This case study was written to accompany my Nuffield Farming Scholarship journey and report and accompanies my recent blog: Helping Companies To Scale Up Regenerative Farming: Lessons from the Sustainable Food Lab.
Key takeaways
- Introducing a third crop into the farming rotation enables farmers to start putting into practice some of the regenerative agriculture principles, improving the long-term resilience of the soil, the farming systems and businesses.
- In the Mid West, various factors are working to conserve the existing two-crop farming rotation of corn and soy, and disincentivise the production of small grains like oats, barley, rye, and triticale. This includes a lack of infrastructure and technical support, as well as weak market demands and crop insurance programmes that disincentive change.
- The Crop Diversification in the Corn Belt initiative has demonstrated how a landscape-scale shift is viable, with various pilots that showcase an interest from farmers, with positive impacts on their business resilience, the environment, soil health and the wider food system.
- Yet, despite good intentions and some success, the system is frustratingly stuck in the inertia of business as usual, with most farmers and companies on the path of least resistance. To support change, companies must invest in growing the market for diverse grains, so that farmers have options and confidence. Governments need to ensure crop insurance programs incentivise crop diversification and work with companies to co-invest in underlying infrastructure.
- While there’s much excitement and many commendable commitments around regenerative agriculture, we should not be complacent that these will overturn the many barriers locking in the status quo. Continued well-coordinated effort is needed.
The Crop Diversification in the Corn Belt initiative is a project that’s been run by the Sustainable Food Lab since 2016. It has fascinated me for many years. To a non-farmer, the ambition appears relatively simple: to introduce a third crop into the growing rotation, in a region where two crop rotations are commonplace. With the right approach, a third crop in the rotation can help to protect soil health and reduce emissions, while improving the resilience of the farming business. Yet the difficulty this initiative has had in making this change economical and mainstream, reveals just how specialised, inflexible and concentrated our food and agricultural system has become, and how difficult it can be for some farmers to go against the grain, and try something different.
In a region where corn and soy are typically planted exclusively, without a break, year after year, the project has so far supported 100,000 hectares of land to introduce a third crop into the rotation, a small grain such as oats, wheat, triticale or rye. Introducing a third crop into the rotation can be beneficial for many reasons, as will be explained, and it enables farmers to start putting into practice some of the regenerative agriculture principles. However, it has not been the convention in the Midwest, due to a combination of factors, including farm economics, access to infrastructure and equipment, as well as end-markets.
Was it always like this?
Since the 1960s, in America’s Midwest, oats, hay, and pasture have disappeared from much of the landscape. Before this, oats were much more prevalent and as a cool season crop, their place in the rotation helped provide feed and food, as well as used as a nurse crop for alfalfa, keeping more ground covered throughout the year. The sharp decline in growing oats can be explained by a few trends, including that of animals moving off the farm and into more confided operations. These livestock systems became more optimised for corn and soy, which started playing a greater role in the feed ration. Today, animal feed is a key driver for what’s grown in the Midwest, with 70% of the soy crop and 50% of the corn crop used as animal feed. As such, strong prices for corn and soy as well as other crops such as rapeseed (canola), meant that farmers stopped growing oats. This trend has been seen around the globe with the simplification of grain crops grown for commodity markets.
Why is bare soil over long periods a problem?
On the one hand, farmers have been wildly successful in creating a highly productive landscape, dominated by corn and soy. Yet, on many farms, the ground is left bare half of the year. The absence of plant cover and living roots means that the soil biology is not being fed by plants, which means less nutrient cycling, leading to diminishing soil organic matter, and soil health. The bare soil also results in a greater vulnerability to wind and water erosion. So in many areas, the land has become more fragile and vulnerable to droughts and floods.
With limited natural fertility building in the soil, to maintain this system of production, farmers have become highly dependent upon synthetic inputs. These inputs, combined with advances in seed technology and historically rich soil fertility from the region’s geological history, have meant that farms have produced bountiful ingredients for feed, food, and ethanol markets. Successful farmers have mastered the technologies and achieved levels of productivity that would have been unimaginable in the past. Yet the biological underpinnings of soil, water, and climate cycles are now more fragile than they used to be. Many local water courses and other ecosystems have been damaged and polluted. And many farmers are stuck in a cycle of dependency on a few markets, and inputs, to maintain the status quo.
Bringing diversity back into the system
The small grains considered in this project are cool season crops that can be planted in the Autumn before harvest, or early in Spring (getting harvested towards the end of July, giving farmers a window to have a leguminous cover crop on the ground).
To explore the feasibility and support the scaling-up of crop rotations that include small grains, the Crop Diversification in the Corn Belt project has asked the following:
- Will farmers grow oats? What varietals perform? Do the economics work?
- What are the routes to market – and how can they be activated?
- What are the sustainability benefits that contribute to the business case and how can they be measured?
- The launch of supply chain programs with food-grade small grains buyers (involving Smithfield Grains, Oatly and Pepsi)
- How well do livestock fed on small grains perform? How feasible is a transition?
