This page was last updated March 2025.
The economic and environmental results from 24 soil health case studies are summarized below. AFT and partners used AFT’s Excel-based Retrospective Soil Health Economic Calculator (R-SHEC) Tool and associated Soil Health Case Study Tool Kit to conduct a partial budget analysis of adopting soil health practices for each case study. These case studies analyze the costs and benefits of adopting soil health practices reported by “soil health successful” row crop farmers or almond growers. To learn about our Soil Health Case Study Tool Kit methods and how to produce your own case studies, visit our “Quantifying Economic and Environmental Benefits of Soil Health” webpage.
Additional soil health case studies were produced using a different method and dataset, the Cornell Dairy Farm Business Summary (DFBS) survey, to determine if soil health practices can be adopted while improving or maintaining economic performance. These case studies are not included in the findings summary below.
Of the 24 case studies, 2 feature row crop farmers and 3 feature almond growers. Information on case study farms’ location and soil health practices are provided below in table format. All featured producers adopted one or more of the following soil health practices: conservation crop rotation, cover cropping, nutrient management, and reduced or no-tillage.
Tables
Results presented below have been updated to 2023 prices to ensure comparability. Prices in individual case studies were published with price data from 2018, 2020 or 2023 and will differ to the results below.
Yield and Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices
- Improved Yield: 18 of the 21 row crop farmers and all three of the almond growers attribute a yield increase to their soil health practices, which we valued at $16 to $356 per acre for row crops and $519 to $1,156 per acre for almonds based on national average row crop prices and California average almond prices, respectively.
- Annual Change in Net Income: An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the 21 row crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line between $2 and $209 per acre per year. Due to the high value of almonds, the three California almond growers in the study saw an increase in annual net income ranging from $581 to $1,257 per acre per year.
- Return on Investment (ROI): ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment among the producers in the case studies by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested. The 21 row crop farmers’ ROI ranged from 7% to 345%. The three California almond growers’ ROI ranged from 198% to 553%. This wide range of ROI is due to the varied locations, crops, and practices analyzed for each “soil health successful” farmer.
Input Benefits and Costs of Soil Health Practices
- Changes to Fertilizer Costs: 13 of the 21 row crop farmers reported fertilizer savings ranging from $9 to $84 per acre per year, with the largest savings seen from implementing nutrient management plans and reducing fertilizer rates by applying with more precision via injection and/or variable rate technology. Three row crop farmers reported no change in fertilizer costs and five row crop farmers reported increases in fertilizer costs, ranging from $9 to $82, with higher costs resulting from practices such as switching from synthetic fertilizers to manure. For the almond growers, Rogers saved $234 per acre per year on fertilizer due to reductions in both nitrogen and potassium applications while Sauter increased fertilizer costs by $76 per acre per year due to changing the forms of phosphorus and potassium in order to adopt fertigation. The Gemperles experienced no change in fertilizer costs.
- Changes to Machinery, Fuel, and Labor Costs: All 15 row crop farmers who implemented no-till or reduced till saved $17 to $92 per acre per year on machinery use, fuel, and labor expenses by switching to reduced or no-tillage, thereby making fewer passes over the field. None of the almond growers conduct tillage, as expected. On the other hand, machinery cost changes due to nutrient management varied: Of the 17 row crop farmers who adopted nutrient management, machinery costs remained unchanged for five farmers, increased for eight farmers ranging from $1 to $67 per acre per year, and decreased for three farmers by $1 to $10 per acre per year. Costs were incurred, for example, by switching to injection, or by additional passes associated with applying more nutrients. Conversely, one farmer saw a machinery cost savings by halving his applications of lime. Two of the almond farmers implemented nutrient management (which includes compost and mulch applications) and saw associated machinery cost increases of $105 and $220 per acre as a result. Nutrient machinery costs for the other almond grower remained unchanged.
- Pesticide Usage: Change in pesticide usage was mixed for the 21 row crop farms: eight farmers reduced their pesticide use due to soil health practices by $4 to $36 per acre per year, for instance, by reducing the amount of herbicide applied after implementing cover crops; ten farmers saw no change in pesticide costs. The remaining three farmers saw an increased cost of $6 to $29 per acre per year. In all three instances, this was due to applying more herbicide as a result of adopting no-till or reduced tillage. All three almond growers reduced their pesticide use due to soil health practices by $38, $189, and $253 per acre per year.
- Learning Costs: All 21 producers reported investing their time in learning about soil health conservation practices. The estimated annual cost by each producer (using the Bureau of Labor Statistics national average farm manager labor rate) ranges from $243 to $5,923 per year, with an outlier of $16,425 per year by Ohio producer, Niemeyer, who spends significantly more time than the other producers at 530 hours per year (even after reducing his total hours by half to account for time spent learning for his cover crop consulting businesses).
Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices
Water Quality Improvement: 14 of our 21 row crop farms underwent analysis using USDA’s Nutrient Tracking Tool (NTT). All 14 of these row crop farmers observed less soil and water runoff on their fields or believe less nitrate is entering the groundwater thanks to their soil health practices. NTT estimated that on each farm’s field selected for analysis (ranging between 7 and 140 acres), the soil health practices implemented reduced nitrogen losses from 22% to 85%, phosphorus losses from 22% to 96%, and sediment losses from 11% to 99%.
Climate Improvement: Producers achieved improved climate outcomes too, as estimated by USDA’s COMET-Farm Tool. AFT used the Tool to analyze data from ten row crop farmers. Total greenhouse gas emission reductions ranged from 35% to 560%, which corresponds to taking between ¾ of a car to 17 cars off the road for one year.
Words of Wisdom
In addition to the statistical results, four of the farmers featured in the February 2020 case studies shared words of wisdom for others considering these practices:
“Our trees are more productive, the soil is healthier, and my orchard is providing environmental benefits like better local air and water quality and lower climate emissions. My philosophy is simple, take care of the soil and it will take care of the trees.” – Tom Rogers, Madera, California.