Regardless of where you conduct your farming operation, the notion of changing your methods can be daunting. We at Merit or Myth have seen this time and time again firsthand. The deeper we dig into the S.D. farming community (and the farming community at large), the more we see a fundamental truth that defines what it means to be human: change isn’t easy.

The same resistance to change that our brothers and sisters who practice conventional farming methods experience is the same resistance to change in our own lives. I think for both sides (conventional and regenerative farming alike), realizing and acknowledging this reality is the first step to starting the conversation… though it may take more than simply a humble heart and an open mind to incite change.

THE PROBLEM

We’ve found that one of the biggest hurdles to adopting regenerative farming practices seems to be the convoluted opinions surrounding it. The supporters of conventional farming methods crank out their confirmation biases (which can be found all over the internet) and those on the other side do the same for their practice (which, oh by the way, can be found all over the internet as well).

Regardless of opinions, the true answer in the debate of conventional vs regenerative farming appears very rarely in measurable data. It’s not tough to understand why – costs for inputs fluctuate across counties and across seasons. Weather patterns that affect bottom lines are largely shifting and unpredictable.

Maybe the most convincing answer rests not in the details, but in the big picture. We’d like to take a look at the overall trends for one specific practice that heavily influences the regenerative side of things: cover crops.

THE STATS

For four straight years, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) has conducted surveys on cover crop production. Of the over 1,000 respondents in their most recent study, 34% claimed that cover crops increased profitability. Not necessarily that large of an endorsement, but compare it to the other numbers – 26% of respondents claimed cover crops don’t affect profitability one way or the other. 35% said they did not currently have enough data while a mere 6% claimed cover crops decrease profitability.

These results are also mirrored in similarly structured surveys, one of which included the following statement and asked for respondent’s opinions on its validity:

Using cover crops can reduce yield variability associated with weather extremes such as strong, intense storms and droughts, etc..”

Those surveyed responded:

Strongly agreed – 30%
Agreed – 37%
Neutral – 28%
Disagreed – 6%

That’s 67% in favor and only 6% in opposition… but it gets better. In even further studies conducted by SARE and Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC)’s, it was found that, in corn production, cover crops lead to an increase of 2 bushels-per-acre in year 1. By year 4, the increase in bushel-per-acre increased to 8.3. Soybean yields have seen similar increases when it comes to cover crop implementation.

FURTHER ANALYSIS

As Laura Barrera, managing editor of No-Till Farmer and Conservation Tillage Guide Magazine states:

If you still doubt the positive impact of cover crops, consider that:

• Cover crop expert Dave Robinson found an average $150-per-acre advantage by using cover crops.
• Ohio no-tiller David Brandt can grow 200-bushel corn on just 50 pounds of nitrogen, thanks to his legume cover crops.
• Grazing cover crops has allowed Gabe Brown to reduce inputs so much it only costs him $1.44 to grow a bushel of corn.”

Cover crops are just one aspect of regenerative farming practices, but when combined with a more natural approach, the evidence is starting to come in loud and clear.

Though it will always be human nature to resist change, with issues like this, we can either choose to listen, or we can ignore it. At Merit or Myth, we encourage farmers to dig a little deeper and see the truth play out in their own operation. Do you know with certainty what cover crops could do for you?

Knowledge is power,
– Barrett

SOURCES:
https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/blogs/1-covering-no-till/post/5986-cover-crops-contributing-to-the-bottom-line
https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/blogs/1-covering-no-till/post/5951-cover-crops-prove-profitable-in-2015

Being fairly new to the world of soil health, I’ve been introduced to a variety of interesting terms and sayings over the past year. Some of these words and adages were fairly self-explanatory… others sounded more like Greek to me. Of the latter, none were more perplexing than this head scratcher: “Mycorrhizae, superhighways of the soil.”

I have to be honest, outside of knowing that mycorrhizae was a fungus, the word meant nothing to me. Fortunately, one podcast from Radiolab not only familiarized me with the concept, but changed the entire way I view soil ecosystems.

The particular episode (“From Tree to Shining Tree”) outlines the role of fungi in natural systems and unequivocally reveals fungus to be one of the biggest contributing factors to plant growth. I strongly recommend anyone with an interest in ag give this episode a listen (34 minutes). While mainly highlighting mycorrhizae presence in the forest, the role of fungi has roots in virtually all natural systems and is highly applicable to the modern-day farmer.

Competition vs Collaboration

In agroecosystems, a common assumption is that plants essentially compete with one another to survive – if two species are grown together, one will dominate and one will wither away. However, as we’ve found throughout our search for truth at Merit or Myth, the most common assumptions are usually the ones that need to be challenged most.

No one knows this better than Dr. Suzanne Simard, a professor of forest ecology at the University of British Columbia. Over the past 30 plus years, Dr. Simard has put her skilled ear to the ground, listening for any and all truths that Mother Nature has to tell. One of those truths?