- What are the manure management benefits for livestock and manure application?
- What are the feed ration costs and environmental impacts?
Over several years, since 2016, the project has proven how a crop rotation with small grains does improve farmer resilience and that the economics can work. The resilience comes through having more diversified revenue streams and additional planting times, which can safeguard farmers from unpredictable events such as extreme weather. The economics can work as input costs are reduced. Leguminous cover crops fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and enhance the nitrogen cycling in the soil, which can benefit the corn crop, and displace the amount of synthetic nitrogen bought in. Furthermore, weed and pest pressures are reduced, leading to other input cost savings.
Other management benefits include the spread of labour demands, as well as an earlier opportunity to spread manure. This addresses a key concern for livestock operations, as there can be a limited chance to spread manure otherwise in the system.
In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, around 50% of the carbon footprint for corn is associated with synthetic nitrogen (source), and this project has estimated that a legume cover crop can displace between a third and half the synthetic N required when growing corn (see Figure).
Growing the Market for Small Grains
An important part of the project is growing the demand for small grains such as oats, rye and barley. As such, various companies have been engaged and involved.
For example, the plant-based milk brand Oatly, which mainly sources oats from Canada, has been excited by the opportunity to source oats in the USA and has been involved in various pilots in Iowa (as explained in this article). ADM and PepsiCo have also collaborated through the project to pilot the incorporation of winter wheat into the corn and soybean rotation, with some success (further details here).
However, against the vast scale of livestock production, humans currently eat a small portion of the grains grown in the USA. So a major part of this project involved exploring the viability of adding small grains into animal feed formulations. Trials have taken place, with hog and cattle feed, involving companies like McDonald’s, with researchers helping to assess the financial costs and impacts of a more diversified diet in livestock. Many of the results were positive, showing meat quality, animal health and performance not being impacted, with some cases even showing improved animal health. This feed innovation is not fancy, for example, swapping out some corn for hybrid rye in pig feed. Major companies like Smithfield and McDonald’s, with determination, can continue to play a key role in helping this to scale. The question is, will they pay more for this feed?
Despite many successes, the system remains stuck
Many years of dedicated project work have made a clear case for crop diversification. The hard work of farmers and organisations like the Sustainable Food Lab and the Practical Farmers of Iowa, have shown how a shift is entirely viable and possible, carrying many positive impacts.
The project has heard from farmers about what they need and what it will take. They have taken CEOs to the field, to learn from farmers. They showed how farmers can grow high-quality grains; and how livestock can eat those grains without affecting meat quality or animal performance. Greenhouse gas emission savings have been quantified, as well as case studies that show how farm resilience can be improved, together with water quality and biodiversity.
Yet, the system is frustratingly stuck. The determination of groups like the Practical Farmers of Iowa has helped get 3 million acres of cover crop on the ground – but there are another 10 million acres in Iowa alone.
Drawing from their engagement across the value chain, the Sustainable Food Lab are clear about the major barriers that exist and what needs to be true, to unlock landscape-scale change:
The first is the lack of infrastructure in the region, from storing and moving, to milling and sales. Investment is needed, and this will likely require a combination of public and private funding.
A second is how people are missing, who have the relevant technical knowledge to support and advise farmers, so they can feel confident in growing small grains. Companies can help solve this by investing in programmes that help to increase the capacity of existing advisors and establish or expand existing trusted, support networks.
Crop insurance is also a barrier. Getting suitable cover is more challenging for small grains, as well as a fear for farmers over their insurance cover if they do diversify, since insurance cover is often based on a farmer’s historic production of corn and soybean. Can governments shift policies to help incentivise more diverse crop rotations?
But the biggest barrier is that the market demand from companies is just too weak. And so, farmers do not have the options or confidence to grow small grains. Companies say that it’s difficult to switch ingredients. And there seems a general unwillingness to pay more for ingredients from farming systems that have diversified crop rotations. The Food Lab say that multiple market demand signals are needed, from snack food ingredient innovations, to pet food reformulations, and feed ration formulations, without which claims of regenerative agriculture will be weak.
Will the determination and investment from companies grow, to help create more demand? This requires a shared commitment that will need to run from retailers and food service companies, through to grain merchants, feedmills and farmers.
It’s frustrating how despite good intentions and some success, the inertia of business-as-usual keeps most farmers and companies on the path of least resistance. Despite the excitement many feel over a growing regenerative agriculture movement, the barriers described above are unlikely to be overturned quickly or easily without further coordinated efforts. This requires investment and commitment from the very top of major food and agricultural companies, as well as the government. But the rewards will be worth it. Our survival, after all, depends on looking after our precious soil.
Further Reading
- Sustainable Food Lab, (2023). Crop Diversification in the Corn Belt (web page).
- My blog on Scaling Regenerative Agriculture: Lessons from the Sustainable Food Lab.
- Practical Farmers of Iowa (2019). A Versatile Feed Source.
- Oatly, (2018). Resurrecting oats in the American Midwest.
- Sustainable Food Lab, (2023). Crop Diversification Meeting Summary.