Cover Crops, a Farming Revolution With Deep Roots in the Past

[h=1]Cover Crops, a Farming Revolution With Deep Roots in the Past[/h]
So in 2010 the family decided to humor Mark by sowing some 1,200 acres, which Mark describes as highly eroded farmland, with wheat cleanings and cereal rye. Additionally, they spread some cover crops to eroded areas in a few fields.
The next spring, Doug had to admit that the soil texture on that strip was better. And the water that ran off it during a rainstorm was clear, a sign that the roots of the cover crops were anchoring valuable topsoil in place.
But Doug didn’t become a believer until 2013, when the family was grappling with a terrible drought. “In the part of a field where we had planted cover crops, we were getting 20 to 25 bushels of corn more per acre than in places where no cover crops had been planted,” he said. “That showed me it made financial sense to do this.”

Click to expand...

Cover crops are coming back in other areas of the country, too. The practice of seeding fields between harvests not only keeps topsoil in place, it also adds carbon to the soil and helps the beneficial microbes, fungus, bacteria and worms in it thrive.

Click to expand...

Modern farming practices like applying fertilizer and herbicides and not tilling their fields, or “no till,” have helped farmers increase yields and reduced labor, but they have also unintentionally interfered with root systems, increased erosion and disrupted underground microbial activity and insect life that are vital to plant and soil health. (Many farmers deploying cover crops continue to use herbicides, although often less than they did in the past, but they often can do without fertilizers.)

“We’ve concentrated on the physical and chemical aspects of farming but not the biological,” said Dan DeSutter, who farms 5,000 acres near Attica, Ind.

Click to expand...

Today, all 5,000 acres he farms are sown after the harvest of corn and soy with a mixture of as many as 12 different crops, including sunflower, sorghum, buckwheat, turnips and hairy vetch, each of which delivers a different benefit. Most die off in the winter and decompose, leaving behind a rich layer of organic matter that gradually sinks into the earth.

Click to expand...

Cover crops restore organic matter back into the soil, at a rate of about 1 percent every five years.

“As we put carbon back into the soil, it gives us a bigger tank to store water naturally,” Mr. DeSutter said. “This is one way we build resilience into the system.”

Click to expand...

The Rulons spend about $100,000 a year on cover crop seed, or about $26 an acre. But they also saved about $57,000 on fertilizer they no longer needed, and bigger yields mean about $107,000 in extra income.
Including the value of improved soil quality, less erosion and other improvements, Mr. Rulon estimates that Rulon Enterprises gets about $244,000 of net economic benefit from cover crops annually, or a little more than $69 an acre.

Click to expand...

So in addition to the environmental benefits of cover cropping (ie less soil erosion, more soil creation, less fertilizer used, better water retention, reduced need for irrigation, less water and nitrogen runoff, and better soil quality), cover cropping increases yields organically and provides a financial benefit to the farmer

So why do some people insist we need to use GE crops to feed an increasing population when organic practices have proven to increase yields dramatically under real world conditions and GE crops have provided no significant increases in yield over 30 years of use in the real world?

sangha said:

So in addition to the environmental benefits of cover cropping (ie less soil erosion, more soil creation, less fertilizer used, better water retention, reduced need for irrigation, less water and nitrogen runoff, and better soil quality), cover cropping increases yields organically and provides a financial benefit to the farmer

So why do some people insist we need to use GE crops to feed an increasing population when organic practices have proven to increase yields dramatically under real world conditions and GE crops have provided no significant increases in yield over 30 years of use in the real world?

Click to expand...

I'm confused, which seems to happen more often as I get older. Are we discussing genetically engineered crops or cover crops? They are entirely different and unrelated in use or purpose.

I use cover crops on my farm in fallow fields to prevent erosion and increase soil nutrient retention.

I don't know enough about farming to comment much. But I do know the only think the giant farmers really care about is profit. If this cover cropping was indeed more economical than current methods I would imagine they would be doing it.

BrewerBob said:

I don't know enough about farming to comment much. But I do know the only think the giant farmers really care about is profit. If this cover cropping was indeed more economical than current methods I would imagine they would be doing it.

Click to expand...

Not always


Many companies only think in the short term, the next 6 months not the next years.