Plant life, and specifically that of trees, don’t really compete with each other much at all. In fact, they’re much more preoccupied with helping one another grow.

Conventional wisdom can’t make much sense of this. I struggle myself to understand it. After all, fellow trees, especially those of a different species, are often one of the biggest threats to individual survival. Dr. Simard’s findings clearly show, however, that not only are trees of the same species helping one another, but trees of differing species are the ones that do it the most!

NPR science correspondent and journalist Robert Krulwich has seen evidence of this first hand.

“Trees of totally different species were sharing their food underground. If you put food into one tree over here it would end up in another tree maybe 30 feet over there and then a 3rd tree over here and then a 4th… 5th 6th 7th… Turns out one tree was connected to 47 other trees all around it. It was like a huge network.”

One tree giving life to 47 others? How could this be possible?

“We were able to map the network,” Dr. Simard said, “And what we found was that the trees that were the biggest and the oldest were the most highly connected…. It’s just this incredible communications network that people had no idea about in the past because we didn’t know how to look.”

So okay, trees are more coworkers than they are rivals, but surely there’s more going on beneath the soil. After all, how are these trees, as Dr. Simard puts it, “communicating”?

The answer brings us full-circle: “Mycorrhizae, superhighways of the soil.”

Nature’s Most Misunderstood Contributor

Since most of us were old enough to carry around a textbook, we’ve been familiar with the idea of fungus… at least, we thought we were. Truth be told, even modern science’s understanding of this crucial organism has only recently begun to take shap.

“For a long time, they (fungi) were thought of as plants.” Jennifer Frazier, science writer for Scientific American highlights. “But now we know, after having looked at their DNA, that fungi are actually very closely related to animals. They’re one of our closest relatives actually.”

And it’s these fungi, the mycorrhizal fungi, that may be behind most plant life on earth.

Researchers have found evidence of a symbiotic relationship between fungi and plant life dating back to an estimated 400 million years. It’s this relationship and the fungi’s intricate network of tubes that allows tree roots to connect, communicate and share nutrients.

In fact, fungi is so crucial for plant life that some studies in natural systems have found up to 7 miles of active fungi in a mere pinch of healthy soil (are you kidding me?).

If anything has ever screamed in support of diversity and minimal disturbance, this is it!

So how do they do it?

Essentially, fungi have developed a two-pronged system for taking in nutrients. The first literally allows them to mine their way through soil, and even rocks themselves, secreting acid and drilling tiny holes in order to suck out nutrients. A large portion of these nutrients they don’t even use, delivering them straight to the surrounding plant life! But don’t get them wrong, fungi are not all cuddly altruists. The other system fungi have developed for nutrient extraction is a bit more… gruesome.

Despite their size, fungi are highly developed hunters – feeding on the carcasses of disregarded fish and live insects (specifically, springtails) that feed along the forest floor. Prior to their research, scientists believed that, if springtails and fungi were left alone, the insects would devour the fungi. To the researcher’s surprise, the opposite happened. The fungi found their way into the springtails and sucked out all of their nitrogen before depositing it into the nearby plant life. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor… I’ve heard of that before.

So what do the fungi get out of it? In exchange for their tireless service, they are supplied with carbon (one of the key building blocks of life) from the surrounding plant life.

Research shows that some trees give anywhere between 20% to 80% of their carbon directly to their fungi friends.

BACK TO THE FARM

So how does this apply specifically to a farming operation? Well, input costs have been a major theme we’ve touched on over the past couple of months. As we all know, profitable crops rely heavily on adequate supplies of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and so on. What researchers like Dr. Simard are revealing, however, is that healthy soils and mycorrhizal fungi naturally supply these minerals and nutrients on their own.

The bottom line? Life below ground is as abundant and complex as the life above it!

When you look at it through this lens, it’s no wonder why input costs have risen so high. Practices like tillage rip up the soil, the fungus, and the very nutrients that supply life. Without healthy fungus and natural soils, nutrients need to be artificially plugged in in order to ensure profitable yields.

On the other hand, the usage of no-till (minimal disturbance) and cover crops (enhanced diversity), over time, lead to an increase in fungi and, thus, soil biomass, on their own. This is just the way nature intended! In fact, when left alone, as science journalist Jennifer Frazier says, “It’s almost as if the forest is acting as an organism itself.”

If the rest of nature can work together for the greater good (even those species conventionally thought to be competitors), can we figure out ways of working alongside rather than against nature? One of our goals at Merit or Myth is to create a community that fosters conversation and community growth. Just like the trees in the forest, we’re much stronger together than we are separate. Just as we’re learning along our journey, crops are much stronger when filled with diversity than monocultures. What knowledge do you have that can help your fellow farmers thrive? Odds are, just like it is in nature, they’ve got a few things they’ll send your way as well.

