John Mesko (00:30):
Hi, I'm John Mesko, and welcome to another episode of the People of Soil Health. Today, I sit down with Dr. Wayne Honeycutt. He is the President and CEO of the Soil Health Institute, a position he's held since the inception of the organization five years ago. The Soil Health Institute was launched in 2015 and it serves as a main resource for soil health information, sets soil health standards and measurements, builds knowledge about the economics of soil health, offers educational programs and coordinates research in all aspects of soil health. Welcome, Wayne, to the podcast. And we typically begin by asking about your own soil health journey, and I understand your family had a farm in Kentucky. So I'm guessing your interest started there. How did that lead you to obtaining your education and then into research in soil health?
Wayne Honeycutt (01:26):
Well thanks very much, John, and all the good friends at Soil Partnership for having me on today and participating. It's kind of a long answer. I'll try to be as short as I can for it. One of the things I want to make sure folks realize was that, although our family had a farm just a few miles outside of town, we didn't grow up on it. My parents were both school teachers, so that was our primary source of income. So I never really felt like we had that badge of honor of being a farmer because we didn't have to rely on it for our only income. But that is where I really got my love for agriculture as working with my farm... With my dad, I should say, on our farm growing tobacco and corn and Christmas trees and gardens and things like that, because that's really where I learned just how, when you work a piece of land, how it really becomes a part of you, and also where I just learned a great appreciation for farmers that that can make a living on their land like that.
Wayne Honeycutt (02:30):
So all of that experience of working in and on the farm, going into partnerships with my dad, raising tobacco and things like that, really led me to take some soils courses when I went to school at University of Kentucky. I went there initially just for forestry, because I was kind of a tree hugger at the time. But I took some soils classes on the side and that's where I really got excited about it, and one thing just led to another and I just kept on going to school because that's where the opportunities took me. So I ended up getting a PhD eventually in it. From there, I worked in Maine, doing research and a lot of different things, but a lot of it was how we could improve soil health.
Wayne Honeycutt (03:17):
And this comes around to answering your question, is we had one particular study where we were able to double the yield of potatoes on this one cropping system we had by either irrigating or by improving soil health. And once we improved soil health, we no longer got a yield boost from adding irrigation. Because we were basically able to just improve the water holding capacity in that soil and essentially the whole water economy of that soil by focusing on improving soil health. So from that point on, I was just really convinced and was a believer and really took that level of, I guess, understanding and passion with me the rest of my career, and I'm still carrying it today.
John Mesko (04:05):
Well, that's a great story. It's often that single event like that can spark an interest or a career trajectory that has great outcomes. I can think of my own similar observation where I saw the pasture yield in a grazing system greatly enhanced by a managed soil health approach. And I think those are the kinds of things that all of us that work in this field are after. We want to see those kinds of great success stories spread across all kinds of farms.
Wayne Honeycutt (04:37):
That's exactly right. I'm really glad to hear about your experience too. You know, John, I have to think that that just what you described is the perfect scenario for a Soil Health Partnership, because that's really my impression, that's really what you all do is you help provide that evidence-based information for farmers so they can see what other farmers have been able to do and how they've benefited from it. And there's just nothing like seeing it. Seeing is believing. So I certainly can relate to that.
John Mesko (05:10):
Absolutely. You mentioned in your example that early on, at least in that one study, there was a focus on water quantity or the availability of water by increasing the soil health and water holding capacity. You had a career in soil health research and I'm curious how the questions that you were asking of yourself and of your research colleagues early in your career compare to the questions that you're asking now.
Wayne Honeycutt (05:40):
The thing about research is a lot of times when we're dealing with these agricultural systems, all these different little pieces are connected. So often when you conduct research, you have to control for a lot of those different things. And it's what's often called reductionist research, in that you try to just focus in on one or two little components of it. So early on I did that. I focused mostly on research to help improve nitrogen use efficiency, which basically meant understanding how the microbes decomposed different components of soil, organic matter, manures, things like that, and transformed them from a form that the plants cannot take up – the organic forms of nitrogen – into forms that the plants can take up in things like nitrate and ammonia. So that was a large part of my research for a number of years, studying those drivers of that transformation of making that nitrogen available and then relating that changing availability of that nitrogen in the soil to the changing demand that the plant has.
