The USDA has released results from an updated Conservation Effects Assessment Project, or CEAP, completed on the impacts of conservation adoption in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This project expanded on data collected by USDA and farmer surveys from 2003-06 whose results were released in early 2011.

CEAP was intended to quantify environmental impacts of conservation practices installed by producers. CEAP also took into account farmer surveys, natural resources information and modeling to estimate the impact of conservation practices on sediment and nutrient loading.

The original study gave a nice baseline for future studies; however, there was significant interest from bay stakeholders to update the information to reflect current impacts, many of which were brought about in recent years with the inclusion of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative administered by NRCS.

There are several take home points from the update that stand out.

Farmers had significant increases in adoption of structural practices controlling water erosion; grassed waterways, diversions and terraces as well as continued adoption of conservation tillage without reversion to conventional tillage and continued adoption of no-till for all crops.

Cover crop usage in some part of the rotation saw a huge increase, about 40 percent, from 12 to 52 percent across cropped acres in the bay. While government agencies have been doing a very good job of promoting the economic benefits of no-till and cover crops I highly suspect the drastic spike in fuel and fertilizer costs in 2008 was the biggest influence in adopting fuel and fertilizer saving practices.

Fertilizer and manure application is still a weak area in the watershed. Both nitrogen and phosphorus applications in fertilizer form increased during the time period and appropriate manure application declined. Manure application rates also increased.

My personal conclusion is adoption of no-till and cover crops are easy for farmers to accept. The time saved with planting in one pass and the reduced fuel consumption is visual confirmation these conservation practices work.

Cover crop adoption is easy to accept especially for dairy operations; you have an extra feed source, you have good weed control and you have time in the fall to get a cover crop in thanks to the huge acreage of silage cut each year.

Reductions in fertilizer and manure on the other hand are not so easy to accept. For one, most crop consultants work directly for or have ties to fertilizer companies and most recommendations are based on making fertilizer sales.

In addition, farmers are not properly accounting for manure nutrients when making fertilizer decisions because of the “what if”; what if my manure washed away? What if it gets dry over the summer? Many are very reluctant to take a chance and have yield impact. Government agencies need to promote the use of chlorophyll meters and plant tissue testing to show nutrient uptake by crops.

We also need to do a better job of promoting timely nutrient application. With the increase in organic matter and scavenged nitrogen and other nutrients from no-till and cover crops additional nutrient inputs should decrease; and soil and tissue tests should be taken on a routine basis to determine crop needs.

Even with the decrease in proper nutrient application there was still a very large decrease in nitrogen leaching and phosphorus runoff to water sources thanks to implemented conservation practices.

Overall this report is a big deal for the bay and conservation in general. It shows the money allocated by agencies through the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative are having an impact on water quality. This is good news for farmers. The initiative created by the 2008 Farm Bill was part of a larger one that also covers the Mississippi River Basin and while specific watersheds haven’t been targets locally, reports like this give encouragement that funding could come to the area.

Andy Gaver is a conservationist with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in Butler County.