No Tillage in the Palouse
As the 2009 climate bill works its way through congress an old blood feud arises in the liberal blogosphere: is no-tillage agriculture a good thing? Bloggers and pundits are aligning to fight against carbon offsets for agriculture, claiming that the practice sequesters no carbon. To hear many progressive bloggers of late tell the story, no-tillage agriculture is the devil himself.
The irony of it all ........ carbon offsets
Why is it that a method of agriculture that many believe is good for the planet is hated so much? It helps to first understand exactly what the hubbub is about. The problem is called "carbon offsets", one of the key features in the climate bill. A "carbon offset" is a kind of trading system: an energy company, for example, can purchase offsets from others who are doing good things to eliminate carbon (sequestration) in order to pay for bad things that they're doing (producing carbon). The system is designed to benefit everyone in a kind of pay to play method that also helps out conservation causes. Bolstered by statistical measurements, different carbon sequestering practices are identified and offered for sale. In the process, conservation practices are financially supported that otherwise lack the money they need to continue. No-tillage agriculture is one example, and the scientific research behind it is the cause of the latest controversy.
The debate over no-tillage has actually been around since the modern adoption of the practice, going back over 30 years now. As long ago as 1981, Tilth Producers coined the phrase "chemical no till" to describe the practice of leaving the remnants of last season's crop in ground and planting the following crop directly into the "tilth" left by the previous crop, so that each succeeding generation benefits from the previous[1]. While agricultural advantages are immediately obvious: less erosion, better water retention, less fuel used and so on, other less obvious benefits abound: a deep humus layer ensues, filled with rhizomes, populations of microbes and macrobes (e.g. earthworms) increase. Regional water quality improves and even the local wildlife benefits. So what could be wrong about no-tillage? The looming "chemical" moniker is the first shoe to drop: because tillage is used to control weeds especially in organic agriculture, the lack of tillage usually means some reliance on herbicides.
Yet as Tilth Producers pointed nearly 30 years ago, "Tests have shown that frequent mowing early in the growing season provides control equal to the use of herbicides. Once the mulches are established they can either be disced in or left as a permanent cover ..." The problem has been that in large scale operations the use of herbicides still remains the most practical means towards controlling weeds.
So it really isn't a surprise to learn that chemical giant Monsanto has been a force behind the outreach and education that has fostered the practice of no-tillage over the past few decades. Even though Monsanto lost its trademark on Roundup nearly a decade ago (China now produces 40% of the world's supply of glyphosate) the liberal blogosphere has sensed a conspiracy and pounced upon what they perceive as a smoking gun. This is the other shoe. In a recent commentary[2] published in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment by John M. Baker entitled "Tillage and soil carbon sequestration- What do we really know?" questions are raised regarding the science behind carbon sequestration measurement in no-tillage agriculture. Joseph Romm, blogger and author of the best selling book on climate change, "Hell and High Water" hailed the commentary as "a major research paper"[3], leading Grist.org blogger Tom Philpot to declare:
As a source of carbon sequestration, chemical no-till is a highly questionable practice. In a 2006 peer-reviewed paper [PDF] called "Tillage and soil carbon sequestration-what do we really know?," a group of soil scientists led by John M. Baker of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service took a hard look at conventional no-till. They report: "Long-term, continuous gas exchange measurements have also been unable to detect C gain due to reduced tillage." Translation: No-till doesn't seem to sequester carbon.[4]
Like the proverbial fish story, later posts by Philpot go on to claim that no-tillage agriculture sequesters "little if any carbon". This is all wildly at odds with the truth, in several ways. First, the Baker article was neither peer-reviewed nor a major research paper but a commentary, which is treated very differently in academic journals. Second, the whole purpose of the Baker paper has been misconstrued by both writers. The paper was intended to show that soil science needs to reevaluate its approach to measuring sequestration so that the field maintains credibility and it was in no way an attack on no-tillage itself. Philpot's "translation" is also grossly inaccurate. Here is Baker's own conclusion, verbatim:
While conservation tillage practices may ultimately be found to favor soil carbon gain, the data reported to this point are not compelling. Perhaps further research, including both long-term gas exchange measurements and deeper soil sampling, will clarify this issue. Until then it is premature to predict the C sequestration potential of agricultural systems on the basis of projected changes in tillage practices, or to stimulate such changes with policies or market instruments designed to sequester C. The risk to the scientific community is a loss of credibility that may make it more difficult to foster adoption of other land use and management practices that demonstrably mitigate rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.[2]
Another blogger at Grist has picked up the anti-no-tillage jihad. Meredith Niles of the Center for Food Safety's Cool Foods Campaign, darkly refers to no-tillage's "dirty little secret":
The dirty little secret of no-till agriculture is that it increases pesticide use and also appears to increase emissions of nitrous oxide[5]
Again, the writer has compounded multiple errors upon each other. When no-tillage agriculture is practiced on a large scale it can and frequently does rely on herbicide, but it in no way implies increased usage over conventional tillage, instead relying as much on a healthy tilth and crop rotation to control weeds. We will return to this in a bit. The claim that no-tillage "appears to increase emissions of nitrous oxide" is wholly false, drawn from a cherry-picked sentence from an abstract of a paper that actually showed NO2 measurements following broadcast urea application were higher under no-tillage than conventional tillage. The same paper also shows that other fertilization methods favored no-tillage and still other methods were about equal.[6] That broadcast urea fertilization shows more N at the surface is, incidentally, a statement of the obvious: if you spread a volatile nitrogen source on the ground then it stands to reason that you should be able to detect it easily. What's missing is that broadcast urea has never worked well for no-tillage agriculture and has never been a recommended practice.[7]
Ms. Niles also cherry picks a sentence from a paper detailing a nine year study by the USDA. Niles quotes, "these results suggest that organic agriculture can provide greater long-term soil benefits than conventional no-till, despite the use of tillage in organic agriculture." She omits the next sentence: "[h]owever, these benefits may not be realized because of difficulty controlling weeds in OR." In addition she fails to mention that the same study showed that the productivity of the no-tillage outperformed the organic system by 28%.[9]
So what is it about no-tillage, as opposed to, say, planting forests, that draws the ire of foodies, agricultural writers and climate bloggers? Most likely, the outrage surrounding no-tillage is motivated by a dislike for big business, big agriculture, lobbying, and power generally. Big business and big agriculture has long supported carbon offsets for agriculture, and offsets for no-tillage is one of their star programs. And this is the problem. In a way the movement has fallen prey to a kind of logical fallacy. The thinking goes, "if big business supports it, then it must be bad". What we have is just one irony of the organic, local and sustainable foods movement. As we'll see below, this is not the only irony the movement faces.
Sustainability in the Pacific Northwest
Tucked away in the Palouse region of the Pacific Northwest a unique agriculture is evolving, owing to a unique geography of steep, rolling hills, and harsh, dry weather. This region possesses soils that are unusually deep and fertile, but also very fragile, susceptible to wind, rain, and agricultural erosion. Farmers have long noted this fragility. Since the introduction of agriculture to the Palouse over the past 100 years, soils that have taken 10,000 years to evolve are rapidly losing their vitality and disappearing altogether. An ongoing 65 year study by Oregon State University has shown heavy soil organic carbon (SOC) loss below 12" depth and severe decline in overall soil health.[10] In addition to degradation of soil quality, water quality and wildlife began to suffer. Today a small group of farmers is working to advance a new approach that is restoring not only the soil but also the economy and even the ecology: no-tillage agriculture.
