Our current farm subsidy structure rewards worst practice measures. We should measure and reward a farm by its soil health. If your organic matter keeps getting better you should get subsidized . It is working opposite now. We are paying farmers to over work the land and decrease soil health because of the support those activities provide to communities in areas hard to make a living in like the southern plains.
Within this area we could come up with protocols and standards to genuinely help beginning farmers and ranchers. Right now they do not have a sustainable avenue for support. It is truly an economies of scale sport.
If a farmer rancher can identify and through skill correct limiting factors that hold their production back or keep cost high they should be rewarded somehow. We have got to spot light best practice behaviors.
The idea to shift farm subsidies toward rewarding soil health is a smart approach that could promote sustainable practices, improve long-term farm productivity, and reduce environmental damage. Incentivizing farmers to build organic matter and use regenerative techniques like cover cropping and no-till farming aligns subsidies with healthy land management rather than overworking the soil.
Supporting beginning farmers this way would also level the playing field, as the current system primarily benefits large-scale operations. However, implementing fair soil health metrics across diverse regions could be challenging, and there’s a risk of superficial compliance. To address this, subsidies should include long-term commitments and educational support for genuine best practices.
Overall, this policy could transform agriculture, but careful planning is needed to ensure it truly rewards sustainable efforts and supports new entrants.
I support the idea of shifting farm subsidies to reward soil health and encourage sustainable farming practices. This would incentivize methods like regenerative agriculture and help improve the long-term productivity of the land. A way to improve this proposal would be to include region-specific metrics that account for the unique challenges faced in different areas. Additionally, creating a network of education and mentorship for farmers transitioning to these practices would ensure that the subsidies promote meaningful, long-lasting changes in soil health management.
I have been endeavoring to improve the soil health in my gardens w/o buying mulch and haven’t had much luck yet. I’ve been adding more organic matter and cover crops. I believe the key is plant coverage. Nature detests bare soil,
The Bionutrient Food Association has done a lot of leading edge work in this area for some time. So they have a lot of practical experience on what works. See their Soil and Nutrition videos.
Saving the soils will correct climate issues. 1. Modern agriculture destroys the soils, 2. Regenerative Farming restores soils, 3. Healthy soils can reverse climate change. We need to reverse the desertification as they did in Maowusu Desert in China. Saving the soil created vast farmland, increased food production and sequestered vast amounts of CO2 via photosynthesis.
As drought resistant grasses are established, allowing cattle to roam and graze will expedite the generation of healthy topsoil. Credit David Munson from Dallas
I came here to propose just this. Currently, subsidy farming is degrading our soils and there is very little incentive for farmers to make the switch to healthy soil practices.
Excellent points. A strong peer to peer network to support farmers pre, peri, and post transition would be beneficial to the agricultural sector in many ways beyond improving practices.
“The present review is timely in combining the latest knowledge about the potential applications of H2 in the agriculture and food industry, from farm to fork.”
Here’s Gabe Brown doing a TED talk about his story moving to Regen practices. Almost lost it all, including his health/heart wrenching story with a great educational ending:
