The Hugel Farm Decision Case

Part of the Minnesota River Decision Cases (other cases available)
View Teaching Note for this case.

1. The early fall view was splendid. As Bill Hugel stood at the top of the hill where his home overlooked his farmland, he could see the large expanse of sky over the rolling hills to the west. He had farmed these corn and soybean fields below him for the past 28 years. It was still a bit early to know what the corn crop would be like this year, and his soybeans were a little weedy, but Bill was optimistic that he would have a successful crop.
   
   
2. Bill had no reason to doubt his prowess as a farmer. Last year he had received the top conservation farmer award in his county. Over the last fifteen years, he had constructed 12 terraces on the hilly cropland of his 250-acre farm. The terraces cut across the slopes of the fields, slowing the eroding flow of water down the hills when it rained. In addition to the land he owned, Bill also rented another 400 acres nearby.
   
   
3. In the valley below him were the sediment basins that Bill had constructed as an additional conservation measure. The two basins were intended to catch sediment washed from the 50 acres of highly erodible land (HEL) and prevent it from moving into a small creek that ultimately fed into the Minnesota River about three miles downstream. Thus, runoff from the steeply sloped land around the Hugel’s home was slowed by the terraces and had to pass through the sediment basins before entering the creek.
   
   
4. Bill could see the trees in the distance outlining the creek that led to the river. He knew there were concerns about the quality of the water in the river. Personally, he was more concerned with area lakes and what was being done locally to improve their water quality. Bill felt his conservation practices did a good job of keeping sediment and chemicals from his farm out of the river.
   
   
5. However, Bill had been told that his terraces and sediment basins were not enough. To conform to the government’s conservation compliance program, Bill was required to maintain at least 30-35% residue cover on the soil surface of his highly erodible land. Beginning in 1995, the government Feed Grain Program required that farmers comply with the conservation requirements in order to be eligible for the program payments. Bill had participated in the Feed Grain Program in 1995 and knew he needed to comply with the conservation requirements if he was to continue in the program.
   
   
6. So in 1995, Bill had decided to use a no-till planting system to achieve the required amount of residue coverage. He no-till planted corn into soybean stubble from the previous crop on about half his 250 acres of HEL.
   
   
7. There had been problems, however. Although his no-till fields had more than the required surface residue in some places, the soybean stubble had washed away in other areas because it was not anchored to the soil. The problem seemed to be the type of soil on the Hugel’s farm. Some said that the clay and clay loam soils in the area were just not suited for the practice. Upon wetting, the clay particles packed tightly together, reducing the capacity of water to infiltrate the soil. This increased the amount of runoff, which washed away the soybean residue. Also, the no-till corn seemed to take longer to emerge, possibly because of slower soil warming under soybean residue. Bill wondered how this would affect yield compared with his previous practice of chisel plowing. Over the years, yields on his HEL had been going up and he wanted that trend to continue.
   
   
8. Although many farmers in Bill’s area were using reduced tillage methods to increase their surface residue, not many of them were using no-till. Based on his experience in 1995, he had begun to question whether no-till was his best option for preventing soil runoff on his farm’s HEL. He felt it would be better if he could partially till the residue into the top layer of soil to help hold it in place. He could see where unincorporated soybean residue on his no-till fields had simply washed away and clogged the terrace drains, likely taking soil with it.
   
   
9. Bill didn’t know what the specific features of the Feed Grain Program would be next year, or if it would be worth enrolling, especially if it meant he had to comply with the residue requirements again. Although he had until March to make his decision regarding participation in the program, Bill needed to decide whether he was going to chisel plow or field cultivate his highly erodible soybean ground this fall.
   
   
10. Bill resented having the Feed Grain Program tell him how to farm his land and conserve the soil. He felt that the "one size fits all" residue standards didn’t serve his land and soils well. The people developing these standards didn’t seem to understand that it was critical to anchor the surface soybean residue on his soils, even if it meant less total percent coverage on the soil surface.
    
    
11. There was another issue. Any field with over 30% of its area in highly erodible land was classified as HEL. Some of Bill’s fields were fairly flat but were still classified as HEL because one part of the field was sloping. This seemed arbitrary to Bill and he knew of neighbors who had areas in their fields that were steeper than his land but weren’t classified as HEL because their fields were bigger overall and the sloping area made up less than 30% of the total. That didn’t seem fair.
    
    
12. Bill had enrolled in the Feed Grain Program most of the 28 years he’d been farming. Much of the time it made sense economically. His decision of whether to enroll next year should be based on the financial incentives of the program and the prospects for commodity prices, not on the conservation regulations.
    
    
13. Was there another way, besides no-till, that would allow him to maintain the residue amounts required for compliance with the conservation program? Bill had tried several different tillage and production approaches on his HEL over the past 10 years but none resulted in residue coverage as high as no-till. He also liked the time that no-till saved him in the field. However, he had needed to put a lot of herbicide on his no-till ground this year. How environmentally and economically sound was that?
    
    
14. The sun was dipping behind the hills as Bill turned away from his fields and walked back toward the house. The pros and cons of his dilemma continued to play on his mind. Should he give no-till another try? Was there a better way to comply with the residue requirements of conservation compliance? Or should he just drop out of the farm program next year and farm the way he felt he should - the way he should for his soil type and landscape? But what if he needed the price safety net next season that the Feed Grain Program provided? The time was fast approaching when he would have to decide whether to chisel plow or field cultivate his bean ground to "anchor" the residue. What should I do? thought Bill.

Part of the Minnesota River Decision Cases (other cases available)
View Teaching Note for this case.