A few days ago, we posted a simple question to our followers: "What is the biggest problem in agriculture?” Honestly, we expected a handful of responses. Instead, we got hundreds. Farmers, ranchers, and land stewards from across the U.S. and beyond jumped into the conversation. Some answers were nuanced. Some were extremely passionate. A few were blunt. What surprised us wasn't just how many people responded, but how different the answers were. Some pointed to politics and regulations. Others blamed economics, rising input costs and things like land access. Still, others pointed at the lack of younger generations entering agriculture and the growing disconnect between consumers and producers. Poll Results: Government / Regulations / Politics — 27% Mindset / Resistance to Change — 18% Economics / Profitability / Input Costs — 15% Consumer Disconnect / Education — 12% Land Access / Cost of Entry — 10% Soil Health / Degradation — 8% Next Generation / Labor Shortage — 6% Water / Weather — 4% No matter where you stand on the issues, one thing is clear: Agriculture is under pressure. From drought and input costs to labor shortages and profitability concerns, many farm and ranch families are carrying a tremendous amount of uncertainty right now. But as we collected all the responses and concerns, a clear theme emerged in all of them. The Biggest Problem in Agriculture Whether someone blamed government, economics, land access, consumer education, or soil health, the underlying concerns are largely the same: How do we build farms, ranches, and rural communities that can withstand the headwinds and challenges they’re facing? It's an important question because agriculture has never been a simple business. Farmers and ranchers have always dealt with uncertainty. Weather changes. Markets fluctuate. Costs rise and fall. New challenges emerge. But many producers today feel like more and more of the factors affecting their success are outside their control. And that's where resilience clearly becomes more than a buzzword: it’s a crucial strategy for long-term success and operational sustainability farmers and ranchers can’t do without. The agriculture community is hungry for a way of doing business that not only maximizes production this year but also can remain productive, profitable, and healthy for decades to come. Is Regenerative Agriculture The Solution We Need? One of the crucial—and most obvious—ways we can stay afloat over the long haul is obvious: lowering our reliance on what can’t be controlled. This includes fluctuating weather, input costs, and supply chain bottlenecks, just to name a few. And, whether we like it or not, the conventional agricultural model places farmers/ranchers in a tough spot: increasingly dependent on things that exist outside the operation. This is one reason regenerative agriculture continues to gain attention across the agricultural landscape. At its core, regenerative agriculture is about rebuilding the strength of the operation from the ground up. Healthier soils hold more water during dry periods. Diverse plant communities mimic natural systems, rebuild the soil and suppress weeds. Integrating livestock can turn standing forage into feed while reducing the need for harvested inputs. Improved soil biology can cycle nutrients that might otherwise need to be purchased. In other words, regenerative agriculture seeks to move more of the solution back onto the farm or ranch itself, at a lower cost. The goal isn't independence from markets or weather. No system can offer that. The goal is greater resilience when challenges inevitably arrive. We've seen examples of this across the producers we've featured at Growing Resilience. Ranchers are extending grazing seasons and reducing winter feed costs. Producers are increasing water infiltration and carrying green forage longer into dry periods. Farmers are reducing fertilizer requirements as soil health improves. Operations are finding ways to remain profitable without continually increasing inputs and, due to a more diverse mix of crops, are no longer solely reliant on risky corn-soybean production. These changes don't happen overnight. Most producers will tell you they take years of observation, experimentation, and adaptation. But they all point toward the same idea: The healthiest farms and ranches are often those that become less dependent on forces beyond their control. Keeping it Realistic We don’t present regenerative agriculture or systems as a silver bullet solution to all that ails an operation. Rain still needs to fall, and input costs still exist. Agriculture can be an extremely rewarding and fruitful way of life, but it has never been easy. This truth still remains for those who switch to regenerative systems. Making the transition isn't always straightforward, either. While there are universal principles that research shows work everywhere, every farm and ranch is unique. What works in South Dakota may need to be adapted in Georgia. What works on one soil type may not work exactly the same on another. Producers considering regenerative practices often have legitimate questions about profitability, risk, implementation, and how to make changes without disrupting an already complex operation. That's why community matters. One of the encouraging themes we've seen emerge in agriculture is the growing willingness of producers to share what they're learning. Farmers and ranchers across the country are opening their gates, sharing successes and failures, and helping others avoid costly mistakes. Fortunately, there has never been greater access to knowledge. Free educational resources are available through platforms like YouTube. Organizations like the NRCS provide technical assistance and support to land managers across the country. Local soil health groups, grazing networks, and producer-led organizations regularly host events where farmers and ranchers can learn directly from people putting these ideas into practice. The resources are there. And while no system removes all risk, many producers who incorporate regenerative principles report something important: less dependence on outside inputs and greater confidence in their operation's ability to weather challenges. What does that mean in practical terms? Greater operational resilience. The ability to withstand drought a little better. The ability to absorb market shocks a little easier. The ability to rely more on the strength of the land itself and less on factors beyond the farm gate. The Need for Collective Dialogue Whether you agree or disagree with regenerative agriculture, one thing became clear from this conversation: Agriculture needs more discussions like this. Open-minded conversations about the challenges we face. Honest conversations about what's working, what isn't, and what possibilities exist moving forward. Because the future of agriculture won't be shaped by one person, one practice, or one idea. It will be shaped by farmers, ranchers, researchers, land managers, and communities working together to find solutions that make sense for their land, their families, and their future. So we'll leave you with the same question we started with: What do you think is the biggest problem facing agriculture today? And can regenerative agriculture be part of the solution? Get involved with us by subscribing to our email list, and let’s keep this important discussion going! __________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

A Conversation with Fred Provenza About Family Farms and Rural Communities The ranch country near Salida, Colorado, where Fred Provenza first learned lessons about land, livestock, and the communities that depend on them. Photo by Joe Dickie By Buz Kloot A few weeks ago, I sent out an email titled What Wendell Berry Taught Me About the Family Farm. Shortly afterward, my friend, behavioral ecologist Fred Provenza wrote to say how much he appreciated it. That email sparked a new conversation between us. Fred reminded me of an article he had shared earlier this year titled Town and Country: Linking Agriculture and the Nonfarm Rural Economies. In February, I had the opportunity to sit down with Fred and record a conversation about the changes he has witnessed during his lifetime in agriculture. As I revisited that discussion and reread the article, I began to see why it had resonated so strongly with him. The article challenged one of the most deeply held assumptions in American agriculture. For generations, we have assumed that healthy farms create healthy rural communities. The authors suggest that, increasingly, the opposite may be true. Today, many farms depend on healthy rural economies to survive. That observation caught Fred's attention. He described a pattern that researchers call the "barbell effect." The largest farms continue to grow larger. At the same time, the number of very small farms continues to increase. Meanwhile, many of the mid-sized farms and ranches that once formed the backbone of rural communities are disappearing. "I worked on one of those ranches," Fred told me. As he