[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE ROLE OF CLIMATE RESEARCH IN SUPPORTING AGRICULTURAL RESILIENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 15, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-35
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-933 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman
JIM COSTA, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania,
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts Ranking Minority Member
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
Chair ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia Arkansas
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois DOUG LaMALFA, California
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
Northern Mariana Islands DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona CHRIS JACOBS, New York
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
RO KHANNA, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida TRACEY MANN, Kansas
J. LUIS CORREA, California RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
JOSH HARDER, California BARRY MOORE, Alabama
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa KAT CAMMACK, Florida
KIM SCHRIER, Washington MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California ------
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia ------
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California,
submitted article.............................................. 75
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 3
Witnesseses
Velez, Ph.D., Thelma I., Research & Education Program Manager,
Organic Farming Research Foundation, Sunrise, FL............... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Submitted question........................................... 87
Brouder, Ph.D., Sylvie M., Professor of Agronomy, Wickersham
Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Research, Department of
Agronomy: Crops, Soils, and Environmental Sciences, Purdue
University; Past President, American Society of Agronomy, West
Lafayette, IN; on behalf of Crop Science Society of America;
Soil Science Society of America................................ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Supplementary material....................................... 75
Submitted questions.......................................... 92
Fares, Ph.D., Ali, Endowed Professor of Water Security and Water
Energy Food Nexus, College of Agriculture and Human Sciences,
Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, TX.................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Supplementary material....................................... 78
Houlton, Ph.D., Benjamin Z., Ronald P. Lynch Dean, Professor,
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Professor, Department of
Global Development, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY................................. 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Supplementary material....................................... 80
Submitted questions.......................................... 95
Vance, Michael S., Managing Partner, Southern Reds, LLC,
Gainesville, TX; on behalf of Noble Research Institute, LLC.... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Supplementary material....................................... 81
Submitted Material
Obodozie, Lotanna, Climate Campaign Director, National Young
Farmers Coalition, submitted letter............................ 82
Earthjustice, submitted letter................................... 83
THE ROLE OF CLIMATE RESEARCH IN SUPPORTING AGRICULTURAL RESILIENCY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2022
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. David Scott
of Georgia [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives David Scott of Georgia,
Costa, Adams, Hayes, Brown, Rush, Pingree, Kuster, Plaskett,
O'Halleran, Carbajal, Khanna, Lawson, Craig, Harder, Axne,
Schrier, Panetta, Kaptur, Ms. Davids of Kansas, Thompson,
Austin Scott of Georgia, Crawford, DesJarlais, LaMalfa, Mr.
Davis of Illinois, Allen, Bacon, Johnson, Baird, Cloud, Mann,
Feenstra, and Cammack.
Staff present: Paul Babbitt, Lyron Blum-Evitts, Malikha
Daniels, Ashley Smith, Michael Stein, Caleb Crosswhite, Ricki
Schroeder, Erin Wilson, and Dana Sandman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA
The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The hearing will now
come to order.
And first, I want to welcome and thank our outstanding
panelists for joining us today at today's hearing, which is
entitled, The Role of Climate Research in Supporting
Agricultural Resiliency. Now, after brief opening remarks,
Members will receive testimony from our distinguished witnesses
today, and then the hearing will be open for questions. And let
me start with my opening statement.
I really can't thank you all enough. Climate change was the
very first hearing I opened up with as I became Chairman 18
months ago, and it is clearly one of the most significant and
important issues facing our nation and the world today. So
after brief opening remarks, we will have Members asking
questions, and we will open it up for that at that time.
And let me just start out by saying climate change poses a
threat to our ranchers, our foresters, and the production of
our food, of our fuel, of our fiber. That means our food, our
clothing, our shelter, and more and more, our fuel. Currently,
many communities across the country are struggling with
outstanding droughts, wildfires, and they are so pressing, as
we have seen from various weather reports, the drastic changes
in temperatures. And just leaving my home this morning and the
news flashing historically all over this country. This is the
hottest time that we have ever had, at this time of the year.
That is why this particular hearing is not only timely, but
it is sent to us with a sense of urgency to deal with it, real
involvement, with research, with education and extension. These
all play a critical role in both adaptation and our mitigation
efforts.
And I am pleased that we have an exemplary researcher from
our 1890 land-grant institutions here today to speak not only
about our climate research but also about how our 1890s are
leading the way with cutting-edge research. And as many of you
may know, this was a great inspiration for me to move just a
few years ago, to put together an historic scholarship program
targeting our 1890s. And I am proud to say that with the help
of my Republican friends, we were able to get this scholarship
program going with $80 million for student scholarships. And
now, not only that, with this upcoming farm bill, we are going
to make an additional amount of $100 million and make our
scholarship program at the 1890s permanent. So for generations
to come, we will have a legacy that stands for the right for
our outstanding institutions.
Our research institutions, which play an important role in
developing our student leaders are advocates in supporting
rigorous scientific analysis on issues related to community and
agricultural resiliency, adaptation to climate change, and
environmental and climate justice. This is so important
because, ladies and gentlemen, recent EPA analysis found that
harms from climate change disproportionately impact our
underserved communities, which are least able to prepare for
and recover from climate-related disasters. And also, today, we
are all experiencing how these disruptions can impact the price
and availability of products, given the global nature of our
food and agriculture supply chains.
So make no mistake about it, changing weather patterns and
increased natural disasters have and will continue to impact
our food and agriculture system and particularly our supply
chains. And that is why research is so important. And that is
why I am so delighted that we have assembled this distinguished
panel of researchers here today so we can understand the
challenges, test theories, build resiliency, develop solutions,
and take advantage of opportunities. We must ensure that
climate research is innovative, cutting-edge, and
revolutionary. But we must also ensure that it leads to
practical and applicable solutions for our farmers, our
ranchers, and our foresters. These are the ones that are on the
front-lines of climate change. Our research institutions are
already doing this important work, and we must support them.
Today's panel of witnesses has a wide range of experiences.
Your backgrounds are absolutely remarkable. And the significant
depth of knowledge that you all have, that you will share with
us today is so important. And we are very thankful that you
have brought your expertise to the House Agriculture Committee
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. David Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
As many of you will recall, our first hearing in my tenure as
Chairman of this Committee discussed the role that farmers, ranchers,
and foresters have in addressing climate change, as well as the impact
climate change has on their communities.
Today's hearing will focus on the vital roles that research,
education, and extension play in understanding and adapting to climate
change and supporting agricultural resiliency.
Climate change poses a threat to our rural and urban communities;
our farmers, ranchers, and foresters; and the production of our food,
fuel, and fiber.
Currently, many communities across the country are struggling with
droughts, wildfires, temperature extremes, and altered patterns of pest
pressure exacerbated by climate change. Unfortunately, this has only
increased as natural disasters and changing weather conditions continue
to impact our country and our planet.
Research, education, and extension all play a key role in
supporting both adaptation and mitigation efforts. I am pleased that we
have an exemplary researcher from an 1890 Land-Grant Institution here
today to speak not only about climate research but also about how 1890s
are leading the way with cutting-edge research.
Our research institutions, including our Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions, play
an important role in developing student leaders, advocates, and
supporting rigorous scientific analysis on issues related to community
and agricultural resiliency, adaptation to climate change, and
environmental and climate justice.
This is so important because a recent EPA analysis found that harms
from climate change disproportionally impact underserved and under-
resourced communities who are least able to prepare for and recover
from climate-related disasters.
Today we are all experiencing how disruptions can impact the price
and availability of products given the global nature of our food and
agricultural supply chains.
Make no mistake, changing weather patterns and increased natural
disasters have, and will, continue to impact our food and agricultural
systems and our supply chains. That is why research is so important--to
understand the challenges, test theories, build resiliency, develop
solutions, and take advantage of opportunities.
We must ensure that climate research is innovative, cutting-edge,
and revolutionary. But we must also ensure that it leads to practical
and applicable solutions for the farmers, ranchers, and foresters on
the front-lines of climate change. Our research institutions are
already doing this important work, and we must support them.
Today's panel of witnesses has a wide range of experiences and a
significant depth of knowledge, and we are thankful that they have
brought their expertise to the House Agriculture Committee today.
I now recognize my friend and the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, `GT' Thompson, for any opening remarks he may have.
The Chairman. And with that, now, I would like to turn it
over to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, our hardworking Ranking Member.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Good
morning, everybody, and thank you to all of our witnesses that
are participating today in this important discussion.
Whenever I discuss--not just climate solutions, but what
guides me when it comes to climate and agriculture, I try to
follow a principle-based approach. And so I have four guiding
principles that guide me in the work that I do when it comes to
climate and agriculture, American agriculture.
First and foremost, first principle, climate policies need
to benefit producers. Our farmers, our ranchers, and our
foresters primarily. Whatever we do when it comes to policy in
climate and agriculture, they need to be the primary
beneficiaries. They need to be rewarded for, quite frankly,
what they are doing today and what they can do with more tools
as we provide them for them, and helping them increase
production, efficiency, and profitability.
Second principle is you can't have a healthier environment
without a healthier economy. That is the fatal flaw of many
proposals that have been floating around here for a couple of
years in Washington, such as the New Green Deal. If it would
happen to be implemented, which would be unfortunate, it
wouldn't last a year because it would crush the economy. And we
know that you can't have a healthier environment without a
healthier economy and vice versa, actually.
And the third principle is that we should truly be science-
based and not political science. For too long, the climate
discussion has been based on political science. We need to be
real scientists, as I like to say, according to God's law.
And finally, the fourth principle is that we need to start
with what we know works and that is the farm bill's provisions,
obviously, the conservation title, but there are other
provisions within the farm bill as well that will contribute to
that. Those are tools that help our farmers, our ranchers, and
our foresters to be equipped with science, technology,
innovation. I would put support for agricultural research,
which is within the farm bill, as a part of those provisions
that helps us achieve, helps farmers, ranchers, and foresters,
American ones, achieve what they do.
Now, these voluntary, incentive-based programs and
conservationists obviously have proven to be effective.
However, it is important to note the impact the research title
has on understanding and forming conservation practices. Since
the 1940s, American agriculture has been able to increase
production by 287 percent. It is amazing. It is the most
productive agriculture in the world, while total farm inputs
remain mostly unchanged. Now, this is an amazing success story
for our farmers, ranchers, and foresters, who are supported by
the farm bill programs.
One of our most effective--I think the most effective
climate heroes not just in this nation but anywhere in the
world is the American farmer. And I include ranchers and
foresters under that title. They are, according to recent
research, they have under the title of natural land solutions
sequestered 6.1 gigatons of carbon annually. And I will be
honest with you, I was never really sure how big a gigaton was,
but I read a little deeper into that research and got in the
weeds of it. It turns out that we sequester every bit of carbon
that is emitted on what they call natural lands, which is
farming, ranching, forestry, plus an additional 10.1 percent,
which is just absolutely amazing and just reaffirms the role of
what American farmers, ranchers, and foresters are doing today.
And we need to further equip them.
Although they have traditionally by some have had a
bullseye on their back that literally says climate criminals,
that should be replaced with the mantle of climate heroes. And
that is largely because American agriculture is defined by
science, technology, and innovation. And our productivity has
increased 287 percent since the 1940s.
I love the research out there, so I am looking forward to
building on more research findings, as with all of your
testimony. But the research today that shows that if today on
this day, June 15, 2022, we wanted to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions around the world, truly the only way to accomplish
that with the tools that are out there today is for the
American farmers, ranchers, and foresters to produce more and
export it overseas, because of the nature of our productivity
and our application of science, technology, and innovation.
Now, we all know that American agriculture provides the
safest, most sustainable, and most efficient food and fiber
supply in the world while some countries have lower
environmental standards, worse labor conditions, and fewer food
safety considerations. And by promoting policies that continue
to increase American productivity while reducing inputs, we can
displace the production of those less-efficient countries and
reduce global emissions from the agriculture industry.
And as we look to address climate solutions, we should be
focused on programs and policies that unleash American
production, provide certainty, increase profitability, and
foster innovation. And I don't think there has been a better
time in the world history to unleash that innovation. And thank
you to our researchers, our land-grant universities, the
scientists that help us develop those new tools.
We also need to ensure that we are avoiding burdensome
regulations like the rewrite of WOTUS and proposed revisions to
NEPA. And by doing these things, we can ensure our consumers
will continue to have access to a safe and affordable food
supply because I am not sure with food prices going up in the
past 18 months of 40 percent that we are pushing the envelope
on affordability for many American families. In fact, in a
letter sent on Monday of this week to President Biden, I, along
with Leader McCarthy and nearly 100 of my Republican
colleagues, called on President Biden to the end his regulatory
assault on rural America or, as I like to call it, essential
America, because everything that American families need in life
comes from those rural parts of the country. So it truly is a
more appropriate term to refer to what I always referred to as
rural America as essential America.
And earlier today, I introduced a bill that would force the
President to change course and actually combat rising inflation
and input costs while providing regulatory certainty to farmers
and ranchers.
Before closing, I want to reiterate what I stated at the
climate hearing that kicked us off back in March, that I will
reject complicating our programs and making climate the focus
of every title of the upcoming farm bill reauthorization. For
years, programs included in the research title like the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative have been funding
projects that address major issues impacting the agriculture
industry and benefiting the environment without being
specifically limited to climate change research.
That being said, I really once again want to thank our
witnesses for taking the time to be with us here today. I am
looking forward to hearing your testimony and benefiting from
that experience and perspectives. And thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
The chair would also request that other Members submit
their opening statements for the record so witnesses may begin
their testimony and to ensure that there is ample time for
questions.
Our first witness today is Dr. Thelma Velez--I hope I got
that correct--who is Research and Education Program Manager for
the Organic Farming Research Foundation. She is joining the
hearing virtually from Sunrise, Florida.
Our next witness today is Dr. Sylvie Brouder. I believe I
got that correct. A Professor and Wickersham Chair of
Excellence in Agricultural Research at Purdue University in
West Lafayette, Indiana. Welcome Dr. Brouder. And Dr. Brouder
is testifying today on behalf of the American Society of
Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science
Society of America.
And our third witness today is Dr. Ali Fares, the Endowed
Professor of Water Security and Water Energy Food Nexus at
Prairie View A&M University in Prairie View, Texas. And he
hails from one of our wonderful 1890s land-grant institutions.
Thank you.
Our fourth witness today is Dr. Benjamin Houlton the Ronald
P. Lynch Dean and Professor of Ecology and Global Development
at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.
And our fifth and final witness today is Mr. Michael Vance,
who is Managing Partner of Southern Reds, LLC in Gainesville,
Texas. Mr. Vance is testifying today on behalf of the Noble
Research Institute.
I just want to welcome all of you, our distinguished
witnesses. And now without delay, we will proceed right to our
testimony. And, Dr. Velez, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF THELMA I. VELEZ, Ph.D., RESEARCH &
EDUCATION PROGRAM MANAGER, ORGANIC FARMING
RESEARCH FOUNDATION, SUNRISE, FL
Dr. Velez. Thank you. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Thompson, and distinguished Members of the House Agriculture
Committee, I would like to first thank you for hosting this
hearing on agricultural resilience and climate research, and
for providing me the opportunity to share my expertise.
I have been involved in agriculture and food systems
research for over 15 years, including various projects working
with USDA programs and offices and alongside pioneers in
sustainable agriculture within the land-grant university
system. And I have also conducted research in mainland U.S., as
well as abroad in the U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico post-
Hurricane Maria.
Today, I am speaking to you on behalf of the Organic
Farming Research Foundation, OFRF, where I am the Research and
Education Program Manager. OFRF has been working closely with
researchers, organic farmers, and policymakers across the U.S.
for over 3 decades to understand the challenges organic farmers
face and to provide the research and educational tools they
need to help them thrive.
Our changing climate, the disruptions in weather patterns,
whatever we would like to call it present new challenges for
all of our farmers. Our recently published National Organic
Research Agenda is a report where we surveyed all of the
certified organic growers across the nation. We received
responses from over 1,000 of them. Half of these, 52 percent,
said that they were concerned with adapting to climate change.
In listening sessions and focus groups, they discussed the
unpredictable precipitation, temperature changes, increased
flooding, prolonged periods of drought, and earlier and later
frost dates. All of these challenges negatively impact the
stability of U.S. farms, which in turn does threaten our
national security.
Despite these challenges, we know that organic growers lead
the nation when it comes to climate resilience and adaptation
and mitigation. Organic farming is the original climate-smart
agriculture. Organic growers regularly implement practices that
build healthy fertile soils, which are the foundation for
resilience on a farm. For example, nearly 90 percent of organic
farmers we surveyed plant cover crops regularly compared to
just ten percent of conventional farmers. Other practices that
organic growers lead the way in are diversified crop rotations,
intercropping, green manures, all of which have research-backed
methods to improve resilience and soil fertility.
OFRF has spent the past 7 years specifically researching
and reviewing the literature on organic soil health management
as it relates to climate resilience and mitigation. We have
carried out this work through grants and through a partnership
agreement with USDA NIFA. There is extensive evidence
indicating that organic production systems help build
resilience in various ways. For example, organic agricultural
systems have been found to decrease soil erosion with soils
under organic management having greater aggregate stability and
water infiltration. In the case of extended drought, studies
show that cover crops can reduce irrigation needs anywhere from
33 to 50 percent at the higher end. That is when there are
integrating strategies such as diversified rotation, reduce
tillage, and compost use. And with respect to climate
mitigation, research indicates that organic farming systems can
sustain higher levels of solar organic carbon and have lower
per-acre greenhouse gas emissions than conventional systems.
While the organic method has been shown to have great
potential to contribute to these issues, we need more research
to make widespread adoption possible. Currently, less than one
percent of USDA's annual research budget is spent on organic
production. While this is not aligned with the organic sector's
market share of six percent, NIFA's Organic Research and
Extension Initiative, OREI; the Organic Transitions Program,
ORG; as well as the ARS, Agricultural Research Service; and
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, SARE program,
have supported hundreds of studies that help both organic and
conventional farmers.
But there is still more investment needed to help our
farmers and ranchers implement the best practices specific to
their operations and specific to their geographic regions and
locales. Examples of this include breeding specifically like
regionally adapted crop cultivars for organic systems,
identifying the best cover cropping systems for those regions
for commodities, as well as ideal times to terminate these
cover crops to maximize benefits in soil health fertility. We
also need to increase research on advanced rotational grazing
systems and best strategies for integrating crop and livestock.
One other additional area is research investment on organic
nutrient management that reduces our reliance on external
inputs, which we know is a challenge.
In terms of recommendations, first, we believe it is
crucial for Congress to recognize USDA-certified organic
agriculture as a climate-smart and resilient system of
production. Second, we believe it is imperative to increase
funding for existing organic research programs such as OREI and
ORG, and also integrate organic into other research programs
across USDA's portfolio. We recommend expanding the amount of
organic research happening within ARS, specifically expanding
the work at the Long-Term Agroecosystem Research sites, the
LTAR sites, including work underway at ARS Beltsville, and as
well as the work being done at Salina Stations that can be
models that can then be scaled out.
Last, we would like to recommend that cooperative extension
be expanded upon. We know that it has been historically
underfunded, and our National Organic Research Agenda shows
that organic growers are struggling and they specifically cited
that they lack technical assistance and extension support
because those individuals do not have organic-specific
knowledge.
To conclude, we deeply appreciate the USDA's commitment to
helping farmers build resilience in climate disruption. Thank
you all for the great work that you have done so far and you
continue to do. I welcome any questions the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Velez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thelma I. Velez, Ph.D., Research & Education
Program Manager, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Sunrise, FL
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members
of the House Agriculture Committee, I would first like to thank you for
hosting a hearing on agricultural resilience and climate research, and
providing an opportunity to share my expertise on this important issue.
I have been involved in agriculture and food systems research for
over 15 years, including various projects working with USDA programs
and offices and alongside pioneers in sustainable agriculture within
the Land-Grant University system. I have a Ph.D. in Environment and
Natural Resources from the Ohio State University's College of
Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences. My research background
is highly interdisciplinary. I have conducted agronomic experiments to
help South Florida farmers sequester carbon and enhance soil fertility
using biochar, I have researched and worked with farmers building
resilience to a changing climate in the Caribbean, specifically in
Puerto Rico post-Hurricane Maria, and have collaborated with
multidisciplinary teams across the U.S.
I am speaking to you today on behalf of the Organic Farming
Research Foundation (OFRF) where I am the Research and Education
Program Manager. OFRF has been working for over 3 decades to expand the
research being done on organic production systems. We work closely with
researchers, organic farmers, and policy makers across the U.S. to
understand the challenges farmers face, and to provide the research and
education tools needed to help them thrive.
Our changing climate, and the disruptions in weather patterns it
brings, present new and intensifying challenges to farmers. In our
recently published 2022 National Organic Research Agenda (NORA), we
received responses from over one thousand certified organic growers
across the U.S. to produce a 230 page report identifying the needs of
our domestic growers. Over half of these farmers were concerned with
adapting to climate change. In listening sessions, they discussed
challenges such as unpredictable precipitation, including increased
flooding and prolonged periods of drought, earlier and later frost
dates, and changing pest challenges (Snyder, Schonbeck, Velez, 2022).*
All of these challenges alter planting and growing cycles, negatively
impact the stability of farms, and expose the fragile nature of our
current food system, which ultimately threatens national security
(ibid; Petersen-Rockney, et al., 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the in-text citations in Dr. Velez's prepared
statement do not have a corresponding descriptive ``Endnotes'' listing.
It has been reproduced herein as submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these challenges, we know that organic growers lead the
nation when it comes to climate resilience, climate adaptation, and
climate mitigation. Organic growers regularly implement climate-smart
practices that build healthy, fertile soils. Soil is the foundation of
our farms, and healthy soils have increased capacity to hold plant-
available water and nutrients, suppress pathogens, and support vigorous
crops and pasture. To build soil health, nearly 90% of organic farmers
plant cover crops regularly, compared to just 10% of conventional
farmers (Snyder, Schonbeck, Velez 2022). Other practices organic
growers lead the way in are crop rotation, intercropping, and green
manures, all of which are research-backed methods to improve resilience
and increase fertility (ibid). Organic farming is the original climate-
smart agriculture, and continues to lead the way.
