Tag Archive for: Healthy Soil

Living Soils: The Role of Microorganisms in Soil Health

Author: Christopher Johns | Published: June 20, 2017 

Soil fertility comprises three interrelated components: physical fertility, chemical fertility and biological fertility. Biological fertility, the organisms that live in the soil and interact with the other components, varies greatly depending upon conditions and it is highly complex and dynamic. It is the least well-understood fertility component. In addition to soil fertility, soil microorganisms play essential roles in the nutrient cycles that are fundamental to life on the planet. Fertile soils teem with soil microbes. There may be hundreds of millions to billions of microbes in a single gram of soil. The most numerous microbes in soil are the bacteria, followed in decreasing numerical order by the actinomycetes, the fungi, soil algae and soil protozoa.

Analysis

Introduction

In July 2015, FDI published a Strategic Analysis Paper entitled Under Our Feet: Soil Microorganisms as Primary Drivers of Essential Ecological Processes. Since the publication of that article there has been a moderate trend toward the study of soils holistically rather than the detailed study of soil components in isolation.  Holistic study is particularly pertinent to an understanding of soil microbiology. Microorganisms are not only directly influenced by fundamental soil characteristics such as moisture, oxygen and chemistry but also by each other in both beneficial and predatory ways. By becoming holistically aware of the fundamental importance of soil organisms and then developing and understand how biological processes in soil are influenced by changes in the soil environment, we can learn how to manage soil in a way that enhances the benefits provided by soil organisms.

The information to follow draws largely from the referenced title above. It is present here to outline the complexity and variety of soil microbiology and to propose a more holistic approach to soil research and management.

Soil fertility, or its capacity to enrich natural and agricultural plants, is dependent upon three interacting and mutually dependent components: physical fertility, chemical fertility and biological fertility. Physical fertility refers to the physical properties of the soil, including its structure, texture and water absorption and holding capacity, and root penetration. Chemical fertility involves nutrient levels and the presence of chemical conditions such as acidity, alkalinity and salinity that may be harmful or toxic to the plant. Biological fertility refers to the organisms that live in the soil and interact with the other components. These organisms live on soil, organic matter or other soil organisms and perform many vital processes in the soil. Some of them perform critical functions in the nutrient and carbon cycles. Very few soil organisms are pests.

Of the three fertility components, it is the microbiological element, the rich diversity of organisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and algae that form interactive microbial communities, that are the most complex and, paradoxically, the least well-understood. A near decade-long collaboration between the CSIRO and the Bio-platforms Australia company ranks the understanding of soil microbial communities as important as mapping the galaxies in the universe or the biodiversity of the oceans. It provides an opportunity to discover new species currently unknown to science. Soil microbial communities underpin the productivity of all agricultural enterprises and are primary drivers in ecological processes such as the nutrient and carbon cycling, degradation of contaminants and suppression of soil-borne diseases. They are also intimately involved in a range of beneficial and, at times essential, interrelationships with plants.

Definition

Soil microbiology is the study of organisms in soil, their functions and how they affect soil properties. Soil microorganisms can be classified as bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi, algae, protozoa and viruses. Each of these groups has different characteristics that define the organisms and different functions in the soil it lives in. Importantly, these organisms do not exist in isolation; they interact and these interactions influence soil fertility as much or more than the organism’s individual activities.

KEEP READING ON FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

Soil Networks Become More Connected and Take up More Carbon As Nature Restoration Progresses

Authors: Elly Morriën and S. Emilia Hannula | Published: February 8, 2017 

Many ecosystems worldwide face exposure to intensified human use1,2,3, which has resulted in loss of biodiversity4, altered functioning5and altered provisioning of ecosystem services6. The abandonment of disturbed land represents one of the most widely used restoration strategies implemented at a global scale7, with the potential to promote biodiversity, and associated ecosystem services. However, the restoration of natural ecosystem functioning and soil properties is known to be a long-term process7,8, dependent upon the time it takes to restore connections between different components of the community9. Over half a century ago, Odum10 identified mechanistic linkages between the successional dynamics of natural communities and the functioning of natural ecosystems. Specifically, as communities progress through succession, diversity is expected to increase and nutrients will become ‘locked-up’ in the biota, with consequences for the build-up of soil organic matter and closure of the mineral cycles10. More recently, the interplay between aboveground and belowground biodiversity has emerged as a prominent determinant of the successional dynamics in biological communities11. However, little is known about how changes in the soil biota contribute to the associated changes in ecosystem functioning.