Wayne Honeycutt (06:56):
When a plant is very young, it doesn't have a whole lot of demand for nitrogen, but then as it is going through that stage of rapid growth, then it has more and more demand, and often when it starts to develop a grain or whatever that fruiting body is, then that demand often is less, it tapers off. You can imagine you have a changing availability of nitrogen depending on the weather and whether there's manure at it and all these types of things. But then you also have, related to that, a changing demand by the plant for that nitrogen. So I was basically studying both of those and trying to relate the two together. So that was a very, very focused – reductionist, as I say – approach to understanding and improving the nitrogen use efficiency or recovery by the crop.
Wayne Honeycutt (07:50):
So my focus now, I would say, is more big picture. More holistic. More systems driven. Not as reductionist. So for now I'm very, very focused on what it's going to take to get more adoption of the soil health systems. So that's why, at the Institute, we're working on programs to quantify the business case for farmers and identify the best measurements and help provide tools and stuff to help them select management practices to improve soil health and things like that. So all these things tie in around to providing what farmers need to know when they are deciding whether or not to adopt these practices and systems. So that's how I've transitioned, is really focused in on, early on in my career, real specific processes going on in the soil and the plant uptake of those nutrients, but then now standing back and taking more of a big picture holistic approach to try to address what is needed for farmers when they're deciding whether or not to adopt the practices.
John Mesko (09:03):
Well I can relate a little bit to that in that I can remember my study of agronomy in college and it really was very reductionist. Spend a couple of weeks on phosphorus and a couple of weeks on nitrogen and a semester on potassium or something like that. But really now, when we talk about the really exciting things in agriculture, it all has to do with this holistic approach of a soil health management system. I think it's interesting to see the changes in your career over that time, and it really brings up the work that you're doing now with the Soil Health Institute. And I know that one of the priorities that your organization has is working to getting some agreement, some standardization of soil health measures. And I'm curious if you could share with our listeners where the Soil Health Institute is currently with the North American project to evaluate the soil health measurement?
Wayne Honeycutt (10:07):
Yeah, that's a good question. Identifying the best soul health measurements is really a hard nut to crack. There are a lot of different organizations and labs that have their own set of measurements, and I think a lot of them are very promising, they're very useful, but as you know, John, the whole concept of soil health is also holistic. There are chemical, physical and biological properties. It's like human health. For human health, we don't just go in and ask for our blood pressure to be checked and feel like we have a complete picture. We have many other things that we want to be analyzed, including what's in our blood. It's a similar way with soil health. There's just not one or two things. There's a whole suite of things that need to be analyzed.
Wayne Honeycutt (11:07):
As I say, a lot of organizations have been doing some good stuff, I think, and labs have some of their own techniques and individual states have their own. But I think if we're going to be honest with each other, it's kind of like the wild, wild west out there. There's a lot of different organizations having their own. And what we feel like is needed is a widely applicable soil health evaluation program for everybody to use and everybody to get on page with, so that the labs know the best type of measurements and they know how to gear up for measuring these specific things. And our challenge (and I think this is why there's so many different tests), but our challenge is that sometimes it depends on different soils or different crops how you're going to interpret the results, and different climates, different production systems. All these things, they can influence your interpretation of the most effective test.
Wayne Honeycutt (12:07):
So we set out with this project to evaluate over 30 different types of measurements across North America. So we're trying to cover all of these different soils and crops and cropping systems and climates that influence results, so that we then know that we've evaluated all these 30 plus measurements across this wide range of parameters that influence those results. So we have now a sample of these sites. We've gone to 124 long-term agricultural research sites in the US, Canada, and Mexico. And we've gone to research sites instead of farms, because we needed to have documented management history of at least 10 years at each of these sites, and we needed to have things like their climate data. We needed to have that experimental design where they replicate, because we wanted to test each of these measurements, these indicators of soil health for their effectiveness. So that meant that we needed that type of experimental design to allow us to come to the appropriate statistical conclusion of how effective each of these measurements is.