reflected on the ranch where he spent so many years, he found himself thinking about how difficult it has become for young people to enter agriculture. Previous generations often had opportunities to build operations on land acquired through homesteading or inherited through family. Today, high land values and capital requirements create barriers that would have been unimaginable a century ago. What struck Fred most was not simply the economics. It was what happens to communities when the middle disappears. The Hollowing Out of the Middle The article traces a dramatic shift in American agriculture. Since the mid-1900s, farms have become fewer and larger. At the same time, the number of very small farms has increased. The result is a hollowing out of the middle—a landscape dominated by a relatively small number of very large operations and a growing number of very small ones. It was this disappearance of the middle that caught Fred's attention. More Than a Story About Efficiency For many people, this may sound like a story about efficiency. Fred sees something more. He sees a story about communities. Researchers have long debated what is known as the Goldschmidt Hypothesis—the idea that communities supported by modest-sized family farms tend to enjoy stronger economic, social, and civic life than communities dominated by large-scale industrialized agriculture. While the evidence is mixed, there is little doubt that farms and ranches once played a central role in sustaining rural communities. Fred remembers those communities. He also remembers a time when many producers had more control over their own economic destiny. From Price Makers to Price Takers Fred remembers a time when farmers and ranchers were often what one South African producer called "price makers, not price takers." As industries consolidated and supply chains centralized, many producers found themselves with less influence over the prices they received and fewer options available to them. Why Healthy Farms Need Healthy Communities Perhaps the most surprising finding in the article involves off-farm income. Today, the average farm household receives roughly four out of every five dollars of household income from off-farm sources. For many small and intermediate-sized farms, off-farm employment is not supplemental income—it is what allows the farm to continue operating. That reality has profound implications. If farm families depend on off-farm employment, then the health of the local economy becomes essential to the health of the farm. The authors put it plainly: a viable farm increasingly requires a financially stable household, and a financially stable household often depends on a strong local economy beyond agriculture. In other words, healthy farms now depend on healthy communities. Broadening the Conversation As Fred and I discussed these ideas, I found myself thinking about conversations I've had with farmers and ranchers across the country. Many are working harder than ever. Many are producing more than ever. Yet many feel trapped between rising costs, volatile markets, and shrinking margins. The answer is not simple. But Fred believes we need to broaden the conversation. For decades, agriculture has focused heavily on production and yield. Those things matter. But so do the health of rural communities, the vitality of local businesses, opportunities for young people, and the resilience of the landscapes that support agriculture. Toward the end of our conversation, Fred shifted from economics to ecology. He reminded me that livestock can be more than a means of producing meat. Properly managed, they can help build healthy landscapes, increase biodiversity, improve water cycles, and support both wildlife and people. That observation points toward a hopeful future. If the challenges facing agriculture are economic, social, and ecological, then the solutions must be as well. The future of family farms may depend not only on what happens within the fence line, but also on the strength of the communities beyond it. That may be the most important lesson Fred took from the article. And it may be one of the most important conversations agriculture needs to have today. __________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

By Buz Kloot Over the past season, I stumbled onto an observation that, by the book, shouldn't have happened. This is a farm where growers have been consistently using cover crops for well over a decade, and where I've been working alongside them for the past 5 to 7 years. In recent seasons, we had reduced the number of soil samples we were pulling, but this year we decided to widen the net again. What we found got my attention. Using the Mehlich-1 extraction, several soil samples returned phosphorus levels of 3, 7, and 8 lb/ac. In most circles, that's not just low—it's alarmingly low. Those are the kinds of numbers that would send many crop consultants running to the fertilizer recommendations, saying, "Back up the truck." Seeing those numbers caused more than a few sleepless nights on my end as well. At the time, however, phosphorus wasn't even the nutrient we were investigating. We were primarily looking at nitrogen management. As part of that work, we pulled plant tissue samples on May 1st. That's when the story took an unexpected turn. The Plant Told a Different Story The plant tissue phosphorus levels ranged from 0.35% to 0.60%. According to commonly cited nutrient sufficiency guidelines for corn, approximately 0.30% phosphorus is considered the critical level (> 4 inches in height to tasseling) associated with optimum yield potential. These tissue values were not deficient. Most were comfortably above the critical threshold. The crop itself seemed to agree. The last time I visited the farm, the corn looked good. More importantly, the farmer thought it looked good. We had finally received some much-needed rain after an earlier dry spell, and there were no obvious signs of phosphorus deficiency. What puzzled me most was not the soil test. Soil tests can surprise us. What puzzled me was the absence of the symptoms I expected to see. There were no purple leaves. There were no obvious signs of phosphorus stress. The tissue tests suggested the plants were finding phosphorus somewhere. And that left me with a question. If the soil test says, "There's almost nothing here," but the plant says, "I'm doing just fine," which one should we believe? A Puzzle, Not a Conclusion Before anyone gets excited—or upset—let me be clear. This is not a victory dance. The combines have not yet rolled through these fields. We do not have yield data. We do not know whether these plants will ultimately produce yields that match their apparent nutritional status. We have a single season, a handful of samples, and an observation that raises more questions than answers. At this point, this is anecdotal evidence. But it is also an observation that I find difficult to ignore. Are We Measuring the Entire Phosphorus Story? I'm not dismissing soil testing. Soil tests have been calibrated over decades and remain one of the best decision-making tools available to farmers. But soil tests are indices. They estimate a portion of the phosphorus pool and the probability that a crop will respond to additional fertilizer. They do not directly measure every form of phosphorus present in the soil. So, what might explain what we're seeing? One possibility is that some phosphorus exists in forms that are not easily extracted by Mehlich-1 yet still become available to plants over the course of a growing season. Another possibility is that phosphorus associated with mineral surfaces or held within the soil matrix contributes more to plant nutrition than we sometimes assume. And biology may be part of the story as well. Mycorrhizal fungi are known to extend the effective reach of plant roots and improve phosphorus acquisition, particularly in soils testing low in available phosphorus. Long-term cover cropping may also influence biological activity and nutrient cycling in ways we do not fully capture with conventional testing. None of those ideas are new. What may be new is seeing them expressed so dramatically in a field situation. Why This Matters This question may be particularly timely. In 2022, farmers experienced firsthand how quickly fertilizer markets could be disrupted. Nitrogen prices surged, supplies tightened, and many growers were forced to rethink nutrient management strategies. More recently, renewed concerns about fertilizer availability have reminded us that nutrient inputs are not always guaranteed. If crops can, under certain conditions, access nutrients that standard soil tests do not fully account for, then understanding those mechanisms becomes more than an academic exercise. It becomes an economic question. It becomes a resilience question. And it becomes a question worth investigating carefully. What Happens Next? For now, I'm left with curiosity rather than conclusions. The next step is simple: continue observing, continue testing, and continue asking questions. We'll watch the yield monitor. We'll compare results. And perhaps we'll design some simple on-farm trials to better understand what's happening. Until then, I remain fascinated by a field that, according to the soil test, should have been starving for phosphorus—but apparently wasn't. If you've seen something similar or have a different explanation, I'd genuinely like to hear from you. After all, agriculture advances not only through research stations and laboratories, but also through careful observation and the willingness to ask questions when the field doesn't behave as we expect. __________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