In ecosystems undergoing secondary succession, it is evident that available nitrogen diminishes, primary productivity decreases and the plant community shifts from fast- to slow-growing plant species12. There is less evidence of an increase of soil biodiversity13, and evidence of a relationship between soil biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is mixed, at best5,13,14,15. As a result, it is still unclear how soil and plant community composition relate to each other and what is the relative role of plants and soil biota in driving soil processes and plant community development12,17.

Interestingly, studies on a time series (chronosequence) of abandoned arable fields revealed that carbon and nitrogen mineralization by the soil food web increases during secondary succession18. This implies a more active soil microbial community in later successional stages19,20,21where bacterial-dominated systems are expected to be replaced by fungal-dominated systems22 with more carbon turnover via fungi23 and their consumers24. However, data to test these assumptions are largely lacking. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to examine how biodiversity, composition and structure of the soil community change during successional development of restored ecosystems.

We used a well-established chronosequence of nature restoration sites on ex-arable, formerly cultivated, lands that represent over 30 years of nature restoration. We determined biodiversity of almost all taxonomic groups of soil biota, analysed their network structure and added labelled carbon dioxide and mineral nitrogen to intact plant–soil systems in order to track their uptake by the soil food web. We tested the hypothesis that functional changes in carbon and nitrogen flows relate more strongly to the belowground community network structure than to belowground biodiversity.

We analysed variations in species co-occurrence and considered enhanced correlations as network tightening, which we define as a ‘significant increase in percentage connectance and an increase in the strong correlations as a percentage of all possible correlations’25. Our results reveal increased tightening and, therefore, connectance, of the belowground networks during nature restoration on the ex-arable land. A combination of correlation-based network analysis and isotope labelling shows that soil network tightening corresponds with enhanced efficiency of the carbon uptake in the fungal channel of the soil food web, without an increase in the total amount of soil biodiversity or in fungal-to-bacterial biomass ratios. For nitrogen, the non-microbial species groups revealed a similar pattern as for carbon. Tightening of the networks reflects stronger co-occurring patterns of variation in soil biota25. Increased carbon and nitrogen uptake capacity by the fungal channel in the soil food web can be explained by stronger co-occurrence of preys and their predators24, which enhances the efficiency of resource transfer in the soil food web compared with a soil food web where preys and predators are spatially isolated.

KEEP READING ON NATURE.COM

The Most Neglected Threat to Public Health in China Is Toxic Soil

Published: June 8, 2017 

Tang Donghua, a wiry 47-year-old farmer wearing a Greenpeace T-shirt, smokes a cigarette and gesticulates towards his paddy fields in the hills of southern Hunan province. The leaves of his rice plants poke about a foot above water. Mr Tang says he expects to harvest about one tonne of rice from his plot of a third of a hectare (0.8 acres) near the small village of Shiqiao. There is just one problem: the crop will be poisoned.

Egrets and damselflies chomp lazily on fish and insects in the humid valley below the paddy fields. But just beyond this rural scene lurks something discordant. Mr Tang points to a chimney around 2km away that belches forth white smoke. It belongs to the smelting plant which he blames for bringing pollution into the valley. Cadmium is released during the smelting of ores of iron, lead and copper. It is a heavy metal. If ingested, the liver and kidneys cannot get rid of it from the body, so it accumulates, causing joint and bone disease and, sometimes, cancer.