OFRF has spent the past 7 years researching and reviewing the
literature to better understand the importance of soil health to
climate resilience and mitigation. We have carried out this work with
grants and through a partnership agreement with USDA NIFA. In reviewing
the existing research, we found that there is extensive evidence
showing organic production systems help farmers in various ways,
including: increasing resilience to climate stress, such as droughts
and floods, enhancing soil fertility and protecting against soil
erosion, supporting increased biodiversity, and increasing soil carbon
sequestration services. For example, in the case of extended drought,
studies show that cover crops can reduce irrigation needs anywhere from
33-50%, particularly when using integrated strategies such as
diversified rotation, reduced tillage, and compost application (Gaudin,
et al., 2018; Renwick, et al., 2017; DeVincentis, 2019). Relatedly,
organic agriculture systems have been found to decrease soil loss rates
due to erosion, with soils under organic management having greater
aggregate stability while increasing water infiltration rates (Morvan,
et al., 2018). Research has found that biodiversity on organically
managed lands have higher rates of both species richness and abundance
when compared to conventional cropping systems (Stein-Bachinger 2021).
With respect to climate mitigation, research indicates that organic
farming systems can sustain higher levels of soil organic carbon (SOC)
and have lower per-acre GHG emissions than conventional systems
(Schonbeck 2020; Crystal-Ornelas, Thapa, & Tully, 2021). There are
multitudes of studies describing the importance of organic production
systems in addressing both current and emerging climate challenges.
While the organic method has been shown to have great potential to
contribute to both climate mitigation and climate resilience, much more
action-oriented research is needed to make widespread adoption
possible. Less than 1% of the USDA's annual research budget is spent on
organic production topics, which is not aligned with the organic
sector's continually growing market share of 6%. Organic farmers need
greater research investment to continue to advance soil health and
fertility management to better sequester carbon and reduce GHG
emissions. To reduce risk and enhance resilience, they also need
improved crop cultivars specific to organic production systems,
including traits like disease-resistance, nutrient efficiency, seedling
vigor, and competitiveness toward weeds. We at OFRF believe it is
crucial for Congress to recognize and elevate USDA-certified organic
agriculture as a climate-smart and -resilient system of production and
provide the resources to meaningfully meet the need of organic
producers. This is in line with Secretary Vilsack's recent comments
when presenting the Food System Transformation Framework.
Moving forward, more research, education, and extension is needed
to help farmers and ranchers implement the best practices for climate
mitigation and adaptation specific to their operations and locales.
This includes breeding regionally adapted crop cultivars and
identifying the best cover cropping systems for specific regions and
production systems. We also need to advance organic research on
advanced grazing management and crop-livestock integration which are
known to sequester carbon, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and enhance
climate resilience of livestock production systems. Further, we believe
it is imperative to increase funding not only for existing organic
research programs, but also integrate organic research into other
research programs across the USDA's portfolio. Increasing mandatory
funding for NIFA Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI),
while also expanding the amount of organic research within the ARS,
such as work underway at Long Term Agroecosystem Research sites, is
imperative. Alongside investing in the research, investment in
Extension and education is essential to getting new research-informed
skills, tools, and technology into the hands of growers. Cooperative
Extension programs have been historically underfunded, and organic
producers are often at an additional disadvantage because the organic
expertise of Extension agents is currently lagging. Therefore, we also
recommend expanding technical assistance resources and Extension
services available to organic growers.
In conclusion, these are challenging times for the people who grow
our food. American farmers are no strangers to challenges, from the
Dust Bowl to the 1980s farm crisis, but the scale of challenges facing
our farmers are unprecedented. Destabilizing climate conditions only
contribute to continually thinning margins and market disruptions that
negatively impact the health of our agriculture industry. We deeply
appreciate the USDA funding research, education, and extension that is
crucial to helping farmers build resiliency. The Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program, the Organic Research
and Extension Initiative (OREI) and the Organic Transitions Program
(ORG) have supported hundreds of studies that help both organic and
conventional farmers address the threat of climate disruption. But,
there is still much more investment needed to meet the needs of our
farmers if we want to make meaningful progress on mitigating and
adapting to climate change. Thank you for all of the great work you
have done so far and the work you continue to do. I welcome any
questions the Committee may have on climate research and organic
production.
Condensed Recommendations
Recognize and elevate USDA-certified organic agriculture as a
climate-smart and resilient system of production.
Research:
Increase funding for organic research programs
administered by the National Institute for Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), including the Organic Research and
Extension Initiative, Organic Transitions Program, and the
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)
programs. These programs are ideally positioned to help
producers sustain and increase production while
contributing to climate adaptation and mitigation through
expanded research in organic agriculture and food systems
Continue and expand research funding through the
Agriculture Research Service's Long Term Agroecosystem
Research (LTAR) Network. For example, organic systems
research at the long term organic trials at the Beltsville,
Maryland research station can be a model for expanding LTAR
programming. This long-term research will continue to be
critical in preparing farmers and ranchers, both organic
and non-organic, to adapt to and mitigate the changing
climate.
Fund organic farming research at levels commensurate
with organic's market share. This will require at least a
six fold increase that could be spread out over several
years. We believe that increasing funding for organic
research, building on the recently-released ARS strategic
plan for organic research, will help the agency address
this historical lack of investment in organic agriculture
research and help organic and non-organic producers alike
overcome challenges to realize their potential to adapt to
and mitigate the impacts of the changing climate.
Extension and Education:
Expand Extension services available to organic
growers. Extension is essential to delivering new skills,
tools, and technology into the hands of growers. As a
country we are under-investing in Cooperative Extension
programs, and organic producers are at an additional
disadvantage because the organic expertise of Extension
agents lags significantly.
Increase the level of coordination between USDA's
research agencies and programs with their technical
assistance agencies. Farmers depend on the continued and
expanded capacity of NIFA and ARS to continue effectively
sharing key research findings with NRCS and other technical
assistance-focused agencies, so they can support the
adoption of best practices and sustainable systems of
production.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Velez.
And now we will hear from Dr. Brouder.
STATEMENT OF SYLVIE M. BROUDER, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF AGRONOMY,
WICKERSHAM CHAIR OF EXCELLENCE IN
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY: CROPS, SOILS,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, PURDUE UNIVERSITY; PAST PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY, WEST LAFAYETTE, IN; ON BEHALF OF
CROP SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA; SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF
AMERICA
Dr. Brouder. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak
today. I am an agroecologist and past President of the American
Society of Agronomy and speak on behalf of ASA's members and
those of our sister societies, the Crop and Soil Science
Societies.
With more than 8,000 scientists from public- and private-
sectors and over 13,000 certified crop advisors, we are the
largest U.S. coalition of professionals dedicated to the
agronomy, crop, and soil sciences. We have a formal collective
commitment to climate resilience and to diversifying our reach.
ASA is committed to facilitating science translation for
action.
Today, my focus is on challenges associated with achieving
open and interoperable agricultural data to accelerate
innovation for food security and resilience and to address the
urgent need for capacity development to enable data-driven
agriculture. Achieving free, open access to research data paves
the way to equitable and inclusive solutions for all U.S.
agricultural enterprises. Further, the quantity of data
collected on farms is increasing exponentially. Harnessing
these data for development of management recommendations is
widely considered an untapped opportunity to leverage public
research investments. Implementation of data-driven decisions
requires public-private data networks that feed on-farm data
back into decision support tools and assist farmers in choosing
which practices will have the most significant effect on their
land.
A large array of networks and repository initiatives are
emerging to address infrastructure needs. These have potential
to contribute to a solution, but at present, they are not well-
coordinated, most do not yet have sustainable business models,
and they use a variety of approaches to describe data. The key
to ensuring interoperable, accessible data is the creation of
and adherence to common metadata and data to standards and
easy-to-use workflows. Currently, this is a common challenge
across many scientific domains that scientific leaders,
including myself at ASA, are seeking strategies and resources
to overcome.
USDA competitive grants programs can and have supported the
development of new architecture, tools, and apps, but these
short-duration funds target innovation and currently cannot
finance long-term maintenance of data infrastructure. With
colleagues I have analyzed the data stewardship and its
approaches, and we have proposed the USDA Research, Education,
and Economics Office provide leadership in conjunction with
AgARDA, which was envisioned to have the authority and
investment needed to facilitate open research data. Full,
robust, and sustained funding would position AgARDA to lead a
partnership of agricultural data stakeholders in the
development and implementation of infrastructure.
There are a host of additional issues that must be
addressed when considering access and use of private data.
However, other sectors have clearly demonstrated that private
and personal data can be secured and used without risk to the
individual. Borrowing these strategies from a high-stakes
sector like medicine would be a natural starting place for
building farmer trust.
Finally, significant quantities of relevant research
already exist, yet practice adoption at scale remains low. We
urgently need new educational materials that accurately
characterize on-farm benefits and a large new cohort of
extension specialists and service providers skilled in
communicating the need for and potential uncertainties of
climate-smart practices. NIFA currently has open calls related
to capacity development, but the current investment level is
too low to achieve sustained increased capacity.
Our societies are currently seeking partners for capacity
development and have invested our own resources to build a new
platform for open delivery of climate-smart materials. Our
first priority is to provide trusted science-based information
to address the confusion occurring on farms regarding the
proliferation of carbon and ecosystem service markets. For
content, we are drawing on the expertise of our members and the
larger scientific community. We envision a scientific community
where every person is able to achieve their professional
potential, a vision accelerated by free access to both our
science and data resources.
Additionally, advancing data-driven solutions requires new
formal undergraduate and graduate curricula, that ensures
students gain some understanding of data science and their use
in agriculture and food systems research. In my experience,
next-generation extension specialists require skills in the
core methodologies of assessing data validity, unbound by a
synthesis of studies and communicating scientific uncertainty.
Reorienting traditional curricula to encompass data sciences
creates the opportunity to recruit students with more diverse
interests to the agricultural workforce.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
Committee. I look forward to addressing your questions and to
the discussion.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Brouder follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sylvie M. Brouder, Ph.D., Professor of Agronomy,
Wickersham Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Research, Department of
Agronomy: Crops, Soils, and Environmental Sciences, Purdue
University; Past President, American Society of Agronomy, West
Lafayette, IN; on Behalf of Crop Science Society of America; Soil
Science Society of America
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. My name is
Sylvie Brouder, and I am an agroecologist and a Past President of the
American Society of Agronomy (ASA). For the past 27 years, I have been
a faculty member in the Department of Agronomy at Purdue University
where I conduct research on cropping systems, their productivity and
their impact on air and water quality. I am the Director of at Purdue's
Water Quality Field Station, a highly-instrumented, long-term research
facility. My appointment also includes teaching and Cooperative
Extension; the latter emphasizing development of nutrient management
recommendations for farmers.
As leadership representing ASA, I speak today on behalf of the
interests of our members and the members of our sister societies: the
Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and the Soil Science Society of
America (SSSA). Collectively, the ``Tri-Societies'' represent more than
8,000 scientists in academia, Cooperative Extension, industry, and
government, over 13,000 Certified Crop Advisers (CCA), and 620
Certified Professional Soil Scientists (CPSS). We are the largest
coalition of professionals dedicated to the agronomy, crop, and soil
science disciplines in the United States. Our members engage in the
science that has documented agriculture's contributions to climate
change; they recognize agriculture's opportunity to contribute to
climate and food security solutions and they are dedicated to advancing
the science of climate-smart agriculture and to rigorous translation of
that science into evidence-based agricultural management
recommendations. Our current strategic plans reflect this commitment in
key strategies highly relevant to today's hearing including pursuit of
a common ``Grand Challenge'' of driving soil-plant-water-environment
systems solutions for healthy people on a healthy planet in a rapidly
changing climate as well as increased investment in ``Knowledge to
Action'' and ``Engagement, Inclusion, and Diversity.'' \1\
Research and Data Infrastructure and Security Needs
To accurately reflect our members' perspectives in the national
dialogue on research needs for agricultural resiliency, we conducted a
survey of the potential for various management strategies to facilitate
farmer adaptation to or mitigation of climate change. Respondents
identified improvements in soil, water and nutrient management, and
crop diversification and improvement as practices with highest
potential with 45 to 60+ percent indicating more research was needed
for a practice or suite of practices. These research needs are
summarized in a statement we released last year on ``Advancing
Resilient Agriculture: Recommendations to Address Climate Change''
where we highlight the potential ecosystem services that working lands
can provide as well their complexities, synergies and trade-offs, and
the challenges associated with their measurement and monitoring.\2\ On-
farm practice efficacy, including magnitude and timeline to impact,
will be influenced by both the environment and the attributes of the
farm enterprise itself. Thus, new crop, soil and agronomic science is
needed to address site-specific nuances and as well as to keep pace
with the changing weather patterns and the rapid evolution of on-farm
technology and its implementation.
However, to achieve rapid and efficient gains in climate science
for agricultural resiliency, we will need to address the significant
impediment posed by a lack of data infrastructure long fostered by a
research culture that has eschewed data sharing. In 2019, I led an
analysis of the limitations to agricultural decision-making posed by a
pervasive lack of accessibility and sharing of research data; for
agriculture, the scope of data-related opportunities and challenges is
hard to overstate. Historically, agricultural progress has been
achieved through incremental aggregations of ``small science,''
hypothesis driven research conducted by individuals or small teams of
researchers. The scientific reward and Federal funding systems have co-
evolved with this small science model ensuring persistence of this
research culture. Yet, the small science approach cannot characterize
the nuances and trade-offs that are hallmarks of grand challenge
questions. Further, the historic culture of data disposal once a
knowledge fragment is created can lead to distrust as an analysis
cannot be reproduced and to inefficiencies because datasets from
similar, small studies cannot be synthesized into larger, more nuanced
analyses and cannot be reused to address new questions not originally
envisioned when the data were collected.\3\ Achieving free, open access
to research data paves the way to equitable and inclusive solutions for
the diverse array of U.S. agricultural enterprises whose resiliency is
now challenged by climate change.
For agriculture, organizing, standardizing and making publicly
available non-sensitive raw data produced by small independent research
studies is a critical first step to capitalizing on the opportunities
and efficiencies afforded by the host of new ``e-sciences'' tools and
technologies. Meta-analytical statistics can be applied to arrays of
curated datasets from independent studies, an approach routinely used
in medicine, education and other disciplines.\4\ Results from such
statistically powerful syntheses afford a more complete understanding
of outcomes associated with a practice or intervention and provide a
robust translation of science into practice. With sufficient data,
artificial intelligence is widely expected to offer new insights into
agricultural resiliency. Large datasets created by harmonization of
small datasets can be explored with methods such as machine learning to
detect patterns and uncover important characteristics in aggregated
data that are simply not present in the individual component datasets.
Data-sharing infrastructure, including easy-to-use workflows, would
also accommodate research data not currently represented in peer-review
publications. Highly regarded peer-review journals covering the
agricultural sciences currently adhere to a litmus test of research
``novelty'' in order for a manuscript to be accepted. Thus, researchers
commonly are unwilling or unable to invest the substantial effort
needed to publish studies with confirmatory (e.g., studies that
replicate results already in journal articles) or negative results.\5\
Yet such studies are critical to the characterization of how impactful
a management practice will be in the real world and to the development
of an unbiased foundation to evidence-based practice. Making this
``file drawer'' or ``dark'' data available ensures public investments
are not lost and can increase the reach of research results beyond a
given region or beyond the original research question. It also ensures
that syntheses across studies with meta-analysis are not biased by a
preponderance of positive results in the published literature.
The quantity of data collected on farms by farmers and their
technical service providers is increasing exponentially. Harnessing
these data for development of management recommendations is widely
considered an untapped opportunity to leverage public research
investments. The simple notion that a farmer's own data will both be
useful in tailoring a recommendation to their farm and, when merged
with research data, will strengthen and add needed nuance to
recommendation frameworks currently motivates numerous projects. Much
of my own ongoing research [focuses] on case studies to demonstrate the
value of data sharing to spur development of agricultural data
networks. At present, I lead a USDA NIFA-funded Coordinated Innovation
Network to develop a cyber-infrastructure framework for integrating
public and private data for evidence-based fertilizer
recommendations.\6\ Moving forward, most agricultural scientists now
envision that implementation of data-driven decisions for climate-smart
agriculture requires interoperable public-private data networks that
feed on-farm data back into decision-support tools to assist farmers in
choosing which practices will have the most significant effect on their
land.\2\
Realizing Data Infrastructure Requires Partnerships, Investment and
Trust
Designing a singular solution for agricultural data seems
inherently untenable given a large array of networks and repository
initiatives that are emerging to address infrastructure needs. In
recent years, Federal agencies including USDA have instituted programs
and policies to drive data sharing and reap its benefits. Funding
requests by researchers must now be accompanied by a data management
plan that details handling of data generated by projects during and
after the completion of the project including details on how the data
will be produced or acquired, managed, stored, shared, and
protected.\7\ The general expectation is that all data will be
preserved and curated in a form that is reusable (i.e., contains enough
information and annotation for independent understanding). In the case
of NIFA-funded projects, researchers are encouraged but not required to
deposit data in USDA's Ag Data Commons.\8\ However, most researchers
have numerous options for data preservation including domain-specific
databases,\9\ general purpose publishing repositories, and
institutional research repositories.\10\ Many of these repositories
provide curation and preservation and make data available for free but
may be tailored to specific needs of their immediate stakeholders. They
have potential to contribute to a data infrastructure solution for
agriculture but at present they are not well coordinated and most do
not yet have strong business models to ensure sustainability.
Additionally, they use a variety of approaches to describing data.
The key to ensuring data are interoperable across datasets,
networks, and repositories is the creation of and adherence to common
metadata and data standards.\3\ Such standards are currently under
development but more engagement in standards development by researchers
and their professional societies is needed. At ASA, leadership has been
gleaning lessons-learned by other societies as they pursue development
of standards for their membership.\11\ For agriculture, the development
of data standards and their broad adoption by existing infrastructures
can be expected to remain a challenge in the foreseeable future and
should be a high priority in the climate resiliency agenda. Ultimately,
designing functional data architecture for agriculture requires
partners in the research data value chain (e.g., researchers, their
institutions and sponsors, etc.) to commit to collaborative and
iterative analysis of successes and failures in design and utility.
Competitive grants programs including NIFA can and have supported
the development of new data architecture, tools and apps but these
short-duration funds target innovation and are not currently positioned
to finance long-term maintenance of databases and other data
infrastructure. The cost of data infrastructure for agriculture is
currently unknown. Databases with longevity almost always have core,
institutional support.\12\ Delivering data online for free--in keeping
with goals of democratized access to publicly funded research--requires
workflows and human resources for stewardship that will drive costs
well beyond those needed for storage. One option is for public and
private funding organizations to pay directly for stewardship in
contributions that are proportionatal to the size of a grant.\13\ In
our analysis of data infrastructure needs,\3\ we propose the USDA
Research Education and Economics office provide leadership and
oversight to piloting agricultural case studies exploring potential
business models. The Agriculture Advanced Research and Development
Authority (AgARDA) created by the 2018 Farm Bill was envisioned to have
the authority and investment needed to facilitate sharing of research
data. Full appropriation of authorized funds would position AgARDA to
lead a partnership of agricultural data stakeholders in the development
and implementation of data infrastructure.
Without question, there are a host of additional data-related
issues that must be addressed when considering access and use of
private data including the farmer-owned and on-farm data that is
anticipated to greatly benefit the science of agricultural resiliency
to climate change. For farmers, the marginal cost of data storage is
low but the up-front costs to collect and manage these data can be
expensive. These costs must be fully recognized when researchers
solicit their use. Further, there is a pervasive concern, even among
collaborators within farmer networks, that their data will be used for
regulatory and/or punitive purposes. For example, many states have
regulations pertaining to non-point sources of nutrients that
exacerbate farmer unwillingness to share key management details needed
for reuse of their data. However, numerous mechanisms already exist for
data anonymization and other sectors have clearly demonstrated that
private and personal data can be secured and used without risk to the
individual. Medicine relies heavily on individual patient data to
characterize the efficacy of clinical practices and has largely been
successful in securing individual identity and developing trust through
an array of personal protection legal instruments. Borrowing these
strategies from a high-stakes sector like medicine would be a natural
starting place for building farmer trust and willingness to engage.
Developing a Diversified Workforce for Climate Smart Agriculture
In our Strategic Plan, ASA's focus on ``Knowledge to Action'' \1\
reflects our commitment to our CCA membership and recognizes that
access to recommendations that align with and are transparent to the
underpinning science is a major barrier to continually advancing
agricultural sustainability and resiliency at scale. While there are
significant knowledge gaps that require more research, there is already
a large volume of existing scientific research on practices and their
impacts on productivity and environmental outcomes. For example,
numerous practices have been extensively studied for their ability to
sequester carbon (C) in soil for climate change mitigation and/or to
reduce soil C losses commonly associated with agricultural activities--
critical to both climate mitigation and adaptation and a central tenant
for regenerative agriculture. Yet practice adoption at scale remains
low reflecting a dearth of science-based educational materials and
human resources to facilitate technology transfer.
The C markets are currently targeting payments for practices that
may require implementation of a decade or more for measurable change to
occur, and farmers are understandably concerned about payment levels
offered and legal liabilities associated with non-compliance.\14\
Indeed, as revealed by our member survey, other practices for ``4R''
nutrient management,\15\ on-farm energy efficiencies, etc., may offer
an as or more realizable approach to achieving on-farm climate
mitigation even though soil C sequestration is a cornerstone for
climate adaptation. For practice adoption to occur at scale, there is
an urgent need for new education materials that accurately characterize
potential benefits, including timelines to and magnitudes of measurable
benefit and certainty of benefit realization for a particular purpose
(e.g., greenhouse gas emission mitigation, soil moisture conservation
and adaptation to increased precipitation uncertainty).
The need to bolster capacity for technology transfer is widely
recognized throughout the public- and private-sectors. Joint Policy
Recommendations from the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance
highlight enhancing access to technical assistance to ensure producers
can overcome barriers to the practices that can lead to improvements in
soil health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.\16\ In 2020, the
eXtension Foundation published an analysis of existing Cooperative
Extension programs on climate and extreme weather and highlighted the
urgent need for unified, nationally coordinated programming that
wholistically addresses climate adaption and mitigation.\17\ Of
particular note was the current dearth of programs to address the needs
of minority communities. Our Tri-Society statement Advancing Resilient
Agriculture \2\ also highlights the need for educational programs that
are more directly responsive to on-farm realities, especially with
respect to the confusing array of emerging carbon and ecosystem service
markets.
