Cover crops—plants grown primarily to improve soil health, reduce erosion, and suppress weeds—have gained attention as a sustainable farming practice. Agricultural researchers, environmentalists, and policymakers often tout their benefits, such as improved soil fertility, reduced runoff, and enhanced biodiversity. However, many farmers remain skeptical, choosing not to integrate cover crops into their operations. The reasons for this reluctance are rooted in practical, economic, and systemic challenges that outweigh the perceived benefits for many producers. This article explores the primary barriers to cover crop adoption, including seed and seeding costs, termination expenses, equipment wear, and the labor-intensive nature of the practice, while also considering whether external pressures from seed and chemical companies influence the push for cover crops.
The High Cost of Cover Crop Seeds
One of the most immediate barriers to cover crop adoption is the cost of seeds. Unlike cash crops, cover crops do not generate direct revenue, making their upfront expense a significant concern. Depending on the type of cover crop—such as rye, clover, or radish—seed costs can range from $10 to $50 per acre, according to data from the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program. For a farmer managing hundreds or thousands of acres, this expense quickly accumulates.
Farmers also face the challenge of selecting the right cover crop mix for their soil type, climate, and rotation system. Incorrect choices can lead to poor germination or ineffective results, wasting money and time. As Iowa farmer Dave Schwartz noted in a 2019 interview with Successful Farming, “You’re spending money on something that doesn’t put cash in your pocket right away. That’s a tough sell when margins are already tight.”
Seeding Costs and Logistical Challenges
Beyond the price of seeds, the act of planting cover crops introduces additional costs and logistical hurdles. Seeding often requires specialized equipment, such as no-till drills or broadcast seeders, which may not be part of a farmer’s existing toolkit. Purchasing or renting this equipment adds to the financial burden, and for farmers who already own planters, adapting them for cover crop seeding can be time-consuming and costly.
Timing is another issue. Cover crops must be planted shortly after the harvest of cash crops to maximize their benefits, but this window often coincides with a busy season for farmers. Hiring custom operators to seed cover crops can cost $15 to $25 per acre, according to a 2021 report from the University of Illinois Extension. For farmers operating on thin margins, these expenses can feel prohibitive, especially when the return on investment is uncertain or delayed.
Termination Costs and Herbicide Concerns
Terminating cover crops—ending their growth to prepare fields for cash crop planting—presents its own set of challenges. The most common method is applying herbicides, which introduces both financial and environmental concerns. Herbicide costs vary but can range from $5 to $20 per acre, depending on the cover crop species and the chemicals used. Farmers must also account for the fuel and labor required to apply these treatments.
Moreover, herbicide use raises questions about the environmental benefits of cover crops. Critics argue that the need for chemical termination undermines claims of sustainability, especially when cover crops are promoted as a way to reduce chemical inputs. In a discussion on Twitter, a farmer from Nebraska expressed frustration, writing, “I’m told cover crops will save my soil, but then I’m spraying more Roundup to kill them. Feels like a contradiction.” For farmers wary of increasing their reliance on herbicides, this conflict can deter adoption.
Alternative termination methods, such as roller-crimping or mowing, are less chemical-intensive but require specialized equipment and additional passes through the field. These methods increase fuel consumption and labor demands, further straining budgets and schedules.
Equipment Wear, Tear, and Depreciation
The additional fieldwork associated with cover crops—seeding, termination, and sometimes incorporating residues—puts significant wear and tear on tractors and other machinery. Each pass through a field consumes fuel, increases maintenance costs, and accelerates equipment depreciation. A 2022 study from Purdue University estimated that cover crop management can add 2 to 4 hours of tractor time per acre annually, depending on the system. For a 500-acre farm, this potentially translates to thousands of hours of additional equipment use, with associated costs for fuel, repairs, and replacement parts.
Farmers are acutely aware that machinery is one of their largest capital investments. Extending the life of a tractor or planter is a priority, and the extra hours spent on cover crops can feel like an unnecessary risk. As Minnesota farmer John Peterson told Farm Journal in 2021, “Every hour I put on my tractor for cover crops is an hour I’m not using for something that pays me directly. It’s hard to justify when equipment costs keep climbing.”
Labor Demands and Time Constraints
Farming is already a labor-intensive profession, and cover crops add another layer of complexity to an already demanding schedule. Planting, monitoring, and terminating cover crops require careful planning and execution, often during narrow time windows. For family farms or operations with limited hired help, these tasks can stretch resources thin.