Hunan province is the country’s largest producer of rice—and of cadmium. The local environmental-protection agency took samples of Mr Tang’s rice this year and found it contained 50% more cadmium than allowed under Chinese law (whose limits are close to international norms). Yet there are no limits on planting rice in polluted areas in the region, so Mr Tang and his neighbours sell their tainted rice to the local milling company which distributes it throughout southern China. Mr Tang has sued the smelter for polluting his land—a brave act in China, where courts regularly rule in favour of well-connected businesses. His is an extreme case of soil contamination, one of the largest and most neglected problems in the country.

Soil contamination occurs in most countries with a lot of farmland, heavy industry and mining. In Ukraine, for example, which has all three, about 8% of the land is contaminated. A chemical dump in upstate New York called Love Canal resulted in the poisoning of many residents and the creation of the “superfund”, a federal programme to clean up contaminated soil. But the biggest problems occur in China, the world’s largest producer of food and of heavy industrial commodities such as steel and cement.

China’s smog is notorious. Its concentrations of pollutants—ten or more times the World Health Organisation’s maximum safe level—have put clean air high on the political agenda and led the government to curtail the production and use of coal. Water pollution does not spark as much popular outrage but commands the attention of elites. Wen Jiabao, a former prime minister, once said that water problems threaten “the very survival of the Chinese nation”. China has a vast scheme to divert water from its damp southern provinces to the arid north.

Dishing the dirt

Soil pollution, in contrast, is buried: a poisoned field can look as green and fertile as a healthy one. It is also intractable. With enough effort, it is possible to reduce air or water pollution, though it may take years or decades. By contrast, toxins remain in the soil for centuries, and are hugely expensive to eradicate. It took 21 years and the removal of 1,200 cubic metres of soil to clean up the Love Canal, a site covering just 6.5 hectares.

China’s soil contamination is so great that it cannot adopt such a course (see map). The country is unusual in that it not only has many brownfield sites (contaminated areas near cities that were once used for industry) but large amounts of polluted farmland, too. In 2014 the government published a national soil survey which showed that 16.1% of all soil and 19.4% of farmland was contaminated by organic and inorganic chemical pollutants and by metals such as lead, cadmium and arsenic. That amounts to roughly 250,000 square kilometres of contaminated soil, equivalent to the arable farmland of Mexico. Cadmium and arsenic were found in 40% of the affected land. Officials say that 35,000 square kilometres of farmland is so polluted that no agriculture should be allowed on it at all.

Stick in the mud

This survey is controversial. Carried out in 2005-13, it was at first classified as a state secret, leading environmentalists to fear that the contamination might be even worse than the government let on. Not everyone, however, is as pessimistic. Chen Tongbin, head of the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research in Beijing, thinks the figure of 19.4% is too high. Based on local studies, he says 10% is nearer the mark. Even that would be a worrying figure, given that China is trying to feed a fifth of the world’s population on a tenth of the world’s arable land. The conclusion seems to be that China’s soil pollution is widespread and that information about it is disturbingly unreliable.

There are three reasons why the contamination is so extensive. First, China’s chemical and fertiliser industries were poorly regulated for decades and the soil still stores the waste that was dumped on it for so many years. In 2015, for example, 10,000 tonnes of toxic waste was discovered under a pig farm in Jiangsu province in the east of China after a businessman proposed plans to build a warehouse on the plot and tested the soil. In 2004 construction workers on the Beijing metro suddenly fell ill when they started tunnelling under a site previously occupied by a pesticide factory.

KEEP READING ON THE ECONOMIST 

Rodale Institute Launches Organic Industrial Hemp Research

Date Published: June 12, 2017 

Rodale Institute, the nation’s leading organic farming research institution, has started a new industrial hemp research project focused on examining the crop’s role in soil health and regenerative organic agriculture.

