Technology driven world of Agriculture, Zero-till or No-till farming has been the direction many producers in the state have been heading.
(Alan Ness, Manitoba-North Dakota Zero Tillage Association) “Zero Till used to be a practice that you’d do on an annual basis now zero till has really turned into a system.”
A system that started as a way to conserve top soil and help guard against run-off and groundwater contamination
Now it’s a viable, economically driven system that pairs technology with science to help farmers produce better crops while sustaining the viability of their land.
(Alan Ness, Manitoba-North Dakota Zero Tillage Association) “Where it’s bunch of crop rotations, rotating the proper crops for disease and insect control, rotating crops for nutrient management and those types of things. So consequently we’re looking at a bigger picture than we used to look at.”
That big picture is also on the agenda of the United Nations
Theodor Friedrich with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization says zero till is a proven practice
His mission is traveling the world and showing how conservation agriculture helps sustain farm land while feeding the world.
(Theodor Friedrich, UN Food and Agriculture Organization) “We are promoting world wide as part of our strategy to combine sustainability of farming with the high production. Because we are facing still an increasing number of hungry people around the world.”
Friedrich says the zero till practice is catching on around the world but is still in the minority in farming practices
He says more underdeveloped countries tend to adopt it quicker with the lack of fertilizer available and big machinery to till land.
(Theodor Friedrich, UN Food Association Organization) “The laggers on Europe. Europe is actually the last area to catch up not because they wouldn’t have technology in theory but they don’t have it in practice and there’s a lot of resistance.”
And Friedrich says much of that has to do with mis-information about zero till.
For farmers in North Dakota group like the Man-Dak Zero Till association continue to promote the idea here
With tried and true results of sustainability, economic and environmental benefits, it’s a practice that is showing a win-win for farming in the future.
(Alan Ness, Manitoba-North Dakota Zero Tillage Association) “Bottom line is from our organizations standpoint as long as there’s cover on the field, we’ve taken care of the erosion problem, increased the efficiencies and we’re happy.”
The EPA’s decision to regulate carbon emissions, made on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, immediately incurred the wrath of industry. Businesses are petrified, as Iain Murray writes in The National Review online, that the agency will regulate “everything larger than a Gore-sized mansion.”
What are we to make of this fear?
There’s really no need to panic over the prospect of EPA dominance. Instead, industry should take the hint that’s it high time to push hard for climate-change legislation. Sure, the move by the EPA to exercise regulatory authority over carbon — a power granted to it by a 2007 Supreme Court ruling — was designed to give President Obama moral leverage in Denmark. But it also serves as a presidential prod to Congress to pass a climate-change law. No matter how you feel about global warming, greenhouse-gas emissions are not going to go unregulated. I suspect Obama ultimately nudged the EPA because he wants the U.S. Congress to do the regulating. Industry should support him on this.
But here’s the less obvious point: the EPA’s wake-up call — assuming it’s listened to — will have as much impact on agriculture as it does industry. Climate-change legislation — insofar as it hinges on cap-and-trade rather than a carbon tax — could be quite advantageous to agriculture.
Cap-and-trade is a policy that aims to limit greenhouse-gas emissions by requiring certain industries to buy carbon offsets if emissions exceed the legal cap. According to the House version of the bill (and almost certainly the Senate’s), agriculture would not be capped.
This matters primarily because farmers would be in a position to sell carbon offsets. Indeed, through a wide variety of carbon sequestering techniques that are achievable in most agricultural operations — things like preserving pastureland, improving soil quality, planting trees, transitioning to no-till farming, cultivating perennials, reducing fertilizer application, etc. — agriculture could significantly counteract the increasing costs of fuel and fertilizer that cap and trade would cause while improving a much-maligned agricultural environment. It could profit while going eco-correct.
Financial projections on this score are optimistic. Fred Yoder, former president of the National Corn Growers Association, claims that, with “a properly constructed system,” farm revenues could grow by as much as $13 billion a year. A recent study undertaken by the University of Tennessee’s Bio-Based Energy Analysis Group (and released in November by the 25x’25 Carbon Work Group) found that, even with the increased energy costs, farmers would see positive net returns on all major crops.
Commenting on these findings, Bart Ruth, chairman of 25x’25, explained, “The study has found that income from offsets and from market revenues is higher than any potential increase in input cost, including energy and fertilizer, if cap-and-trade is done right.”
If it’s done right. Agricultural interests would be well served to focus on this caveat as the Senate churns away at a bill. I don’t know a whole lot about how legislative sausage gets made, but I do know that a bill done right for agriculture will be a bill that protects cap-and-trade from EPA regulation, confirms the right of industry to buy offsets, and ensures that big agriculture will, as long as it is selling offsets, remain exempt from being capped.
The EPA’s aggressive dodge toward regulatory diktat frightens many because of the specter of unchecked power. It frightens me, however, because it threatens to deny agriculture this very real chance to do what critics have been asking it to do for decades: get greener. The EPA would not rely on cap and trade. Instead, it would rely on the Clean Air Act of 1970, thereby setting a carbon limit and fining anyone who exceeds it. Growers would not only find themselves in the same regulatory group as cars and coal-fired power plants, but they would be denied the financial incentive to become something that our farming forbears would have well understood: carbon farmers.