By Linda McGurk
Special Correspondent
If anybody’s feeling the pinch from rising energy prices, it’s American farmers. They need nitrogen fertilizers for their crops, diesel fuel for their machinery and electricity for their grain dryers and livestock barns. But as energy is becoming more expensive, a growing number of farmers are trying to figure out how they can use less of it. This approach is not only saving the farmers money – it could mean huge rewards for the environment.
“We have a heritage of subduing our environment,” says Les Zimmerman, a nursery business owner in Vermillion County. “The challenge in front of us is to learn how to coexist with our farmland and learn how we can best use it to our advantage, but in a sustainable way.”
“Right now, we’re using fossil fuels and fertilizers to sustain our agricultural practices but there are less extractive technologies out there. I’m not saying that we can eliminate inputs, but we can minimize them.”
Zimmerman, who owns nearly 300 acres of nursery trees, timber and pastures, tries to reduce his own environmental footprint every step of the way. That means everything from turning off the water heater in his office to minimizing pesticide use and creating wetland habitats for wildlife on his property. Outside his office, a Prius hybrid is parked next to a couple of heavy-duty pick-up trucks. “I don’t need to drive a three-quarter ton, four-by-four pick-up truck if I’m just going to the auto-parts store,” he explains. “I try not to expend more energy than is needed for a certain job.” Besides, seeing how many miles he can get out of every gallon of gas in the Prius has become a fun challenge.
At Zimmerman’s tree farm, 90 percent of the ground has vegetative cover to promote biological activity in the soil and eliminate erosion. He’s also installed several water and sediment control basins, which reduce flooding and gully erosion by trapping sediment and runoff. Seven ponds – originally created to provide water for irrigation – have become havens for catfish, bass, turtles, frogs and countless species of birds and insects.
To minimize pesticide use, Zimmerman’s three employees are trained to scout the nursery for harmful insects, and all infected trees are treated individually. “The money I spend on scouting I get back in lower material costs,” says Zimmerman. And by switching from overhead irrigation to a drip irrigation system he’s gone from using 20 gallons of fuel per day to two gallons.
As a supervisor for the Vermillion County Soil and Water Conservation District, Zimmerman believes one of the most important ways farmers can conserve energy and contribute to a better environment is by using no-till practices. In no-till systems, farmers don’t plow their fields after harvest, but leave the crop residues on the ground to help fertilize the soil and minimize erosion. When the field is left undisturbed, beneficial microorganisms, insects and earthworms thrive underneath, improving the quality of the soil.
The benefits of no-till don’t end there. “I make a lot less passes with the tractor, so I use a lot less fuel,” says Zach Cain, a no-till farmer of Montgomery County. Cain’s father and uncle were part of a group of pioneers who started experimenting with no-till nearly 30 years ago. By the early ‘90s, the Cains’ 3,500-acre corn and soybean farm was completely no-till. “I try to look at it from a stewardship viewpoint. How can we leave the land better than we found it?” says Cain.
In 1990, less than 10 percent of all agricultural land was no-till, according to the Indiana State Department of Agriculture. But with fuel prices on the rise more farmers in Indiana are embracing the system. An ISDA survey shows that the amount of no-till corn in the state increased from 19 percent in 2004 to 27 percent last year, while no-till soybeans jumped from 61 percent to 69 percent in the same time period. ISDA estimates that the increase in no-till acres has reduced top soil loss in Indiana by over 1 million tons every year.
Like Zimmerman, Cain drives a Prius and tries to car pool whenever possible. His farm machinery is also equipped with a slew of high-tech gadgets that help conserve energy. He uses global positioning systems, auto-steer functions and swath control technologies to collect data from the field and prevent overlapping when fertilizing, planting and spraying. “It means we’re not putting chemicals or fertilizers in the ground if it’s not needed,” says Cain.
Whether a farmer wants to transition from conventional tillage to no-till, upgrade to more energy-efficient equipment or create a wildlife habitat, switching to more environmentally-friendly methods sometimes comes with a high price tag. Fortunately, the U.S. Department of Agriculture offers several programs that will share the cost for farmers’ conservation practices.
In Zimmerman’s case, USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program helped pay for the water and sediment control basins he installed at the nursery. Other farmers have received payments for seeding cover crops, planting trees and restoring wetlands. The program also provides incentives for livestock producers who adjust their animals’ food rations to minimize excess phosphorus and nitrogen in the manure.
Similarly, USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program encourages farmers to plant trees and grasses on highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage, and its Conservation Security Program provides financial and technical assistance to farmers who commit to improving soil and water quality on their land.