The PA Department of Agriculture Industrial Hemp Pilot Project granted 16 permits for research. It is the first time in 80 years that hemp will be grown legally in Pennsylvania. Rodale Institute was one of the permit recipients. Industrial hemp, a versatile plant grown for its fiber, seed or oil, was a valuable cash crop and a major industry in Pennsylvania for more than 260 years. Due to its close relationship to the marijuana plant, hemp production became a casualty of a 1933 law banning marijuana, and was later named a Schedule 1 drug by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. However, changes made to the 2014 Federal Farm Bill now allow for hemp to be grown for research purposes by departments of agriculture or institutions of higher education.

Rodale Institute’s multi-year hemp research project is being partially funded by a generous contribution of $100,000 from Dr. Bronner’s. Overall cost of the project is projected to be $75,000-100,000 per year.

“We have the utmost respect for the values and mission of the Rodale Institute, and the paramount work they are pursuing to scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of regenerative agriculture and organic farming,” said David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner’s. “Their new foray into hemp cultivation will reveal important data about the crop’s role in the sustainable agriculture systems of the future, furthering the evidence that hemp farming should be legalized throughout the U.S. so that all farmers can benefit from hemp’s economic and environmental opportunities.”

An additional $5,000 pledge of support for Rodale Institute’s hemp research was made by Nutiva’s CEO and founder John Roulac to contribute to the overall cost of the research. Roulac announced the donation at Hemp Industries Association’s Hemp History Week event, held at the Rodale Institute farm on June 5. Hemp History week ran June 5-11, 2017.

“This is an exciting venture for Rodale Institute, as we explore the implications that industrial hemp could have for organic farmers,” said Jeff Moyer, executive director of Rodale Institute. “This could give us an opportunity to expand farmers crop rotation, while helping farmers combat weed pressure, improve soil health, and sequester carbon. For us, it all comes back to healthy soil and regenerative organic agriculture. We know that Healthy Soil= Healthy Food= Healthy People and a Healthy Planet.”

KEEP READING ON BCTV.ORG 

Tilling Best Left to Mother Nature

Published: May 8, 2017 

Whether talking to farmers in France, Ghana or southern Ohio, Rafiq Islam’s message is consistent: Tilling the land does more long-term damage than good.

As an Ohio State University soil scientist, Islam is among the disciples in the movement to convince farmers that plowing their fields before they plant or after they harvest harms the health of the soil and its ability to spur growth and resist erosion.

Soil plowed repeatedly can lose key ingredients that enrich it, including carbon, which can evaporate as carbon dioxide gas into the air.

Left undisturbed, soil can maintain that carbon, and the dry decaying stalks in an untilled field add to the organic materials in the dirt.

After crops such as soybeans or corn are picked, a farmer can plant a cover crop in a field instead of plowing it. The cover crop keeps the soil porous and contributes carbon to it, Islam said.

Land left bare is more susceptible to erosion and cannot absorb water from rain or snow as efficiently as when cover crops are planted on it.

Earlier this spring, Islam was part of a team of soil specialists who traveled to France to present four workshops on climate change, soil health, cover crops and no-till farming, sponsored by two farm organizations in France.

More workshops are planned for the summer in Ukraine and China, in the fall in Uzbekistan, and in the winter in Ghana.

In most parts of the world, the majority of farmers regularly plow. So it’s not easy to convince longtime conventional farmers or even younger farmers not to plow their land, said Islam, who is the soil, water and bioenergy program leader at Ohio State’s South Centers in Piketon.

“You try to open their eyes by showing them the actual field results and demonstrating the user-friendly field tests and tools,” Islam said. “It’s tough. Farmers are businessmen. Some don’t want to take risks.”

To many, tilling makes sense. Running a disk or plow through the land breaks up the soil and helps mix in fertilizer to ready the field for new seeds.

But, Islam and other proponents of no-till and cover crop farming said, plowing the land can kill some of the crucial beneficial microorganisms in the soil.