NIFA currently has an open call for one competitively-funded
Coordinated Agricultural Project to support farmers, ranchers and
foresters in implementing climate-smart and nature-based solutions.\18\
However, the current investment level is too low to achieve a
sustained, increased capacity in climate-smart programming. In keeping
with our commitment to our Grand Challenge, the Tri-Societies are
currently seeking partners to assist in climate-smart and food security
capacity development. Last December, we collectively committed to
investing $500,000 of our internal funds to building a new Carbon and
Ecosystem Services Education Project, ``Decode Six.'' \19\ The first
priority of this program is to provide trusted educational resources to
address the confusion occurring on farms regarding the proliferation of
carbon and ecosystem service markets. We are building a science-based,
unbiased, open access website featuring materials from peer-reviewed
science. For content, we are drawing on the expertise of our members
and the science community writ large. Relevance and content inclusivity
will be achieved through engagement of our CCAs and external partners
including the Ecosystem Service Market Consortium \20\ and their
Producer's Circle and their Working Group on Inclusion and Racial
Justice. Our programming will also be informed by the Tri-societies'
renewed commitment to diversity, equity and inclusivity. We envision a
scientific community where every person, regardless of their background
and challenges, is able to achieve their professional potential; a
vision accelerated by open access to both our science and data
resources.\21\ Our goal is to grow both our educational platform and
the diversity of the membership we represent via partnerships. To that
end, I represent the Tri-Societies on the Climate Priority Action Team
of Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP). The Action
Team seeks to build resource for climate Extension programs via
partnerships with Federal Government agencies, nonprofits and
philanthropic organizations.
Finally, advancing data-driven solutions in agriculture also
requires new formal curricula at the undergraduate and graduate levels
that ensures students gain some understanding of data sciences and
their use in agricultural and food systems research. Current demand in
the agricultural sector for students skilled in data and computational
sciences is far outstripping supply. Indeed, the major, regional crop
consultancy group that collaborates on my NIFA-funded cyber-framework
project \6\ employs agronomists and data/computer scientists at roughly
equivalent rates. While not every student of agricultural sciences will
need to be a ``data scientist,'' they will all need some understanding
of basic principles, data tools and ethics. Next generation Extension
Specialists require curricula on core methodologies for assessing data
validity, data wrangling, the transparent and unbiased synthesis of
studies and communicating scientific uncertainty. As forecast for the
general workforce,\22\ agriculture will need individuals with
appropriate domain knowledge but also individuals with the
mathematical, computational and statistical skills to help manage and
use the volume of data generated by research and on-farm monitoring
networks. Reorienting traditional curricula to encompass data sciences
creates the ancillary opportunity of recruiting a host of non-
traditionally oriented students into agriculture, a key to
diversification of the agricultural workforce.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this panel. I would
be glad to address your questions and I look forward to the discussion.
[Endnotes]
\1\ The Strategic Plan for the American Society of Agronomy is
available at https://www.agronomy.org/files/Governance/strategic-plan-
asa-2020-2023.pdf.
\2\ Beyond food, feed and fiber, the ecosystem services that healthy
agricultural systems can provide include air and water filtration,
regulation of nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration and biodiversity
promotion. Access Advancing Resilient Agriculture at https://
www.agronomy.org/files/science-policy/issues/2021-acs-climate-solutions-
statement.pdf.
\3\ The full purpose of this analysis was to document the need for
and anticipated benefits of developing data-sharing standards,
incentivizing researchers to share data, and building a data-sharing
infrastructure for agricultural research. For details, see Council for
Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2019. Enabling Open Source
Data Networks in Public Agricultural Research. CAST Commentary QTA2019-
1. CAST, Ames, Iowa.
\4\ The Cochrane is a major resource for trusted evidence in
medicine and is underpinned by meta-analyses. See https://
www.cochrane.org/.
\5\ It is common practice for Extension Specialists to conduct
experiments to confirm the effectiveness of a new agricultural
management practice in their state or region. Results from these field
trials are used in local education programs but may never be formally
published in a journal article and results are commonly not preserved
or curated for future use.
\6\ USDA's National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA)--
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative is a major funding source for
Tri-Societies' members research on management practices that influence
agriculture's resiliency to climate change. The Data Science for Food
and Agriculture Systems Program funds my on-going cyber-framework
project.
\7\ For the guidance on Data Management Plans for NIFA-funded
projects see https://www.nifa.usda.gov/data-management-plan-nifa-funded-
research-education-extension-projects.
\8\ USDA's National Agricultural Library created the Ag Data Commons
is a data catalog and repository available to help the agricultural
research community share and discover research data funded by USDA and
meet Federal open access requirements.
\9\ Domain data repositories are designed to house data of similar
focus. An example is SoyBase, the USDA's soybean genetics database. See
https://www.soybase.org/sb_about.php.
\10\ An example of an institutional repository is the Purdue
University Research Repository where any researcher with a Purdue
affiliation can formally publish a dataset from any research domain. It
was developed to meet the data management planning requirements of
Federal funding agencies and currently houses 1,300+ publicly available
datasets, many in the agricultural domain. https://purr.purdue.edu/.
\11\ The Council of Scientific Society Presidents (https://
www.sciencepresidents.org/) recently facilitated a year-long series of
presentations and discussions on Data Sharing.
\12\ Attwood, T.K., B. Agit, L.B. Ellis, 2015. Longevity of
biological databases. EMBnet.journal 21.e803. https://
journal.embnet.org/index.php/embnetjournal/article/view/803/1209.
\13\ Gabella, C., C. Durinx, R. Appel. 2017. Funding Knowledgebases:
Towards a sustainable funding model for the UniProt use case. https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5747334/.
\14\ For a recent Purdue Univ. analysis of Opportunities and
Challenges Associated with ``Carbon Farming'' see https://ag.purdue.edu/
commercialag/home/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/
202106_Thompson_CarbonMarkets.pdf.
\15\ 4R Nutrient Management focuses on apply the right rate and
source of fertilizer in the right place and at the right time.
\16\ The Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance is coalition of
organizations representing farmers, ranchers, forest owners, the food
sector and environmental advocates working to define and promote shared
climate policy priorities. For their Joint Policy Recommendations, see
https://agclimatealliance.com/.
\17\ Extension Climate and Extreme Weather Programming. 2020.
ehttps://online.flippingbook.com/view/310442/Xtension Foundation.
\18\ This NIFA funding opportunity is in the Crosscutting Priority
Area. The Program Area is Extension, Education, & USDA Climate Hubs
Partnership and offers one $10M, 5 year award.
\19\ ``Decode Six'' is in reference to decoding carbon, which has an
atomic number of six on the Periodic Table of Elements.
\20\ The Ecosystem Services Market Consortium is a nonprofit, member-
based organization dedicated to advancing ecosystem service markets.
See https://ecosystemservicesmarket.org/.
\21\ Our Tri-Society DEI statement can be accessed at https://
www.agronomy.org/files/DEI/acs-dei-statement-2021.pdf.
\22\ The Business Higher Education Forum. 2017. Investing in
America's Data Science and Analytics Talent: The Case for Action.
https://www.bhef.com/sites/default/files/
bhef_2017_investing_in_dsa.pdf.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Brouder.
And now we will hear from Dr. Fares.
STATEMENT OF ALI FARES, Ph.D., ENDOWED PROFESSOR OF WATER
SECURITY AND WATER ENERGY FOOD NEXUS,
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN SCIENCES,
PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY, PRAIRIE VIEW, TX
Dr. Fares. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman David Scott,
Vice Chair Alma Adams, and Ranking Member Glenn Thompson, for
convening and inviting me to contribute to today's hearing. I
am Dr. Ali Fares, Endowed Professor of Water Security and Water
Food Energy Nexus at Prairie View A&M University. I want to
thank you for your sustained support for research with the
land-grant institutions such as Prairie View A&M University and
the 1890 Institutions, specifically to allow us to train future
leaders and professionals and conduct fundamental and applied
research that addresses the needs of the over eight million
limited resource farmers, ranchers, and community members in
Texas through multiple funding programs, including the 2018
Farm Bill.
These rural and urban communities have been one of the most
impacted portions of the society by climate change. Through the
continued support of Congress and the extraordinary efforts of
leaders of this Committee, PVAMU and the 1890 Institutions have
been conducting state-of-the-art research, while training
limited resources future leaders to address evolving needs of
the U.S. population.
The 1890 Institutions have several active climate research
projects. For instance, at Prairie View A&M University, I am
leading the GetAgSmart Project, the USDA NIFA-funded project,
in collaboration with colleagues from Texas A&M University. We
have been working on building capacity and smart agricultural
technologies to train Texas underserved communities and support
them to start high-paying careers in this area. Through a
second NSF-funded project I am jointly working with colleagues
from the University of Texas at Austin training over 30 Ph.D.
and M.S. students in the area of water, energy, food, and
climate change.
The U.S. has been the global leader in research and
development investment. The new economy is research and
innovation-savvy and dominated by tech companies that
continuously benefit from research and innovation, including
agriculture, that heavily rely on research innovation and its
mission to meet ever-increasing demand for food, fiber, clean
energy, and ecosystem services while facing an array of climate
change and use challenges that have been compounded by the
pandemic and regional wars in crucial food and energy
influential areas.
The climate change crisis offers opportunity for research
and innovation in agriculture energy and related sector to
support the new economy with different infrastructure,
workforce skills, financial tools, and governance. As a result,
new careers will arise, a new market will develop. Embracing
this new economy will result in the thriving of the U.S.
economy where small and minority businesses and individuals
will play a significant role.
Agricultural research and innovation helps the agriculture
sector overcome many of its challenges, including the soil and
water conservation efforts triggered by the 1930s Dust Bowl and
the Green Revolution that benefited from the effort of
legendary agronomists such as Dr. Norman Borlaug.
Although agriculture is a major greenhouse gas emitter, it
is looked at as the sector that can not only reverse its
course, but also can mitigate substantial amounts of greenhouse
gases, via carbon sequestration in soil and biomass. Through
the adoption of effectively proven management practices, it
will help the U.S. achieve its emission reduction goals,
strengthen its resiliency to climate change, and strengthen its
global economic leadership.
The USDA NIFA and other institutions enumerated several
climate research needs that require several actions to help the
agriculture sector address the climate change crisis via a
joint mitigation and adaptation approach. However, I am going
to highlight a few that are deemed relevant to the 1890
Institutions and limited resource funds in communities:
adequate funding to support and develop climate-smart practices
and technologies; addressing water security; stronger support
for research and innovation to develop tools and practices
tailored to limited resource farms and communities; and support
public-private partnership and international collaboration
between U.S. and international academic and research
institutions and industries. I encourage Congress to support
robust funding increases for the 1890 land-grant program so
that we can make even more positive impact on our country's
citizens. Through our research program, we will be better able
to address specific climate change needs of the underserved
communities.
I look forward to answering questions from you and the
Committee Members in the question-and-answer section, and thank
you for having me.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fares follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ali Fares, Ph.D., Endowed Professor of Water
Security and Water Energy Food Nexus, College of Agriculture and Human
Sciences, Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, TX
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman David Scott, Vice Chair Alma
Adams, and Ranking Member Glenn Thompson, for convening and inviting me
to contribute to today's hearing, ``The Role of Climate Research in
Supporting Agricultural Resiliency.'' I am Dr. Ali Fares, Endowed
Professor of Water Security and Water Energy Food Nexus at Prairie View
A&M University (PVAMU). I want to thank you for your sustained support
to research in the Land-Grant Institutions such as PVAMU and the 1890
Institutions, specifically to allow us to train future leaders and
professionals and conduct fundamental and applied research that
addresses the needs of the over eight million limited resource farmers,
ranchers, and community members in Texas through multiple funding
programs included in the 2018 Farm Bill. These rural and urban
communities have been one of the more impacted portions of society by
climate change.
Through the continued support of Congress and the extraordinary
efforts of leaders of this Committee, PVAMU, the 1890 Institutions, and
other land-grant institutions have continued conducting state-of-the-
art research while training limited-resources future leaders to address
the evolving needs of the U.S. population.
The 1890 Institutions have several active climate research
projects; at PVAMU, I am leading the GetAgSmart project, a USDA-NIFA
funded project in collaboration with colleagues from Texas A&M
University. We have been working on building capacity in smart
agricultural technologies to train Texas underserved communities and
support them start high-paying careers in this area. The second project
is a joint effort with colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin,
training over 30 Ph.D. and MS students in the area water-food-energy
and climate change. Several of these students graduated and are already
training others.
It is crucial to remind ourselves of the critical role research and
innovation, R&I, have on the U.S. economy and the U.S. global
leadership in this area. The U.S. has been the global leader in R&D
investments; The U.S. continues to lead the nations in its spending on
R&D; although currently, it was about 30% in 2019, its R&D was 40% of
the global R&D in 1999. Our new economy, as many want to call it, is
R&D savvy and dominated by tech companies that continuously benefit
from R&D. The agricultural sector is one of those economic sectors that
heavily rely on research and development (R&I) in its mission to meet
ever-increasing demands for food, fiber, clean energy, and ecosystem
services while facing an array of climate change-induced challenges,
e.g., droughts, flooding, fires, freezes, and pest infestation. Since
2020, the challenges have been compounded by the pandemic and regional
wars in crucial food and energy influenceable areas, disrupted the
supply chains, and introduced volatility to the food energy markets and
the global economy.
The current climate change challenges offer opportunities for
economic innovation and the implementation of new growth models.
Substantially reducing GHG emissions in about 2 decades requires
innovation in many sectors, especially agriculture, energy, and other
related sectors. These innovations will support a new economy with
different infrastructure, workforce skills, financial tools, and
governance. As a result, new career opportunities will arise, and new
markets will develop (e.g., carbon market, resiliency indices), powered
by new goods and services. Intentionally embracing this new economy
will result in the thriving of the U.S. economy, where small and
minority businesses and individuals will play a significant role.
Agricultural and natural resources research and innovation helped
the agriculture and natural resources sector overcome many of its
challenges, including the introduction of erosion control practices
that resulted from the extensive soil and water conservation research
triggered by the Dust Bowl in the 1930s of the last century. Results of
those practical research have been implemented here in the U.S. and
internationally to combat soil erosion and protect the environment. In
addition, the green revolution, by introducing the crop breeding
efforts of legendary agronomists such as Norman Borlaug, helped achieve
food security in the U.S. and other countries such as India.
Although the agriculture sector has been one of the major
greenhouses gases emitters, it is looked at as the sector that can not
only reverse its course but also can mitigate substantial amounts of
GHG via carbon sequestration in soil and biomasses through the adaption
of effectively proven management practices.
This will help the U.S. achieve its emission reduction goals,
strengthen our resilience to climate change, and strengthen our global
economic and moral leadership.
Through R&I, we can develop and implement climate-smart and
resilient agricultural practices that will help U.S. individuals,
families, and communities weather the impact of climate change through
adaptation and mitigation approaches. These approaches are interrelated
and must be adopted simultaneously as they are needed to improve
changing climate resiliency.
The USDA, through NIFA, enumerates several climate research needs
that require several actions to help the agriculture sector and other
stakeholders adapt to and address climate change crisis via a joint
mitigation and adaptation approach, including:
Adequate funds are needed to study and develop climate-smart
practices and technologies that producers and land managers
need to implement these practices and approaches.
Research on the effectiveness of adaptive practices and
technologies regarding productivity synergies, tradeoffs and
mitigation co-benefits on soil carbon storage and GHG emission
reductions.
There is an urgent need to support site-specific research on
fertilizer technologies, climate-resilient plants and trees,
and fate of pollinator communities, and vector-borne livestock
diseases.
Support for reliable modeling efforts on the future
affordability of climate-smart activities and project pest and
disease outbreaks under different scenarios.
Water security: long-term monitoring of snowpack,
precipitation, and soil moisture networks data is essential to
investigate trends and develop management options.
Integrating climate and socioeconomic change with production
and land-management outcomes while considering the secondary
effects of climate's influence on pollinators, pests, diseases,
invasive species, and extreme events such as flooding and
drought.
The advanced and integrated use of Artificial Intelligence
and IoT-based technologies will help efficient and effective
decision-making for climate-smart and sustainable agriculture.
Limited resources and minority farmers have additional
challenges besides climate change. They are last in adopting
new technologies and practices as most of them lack the
resources needed and most of the adopted technologies are
costly and require a level of technical understanding, two
elements lacking most of the limited resources farmers and
ranchers.
Intentional efforts are needed, especially for commodity-
specific objectives (e.g., common crops and animals, corn,
wheat, beef, small animals) to develop tools and practices
tailored to limited resources for farmers and communities.
Support technology transfer on newly developed scientific
information and tools at the local scale to help land and
resource managers increase the resilience of those systems and
the communities that depend on them.
Given the enormity of the tasks, public-private partnerships
and international collaborations between U.S. and international
academic and research institutions and industries are viable
options that it would be wise to consider.
The 1890 institutions are significant players in this effort
in helping the most fundable and impacted section of the
population by climate change; however, their researchers and
research infrastructure desperately need continued support to
build capacity in conducting research and training the next
generation of climate-smart agriculture experts.
I encourage Congress to support robust funding increases for the
1890 land-grant programs so we can make even more positive impacts on
our country's citizens through our research programs. We will be better
able to address specific climate change needs of the underserved
farming communities and train future professionals in climate-smart
agriculture discipline.
In summary, I request you invest in supporting America's future
research and innovation leadership by strengthening the 1890s land-
grant universities' research portfolio. PVAMU has a 146 year track
record of excellence; it ranks as the No. 1 ``best value'' HBCU No. 4
among Texas universities.
I look forward to answering questions from you and the Committee
Members in the question and answer session of this hearing.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Fares.
And now we will hear from Dr. Houlton.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN Z. HOULTON, Ph.D., RONALD P. LYNCH DEAN,
PROFESSOR, ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES, CORNELL
UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY
Dr. Houlton. Great. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Thompson, Members of the Committee, and everyone participating
today, thank you for holding this hearing on the critical role
of climate research to bolster our food and agricultural
systems. I am grateful for this invitation to present on a
topic which does two things. It keeps me up at night, and it
gets me out of bed in the morning if that is possible. My name
is Benjamin Houlton. I am the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of the
Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. At
Cornell, I hold appointments as a Professor of Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology and as a Professor of Global Development.
For nearly 2 decades, I have been working on modeling the
global environment and understanding climate change and its
influence on society. For the past decade, I have been working
explicitly with farmers, ranchers, indigenous tribes, and other
partners on solutions for carbon dioxide removal, which is
critical to bending the warming curve. This includes launching
over 100 acres of farmland carbon sequestration projects to
improve crop yields and create new financial markets for
farmers, ranchers, and industry. And I am the scientific
founder of a new soil carbon startup business. All views
expressed in this statement are my own.
My main message today is this: Agriculture can be a
powerful weapon in the battle against climate change. But we
need to think about the opportunity. We need a human genome-
level type investment in research and development to realize
the opportunities for U.S. agriculture to take on climate
leadership.
In my opening remarks, I will make three points. First, as
we have heard, U.S. agriculture is the best in the world. From
1977 to 2007, the World Resources Institute estimates that
increased efficiencies in U.S. agriculture have led to a 16
percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef
produced in the U.S. Recent studies estimate that gains in
livestock and crop productivity have increased by about 30
percent from 1997 to 2017, while increasing greenhouse gas
emissions by only seven percent. It is important to celebrate
these advancements and recognize we can do even more to cut
emissions, given that agriculture is currently around 11
percent of total emissions in the United States.
My second point, we are already witnessing the devastating
impacts of climate change on food production in the U.S. and
worldwide. Despite what my 16 year old daughter likes to
believe, food does not come from DoorDash. It comes from very
hardworking producers and growers who continue to battle
heatwaves, droughts, flooding, pests, and pathogens. Cornell
research has shown that we have experienced a 20 percent
reduction in grain yields in the United States due to climate
change. That is 7 years of productivity. And these losses could
double by 2050. So we need significant investments in research
infrastructure and farming communities to curb additional
productivity losses.
Third, net-zero or net negative operations are in reach for
farmers and producers, creating new jobs, new careers, and new
forms of revenue. Some of the most promising technologies
coming from research and innovation include anaerobic digesters
that are converting manure into electricity; no-till and cover-
cropping practices to increase carbon sequestration and improve
soil health; agroforestry to sequester carbon and assist in
flooding; soil amendments such as biochar, rock dust, and
composted food, green waste, and manure, which can collectively
sequester perhaps a billion tons of carbon in U.S. agriculture;
and new fertilizer technologies that slowly release nitrogen to
cut emissions.
In addition, we should be thinking about game-changing
approaches in synthetic biology to boost photosynthesis in
crops, the deployment of digital agriculture and AI and new
feed additives to cut methane from cow burps, offering
promising suites of solution for cutting-edge research and
innovation.
With these points in mind, if we make significant R&D
investments across Federal and state agencies to incentivize
university public-private partnerships, I envision a future
where U.S. agriculture leads in climate solutions with carbon
as a central commodity to uplift rural communities, while
producing even better food with fewer environmental impacts.
Given what we are witnessing today, we know these investments
are essential for the U.S. to maintain a competitive advantage
from an economic, human health, and food security perspective.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Houlton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Benjamin Z. Houlton, Ph.D., Ronald P. Lynch Dean,
Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Professor, Department of
Global Development, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, Members of the Committee,
and everyone participating today, thank you for holding this hearing on
the critical role of climate research to bolster our food and
agriculture systems. I am grateful for the invitation to present on
this important topic.
My name is Benjamin Houlton. I am the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of the
Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, known as
Cornell CALS. At Cornell, I hold appointments as a Professor of Ecology
and Evolutionary Biology and as a Professor of Global Development. My
research interests include global ecosystem processes, climate change
solutions and agricultural sustainability. I am also founding principal
investigator for the Working Lands Innovation Center, directing
approximately 100 acres of farmland carbon sequestration projects to
improve crop yields and create new financial markets for farmers and
ranchers. For nearly 2 decades I have been working on modeling the
global environment and understanding climate change, and for the past
decade working explicitly with farmers, ranchers, Indigenous tribes and
other partners on solutions for carbon dioxide removal, which is
critical to bending the carbon curve and avoiding the most dangerous
climate impacts of the future. All of the views expressed in this
statement are my own.