A South Dakota rancher surveys drought conditions. Photo by Joe Dickie. Across much of South Dakota this morning (May 19, 2026), producers woke up not to heat warnings, but to frost advisories and freeze warnings — another reminder of just how unpredictable this growing season has become. After weeks of concern about dry-year conditions, wind, and early-season stress, temperatures across parts of the state dropped into the 30s overnight, with freeze warnings issued in central and northern South Dakota at the time of this posting. That uncertainty formed the backdrop for a recent conversation I had with three conservation specialists from the South Dakota Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): Marcia Deneke, State Agronomist; Tanse Herrmann, State Grazing Lands Soil Health Specialist; and Emily Rohrer, State Rangeland Management Specialist. What emerged from the conversation was not a list of silver bullets, but several practical considerations producers are already discussing as conditions tighten across parts of the Plains. Build a contingency plan early Herrmann emphasized that drought decisions are best made before operations are under severe stress. “If you don’t have a contingency plan… put one down. Even if it’s on the back of a bar napkin.” Those plans may include: identifying forage thresholds, prioritizing which livestock leave first, evaluating water availability, or setting decision dates for destocking or feed purchases. The key point was simple: difficult decisions become harder when made too late. Watch what the plants are telling you Several early-season signals are already raising concern. Deneke noted that some cool-season grasses and winter wheat are heading earlier than normal, while Rohrer described Kentucky bluegrass acting almost like an “indicator species” under warm, dry conditions. “In locations where there is more diversity, you will have more resilience,” Rohrer said. Native grassland species evolved with periodic drought on the Great Plains, while monocultures and introduced cool-season species may become stressed more quickly. Flexibility matters more than rigid plans The conversation repeatedly returned to adaptive thinking. Herrmann noted that many producers are already evaluating alternatives rather than simply idling acres. “Farmers want to farm. Period.” That may mean: shifting toward lower-moisture crops, planting forage instead of commodity crops, adjusting grazing strategies, or reevaluating stocking rates earlier than usual. The broader theme was that flexibility often creates more options during difficult years. Soil cover still matters The group also discussed how fields managed with residue cover, no-till, or cover crops are often handling wind and moisture stress differently. Deneke pointed out that exposed soils are particularly vulnerable during dry, windy springs. “Soil moves when it is loose and friable and dry.” At the same time, she emphasized that cover crops in dry years require careful management and realistic expectations. In some situations, earlier termination may be necessary to conserve moisture for the cash crop. But she also stressed that producers should weigh the broader benefits of soil cover against short-term yield concerns. “Do the other benefits of that cover crop outweigh that little bit of yield fluctuation?” Adaptation is rarely simple One of the strongest parts of the discussion was its realism. Changing systems is not always easy or immediately possible. Producers face practical limitations involving: equipment, seed availability, herbicide carryover, crop insurance, labor, and economics. As Deneke explained: “We’re a planning agency… We help producers make a plan, lay out alternatives, [and] consider how something fits into their rotation.” The conversation avoided easy answers. But it also avoided fatalism. Herrmann perhaps summarized the broader theme best: “There’s a whole new level of freedom when you open yourself up to more opportunity rather than pigeonholing an operation…” We’ll be releasing an edited podcast version of this conversation soon. __________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

A few weeks ago, my friend Ben, Chair of the North Carolina Soil Health Coalition, gave me a call. Their coalition, inspired in part by the South Dakota Soil Health Coalition, has been thinking hard about nitrogen management heading into 2026. With nitrogen prices where they are, that’s not surprising. Ray Archuleta had recently spent time with their group, and as often happens after a Ray visit, something shifted. The conversation moved from how much nitrogen to apply to a deeper question: what is the soil already supplying? Ben asked if I’d be willing to help think through some nitrogen work on a few South Carolina farms. That conversation took me back to a set of experiments (2 experiments of 20 plotes each) we ran in 2016 and 2018 as part of a four-year corn–soybean–wheat rotation study. We weren’t trying to prove anything grand. After applying a base rate at planting, we simply varied nitrogen side-dress rates and watched what happened. What we saw has stayed with me. The Curve That Isn’t Linear In 2016, the response looked familiar at first. As nitrogen increased, yields went up. But not evenly (Image below). The first units of nitrogen did most of the work. By the time we approached what would be considered a 70% of the standard recommendation of 140 units, the curve had already started to flatten. Adding another 40 pounds of nitrogen only gave us few more couple of bushels. When we look at it as a percentage of maximum yield, the picture becomes clearer: You can see it plainly—the climb is steep early, then it levels off. Corn yield response to nitrogen: steep early gains, then diminishing returns—and in dry conditions, even reversal. 2018: When Water Has the Final Say In 2018, we ran two experiments—one on heavier ground and one on lighter soil (Image above). Same approach. But that year, the rain shut off in late July. Our collaborating farmer, Carl Coleman, later told me, “We were about one rain short of a really good crop.” That one missing rain showed up clearly in the data. On the heavier ground in EXP1, yields plateaued early On the lighter ground in EXP2, something more striking happened: the higher nitrogen rates produced more vegetative growth in the early part if the season, but when grain fill came, the system ran out of water. And the corn that had received less nitrogen performed better. Not because it had more nitrogen, but because it demanded less water. A Revelation About Nitrogen Years ago, Rick Haney shared something that stuck with me. He said it was a revelation to him that only about 30% to 60% of applied nitrogen is taken up by the crop. Think about that for a moment. That means 40% to 70% of the nitrogen the crop uses comes from somewhere else. From the soil, from biology, from organic matter cycling. The Nitrogen We Measure—and the Nitrogen We Don’t Most of us are familiar with the PSNT—the pre-side dress nitrate test. It measures nitrate nitrogen in the soil. That’s useful. But it’s only one pool of N. In our plot work (20 plots x 2 experiments), we typically saw something like: ~6 lbs/ac of nitrate-N ~30 lbs/ac of organic, potentially mineralizable N Five times more nitrogen in forms that the PSNT doesn’t capture. There are tests that try to get at this: The Illinois Soil Nitrogen Test (amino sugar N) Solvita’s labile amino nitrogen The Haney test (water-extractable organic N and microbial activity) Estimated Nitrogen Release (ENR) values (often ~20 lbs N per 1% organic matter per year) Each of these is looking at a different part of the same system, and while none of them are perfect, they all point to something important: The soil is not an inert medium. It is an active supplier of nitrogen. So What Are We Really Managing? If a crop needs, say, 140 pounds of nitrogen, it’s tempting to think we need to apply 140 pounds. But that’s not how it works. Some of that nitrogen is coming from: Organic matter mineralization Microbial turnover Residue breakdown Carryover from previous seasons (including, e.g., a soybean N credit) And in a year like 2018, the real limitation wasn’t nitrogen at all, it was water. A Different Question for 2026 So here’s the question I’ve been sitting with since that call with Ben: Are we trying to grow the biggest crop possible? Or are we trying to make the best nitrogen application/side dress decision with the system, the weather conditions, and the input prices we actually have? Because those are not always the same thing. If nitrogen is expensive—and it is—then it may be worth asking: What is my soil already supplying? Where does my response curve flatten? And what is truly limiting yield this year? Closing Thought We often fertilize for a nitrogen shortage that doesn’t exist while overlooking the water and soil conditions that actually limit our yield. And sometimes, the most profitable pound of nitrogen may be the one we never apply. __________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

