Minnesota Soil 
Health Action 
Framework
January 2024
The development of the Framework was funded by the McKnight Foundation, 
led by the University of Minnesota Office for Soil Health and the Board of Water 
and Soil Resources, and based on discussions with representatives of public 
and private sector interests in Minnesota’s soil health.
Page 1
Minnesota Soil Health Action Framework
Project team................................................................................................................................ 2
Stakeholder advisory group...................................................................................................... 2
Summary of findings.................................................................................................................. 3
 Key concepts and priorities................................................................................................ 3 
 Using the framework......................................................................................................... 4
 Key differences and disclaimers......................................................................................... 4
1. Context and background........................................................................................................ 5
 Soil health functions, costs and benefits......................................................................... 5
 Information sources........................................................................................................... 6
2. Components of the framework............................................................................................. 7
3. Strategies for removing barriers............................................................................................ 10
 1. Learning curves and transition time............................................................................... 11
 2. Perceptions of the costs and benefits of soil health practices vary among farmers and 
 other interest groups.......................................................................................................... 12
 3. Equipment costs............................................................................................................. 12
 4. Agricultural labor availability and management.............................................................. 13
 5. Markets and infrastructure for emerging crops and integration of livestock.................. 14
 6. Availability of private sector and public sector (agency, SWCD, university) expertise... 15
 7. Separation of land ownership from management.......................................................... 15
 8. Program design (complexity, inflexibility, access).......................................................... 16
 9. Undeveloped markets for ecosystem services.............................................................. 17
 10. Inadequate understanding or use of the social sciences............................................. 18
 11. Lack of science-based information about agronomics................................................ 19
 12. Lack of data to track progress and impacts, and to support decision-making........... 19
 Additional barriers.............................................................................................................. 20
Project team
A. Marcelle Lewandowski, Anna Cates, Sarah Roth, University of Minnesota Office for Soil Health
Tom Gile, Suzanne Rhees, Board of Water and Soil Resources
Stakeholder advisory group
This report is based on discussions of the following group. Including names on this list does not 
indicate the individuals or organizations approve all the statements in this report. The authors aimed 
to represent their wide-ranging perspectives, but ultimately the authors are responsible for the 
content.
JoAnne Berkenkamp, Managing Director, MBOLD, Greater MSP Partnership
Peter Mead, Rich Biske, The Nature Conservancy
LeAnn R. Buck, Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Mark Gutierrez, Minnesota Soil Health Coalition
Jodi DeJong-Hughes, Jennifer Hahn, University of Minnesota Extension
John Jaschke, BWSR (ex officio)
Ariel Kagan, Anne Shwagerl (farmer), Minnesota Farmers Union 
T.J. Kartes, Saddle Butte Ag, Inc.
Therea Keaveny, Climate Land Leaders
Peter LaFontaine, Friends of the Mississippi River
Stephanie McLain, Samuel Porter, Ryan Buetow, NRCS
Aaron Meyer, Minnesota Rural Water Association
Rodney Moe (farmer), Maciej Kazula, Amanda Bilek, Adam Birr, Minnesota Corn 
Carolyn Olson (Farmer) Minnesota Farm Bureau
Danielle Isaacson, Brad Jordahl Redlin, Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program
Amy Robak, Centra Sota Cooperative 
Laura Schreiber, Land Stewardship Project
Lauren Servick, Minnesota Pork
Lucas Sjostrom (Farmer), Minnesota Milk Producers
Carissa Spencer, USDA Farm Service Agency
Doug Thomas, Houston Engineering
Anna Teeter, Cargill
Reid Christiansen, Aicam Laacouri, Margaret Wagner, Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Lucinda Winter and Sarah Lindblom (farmer), Sustainable Farming Association
Page 2
Summary of findings
The purpose of this report is to develop an action framework to increase 
adoption of soil health management practices. We believe that improving 
the health of soils across the state means a more stable, financially 
sound, and productive agricultural sector; healthier lakes, streams and 
groundwater; better habitat; more carbon storage; and opportunities for 
flood mitigation through more dispersed water storage.
Soil is managed by farmers and other land managers, but their actions 
in turn are shaped by a complex web of markets, technology, policy, and 
social factors. Both the costs and the benefits of soil health are felt by 
the landowners and managers as well as the public at large. Therefore, 
improvements in soil health require the engagement of multiple and 
sometimes conflicting interests. Fortunately, in Minnesota many of these 
interest groups understand how they can benefit from advancing soil 
health and have been investing in soil health management for many 
years. 
This document is a framework of desired outcomes, metrics, 
strategies, and actions, intended to be used by diverse interests to 
guide their planning for advancing soil health. The specific metrics 
and actions will not all be relevant to any one interest group. A significant 
number of the strategies described are already in place and should 
continue to be supported. 