Even on fields crowded with the dry remains of last season’s crop, new seeds can be sown using drill attachments to planters. And the root system of cover crops helps break up the soil to make room for the roots of newly planted seeds.

KEEP READING ON LANCASTER FARMING

Carbon Farming & Cutting Food Waste: Climate Solutions That Don’t Require Trump’s Buy-in

Author: Twilight Greenaway | Published: June 5, 2017 

Donald Trump’s recent decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate has many wringing their hands. But Paul Hawken doesn’t have time for despair. In fact, the veteran author and entrepreneur has spent the last several years working with a team of scientists and policy experts to map and quantify a set of climate solutions he says have the power to draw down the carbon in the atmosphere and radically alter our climate future. And he’s confident that many of these efforts will continue to take place with or without government buy-in.

Hawken’s new book, Drawdown, illuminates 100 of the most effective of these solutions and points to food and agriculture as hugely important when it comes to both sequestering current greenhouse gases and releasing fewer of them in the first place. From composting and clean cookstoves to managed grazing and multistrata agroforestry, Drawdown makes a compelling case for radically changing the way we eat, farm, and tend to the land. Civil Eats spoke to Hawken about the book, the surprising role food has come to play among climate optimists, and his advice on how to keep our eyes open while imagining the future of our planet.

Can you tell us about what you wanted to do with this book and how food plays a role in the picture it paints?

We mapped, measured, and modeled the most substantive solutions to reversing global warming. We didn’t have a horse in the race. We may have biases, I’m sure we do, but our process and methodology was to eliminate bias and just to look at [the solutions] from the point of peer-reviewed science in terms of the carbon impact.

There are only two things you can do really with respect to the atmosphere, which is to stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and then bring them back home. There’s nothing else. Some solutions—like land use solutions—do both.

We didn’t go into it knowing what would be the biggest sector. Or even what would be the top five or 10. We went in very open-ended and it turns out food is eight of the top 20 suggestions.

You ranked the solutions in terms of potential impact. Number three is reduced food waste and number four is the shift to “a plant-rich diet.” Why then, do you think food and ag are so rarely a part in the mainstream conversation about climate change?

My guess as to why food and land-use solutions have been marginalized and even ignored is because of the way solutions have been approached by climate scientists. Estimates vary, but at least 65 percent of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are due to combustion of fossil fuels, so it is easy to come to the conclusion that replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy is the biggest solution.

One of the reasons reducing food waste ranks high is because most of the food that is discarded ends up in landfills where it is buried in an anaerobic environment causing methane emissions, which are 34 times more potent in their greenhouse warming potential compared to CO2. A plant-rich diet reduces the consumption of animal protein, and the production of meat—whether grass fed or in CAFOs—is also a very significant source of methane.

And finally, there is agriculture itself, another source of significant emissions as practiced by conventional and industrial agriculture. Tillage removes carbon, mineral fertilizers create another potent greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, glyphosate sterilizes soil life creating emissions, monocultures expose the soil to sun and heat, an emission cause, etc.

When you change these three practices, and cultivate types of sustainable food production techniques, like system of rice intensification and agroforestry, it turns out that food has a greater potential to help reverse global warming than the energy sector. That’s also due to the fact that land use can sequester carbon, whereas renewable energy simply avoids carbon emissions.

However, your question stands. Why did we not look at this more closely sooner? That is a mystery at Project Drawdown. These data, math, and conclusions detailed in Drawdown could have been calculated and disseminated a long time ago. The science these calculations are based on has been known for a long time.

Food is seen as inherently personal. Do you think the urgency about the climate has the potential to get more people thinking about food on a systems level?

I tend to think of food as more cultural than personal. In the U.S., subsidies have allowed people the ability to eat large quantities of expensive foods, like milk and meat. In most countries, the true cost of these items limits the stroke and heart-disease outcomes we have in the U.S. I believe people move toward healthier food because of their own needs and understandings, not because of the climate impact.