Join the Revolution,
– Barrett

SOURCE: http://www.radiolab.org/story/from-tree-to-shining-tree/

Not getting the outcome we feel we deserve can be extremely disheartening in any walk of life. Nobody knows this truth more than farmers who pour their blood, sweat, and tears into their craft year round.

If we aren’t getting the results we’re looking for, it’s often human nature to assume that something needs to be added to the equation. When it comes to farming, however, more and more frequently we’re finding that the solution isn’t to add more, but to put in less – if your operation isn’t getting the results you’re looking for, something (and at times, several things) may need to be taken OUT of the equation.

Of course many in the industry would scoff at such a notion. After all, inputs, and specifically those of phosphorous and potassium, are often encouraged based on soil fertility levels, putative yield response, maintenance and buildup. But all of these factors pale in comparison to the real end-goal – a profitable response. Producer Marion Calmer of Western Illinois knows this all too well.

Farmer Turned Scientist

“If I’m going to spend $50 for phosphorous and potassium,” Calmer says, “I really think I need a $65 or $70 response in extra green in order to make it worthwhile.”

As an increasing number of producers like Calmer know, the only way to truly find out if and why this is the case is through running your own tests… though we know this can feel intimidating at times. After all, most farmers are not scientists and wouldn’t it be easier to just accept the conventional wisdom that many scientists, and the industry, endorse?

Easier, yes. More profitable? The answer may surprise you.

As for Calmer himself, he’s been doing side-by-side tests comparing different input levels and different means of implementation for the past 31 years. In those three-plus decades of testing, his operation has seen every kind of weather imaginable – too dry, too wet, too hot, too cold. Despite unpredictable weather patterns, the results of his tests keep coming back the same.

“Every year I’ve gotten a cosmetic response (for plots with added fertilizer). You can stand out here and look at these fertility plots and you can always tell which one got the fertilizer. I can also tell you we’ve gotten a yield response, but out of the last 31 years there’s only been one year where I’ve made any money. And so I’m starting to question my soil fertility program and everything I learned when I went off to college.”

Over the past 10 years specifically, Calmer has been running more continuous, strategic tests – dispersing 60 feet of fertilizer, 60 feet without and so on. The decade-long data, specifically on soil fertility, hasn’t wavered – despite the different inputs, the plots didn’t show much of a difference in phosphorous and potassium levels. Calmer was rather troubled by this.

“Number one, (I’m) not getting an economic response, but number two I can’t tell it when I look at the soil fertility that I’ve been fertilizing for the past 10 years or not fertilizing…. (so) at my farm, I’m probably not going to put on any P or K until I know without a shadow of a doubt that it’s going to make me money. I’m tired of assuming that it’s a good thing, and we all know what assuming does.”

So what does Calmer suggest?

“Take some time and lay out your own strip trials. It’s not that difficult with the onset of GPS and the onset of auto-steer that you can come in and spread 60 feet and leave 60 feet, spread 60 feet and leave 60 feet… and then come back in and harvest it. With a scale on the grain cart, it’s pretty easy to track that information and that way next fall you’ll have something to look forward to. You can harvest your own data at your own farm and you can find out ‘did I spend $60 for P and K and did I get $60 or $70 worth of green back.’”

A Mindset for Success

We often talk at Merit or Myth of mindset changes. One of those mindset changes that producers can benefit from is the idea of not just harvesting their crops, but harvesting their own data. After all, it is only through personal data that you can ensure your operation is as cost-effective and running as efficiently as possible.

So could you be wasting time and money on inputs that your operation doesn’t need? If you haven’t harvested your own data, Calmer and an increasing amount of producers would probably say the chances are pretty high. The only question is what are you going to do about it?

To keep up with Marion Calmer and his operation, visit calmercornheads.com.

Join the revolution,
– Barrett Self

SOURCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcS2hcnIibQ&app=desktop

“Growing Healthy Communities”

I’ve recently been watching a series of videos produced at the 2016 Fuller Field School in Kansas called “Growing Healthy Communities”. The first two videos I was able to catch featured Dr. Christine Jones’s talk “Soil Carbon – the Mycorrhizal Connection” and Gabe Brown’s talk “A Simple Man’s Take on the Current Production Model”. After what I’ve seen from just two videos, I will without a doubt be checking out the rest of the video series soon!

After listening to just a few minutes of each, it was easy to grasp their practical, big-picture message. Christine Jones is incredibly eloquent in the way she articulates the need for diversity, not to mention the way she discusses photosynthesis (or what she terms, “harvesting sunlight”) and why we need to maximize it in our fields. If you have ever wondered what that term really means, I believe Christine will help you get to the bottom of it!

