- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
[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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
Is there some reason both can't be used to increase yields even further?
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?
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.
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).
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.
Is there some reason both can't be used to increase yields even further?
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
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.
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.
Yes
GE crops don't increase yields
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).
Every farmer does know about planting cover crops. Maybe not the back yard gardener, but all farmers do.
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.
Every farmer does know about planting cover crops. Maybe not the back yard gardener, but all farmers do.
Sure they do. That's one of their major points.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?