An advisory group representing diverse interests was convened 
five times in 2022 and 2023. The group (listed on page 2) included 
representatives of farmer organizations, food and agriculture companies, 
agricultural co-ops, University Extension, state and federal agencies, 
local government, agriculture and environment advocacy groups, 
and other non-governmental organizations. Several of the members 
were farmers. The group agreed on the value of advancing soil health, 
shared a broad belief that appropriate actions towards soil health will 
benefit both agriculture and natural resources, and were energized and 
committed to discussing and sharing their distinctive perspectives. 
Key concepts and priorities
• Invest in people, not just practices. Among the common 
themes that emerged in the group’s discussions are the 
challenges of building expertise in soil health practices and 
meeting demands for that expertise, across both the public and 
private sectors. Directing federal and state resources toward 
expanded training and staffing can help meet these needs at the 
local level.
• Expand public-private partnerships across multiple sectors 
What is soil 
health?
Soil health is defined in state 
statute as “the continued 
capacity of soil to function as a 
vital living system that sustains 
plants, animals, and humans. 
Indicators of soil health include 
water infiltration capacity; 
organic matter content; water 
holding capacity; biological 
capacity to break down plant 
residue and other substances 
and to maintain soil aggregation; 
nutrient sequestration and 
cycling capacity; carbon 
sequestration; and soil 
resistance.” (Minn. Stats. 
103C.101, subd. 10a). 
The U.S. Department of 
Agriculture - Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) 
defines soil health more 
concisely as the soil’s ability 
to function as a vital, living 
ecosystem. 
Page 3
and activities. Public agencies, NGOs, and private companies share many goals for improving soil 
health across the agricultural sector. In addition to supporting new staff positions, partnerships can 
expand and enhance collaboration in the areas of research, market and supply chain development, 
and joint training opportunities to learn from each other and better align messaging. 
• Increase the role of private sector agronomists by improving their skills and their business 
opportunities, including developing incentives for agronomists to “sell services” rather than “sell 
products.” 
• Support and increase farmer mentorship and peer-to-peer learning support, including funding for 
early adopters to train and mentor others.
• Support soil-friendly agriculture beyond the farm gate by developing markets and supply chains 
for emerging crops as well as formerly widespread crops such as oats, winter rye, and pasture-based 
livestock production systems.
• Increase funding flexibility by designing programs to meet farmer needs (e.g., equipment purchases) 
and to increase opportunities for small-scale commitments and experimentation.
• Develop programs and policies that acknowledge the many different scales and approaches in 
agriculture, as well as the broader issues of access to land, farm transitions and demographic 
change. These issues can indirectly influence the extent of soil health practices; for example, both 
renters of farmland and non-operating landowners may feel constrained in their ability to change 
established practices. Generational and cultural differences can also influence awareness of 
opportunities and openness to change. 
Key differences and disclaimers
Among interest groups, the definition of soil health and purpose of this work varies and is sometimes 
contradictory. While few of the people in the advisory group support all of the statements in this document, 
participants agree that the Framework reflects the group’s discussions and the greater intent to advance 
healthy soil.
For example, some members opposed differentiating actions between various sizes or sectors of agriculture, 
because of concern that it would jeopardize our ability to bridge often-contentious agricultural perspectives 
in the interest of soil health. Conversely, other members emphasized that different sizes and sectors of 
agriculture have different needs and different soil health impacts and issues. 
To retain all potentially valuable ideas for strategies and actions, we did not limit ourselves to points of 
consensus or actions of proven impact. A strength of the soil health community is that values and priorities 
vary by interest group, and thus they will support different strategies. As a group, we cannot objectively 
identify or rank all the impacts of each action, and the costs and benefits of each action may be assessed and 
borne by various groups. 
Using the framework
This report is deliberately not an “Action Plan” but a framework to guide agencies and private organizations 
as they develop their own action plans. It is intended to be flexible enough to meet the varied objectives 
of those agencies and organizations that collaborated in its production, as well as other public and private 
interests. 
Each group can choose from the metrics, strategies and actions presented in this document to advance their 
own soil health mission and to collaborate with others.
Page 4
Some ways an organization or coalition might use this framework:
• Share the document with members to facilitate a conversation about their priorities
• Create a survey of clients/members to help them select priorities
• Use the prioritized list of strategies to refine programs
• Choose from among the metrics to set soil health goals and track the organization’s progress
• Create policy or advocacy statements backed by the priorities
• Use the priorities to justify grant proposals or funding requests
We will widely promote the Framework as a tool for action planning and collaboration. In the short term, the 
following organizations are preparing to use the document:
• The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) will use the framework to evaluate its current soil 
health programming and authorities, and consider changes in its grant and incentive programs to 
support public-private collaborative efforts and encourage broader adoption of soil health practices.
• The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) will use this report to inform its completion of a state 
healthy soil management plan and pilot grant program, as directed by the Legislature.
• MOSH and University of Minnesota Extension will use this report’s recommendations to shape their 
research and educational priorities.
Context and background
Soil health functions, costs and benefits
Soil health is defined by function: how well it holds, releases and filters water; cycles nutrients; supports plant 
productivity; and prevents erosion. 
The functions performed by soil are summarized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as follows:
• Guiding the flow of water: Soil helps control where rain, snowmelt, and irrigation water flow over the 
land and into/through the soil profile.
• Sustaining plant and animal life: The diversity and productivity of living things depend on soil.
• Filtering and buffering potential pollutants: The minerals and microbes in soil are responsible for 
filtering, buffering, degrading, immobilizing, and detoxifying organic and inorganic materials, including 
industrial and municipal by-products and atmospheric deposits.
• Cycling nutrients: Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and many other nutrients are stored, transformed, 
and cycled in the soil.
• Providing physical stability and support: Soil structure provides a medium for plant roots. Soils also 
provide support for human structures and protection for archeological treasures.
Among the widely recognized principles for building soil health are those shown in this graphic (on page 
6) from the USDA Climate Hubs.[1] Livestock integration is considered part of biodiversity, or it is frequently 
included as a fifth principle, such as in the principles for soil health described by the Minnesota Office for Soil 
Health.
Page 5
Page 6
Soil health can be measured through specific physical, chemical and 
biological properties, such as soil organic matter, bulk density and water 
holding capacity, plant available nutrients, and microbial biomass. MOSH 
identifies some commonly used indicators of soil health.
Information Sources
Several previous reports, studies and state policy plans have informed 
this process, including:
• Minnesota Climate Action Framework (2022): The Framework 
identifies strategies and actions to improve soil health and reduce 
GHG emissions in the agricultural sector (see examples in sidebar 
to right). 
• Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy (2015): The strategy 
calls for reducing nutrient levels in major rivers by 10-20% by 
2025 from 2014 levels, with much higher reductions by 2040. The 
five-year review of the strategy (2020) identifies initiatives to “step 
up” agricultural BMPs, including soil health practices.
• Working Lands Lead the Way: Policy Priorities for 
Regenerative Agriculture (2022): This report by the Midwest 
Row Crop Collaborative focuses on potential policy solutions for 
agricultural systems change for consideration in the next farm 
bill. The report advances a Theory of Change that incorporates 
common risks and barriers, pathways toward system change, 
actions and outcomes which has helped to inform this project.
• Vegetative Cover in Minnesota: Prospects and Challenges 
(2020): This report looks at opportunities for pasture and forage, 
cover crops, small grains and perennial crops to improve water 
quality in areas with highly vulnerable groundwater. The study 
includes summaries of interviews with farmers and industry 
partners with experience or interest in vegetative cover in the 
Central Sands, Southwest and Southeast regions.
• Agricultural – Water Quality Solutions Project (2017): This 
process, developed by a broad range of stakeholders in the 
Minnesota 
Climate Action 
Framework: 
Soil health-related 
strategies
Initiative 2.3 Healthy 
Farmland 
Accelerate soil health 
and nitrogen and manure 
management practices that 
reduce emissions and enhance 
carbon storage, water quality 
and habitat. 
• Increase organic carbon 
content and reduce erosion
• Manage fertilizer and 
manure to reduce emissions
• Manage land for multiple 
benefits
Initiative 2.5 
Investments in 
emerging crops, 
products and local 
economies 
• Invest in climate-smart 
agriculture and develop 
markets for climate-
benefitting products
• Support local food markets, 
urban agriculture and 
emerging farmers
Figure 1. NRCS soil health principles coupled with soil resilience strategies
Page 7
agricultural sector, resulted in a recommendation to the Governor to “establish and fund farmer-led 
councils to help implement new practices or enhance current Best Management Practices relating to 
agricultural water quality.” Language authorizing the establishment and funding of farmer-led water 
management councils by MDA was adopted in 2017.
Two reviews of research literature were completed as part of this project. By summarizing what is known 
about the implications of each practice, these reviews can help stakeholders and implementers prioritize 
potential actions.
Scientific literature review: Impacts of Soil Health Management on Environmental Quality: A Research 
Review for Minnesota. This review summarizes research on the impact of four in-field practices (cover 
crops, reduced tillage, perennials, and crop rotations) on nutrient losses, soil carbon, and runoff/erosion in 
Minnesota. The review focuses on data from studies conducted in the upper Midwest.
Social science literature review: This review looks at producer decision-making around conservation 
practices adoption. It summarizes research findings about how individual behavior is associated with five 
factors: 
• Farm characteristics
• Personal characteristics
• Perceived practice characteristics
• Social factors
• Structural factors
Components of the framework
The Framework is organized around a theory of change for soil health. A theory of change is a logic model 
often used in the social sciences that traces the cause-and-effect steps from current conditions to desired 
outcomes. For this process, we collectively identified several desired measurable outcomes (i.e., where we 
hope to end up), and those barriers and current conditions that prevent us from achieving those outcomes, 
followed by recommended strategies and examples of short-term actions that in turn will create conditions for 
success. 