Another government initiative, the Rural Energy for America Program, offers grants and low-interest loans to farmers who make their operations more energy efficient or install renewable sources of energy, like wind turbines or geothermal heating. “I think this year we saw more applications in Indiana than ever before,” says Chad Martin, a Purdue University extension renewable energy specialist. “People definitely want to find new ways of addressing increasing energy costs.”
Martin helps farmers figure out what their current energy use is and what the payback period would be for installing a more efficient system. For example, a number of row-crop farmers in Indiana are looking into updating their grain drying equipment, a leading source of electricity use on a farm. “They can see a pretty substantial cost savings. Some producers came in at 25 to 30 cents per bushel when they assessed their drying costs and they were able to bring it down to about 10 cents per bushel.”
Conservation-minded farmers can also take advantage of a burgeoning private market for trading carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that‘s believed to cause global warming.
If all American farmers used a no-till system that incorporates cover crops and crop rotations, they could annually sequester, or capture, up to 300 million tons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere, according to a study by Ohio State University. That doesn’t even account for the carbon that could be sequestered in farmers’ forest stands, and the methane – another greenhouse gas – that could be captured by covering manure pools at livestock operations.
Farmers who sequester carbon dioxide can sell carbon credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) to companies who have voluntary agreed to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. Right now, one metric ton of carbon is trading for around $4 on the CCX, whereas carbon in Europe’s mandatory cap-and-trade system trades for seven or eight times that amount. “Until there’s a national mandate (regulating emissions), the U.S. price of carbon will stay relatively low and is not that attractive to farmers,” says Mike Baise, director of issues management with the Indiana Farm Bureau, “but if the price goes up enough that might change.”
The U.S. didn’t ratify the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty that aims to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions, and has so far resisted any mandatory caps, but this could change in the future. “There seems to be increasing momentum for this and both senators Obama and McCain have expressed support for a cap-and-trade system,” says Baise.
As the U.S. keeps developing more renewable energy sources and cutting its dependence on foreign oil, farmers will likely become even bigger players on the energy market. But as both Baise and Zimmerman recognize, farmers are businessmen as well as stewards of the land, and few will change their practices if it’s going to hurt their bottom line. “For me (conservation) gives a sense of personal satisfaction. I feel a personal responsibility for the land I’m privileged to be managing,” says Zimmerman. “But we need to recognize the incentive that money provides and let the market do its work.”
In times of record-high energy prices, that means conservation is turning out to be a pretty good deal.
Download PDF
Less is More
By Linda McGurk
Special Correspondent
If anybody’s feeling the pinch from rising energy prices, it’s American farmers. They need nitrogen fertilizers for their crops, diesel fuel for their machinery and electricity for their grain dryers and livestock barns. But as energy is becoming more expensive, a growing number of farmers are trying to figure out how they can use less of it. This approach is not only saving the farmers money – it could mean huge rewards for the environment.
“We have a heritage of subduing our environment,” says Les Zimmerman, a nursery business owner in Vermillion County. “The challenge in front of us is to learn how to coexist with our farmland and learn how we can best use it to our advantage, but in a sustainable way.”
“Right now, we’re using fossil fuels and fertilizers to sustain our agricultural practices but there are less extractive technologies out there. I’m not saying that we can eliminate inputs, but we can minimize them.”
Zimmerman, who owns nearly 300 acres of nursery trees, timber and pastures, tries to reduce his own environmental footprint every step of the way. That means everything from turning off the water heater in his office to minimizing pesticide use and creating wetland habitats for wildlife on his property. Outside his office, a Prius hybrid is parked next to a couple of heavy-duty pick-up trucks. “I don’t need to drive a three-quarter ton, four-by-four pick-up truck if I’m just going to the auto-parts store,” he explains. “I try not to expend more energy than is needed for a certain job.” Besides, seeing how many miles he can get out of every gallon of gas in the Prius has become a fun challenge.
At Zimmerman’s tree farm, 90 percent of the ground has vegetative cover to promote biological activity in the soil and eliminate erosion. He’s also installed several water and sediment control basins, which reduce flooding and gully erosion by trapping sediment and runoff. Seven ponds – originally created to provide water for irrigation – have become havens for catfish, bass, turtles, frogs and countless species of birds and insects.
To minimize pesticide use, Zimmerman’s three employees are trained to scout the nursery for harmful insects, and all infected trees are treated individually. “The money I spend on scouting I get back in lower material costs,” says Zimmerman. And by switching from overhead irrigation to a drip irrigation system he’s gone from using 20 gallons of fuel per day to two gallons.
As a supervisor for the Vermillion County Soil and Water Conservation District, Zimmerman believes one of the most important ways farmers can conserve energy and contribute to a better environment is by using no-till practices. In no-till systems, farmers don’t plow their fields after harvest, but leave the crop residues on the ground to help fertilize the soil and minimize erosion. When the field is left undisturbed, beneficial microorganisms, insects and earthworms thrive underneath, improving the quality of the soil.
