Q1. Can you start by explaining your role within the USDA and what you do?
Yes, my name is Alan Franzluebbers, I work on the USDA agricultural research service as a soil ecologist. I do primarily solely research, no extension or teaching. It’s a research organisation currently based in Georgia, and I’m expecting to be transferred soon to North Carolina. Its role is to investigate natural resources issues pertinent to stakeholders within south-eastern US region. Some of the topics that I investigate are conservation tillage, conservation agriculture, managed grazing on pasture lands and specifically the response of soil organic matter be they chemical, physical, biological. And those responses are then of course related to water quality, climate change.
Q2. Can you give us a global overview on the state of CT in the US – is it something that’s widely implemented or esoteric?
Indeed we have a large country and I would say that it’s a lot, it impacts in many regions in the country, certainly not all – in general we used to have agencies that kept statistics on this but apparently we’re not allowed to, or we don’t have the funding for this – we don’t have the latest statistics on a national level, but at least when those data were still collected, in the US we were at 37% of the land was under some form of conservation agriculture.
Q3. What factors make some land more taken up with CT, why do some farmers choose it over others – what specificities characterise this 37%?
My response from my perspective and my experience – if you interview a farmer or producer their response might be different. Their main issues are typically labour ability – more done taking less time, and I heard that cost savings – not spending as much on their operations with CT practice. From a research, natural resources management perspective, we are focussed more on controlling soil erosion, limiting water quality deterioration. Building up soil biological activity, all of those things are of more importance from our perspective as a researcher.
Q4. What about the preservation of soil carbon? Is that at all a factor that is taken into consideration?
Yes, sure when I mentioned soil biological activity that includes soil carbon is definitely a part of that; without soil carbon there would be no soil biological activity. We can document many cases where carbon can be stored at greater rates under CT than under regular conversion-type techniques.
Q5. Would it be something put forward as an argument to convince people to take up CT or is it more of a peripheral benefit?
Yes, it’s peripheral at this stage, but in the future there will be carbon markets and the US$ sign behind some of these things, there is always a diversity in responses. 10% of our population would vote for Ron Paul, the presidential candidate, so 10% of the farmers will also believe that carbon sequestration is a key factor that will make them change, but in general it’s not a main driver.
Q6. Are there agricultural policies or subsidies that promote the use of CT?
Yes in the farming programmes we have conservation stewardship programmes launched under the USDA natural resouce conservation service. They administer those programs and there is an association with the farm service agency that carries them out, manages them financially. The conservation stewardship programme allows a producer to implement conservation strategies and receive a payment for those strategies.
Q7. I understand you’ve also been involved in a research alliance – the GRA with INRA from France?
This is a relatively new alliance, we have 32 member countries, it’s a voluntary organisation among countries that have agreed to work together. It’s moving relatively slowly, expected to get external funding, each country is contributing what they can. The issue behind it is to look at carbon sequestration but in more general terms greenhouse gas emissions, so carbon is one part of it but also nitrous oxide and methane emissions are another part.
Q8. How would you describe the research you’re conducting in particular with France? What aspects are you studying, for example?
We have 3 research groups right now in the Global Research Alliance, one is the cropland research group, the other is livestock research group, the third one is paddy rice research group. We also have 2 cross-cutting groups, one on inventories and measurements, another on carbon-nitrogen modelling. The research focus depends on whether it’s croplands or livestock; in livestock emissions such as methane from the animals are important, also nitrous oxide from manure and its mineralisation and de-nitrification that leads to nitrous oxide emissions. For the croplands research group, we’re essentially trying to catalogue the recommended management practices, those that will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product output, whether that’s grain or some sort of product that was harvested from the cropland.
Q9. Is the eventual interest of this research to encourage the adoption of CT techniques among GRA countries?
You mean is the alliance used to promote CT? I think I’m not sure that I can answer that fully, that’s not the real intent of the alliance, I would say that individual member scientists might have that as part of their thinking? But I don’t think that’s it’s the overall goal, not the overarching motivation for the alliance.
Q10. We noticed there’s a huge gap/difference in the takeup rate of CT between countries like the US and others in Latin America versus places like France where it’s something that’s artisanal, taken up on an individual level. We’re curious about the mechanisms that lead to this difference in distribution. We were wondering if from your perspective, since you’ve been involved in cross-crountry research alliance if you’d have some perspective, observation on this.
I know that in the areas of Europe that have good precipitation, good soils, mild climate, CA is generally not used at all. In the more marginal regions, where it’s more arid, there’s a good adoption of CA, and there are other regions where it’s more adopted because of harsh conditions – one of the benefits of conservation agriculture is of course to allow more moisture to be used by the crops. In a more arid climate this is one of the great benefits of conservation agriculture.
Q11. Is this the same pattern that you see in the US – is it in regions that would be harder to cultivate otherwise that CT is more taken up?
Yes, I think that’s generally true. In our southeastern region we have really relatively high precipitation but we also have a very warm climate, so we actuall have moisture deficits. We would expect to have higher CA adoption but so it’s not just the climatic motivation, it’s also the cultural limitation. Not a limitation, but it’s a cultural bias that occurs, some producers are more traditional than others.
Q12. The use of pesticides – according to your understanding of the CT model, is there an increased use of pesticides when CT is adopted or is that not necessarily the case?
I don’t know that for sure, but in my understanding, there are different herbicides, different chemicals that are used. Overall, I don’t believe that there would be any more chemicals used in CA, no. It relies on chemicals for weed control, primarily, but one could argue that there is perhaps more reliance on chemicals, but in fact there are organic producers in the eastern US that are highly interested in the concept of this reduced tillage and using cover crops to manage weed without tillage. And so there’s a blending of the two perspectives.
Q13. So on balance, would you say that CT is a more environmentally friendly practice, or does the increased use of pesticide in some cases turn the balance against that?
I think we have to have a fairly large perspective on that, in that there are large areas of land that are cultivated and exposed to erosion, and the damage that can occur from massive movements of sediment far outweighs the relatively low risk of chemicals moving off of the land in CA. Farmers don’t apply chemicals to damage the environment, that’s not their intent. There are escapes of the chemicals to the environment, and when possible they’ll try to limit that. That’s where research comes in and we have to do our best job of understanding the system. But in general I would say that actually on balance the chemical usage by CA saves a lot more environmental degradation than pure cultivation, and that cultivation is not necessarily organic, without pesticides either.
Q14. One last question – how do you see the future development of CT – is it someting that’s going to remain stagnant, what factors do you foresee contributing to a higher takeup rate of CT in the next 10 years?
Don’t know what’s going to drive an increase but I do believe there will be an increase. Most indications are that it is more environmentally beneficial, and we see that like in South America, the rapid adoption of CA, even in relatively small farms, without mechanisation, the use is a real sign that it can promote greater sustainability. One programme like reduced tillage alone is not the key to sustainability. It’s usually a system and it has to be done with crop rotation, probably done with the community in mind, the workers that are there, so physically reducing tillage is an important aspect of preserving our soil and our land, and we cannot afford to move anymore soil than we’ve done already in the past.
Q15. According to you, when it’s not widely implemented in Europe, is it only because of the climate or are the actors not working together like they’re doing in South America and the US?
In SA of course it was a development and there was an opportunity for this to occur, and it occurred. In Europe of course most countries are wealthier, they have history, they have tradition and so in relatively small farms in some cases maybe larger of course in other parts, climate is one factor but it’s not the only one.
Thank you for covering everything so comprehensively!