Wayne Honeycutt (13:34):
So now we have a sample of all those 124 sites. We have analyzed over 2,000 soil samples for these, over 30 different measurements, and we now have a team of PhD scientists that's analyzing the data and the data range from things that we've all been doing for decades, like just pH and carbon or organic matter content, all the way up to the most contemporary measures, like really looking at the DNA in the soil and identifying the microbial communities and species that are in there and trying to understand from that what roles they play like in nutrient cycling and stuff like that. So all the way from the most fundamental we've been doing for decades to the most contemporary. It's a really, really exciting project. We do expect to be able to announce, out of those greater than 30 measurements, what some small subset of that 30 set is the most effective. So it's hard to know what the answer will be right now, because we're still analyzing the data, but I'm hopeful that we'll end up with 6 to 10 or something like that. Some manageable number that is therefore manageable in costs for farmers and other people to use it.
John Mesko (14:57):
I think that's fantastic. I'm sure you get interest about this from many different sides of the soil health community. I know from our standpoint at the Soil Health Partnership, having some standardized expectations and ways to measure and talk about the health of the soil is something that everybody's going to benefit from. I think it's important work that you're doing there.
Wayne Honeycutt (15:22):
Yeah. And I suspect that your listeners would also want to know, John, we visited of course with you guys early on too. And for years I've been a pseudo-adviser (along with many other people) for the Soil Partnership too, that program, so on you and help provide suggestions about what types of measurements you all are using on farms. So we also designed this and selected some measurements that we wanted to make sure were complementary and compatible with what SHP is doing. Because, for example, we are going to the long-term sites to see what those long-term changes are in soils, but we know that you all are measuring things in a shorter term, just soon after farmers adopt some of these same practices and systems. So that was one of the reasons why some of these measurements were selected so that we can share results and learn from one another so that farmers would all benefit from that too.
John Mesko (16:30):
Absolutely. I loved your reference earlier to the soil and the understanding of the health of the soil being similar to human health, because we all know that there's still many advances in not only how to treat conditions of human health, but also how to diagnose, how to measure, how to evaluate human health. It's still expanding and still growing, and it's exciting to be in a field that is just as new and fresh regarding what we can learn and where we can go. I think soil is probably a much more interesting field of study today than it was 20, 30 years ago.
Wayne Honeycutt (17:10):
I think you're exactly right. It is an exciting time to be in it because I think more and more different people, organizations are learning that soil health is really foundational to regenerative agriculture, to helping us address our water quality issues, our climate issues, and so many other things. It is a very exciting time to be in it.
John Mesko (17:34):
Let's look forward. I mean, we know that the work is large and there's much to do, and I know that the Soil Health Institute has some fairly elaborate goals and expectations on the work in the future. Can you give us an idea of what some of the longer range perspectives are there for Soil Health Institute?
Wayne Honeycutt (17:55):
Yeah, absolutely happy to. Again, for us, it's about achieving these benefits really at scale. We do think that although more and more research is always going to be needed, that there has been a sufficient amount of research conducted that gives us the confidence that we need for moving forward and providing basically the support for adopting these soil health systems. Because we know that there has been enough research done that shows us the soil systems can help store carbon in the soil, so that's reducing greenhouse gases. We know a lot of these systems can reduce the amount of water and therefore nutrient runoff. We know that they can help provide more water storage and therefore build drought resilience. And some of these practices also can build natural pathogen suppression. So there are all these productivity and environmental benefits.
