Carbon reduction benefits of “soil health” programs haven’t been proven – they will decrease yields, increase costs, and lead to land use changes elsewhere

Practices sold as promoting “soil health” are even murkier. Cover cropping and reduced- or no-till farming—the poster children of soil carbon sequestration—can increase the amount of carbon held in agricultural soils rather than released into the atmosphere. They also increase soil organic matter, helping to keep both soil and crops healthy. But they often do so at the expense of yields and at high cost for farmers. When these practices do decrease yields, their adoption can lead to land-use change elsewhere. Further, while these practices can increase soil carbon levels alongside soil health co-benefits, the permanence of that newly sequestered soil carbon—how long it remains in the soil before it returns to the atmosphere—is uncertain. Whether these “soil health” practices can be called “climate-smart” is yet to be seen.

Pasture management solutions present similar tradeoffs. The cause célèbre of so-called “regenerative” ranching, practices like rotational grazing and multi-paddock systems can increase carbon sequestration in animal agricultural soils. But they also come with massive reductions in efficiency compared to feedlot and other confined feeding systems. And once again, reduced efficiency means increased emissions intensity of agricultural products and indirect land-use change elsewhere.