Annual Net Returns to Cover Crops in Iowa

Abstract

Despite the active promotion of cover crops as a key conservation practice, their adoption is very limited. We developed a series of partial budgets based on a statewide survey of Iowa farmers to evaluate the changes in net returns resulting from the incorporation of cover crops into a corn or soybean production system. The average net returns to cover crop use for farmers who did not use cover crops for grazing livestock or forage were consistently negative across different planting and termination methods, tillage practices, and experience levels. Only farmers who used cover crops for grazing livestock or forage and received cost-share payments tended to derive net positive returns from cover crop use. Our results can be used as benchmarks for current or potential cover croppers and for ground-truthing agricultural and conservation policy design.

What drives landowners’ conservation decisions? Evidence from Iowa

“…Cover crops are used the most in the southeast CRD (12% of farmland), followed by the northeast and south-central CRDs. All three districts are high in beef or dairy cattle production, possibly due to spillovers across farming enterprises- Plastina et al (2018) finds that grazing a cover crop or harvesting it for forage adds around US$49.42 ha -1 (US$20 ac -1 ) in cost savings on animal feed. Figure 1b shows on average a 10 percentage-point increase in a county's HEL share corresponds to a 0.59 percentage-point increase in cover crops (0.02 to 1.2, 95% confidence interval; p-value = 0.043; R 2 = 0.042).…”

“…However, the sources of costs differ from what the landowners mentioned. Plastina et al (2018) find cover crops' greatest expense is planting costs-costs of terminating the cover crop are minor, as on average, farmers do not use additional inputs or machinery passes (e.g., extra tillage) than they use in absence of cover crops. NOLs cite termination costs as a reason for not using cover crops at a greater rate than operator landowners, suggesting a gap in perceptions.…”

A regional inter‐disciplinary partnership focusing on the development of a carinata‐centered bioeconomy

“…Winter oilseeds, like carinata, are second‐generation biofuels that are also an example of temporal intensification in which feedstock crops are integrated into the fallow seasons of existing rotations, thus avoiding the direct and indirect land‐use change (ILUC) impacts associated with agricultural intensification (Fargione et al, 2008) or displacement of existing crop production (Searchinger et al, 2008), respectively. They also provide a means of achieving the ecosystem service benefits of cover‐cropping, such as erosion control and reduced nutrient leaching, at a net profit to farmers rather than at a significant cost (Plastina et al, 2018). Winter oilseeds are known to be effective in various rotations to break disease and pest cycles, recycle nutrients in the soil, reduce nutrient leaching, and reduce or eliminate weed problems (Seepaul, Small, et al, 2018; Shi et al, 2019).…”

Short-term effects of integrated tillage systems and cover crop on agronomic response and soil health in North Central Iowa

“…The NT-NC had greater net returns in three crop-years, and less in one crop-year for an average difference of $20 ha -1 . According to a survey sent out to Midwest farmers, cover crops are commonly associated with negative net returns (Plastina et al, 2018a), although this cited study did not observe an increase in yield following cover crops. This matches our results in crop-years where no yield increase was observed.…”

“…This inclusion makes each treatment produce greater gains than CP-NC. Plastina et al, (2018a) found that only Iowa farmers receiving payments from cost-sharing programs received net positive returns from CC use.…”