Wayne Honeycutt (18:56):
So our fundamental focus is that, to achieve scale for all of these benefits and to achieve all these benefits on a widespread basis, that it really comes down to adoption. And I think that really gets at the opportunity that you and I both know about and speak of often about our partnership together, is that it really all comes to adoption. So some of our big goals are looking at our current levels of adoption of these soil practices and looking at how we can significantly improve it. Like cover crops right now in the US, only about 4 to 5% of cropland in the US is using cover crops. I think no-till’s around 26%, nitrogen management’s around 35 or so percent. When you look at range or pasture land, it's down to about 1% or so.
Wayne Honeycutt (19:54):
So when we look at significantly increasing those adoption levels to achieve all those productivity and environmental benefits on a wide-scale basis, then our goals, they do follow along those in achieving these greater adoption levels. This might scare people, but we would like to see by 2040 a 100% adoption of soil systems on all cropland. There's so much more range land out there, but we would like to see at least three-fourths of the range land adopt the soil health systems, because our models tell us if we could do that, then we could reduce all the greenhouse gas emissions for the entire US agriculture sector. We could significantly reduce, by millions of pounds, the amount of nutrients that's lost to our waterways. And, of course, those losses are not just environmental issues and impact, but they also directly impact the pocketbook of farmers, too.
Wayne Honeycutt (21:02):
So these are some of our biggest goals. So again, with that centered on adoption, we have particular areas that we're focusing in on, like really expanding information on the business case for farmers. That gives them the information they need when they're deciding whether or not to adopt. So right now, one of our projects, we're interviewing 125 farmers on their business case for adopting soil systems. But we know that that's just a drop in the bucket because it's a big, big country. There are a lot of different crops and different soils and climates. So we know we need much more information than that, and I know that's some of the information that you all are getting at the Soil Partnership too. So that'll all be part of it.
Wayne Honeycutt (21:53):
We also want to, as I mentioned earlier, provide that widely applicable soil health evaluation program so that everybody can use it and know how to interpret it. And we also want to develop tools for farmers so that they can select, essentially, at the comfort of their computers, select different management impact practices and determine what impact it will have on them building drought resilience, and becoming more stable in their yields and things like that. So we have all these kinds of sub-goals over that all tie into achieving that greater adoption level, which is our primary goal.
John Mesko (22:37):
Well, I think there's a lot of ingredients in the recipe to get to the level of adoption that we all want to see. I think working together is the key to achieving those results. And speaking of working together, the names of the two organizations that we're talking about here, the Soil Health Partnership and the Soil Health Institute obviously are very similar. In some ways, I'm sure you get asked this a lot, of the difference between our two organizations. I get asked that a lot. And I'm curious, sometimes I wish we didn't have similar names, but then on the other hand, sometimes I think it highlights the importance of soil health to have organizations that refer to themselves in that way. Tell me your understanding and how do you answer that question? The differences between our two organizations.
Wayne Honeycutt (23:32):
First of all, you're right, I get that question a lot. Sometimes I'll receive emails asking me about what I'm doing and the Soil Health Partnership. People mix them up and I'll say, "Well, you might want to be talking to John Mesko." So when people ask me, what does SHP do, I always try to refer them to you and to SHP. First of all, I try not to ever answer for you all. But yeah, when I push to answer, I say that... Look, we are two organizations with very similar goals. We want to increase soil health and soil health adoption. So from that standpoint, we're very complementary organizations. And the way that we're complementary is that we have different strengths.
Wayne Honeycutt (24:26):
From my perspective, Soil Health Partnership has a real strength in having very strong field staff that work directly with farmers adopting these soil health practices and systems. And then the Soil Health Institute, I feel like that our strength is having a very strong scientific staff that's looking at various aspects of the science of soil health. And that's where the complementarity, if that's such a word, comes in, I think, is that we can both really build and interact and partner on our individual strengths for that greater good. And that's where that complementary nature comes in. Would you agree with that, John?
