Introduction

Midwest U.S. agriculture is increasingly dominated by specialization in both livestock and crop production. It is a reasonably developed (mature) industrial form of agriculture. We are not going to change that - at least in a short time frame. The challenge from the agroecological viewpoint is that systems currently being used are very simple and make limited use of a variety of resources that can benefit crop productivity and environmental quality.

There are two basic agricultural approaches to managing Iowa's land resource. The first is to homogenize the land area so that a single crop can be grown across the landscape. This is a bit extreme - we dominate with two crops and not one. Our dominant approach to using precision agricultural practices moves us in that direction. The other approach is to recognize the spatial variability that exists in the landscape and maximize use efficiency of those different environments. The site specific and precision management technology used for the first approach are well suited for this approach as well. My thoughts are to engage research on the second approach while keeping the current use of precision technology applied to appropriate areas. Keep in mind this does not take away any of the existing tools, products, or technologies currently being used. It is simply an approach to give additional tools to farmers that will help improve production efficiency and let us gain more from what resources we have. For example (only examples of current thinking), most of us know that selected areas in most fields lose money nearly every year with our two dominant crops. What can be done in those areas that might support environmental services, or that might reduce the risk of financial loss relative to what we currently do? Most of these areas can serve a purpose. Our task is to determine what that best purpose is.

We need to develop a map of Iowa's agroecological zones. We have good maps/knowledge of soils and some ecological zone studies based on these. However, superimposed on these are differences in rainfall patterns (there is some good data indicating relatively small areas within a county-sized area can consistently receive different precipitation amounts than other areas relatively close). The combination of different precipitation amounts for a given soil type may suggest alternative land uses (a different ecological zone) may be more profitable and environmentally suitable than a single system managed the same way traversing the area. Additionally, we need the GIS layers identifying spatial temperatures with time (localized areas are more susceptible to late spring and early fall freezing temperatures - often due to topography), expected sunlight throughout the year, and wind travel. All these factors influence crop production/land use and are spatially and temporally variable. In many cases they are relatively predictable. It seems wise to couple these with population centers, potential labor, and markets. The perfect soil, precipitation, temperatures, and growing season length for vegetable production does little good if these are located too far from both labor sources and markets. I'm not suggesting we should turn this state into a vegetable producer - just using that as an example (there are other important spatial relationships to consider including matching crops having high nutrient needs with locations of high manure volumes found at current hog production facilities). Based on these 'ecological' zones and potential uses, we can evaluate preferred uses of the state’s natural resources. In many situations, we may be at optimum. Others are probably a long ways from optimum.

We have some of the world's best soils and weather for agriculture. Yet, we use nearly every field for only one purpose - row crop production and this is used for only about 1/2 of the year. Can't we design systems so that we get multiple uses from the same parcel of land? To exemplify - can we not design multipurpose vegetative filters that serve a water quality purpose as well as other potential financial purpose. Can these be designed to enhance game bird production (pheasants for example) and ultimately increase potential to lease the field for hunting purposes? Closer to cities, might a riparian area with raspberries or other high value product, be developed for its environmental as well as economic value? We need to do a much better job of multiple complimentary uses of our land. I know some of these examples are rather unconventional, but we need to think outside the box more than we have in the past.

Spatial and temporal relationships between plant species and animal species are (or can be) very important as they affect production. Crop rotations or sequences, field wind breaks, vegetative filter strip designs, water ways, wetlands... all play a key role in determining the quantity of product removed from a field and the quality of water (and air) leaving the system. Our current agriculture marginally uses these tools. These need to become a greater 'player' in our systems. One of the major factors working against use of these tools is our current land ownership profile. Approximately 60% of all farmland in Iowa is rented. When a farmer rents land for one year, (s)he has little interest in planning cropping system designs that have spatial or temporal considerations since (s)he may not be farming the field in coming years. We need to study policies that influence absentee ownership and land rental as opposed to owning and farming a given piece of land. Owning and farming the land seems critical to increase longer range planning, something that goes beyond the knee-jerk reaction to farm bill policies.

Watershed planning needs to play a bigger role. We need to clearly delineate areas within a watershed/farm that are well suited for row crop production vs. alternative uses - for both environmental and economic reasons. Currently, we have areas with fields that annually lose money because of poor soil conditions. Yet, farmers tend to plant every year through these areas and 'hope for the best.' Other areas are environmentally sensitive and should be devoted to alternative uses - uses other than continuous row crops. Based on soils, precipitation, expected sunlight, and wind (the natural resources that influence production and environmental quality) we need to develop suitable options for these areas. Perhaps government policy will play a role. If that is necessary, we need to help guide its development.

Alternative uses involve risks. Based on production needs and ecological relationships – basically the things a plant or crop needs for optimum production – we need to rigorously determine production potential and production stability (or risk). Farmers will not, or should not, try something new if high risk is involved. Industry, likewise, will not venture into marketing new products or marketing in a new area if risks are too high or are unknown. Without a market, farmers cannot grow a new crop, even if it is ideally suited to the farmer needs. Without a guaranteed product, industry will not venture into an area. We need to bring both farmers and industry to the table together to discuss opportunities in which both players understand risks involved with any attempt to expand Iowa’s crop options. This can only be done if we have a scientifically based risk analysis for any proposed additions to, or changes in, current cropping systems. I am not suggesting that we decrease soybean or corn production, but expand options when and where those options will economically favor the farmer and environmentally favor the public. A risk analysis might also be a worthwhile consideration for both corn and soybeans across soil types in Iowa.

Farmers are some of the most creative, innovative, and intelligent people on earth. Our current systems of production are inherently simple, highly influenced by government policy, and seemingly 'fixed.' We need to find ways to promote farmer creativity in designing what is happening on the landscape. It is Iowa State University’s responsibility to deliver the tools that will allow farmers to do this. Currently, most Iowa farmers follow the same crop production 'recipe' from the same 'cookbook.' They buy their supplies from the same ‘company’, grow the same product, sell to the same market, and expect to make a good living in a business in which they intensively compete with each other for the same land resource. This model will not work. The doors of creativity need to be opened to let farmers make a living because they can do what they do better than anyone else.

Top of the page