In the Palouse region, land is cultivated almost entirely on slopes. This is in stark contrast to the "table top" agriculture of the midwest. Because of the sloping geography of the Palouse, the region's soil erodes easily. Add to that the harmful effects of decades of tillage, the harsh dry climate, and periodic cataclysmic rain events, and you have a recipe for soil disaster. Farmers are in need of an answer that will save them financially and give them a method of farming that's sustainable. This means preserving the soil and the soil quality. As by-products this means cleaner water, new habitat for wildlife, and sequestered carbon.
As the USDA studies show, carbon sequestration must be taken into account holistically, not in isolation. Carbon sequestration is not a single measurement but rather the net effect of SOC on an entire ecosystem, as well as a measure of carbon used in the agriculture process. That is, the way we should think of carbon sequestration is in the context of viable soil conservation plus carbon usage as a function of overall acreage and crop production per acre. This takes me back to the nine year USDA study. If two bad things are happening simultaneously, i.e. soils are disappearing and crop production declines, doesn't that mean you're not really sequestering carbon in a meaningful way? Because you can't really sequester carbon if your productive soil has all washed away.
So if we can momentarily set aside arguments about precisely how to go about measuring gross carbon sequestered, why don't we have a look at the bigger picture, measuring sequestration against crop production? If no-tillage outperforms organic by nearly 30% as the USDA study cited by Grist shows, doesn't it stand to reason that sequestration in the Palouse is not merely higher under no-tillage, but significantly higher when measured against land usage and crop production? So why is it that no-tillage agriculture, which was introduced to the Pacific Northwest more than 30 years ago, is still vilified by the progressive community despite the fact it's only been adopted by one percent of Palouse farmers? I asked these questions to Josh Dorf of the flour company Stone Buhr, and Karl Kupers of Shepherds Grain. They had some interesting answers, but first we need to step back and set the stage.
Josh Dorf of Stone Buhr Flour
I recently called Josh Dorf, software entrepreneur and new owner of the 100 year old flour company, Stone Buhr. Josh bought Stone Buhr seeking to steward an old brand into a new direction. He says his first thought around the years 2002 and 2003 was going organic, but this idea rapidly faltered. Ironically, Josh says, organic foods grew too quickly and the market adjusted in all the wrong ways. Josh discovered that milling organic wheat from the US was not economically viable. "It would be cheaper for me to import organic wheat from China, mill it here and sell it as organic. Tell me this is not an unintended consequence!"
Fortunately in 2005 Josh was introduced to the Columbia Plateau Producers (CPP), a group of family farmers going back four and five generations. "I couldn't fathom the idea. Imagine standing on the ground you farm and saying, 'my grandfather's grandfather farmed this land!'" What Josh learned from these farmers right off was that the old methods of tillage agriculture were no longer working. The CPP farmers had realized that if they kept up with the way things were going they would not preserve the soil for future generations. So they adopted a method that was certified sustainable by a third party, which not only solved their ecological problems but their economical problems as well. Josh was sold. "Who knows better than the farmers, what is right for the land? Me? Some university?"
The methodology adopted by the CPP was far reaching, encompassing erosion, water conservation, even wildlife. And the producers had found a sponsor in the Food Alliance, an accreditation organization that certifies the sustainability practices of farmers. Food Alliance provides a system of checks and balances, not unlike the USDA organics program, noting all applications of inputs to the farm land. Every application of fertilizer and herbicides such as glyphosate, a relatively low toxicity chemical, is recorded and monitored for excess. Food Alliance provided a framework under which the farmer can operate sustainably.
While no-tillage agriculture has been around in the Palouse for some 30 years, around 15 years ago it got a shot in the arm from the chemical giant Monsanto, which flew unconvinced Palouse farmers out to Kansas to learn more about no-tillage agriculture. Josh is not bashful about their ulterior motives. "Monsanto wants to sell inputs. They want to sell seed and pest control. But they did a valuable service". Josh and I are both from the software industry and he reminded me of the daunting prospect of facing a change in technology. "You and I know how difficult it is to change software technology. Imagine how difficult it would be for a farmer." But several of them took the risk and converted to no-tillage, realizing that unless they took drastic action their yields would continue downwards to unsustainability.
