Soil health management practices in the diverse Intermountain West

In Utah, cover crops keep roots in the ground and maintain soil biological activity, which helps avoid compaction, Piper says. “It’s not like a true cover crop, like you’d see in the Midwest though,” he says. “It’s more of a ‘Hey, I have some cheap wheat seeds. I’m going to cover my ground and keep roots in the ground, so we can continually keep our soil active and alive and open for salt penetration and keeping our soils healthy.’” Managing soil compaction through reduced tillage is also key, but there’s a balance because true no-till can lead to severe compaction where the ground basically shuts down, he says. Because the compaction is so tight, salt levels increase and plants die. “So you have to find the balance of these activities on each farm.” 

Other strategies include crop rotation, crop diversification, organic amendments, interseeding, water management, and introducing legumes and forbs in rangelands. Rangelands present unique challenges, particularly on public lands where management options can be limited, Schad says.

Even when they can’t plant or manage tillage, ranchers are also adopting innovative soil health practices, such as managed intensive grazing, rotational grazing, precision grazing, and adaptive grazing, Richards says. For example, rather than just letting the livestock on rangelands graze freely, ranchers may institute rotational grazing using virtual fencing. Utah’s Soil Health Program supports the adoption of virtual fencing, which uses GPS collars on cattle to control their movement without physical barriers (like the invisible fencing used for dogs). Virtual fencing is particularly useful for grazing on public lands and other areas where traditional fencing is impractical, Richards says. 

Strategic grazing can protect sensitive areas and enhance vegetation, Yost adds. “Cattle can aid or have negative effects on vegetation, “so ranchers are becoming more deliberate about when and where they graze to balance the impact on the land, he says.

Ultimately, the focus of the soil health management conversation needs to be on building resilience, Richards says. Creativity also plays a role, Schad adds, especially in designing sustainable food systems and smarter foodscapes.

Soil health management communication and collaboration

When Schad, Yost, and their colleagues surveyed crop advisers and producers, they found notable differences in how each group views their role in, and gathers information about, soil health management. For example, Schad says, crop advisers view themselves as key sources of information, but producers don’t rank them as highly. Advisers believed their clients’ top sources of information were other producers (80%), themselves/crop advisers (70%), and university extension (56%), the researchers wrote in Agricultural & Environmental Letters. Advisers relied most on in-field experience (94%), their customers (82%), and colleagues (82%). The survey of 500 producers (unpublished data) revealed that other producers were the top information source (28% used often), not advisers. Other top information sources for producers included: Government entities (19% used often), university extension (15% used often), and crop advisers (13% used often). 

This aligns with what Piper observes: Producers often look to their neighbors and replicate successful practices. “Social networks among farmers are tight,” Yost adds. “They watch and talk to each other. Innovators try things, succeed, and others follow.”

Producers also turn to diverse sources. Surprisingly, Schad says, YouTube has become a significant tool for some. More traditional sources like the NRCS, university extensions, and demo day events also play an important role. Demo days, where new technologies, equipment and practices are showcased, are particularly valuable, Richards notes.

The disconnect between where advisers think producers get their information and where producers actually do highlights the need for better communication, Schad says. Additionally, the information from these sources often conflicts. Scientists, advisers, and extension specialists “need better collaboration and more consistent messaging,” Yost says.

Barriers to adoption

Most producers reported that they have a high interest in—and use of—soil health management practices (90% agree or strongly agree soil health is important to them). The Utah Soil Health Partnership “program has moved from the leading edge to the mainstream," Richards says, with more producers willing to try new practices after seeing success in others. Cultural barriers and past failures, such as with no-till equipment, have been significant challenges, he says, but there is growing interest as input costs rise and water shortages become more prevalent.

Piper notes that many of his clients embrace soil health practices, with about half “aggressively” working to improve soil health for better returns on investment (ROI). Economic pressures and rising input costs are pushing farmers toward practices like minimum tillage and cover crops to boost profitability.

One grower Piper worked with reduced irrigation water use by 6 inches/ac by adding residue and choosing water-efficient grain and cover crop varieties. “We call it crop per drop,” he says, referring to maximizing crop yield per unit of water. Understanding the ROI of soil health practices, including water savings, drives adoption. For well users, water efficiency translates directly into cost savings, while surface water users benefit from lower operational expenses. “That’s the future,” Piper says—increasing soil health to sustain or increase yields with less water as precipitation patterns shift.

Ultimately, economics will determine whether producers make changes. Equipment costs, however, remain a major obstacle. New equipment like no-till drills, for instance, can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, Yost explains, and the survey revealed that financial constraints prevent many farmers from investing in needed equipment. “Even those aware of the need for new equipment often lack the financial resources to make the transition.” Even so, seeing a neighbor increase yields or lower costs by adopting reduced tillage, cover crops, or more efficient irrigation can tip the scales toward change.

Overcoming barriers

On the economics front, there are programs to help. Grants and financial assistance are offered by NRCS, UDAF, and others. Grants from UDAF to local conservation districts allow them to rent no-till drills, interseeders, and mowers for farmers to test these tools before making long-term investments, Richards says.

However, both crop advisers and growers often lack adequate economic data on soil health practices, especially localized insights, Schad notes. The survey revealed advisers feel underinformed, limiting their ability to guide producers effectively. Studies like this aim to fill that gap.

Both crop advisers and growers often lack adequate economic data on soil health practices, especially localized insights. The survey revealed advisers feel underinformed, limiting their ability to guide producers effectively.

Better communication among advisers, producers, and government programs is also crucial, Richards says. Misalignment can cause conflicts, such as when a producer unknowingly violates an NRCS conservation program due to conflicting advice. Many producers are also unaware of available government support programs, he says.

Efforts like the Utah Soil Health Partnership Soil Health Network Project address these challenges. With 16 demonstration farms in varied landscapes and climates across the state, the program works with local farmers on trial plots and then gathers data through interviews and economic assessments to provide actionable insights. Field days and field visits are key components, Schad says. These events allow farmers to see practices in action, hear from agronomy experts referencing data, and learn directly from peers about implementation and challenges. “Hearing from both the expert and the farmer who’s tried it on his property creates a powerful way of disseminating information through statistics and storytelling,” she explains. 

Hundreds of producers attend these events, Yost adds, underscoring their impact. Richards agrees that while research and success demonstrations are vital, peer-to-peer sharing and local examples have proven especially effective in driving adoption.

Future of soil health management

Farmers are often among the first to respond to climate changes, including more frequent and severe droughts and heavier rainfall during storms. Practices like no-till farming and cover crops are increasingly popular as producers adapt to drought conditions and seek profitability, Piper says. Likewise, leaving crop residue improves water retention, making it easier to grow during dry spells. Soil health is fundamentally about resilience, Schad says. Producers are adopting these practices to adapt to changes like shifting precipitation patterns and to boost their bottom lines.

The Utah Soil Health Network Project aims to provide data and evidence supporting these practices over the coming years. Now in its third year of a five-year project, it focuses on building momentum for soil health through statewide field days and demonstrations that showcase successful practices and gather producer feedback. The team plans to resurvey participants at the end of the project to track changes in attitudes and adoption of soil health practices, Schad says. The ultimate goal is to deliver practical, region-specific tools for producers.

Economic sustainability is the primary driver for producers, encompassing both soil and water conservation. However, Richards advises caution: Soil health management isn’t a quick fix. He suggests starting small—experimenting with one field and seeing how it goes before scaling up. “Have patience,” he says. “Then try new things.”