food and Agricultural

Research System, OTA-F-I 55 (Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing office, Decemher 1981).
16 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

which generally means on marginal improvements in conventional technologies,

Unfortunately, this approach can limit innovation. Scientists are protective of existing

projects and funding and seem reluctant to test

new ideas, especially if they come from outside the United States or from the trial-anderror experience of farmers, For example, drip

irrigation techniques developed abroad were

initially treated with great suspicion and little

research here. It was only after many farmers

had begun using drip systems that USDA tested

the method and began to assist its development. Similarly, rigorous testing of organic

farming techniques is still resisted by some

agricultural scientists.

Thus, while work on mainstream research

problems and priorities should continue, a

need exists for more rapid development of new

and innovative technologies. If this is to occur,

improved mechanisms must be developed to

screen and test new ideas. At present, such

ideas cannot compete for funding with the

major existing crops and systems that have

powerful constituencies among the electorate

and scientists.

Some conservation practices, such as conservation tillage, have proven profitable, low cost,

and low risk, yet are not used by many farmers

whose land is suitable for and in need of these

practices, Many factors, including the personal

characteristics of the farmer or rancher and the

attributes of the technology, influence this decisionmaking process,

Methods to encourage the adoption of conservation practices include: 1) information and

education programs; 2) economic programs

using subsidies, loans, privileged access to

resources, investment credits, and tax incentives; and 3) regulations with economic and

legal sanctions. In many cases, these a p -

proaches have failed to motivate widespread

adoption because they have not been adapted

to particular groups of farmers with special

social, economic, resource, and management

capability circumstances.

GOVERNMENT’$ ROLE

Government policies and programs that affect agricultural technology use and land productivity generally fall into one of two

categories: 1) those that promote economic

goals, either by developing and promoting production technologies or by manipulating shortterm economic factors; or 2) those that promote

conservation of natural resource productivity,

either by developing and promoting conservation technologies or by subsidizing investment

in conservation. The two types of Government

activities often operate simultaneously. Both

influence farmers’ decisions about technology

use and about resource conservation, but the

two influences are not always compatible.

Historically, economic programs supported

prices primarily by keeping land out of crop

production; hence no major effort was required

to integrate production and conservation policies. Now, with economic goals shifting to full

production, additional erosive or otherwise

fragile land is coming into production, making the need for integration much more significant.

A number of hypotheses exist about how

commodity price supports, credit and insurance programs, and tax policies interact

with technology decisions and with the longterm trends in land use that affect conservation. For example, agricultural support programs are said to be a cause of land price inflation, This leads to increased debt, which

reduces the economic flexibility that farmers

and ranchers need to invest in conservation

technologies. Some experts believe that commodity price supports and disaster insurance

programs have promoted unsustainable uses

of fragile land. It also appears that some tax

and credit policies make agriculture an attractive tax shelter for nonfarmer investors, encouraging absentee ownership and tenant
Ch.—Summary ● 17

farming. Although these kinds of relationships

between policy and productivity are often discussed, policy anaIysts and program administrators have few analytical tools to predict how

specific economic programs will influence

land productivity in the future.

Congressional mandates exist that direct

long-term resource appraisals to plan the

development of cropland and rangeland resources. These processes are important for formulating the policies that influence land productivity. Both the Resources Planning Act

(RPA) and the Resources Conservation Act

(RCA) processes are gradually becoming more

useful for these purposes. Political controversy over the findings has been a constraint, as

has the sometimes narrow scope of the appraisals. For example, the RPA report scarcely mentions rangeland soil erosion and the

RCA process failed to evaluate major Federal

conservation programs,

A major effort supporting conservation has

been the Agricultural Conservation Program,

a cost-sharing program that has distributed $8

billion since it was started in 1936. But Federal

cost-sharing programs for conservation practices are controversial, They have been criticized for supporting production rather than

conservation and for not directing funds to the

most susceptible land. The cost effectiveness

of programs to prevent soil erosion and productivity degradation could be improved if

more resources were directed toward those

lands that have the highest risk, However, such

redirection would be very imprecise until scientists learned to assess more accurately the

relative effects of various productivitydegrading processes.

One widely discussed proposal for integrating conservation policies with policies designed to manipulate production is to make

participation in the subsidy, insurance, and tax

programs contingent upon adoption of conservation practices. This “cross-compliance”

strategy loses force when strong export markets make price support programs less significant. However, greater constraints on the accessibility of disaster insurance and agricultural credit programs could contribute to some

conservation objectives. Any conservation

strategy that uses incentives or penalties must

be responsive to changing economic conditions, to the need for continuous (v. single-year)

conservation management inputs, and to the

special circumstances of the farmers who work

fragile lands.

Some mathematical models exist to simulate

the interrelated aspects of the U.S. agricultural

system, and these can improve understanding

of the relationships between economic and

conservation policies. But these models are not

sufficiently developed or widely used for rigorous, comprehensive assessment of policy

alternatives. If resource sustainability is set as

an explicit goal of both the Government-funded

technology development programs and the

commodity and credit programs, and if production enhancement is made an explicit goal

of the programs to develop and implement conservation technologies, it should become possible to improve agricultural production and inherent 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

how technologies are developed and used to

sustain inherent land productivity: 1) through

legislation, including budget appropriations, to

establish new programs or to change existing

ones; and 2) through committee oversight of

how existing laws and programs are administered. This assessment found that existing agricultural legislation does provide a sound base

for the Government activities that are needed

to accelerate the development and promotion

of productivity-sustaining technologies. Consequently, many of the options for congressional activity are related to congressional

guidance and oversight functions rather than

new legislation.

Opportunities for congressional action can

be categorized under five policy issues.

Integrating Conservation Policy With

Economic Policy

Because agricultural production and conservation of inherent productivity are not mutually exclusive, it should be possible to establish

farm economic policies that include conservation goals and to analyze the interactions of

current and proposed conservation and economic programs. Options for accomplishing

these ends include: 1) accelerating the development of analytical policy models that could be

used in the existing RCA and RPA programs

to evaluate policy alternatives, and 2) establishing a policy analysis office within USDA that

would develop a systematic process to assess

how agricultural policies affect inherent land

productivity.

Improving the Effectiveness of

Federal Conservation Programs

The Government’s conservation investments

could be more effective if they were concentrated on land where productivity degradation

is greatest and on the most effective technologies. However, there is political resistance to

redistributing program efforts and funds, and

substantial debate is likely to continue. The

redistribution of Federal conservation efforts

now occurring is expected to concentrate efforts on those sites where soil loss is highest.

Improved analysis of the site-specific relationships among erosion, other productivity-degrading processes, yield, and associated variables eventually should enhance the cost effectiveness of the program redistribution.

Conservation practices and production technologies with proven effectiveness for sustaining productivity are not being used on many

sites where they are needed. Farmers and

ranchers often are not convinced that available

conservation practices or productivity-sustaining approaches are profitable or technically

feasible for their particular situations. The

problem is one of demonstration and education; therefore, Congress could improve program effectiveness by mandating in-service

training and other programs that would enhance the capabilities of Federal, State, and

private sector agents to transfer technologies.

Enhancing Federal Capabilities TO

Dovelop Innovative Technologies

Farmers and ranchers correctly perceive that

there are many sites that simply cannot sustain

profitable use with the conservation technologies now available. Hence, there is a great

need for technology innovation and Congress

could act to accelerate the development of

productivity-sustaining technologies. Congress’

options include: 1) encouraging the federally

sponsored research network to make resource

sustainability an explicit goal for their research

programs and projects, and 2) directing particular USDA agencies and programs to evaluate and test innovative technologies that may

be outside the scope of mainstream research

efforts.

Reducing Pressure on Fragile Lands

Some land now in row crops and small

grains, and some overgrazed rangelands, will
Ch. /—Summary ● 1 9

not be able to sustain their current uses but

could be converted to uses more compatible

with the land’s inherent capability. However,

short-term profits from the sustainable uses are

often so low that farmers cannot afford the conversion. Thus, Congress has the option to establish a limited set-aside program to compensate farmers for such conversions. The program could pay farmers the difference between

what the land would earn from its most profitable, productivity-sustaining use and what it

now earns from the resource-consumptive use.

In the long run, as new technologies are developed, the need for such a subsidy could decline. Another long-term option that could reduce pressures on fragile lands would be to encourage agricultural development of resilient

potential croplands and grazinglands that are

in other uses now or are virgin.

Encouraging State initiatives

Since soil erosion was recognized as a critical issue in the 1930’s, most efforts in soil conservation have been organized at the Federal

level. Recently, however, several States have

taken important initiatives and have developed

effective programs in cost sharing and other

conservation approaches. The Federal Government is cooperating in these efforts, but there

are other opportunities to enhance existing

State programs and to encourage similar developments in other States. The options range

from low-cost efforts that would facilitate communication among States to funding arrangements that would reimburse States for part of

the cost-sharing expenses.
Chapter II

Land productivity Problems

“Shoestring” erosion on very poor condition rangeland

Photo credits: USDA—Soi/ Conservation Service

Row erosion in cornfield caused by heavy rains
Page

Soil Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The Mechanics of Soil Erosion . . . . . . . . . 23

Estimating Soil Erosion Rates . . . . . . . . . . 24

Magnitude of Soil Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Areas With High Erosion Rates . . . . . . . . . 32

Effects of Erosion on Crop Production. . . 34

Tolerable Level of Soil Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Other Costs Associated With Erosion . . . . 36

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Soil Compaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Process and Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Salinization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Ground Water Depletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Ground Water Overdraft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Degradation of Ground Water Quality . . . 51

Reduced Streamflow and Spring

Discharge Caused by Ground Water

Pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Subsidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Utilities Other Than Crops and Forage . . . . 5 6

Effects on Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Effects on Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Effects on Ground Water Resources .,... 5 9

Effects on Fish and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Chapter II References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

List of Tables

Table No. Page

l.Wind Erosion on Cropland and

Rangeland in the Great Plains

States, 1977. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2. Annual Sheet and Rill Erosion on

Cropland and the Amount of Erosion

in Excess of5 Tons per Acre, by

Erosion Interval, 1977. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3. Sheet andRill Erosionon Pastureland,

by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4. Sheet and Rill Erosion on Rangeland,

by State, 1977. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5. Potential for Cropland Use According

to the 1977 National Resource

Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

6. Summary of Buntley-Bell Erosion

Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

7. Effect of Topsoil Loss on Corn field.... 35

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

l. Average Annual Wind Erosion on

Non-Federal Rangeland in the Great

Plains States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2. Average Annual Sheet and Rill Erosion

on Non-Federal Rangeland, by State . . . . 30

3. Acreage for Domestic Use and Export,

1940-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4. Cropland Sheet andRill Erosion, 1977 . . 32

5. Wet Soilsby State and Farm

Production Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

6.Water Budget for the Conterminous

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

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

soil erosion in 1928. Research stations were

established and both the process of erosion and

its effects on crop yields were studied extensively. By the early 1950’s, many studies indicated how much yields would be reduced

with each inch of topsoil lost. U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA) officials, judging the

data to be adequate on that aspect of the problem, closed out most of the research on how

erosion affects yields. But because there has

since been a revolution in agricultural methods, the old data on yield reductions are inadequate for decisionmaking by Government or individual farmers.

Research on the causes and rates of erosion

and on techniques for controlling erosion did

continue after the closing of the erosion research stations, as much because of concern

about erosion-caused water pollution as because of concern about agricultural productivity, Thus, much is known about methods and

direct costs of controlling erosion, but very little about the benefits of such investments or,

conversely, about the short- and long-term

costs of allowing erosion to continue at its present accelerated rates.

The Mechanics of Soil Erosion

Water and wind cause soil erosion. The force

of raindrops striking exposed earth detaches

soil particles, which are then carried away if

the water runs off the surface rather than soaking into the soil, Even without the force of raindrop splashes, runoff water can detach and

carry away soil. Thus, the exposure of bare soil

and the rates and volumes of overland waterflow are the critical factors in water-caused

erosion.

There are four major categories of watercaused erosion: 1) sheet erosion is the removal

of a soil layer of fairly uniform thickness by

runoff water; 2) rill erosion occurs as small

channels form on the soil surface; 3) gully erosion is an advanced state of rill erosion, where

the channels become deeper than 1ft; and

4) streambank erosion is the process of stream

widening. Of these types, sheet and rill erosion

cause the most damage.

Most serious erosion by water occurs where

land has one or more of the following characteristics, and erosion control generally involves

modifying these:

● steep slopes or long slopes that allow runoff water to gain momentum;

Ž exposure of tilled, bare soil without protection by cover crops or organic residue,

This often occurs between the harvesting

of one crop and the establishment of the

next crop’s leaf canopy;

● row crops alined up and down steep or

moderate slopes;

● runoff from upslope pastures flowing

across cropland;

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

Ž poor water absorption and poor drainage

that result in less water entering the soil

and more water running off;

● poor stands of low-quality vegetation; and

. lack of vegetation along streams.

Wind causes erosion when it blows across

poorly protected soil with enough force to lift

and move soil particles. Drier and more finely

granulated soil is more susceptible to wind erosion. Since soil is driest and vegetation poorest

during droughts, which are characteristic of

the Great Plains and Western States, this is

where the highest wind erosion rates occur. As

recently as 1977 several drought-stricken regions experienced severe duststorms. Soil surfaces stripped of vegetation for dryland farming and overgrazed rangeland provided much

of the soil for these recent storms (Wilshire, et

al., 1980) as they did for the infamous dust bowl

storms during the prolonged drought of the

1930’s.

Although eroded soil is commonly described

as “lost, “ it does not in fact vanish, Much of

the soil moved by water remains in the same

field, but farther down the slope. The portion

of the soil that is actually lost from cropland

or forage-producing land varies from one site

to the next, depending on the shape of the

slopes and other factors. (On the average, about

one-fourth of the cropland soil moved by water

erosion each year becomes sediment in streams

and about 8 percent reaches the ocean (Miller,

1981). The fate of wind-carried soil is less wellknown, but the reported wind erosion rates do

not always represent net losses from the affected region.

With both wind and water erosion, the material that is most likely to be lost is the best

part of the soil: water soluble plant nutrients,

lightweight organic matter, and tiny clay particles, which have the highest ability to store

fertilizers and naturally occurring nutrients.

These are moved first and farthest by both

wind and water erosion.

The soil that moves downslope in the field

is less fertile and more subject to drought than

it was before it was moved. How croplands and

rangelands are generally affected by deposits

of such soil is not well understood. Nutrients

transported with the eroded soil may benefit

the site where the soil is deposited, but, conversely, superior soils may be buried by inferior

material. Further, drainage can be impeded by

deposited soil and soil particles carried by the

wind can severely damage vegetation and

cause partial or complete loss of crops.

Erosion is a self-reinforcing process, It lowers the fertility and water-holding capacity of

the soil by removing nutrients and organic matter. As a consequence, plant growth is less and

the soil is less protected. So the erosion accelerates more and more, unless the cycle is broken

by a change in farming practices or a change

in land use.

Estimating Soil Erosion Rates

The universal soil loss equation (USLE) relates measurements of five variables to estimate

water-caused sheet and rill erosion. The variables are: precipitation; erosion potential of the

soil type (which depends on texture, structure,

and organic matter content); length and steepness of slope; type of plant cover and management conditions (tillage); and supporting practices for erosion control (e. g., terraces, contour

farming, and stripcropping).

Research on USLE began in the 1940’s, and

by 1965 Soil Conservation Service (SCS) personnel were able to use it to estimate sheet and

rill erosion rates accurately on most unirrigated croplands and to predict how erosion

would be affected by changes in management

or by specific conservation measures. Since

1965, more sophisticated computer models

have been developed for more precise estimates, but USLE remains the most important

technique because it is based on a pragmatic

set of measurements and the calculations can

be done on site. USLE has been adapted for

erosion estimates on other land uses, but still

needs refinement for conditions such as irrigated land and for atypical sites where soils

are highly weathered (e.g., the Caribbean

islands), poorly drained with long slopes (e. g.,

the Mississippi Delta), or where precipitation

is atypical (as in parts of the Western States
Ch. /l—Land Productivity Problems ● 2 5

where most erosion is caused by snowmelt runoff). Recently, USDA increased the research

budget for the soils laboratory at Purdue University to further refine US LE.

A similar equation to estimate wind erosion

(WEQ) uses measurements of five variables:

soil erodability, soil ridge roughness, climate,

width of field, and vegetative cover. Estimates

from WEQ are not considered to be as accurate

as the USLE estimates and fewer SCS personnel are expert in its use, Consequently, wind

erosion data are lacking for much of the United

States.

USLE and WEQ have vastly improved the

reliability of erosion data for every level of conservation decisionmaking. Conservation plans

for specific farms rely heavily on erosion rate

predictions to indicate the appropriate level of

management conservation structure investment, At the regional and national level, the

equations are now used in the National Resource Inventory INRI) conducted periodically by SCS to collect information for Government policymaking.

The accuracy of the NRI data depends not

only on the USLE and WEQ equations but also

on the design of the sample survey that determines what fields are measured for the inventory. The first year that the equations were providing accurate estimates for the national

survey was 1967, but the sampling procedure

was flawed and the 1967 data are not considered to be reliable for comparison to more

recent data. The 1977 NRI was the first national survey to use a valid sampling procedure

and the modern equations. The next NRI is under way in 1982. Until the 1982 data are available, the only reliable set of data on erosion

rates at the national scale are from the 1977

NRI.

The 1977 NRI data are considered accurate

estimates of sheet and rill erosion on croplands

and pasturelands for most States, rough estimates of sheet and rill erosion on rangelands

in the Western States, and fair estimates of

wind erosion in the 10 Great Plains States.

Wind erosion in the other States and gully and

streambank erosion in general are not well

covered by that NRI. The 1982 NRI will improve on those weaknesses, and the data for

sheet and rill erosion are expected to be comparable for the two surveys. Unless otherwise

indicated, erosion rates cited in this report

refer to the NRI estimated amount of soil

eroded (in tons per acre) in 1977.

Magnitude of Soil Erosion

Water-caused erosion on non-Federal land

totals about 5 billion tons per year. Of that, 5

percent is from roads and construction sites,

6 percent from gullies, 11 percent from streambanks, 3 percent is sheet and rill from pastureland, 8 percent is sheet and rill erosion from

rangelands, 38 percent is sheet and rill erosion

from croplands, and the remaining 29 percent

is sheet and rill erosion from forests and other

land. Thus, the greatest sheet and rill erosion

occurs on the 413 million acres of cropland.

No similar national data exist on windcaused erosion. For the 10 Great Plains States

where the wind erosion is greatest, an estimated 1.5 billion tons of soil are moved by the

wind each year (fig, 1). Of that, 45 percent is

from the 10 States’ rangelands, and 55 percent

is from the croplands (table 1).

Cropland

Erosion occurs on nearly all the Nation’s 413

million acres of cropland, but a high proportion of both water- and wind-caused erosion

is concentrated on a relatively small proportion of the land. The national average sheet and

rill erosion rate on cropland is 4.7 tons per acre

(USDA, NRI, 1980), but much of the land is

eroding more slowly than this. Half the cropland has sheet and rill erosion rates of 2 tons

per acre or less. At the same time, the most

rapidly eroding 2 percent of the land has erosion rates over 30 tons per acre and accounts

for 25 percent of all the sheet and rill erosion

from cropland (see table 2).

The distribution of wind erosion over the

landscape is similarly uneven. In the Great

Plains States, wind erosion on croplands averages 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

(tons per acre) on Non-Federal Rangeland in the

Great Plains States

None

0.9

None

NOTE The average IS 18 tons per acre

SOURCE: 1977 National Resource Inventories

the erosion occurs on 9 percent of the land.

This highly fragile cropland erodes at rates

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 relatively 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

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

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,

liming, reseeding, and better livestock management—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

Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grand total. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4,849

19,816

8,177

17,698

720

18,719

8,233

9,873

12,982

2,112

103,179

(1,000 acres)

1,788 2,037 2,419

3,946 3,786 1,258

3,747 2,657 774

1,625 1,016 360

346 659 557

5,598 2,486 110

1,379 1,543 628

5,620 2,356 343

1,962 6,249 9,246

271 527 60

26,282 23,316 15,755

23,258

15,765

38,834

21,626

27,316

10,393

14,537

22,191

85,749

24,947

55

112 —

234

4,841

48

15

7

2,539

403

82 406

11 2 287 — —

46 95

5,282 4,657

58 65

14 – — —

2,784 4,329

281 538

34,894

45,082

54,189

42,700

44,378

37,477

26,349

40,354

125,840

29,139

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 ● 2 7

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

Erosion interval Total acres

(tons per acre) (millions)

0-1 ......., . . . 131.6

1-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.6

2-3. ......, . . . 51.5

3-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.9

4-5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0

5-6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.6

6-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,6

7-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3

8-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,3

9-10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8

10-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,8

11-12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7

12-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0

13-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8

14-15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4

15-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8

20-25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4

25-30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9

30-50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,5

50-75. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,3

75-100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8

100+ . . . . . . . . . . 0.7

Total, . . . . . . . . . . . 413,3 –

SOURCE 1977 National Resource lnventories -

Total erosion Cumulative

Total sheet in excess of 5 percentageof

Cumulative and rill erosion Cumulative tons per acre erosion in

percentage (millions percentage (millions excess of 5

of acreage

31.8

49.8

62.3

71.0

77.3

81.6

84.6

86.9

88.7

90.1

91.3

92.2

92.9

93.6

94.2

96.1

97.1

97.8

99.1

99.6

99.9

100,0

muchas 50percent(USDA, 1981)whilereducing erosion. Unfortunately, a more likely scenariois that a significant part of thelandused

for pasture in 1977 will be converted to use for

row crops and small grains, and that this shift

will cause a significant increaseinerosion on

that land (Miller, 1981).

Rangeland

Rangeland is land where the natural plant

cover of grass, forbs, or shrubs produces forage for livestock and wildlife, but where management is typically limited to manipulations

of livestock grazing patterns. Reseeding, fertilization, tillage, and other inputs are uncommon. Erosion is the major force degrading the

inherent productivity here, too.

Because rangeland is located in the arid and

semiarid Western States and in Alaska, climatic limitations on plant growth make the land

highly susceptible to any misuse that leaves the

soil exposed to wind, rain, and snowmelt runof tons) of erosion of tons) tons per acre

49.2 2.6 0.0 0.0

110.6 8.3 0.0 0.0

127.5 14.9 0.0 0.0

125.0 21.4 0.0 0.0

116.3 27,4 0.0 0.0

96.2 32.4 8.2 0.9

81.8 36.6 18.6 2.9

69.4 40,2 23.0 5.4

62.0 43.4 25.4 8.1

54.6 46,2 25.8 10.9

50.2 48,8 26.3 13.7

43.1 51.0 24.4 16.3

36.9 52.9 22,1 18.7

37.1 54.8 23.3 21.2

34.6 56.6 22.7 23.6

134.8 63.6 95.8 33.9

98.0 68.7 76.0 42.1

80.6 72.9 65.8 49.2

209.9 83.8 182.4 68.8

133.8 90.7 122.5 82.0

64.4 94.0 60.6 88.5

109.8 100.0 106.3 100.0

1,925.8 929.2

off. Overgrazing is the most common misuse

of rangelands. It causes partial or complete destruction of the grass cover. The overall condition of U.S. rangeland is discussed in chapter

III.

Sheet and rill erosion on the 414 million

acres of non-Federal rangeland averages 2.8

tons per acre (see table 4 and fig. 2). As on

croplands and pastureland, much of the erosion is concentrated on a relatively small part

of the land. The sheet and rill erosion rate is

over 5 tons on the most rapidly eroding 12 percent of the land. That 12 percent accounts for

57 percent of total sheet and rill erosion on nonFederal rangelands.

Neither is wind erosion evenly distributed on

rangelands. Most non-Federal rangeland has

wind erosion rates of less than 2 tons per acre,

but the most susceptible 3 percent of the land,

eroding at 14 tons and more per year, accounts

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+

Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3,681

11

3,765

1,028

1,317

103

21

5,399

2,960

596

1,058

2,013

1,480

3,101

2,071

3,624

2,759

246

388

85

1,116

2,752

2,994

8,352

2,528

2,120

260

95

139

341

2,050

1,607

1,514

1,749

7,064

1,678

1,386

16

1,185

2,384

3,920

15,942

580

456

2,114

1,215

835

2,173

701

321

—

838

57

128

6

89

221

201

—

412

258

678

413

835

107

—

60

3

76

77

589

1,881

80

422

—

—

1

1

130

252

30

377

1,132

84

206

2

28

21

964

1,780

46

34

475

21

351

313

25

1,000 acres

120

—

599

38

107

3

1

55

40

113

6

350

239

573

144

686

59

3

25

3

24

44

279

1,747

4

227

38

—

—

—

75

163

—

311

440

5

118

—

24

8

405

857

—

3

434

16

486

202

10

—

—

426

4

46

.

—

—

13

82

45

295

170

178

73

590

20

—

13

—

14

16

179

843

35

130

.

—

4

40

31

8 —

178

77 —

87 —

5

—

185

189 —

12

251 —

365

50

—

104,972 14,026 9,084 4,654

289 107 173 294

105,261 14.133 9.257 4.948 >- -

SOURCE 1977 National Resource Inventories.
Ch. //—Land Productivity Problems ● 2 9

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. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii. ..., . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . .

Idaho. ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa. ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maine ..........,.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Michigan, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire. . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Jersey. ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wisconsin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—

—

25,544

90

9,607

15,659

—

—

3,002

—

—

6,315

—

—

—

11,692

—

326

—

—

—

—

110

15

35

32,088

15,378

4,970

—

—

33,896

—

—

9,736

—

10,954

8,615

—

—

—

19,496

—

74,009

7,271

—

—

4,580

—

4

19,547

— —

— —

3,981

53

3,049

2,586

—

—

5,417

61

2,439

3,867

149

44

2,459

1,689 — —

—

15

—

—

—

—

— — —

— —

89

—

—

171 14 — —

— — —

— —

1,643

—

—

—

—

2,470 471 — —

— —

— —

— — —

— — —

— — —

— —

10 — 5 — —

2,110

1,953

1,074

—

—

3,609

4,129

1,1!39

1,027

541

108 — —

— —

2,195

—

—

5,190 815 —

—

229

—

1,095

285

—

—

—

394

—

2,095

1,195

—

205 —

422

15 —

—

—

947

—

6,158

646

—

—

444

—

1,489 266 —

10,427

1,090

—

4,807

378

—

—

926

—

91

—

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

As export demand for U.S. crops continues

to grow, the Nation will see changes in cropping patterns and gradual increases in the acreage farmed (CEQ-NALS, 1981). Between 1969

and 1980, for example, increased demand

caused a 22-percent increase in the acreage

planted to crops in this country. Land in row

crops increased by nearly 50 million acres,

while wheat alone increased by 27 million

acres. The amount of cropland planted to row

crops grew from 40 to 53 percent (fig. 3).

Generally, the best croplands are already in

use, so the land available for conversion to

cropland is inherently less suitable for farming, Thus, increased erosion can be expected

as these more susceptible lands are brought

into use. In one study designed to examine this

issue, Miller (1981) used the 1977 NRI data to

project sheet and rill erosion rates that would

occur on potential cropland should these lands

be cultivated for row crops and small grain

crops.

First, the study looked at the 69 million acres

of land classified as cropland that was actually being used for rotation hay, pasture, or other

uses. If this land was converted to row crops

and small grains and cultivated with conserva-
Ch. I/—Land Productivity Problems ● 3 1

c

.—o

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

250

1 -

200

For domestic use

150

t

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

of 9.9 tons per acre. This is 83 percent higher

erosion than current rates for row crop and

small grain cropland.

Next the study examined acreage with high,

medium, and low potential for conversion to

cropland (table 5). “High potential” land is land

with favorable physical characteristics where

there is evidence of similar land nearby having

been converted to cropland. There were 39 million acres of such land in 1977, most of it in

use as pasture. If conservation tillage were

used to bring high potential land into row crop

and small grain production, the expected averTable 5.—Potential for Cropland use According to

the 1977 National Resource Inventories (SCS)

(millions of acres)

High Medium Low Zero

Pastureland. ., ... , 18 33 47 35 -

Rangeland . . . . . . . . . 9 30 98 271

Forestland . . . . . . . . . 7 24 109 230

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 15 51

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 91 269 587

SOURCE National Agricultural Land Study (1981)

age erosion rate would be 6.5 tons per acre, 20

percent above the current average erosion rates

for row crop and small grain cropland,

If conservation tillage were used to bring the

87 million acres described as having “medium

potential” for conversion to croplands into production, the expected average erosion would

be 9.6 tons per acre, 77 percent more than the

current average erosion.

The actual amount of land that will be converted to crops in the future depends both on

demand and on how successful improved management and technologies are in increasing

yields from the cropland already in use. An

estimated 36 million to 143 million acres of additional cropland may come into production

by 2000(Cook, 1981). Ideally, the first land converted would be that with the lowest erosion

potential, But analysis indicates that on the

average the lands that are available for conversion are substantially more susceptible to erosion than the lands already in use, so erosion

will increase. The newly cropped land will contribute greatly to the Nation’s production of

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

be substantial.

Areas With High Erosion Rases

Every year, the Nation’s row crop and small

grain cropland erodes at an average rate of 5.4

tons per acre. Yet topsoil is thought to form at

a rate of only 0.5 ton per acre or less. Thus,

even though knowledge of soil formation rates

is grossly inadequate, it appears that soil is lost

at least 10 times faster than it is formed (Larson, 1981). Agricultural areas experiencing

high erosion have been identified in most parts

of the United States (fig, 4). Some of the important high erosion areas include:

Hawaii.—After native vegetation has been

stripped from semitropical soils for cultivation,

the soils are susceptible to sheet and rill erosion under heavy rains, especially on sloping

land, In 1977, Hawaii cropland eroded at an

average annual rate of 14.2 tons per acre.

Southern High Plains.—Dryland and irrigated cotton farming dominates this region of

western Texas and eastern New Mexico. The

loamy soils are susceptible to wind erosion,

especially during winter and early spring windstorms when the fields are bare, Annual wind

erosion here averages 20 to 50 tons per acre.

The Palouse Basin.— This region covers parts

of eastern Washington and adjacent Idaho

along the western border of the Idaho panhandle, and is dryfarmed for wheat, barley,

peas, and lentils. Most of the cropland is hilly

and possesses erosive loess* soil with slopes

*Loess is a fine-grained, wind-deposited sediment of glacial

origin that was formed some 10,000 years ago, whose composition 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

snow and heavy rains causes erosion of 50 to

100 tons per acre.

Texas Blackland Prairie. —This region comprises an important farming area in east-central

Texas. Two-thirds of it is cropped mainly in

cotton and grain sorghum. Rainfall averages

30 to 50 inches and the terrain is gently rolling. Many of the region’s soils are highly erodible; sheet and rill erosion averages 10 to 20

tons per acre per year.

The Corn Belt States.–Iowa cropland eroded

(sheet and rill) at an average rate of 10 tons per

acre in 1977, Illinois cropland at 6.8 tons per

acre, and Missouri cropland at 12 tons per

acre.

Southern Mississippi Valley.—The soils of

this area are deep, fertile, and erodible. Much

of the cropland is sloping, some steeply, and

row crops are grown without adequate conservation practices. In 1977, Tennessee cropland

experienced average sheet and rill erosion of

17 tons per acre, and Mississippi cropland 11

tons per acre.

Aroostook County, Maine. -Potatoes are

grown here on lands with slopes up to nearly

25 percent. Since cultivation began, the upper

2 ft of soil have been lost to erosion. Some sloping fields are losing as much as an inch of soil

per year.

The Caribbean,—Agricultural soils in Puerto

Rico and the Virgin Islands are eroding at extremely high rates. The 1977 NRI indicates that

cropland here experienced average sheet and

rill erosion of 49 tons per acre, and rangelands

50 tons per acre.
34 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Effects of Erosion on Crop Production

Soil erosion reduces inherent land productivity in a variety of ways:

 loss of soil organic matter and of fine clays,

and, thus, loss of plant nutrients and nutrient-retention capacity;

● loss of a soil’s water retention capacity as

organic matter is removed and soil structure deteriorates; and

● loss of rooting depth as soil becomes thin.

In the absence of fertilization (whether by

commercial products or by animal or green

manure) or the application of other capital inputs, crop production suffers as erosion progresses. Numerous studies have documented

this phenomenon, but few of them have been

conducted since the 1940’s.

As the National Soil Erosion-Soil Productivity Research Planning Committee of USDA has

explained (Williams, et al,, 1981), there are two

reasons for the lack of research on the effects

of erosion on crop production: 1) such experiments are costly and time-consuming and

years of data are needed to evaluate the effects

of the generally slow process; and ) crop production has been adequate in the past, resulting

in little incentive for investment in this type

of research. A few recent field experiments

demonstrate that erosion can drastically reduce

crop yields. However, climatic characteristics

vary widely throughout the United States and

have important effects on both soil erosion and

crop production, Therefore, research conducted in one physiographic land area often

cannot be generalized.

Some studies have examined the relationship

between soil erosion and crop yields. But this

is not necessarily the same as the relationship

between soil erosion and productivity because

technology can mask the impacts of erosion.

Excessive erosion may or may not change crop

yields but it invariably requires farmers to apply more inputs (including fertilizers, seeds,

pesticides, irrigation, etc.). Substituting technology for soil entails a real cost because of the

value of the resources, such as energy, used,

Such substitutions could become more difficult

if escalating energy prices make fertilizer, irrigation, and other inputs even less affordable

to farmers. Thus, there are hidden and very

poorly quantified costs associated with erosion,

and these costs are not reflected by crop yields

alone.

The studies that document the relationship

between erosion and yields can provide a

rough indication of the effect of current farming practices on inherent land productivity.

Hagan and Dyke (1980) compared estimated

yields on eroded and noneroded sloping soils

using data from SCS soil surveys. For the Corn

Belt, they estimated that for each inch of “A”

horizon (topsoil) lost through erosion, corn

yields were reduced by 3 bushels per acre.

Other evidence shows that as soil erodes and

changes from the slightly eroded to the severely

eroded class, yields are reduced 23 bushels per

acre for oats, and 1.1 tons per acre for hay

(McCormack and Larson, 1980).

In western Tennessee, crop yields from severely eroded Memphis loam formed on thick

loess were 14 percent less than yields from the

same noneroded soil, Yields from severely

eroded Granada soil were 26 percent below

those from its noneroded equivalent and the

yields from the severely eroded Brandon soils

were 50 percent less (table 6), Table 7 shows

the direct relationship between topsoil losses

and decreased corn yields.

Note, however, that studies conducted in the

North-Central United States, in areas where

soils are formed in thick loess, show that erosion has little or no effect on productivity. A

study of three experimental sites near Council Bluffs, Iowa, indicates that whereas corn

yields were lower on the more eroded sites at

the beginning of the study, the yield differences

largely disappeared after a few years (Spomer,

et al., 1973). A similar study, also in western

Iowa, showed that even after some 7 ft of loess

soil had been removed, crop yields were about

the same as on the original soil surface (Moldenhauer and Onstad, 1975). Erosion of thick

loess soils does little damage to crop yields in

the short term because the underlying material

is similar to that which has been eroded. Where
Ch. //—Land Productivity Problerns ● 3 5

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Eroded . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Severely eroded. . . . . . . . . . . .

Grenada slit loam:

O to 5 percent slope

Noneroded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Eroded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Severely eroded. ., . . .

Brandon silt loam:

2 to 12 percent slope

Noneroded. . . . . . .

Eroded . . ... . . .’. . .

Severely eroded, . . . . . . . . . .

SOURCE Buntley and Bell, 1976

110

105

95

95

85

70

80

70

45

40

36

32

40

30

24

30

20

16

Table 7.— Effect of Topsoil Loss on Corn Yield

Percent

decrease

in corn

Original topsoil thickness 10 to 12 inches yield

2 inches eroded (8 to 10 inches remaining), .‘. . . 7

4 inches eroded (6 to 8 inches remaining). . .......14

6 inches eroded (4 to 6 inches remaining). ., . . . . ,25

8 inches eroded (2 to 4 inches remaining), . .. ..,37

10 inches eroded (2 inches or less remaining). .. ,52

SOURCE Pimentel et al 1976

the loess is thin and the underlying material

is dissimilar to the eroded loess, crop yields

show dramatic decreases (Buntley and Bell,

1976).

Scientists do not fully understand the mechanisms that cause yield reductions from erosion.

Certainly a major factor is the reduced water

retention capacity of soils from which organic

matter has been eroded, In addition, loss of

organic matter reduces the capacity of soils to

store plant nutrients such as nitrogen, calcium,

potassium, and, to a lesser degree, phosphorus.

When reduced productivity results solely

from loss of nutrients, it can often be restored

by applying fertilizers. Studies have shown, for

example, that some eroded Corn Belt soils

recover most or all of their lost productivity

with adequate application of chemical fertilizers. Soils of the Southeastern United States

behave differently, however, because these are

54 1,060 4.2

52 1,030 4.2

48 940 4.0

53 940 4.0

46 875 3.7

40 750 3,2

49 815 4.0

47 750 3.3

38 535 2.7

deeply weathered and lack the type of soil clay

minerals that can hold fertilizer nutrients for

plants. These soils rely heavily on organic matter for nutrient storage, so yields on eroded

soils are measurably lower, even after nutrients

are supplied by fertilizers.

It is not clear whether the continued application of chemical fertilizers to maintain productivity will be economical over the long run as

soils erode. Of growing concern are the rising

amounts and costs of nitrogen and phosphate

fertilizers required to maintain yields as less

fertile subsoils are exposed and cultivated, And

where the productivity of eroded soil declines

for reasons other than nutrient loss (e. g., loss

of moisture retention capacity), it is sometimes

difficult for farmers to identify the cause of the

decline or its remedy.

Overall, adequate knowledge about how’ various soil types are affected by long-term erosion

is lacking. As long as only sparse data exist,

there is the risk that the productive capacity

of the land will be impaired permanently.

The recent formation of the National Soil

Erosion-Soil Productivity Research Planning

Committee within USDA is an encouraging development. The committee was given three objectives:

1. to determine what is known about the

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) identifying research accomplishments, and

c) identifying current research efforts;

2. to determine what additional knowledge

is needed; and

3. to develop a research approach for addressing the problem.

With adequate funding and followup, this effort could be a significant step toward answering the soil erosion/soil productivity question.

Tolerable Level of Soil Loss

“It is not possible to prevent erosion, ” notes

a recent text on soil conservation, “but it is both

possible and necessary to reduce erosion losses

to tolerable rates. Tolerable soil loss is the maximum rate of soil erosion that will permit the

indefinite maintenance of soil productivity”

(Troeh, et al., 1980).

Soil loss tolerances (T-values) are set by SCS

and profess to consider the depth of soil, the

type of parent material, the relative productivity of topsoil and subsoil, and the amount of

previous erosion.

The maximum tolerance loss, 5 tons per acre

per year, is for deep, permeable, well-drained,

productive soils, The minimum loss rate, 1 ton

per acre per year, is for shallow soils having

unfavorable subsoils and parent materials that

severely restrict raot penetration and development (Troeh, et al., 1980), Soils that have experienced severe erosion receive a lower T-value

than comparable noneroded soils,

The USDA Soil Erosion-Soil Productivity Research Planning Committee (Williams, et al.,

1981) has noted:

SCS periodically reviews the soil loss tolerance limits (T-values) for all major soils , , . .

There is essentially no research base to support T-values; they were established and are

revised on the basis of collective judgments by

soil scientists (emphasis added).

The most important reason for setting the

maximum T-value at 5 tons per acre per year

is that this fits the rough estimate of the yearly rate of “A” horizon formation on well-managed, permeable, medium-textured cropland

soils. At this rate, an inch of subsoil becomes

topsoil every 30 years. However, soil horizon

formation rates vary greatly, and are likely to

be much slower in soils of finer [i.e., higher clay

content) texture.

It has been stated that the “fallacy” of this

criterion is that it does not consider that the

root zone becomes more shallow as erosion

occurs. Thus, the weathering of parent rock or

deeper soil horizons is a distinctly different

phenomenon from the formation of the “A”

horizon, In most soils it proceeds much more

slowly. Understanding root zone formation is

vital to predicting the long-term effects of erosion, but data on these rates are very scarce.

Renewal at 0.5 ton per acre per year is thought

to be a useful estimate for most unconsolidated

materials. For most consolidated material

[rock), rates are much slower (McCormack and

Larson, 1980).

In practice, however, it would be extremely

difficult—if not impossible—to limit erosion on

most cropland to 0.5 ton per acre per year without either major reductions in production or

fundamental changes in the methods of agriculture. The T-value that USDA has designated

for most soils (almost 60 percent of the soil

types] is 5 tons per acre per year. Because of

data inadequacies, this value may be too high

for some soils and too low for others.

USDA’s T-values provide farmers with a

realistic target at which to aim as they work

to reduce their soil erosion rates, but the values

do not provide scientifically grounded criteria

for determining whether the long-term productivity of the land is being sustained under

today’s agricultural practices.

Other Costs Associated With Erosion

Although they are difficult to quantify, there

are costs other than decreased crop yields associated with soil erosion. One cost is the fertilizer value of eroded topsoil. If the losses of the

major plant nutrients—nitrogen, available

phosphorus, and available potassium—in the

2 billion tons of soil removed by sheet and rill
Ch. II— Land Productivity Problems ● 37

erosion each year are calculated at current

prices, they would have an annual value of

roughly $8 billion (CAST, 1982). Some of these

nutrients are deposited on lower slopes; however, as much as half are lost from cropland

areas. They contribute to water pollution or are

deposited on flood plains not used for cropland.

If 25 percent of eroded soil is lost as sediment

(Miller, 1981), a conservative estimate is that

the costs associated with the replenishment of

fertilizer nutrients lost to erosion range from

$1 billion to $4 billion each year. Dredging

costs attributable to erosion have been estimated at $60 million (McCormack and Larson,

1980).

Flood plain overwash and sedimentation of

reservoirs caused by eroded soil are other results of erosion, but estimates of their costs

vary enormously, from $50 million (CAST,

1975] to $1 billion (McCormack and Larson,

1980]. CAST estimated the cost of water treatment necessitated by erosion at $25 million for

1975.

The state of the art for estimating these types

of costs is poorly developed. A team of agricultural economists and agronomists recently examinecl the relationship between increased

crop acreage and nonpoint source pollution in

Georgia. They concluded that the impacts of

erosion on sediment, water quality, and the

health of humans and wildlife were hard to

measure in dollar terms:

Because of limited resources, the work was

based on secondary data. Deficiencies in such

data became clear during the research. Data

on land use changes, input use. and chemical

loadings were unavailable, which forced us to

simplify assumptions. While a similar study in

the future could collect primary data on these

factors, developing nonpoint-source pollution

policy from the data currently available could

be difficult and/or lead to considerable error.

More research and analytical data are clearly needed in the area of nutrient and pesticide

loadings. The state of knowledge in this area

was so. deficient that weak assumptions were

made to calculate nutrient loadings, and calculation of pesticide loadings proved impossible.

A major commitment to an agricultural in format ion system and more research is unqueationably necessary to support a nonpointsource pollution policy (White, 1981 ).

Conclusions

Erosion’s effects are not new. At its peak,

Mesopotamia supported a population of 25 million; by the 1930’s, Iraq, which now makes up

a major proportion of the territory controlled

by that ancient civilization on, supported only 4

million. Much evidence points to soil erosion

as a significant factor in the deterioration of

the culture (Troeh, et al., 1980). Elsewhere in

the Mediterranean Basin are other examples

of lands that were once grain-rich and grassrich that are now impoverished: North Africa

(Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco), the southern Italian peninsula and Sicily, and Asia Minor.

Erosion is a self-reinforcing process. Erosion

causes a loss of soil fertility and as a result plant

growth diminishes. This in turn results in less

plant cover to protect the soil and less plant

residue to enrich it. Consequently, more erosion occurs, the land becomes progressively

less fertile, and the loop continues. Thus, erosion is an important problem for this Nation

to combat.

The fact that most of the country’s erosion

occurs on a relatively small amount of land has

only recently been widely recognized by national policy makers. However, even the relatively lower erosion rates that occur on most

cropland may be causing significant degradation of land productivity because these lands

account for most of the Nation’s agricultural

production.

A conservative estimate of total cropland erosion assumes that wind erosion is significant

only in the 10 Great Plains States and that gully

and streambank erosion do not affect cropland

significantly. Thus, cropland erosion is estimated to be the sum of sheet and rill erosion

plus Great Plains wind erosion, or 2.8 billion

tons a year. This is an average of 7 tons an acre

each year for the Nation’s total 413 million

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

soil formation rates.

Because much of the research on the effects

of erosion on yields has been conducted in the

thickly Ioess-covered areas of the North-Central

United States, it is likely that the magnitude of

the adverse effects of erosion on crop yields

is underestimated for other important U.S.

croplands where the soils are thinner. Increased research is needed to determine the effects of water and wind erosion on crop yields

in these other areas.

Information on the rates of soil formation for

important agricultural soils under specific climatic and technological conditions also is

needed. In addition, existing methods for estimating soil erosion need to be improved. But

conservation efforts cannot be deferred until

this information becomes available. Research

results should be used as they become available

to improve existing conservation programs and

technologies,

There are indications that some arid and

semiarid areas that have been converted to irrigation, especially center-pivot irrigation, may

be returned to dryland farming or grazing or

may be abandoned because of rising pumping

costs and declining ground water levels. If this

becomes widespread, significant increases in

wind erosion can be expected.

The extent to which cultivated land has been

affected adversely by erosion and has consequently reverted to pasture or rangeland,

woodland, or brush is not known. The productive capacities of most soils in the United States

are reduced to some degree by erosion. An active research program into the damage suffered

and the causes of the damage to a wide range

of cropland and rangeland soils is needed as

a basis for formulating rational conservation

programs.

The land that is most likely to be brought into

row-crop and small-grain production in the

years ahead will erode at higher rates, on the

average, than the land now used, even if conservation tillage practices are used. With Federal conservation funds constant, or even lowered as was predicted at the end of 1981, and

with large amounts of land being brought into

more erosive agricultural use, the capacity of

existing programs to check or reduce soil erosion on U.S. farmlands will be greatly stressed.

This will accentuate the need to find more costeffective means of reducing erosion, and the

need to take steps to discourage production of

row crops and small grains on land where costeffective measures will not result in acceptable

erosion rates.

Farmland drainage has been the primary agricultural water management and farm reclamation activity in this country. There are about

270 million acres of wet soils in the United

States, including about 105 million acres of

cropland where wetness is the dominant constraint on production (USDA, NRI, 1980). Wet

soils can be extremely fertile and productive

because they commonly contain more organic

matter than soils that are not as wet. The Southeast has the largest acreage of wet soils, followed closely by the Corn Belt, the Great Lakes,

and the Southern Delta States (fig. 5).

Although only certain wet soils are classified

as “wetlands,” much of 3,8 million acres of wet

soils converted to cropland between 1967 and

1975 were indeed wetlands (USDA-RCA, 1980).

Their conversion meant the loss of valuable

wildlife habitat, reduced flood prevention, loss

of the natural cleansing capacity of watersheds,

and other services. On the other hand, drainage

of wet cropland enhances crop production significantly.

Drainage provides benefits in six major

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 penetrate saturated soil, poor drainage can also result in a shallower root spread and a commensurate reduction in plant size, stability, and

yield. Deeper root growth helps crops withstand drought, and lower water tables provide

a greater volume of soil from which plants may

obtain nutrients and moisture. Soil structure

is damaged when tillage or harvesting operations are done while the soil is too wet. Excess

water also increases the likelihood of compaction and obstructs the loosening activities of

soil biota.

Drained fields can be planted earlier because

of earlier accessibility of machinery to fields

and higher soil temperatures. Improved drainage will usually advance the potential planting

or seeding date by 1 or 2 weeks (Irwin, 1981).

From May 1 to 15, each day of delay reduces

corn yields by 1 bushel per acre, and in the latter half of May, each day of delay reduces

yields by 2 bushels per acre (USDA-SCS, 1975].

Furthermore, earlier planting broadens the

selection of crop varieties available for the

farmer to grow, advances the maturity date,

and produces higher final yields. Drainage also
Ch. //—Land Productivity Problems ● 4 1

offsets uneven field ripening of grain crops,

allows more flexibility in harvest time, and increases the potential for double cropping.

Water-saturated lands promote surface runoff of rainwater, inducing erosion and increasing the problem of flooding on downslope land.

A well-drained soil reduces erosion because

surface runoff is substantially reduced when

more water can infiltrate into the soil. The top

layer of soil is richest in organic matter and

applied chemicals, so using drainage to reduce

runoff can reduce losses of sediment and some

nutrients. This also reduces the contamination

of runoff waters and enhances the distribution

of fertilizer nutrients through the upper soil

layers. In areas of high salinity, drainage will

promote leaching and removal of salts.

Drainage of waterlogged lands can also help

control health hazards to man and livestock,

such as mosquito- and fly-borne diseases, certain worms, and liver flukes. Removal of excess

water removes the breeding ground or favorite

habitat of these carriers and thus reduces their

populations.

Good drainage makes the onland disposal of

organic waste material, increasingly under

consideration as an alternative to ocean disposal, environmentally safer. Adequate aeration

and warm soil temperatures are necesary for

the efficient decomposition of wastes into usable plant nutrients.

Investment in farmland drainage systems occurred throughout the last century, peaking in

the mid-1930’s. Research to improve these systems was performed extensively by USDA agricultural research stations and land-grant colleges until the late 1960’s. During the 1960’s,

however, growing concern over the loss or

degradation of actual wetlands (v. wet soils)

discouraged investment in drainage systems.

As a result, drainage has been specifically exempted from USDA cost-sharing programs in

most instances, and SCS technical assistance

on drainage has been limited by personnel reductions and the pressure of higher priority

demands for the expert’s time (Ochs, 1981).

Technologies developed in the mid-1960’s for

more efficient and cost-effective installation of

drainage tiles represent the latest advances in

the field, Corrugated plastic drainage tubing

was developed to replace the heavier and

shorter-lived clay tiles, with significant cost

savings to farmers. This tubing can be installed

more quickly and effectively using laser beam

grade control. In addition, trenchless machinery was developed to install tiles faster

than earlier deep-trench operations. Two new

technologies under study are well-point drainage for vertical, rather than horizontal, movement of excess water, and reversible drainage,

which introduces as well as removes water

through porous tubes, The latter technique

would be especially applicable to the climatically variable Southeastern United States.

The dearth of drainage research during the

1970’s has resulted in a lack of data in many

important areas. Few analyses are available on

design procedures, system maintenance, and

integration of drainage with modern cropping

systems to maximize production. Such basic

information as the lifetime of drainage systems

is not available. Furthermore, while information on the costs and benefits of farmland

drainage is available, it is frequently site

specific and therefore is of little value to individual farmers. Compounding this problem

is a lack of synthesis of the research completed

in the 1960’s and before, and of the data available from other nations.

The need for such information is growing.

There are indications that the drainage systems

constructed in the early 1900’s, particularly in

the Midwest, are now out of date and in need

of repair. Drainage systems can often repay the

farmer’s investment within 2 to 4 years (Ochs,

1981), so farmers with adequate information

and capital would probably not allow subsurface drainage systems to decay seriously. The

outlets, however, are frequently municipal

waterways or other such systems demanding

collective management. These canals and

ditches require occasional clearing of weeds

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 farmSOIL COMPACTION

Routine operation of farm machinery (“traffic”) and trampling by livestock can harm land

productivity by compacting the soil. In croplands, compaction can damage the structure

of the soil near the surface and can create a

“traffic pan, ” which is a persistent layer of

densely compacted soil just below the depth

to which the soil is tilled. On rangelands, which

are not normally tilled, compaction compresses

surface soil causing an effect called “shingling”

where wide areas have a surface so dense that

water cannot infiltrate and plants cannot reproduce. Animal traffic and off-road vehicle

traffic can form compacted pathways on rangeIands where plants cannot grow and gully erosion may begin. The severity of both cropland

and rangeland compaction varies with the

nature of the site’s soil.

Concern over compaction has increased in

recent years, partly because the large, heavy

machinery characteristic of modern farming

is thought to cause more compaction than

lighter machines. In general, the role of technology in causing and treating cropland compaction is relatively well known; however, the

extent to which compaction is a constraint on

U.S. cropland productivity is not so well

known. On rangelands, the problem is not well

understood and practical technologies to correct it are not well developed.

Process and Effects

Because the potential for compaction varies

greatly among different types and conditions

of soils, and because compaction affects different plants in different ways, generalizations

must be made with caution. The basic physical

effect of soil compaction is collapse of the large

pores between soil particles. In most agricuhural soils, it is desirable to maintain the larger

pores because they allow ready movement of

air and water, One of the chief functions of tillage is to increase or restore these large pores

in the soil.

Thus, water infiltration and percolation are

impeded by surface and subsurface compaction. The consequences include poor drainage

or standing water in a field, increased water

runoff and soil erosion, and slower rates of

crop residue decomposition. A compacted wet

soil may remain colder for a longer time during the spring, delaying planting or slowing

seed germination. Compaction-caused drainage problems also encourage higher rates of

soil nitrogen loss through anaerobic microbial

denitrification. The presence of a traffic pan

can impede root penetration and the proper development of root crops such as potatoes and

sugar beets. Surface compaction reduces the

nitrogen-fixing nodule mass on soybean roots

(Voorhees, 1977b) and alters the geometry of

root growth, keeping roots out of the uppermost part of the soil profile where applied fertilizers are most available (Trouse, 1981). Traffic pans may keep roots from growing below

the upper tilled layer and so deny access to

moisture during drought or to nutrients available below the tilled layer,

Under certain conditions, a moderat e

amount of cropland compaction has been

shown to be beneficial. Soybean yields on

moderately compacted Minnesota soils have

been 25 percent greater than on noncompacted

soil in dry years. In some soils, the wicking effect of smaller, compacted capillary pores has
Ch. n-Land Productivity Problems ● 4 3

the advantage of bringing water and dissolved

nutrients to germinating seeds, and it may aIso

explain the higher toxicity of herbicides on

compacted soils. Compacted soils, if dry, can

warm more rapidly in the spring, and the presence of a subsurface pan can help to retain

water that might otherwise percolate away

from roots. Corn grown on compacted soil has

been shown to mature earlier and to have a

lower ear moisture content. Traction is sometimes better on a compacted soil, but the greater energy required to till such soil probably outweighs the traction benefits (Voorhees, 1977a,

1977 C),

More typically, compaction reduces crop

yields. * Yields of corn grown on clay soil are

decreased with increased machine contact

pressure and number of field passes, sometimes by as much as 50 percent (Raghaven, et

al., 1978). Deeper than normal tillage, called

subsoiling, is sometimes used to reduce compaction in dry years and can increase corn

yields by as much as 100 bushels per acre in

the Southeastern Coastal Plain (Cassel, 1979).

In one study, yields for corn and cotton in

Alabama rose 83 percent with subsoiling under

crop rows and controlled traffic (Trouse, 1981).

The effects of compaction on overall productivity sometimes may not be evident because

they can be masked by use of other inputs such

as irrigation and fertilization. In crop rotations

that do not foster significant buildup of organic

carbon, wheel-traffic-induced soil compaction

may increase soil aggregate size and stability

slightly, resulting in improved production even

though organic matter content is decreasing.

Thus, by substituting for the aggregating effects

of organic matter, compaction may mask soil

deterioration (Voorhees, 1979).

TechnologicaI Causes and Remedies

Factors that determine the degree of compaction occurring on a cropland site include: the

pressure (pounds per square inch) exerted by

machinery tires; the proportion of the field that

gets pressed by the tires; the number of times

* [luring 1981, OTA conducted extensive research on the CAP

and Agricola serches of 1980,

per year the area is pressed; the type and frequency of tillage that loosens the compacted

soil; various features of the soil type (including

texture and percent organic matter); and especially the moisture content at the time it is

pressed by machinery tires. The interaction of

these factors is site specific and usually difficult to determine.

Certain soil types are more susceptible to

compaction than others. The sandy loam of

California, the Mississippi Delta, and the

Southeastern Coastal Plain are especially susceptible to formation of traffic pans. Moisture

is the most critical variable for any specific site,

as compaction effects increase sharply when

moisture content is above an optimal level. In

certain soils, compaction can also increase because of too little moisture

Average tractor weight has more than doubled in the past three decades as a cause and

a consequence of the increasing size and efficiency of U.S. farms. Modern four-wheel-drive

tractors now weigh as much as 33,000 l b

(Voorhees, 1978). The pressure exerted by the

tires, however, has not doubled because the

tires are now wider and better designed. However, the pressure per square inch is generally

less important than the proportion of the field

that is compacted, The wider tires press more

soil on each pass, but make fewer passes to do

the same job, and the larger machinery can allow field operations to be timed to drier conditions when compaction potential is relatively

low, Yet there is little evidence to indicate

whether farmers consider compaction prevention in their use of machinery. More farmers

may be using larger equipment—four-wheeldrive, dual-wheel tractors* in particular–to get

into fields under wet conditions (Robertson,

1981).

A trend that more surely indicates increased

compaction is the increasing proportion of

cropland used for row crops that require more

tillage than close-grown crops such as hay or

oats. Fortunately, the compaction associated

*Voores’(1977c)states that dual wheels do not prevent compaction, they just change its distribution. Compaction from duals

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

by increased use of conservation tillage and the

no-till method. However, reduced tillage will

generally not counteract subsurface compaction that already exists and even no-till does

not completely eliminate traffic and consequent compaction effects.

Some compaction is unavoidable in most

cropping systems, but farmers can modify their

operations to limit compaction. The least costly

adjustments include timing operations to drier

soil conditions, limiting the number of field

trips (the first pass over any spot accounts for

80 percent of total compaction), and confining

wheel traffic to the same paths each pass. However, sometimes it is not economically feasible to rotate crops with meadow or to delay

planting or harvest until soil moisture is

suitable because of the income and yield reductions associated with these practices.

The practice of subsoiling—plowing deeper

than the conventional 7 to 8 inches to break

up compacted soil layers—is becoming more

widespread in the Midwest as it has shown its

effectiveness in counteracting compaction in

the Coastal Plains States, California, and elsewhere. Subsoiling reduces soil density and

hardness and increases the volume of macropores to promote aeration, internal drainage,

and more rapid infiltration of water (Cassel,

1979). The practice takes significantly more

tractor power, however, so the value of yield

gains must be compared to the increased fuel

cost. These tradeoffs change as compaction effects accumulate and as relative prices change.

The most radical technological proposal for

dealing with cropland compaction is development of “wide span” equipment that would

confine wheel traffic to a small part of a field

by spanning many rows with an arching,
.

Ch. II—Land Productivity Problems ● 4 5

—

bridge-like tractor. Prototypes of the machine

are being developed (Trouse, 1981).

Research Needs

Compaction on Croplands

While considerable research has been conducted in several regions of the United States

concerning the causes, effects, and cures of

traffic pans (and, to a lesser extent, of the more

subtle soil structure changes in the plow layer),

no nationwide research effort has been

mounted. Compaction is generally seen as a

regional problem. Thus, there is no data base

to determine the extent to which compaction

is limiting U.S. soil productivity, Experts

disagree: Voorhees (1979) reports that: “except

for root crops, crop yields probably are not

being suppressed yet as a result of normal soil

compaction in the northern Corn Belt . . . . Regardless, the relatively good soil tilth enjoyed

by farmers in the region should not be taken

for granted. Once soil is compacted, it maybe

more difficult to restore than previously. ” In

contrast, Trouse (1981) states that: “every acre

that is plowed suffers some compaction, ” and

“we have compaction even in our best fields,

and it is hurting us. ”

More information is needed before these

questions can be answered with any certainty. Data on compaction could be collected by

NRI, for example, although each item added

to the inventory.

Little is known about how farmers perceive

the effects of compaction, In areas where traffic pans are important constraints on crop

yields, some information is generally available

to help farmers decide whether the yield increases from subsoiling will pay for the extra

fuel used. More complex decisions regarding

timing of operations, for example, are less well

supported by hard data. How well farmers diagnose and monitor cropIand compaction

problems is another unknown,

Compaction on Rangelands

Even less is known about rangeland compaction. Overgrazing has led to dense soil surfaces

over much of the Western rangelands, and this

“shingling” is a severe constraint on productivity. It prohibits water infiltration, resulting

in more arid conditions for the plants; it accelerates erosion; it severely constrains seed germination and the survival of seedlings when

seeds do germinate. Shingling is generally believed to be caused by the trampling of animal

(mainly livestock) hooves. Another phenomenon that also contributes to the shingling effect is soil capping. This is a thin crust caused

by the force of raindrops striking unprotected

(lacking plant cover) soil surfaces, The direct

impacts of livestock trampling are most harmful in the spring when soil is moist, after the

sporadic heavy rains characteristic of much of

the semiarid range, and on the moist soils along

streams (Gifford, et al,, 1977; Cope, 1980),

The scientific literature on rangeland soil

compaction and capping is scanty. Soil scientists historically have concentrated their attention on croplands where the returns on research investments are more obvious,

The usual way to improve compacted, overgrazed rangeland is to alter grazing pressure

to be consistent with carrying capacity and, in

cases of severe land deterioration, to reintroduce desirable plants through reseeding. One

method to deal with capping or compacted

crusts is to concentrate a herd of cattle on the

affected area for a very short time (2 to 3 days)

to churn up the soil surface. Another method

is to roll a “soil imprinter, ” a heavy, usually

water-filled drum with a textured surface, over

the ground to break up the shingled surface

(Dixon, 1977). However, fuel costs may make

this impractical. Where compaction is deep,

there may be no technological solutions except

tillage, which is likely to be expensive, and excluding livestock.

Conclusions

Cropland compaction is probably a constraint on productivity in many regions, but

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

to educate farmers about compaction, or to

support their use of practices that would prevent or cure the problem, is likely as long as

little is known about its significance in relation

to other problems.

On rangelands, the compaction and capping

of soils is a constraint on productivity. Generally, overgrazed rangeland has good regenerative

capacity once proper grazing management is

instituted. In some instances, however, particularly in the arid Southwest, reseeding of

desirable species must precede improved grazing management in range rehabilitation. The

problem of shingling and the processes of compaction and capping have not been high-priority research topics for range science. The consequences of compaction are well understood,

but too little is know about its causes, prevention, or economic reparation.

SALINIZATBON

Salinization is primarily a drainage problem

aggravated by the misapplication of irrigation

water. Where water is applied to fields, the Sun

and crops extract almost pure water, leaving

salts behind, If that salt is not flushed deeper

into the ground by rainfall or additional irrigation, it can gradually concentrate in and on the

surface soil, first damaging and ultimately destroying the land’s productivity.

But flushing salt into the ground does not

necessarily solve salinization problems. If subsurface conditions are relatively porous, the

saltwater may contaminate the ground water

supply from which the irrigating water is

drawn. If subsurface conditions are relatively

impermeable, the salty water may drain into

nearby rivers, Irrigators downstream will

ultimately reuse it, The saltwater may also accumulate beneath the surface so that a salty,

“perched” water table builds up. This may

eventually rise near enough to the surface to

contaminate the root zone.

Most crops cannot survive in saline environments. The effect of salinity is to increase

the osmotic pressure in the soil water, which

works against the water extraction mechanism

of the plant roots.

There are no data on the overall amount of

cropland in the United States that has been

salinized or is undergoing salinization, An informed guess is that 25 to 35 percent of the irrigated croplands in the West have salinity constraints on productivity (van Schilifgaarde,

1981],

Some data are available on specific areas

where salinization is a recognized problem. At

present, it is severe on the western side of the

San Joaquin Valley of California, one of the

country’s most fertile regions. Here, excess

saline irrigation water accumulating beneath

the surface is invading the root zone and is reducing crop yields on some 400,000 acres of

land. The cost of the resulting crop loss is estimated at $31.2 million per year (Sheridan,

1981). If the saline subsurface water is not

drained from the cropland, it is projected that

700,000 acres will have reduced output by

2000, for an annual loss of $321 million. If unresolved by 2080, an estimated 1 million to 2

million acres of cropland in the San Joaquin

Valley will be salinized out of production.

Three alternative sinks for the valley’s salt

are the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the

Pacific Ocean, and local evaporation ponds, A

drainage system to carry the irrigation runoff

to the Delta, an estuary of the San Francisco

Bay, would cost $1,26 billion for the central

drains, plus the costs of underground drains

to carry the water from the farmers’ fields

(USDA–RCA, 1980). Further, the saline water

could cause serious environmental damage to

the estuary itself, which is the largest wetlands

area on the west coast. In addition to its importance as a wildlife and fisheries habitat, the

estuary is the major source of water for municipalities, industries, and agricultural operations located nearby.

Piping the drainage water to the Pacific

could cost even more because of the high ener-
Ch. /l—Land Productivity Problems ● 4 7

gy required to pump the irrigation runoff over

the intervening mountains. If farmers were required to pay the entire price of these engineering solutions to the drainage problem, the costs

would be on the order of $75 per acre per year

(Sheridan, 1981).

The third solution makes use of as much of

the drainage water as is possible in irrigation

of salt-tolerant crops, The best irrigation water

would be used first on salt-sensitive crops, and

the increasingly salty runoff would then be

used to irrigate more salt-tolerant crops. Finally, the highly saline water would be drained

into evaporation ponds, providing some wildlife habitat, or be disposed of in other ways (van

Schilifgaarde, 1981). The costs of establishing

this integrated irrigation system have not been

estimated, but would depend partly on the profitability of farming the salt-tolerant crops (see

discussion in ch. IV). This use would reduce

the volume of drain water requiring disposal.

Although the drainage problem is not eliminated, the reduced volume makes the options

for disposal more viable. This scheme would

require substantial changes in farming practices, and getting farmers to participate may

be as formidable a difficulty as paying the costs

of more conventional engineering solutions.

A key issue in these schemes is who pays.

Costs of a drainage system would presumably

be shared among the Federal Government, the

State of California, and the San Joaquin farmers. If the capital cannot be raised, there is

another solution to the drainage problem—to

continue the present system until the soil

becomes too salty, then to switch to more salttolerant crops, and eventually abandon 20 percent or more of this highly productive San

Joaquin cropland.

Another type of salinity problem has developed in the Colorado River Basin. Here, too,

the water is becoming more saline, and thus

less useful for irrigation and other purposes.

The source of about two-thirds of the salt in

the river is natural drainage of salt-laden

geological formations; the remaining third is

saline runoff from irrigation (Frederick, 1980).

Salt concentration is increasing because most

of the water diverted from the river for use is

consumed, ultimately evaporating, while that

which is returned by irrigation drainage systems is highly saline.

The problem is the disposal of the salt. Potential solutions include expensive engineering approaches and less expensive but more difficult

system management changes. Eventually, as

Colorado River water use and reuse becomes

more expensive, a combination of structural

and management approaches will probably be

adopted. One possible engineering approach

is to build a desalinization plant near Yuma,

Ariz., to remove salt from the drainage water.

The river management approach, already being

implemented by some farmers receiving Federal technical assistance and cost sharing from

USDA programs, begins with increasing irrigation efficiency. Crop yields are maintained

with less water use by improving on-farm systems with such techniques as land leveling,

ditch lining, and alternative irrigation systems.

If enough farmers improve irrigation efficiency, a significant improvement could be

achieved. However, as nonagricultural use of

the Colorado River increases, farmers may still

need to shift toward more salt-tolerant crops

and to the use of drain sinks other than the

river, such as local evaporation ponds.

Saline seeps are a soil-and-water problem occurring in Montana, North and South Dakota,

Wyoming, and Canada’s prairie provinces.

This problem is the combined result of regional

geology and farming practices. Farmers traditionally alternate strips of wheat with strips of

fallow to conserve moisture. This summer-fallow system can actually conserve too much

water—in some places, the water thus saved

has infiltrated through the upper layers of soil,

picking up salts, and has formed a perched

water table above an impermeable layer of

shale. In downslope areas, the salt-laden water

seeps out, creating saline seeps—unproductive

swampy areas. Some saline seeps are as large

as 200 acres. They affect about 400,000 acres

in the Northern Plains of the United States; the

total including Canada and parts of Texas and

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 creative management technology called “flexible

cropping” developed by USDA scientists and

cooperating farmers, Under flexible cropping,

water conditions are monitored carefully. Alternative crops are planted, including alfalfa,

safflower, and sunflower, each of which uses

more water and draws it from deeper in the

soil. Continuous cropping is practiced whenever possible to avoid water accumulation in

the perched water table, but the option to fallow land remains if water is limited. This approach demands more complex management

than summer fallow, but participating farmers

have demonstrated that it can keep significant

areas in production that might otherwise be

lost, (This technology is discussed in detail in

app. A, “The Innovators.”)

Conclusions

The U.S. agricultural sector must continue

to develop innovative systems to conserve productivity on land that is threatened by salinization. The proportion of cropland involved is

relatively small—30 percent of the irrigated

land in the West amounts to only 5 percent of

all the Nation’s cropland—but the land is disproportionately productive because of long

growing seasons and the high economic value

of irrigated crops. (An assessment of waterrelated technologies to maintain agricultural

production in the arid and semiarid regions of

the United States was begun by OTA in July

1981.)

Introduction

The next several decades will bring a marked

decrease in the availability and quality of the

Nation’s ground water, This could significantly

reduce the productivity of much irrigated agricultural land, especially in the Southwestern

United States. The most severe problems will

probably be confined to the West, but some

Eastern States will suffer local water shortages

and water quality problems that will affect agricultural productivity,

Technologies that alter irrigation and farming systems to conserve water while continuing to produce crops profitably can prolong the

productivity of ground water resources, These

technologies vary from modest but effective

changes in the way water is applied to major

changes in farm management such as converting to perennial crops or drip irrigation, Although changing the technologies used may reduce ground water demands in some areas, the

actual reduction in ground water withdrawals

that will result from new agricultural technologies probably will be modest and will only

postpone the exhaustion of some major U.S.

ground water reservoirs.

The technological change most likely to

occur in Western regions during the coming

decades will be the return of some irrigated

lands to dryland farming or grazing, This conversion will cause sharp decreases in production. Also, as wind erosion and other problems

associated with dryland farming develop, a

continuing, gradual decrease in land productivity can occur,

Although some schemes for recharging overdrawn aquifers* have been proposed, the lack

of local water to replenish depleted supplies

and the high energy costs involved in transporting water from distant sources may preclude

such remedies. Schemes for long-distance

water transport will have to be compared to

the alternatives of farming additional, potentially erosive, croplands in the more waterabundant East or intensifying production on

existing agricultural lands (Vanlier, 1980).

The data and information bases relating water and agricultural productivity are obtained

largely by Federal and State agencies. At the

*An aquifer is a water-bearing underground layer of permeable

rock, sand, or gravel.
Ch. I/—Land Productivity Problems ● 4 9

local level, county agencies and quasi-governmental units collect a variety of water data specific to their management needs. The information is dispersed among a number of sources

including large Federal water data banks. The

data available are adequate for general planning, but considerable effort will be required

to aggregate them into a format clearly adapted

to policy makers’ and planners’ broader needs.

The Nation’s ground water resources could

be affected adversely by a number of changing agricultural technologies and by future land

and water use policies as well as by the growing needs of water for energy development.

The principal factors that will affect the availability and suitability of ground water for agricultural use are:

ground water overdraft (mining),

water-quality degradation,

reduction in streamflow and discharge of

springs, and

subsidence and collapse of the land surface.

Ground Water Overdraft

Hidden beneath the land surface in almost

every part of the United States is water that fills

the openings in beds of rock, sand, and gravel

—called ground water. Studies of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicate that more than

97 percent of U.S. freshwater resources are located underground. The Nation’s ground water

resource supplies about 70 percent of the irrigation water for the 17 Western States (Lehr,

1980).

In many areas, ground water is a readily

available source of potable water. Half the

population in this country gets its drinking

water—either partly or completely—from

ground water supplies (Costle, 1979). Because

ground water is a high-quality, low-cost water

source, its use grows at the rate of several percent each year. Ground water use has grown

from 35 billion gallons a day in 1950 (Murray,

1970) to an estimated 82 billion gallons a day

in 1975 (CEQ, 1980),

Withdrawing ground water from an aquifer

in excess of the long-term rate of recharge is

called ground water overdraft, mining, or depletion. Ground water mining is common in

arid or semiarid areas of the United States

where precipitation is low and recharge rates

are slow (fig. 6). Water is available from these

aquifers only because it has accumulated in the

ground over many thousands of years.

Ground water overdraft lowers ground water

levels, subsequently reduces the thickness of

water-saturated sediments, and in some places

degrades water quality. Declining water levels

reduce the total amount of water available. In

order to meet demands, pumps must be set

deeper and larger motors installed. In some

cases, new wells are needed. These investments increase operating costs.

Over the past several decades, ground water

overdrafts have reduced agricultural productivity. The greatest reductions, however, are expected to occur in the next three or four

decades. Most such losses in agricultural productivity will be permanent because alternative

water sources already are fully committed to

other uses.

The major areas of ground water overdraft

are in Texas, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas,

Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and

California. Major ground water overdraft problems also are reported in the lower White River

area of Arkansas and the Souris and Red River

basins in North Dakota and Minnesota (Vanlier, 1980). Shortages have raised conflicts in

other regions as well.

In Iowa, proposals have been considered to

prohibit ground water use for irrigation

because of acute shortages. In Nebraska, the

ground water situation is prompting officials

to consider allocating available ground water.

In the first court conflict between ground water

users, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that

an irrigator can be held liable for costs incurred

as a result of disturbing a neighboring ground

water supply (Lehr, 1980).
50 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Streamflow

Pacific

Ocean—

300 bgd

Subsurface

flow—

25 bgd

Figure 6.—Water Budget for the Conterminous United States

to

.

Streamflow to Mexico–1.6 bgd

NOTE bgd = billion gallons per day

SOURCE Water Resources Council, 1978

One of the most dramatic instances of

ground water depletion occurs in the Ogallala

Formation, an aquifer stretching approximately 1,000 miles from Nebraska to Texas. It

underlies roughly 150,000 square miles (mi2

)

and varies in thickness from 1 to l, ZOO ft.

USGS, in an ongoing study of the Ogallala and

certain associated aquifers, reports that 46 percent of the 177,() 177,000-mi2 study area now has

less than 100 ft of water-saturated sediment.

Ground water pumping, which began in Texas

in the 1930’s, has caused the following declines

in the region’s watertable:

Streamflow to

Atlantic Ocean

and

Gulf of Mexico—

920 bgd

Subsurface flow—

75 bgd

Percent of 177,000 mi2 Watertable drop in feet

14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 to 25

5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 to 50

5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 to 100

2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 to 150

(Weeks, USGS, 1981. )

The USGS reports that water levels in the

Ogallala Formation consistently have been

declining in regions where water is pumped

for irrigation (Berman, et al., 1977), Declines

of 32 to 40 ft were monitored in Kit Carson

County from 1964 to 1972. In other areas influenced by irrigation, declines of as much as
Ch. I/—Land Productivity Problems ● 5 1

16 ft were noted. The USGS findings confirm

an increasingly rapid water-level decline in

parts of the Ogallala Formation since 1974.

More than 98 percent of the pumping from the

Ogallala is for irrigation agriculture,

The Ogallala aquifer is recharged by direct

precipitation at a rate of only 50,000 acre-ft per

year, while 7 million to 8 million acre-ft a year

of ground water are withdrawn. Thus, the

93,000 wells pumping to irrigate as much as

65 percent of Texas croplands could exhaust

the aquifer, Some additional recharge is supplied from the eastern slopes of the Rocky

Mountains. (Details of the Ogallala water

budget will be included in the OTA water assessment. )

In fact, ground water depletion in the High

Plains section of west and north Texas has

been so extensive and expensive that it has

compelled abandonment of some once-productive farmland or the return to dryland farming

(Hauschen, 1980).

Similar abandonments are occurring in other

areas. In the Roswell Artesian Basin of New

Mexico, where ground water withdrawal has

exceeded recharge for many years, the Pecos

Valley Artesian Conservancy District has been

purchasing and retiring irrigated acreage,

About 3,000 acres have been retired under this

program, In the Estancia Basin of Santa Fe

County, an estimated 5,900 acres will go out

of production by 2000 (Vardier, 1980),

Nearly all major aquifers experiencing overdraft in the arid or semiarid areas of the country ultimately will be exhausted. This does not

mean there will be no more underground water

in those places, but that it will be so reduced

that it cannot be profitably extracted, Lower

agricultural productivity and reduced economic activity can be expected in these areas.

Degradation of Ground Water Quality

In addition to declining ground water availability in many aquifers, degradation of ground

water quality from increasing salinity and contamination by pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers,

animal wastes, and nonagricultural sources of

chemicals is on the rise. Heavy pumping of

ground water can result in seawater intrusion

into freshwater aquifers, and recycling irrigation water to recharge aquifers may make

water substantially less suitable for irrigation

or other purposes than the aquifer’s original

water, Because organic chemicals do not degrade efficiently in the slow-moving waters of

underground aquifers, recharge water may disperse agricultural contaminants over broad

areas where they may remain indefinitely,

Saltwater Contamination

Many aquifers contain both fresh and mineralized (saline) ground water, The lighter freshwater in such aquifers “floats” on the denser

saline water. Saltwater/freshwater aquifer systems are best known in coastal areas where

freshwater in the landward part of the aquifer

is in contact with saltwater in the seaward part,

but some also are present in inland areas.

When freshwater is pumped from such aquifers, the saline water migrates toward the wells

and eventually replaces part or all of the aquifer’s freshwater, This exacerbates problems of

soil salinity that plague many irrigation

projects.

Saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers

has occurred in many areas undergoing ground

water irrigation. In the Roswell Artesian Basin

of New Mexico, the artesian head has been declining for many years and now saline waters

are encroaching in the aquifer north and east

of Roswell, Extensive ground water declines

in the Carrizo aquifer in Dimmit and Zwala

Counties, Tex., caused reversals in the aquifer’s

hydraulic gradient, thus allowing poorer quality water to enter areas that previously had

good quality water (U.S. Water Resources

Council, 1978).

In some places, aquifers are degraded by

water leakage from a saline aquifer into overlying or underlying freshwater aquifers via improperly constructed and maintained wells or

abandoned wells that have been improperl y

plugged and sealed, For example, in Dimmit

County and adjacent areas of Texas, saline

water from the Bigford Formation is leaking

through old well bores into the underlying Carrizo aquifer,
52 ● Impacts of Technology On /J. S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Aquifer water-quality degradation has a negative impact on nonirrigation water uses, too.

In the High Plains region, ground water quality

is declining as the Ogallala aquifer drops, and

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 Resources Council noted that in the San Joaquin

Valley in California there is a need for a valleywide management system that would dispose

of or reclaim saline water to help prevent degradation of the San Joaquin River and ground

water supplies.

The contamination of freshwater aquifers by

infiltration of saline surface waters and agricultural drainage has not received the attention

given to other sources of ground water contamination, but it is a factor that must be considered in long-term planning for agricultural productivity.