I asked Josh about FindTheFarmer, a web site he's developed that shows where the flour purchased from Stone Buhr comes from. Josh explained that he got the idea as a cool, fun way to promote the flour produced by Shepherds Grain. Shepherds Grain is the brainchild of Food Alliance certified farmers Karl Kupers and Fred Fleming, and is sold at retail under Stone Buhr's All Purpose brand. After meeting and talking with Kupers and Fleming, Josh became a believer in what they were doing, and FindTheFarmer was just one way he thought of to help them out. "To me, it's more about transparency than traceability," Josh says. "It's just a fun, positive thing."
A more practical way Josh is helping the no-tillage farmers is through what he calls "reality based pricing". In a move that gives new meaning to the "organics plus" notion of social and corporate responsibility, Stone Buhr pays the no-tillage farmers not according to commodity pricing but according to true cost of production.
Due to the economic crash of 2008, commodity prices have plummeted. As recently as February 2008, commodity markets had wheat at $19 per bushel. By December of the same year prices had dropped to under $5 per bushel. Half a year later in the summer of 2009 prices still hover at or near their historic lows. Josh remarks that the commodity markets now allow him to purchase wheat at below its cost of production. Instead of this, Stone Buhr and the no-tillage farmers have come up with a fair system that is truly sustainable. At the end of the crop season the growers and buyers get together and work out a model, taking into consideration the cost of production, government subsidies, how much wheat was produced, and adding in a small margin of profit in order to come up with a fair price. Right now Josh is paying more than a 50% premium over his competitors to support this system.
Josh points out that the most popular flours at popular cooperatives and organic groceries are to this day commodity wheat sourced, non-sustainably farmed and bought at commodity prices. Josh is obviously proud of Stone Buhr and its unique approach to promoting sustainable agriculture. Through technical innovations that provide real transparency in an entertaining way, through reality based pricing that supports sustainable and ecologically sound practices, Stone Buhr is a true "chain of custody" wheat source for the consumer.
In the little time that we had, I asked Josh about the technicalities behind measuring carbon sequestration. He was very clear. "It's very complicated. It's very scientific. I don't pretend to understand it. But there is no doubt about it. No-tillage builds the soil instead of loses it." Josh related stories of core samples taken on Palouse farms showing earthworm activity at depths of 6 feet and greater, and spoke of the striking difference between tilled soils and no-tillage soils seen side by side. "You can put your hand right into the tilled soils and lift it. It's powdery dry, almost inert. But with no-tillage soil, you have to dig, it's much firmer, it has greater moisture levels, a rich smell and a nice humus layer. The mycorrhizal layer is substantially greater."
Karl Kupers of Shepherds Grain
Josh encouraged me to speak directly with the farmers themselves, so I got in touch with Karl Kupers, one of the founders of Shepherds Grain and member of the Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association. The PNDSA states that their mission is "to facilitate the development and adoption of direct seed cropping systems through research coordination, funding and information exchange." I asked Karl how it all got started.
Back in 2002, the PNDSA signed a contract with a Louisiana energy company called Entergy, leasing CO2 credits in return for $75,000 paid to the no-tillage farmers. The farmers then generate the offsets through several means:
- CO2 sequestered in soil by direct seeding.
- Emission Reductions achieved from fuel savings by direct seeding.
- Emission Reductions achieved by adopting Precision Agriculture technology.
- CO2 sequestered in soil in CRP Land - where 3-5 years are left on the contract and the grower has signed-up direct seed acres.[11]
The striking thing is that the offsets take into account not only gross sequestration but also fuel savings.
Karl is unequivocal about the benefits of no-tillage and says despite the complexities of measurement it really doesn't have to be rocket science. "Agriculture can and does sequester carbon." I ask the obvious question. "If you're losing soil, doesn't that mean you're losing carbon?" Karl laughed. "You've nailed it right there. All plants assimilate carbon from atmosphere. As a plant matures it returns carbon to the soil. Tillage on the other hand returns carbon to the atmosphere. Until the soil becomes saturated, you're still sequestrating carbon." Carl mentioned the core samples, and talked about how they showed the soil fauna at extreme depths and provided an analogy. "Tillage destroys habitat. Imagine if a fire and earthquake went through your home every year. What would you do?" However he cautions that rebuilding soil takes time.
Back in the 60's and 70's he tells me, the pressure was on to increase production. Everyone told the farmers, "you have to get big, so that's what we did", he says. Right away they started seeing problems. Tillage on the sloping fields was causing terrible erosion, and it didn't take long to realize that it simply wasn't sustainable.
So the farmers had to consider their options. One option was to put more inputs into the soil, but over time no-tillage proved to be the fastest return on investment in matters of soil health. It also provided the fastest gains in production. This effect, Karl says, was most dramatic in distressed soils.
As far as measuring sequestration, Karl cautions that these things take time. "It's not a snapshot", he says, "you have to look at it over time." Karl then compares no-tillage soil to tillage soil. "Tillage created a 3-4 inch dead zone", he says. "Now it's a living compost. Every handful contains a million microbes. It's a constantly changing microenvironment."
Karl believes that the benefits of offsets are more than meet the eye. Offsets create the funds to get the process moving, and generate the interest that fosters research into soil science. But in the end Karl breaks it down into simple terms. "There's no more mud, and there's no more dust."
Seems pretty simple when you think about it.
Sustainability
No-tillage agriculture is a sustainable practice that returns health and vitality to the ecosystem. While there is still debate about the science that's used to measure carbon sequestration, there's no doubt that the farmers, the soils, the water supply, and the wildlife are benefiting from no-tillage. Fewer inputs are required and less fuel is used grow crops. While organic no-tillage may in the end prove to be the most sustainable method of farming certain crops in certain regions, no-tillage doesn't deserve the firestorm of controversy it's seen over the years. A few carefully worded disclaimers in the comments of a blog do not suffice to change the tone, the whole nature of the debate must change. No-tillage is good for the farmer, it's good for business, it's good for the economy and it's good for the ecology. Let's let the scientists worry about the science, and in the meantime find a way to get behind farmers who are practicing a form of agriculture that benefits us all.
Thanks for playing along,
LocaVori.
notes
[1] The Future is Abundant, A Guide to Sustainable Agriculture, Tilth Producers, 1982
[2] Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 118, Issues 1-4, January 2007, Pages 1-5
[3] http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/no-till-farming-does-not-save-carbon-and-is-not-a-carbon-offset/
[4] http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-10-big-ag-waxman-markey
[5] http://www.grist.org/article/farming-for-the-climate/
[6] http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/docs.htm?docid=9368
[7] Zero Tillage - Advancing the Art. Zero Tillage Farmers Association - 1997 http://www.mandakzerotill.org/books/manuals/Advancing%20the%20Art/adart05.html
[9] Agronomy Journal 99:1297-1305 (2007) http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/5/1297
[10] Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University. Special Report 1047, June 2003 http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/sr/sr1047-e/53.htm
[11] http://www.directseed.org/carbontrading.html#2007trading
Posted by LocaVori on July 4, 2009 at 6:39 p.m..
2 comments so far
On August 19, 2009, David said:
Excellent article. Thank you for the enlightenment.Are there any bakeries that focus on obtaining thir raw materials, specifically, from no till sources ?
On August 20, 2009, joe said:
Hi!
Several bakeries in the Northwest carry Shepherd's Grain flour and some groceries carry Stone Buhr's All Purpose flour which is the retail version -
http://www.shepherdsgrain.com/products.htm
there's also a recent article in the Seattle Weekly about local no-till cupcakes - check it out!
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/voracious/2009/07/cupcake_royale_goes_local_and.php