What we see in our research is that regenerative practices (in many areas besides food) are increasing because they work better, are less expensive, create greater productivity, can be locally sourced, create meaningful jobs, enhance human health, engender community, and much more. In other words, making choices that are better for your body, the soil, workers, your children, and your community are almost invariably practices that reverse global warming.

Let’s talk about the term “regenerative.” I’ve heard from several folks in the organic community who worry that another label will confuse consumers. Why did you choose to highlight regenerative agriculture vs. organic? 

KEEP READING ON CIVIL EATS 

Adding Animals Adds Profit, Organic Matter for North Dakota Farm

Author: Laurie Bedord | Date Published: May 31, 2017 

The quality of food Paul Brown raises hinges on the quality of the soil on which it is grown.

“When my parents purchased the farm from my grandfather in 1991, the soil’s organic matter ranged from 1.7% to 1.9%,” he says. “Four years of crop failure and nearly going broke got my dad thinking outside the box. He began growing multispecies crops, expanding crop rotation, and eventually growing cover crops to diversify and build the soil’s resiliency.”

From a very young age, cattle were part of life on the farm for Brown. “We always had about 250 pairs grazing the land, and we marketed directly to consumers,” he says.

It wasn’t until he returned to the farm in 2010, after graduating from North Dakota State University, that the idea for diversifying this part of the business also took shape.

“These soils developed over thousands of years with grazing animals rotating throughout the landscape,” says the 29-year-old. “The longer we can keep land and livestock integrated, the healthier our soils will be. If we can mimic the template nature laid out for us, we will continue to build the resilience back into the ecosystem that was damaged.”

HENS AND MORE

His first year back, Brown invested in 100 laying hens, which follow cattle on pasture. A mobile chicken coop serves as a place for the birds to lay eggs, roost, and take refuge at night.

“I started with hens because they are relatively low cost,” he says. “Since I had never raised hens before, I wouldn’t have gone broke if it was a complete debacle.”

Grazing is supplemented with grain by-products. “We do some grain cleaning and sell cover crop seed. Those screenings are fed to the hens. We are turning a waste product into eggs we can sell. Once you start to build enterprises that are feeding off each other, that is where a lot of profitability comes in,” Brown says.

Looking to find a market for his eggs, he connected with a local CSA (community supported agriculture) group.

“I was exposed to 125 potential customers,” he says. “Most of them ended up buying from me and still do. It was a great product to introduce to customers because they are willing to pay $5 for a dozen eggs.”

Today, his flock has grown to over 1,000 laying hens. Once customers realized how good the eggs were, demand grew for other offerings.

“In 2013, I added hair sheep. I started with 20 ewe lambs and a ram,” he says. “I am up to 150 ewes now. A year later, I added six sows and a boar and have 25 Berkshire and Tamworth sows farrowing out today. Pigs are raised on pasture and fed non-GMO grains grown on the ranch.”

Integrating a variety of animals has flourished into a successful business. It has also paid dividends in bolstering organic matter, which is close to 7% today.

“Knowing what I know now, I think I can reach 12% by the time I retire,” Brown says.

KEEP READING ON SUCCESSFUL FARMING

California Today: To Fight Climate Change, Heal the Ground

Author: Mike McPhate | Published: May 30, 2017 

The climate change fight has focused largely on cutting emissions.

But California is now considering another solution: dirt.

Whereas an overabundance of carbon in the air has been disrupting our climate, plants are hungry for the stuff.

The Central Valley’s farmlands essentially operate as a vast lung, breathing in carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and converting it into plant tissues. That results in less of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere.

But the healthier the soil, the more carbon is stored in plants.

Enter California’s Healthy Soils Initiative, a statewide program rolling out this summer that is the first of its kind in the country.

“I think there’s a growing recognition that the soil beneath our feet has huge potential to sequester carbon,” said Karen Ross, secretary of the state’s Department of Food and Agriculture.