Pesticide Contamination

USDA reports that more than 1,800 pesticide

compounds are marketed and that an estimated

1.25 million tons will be applied on American

soils by 1985 (see fig. 7). Approximately 5 percent of the pesticides will reach the Nation’s

waters, A 1970 report of the Working Group

on Pesticides cautioned that the potential for

ground water contamination must be analyzed

from the perspective of the properties of the

pesticide, hydrological traits of the disposal

area, and the volume, state, and persistence of

the pesticide. For example, greater hazard

occurs when high concentrations of pesticides

are deposited near shallow wells or in regions

of thin and highly permeable soil.

Residues of DDT; 2,4-D; lindane; and herbicides are the focal point of ground water conFigure 7.— Pesticides Applied

Pesticides applied

Million pounds

1950 1960 1970 1980

SOURCE Pesticides applied, 1964: Quantities of Pesticides Used by Fanners in

1964, USDA Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service

(Washington: U.S Government Printing Office, 1968), agr econ. rep.

131, pp. 9, 13, 19, 26. 1966: Farmers Use of Pesticides in

1971—Quantities, USDA Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service (Washington’ US. Government Printing Office, 1974), agr. econ. rep.

252, pp. 6, 11, 15, 18, 1971 and 1976: Farmers’ Use of Pesticides in 1976,

USDA Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service (Washington.

U.S Government Printing Office 1978), agr econ. rep 418, pp 6, 9, 15,

and 20. Cited in CEO, 1981 Envirorr. Trends.

lamination discussion and research. Arsenate

compounds used in insect control in Maine’s

blueberry fields have been detected in shallow

ground water, and chlorinated hydrocarbons

used on Massachusetts cranberry bogs were reported in a sand and gravel well, Soil samplings

in the Houston black clay of three watersheds

in Waco, Tex., demonstrated that DDT had

penetrated the soil and percolated down into

the ground water (Lehr, 1980).

A field study in which toxaphene (an insecticide) and fluometuron (a herbicide) were applied to the topsoil and observed for 1 yea r

showed that both compounds were found in

underlying ground water 2 months after application (LaFleur, et al., 1973). Residues persisted

throughout the l-year observation period.

Contamination by Organic

material and Pathogens

In general, ground water does not have the

natural cleansing mechanisms of surface water. Although most removal of readily degradable organic compounds occurs very near the

water’s point of entrance into the aquifer, some
Ch. I/—Land Productivity Problerns ● 5 3

.—

sorption (binding of organics to mineral substrates) and biodegradation do occur within the

aquifer. Sorption affects the rate of travel of

organic contaminants and allows the accumulation of organic materials in or on subsurface solids. Biodegradation depends on a number of variables including pH, temperature, and

having a primary source of organic material

on which the bacteria can subsist. Relatively

little is known about how organic materials degrade in ground water; possible interactions

between primary and secondary substrates and

bacteria are not known, nor are the effects of

sorption on the rate of transformation, The

breadth of organic compounds that maybe reduced by biological activity are unknown and

methods for assessing the potential of a specific

aquifer for microbial activity are also lacking

(McCarty, 1981).

There are conflicting reports on the levels of

fertilizer pollution in ground water. According

to the General Accounting Office, heavy reliance on fertilizer contributes to an estimated

1 million metric tons of dissolved nitrogen in

ground and surface waters, In the Seymour

water-bearing formation in Texas, jumps in

nitrate levels of from less than 50 to 165 ppm

can be traced to fertilizer use (Lehr, 1980). Yet,

nitrates from fertilizers and from natural reservoirs of nutrients in fertile soils are indistinguishable, and some experts have claimed that,

apart from occasions when a spring application of fertilizer nitrogen may be followed by

very heavy rain, the problem of high nitrate

levels in drainage water (which can infiltrate

aquifers) is not so much one of fertilizers as of

soil fertility, especially after ploughing

(Armitage, 1974). Because high nitrate levels

in ground water used for drinking can present

a health hazard for infants up to the age of 3

months, this nutrient contaminant needs careful monitoring.

Nearly half of all documented waterborne

disease outbreaks in the United States result

from contaminated ground water. Certain

viruses, some of which may constitute a health

hazard to humans or livestock, may be absorbed onto soil organic matter and clays and

move downward slowly in the ground water

(Gerba, 1981], while others may remain free in

infiltrating water and enter the ground water

more quickly. Fecal coliform bacteria counts

are commonly used to monitor for contamination by animal wastes. As livestock management is intensified, and as onland waste disposal systems develop, consideration must be given to potential infiltration of pathogens into the

ground water below.

Reduced Streamflow and

Spring Discharge Caused by

Ground Water Pumping

Water-well pumping lowers ground water

levels in the well vicinity. In part, this may

reduce the natural discharge of water from the

aquifer, much of which is through springs and

seeps along and beneath streams. If ground

water levels are lowered below the level of a

stream, water can infiltrate from the stream to

the aquifer, and areas along streams that under

natural conditions received water from the

ground now accept water from the stream. The

resulting decline in the streamflow reduces the

availability of surface water for other uses, including irrigation.

Sometimes the changes in the water regimen

that can result from pumping ground water for

irrigation can be beneficial in that some of the

water tends to accumulate in the ground and

can be pumped later during the irrigation

season, Ground water irrigation, however, requires energy for pumping, whereas diversion

of surface waters generally is accomplished

through gravity flow. As energy costs increase

in future decades, irrigation systems with lower energy requirements probably will take precedence.

Standardized data on ground water quality

is needed for responsive policymaking. The

USGS catalog of Information on Water Data

might be useful as a prototype (Vanlier, 1980).

In it, ground water quality is outlined in terms

of four traditional categories: physical, chemical, 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

(e.g., turbidity, pH, coliform bacteria content,

sediment particle size) that should be measured

at regular intervals. Frequent measurement of

these indicators will promote the early detection of a contaminant by a monitoring system,

Sufficient leadtime is important for corrective

action.

Conclusions

The continuing decline of ground water quality and quantity apparently is not caused by

lack of data or knowledge. The probability that

agricultural productivity in the High Plains

region would decline during the latter part of

the 20th century, and that economic problems

would consequently emerge, has been clearly

recognized locally and nationally for the last

several decades (Vanlier, 1980). Rather, the decline is caused by a lack of a coherent, national

resource-use philosophy and water management policy. This has led to a separation of

policies toward surface and ground water.

The separation of ground and surface water

issues results in administrative mismanagement of both resources, These two elements are

mistakenly not seen as part of the same hydrologic cycle. This insular treatment extends in

many cases to the laws pertaining to their use,

to the Federal agencies and institutions that

regulate and control them, and to the research

and development that guides their future uses.

To ignore a substantial hydrologic imbalance

costs money—money in production costs, farm

income, crop prices, food prices, etc. For cropland affected by ground water depletion, salinity, and subsidence problems, a total calculation of ground water-related damage has not

been compiled.

Directly entwined with ground water economic impacts is the ripple effect felt by society. As ground water problems increase in

severity, interactions between producers directly affected and those not affected can be

expected to change land values. For example,

agricultural producers’ net income along the

Colorado River would drop because of crop

yield reductions and increased production

costs as salinity increases. On the other hand,

the lands of a producer of the same crop in an

area without salinity problems would increase

in relative agricultural value.

Eventually, this imbalance will spur production relocation and passing of increased costs

on to consumers. The rural business community of banks and agricultural suppliers, too, is

ultimately influenced through changes in service demands and the tax base, And if the irrigated dry Western States are compelled to revert to dryland farming, the ultimate effects on

food prices and the entire economy would be

substantial.

The national agricultural policies that have

the greatest effect on ground water resources

are economic. For example, the quantity of

water used to irrigate rice in Arkansas doubled

between 1970 and 1975 as a result of relaxation of acreage controls (Halberg, 1977). It is

not known if Government acreage controls and

crop price-support programs increase ground

water pumping for irrigation where otherwise

it would be unprofitable,

Most individual farmers understand the costs

and risks of their decisions to continue to pump

water from aquifers that are experiencing overdraft or declining water quality. The individual

farmer, however, is left with little choice except to use the water under his own land to

maximize his profits. If he does not pump the

water, his neighbors will. Farmers cannot unite

to save water for some future date when each

has made substantial individual investments in

land and equipment. The specter of low agricultural prices and high production costs in

areas of major ground water overdraft undoubtedly inhibits the individual farmer’s decision to invest in expensive technologies to save

water.
Ch. n-Land Productivity Problems ● 5 5

——

SUBSIDENCE

Land subsidence could become more common in the United States as the use of ground

water and subsurface mineral resources intensifies, Subsidence can occur in various circumstances: when cities, industries, and irrigation

agriculture withdraw large amounts of ground

water; when coal and other mineral resources

are mined; when there is solution mining of

subsurface mineral deposits, such as salt; or

when large amounts of petroleum have been

extracted. All of these activities can result in

the slow subsidence or the unexpected collapse

of the land surface. If agriculture overlies these

areas, it can suffer slow or immediate consequences.

Land subsidence is often the result of the

combined influence of human activities and

the land’s natural proclivity to such disturbances. Certain soils and terrains are much

more likely to suffer subsidence than others.

Clays, for example, generally compact and subside more than coarser sediments such as silts

and sands. Thus, it is often difficult to isolate

the specific cause or causes of land subsidence.

But how does ground water withdrawal, irrigation, or perhaps the draining and farming of

organic-rich soils cause subsidence? Because

water commonly fills the spaces between the

rocks and particles that make up underground

sediments or sedimentary rock, it contributes

to the volume of land. When wells are drilled

and ground water is removed faster than it is

replaced naturally, the ground water level

drops, The loss of the water’s buoyant support

of the rock and mineral grains leads to increased grain-to-grain stress in the aquifer

below. If the stress is great enough to cause the

individual grains to shift and move close together, land subsidence results. Subsidence can

take place in small increments over decades

and, therefore, may go unrecognized in its

early stages,

The effects of subsidence on agriculture have

been most extensive in areas where ground

water withdrawal for irrigation is common.

For example, water withdrawal has greatly affected agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley of

California. During 40 years of irrigation pumping, some 2,500 mi2 in three main areas have

suffered subsidence, Some areas sank as much

as 20 ft; in 1967, some land was sinking at rates

up to 1ft a year (Marsden and Davis, 1967).

The gradual lowering of the land surface damaged expensive water-well casings, irrigation

systems, buildings, drainage and flood-control

structures, and other manmade structures. As

the land subsided, flow directions were reversed in irrigation canals that normally had

slopes of 0.3 ft per mile and major structural

changes were required to maintain irrigated

crop production. Such changes included raising or rebuilding bridges, pipelines, and other

associated structures. Costs are high for repairing such damage. In California’s Santa Clara

Valley, subsidence costs are estimated at $15

million to $20 million (Lehr, 1980).

Similarly, in California’s San Jacinta Valley

approximately 5,400 miz of cropland have subsided at the rate of 1.2 ft a year since measurements began in 1935. Subsidence has reached

nearly 28 ft in areas where irrigation wells

pump as much as 1,500 acre-ft of water per

year (Lehr, 1980).

Withdrawal of large amounts of ground water from the gulf coast aquifer underlying the

Houston-Galveston, Tex,, area parallels the California experience. In this case, most ground

water withdrawals have been for industrial and

urban uses. Nevertheless, agricultural lands are

affected adversely. Land subsidence there began as a result of ground water withdrawal

starting as early as 1906. During a 26-year

period, 1943-69, in the Houston area, a region

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

miles, much of it rural land, suffered at least

6 inches of subsidence during the same period,

These depressed land surfaces act as catchments during heavy hurricane-associated rainfall and, thus, periodically limit the land’s

usefulness for crop production (Flawn, 1970).

Land subsidence can be halted, but not easily, Water can be pumped back into the aquifers

to end subsidence, and a slight rebound of the

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 pumping only from widely dispersed wells. These

approaches have promise only where alternative sources of freshwater are available for irrigation agriculture. Finding alternative water

sources is becoming increasingly difficult.

Introducing irrigation water into very dry

areas that are covered by alluvial or mud-flow

sediments with large pore spaces can cause

reorientation of the sediment particles and thus

cause subsidence. A 27-month irrigation test

on such sediments along the western side of

the San Joaquin Valley in central California

caused a 10.5-ft drop in the land surface,

resulting in damage to roads, pipelines, and

transmission lines (Flawn, 1970).

When drained, peat and other organic-rich

soils are subject to oxidation and decomposition of the exposed organic matter, thereby

causing shrinkage and subsidence. Drained

organic soils in the Sacramento-San Joaquin

delta area of northern California subsided 12

to 14 ft between 1850 and 1950 (Flawn, 1970).

A similar situation exists in the Belle Glade

area of Florida where half of a lo-ft peat deposit has disappeared from agricultural fields

through oxidation over a 50-year period, Under

original conditions, the peat accumulated at

about 1ft per 400 years (Shrader, 1980), Subsidence on organic soils in Florida’s Everglades

agricultural area varies from 1.5 to 3.1 cm/year

depending on the land use (Lehr, 1980),

Land subsidence can affect agriculture adversely. These changes are typically permanent, and subsided land cannot be restored to

its original state. In most areas of land subsidence, relevant data are collected largely by

State and local agencies. In California, for example, USGS, in cooperation with the State,

maintains a network of land subsidence stations and wells. The data on subsidence seem

to be sufficiently accurate and adequate for

most agricultural planning purposes.

Agriculture’s investments in irrigation systems are expensive and normally are designed

for a long useful life. But where ground water

withdrawals for irrigation cause subsidence,

sustainability of the agriculture system is jeopardized. Subsidence related to changes in organic soils affects land productivity, as well,

because continual changes in the topography

of the land may interfere with irrigation systems and other infrastructure,

UTILITIES OTHER THAN CROPS AND FORAGE

Agricultural lands are managed to produce

crops and forage, but other, less quantifiable

services from the land are also vitally important to the Nation’s well-being. These benefits

are often taken for granted or assumed to come

solely from nonagricultural land, The quality

of air, water, ground water, fish and wildlife

habitats, and esthetic and recreational areas are

all directly related to croplands, pasturelands,

and rangelands.

An agroecosystem does not end at the edge

of a field or pasture, but includes the boundaries—fences, hedgerows, windbreaks, nearby

fallow fields, riparian habitats, and adjacent

undeveloped areas. As the quality and quanti-
— . -

ty of these areas is changed by agricultural activities, the utilities obtained from the land also

change.

Effects on Air Quality

Vegetation and soil are major factors in the

balance of gas cycles. Plants, through photosynthesis, remove carbon dioxide and are the

primary source of atmospheric oxygen. Soil

plays a less well-known role in the nitrogen

cycle. Nitrogen oxides are an important factor in the destruction of stratospheric ozone,

and agricultural activities affecting nitrous

oxide (N2O) are coming under increasing scrutiny. Soil can act both as a source and as a sink

for atmospheric N2O during periods of moderate soil-water content.

N2O is produced during denitrification in

soils when the soil nitrate content is high, the

temperature is conducive to high respiratory

oxygen demand by soil biota, and the water

content causes restricted soil aeration. Any

agricultural activities affecting nitrate content,

water content, or soil temperature will affect

the yearly flux of nitrogen oxides. For example, converting grassland to annual crops is

likely to release N2O to the atmosphere.

Soil micro-organisms can eliminate air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide and various

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

the ground (Alexander, 1980). In addition,

plants are effective in removing pollutants such

as sulfur dioxides (SO2), from air and converting them to less toxic or harmless substances. Plants absorb SO2, which then reacts

with water to form phytotoxic sulfite. This is

slowly oxidized within the plant cells to relatively harmless sulfates. If too much gas is absorbed too rapidly, however, the plant suffers

the consequences of retaining a dangerous

level of the toxic sulfite within its cells (Dairies,

et al., 1966). It is difficult to measure the

amount of pollution with which an ecosystem

comes into contact, and more difficult still to

measure how much of the pollution is removed.

Another way in which soil and vegetation

help maintain air quality is by controlling wind

erosion. Wind erosion introduces 30 million

tons of particulate to the U.S. atmosphere each

year. Soil organic matter and vegetation anchor

the soil and keep it in place. Conventional tillage removes plant cover and pulverizes soil,

thus impairing its binding functions. Crop residue management, stubble mulching, no-till

farming technologies, irrigation, and appropriate grazing management—technologies discussed later in this report—can decrease wind

erosion.

Forests, woodlands, shrubs, and the taller

farm crops also filter the suspended particulate

matter from moving air masses and return it

to the soil, improving the layers of air immediately above the ground. When vegetation

is removed, as it was for the expansion of

agriculture in the 1930’s, the effect on quality

of air and life is dramatic:

More than 6 million acres were put out of

production by dust storms; farmsteads were

partially buried and damaged or totally destroyed and abandoned; the health of people

and livestock suffered; many animals died of

dust suffocation; machinery was damaged or

destroyed; ditches and waterways were filled;

valuable topsoil was lost; and soil fertility was

seriously impaired for years to come (Walker,

1967),

Effects on Water QuaIity

When properly managed, land acts as an efficient “living filter” in the water cycle. Plant

roots absorb nutrients, microbes degrade complex organic molecules, and the soil’s organic

and inorganic colloids have tremendous adsorptive capacity. Any agricultural activity that

reduces any of these three mechanisms reduces

the land’s ability to provide clean water. Some

of the major forms of water pollution associated with agriculture are silt from soil erosion,

nutrient runoff from large feedlots, and concentration of chemicals (including those from

pesticides and fertilizers) in return flows from

irrigation systems.

Increased sedimentation of streams and

other bodies of water, primarily a result of erosion, has many adverse effects. Fish feeding

and breeding areas may be destroyed by silt.

Streams may become broader and shallower

so that water temperatures rise, affecting the

composition of species the stream will support.

Riparian wildlife habitats change, generally reducing species diversity.

Pollutants and nutrients associated with

eroded sediments can have adverse impacts on

aquatic environments. Concentrations of toxic substances may kill aquatic life, while nutrients in the runoff can accelerate growth of

aquatic flora. This can aggravate the sedimentation problem and lead to accelerated eutrophication of the water bodies. Eutrophication

is a process that usually begins with the increased production of plants. As they die and

settle to the bottom, the micro-organisms that

degrade them use up the dissolved oxygen. Sedimentation also contributes to exhausting the

oxygen supply, especially in streams and rivers, by reducing water turbulence. Thus, the

aquatic ecosystem changes dramatically.

Phosphorus and nitrogen are the major nutrients that regulate plant growth, Soil nitrogen

is commonly found in water supplies. Phosphorus, on the other hand, is “fixed” in the soil,

so runoff typically contains relatively small

amounts, Under normal conditions, phosphorus is more likely to be the limiting factor
Ch. //—Land Productivity Problems ● 5 9

in aquatic plant growth. Since phosphorus

(along with potassium, calcium, magnesium,

sulfur, and the trace elements) is held by colloid material, it is abundant in waters receiving large amounts of eroded soil.

Natural eutrophication is generally a slow

process, but “cultural” (man-caused) eutrophication can be extremely rapid and can produce

nuisance blooms of algae, kill aquatic life by

depleting dissolved oxygen, and render water

unfit for recreation. Replenishing the oxygen

supply is a costly remedy because of the energy

required to mix and dissolve such a sparingly

soluble gas into aqueous solutions.

The nutrients reaching water supplies from

natural sources, however, vary widely depending on the land and soil type, Water from highly

fertile, unfertilized agricultural lands can have

a higher content of plant nutrients than water

from heavily fertilized, well-managed cropland

low in natural fertility, Nutrient losses from

properly fertilized soils, in fact, can be less than

from soils to which no amendments are added,

since a vigorously growing crop will use the

available nutrients (Smith, 1967).

Another aspect of water pollution from agricultural sources is the danger to human and

animal health by runoff from livestock feedlots.

Coliform and enterococcus bacteria living in

the fecal waste of the animals can reach water

supplies if the runoff from these feedlots is improperly managed. If allowed to percolate

slowly through the soil, however, the coliform

and enterococcus bacteria are adsorbed on colloidal material and die. This natural filtering

mechanism is very efficient—more than 98 percent is removed in the first 14 inches of soil.

Effects on Ground Water Resources

Another essential service provided by a properly managed environment is that it provides

clean recharge water for ground water aquifers. Most of the removal of readily degradable

pollutants occurs near the water’s point of entrance into ground water reservoirs, provided

the environment is conducive to microbial action. Precipitation filters through the ground

and recharges ground water at a rate of approximately 300 trillion gallons per year (CEQ,

1980).

Reducing the percolation and filtration capabilities of soils, contaminating surface waters,

and lowering water tables all hinder aquifer recharge. Improved grazing management, technologies to reduce erosion and runoff into surface water, controlled ground water withdrawal, and artificial recharge with fresh or

purified water are technologies that enhance

the land’s ground water recharge function.

Effects on Fish and Wildlife

Wildlife are broadly affected by agricultural

activities. The most widespread problems are

a result of expanding cropping and grazing into

wildlife habitats, overgrazing of riparian areas,

and agricultural activities that contaminate

aquatic habitats.

As American settlers cleared forests and

plowed prairie land for cultivation, many wildlife species vanished, Some species that were

adapted to open areas continued to prosper,

The cottontail, bobwhite, crow, robin, red fox,

skunk, and meadow mouse benefited as forests

were opened to fields. Forest edge-loving

species, such as the white-tailed deer, increased

as more of their favored environment was

available, but later declined as forest clearing

increased. Other species could not adapt to the

changed environments, however.

In the West, wilderness prairie animals—

bison, pronghorn antelope, mule deer, and grey

wolf—began to decline almost immediately as

their habitat disappeared, Large species and

predators were especially affected, By the turn

of the 20th century, wilderness animals had virtually vanished from the East, from much of

the prairie further west, and from the more fertile valleys of the Far West.

The abandonment of farms, particularly

upland farms with sloping fields, sometimes

improves habitat for wildlife, though the diversity of species is still greatly reduced from the

original flora and fauna. Some conversion of
60 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

farmland to protected forestlands and vacationlands also occurs.

As crop yields on sloping uplands decline

with erosion and fertility loss, farmers sometimes convert upland fields to pasture and

drain lowlands for crops. Wetlands drainage

removes habitats for migrating and resident

waterfowl, and can remove the last remaining

winter cover for some species of wildlife such

as pheasants. The removal of fence rows and

shelter belts also reduces wildlife habitat.

Irrigation of drylands, though, actually provides new habitat into which pheasants and

other wildlife can expand, Habitat also is enhanced by the more than 2 million acres of

farm ponds, dugouts, and stock tanks that have

been created, Especially where protected from

livestock, these waters and their shoreline

vegetation provide habitat diversity and niches

for birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, and other

wildlife (Burger, 1978).

Mechanization also has had a dramatic impact on wildlife. For example, mechanical

cornpickers leave more waste grain after corn

harvests than handpicking. Canadian geese,

mallard ducks, and other field-feeding waterfowl have benefited substantially from this new

food source. As a consequence of this drainage

of wetlands, irrigation of drylands, and creation of waterfowl refuges, the migratory paths

of many wildfowl have changed.

Land-forming, chemical treatments, and

other agricultural technologies often affect

wildlife adversely, The replacement of contour

plowing and stripcropping by leveling and filling surface irregularities in fields removes

wildlife habitat on farmlands. Various agricultural chemicals have deleterious effects on

wildlife. For example, bioaccumulated chlorinated insecticides produce eggshell thinning

in several predacious birds. Other insecticides

that have found their way into streams can

significantly reduce invertebrate populations

on which many fish depend (NAS, 1974).

Adverse effects from chemical applications

are not new. In Colorado, the pesticide Paris

Green, used by farmers to counter a grasshopper invasion in 1931, nearly eliminated the

newly introduced ring-necked pheasant. Pesticide pollution is also responsible for the emergence of pesticide-resistant populations of agricultural pests. A shortage of data exists, however, on the adaptations of these pests on a

biochemical or genetic level. Thus, the longterm effects of pesticides on pest populations

are unknown (Winteringham, 1979).

Cattle and sheep grazing and man’s control

of fires in the Western States have been responsible for changing large areas of grassland into

shrubland, thereby reducing the productivity

of those lands for wildlife and water resources

(Littlefield, 1980). Competition between some

wildlife—e, g., bighorn sheep and American elk

—and livestock also can occur.

Overgrazing reduces the perennial native

grasses on which cattle thrive and allows

sagebrush, a less nutritious forage, to increase.

Seedings of introduced grasses (e.g., crested

wheatgrass) can provide good replacement forage for livestock, but wildlife generally does not

prosper in such monoculture.

Overgrazing of riparian habitats is particularly detrimental, both to the wildlife that depend

on streamside vegetation and to the aquatic life

in streams and lakes. Riparian habitats are generally more productive of plants and animals

and are more diverse than the surrounding

range, Abuse or misuse of these more fragile

waterside habitats thus can be especially damaging.

Generally, sheep do little damage to riparian

habitats because they prefer open vegetation

areas. Cattle, however, are particularly damaging to riparian habitats because they prefer the

succulent growth and because they congregate

in large numbers over long periods, especially during the often critical periods of spring

and summer. Deer and elk rarely congregate

enough to do damage (Cope, 1980)

Riparian soils generally have high infiltration

capacities and release captured water slowly

to streams. Cattle grazing in these areas, however, reduces riparian vegetation, compacts

soils, and destroys overhanging streambanks,
Ch. Ii—Land Productivity Problems ● 6 1

all of which promote erosion and increase the

sediment load of the stream.

Stable streambanks hold sediment, control

water velocities, give cover to aquatic life, and

supply terrestrial foods to the ecosystem. When

streambanks are broken down, sediments from

the debilitated streambank and from runoff on

nearby lands pollute the stream. Thus, eutrophication may begin along with all of the concomitant changes in the riparian and aquatic

ecosystems. Fish production is suppressed by

elevated water temperatures, fish foods and

spawning beds are buried by sediments, and

aeration is reduced. Game fish, such as trout,

are reduced or eliminated, and replaced by

hardy but less desirable species (e.g., chubs)

that can survive in shallower streams with

lower oxygen content.

into aquatic systems may cause algal blooms

that reduce photosynthesis by aquatic plants,

make less oxygen available to aquatic life, and

release toxic wastes under anaerobic conditions.

Conclusions

The food and fiber products supplied by the

Nation’s agricultural lands represent only a

part of their value. Agroecosystems play an

essential role in maintaining air and water

quality, in recharging underground aquifers,

and in providing fish and wildlife habitat.

Although these benefits are often difficult to

measure, they are an important dimension that

should not be underrated by agricultural policymakers.

Grazing also can intensify bacterial and

pesticide pollution. Flushing of animal feces

CHAPTER II REFERENCES

Alexander, M., “HOW Agriculture Technologies Affect Productivity of Croplands and Rangelands

by Affecting Microbial Activity in Soil, ” OTA

background paper, 1980.

Armitage, E. R., “The Run-Off of Fertilizers From

Agricultural Land and Their Effects on the

Natural Environment, ” Pollution and the Use

of Chemicals in Agriculture (Ann Arbor Mich.:

Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., 1974), pp.

43-60.

Ilorman, R. G., et al., “water Level Changes in the

Northern High Plains of Colorado, 1956 to

1976, ” U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood,

Colo., Water Resources Division, 1977.

13untley, G. T,, and Bell, Frank F., Yield Estimates

for the Major Crops Grown on Soils of West

Tennessee, Agr. Expt. Sta. Bulletin 561, 1976.

Burger, George, “Agriculture and Wildlife, ” Wi~dlife and America (Washington, D, C.: Council

on Environmental Quality, 1978), pp. 89-107.

Cassel, D. K., “Subsoiling,” (lops and Soils Magazine, October 1979, pp. 7-10.

Cook, Kenneth A., “The National Agricultural

Lands Study Goes Out With a Bang, ” in Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 36, No.

Z, March-April 1981, pp. 91-93.

Cope, O. B., “Impacts of Rangeland Technologies

and of Grazing on Productivity of Riparian Environments in the United States Rangelands, ”

OTA background paper, 1980.

Costle, Douglas, “Statement of Douglas Costle, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, before the Subcommittee on Oversight and

Review, Committee on Public Works and

Transportation, ” U.S. House of Representatives, implementation of the Federal Water Po]-

lution Control Act, hearing July 18, 1979.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology,

“Soil Erosion: Its Agricultural, Environmental,

and Socio-economic Implications, ” report No.

92, January 1982.

, “Land Resource Use and Protection, ” report No. 38, January 1975.

Council on Environmental Quality, “Environmental Quality: The Eleventh Annual Report of the

Council on Environmental Quality, ” Washington, D. C., 1980.

“National Agricultural Lands Study, ”

Washington, D. C., 1981.

Dairies, R. H., Leone, Ida H., and Brennan, Eileen,

“Air Pollution and Plant Reponses in the

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.:

American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1966), pp. 11-32.

Dixon, R. M., “New Soil Implement Makes a Good

Impression, ” Crops and Soils Magazine, JuneJuly 1977, Pp. 14-16

Flawn, Peter T., Environmental Geology: Conservation, Land Use Planning, and Resource Management. (New York: Harper & Row, 1970.)

Frederick, Kenneth D,, “Irrigation and the Future

of American Agriculture, ” The Future of

American Agriculture as a Strategic Resource

(Washington, D. C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1980).

Gerba, C. P., et al,, “Quantitative Assessment of the

Adsorptive Behavior of Viruses to Soils, ” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 15,

1981, pp. 940-944,

Gifford, G. F., Faust, R, H., and Coltharp, G. B.,

“Measuring Soil Compaction on Rangeland, ”

Journal of Range Management, 30:457-460,

1977.

Hagen, L. L,, and Dyke, P. T., “Yield-Soil Loss Relationship, ” Proceedings of Workshop on Influence of Soil Erosion on Soil Productivity,

USDA-SEA-AR, Washington, D. C., 1980.

Halberg, H. A., “Use of Water in Arkansas, 1975,

Water Resources Summary 9, Arkansas Geological Commission, State of Arkansas, ” prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Arkansas Geological Commission, 1977,

Hauschen, Larry D,, “Increasing Water Scarcity:

Some Problems and Solutions, ” Cross Section,

1980.

Irwin, R. W., “On-Farm Drainage Benefit,” University of Guelph, Ontario, 1981, p. 14,

LaFleur, K. S., “Movement of Toxaphene and Fluromethoron Through Soils to Underlying

Ground Water, ” Journal of Environmental

Quality, 2(4]:515-518, 1973.

Larson, W. E,, “Protecting the Soil Resource Base, ”

in Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol.

36, No. 1, January-February 1981, pp. 13-16,

Lehr, J. H., “Database on Ground Water Quality and

Availability, ” OTA background paper, 1980.

Littlefield, Carroll D., Ferguson, D., and Holte, K,

E., “The Impacts of Grazing and Rangeland

Management Technology Upon Wildlife, ”

OTA background paper, 1980.

Marsden, Jr., S. S., and Davis, S, N., “Geological

Subsidence, ” Scientific American, vol. 216,

1967, pp. 93-100,

McCarty, P. L., Rittman, B. E., and Reinhard, R.,

“Trace Organics in Ground Water,” Environmental Science and Technology, 15(1):40-51,

January 1981,

McCormack, D. E., and Larson, W. E., “A Values

Dilemma—Standards for Soil Quality Tomorrow, ” presented at Soil Conservation Society

of America, annual meeting, Dearborn, Mich.,

August 1980.

Miller, Arnold, Expanding Crop Production and

Soil Erosion: Land Resources, Conservation

Practices and Policy Changes, unpublished

manuscript, June 15, 1981.

Moldenhauer, W. C., and Onstad, C, A., “Achieving Specified Soil Loss Levels, ” JournaZ of Soil

and Water Conservation, vol. 30, 1975, pp.

166-167.

Murray, C. Richard, “Estimated Use of Water in

the United States in 1970, ” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 676, 1970, pp. 20-21,

National Academy of Sciences, Productive Agriculture and Quality Environment, Washington,

D. C,, 1974.

Ochs, Malter, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service, personal communications, July 1981.

Pimentel, David, et al., “Land Degradation: Effects

on Food and Energy Resources, ” Science, vol.

194, PP. 117-128, 1976,

Raghaven, G, S. V., et al., “Effects of Soil Compaction on Development and Yield of Corn

(Maize),” Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:435-443, 1978.

Robertson, L. S., Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, personal

communication, 1981.

Schwab, G. 0,, Fausey, N. R., and Weaver, C. R.,

“Tile and Surface Drainage of Clay Soils, ”

Ohio Agricultural Research and Development

Center Research Bulletin #1081, 1975.

Sheridan, David, Desertification of the United

States, Council on Environmental Quality,

1981,

Shrader, W. D., “Effect of Erosion and Other Physical Processes on Productivity of U.S. CropIands and Rangelands, ” OTA background

paper, 1980,

Smith, G. E., “Fertilizer Nutrients as Contaminants

in Water Supplies, ” Agriculture and the Quality of Our Environment (Washington, D. C.:

American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1967), pp. 173-186.

Spomer, R. G,, Shrader, W. D., Rosenberry, P. E.,

and Miller, E. L., “Level Terraces With Stabi-
C/?. //—Land Productivity Prob/erns ● 6 3

Iized Backslopes on Loessial Cropland in the

Missouri Valley: A Cost-Effectiveness Study, ”

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol.

28, No, 3, 1973, Pp. 127-131.

Troeh, F. R., Hobbs, J. A., and Donahue, R. L., Soil

and Water Conservation for Productivity and

Environmental Protection (Englewood Cliffs,

N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980).

Trouse, A., Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, SEA-AR, personal communication, 1981.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, “An Assessment of the Energy Saving Potential of Soil and Water Conservation, ”

April 1975.

U.S. Department of Agriculture—Resources Conservation Act, The Soil and Water Resources

Conservation Act: 1980 Appraisal (review draft

pt. 1), 1980.

— , “Basic Statistics: 1977 National Resources

Inventory (NRI), revised February 1980.

U.S. Water Resources Council, The Nation Water

Resources, 1975-2000, vol. 4, Texas Gulf Regional (12], Washington, D. C., 1978.

Vanlier, K. E., “Groundwater and Agricultural Productivity: The Information and Data Base, ”

(3TA background paper, 1980.

van Schilifgaarde, Director, U.S. Salinity Laboratory, Riverside, Calif., personal communication, 1981.

Voorhees, W. B., “Soil Compaction, Our Newest

Natural Resource, ” Crops and Soils Magazine

29(5], 1977a.

, “Soil Compaction, How It Influences Moisture, Temperature, Yield, Root Growth, ” Crops

and Soils Magazine 29(6), 1977b.

“Soil Compaction, Good and Bad Effects

on’ Energy Needs, ” Crops and Soils Magazine

29(5), 1977c.

“Soil Tilth Deterioration Under Row Croppi~g in the Northern Corn Belt: Influence of

Tillage and Wheel Traffic,” Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation, July-August 1979, pp.

184-186,

Voorhees, W. B,, Senst, C. G,, and Nelson, W. W.,

“Compaction and Soil Structure Modification

by Wheel Traffic in the Northern Corn Belt,”

Soil Science Society of America Journal

2:344-349, 1978.

Walker, Kenneth C., “Agricultural Practices Influencing Air Quality, ” Agriculture and the Quality of Our Environment (Washington, D. C.:

American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1967), pp. 105-112.

Weeks, J. B,, personal communication, 1980; and

Weeks, J. B., and Gutentag, E. D., “Bedrock

Geology, Altitude of Base, and 1980 Saturated

Thickness of the High Plains Aquifer in Parts

of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico,

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming, ” USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas

648, 1981.

White, Fred C,, “Relationship Between Increased

Crop Acreage and Non-Point Source Pollution:

A Georgia Case Study, ” Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation, vol. 36, No. 3, 1981, pp.

172-176.

Williams, J. R., et al., “Soil Erosion Effects on Soil

Productivity: A Research Perspective, ” Journal

of Soil and Water Conservation, 36:2, 1981, pp.

82-90.

Wilshire, Howard, USGS, personal communication

in Desertification in the U. S., David Sheridan,

CEQ 1981.

Winteringham, F. P. W., “Agroecosystem-Chem ical Interactions and Trends, ” E’cotoxico/ogy

and Environmental Safet~’ 3:219-235, 1979.
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 rangeland in the United States. This includes natural

grasslands, savannas, shrublands, most deserts,

tundra, coastal marshes, and wet meadows.

Typical range vegetation includes grasses,

grass-like plants, forbs, and shrubs. (Pastureland, by contrast, is land improved for forage

production by intensive management of the soil

and vegetation.) In the contiguous United

States, over half the rangelands are seriously

degraded (USI)A/RPA, 1980).

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

fig. 8), These private rangelands generally have

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

lands. They include large desert ecosystems

with little or no carrying capacity for livestock

and extensive shrubland of low productivity,

USFS rangeland includes substantial areas of

less arid, more productive mountain ecosystems.

Alaska contains 231 million acres of rangeland, much of it (79 percent) in good condition

because it has not yet been used for livestock

grazing. Information on which agencies administer Alaskan rangelands are imprecise because of landownership changes mandated in

the 1980 Alaska lands bill. The 1980 Resource

Planning Act report indicates that BLM is the

major “owner,” managing over half the Alaskan rangelands, When that figure was deterPrivate

Figure 8. —U.S. Rangelands

Other

BLM

F S

State

owned

Rangeland, excluding Alaska

Total = 621,4 million acres

Alaskan rangeland

Total = 231 million acres

NOTES Federal data are from the Resource Planning Act (RPA) 1979, non-Federal

data are from 1977 National Resources Inventory (N RI), State land

estimated by Tom Frye USDA, Census of Agriculture statistics on total

range are imprecise N RI Indicates 621 million acres (outside Alaska)

whereas RPA Indicates 588 million acres

mined, USFS controlled about one-fifth of the

Alaskan rangelands, other Federal agencies

had about two-fifths, and only about 2 percent

was in private ownership (USDA/RPA, 1980.)

Demands for rangeland products and services are expected to increase sharply in the

next two decades (US DA/RPA, 1980 and

USDA/RCA, 1980], but opportunities for increased 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 beside 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

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 i s

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 vegetation has replaced the natural plant communities, as in most of California, range condition

is determined by comparing the present soil

and vegetation to the potential for the site without irrigation or fertilization.

Overgrazing causes great loss of productivity on U.S. rangelands. While present trends

in range productivity are difficult to determine,

the historical deterioration is well documented.

Almost all the Western arid and semiarid

ranges were severely overgrazed in the first

*For this assessment, range is rated in four categories—good,

fair, poor, and very poor, depending on the difference between

the land’s present vegetation and the ecological potential of the

site. Range rated “good” has vegetation between 61 and 100 percent of potential; “fair” range is 41 to 60 percent of potential;

“poor” range is 21 to 40 percent of potential; and “very poor”

range is 20 percent or less of potential (USDA/RCA, 1980).

Figure 9.— Rangeland Condition in the United States

Good condition I 160/0 /

SOURCE USDA 1980, Resources Conservation Act

two or three decades following settlement. For

example, the first settler to the Salt Lake Valley,

Utah, arrived in 1847; just 32 years later, the

Utah paper, Deseret News, reported:

The wells are nearly all dried up and have

to be dug deeper. At the present time the prospect for next year is a gloomy one for the farmers, and in fact, all, for when the farmer is affected, all feel the effects. The stock raisers

here are preparing to drive their stock to

where there is something to eat. This country,

which was one of the best ranges for stock in

the Territory, is now among the poorest; the

myriads of sheep that have been herded here

for the past few years, have almost destroyed

our range (Clegg, 1976).
Ch. 111—Rangelands ● 69

The process by which rangelands deteriorate

is well understood. Cattle and sheep bite plants

for food, consuming much of the aboveground

part of the plant before moving to the next

plant. In this they are like the enormous herds

of bison and other large wild herbivores that

once grazed the rangeland. But domestic livestock can cause serious harm to plants, especially grasses, whereas large wild herbivores

generally did not (Littlefield, et al., 1980]. The

wild herbivores stayed in herds and moved to

other ranges after ‘‘mowing” the forage once.

Domestic livestock, on the other hand, scatter

over the landscape and stay on the same general site until the rancher moves them. If a

rancher overstocks a site and does not move

the herd, they are likely to return to a plant

again and again, never letting it regain enough

green material to maintain its root system or

to store energy against periods of drought

stress (Savory and Parsons, 1980). When the

palatable and overstressed perennial grasses

die out, substantial changes in the ecology and

hydrology of the land commence. Overgrazing

removes the grass cover and leads to less plant

litter; increased runoff; sheet, rill, gully, and

streambank erosion; and less organic matter

in the soil. The resulting denuded land is also

more susceptible to wind erosion, especially

during drought.

Moreover, the degraded land can then be invaded by less productive plants, commonly

called weeds and brush, Annuals, such as Russian thistle (tumbleweed) and cheatgrass, take

hold, and deep-rooted shrubs, such as mesquite, proliferate. In northern regions ,

sagebrush is the primary invader, Accompanying these vegetation changes are upheavals

in wildlife populations, Most species decline,

especially the ground-nesting birds, such as

quail and grouse, and the herbivores, such as

bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, and American elk. A few wildlife species, such as the

kangaroo rat, jackrabbit, zebra-tailed lizard,

and horned lark, prosper in overgrazed areas.

Livestock grazing can be particularly hard

on riparian areas near streams, waterholes, and

springs. Riparian plants are more appealing to

grazing animals and more productive, so are

eaten more often. And riparian sites suffer

greatly from trampling because animals spend

more time in them and because their moist

soils are more susceptible to compaction.

Overgrazing also reduces the proportion of

rain and snowmelt that soaks into the ground,

Ungrazed rangeland on the southern Great

Plains, for example, was found to have infiltration rates nearly four times the rates on grazed

rangeland of similar character (Brown and

Schuster, 1969). Rainwater and snowmelt rush

off denuded or compacted land instead of

being absorbed into the soil. This, in turn,

makes streamflows more erratic, tending

toward a flood and drought regime. Whole

river systems can be changed. The Santa Cruz

River in Arizona, for example, was a meandering perennial river that supported an abundance of fish and other wildlife until its watershed and riparian areas were overgrazed. Now

it is dry most of the time (Sheridan, 1981),

Grassland restoration and conservation programs can reverse these effects and improve

streamflow significantly (Hibbert, et al., 1974).

The increased runoff associated with overgrazing also increases gullying, or “arroyo-cutting, ” as it is called in the Southwest. Combined with the increased sheet erosion caused

by overgrazing, gullying carries large amounts

of silt into rivers such as the Rio Grande. Indeed, it is estimated that one of the Rio

Grande’s most overgrazed watersheds—the Rio

Puerco Basin in northwest New Mexico—produces over 50 percent of that river’s total silt

load while supplying only 10 percent of its

water (Adams, 1979).

Historically, overgrazing effects have been

most severe in arid areas where the land is least

resilient. Thus, range conditions are now worst

in the Southwestern States. Two-thirds of the

rangelands of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona,

and California have range condition degraded

to 40 percent or less of the original condition,

(USDA/RPA, 1980).

The loss of productivity from overgrazing in

the Southwest is reinforced by climate changes.

Over the past 100 years, the natural vegetation

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

geologic time, Vegetation zones at different

elevations have changed noticeably. At low

elevations, vegetation in the desert shrub and

cactus communities have become sparser,

while the desert grasslands have receded greatly and have been replaced by desert shrubs,

cacti, and mesquite. At higher elevations, mesquite has taken over oak woodlands, and the

timberline of spruce and fir trees has moved

upward (Hastings and Turner, 1972).

Scientific opinion differs on the cause of

these profound changes. Some experts contend

that the changes are the result of a change in

the region’s climate, which apparently has

become more arid, with rainfall decreasing

about 1 inch every 30 years, Other scientists

contend that the prime cause of the vegetation

changes was the huge influx of cattle and sheep

that occurred in the latter part of the last century. It is likely that climate and livestock combined forces to bring about the most dramatic

changes, By weakening the grass cover, domestic grazing animals have reinforced the general

tendency toward aridity by contributing to an

imbalance between infiltration and runoff in

favor of runoff (Hastings and Turner, 1972).

Average range condition figures for the

United States as a whole are not so negative

as the figures for the Southwestern States because the climate in other regions gives the

land more resiliency, Still, the overall condition is not good. Excluding Alaska, over half

(54 percent) of the U.S. rangelands have range

condition degraded by 60 percent or more, In

Alaska, four-fifths of the rangeland still has

over 80 percent of its original productivity—

most of it is still virgin. Less than 2 percent—

just over 4 million acres—has been degraded

to 40 percent or less of the original condition.

CURRENT TRENDS

Experts do not agree on whether the overall

trend in rangeland productivity is improving,

remaining static in its degraded condition, or

continuing to degrade, and there are inadequate data to resolve the question, Nationwide

studies of range condition were done in 1936,

1968, 1972, and 1976. Unfortunately, these do

not comprise a time series that can be examined to discern the national trend. The studies

from 1976 and 1972 use much of the same data

as the 1968 study. Comparing the 1936 data to

the 1968 data is not useful because the methods

for measuring range condition have changed

and because the earlier study measured conditions under an uncharacteristic drought while

the later study measured conditions in a more

normal period.

Trends in range condition can be estimated

without time series data by using indicators

such as species reproduction, plant vigor, plant

litter, and surface soil condition. BLM, in the

process of making environmental impact assessments for its range management plans, is

now investigating range condition trend indicators rigorously, Most of their assessments indicate that stocking rates (grazing pressure)

must be lowered 20 to 75 percent to avoid further deterioration (Young and Evans, 1980),

In general, range experts report that forage

production on non-Federal land has gradually improved over the past 30 years, but that

these lands are still degraded from their ecological potential, The Federal rangelands are

apparently either static in their degraded condition or are continuing to deteriorate, There

are some exceptional sites where atypical levels

of management are improving Federal range

condition.

Available data indicate that the area of

rangelands has been declining in recent decades. By 2030, the total area of rangeland is projected to decline 7 percent, The acreage lost

will come primarily from private lands as range

is converted to cropland or pasture or developed for residential areas, highways, airports,

and mines (USDA/RPA, 1980).
Ch. 111—Rangelands ● 71

MONITORING

One factor that seriously complicates the

evacuation of rangeland productivity trends is

the highly variable weather characteristic of

the Western States, Rangeland plant production can fluctuate more than 300 percent from

one year to the next as a result of a variation

in precipitation (Box, 1980). Ideally, a large

sample of sites in each rangeland region and

subregion should be monitored regularly

through several drought cycles to determine

trends in rangeland productivity, Eventually,

the Resource Planning Act and Resource Conservation Act processes of planning and assessment might include such a monitoring program.

Meanwhile, however, improved monitoring

is needed to help manage local sites. Estimates of factors such as species composition,

forage output, degree of ground cover, and

symptoms of erosion—on which rangeland

trend assessments have traditionally been

based—would be more useful if they were

PRODUCTITIVITY

augmented by systematic monitoring of the

rangeland’s other vital signs, including:

the reproduction rate of various species in

order to determine whether the plant community succession is advancing or regressing;

the rate of soil loss by water and wind erosion;

the soil’s water infiltration rate, organic

content, and degree of compaction and

capping; *

the water quantity and quality of aquifers

and their hydologic interaction with

streams; and

the population dynamics of native animals

(including fish) which depend on the

rangeland habitat for food, water, and

cover.

*‘‘Capl)ing’ refers to the formation of a thi II ( r~] St on th(l \oil

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

by the (;llcn~ical-~)h}rsi( :al dynami(:t of soil (Iry in~. It l(~,i(lt to im

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

been developed to improve deteriorated rangeland. These may be broadly categorized as:

● adjusting livestock numbers;

• controlling animal use with grazing systems;

 prom o

● contr o

● contr o

ing desired plant species;

ling noxious plant species; and

Iing noxious animal species.

Congress has legislated objectives for use of

Federal rangelands. These are stated in the

Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964,

the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976,

and the Public Rangeland Improvement Act of

1978. Generally, these laws state that multiple

resource values are the management objectives

for public land. The laws establish resourceinventory and land-use planning mechanisms

for “the harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the

land . . . .“ (FLPMA, sec. 103 (c)). Translating

general multiple-use, sustained-yield objectives

from laws into achievable management objectives is extremely difficult, especially when two

or more legitimate uses of the land are in conflict. FLPMA specifically states that multipleuse management should consider the relative

values of the resources and not necessarily the

combination of uses that will give the greatest

economic return or the greatest unit output.

In theory, rangeland management strategies

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

technologies, monitoring programs to measure

progress toward the objectives, analysis methods to indicate how the management could be

changed to enhance progress, and a mechanism to implement the changes indicated by

the analyses, In practice, however, there are

often no statements of achievable objectives,

no rigorous monitoring programs, no replicable analysis methods, and no feedback mechanisms to facilitate adjustment of the technologies,

Most range management technologies are designed to foster livestock production. However,

some technologies exist that have other utilities

as their major objective. These include game

and fish management techniques, erosion control to decrease sedimentation of streams and

reservoirs, and vegetation manipulation to increase watershed yields. These technologies

are not well developed, however. Scientists and

resource managers working with rangelands

seem most concerned with livestock production technologies. Because livestock management considerations dominate rangeland use,

managers seeking to enhance wildlife or other

values would probably be most effective if they

focused on influencing the choice of livestock

production techniques. This traditional focus

on livestock and the paucity of technologies

directed at other values may explain in part

why livestock considerations continue to dominate Federal rangeland management decisions, even on ranges where livestock is not the

dominant objective (e.g., on wildlife refuges)

(Littlefield, et al., 1980),

This discussion begins with an overview of

technologies appropriate for sustaining range

resources and concludes with more detailed

descriptions of three promising new approaches: integrated brush management systems, short duration grazing, and grazing potentials in eastern woodlands.

c Adjusting livestock numbers is the most

widely used range management technique.

First, the carrying capacity of the range site is

estimated to determine the numbers and types

of grazing animals and the seasons they are to

graze, Then grazing occurs with the indicated

livestock in the indicated seasons. After one

or more years of grazing, the range conditions

need to be carefully reassessed. If the range

shows indications of overgrazing or underglazing, the intensity and timing of grazing are adjusted accordingly. The process can be repeated to fine-tune the carrying capacity estimate.

Adjusting stock rates to the land’s carrying

capacity sounds relatively simple, but in practice there are severe difficulties. First, the initial carrying capacity can only be estimated.

In theory, the range manager calculates carrying capacity by measuring the site’s total annual forage production. Then he subtracts the

forage that must remain ungrazed to protect

the health of plants and soil quality. The remainder is available for grazing, but the range

manager must also consider that some forage

is likely to be eaten by wild herbivores. (In

some cases this sharing of the forage between

wild and domestic animals is adjusted by reducing the wild animal numbers to decrease

their share, or by manipulating the number or

timing of domestic animals’ grazing to increase

the forage for wildlife.) When the total pounds

of forage available for livestock are known, that

weight is divided by the ration needed per animal per time unit. (Rations per animal can vary

with the character of the site.)

The estimation of carrying capacity is complicated by the vagaries of precipitation in the

arid and semiarid West, Since range managers

cannot foretell precipitation rates when planning stocking rates, they need to determine if

the year that produced the forage crop measured was typical and then discount that to

allow for drier years, At this stage, the carrying capacity estimate changes from science to

art, and the value of estimates of factors such

as the wildlife share of the forage becomes

doubtful.

Rather than do such precise analyses, managers commonly measure total forage production and estimate that 50 percent of it is

available for livestock grazing (Menke, 1981).

Although the continuous reevaluation of range
.

Ch, l/1—Rangelands ● 73

condition, trend, stocking records, and the adjustment of animal numbers and timing are

critically important, this reevaluation and readjustment is often not practiced. As a result, the

rangeland is overgrazed, especially during

drought, and sometimes undergrazed during

wetter periods (Box, 1980),

Another difficulty with adjusting animal

numbers is that ranching operations often are

not flexible and cannot accommodate changes

in animal numbers or adjust seasonal grazing.

If reduced grazing pressure is necessary at a

time when livestock prices are low, the rancher

might incur a substantial loss. To avoid this

loss, some ranchers choose to overgraze the

range, hoping the drought will pass quickly.

This is possible if the rancher controls range

use by right of ownership or tenure, or if his

lease is based on a carrying capacity estimate

that did not foresee the drought. Obviously, this

method can damage the long-term productivity of the range. Other ranchers may stockpile

or purchase alternative sources of forage to

feed livestock through drought, Losses incurred by selling part of the herd in stressful

times can be minimized if the age and sex ratio

of the herd are designed for economic flexibility (Scifres, 1980).

Yet another problem in range management

is related to the issue of animal types. The carrying capacity of most range ecosystems can

be greater for a variety than for any one type

of animal (Box, 1980). If a single species such

as cattle is stocked, the overall productivity of

the rangeland can be less and overgrazing

more likely than if a variety, such as cattle with

bison, sheep, or goats, could be used. It is also

possible to achieve higher productivity by

using a combination of domestic and wild animals with different food preferences. In pracPhoto 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

for single species, usually cattle or sheep.

There are several reasons for the lack of multiple-species management. One is a lack of information on techniques and economics, but

this lack of information is probably the result

of a more powerful constraint—the conservative attitudes of the ranchers, and of the institutions that support them, toward untried techniques that may affect their profits.

● Grazing systems are technologies based on

intensely managing how animals use range

sites, The aim is to schedule systematically recurring periods of grazing and nongrazing for

subunits of the site on the premise that periodically removing the animals from the range

gives the palatable plants a chance to recover

before being bitten again (Scifres, 1980). Some

grazing systems strive to distribute livestock

by season of use whereas others work to

achieve more even spatial distribution of livestock by fencing, water development, or other

means.

For the objective of increasing livestock production, grazing systems sometimes have not

proven superior to continuous, year-long grazing at moderate stocking rates (Scifres, 1980;

Box, 1980). However, even when livestock production is not increased in the short term, the

range is often improved so that, in the long

term, increased livestock production, as well

as increased overall productivity, can result

(Scifres, 1980). While grazing systems offer opportunities for improving rangelands, they are

site specific and no one system should be considered a panacea for the problems of range

degradation.

One of the more simple systems is rotation

grazing. This involves subdividing the range

and grazing one unit, then another, in regular

succession, Another type of grazing system is

called deferred grazing. This means delaying

grazing in an area for a particular purpose,

such as allowing old plants to gain vigor or new

plants to become established. These two concepts have been combined into a system called

deferred-rotation grazing. In this system, different parts of the range are deferred in rotation

so that in the series all units will benefit from

the deferment.

BLM reportedly is relying heavily on variations of the rotation systems and considerable

controversy has been generated. Critics say

that if stock reductions do not accompany rotation grazing, harmful impacts on riparian areas

and regional hydrology will be amplified by

periodically concentrating animals on particular sites. Fences to restrict livestock access

to riparian lands can be part of the grazing

system, but some critics object to the increased

physical injuries that fences can inflict on

wildlife (Littlefield, et al. 1980). Others who are

concerned about the profitability of ranching

object to the high cost of fences and to livestock

being excluded from highly productive riparian

sites,

● Rangeland vegetation can be manipulated

to increase the abundance and vigor of desired

plant species and thus accelerate range rehabilitation. Under natural plant succession,

degraded productivity can recover, though at

varying rates. On high mountain sites with

deep soil that receive 40 to 50 inches of rainfall a year, recovery may occur in a few years.

But on lands that receive only 20 or less inches

of rain, it may take plant communities centuries to recover from the severely degraded

conditions (Box, 1980). Rehabilitation techniques to speed up the recovery process range

from “interseeding’ —introducing desired

plant species without removing the existing

plant community—to intensive site preparation, reseeding, and sometimes temporary inputs of water or fertilizers to help desired

plants become established. (If the intensive vegetation management is a continuing process,

the site is no longer rangeland, but pasture.)

Reseeding and interseeding are widespread

practices on private rangeland, Usually the objective of seeding is to increase forage during

a season when native ranges do not provide

enough or are particularly susceptible to grazing pressures. For example, in the mountain

and intermountain regions, there is usually a

shortage of early spring forage, Native bunch-
Ch. 11/— Range lands ● 75

grass should not be grazed because that will

stunt future growth, so extensive areas are

seeded with introduced species such as crested

wheatgrass, which produces heavily during the

spring season and is more tolerant of spring

grazing (Box, 1980),

There are drawbacks to this “monoculture”

technique. The introduced grass can so dominate the ecosystem that other species, productive at other seasons, are crowded out. Crested

wheatgrass, for example, has low nutritional

value for fall or winter grazing livestock or

wildlife. To compensate, other species that can

compete with wheatgrass can be introduced—

e.g., four-wing saltbush and other forage

shrubs. These provide the protein and carotene

that the grasses lack in the fall grazing season

(McKell, 1980). Another disadvantage of reseeding programs where one or a few species

are introduced is that the resulting ecosystem

has fewer niches for animal life. Less diverse

plant and animal communities also may be

more susceptible to insect or disease damage

(Littlefield, et a]., 1980).

Inadequate nitrogen is often a limiting factor on rangeland productivity, so interseeding

legume species may be beneficial. In the United

States, alfalfa has been used this way; in

Australia and parts of Asia, interseeding with

the legume Townsville Stilo is reported to be

very successful. Legume shrubs and trees are

important sources of nitrogen for rangelands

in Africa (Felker, 1981). There is little information available on the positive or negative impacts of legume interseeding on U.S. rangelands, but it is known that forage can be

significantly increased (Lewis and Engle, 1980].

For sites where multiple-use management is

the objective, and if economics allow, reseeding or interseeding can introduce mixtures of

grasses, herbs, and browse plants and can rely

more on native species so that the resulting

ecosystem is more complex. Presumably this

would be the method used on Federal rangelands. In recent years there has been considerable research on methods to enhance, improve,

and reseed or interseed vegetation for wild animal use (Box, 1980). However, for several reasons, such technology is as yet underused on

the Federal rangelands. One problem is a lack

of reasonably priced seed, but this constraint

might be resolved by willing entrepreneurs, A

more intractable reason for underuse of seeding to accelerate recovery of diverse native

communities is the chronic lack of funding for

Federal rangeland improvements. Congress

recognized the need for accelerated rehabilitation of range condition when it passed the

Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. However, the act remains unfunded,

● Controlling noxious plants: excessive

cover of woody plants, the “brush” characteristic of degraded ranges, is one of the primary

deterrents to increased forage production.

There are three major approaches to brush control: chemical, mechanical, and fire, Chemical

control has certain advantages: it is effective,

various chemicals may be selected that are specific to certain types of plants, and it is relatively cheap compared to other controls. Major disadvantages are that some chemicals, improperly applied, may cause crop damage or health

hazards. Current environmental concerns and

regulations have largely prohibited chemical

use on Western Federal rangelands.

Mechanical control methods vary from handclearing or chopping individual plants to using

big machines that plow or drag plants from the

ground. These methods are advantageous in

that the plants are removed immediately while

the residue remains on the ground as organic

matter. The disadvantages are that costs are

generally high and considerable soil disturbance occurs with most mechanical methods.

Fire is a natural factor on all of Western

rangelands and it is gaining acceptance as a

major brush control technique. To its advantage, it is fairly inexpensive and can be quite

effective against nonsprouting species. It has

disadvantages, however. Brush areas often cannot support a fire, and since the burned land

is denuded for a short period of time, there is

an increase in the erosion potential,

Conventional vegetation control techniques

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

forage production for livestock. The effect of

brush control on wildlife depends on the

technique used. When large areas of brush are

removed, the effect on the wildlife species

adapted to brush is detrimental. But when

alternate cleared and uncleared strips are left,

populations of wildlife species, such as deer,

increase (Littlefield, et al., 1980). In general,

burning seems to find most favor with the

champions of wildlife. A newer approach, integrated brush management, offers improved

opportunities for enhancement of broad-scale

productivity. That approach is described later

in this chapter.

● Programs to control noxious animals are

used to achieve three range management objectives: 1) to protect livestock, 2) to reduce the

numbers of herbivores that compete with livestock for available forage, and 3) to protect the

range from overgrazing and subsequent damage to productivity. The techniques used sometimes serve one objective while detracting from

another.

Predators, particularly high populations of

coyotes, can decrease range productivity by

killing sheep or other livestock (Box, 1980;

Young and Evans, 1980), On the other hand,

when predator numbers are too low, they may

kill too few rodents and other wild herbivores,

so that grazing pressures increase and range

conditions deteriorate (Dwyer, 1980; Box,

1980). Thus, the purpose of modern predator

control programs is to optimize, rather than

minimize, predator populations.

In the past two decades, Government agencies responsible for predator control have been

studying new techniques for estimating predator populations, judging what constitutes optimum predator population levels for particular

sites, manipulating the populations or, in some

cases, the behavior of the animals, and monitoring the effects of the actions. The overall

state of the art for these techniques is primitive

and their development is not well supported

(Lewis and Engle, 1980). The integrated pest

management approach, assessed in another

OTA report (U.S. Congress, 1979), seems to be

one way to resolve conflicts among the objectives of noxious animal control programs in

rangeland ecosystems.

Wild horses and burros represent a particular

nuisance and controversy on Federal rangelands. Without effective predators, they are

capable of rapid increases in population and

can inflict heavy damage on range ecosystems.

Capturing and moving these animals is only a

temporary control measure, since the population will quickly rebuild. Treating them with

fertility-controlling drugs seems to be effective,

but very expensive. Selective killing of the

animals is simple and effective, but some stockmen and others killed horses and burros with

unnecessary cruelty before the animals were

protected on public lands by the Wild Horse

and Burro Act of 1974. As a consequence there

are now strong social and political constraints

to killing large numbers of these animals. A

report from the National Academy of Sciences

will review the state of the art in managing

these animals and will indicate what further

research is needed. It will not defuse the political controversy, however (Dwyer, 1980; Box,

1980; Meiners, 1981).

With the correct application of management

technologies, there is a great potential to improve productivity on many of the severely

degraded rangelands. Rangeland management

techniques, however, are very site specific and

there is a potential for long-lasting harm to productivity when technologies are misapplied.

With degraded plant cover and compacted

soils, overgrazed rangelands are exposed to

powerful erosion and further degradation,

Thus, careful monitoring of the soil and vegetation is necessary so that management technologies can be adjusted when needed. Congress,

as the manager of policy for the Federal

rangelands, recognized the need for information on soil and vegetation changes with the

Resource Planning Act and other legislation.

The data available are still inadequate, however, to determine whether present policies will

suffice to achieve the multiple-use objectives

that Congress has mandated for Federal rangelands,
Ch, III—Rangelands ● 7 7

In theory, the primary objective of multipleuse management is to sustain or enhance the

overall productivity of the resource base. Production of livestock and other specific benefits

are secondary objectives. The rationale of such

an approach is that managing for productivity will, in the long run, give the greatest production of all the multiple-use values. In practice, livestock production is usually the dominant objective for management plans on both

Federal and non-Federal rangelands. The plans

to produce livestock are then adjusted to provide for maintenance or enhancement of some

nonlivestock values such as wildlife, fisheries,

or water quality.

Integrated

Management

Introdrution

Brush

Systems

agement schemes to combat brush problems

and have developed a new approach called integrated brush management systems (IBMS).

Basic IBMS principles include:

reducing dependence on any one method,

such as repeated herbicide treatments, in

favor of coordinating techniques;

using available techniques in a complementary sequence to take advantage of

synergistic effects;

patterning the application of selected treatment sequences to enhance livestock production and habitat diversity for wildlife

simultaneously;

developing treatment sequence alternatives to make systems flexible for adaptation to particular site circumstances and

the producer’s operating constraints;

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, suppose a range livestock producer using a four-
78 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

pasture, three-herd grazing system* has determined certain brush species are limiting production. The chosen control procedures and

rationale might include (Scifres, 1980):

1.

2.

3.

An aerial spray, used to reduce the competitive advantage of a weed species,

considering:

● Herbicides should be applied in the

fall when potential for spray drift

damage to susceptible nontarget

species is minimized.

● The pastures should be treated in turn

as they are scheduled for deferment

from grazing in the fall, thus spreading the investment over 4 years and

taking advantage of regularly scheduled deferments to maximize forage

response. This also allows the producer to increase his livestock herd

gradually in response to the rate of improvement.

● The herbicide should be applied in

patterns to retain some brush for

white-tailed deer habitat and reduce

total land area sprayed.

The area should be burned 18 to 24 months

after spraying to remove standing woody

debris, reinstate valuable broadleaves damaged or removed by the spray, improve botanical composition of the forage standby

favoring the more productive grasses, suppress brush regrowth that survived the

spray, and improve the browse value of

large, decadent, unsprayed brush.

Repeat burning at 2- to 3-year intervals,

depending on weather, unless brush regrowth becomes excessive, in which case

individual plant treatments with herbicides or treatment of local areas may be

advisable.

Potential Scale of Application

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

to relate 1 ~MS procedures, other ~razin~ mana~~ment systems

can be used effectively. Short duration grazing [SDG) appears

to be especially amenable to I13MS. However, there is no available research or field experience to support a discussion of the

integration of 1E3MS into SDG.

timated that an average of 1.5 million acres of

Texas rangeland were treated for brush control annually from 1956 through 1977 (Scifres,

et al., 1980). Junipers, mesquite, and sagebrush

alone infest some 242 million acres of U.S.

rangeland* (Klingman, 1962).

To be successful, IBMS require relatively

long planning horizons. For example, whereas

the expected treatment life of a given herbicide

spray for mesquite control may be 7 years or

less, brush management systems are designed

to span 15 or 20 years (Scifres, 1980). For the

next 10 years, IBMS are expected to receive

most attention in States such as Oklahoma,

Texas, and New Mexico where the brush problem is a priority concern among both Government land managers and private ranchers.

Much of the impetus for developing IBMS

lies in recent Federal scrutiny of herbicides and

the rising costs of conventional range improvement methods. If these factors continue to be

important, the rate of adoption of IBMS will

probably increase rapidly during the next decade.

Potential Impacts

The primary goal of IBMS technology is to

optimize range products on a sustained basis.

By expanding forage opportunities, IBMS may

have the potential to double livestock carrying

capacities of many range sites (Thomas, 1970).

For example, combining use of a pelleted herbicide with prescribed burning for whitebrushinfested rangeland in Texas increased the livestock carrying capacity from 1 animal unit

(AU)** per 35 to 40 acres to 1 AU per 12 to 15

acres in three growing seasons (Scifres, 1980).

Other, similar increases have been reported.

These levels of productivity, discounting

weather fluctuations, are expected to hold as

long as the systems are operative and livestock

management is maintained at a high level.

“Another OTA assessment, “Water-Related Technologies for

Sustaining Agriculture in U.S. Arid and Semiarid Lands,” is exploring potential innovative uses for these and other range

species.

* *An animal unit is the forage required to support a cow and

a calf for 1 year,
Ch. 111—Rangelands ● 79

The primary biological processes affected by

IBMS relate to vegetational change, Wildlife

habitat quality is improved by developing a

mosaic of vegetation types rather than total

suppression of brush. Increasing the ground

area covered by perennial native grasses

decreases sheet erosion during wet periods and

the mulch cover increases water infiltration.

This increases the amount of forage produced

per increment of precipitation received

(Scifres, et al., 1977a).

The impacts of the herbicides used in IBMS

are uncertain, Residual patterns of newer herbicides, such as tebuthiuron, have not been

established over a wide range of conditions,

and add it ional research is needed. At application rates used in IBMS, herbicides such as

2,4,5-rr (2,4,5 -trichlorophenozy acetic acid) are

dissipated in the growing season of application,

and picloram [4-amino-3,5,6 -trichloropicolinic

acid) should not be expected to carry over into the second growing season (Scifres, et al.,

1977 b). However, just what happens to the dissipated chemicals is not clear.

The effects of fire on rangeland soils are as

follows:

1. Erosion potential: The greatest erosion occurs on steep slopes when a high intensity

storm follows a burn. This is of special

concern with soils that seal readily and

promote overland flow. However, erosion

can be reduced by limiting burning to gentle slopes (no greater than 5 percent] and

to Iate winter or early spring to promote

early regrowth and rapid development of

cover.

2. Water relationships: The greatest difference in water dynamics of burned v. unburned rangeland is that lush new growth

consumes more water, This extra demand

typically exists only through the first growing season after burning,

3. Nutrient status: Minor amounts of nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus are volatilized by range fires, organic matter may be

decreased somewhat depending on conditions of the burn, and soluble salts [calcium, potassium, etc.) are returned to the

soil in the ash.

The net impacts of IBMS burns on rangeland

soil have not proven detrimental, perhaps

because prescribed burns are generally less intense than wildfires.

Conclusions

The costs of IBMS are the sum of the costs

of each step in the treatment sequence and are

therefore highly variable. Indirect costs, too,

should be considered. For example, risks of

herbicide drift and the possibility of a prescribed burn getting out of control are indirect

costs, There are also indirect benefits. Improving vegetation of one management unit within

the ranch should relieve stress on adjacent

units and encourage their improvement. Other

potential effects, such as increasing or reinstating streamflow, benefit users removed from the

actual site of brush management.

The primary constraints to implementation

of IBMS are economic, environmental, and

technical. The major economic constraint is

the capital required to initiate the first [and

usually most costly) step in the sequence. Federal cost sharing through agencies such as the

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service (ASCS) is of increasing importance,

especially for smaller ranches (Whit son and

Scifres, 1980).

Technical constraints to wider use of IBMS

technology are significant because research is

still in the formative stage and the rate of

testing treatment-sequence variations cannot

exceed the pace of natural seasons, For example, prescribed burning must be explored in

more depth to capitalize on its full potential.

Herbicide use must be refined through new application techniques for registered compounds

and development of improved compounds.

Low-energy mechanical methods for brush

management should be developed and refined.

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

analyzed to determine optimum system designs

for various types of ecosystems and management objectives.

Short Duration Grazing

Considerable interest exists among both livestock producers and range scientists in short

duration grazing (SDG) systems. Such grazing

systems may as much as double the carrying

capacity of certain ranges (Scifres, 1980).

SDG systems concentrate a relatively large

number of animals on a given area, but for

much shorter times than in more conventional

deferred grazing systems. SDG also has shorter

rest periods and other differences from traditional grazing management,

Rangelands and their management needs

vary widely, not only in a geographic sense

from the arid and semiarid West to humid

Southeast, and from the cool North to the mild

South, but also among specific sites within geographical regions, Any discussion of range

management, including SDG, must recognize

the site-specific nature of range improvements.

Most modern grazing management espouses

the idea that periods of rest (removal of all grazing animals) are necessary to prevent overuse

and allow plants to recover vigor, The typical

SDG system rotates herds through a series of

pastures several times (six or more) per year.

Grazing periods are short (7 days or less), and

rest periods generally are not longer than 60

days. This concentration of relatively large

numbers of animals on a given area for a short

time followed by long rest periods is designed

to simulate the grazing activities of the wild

herbivores under which the range ecosystem

evolved. Consequently, SDG is sometimes considered to be the most “natural” grazing

method available.

Because SDG entails frequent movement of

stock and high stocking rates, ranchers must

take precautions to minimize animal stress.

Livestock under stress can suffer low conception rates, nutritional difficulties with weaning, and poor summer weight gains. One way

to reduce stress is to reward the livestock for

moving between sites. In a Pavlovian approach, the cattle can be trained to associate

extra food with some stimuli, such as a horn

or call, that occurs before changing cells, Eventually the livestock will lose their apprehension

and will move without the extra reward,

The SDG systems might be most attractive

to larger ranches with the reserve capital

necessary to invest in adequate fencing and

facilities. Larger operations, too, would be able

to absorb the short-term reductions in sales that

might come with the transition to higher stocking rates, This transition period can take

several years, depending on the size of the

system and characteristics of the ranch.

Proponents of the technology claim that the

increase in livestock carrying capacity can

occur without harming the range ecosystems,

either plantlife or wildlife. Unfortunately, there

is a paucity of research data to allow an objective assessment of these management strategies. There is some concern that high stocking rates could damage certain soils during wet

periods. If excessive compaction does occur in

those situations, this negative impact should

be weighed against the previously mentioned

claims of beneficial impacts from trampling.

In terms of technology diffusion, SDG is in

the early stage of adoption in this country. One

type of SDG, the Savory grazing method (SGM),

for example, was only introduced to the United

States 3 years ago, although it has been used

abroad for a decade. SGM, sometimes called

the “cell system, ” arranges pastures in a cartwheel design, with watering and handling facilities in the hub (see fig. 10), Livestock are

herded through the various cells according to

a management plan that accommodates site

variables in each cell. In preparing a SGM plan,

the rancher notes his particular needs (e.g.,

pastures for breeding, birthing, weaning, etc.)

and notes which cells will be unavailable at any

time for any reason, For instance, the rancher

may want to avoid having his heifers in close

proximity to a neighbor’s bull or too near

recently planted crops, Or he may wish to keep
Ch. 111—Rangelands ● 81

Figure 10.—Cartwheel Pasture Arrangement Used

in the Savory Grazing Method

Central facilities

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

livestock out of certain cells when they are expected to harbor poisonous plants or during

breeding season for ground-nesting birds.

The SGM system purports not only to protect the land but actually to enhance it. According to proponents, the physical impact of livestock hooves has two interrelated beneficial effects, if properly managed. First, livestock

hooves churning the soil surface can break up

any crust formed by the impact of raindrops

and runoff, This reduces erosion. Also, as more

rainfall penetrates the soil, more moisture is

available for plant roots and for replenishing

ground water supplies.

This method, developed in East Africa, is

beginning to receive relatively rapid acceptance among U.S. ranchers. However, American range scientists are only just beginning to

investigate the system’s constraints and potentials. Thus, many questions about the method’s

impacts, both good and bad, remain to be answered. The following discussion answers

some of these questions from the view of the

developer of SGM (Savory, 1981).

1. Who can use SGM? Theoretically, any

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

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

3.

4,

5.

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 possible, to use pastures only when they are relatively dry.

Some desert margin soils may also have

problems under SGM. Even brief periods of

livestock trampling seem to promote the

growth of undesirable runner grass communities in small areas—typically 20 to 30 yards

in diameter—where the soil is most disturbed,

Can SGM be used on steep terrain? Adapting SGM to steep terrain may call for special

layouts and fence arrangements. The usual

rule of thumb, however, is that if other range

management methods can be used on the

mountainous land in question, so can SGM,

What are typical installation costs for an

SGM grazing system? It is impossible to

generalize because construction costs are

site specific. As an example, the cost of a

grazing cell system, installed as part of a

whole ranch development near Midland,

Tex., was $4.80 an acre, including expenses

for water, fencing, and labor, In the 2 years

since the system began operating, its stocking rate has more than doubled and survived

the 1980 drought at that increased rate.

Does SGM require a great deal of paperwork? These systems require more advance
82 Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

6.

7.

planning and recordkeeping, but the paperwork burden is reduced as the ranchers become practiced in the use of the special

recordkeeping systems,

When a grazing system has only one watering point and that point is a natural stream,

pond, river, or lake, is there danger of serious riparian damage? Although more work

needs to be done on this question, proponents of SGM maintain that riparian damage

can be avoided by designing the system so

that cattle use only part of the watering

source at a time, and then for just a limited

period.

Is the fencing necessitated by a full-blown

application of SGM detrimental to wildlife? Fencing in any range management

scheme can be detrimental to wildlife, but

these effects can usually be limited by using

simple three-strand fences that allow most

wild species to jump over or crawl under

them without injury, In addition, game gates

sited on SGM fence lines may be left open

when domestic stock are not in the paddocks

served by the gates. This facilitates wildlife

movements. These systems

wildlife management as an

rancher because

well as esthetic

razin g

Eastern

lntroduction

it can have

benefits.

count good

asset to the

economic as

for

If properly managed, Eastern forests could

provide substantial increases in economically

and environmentally sound livestock grazing.

The 310 million acres of forests in the East

could support as much as 20 million AUs of

forage (an AU is the forage required to support

a cow and a calf for 1 year) if the land were

*The Eastern United States is defined here as that area east

of the 97th meridian. This basically excludes the Great Plains

States but includes the forests in Oklahoma and Texas.

intensively* managed for multiple purposes

(Byington, 1980). Under less rigorous, extensive* * management, potential forage is only

about 1 million AUs (tables 8 and 9). However,

the technologies for intensive multiple-use

management have not been developed and

demonstrated for most Eastern forest communities, so the potential remains untapped,

Farmers have grazed livestock in Eastern

woodlands to varying degrees since first settlement. But most such grazing is environmentally destructive because of overgrazing, erosion, compaction, and other damage to forest

growth and reproduction. Further, most of this

unmanaged forest grazing is uneconomical,

Only limited progress is being made in developing appropriate technologies for Eastern

grazing management because of the commonly held attitude that native forages on Eastern

forests simply cannot be produced and grazed

in an economically and environmentally sound

way.

Current Use

The Eastern United States is blessed with

abundant rainfall, adequate growing seasons,

and good soils needed to produce abundant

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

harvest. Native grazing lands, those forests and

grasslands with naturally occurring vegetation

suitable for livestock grazing, are of secondary

importance.

It is difficult to judge the current extent of

grazing in Eastern forests because of problems

*“Intensive management” makes investments in technologies

and practices to maximize production, quality, and use of native

forages while maintaining the forest for wood products, wildlife,

and recreation.

* *“Extensive management” controls livestock numbers with

little effort to achieve planned distribution of livestock or to increase carrying capacity through alterations of the forest canopy.

Management investments are made only to protect the land from

damage.
Ch. III—Rangelands ● 8 3

Table 8.—Estimated Potential of Major Forest Communities to Produce Livestock

Forage Under Extensive and Intensive Management—Northern Region

Potential natural community

Great Lake spruce-fir. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Great Lake pine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Northeastern spruce-fir. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Northern floodplain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maple-basswood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oak-hickory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Elm-ash. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Beech-maple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mixed mesophytic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appalachian oak. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Northern hardwoods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Northern hardwoods-fir. . . . . . . . . .

Northern hardwoods-spruce. . . . . . . . .

Northeastern oak-pine. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oak-hickory-pine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . ,.

Average potential proctuction

(total AU)

Total grazable Extensive Intensive States in which community

acres (000’s) management management is primarily located

5,503

5,660

11,934

2,518

1,690

14,310

18,556

1,448

5,039

15,309

7,673

13,217

31,838

32,029

0

146,536

0

1,206

0

0

38,665 34,921

7,891 0

10,421 43,370

1,471 31,209

3,587 8,528

91,581

112,426

646,478

158,547

122,693

890,662

1,650,284

125,452

132,520

424.419

2,596,887

511,218

334,452

88,817

305,214

Minnesota, Wisconsin

Michigan, Minnesota,

Wisconsin

Maine, New Hampshire,

New York, Vermont

Minnesota

Illinois, lowa, Minnesota,

Wisconsin

lowa, Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, Montana, Ohio

Indiana, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania

Michigan, Ohio

Ohio, West Virginia

Connecticut, Massachusetts,

Maryland, New Jersey,

New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

West Virginia

Massachusetts, Maine,

Michigan, New Hampshire,

New York, Pennsylvania,

Vermont, Wisconsin,

West Virginia

Michigan, Wisconsin

Maine, New Hampshire,

New York, Vermont

Massachusetts, New Jersey,

New York

Delaware, Maryland,

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

Montana,

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,801a

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

land type among the three primary agencies

that collect such information. The Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, and Department

of Commerce conduct some inventories of livestock grazing in Eastern forests, but the information is limited and inconsistent. Estimates

vary from the Forest Service’s high figure of

100 million acres of grazed Eastern forest to

Census of Agriculture statistics that indicate

only 26 million grazed forest acres. The inconsistency is partly because the latter estimate

considers only a certain class of forest owners.