Cover crops will show the most benefit by the looks of its for the next year and years after that. Applying fertilizer improves yield this growing season, but over time yields will drop without ever increasing amounts of fert applied. But for a company the pressure for immediate profits outweighs the profits of the future

BrewerBob said:

I don't know enough about farming to comment much. But I do know the only think the giant farmers really care about is profit. If this cover cropping was indeed more economical than current methods I would imagine they would be doing it.

Click to expand...

Exactly, which leads me to question the OP.

Efficiency and profit is generally the name of the free-market game.

Lord Tammerlain said:

Not always


Many companies only think in the short term, the next 6 months not the next years.

Cover crops will show the most benefit by the looks of its for the next year and years after that. Applying fertilizer improves yield this growing season, but over time yields will drop without ever increasing amounts of fert applied. But for a company the pressure for immediate profits outweighs the profits of the future

Click to expand...

In which case, if cover crops are truly better, we WILL see someone do it within the next decade. Whether that is a big company making a transition or a small start-up company with nothing to lose doing it (and then of course, the start up will grow because these cover crops are better).

sangha said:

So in addition to the environmental benefits of cover cropping (ie less soil erosion, more soil creation, less fertilizer used, better water retention, reduced need for irrigation, less water and nitrogen runoff, and better soil quality), cover cropping increases yields organically and provides a financial benefit to the farmer

So why do some people insist we need to use GE crops to feed an increasing population when organic practices have proven to increase yields dramatically under real world conditions and GE crops have provided no significant increases in yield over 30 years of use in the real world?

Click to expand...

First off, genetically engineered crops aren't some byproduct of a mad scientist locked in a dark castle on a hill as the image genetic engineering might suggest. Genetically engineered crops are cross pollinated products that resist certain types of disease, are better in drought and/or have some other favorable quality. This means, we use less water and fewer chemicals to produce greater increased yields.

What it doesn't mean is that other techniques are invalid. This sounds like a great technique that has broad application. It doesn't negate the need for genetic engineering and genetic engineering doesn't preclude the use of this technique.

sangha said:

So in addition to the environmental benefits of cover cropping (ie less soil erosion, more soil creation, less fertilizer used, better water retention, reduced need for irrigation, less water and nitrogen runoff, and better soil quality), cover cropping increases yields organically and provides a financial benefit to the farmer

So why do some people insist we need to use GE crops to feed an increasing population when organic practices have proven to increase yields dramatically under real world conditions and GE crops have provided no significant increases in yield over 30 years of use in the real world?

Click to expand...

Is there some reason both can't be used to increase yields even further?

Some farmers are using Sunn Hemp as a cover crop. There is some talk of using the hemp for paper goods.

Deuce said:

Is there some reason both can't be used to increase yields even further?

Click to expand...

Question to ponder...I'm not an expert in horticulture (agriculture). But I've managed to keep an Ivy alive for nearly 30 years. I've had a few gardens over the years. I didn't use pesticides. Other than that...Meh!

Just like our bodies, soil dies after being constantly used. And will constantly artificially enriching soils to reproduce food be effective over the long haul? You know, like bug killers used too much, bugs become immune. So genetically altered foods might allow foods to become immune to those problems associate with artificial means to enrich soil, but in that process - how will the changes impact the people who eats the food? We know for a fact that chemicals can have negative effects on those who consume the food.

So are we, as consumers, asking the right questions of huge agg conglomerates - or maybe I should say - are we really truthfully informed about the realities behind the scenes of corporate farming practices, including genetic alterations of foods? Somehow I don't think these conglomerates are all that concerned about the overall consumer's welfare.

sangha said:

So in addition to the environmental benefits of cover cropping (ie less soil erosion, more soil creation, less fertilizer used, better water retention, reduced need for irrigation, less water and nitrogen runoff, and better soil quality), cover cropping increases yields organically and provides a financial benefit to the farmer

So why do some people insist we need to use GE crops to feed an increasing population when organic practices have proven to increase yields dramatically under real world conditions and GE crops have provided no significant increases in yield over 30 years of use in the real world?

Click to expand...

I am having a hard time seeing a "revolution" on what my family practiced for decades. It is not rocket science to plant **** so it doesn't erode by wind and water. Duh.

What will happen when they "discover" crop rotation...call it a miracle "breakthrough".

Seriously, I have no idea how anyone can like erosion control with genetically modified foods.

The more I think about it, this is right out of "Idiocracy" where they all suddenly realize that plants need water

Beaudreaux said:

I'm confused, which seems to happen more often as I get older. Are we discussing genetically engineered crops or cover crops? They are entirely different and unrelated in use or purpose.