More than a quarter of California’s landmass is used for agriculture. Over generations, farming practices like monocropping and tillage have reduced the amount of organic matter in the soil, affecting plant growth. Some of that organic matter, which contains carbon, needs to be put back.

KEEP READING ON THE NEW YORK TIMES 

Saving America’s Broken Prairie

Author:   | Published: April 26, 2017 

Out near wear the continent divides, up on a ridge carved by ice over millennia, among blazing star, blue aster, purple prairie clover, harebell, and smooth brome — grasses all yet untouched by the plow — Neil Shook balls up some purple pasqueflower, shoves it into his nostril, and snorts.

He loves to do this.

“Mash it up really good,” Shook says as he hands me a piece of flower. “Really good.” And I, too, shove pasqueflower up my nose and snort.

“Did you get it?” Shook asks. I do. It’s a burn that is supposed to be just the thing for clearing a stuffy sinus, and while I’m not yet a convert, I get Shook’s larger point, too: This plain land is home to strange and wild life.

Shook is the manager at Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge, a 4,385-acre expanse of federally protected grasslands and wetlands in east-central North Dakota. Each year, tens of thousands of pelicans, cormorants, gulls, herons, and others come here to nest, and I’ve come to learn more about a place Shook calls “heaven.”

On this stretch of grass, he bounces from plant species to grass species with a boyish exuberance that defies his years of work toward conserving America’s grassy core — a battle that has been, by almost every measure, a losing one.

This is as good an entry point as any into the complex, highly altered and highly threatened ecosystem that stretches some 1.4 million square miles down central Canada and through the U.S. heartland down to Mexico. Shove pasqueflower up your nose. Touch the grass as it waves in the wind. Hear the insects’ blanket drone. There is no etymological connection between “prairie” and “prayer,” but at times it seems there ought to be.

“Every plant out here has a purpose, and every animal or insect that’s found here has purpose,” Shook says. “There’s a relationship between those plants and animals, and we don’t understand what that relationship is — or we may not understand the importance of it — but it’s there for a reason. And when it’s gone, who knows what we lost?”

I went to North Dakota to see what I thought was the region’s defining story: The shale oil boom and bust that has reshaped the heartland’s economy and upended energy geopolitics just about everywhere. But it turns out that oil is just one part of a great transformation now underway in North America’s Great Plains and Central Lowlands, the likes of which has not been seen since the Dust Bowl. A biome that can be, in some spots, every bit as diverse and complex as a rainforest sits in the country’s backyard, and it’s coming undone.

This is flyover country. It’s easy to view North Dakota’s unending flatness as boring, empty, untamed. There’s a long tradition of seeing the prairie — this vast stretch of fertile, grass-dominated land — as negative space with no purpose other than to be transformed into something with purpose.

The famed naturalist Aldo Leopold saw it differently. “Prairie was, in fact, a community of wild animals and plants so organized,” he wrote, “as to build, through the centuries, the rich soil which now feeds us.”

In other words, all that pasqueflower, ragwort, indigo, and milkweed — all those bison, prairie dogs, pronghorns, daphnia, water boatmen, and eared grebes — have lived and died across the millennia, cycling nutrients from sun to leaves to soil to flesh and back into soil again. The soil that remains is packed with deep energy we turn into food for ourselves and the animals that feed us. Increasingly, this old, flat land provides fossil fuels, wind, and corn that we turn into modern energy and use in our homes and cars.

The prairie’s commodification has served as a tremendous boon to civilization, but not without costs. The grasslands of central North America have declined by approximately 79 percent in area since Europeans began arriving in large numbers in the early 1800s, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. In some places — particularly in the wetter, and more fertile, eastern tallgrass prairies — grassland cover has declined 99.9 percent since 1830.

It turns out that oil is just one part of a great transformation now underway in North America’s Great Plains and Central Lowlands.

“Every plant out here has a purpose, and every animal or insect that’s found here has purpose,” Shook says.