Ownership is an important factor in the use

of forests for livestock grazing, Generally, four

classes of ownership are considered: public,

forest industry, farmer, and other. Farmers

throughout the East graze livestock in a higher

percentage of their forests than other classes

of owners (Byington, 1980).

Overall, forest grazing has declined in recent

years. The Soil Conservation Service’s conservation needs inventory of 1967 estimated that

over 80 million acres of forest in the East were

being grazed. The 1977 National Resource Inventories by the same agency estimated that

only 36 million acres were then being grazed.

The decline, however, is not because of any increasing unwillingness among farmers to graze

their woodlands; it is, in large part, caused by

the changing pattern of landownership. During the past 25 years, the area of forests owned

by farmers dropped 35 percent, though the total

area of forest in the East remained relatively

stable (table 10). Nearly 55 million acres of

forests passed from farmers’ hands, much of

it into other private holdings less amenable to

grazing (Byington, 1980).

History

Throughout the East, native grazing lands

played an important role in settlement. The forests and prairies provided inexpensive forage

to support livestock used for food, transportation, and animal power for tillage. However,

there are major ecological and cultural differences between the northern and southern

halves of the Eastern United States that have

affected the acceptance of woodland grazing.

During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, timber industries denuded large acreages in the

East and conflicts between cattle and lumber

interests increased. By the 1920’s and early

1930’s, the Federal Government became increasingly concerned with land use, particularly on the cutover lands in the South. The National Forest System in the South was established, and research began on the interactions

between forestry and livestock.

In the Southern pines region, cattle were

seen as an opportunity to bring clearcut forestland back into production. But in the Northern

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 ● 8 5

the forest, so research was oriented toward

documenting livestock impacts. The results of

various experiments and observations led to a

near-universal conclusion that grazing was

necessarily detrimental to Northern forests and

was not economically worthwhile. This split

in research approach is still visible.

Conservation in Grazed Forests

Table 11 is a summary of non-Federal acres

of forest being grazed and thought to require

conservation treatment in 1967 and 1977. Two

types of conservation treatments are recommended: 1) to reduce or eliminate livestock

grazing, and 2) to maintain grazing but improve

forage production. Reducing or eliminating

grazing is the most recommended practice in

the Northern region, while increasing forage

production is more often recommended in the

South.

Most of the recommended conservation

treatments are directed at reducing erosion by

maintaining adequate ground cover. Table 12

contains summaries of erosion by land capability class and land use and by the area being

grazed. This indicates that a considerable

amount of erosion is caused by livestock grazing in woodlands, particularly on land classes

V-VIII.

Technologies for MuItlple-Use

Management of Forest Grazing

Multiple-use management offers the best opportunity for expanding the production of both

wood and forage in Eastern forests. The most

basic technology used for grazing lands is the

management of grazing animals. The technologies needed to develop the forage/livestock

systems in forests include:

Technologies to manage livestock use of

native forages that ensure: 1) livestock

health and productivity is adequate, 2) the

vigor of the plants is maintained, and

3) other resources are not damaged. These

technologies include grazing systems, controlling season of use, managing stocking

rates, selection and mix of grazing animals, use of feed supplements, and construction of physical structures (fencing,

water development, etc.).

Technologies to improve forage productivity and quality and to increase output per

acre to get adequate economic returns or

to restore vegetation on damaged land.

Technologies include seeding with improved plant species; fertilization; water

development; use of mixtures of cool- and

warm-season plant species, as well as

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

Region and section grazed (000’s) grazing (000’s) (000’s)

Northern region. . . . . . . . . . . . 13,130 8,236 3,533

New England. . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 81 59

Middle Atlantic. . . . . . . . . . 1,870 1,418 210

Lake States. . . . . . . . . . 3,264 2,051 753

Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,765 4,686 2,511

Southern Region. . . . . . . . . . . . 22,967 6,081 10,239

South Atlantic. . . . . . . . . 2,318 962 553

East Gulf, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,346 824 2,209

Central Gulf. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,549 2,283 1,400

West Gulf, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,754 2,012 6,077

SOURCE Derived from “Basic Statistics 1977 National Resource Inventories (NRl) revised 1980 “

Percent of grazed forestland

requiring conservation treatment

9 0

61

87

86

93

71

65

70

66

75
86 • Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Table 12.—Average Sheet and Rill Erosion Rates in Crop Production

Regionsa 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

machines to control unwanted plant

species.

Technologies to manage the interactions

of forage plants and livestock with other

land uses so as to reduce conflicts and

maximize overall output of goods and services. Such technologies often involve

tradeoffs between uses and depend on the

judgment of the land manager. For example, the tree canopy limits light and water

flow to the soil, and thus forage production. Opening up the tree canopy will increase forage production but may reduce

overall production of wood, Success in

selecting a technology to manage such interactions depends on the availability of

knowledge about how each resource will

respond, so that tradeoffs can be estimated

and evaluated.

Conclusions

The grazing potential of the Eastern forest

is a resource that has not been considered of

sufficient value to develop and manage with

appropriate technologies, Forest production in

the East is based primarily on a philosophy of

single dominant use, and although farmers use

their woodlands for grazing, it is at a low level

of management which typically is neither economically nor environmentally sound. Because

few techniques for intensive management have

been developed except in the Southern pine

forest, the forest owner has little choice except

to manage for wood products, sell the land, or

clear the forest to establish pasture.

Over 50 million acres of forested land have

passed from farm ownership in the last 30

years, With increasing land values and higher

taxes, farmers have often found that they cannot afford to keep forests for either woodland

grazing or production of wood products. The

future of these lands will depend on how the

mix of economic and social factors changes the

value that is placed on the various resources

these forests can supply. Intensive management of forest lands to produce both wood

products and livestock forage may make it profitable for farmers to retain their farm forests.
Ch 111—Rangelands ● 8 7

CHAPTER 111 REFERENCES

Adams, Rex, Eastern New Mexico University,

1979, communication to David Sheridan, cited

in Desertification in the United States, Council on En\~ironmental Quality, 1981.

Box, Thadis W., “Impacts of Technologies on

Range Productivity in the Mountain, Intermountain and Pacific Northwest States, ” OTA

background paper, 1980.

Brown, J. W., and Schuster, J. L., “Effects of Grazing on a Hardland Site in the Southern High

Plains,” jour. Range Management, vol. 22,

No.6, 1969, pP. 418-423.

Byington, Evert K., “I,ivestock Grazing on the Forested Lands of the Eastern United States, ”

OTA background paper, 1980.

Clegg, H., “Range Improvements in Utah, ” Proceedings Utah Soil Conservation Society of

America Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1976.

I)wyer, Don D., “Impacts of Technologies on Productivity and Quality of Southwestern Rangelands, ” OTA background paper, 1980.

Felkcr, Peter, “Development of Low-Water and Nitrogen Requiring Ecosystems to Increase and

Stabilize Agricultural Production of Arid Land

Developing Countries, ” Innotrati~re Bioiogica~

Technologies for Lesser Developed Countries:

An Office of Technology Assessment Workshop, September 1981.

Hastings, James R., and Turner, Raymond M., The

Changing Mile, University of Arizona Press,

1972, as cited in Sheridan, David, Desertification in the United States, Council on Environmental Quality, 1981.

Hibbert, A. R., Davis, E. A., and School, D. G.,

Chaparral Conversion Potential in Arizona:

Part 1: Water Yield Response and Effects on

Other Resources, USDA-Forest Service, research paper RM-1 26, Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,

Colo., 1974.

Klingman, D. L., “Problems and Progress in Woody

Plant Control on Rangelands, ” proceedings

Southern Weed Conference 15, 1962.

Lewis, James K., and Engle, David M., “Impacts of

Technologies on Productivity and Quality of

Rangelands in the Great Plains Region, ” OTA

background paper, 1980.

Littlefield, C. D., Ferguson, D., and Holte, K. E.,

“The Impacts of Grazing and Rangeland Management Technology Upon Wildlife, ” OTA

background paper, 1980.

McKell, C, M., “Technology Issues in Developing

Sustained Agricultural Productivity on Virgin

and Abandoned Lands in the United States, ”

OTA background paper, 1980.

Meiners, William, range conservation consultant

and OTA advisory panel member, personal

communication, 1981.

Menke, John, personal communication, 1981.

Savory, Allan, personal communication, 1981.

Savory, Allan, and Parsons, Stan, The International

Stockmen School, Beef Cattle Handbook, \’ol.

17, 1980, PP. 222-244.

Scifres, Charles J., “Emerging Innovative Technologies for Rangeland, ” OTA background paper,

1980,

Scifres, Charles J., et al., “Range Impro~Tement

Practices for the Coastal Prairie: Needs, Present Application, and Research Ad~rances, Proceedings First Welder Wildlife Foundation

Symposium, 1980, pp. 14-24.

Scifres, C. J., Durham, G. P., and Mutz, J. L., “Range

Forage Production and Consumption Following Aerial Spraying of Mixed Brush, Weed

Science, vol. 25, 1977a, pp. 217-218.

Scifres, C. J., et al., “Residual Characteristics of

2,4,5-T and Picloram in Sandy Rangeland

Soils, ” Journal of Ent7ironmental Qualit~, vol.

6, 1977b, pp. 36-42.

Sheridan, David, Desertification of the United

States, Council on Environmental Quality,

1981.

Thomas, G. W., “The Western Range and the Livestock Industry It Support s,” Range Research

and Range ProbJems, Crop Science Society of

America, Madison, Wis., 19i’o.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Resources Conservation Act, The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act: 1980 Appraisal (review draft pt.

I), 1980.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rangeland Planning Act, An Assessment of the

Forest and Rangeland Situation in the United

States, 1980.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Pest Management Strategies in Crop Protection, OTA-F-98, October 1979.

Welch, T. G., and Scifres, C. J., “Integrating Range

Improvement With Grazing Systems,” Symposium Proceedings, Grazing Systems for Southwest Rangelands, New Mexico State University, in press (1980).
g8 . /mPacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Whitson, R, E., and Scifres, C. J., “Economic Neces- Young, J. 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 Appraisers, 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

in the United States (excluding Alaska), including about 230 million acres of prime farmland (see fig. 11), Generally, prime lands are

those with extremely desirable characteristics

for growing crops, including good soil, moisture, climate, drainage, and slope, These attributes make prime land the most efficient and

environmentally stable lands for food production.

Another 115 million acres of cropland classified as prime were not used for crops when

the National Resource Inventories (NRI) data

were collected in 1977. Forty-two million acres

of this were forest, 23 million were rangeland,

and 40 million were pasture (CEQ-NALS,

1981). The 1982 NRI are expected to show that

some of this land has since been put into crops.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS) experts estimated that 127 million acres of noncropland

in the United States had high or medium potential to be converted to cropland as of 1977. As

discussed previously, this land is generally

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

forage and timberland, so conversion to agriculture would mean the loss of those products,

On the other hand, about 23 million acres of

agricultural land were converted to nonagricultural uses between 1967 and 1974—a rate

of nearly 3 million acres a year. Of the 3 million

acres taken out of crops each year, about

675,000 acres were prime farmland (CEQNALS, 1981).

Technologies discussed in this chapter are

designed to sustain or enhance production

while reducing erosion, the greatest threat to

the Nation’s land resource. Sheet and rill erosion totaled about 2 billion tons of soil in 1977,

the only year for which accurate data are available. Data on wind erosion are available only

for the 10 Great Plains States, where this problem is most severe. Wind erosion in those

States, which comprise 40 percent of the Nation’s total cropland area, was 892 million tons

(USDA-NRI, 1980). To calculate a conservative

estimate of total cropland erosion (wind and

sheet and rill), assume that wind erosion is significant only- in the Great Plains States, and that

gully and streambank erosion do not affect

cropland significantly. Thus, total cropland

erosion is the sum of sheet and rill erosion plus

Great Plains wind erosion, or 2.8 billion tons

a year. This is an average of 7 tons per acre

each year for the Nation’s total 413 million

cropland acres.

Information about soil formation rates under

cropland conditions is inadequate, but the

highest likely rate on unconsolidated parent

materials is probably 0.5 ton per acre. The rate

is much slower for consolidated materials

(rock). Thus, average soil erosion is more than

10 times greater than average soil formation

on U.S. croplands (Hall, et a]., 1982; McCormack, et al., 1982).

Although erosion occurs to some extent on

all cropland, it is much worse in some areas

than in others. The severity of erosion varies

depending on the type of crop grown, the management system used, terrain, climate, and

other factors. Row crop and small-grain cropIand, which constitute 75 percent of all cropland, erode twice as much as other cropland

(5.4 compared to 2,5 tons). Further, a high proportion of the Nation’s soil loss occurs on a

relatively small portion of the cropland—only

6 percent of the Nation’s cropland (24 million

acres) accounted for 43 percent of all sheet and

rill erosion.

PRODUCTIVITY=SUSTAININ TECHNOLOGIES FOR CROPLANDS

Neither empirical evidence nor compelling • production technologies based on biologic 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

lands, if appropriate production technologies tant in the revolution that has made U.S.

are developed and used. agriculture so productive. An example of an

important breakthrough in mechanical technolFor discussion purposes, it is possible to

categorize agricultural technologies into two

types to clarify how technologies might affect

productivity in the future (Wittwer, 1980):

Ž production technologies based on a high

degree of mechanization and on consumptive use of land, water, and energy resources; and

ogy is the centrifugal pump, which can lift irrigation water from deep aquifers. An important breakthrough in biological technology has

been the development of hybrid corn, Mechanization- and biology-based technologies are

combined in agronomy systems, and the system’s consumption of resources depends on

which type of technology is dominant. In the

United States, land and water resources have
Ch, IV— Croplands 93

been abundant and energy resources cheap, so

development has been dominated by resource

consumptive technologies. In regions with

fewer natural resources, such as Japan and

parts of Europe, agronomic systems are dominated by land- and water-sparing biological

technologies.

Wittwer foresees a shift in American agronomy to the resource-sparing biological technologies. This shift implies changed objectives

in technology development and promotion.

Now that land, water, and energy are no longer

so abundant or so cheap, changes have begun

to occur, Rapidly increasing prices for fuel and

agricultural chemicals have stimulated development of new machinery, chemicals, and

cropping systems to make the capital inputs

more efficient. Using newly designed machines, farmers can till less frequently, and so

use less fuel, while maintaining production.

They must use more herbicides, but other new

machines enable them to use the chemicals

more efficiently. New biological technologies

are developing more slowly, but in the long

run, these are expected to be the basis of important improvements in agronomic systems

(OTA, 1979).

To develop resource-sparing systems, agricultural scientists will have to rely heavily on

the potential inherent in the world’s genetic

resources. Genetic selection to produce high

yields continues to be important, but much

more attention will have to be given to how

genetic types vary in their ability to use the fertility of soils efficiently. Improved strains of the

major crops will probably dominate the genetic

work for decades, but these are unlikely to suffice for sustaining productivity on the driest,

most steeply sloping, and otherwise most fragile croplands. Development of currently underexploited crops, new crop systems, and improved symbiosis with soil microbes will be

necessary to sustain productivity of such sites.

This chapter describes a number of new and

emerging technologies for agricultural production, These are resource-sparing technologies

that are designed and used not only for production but also to maintain inherent land productivity. But no technology is a panacea; all

are site specific in their design and application. The new technologies generally require

more sophisticated management than the resource-consuming technologies they would

replace. And they will take time to implement.

The technologies described here are in various stages of development, ranging from the

early research stage (e. g., polyculture of perennial plants) to the rapid adoption stage (no-till

farming), .A brief review of common, current

conservation technologies is also included. All

these approaches have drawbacks, though

these often are inadequately documented. For

example, no-till agriculture relies heavily on

pesticides, and possible negative impacts on

soil biota and water quality may offset some

of the technology’s erosion control benefits.

Other problems can result if a new technology

is misapplied. This can prematurely discourage

other farmers and ranchers from trying the

technique. Such misapplication can happen

when a complex technology is adopted by

farmers or ranchers more rapidly than it is

learned by the extension agents, university

faculties, Government scientists, or private

consultants from whom the innovative farmers

and ranchers seek advice.

The new resource-conserving technologies,

however, are not being developed and implemented rapidly enough to prevent lasting

damage to inherent productivity of the Nation’s

croplands and rangelands. Such damage has

occurred already and is continuing where

processes such as accelerated erosion and

ground water overdraft are mining resources.

Thus, the pertinent question is: Will such technologies be developed, improved, and implemented in time to preserve enough of the

land’s inherent productivity to assure adequate

sustained production to satisfy consumer

needs? The answer depends on who the consumers are (e. g., only U.S. residents v. anyone

in the world who can pay), how needs are defined (e. g., what level of pollution is acceptable), the extent of application of conventional

conservation technologies, and other factors.
94 ŽTechnology Rangeland Productivity

From the more narrow point of view of this

technology assessment, whether new technologies will be implemented soon enough

depends largely on the institutions responsible for developing and promoting agricultural

technologies. Will they invest in screening,

testing, and developing production technologies that have resource conservation as a

primary objective? The institutions (e.g.,

agricultural experiment stations, agriculture

schools in universities, the Federal Agricultural

Research Service) seem to be conservative regarding investment in new technologies. There

is a rationale for that conservatism: It is based

mostly on the fact that agricultural research

and development funds are severely limited.

If funds remain limited, some institutional

changes may be needed to ensure adequate development of new resource-sparing technologies and farming systems.

This report could include only some of the

promising technologies for preserving inherent

land productivity, Those selected hold great

promise, but there are others available that

might achieve the same ends. For example,

drip irrigation is a proven technology for reducing irrigation water consumption, but other

technologies may be more cost effective or

more conserving of water and other resources,

depending on specific local farming conditions. The following discussion is not intended

to recommend any particular technology.

Rather, it is to illustrate some of the technologies that are designed to enhance production

and conservation at the same time.

Conservation Tillage

Spraying More, Tilling Less

Prior to the development of chemical herbicides in the 1940’s, farmers relied on a variety

of tillage practices to control unwanted plants

(weeds) in their fields. It was not uncommon

for Midwestern corn farmers to make as many

as 10 trips across their fields before harvest,

most of them to control weeds (Triplett and

Van Doren, 1977).

Today, most producers of the major field

crops have substituted herbicides for some of

their tillage practices. Table 13 illustrates the

magnitude of increase in herbicide use between 1966 and 1976 for the crops grown on

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

Rice . . . 83

3.6

2 11

1,0

<0.5 – NA 83 1 2.5

Wheat. . . . . . . . 38 6 14 4 1 2 48 4.6 80.2

Other grain

b

. ... . . 35 5 1 2 NA

<;.5

41 1 29.8

Alfalfa and other hay. 2 — NA 8

Pasture and rangeland. . 1 <:.5

1 61.0

2 <:,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

al 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 ● 9 5

case, the total quantity of herbicides used, the

amount of land on which they were used, and

the amount of herbicide (active ingredient) applied per treated acre have increased markedly. For example, the amount of herbicide applied per acre of treated corn increased by 125

percent between 1966 and 1976. Over this same

period the herbicide application rates for cotton went up 58 percent; for wheat, 40 percent;

for soybeans, 80 percent; and for all other

crops, 75 percent (Eichers, 1981). And this herbicide was being applied to many more acres.

In 1978, 90 percent of the corn acreage was

treated with herbicides, as was 84 percent of

the cotton acreage, 88 percent of the soybean

acreage, and 38 percent of the land in wheat

(Harkin, et al., 1980).

Reliable national data do not exist on the

number of acres tilled by various methods nor

on the average number of tillage passes made

with the wide variety of equipment available.

But there is general agreement among experts

that the types of tillage equipment employed,

and the extent to which tillage is used, have

been undergoing considerable change.

This makes it difficult to characterize a particular tillage system as “conventional.” The

conventional is continually changing. In the

scientific literature, conventional tillage most

commonly means plowing (in fall or spring)

with a traditional moldboard plow, then using

a disk, harrow, or other implements to break

up soil clods, smooth the seedbed, and destroy

weeds. But a 1978 survey in Illinois shows that

approximately 56 percent of the corn and soybean acreage is no longer moldboard-plowed;

most of this acreage is chisel-plowed or disked

(Larson, 1981),

The chisel plow is the primary tool of conservation tillage. It is a series of curved, sprung,

steel shanks that have points or “sweeps”

spaced 18 to 30 inches apart. The chisel plow

disturbs less surface soil and leaves a great deal

more crop residue on the surface than does a

moldboard plow (which cuts to the same depth

but turns over all of the soil in its path). Table

14 illustrates the effect of implements on the

quantity of surface residues—residues which

help retain moisture, reduce runoff and erosion

and provide a barrier to the erosive effects of

wind.

Conservation Tilkge and No-Till:

Descriptions

A bewildering variety of definitions, descriptions, and synonyms exists for conservation

tillage, For example, the term “reduced tillage”

is sometimes used interchangeably with conservation tillage. But reduced tillage may mean

merely that a farmer who previously made 10

to 12 passes over his field in the course of a

season now, perhaps in response to higher fuel

costs, makes only 8 to 10, The farmer may still

be using the moldboard plow, maybe plowing

under or removing his crop residue, and may

therefore not be mitigating erosion on his land,

There are three characteristics that distinguish 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

a

Tons 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

soil from washing or blowing away

A chisel plow and stalk chopper on a Minnesota farm keep old crop residue on or near the surface. This helps keep

1.

2.

Conservation tillage uses implements

other than the moldboard plow.

Conservation tillage leaves residues on the

soil surface to mitigate erosion and to help

retain moisture. The amount of residue retained depends on the type of tillage implement, its manner of use, and the crop.

Different crops naturally have different

amounts of residue available for postharvest retention.

Conservation tillage depends primarily on

herbicides for weed control.

3.

Together, these concepts provide a useful

description of conservation tillage, But it still

includes a broad array of tillage implements

including chisel plows, subsoilers (V-sweeps,

sweeps, rodweeders), one-way disks, field cultivators, mulch treaders, strip rotary tillers, different types of no-till planters (sometimes

called “zero” or “slot” till planters), and special

modified planters that accommodate the more

rigorous conditions often encountered under

conservation tillage.

These and other conservation tillage implements vary considerably with respect to the

amount of residue they leave on the soil surface (from 5 percent for rotary rodweeders to

100 percent for no-till planters) (Fenster, 1973),

and, therefore, their capacity to conserve soil

and water varies, as well, In addition, certain
Ch. IV—Croplands ● 9 7

systems are preferred in different regions. For

instance, subsoilers are widely used on the

southern coastal plain and no-till planters are

used mainly in eastern Nebraska, eastern South

Dakota, and western Iowa. The goal of these

implements is to conserve fuel, labor, soil, and

water, Their capacity to achieve these savings

is highly variable, Systems or even specific

tools that perform well in one region often are

impractical in others. Because the concept of

conservation tillage embraces so many different techniques, it is difficult to make a

general assessment of its impact on current

yields, farm profits, or long-term land productivity. This is particularly true because reliable

data on the acreage do not exist, even for the

more widely used of these techniques.

Major conservation tiilage methods include:

●

●

●

●

●

Strip tillage.—Seedbed preparation is

limited to a strip one-third or less of the

distance between rows, A protective cover

of crop residue remains on the balance.

Tillage and planting are completed in the

same operation,

Till plant.—Seedbeds are prepared with

pIowing and planting in one operation.

Crop residues are mixed into the soil surface between rows.

Chisel planting.—Seedbeds are prepared

by chisel plowing, Some crop residue is

left on the soil surface; some residues are

mixed in the top few inches of soil. Seedbed preparation and planting may, but

need not, be accomplished in the same operation.

Disk plan ting.–Seedbeds are prepared by

disking the soil, leaving a protective cover

of crop residue on the surface and some

residue mixed in the top few inches of soil,

Seedbed preparation and planting may,

but need not, be accomplished in the same

operation.

Zero tillage, slot planting, or no-till. -Planting disturbs only the immediate area of the

row. Crop residue is left on the surface for

erosion control,

In this report, no-till is considered separately from conservation tillage whenever possible. No-till is an extreme form of conservation

tillage where the new crop is seeded directly

into existing crop residue, A special planter is

used that slices a minimal trench or slot

through the residue into which seeds are

dropped. No other soil manipulation is necessary. Weeds are controlled with herbicides,

crop rotations, and plant competition (Giere,

et al., 1980). Again, the lack of a precise and

commonly accepted definition, along with a

paucity of data on the extent of no-till use,

hampers evaluations of its current and potential effects on inherent land productivity,

Adoption of No-Till and

Consevation TiIlage

RATES OF ADOPTION

Two sets of national time series data exist on

conservation tillage, one from SCS, the other

from surveys of State agronomists or other officials conducted by the private sector journal

IVo-7’ill Farmer. The former has been collected

since 1963, the latter since 1973. Table 15

shows how divergent the two sets are. Both are

based on surveys of experts, rather than on

physical measurements, so the estimates are

rough at best. For discussing past trends and

for projection of future conservation tillage

adoption, this report uses SCS data because it

has been collected longer and, when aggregated from the county level where it was colTable 15.— Estimates of Conservation Tillage in the

United States (millions of acres)a

Year USDA No-Till Farmerb

1973 . . ... , , . . . . . . 29.5 44.i

-

1975 . . . ... . . . . . . . 35.8 56.2

1976 .< ...., . . . . . . . 39.2 59.6

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.5 70.0

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.7 74,8

1979b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.0 79.2

a This table IS taken from Cross (1981)

bPreliminary

SOURCES USDA data Gerald Darby, SOiI Conservation Service Based on reports

from SCS field offices at county level SCS data were collected for

‘‘minimum tiIIage, ’ as defined in the text, but the agency now refers

to this series as “conservation tillage. ” It Includes no-till Since 1977

data have not been collected by SCS on specific conservation prac.

tices, Including conservation tillage Thus, the numbers for 1978 and

subsequent years are “extrapolations “

NO Till Farmer Magazine data These data include no-till, as defined

by the magazine, and limited tillage, ” where the total field surface

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

data gathered by No-Till Farmer,

No-Till Farmer defines no-till broadly to include many forms of conservation tillage and

mulch tillage—no-till, till-plant, chisel plant,

rotary strip tillage, etc. Under this definition,

up to 25 percent of the surface can be worked

and still qualify as no-till. Thus, the No-Till

Farmer estimates are considerably higher than

they would be under a more strict definition.

Table 15 shows that conservation tillage is

becoming more widespread. The estimates for

1978 and 1979 are based on 1977 data and project growth at 5 percent, The actual growth in

1978 and 1979, however, was slower—2 percent per year.

Table 16 shows that after a jump in the early

1970’s, no-till use reached a plateau around 7

million acres. It is not possible to determine

whether no-till use will remain at this level.

These data, too, may not be entirely accurate

because they were gathered from surveys of

State conservationists rather than from field

censuses, No-till methods apparently encountered obstacles in the 1970’s that slowed

their spread, and it is not clear whether they

have been overcome even though anecdotal reports indicate that no-till increased substantially in 1981 (Triplett, 1981).

In a preliminary assessment of the potential

offered by “minimum tillage, ” the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projected the maximum adoption of the technology (USDA,

1975). OTA repeated this exercise, but where

Table 16.—Total No-Till Acres and

Percent of Acres Planted

Acres planted

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

1977 . . . . . . . 7.3 344.0 2.12

1978 . . . . . . . 7.1 334.5 2.12

1979, . . . . . . 6.7 347.0 1.93

1980 . . . . . . . 7.1 357.0 1.98

SOURCE No. Till Farmer magazine, Annual Survey, 1981

the USDA projection assumed an upper limit

for minimum tillage of 100 percent of cropland

planted, OTA’S assessment uses a 75-percent

upper limit for conservation tillage adoption.

(This figure is a compromise between Crosson’s estimated maximum of 50 to 60 percent

adoption, and 84 percent estimated by the

Resources Conservation Act (RCA)). The resulting projection is shown in figure 12 as an adoption curve. The earlier USDA projection is included in the figure for comparison. At present,

conservation tillage is on the very steep part

of the adoption curve. Because of the difference in assumed upper limits, by the year

2000 the gap between the two curves is over

10 percent of planted cropland—or anywhere

from 35 million to 40 million acres.

conomic INCINTIVES FOR ADOPTION

Most studies of conservation tillage and notill technologies indicate that farmers are

adopting them primarily to improve the profitability of their overall farming operations. Important economic incentives include:

● Reduced labor requirement t. —Labo r requirements for conservation tillage are

generally reported much lower than for

conventional tillage. The reason is simple:

Figure 12.— Projected Adoption of

Conservation Tillage

90

80

40

10

0

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment and Congressional Research Service
Ch. IV—Croplands ● 9 9 — — .—— —

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.

Adoption of no-tillage methods can increase the productivity of farmworkers as

much as threefold (Triplett and Van Doren,

1977).

Most of the labor savings come at spring

or fall planting time, when labor is ex- ●

tremely valuable to farmers. The time

saved may enable a farmer to plant more

land; to plant his land closer to the optimum time for tillage, seed germination,

and weed control; or to plant a second (or,

in the Southeast, a third) crop on the same

land in the same season. The ability to get

into fields earlier in the spring, when the

heavier equipment used for conventional

tillage cannot, is frequently mentioned as

a benefit of no-till, although moist soils

under no-till sometimes remain cold and

delay planting.

Reduced preharvest tiel requirement. —

Fewer trips across the field also conserves

fuel in preharvest operations, lighter machinery can also save fuel.

Compared with conventional tillage, notill requires 3 to 4 fewer gallons per acre

of diesel fuel equivalent. For other kinds

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

should be noted that these are savings in

the preharvest, on-farm fuel use. Total

farm energy use may remain essentially

unchanged, for fuel savings may be offset

somewhat by the increased use of petroleum-derived herbicides,

Reduced machinery costs. —Conservation

tillage and no-till often require smaller, less

powerful, and (when total equipment is

considered) less expensive equipment than

does conventional tillage. Maintenance

costs for no-till equipment also may be

lower. Machinery costs would be higher,

however, for farmers who want to maintain on-farm capability for both conventional tillage and conservation tillage

(Trouse, 1981).

Potential for multiple cropping. —The time

and soil moisture saved under no-till and

conservation tillage systems make multiple cropping possible on some sites where

climate previously prohibited it, This

benefit may prove to be the most attractive economic feature of these tillage

systems (Phillips, et al,, 1980; USDA, 1975),

Common double-cropping combinations

under conservation tillage or no-till include wheat or other small grain (for grain,

silage, hay, or grazing) followed by corn,

soybeans, sorghum, or millet (Hayes,

1973), Possible triple-cropping combinations in the Southeast include: barley-cornsoybeans; barley-corn-snapbeans; barleysweet corn-soybeans, The No- Till Farmer

(March 1981) estimated that about 75 percent of the no-till soybeans in 1980 were

double cropped (approximately 1.96 million acres out of 2,61 million).

Expansion of row crops to sloping land. —

Triplett and Van Doren (1977) have observed:

Since erosion can be reduced a hundredfold or more with no-tillage planting, the

production of row crops on rolling terrain

becomes practical, Although highly productive soils are found in many hilly areas, the

practice has been to devote them to forage

crops as a conservation measure. With notillage methods a higher proportion of this

land can be planted to more profitable

crops.

The long-term implications of this potential

for row crop production on rolling terrain

could be profound. The present classification

of land capabilities, used for planning by SCS

and other Government agencies, assumes a

lower capability class for sloping land because

of its susceptibility to erosion. With no-till

techniques, more sloping land could be used

for production without increasing erosion.

BARRIIRS TO ADOPTION

Weed, Insect, and Disease Problems.—The

future expansion of conservation tillage and

no-till depends on developing improved techniques for controlling weeds, particularly perennials (Crosson, 1981; Worsham, 1980; Owens

and Patterson, 1973). In fact, a 1979 survey of

almost 1,000 farmers in the Lake Erie region

showed weed control problems to he the number one barrier to adopting conservation tillage

and no-till (Forster, 1979).

Continued use of conservation tillage, and of

no-till in particular, seems to create an environment favorable to perennial weeds because herbicides do not attack the root system of these

weeds as tillage does. Thus, the perennial

weeds have a competitive advantage over annual weeds. Also, certain weeds such as johnsongrass and bermudagrass cannot be controlled with available herbicides.

Most experts agree that any shift away from

conventional tillage requires increased herbicide use, both type and amount. First, more

herbicides are needed for what is called the

“substitution effect:” herbicides are simply

substituted for tillage. Second is the “efficiency effect. ” More herbicide is required because

some of that applied is intercepted by surface

crop residues before reaching target weeds,

The third reason is termed the “environmental effect, ” wherein weeds are said to thrive

under conservation tillage conditions because

greater soil moisture fosters weed germination

and growth. One or more of these effects can

increase weed problems on no-till and conser-
Ch. IV—Croplancis ● 101

vation tillage acreage. The answer, however,

is not necessarily greater amounts of herbicides. New types and application methods

are also needed.

One of the reasons for increased pest problems under no-till is that the crop residue left

on the fields provides a habitat conducive to

the growth of pests. Surface residue can also

increase disease problems. For example, the incidence of southern corn leaf blight can increase because surface residues provide an inoculum for bacteria (Boosalis and Cook, 1973).

However, the greater disease hazard for crops

under conservation tillage may not imply

greater fungicide expenses. Instead, resistant

plant varieties can be used. Disease problems

could be a barrier to the spread of conservation tillage if the development of resistant varieties is too slow or if seed for these types is

comparatively expensive.

Unfavorable Soil Conditions.—The capacity

of surface residues to conserve soil moisture

actually can be a disadvantage when conservation tillage or no-till is used on soils that are

poorly drained. Thus, it is generally held that

these technologies are best suited to welldrained soils. Cosper (1979) has estimated the

amount of land suitable to conservation tillage

for four States on the basis of soil characteristics—most importantly, soil drainage. He estimates that 47 percent of the “tillable acres” (for

practical purposes, the sum of cropland and

pasture) in Ohio is suited to conservation tillage; 53 percent in Indiana; 66 percent in Illinois; and 76 percent in Iowa. Data on conservation tillage from No-Till Farmer illustrate

that the proportion of land actually in some

form of conservation tillage increases from east

to west through these States, as does the drainage of the soils. Thus, drainage is already having an effect on the distribution of the technology (Crosson, 1981).

Moist soils also tend to remain cool for a

longer period in the spring. This limits conservation tillage in Northern States where delayed

planting combines with a relatively shorter

growing season. It is conceivable that with an

active sod crop in a no-till system, such soil

moisture could be removed by evapotranspiration in the early spring. Indeed, in some drier

regions, no-till is no{ feasible because an overwintering cover crop removes necessary soil

moisture,

Diffusion of Information .—Several studies

indicate that one barrier to the adoption of conservation tillage and no-till is inadequate information on the technologies: farmers either do

not understand the advantages of the various

systems, or they harbor misconceptions about

them. [The general process of technology adoption is considered in ch. V.)

One recent study of Iowa farmers (Nowak,

1980) dramatically illustrates the misperception

problem, Farmers who had and had not

adopted “minimum tillage” methods were

surveyed to find out their attitudes regarding

the technologies, and important differences

were observed.

Table 17 shows the responses of users and

nonusers of minimum tillage to questions about

the cost, profitability y, and other aspects of the

technology, Users of minimum tillage considered the practice to have either no additional

cost or moderate additional cost, whereas onequarter of the nonusers thought additional

costs for minimum-tillage were “very high. ”

Almost 60 percent of the minimum, till practitioners thought that returns exceeded costs

for the technology, compared with 31 percent

of the nonusers.

Although experts estimate time and labor to

be lower for conservation tillage, and threequarters of the users felt less time and labor

were required for the technology, only about

half of the nonusers felt this way. Users and

nonusers also felt differently about ease of use;

75 percent of the users thought it very easy,

compared with 50 percent of nonusers. Eighty

percent of the users found minimum tillage

compatible with their farm operation, while

only 43 percent of the nonusers thought it

would be.

Finally, 80 percent of the users thought minimum tillage was improving their soil savings.

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

Minimum Tillage

Minimum Tillage

(N= 154) (N =35)

Characteristic Users Non-users

cost for using

No cost ... ... . . . . . . . . 49.3 % 38.2 %

Moderate cost . . . . . . . . 47.4 % 35.3 %

Very high cost . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3% 26.5%

1 00.0“: 1 00.0%

Profitability

Costs exceed returns . . , . 7.8 % 21.9 %

Costs equal returns . . . . 32.5 % 46.9 %

Returns exceed costs. . . . . 59.7 % 31.2 % —

100,0 % 1 00.0“b

Time/labor requirements

More time/labor . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 % 20.0 %

No change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7.5“b 28.6 ‘%

Less time/labor . . . . . . . . . 74.7 % 51.4 ‘%

1 00.0“: 100.0”2, -

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

Compatibility

Not compatible . . . . . . . . . . 3.9% 28.6%

Moderately compatible . . . . 15.6 % 28.5 %

Very compatible . . . . . . . . . 80.5 % 42.9 ‘%

100.0% 1 00.0‘%

Influence on soil erosion

Worsened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4% 0.0 %

No change . . ... . . . . . . . 1 6.8“h 50.0 %

Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.8‘YO 50.0 %

1 00.0‘% 100.0% —

SOURCE Nowak, 1980

minimum tillage; the other half thought the

technology would have no effect on erosion.

Given the wide play in farm magazines and

Government-sponsored education efforts on

the conservation benefits of minimum tillage,

this gap between users and nonusers is especially surprising.

Similar confusion seems to exist among

farmers in the Lake Erie Basin. Farmers who

had adopted “reduced tillage” (meaning either

no-till or tillage without the moldboard plow)

cited as reasons reduced fuel cost, reduced

labor cost, and reduced equipment cost. Farmers who had not adopted reduced tillage listed

increased fuel cost, increased labor cost, and

increased equipment cost as reasons (see table

18).

Table 18.— Reasons Given by Lake Erie Basin

Survey Respondents for Adopting and Failing

to Adopt Reduced Tillage Systems, 1979

Number of

Reasons responses Mean scorea

Reasons for adopting reduced tillage

1. Reduced fuel costs. . . . . . 464 4.37

2. Conserve soil productivity 439 4.18

3. Reduced labor cost . . . . . 455 4.00

4. Reduced equipment costs 437 3.87

5. Increased yields . . . . . . . . 427 3.79

6. Reduced water pollution . 435 3.61

Reasons for failing to adopt reduced tillage

1. Weed control problems . . 392 4,14

2. Soil not conducive ... . . 375 3.89

3. Poor stands . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 3.86

4. Increased equipment costs 355 3.68

5. Pest control problems . . 334 3.34

6. Increased fuel costs . . . . . 326 3.27

7. Increased labor costs . . 321 2.93

aScale 1 to 5 where 1 is completely unimportant and 5 IS very Important

SOURCE Forster, 1979

It is obvious that in these two surveys nonusers of conservation tillage hold views of the

technology that differ markedly from the views

of users, and in most cases the views of nonusers are at odds with well-established conclusions in the scientific literature. It is possible

to make any number of speculations as to why

this may be so: simple lack of information,

observed failures of the technology on nearby

farms, the “trashy” look of conservation tilled

fields.

Management Requirements.–Although

conservation tillage requires less labor, these

systems do require better managers, Farmers

using these systems cannot fall back on additional tillage operations to correct mistakes in

weed control or planting. In addition, they

need to be more familiar with complex weed

and insect problems and with different types

of machinery.

But this need for good management need not

be a major obstacle to the spread of conservation tillage and no-till. The cost of acquiring

no-till and conservation tillage skills is not prohibitive. Indeed, experts and users of no-till

technology (the most demanding in the conservation tillage spectrum from a management

point of view), while acknowledging that a different set of skills may be required (i.e., more
Ch. IV- Croplands . 103

knowledge of spray equipment), feel that these

skills are not necessarily more difficult to acquire than those for conventional farming.

It is probably fair to say that nonusers are

always skeptical of new technologies. Skepticism about no-till is probably related to the

fact that the technology is still evolving and that

early mistakes—poor stands, poor weed control, use of no-till on poorly drained soil, and

overall low yields—remain fresh in the minds

of farmers and, to some degree, agricultural extension personnel, soil conservation technicians, and farm implement and chemical dealers. The only thing that will break this barrier

will be good performance of no-till in more experimental settings and on more farms. As this

begins to happen, no-till farming will move into

the rapid-increase part of the adoption curve,

as conservation tillage has already done.

Environmental Effects (Soil Erosion).—

Conservation tillage has proven to be very effective in the control of wind and water erosion. A variety of field and experimental

studies show that conservation tillage can

reduce erosion by 50 to 90 percent compared

to conventional tillage (Crosson, 1981; Phillips,

et al., 1980). The presence of crop residues on

the soil surface presents a barrier to wind and

retards water runoff. The formation of larger

soil clods that occurs with most conservation

tillage systems also serves as a further barrier

to wind and water movement. No-till systems

also offer the additional protection of a nearly

continuous soil cover, particularly during

spring and fall when erosion potential is

greatest.

This capacity to reduce erosion is one of the

most important features of conservation tillage

technologies. The scientific literature more

than adequately establishes the superiority of

these technologies over many conventional systems for erosion control, particularly from an

economic point of view,

However, available data on conservation tillage and no-till agriculture as practiced today

make it difficult to estimate whether the promise of experimental findings is being achieved.

For example, the rather loose definition of

minimum tillage and conservation tillage used

by SCS admits a broad array of technologies,

the erosion control effectiveness of which vary

markedly. Furthermore, it seems that much of

the land in conservation tillage did not have

severe erosion problems prior to the adoption

of the technology—i.e., motives other than erosion control have influenced farmers to adopt

conservation tillage.

Eventually, use of no-till is likely to make it

possible to cultivate slopes now in pasture or

hay crops. This expansion of row-crop and

small-grain acreage is not without risk, however. These sloping lands may be exposed to

erosion hazards every 4 to 5 years if periodic

moldboard plowing is deemed necessary to

combat weeds, insects, or disease. Further, by

specializing in row crops, farmers may open

themselves to greater economic risk by losing

farm diversity, Mixed crop and livestock operations, while perhaps less profitable in years of

high crop prices, provided more stable income

in the long term by virtue of diversity.

Finally, as more hilly land is brought into

row-crop production with conservation tillage,

it could leave less pasture and hay acreage, thus

increasing grazing pressures on both Western

rangelands and Eastern forests.

Nutrient and Pesticide Pollution.—Water

runoff from agricultural lands has been identified as a major cause of pollution in freshwater streams and lakes. Conservation tillage

and no-till have proven very effective in reducing one component of pollution in agricultural

runoff—i.e., sediment, which constitutes (by

weight) most of the pollution of freshwater

bodies. However, a more complicated relationship exists between tillage systems and pollution from pesticides and nutrients.

Nutrients. -Additions of even small amounts

of nutrients, particularly nitrogen (N) and

phosphorus (P), accelerate plant growth in

aquatic systems, which in turn reduces oxygen

concentrations when the plants are decomposed by aquatic micro-organisms. The change

in oxygen levels can dramatically alter conditions of survival for fish. Although “eutrophication” is a natural process, it can be greatly accelerated by human activities.
104 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Nutrients in agricultural runoff are divided

into two forms: a portion adsorbed chemically onto soil particles and a portion dissolved

in the water. By reducing soil loss, conservation tillage and no-till reduce sediment-associated nutrient pollution, However,

there can be an increase in the concentration

of dissolved nutrients in runoff from fields

where conservation tillage or no-till were in

use.

For instance, if crop residues are not incorporated into the soil, they are a source of additional dissolved N and P in runoff. Similarly, applying surface fertilizers can increase

nutrient levels in runoff. And because nitrate

N is relatively mobile in the soil, tillage practices that increase infiltration and subsurface

flow may lead to increased N losses, thus reducing crop production and increasing

ground water N levels (Wauchope, et al., 1981),

The net result of conservation tillage and notill on nutrient pollution of surface and ground

water will vary under different conditions. For

example, Wauchope, et al. (1981) have noted

that losses for either system can be quite high

if rainfall occurs shortly after fertilizers are applied. The same is true of pesticide pollution.

There appears to be little basis for generalizing about the differences between conservation

tillage and conventional tillage with respect to

delivery of nutrients to surface water bodies.

Pesticides. —Some contamination of surface

waters is inevitable as long as pesticides are

used in agriculture, and they are widely used

today. The extent of contamination depends on

the amount and type of pesticide applied, the

area to which it is applied, and the timing of

rainfall.

The overall impact of pesticide runoff on surface waters is difficult to determine given the

available data, Too little is known about

dynamics of dilution, sediment exchange (the

movement of pesticide molecules from soil particles), and pesticide effects on aquatic life.

Although accurate estimates of the actual field

inputs into waterways are available, knowledge

of the impacts of those inputs is greatly lacking (Wauchope, 1978),

Some pesticides either are not very soluble

or they adhere tightly to soil particles. In these

cases erosion reduction prevents or greatly reduces the pesticide’s entry into surface waters.

Thus, conservation tillage and no-till act to

lessen the impact of such pesticides, which include trifluralin, endrin, toxaphene, and paraquat, Several researchers have reported that

pesticide losses are virtually eliminated under

no-till, although less drastic reductions in

tillage have lesser effects.

A problem can arise, however, where some

soils are not able to capture the herbicides, For

example, soil clays in wet tropical regions, such

as Puerto Rico, do not bind the herbicides to

their surfaces. In such environments, a large

portion of the herbicide can be carried into

water bodies regardless of the timing of application,

There is also the problem of persistent toxicity of some of the herbicides and other

pesticides. whether the herbicide binding to

clays is permanent is unknown. It may be that

the chemical can be released in some changed

form by microbial activity, with unknown consequences for soil microbiology. Although most

of the insecticides degrade rapidly, the toxicity of the compounds produced by the degradation process is unknown,

Conservation tillage and no-till reduce water

runoff, but do not eliminate it. Thus, the same

question can be posed for pesticides as was

posed for nutrient losses: Do higher concentrations of pesticides in runoff offset reductions

in the sediment-associated pesticides under

these systems? Several studies suggest that concentrations of specific pesticides are greater in

lower runoff volumes, as happens under conservation tillage and no-till, possibly because

pesticides on crop residues are easily washed

off. In other instances pesticides seem to be

filtered out as runoff passes over untreated soil

and vegetation.

Because conservation tillage has such an increased reliance on pesticides, particularly herbicides, it is a greater threat to the environment

than conventional tillage as far as pesticide

damage is concerned (Crosson, 1981). Although
Ch. /V—Croplands ● 105

many herbicides have low toxicity to human

beings, they or their metabolizes may have carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects.

Greater use of pesticides also implies greater

potential for it to drift in the wind to unintended sites,

Available data suggest that agricultural

chemicals do not damage the ability of the

croplands to produce crops in perpetuity; however, data are sparse and little analysis on herbicide impacts on soil ecology exists. The water

pollution effect of the increased use of chemicals is another unknown. Quantitative information is inadequate on the amount of toxic

chemical applied with each of the many variations of conservation tillage and no-till, and

scientists have not estimated the overall increase in use of herbicides or pesticides that

is associated with these technologies. Even if

such data were available, an accurate environmental benefit/cost analysis could not be done

because too little is known about the impacts

of the chemicals.

A rigorous assessment of conservation tillage

and no-till that makes some conclusion regarding the tradeoff between the reduction of erosion and the proliferation of toxic chemicals

will not be possible until: 1) more adequate

mathematical models of agricultural systems

are constructed to use the data that are available, and Z) much better data are collected on

the dynamics of soil chemistry and biology, especially research on the effects of pesticides

on so-called “nontarget” organisms, including

wildlife, aquatic plants and animals, humans,

and soil flora and fauna. Meanwhile, most

analyses of these technologies imply that the

recognized erosion prevention potential outweighs the plausible but unknown chemical

hazards,

FEDERAL ROLE

A limited amount of cost sharing for conservation tillage has been provided through the

Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) administered by the Agricultural Stabilization

and Conservation Service (ASCS). For these

lands, the average annual erosion rate before

assistance was 9.7 tons per acre, but conservation tillage reduced it 3.8 tons per acre

annually—a notable achievement, Morever, the

average cost of erosion reduction with conservation tillage was $0.98 per ton, well below the

average cost of $2,22 per ton for all practices.

An even greater soil savings and a lower cost

per ton might have been achieved if more of

the practices had occurred on more highly erosive land.

Under ACP, participating farmers have received an average of $10 per acre to defray

roughly half the cost of equipment and chemicals for conservation tillage. The remaining

half of the cost, it was assumed, would be made

up by expected savings in labor and fuel. Either

the Extension Service or SCS would recommend which equipment or chemicals to use.

Cost sharing was extended to farmers for 2

years only. ASCS analysts feel conservation

tillage has been and continues to be a costeffective practice and it has ranked high among

the practices identified by ASCS for cost sharing within States and counties. But the willingness of farmers to continue using conservation tillage beyond the support period

depends to a great extent on their success in

these first 2 years (Nebeker, 1981),

Another scheme, adopted by numerous conservation districts around the country in conjunction with private companies or the Environmental Protection Agency, has been to buy

a no-till planter (or other conservation tillage

device) and make it available free to district

farmers, with or without technical assistance.

Anecdotal reports in farm magazines and from

conservationists suggest this type of approach

does work for spreading no-till.

Clearly, basic data regarding the use of conservation tillage and no-till by American farmers are lacking, notably the extent and quality

of the acreage on which these technologies are

being used. Considering the degree to which

the conservation professionals are relying on

these technologies to protect land productivity in the future, it is remarkable that there are

not more reliable data on the amount of acreage in no-till. These data would not be particularly expensive to obtain. By one estimate,

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

survey conducted by the USDA Statistical Reporting Service (SRS) at a cost of $100,000 or

less. Information on conservation tillage will

be provided by the 1981-82 National Resource

Inventories, but no-till practices will not be

separated from conservation tillage in general.

A special inventory of no-till has been considered within SCS, but as yet has not been

performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Conservation tillage and no-till have a variety

of effects on land productivity, By making possible more double or multiple cropping, both

conservation tillage and no-till can help increase production of major field crops without

increasing the acreage cropped, even though

more fertilizer, tractor fuel, herbicides, and so

forth may be needed. In addition, conservation

tillage and no-till enhance inherent cropland

productivity by reducing and, in some cases,

virtually eliminating soil erosion.

But how much soil will be saved depends on:

the type of technology used, the way farmers

use it, and the quality of the land on which it

is applied. The many different types of equipment that can be used in conservation tillage

and no-till vary greatly in the amount of surface soil they disturb and in the amount of crop

residue they leave on the surface. With two different types of equipment—e.g., a chisel plow

and a till planter—farmers on virtually identical land may experience considerably different erosion rates, yet both may call their

practice “conservation tillage. ”

Another important consideration is the way

farmers use the technologies. For example, the

soil savings possible with a no-till system are

enormously diminished if at harvest the farmer

does not return crop residues to his land.

Farmers in the basin of the main Patuxent

River in Howard County, Md., for example,

commonly use minimum or no-till technologies

to produce continuous corn on their moderately sloping land. Those who retain surface

residues can expect an erosion rate of approximately 5 tons per acre. But if they use these

technologies without retaining the residues, the

predicted erosion rate jumps to 21 tons per acre

per year, or about the rate that would occur

with moldboard plowing and two passes with

a disk (Helm, 1980). Thus, farmers can obtain

the labor and fuel saving benefits of conservation tillage and no-till without necessarily saving much soil in the process.

The acreage of cropland treated with these

conservation technologies probably will continue to increase, OTA projections show that

75 percent of U.S. cropland may have some

form of conservation tillage by 201o. Yet the

land most severely affected by erosion may still

be missed, just as it has been missed by more

traditional conservation measures. Table 19

shows that in 1977, conservation tillage was

used on less erosive land. This poses several

policy questions. First, it is commonly said that

the benefits of reduced soil erosion with conservation tillage and no-till outweigh the risks

posed by greater herbicide use, But this tradeoff is less justifiable if these technologies do

not find their way to land with acute erosion

problems where potential soil savings are great,

Numerous studies on the costs and benefits

of various erosion control technologies indicate

that conservation tillage and no-till are the most

effective and economically attractive methods

of erosion control for many farmers, Current

national policy proposals (such as RCA) have

included heavy reliance on these technologies

to reach future soil and water quality and conservation goals.

Table 19.—Acreage Treated With Minimum Tillage

and Crop Residue Practices in 1977

(sheet and rill erosion only)

Acreage treated with

Expected erosion with minimum tillage and

conventional tillage crop residue

(tons per acre per year) Million acres Percent

Less than 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.0 74.9

5 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 13.9

10 to 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 4,1

15 to 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 3.4

Over 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 3.7

Total acreage treated

with minimum tillage

and crop residue . . . . 26.7

SOURCE Miller, 1978.
Ch. IV—Croplands ● 107

The greater use of agricultural chemicals,

herbicides in particular, is not now known to

be a major threat to environmental quality.

However, there is a potential for greater

pesticide runoff from farmland where conservation tillage technologies are used, and even

though the pesticides involved are relatively

more benign than their precursors, many of

their effects are not fully understood and

deserve further study.

Neither conservation tillage nor no-till are

panaceas to America’s erosion problem, On

very fragile lands, these technologies need to

be used in conjunction with terraces, contour

farming, and other traditional conservation

measures. In some cases, even the combination

might not suffice, Probably the most important

point to remember about these technologies is

that their suitability is site specific, as are the

soil and water savings they will achieve. But

efforts to bring conservation tillage and no-till

to critically eroding areas could, if well designed and adequately funded, significantly

reduce the Nation’s overall erosion problem

and protect some of its most fragile lands.

Organic Agriculture

Introduction

Although there is a paucity of good data on

organic agriculture, recent studies suggest that

many organic farming practices are both economically viable under current market conditions and effective in reducing soil erosion and

nonpoint pollution (e. g., fertilizer and pesticide

runoff). Even though per-acre yields tend to be

lower for organic agriculture than for conventional farming, operating expenses on organic

farms also tend to be substantially lower. One

study found that net per-acre returns to organic

farmers over a s-year period were virtually

identical to those of their conventionally farming counterparts (Kohl, et al., 1981).

As defined by USDA, organic farming is a

production system that avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetically compounded fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, and

livestock feed additives. To the maximum extent feasible, organic farming systems reIy on

crop rotations, crop residues, animal manures,

legumes, green manures, off-farm organic

wastes, mechanical cultivation, mineral-bearing rocks, and biological pest controI to maintain soil productivity and tilth, to supply pIant

nutrients, and to control insects, weeds, and

other pests (USDA, 1980; Oelhaf, 1978].

Organic agriculture encompasses a wide

spectrum of practices, attitudes, and philosophies. Some producers avoid manufactured

chemical inputs without exception; others try

to minimize chemical application but selectively use chemical inputs to deal with specific

problems and conditions. Some reflect “counter-cultural” opposition to traditional agriculture. However, most organic producers employ

practices and enjoy a profitability that differs

less from conventional farmers (except for

chemical use) than is generally presumed. An

in-depth survey of organic farming in the Corn

Belt found that over 80 percent of the operators

had previously farmed with conventional methods (Kohl, et al., 1981). Further, organic farmers

tend to be experienced farm operators. Eighty

percent of a USDA sample of organic farmers

had at least 8 years of farming experience and

44 percent had 30 or more years of experience.

The same study found organic farmers were

evenly distributed in all age categories and

were generally well educated, with about 50

percent having attended college (USDA, 1980).

Organic agriculture is not limited by scale.

While some organic farmers are small-scale

operators with substantial off-farm income,

and small-scale organic farms (10 to 50 acres)

do predominate in the Northeast, there are a

significant number of large-scale (100 to 1,500

acres) operations in the West and Midwest

(USDA, 1980).

Organic agriculture reflects an attitude

shared by an increasing number of people, both

urban and rural, which holds that sustainable

agriculture can best be attained through the use

of technologies that are less demanding of nonrenewable resources and less exploitive of soils

(USDA, 1980). Organic farmers share an increasing concern about the adverse effects of

intensive production of cash grain crops and

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

though data to substantiate their views in some

cases are not available, some of the specific

concerns most often voiced by organic practitioners include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

increased costs and uncertain availability of energy and chemicals;

increased resistance of weeds and insects

to pesticides;

decline in soil productivity from erosion

and accompanying loss of organic matter

and plant nutrients;

pollution of surface waters with agricultural chemicals and sediment;

destruction of wildlife, bees, and beneficial

insects by pesticides;

possible hazards to human and animal

health from pesticides and feed additives;

perceived detrimental effects of agricultural chemicals on food quality;

gradual depletion of finite reserves of concentrated plant nutrients—e. g., phosphate

rock; and

decrease in number of farms, particularly family-type farms, and disappearance of

localized and direct marketing systems

(USDA, 1980).

Organic agriculture is not, as is commonly

assumed, simply a throwback to the past.

Although it is true that some past techniques

remain important to modern organic farming,

most of today’s organic producers use modern

farm machinery, currently recommended crop

varieties, certified seed, sound livestock management, recommended soil and water conservation practices, innovative methods of organic

waste and residue management, and many of

the other techniques of modern agriculture.

The technologies that make organic agriculture different from conventional agriculture

are primarily management technologies. The

clearest distinction shows in the respective

sources of major nutrients used for crop

growth—nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.

Conventional farmers generally meet their

nitrogen needs through the input of commercially produced fertilizers. These manufactured

inputs allow farmers to plant more or all of

their land to the most profitable crops (CAST,

1980). Most organic farmers use crop residues,

animal manure, and crop rotations that include

legumes and cover crops, to provide adequate

nitrogen for moderate-to-high crop yields. In

fact, legume crops commonly covered 30 to 50

percent of the cultivated acreage on the organic

farms surveyed by USDA. Organic farms appeared to use little of other organic inputs such

as sewage sludge or processing wastes (USDA,

1980),

Crop rotations used on nonirrigated organic

farms are similar to those used on farms 30 to

40 years ago. Typically, farmers plant a heavy

green manure crop followed by a nitrogendemanding crop such as corn, sorghum, or

wheat. For example, in a corn-soybean area

such as the Midwest, a rotation might include:

oats/3 years of alfalfa/corn (or wheat) /soybeans/corn/soybeans. On more productive

soils, there might be an additional corn or

wheat crop after the alfalfa (USDA, 1980).

Large-scale organic farms are usually mixed

crop and livestock operations, since the forage

produced through crop rotation can most economically be used by the producer’s own livestock. Farmers then return the manure to the

land as fertilizer. Ninety percent of the organic

farmers surveyed in the Corn Belt had substantial livestock holdings (Kohl, et al,, 1981),

Organic livestock operations do not use hormones, growth stimulants, or antibiotics in

their feed formulations (except as needed to

treat sick animals). Because such chemicals are

not used the livestock sometimes command

premium prices from certain consumer groups,

However, the declining profitability of livestock farming in general could affect the profitability of diversified farms, including organic

farms.

Organic farmers tend to pay less attention

to the phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) components of the soil’s nutrient budget. Some

organic farms are actually “mining” P and K

from either soil minerals or residual fertilizers

applied when the land was farmed chemically (USDA, 1980; Lockeretz, et al., 1976). While

these sources of P and K may sustain high crop
Ch. IV—Croplands . 109

yields for some time (depending on soil, climate, and cropping conditions), it is likely that

some organic farmers eventually will have to

apply supplemental amounts of these two

nutrients. Rock phosphate and greensand (unprocessed glauconite) are acceptable sources

of P and K, respectively, for organic farmers.

But few organic farmers actually apply any

mineral sources of phosphate and very few

apply any form of mineral potassium (USDA,

1980).

Another major difference between conventional and organic farmers is in their approach

to pest control, Conventional farming relies on

a variety of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides,

and the like to combat destructive pests, sometimes in combination with biological and cultural controls. organic farmers avoid such

chemicals and instead use more intensive managerial, biological, and cultural methods to

avoid or control pest outbreaks. Some organic

farmers use insecticides to fight epidemic outbreaks or to control specific insects. Insects are

particularly difficult to control in vegetable and

orchard crops, especially given existing consumer quality preferences. Producers of such

crops use organic (nonmanufactured) insecticides and biological methods of pest control,

Organic producers emphasize preventive

methods for controlling weeds. The USDA

study noted surprising success with timely

tillage and cultivation, delayed planting, and

crop rotations. Some farmers contend that

weed problems were most serious during the

early stages of transition and that they subsided

once the rotational cycle was established. Rotations also help counter insect infestations with

relatively good results (USDA, 1980).

Comparisons of conventional and organic

agriculture also focus on differences in

economics, energy use, crop yields, and labor.

One problem that clouds the analysis, however,

is that accurate reformation about these topics

is sparse or contradictory. On the average,

organic farms are somewhat more labor intensive but use less energy than conventional

farms (USDA, 1980). On the other hand, economic returns above variable costs can be

greater for conventional farms (for corn and

soybeans) than for several crop rotations grown

on organic farms because of the large portion

of land necessarily devoted to legume crops at

any one time (USDA, 1980).

One study of economic performance and

energy use on organic farms showed that

organic producers had an average overall production level 10 percent below that of comparable conventional operations (in terms of

market value of output per acre). However,

because operating costs also were lower for

organic farms, returns to crop production were

virtually equal for the two groups. The conventional group was 2.3 times more energy intensive, primarily because of the energy needed

to produce conventional fertilizers. The

organic group required 12 percent more labor

per unit of market value of crops produced

(Lockeretz, et al., 1976). Other studies confirm

this general pattern of reduced energy use and

slightly reduced yields for organic farms

(CAST, 1980). Continuing escalations in energy

prices may have already enhanced the relative

profitability’ of organic farming methods. However, data on yields and net per-acre returns

to organic farms for 1979 and later are not

available.

Modest additions of nitrogen to organically

managed corn fields might reduce their yield

disadvantage relative to conventional fields,

while preserving most of the lower production

costs and reduced energy consumption characterizing these methods. Thus, cultivation

systems that draw on the management practices of organic farming, while using small additions of manufactured fertilizer, may have

substantial potential for maintaining high

yields and reducing costs.

Organic farming may also have advantages

for sustaining inherent land productivity that

could in the long run compensate for shortterm yield reductions. Careful land management, crop rotations, use of cover crops and

other conservation methods, and reduced nonpoint pollution (e.g., nitrogen and pesticide

runoff) cause organic farming to have fewer

apparent adverse effects on environmental
110 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

quality than many conventional farming methods (USDA, 1980). Preliminary estimates suggest that organic techniques can reduce erosion by one-third or more in some areas (Kohl,

et al., 1981). If the additional costs of the

detrimental effects of production (e.g., erosion

and sedimentation) are considered, cost differences between organic and conventional

systems may decrease in areas where these

problems occur (USDA, 1980). If, on the other

hand, yield reductions or other factors associated with a shift to organic farming caused

farmers to bring new, less suitable agricultural

lands into production, erosion problems could

be aggravated rather than alleviated.

Future of Organic Farming in the

United States

The future extent of the role of organic farming in American agriculture is uncertain. Much

depends on the availability and price of fertilizer (especially nitrogen), farm labor,

producer-price relationships, domestic and

world demands for food, concern for soil and

water conservation, concern for health and environment, and U.S. policies toward the development and promotion of organic practices.

Many of agriculture’s current trends—for example, increased energy and input costs, or increased concern for long-term soil productivity—could prove strong incentives for a shift

toward organic agriculture. But a major shift

from conventional to organic farming would

be limited by the availability of resources. Certain parts of the United States simply do not

have an adequate and economic supply of organic wastes and residues or the soils and

climate to support profitable organic agriculture (USDA, 1980).

USDA projections show that small farms,

many of the remaining mixed-crop/livestock

farms, and farms with access to ample quantities of organic wastes could be shifted to

organic methods without major effect on total

agricultural production. All farms with sales

less than $2,500 (more than 35 percent of the

total number of farms in 1977) could be farmed

organically with little total economic impact

on U.S. agriculture. On the other hand, if significant numbers of the conventional farms

currently producing more than $20,000 per

year in continuous corn, soybeans, or other

crops converted to organic methods, the resulting changes in cropping patterns could have

substantial economic impacts, particularly if

such changes occurred rapidly (USDA, 1980).

Such a shift would reduce U.S. exports, since

corn and soybeans are important export crops.

The likelihood of such a shift, however, does

not seem great.

Throughout the sometimes heated debate

surrounding organic agriculture, one fact has

gained prominence: many questions remain

unanswered. Again and again, sections of

USDA’s comprehensive overview of organic

farming concluded saying, “there is a need for

research to determine . . . .“

The USDA study strongly recommended that

research and educational programs be developed and implemented to address the needs

and problems of organic farmers and to

enhance the success of conventional farmers

who may want to shift toward organic farming, adopt some organic methods, or reduce

their dependency on agricultural chemicals.

The study advocated a holistic research effort

to investigate the organic system of farming,

its mechanisms, interactions, principles, and

potential benefits to agriculture, especially considering that there is a severe lack of welldesigned, replicative research on this set of

technologies (USDA, 1980).

Often this view is countered by saying that

many pieces of current agricultural research

are already applicable to organic producers’

needs. Work on biological nitrogen fixation,

sewage sludge, soil fertility, and mechanical

means of weed control are cited as examples.

But considering the promise offered by organic

methods and variations thereof, efforts to

develop a more comprehensive research foundation for organic agriculture could provide

valuable paybacks. Further, many of the “unknowns” highlighted by the organic agriculture

study are fundamental to agriculture in general, not just to organic approaches.
Ch. IV—Croplands ● 111

Conclusions

Organic farming can, given suitable climatic

conditions, markets, and required inputs, be

a productive and efficient farming option in

parts of the United States.

Organic farming techniques can reduce soil

erosion and nonpoint pollution because such

methods increase the use of cover crops and

rotations and decrease chemical inputs.

Rising costs of chemical inputs are likely to

cause more conventional farmers to adopt

techniques being used by organic farmers.

If research supports the development and

improvement of such techniques, and if

resource sustainability is an explict goal of

that development, the shift toward organic

farming may help to sustain crop yields and

to reduce energy use and attendant costs

while preserving land productivity.

Alternative Cropping Systems

Changes in cropping systems have had

major, though not well understood, impacts on

the inherent productivity of U.S. croplands.

The overall trend has been to greater production of fewer crops, fewer crop rotations, and

less crop variety. Some of the impacts on longterm productivity have been beneficial, such

as the reduced need for production from some

fragile lands, while some have been harmful,

such as the increased erosiveness of row crops

Cropping systems will continue to change as

the social, economic, and environmental milieu

of agriculture changes. This section examines

some cropping system changes that could work

to sustain inherent land productivity on U.S.

croplands. Multiple cropping is already practiced and is growing in popularity, partly as

a result of the increased use of no-till techniques. New crops are receiving increased attention, though for the most part they receive

little attention from the Federal Government,

agricultural experiment stations, or agricultural faculties of universities. Finally, an approach that would integrate these two kinds of

technologies, polyculture of perennial plants,

is described. This technology is unlikely to be

ready for implementation before the 21st century.

Multiple Cropping

Multiple cropping is an intensive form of

agriculture where two or more crops are grown

sharing land and resources. Such systems can

enhance both land-use efficiency and long-term

productivity, Multiple cropping is not a new

technology but rather is an ancient technique

that has been most developed in areas of high

rainfall in the tropics, where temperature and

moisture are favorable for year-round crop

growth (American Society of Agronomy, 1976).

High cropIand costs and other economic pressures have stimulated new interest in temperate multiple cropping systems.

Today’s multiple cropping systems vary

greatly depending on the nature of the site

being farmed. Traditional tropical multiple

cropping systems differ from most U.S. systems because of differences in climate and

farming scale, though both are based on the

same principles. In general, multiple cropping

systems are managed to maximize total yearly crop production from a unit of land, This

can be achieved by sequential cropping, which

is growing two or more crops in sequence on

the same land area, and by intercropping,

which refers to various ways of growing two

or more crops simultaneously on the land.

Generally, productivity in well-developed

multiple cropping systems can be more stable

and constant in the long run than in monoculture. * Although individual crops in the mixture or sequence may yield slightly less than

in monoculture, combined production per unit

area can be greater with multiple cropped

fields. The overall increased yields result

because the component crops differ enough in

their growth requirements so that overlapping

demands—whether for sunlight, water, or nutrients—are not critical constraints, Multiple

cropping, in effect, broadens the land’s productive capacity by more fully exploiting the

dimensions of time and space (Gliessman,

1980),
112 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Only certain crop mixtures will produce better yields under multiple cropping, Crop combinations and sequences that make successful,

efficient overall use of available resources are

considered complementary, One of the main

ways to achieve such complementarily is by

using sequential planting. For instance, in double cropping, the second crop is planted soon

after the first crop is harvested.

Double cropping soybeans after wheat o r

barley is a widely practiced multiple cropping

system for grain production in the longer growing seasons of the Southeastern United States.

Recent advances in herbicides, short-season

cultivars (particularly soybeans), and no-till

planting have led to increased double cropping

in Delaware, Maryland, and the southern part

of the Corn Belt, including Kentucky, Illinois,

Indiana, and Ohio (American Society of

Agronomy, 1976).

Double cropping requires careful management—timely harvesting, the use of proper,

short-season varieties, alteration of standard

planting distances, and special selection of herbicides to avoid residual toxic effects. In general, climate and precipitation in the Western

United States are not suitable for most present

systems of sequential cropping, North of latitude 37“N or above 600 m elevation, the short

growing season limits the time available for sequential cropping, and rainfall is usually inadequate to permit good growth in a second crop,

Further research with innovative crops, however, may change this picture.

The western regions of Washington, Oregon,

and northwestern California are exceptions. In

those regions, with their humid, cool summers

and mild winters, multiple cropping is an

established practice. The main combination

used is intercropping oats with red clover. In

fruit and nut orchards, small grains or annual

forage crops are grown between rows of newly established trees, Double cropping is also

practiced with vegetable crops, bush beans, or

sweet corn following early maturing annual

crops.

Another way to grow complementary crops

is through relay intercropping. To make more

efficient use of the growing season and available water, and to avoid direct competition, a

second crop is planted after the first crop has

completed the major part of its development,

but before it is harvested. Relay intercropping

of soybeans into no-till wheat is being practiced

as far north as Wooster, Ohio (Triplett, 1981).

The success of this intercropping depends on

the correct combination of timing and other

variables to avoid shading, nutrient competition, or inhibition brought about by toxicity

produced by the decomposition of previous

crop residues.

Farmers also can get complementarily in systems where two or more compatible crops are

grown simultaneously, either in rows, strips,

or mixed fields. For instance, traditional corn,

bean, and squash systems grown in Mexico

show how three species can benefit from multiple cropping. All three crops are planted simultaneously, but each matures at a different rate.

The beans, which begin to mature first, are

followed by the corn and they use the young

corn stalks for support. The squash matures

last, As the corn matures, it grows to occupy

the upper canopy, The beans occupy the middle space and the squash covers the ground.

Research shows that the system achieves improved weed and insect control, And while the

beans and squash suffer a distinct yield reduction, corn yields are higher than in comparable

monoculture. It is still uncertain whether the

higher yields are the result of more efficient

resource use or if some mutually beneficial interaction is occurring between the crop components (Gliessman, 1980),

ADVANTAGES

The key to multiple cropping’s benefits is the

intensity of the cropping pattern—i.e., drawing as much as possible from the land resource.

Such systems need not abuse the land. With

proper design and operation, multiple-cropping management can sustain soil fertility,

Depending on the multiple-cropping system

used, potential advantages can include :

● more efficient use of time and vertical

space, imitating natural ecological patterns, and permitting a more efficient cap-
Ch. IV—Croplands ● 113

ture of solar energy and nutrients;

more organic matter available to return to

the soil system;

improved circulation of nutrients, including “pumping” them from deeper soil

profiles when deep-rooted species are

used;

reduced wind and water erosion because

of increased surface protection;

potential production from fragile lands

when systems are designed to accommodate variable soil types, topography,

and steeper slopes;

reduced susceptibility to climatic variation,

especially precipitation, wind, and temperature;

reduced evaporation from soil surface;

increased microbial activity in the soil;

more efficient fertilizer use through the

more diverse and deeper root structure in

the system;

improved soil structure, less likelihood to

form hardpan, and better aeration and infiltration;

reduced fertilizer needs because legume

components fix atmospheric nitrogen;

improved weed control because of heavier

crop and mulch cover; and

improved opportunities for biological control of insects and diseases because of

component plant diversity.

DISADVANTA61S

Multiple cropping technologies can harm inherent land productivity if misapplied. Sequential cropping, for instance, of two or three

crops can mine the land of nutrients if fertilizer

applications, legume rotations, green manures,

animal manures, or other fertility-building activities are neglected. Other potential disadvantages in multiple cropping in the United

States might include:

competition for light, soil nutrients, or

water;

difficulties in mechanizing various operations (tillage, planting, harvesting, etc.);

the potential to harm one crop component

when harvesting other components;

●

●

●

●

●

●

difficulty building a fallow period into

multiple cropping systems, especially

when long-lived tree species are included;

increases in water loss caused by greater

root leaf surface areas;

the possibility of unforeseen problems

with one crop’s plant-produced toxins

harming other crops (allelopathy);

damage to shorter plants from leaf,

branch, fruit, or water drop from taller

plants;

higher relative humidity in the air than can

favor disease outbreak, especially of fungi;

and

possible proliferation of harmful animals

(especially rodents and insects) or plant

pathogens in certain types of systems.

The most common objection to multiple

cropping is that it does not fit into this Nation’s

highly mechanized methods of agricuture.

However, as seen by the frequency of double

cropping in parts of the country, sometimes

this is not true. Mechanization is easiest when

farming operations can be performed uniformly over the entire field. Most types of sequential cropping require few modifications of normal equipment. Machinery for producing two

crops that are planted and harvested simultaneously and with the same implements, as .

is done with mixtures of forage crops, also requires little modification. But when two or

more nonforage crops are grown on the same

land at the same time, mechanization becomes

difficult because the operations done for one

crop must not damage the other crop(s) (American Society of Agronomy, 1976, )

Although it seems that the biological and

physical advantages of multiple cropping often

outweigh the disadvantages, a range of social

and economic factors also influences the acceptance of multiple cropping technologies. In

terms of social stability, multiple cropping

seems advantageous because it leads to a

diverse agricultural system. Such a system is

less susceptible to climatic fluctuation, environmental stress, and pest outbreaks. It also

might be less vulnerable to swings in crop

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

provides a more constant output of harvested

goods over the course of the year.

Reported lower yields, complexity of activities and management, higher labor demands, and difficulty in mechanizing operations are factors that discourage modern

farmers from some types of multiple cropping.

Although these tangible disadvantages exist,

most of the problems involved in multiple cropping are derived from lack of experience and

knowledge of the workings of complicated

agroecosystems. Additional research and

development could bring multiple cropping

into wider acceptance among U.S. farmers.

Potential New Crops

At present, less than 20 crops provide almost

90 percent of the world’s food supply. Yet this

planet is believed to host 90,000 edible species.

That means we rely on 0.025 percent of the

available edible plants for our food (Myers,

1979), The number of species used to produce

fiber is correspondingly small when compared

with the number of plants available, Thus, current food and fiber production for the world

rests on a narrow genetic base. An epidemic

in any of the food and fiber species could cause

severe dislocations in local, national, and

global economies, and could restrict the

amount of food and fiber available on the world

market. Developing some new crops could help

avoid such catastrophes.

Beyond broadening the food crop’s genetic

base, new crops hold potential to expand our

food supplies as world population continues

to grow. The ability to achieve such an increase

in a world with a paucity of new prime agricultural lands, increasingly expensive energy,

and impending water shortages may well depend on technological advances in new-crop

production. New crops could help establish

high levels of sustainable production from nonprime lands, drylands, and energy-constrained

farming operations.

NEWLY DOMESTICATED CROPS

Several ways exist to broaden the plant resource base. First and most obvious, new

species could be domesticated. This presents

both the greatest challenges and also the greatest potential rewards,

All of today’s economically important crops

were originally selected by pretechnological

peoples. The traits for which they were selected, while refined in modern times, have

shaped and dominated agricultural practices.

Traits such as concentrated seed production,

short ripening period, easy hulling, and

palatability were selected because they made

the plant more useful to humans. Some traits

necessary to the plant’s survival, such as protective hull, were rejected in the process,

however, and the plants became dependent on

humans for survival.

In developing new cultivars, different traits

reflecting the needs of a technological and

land-limited society may need to be selected.

For example, the retention of naturally occurring pest repellents may make economic sense

to a society capable of removing them during

processing, or the retention of perennial characteristics may make more sense to a society

with permanent agriculture than to a pretechnological slash and burn culture. Moreover, by

starting with plants that have never been domesticated, the entire germ plasm base of the

species is available for manipulation. Geneticists will not be faced with the problem of trying to find and restore useful genes that were

selected against by their ancestors and lost to

the current gene pool.

Some plants that appear to have potential for

domestication include the herbaceous perennials of the high prairies, the salt-tolerant

halophytes of the Southwest, and certain

leguminous trees and shrubs adapted to environmental extremes.
Ch. IV—Croplands ● 115

OLD CROPS REVISITED

The second way to expand the agricultural

plant resource base is to revive cultivars that

had previously been cropped but which were

neglected or abandoned for reasons not related

to their value as food, fiber, or fuel. The prime

example of the economic potential inherent in

neglected “old” crops is the soybean. It was

spurned in the United States from the time of

its introduction by Benjamin Franklin until

University of Illinois scientists established two

comprehensive soybean research programs in

the 1920’s. It is now the world’s premier protein crop.

Traditionally grown crops can be lost to political and social pressures, Amaranth was

outlawed by the explorer/conqueror Cortez in

his efforts to subdue a culture. Winged bean

has long been neglected because many consider it a “poor man’s crop. ” Many times these

traditional crops are better adapted to the local

soil and climatic conditions than introduced

species. Indigenous plants commonly are more

resilient to stress, as well, They have evolved

defenses for local disease and pest organisms

and are efficient users of available resources,

whether water, soil nitrogen, or other nutrients.

In the Southwestern United States, which is

faced with declining water tables and increasingly salinized soils, it seems appropriate to exploit such native resources as tepary bean, buffalo gourd, and jojoba whenever possible. In

order to do this, germ plasm from promising

plants would have to be gathered and assessed,

and the most promising strains identified. Then

selective breeding and genetic manipulation

could be used to develop economically viable

strains that could be propagated rapidly

through the use of cell culture or other modern

techniques.

MANIPULATING EXISTING PLANT%

A third way to expand the plant resource

base is to manipulate current cultivars so that

they are better adapted to environmental

stresses. Here again, modern genetic techniques will play a major role: either the plant

itself can be manipulated for desired characteristics, or the natural symbiotes of plants—

i.e., the bacteria and fungi of the soil—can be

altered. In the former case, such characteristics

as perennialism, salt tolerance, and cold tolerance may be added to a cultivar’s genetic inheritance. In the latter case, a number of

possibilities exist, including: 1) breeding symbiotes for leguminous plants to maximize their

nitrogen-fixing capacity; 2) breeding free-living

nitrogen-fixing organisms adapted to specific

soil types and plants to maximize nitrogen

availability; and 3) breeding those fungi, such

as mycorrhiza, that symbiotically inhabit root

hairs and not only prevent the intrusion of

harmful organisms but also make available

otherwise insoluble nutrients.

