Media Kit

Iowa has made real progress. At the same time, there’s real work ahead.

A powerful example of how time, education, and cultural changes lead to impact is no-till. Since the 1930’s, there have been massive efforts to reduce erosion and phosphorus loss that happens because of tillage. In 2023, no-till before corn and soybeans increased to more than 9 million acres and the progress keeps coming. It took nearly a century, but the results are there. We know the same can be done for nitrogen loss.

In-field practice results
—Cover crops were nearly nonexistent in Iowa a decade ago. Now we are approaching 4 million acres. The figure was below 1 million acres as recently as 2016. Cover crops reduce nitrogen loads an average of 28-31 percent.
—Conservation tillage and no-till now account for about two-thirds of Iowa’s farm acres.
—Growth in manure cover crop acres has mirrored overall growth in cover crop acres.
—Precision nutrient application technology continues to advance. So does the research into optimal nitrogen rates. In 2024, the Iowa Nitrogen Initiative released the first ever county-specific nitrogen recommendations in Iowa, which will allow farmers to successfully lower N rates without losing yield.

Edge-of-field practices see infinate growth
—Bioreactors and saturated buffers are being installed at the fastest rate since the Iowa NRS began. In 2018, Iowa had only 40 bioreactors and saturated buffers. Now, there are over 300, with 150+ being installed annually thanks to the batch and build model.
—In 2006, only 50 acres were protected by edge-of-field practices. In 2003, that number was 13.7 thousand.
—Wetlands are also growing at a faster pace, especially in the Des Moines Lobe, where they are needed the most.
—Oxbows, a practice only recognized for nutrient reduction abilities in 2017, are now one of the most ecologically impactful and rapidly scalable conservation practices in the Midwest. Installations have led to a strong resurgence of the endangered Topeka Shiner, 81 bird and 56 fish species recorded by partners across Iowa, and 50+ million gallons of floodplain water storage.

Challenges in measuring progress: Water quality progress can be hard to track for many reasons. Below, we explain the challenges, as well as some of the most commonly cited statistics.

Weather variability
Water quality monitoring results can swing widely from year to year based on rainfall, snowmelt, and extreme events. This makes it difficult to distinguish short term weather impacts from long term trends

Farmer data privacy
Farm-level conservation data is private, so datasets from different agencies, researchers, and organizations cannot be merged or shared. This means we end up with program or agency specific conservation records instead of a comprehensive statewide dataset of progress.

Cost share participation varies
Some farmers sign up for incentive programs. Some do conservation with their own funds. That means that many voluntary conservation practices are not accounted for.

Remote sensing limitations
Satellite and aerial imagery can help estimate statewide numbers in a way that program-specific data cannot. However, it’s not a perfect techonology. For example, a cover crop field may not be measured, because it’s late to grow or fails to grow due to weather variations and farmer tactics.

Accurate survey responses
Some datasets rely on surveys or business records. Results are then estimates that rely on reporting accuracy.

Top sources for progress metrics:

ISU’s NRS Dashboard – An online, interactive dashboard maintained by Iowa State University with annual updates. It also tracks implementation indicators, like how many people are attending field days, how much money is invested in Iowa programs, and how many partners are involved. We particularly love the visual maps and graphs of conservation progress.
INREC’s Annual Survey – A representative, annual survey conducted wtih agronomists and ag retailers who provide data on their farmer customers. This statistically significant sample set can provide an estimate of statewide adoption. It is the survey that Iowa refers to most because of its frequency, plus its statewide, non-cost-share specific perspective.
USDA Census of Agriculture – A comprehensive, nationwide census that provides county-level data on land use and certain conservation practices like no-till, cover crops, and CRP enrollment. It is only updated every 5 years.
Annual Water Quality Initiative Report – An annual legislative report from the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship that summarizes conservation funding, cost share use, and practice adoption through the WQI program, specifically. This is a helpful snapshot of how much was invested by the state into Iowa conservation, and can be helpful when looking at year-to-year comparisons.
Iowa NRCS “At a Glance” Metrics – The Iowa NRCS releases an annual summary of key conservation practice metrics by program (which you may know as the alphabet soup: EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and RCPP). This is a good snapshot of how much was invested federally into Iowa conservation, and can be helpful when looking at year-to-year comparisons.

All information is from the original Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Updated numbers should come from ISU.

Nutrient Loss Values

Different practices have different effectiveness. They are best when paired together.

• Phosphorus practices
• Nitrogen practices

average phosphorus reductions

46%

Using liquid swine, dairy, and poultry manure compared to commercial fertilizer

29%

Planting winter rye cover crops, which holds nutrients and soil in place.

90%

No till compared to chisel plowing.

average nitrogen reductions

28-31%

Planting oat or rye cover crops, which hold nutrients and soil in place.

52%

Wetlands that are constructed or restored for targeted water quality

90%

Bioreactors and saturated buffers, which divert tile drainage water into an area where microbes can naturally break down nitrogen.

Download pdf of all practices