Responsibility to conserve

May 9, 2012

Brighton, Iowa

To the Editor:

Parts of the Midwest recently received heavy rain causing flooding and massive field erosion. Many farmers have ignored the conservation plans they agreed to years ago with the USDA. There is no penalty from the USDA for noncompliance, it was a good-faith agreement that many farmers now ignore. The penalty is in lost soil, extra fertilizer needed, fuel used tilling the soil and reduction in yields. Maybe people have forgotten what an extra 1 percent organic matter amounts to in the nitrogen, phosphorus and water-holding capacity of the soil. Organic matter improves microbial activity and reduces erosion.

I question if implement companies, fertilizer manufacturers or big oil are interested in promoting soil conservation. This would lower their profits, by farmers using less fuel, fertilizer and equipment. We spend money on the latest GPS systems and grid sample soil to save money and turn around and let our soil wash away.

One proposal from the USDA is to tie conservation plans to crop insurance. At first Farm Bureau was for it, then decided to be against it. Something has to be changed to force farmers to reduce erosion, because too many will not do it themselves. It would cost money for people to enforce compliance, but less money could be spent on other conservation practices because of reduced erosion. Conservation must be demanded to stop losing this irreplaceable natural resource and polluting our water.

We that work the land are only allowed to work the land for a short time. It is our responsibility to conserve and improve it for future generations.

Lyle Stacy