Sustainable Farming Systems

New Study Shows Sustainable Farms Profitable, Help the Environment

Download the complete Sustainable Farming Systems Report

PDF, 677 kB, requires Adobe Acrobat Reader

For a print version of either the 46-page report or a short summary, contact the MISA office at misamail@umn.edu. Or, call (612) 625-8235 or (800) 909- 6472.

Farm profits and environmental performance on sustainable farms match and often exceed that of conventional farms, according to a new four-year study coordinated by the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (MISA).

Cooperators with MISA on the project were the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota, Land Stewardship Project and the Minnesota Project. The study is titled "Sustainable Farming Systems: Demonstrating Environmental and Economic Performance."

Funding for the Project was provided by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (1997) and Minnesota Future Resources Fund (1999) as recommended by the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR).

The study profiled three farms in detail, measuring soil loss, rainfall and field runoff. Production and financial data were also analyzed to evaluate the bottom line.

Two of the dairy farms were in the Sand Creek watershed, one of the biggest contributors of sediment in the Minnesota River Basin. One dairy farm-an organic grazing system-performed exceptionally well. A combination of pasture and contour strips rotated among alfalfa hay, corn, soybeans and small grains held sediment and nutrients on the field.

Normal rainfalls caused almost no soil loss, and a four-inch rain resulted in only 52 pounds of sediment per acre. In contrast, another study on the same soil type with corn and soybeans on plowed fields had 20,000 pounds (10 tons) of eroded soil per acre.

The second dairy grazing farm consisted of gently rolling pasture in continuous grass and legumes for over 10 years. The permanent pasture not only held the soil and nutrients in place, but also absorbed all rainfall most of the time.

The third farm was in the Chippewa River watershed, also part of the Minnesota River basin. It was mostly flat pasture, where beef cows and calves are rotationally grazed. The soil cover prevented runoff from most rainfalls. Three storms caused runoff with sediment, but at rates 20 to 40 percent less than the watershed average.

Despite the unconventional grazing systems, both dairy farms were very healthy from a financial standpoint. One farm consisted of 41 cows and produced organic milk. The other farm had 141 cows and produced regular milk. Net income averaged $83,000 per year on the larger farm--two to three times the average for similar dairy farms in the region. Input expenses and debt load were kept relatively low.

Income on the smaller dairy farm averaged $57,000 per year-one and one-half to three times higher than peers. However, the beef cow-calf operation on the third farm didn't fare as well. The beginning young farmer faced several problems common to many beginning farmers, including high debt levels. Net income was negative, and both spouses worked full-time jobs off the farm.

Start-up costs are partly to blame as the farmer is investing in pasture fertilization that will pay off later in lower feed costs. And bad luck was a factor. A combination of a barn fire that destroyed winter feed and weather-related herd mortality problems resulted in further losses. However, the financial analysis showed there's potential for profitability in the long run.