For Alfalfa Farmers
Depleted soil loses water.
A restored soil microbiome holds it.
Everything below is here for you to open, read, and use — the letter, the science, the numbers, and the sources behind them. Click any title to expand it.
For Your Arizona Alfalfa Operation
Click a title below to open it.
Dear Arizona Alfalfa Farmer,
The most valuable way to ensure your continued success against the coming water regulations and the diversion of the Colorado River is to increase your soil's water retention by 251%, reducing your water use by 40% without negatively affecting yield. This seems like a tall order, but it is actually biology. You are in a war for Arizona's water. The Arizona AG is in court. Foreign corporations have already pumped 5.3 billion gallons of our state's groundwater in a single year. And when regulation arrives — not if, but when — the water you pump today for nearly nothing will cost far more. We believe that every family alfalfa farmer in Arizona deserves a path forward that saves the soil, the water, and the farm.
What MycoEarth Does
MycoEarth restores the native soil microbiome with mycorrhizal and saprophytic fungi applied directly between the rows of your stand after a cutting. A modification in practice is required. Chemical inputs are antimicrobial, so they are eliminated, and the savings drop to the bottom line. Tilling is also out as it destroys the microbial environment. The microbes are responsible for holding water, reducing weed, pest, and plant disease pressure in a process called soil self-regulation — the powerhouse process that blows every conventional farmer's mind when they witness it firsthand.
What This Means for Your Operation
Biological benefits
- Saves 651,702 gallons of water per acre annually
- Eliminates chemical inputs permanently
- Builds 2″ of new topsoil per acre per year
- Soil becomes nontoxic — no carcinogens, no residue
- Documented conservation = stronger water-right position when regulation arrives
500-acre financial snapshot
- Break-even: Month 18
- Annual savings from Year 2: $250,500+
- 5-Year cumulative savings: $875,000
- IRS Carbon Capture Tax Credits: eligible
I Would Like 45 Minutes with You on Zoom to Discuss Your Farm
I'd like to offer you a free 45-minute Zoom conversation — no sales pressure, no obligation — to walk through exactly what a restored microbiome would look like on your specific operation and how to position your farm ahead of the water regulations that are already moving through Arizona's legal system.
It can be difficult to change the system, but something may have to change to keep farming in Arizona. MycoEarth is here to help you step through the coming changes that only restoring the soil microbiome to the pre-chemical condition can solve.
To schedule your Zoom call, dial (928) 910-9802
Kathryn Crew, Founder | Kathryn@mycoearth.us | www.MycoEarth.us
Prescott, Arizona
With care for your land and your livelihood
Three diagrams that tell the complete story: what thriving soil looks like, what agricultural chemicals do to it layer by layer, and what happens when you restore it with mycoculture. Each is organized like the old USDA Food Guide Pyramid — the widest, most abundant layers at the base, narrowing to the most complex and biologically rich layers at the top.
The Healthy Soil Ecosystem
What thriving soil looks like — the full biological pyramid intactLiving organisms make up less than 1% of total soil volume — yet they drive nearly all nutrient cycling, structure formation, and plant health. The mineral base is the platform. The microbiome is the engine. Organic matter is the fuel. Water and air are the transport system. Soil fauna are the workers who keep it all moving.
| Layer | What lives and works here |
|---|---|
| ApexSoil Fauna |
Microfauna: protozoa, nematodes, tardigrades Mesofauna: oribatid mites, springtails, enchytraeids Macrofauna: earthworms, centipedes, millipedes, ground beetles, ants, termites Megafauna: moles, voles, gophers, prairie dogs |
| Layer 2Microbiome |
Bacteria: Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Acidobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes Archaea: ammonia-oxidizers, methanogens, extremophiles Fungi: arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM), ectomycorrhizal (EM), saprophytic species Mycelium networks: hyphae, rhizomorphs, anastomoses Yeast: Saccharomyces, Rhodotorula, Candida spp. Actinomycetes (source of petrichor & natural antibiotics) Algae, cyanobacteria, bacteriophages & soil viruses |
| Layer 3Organic Matter | Fresh plant litter & crop residues · partially decomposed material · stable humus Root exudates: sugars, amino acids, organic acids, phenolics Fulvic acids · Humic acids · Biochar · Peat |
| Layer 4Soil Water & Air | Gravitational water (macropores) · capillary water (plant-available) · hygroscopic water Soil air: O₂, CO₂, N₂, water vapor, ethylene, volatile organic compounds Dissolved mineral ions in soil solution |
| BaseMinerals & Rock Particles | Sand · Silt · Clay · Gravel & rock fragments Primary minerals: quartz, feldspar, mica, pyroxene, olivine Secondary minerals: kaolinite, smectite, iron/aluminum oxides, carbonates Mineral ions: Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, K⁺, Na⁺, Fe²⁺/³⁺, Zn²⁺, Cu²⁺ |
What Agricultural Chemicals Do
How synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and fungicides collapse the pyramid — layer by layerThe damage does not stay in the layer where chemicals are applied. It cascades downward through the entire pyramid.