At Cornell CALS, we play a critical role in our university's Land-
Grant mission to advance the lives and livelihoods of New York
residents through our teaching, research and extension activities. New
York--as Committee Members Maloney and Jacobs can attest--is an
agriculturally vibrant state with a large and diverse array of fruit,
vegetable, dairy and livestock production. Partnering with stakeholders
statewide, our faculty are committed to translating research findings
into evidence-based support for the wide range of farm sizes and types
in our state and bringing findings from the field back to campus labs
and classrooms. This two-way knowledge exchange is critical to
enriching New York farmers, communities and industries with proven
methods and technologies.
I believe our agriculture innovation ecosystem can power the
breakthroughs needed to tackle society's most dire threat: a rapidly
changing climate, which is severely disrupting U.S. and global food
production. We have an urgent need for substantial and sustained
investment in science-based solutions and strategies that can address
our climate challenges while benefiting the farm communities that
produce the foods that nourish us. Agriculture has enormous potential
to help cool the planet while feeding it--but only if we accelerate
development, testing and implementation of our most promising climate-
smart farming innovations.
The threats our world and our farmers face
By accessing the expertise and innovation at Cornell and our
partner Land-Grant universities, agriculture is poised to lead our
next-generation climate solutions. But we cannot afford any further
delay: The time to act is now, while there remains an opportunity to
protect our food supply from climate extremes. A few examples highlight
the urgency of our challenge:
A recent analysis found that agricultural productivity over
the past 60 years was 21 percent lower \1\ than it would have
been without climate change--the equivalent of 7 years of lost
productivity growth. This is a disturbing trend, especially
when factoring in the growth of our global population, which
could reach ten billion by 2050. This trend is only expected to
worsen, with rising global temperatures projected to
significantly reduce crop yields in coming decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01000-1.
The western United States has battled increasing droughts
and water shortages in recent decades--a trend that is also
forecast to worsen in the coming decades. A recent paper \2\
suggests that future megadroughts--extended dry periods lasting
2 decades or more--will last longer, occur more frequently and
create more damage than today's conditions. Climate change is
expected to accelerate these effects, pushing Earth nearer to
an irreversible tipping point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108124119.
At an average of 49.5 Fahrenheit, 2021 was the third-
warmest year on record for the Northeast United States,
according to the Northeast Regional Climate Center.\3\ Since
this record-keeping began in 1895, the 3 warmest years for the
Northeast have occurred within the past 25 years. With
increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere,
these warming trends are expected to continue, along with more
powerful extreme weather events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2022/01/2021-was-northeasts-
third-warmest-year-1895.
In February 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change--a group organized by the United Nations--issued a
report \4\ by leading scientists showing major impacts to our
world's food systems due to increasing extreme weather events.
They signaled a ``brief and rapidly closing window to act'' to
prevent even more crippling consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-
group-ii/.
Every day we see fresh examples of our climate challenges and their
dangerous effects. These examples illustrate that climate change is not
a faraway or future threat--it is harming lives, businesses and
communities right here and right now. And this problem is picking up
steam with each passing day, week, month and year. The U.S. along with
the rest of the world must act swiftly to address what another recent
IPCC report deemed this ``code red'' crisis for our planet.
Nowhere are the perils more apparent than to our nation's farm and
food communities, based predominately in rural areas. High operating
costs, volatile commodity prices and stagnating yields are exerting
major pressure on farmers, and many are struggling to survive.
According to a recent estimate from USDA's Economic Research Service,
nearly 90 percent of American farm families require off-farm income to
keep their farms afloat.
Further contraction in the agriculture industry and losses in
productivity will ultimately threaten our access to safe, affordable
food and worsen global hunger, which is already on a menacing rise.
Coupled with the fallout of unprecedented crop devastation caused by a
five-fold increase \5\ in extreme weather events over the past 50
years--triggering rising pest threats and hotter, wetter weather in the
Northeast especially--our farming communities and the sectors they
support need solutions, now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/climate/wmo-statement-
state-of-global-climate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employing science-based solutions to help agriculture fight back and
thrive
To put it directly: The global climate is changing steadily from
bad to worse. But because we know why it is changing, we can do
something about it. Working together, across industry and academia,
with local, state and Federal Governments, hand in hand with our food
and farming communities, I am optimistic we can bend the global warming
curve to meet our Paris Agreement obligations while ensuring food
security for coming generations.
For years the research community has debated whether the most
important place to start is by mitigating greenhouse gas emissions or
by removing carbon from the atmosphere. The reality is that we need to
do both simultaneously: radically reduce emissions and deploy
innovative carbon capture methods. Along with these steps, we need to
pursue adaptation strategies to keep our farmers in business by helping
them to adjust to the stressors of a changing climate. It is going to
take every weapon in our arsenal to stop the dangerous warming of our
planet and to safeguard our food systems. We are past the point of
either/or thinking: We need solutions that create real-time, local
adaptation to weather extremes while slashing emissions and capturing
greenhouse gases at scale.
This is a major challenge, yet what makes me hopeful are the many
promising technologies and methods that are within our grasp. As
climate change intensifies, researchers are working hard to help
farmers adapt--developing a host of new climate-smart farming
solutions, including new drought-resistant crop varieties, improved
management practices to conserve water and digital tools to optimize
input efficiency.
Significantly, we are finding that agriculture can be a powerful
tool for mitigating climate change, and there is much success on which
to build additional efficiency gains. The amount of food produced per
acre has increased significantly in the U.S., resulting in fewer
greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food. The World Resources
Institute estimates that increased efficiencies in U.S. agriculture
from 1977-2007 led to a 16% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per
pound of beef produced in the United States. Data indicate that
livestock and crop production have increased by about 30% from 1997 to
2017 while increasing their greenhouse gas emissions by only 7%. It is
critical to celebrate these advancements and recognize the need to do
even more in the U.S. agrifood system.
Building on this success, it is clear that farms don't have to be
victims of this challenge--they can take active steps to fight against
it if the U.S. makes substantial new investments to support practices
to capture and store carbon known as ``carbon farming.'' We can
increase carbon sequestration in soils by using natural additives such
as biochar, compost and rock dust. Add to this such strategies as
rotating crops, planting trees and shrubs alongside crops, and reducing
soil turning, and farmers can capture and store atmospheric carbon in
soils--benefiting our climate while offering new economic opportunity
for rural communities.
With farmland making up approximately \1/2\ of the United States,
if American farmers adopted just some of these carbon farming practices
today, they would not only reduce their current greenhouse gas
contributions but also could capture and store an amount of carbon
equivalent to 15% of annual emissions in the U.S. In the long term,
carbon farming can even increase resistance to drought, cut fertilizer
costs and boost crop yield.
Additional promising new techniques and technologies are under
development to broaden farmers' ability to adapt to and combat climate
change through reductions in methane, nitrous oxide and other
greenhouse gases.
In one exciting example of this work, the Cornell CALS Department
of Animal Science, with support from New York state, will install four
climate-controlled respiration chambers on campus this year. The first
of their kind in the United States, they will support experiments to
reduce climate-warming methane emissions from cattle and other domestic
animals, while examining how to optimize animal health, nutrition and
production. This innovative project will provide New York dairy farmers
with verified, responsible solutions for net-zero operations, ensuring
that the technology delivers on its promise before being widely adopted
in the marketplace. New science-based technologies to address enteric
fermentation coupled with existing technologies, such as anaerobic
digester systems and precision manure application strategies, have the
potential to significantly reduce methane in the near future, a
necessary step to help immediately reduce global warming.
Beyond the existing technologies and approaches, continued
pioneering science in boosted photosynthesis can produce higher crop
yields while sequestering carbon through new plant varietals. When
combined with synthetic biology, artificial intelligence and machine
learning, plant geneticists are finding new opportunities to increase
photosynthesis and create more resilient seeds for farmers, which will
be needed as climate impacts continue to mount.
Equally critical, we must increase financial incentives to support
farmers' exploration of opportunities to commoditize carbon and other
greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to weather extremes. Not enough
farmers in America today can afford to embrace these practices and make
a measurable impact. Committing to new practices presents financial
risks for farmers already stressed by economic hardship and weather
extremes.
As we peruse these strategies, we also need to ensure that we are
developing an inclusive culture that delivers on the promise of a more
just and equitable farm and food system. The 2017 New York state
agriculture census cites that only 1.3% \6\ of New York farmers and
producers identify as people of color. The lack of money or margins to
innovate with climate solutions is felt by farmers of color, many of
whom have been historically excluded and tend to own smallholder farms,
thus lacking the land and the financial capital to take advantage of
these opportunities. Strategies employed by policymakers and granting
agencies to target resource allocation for historically
underrepresented farmers will be vital for a more just transition to
net-zero agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://agriculture.ny.gov/farming/supporting-diversity-
agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through public-private partnerships involving academia, business,
government and civic organizations, we can advance the innovative
research and scalable technologies needed to achieve this vision. And
we can do so in ways that ensure farmers and foresters receive not just
public praise for their efforts to sequester carbon, but also support
that makes sound economic sense, provides equity and boosts overall
farm profitability.
A time for action and investment in our future
As we pursue climate-smart agricultural practices to sustain our
world, the Land-Grant system provides a critical research and
development test bed to pilot and refine these approaches without
placing another financial burden upon our farmers. For all of us to
enjoy eating locally produced foods in the decades to come, we need to
provide scientists with sufficient and sustained research funding and
resources to ensure our crop varieties are climate-adapted in the
future, and that we continue to innovate with new tools to help farmers
increase production in the face of rapid climate extremities.
As the Committee works to develop new programs and policies to
address climate change through research, I'd like to point to two
exemplary USDA programs that are models of interagency cooperation and
partnership between Land-Grant universities, farmers and communities.
First, USDA's Climate Hubs allow collaboration across agencies and with
external partnerships to develop and deliver science-based, region-
specific decision making, information, and research-informed climate
change response. The impacts of climate change span countless
scientific disciplines and government programs, so continuing to fund
models like this that support holistic research solutions across
expertise and Federal agencies is key. Another exciting model, the
USDA's new Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program, offers
grant funding to a wide variety of public and private entities to
incentivize market opportunities for commodities that develop and adopt
climate-smart practices.
Cooperative Extension programs, which have worked through the Land-
Grant system in collaboration with farmers, producers and community
groups for more than a century, will be essential to translating
scientific research and developing new commercial opportunities from
our labs out to the land. The relationships that Cooperative Extension
has cultivated among farmers and in communities serve as necessary
partners for university-based scientists--they enable us to understand
the real-world needs of our stakeholders and assist in deployment of
new opportunities, whether they be anaerobic digesters for dairy, new
crop varietals for growers, new management practices, or carbon farming
through the soil. Even as it is critical that Land-Grant universities
continue to leverage Cooperative Extension, it is just as critical that
Congress continue to bolster support for these programs. Otherwise, it
will be more difficult to succeed at the scale and with the urgency
that is necessary to avoid the most dangerous climate outcomes,
preserve food security, and revitalize the farm sector and rural
communities.
Though helpful, these programs alone are not enough; agricultural
research is key to fighting climate change and protecting global food
supplies, but pathways to innovation are under threat.
The U.S. has fallen behind competitors China and Brazil in public
support for agricultural research, according to a recent report \7\
commissioned by Farm Journal Foundation and the American Farm Bureau
Federation. U.S. public funding for agricultural research has declined
in real dollars since 2003, while investments in other forms of
domestic research have risen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.farmjournalfoundation.org/post/report-highlights-
how-stagnant-u-s-public-funding-for-agricultural-research-threatens-
food-systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This lack of support means that across the U.S., many potentially
groundbreaking studies are significantly underfunded or even unfunded--
which can delay or stifle important discoveries. Many universities are
in desperate need of infrastructure investments to upgrade laboratories
and other facilities for the 21st century. According to the Association
of Public and [Land-grant] Universities, 69% of the buildings and
facilities at U.S. schools of agriculture are at the end of their
useful life.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.aplu.org/library/a-national-study-of-capital-
infrastructure-at-colleges-and-schools-of-agriculture-an-update/file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific research takes years to refine and develop before new
discoveries are ready for the market. Therefore, it is important to
prioritize agricultural research funding today, to ensure that our
nation's crop and livestock producers can stay one step ahead of the
climate crisis. It is disappointing that the U.S.--which is one of the
largest and wealthiest consumers and producers of food on the planet--
is not leading the world in research and development of climate-smart
solutions for agriculture.
Just as important as supporting USDA-funded agriculture research,
it is equally critical that Congress support cross-agency research and
development programs. We should be encouraging more linkages between
the National Science Foundation and its emphasis on translation; the
Department of Energy and its focus on synthetic biology, carbon capture
and renewable energy; and the National Institutes of Health and its
focus on public health; among others. Like-minded Federal agency
programs could be coordinated with the USDA to develop future-forward
``moonshots'' for agriculture with a focus on the development of new
carbon-smart approaches that create healthier and more equitable food
systems as well as energy deployment that empowers rural communities
and historically marginalized and disadvantaged people in the United
States. Cross-agency programs could spur new innovations and scientific
discoveries across disciplines, from computer science to plant
breeding, engineering to public health, landscape development and soil
science to economics and finance. Just like with the Human Genome
Project, we need a concentrated effort in agriculture and food of the
future if we are to succeed in reducing emissions and capturing carbon
from the air. Doing so will help ensure that the best and brightest
scientific ideas make it from our university laboratories into farmers'
hands--turning the agricultural industry into a climate change success
story and creating a more food-secure future for all of us.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Houlton.
And now our final witness, Mr. Vance, you are now
recognized.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. VANCE, MANAGING PARTNER, SOUTHERN REDS,
LLC, GAINESVILLE, TX; ON BEHALF OF NOBLE RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
LLC
Mr. Vance. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson,
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to offer testimony in collaboration with Noble
Research Institute regarding the role of research in supporting
agriculture resiliency.
To provide context for my testimony, it is important for
you to understand the environment in which I work: the nation's
grazing lands. Grazing lands are one of America's greatest
natural resources. They account for more than 650 million acres
and represent roughly 41 percent of the continental U.S. They
contribute more than $70 billion annually to the U.S. economy
by supporting over 60 million head of cattle and almost ten
million sheep.
To sustain agricultural production, along with nationwide
food security, grazing lands must be properly conserved and
managed. This management starts below our feet with soil
health, which is the foundation of our operations. The
ecological function of these lands begins and ends with soil
organic carbon. Soil carbon directly contributes to decreased
erosion, improved drought tolerance, vigorous plant regrowth,
decreased need for synthetic fertilizers, and improved water
quality.
Unfortunately, the Green Revolution that began in the 1950s
was premised on an oversimplification of a complex biological
system. It applied a one-size-fits-all approach to increase
production. Since that time, our agriculture industry and the
research to support it has focused solely on the chemical and
physical characteristics of soils, with little to no
consideration of biological interactions therein. The
consequence has been an ongoing degradation of our soil. Over
the last 60 years, this approach to agriculture has resulted in
a loss of more than 50 percent of our nation's soil carbon. Our
soils today have diminished water-holding capacity, are more
susceptible to erosion, and are dramatically less productive.
In response to these circumstances, I, as well as many
other like-minded producers, have abandoned what are now
referred to as conventional agriculture processes. We learned
the hard way that these practices are too reliant on expensive
inputs such as herbicides, fuel, and fertilizer. This is
neither ecologically nor economically sustainable.
Alternatively, we have adopted a regenerative approach of
working with nature by following six soil health principles.
They include understanding our context, armoring our soil,
minimizing soil disturbance, increasing biological diversity,
keeping living roots in the ground all year, and most
importantly, properly integrating livestock.
Grazing lands evolved with animal populations equal to or
exceeding modern livestock populations. The fertile grasslands
and rich soils of this country emerged in part due to the
seasonal migrations of enormous herds of antelope, elk, and
bison. These lands benefited from the impact of animals
browsing, grazing, trampling, and recycling nutrients, their
saliva and urine and manure. Their grazing and movement
patterns created a natural disturbance benefiting the soil,
plants, and ecological processes.
This is the same process regenerative ranchers like myself
are successfully recreating today. In doing so, we are
restoring our soil health, increasing our production
efficiency, and restoring profitability to our operations. We
are accomplishing this while supplying our growing nation with
a healthy, nutritious, and enjoyable protein supply.
These are complex ecological systems. The impact of a
changing climate on our agricultural productivity is equally as
complex. Research is needed to enhance our understanding of
these complexities. Unfortunately, the academic research
standard of replicated, short-term, or reductionary studies is
ill-suited to address these issues. These studies attempt to
isolate and analyze a single issue within a complex and
variable ecosystem. This scientific approach cannot account for
the everchanging environment facing our farmers and ranchers.
We need a new and different approach to agricultural research
that transcends the normative boundaries of academia. We need
researchers who are willing to partner with producers like my
family and so many others who manage their production systems
as an entire ecosystem so that we can better implement new
conservation practices without damaging our long-term
profitability. But even further, we need research to assist us
in addressing changing consumer needs, volatile weather
patterns, serving local markets, and managing socioeconomic
well-being and resilience in rural America.
This is not a classical agricultural research portfolio,
research found in current government-funding programs, or
research focused solely on climate issues. To be successful,
research programs must focus on outcomes that drive long-term,
sustainable agricultural productivity, while simultaneously
enhancing the economic viability of the producer in an
everchanging environment. There can be no sustainable food
supply in this great nation without having profitable producers
working on regenerated soils.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vance follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael S. Vance, Managing Partner, Southern
Reds, LLC, Gainesville, TX; on Behalf of Noble Research Institute, LLC
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members
of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to join you and offer
testimony, in collaboration with Noble Research Institute, LLC,
regarding the role of research in supporting agricultural resiliency.
I am a rancher from north central Texas. I have been in the
livestock business for all my of professional life. To provide context,
after graduate school, I began to build my own cattle operation while
also managing land holdings for others. In this capacity, I have
managed up to 70,000 acres across five states. Without inheriting any
land or ranching assets, I found it critically important to grow my own
operations through strategic partnerships with others who valued the
land and its health in equal measures to the profitability of the
operation.
Today, I am the managing partner of Southern Reds, LLC, a 1,200
head seedstock operation. With the help of my wife and three young
sons, we manage these livestock assets across 8,000 acres. We focus on
raising climate-friendly cattle genetics that produce beef by recycling
forage-grazable plant material--and water, without the need for added
outside inputs that negatively impact the environment and our financial
efficiency.
We seek landowner partners that understand the positive influence
that livestock can have on the land. We see an increasing demand from
those who desire to see their own land investments improved through
true ecosystem management and regenerative grazing principles.
My experiences, these partnerships and my operations provide the
background for what I will speak about today.
Before I address research to support agricultural resiliency in
grazing lands, I want to provide context for its need and the
environment in which I work--the nation's grazing lands.
Grazing lands are one of America's greatest natural resources. They
represent the single greatest land use of this nation--found in all 50
states, grazing lands account for more than 650 million acres and
represent about 41% of all U.S. lands in the lower 48 states.
Whether due to quality or ruggedness, less than 15% of these acres
could support the production of human food crops or commodity crops,
such as corn, which is often associated with agriculture. Nevertheless,
the have a tremendous impact on human life.
Our grazing lands support those animals that deliver our nation and
the world a high-quality protein source for human consumption, serve as
a filtration system for our fresh water, deliver productive plants that
nourish grazing animals and work to sequester carbon in our soils, and
offer a robust wildlife habitat. The soils of these grazing lands serve
as the foundation for our country's farming and ranching families. As
of 2021, grazing lands contribute more than $70 billion annually to the
U.S. economy by supporting more than 60 million cattle and almost ten
million sheep. To sustain agricultural production, grazing lands must
be conserved and properly managed to produce robust, resilient stands
of grasses and forage. All of this starts below our feet with ``soil
health,'' the foundation of our operations.
Grazing lands are those lands not cultivated by man. As America
developed westward in the 19th century, farmers began to cultivate
soils by clearing timber and destroying many of the natural prairies
that existed. This was to grow what are now known as ``commodity
crops.'' The fertile, productive prairies of the Great Plains that once
teamed with diverse grasses, forages and large herds of bison were
tilled and farmed. These practices depleted the soils of nutrients,
organic matter, and biological life. The natural biological processes
of grazing by roaming herds and periodic fire that created the natural
grazing lands, were no longer at work.
Soil carbon is the center of overall ecological function in natural
systems. Soil organic carbon directly contributes to decreased erosion,
improved drought tolerance, plant root growth and production, the
decreased need for synthetic fertilizers, and improved water quality.
Poor management practices combined with a decade-long drought
contributed to the great Dust Bowl of the 1930s. This disaster brought
about the birth of land conservation and the Conservation Act of 1935,
which created the Soil Conservation Service, now the Natural Resource
Conservation Service. Despite these efforts, in the 1950s the Green
Revolution took hold, and advancements were made in agricultural
technology, including the development of commodity and forage crops
that responded well to fertilizer, advanced farm machinery, and other
technological advancements that expedited crop production with less
need for labor.
The nation demanded a cheap and efficient food supply system, and
that is what we delivered.
The Green Revolution became more than an event; it became an
agricultural philosophy. The United States built an agricultural sector
based on four tenets that we now know are not true:
Farmers and ranchers will have unlimited energy and cheap
inputs.
We will continue to enjoy stable climates and abundant
water.
Nature can be controlled by technology.
Hunger will be solved by increasing production.
Premised on an oversimplification of a complex natural, biological
system and our desire for a one-size-fits-all approach, our industry
and our research during that time focused on the chemical and physical
characteristics of soils with little to no consideration of biological
interactions within the soil.
The consequence is an ongoing degradation of our soils. It is
estimated that over the last 60 years, our approach to agriculture has
resulted in the loss of more than 50% of our nation's soil carbon. The
overall loss of soil carbon has a compounding effect--diminishing water
holding capacity of the land and rendering the land more and more
susceptible to erosion. Our reaction has not been to reduce our overall
use of inputs that impact our soils. Instead, our blind reliance on
technology and inputs has resulted in the increased use of inputs, such
as fertilizer, to compensate for diminished land performance and
resulting crop productivity.
With predictions for greater and more extreme weather events,
landscapes that are low in organic matter naturally will not be able to
cope with rain events and will soon become considerably more arid.