PoIymdture of Perennial Plants

Throughout the history of agriculture, with

few exceptions, tillage has rarely been practiced productively on the same site for more

than a few centuries. This occurs because tillage opens the land to erosion (slow, if carefully practiced, and rapid, if poorly practiced),

A new technology being investigated in the

hope of developing a sustainable form of agriculture is based on the polyculture of herbaceous perennial plants (Jackson and Bender,

1980). Polyculture is the growing of two or

more intermingled crops simultaneously. Of

course, polyculture of perennials has long been

used for forage. But current research focuses

on grain production using plants not now regarded as food crops but which, through genetic selection and perhaps genetic engineering, may become productive cultivars. Such

cultivars are being sought because: 1) the

search for genes to alter current high-yield

grain crops into perennial plants has been unsuccessful and may be impossible because little of the original genetic diversity of those

plants has been preserved; and 2) current

grains are adapted to grow in monoculture.

Herbaceous perennials are nonwoody pkmts,

such as grasses, that live for 3 or more years,

regrowing each spring from existing roots or

rhizomes. That means the seed can be harvested without interfering with the next year’s
116 Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

growth potential. Several economically important cultivars, such as cotton and sorghum, are

in fact tropical herbaceous perennials that are

grown in the United States as annuals. Perennials should not be confused with biennials

which develop a rosette the first year and one

or more reproductive stalks the second.

Except for sorghum, which is grown as an

annual, there has been little genetic selection

to improve seed yield of herbaceous perennials.

Research on these plants has been done mainly by range agronomists who seek forage yield

increases. Thus, the perennials for which seed

yield data exist are those grasses that have been

selected and managed to put their energy into

leaf production for forage rather than into seed

production. Perennial grasses that have relatively poor forage output but good seed yields

(1,000 lb/acre) generally have not been studied

or selected for. Thus, herbaceous perennials

for which seed yields have been measured produce only one-third to two-thirds as much as

annual cultivars such as winter wheat. However, the ability to improve these yields seems

great with available plant breeding technologies.

While yields are lower, the protein content

per seed of many herbaceous perennials is

much higher than for corn or wheat and may

approach the protein level of soybeans. This

high protein content in the seed should be

maintained during breeding programs so the

plants would be valuable for both animal and

human nutrition.

It is encouraging to note that perennials cross

more freely with close relatives than do annuals and their hybrids are more likely to be

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

number that is a multiple greater than two) is

high in perennials, and in the grass family, in

particular, there is a correlation between efficient vegetative reproduction and high percentage of polyploidy.

The most serious drawback to seed yield improvement in perennials may be the energy

cost to maintain their roots over the winter and

to rejuvenate the following spring. However,

if breeding strategies are successful in increasing the overall biomass of the perennial, a

larger part of the photosynthate could be allocated to seed production.

The anticipated (albeit mostly hypothetical)

benefits of a successful perennial polyculture

include:

1,

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Because tillage essentially would be

eliminated, perennial agriculture would

reduce soil erosion risks and might actually foster the accumulation of soil.

The efficiency of water use and water conservation by the perennial ecosystem

would be near maximum. Irrigation could

decline, thereby helping to avert water

shortage problems in ground water overdraft areas.

The application of manufactured fertilizers would be reduced because of the

use of legumes in the polyculture, the

decrease in the denitrification which occurs when a climax grass cover is in place,

and the decreased loss of nutrients

through soil erosion.

The use of manufactured pesticides could

be reduced where polycultures replace

monoculture because the latter are more

susceptible to damage. The new cultivars

could be bred to retain naturally occurring

pest and disease resistance and the permanent crop cover might eventually suppress

growth of weeds.

Fuel consumption would be reduced because of the elimination of frequent tillage.

Substantial areas of land not used for

crops because of serious erosion potential

could be brought into production,

Conclusions

Changes in cropping systems can have major

impacts on land productivity. Multiple cropping is one way, when practiced carefully, to

expand the land’s potential. Another option is

to increase the size of the productive crop

base—that is, to bring different types of crops

into wider use. Either option, in the proper circumstances, could be used to enhance land
—.

Ch. IV—Croplands ● 117

productivity, but further research and development efforts may be needed to fully exploit the

system’s potentials.

Drip Irrigation

Irrigation is an important tool for improving

land productivity, The united States has more

than 45 million acres of irrigated farmland. Irrigated agriculture uses more than 150 billion

gallons of water a day, accounting for nearly

80 percent of the Nation’s total water use (U.S.

Water Resources Council, 1978). Because irrigated crops tend to be high-value products,

irrigated lands account for a disproportionate

Figure 13.—Water

1.3%

 , 7.7 ”/0

share of the value of the crops produced in the

United States.

The importance of adequate water supplies

for agriculture will be highlighted in the upcoming decades as industry, urbanization, and

recreation compete with agriculture for finite

water supplies (see fig, 13). And as water conflicts become apparent, more attention will

focus on various new water-conserving technologies for irrigated agriculture.

One such technology is drip (sometimes

called trickle) irrigation. Drip irrigation is the

frequent, slow application of moisture to the

soil near the roots of a plant or tree in amounts

Consumption by Functional Use

7.8 %

1975 Total 2000 Total

140 ‘

I

135

130 — I 133

I

120 — I 115 I

110 — 104

100 “

90 —

80 —

c

—o 70 —

60 —

c

I

o 50 I ——

40 I m

30 — I

20 “

I

10 — 9

0

i I i I I

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1985 2000

SOURCE U S Water Resources Council, 1978

I I

Agriculture

Steam electric generation

Manufacturing and minerals

Public lands and other
118 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

just sufficient to meet its needs (University of

California, 01979). Systems vary in design, but

generally consist of a head or control station

and main and lateral lines with openings at intervals along the length of the hosing or pipes,

Typically, these openings are fitted with

emitters, nozzle-like devices that regulate water

flow from lateral lines into the soil, The system

also includes provisions for filtration with or

without chlorination, since clean water is essential to maintain open drip lines. In addition,

a liquid fertilizer injector pump, a fertilizer

holding tank, and hardware to regulate water

pressure are usually necessary.

Some growers have equipment that permits

automated operation of the watering system,

and some use the technology in conjunction

with plastic mulch to limit evaporation. Indeed,

were it not for the development of suitable

plastic components for the technology as a

whole, drip irrigation would probably still be

in its infancy.

Drip irrigation is, however, not really a new

technology. It was developed in Germany and

elsewhere in Europe beginning about 1860, and

by the 1950’s and 1960’s was in widespread use

in greenhouses in several countries. Commercial outdoor applications were first achieved

in Israel during the 1960’s, In 1969, drip irrigation was introduced to the United States on a

5-acre avocado orchard in northern San Diego

County (University of California, 1979; Gustafson, 1980). By 1980, an estimated 494,000 acres

of U.S. farmland were irrigated by drip systems

(Howell, 1981). Although 305,000 of these acres

were in California, drip irrigation also is being

used in more than 30 other States, some not

arid or semiarid (Hall, 1980). Drip irrigation is

being used to reduce economic risk of seasonal

or prolonged drought and to assure crop quality,

Advantages of Drip Irrigation

●

●

Water savings of 15 to 30 percent as compared with sprinkler or furrow irrigation

because of reduced runoff and evaporation.

Lower seedling mortality and greater uniformity of plants, bushes, or trees.

Yield increases (generally).

Fewer weeds because of less wetted area and

therefore less need to weed and use herbicides.

Fuel savings.

Reduced fertilizer inputs.

More efficient use of rainfall because drip

irrigation does not saturate the soil to the

point where it cannot absorb more.

Can be used on steep terrain when other

forms of irrigation cannot—a particular

bonus where industrialization and urbanization are encroaching on acreage formerly

devoted to farming.

Furnishes erosion control and offers shelter

to livestock when used to establish windbreaks in pastures and around homesteads,

feedlots, and farms,

Conclusions

Drip irrigation is, in general, a versatile technology. Growers, however, must adopt systems

particularly suited to their circumstances.

Systems choice varies not only with the crop

in question but also with the location and type

of soil, the local climate, the water source and

its distance from the field, and whether what

is to be grown is an annual or a perennial, For

example, sandy soils require more frequent irrigation than clay-rich soils because the latter

have less capacity to hold water. Shallow,

gravelly soils are not suited to trickle technology.

Drip irrigation is initially more expensive to

install than furrow or sprinkler irrigation and

so is more capital-intensive (Schuhart, 1977).

The large amount of plastic pipe required, and

the energy required to pump water through the

system, offset some of the energy savings when

drip systems are compared with others. Thus,

although drip systems have been used for

alfalfa, cotton, feed corn, wheat, and sorghum

on a demonstration basis, their major use to

date in the United States has been for highvalue crops. *

*A partial list of crops grown with drip irrigation includes:

avocados, apples, table and wine grapes, strawberries, grapefruit,
Ch, IV—Croplands ● 119

Once installed, drip systems must be maintained in good condition for efficient performance. This often entails flushing the lines and,

where emitters are used, requires keeping them

clean. Emitter clogging caused by chemical

buildup from water contaminants or fertilizers,

dirt, rock, silt, sludge, algae, slime, salt, or roots

is, in fact, one of the big problems associated

with this technology.

Drip irrigation is somewhat labor-intensive

because the emitters must be inspected frequently and because breakdowns in the system,

not being readily visible, easily can be overlooked. Furthermore, drip may be inappropriate where water has a high iron or sulfur content because the buildup of these eIements in

the lines fosters the growth of slime-producing

bacteria that can clog emitters.

Drip systems also can have problems with

salinity buildup and damage to the water lines

from wildlife, insects, or soil-dwelling animals.

Salinity problems vary greatly depending on

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

lines that drip irrigation can be impractical.

Similarly, in some areas gophers, mice, rabbits,

coyotes, and other creatures enjoy either playing with the pastic lines and pipes, coiling

themselves under them, chewing on them, or

drinking from them.

Some plastic materials are less attractive than

others to animals, and putting as much as possible of the equipment underground tends to

discourage land-roving animals. But these and

other measures, such as setting out water pans

in the fields for visiting wildlife and spraying

repellents on the lines, are only partial remedies. No pesticides registered by the Environlemons limes ,roes, oranges, tangelos, macadamia nuts, papaya,

peaches, pears, persimmons, walnuts, almonds, boysenberries,

tomatoes, cucumbers, celery, potatoes, peppers, melons, sweet

corn, asparagus, eggplant, peas, lettuce, ornamental trees and

shrubs, bedding plants, cacti and succulents, bulbs, carnations,

gladioli, poinsettias, chrysanthemums, radishes, apricots, pistachios, plums, cherries, pecans, sugarcane, pineapple, bananas,

mangoes, olies, figs, passion fruit, Christmas tree, etc, Street

medians and turf —both for homes and golf coures -- have also

been successfully managed in this way,

mental Protection Agency exist that can be injected into the lines.

The strengths and weaknesses inherent in

drip irrigation are not, however, the only factors affecting its use. Institutional arrangements also act as either incentives or constraints. For example, the availability of expertise from agricultural extension services, both

Federal and State, can help to build a clientele

for new technology. Subsidies encourage dissemination, too. In some areas, USDA has offered 50- to 75-percent cost sharing for the installation of trickle systems for certain purposes such as windbreaks (Conrad, 1981).

Irrigation is an important tool in maintaining and enhancing the productivity of U.S.

croplands. But water use efficiency varies

greatly with the system used and how it is

managed onsite, Because drip irrigation supplies water directly to the plant root zone, it

can provide increased water and energy efficiency as well as reduced erosion.

Breeding Salt-Tolerant Plants

Most commercial crops cannot survive in

salty soils, Until recently, little scientific attention was paid to this problem because freshwater and land seemed limitless. But now

scientists have begun investigating salt-tolerant

plants. Their efforts involve both identifying

the most salt-tolerant strains among conventional crop species and studying the genetics

of wild species that live and reproduce in

oceans, seashores, estuaries, deltas, salt

marshes, and saline desert soils, Studying these

halophytes and how they have adapted to saline environments may help scientists develop

plant varieties, either through cross-breeding

or genetic engineering, to survive in salty

conditions.

If salt-tolerant crops could be developed, the

implications would be far-reaching:

● currently productive, irrigated land such

as that found along the lower Colorado

River—e.g., the Imperial and Coachella

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 Arkansas River Valley, Colo,,

Salt-tolerant cultivars would not solve salinity problems, but they could provide an opportunity for enhancing the productivity of some

lands. Research on salt tolerance is increasing,

though not substantially. Epstein, et al. (1980),

conducted research on barley, wheat, and tomatoes to determine their tolerance to saline

water. The findings on these three crops are

promising,

Ongoing Research

Barley has long been known as a salt-tolerant

grain. With only undiluted seawater for irrigation, but supplemented with nitrogen and phosphorus, the most salt-tolerant barley had an

average yield of 962 lb/acre, 23 percent more

than several standard cultivars tested. Normal

annual barley yields are under 1,780 lb/acre.

Wheat does not have as high a salt tolerance

as barley. Nevertheless, Epstein’s tests found

that 34 lines of spring wheat were able to produce grain when using water having 50 percent salinity, a level lethal to commercial

wheat, Other researchers feel that they can improve these results.

While commercial tomatoes showed little salt

tolerance, a wild variety, Lycopersicon

cheesmanii, from the high-tide level on the

Galapagos Islands, shows promise. The small,

economically useless tomato differs markedly

from the commercial cultivar by having unique

ways of transporting ions and different ways

of accumulating and excluding salt. When the

two cultivars were crossed, they produced a

plant that could survive, flower, and set fruit

the size of a small cherry tomato when irrigated

with 70 percent seawater (Epstein, 1980], This

experiment is important because it indicates

that salt tolerance can be transferred from wild

species to those of commercial value.

Other research shows that tissue and cell

culture techniques may speed up the process

of identifying and selecting salt-tolerant plant

cells, Through these techniques, individual

plant cells can be introduced into a culture

medium that is designed to support the growth

of cells having a desired trait, such as resistance to high salt levels, Those cells that survive are regenerated into whole plants, a possible, though sometimes difficult task, Adult

plants then can be used to propagate additional

plants—all with the ability to withstand the

desired stress selected for–namely, salt tolerance,

Some evidence suggests that some salt-tolerant crops may be enhanced by inoculating

their roots with certain mycorrhizal fungi

(Menge, 1980). Such fungi are known to help

plants obtain soil nutrients and survive during
Ch. /V—Croplands 121

drought stress. In addition, some legumes can

fix nitrogen from the air through a symbiotic

relationship with rhizobial bacteria strains that

live in nodules on the plant’s roots. The appropriate selection of rhizobium may enhance

the salt tolerance of these plants (Epstein, et

al., 1980).

Researchers know little about how salttolerant plants survive. The growing interest

in genetic engineering should provide some

answers, but for now the search for mild, salttolerant relatives of modern crops will be important in selection and breeding activities. To

date, screening existing varieties has only

limited potential because these plants have

been bred for certain desirable traits such as

disease resistance and yield, and in the process have lost much of their original, natural

variability. A worldwide search for halophytes

such as the tomato in the Galapagos Islands

could increase chances of developing other

c;rops with built-in salt tolerance. However,

native vegetation in saline wetland and desert

ecosystems is under heavy pressure in the

United States, and most lesser developed countries, the part of the world having the greatest

variety of plant species, Destroying wild wetland and desert vegetation narrows the

chances for finding the genetic variability

needed for salt-tolerance e research.

Impacts

[f new varieties of crops that are substantially

more tolerant to salinity can be developed, they

could be used most effectively on lands that are

already nonproductive because of soil salinization or on lands that have no major, readily

a~’ailable freshwater resources. These areas are

mostly in the West, where the increasing competition over water for agriculture, energy,

mining, and growing urban populations makes

it unlikely that large quantities of freshwater

will be available to reclaim salinized soils or

to supply new agricultural areas.

Widespread use of salt-tolerant plants could

lead locally to increased soil salinization and

the increased salinity of ground water and

raiscs the chances of increasing the salinity of

surface water regionally. If production occurs

close to freshwater resources, there is the risk

that the freshwater would be polluted with salt.

This might lead to an expanded salinization

problem, resulting in some negative economic,

social, and environmental impacts.

Conclusions

●

●

●

●

Salt-tolerant crops probably do not perform

as well as plants not under salt stress. Therefore, it is important to prevent salinization

of soils and not merely to rely on the possibility of switching to salt-tolerant plants as

soils are ruined.

Salt-tolerant plants could help free highquality freshwater for conventional irrigated

crops or for human consumption.

The search for wild, salt-tolerant relatives of

modern crops will be important in the selection and breeding activities for developing

desired traits in plants. The tropics have the

greatest variety of plant species but native

vegetation in these countries is being destroyed rapidly. This is narrowing the

chances of finding the genetic variability

needed for salt-tolerance research and agricultural research generally.

Locally, use of salt-tolerant crops probably

would lead to increased soil Salinization, increased salinity of the ground water, and increased salinity of surface water regionally.

Computers in Agriculture

Computers can affect land productivity by

enhancing a producer’s ability to make sound

management decisions. New applications for

computers are emerging rapidly. However,

three areas that relate directly to land productivity are visible today: 1) storing and making

available vast amounts of agricultural information, 2) assisting in farm management decisions, and 3) continuing education.

Computer-based information systems potentially can offer farmers and ranchers quick access to the thousands of bulletins, pamphlets,

books, and periodicals generated annually for
122 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

the agricultural community. Because computer

systems are updated easily and have thorough

indexing and search functions, they make it

possible for users to select relevant information from the vast amounts available. Most of

the agricultural information systems now functioning are geared to specialists and researchers rather than to farm operators. Farm-oriented systems, however, are being developed.

An experimental system in Kentucky, “Green

Thumb, ” is designed to disseminate weather,

market, and other production and management

information directly to farmers through devices

that print the information on home television

screens. A private firm, Control Data Corp., has

included interactive information services—in

which the computer responds to a farmer’s

specific questions—as part of its prototype

“agricultural business center” in Princeton,

Minn.

Computer programs to assist farmers in managing farm production have been developed at

several universities. Notable examples are

Michigan State University’s Today’s Electronic

Planning (TELEPLAN), the University of

Nebraska’s Agricultural Computer Network

(AGNET), Virginia Tech’s Computerized Management Network (CMN), and the Fast Agricultural Communications Terminal Systems

(FACTS) in Indiana. Similarly, some commercial firms are developing computer-based

management aids for their clientele. Programs

for determining optimum livestock feeding

rates, irrigation timing, fertilizer applications,

and pest management strategies are available,

as well as programs to help farmers compute

profit potentials for full season and double

cropping, and judge the economic feasibility

of land and equipment purchases. The Control

Data prototype offers 10 computer-based management systems that can assist farmers in

keeping financial or production records and

marketing and loan applications, among other

services.

The computer’s ability to allow direct dialog

between student and teacher, at any time and

location, and at the student’s chosen pace,

gives it great potential as an educational

medium. Educational programs can be stored

conveniently on disks or cassettes and used

wherever appropriate facilities exist. Few

educational programs tailored for farm and

ranch use have been developed, however,

though computer question-and-answer courses

on a wide variety of topics have been included

in Control Data’s agricultural business center,

If region-specific models are developed to

help farmers calculate complex tradeoffs between short-term benefits and long-term costs,

or vice versa, it is likely that agricultural uses

will be better matched to the capability of the

land. However, the economics of making interactive computer programs or models that

are site specific enough for such purposes have

yet to be determined, If the models must be

made so specific that they cover a region with

too few customers to pay for the development

costs, Government subsidies may be necessary.

As the work of risk-taking entrepreneurs progresses, the economics of computers being

used to enhance long-term land productivity

will become more clear.

Soii Amendments

Soil amendments—also known as soil conditioners and soil additives—are materials

other than conventional fertilizers or organic

matter that are added to soils to change them

physically, chemically, or biologically to improve productivity, These products have proliferated as manufactured fertilizers have become more expensive, but the efficacy of most

of them is doubtful, To some extent, they are

associated with organic farming, though only

some organic farmers use them and traditional

farmers use them as well.

With rare exceptions, university agronomists

who have tested these products have found that

yield increases, if any, do not justify the increased production costs. This does not mean

that all unconventional soil amendments are

without promise. Some biological soil amendments, such as inoculation with nitrogen-fixing

bacteria suited for a particular legume, or inoculation with mycorrhiza after a soil has been

fumigated, have proven to be cost-effective alternatives to manufactured fertilizers (Halliday,
Ch. /V—Croplands ● 123

1981; Menge, 1980). Some chemical amendments, such as water-holding starch copolymers (“super-slurper”) have shown great promise in preliminary tests in soils where tree

seedlings are planted. Certain zeolite minerals

have been proven to improve soil water-holding capacity and to enhance fertility by increasing the soil’s ion exchange capacity. These

naturally occurring fine-grained minerals have

been the subject of intensive agricultural research in Japan, Bulgaria, and Russia, but have

yet to attract much attention from agriculturalists in the united States.

But many of the soil amendments available

have been called “snake oil’’ –that is, their

value is very doubtful. The situation with soil

amendments resembles that of pharmaceuticals before 1962, when the Federal Food and

Drug Act was amended to require scientifically

acceptable evidence for efficacy of pharmaceutical products before they could be offered in

interstate commerce. Some States have moved

or are moving toward a similar philosophy to

govern intrastate commerce in soil amendments, Oklahoma, for example, now requires

proof of effectiveness before an agricultural

product of this kind may be registered for sale

in the State. In Wisconsin, labeling claims cannot be made without research data to back

them up. Nebraska recently amended its law

encompassing soil amendments to require

manufacturers to list every ingredient on the

label.

CURRENT CROPLAND EROSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

In the coming years, various innovative approaches to conserving land productivity will

become increasingly important. But existing

conservation technologies will continue to play

a key role in good land stewardship. Many of

these technologies were developed in response

to the 1930’s Dust Bowl. Planting belts of

sheltering trees to break the winds, learning to

terrace sloping fields to control runoff and erosion, improving on farm management to keep

protective cover on the land—these are conservation techniques with long useful histories.

Although they sometimes are not enough to

protect the most fragile and erosive lands, such

traditional conservation technologies have

been widespread, important influences on

many acres of American farmland.

Water Erosion Control

practices for controlling sheet and rill erosion fall in two broad categories: 1) engineering practices, including the construction of

such structures as terraces, dams, diversions,

or grade stabilization structures; and 2) management practices, including crop residue management, seeding methods, soil treatment, tillage methods, the timing of field operations, and

vegetative controls such as winter cover crops,

sod-based rotations, contour farming, and permanent vegetative cover. This section briefly

describes these practices and comments on

their potential.

Engineering Practices

TERRACES

Terraces are earth embankments, channels,

or combinations of embankments and channels

built across the slope of the land at suitable

spacings and with acceptable grades. They reduce soil erosion, provide maximum retention

of moisture for crop use, remove surface runoff

at a nonerosive velocity, reduce sediment content in runoff water, and/or reduce peak runoff

rates.

Terraces are the best mechanical erosion

control practice available that allows continuous row-crop production. They may trap up to

85 percent of the sediment eroded from the

field, although they cannot stop erosion between terraces. Analysis of the 1977 NRI data

on terraced cropland shows that terracing was

responsible for reducing erosion an average of

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

that 27.5 million acres of cropland had terraces

in 1977.

However, several problems associated with

the terracing have not been overcome. Terrace

construction may cause extreme surface compaction and remove topsoil from large areas

of the field. Uneven drying, pending, and severe erosion in different parts of the same terrace channel are also common, especially for

the first 3 to 5 years after construction. In addition, problems with terrace alinement resulting

in point rows and poor maneuverability of machinery, and maintaining grass waterways,

have reduced terrace use.

The design and construction of a terrace system are expensive and require skilled professionals, Installation costs of $400 per acre are

not uncommon for uniformly spaced cut-andfill terraces with necessary drains (Shrader,

1980), Further costs include loss of land to terrace backslopes, loss of crops during construction year, higher labor and energy costs to work

terraced fields, and costs of controlling insect

pests that may be harbored in backslope grass

strips. In addition, maintenance is mandatory

to retain an adequate terrace cross section for

proper functioning of the system.

DIVERSIONS

Diversions differ from terraces in that they

consist of individually designed channels

across a hillside. They are used to protect bottomland from hillside runoff, to divert runoff

away from active gullies, to reduce the number

of waterways, and to reduce slope length so

that contour strips can control erosion. The

1977 NRI show that approximately 2.4 million

acres of cropland contain diversions.

Management Practices

CONTOUR FARMING

The practice of planting on a line perpendicular to the slope of the land is termed contour

farming. This practice can be used at relatively low cost, Contour tillage can reduce average

soil loss by 50 percent on moderately sloping

fields (2 to 8 percent slope) not more than 300

ft long. Extrapolations from the 1977 NRI data

show erosion rates on land treated with contour farming average 61 percent less than on

corresponding untreated land (Miller, 1981),

The effectiveness of contouring, however, declines as the inherent potential for erosion increases. In certain cases, climatic, soil, or topographic conditions limit the application of contour farming.

CONTOUR STRIPCROPPING

In contour stripcropping ordinary farm

crops are produced in relatively narrow strips

of variable or even width that alternate with

close-growing meadow crops. The strips are

oriented approximately on the contour and perpendicular to the slope. Contour stripcropping

reduces erosion about 50 percent more than

contour farming, The slowing and filtering

action of the sod strips reduces runoff water

velocity and soil loss. The exact width of strips

needed for adequate erosion control depends

on soil types, percent slope, length of slope, and

the crop rotation, The practice is commonly

used in combination with diversions on long

slopes of 400 ft or more. Contour strips are

relatively inexpensive to install, but require

farmers to keep headlands, waterways, and

turn strips in grass, thus reducing crop acreage.

GRASS WATERWAYS

Grass waterways are one of the most common conservation practices. They are simply

grass-covered strips of land running at intervals the length of the fields. They provide a

path for surface runoff from fields, alone or in

combination with diversions or terrace systems. Maintaining grass cover is a major problem in row-cropped fields because the extensive use of herbicides and their transport in surface runoff often kills the grass.

COVER CROPS

Cover crops are crops planted between regular cropping periods to protect the soil from

water and wind erosion. Fields planted in

tobacco, potatoes, vegetables, and silage corn

can benefit from planting cover crops once the

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

soil, climate, and the quantity of organic material produced, and easily worked into the soil

at the time of seeding. Cereal grains (rye, oats,

anci winter wheat) are popular cover crops.

CROP ROTATIONS

Sod-based crop rotations, growing dense,

ground-cover crops in rotation with other

crops, are used to minimize wind and water

erosion. They also can be used to provide some

nitrogen for later crops, Total soil loss is greatly

reduced, although soil losses are not equally

distributed over the rotation. On many soils,

crop rotations favor higher yields and improved crop quality.

The use of sod-based rotations can be traced

to such notables as Thomas Jefferson, However, sod-based rotations have decreased significantly in popularity under modern agricultural

conditions, in part because severe reductions

in the number of farmers engaged in livestockbased agriculture have reduced the need for

forage crops normally planted in such rotations.
126 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

MANAGIMINT OF SOIL FERTILITY

High soil fertility allows greater numbers of

plants, and larger plants, at all stages of growth.

The resulting increase in plant cover provides

additional soil protection, particularly during

the critical early period when soil is most exposed (Troech, et al., 1980).

Fertility management in modern agriculture

often depends on precise soil testing and tailoring practices to specific fields, soils, and crops.

But estimates of fertilizer needs based on general knowledge of crop requirements, soil type,

and a field’s erosion, crop, and fertilization history are likely to be imprecise. This can lead

to underfertilization or overfertilization, which

may be extremely costly and result in suboptimum yields, increased erosion, and increased

water pollution. Major techniques to enhance

fertility include the use of manufactured or

nonmanufactured fertilizers, the use of additives such as lime or gypsum to control soil pH,

technologies for controlling soil moisture, crop

rotation, and the use of adapted crop varieties.

Wind Erosion Con-rol

A number of practices are used to control

wind erosion, many of which parallel or are

similar to practices for controlling water erosion. Establishing and maintaining cover is the

“cardinal” rule of wind erosion control.

Stubble Mulch and Minimum TiIlage

Stubble mulch and other variations of minimum tillage are used to maintain as much crop

residue on the land surface in a standing or

near-erect condition as is compatible with

planting procedures for the next crop. The

residues slow the wind at ground level, reducing its power to detach and carry soil particles,

This technology has been known for decades,

but is becoming more feasible with the development of improved herbicides and new conservation tillage machinery (see previous discussion of conservation tillage and no-till).

The acceptance of stubble mulch and minimum tillage continues to grow each year as the

methods’ advantages for both controlling wind

erosion and conserving soil moisture become

more apparent. Extrapolations from 1977 NRI

data show erosion rates on erosive lands

treated with minimum tillage alone average 69

percent less than the corresponding rates for

untreated cultivated land (Miller, 1981).

Cover Crops

Cover can also be maintained by planting

cover crops when land is bare between regular

crops. Cover crops hold soil in place and thus

reduce erosion. Cover crops are well suited to

humid areas and may also be used on irrigated

land where irrigation water can give quick germination and growth. They are less practical

in drier areas where wind erosion can be

severe because they compete for limited supplies of soil moisture. However, one practical

method to avoid the moisture depletion problem is to plant crops that grow before winter

kill, leaving plant residues for protection with

no additional water requirements, Similar results also can be obtained by using a herbicide

to kill a crop after it has provided some protective growth.

Mulches and Nonvegetaive Cover

Mulches, nonvegetative, and processed covers can protect areas of severe wind erosion

or areas with high economic return potential.

Costs prohibit widespread application of this

method of wind erosion control, However, it

is applicable for dune stabilization, providing

erosion control on vegetable and speciality

crop lands, and to “blow out” or “hot spot” erosion problems in the large dryland agricultural

areas.

Reduction of Field Lengths

Another fundamental way to reduce wind

erosion is to reduce field lengths along the prevailing wind direction.

Stripcropping

Wind erosion can also be reduced with stripcropping, where strips of erosion-resistant

crops are alternated with strips of erosion-susceptible crops. Stripcrops run at right
Ch. IV— Croplands ● 127

- — —

angles to the prevailing W inds. The actual

width of strips needed to control wind erosion

varies with topographic features such as the

length, degree, and exposure of slope in relation to prvailing winds, and with factors affecting field erodibility~.g., soil texture, cloddiness, roughness, and wind velocity and direction. Stripcropping has disadvantages, however, as less acreage is available for the highest

profit crops and insect problems may increase.

[compatibility with modern, large farm

machinery also has made stripcropping objectionable to some farmers.

Windbreaks and Shelterbelts

Windbreaks and shelterbelts which reduce

field lengths and lower windspeeds also help

control wind erosion. The effectiveness of any

barrier depends on the wind velocity and direction and on the shape, width, height, and por0sity of the harriers. Nearly any plant that

reaches substantial height and retains its lower

leaves can be used as a harrier. Tree windbreaks have most application on sandy soils

and in areas where there is substantial rainfall.

Narrow rows of tall-growing field crops, perennial grass barriers, snow fences, solid wooden

and rock walls, and earthen hanks ha havee also

been used for windbreaks.

The US e) of windbreaks to control wind erosion is declinin, in part because windbreaks

interfere with the large machinery and centerpivot irrigation systems. Plants used for windbreaks also can compete for water and commonly produce no increases in crop yield. For

these reasons, many shelterbelts planted in the

1930’s have been torn out and few new shelterbelts are being planted.

PRODUCE SOIL CLODS OR AGGREGATES

AND ROUGHEN THE LAND

Rougher, more aggregated soils are less likely

to suffer wind erosion. During regular tillage

and planting operations, the soil will be rougher if minimum or stubble mulch tillagc practices are used. Special planters such as the fill

planter for row crops and the deep furrow or

hoe drill for small grains also produce effectively rough soils. Emergency or “last resort”

tillage can produce roughness and cloddiness

on both cropped and fallow land. It can be accomplished with a number of common t ill age

implements, including chisel plow’s and field

cultivators.

LEVEL OR BENCH LAND

Land is often leveled or benched for purposes

of water erosion control, irrigation and moisture conservation. These land modifications

also provide substantial wind erosion control

because field lengths are shortened and erosion

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 investitability, 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 depreciation rates.) Total private or non-Federal

investment in permanent conservation measures on all lands declined from $4.95 billion

in 1955 to $4.3 billion in 1975 (USDA/ESCS,

1979).

These figures reflect a tendency for farmers

to remove, or not maintain, permanent measures such as terraces, diversions, windbreaks,

and permanent vegetative covers, as well as

decisions not to expand such methods to unimproved land. The high costs of such methods,

their incompatibility with large machines, and

the lack of demonstrable yield improvements

associated with the practices act against their

use. Although Federal cost sharing has been

and continues to be available to implement

such practices, long-term projections indicate

that in many cases farm incomes can decline

because of installation of the permanent soil

conservation structures.

Recent studies of the economic feasibility of

installing terraces, in particular, document

losses to farmers who use them, One study of

Illinois farmland found that over the expected

20-year life of a terracing system, construction

on gentle slopes incurred a net cost because

the erosion prevented was not great enough to

significantly alter crop yields. On steep slopes,

initial building costs were so high that losses

in yield could not offset the costs, even though

severe erosion was occurring (Mitchell, et al.,

1980).

While the public benefits of installing terraces and other structural or permanent practices may justify their costs, current incentives

for their use do not appear to be sufficient to

motivate private producers.

Land management that integrates conservation practices into normal cropping activities,

on the other hand, appears to be capable of

maintaining (and, in some cases, increasing)

farm income while providing conservation

benefits. Such practices may include conservation cropping systems, use of cover and

green manure crops, subsoiling, crop residue

manipulation, conservation tillage, intensive

grazing management, and range seeding,

Such management practices have spread rapidly throughout the U.S. agricultural sector.

They tend to require smaller initial investments

than permanent erosion control methods, with

much of the investment made in special equipment required to implement the practice. (Consequently, such investments do not show up

as conservation investments in the Economics,

Statistics, and Cooperatives Service figures

quoted above.) Some management practices,

such as contour plowing, involve higher operating costs than conventional practices and

may not produce sufficient gains in land productivity to maintain profits on a short-term

basis (USDA Land and Water Task Force,

1979).

Because costs for conversion to productivityconserving systems—e. g., equipment purchases and higher current operating costs—

are incurred over an indefinite period of time,

cost sharing to promote them is difficult. Loan

programs or tax credits to promote equipment

purchases might prove to be more effective incentive mechanisms. However, the major constraints to installing these practices do not appear to be up-front costs but rather the lack of

documented evidence that the benefits of the

practices exceed their costs, and the high levels

of management (and education) required for

carrying out the practices successfully (USDA

Land and Water Task Force, 1979).

One study found that the use of chisel plowing in all areas of the Corn Belt where it would

be profitable—77 million acres of farmland—

would reduce average soil losses by 43 percent,

from 5.17 to 2.96 tons per acre per year (Taylor,

et al., 1978). Conservation tillage practices

have, in general, been shown to reduce production costs, particularly those associated with

labor and fuel.

Integrated erosion control practices also appear to have greater potential for reducing aggregate amounts of erosion than permanent

control measures. An analysis of the 1977 NRI

data, based on the universal soil loss equation,

demonstrates that without existing “supporting

practices” (contour farming, stripcropping,

and terraces), erosion would have been only
Ch. /V—Croplands ● 1 2 9

. .—

~ percent higher than it was in 197’7. But without the use of “cover and management pract ices, ” which proiride greater conservation benefits than conventional methods, erosion could

have been 13 percent higher than it was in 1977

(Miller, 1981).

However, extrapolations from NRI data also

suggest that no erosion control practice, or

combination of practices, would be capable of

bringing soil losses to conventionally acceptable tolerance values on the Nation’s most erosive land. The NRI show 23.5 million areas of

croplanci to be eroding at rates of over 15 tons

per acre per year—these acres account for fully

77 percent of the erosion exceeding conventional T-values of 5 tons per acre per year. The

T-value represents a useful management target

for soils eroding in excess of 5 tons per acre

per year, but it is generally considered to be

higher than actual soil formation rates. (A more

extensive discussion of erosion impacts on productivity is presented in ch. 11 of this report.)

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).

Producers’ economic incentives to use I~ractices that control erosion call for installing

these practices on lands where the potential

return is greatest. These lands are not necessarily the same as those that are most susceptible

to erosion. Thus, an appreciable part of the

most fragile cropland is being farmed without

any major erosion control practices. Of the 146

million acres of cropland with an inherent erosion potential* of over 15 tons per acre per

year, 20 million had terraces installed as of

1977, and 51.7 million were being treated with

contour farming, minimum tillage, or cropresidue use, leaving 74.3 million acres, or 51

percent of the land considered fragile under

this definition, without these practices (Miller,

1981).

Although 73 percent of the terraces existing

as of 197’7 had been installed on land ~vith an

inherent erosive potential of over 15 tons per

acre per year, only 34 percent of the contouring, minimum tillage, or crop residue use occurred on these lands (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 vibraprovernents 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 producsignificant potential for influencing rates of tion of cloudiness on the soil surface and presadoption 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 efW’ ind erosion. ficient planting in heavy residues could inThe greatest potential for improving current crease acceptance of conservation tillage systechnologies lies in improving conservation till- tems and protect more acres from erosion.

age 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

seeding establishment.

Basic research to determine optimum porosity of narrow windbreaks and efforts to select

and develop more hardy adaptable tree and

shrub species and perennial grass barriers for

use in narrow windbreaks could revive farmer

interest in using this method of controlling

wind erosion.

The effectiveness of emergency or “lastresort” tillage could be improved by research

to provide guidelines on the use of different implements. Also, development and design of

new machines capable of forming clods

through compaction and then stabilizing them

with an adhesive before spreading them back

on the land surface could greatly improve erosion control.

Effectiveness of land modification techniques can be improved by additional investigation of the influence of topography on erosion and by developing better design criteria

for benching or other topographical modifications.

Methods for reducing crop residue decay by

exercising control over microbial activity and

by treating residues with petrochemicals similar to wood preservatives could provide improved erosion control. Impacts on the microbial population would have to be assessed to

avoid any adverse consequences to soil productivity from their loss.

quantifying erosion standards for reporting

severity of erosion, would improve erosion

control by providing concrete information on

the value of control techniques for maintaining soil productivity.

New technology for forecasting wind erosion

could greatly improve our ability to cope with

the problem. Using probability functions to

convert basic wind erosion equations to stochastic projections would be required. Remote

sensing support would also be needed.

Continued efforts in weather modification

might have potential for reducing the wind erosion problem, especially those aimed directly

at preventing drought by enhancing precipitation. But weather modification is justifiably

controversial. Improved irrigation technologies

to reduce seepage, evaporation, and transpiration losses could also reduce wind erosion indirectly, by conserving scarce ground water resources, thereby reducing the need to revert

to dryland farming in many areas of the

country.

Improved methods for calculating optimum

site-specific fertility management decisions

could aid farmers in achieving maximum crop

cover to minimize erosion and produce optimal

yields, The increasing availability of computers

makes improvements in mathematical models

for analyzing fertility –e.g., models that account for the fertility effects of soil moisture

management—of significant practical value to

agricultural producers.

Developing improved data on the impact of

erosion on long-term soil productivity, and

CONCLUSIONS

Farmers and agricultural scientists have developed a range of technologies to protect the

inherent productivity of the Nations’s cropland. Yet several processes, erosion being foremost, continue to degrade this essential resource. Many of the conservation practices

were developed decades ago, and some of the

most important of these—for instance, terraces

and shelterbelts—have become less common as

U.S. agriculture has undergone a fundamental change, becoming more and more productive, more labor efficient, and more dependent

on fossil fuels. The apparent correlation of

these trends seems to suggest that production

and conservation are antithetical. However, a

closer look at some innovative farming tech-
Ch. IV—Croplands ● 131

niques suggests that production and long-term

productivity can be maintained or enhanced

si mu] t a neously,

These productivity-sustaining technologies

are generally changes in management rather

than additions of engineering structures, and

often their conservation significance is overlooked. Improved management of soil fertilitj~, which leads to better crop cover and thus

reduces erosion, is one example, Perhaps the

most promising of the productivity-sustaining

technologies for the near term is conservation

tillage.

The product it’ity-sustaining technologies typicaIly require new management skills and may

come into use slowly for this reason. Many are

still in early stages of development and require

more research before they can be widely used.

Whether this research will be done in time to

avert further degradation of U.S. croplands

CHAPTER IV

~merican Societ]’ of’ i!gronomj, “Multiple Crop -

ping , Procee{lings of .5~mposium, Special

Pub]i(;ation No. 27, 1976.

Boosa]is, M. G., and Cook, C. E. “Plant Diseases, ”

Conscr~ation Tiliage: The Proceedings of a National Conff~rence, Soil Conservation Society

of America, 1973.

Conrad, Daniel 1.., U.S. Department of AgriculturcSCS, persona] communication, January 1981.

(;osper, Harold R., “Soil Taxonomy as a Guide to

Economic Feasibility of Soil Tillage Systems

in Reducing Non Point Pollution, ” Natural Resources Economic Division, Economics and

Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1979.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology,

Organic and Conventional Farming Compared, report No. 84, october 1980.

Council on Environmental Quality, National Agricultural Lands Study, Interim Report No. 4,

Soil Degradation: Effects on Agricultural Producti~it~, 1981,

Crosson, Pierre, Con.mrvation and Con~,entional

Tillage: A Comparati~~c Assessment, Soil Conservat ion Society of America, 1981.

Eichers, Theodore, personal communication, Economi(; s and Statistics Service, data from U.S.

depends partly on public funding. However,

the development of technologies to increase

production while sustaining inherent productivity may not occur until this is made an explicit, primary goal for the agricultural research system and until some mechanisms arc

developed for screening and testing fundamentally new technologies.

Both the new productivity-sustaining technologies and the traditional conser~~ation practices typically are used first and most on the

Nation’s best croplands, This means that croplands with steep slopes, drought hazards, poor

drainage, and other problems—the sites where

the improved technologies are most needed—

are often not benefiting from conscr~~ation

technologies. Thus, the adoption of productivity-sustaining technologies b} o~~ncrs anc]

operators of these lands is a critically important goal for Government polic~.

REFERENCES

Department of Agriculture 1966 and 1976 ~)esticide surveys, 1981.

Epstein, E., “Impact of A~)plied Genetics on A,gricultura]ly Important Plants: M i neral Metabolism, ” OTA background paper, 1980.

Epstein, E,, et al., “Saline Culture of Crops; A

Genetic Approach, ” science 210:399-404, 1980.

Fenster, Charles R., “Stubble Mulching, ” Con.~er-

~’ation Tillage: A Handbook for Farmers, Soil

Conservation Society of America, 1973, pp.

29-34.

Forster, D. Lynn, “Adoption of Re(]uced Tillage and

Other Conservation Practices in the I,ake Erie

Basin, ” Department of Agricultural Economics

and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State U n i\’ersity and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, unpublished m imeo, 1 ~ 79,

Giere, John P., Johnson, Keith M., and Perkins, JobIl

H., “A Closer Look at No-Till Farming, ” Env ironmen t, July-August 1980.

Gliessman, Stephen R., “ Multiple Cropping Systems: A Basis for De~eloping an Alternati~re

Agriculture, ” OTA background paper, 1980.

Gustafson, C. Don, “1 Iistory and Trends in Drip Irligation, ” Atocado Gro~irer IV(1 2), De(; ember

1980.

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

1980, including “Labor and Cultural Management of Drip Irrigation” and “Management of

Drip-Trickle Irrigation, ” undated mimeographed material.

Hall, G. F., Daniels, R. B., and Foss, J. E., “Rate of

Soil Formation and Renewal in the USA,” in

Determinants of Soil Loss Tolerance, Soil Science Society of America Symposium, Fort Collins, ASA Special Publication No. 45, 1982,

Halliday, Jake, “Agrotechnologies Based on Symbiotic Systems That Fix Nitrogen, ” in Innovative Biological Technologies for Lesser DeveJ

oped Countries, an Office of Technology Assessment report for the U.S. Congress, September 1981,

Harkin, J. M,, Simsiman, G. V., and Chesters, G.,

“Description and Evaluation of Pesticidal Effects on the Productivity y of the Croplands and

Rangelands of the United States, ” OTA background paper, 1980.

Hayes, William A., “Double Cropping, ” Conservation Tillage: Handbook for Farmers, Soil Conservation Society of America, 1973, pp. 35-4o.

Helm, Jack, Soil Conservation for Howard County, Md., personal communication, 1980.

Howell, T. A,, Bucks, D. A., and Chesness, J.

L,, ’’Advances in Trickle Irrigation, ” Proceedings of Second National Irrigation Symposium,

American Society of Agricultural Engineers,

1981, pp. 69-94.

Jackson, Wes, and Bender, Marty, “New Roots for

American Agriculture, ” OTA background

paper, 1980.

Kohl, Daniel H,, Lockeretz, William, and Shearer,

Georgia, “Organic Farming in the Corn Belt, ”

Science 24, Feb. 6, 1981.

Larson, William E., “Protecting the Soil Resource

Base, ” journal of Soil and Water Conservation

36(1):13-16, January-February 1981.

Lockeretz, W. R., et al., “Organic and Conventional

Crop Production in the Corn Belt: A Comparison of Economic Performance and Energy

Use for Selected Farms, ” Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Washington University, St, Louis, Me., June 1976.

McCormack, D. E., Young, K. K., and Kimberlin,

I.. W., “Current Criteria for Determining Soil

Loss Tolerance, “ in Determinants of Soil Loss

Tolerance, Soil Science Society of America

Symposium, Fort Collins, ASA Special Publication No. 45, 1982.

Menge, J. A., “Mycorrhiza Agriculture Technologies, ” OTA background paper, 1980.

Miller, Arnold, “Expanding Crop Production and

Soil Erosion: Land Resources, Conservation

Practices and Policy Choices, ” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Budget, Planning, and Evaluation, draft, June 15, 1981.

“Impact of Expanding Agricultural Production of Soil Erosion: Land Resources, Production Practices and Policy Choices, ” prepared

for the Structure of Agriculture Project, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, 1978. Computed

from National Resource Inventories data,

USDA-SCS. (In preparation)

Mitchell, J. Kent, Branch, John C., and Swanson,

Earl R., “Costs and Benefits of Terraces for

Erosion Control,” Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation, September-October 1980, pp.

233-236.

Myers, Norman, The Sinking Ark Pergamon Press,

1979.

Nebeker, Gordon, personal communication, 1981.

IVo-TilZ Farmer, March 1981.

Nowak, Peter J,, “Impacts of Technology on Cropland and Rangeland Productivity: Managerial

Capacity of Farmers, ” OTA background paper,

1980, data cited were taken from “Effect of

Agricultural Land Use Practices on Stream

Water Quality: Sociological Factors in the

Adoption of Best Management Practices, ”

study conducted by Iowa State University

under EPA grant No. R806814-01-2.

Oelhaf, Robert C., Organic Agriculture: Economic

and Ecological Comparisons With Con ventional Methods (Montclair, N. J.: Allanheld,

Osmun & Co. Publishers, Inc., 1978).

Office of Technology Assessment, Pest Management Strategies, Volume I, Summary, October

1979.

Owens, Harold I., and Patterson, Ralph E., “Information and Education, ” Conservation Til]age,

Soil Conservation Society of America, 1973,

pp. 227-230.

Phillips, R. E., et al., “No-Tillage Agriculture, ” Science 208, June 6, 1980.

Schuhart, Anne, “Irrigation Drop by Drop, ” Soil

Conservation 43(3), U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 1977.

Shrader, W. D., personal communications, 1980.

Taylor, Robert, Frohberg, Klaus K., and Seitz,

Wesley D., “Potential Erosion and Fertilizer

Controls in the Corn Belt: An Economic Anal-
Ch. IV—Croplands ● 1 3 3

)sis, ” ]our. of Soil and t’lTafer Conser\’ation,

July-August 1978.

Triplett, Jr., G, B., and Van Dorcn, Jr., D. M., “Agri-

(;ulture Without Till age, Scion tific American,

Januar} 1977.

Triplett, Gloter, member of project ad~isory panel,

personal [communication, 1981.

Troe(:h, F. R., Hobbs, J. Arthur, and Donahue, Roy

L., Soil and Water Conscr~~ation for Producti\it~r and En~ironn]enta/ Protection (Englewood

Cliffs, N. J.: Prenti(;e Hall, 1980).

Trousc, A., U.S. I)epartment of Agriculture Tillage

I.aboratory, Auburn University, persona] communication, 1981.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Scrxice, “National

Summary Evaluation of the Agricultural Conscr~~ation Pro,gram—Phase 1, 1981, p. 8 0 .

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Basic Statisti[;s:

1977 National Resource Inventories (N RI],” revised February 1980.

U.S. I)epartrnent of Agriculture, Study Team on Or-

~an ic Farming, l?eport and Re[Jon]x~zenda~ior]is

on Organic Farming, July 1980.

LI. S, Dtll)artment of Agri(:ulturc, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, “National Resource Capital in U.S. Agriculture, ’ G. Parelis,

1979.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, I.and and Water

Task Force, 1979, pp. 326-327.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office [~f Planning

and Evaluation, hfinim um Tillage: A Prelinlinar~~ Technolog~’ Asscssmen t, Ma~’ 1975.

U.S. Water Resources Council, The IVation U’aier

Resources: 1975-2000, \ol. 1, summarjr, De(:ember 1978.

Universit}r of California, Di\ision of Agricultural

Sciences, Drip Irrigation, leaflet No. 2740,

April 1979.

Wauchope, R. D., McDowell, L. 1.., and Ilagen, 1,.

J., “Weed Control in I.imited Ti]]a~e S~stems,”

forthcoming in Weed Control in ].imited 7’illa,gc S~rsfems, draft, 1981.

Wauchope, R. D., “The Pesticide Content of Surface Water Draining From Agricultural Fields

–A Review, ” Jour. of En~7, Qua]. 7(4), OctoberDecember 1978.

Witt\ver, Sylvan 1]., ‘‘Research and Technolog~

Newis for the 21st Centur~,” in Gk)bal AspecIts

of Food Production, and Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Publication No. 9502,

September 1980.

Worsham, A. D., “No-Till Corn-Its out look for the

80’s, ” J%oceedin,gs of the corn and sorghum

Research and ProductitTitJT (;OII i~?ron(:e, 1980.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Emerging Communications Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Constraints on Technology Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conflicting Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inadequate Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Farmers Unable to Adopt Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Influencing Technology Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. .....t. . . . .

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......+ .. ... ... ......O .

990 .. 00 

Chapter Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of TabIes

Table No.

20. Adoption of Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland by Type

of Owner and Land Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21. Most Important Source of Soil Conservation Informationby Users of

Conservation Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. Q . . . 690 ..690.... ..

22. perceived Characteristics of Soil Conservation Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure

Figure No.

14. Farm and Nonfarm Population by Age, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

141

142

144

144

145

145

146

147

148

Page

138

141

146

139
.— . — ..——

Chapter V

Technology Adoption

. .—

INTRODUCTION

Why do some farmers adopt technologies,

while their neighbors do not? What attracts

some farmers to publicly subsidized conservation programs? Could these programs be modified to attract more participants or different

participants? Considering that a number of the

major technologies with great potential to preserve and enhance agricultural land productivity are neither new nor extremely complicated, quest ions such as these assume considerable importance.

Many factors affect how quickly farmers and

ranchers adopt new technologies, Various

characteristics, including age, education, management capacity, and the size and type of farm

operation may predispose a producer’s views

toward a given technology. Other important

factors are the cost of the technology and the

rate of return on the investment, the complexity of the technology, its compatibility with current farm size and operating methods, and the

accessibility of information.

In the past, conservation programs often

were designed as though all farmers had similar abilities and motivations, and similar resources of capital, knowledge, and management skills. Actually, though, many farmers

and ranchers lack some or all of these resources, For instance, a conservation program

may use loans or cost sharing to make various

conservation practices affordable or profitable

for farmers. But if a farmer lacks management

skills or fails to integrate the practice into the

overall farming operation, his yields and profits may actually drop. As a result, even if a

farmer receives cost-share funds from the Federal Agricultural Conservation Program to convert part of his cropland to no-till farming, it

does not mean that he will stick with the new

system. If he does not master the technology

in the first 2 years, or suffers weed problems

that reduce yields and profits, he may revert

to conventional methods when the cost sharing is discontinued. And he may become convinced that the fault lies in the conservation

practice, and so be more likely to reject future

new technologies or programs. Clearly, understanding the producers’ managerial capacity

and other factors that influence their decisions

on the adoption of productivity-sustaining technologies is an important step in influencing the

management of the Nation’s agricultural lands.

LAND TENURE AND OWNERSHIP

Farm ownership in the United States is con- tion of their acreage

centrated. Even though more than half the 1980),

acres in the country are farmland, they are

owned by just 3 percent of the population

(USDA, 1981). Only 25 percent of the Nation’s

farmland is owned by full owner-operator

(those who own and operate all their own land

without renting extra acres). Another 30 percent is owned by nonoperator lancllords. The

remaining land is owned by farmers who rent

supplemental acreage or who rent out a porto other farmers (Lee,

As farm ownership and farm operation have

become increasingly separate, questions have

arisen regarding the effects of this trend on

conservation. Some experts have hypothesized

that 1arger corporate farm structures will have

unfavorable consequences on land stewardship. They suggest that landlords, particularly

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

current income over investments in resource

protection (Lee, 1980).

Some research has supported this view. One

study, for example, found that a significant

number of absentee landlords in the Corn Belt

were unaware that conservation measures

would improve farm income over time. Research in Iowa showed that owner-operators

are more likely than renters to use conservation practices because owners are more likely

to reap the long-term benefits. Similarly,

owner-operators benefit more from institutional factors, such as economic incentives and

regulations designed to improve the short-term

profitability of conservation practices (Nowak,

1980).

Recent research at the national level, however, finds no significant differences in soil

losses among different types of ownership

groups. This work, which used the 1980 National Resource Inventories data and 1978 data

from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

(USDA’s) Land Ownership Survey, did find differences in average erosion by ownership in

4 of the 10 U.S. farm production regions, but

attributed the differences to physical rather

than management factors (Lee, 1980).

In 5 of the 10 regions studied (the Northeast,

Corn Belt, Delta, Southern Plains, and Mountain regions), there was a relationship between

higher incomes and lower erosion rates, In the

Corn Belt, for example, full owner-operators

with net incomes of $20,000 to $49,000 averaged 9.4 tons an acre less erosion than did owners with farm incomes below $3,000. The correlation seems to result from the larger operations having less erosive land as well as more

conservation practices. *

Nonfamily corporations appear average in

their adoption of minimum tillage and residuemanagement practices, Family corporations

and partnerships with family members generally had higher use of those conservation practices than did other owners (table 20]. Because

these practices have been promoted as energy

and labor saving as well as soil conserving,

they may not be the best indicators of an owner’s conservation ethic.

In summary, the relationship between land

tenure and conservation remains unclear. It appears, however, that farm structure alone has

little direct relationship to soil loss rates,

In light of the increasing significance of

absentee landownership, more information is

needed on the relationship between various

leasing arrangements and the use of conservation practices. Tenancy arrangements determine the distribution of the costs and benefits

of conservation investments between owners

and operators, and so may encourage or discourage conservation. The shift from cropshare leasing to cash leasing, for example, may

influence conservation efforts, As cash leasing

increases, it could create an incentive for the

exploitation of soil resources.

Further research is necessary before policymakers can be certain about how land tenure

affects land stewardship. And while a national

perspective on land tenure issues relative to

‘ 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

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

() 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 proprieto r 48.0 5 3 1

Husband-wif e 45.0 47.3

Family partnershi p 51.6 5 8 9

Nonfamily partnershi p 46,4 5 3 2

Family corporatio n 5 6 6 55.4

Other corporation . . 4 7 0 51.3

Other . 49,3 5 0 4

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

three major areas: production and organization, administration, and marketing. In fulfilling these management functions, the operator

can supplement his own capabilities, and those

of his family and employees, with professional

management services and institutional resources supplied through Government programs, fi nanc ial institutions, educational institutions, and farm cooperatives.

Age and education are associated with management capacity and with attitudes toward the

adoption of conservation technologies. The

U.S. farm population has an older age structure than the nonfarm population (fig. 14). In

1979, the median age of the farm population

was about 34 years compared with about 30

years for nonfarm residents. Farm populations

also had a lower proportion of young adults

and a higher proportion of middle-aged persons than the nonfarm group (Nowak, 1980).

The relation between age and managerial capacity as it relates to maintaining productivity often depends on the “newness’ of the

technologies employed (Nowak, 1980). Government conservation strategies that involve

adopting and maintaining new technologies

may be less successful among older farmers.

On the other hand, many conservation practices hale been in existence for some time.

Older farmers with experience using these

practices often can integrate them successfully into their overall farming operations,

Age and education among farmers are highly

correlated. In 1970, 72 percent of farmers aged

55 to 64 years had not finished high school.

However, only 12 percent of young farm operators (20 to 24 years) had failed to finish high

school, and more than 25 percent had some college training (USDA, 1980). In general, the

amount of forma 1 education is directly associated with managerial capacity (Nowak, 1980),

Figure 14.— Farm and Nonfarm Population

by Age, 1979

9 0

8 0

Farm Nonfarm

7 0

6 0

5 0

40

30

20

10

0

Under 20 20 to 34 35 to 64 65 and over

Age categories

SOURCE Peter J Nowak, “Impacts of Technology on Cropland and Rangeland

Productivity Managerial Capacity of Farmers OTA background paper

1980

Farmers with more education often translate

this into greater managerial skills that are reflected in larger and more prosperous farms.

Importantly, there also is a direct relationship

between managerial capacity and the use of

productivity-enhancing soil conservation practices (Rogers, 1980).

One trend that could have great impact on

sustained land productivity is the genera]

movement among farmers and ranchers toward continuing education, or life-long learning. Today’s producers are better educated and

are more open to information than werc earlier

generations.

It cannot be assumed that information necessarily changes attitudes and behavior. But information is a first step toward action; if a

farmer or rancher receives a thorough briefing on, for instance, some innovative, landsustaining 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

than if he does not. Many variables, including

the adequacy of the information, will affect his

decision.

It is difficult to measure the value of information. Some experts estimate that 25 to 6 0

percent of the expected returns on public investment in agricultural research would not be

realized without extension involvement (Araji,

et al., 1978). Both intuition and research indicate that at an individual level, the farmer

or rancher who receives information will be

a more capable manager than the one who does

Diffusion of agricultural technology to the

U.S. producer is accomplished mainly through

three broad channels: the private sector, public

institutions, and peer groups. Private technology suppliers tend to develop and support

only those technologies that can make substantial profits. On the other hand, public research

and information is more generally disseminated for those technologies being developed

and supported by public institutions.

The third channel, peer group action, is particularly important because even the most independent farmer is subject to peer approval

or disapproval. Changes in conservation behavior that are not supported or reinforced by

the farmer’s neighbors or community opinionleaders are unlikely to occur or be maintained

(Nowak, 1980).

The dominant system in the United States to

diffuse agricultural technology is the USDA’s

Federal Extension Service, in coordination

with the 50 State agricultural extension services. This is the world’s largest public investment in a diffusion system and is guided by

three basic principles (Rogers, 1980):

●

●

●

the innovation to be diffused is fully developed prior to its diffusion;

information diffuses from a center of expertise out to its ultimate users; and

diffusion is directed by a centrally marmot; one simulation suggests that information

added an average of 12 percent to a farmer’s

annual profits (Debertin, et al., 1976).

Although many potentially valuable n e w

communications technologies exist or are

being developed, in general they seem to offer

more than they deliver—i.e., designing n ew

communications tools seems easier than putting them to use. This seems especially true of

efforts to bring some of the new electronic

media into rural areas, and illustrates that it

is important to address both technological and

sociological questions simultaneously.

DIFFUSION

aged process

and provision

of

of

dissemination, training,

resources and incentives.

This centralized system is effective in promoting certain types of innovations. But it may

not adequately disseminate innovations that

evolve as they diffuse and those that originate

from sources other than the center. Diffusion

processes also need to be shaped by user demands, in interactive arrangements where

problems are solved by innovations and

sources of information among the users, Such

a decentralized diffusion system would depend

mainly on peer networks for transferring technological innovations among local groups

(Rogers, 1980).

Research into producers’ rates of adoption

of new technologies suggests that innovative

producers often hear about new ideas from

agricultural experts and specialized technical

publications. Those who are slower to adopt

new practices usually get their general information from mass media, Early adopters tend

to use the more expert sources at all stages in

the adoption process, while slower adapters

tend to use peer sources (Bohler, 1977).

According to an Iowa study that related

farmers’ information sources to the number of

conservation practices being used, those farmers who had adopted five to eight practices

were much more likely to use Government
— —

Ch. V— Technology Adoption ● 141

agencies as their major source of conservation

information (table 21). On the other hand, there

was a more random distribution of information

sources and a dependence on friends and relatives among the medium and low users of conservation practices (Lee, 1980). This suggests

that decentralized diffusion may be an important approach for promoting technological innovations among certain producers in U.S.

agriculture.

Access to knowledge and information are not

distributed homogeneously across any group

of farmers or ranchers. Producers have varying circumstances and capacities for effective

adoption and implementation of technologies.

Information is neither available nor diffused

simultaneously through all parts of a system

(Nowak, 1980). And information is passed via

specific communication networks to which individuals have differential access. Furthermore, individuals have different base levels of

knowledge as well as the capacity to assimilate

new knowledge.

Thus, merely increasing the flow of knowledge into a group of farmers, the typical procedure in current educational programs, may

magnify existing knowledge gaps rather than

decrease them. General education programs

will not necessarily inform farmers equally of

the existence of a problem, create a need to do

something about it, or instill the capacity to accept and implement technical or economic assistance.

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

of rapid change. Worldwide there has been a

staggering increase in the volume of scientific

information produced, agriculture being no exception. And the information is more specialized and changeable than ever before, with

new research, even new fields of inquiry, being

added every day.

The other strong influence on the growing

and changing content of agricultural communications is its clientele. There are fewer

agricultural producers today than ever before—

a decline from a peak of 13.6 million in 1916

to about 3.9 million in 1978 (Evans, 1980). As

a total of the U.S. population, the farm segment

fell from 23,2 percent in 1940 to 3,7 percent

in 1978 (USDA, 1980). Yet because of the nature

of modern agriculture, farmers have greater information demands than ever before. Thus, the

various new electronic media, especially computers and other interactive systems, seem particularly suited to fulfill these needs.

Communications technologies are one step

removed from actually affecting land productivity. They affect the farmer, making him more

or less willing to adopt new technologies, The

most basic communications medium in agriculture, word-of-mouth, is still the producer’s

primary way to gain, share, and evaluate information. But woven around primary interpersonal communications is a complex, dynamic system for moving agricultural information to and from farmers and ranchers and

helping them make management decisions.

Some of a producer’s sources are public, such

as agriculture study programs in schools, the

local, State, and Federal extension systems, and

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 nonpublic 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. Access to computer information is through farm

management decision aids, computer-based information systems, computer-based instruction, and personal computers. Computers are

especially useful because they are highly adaptable, easy to update, and allow the user to tailor

information and tasks to his individual needs.

Radio

Radio is a prime information source for producers because it supplies timely reports of

news, weather, and commodity market prices.

As farm populations have declined, however,

broadcast stations have reduced farm programing, Today, relatively little information about

technical aspects of farming is aired. Also, the

kinds of stations most active in farm programing have changed from clear-channel and other

large stations toward smaller rural stations.

There has been some increase in farm broadcasting on FM stations in recent years, but it

is not prominent. Independent commercial

program services—farm radio networks that

distribute news and features—are increasingPhoto credit U S Department of Agriculture

Douglas Duey, Extension Service farm management

specialist and Wayne Nielsen of Lincoln, Nebr., look over

computer printouts, with which Duey will help Nielsen

analyze his cash flow and overall farm business situation

ly available to sell agricultural information to

stations that cannot afford farm reporters.

Telephone=ReIated Systems

Telephones are one of the main communications links for rural people. They are interactive, accessible, easy to use, flexible, and

relatively low cost, Phones can be used to link

the home television with a computer data base

(known variously as viewdata, videotext, and

wired teletext). For instance, Green Thumb,

sponsored jointly by the National weather

Service, USDA, and the Kentucky Cooperative

Extension System, is a pilot information service for farmers, With a TV and relatively inexpensive telephone/TV interface device, the
Ch. V— Technology Adoption ● 743

. — —

farmer has access to area news, local weather,

and timely data on pest management, agricultural economics, forestry, animal science, plant

pathology, and horticulture, However, the cost

of such systems is still unknown,

Other phone-computer links might also prove

useful. “Advance calling, ” for example, allows

an extension advisor to call a computer, enter

a message about impending pest infestations,

approaching storms, etc., then enter the phone

numbers of all those those should receive the

message.

Finally, the telephone still has great potential in its basic “voice” format, especially for

continuing education and extension. TeleNet,

for example, links county and regional extension offices throughout Illinois with specialists

a t the University of Illinois; it also operates as

a “party line” for group calling, educational

meetings, etc. The audio can be supplemented

with written instructional materials.

Audio Cassettes

Audio cassette technology is unsophisticated,

yet holds valuable potential in this era of increasingly. specialized agricultural information,

Cassettes are widely used for continuing education and arc particularly attractive because of

their low cost, simplicity, and mobility, making it possible for a user to listen to a tape while

doing chores or driving a tractor. Cassettes are

inexpensive and easy to produce, so extension

can distribute timely information at little cost,

Television Technologies

Adaptations of current video technologies

may hold potential for farm and ranch audiences, Standard TV broadcasting (commercial

and public] does not address farm audiences

as much as radio because farm viewers account for such a small share of the total audience. Farm advertising occurs far more frequently than farm programing. However, TV

has other uses, Broadcast teletext offers many

of the same advantages as wired teletext (viewdata-it 1 inks the home with computer data

bases for immediate, timely information. Unlike viewdata, however, this is a one-way,

noninteractive system and can handle only a

limited data base. Television broadcast translator stations are low-power stations that

receive incoming TV or FM signals, amplify

them, convert them to a different output frequency, and retransmit them locally. They require relatively low capital inputs and low

maintenance at total cost much lower than

cable systems, especially in rural areas. A version of translator technology—mini-TV-has

proven successful in bringing TV to rural

Alaska. Mini-TV, teamed with videocassettes,

gives local users greater control over programing than standard translator systems.

Cable and Satellite Transmission

Cable television (TV) may be the most significant of the new mass communications technologies because it greatly expands the scope of

available programing. Interactive cable, such

as QUBE in Columbus, Ohio, offers special

promise for educational uses. But while cable

programing could provide a range of information useful to farmers and ranchers, its potential is limited by the high capital costs involved

in laying lines in rural areas. Farm subscribers

are therefore an unpromising market for commercial cable. Further, there is concern that

pay-TV may weaken the present “free” commercial radio and TV stations on which many

rural people depend for information.

Agricultural producers already benefit from

satellite systems that permit the monitoring of

weather and crops, but other benefits may

arise, Direct satellite broadcasting of TV programing is technically feasible and has proven

value in delivering education and social services in Canada. A demonstrate ion project in

Alaska shows some potential, especially for

adult education. Limitations, including cost,

user-resistance, inadequate software, etc.,

make direct satellite broadcasting less promising in the short run than some other technologies available to U.S. farmers and ranchers.

Regulatory and public policy questions also

will be important to the future of this tech nology.
144 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Videodisc and Videocassette

Although relatively few individuals own such

systems, videodiscs and videocassettes are

useful in agricultural education through

schools, extension, and other organizations.

The primary disadvantage is high initial cost.

Videocassettes offer the advantage of allowing

the user to record programs from TV and, with

the addition of a camera, of producing one’s

own shows. Videocassettes, however, cost

more than videodiscs, cannot be accessed randomly, and wear out faster than discs, For instructional purposes, videodiscs may be more

useful, especially when linked with computers.

Expanded Print Media

Print media are becoming increasingly specialized and directed to specific audiences.

More and more, “free controlled circulation”

is used by publishers to send their publications

free to producers who meet certain geographic,

demographic, economic, or other criteria. Increases in direct mail, newsletters, and publishing of periodicals by farm organizations also

are channels for reaching target groups. Farm

publications are pioneering the concept of the

“individualized issue, ” where through sophisticated binding systems each subscriber receives an issue tailored to his specific site and

needs, This technique has great potential for

improving the kinds of information a particular

farmer or rancher receives.

Print reference services, either commercial

or public, are uncommon in the United States.

Elsewhere, however, this ringbinder-notebook

style of indexed information sheets offers

several advantages over traditional printed extension publications. It can generate a wide

range of highly specific information pieces

quickly, at lower cost, and is easily updated.

The farmer, however, must be willing to maintain his files.

Electronic publishing—newspapers, and

other periodicals experimentally joining a national computer data network such as that being assembled by Computer Service Information and Associated Press—is blurring the

boundaries between print and electronic

media, Publishers see this as a way to reduce

printing and postal costs; readers get timely

news but lose the portability of print. Within

agriculture, electronic publishing may find early applications in directories, catalogs, and

classified advertising (Evans, 1980).

CONSTRAINTS ON TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION

Some producers are unwilling or unable to

adopt practices that preserve long-term land

productivity. Moreover, there are significant

differences between those who cannot and

those who will not adopt recommended practices.

ConfIicting Goals

One reason why producers may be unwilling to adopt a recommended practice can be

that a conflicting goal, such as a desire to maintain traditional farming methods, may be

valued more highly than conservation goals.

Producers justify their unwillingness to use

resource-conserving practices because of their

real or perceived effect on immediate profitability. Profitmaking must be a primary concern or the farm-business would soon cease to

exist. Thus, only if the level of profit is such

that conservation costs do not jeopardize the

farms’ economic viability could policy makers

employ disincentives such as fines, penalties,

and taxes for resource degradation, Where

these strategies would threaten financial stability, more voluntary implementation strategies are appropriate.

Adopting conservation practices has broad

social benefits beyond the view of most producers and not reflected in farm markets. Thus,

it may not be feasible or fair to place the entire responsibility for conservation on the

shoulders of the producer. A recent study of
—.—

Ch. V— Technology Adoption ● 745

a 5.3-million-acre area in southern Iowa found

that the immediate costs to the producer of

reducing soil erosion to tolerable levels using

available techniques were three times greater

than immediate benefits. As the study concluded, this benefit-cost ratio leaves farmers

unable to finance erosion control without cost

sharing or similar public investment (Shrader,

1980).

Current economic conditions make farmers

discount future benefits heavily. Many have extensive financial obligations and must maximize this year’s profit to pay this year’s mortgage. Moreover, many have based their investments in land and/or equipment, expecting

high inflation rates to continue, rather than by

calculating efficient input/output ratios (Woodruff, 1980). Current high interest rates also play

a key role in shortening farmers’ planning horizons, in effect making farmers work for shortterm goals and neglect long-term consequences.

Recognizing these shortened individual planning horizons for agricultural decisions is

critically important in examining the effectiveness of policy alternatives. For instance,

some past analyses from the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at

Iowa State University have assumed that longrun costs and benefits are variables of primary

importance to farmers in their soil management decisions. However, recent CARD studies suggest a very different conclusion: that

agricultural producers have a planning horizon

closer to 1 year than to 25 years (Dairies and

Heady, 1980),

Yet practices that may not return the farmer’s

investment for even 25 years may be of great

concern to the public as a whole. The public

stake in the effects of stream pollution, reservoir sedimentation, water-supply contamination, erosion, and ground water overdraft are

sound reasons for public investment. Social

planning horizons can take into account the

Nation’s responsibility to maintain the productive capacity of the resource base for future

generations.

Inadequate Information

Another reason why producers may be unwilling to adopt recommended practices is that

they lack adequate information. They may need

to know more about implementing the practice,

how it fits into the larger operation, or the consequences of using the practice. Evidence suggests that farmers who are unwilling to adopt

a recommended practice may gain information

and change their perceptions if they adopt the

practices on a trial basis. Thus, implementation strategies that focus on trial adoption

could encourage the acceptance of recommended management practices.

Moreover, users and nonusers may perceive

different conservation practices quite differently. Studies of farmer perception of three practices—minimum tillage, contour planting, and

terracing—in Iowa suggest that users and nonusers have significantly different percept ions

of the characteristics of the practices (table 22).

For instance, a quarter of the farmers not using

minimum tillage viewed the technology}’ as having very high costs, while only 3 percent of the

users viewed it as expensive (Nowak, 1980).

Farmers Unable to Adopt Practices

When individuals are unable to adopt recommended practices, a different situation exists.

Farmers may be unable to adopt a practice because they lack the necessary management

skills. Reduced tillage, for instance, has important conservation effects. But while fewer operations are involved in reduced-tillage farming, the sequence of operations and the correctness of each action is more critical than with

conventional tillage. Educational strategies

may be most appropriate to encourage adoption by this group of farmers, as neither penalties nor incentives would address the underlying problem.

Farmers also may be unable to adopt recommended practices because they lack the necessary capital and/or land. Small-scale, parttime, or marginal farms often have cash-flow

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

Characteristic Users Nonusers

Cost for .ushg

No cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Moderate cost . . . . . .

Very high cost . . . . . . . . . . .

Profitability

Costs exceed returns. . . . . . . .

Costs equal returns . . . . . . . . .

Returns exceed costs . . ...

Time/labor requirements

More time/labor. ... . . . . . . . .

No change . . . . . . . . ... ...

Less time/labor . . . . ... . . . . —

Ease of use

Very difficult . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Moderate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Very easy . . . . . . . . .

Compatibility

Not compatible . . . . . . . . .

Moderately compatible . . . . . .

Very compatible . . . . . . . . . . . .

In Influence on soil erosion

Worsened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No change ., . . . . . . .

Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49.3% 

47.4 %

3.3 %

1 00.0%

100.0“[

7.8 %

1 7.5%

74.7 %

1 00.0%

2,6 ‘%

22.2%

75.2 %

100.0%

3.9 %

15.6 %

80.5 %

1 00.0%

1.4%

1 6.8‘1

81 .8%

100.0%

38.2 %

35,3 %

26.5 %

100.0 %

21,9 %

46.9%

31.2 %

100.0170

20.0 %

28.6 %

51.4 %

100.0 %

20.6%

29.4 %

50.0 %

100.0 %

28.6 %

28.5 %

42.9 %

1 00.0%

0.0 %

50.0%

— 50.0 %

1 00.0%

Contour planting

Users Nonusers

52.6% 21.0 %

43.1 % 54.8 %

4,3 % 24.2 %

1 00,0“6 1 00,0“h

5,2 % 45.9 %

44,4 % 37.7 %

50,4 % 16.6%

1 00,0‘k 1 00.0‘%

66,4 % 89.1 %

28.4 % 10.9 c%

5.2 % 0.0 %

1 00.0“h 1 00,0‘%

1 9.0‘! 54,0 %

36.2 % 36,5 %

44.8 % 9,5 %

1 00.0“h 1 00,0%

11 .2“[ 63.9%

25,9 % 24.6 %

—62,9 % — 1 1.5“b

1 00,0“;J 100.0 %

1.8% 0.0 %

27.0 % 61,0 %

71.2 % 39,0 %

1 00.0% 1 00.0‘%

Terraces

Users - Nonusers

22,2 % 2.6 %

51 09% 17.8 %

25.9 % 79.6 %

1 00.0‘h ‘-

1 00.0%

20,0 % 58.2 ‘%

32,0 % 27.4 %

48,0 % 14.4 ‘%

1 00,0% 1 00,0“:

53,8 % 78.8 %

46.2 % 1 8.6“b

0.0 % 2.6 %

1 00.0“6 1 00.0“h

33.3 % 63.9 ‘%

33.4 % 25,8 %

33.3 % i 0 , 3

100.0% --100,0 100.0%

18,5 66.5 

33,4 21.2 

1 00.0“:

0.0 

12.5 45.0 

87.5 55.0 

1 00.0‘% “ :

SOURCE Peter of Farmers, ” report to OTA, Dec 19 1 !380

farm implements or time-consuming practices.

Their existing machinery limits their adoption

of new agronomic practices. Further, off-farm

employment may limit the amount of time

these farmers have to establish new management procedures. Yet these types of farmers

may be the owners of a disproportionately

large share of the highly erosive or otherwise

fragile land.

Strategies to maximize the effectiveness of

conservation initiatives must try to minimize

the number of producers who are put into the

position of being unwilling or unable to adopt

recommended practices. Consequently, conservation policy needs to include implementation

strategies that explicitly recognize why producers are not adopting the recommended

practices and that attempt to remove obstacles

to adoption. Strategies must be flexible to accommodate critical social and economic variations among farm operations.

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

(Bohler, 1977).

A technology’s apparent advantages or disadvantages can be greatly influenced by how that

technology is presented to the farming public.

For instance, presenting minimum tillage as a

way to enhance profits is likely to make it more

attractive than promotional efforts that stress

the system’s ability to prevent erosion. In other

words, a technology is more appealing if it does

things rather than prevents things from happening. Promoting a practice as a preventive

measure may emphasize characteristics that

hinder adoption such as high initial costs, low

profitability, unknown risks, few tangible

rewards, and increased management complexity (Korsching and Nowak, 1980).

By emphasizing the positive benefits, conservation programs and promotions might garner

greater attention. Changes could include:

• Emphasize the monetary and energy savings made possible by various techniques

of conservation tillage and the fact that

adoption of these techniques conserves the

soil’s natural fertility, reducing dependence on expensive fertilizers.

• Minimize the idea that adopters (producers) are reducing pollution; rather, emphasize that the}’ arc conserving their own

resources.

The main factors a

Integrate any economic incentives into

educational programs that are built around

the above strategies, Present the innovative

technology as part of an overall program

designed to increase the profitability of the

farm operation.

Minimize the connection between mandatory Government regulations and agricultural conservation practices. Integrate

the mandatory regulations into the economic incentives that support agricultural

conservation practices. It is important that

conservation practices not be identified

with “bureaucratic red tape. ’

Redefine organizational goals and agency

involvement so that conservation programs are presented in terms of economic

gain rather than environmental degradation—e. g., Farmers Home Administration

or Small Business Administration involvedment rather than the Environmental Protection Agency.

Increase involvement of commercial organizations and the Cooperative Extension

Service in promoting soil conservation efforts, More social recognition and rewards

for conservation efforts should be implemented in USDA-assisted group s-e, g.,

FFA, 4-H. Conservation awards should not

be a separate category but should be combined with production awards-e. g., the

highest production with an active conservation plan (Korsching and Nowak, 1980).

CONCLUSIONS

fecting farmers’

to adopt agricultural innovations include: values; the complexity of the innovation;

decisions farmers’ prior experiences, beliefs, and

1. The personal and economic characteristics-of the farmer, such as farm size, formal education, age, availability of capital,

managerial capability, degree of contact

with extension, and exposure to mass

media (especially farm magazines).