Desired outcomes for soil health in Minnesota include the following:
• Resilient land management
• Healthy natural resources
• A robust agricultural sector and communities
• Efficient and effective public policy
• Widespread commitments to soil health
Page 8
Goals are milestones and end points. An effective goal is one that is “SMART” – Specific, Measurable, 
Actionable, Realistic, and Time bound. This Framework does not include overarching goals for soil health, 
because we believe that goals that are more specific to each participating organization can be more effective 
and implementable. Goals related to soil health can be found in several existing plans and policies, while 
additional goals could be developed for other public and private stakeholders. Some examples of soil health 
goals include:
• Water quality – Goals from the state Nutrient Reduction Strategy
• Water storage – Soil health goals for water storage are seen in WRAPS and One Watershed, One Plan 
reports
• Climate mitigation – Goals relating to greenhouse gas emissions reduction, such as those in the Paris 
Climate accord or the Minnesota Climate Action Framework
• Climate adaptation, resilience – Goals for this purpose might measure reductions in soil erosion or 
increases in ag productivity, profitability, or sustainability
• Community health and agricultural sector health – Goals might focus on disparities in access to land 
and resources for under-represented or under-resourced populations
Barriers: A starting point for developing this Framework has been to identify the barriers that prevent or 
delay widespread adoption of soil health practices. Barriers that hinder Minnesota’s farmers and ranchers 
from achieving desired soil health outcomes can be environmental, technological, economic, and/or social. 
For example, although one of the most effective ways to improve soil health and sequester carbon is to 
keep farmland covered with vegetation for much of the year, challenges such as Minnesota’s short growing 
season and variable climate; high seed, fertilizer, chemical and equipment costs; and lack of access to trusted 
expertise all combine to limit cover crop adoption. (Cover crops are currently estimated to be planted on only 
2-3% of the state’s cropland.) A long historical tradition of tilling the soil also contributes to the lack of year-
round vegetative cover.
Figure 2. The theory of change summarizes our assumptions about what strategies and actions will produce conditions for success and 
the desired outcomes.
Page 9
To address these barriers, we identify four basic conditions for success that would support the widespread 
adoption of soil health principles and practices across Minnesota:
1. Agronomic systems of production that are profitable over the long term and effective at improving 
soil health
2. Markets and infrastructure to make soil-friendly agriculture accessible and profitable
3. Learning networks and social support to work out site-specific solutions
4. Technology (R&D) to facilitate alternative cropping systems and for monitoring progress
Potential soil health metrics: How do we measure success, or at least progress toward success? Metrics 
are standards for measuring performance, progress, and change over time, and can be developed based on 
various parameters, as shown in these examples: 
• Adoption of practices: Number of farms adopting soil health practices, or acres devoted to a practice
• Adoption of systems: Acres or numbers of farms using combinations of practices, participation in 
certification systems
• Soil quality metrics: SOM or SOC, soil structure, soil water-holding capacity
• Soil function metrics: water quality, ag productivity, habitat quality, flood mitigation
• Actions and funding: levels of state and federal funding, number of program staff, trained advisors, 
and farmers participating in programs
Additional metrics related to broader social or economic factors could also be developed, such as 
• Access to programs: The number of historically underrepresented producers with access to 
programs and; 
• Access to land: The beginning farmers gaining access to land; or acres available to historically 
underrepresented individuals or groups.
Healthy Soils
Figure 3.  Four conditions are needed to promote 
widespread adoption of soil health principles and 
practices across Minnesota.
Technology
Infastructure
Farming systems
Support systems
Page 10
Strategies for removing barriers
This section examines twelve barriers to advancing soil health, loosely organized in order of priority for action. 
While there are other barriers, the Advisory Team judged that these priorities need to be addressed first to 
improve soil health in Minnesota. Each individual and organization faces slightly different barriers and “trip 
mechanisms,” and therefore it’s often necessary to address multiple barriers at once. 
Healthy Soils
1. Learning curve and transition time
2. Varied and conflicting perceptions of the 
costs and benefits of soil health practices
3. Equipment costs
4. On-farm labor
5. Markets and infastructure for emerging 
crops and integration of livestock
6. Availability of private sector and public 
sector expertise
7. Land ownership separated from 
management
8. Program design
9. Under-developed markets for ecosystem 
services
10. Inadequate use of social science 
principles
11. Lack of science-based information 
about soil health agronomics
12. Lack of data to track progress, 
impacts, and for decision-support tools
Healthy Soils
Technology
Infastructure
Farming  
systems Support  
systems
Page 11
1. Learning curves and transition time
The specifics of soil-friendly farming systems are unique to each 
operation, complicated to work out, and can take years of learning and 
practice. Each farmer, operator, or landowner’s needs, motivations and 
interests are different as well. Therefore, solutions must be carefully 
tailored to the operation and supported by trusted, reliable advisors – no 
single strategy will work in all cases. 
Levels of trust and prevailing social networks also come into play, with 
differing attitudes among farmers toward public and private sector 
representatives. Identifying trusted advisors, whether from Extension, 
SWCDs, farmer cooperatives, agronomists, crop consultants, state 
agencies, or local mentors, are key to addressing these diverse 
concerns.