These broken water cycles in crop and grazing lands will lead to
desertification as well as continued depletion of important aquifers
that maintain water cycles through the Great Plains.
We know an alternative exists.
Some producers have abandoned this production approach out of
principal--knowing that is was ecologically unsustainable and/or
because they sought a food system not reliant on these chemical inputs.
For a growing number of producers, however, drought conditions (for
example, as occurring in our Western states) and/or prices for feed,
fuel, fertilizer and other inputs have increased to a point that has
become economically unsustainable for their operations. For these
producers, a choice was necessary: continue doing what they have always
done or work with nature to find a new way to farm and ranch. Born out
of equal parts necessity and frustration, producers began to experiment
with farming and ranching techniques that limited the use of feed,
fuel, and inorganic fertilizers and other inputs.
They began to see that (i) limiting or eliminating tillage reduced
their fuel bill, (ii) using the ageless practice of ``cover crops'' to
keep their fields covered provided numerous benefits to the soil (e.g.,
preventing erosion, increasing water holding capacity and increasing
biodiversity), (iii) converting marginal soils to perennial pasture
land to eliminated tillage and minimized erosion, and (iv) through
managed rotational grazing, the pastoral lands improved in composition
and production due to the recovery allowed between grazing events.
In essence, they built a foundation of principles that many
producers follow today to manage healthy soils and restore deteriorated
soils. These soil health management principles were set forth to
achieve specific goals that are inherent to all soils. They are based
on mimicking highly diverse, heterogeneous, native grazing land plant
communities by harnessing the power of biologic interactions among
plants, soil microbes, fungi, and other forms of life in our soils,
water, and animals. These principles build soil aggregation, which
further builds soil structure. This soil structure enables the better
utilization of any received moisture, whether through rain or applied
irrigation.
These principles have proven the path forward for many innovative
producers and substantiated that the conventional farming and ranching
practices of the last 6 decades are not the only way.
The following six soil health management principles were developed
by producers for producers, and these apply to both croplands and
grazing lands:
(1) Understand your context: Develop an on-going relationship with
the environmental, economic, and social context of the land
to identify which applications produce the most total value
relative to their full range of costs. Context is a state
of constant change and can vary significantly across time
and space. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.
(2) Armor the soil: Keep soil covered with growing plants, ungrazed
trampled litter, or supplemental covers like hay or mulch.
Uncovered, or bare, soil is more susceptible to wind and
water erosion and less able to absorb and retain water.
Uncovered soil is also exposed to the sun, which can raise
its temperature, killing beneficial microbes and
evaporating soil moisture.
(3) Minimize soil disturbance: Physical soil disturbance, such as
tillage, alters the structure of the soil and limits
biological activity. Preserve the integrity and structure
of soil and limit the amount of disturbance that can damage
plant roots, harm the health and diversity of
microbiological communities, and create soil compaction.
(4) Increase diversity: Support biodiversity above and below ground
and limit the use of practices or chemical inputs that can
damage it. Biodiversity in rangelands is critical to their
productivity and resilience; specific soil microbes require
specific plant types. Encouraging a variety of plant
species and supporting macro- and micro-biological
diversity can extend growing seasons, increase resilience
to extreme weather, reduce livestock predation and
livestock concerns, support wildlife habitats, and enhance
ecosystem function.
(5) Keep living roots in the ground all year: Soil microbes feed on
the carbon produced from living plant roots. Therefore, a
living root in the ground is ideal for active soil health.
Living plant roots contribute to soil structure, increase
water infiltration, support plant regrowth, and increase
soil organic matter by exuding photosynthesized carbon into
the soil. Increasing the diversity of plants, better
enables a mix of species that contributes to year-long soil
activity.
(6) Properly integrate livestock: Use livestock to gaze and prune
plants to promote plant growth, and then use the animals to
provide beneficial nutrients back to the land. Thoughtfully
managed livestock can both support and improve ecosystem
function.
The byproduct from the integration of livestock from U.S.
ranching operations is the production of red meat for human
consumption. Red meat has been an important part of the
human diet throughout human evolution. When included as
part of a healthy, varied diet, red meat provides a rich
source of high biological value protein and essential
nutrients, some of which are more bioavailable than in
alternative, plant-based food sources. Unprocessed, red
meat provides a nutrient dense food that offer more
protein, per calorie, than nuts, fruits, or vegetables.
It is recognized that an epic debate rages with respect to the
impacts of beef cattle on the environment. This debate is
fueled in two different directions: the first is meat
versus nonmeat/reduced meat academics, and the second
centers on a disagreement among animal, forage, range, and
other ecological scientists with respect to best management
practices of beef cattle production.
A quick search of the literature will reveal a competing
division of academic studies slighting the role of
livestock in the environment and others that recognize the
importance of livestock in the environment. The conundrum
is all supported by the science. Good and talented
academics are researching these areas and presenting
outcomes that pass peer review and publish in quality
journals. Yet, a divide exists. Why?
Our grazing land environments are complex, and they are often
ill-suited to be replicated for the purposes of short term
or reductionary studies that attempt to isolate and look at
one issue within a system. Reductionary research (i.e.,
attempting to simplify a complex system) cannot account for
everchanging environment facing our farmers and ranchers.
Scientists, in general, attempt to ``control'' an
uncontrollable system in small, replicated areas and often
the results cannot translate to a broader landscape
Stepping outside academic studies, our world's grazing lands
co-evolved with grazing animals in populations equal to or
exceeding modern livestock populations. These grazing lands
benefited from the impact of livestock browsing, grazing,
trampling, and recycling nutrients through saliva, urine
and manure. The fertile grasslands and rich soils of the
Great Plains (and other regions of the U.S.) emerged, in
part, due to the seasonal migrations of antelope, elk, and
bison. During their migrations, these herd animals moved
frequently for both fresh forage and to stay in advance of
predators. Their grazing and movement created a beneficial
disturbance benefiting the soil, plants and ecological
processes.
Beef cattle comprise somewhere between 2-3% of the overall
carbon-footprint of the United States (U.S. EPA, 2019).*
However, global calls to action (e.g., The Paris Agreement)
require an indiscriminate and significant (e.g., 30%)
decreases in emissions across the board for signature
countries. Across the world, livestock are being vilified
in areas of academia and government. This creates
irrational and long-term irresponsible actions imposed on
the livestock and agricultural sector, which we have seen
impact countries such as New Zealand (imposition of a tax
on livestock) and Ireland (reduction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the in-text citations in Mr. Vance's prepared
statement do not have a corresponding descriptive ``Endnotes'' listing.
It has been reproduced herein as submitted.
These six principles inform management decisions and practices that
together help build healthy soils and, in turn, improve air and water
quality, increase biodiversity and wildlife habitats, increase water
infiltration and retention, reduce soil erosion, support plant and
animal health, and build vital resilience in the system.
Challenges to Future U.S. Ranch Viability
The viability of the U.S. ranching industry is challenged by:
soil productivity in the face of climate change;
profitability; and
a shrinking base of farmers and ranchers.
These challenges are a direct result of the philosophies
underpinning the U.S. agriculture industry for the past 60 years. These
challenges cannot be ignored. Moreover, we can no longer continue to
merely treat symptoms with practices (separate from principles), seek
and use technology for the sake of technology, and rely blindly on
costly inputs.
To be successful, we must focus on the root of the problem. It
starts with the soil. We address ecological degradation by sharing and
following principles that rebuild ecological processes and habitat from
the ground up rather than focusing on specific singular species or
indiscriminate management practices. Healthy soil is the cornerstone to
any agricultural enterprise.
Principles over Practices: Applying the Principles
Building the soil with good grazing management is possible. It is
being practiced across the nation, albeit in small numbers relative to
the overall beef industry.
In properly managed grazing lands, the six soil health principles
can actively build more productive, more profitable and more
sustainable agricultural production systems. In fact, it is often
easier to apply the soil health principles to grazing lands (rather
than cultivated croplands) because the soil health principle of
properly integrating livestock is already in place.
Healthy grazing lands begin with active management. This management
is based on a philosophy that properly managed, grazing livestock
addresses the physiological needs of the forages being grazed and
contributes positively to the natural cycles of nature.
Soil health and its benefits cannot be left to chance. Intentional
and active management is required, and the first step is often a
grazing plan.
Grazing plans are, in essence, conservation plans for grazing
lands. They include decisions for managing the plant community in view
of the soil, water, air, plant and animal resources. A well-designed
and well-managed grazing plan results in healthy soils and grazing
plant material, proper nutrition for grazing animals, and greater
livestock production at a lower cost.
There are four key elements to a grazing plan:
carrying capacity/stocking rate,
livestock rotation,
utilization rate, and
plant rest and recovery.
All of these elements must be managed together to be effective.
Carrying capacity/Stocking Rate--``Carrying capacity'' is the
amount of forage available for grazing animals for a specific time.
Importantly, it can vary from year to year for the same area due to
changes in forage production due to weather or other factors. The
amount of forage produced in a given area is a function of many
factors, including soil types, forage types (e.g., grasses, legumes),
pasture condition, and previous management. However, moisture and
temperatures during the growing season also drive production.
Forage production is dynamic, and the entirety of the produced
forage should not be fully consumed. With proper grazing management,
only a portion is used and the rest is left to maintain the health and
productivity of the grazing land. The portion of the forage that is
allocated for grazing is called the available production.
``Stocking rate'' is the number of animals on a given area of land
over a certain period. For all practical purposes, stocking rate is a
measure of the forage demanded by the livestock over a period of time.
Of course, this requires consideration of specie(s), size, and needs of
the consuming livestock.
It is important that the stocking rate not exceed the carrying
capacity. Improper stocking of grazing lands leads to over-grazing or
under-grazing, neither of which provides favorable outcomes. Over-
grazing for extended periods of time leads to the degradation of the
grazing land and an overall reduction in pasture productivity, soil
health, and livestock production.
Grazing Rotation--A grazing rotation considers where to graze, when
to graze, how long to graze, and how long to allow a grazed area to
rest and recover. The purpose of a grazing rotation is to manage the
impact of grazing on the grazing land while maintaining or improving
livestock production.
Livestock are selective grazers. If left unmanaged, livestock tend
to disproportionally graze certain plants over others. Livestock also
prefer the fresh regrowth over mature leaves. In a continuously grazed
pasture, plants that are grazed early in the growing season are grazed
repeatedly without adequate time to recover. If plants are grazed too
short for too long, these plants are not allowed to regrow leaves to
supply needed energy to the roots (through photosynthesis). With
impaired roots, the plant becomes less resilient and can ultimately
die. Over time, the more-productive plants are grazed out leaving less
desirable, less productive plants, which can lead to deterioration of
the grazing land and the health of the soil.
Grazing Intensity--Grazing intensity is the amount of grass and
forage removed before livestock are rotated to a new area. Stated
another way, it is how short the pasture is grazed before removing the
grazing animals. As but one example, consider ``take half and leave
half.'' Conceptually, this means graze the top half of the leaves and
leave the rest to allow for rapid recovery and regrowth. Ideally, every
plant in the pasture would be grazed evenly at this level. Taking more,
negatively impacts root growth and requires additional recovery time.
Grazing 50% or less (in this scenario), actually stimulates plant and
root regrowth. This expedites recovery and increases the productivity
of grazing lands.
The circumstances (e.g., soil health, the availability of moisture)
all impact these percentages. While some ranches can support ``take
half and leave half,'' other geographies may require taking less, or
maybe, in the presence of healthy soils, an abundance of soil moisture,
and the right forages, animals could consume more than 50%. Again,
context matters.
Rest and Recovery--After being grazed, plants need an adequate
recovery period (generally, 45 to 90 days). The more severe the grazing
intensity, the longer it takes for the plants to fully recover. Soil
moisture and seasonal temperatures also affect the rest and recovery
period. In favorable moisture conditions, the recovery period is
shorter than in low moisture conditions. As moisture becomes more
limiting, longer rest and recovery periods are required.
It is important to determine the recovery period based on the key
species in the grazing land being managed. In a native grass pasture,
the key species are those more productive, more palatable species that
have a longer recovery period than the less desirable species.
Introduced pastures usually have a shorter recovery period than the
native prairies and must be managed differently for optimum results.
Critically, grazing lands should not be over-rested, which removes
the important aspect of grazing livestock from the land for extended
periods of time beyond the recovery of the forages.
The practices and strategies of this grazing mimic how the grazing
lands evolved over time with roaming herds of livestock, which yielded
(without the assistance of man) some of the most abundant and lasting
ecosystems on the planet.
Research Needs
Climate change is complex, and it is understood that research is
needed to enhance our understanding. We need more than knowledge for
the sake of knowledge.
The role of research can contribute to the knowledge and
experiences of farmers and ranchers and assist them in understanding
the impact of their management, offer alternatives, and contribute to
their underlying economic viability. Research and its outcomes must
play a part in equipping our farmers and ranchers to adapt to changing
weather patterns but also address changing consumer needs, serving
local markets, and building new resiliency in the soil and their
operations.
This list is not exhaustive, but is representative of research
needed:
Quantify the effects of grazing management and the
connections between soils, forages, and livestock across broad
spatial and temporal scales.
Evaluate the regenerative capacity of diverse grazing
systems across a variety of conditions and geographies.
Develop an evidence-based framework or index to measure
ranch health that incorporates economic and ecologic measures.
Develop practical, cost-effective farm-level carbon accounts
for representative production systems across the U.S. to move
toward carbon-neutral beef.
Evaluate existing management approaches designed to reduce
inputs/chemicals and their impact on profitability and
grassland sustainability.
Quantify the relationship between grazing management and
socioeconomic well-being and resilience in rural America.
This is not a classic agricultural research portfolio found at U.S.
universities.
The effective study of grazing management at the whole-ranch or
landscape scale requires not only comparison of alternative management
actions but also evaluation of the ways in which these actions and
biophysical processes interact and evolve over time. The temporal and
spatial variation inherent in biophysical processes and their
interaction with management decisions precludes direct comparisons of
grazing ``systems'' in classical, replicated grazing experiments. All
the biophysical variables in the various processes are in a state of
constant flux that is influenced by history, prevailing conditions and
chance and, therefore, their manifestations are unique in time and
space as they are modified by ever-changing contexts and conditions.
This is the real world in which our farmers and ranchers operate.
We further need a new and different approach to agricultural
research, one that transcends the normative boundaries of research that
is conducted within academia and simply disseminated out to others. We
need researchers who are not removed from the land, its ecosystems, or
the people who manage it. For the benefit of rural America, we seek
interdisciplinary, interpretative as well as analytical research that
is performed in partnership with the rancher to co-produce new
knowledge about productive and regenerative agriculture. In this model,
ranchers and their communities are not separate from the research or
the researchers themselves. They are part of the transformative
process.
Producers seek research outcomes that will fuel the critical-
thinking, problem-solving farmer and rancher. We seek outcomes that
might allow us to mitigate risks or refine our experimentation for our
own properties, animals, or markets. And we seek new knowledge and
skills to arm us to manage soil productivity in the face of climate
change and to achieve our financial goals. It is the path forward.
This path cannot be achieved with traditional agricultural research
and/or with classic agricultural-directed government research funding
programs. To be successful, research programs must focus on outcomes
that drive long-term, sustainable agricultural productivity that
enhances the profitably of the producer.
Universities and other academic research institutions, both in the
U.S. and abroad, are ill-equipped to undertake research at a whole-
ranch or landscape level. Faculty are pushed to succeed within a
discipline with success being measured by grants accrued and
manuscripts written. The idea of actually helping a rancher, as the
land-grant institution was designed, has been dwarfed by these
pressures and generally forces scientists into chasing dollars. State
and Federal funding levels are often insufficient and inconsistent,
driving research away from the critical needs of farmers and ranchers
and instead toward popular or politically-motivated trends. Industry
funding tends to be discipline driven and is linked to direct economic
returns to the funder. The outcome is that there is always something
new for the farmer to buy or implement, which quite simply continues to
push output/input, disregarding the fact that natural resources and
money are finite.
The opportunity exists to address these challenges with a new
perspective and approach. This will require a radical shift from
traditional academia. American farmers and ranchers need such a shift.
We need more organizations to shift from the norm and affirm their
dedication to guiding and assisting the nation's farmers and ranchers
to achieve both improved soil health and profitability in equal
measures, much like the work of Noble Research Institute.
Barriers to Widespread Adoption
If the problem is known and the solution is at hand, why can't
significant reform involving the soil health and economic viability
occur?
Farmers and ranchers that seek an alternative way are surrounded by
those--industry, academia, and peers--that are entrenched in a 60 year
tradition.
Our agricultural industry was designed and constructed to move low-
cost, indistinguishable commodity products from the field to the
consumer in the most efficient and cost effective means possible. This
marginalizes the producer-entrepreneur in this industry. Moreover, this
value chain is built to distribute value throughout the chain,
returning less and less to the livestock producer. Technology and input
providers are members of this industry, and their incentive is driven
by the adoption of the latest and greatest new tools to address
problems often created by the older tools.
Our universities are training producers and industry members to
meet the needs of this historic agricultural industry. This impacts
research (as noted above) as well as those training to be future
scientists, researchers, and agribusiness professionals.
Many of our government programs do not encourage long-term land
stewardship and building soil health, integration of livestock, or
adaptive management. Instead, the programs prescribe a series of
practices irrespective of ecological impact or consequence.
From peer farmers and ranchers, some have responded but many have
not. In all fairness, the idea of soil health and our understanding of
the world that lives beneath the soil is relatively new. It wasn't
something ignored, perhaps, it was something that wasn't considered.
Consequently, many just associate the loss of topsoil, poor
productivity, and the lack of profitability with simply the status quo
or something else beyond their control--bad luck or the weather.
Admittedly, conditions of the soil changed slowly and most didn't
recognize that dust storms and erosion could be prevented or reduced.
When some did recognize and begin to talk and write about the problem,
others couldn't imagine that they were part of the problem. However,
leaning again on the tools of the day, producers can employ fertilizer,
herbicides, and insecticides to masks the problem for many years.
Finally, for others (and really any industry faced with such dramatic
alternatives), we are at a place where some just don't want to learn or
believe.
Barriers to adoption are largely personal to each producer. Recent
studies (Hannah Gosnell, 2019) suggest that adoption and practice of
land stewardship based on soil health principles involves more than a
suite of ``climate-smart'' mitigation and adaption practices supported
by technical innovation, policy, education and outreach. Rather,
adoption and sustained practice involves subjective, nonmaterial
factors associated with culture, values, ethics, identity and emotions
that operate at individual, household and community scales.
Equipping the Stewards
We all should be dedicated to removing, mitigating or avoiding the
barriers deterring the lasting use of profitable land management
practices to improve soil health in grazing animal production.
This is not simply achieved through a single educational program,
research initiative, or social media campaign. Rather, this is a
transformative shift in continuing education, academia, peer networks,
industry support, markets, and consumer expectation. At the heart of
this transformation is the premise that we seek to preserve our grazing
lands (and the ecological connection of land, water, plant and animal),
and we seek to do so through dedicated stewardship and management for
soil health.
We need to find new ways to engage multi-generational ranchers,
young ranchers and first-generation ranchers--where they are and how
they learn--to introduce these management practices and their lasting
benefits. With knowledge comes confidence and with confidence comes
application.
To create a critical mass for change, it won't be easy. But
America's farmers and ranchers rarely look for easy. We will need
everyone's assistance to preserve the landscapes that we have been
blessed with--not for the sake of preservation, but to provide a
productive and economical living for those charged as being land
stewards.
Conclusion
U.S. ranching is a complex system intertwining people, soil,
plants, animal, water, history, and economics. Future research must
avoid reducing this system to any one of its parts but rather reflect
this system as a whole, knowing that it is dynamic and ever-changing.
Research outcomes should focus on providing producers with the
confidence and tools they need to be ecologically and economically
successful while continuing to provide quality, nutritious food to
consumers, in the U.S. and abroad.
In this regard, the key to increasing system resiliency and
profitability in ranching begins with adaptive management. Management
of grazing lands is a dynamic process with a complex set of variables
that must be taken into account. However, as the science of grazing
management has evolved, innovative producers work with the natural
cycles of the land with the goal of improving soil health through the
application of principles. For the viability of the industry and our
nation's grazing lands, more producers are needed. Thus, it is critical
that we foster an environment of like-minded peers, academia, industry,
and government that supports and encourages a soil health-based
management of grazing lands to achieve long-term economic viability and
ecological sustainability of the U.S. ranching industry. The benefits
extend beyond our rural communities to impact our landscapes, our
economy, our domestic food system, and the consumers that enjoy safe,
nutritious food produced on our U.S. farms and ranches.
The Chairman. Thank you. And thank each of you for your
very informative testimonies.
Let me now open it up to questions. At this time, Members
will be recognized for questions in order of seniority,
alternating between Majority and Minority Members. And you will
be recognized for 5 minutes each in order to allow us to get to
as many questions as possible.
And again, let me remind Members to please mute your
microphones until you are ready to speak. And let me begin with
the questions here.
Dr. Fares, let me ask the first question. Our 1890 land-
grant institutions and other minority-serving institutions are
playing a very critical role in conducting cutting-edge
research on human issues related to climate change, as well as
agriculture resilience, mitigation, and adaptation. And you are
a leader at one of our 1890s, a very significant and important
school, Prairie View A&M University, among 1890 land-grant
institutions and other institutions. What is it that you
believe is needed most to support the evolving needs in climate
research?
Dr. Fares. Thank you, Chairman Scott, for the question. As
you mentioned, Prairie View A&M University and other 1890
Institutions play a greater role in educating and finding
solutions that are needed by minority and limited-resources
farmers, ranchers, and communities. As I stated in my
testimony, this is a new area that we do have needs for a new
infrastructure, for a new support because we cannot solve
issues of the future, issues that really need high technology
with old technology, with crumbling infrastructure, with
infrastructure that doesn't have the internet, for instance,
doesn't have the connectivity that you need, doesn't have the
laboratory or the equipment that are needed to conduct cutting-
edge research and finding solutions. So we need financial
support on this to allow us to solve the greatest challenge
that we are facing and to be able to train the future leaders,
the future, and empower them with cutting-edge technology so
that they can be able to find the solution that they can be
able to use this technology.
I will give you an example. For example, we are talking
about clean energy. There is a new area called agrivoltaic,
where we need to grow and reuse the lands that are used for
solar energy. So these lands needs a new way of looking at how
to manage them to both produce energy and at the same time
continue their vital role in producing agriculture be it for
crops or animals or combined.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for that. And I know our
scholarship program is helping you all greatly there.
Dr. Houlton, you mentioned two phrases that I would love
for you to explain. You mentioned something you referred to as
human genome. What is that?
Dr. Houlton. Great. Well, thank you so much for the
question. So what I am thinking about here is the opportunity
for agriculture to not only assist in adapting our food supply,
promoting food security, but turning carbon into a commodity.
And I think we need to imagine this problem differently than we
ever have before. Classically, we might have a funding program
that goes through NIFA, USDA, ARS. We might have other agencies
thinking about various aspects of life sciences and carbon.
What if we think bigger at the level of what we did with the
Human Genome Project in the early 1990s, which resulted in a
constellation of experts working together across universities,
pioneering solutions, and learning quickly from one another,
and infusing that mentality into what we think can happen with
agriculture if we have research, science, and verification
tools to turn carbon into a commodity and assist in adaptation?
So it is more of reframing our thinking around something that
promoted an incredible collaboration within academia, within
industry, and then resulted in many breakthroughs for humans.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much on that. And now I
recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Austin Scott, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
am from Tifton, Georgia, the home of the National
Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Lab, and so I have
seen some of the great work that comes out of that institution.
And I do think that we can and should do a better job of taking
care of the environment. I do think that we also have to be
very careful that we make sure that the science is there before
we do things that reduce the amount of production agriculture
that we have in this country.
And Dr. Brouder, in August of 2021, you were tapped by EPA
Administrator Regan to serve as a member of the EPA Science
Advisory Board Agricultural Science Committee that is
authorized to review the quality and relevance of the
scientific and technical information being used by the EPA,
review EPA research programs and plans, and provide science
advice, as requested by the EPA Administrator, and advise the
agency on broader scientific matters. And I want to speak to
specifically the issue of recommendations on production
agriculture when I get to this next part of the question.
The actions from this Administration's EPA, ranging from
what they have done on crop protection tools and the
politicization there, attempting, again, Waters of the United
States. How much does Administrator Regan consult the Science
Advisory Board and its Agricultural Sciences Committee on which
you sit when making these decisions? And how much is the impact
on agricultural production weighing into the recommendations
and the decisions?
Dr. Brouder. Thank you for your question. I have to preface
my response by saying that, at this point in time--I was
appointed last year, but the EPA has only just started meeting
again. So the Science Advisory Board has so far met twice this
year to discuss, including the Waters of the United States.
How much does the EPA use our advice? I am not on the other
side. We have the authority to look at questions, the Science
Advisory Board does, or look at the quality of the science that
is being used. And we do a fairly rigorous job. If there is a
need for a subcommittee to assess the science, we will convene
a subcommittee, upcoming. It is not yet. We haven't convened
our first one, but there is going to be a series of meetings
concerning biosolids applications to land applications
including to agricultural lands, and I will be chairing that
subcommittee. And we will be looking very hard at the science.
And our job is simply to say what the science says and whether
or not the science supports a policy or a strategy that the EPA
wants to pursue. They are not required to take our advice, but
from my perspective, they are very appreciative of the analyses
we provide them.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Dr. Brouder, thank you for
your testimony there, but you have only met twice in the last
how many months?
Dr. Brouder. We have for two multiday sessions, one in
March and one 2 weeks ago.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Okay. And have you provided
any recommendations to the EPA?
Dr. Brouder. We have provided review of--I am, again, just
reappointed, so there was an ongoing group of people. But we
just provided information on the redefinition of Waters of the
United States, as well as their strategy for environmental
justice that would be in their risk assessment programs, in
their environmental risk assessment programs.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Would you provide that to the
Committee? I would like to see what your committee provided to
the EPA.
[The information referred to is located on p. 75.]
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And I want to say this. There
are certain practices like no-till that I think virtually all
of us agree are good for the environment and are compatible
with production agriculture and good yields. But those
practices require certain chemicals be used. And when you have
one agency saying or courts saying we are going to take Roundup
and Dicamba off of the market, that impacts the ability to use
no-till production practices. And the lack of coordination
among the agencies, I think it is a threat to our food supply
in this country and production agriculture. And it is something
where I think the Committee is going to have to work together
to make sure that there is a cohesive strategy that is good for
the economy and good for the environment, I should say, and
good for production agriculture. And I am concerned that that
lack of cohesiveness is going to reduce ag production in this
country.
The Chairman. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
And now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Costa, who is also the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Livestock and Foreign Agriculture, is now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Costa. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think it is
appropriate that you have set the tone this morning with the
role of climate research in supporting agricultural resiliency
as we look toward setting the table for next year's farm bill
reauthorization.
And it is not only our land-grant universities and our 1890
schools in which you have been a leader in promoting these
scholarships in an effort, but I would also add a lot of state
universities that have specialized in agriculture in many parts
of the country. Certainly in California, we have universities
like Fresno State, my alma mater, Cal Poly, and others that are
leading agricultural schools that also are doing important and
valuable research.
I think the challenge here as a third-generation farmer, as
I look at it, notwithstanding the remarkable progress that we
have made and looking at agriculture, American agriculture,
contributing to reducing our CO2 footprint and our
resiliency as it relates to the impacts of our climate.
Certainly, in the West, in California, extreme droughts, fires,
and a host of other natural-occurring events that are changing
how we work, how we operate, we have to be mindful of.
But I think it all comes down to sustainability. Farmers,
ranchers, dairymen and -women have been for generations
practicing sustainability. And at the end of the day, that is
going to determine how we do it in a way that economically make
sense.
Dr. Houlton, you talked about the genome example. I think,
frankly, a lot of good research needs to be done. I think in
the next farm bill we need to add on how we can enhance the
efforts of this public-private partnership between our
educational institutions and our farming efforts on a regional
basis. I think what is lacking is an overall plan on how this
all fits together with goals that are obtainable in the next 5
years and in the next 10 years that are based on good sound
science and economically capable to work.
Let me give you an example. In the California dairy
industry, which produces 20 percent of all the milk products in
America, we have taken tremendous steps. It includes 1.7
million dairy cows, only four percent of the state's total
greenhouse emission. And that is in part because dairy farmers
in California, through efforts to reduce methane through
investments and innovation according to a 2020 study published
in the Journal of Dairy Science,* we have been able to produce
per gallon of milk more and decreased our emissions by 45
percent. The use of anaerobic digesters has really made
tremendous advances for natural gas or hydrogen fuel that has
driven much of this project. We have over 206 digesters in
projects capturing methane from 217 dairy farms with 89
digesters currently in operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the article that Mr. Costa was referencing is,
Dairy farmers are working to address climate change, in the June, 1,
2022 AgAlert, and is located on p. 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the next 25 years, collective dairy methane reduction
projects across California include digesters and alternative
manure management projects are estimated to reduce more than 55
million metric tons of greenhouse gases. Think about that. That
is an annual emissions reduction of equal to taking more than
\1/2\ million cars off the road.
The list goes on and on. And, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to submit this article for the record because I think
it is an example of what we can do when we work together.
But, I will go back to any other witnesses.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Costa. Without objection?
The Chairman. Yes, without objection.
[The article referred to is located on p. 75.]
Mr. Costa. Thank you. I got ahead of myself. But, Mr.
Houlton, since you talked about the genome project, how do we
connect this all together, this research and academia, this
application to the private-sector of American agriculture, with
goals that are attainable in the short-term and the long-term
that will lead us to the sustainability level that is so
critical?
Dr. Houlton. Great. Well, thank you for the question. I
believe that the best pathway is one where we demonstrate
opportunities using sound science, working hand-in-hand with
the private-sector, with extension, and with government
policies that are going to underpin the opportunity to convert
carbon into a commodity, to verify that carbon is being
absorbed from the air and going into the soil. And through that
refinement process across regions set up as teams within a
constellation, I believe we can make incredible progress on
this challenge. So that would be one way to start thinking
about the solution sets and how they can convert into
opportunities as quickly as possible.
The Chairman. And thank you for that.
And now the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to start
with a quick question for Dr. Brouder. You are on the EPA
Science Advisory Board. How long have you been on the board?
Dr. Brouder. I was reappointed----
Mr. Davis. How long have you been on before the
reappointment?
Dr. Brouder. I was on for a session previously 2014 through
2017.
Mr. Davis. 2014. So you were on 2014 to 2017----
Dr. Brouder. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Davis. I actually passed a provision in the 2014 Farm
Bill to allow someone from production agriculture to have a
seat on the EPA Science Advisory Board. Has that provision been
implemented? Do you have somebody----
Dr. Brouder. Yes, yes, there was a representative in fact
who is a colleague from Purdue who was appointed back at that
point and joined the Science Advisory Board.
Mr. Davis. Okay. And that person is still on?
Dr. Brouder. I think it shifted to somebody else.
Mr. Davis. But there is somebody from production
agriculture?
Dr. Brouder. Yes, yes, yes.
Mr. Davis. Is that next person somebody also associated
with academia though?
Dr. Brouder. I would have to check for you.
Mr. Davis. I would appreciate that.
[The information referred to is located on p. 76.]
Dr. Brouder. I think so. I am fairly certain.
Mr. Davis. Yes, that has been my concern. I mean, my
provision was to get somebody outside of academics, somebody
within production agriculture to be on board to be that voice.
Dr. Brouder. Yes.
Mr. Davis. And it seems that has not taken place.
Dr. Brouder. Well, but please don't--I mean, I can't tell
you off the top of my head who is----
Mr. Davis. You don't remember the background of every
individual?
Dr. Brouder. No, sir.
Mr. Davis. Okay, no, I jest, of course, but I would love
some feedback and be able to work with you and the Science
Advisory Board in the future to really put production
agriculture's ideas forward. So thank you for responding to my
question, Doctor.
I just want to be blunt about this hearing, though. I can't
think of a more tone-deaf hearing to be having today. Talking
about resiliency should be in the context of inflation and
global supply chain issues that have caused food prices to
skyrocket. They are the highest they have been in 40 years,
inflation is over eight percent, gas is over $5 a gallon. We
refuse to make people get back to work. And yet here we are
once again discussing climate change in the House Agriculture
Committee.
Tomorrow on the House floor we are going to vote on what I
think should be called the Bait and Switch Act. The bill will
pit industries against each other before the good parts are
sent to die in the Senate, getting the hopes up of industries
who can contribute to solutions to the problems our local
communities are facing. And yet, here we are again. We are
discussing climate change. People aren't going to be taking
summer trips when gas gets to $6, $7 or $8 a gallon. And that
is exactly what the Biden Administration ultimately wants out
of this climate crisis that they have manufactured by banning
domestic energy production, or the radical left likes to call
it, the Green New Deal.
Conversations about infusing conservation programs with
money because people think that it is woke to talk about
climate change is a solution in search of a problem. The
programs being discussed here today can be used to combat the
supply chain issues we are seeing to bring down costs and ease
these issues, and we aren't discussing that either. Until this
Administration focuses on moving people forward, lowering gas
prices, tackling inflation, and disincentivizing the COVID
gravy train, these problems are going to persist. And I think
any of our constituents would say that is a much more serious
threat to them, their families, and their communities than a
climate crisis.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms.
Adams, who is also the Vice Chair of the Committee on
Agriculture is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Thompson for hosting the hearing, and as well to our
witnesses. We appreciate your input as well.
Dr. Fares, I know that you are from a small country in
North Africa that has one of the few self-sufficient
agricultural sectors on the continent. And so I want to take a
moment to note the diverse and specialized expertise you have
to offer the 1890 Institutions. Just yesterday, USDA signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the 1890s President's Council
to reaffirm and commit to opportunities for land-grant HBCUs.
So, Dr. Fares, through the MOU, what actions can USDA take
to support 1890s that have tackled major agricultural
challenges?
Dr. Fares. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Adams. I
appreciate the question. And thank you for recognizing Tunisia,
where I come from originally 35 years ago. I think I am very
happy to see that there is this MOU between USDA and between
the 1890 Institutions. I think there is opportunity here for us
to support the great work that 1890 Institutions are doing in
training future experts and future professionals who are going
to address this climate change, who will address equally our
food security, our energy security, and our health security,
too. So opportunities are helping us with our, as I mentioned,
infrastructure, helping us to support more funding for our
Research Center of Excellence, for instance, in climate and
related area. There are more scholarships for our students so
that these limited resources, first year, first generation
college students can attend colleges and can have jobs in this
new and vibrant economy that is shaping up. These are some of
the few ideas that come to my mind now, but I will be happy to
add more to this discussion and help in the process of
supporting this MOU and this collaboration further with some
crucial and critical steps that we can take.
Ms. Adams. Okay. So let me ask you, and thank you for that.
So to follow up, what kind of work have 1890s embarked on to
promote and protect water quality and security in the
agriculture sector?
Dr. Fares. Can you repeat the question again, please?
Ms. Adams. Sure. What kind of work have the 1890s embarked
on to promote and protect water quality and security in the ag
sector?
Dr. Fares. Well, we have been working in different areas of
that area. We have been working on how to optimize irrigation
for different crops, how to make use of rain-fed agriculture
and minimize the use of a pumping of water, how we can curve
soil erosion and enhance soil health so that we can minimize
the erosion of our soils, and also protect our surface water
and groundwater issues. So these are a few projects that we
have been doing in this area that----
Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you, sir. Let me move on to another
issue.
Dr. Velez, good to see another OSU graduate here. You work
with a population in the climate resilience space. Organic
growers are in the forefront of implementing climate-neutral
practices. We know that agricultural lands hold tremendous
capacity. So I would like to make sure that we are doing so in
an efficient way. So given the research that you have done, do
you have any thoughts on how we can make sure that producers
have the tools they need to remove carbon efficiently?
Dr. Velez. Thank you, Ms. Adams. I really appreciate that
question. I think one of the most important things that we can
focus on beyond just the research, which I do think is
important for organic research to get out there specific to
climate resilience, mitigating greenhouse gases, sequestering
carbon, it is really important to invest in extension and
education. And so we have recognized and we have heard from a
lot of organic growers that they do not have the extension
support that they need when it comes time to adopt the new
tools and technologies. And so if we can invest more in
cooperative extension, which is already historically
underinvested, and making sure they are prepared to support
organic growers as well----
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Adams. I apologize but I am out of time. Thank you so
much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Adams.
And now the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate all of
our panelists. Today, we appreciate your expertise and you
sharing it with us.
A couple of comments up front and I have one or two
questions. I was raised on a farm in rural Illinois. It is
still in the family. And in this capacity, the job I am in
today, I get to visit with Nebraska farmers and ranchers all
over the state. I know firsthand how serious they take
conservation. They know that the health of the soil is vital to
their future, the future of our industry. When you go to the
ranchers, they will tell you the most important thing that they
look at is the health of the grass because that is vital to the
ranching industry. So I think we can credit our farmers and
ranchers for leading the way on conservation. They know how
important it is to them.
I also would say, and just to piggyback with Mr. Davis'
comments, when I talk to farmers and ranchers today, the number
one issue is inflation. I was talking to some before traveling
out here on Monday. Pesticides are up 300 percent, and most of
those key ingredients come from China. When it comes to
fertilizers, they have also skyrocketed. Most of those
ingredients come from Russia. We have to restore these
industries back in the United States or at least with our key
allies. We can't depend on Russia and China for what is vital
to our ag industry. So I just want to say that up-front.
My first question is to Mr. Vance. In your written
testimony, you mentioned livestock producers are being vilified
by academia and the government, which in turn causes irrational
and irresponsible regulations imposed on the livestock sector.
You mentioned specifically New Zealand and Ireland. And will
you elaborate on these policies and why are they irresponsible,
and the impact they could have on our agriculture if they were
implemented here? Thank you.
Mr. Vance. Thank you, Mr. Bacon, for the question. I will
start by saying we work with quite a few producers from
Nebraska from the Sandhills and it is because that is a very
regenerative part of the world. And so you definitely have some
of the better ranchers in the country right there in Nebraska.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
Mr. Vance. As far as New Zealand goes, what we have seen
happen there with their tax on livestock, it is really
unnecessary. And then also, we feel like it is unrealistic. And
it is something that if we brought into this country, it would
be devastating. First of all, it would lower our production. So
in environments like our own production system where we are
sequestering carbon, we would actually add to the problem if we
took livestock out of our personal production model.
Also, we would see drastically increased food prices, and
so that creates a concern not only for me as a producer, but,
as a family of five, that is a major concern for me as well
because we are already seeing supply shortages on protein. And
so if we are going to cut supply out of that food chain
nationally due to these taxes, then we are definitely going to
see that. The consumers are going to be the bearer of that, at
the end of the food chain.
The most disheartening part of that, though, is it is
really disproportionate. The levies that they are placing on
livestock in New Zealand, they are disproportionate to the
damage that the livestock have on the overall damage to the
environment, especially in respect to carbon. It is a very
small footprint, carbon footprint there in New Zealand, but
they are carrying the bulk of the demand to change. And we are
starting to see that some in this country, and that is
something we have to curb at some point.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you. Here is another question for you, Mr.
Vance. Our productivity in agriculture since the 1940s has gone
up 287 percent. It is incredible. And the inputs have been
roughly the same. So we have really just led the way in the
world for productivity, research, and getting more out of our
land than anybody else can. Can you talk a little bit about
what kind of research we need to keep pushing us down the road
and even expanding this productivity?
Mr. Vance. So, first of all, we have to have research that
works hand-in-hand with the producer. It has to be research
that is very applicable and very usable. And so that research
has to start on the ranch. It can't start in a small plot on a
university campus. It has to work hand-in-hand with producers.
And when we implement those production practices, we are not
misled. A lot of times now when we see practices that are being
advocated for that nobody has proven them in a true production
model and so we are leveraging our own profitability when we
try those practices. And so, that is the number one thing we
have to see.
But then also, what we are starting to see in our style of
production is we are actually seeing some land come out of not
having any production for years and years, and it is coming
back into production because private landowners, foundations
that normally did not like to see livestock on the land because
they thought it was a detriment, now they have been educated
partly due to some research that, hey, they can be good for the
land. They are good for the environment. So we have had the
opportunity to lease quite a bit of acres that are being
brought back into production, and so that is one key component
to adding back to the food chain.
Mr. Bacon. I am sorry. I just ran out of time. I appreciate
your inputs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. And now the gentlewoman from Ohio,
Ms. Brown, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Thompson, for holding this hearing today. And thank you to our
expert panel for being here. Your perspectives are very helpful
as we look ahead to the next farm bill.
We know that farmers are on the front-lines of the climate
crisis. Extreme weather events like the devastating floods we
have seen in the Midwest and wildfires and heat waves out West
are already affecting the way our farmers produce and
distribute food. These extreme events have also proved to
contribute to inflationary increases in the prices of food and
energy, saddling working families with higher cost and lower
wages, property loss, and significant health problems.
Dr. Velez, with all the extreme weather events we have been
experiencing in recent years, many farms are facing crop losses
and declining soil health. How can sustainable and climate-
smart farming practices help farmers and ranchers improve their
resilience and reduce risk?
Dr. Velez. Thank you, Representative Brown. I think that is
a very important question to tease apart. And the reason I say
that is because our research indicates that organic agriculture
is actually one of the most resilient when it comes to dealing
with these disasters, the droughts, the wildfires, the
flooding, the hurricanes. Using sustainable practices, whether
it is diversified crop rotations or cover cropping to prepare
the soil, and so building soil health is critical.
At a fundamental level, organic agriculture is focused on
building soil health and restricting the harsh agrochemicals
that harm soil biota. As Mr. Vance said, soil biology is
critical to that stability, and making sure that we improve the
soil is going to be what makes these farms more resilient to
these disasters. And so organic agriculture does result in
higher yields, even after extreme environmental stresses.
Ms. Brown. Thank you for that. I want to switch to the
livestock perspective. Mr. Vance, what USDA conservation
programs have you participated in, and do you think they have
encouraged your operation to be more resilient?
Mr. Vance. So currently, I do not participate in very many
of the conservation programs just because of the way we are set
up. But I think there are quite a few programs that are very
helpful out there, one being the implementation of cover crops.
And cost-sharing on cover crops has been very instrumental,
especially in row crop operations.
Some of these practices we are not eligible for because we
were kind of early on innovators with these practices. And so
that, I would say that that is one thing I would like to see
change is some of the ones that were early innovators, we
haven't really been rewarded by being able to cost-share, going
forward, because we had already adopted those practices. But I
would definitely say that that is one of the largest programs
that we like to see. Cross-fencing is another one. That was
very helpful as far as allowing a soil just to rest. And then
third, definitely some of the programs they have to slow soil
erosion are very vital to our areas.
Ms. Brown. Well, thank you very much. And I appreciate your
responses. And I am pleased to see that the Department of
Agriculture, as well as my colleagues on the Committee, have
been so committed to encouraging and incentivizing producers to
take part in climate-smart farming practices. So I look forward
to working on more of these issues with more of my colleagues.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Brown.
And now the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Thompson.
We have seen how agricultural productivity and efficiency
can be enhanced through scientific research and applications of
new technologies. An example from my district being Iowa
State's Digital Ag, which specializes in developing new
technologies to improve agricultural practices. Digital
agriculture and data analytics can help improve the resiliency
in the agricultural sector and can help farmers make informed
decisions about how to best protect their soil, manage
nutrients, and select crop varieties, all of which are vital to
food production and the efficiency of producers.
So my question first to Dr. Brouder. If we look at the 2023
Farm Bill, how can we connect the dots from research academia
to actually producers? What do we need to do in the farm bill
to make this happen?
Dr. Brouder. Thank you for that question. I think that
anything that encourages the development of the next-gen
extension specialist who can actually deal with data wrangling,
data analytics, et cetera, is hugely important. We just
completed teaching a first-time course, supported by a USDA
grant, on research methods for synthesizing on-farm data,
research data, that kind of thing. And, our take-home message
as instructors was students don't know what they don't know and
what they need to know. Not everybody is going to need to be a
data scientist, but we need technical service providers, and
honestly, our undergrad programs, too. People need to be more
aware of the tools and how to use them to manage their
enterprise. So that is on-farm, as well as the technical
service providers, future farmers.