New pressures threaten to wipe out what’s left. Budgets for federal conservation programs are being cut. President Trump’s budget proposal would reduce Interior Department spending by 12 percent. Biofuel mandates, farm subsidies, and crop insurance give farmers incentive to put more land into production. Genetically modified seeds give them the technology to grow crops where they previously could not. An emergent middle class in China and across the developing world increases demand for the kinds of row crops that can feed nations. Oil production has creeped in from the west, spurred on by the fracking revolution, though low oil prices have tempered its advance. Wind power takes up space, too.

Throw climate change into the mix and it’s no wonder scientists call the American prairie one of the most threatened ecosystems on the planet.

“I’m always amazed that I can get on an airplane, pick up the [in-flight] magazine and have someone tell me about the crisis in the rainforest,” says John Devney, vice president for U.S. policy at Delta Waterfowl, a habitat conservation group focused on hunting. “Nobody tells this story,” he adds, gesturing to the grasslands behind him at a ranch outside Wing, North Dakota. “This is way more proximate to a hell of a lot of more people in the United States of America. What happens here in land use has implications — not just if you’re a duck hunter and you want to shoot a gadwall in Louisiana that’s produced in Sheridan County, North Dakota. It has implications [for] what’s happening in the Gulf of Mexico. It has consequences [for] what’s happening in Sioux Falls — with water quality, carbon sequestration values, [and] incredible biodiversity richness.”

The tension here is between maintaining the capacity to feed billions of people and maintaining the land that makes it possible. Soil is considered a finite resource, and can be revived only if given the time and space. Conservation science and holistic land management practices can help, but they compete with economics and policies that encourage liberal use of the plow.

When Neil Shook arrived at Chase Lake in 2010, he started seeing plumes of smoke on the horizon. Commodity prices were rising rapidly, and landowners rushed to convert as many acres as possible into agriculturally productive land. First they burned the grass, then they plowed the land and planted it with corn, soybean, or other crops. By 2013, it looked like “the apocalypse,” he recalls. “It was just like somebody dropped a nuke,” Shook says. “Just ‘boom.’”

It’s called “breaking” prairie when farmers turn grassland into cropland. And once broken, the prairie is hard to fix.

KEEP READING ON UNDARK

“Carbon Farming” Offers New Chance for Cattle Ranch

Author: Deborah Sullivan Brennan | Published: May 12, 2017 

he cattle herds at Santa Ysabel Ranch have provided meat and milk for centuries, and now they’re on the cutting edge of a new kind of agriculture: carbon farming.

By bunching cattle together and grazing them intensively for short periods, ranchers hope to restore grasslands and soil, and capture carbon from the atmosphere. In the ideal scenario, the operation could sequester more carbon than it produces, offsetting greenhouse gas emissions from cars or electric power.

If it sounds counterintuitive that grass-munching cows could beef up vegetation, or that cattle ranching — often criticized for its deep carbon footprint — could be a climate solution, Kevin Muno and his partner Jarod Cauzza aim to prove otherwise.

Through their company, Land of Milk and Honey, they’re conducting an experiment on the back country ranch in what they call regenerative agriculture, a process that aims to improve the area’s ecology. And they’re betting they can turn a profit doing it.

“We want to build soil, have more wildlife, have more cattle and more money for the families” working the land, Muno said.

They plan to sell grass-fed beef online, and eventually add other livestock to the operation. For now, they’re developing the system, which they hope will be a template for other ranches in the county.

The Resource Conservation District of Greater San Diego County received a $10,000 grant to develop a carbon farming plan with the ranchers that could guide similar efforts throughout the county, said executive director Sheryl Landrum. With more than 5,000 small farms and 208,564 acres of range land, San Diego could employ carbon farming to help meet its climate goals.

“We’re hoping that through this plan we might have something tangible for other agencies and other interested parties,” Landrum said.

KEEP READING ON THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE