DES MOINES, Iowa – Demonstrating best practices for improving soil health and water quality has been front and center for many Iowa farmers this summer.

Loran Steinlage has hosted several field days on his 750 acre northeast Iowa farm, explaining successful, regenerative practices he's tried – such as cover crops, interceding and relay cropping.

He says as Mother Nature unfolds her hand each year, he adjusts his rotation schedule for growing corn, soybeans, cereal rye and winter wheat.

"Part of the beauty of it is, doing nothing actually is probably the better thing to do,” says Steinlage. “I mean we're certainly no-till anymore, and we're not spending the money."

Steinlage says he not only has reduced the cost of fertilizer, but tests have found some soil samples from his fields are now healthier than "native" soils.

A 2017 Center for Rural Affairs survey of Iowa farmers found that in order to lower financial risks, 86% considered soil health when deciding on new farming practices. Cody Smith with the Center says a 1% increase in organic matter in the top six inches on an acre of land can allow the soil to hold an additional 27,000 gallons of water.

"This year, in June, we had a lot of rain,” says Smith. “And then in July, we had almost no rain in parts of the state. So, when you have better soil health, you can retain that moisture and be able to use it more effectively for your crops throughout the year."

Mitchell Hora is a seventh-generation farmer in southeast Iowa and the founder of a soil-health consulting company. He says it's long been thought that it takes 10 years to improve soil – but his work shows the turnaround can be much faster.

"We've been treating our soil as a dead, static growing medium,” says Hora, “when really, the soil is a living, dynamic continuum. And we have the best soil in the world here in Iowa – and so now, we have the ability to quantify that life."

The Center for Rural Affairs has found that concerns about soil health can bring Iowa farmers into water-quality discussions. When that happens, Iowa's watershed planning and related projects have higher success rates for implementation.

Minnesota will soon hold public hearings on proposed water permit changes as it seeks to get control of nitrate pollution from industrial farms.

This week, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency released its plan to overhaul standards for a pair of water permits issued to the largest animal feedlots in the state. The main focus is livestock operations in areas vulnerable to groundwater pollution. The farms would have to adopt certain practices related to manure application in the fields.

Joy Anderson, supervising attorney at the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, calls the plan a commonsense approach to a pervasive problem. She hopes the public takes notice of what is happening.

"People who care about Minnesota's drinking water, people who care about the swimability and fishability of our water," Anderson explained.

Organizations like hers urged residents to speak up during public hearings scheduled for July. Comments can also be submitted to the agency until Aug. 9. The proposed changes are expected to face strong pushback from those representing so-called factory farms. Despite the hope from plan supporters, the changes would only apply to about 5% of livestock feedlots in Minnesota.

Past efforts to enact modest permit changes resulted in outcry from industrial ag interests. Anderson admitted the proposed changes cover a limited number of farms but added they send a signal regulators realize the scope of the contaminated water crisis linked to nitrate pollution.

"This is sort of a first step," Anderson asserted. "It tells us the MPCA is at least a little serious about making some changes."

Her group hopes what is unfolding now leads to rule changes covering all the state's 17,000 feedlots, also known as concentrated animal feeding operations. This week's move follows a recent order from the federal Environmental Protection Agency for Minnesota to clean up contaminated drinking water in the southeastern part of the state, caused by farm runoff.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. House of Representatives will likely vote this summer on a version of the Farm Bill, which passed through the committee process last month.

Some farmers and ranchers are concerned about cuts to climate-smart programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, which distributed more than $31 million to South Dakotans last year. The program and three others have been funded by Inflation Reduction Act dollars since 2022, when President Joe Biden approved nearly $12 billion for the national programs over four years.

It could change under the House version of the Farm Bill, which instead proposes increased subsidies for large-scale operations.

Tanya Svec, a member of Dakota Rural Action who helps run her in-laws' small cattle farm in Deuel County, which received a grant this year, said it is appropriate the program provides opportunities for small-scale farms to get grants, rather than just the large-scale operations policy tends to favor.

"That's really helpful for those small economies and keeping things local and building some resiliency into the farming communities," Svec explained.

Svec pointed out the business is currently finalizing a grant to fund a water system to help the operation with rotational grazing, a practice benefiting landscapes by letting some pastures rest while others are in use. It allows native plants to grow and protects watersheds. Demand for the program exceeded supply in 2023. Of the nearly 1,500 South Dakota applicants, only 27% were accepted, according to a report from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Svec observed more people sought out her farm's beef during and since the pandemic, which exposed supply-chain issues. She sidesteps big industrial distribution by marketing directly to customers.

"We like to raise cattle in a particular way," Svec stressed. "It's hard to be rewarded for going the extra mile for not using antibiotics, for grass-fed grass-finished beef if you remain in the standard agricultural system."


get more stories like this via email

When Minnesota farmers watch their crops grow this summer, some will monitor land that has better soil health. It's because of a fairly popular conservation tool, and supporters are calling for more "real-time" data to measure progress.

Cover crops are plants grown between commodity crops to prevent soil erosion and nitrates from flowing into nearby waterways, harming water quality and natural resources. In recent years, Minnesota has emerged as one of the better-performing states for participation.

Jon Stevens has adopted the practice for his farm operation north of the Twin Cities.

"There's been years that we've just phenomenal corn yields while you're standing in 10 to 12 inches of beautiful oat grass," he said, "and we did it with reduced fertilizer inputs."

Stevens said that's good news for local creeks that connect with the St. Croix River.

The latest Census of Agriculture, released this year, showed a 17% increase in cover-crop acreage compared with 2017. The growth rate has slowed, however, and the report only comes out every five years. The National Wildlife Federation and other groups want to see a more consistent national effort to track participation, making it easier to guide assistance.

Federal programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture help cover expenses for farmers who agree to plant cover crops. Stevens said they have become more flexible, but he suggested certain types of messaging to convince those still on the fence.

"Sign up a five- or ten-acre parcel [of land] and get your cover crops perfected on that five or 10 acres," he said, "and then you can just step into full-scale."

Stevens indicated that approach might help avoid turning off farmers who run into obstacles after making big cover-crop investments. There's also research indicating this practice doesn't always translate to higher yields, but Stevens said that way of thinking needs some fine-tuning.

"We've been taught decades of 'maximize your yield,'" he said, "and it's like, 'Nope, that system doesn't work that way.' You're going to reduce tillage costs."