I will just add one more comment. We work in a case study
with an extremely large consulting group in the Midwest, and
they are hiring right now half agronomists and half data
analytics people. And so we need to bring that capability to
the farming sector. And from my perspective, it is the
management on the farm, but it is throughout the supply chain.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes, and I would agree with that. I mean it
really comes down to farm management. And there is this
minutia, right? We have all this minutia of data. And you
brought up an interesting point that we also have for us, we
have the Iowa State Extension. We have farm managers. So we
have maybe the conduits. I sometimes get concerned that
academia is running way ahead. I see this at Iowa State, which
is great. But Joe, Mary producer has a hard time capturing it
and then actually applying it. And I think there is something
missing. And I don't know if--I mean, I just look at the farm
bill if there needs to be some incentivization or what can be
done to connect the dots.
Dr. Brouder. I think it is the synthesis, and that includes
the synthesis of research data. We recognize the problem of
what we call small science and research where you have small
studies. But when you bring together data streams from on-farm
with research data, you have an opportunity, especially with
new tools in AI and machine learning, to really advance our
understanding of what we need to manage and how to go about it.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes, and I will go a step further. I mean, so
now with precision farming, I mean, to help the environment, it
is just amazing what we can do to figure out, okay, how much
fertilizer we need to put on, how deep our soil goes, that
increases production, knifing in fertilizer. I mean, there are
just so many things that are happening currently in the farming
arena for conservation and protection of the environment.
And now I look at the farm bill and say, okay, these
farmers get it. A, they get it because of the efficiency part
of it, but they also understand that it is good for the soil.
Just a last comment to you. Is there anything that we can
do to connect those dots to incentivize the farmer for more
conservation or to say, hey, you have done great conservation
practice. What else can we do to help them?
Dr. Brouder. I am not sure I can answer that quickly. What
else can we do to help them? Well, I think it is both the
access to expertise and their own tools on the farm so that
they don't have to spend as much time as people are spending
right now trying to deal with their data.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes.
Dr. Brouder. There is a lot of unused data out there on
farm.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Thank you so much. I yield back.
The Chairman. And thank you very much, Mr. Feenstra.
And now the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
hearing. And I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing
before us today.
This question, Mr. Chairman, is for each of the witnesses
if they care to answer. I am representing the south side of
Chicago, and the vast majority of my district is urban. And
according to the most recent Census, over 80 percent of
Americans live in urban areas. So as we approach this all-
hands-on-deck moment for research into an interaction between
climate and agriculture, what research is happening today into
how urban agriculture, some form of urban agriculture can help
to reduce the carbon footprint of our nation's farming
enterprise? And what role, if there is any, for researchers
into the area of urban ag? And I will ask that question to any
of our witnesses.
Dr. Houlton. I am happy to jump in. Thank you so much for
that question. So I will talk about some of the programs we are
operating through in New York State. Through Cornell
Cooperative Extension, we have four members of a team who are
focused entirely on urban agriculture in New York City, and we
have an additional team through our associations in Buffalo,
among many other communities. They are focused on this
question. How do you grow soil in a way that brings about local
community resilience, nutrition, and food sovereignty? So that
is something that is incredibly important to continue to do not
only from a food security perspective but also from a justice
and equity perspective.
Second, we are also working in controlled environment
agriculture in some of these communities because there are new
innovations in businesses that are emerging through the ability
to grow food in indoor operations, which is critical also to
thinking about urban societies as they develop because of their
food needs and the challenges of climate that are happening and
harming our ability to continue to grow food.
Mr. Rush. Does any other witness want to jump in on this?
Dr. Fares. Yes, Congressman. Oh, go ahead, please.
Dr. Velez. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Rush, I wanted to speak to
the important work that is being done both within the organic
sector and also just within urban agriculture in general. And I
know that a lot of the urban agriculture space is really
focused on sustainability and sequestering carbon. And of
course it is at a smaller scale. However, these projects, for
example, throughout, again, Chicago and then extremely urban
areas, Detroit, Black Farmers Association. There are a lot of
organizations that are working to build soil health, nutrient
management. They are working to suppress weeds. They are
working to make sure that their communities have access to food
that is safe and also contributing to the environment in
positive ways. And many of them are practicing organic
agriculture to do so.
Mr. Rush. Anyone else?
Dr. Fares. Yes, I would like to share with you some of our
work that has been done by Prairie View A&M University and the
Texas A&M University system. There is an initiative called
Houston Healthy Initiative that is funded by a grant from the
Texas A&M University system and also Prairie View A&M
University system to address a clinical issue facing minorities
and African Americans in the Houston area, what we call food
deserts where people don't have access to fresh food, don't
have access to fresh produce. So connecting them back with
their food, helping them raise their own food, their fresh food
so they can be healthy and they can stay outside of the
doctor's offices, also connect them by helping minimizing
carbon emission because one of the more important thing in
carbon is the transportation of the produce. So if they can
produce it locally, if they can--so that reduces in that. So
this is an initiative where we can help achieve several things
in addition to food security, health security, and other
important things, especially for minority and limited-resources
communities.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rush, very good question and
very good responses from our panelists.
And now the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for being here today.
Mr. Vance, I want to direct this question to you. Farmers
are inherently market-responsive. I think they have to be
environmentally sensitive. I think they have to be.
Sustainability to me is not just about the environment; it is
also about the economic conditions that are necessary for them
to be sustainable over time. Many of the practices that are
employed and their investments made in their operations aren't
necessarily manifested in a positive way on the balance sheet.
And so my question is, how do we create more value for the
farmer and ideas like, for example, low-carbon grain? How do
you certify low-carbon grain? Is there a market for it? Much
like you see in the protein sector, where you have grass-fed
beef that commands a premium in the marketplace? Certified
organic is another label that consumers can make that choice to
upgrade if they want to. And that is manifest to the producer.
The other question I have is, how do we turn data into a
revenue stream, an additional commodity to what they are
already producing? These are the things that I think that we
are going to have to incentivize farmers to be able to avail
themselves of if they are going to be sustainable, not just
environmentally, but economically and on the environmental
front. I mean, look, we have been doing conservation tillage
for decades. That was not as much environmentally driven as it
was economically driven. But now it fits really well with an
environmental sustainability program. And I am just wondering
how we capitalize on this to make it profitable and not just a
feel-good initiative. Certainly, it is a sustainability issue.
But how do we make these things more of a return on those
investments that they are making in the long-term?
Mr. Vance. Thank you for the question, Mr. Crawford. I
fully agree with you that we are very fortunate to live in a
time period where consumers are driven. The ones that can
afford it are driven to pay for value in terms of what our
climate footprint is and what our environmental footprint is. I
think the main importance is we have to have that verified. The
data has got to be legit. And I think it is important for the
producers to be incentivized through the consumers and not be
demanded to implement certain practices but be rewarded for
those practices, and that way they can be economically
sustainable in our operations.
And, I would like to see research done to help us verify
some of these processes, verify some of the data, especially
when it comes to carbon and water. And we are already starting
to see that. I have producers that I work with that are already
seeing their first carbon market checks this year, which is
remarkable. But even as a taxpayer, you hope that stays in the
private-sector, and I think that is very important that it
stays in the private-sector.
But the incredible thing about that, as long as our people
want that from a political standpoint, they also should be
willing to pay for it with their dollar. And so I think we have
to take the data, and we have to link it back to the land. And
kind of the offshoot of that, we are going to see more value go
back to the land. So a lot of these producers, a lot of these
large landowners that don't have any producers on their
property now, are going to be incentivized. And we are already
starting to see it there in Texas. They are being incentivized.
There is value there. Like, for instance, carbon, there is
value there for the producer and the landowner. And you almost
split that value. And so we are going to see an increase in
production land. And honestly, behind inflation, a loss of
production land is our biggest obstacle.
Mr. Crawford. Let me throw something else out there.
Various stages of crop production, there is carbon capture
opportunities, correct?
Mr. Vance. Yes, correct.
Mr. Crawford. So my question is, so we have looked at
conservation through the lens of programs like CRP. Is there in
there room for waivers or permits to produce on land that has
historically been set aside for CRP and other conservation
programs, whereby a producer can do those practices and do the
carbon capture and still achieve the same goals in conservation
so that they can also increase their economic sustainability,
their profitability?
Mr. Vance. You are identifying a real barrier there. I
mean, that is the awesome thing that for so long we have been
in this mindset that you can't have both, but you can, and the
science will back to that.
Mr. Crawford. Right.
Mr. Vance. I think as we see more and more regenerative
producers emerge, and we are definitely seeing that across our
nation, like you can have significant livestock production
without having any negative effects to other wildlife like in
the CRP program. Matter of fact, we lease a property in
Wyoming, and one of the things we have seen there is because
there hasn't been grazing out on some of those CRP properties,
we are seeing a reduction in farm crops on antelope due to a
loss of palatability with mature plants that they can't
utilize. I think the biologists that we work with on that
property there, he is actually looking to do some research to
identify if grazing would actually help the antelope. And I
think that is the kind of thing that we need to see emerge
quickly and build up, apply those things.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I appreciate feedback. I yield
back.
The Chairman. Yes, thank you.
And now the gentlewoman from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing, and thank you to all the witnesses. You guys have
done a great job and had some very interesting testimony, and I
appreciate the work that you are doing.
My first question for Dr. Velez from the Organic Farming
Research Foundation. I really appreciate the work that you do.
And coming from Maine where we have a large percentage of
organic farmers, we are particularly interested in this. And we
were able to host Under Secretary Moffitt in our district last
week to talk about some of the concerns that our farmers are
bringing forward, which are many, but we see them as sort of
the original climate-friendly agriculture and want to be there
to support the work that they are doing.
I am very engaged in this topic and introduced the
Agricultural Resilience Act (H.R. 2803), really just to better
empower farmers with the best-available science and
conservation tools and so many of the things that we are
talking about today. But one of the portions of it is around
climate research, and it would authorize the Long-Term
Agroecosystem Research Network for the first time ever,
providing new funding, new research goals and capacity to adapt
to climate change.
So I am curious, from your perspective, what other research
goals would you like to see in the Long-Term Agroecosystem
Research Network prioritized as it relates to climate
resiliency?
Dr. Velez. Thank you, Ms. Pingree. That is a wonderful
question. And it is indeed one of the comments that I made both
in my testimony, verbal and written, is to expand the research
and increase funding towards the long-term agricultural
research sites within the ARS. And specific to climate
resilience, climate mitigation, I think agronomic research on
these stations and at these sites and across other USDA
facilities and institutions really needs to focus on soil
health and nutrient management. Within these sites, I would
like to see regional seed cultivar development particularly for
organic systems, methods for weed suppression that are less
disruptive to the soil, particularly for these organic growers
who already struggle with weed suppression, integrated pest
management systems. Something that came up in our National
Organic Research Agenda is that a lot of organic growers would
like to see more work being done on crop-livestock integration.
They would also like to see more research on advanced
rotational grazing, which may not be something that is going to
be conducted at these LTAR sites.
But another thing is just to make sure that the connection
between, so, for example, at ARS in the Beltsville, Maryland
station, they have these field days, and these field days are
critical to get that research out to the communities and making
sure that that is reaching extension and other education
networks.
Ms. Pingree. Yes, thank you for that. Each one of those are
areas that that we hear about and really want to expand the
work that is being done. And particularly, as you mentioned in
the end, making sure that some of the good research that is
being done is available to farmers who want to make these
transitions but need more technical assistance or advice along
the way.
I am a big fan of the Sustainable Agriculture Research
Education Program, SARE. I think it does really good work and
provides some great opportunities to engage farmers in these
practices. And I would just like to ask anybody on the panel,
what kind of research would you like to see SARE focus on going
forward? Anybody want to tackle that one?
Dr. Fares. I think I can try. There is a need for more
integrated agriculture research projects where you have
connection between more than one component. What we have been
doing is dealing with issues in a silo research mode. What we
need to do is an integrated and a nexus approach where you can
have--where we talk about water, soil, plant health, animals
contribution. So the integrated approach that will help us
address the needs because many of these topics, they overlap.
There are some overlaps between them. So dealing with them in a
silo mode really doesn't help us. What we need is an
integrative approach that addresses all these issues in one. So
supporting that type of research, I think this is one of the
suggestions that I recommend.
Ms. Pingree. Yes, very good point. Anyone else?
Dr. Velez. Yes, I would like to advocate for more organic
dollars within the SARE programs or more organic folks on these
review panels to make sure that organic is being represented
within those spaces as well and not just with research kind of
devoted and segmented off into the OREI and ORG, but making
sure that organic has its space within all of these programs.
Ms. Pingree. Very good point. I have 20 seconds. Go ahead.
Dr. Houlton. I will add just one other point that I think
is critical to the Northeast region, and that is as climate
change continues to change with warming about twice the
national average, we are seeing more pests and more pathogens
moving into our tree cropping systems, and we need to find
biodynamic solutions to these challenges, so really critical to
get that research.
The Chairman. Thank you both very much.
And now the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Ranking Member
Thompson, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Thank you to
all of our witnesses. We will start with you, Mr. Vance. As the
only producer on today's panel, I would like to hear your
perspective on research that increases productivity and
profitability and how that research relates to the
environmental co-benefits. Can you speak to that?
Mr. Vance. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Thank you for the
question. I think I think there are a couple of things we can
look at. One is if we are looking at soil health and we are
increasing soil quality, we are going to see increased
production. There is a bridge, and we are going to bridge that
gap. But I think that is where research comes in, to help us
quickly bridge that gap. When you first get into some of the
production cycles that we have, you kind of slow production
until you get it figured out until your soil starts increasing,
your organic matter starts increasing. And then you can start
adding numbers. We have seen that. We have been able to add
stocking rates. We have a farm this year that we don't have
near enough cattle on. And we didn't plan for it. It is a
positive, but next year, we can plan and we can have more head,
produce more beef per acre. And so that is one part of it.
The other part of it, I mentioned it earlier, but as
research verifies that there are different production systems
that actually contribute to positive influences in several
different environmental aspects. And we are seeing it with some
of the mitigation companies, and we are seeing it on
conservation easements. But as private property owners see the
value in having production systems added back to their land,
that is going to increase production alone, right there.
And in our section of the world, that is what we have seen
the biggest incentive to do what we do. And you are talking
about large land masses at times, especially for producers of
our size, and we are talking about big, big ranches that were
set aside for purely conservation. And then after 5 to 10 years
in conservation, they are starting to see detrimental effects
to no grazing. And so by adding grazing back there is so many
benefits to that.
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you for that. Healthy soils
really is the tool that we achieve through American agriculture
and all forms of American agriculture. Livestock, you have made
a great, great point on livestock, which is something that I
don't think many Americans recognize, and I would hope more
Americans would understand. But it is farming, ranching, and
forestry.
You have worked with researchers, or they have visited your
ranch. And any recommendations that you have for the
researchers for engaging with farmers and ranchers such as
yourself, and perhaps engaging more effectively, more, being
more on the farms or the ranch?
Mr. Vance. So the research that we have been seeing that is
successful and that is helpful to us, it has always come
through private-public partnerships it seems like. Nobel
Research is a good example of that. And so it seems like some
of the private groups out there are really good at linking the
two together. And so I think we need to see more and more
partnerships with the private-sector to allow opportunities for
real-world data, real-world research.
Mr. Thompson. Very good, and this for all, and I probably
don't have time for response, but I am going to tee up my
question. And if we don't get a chance for a response, I would
love to hear from each of our witnesses. The Biden
Administration, and inside the beltway think-tanks, have been
pushing a climate agenda that creates new programs and added
what I see commonly unnecessary bureaucracy. However, when
producers, when you talk with those folks that are farmers,
ranchers, and foresters talk about climate solutions, they
mention the importance of research, boots-on-the-ground
support, access to precision agriculture, and the need for
broadband technology. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with
precision agriculture. To me this all sounds like assistance
available within the farm bill programs. And for all the
witnesses, is the solution as simple as doubling down on these
proven programs? And what research is being done to further
technologies and practices that we know are already working?
And I apologize, I probably have just about 40 seconds for a
response from anyone who would like to take that, and then
anyone else, I would love to hear in writing.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the responses to the information referred to are
located: for Dr. Brouder, on p. 76; for Dr. Fares, on p. 78; for Dr.
Houlton, on p. 80; for Mr. Vance, on p. 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Velez. Thank you. I will take a quick stab at that
question and just say that I think the research is really
important for farmers. And, as an organization, we try to
connect as closely with our growers as possible and our
constituents to hear their needs. And what we are finding is
that the research and doubling down on farm bill programs that
exist are really important when it comes to mitigating climate
change and becoming more resilient. But increasing the funding
and also expanding programs so that there is more capacity for
those growers to get that information is key as well.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Well, I would just encourage
everyone to check out the SUSTAINS Act (H.R. 2606) because it
does that. It uses public-private partnerships, brings private-
sector dollars to expand more farm bill opportunities.
The Chairman. And thank you, Ranking Member. That was a
very good question. And I certainly would appreciate you all,
each of you responding in writing to the Ranking Member. Very
good question, sir.
And now, the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. Schrier, is
now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first would love to
focus on water issues. And thank you to our witnesses for being
here. Twenty twenty-one brought extreme temperatures and near
record low precipitation to much of Washington State, and last
summer, 96 percent of Washington State was experiencing
drought. In this year, a cool and wet spring has brought some
relief to many areas, but drought conditions persist in about
\1/2\ of my home state, including a few counties in my
district. And our changing and warming climate is only going to
bring more of these tough conditions for farmers.
Washington State University, including the Tree Fruit
Research and Extension Center in my district, is leading the
way on research that will inform farmers and our agriculture
industry on the best practices to face the challenges posed by
a changing climate. For example, Washington State University is
developing new techniques for irrigating wine grapes with less
water, and this has actually resulted in bigger, higher quality
grapes. This can include the use of precision irrigation to
inform the availability and timing of water supply, including
options for managing projected shortfalls in future supply. It
can involve the use of deficit irrigation where water is
applied or withheld at specific developmental stages of the
crop in order to conserve water without compromising growth.
And deficit irrigation can actually help reduce the incidence
of bitter pit, a growth disorder in apples, by controlling the
size of an apple at maturity. So giving growers these tools can
help them simultaneously conserve water and improve yields by
managing crop quality challenges in a changing climate.
Mr. Vance, in your testimony, you mentioned that the U.S.
built an agricultural sector based on reliably stable climates
and abundant water. And this has, as you stated, changed, and
it is continuing to change. So I am wondering how we can shift
policy and the core of the industry to reflect what we know now
about climate change and where we are headed?
Mr. Vance. So thank you for the question. I think as far as
policy is concerned, we just need to continue to furnish
research that works with producers that are living in these
everchanging environments. I think to really experience an
everchanging environment, you have to work within a production
cycle to experience some of those to where you can learn the
intricacies of them. I mean, just like in our own personal
operation, drought is a real thing in north Texas, and it is
built into our management plan. And, some of that has been
learned through the school of hard knocks, but I would hope for
a new producer coming along would not have to learn from--they
wouldn't have to experience some of the same mistakes that I
have made. And so I think we need to do a better job capturing
a lot of that data that I experienced. I don't have time to
capture a lot of that data or log it, and I really don't have
the know-how at times. But I think if we can create more
partnerships where we work with for-profit, full-time
operators, I think there can be very much a benefit to where we
can collect that data and then use it to move forward.
Ms. Schrier. I appreciate that. I appreciate the importance
of research in all of this discussion and watching for more
than just one cycle. I would like to just highlight this issue
of research infrastructure in our country. The ability, as you
mentioned, for researchers to conduct experiments on plants
under various environmental stressors is really critical for
understanding crop responses to new climate conditions and
those that might be coming down the line. And modern facilities
can help researchers screen new crop varieties and understand
the impacts of a changing climate on those specific plants,
including insects and disease pests. But 69 percent of research
facilities at U.S. colleges are at the end of their useful
life. Our research facilities not only generate solutions, but
they aid in recruiting a whole new generation of scientists and
innovators and agricultural leaders. And they have the
potential to keep us at the forefront of international research
and a real leader. So a multiyear investment will just
reposition the United States for long-term success and
competitiveness and leadership around the world. And this issue
stays top of mind for me as the Appropriations Committee works
on writing Fiscal Year 2023 funding bills, and I will continue
to push for research at our universities. Thank you. And I
yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
And now, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses for joining us today.
We are in a real debate and a dilemma in this country right
now. And the American people are really hurting. I mean, I
don't know how much they have to sacrifice to this climate God
to deal with these issues, but obviously we were created to
adapt to and have dominion. But, this thing, I mean, the whole
economy is upside down. And, I mean, you have been in the
grocery store. I mean, I was on the elevator coming up here
today and the talk on the elevator--and I didn't know these
folks--was do you know how much I paid for eggs yesterday? $12
a dozen, Mr. Chairman. I mean, where is this going to end?
And of course, we have a war on fossil fuels, which has
created a lot of this, and now we have this, we are going to
have a war on--and to walk into a grocery store and see empty
shelves and no baby formula. I mean, what is this country
coming to? The American people are in fear of what is going to
happen next. And so I think it is important that we have a
serious debate on where this country is going.
Dr. Velez, how do you propose that farmers can focus on new
technology and production methods in order to combat climate
change when the world's food supply needs to increase by more
than 70 percent in the next 30 years? How is that going to
happen?
Dr. Velez. Thank you for your question, Mr. Allen. I think
the biggest benefit that organic agriculture has to offer is
that it is not reliant on fossil fuel-dependent external
inputs, which are one of the biggest struggles that now is
facing the conventional growers. They are really reliant on
these increasing prices for these external inputs. And organic
producers have for a very long period of time been reducing
that and building soil health so they have soil fertility and
nutrient management. And as we continue to invest in organic,
we can equalize that price premium that is there. And I believe
that that is one of the biggest things that we can have to
offer for this. We understand and we recognize that inflation
is occurring, and it is occurring within our market as well.
And so we need to find a way to bring more of that production
internally and have the system work holistically and work with
that. Mr. Vance said that as well, it is important to manage a
farm as a system, and that system should have the resources
within the farm operation. And that is the focus of organic
growers.