The benefits of no-till don’t end there. “I make a lot less passes with the tractor, so I use a lot less fuel,” says Zach Cain, a no-till farmer of Montgomery County. Cain’s father and uncle were part of a group of pioneers who started experimenting with no-till nearly 30 years ago. By the early ‘90s, the Cains’ 3,500-acre corn and soybean farm was completely no-till. “I try to look at it from a stewardship viewpoint. How can we leave the land better than we found it?” says Cain.
In 1990, less than 10 percent of all agricultural land was no-till, according to the Indiana State Department of Agriculture. But with fuel prices on the rise more farmers in Indiana are embracing the system. An ISDA survey shows that the amount of no-till corn in the state increased from 19 percent in 2004 to 27 percent last year, while no-till soybeans jumped from 61 percent to 69 percent in the same time period. ISDA estimates that the increase in no-till acres has reduced top soil loss in Indiana by over 1 million tons every year.
Like Zimmerman, Cain drives a Prius and tries to car pool whenever possible. His farm machinery is also equipped with a slew of high-tech gadgets that help conserve energy. He uses global positioning systems, auto-steer functions and swath control technologies to collect data from the field and prevent overlapping when fertilizing, planting and spraying. “It means we’re not putting chemicals or fertilizers in the ground if it’s not needed,” says Cain.
Whether a farmer wants to transition from conventional tillage to no-till, upgrade to more energy-efficient equipment or create a wildlife habitat, switching to more environmentally-friendly methods sometimes comes with a high price tag. Fortunately, the U.S. Department of Agriculture offers several programs that will share the cost for farmers’ conservation practices.
In Zimmerman’s case, USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program helped pay for the water and sediment control basins he installed at the nursery. Other farmers have received payments for seeding cover crops, planting trees and restoring wetlands. The program also provides incentives for livestock producers who adjust their animals’ food rations to minimize excess phosphorus and nitrogen in the manure.
Similarly, USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program encourages farmers to plant trees and grasses on highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage, and its Conservation Security Program provides financial and technical assistance to farmers who commit to improving soil and water quality on their land.
Another government initiative, the Rural Energy for America Program, offers grants and low-interest loans to farmers who make their operations more energy efficient or install renewable sources of energy, like wind turbines or geothermal heating. “I think this year we saw more applications in Indiana than ever before,” says Chad Martin, a Purdue University extension renewable energy specialist. “People definitely want to find new ways of addressing increasing energy costs.”
Martin helps farmers figure out what their current energy use is and what the payback period would be for installing a more efficient system. For example, a number of row-crop farmers in Indiana are looking into updating their grain drying equipment, a leading source of electricity use on a farm. “They can see a pretty substantial cost savings. Some producers came in at 25 to 30 cents per bushel when they assessed their drying costs and they were able to bring it down to about 10 cents per bushel.”
Conservation-minded farmers can also take advantage of a burgeoning private market for trading carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that‘s believed to cause global warming.
If all American farmers used a no-till system that incorporates cover crops and crop rotations, they could annually sequester, or capture, up to 300 million tons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere, according to a study by Ohio State University. That doesn’t even account for the carbon that could be sequestered in farmers’ forest stands, and the methane – another greenhouse gas – that could be captured by covering manure pools at livestock operations.
Farmers who sequester carbon dioxide can sell carbon credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) to companies who have voluntary agreed to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. Right now, one metric ton of carbon is trading for around $4 on the CCX, whereas carbon in Europe’s mandatory cap-and-trade system trades for seven or eight times that amount. “Until there’s a national mandate (regulating emissions), the U.S. price of carbon will stay relatively low and is not that attractive to farmers,” says Mike Baise, director of issues management with the Indiana Farm Bureau, “but if the price goes up enough that might change.”
The U.S. didn’t ratify the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty that aims to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions, and has so far resisted any mandatory caps, but this could change in the future. “There seems to be increasing momentum for this and both senators Obama and McCain have expressed support for a cap-and-trade system,” says Baise.
As the U.S. keeps developing more renewable energy sources and cutting its dependence on foreign oil, farmers will likely become even bigger players on the energy market. But as both Baise and Zimmerman recognize, farmers are businessmen as well as stewards of the land, and few will change their practices if it’s going to hurt their bottom line. “For me (conservation) gives a sense of personal satisfaction. I feel a personal responsibility for the land I’m privileged to be managing,” says Zimmerman. “But we need to recognize the incentive that money provides and let the market do its work.”
In times of record-high energy prices, that means conservation is turning out to be a pretty good deal.
Download PDF