Rising diesel costs are one of several pressures farmers are navigating this season by Barrett Self A South Dakota Story with Wider Implications A farmer from Mitchell, South Dakota, doesn’t usually make national headlines. But this spring, one did. In a recent Newsweek article, Mitchell-area farmer Chet Edinger described scrambling to secure fertilizer as global tensions disrupted supply lines. Within days, prices surged. Then, just as quickly, supply dried up. “You can’t even buy it right now if you wanted to,” he said. For those who spend time on the land, there is something familiar in that kind of moment. Not necessarily the geopolitics, but the feeling. The sense that decisions made far away have a way of arriving unannounced, right when the planter is supposed to be rolling. This is not just a story about one farmer or one season. It is a glimpse into how tightly modern agriculture is tied to systems that stretch far beyond the fence line. Diesel prices jumped sharply in a matter of days. Nitrogen fertilizer—already volatile—spiked as well, with some farmers paying significantly more than just months ago. In some places, it is not just expensive—it is unavailable. That last part matters. Because farming does not operate on flexible timelines. Crops do not wait for markets to settle. Spring comes when it comes. Family Farms Are Living Through Tight Margins For decades, agriculture has benefited from relatively stable and affordable energy: diesel to move equipment, natural gas to produce nitrogen fertilizer, and global supply chains to deliver it all more or less on time. But moments like this raise a quiet question: What happens when those assumptions no longer hold—even for a season? Not as a political question. Not even strictly as an economic one. But as a practical, on-the-ground reality. What changes first? Do we make fewer passes across the field? Do we adjust planting decisions? Do we rethink how much fertilizer we apply or where it comes from? or... Do we simply absorb the cost and hope for a better year next time? There is no single answer. Every operation carries its own soils, weather patterns, crop mix, and financial realities. But there may be another way to think about it. Systems That Require Less – Framing Regenerative Agriculture Some producers have been moving—gradually and often experimentally—toward systems that simply require less. Less fuel. Fewer passes. Less reliance on purchased fertility over time. In many cases, reducing tillage means fewer trips across the field, which can lower fuel use and labor. Those savings often show up first. Changes in fertilizer use tend to come more slowly. As soil structure improves, biological activity increases, and practices like cover cropping are introduced, some farmers report being able to reduce nitrogen inputs over time—sometimes modestly at first, and more substantially as the system matures. In the first few years of transition, fertilizer reductions may be modest. But as aggregation improves, microbial nutrient cycling increases, and cover crops begin fixing nitrogen and retaining nutrients more effectively, many farmers report significantly lower nitrogen fertilizer inputs, and some advanced regenerative operations report 30–60% lower synthetic fertilizer use over time. Not every farm sees the same results. Not every soil responds the same way. And transitions, where they happen, take time. But the direction is worth noting. Because the benefit is not only about cost savings in a given year. It is about reducing dependence on inputs that are priced—and sometimes supplied—far beyond the farm gate. Years ago, SDSU's Dwayne Beck made a simple observation that has stuck with us: the farmer’s real job is to harvest sunlight and water. Everything else—fuel, fertilizer, machinery—is meant to support that process. Somewhere along the way, many of those supporting inputs became central to the system itself. Reliable. Essential. Assumed. Until, occasionally, they are not. And in those moments, resilience becomes the real question. What parts of a farming system keep working when diesel spikes? When is fertilizer delayed? When supply chains falter? The systems that rely less on external rescue tend to bend without breaking. That does not mean every farm should look the same. Nor does it mean every operation must change overnight. But it does suggest that building healthier soils, reducing unnecessary passes, increasing biological function, and growing more fertility in place may be more than environmental goals. They may be a financial strategy. They may be risk management. They may be what keeps family farms viable for the next generation. Chet Edinger’s story in Mitchell, South Dakota, is not an isolated event. It is a reminder. The pressures arriving at one gate this spring may arrive at another tomorrow. The question is not whether agriculture will face more volatility. It will. The question is: What kind of systems are we building before that moment comes? What do you think? Are rising fuel and fertilizer costs changing how you think about your operation timeline—and could regenerative practices play a role in making farms stronger for the long run? __________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

Provenza mind map I’ve known Dr. Fred Provenza for several years now. We were introduced by a mutual friend, Michael Hall, and from the very beginning, Fred opened my eyes to a way of thinking about animals—and land—that I hadn’t fully appreciated before. It started with a simple but profound idea: nutritional wisdom. Not just what animals eat, but how they know what to eat—and how that knowing connects directly to the health of rangelands, livestock, and ultimately, ourselves. After reading his book, Nourishment, and spending time in conversation with Fred, our team videographer/photographer Joe Dickie and I knew this was something we needed to explore more deeply. So we arranged to meet him in Colorado, near Salida—where his journey began, working for a rancher named Henry DeLuca. That landscape, and those early experiences, shaped much of what Fred would go on to study for the next forty years. It’s Not All in the Genes One of the first things Fred challenged was the idea that animal behavior is mostly instinct—that animals “just know” what to eat. That assumption runs deep. We tend to think that if an animal survives, it must be because its genes have programmed it correctly. But Fred’s work points in another direction. Animals don’t just know. They learn. They learn from their mothers, from their peers, and from the consequences of their own experiences. What they eat, where they go, how they move across a landscape—these are not fixed traits. They are shaped over time. That shift—from instinct to learning—may sound small, but it changes everything. Some years ago, Michael shared something Fred had said to him during a course back in 1992: “I wouldn’t have seen it if I had not believed it.” That line has stuck with me. At first glance, it sounds backwards. We tend to think we see something first and then believe it. But what Fred was getting at—and what I’ve come to appreciate—is that sometimes the opposite is true. If you don’t have the framework to look for something, you can miss what’s right in front of you. Two people can look at the same pasture, the same animals, the same data—and come away with completely different conclusions. That’s not because one is right and the other is wrong. It’s because they’re seeing through different lenses. And in many ways, that’s what this idea of nutritional wisdom requires—a shift in how we look. And once you start looking for it, you begin to see it everywhere on a working ranch—animals that settle in quickly versus those that don’t, cattle that know where to go versus those that seem to drift or bunch. Knowing the Range Back on DeLuca’s ranch, Fred began to notice something that didn’t fit the conventional model. Cattle weren’t simply grazing whatever was in front of them. They moved with purpose. They formed small groups. They spread out across large landscapes. And especially in the summer, those larger herds would naturally break into smaller bands. What struck me—and what Fred’s work confirms—is that these groups are not random. In many cases, they are led by older females—the cows that know the country. And when ranchers like Henry DeLuca keep their own replacement heifers, over time they create