In Gabe Brown’s talk, he challenges a numbers of widely-held, and perhaps cherished, assumptions common to modern day production agriculture. I’ll leave you to figure out what they are. The funny thing is that Gabe is not advocating for more inputs, more equipment or more technology. The alternative that Gabe proposes is perhaps even more difficult than an extended line of credit at the bank. What he proposes is a change in the way we look at growing our food and fiber.

Hope for a Brighter Tomorrow

While it’s not always comfortable for others to challenge our own long-held paradigms, the underlying message I get from these two talks is…. Hope. The theme of the 2016 Fuller Field School was “Rejuvenating healthy soil, growing healthy, nutrient dense food, managing water effectively, attracting wildlife and building resilience for future generations”. These ideas represent hope and are the real-world outcomes of the regenerative farming mindset. Hope in less inputs, lower operating costs and ultimately a better quality of life. I challenge you to watch the videos without being changed!

This Hope is in South Dakota

This mindset is not limited to North Dakota, Kansas or Australia, by the way – just take a look at South Dakota USDA-NRCS’s YouTube Channel and you will be blown away by the number of folks in the Mount Rushmore State who have decided to change their way of doing business.

We look forward to releasing our next video where we talk with SDSU’s Dr. Pete Sexton, a big advocate of building community around farming!

– Buz Kloot

---

CHECK OUT OUR LATEST VIDEO ON RESIDUE:

---

For many farmers, crop residue is a nuisance – the unfortunate byproduct of a harvested crop, hence the word “trash”. And what does trash do for any of us other than create a problem that we have to deal with?

This conventional view of crop residue has led many farmers to believe that it is a perennial problem. But what if we told you that residue doesn’t have to be viewed this way? What if we told you that residue could actually add value to a farmer’s operation?

A CHANGE IN MINDSET

Fortunately for us, the traditional view of residue has been brought into question by many farmers, ranchers and scientists alike. And leading the way in the conversation is none other than South Dakota’s Dwayne Beck of Dakota Lakes Research Farm.

Where Dwayne has a leg up on some traditional farmers isn’t so much in his methods as it is in his mindset. As opposed to viewing management practices as isolated factors, Dwayne sees an entire farm through the lens of systems thinking – and, as we note in our latest video, in a system, everything is connected!

Once we address the system as a whole and not just our individual management practices, everything starts to change – including our view of residue. But don’t just take it from us, see what Dwayne has to say in our video below and decide for yourself – residue as a friend? Merit or Myth?

JOIN THE REVOLUTION!

– Barrett

In today’s society, it’s become a rarity for the “little man” to truly get their voice heard. Big corporations and industries (with their equally big spending) dominate the airwaves and often push a message that comes with an agenda (one that, unfortunately, isn’t always truth-based).

But despite this ever-growing trend, it’s generally the “little man” who has their finger on the pulse of what’s ACTUALLY happening – who is on the ground-level, seeing the things that big corporations can only talk about.

So when it comes to soil health, no one is more of an authority on the topic than the farmers and soil health advocates themselves. It’s about time they had their voice heard – and the USDA’s South Dakota Voices for Soil Health series is on a mission to do just that.

With a focus on shared knowledge and growth regarding soil health practices, the South Dakota Voices for Soil Health project is giving a platform to farmers and ranchers state wide. Made up of Earth Team volunteers, the 90+ voices already involved in this project are networking to spread their knowledge and experiences for all to hear.

These producers are stewards of their natural resources, and as voices for soil health, they actively advocate for shared knoweledge – not just for current generations, but future as well.

As Day County, SD farmer Steve Sigdestad says in one of their upcoming videos,

We want to take care of the soil because it’s going to be here a lot longer than any of us are going to be here. We’ve got to be stewards of the land, because they’re going to point back to us in history and say, ‘These guys messed up.’ And we don’t want to be that generation.”

Check out the 20 producer profiles already completed and keep an eye out in the coming weeks to hear more from farmers and advocates like Steve all across the great state of South Dakota.

Join the revolution!

– Barrett

Greetings friends!

For those of you that have followed along with us on our site (as well as hopefully on Twitter and Facebook… if not, what are you waiting for!?) you know we’ve been promising an official intro video for a few weeks now.

Unfortunately, we ran into a few snags on the production side of things… mostly on my end…

But now that we remember how to say our names, we couldn’t be more proud to finally unveil our official introductory video!

So if you’re familiar with our content, but still a little in the dark as to how we’ll be crafting this project, this video will shine a light on our goals and methodology for engaging with farmers, producers and conservationists across the Mount Rushmore State!

In our two trips thus far, we’ve traveled over 8,000 miles, accumulated dozens of hours of interview footage, built a social media audience soon to be 500+ strong, and have been lucky enough to take some stunning photographs.

And it’s all been leading up to this. So check out and share our intro video and continue to follow along on our quest for improved soil health, sustainability and farming efficiency. Much more to come!

Join the revolution!

– Barrett