I use cover crops on my farm in fallow fields to prevent erosion and increase soil nutrient retention.

Click to expand...

The article is about cover crops and says nothing about GE crops. I am using the info about cover crops (specifically, its' potential to increase yields) to point out the weakness of the main argument supporters of GE crops use - that we need to use GE crops to increase yield in order to feed a growing global population.

Luftwaffe said:

In which case, if cover crops are truly better, we WILL see someone do it within the next decade. Whether that is a big company making a transition or a small start-up company with nothing to lose doing it (and then of course, the start up will grow because these cover crops are better).

Click to expand...

As the article notes, the practice of cover cropping is growing fast. However, the article also notes that farmers are very conservative when itcomes to adopting new practices.

ksu_aviator said:

First off, genetically engineered crops aren't some byproduct of a mad scientist locked in a dark castle on a hill as the image genetic engineering might suggest.

Click to expand...

No one said they were. Straw man argument

Genetically engineered crops are cross pollinated products

Click to expand...

Wrong. GE crops are not produced through cross pollination. They are produced through genetic manipulation. Genes from one species are inserted into the genome of another.

that resist certain types of disease, are better in drought and/or have some other favorable quality. This means, we use less water and fewer chemicals to produce greater increased yields.

Click to expand...

Selective breeding has a much better track record of producing such beneficial results with none of the downsides that GE crops have. And the use of GE crops has been accompanied by an increase in chemical inputs by farmers.

What it doesn't mean is that other techniques are invalid. This sounds like a great technique that has broad application. It doesn't negate the need for genetic engineering and genetic engineering doesn't preclude the use of this technique.

Click to expand...

I said nothing about valid. I'm talking about practicality. Non-GE techniques have a proven track record of producing all of the benefits you mentioned, plus several more (ex less erosion, less chemical use, etc) that GE's do not. More specifically, the fact that there are non-GE methods of increasing yields proves that the argument that we need to use GE crops to increase yields is false.

Deuce said:

Is there some reason both can't be used to increase yields even further?

Click to expand...

Yes

GE crops don't increase yields

Fearandloathing said:

I am having a hard time seeing a "revolution" on what my family practiced for decades. It is not rocket science to plant **** so it doesn't erode by wind and water. Duh.

What will happen when they "discover" crop rotation...call it a miracle "breakthrough".

Seriously, I have no idea how anyone can like erosion control with genetically modified foods.

The more I think about it, this is right out of "Idiocracy" where they all suddenly realize that plants need water

Click to expand...

You talk about cover cropping as if it's something every farmer knows about. However, the article specifically points out that few farmers plant cover crops.

sangha said:

The article is about cover crops and says nothing about GE crops. I am using the info about cover crops (specifically, its' potential to increase yields) to point out the weakness of the main argument supporters of GE crops use - that we need to use GE crops to increase yield in order to feed a growing global population.

Click to expand...

Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification.

I use cover crops, and they can increase yields of subsequent crops planted in those fields, but are no where near as effective as GMO's (genetically modified organisms) or what you called GE crops, which is also used to describe them.

GMO's are not evil or bad for you. They have no impact on your health or life, other than to make food more affordable by reducing the losses from drought, over watering, pests, or low nutrients in the soil, just to name a few. The nutritional value of the crop is not reduced, and in some instances is actually increased so that less food can sustain a person for a longer period of time. Nature is the largest producer of GMO's on the planet - it's called evolution. Most GMO technology is VERY low tech - cross pollenating, plant grafting, seed splicing.

To me, the fear of GMO's is the same as the fear of vaccinating children. It's not based on actual science, and more on hyperbole, unfounded (conspiracy) theories, and/or hatred of "evil" corporations like Monsanto (which although I will not defend their unethical business practices, has done nothing unethical or evil or even unhealthy regarding GMO's).

sangha said:

You talk about cover cropping as if it's something every farmer knows about. However, the article specifically points out that few farmers plant cover crops.

Click to expand...

Every farmer does know about planting cover crops. Maybe not the back yard gardener, but all farmers do.

sangha said:

Yes

GE crops don't increase yields

Click to expand...

Sure they do. That's one of their major points.

Just because one technique increases yields doesn't mean we need to abandon others.

Beaudreaux said:

Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification.

Click to expand...

You are welcome

I use cover crops, and they can increase yields of subsequent crops planted in those fields, but are no where near as effective as GMO's (genetically modified organisms) or what you called GE crops, which is also used to describe them.

Click to expand...

I am not speaking about GMO crops, as a whole. I am referring specifically to GE crops, which are a subset of GMO's. Cross-pollination and selectve breeding are "traditional" methods of genetically modifying crops and have a proven track record of producing all sorts of beneficial traits including increased yields. Modifying the genes of a crop by taking the genes of one species and inserting those genes into the genome of another species is Genetic Engineering and its' record of increasing yields is pitiful.

GMO's are not evil or bad for you. They have no impact on your health or life, other than to make food more affordable by reducing the losses from drought, over watering, pests, or low nutrients in the soil, just to name a few. The nutritional value of the crop is not reduced, and in some instances is actually increased so that less food can sustain a person for a longer period of time.

Click to expand...

I did not say that GE crops (which should not be conflated with GMO crops) are evil or bad. And while the consumption of GE crops have yet to be shown to have any unhealty effects, the growing of GE crops have been shown to increase the use of chemical herbicides and fertilizers and that can have a harmful effect on people's health as well as being environmentally unsound. In addition, the planting of GE crops do not lead to a reduction in water consumption, increased yields, decreased soil erosion nor healthier soil

Nature is the largest producer of GMO's on the planet - it's called evolution. Most GMO technology is VERY low tech - cross pollenating, plant grafting, seed splicing.

To me, the fear of GMO's is the same as the fear of vaccinating children. It's not based on actual science, and more on hyperbole, unfounded (conspiracy) theories, and/or hatred of "evil" corporations like Monsanto (which although I will not defend their unethical business practices, has done nothing unethical or evil or even unhealthy regarding GMO's).

Click to expand...

Again, I am distinguishing between GE crops (ie crops that have genes from other species inserted into them) and crops which have been genetically modified by more "natural" means such as cross pollination and selective breeding.

And while many of GE's critics have used arguments that are factually invalid and emotionally driven, my argument that non-GE methods of increasing yields is supported by the OP (and several posters in this thread who practice cover cropping) and the facts. It proves that the pro-GE-crops argument that we *need* to use GE crops in order to feed a growing population is factually invalid. Like those who oppose GE crops, many of GE's supporters also use arguments that are factually incorrect and emotionally driven.

Beaudreaux said:

Every farmer does know about planting cover crops. Maybe not the back yard gardener, but all farmers do.

Click to expand...

Wrong. If every farmer knew about the benefits, every farmer would be cover cropping. The fact that only a small portion of farmers practice cover cropping proves that few know about the benefits

ksu_aviator said:

First off, genetically engineered crops aren't some byproduct of a mad scientist locked in a dark castle on a hill as the image genetic engineering might suggest. Genetically engineered crops are cross pollinated products that resist certain types of disease, are better in drought and/or have some other favorable quality. This means, we use less water and fewer chemicals to produce greater increased yields.

What it doesn't mean is that other techniques are invalid. This sounds like a great technique that has broad application. It doesn't negate the need for genetic engineering and genetic engineering doesn't preclude the use of this technique.

Click to expand...

GM crops for the most part are not cross pollinated, but have genes inserted into their genome that are typically foreign to that crop

From Bt Corn that gets genes to produce insecticides with in the plant it self

To crops made more resistant to herbicides (round up ready corn, canola and wheat. We have gone far beyond cross pollination when it comes to GM crops.

Beaudreaux said:

Every farmer does know about planting cover crops. Maybe not the back yard gardener, but all farmers do.

Click to expand...

But fewer and fewer use the old techniques in search of short term profits


Bt corn is not as effective as it was because farmers do not rotate crops, planting Bt corn in the same field year after year leading to insects resistant to the insecticide it produces.

Threegoofs said:

Sure they do. That's one of their major points.

Click to expand...

No, they don't



Corn is one of the two most commonly planted GE crops (soybeans is the other) and most corn in the US is GE. If GE crops led to increased yields then we should be seeing a huge curve upwards in the growth of corn yields beginning sometime after the introduction of GE corn (in the 80's and 90's). However, we're not seeing those results which proves that GE corn has not increased yields significantly

sangha said:

As the article notes, the practice of cover cropping is growing fast. However, the article also notes that farmers are very conservative when itcomes to adopting new practices.

Click to expand...

And the solution to that is? Educating on better farming practices?