extended families lead by a matriarch. In wildlife systems with herbivores like elephants, it’s often postmenopausal females that lead. They carry memory: where to find water, which plants are safe, how to move safely through the terrain. Most folks who’ve spent time around cattle have seen this, even if they haven’t put a name to it. You’ll have certain cows that just seem to know where to be—and others that follow. That knowledge is invaluable. But it’s not a one-way street. The younger animals play a different role. They are more exploratory. They try things. Sometimes that leads to discomfort—a quick lesson in what not to eat. But sometimes they find something new—something useful. And when they do, that knowledge can move back through the group. So what you have is not just teaching from mother to offspring, but a back-and-forth between experience and curiosity—the older animals anchoring the herd, and the younger ones testing the edges. Animals as Nutritional Decision-Makers If animals are learning, then what exactly are they learning? Fred’s research shows that animals are not passive eaters. They are constantly making decisions—balancing energy, protein, and a wide array of compounds that affect how they feel. Given a diverse landscape, they mix and match plants to meet their needs. They are, in a very real sense, managing their own nutrition. And you can see the flip side of this as well. When animals are put into environments with very limited choice—whether that’s a monoculture pasture or a feed ration that doesn’t vary much—you often see it in their performance, their health, or their behavior. That’s not theory. That shows up in the real world. The Landscape as a Supermarket and a Medicine Cabinet Fred often says that the land is doing something remarkable. Through sunlight, water, soil, and plant diversity, landscapes transform raw elements into something far more complex. They become, in his words, grocery stores and pharmacies. A diverse rangeland—one with dozens of grasses, forbs, and shrubs—is not just producing forage. It’s offering animals a wide array of choices: foods that provide energy foods that supply protein plants that support digestion others that help animals cope with stress, parasites, or imbalance others that are antioxidants, anti-inflammatory, and immune-boosting In some systems, you might find 50 or 60 different plant species or more. That diversity is not noise. Its function. It allows animals to adjust intake day by day, even hour by hour, depending on what they need. You may also notice that no two individuals select the same combinations of plants and that no individual selects the same combinations of plants from day to day. And if you’ve ever watched cattle spend time selecting different plants rather than just hammering one area, you start to see this playing out. Once you begin to see the land this way, the goal shifts. It’s no longer just about how much forage you can grow. It’s about how many options you can provide. Innovation in the Herd Another insight that stayed with me is how behavior spreads. One animal tries something new. Others observe. They follow. What begins as individual exploration can become group behavior. Most producers have seen some version of this—whether it’s cattle learning a new water point, figuring out a gate, or starting to use a part of the pasture they’d ignored before. It doesn’t take long. Innovation doesn’t just happen in people. It happens in herds. A Broader Realization Joe and I went to Colorado to talk about animals but came away with something broader: if animals can learn, adapt, and manage their own nutrition, then our role is less about control and more about creating the conditions where that intelligence can work. And as we’ll see next, that simple idea opens into much bigger questions—about economics, human health, and the future of ranching. __________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

Editor’s Note Over the past several months, Jim Martindale and I have been engaged in an ongoing conversation around the merits, limitations, and underlying assumptions of tillage and no-till systems. What began as a private exchange has grown into something we felt was worth sharing more broadly—not as a debate to be won, but as a conversation to be explored. Jim’s piece below reflects his perspective, particularly his concerns around how terminology and tool definitions shape decision-making in agriculture. We are grateful for his willingness to engage candidly on these questions. ______________________________________________________________________ by Jim Martindale, Guest Writer When “Vertical Tillage” Meant Something Specific Is anybody else as frustrated at the terminology about tillage and non-tillage as I am? To my point, which may come with advancing years in life, I remember when the subsoiling always resulted in the necessity to perform some kind of secondary tillage. When Ray Rawson created the Zone Builder subsoiler, which didn’t require additional tillage for a plantable surface, it earned new terminology. It became known as vertical tillage. There were other characteristic results associated with vertical tillage as well. They included largely undisturbed root systems and lack of mixing of the soil profile. For clarity, when I refer to ‘vertical tillage,’ I’m referencing the original Rawson-style concept—minimal horizontal disturbance—not the disc-like VT tools commonly marketed today. How the Marketplace Blurred the Meaning of Vertical Tillage Today the marketplace presents vertical tillage machines (popularly called VTs) that for all the world resemble a disc. The proliferation of differing labels has unintentionally clouded the concept of vertical tillage, making it harder for farmers to evaluate tools based on what they actually do to soil. I’m reminded of a request made of me almost two decades ago by a notable soil scientist to present a coherent definition of tillage to an international gathering of fellow soil scientists. It never happened because he was outvoted by the rest of the program committee. What Root Systems Reveal About Tillage, Temperature, and Soil Function This very old study done at Purdue University (table below) pointed quite clearly to the differences that types of tillage and no-tillage have on root system architecture in corn plants. Corn Root Weight by Tillage System (Purdue Study) The study cited (chart below) indicates that cooler soil temperatures during the root system development will result in root system distributions resembling no-till. Research and practical on-farm experience have consistently shown slower increases in soil temperatures in no-till managed soils. Corn Growth and Root Development Over the Season Taken from http://www.kingcorn.org/ So if we were to only look at root system development, we can begin to see the significance of the type of management of soil through tillage or absence thereof has on a crop like corn, and likely most other plants as well. These findings suggest that root architecture can be influenced by both soil disturbance and soil temperature, so similar root patterns can arise from different management conditions. There are also secondary or resulting collateral conditions that impact the biochemical makeup of the rhizosphere. These influences of soil density and biochemical influences deserve a much deeper dive. Distorting the Lexicon of Tillage Tools By distorting the lexicon of tillage tools, we run a greater risk of making poorer choices, which can have serious negative impacts on plant performance. Shouldn’t the descriptor of a machine tell us something that reveals what it does to soil in its several aspects? Hasn’t the continued lack of a meaningful and coherent definition of what tillage of any kind or absence of tillage is really been impacting decision-making in stewarding our soil? Is it really as simple as what kind of a seedbed we have to plant into? Clear, shared definitions could help producers choose tools based on soil function—root development, aggregate development, gas exchange, and temperature gradient—rather than on terminology alone. ________________________________________________________________________ In the next post, we’ll offer a response to Jim’s reflections—continuing what we hope will be a constructive and ongoing dialogue. __________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