Potential strategies include:
Providing reliable, ongoing technical support, from both public and 
private sources. This support depends on reliable funding. SWCDs will 
benefit from more permanent funding enacted by the legislature in 2023. 
Cooperative agreements between SWCDs, cooperatives, and other 
private sector providers will also lead to more consistent support for soil 
health practices and systems. 
Peer-to-peer learning support, allowing each farmer to share 
knowledge and absorb relevant information at their own pace, in a safe, 
judgment-free setting. A strong support network can mitigate the social 
risks of “failure,” such as late termination of a cover crop.
• This strategy could include curricula and resources for café chats, 
and support for farmer-mentors and farmer-led learning teams, 
who often volunteer their time without compensation 
• Provide funding for early adopters to train and mentor others
Certification programs provide tailored guidance and give farmers an 
attainable goal to work towards.
Expansion of the cadre of agronomists who have soil health and 
conservation skills (both the total number of agronomists and their skill 
levels). 
Promote on-farm research and demonstrations to bring forward 
locally-relevant evidence of soil health practices and benefits.
Promote private-public sector partnerships to implement public 
programs and distribute public funding through connections between 
producers and their agronomists.
From strategies 
to actions 
Peer-to-peer learning 
support 
The Minnesota Soil Health 
Coalition developed a mentoring 
program for its members. 
Several formal and informal soil 
health teams led by producers 
have been established around 
the state.   
Certification programs 
The Minnesota Agricultural 
Water Quality Certification 
Program (MAWQCP) is a 
voluntary opportunity for farmers 
and agricultural landowners to 
take the lead in implementing 
conservation practices 
that improve water quality. 
Participants receive recognition, 
regulatory certainty for a ten-
year period, priority for technical 
and financial assistance, and 
reliable,ongoing technical 
support. To date, the program 
has enrolled more than 1,300 
farmers and one million acres. 
 
Private-public 
partnerships. 
Several Conservation 
Agronomist positions have been 
created that are jointly funded 
by agricultural cooperatives 
and local conservation districts. 
Advisors in these positions can 
provide reliable and ongoing 
support for conservation 
practices in the same place that 
farmers are used to receiving 
agronomic advising and 
services. Where these positions 
are in place, demand for their 
services is high.
Page 12
2. Perceptions of the costs and benefits of soil health practices vary among farmers 
and other interest groups
Perceptions are reflected in social norms or expectations about what farming looks like, and social media 
stories on failures of soil health practices, whether due to weather conditions, equipment failures, or other 
circumstances. Inconsistent messaging across sectors can increase confusion and sow mistrust. 
Potential strategies include:
• Help farmers develop media and presentation skills so they can tell their own stories.
• Maintain communication and collaboration among the interests represented on the Advisory Team for 
this Soil Health Framework. 
• Engage communities in research and demonstrations. E.g. involve community colleges, 4-H, FFA, and 
others to conduct in-field soil health assessments.
• Expand staffing of Extension and others who are viewed as “unbiased”.
• Develop deliberate explanations of common terms and the purpose of government programs.
• Wherever state agencies and researchers manage farmland, ensure soil health practices are 
implemented.
• Industry, state agencies, and researchers collaborate on learning and research about whole farm 
systems, accounting for regional variations.
• Enhance training of the next generation of farmers by promoting soil health education, for example, by 
forming soil health collaboratives among ag educators (high school & college level). 
• Researchers: Focus on ensuring more consistent success with cover crops; prioritize research on 
perennials and winter-hardy annuals, collecting and analyzing economic data and sharing results.
Page 13
4. Agricultural labor availability and management
The lack of available and qualified labor was identified as a barrier to 
expanding or, in some cases, maintaining the same level of operations. 
Some soil-friendly practices, such as no-till or strip till, can require less 
time in the field (and less fuel) than conventional tillage practices. In 
these cases, labor management can motivate adoption of new practices. 
However, changing farming systems can be a complicated and time-
consuming process, requiring shifts in the timing of labor and managing 
labor bottlenecks. 
Potential strategies include:
• Support small businesses that provide soil-friendly custom 
services such as strip-tilling or cover crop planting.
• Emphasize the time- and labor-saving aspects of soil health 
practices, in communication with farmers and other agricultural 
sector participants.
• Continue to develop career pathways in agriculture, from 
“Minnesota Agriculture in the Classroom” through high school, 
the state college and university systems, technical training 
programs and on-the-job training opportunities.
• Incorporate training in practical skills, such as writing 
conservation plans, in four-year programs.
From strategies 
to actions
Develop career 
pathways 
The cooperative led Ag Careers 
Field Day, presented by Centra 
Sota Cooperative, engages high 
school students and teacher 
advisors with state colleges, 
university systems, and local 
private agriculture businesses to 
educate on potential agriculture 
career pathways.