2. The perceived characteristics of the agricultural innovation, such as the relative advantage of one practice over another (especially profitability); compatibility With

visibility of results; and ease of’ trial uses

[Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971).

It is not clear how land tenure problems affect conservation behavior. In some instances,

absentee landowners seem to have less motivation to invest in protecting the land, but little

research supports this hypothesis, A more pertinent factor seems to be farm income: the

higher the income, the more prelalent is conservation. Age and education, too, are associ-
148 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

ated with management capabilities and openness to innovation. And importantly, access to

information influences technology adoption

and is the principal means by which policymakers can promote the use of productivitysustaining technologies. The communications

fields, in fact, will play increasingly vital roles

in informing and educating farmers and in improving farm management.

To be more effective, conservation promotion efforts need to be tailored to the particular

circumstances of the farmers who have the

most severe conservation problems. Conservation programs seem most successful when they

emphasize the economic advantages of productivity-sustaining technologies rather than the

environmental disadvantages of not applying

the recommended practices.

CHAPTER V REFERENCES

Araji, A. A., Sire, R, J., and Gardney, R. L., “Returns

to Agricultural Research and Extension Programs: An Ex-Ante Approach,” American

Journal of Agricultural Economics 60(4):968,

1978.

Bohler, Joe M., “Education and Training for Adoption and Diffusion of New Ideas, ” from Dimensions of World Food Problems, E. R. Duncan

(cd.) (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press,

1977).

Dairies, David R., and Heady, Earl O., “Potential

Effects of Policy Alternatives on Regional and

National Soil Loss, ” Center for Agricultural

and Rural Development, No. 90, 1980.

Debertin, David L., Rades, R. J., and Harrison,

Gerald A., “Returns to Information: An Addenalum, ” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(2):322, 1976.

Evans, James F., “Impact of Communications Technology on Productivity of the Land, ” OTA

background paper, 1980.

Korsching, Peter, and Nowak, Peter, “Preventive

Innovations: Problems in the Adoption of Agricultural Conservation Practices, ” prepared for

the Environmental Protection Agency, 1980,

Lee, Linda K., “Relationships Between Land

Tenure and Soil Conservation, ” OTA background paper, 1980,

Nowak, Peter J., “Impacts of Technology on Cropland and Rangeland Productivity: Managerial

Capacity of Farmers, ” OTA background paper,

1980.

Rogers, Everett M., “The Adoption and Diffusion

of Technological Innovations in U.S. Agriculture, ” OTA background paper, 1980.

Rogers, Everett, and Shoemaker, Floyd F., Communication of Innovations (New York: Free

Press, 1971).

Shrader, W. D., “Effect of Erosion and Other Physical Processes on Productivity of U.S. Croplands and Rangelands, ” OTA background

paper, 1980.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, A Time To

Choose: Summary Report on the Structure of

Agriculture, January 1981.

“Farm Structure: A Historical Perspective

of Changes in the Number and Size of Farms, ”

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate (Washington, D, C,: Government Printing Office, April 1980).

Woodruff, N. P., “Wind Erosion and Control Technology, ” 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 affect agricultural technology use and land productivity gcnerally fall into one of two categories: 1 ) those that promote economic or social

goals, either by developing and promoting production technologies or by manipulating shortterm economic factors; or 2) those that promote

conservation of natural resource productivity,

either by developing and promoting conservation technologies or by subsidizing investment

in conservation. The two types of Government

act iv i ties often operate simultaneously. Both

influence farmers’ decisions about technology

use and about resource conservation, but the

two influences are not always compatible.

This chapter reviews the major Government

programs and policies related to these two

goals—economic manipulation and conservation. It focuses primarily on Federal activities

and concludes with a description of some State

conservation initiatives that illustrate the

potential for increased local involvement.

Commodity Programs

Federal commodity and conservation programs were closed associated when they began

in the 1930’s, but during and after World War

11 they evolved in separate directions. Commod it y programs generally focused on helping

farmers adjust to changes in short-term market

conditions with a minimum of economic dislocations, while conservation programs assisted

farmers with long-term land productivity problems. The explicit economic goal of most commod it y policies has been to raise farm incomes

closer to average non farm incomes.

Since the establishment of the quasi-governmental Commodity Credit Corporation in 1933,

farm income has been supported through artificial commodity pricing-supporting prices

for certain products above what the market

would otherwise pay. Other programs have

since been developed to support farm income,

including production controls (such as direct

income-support payments, cropland set-asides,

and crop acreage diversions), disaster relief

payments, and, recently, subsidies for ,gasohoI

production,

Direct income-support payments were initiated in the 1970’s so price supports could be

reduced to world market levels without reducing the total income support to farmers. Setasides and crop diversion programs have

ranged from long-term commitments that withdraw acreage from production to l-year agreements that divert portions of a farm’s acreagc

from one crop to another. Under the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, the Secretary of

Agriculture could require farmers to set aside

some of their wheat, feed grains, or upland cotton acreage as a condition of receiving commodity program benefits. The Secretary is also

empowered to make payments to farmers who

voluntarily divert cropland to so ii-conserving

crops, whether or not set-asides have been declared. Set-asides for wheat and feed grains removed 19 million acres from production in

1978, and 12 million acres in 1979 (Cook,

1980a),

Disaster relief programs were initiated on the

premise that agriculture’s unique dependence

on biological processes and the weather requires that the risks of natural disaster be

shared by society. Over the years, several disaster relief programs have been created, some

in response to specific disasters. At present,

some 20 aid programs offer a fairly comprehensive 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

a recent development in farm income support

programs. The Energy Security Act of 1980

(Public Law 96-294) provides subsidies to operations that convert biomass to ethanol for use

in gasohol. Because of the economic incentives

created by these subsidies, the demand for

grains, especially corn, is increasing (USDA,

1981 b),

An underlying, sometimes explicit, social

goal of the commodity programs has been to

assure a plentiful, reasonably priced supply of

agricultural products for consumers. The rationale is that wide fluctuations in the profitability of agriculture would drive many, perhaps most, farmers out of business if some stability were not provided by Government programs. Thus, society would be left with too few

producers and too little production. Largely

because of increases in off-farm employment,

average farm incomes are now on par with average nonfarm incomes in the Nation, so the

income level goal of commodity programs is

becoming less important, The income stability goal is likely to become even more important, however, if the role of U.S. agriculture as

a supplier of world food continues to increase

as expected.

Because farm incomes depend directly on

market prices, farm economic policies and supporting programs historically have fluctuated

with commodity price variations. This has generally been on a crisis-oriented basis which is

not conducive to long-term income stability. In

recent years, rapid market changes have intensified these fluctuations. As a result, new farm

programs have been formulated almost on an

annual basis. As one U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report concludes:

Times of a studied, deliberate approach to

the design of a forward-looking farm policy,

rather than adjustment of the previous statute,

have been rare. Careful attention to more than

the immediate national effects of the programs

used to implement policy has likewise been

scarce (USDA, 1981 b).

A dearth of information or analysis also exists on the effects of commodity program activities on natural resources, even though over

80 percent of the sheet, rill, and wind erosion

occurring on U.S. croplands takes place on

land used to grow the major crops covered by

those commodity programs: wheat, feed grains,

soybeans, and upland cotton (Benbrook, 1980).

Recently, research has begun to identify certain commodity programs and policies that encourage land-use practices that conflict with

conservation objectives.

Commodity programs seem to have promoted specialization in farming by reducing

economic risks and uncertainty for farmers

and ranchers (Emerson, 1978). Income protection afforded for acreage planted in program

crops adds a powerful incentive for farmers to

put more acres into those crops than they

would if they bore all the risks. This causes a

decline in mixed-crop livestock operations in

favor of less diverse, cash-grain operations.

Cropland specialization reduces the use of crop

rotations including cover crops, and thus increases erosion and other land degradation

processes.

Controlling Production

Even though the main objectives of the commodity programs have been the economic effects, the set-aside and crop acreage diversion

programs also have had significant conservation effects. Generally, participants have been

required to plant set-aside land in some cover

or soil-conserving crop. Because farmers tend

to place their less productive land in these programs, the production control effect is compromised somewhat (Cook, 1980a), However,

the less productive land is often more erosionprone or otherwise fragile, so the conservation

effects are enhanced.

Conservation benefits are reduced to some

extent if farmers take less than the required

amount of land out of production when setasides are in effect. Enforcing such programs

is difficult. Short-term production control programs (recently, most have lasted only 1 year)

may also substantially reduce long-term conservation effects, Also, such benefits are only

realized when production controls are in effect,
Ch. Vi—Role of Government ● 153

and diversions and set-asides were not used in

1974, 1977, or 1980. With increasing foreign

demand for U.S. agricultural products, production control programs probably will not be

common in the future.

Disaster Relief

Unlike production control programs, disaster

relief may encourage cultivation of fragile

lands. Disaster relief payments are calculated

on the basis of total acreage planted and established yield-per-acre figures. The yield figures

are set by local committees of farmers organized by the Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Service (ASCS). In arid and semiarid regions, these yield F’igures are likely to be

higher than the average yields over a drought

cycle. Thus, disaster relief payments made for

water stress and wind erosion damage in these

areas are not so much insurance programs as

they are subsidies, keeping farmers in the uneconomic business of farming erodible land

with inappropriate row crop and small-grain

technologies. Another problem is that basing

the payments on acreage planted to the eligible crop discourages the use of stripcropping

or stubble strips that could help control erosion (Sheridan, 1981 ).

The system used to determine qualifying

acreages for commodity program payments

may itself conflict with conservation objectives.

The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, for example, replaced a n earlier allotment scheme

with a new concept, the normal crop acreage

for wheat, feed grains, and upland cotton. Instead of being established for individual crops

planted over a historical period, the normal

crop acreages are established for total acreage

planted to program crops in the previous season. The old system to determine allotments

had included a provision for a “conserving

base, ” a portion of acreage that was to be

fallow, in forage, or in crops grown for soil improvement, but that concept was eliminated.

The 1981 farm act, like the 1977 one, does not

allow grass strips planted for conserivation purposes to be included in determining commodity benefit eligibility. As a result, farmers who

set aside such strips had reduced eligibility

when compared with improvident farmers.

There have been reports of farmers plowing

under grass in order to increase their normal

crop acreage (Cook, 1980a). While USDA/

ASCS, the agency which oversees commodity

programs, recognizes this conflict, no analysis

of the actual effects has been made.

Another conflict between commodity program implementation and certain conservation

technologies exists regarding organic agriculture, Little explicit Federal, State, or local

public policy deals with organic farming practices, although these practices often incorporate conservation technologies. A 1980

USDA study, however, discovered that price

support programs administered by the local

ASCS committees discriminated against organic farmers. Criteria for eligibility in these programs included requirements for certain tillagc

practices and commercial fertilizer applications unacceptable to organic farmers (Geisler,

et al., 1980].

Gasohol subsidy programs and policies raise

additional considerate ions for conservation.

Perhaps the most serious implication of an

alcohol-fuels program will be the pressure to

convert erosion-prone or otherwise fragile land

into grain acreage. Without careful planning,

policies that subsidize alcohol fuels could increase land degradation and loss of productivity. This potential problem is examined in

OTA’s report Energy From Bioiogical Processes (U.S. Congress, 1980a).

Commodity policies and programs have a

number of unplanned impacts on the structure

and operation of the U.S. agriculture sector,

and these probably have subsequent un measured effects on land productivity. These include: 1) program benefits becoming attached

to the land, thus contributing to land price inflation and inhibiting entry of new or young

owner-operators. This increases the trend

toward tenant farming and concentrated

wealth. 2) Artificially high commodity prices

causing farmers to plant row crops and small

grains on more land, and presumably on more

fragile land, than they would if responding only

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

responding only to market prices (USDA,

1981 b).

The combined effects of these unplanned influences caused by commodity programs may

outweigh the effects of Federal conservation

programs. Commodity programs do not have

conservation of resource productivity as a primary goal, and only some acreage set-asides

and diversions have had conservation as explicit secondary goals. Even in the few programs where conservation or land productivity

was an explicit aim, there has been no built-in

strategy to evaluate the programs to determine

whether the conservation goal was being

achieved. For these reasons, the interactions

between commodity programs and agricultural

technologies, and the consequences for land,

have never been well understood. One important area to investigate is the relationship between conservation decisions and the improvements in net farm income and income

stability achieved by the commodity programs.

Credit Programs

The ability of farmers and ranchers to obtain

credit through private and public lenders has

become an increasingly important factor in

U.S. agricultural decisionmaking. As a percentage of net farm income, total farm debt increased from 91 to 428 percent from 1950 to

1977 (Schmiesing, 1980). Moreover, demand

for borrowed funds is expected to continue increasing as the agriculture sector strives to

meet growing global demands for food at the

same time that operation costs are rising rapidly (USDA, 1981 b).

The effects of credit policies on individual

farms and ranches and on the resource base

are not well understood. However, concern is

growing that credit policies and programs, coupled with other economic factors such as inflation, are significantly shortening farmers’ and

ranchers’ planning horizons and so reducing

conservation investments.

Generally, farmers have had access to plentiful credit at competitive costs, often at rates

lower than their counterparts in other sectors

of the economy. Federal initiatives have provided access to funds at cost through the nonprofit Federal Credit System (FCS) banks and

to subsidized loans from public lending agencies, In addition, agricultural customers have

become attractive to private lenders because

Federal emergency lending programs, price

supports, and other commodity programs have

reduced farming risks. The plentiful and favorable supply of funds has encouraged farmers

to increase their reliance on borrowed money,

to invest heavily in capital-intensive technology, and to expand their use of purchased production supplies (e.g., fertilizers and pesticides)

(USDA, 1981 b).

In recent years, a less direct effect has become evident, Easy credit at good terms gave

more purchasers the ability and incentive to

pay higher prices for land, thereby contributing

to inflation. Consequently, land prices have

risen so high that beginning farmers are increasingly unable to pay for land from its current cash earnings. As a result, cropland has

become concentrated under the ownership of

established farmers and speculators (Schmiesing, 1980),

Farmers with nonprime land that is susceptible to productivity damage often have tight

budgets and little economic flexibility. For

these farmers, high land costs become an important constraint on the adoption of expensive conservation practices, though not on the

adoption of conservation tillage (USDA, 1981b;

Lee, 1981).

In the last two decades, most agricultural

credit has come from the private sector, with

FCS being the largest source of credit and

related services to farmers, ranchers, and their

cooperatives. FCS holds about one-third of the

Nation’s total farm debt. It consists of three

separate banking systems—Federal Land

Banks, Federal Intermediate Credit Banks

(FICBS), and Banks for Cooperatives, Under

FICBS, local Production Credit Associations

have also been authorized to serve as retail

outlets for credit.

In the public sector the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) is the largest Federal
Ch. V/—Role of Government ● 155

agency lending directly to farmers and ranchers. The Small Business Administration has a

relatively new and limited program. Besides

administering farm-operation and farm ownership loans, in 1979 FmHA also was responsible for at least 21 other programs, including

emergency-disaster, economic emergency, individual housing, rural rental housing, water

and waste, and business and industrial development loans.

Credit Programs for Production

What role do lenders play in influencing

farmers’ production and conservation decisions? Generally, financial institutions assess

current cash flows to evaluate credit applications, This approach puts productivity-sustaining technologies at a disadvantage because it

does not account for possible future changes

in inputs and commodity prices or the longterm effects of soil conservation. Although the

producer may eventually be penalized for having failed to use soil conservation practices, the

implications of resource degradation may become evident in the loan evaluation process

only after the producer has neglected conservation for several years.

The historic purpose of FmHA agricultural

loan programs has been to assist farmers and

ranchers who need, but cannot obtain, credit

from commercial lenders. As a lender of the

last resort, FmHA has been the major provider

of subsidized credit and emergency loans. This

image apparently has caused applicants to take

more risks with their production and marketing plans, According to a recent USDA report,

the emergency lending programs of FmHA

“tend to reduce the overall threats farmers and

ranchers face from the weather and the market . . . . (They) have been referred to as free insurance programs, with the overuse that predictably accompanies any ‘free’ goods” (USDA,

1981 b),

Federal credit subsidies that encourage behavior beyond that reasonably prudent for an

average operation have serious implications for

producer decision making and land productivity. Resource planning and wise use become

less necessary as one transfers risks to the Government. The likely consequences are less efficient use of resources in the short run and

adoption of technologies that are wasteful and

resource-depleting in the longer term.

Federal credit programs, like commodity programs, have profound impacts on the planning

horizons and technology decisions of farmers,

and thus have indirect but important impacts

on land productivity. In the recent past, inexpensive and easily available credit seems to

have contributed to the inflated costs of farming, making profit margins so low that farmers

cannot forgo current profits to conserve future

productivity. Today’s more expensive credit results in higher discount rates and fewer funds

being available for investment in conservation

technologies.

Programs that make credit availabIe for current production also can have positive conservation effects, For example, if farmers have

funds to apply optimum fertilizer, then crop

residues and organic matter will increase, soil

microbiology will improve, and erosion will diminish. The overriding problem is that maintaining land productivity is not an explicit objective with most agricultural credit programs.

So, as with commodity programs, the substantial negative and positive conservation effects

of past programs are poorly understood and the

analytical methods to foresee impacts of current or future programs have not been developed.

Credit Programs and

Conservation Practices

Although many credit programs are directed

to current production, there are some programs that provide credit explicitly for conservation, In the private sector’s FCS, full-time

farmers are eligible for credit for a range of

agricultural purposes including conservation

investments, while part-time farmers can get

credit for agricultural conservation practices

but have restricted access to credit for other

purposes (GAO, 1980a).

Credit institutions’ policies, however, may

discourage the adoption of innovative conser-
156 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

vation technologies. For example, financial institutions are generally reluctant to lend money

for a farmer to convert to organic farming,

though they willingly assist in a shift to conventional agriculture. Thus, organic farmers

are likely to pay more for their capital needs,

and those who have chosen to farm organically have done so in spite of financial incentives

rather than because of them (Geisler, et al.,

1980; Oelhaf, 1978].

No-till illustrates another credit problem.

Whether a switch to no-till is financially attractive to a farmer is influenced by initial investment costs. For instance, a new no-till planter

costs more than a conventional planter. For

small-farm operators in particular, the decision

to buy is strongly influenced by credit availability, yet their access to credit is generally more

restricted than for large operations (Geisler, et

al. 1980; Pereleman, 1977). The labor savings

offered by no-till may not be sufficiently attractive to the small-farm operator to compensate

for his relatively high capital cost. Thus,

preferential access to credit makes it more likely that larger farms switch to no-till, but the

steeply sloping land where the conservation effects of no-till are most significant are more

characteristic of small farms.

Tax Policies and Programs

Congress frequently uses tax programs to

stimulate economic activities in directions that

will enhance particular policy goals. In recent

years, many major agricultural tax programs

have been intended to support family farm operations. There is an implicit, and occasionally explicit, social goal of ensuring continuation

of an agriculture structure that is based on

owner-operator family farms.

Tax programs designed to achieve this and

other social and economic goals interact with

conservation in various ways which are not

well understood. Some of these tax programs,

such as preferential estate tax treatment for

farms, are thought to increase the use of conservation practices, though they may also have

less direct effects that partially offset the conservation benefits. Other tax policies, such as

the cash accounting rules for farms, have unknown impacts on long-term land productivity.

In general, tax programs affect long-term

land productivity positively when they make

it economically attractive for producers to use

longer planning horizons for their technology

investments, and negatively when they make

shorter planning periods necessary. Tax policies also affect landownership and land use in

ways that may have significant impacts on use

or disuse of productivity-conserving technologies,

Tax programs generally have greatest influence on taxpayers who have substantial tax 1iability or income to offset. Thus, tax programs

designed to aid family farms have made agriculture an attractive tax shelter for affluent

nonfarmers, for limited partnerships, and for

other types of investment groups. Landownership and farm operation are likely to be separated when nonfarmer investors are attracted

to agriculture, and this change may lead to

decreased long-term investments in conservation. Tax policies have contributed to the trend

toward concentrating U.S. agricultural production and wealth among fewer producers

(USDA, 1981 b), but no data exist to indicate

whether the redistribution of land and wealth

is causing changes in use of productivity-conserving technologies. Tax policies also have

been a causal factor in the shift to more capitalintensive (v. labor- or land-intensive) agricultural technologies (USDA, 1981 b).

Preferential estate tax provisions enacted as

part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, and more

recent revisions of tax laws, substantially reduce the estate-tax burden (Harl, 1980). The opportunity for reduced tax liabilities has a mixed

effect on the maintenance and enhancement

of land productivity. The most obvious effect

is to lengthen a family’s planning horizon. If

a farmer knows that his heirs will receive the

benefit of his conservation efforts, he should

be more willing to make investments or sacrifices of current income. Offsetting this benefit

somewhat is the possibility that preferential

treatment for farm estates helps inflate land

prices, which is thought to have a generally

negative effect on conservation.
Ch. Vi—Role of Government ● 157

Income tax provisions that allow producers

to use cash accounting for the costs of developing an asset, while taxing future income derived from those assets as long-term capital

gains, provide high tax benefits where there is

substantial current income to offset. For example, certain perennial crops provide special tax

shelters. Under the tax code, the costs of developing certain trees and vines that produce

fruits and nuts can be deducted as current cost

from ordinary income, while proceeds from

these assets when sold can be treated as capital

gains. Because the income and expenses may

be reported under cash-accounting rules, the

taxpayer has substantial freedom in choosing

the time when the tax liabilities, if any, must

be paid. Again, these provisions should encourage a longer planning horizon that would make

conservation investments more attractive, but

may also attract nonfarmers seeking tax shelters and so drive up the price of cropland and

the incidence of tenant farming.

Other tax policies favor capital investments

by reducing investment costs through appreciation-depreciation rules and special investment

tax credits. These policies encourage and reward capital investments, including expanded

use of machinery and equipment, rather than

increased expenditures for labor and management. Such policies could also encourage investment in (conservation structures, such as

terraces or fences.

The 1981 USDA report on the structure of

agriculture reaches a number of general conclusions about Federal tax programs and policies (USDA, 1981 b):

. Tax law tends to perpetuate ownership of

farm assets, particularly land.

—

—

—

Tax law seems to encourage capital structures with a higher ratio of debt to assets

and greater use of debt capital relative to

other resources than would otherwise exist.

Because labor is taxed while capital investments receive tax breaks, farmers have an

incentive to substitute capital for labor.

Recent changes in tax policy encourage increased use of corporations as a Way of organizing agricultural operations.

Management practices may be chosen be- —

cause they allow the best use of tax rules,

They may not be the best crop and animal

management. The overall impact could be

less efficient use of resources.

As a consequence, conservation may suffer,

as when large labor-saving tractors (generally

not well adapted to terraces, contour farming,

stripcropping, and other conservation structures] are used in place of smaller machines

that require less capital and more labor. On the

other hand, some conservation practices and

some production techniques that conserve productivity require substantial capitaI investments and benefit significantly from the tax

programs that encourage such investment.

These include the shift to no-till farming and

the installation of well-designed irrigation and

drainage systems,

Thus, if tax programs are to be an effective

tool for encouraging conservation of land productivity, they should be quite specific about

which types of capital equipment, structures,

or land improvements qualify. Careful analysis

of the likely consequences of tax programs

must be conducted ahead of their implementation to avoid unplanned, counterproductive impacts.

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 agriat 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 atand 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 SecFederal role. retary of Agriculture to survey and investigate

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

Resource

Soil and

Water

Authorizing

Iegislationa

Agricultural Credit

Act

Natural

Environment

Federal Pesticide Act

Public U.S. Us. Date of

Lead agency Conservation program Law Stat. Code enactment

AS

-CS/Fm HA Emergency conservation 95-334 92 Stat. - 16 U.S.C. 1978

to control wind erosion, 433 2204

conserve water,

rehabilitate farmland

harmed by erosion,

floods, or other natural

disasters; loan assistance

EPA Program to streamline 95-396 92 Stat. — 1978

pesticide registration 820

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

Conservation Act

(RCA)

Water “” Clean Water Act of EPA/SCS

1977

Rangeland Federal Land Policy BLM

& Management Act

Rangeland Forest & Rangeland USFS

Renewable Resources

Planning Act (RPA)

Program Development 1407 2001 et

seq.

Rural Clean Water 95-217 91 Stat. 33 U. SC. ‘1977 -

Program to control sec. 1579 1288

nonpoint pollution from 208

agricultural sources;

financial & technical

assistance

Organic Act for BLM 94-579 90 Stat. 43 U.S.C, 1976

management & disposal 2743 1701 et

of public lands; seq.

inventory, planning, and

management for grazing

leases

Resource Appraisal & 93-378 88 Stat, 16 U.S.C. 1974

Program Planning & 476 1601-10

Development
Ch. Vi—Role of Government . 159

— . — —

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

Authorizing

Iegislationa Conservation program—

Cost-sharing & technical

assistance under the

Agricultural Conservation

Program (excludes certain Great Plains Conservation Program participants)

——-——

Public Us. Us.

Law Stat. Code

Date of

enactment

1973

1972

1972

1970

1969

1965

1965

1964

1962

1961

1960

Resource

Soil and

Water

Natural

Environment

Soil and

Water

Water

Natural

Environ -

ment

Soil and

Water

Water

Rangeland

Soil and

Water

Soil and

Water

Rangeland

Soil and

Water

Lead agency

Agriculture & ASCS 93-86 87 Stat, 16 U.S.C.

Consumer Protection 241 1501 et

Act seq.

Federal Environmental

Pesticide Act

EPA 92-516 86 Stat. —

973

Comprehensive registration of pesticides by use

& enforcement authority

over misuse

Land inventory & monitoring; loans for soil

& water conservation

SCS/Fm HA ‘92-419 86 Stat. 7 U.S.C

670 1010a

Rural Development

Act

Water Bank Act ASCS Water Bank Program to

conserve surface waters

& wetlands

Environmental impact–

assessments of Federal

projects; national policy

to minimize environmental damage

‘Appalachian Land

Stabilization & Conservation Program (costsharing & technical

assistance for erosion,

sediment control, & other

conservation measures

Conservation, development, & use of water &

related land resources;

formation of river basin

commissions to coordinate, plan, & study

resource

Appraisal of Federal land

laws to improve

Federal Government’s

custodian role to meet

current & future needs

Resource Conservation

and Development (loans

& technical assistance to

develop & carry out conservation plans)

Conservation loans to

individuals

‘Mandate to develop”

renewable surface

resources of the national

forests for multiple use &

sustained yield

Great Plains Conservation

Program (long-term costsharing & technical

91-559 84 Stat. 16 U.S. C

1418 1301 et

seq

91-190- --- National Environrmen- =

tal Policy Act

CEQ

Appalachian Regional

Development Act

ASCS 89-4 79 Stat, —

5

89-90 79 Stat. 42 U.S.C.

244 1962 et

seq.

Water Resources

Planning Act

Water

Resources

Council

Public Land Law

Review Commission

Organic Act

Public Land

Law Review

Commission

88-606 78 Stat . 43 USC.

982 1391-1400

.-——

Food and Agriculture

Act

_——

SCS/Fm HA 87-703 76 Stat. 7 U.S.C,

607 1010-11 a

Consolidated Farmers

Home Administration

Act

Multiple-Use

Sustained-Yield Act

Fm HA 87-128 75 Stat. 7 U.S.C

307 1921

USFS 86-517 74 Stat. 16 US C

215 528-31

Great Plains

Conservation Program

84-1021 70 Stat. 16 U. SC.

1030

SCS 1956

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 Iegislationa

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 &

Water Domestic Allotment

Act

Soil and Original Soil

Water Conservation &

Domestic Allotment

Act

ASCS Agricultural Conservation 74-461 49 Stat. 16 U,S.C. 1936

Program (ACP), provision 1148 590g-p

of payments & grants in (m), 590q

aid to carry out approved

soil & water conservation

measures

SCS Technical assistance, soil 74-46 49 Stat. 16 U.S.C. 1935

surveys, snow surveys, 163 590a

water supply forecasting,

& 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 and does not Include amendments to the orginial Acts.

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

soil erosion processes and the measures necessary to prevent and control those processes. It

also authorized the Secretary to enter into

agreements with any agency or person for the

purpose of soil conservation, and established

the Conservation Operations Program. The

program’s initial activities emphasized projects

to demonstrate erosion control methods but

soon evolved to emphasize more direct service

to individuals, relying heavily on local Soil

Conservation District organizations.

The 1935 act was amended and expanded by

the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment

Act of 1936. This provided cost-sharing assistance for approved conservation practices and

authorized payments to farmers who shifted

acreage from “soil-depleting” to “soil-conserving” crops. The Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) was established to carry out the

1936 act. It initially focused on short-term

needs, but in the 1940’s its direction shifted

toward more long-range needs, and permanent
Ch. V/— Role of Government . 161 — —.—— —

conservation investments became the main

purpose of the Federal cost-sharing programs

under ACP.

Congress also increased its attention to renewable resources other than cropland soil in

the 1930’s, Decades of uncontrolled overgrazing had ruined many public rangelands. In the

more environmentally fragile arid regions, forage production was greatly reduced. Then the

drought of the 1930’s drastically cut forage production in the Great Plains, which until then

had been less arid and more resilient, The combination of reduced forage and low livestock

prices meant economic ruin for many ranchers. It also resulted in calls for an active Federal

role in applying the newly emerging principles

of ‘‘range science” to the vast, publicly owned

rangelands in the Western States. In 1934, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act and gave

the Secretary of Interior broad powers for multiple-use management of rangelands in the

public domain. It provided the basic authority for classifying, protecting, administering,

regulating, and improving tile rangelands

under the jurisdiction of the Crazing Service,

later the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),

Watershed protection and flood prevention

also began to receive increased congressional

attention during the 1930's. As erosion processes came to be better understood in the

1930's and 1940's Congress passed a series Of

laws authorizing investigation and improvement of watershed,s and providing emergency

measures for flood control, Financial and technical support for conservation and land improvements increased in 1954 with passage of

the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. Through the 1950’s and 1960’s, Congress established programs for regions with

especially severe problems of resource degrada t ion, including the Great Plains Conservation Program and the Appalachian Regional

Development Act.

During the 1970’s, Congress produced several major legislative packages reflecting growing national concern over the adequacy of existing programs to ensure long-term resource

productivity. Natural resource appraisal and

long-term planning were emphasized by the

Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, the

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974, and the Federal Lands

Policy Management Act of 1976. Regulation of

agricultural chemicals, control of nonpoint

source agricultural pollution, and the preservation of environmental quality also received

broad and intensive legislative attention.

The major laws enacted during the past two

decades that directly or indirectly affect rangeland and cropland resource use and productivity include:

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960,

Clean Air Act of 1963 (amendments 1970

and 1977),

Wilderness Act of 1964 (amendments 1972

and 1977),

National Environmental Policy Act Of

1969,

Federal Environmental pesticide Control

Act of 1972,

Federal Water pollution Control Act

Amendments of 1972 (amendment—The

Clean Water Act–1977),

Endangered Species Act of 1973,

Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (amendments 1976),

Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1974,

Archaeological and Historic Preservation

Act of 1974,

National Forest Management Act of 1976,

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

of 1976,

Soil and Water Resources Conservation

Act of 1977,

Forest and Rangeland Resources Extension Act of 1978, and

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of

1978.

Resource Appraisal and Protection

The Conservation Operations Program, administered by SCS, has been responsible for

developing farm-level and local conservation

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

by ASCS, provides cost-sharing assistance for

conservation investments, These programs,

however, are voluntary, and participation has

been inadequate to control resource degradation on the Nation’s croplands and rangelands,

This inadequacy was widely recognized in the

1970’s, and this led to enactment of the Soil and

Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977.

Resources Conservation Act

The 1977 Resources Conservation Act established a process for natural resource appraisal

and planning, That process is popularly known

as “RCA. ” The purpose of RCA is to provide

a mechanism for informed, long-range policy

decisions regarding the conservation and improvement of the Nation’s soil, water, and related resources. It is intended to serve not only

the Federal Government but also State and local governments and private landowners and

land users. The legislation mandates a continuing resource appraisal and inventory which is

to be the basis of a comprehensive national policy. That policy is to include priorities for a national soil and water conservation program. Finally, there is to be continuing program evaluation to keep the program responsive to changing priorities.

The RCA appraisal was published in the

summer of 1981. The proposed RCA program

was distributed for public review in late 1981.

The final program and publication are unlikely to be issued before late 1982. Meanwhile,

there is some indication that the RCA process

is not yet meeting the intent of Congress. A

1980 General Accounting Office (GAO) evaluation of the ongoing RCA found that 2 years and

$11 million after beginning the process, USDA

had not fully evaluated each of its 34 soil and

water programs, The GAO report focused on

whether RCA was developing useful and accurate information for water program decisions, and found considerable fault with the

RCA analysis of conservation programs, techniques, and changing needs (GAO, 1980b). The

program evaluations will be a key issue in

assessing the soundness of the final RCA recommendations, There is a strong tendency for

any department or agency to avoid self-critical

evaluations, since these can be used by Congress or the Office of Management and Budget

as a rationale for cutting out the programs. Yet,

without such evaluations the agencies are unlikely to make good use of the continuing resource appraisal process.

Rangelands

The Federal Government’s role in managing

rangelands has concentrated mainly on the 214

million acres of federally owned rangeland outside Alaska. Excluding Alaska, * 64 percent of

U.S. rangeland is outside Federal ownership,

but does get some service from SCS and ASCS

programs. The rangeland work of those agencies is minor compared with their work on

croplands and improved pastures.

BLM administers 70 percent of the Federal

rangeland outside Alaska, and the U.S. Forest

Service (USFS) has jurisdiction over 17 percent, The remainder is administered by various

agencies in the Departments of Defense and the

Interior (fig. 15) (USDA, 1980 b). The Taylor

Grazing Act of 1934 was the guiding mandate

for administering BLM lands for decades, and

the Organic Act of 1897 was the basis of USFS

land management, Various laws influenced

Federal rangeland management from the

193o’s through the 1960’s. The Soil and Water

Resources Conservation Act provided some

funds to restore productivity of the public

lands, and the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield

Act of 1960 mandated administration of the

USFS lands for uses other than timber and

forage. In the 1970’s, however, Congress recognized that these laws were inadequate for

sustaining the productivity of the public lands,

and six important new laws were passed to

guide the work of BLM and USFS,

THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

ACT AND PUBLIC RANGELANDS

IMPROVEMENT ACT

Congress enacted two major pieces of legislation dealing with long-term planning and man-

“ ‘1’here are 231 million acres of land classified as range in

Alaska, most of it federally owned, hot that land is not heavily

used or managed,
Ch. VI—Ro/e of Government . 163

Figure 15.—Administration of Federal Rangeland

Excluding Alaska

plans for all lands by tractor area, and 3) developing management allotment plans for the

lands designated during the planning stage as

SOURCE’ U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, “An Assessment of

Forest and Rangeland Sitution in the United States,” 1980

agement of land administered by BLM: the

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of

1976 (FLPMA—Public Law 94-579) and the

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978

(PRIA–Public Law 95-514). The two acts give

express policy recognition to the plight of

public rangelands, mandate land-use plans,

and provide funds for on-the-ground improvements.

FLPMA is the result of congressional concern over the deterioration of Federal lands

and over the numerous, often-conflicting, and

sometimes-antiquated acts related to public

lands. Indeed, a major purpose is to give BLM

enough authority to effectively carry out the

public lands goals and objectives established

by other laws.

The complete act has six titles with provisions ranging from broad types of BLM authority to specific policies on issues such as protecting wild horses and burros, managing the

California desert area, and managing BLM’s

wilderness land.

FLPMA specifies that the Secretary of Interior will carry out resource planning for the

BLM-controlled public lands by:1) preparing

and maintaining a resource inventory of all the

lands, 2) developing and maintaining land-use

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, Congress 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 “unsatisfactory conditions on public rangelands

present a high risk of soil loss, desertification,

and a resultant underproduction for large acreages of the public lands” (43 U.S.C. 1901 (a)(3)),

In PRIA, Congress mandated improved management and more funds to be raised through

fees collected from livestock grazing permits

and leases on public lands. Fees have been

charged for decades, but traditionally they have

been below fair market value. While generating

considerable debate prior to enactment, the legislation does specify that the fees charged are

to represent “the economic value of the land

to the user;” it designates the base and formula

to be used for determining the fair market value

(43 U.S.C, 1905(a)). Furthermore, the act mandates that over 80 percent of the funds generated are to be spent for on-the-ground range

rehabilitation, maintenance, and the construction of range improvements (43 U.S.C. 1904(c)).

THE RESOURCE PLANNING A C T

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which generated

the RPA process, is landmark legislation that

requires USFS to engage in long-term planning.

Congress enacted the law to improve the collection and analysis of data so that legislative

and administrative decisions on policy and

program design and funding will more adequately meet future demands on forests, rangelands, and associated renewable resources.
164 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

RPA requires that the administration prepare

an updated inventory and assessment of resources and a detailed program for investment

in, and use of, the forest system. The updated

inventory and program are to be submitted to

Congress for review every 5 years for the next

four decades and a progress report is to be prepared by the administration annually. This resource assessment and planning process is to

encourage the development of all the federally owned forest, range, and related lands as a

unified system dedicated to long-term benefit

for present and future generations. The scope

of the RPA resource assessments reported thus

far has not been limited to land administered

by USFS, but the Forest Service is the lead

agency, and so far the RPA program planning

process has related mainly to USFS lands.

The legislation sets the year 2000 as the target

year:

. . . when the renewable resources of the National Forest System shall be in operating posture whereby all backlogs of needed treatment

of their restoration shall be reduced to a current basis and the major portion of planned intensive multiple-use sustained-yield management procedures shall be installed and operating on an environmentally sound basis (16

U.S.C, 1607 (1974)).

THE NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT

A major amendment to RPA occurred in

1976 with the enactment of the National Forest

Management Act (Public Law 94-588). While

RPA provided the philosophy and factfinding

basis for long-term planning, this amendment

contains a more specific framework for developing and implementing multiple-use management plans for sustained yield use of specific

resources. A key objective of the legislation is

to develop USFS management programs that

“will not produce substantial and permanent

impairment of the productivity of the land” (16

U.S.C. 1604( g)(3) (C)(1976)).

THE FOREST AND RANGELAND RENEWABLI

RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT AND THE RENEWABLE

RESOURCES EXTENSION ACT

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act (Public Law 95-307) of

1978 mandates a comprehensive program of

forest and rangeland research and dissemination of the findings. Again, this act is expressly intended to complement RPA.

Another complementary law is the Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (Public

Law 95-306), which requires the Secretary of

Agriculture to prepare a 5-year plan. A principal purpose of this act is to use education to

increase the yield of privately owned forest and

rangeland renewable resources, but it has

broader implications. Jurisdiction distinctions

among the various agencies constrain the coordination of forest, range, and cropland policies

and programs, but Congress recognizes that

these resources are intimately interrelated,

This is evidenced, for example, by the act’s directive that the 5-year plan include programs

for managing trees and shrubs in shelterbelts

because these “protect farm lands from wind

and water erosion, ” The legislation states that:

to meet national goals, it is essential that

all forest and rangeland renewable resources

including fish and wildlife, forage, outdoor recreation opportunities, timber, and

water, be fully considered in designing educational programs for landowners, processors,

and users , . . , (16 U.S.C. 1671(2) (1978)].

These legislative developments guide management support of the practices and technologies necessary to ensure future productivity

of publicly owned rangelands. In essence, it is

a congressional mandate for land stewardship.

A congressional white paper issued after the

first series of RPA reports were submitted by

the administration in June 1980 declared:

. . . the role of the Federal Government in

managing the National Forests is to protect

and enhance the land, and to provide goods

and services from those lands to the Nation’s

people. But the first consideration must be the

enhancement and protection of the land, both

forest and range (U.S. Congress, 1980b).

Even though the policy seems clear, implementation is not. No comprehensive analysis

to determine the adequacy and completeness

of the RPA process as a long-term planning instrument has been undertaken, However, in

mid-1980 GAO reviewed BLM and USFS land
Ch. Vi—Role of Government “ 165

management activities and found that congressional expectations were not being achieved.

BLM has a mandate for resource inventory and

land-use planning, but no mandate to develop

long-range resource programs. As a result,

BLM has no rigorous basis for determining the

production levels required to meet the Nation’s

long-term needs for the various benefits produced from its land.

GAO found that “neither the Bureau nor the

Forest Service have land management plans for

sizable portions of their lands” (GAO, 1980b).

While both agencies have been working to develop better land management plans and planning procedures, many of the existing plans are

inadequate because they:

 are based on incomplete or obsolete resource inventory data or

. do not identify specific actions required

to meet production goals while achieving

environmental protection objectives.

GAO recommended that Congress amend

FLPMA to require a long-range renewable resource program development process for BLM.

Improvements in the planning process are

being made and more comprehensive plans are

in progress, but these will take several years

to complete. In the meantime both agencies

“will continue to be guided by substandard

plans or by the intuition and best guesses of

land managers” (GAO, 1980b).

Finally, for both BLM and USFS, staff and

funds have not kept pace with the new responsibilities and specific tasks assigned to the

agencies by legislation, Executive orders, and

court decisions. For example, the Renewable

Resources Extension Act of 1978 remains unfunded. The problem is particularly acute in

BLM, where since 1970 responsibilities for

major resource management programs have increased rapidly while the agency’s limited

resources have hampered completion of even

the most pressing mandates. The GAO report

emphasizes the need to link agency program

mandates to the budgeting process (GAO,

1980b),

Environmental Protection

During the 1970’s, several types of programs

were implemented to safeguard or restore the

Nation’s general environmental quality. Three

of these are particularly significant for cropland and rangeland productivity: pesticide regulation, nonpoint source pollution control, and

environmental impact assessment.

PESTICIDE REGULATION

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947 regulated labeling and registration of pesticides sold interstate, The primary purpose of that law was to

protect pesticide users from fraud. Since 1950,

however, there has been a prodigious increase

in the use of pesticides, which are potential

pollutants of food, drinking water, and fish and

wildlife habitat, * By the early 1970’s Congress

had recognized the need for Federal safeguards

for the general environment and protection of

the public from misuse of these dangerous

chemicals. In 1972, FIFRA was amended to

establish a sophisticated regulation system involving Federal, State, and local government

agencies. In 1978, further amendments expedited the registration and classification process

for pesticides by allowing generic chemical

registration, conditional registration, special

data-use compensation, State primary use enforcement, and special trade secret exceptions.

The 1978 act further requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USDA to coordinate efforts in integrated pest management.

Because of these amendments and careful congressional oversight, EPA has made important

strides to implement more responsive and efficient programs in pesticide regulation which

protect the public and the resource.

NONPOINT S0URCE POLLUTION

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act

(FWPCA) of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), as

amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, deals

with the problem of nonpoint source pollution,

*U.S. production of pesticides rose from 680 million lb in 1962

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,

diffuse sources of such pollution. Section 208

of FWPCA is intended to affect the technological practices used on croplands and rangelands. It calls for areawide water quality management plans to achieve the goals of the act,

including complete elimination of pollutant

discharge by 1985 where technically, economically, and socially achievable. More specifically, the plans are to identify and set forth procedures and methods to control agricultural nonpoint pollution sources.

EPA is responsible for administering

FWPCA. It has indicated that State governments should develop and implement “best

management practices, ” described by section

208 as:

, . , the control techniques that a State considers most reasonable and effective and

which are suitable to local conditions at the

time of implementation. Such practices include crop rotation, less intensive cropping

systems, conservation tillage, and structural

controls, It is significant to note that these

best management practices are preventive

measures—they are directed toward controlling soil erosion on-site rather than dealing

with sediment after it has eroded (EPA, 1978).

The “208 planning process” has been under

way since before 1978, when detailed management plans and implementation schedules for

the States were due. The 1977 Clean Water Act

expanded section 208 by establishing a new

program authorizing USDA to provide technical and financial assistance to farmers, ranchers, and other rural land operators for installation and maintenance of the FWPCA best management practices, This cost sharing is to support implementation of the State water quality management plans for control of nonpoint

source pollution. Programs have now been established by many States, although the costsharing funds have subsequently been reduced,

Overall, the section 208 program has moved

slowly. EPA became more active after the 1977

amendments and relied heavily on USDA cost

sharing. Many States opposed the program

originally, however, and the progress will continue to be slow, in part because funds and

technical expertise are limited. Also, the benefits of agricultural water pollution control accrue slowly to a widely dispersed set of beneficiaries who may not recognize the benefits

when they occur.

ENVIRONMWTAL IMPACT ASSESSEMENT

The National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA—Public Law 91-190) requires Federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) when a proposed action

significantly affects the quality of the human

environment. Even if a full EIS is not needed,

there must still be preliminary data collection

and analysis to support a finding of no significant adverse impact. Consequently, where Federal involvement exists, NEPA generally will

trigger at least some data collection and analysis of how the project is expected to affect

natural resources.

The principal purpose of NEPA is to inform

decisionmakers about the likely environmental and natural resource consequences of proposed major actions before the actions are

taken, and where serious negative consequences are anticipated, to encourage consideration of alternative actions. NEPA has resulted in more complete environmental impact

consideration for many projects than would

otherwise have occurred. The fundamental

purpose of promoting informed decisionmaking has seldom been faulted. However, at times

the application of NEPA has led to controversy and criticism.

For example, in the mid-1970’s, a citizens’

organization brought a lawsuit against BLM

challenging the adequacy of its programmatic

grazing statement for public lands under its

jurisdiction. The suit was settled in 1975, with

a decision that BLM should prepare, by 1989,

145 EISS to cover its projects on over 170 million acres of public lands. The subsequent EIS

process has been expensive, consuming a large

portion of BLM’s limited funds and, especially, of its limited expert personnel, and causing

significant delays in needed rangeland development, Whether the EISS need to be so expensive is doubtful, but certainly the process

caused more thorough planning than occurred
Ch. VI—Role of Government . 167

before the lawsuit. The EISS have revealed

more severe range degradation than had formerly been recognized—or admitted—and it

seems likely that the improved information will

result in improved programs, It is possible that

without being forced to prepare EISS, BLM still

would have improved its planning as it worked

out programs in response to the mandates of

FLPMA and PRIA.

Federal Cost Sharing

Cost sharing has been an integral component

of Federal conservation policy since 1936. The

rationale is that each year society wants more

row crops, small grains, beef, and other products than farmers and ranchers can produce

from the most resilient prime agricultural

lands. Therefore, nonprime and fragile croplands and rangelands must be used. But society

does not pay high enough prices to the producers, relative to their costs, to implement the

conservation practices needed to protect the

long-term productivity of these fragile lands.

(And it is not clear that if society did, the

farmers would use the money for that purpose.)

So, to the extent that society places a high value

on future production, it must directly pay a

share of the cost for conservation practices.

This rationale is convincing and widely accepted. A 1979 Harris Poll indicated that 72

percent of the American public supported the

concept of public funding to help pay for soil

conservation practices on private land (Cook,

1980a). Eight USDA programs have offered

cost sharing to landowners for conservation

purposes (table 24), Yet this has been the most

Table 24.—Conserwation Programs and Their Purposes

— —

I I Conservation purposea

Agency Conservation program

I

USFS State and private forestry ‘-

4 “3 3 5 3

National forest system 3 4 4 4 5

SEA-E Conservation education 4 1 3 5

Conservation operations -–.- 3 4 3 5

 Watershed operations

xs::~$. r

i

” ‘ :- “’: ’: ;

‘2 5 4 5 3 3

5- 3 1 5 5 3

4 3 3 5 4 3

-5 3 4 4 5 3

4 3 3 5 5 3

3 . 2 1

4 2 3

3 4 2 4 4 4

4 4 3 5 2 5

4 4 2 4 2 3

4 4 4 5 4 4

a

The most important purpose of each program Is assigned a value of 5 with 01 her purposes rated relative to

the purpose IS not relevant to the program

1 Cost sharing

4 Cost sharing ‘- —

——.— —

Cost sharing

Loans 

Loan s

3 Loans

1 Loans

.—

2 Technical assistance

5 Resource managemen t

-- 

Education

1 Technical assistance –

3 Cost sharing/technical assistance

4 Cost sharing/technical assistance . —

Cost sharing/echnical assistance

3 Cost sharing/technical assitance

Cost sharing/technical assistance ~.-==.— .

this one on a scale from 1 to 5 If no rating IS shown

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

to the maintenance of agricultural land productivity.

Recent evaluations of the largest cost-sharing

programs have indicated that they have not

been a cost-effective approach to soil conservation. The controversy is over why this is so

and what should be done about it—not over the

basic rationale of cost sharing. The principal

reasons offered for the lack of cost effectiveness are: 1) that funds intended for technologies to enhance long-term conservation have

been used instead to increase short-term production and 2) that funds are spread so broadly and administered so loosely that they mainly subsidize conservation practices on land

with few conservation problems and rarely

reach the land with severe problems (Cook,

1980a),

The proposed solution to the first problem,

already implemented to a considerable extent,

is to have stricter guidelines for use of costsharing funds to exclude production-oriented

technologies. The conservation effect of some

“production” technologies such as drainage,

however, may have been discounted too much.

The proposed solution for the second problem—i.e., “targeting” the cost-sharing programs on regions of the Nation with the most

severe conservation problems and on particular farms with the most fragile lands—is receiving increased support, but will be politically

difficult. Farmers have become used to conservation cost-sharing programs in every county—

in every congressional district—and any major

redistribution of funds or personnel is sure to

be resisted. And experts do not all agree that

“targeting” is the most effective approach,

Much of the Nation’s most productive land suffers constant, but not necessarily alarming, erosion and loss of productivity which might be

neglected under the “targeting” approach. Further, comparing the long-term importance of

preventing a small amount of soil loss from

highly productive land to the importance of

saving more soil on less productive land is an

important, unresolved issue. This issue cannot

be resolved for national policymaking, however, until improved models of land productivity and agricultural policy are developed.

Further controversy centers on whether completely voluntary approaches to conservation

will ever involve enough farmers. One proposed alternative is to make inclusion in the

various commodity and credit programs contingent on participation in the conservation

programs. This approach is referred to as

“cross compliance. ”

Agricultural Conservation Program

ACP is the country’s largest cost-sharing program, Roughly $8 billion in Federal funds have

been distributed to farmers through the program, which is available in every county in the

Nation. In recent years the total annual program budget has been about $200 million divided among about 300,000 participating

farms.

The program is administered at the national

level by USDA’s ASCS, but most of the important administrative decisions are made by

farmer-elected county committees. The authority of the county committees includes identifying conservation problems, setting priorities,

selecting appropriate cost-share practices, setting levels of cost sharing, approving applications, entering into contractual obligations, and

making payments for completed conservation

work (USDA, 1981a).

In 1976-77, GAO found that less than half of

ACP funds actually had been used for soil conservation-oriented measures. Most of the

money had supported measures that, although

eligible for funding, were primarily productionoriented or that resulted in minimal soil conservation. The GAO report noted that most

county committees did assign priority to the

practices for which Federal cost-sharing funds

were to be spent, but these commonly were not

followed. In some cases, practices designated

by county committees as high-priority or

critically needed to control erosion received

only a small percentage of the available funds,

whereas other practices considered to be production-oriented or of a temporary nature were
Ch VI— Role of Government 1 6 9

approved by the committees and heavily

funded on the basis of popular demand (GAO,

1977).

ASCS conducted its own evaluation of ACP

in 1977 (USDA, 1981a). This study added a new

dimension to the criticism, for it indicated that

many of the practices specifically intended to

control erosion were placed on land without

severe erosion problems, Data collected nationally on nine erosion-control practices revealed that 52 percent of the erosion-control

practices installed under ACP have gone on

land where annual sheet and rill erosion was

below 5 tons per acre, Moreover, ACP-funded

practices had not effectively reached lands

where sheet and rill erosion were known to be

most severe, The ACP evaluation stated:

Effectively targeting erosion control funds

according to the potential for erosion reduction could more than triple the amount of soil

saved through the program. Achieving these

improvements hinges on the willingness of

farmers with severe erosion problems to participate in the program (USDA, 1981a).

USDA’s main cost-sharing program could be

substantially more effective in controlling erosion if funds were reallocated among States,

counties, and farms in proportion to their relative erosion problems. Achieving improvements this way depends not only on the willingness of the farmers with severe erosion

problems but also on their ability to pay their

share and to implement the practices, The necessary socioeconomic studies to identify the

opportunities and constraints for directing

cost-sharing programs have not been done,

however.

ACP cost sharing has also been criticized for

investing too much in the less efficient conservation practices and too little in the most efficient ones (table 25), Stricter guidelines for the

county committees to adhere to priorities and

select eligible practices could help eliminate

this problem,

Even before this evaluation was released,

steps had been taken to direct funds to critically 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 —

0-1 . . ...

1-19. , . . . . . . .

2-2.9 .., . . . . . .

3-3.9 . . . . . . . . . . .

4-4,9 .., . . . . .

5-5.9, ... . .

6-69. , . . .

7-79, . . . . .

8-8,9 .. ,

9-9.9 . . . . . .

10-10 .9 . . . . . . . . . .

11-11,9 ... ,

12-12.9 .,

13-13.9. , . . . .

14-14.9. ,

15-19,9 .., . . . . .

20-24 .9 . . . . . . . . . .

25-29 .9......, . . .

30-499 . . . . . . . . . .

50-74 .9....., . .

75-99 .9.., . . .

over 100 . . . . . . .

57.48

15.97

6.36

4.32

3.81

2.93

1.89

1.81

1,60

1.31

1,20

1.00

0.85

0.89

0.80

0.59

0.45

0.38

0.26

0.17

0.14

0.10

—Average cost per ton of erosion reduction in dollars—

69.80 7.57 9.48 28.98 65.52 63.47

9.01 7.10 6.91 18.52 61.39 4.98

4,91 6,28 3.43 11.24 31.53 2.35

3.04 2.15 3.14 12.18 29.13 1.76

2.76 0.92 4.13 9.91 18,43 1.50

2.05 1.61 3.60 3.04 15,30 0.90

1.72 1.14 2.68 2.98 15.19 0.98

1.38 0.52 2.57 4.67 9.49 0.53

1.21 0.88 2.66 1.52 7,69 0.53

1.07 1.07 2.08 3.79 7.21 0.61

1.03 1,43 1.68 2.16 6.77 0.39

0.84 — 1.95 0.49 5.77 0.39

0.66 0.30 1.43 0.57 5,95 0.83

0.64 1.07 1.12 0.99 3.99 0.61

0.57 — 1.21 0.54 3.90 0.21

0.54 0,69 0.99 0.61 3.94 0.32

0.45 0.06 0.87 0.44 3.07 0.29

0.36 — 0.76 0.63 2.38 —

0.24 0,02 0.44 0.29 1.81 0.08

0.14 — 0.15 0.14 2.21 0.13

0.13 — 0.03 0.08 2,19 0.04

0.06 0.01 — 0.07 1,36 —

11.20

3.16

1.58

3.64

0.83

0.78

0.51

0.61

0.46

0.13

0.33

0.33

0.66

1,06

0.30

0.19

0.32

0.03

0.31

—

—

0.01

68,39

5.77

—

0.29

4.38

4.37

2,96

0.38

0.44

0.89

8.4

0.59

0.21

0.49

0.42

0.27

0.21

0,26

0.23

0.46

0.15

0.16

45.40

14.23

5.05

4.19

4,70

3.10

3.46

2.33

2,40

2,16

2.16

1.57

1.54

0.94

1.12

0.84

0.54

0.48

0,39

0.24

0.22

0.21

SOURCE National Summary Evaluation of the Agricultural Conservation Program, Phase I USDA, ASCS, 1981 Data from a sample of Agricultural Conservation Program activities in 171 counties, 1975-78
170 Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

cost-effective erosion control measures would

be used, However, the decision to reallocate

ACP funds significantly resides with Congress.

Data from the 1977 National Resource Inventories (NRI) provide an accurate basis for directing funds at sheet and rill erosion on croplands and improved pastures. The 1982 NRI

is expected to improve substantially the data

bases on wind erosion and gully erosion on

croplands and pastures and to make some improvement in the data on rangeland erosion.

RCA appraisals of problems, opportunities,

and priorities at the State level could be used

to reallocate the program resources among

States. The State and county committees would

remain vitally important because the NRI and

RCA processes cannot be made precise to the

county level, and conservation problems are

always site specific.

Great Plains Conservation Program

An alternative to redistributing ACP funds

is to establish new programs for areas where

land productivity is being most severely degraded. The Great Plains Conservation Program (GPCP) is a model for this approach, This

cost-sharing program was created in 1956 and

has been extended through September 30, 1991,

It authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture,

through SCS, to make contracts with landowners and operators in the designated Great

Plains area. The contracts, effective for periods

of up to 10 years, provide cost-sharing assistance for conservation practices necessary to

conserve, develop, protect, and use the soil and

water resources,

The program is completely voluntary. However, each contract approval depends on the

producer’s plan of farming operations, including schedules for proposed changes and

implementation of conservation measures, The

plan must incorporate soil and water conservation practices for maximum mitigation of the

area’s climate hazards. It must also include

practices and measures for: 1) enhancing fish,

wildlife, and recreation resources; 2) promoting economic use of the land; and 3) reducing

or controlling agriculturally related pollution

(16 U.S.C. 590 p(b)(l)),

The Great Plains area was chosen because

of its susceptibility to serious wind erosion.

The program proposes to rehabilitate agriculture so that farms and ranches use more progressive soil and water conservation techniques. In 1961, amendments to the program

extended contract authorization to land not in

farming or ranching, but where severe erosion

hazards were a threat to cropland or grazing

land,

GAO has criticized GPCP for making unsatisfactory progress in alleviating soil erosion.

Reasons included: 1) the frequent funding of

projects that are locally popular rather than

those that have highest conservation priority,

2) insufficient effort to promote the program

in areas with highest conservation priority, and

3] inadequate extension work to encourage producers to maintain grass cover on the areas

most susceptible to erosion. Further, much of

the land that had been seeded into permanent

vegetative cover was being converted back into

cropland at the expiration of the contract period. GAO concluded that the program was

making slow progress in attaining its primary

objective—wind and water erosion control

(GAO, 1977).

In 1974, USDA evaluated GPCP using linear

programing models to examine the most costeffective practices and funding distribution for

optimal erosion control. The program was

found to be achieving 56 percent of the technologically possible level of erosion reduction

for the $11.5 million cost-sharing level then in

effect. According to that analysis, reallocation

of funds among States and optimal combinations of practices within each State could

significantly improve erosion reduction and

lower the associated Federal cost-share per ton

(Cook, 1980b).

For either the nationwide ACP or regional

programs modeled on GPCP, the importance

of evaluation and adjustment is clear. ACP and

GPCP would probably benefit by eliminating

or curtailing the cost-sharing eligibility of the

less cost-effective conservation practices—

though this might best be done at the State level

because of the site specificity of conservation
Ch. VI— Role of Government • 177

problems. Possible approaches to encourage

farmers with severe erosion problems to participate include giving them preference in

other ACP cost-sharing programs, raising the

limit on total Federal spending per participant

(currently $3,500 a year) for them but not for

others, and increasing the Federal share of

their costs, Another approach would be to discourage participation by those farmers who do

not have severe erosion problems, These approaches were suggested by the GAO evaluation of GPCP, but most remain untried.

CrOsS Compliance

Among the novel policy proposals presented

to Congress by Secretary of Agriculture

Charles F. Brannan in 1949 was the idea of requiring approved conservation practices as a

condition for farmer eligibility in Federal commodity programs (Rasmussen and Baker, 1979).

This was the first public proposal for cross

compliance, The idea, rejected in 1949 (along

with most of the “Brannan Plan”), subsequently has not received much consideration by Congress.

In the 1980 Resources Conservation Act review draft, USDA discussed cross compliance

as a possible conservation strategy. It noted

that land users could be required to meet a certain standard of conservation performance, or

to carry out certain conservation measures, in

order to qualify for USDA program benefits

(USDA, 1980a). The report suggested that

USDA could remove all program benefits from

land users who fail to comply, or it could offer

special additional benefits and subsidies to

those individuals who do comply. The range

of benefits offered for compliance might include subsidized interest loans, crop or flood

insurance adjustments, commodity payments,

and payments for income foregone or for maintenance of conservation practices.

The rationale for cross compliance is fairly

straightforward, The Federal Government,

through its commodity and credit programs,

assumes part of the individual farmer’s economic risks, At the same time resource problems (primarily soil erosion), which have

adverse social effects, occur on farms receiving the commodity and credit program benefits. So farmers who desire the society’s protective farm programs might, in return, be expected to protect the socially valued resources,

This rationale has some public support, A 1979

Harris public opinion poll, part of the RCA

process, indicated that 41 percent of respondents believed that cross compliance

would be fair to both farmers and taxpayers.

In the spring of 1980, however, USDA received nearly 110,000 comments on the RCA

draft’s discussion of cross compliance. Overall,

49 percent of the comments supported the

strategy and 51 percent were opposed. Environmental groups generally supported the idea,

as did farm organizations in the Northeast and

Midwest, whereas members of farm organizations in the South and West opposed it (USDA,

1980a),

One cross-compliance proposal would require participants to adhere to acceptable

regional and crop-specific management practices to qualify for commodity program benefits. Participating farms would have, as an addendum to their commodity program contracts, an approved plan specifying an adequate conservation strategy consisting of

management practices compatible with the

farm’s equipment and livestock feed needs.

Specific practices would be recommended or

required as the farm’s erosion potential warranted, but practices contributing to excessive

erosion would be explicitly prohibited (Benbrook, 1979; 1980). The incentives offered

could include slightly higher target prices or

loan rates, upward adjustment of disaster payments, relaxation of payment limitation, use of

higher yield levels in payment formulas, and

tax credits or deferrals.

Even a cross-compliance mechanism that

might be politically palatable to farmers and

to Congress could contain important practical

difficulties. First, some of the land needing conservation treatment is not enrolled in Federal

commodity programs. One USDA report indicates that only about 25 percent of the land

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 between USDA’s commodity and conservation

programs (USDA, 1980a). This is a rough

estimate because the conservation status of

commodity program participants is poorly documented. A large share of commodity program

benefits is paid to a fairly small number of

large, high-income farms. Generally, these

farms are thought to have the better quality

land, while smaller farms, having lower participation in Federal commodity programs, are

often situated on more erosive land. Consequently, cross compliance might be more suitable for depletion problems other than soil erosion, such as water conservation in the Great

Plains region.

Second, many farmers elect not to participate

in commodity programs in periods of high market prices because program benefits are then

negligible. Thus, they might discontinue conservation practices in those years. Yet these are

the years when production pressures are greatest on agricultural resources, Thus, for cross

compliance to be effective, conservation and

commodity programs would have to be instituted on a multiyear basis, instead of the annual basis traditionally used. Were such a policy in effect, some farmers would probably

drop out of the program, with the result that

other, traditional commodity program goals

would be compromised. For example, if the

conservation requirements caused larger farms

to withdraw, supply-control efforts would be

hampered; a relatively small number of these

larger farms make up a large proportion of

program-controlled acreage and production,

This is a familiar policy dilemma of any proposal that would affect large farms (USDA,

1981 b).

Smaller farms are more likely to be affected

adversely by cross-compliance schemes. These

farms tend to have lower quality land, and require more expensive conservation practices.

Because some practices such as terracing

would be costly to install, or would reduce the

farm’s cash crop acreage by requiring crop

rotation or stripcropping, owners of smaller

farms might be unable to participate. If small

farms did drop out, program benefits would be

skewed to an even greater degree toward larger

farms. Recognizing this dilemma, most proposals for cross compliance have stressed the

need to retain complementary cost sharing, or

loan or tax incentives for participating farmers.

A final, important drawback of cross compliance would arise if Government commodity programs were to become less active in the

future. This could happen as the export demand for major crops expands. In such a case,

target prices, set-asides, and diversion payments would be needed less often. However,

some cross-compliance leverage will remain

available in the future for certain commodities,

such as cotton or tobacco. Also, disasterpayment or crop-insurance programs underwritten by the Federal Government possibly

could tie conservation to credit and commodity

policy. As commodity programs become

oriented more toward achieving economic stability for farmers (v. achieving higher income

levels), there may remain a place for some

cross-compliance strategy.

Generally, the design of a cross-compliance

strategy would depend on how the productivity y-conserving practices imposed on the farmers or ranchers affect their profits. If the conservation practices do not jeopardize the economic viability of the farm, a penalty-oriented

implementation strategy may be appropriate,

Fines, cross compliance with USDA production subsidies, taxes, and penalties for excessive soil loss and water resource depletion

might be considered. But if the conservation

practice creates financial hardships, an incentive-oriented strategy would be more appropriate.
Ch. VI—Ro/e of Government . 173

STATEINITIATIVES 

Soil Conservation Districts

In 1935, following passage of the first major

soil conservation legislation, a USDA Committee on Soil Conservation recommended that all

erosion control work on private lands by the

newly formed SCS be undertaken only through

a legally constituted Soil Conservation Association. Thus began the concept of the Soil Conservation District, and in 1937 the President

sent a model act for creating Soil Conservation

Districts to each State Governor. By 1947, all

States had enacted some form of enabling legislation. Today, nearly 3,000 Soil Conservation

Districts exist, covering more than 99 percent

of the Nation (USDA, 1980c).

These local conservation districts are governed by local citizens and are independent of

Federal Government programs. However, SCS

provides technical assistance through agreements with the districts. The conservation district committees also work with the local committees that oversee programs of ASCS, and

with the staffs and advisory committees of the

Extension Service and of FmHA. In areas with

Federal lands, districts are encouraged to carry

out cooperative efforts with USFS and BLM.

The existing system of Soil Conservation Districts has been criticized. First, a majority of

the enabling statutes provide for district boundaries to conform to county lines rather than to

watershed boundaries, the approach favored

by SCS. This creates more districts than might

have been necessary. Perhaps more importantly, this creates conflicts between counties over

conservation efforts in the same watershed and

sometimes results in an inability to deal with

the needs of an entire watershed. Second, a

number of States did not authorize districts to

enact land-use regulations as provided for in

the Standard Act; others have never used those

provisions. Had local controls been more widely adopted to regulate farmers’ actions on many

of the lands suffering from severe erosion,

needs might be fewer today.

Notwithstanding these criticisms, the local

conservation districts approach has been valuable in bringing conservation efforts to the

land. Over the years, many local conservation

districts have expanded their roles and responsibilities to address a broader range of resource

problems, including preparing agricultural

plans for water quality, sediment control, coastal zone management, and rangeland improvement (USDA, 1980c). Soil Conservation Districts are an institutional base already in place

coordinating Federal and State policies and

programs at the local level. Through their State

and National associations, they are in a position to communicate to policy makers the

changing needs and priorities of local communities. As such, they are likely to become

increasingly useful.

State Soil Conservation Planning

208 Plans

With the passage of FWPCA, State and local

governments were called on to deveIop longrange water quality management plans (called “208 plans” in reference to the section of

the act dealing with these plans). Several States

completed the agricultural parts of the 208

plans through agreements with the conservation districts or State soil conservation agencies. Most plans had been certified and approved by EPA by the end of 1979.

In 1973, the Council of State Governments

published a Model State Act for Soil Erosion

and Sediment Control. It presented the basic

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 existing programs and to make them more effective. As of mid-1980, 20 States, the District of

Columbia, and the Virgin Islands had enacted

erosion and sediment control laws and many

included provisions set out in the model act.

All of the laws contain some provision for enforcement of conservation requirements, and

many include mechanisms to regulate compliance with established soil loss limits.

RCA=Funded Long-Range Plans

Since the 1930’s, local Soil Conservation Districts have been charged with preparing longrange programs for conservation of their areas’

resources. State-level long-range programing

was not used for many years, in part because

Federal assistance went directly to the districts.

In the late 1970’s, however, with grants from

USDA under the RCA process, State agencies

increased their involvement in resource planning. In 1979, the National Association of Conservation Districts developed a sample outline

for States to consider in formulating their longrange programs.

Two general types of planning are being used

to develop the State long-range programs. One

develops a statewide summary drawn from the

long-range programs of each conservation district. The second relies on citizen meetings

where statewide concerns are identified, priorities established, and actions planned. Both

planning processes use extensive citizen involvement, but the second process is less dependent on the existence of a long-range program in every conservation district. A few

States have completed their long-range planning; most others have it under way, A few

probably will not be developing plans. Some

States may have difficulty completing their

plans because their initial RCA grants may run

out before the planning is completed.

The planning processes vary, but the common goal is to develop statewide, long-range

conservation programs that will foster closer

working relationships among landowners, the

districts, their State soil conservation agencies,

SCS, other State and Federal agencies, and the

public.

Iowa and Oregon were the first States to

complete their long-range programs as part of

the RCA process; their plans were released in

1980. Iowa relied on citizen meetings to identify statewide concerns and to plan actions,

Oregon compiled its summary document from

each conservation district’s updated program

and public hearings. These two States, with

very different topography, climate, and land

use, exemplify the range of resource problems

at the State level.

IOWA’S FIVE-YEAR RESOURC~

CONSERVATION PLAN

Iowa’s 5-year plan contains specific actions

recommended by task forces organized in Iowa

as part of the RCA appraisal process. The plan

identifies Iowa’s major land productivity problems. The top three problems cited are soil erosion, water quality, and land use. In Iowa’s

plan, soil erosion receives extended review and

planning attention in areas including cost sharing, technical assistance, lengthening conservation construction periods through long-term

agreements of 3 to 10 years, increasing landowners’ awareness and acceptance of conservation practices, tax incentives, soil loss limits,

and urban soil erosion.

The plan contains specific recommendations

in each of its program areas. In 1979, to support the plan, the Iowa General Assembly enacted into law two of the plan’s recommended

State cost-sharing programs: the Iowa Till Program and the Wind Erosion Control Incentive

Program. Other recommendations include an

investment credit of up to 75 percent of the cost

of installing permanent erosion control practices and strengthening existing soil loss limits

legislation by expanding the complaint authority to include State and other government officials. Previously, only a farmer’s neighbors had

the authority to complain about his soil maintenance,

ORWON’S NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION

COMMITMENT, 1980-84

Oregon’s plan applies primarily to 28 million

acres under private ownership. It also takes

note of public land management and the need
Ch. Vi—Role of Government ● 175

for coordination between responsible State and

Federal land management agencies.

The plan identifies eight major concerns:

rangeland management, forest management,

soil erosion, drainage, irrigation water management, pasture and cropland management, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. It identifies practices to help revitalize deteriorated

rangeland, emphasizing management plans

that schedule proper stocking rates and periodic development input.

The Oregon plan contains fewer formal recommendations than does the Iowa plan, Oregon’s plan is a broad policy document that recognizes State resource problems and suggests

some preferred practices to overcome them,

The document calls for cooperative action

among individuals, organizations, and agencies to address problems and set priorities that

will result in effective and enduring conservation,

State=Funded Cost=Sharing Programs

In recent years, possibilities for State cost

sharing for practices that control erosion and

sedimentation have received increased attention. This reflects a growing awareness that

States receive long-term benefits from such

measures and that the immediate costs may be

more than an individual producer can reasonably be expected to bear.

As of July 1980, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota,

Wisconsin, Ohio, and Kansas all had costsharing programs. Funds come from both State

and local sources. The programs are administered in addition to and in cooperation with

USDA’s conservation programs.

In 1973, Iowa became the first State to begin

financing a cost-share program for conservation, To supplement this effort, Iowa launched

two experimental programs in 1979: The Till

Program and the Wind Erosion Control Incentives programs. The Till Program authorizes

Soil Conservation Districts to nominate tracts

of land where owners of at least 80 percent of

the land area agree to manage 50 percent o f

their row-cropped acres to maintain crop residue cover. For acreage with appropriate cover,

the States make one cost-share payment of $30

an acre, if that acreage is maintained under the

tillage practice for 5 years. Funds come from

the State general fund and are limited to 10 percent of the State cost-sharing funds allocated

annually ($5 million in 1979-80) (USDA, 1980c).

The Wind Erosion Control Incentive Program was enacted by the Iowa legislature in

1979. This program authorized one payment

of $1,000 an acre for field windbreaks (trees)

maintained for 10 years, one payment of $500

an acre for grass windbreaks maintained for

5 years, and one payment of $30 an acre for

“Iowa Till” as described under the Iowa Till

Program, Funds are derived from State road

use tax revenue.

Minnesota amended its Soil and Water Conservation Law in 1977 to include the State Cost

Share Program. Approximately $3 million in

cost-sharing funds comes annually from the

State general funds. The money is allocated to

districts by the State Soil and Water Conservation Board, based on approval of each district’s

comprehensive plan. The State board considers

its priority areas to be controlling soil erosion,

sedimentation, and related water quality problems. Practices cost-shared by districts must

be on the approved list, which in 1980 included

erosion control structures, stripcropping, terraces, diversions, storm-water control systems,

and critical area stabilization. Maximum costshare levels are set by the State board. Costshare levels on individual practices are set by

the districts, so long as they do not exceed the

maximum level. The maximum level for 1980

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

agricultural economics and the programs to

conserve resources seldom have had common

objectives, As noted by the National Association of Conservation Districts (USDA, 1980a):

Changing annual targets of commodity programs contrasted with the long-term objectives

of conservation plans confuse and distort land

management decisions. Some farmers have

found themselves penalized by USDA programs when they carried out the USDA-encouraged conservation plans.

In light of increasing demands on the Nation’s resource base, it becomes more urgent

to coordinate goals and strategies. Food and

fiber demands are growing because of: 1) rapidly increasing foreign demand, 2) the nascent

demand for biomass energy production, and

3) increased concern for national self-reliance

—i.e., producing crops that are imported now,

such as rubber. Prices and supply/demand fluctuations increasingly will be affected by international forces outside the control of the American producer.

Thus, the 1980’s appear to be a necessary

time for integrating agricultural programs.

State programs such as those recently developed by Iowa and Oregon have made substantial progress toward effective integration of

agricultural programs. It may also be a time

when integration at the Federal level is feasible; policies and programs will be undergoing

fundamental changes to adapt to major economic changes. Analysts generally expect the

principal goals for commodity and credit programs to change from production control and

income enhancement to production stimulation and income stability. If this is the case,

new strategies probably will put more programs on a multiyear basis, a change that

would help integrate them with conservation

programs. Production stimulation, however,

may conflict with conservation if it causes fragile lands to be brought into row crop or smallgrain production with conventional farming

technologies.

This assessment finds that there are technologies being developed that can enhance shortterm production and long-term productivity

concurrently. In some cases, the beneficial effect on the resource base has been serendipitous, such as fertilizers’ effect of increasing soil

cover and crop residues. In other cases the benefits have been planned as a goal of the technology development, as with the erosion control effect of minimum tillage. If resource sustainability is set as an explicit goal of both the

Government-funded technology development

programs and the commodity and credit programs, and if production enhancement is made

an explicit goal of the programs to develop and

implement conservation technologies, it should

become possible to increase total agricultural

production and inherent land productivity

simultaneously,

Benbrook, Charles, “An Examination of the Fledg- “Integrating Soil Conservation and Comling 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 Programs on Long-Term Land Productivity,” OTA

background paper, 1980(a).

“On the Horizon for RCA,” Jour. of Soiland

Water Cons. 35(1) January-February 1980(b).

Emerson, Peter M., “Public Policy and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture, ” Congressional Budget Office, 1978.

Geisler, Charles C., Cowan, J. Tadlock, Hattery,

Michael R,, and Jacobs, Harvey M., “Sustained

Land Productivity: Equity Consequences of

Technological Alternatives,” OTA background

paper, 1980.

Harkin, J. M., Simsiman, G. V., and Chesters, G.,

“Description and Evaluation of Pesticidal Effects on the Productivity of Croplands and

Rangelands of the United States, ” OTA background paper, 1980.

Harl, Neil, “Influencing the Structure of Agriculture Through Taxation, ” paper presented at

Iowa State University, Mar. 12, 1980,

Lee, Linda K., “Relationship Between Land Tenure

and Soil Conservation, ” OTA background

paper, 1981.

Oelhaf, Robert C,, Organic Agriculture (New York:

Allenheld, Osmun, 1978),

Pereleman, Michael, Farming for Profit in a Hungry World, (New York: Allenheld, Osmun,

1977).

Rasmussen, Wayne D., and Baker, Gladys L.,

“Price-Support and Adjustment Programs

from 1933 through 1978: A Short History, ”

1979, p. 32.

Schmiesing, Brian H., “Credit and Credit Institutions as Factors Affecting the Long-Term Productivity of U.S. Rangelands and Croplands, ”

OTA background paper, 1980.

Sheridan, David, Desertification of the United

States (Washington, D. C.: Council on Environmental Quality, 1981),

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Energy From Biozogica] processes, OTA-E-124

(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office, July 1980(a)),

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture,

Nutrition, and Forestry, Subcommittee on Environment, Soil Conservation, and Forestry,

White Paper entitled “The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act,” Congressional Record, p. S108018 et seq., Aug. 5, 1980(b).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, National

Summary Evaluation of the Agricultural Conservation Program, Phase 1, 1981(a).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, A Time to Choose,

Summary Report on the Structure of Agriculture, 1981(b).

“Resources Conservation Act: Appraisal

1980,” 1980(a).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

“An Assessment of the Forest and Rangeland

Situation in the United States, ” 1980(b].

RCA Draft Appraisal, Part I, 1980(c).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Alternative Policies for Controlling Nonpoint Agricultural Services of Water Pollution, ” No, 8, 1978.

U.S. General Accounting Office, “The Farm Credit

System: Some Opportunities for Improvement,” CED-80-12, 1980(a).

“Framework and Checklist for Evaluating

Soil and Water Conservation Programs, ”

PAD-80-15, Mar. 31, 1980(b), p, 134.

“TO Protect Tomorrow’s Food Supply, Soil

Conservation Needs Priority Attention, ”

CED-77-30, Feb. 14, 1977.

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

technology decisions through an extensive

body of law, policy, and precedent, This in turn

affects long-term inherent land productivity.

Congress has two main channels to affect the

development and use of agricultural technology: through legislation, including budget appropriations; and through committee oversight

of how existing laws and programs are administered. Generally, this assessment finds that

existing agricultural legislation provides a

sound basis for Government activities needed

to accelerate the development and use of productivity-sustaining technologies. Consequently, many of the congressional options listed are

related to oversight functions. There are also

opportunities to change legislation to make existing conservation programs more effective

and to cause other agriculture programs to support the objective of sustaining inherent land

productivity,

Opportunities for congressional action relate

to five policy issues:

1,

2,

3,

4,

integrating conservation policy with economic policy,

improving the effectiveness of Federal

conservation programs,

enhancing Federal research on technologies that help sustain land productivity,

reducing pressure on fragile lands, and

5. encouraging State initiatives,

ISSUE Issue 1 INTEGRATING CONSERVATION

POLICY AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Various factors influence farmers’ and

ranchers’ choices of technologies and their

land management decisions, but economics is

the overriding influence. Recognizing this decades ago, Congress established several costsharing and other programs to make conservation practices more economically attractive for

land managers. Payments to farmers from

these programs undoubtedly have had a significant impact on agricultural economics and

thus on technology decisions. From 1969 to

1979, total Federal payments to farmers and

ranchers were about $25.6 billion, Only $3,6

“While the draft of this report was being reviewed by U.S. Department of Agriculture cp[USDA) agencies and by many other

experts during September, October, and early November of 1981,

USDA released the 1981 Program Report and Environmental

Impact Statement (revised draft). That report, which is part of

the process required by the Resources Conservation Act (RCA),

contains a chapter titled “Preferred Program” that offered some

recommendations quite similar to certain options identified in

this OTA assessment. The “Preferred Program” chapter of the

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

with an asterisk.

billion of this was cost sharing for conservation practices. The other $22 billion supported

programs intended to affect agricultural economics for other purposes. Still other Federal

programs do not make direct payments to

farmers but change the economics of farming

in other ways—e. g., by increasing foreign demand for U.S. crops.