Early Corn under Drought Conditions By Buz Kloot This blog grew out of a recent conversation with three experienced practitioners from the South Dakota NRCS: Tanse Herrmann, State Grazing lands Soil Health Specialist; Marcia Deneke, State Agronomist; and Emily Rohrer, State Rangeland Management Specialist. The purpose of that conversation was simple: we’ve been watching drought conditions develop for some time, hoping for rain—but increasingly recognizing that hope alone is not a strategy. Across regions, the signals are aligning. In parts of the Southeast, dryland farmers are delaying or even skipping planting due to a lack of moisture. In South Dakota, similar patterns are emerging—particularly in the southeast for row crops and in the southwest for rangeland. The question that brought us together was straightforward: What should farmers and ranchers be doing right now? First Principle: Don’t Wait for Rain to Make Your Decisions Tanse stated it plainly: “Having a drought plan, a written drought plan in place with trigger dates and steps to take at said dates—that can’t be overstated.” And just as importantly: “If we’re going to protect the resource, we’ve got to start taking these steps.” That’s the tension every producer feels. It might rain. It always might. “It’s possible that it will rain… but those long-range forecasts are not indicating that we should think that’s going to happen.” Drought planning is not about predicting the weather. It’s about making decisions early enough that you still have options. For Livestock producers: Protect the Grass One of the most important observations from the field is deceptively simple. As Tanse explained: “They’re alive. They might be turning green a little bit, but that is it. They’re not doing any active growth.” That distinction—green versus growing—is critical. Even where showers have occurred, the moisture is often superficial: “We’ve been getting little showers here and there, but it’s only keeping the surface moist. It’s not feeding deep moisture.” Delay Turnout Marcia raised a concern many are already seeing: “Everybody’s going to grass now, and there’s no grass out there… that grass is getting behind right off the bat.” Her suggestion was practical and timely: “Maybe it would be beneficial to delay that turnout date.” This is one of the hardest decisions in a dry spring—feeding hay when grass looks like it should be ready. But delaying turnout may be the difference between maintaining pasture productivity and setting it back for the entire season. Consider Early Adjustments Tanse emphasized that this is not necessarily a liquidation moment—but it is a planning moment: “I don’t think it’s a liquidate-the-herd type of situation at this point, but we darn sure need to be thinking about other sources of forage or maybe just reducing the livestock numbers on the place in some capacity.” That could include: · Securing additional forage early · Leasing pasture · Reducing stocking pressure before conditions worsen Emily Rohrer also pointed to tools that can help connect people: “The South Dakota Grazing Exchange… helps connect folks with livestock to those with forages or vice versa.” Protect the Resource Tanse summarized the priority clearly: “Protect the resource, protect the pocketbook to the degree possible.” And the order matters. For Crop Producers: Plan for Flexibility, Not Perfection On the cropping side, Marcia Deneke emphasized the need to shift expectations early. “I think it’s critical that producers have a realistic yield goal… not necessarily an optimum yield goal, but a realistic yield goal for the growing conditions we have today.” Build in Flexibility Equally important: “Set yourself up for the ability to respond if those growing conditions change.” That mindset begins with something Marcia emphasized strongly realistic yield expectations under dry conditions. That decision flows directly into input management, particularly fertilizer. Practical adjustments might include: Plan for a realistic yield goal under drought conditions Split fertilizer applications rather than applying everything upfront Adjusting plant populations Rethinking input levels based on risk As Marcia noted: “We don’t have control over the weather, but we do have control over how much fertilizer we’re putting on, what our plant populations are… how much tillage we do or not do.” Plan for Multiple Outcomes Drought turns every crop into a decision tree. Marcia framed it this way: “If this crop doesn’t make it to harvest, what are my options?” Those options might include: Harvesting for grain Cutting for silage Grazing in place Transitioning to a cover crop Protect the Soil Wind erosion becomes a real concern in dry conditions. Marcia pointed out: “We’ve already shared pictures… of soil blowing and so trying to do what we can to mitigate that drought.” Practical strategies include: Establishing cover where possible Leaving residue Using trap strips “Leave some strips across the field… to slow that wind velocity across the field.” Outside the Box: Where Crops and Livestock Meet One of the most useful insights from the discussion is that drought often breaks down the artificial boundary between cropping and livestock systems. Crops can become forage. Livestock can become a harvest tool. Marcia noted: “There are people who… set aside a portion of their corn crop… to let the animals harvest that corn.” And Emily added that unharvested crops can still create value: “They could have someone come and graze it and maybe get some dollars or exchange or something like that out of it.” Tanse added an important caution for those harvesting forage: “Consider how little is left to protect the soil if you chop it for silage… maybe leaving a taller stalk… just to protect that soil over winter.” For Those Not Yet in Drought: Now Is the Time Not every operation is struggling—yet. And that may be the most important group to reach. Tanse made this point clearly: “Two-thirds of the state is still looking pretty good… now is still the time to build a drought plan.” There is also an opportunity in that position. “Now might be a time… to try something new… or do a full season cover crop.” Marcia echoed that idea from the cropping side: “In this… the profit potential may not be there… so now may actually be a good time to incorporate that new crop… into the rotation.” A Final Thought We often fall into the habit of waiting for rain to solve our problems. Sometimes it does. But more often, resilience comes from decisions made before the clouds gather. The message from this conversation was consistent: Act early. Stay flexible. Protect the resource. Because drought doesn’t just test a single season. It tests the system. Links to Useful Drought Resources Growing Resilience Drought Management Page SD Grassland Coalition Drought Planning Site (NEW) NRCS SD Range and Pasture Drought Tools South Dakota Grazing Exchange __________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

On this week’s “Resilience Rodeo”, Candice Mizera shares her successes and failures in improving her grazing and cropland’s resiliency through goal setting and being flexible. On the Mizera/Olson family operation near McLaughlin, SD, implementing rotational grazing has been a central element to Candice and her husband’s adoption of regenerative agriculture. Candice noticed quickly how rotating animals offered the land one brief stretch of intended disruption and she was amazed to watch the land respond; seeing big bluestem come into the pastures, knocking back Kentucky bluegrass. When asked to speak on resistance to regenerative practices, Candice understands the skepticism and hesitation. Her father was skeptical when she began to install more fences and waterlines, but it’s gratifying now that he can see the results; green grass, even in drought. To Candice, resiliency means flexibility, profitability, and resourcefulness. Capturing and using rainfall, recycling the nutrients made available by cover crops, and utilizing adaptive grazing has kept her root systems intact. She also understands that resiliency in their operation is a collaborative effort: their family, their crew, their faith, and their willingness to seek opportunities to learn and try new things all play a critical role in helping restore soil health to improve the operation for the future Candice Mizera   1)    What is the one thing that you have done that's been the most important to the success of your operation?   Well, I guess my husband would say definitely getting married. And that's probably partially true for the most part. We've complemented each other more than we strain each other, I guess. So, we've gotten to grow the operation because of that, that we work together and we both kind of have different goals and strengths, so we've complemented each other that way. Bob worked in construction before we got married and worked 20-some years of construction as well as farming, and I’ve had three or four part time jobs to make ends meet when we we’re starting out.   We just kept plugging away or finding ways to pay the bills and figure out what we can do to improve the operations, efficiencies, and get more cattle out on the land to justify having more cows. When the cropland makes a lot more of a profit on a lot less acres, it's tough to justify spending 60% of your time on the cows when they're only 30% of the income. So, identifying those things, really looking hard at the numbers and what we needed to do to make each other happy, grow our operation, make it resilient economically, and improve and restore the soil so that it would pay us back were really important things for us.   2)    Can you recall a moment or time when the light bulb went on for you to change the way you were grazing?   