The labor demands are particularly daunting for farmers who see cover crops as a speculative investment. While benefits like improved soil structure or reduced erosion may materialize over time, they are not guaranteed and often take years to become noticeable. In contrast, the labor and costs are immediate. A 2023 survey by the National Agricultural Statistics Service found that 38% of farmers cited “lack of time” as a primary reason for not using cover crops, highlighting the strain on already busy operations.
Small Benefits Versus Significant Costs
For many farmers, the benefits of cover crops—such as modest improvements in soil organic matter, weed suppression, or nutrient retention—do not justify the costs and effort. Studies, such as one from Iowa State University in 2020, suggest that cover crops can increase corn and soybean yields by 2-5% in some cases, but these gains are inconsistent and depend on factors like weather, soil type, and management practices. When weighed against the expenses of seeds, equipment, herbicides, and labor, the return on investment often feels insufficient.
Government Subsidies
In order to offset some of the inevitable losses farmers face when adopting cover cropping, the US government has provided financial incentives, which are often not enough to motivate farmers. While programs like the USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) offer financial support for cover crop adoption, the payments—typically $30 to $50 per acre—may not cover the full cost. The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program, launched in 2022, funds projects that encourage climate-friendly practices like cover cropping, with grants supporting farmers through market incentives and technical support. The Pandemic Cover Crop Program, introduced in 2021 by the USDA, provided premium discounts on crop insurance for farmers planting cover crops, covering over 12 million acres by 2023. However, farmers face bureaucratic hurdles to access these funds, further discouraging participation.
The Role of Seed and Chemical Companies
Some farmers suspect that the push for cover crops is driven, at least in part, by seed and chemical companies seeking to boost their profits. Cover crops require purchasing seeds annually, unlike cash crops that may rely on saved seeds in some systems. Additionally, the herbicides used for termination represent a steady revenue stream for agrochemical firms. In a 2022 post on Twitter, a farmer from Kansas wrote, “Seed companies love cover crops because they’re selling me something I don’t harvest. Feels like they’re winning more than I am.”
This perception is not entirely unfounded. Major seed companies like Corteva and Bayer actively promote cover crop programs, often partnering with agricultural organizations to provide technical support and marketing materials. While these efforts can help farmers experiment with cover crops, they also align with corporate interests. A 2021 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists noted that the agricultural input industry has a vested interest in practices that increase seed and chemical sales, even if the benefits to farmers are uncertain.
However, it’s worth noting that not all advocacy for cover crops comes from profit-driven motives. Many researchers and conservationists genuinely believe in their long-term benefits for soil health and climate resilience. The challenge lies in bridging the gap between these long-term goals and the immediate economic realities faced by farmers.
Additional Insights and Farmer Perspectives
The reluctance to adopt cover crops is not universal, and some farmers have successfully integrated them into their operations. However, even these adopters acknowledge the steep learning curve and financial risks. In a 2020 webinar hosted by Practical Farmers of Iowa, farmer Sarah Carlson emphasized the need for patience: “Cover crops are a long game. You might not see the payoff for five or ten years, and that’s hard when you’re trying to pay the bills today.”
Regional differences also play a role. Farmers in the Midwest, where corn and soybean rotations dominate, face different challenges than those in regions with more diverse cropping systems or milder climates. For example, cover crops are easier to manage in areas with longer growing seasons, where termination can occur naturally through frost. In colder climates, farmers must rely more heavily on herbicides or mechanical methods, increasing costs.
Finally, the lack of tailored, localized advice can hinder adoption. Extension services and agronomists often provide general recommendations, but cover crop success depends on site-specific factors. Farmers need access to practical, hands-on guidance to navigate these complexities, yet such support is often limited.
Conclusion
The decision to forgo cover crops is not a rejection of sustainable practices but a pragmatic response to the realities of modern farming. The costs of seeds, seeding, termination, and equipment maintenance, combined with the labor demands and uncertain benefits, create a high barrier to adoption. For many farmers, the immediate financial pressures of running a farm outweigh the long-term promises of cover crops. While seed and chemical companies may benefit from promoting cover crops, the broader challenge lies in aligning the practice with farmers’ economic realities. Until the costs are reduced, the benefits are more consistent, and the support systems are more robust, many farmers will continue to view cover crops as a risky investment rather than a viable tool for their operations.