Significant environmental improvements and financial benefits are attainable in more ways than retiring farmland, according to a newly published study coordinated by the Land Stewardship Project.

Diversifying farm landscapes with perennial plants, multiple crop rotations, wetlands and other features can reap major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, erosion and nitrogen runoff, the study found. In turn, it can create habitat for wildlife and reduce downstream costs associated with sedimentation.

The study also found a willingness among Minnesotans to pay farmers for these benefits.

"This study shows when given the right incentives, farmers can provide the public a very positive return on their dollar," said Mark Schultz, policy program director of the Land Stewardship Project, a non-profit organization created in 1982 to foster an ethic of stewardship for farmland to promote sustainable agriculture and to develop sustainable communities.

The two-year study concentrated on a sub-watershed of the southwestern Chippewa River and on the southeastern Wells Creek watershed. Researchers included biologists, economists and rural sociologists from the University of Minnesota, Minnesota State University-Mankato, Bemidji State University and Iowa State University.

Analysts from the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy also participated.

Scientists and local watershed residents developed four land-use scenarios to predict the impact of various farming practices on environmental and economic health. The scenarios ranged from continuing intensive cultivation of corn and soybeans, to establishing diversified land management systems that include small grains, grasses and wetlands as part of working farms.

With modeling, researchers gauged the impact of the various scenarios on water quality, soil erosion rates, wildlife habitat, greenhouse gas emissions, and local economic/social systems. The degree of benefits varied based on a range of factors, including soils and topography. Benefits included:

• up to 31 percent less erosion when foregoing intensive tillage and allowing dead plant material to sit on top of soil;

• up to 80 percent less erosion and up to 36 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions on farmland that relies on perennial plant systems, such as rotational grazing of cattle;

• up to 84 percent lower downstream costs associated with sedimentation by switching to more diverse farming systems.

"Farming has a lot of untapped potential to produce various food and non-food benefits for society," said George Boody, Land Stewardship Project executive director. "That's an important message at a time when Congress is debating the future of farm policy that up until now has focused almost exclusively on producing mountains of raw material. Such a flawed policy assumes the only way to protect land in farm country is to idle it."

Study results support a conservation act approved recently by the U.S. Senate agriculture committee, Boody said. The act provides graduated payments based on the extent of land stewardship practiced. It also includes farmers already practicing conservation, who are excluded for the most part from current conservation programs.

The act still faces Senate approval.

"There's a pretty broad recognition that something is broken here," Schultz said. "Right now, federal farm policy produces cheap feed for factory farms, shuttered main streets and a host of environmental problems. That's a poor use of tax money."

Government subsidies for some crops and not others is a major disincentive for diversity and for the development of new food production enterprises, Schultz said.

"Right now there's really no reason for farmers to be interested in this," Boody said. "The Congress is still extremely focused on commodity payments, so there's a long way to go."

Some external factors might help change minds. Brazil and Argentina are likely in the future to undercut the U.S. with major commodities, especially soybeans, Boody said.

"This impact is yet to be felt because their infrastructure is just beginning to come on line in a more substantial way for moving their grain to market," Boody said. "If the price of soybeans really falls, then I think people are going to be absolutely needing to look at alternatives."

The study recommends paying farmers for public, environmental and social benefits produced on their farms, including those resulting from ongoing and newly adopted practices and farming systems. It also recommends graduating payments based on increasing levels of stewardship and on the benefits reaped.

In a statewide poll, Minnesotans on average expressed a willingness to pay an additional $201 per household annually for diversified land use and farming systems if benefits are specific and substantial, the study said.

"It does seem as though the public on average would be willing to pay more if they really knew what they were paying for," Boody said.

Boody believes enough money already exists in the farm program system to pay for these changes.

"It just isn't directed in the right way," Boody said.

The study recommends redirecting money from research, education, extension and conservation technical assistance to promote diversified farming and marketing systems.

Boody wants to see demonstration projects initiated in various states over the next few years to gather a base of research results for Congress and the public.

"What needs to happen here is more community participation with farmers, and vice versa," Boody said.

Additionally, more rural development funding is needed to create new markets, Boody said.

"You can't expect farmers to move out of what they're growing if they're not going to get any reward in the marketplace, or federal payment," Boody said.