Measurement is holding back progress
Farmer organizations, researchers and policymakers frequently promote soil health practices, such as cover crops and reduced tillage, as tools to protect water quality and maintain productivity. But a basic question remains difficult to answer: How widely are these practices being used?
Though multiple systems track adoption rates, inconsistent definitions and measuring practices result in very different stories. To better understand true adoption rates, researchers compared several major datasets, looking not just at the numbers themselves but also at how those numbers were created.
Conflicting numbers to clearer insights
The comparison revealed that estimates of soil health practice adoption can vary widely, depending on the data source. In some cases, the same practice appeared to be adopted at very different rates simply because it was defined or measured differently.
For example, satellite-based systems may detect whether a field has vegetation cover at certain times of the year, while survey-based systems rely on farmer responses about management practices. Each approach captures valuable information, but they do not always align. Apparent disagreement between datasets often reflects these differences, rather than a true mismatch in what farmers are doing on the ground. Examining these systems side-by-side offers a clearer interpretation of adoption data.
The researchers’ findings point to a need for shared definitions and more consistent ways to measure soil health practices. When measurements are inconsistent, it is difficult to compare results or track progress over time. Rather than focusing only on how much adoption is happening, the more important question becomes how we measure adoption.
That shift matters because better measurement leads to stronger decisions. Conflicting estimates can make it difficult to know which practices are gaining traction or delivering results. Clear, consistent data helps advisors and program leaders identify where adoption is working and where support is needed, making it easier to expand the use of effective practices. This research highlights that improving how adoption is measured is just as important as increasing adoption itself.
What comes next
Building on these findings, researchers are working to make soil health adoption data more consistent and useful in practice. Efforts are underway to bring data providers together to develop shared definitions so results can be compared across systems. At the same time, the team is exploring how to make adoption data more useful for conservation professionals by improving access, transparency and scale. These steps aim to shift conservation efforts from random acts of conservation to more targeted strategies that help farmers adopt practices that will have the most operational and conservation benefits.
Better measurement supports better management
For farmers, data affects real-world decisions. When information is consistent and reliable, it becomes easier to evaluate what works in the field and manage risk over time. Clearer data also supports conservation professionals and program leaders. With a more accurate picture of adoption, they can better align outreach and support with what is happening on the ground, improving the guidance and resources available to farmers.
In the long term, better measurement helps connect conservation research and programs to on-farm decisions. With more dependable information, farmers are better positioned to improve soil health, respond to weather extremes and protect long-term productivity.
Read Dr. Bonnie McGill’s Insight
What’s the (Real) Rate of Soil Health Practice Adoption?
Scientific Publications
McGill, B. M., Hively, W. D., Puntel, L. A., Shriver, J., Thieme, A. N., Manter, D. K., & Moore, J. M. (2025). What is the (real) rate of soil health practice adoption? Making sense of three data sources. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 80(6), 724–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224561.2025.2580218