Read or watch just about any media content and one will find someone promoting a specific type of production of crops or animals as a means to reduce the impacts of global warming, reduce energy usage, eliminate pests, or some other desirable impact. While some of these ideas may indeed be valid, a critical consideration should be that this type of production promoted may or may not work well in all regions of the world. This should seem obvious due to climatic variance and soil differences. However, it is actually a bit more complicated than one realizes.

As an example, use of cover crops has been shown to decrease soil erosion resulting in less nutrients and sediments reaching streams when used on lands with slopes. Too, correct use of cover crops can increase soil carbon, some can add nitrogen to the soil, create an environment for cooler soil temperatures, impact rainfall infiltration, and many more benefits. However, when used on lands that are essentially flat that have a warmer climate such as in this area, cover crops may actually increase the amount of soluble phosphorous and nitrogen into surface waters. Too, due to the rapid decomposition of the cover residue in this area, limited impacts, if any, are evident when measuring for increased soil carbon content. The point is that one needs to determine the actual goal before implementing some type production practice. One size does not fit all situations. Additionally, one needs to make sure this goal is attainable based on existing climatic and soil conditions.

From those promoting specific practices to those making governmental policy, the trend seems to encourage the use of “one practice” on all lands as a “fix” for some issue. This simply does not work. This is been demonstrated for decades and even shown that something as simple as measuring “soil health” does not work for all regions. Especially in our area, soils may show very poor signs of “soil health” using some of the testing standards. (Read more in the article, Soil Health:  What does It Mean In North Carolina ).   However, these soils may be highly productive soil. So again, one solutions or standard does not fit all situations and regions.

As another example, no-till production is promoted as one means to reduce energy consumption within agricultural production. This type of production may work great in soils with structure but within Eastern Carolina where soils are dominantly sand, even with incorporation of cover crops into a no-till or strip-till production may take decades to show any soil improvement or reduced energy consumption. As noted in the article, Why We Can’t Practice No-Till Forever, there are just too many assumptions by those making this suggestion that are incorrect.

Organic production is yet another highly promoted production practice. Various studies show advantages and disadvantages of organic verses conventional tillage and pesticide practices. No peer reviewed study can demonstrate an ultimately “better” practice when comparing organic versus conventional production. Organic will indeed generally provide less energy consumption on an acre basis. However, the yield on this acre is one third to one half of that of conventional. When examined on a yield basis, conventional systems are favored. Too, nitrogen is a very limited nutrient within organic production. Obtaining nitrogen requires use of bone meal, organic waste, or manure. There simply is not enough of this type of nitrogen source for mass production. In other words, should our regulations mandate a change to organic production, we can do so, but it will take at least twice as much land to maintain the same level of production. When considering this, the energy consumption is about the same as conventional. So once again, there is no ultimate solution.

This article was not written to promote or denounce any production system. Rather the intent is to point out that experts within production studies do indeed examine climatic factors, soil types, crop nutrient demands, nutrients cycles, environmental impacts, energy consumption, yield, and much more to make recommendations for production. There simply is no “one practice” that fits all regions and all crops. All systems of production have both positive and negative effects. One should rely upon these experts to provide us answers rather than promoting our own ideology and beliefs. If NC Extension can provide you assistance, please contact your local office.