3. Equipment costs
Equipment costs have been widely identified as a huge barrier to farmers 
who would like to try out new practices on a small scale or who are 
ready to convert their whole operation. New equipment for strip tilling, 
for example, can cost upwards of $300,000, while availability of rental 
equipment from a co-op or SWCD can be uncertain. 
Potential strategies include:
• Provide grant and loan programs to support equipment 
purchases or rental by producers. 
• Support SWCD programs for loaning or renting equipment. 
Give preference to programs that link technical support to the 
equipment.
• Support small businesses that provide custom tillage or cover 
crop services, or rent equipment.
• Provide training for the financial sector (especially smaller 
banks) to understand how equipment fits in the system, and the 
advantages of approving financing for such purchases.
• Collect data on the return-on-investment of equipment and 
services to provide associated services.
• Support retrofitting of existing equipment. Provide more training 
broadly on what equipment is needed and how to modify 
equipment.
From strategies 
to actions
Grant and loan 
programs
The MDA’s Soil Health Financial 
Assistance grant program, first 
piloted in 2023, provides grants 
for the purchase or retrofit of 
equipment used to establish, 
improve or accelerate soil 
health, with up to 50% cost 
share. The program immediately 
attracted a huge response, and 
is being expanded with new 
state funding.
Page 14
5. Markets and infrastructure for emerging crops and 
integration of livestock
Government incentives can facilitate transitions from one agricultural 
system to another, but ultimately markets and infrastructure that 
support soil friendly agriculture are needed. Specific needs vary with 
sector, and different approaches are needed for food systems, energy 
crops, livestock production, etc. For emerging crops, the infrastructure, 
markets, and acreage all need to be developed together.
Potential strategies include:
• For emerging crops, build infrastructure for processing, storage, 
and tracking products from field to consumer.
• Develop markets for emerging crops and products.
• Explore potential to expand small grains to diversify corn-
soybean rotations (e.g. oats, winter rye).
• Incentivize local companies to build out infrastructure (e.g., 
storage)
• Identify risks during market development and help protect small 
businesses (including farmers) from these risks.
• Develop a joint public-private business model, communications, 
and research.
• Educate end users about the environmental and health benefits of 
emerging crops and livestock production systems
• Ensure smaller livestock farmers have support for effective 
nutrient management.
• Expand the reach of the “Nitrogen Smart: Manure Management” 
online course offered by Extension. 
• Incentivize pasture-based livestock systems through more flexible 
funding for fencing and watering equipment and for habitat 
enhancement.
From strategies 
to actions
Develop markets
The U of M Forever Green 
Initiative (FGI) program is a 
coordinated effort to develop 
new production, infrastructure, 
and markets in parallel. The 
FGI portfolio includes over 15 
crops, focusing on winter-hardy 
annual and perennial crops 
such as Kernza and winter 
camelina that can keep the soil 
covered year-round, advancing 
the key principles of soil health. 
Multiple funding sources, 
including federal and foundation 
grants, have contributed to the 
program’s advancement.
Page 15
6. Availability of private sector and public sector (agency, SWCD, university) 
expertise 
Similar to shortfalls in the agricultural labor force, a frequently-cited barrier is the lack of both private and 
public sector staff with expertise in soil health management. Staffing levels at the federal (e.g. NRCS), state, 
and local (SWCD) levels are often inadequate, and many private sector crop advisors may lack training in soil 
health management, or be focused on selling products rather than practices. 
However, in aiming to increase the number of advisors with expertise in soil health management, we have to 
pay attention to trade-offs – e.g., what positions are these people being taken from? 
Potential strategies include:
• Provide training opportunities where the public and private sector can learn together and from each 
other.
• Define effective business strategies to help crop advisors minimize risks that may come with this new 
set of services.
• Direct federal and state resources toward expanding staffing, creating soil health specialist positions at 
the local and regional level.
• Support creation of joint public-private conservation agronomist positions.
• Continue to develop career pathways in agriculture, from MN Ag in the Classroom through high 
school, the state college and university systems, technical training programs and on-the-job training 
opportunities.
7. Separation of land ownership from management
Estimates show about 40% of U.S. farmland is rented, and that 
percentage may be increasing. According to a Census of Agriculture 
study, in 2014, 11.6 million acres of Minnesota farmland were rented, 
out of a total of about 25.5 million acres, or 45%. Land rent contracts 
can be a barrier to using soil-friendly practices when only the farmer 
or landowner – but not both -- is interested in committing to the new 
approaches.
Potential strategies include:
• Targeting more programming to non-operating landowners, 
specifically women landowners and landowners over 65
• Developing soil health related model rental agreements
• Providing resources and coaching for landowners interested in 
discussing soil health practices with their renters, and vice versa 
From strategies 
to actions
Programming for non-
operating landowners
Climate Land Leaders, the 
Land Stewardship Project, 
Women Caring for the Land, the 
American Farmland Trust and 
others have developed learning 
programs and resources 
targeted to non-operating 
landowners. 
