[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INCREASING RESILIENCY, MITIGATING RISK: EXAMINING THE RESEARCH AND
EXTENSION NEEDS OF PRODUCERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
BIOTECHNOLOGY, HORTICULTURE, AND RESEARCH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 12, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-10
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-089 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Ranking
JIM COSTA, California Minority Member
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
FILEMON VELA, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands Arkansas
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
Vice Chair VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia DOUG LaMALFA, California
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York TED S. YOHO, Florida
TJ COX, California RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MIKE BOST, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOSH HARDER, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
KIM SCHRIER, Washington JAMES COMER, Kentucky
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Matthew S. Schertz, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands, Chair
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida Ranking
TJ COX, California Minority Member
JOSH HARDER, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey DOUG LaMALFA, California
KIM SCHRIER, Washington RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine TED S. YOHO, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JIMMY PANETTA, California JAMES COMER, Kentucky
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida
Brandon Honeycutt, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Dunn, Hon. Neal P., a Representative in Congress from Florida,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Panetta, Hon. Jimmy, a Representative in Congress from
California, submitted reports.................................. 61
Pingree, Hon. Chellie, a Representative in Congress from Maine,
submitted fact sheet........................................... 59
Plaskett, Hon. Stacey E., a Delegate in Congress from Virgin
Islands, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Witnesses
Wolfe, Ph.D., David W., Professor of Plant and Soil Ecology,
Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant Science,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Godfrey, Ph.D., Robert W., Director, Agricultural Experiment
Station, University of the Virgin Islands, Kingshill, St.
Croix, VI...................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Tencer, Brise S., Executive Director, Organic Farming Research
Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA..................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Godwin, Sam, apple, pear, and cherry grower, Godwin Family
Orchard, Tonasket, WA.......................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Gmitter, Jr., Ph.D., Fred G., Professor, Horticultural Sciences,
Citrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Lake Alfred, FL.. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Submitted Material
Youngblood, Abby, Executive Director, National Organic Coalition,
submitted statement............................................ 227
INCREASING RESILIENCY, MITIGATING RISK: EXAMINING THE RESEARCH AND.
EXTENSION NEEDS OF PRODUCERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Stacey
E. Plaskett [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Plaskett, Delgado, Cox,
Harder, Brindisi, Van Drew, Schrier, Pingree, Panetta, Peterson
(ex officio), Dunn, Thompson, Yoho, and Baird.
Staff present: Kellie Adesina, Malikha Daniels, Brandon
Honeycutt, Keith Jones, Ricki Schroeder, Patricia Straughn,
Jeremy Witte, Dana Sandman, and Jennifer Yezak.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STACEY E. PLASKETT, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM VIRGIN ISLANDS
The Chair. Good morning, everyone. This hearing of the
Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research
entitled, Increasing Resiliency, Mitigating Risk: Examining the
Research and Extension Needs of Producers, will come to order.
I want to thank you all for being with us this morning as
we examine the research and extension needs for producers.
Looking back on the past year, we have seen intense
flooding in the Midwest, hurricanes in the Southeast, and
wildfires out West.
Just this week, USDA released a Crop Progress Report
detailing that 60 percent of soybeans have been planted in
surveyed states, compared to 88 percent historical planting
average.
As we speak, flooding is keeping farmers out of the field.
These disasters, driven by an increasingly variable climate,
pose serious threats to the domestic agricultural industry and
the rural communities depending on this sector.
Unfortunately, I have seen this firsthand in the Virgin
Islands. In 2015, the territory suffered a serious drought. In
2017, we were hit by two major hurricanes. Now, once again,
back in drought. Recovery continues to be an ongoing process.
My farmers and ranchers need tools that not only help them
survive but thrive in the face of a changing climate.
These examples show that farmers and ranchers throughout
the country are constantly forced to deal with variables that
are outside their control.
To remain economically viable and to protect already slim
margins, producers seek to create resilient operations by
mitigating risk when possible. Advancements in technology and
management practices are made possible by robust agriculture
research efforts, a topic that is squarely within the
jurisdiction of this Subcommittee.
This Committee recognizes the value of investment in public
research. In the 2018 Farm Bill, our Committee supported
increased funding for programs like the Specialty Crop Research
Initiative and the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension
Initiative. I strongly supported these increased investments,
but we cannot become complacent.
As detailed in a report by the Economic Research Service,
the Chinese Government increased spending on agricultural
research nearly eight fold between 1990 and 2013. Their
spending on public agricultural research surpassed ours in
2008. Ten years later we continue to fall behind.
If we want our agricultural sector to remain competitive,
particularly when operating in an increasingly variable
climate, we must bolster the resources available to producers.
According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, there are over
396 million acres farmed in the United States. That is a great
number. The farmers and ranchers tending these acres are on the
frontlines of a changing climate.
As we seek to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies
aimed at combating climate change, farmers and agricultural
researchers must have a seat at the table. Their understanding
of working the land is vital, and their voices must be heard.
Farmers and ranchers are an integral partner in the fight
against climate change.
To show that farmers have always been climate focused, I
have here, if you can believe this, a 1941 Yearbook of
Agriculture from the USDA. It is entitled, Climate and Man. One
line from the foreword that still rings true today is this,
``The first step in increasing knowledge is to have a healthy
awareness of what we do not know.'' Though farmers have always
been acutely aware of climate, their ability to respond to
shifts in the climate are changing.
So that is why we are here today, to hear directly from the
stakeholder community on the research and extension needs of
farmers as they seek to increase resiliency and mitigate risk.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I thank
them for taking time out of their schedules to engage with us
on this critically important topic.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today,
and I look forward to receiving their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Plaskett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, a Delegate in Congress
from Virgin Islands
Thank you for joining us today as we examine the research and
extension needs of producers. Looking back on the past year, we've seen
intense flooding in the Midwest, hurricanes in the Southeast, and
wildfires out West. Just this week, USDA released a Crop Progress
Report detailing that 60% of soybeans have been planted in surveyed
states compared to an 88% historical planting average. As we speak,
flooding is keeping farmers out of the field.
These disasters, driven by an increasingly variable climate, pose
serious threats to the domestic agriculture industry and the rural
communities depending on this sector.
Unfortunately, I have seen this firsthand in the Virgin Islands. In
2015, the territory suffered a serious drought. In 2017, we were hit by
two major hurricanes. Now, the territory is once again facing another
drought. Recovery continues to be an ongoing process. My farmers and
ranchers need tools that not only help them survive, but thrive, in the
face of a changing climate.
These examples show that farmers and ranchers throughout the
country are constantly forced to deal with variables that are outside
their control. To remain economically viable and to protect already
slim margins, producers seek to create resilient operations by
mitigating risks when possible. Advancements in technology and
management practices are made possible by robust agriculture research
efforts, a topic that is squarely within the jurisdiction of this
Subcommittee.
This Committee recognizes the value of investments in public
research. In the 2018 Farm Bill, our Committee supported increased
funding for programs like the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and
the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative. I strongly
supported these increased investments, but we cannot become complacent.
As detailed in a report by the Economic Research Service, the Chinese
Government increased spending on agriculture research nearly eightfold
between 1990 and 2013. Their spending on public agriculture research
surpassed ours in 2008. Ten years later, we continue to fall behind. If
we want our agriculture sector to remain competitive, particularly when
operating in an increasingly variable climate, we must bolster the
resources available to producers.
According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, there are over 396
million acres farmed in the U.S. The farmers and ranchers tending these
acres are on the frontlines of a changing climate. As we seek to
develop mitigation and adaptation strategies aimed at combating climate
change, farmers and agricultural researchers must have a seat at the
table. Their understanding of working the land is vital, and their
voices must be heard. Farmers and ranchers are an integral partner in
the fight against climate change.
To show that farmers have always been climate-focused, I have here
the 1941 Yearbook of Agriculture from USDA. It is titled ``Climate and
Man.'' One line from the foreward that still rings true today is this:
``The first step in increasing knowledge is to have a healthy awareness
of what we do not know.'' Though farmers have always been acutely aware
of climate, their ability to respond to shifts in the climate are
changing.
So that is why we are here today, to hear directly from the
stakeholder community on the research and extension needs of farmers as
they seek to increase resiliency and mitigate risks. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses, and I thank them for taking time out of
their schedules to engage with us on this critically important topic. I
would like to thank the witnesses for being here today and I look
forward to receiving their testimony.
The Chair. I now yield to the distinguished Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dunn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NEAL P. DUNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Farmers and ranchers are some of the most resilient people
that I know, and thanks to our agricultural research and
extension system, they are at the forefront of innovation and
productivity.
As we look forward, there are always new threats
developing, and producers are going to need new tools in order
to adapt to changing conditions.
Congress recognized the need for research all the way back
in 1862 with the passage of the Morrill Act which created the
land-grant university system.
Since then, Congress has provided additional investments in
American agricultural research and extension, most recently
with the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill.
The livelihoods of farmers, ranchers, foresters, and
consumers continue to depend on innovation, and today's
challenges are no different than the past.
In the past 2 years, Florida's producers and foresters saw
devastating losses from hurricanes, and the citrus industry has
been nearly wiped out by citrus greening disease. We are seeing
more subtle, yet perhaps even more consequential threats
developing, including aggressive pest and disease pressures
which will undoubtedly have an impact on food production and
availability.
Climate policies like the Green New Deal have consumed the
headlines from Congress, often blaming the agricultural sector
as the problem. I could not disagree more. I wholeheartedly
believe that innovation in American agriculture is part of the
solution.
We know that the U.S. agriculture uses a tiny percentage of
the energy consumed in the U.S., but the changes proposed in
the Green New Deal would have significant implications for the
ability of U.S. agriculture to continue to meet the demand for
fresh, safe, and affordable food both in the U.S. and abroad.
In contrast, Congress chose a better solution passed in the
2018 Farm Bill, which is arguably the greenest farm bill ever.
In addition to significant investment in research, the farm
bill programs protect farm and forest lands and assist
producers in voluntary practices that sequester carbon, reduce
pollution, and greenhouse gas submissions. They preserve
farmland and they improve the energy efficiency of farming
practices, all while providing America with abundant and
affordable food and fiber.
I would like to call out President Trump for his leadership
on this important issue with the signing of yesterday's
agricultural biotechnology Executive Order. This Administration
is now on a path to eliminating unnecessary regulatory hurdles,
while creating opportunity for additional investment in some of
the innovative tools we are going to discuss here today.
I look forward to watching the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Food and Drug Administration follow the USDA's
lead.
I would like to thank each of the witnesses for taking time
to have this important dialogue with us, and I look forward to
a productive discussion.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you.
I would note for the record, the presence of the Chairman
of our full Committee, Mr. Collin Peterson, who is here with
us. Thank you for your presence in this Subcommittee hearing.
I would request that any other Members submit their opening
statements for the record so that the witnesses may begin their
testimony, and to ensure that there is ample time for
questions.
I would like to welcome all of our witnesses and thank you
for being with us here today.
At this time I will introduce our first witness, Dr. David
Wolfe. Dr. Wolfe is a Professor of Plant and Soil Ecology at
Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Thank you for being
with us.
The second witness is my own constituent, Dr. Robert
Godfrey. Dr. Godfrey is the Director of the Agricultural
Experiment Station at the University of the Virgin Islands,
where he is primarily on the St. Croix campus. Thank you so
much for being with us.
The third witness we will hear from, Ms. Brise Tencer, who
will be introduced by Congressman Panetta.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity.
Ranking Member Dunn and Mr. Chairman, of course, thank you for
this opportunity.
It is a real pleasure to introduce one of my good friends
and a staunch--and we are so fortunate to have her--advocate,
Ms. Brise Tencer, the Executive Director of the Organic Farming
Research Foundation, located in Santa Cruz, California on the
Central Coast.
Brise brings 20 years of leadership experience on organic
food policy, farming, and research issues to OFRF.
She has been a strong, dependable resource and advocate for
the organic producers in my district. And let me tell you,
historically, as many of you know, especially Brise, it is a
district that has been dominated by conventional farming.
However, because Brise has spoken up, has spoken out, and
continues to speak for our organic industry and our organic
farmers, her voice is heard across this country, and that is
why organic farming and what the benefits it does for our
farmers across this country is heard loud and clear.
So, let me just take this time to introduce to you, Brise,
and thank you for being here.
The Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Panetta. I yield back. Thank you.
The Chair. I will turn to Congresswoman Schrier to
introduce out fourth witness, Mr. Sam Godwin.
Ms. Schrier. Good morning. Thank you, Chair.
I am so pleased to welcome Mr. Sam Godwin to testify this
morning.
He operates a family organic farm of 300 acres, growing
apples, pears, and cherries, true Washingtonian, with his wife,
Gwynn and oldest daughter in Tonasket, Washington.
Mr. Godwin received his undergraduate degree from
Washington State University, and then Masters from Seattle U.
Prior to his career in agriculture, he worked at the Boeing
Company. He currently serves on the Washington State Tree Fruit
Association's Board of Directors.
I am excited to hear from you this morning and hear your
thoughts about how low- and no-till farming, regenerative
farming, crop rotation, and carbon sequestration can really
show us that farmers could literally save our planet.
Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
And I also welcome Dr. Fred Gmitter. Is that the correct
way?
Dr. Gmitter. Yes.
The Chair. Okay. And he will be introduced by the Ranking
Member Dunn.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Madam Chair and Chairman Peterson.
It is my honor to introduce a fellow Floridian, Dr. Fred
Gmitter.
He is a Professor of Citrus Genetics at the University of
Florida Citrus Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred,
Florida, and he is currently doing great work to help producers
find solutions to the devastating citrus greening disease.
He is truly one of the world's most preeminent experts in
this field and I am honored to introduce him to you today.
Dr. Gmitter, thank you very much for being here.
The Chair. Thank you.
We will now proceed to hearing the testimony, each of our
witnesses will have 5 minutes.
So that you are aware, you are going to see the numbers
right there in front of you there are at 5. When 1 minute is
left, the light will turn yellow, and unlike my driving, that
does not mean speed up. That means that you have 1 minute left.
And when it is red, that means the time is up, the 5 minutes
are up.
Dr. Wolfe, will you please begin when you are ready?
STATEMENT OF DAVID W. WOLFE, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF PLANT AND SOIL
ECOLOGY, HORTICULTURE SECTION, SCHOOL OF INTEGRATIVE PLANT
SCIENCE, CORNELL
UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY
Dr. Wolfe. Thank you.
Well, I would like to start by thanking Chair Stacey
Plaskett, Ranking Member Neal Dunn, and Members of the
Subcommittee for holding this important hearing.
I appreciate the opportunity to share with you my views on
research and extension needs in this time of increasing climate
variability and weather extremes.
My perspective has been shaped by more than 3 decades at
Cornell University with a program focus on soil and water
management and climate change adaptation and mitigation.
In addition to extension and academic research papers, I
have also co-authored numerous regional and national climate
assessments.
I currently am lead project director for the New York Soil
Health Program, and I serve on various advisory boards relevant
to today's hearing, and I teach a course on climate change and
food security.
So with my few minutes I want to just highlight three major
points that are gone over in more detail in my written
testimony.
First, climate change impacts are turning out to be more
complex, and in some cases more severe than we imagined 30
years ago.
One example of climate change surprise has been an
increased risk of cold damage for woody perennials such as
apples and grapes in a warming world. This can occur when
warmer and more variable late winter temperatures trigger an
unusually early bloom that leaves the plants vulnerable to an
extended period of frost risk.
This problem has been particularly acute in my region in
the Northeast, where in 2012 and again 2016, apple, grape and
other fruit crop growers lost millions of dollars due to this
lack of synchrony between bloom and spring frost.
Now, another area, climate models have projected for years
an increase in both drought and flooding risks for many
regions, but the severity of recent flooding impacts has left
many areas unprepared.
As we meet here today, and as we all know, many farmers in
the Midwest are suffering from a record-breaking spring
flooding that has delayed planting to the point where for some
the season will be a total loss. This is what concerns farmers
the most, extreme weather events that are more frequent and
more catastrophic than previous generations have had to face.
While not as severe, many farmers in the Northeast have
also had delays in planting and flooding damage this spring and
in the past 2 years, but if we go back to 2016, a record-
breaking drought revealed unique vulnerabilities of this
historically humid region where we lack the infrastructure to
deliver water in a summer with low rainfall.
Okay. My second point is just that farmers are already
responding, already adapting as they can no longer rely on
historical climate norms for their region to determine what
crop to plant, when to plant it, or how to grow it.
Business as usual is not a winning strategy today, and
farmers are making changes accordingly. I will mention just a
few here briefly. Diversification is one widely adopted and
often effective approach to hedge bets in an uncertain climate.
This might involve staggered planting dates, more diverse
cropping mixes, or other strategies.
Improving soil health has become a popular win-win-win
approach that can reduce input costs for the grower, build
resilience to drought and flooding, and also sequester carbon
in soils.
Farmers are more tuned in today to their integrated pest
management specialists who can help them to anticipate and
control a much more intense pressure from insect pests,
diseases, and weeds.
And finally, one other adaptation is for some farmers an
investment in larger scale farm equipment. To cover more
acreage more quickly is a strategy for adapting to smaller
windows of opportunity for farm operations. For example,
getting in between heavy rainfall events.
Finally and most importantly perhaps, and more specific to
our hearing today, for farmers to be successful they will need
support from those beyond the farm. And some key areas of need
that I want to mention are: first, improved delivery of
regional climate data to help farmers discern between ``normal
bad weather'' and changes in weather patterns that truly
warrant adaptation investments. Also, more research is needed
to improve seasonal forecasts for longer range planning beyond
just the 5 day forecast into things that might cover more of
the growing season.
Another one is, we need all hands on deck to develop a
digital agriculture approach that will take full advantage of
satellite and other data sources, new sensor network
technology, and computer systems to translate massive data into
usable information for field-level management. This will
require new collaborations in integrating knowledge from
climate science, agronomy, engineering, and computer science.
Regional centers for coordination, synergy, and
accessibility of decision tools. Some land-grant universities,
the regional USDA climate hubs, and others have made a start
here, but a more permanent and better-funded solution is
needed.
Integrating conservation policy programs with climate
change adaptation and mitigation: This could warrant expansion
of appropriations for soil and water conservation programs,
such as those funded through the farm bill and implemented by
the USDA NRCS.
Disaster assistance insurance policies, access to capital
for adaptation: This is the big complex issue, but I think
warranting review at this point in time to make sure our
policies are relevant and adequate within the context of
recurring weather-related disasters that have a link with
climate change.
The possibility of a parallel track providing incentives
for adaptation deserves further study.
And finally, breeding and biotechnology for climate
resilient crops and livestock is important. More than just corn
and beans but also specialty crops.
And finally, I see my time is up. I would like to thank the
Committee again for holding this important hearing. With
strategic investments in research and extension, and policies
that facilitate adaptive management, there is no doubt that our
farmers will be better prepared than they are today to meet the
challenges and take advantage of any opportunities that a
changing climate may bring.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wolfe follows:]
Prepared Statement of David W. Wolfe, Ph.D., Professor of Plant and
Soil Ecology, Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant
Science,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
I would like to start by thanking Chair Stacey Plaskett, Ranking
Member Neal Dunn, and Members of the Subcommittee for hosting this
important hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you my
personal views on research and extension needs of producers in a time
of increasing climate variability and more extremes in temperature and
precipitation. My perspective has been shaped by more than 3 decades of
experience as a faculty member at Cornell University, with a research
and extension program focused on soil and water management, and climate
change adaptation and mitigation strategies for the agriculture sector.
I am very grateful for the grant funding I have received over the years
from USDA-NIFA, USDA-SARE, and USDA-Hatch programs. I am also grateful
for support from New York State for some of my regional projects, and
for the collaboration with many farmers, which has been essential to
creating an outreach program that addresses their needs.
In addition to peer-reviewed research and extension publications,
my science communication efforts have included analyses relevant to
policy-makers, such co-authoring chapters of the 2008 and 2014 National
Climate Assessments, and serving as lead author of the Agriculture and
Ecosystems chapters of the state-funded study, ``Responding to Climate
Change in New York State''. Currently I am lead project director for
the New York Soil Health program (www.newyorksoilhealth.org), am on the
Advisory Boards for the New York State Water Resources Institute and
the Cornell Institute for Climate Smart Solutions, and teach a course
on Climate Change and Food Security.
Farmer Vulnerability to Climate Change
When I became involved in climate change research almost 30 years
ago, the evidence for impacts on agriculture was subtle, and we relied
heavily on climate and crop model projections to discern future
impacts. But unfortunately this new challenge for agriculture has crept
up on us more quickly than some expected. Farmers today are feeling the
effects in real-time, and having to make difficult decisions to cope.
They can no longer rely on weather patterns that for centuries have
been characteristic for their region to determine what crop to plant,
when to plant it, or how to grow it. In addition to an increase in
drought and heat risk in many regions as one might expect with ``global
warming'', there have also been many surprises. Below are a few
examples.
Too much water
The frequency of intense rainfall events compared to historical
averages has increased in the past 40 years for most regions of the
U.S. (Kunkel, et al., 2013). In a warmer world, more of the earth's
water is in the air as water vapor, so there is more up there to come
down during an upper atmosphere condensation event. Too much water can
cause direct crop damage or yield losses from disease. When prolonged
wet conditions in the spring or fall limit field access during planting
or harvest, farmers are not able to take advantage of the climate
change trend for a longer frost-free period that has been observed in
most regions. Excessive rain also can lead to increased soil erosion,
and runoff of sediments, fertilizers, manure, and agriculture chemicals
into waterways.
As we meet here today, many farmers in the Great Plains and Midwest
are suffering from a particularly severe and record-breaking spring
flooding that has delayed planting to the point where, for some, the
season will be a total loss (Van Dam, et al., 2019). This is what
concerns fa[r]mers the most: extreme weather events that are less
predictable, more frequent, sometimes occur in clusters, and are more
catastrophic than previous generations have had to face.
For most Americans climate change impacts on food production might
mean a shortage or higher price for some of our favorite grocery items.
But for the two percent of our population supplying our food, it can
have devastating economic consequences. It can force farm families into
increasing loan debt, taking part-time work outside the farm, or even
selling part or all of the farm. These farmers may not be keeping up
with the latest climate change reports or debates, but they are the
ones in the trenches, dealing with the challenges on a daily basis.
Drought vulnerability in historically ``humid'' regions
The Northeast is typical of many humid regions, with summer
rainfall usually adequate for production of field crops and hay and
forage animal feedstocks. Those producing high value fruit and
vegetable crops often have some capacity for supplemental irrigation
for at least part of their acreage. But an increased risk of short-term
summer drought has been projected for the region, reflecting an
increase in crop water needs with longer, warmer summers, combined with
projections of little change or a decline in summer precipitation
(Wolfe, et al., 2018; Hayhoe, et al., 2007). The region has not
invested in infrastructure to deliver water to farmlands from lakes and
reservoirs as is the case in historically more arid regions. The
region's vulnerability to drought was made apparent in 2016 when a
severe drought reduced yields of rain-fed crops by more than half in
many parts of region. Even those growing high value crops with
supplemental irrigation suffered losses, either because they did not
have enough equipment to keep up with demand, or because farm wells,
ponds, and creeks went dry (Ossowski, et al., 2017; Sweet, et al.,
2017).
The 2016 drought was not the end of the story for the Northeast.
The following 2017 growing season was unusually wet, and many of the
same farmers suffered crop (and soil) losses from heavy rains and
flooding (Sweet and Wolfe 2018).
More cold damage in a warming world?
Another climate change surprise has been an apparent increased risk
of cold damage for woody perennials such as apples and grapes in a
warming world. This can occur when warmer and more variable late winter
temperatures trigger an unusually early bloom that leaves the plant
vulnerable to an extended period of frost risk. While frost damage is
not a new phenomenon, a lack of synchrony between bloom and spring
frost appears to be occurring more frequently in recent years, and a
recent modeling study for apples suggests this trend may continue in
the Northeast, at least for the next few decades (Wolfe, et al., 2018).
An example of the impact this can have was seen in 2012 when unusually
warm temperatures in late winter led to record-breaking early flowering
of many plant species (Ellwood, et al., 2013). In that year apple and
grape growers in the Northeast lost millions of dollars (Horton, et
al., 2014). Significant damage to apple buds occurred again in spring
2016 after another mild winter, followed by April frost.
More dynamic and intense pest and weed pressure
We now have overwhelming documentation that the living world is
rapidly responding to climate change. Longer, warmer summers can lead
to more generations of insect pests per season, and increased
competition from weeds. In addition, farmers in higher latitude regions
are facing new pests, weeds, and plant pathogens coming up from the
south as temperatures warm and the suitable habitat for these species
expands northward.
Farm-Level Adaptation Strategies
Many farmers today have seen enough evidence to be convinced that a
significant change is going on with the weather patterns; one that will
require a proactive, adaptive management to stabilize productivity and
remain profitable. The table below provides examples of some key
strategies that are being implemented in some areas as ways to build
resiliency and reduce risk. (for a more thorough review, see: Walthall,
et al., 2012; Wolfe 2013).
Diversify with more staggered planting dates, a more diverse
crop variety mix, and/or diverse rotation sequences. Explore
new crop and market opportunities possible with a longer
growing season, and/or in relation to climate change impacts
and farmer responses in other regions. This is a way to ``hedge
bets'' in a context of uncertainty.
Improving soil health is a ``win-win'' approach with
multiple benefits, including resilience to climate variability,
and capturing and storing carbon in soils (Wolfe 2019). Healthy
soils have relatively high organic matter, which provides
resilience to short-term droughts, flooding, and compaction.
Maintaining vegetation cover as much of the year as possible
with fall and winter cover crops--one of the key methods to
rebuild organic matter on depleted soils--also has the benefit
of reducing erosion losses during heavy rainfall events. And
soil organic matter is often more than 60 percent carbon,
carbon that otherwise would be in the air as the greenhouse
gas, carbon dioxide.
Regional Integrated Pest Management for anticipating and
controlling new pests, diseases, and weeds.
Better water management. This could range from building
resilience through better soil management, to using new sensors
and tools for optimized irrigation scheduling, to capital
investment in irrigation or drainage systems.
Fruit crop frost protection begins with site selection at
initial planting, and methods during frost events, such as
misting or air circulation fans, to reduce damage.
Investment in large scale farm equipment to cover more
acreage quickly is a strategy for adapting to smaller windows
of opportunity (e.g., between rainfall events) for farm
operations such as planting or harvesting.
Reduce heat stress in livestock facilities by improving
design of new facilities, or improving existing facilities with
better air circulation, or retrofitting with fans and
sprinklers, or more sophisticated cooling systems.
Research, Extension, and Policy Needs
The adaptation strategies discussed above focus on farm-level
adaptation, but for farmers to be successful they will need support
from those beyond the farm. Below are several key needs where
researchers, extension and other educators, government agencies,
policy-makers, agriculture service providers, nonprofit organizations,
and communities can play a role.
Climate change science and delivery of information to farmers
Farmers are intimately familiar with the day-to-day weather
challenges on their farm, but this information is local and anecdotal.
Climate scientists, through extension networks, can provide a broader
view that includes data from other regions, historical analyses of
trends, and climate projections. This can help farmers identify changes
in weather patterns that are part of a long-term trend and warrant
investment for adaptation. While some regions have reasonably effective
programs for getting this information to farmers, others do not.
Seasonal climate forecasts
More research is needed to improve our ability to provide seasonal
climate forecasts, for longer range planning (e.g., the entire growing
season). This is particularly needed in regions where the climate is
not strongly influenced by ENSO cycles, for example.
Economics of climate change impacts and adaptation strategies
Impact assessments of climate change on the U.S. agriculture sector
have often assumed an ``autonomous'' adaptation by farmers, and largely
ignored the risk and costs for the agricultural sector. Also, prior
analyses have often focused on the major world food crops such as corn,
soybean, and wheat. More attention is needed regarding impacts and
costs of adaptation of other agriculture systems, such as high-value
fruit and vegetable crops, and livestock, which are major components of
the agricultural economy in many regions of the U.S.
Regional centers for coordination and exchange of climate change and
adaptation information
This can also increase synergy of efforts among researchers,
educators, and farmers. Some land-grant universities, nonprofit
organizations, and government agencies provide useful information and
training for farmers and extension staff, and/or host websites with
resources, climate data and decision tools for farmers (e.g.,
www.climatesmartfarming.org). But these efforts are not available in
many parts of the country, and are typically under-funded and, at
discontinued when short-term funding runs out. The current regional
USDA climate ``hubs'' have provided a valuable service recently that is
national in scope and been successful at coordinating regional
activities, and organizing regional assessments, conferences, and
webinars, despite limited funding. Establishing some version of these
as a long-term and appropriately funded program of the agency would be
a good alternative to what we have today.
Environmental monitoring, data analytics, and digital agriculture
The challenges imposed by climate change demand a radical
transformation in information available to farmers for decision-making.
The agricultural sector is not taking advantage of satellite and other
data sources available, new sensor network technology, and computer
systems that can translate massive data into useable information for
field-level management decisions on a daily basis and for long-term
land use planning. To address this will require new collaborations and
integrating knowledge from meteorology, climate science, biology,
ecology, engineering, and computer science. The public sector can play
an important role in ensuring equity of access to all farmers.
Policy incentives and cost-sharing for climate change adaptation and
conservation
Many soil and water conservation policies, such as those
implemented by the USDA-NRCS [EQIP] programs, also have relevance to
climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Where appropriate
this could warrant an expansion of appropriations through the farm bill
for some of these programs. Also, these policies should be reviewed for
their impact on flexibility required for adaptation to climate change
at the farm level.
Various aspects of farm policy could be reviewed in search of
mechanisms to facilitate farmer adaptation to climate change without
unintended or inequitable negative consequences for farmers, the
environment, or markets and trade. Disaster assistance and production
or income insurance policies will be an essential component of helping
farmers cope with less predictable weather patterns, but the
possibility of blending these with incentives for adaptation to avoid
adverse impacts of climate change where appropriate deserves study.
Breeding and biotechnology for climate-resilient crop and livestock
varieties
Our knowledge of plant and animal genetics, and the development of
new molecular-assisted and genetic engineering techniques have
increased exponentially in the past few decades. Targeting specific
genes or suites of genes for environmental stress tolerance will
require continued research to better understand key factors associated
with climate change that determine yield. For example, evaluation of
historical meteorological and yield data for Midwest grain crops has
indicated that increasing minimum nighttime temperatures, as well as
daytime heat stress and seasonal precipitation, are factors (Hatfield,
et al., 2017; Ortiz-Bobea, et al., 2019). To date, most effort has been
applied to major world food crops such as corn, soybean, wheat, and
rice. University and other public sector emphasis should be on high
value fruit and vegetable crops important to the agricultural economy
of many regions of the country, but not addressed by commercial seed
companies.
Concluding Remarks
Many farmers in the United States are already beginning to change
practices to adapt to a less predictable climate. They will need
support and access to the latest environmental monitoring technology,
as well as weather and climate information, to make timely, strategic
farm management decisions. With sustained major investments in research
and extension, and policies that facilitate adaptive management,
farmers will be better prepared to meet the challenges and take
advantage of any opportunities that a changing climate may bring.
References Cited
Ellwood E.R., Templer S.A., Primack R.B., Bradley N.L., Davis C.C.
(2013) Record-breaking early flowering in the eastern United States.
PloS-One 8(1): e54, 788. (https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.005378).
Hatfield J.L., L. Wright-Morton, D. Hale. 2017. Vulnerability of
grain crops and croplands in the Midwest to climatic variabilities and
adaptation strategies. Climatic Change (https://doi:10.1007/s/0584-017-
1997-x).
Hayhoe K., Wake C., Huntington T., Luo L., Schwartz M., Sheffield
J., Wood E., Anderson B., Bradbury J., DeGaetano A., Troy T., Wolfe
D.W. (2007) Past and future changes in climate and hydrological
indicators in the U.S. Northeast. Climate Dyn 28: 381-407.
Horton R., Yohe G., Wolfe D.W., Easterling W., Kates R., Ruth M.,
Sussman E., Whelchel A. (2014) Northeast (Chapter 16). In: Mellilo J.,
Richmond T.C., Yohe G., et al. (eds.). Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Washington, D.C.
Kunkel K.E., Stevens L.E., Stevens S.E., Sun L., Janssen E.,
Wuebbles D., Rennells J., DeGaetano A., Dobson J.G. (2013) Part 1.
Climate of the Northeast U.S. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-1. NOAA,
Washington D.C.
Ortiz-Bobea A., H. Wang, C.M. Carillo, T.R. Ault. 2019. Unpacking
the climatic drivers of United States agricultural yield. Environ. Res.
Lett. 14(201)9064003. (https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/able75).
Ossowski E., Mecray E., DeGaetano A., Borisoff S., Spaccio J. (2017)
Northeast drought assessments 2016-2017. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Integrated Drought Information
System (www.drought.gov).
Sweet S. and D. Wolfe. March 2018. Anatomy of a wet year: Insights
from New York Farmers. Cornell Institute for Climate Smart Solutions
(CICSS) Research and Policy Brief. Issue 4.
(www.climatesmartfarming.org)
Sweet S., Wolfe D.W., DeGaetano A.T., Benner R. (2017) Anatomy of
the 2016 drought in the Northeastern United States: Implications for
agriculture and water resources in humid climates. Agric. Forest.
Meteor. 247: 571-581.
Van Dam A., L. Karklis, T. Mako. June 4, 2019. After a biblical
spring, this is the week that could break the corn belt. Washington
Post. www.washingtonpost.com.
Walthall C.L., et al., 2012. Climate Change and Agriculture in the
U.S.: Effects and Adaptation. USDA Tech. Bull. 1935. Washington D.C.
186 pp.
Wolfe D.W., 2019. The New York Soil Health Roadmap. Cornell
University. 39 pp. (www.newyorksoilhealth.org).
Wolfe D.W., A. DeGaetano, G. Peck, M. Carey, L. Ziska, J. Lea-Cox,
A. Kemanian, M. Hoffmann, D. Hollinger. 2017. Unique challenges and
opportunities for Northeastern U.S. crop production in a changing
climate. Climatic Change 146: 231-245.
Wolfe D.W. 2013. Climate change solutions from the agronomy
perspective. In: Hillel D. and C. Rosenzweig (eds). Handbook Climate
Change and Agroecosystems: Global and Regional Aspects and
Implications. Chapter 2. Imperial College Press. London.
The Chair. Thank you.
We will now hear from my constituent, Robert Godfrey, who
is on the frontline of changing climate, assisting the farmers
in the Virgin Islands through his work at the Extension
Program.
Doctor?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. GODFREY, Ph.D., DIRECTOR,
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, UNIVERSITY OF THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS, KINGSHILL, ST. CROIX, VI
Dr. Godfrey. Good morning, Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member
Dunn, Members of the Subcommittee and Chairman. Thank you for
this opportunity to speak with you today.
My name is Dr. Robert Godfrey, and I am the Director of the
Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of the Virgin
Islands. Our faculty and staff conduct research in the
disciplines of agroforestry, agronomy, animal science,
aquaculture, biotechnology, and horticulture.
The cooperative extension service provides outreach to the
community in agricultural and natural resources, 4-H/family and
consumer sciences, and communications technology and distance
learning.
Most of our research projects incorporate climate and the
environment as a necessity due to our location. Currently we
have research projects evaluating micro-irrigation to enhance
water use efficiency for crops, mulching systems and cover
crops to minimize external inputs for soil improvement,
evaluating adaptive traits of local livestock breeds such as
Senepol cattle and St. Croix white hair sheep, and selecting
and developing field crop varieties for enhanced production in
the tropics.
It is estimated that the U.S. Virgin Islands imports 90 to
95 percent of its food items, indicating that there is enormous
potential market opportunity for local farmers to tap into.
Farming in the U.S. Virgin Islands is characterized by
small farms averaging less than 5 acres in size. Most
agricultural production inputs are imported and high shipping
costs contribute significantly to the costs of production and
operation.
Based upon USDA definitions, the majority of farmers in the
U.S. Virgin Islands are limited resource and socially
disadvantaged farmers. They face many constraints unique to
small-scale tropical agriculture, such as seasonal rainfall,
high incidents of pests and diseases, high organic matter
turnover in the soils, high temperature and humidity,
increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events,
and limited access to financing for farm support.
In September of 2017, two Category 5 hurricanes devastated
the U.S. Virgin Islands, 12 days apart, enhancing the level of
destruction and hampering recovery efforts. After Hurricane
Irma devastated St. Thomas and St. John, St. Croix farmers,
AES, CES, the Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture, and
several community groups collected and shipped relief supplies
to our sister islands by commercial and private boats. Then St.
Croix and Puerto Rico were hit by Hurricane Maria and suffered
severe damage.
The ports of St. Croix, St. Thomas and Puerto Rico were all
shut down, even just temporarily at the same time, which
limited access to relief and recovery resources. Many crops
were lost due to wind damage and saltwater contamination.
Livestock farmers suffered damage to fences, animal pens, and
loss of animals from airborne debris. As an example, the
University sheep research flock lost \1/3\ of its breeding
ewes.
The lack of locally available resources such as irrigation
supplies, seedlings, fence wire, fence posts, and animal feed
made recovery efforts for all farmers difficult.
In addition to hurricanes, there have also been periods of
drought in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The average annual rainfall
is 51", but in 2015 we received less than 25" of rain. The
Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture was able to offer
imported feed and hay at reduced fees, but their ability to
provide other services and water for farmers was very limited.
The ability for livestock farmers to sell animals was
hampered by the limited capacity of the one federally inspected
abattoir on St. Croix. The abattoir on St. Thomas is still not
operating after suffering damage during Hurricane Irma.
The field research facilities of the Agriculture Experiment
Station were severely damaged and limited our ability to
conduct research for most of 2018. Our research programs are
slowly coming back online but we still have a long way to go.
A proposal has been submitted by AES to the FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program to develop an Agricultural Hazard
Mitigation and Resiliency Plan. It will coordinate with the
territory-wide Comprehensive Hazard Mitigation and Resiliency
Plan managed by other units in the University.
In response to stakeholder needs after the recent storms
and drought, cooperative extension service has offered training
to help livestock producers rehabilitate their pastures,
training for use of composting, micro-irrigation and soil
conservation, workshops on restoring trees damaged by the
storms and droughts using proper pruning techniques, and AES
and CES staff had joined an Advisory Committee that developed a
plan for recycling the large amounts of vegetative and wood
debris left by the hurricanes by making that mulch available
for distribution to farmers and the community.
In conclusion, I want to say that agriculture in the U.S.
Virgin Islands will continue to be impacted by climate change
through increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather
events. These extreme events serve to highlight the importance
of food security and accessibility in a remote island location
such as ours.
As the University of the Virgin Islands continues to
support and develop agriculture in the U.S. Virgin Islands by
working with our local stakeholders and regional and Federal
partners, the impact of climate change will play a significant
role in the development of our resiliency, mitigation, and
sustainability plans.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify before this
Subcommittee and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Godfrey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert W. Godfrey, Ph.D., Director, Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of the Virgin Islands, Kingshill, St.
Croix, VI
Resiliency of Agriculture in the U.S. Virgin Islands
Introduction
Good morning, Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member Dunn, and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony
for this Subcommittee.
My name is Dr. Robert Godfrey and I am the Director of the
Agricultural Experiment Station (AES) at the University of the Virgin
Islands. Our faculty and staff conduct research in the disciplines of
Agroforestry, Agronomy, Animal Science, Aquaculture, Biotechnology and
Horticulture. The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) provides outreach
to the community in Agriculture & Natural Resources, 4-H/Family &
Consumer Sciences and Communications, Technology & Distance Learning.
Most of our research projects incorporate climate and the
environment as a necessity due to our location. Currently we have
research projects evaluating micro-irrigation to enhance water use
efficiency for crops, mulching systems and cover crops to minimize
external inputs for soil improvement, evaluating adaptive traits of
local livestock breeds such as Senepol cattle and St. Croix White Hair
sheep and selecting and developing field crop varieties for enhanced
production in the tropics.
Overview of Agriculture in the U.S. Virgin Islands
It is estimated that the U.S. Virgin Islands imports 90 to 95% of
its food items indicating that there is an enormous potential market
opportunity for local farmers to tap into. Farming in the U.S. Virgin
Islands is characterized by small farms averaging less than 5 acres in
size.\1\ Most agricultural production inputs are imported and high
shipping costs contribute significantly to the costs of operating a
farm.
Based upon the USDA definitions, the majority of the farmers in the
U.S. Virgin Islands are limited resource and socially disadvantaged
farmers. They face many constraints that are unique to small scale
tropical agriculture such as seasonal rainfall, high incidence of pests
and diseases, high organic matter turnover in soils, high temperature
and humidity, increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather
events, limited market, and limited access to financing for farm
support.
Impact of Extreme Weather on Agriculture in the U.S. Virgin Islands
In September 2017 two category 5 hurricanes devastated the U.S.
Virgin Islands only 12 days apart enhancing the level of destruction
and hampering recovery efforts. After Hurricane Irma devastated St.
Thomas and St. John, St. Croix farmers, AES, CES, the Virgin Islands
Department of Agriculture and community groups collected and shipped
relief supplies to our sister islands by commercial and private boats.
St. Croix also served as a base of operations for Federal support
efforts with cargo and personnel being flown back and forth between the
islands' airports. Then St. Croix and Puerto Rico were hit by Hurricane
Maria and suffered severe damage. The ports of St. Croix, St. Thomas
and Puerto Rico were all shutdown, even just temporarily, at the same
time which limited the access to relief and recovery resources.
Many crops were lost due to wind damage and saltwater
contamination. Livestock farmers suffered damage to fences, animal pens
and loss of animals from airborne debris. As an example, the University
sheep research flock lost \1/3\ of the breeding ewes in its flock. the
lack of local resources available such as irrigation supplies,
seedlings, fence wire, fence posts and animal feed made recovery
efforts for all farmers difficult.
In addition to hurricanes, there have also been periods of drought
in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The average annual rainfall is 51" \2\ but
in 2015 we received less than 25" of rain. The Virgins Islands
Department of Agriculture was able to offer some livestock feed and
imported hay at reduced fees but their ability to provide other
services and water for farmers was very limited. The ability for
livestock farmers to sell animals was hampered by the limited capacity
of the one federally inspected abattoir on St. Croix. The abattoir on
St. Thomas is still not operating after suffering damage during
Hurricane Irma.
Response to Extreme Weather Events
The field research facilities of the Agricultural Experiment
Station were severely damaged and limited our ability to conduct
research for most of 2018 after the Hurricane Maria. Our research
programs are slowly coming back online but we still have a long way to
go.
A proposal has been submitted by AES to the FEMA Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program to develop an Agricultural Hazard Mitigation and
Resiliency Plan. It will coordinate with the territory-wide
comprehensive Hazard Mitigation and Resiliency Plan managed by other
units within the University.
In response to stakeholder needs after the recent storms and
drought, CES has offered training to help livestock producers
rehabilitate their pastures, training on the use of composting, micro-
irrigation, and soil conservation, and workshops on restoring trees
damaged by storms and droughts using proper pruning techniques. AES and
CES staff joined an ad hoc advisory committee that developed a plan for
recycling the large amounts of vegetative/wood debris left by the
hurricanes by making mulch that is available for distribution farmers
and the community.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I want to say that agriculture in the U.S. Virgin
Islands will continue to be impacted by climate change through
increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. These
types of extreme events only serve to highlight the importance of food
security and accessibility in a remote island location such as ours. As
the University of the Virgin Islands continues to support and develop
agriculture in the U.S. Virgin Islands by working with our local
stakeholders and regional and Federal partners, the impact of climate
change will play a significant role in the development of our
resiliency, mitigation and sustainability plans.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee.
I look forward to your questions.
Supplemental Information
St. Croix is the largest U.S. Virgin Island of approximately
84\2\ miles displaying relatively flat topography. St. Thomas,
40 miles to the north, is approximately 32\2\ miles and is well
known for its mountainous terrain and excellent harbors. Three
miles east of St. Thomas, St. John is approximately 20\2\
miles, and \2/3\ of this island has been designated a U.S.
National Park.
The University of the Virgin Islands was named as an 1862
land-grant institution in 1972, and is also a Historically
Black College and University (HBCU).
The U.S. Virgin Islands have been impacted by several
hurricanes in the past 30 years. The most impactful storms to
hit the U.S. Virgin Islands in recent history were Hurricane
Hugo in 1989, Hurricane Marilyn in 1995, Hurricane Georges in
1998, Hurricane Lenny in 1999, and Hurricanes Irma and Maria in
2017.
The most recent data for agriculture in the U.S. Virgin
Islands from the 2007 Census of Agriculture \1\ indicated
between 2002 and 2007 the number of small farms increased, both
in number (23%) and acreage occupied (15%). Farm size is small
with 64% of farms in the Virgin Islands being 4 acres or less.
There has been no Census of Agriculture survey conducted in the
U.S. Virgin Islands since 2007 so newer data is unavailable.
The limited availability and high cost of arable land is a
major drawback to farm ownership in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Land ownership is also a concern as 41% of farms, occupying 29%
of the total acreage of lands in farms, are on land rented from
either the Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture or private
individuals.
Figure 1. Location of farmers in the U.S. Virgin Islands \3\
Table 1. Total acreage of farms in U.S. Virgin Islands (in percent) from survey conducted by UVI in 20183
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response Category St. Croix St. Thomas & St. John Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of respondents 132 49 181
Less than 2 acres 44.2 53.0 44.2
2 to 4 acres 19.9 24.5 19.9
5 to 9 acres 9.4 8.2 9.4
10 or more acres 26.5 14.3 26.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure [2]. Monthly average rainfall and high and low temperatures on
St. Croix (1987-2011) measured at UVI-AES Sheep Research
Facility \2\
Figure [3]. Annual total rainfall on St. Croix (1987-2011) measured at
UVI-AES Sheep Research Facility \2\
Figure [4]. Comparison of annual total rainfall to average on St Croix
(1987-2011) collected at UVI-AES Sheep Research Facility \2\
[Endnotes]
\1\ 2007 Census of Agriculture. United States Department of
Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service, Issued February
2009.
\2\ Godfrey, R.W. Impact of Drought on Livestock. USVI Drought
Monitoring Forum. August 30, 2016. Sponsored by: USDA Office of the
Chief Economist, National Drought Mitigation Center, NOAA National
Weather Service, USDA Farm Service Agency, USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, UVI Cooperative Extension Service, VI Department
of Agriculture, VI Climate Council.
\3\ United States Virgin Islands Agro Processing/Packaging Plant
Feasibility Study. 2018. University of the Virgin Islands, Institute
for Leadership & Organizational Effectiveness.
The Chair. Thank you.
The next witness, if you would? Ms. Tencer?
STATEMENT OF BRISE S. TENCER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ORGANIC FARMING RESEARCH FOUNDATION, SANTA CRUZ, CA
Ms. Tencer. Thank you, Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member Dunn,
and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for your
time and attention on this pressing issue.
Farmers have always had to manage a variety of risks, and
now with climate change disruptions exacerbating these risks,
with weather extremes that are modifying the lifecycle of crop
pests and pathogens, delaying planting seasons, and
accelerating soil degradation, farmers face new challenges that
pose increased threats to both their livelihoods and their
ability to produce food for a growing population.
Organic producers utilize innovative strategies that
support agricultural resiliency and show exciting potential to
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, strong market demand and high prices for
certified organic farm products can help reduce economic risks
for producers.
Since 1990, the Organic Farming Research Foundation has
worked to foster both improvement and widespread adoption of
organic farming systems across the United States. Our recent
publication on risk and resiliency based significantly on USDA
funded research, documents the importance of soil health, a
guiding principle of organic systems, in reducing production
cost and minimizing risk.
Organic systems that maintain higher soil organic matter
and biological activity, improve moisture infiltration and
storage, and foster efficient nutrient cycling, result in
greater yield stability through weather extremes and other
stresses.
Such soil-sustained crops through dry spells require less
irrigation water and undergo less ponding, runoff, and erosion
during heavy rains.
Organic practices such as cover cropping can enhance soil
health, support management of weeds, pests, and diseases and
build overall resilience to stress while sequestering carbon
and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
The importance of crop rotation and diversification, and
improving soil health, managing stresses, and reducing risk of
catastrophic financial losses when one crop fails, has been
well documented in both conventional and organic systems.
We believe that continued research investment is essential
to realizing the full potential of organic farming strategies,
and that such research can benefit all types of producers.
Our last national survey of organic farmers and ranchers
across the country provided robust insight into the research
needs of the organic farming community.
Based on input from nearly 2,000 certified organic
operations, we can say with confidence that although research
priorities vary by region, there are major commonalities in
their desire for better information on soil health criteria,
efficacy of amendments, weed insect disease management, and
development of regionally adapted cultivars equipped to
withstand region-specific climate stresses.
Our in-depth analysis of USDA organic research portfolio
documents some exciting research and promising new strategies
that merit further research and development into site-specific
applications and practical guidelines for producers.
Several USDA studies have clearly shown that organic
systems can effectively sequester soil organic carbon and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Further research investments can help maximize growers'
ability to monitor their soil organic carbon, measure the
specific impacts of their practices.
Research is also urgently needed to help all farmers reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, especially nitrous oxide from
fertilized or manured soils.
We greatly appreciate the USDA funding for research
education and extension that is crucial to helping build
resiliency and address risk.
The Sustainable Agriculture and Research and Education
Program, the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension
Initiative, and the Organic Transitions Program have supported
hundreds of studies that help both organic and conventional
farmers address the threat of climate disruption.
Thanks to these programs, farmers are using more efficient
irrigation systems, adopting organic managements practices that
build healthy soil, sequester carbon, and limit application of
fertilizers and pesticides.
More research, education, and extension is needed to help
farmers and ranchers implement the best practices for climate
mitigation and adaptation for their locales and specific
systems.
In addition to the organic-specific programs, we encourage
other USDA research agencies, including the Agricultural
Research Service and the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, to invest more in development and adoption of
organic farming systems.
Extension and education is essential to delivering new
skills, tools, technology into the hands of growers. As a
country, I believe we are under-investing in cooperative
extension programs, but organic producers are often at
additional disadvantage because the organic expertise of
organic extension agents varies significantly state by state.
Farmers depend on the continued capacity of NIFA and ERS to
maintain expertise in a centralized location. We believe that
the centralized location is essential to helping effectively
share key research findings with NRCS, Risk Management Agency,
and other agencies so they can also support adaptation of best
practices.
These are challenging times for the people who grow our
food. Thank you for your commitment and support of policies
that help our nation's agricultural producers manage risk,
increase resiliency, and provide food security to our
population.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tencer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brise S. Tencer, Executive Director, Organic
Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA
Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member Dunn, and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, thank
you for your time and attention on the pressing issues of resiliency
and risk in agriculture.
Since 1990, OFRF has been working to foster the continuous
improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming systems. Organic
producers have developed innovative strategies that support
agricultural resiliency and show potential to mitigate greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and lessen the impacts of climate change on production.
In addition, strong market demand and high prices for certified organic
farm products can help reduce economic risks for organic producers.
Even in the best circumstances, farmers are managing a variety of
risks, including fluctuating markets, increasing production costs, and
annual weather variations that may cause production challenges. Climate
disruptions are increasing in intensity and frequency, which
exacerbates existing risks. For instance, life cycles and geographic
ranges of crop pests and pathogens are rapidly shifting, and soil
health is degrading at a concerning rate (IPCC 2014, Kirschbaum, 1995;
Montanarella, et al., 2016). These shifts in abiotic and biotic
stressors are already contributing to crop losses and threatening food
security (Myers, et al., 2017).
In fact, climate disruptions are having a significant impact on
family farmers and ranchers around the country. In the face of global
climate change, extreme weather events are becoming more common.
Increasingly, farmers have to contend with severe droughts and
flooding, increased heat waves, warmer winters that allow pest and
disease pressures to intensify, and loss of winter chill hours that
regulate bud break and fruit development in tree crops. This spring,
flooding left farm fields across the Midwest under water; preliminary
analysis of satellite data from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) Near Real-Time Global Flood mapping tool
estimates 1 million acres of U.S. farmland were flooded (Huffstutter &
Pamuk, 2019). Meanwhile, growers across the Southeast and the islands
are continuing the hard work to recover from devastating hurricanes and
tropical storms. In my home state of California, farmers and ranchers
are still dealing with the aftermath of last year's record-breaking
wildfires intensified by increasingly warm and dry weather. We need
science-based solutions that will help farmers adapt and become more
resilient to these changes.
OFRF's national survey of organic farmers and ranchers, published
in the National Organic Research Agenda (NORA) report, provides an
authoritative understanding of the research needs of the organic
community (Jerkins & Ory, 2016). Together with Taking Stock, our
analysis of USDA funded organic research, NORA informs USDA
researchers, universities, agricultural extension agents, farmers,
ranchers, and others to ensure research, education, and extension
activities are relevant and responsive to the organic sector
(Schonbeck, et al., 2016).
More than 1,000 organic farmers and ranchers across the U.S.
participated in OFRF's online survey. Additional input was gathered
through 21 listening sessions. Based on their stated priorities, OFRF
recommends intensified research funding in the areas of soil health and
fertility management, weed, insect, and disease management, plant
breeding to develop public cultivars better suited to organic
production systems, and meeting the challenges of climate change.
Farmer-identified topics related to climate disruptions included
water and soil management to cope with drought and flooding, managing
new insect pest and weed species, and adapting to fluctuations in
chill-time for nuts and fruit crops. One farmer put it bluntly,
``climate change is about to put me out of business. 2011 was too wet,
2012 too dry, 2013 and 2014 too wet . . . plus devastating extreme cold
temps in Jan. 2014 and Feb. [2015]. How can I, as the manager deal with
it?'' Another farmer lamented, ``Sadly, I think climate change is going
to catch up with all of us: it is getting hard to produce crops that
have been routine to me over the decades.''
The main difference between organic and conventional approaches to
these new challenges is that organic producers cannot rely on synthetic
inputs. Rather, they must experiment with and tailor biological and
ecological approaches to fit their unique farming practices. To be
successful, organic farmers need an intimate understanding of the
lifecycles and biological interactions of crops, livestock, soil life,
pests, and their natural enemies, as they rely on ecological processes
to address production challenges. The organic approach has potential to
sequester C, mitigate GHG emissions, reduce environmental impacts
related to fertilizers and pesticides, and build resiliency to changing
and unpredictable weather patterns. An increased investment in research
for organic systems is essential to realize this potential.
We greatly appreciate USDA's funding of research, education, and
extension that is crucial to helping farmers build resiliency and
address risk. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)
program, as well as the Organic Research and Extension Initiative
(OREI) and Organic Transitions Program (ORG) have supported hundreds of
studies that help both organic and conventional farmers around the
country address the threat of climate disruption. Now, it is critical
to increase our investment in research that will help farmers increase
resiliency.
Building Resiliency to Climate Disruptions
Organic systems that build soil organic matter and soil health,
diversify crop rotations and farm enterprises, and utilize biological
and cultural approaches to nutrient, pest, weed, and disease management
can make agricultural production more resilient to abiotic stresses,
including those related to climate change (Blanco-Canqui and Francis,
2016; Lal, 2016). These systems are inherently knowledge-intensive and
site specific, and the challenges all producers face in managing crops,
livestock, soils, nutrients, and both beneficial and harmful organisms
in this time of climate change are highly interconnected. Therefore, it
is essential for Congress to continue supporting integrated research,
education, and outreach to provide farmers with the tools, technology,
and support they need to build healthy resilient farming systems that
can withstand climate disruption, and to steward the land for
generations to come.
Healthy Soils
As documented in our recently published Reducing Risk Through Best
Soil Health Management Practices in Organic Crop Production (with
funding from the USDA Risk Management Agency), soil health plays a key
role in reducing production costs and risks, and will become ever more
critical as climate disruption continues to unfold. The USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has established four science-
based principles of soil health management: keep the soil covered,
maximize living roots, enhance cropping system diversity, and minimize
soil disturbance. Management systems that address all of these
principles build organic matter and overall soil health more
effectively than adopting a single practice such as no-till or green
manuring (Schonbeck, et al., 2017, 2018).
Sustainable organic systems that maintain higher soil organic
matter and biological activity, improve moisture infiltration and
storage, and foster efficient nutrient cycling result in greater yield
stability through weather extremes and other stresses. For example,
while organic and conventional crop rotations in the Rodale long-term
farming systems trials gave similar yields over a 35 year period, the
organic systems sustained much better crop condition and 31% higher
grain yield in corn during drought years (Rodale, 2011a, 2015). In
another instance, regenerative range management helped a Texas ranch
maintain its herd through the extreme drought of 2012 that forced other
ranchers to sell livestock (Lengnick, 2016).
Healthy soils have good structure (tilth), which allows them to
absorb and hold moisture, drain well, maintain adequate aeration, and
foster deep, healthy crop root systems. Such soils sustain crops
through dry spells, require less irrigation water, and undergo less
ponding, runoff, and erosion during heavy rains (Magdoff and van Es,
2009; Moncada and Sheaffer, 2010; Rodale, 2015).
During California's recent drought, vegetable growers were faced
with irrigation water use restrictions. In an OFRF-funded study
conducted with Dr. Amelie Gaudin and colleagues at UC Davis, organic
farmer Scott Park showed that his integrated approach to soil building,
including diversified rotation, winter cover crops, minimum tillage,
and applications of compost and beneficial microbes doubled his soil's
moisture capacity and reduced irrigation water needs for tomato
production by 6" to 11" per season (Gaudin, et al., 2018).
Healthy, biologically active soils support plant root symbionts
such as mycorrhizal fungi, and other beneficial soil microorganisms
that help crops obtain nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients from
soil organic matter and other slow-release organic sources, thereby
reducing the need for soluble nutrient applications that can threaten
water quality (Kloot, 2018; Rosolem, et al., 2017; Sullivan, et al.,
2017; Hamel, 2004; Wander, 2015b; Wander, et al., 2016). In a study of
13 organic tomato fields in central California, four of the best-
managed fields showed ``tightly coupled nitrogen cycling'' in which
soil soluble nitrogen levels were low enough to protect water resources
yet the crop absorbed sufficient nutrients for top yields (Bowles, et
al., 2015). Tight nutrient cycling not only reduces fertilizer bills
and enhances crop resilience to weather extremes, but also minimizes
emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas nitrous oxide from soils.
Research recommendation: Development of management strategies to
promote tightly coupled nutrient cycling in other crops and regions
appears quite feasible, and should be considered a top research
priority for agricultural resilience to climate change.
Cover Crops
Idle, bare soil is at risk. Protracted fallow periods such as a
corn-soy or vegetable rotation without winter cover crops, or the
traditional wheat-fallow system for dry farming in semiarid regions can
deplete soil organic matter, starve-out mycorrhizal fungi and other
beneficial organisms, aggravate soil erosion and compaction, and
increase fertilizer and irrigation costs (Kabir, 2018; Rillig, 2004;
Rosolem, et al., 2017; Six, et al., 2006). Growing cover crops during
the off-season can sustain soil life, conserve nutrients, sustain soil
health, and increase cash crop yields.
In Mediterranean climates such as central California and the
Pacific Northwest, most of the rainfall occurs in winter while
intensive vegetable production takes place from spring through fall,
often depending on irrigation. Currently, few of these acres are
planted in winter cover crops, yet cover crops can play a vital role in
water and nutrient management. During the wet winter of 2017, cover
crops made the difference between prompt infiltration and prolonged
ponding in fields and orchards (Kabir, 2017). In the Salinas Valley of
California, an organic vegetable double crop system of spring lettuce
followed by fall broccoli sustained high lettuce yields only if a
winter cover crop was planted after the broccoli to recover surplus
nitrogen and deliver it to the following lettuce crop; winter fallow
often led to a lettuce crop failure (Brennan, et al., 2017). In
addition to greatly enhancing resilience, the cover crop protected
water quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Organic systems studies have shown that cover crops enhance soil
health, nutrient cycling and crop nutrition, crop rooting depth and
moisture acquisition, and overall stress resilience in other locations,
including Illinois, Minnesota, Maryland, North and South Carolina
(Gruver, et al., 2016; Hooks, et al., 2015; Hu, et al., 2015; Marshall,
et al., 2016; Moncada and Sheaffer, 2010; Rosolem, et al., 2017).
Farmers in Montana, New York, and across the U.S. are gradually
increasing their use of cover crops, citing soil health, yield
stability, and reduced production costs (Jones, et al., 2015; Mason and
Wolfe, 2018; USDA SARE, 2017).
Research recommendation: Selecting the right cover crops and
management methods can be challenging, especially in low rainfall
regions where cover crops can deplete soil moisture and reduce yield in
the following crop (Miller, 2016). While farmers and researchers have
had good results with winter pea in dryland grain rotations (Olson-
Rutz, et al., 2017), more research is urgently needed to develop a menu
of best cover crop options for limited-rainfall regions throughout the
western half of the U.S.
Crop Rotation
The importance of crop rotation and diversification in improving
soil health, managing weeds, pests, and diseases, and reducing risks of
catastrophic financial losses when one crop fails, have been well
documented in both conventional and organic systems (Mohler and
Johnson, 2009; Moncada and Sheaffer, 2010; Ponisio, et al., 2014).
Adding a perennial grass-legume sod phase (1 to 3 years) to a rotation
of annual crops can be especially effective in restoring soil health
and fertility, and reducing weed populations. Crop-livestock integrated
farming systems can recover much of the income foregone by rotation
cropland into perennial sod through grazing and haying. Farming systems
studies funded through the Organic Research and Extension Initiative
and other USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
programs have demonstrated the soil health and climate resilience
benefits of sound crop rotations, and provided practical guidelines for
designing rotations for organic systems (Cavigelli, et al., 2013;
Moncada and Sheaffer, 2010; Wander, et al., 1994).
Management-intensive rotational grazing systems can restore
grassland soil health and moisture capacity, improve forage quality,
protect water resources, and greatly enhance resilience in livestock
production as well as sequestering carbon in the soil. For example,
North Dakota rancher Gabe Brown (2018) restored 5,000 acres of degraded
crop and rangeland by applying the four NRCS principles to his crops,
rotationally grazing multispecies livestock, and nearly eliminating
synthetic inputs. Over a 20 year period, soil organic matter recovered
from 2% to 7%, representing about 125,000 tons of carbon removed from
the atmosphere; meanwhile the ranch continues to thrive economically.
Other success stories with regionally-adapted rotational grazing
systems abound from across the U.S. (Teague, et al., 2016; The Natural
Farmer, 2014-15 and 2016-17).
Research recommendation: Additional research is needed to address
educational, economic, social, and logistical barriers to transitioning
more of the nation's livestock production to this promising approach.
Compost and Organic Nutrient Sources
Compost, manure, and other organic sources of nutrients has long
been a hallmark of organic systems, and can, when used judiciously,
contribute to soil health, agricultural resilience, and mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions. In organic farming systems trials in Hawaii,
Iowa, Maryland, and elsewhere, cover cropping in conjunction with
compost or manure applications enhanced soil health and organic matter
to a greater degree than either practice alone (Delate, et al., 2015;
Hooks, et al., 2015). A single compost application to grazing lands in
California substantially improved forage vigor and carbon sequestration
(Ryals and Silver, 2013). A life cycle analysis confirmed that
diverting manure from storage lagoons and yard and food wastes from
landfills for composting greatly reduced net greenhouse gas impacts
(DeLonge, et al., 2013).
Research recommendation: Research is needed to end ``organic
waste'' in the U.S. and ensure that municipal leaves, yard waste, food
waste, and confinement manure is composted and returned to the land at
rates consistent with sound nutrient management.
Crop and Livestock Breeding
Crop breeding for development of new crop varieties that perform
well in soil health-enhancing organic and sustainable production
systems, and that show increased resilience to drought, temperature
extremes, and other weather-related stresses. In a 2015 project to
identify plant breeding needs for the northeastern U.S., farmers and
breeders noted, ``Cultivars are most productive under the conditions
for which they were bred. Northeast growers [need] regionally-adapted
varieties that were bred to thrive in the Northeast, with the climate
and pests unique to our region. Furthermore, cultivars bred under
conventional management--aided by synthetic fertilizer, herbicides and
pesticides--will likely not be as productive under organic
management.'' (Hultengren, et al., 2016, page 26). Scientists have even
documented a loss in the capacity of some modern crop cultivars to
partner with beneficial soil microbes for nutrient uptake and disease
resistance. In their work with organic producers to develop new
cultivars, they have begun to restore this capacity, which can play a
key role in overall agricultural resilience to climate change
(Goldstein, 2015, 2016; Zubieta and Hoagland, 2016).
Over the past 15 years, several farmer-scientist participatory
plant breeding teams funded through the USDA Organic Research and
Extension Initiative (OREI) and Organic Transitions Program (ORG) have
begun to address the need for new crop cultivars better suited to
organic systems.
For example, the Northern Vegetable Improvement Collaborative or
NOVIC (three rounds of OREI funding from 2010-2018) has released
several new cultivars of tomato, sweet corn, squash, and broccoli for
organic systems, with more on the way, including cucumber, cabbage, and
pepper. NOVIC has produced two books to help farmers enhance organic
seed systems: Organic Crop Breeding and The Organic Seed Grower.
Other OREI funded projects focus on wheat, soybean, and dry bean,
including selecting improved strains of N fixing nodule bacteria
(rhizobia), and development of vigorous, weed-competitive strains. One
new food-grade soybean cultivar has been released (Orf, et al., 2016;
Place, et al., 2011; Worthington, et al., 2015).
Based on research confirming genetic regulation of plant root depth
and extent, Kell (2011) has recommended breeding crops for larger,
deeper root systems to build SOM, sequester carbon deep in the soil
profile, and enhance nutrient and moisture use efficiency. Each of
these plant breeding developments can contribute to soil health and
risk reduction by increasing climate resilience, reducing nutrient and
water input needs, and enhancing organic matter inputs to the soil.
Research recommendation: Additional long-term research investment
in plant breeding for sustainable and organic systems is essential for
realizing potential to enhance beneficial plant-soil-microbe
interactions, nutrient use efficiency, soil carbon sequestration, and
resilience to drought and other stresses. Farmers especially need
regionally adapted cultivars equipped to withstand anticipated region-
specific climate change stresses.
Identifying and developing livestock breeds that can tolerate
weather extremes and thrive in management intensive rotational grazing
systems is also a top research priority. We appreciate that, in recent
years, OREI Requests for Applications include animal breeding for
pasture-based organic production, and urge Congress to continue and
expand funding for USDA development of public livestock breeds and crop
cultivars to help all farmers and ranchers meet the climate challenge.
Conservation Agriculture and Organic
Conservation agriculture integrates crop rotations, cover crops,
and organic soil amendments with no-till practices to build soil health
and protect soil organic carbon from physical disturbances. However,
continuous no-till production of annual crops relies on synthetic
inputs for weed control and fertility. This chemical disturbance can
harm soil biota and negatively impact the surrounding environment and
human health. For example, normal use rates of glyphosate herbicides
have been shown to inhibit mycorrhizal fungi, which play significant
roles in soil carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and overall
resilience (Druille, et al., 2013; Hamel, 2004).
While organic systems require some level of physical disturbance to
control weeds, they eliminate synthetic inputs and can significantly
reduce tillage as well. Reduced tillage coupled with the full suite of
soil health practices--crop diversification, cover cropping, organic
amendments, and sound nutrient management--can enhance carbon
sequestration and build climate resiliency in organic agricultural
systems.
Concern has been raised that large-scale farms that adopt USDA
certified organic practices through input substitution may not reduce
net GHG footprints (Lorenz and Lal, 2016; McGee, 2015). What we are
recommending today is research, education and extension to support a
holistic approach to implementing the National Organic Standards that
embraces the NRCS Soil Health Principles. One research priority is to
address the socioeconomic, logistical, and policy barriers to
implementation of sustainable organic systems that will enhance soil
carbon sequestration, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and improve
resilience on both large and smaller scale farms.
Organic Practices and Climate Mitigation
All farmers have a major stake in efforts to curb further climate
change and improve the resilience of farming and ranching systems.
Resilient, diversified agriculture systems, including crop-livestock
integration, can help maintain and even improve economic, ecological,
and social benefits for farm families in the face of dramatic exogenous
changes such as climate change and price swings; and will thereby
maintain and improve the nation's food security.
In addition to improving resilience to the impacts of climate
changes already underway, the soil health practices outlined thus far
can sequester carbon and reduce direct agricultural greenhouse gas
emissions. Estimates of potential climate mitigation through widespread
adoption of sustainable farming range from reducing U.S. agriculture's
GHG footprint in half (Chambers, et al., 2016), to making U.S.
agriculture carbon negative. Organic production methods also
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions through decreased use of
fossil fuel-based inputs.
Several USDA supported studies have conducted in-depth comparisons
of C sequestration or total net greenhouse gas footprint in organic
versus conventional systems, which clearly show that organic systems
can effectively sequester soil organic carbon and build resilience to
climate disruption by implementing the NRCS principles of keeping soil
covered, maintaining living roots, enhancing biodiversity, and
minimizing soil disturbance. However, other greenhouse gas emissions,
especially nitrous oxide from fertilized or manured soils, show more
complex responses to management practices. For example, while optimal
soil and nutrient management of organic production of lettuce in
Colorado and tomato in California have virtually eliminated nitrous
oxide losses, broccoli required so much N from organic sources to reach
optimum yield that nitrous oxide emissions were estimated to negate
soil carbon sequestration from best organic practices (Bowles, et al.,
2015; Li and Muramoto, 2009; Toonsiri, et al., 2016).
Research recommendation: More research, education, and extension is
needed to help farmers and ranchers implement the best practices for
climate mitigation and adaptation for their locales, climates, soils,
crop mixes, and production systems. Research is critical to developing
effective tools for organic farmers and ranchers, but we need to ensure
this information is verified, delivered, demonstrated, and adopted by
the agricultural community. The funding and support of the University
Extension system is critical to completing this cycle and ensuring that
Federal research funding produces farming strategies that are widely
adopted. We need trained Extension personnel to do this work. Farmers
obtain their information from many sources, but they need trusted
scientific resources to be successful.
Conclusion
We greatly appreciate the support Congress has provided for key
USDA programs that address research, education, and extension for
organic and sustainable agriculture. These programs have been on the
cutting edge of addressing climate change and helping farmers build
resiliency and manage risk. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education (SARE) program, as well as the Organic Research and Extension
Initiative (OREI) and Organic Transitions Program (ORG) have supported
hundreds of studies that help both organic and conventional farmers
build soil health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, sequester carbon,
and address the threat of climate disruption. Thanks to these programs,
farmers are using more efficient irrigation systems and adopting
organic management practices to limit the application of fertilizers
and pesticides as well as build the health and resiliency of their
soil.
SARE, ORG, and OREI programs invest in innovative research that
helps farmers be more resilient and adaptable to climate disruptions.
The SARE program has made huge contributions in many areas, especially
cover cropping, rotational grazing, local and regional food systems,
and agroecology systems research. In general, SARE has a strong focus
on delivery of information to the farming community. ORG has
prioritized research related to the impacts of crop rotation,
livestock-crop system integration, tillage, cover crop, and fertility
inputs on greenhouse gas mitigation and other ecosystem services. ORG
has also helped address barriers to successful transition to organic
practices. OREI has greatly advanced our understanding of best soil,
nutrient, crop, weed, pest, and disease management for organic systems,
and has provided vital support for development of crop cultivars and,
more recently, livestock breeds suited to organic production. OFRF
thanks Congress for investing in these crucial programs.
However, adaptation strategies will require both short- and long-
term changes, including cost-effective investments in new technologies,
water infrastructure, emergency preparation for response to extreme
weather events, development of resilient crop varieties that tolerate
temperature and precipitation stresses, building soil health, and
adopting new or improved land use and management practices. More
research is necessary to understand the challenges, and to create
solutions.
Researchers have identified some promising new strategies that
merit further research and development into practical guidelines for
producers. Additional research is needed to bridge the remaining gaps
between findings to date and practical application in the context of a
particular farm, soil type, climate, crop mix, and production system.
Producers need guidance on context-specific management practices,
including a menu of options that they can apply to their specific
agricultural systems. Farmers also need practical, reliable tools to
monitor soil organic carbon (SOC) and measure the impact of their
practices on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Research is only the first step. Farmers will require continued and
enhanced support to take the results of the research and integrate
relevant components into their farming operations. It is critical to
our success that farmers are provided adequate education, training, and
technical assistance. Building and expanding our current Extension
programs to support farmers during these difficult transitions is
essential for farmers to acquire new skills, tools, and technology
necessary to adapt to climate change. Programs that support the
delivery and dissemination of information into the hands of America's
farmers and ranchers are more important than ever. Extension and
education for farmers is key, yet organic expertise of Extension agents
varies significantly state by state. Organic producers in all parts of
the country need to be served effectively by Extension. Congress has
worked hard to increase the funding for important research programs at
USDA; much more support is needed to ensure that both basic and applied
research is available and more easily adopted by the farmers and
ranchers around the country that are on the front lines of climate
change.
We urge Federal policy-makers to prioritize support and oversight
of Federal farm bill policies and programs that enable farmers and
ranchers to adopt sustainable and organic agricultural production
systems to address the challenges posed by a rapidly changing climate.
We encourage USDA research, education, and economic divisions such as
the Agriculture Research Service (ARS) and National Institute of Food
and Agriculture (NIFA) to invest more in the improvement and adoption
of organic farming systems, and to prioritize addressing solutions that
help farmers be more sustainable and successful in the face of changing
agricultural conditions. The capacity of NIFA to support outstanding
research, and the Economic Research Service to provide unbiased
analysis of agricultural economics, helps support farmers and
strengthen our agricultural system. Maintaining this capacity and
expertise in a centralized location will help ensure these agencies
continue to serve the agriculture community in a coordinated and
efficient manner.
Coordination and sharing of key research findings with agencies
such as the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Risk
Management Agency (RMA) is critical to ensuring farmers can implement
these best practices. Both NRCS and RMA programs provide support for
farmers managing and addressing risk. In the past, NRCS has struggled
to support organic producers in simultaneously planning, implementing,
and complying with conservation and organic standards. Although NRCS
has expanded and significantly improved their outreach and services to
organic producers across the country, several conservation measures
that help farmers build resilience are sometimes penalized in crop
insurance programs. The farm bill did make it easier for farmers to
integrate cover cropping practices on their farms. Thanks to new
language in the farm bill, it will be easier for RMA to include cover
cropping in their list of Good Farming Practices. We believe the time
is now for RMA to amend Good Farming Practices and conservation
practice guidance to provide that all NRCS conservation practices and
enhancements are automatically recognized as Good Farming Practices by
RMA, without any caveats or qualifications. In our view, no farmer
should be penalized or lose coverage under any crop insurance policy
for using conservation practices and enhancements that are approved by
NRCS.
These are challenging times for the people who grow our food, and
we urge Congress and USDA to ensure Federal programs that include
research, education, extension, and program implementation support
organic producers and other farmers and ranchers that seek to integrate
organic practices into their operations. Thank you for your commitment
and support of policies that will help our country's agricultural
producers manage risk, increase resiliency, and provide food security
for our population.
References
Blanco-Canqui, H., and C.A. Francis. 2016. Building resilient soils
through agroecosystem redesign under fluctuating climatic regimes. J.
Soil & Water Conserv. 71(6): 127A-133A.
Bowles, T.M., A.D. Hollander, K. Steenwerth, and L.E. Jackson. 2015.
Tightly-Coupled Plant-Soil Nitrogen Cycling: Comparison of Organic
Farms across an Agricultural Landscape. PLOS ONE. http://
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131888.
Brown, G. 2018. Dirt to Soil: One Family's Journey into Regenerative
Agriculture. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT. 223
pp.
Cavigelli, M.A., Teasdale, J.R., and J.T. Spargo. 2013. Increasing
Crop Rotation Diversity Improves Agronomic, Economic, and Environmental
Performance of Organic Grain Cropping Systems at the USDA-ARS
Beltsville Farming Systems Project. Crop Management 12(1) Symposium
Proceedings: USDA Organic Farming Systems Research Conference. https://
dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/cm/tocs/12/1.
Chambers, A., R. Lal, and K. Paustian. 2016. Soil carbon
sequestration potential of U.S. croplands and grasslands: implementing
the 4 per Thousand Initiative. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 71(3): 68A-74A.
Delate, K., C. Cambardella, and C. Chase. 2015. Effects of cover
crops, soil amendments, and reduced tillage on carbon sequestration and
soil health in a long-term vegetable system. Final report for ORG
project 2010-03956.
DeLonge, M.S., R. Ryals, and W.L. Silver. 2013. A lifecycle model to
evaluate carbon sequestration potential and greenhouse gas dynamics of
managed grasslands. Ecosystems 16: 962-979.
Druille, M., Cabello, M.N., Omacini, M., and Golluscio, R.A. 2013.
Glyphosate reduces spore viability and root colonization of arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungi. Applied Soil Ecology 64: 99-103; doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2012.10.007.
Gaudin A., Park S., Lloyd M., Azimi A., Velasco R., and Renwick, L.
2018. Developing integrated irrigation management strategies to improve
water and nutrient use efficiency of organic processing tomato in
California. Final report to Organic Farming Research Foundation.
Goldstein, W. 2015. Breeding corn for organic farmers with improved
N efficiency/N fixation, and protein quality. Proceedings of the
Organic Agriculture Research Symposium, LaCrosse, WI February 25-26,
2015. http://eorganic.info/node/12972.
Gruver, J., R.R. Weil, C. White, and Y. Lawley. 2016. Radishes A New
Cover Crop for Organic Farming Systems. http://articles.extension.org/
pages/64400/radishes-a-new-cover-crop-for-organic-farming-systems.
Hamel, C. 2004. Impact of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on N and P
cycling in the root zone. Can. J. Soil Sci. 84(4): 383-395.
Hooks, C.R., K.H. Wang, G. Brust, and S. Mathew. 2015. Using Winter
Cover Crops to Enhance the Organic Vegetable Industry in the Mid-
Atlantic Region. Final report for OREI project 2010-01954. CRIS
Abstracts.*
Hu, S., S. Hu, W. Shi, A. Meijer, and G. Reddy. 2015. Evaluating the
Potential of Winter Cover Crops for Carbon Sequestration in Degraded
Soils Transitioning to Organic Production. Project proposal and final
report for ORG project 2010-04008.
Huffstutter, P.J., and Pamuk, H. 2019. ``1 Million Acres of Midwest
Farmlands Flooded as Corn Planting Deadlines Approach.'' Insurance
Journal. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2019/04/01/
522389.htm.
Hultengren, R., M. Glos, and M. Mazourek. 2016. Breeding Research
and Education Needs Assessment for Organic Vegetable Growers in the
Northeast. (Dataset). eCommons Digital Repository at Cornell
University, 35 pp.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate
Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Working Group III
Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/. Chapter
11 Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU), and Annex II
Metrics and Methodology.
Jerkins, D. and J. Ory. 2016. 2016 National Organic Research Agenda:
Outcomes and Recommendations from the 2015 National Organic Farmer
Survey and Listening Sessions. Organic Farming Research Foundation
(www.ofrf.org).
Jones, C., R. Kurnick, P. Miller, K. Olson-Rutz, and C. Zabinski.
2015 Montana Cover Crop Survey Results. Dept. of Land Resources and
Environmental Sciences, Montana State University. 15 pp.
Kabir, Z. 2018. Rethinking the nutrient management paradigm for soil
health. NRCS webinar, August 14, 2018. Science and Technology Training
Library. http://www.conservationwebinars.net/listArchivedWebinars.
Kell, D.B. 2011. Breeding crop plants with deep roots: their role in
sustainable carbon, nutrient and water sequestration. Ann. Bot. 108(3):
407-418.
Kirschbaum, M.U.F. 1995. The temperature dependence of soil organic
matter decomposition, and the effect of global warming on soil organic
C storage. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 27(6): 753-760.
Kloot, Robin. 2018. Using adaptive nutrient management to answer
``how much fertilizer do you actually need?'' NRCS webinar May 8, 2018.
Science and Technology Training Library. http://
www.conservationwebinars.net/listArchivedWebinars.
Lal, R. 2016. Beyond COP21: Potential challenges of the ``4 per
thousand'' initiative. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 71(1): 20A-25A.
Lengnick, L. 2016. New Times, New Tools: Cultivating Climate
Resilience on Your Organic Farm. http://articles.extension.org/pages/
73466/new-times-new-tools:-cultivating-climate-resilience-on-your-
organic-farm.
Li, C., Salas, W. and Muramoto, J. 2009. Process Based Models for
Optimizing N Management in California Cropping Systems: Application of
DNDC Model for nutrient management for organic broccoli production.
Conference proceedings 2009 California Soil and Plant Conference, 92-
98. Feb. 2009. http://ucanr.edu/sites/calasa/files/319.pdf.
Lorenz, K., and R. Lal. 2016. Environmental Impact of Organic
Agriculture. Advances in Agronomy. 139: 99-152.
Magdoff, F. and van Es, H. 2009. Building Soils for Better crops,
3rd ed. Sustainable Agriculture research and Education (SARE). http://
www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Books/Building-Soils-for-Better-Crops-3rd-
Edition.
Marshall, M.W., P. Williams, A. Mirzakhani Nafchi, J.M. Maja, J.
Payero, J. Mueller, and A. Khalilian. 2016. Influence of Tillage and
Deep Rooted Cool Season Cover Crops on Soil Properties, Pests, and
Yield Responses in Cotton. Open Journal of Soil Science, 6, 149-158.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2016.610015.
Mason, C.W., and D.W. Wolfe. 2018. Survey of Costs, Constraints, and
Benefits of Soil Health in New York: Initial Report and Summary.
Reduced Tillage in Organic Systems Field Day Program Handbook, July 31,
2018, Cornell University Willsboro Research Farm, Willsboro NY, pp 8-9.
https://rvpadmin.cce.cornell.edu/uploads/doc_699.pdf.
McGee, J.A., 2015. Does certified organic farming reduce greenhouse
gas emissions from agricultural production? Agric. Hum. Values 32, 255-
263.
Miller, P., 2016. Using cover crop mixtures to improve soil health
in low rainfall areas of the northern plains. Final report for Western
SARE project SW11-099, 40 pp. http://landresources.montana.edu/
soilfertility/documents/PDF/reports/CCMFinalRptSW11-099Apr2016.pdf.
Mohler, C.A. and S.E. Johnson. 2009. Crop Rotations on Organic
Farms. Sustainable Agriculture research and Education (SARE) and
Natural Resource, Agriculture and Engineering Service (NRAES). 156 pp.
http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Books.
Moncada, K., and Sheaffer, C., 2010. Risk Management Guide for
Organic Producers. U. Minnesota. 300 pp. Chapter 13, Winter Cover
Crops. http://organicriskmanagement.umn.edu/.
Myers, S.S., Smith, M. R., Guth, S., Golden, C. D., Vaitla, B.,
Mueller, N. D., Dangour, A. D., Huybers, P. 2017. Climate change and
global food systems: Potential impacts on food security and
undernutrition. Annual Review of Public Health. 38. 259-277.
Olson-Rutz, K., C. Jones, and P. Miller. 2010. Soil nutrient
management on organic grain farms in Montana. Montana State University
Extension bulleting EB0200, 16 pp. http://msuextension.org/publications/
AgandNaturalResources/EB0200.pdf.
Orf, J.H., T.E. Michaels, M.J. Sadowsky, and C.C. Sheaffer. 2016.
Improving soybean and dry bean varieties and Rhizobium strains for
organic systems. Final report on OREI project 2011-01942.
Place, G.T., S.C. Reberg-Horton, D.A. Dickey and T.E. Carter. 2011.
Identifying soybean traits of interest for weed competition. Crop
Science 51: 2642-2654.
Ponisio, L.C., M'Gonigle, L.K., Mace, K.C., Palomino, J., de
Valpine, P., Kremen, C., 2014. Diversification practices reduce organic
to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 2014 1396.
Rillig, M.C. 2004. Arbuscular mycorrhizae, glomalin, and soil
aggregation. Can. J. Soil Sci. 84(4): 355-363.
Rodale Institute. 2014. Regenerative organic agriculture and climate
change: a down-to-earth solution to global warming. 16 pp. https://
rodaleinstitute.org/assets/
RegenOrgAgricultureAndClimateChange_20140418.pdf.
Rosolem, C.A., K. Ritz, H. Cantarella, M.V. Galdos, M.J. Hawkesford,
W.R. Whalley, and S.J. Mooney. 2017. Enhanced plant rooting and crop
system management for improved N use efficiency. Advances in Agronomy
146: 205-239.
Ryals, R., and W.L. Silver. 2013. Effects of organic matter
amendments on net primary productivity and greenhouse gas emissions in
annual grasslands. Ecol. Appl. 23(1): 46-59.
Schonbeck, M., Jerkins, D., and J. Ory. 2016. Taking Stock:
Analyzing and Reporting Organic Research Investments, 2002-2014.
Organic Farming Research Foundation (www.ofrf.org).
Schonbeck, M., Jerkins, D., and J. Ory. 2017. Soil Health and
Organic Farming: Building Organic Matter for Healthy Soils: An
Overview. Organic Farming Research Foundation (www.ofrf.org), 39 pp.
Schonbeck, M., Jerkins, D., and Snyder, L.D. 2018. Soil Health and
Organic Farming: Organic Practices for Climate Mitigation, Adaptation,
and Carbon Sequestration. Organic Farming Research Foundation
(www.ofrf.org), 79 pp.
Six, J., S.D. Frey, R.K. Thiet, and K.M. Batten. 2006. Bacterial and
Fungal Contributions to Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosystems. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70(2): 555-569.
Sullivan, D. M., E. Peachey, A.L. Heinrich, and L.J. Brewer. 2017.
Nutrient Management for Sustainable Vegetable Cropping Systems in
Western Oregon. Oregon State Extension Bulletin EM 9165.
Teague, R. 2016-17. Regeneration of soil by multi-paddock grazing.
Transcript of Sept. 7, 2016 presentation at Harvard by Jack Kittredge.
The Natural Farmer, winter 2016-17: B26-B30.
The Natural Farmer 2014-15 Grazing and 2016-2017 Carbon Farming.
Toonsiri, P., S.J. Del Grosso, A. Sukor, and J.G. Davis. 2016.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Solid and Liquid Organic Fertilizers
Applied to Lettuce. J. Environmental Quality Vol. 45 No. 6, p. 1812-
1821.
USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) 2017.
Annual cover crop survey reports. http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/
Topic-Rooms/Cover-Crops/Cover-Crop-Surveys.
Wander, M. M., 2015b. Soil Fertility in Organic Farming Systems:
Much More than Plant Nutrition. http://articles.extension.org/pages/
18636/soil-fertility-in-organic-farming-systems:-much-more-than-plant-
nutrition.
Wander, M., N. Andrews, and J. McQueen. 2016. Organic Soil
Fertility. http://articles.extension.org/pages/18565/organic-soil-
fertility.
Worthington, M., S.C. Reberg-Horton, G. Brown-Guedira, D. Jordan, R.
Weisz, and J.P. Murphy. 2015. Morphological Traits Associated with
Superior Weed Suppressive Ability of Winter Wheat against Italian
Ryegrass. Crop Science 55: 50-56.
Zubieta, L. and L.A. Hoagland. 2017. Effect of Domestication on
Plant Biomass and Induced Systemic Resistance in Tomato (Solanum
lycopersicum L.). Poster Number 1209, Tri-Societies Meetings, Tampa,
FL, Oct. 24, 2017.
Mr. Cox [presiding.] Thank you. And Mr. Godwin, please
begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF SAM GODWIN, APPLE, PEAR, AND CHERRY GROWER, GODWIN
FAMILY ORCHARD, TONASKET, WA
Mr. Godwin. Thank you, Chair Plaskett and Ranking Member
Dunn for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee
today.
I am Sam Godwin. I operate a family organic farm of 300
acres with my wife and daughter. I also partner with my brother
to run another 85 acre orchard that was our father's farm.
Growing up in the center of an orchard has many rewards,
but the business-related issues that our industry is facing can
be overwhelming at times. I am here today to share some of my
experiences from the farm to underscore the importance of
research and extension for our future.
Emerging or evolving threats come in many forms. For
example, pests like brown marmorated stink bug and spotted wing
drosophila that were previously not present in our region now
have become established in some areas because of changing
weather patterns that prevent the larva from being killed by
sustained cold temperatures over the winter.
Fire blight, which is a debilitating bacterium that infects
pears and apple trees when spring weather is warmer or wetter
than normal, has become an increasing challenging condition and
an economic reality for growers.
In 2018 alone, a sobering 88 percent of pear, 17 percent of
apple acreage was impacted by fire blight in Washington State,
resulting in an estimated $37 million loss.
Changes in seasonal weather patterns are also forcing
growers to pursue more tools to prevent sunburn in the orchards
and needs to come up with an inventive solution to prevent
heat-related storage disorders, post-harvest.
Our growers have long recognized the need to invest in
pursuing solutions to these challenges that have assessed
themselves on every box of tree fruit commercially sold since
1969 through the creation of the Washington Tree Fruit Research
Commission.
Since 2013, growers have also funded an additional $32
million tree fruit endowment at Washington State University.
However, these investments by industry only take us so far.
Federal research programs like ARS and SCRI are critical to
leveraging grower resources to address the multitude of
challenges that our growers and packers are facing on a daily
basis.
We appreciate the funding increase Congress has provided
recently. We are especially pleased to see funding provided to
create a new scientist position focusing on pear genetics and
genomics which will be housed down the road from my orchard in
the Wenatchee ARS facility. Unfortunately, in spite of these
funds being provided more than a year ago, due to the glacial
pace of ARS hiring process, this position has yet to even be
advertised.
This is part of a much larger problem, as hundreds of
vacant scientist and support positions, many due to
retirements, are remaining open at ARS for years. These
positions have been funded by Congress. We would appreciate any
help that Members of this Subcommittee can make to encourage
ARS to eliminate this HR bottleneck and fill these much-needed
positions.
The SCRI has also provided great benefits to the specialty
crop industry. A primary example is the RosBREED Program, which
delivered breeding tools to accelerate the commercialization of
tree fruit varieties and enhanced disease-resistant and
superior consumer attributes in enhancing the resiliency for
growers' operations by reducing production costs and increasing
returns.
Unfortunately, a drafting error in last year's farm bill
removed the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to waive the
hundred percent matching requirement for the SCRI. Because of
the change in rules halfway through the budget cycle,
scientists have had to withdraw several valuable projects from
consideration. I request that you work with your Senate
counterparts to fix this drafting error without delay so that
these, as well as future valuable, projects are not lost.
Research means nothing without a focused effort to get the
information discovered into the hands of the growers. We
encourage you to reintegrate Federal investment into extension
activities through the Hatch Act and the Smith-Lever Act.
Agriculture research is most successful with the investment
and support of industry, Federal Government, and university
extension systems. This success is modeled in Washington State,
where ARS scientists work across the parking lot from the WSU
scientists who both utilize the Tree Fruit Research Commission
and other commodity organizations for funding.
Today tree fruit growers find themselves caught in a
business that requires significant investment and long cycle
improvements with customers and consumers who want short-term
benefits. When you add on the additional risk created by new
unknown cultivar, changing weather patterns, and new pests, we
end up in a very high-stakes game that can drain your working
capital in a single season.
Federal investment and research is key to ensuring that we
can continue to provide top-quality American-grown apples,
pears, and cherries to consumers.
Once again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for
giving me the opportunity to testify before you today. I am
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Godwin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sam Godwin, Apple, Pear, and Cherry Grower,
Godwin Family Orchard, Tonasket, WA
Thank you, Chair Plaskett and Ranking Member Dunn, for the
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today on the research
and extension needs of tree fruit producers when it comes to increasing
resiliency and mitigating risk.
I am Sam Godwin. I operate a family organic farm of 300 acres with
my wife and oldest daughter. I also partner with my brother on another
85 acre orchard that was our father's farm. I have been tied to the
industry for as long as I can remember. Growing up in the center of an
orchard has many rewards but the business-related issues that our
industry is facing can be overwhelming at times. I am here today to
share some of my experiences from the farm to underscore the importance
of research and extension for our future. I spend much of my time
working with others from within our industry to help ensure that our
children experience the same opportunities in the future as farmers
that we did.
As a farmer, you learn that there are many things that are outside
of your control. You learn to trust the process and have faith in your
plans or actions. The problem we face is straightforward--we grow
products that are not increasing in value at the same rate as input
costs.
As a labor-intensive specialty crop industry, we rely on improved
technological breakthroughs to drive future competitive advantages with
our commodities. Today we find ourselves caught in a business that
requires significant investments in long-cycle improvements, with
customers and consumers who want short-term benefits. When you add on
the additional risk created by new unknown cultivars, changing weather
patterns, and new pests, we end up in a very high stakes game that
could drain your working capital in a single season.
The Pacific Northwest is home to family-owned orchards like mine
that provide approximately 67 percent of the apples, 74 percent of the
pears, and 73 percent of the sweet cherries grown in the United States.
Roughly 30 percent of each commodity is exported each season. Together,
these crops are valued at an average of $3 billion annually, and create
tens of thousands of jobs in rural communities throughout our region.
There are a number of reasons why our growers are so successful in
what they do. One is our arid climate, consisting of cool nights and
hot days during the growing season. A second is the innovative and
collaborative nature of our industry, and our recognition that
investments in new ideas are essential to staying ahead of the
constantly-evolving threats to our continued success.
Emerging or evolving threats come in many forms. For example, pests
like the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug and the Spotted Wing Drosophila
(SWD) that were previously not present in our region have now become
established in some areas because changing weather patterns have
prevented larvae from being killed by sustained cold temperatures over
the winter. Changing weather patterns have also contributed to our
growers now needing to fight three or four generations of codling moth
per season, instead of the two generations they faced twenty years ago.
It should be noted that SWD is considered a quarantine pest for
cherries, and codling moth for apples, in some key export markets for
these fruits--meaning that a finding of these pests in a shipment of
fruit can jeopardize future access to these important markets.
Fire blight, which is a debilitating bacterium that infects pear
and apple trees in years when the spring weather is warmer and wetter
than normal, has become an increasingly challenging condition and
economic vulnerability for growers. In 2018 alone, a sobering 88
percent of pear and 17 percent of apple acreage was impacted by fire
blight to some degree, resulting in losses of an estimated $37 million.
Changes in seasonal weather patterns are also forcing growers to
pursue more tools to prevent sunburn in the orchard, and the need to
come up with inventive solutions to prevent heat-related storage
disorders post-harvest. In drought years, growers in some irrigation
districts are facing water shortages just at the time that they need
more water to protect the fruit from burning during the heat of summer.
Our growers have long recognized the need to invest in pursuing
solutions to these ever-evolving challenges. In 1969, Washington State
tree fruit growers voted to assess themselves on every box of apples,
pears, and cherries commercially sold to establish and maintain the
Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission (WTFRC). Last year alone, the
WTFRC funded more than $4.5 million in research projects to address
priorities of our growers. In 2013, we voted to impose an additional
assessment on ourselves to fund a $32 million Tree Fruit Endowment at
Washington State University (WSU). This endowment supports up to ten
new research and extension positions, focusing on enhancing orchard and
post-harvest operations. This is the largest contribution to WSU in the
university's history.
Ongoing projects funded by the WTFRC that deal with resiliency and
mitigating risk include: maximizing the use of limited irrigation water
to reduce stress on pear trees; modeling the effect of changing weather
patterns on pests of concern; and improving soil health by looking at
the effect of woodchip mulch, mowing, and cut grass that is blown into
the tree strips. Dr. Whiting of WSU is also looking at the use of
nanocrystals to reduce cold damage in apples and cherries. This is only
a glimpse of the work tree fruit growers are supporting through the
WTFRC.
However, these investments by industry only take us so far. Federal
research programs like the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the
Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) are critical to leveraging
grower resources to address the multitude of challenges that our
growers and packers are facing on a daily basis.
There are two ARS facilities in Washington State that conduct
research on issues that are important to our growers: the Temperate
Tree Fruit and Vegetable Research laboratory in Wapato, and the
Physiology and Pathology of Tree Fruits Research laboratory in
Wenatchee. Research conducted at these two laboratories have yielded
many benefits for growers through the years, ranging from innovative
methods for pest control to game changers in improving the post-harvest
storage of apples.
For years, ARS has been level funded while costs have increased,
leaving research stations struggling to meet staff and infrastructure
needs. We appreciate the increase that Congress provided to ARS
salaries and expenses, as well as buildings and facilities, in Fiscal
Year[s] 2018 and 2019. We were especially pleased to see funding
provided to create a new scientist position focusing on pear genetics
and genomics, which will be housed in the ARS facility in Wenatchee.
This has been a high priority of the pear industry for more than a
decade. While there are countless ways a scientist with these
qualifications can provide benefits to the industry, the development of
a dwarfing rootstock for pears is something growers have long sought.
By making trees shorter, it reduces the need for workers to use ladders
in the orchard--enhancing safety and reducing labor needs at a time
when finding an adequate number of workers for activities ranging from
pruning to picking is becoming increasingly difficult. Growers have
invested substantial resources in pursuing this goal, and this
scientist will play a key role in achieving this objective.
Unfortunately, in spite of these funds being provided more than a
year ago, due to the glacial pace of ARS's hiring process, this
position has yet to even be advertised. This is part of a much larger
problem, as hundreds of vacant scientist and support positions--many
due to retirements--are remaining open at ARS for years. These
positions have been fully funded by Congress, and we would appreciate
any effort the Members of this Subcommittee can make to encourage ARS
to eliminate this HR bottleneck and fill these much-needed positions.
In addition to the Federal resources dedicated to agricultural
research through ARS, the SCRI has also provided great benefits to the
specialty crop industry since day one. During the first year of the
SCRI program, a grant provided to a group led by Carnegie-Mellon was
used to develop a machine vision system. That system is now a critical
component of an automated robotic harvester that has been developed by
a California company with support from the WTFRC, providing a new tool
to help growers adapt to an increasingly scarce labor supply. This next
season will be the first in which it will be in, albeit limited,
commercial operation.
Another example of an SCRI success is the RosBREED program, which
is delivering breeding tools to accelerate the commercialization of
tree fruit varieties with enhanced disease resistance and superior
consumer attributes--enhancing the resiliency of growers' operations by
reducing production costs and increasing returns.
We would like to thank Congress, and in particular the House and
Senate Agriculture Committees, for fully funding the SCRI in last
year's farm bill. While we certainly recognize the challenges that
citrus growers are facing with citrus greening, the decision to fund
efforts to combat that devastating condition separate from the overall
SCRI program frees up much sought-after resources in this over-
subscribed program for other important priorities.
Unfortunately, it was discovered several months ago that a drafting
error in the farm bill removed the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture's
authority to waive the 100 percent matching requirement for the SCRI.
This made SCRI unique in agricultural research programs without the
opportunity to waive this requirement, and changed the rules for those
seeking grants this year in the middle of the application process--and
the middle of their budget cycle. This has led to a number of valuable
projects that made it through the first round being withdrawn from
consideration due to the inability of the applicant to quickly come up
with the 100 percent match. This includes several projects important to
tree fruit growers such as myself.
We request that you work with your Senate counterparts to fix this
drafting error without further delay so that these, as well as future,
valuable projects are not lost.
There are other important programs within the research arena that
benefit our industry, including the Technical Assistance for Specialty
Crops Program that provides resources to address sanitary and
phytosanitary barriers to trade. Our industry has utilized this program
several times, most recently to develop pest lists for Myanmar to keep
this market open for apples, pears, and cherries.
The IR-4 program, which supports research to facilitate the
registration for crop protection tools for minor crops, is also
valuable. Registrants often choose not to expend the resources to
register a product for a specialty crop, where the market for that
product is much smaller than for major commodities grown on more acres.
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative and the Organic
Research and Extension Initiative are two additional competitive grant
programs that serve as a resource for addressing grower challenges.
Research means nothing without a focused effort to get the
information discovered into the hands of growers. Federal formula funds
provided to universities for research and extension activities through
the Hatch Act and Smith-Lever Act have eroded over the years. This has
created a void in this critical last mile of allowing agricultural
research to be applied on a broad scale. We encourage you to
reinvigorate Federal investments into extension activities.
Agricultural research is like a three-legged stool--it fails to
fully achieve its purpose without the investment and support of
industry, the Federal Government, and the university/extension system.
The success of this model is exemplified in Washington state, where ARS
scientists work across the parking lot from WSU scientists, who both go
to the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission and other commodity
organizations for funding of individual projects.
It is a challenging time to be a tree fruit grower. We are facing
new trade barriers in key export markets. Labor, which is our largest
input cost, is becoming exponentially more costly and difficult to find
year-after-year. Pest and disease pressures certainly aren't getting
any less challenging, while the rapid growth in specialty varieties of
apples with different sets of characteristics that respond differently
to these pressures further complicate the scene. Our growers do not ask
for direct subsidies. Investment in research is key to ensuring that we
can continue to provide top-quality, American-grown apples, pears, and
cherries to consumers both here in the U.S. and around the globe.
Once again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for giving me
the opportunity to testify before you today on the research needs of
growers like myself when it comes to resiliency and mitigating risk. I
am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much, Mr. Godwin.
And, Dr. Gmitter.
STATEMENT OF FRED G. GMITTER, Jr., Ph.D., PROFESSOR,
HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES, CITRUS RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION CENTER, INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, LAKE ALFRED, FL
Dr. Gmitter. Good morning, Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member
Dunn, and Members of the Subcommittee.
I am Fred Gmitter, a Professor in Horticultural Sciences at
the University of Florida. I am pleased to be here today to
testify on behalf of the University of Florida's Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences.
For more than 30 years my major area of study and research
has been the genetic code of citrus trees and fruit.
I have no doubt that today plant breeding is one of the
most important and powerful tools at our disposal to combat
global challenges in agriculture and food production.
Over the years I have seen a dramatic increase in our
knowledge of plant biology and genetics that enable us to
better understand what makes a plant do what it does in
response to various environmental and man-made stressors.
This information is what has enabled us to develop new,
innovative breeding tools like gene editing. It is these new
tools that also will enable us to capitalize on the tremendous
investment into the knowledge base we have already developed to
improve plants in ways that were just a dream when I first
began to work in this field.
As temperatures rise, pests and disease evolve and spread,
and natural resources become scarcer, we need to develop new
varieties that are resilient to these emerging threats.
In my State of Florida, the citrus industry has been
devastated by citrus greening disease, and production has been
dramatically decreased by 75 percent in less than 15 years. We
are running out of time.
Citrus growers need long-term sustainable solutions. There
is no question that plant breeding innovation holds the key.
Using gene editing, my team and others are working right now on
developing citrus trees that are resistant if not immune to
citrus greening disease.
Innovation is enabling us to potentially do in just years
what would previously only have been possible in decades or
longer, and with the rapid spread of citrus greening disease in
the U.S., and in the world, time is a luxury that we don't
have.
Scientists are now using gene editing technologies to
precisely duplicate many naturally-occurring mutations, but to
do so in elite plant varieties and in a relatively rapid
fashion.
For example, to develop heat-tolerant lettuce that may be
grown in the Central Valley of California, even with increasing
temperatures; to develop potatoes that don't turn brown to
decrease food waste which accounts for seven percent of the
annual global carbon footprint; to develop crop plants with
deeper roots that can sequester carbon from the atmosphere and
keep it deep in the soil after harvest; to develop rice that
can be grown with saline irrigation water or even under dry
conditions, just to name a few.
However, for these and many more real-world benefits to be
fully realized and widely adopted across breeding programs of
all sizes and sectors, developers need clear science-based
policy direction.
I am pleased that USDA in its new proposed rule on
agriculture innovation policy, recognized that applications of
gene editing can result in plant varieties that are essentially
equivalent to varieties developed through more traditional
breeding, and in those cases, it only makes sense that they
should be treated in the same way from a policy perspective.
Historically, under the Coordinated Framework for
Regulation of Biotechnology, USDA, FDA, and EPA have each
served a specific function in ensuring the health of our food
and the environment. We encourage the U.S. Government to ensure
alignment in risk-based policies around plant products of the
newer breeding methods across these three Federal agencies, and
I appreciate the Executive Order announced just yesterday which
seeks to accomplish that.
Any lack of consistency among the agencies will stifle
research investments and activity and prohibit widespread
access for public-sector scientists to these evolving tools,
and the array of critical benefits they hold for society now
and in the future.
It is also important that the U.S. continues to take a
leadership role in driving consistent plant breeding policies
at the global level. We must continue moving forward in
supporting research and plant breeding solutions to solve our
collective global challenges.
With that, I will be happy to take any questions you have,
and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gmitter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fred G. Gmitter, Jr., Ph.D., Professor,
Horticultural Sciences, Citrus Research and Education Center, Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Lake Alfred,
FL
Good morning, Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member Dunn, and Members of
the Subcommittee. I am Fred Gmitter, a Professor in Horticultural
Sciences at the University of Florida and I'm pleased to be here to
testify on behalf of the UF Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences.
For more than 30 years, my major areas of study and research have
been the genetic code of citrus trees and fruits--the genes that
determine how the fruit tastes, smells, looks, and how the tree
responds to pressures like disease and pests--and using that knowledge
to develop improved citrus trees and fruit. I have no doubt that,
today, plant breeding is one of the most important and powerful tools
at our disposal to combat global challenges in agriculture and food
production.
Also, over those years, I have seen a dramatic increase in our
knowledge of plant biology and genetics that enable us to better
understand what makes a plant do what it does in response to various
environmental and man-made stressors. This information is what has
enabled us to develop new, innovative breeding tools like gene editing;
and it is these new tools that also will enable us to capitalize on the
tremendous investment into the knowledge base we have developed, to
improve in ways that were just a dream when I first began to work in
this field, the plants that serve all humanity.
As temperatures rise, pests and diseases evolve and spread, and
natural resources become scarcer, we need to develop new varieties that
are resilient to these emerging threats. This is what plant breeders
have been doing for centuries: combining genetic knowledge with plant
breeding tools to improve seeds and plants for better crops for the
benefit of our environment, our health, and our food.
With the rapid development of environmental threats, diseases and
pests, we are up against the clock. Long-term, sustainable food
production requires continued application of innovations, like gene
editing, that allow us to develop more resilient plant varieties.
An increasingly warming climate means an increase in: disease
intensity, mutation rates, and the range of pests and diseases in areas
where they formerly didn't exist. In my State of Florida, the citrus
industry has been devastated by citrus greening disease, and production
has been dramatically decreased by 75% in less than 15 years. We are
running out of time. Citrus growers need long-term, sustainable
solutions. There is no question that plant breeding innovation holds
the key. Using gene editing, my team and others are working right now
on developing citrus trees that are resistant, if not immune, to citrus
greening, and the bacteria that causes it and the insect that spreads
it. Innovation is enabling us to potentially do in years what would
previously only have been possible in decades, or longer. And with this
rapidly moving disease, time is a luxury we don't have.
The University of Florida is engaged is a number of other research
initiatives directly related to mitigating the impacts of climate
change. AgroClimate is an innovative web-resource for decision-support
and learning, providing interactive tools and climate information to
improve crop management decisions and reduce production risks
associated with climate variability and change. Developed by the
Southeast Climate Consortium, AgroClimate is a coalition of eight
universities including: Florida State, University of Florida,
University of Miami, University of Georgia, Auburn, North Carolina
State, Clemson University and University of Alabama-Huntsville.
The Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) is
a software application program that comprises crop simulation models
for over 42 crops, as well as tools to facilitate effective use of the
models. DSSAT and its crop simulation models have been used for a wide
range of applications at different spatial and temporal scales. This
includes on-farm and precision management, regional assessments of the
impact of climate variability and climate change, gene-based modeling
and breeding selection, water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and long-
term sustainability through the soil organic carbon and nitrogen
balances. And these are just a few . . .
Outside of Florida, researchers are using cutting-edge plant
breeding methods to develop new water-efficient varieties of crops.
With 70% of the world's freshwater used for agriculture, reducing the
amount of water needed to grow food could have a significant
environmental impact. In California, lettuce struggles in the heat. But
researchers have found a wild variety of lettuce that is capable of
germinating at high temperatures in the Central Valley of California--a
useful characteristic given warming global temperatures. Using gene
editing they have shown that it is possible to develop lettuce
varieties that have the same heat tolerance as their wild relative,
with the same taste and nutritional value as the lettuce we enjoy
today.
Salinity in irrigation water is a major factor limiting the
production of rice, a globally significant food crop. Gene editing has
been used to develop rice lines that can be grown using saline water,
with no changes to any other genes and no deleterious changes on any
other aspects of plant yield and performance; this result was achieved
in 1 year, where it could have taken a dozen years or more to
accomplish this by conventional breeding. Work is underway to address
drought tolerance in rice as well. With decreasing land and water
resources available to meet the future needs of humanity, such changes
become critical for our future.
Another area where researchers are working is in food waste
reduction. In 2007, the global carbon footprint of wasted food was 3.3
billion tons--about 7% of greenhouse gas emissions, according the U.N.
Food and Agriculture Commission. Plant breeders are using gene editing
to develop new crop varieties specifically designed to cut the amount
of food wasted. By making a small change to a potato's DNA, for
instance, researchers will be able to make it less likely to bruise and
brown. The new characteristic could eliminate 1.5 billion pounds of
wasted potatoes.
Innovation is also key to the ability--and in fact, the necessity--
to grow more food on less land, using fewer inputs. For example, using
gene editing, scientists can develop higher-yielding crop varieties--
from vegetables to corn and soybeans. These new plant varieties could
produce more food, without additional inputs. The result: farmers can
grow more food on less land, and in many cases on lands once deemed
marginal for food production. Potentially this can also slow the rate
of global deforestation, and thereby put the brakes on increasing
CO2 levels by sequestering more carbon.
And speaking of carbon, researchers are even looking at solutions
to develop plants that can reduce carbon pollution. Naturally, plants
take carbon out of the atmosphere and release oxygen through
photosynthesis. A key to controlling carbon pollution could be to train
plants to suck up just a little more CO2 and keep it longer.
Scientists at the Salk Institute in San Diego are looking to do
just that, by engineering crops to have bigger, deeper roots made of a
natural waxy substance called suberin--found in cork and cantaloupe
rinds--which is incredibly effective at capturing carbon and is
resistant to decomposition.
The roots would store CO2, and when farmers harvest
their crops in the fall, those deep-buried roots and the carbon they
have sequestered would stay in the soil, potentially for hundreds of
years. Thanks to innovation, we could see real-life climate-change-
fighting plants in our future!
These are just a few of the many examples of the tremendous
investment by public and private-sector plant-scientists around the
world in research across a wide variety of crops--with groundbreaking
potential.
However, in order for these benefits to be fully realized, and
widely adopted across breeding programs of all sizes and sectors,
developers need clear, science-based policy direction. This is why we
appreciate the recognition of USDA, in its new proposed rule on
agriculture innovation policy, that applications of gene editing can
result in plant varieties that are essentially equivalent to varieties
developed through more traditional breeding methods. And in those
cases, it only makes sense that they should be treated in the same way
from a policy perspective.
Historically, under the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of
Biotechnology, USDA, FDA and EPA have each served a specific function
in ensuring the health of our food and the environment. We encourage
the U.S. Government to ensure alignment in risk-based policies around
plant products of newer breeding methods across these three Federal
agencies. Any lack of consistency among the agencies will stifle
research investments and activity, and prohibit widespread access to
for public sector scientists to these evolving tools and the array of
critical benefits they hold for society now and in the future.
It's also important that the U.S. continues to take a leadership
role in driving consistent plant breeding policies at the global level.
Late last year 13 countries, including the U.S., joined together in
signing an International Statement on Agricultural Applications of
Precision Biotechnology. This was a strong and encouraging show of
support by governments around the world in recognition of plant
breeding innovation, and the critical role that it will play in
ensuring a more sustainable and secure global food production system.
In order to maintain the United States' position as an economic
world-leader in innovation, it's critical that we continue moving
forward in supporting research in plant breeding solutions to solve our
collective global challenges. With that, I'll be happy to take any
questions you have. Thank you.
Mr. Cox. Thank you all so much for your testimony on this
very important topic.
Now, Members will be recognized for questioning in the
order of seniority for Members who were here at the start of
the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in order of
arrival.
And, with that, I will recognize myself for the first 5
minutes, and so, but just give me 1 second here.
My district, the 21st Congressional District of California,
is successfully the top agricultural district in the top
agricultural state, and like so many producers all across our
country, the farmers and ranchers in my district are currently
dealing with: first, increased trade uncertainty; second,
continuously shrinking labor pool, and giving those existing
pressures you put on top of that a changing climate and/or
natural disaster that is driven by climate change. You have
seen that certainly in California and throughout the nation
this year.
Really, the question gets down to the producers and what
effect do all those pressures, particularly the climate change,
are going to have on a producer's ability to remain profitable.
And, Mr. Godwin, I think you probably can speak directly to
that.
Mr. Godwin. Yes. There are a lot of things that we can't
control as farmers, and you appreciate those every day. Climate
is one of them. But we do things and we have learned to do
things to help ourselves.
For example, this year on our farm we are installing our
first 8 acres of nets covering a commercial crop, so we are
doing that to control the sun and the impact of sunburn on
fruit, as well as to mitigate potential hailstorms. And in
addition to that, we are adding side curtains to keep pests out
of the crops, and we are working with our local university to
actually do some beneficial insect release within the nets to
see if we can control environment within the nets without
pesticides, as an example, or any chemical for that means.
Those are the kinds of things that we are doing. The
unfortunate part is that these types of things are very
expensive and there is not enough research right now to really
validate, so it takes a kind of a good faith effort and a
jumping in and really being committed at this point, because it
is a lot of money. To cover an 8 acre field is a tremendous
investment.
Mr. Cox. Very good. And certainly on the organic portion of
it, side of it, Ms. Tencer, do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Tencer. I would just echo that the--there is--oops.
Thank you.
I would just echo that there is a risk of new practices and
sometimes we see with new practices which are able to provide
resiliency and the ability for producers to adapt, there may be
up-front costs. Sometimes those costs pay off economically for
producers in their yield or stability, but sometimes those
payoffs may not be seen for another 5 or even more years down
the line, and so there are some real challenges with being able
to make those long-term commitments to those practices.
I would say the other thing that we have seen is that if
you implement a single practice, whether that relates to your
cover crop or your rotation or some of these additional
techniques, as Mr. Godwin mentioned, you don't see the same
success rate in terms of adaptation and risk management as you
do with a portfolio of practices, and that again can be both
complex and sometimes there are up-front costs. We really
support the research, education, and extension efforts to help
producers be most efficient in choosing that suite of
practices.
Mr. Cox. Thank you. And, Dr. Gmitter, you were talking
about utilizing science to directly confront the challenges of
climate change for some of these crops, and if you could
reiterate some of the techniques and things that you are doing?
Dr. Gmitter. The biggest focus of our work these days is
citrus greening disease, and this in some ways is a consequence
of the movement of pests and diseases that they carry into
places where they didn't exist previously, and so this is a
very important thing for us.
I witnessed some hurricane damage three seasons ago on the
Indian River area, the east coast of Florida, where some groves
were under water for 7 days, and we had a root stock trial,
trying different kinds of root stocks that happened to be
planted in one of these places, and as we went back a month, 2
months, and a year afterwards we saw very clear genetic
differences. Certain root stocks survived the flooding for 7,
almost 10 days in some locations, and others did not, and so
these are the kinds of things that as a plant breeder, we look
at the totality of the needs of the industry, and although we
are primarily focused on citrus greening disease, we have to
look at all of these other factors, and this is just one
example of the kinds of things that we see and we are learning.
Mr. Cox. Well, thank you. And, Dr. Wolfe, recently this
Committee held a hearing expressing the valuable role public
research plays in ensuring the ag community is well-equipped to
address these challenges, pests and disease, and now we are
talking about protecting operations against climate change.
And I guess the question is, how do we best share the
information with farmers so they are best able to protect their
livelihoods from these risks?
Dr. Wolfe. Yes, as I mentioned in my initial comments,
there is a real need for real permanence to hubs or centers
where farmers can get that information reliably and we can
build the materials available for farmers in terms of
resources, but also developing real-time decision tools that
they might have such as phone apps on their farm and that sort
of thing, and do a lot of synergy working with farmers and with
researchers to provide that sort of thing for them.
And right now a lot of land-grant universities as well as
the USDA, et cetera, have developed some of these but there is
a lack of permanence and real long-term funding for them. A lot
of work can go into developing a great source for farmers to
get this information, great way of getting the communication
back and forth, and then, but they are dependent on soft
funding, so that is a very important area.
I want to mention one other thing. You mentioned labor and
I am thinking of horticultural crops, fruit and vegetable
crops. It is so labor intensive, as you know. A single farmer
might have hundreds of people they have to hire, and climate
change is interfering with the timing of planting and harvest
and so farmers are more challenged with the timing of when
they, those labor force appears, et cetera, and it is a big
challenge for our specialty crops.
Mr. Cox. Well, thank you so much. With that, we will
recognize the Ranking Member from Florida. Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Chairman Cox.
Dr. Gmitter, can you discuss what role biotechnology may
play in addressing citrus greening? You had begun to do that.
You have touched on that, but we had the opportunity to speak
before the meeting, and I am not sure that people realize just
how long this has been a problem for decades and decades around
the world, and you have experience looking into all that. I
wonder if you would address that for a minute or 2?
Dr. Gmitter. Yes. Citrus greening is a disease that has
been known for more than 100 years. In Florida we have been
living with it for more than 15 years.
Citrus breeding is a slow process. We are working with
plants when we make crosses that take 5 to 7 years before they
set their first crop of fruit to evaluate, so it is a very slow
process.
It is further complicated in the case of sweet orange and
grapefruit in that all of the sweet orange varieties that we
know in the world, all that arose from mutations. That is to
say, they weren't created by crossing things. They are
mutations from some ancestral form, and the market is focused
on orange juice or grapefruit, and grapefruit has the same
story. We can't very easily use conventional breeding to bring
in changes to these crops.
However, as we look at the range of genetic diversity that
exists in citrus and we find types that are more tolerant to
this disease, we can understand the genetic control in those
plants, look into the sweet orange plant genome itself and find
the same sorts of genes that we need to slightly change the
spelling of the order of the nucleotides to make a plant go
from something that is very sensitive to something that is
tolerant and perhaps even resistant to the disease.
Mr. Dunn. Outstanding. Also, I wonder if you could address
some of the other pest and disease threats that affect us. I am
interested obviously in Florida, but let us not be too
parochial if you have other areas in fruits that you are
studying. I would like to hear that.
Dr. Gmitter. Well, there are a number of citrus diseases
that we have lived with for many years. Our growers these days
would be very happy to go back to the days when those serious
diseases were the only problems they had to deal with, because
they would impact production to the five to ten percent, 20
percent range, as opposed to something that is really knocked
75 percent of our production away.
Citrus tristeza virus is an important disease. Citrus
canker was a very important disease that the Federal Government
spent millions of dollars attempting to eradicate in an effort
that failed ultimately because we had hurricanes that came and
blew the disease all over the rest of the State of Florida.
Citrus canker is a disease that can be more easily
addressed by genetic approaches. There is a number. I could
give you a seminar that would take a day long to go through all
the disease problems we have.
Mr. Dunn. Unfortunately we only have 2 more minutes, sir.
Just yesterday President Trump signed an Executive Order to
streamline the agricultural biotechnology regulations in an
effort to harmonize the FDA, the Department of Agriculture and
the EPA. Can you elaborate a little bit on how important that
is? You did mention it in your testimony and I want to drive
that point home.
Dr. Gmitter. Well, that is critical and from my own
perspective it is especially critical for specialty crops,
things such as apples, pears, and citrus, because you have a
small army of public-sector researchers, plant breeders, plant
pathologists who are working on these crops that don't get the
attention of the large companies like Monsanto/Bayer and so on.
They are not particularly interested in those crops.
And as we are looking at using some of the new breeding
technologies in these plants, the question becomes in my mind
and many other researchers, ``Well, if we are successful, are
we actually going to be able to have an impact in these
industries?'' There are smaller industries as researchers we're
smaller guys as well, and we don't have $15 to $35 million to
deregulate some particular modification that we have made.
It is very important for us that there is harmonization and
we would hope the harmonization would be on a science-based
risk-based analysis of what the technology is and what it can
accomplish and what it means to our industries.
Further, globally we have to look to the Federal Government
to work with us so that on a global basis there is a more
common understanding of the nature of what we are doing and
what it means.
Mr. Dunn. Well, I thank you very much for that, Dr.
Gmitter. I am going to say, I had a chance to review your
biography before this hearing, and I was surprised and pleased
to see that you actually had the patents on more than six
varieties of citrus trees, so I applaud your innovative and
industrious career, and we certainly look forward to you and
your colleagues saving our citrus industry.
And with that, Madam Chair, I will yield back.
The Chair [presiding.] Okay. Thank you all.
I had a couple of questions, and of course, Ms. Tencer, in
your testimony you note that research is only the first step,
and you went on to say that farmers need continued education,
training, and technical assistance.
What methods are most effective in sharing scientific
advancements with farmers and ranchers, and what messages
resonate the best with producers related to resiliency and risk
mitigation?
Ms. Tencer. Thank you for the question.
In our most recent survey of certified organic producers
around the country, they stated that they are going to other
farmers, then their certifiers, and then their public
universities third in terms of resources that they go to, but
organic producers around the country would like to increasingly
rely on the same sources of information, extension agents, NRCS
personnel, even the risk management field staff to better
support and disseminate those research needs.
We are really pleased to see progress in all of those
areas, the new farm bill language supporting training of risk
management agents in organic practices, NRCS is taking new
initiatives to better train their staff in organic practices,
but there is still work to do, in particular with extension
service.
We think there is a lot of progress yet to be made both in
terms of overall investment and in making sure that we have
expertise in every, every part of the country in organic
systems because it is inconsistent, and farmers get frustrated
when they go to their extension agent and they can't help them
with their organic suite of practices.
The Chair. Well, moving to an extension agent, Dr. Godfrey.
I am putting you on the spot here.
What lessons have you learned with the drought, hurricanes,
and now drought again? What lessons do you think have been
learned that can be applied broadly to how U.S. agriculture
industry will respond to the changing climate?
Dr. Godfrey. Adaptation to the changing climate is
something that especially in the Virgin Islands our farmers are
going to have to deal with probably on a little more frequency
than other locations throughout the country, and some of the
aspects of adapting to that can apply across the board, having
resources in place for dealing with the aftereffects.
That has been a big problem for us, primarily because of
our location. We can't stockpile materials. We don't have a lot
of local resources, as I mentioned in my testimony. Our food is
imported, our support supplies and support materials are all
imported and it is difficult to have those things in place to
help with immediate recovery.
And some of that deals with access to finances to get these
materials and supplies by farmers, whether it is through
Federal or local government-funded programs. There are issues
with getting into those programs, getting those funds in place
in a timely manner, and dealing with the aftermath. The
devastation we received from the local hurricanes, those two
back-to-back hurricanes, really impacted our local
infrastructure in finding support for everything involved,
agriculture, the community in general, our education system,
hospitals, and everything.
There are a lot of things that we just don't have the
capital and the capacity to have these things in place that we
need after the fact.
The Chair. Well, I know that some of that is geographic,
but how much would you say, and what are the specific ones that
are related more to just being small-scaled farming? Because
you talked about farmers farming in less than 5 acres as
opposed to other places where potentially organics may be
pretty much smaller in scale than some of their partner or
larger scale, more conventional farming. What are the
particular issues that those small-scale farmers face
throughout the country that are not resonating or are not the
same with larger-scale farming?
Dr. Godfrey. Right. Yes. Small-scale farmers have the issue
of any kind of disaster, whether it is drought, floods,
hurricanes, freezing, whatever can impact their whole crop.
The Chair. Yes.
Dr. Godfrey. Whereas a large-scale, they can absorb that.
They have buffers because of their size. They can lose a
portion of their crop and still survive and make it work out,
where small-scale farmers, and especially they do a lot of
monoculture, they are growing one crop and disease or an
environmental event can come through and wipe that out and then
there is no rebound, nothing left for them to fall back on.
They have to start over whereas larger-scale farming, they do
have that resiliency built in just because of their physical
size. Any event is not going to impact their total crop. It may
be portions of it, so they will have something to harvest and
sell, whereas small-scale farming they just, by definition they
just don't have a lot of resiliency built in because of their
limited space and number of crops they are growing.
The Chair. Mr. Godwin, can you say, what are some of the
practices that you may have in place to increase resiliency and
mitigate risk as an actual grower yourself, and where would you
think there should be additional support for that?
Mr. Godwin. Well, it is a very good question. I know our
strategy on the farm when I came back from the city to become a
farmer again, we started with a 20 acre orchard, and we have
developed and added other orchards and I like to say we put the
farm back together, because we live in a narrow valley and it
was owned by lots of different people and we, as neighbors
retired and left, we have been able to add stuff back together
to reach critical mass.
There is advantage to growing multiple crops and that is
why we grow apples, pears, and cherries. It is not an accident.
It is to mitigate the risk because all crops cycle differently
and that gives you some benefit.
It also is important because it lets you start to spread
some of your cost, whether it is equipment or computer systems
and networks and monitoring that is available now with
technology. It helps you to afford access to some of that
technology, because as you grow you have a broader base to
spread that cost on.
But at the end of the day what I see is that getting larger
means it takes more investment, it takes more time, and it is a
lot more work. And so, yes, you get some risk but there are
always problems, so you think, ``Well, I am going to mitigate
risk by having three crops. That means I should do really well
on the good years.'' In 19 years now of farming there is always
something somewhere that takes a hit.
The Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much.
At this time I would ask my colleague, Mr. Baird of Indiana
for your questions.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and we really appreciate
you and Ranking Member Dunn for holding today's hearing. And I
want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today.
As a Member of this Subcommittee and as well as the House
Space, Science, and Technology Committee, I care deeply about
the leadership that we have, U.S. leadership, in research and
technology, and I am grateful we are discussing what our
farmers need to address the challenges we have heard about here
today.
It is estimated that by 2050 we will have a need to feed an
additional two billion people, and we can agree that we want to
do that and meet that challenge in a way that is good for our
environment and is sustainable by our farmers.
My question comes down to the issue that I believe the
United States must be a leader in agricultural technology
including biotechnology, both to keep our environment healthy
as well as to feed our families, but also for our economic and
national security.
My question is, are we at risk of falling behind other
countries in terms of agricultural research and technology
related to resiliency, and if you feel that is true, are there
any areas that we should be focusing our energy and research
on?
Dr. Gmitter, we will start with you. I have only got 5
minutes, so we will see how far you go with that.
Dr. Gmitter. I will try not to go too far.
Mr. Baird. Okay.
Dr. Gmitter. There is no doubt in my mind, and I, again, I
speak from personal experience. I have had a long-term
relationship with one of the most important research
universities in the area of citrus in China for nearly 30
years, and 25 years ago, 20 years ago, it was very common for
my colleagues to send graduate students and post-docs to my lab
to work together with us so we could accomplish things
together, but more importantly for them to learn the technology
that we have.
I was invited to the 120th anniversary of this university
just last year, and to see the effort and the number of people
and the resources that are devoted to citrus breeding and
genetics in that university, which went from very primitive to
where it is today, is astounding. We look at it and we say,
``How can we possibly compete with this, not only in putting
out academic papers but in getting real world results.''
I have definitely seen in my lifetime, in the short period
that I have worked, a real change in what the level of support
is in other countries, and that is my crop, that is my
business, my world, and it is probably the same I would bet in
many other commodity research areas.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Do any of the other witnesses care to
say or make a comment?
Dr. Godfrey. Yes. I would like to mention that the land-
grant university system in the United States is the envy of the
world for agriculture research and community outreach, and it
is a model that other countries look at with envy and try and
develop in their own countries. We have been the benefactors of
that since 1862 when it was first started at the land-grant
universities.
And there are non-land-grant universities in the country as
well conducting a lot of good agriculture research, but the
partnership between the Federal Government and the local
governments in the land-grant system to enhance research,
community outreach, training the next generation of scientists
to bring efforts forward to solve our problems and address
issues such as sustainability and climate change, are some of
the best we can see around the world, and people come to us for
information, faculty, students, and modeling the program after
the land-grant system.
Really, a lot of us in this room have benefitted from that
over the years. I know I have personally. I have come up
through my graduate and professional careers in a land-grant
system and it has been a great benefit.
Mr. Baird. Anyone else?
Mr. Godwin. From a farm perspective the two things that I
worry about is the soil, rhizosphere ecology and improving that
understanding of what is happening under the ground, and then
the genetics and genomics and plant breeding. I think those are
clearly two areas that we need more activities.
Dr. Wolfe. Well, I would just add I just recently had a
whole contingent of researchers from the Chinese Academy of Ag
Science come into Cornell to hear about what we are doing on
climate change adaptation and mitigation here and also soil
ecology and soil biology.
On the other hand, I have also been there with exchanges
and they have, as was mentioned earlier, amazing advances from
20, 30 years ago, very sophisticated field research equipment
and technology and all of that.
I think our outreach system is still excellent here and we
have a lot going for us.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. I am out of time, but I did
appreciate, Dr. Godfrey, you mentioning the land-grant
universities, because Purdue University is in my district, so
thank you.
The Chair. Thank you. At this time I will call on my
colleague, Mr. Brindisi of upstate New York.
Mr. Brindisi. Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling on me.
Thank you to all of our witnesses who are here today,
especially Dr. Wolfe. Thank you for being here representing
Cornell University, a very important institution to upstate New
York and to farmers across my Congressional district.
This question really is for all of our witnesses, whoever
wants to take a crack at it, but reports indicate that as USDA
considers moving research out of the Washington, D.C. area,
Economic Research Service employees working on politically
sensitive topics are being asked to relocate in high numbers,
meaning there is a good chance they might leave the agency and
decide to take their talents elsewhere. I am concerned that
important topics like impacts of climate change won't be fully
understood and recognized if we don't have skilled staff within
these agencies doing this work.
Are you concerned that research on topics like climate
change will be negatively impacted by this proposal?
Dr. Wolfe. I might take a first crack at that, and I mean,
it has been a fantastic partnership for all of my career
working with various USDA agencies, and they have also funded
much of the work in soil health and also climate change from
the SCRI Program to NIFA and Hatch Act funding, et cetera.
And my partners there, we just work hand in hand and it is
so important to us, and I really appreciate talking to them
because they also understand what is coming from the Department
of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, because
they are right here in Washington, and it is really useful to
know what is happening in terms of policies and actually
keeping us informed about that. If they were disengaged from
the Washington, D.C. area, that avenue of information, for
myself. I would miss that help in understanding better the
initiatives that might be coming down through the USDA in the
Department.
Also, the Washington, D.C. area is kind of a neutral ground
in terms of commodities, and if people were to dissipate we
might focus much more on the Midwest. I like the idea of
keeping the USDA that has really got a very broad view of
important commodities, and its being in D.C. helps that.
Mr. Brindisi. Any of the other witnesses? Yes.
Ms. Tencer. I would just like to share that one of the
challenges we have seen, particularly in the organic sector, is
the need for research findings and trends about best practices
to be well distilled and communicated to other Federal
agencies, particularly looking at how the USDA's NRCS and Risk
Management Agency understand the best practices in organic
systems. And those have been challenging areas and there has
been a lot of progress but there is still more to do.
Speaking from personal experience, I can say I have been
invited over the years to go present and help facilitate
information sharing across USDA agencies where we invite staff
from various arms of the USDA to come sit together and talk and
share what is happening on organic within their arms, and while
USDA has always done a good job of inviting folks who were not
based in D.C. to call in and listen, it was much more
challenging for those USDA staff to hear, to engage in those
conversations, while those who were in the room from RMA, NRCS,
NIFA arms, et cetera, were able to more easily share
information. We are a little bit nervous that that ability
would be lost.
Dr. Godfrey. I would like to add the convenience of having
the NIFA offices here in Washington, D.C. makes interacting
with them much more affordable from an economic standpoint and
accessibility to the people.
In fact, I have an appointment this afternoon with some
folks at NIFA to discuss some of the issues for the Virgin
Islands. Having them in this central location where we can
combine efforts during a visit such as this Subcommittee
hearing, meeting with NIFA, meeting with other colleagues and
partners that we have, makes it much more practical and that
partnership can be strengthened if we can meet in one location
instead of having it distributed through different locations,
with some of the NIFA people remaining here and some at a new
proposed location. Just makes sense to have them all in one
spot for us and interacting with other government agencies as
well.
And from the Virgin Islands, it is relatively easy to get
here from the Virgin Islands, but colleagues across the
country, there are time and travel efforts that are involved in
getting here, so you want to get the most bang for your buck.
Mr. Brindisi. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back my time.
The Chair. Thank you. Doctor, it is not easy to get here
from the Virgin Islands. I am trying to convince everyone of
all the hardship I have to go through traveling back and forth
through the Miami airport, no less.
Dr. Godfrey. Sorry I blew your cover.
Mr. Dunn. But what a place to live.
The Chair. Yes. Yes. Getting there makes it worthwhile.
At this time I will call on my colleague, Mr. Thompson, for
your questioning.
Mr. Thompson. Madam Chair, thank you very much. Ranking
Member Dunn, thank you for having this hearing, and thank you
for each of the panel that are here. I greatly appreciate it.
We know that it has quite frankly always been challenging
times for those who grow our food, and for many different
reasons but especially with climate. It is the history of it.
It is the nature of agriculture, in fact, the form of our
current Federal agriculture policy in the farm bill was a
direct result of the climate disruption that we know as the
Dust Bowl.
We know that the Irish Potato Famines where normally those
potatoes do really well in kind of a cooler, maybe a little bit
moist environment and when it gets to extremes which it did
several times in history resulting in a million deaths when the
temperature and the moisture got to an extreme level with the
mold, water mold, that resulted in those famines.
In Statuary Hall, Iowa honors Dr. Norman Borlaug who was
credited with saving a billion lives. At most it was, figure
out the math, it is probably closer to two billion lives today
by using science to adapt to the impact of changing climates.
Agriculture is science- and technology-based on necessity
and it always has been, and yet we need more funding for USDA
research. This Committee has done a good job, at least the past
two farm bills I have been involved with, at supporting USDA,
but we need the rest of Congress outside this Committee to
recognize the importance of making that investment.
Where I look and compare what we fund, the National
Institute of Health, and there is no criticism there, but quite
frankly what they get this much and USDA gets this much and
there is nothing more fundamental to health than good
nutrition. It is what we take in, what we consume, and so I,
part of what I would like to see is a better bridging, more
collaboration with the folks at NIH that have been blessed with
increased funding every year with the folks with USDA.
Dr. Wolfe, can you speak more on the importance of the role
of cover crops in promoting healthy soils? I was proud to lead
the first Congressional hearing we ever did on healthy soils a
couple years back. And also, how do healthy soils facilitate
the retention of moisture within the soil, which is really
important obviously for folks impacted by drier climates?
Dr. Wolfe. Yes. Thank you for the question.
Yes, cover crops are one of the core methods of really
rebuilding our soils, many of which have over time had organic
matter depletion. And almost every farmer I talk to today is
very interested in rebuilding that organic matter, rebuilding
the health of their soils so that they are not passing on to
the next generation soils that are not as good as they
inherited from their parents.
Cover crops are out there. In addition to your cash crop
you have fall/winter cover crops, you have more vegetation out
there sucking up CO2 from the atmosphere, which is
the greenhouse gas, and putting it into the soil as organic
matter and it is just one of the key building strategies.
Although, building the organic matter can take some time,
but even in the first year of use of cover crops, if it is a
year that we have heavy rainfall events, farmers see immediate
benefits in terms of reduction of soil erosion which is a huge
devastating consequence for farmers from heavy rain. It is one
of the main strategies, also directly adding organic matter
like manures and then also reducing tillage which can also lead
to loss of organic matter.
So all of those are key strategies, and what is fascinating
about this soil health thing right now is all farmers are
talking about organic as well as conventional. There is really
a bit of a revolution going on even. I see this worldwide. I do
some work in East Africa, there, too, rebuilding soils, and it
has this advantage for coping with climate change as well as
providing better nutrition for crops, reducing other inputs,
and also, by the way, storing carbon in soil playing a role in
mitigation. It is a very important strategy.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Pennsylvania and I assume New York
based on some of your research you have been involved in, the
anatomy of a wet year.
Dr. Wolfe. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. We are not really getting so much warmer as
wetter.
Dr. Wolfe. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. There has been lots of rainfall. Any specific
mitigation actions that you would recommend for farmers in our
area, given sort of the pattern that we are in for the time
being?
Dr. Wolfe. Yes. Well, relevant to your previous question,
too, I mean, building healthy soils also affects the structure
of the soil such that it drains better as well as holding water
better, it buffers from both drought and flooding, so that is
one strategy that it kind of builds some resilience. But still
if you have very heavy rainfall events there are different
strategies for drainage and all of that, also thinking about
different timing of operations so that we don't have impacts on
water quality. There is a whole range of strategies for dealing
with that.
And when I talk to farmers about wet years versus dry
years, they say a dry year comes and goes, I might lose
something that year, but a really wet year, if I lose a lot of
my soil, that is going to take a generation to replace. They
are really concerned about that, and we have seen more of that
than, 30 years ago we thought mostly about drought when we
thought about climate change, and we are actually seeing that
too much water is as big or bigger problem than too little at
this point in time.
Mr. Thompson. I am sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. At this time, the gentlewoman from
Maine, Ms. Pingree, for your 5 minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to
you and the Ranking Member for having this hearing, and
certainly to the panelists for being here. I really appreciated
all of your remarks and testimony.
I have so many questions, but I am going to just keep it to
a few.
Ms. Brise, thank you so much for the work you do. I know
you know that I am very supportive of organic farming and
organic research and it is really a vital role that you play. I
am also a certified organic farmer, so I am well aware of these
challenges, but one thing I just wanted to mention is that
sometimes we think about organics as sort of this mysterious
thing that happens with different kind of inputs and outputs,
but basically the fundamentals are around soil health. This is
an important moment in time, because as we have been talking
about, there is so much focus now on soil health, and we have a
lot to learn and a lot of sharing that should and could go on.
And, Mr. Godwin, I wanted to mention to you that I also sit
on Agriculture Appropriations, and we have been working very
hard on that specialty crop grant match that you talked about,
so we are hoping that we can get some language in the bill. It
doesn't help anybody if we get these bills passed by the end of
September, but it is really important that you brought that up
and for people to know it. It is also important for the entire
Committee to understand the issue you raised here on ARS. There
is no hiring freeze at the Department of Agriculture, but not a
lot of positions are being filled right now, and this Committee
should be particularly concerned, as we should all, about the
importance of those people to do the work, and you made that
really clear.
Dr. Wolfe, you have a wonderful career here in researching
soil health, and many of the things that we are so focused on
and that farmers are anxious to participate in more, and I know
you were a little bit involved in some of the work that was
going on in the New York Soil Health Program.
Dr. Wolfe. Yes.
Ms. Pingree. We have a lot to learn from individual states.
I am particularly interested in how farmers can participate in
carbon markets. I see it as, of course, an important tool. It
is good for the farmers and then it is also good if there is a
potential for another source of income. And some of that was
talked about in New York. I don't think it has moved forward,
but in terms of looking to the states right now for what is
going on, can you tell us just quickly about that, and I am
particularly interested in how we are going to measure, what
kind of metrics we are going to use so that we can understand
how much carbon is being sequestered in the soil so that
farmers can be paid fairly for what they are doing?
Dr. Wolfe. Yes, that is a complicated area and something,
in New York, we have had a long history actually of farmers,
pioneer farmers, working in that area of soil health on their
own and then also working with Cornell and other agencies to do
the appropriate research to back them up and move forward, and
then also getting a lot of good input from our organic farmers
who have been at that for a long time.
Yes, and with the interest and the recognition now that
soil health is not just something that farmers are motivated
about from the standpoint of building resilience and reducing
inputs, but also can be part of the solution in terms of
slowing the pace of climate change. A lot of work is turning
that way and looking at that.
I actually have a project right now where we are trying to
get some baseline data on soil carbon in our soils and that
sort of thing.
We have one district of New York, an Assemblyperson in New
York State who received funding for a pilot project, trying to
look at ways we might compensate or incentivize farmers to
adopt soil health in part for the benefits of this ecosystem
service of storing carbon. It is tricky.
I actually head a USDA NIFA-funded project, and part of
that was to look at low-cost approaches to monitoring.
Ms. Pingree. Yes.
Dr. Wolfe. I have a graduate student who is still finishing
up even though the funding has run out from that, worked on
infrared spectroscopy, for example, even have on-the-go
tractor-mounted spectrometers that can give you meter by meter
estimates of the carbon in the soil. But even with those lower
cost approaches, I do think monitoring farm by farm changes in
carbon, it is the air bars around those measurements and the
time it takes for that to happen, my personal opinion on
approaches to this are focusing more on the practices that we
know will build carbon in soils. Getting some baseline data on
carbon in a region or a farm, then having a plan at different
farms or for a region, how we are going to increase the acreage
of farmers adopting practices, cover cropping, reducing
tillage, using more organic amendments to get there, and
tracking that acreage, and periodically perhaps every 3 to 5
years, maybe actually going in and seeing what progress this
has made in terms of carbon.
There are also ways of discounting the incentives you might
provide in case farmers, for example, for whatever reason they
decided to till the heck out of their soil and all of a sudden
the carbon is lost, you can discount the initial benefits. But,
creating more incentives and educational information to get
farmers moving in the right direction with practices.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I am out of time, but thank you
very much for that. And you certainly have hit on the key
question as to whether we are going to measure outputs or
practices, and the sooner we can figure that out, the sooner
the farmers can start benefitting from the markets that are
going to continue to grow, thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Yoho.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate you holding
this hearing. I appreciate you all being here.
And as the debate on climate change goes on and up here in
Congress how we can't solve like border security and things
like that, I am going through the Old Testament right now and I
notice there was drought, disease, famine, and pestilence, and
what I have noticed is human nature has adapted and that is
what you guys do in biotech, especially in the agricultural
sector, is we adapt. We make better strains like Dr. Borlaug
did that were drought resistant that could be more heat-
tolerant.
As we move forward in the science of all this, do you
believe that the use of biotechnology in agriculture, it is a
pretty rhetorical question, will increase or decrease over the
next 10 years? It will increase, right? I mean, we are going
to----
Dr. Wolfe. Let us hope, yes. We need it more than ever.
Mr. Yoho. I am going to have to talk to my question writer.
Moving on. As we use biotech, especially with Florida citrus,
and Dr. Gmitter, you are doing fabulous work on that, we know
some of the technologies to solve that problem and it is so
critical for an iconic crop for Florida, because Florida
without oranges is like Wal without Mart. They kind of go hand
in hand or Bud without Weiser. It is imperative that we get a
cure for this, and one of the things will probably be a GMO or
CRISPR gene technology. Is that true?
Dr. Gmitter. It is very likely that that is going to be one
of the things that is going to contribute to the solution and a
major contributor to that solution.
It is interesting to hear the discussion about soil health
and cover crops, and one thing that we see in Florida, which is
basically a beach.
Mr. Yoho. Sandy----
Dr. Gmitter. Very, very sandy soils with minimal organic
matter. One of the things that is happening in the meantime
while we are waiting for long-term solutions is our citrus
growers have paid an enormous amount of new attention toward
soil health.
I know so many citrus farmers who are putting out compost,
who are growing cover crops, and so all of this is, it is a
complicated disease. It is going to take a complicated set of
steps to put this all together, but clearly a genome edited
solution is going to be a big part of that problem.
Mr. Yoho. And I appreciate you bringing that up, because
what we have seen in the past and you are probably real aware
of, the GMO for the papaya ring virus, spot ring virus, that
the University of Florida worked on. They found a GMO that was
tolerant of that virus, yet it took 12, 15 years to take that
research to market.
The regulatory environment, how much does that impede
incentivation for development and research but then to move a
product from finding a cure to market? What needs to change in
your realm with the work that you guys have done?
Dr. Gmitter. We really need to look at this on a scientific
basis on what is the science. There is an awful lot of
negativity about GMOs and I can understand some of that. What
we are talking about with the newer breeding technologies;
however, gene editing, we can accomplish things that would
occur naturally spontaneously in nature, and it can be done in
such a way because we have learned some new tricks in such a
way that there is no footprint, no thumbprint, no fingerprint
left behind. It is just a change in the DNA, the natural DNA of
the plant.
Mr. Yoho. Natural selection, right?
Dr. Gmitter. Nothing that is brought in from an outside
organism. There is no jellyfish. There is no bee. It is citrus.
It is citrus DNA, and so this holds huge promise for us.
Mr. Yoho. Well, I hope you guys are involved in that
process when it comes to the GMOs and the Internet, because we
know the hundred Nobel laureate scientists said there were no
negative consequences of the GMO. We need your voice out there
educating the public of what a GMO or CRISPR gene technology is
or isn't.
I want to move on to something that, and I sit on the
Foreign Affairs Committee, too. What safeguards do we have in
place to land-grants or all of our universities to protect
intellectual property? And I bring this up because we had one
of our professors at the University of Florida that was going
on a sabbatical to China. I said, ``What are you working on?''
He goes, ``Well, I am taking the research I have been working
on over there.'' And I am like, ``No, you are not, that is our
intellectual property.'' And if you guys, I have 15 seconds if
somebody wants to chime in on that.
Dr. Gmitter. I can hit that very quickly. Every variety
that is released from the University of Florida plant breeding
programs is protected by plant patents and it is protected
abroad by plant breeder's rights, and as we find partners
internationally to license things, we work with them. It is
important to have an international partner involved with this
because if we don't have a partner in a foreign country, you
know what, citrus trees fly anyway.
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Dr. Gmitter. And the technology goes away, so it is
important that we have a recognition of the importance, the
significance of having a partner.
Mr. Yoho. I appreciate you all being here.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you. Dr. Gmitter, I have a question for
you. In your testimony you talked a little bit also about
saline in water and irrigation and the usage of that in terms
of rice. In the Virgin Islands we have huge issues with
irrigation and desalinization plants. How is this science
working in that and do you see real support, not just in rice
crops and others, but that could be utilized in other areas as
well?
Dr. Gmitter. Yes, it is interesting talking about foreign
affairs. The paper that was published on this technology came
from China.
The Chair. Yes.
Dr. Gmitter. And they found----
The Chair. We took their intellectual property?
Dr. Gmitter. I am sorry?
The Chair. We took their intellectual property?
Dr. Gmitter. I wouldn't say we have done that, no. The
information is out there.
The Chair. Right.
Dr. Gmitter. The information is out there and maybe.
The Chair. Don't answer.
Dr. Gmitter. They found a single gene that modulates the
plant's response to salinity.
The Chair. Yes.
Dr. Gmitter. And by knocking down the expression of this
gene, they can water the plants with salty water and the plants
grow normally. They found there were no other changes to any of
the other genetics of the plant, and so this is the kind of
thing that the scientific community as a whole were just
beginning to scratch the surface.
We have a lot of information and understanding of some of
the fundamental biology and underlying genetics, and if we can
just simply change a gene in a very minor fashion, we can
dramatically change the behavior of the plant. This thing about
salinity in rice, those genes are actually in common in almost
all plants. Very similar systems have evolved over the millions
of years that plants have evolved. There are huge opportunities
for that.
They are working also on genes that are involved with
tolerance of drought stress. There are people now who think
that we can grow rice in the same kinds of places where we grow
wheat without flooding, and these are large globally-important
food crops and this is the future that is ahead of us if we can
find the appropriate way to get there.
The Chair. I see. Thank you so much. That is very
informative. I am waiting for it to become changing the genetic
disposition for the behavior of my five sons, my four sons, so
that they would have a tolerance to homework.
Dr. Gmitter. Let the record show I raised my hands.
The Chair. Mr. Panetta of California, you are next for your
5 minutes.
Mr. Panetta. Once again, thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking
Member Dunn, and to all the witnesses, thank you for your time
for being here today as well as your preparation in order to be
here and all the work that you have done to become experts in
this area. Thank you very much.
Obviously, everybody in this room would agree that
agriculture and people in agriculture are uniquely positioned
to contribute to the mitigation efforts when it comes to
climate change, and I think that is why it is very, very
important. I think all of us could agree why farmers, organic,
conventional, need to be at the table when we talk about
reducing our national greenhouse gas output and our footprint.
And so, Ms. Tencer, in your experience, obviously being
from the Central Coast of California and understanding the
balance and the work that our people in agriculture, be it
organic or conventional, have taken I would say on the
forefront in this area, what is your experience in working with
either the organic or the conventional community when it comes
down to the steps that those type, those producers, are taking
to be proactive when it comes to climate change and dealing
with the effects of climate change?
Ms. Tencer. Thank you. It is exciting to see that farmers
of all types are innovators and experimenting on their farms
day in and day out with diversity of practices, and what we are
seeing again and again is that farmers who are implementing a
variety of practices are having the most impact on both
increasing their ability to adapt, as well as to mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions.
We are seeing that reduced tillage coupled with the full
suite of organic soil health practices, including crop
diversification, cover cropping, organic amendments, and sound
nutrient management, can really enhance carbon sequestration
and build climate resiliency.
We are also seeing incredible innovations between farmers
and researchers on how to adapt. I know we recently supported a
project at the University of California-Davis, a researcher
there, Emily Gowden, who was interested in how to help farmers
deal with drought situations and worked with an organic tomato
grower. And by changing their soil health practices, increasing
their compost rates, and doing a few other soil health-related
practices, they were able to reduce irrigational requirements
by 6" to 12" per year without impacting yield. That is a really
exciting innovation and on an organic farm with the supportive
research to directly support growers' ability to adapt to
climate change.
Mr. Panetta. Definitely.
Mr. Godwin, have you worked with producers that have taken
steps to deal with efforts, mitigation efforts, when it comes
to the effects of climate change? And if so, what types of
things are they doing?
Mr. Godwin. Sure. Yes. Yes, I have, and we do some on our
farm as well as other neighbors and friends.
One of the big things that we are doing for soil building
is, I mean, farmers are simple, ingenious people. We do a lot
of mow and blow, so we cut out holes on the side of our mower
and we blow the clippings under the tree, as an example.
Where we farm organically, we have gotten away from
herbicides and chemicals, so we are trying to grow the cover
crops to the tree and finding cover crops that are low growing
so they don't interfere with irrigation and tree growth, as an
example.
And then there are some places where we incorporate biochar
and other things to try to, again, change the soil biology to
get favorable conditions.
Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. And let me ask both of you, what
here on this Subcommittee, and in that building across the way
and within our Federal Government, what can we do to help
support those types of efforts and to expand on it? What can
happen here?
Mr. Godwin. I think that the biggest area is making sure we
have the smart people helping get the right research. There are
snake oil guys that come by every day with new stuff with very
little documentation and data, and so the right researchers and
the right efforts happening, that is where the extension comes
in and it is so important, because then it helps me make better
choices because there is a lot of people selling a lot of
stuff.
Mr. Panetta. Well, fair enough.
Ms. Tencer?
Ms. Tencer. I want to thank the Committee because we did
see some real gains in the most recently passed farm bill to
further the field of research both in organics specifically,
but in climate resiliency and adaptation more generally.
And we are really excited about that and there is still
more to do. I would say that one thing is not looking at
certain programs to address the full suite of challenges we
face in both climate resiliency, adaptation, and mitigation.
One program alone can't fix this all, but it really has to be
integrated across various USDA programs.
And last but not least, we have more work to do as a
community, and with your help in ensuring that research results
aren't sitting on the shelves of academia but are translated
and usable for producers across the country.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you. And I thank the other witnesses for
their leadership in this area.
And I yield back my time. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. Ms. Schrier of Washington State, your
questions?
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have had a lot of my questions already answered, so this
is going to be a smattering of little detailed ones. This is
what happens when you stay through everything.
Okay. The first is that I see this commitment from all of
you because you are science-based and farmers, our smaller
farmers, but you are committed to all of this. And yet, just
yesterday I had a conversation with our Chairman, Collin
Peterson, about this topic, and I got the impression that
overall there was a ton of skepticism and feet dragging, so I
just wanted to get your perspective.
If you look at farming across the country, what is the buy-
in, what is the interest, where is the passion about soil
health and doing these things? Is it only organic farmers? Is
it only small farmers? Can you give me that sense? And I don't
even know where to start. Whoever wants to answer.
Dr. Wolfe. I might start. I mean, I have been at this for
30 years and I do think it is changing as farmers are beginning
to see changes on their own farms. Thirty years ago we had the
climate models to talk about looming threats, but now they see
so many changes so they are much more open to that.
In fact, there was a big, one of the biggest farmer surveys
I am aware of, was done by a colleague, Arbuckle, at University
of Iowa, I believe, Iowa State, and over 4,000 corn and soybean
growers, and something like 67 percent said they felt climate
change was happening. Not all of those were convinced that
humans were the primary cause, but they are all convinced
something is changing on their farm and they are interested in
adaptation.
And actually another 20, 30 percent are kind of on the
fence about it. Only a few percent said, ``We just don't
believe in it.'' I think the attitudes are changing as they are
seeing impacts on their farm, that is one thing.
I think that also I don't know any farmers who aren't
interested in renewable energy and what that might mean for the
bottom line for them, and that is kind of relevant to all of
this. You can go Iowa, and you see all the farms have their
wind turbines up. This has to do with state and Federal
policies that have helped facilitate this just like at the
individual homeowner level. There has to be a way for them to
break into that, that sort of renewable energy area.
So another area that has been kind of positive is a major
mitigation strategy for farmers is reducing nitrogen
fertilizers used, because it is not just about nitrate in
waters, but also nitrous oxide emissions, which all of you
would know, which is a very potent greenhouse gas. And, for
example, at Cornell and other places as well, a colleague of
mine has developed a phone app called Adapt In which allows
farmers to reduce their nitrogen application levels without
risk to yields. It is kind of been demonstrated over and over
on farms.
Ms. Schrier. And one of the best ways, my understanding is
one of the best ways to do that is to do no-till or low-till
farming so you don't have erosion in the first place. You don't
have to keep applying nitrogen. You can have more soil.
Dr. Wolfe. Yes.
Ms. Schrier. My question is, I think most farmers, probably
a hundred percent of farmers should understand the climate is
changing. Farmers really could save our planet. With soil
health and with cover crops and crop rotation, farmers can
decrease our greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon and
take 20 percent out of our atmosphere.
Dr. Wolfe. Yes.
Ms. Schrier. That is what I want to know. Where is the
interest? Is the interest there and what can we do? I don't
think they want to hear from ``Suburban Schrier'' here about
this; but, farmers learning from farmers like we heard from Ms.
Tencer, having the researchers available, and the outreach
programs, how do we make that connection happen?
Dr. Wolfe. There are still constraints to adaptation and
adoption of practices, like most farmers are really quite
convinced that they have seen enough pioneer farmers using soil
health practices that are seeing benefits, for example, in a
dry year, surviving quite well, whereas they are not. But, they
have to purchase no-till farm equipment, new types of actual
capital investments. There is more management complexity in
using cover crops, so it is those kind of real challenges, and
this is where it is just a matter of time and also farmer-to-
farmer training. Those have been successful.
Ms. Schrier. Sounds like this is a place where we could
help, with helping with financing that.
Dr. Wolfe. Yes.
Ms. Schrier. I have a couple questions. I am running out of
time.
I had a question for you, Dr. Gmitter, about whether there
are perennial wheats, perennial crops. You had talked about not
having to till and some genetic engineering. I was wondering if
there is anything on the horizon there?
Dr. Gmitter. I am sorry. Can you repeat?
Ms. Schrier. Perennial crops so that you wouldn't have to
plant every year?
Dr. Gmitter. Yes.
Ms. Schrier. Anything on the horizon with genetic
engineering?
Dr. Gmitter. Well, citrus is a perennial crop, so----
Ms. Schrier. You were talking in a grander scale, like you
were talking about genetic engineering for rice to grow with
saline, so this would be about whether those prospects----
Dr. Gmitter. Converting annual crops into perennial plants?
Ms. Schrier. Yes.
Dr. Gmitter. I am not personally aware of a whole lot of
work going on in that area.
Ms. Schrier. Okay. And then last comment. I only have 10
seconds.
If you can get it in. There was some discussion of GMOs,
and I just, in my mind there is a difference between GMOs where
you are doing what you are talking about, taking some naturally
occurring features and then reproducing them versus GMOs where
you modify an organism to be resistant to a pesticide, for
example, and then can cover a crop with a pesticide. I wondered
if you could comment about the difference there? It seems like
a very over-arching term.
Dr. Gmitter. Yes, it is a very simple distinction actually.
In general, the GMOs that we look at are cases where genetic
material is taken from other plants or other organisms and
moved into the plants that we grow.
What we are talking about with gene editing is much
different. It is simply doing something, and we have the
technology to do it now, doing something with the plant's own
natural DNA, which given an infinite period of time would
happen naturally, but because of the way things are changing,
we don't have infinity to wait.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. Thanks for your work. Thank you,
all of you.
Dr. Gmitter. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
From the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Van Drew.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you all for
being here today and taking the time out of your busy schedules
to discuss the impacts of climate change on our farmers and
what they can do to mitigate these risks.
Working with our extensions in land-grant universities, it
is vital to the success of our producers across the country,
and I know I am very proud, I am from New Jersey, of Rutgers
University, what was Cook College and was the College of
Agriculture Environmental Science, and now is the College of
Biological and Environmental Sciences. And the reason I know,
is that is where I graduated, but they have done a lot of good
work with this as well.
And as we continue to deal with the climate change and its
impacts, including changing weather conditions and rising sea
levels, it is important we continue to meet the needs obviously
of producers with advancement in research, new technologies and
improved management; technology matters.
The question I have, and I don't mean to go back to this
again, because I really read two different stories about this,
and I just want to go back to it a little bit, and I don't want
to be China-phobic because I am not, but they are really
becoming a leader in the world in many, many areas and are very
competitive with the United States in many areas as well. But
do you feel that they are moving ahead at a faster rate, that
they are competing more, that they do have the potential? As
much as we love our land-grant universities and everything that
we do, and it is all good, are we in a real competition here?
Because there are folks absolutely in the agriculture world,
and I have read some of your periodicals, that do believe it is
really happening.
And any one of you can answer that.
Dr. Gmitter. May I, please?
Mr. Van Drew. Sure.
Dr. Gmitter. There is no question that technologically the
Chinese system is moving much more rapidly than ours is today.
Mr. Van Drew. Okay, that is the answer I wanted.
With that being said, candidly is that because they are to
some degree stealing our technology, utilizing our technology,
our intellectual property? Is it just because they are
investing so much in research and because of the system they
have of government, they can control that so much? Which is it?
Dr. Gmitter. In my opinion, part of it is investment. It is
financial and they are pouring a lot of money into equipment.
They are sending their students not only to the U.S. but
everywhere around the world to try and gather the best
information that is available in the world of science. As
scientists, we openly communicate and they are doing a good job
at that.
One thing that has always been important in my mind where
we have an advantage is even though these Chinese researchers,
and I am speaking about citrus now specifically, but it
probably is more broad. Even though they are racing ahead
technologically, there is no connection, no connection really,
between what goes on in the research laboratory and what goes
to the field.
Twenty years ago I was invited and I gave a talk and we met
with some important political guys and they asked us what can
we do to help our citrus farmers in this province, and we said,
``Well, you have excellent researchers here doing really good
things, but you don't have any connection between what they are
doing to the farmers.'' And this is an advantage that we have.
We talked about the land-grant system and the ability to extend
this information.
Mr. Van Drew. Okay, to make sure I understand: The real
advantage we have is, and I am familiar with it if I keep my
voice here, is that we get our information out to the farmer.
That is part of the thing. Farmers have questions, they call
the universities, there are people who actually will come out
to the farm, help you, work with you, train you, et cetera, so
they are learning a great deal of information but they aren't
getting that information to their farmer who is still farming
in somewhat of a traditional way?
Dr. Gmitter. That is a part of it, but another part of it
is you have researchers, and I am an example of that. I don't
have an extension appointment, but I interact with citrus
farmers all the time, nearly 30 percent of my time goes that
way, and it is because I need that information from them for me
to structure the research that I do to provide benefits to
them. There is a good two-way communication as opposed to a
vacuum between agriculture and researcher.
Mr. Van Drew. They don't have a two-way street? What are
they doing with all this information they are learning?
Dr. Gmitter. A lot of it becomes publications and the
researchers are rewarded for publishing in high-level
international journals, and there is little recognition or
reward, at least in the world of citrus, for any of that
getting translated to something that helps agriculture.
Mr. Van Drew. It is really not practical, actually, in
their case? It is not a practical application?
Dr. Gmitter. Not immediately practical.
Mr. Van Drew. Is that true anywhere else? I mean, any other
thoughts, please?
Ms. Tencer. I would just like to share that we hold an
annual research forum to bring researchers from all over the
country together with organic farmers to discuss both research
findings as well as hear needs from the organic farming
community, and the events are incredibly successful with
farmers and researchers hungry for those opportunities.
Last year our forum was hosted by Rutgers University which
is very satisfying for us. It is not an area that has always
been proactive. They actually sought us out and said, ``The
farmers and researchers in this region want to do this, come
together and share,'' and so I just want to say it was very
successful.
We publish all those findings, but both the farmers and the
researchers say they benefitted from those exchanges.
Dr. Wolfe. I would just like to add, I agree with what the
others have said.
I still think though that our universities establish a
certain approach to research that is very creative, and I don't
think some of these other places like China have really gotten
there yet.
Mr. Van Drew. We are not getting blown away?
Dr. Wolfe. No, there is an issue where my graduate students
by the time they are ready and their Ph.D. is just about done,
they know more about their topic than I do and they are
challenging me constantly about it.
That sort of challenge between faculty and students is not
quite the same in China, I would say, and this really breeds a
certain level of creativity. It is a subtle nuance maybe, but
it is significant.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Dunn, if you have any closing remarks?
Mr. Dunn. I do not. Thank you.
The Chair. Okay. I want to thank our witnesses and all of
my colleagues who were here this afternoon to be with us and
this morning to participate in what has been for me extremely
informative. We have really developed a record here with the
kind of work and research that is going on, and it is efficacy
and importance in resilience and mitigation and what can and
should be done in this area for farmers and ranchers which are
facing threats now, flooding, heat, drought, all of those
things are faced by farmers, livestock owners, et cetera,
throughout this country.
There is real value in investments for public agricultural
research. Our farmers need more resources to better mitigate
the risks that they face. They are our lifeblood and those that
feed us and many people around the world, and we have to
safeguard that resource.
This hearing underscored the importance of ensuring that
farmers, ranchers, and researchers have a seat at the table in
that discussion.
I want to thank you all for the information you have
provided us, and let the record reflect that under the Rules of
the Committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open
for 10 calendar days to receive additional material,
supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any
questions posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Biotechnology,
Horticulture, and Research is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Fact Sheet by Hon. Chellie Pingree, a Representative in
Congress from Maine
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Organic Farming Practices Benefit the Environment
Organic agriculture is based on practices that not only protect
environmental health, but also strive to improve it. By absorbing more
carbon dioxide from the air and prohibiting the use of petroleum-based
fertilizers, organic agriculture helps to reduce humans' carbon
footprint, combat climate change, and protect the land and natural
resources for future generations.
Organic Protects Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Organic farming is a production system of
cultural, biological, and mechanical practices
that foster cycling of resources, promote
ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.
Organic farmers are required to manage their
operations in a manner that does not contribute
to environmental contamination of crops, soil,
or water. Production and management practices
on organic farms must maintain or improve the
natural resources of the farm, including soil,
water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.
Organic Prohibits Use of Toxic Synthetic Pesticides and Fertilizers
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Instead of relying on synthetic pesticides
and fertilizers that can deplete the soil of
valuable nutrients and increase environmental
degradation, organic farmers build soil and
plant health using practices that incorporate
organic materials like manure and compost.
Petroleum-based fertilizers are prohibited as
are most synthetic pesticides. Organic
practices help keep our water supply clean of
runoff from toxic and persistent chemicals.
Organic Promotes Soil Health and Reduces Erosion
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Organic farmers use tillage and cultivation
practices that maintain or improve soil
conditions and minimize soil erosion. Using
complex and diversified crop rotations, cover
crops, green manure crops, and catch crops,
organic practices build soil health and
biodiversity, improve soil structure, and
increase nutrient availability without
synthetic fertilizers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Recommendations:
b Establish a commission to evaluate ecosystems services delivered
by organic production, and recommend policies to reward and
incentivize these ecosystem services.
b Develop a competitive grant program for providing technical
services to organic and transitioning farmers.
b Provide market and infrastructure development grants for minor
rotational crops that improve soil health.
b Provide tax credits for landowners who have long-term leases under
organic production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Science Behind Organic and Soil Health
Organic standards require that farmers use practices that maintain
or improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and
minimize soil erosion. Many research studies have found that organic
practices improve a variety of soil health components.
Organic Farming Sequesters Carbon In The Soil
Many organic practices reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase
carbon sequestration in the soil. Organic farming increases soil
properties that enhance long-term storage of carbon, providing a viable
greenhouse gas mitigation strategy.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cooper J.M., et al. 2016. Shallow non-inversion tillage in
organic farming maintains crop yields and increases soil C stocks: a
meta-analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36, 1-20.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Featured Study: The Organic Center co-authored a groundbreaking
study with the National Soil Project at Northeastern University showing
that organic soils combat climate change by locking away carbon, which
would otherwise be in the atmosphere, in long-term reserves. The
research compared over 1,000 soil samples from organic and agricultural
soils as a whole to understand how organic compares to average
agricultural management practices that influence components of soil
organic carbon. The study was the first to compare the amount of total
sequestered soil organic carbon--found in the form of long-lived humic
substances--between agricultural systems on such a wide-scale basis.
The findings showed that the components that make up humic substances
were respectively 150% and 44% greater in organic soils. The results
also show that soils from organic farms sequester 26% more carbon.
Overall, these results demonstrate that organic farms store more carbon
in the soil, and keep it out of the atmosphere for longer than other
farming methods.\2\
\2\ Ghabbour E.A., et al. 2017. Chapter One--National Comparison of the
Total and Sequestered Organic Matter Contents of Conventional and
Organic Farm Soils. Advances in Agronomy, 146, 1-35.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Farming Supports Soil Biodiversity
Since synthetic pesticides are prohibited, important organisms in
the soil can thrive. Increased soil organic carbon found on organic
farms provides important building blocks for beneficial microorganisms
in the soil that are vital to decomposition and nutrient cycling.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Moebius-Clune B.N., et al. 2016. Comprehensive Assessment of
Soil Health--The Cornell Framework Manual, Edition 3.0. Cornell
University: Geneva, NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Farming Increases Water Retention in the Soil
Organic management improves the ability of soil to store and retain
water, which is critical for protecting crops against extreme weather
events such as drought and flooding. It also protects water quality
because less agricultural water is contaminated by runoff.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Lotter, D.W. 2003. Organic Agriculture. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture, 21, 59-128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Submitted Reports by Hon. Jimmy Panetta, a Representative in Congress
from California
report 1
2016 National Organic Research Agenda_Outcomes and Recommendations from
the 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey and Listening Sessions
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
By Diana Jerkins and Joanna Ory
Brise Tencer, Project Director
Vicki Lowell, Staff Contributor
We thank the following reviewers for their invaluable
feedback.
Heather Darby (University of Vermont)
Carolyn Dimitri (New York University)
Keith Richards (Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group)
Mark Schonbeck (Virginia Association of Biological Farming)
Carol Shennan (University of California, Santa Cruz)
Jane Sooby (California Certified Organic Farmers)
Deborah Stinner (Ohio State University, retired)
Dawn Thilmany (Colorado State University)
Thank you to the organic farmers and ranchers who
participated in the OFRF Organic Farmer Survey and listening
sessions.
Survey Hosting and Analytics were provided by:
Rose Krebill-Prather
Thom Allen (Washington State University)
Thank you to the following organizations whose financial
support made this project possible.
Cascadian Farm
Organic Valley
Driscoll's
Lundberg Family Farms
Foundation of Sustainability and Innovation
UNFI Foundation
Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Current Needs for Organic Research
About OFRF
Goals of the 2016 NORA Report
Chapter 1. National Research Recommendations
U.S. Wide Priorities for Research, Education and Extension
Regional Recommendations
Recommendations for Organic Research Methods and Outreach
Strategies
Chapter 2. OFRF 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey
Methods
Farmer Demographics
Selected Research Priorities
Top Rated Research Topics U.S. Wide
Soil Health, Biology, Quality, and Nutrient Cycling
Special Topic: Climate Change
Weed Management
Fertility Management
Nutritional Quality, Health Benefits, and Integrity of
Organic Food
Special Topic: Food Safety
Insect Management
Economic and Social Science Research
Top Areas for Increased Research Related to Organic Marketing
and Economics
Special Topic: GMO Impact on Organic Farmers
Livestock and Animal Agriculture Research Needs
Organic Seed Breeding
Special Topic: Organic Seed
Information Sources and Formats
Production Challenges
Research Priorities
Chapter 3. Discussion And Supplemental Reviews
Review of USDA Funded Research on Organic Farming
Review of OFRF Surveys and Report
Overlap of OFRF and NOSB Recommendations
Conclusion
Citations
Appendices
Appendix A: Western Region
Appendix B: Northeast Region
Appendix C: North Central Region
Appendix D: Southern Region
Appendix E: GMO Impact on Organic Farmers
Appendix F: Organic Seed
Appendix G: Listening Sessions 2015-2016
Appendix H: Web Survey Instrument
Executive Summary
This 2016 National Organic Research Agenda (NORA) report provides
comprehensive recommendations for future investment in organic
agricultural research. These recommendations are based on the Organic
Farming Research Foundation's 2015 survey of organic farmers,
nationwide listening sessions with organic farmers, and a review of key
documents and recommendations from other organizations, including the
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The 2015 Organic Farmer Survey
was conducted online and completed by over 1,000 organic farmers. Their
responses directly inform our top recommendations for organic research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top OFRF Recommendations
Based on feedback from survey respondents regarding high priority
needs, OFRF recommends intensified research funding and attention to
the areas of:
Soil health and fertility management
Weed management
Nutritional benefits of organic food
Insect management
Disease management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFRF also recommends prioritizing research in the following areas:
Building the economic, environmental, and social
sustainability of organic systems through more holistic
studies, using functional agricultural biodiversity,
permaculture, crop-livestock integration, and other advanced
agroecological or agroecosystem research frameworks and
methodologies.
The impacts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on
organic farms and strategies to avoid GMO contamination.
The efficacy and environmental sustainability of approved
products included on the USDA National List of Allowed and
Prohibited Substances (organic insecticides, fungicides, and
soil amendments).
Livestock health, especially parasite control and organic
animal nutrition.
Development and selection of public livestock and poultry
breeds for organic systems: performance in pastured systems,
and parasite resistance.
Social science research on the marketing, policy, and
economic barriers to successful organic production and barriers
to transition.
Development of public crop cultivars bred and selected for
organic systems: regional adaptation, nutrient efficiency, weed
tolerance, and disease resistance.
This report details the research priority areas and includes a
discussion of the survey results leading to the development of OFRF's
recommendations.
Chapter One of this report discusses the research areas OFRF
recommends for increased funding and prioritization. The first set of
recommendations is directly informed by results from the 2015 National
Organic Farmer Survey. The second set of recommendations refers to
methodology and outreach activities related to organic farming
research, and these recommendations are based on a broader review of
recommendations from partner groups and the listening sessions that
were held across the country. The chapter concludes with research
priorities for each of the four U.S. regions.
Chapter Two provides detailed results from the 2015 National
Organic Farmer Survey. These results include farmer demographics,
stated research priorities, production challenges, and responses to
open-ended questions. In addition, this chapter includes survey results
on the special topics of climate change, food safety, and GMO impacts,
and organic seed availability.
Chapter Three reviews several farmer surveys and reports that
inform the OFRF recommendations. This chapter describes overlap between
recommendations made by OFRF and other entities. This chapter also
describes the research topics that were recommended for prioritization
in the past, such as soil health and organic plant breeding, which
remain areas in need of increased attention.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Joanna Ory.
The report concludes in the appendices section with four reports
containing regionally specific results from the 2015 National Organic
Farmer Survey and regional recommendations for organic research. The
survey found that the topics of soil health and weed management were
top priorities for all four regions. However, there was variability
among regions for other top research priorities. For example, in the
Southern region, there is a strong need for social science research to
identify and provide strategies for overcoming barriers to market
entry. In the Western region, a top priority is research on irrigation
efficiency and coping with drought. For the North Central region,
research on GMO impacts was among the top priorities. Pollinator health
was a high priority for survey respondents in the North East region.
The recommendations and information in this 2016 NORA report will
ensure research funding is relevant and responsive to the needs of
today's organic farmers. In addition, we hope this research will be
used to expand organic farming education at colleges, universities, and
farms. We expect this report to help significantly increase funding for
research that assists producers in adopting new practices that enhance
the environmental sustainability and economic viability of organic
operations.
Introduction
There have been significant advances in our knowledge of organic
agriculture since OFRF's 2007 National Organic Research Agenda (NORA)
(Sooby, et al., 2007). This landmark document provided a clear and
comprehensive blueprint for successful organic research systems,
drawing upon the results of regional and topical working sessions of
farmers, scientists, and agricultural professionals that took place
over a period of 3 years to identify and prioritize research needs for
organic agriculture.
The seed for the 2007 NORA report was planted almost a decade
earlier when the OFRF report, ``Looking for the `O' Word,'' (Lipson,
1997) documented the virtual absence of Federal support for research
relevant to organic agriculture. OFRF then worked to rectify this
unacceptable omission by sponsoring unique collaborations between
organic farmers and agricultural researchers to set organic research
priorities.
The 2007 NORA report centered on four core topic areas: soil
microbiology and fertility; system approaches to pest management;
ruminant and poultry production systems; and crop and animal breeding
and genetics. The report consolidated the results of existing research
with practical experience from the field to validate the benefits of
organic agriculture, especially with regard to yield potential,
resource conservation, and biodiversity. Many of the recommendations
from the 2007 report are still relevant today.
The 2007 NORA report firmly endorsed four principles that have
become hallmarks of organic research:
Work must occur on certified operations.
Farmers must be actively engaged in experimental design and
data analysis.
Work should employ multidisciplinary system approaches
rather than input substitution.
Research must be maintained over an extended period of time.
Current Needs for Organic Research
Continued interest in organic research from the research community,
combined with incremental increases in funding for organic research,
inspired OFRF to provide a new, updated research agenda for organic
agriculture.
The 2016 NORA report reviews areas of the original research agenda
where significant progress has been made, and identifies areas where
research needs have yet to be met. This analysis will help focus the
next generation of research on the most relevant needs of farmers and
ranchers.
Organic agricultural producers face unique challenges, from the
availability of organic seeds, crop cultivars, and livestock breeds
adapted to organic systems, to coping with weeds and pests, and using
approved organic methods. As consumer demand for organic products
soars, there is a growing need for solutions to organic farming
challenges, training for future agriculture producers and leaders, and
information on the benefits of organic agriculture.
Organic farming methods are knowledge-intensive and site-specific.
Organic agriculture uses methods that protect the environment, avoiding
the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, antibiotics, and
genetically engineered crops. Because organic farmers cannot use
synthetic pesticides to control weeds and pests, they must rely on
practices that holistically promote health of the agroecosystem and
protect against pest infestations and soil degradation. Careful organic
management includes:
Selecting varieties suited for local soil, pest, and weather
conditions.
Managing the soil fertility specific to the past and present
conditions of the land.
Using rotations and crop diversity to protect against crop
diseases and pests.
The needs of farmers in this quickly growing industry are
continually evolving and include new concerns about food safety and
regulation, invasive pests, environmental and social issues, changes in
and expansion of national and international markets, changing weather
patterns, and biological threats. These trends call for a fresh
analysis of the needs of organic farmers and ranchers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Demand
Domestic demand for organic products is growing rapidly. Although
U.S. organic sales reached an all time high of $6.2B in 2015, there was
also an increase in the importation of organic products in order to
meet demand (USDA, 2016 a). To meet the growing U.S. demand for organic
products in the long-term, domestic production of both crops and
livestock and poultry products (especially milk and eggs) will need to
increase. The majority of organic sales are concentrated in the top
five organic-producing states: California, Washington, Pennsylvania,
Oregon, and Wisconsin (USDA, 2016 a). These states have historically
had strong links with land grant universities and non-government
organization infrastructure supporting the growth of their organic
industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Specific research, education, and extension programs are necessary
to foster partnerships between producers and organic agriculture
professionals; programs that integrate scientific knowledge with farmer
expertise to develop practical and sustainable solutions.
In order to meet the growing demand for organic products
domestically and internationally, research efforts need to provide
solutions to production, risk management, marketing, and social issues
confronting organic producers and distributors. In conjunction with
these research efforts, there needs to be greater organic-specific
extension activities to educate producers and consumers. By furthering
research that directly meets the needs of the organic sector, we can
enable U.S. producers to meet more of this demand. The 2016 NORA report
helps chart the most efficient and effective course for USDA spending
for organic agricultural research and for university and broader
funding by State Departments of Agriculture, private foundations, and
NGOs.
About OFRF
OFRF is sowing the seeds to transform agriculture by working for
the continuous improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming
systems. OFRF sponsors organic farming research and education projects
and disseminates the results to organic farmers and growers interested
in adopting organic production systems. The organization also informs
the public and policymakers about organic farming issues.
OFRF is a leading grant maker for organic agriculture research and
education, funding innovative research and education projects that lead
to new production solutions for farmers and a stronger community among
organic farmers. Since its founding, OFRF has funded 322 research
projects with the aim of directly addressing the needs of organic
farmers and ranchers. OFRF is one of the first nonprofit organizations
to award grants dedicated to organic farming research, making important
scientific contributions to organic knowledge and practice since 1990.
OFRF and its partners successfully lobbied for increased Federal
funding for organic research in the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (aka 2002 Farm Bill), which resulted in the establishment
of the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)
grant program authorizing $3M annually for 5 years specifically for
organic farming research. Section 7408 of the 2002 Farm Bill directed
research resources reflecting the growing interest in organic
production and the need to provide enhanced research for the growing
organic sector. This section of the 2002 Farm Bill created the Section
406 ``Organic Transitions'' competitive grants program.
In fiscal 2016, Congress approved the highest ever budget of $2.94B
for USDA agricultural research. Within the USDA National Institute for
Food and Agriculture (NIFA), funding for Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI) programs, the primary competitive grants programs
within NIFA, has increased 20% over the last 5 years, and is slated in
the 2017 Presidential budget for additional funding.
Only 0.1% of AFRI funding was used specifically for organic
research between 2010-2014 (National Organic Coalition, 2016). Non-
organic research within AFRI was $1.38B, while spending on organic
research was $1.48M.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Joanna Ory.
Goals of the 2016 NORA Report
The 2016 NORA report presents a catalogue of research needs for
organic agriculture based on feedback OFRF obtained through an
extensive survey and listening sessions with organic farmers. This
survey was an opportunity to make organic farmers' and ranchers' voices
heard. In an ongoing effort to reach out to the organic community, OFRF
wanted to learn about challenges and research priorities directly from
producers. The feedback received identified the obstacles today's
farmers face and the information they need most to be resilient, grow,
and thrive.
As with any agricultural endeavor, scientific research needs can be
applicable to all farmers and ranchers and/or specific to location,
soil type, crop, and livestock produced, and the agricultural knowledge
level of the farmers and ranchers. As seen in previous surveys and
reports, the specificity of research needs is almost unlimited in the
sense that each farmer or rancher has unique needs and requirements to
meet the demands of their individual enterprise
This research agenda looks at both the general research needs and
specific challenges identified by multiple stakeholder groups. The
recommendations cover six topical areas from national and regional
perspectives, as well as the most appropriate approaches to conducting
organic research. The report also includes continuing priorities and
specific research topics that were identified in previous surveys and
reports. It also includes recommendations to address basic and applied
research needs, as well as organic agriculture education and extension
activities to promote optimum delivery and use of research outcomes.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Vicki Lowell.
The 2016 NORA report will inform USDA researchers, universities,
agricultural extension agents, farmers, ranchers, and others on how
research, education, and extension activities can be focused to meet
the needs of organic farmers and ranchers to support organic
agriculture and increase organic acreage. The report provides key
information for how OFRF and other funding entities can continue to
inform grant making to most effectively support the success of organic
farmers and ranchers.
1. National Research Recommendations
U.S. Wide Priorities for Research, Education and Extension
OFRF's 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey, auxiliary stakeholder
input, and supplemental reviews provide a basis for making
recommendations for future research to support the production,
marketing, environmental, and societal needs of current organic
farmers, ranchers, and those entering organic agriculture. Farmers were
asked to rate research topics based on their priority. The five areas
rated highest in priority by the 2015 respondents are displayed in
Table 1.
Table 1. Priority ratings for research topics from the 2015 OFRF
National Organic Farmer Survey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of survey
Research Topic participants who rated
as a high priority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soil health, quality, and nutrient management 74%
Weed management 67%
Fertility and nutrient management 66%
Nutritional quality, health benefits, and 55%
integrity of organic food
Insect management 51%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these top priorities, OFRF recommends increased research
in the following areas.
Soil health as the basis of organic agricultural
productivity, specifically:
Defining soil health criteria.
Researching soil health and best practices for coping
with climatic variability.
Developing tools for rapid measurement of soil health/
quality.
Investigating the relationship between soil quality
and crop management practices, such as cover cropping, crop
rotation and diversification, crop-livestock integration,
and reduced tillage.
Researching the efficacy of different soil amendments
for building soil fertility and enhancing yield.
Organic weed control, specifically:
Researching how weed infestations are impacted or
enhanced by soil management, crop rotation, cover crops,
crop-livestock integration, and inputs.
Researching the most economical ways to manage weeds
in organic systems.
Evaluating weed management strategies that integrate
soil improving practices (cover crops, rotation, reduced
tillage) with NOP-allowed control tactics.
Organic fertility methods and practices, specifically:
Researching agroecological approaches to organic
farming and moving beyond input substitution.
Determining appropriate levels of fertility inputs to
match crop needs throughout the season and minimize
nutrient losses.
Researching how organic farming can integrate
agricultural methods from biodynamic and permaculture
practices to decrease environmental impacts.
Evaluating, breeding, and selecting crop cultivars for
greater nutrient use efficiency and ability to thrive on
low-solubility organic nutrient sources.
The relationship between nutrient balancing
fertilization practices and microbial life in the soil and
susceptibility or resistance to pests.
The whole farm ecosystem, specifically:
The impact of habitat diversity and cropping systems
on biological diversity on the farm as well as yield
stability and pest and disease resistance.
The ecosystem services provided by diverse
agroecological systems.
How food safety practices can coexist with practices
that protect wildlife.
The environmental and agricultural effects of
homogeneity in conventional production management, i.e.,
only using GMO seeds, only chemical sprays, etc.
The environmental benefits of organic farming for
water, soil, climate, biodiversity (including pollinators),
wildlife, native plants, soil microbes, and agro-
biodiversity.
Nutritional quality, health benefits, and integrity of
organic food, specifically:
Researching how organic and conventional foods differ
in terms of nutrients, pesticide residues, and impacts on
consumer health.
Researching how to best educate and inform consumers
about the benefits of organic food.
Comparing the nutritional value of organic versus
conventional food.
Examining the best ways to attract new organic
consumers and increase consumer demand for organic
products.
Organic insect pest control, specifically:
The control of new, invasive insect pests.
The efficacy of organic pest control products,
especially the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI)
approved products.
Integrated pest management strategies.
In addition to the 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey results,
OFRF conducted listening sessions with organic farmers and researchers
to further understand how research can meet the challenges of organic
farmers. Based on these listening sessions and review of the
recommendations presented by the National Organic Standards Board
(NOSB), OFRF offers additional recommendations aimed to increase the
environmental, economic, and social sustainability of organic farming
and ranching in the U.S. These recommendations include:
Increase research on specific systems within organic
agriculture to understand best management practices.
Researching the applicability and benefits of
techniques used in aquaponics, biodynamic production, and
permaculture to enhance organic production.
Researching different tillage systems such as low or
no tillage systems for organic systems.
Measuring the benefits of ecosystem services and how
organic producers can enhance these services for their
economic benefit.
Increasing research on row crops to raise the
percentage of agriculture adopting organic methods to
produce row crops.
Increase research investment in grain and seed production,
specifically:
Economic and agronomic research to increase organic
grain production. Grain production in the U.S. does not
meet the demand for the organic food, seed, and feed
industry (USDA, 2013). A difficulty for farmers is a lack
of scientific knowledge and training on how to change from
traditional continuous grain production to more complex
rotational patterns needed for organic production.
Researching rotational patterns that take into account
plant nutritional needs, water resources, soil quality,
weed and disease control mechanisms, and the variety of
crops to be grown for soil building and economic needs.
Increase investment in animal production research,
specifically:
Researching organic production of minor species such
as sheep, pigs, and bees.
Past research funding by OFRF and OREI has focused on
crop production instead of animal production. For example,
OREI funding was allotted 71% to crops, 10% to livestock
and poultry, and 19% to general topics covering both crops
and animals, including crop-livestock integrated systems.
OFRF recommends that a greater portion of research funds be
allotted for animal production research.
Increase research on climate change and associated
environmental and agronomic impacts, specifically:
Researching precipitation variability and the impacts
and innovations for drought and flooding.
Researching climate change adaptation strategies for
organic farmers.
Increase breeding crop varieties specific to organic
production, specifically:
Crop breeding to enhance performance in sustainable
organic production systems.
Crop breeding to improve market quality and
nutritional content.
Crop breeding to increase resilience to stresses like
disease and weed pressure.
Increase research on economic and social issues, including:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority and women farmers are making up a greater percentage of the agricultural workforce and may have
specific needs (USDA, 2014).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic and social barriers to adopting organic
farming practices.
How to decrease barriers to entrance into organic
agricultural production.
The unique technical assistance and programmatic needs
of minority producers and women farmers and ranchers.
Minority and women farmers are making up a greater
percentage of the agricultural workforce and may have
specific needs (USDA, 2014).
How to balance economic and environmental outcomes in
a multifunctional agricultural production system.
The retention of current producers, access of new and
transitioning farmers, and how to entice new farmers/
ranchers, i.e., access to land and financing, economic
support, training, and long-term mentoring.
Ways to decrease the loss of agricultural lands in
rural areas and nurture the revitalization of urban
agriculture.
How to improve and meet market demand for organic
agriculture products nationally and internationally.
The link between crop insurance and organic production
and conservation practices.
Researching the marketing needs of future farmers
including market access and structure, land access, and
rural economics.
Regional Recommendations
The National Organic Farmer Survey results were analyzed by region
to take into account specific geographic needs, cropping/animal
species, and environmental issues. In general, the regional research
priorities reflect the overall national trends, with some variations
based on regional concerns. Based on the survey results, OFRF
recommends the following research prioritization by region (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Regions listed by color. Blue = Western, Yellow = North
Central, Green = Northeast, and Red = Southern.
Source: SARE.
Western Region
Provide beginning and transitioning farmers and ranchers the
tools, knowledge, and on-going mentoring to be successful
organic producers.
Prioritize research on water management in drought
conditions, water efficiency technologies, and innovations for
water deficit management.
Continue long-term research on soil health with focus on
nutrient and water management.
Prioritize research on organic production practices that can
increase carbon sequestration and mechanisms for producers to
capture economic benefits from that ecosystem service. Current
research shows that organic soils with higher soil organic
matter can increase the sequestration of carbon in the soils.
Organic practices such as cover cropping and incorporating
residues into the soil build organic matter and sequester
carbon.
Prioritize research on weed control. Research can increase
the effectiveness of weed control practices, especially for
decreasing the pressure from invasive weeds. Efficacy of
organic weed management practices and products will also
benefit farmers as they select efficient and cost-effective
products. Different tillage regimes and plant and animal
rotations are of special interest to the relationship between
soil quality and weed control.
Invest in research to find solutions for disease and pest
problems of high regional importance. In addition to general
research on specific insect controls, continued efforts in
breeding plants specific to organic production challenges, will
increase the productivity and economic viability of organic
producers.
Increased research and extension efforts need to be provided
for all aspects of animal production, especially information on
best practices for rotational and grass fed animals. The
Western region is a major producer of milk products and organic
livestock and poultry, and research should prioritize animal
health in relationship to environmental health as well as
follow the integrative OneHealth approach to attain optimal
health for humans, animals and the environment. In addition,
forage and pasture management is an important focal area for
research.
North Central Region
Increase research on soil health, especially soil fertility
under different tillage regimes.
Increase research related to livestock production and
management.
Increase research on the environmental and economic impacts
of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on organic farmers, as
well as strategies for GMO avoidance.
Increase research on any verifiable health benefits of
organic food, and how this can be used to enhance labeling and
broader marketing strategies.
Southern Region
Increase research on marketing strategies and profitability
of southern organic operations.
Increase research and technical outreach on maintaining soil
health through organic methods like cover cops, crop rotations,
and soil amendments.
Increase research on weeds and insect management, especially
pests of increasing concern like squash bug.
Increase research on climate adaptive agricultural practices
for coping with the higher prevalence of extreme weather
patterns like excessive rain and flooding.
Northeast Region
Increase research on different tillage techniques and the
impact on soil health and weed control.
Increase research on the soil health and fertility impacts
of integrating animal production within field crop systems.
Increase research on cover crops (different varieties) for
erosion control and fertility management.
Increase research on the nutritional benefits of organic
production practices and the resulting foods produced.
Increase research on pollinator health and providing native
pollinator habitat.
Increase research on managing weeds, disease, and animal
health challenges during wet years.
Recommendations for Organic Research Methods and Outreach Strategies
Research for organic systems must reflect the foundational
principles of sustainable organic production, and be compatible with
restrictions of practices or products used in organic production and
processing.
Specifically, organic research should:
Be conducted under certified organic conditions.
Involve organic producers as active team members.
Organic farmers should be trained to write research
proposals and conduct research, maintain records of data,
and maintain areas where trials have been established. They
should be engaged in project goal setting and planning as
well as execution, outreach, and evaluation.
Advisory boards that include producers, and compensate
them for their time and expertise, should be a priority for
funding research.
Expand the work in farmer participatory plant breeding and
animal breeding, and evaluation of cultivars and livestock and
poultry breeds for organic systems. Organic and sustainable
farmers need access to plant and animal germplasm suited to
their regions and management systems, and resilient to climate
change.
Emphasize multidisciplinary and agroecological systems
approaches, rather than input-substitution approaches.
Have capacity for long-term studies of organic systems.
Include compliance with the National Organic Program (NOP)
rules and the principles of sustainable agriculture as
criterion for proposal review and field management during the
study.
Include research on medium- and large-scale production
systems. Research questions should also include the
techniques needed for scaling up or the adoption of larger
scale organic agriculture, i.e., production techniques,
technologies, transition methodologies, and marketing
strategies.
Ensure information is delivered in appropriate forms to
appropriate audiences.
Education and extension programs intended to deliver research
outcomes to organic farmers and ranchers must be tailored to the unique
needs and learning styles of the organic farming sector. Producers must
be engaged as equal partners with scientists, service providers
(Extension, other agencies, independent consultants), and other
stakeholders in the process of acquiring and applying science-based
information. Specifically, education and extension efforts should:
Enhance and encourage producer adoption of research results
by engaging producers in all phases of research and outreach,
and by presenting scientific outcomes as complementary to
farmer experience, skills, perspectives, and on-the-ground
knowledge of their farming systems, integrating education and
extension with research efforts.
Identify the most effective approaches to facilitate
adoption of organic production and marketing research results.
Identify appropriate venues to successfully reach growers,
crop consultants, agency personnel (Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Risk Management Agency, Farm Service
Agency, etc.), commodity organizations, state organic
organizations, the extension system, and consumers.
Organic research funders should provide dedicated
funding through scholarships and fellowships for
undergraduate and graduate students choosing to work in
fields related to agriculture and specifically organic
agriculture to support future teaching and technical
careers. Attention should be given to the special need for
more plant and animal breeders and soil scientists.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Liz Birnbaum.
2. OFRF 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey
The 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey describes new and
continuing research needs that farmers and ranchers have expressed
since the last NORA report. OFRF believes this information will provide
a basis to guide researchers, extension personnel, and educators in
identifying future work that will be most relevant to producers. This
information is especially needed for new and transitioning organic
farmers and ranchers. In order to meet the goal of significantly
increasing participating organic producers and acreage into organic
production, relevant research information is required. Justification
for the need and relevance of research on organic agriculture has been
well documented. Therefore, the goal of this report is to identify the
next generation of research activities.
Methods
A mixed methods approach was adopted to better understand the
research needs of certified organic farmers in the U.S. A national
survey, developed by OFRF and administered by Washington State
University, was used to solicit feedback. The survey data was augmented
by 21 listening sessions held around the country, in conjunction with
regional organic farming meetings.
Researchers, farmers, and other organic organizations vetted the
survey to determine the most appropriate questions to understand the
current needs of organic farmers and ranchers, and their responses were
consolidated into the survey document. OFRF conducted the survey from
July to September 2015. It was sent electronically to six,631 certified
organic producers who provided email addresses on the USDA National
Organic Program certified producers list. OFRF mailed postcards to
farmers who did not provide emails to inform them of the survey
opportunity. In addition, organic certifiers contacted farmers on
OFRF's behalf to encourage them to participate in the survey. However,
because the survey was web-based, there may be a bias that farmers with
computers and Internet were much more likely to participate in the
survey than those without.
The survey received a response rate of 1,403 organic farmers, which
represents approximately 10% of the current population of U.S. organic
farmers (USDA, 2015). Survey responses came from every state, yet there
was a predominance of responses from the Western (45%) and North
Central (28%) regions, as defined under the USDA Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program.
Concurrent with the development of the survey document, OFRF worked
in partnership with regional farming associations to gather additional
input through 21 listening sessions around the country. Attendees were
asked about general research topics and participated in small breakout
groups related to specific topics. For example, at the MOSES
conference, the listening sessions covered the topics of animal
production, plant health, and soil health.
Farmer Demographics
Survey participants included organic farmers throughout the U.S.
The Western region had the highest participation (555 farmers),
followed by the North Central region (341), the Northeast region (204),
and the Southern region (139). According to the 2014 USDA NASS organic
survey, the number of organic farmers are: Western region (5,029);
North Central region (4,309), Northeast region (3,371), and Southern
region (1,294). Thus, about 11% of Western and Southern region farmers
participated in the survey, while participation was closer to 7-8% in
the Northeast and North Central regions.
Farmers ranged from 20 to 84 years in age, with the average
of 55 years of age. The median age was in the 60-65 age
bracket.
70% of respondents identifying as the primary farmer or
rancher were male and 30% were female.
Farmers ranged in their organic farming experience from less
than 1 year to 80 years, with the average being 13 years.
Most farmers had between 5-10 years of organic farming
experience, indicating that many survey respondents were either
beginning farmers or had recently transitioned to organic
production.
The size of organic farms ranged from less than an acre to
40,000 acres. The median organic farm size was 48 acres.
98% of surveyed respondents had certified organic acres, 24%
also had conventional acres, 18% had acres transitioning to
organic, 16% had organic but uncertified acres, 7% had organic
acres exempt from certification, and several farmers used
biodynamic methods.
The farmers in the survey were evenly divided among those
who transitioned to organic agriculture from conventional
farming (46%) and those who began farming using organic
practices (48%). Several other farmers began farming in other
ways, such as transitioning part of their land or starting to
farm on conservation acreage.
38% of farmers earned 75-100% of their net income from
organic farm production, yet the majority of farmers also
received much of their income from off farm activities.
46% of respondents reported that a family member works off-
farm for more than 20 hours a week.
25% of respondents stated that neither they nor their
employees have access to health insurance practices, and 48%
began farming using organic practices.
6% percent of farmers entered into organic farming either by
taking over an existing organic farm, starting a split organic/
conventional farm, or farming land from the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP).
Surveyed farmers grew a wide variety of crops, with the most
common being vegetable crops (55%). Forty-one percent (41%) of
farmers produced animal products, with the most commonly
produced animal product being beef. Twenty-eight percent (28%)
of respondents also produced value added products.
Educational Background
Twenty-five percent of respondents received a masters or higher
degree, 38% received a 4 year (bachelor) college degree, 8% received a
2 year college degree, 17% had 1 or more years of college but did not
receive a degree, and 11% had high school education or less.
On-farm Research
Most surveyed farmers (66%) reported that they are experimenting or
trying new production techniques on their farm. On-farm experimentation
included the use of different cover crops, trying different tillage
practices, performing variety trials, growing new crops, using
different kinds of mulch, using different rotational design, monitoring
and experimenting with irrigation practices, and breeding animals. One
farmer expressed their experience as, ``Almost every act is an
experiment in improvement. Every year I try something new.''
Marketing Venues
Surveyed farmers sold their products in many different venues. The
most common marketing strategy was selling wholesale to processors or
packers. The second most common marketing strategy was selling to a
local food store or co-op. Direct to consumer marketing was commonly
achieved through ``U Pick,'' farmers' markets, and community supported
agriculture (CSA). Only 21% of surveyed farmers used their websites for
direct-to-consumer sales
Selected Research Priorities
When survey participants were asked to designate their highest
priority overall for organic farming research, the most common topic
was weed, pest, and disease management. The second most common top
priority was soil health, followed by farming practices, environmental
factors, and rural societies and economics (Figure 2). Weed, pest, and
disease management as the highest priority matches the results of the
2011 National Organic Farmer Survey. Soil health, which ranked as a
moderate challenge in 2011, has increased as a current priority. This
may be due to a better understanding of the importance of healthy soil
as the basis of organic production, and the ability to better cope with
environmental and nutritional impacts.
Figure 2.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prioritization of research topics by surveyed organic farmers
(N = 1,039).
Top Rated Research Topics U.S. Wide
Producers surveyed were asked to rate specific research topics
individually as high priority, moderatepriority, low priority, or not
applicable. Each topic was ranked independently, and surveyed
farmerswere able to mark multiple topics as high priority. Figure 3.
shows the topics most often rated as highpriority research topics by
survey participants. The five research areas that received the greatest
percentof high priority ratings are:
1. Soil health, biology, quality, and nutrient management
2. Weed management
3. Fertility management
4. Nutritional quality, health benefits, and integrity of organic
food
5. Insect management
We selected these top five priorities for further discussion in the
following section of this chapter.
Figure 3.
Topics rated as high priority research topics U.S. wide.
Soil Health, Biology, Quality and Nutrient Cycling
Federal organic standards require producers to maintain or improve
soil organic matter content. Practices such as cover cropping, reduced
tillage, compost application, and rotational grazing are standard
organic farming practices. The research topic of soil health, biology,
quality, and nutrient cycling was consistently rated as a high priority
in all regions, and overall was rated a high priority by 75% of
respondents.
Specific needs in this research area focused on the interactions
between soil health and the need for holistic soil research that
examines the farming challenges of weeds, soil disease, maintaining a
diversity of soil microbial life, climate stresses, and the economics
of maintaining fertility. One farmer stated, ``I would like to know
more ways to increase healthy mycorrhizal interactions and other
microbial activity, as well as improve the health for our plants
without importing a ton of stuff.''
Top issues related to soil health for which respondents requested
research include:
The connection between different tillage practices and the
loss of soil carbon.
The effects of cover crops, compost, and diverse rotations
on fertility rates.
Strategies for building soil organic matter.
The needs of soil microbes and their role in crop health and
disease and weed suppression.
Insect and disease management interactions with soil
biology, including the control of nematodes.
The best ways to source effective and affordable soil
amendments.
The 2007 NORA report had several recommendations for applied soil
health research. Many of these recommendations have been addressed in
research funded by the USDA OREI program. Sixty-five percent (122) of
projects funded by OREI from 2002-2014 studied a topic related to soil
management in organic production systems, with most projects focusing
on soil fertility and nutrient management. These projects have produced
important contributions to the knowledge surrounding organic soil
health.
At least 36 OREI and ORG funded projects tackled the weed
management/soil health dilemma with integrated approaches emphasizing
cover crops, diversified crop rotations, and reduced tillage. Many of
these projects also addressed nutrient management, crop pests, and
diseases. In addition to field assessments of soil quality, weeds, and
crop yields, many project teams analyzed soil microbiological
communities or weed seed banks, and soil carbon sequestration. An
example of a holistic project with a focus on soil health is: Cropping
intensity and organic amendments in transitioning farming systems:
effects on soil fertility, weeds, diseases, and insects (ORG 2003-
04618, PI: Eastman, University of Illinois, $483,000).
Most organic crop growers operate on the premise that high quality
soils are healthy soils, which yield healthy plants that are better
able to resist insect and disease pests and produce high-quality food.
Research on the relationships between above- and below-ground
biodiversity, soil quality, plant health, systemic pest resistance, and
crop quality need to be prioritized for future funding.
Climate Change
The survey respondents were asked about research needed on
climate change. Specifically, respondents were asked to
prioritize research on adaptation and mitigation for
fluctuations in temperature and rainfall. Thirty-four percent
of respondents nationwide marked this topic as a high priority
for research (Figure 4). The Southern region stood out with 42%
of respondents having marked climate fluctuations as a high
priority for research.
Figure 4.
Priority rating for research on adaptation and mitigation to
temperature and rainfall fluctuations (N = 1,104).
Recommendations
It is recommended that future research focus on the following
topics of importance to organic farmers:
Water and soil management to cope with drought and
flooding (in crop and
pasture systems).
Coping with new insect and weed species.
Ways to manage fluctuations in chill-time for nuts and
fruits crops.
Education and outreach on organic farming climate change
adaptation and
mitigation.
Survey Participant Comments
Specific comments given in the survey related to climate
change reveal that organic farmers are experiencing negative
impacts from climatic shifts. Impacts reported by farmers
include new challenges with irrigation, weeds, energy costs,
chill time for tree crops, and the difficulty of dealing with
variability in the production system. Farmer quotations related
to research needs and challenges of climate change include:
Irrigation is not truly sustainable, and especially with
challenges due to cli-
mate change we need better practices that improve our
water capture, reten-
tion, and cycling (rather than relying upon irrigation
that too often utilizes
below ground water faster than those reserves can be
replenished). It is clear
that much of the farming (even certified organic) being
practiced in arid
parts of the U.S. and abroad is not sustainable. We need
to retain sustain-
able agriculture in more temperate areas (subject to
development and land
use conversion pressure) before that land is lost forever
to farming. Research
is needed to ``validate'' and further the alternative
practices that are work-
ing.
How can I cope with effects of climate change and
increased energy costs?
We need better ways to manage weeds and new insects. How
to cope with
them? Old diseases showing up more often due to climate
change.
Climate change is about to put me out of business. 2011
was too wet, 2012
too dry, 2013 and 2014 too wet and 2015 on track to be
too wet. Plus dev-
astating extreme cold temps in Jan 2014 and Feb 2105. How
can I, as the
manager, and the beef cattle deal with it?
Two perennial crops particularly important to our farm
income are (1) ber-
ries; (2) dry hay. In climate change, it will be very
important for us to know
what varieties of berries and varieties of dry forage we
should eliminate and
what varieties we should add.
Climate change, radical fluctuations of temperatures and
rainfall.
Climate change adaptive techniques and crop breeds.
Climate change, and specifically chilling hours, is
negatively affecting our
walnut orchards. Research into this field is very
important to us.
The role of grazing livestock to reverse climate change.
Anticipating the changes on the horizon--increased
energy costs, climate
change, depleting natural resources--and how to adapt.
Weather fluctuation from climate changes. Hot to cool or
overly wet to bone
dry conditions.
Impact of climate change (weather extremes) on vegetable
production.
Climate change has drastically affected our pistachio
production due to in-
sufficient chilling hours. We need trials and research to
help this growing
industry survive these new challenges.
Impact of climate change and unpredictability.
Flexibility to adapt to unex-
pected and extreme conditions.
Climate change disrupting fruit set and maturity dates.
Climate change with water issues.
Weeds and climate change.
Sadly, I think climate change is going to catch up with
all of us: it is getting
hard to produce crops that have been routine to me over
the decades.
Weed Management
Weed management was rated a high priority for research by 67% of
respondents. One farmer stated, ``Weeds are killing me. I need better
ways to control them in row crop production.'' Another farmer noticed
cyclical patterns in the weed pressure on their farm, stating, ``Weed
pressures on our farm seem to change over time. When we were
conventional, we had a lot of velvetleaf. While we can still find it
since we have gone organic 16 years ago, it is not a problem for us at
all. However, in recent years, we have some fields with a terrible
bindweed infestation that we struggle with, and last year jimsonweed
went from something we were hardly aware of to a big problem. More
information on weed control would be valuable to us.''
Respondents stated the need for research on several weed related
topics, including:
Cost effective methods for controlling weeds in medium/small
scale operations (including organic herbicides).
The role of cover crops in improving weed control.
The role of crop rotations in improving weed control.
Specific weed species: jimsonweed (Datura stramonium),
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), field bindweed (Convolvulus
arvensis), pigweed (Amaranthaceae amaranthus spp.),
lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), and problematic perennial
weeds.
Weeds and What They Tell by E. Pfeiffer needs to be updated
and expanded.
Weed pests, insect problems, and diseases can be symptoms of
wrong cultural practices and we need to learn to read the
symptoms and know how to address the core problems.
Recommendations for research on weed management from the 2007 NORA
report are still relevant, especially the need for models of weed
population dynamics under different cover crop, tillage, and crop
rotation management strategies. In addition, bindweed, pigweed,
nutsedge, lambsquarters, and Canada thistle were all identified in the
2007 NORA report as difficult-to-control weeds. These weeds continue to
be problematic and were identified in the 2015 National Organic Farmer
Survey as top weed pests.
Fertility Management
Fertility management was rated the third highest priority, with 66%
of respondents rating it a high priority. This research category is
closely linked with the soil health category, yet it is more specific
to the soil fertility challenges experienced by many organic growers.
Growers' comments expressed particular research needs on soil fertility
including:
The correlation between soil biology adjustments (compost
tea and other products to stimulate soil biology) and yield and
fertility.
The connection between soil fertility and weed pressure.
How cover crops can be used to provide fertility
requirements in perennial systems where tillage is not used.
The types of compost that work best to maintain fertility
and improve biological processes. Research on varieties that
require less fertility inputs and compete better with weeds.
The preparation of soil for pasture management, including
timing and technique for amendment application and
incorporation and grazing. What does the 5 to 10 year pasture
management plan look like?
Nutritional Quality, Health Benefits, and Integrity of Organic Food
OFRF recommends increased research on nutritional quality and the
integrity of organic food. Organic marketing faces the challenge of
many different food labels, like natural and non-GMO, which may lead to
consumer confusion about the organic label. Fifty-five percent (55%) of
growers rated nutritional quality, health benefits, and integrity of
organic food as a high priority. Increased research in this area is
important for aiding organic farmers with marketing tools. Key issues
for research include:
The quality, health benefits, and organic integrity of
organic food and body care products.
Consumer education regarding the irregularities in
appearance of organic produce, the health benefits of organic
food, and the environmental benefits of organic farming.
Joanna Ory.
Research that shows the nutritional and other benefits
(environmental and consumer) of mindfully, truly sustainably
grown organic products (e.g., 100% grass-fed organic dairy
products vs. confinement organic dairy).
Research to educate the younger generation on the benefits
of organic nutrition and farm practices.
Economic structure and integrity of labeling and marketing
messages of organic milk products.
The organic integrity of imported organic grain, including
the environmental and social impacts of production. Farmer
quote: ``The rising tide of industrial scale organic grain and
livestock production threatens the integrity of organic food
and the social and environmental benefits that come with
ecologically based, diversified organic crop/livestock
production systems.''
The organic label needs to integrate good labor practices
and reduced energy use.
Food Safety
In 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USDA) created
a new law, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This act
directed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish a
set of preventative controls across the food system in order to
minimize the occurrence of food-borne illness. These controls
include requirements that food facilities develop a food safety
plan that includes hazard analysis, prevention controls such as
a food allergen controls and recall plans, monitoring,
corrective actions, and verification such as product testing.
Farms are required to have produce safety standards for the
safe production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables,
considering potential sources of pathogens, the use of soil
amendments, hygiene, packaging, temperature, and the presence
of animals in crop production areas. These on-farm requirements
have the potential to affect organic farms. For example,
compost must be stabilized in order to limit the amount of
bacteria like Salmonella spp. FSMA also encourages waiting
periods between grazing and harvest. The rule exempts small
farms (sales less than $500,000/year), which sell directly to
local consumers.
In the 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey, OFRF asked
organic farmers to rate their familiarity with the FSMA rules.
Most respondents (64%) reported little or no familiarity with
the rules, and only 12% stated they were very familiar (Figure
5).
Figure 5.
Familiarity of respondents to FSMA.
Further, farmers were asked to rate and describe any possible
impacts they feel FSMA may have on their operations. Most farms
stated that FSMA would have a slight or moderate impact on
their operations (Figure 6).
Figure 6.
Respondent predicted impact severity of FSMA.
When asked what the specific impacts may be, many farmers
stated that they are uncertain. The most common impact reported
is the burden of record keeping and paperwork. However, some
farmers stated more significant impacts like changing their
growing practices. One farmer stated, ``We have been USDA
certified (food safety) now for 3 years and have had to fight
to maintain our livestock on the farm each year. We have
decided to quit growing leafy greens and other crops that keep
hitting the news with food scares. We have been able to
maintain our tree crops as food safety certified because these
crops do not come into contact with the ground. The food safety
regulations are totally against integrated crop-livestock
operations, which have so much potential to stabilize farm
income and provide a great agronomic program as well. The cost
of the inspections is very high, and the effort we go through
to pass inspections is very taxing. I'm certainly not against
food safety, but there needs to be more research to demonstrate
the real causes of food poisoning: it's the processing,
handling and packaging on an industrial scale.''
Other farmers mentioned no longer growing crops that will be
eaten raw. Still others were concerned that the costs of
inspections and compliance could ``force them out of
business.'' One respondent stated, ``We are facing the
possibility of losing my ability to do simple on-farm
processing (sun-drying) of my products, because of ill-guided
`food safety' new regulations.''
Many farmers feel that the rule will have minor impacts
because they already have certain rules in place to meet
organic certification. For example, the rule for the waiting
time between raw manure application and harvest will most
likely be equivalent to the National Organic Program standards.
Therefore, many organic farmers are already in compliance with
at least some of the new food safety rules. One farmer stated
that there is a benefit of the new rule, ``I think it can help
make our farm more aware of food safety issues on the farm and
therefore will likely motivate us to pay closer attention to
this often overlooked area.''
Research on Food Safety
Research on food safety issues was rated a high priority by
36% of respondents. Farmers stated they were interested in
several research areas related to food safety, including:
Quantifying food safety risk, or lack thereof, in
providing on-farm habitat
in the form of hedgerows and buffer strips.
Evaluating post-harvest handling with regard to food
safety.
Evaluating the wait time before harvest for food safety.
Minimizing food safety risks on small farms--beyond just
getting GAP cer-
tified.
Researching food safety risks of animal manure (either
left there by grazing
rotations or applied).
Insect Management
Insect management was rated a high priority by 51% of respondents.
Farmers noted specific insect pests for which they would like new
research and treatment options, as well as more general topics such as
insect conservation and research on habitats for beneficial insects,
like syrphid flies. The most frequently reported problematic insect
pests are aphids, flea beetles such as Phyllotreta cruciferae, ants,
Bagrada bug (Bagrada hilaris), and cucumber beetles (Aclymma vittatum,
A. trivittatum, and Diabrotica undecimpunctata). Since the publication
of the 2007 NORA, there have been several invasive insect pests that
have been introduced to the U.S. or increased their range. These new
invasive pests include:
Chilli thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood) was discovered in
Florida in 2005.
European grapevine moth (Lobesia botrana) was first
discovered in California in 2009.
Kudzu bug (Megacopta cribaria) was introduced to the U.S. in
2009.
Light brown apple moth (Epiphyyas postvittana) was
introduced into California in 2007.
Bagrada bug (Bagrada hilaris) was first discovered in
California in 2008.
Spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) was first
detected in California in 2008 and has since spread through the
West Coast and has been problematic in many states nationwide.
Brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys), although
detected in 2001, the BMSB has become a serious pest in many
Eastern region states (Figure 7).
Figure 7.
Brown marmorated stink bug, by Yerpo--own work, https://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Halyomorpha_halys_nymph_lab.jpg.
Insect pests are a major cause of crop losses, with one farmer
stating, ``There is no organic approved method to control pecan weevil
(Curculio caryae Horn). This insect will cut my production from 10-35%
in most years.''
Some topics for future research include:
Influence of soil components on disease and insect
vulnerability.
Varieties with insect resistance for organic production.
Impact of rotations and companion crops on insect pressure.
Beneficial insect habitat through green manures and field
borders and other habitat plantings.
The impact of beneficial insects on crop yields.
Fly and parasite management practices and their impact on
non-target insects (dung beetles, pollinators, etc.).
Control of insects in organic fruits in humid eastern U.S.
Developing biocontrols for Swede midge (Contarinaia
nasturtii) (first discovered in the U.S. in 2004) and leek moth
(Acrolepiopsis assectella).
Economic and Social Science Research
Joanna Ory.
OFRF recommends increased social and economic research to address
the marketing challenges experienced by organic farms. Throughout the
survey responses, the topic of economic viability of different
production practices was a recurring focal area for growers. Farmers
expressed the challenges of knowing where to source affordable soil
fertility inputs as well as frustration among struggling enterprises to
pay their farm crew the fair and livable wages they deserve. Several
expressed challenges related to isolation from markets. One farmer
stated, ``Local people, including restaurants, don't want to pay the
organic price for vegetables or hay. We are a small grower but we live
within 20 miles of some areas who might pay the price.''
Top Areas for Increased Research Related to Organic Marketing and
Economics Include
Research on the different approaches to organic marketing
(such as using a CSA, farmers market, cooperative, etc.) and
the associated costs and benefits.
Research on reducing high transportation costs, especially
for meat producers whose distance from processors makes it
difficult to do direct and wholesale marketing.
Research on how to enter or remain viable in a saturated
market.
Research on how to best educate consumers about different
organic practices with the goal of increasing market demand and
opportunities.
Research on how to best educate consumers about the organic
label and standards in order to avoid confusion with other
labels, such as natural and non-GMO.
Research on the discrepancies of how animal operations are
providing adequate outdoor access, specifically how large
operations may be shifting demand from smaller, diversified
operations which provide greater outdoor access.
Research and training for finding buyers who will purchase
from small-scale farms or strategies for how small producers
can collaborate to approach institutional buyers.
Research on building markets to help domestic organic
farmers compete with inexpensive imports (especially grain).
Research on how small farms can cope with the pressure to
make organic food affordable and the need to receive a fair
price.
Research on how the organic check-off may affect organic
farmers of different scales.
Research on how to create alternative markets for imperfect
produce.
Research on viable price information and market volume data.
Joanna Ory.
GMO Impact on Organic Farmers
Under the National Organic Program, organic agriculture
prohibits the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO).
Nationwide, 39.8% of surveyed organic farmers rated the impact
of GMO crops on production, practices, sales, markets, and seed
availability as a high research priority. Regions in the
Midwest where there are more GMO crops grown (like corn and
soy) expressed the greatest need for research on GMO impacts.
Farmers stated that there is a need for specific types of
research and information on GMO drift and other contamination
issues. In addition, farmers stated that there is a need to
communicate with conventional farmers about problems of drift
without alienating them. One farmer mentioned that there is an
opportunity to find solutions to the problem and conflicts
surrounding GMO contamination by reinforcing the understanding
that both small organic farmers and small conventional farmers
make important economic and social contributions to the
economic viability of rural communities.
Impacts on Organic Farmers
The survey asked whether organic farmers had experienced GMO
contamination and the rejection of a shipment of goods.
Nationally, 2.2% of farmers reported having a shipment of
product rejected due to GMO contamination (N = 881). However,
this rate of contamination is not uniform throughout the U.S.
The North Central region had 6% of respondents report having a
product shipment rejected due to GMO contamination (Figure 8).
Figure 8.
Regional distribution of organic rejections due to GMO
contamination (N = 881).
The survey asked farmers to describe the impact GMOs have had
on their farm. The responses indicate that in addition to the
direct financial impacts of having products rejected as
organic, organic farmers expressed a range of different
ecological, financial, and psychological impacts they
experience from the threat of GMO contamination. The 263 open-
ended responses fall into several categories: pollen drift,
delayed or altered planting, lost production, environmental
pollution, increased pesticide pollution/drift, and
psychological/emotional concern.
A word cloud created using keyword counts visually depicts
the important terms represented in the survey (Figure 9).
Figure 9.
Word cloud for GMO impact open-ended questions.
The size of the word represents the number of times it was
mentioned in the survey responses.
Recommendations
Based on the survey data collected and listening sessions,
OFRF makes the following recommendations for research:
Increase research on GMO avoidance practices, especially
in the North Cen-
tral region.
Increase research and monitoring of the true economic
impact of GMOs on
organic farmers.
Increase research on environmental impacts of GMOs.
For the complete discussion of GMO impacts, see Appendix E.
Livestock and Animal Agriculture Research Needs
In the U.S., about 120M acres of pasture land (e.g., cultivated or
native grassland managed for grazing or forage harvesting) are used by
ruminant animals to produce milk, meat, and fiber (NRCS, 2014). In
addition, of the more than 100M head of livestock that utilize grazing
lands in the U.S., about 45% is concentrated on pasture lands in the
humid eastern region of the conterminous U.S. Today, grassland-based
agriculture is valued at $44B annually (Natural Resources Conservation
Service, 2014).
Forty-one percent (41%) of farmers in the 2015 National Organic
Farmer Survey produced animal products, with the most commonly produced
animal product being beef followed by poultry and dairy. A commonality
among recent surveys and research reports has shown a significant lack
of funding related to organic animal agriculture, including OFRF and
USDA OREI/ORG programs. The reason for this discrepancy compared to
funding for plant related research efforts is unclear. It may be due to
a lower number of animal producers as compared to plant producers, the
lower number of proposals submitted to funding agencies on animal
production topics, or the high cost of animal research. Inherently, it
should be noted that crops are part of animal production systems as
they are a major feedstuff/input for those systems, so they indirectly
benefit from cropping systems.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that the organic
dairy sector provides more economic opportunity and generates more jobs
in rural communities than conventional dairies. The first-of-its-kind
study, ``Cream of the Crop: The Economic Benefits of Organic Dairy
Farms,'' calculated the economic value of organic milk production.
``Over the past 30 years, dairy farmers have had a choice: either get
big or get out. Dairy farmers either had to dramatically expand and
become large industrial operations or they went out of business,'' said
Jeffrey O'Hara, agricultural economist for the Food and Environment
Program at UCS and author of the report. However, in a summary of work
conducted through USDA NIFA, it was found that organic dairy production
offers farmers another option--one that is better for the environment,
produces a healthier product, and leads to greater levels of economic
activity (O'Hara and Parson, 2012).
Organic livestock farmers experience particular issues of concern
related to food safety standards, animal health, and veterinarian care.
Research needs on organic animal production were assessed at the 2015
Organic Agriculture Research Symposium. The results of a breakout
session on animal research needs determined there are several areas in
need of prioritization for organic farming. These topics include:
Efficacy of available treatments, therapies, and approved
products.
Impact of grass-based systems on animal disease (long-term
study).
Incidence of lameness on organic farms, causes, nutrition,
symptoms, housing, stress, environment, and preventative
practices.
Breed performance in organic systems (health, pathogens, and
parasites).
Parasite prevention on pastures.
Poultry breed and ration customization for season/climate,
environment, available feeds, pasture, and markets.
Integrated livestock/crop systems (food safety and pest/
disease suppression).
Effective treatment options for poultry diseases and the
interactions with human pathogens.
Effective alternatives to synthetic methionine.
Soil health and mineral balancing impacts on animal health,
i.e., how to assess holistic impacts/nutritional informatics.
More research on the economics and efficacy of probiotics
for animal health (efficacy, risks, costs/benefits, regulatory
status).
Parasite management for hogs and small ruminants.
Organic Seed Breeding
The 2007 NORA report stated that the organic seed requirement for
organically certified crops, combined with increasing risk of organic
crop contamination by GM gene sequences, has led to increased interest
in organic variety development and seed production on the part of
organic farmers. Organic farmers have two distinct needs relating to
seed. The first is for well-adapted crop varieties that perform well
under organic management; the second is for accessible, affordable,
high quality seed that produces what a grower expects it to produce.
Schonbeck, et al., (2016) indicates that even though classical
breeding research for crops and animals has increased over time, there
is still a very limited number of breeding programs and a decline in
professional researchers in this specialty.
In the 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey, farmers commonly stated
the need for increased on-farm plant breeding and variety improvement
for organic seeds. Specifically, farmers noted the need to develop more
organic hybrids for disease resistance. Farmers also expressed
different views related to the policy for organic seed sourcing,
especially the need to increase the number of organic seed breeders and
distributors.
Organic Seed
According to the National Organic Program guidelines, organic
farmers must use organic seed when it is commercially available.
However, if the desired organically produced seed or planting stock
variety is commercially unavailable, organic farmers may use
conventionally grown, untreated, non-GMO seeds. To assess the
availability of organic seed, we asked the survey participants to
categorize the frequency of organic seed availability for the primary
crops they grow. The survey found that for 20% of respondents, organic
seed was rarely or never available (Figure 10). There were some
regional differences. Farmers in the Western region reported less
organic seed availability; reporting that organic seed was never
available 14% of the time.
Figure 10.
Frequency of organic seed availability as reported by U.S.
organic farmers.
Farmers reported several major areas of concern regarding organic
seed. The biggest challenge reported was the price of organic seed
being much higher than non-organic seed. Other major challenges are the
quality and regional and temporal unavailability. As a result of
challenges regarding the availability of organic seed, many surveyed
farmers reported doing their own seed saving.
One farmer described the disadvantage small organic farmers face
with obtaining organic seed in a rural market. The farmer stated,
``Many of the large agricultural product cooperatives through which
rural people source feed and seed do not carry organic seed as a
standard. They require the purchase of a full semi load to even
consider making the order. Small- and mid-scale operations struggle to
gain affordable access to untreated, non-GMO, and certified organic
field seed.''
Organic Seed Price
The higher price for organic seed was the most common
challenge reported by growers in the survey. The large price
discrepancy between organic and conventional seed is a
disincentive for farmers to use organic seed. Survey
participants stated that high organic seed cost is interfering
with profit, and that price is an important factor with regards
to seed sourcing. Several farmers also expressed an
understanding that the limited number of organic seed
distribut[o]rs is helping to create the situation of high
prices for organic seed.
Organic Seed Quality
Survey respondents reported that the quality of organic seed
was often inferior to conventional seed in terms of germination
rate, yield, vigor, and contamination with weed seeds.
Respondents also reported that there are fewer organic seed
varieties to choose from. Organic farmers need varieties
specific to their needs, such as high nutrient-use efficiency,
disease resistance, insect resistance, weed competition, and
good quality. Although there has been progress in seed breeding
for organic production, it is a slow process and some farmers
report dissatisfaction with organic seed germination rates.
Organic Seed Availability
Many farmers reported that organic seed was not available
locally in their area for certain crops, or became harder to
find during the peak of the planting and growing season. There
were several crops for which respondents reported very little
availability, specifically grass, cover crops, kale, and flower
seeds.
Specific Areas of Need
Surveyed farmers highlighted several areas for which there is
a need for more research or policy change regarding organic
seed. Farmers commonly stated the need for increased on-farm
breeding and variety improvement for organic seeds for the
development of more organic hybrids for disease resistance.
Farmers also expressed different views related to the policy
for organic seed sourcing. Several farmers stated the need for
stricter enforcement of using organic seed.
For a complete discussion of organic seed issues, see
Appendix F.
Jack Dykinga.
Information Sources and Formats
The 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey asked participants to list
their primary source of organic production and marketing information.
Respondents listed many different information sources including the
Internet, other farmers, certifiers, chemical companies, seed catalogs,
and conferences. Despite having many different resources for organic
farming information, several farmers expressed the need for greater
availability of organic specific production and marketing information.
For example, one farmer stated, ``We are lacking of research into our
main problems in the Great Northern Plains on the problems that we face
in organic agriculture.''
Of the farmers surveyed, 902 responded to an open ended question
about their primary source of production and marketing information. The
top sources of information used in order of their priority are:
Internet searches, other farmers, magazines like Acres and Tilth,
certifiers, university publications and research, producer association
newsletters, and their own research (Figure 11). As farmers gain
experience, they report moving from learning from books and classes to
doing their own research on the Internet and in the field. Because
Internet searches are the most used source of information, it is
important to strengthen resources like eOrganic and let organic farmers
know about reliable data sources and sites where they can exchange
information with other farmers.
Figure 11.
Most used information sources for production and marketing by
surveyed farmers.
When asked to rate different information sources based on their
usefulness, information from other farmers was listed as the most
highly useful information resource (Figure 12). For example, one farmer
stated, ``I get my information from other farmers. Extension is
helpful, but usually a bit behind many farmers in assessing production
techniques.'' Another farmer stated that getting information from other
farmers has a long history in the development of organic agriculture,
``Other farmers who share their experiences--we learn and support one
another. When you're developing or on the cutting edge of adopting new
practices there isn't research out there to benefit from. Such was the
case with organic when we certified 20 years ago--we only had other
farmers and our own (expensive) process of trial and error.''
Other resources with high scores for being highly useful include
organic certifiers, growers' associations and university researchers.
Many farmers reported limited use of information from crop consultants
and nonprofit organizations.
Figure 12.
Respondent rating of high usefulness of different information
sources.
Respondents were asked to rate their preferences for different
information formats. The respondents listed field days/on-farm
demonstrations as the most highly preferred format (Figure 13). Other
popular formats include conferences and workshops, websites, and print
periodicals. Considering this was administered as an online survey,
there may be a bias towards online informational resources as the
survey does not include responses from farmers who lack Internet
access. The preference for field days and conferences indicates that
the respondents prefer experiential, in-person learning on organic
production and marketing topics.
Figure 13.
Respondent rating of high preference for different
information formats.
Regional Results
Production Challenges
In the survey, farmers and ranchers were asked to describe their
biggest production challenges. These challenges varied depending on the
region (see major challenges for each region below). These challenges
are areas for which future research can be prioritized, as they
indicate the most difficult obstacles growers face in organic
production.
Western Region
Coping with and adapting irrigation systems to drought
conditions.
Weeds: puncture vine weeds (Tribulus terrestris),
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), and cape ivy (Delairea
odorata).