| Layer & Status | What agricultural chemicals do |
|---|---|
| DEADSoil Fauna | Earthworms, beetles, mites, springtails, ants, and nematodes killed directly by pesticides and herbicides. Loss of burrowing fauna removes the primary architects of your soil's pore structure. Without fauna, physical mixing and aeration of soil stops entirely. |
| DEADMicrobiome | Fungi (especially mycorrhizal species) killed by fungicides and herbicides such as glyphosate. Glyphosate acts as a broad-spectrum chelator and biocide, disrupting bacterial metabolism across multiple phyla. Synthetic fertilizers suppress mycorrhizal recruitment — plants stop producing root exudates that attract fungi when nutrients are artificially supplied. The mycelium network collapses entirely. Actinomycetes, archaea, yeast, and cyanobacteria populations crash. |
| STOPPEDOrganic Matter | Material is still present but no longer cycling. Without bacteria and fungi to decompose it, organic matter cannot convert to humus. Root exudates have no microbial recipients. Humus formation stops, reducing your soil's ability to hold water, store carbon, and buffer pH. |
| COLLAPSINGSoil Water & Air | Fungal hyphae and earthworm burrows created the pore network. With both gone, soil compacts. Water infiltration drops, anaerobic zones expand, and gas exchange slows. Compacted soil becomes prone to runoff, erosion, and waterlogging. |
| INERTMinerals & Rock Particles | The mineral base is physically unchanged — but without the microbiome to weather minerals and release ions, it becomes unavailable to plants. Synthetic fertilizers bypass this system by delivering soluble ions directly, creating permanent dependency rather than restoring biology. |
The Path to Restoration
Native mycorrhizal & saprophytic fungi · applied between the rows · no-tillWhen restoration inputs are applied together, the pyramid comes back to life. The mycelium network re-threads through the soil. Organic matter begins cycling again. The pore structure reopens. The mineral base becomes biologically active. Alfalfa stops struggling and starts thriving — without synthetic inputs.
| Layer & Status | What happens when you restore |
|---|---|
| RETURNINGSoil Fauna | As the microbiome recovers and organic matter accumulates, earthworms, beetles, mites, and nematodes return. No-till ensures their habitat isn't destroyed between cuttings. |
| AWAKENINGMicrobiome | Native mycorrhizal and saprophytic fungi reintroduce fungal and bacterial communities between the rows. The mycelium network begins re-threading through your soil, reconnecting alfalfa roots to the nutrient and water exchange highway. |
| RESTARTINGOrganic Matter | Organic matter inputs feed the reawakening decomposers. Humus begins rebuilding. Root exudates provide living fuel for bacteria and fungi. Carbon returns to your soil. |
| REOPENINGSoil Water & Air | No-till preserves the pore network as it rebuilds. Returning earthworms and fungal hyphae reopen compacted zones. Infiltration improves, anaerobic zones shrink, and water retention climbs. |
| ACTIVEMinerals & Rock Particles | With the microbiome reestablished, mineral weathering resumes. Bacteria and fungi release calcium, magnesium, zinc, iron, and phosphorus into soil solution — without synthetic inputs. |
How MycoEarth Restores Alfalfa Soil
Applied Between the Rows, After a Cutting
Native mycorrhizal and saprophytic fungi are applied directly between the rows of your stand after a cutting — no replanting, no down-time on the field required.
Two practice changes make it work: chemical inputs are eliminated (they're antimicrobial and kill the fungi you're introducing), and tilling stops (it destroys the microbial environment you're rebuilding). Both changes drop straight to your bottom line as eliminated input costs.
See the Farmer Operating Budget sections below for exactly what that looks like in dollars, per acre and at 500 acres.
What every Arizona alfalfa farmer needs to know about soil self-regulation, water pressure, and the fungal fix.
Arizona alfalfa growers are being squeezed from more than one direction right now. The Colorado River is delivering less water than it ever has on record. Arizona's Attorney General is in court arguing that a major alfalfa operation's groundwater pumping should be legally restricted. And more of the water that used to reach farms is now flowing through canals to fast-growing cities instead. None of this is a future problem — it's happening this season. The single biggest lever a farmer has over both water use and input cost sits below the surface, in the soil itself.
What Is Soil Self-Regulation?
Self-regulating soil is soil in which the biological food web — fungi, bacteria, and the organisms that feed on them — is intact enough to manage its own nutrient release, water movement, and pest and disease pressure, without the farmer having to force those functions with synthetic inputs. Researchers describe this as a food web in which nutrient release is matched to plant demand far more precisely than fertilizer application ever can (Fbae.org, 2026). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in particular have been identified as a keystone group capable of governing multiple soil functions at once — nutrient cycling, water regulation and purification, and disease and pest suppression among them (ScienceDirect, 2024). That's the definition in a sentence: soil that does more of the work itself.
The Two Fungal Partners Behind It
Saprophytic fungi break down dead organic material — crop residue, roots, manure — releasing the nutrients locked inside it back into plant-available form. As they grow, their hyphae also physically bind mineral particles and organic matter together, cementing loose clay into stable soil aggregates (CSIRO Publishing, Soil Research). Studies of fungal-mediated aggregation confirm that hyphal networks enmesh fine particles into progressively larger, more stable aggregates, and that fungal biomass density is one of the strongest predictors of how stable that structure becomes (Angulo et al., 2024).
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi form a direct symbiotic partnership with the crop's roots, extending far beyond the root zone through a network of hyphae. That network delivers phosphorus, zinc, and copper the plant's roots alone could never reach, exploiting soil micropores and depleted zones no root can penetrate — in some studied crops, the mycorrhizal pathway accounts for 60 to nearly 100 percent of phosphorus uptake (ScienceDirect, AMF Soil Health Review, 2024). That same network has been shown to supply as much as 35 percent of a plant's transpired water in supporting studies, and under drought stress, mycorrhizal association helps regulate stomatal closure to conserve what water the plant does have (Nature Communications Earth & Environment, 2026; IJPS Journal, 2025).
Why Arizona's Clay Soil Needs the Help
Most Arizona farmland is clay-dominant — soil that compacts easily, crusts at the surface, and after decades of conventional tillage typically runs low in the organic matter that feeds a fungal network in the first place. Tillage doesn't just disturb the surface; it physically shears hyphal networks apart and removes the plant hosts mycorrhizal fungi depend on, which is why conventional fields lose fungal activity faster than they can rebuild it season to season (PMC, Fungal-Mediated Soil Aggregation, 2026). That's the trap: the soils that need self-regulation the most are often the ones least equipped to develop it without a deliberate rebuild.
What a Self-Regulating Soil Gives You
Water & structure
- Less irrigation demand, as fungal networks and improved soil structure hold and move water more efficiently
- Better drought tolerance, through mycorrhizal-mediated water regulation in the plant itself
- Improved infiltration and reduced compaction, as hyphae rebuild stable clay aggregates
Inputs & protection
- Less dependence on synthetic fertilizer, as nutrient cycling begins to match crop demand on its own
- Built-in disease and pest suppression, reducing reliance on chemical intervention
The Timeline After Saprophytic + AMF Inoculation
Every field is different, but the biology follows a predictable sequence:
- Weeks 1–8: Saprophytic fungi colonize the wet, dead organic material placed in the inoculation trench and begin active decomposition, extending the first hyphal growth into the surrounding soil.
- Months 2–5: Hyphal networks begin binding clay particles into microaggregates, and those microaggregates start enmeshing into larger, more stable macroaggregates — the earliest measurable improvement in soil structure (CSIRO Publishing; Rillig, New Phytologist, 2006).
- Months 6–12: AMF symbiosis matures alongside the crop's root system, and nutrient delivery through the fungal network increases. MycoEarth's Month 6 soil test provides the first documented read on microbial load and structural change.
- Year 1–2: The food web begins functioning as a self-sustaining system, with biological nutrient cycling substituting for a growing share of synthetic input. The Month 12 test tracks that progression.
- Month 24 and beyond: Under continued no-till management, the fungal network reaches the level of maturity behind MycoEarth's documented field outcomes — including irrigation reductions of up to 40 percent and full elimination of chemical inputs. The Month 24 test confirms whether the network is self-sustaining or whether re-engagement service is needed.
- Years 3 & 5: Booster applications reinforce the network as it matures toward the permanence that no-till management is designed to protect — because tillage remains the fastest way to undo years of fungal network development.
The Water Pressure Behind This Decision
This isn't a distant risk. As of spring 2026, the Colorado River is on track for its driest year on record: Lake Powell sat near 24 percent full and Lake Mead near 32 percent full, both approaching the elevations that trigger the next tier of federal delivery cuts (WaterVerge, 2026). Arizona has already absorbed mandatory reductions — 512,000 acre-feet cut from its Colorado River allocation in 2025 alone — and agriculture outside specially protected districts carries much of that exposure (Cronkite News, 2026).
At the same time, Arizona's Attorney General, Kris Mayes, is actively pursuing a public nuisance lawsuit against Fondomonte, a large Saudi-owned alfalfa operation, over groundwater pumping the state says has contributed to declining water levels and land subsidence in La Paz County. A Maricopa County judge has kept that case moving forward even as the Arizona Department of Water Resources rolls out new Active Management Areas — regulatory zones that assess groundwater use, block new irrigation, and impose reporting and management requirements on agricultural users (Courthouse News; KJZZ, 2026). Whatever the outcome, the direction is clear: agricultural groundwater use, especially on water-intensive crops like alfalfa, is under a level of legal and regulatory scrutiny it has not faced before.
Meanwhile, the Central Arizona Project canal continues carrying Colorado River water hundreds of miles to Phoenix and Tucson, and as reservoirs shrink toward their trigger elevations, that water is increasingly protected for cities first (NPR/KJZZ, 2026). For a farmer, the practical result of all three pressures — a shrinking river, a courtroom in Phoenix, and canals built to prioritize cities — is the same: water is becoming the input a farm can least afford to rely on.
Where MycoEarth Fits
Whether the pressure comes from a shrinking river, a courtroom, or a well that runs a little deeper every year, the underlying fix doesn't change: soil that manages more of its own water and nutrient cycle needs less pumped onto it and less synthetic input to stay productive. MycoEarth's Fungi First Soil Inoculant service — a blend of native saprophytic fungi paired with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi — is built to restore exactly that kind of self-regulating soil food web in Arizona's clay-based farmland. Documented field outcomes include irrigation reductions of up to 40 percent, full elimination of chemical inputs, and, under continued no-till management, permanent results. Pre- and post-service soil testing at Months 6, 12, and 24 keeps the process accountable at every stage, and Kathryn Crew is on-site for every job — this is not a service delivered by a crew without her.
If you're ready to see what your own soil is capable of regulating on its own, reach out for a consultation.
Kathryn Crew, Chief Soil Officer — MycoEarth, LLC
Chino Valley, Arizona
Kathryn@mycoearth.us | (928) 910-9802 | www.MycoEarth.us
References — This Article
- Fbae.org. "Soil Microbiology: How Microbes Drive Plant Growth and Health." 2026.
- ScienceDirect. "Disentangling the Contributions of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi to Soil Multifunctionality." 2024.
- CSIRO Publishing, Soil Research. "Aggregation of Soil by Fungal Hyphae."
- Angulo, V., et al. "Enhancement of Soil Aggregation and Physical Properties Through Fungal Amendments Under Varying Moisture Conditions." Environmental Microbiology, 2024.
- ScienceDirect. "Potential of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi for Soil Health: A Review." 2024.
- Nature, Communications Earth & Environment. "Soil Microbes Are the Tiny Bioengineers Running Earth's Underground Factory." 2026.
- IJPS Journal. "Role of Mycorrhizal Fungi in Enhancing Soil Fertility in Promoting Plant Health." 2025.
- PMC. "Fungal-Mediated Soil Aggregation as a Mechanism for Carbon Stabilization." 2026.
- Rillig, M.C. "Mycorrhizas and Soil Structure." New Phytologist, 2006.
- WaterVerge. "Colorado River Heads Into Its Driest Year on Record as Arizona Cities Tighten Water Rules." June 2026.
- Cronkite News. "Federal Plan to Divide Colorado River's Dwindling Water Brings Flood of Pushback." March 2026.
- Courthouse News Service. "Megafarm Can't Stop Excessive Groundwater Pumping Lawsuit in Arizona." May 2026.
- KJZZ. "Judge Won't Pause Arizona AG's Groundwater Lawsuit Against Saudi-Owned Farm." May 2026.
- NPR/KJZZ. "How the City With the Most to Lose in the Colorado River Crisis Is Trying to Adapt." April 2026.
© Kathryn Crew, MycoEarth, LLC
Before and After MycoEarth Soil Restoration — 1-Year, 2-Year, 3-Year, and 5-Year Projections. Multiply any figure by farm acreage to scale. MycoEarth fee shown at $750/acre (Standard Service tier).
This is the Year 1 per-acre baseline: annual operations plus the MycoEarth restoration fee. It is the reference point against which all subsequent savings are measured. MycoEarth's pre-application protocol requires complete cessation of all chemical inputs before deployment. Chemicals are eliminated permanently, not reduced.
| Water pumping — electricity & well maintenance | $150 |
| Chemical fertilizers | $300 |
| Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides | $200 |
| Annual operating total — before MycoEarth | $650 |
| MycoEarth restoration fee — Year 1 only (per acre) | $750 |
| Total Year 1 budget before MycoEarth savings | $1,400 |
Chemical inputs are eliminated from Day 1. The only operational cost remaining is water pumping. Year 1 is the only year the MycoEarth fee appears in the budget.
| Budget line item | Before MycoEarth | Year 1 with MycoEarth |
|---|---|---|
| MycoEarth restoration fee (one-time) | — | $750 |
| Water pumping | $150 | $150 |
| Chemical fertilizers | $300 | $0 |
| Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides | $200 | $0 |
| Year 1 total budget | $1,400 | $900 |
| Year 1 savings vs. before-MycoEarth budget | $500 |
The MycoEarth fee does not recur. The restored biological network continues building soil structure without any additional investment. Year 2 and every year following, the farm operates on water pumping costs alone.
| Budget line item | Without MycoEarth | Year 2 with MycoEarth |
|---|---|---|
| MycoEarth restoration fee | — | $0 (paid in Year 1) |
| Water pumping | $150 | $150 |
| Chemical fertilizers | $300 | $0 |
| Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides | $200 | $0 |
| Year 2 total budget | $650 | $150 |
| Year 2 savings | $500 | |
| Cumulative savings through Year 2 | $1,000 |
Three years of compounding biological benefit with no additional cost. The AMF network matures, glomalin builds water-stable aggregates, and roots access moisture from deeper soil horizons.
| Budget line item | Without MycoEarth | Year 3 with MycoEarth |
|---|---|---|
| MycoEarth restoration fee | — | $0 (paid in Year 1) |
| Water pumping | $150 | $150 |
| Chemical fertilizers | $300 | $0 |
| Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides | $200 | $0 |
| Year 3 total budget | $650 | $150 |
| Year 3 savings | $500 | |
| Cumulative savings through Year 3 | $1,500 |
At Year 5, the farm has saved $2,500 per acre compared to conventional management — $1,250,000 at 500 acres. The biological infrastructure is permanent and continues producing value indefinitely.
| Budget line item | Without MycoEarth | Year 5 with MycoEarth |
|---|---|---|
| MycoEarth restoration fee | — | $0 (paid in Year 1) |
| Water pumping | $150 | $150 |
| Chemical fertilizers | $300 | $0 |
| Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides | $200 | $0 |
| Year 5 total budget | $650 | $150 |
| Year 5 savings | $500 | |
| Cumulative savings through Year 5 | $2,500 |
| Year | Without MycoEarth | With MycoEarth | Annual savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | $1,400 | $900 | $500 |
| Year 2 | $650 | $150 | $500 |
| Year 3 | $650 | $150 | $500 |
| Year 4 | $650 | $150 | $500 |
| Year 5 | $650 | $150 | $500 |
| 5-Year Total | $4,000 | $1,500 | $2,500 |
Additional Savings Not Calculated in This Budget
- Tilling costs: No-till management eliminates annual tilling passes. Time, equipment wear, fuel, and repair costs are not included in this budget and represent additional annual savings to the farmer.
- Carbon capture tax deductions: A restored soil microbiome sequesters carbon. Federal tax deductions available through the U.S. Department of Energy Carbon Capture program are not included in this budget.
Before and After MycoEarth Soil Restoration — 1-Year, 2-Year, 3-Year, and 5-Year Projections.
This is the Year 1 baseline: what the farm budgets for operations plus the MycoEarth restoration fee. It is the starting point against which all subsequent savings are measured. MycoEarth's pre-application protocol requires complete cessation of all chemical inputs before deployment. Chemicals are eliminated from the budget permanently, not reduced.
| Water pumping — electricity & well maintenance | $75,000 |
| Chemical fertilizers | $150,000 |
| Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides | $100,000 |
| Annual operating total — before MycoEarth | $325,000 |
| MycoEarth restoration fee — Year 1 only (500 acres × $750) | $375,000 |
| Total Year 1 budget before MycoEarth savings | $700,000 |
Chemical inputs are eliminated from Day 1. The only operational cost remaining is water pumping. Year 1 is the only year the MycoEarth fee appears in the budget.
| Budget line item | Before MycoEarth | Year 1 with MycoEarth |
|---|---|---|
| MycoEarth restoration fee (one-time) | — | $375,000 |
| Water pumping | $75,000 | $75,000 |
| Chemical fertilizers | $150,000 | $0 |
| Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides | $100,000 | $0 |
| Year 1 total budget | $700,000 | $450,000 |
| Year 1 savings vs. before-MycoEarth budget | $250,000 |
The MycoEarth fee does not recur. The AMF network, established in Year 1, continues building soil structure and deepening root access without any additional investment. Year 2 and every year following, the farm operates on water pumping costs only.
| Budget line item | Without MycoEarth | Year 2 with MycoEarth |
|---|---|---|
| MycoEarth restoration fee | — | $0 (paid in Year 1) |
| Water pumping | $75,000 | $75,000 |
| Chemical fertilizers | $150,000 | $0 |
| Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides | $100,000 | $0 |
| Year 2 total budget | $325,000 | $75,000 |
| Year 2 savings | $250,000 | |
| Cumulative savings through Year 2 | $500,000 |
Three years of compounding biological benefit. The restored microbiome continues to mature, glomalin continues building water-stable aggregates, and alfalfa roots access moisture from progressively deeper soil horizons. No additional MycoEarth investment required.
| Budget line item | Without MycoEarth | Year 3 with MycoEarth |
|---|---|---|
| MycoEarth restoration fee | — | $0 (paid in Year 1) |
| Water pumping | $75,000 | $75,000 |
| Chemical fertilizers | $150,000 | $0 |
| Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides | $100,000 | $0 |
| Year 3 total budget | $325,000 | $75,000 |
| Year 3 savings | $250,000 | |
| Cumulative savings through Year 3 | $750,000 |
At Year 5, the farm has saved $1,250,000 compared to conventional management. The biological infrastructure installed in Year 1 is permanent under no-till conditions and continues producing value indefinitely at $250,000 per year.
| Budget line item | Without MycoEarth | Year 5 with MycoEarth |
|---|---|---|
| MycoEarth restoration fee | — | $0 (paid in Year 1) |
| Water pumping | $75,000 | $75,000 |
| Chemical fertilizers | $150,000 | $0 |
| Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides | $100,000 | $0 |
| Year 5 total budget | $325,000 | $75,000 |
| Year 5 savings | $250,000 | |
| Cumulative savings through Year 5 | $1,250,000 |
| Year | Without MycoEarth | With MycoEarth | Annual savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | $700,000 | $450,000 | $250,000 |
| Year 2 | $325,000 | $75,000 | $250,000 |
| Year 3 | $325,000 | $75,000 | $250,000 |
| Year 4 | $325,000 | $75,000 | $250,000 |
| Year 5 | $325,000 | $75,000 | $250,000 |
| 5-Year Total | $2,000,000 | $750,000 | $1,250,000 |
Additional Savings Not Calculated in This Budget
- Tilling costs: No-till management eliminates annual tilling passes. Time, equipment wear, fuel, and repair costs are not included in this budget and represent additional annual savings to the farmer.
- Carbon capture tax deductions: A restored soil microbiome sequesters carbon. Federal tax deductions available through the U.S. Department of Energy Carbon Capture program are not included in this budget.
Your Soil Is Fighting for Its Life — And So Is Your Water. A Field Guide for Arizona Alfalfa Farmers on Soil Microbiome Restoration. Kathryn Crew, Founder — MycoEarth, LLC. © 2026 MycoEarth, LLC. All rights reserved.
References are organized by presentation slide section. All links have been individually verified to go directly to the research or primary document.
I. Foreword & Introduction
- FAO. (2015). Status of the World's Soil Resources. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. View source
- USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). Farm Sector Income & Finances, 2024. United States Department of Agriculture. View source
- USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Natural Resource Concerns: Soil. United States Department of Agriculture, 2024. View source
- American Farm Bureau Federation. (2026). Farm Bankruptcies Continued to Climb in 2025. AFBF Market Intel. View source
II. Foundation — Living Soil, Mycelium, and Microbiology
- Rillig, M.C. (2004). Arbuscular mycorrhizae, glomalin, and soil aggregation. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 84(4), 355–363. View source
- Leake, J.R., et al. (2004). Networks of power and influence: the role of mycorrhizal mycelium in controlling plant communities and agroecosystem nutrient cycling. Canadian Journal of Botany, 82(8), 1016–1045. View source
- Simard, S.W., et al. (1997). Net transfer of carbon between ectomycorrhizal tree species in the field. Nature, 388, 579–582. View source
- Javot, H., et al. (2007). A Medicago truncatula phosphate transporter indispensable for the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. PNAS, 104(5), 1720–1725. View source
- New Phytologist. (2022). Routes to roots: direct evidence of water transport by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to host plants. doi:10.1111/nph.18281. View source
- Tisdall, J.M. & Oades, J.M. (1982). Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in soils. Journal of Soil Science, 33, 141–163. View source
- Ohioline. (2024). Role of Soil Fungus. Ohio State University Extension Factsheet ANR-37. View source
- Oklahoma State University Extension. (2023). Beneficial Fungi in the Landscape. OSU Extension Gardening Column. View source
- Das, S. & Sarkar, S. (2024). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal contribution towards plant resilience to drought conditions. Frontiers in Fungal Biology. PMC10904651. View source
- Crowther, T.W., Boddy, L. & Jones, T.H. (2012). Functional and ecological consequences of saprotrophic fungus–grazer interactions. The ISME Journal. PMC3475375. View source
- Bödeker, I.T.M., et al. (2020). Plant functional group drives the community structure of saprophytic fungi in a grassland biodiversity experiment. Plant and Soil, 452, 405–422. View source
- Baldrian, P. (2017). Forest microbiome: diversity, complexity and dynamics. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 41(2), 109–130. View source
- Northwestern University. (2024). Understanding how soil traps carbon. Northwestern Now. View source
- Environmental Science and Pollution Research. (2023). A review of the impact of herbicides and insecticides on the microbial communities. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2023.117827. View source
- PMC. (2024). Impact of pesticides on soil health: identification of key soil microbial indicators for ecotoxicological assessment through meta-analysis. PMC12105574. View source
III. The Chemical Era — Economics, DDT, and Roundup
- US EPA. (2022). DDT: A Brief History and Status. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. View source
- Benbrook, C.M. (2016). Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environmental Sciences Europe, 28(1), 3. View source
- Thongprakaisang, S., et al. (2013). Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 59, 129–136. View source
- Guyton, K.Z., et al. (2015). Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. The Lancet Oncology, 16(5), 490–491. View source
- IARC Monographs Vol. 112: Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides — Diazinon, Glyphosate, Malathion, Parathion, and Tetrachlorvinphos. International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO, 2015. View source
- Bayer AG. (2024). Roundup Litigation Updates. Bayer AG Investor Relations. View sourceLiving update — see note in Data page Section VIII for Summer 2026 litigation developments.
- Washington State University CSANR. (2023). Comparing the effects of herbicides, fertilizers, and tillage on the soil. WSU Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. View source
IV. Arizona Water Crisis — Law, Policy, and Litigation
- Colorado River Compact (1922). Foundational interstate water allocation agreement governing lower basin states. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. View source
- Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan, P.L. 116-14 (2019). U.S. Government Publishing Office. View source
- U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (August 2022). Tier 2a Shortage Declaration, effective January 1, 2023. Arizona reduction: 592,000 acre-feet. View source
- Arizona State Legislature. Groundwater Management Act, A.R.S. § 45-401 — Declaration of Policy (1980). Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 45. View source
- University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center. (2022). Tier 2 Shortage Declared for 2023 — Basin States Fail to Reach Colorado River Usage Agreement. UA WRRC News. View source
- Arizona Department of Water Resources & Central Arizona Project. (2024). Colorado River Shortage FAQ. Joint CAP/ADWR Publication. View source
- Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. (December 11, 2024). Attorney General Mayes Sues Fondomonte for Violating Public Nuisance Law Through Excessive Groundwater Pumping. Arizona Attorney General's Office. View sourceNote: litigation is ongoing. Check azag.gov for current status.