Page 16
8. Program design (complexity, inflexibility, access)
A common criticism of cost-share and other conservation incentive 
programs is their complexity and inflexibility. There are stories of farmers 
walking away from federal and state programs because of the amount 
of paperwork required, questions about data privacy, or a preference for 
working independently. At the same time, programs generally don’t meet 
demand. It’s estimated that only about 25% of applicants for the primary 
NRCS programs (EQIP and CSP) receive funding. The challenge is how 
to increase flexibility while preserving accountability needed for public 
spending. Some argue that it is not possible to have both flexibility and 
accountability.
Another challenge of designing soil health incentive programs – public 
and private – is determining their function. If the goal is to help farmers 
manage risk, then all adopters (early and late) should be supported. If 
it is to pay for public benefits, then only those effectively implementing  
proven practices should be supported. If it is to incentivize learning and 
transitions, then only new adopters should be supported with short, low-
risk commitments. 
Potential strategies include:
• Create more joint public-private programs such as conservation 
agronomists, and involve the private sector in program delivery, 
including as recipients of program funds.
• Build awareness about the programs available, through a network 
of trusted “navigators” such as existing program participants and/
or MAWQCP-certified producers, who can impartially describe 
the pros and cons of each program.
• Consider shifting some authority from the state to local 
governments to ensure more local relevance; similar to 
water quality improvement funding distributed by watershed 
partnerships (see right) based on their Comprehensive Watershed 
Management Plans. 
• Consider simplifying or reducing the number of programs. Having 
a lot of programs with varied rules creates confusion. 
• Streamline reporting. Make it easier for farmers to submit reports 
directly (i.e., without SWCD staff assistance), combine with other 
reporting, and use remote sensing where feasible.
• Explore methods for tying funding to measurable outcomes, also 
known as a “pay for performance” approach. 
• Design programs for two different groups: those making an 
initial small commitment to begin exploring change, and those 
interested in deep engagement and commitment to impactful 
practices. 
From strategies 
to actions
Watershed-directed 
funding 
Watershed-Based 
Implementation Funding 
is increasingly available 
through BWSR to watershed 
partnerships that have 
completed their Comprehensive 
Watershed Management Plans 
(under the One Watershed One 
Plan program). Funding can be 
apportioned by each partnership 
to actions identified in those 
plans, providing a greater degree 
of flexibility than typical grant 
programs.
Page 17
From strategies 
to actions
Advise producers on 
carbon markets
The Farmers’ Guide to Carbon 
Market Contracts in Minnesota, 
produced by the Minnesota 
Farmers Union, MDA, and the 
Farmers’ Legal Action Group, 
offers plain-language legal 
guidance on Minnesota contract 
law as it applies to carbon 
market contracts.
Identify research and 
policy needs
The 2022 Ag Carbon Tracking 
and Monitoring Workshop was 
a robust process convened by 
the U of M’s Institute on the 
Environment, culminating in 
detailed recommendations for 
researchers, legislators and 
agency leaders for improving 
carbon and ecosystem service 
markets and other climate-smart 
agricultural practices.
9. Undeveloped markets for ecosystem services
Ecosystem services include the environmental and health benefits 
of clean air and water, fertile soil, flood control, wildlife and pollinator 
habitat, and other related benefits (EPA ref.). Markets for ecosystem 
services need to be integrated with markets for food and feed. 
Carbon markets are a type of ecosystem service market that has 
received the largest share of attention in Minnesota, driven largely 
by corporations interested in offsetting the GHG emissions of their 
operations. Several carbon market programs are active in Minnesota, 
including Ecosystem Services Market Consortium, Truterra, Bayer, and 
others. However, carbon markets are largely not regulated at the state or 
federal level, making it particularly important for farmers to understand 
potential risks and benefits. 
One of the biggest challenges to carbon markets is the difficulty of 
cost-effectively verifying soil carbon storage. Another major challenge 
is designing markets and programs that support early adopters who 
continue to protect carbon. Rules for additionality (new practices, 
new acreage) generally exclude those early adopters, although some 
companies allow several years of “lookback” credit.
Strategies to improve the operation of carbon markets will likely take 
time to emerge, as federal policies and standards are developed. 
Potential strategies include:
• Promote and advocate for market standards that are comparable 
across platforms.
• Advise and support producers in meeting standards and avoiding 
risks (see the example to the right). 
• Reward early practice adopters (who may not be eligible to meet 
additionality requirements) by funding them to train and mentor 
new ecosystem service market participants.
• Incorporate sliding scale incentives for higher-value practices 
(e.g., higher payments for multi-species cover crop mixes than for 
single-species), as some programs do. 
Page 18
10. Inadequate understanding or use of the social 
sciences
Applying social science is a barrier that relates to several others. For 
example, the purpose of improving incentive programs (barrier #8) is to 
increase adoption of soil health management systems. But is it more 
effective to incentivize “dabbling” and experimenting, even if there are 
fewer soil and water benefits, or is it better to incentivize long-term 
adoption tied to outcomes? Regarding barrier #1 – the learning curve 
and need for farmer learning networks – what are the actions that would 
catalyze development of networks? These questions highlight our still 
incomplete understanding and application of the science of practice 
adoption.