John Mesko (25:11):
Yeah, I do agree, Wayne. I think that you hit on the strengths spot on, and I always feel like, in looking at organizations that are working towards the same goal or have similar goals, the goals can be the same or very, very similar, but the distinction is how that's carried out. And I've always felt like there's no organization that can do it all. Even though we all try to do as much as we can, we're in a constant need for funding and we want to appeal to those organizations that support our work, we have to focus on our strengths. And I think you laid them out very well, and at the Soil Health Partnership we're very pleased to collaborate and partner with Soil Health Institute on the issues that are necessary to bring about that adoption.
Wayne Honeycutt (25:57):
It's a partnership collaboration that we highly value too. So I can only see good things for the future there.
John Mesko (26:07):
I agree. I agree. And I've got one more thought or question for you as we think about the future, because I find myself looking to the future all the time, and I know that we talked about how fast things are changing and how we're learning new things, and we're understanding better now about how farmers make decisions and what they're looking for when they consider changing their farming practices. And I'm just curious, as you look out over the future with the work there at the Soil Health Institute, but across the whole soil health community in general, what do you think might be the most surprising thing to happen in our short-term, say in the next five years? A new discovery or new understanding or new results that we might see?
Wayne Honeycutt (26:54):
I'm hopeful that it will be that we get a much better understanding of what's referred to as the soil microbiome, which essentially is a fancy word for saying understanding the biology in the soil and its relationship to what's being grown in it and how that soil is managed. We know so little about it. I feel like that's one of our biggest opportunities, because what we do know is that plant and plant roots, they communicate with the soil microbes and vice versa. Soil microbes communicate with the plant, and in different ways. Right now, just for example, there are a number of folks finding some real good results experimenting with looking at many different mixes of cover crops and seeing what happened. Well, that's a great way to do it when we don't understand what's going on in the soil.
Wayne Honeycutt (28:03):
But can you imagine a different day when we understand those relationships, we understand what's being exuded, what's coming out of those roots systems of different species of cover crops and how that benefits different species of microbes in the soil, some that may enhance nutrient availability, some that may enhance carbon sequestration and build a water holding capacity. Some that may naturally suppress pathogens. So now, if you can be more prescriptive about which mixes of cover crops you're growing in order to facilitate particular microbial communities in the soil, and now it's not just putting in different mixes and seeing what happens, but now it's taking a well-informed approach for what you need to plant for this particular soil and for particular like a disease or for enhancing nutrients or whatever your particular goal may be. So that's what I feel like one of the greatest opportunities is, is really understanding that soil microbiome, so that we can be more efficient with our inputs, so that we can help heal soil health more quickly, and so that we can reduce nutrient losses, all these things that we want to achieve.
John Mesko (29:31):
As I'm listening to you talk about where we can go in the future and you even used the word prescriptive in your answer there, I still think about this human health analogy that we were talking about earlier. You think back a hundred years ago or more, what tools did a medical doctor have at their disposal to diagnose, understand, and treat a patient. It was fairly limited. And now a medical doctor has a lot more tools – diagnostic tools for sure, with the advancement in MRIs and CAT scans and these sorts of things – but also a lot of tools in the ability to prescribe, whether it's a drug directly that is attacking the problem that a person might have, or it's something that is designed to strengthen the body so that it can heal naturally. I mean, I see so many parallels there. It feels like listening to you talk about where we could go in the short term, it's, as we were saying earlier, just an exciting time to be working in this. It's exciting to work with farmers and with researchers and scientists to better learn, and again, better solve the problems that we have. And ultimately, I think we're going to see our ability to feed the world increase and grow along with it.
Wayne Honeycutt (30:48):
Absolutely, John. Said very well.
John Mesko (30:51):
Thank you, Wayne, for the time today. It's always a pleasure to visit with you. I appreciate, certainly, your work and the work of the Soil Health Institute, as we said. I hope to do this again real soon.
Wayne Honeycutt (31:01):
Thank you very much, John. I really appreciate the opportunity and the feeling, of course, is mutual, if you will. We really appreciate and respect and value the partnership and the collaboration that we have with SHP, so we look forward to many more years out of it. Thanks, John.
John Mesko (31:20):
Thank you.