- Congressional Research Service. (2026). Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role. CRS Report R45546. View source
V. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Science — Water Retention & Restoration
- Tang, H., Hassan, M.U., et al. (2022). The Critical Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi to Improve Drought Tolerance and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Crops. Frontiers in Plant Science. doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.919166. View source
- Frontiers in Plant Science. (2022). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance disease resistance of Salvia miltiorrhiza to Fusarium wilt. doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.975558. View source
- Agriculture Institute. (2024). Mycorrhizal Fungi: Enhancing Plant Resistance to Diseases. Rain-Fed Farming Series. View source
- Waheed, A., et al. (2022). Mycorrhizal Association and Plant Disease Protection: New Perspectives. IntechOpen, Chapter 84645. doi:10.5772/intechopen.106082. View source
- Jung, S.C., et al. (2013). Mycorrhiza-induced resistance: more than the sum of its parts? Frontiers in Plant Science. PMC4194313. View source
- Tao, L., et al. (2019). Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis Affects Plant Immunity to Viral Infection and Accumulation. Frontiers in Microbiology. PMC6630321. View source
- Rhizosphere. (2022). Arbuscular mycorrhizae in plant immunity and crop pathogen control. doi:10.1016/j.rhisph.2022.100534. View source
- ScienceDirect. (2025). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and their role in plant disease control: A state-of-the-art. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2025.105802. View source
- Soto-Barajas, M.C., et al. (2024). Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi: Boosting Crop Resilience to Environmental Stresses. Microorganisms, 12(12), 2448. doi:10.3390/microorganisms12122448. View source
- Cheng, S., Zou, Y.-N., Kuča, K., Hashem, A. & Wu, Q.-S. (2021). Elucidating the Mechanisms Underlying Enhanced Drought Tolerance in Plants Mediated by Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Frontiers in Microbiology, 12, 809473. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2021.809473. View source
- Note re: water retention figures — the cited 40% irrigation reduction is a conservative, field-defensible synthesis of glomalin aggregation (Rillig 2004), direct AMF water transport (New Phytologist 2022), and drought tolerance research (Frontiers in Plant Science 2022).
VI. Financial Data — ROI Table Sources
- USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). Farm Sector Income & Finances — baseline water and input costs for irrigated alfalfa production, 2024. View source
- Mexal, J.G., et al. (2003). Alfalfa Water Use and Production in Irrigated Desert Southwest. New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Circular CR575. View source
- Pap, S., Ćupina, B., Đurđević, B., et al. (2021). Multiple Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Consortia Enhance Yield and Fatty Acids of Medicago sativa: A Two-Year Field Study on Agronomic Traits and Tracing of Fungal Persistence. Frontiers in Plant Science. PMC8882620. View source
- USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2024). Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) — Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Carbon Sequestration Credits. View source
- Ontl, T.A. & Schulte, L.A. (2019). Soil carbon sequestration accelerated by restoration of grassland biodiversity. Nature Communications. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08636-w. View source
- Schahczenski, J. (2014). Soil as Carbon Storehouse: New Weapon in Climate Fight? Yale Environment 360. View source
VII. Additional Scientific Support
- State of the Planet. (2012). Why Soil Matters. Columbia Climate School / Columbia University. View source
- University of Washington. (2023). Trends in soil organic matter and topsoil thickness under regenerative practices. PMC10625358. View source
- USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2024). Natural Resource Concerns: Soil — Soil Formation and Erosion. View source
- Simonsen, A.K., et al. (2024). Effects of pesticides on soil bacterial, fungal and protist communities, soil functions, and grape quality in vineyards. Ecological Solutions and Evidence. doi:10.1002/2688-8319.12327. View source
Full printed sources with highlighted key passages available in the accompanying 3-ring binder. © 2026 MycoEarth, LLC — Kathryn@mycoearth.us — www.MycoEarth.us
Book a free live 1:1 soil microbiome presentation, Q&A, and planning session for your Arizona Alfalfa Farm.
A free copy of the eBook The Biological Solution for Arizona Alfalfa Farm Soil is included.
Schedule Your Free Session