In addition to adoption theory, two other relevant branches of social 
science are economics and policy. There are frequent calls for more 
information about the farm-scale economics of soil health systems, as 
well as societal-scale economics of soil health costs and benefits. In this 
project, we avoided delving into specific policy issues, while at the same 
time acknowledging there are impacts from tax and insurance policies, 
the federal Farm Bill, land valuation, and more. 
Potential strategies include:
• Fund Minnesota-specific research on practice adoption.
• Collect data on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors to better 
understand what Minnesota farmers and non-farmers need and 
want.
• Expand communication and training related to known social 
science principles. 
• Expand collaborations between the University (especially the 
Center for Farm Financial Management) and the private sector to 
collect, analyze, and share trusted data on the economic impacts 
of soil health management systems.
From strategies 
to actions
Economic impacts 
of soil health 
management systems
The Influence of Intensified 
Environmental Practices on 
Farm Profitability, a report 
published by the Minnesota 
State Agricultural Centers of 
Excellence (Ag-Centric), has 
shown that producers enrolled 
in the Minnesota Agricultural 
Water Quality Certification 
Program (MAWQCP) have had 
higher profits than non-certified 
farms for four years in a row 
(2019-2022). MAWQCP-certified 
producers implement a system 
of conservation practices that 
promote soil health and protect 
water quality and natural 
resources.
Page 19
11. Lack of science-based information about 
agronomics
Farmers need more science-based guidance on how to implement 
soil health management systems. Research on complex systems is 
important, but at the same time, meaningful science requires some 
simplification of systems to understand the impact of individual 
components like seeding rates, fertilizer practices, etc. Advisors need 
to correctly interpret and apply research results to make them useful in 
messy, real-farm situations.
Potential strategies include:
• Involve industry in research and pilot studies to ensure relevance.
• Collaborate with agencies to design research to test assumptions 
behind programs, such as NRCS Practice Standards.
• Focus research on achieving more consistent success with cover 
crops.
• Continue public-private collaborations to coordinate development 
of markets alongside. development of agronomic systems for new 
crops
• Include research on long-established soil health systems, as well 
as on the process of transitioning from one cropping system to 
another.
From strategies 
to actions
Involve industry in 
research
From the Discovery Farms 
program to industry funding 
of university research, the 
private sector has long 
been involved in public-
facing demonstrations and 
research. More collaboration 
could help identify needs 
and ensure that relevant 
equipment and agronomic 
systems are being studied.
12. Lack of data to track progress and impacts, and to support decision-making 
Data collection is desirable to track which practices farmers are adopting, changes in soil health and water 
quality, and shifting attitudes among farmers and non-farmers. Plus, modeling the effects of land management 
can inform decisions about what practices to implement and where, and how to design incentive programs. 
Data collection is essential to determining whether spending on soil health programs is having the desired 
impacts and to revise activities in a timely way.
On the other hand, data collection has a cost and is often seen as taking away from what could be spent 
on practice incentives. Also, planning for data collection quickly raises concerns about data ownership and 
privacy. Decisions about who will collect, analyze, and store the data need to be considered.
Potential strategies include:
• Prioritize research on greenhouse gas and soil organic carbon (SOC) modeling.
• Prioritize research on SOC field measurements.
• Establish a statewide SOC monitoring and modeling network.
• Simplify farm data entry by developing standardized and interconnected systems for program 
applications (ref. Field Analytics program).
• Preserve data privacy and ownership of data by separating data ownership from analysis/ 
interpretation tools so farmers can own and control their data and use it with multiple tools.
Page 20
Additional barriers 
Other barriers were discussed that overlap these barriers.
Climate constraints: 
Minnesota’s short growing season puts significant constraints on windows for field work and the potential for 
cover crop growth. Variability from year to year means cover crops may be highly successful one year and 
difficult to establish or a yield drag on the primary crop the next year. Strategies for addressing this include 
developing business services to facilitate field work, and continuing Minnesota-specific agronomic research. 
Low public support and awareness of soil health issues and needs: 
Minnesota’s comprehensive focus on water quality may have overshadowed public awareness of soil health, 
although attitudes may be changing as funding and soil-focused programming have increased. Strategies for 
addressing this include communication campaigns for raising awareness, and engagement with more people 
(e.g. community colleges, 4-H, and FFA) in monitoring and learning activities. Collaboration across sectors is 
important to reach diverse audiences with consistent messages. 
Science-based information for assessing habitat quality in relation to soil health: 
The relationship between soil health and wildlife habitat, including both aquatic and terrestrial habitat, has not 
been comprehensively addressed. Strategies include collaborations between researchers and habitat/wildlife 
groups to incorporate soil health components in field research.