I would say when I realized that our pasture was full of curlycup gumweed and seeing bare soil. I found out what curlycup gumweed was and that it's indicative of overgrazing and overuse. I would say that that was kind of a lightning bolt moment where we knew we just had to do something different.   3)    What surprised you the most when you changed the way you were grazing?   I would say the speed at which the ground recovers, in the pastures that we graze really hard early in the spring to knock back the Kentucky bluegrass, we saw the big bluestem come in that same year and fill up the pastures. It was amazing and really rewarding to see that kind of response in just a one-time treatment and a little sacrifice. It seems like the more intense and shorter the duration, the better the response.   4)    What would you say is the biggest misconception people have who are not managing their grazing systems for resiliency and soil health?   I'm not sure. I guess if they don't think it's worth the effort or think it's too much money or too much time or labor. I know that was where my dad was coming from when I told him what I wanted to do on his place. When we bought his cows and started implementing more fences and water lines, he thought we were crazy, but we knew that we had to contain the cows to a smaller area for a shorter time. That was the only way we could really do it with [minimal] labor. Instead of doing electric fences and hauling water, we needed to build the infrastructure, so we put in permanent cross-fences, permanent waterlines, and perimeter-fenced fields.   Just one person to go move cows every Monday morning was the goal, so that it was simple and on the schedule, and we just had to go do it. There was a goal, and it was an improvement. But then you realize, well, you need to be a little more flexible. They either need to go sooner or stay a little longer. There is a lot to learn, but it's been really rewarding to see [Dad] go out to the pastures now and see how much grass is left even in the middle of drought. And having more cows out there than he ever had*. That’s been really great to see and I’m glad he’s been around to get to see the improvements.   *The Mizera’s now have more than doubled their stocking capacity in the last 15 years.   5)    Is there something that you'd still like to do that you haven't yet to improve your soil health or your grazing system?   Yes. We'd like to increase diversity in crop rotations, try poly cropping, and improve and beef up our perimeter fences, and I'd like to bring in some sheep and do some multi-species grazing. We'd also like to break down our current pastures even more with a temporary electric fence and want to have a grazer hired that just moves the cows. Like, even if we just take the 160-acre pastures down in the eighties or eventually forties, you know, and move those cows. And I think honestly, that's when it's no longer going to be practical to have cow-calf pairs. That's where I lean toward the yearlings or fall calving just for the ease of rotational grazing. Yeah, I think that's the really big hurdle we have to get over because having little calves in the system does make it a lot harder. So that's the goal, just do it more intensely so that they're in there for a day or two or three instead of a week or eight or ten days to get more consistent animal impact.   6)    What advice do you have for someone who is considering changing their grazing system to one that's better for building soil health?   Well, I think I'd first advise them to get a shovel and see what they're dealing with, where they're starting from. Then maybe call in or see us and do a rangeland assessment survey so that they can find out where they're starting from. Then just make a plan based on what your goals are.   So, to improve water infiltration and aggregation, if that's what we're going for, implementing some sort of more management intensive grazing like adaptive grazing, something where you figure out the watering system, figure out your fencing, figure out the size of herd and how many acres you're looking at. You know, just figuring out a plan and talking to guys that have done it before. It's really phenomenal the kind of expertise and knowledge out there. I would recommend that they start talking to a neighbor that started on the system and look at their place.   7)    When you walk across your grasslands now, what do you look for as an indicator of healthy grasslands and healthy soil?   I would say leadplant and Western wheatgrass, and I really like big bluestem. That's really great. In one quarter that we just rented this year that hadn't been grazed for four years there was a lot of Kentucky [bluegrass] in that as well as brome. We hit that pretty hard, you know, for a short amount of time, and within that that summer there started to be some big bluestem and a lot of leadplant came in.   I just smile and just love going out in those pastures that are healthy, you know, where the big bluestem is growing in the creek and up the hillside and it's awesome because you know that those deep roots are bringing nutrients back up. So, there's just a lot of that that really helps to keep you going to see improvements. And then, of course, seeing green grass in the middle of summer, the end of summer. Of course we need rain, but keeping it vegetative helps.   8)    What change have you made that you thought would never work?   I would say the change that we thought would never work would have to be cover cropping after small grains. I hoped it would work, and it seems like it can if we can get the drill chasing the combines around and try to not plant too deep or too shallow. It's kind of a tricky deal, but we've gotten some really good cover crops and we've had a few kind of disasters where, you know, it just didn't rain or we got them too deep or too shallow and some species always grow better than others. But that's been really rewarding to see what we can grow and not hurt the next crop, and that we're actually recycling the nutrients and keeping the soil alive and we're not extracting too much water from the soil like we thought we might. I mean, that was always the thought; we used to think having summer fallow for a year was needed to stock up enough moisture for a crop. So, now to see that we can grow a cover crop and a cash crop, it's really rewarding to see that we can do that with our rainfall, and to learn that it takes a green, growing plant to keep soil alive.   And the animals definitely help pay for this, you know, when they can feed themselves in the wintertime that takes care of the hours on a tractor and fuel for the tractor and man hours and the hay bales. It’s a lot of cost savings for sure, as long as it’s less than a foot of uncrusted snow and we have hay on hand for heavy snow years.   9)    What are the signs that your land is resilient, and what does resiliency mean to you?   I would say to be able to withstand drought and still either grow a crop or be able to keep our herd together without having to cull because of lack of forage. That's really being resilient and being profitable enough to stay in business. To be able to manage it well enough and grow enough forage or crops to feed the animals when we don’t have rain. Resiliency means flexibility and profitability. And not having runoff, that's huge in my mind. If we can capture 90 plus percent of all the rain that falls on our land, that's what makes us very resilient.   10) When we talk about the importance of grazing management, we often refer to the Rs. Of the words rotate, rest, and recover, which one sticks out to you the most and why?   I like rotate. That's because without rotation you can't have either of the other ones. Getting the cows where you want them, when you want them, to accomplish the goals on your range or farmland, that's the key. ______________________________________________ ______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com