Thus, the Federal Government has tremendous influence on agricultural practices. But

only a relatively small part of this influence is

used to achieve the goal of sustaining land productivity. This is not to say that the programs

designed to affect production levels, stabilize

prices, improve farm incomes, or accomplish

other short-term economic goals all cause longterm deterioration of inherent land productivity. On the contrary, some of the programs to

limit production have been credited with conserving soil and water resources and with enhancing wildlife habitat. However, others, such

as the disaster relief programs, have been accused 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”

and “accused of. ” In fact, little is known about

how long-term productivity is affected by the

important short-term economic influence

wielded by Congress through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) programs.

Existing agricultural economic programs,

proposed new programs, and program modifications are not regularly or systematically analyzed to forecast their long-term effects on land

quality. Neither the administrative mechanism

nor the analytical methods exist for such evaluation. Conservation cost-sharing programs only

now are beginning to be evaluated to determine

their effectiveness in achieving intended conservation goals, and these evaluations are leading to more enlightened public and congressional debate over how to modify the programs.

The other, much larger, agricultural economics

programs do not have conservation as a goal

and so their evaluations seldom include an

assessment of their long-term effects on the

land resource.

OPTION 1

Congress could direct USDA to routinely

and rigorously evaluate the long-term impacts of not only conservation programs but

also all other programs that have a major effect on agricultural economics.

The information generated from such evaluations would foster more enlightened policy

debates. It could greatly improve policy decisionmaking, even without regulations requiring that programs not cause long-term harm

to agricultural productivity. There is a danger

that mandating a routine evaluation would lead

to a slow, expensive, and complex process, in

which case the information might be too costly or might not be available soon enough to be

useful for policy decisionmaking. Developing

improved mathematical policy models, however, could enable USDA analysts to avoid that

problem.

OPTION 2

Congress could direct USDA to develop

analytical models suitable for evaluating

how proposed program policy decisions

would affect the inherent productivity of

agriculture’s natural resource base.

To some extent, this is being done as a part

of the 1977 Resources Conservation Act (RCA)

process, which mandated continuing evaluation of each of USDA’s 34 soil and water conservation programs. Evaluations already completed have revealed opportunities to improve

program effectiveness and presumably more

conservation programs will be evaluated for

the 1985 RCA report. Several major mathematical modeling efforts are being undertaken

under the auspices of the RCA program. I-lowever, only one of these is a modeling program

designed specifically to analyze policy impacts

and Congress has not directed the RCA to evaluate the larger and more powerful USDA economic programs that are not considered conservation programs.

A new effort to develop simulation models

to evaluate existing programs, program modifications, and alternatives could be undertaken

without necessitating a major new allocation

of funds to USDA. However, such an effort

would have costs—personnel would have to be

taken from other program efforts. The actual

model development might be done by contractors, but USDA analysts would need to be assigned to run such a project. If new funding

were not available, the idea would be resisted

by offices whose funds might be diverted to it.

One appropriate source of funds and personnel could be the commodity, loan, and insurance programs that comprise most of the Federal effort to influence agricultural economics.

A disadvantage to developing and using

mathematical models is that too much credence may be given to the accuracy or precision of the analytical results. In fact, predictions made with complex policy models are not

necessarily more precise than predictions from

the “mental” models of experienced policy experts. The advantage of the mathematical models is that when experts disagree, they can use

models to diagnose the causes of their disagreement and to communicate these objectively to

Members of Congress and other policy makers.
Ch. V1l—issues and Options for Congress ● 183

OPTION 3

Congress could initiate a policy to require

all new agricultural programs to include:

I) explictly stated, attainable objectives, one

of which would be to sustain the inherent

productivity of agriculture’s natural resources; 2) management plans for achieving

the objectives; 3) monitoring mechanisms to

measure how well the program activities are

achieving the objectives; and 4) a mechanism

through which the monitoring of results

could be used to make changes.

Explicitly stating that conserving the productivity of renewable resources is a major policy

objective would force recognition that conservation and production are not conflicting goals.

Designing programs to include monitoring

mechanisms would keep agricultural programs

flexible so that cost effectiveness could be improved continually and full use could be made

of technology or management innovations.

This approach to integrating conservation

and agriculture programs is more demanding

than the program evaluations suggested by the

first option. There may be some programs that

Congress deems necessary but that come into

conflict with conservation of inherent productivity. The debates regarding whether the social

or economic objectives of such programs are

worth the cost in long-term productivity could

be enlightening, but might be expensive. This

option, too, could lead to an expensive analysis

process, but that could be avoided if appropriate mathematical policy models were developed.

Any action requiring explicit program goals

and monitoring is likely to cause some agency objections and political repercussions. Disadvantages include: 1) political advantages that

may be gained from using programs for implicit goals, such as distribution of funds to a large

or special constituency, could be lost; 2) data

from monitoring programs could be used to

end programs before they have had a realistic

opportunity to achieve their goals (this is especially likely with conservation programs,

which are usually long-term solutions to longterm problems); 3) politicians and upper management could lose some control over program

operations (with technicians gaining some control) if programs were made flexible enough to

allow constant improvements in cost effectiveness.

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 proporsevere 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 conare 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 pretories of conservation needs in 1957 and 1967 cise information on how erosion relates to agrito 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 producmained an important factor in distributing pro- tivity loss rates. one will provide quick prelimgram 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

will more precisely describe these relationships

with simulation models that reflect the complexity of modern farming. As these analyses

develop, it should be possible to rank regions

and specific sites by the severity of their

erosion-caused productivity losses. Meanwhile,

the available data on erosion rates can substitute for more exact information on productivity

loss.

The information now becoming available has

set the stage to redirect Federal conservation

efforts (technical and financial assistance) to

achieve improved erosion reduction—the socalled “targeting” approach, which formed the

cornerstone of the conservation program proposed by the Secretary of Agriculture in October 1981. The emergence of water pollution

control as a major national policy objective also

shows a need to reorient Federal erosion control programs to achieve the greatest possible

reductions in erosion rates rather than the widest geographic diffusion of program efforts.

The political motivation to distribute programs

widely still remains, however.

OPTION 1

Congress could direct the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)

and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to

concentrate increased financial and technical assistance on agricultural land with severe erosion problems.

Such a concentration of effort could enhance

the effectiveness of these programs. For example, ASCS has estimated that the Agricultural

Conservation Program (ACP) could triple the

amount of soil kept in place through its expenditures (mainly cost sharing) by directing erosion control funds to highly efficient techniques and to land with high potential for erosion reduction, SCS estimates that if 25 percent

of USDA’s technical and financial aid were redirected to “national priority areas,” it would

reduce gross national erosion by 300 million

tons (6 percent) annually. Many soil conservation policy experts anticipate a continued decline in the buying power of the Federal conservation budget. If this occurs, improving the

cost effectiveness of these funds by directing

the program efforts to the worst sites would

seem imperative. However, if appropriations

remain level (implying a decline in real funds),

as they have over the past decade, any concentration of technical and financial assistance on

critical areas will reduce or eliminate assistance elsewhere. The “targeting” option has

another problem: all conservation programs

are voluntary and there is no guarantee that

farmers of highly erosive lands will use the

financial or technical assistance made available. Some data suggest that much of the erosive and otherwise fragile lands are concentrated in the hands of farmers with less capacity to manage the complex productivity-sustaining farming technologies and/or less available

capital to finance their share of the conservation practices.

If cost sharing were directed to land simply

according to erosion rates, it might miss lands

with other significant productivity problems.

There are areas that have shallow soils, poor

subsoils, and other problems, and that thus incur high rates of productivity degradation in

spite of relatively low erosion rates. Nor are

the areas with high erosion rates the only threat

to water quality. Sedimentation and nutrient

and pesticide runoff, for example, can be

severe in areas where erosion rates are low to

moderate. The relationship between erosion

and these environmental problems varies greatly among watersheds, The new research programs to determine relationships between erosion and yield reduction will resolve some of

these uncertainties in redirecting the program

efforts, but will leave the water quality issues

largely unanswered.

This program redistribution option may not

achieve greater cost effectiveness if the limit

on the amount of assistance allowed per farmer

per year (currently $3,500 for ACP cost sharing) is not raised. This is because many erosion control practices (such as terraces) necessary for highly erosive sites are expensive to

implement. Another problem is that the cost

of relocating field personnel presumably would

come from the agencies’ existing budgets,

thereby reducing the funds available for other
Ch. VIl—issues and Options for Congress ● 185

functions. Finally, any major redistribution of

Federal funds among States to reduce erosion

might weaken other State and Federal efforts

to conserve agricultural productivity.

OPTION 2

Congress could appropriate additional

funds, or redirect existing funds, to expand

in-service training programs for SCS and Extension Service field personnel to improve

their expertise with innovative productivitysustaining technologies.

New agricultural production technologies

and new conservation practices are being developed that can conserve inherent land productivity effectively and simultaneously maintain or enhance farm or ranch profits, Often

these technologies are not reaching farmers as

quickly as they might because Extension agents

and SCS field personnel lack experience in the

new methods. Some of the Federal personnel,

while having considerable engineering expertise, are not adequately prepared to advise

farmers in new management approaches that

might solve the same problems at lower cost.

For example, in the last 5 to 10 years private

industry and State-level research scientists

have made substantial advances in designing

no-till farming equipment, yet many Federal

personnel still resist the technology because of

early development problems that have since

been solved.

Improved promotion and consequent wider

adoption of technologies that are already “on

the shelf could greatly enhance the cost effectiveness of the overall Federal conservation effort. And if training efforts were coordinated

to include both SCS and Extension personnel,

farmers would be less likely to receive conflicting advice about solving their production problems while sustaining land productivity.

The disadvantage to this option is that in the

absence of new funds for conservation technology training, money would have to come from

existing programs. Also, if such training results

in greater emphasis on conservation tillage, improved water distribution or timing, and similar management techniques, certain economic

dislocations could result. (For example, local

land improvement contractors who have done

past work recommended by SCS and cost

shared by ASCS or other agencies probably

would have less business. )

OPTION 3

Congress could direct the Farmers’ Home

Administration (FmHA) to provide increased

loan support for conservation practices, and

to give preference among conservation loans

to applicants who need capital for the initial

costs of implementing new, more cost-effective management technologies for resource

conservation. Congress also could direct

FmHA to make conservation plans a criterion for ownership and operating loans.

Historically, FmHA agricultural loan programs primarily have assisted farmers and

ranchers who have had difficulty obtaining

credit from commercial lenders. Maintaining

the farms’ renewable resources has been one

of several explicit goals for six of the agency’s

loan programs: the Operating Loan, Farm

Ownership Loan, Soil and Water Loan, Resource Conservation and Development Loan,

Emergency Loan, and Economic Emergency

Loan programs. No rigorous evaluation of how

well these programs are achieving conservation goals is available, but data on program expenditures suggest that only a small part of

these programs’ funds actually are used for

conservation.

Increased emphasis on supplying startup

costs for innovative crop or range management

techniques (as contrasted with building engineering structures) could increase the cost effectiveness of the conservation loan programs

and might substantially increase the pool of

conservation loan applicants.

If conservation plans are required, they need

not interfere with the agricultural production

and income stability objectives of the loan programs because technologies are available that

can conserve resources while maintaining

farm profits in most situations. However, a

loan program that requires conservation plans

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

such as USDA’s report on organic farming,

have found a surprising lack of data on what

would seem to be fundamental issues for developing agricultural production technologies that

can sustain the quality of the natural resource

base while simultaneously producing commodities for the Nation and profits for farmers and

ranchers. For example, little is known about

soil formation rates under modern farming systems. Little is known about what impacts agricultural chemicals have on soil microbe

ecology or on species-specific microbe functions. Little is known about the dynamics of

erosion or hydrology on rangelands under various management systems.

Some of the gaps in the data base are the

result of agricultural research priorities developed during the era of relatively inexpensive

energy and fertilizers. Options for improving

the overall planning and coordination of agricultural research are presented in some detail

in the OTA report An Assessment of the U.S.

Food and Agricultural Research System. The

options given here relate more narrowly to the

issues of research for inherent land productivity.

OPTION 1

In exercising its oversight responsibilities

for agricultural research, Congress could encourage and closely monitor the modeling

program proposed by the USDA National

Soil Erosion-Soil Productivity Research

Planning Committee in 1980, assuring that

the program receives adequate funds and sufficient expert personnel. Further, once the research models can adequately describe the

relationship between erosion and yield, ConI Office of Technology Assessment, An Assessment of the U.S.

Food and Agricultural Research System, OTA-F-155 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1981).

gress could encourage USDA to: 1) broaden

the models to include processes of productivity change other than erosion, and utilities

of agricultural land other than crop yield

(such as forage and water quality); and

2) simplify them for integration with policy

models directly useful to Congress.

The soil erosion-soil productivity modeling

program now under way should greatly advance scientific understanding of the relationships between erosion and inherent land productivity. USDA has initiated the program with

enthusiasm and, apparently, an adequate commitment of funds and personnel. However, like

any agricultural research program, the results

will not be immediate and the agency commitment could wane as other priority needs for

scarce funds and personnel are identified. By

exercising vigilant oversight and by avoiding

imposition of new responsibilities on the same

agencies without concomitant additions to

funds and personnel, Congress can ensure that

the scientists will not be distracted from this

important program.

The modeling program is analyzing the most

important process of productivity degradation

—soil erosion—first. It is defining the bounds

of its study by considering crop yield the main

dependent variable. This should produce a useful model within a reasonable budget and time

frame. If the model is ready to be used for the

1985 Resources Conservation Act report, that

report’s usefulness to Congress will be greatly

enhanced. Yet important gaps in the understanding of inherent land productivity will remain.

Precision in understanding erosion is important, even essential, for adequate policy decisions regarding how Federal conservation program resources are distributed both geographically and among particular technologies. However, other processes such as aquifer depletion,
Ch. V1l—issues and Options for Congress . 187

salinization, compaction, and changing rangeland ecology also are influencing the inherent

productivity of U.S. croplands and rangelands.

For all these processes, little is known about

technological causes, national extent, or relationships to long-term agricultural production.

Policies on how to distribute funds among programs that work with these productivitychange processes are based mainly on intuition and on political pressures, rather than on

science. The intuition of scientists and experienced analysts is a good basis for interim policy

decisions, but it should not be accepted as a

long-term substitute for scientific knowledge.

Many aspects of productivity-change processes, such as the hydrological effects of range

deterioration, have yet to be measured adequately. However, the most immediate need is

to use the data that already exist for comprehensive analyses to indicate which data gaps

are most significant for policy decisions and

for technology development. Subsequent research could then be concentrated on those

questions. Simulation modeling, the approach

being used in the soil erosion-soil productivity study, is ideally suited for this kind of

analysis. That program should expand its scope

beyond erosion and yield to other processes affecting inherent land productivity as soon as

it has described erosion-yield relationships

with sufficient precision.

OPTION 2

Congress could direct the Agricultural Research Service to expedite research and development for potentially profitable cropping

systems that reduce the need for tillage on

highly erosive soils or that reduce the need

for high irrigation rates in areas where

ground water resources are being severely

depleted.

The most promising innovative technology

for reducing tillage, and thus reducing erosion,

on highly erosive land is “no-till,” which substitutes herbicides and other agricultural chemicals for weed, insect, and disease control. This

technology has been developed by private sector and State-level scientists and tested by risktaking farmers, with little Federal involvement.

The private sector paid to develop the no-till

techniques largely because of the potential for

profits from sales of patented inputs (e.g., herbicides). However, neither no-till nor any other

single technological approach is suitable for

every fragile agricultural environment. Private

funding cannot be relied on to develop the wide

array of innovative cropping systems needed

to sustain the inherent productivity of dry, erosive, or otherwise fragile agricultural lands.

Some of the technologies needed will take too

long to develop; others will not include any

potential profits from exclusive sales of inputs

to repay the development costs.

Developing new crops—or improving old

crops—produced from perennial plants (trees,

shrubs, and herbaceous perennials) is an example of technology development that might reduce the need for tillage or irrigation. Developing new, more profitable uses for crops that

provide perennial cover is another example.

(As one scientist advising this assessment suggested: “we need a research program to do for

alfalfa what George Washington Carver did for

peanuts.”)

Congressional instructions to USDA’s Cooperative Research Service (CRS) for implementing the Competitive Research Grants Program

in 1977 included “research to develop and

demonstrate new, promising crops” as one of

four priority areas, Congress could provide additional recommendations to CRS to support

research on crops that help sustain inherent

land productivity.

Congressional oversight authority could also

be used to promote such a research network.

OTA’s recent assessment on the U.S. food and

agricultural research system found that the

Federal research network for agriculture lacks

explicit goals. Congress might choose to make

sustaining the renewable resource base an element of such goals.

OPTION 3

Congress could direct USDA to develop a

program for screening innovative technologies that might sustain land productivity,

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

those that seem promising into the mainstream of technology development.

Agricultural scientists necessarily concentrate their efforts on rather specialized subjects

for long periods in order to contribute significantly to agricultural technology development.

The institutions that employ such scientists suffer from chronic funding shortages and can

hardly afford to risk funds or personnel on fundamentally new approaches to agricultural production, This partly explains the seemingly

conservative, methodical pace of agricultural

technology development. “Breakthroughs,”

fundamentally new shifts of vision or technique, do occur, however. No-till farming is

one of many examples. But given the projected

demand for U.S. agricultural products and the

degree of erosion, ground water depletion, and

other negative effects that seem inevitable consequences of available production technologies, there is a great need to accelerate technological development. A program to provide

objective, deliberate screening of innovative

agricultural technologies and ideas developed

both by scientists and nonscientists might serve

this purpose. Various peer-review processes for

research proposals and journal articles now

screen ideas, but without an explicit commitment to locate and test fundamentally different

approaches.

This option is not dissimilar to the charge

given USDA’s Competitive Research Grants

program, except that sustaining inherent productivity was not an explicit criterion for that

program. The program met a great deal of resistance because it was not funded with new

appropriations, but rather used funds diverted

from established programs. Any new program

or program change designed to include screening and preliminary testing of innovative technologies for sustaining inherent productivity

probably would meet similar resistance and

might ultimately fail without new appropriations.

A related problem with this option is that if

Congress gives the function to USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, it could distract the

agency from other important tasks such as improving data analysis. The Agricultural Research Service and the network of associated

federally sponsored research agencies cannot

perform an expanding agenda of responsibilities without expanding funds and expert personnel. However, if Congress should expand

the Federal agricultural research establishment, it should not be assumed that the new

funding and resources would automatically be

used to promote productivity-sustaining technologies. The need for congressional vigilance

and oversight in this regard will remain.

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 small1960’s, Federal land diversion and set-aside grain production with conventional agriculturpolicies, 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

Secretary of Agriculture to be adequate for

domestic and export needs.

Cost-sharing programs focused on the most

erosive lands might enable some farmers to

protect that land from high erosion rates, but

for much of the most erosive cropland, such

protection is extremely expensive, no matter

who pays for it. For such sites, paying the

farmer the difference between the per-acre

profit from the crops that cause erosion and

the profit from alternative soil-conserving land

uses, such as hay or pasture, may be a less expensive and more effective way of protecting

long-term land productivity. Such a diversion

could also serve to buffer farm prices in periods

of surplus commodity production, reducing the

need for periodic set-asides. The diversion

could be canceled when low supplies are expected, thus avoiding pushing row crop and

small-grain prices up to levels that are either

too high for U.S. consumers or too high for the

diversion program to afford.

A principal disadvantage to a diversion program with conservation as its primary objective is that it creates a need for additional appropriations. The program might reduce the

need for expenditures in the Federal cost-sharing and technical assistance programs for conservation, but diverting funds from those programs probably would cause a long-term and

substantial reduction in the Federal capability

to provide technical service. Thus, services

would be reduced for conscientious farmers

who are willing to pay part of the costs for implementing conservation practices. Also, reducing the Federal capacity to provide technical conservation services would be a significant risk, since the diversion program might

not attract enough farmers or commodity

prices might dictate that the diversion not be

in effect during many years.

There are other problems with this option.

Availability of funds for farmers who retire

fragile land from row crop and small-grain production could be an incentive for farmers to

plant land now in pasture or hay to such crops

in order to make such land eligible for the paid

diversion program, This could increase program costs and, in years when the diversion

payments were canceled, degrade land productivity where it would otherwise have been protected. That problem perhaps could be avoided

by the use of some baseline year for eligibility, but that could leave fragile lands now called

“potential cropland” out of the program. Finally, from the farmer’s view, such a program

could make it difficult to maintain equipment

and flexibility enough to produce both row or

small-grain crops and land-conserving crops

on the same land.

OPTION 2

Congress could direct USDA to develop an

incentive program to promote the intensive

use of those lands able to sustain row crop

and small-grain farming or livestock grazing

that are not now used for those purposes.

The 1977 NRI indicated that some 36 million

acres of land in the United States (excluding

Alaska) had “high potential” for development

as cropland. This included some land with relatively high erosion potential, but which is suitable for sustained, intensive crop production

as long as conservation practices are appIied,

How much of this land may have been converted to cropland since 1977 is not known, but

the 1982 NRI should give updated information

on the potential cropland remaining. SCS has

identified another 18 million acres of potential

cropland in Alaska that is suitable for sustained

production with appropriate conservation

practices. Similarly, underused grazing land

resources have been identified in Alaska and

in the Nation’s Eastern forests.

Production from these land resources, as

they are developed, should help to meet the

growing demand for agricultural commodities

and, thus, help reduce pressure to grow row

crops and small grains on those erosive or

otherwise fragile lands where production costs

are high or yields are low.

Most of the potential cropland and grazing

land, including that identified as “high potential” in the 1977 NRI and the land in Alaska,

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 activpersonnel and technical services. It may also ities.

ISSUE 5: ENCOURAGlNG STATE INITIATIVES

Soil conservation became a major public policy issue in the 1930’s. When it became apparent that States were not able to cope with the

problems of land productivity degradation, the

Federal Government began providing most of

the public investment in agricultural resource

conservation, But the Federal investment has

been shrinking over the past decade by 6 percent per year for financial assistance and 0.1

percent per year for technical assistance—in

spite of increasing pressures on the resources

as additional fragile lands are brought into

production.

This also has been a decade of increasing

State activity in land resource conservation. No

data exist that measure how well State efforts

have offset declines in Federal investment or

how well State programs are meeting the increased conservation needs necessitated by increased cropland in production, To date, most

State initiatives have been planning efforts and

not all States are involved. Since much of the

State activity seems to have been stimulated by

specific congressional actions, there is good

potential for further congressional action to

promote State activity.

Over the past decade, Federal legislative requirements have prompted some major longrange planning efforts by States. For example,

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of

1972 requires State and local governments to

develop long-range water quality management

plans. The Resources Conservation Act provided grants for States to plan long-range

resource conservation programs. Some States

have completed these planning programs and

have begun to implement them–the Iowa Till

Program and the Wind Erosion Control Incentive Program are among the first fruits of this

process. Unfortunately, the RCA grant funds

are expected to run out before the program

planning process has been completed in several States.

In addition to long-range, comprehensive

planning, there have been State legislative initiatives. As of mid-1980, 20 States had enacted

erosion and sediment control laws, prompted

in part by a Model State Act for Soil Erosion

and Sediment Control published by the Council of State Governments in 1973. A few States

have recently begun programs in cost sharing,

technical assistance, conservation education,

tax incentives, and various regulation approaches to promote conservation technologies. In October 1981, the Secretary of Agriculture proposed shifting some Federal conservation funds to States via grants for technical

and financial assistance or for other purposes

related to federally approved State conservation programs.

OPTION 1

Congress could encourage State initiatives

to enhance inherent land productivity by:

1) directing USDA to establish a special program to assist States in formulating longterm conservation plans and legislation;

2) providing small incentive grants to States

that request assistance for formulating such

plans and legislation; and 3) appropriating

additional funds, or redirecting existing

funds, to provide substantial matching

grants to States either for designated or

unrestricted use in agricultural resource conservation programs.

A coordinating program in USDA to gather

and disseminate information from States

where long-term plans and special conservation legislation have been successfully developed could save officials in other States from

having to “reinvent the wheel,” and allow them

to focus on the unique needs of their particular
Ch VII—/ssues and Options for Congress . 191

State. This should be a relatively inexpensive

and cost-effective option. Extending the RCA

grant program for States’ conservation program planning would necessitate additional appropriations, but could accelerate the transfer

of agricultural resource conservation responsibility to the States. This program has been effective for initiating promising resource conservation programs in those States that have

taken full advantage of it.

Matching grants to the States to implement

conservation programs would be an expensive

option for the Federal Government, Such

grants could encourage State legislatures to

provide technical and financial assistance for

farmers and for strengthening the institutions

necessary to support large-scale conservation

assistance programs. States could also benefit

from unrestricted grants to initiate innovative

planning, pilot projects, and other activities

that neither the States nor the Federal Government currently support.

Each of these approaches to stimulate State

conservation activity has disadvantages. If any

detailed criteria or strict Federal review process is part of Federal grants for conservation

planning or programs, it may be viewed as a

subtle step toward Federal land-use planning.

Another problem is that financially strapped

or urban-dominated States may not be able to

appropriate their share of funds for matching

grant programs year after year. This could result in the Federal funds going disproportionately to the States that need them least.

Transferring increased responsibility to State

governments could be used as a rationale for

continued reduction in Federal funding for

programs, especially if funding is transferred

directly from the Federal programs to matching grant or other types of Federal grants to

the States. Any severe cuts in the Federal programs are likely to undermine efforts to improve Federal effectiveness by concentrating

efforts in the areas with the greatest conservation needs. The processes stimulated by the

Resources Conservation Act and other recent

legislation are helping develop systems to

monitor the effectiveness of Federal conservation programs, States may not develop such

monitoring systems, and State programs may

be even more susceptible than national programs have been to political pressures for distributing services to the maximum constituency or to special farmer groups other than those

who have land with the greatest potential for

conservation program effectiveness. Finally,

many of the State programs that are being implemented are designed to complement preexisting Federal programs, If sufficient money

cannot be appropriated by Congress to maintain the Federal programs while supplying

grants to the States, the grants may simply be

used to replace diminished Federal services.

This would imply no new conservation benefits

but adds another layer of administrative costs.

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
The Innovators: The Stories

Appendix A

of Five

Agriculturalists and Their

Commitments to Land

Stewardship

Howard Hanford, Nicholas Cihylik, and Roger

Gallup are farmers. Lazaro Urquiaga and Bob Skinner raise cattle. Ernie Brickner farms trees on

eroded croplands. Each works the land, and cares

for it, in his own way. These men are both similar

to and very different from the breed that used cow,

corn, and sweat to transform this land from wilderness to international power.

Skill is still the key, but hard labor is no longer

enough. More than any other generation of agriculturists, these men have at their disposal a vast

arsenal of technological help. How they use some

of these tools to the benefit of their land’s long-term

productivity is the basis for five case studies (fig.

A-1) conducted on farms and ranches in:

● Treichlers, Pat—no-till farming with Nick

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

Lazaro Urquiaga and Bob Skinner.

Edelstein, III.—conservation farming with

Roger Gallup.

Whitehall, Wis.—farm rehabilitation with Ernie

Brickner.

Fort Benton, Mont.—saline seep prevention

with Howard Hanford.

Five examples could never accurately represent

the staggering diversity present in American agriculture. Nor should the conclusions drawn from

these studies be thought generally applicable to

farmers and ranchers throughout the Nation. But

these five illustrations offer insight into the use of

land-sustaining technologies in agriculture. They

provide a firsthand view of the many economic,

cultural, environmental, and ethical considerations

that affect a farmer’s commitment to land stewardship.

The farmers profiled may not be “typical.” Instead, each was chosen because he had a reputation for innovativeness and serious concern for the

long-term productivity of his land. Each of the men

runs a very different operation. They farm on different scales and show different landownership patterns—some rent, some own. They raise a variety

of products—from cattle, corn, soybeans, wheat,

barley, and safflower to timber—and cultivate less

marketable potentials such as recreation, education, and esthetic qualities.

Yet despite the differences, these farmers and

ranchers express a number of common concerns—

desires for more current and better information to

help them manage their operations; worries about

money, indebtedness, and fair pricing; and concern

about the future—both about their ability to maintain the quality of their land and their frustrations

with governmental constraints on passing the land

on to their children.

The purpose of these case studies is twofold.

First, the studies illustrate a range of beneficial,

often innovative, land-sustaining technologies and

their appropriateness for certain situations. Second, the studies explore how farmers and ranchers

make decisions about implementing land-sustaining technologies—what public and private advisors

they use and what role economics and attitudes

play in determining the technologies that will be

used on the land. Because technology is increasingly the essential link between man and land, decisions regarding its use are fundamentally important to the short-term productive capacity of agriculture and the long-term productivity of the land

itself.
App. A— The Innovators ● 197

NO-TILL FARMING-TRE9CHLERS, PA.

To the thin, life-sustaining layer called soil, water

is both midwife and assassin. As midwife, rain

coaxes green growth from seemingly barren ground

and nurtures it. As assassin, rain can attack the soil,

sweeping it away and degrading the land.

Erosion is an ever-present, natural process, yet

when aggravated or accelerated by human activities, it can cause serious problems: hillsides

stripped to bedrock, lost soil nutrients, degraded

water quality, and reduced crop outputs. For farmers, the threat is real; erosion can steal a farm’s

wealth and bankrupt it.

Tillage—plowing, disking, and harrowing—are

generally thought to be synonymous with farming,

But these operations hasten erosion by leaving unprotected soil exposed to water and weather.

“Plow-disk-harrow. It’s tradition and it’s hard to

break with tradition. ” explains Nick Cihylik, 40, a

corn farmer. “But tradition isn’t always best. Some

of my land is 17 percent slope; all of it is rolling.

With the erosion I was getting I decided there had

to be a better way. ”

The better way he chose was “no-till,” a reduced

tillage system that eliminates all tillage passes and

leaves a protective cover of crop residues on the

land. Instead of turning the soil with moldboard or

chisel plow, a no-till farmer’s implements merely

cut a narrow slit in last year’s stubble and drop in

seeds. Advocates purport that no-till not only reduces erosion but reduces energy use and labor requirements (thereby allowing a farmer to work

more acreage), increases water efficiency, extends

drought tolerance, reduces machinery investments,

Photo credit” OTA staff

Nick Cihylik working in a no-till field on his

Pennsylvania corn farm

and gives a farmer more flexibility in timing his

planting and harvest operations.

No-till, however, is no panacea; potential disadvantages exist in that no-till can increase weed,

pest, and disease problems, increase dependence

on agricultural chemicals, reduce crop yields, and

lower soil temperatures, thus delaying planting.

That means a producer must think carefully before

switching to no-till. Soil type, climate, terrain, type

of farming operation, even the farmer’s management skill, must be considered before a farmer converts to no-till.

“I started no-till 10 years ago, before anyone really knew much about how it would work, ” Nick

remembers. “1 was like a bumblebee that’s too

heavy to fly on the size of his wings but does

anyway—I didn’t know enough about the difficulty of no-till farming to be wary. ”

Nick, who farms more than 1,300 acres in the

hilly Lehigh Valley, rents almost all of his land, so

traditional high-investment erosion controls, such

as terracing, were out. Contour and stripcropping

were not workable for his large, all-corn operation,

either. So Nick went into no-till willing to sacrifice

some yields for erosion control. But he did not have

to. His yields are actually slightly higher now than

before the switch.

“No-till is a deceiving word, though, because it

says what you don’t have to do. It should be called

‘extra work farming, ’ What you’re doing is changing the type of work—and taking on a lot more management decisions, You’ve got to be organized way

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.

In 1970 he tried one season with no-till soybeans,

barely managed to produce enough to pay back the

seed, and then gambled 500 acres all to no-till corn

the next season.
198 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

“Getting into no-till was like a wedding night.

You had no idea what you were walking into,” Nick

recalls of his sudden, large-scale trial. “After my

first season, I wanted more information but nobody

knew much to help so I went into it alone. ”

It was a local Chevron representative who sat

down with Nick and helped him lay out a thorough

plan for his farm. Through the company Nick became involved in some of the first local and regional no-till conferences, meetings where early no-till

farmers could trade stories and supposedly learn

the latest about managing their new systems.

“Those first meetings were mostly advertising,

but it was all we had. Ag extension didn’t actively

promote no-till, though they were willing to help

where they could, ” says Nick, who speaks highly

of Pennsylvania State University and its current notill research.

“Chevron and Paraquat are one. And Paraquat

is no-till. It was in their interest to promote no-till;

they got actively involved in my operation because

they wanted an example, ” Nick explains. “A successful example, And I needed the help. ”

“Of course we had selfish reasons for getting involved, ” interjects David Cote, Nick’s Chevron representative and friend. “We make chemicals. We’re

a business and we want to show a profit. But our

underlying concern is with the farmers’ best interests—the economic and conservation benefits of notill. We want to keep them in business because if

the farmers aren’t in business, a lot of us aren’t,

either. Selling isn’t all we care about; we do tests

and give advice about more than just Paraquat. It’s

sort of like the Santa in the movie ‘Miracle on 34th

Street. ’ “

David and Nick recall that during the early years,

Chevron may have been overly zealous to “convert”

farmers, but the company straightened out quickly as they started looking at no-till as a serious, sustainable system of agriculture. If farmers were

going to stick with no-till for the long-term, they

needed a workable, economically viable system,

and Chevron decided to help develop one. Also, as

Pennsylvania State University and other public institutions became more involved in no-till research,

farmers had other information sources to turn to

for confirmation of Chevron claims. And as for converts, they’ve become easier and easier to find, so

the hard sell has become unnecessary.

“With fuel prices what they are, all farmers are

forced to look for alternatives,” Cote explains, “and

they’re all looking at some point to reduced tillage.

Not necessarily strictly no-till, but at least to reducing the number of tillage passes they make over a

field. They’ve got to. ”

In looking at no-till, either as a land-sustaining

technology or a means to reduce energy costs, a

farmer must be careful to consider the specifics of

his operation in light of current knowledge about

the management system. The first criteria seem to

be environmental—whether no-till can be successful with his terrain, soils, and climate. In poorly

drained soils, crop yields can suffer under no-till.

And because a layer of crop mulch covers the soil,

ground temperatures may remain cool in the spring

and may delay planting. In short-season, northern

climates, this delay can hurt yields. Some farmers

will also have questions about the increased use of

toxic chemicals and possible environmental repercussions.

The next thing a farmer might consider would

be operational–is he willing to change the way he’s

been farming all his life and is he skilled enough

to manage a no-till system successfully?

“You have to be a good conventional farmer to

be a good no-till farmer,” stresses Glen Ellenberger,

Nick’s county extension agent, now retired. “It

takes extensive management—a precise use of

chemicals, careful monitoring of pest and disease

possibilities, soil tests, and planning. It’s not a lazy

man’s operation. ”

The environmental and technical pros and cons

are only some of many factors that can influence

a farmer’s decision to try no-till. In general, the acceptance of any new idea or technology can be influenced by:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

the relative advantage offered by the change,

the compatibility of the innovation with the

farmer’s needs and type of operation as well

as his past experiences and his values,

the complexity of the change,

the degree to which the innovation could be

experimented with on a limited basis, as it is

less risky to move piecemeal into a new system

than jump totally from old to new, and

the degree to which the results of a new technology or idea are visible to prove its value, For

instance, the adoption of preemergent weedkillers was slow in spite of its relative advantage because there were no dead weeds for potential users to see.

In Nick’s case, the long-term advantage offered

by reduced soil erosion was enough to offset the

increased managerial complexity, He acknowledges that his increased chemical use might cause

environmental problems but feels that erosion is a

more real threat, Because no-till slows runoff, he

feels it also reduces the amount of his chemicals

that slip away to contaminate waterways. But while

no-till is gaining relatively rapid acceptance in
App. A— The Innovators ● 199

many parts of the country, few of Nick’s neighbors

have followed his lead. The

logical than technological.

“Nick is different from his

gressive and he stands out, ”

reason is more sociocommunity, He’s proexplains Ellenberger.

“He was born here, but he’s not a native like his

neighbors. They like clean, traditional fields, and

no-till looks really messy, like you’re not a good

farmer<”

Despite their reputation for independence, the

agricultural community has subtle and direct influence on farmers, even innovative farmers such as

Nick. For instance, it is a rare farmer today who

does not rely heavily on banks, credit associations,

and the like for loans to make his operation work.

And the power of the purse strings can control

what a manager can and cannot do on his land.

“Our involvement in farm management is minimal. We don’t tell a farmer to switch from corn to

beans, ” says Alan Greiss, of the Production Credit

Association Nick uses. “But we can refuse loans,

either because we think a scheme is harebrained

(like the guy who wants to buy Clydesdale horses

to walk treadmills to generate electricity) or because

the farmer has low equity. ”

In other words, though the bank has some money

to risk, they tend to want to finance sure-fire ventures. This can have a large impact on young farmers who, unlike Nick, have not built up much equity and do not have longstanding reputations as

good farm managers. Because initial investments

are small in no-till, banks have less influence on

farmers switching to no-till than on farmers wanting to try more capital-intensive new technologies.

“A well-managed investment in the land pays for

itself in time, Maybe not tomorrow . . . I do have

children interested in farming, and I’m glad for

that. I have to start something for them, ” says Nick.

“Your land, your farm, is your life. You’ve only

got so many inches of topsoil—when you have an

opportunity to help it stay put, you do it. The

chance may never happen again. ”

Nick broke with the plow-disk-harrow tradition

because he felt his land would benefit from less

erosive management. The system he chose to adopt

—no-till—proved to be both agriculturally and economically sound, as Nick’s erosion losses are negligible now and his yields are as good or better than

ever.

No-till is in many ways a good example of an innovative, land-sustaining technology. It can be good

for the land—used properly and in the right situations. It can be economically viable, again, when

it is matched with operational and environmental

dictates. No-till shows, too, that the solutions to our

agricultural problems will not be quick in coming;

rather, many of the promising new technologies are

managerially complex and are more demanding of

the farmer’s dedication, as well as his skills. And

no-till illustrates that it is possible, even practical,

for a farmer to take his stewardship seriously and

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

and harsh—great expanses of dusty soil littered

with rock and clumps of parched bunchgrasses. But

it is valuable land. To the rancher, it is home to

family and livelihood. To the Bureau of Land Management [BLM), this area—the Vale District—is a

showcase of new range management ideas.

Ranchers such as Lazaro Urquiaga and Bob Skinner are part of a determined breed that settled this

range despite the harshness. The isolation and the

great distances that separate them from town and

friends go unquestioned. They know the land, both

its limitations and its potentials. They raise cattle

because that is what the environment will tolerate.

And that is what their families have done here in

Jordan Valley for many generations.

Most of the land around Jordan Valley, and in fact

70 percent of Malheur County, is part of the Vale

District of BLM–a 6.5-million-acre rectangle, 60 by

175 miles (100 by 280 km), in the southeast corner

of Oregon. Such a strong Federal presence is not

Photo credit” OTA staff

Lazaro Urquiaga comparing crested wheatgrass,

an introduced species, with native forage

unique; in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific States

(excluding Alaska and Hawaii), the Federal Government controls an average of 47 percent of all rangelands, whether through BLM, the Forest Service,

or other agencies. In Oregon, 59 percent of the

rangeland is managed by Federal authorities.

BLM, by law, manages its lands for the American

people, trying to balance the environment’s capacities with the needs of cattlemen, recreational users,

wildlife, and other interests. For the ranchers who

lease grazing rights from BLM here, the quality and

availability of the range is no light matter. Cattle

are the center of their world and have been for generations. So men such as Lazaro and his neighbor

Bob Skinner are rightfully concerned about BLM’s

choice of management technologies for the range.

“This is some of the finest range you’ll see in the

Vale District, ” Lazaro, 30, points out, But it wasn’t

always so, Over 11 years, from 1963 to 1974, $10

million poured into the Vale Rangeland Rehabilitation 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 Jordan 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, Exploitive use of the range, especially around limited water supplies, probably began even before the homesteading 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

sound land use.

Area residents were not oblivious to the growing

problems. Oregon ranchers spearheaded the drive
App. A—The Innovators ● 201

for the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, legislation designed “to preserve the land and its resources from

destruction or unnecessary injury, to provide for

the orderly use, improvements, and development

of the range. ” The act marked the end of the open

homestead era, but not the end of controversy.

Settled ranchers used the act to halt migrant

sheepherders, whose herds would strip the range

mercilessly. But the powerful ranchers who sat on

the new Grazing Service’s advisory board were not

entirely altruistic; when it came to allocating grazing rights, they did so on the basis of past use and

commensurate property, not on the carrying capacity of the range. So while the ranchers were eager

to maintain their ranges to stay in business and

sometimes buiIt fences, developed water, and even

controlled sagebrush, for the most part they were

interested in practical matters—low grazing fees

and high profits from running as many head as possible.

By the late 1950’s, the Vale range was in poor condition and everyone knew it. What neither cattlemen nor B I,M staff knew for certain, however, was

how to save the range.

The easy answer was to reduce the herds. “There

was no question that something had to be done, but

not straight-out reductions, ” remembers Dominique Urquiaga, Lazaro’s father. That action would

have hurt more than just the cattlemen, Malheur

County is cattle country, and indirectly everyone—

bankers, merchants, and townspeople–was a part

of the cattle industry, They all opposed drastic cuts.

Grazing cuts were a threat to their economic livelihoods and to a century of tradition.

“The ranchers felt threatened, rightfully, by the

proposed cuts, ” says Bob Kindschy, the Vale District wildlife biologist who has been at Vale through

the entire project. “In 1962, a group of them got

together and requested a congressional inquiry,

which Congressmen Unman and Morse held here.

BLM seized the opportunity to write up an alternative proposal—a plan to rehabilitate the range, We

brought in all sorts of experts to present ideas and

got everybody interested in a compromise appreach. ”

“Conservation is like apple pie; you can’t be

against it,” he remembers. “The Congressmen took

the idea back to Washington and pushed it through.

And we got a chance to show that with cooperation and funding, you can do great things with deteriorating range. ”

“The thing that hits home hardest,” Skinner adds,

“is that now we’re actually harvesting all the forage

we pay for. If we went back to the way things were,

well, first take 60 to 70 percent of the cattle out

there and wipe them off the slate—the old range

couldn’t have supported them. Then take all the tangential impacts on town and the rest , . . the project was a success, alright. ”

Range is range because of its physical limitations;

the land simply cannot support more intensive use.

Ranchers and range managers learn to work within

those limitations. Southeast Oregon, including

the Vale District and the Skinner and Urquiaga

ranches, is a dry, inhospitable environment. Precipitation averages only 7 to 12 inches per year,

Vegetation is sparse; dependable surface water is

scarce. Although there is some irrigated agriculture

in the bottomlands, for the most part cows are the

only viable “crop” for the environment.

Depending on the quality of the range, it can take

from 2 to 5 acres of range just to support one cow

for a month (called an AUM, or animal unit month).

But rangelands, like croplands, can be improved

through proper management. The question in Vale

was where do you start? The Vale District encompasses almost 6.5 milIion acres [2.6 million ha). Not

only cattle but pronghorn antelope, waterfowl, raptors, mule deer, hunters, and fishermen had to be

accommodated under BLM’s multiple-use mandate

and its broad definition of land productivity. Obviously, there was no one “right” management technology for all that terrain. In fact, there was no way

to actually treat the entire, immense acreage.

Instead, the district’s plan was to intensively treat

only part of the range—scattered tracts totaling

about 10 percent of the land. They hoped that these

treated sites, combined with overall sound management and some temporary herd reductions, would

alleviate grazing pressures on degraded native

range and give it time to recover. Some of the treatments—for instance, seedings of introduced grasses

such as crested wheatgrass—were not expected to

be permanent improvements, just stop-gap measures to provide good forage while the native ranges

rested. It was an added plum, then, when during

the course of the decade-long program the district

staff discovered that the introduced seedings

adapted perfectly, reproduced, and became selfsustaining pastures.

“We’re trying for sustained yields. The grazing

program’s goal is to make the range available forever; we strive to manage for the long-term. We say

we can graze this country and keep its productivity high and stable, for cattle and otherwise, ” explains Phil Rumple, a range manager. “If cattle are

one bite ahead of the grass, you have to lower their

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 treatments used differed among the 164 tracts designated for rehabilitation. Sites were selected by their

potential for improvement, not degree of deterioration. Treatments were planned through the combined efforts of the district’s range conservationists,

wildlife biologist, and watershed engineers.

Brush control is an important first step in range

rehabilitation. As native range is overgrazed, more

and more of the desirable forage plants are eaten;

what grows in their place are less palatable species.

Once established, most brush species are extremely difficult to remove.

The rangeland disk-plow—a special tool designed

with each disk mounted on an independent shaft

for rough terrain—was developed early in the Vale

program to help control brush. Big sagebrush—a

common, unpalatable species—had invaded many

denuded pastures and taken over, compounding

the degradation. But two passes with a plow could

kill 90 percent of the nuisance plants as well as

prepare the ground for seeding.

Range managers also experimented with sprayed

herbicides for brush control, but not without controversy.

“Paraquat could be a tremendous help here, but

it’s banned on Federal range, ” explains Lazaro.

“It’s an economical way to control a burn—you

spray the perimeter and then you can safely burn

the area within the border. But we can’t use it. ”

“I wouldn’t ignore legitimate environmental

problems, ” he adds, “what I don’t understand,

though, is why something is okay on private land

but not on Federal. Is there a different safety factor for some reason?”

Burning, the method that historically kept the

sage in balance, proved to be an effective brush control technique, too. In fact, areas that suffered either

experimental controlled burns or wildfires had the

lowest average density of sagebrush of any treatment,

To reestablish good pastures, a special rangeland

drill was developed to drill seed into the rugged terrain. After many trials with a variety of grasses inPhoto credit. Bob Kindschy

Rangeland disk-plowing
App. A— The innovators ● 203

eluding pubescent wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass,

western wheatgrass, and various clovers, crested

wheatgrass emerged as the most consistently successful grass to plant. Crested wheatgrass, a species

native to Siberia and adapted to animal grazing,

was greeted with some skepticism by area ranchers

when it was first planted; some called it “macaroni

grass” and belittled BLM for bothering with it.

“When the first seedings went in, some of us refused to run our cattle in them. We weren’t going

to run our cows in ‘broom straw. ’ “ Skinner recalled. “Then Max Laurance, from BLM, came

down in person and basically begged us to try a

seeding. Once we’d tried it, you couldn’t get us not

to use it. It was that good, ”

To various extents, the success of many of the

treatments and the overall range management

schemes used at Vale depended on water. Managing the range meant managing the land and water

resources. For no matter how good the range—

native or introduced—no cows will graze without

adequate water. And, conversely, the cattle will

concentrate, and often abuse, the range nearest

available water. Grazing pressures were especially

severe on fragile riparian environments and the

many species of bird and animaI life that congregate there.

“A carpenter needs tools—a hammer and saw—

to practice his trade. Similarly, seeding, fencing,

brush control, and water developments are tools to

allow intensive range management. You work with

these tools to get a good distribution of grazing

pressures,” explains Vale Wildlife Biologist, Bob

Kindschy,

Range managers use such tools together with

their knowledge of animal and plant science to set

up sustainable grazing systems. No longer do

ranchers simply release cattle onto the growing pastures of early April and round them up with the first

snow. Instead, they work with range managers to

plan for the cattle to be rotated throughout the

range, alternately using and resting pastures and

enhancing the sustainable productivity.

Lazaro favors close working relationships between BLM managers and cattlemen who use the

range, He thinks that both sides would benefit from

a new’ kind of policy regarding stewardship for the

land—a way to encourage ranchers to make improvements on the Federal range.

“There is a ‘stewardship experiment’ in Challis,
204 Ž Impact of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

Developing adequate water supplies

Idaho, that shows what I mean, ” Lazaro explains.

“If the range supports 1,000 AUM, and a rancher

improves that to 3,000 AUM, that rancher would

get the extra rights, He’d still pay for them. This

way you create more user involvement, more personal involvement, You’d need a written agreement, of course, so that you get a stable position

on the range and a guarantee that you’d actually

benefit from your labors. ”

To increase water availability at Vale and hence

broaden the cattle’s range and widen management

options, BLM staff built a number of new wells,

pipelines, and reservoirs. But they had more than

cattle in mind,

In keeping with BLM’s multiple-use mandate and

their commitment to diverse and sustained land

use, BLM planned for wildlife as well as cattle

when they developed water. “Noodle bowls, ” for

instance, are hilltop water catchments fed by

springs that distribute water by gravity pipelines

to surrounding pastures. Range managers keep

these reservoirs open through the dry season, even

when cattle are on other ranges, for the benefit of

Photo credit’ OTA staf

is essential to sound range management

wildlife, Another wildlife watering device, called

a “guzzler” or “bird bath,” is a small catchment and

tank that stores precipitation. More than 30 have

been built on the range, strictly for wildlife. This

way all the life on the range gains from the restoration.

The various range treatments and rotations are

not without their shortcomings. Managing for multiple uses inevitably causes some conflicts. Sometimes change itself—no matter how benign—is resisted in favor of tradition. Even the physical management techniques—seedings, plowing, and brush

control methods—can cause problems. Plowing at

the wrong time can bury native, desirable seed too

deep to grow. Planting only one species can eliminate the diversity needed for wildlife browse and

shelter. New fences, even those built with an unbarbed bottom wire to reduce hide cuts on antelope,

can kill some animals who charge unaware into the

obstructions. And controversies over fire and herbicide use seem unlikely to subside.

Problems arise, too; Bob Skinner points out that

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 nearby, privately owned alfalfa.

Vale’s experiments have not solved every problem on the range, but the work done there has provided other range managers with some new and

useful tools, They have learned what grasses to use

in seedings, how to manage riparian areas more

carefully, and how to diffuse grazing pressures, improve forage, and incorporate wildlife needs early

into the management strategy. And, importantly,

the Vale Range Rehabilitation Program proved that

severely degraded range could be improved and

maintained without undue local hardship—given

support, knowledge, and cooperation.

The lessons learned at Vale can guide sound

range use elsewhere in the intermountain-type

ranges—the “cold desert steppe” rangeland that extends through Oregon, Washington, and parts of

Montana. Some broader lessons, too, are transferable to different types of range throughout the

Nation.

Though the major thrust of work at Vale has

ceased, the district stands as an example of sound

resource management. Research continues—experimentation with new grasses, new fencing

techniques, sophisticated grazing systems, and the

like—but slowly. The work makes Vale an important record of what can and cannot be done for

deteriorating rangelands.

Like the other case study sites, the Vale District

illustrates that sustaining land productivity requires

a greater, and sometimes more laborious, sense of

stewardship. It requires more managerial skills,

more openness to change, and often more financial and philosophical commitments. But unlike

most farmers, the Vale ranchers do not hold primary responsibility for managing their range. Decisions about how technology will be used to restore

and maintain the grazinglands and accommodate

the many, sometimes competing demands rest with

BLM, And responsibility for careful use is shared

by the more than 400 ranchers who run cattle on

the “commons.” Such joint stewardship poses special problems; it calls for cooperative planning and

a strong sense of commitment from all the people

benefiting from the shared resource.

“The BLM is a stabilizing influence on the range

and is necessary, ” Lazaro says, “The idea of local

control is misleading because realistically you still

need the same people—watershed people, range

specialists, wildlife people. But what we do need,

all of us here, is a stable relationship with the Feds.

That would be an important step toward better

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

Gallup halfway across the country, from Connecticut to Illinois, in the 1850’s. And it is that same

property deed that ties Roger, his great-great-grandson, to crazy-quilt contour farming on hilly land

while just 2 miles down the road his neighbors plow

straight rows on level fields, fence row to fence

row.

For Joseph and his wife, those 200 acres of rolling grassland and woodland were just what an

1850’s pioneer family needed. The soil on the nearby prairie was rich and deep, but drainage on that

level land was poor. Besides, there was no easy way

to breakup the root-bound prairie sod, And a homesteading farmer needed timber close by for building, fencing, and fuel; prairie land was treeless.

It would take the steel-moldboard plow, drainage

technology, and a transportation system to lure the

next wave of settlers out onto the prairie” a plow

to turn the heavy soil, drainage to carry off water

formerly taken up by prairie grasses; and roads and

a railroad to haul in fuel, lumber, and other supplies. Once the prairie was tamed, its farmers found

themselves on top of some of the richest farmland

in the world. But in the meanwhile early settlers

such as the Gallups stayed near the prairie fringe—

along the rivers and in the hilly, wooded lands.

Today, 43-year-old Roger and his father, Dwight,

sometimes wish their farm were out on the flatlands

their neighbors till. But it’s too late to move. The

Gallups’ equipment, their buildings and storage facilities, and their way of farming are tied to their

own land. “Besides,” Roger says simply, “this is

home. ”

Roger; his wife, Sharon; and their children, Renee

and Loren, live in a big, sturdy brick house built

by Roger’s grandfather, a man who clearly planned

to stay. Two miles west, on the edge of the farm,

Roger’s father, Dwight, and his wife, have built a

modern ranch-style home—the kind you see more

and more on the farmscape.

Next to Dwight’s house looms a massive steel

grain storage bin, the elevator at its peak connected

to smaller bins by metal pipes splayed out like the

legs of a giant spider. The Gallups can store up to

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 between Dwight’s new house and his son’s place. The

Gallup land, now 860 acres, is part of twin bands

of rolling topography, 4 or 5 miles wide, that edge

the Illinois River. Water running off the flatlands

converges and gains momentum near the river,

carving gentle hills in the landscape. Slopes here

range as high as 13 percent.

Until about 1960, this land supported a variety

of livestock: dairy and beef cattle, hogs, sheep, and

poultry. The steepest hillsides were maintained in

permanent pastures. Only the more gentle slopes

were plowed and planted to annual row crops such

as corn and small grains, Even this modest acreage

of row cropland was “rested” by regularly returning the fields to pasture and hay crops.

But cornbelt farming has undergone a major

change in the last two decades, and Roger and

Dwight had to change their operation to keep in the

black.

Today the Gallups grow cash crops—corn, wheat,

and soybeans—and nothing else. “We gradually

moved away from livestock,” Roger says. “We simply reached a point where there was no return on

cattle. More livestock would be better for overall

U.S. productivity and for the land, but the returns

for stock compared to crops just don’t justify the

switch for most farmers. ”

So the Gallups plowed under the green hillside

pastures and planted row crops. But with the slopes

laid bare much of the year, the Gallups faced a

major problem—erosion.

Though erosion is partial to sloping land, it nibbles away flatland fields, too. But flatland fields are

blanketed with a thick layer of topsoil–glacial till

covered with loessial (windblown) particles and

enriched by organic matter from thousands of years

of prairie growth. So on flatland the annual thievery

is more subtle; it can be masked by improved crop

varieties and heavier fertilizer applications.

When the Gallups’ hillsides were protected by

perennial pasture, erosion was easier to handle.

They controlled grazing intensity and held back

runoff with fence wire and straw barriers strung

across waterways, But row cropping leaves whole

hillsides vulnerable, so Roger and Dwight have to

take major erosion control measures. They plow

and plant on the contour rather than straight up

and down the slopes so that each furrow catches

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

spaces in the top layer and trash on the surface,

Chiseling can leave more than 2,000 lb of residue

on an acre of cropland. That is enough to reduce

soil erosion by roughly 50 percent on sloping land.

Another necessary conservation measure has

been more difficult and more costly. Contour farming, even with conservation tillage, is not enough

to hold the soil on the steeper slopes. For better protection, Roger and his father also had to construct

terraces on much of their land, Terraces are steplike soil embankments bulldozed up along the contour of a slope. Like individual furrows plowed on

the contour, the terrace is designed to hold back

and slow runoff, but on a much larger scale.

Roger says terraces will last about 15 years with

proper maintenance. During the last 5 years, the

Gallups put in nearly 7,000 ft of terraces covering

about 100 acres. Though these new barriers are

broader and more compatible with larger equipment than old-style terraces, they still limit the

width of field implements the Gallups can use and

are awkward to maneuver around, especially where

rows converge. And terrace farming is not so profitable as flatland farming.

“Take all our waterways and terraces . . . they’re

completely wasted land, ” Dwight complains. “We

can’t crop them, yet they’re taxed just like the rest

of the land. And it takes more fuel and roughly

twice as long to farm terraced land. ”

Terraces are expensive, In Illinois it costs an average of $200 to $400 to protect an acre with terraces.

But the Government will pay up to 75 percent of

the construction cost, which Roger thinks is an

equitable arrangement. “The general public has to

accept both some of the responsibilities and some

of the costs in return for the long-term benefits of

soil erosion protection and improved water quality. ”

For Roger and Dwight, terracing is more than a

costly project that may pay off some day. It is part

of their land ethic—the craft of farming. For less

successful farmers, however, terracing and land

stewardship can be unaffordable luxuries. “Hundreds of thousands of acres that are now in row

crops should not be because the soil erodes too easily, ” says Harold Dodd, president of the Illinois

Farmers Union. “But a farmer has to put every inch

of land into those kinds of crops just to make ends

meet. ” And he is encouraged to do so by a Nation

that depends on his produce to help pay rising energy costs and to add muscle to diplomatic policy,

Bankers will not finance terracing if a farmer is

short on available cash. And many landowners will

not sink money into expensive land-moving projects that promise to protect long-term productivity while contributing nothing to immediate profitability.

Roger points out the dilemma faced by a tenant

farmer working land he knows should be terraced.

The traditional sharecropping agreement between

tenant and landowner assumes that the owner is

responsible for long-range improvements. “And if

the land is owned by an elderly person who has no

children to inherit it, ” Roger asks, “how could you

honestly convince her (or him) to invest in a longrange improvement like terracing? In this case, the

land is strictly an investment–a retirement fund. ”

The tenant, on the other hand, has no incentive to

pay for improvements because he has no assurance

the rental agreement will be lasting.

Simple conservation tillage is a less costly technique that offers varying degrees of erosion control, depending on the slope, soil type, and amount

of residue left on the surface. But conservation tillage has tradeoffs. With moldboard plowing, the

share actually folds over the top layer of soil, burying crop residue, insect eggs and larvae, and disease-carrying micro-organisms. Chiseling, when

done properly, merely “stirs” the soil. Insect eggs

and weed seeds, as well as soil-protecting crop residues, remain on the surface, so the farmer may

have to increase the rate of his pesticide applications. Chiseled soil can take longer to warmup and

dry out in the spring, too. And for farmers accustomed to tidy, trash-free fields, chisel plowing is

hard to accept just on the basis of appearance.

Roger looks forward to the day when he can abandon a few terraces in favor of no-till farming. (See

previous case study in this appendix for full explanation of no-till farming.) Right now he is willing to give it a try on a field or two, but he is not

ready to tear out his terraces. “We’re waiting for

the machinery manufacturers to perfect the equipmerit, ” Dwight says. “And for the chemical companies to come up with more herbicide flexibility

in a no-till system, ” Roger adds,

Looking into the future, Roger sees two innovations that may rescue soil-conserving farmers from

dependence on terracing or no-till. Someday it may

pay to seed rye from an airplane as a winter cover

crop and as green manure, Roger projects. Or a perennial biomass crop with soil-holding and incomegenerating capacity may be developed.

Changes in technology are never without costs,

Roger says. First, it is costly to purchase new technology. Second, adopting a new cropping system

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 tcchnolog}’ i n t’ i t es management mistakes. For instance, the

adta nt ages of the [:h isel [)I[)w’ are lost unless the

farmer kno~~’s hc~;~ (lee~] t{) set the chisels for his

part i(:ular soil t}’pe and moisture and for the horse-

])[jwer of his t ra(:t or. tlnd he may (jif~r(:orll~)ensat(:

W’ i th herb i[:i{le for the [;xtra weeds h[! exi)c[;ts the

(:h i sel t () lea\’e.

A farmer must kw~) abreast of tcchnologica] a(]-

i’an(:es. Tra(l it ion a 11}’, his most trusted sources for

information are his f’e]low farmers. WJhen twro farnlers m[!et the (:[)ntr[}rsat ion ini’arial)l~’ turns to farming. Th[~} (:onl])are notes on n[!t~’ ti]]age equipment

or a nf~tt’ herbicide (j(]rnbirlati(~n, or perha~~s a nlodifi(:at ion one has made in an implement. Roger, like

most farmers, also turns to other s(]ur(:es including

equipment an(l fcrt i] izer dealers or pesticide and

seed [;oml)ar]j’ rei)rescntat ik’es. I ie reads agricultura1 ~)ub]i(;at ions, mostl} in the ~tinter, and for part i(:ularl}. (;onfou n(i ing ~)roblems he ma}’ turn to experts at the LJni\ersit~’ of Illin[~is.

Hut the adiris[~r Roger turns to most often is his

father. “I soun(l {)ut i(leas and (Iw:isions with I)ad, ”

Rogt~r sa~s. I)ii’ight brings together not (~nl}r Ibc experien(:es an(l i nsig.ht of a 1 ifet i me, be adds to that

a wisdom t bat a(jcu mulates in a fa rnil~’ that has

st a~’e(i put for generations.

‘1’hough s(~rne farmers ma~ not seek the banker’s

counsel, the costs of new te(jhnolog}’, compounded

hjr inllat ion an(] fornlidabl~” high interest rates, hate

made th [: ban k the f’a rrner bu si ncss partner. For

Midwestern farmers, the credit line has become the

umtj il i(:al cor(l that tics them incxt ricabl}, to ~’arious

finan(: ia] institutions. These institutions put them

i n bLI si ness and keep (:ap ita] flowri ng to meet operat i ng ex pe n scs and i nl’est mcnts i n land and equipment. The cre(l it le~’erage enables banks and savi ngs and loan estab] ishrnents to assert powerful influen(:e o~er the farmer’s investments, his grain and

li~rcstock sales, even his management decisions.

What has kept many farmers afloat, and what has

~)umped money into farm expansion, is equitJcquitj from land that tripled in value in the 197o’s

as a r(!s u 1 t o f a short-1 ived lea p i n grain prices, fa rnl -

crs [:om ]wt i n g for land, and ri~ral i n~restors sceki ng

a he(lge a~ainst inflation,

“’1’he trend today is toward larger farms, ” Dwight

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

size is now about 420 acres. A recent [ ]SIIA st ud}’1

projects that if current trends persist, the middlesize farm will be nearly obsolete b~T th[~ year ZOOO.

It is hard to say tvh ich comes first ~~’itb f’armers:

more land or the technology to farm more land.

Roger points out that sometimes it makes sense to

bLly bigger equipment with the intention of finding

compensatory land. Few’ can borro~v enough mon -

~j’ and ser~’ice the debt on a simultaneous acquisition of additiona] land and, for example, a $100,000

combine nee(ied to coyer more tcrritor~r. Instead,

expansion usually takes place i n a seesa~~’ fashionfirst land, then equipment, then Ian(], an(~ so on,

or krice versa.

Illinois Farm Business hlanagemcnt Recor(is2

shorn’ that reach ine and labor costs ])er a(:re decline

up to about 800 acres. For exam ~)le, m a[:b i ncr}’

costs on a 214-acre grain farm run rou ghl}’ $(52 a n

acre; on a farm four times bigger they run about

$53 an acre. I.abor costs a~craged $~:] ~)er a(; re on

the smaller farm; on a farm four times bigger, th~:~r

ran an estimated $24 per acre, less than half as

much. s The Gall ups use larger equipment to farm

their expanded acreage, but it takes rou~hls’ the

same number of management decisions and equi\Talent amount of labor to farm 850 acres as it would

to farm half that much lan(l.

Net return after taxes also f’ators farm ex])ansi on.

Taxes do not rise as fast as income. Farmers sL]ch

as the Gallups are i n a bctt er posit i o n t h a n s m a 11

farmers to use in~rest rnent credit and to de])re(;ia[e

equipment faster. 1,ike~i’ i se, the implement dealer

can give a big fa rmcr a better cfeal because hc bu~~s

more, And it is easier for the larger lando[~’ncrs t o

borrow money and get lower interest rates.

Another reason ~~hy a farmer nla~ feel obligated

to increase his acreage is if be ~~’ants to pass on

eno[lgh land to allow more than one of his offspring

to get a start in farming, “I (Ion’t ~~rant nl~ kids to

think they have to farm to please Dad, ” RogeI admits. But just in case, he is making sure there ~t’ill

be enough land to split into ttvo tiab]c units,

This year Roger and ilwight will farm 860 acres.

~1~ cornbelt standards that is moderate acreage.

Roger waited 20 years to annex ]and to the 500-acre

farm his father had established, but it ~~as not lack

of money that held him back. Because Roger’s land
210 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity —

is valued at over $3,000 an acre, and because he

is known as a skillful farm manager, his credit line

can stretch to cover a land purchase. What postponed the investment was the scarcity of nearby

farmable land for sale. (Gallup’s equipment is too

big to conveniently move cross-country.) While he

waited, Roger leased the land he needed.

In some cases, a farmer recognizes the home

property is too small to provide income for both

him and an offspring who wants to farm. And

heavy debt makes land sale the only way to retire

securely. For other families, inheritance taxes prove

more than the sons and daughters can afford. So

they must sell some, or most, of the land to retain

the rest, If the remaining unit is too small to generate a living, it must be rented out or sold.

Still another factor encourages the established

farmer to add to his holdings. U.S. tax policies

allow the big farmer to buy land and write off a big

chunk of the cost. “We give enormous subsidies,

carefully hidden in the tax code, to persons who

are sheltering income, ” said former Agriculture

Secretary Bob Bergland. “That’s one of the major

reasons why young people have an impossible time

buying land in competition with people who can

pay more for the land than it’s worth as an income

producer. ”

The complexities of big farm management have

risen with the costs. When labor shifted from man

to machine, it brought about many changes in agriculture. Thirty years ago the Gallup work force was

larger and more elastic than it is today. It included

three families, a full-time hired man, and a crew

to help at harvest time. The modern Gallup farm

is almost twice the size it was 30 years ago, yet it

supports only two families. Now Roger and Dwight

alone do most of the work, with help as needed

from a seasonal hired man, the Gallup wives, and

Roger’s two children—and, of course, the equipment. When Dwight was a boy, 10 draft horses provided the power. Today Gallup’s fleet of tractors

and the implements they pull have the power of

hundreds of horses and do the work of dozens of

men.

As the complexities of management have grown,

farmwork patterns have changed, The farming

Roger and Dwight knew as boys was based on livestock; it was 365 days a year of chores. The year’s

work on today’s cash crop farms is squeezed into

6 or 7 hectic months of plowing, fertilizing, planting, cultivating, crossing fingers, repairing equipment, and harvesting. Much of the rest of the year

is spent maintaining equipment and buildings, marketing the grain, and planning the next season’s

work. Dwight recalls that when he was a boy there

was no ‘‘off-season, even in winter, When all the

other work was done, there was always firewood

to cut.

“I’m glad those days are over, ” says the 67-yearold, semiretired farmer. “I mean, the other day it

was snowing and blowing, and I could just sit in

the house, warm and cozy, and watch TV. ”

“Yes, but the pressure is just as bad, ” Dwight’s

wife, Hazel, interjects. “With all the modern equipment, you still have the responsibility to maintain

every thing.”

Maintenance was not much of a problem in the

past. For the most part horses maintained themselves, although you had to set aside a sizable portion of your land for their feed. But with the blessing of modern equipment comes the burden of

maintenance. Roger and Dwight must be expert

motor mechanics, welders, sheet metal workers,

machinists, and much more. With the large amount

of land that they must work in a limited time and

with limited manpower, there is no time to take a

broken-down tractor to the dealer’s shop. And you

cannot afford to keep a spare piece of expensive

equipment on hand. So repairing and maintaining

modern farm equipment probably is the single most

important part of farming. Roger’s enormous maintenance shop is a steel structure, resembling a

Quonset hut, big enough to hold the combine and

a couple of tractors.

Economics dictate that a farmer must closely

match equipment size to crop acreage. Equipment

that is too small may not cover enough ground during the critical period dictated by weather, soil conditions, or the sensitivities of a particular crop.

Older equipment is, generally, more prone to breakdowns that can cut yields. On the other hand, a

farmer who is overequipped is wasting capitalthat is, unless he intends to offset his equipment

size with more acreage. But if a crop fails or the

grain market plunges and his credit line snaps, the

farmer’s overextension may get him in trouble.

John Fuelbirth, farm loan advisor with Herget National Bank in Pekin, Ill., says, “Farmers tend to

be conservative. But they want to spend too much

on machinery. And the investment tax encourages

them to spend it. ”

In the past, farm efficiency has been gaged too

often by the amount of food a farmer could produce, no matter what the energy or resource requirements. Rut the Gallups, and people like them,

recognize that, in order to sustain production rates

in the long term, the definition of efficiency must

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 inspection 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 swallowed 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 cultivation, prairie grasses dominated the landscape. They

gathered nourishment from the soil and, in turn,

enriched and protected the land.

Then came a procession of farm families, each

trying and failing to earn a livelihood from what

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources forester Ed Godel calls a “two-story farm. ” The upper

story—the ridgeland—and the lower story—the valley–-were planted to row crops; the sloping land

in between was pastured by some of its caretakers

and cropped by others.

It was a malevolent partnership of man and nature. Man planted his row crops on cleared hillsides

and grazed his livestock on wooded ones. The tilled

soil often lay bare to the forces of erosion. Livestock

tramping on the wooded hillsides ate away protective underbrush and packed the spongy soil into a

hard, inpenetrable surface. As these pastured slopes

lost their ability to soak up water, runoff from

spring rains stole soil and flooded the valleys below.

Photo credit OTA staff

Ernie Brickner pruning a red pine to encourage straight,

knot-free growth

The only way to transport grain down from the

ridgetop fields was along a horse trail—called a

dugway. It was so steep that even teams pulling

empty wagons had to be rested three or four times

on the way up the incline. This discouraged hauling manure up to fertilize the ridgeway, so the fertility gradually ebbed.

The land’s history speaks of the failure of nine

owners and four renters to generate income from

the craggy terrain. And the deep gullies, some big

enough to bury a barn, reveal the damage incurred

by unrestrained use of agricultural technology,

Ernie says the land would have been easier to

manage as a farming unit had it been parceled out

according to natural boundaries, such as creeks and

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

~~rere laid out i n 1 t30-ac rc squares.

But ~~hen the land is planted to trees, nature’s

boun(iaries do not pro~c so formidable. With the

hellj of ~[~dcl, his county forester, Ernie prepared

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

the pine 1)lantat ions should stand, where the black

~va 1 nuts should be ~)lanted, and wrh ich hardwoods

Ernie would cull and ~~hich he would preserve for

~~ril(l 1 i fe f’ood a II(1 hat)it at or sa~’e for eventual

har~est.

In drafting the ~)]an t hej’ considered soil type and

slo~)e; m a rket \Ta lue for tree species; t i me span

b(!fore trees ~~roul(l rea(;h marketable age: and, most

of all, Ern ie’s dream for the Ian(l.

I]is (I ream t~’as mu(;h bigger than planting trees

[’or timbf:r l)ro(iuct ion. A former teacher and superi nt [)nd[~nt of s(: h ()()1s i n \Vh i t eh all, and I at er educ at ion offi(;(:r in charge of a }outb conservation program in I he Su~~eri[)r ,\’ational Forest in Minnesota,

Erni[) use(i f[)r[:st r} [)roje(:ts to ex(:itc t>o~s disillus i c) n ccl Ltr i t h f:] a ss rc)() rJI 1 ea rn i n:. ~] r n i e returned to

his Bllffalo (Jount}’ lan(l st[!e])e(l in multiple-use

[)hiloso~)h~ t[)~~ard i~’oodland management.

\t’ith his submarginal a(:reage he coLlld put the

COIIC[:pt to ii r igoroLls test . 1{(! W’OL1l(] plant, (: L1]],

thin, an(l ~)run[; trees not jllst for timber product ion but fc)r ~~rater-qual it}’ (;ont rol (lo~lnstream+

t~’ i Id I i f[; h :ihi tat, re(;r(:at ional US(:, and-his specia 1

i rlt[!r[)st—f?cl~l(:iit ion al o~)l)ort lln it ics.

I n just 22 Jroars, h[: h:)s succeeded. He thinn[xl

his ~)ine i)lantat ion 2 }rears a~~) and sold the immat u r{; trunks f’[)r ~)[)sts, ~)()][;s, a 11[] ~)u]l). H e ]eft the

~)i no t ()~)s an(l trimmings on th(~ groun(] as (:oirer

for gr{)use and rabbit. Ile has cut “weed” species

a n d (] a m a ged h a rd \\r o o(! trees to leave m o r e s L~ nIigbt, spa(;e, water, a n d nutrients for their more

com mer(:iall~’ taluable neighbors. From the cuttings, some logs are made into raiiroad ties or sha[’-

i ngs for li~’estock bedding; others become firewood.

Hut Ernie is careful to leave a fe~t’ ‘Llvc)lf’ trees

a n d ‘‘(1 [: n‘ trees standing. Wolf trees are t h e g i a n t

old /Ja I ri a r(:bs of the forest, ancestors to many of

th[? niitura]ljr i)rO1)a~ated trees, Den trees are often

hollo~i” an(i (]~ring, but thejr are still valuable to Ernie

for t h[: shelter the~ affor(i wildlife.

I n fa(;t, Ernie’s forest is a wildlife paradise; hickor] and ~t’alnut are the squirrels’ delight, Then

there are raccoons, fox, ring-necked pheasant,

hawks, eien eagles. Ernie has (;ounte(l at leas{ 35

spe(; ies of son gb i r(is on the propert~’.

The i~’ildlifet in turn, drat~s bunters, Un(ler l\’is-

(;onsin’s F{)r~;st (: ro~) 1,at~’, Ernie agre~!s to open his

]an(i for hunting an(] l)ays a sf)~erance lax on har-

~’ested timber in exchange for a property tax deferral. But with or without the 1 a~v, Ernie has no desire

to hoard his ~voodland. It is open }’ear-round, b}

permission, to hunters, snow’mobilers. skiers,

hikers, berry pickers, and bird~~’atchers.

Ernie probabll gets the greatest joy out of the e(iucational value his woodland pro~ides. “ I reall)’ get

a lot of pleasure out of walking through here and

telling people ~vhat I know about forest managt?-

ment . . . cspeciall}’ the kids. ” Ernie r[; memt)ers the

thank-you note he received from one ~T()~ln~ \isit or

ti’ho had trekked the hills and fi rcla n(~,s \\’it h his

se~ent h grade classmates: ‘‘I rea]]~’ ]ike }’OLI r

\\’oods,‘‘ the boy wrote, “especial)’ the fire

escapes.

Ernie is willing to share his pro pert} ~iith neighbors and friends and tvith groups of al] sorts-entrironmenta] organizations. church grou [)s, (:() mmunity clubs, 4-H ‘ers, farmer groul)s, ])rof’essional

and student foresters, conser~’at ion (:lass(:s. a n(i t h[:

like.

P[:rhal)s th[: most i mp[)rta nt IIS[) of” ~{ I’11 i(!’s ~ l’(?(~s.

in the long run, is to ~)rotect th(] lan(] I)as(! f’rom [:rm

sion and to keep ~~’ater and nutrients from flood” i ng

the low’] and fielcis do~~~n the i’all [~}’. hioreo~er,

Ernie’s land no longer contributes to the s(:d i nlentat ion and [;LltrO1)lli[::itiorl” of 1~’ater (lo~instr[)arn to

Trempealeau River and, ultimate}’, the h~ ississi])~}i.

Ernie’s woodland. howe~’er, is a snlall islal)(]

amidst farm fields and i~’ooded lxlst L1 r[:s t bat s lJr(:[i [ 1

on all sides. It is not that t re~:s are s(:arct; i n H L1 f’-

falo Countl-roughl}’ ~0 percent of th[? Ian(l is

tvooded, What is i n sh[jrt su ~)~)l~T is ij’[)()[ll;i!]ci

fenced off from the munchin~ an(i stoml)in: of

d ai r~f cattle.

Dairyin~ is big business in this part of” \\’is(:onsin. “And the milk check is the thing that the farmer

is interested in right no~v, ” sa}rs Brick n[:r. “ I ]e’s not

too interested in what t~ill (:ome of’f that land ~()

or 40 }’ears from no~k’. ’

“Big farmers-successful farmers-are tied LIp in

their farming acti~ities, ” sa}s forester (10(1(:1, b’Th(~}r

ha~e little time for woodland r~l:~]li~g[)I~lt:I~t.”

It is [!stimatcd that LIp to 50 tim[;s more runoff

flo~irs from grazed woodland than from ungrazed

~~’oodland. Ernie sa~~s grazing (:reat (:s a t l~recf’old

problem: soil compaction, loss of {lrl(i[;l’~r(]~ttll, an(]

damage to established trees.

The average dairy cour ~~reighs about 1,400 ]b.

That ~v[?ig}~t, c~)n[:cntrated under the hootes, CKCK(,5

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,

soi 1 1)art icles ar{? compressed until, ei’entuall~’. the

earth (: an neither absorb rainfall qu i(:kl~’ nor leai’e

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 undergrowth. They eat the more desirable young trees,

such as maple and oak, and leave undesirable species, such as black locust.

“By eating shrubbery that’s necessary for the accumulation of humus, cattle are eating prospective

mulch, ” Ernie says. In ungrazed woodland, soil

acts like a sponge, absorbing and holding water.

And, healthy trees consume more water and keep

the water table lower,

“And frost doesn’t penetrate as deep under thick

mulch. ” Consequently, more melting snow can

seep into the soil.

A healthy understory also softens the impact of

raindrops on the soil. Direct hits by these drops can

gouge out soil particles. “On unprotected land, I’ve

seen chunks of soil 4 or 5 ft across—peat soil, it’s

lighter and will float-torn away in my valley and

float all the way down to Independence and wash

out into the pasture where the floods were coming

down, enough in one big chunk to fill a manure

spreader, to say nothing about the smaller pieces

that are torn away. ”

Farmers often solve the flooding problem not by

treating the cause but by bandaging the wounds.

Wing dams built into hillsides impound runoff and

can prevent flooding.

“These dams hold the water back so it doesn’t cut

down through their farms and do the flooding right

on the farm, ” says Ernie. “But it would be a waste

of my money for me to build dams. The water stays

right on these wooded hillsides. ”

Most agronomists and foresters agree that it is

usually best to divorce tree-growing from cattleraising. University of Wisconsin forester Dr. Gordon Cunningham points to research that shows that

good-quality open pasture yields about 30 times

more protein than wooded pasture.

