For the last several decades, the default path for American farmers and ranchers has been increasing specialization of the agricultural activities on their operations. In 1949, American farmers harvested at least one million acres of 16 different field crops. By 2022, that number had dropped to just 11. Today, four crops— corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton—occupy more than 88% of harvested cropland (excluding hay acres) in the United States. The number of distinct commodities produced on U.S. farms fell from an average of five per farm in 1990 to less than two in 2002. While specialization has offered short-term efficiencies, the long-term consequences include declining farm and rural incomes, reduced resilience to global supply shocks, and missed opportunities to build stronger, more adaptable food and energy systems.
On September 3rd, the AGree Coalition released a paper entitled Diversified Farming Systems and U.S. Agricultural Policy that I co-authored with Dr. Rob Myers from the University of Missouri and Vanessa Kulick Price, an independent consultant. This blog will describe the basic findings of that paper, and some of the key policy recommendations that we put forward. If you want to read the full paper, a link is provided here: https://foodandagpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/AGree-Coalition-Diversified-Farming-Systems-and-US-Ag-Policy-2025.pdf
Moving from a conventional farming system, such as the typical Midwest corn-soybean crop rotation, to a more diversified farming system, can take the form of adding many different types of practices. They include:
• Creating a more complex crop rotation by adding one or two annual crops, such as small grains (like oats or millet), pulse, or oilseed crops,
• Planting a cover crop after the fall crop is harvested,
• Adding livestock back into the operation
• Adding rotational grazing of ruminant animals
• Adopting agroforestry practices
• Adding a perennial crop into the rotation (like alfalfa or kernza)
Extensive research strongly suggests that there are significant benefits for individual producers and to the broader community and society from widespread adoption of diversified farming systems. For example, one study indicates that farmers with DFS operations generally have higher net incomes, while another found that such operations are more resilient to economic shocks and experience less volatility in their incomes on a year-by-year basis. Similar results of improved crop yields, reduced input applications, especially of fertilizer, and fuel, and better financial performance are found in research on DFS operations compared to conventional systems not just in the United States but elsewhere in the world as well, such as in China, Brazil, and Canada.
The environmental and agronomic gains from implementing a more diversified farming system are substantial as well. More complex crop rotations can help break disease cycles, especially for fungal diseases like rust or blight which can overwinter in crop debris on fields. For the adopting producer, these systems generate less runoff of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus into ground and surface water, lower greenhouse gas emissions, especially nitrous oxide, and increase soil carbon content, all of which could be monetized into ag or carbon credits on ecosystem services markets where available.
Some of the environmental benefits described above also accrue to the communities around the farmers adopting more diversified farming systems, as reduced runoff can cut the costs of providing clean water to the population.
Bringing in additional acres of minor row crops, such as oats and millet, or more specialty crops, would have the added benefit of making us less dependent on imports of those commodities or their substitutes and improve the U.S. net agricultural trade balance, which has fallen into negative territory in recent years. It is worth noting that broad adoption of a more diversified crop rotation would also make American farmers less vulnerable to international trade shocks, such as China’s withdrawal from the U.S. soybean market earlier this year.
Despite all of these advantages, most American farmers are wary of making such a set of changes to their operations, in large part due to the barriers that exist in how our federal agricultural policies, markets, and physical infrastructure are operated.
The farm bill programs in the commodities and crop insurance titles offer robust safety net support to the major row crops, namely corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice, and more modest or no support for minor crops that might be added to a crop rotation under a diversified farming system. Minor row crops such as oats, barley, canola, and sunflower are eligible for support and insurance coverage but at less lucrative levels, while other crops receive no direct support under the commodities title and/or don’t have a policy under the federal crop insurance program. Other federal programs and policies also tend to reinforce farmers’ reluctance to leave the beaten path of conventional crops and practices, such as the requirement that 50 percent of all resources provided under USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) be devoted to livestock operations, and much of that funding goes to large animal feeding operations, and not more innovative practices such as rotational grazing.
The other two legs of the stool, market and physical infrastructure constraints, tend to reinforce the same preferences described above with respect to their capacity to market and distribute minor crops as opposed to the big four crops. Country grain elevators, typically the first delivery point for crop farmers, are almost always configured to receive and handle only the major crops grown in the region, so producers of minor crops must look far afield for buyers of those crops, adding cost and uncertainty to their marketing strategies.
The policy recommendations in the paper touch on almost every mission area at USDA, and reflect the fact that the Department has significant flexibility to revise its regulations to operate its programs in ways that are more accommodating to farmers desiring to run a more diversified farm. We recommend setting up a Department-wide task force to coordinate a strategy to prioritize diversification, and changes to the federal crop insurance program to make certain policies, such as the Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) policy, more conducive to diversification efforts by farmers, who might want to add one or two crops to their rotation. We also support prioritizing practices under USDA’s conservation programs that fit within a diversification approach, such as conservation crop rotations. There’s a lot that USDA can do in this area through the regulatory process, although some ideas might need statutory fixes through the farm bill process.
