WASHINGTON, D.C. — The way crop insurance is currently organized prevents some farmers from finding motivation to improve soil health; government policies need to change if the environment is going to benefit, but more data need to be collected and analyzed before any suggestions can be made, according to Deb Atwood of AGree.

She discussed policy options generated by AGree’s Agricultural Conservation and Crop Insurance Task Force during a Farm Foundation forum this month. Information from the USDA, farmers, policymakers and other shareholders is being gathered in preparation of updates to crop insurance policies.

Atwood expects to see data showing such policies can become more beneficial to the environment without negatively impacting farmers. "We do not want to impede a producer’s willingness to implement and try these conservation practices that prove to be profitable," she explained.

Dan DeSutter, president of DeSutter Farms, Inc. of Indiana, said he did not start his environmental practices because he was a "tree-hugger," but because it made business sense. As he said a farmer in Australia told him, the change was made for economic reasons – and the environmental improvement was just a bonus.

"Perhaps the best thing we can do for soil health is to stop subsidizing. Support ag with good science," DeSutter said.

He added if farmers work smarter, their farms can make more money, do good things for the environment and regenerate soil health. With current crop insurance policies, he said farmers are not encouraged to make changes such as having multiple crops and cover crops to increase the carbon in soil.

In 2012, DeSutter was in the region of the country affected by the worst drought since 1988. There were some farmers in his area who received no crop insurance payment because the soil in previous years had retained enough water to get through the drought.

DeSutter’s farm did collect some money, but farmers with no conservation practices were hit much harder, and received more assistance from crop insurance policies.

"When you subsidize something, you muffle the economic signals … Subsidized crop insurance insulates people from poor agronomic choices. They can afford to make bad decisions and to stay in business," he said.

Currently, about 15 percent of farmers have conservation practices in place. Another 15 percent are unlikely to change the conventional farming practices. The remaining 70 percent are those who need to change their practices to help the environment.

More than half of farmers are renting land from landowners, DeSutter said. With a three-year lease, the tenant farmer has no guarantee they will still be cultivating the land when the improvements start to show a profit.

He would like to put a cover crop like clover between rows of corn. The move would decrease erosion and increase the carbon in the soil, which would help with water retention, he said. But current crop insurance policies will not allow him to plant the clover, and if he decides to make the change, he would not be able to use the government-subsidized crop insurance.

Since all taxpayers help with these subsidies, DeSutter would like to see everyone benefit, in terms of better air and water quality. "If we’re going to pay farmers, let’s tie it to something that benefits everyone," he said.

Bruce Sherrick of the University of Illinois said there are not enough data to make changes in crop insurance policies. Yield variability for different farming practices need to be studied before insurance could be adjusted.

"Crop insurance is more important than in the past," he said.

He noted there likely are conservation practices that are worth incentivizing even if they increase risk, but crop insurance would not be the best route in all cases. Other options need to be considered.

In the 1980s, New Zealand and Australia removed all subsidies for farmers. DeSutter said he spoke with many different types of farmers over a large geographic area and soil variety. All of them told him it was difficult at first without the subsidies, but that none would return to the program because they are more competitive in the global market than they were before.