Foresters and ardent tree farmers such as Ernie

espouse a simple remedy for reducing runoff and

improving timber quality: keep the cows out and

harvest the trees when they are ready. By doing so,

a landowner can gather firewood and harvest quality timber. “Mother Nature has lots of time, ” Godel

insists, “and the woodland damage will repair itself

if you take the cows out. ”

“Trees aren’t nearly as demanding of nutrients

as agricultural crops, ” Godel explains. “A tree has

an extensive root system. And unlike an annual

crop that concentrates its nutrients in the grain

head which is removed in harvest each year, a tree

keeps adding organic matter to the soil.”

But unlike the annual payback that dairy cows

and row crops offer, a tree is slow to bring a financial reward, In fact, it will be beyond Ernie’s lifetime when the walnuts he planted and pruned yield

their precious veneer. And it wasn’t his sons that

he had in mind when he planted them . . . it was

their children.

“Growing trees makes you farsighted,” Ernie

says, “You have to look to the future when you

plant trees. ”

Besides the economic value of the trees, Ernie

wants to hand down to his children and grandchildren a place to enjoy the things that would have

fulfilled him,

“I’ve enjoyed the woods throughout my life—

hunting and fishing—and that’s what has given me

the feeling of stewardship toward the land. ”

Some woodland owners think of management

and preservation as at cross purposes, To them,

culling trees and harvesting mature timber destroy

the pristine quality of a forest, But Ernie’s woods

offer ample testimony that you can manage woodland for both esthetics and timber improvement.

And such management can greatly enhance the

productivity of U.S. lands.

Although the net annual timber output has increased 56 percent in the last 30 years, according

to Rexford Resler, vice president of the American

Forestry Association, the Nation’s forests are only

producing about three-fifths of the net growth per

acre that could be obtained with proper management of natural stands. But few people see the

potential.

“Most intensive woodland management on private lands is done by someone who makes his income from another source, ” Godel points out. People such as Ernie Brickner who are firmly entrenched in the conservation ethic are not tied to

the land for immediate income . . , they often make

the best stewards and managers of timber acreages,

he says,

Ernie remembers that 20 years ago you could

stand on the ridge and look down on bare hillsides

eroded by decades of unwise farming. Today the

steep slopes and valleys are cloaked with trees—

pine, spruce, birch, and other hardwoods.

Ernie’s dream has been to reclaim some dying

land, reforest it, and make it valuable again—valuable not only for the timber it can produce but for

wildlife, recreation, and education. His commitment and dedication epitomize the forces driving

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

real ized that the~’ i~’ere losing zo percent of their

land-zo, ()()() a[;res-the} got angry. Enough is

enough. So some 75 of them gathered one night in

196{1 an[i decided it was time to act.

The culprit ~~’as not the Government. It was not

lan(l speculators. It Lvas nature, gone slightly amry.

.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,

sa]t~r soi]s on nonirrigated lands-were breaking out

a II(1 SI) readi ng o n man}’ o f t h e i r fields, more than

e~’cr before, and rendering the land infertile. No

one wras (Jerta i n ~~rh }’, or what to d o t o stop them.

Th[) farmers decided it was high time to find some

a nswrers.

I io~vard I lanfor(l relates the histor~ of the Highttoo(l Alkali (Jontrol Association (1 iACA) with

some ])rid[:-his father ~vas one of the organizers

a n(l Ifl ot~’ a rd h i m self has been chairman of t h e

,grou ~). And it was the HACA initiatiire—the~’

taxed themsel~res to support needed research-that

brought State, F~:(]eral, and ]o(:al people together

to ~~ork on a ~)rot)lem c]f increasing setrerity and importance for Montana and much of the northern

Great Plains.

“All the farmers around here had seeps. E;vcr~-

body knew that they got bigger in uet years, that

they were progressively getting worse, hut nobod~

put things together, ” explains Howar(l.

The story of saline seeps is a mire of geologic,

hydrologic, and technological variables. It is an example of the role that technolog~’, in this case cro~)

management, can play in both causing and resolving resource problems.

“The Highwood Bench south of Fort Benton was

one of the first areas in Montana to really suffer

the effects of saline seeps, ” explains Dr. h~ar~in

Miller, a hydrogeologist with the hlont ana Bureau

of Mines and Technology. “They had Z0,000 acres

in salt in 1971. ”

Many factors can foster the formation of saline

seeps on individual sites, but two elements pIa}’ key

roles: local geology and summer fallotv crop management. Summer fallow (sometimes called crollfallow) 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

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 season’s crops, But this common crop management

technology has proven inappropriate for the

terrain.

Advantages of Summer Fallow

Higher yield per planted acre.

More stable production.

Higher soil water content.

Greater supply of available nitrogen in the

soil.

Aid in distributing the farmers’ work load.

Reduction of insect and disease problems.

Disadvantages of Summer Fallow

Greatly increased wind and water erosion.

Increased air and water pollution.

Lower soil water storage efficiency.

Lower water use efficiency.

Greater soil fertility decline under certain

soil and management conditions.

The saline seep problem arises because summer

fallow can work too well, When more water is

stored than the following crop can use, moisture

builds up in the soil. This water then infiltrates

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

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

downslope, Where it breaks to the surface, either

in lowlands or where the shale outcrops, a saline

seep forms. As more and more water accumulates,

the seep grows.

“Right now we have about 200,000 acres of farmland forced out of production by seeps, over 80,000

acres in Montana alone. And that’s totally unusable.

You can’t even farm across it because your machinery will stick in the mire, ” says Dr. Paul Brown,

a USDA soil scientist who, until his retirement, was

the backbone of seep research in the region.

Figure A.2.— How Dryland Saline Seepage Occurs

discharg e

area

. seepe d

. and

sallne

Impermeable layer

SOURCE Dryland Sallne Seep Control AGDEX 518-5 Alberta Ag Ext Offices,

1979

“The problem affects a whole geologic region including much of Montana, South Dakota, North

Dakota, Wyoming, and Canada’s prairie provinces,

with seep acreage growing by about 10 percent a

year,” he adds (see fig. A-3).

More than the land is degraded by saline seeps;

the salinization has disastrous effects on water quality as well. Local ponds no longer support fish in

the Bench area, and the few residents who still

maintain cattle must truck water in because farm

ponds are far too salty to drink. And as a headwater

recharge area for all the downstream States in the

Missouri River Basin, the implications of Montana’s seep-caused water pollution could be serious.

Figure A.3.— Northern Great Plains Region,

Showing Area of Potential Saline Seep Development

Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba

North Dakota

Montana

South Dakota \

Area of potential saline seep

development

SOURCE Saline Seep in Montana, Loren L Bahs, ecologist, Marvin R Miller

hydrologist, 1979
App. A— The Innovators ● 217

——

When a seep first breaks out, it can look innocuous—just a small, wet pothole you have to skirt with

the planter, Generally, farmers do not even realize

they have a problem until a seep grows to a quarter

acre or so. But depending on the site, saline seeps

have grown as large as 200 acres, and that is a substantial amount of land to lose. During dry weather,

seeps look something like black bathtubs with white

salt rings—that is how much salt can actually accumulate on the surface as the seep water evaporates. Most seeps will be barren, almost swampy.

Sometimes Kochia, a salt-tolerant weed, will grow

around the edges, but most plants cannot live in

such a saline environment.

“Montana farmers have an inherent disbelief that

excess water could be a long-term problem on their

land, ” Dr. Miller says. After all, theirs is a notoriously dry climate. And they grew up with stories

of the great droughts, the giant dust clouds, and the

many who were forced ‘‘bust’ by the lack of water.

So it can take some convincing to show certain

farmers that too much water could be a problem.

Howard Hanford was one farmer who did not

need convincing. The 1,500 acres that he farms

with his wife, two small children, and one full-time

hired hand is a model of what can be done to stop

and reclaim saline seeps.

To give visitors a feel for his land, Howard sometimes invites them to lunch atop his flat grain bin.

From there, you get a sweeping view of his ocean—

an ocean of grain, still richly green, undulating in

Large saline seep broken out on traditional

summer-fallow land in Montana

the winds. His fields stretch, seemingly unbroken,

all the way to the base of the Highwood Mountains

to the north.

The fact that the growth goes unbroken is notable;

the alternating strips of fallowed land so common

on the Montana landscape are missing. Under the

cropping management system Howard uses—flexible cropping-whether he plants or not is dictated

by the environment rather than by tradition. It is

a system that makes Howard an innovator in the

fight against saline seeps.

Flexible cropping, as the name implies, casts

aside fixed cropping patterns. Instead, this method

calls for the farmer to decide whether to plant or

fallow a field based on the actual amount of stored

soil moisture in the root zone and the average growing season precipitation,

“Measuring soil moisture is pretty easy with the

soil moisture probe that Paul Brown invented, ’

Howard claims. The probe is a simple tool-a solid

metal rod with a small auger at the tip. The farmer

merely twists the rod down into the ground; when

the pushing gets difficult, the probe has reached the

bottom of the moist soil layer. The auger then

brings up a small soil sample,

For example, wheat needs about 9 inches of soil

water. If the average rainfall is 6 inches, there needs

to be 3 inches of stored soil water available to raise

a good crop. If adequate water is not available,

farmers using flexible cropping are still free to leave

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, Montana’s farmers can avoid losing land-and productivity-to seeps.
218 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity

But there are tradeoffs. First and foremost in

many farmers’ minds, flexible cropping demands

more work in planning and in operating the farm.

“My 1,500-acre farm in summer fallow would be

a cinch, ” says Howard. “With continuous crops,

you need more manpower, more equipment. You

have to move fast; you’ve got 2 weeks to plant all

your acreage. You’ve got to harvest it all before

some hailstorm lays the whole crop flat. ” This need

for speed often urges farmers to bigger equipment

and therefore added investments.

And because the system is flexible, it requires

more managerial decisions: planning to avert potential seep problems or reclaim existing ones, testing to monitor moisture and fertility, extra commitment to combatting weeds and diseases, and special

efforts to find markets for hay and oil seed crops

in a region tuned to a small-grain economy.

In long-term economics, saline seep causes deflated land values, higher operative costs, lost crop

income, lost tax money to the State, and lost wheat

to the Nation. But seep control methods such as

flexible cropping cannot succeed if the costs of control exceed the cost of doing nothing. So far, the

new cropping pattern seems relatively successful,

“The successes up here on the Bench are important examples for the rest of the State, ” Dr. Miller

comments. “These people have a genuine sense of

concern for their land, a pride. ”

In Chouteau County, which includes the Highwood Bench, more than 60 percent of the farmers

are involved in seep control. Overall in the State,

however, total involvement is closer to 1 percent.

The high acceptance in Chouteau is because the

Bench was the original focal point for seep research

and control and because of the strong presence of

HACA and local, State, and USDA/SEA-AR specialists.

To promote seep control over a wider area, the

Triangle Conservation District, including 10 seepprone counties, was formed. The strength of the

district’s efforts are its field personnel—people such

as Ted Dodge and Jane Holzer who spend their time

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.

“We work farm by farm, ” Mr. Dodge explains.

“After a farmer applies for our help, we go out for

an on-site visit. We’ll map the seeps, drill a grid of

wells to determine water movement below the

ground, determine where the problem recharge and

discharge areas are, and help with planning control measures. ”

Proximity and visibility give real boosts to farmer

acceptance of seep management. ‘‘Our biggest

draw is the drill rig. You get that out in one man’s

field and all his neighbors will appear, like a parade,

to follow along and watch, ” Mr. Dodge recalls, The

district almost always receives more applications

after that.

Land lost to saline seeps is difficult to reclaim+

“You can’t just clean up after the problem, you have

to prevent it, ” explains Dr. Brown. But experts have

made progress i n designing management schemes

to prevent seeps and even bring some degraded

land hack into USC.

First, the cause of the seep needs to be eliminated.

To do this, the field team traces ground water

movement to find the fielc] or fields that are accu -

mulating water. Since most seeps break out within

a few hundred yards of their recharge area, the

mapping is relatively localized. It is helpful that the

scale of cause and consequence is so small; very

often, seep recharge and discharge areas are on the

same farm, making control easily When seep problems do cross properity lines, it can be more difficult

to convince both landowners to participate in the

cleanup .

“Generally, though, we've had really good luck

getting neighhors to work together to mutual advant age, says Ms.Holzer.

Once the cause is determined, the prevention option chosen most often is to recrop the offending

field with deep-rooted, water-loving perennials—

for example, alfalfa. The hay crop will act as a sort

of sponge, soaking up moisture from deep below

the soil. The plants’ leaves wick the excess water

away into the a i r. Once the water regime is stabilized, the farmer often can return the field to more

profitable crops as long as he monitors moisture

levels carefully and alternates grains with highwater-use oil seed crops and hay. Some recharge

areas, however, may have to remain in pasture or

revert to natural grasslands to guarantee seep

pretvention

When the flow of excess water is stopped, existing seeps should stop growring. But they are unlikely to disapear. Sometimes, as the seep area dries,

the farmer can begin planting the edges of the patch

with salt-tolerant crops and gradually bring it back

into production. Many large seeps, however, cannot be reclaimed with present methods.

“Controlling seeps requires a delicate balance, ”

Dr. Miller says. “A little mismanagement , . . and

you could be right back where you were.

“The more progressive farmers are beginning to

realize that they can’t farm just by what on the

surface, adds Herb Pasha, the president of the Triangle Conservation District.

“We’re learning that the technological fix often

brings unforeseen consequences, ” says Dr. Miller.

“For seeps, the hardware approach said ‘if you have

a problem with too much water, drain it. ’ But that

doesn’t work, We tried draining an acre seep to reclaim it; what we did was create a 5-acre seep further downslope. ”

“We have to look at the consequences of our actions first; you don’t forge ahead without thinking

ahead, ” he adds,

“It’s one thing to define the problem; it’s another

to get solutions established on the land, ” says Dr.

Brown.

For some, and not just the scientists, continued

research is the key: “As long as that goes on, we

keep learning, ” Howard Hanford insists. “That’s

why HACA was formed. But it‘s hard to get the

Government to understand us; letters go back and

forth, but we can’t sem to connect. When Paul retires, I hope we don’t lose our research basethere’s too much more that needs to be done. ”

“A farmer is not your average character, ”

Howard explains. “He is a little bit stubborn and

stuck in his ways. A n article i n some paper won't

convince him. He needs to see the field personnel,

to see proof. ”

Proof in the field is especially important when

some long-accepted practice such as summer fallow

is in question. Saying it is an inapriate technology is not enough; the alternative--flexible cropping-must be opened to scrutiny, tested, and refined for practical use, After all, it is not unreasonable for farmers to ride with proven methods, even

if they have certain negative repercussiojn, if the

alternative is an unknow n.

Maintaining land productivity will be a continueing challenge for American agriculture one that

can be both enhanced and hindered by technology.

As illustrated in Fort Benton, the most sustainable 

methods may not always be easiest. But when the

threat is highly visible, salty potholes swallowing the land-and the people are truly concerned,

farmers and agriculture, and do change
Appendix B

Virgin Lands

lntroduction

When potentially productive virgin lands are

brought into use, the relative profitability of farming or ranching on lands with lower inherent productivity can be reduced. Thus, one indirect consequence of developing high-quality virgin lands may

be that some fragile lands are protected, perhaps

converted from row crops to pasture as happened

in New England when the fertile lands of the Midwest were developed. Sometimes opening new

high-quality lands also can reduce the rate at which

pasture sites are converted to cropland.

Some 36 million acres of non-Federal land had

a high potential for conversion to cropland in 1977

(see table B-l), according to the National Agricultural Lands Study (CEQ, 1981). This land had favorable physical characteristics to support high-yield

crop production and would require minimal efforts

to be converted, Most of this land was used as pasture in 1977; presumably much of it already has

been converted to cropland. Another 91 million

acres of non-Federal land were identified as having a medium potential for conversion to cropland.

Most of this was pasture or rangeland; some was

forest, Clearing, erosion protection, or other costs

would make development of this land significantly more expensive than on the high-potential land.

The issue of converting land into and out of agriculture, and from one use to another within agriculture, has been investigated by the National Agricultural Lands Study, and so it is not treated in

detail in this report. That study did not, however,

consider the potential for agriculture development

in Alaska, where large areas of potentially arable

lands are found.

Table B-l .—Potential Cropland of

Non”Federal Land (million acres)

Conversion potential: High Medium Low Zero

Pastureland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 33 47 35

Rangeland ... . . . . . . . . . . . 9 30 97 271

Forestland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 24 109 230

Other land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 15 52

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 91 268 58 8

SOURCE U S Department of Agriculture, “Resources Conservation Act Ap.

praisal 1980, ” 1980

Alaska% Virgin Lands

How much of Alaska’s virgin lands are potential

croplands is not known precisely. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) cites 18.5 million acres of

Alaska land suitable for farming (USDA-SCS, 1980)

(see fig. B-l). This is Class 11 and 111 land with soils

that have no severe erosion hazard, but that generally do require conservation measures to sustain

productivity. But previous analyses of the same

data reported that Alaska had 8.9 million potentially

arable acres. The substantial increase in the estimate of potentially arable land from 8.9 million to

18.5 million acres was not the result of new data

on the extent of land available but rather a changed

understanding of what constitutes arable land

under Alaskan climate conditions.

There is a mistaken perception that the Alaskan

climate precludes substantial agricultural development. Although this is generally true of areas in the

arctic climate zone, much of the State is in the continental climate zone, where the frost-free growing

season is about 100 to 110 days (Epps, 1980; Alaska

Rural Development Council, 1974.) This is a short

season relative to most other parts of the United

States, but it is adequate for many crops. Soil and

air temperatures during the growing season can

constrain the growth of some crops, such as corn,

but there are other including barley, oats, some

wheat cultivars, potatoes, vegetables, and the oilseed canola that produce well in this climate. Some

of these, notably barley, oats, canola, and several

vegetables, apparently can take advantage of the

very long hours of sunlight during the Alaskan summer (up to 20 hours per day). Barley yields, for example, can double those achieved in the Midwest.

Alaska has some active cropland—about 380

farms with 30,000 acres of crops in 1980. (For comparison, cropland in the lower United States totals

413 million acres.) The State government is committed to converting 500,000 more acres to cropIand by 1990. To do this, the State is subsidizing

rapid agricultural development with large-scale

pilot projects. The largest of these is the Delta Project in the Tanana River drainage, where 22 farmers

took ownership of about 2,600 acres each in August

1978. Clearing and development proceeded rapidly 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

by 60,000 acres. Other pilot projects include the

15,000-acre Point MacKenzie dairy project with 31

tracts for farms ranging from 300 to 640 acres each.

Another project is planned near the town of

Nenana, where SCS has identified 175,000 acres of

soils with “excellent” potential (Alaska Agricultural

Action Council, 1981a and b).

Alaska also has a large livestock potential but currently a small livestock industry. About 1.2 million

acres of range were used for livestock grazing in

1978 (Epps, 1980), but the rangeland potential includes some 10 million to 13 million acres of grassdominated ecosystems where cattle, sheep, and

horses could graze and an estimated 100 million

acres of lichen- and shrub-dominated ecosystems

possibly suited for reindeer grazing. (For comparison, rangelands in the lower United States

total 621.4 million acres.) The livestock industry

may grow in tandem with grain farming, providing

a local market for some barley production and byproducts from grain or oilseed processing,

Alaska imports more than 90 percent of its food

supply, including most red meat. But the economic

constraints on developing in-State agriculture are

formidable. With current markets, imported food

generally is less expensive than Alaskan-grown

food. This is caused principally by the lack of

marketing and distribution structures to accommodate local production (Epps, 1980). Such structures have not developed because existing farms

cannot support processing, distribution, and marketing investments. Thus, there is a development

bottleneck that the State government is trying to

remedy with various subsidies. (It should be noted

that development of agriculture in other parts of

the United States has also been subsidized by Government. )

Most of Alaska’s potential cropland is located in

the interior along the drainages of the Yukon,

Tanana, Copper, Matanuska, and Susitna rivers.

Developing this agricultural potential will mean

that some of that land’s present production of

timber and wildlife will be foregone. The value of

this production cannot be quantified accurately to

compare it with the projected value of agricultural

crops. Because the land is still in Government ownership, and because substantial development is unlikely without Government subsidies, the tradeoffs

will be weighed in the process of State politics in

Alaska. In any case, development will be a deliberate and gradual process that could profit from the

study of development mistakes made in other States

and from advances in the understanding of agricultural ecology.

Alaska probably has more control over farmers’

implementation of conservation practices and

choice of production methods than any other State

because the State government still has title to most

land that will become farmland (see table B-2). This

power is being used to protect the sustainability of

the resource base. The State requires that individual

farm conservation plans be prepared with the local

soil conservation subdistricts and approved by the

State Department of Natural Resources. The plan

is recorded as a covenant against the title, so it must

be carried out.

In the main pilot project near the Delta-Clearwater area, for example, the soils have a silt-loam

texture and are shallow and subject to seasonal drying (Knight, et al., 1979). SCS officials rate these

soils with a relatively low tolerance for soil loss.

Original surveys in the area indicated that the soils

were moderately erodible, but data collected in

1978, the year when lands were allocated to farmers, indicated higher credibility than originally

estimated. These problems were foreseen, however.

A number of institutions, including the State’s Agricultural Experiment Station, SCS, and the Alaska

Department of Natural Resources, have been cooperating in research on environmental variables and

soil management alternatives under Alaskan conditions. Thus, a number of appropriate technologies

including conservation tillage, stripcropping, shelterbelt, and other practices are included in the new

farms’ conservation plans.

The Delta-Clearwater soils are typical of the potentially arable lands of interior Alaska in that they

are mainly wind- or water-deposited soil materials

that are susceptible to erosion. Because much of the

terrain is level or gently sloping, water erosion

hazards are generally minimal. Wind erosion, however, can be a problem.

Table B-2.—Landownership in Alaska as of

September 1981 (millions of acres)

—

Distribution of

landownershi p

when Federal Current

transfers are distribution of

Landowner completea

landownership

U.S. Government. . . . 225.5 302.4

Alaska State government . . 104.5 53.0b

Indian corporation . . ., . . . 44.0 18.6C

Private ... . . . . . . ... . . 1,0 1.0 —

Total ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375.0 375.0 ——

a Tabel does not include tranfers from State to private lands

b Alaska State government selection period ends January 1994,

c The balance of Indian Corp lands has been selected but title transfer has not

yet been approved

SOURCE Beaumont McClure, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Programs

Staff, September 1981
App. B— Virgin Lands ● 223

With range ecosystems, as with croplands, the environmental parameters that determine which Alaskan land is suitable for grazing are still being determined. The 1979 RPA report notes that Alaskan

ecosystems generally have low productivity levels.

Only the shrub thickets and the Aleutian moist tundra with the tall blue joint reedgrass produce over

a ton of herbage and browse per acre on their best

sites, The report indicates that there are about 19

million acres in these two types of rangelands but

does not say what part comprises the best sites

(USDA, 1979). (One ton of herbage per acre is a fairly setcre test–only about one-eighth of the rangelands in the contiguous States are expected to produce at this level, even when in top condition.)

The grass-dominated, rangeland ecosystems located in the south-central coastal region and on the

eastern Aleutian Islands did not evolve under intensive grazing by native herbivores. Thus, the existing plant communities may change substantially if grazed by domestic livestock. Secondary environment al effects will need to be monitored carefully as the livestock industry expands. Another

consideration is the rate of nutrient cycling under

Alaskan rangeland conditions. Research on native

hay yields indicates that once-per-year harvests

without fertilization tend to cut production in half’,

and persistent use by livestock could have more

severe effects ( Mitchell, 1974). Fertilizer can sustain production, but fertilizing rangelands is rarely economically feasible.

Tundra rangelands are much more extensive

than grasslands, and reindeer, which graze the

lichen- and shrub-dominated tundra and are physiologically adapted to survive the long winters with

little supplemental feeding, could be used to expand

the livestock industry in Alaska. Reindeer were introduced to Alaska in 1891. The herds increased

to over 600,000 head by 1932, but declined in the

next two decades to about 25,000 and have increased only slightly since. Overstocking and consequent range failure are cited as partial reasons

for the decline of reindeer ranching (USDA, 1980).

Lichens and shrubs take decades to recover from

overgrazing but are now in good condition again.

Recently there has been renewed interest in reindeer, and range management plans now are being

deesigned to avoid overgrazing, Forage on summer

range is plentiful and the main range management

problem is to provide sufficient winter range t o

allow for long rest periods in a rest-rotation grazing system. (After a lichen has been disturbed by .

reindqeer, it takes 2 years for remaining fragments

to start new plants, Thus, winter sites are rested

for 4 to 8 years in the new grazing systems (U.

Alaska, 1980)). SCS and the University of Alaska

initiated resource surveys on tundra rangelands in

1976 using imagery from Landsat, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Earth resources satellite, and extensive field surveys. Conservation range plans are now nearly complete for

15 million acres of the Seward Peninsula.

Some native animals that are well adapted to tundra and other Alaskan habitats probably are suitable for domestication to produce food and fiber.

For example, small-scale husbandry of musk oxen,

which produce high-quality wool, has demonstrated some potential. However, intensified management of caribou or other animals now’ considered to be “game” would require a philosophic; al

attitude change on the part of the public and

resource management professionals (U SDA-RPA,

1979),

The impact of cropland development and increasing herds of exotic livestock on the nativee wildlife

resources of Alaska is likely to remain an issue as

the State develops its resource potentials. For example, a large part of the State’s potentially tillable

land is located in the Upper Yukon Basin, an area

with extraordinarily productitve waterfowl habitat.

The waterfowl reproduce in poorly drained flood

plains which abound with oxbow and pothole lakes.

Above these flood plains, however, there are some

3 million acres of well-drained tillable soils (Drew

1979). Whether to plan eventual developrnent of the

Upper Yukon Basin’s tillable soils has been a point

of contention and the topic of congressional hearings (U.S. Congress, 1979). Agriculturalists recognize that draining and clearing the pothole areas

of Yukon Flats would be an error, but believe the

option of developing some of the well-drained lands

should be kept open. They note that some wildlife

and agriculture can coexist and predict that producing small grains could enhance waterfowl habitat. Other experts are less optimistic about the

coexistence of agriculture and wildlife. They are

concerned, for example, that agricultural development in the Upper Yukon region would eventually

bring pressures to regulate the flow of the river,

which in turn would harm warterfowl reproduction

Other conflicts may arise as agriculture develops.

Irrigation is likely for some arable areas, and

ground water use could become controversial in

permafrost regions. Irrigation and agricultural

runoff also could affect salmon spawning areas.
224 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Conclusions

Many important questions remain to be answered

about both farming and livestock enterprises in

Alaska. The State is in the unique position of being able to learn from the decades of agricultural

experience in the lower 48 States. But direct transfer of agricultural technologies from lower latitude

research and development is not sufficient because

crop production and range management in Alaska

involve significantly different soil temperatures,

climate, and growing seasons. The ecology of agriculture—dynamics of nutrient cycles, soil formation, and plant physiology, for example—need to

be better known in order to design farm and range

management programs that will sustain the initially

high productivity of Alaska’s virgin agricultural

resources.

A major threat to the long-term maintenance of

Alaska’s inherent land productivity is the prospect

of making decisions with inadequate data. For example, the majority of Alaska’s potential agricultural soils are intermingled with or adjacent to

forestlands and yet only very limited assessments

have been made of the interrelationships between

forest management and agricultural land management, Inadequate climate data is another example,

Under cool weather growing conditions, the timing

of chemical inputs and other farming practices is

critically important. But knowledge of microclimates and data bases for weather forecasting are

inadequate to support optimum decisions. The soils

data used to identify the 18.5 million acres of potentially tillable soils is a preliminary survey, adequate

for broad planning but not for project- or farm-level

decisions. Similarly, not enough is known about the

ground water hydrology of the potential agriculture

lands to foresee the conflicts that may arise.

Thus, Alaska must maintain a strong research

program if it is to develop its agricultural potential

and help to reduce the economic pressure to consume land resources elsewhere. The role of the

Federal Government will be to support the necessary research for site-specific management decisions and to provide sufficient expert personnel in

such agencies as SCS to continue the conservation

planning momentum that has characterized the accelerating agricultural development of the past 3

years.

Appendix B References

Alaska Agricultural Action Council, “Alaska’s Agriculture: A Positive Future, ” Annual Report to the

Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, 1981( a].

, Expanding Alaska Agriculture, A Positive Commitment (Juneau, Alaska: Office of the Governor,

1981(b)).

Alaska Rural Development Council, “Alaska’s Agricultural Potential, ” publication No. 1, 1974.

Burton, W. E,, “Historical Perspectives in Alaskan Agriculture, ” Alaska Agricultural Potential (Fairbanks,

Alaska: University of Alaska Cooperative Extension

Service, 1974), pp. 1-9.

Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, et al., “National Agricultural Lands

Study, Final Report, ” 1981.

Drew, J. V., “Agricultural Resources of the Yukon Flats

and the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, ” Alaska National

Znterest Lands—Part Z, hearings before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and

the Environment of the Committee on Merchant

Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives,

96th Cong., serial No. 96-5, 1979.

Epps, Alan C., “Technology Issues in Developing Sustained Agricultural Productivity on Alaskan Virgin

Lands,” OTA background paper, 1980.

Knight, Charles W,, et al., “Delta Dust?: Soil Management

on Agricultural Land in Interior Alaska, ” Agroborea)is, January 1979, pp. 35-37.

Mitchell, W. W., “Rangelands of Alaska, ” Alaska Agricultural Potential, Alaska Rural Development Council, publication No. 1, Cooperative Extension Service

(Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska, 1974).

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine

and Fisheries, “Hearings Before the Subcommittee

on Fisheries and Wildlife, Conservation and the Environment, ” 1979.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Resources Conservation Act: Appraisal 1980, ” 1980.

U.S. Department of Agriculture-RPA, “An Assessment

of the Forest and Range Land Situation in the United

States, ” 1979.

U.S. Department of Agriculture-SCS, Alaska Agricultural

Land Development Fact Sheet, compiled by Doug

Sellers, June 1980.

University of Alaska, Cooperative Extension Service,

“What’s Developing, Land Ownership Changes:

How Will They Affect Reindeer Grazing Leases?”

June 1980, pp. 6-7.
Appendix C

Soil Productivity Variables

Organic Matter

Soil organic matter is important to soil productivity because it: 1 ) contributes to the development

of soil aggregates, which enhance root development

and reduce the energy needed to work the soil; 1)

increases the air- and water-holding capacity of the

soil, which is necessary for plant growth and helps

to reduce erosion; 3] releases essential plant

nutrients as it decays; 4) holds nutrients from fertilizer in storage until the plants need them; and

5) enhances the abundance and distribution of vital

soil biota. The importance of these functions varies

greatly from one soil type to another.

The best soils for plant production possess substantial water-holding and ion-exchange capacities,

good physical structure, and thriving populations

of bacteria, fungi, and invertebrates. These attributes are highly correlated with soil organic matter content derived from plant remains and microbial synthesis. Good soil structure depends on aggregation of colloidal clay minerals held together

by organic molecules. These organic molecules are

being consumed continually by microbes and other

invertebrates, so maintaining soil organic matter

requires a steady influx of plant biomass from root

decay and aboveground organic residues (Jenny,

1980).

Effects on Productivity

Increased soil organic matter commonly improves water infiltration, decreases evaporation,

fosters more extensive and deeper root systems

which may make more moisture available to crops,

and improves the efficiency of water use by the

crop.

Major benefits to soil fertility are derived from

soil organic matter largely through its effect on aggregation of soil particles. Increased particle aggregation lowers soil bulk density, consequently improving tilth, increasing soil percolation and aeration characteristics, and improving soil drainage,

microbial activity, and temperatures. Fine-grained

organic matter and soil clay minerals form soil colloids, which play major roles in supplying nutrients

to plants. Some soil colloids have the ability to hold

abundant plant nutrients on their surfaces where

the nutrients are easily exchangeable with hydrogen ions produced by plant roots.

The main natural source of nitrogen for plant

growth is soil organic matter. Mineral soils ordinarily contain about 400 to 6,000 lb per acre of

nitrogen in the plow layer and somewhat lesser

amounts in subsoils. However, most of the nitrogen

is in soil organic matter and is unavaiable to plants

until it is converted into ammonia and nitrates by

micro-organisms (Allison, 1973).

Soil organic matter may contain from 15 to 80

percent of the total soil phosphorus, an important

plant nutrient. Micro-organisms use inorganic

phosphorus and synthesize organic phosphorus,

subsequently providing an important link in the

soil/phosphorus plant chain. Like nitrogen, there

are active and inactive forms of phosphorus in soil

organic matter. The active substances chiefly are

residues that have not yet been transformed by microbial processes. A substantial amount of organic

phosphorus released during the plants’ growing

season comes from decomposition of this soil organic matter. The literature contains numerous

statements that the addition of farmyard manure

and green manures will increase the availability of

soil phosphorus to plants; however, experimental

evidence to support such statements is scarce

(Allison, 1973).

Soil organic matter helps control the supply of

potassium for plant growth. Potassium is adsorbed

on organic colloids and is present in organic residues and living micro-organisms (Mulder, 1950). As

these reservoirs of available potassium are depleted,

they are replenished both by potassium released

from inorganic compounds and from added organic residues. Under many conditions, the organic

residues are the important factor in maintaining the

soil’s plant-available potassium.

Even though required in only small amounts, the

micronutrients sulfur, calcium, magnesium, iron,

copper, manganese, zinc, boron, and molybdenum

also are essential for general plant growth. Here,

too, soil organic matter plays a major role in assuring that these trace elements remain available for

plant uptake.

Maintenance and Loss of

Soil Organic Matter

Farming practices affect the organic matter content of soil. Where the land is plowed, soil organic

matter decreases through oxidation. Keeping fresh225
226 . Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

ly broken virgin land bare for long periods markedly decreases soil organic matter, The decrease occurs mostly in the first 25 years after the soil is

broken; after that a new, but lower, steady state of

organic matter content is reached.

Under cultivation, much of the vegetation produced is removed, water and wind erosion are accelerated, and frequent cultivations favor oxidation

of organic matter, The reduction of soil organic

matter content can be reduced significantly by

adopting cropping systems that reduce the frequency and degree of tillage and keep the soil protected

by vegetation as much of the time as possible. Field

experiments at Mandan, N. Dak., showed that the

loss of nitrogen during the first 33 years of cropping was 34 percent for continuous corn while the

loss with continuous small grains was 14 percent

(Allison and Sterling, 1949). Where grass sods are

maintained, even in regions of heavy rainfall, there

is little loss of nitrogen or organic matter,

The smaller the crop and the more completely it

is removed from the soil, the more rapidly the soil

humus will decrease, and conversely, the larger the

crop and the more of it that is returned to the soil,

the higher the level of organic matter that can be

maintained. Nevertheless, the level in any tilled soil

usually will be considerably below that of the original virgin soil.

Research on Changes in

Soil Organic Matter

Changes in the amount of organic matter in soils

occur relatively slowly. Research of several years’

duration is required for properly documenting the

effect of cropping systems, soil treatments, and

other management practices on the soil organic

matter. Few such studies have been initiated in recent years, in part because many agronomists and

soil scientists feel that the effects of many management practices on soil organic matter are reasonably predictable. Another reason is that funding for

long-term research generally is not as available as

for shorter term research.

Data on the effects of management practices on

soil organic matter come mostly from studies initiated years ago, many of which now have been

discontinued. However, some long-term studies

still are under way, notably the Morrow Plots in

Illinois and Sanborn field in Missouri. European

studies include those of Rothamsted Experimental

Station in England, and those at Grignon, France.

Information Needs

Improved data and understanding in a number

of areas will assist in determining the long-term impacts of new and old technologies on soil productivity, Further information is needed on how soil

organic matter affects soil productivity under various cultural practices and climatic conditions, and

on how cultural practices affect organic matter, Improved data are needed on optimum levels of soil

organic matter for specific sites, specific crops, and

specific cropping systems. As the cost of commercial fertilizers increases, new data on the interrelationships of soil organic matter and commercial fertilizers will become increasingly important, Similarly, by enhancing soil tilth, organic matter ultimately may help reduce the amount of fossil fuel

used during plowing, planting, and other such field

activities.

As organic wastes, some containing high levels

of toxic heavy metals, are introduced into agricultural practices, further understanding of how soil

organic matter holds or releases these toxic substances will become increasingly important.

Biota

Most soils are inhabited by a diversity of life

forms. The soil biota include numerous microbes,

a wide variety of invertebrate animals, and a few

vertebrates. Most soil biota are microscopic or, at

the largest, tiny to the naked eye. Some larger soil

invertebrates such as earthworms, ants, other soil

insects, and land snails and slugs are also important. Small mammals are the dominant vertebrate

animals found below ground, but some amphibians,

reptiles, and even a few birds live at least a part

of their lives within soils.

Soil organisms often modify and enhance the soil

by their activities. They are vital to the formation

and maintenance of the natural soil system and perform functions essential for plant growth. Before

the widespread availability of commercial fertilizers, nutrients recycled by the biota were recognized

as a major component of land productivity and so

soil ecology ranked high among the agricultural sciences. In recent decades, however, there has been

much less emphasis on soil biology.

Scientists generally are not alarmed about the

possibility of pesticide use causing severe harm to

soil ecology in the near future, Insecticides and herbicides in use are tested for their impact on soil
App. C—Soil Productivity Variables . 227

——

biota, Inhibition of some biological processes and

suppression of particular groups of biota occur, but

generally the gross effect of each pesticide application seems neither great nor long-lived. Pesticides

do cause changes in soil insect and earthworm populations, but the impact of these changes on longterm land productivity is not known.

Frequent applications of toxic chemicals probably are changing the composition of soil biota

communities, favoring species that can adapt to the

new chemical environment. However, methods are

not well-enough developed to make practical differentiation among microbe species in the field, and

soil invertabrates have been studied so little that

many are still unknown. Thus, the cumulative effects of agricultural technologies on productivity

will not be measured until advances are made in

the science of soil biology.

Micro-organisms

Soil micro-organisms include bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, and protozoa. A critical function they

perform is to generate nutrients essential for plant

growth. Micro-organisms are either the sole or

chief natural means for converting unavailable

forms of nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, and other

elements in soil into products that plants use. Thus,

the rate at which micro-organisms convert organic

nitrogen and other nutrients to inorganic products

determines the rate of plant growth. Hence any action deleterious to microbial processes critical to

plant nutrition would have adverse consequences.

Soil micro-organisms also modify soil structure

by forming humus that binds minute soil particles

into larger aggregates. These larger structures are

beneficial because they promote root development,

improve soil aeration, and lead to improved soil

moisture.

Microscopic forms of life are responsible for decomposing organic matter and releasing elements

not used directly as plant nutrients. Some of these

elements may be converted to gaseous form, as in

the case of carbon and nitrogen. By such conversions, micro-organisms in part regulate the chemistry of the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. Microbial decay of plant remains is useful because

some crop residues contain naturally occurring toxic substances that at high concentrations are deleterious to plants (Alexander, 1980).

Further, soil micro-organisms are responsible for

decomposing a wide array of synthetic chemicals

deliberately or inadvertently released into agricultural soils and water, including pesticides, industrial wastes, and air pollutants. Micro-organisms convert many chemicals to inorganic products. The

breakdown process may lead to detoxification of

toxic chemicals, the formation of short- or longlived toxicants, or the synthesis of nontoxic products, Scientists have investigated only a few of the

multitude of chemicals to determine what breakdown products are formed when micro-organisms

encounter chemicals in natural systems (Alexander,

1981).

Some data are available on micro-organisms and

their effects on soil chemistry, but numerous and

considerable voids exist in the data base. The processes most frequently studied are the decomposition of soil organic matter, nitrogen mineralization,

vitrification, the decomposition of added organic

materials, and nitrogen fixation.

Most of the major technological innovations that

might affect the microbiology of agricultural and

rangeland soils have been evaluated for their impacts on microbiology, at least in part. Thus, the

likely impact of a particular type of technological

change or agricultural operation on soil microbiology can be predicted, but only in relatively gross,

qualitative terms. The studies generally have not

been conducted in a fashion that would allow extrapolation from the particular in~’estimation to conditions prevailing elsewhere. Thus, generalizations

cannot be made on the quantitative responses of

microbial populations in different soil types, different climatic regions, and areas that have different

types of vegetation [Alexander, 1980).

Essentially no models have been devised to predict how agricultural technologies will affect the

aggregate of microbial activities that are important

to crop production and rangeland management.

Specific interactions among micro-organisms, and

between microbial predators and their prey, are not

known. Thus, practical methods do not exist for scientific advisors, farmers, and policy makers to predict the impact of existing or alternative technologies on microbial plant production or soil fertility (Alexander, 1980).

Because policy makers, public interest groups,

and sometimes Federal agencies have been acting

largely with inadequate information, the impacts

on microbial activities may sometimes be overdramatized, whereas in other instances a significant problem may be wholly ignored. In addition,

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 farmers incur by applying new agricultural technologies

are largely unknown (Alexander, 1980).

Sell Invertebrates and Vertebrates

Soil invertebrates include such animals as earthworms, slugs, land snails, ants, and other insects.

These animals carry out the early stages of the physical and chemical decomposition of all types of organic debris in or on the soil. Most soil invertebrates also act as carriers of microbial propagules

(e.g., seeds, spores] and so they inoculate the organic matter as it is passed through their bodies, The

final stages of biochemical decomposition are also

accomplished by microbes, thus recycling nutrients, forming humus, and fostering soil particle aggregation (Dindal, 1980).

Historically, most research on the biology and

ecology of soil invertebrates has been carried out

in Europe and Russia. Although there were occasional American publications on soil organisms before the late 1960’s, it was not until then that a major research thrust was initiated in this country.

Even today, few U.S. colleges and universities offer courses in soil biology. Consequently, much of

the understanding of the general functions of soil

invertebrates comes from the works of foreign scientists. This is exemplified by the recent International Colloquium of Soil Zoology held in Syracuse

in 1979, “Soil Biology as Related to Land-Use Practices. ” Of the 96 papers presented, 20 dealt with

effects of agriculture on soil fauna, and only one

of these 20 papers described work conducted in the

United States (Dindal, 1980).

This dearth of research in the United States can

be explained by several factors: 1) agricultural practices in the United States have not been developed

to take advantage of soil organisms; 2) a lack of

funding and of an organization with “lead agency”

status to oversee research in this area; 3) a lack of

employment opportunities in this field of research;

4) a lack of cooperation between Federal agencies

and soil invertebrate ecologists; and 5) the lack of

research is partially a result of the nature of the research itself (i. e., procedures may be extremely rigorous, tedious, and time-consuming).

Research on soil invertebrates generally encounters one or more of the following problems. First,

to get useful data on how changes in soil invertebrate ecology occur, many (generally 10 or more

per site) small samples per year must be taken from

treated and control areas. Second, few croplands

have been sampled for soil fauna because the soil

is regularly disturbed by plowing, planting, cultivation, and harvests, thus hindering needed control.

Third, the sheer numbers of soil organisms per sample can become overwhelming to assess. For example, a soil sample 5 cm in diameter by 3 cm deep

in a central Ohio field may have a range of 30 to

1,000 individual microarthropods in it (Dindal,

Felts, and Norton, 1975).

The massive number of organisms in a soil sample increases the problems of sorting, counting,

identifying, and determining the ecological roles of

these creatures within a reasonable time, and demands extreme patience and technical knowledge.

To complicate such research further, between 5 and

25 percent of the microarthropods alone found on

most new study sites will be species never before

described taxonomically. Further, the available taxonomic keys to identify soil biota are European or

Russian and do not apply adequately to many U.S.

fauna. Life history details of these new forms also

are unknown, thus demanding further time-consuming laboratory and field consideration (Dindal,

1980]. Finally, soil invertebrates and vertebrates exist as part of a microcommunity within the soil. The

structure and function of this community, too, must

be assessed.

Despite the lack of quantitative data on the impact of agricultural technology on invertebrates in

most U.S. soils, some qualitative information exists.

The situation is not the same for soil vertebrates,

which include such animals as moles, gophers,

mice, other burrowing mammals, and some reptiles

and amphibians. Even though some people worry

that agricultural technologies may harm beneficial

soil invertebrates, the activities of soil vertebrates

are commonly and narrowly viewed as negative—

e.g., making burrows in which farm machinery can

become entrapped, or consuming valuable grain or

forage. Some studies of soil vertebrates suggest that

they may also have beneficial impacts, such as

breaking up hardpan a foot or more below the surface, thus improving drainage and increasing rooting depth (Ross, et al., 1968). Unfortunately, such

ecology studies typically are conducted on virgin

land and are difficult to relate to agricultural productivity,

Soil animals play an integral, if limited, part in

humus formation. Their chief contribution to land

productivity lies in the degree that microbial activity is enhanced by their activities. Together, soil

fauna and microbiota play an indispensable role in

soil formation, soil profile modification, nutrient

release, and the mixing of organic and inorganic

materials. Holistic field studies of invertebrate-soil,

vertebrate-plant productivity associations are practically nonexistent. Until such studies have been
App. C—Soil Productivity Variables ● 2 2 9

undertaken on different soils under various agricultural conditions, scientists and farmers will lack the

information needed to design and implement farming systems that can make optimum use of scarce

resources.

Soil Chemistry

Each agricultural crop, whether plant or animal,

that is removed from the land carries with it some

soil nutrients. This nutrient loss is in addition to

the losses from soil erosion, leaching, denitrification, and volatilization of certain elements. If the

nutrient supply is not replenished, the soil’s fertility

will decrease.

Commercial fertilizer helps maintain the supply

of soil nutrients needed for continued agricultural

production. Most people are aware that large

amounts of commercial fertilizers are applied to

U.S. lands each year, but are less aware of the soil

nutrients that are taken from the land in the form

of agricultural products. For example, 30 lb of phosphorus are removed with 50 bushels of wheat (3,000

lb) (Shacklette, 1977). Similarly, Hawaii exports

2,200 tons of potassium each year in its pineapple

crop alone. Losses of nitrogen and sulfur follow the

same general trend as those of phosphorus and potassium. Even well-maintained organic farms that

carefully collect and return the farm’s unused crop

residues and animal wastes to the soil can only reduce but not eliminate nutrient losses.

Natural weathering produces new soil and releases additional nutrients, but the process is exceedingly slow and thus unable to keep pace with

modern agriculture’s needs. Whether soil nutrient

replacement is accomplished by addition of natural

or commercial fertilizers is an individual’s choice,

but agriculture has to replace what it has taken

from the soil if it expects to accomplish long-term,

sustainable crop production.

Judicious use of fertilizers is the key. Additions

that are too low result in nutrient deficiencies in

the soil and lower crop yields. Where fertilizers are

applied too heavily, chemical excesses in the soil,

runoff, and ground water not only are unnecessary

capital expenses but also detriments to other parts

of the natural resource base.

Most of America’s croplands are fertilized so that

the exchangeable concentration of nutrients remains at a level that will sustain high yields. Normally, fertilization requires frequent [usually annual) input of nutrients. The cost of fertilizing is spiraling because its production is highly energy intensive, especially nitrogen fertilizers. In fact, of the

on-farm energy expenditures for food production

in 1977, 36 percent was for fertilizer (Pimentel, et

al., 1973; Olson, 1977). Thus, the on-farm production costs of food can be expected to continue to

rise with the cost of energy as long as present

energy-intensive fertilizer technology is used.

Commercial Fertilizers

Commercial fertilizers generally are synthesized

or manufactured through various industrial processes and contain one or more of the essential plant

nutrients (Fertilizer Institute, 1976). These include

important soluble compounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Limestone, gypsum, dolomite, greensand (glauconite), rock phosphate, and

granite are common rocks that when ground to a

fine particle size also can be added to cropland soils

to provide calcium, magnesium, potassium, and

phosphorus. These finely ground, less soluble natural materials usually are not included in the category “commercial fertilizers. ” They were the basic

inorganic soil nutrient inputs prior to industrial

synthesis of commercial fertilizers. Because conlmercial fertilizers are synthesized, highly soluble,

and concentrated, some people are concerned that

such fertilizers may have certain long-term adverse

impacts on soils, the soil biota, water supplies, and

other parts of the natural resource base. The following discussion briefly examines the impacts of the

common commercial fertilizers on land product i\’-

ity.

NITROGEN FERTILIZER

The nitrogen fertilizers used today are acid-forming. This can be a benefit or a potential problem

depending on the specific soil. In naturally alkaline

soils, acid-forming fertilizers can increase productivity. However, in naturally acid soils, fertilizers

can increase the soil’s acidity and reduce crop

yields unless lime is applied to neutralize the acidity. Thus, depending on soil properties and management, the residual acidity formed could be a problem, but one that is easily managed.

The rate of application of fertilizer nitrogen to

croplands can influence the amount of nitrate leaving fields via subsurface waters or drain tiles, When

the percentage of the applied nitrogen used by the

crop decreases, the amount available for leaching

increases. Fertilizer use on cultivated crops can increase the nit rogen loss from soils, but how this effects nitrogen concentration in streams is still unclear.
230 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

Nitrogen can be lost through surface runoff, too.

Most of the nitrogen removed by surface runoff is

organic nitrogen associated with sediment. Even

though it is possible to lose significant fertilizer

nitrogen in surface runoff if heavy rains immediately follow application, this accounts for only a small

proportion of nitrogen lost from soils or of the fertilizer nitrogen applied (Mengel, 1980). Nevertheless, spring measurements of nitrate in surface waters in Illinois showed that at least 55 to 60 percent

originated from fertilizer nitrogen (Kohl, et al.,

1971).

The amounts of fertilizer nitrogen either lost to,

or found in transit to, ground water are quite variable. In general, in the Southeastern United States

nitrate enrichment of shallow ground water does

occur, though no enrichment of deep ground water

is known. Denitrification of nitrate in shallow

ground water also has been noted. In the Midwest,

significant amounts of nitrogen can be found below

the root zone (Mengel, 1980).

The problem of leaching nitrates from fertilizer

to ground water is greater in irrigated areas. Nitrogen fertilizer use on irrigated sandy soils shows a

high correlation with nitrate-contaminated aquifers

(Spalding, et al., 1978; Reeves and Miller, 1978).

PHOSPHORUS AND POTASSIUM

Unlike nitrogen, which has a relatively short residual activity in soils, phosphorus tends to accumulate in soils in relatively insoluble inorganic forms.

Thus, phosphorus fertilization leads to increased

soil phosphorus levels over time. In many intensively managed soils, particularly where high-value

crops such as vegetables are grown, phosphorus

levels have become quite high. The questions then

asked are: at what level is soil phosphorus high

enough that no additional phosphorus is needed

and how long can soil reserves adequately supply

plant needs? Fertilization emphasis thus shifts to

maintaining soil phosphorus at a level adequate for

optimum crop growth.

Phosphorus buildup is of practical significance.

Soil test reports indicate that soil phosphorus levels

are increasing in some States, and in many instances have become adequate to supply the phosphorus needed for crop production with only small

additions (Mengel, 1980). Only a very small amount

of fertilizer phosphorus is lost from soils if erosion

is controlled. However, even these small amounts

can be significant and can accelerate surface water

eutrophication. Phosphorus loss can be minimized

through proper erosion control.

Although some phosphorus is lost by movement

into ground waters through leaching, the amounts

generally are insignificant from both agronomic

and water-quality standpoints. However, significant phosphorus may enter ground water where the

water table is high or approaches the plow layer.

Similarly, flooding may provide anaerobic conditions in soils, and in such cases phosphorus concentrations can be fairly large in effluent from tile

drains and can be a ground water pollutant.

Like phosphorus, potassium from fertilizers can

accumulate in soils over time. Soils in humid areas

of the United States are inherently low in potassium, so yields can be enhanced by potassium application. Many soils in the more arid regions contain

adequate potassium levels, and potassium fertilization can actually decrease yields (Rehm, et al.,

1979). Thus, care is needed to ensure that potassium is applied only on soils with low natural potassium levels. Potassium fertilizer does not appear to

be a potential source of pollution for either surface

or ground water.

COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER EFFECTS ON SOIL

INVERTEBRATES ON MICRO-ORGANISMS

Although little-studied, fertilizers seem to have

considerable effects on soil invertebrates through

alterations of plant species diversity and composition (Morris, 1978). Field studies of fertilizer-caused

changes in the diversity of invertebrate populations

show that the impacts diminish in successively

higher levels in the food chain (Hurd and Wolf,

1974), Similarly, the population of microarthropods

in several test plots treated with commercial fertilizers or with manure showed a small population increase with the commercial fertilizer and a large

one with manure (Wallwork, 1976). Combinations

of commercial and organic fertilizers may produce

the most beneficial effects.

The activities of soil micro-organisms, and the impact of commercial fertilizers on them, have been

studied extensively in other countries, but less in

the United States. Convincing data for a long-term

detriment caused by synthetic fertilizers do not exist, Although individual studies do in fact show

temporary inhibitions of microbial activity, the suppressions do not appear to be long term or to affect significantly the microbial processes important

to soil fertility, This does not mean that detrimental effects do not occur, however. It may be that the

science of soil biology is not able to detect the effects,
App. C—Soil Productivity Variables ● 231

The commercial fertilizer anhydrous ammonia is

a special case because of the high concentrations

that normally are applied to a narrow region of the

soil. It is toxic to specific microbial processes for

a short period after application. However, the ammonia is converted in several days or weeks to the

nontoxic product nitrate so that it is not certain

whether the inhibition has long-term significance

(Alexander, 1980).

Pesticides

Pesticides are chemicals used primarily to combat pests that affect food and fiber production or

cause a public health hazard. They are broadly classified on the basis of the kinds of pests they control—namely, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides,

nemat icicles, rodent icicles, and miticides. Also,

chemicals used for defoliation, desiccation, soil

fumigation, and plant-growth regulation also are

classified as pest icicles (Hark in, et al., 1980).

Most pesticides are organic chemicals. Some are

manmade and some are of natural origin, Many

contain chlorine, nitrogen, sulfur, or phosphorus

which serve to determine the toxicological impacts

of the compounds.

The U.S. consumption of pesticides represents 45

percent of total world USe. Approximately 36,000

pesticide labels are now registered with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), although

only a few’ substances are used extensively. The

agricultural sector is the major user of pesticides

and the amounts used are increasing at a more rapid rate than use by homeowners, industry, institutions, and Government.

During the past decade a significant shift occurred in the agricultural use of insecticides with

an increase in the use of organophosphorus and

carbamate compounds and a decline in the use of

organochlorine compounds. The decline in organochlorine insecticides will continue as a result of

Government restrictions on their use because of

their adverse environmental impacts.

Mankind has benefited markedly from the use of

pesticides, notably in terms of high production of

food and fiber at relatively low cost and in improved public health. The demand for pesticides

is expected to continue to increase because there

are few feasible alternatives for pest control. Integrated pest management, if widely practiced, could

reduce pesticide use on croplands [U.S. Congress,

OTA, 1979).

Since the early 1960’s when environrnental

awareness became acute, increasing concern has

been expressed over the potential hazards associated with pesticide use and their long-term impacts.

Pesticides are potential pollutants of food, drinking water, and fish and wildlife habitats. The impacts of pesticide use on the environment are determined by the environmental transport of the chemicals, their persistence, degradation, and dissipation

in the environment, and the hazards associated

with pesticides and the products created when they

are decomposed or metabolized.

PESTICIDE EFFECTS ON GROUND WATER,

SURFACE WATER, AND PRECIPITATION

The presence of pesticide residues in surface runoff is well documented, and numerous short-term

environmental impacts are noted such as fishkills,

contamination of mollusks, etc. (Ehrlich, et al.,

1977), Longer term impacts that could affect overall

land productivity include the effect of pesticides

carried by surface water into marsh and estuarine

ecosystems that provide the breeding grounds for

many animal species, including many which are

economically important (Heckman, 1982). Pesticide

pollution of ground water has been documented

(see ground water section). The problem seems to

be most severe for shallow ground water and sites

having sandy, permeable soils.

The contamination of rainfall by pesticides has

been documented for the organochlorinated compounds. Recent studies show that toxaphene can

be carried long distances from its use site and deposited through rainfall elsewhere in concentrations high enough to damage fisheries. Transportation of the chemical seems to result from vaporization and subsequent adsorption on airborne particles (Bidleman, et al., 1979).

PESTICIDE EFFECTS ON SOIL INVERTEBRATES

The effects of pesticides on soil fauna is a highly

complex issue and researchers have had difficulty

making generalizations. Variables include: 1) the

abundance of biocidal compounds from various

chemical families, 2) great differences in persistence of pesticide compounds i n the environment,

3) the diversity of invertebrate organisms in different soil communities, 4) metabolic(: products of

different organisms that ingest pesticides, 5) the

many chemical and physical varicties of different

agriculatural soil ecosystems, and 6) t h e psyschological, cultural, and traditional agricultural practices

of people who use pesticides (Dindal, 1980).

Where effects of pesticides have been observed

and analyzed, the biotic responses are equally variable: 1 ) soil fauna may exhibit either a direct response 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 affected in a detrimental fashion, some populations

actually increase; 3) certain pesticide residues accumulate in tissues of some soil organisms with no

apparent ill effects; and 4) certain sensitive species

are killed from acute or chronic exposure to biocides. In almost all cases, the structures and functions of soil communities are modified by pesticide

use (Dindal, 1980).

Although much knowledge exists on the effects

of individual pesticides, much more research is

needed to determine the combined effects of many

pesticides used on the same site,

EFFECTS ON SOIL MICROBES

Although pesticides are designed to control pest

species, the extent of their selectivity for pests in

some cases is not great and other organisms are injured, including soil micro-organisms,

Inhibitions of microbial activity are most pronounced from fungicides and fumigants and the

suppression may remain for long periods. The impact may be so great that the natural balance among

the resident soil microbial populations is upset and

new organisms, such as plant disease vectors, become prominent. Moreover, certain nutrient cycles

regulated by micro-organisms are inhibited by fungicides and fumigants in such a way that significant adverse effects on plant growth and nutrition

become evident. The lack of widespread concern

for these antimicrobial agents is not because of their

lack of toxicity but rather because they are not as

widely used as are the other two major classes of

pesticides (Alexander, 1980),

Insecticides have received most attention in the

past, These compounds may be applied directly to)

soil for the control of soil-borne insects, or they may

reach the soil from drifting sprays or when treated

plant remains fall to the ground or are mixed with

the soil during normal farming practices. Inhibition of some microbial processes or suppressions

of individual populations of bacteria, fungi, or actinomycetes occur. On the other hand, the toxicity

is generally not marked, and the beneficial effects

of the insecticides in controlling insect pests argue

for their use. U.S. regulatory agencies have not

acted on the basis of possible long-term harm insecticides might have on microbial processes, but few

instances of major suppressions of microbial activities in the field have been noted, so that a change

in policy in regard to their use does not appear warranted (Alexander, 1980).

Herbicides are designed to control the growth of

seed-bearing plants. The amount of herbicide used

per unit of land area is small and the compounds

are reasonably selective for target plants, so little

or no inhibition of other soil processes has been

noted. In some instances, herbicides alter microbial

activities, but such changes probably are associated

with suppression of target plant species which limits organic nutrients needed by the micro-organisms around its roots. These effects seem slight

and have not warranted questioning the use to particular chemicals (Alexander, 1980). Herbicide use

in no-till agriculture, however, is a matter of increasing concern because of the increased amounts

applied.

The general consensus among soil microbiologists seems to be that a few of the registered pesticides affect microbial processes in the short term,

but the influence is not sufficient to warrant banning the chemicals. Continual assessment of the effects of new pesticides on microbial processing as

required by current EPA regulations is certainly

worthwhile.

Effects of Toxic Wastes

The addition of toxic waste products to agricultural land can occur inadvertently when waste

materials are applied as fertilizers, Some toxic substances such as heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS), and other industrial chemicals can

reach agricultural land through the atmosphere or

surface water.

Collectively, such toxic wastes provide a wide

spectrum of pressures on all living creatures. Some

organic toxicants on or in the soil can be decomposed or at least modified by biological decomposes, but others cannot. Some of the compounds,

however, are able to sublimate, volatilize, or disperse throughout the soil microenvironment. The

cause-and-effect relationships between many of the

priority pollutants and soil biota are yet to be investigated (Dindal, 1980).

Heavy metals, from whatever source, can threaten soil biotic systems. Research in Holland shows

that earthworm growth and reproductive capacity

can be reduced by copper and worms were eradicated from soils having copper accumulations over

80 parts per million (Rhee, 1969), Interestingly,

other preliminary studies show that other heavy

metals may accumulate to high levels in earthworms without being lethal (Dindal, 1980).

Much is known about the toxicity of cadmium,

zinc, copper, nickel, lead, mercury, and certain

other elements, individually and in combination,

on several major soil microbial processes, including
App. C—Soil Productivity Variables ● 233

decomposition of litter and soil organic matter, certain steps in the nitrogen cycle, and enzymatic activities. Moreover, a variety of individual microbial

groups has been tested showing that heavy metals

indeed inhibit microbial processes at low concentrations. The extent of the toxicity depends on the

particularly heavy metal, its concentration, soil

type, soil pH, and the individual microbial process

or group (Alexander, 1980).

impacts of Soil Chemistry Changes on

Human and Animal Nutrition

A persistent rumor holds that modern food is not

as good as it used to be. But whether this is true

is not known. The chemical makeup of plants varies

with: I) the chemical and physical makeup of the

soil on which the plant is grown, and 2) climatological factors. Nutrient deficiencies in soil tend to

restrict growth and yield of plants so that the plants

that survive and produce well enough to harvest

show little, if any, nutrient deficiency.

Until recently no systematic work had been undertaken to determine if variation in cultural techniques—e. g., organic v. conventional farming methods—affects the nutritional content of crops. Therefore, there are little data to shed light on this question.

However, reasoning a priori, it is possible to

make the following statements:

1.

2,

3.

The bulk of the-crops grown in this country are

grains. Variations in soil and weather conditions are most likely to affect the nonseed part

of the plant; therefore, it is unlikely that the

nutritional content of grain products eaten by

humans is changed by cultural techniques.

Most of the grain raised in the United States

is fed to animals which subsequently nourish

humans. Generally, the makeup of mammalian

muscle and milk and avian eggs are genetically

determined; therefore, the probability of any

nutritional difference in a plant being passed

on to humans through animal products is

small. Mammalian liver is the one animal product whose nutritional content could be affected

significantly by diet.

It is impossible to determine the extent to

which U.S. soil is more or less able to produce

nutritious crops than when it was virgin because of several factors: the lack, until recently, of sufficiently sensitive assay procedures to

detect such differences accurately and reproducibly, especially with regard to the vitamins

and trace elements; the lack of available virgin

soil to conduct a comparison study; the disappearance of many of the crop varieties eaten

by our ancestors; and changes in weather and

increases in air pollution.

The question of whether cultural techniques

cause the levels of either naturally or adventitiously occurring compounds to vary is difficult, though

answerable. Tests for sensory qualities have been

developed to a level of sufficient accuracy to allow

for meaningful comparisons. The levels of naturally

occurring toxins in plants, as well as harmful contaminants such as heavy metals, pesticides, or

chlorinated hydrocarbons, now can be detected,

measured, and discriminated among with accuracy. However, no data base comparing agricultural techniques with the presence of these factors

exists.

Summary

There are no economically feasible substitutes for

the significant agricultural productivity functions

of organic matter and soil biota, so their maintenance in croplands and rangelands is critical. Soil

organic matter can be regenerated in degraded soils

by using various agricultural practices. By doing

so, general soil structure, soil nutrient-holding capacity, and the soil’s resistance to erosion can be

improved.

Soil clay minerals also have a nutrient-holding capacity, but once these fine-grained materials are lost

to erosion, they cannot be regenerated quickly by

known agricultural methods. Generally, the soil

clays play a less dominant role in maintaining good

soil structure than does soil organic matter. Consequently, maintaining soil organic matter in productive soils and regenerating it in degraded soils probably is one of the most economically efficient ways

of sustaining the land’s agricultural productivity.

Soil invertebrates and micro-organisms assist in

breaking down plant remains, which produces new

organic compounds that promote good soil structure and converts soil nutrients to forms usable by

plants. The microbes are also necessary to break

down pesticides and other toxic chemicals. Without

the soil biota, the organic matter from plant residues and manure would be of little use.

Commercial and natural fertilizers must be added

to most soils to sustain present and projected levels

of crop production. Commercial fertilizers are becoming increasingly costly, so maximum benefit of

their application is being sought and this depends

in part on improved knowledge of the dynamics of

soil organic matter and soil biota.
234 Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity —

Appendix C References

Alexander, Martin, “Biodegradation of Chemicals of Environmental Concern, ” Science, vol. 211, 1981, pp.

132-138.

, “How Agricultural Technologies Affect Productivity of Croplands and Rangelands by Affecting Microbial Activity in Soil, ” OTA background paper,

1980.

Allison, F. E., Soil Organic Matter and Its Role in Crop

Production: Developments in Soil Science, No. 3

(Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.,

1973), p. 637.

Allison, F. E., and Sterling, L. O., Soil Science 67:239-252,

1949,

Bidleman, T.F,, Christensen, E. J., and Harder, H. W,,

“Aerial Deposition of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in

Urban and Coastal South Carolina, ” 1979.

Dindal, Daniel L., “Data Base Assessment of Effects of

Agricultural Technology on Soil Macrofauna and the

Resultant Faunal Impact on Crop and Range Productivity, ” OTA background paper, 1980.

Dindal, D. L., Felts, D. D., and Norton, R. A., “Effects

of DDT on Community Structure of Soil Microarthropods in an Old Field, ” J. Vanek (cd.), Progress

in Soil Zoology, 1975, pp. 503-513.

Ehrlich, P, R., Ehrlich, A. H., and Holdren, J. P., .Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment (San

Francisco: W, H. Freeman & Co,, 1977).

The Fertilizer Institute, The Fertilizer Handbook+ William

White and Donald Collins (eds.), Zd cd., Washington,

D. C., 1976,

Harkin, J. M., Simsiman, G. V., and Chesters, G., “Description and Evaluation of Pesticidal Effects on the

Productivity of the Croplands and Rangelands of the

United States,” OTA background paper, 1980.

Heckman, C. W., “Pesticide Effects on Aquatic Habitats, ”

Envir. Sci. and Tech. 16(l) 48a-57a, 1982.

Hurd, L. E., and Wolf, L. L., “Stability in Relation to Nutrient Enrichment in Arthropod Consumers of OldField Successional Ecosystems, ” Eco]. Monogram

44:456-482, 1974.

Jenny, Hans, “Alcohol or Humus?” Science 209:444,

1980.

Kohl, D. H., Shearer, G. B., and Commoner, B., “Fertilizer

Nitrogen: Contribution to Nitrate in Surface Water

in a Corn Belt Watershed, ” Science 174:1331-1334,

1971.

Mengel, David B., “The Effects of Long-Term Fertilizer

Use on Soil Productivity, ” OTA background paper,

1980.

Morris, M. G., “Grassland Management and Invertebrate

Animals—A Selective Review, ” Sci. Proc. Royal

Dublin Soc. Ser. Assn., Proceedings of Symposium

on Grassland Fauna 6(11):247-257, 1978.

Mulder, E. G., AnnuaJ Review of Plant Physiology, vol.

1, 1950, pp. 1-24.

Olson, R, E., “ Fertilizers for Food Production vs. Energy

Needs and Environmental Quality, ” Ecotoxicology

and Environmental Safety, vol. 1, 1977, pp. 311-326.

Pimentel, David, Hurd, L. E., Bellotti, A, C,, Forester,

M. J., Oka, 1. N., Sholes, O. D., and Whitman, R. J.,

“Food Production and the Energy Crisis, ” Science

182:443-449, 1973.

Reeves, C. C., and Miller, W. D., “Nitrate, Chloride and

Dissolved Solids, Ogallala Aquifer, West Texas, ”

Ground Water, vol. 16, No. 3, 1978.

Rehm, G., Daigger, L., and Olson, R. A., “Crop and Soil

Response to Applied P and K in a Long-Term Buildup/Depletion Study, ” Soil Science Research Report,

Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska,

Lincoln, 1979.

Rhee, J. A,, “Effects of Biocides and Their Residues on

Earthworms, ” Med. Rijksfac. Laudbouww Genet.,

34(3): 682-689, 1969.

Ross, B, A., Tester, J. R., and Breckenridge, W. B.,

“Ecology of Mima-Type Mounds in Northwestern

Minnesota, ” Eco]og~ 49:172-177, 168,

Shacklette, Hansford T., “Major Nutritional Elements in

Soils and Plants: A Balance Sheet, ” USGS circular

768, Proceedings of the Geology and Food Conference, 1977.

Spalding, R. F., Gormly, J. R,, Curtiss, B. H., and Exner,

M. E., “Nonpoint Nitrate Contamination of Ground

Water in Merrick Country, Nebraska, ” Ground

Water, vol. 16, No. 2, 1978, pp. 86-95.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Pest

Management Strategies in Crop Protection,

OTA-F-98 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office, October 1979),

Wallwork, J, A., The Distribution and Diversity of Soil

Fauna, Academic Press, London and New York,

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 shortterm need is to develop mathematical models that

can estimate the effects of Federal, State, and local

policies on land productivity. Knowing the probable impacts of education programs, cost-sharing,

tax incentives, subsidies, regulations, and other

measures could help the Nation shape effective

policies to check cropland and rangeland degradation.

Mathematical models provide a documentable,

explicit, and replicable method to analyze the effects of an act ion or series of actions on a complex

system. Models use equations to represent relationships among components of an agricultural system.

They reduce system to their most important elements and estimate how changes in one or more

components of the system will affect other components. Models can be particularly useful to compare the expected effects of different policy options.

The alternative to model-based analysis is intuit ion-the use of mental models. Even though mathematical models often appear bewilderingly complex, mental models can be equally [or more) complex. Mental models cannot, however, be as explicit

nor can they be replicated by other analysts.

Mathmetical models cannot replace the judgment

of experienced people. They also cannot analyze

cause-effect relationships that cannot be quantified.

For an individual farm or ranch, the operator’s

mental model may predict more accurately than a

mathematical model. However, when numerous de-

(csionrnakers are involved, as is the case with

policymaking and program administration, it

becomes difficult to rely on mental models. Mental models of complex systems can seldom be as explict or objective as mathematical models, and so

are less valuable tools for policy makers.

Different mental models are difficult or impossible to compare. Thus when policymaking is based

on mental models of complex interactions, as is the

case with most current agricultural policy, the ideas

championed by the more articulate or more powerful analyst are likely to prevail, whether or not they

are the most accurate, M a the matical models on the

other hand, can undergo rigorous testing for internal consistency and for consistency with historical

data. Further, different models can be compared.

Two major model types are used to analyze agricultural policy: econometric models and systems

simulation models. Econometric models are based

on widely accepted principles of economic behavior—for instance, that individuals. firms, and industrial sectors will continue to increase their use

of an input until the cost of purchasing it equals

the price received for the output it produces. These

models have been developed extensively. Many are

mathematically complex and costly to run, Because

they are based primarily on economic analysis, they

typically are used to describe one-way, cause-effect

relationships, or “open” systems, but economic

models can be designed to account for some feedbacks.

Econometric models generally arc quite sensitive

to errors in the data used in their equations. Their

strength lies in their ability to consider the economic basis of behaviors at many levels, from individual

producers to that of the national economy. Such

models can break down, or “disaggregate, ’ their

anaIysis to account for differences in variables such

as soil types, farm operations, and local economies,

and then reintegrate the outcomes to National,

State, or regional levels.

Systems simulation models are valuable primarily

for their breadth and integrative capabilities. These

models are well suited to analyze nonmonetary benefits and costs, including changes in qualities such

as wildlife habitat quality, water quality or changes

in plant genetic resources. They generally are not

used for detailed analysis of the economic implications of actions or policies.

Systems simulations have one particular advantage for studying land productivity. Changes in the

behavior of a system can be simulated using “feedback loops”-a mechanism that relates changes in

the cause-effect variablcs of a system to changes in

the system’s underlying modes of behavior. Feedback loops are useful to reflect, for example, that

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

greater change next year. A positive feedback loop

can model the concept that erosion is a selfperpetuating process—i.e., that continuing erosion

makes topsoil increasingly erodible. * Conversely,

a negative feedback loop will describe the stabilizing effects of land conservation practices.

Just as no single farming technology can solve all

conservation-related problems, no single modeling

technique can provide all the information necessary

for policy analysis. But they can provide decisionmakers with valuable guidance. Systems and econometric models have different capabilities and their

results need to be linked to provide comprehensive

information on questions relating to land productivity and policy. Because individual universities tend

to specialize in developing and advancing one particular modeling approach, attempts to combine the

strengths of different modeling methods have been

limited.

Necessary Elements for a

Poiicy Analysis Model

A model capable of assessing the effects of agricultural technologies on land productivity must include the following elements:

Representation of the Natural System, The

major physical, chemical, and biological processes must be represented and causally linked.

It is not sufficient to represent erosion rates

alone. Mechanisms to show both increasing

and decreasing productivity must be included

to determine the sustained land productivity

level for any technology mix.

Explicit Linkage of Technologies to Natural

System Elements. At whatever level of detail

a policy study is made, the direction and magnitude of the effect of each class of technology

must be identified.

The Macroeconomics of Technology Choice.

The economics of an operator’s technology

choice, which determine the magnitude of use

and the economic conditions under which the

technology may tend to proliferate, must be

analyzed. The analysis should not presume

*The soil erosion “feedback” loop is often overlooked in analyses of

the economics of erosion, but its significance may be great. For example, 30 inches of topsoil would take 450 years to erode completely away

if net erosion were a steady l/l5th inch per year. However, it would take

only 171 years if the net erosion rate is l\15 inch/year at the beginning

of the analysis and each year’s rate is just 1 percent greater than the

preceding year’s If the rate of increase were 10 percent a year, the 30

inches of soil would last only 40 years.

that perfect, unbiased information is available

to farmers.

● The Interaction of the Technology and Changing Social Values. Changes in farmers’ planning horizons, * how such changes affect technology choice, and the relationship between

planning horizons and social and economic

trends must be included.

In addition to these elements, some additional

characteristics of a useful policy decision model

include:

The planning horizon of the model must be at

least a generation to register significant trends

in soil productivity and long-term social and

economic consequences.

Any formal model should explicitly portray the

important feedback effects occurring throughout the system.

A useful, understandable model for national

policy analysis must necessarily be aggregate,

testing generic types of technologies and policies. For implementation purposes, it may be

necessary to examine policies at the regional

level. The high degree of variation even within

regions means that “representative” data sets

would likely have to be constructed.

State of the Art of

Mathematical Models

Iowa State University

Linear Programing Model

The most advanced of the current agricultural

policy models is the Iowa State University Linear

Programing (ISU-LP) Model. The model projects

factor* * demands, crop and livestock output, farm

income, and some environmental effects for 105

producing areas, 28 market regions, and 8 major

zones in the United States. Designed to minimize

the cost of crop and livestock production, model

projections are based on estimates of total demand,

subject to such constraints as crop rotation requirements, limitations on water supply, and conservation practices.

* Planning horizon—A farmer’s planning horizon is the length of time

he considers when making an investment of his capital, labor, or land

resources, It may be as short as one crop season or as long as his

children’s lifetimes. The term includes the concept of discounted value

that the farmer places on future income or future costs compared to present income or costs. The terms “planning period, ” “payback period, ”

and “time horizon” are often used interchangeably with “planning

horizon, ”

* * Factor: A good or service used in the process of production, thus

factor demand is the demand for an input to production.
App. D—Analytic T O OIS and Data Bases for Determining the Effects of National Policies on Land Productivity . 237

The model’s chief environmental projection is to

estimate the erosion resulting from a given crop

rotation, management practice, and geographical

setting, as calculated by the universal soil loss equation. The model can test the cost of a given conservation policy and will calculate resulting shifts in

such things as crop patterns, factor inputs, and

transportation requirements.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) analysts

chose the IS U-LP Model to provide information

about future resource needs in the congressionally mandated RCA report (USDA-RCA, 1980). The

report was produced in response to provisions in

the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of

1977 (RCA), directing the Secretary of Agriculture

to carry out a continuing appraisal of the soil,

water, and related resources of the Nation.

Yield/Soil Loss Simulator

In order to expand the capabilities of the ISU-LP

Model for dealing with causes and consequences

of changes in land productivity, a USDA team developed an additional model-the Yield/Soil Loss

Simulator (Y/SL)-specifically for the RCA analysis.

The Y/SL model permitted USDA analysts to forecast changes in crop yield resulting from soil losses

associated with various cropping and management

practices. The model calculated effects of water

erosion and conservation practices on soil depth

and linked expected future yields to rates of change

in soil depth.

The resulting analyses for the RCA report are the

best and most comprehensive available; still, they

fall short of the goal set by Congress for USDA’s

appraisal of the agricultural resource base. Substantial questions have been raised about the accuracy

of the Y/SL modeI’s characterization of the relationship between soil depth and yield (Benbrook, 1980).

Effects on productivity such as changes in soil texture and water-holding capacity are not accounted

for, nor can they be incorporated into the model

with existing data. Comparisons of Y/SL estimated

crop yield reductions per inch of eroded soil with

actual studies show Y/SL loss estimates to be relatively conservative.

The ISU-LP Model, as supplemented by Y/SL, is

the most complete representation of technological

impacts on productivity available. However, it does

not analyze the dynamics of natural soil systems

nor the effects of technologies on the components

of intrinsic productivity. It cannot account adequately for causal interactions among: 1) factors

besides soil depth that comprise land productivity,

2) processes besides water erosion that cause

changes in productivity, 3) technologies besides

conservation practices that increase or decrease

rates of change in productivity, 4) farmers’ decisions regarding choice and implementaton of technologies, 5) social and economic factors that influence the farmers’ planning horizons and the technology choice options, and 6) Government programs that affect, directly or indirectly, farmers’

decisions (USDA-RCA, 1980; Benbrook, 1980;

Picardi, 1981).

Efforts are under way at USDA and Iowa State

University to develop more comprehensive research tools for assessing soil productivity.

Recognition of the inadequacies in the Y/SL. approach has spurred the development of other

models to deal with a wider variety of soil productivity processes. However, such models are primarily research tools and are probably too complex to

aid in policy development. Although improvements

to the Y/SL model have been suggested, the model

seems to have been shelved and no substitute policy

analysis tool is being developed at USDA (Benbrook, 1981).

Phonological ModeIs

Recently UDSA’S Science and Education Administration’s Wheat Yield Group began designing a

series of “phonological models” that simulate the

dynamics of plant (crop) growth and how this is affected by physical and biological processes and the

environment [Dyke, 1980). The models will analyze

the effects of runoff, soil texture, organic matter,

nutrient cycles, infiltration, and residue decomposition. No soil biota analysis is planned. In this

modeling approach, agricultural technologies will

be linked to the specific process that they affect instead of merely correlated with yield. The models

will be crop- and soil-specific and have a 50- to

100-year” planning horizon to simulate long-term

productivity changes. The models for sorghum and

wheat are already operational.