How a first-time rancher is regenerating degraded cropland to healthy, resilient rangeland. Rangeland health, soil health, and the economic health of ranchers are one and the same, not mutually exclusive. That’s what James Halverson, Executive Director of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, has learned. Halverson also happens to be a passionate rancher, grazing cattle in the northern foothills of the Black Hills. In a recent podcast interview, Halverson talked about his journey from cropland to rangeland—and why he enjoys being a rangeland evangelist. “I feel that rangeland is like a red-headed stepchild that isn’t getting near the attention compared to cropland when it comes to the regenerative agriculture movement,” Halverson said. “We can apply the same soil health principles to rangeland—to increase stocking rates and production while increasing the ecological function and economics, too.” “We try to graze different pastures as short of time as we can, depending on where we can haul water. I’m a big believer in grazing pastures hard, but then giving pastures a good rest, giving them a season to recover.” “Moving into the middle of an older couple’s ranch, in the northern foothills of the Black Hills, we were lucky as first-time ranchers that they put no pressure on us to do things the way they did,” Halverson said. “Especially as we adopted soil health practices to regenerate degraded cropland. You can learn so much by observing the ground, watching how and what species the cows eat—really learning from the landscape and going far beyond just checking the cows,” Halverson said. And that translates to a better product for consumers, he believes. “Raising really good tasting beef starts with healthy soil, diversity on the rangeland and figuring out how to get cattle to eat it,” Halverson said. “I try to emulate and learn from people like Dr. Fred Provenza , Gabe Brown , Ray Archuleta and others who are on the ground and want to help producers.” Halverson subscribes to the slogan “Remember the R’s– Rotate, Rest and Recover” that several South Dakota organizations are promoting to develop resilience on grasslands. He said he’s seen first-hand the value of rest, which has contributed to the growth of his pastures. Here’s more of what Halverson has to say: “We’re fortunate to have a local seed company with outstanding guys that developed a 12 to 15 species mix of cool and warm season grasses, brassicas, alfalfa, sainfoin, tannins and others to meet our goals. Diversity in rangeland helps the soil, and cattle figure out how to flourish as well.” “Our experiment with bale grazing, putting out round bales weekly, is working well, keeping the cows from eating the pine trees that can cause some abortion problems. And we’re seeing some pretty cool results by not pouring cattle.” “We’ve pushed our calving season back, from late April into June, which has worked really well. Those calves rarely see a bad day, we’ve seen basically zero problems, and selling calves a bit later in the year has worked well, too.” The South Dakota State University influence: How South Dakota State University (SDSU) led to agricultural teaching and becoming a first-generation rancher. How his Colorado State University (CSU) graduate degree in Rangeland and Ecosystems Management entrenched his passion for helping other cattle producers become better soil and grass producers. His CSU graduate advisor, Dr. Larry Rittenhouse, taught him the importance of forward thinking and being open-minded. It really opened his eyes to teaching and doing things that can be tough for older generations to do—to adapt and continue to evolve our rangeland management.

On this week’s “Resilience Rodeo”, rancher Larry Wagner tells us about how utilizing both grasses and cover crops extends his grazing seasons and helps keep moisture in his soils. About 20 miles South of Chamberlain, SD, Larry Wagner has 1500 acres of mainly warm season grasses that have mostly been converted from farmland that’s typically seen in the area. When asked why he chooses to keep the land in grass vs. cropland, Wagner answers “I don't like messing with the chemicals, and there's so many more benefits with range for the wildlife, for people in general. You don't have the runoff with range land that you do on farm ground. To me it’s a better quality of life.” Larry’s management style and improved diversity have resulted in the Audubon Society counting 32 different bird species in his pastures, “the highest count that they’ve seen in this part of the world”. 1) What is one thing you done that has been most important to the success of your operation? Probably my most important thing to my operation is my grass and going to a lot of different seminars and different things. And being a member of the South Dakota Grassland Coalition has taught me a lot about grass and the benefits of it. 2) Can you recall a moment in time or when a light bulb came on for you, that kind of made you change the way you're grazing? The reason I've changed my grazing was, just like I stated before, going to tours and stuff. The results of doing that is you learn, and the actual scene is better than somebody telling you that “yeah, this works”. That's really made a big change for me. I guess probably the biggest thing is just seeing how high you can increase your production without any expense, so you have more profit. 3) What surprised you the most when you changed the way you were grazing? The thing that surprised me is how you can increase your production even in a dry year. What a difference it'll make. It's a lot to do with the soil because, as your soil gets better you have more organic matter, you retain more moisture. That's why it gets you dryer years better. 4) What would you say the biggest misconception is with people who are not managing their grass properly? We're all farming, and I don't know if this is the place to get in my soap box about the farming thing, but the problem with that is, so they get a bill for seed and fertilizer and fuel and insecticides and crop consulting. They get all these bills. So, they really concentrate on their row crop, and they don't on their grass. I'd like to bill them people for mismanaging their grass. If they got a bill that you're doing wrong out here for so much an acre, they'd probably change their ways. But the misconception is, “Well, it's just grass, it'll always grow”. Well, it always grows. It always gets green, but how much does it grow? And they said, “Well, there's no production out there and I'm going to sell my cows because there's no grass out there. I don't have enough grass.” Well, yeah, you don't have enough grass because you didn't take care of it. 5) If you could give any of those people some advice on where to start, to maybe change their mindset toward a better grazing system, what would that be? Probably one of the first things I'd do is send them to the South Dakota Grasslands Grazing School and learn about grass. And if they would go on some of these tours and see that stuff, see how it can be improved and really how easy and how cheap it is. There really is very little cost to doing the improving. 6) Looking at your current system, is there anything you'd like to do that you haven't done yet to improve your soil or your grazing system? Probably not a lot on the soil. The grazing system, I've planted it all to grass. I'd never do that again, because I think you need a cover crop in your rotation to extend your grazing later on to either fall or even winter grazing. 7) When you walk across your grasslands, what do you look for as an indicator of healthy grasslands and healthy soil? Well, you look at the soil, look at the armor on the soil. See if you got new species of grass coming. To me, one thing is really interesting in grass species, of their ability to predict weather. Some years you'll have a species that you got a lot of. Wetter or drier year, you probably don't see that as much, but then that year there's some other species of grasses growing good. It just always amazes me what a weather predictor they are. They know when they should be growing and when they shouldn't be growing. Also, a lot of birds. 8) Can you talk about any changes you've made that maybe at first you didn't think would work? Probably some of my biggest mistakes was my fencing. Went with like a four-wire fence, when you could just get by with electric fence. That's probably one of my biggest things. Because the rotational grazing is not a- you don't just start out in the spring and say, well, I'm going to do this, this, and this. The cows are going to be here and there this day, and this day, and this day. It's all based on weather, and you never know your rainfall, so you might want to change your pasture sizes. And if you have permanent fence, you don't change it. 9) What are the signs that your land is resilient? And what does resiliency mean to you? I guess what resilient means to me is probably like this year, when we're in a dry cycle, that still I have a lot of good growing grass. That the soil is healthy and has used all the moisture that we have received. 10) We have a number of words that begin with R, but three that we've settled on, Rotate, Rest, Recovery, that are really key to healthy and resilient range land. Which one would be your favorite and why? Probably recover is my most important because the less time they're on there all your grasses regrow with photosynthesis. Well, the more grass you leave, and the more time you have, the more recovery you'll have. Use that for the next year or later that year, you get your recovery back way faster. That's probably the important thing. ______________________________________________ _______________________ Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages: 1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts and more. 2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture. 3.Follow Growing Resilience on social media: Facebook - Growing Resilience Twitter - @GrowResilience_ Instagram - growingresilience.sd 4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com