This approach will be better able to capture the

feedback dynamics of the natural system including

nutrient cycles and organic matter dynamics. These

models are intended to be linked to the ISU-LP

model. If successfully merged, they will provide important feedback simulation that has been missing

from the present ISU-LP structure.

A disadvantage of the phonological model is that,

even though they deal only with natural systems,

they are extremely complex, with over 400 subroutines, and they can only deal with one crop and one

location at a time. The models are research tools

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

models hope to have them sufficiently complete by

1985 to be useful for drafting the 1985 Resources

Conservation Act report.

Current DeveIopments and Future Needs

The Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University is rapidly

moving to develop linked econometric and simulation models. One recently completed model estimates farmer and consumer reaction vis-a-vis such

factors as changes in land and water use, production, conservation, and erosion. Estimates are provided by region and specific location, and can account for interregional interactions. Another model

under development for the International Institute

of Applied Systems Analysis relates crop production systems, conservation practices, tillage methods, etc., to livestock systems, soil loss, and yield

and productivity changes over time. The model is

intended to trace the effects of erosion and/or technology on yield over time.

Both academic institutions and USDA are focusing on complex, scientifically advanced modeling.

This approach is likely to further the state of

knowledge about the underlying processes involved

in land productivity. However, the policy analysis

needs of Congress and program administrators are

not being met by these efforts. Two needs require

particular attention:

1.

2.

Models that relate land productivity to factors beyond crop yields—i.e., benefits such as

genetic diversity of resident plant species,

wildlife habitat, and water quality effects.

Losses in these areas have major long-term

economic implications for agriculture, recreation, and human health but cannot be reliably

quantified with existing techniques.

Quick, inexpensive models to estimate national

effects of resource policy decisions that have

a simple structure and clear documentation

and are readily understandable not only by

economists, but also by analysts trained in

other disciplines. (Without this clarity, a mathematical policy model is no more explicit to

most policy analysts than is a mental model.)

Current models deal with regional and subregional variation but often sacrifice ease of use

and cost-efficiency for richness of detail. Congressional scrutiny of alternative policy initiatives could be enhanced if models were available that focus directly on Federal program

capabilities to enhance or degrade soil productivity,

Data Availability and Requirements

for Further Model Development

To develop policy models, two kinds of data are

needed: 1) causal interaction information describing how each element of a system affects each other

element, and 2) time-series descriptive data about

important variables—e.g., changes over time in levels of soil organic matter or levels of application

for various technologies. Generally, to be usable in

national policy models, data must also: 1) be in the

form of electronically readable data sets, having national coverage, 2) have been collected in a consistent fashion or selected according to a consistent set

of criteria, and 3) contain information usable for

assessing technological impacts on soil productivity.

Table D-1 describes 12 major data sets that meet

the latter three criteria. The sets are representative

of available data but do not comprise a complete

list. Although other sets contain useful data–e.g.,

on specific technologies, specific crops, national

weather data, or regional water inventories—it is

fairly certain that none is significantly better suited

for assessing productivity than those listed in table

D-1. The table describes the type of data included

in the set but does not catalog all the information

included.

The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) performs

soil surveys containing a wealth of information on

soil classes, subclasses, and series, and provides

chemical, physical, and land-use information for

12,000 different soil types, Soil surveys have classified and located soils for 65 percent of the counties in the United States. Much of the descriptive

information on soil classes has been computerized

in the “Soils V“ data base (table D-1, #l O); however,

“Soil V“ does not include geographic location data

(USDA, 1979).

Geographic area and soil type can be linked

through the two data sets: The Agricultural

Research and Inventory Surveys through Areal

Remote Sensing (AgRISTARS) (table D-1, #12), and

the National Pedon Data System (table D-1, #6).

AgRISTARS contains data on the most representative soil type in 25-mile squares for a national grid,

whereas the National Pedon Data System inventories all the soils that are received by the National

Soils Survey Lab in Lincoln, Nebr. Efforts are being

made to coordinate the two systems by selecting

the most representative soil type in each county for

analysis and inclusion in the National Pedon Data

System. When they are completed, these data sets

are expected to serve as general resource bases for

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

FIPSa

Policy

Data set

1 Conservation Needs

Inventory (CNI)

Date Author Location

1967” Soil D C

Conservation

Service

(Scs)

1977 SCS D C

Electronic

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Series.

yes

Maps-no

Yes

Yes

Public code models Aggregation

Yes None County

Data

Land class, present use, slope

management factor, and irrigation

2 Potential Cropland

Study

Yes Primary

sampling

unit

Potential arable cropland, present

use, potential for reconversion to

cropland, Universal Soil Loss Equa.

tion parameters, soil and water

problems

R-factor, slope, length, present use,

soil class, conservation practice,

treatment needs potential

cropland, erodability, type irriagatlon, ownership, crop management,

dominant problems, and associated

water bodies

Irrigation requirements net of rainfall

for each crop in each county

Yes National

Agricultural

Lands

Study

(NALS)

Yes NALS,

RCA,

lowa LP

3 National Resources

Inventory (N RI)

1977, SCS D C

1982,

ongoing

Major land

resource

area

1976 SCS D C Yes,

public

access

via

extension

Limited

distrtbution

for labor

statistics

ESS data

No Used–in Crop

ISU. LP specific

in each

county

4 Crop Consumptive

irrigation

Requirements

5 Agricultural

Census, OBERS

1974,

1978,

1982

every

four

years

Ongoing

Department D C

of Commerce

(DOC), ESS

of DOA

Yes Inputs to Water

NIRAP Resource

model Council

Regions

Farm Income, production, value of

farm, outputs, factor Inputs, land

cropped, Irrigated land, tenure

and employment

public

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

“Yes

7

Yes

National Lincoln,

Soils Survey Nebr

Lab, DOA

Yes - Non e

– - Site.

specifically specific

with

geographic

coordination

Site description slope, drainage, cultural uses, 7 horizon files, physical

and chemical lab tests, mineralogy

data, some engineering data, CIOS.

est weather station, cl I mate data

Most representative soils in each

country being coded first

240,000 observations, variety of

crops, texture, slope, class,

country, SCS yield, and

normalized yield

6 National Pedon

Data System

7 Yield/Soil Loss

Simulator data

(Y/SL)

1980 DOA D C

SEA

Yes Yield;soil Soil

Loss mapping

Simulator unit

Model,

SEA

Yes Yearly crop County

yield

projections

Yearly Economics &“ D C

Statistics

Service,

DOA

Being SEA of DOA Temple,

devel. Tex

oped

Yield data for all major crops, and

factor Inputs

8 Crop Reporting

Board

9 Phenological

Model Data

Yes Input to Crop and

Iowa State soil type

LP model specific

Physical, chemical and botanical data

relating technologies to yields,

hydrology and soil class to erosion

and productiviity

12,000 soil series records, cultural

data on use suiability survey

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

Growth rates of trees on specific

kinds of soil for over 20,000 sites,

range data system contains forage

production and species

composition

Information on the most representa

tive Soil Series in each 25. mile

square for a National grid, soil

survey i n format ton, land use, cuIti.

vation practice, Iocation of nearest

weather station

10 Soils v Ongoing SCS D C N o Yield/Sol~ N o

Loss geographic

reference

11 National Woodland

Data System,

Range Data System

Ongoing SCS Fort

Collins,

Colo

N o t None yet Site

yet specific

Yes Pheno. 25x25 mile

Iogical grid

models

12 Agricultural

Research and

Inventory Surveys

through Areal

Remote Sensing,

AgRISTARS

On-going DOA Temple,

SEA Tex

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 Conservation Needs Inventory (1958, 1967), the Potential Croplands Interim Study (USDA, 1977), and the

National Resource Inventory (NRI), which began

in 1977 and will continue periodically (USDA,

ESCS, 1980).

These surveys use sampling techniques to select

sites for rigorous observation by SCS personnel of

existing land use, crops, irrigation, soil type, potential for reconversion to cropland from nonagricultural uses, erosion status, and needed conservation

practices, Each successive inventory has become

more intensive, covering a wider range of landrelated concerns, and less extensive, directly surveying a smaller fraction of the land base. The data

from the 1967 Conservation Needs Inventory and

the 1977 NRI were used to calculate sheet and rill

erosion rates for each sampled point, and these calculated rates were aggregated to indicate regional

erosion rates. The 1967 sampling procedure was

seriously flawed, however, and its erosion rate figures are grossly different from the 1977 figures. (For

instance, the national average erosion rate from the

1967 survey is nearly twice the rate from the 1977

survey.) Thus, no time-series data are available for

trend analysis. The 1982 NRI should provide the

first time-series data on a national scale.

The soil surveys and national inventories provide

the following kinds of information required for

assessing soil productivity:

soil type, including organic matter content

and nutrients available;

yields and crop patterns that would allow

weighted average yields;

information necessary for calculating sheet

and rill erosion;

present technology inputs recognized as conservation or irrigation practices (but not actual

water application rates);

land-use conversion rates and information

relating to some of the social and economic

forces affecting planning horizons and the

profitability of farming;

information about erosion problems, ownership, type of restorative treatment needed, and

irrigation practices; and

indices that allow data to be aggregated at

various geographic levels.

County-specific data on yield and economic

parameters are collected and computerized annually by the Crop Reporting Board at the Economics

and Statistics Service (ESS) of USDA and

periodically by the Department of Commerce via

the Agricultural Census. Relevant types of data

available from these sources include:

● yields, prices, and the values of all factor inputs in the agricultural sector for deriving marginal values of products; and

● ESS forecasts of expected prices and factor

costs for estimating expected profitability.

SCS maintains a data base on crop consumptive

water needs which, in conjunction with climatological data (available from the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration) can be used to

estimate irrigation requirements. This file contains

no information on actual water consumed. Moreover, no uniform nationally compiled information

system on irrigation water application rates exists

(Lehr, 1980), This SCS data base does include estimates of irrigation needs that could aid in determining ground water extraction rates.

Data developed to estimate coefficients for the

Y/SL have been stored as an independent data set,

although all of the data can be found in previously

mentioned sources. Information on erosion rates,

management practices, and yields is included, but

these data do not appear sufficient for a causally

structured model, since causal models specify that

erosion rates result from changes in chemical,

physical, and biological properties as well as from

management practices (Hagen and Dyke, 1980).

The National Woodlands Data System quantifies

production or yield response to soil type for a wide

range of forest and forage species. This type of data

may be used to develop yield equations for models.

The Production Records/Range Data System

(RDS) is a plant materials data system with over

3,000 entries for rangelands of the Western and

Southeastern United States. Most information is

identified with range sites, soil series, and land

capability classes to the State level. The system also

records production as influenced by climate, elevation, and condition class. This information is to be

computerized by 1985. It is expected to be very

useful for management decisions; whether it will

prove useful for a policy model of rangelands is not

clear yet.

Finally, the Agricultural Research Service of

USDA is developing a data base to use with the

crop-specific phonological simulation models, For

each major soil class and crop rotation, information modules are to be developed to simulate crop

growth, soil runoff, soil texture, organic matter,

nutrient levels, water infiltration, and residue

decomposition. This data set will thus be the only

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 physical, chemical, and biological processes at work.

Data useful to assess land productivity will be:

● the physical, biological, or chemical impacts

of a specific technology on the natural system;

● the causal mechanisms underlying erosion, organic matter accumulation, and decomposition;

● the dynamics of the nitrogen and phosphorus

nutrient cycles; and

● the linkage between the natural system and

runoff, which is necessary to estimate pollution loads in streams and ground water recharge.

Other relevant data sets not described here include the Soil Vegetation Inventory Method of the

Bureau of Land Management; the Plant Information Network, covering Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota; Run Wild, covering wildlife

and vegetation for Arizona and New Mexico; the

Forest-Range Environment Study, containing data

on forest and rangeland resources, and the National

Water Data Exchange index of water-related data

sets.

Missing Data

In summary, a number of national, accessible

electronic data sets are available. These data sets

provide some of the qualitative or quantitative information necessary for determining:

● long-term land-use change rates;

● levels of factor input use; and

● some causal factors affecting determinants of

productivity such as erosion and the level of

organic matter.

This data is largely descriptive, however. It

should be possible to use data from the ESS Crop

Reporting Board to estimate time-series information such as levels of factor inputs and yields. Erosion time-series data and other information from

the various land inventories might be developed,

although this could be a difficult task. Data are lacking for a number of important areas:

● Data on soil formation rates. Information is

needed on both the rates at which the top layer

of soil is enriched to become what is called

“topsoil” and on the rates at which parent

materials form subsoils to be able to assess

long-term effects of wind and erosion.

● Data on soil fauna and flora. Biological

organisms are significantly linked to rates of

decomposition, tilth formation, and nitrogen

fixation,

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Data on water withdrawals from aquifers. In

addition, the causal linkages between chemical

application and aquifer pollution have yet to

be developed and organized in a way useful for

policy analysis.

Data on the socioeconomic determinants of:

1) ground water use for irrigation, and 2) reversion to dryland farming or abandonment when

farmers are faced with the combined effects of

water costs, pollution, subsidence, and salinization.

Data on the links between farm profitability

and farmers’ planning horizons, on how these

and other social factors combine to change factor inputs, and whether such changes will accelerate or slow changes in profitability.

Data on how farmers perceive and value longterm effects of technology use on productivity.

Data on the extent to which short-term input

decisions result from social, ecological, health,

and other “noneconomic” concerns.

Data on inherent land productivity by area in

the United States and on the role of inherent

land productivity in total factor yields.

Data on the cause-effect interactions between

vegetative systems and the ground water system. Some individual linkages may be quantified, such as the effect of water on yields, but

no information exists on important links such

as how deteriorating water quality affects

yields, or on how crop or range cover affects

ground water recharge. Local hydrological

cycles are only beginning to be modeled in sufficient detail to permit assessments of the systemwide effects of aquifer pollution and overdraft (Vanlier, 1980; Lehr, 1980).

Causal data exist on physical-chemical soil relationships for specific soils in specific regions, but

it needs to be organized, standardized, and assessed

in order to give reasonably accurate estimates of

cause-effect dynamics for an aggregated policy

model. The USDA wheat yield group at Temple,

Tex., is involved in such data development for its

phonological models. For actual productivity and

for rates of soil formation, however, many necessary scientific experiments have yet to be done, In

the area of economic decisionmaking, there is an

almost total lack of data on how farmers perceive

productivity y and what this means for their decisionmaking. Information is also lacking on the role of

productivity in long-term decisionmaking regarding the conversion of productive cropland to other

uses.
242 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Range/and Productivity — ..—————— —

The quantitative extent to which inherent land

productivity has been changing is unknown. Although it is known that productivity declines are

strongly correlated with relatively high erosion

rates, less is known about system changes that

result in enhanced productivity.

Because of missing data in the above areas, the

models that can be developed to test agricultural

technologies will be incomplete, Data gaps should

not, however, be used as a rationale for reducing

modeling efforts. Present information is sufficient

to allow models to improve current policy decision

processes substantially and to facilitate the integration of production-oriented policies and programs

with conservation-oriented policies and programs.

Further, models can be used to identify the relative

importance of missing or inadequate data to policyrelated information needs. This analysis can improve the cost-effectiveness of resource inventory

efforts, allowing agencies to direct data-collection

resources toward the data most needed for policymaking.

Mathematical models may eventually be developed to understand various influences on inherent

land productivity. Such models would also need to

incorporate other elements to examine total agricultural production. Until that time, national agricultural research priorities will be set mainly from the

mental models of agricultural scientists and policy

experts.

In February 1981 natural resources and agricultural scientists convened a national workshop to

determine research priorities for the Nation. The

list of priorities that was developed is described in

a publication from the Soil Science Society of

America (Larson, et al., 1981). The workshop did

not rank the priorities, but organized them according to subject, Areas included: sustaining soil productivity, developing conservation technology,

managing water in stressed environments, protecting water quality, improving and implementing

conservation policy, and assessing soil and water

resources.

This OTA assessment cannot improve on the priorities identified by the more than 100 technical

and policy experts who participated in that workshop. However, for the policymaking needs of Congress, OTA concludes that two of the data gaps are

critically important: soil-loss tolerance and social

and economic factors affecting the implementation

of productivity-sustaining technologies,

Appendix D References

Benbrook, Charles, “Erosion vs. Soil productivity,”

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

36(3):118-119, 1981.

“An Appraisal of the Yield-Soil Loss

Simulator and its Application in RCA, ” draft

manuscript prepared at Council on Environmental Quality, 1980.

Dyke, Paul T,, “The Influence of Soil Erosion on

Soil Productivity—SEA Viewpoint, ” U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Soil ErosionSoil Productivity Research Planning Committee, unpublished manuscript, 1980.

Hagen, Linda L., and Dyke, Paul T., “Merging

Resource Data From Disparate Sources, ” Agricultural Economics Research 32:4, October

1980, pp. 45-49.

Larson, William E., Walsh, L. M., Stewart, B, A.,

and Boelter, P. H., “Executive Summary, ” National Workshop on Soil and Water Resources

Research Priorities, Soil Science Society of

America, Madison, Wis,, 1981.

Lehr, Jay H., “Data Base on Ground Water Quality

and Availability: Effects on Productivity of U.S.

Croplands and Rangelands, ” OTA background

paper, 1980,

Picardi, Anthony C,, “Data Availability for the

Assessment of Technologies and Public Policies Relating to Agricultural productivity, ”

OTA background paper, 1981,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Resources Conservation Act: Appraisal 1980, ” Washington,

D. C., 1980.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, “Measurement of U.S. Agricultural Productivity: A Review of Current Statistics and Proposals for

Change,” technical bulletin No, 1614, Washington, D, C., February 1980.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, Soil Conservation Service Data Base

User’s ManuaZ, Washington, D, C., 1979.

“Soil Erosion Inventory Primary Sample

U~it and Point Data Worksheet,” Washington,

D. C., June 1977.

Vanlier, Kenneth E., “Ground Water and Agricultural productivity: The Information and Data

Base, ” OTA background paper, 1980.
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 office s

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 nationa l

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 conserva -

tion actions to reduce soil erosion and related conservation problems tha t

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 tha t

achieves conservation objectives through voluntary participation with mor e

emphasis on decisions made at local and state levels. People view soil,

water, and related resources as national assets that should be used but no t

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 o f

soil and water resources. Therefore , the preferred program is the most

responsive and practical approach for meeting national, state, and loca l

needs as identified in the appraisal, the analysis of alternatives, and th e

public’s comments,

7-1

*From U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act: Program Report and Environmental 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 associate d

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 reduc -

tion 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 improvemen t

and organic waste management are an integral part of solutions to these

problems.

o strengthens the existing partnership among land owners and users, loca l

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 loca l

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 budge t

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 measure s

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 solution s

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 condition s

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 nationa l

policies and procedures that can be adapted to state and regional need s

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 fund s

among major components, preferred program ~ /

Major component

1981 Fundin q

(bas e Leve l Upper lowe r

— yea r ) fundinq bound bound

(millions of dolIars)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Technical assistance--- -

Financial assistance :

a. Cost shares t o

opera tars ---------- -

b. For projec t

activities--------- -

C. Subtotal financia l

ass i stance ----------

USDA matching funds -----

Education/ lnformatio n

(Extension Service)---- -

Research and technology

development ------------ -

Data COIIection and

analysis--------------- -

Emergency programs z/---

TOTAL ---------------------- -

Loans ---------------------- -

198

278

177

(455)

- --

12

74

81

17

837

(77 )

211

164

167

(331)

105

14

80

79

17

837

(72 )

212

166

211

(377 )

175

15

88

87

17

971

(82 )

185

179

134

(313 )

30

10

71

72

17

698

(60 ) — ~/ All funds are shown in millions of constant 1979 dollars rounde d

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

2

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

How Agricultural Technologies Affect Productivity of Croplands and Rangelands by Affecting Microbial Activity in Soil

—Martin Alexander: Department of Agronomy,

Cornell University

Impacts of Technologies on Range Productivity in the Mountain, Intermountain and Pacific

Northwest States

—Thadis W. Box: College of Natural Resources,

Utah State University

Livestock Grazing on the Forested Lands of the

Eastern United States

—Evert K. Byington: Winrock International

I.ivestock Research and Training Center

Problems of Cost-Sharing Programs for LongTerm Conservation: The Example of the Agricultural Conservation Program

—Kenneth A. Cook: Agricultural Policy Consult ant

Influences of Commodity Programs on LongTerm Land Productivity (Conservation)

—Kenneth A. Cook: Agricultural Policy Consultant

Impacts of Rangeland Technologies and of

Grazing on Productivity of Riparian Environments in United States Rangelands

—Oliver B. Cope: Rangeland Consultant,

Golden, Colo.

Data Base Assessment of Effects of Agricultural

Technology on Soil Macro-Fauna and the Resultant Faunal Impact on Crop and Range Productivity

—Daniel L. Dindal: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry

Impacts of Technologies on Productivity and

Quality of Southwestern Rangelands

—Don D. Dwyer: Range Science Department,

Utah State University

Technology Issues in Developing Sustained

Agricultural Productivity of Alaskan Virgin

Lands

—Alan C. Epps: University of Alaska

10. Impact of Communications Technology on Productivity of Land

–James F. Evans: Office of Agricultural Communications, University of Illinois

11. Land-Use Planning Technologies Applied to

Croplands and Rangelands

–Janet Franklin, Alan H. Strahler, and Curtin

E. Woodcock: Geography Remote Sensing

Unit, University of California

12. Sustained Land Productivity: Equity Consequences of Technological Alternatives

—Charles C. Geisler, J, Tadlock Cowan, and

Michael R. Hattery: Department of Rural Sociology, and Harvey M. Jacobs: Department

of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University.

13. Multiple Cropping Systems: A Basis for Developing An Alternative Agriculture

—Stephen R. Gliessman: College of

Environmental Studies, University of California

14. Description and Evaluation of Pesticidal Effects

on the Productivity of the Croplands and Rangelands of the United States

–J, M. Harkin, G. V. Simsiman, and G.

Chesters: Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin

15. New Roots for American Agriculture

—Wes Jackson and Marty Bender: The Land Institute, Salina, Kans.

16. An Overview of Major Legal and Policy Issues

Related to the Impact of Technology on the Productivity of the Land

—Barbara J. Lausche: Natural Resources Lawyer

17. Relationships Between Land Tenure and Soil

18

Conservation

—Linda K. Lee: Department of Agricultural

Economics, Oklahoma State University

Database on Ground Water Quality and Availability: Effects on Productivity of U.S. Croplands and Rangelands

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

19<

20,

21,

22.

23

24.

25.

26

–Jay H. Lehr: National Water Well Association,

Worthington, Ohio

Impacts of Technologies on Productivity and

Quality of Rangelands in the Great Plains Region

–James K. Lewis and David M. Engle: Department of Animal Science, South Dakota State

University

The Impacts of Grazing and Rangeland Management Technology Upon Wildlife

—Carroll D. Littlefield, Wildlife Consultant;

Denzel Ferguson: Malheur Field Station,

Princeton, Oreg.; and Karl E. Holte: Biology

Department, Idaho State University

A Review of Current Water Erosion Control

Technologies, Including Potential Changes To

Enhance Their Effectiveness

—Leonard R. Massie: Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Wisconsin

Technology Issues in Developing Sustained

Agricultural Productivity on Virgin and Abandoned Lands in the United States

—Cyrus M. McKell: Plant Resources Institute,

Salt Lake City, Utah

The Effects of Long-Term Fertilizer Use on Soil

Productivity

—David B. Mengel: Department of Agronomy,

Purdue University

The Data Base for Assessment of the Impacts

of Technologies on Productivity of Rangeland

Resources

–John W. Menke: Department of Agronomy

and Range Science, University of California;

and C. Wayne Cook: Department of Range

Science, Colorado State University

Impacts of Technology on Cropland and Rangeland Productivity: Managerial Capacity of

Farmers

—Peter J. Nowak: College of Agriculture, Iowa

State University

Data Availability for the Assessment of Technologies and Public Policies Relating to Agricultural Productivity

—Anthony C. Picardi: Charles River Associates,

Inc., Boston, Mass.

27. The Adoption and Diffusion of Technological

Innovations in U.S. Agriculture

—Everett M. Rogers: Institute for Communication Research, Stanford University

28. Credit and Credit Institutions as Factors Affecting the Long-Term Productivity of U.S. Rangelands and Croplands

—Brian H. Schmiesing: Department of Business

and Agribusiness Management, Southwest

State University

29. Emerging Innovative Technologies for Range30

land

—Charles J. Scifres: Department of Range Science, Texas A&M University

Effect of Erosion and Other Physical Processes

on Productivity of U.S. Croplands and Rangelands

—W, D. Shrader: Professor Emeritus, Iowa

State University

31. Changes in the Capacity of Croplands and

32

33.

Rangelands to Sustain productivity of Environmental Services

—Robert L. Todd: Department of Agronomy

and Institute of Ecology, [University of

Georgia

Groundwater and Agricultural Productivity:

The Information and Database

—Kenneth E. Vanlier: Hydrogeologist, Reston,

Va.

Productivity of Soil as Related to Chemical

Changes -

—L. F. Welch: Department of Agronomy, University of Illinois

34. Wind Erosion and Control Technology

—N. P. Woodruff: Facilities Planning Office,

Kansas State University

35. California Annual Grasslands

–James A. Young and Raymond A. Evans:

USDA/SEA-AR
Appendix G

Glossary

Most of these definitions are adapted from the

Resource Conservation Glossary of the Soil Conservation Society of America, 2d ed., 1976.

Abiotic: Nonliving, basic elements and compounds

of the environment.

Acid rain: Atmospheric precipitation that is composed of the hydrolyzed byproducts from oxidized halogen, nitrogen, and sulfur substances.

Aggregation, soil: The cementing or binding

together of several to many soil particles into a

secondary unit, aggregate, or granule. Waterstable aggregates, which will not disintegrate

easily, are of special importance to soil structure.

Agrichemicals: Chemical materials used in agriculture; sometimes used erroneously to emphasize

a supposed difference between “chemical materials” and “natural materials. ”

Agricultural land: Land in farms regularly used for

agricultural production; all land devoted to crop

or livestock enterprises—e. g., farmstead lands,

drainage and irrigation ditches, water supply,

cropland, and grazing land of every kind on

farms.

Agricultural pollution: Liquid and solid wastes

from all types of farming, including runoff from

pesticides, fertilizers, and feedlots; erosion and

runoff from plowing, animal manure and carcasses; and crop residues and debris.

Alluvial: Pertaining to material that is transported

and deposited by running water.

Animal unit month (AUM): A measure of forage

or feed required to maintain one animal for a period of 30 days.

Annual plant: A plant that completes its lifecycle

and dies in 1 year or less,

Appraisal, range: An evacuation of the capacity of

rangelands to produce income, which includes

not only consideration of grazing capacity but

also facilities for handling livestock, accessibility, and relation to other feed sources. The classification and evaluation of a range from an economic and production standpoint.

Aquifer: A geologic formation or structure that

transmits water in sufficient quantity to supply

the needs for a water development; usually satu rated sands, gravel, fractures, and cavernous

and vesicular rock. The term waterbearing is

sometimes used synonymously with aquifer

when a stratum furnishes water for a specific use.

Arable land: Land so located that production of

cultivated crops is economical and practical.

Arid: Regions or climates that lack sufficient

moisture for crop production without irrigation.

The limits of precipitant ion vary considerable} according to temperature conditions, with an upper annual limit for cool regions of 10 inches or

less and for tropical regions as much as 15 to 20

inches.

Available nutrient: That portion of any element or

compound in the soil that readily can be absorbed

and assimilated by growing plants (not to be confused with exchangeable).

Basin: 1. In hydrology, the area drained by a river.

2. In irrigation, a level plot of field, surrounded

by dikes, which may be flood irrigated.

Bedrock: The solid rock underlying soils and the

regolith in depths ranging from zero (ehere exposed by erosion) to several hundred feet.

Biennial plant: A plant that requires 2 years to

complete its lifecycle.

Biological control: A method of controlling pest organisms by means of introduced or naturally occurring predatory organ i sins, sterilization, the

use of inhibiting hormones, or other methods,

rather than by chemical means.

Biomass: 1. The total amount of living material in

a particular habitat or area. 2. An expression of

the total weight of a given population of organisms.

Biome: A major biotic unit consisting of plant and

animal communities having similarities i n form

and environmental conditions.

Biota: The flora and fauna of a region.

Biota influence: The influence of animals and

plants on associated plant oranimal 1ife as contrasted with climatic influences and edaphic (soil)

influences.

Browse: Twigs or shoots, with or without attached

leaves, of shrubs, trees, or woody vines available

as forage for domestic and wild browsing animals,

Brush: A growth of shrubs or small trees.

Brush management: Management and manipulation of stands of brush by mechanical, chemical,

or biological means or by prescribed burning.

Buffer strips: Strips of grass or other erosionresisting vegetation between or below’ cultivated

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 outof-doors in a more-or-less close relationship with

the natural environment is significant.

Capital: All the durable and nondurable items used

in production.

Capital goods: Tangible economic goods, other

than land, that are used in production.

Carrying capacity: 1. In recreation, the amount of

use a recreation area can sustain without deterioration of its quality. 2. In wildlife, the maximum number of animals an area can support

during a given period of the year.

Cash-grain farm: A farm on which corn, sorghums,

small grains, soybeans or field beans, and peas

account for at least 50 percent of the value of

farm products sold.

Chiseling: Breaking or loosening the soil, without

inversion, with a chisel cultivator or chisel plow.

Chisel planting: Seedbed preparation by chiseling

without inversion of the soil, leaving a protective

cover of crop residue on the surface for erosion

control. Seedbed preparation and planting may

or may not be in the same operation.

Chisel plow: Plow consisting of a series of curveci,

sprung steel shanks with teeth spaced 18 to 30

inches apart. Because design does not turn soil

over, the chisel plow disturbs less surface soil and

leaves more crop residue on the surface than

does a traditional moldboard plow.

Claypan: A dense, compact layer in the subsoil having a much higher clay content than the overlying material from which it is separated by a

sharply defined boundary; formed by downward

movement of clay or by synthesis of clay in place

during soil formation. Claypans are usually hard

when dry, and plastic and sticky when wet. They

usually impede movement of water and air, and

the growth of plant roots. See Hardpan,

Clean tillage: Cultivation of a field so as to cover

all plant residues and to prevent the growth of

all vegetation except the particular crop desired.

Compaction: 1. To unite firmly; the act or process

of becoming compact. 2, In geology, the changing of loose sediment into hard, firm rock.

3, [n soil engineering, the process by which the

soil grains are rearranged to decrease void space

and bring them into closer contact with one

another, thereby increasing the weight of solid

material per cubic foot,

Companion crop: A crop sown with another crop.

Used particularly for small grains with which forage crops are sown. Preferred to the term “nurse

crop. ”

Conservation: The protection, improvement, and

use of natural resources according to principles

that will assure their highest economic or social

benefits.

Conservation district: A public organization

created under State enabling law as a special-purpose district to develop and carry out a program

of soil, water, and related resource conservation,

use, and development within its boundaries;

usually a subdivision of State government with

a local governing body. Often called a soil conservation district or a soil and water conservation district,

Conservation plan for farm, ranch, or nonagricultural land unit: The properly recorded decisions of the cooperating landowner or operator

on how he plans, within practical limits, to use

his land in an operating unit within its capability and to treat it according to its needs for maintenance or improvement of the soil, water, and

plant resources,

Conservation tillage: Any tillage system that

reduces loss of soil or water compared to unridged or clean tillage.

Contact herbicide: A herbicide that kills primarily by contact with plant tissue rather than as a

result of translocation.

Continuous grazing: Domestic livestock grazing a

specific area throughout the grazing season. Not

necessarily synonymous with year-long grazing.

Contour farming: Conducting field operations,

such as plowing, planting, cultivating, and harvesting, on the contour.

Contour stripcropping: Layout of crops in comparatively narrow strips in which the farming operations are performed approximately on the

contour, Usually strips of grass, close-growing

crops, or fallow are alternated with those in cultivated crops.

Conventional tillage: The combined primary and

secondary tillage operations normally performed

in preparing a seedbed for a given crop grown

in a given geographical area.

Cover: 1. Vegetation or other material providing

protection, 2. Fish, a variety of items including

undercut banks, trees, roots, and rocks in the

water where fish seek necessary protection or

security. 3. In forestry, low-growing shrubs,

vines, and herbaceous plants under the trees.

4. Ground and soils, any vegetation producing a

protecting mat on or just above the soil surface.

5. Stream, generally trees, large shrubs, grasses,

or forbs that shade and otherwise protect the
App. G—G/ossary ● 251

stream from erosion, temperature elevation, or

sloughing of banks. 6. Vegetation, all plants of all

sizes and species found on an area, irrespective

of whether they have forage or other value,

7. Wildlife, plants, or objects used by wild animals

for nesting, rearing young, resting, escape from

predators, or protection from adverse environmental conditions.

Cover crop: A close-growing crop grown primarily for the purpose of protecting and improving

soil between periods of regular crop production

or beteeen trees and vines in orhards and vineyards.

Cropland: [and used primarily for the production

of adapted, cultivated, close-growing fruit or nut

crops for harvest, alone or in association with sod

c reps.

Crop residue: The portion of a plant or crop left

in the field after harvest.

Crop residue management: Use of that portion of

the plant or crop left in the field after harvest for

protection or improvement of the soil.

Crop rotation: Growing different crops in recurring succession on the same land.

Cultivar: An assemblage of cultivated plants which

is clearlly distinguished by its characters (morphological, physiological, cytological, chemical,

or others) and which when reproduced (sexually

or asexually) retains those distinguishing characters. The terms ‘‘cultilvar" and ‘‘variety’ are exact equvilents.

Deferred grazing: Discontinuance of livestock grazing on an area for a specified period of time during the growing season to p remote plant reproduction, establishment of new plants, or restoration of vigor by old plants.

Deferred-rotation grazing: A systematic rotation

of deferred ,grazing.

Diversion terrace: Diversions, which differ from

terraccs in that they consist of individually designed channels across a h inside; may be used

to protect bottom land from hillside runoff or

may be needed above a terrace system for protection against runoff from an unterraced area;

may also divert water out of active gullies, protect farm buildings from runoff, reduce the number of waterways, and sometimes used in connection with stripcropping to shorten the length

of so that the strips can effectively cntrol

erosion. See Terrace.

Diversity: The variety of species within a given asSOciaiation of organisms. Areas of high diversit~

are characterezesl by a great variety of species:

usually relatively few individuals represent any

one species. Areas with low diversity are characterized by a few species; often relativey large

numbers of individuals represent each species.

Drainage: 1. The removal of excess surface water

or ground water from land by means of surface

or subsurface drains. 2. Soil characteristics that

affect natural drainage.

Drainage, soil: As a natural condition of the soil,

soil drainage refers to the frequenc’ and duration

of periods when the soil is free of saturation—for

example, in well-drained soils the water is removed readily but not rapidly; in poorly drained

soils the root zone is waterlogged for long periods

unless artificially drained, and the roots of ordinary crop plants cannot get enough oxygen; in

excessively drained soils the water is removed

so completely that most crop plants suffer from

lack of water.

Dryland farming: The practice of crop cultilvation

in low rainfall areas without irrigation.

Ecology: The study of interrelationships of

organisms to one another and to their environment.

Ecosystem: A community, including all the con~-

ponent organisms, together with the environment, forming an interacting system.

Ecotone: A transition line or strip of vegetation between two communities, havin~ characteristic; s

of both kinds of neighboring vegetation as well

as characteristics of its own.

Edaphic factor: A condition or characteristic of the

soil (chemical, physical, or biological] which influences organisms.

Environment: The sum total of all the external conditions that may act on an organism or community to influence its development or existence.

Erosion: 1. The wearing away of the land surface

by running water, wind, ice, or other geologi[;al

agents, including such processes as ,gra\’itational

creep. 2. Detachment and mo~’ement of soil or

rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or gra~rity,

The following terms are used to describe different types of water erosion:

Accelerated erosion: Erosion much more rapid

than normal, natural, or geologic erosion, primarily as a result of the influence of man or,

i n some cases, of other ani ma]s or natural c atastrophes that expose base surfaces-for exa m p] e, fires,

Geological erosion: The normal or natural erosion

caused by geological processes acting over

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

of flood plains, coastal plains, etc. Also called

natural erosion.

Gully erosion: The erosion process whereby

water accumulates in narrow channels and,

over short periods, removes the soil from this

narrow area to considerable depths, ranging

from 1 to 2 ft to as much as 75 to 100 ft.

Natural erosion: Wearing away of the Earth’s surface by water, ice, or other natural agents

under natural environmental conditions of climate, vegetation, etc., undisturbed by man.

Also called geological erosion.

Normal erosion: The gradual erosion of land used

by man which does not greatly exceed natural

erosion.

Rill erosion: An erosion process in which

numerous small channels only several inches

deep are formed; occurs mainly on recently

cultivated soils.

Sheet erosion: The removal of a fairly uniform

layer of soil from the land surface by runoff

water.

Splash erosion: The spattering of small soil particles caused by the impact of raindrops on wet

soils. The loosened and spattered particles may

or may not be subsequently removed by surface runoff.

Erosion classes (soil survey): A grouping of erosion conditions based on the degree of erosion

or on characteristic patterns; applied to accelerated erosion, not to normal, natural, or

geological erosion. Four erosion classes are recognized for water erosion and three for wind erosion. For details see Soil Survey Staff, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey Manual,

1951. USDA Handbook 18, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D,C.

Eutrophication: A means of aging lakes whereby

aquatic plants are abundant and waters are deficient in oxygen, The process is usually accelerated by enrichment of waters with surface runoff containing nitrogen and phosphorus.

Evapotranspiration: The combined loss of water

from a given area and during a specific period

of time by evaporation from the soil surface and

by transpiration from plants.

Fallow: Allowing cropland to lie idle, either tilled

or untilled, during the whole or greater portion

of the growing season.

Family farm: A farm business in which the operating family does most of the work, most of the

managing, and takes the risks.

Farm: Any place from which $1,000 or more of

agricultural products were sold, or normally

would have been sold, during the census year.

Farm management: The organization and administration of farm resources, including land, labor,

crops, livestock, and equipment.

Fertility (soil): The quality of a soil that enables it

to provide nutrients in adequate amounts and in

proper balance for the growth of specified plants

when other growth factors, such as light, moisture, temperature, and the physical condition of

the soil, are favorable.

Fertilizer: Any organic or inorganic material of

natural or synthetic origin that is added to a soil

to supply elements essential to plant growth.

Fixed costs: Costs that are largely determined in

advance of the year’s operati~n and subject to little or no control on the part of the farmer or businessman—e. g., rent of land or buildings, payment

of taxes, interest on borrowed money, and upkeep of buildings, fences, and drains; costs not

affected bv the amount of use,

Fodder: The ”dried, cured plants of tall, coarse grain

crops, such as corn and soybeans, including the

grain, stems, and leaves; grain parts not snapped

off or threshed,

Forage: All browse and herbaceous food that is

available to livestock or game animals, used for

grazing or harvested for feeding,

Forage production: The weight of forage that is

produced within a designated period of time on

a given area. The weight may be expressed as

either green, air-dry, or oven-dry. The term may

also be modified as to time of production such

as annual, current year’s, or seasonal forage

production.

Forb: A herbaceous plant that is not a grass, sedge,

or rush.

Grass: A member of the botanical family

Gramineae, characterized by bladelike leaves arranged on the culm or stem in two ranks.

Grassed waterway: A natural or constructed waterway, usually broad and shallow, covered with

erosion-resistant grasses, used to conduct surface

water from cropland,

Grasslike plants: A plant that resembles a true

grass—e. g,, sedges and rushes—but is taxonomically different.

Grazable woodland: Forestland on which the

understory includes, as an integral part of the

forest plant community, plants that can be grazed

without significantly impairing other forest

va11] es.
App. G—Glossary ● 2 5 3

Grazing: The eating of any kind of standing vegetation by domestic litestock or wild animals.

Grazing capacity: The maximum stocking rate

possible without inducing damage to vegetation

or related resources.

Grazingland: Land used regularly for grazing. The

term is not confined to land suitable only for

grazing. Cropland and pasture used in connect ion with a system of farm crop rotation are usually not included.

Grazing permit: A document authorizing the use

of public or other lands for grazing purposes

under specified conditions, issued to the livestock operator by the agency administering the

lands.

Grazing season: The portion of the year that livestock graze or are permitted to graze on a given

range or pasture. Sometimes called grazing period,

Grazing system: The manipulation of grazing animals to accomplish a desired result.

Green manure crop: Any crop grown for the purpose of being turned under while green or soon

after maturity for soil improvernent, especially

nitrogen additions.

Growing season: The period and/or number of

days between the last freeze in the spring and the

first frost in the fall for the freeze threshold temperature of the crop or other designated temperature threshold.

Habitat: The environment in which the life needs

of a plant or animal organism, population, or

community are supplied.

Halophyte: A plant adapted to existence in a saline

environrnent, such as greasewood (Sarcobatus

saltgrass (Distichljs), and the saltbushes (A triplex

Spp. ).

Hardpan: A hardened soil layer in the lower A or

in the B horizon caused by cementation of soil

particles with organic matter or with materials

such as silica, scsquioxides, or calcium carbonate. The hardness does not change appreciably

with changes in the moisture content, and pieces

of the hard layrer do not flake in water.

Herbicide: A chemical substance used for killing

plants, especially weeds.

Impervious soil: A soil through which water, air,

or roots cannot penetrate. No soil is impervious

to water and air all the time.

Indigenous: Born, growing, or produced naturally in a region or country; native.

Intensive cropping: Maximum use of the land by

means of frequent succession of harvested crops.

Interplanting: 1. In cropland, the planting of several crops together on the same land—e, g., the

planting of beans with corn. 2. In orchards, the

planting of farm crops among the trees, especially while the trees are too small to occupy the land

completely. 3. In woodland, the planting of young

trees among existing trees or brush} growth.

Interseeding: Seeding into an established \’egetation.

Irrigation: Application of water to lands for agricultural purposes. Different systems include:

Center-pivot: Automated sprinkler irrigation

achieved by automatically rotating the sprinkler pipe or boom, supplyin g water to the

sprinkler heads or nozzles, as a radius from the

center of the field to be irrigated. Water is delivered to the center or pivot point of the system. The pipe is supported above the crop by

towers at fixed spacings and propelled by

pneumatic, mechanical, hydraulic, or electric

power on wheels or skids in fixed circular

paths at uniform angular speeds. Water is applied at a uniform rate by progressive increase

of nozzle size from the pilot to the end of the

line. Single units are ordinarily about 1,250 to

1,300 ft long and irrigate approximately a 130-

acre circular area.

Drip: A planned irrigation system where all

necessary facilities have been installed for the

efficient application of water directily to the

root zone of plants by means of applicators (orrices, emitters, porous tubing. perforated pipe,

etc. ) operated u rider low pressure, The a pplicators may be placed on or below the surface of the ground.

Sprinkler: A planned irrigation system where all

necessary facilities have been installed for the

efficient application of water for irrigation by

means of perforated pipe or nozzles operated

under pressure.

Irrigation application efficiency: Percentage of irrigat ion water applied to an area that is stored

in the soil for crop use.

Irrigation lateral: A branch of the main canal conveying water to the farm ditches, sometimes used

in reference to farm ditches.

Land: The total natural and cultural environment

within which production takes place; a b roadcr

term than soil. In addition to soil, its attributes

include other physical conditions, such as mineral deposits, climate, and mater supply; location

in relation to centers of commerce, populations,

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

improvement, and the like.

Land capability: The suitability of land for use

without permanent damage. Land capability, as

ordinarily used in the United States, is an expression of the effect of physical land conditions, including climate, on the total suitability for use

without damage for crops that require regular tillage, for grazing, for woodland, and for wildlife.

Land capability involves consideration of: 1) the

risks of land damage from erosion and other

causes; and 2) the difficulties in land use owing

to physical land characteristics, including climate.

Land capability class: One of the eight classes of

land in the land capability classification of the

Soil Conservation Service; distinguished according to the risk of land damage or the difficulty

of land use; they include:

Land suitable for cultivation and other uses:

CkMs 1: Soils that have few limitations restricting

their use.

Class 11: Soils that have some limitations, reducing the choice of plants or requiring moderate

conservation practices.

Class 111: Soils that have severe limitations that

reduce the choice of plants or require special

conservation practices, or both.

Class IV: Soils that have very severe limitations

that restrict the choice of plants, require very

careful management, or both.

Land generally not suitable for cultivation (without major treatment):

Class V: Soils that have little or no erosion hazard,

but that have other limitations, impractical to

remove, that limit their use largely to pasture,

range, woodland, or wildlife food and cover.

Class VI: Soils that have severe limitations that

make them generally unsuited for cultivation

and limit their use largely to pasture or range,

woodland, or wildlife food and cover.

Class VII: Soils that have very severe limitations

that make them unsuited to cultivation and that

restrict their use largely to grazing, woodland,

or wildlife.

Class VIII: Soils and Iandforms that preclude

their use for commercial plant production anci

restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, water

supply, or esthetic purposes.

Land tenure: The holding of land and the rights

that go with such holding, including all forms of

holding from fee simple title embracing all possible rights within the general limitations imposed

by the Government, to the various forms of tenancy or holding of land owned by another.

Legume: A member of the pulse family, one of the

most important and widely distributed plant families. The fruit is a pod that opens along two sutures when ripe. Leaves are alternate, have stipules, and are usually compound. Includes many

valuable food and forage species, such as peas,

beans, peanuts, clovers, alfalfas, sweet clovers,

lespedezas, vetches, and kudzu. Practically all

legumes are nitrogen-fixing plants.

Loamy: Intermediate in texture and properties between fine- and coarse-textured soils; includes all

textural classes with the words “loamy” or

“loam” as a part of the class name, such as clay

loam or loamy sand.

Loess: Material transported and deposited by wind

and consisting of predominantly silt-sized particles,

Macro-organisms: Those organisms retained on a

U.S. standard sieve No. 30 (openings of 0.589

mm); those organisms visible to the unaided eye.

See Micro-organisms.

Micro-organisms: Those organisms retained on a

U.S. standard sieve No. 100 (openings of 0.149

mm); those minute organisms invisible or only

barely visible to the unaided eye. See Macro-organisms.

Minimum tillage: Limiting the number of soil-disturbing operations to those that are properly

timed and essential to produce a crop and prevent soil damage.

Moldboard plow: A traditional plow with a curved

plate attached above a plowshare to lift and turn

the soil. Invented by John Deere; first implement

to successfully break prairie sod.

Monoculture: Raising crops of a single species,

generally even-aged.

Mulch: A natural or artificial layer of plant residue

or other materials, such as sand or paper, on the

soil surface.

Mulch tillage: Soil tillage that employs plant residues or other materials to cover the ground surface.

Multiple use: Harmonious use of land for more

than one purpose—i.e., grazing livestock, wildlife

production, recreation, watershed, and timber

production. Not necessarily the combination of

uses that will yield the highest economic return

or greatest unit output.

Niche: A habitat that supplies the factors necessary

for the existence of an organism or species.

Vitrification: The biological oxidation of ammoni-
—

App. Glossary •255

urn to nitrite and the further oxidation of nitrite

to nitrate.

Nitrogen assimilation: The incorporation of nitrogen compounds into cell substances by living organisms.

Nitrogen fixation: The conversion of elemental

nitrogen (N2

) to organic combinations or to forms

readily usable in biological processes.

Nitrogen-fixing plant: A plant that can assimilate

and fix the free nit rogen of the atmosphere with

the aid of bacteria living in the root nodules.

Legumes with associated rhizobiurn bacteria in

the root nodules are the most important nitrogenfixing plants,

Nonpoint pollution: Pollution whose sources cannot be pinpointed; can best be controlled by proper soil, water, and land management practices.

Nonrenewable natural resources: Natural resources that, once used, cannot be replaced.

No-tillage: A method of planting crops that involves no seed bed preparation other than opening the soil for the purpose of placing the seed

at the intended depth. This usually involves opening a small Slit or punching a hole into the soil.

There is usually no cultivation during crop production. Chemical weed control is normally used.

Also referred to as slot planting or zero tillage.

Noxious species: A plant that is undesirable

because it conflicts, restricts, or otherwise causes

problems under the management objectives. Not

to confused with species declared noxious by

laws.

Nutrients: 1. Elements, or compounds, essential as

raw materials for organism growth and development, such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. 2. The dissolved solids and gases of

the water of an area.

Organic content: Synonymous with volatile solids,

except for small traces of some inorganic materials, such as calcium carbonate, that lose weight

at temperatures used in determining volatile solids.

Organic fertilizer: Byproduct from the processing

of animal or vegetable substances that contain

sufficient plant nutrients to be of value as fertilizers,

Overgrazed range: A range that has lost its productive potential because of overgrazing.

Overgrazing: Grazing so heavy that it impairs

future forage production and causes deterioration through damage to plants, soil, or both.

Palatability: Plant charactcristi(; or condition that

stimulates a Selective response i n animals.

Pan, pressure or induced: A subsurface horizon

or soil layer having a high bulk density and a lower total porosity than the soil directly above or

below it as a result of pressure applied by normal tillage operations or by other artificial means;

frequently referred to as plow pan, plow sole, tillage pan, or traffic pan.

Pasture: An area intensively managed for the production of forage, introduced or native, and

harvested by grazing.

Percolation: The downward movement of water

through soil, especially the downward flow of

water in saturated or nearly saturated soil at hydraulic gradients of the order of 1.0 or less.

Perennial plant: A plant that normally lives 3 or

more years, sending forth shoots each spring

from roots or rhizomes.

Permeability, soil: The quality of a soil horizon that

enables water or air to move through it. The permeabil it y of a soil may be limited by the presence

of one nearly impermeable horizon even though

the others are permeable.

Pesticide: Any chemical agent used for control of

specific organisms, such as insecticides, herb iicicles, fungicides, etc.

Planning horizon: A farmer’s planning horizon is

the length of time considered when making an

investment of capital, labor, or land resources,

It may be as short as one crop season or as long

as his children’s lifetimes. The term includes the

concept of discounted value that the farmer

places on future income or future costs compared

with present income or costs. The terms ‘‘planning period, ” “payback period, ” and “time

horizon” are often used interchangeably with

“planning horizon. ”

Plow: An implement used to cut, lift, and turn over

soil, especially in preparing a seedbed.

Plow layer: The soil ordinarily}; moved in tillage;

equivalent to surface soil or surface layer.

Point row: A row that forms an angle with another

row instead of paralleling it to the end of the field.

A row that “comes to a point, ” ending part way

across the field instead of at the edge of the field.

Polyculture: Growing more than one crop on the

same land in 1 year, or growing two or more

crops simultaneously. Variations include multiple cropping, intercropping, interculture and

mixed cropping.

Postemergence (crop production): Application of

chemicals, fertilizers, or other materials and operat ions associated with crop production after

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

chemicals, fertilizers, or other materials and operations associated with crop production before

the crop has emerged through the soil surface.

Prescribed burning: The deliberate use of fire

under conditions where the area to be burned is

predetermined and the intensity of the fire is controlled.

Prime agricultural land: Land that is best suited

for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and also available for those uses; includes cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forestIands, but not urbanized land or water. It has the

soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply

needed to produce sustained high yields of crops

economically when treated and managed, including water management, according to modern

agricultural methods.

Range condition: The present state of the plant

community on a range site in relation to the potential natural plant community for that site.

Range condition class: One of a series of arbitrary

categories used to classify range condition, usually expressed as either excellent, good, fair, or

poor.

Rangeland: Land on which the native vegetation

(climax or natural potential) is predominantly

grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable

for grazing or browsing use. Includes lands revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a forage cover that is managed like native vegetation.

Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas,

shrublands, most deserts, tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes, and wet meadows.

Range management: A distinct discipline founded

on-ecological principles and dealing with the husbandry of all rangeland and range resources.

Reduced tillage: A tillage sequence designed to reduce or eliminate secondary tillage operations.

Renewable natural resources: Resources that can

be restored and improved.

Rest-rotation grazing: A form of deferred-rotation

grazing in which at least one grazing unit is

rested from grazing for a full year,

Riparian land: Land situated along the bank of a

stream or other body of water.

Rotary tillage: An operation using a power driven

rotary tillage tool to loosen and mix soil.

Rotation grazing: System of use embracing short

periods of heavy stocking followed by periods of

rest for herbage recovery during the same season;

generally used on tame pasture or cropland

pasture.

Row crop: A crop planted in rows, normally to

allow cultivation between rows during the growing season.

Runoff (hydraulics): That portion of the precipitation on a drainage area that is discharged from

the area in stream channels. Types include surface runoff, ground water runoff, or seepage.

Saline soil: A nonsodic soil containing sufficient

soluble salts to impair its productivity but not

containing excessive exchangeable sodium. This

name was formerly applied to any soil containing sufficient soluble salts to interfere with plant

growth, commonly greater than 3,000 parts per

million.

Sedimentation: The process or action of depositing

sediment.

Selective grazing: The tendency for livestock and

other grazing animals to graze certain plants in

preference to others,

Selective herbicide: A pesticide intended to kill

only certain types of plants, especially broadleafed weeds, and not harm other plants such as

farm crops or lawn grasses.

Shrub: A woody or perennial plant differing from

a tree by its low stature and by generally producing several basal shoots instead of a single bole.

Siltation: The process of depositing silt, See Sedimentation,

Slope: The degree of deviation of a surface from

horizontal, measured in a numerical ratio, percent, or degrees.

Soil: I. The unconsolidated mineral and organic

material on the immediate surface of the Earth

that serves as a natural medium for the growth

of land plants, 2, The unconsolidated mineral

matter on the surface of the Earth that has been

subjected to and influenced by genetic and environmental factors of parent material, climate

(including moisture and temperature effects),

macro- and micro-organisms, and topography, all

acting over a period of time and producing a

product—soil—that differs from the material

from which it is derived in many physical, chemical, biological, and morphological properties and

characteristics, 3, A kind of soil is the collection

of soils that are alike in specified combinations

of characteristics. Kinds of soil are given names

in the system of soil classification. The terms “the

soil” and “soil” are collective terms used for all

soils, equivalent to the word “vegetation” for all

plants.

Soil amendment: Any material, such as lime, gypsum, sawdust, or synthetic conditioner, that is
App. G—Glossary . 257

worked into the soil to make it more amenable

to plant growth.

Soil classification: The systematic arrangement of

soils into groups or categories on the basis of

their characteristics. Broad groupings are made

on the basis of general characteristics, subdivis ions on the basis of more detailed differences

in specific properties.

Soil conditioner: Any material added to a soil for

the purpose of improving its physical condition.

Soil conservation: Using the soil within the limits

of its physical characteristics and protecting it

from unalterable limitations of climate and topography.

Soil-conserving crops: Crops that prevent or retard

erosion and maintain or replenish rather than deplete soil organic matter,

Soil-depleting crops: Crops that under the usual

management tend to deplete nutrients and organic matter in the soil and permit deterioration of

soil structure.

Soil erosion: The detachment and movement of soil

from the land surface by wind or water. See

Erosion.

Soil fertility: The quality of a soil that enables it

to provide nutrients in adequate amounts and in

proper balance for the growth of specified plants,

when other growth factors, such as light, moist re, temperature, and physical condition of soil,

are favorable.

Soil-formation factors: The variables, usually interrelated natural agencies, active in and responsible for the formation of soil. The factors are usually grouped as follows: parent material, climate,

organisms, topography, and time. Many people

believe that activities of man in his use and manipulation of soil become such an important influence on soil formation that he should be added

as a sixth variable. Others consider man as a n

organism.

Soil loss tolerance: The maximum average annual

soil loss in tons per acre per year that should be

permitted on a given soil.

Soil management: The sum total of all tillage operations, cropping practices, fertilizer, lime, and

other treatments conducted on, or applied to, a

soil for the production of plants.

Soil survey: A general term for the systematic examination of soils in the field and in laboratories;

their description and classification; the mapping

of kinds of soil; the interpretation of soils according to their adaptability for various crops,

grasses, and trees; their behavior under use or

treatment for plant production or for other purposes; and their productivity under different

management systems,

Stripcropping: Growing crops in a systematic arrangement of strips or bands which serve as barriers to wind and water erosion. See Buffkr strips,

Contour stripcropping.

Strip tillage: Tillage operations for seedbed preparation that are limited to a strip not to exceed onethird of the distance between rows: the area between is left untilled with a protective cover of

crop residue on the surface for erosion cent rol.

Planting and tillage are accompanied in the same

operation.

Stubble: The basal portion of plants remaining after

the top portion has been harvested; also, the portion of the plants, principally grasses, remaining

after grazing is completed.

Stubble mulch: The stubble of crops or crop residues left essentially in place on the land as a surface cover during fallow and the growing of a

succeeding crop.

Subsidence: A downward movernent of the ground

surface caused by solution and collapse o f underlying soluble deposits, rearrangements of particles upon remet’al of coal, or reduction of fluid

pressures within an aquifer or petroleum reservoir.

Subsoil: The B horizons of soils with distinct profiles. In soils with weak profile development, the

subsoil can be defined as the soil below’ the

plowed soil (or its equivalent of surface soil) in

which roots normally grow. Although a common

term, it cannot be defined accurately. It has been

carried over from early days when ‘‘soil” was

conceived only as the plowed soil and that under

it was the “subsoil. ”

Subsoiling: The tillage of subsurface soil, without

inversion, for the purpose of breaking up dense

layers that restrict water movement and root penet ration.

Terrace: An embankment or combination of an embankment and channel constructed across a

slope to control erosion by divererting or storing

surface runoff instead of permitting it to flow uninterrupted down the slope. Terraces or terrace

systems may be classified by their alignment, gradient, outlet, and cross-section. Alignment may

be parallel or nonparallel. Gradient maybe level,

uniformly graded, or variably graded. Grade is

often incorporated to permit paralleling the terraces. Outlets may be soil infiltration only, vegetated 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

base, bench, steep backslope, flat channel, or

channel.

Terrace outlet channel: Channel, usually having

a vegetative cover, into which the flow from one

or more terraces is discharged and conveyed

from the field.

Tile, drain: Pipe made of burned clay, concrete,

or similar material, in short lengths, usually laid

with open joints to collect and carry excess water

from the soil.

Tile drainage: Land drainage by means of a series

of tile lines laid a specified depth and grade.

Tillage: The operation of implements through the

soil to prepare seedbeds and root beds.

Tilth: The physical condition of soil as related to

its ease of tillage, fitness as a seedbed, and impedance to seedling emergence and root penetration.

Undergrazing: An intensity of grazing in which the

forage available for consumption under a system

of conservation pasture management is not used

to best advantage.

Undesirable species: 1. Plant species that are not

readily eaten by animals, 2. Species that conflict

with or do not contribute to the management objectives.

Universal soil loss equation: An equation used to

design water erosion control systems: A ==

RKLSPC wherein A is average annual soil loss

in tons per acre per year; R is the rainfall factor;

K is the soil erodibility; L is the length of slope;

S is the percent slope; P is the conservation practice factor; and C is the cropping and management factor. (T = soil loss tolerance value that

has been assigned each soil, expressed in tons per

acre per year.)

Utility: The ability of a good to satisfy human

wants.

Variable costs: Costs subject to the year’s production schedule. As such, they may be largely controlled by the operator. Examples are the use of

fertilizer and insecticides, hauling grain, etc.

Water management: Application of practices to obtain added benefits from precipitation, water, or

water flow in any of a number of areas, such as

irrigation, drainage, wildlife and recreation, water supply, watershed management, and water

storage in soil for crop production.

Water table: The upper surface of ground water or

that level below which the soil is saturated with

water; locus of points in soil water at which the

hydraulic pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure,

Water use efficiency: Crop production per unit of

water used, irrespective of water source, expressed in units of weight per unit of water depth

per unit area. This concept of utilization applies

to both dryland and irrigated agriculture.

Windbreak: 1. A living barrier of trees or combination of trees and shrubs located adjacent to farm

or ranch headquarters and designed to protect

the area from cold or hot winds and drifting

snow. 2. A narrow barrier of living trees or combination of trees and shrubs, usually from one to

five rows, established within or around a field

or for the protection of land and crops from

wind.

Wind erosion: An equation used for the design of

wind erosion control systems: E = f (IKCLV)

wherein E is the average annual soil loss, expressed in tons per acre per year; I is the soil

erodibility; K is the soil ridge roughness; C is the

climatic factor; L is the unsheltered distance

across the field along the wind erosion direction;

and V is the vegetative cover.

Wind stripcropping: The production of crops in

relatively narrow strips placed perpendicular to

the direction of the prevailing winds.
Index
INDEX

Africa, 75, 81

Agricultural Conservation Program (AC P), 160-161

agriculural land benefits, 13, 56-61

agricultural technology, 15-16, 139

alternative cropping systems, 111-117

communication of, 141-144

conservatism of, 15

factors affecting adoption of, 137-148

Federal research on, 186-188

information diffusion on, 140-141

limitations of, 93

limited innovation in, 14-15

misapplication of, 93

organic agriculture, 107-111

role of government in, 16-19, 151-177

air quality, 57-58

Alabama, 43

Alaska, 67, 68, 143, 162, 189

Aleutian Islands, 223

condition of rangeland in, 70

landownership in (table), 222

State Agricultural Experiment Station, 222

State Department of Natural Resources, 222

University of, 223

virgin lands in, 220-224

alfalfa, 48, 75, 108, 118, 205

Algeria, 37

4-amino 3,5,6 -trichloropicolinic acid [see piclorarn)

aquifers

biodegradation of organic materials in, 53

Carrizo, 51

definition of, 48

Estancia Basin, 51

Ogallala Formation, 50-51, 52

recharging of, 48, 59

Roswell Artesian Basin, 51

Seymour Formation (Texas), 53

Arizona, 49, 69

Arkansas, 49

Arkansas River Valley [Arizona], 120

Aroostook County (Maine), 33

arsenic, 2

Asia Minor, 37

Banks for Cooperatives, 154

barley, 32, 100, 112, 120, 220

benching, 127

bermudagrass, 100

blueberries, 52

Brannon, Charles F., 171

Brickner, Ernie, 195, 196, 212-214

Brown, Dr. Paul, 216, 217, 219

buffalo gourd, 115

Bulgaria, 123

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 67, 70, 161,

163-166, 203-205

cadmium, 232

calcium, 35, 59, 79

California, 43, 44, 47, 49, 52, 55, 56, 68, 69,

112, 118, 163

Canada, 47, 143

canola, 220

carbon dioxide, 57

carbon monoxide, 57

Caribbean, 24, 33

Center for Agricultural and Rural Develpment

(CARD), 145, 238

centrifugal pump, 92

cheatgrass, 69

Chevron Chemical co,, 197-199

chisel planting, 97

chlorinated hydrocarbons, 52

chlorine, 231

Cihylik, Nicholas, 195, 197-199

Coastal Plains States, 44

Colorado, 49, 60

Colorado River, 47, 54

Commodity Credit Corp., 151

commodity policies, 153-154

commodity programs, 151

computers, 121-122, 142

Congress, 162, 163

acts of (see legislation)

issues and options for, 181-191

legislation for Federal rangelands, 71, 76

major legislation establishing Federal role in

resource conservation (table], 158-160

opportunities for action by, 18-19

conservation

Agricultural Conservation Program (AC P), 168-170

coordination of commodity and credit programs

with, 176

cross compliance as a strateglr for, 171-172

in farming, 206-211

Federal cost sharing in, 167-172

Federal role in, 157-161

Great Plains Conservation Program (C PC P), 170-171

improving effectiveness of Federal programs for,

183-186

influence of type of farm ownership on, 138-139

in Iowa, 174

National Association of Conservation Districts,

174, 176

in Oregon, 174-175

Soil Consertation Association, 173

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

Soil Conservation Districts, 173

State initiatives in, 173-175, 190-191

conservation tillage, 14, 31, 44, 94-107, 129, 147

adoption rate of, 97-98

barriers to adoption of, 100-105

characteristics of, 95-96

economic incentives for adoption of, 98-100

Federal role in, 105-106

herbicide use in, 94-95

major methods of, 97

and no-till farming, 95-107

contour farming, 14, 124

Control Data Corp., 122

copper, 232

Copper River (Alaska), 222

corn, 31, 34, 43, 92, 95, 100, 108, 110, 118, 220

Corn Belt, 33, 35, 38, 45, 108

Cortez, 115

Cote, David, 198

cotton, 32, 33, 43, 95, 118

cranberries, 52

credit programs, 154-156

crested wheatgrass, 75

cropland, 14-15, 46, 91-133

area in united States, 14, 91

conversion of virgin land to, 220-224

conversion of wetlands to, 9

erosion control technologies for, 123-127

growth of, 30-32

potential in United States, 220-224

productivity-sustaining technologies for, 92-123

sustaining productivity of, 13-15

crop s

abandoned or neglected types of, 115

genetics of, 114, 115

polyculture of perennial plants, 115-116

potential new, 114-117

residue management, 15, 58

rotation of, 108, 125

salt-tolerant, 47, 119-121

species under cultivation, 114

2,4-D, 52

dams, 123

data bases, 238-242

DDT, 52

Delaware, 112

disaster relief, 151, 153-154

disk planting, 97

Dodd, Harold, 208

Dodge, Ted, 218, 219

drainage

benefits of, 9, 38-41

effects on wildlife, 60

investment in systems for, 4 1

methods of, 9, 38, 41

research on, 41

Ellenberger, Glen, 198

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 105, 119,

147, 165, 166, 231

environmental protection

environmental impact assessment, 166-167

nonpoint source pollution, 165-166

pesticide regulation, 165

erosion, 7-8

areas with high rates of, 32-33

causes of, 24-25

characteristics of land most subject to, 23-24

control of, 123-130

of croplands, 8, 24, 25

effects on crop production, 34-36

of fragile lands, 188-190

gully, 23, 37, 92

magnitude of, 25-32

of rangeland, 27

rill, 23, 25-27, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 92, 123, 169

as a self-reinforcing process, 24, 37

sheet, 23, 25-27, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 92, 123, 169

from snowmelt runoff, 24-25

streambank, 23, 37, 92

Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE], 24

water-caused, 7-8

wind, 7, 24, 25-26, 27, 32, 37, 92, 126, 170

eutrophication, 59

Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), 147, 154-155

loan programs of, 185

farm rehabilitation, 212-214

Fast Agricultural Communications Terminal Systems

(FACTS), 122

Federal Agricultural Conservation Program, 137

Federal Credit System [FCS], 154

Federal Intermediate Credit Banks (FICBS), 154

Federal Land Banks, 154

fertilizers, 34, 35, 42, 107

fish and wildlife

in Alaska, 223

effects of agricultural activities on, 59-61

effects of overgrazing on, 69

wild burros, 76, 163

wild horses, 76, 163

fish (see fish and wildlife)

flexible cropping, 48

Florida, 56

fluometuron, 52

forests

detrimental effects of grazing in, 82

extent of grazing in Eastern, 82-84

technologies for multiple-use management of

grazing in, 85-86

Franklin, Benjamin, 115

Fuelbirth, John, 210
Index ● 263

Galapagos Islands, 121

Gallup, Dwight, 206-211

Gallup, Hazel, 210

Gallup, Roger, 195, 196, 206-211

gasohol, 152. 153

General Accounting Office (GAO), 53, 162, 164, 165,

168, 170, 171

Georgia, 37

Germany, 42

Gila River (Arizona), 120

glossary of terms used in this report, 249-258

Godel, Ed, 212, 213

grasses, 115, 116

grazing

in Eastern forests, 82-84

effects on wildlife, 60-61

excessive, 13, 27

Savory method of, 80

short duration, 80-82

Grazing Service, 161

Great Lakes States, 38

Great Plains, 37

Great Plains Conservation Program, 161

Green Thumb, 142

Greiss, Alan, 199

ground wate r

allocation of, 49

availvility and quality of, 48, 49

contaminantion of, 52-53

definition of quality of, 53-54

degradation of, 51, 54

depletion of, 11, 48-54

overdraft of, 49

as percent of total freshwater resources, 49

policies toward surface water and, 5 4

protection of, 11

saltwater contaminantion of, 51-52

streamflow” reduction from pumping of, 53-54

growth regulators, 107

Gulf of Mexico, 120

Hanford, Howard, 195, 196, 215-219

Harris Poll, 167

Hawaii, 32

hay, 34, 43

herbicides, 100

application rates for various crops, 95

in brush control, 78

contamination of ground water by, 52

Highwood Alkali Control Association, 215

Holzer, Jane, 218, 219

hydrocarbons, 57

IHMS (see Integrated Brush Management Systems)

Idaho, 32

Illinois, 33, 101, 112

Indiana, 101, 112, 122

information diffusion, 140-141

insecticides

effects on birds, 60

effects on fish, 60

Integrated Brush Management Systems (IBMS), 77-80

intercropping, 112

International Institute of Applied Systems

Analysis, 238

Iowa, 33, 34, 101, 140

Iraq, 37

irrigation, 34, 50, 58, 92

area of farmland under, 117

drip systems for, 117-119

effects on wildlife, 60

soil salinization from, 10, 46-48

in the Southwest, 48

Italy, 37

Japan, 93, 123

Jefferson, Thomas, 125

johnsongrass, 100

jojoba, 115

Kansas, 49

Kentucky, 112, 122

Kentucky Cooperative Extension System, 142

Kindschy, Bob, 201, 203

Lake Erie, 102

land productivity

effect of erosion on, 34

problems, 7-14

role of government in, 151-177

Laurance, Max, 203

lead, 232

legislation

Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, 151

Alaska Lands Bill, 6 7

Appalachian Regional Development Act, 161

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of

1974, 161

Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964, 71

Clean Air Act of 1963, 161

Clean Water Act of 1977, 165-166

Endangered Species Act of 1973, 161

Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of

1972, 161

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

of 1947, 165

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,

71, 161, 163

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 161,

165-166, 190

Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, 1 5 3

Food and Drug Act, 123

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974, 71, 161, 163-164

Forest and Kangeland Renewable Resources

Research Act of 1978, 164

Forest and Rangeland Resources Extension Act of

1978, 161

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 161, 162

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 161

National Forest Management Act of 1976, 161, 164
264 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity

organic Act of 1897, 162

Public Rangeland Improvement Act of 1978, 71, 75,

161, 163

Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978,

164-165

Resources Conservation Act (RCA) of 1977, 98, 106,

171, 182, 243-246

Resource Planning Act (see Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974]

Resource Planning Act of 1980, 67

Soil Conservation Act of 1935, 158

Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of

1936, 160

Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of

1977, 161, 162

Tax Reform Act of 1976, 156, 157

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 161, 162

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of

1954, 161

Wilderness Act of 1964, 161

Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1974, 161

legumes, 75

lentils, 32

Iindane, 52

magnesium, 59

Maine, 33, 52

Maryland, 106, 112

Massachusetts, 52

Matanuska River (Alaska], 222

mathematical models

econometric, 235

Iowa State University Linear Programing Model

(ISU-LP), 236-237

necessary elements for policy analysis, 236

phonological, 237-238

systems simulation, 235

Yield/Soil Loss Simulator, 237

mercury, 232

Mesopotamia, 37

mesquite, 69

Michigan, 122

Miller, Dr. Marvin, 215, 217

millet, 100

Minnesota, 42, 49

Mississippi, 24, 33, 43

Mississippi River, 213

Mississippi Valley, 33

Missouri, 33

Missouri River, 216

Morocco, 37

mulches, 126

multiple cropping, 14, 111-114

advantages and disadvantages of, 112-114

definition of, 111

in Mexico, 112

relay intercropping, 112

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA], 223

National Agricultural Lands Study, 22o

National Resources Inventory (NRI), 25, 30, 33, 91,

123, 124, 129, 138, 170, 183, 189

National Soil Erosion-Soil Productivity Research

Planning Committee (see U.S. Department of

Agriculture)

National Weather Service, 142

Nebraska, 49, 122, 123

Nevada, 49

New Mexico, 49, 51, 69, 78

nickel, 232

nitrates, 53

nitrogen, 35, 36, 42, 58, 79, 104, 109, 229-230, 231

inadequacy as a limiting factor on rangeland

productivity, 75

oxides of, 57

North-Central States, 34, 38

North Dakota, 49

Northwest Territory, 213

no-till farming, 58, 197-199, 208

oats, 34, 43, 112, 220

Office of Management and Budget, 162

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), 48, 98, 106,

153, 242

papers commissioned for this study, 247-248

Ohio, 101, 112, 143

Oklahoma, 47, 49, 78, 123

Oregon, 112

organic agriculture, 14, 107-111

attitudes toward, 107-108, 109

comparison with conventional farming, 109-110

definition of, 107

feasibility of, 110

future of, 110-111

livestock operations in, 108

research in, 110

oxygen, 57, 59

ozone, 57

Pacific Ocean, 46

Palouse Basin, 32-33

paraquat, 202

pastureland

conversion to cropland, 27

erosion rate of, 26

Patuxent River [Maryland], 106

peas, 32

Pecos River (Texas), 120

Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District

(New Mexico), 51

Pennsylvania State University, 198

pesticides, 34, 107

conservation tillage and, 104-105

effects on ground water, surface water, and

precipitation, 231

effects on soil organisms, 12, 231-232

phosphorus, 35, 36, 58-59, 79, 104, 108, 230, 231

picloram (4-amino-3,5,6 -trichloropicolinic acid), 79

potassium, 35, 36, 59, 79, 108-109, 230
Index . 265

potatoes, 33, 42, 220

predators, 76

Production Credit Associations, 154

productivity

v. crop yields, 34

loss rates, 8

Puerto Rico, 33

Purdue University, 25

rangeland

area of, 13, 67, 70

brush control on, 77-80

condition of, 13, 68-70

effects of fire on, 79

erosion of, 27

Federal and private control of, 67-68

grazing on, 74, 80-82

legislation affecting, 71

livestock on, 72-74

management of, 14, 71-77

multiple use of, 76-77

noxious animals and plants on, 68-70, 75-77

productivity of, 14-15, 70, 71

products and services of, 14

technologies for, 71-86

vegetation on, 67, 74-75

RCA process, 162

Red River, 49

Rio Puerco Basin (New Mexico), 69

Roswell Artesian Basin [New Mexico), 51

Russia, 123

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 46

safflower, 48

salinization, 10-11, 46-48, 120

consequences of, 10

control of, 10-11

saline seep, 47-48, 215-219

saltbush, 75

Salt Lake Valley (Utah), 68

San Francisco Bay, 46

San Joaquin River (California], 46, 47, 52, 120

Santa Cruz River (Arizona), 69

satellites, 143

Secretary of Agriculture, 151, 158, 170

Secretary of Interior, 161, 163

shelterbelts (see windbreaks and shelterbelts)

Sicily, 37

Skinner, Bob, 195, 196, 200, 201, 204

slot planting, 97

Small Business Administration, 147, 155

snapbeans, 100

soil

amendments, 122-123

area of wet, 38

capping of rangeland, 45

chemistry of, 229-232

chemical composition of, 12- I 3

compaction of, 9-10, 40, 42-46

conservatopmof, 19

conversion of wetland to cropland, 38

drainage of, 38-42

effects on air quality, 57-58

effects of chemistry changes on nutrition, 233

effects of toxic wastes on, 232-233

erosion of, 23-38

fertilizer effects on, 229-232

fertility management of, 126

fertilizer value of eroded, 36-37

formation rates of, 8, 36

nutrient depletion in, 12-13

organisms in, 12, 226-229

organic matter in, 12, 225-226

salinization of, 46-48

shingling of rangeland, 45

tolerable loss of, 36

T-values of, 36, 129

variables in productivity of, 225-234

wet soil prevalence, 38, 38

Soil Erosion Service, 158

Soil Science Society of America, 242

soil types (see also soil]

Brandon, 34

clay, 36, 43, 55

Grenada, 34

loess, 32, 34, 35

Memphis loam, 34

sandy loam, 43

sorghum, 33, 100, 116, 118

Souris River, 49

Southeastern Coastal Plain, 43

soybeans, 31, 42, 95, 100, 108, 110, 112

stripcropping, 126-127

strip tillage, 97

stubble mulch, 58

subsidence, 11, 55-56

causes of, 11, 55

control of, 56

effects of, 11

sugar beets, 42

sulfur, 231

sunflower, 48

Susitna River (Alaska), 222

2,4,5-T, 79

Tanana River (Alaska], 220, 222

tax policies and programs, 156-157

technology (see agricultural technology)

Tennessee, 33, 34

tepary bean, 115

terraces, 15, 129, 208

for water erosion control, 123-124

Texas, 47, 49, 55, 69, 78, 81

Bigford Formation, 51

Black] and Prairie, 33

Dimmit County, 51

Kit Carson County 50

Trans-Pecos region of, 52

Zwala County 51

tillage management, 15
266 ● Impacts of Technology on U.S. Crop/and and Range/and Productivity

till plant, 97

Today’s Electronic Planning (TELEPLAN), 122

tomatoes, 120, 121

toxaphene, 52

trace elements, 59

Trempealeau River, 213

Triangle Conservation District (Montana), 218

2,4,5 -trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (see 2,4,5-T)

tumbleweed, 69

Tunisia, 37

University of Illinois, 209

University of Nebraska Agricultural Computer

Network (AGNET), 122

Urquiaga, Dominique, 201

Urquiaga, Lazaro, 195, 196, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205

USDA (see U.S. Department of Agriculture)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 18, 23, 25,

41, 47, 98, 107, 108, 110, 119, 127, 142, 152, 155,

157, 165, 166, 167, 169, 171, 172, 182, 183, 190

Agricultural Research Service, 187, 188

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

(ASCS], 79, 105, 153, 162, 168, 184, 188

Bureau of Chemistry (1894), 157

Committee on Soil Conservation, 173

conservation groups assisted by, 147

Conservation operations Program, 160, 161-162

Cooperative Extension Service, 147

Cooperative Research Service, 187

development of flexible cropping by, 48

Federal Extension Service, 140, 185

Land Ownership Survey, 138

National Soil Erosion-Soil Productivity Research

Planning Committee, 34, 35, 36, 186

Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 24, 34, 36, 41, 84,

91, 97, 106, 158, 162, 183, 184, 185, 190, 220,

222, 223, 224

U.S. Forest Service (USFS], 67, 84, 162, 164

Working Group on Pesticides, 52

U.S. Department of Commerce, 84

U.S. Department of Defense, 162

U.S. Department of the Interior, 162

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 67

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS], 50, 51, 56

Information on Water Data (catalog), 53

U.S. Water Resources Council, 52

Utah, 68

Virginia, 122

Virginia Tech Computerized Management Network

(CMN), 122

Virgin Islands, 33

Washington (State), 32, 112

water budget, 50

water quality

effects of vegetation and soil on, 58-59

wheat, 31, 32, 47, 95, 108, 112, 116, 118, 120, 220

wheatgrass, 203

wildlife (see fish and wildlife)

windbreaks and shelterbelts, 15, 127

winged bean, 115

Wisconsin, 123

woodland s

grazing potentials for Eastern, 82-86

Yukon River (Alaska), 222

Yuma (Arizona), 47

zero tillage, 97

zinc, 232