Mr. Allen. Yes, but I can't get anybody to tell me that we
can be assured that, through this process, that you are going
to be able to furnish the needs of the food for this country,
like I said, 70 percent in the next 30 years. I have had nobody
give me any kind of data that indicates that through these
means and methods, we are going to be able to do this. We know
the progress we have made over the last 30 years. Dr. Velez,
can you honestly state that funding for climate change research
and the innovation of new technology is more important than
dedicating funding and research to increase the production
amounts of our world's food supply, particularly when our
national debt is over $30 trillion?
Dr. Velez. Mr. Allen, I would like to follow up with
findings, research that indicate that organic systems that
address climate change have similar or higher yields in some
circumstances. This has been found from Rodale Institute's
organic and conventional crop rotations. They have had similar
yields over a 35 year period. And so when they are managed
correctly, in some cases, the organic systems actually had
better crop yields, 31 percent higher grain yield of corn
during drought years. And so when we are faced with these
climate conditions, the organic systems are performing better.
Thank you.
Mr. Allen. The issue of climate change is not only the
responsibility of the U.S. to solve. Dr. Fares, you mentioned
the need for other countries to develop research initiatives as
well. Can you tell us more about the likeliness of another
country to devote funding or simply adopt practices?
Dr. Fares. I think some of the issues that we are facing
would be helpful to address them in collaboration, basically, a
process. I mean, other countries, I don't have the statistics
before me here about what other countries are spending in
research and development. But I think we need to synergize in
certain areas where we can work with other countries in crops
that are common. For example, take corn for instance. We are
not the only people who are growing corn. We have other
countries. So if we can work collaboratively with other
countries, that will be helpful to us.
Mr. Allen. Yes, well, I am out of time but I can tell you
this. The American people have sacrificed an awful lot to lead
the world in carbon reduction, okay? And we are far ahead of
the rest of the world. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Yes. And thank you, Mr. Allen. And you raise
a very good point, Mr. Allen, and that is why we are addressing
this high cost of food and fuel with our food and fuel costs
bill that will be on the floor tomorrow. That is a leading
priority of our Agriculture Committee. And thanks to C-SPAN,
the nation will see we are very concerned, and we will move to
bring down the high cost of both food and fuel with the
enaction of our legislation, which will be debated on the floor
of the House of Representatives tomorrow.
And now the gentlewoman from New Hampshire, Ms. Kuster, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so grateful for
you and for this hearing, and I appreciate your leadership on
this issue and your attention to climate change. As I often
say, our farmers and foresters are on the frontline of climate
change. They are already experiencing the ramifications, and
they will continue to. They feel the consequences of our
changing climate long before other sectors are hit equally as
hard. As such, they deserve tremendous credit for the work they
have already done to take full advantage of farm and forest
lands as carbon sinks.
But of course, there is much more we can do, and I am so
pleased that the agricultural research extension and grant
project are continuing to make fresh progress in this space. A
great example is the USDA's Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest
in my district in New Hampshire. They have provided top-notch
analysis through their work studying New Hampshire's climate
for the past half century, 50 years. They found that our
average annual temperature has already risen a staggering 2.6
Fahrenheit, that rainfall has increased often in condensed
periods of heavy storms, and that flooding has become much more
common where I live.
As challenging as these realities are, it is important for
farmers to know what they are facing and that they have the
tools to plan accordingly. We have an incredible opportunity to
build this research capacity out in the next farm bill, and we
cannot squander it. We must continue to provide incentives to
help producers maximize the carbon capture potential of their
land.
So in that vein, Dr. Velez, we have seen farmers adopting
practices such as reduced tillage, increased cover crops, crop
rotation, and the integration of conservation measures. What is
the role of research, education, and extension in shifting
culture and supporting the adoption of these sustainable
agriculture practices?
Dr. Velez. Thank you, Ms. Kuster. I appreciate the
question. I believe firmly that one of the most important
things that can be done is to build the connection between the
researchers and the research that is being done and the
adoption of all of these carbon sequestration practices, carbon
mitigation and climate, recognizing that the research is out
there. There is still more research that needs to be done to
enhance soil carbon sequestration, but we also need to make
sure that that gets into the hands of the people who are doing
the work. And so this is why I will again continually push for
more investment in extension and education, and in many cases
even creating networks and hubs because we have learned from
our National Organic Research Agenda, that farmer-to-farmer
information is one of the best ways to share and spread new
innovation. And so for adoption of innovation, diffusion of
technology to occur, we need to be connecting more closely with
the farmers, the growers, the ranchers, who are doing these
carbon sequestration practices to get that information out
there and making sure that organic growers are being recognized
for that great work.
Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you. And Dr. Brouder, let's zero
in on this thread a bit more. You have done extensive research
on the nutrient requirements of crops in changing environments
and on fertilizer efficiency and balance. Can you speak to how
soil health plays into nutrient demands and what the research
has shown in terms of building soil health and ensuring
appropriate nutrient balances for crops under changing climate
conditions?
Dr. Brouder. So if I understood the question correctly, the
research has shown that there is a pretty strong relationship
between what you get in yield and the amount of nutrients
required by plants. And those nutrients can be supplied in a
variety of ways. Some of the strategies that we have result in
more loss than others in terms of the portion that goes to the
plant versus the portion that ends up in air or water. When you
increase the soil's carbon, you increase the soil's ability to
supply nutrients and to cycle nutrients. And so there is some
very direct benefits of increased soil carbon to nutrient
retention and maintained availability to plants. But the
practices and the efficiencies are nuanced. And the research
has not always been done it really needs to be done with farms,
farmers on farms, is to understand the environment by
management interactions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time
has expired.
And now the gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Cammack, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses for appearing before us here today. It is a great
topic, and I am excited to dig in. But before we do, I do want
to recognize the fact that tomorrow we will be voting on the
Lower Food and Fuel Cost Act (H.R. 7606). Now, unfortunately,
this bill is in name only and will do nothing to lower the cost
of food or fuel but rather increase them. And I think more
broadly, we need to start thinking that government is the
answer to every single one of our problems. Expansion and
meddling by government does not often help problems; it expands
them. And one example is the special investigator that we are
going to be seeing as part of this package that will then be
placed in our processing facilities, our processing facilities
that I believe are some of the safest, most efficient
processors in the world.
And while there can always be improvements, putting more
burdens on an already strained market is not going to help. In
fact, when we see these energy costs going up, that is going to
increase food prices. And this investigator is just one example
of many of why this bill is seriously misguided.
But, what we are talking about today, the role of climate
research, I look at American agriculture, and I see America as
a leader in reducing greenhouse gases. And I definitely believe
wholeheartedly that America is the most efficient when it comes
to production, and I think that that should be celebrated.
I really have only two questions, and I want to jump in
with you, Mr. Vance. In your written testimony, you mentioned
that there is a debate regarding the impacts of beef cattle on
the environment. As you know, American beef production accounts
for only 3.3 percent of the nation's total greenhouse gas
emissions, but the story that we often hear in the media often
paints the opposite. In your opinion, is there a disconnect?
And how do we change the public discourse?
Mr. Vance. Thank you for that question. So there is
definitely a disconnect. I think the most interesting part of
that if you really dig into the research, a lot of that carbon
footprint is brought about by the transportation of that food
to the consumer. So if we replace that with another food
ingredient, you are still going to have the same issue. And so
I think we need to have research that really verifies that, and
I think we need to see people in this country go back to the
soil. It is really interesting when people get disconnected
from the land and the soil, they get disconnected from their
food systems. And they need to understand that it is really
easy to make comments and remarks until you show up on one of
our operations and you see the butterflies and the wildflowers
and you jump a baby deer out of the grass, which is a daily
occurrence in our operation. It is much harder to throw bullets
at that point whenever you see what really goes on in our
entire ecosystem.
Mrs. Cammack. Well, and thank you for that. I mean, as
someone who grew up on a small cattle operation and now
represents the number two state for cow-calf operations, I can
tell you that our agriculture producers are some of the best
conservationists around. So I am really glad to hear you say
that, and thank you for making that public.
Dr. Velez, who I think is on the screen, in your written
testimony, you mentioned that you have conducted experiments to
help south Florida farmers sequester carbon and enhance soil
fertility using biochar. Now, while biochar is not a recent
innovation, there is an increased interest in using biochar as
a natural climate solution. I am particularly interested in
this coming from a state, a hurricane state where debris is in
abundance most times of the year, and so this is a very
interesting opportunity. Can you talk more about these
experiments that you conducted and how biochar can be used to
sequester carbon?
Dr. Velez. Yes, thank you for your question, Mrs. Cammack.
My research happened at the USDA-ARS Subtropical Horticulture
facility while I was doing my master's, and I was using an
invasive tree species Melaleuca to sequester carbon. I
converted that tree species to biochar at different
temperatures. And some of the findings and the research, I will
say, came about because the farmers were telling me, this is
something I am employing. And I said, well, let's actually test
and see.
Interestingly, my findings said that the higher we applied
the biochar, the more detrimental it was to actual crop
production for Phaseolus vulgaris, which is green beans. And I
think one of the reasons is that we need more research on the
different types of biochar, so temperature, volatile organic
matter, all of these affects. And the pH of the soil is also
very critical to whether or not a biochar is going to sequester
carbon and also increase crop growth. And so we need to make
sure we invest more in understanding the role of biochar and
how that biochar is produced and how it will impact specific
soils.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time
has expired.
And now the gentleman from California, Mr. Panetta, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Panetta. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
this opportunity to talk about such a timely topic. And I also
want to give a shout-out to the Ranking Member for his comments
and what he said about our producers and our farmers,
especially having the producers that I have in my district on
the Central Coast of California, who I find to be some of the
most progressive producers when it comes to dealing with
climate change but when it comes to having that balance that I
think I need in my district, that everybody in my district
understands, because obviously on the Central Coast of
California, if you have been there, you understand it is the
most beautiful Congressional district in the nation, I will say
myself. So we value our environment, but we also have our
agriculture and we have our bounty. So we have a lot of beauty,
we have a lot of bounty, and therefore, there is a lot of
balance that needs to go on.
And unfortunately, I do believe that my producers
understand that balance because I can tell you, if anybody, if
anybody wants fresh air, clean water, and pure soil, it is our
farmers. And so I think people need to understand that and
appreciate that but also work with them, when it comes to
ensuring that we have all of those. And we can do that with
advancements in technology and research and education, and yes,
of course, organics.
First question goes to Dr. Brouder. I recently was proud
that I joined my colleague from Indiana Mr. Baird, who you may
hear from pretty soon. He is on the screen there waiting to ask
questions--to introduce a bill called the Plant Biostimulant
Act (H.R. 7752), which aims to provide some regulatory
certainty to the plant biostimulants industry, allowing them to
move forward with introducing even more input alternatives. Can
you go ahead and just kind of speak to this Committee and how
this Committee and how the USDA can invest in biostimulant
research, especially around pesticide and herbicide
alternatives and if there is anything else out there awaiting
regulatory certainty that we could also provide?
Dr. Brouder. Could you explain a little bit more about your
last point awaiting----
Mr. Panetta. If there are any other opportunities basically
needing legislative action when it comes to biostimulants.
Dr. Brouder. Biostimulants. Having worked myself in, and
having done field trials on products that are considered
nontraditional, I think it is very important that they be
demonstrated to work because there are a lot of things out
there that--just as there are in the human supplements industry
that don't necessarily do much for human health. But, there are
things that are in this biostimulant category that need
investigation and demonstration. So I think the important part
of what needs to be codified is that for something to be used
as a replacement for a fertilizer or herbicide or something,
its efficacy needs to be clearly demonstrated for its purpose
and likely in head to head with the existing strategy. That is
very similar for medicine. I was part of a medical trial that
they wanted to demonstrate a medical device.
Mr. Panetta. Great. Let me move on to the next area. And I
want to talk to Dr. Houlton, who is on camera. As you have
noted that basically not every climate solution will work for
every producer but that definitely our producers or farmers can
be part of the climate solution. Now, I am heartened by your
comments in your opening testimony, especially the role that
farmers can play in addressing climate change. I want to ensure
that the producers in my district who grow fresh fruits and
vegetables on relatively expensive acres are included in this
vision. So can you talk about what conservation programs can
best affect climate change goals, while also keeping in mind
the limited resources available to specialty crop producers
outside of the mainstream general farm commodities that are
often overlooked when it comes to Federal programs?
Dr. Houlton. Great. Thanks for the question. Well, from my
experience working on over 100 acres of farmland carbon
sequestration projects, I can tell you that there are many
different commodities that can work through carbon
sequestration, soil amendments, taking compost and manure and
repurposing it in the soil, taking biochar and putting it into
the soil and rock dust, which can dissolve in the soil and be
repurposed from the mining industry through a process called
enhanced weathering to trigger carbon removal. So all those are
available.
The challenge that I see is that the U.S. has fallen behind
China and Brazil in funding for research. And this is putting
tremendous strain on our ability to translate knowledge,
educate the next generation, and continue to grow our
production systems through efficiencies and carbon
sequestration.
Mr. Panetta. Great. Thank you. I am out of time. I yield
back. Thank you everybody.
The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa,
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Mr. Vance here, I
was looking at some numbers here on livestock in the United
States. So the estimates were back in about 1800, we had about
60 million bison in North America. And currently, we have
approximately 9.5 million dairy cows and about 30 million beef
cattle, and probably about \1/2\ million bison, so that adds up
to about 40. So we had 60 million bovine animals in North
America in 1800. We have 40 million now. What do you think of
those numbers when we have the vilification of the livestock
industry being the cause of global climate change?
Mr. Vance. Well, I can't speak really to the dairy sector,
so I will kind of stick with the beef cattle sector. And one
thing I would add is that I think we have to take into account
also elk and other large mammals that were once rangeland
animals before they became more mountainous animals at one
time. But also like in the dairy sector, those animals are more
confined, and so I can only speak to open rangeland animals,
like we operate in the system with which we operate in. I will
admit, it is a much easier system, and it is much easier to be
environmentally friendly when you are out on the land and you
are recycling nutrients. And that is all I have to say about
that.
Mr. LaMalfa. So you don't think the numbers would indicate
that livestock are being unfairly targeted when you had back in
1800 half again as more livestock that are bovine creatures as
what it is now?
Mr. Vance. Oh, definitely, I would agree with that 100
percent. And even when you have people that want to preach
conservation and adding land animals, there is going to be a
trade-off with that. We replace bovine that we can use in
production agriculture and produce the greatest protein in the
world for our nation, and then you replace that with the animal
that you can't harvest for protein, then that is going to
create a food shortage as well. So yes, you are definitely
correct there.
Mr. LaMalfa. There doesn't seem to be much fuss about the
various shortages right now being caused by Washington.
Dr. Brouder, when we talk about the issues of people come
into agriculture--I am in agriculture myself, so we get
approached a lot by people with bright ideas about how we
should manage our land and what we should use on our crops, et
cetera. So talk to me a little bit about the cycle of carbon,
when you have a plant that takes CO2 out of the air
and sequesters it into the plant itself, maybe a little bit in
the soil. We have heard a lot of folks saying, oh, we need to
push towards no-till or amendments to the soil. But then when
that plant dies or is harvested or burns up like our trees are
burning up all the time in California after having sequestered
carbon, isn't it kind of a zero sum deal when you have pulled
the carbon into the plant and then the plant dies or burns or
its cycle renews? Talk about that a little bit.
Dr. Brouder. Well, it is true. It does cycle that way.
Plants put carbon into the soil predominantly via the root
systems, via what they both excrete through their roots to grow
through soil. They excrete organic acids----
Mr. LaMalfa. How deeply over time can they put the carbon
into the soil? Does it stay on the surface of the root system
or----
Dr. Brouder. It depends on what type of plants, how deeply
they root. Some root very shallowly, but prairie grass can root
very deeply down into the soil, and so they contribute that
way.
When we till the soil, we do accelerate the aeration and
turnover and breaking up of carbon, which accelerates the rate
of loss of carbon back to the atmosphere. So, yes, it is true
that you are constantly cycling, but when you do some of these
practices, you are minimizing the rate of return of some of
that initially captured carbon, and you are putting it into a
stable form of soil that is those stocks that we are so
interested in, soil carbon stocks that we are so interested in
increasing.
Mr. LaMalfa. Certainly, but what happens when you change a
crop and you have to till differently, which requires maybe
more tilling? Like such as some of the crops in my
neighborhood, you don't have the option of no-till, what do you
do at that point?
Dr. Brouder. If you don't have the--I mean, tilling--that
is the consequence of tilling. But let me be very clear that in
agriculture, we don't do practices--there is a purpose for
practices that farmers have adopted, right? And most practices
do have trade-offs. But when you no-till, you also keep the
soil in place, and with keeping it in place, you keep the
carbon in that soil in place. You are not eroding it off the
surface.
Mr. LaMalfa. Certainly, until the next time that you are
required to till.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LaMalfa. The cycle continues. Always has. Thank you.
The Chairman. And now I recognize the gentlewoman from
Minnesota. Ms. Craig is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
for calling this hearing. I think it is a really important
topic to talk about climate research and how we support ag
resiliency. Thank you to our witnesses for your testimony today
and your work on climate resiliency.
The family farmers in my district in Minnesota and across
the country are part of the solution in my mind when it comes
to addressing climate change. No one knows about the importance
of resiliency, and no one is better situated to implement those
solutions than America's farmers and ranchers. Research plays a
key role in their ability to help us collectively respond to
climate change. From land-grant universities like the
University of Minnesota working with farmers on the ground, to
innovative public-private partnerships, like the ones we will
see out of USDA's Climate-Smart Commodities Program,
collaboration is absolutely critical when it comes to research
dollars being effective and leading to implementable solutions.
With that collaboration in mind, I would like to turn first
to Dr. Houlton for my first question. Dr. Houlton, in your
testimony, you talked about how researchers are working with
farmers to develop improved management practices. Can you talk
a little bit more specifically about any of those efforts? And
can you share more about how research into input optimization
might help farmers with both per acre yield increases and
lowering carbon intensity?
Dr. Houlton. Great, thanks for the question. Having grown
up in Minnesota and coming from a long line of farmers in the
Midwest, it is great to have your question.
So first of all, the carbon that comes into a soil can
stick around from years to decades to millennia. And what we
really need to do is work with farmers, with science, and
verification tools to understand how to push it into those
types of carbon that can stick around for thousands of years
and be an essential part of bending the carbon curve.
Now to your question on input optimization, there are many
strategies. For example, using new data-driven tools at Cornell
and many other land-grants, we are working with growers to
reduce the amount of fertilizer that is required through
fertilizer efficiency gains, which helps the environment, it
helps climate, and it reduces the input costs that our farmers
are bearing, which obviously are going up right now. So there
are many tools in the toolkits through extension, through data-
driven analytics, and through improved efficiencies with
fertilizer.
Ms. Craig. Excellent, thank you so much. Now, I don't want
to leave anybody out here, so let's go next to something that
really always is exciting to me. What is, for each of you, the
most promising area of current ag research where you see the
most opportunity for outcomes that create implementable,
impactful solutions that can enable American farmers and
ranchers to continue that important work of both feeding the
nation and combating climate change? And I will go through you
one by one, just a few words on the most promising areas of
current ag research. Let's start with Dr. Velez.
Dr. Velez. Yes, thank you, Ms. Craig. I think one of the
most important areas within the organic sector is weed
suppression. Our growers do struggle a lot with weed
suppression. We do not use the synthetic inputs and herbicides
that many other people rely on. And so finding best ways to
manage weeds on these operations and to also manage nutrient
levels and increased soil fertility would be the best area of
focus.
Ms. Craig. And Dr. Brouder?
Dr. Brouder. I would have to say synthesis research. We
talked about small studies, we have talked about how things
vary from place to place, and we have invested in individual
small studies but not quite so much in all the synthesis work
that will allow us to bring nuance to a recommendation.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much.
Dr. Fares?
Dr. Fares. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. I
think the idea that I would like to share is the nexus approach
of dealing with these resources. Energy, water, food, health is
the approach that we need to adapt to increase those types of
studies to help us go through this crisis.
Ms. Craig. Mr. Vance?
Mr. Vance. Ecosystem service markets, it is going to bring
more private dollars and private land access to producers, and
I think that is going to provide lots of solutions for us.
Ms. Craig. And with 10 seconds left, Dr. Houlton?
Dr. Houlton. Net-zero dairies, net-zero dairies, cutting
emissions, circular systems, incredible research opportunity.
Ms. Craig. Thank you to all of you for being here today.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am out of time, and I will yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Craig.
And now, the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions will be
for Mr. Vance. And, Mr. Vance, in your testimony, you noted
that your seed stock operation is focused on raising climate-
friendly cattle genetics. For those folks who don't know as
much about it as you do, tell us a little bit more about what
you mean and where you are headed.
Mr. Vance. Thank you for that opportunity. This is fun to
talk about here. So just last year, we estimated we raised
about 340,000 pounds of beef on our operation with just my
family. We don't have any full-time help. That was using one
tractor, one truck, and one ATV. That is efficient from a
profitability standpoint and definitely from an environmental
standpoint.
Second, we raise an animal that can thrive and survive on
forage only in diverse forage climates. This has taken years
and years to cull and to adapt these type of animals to an
environment that doesn't need added inputs. And so we were able
to take those cattle and sell those seed stocks into other
places, currently into about 13 states with current producers.
And then third, whenever you have a network of producers
like that, we all have a relationship with one another to where
we are able to gather information and share it very quickly.
And so it gives us the ability to quickly learn and quickly
grow together. You can't put a value on that.
Mr. Johnson. And so, Mr. Vance, I am from South Dakota, so
I understand what words like culled mean or what the term
genetics mean in the context of cattle. But we have some city
folks on the Committee, too, so talk to us about--when we talk
about developing genetics, talk to us about how do you build
this herd. How do you make sure that these animals and that
their progeny are frankly well-positioned to succeed in the
environment you are talking about?
Mr. Vance. So it is a two-part, complex process. We are
working on degraded soils, and we are working with animals that
are more adapted to a conventional operation with lots of
inputs and that require lots of feeds to finish into marble and
create a good eating experience for our consumers. And so,
during that two-part process, we are working on building our
soils. We are learning, experimenting, trying new methods to
improve our soil, improve our plant diversity, and then we are
also putting a lot of pressure on our cow herd to find the ones
that are efficient and that are profitable for our operation
within that system that doesn't have the added inputs. And so
what we have seen over the last 10 years is a steady growth. It
is slow. It doesn't happen overnight. But it is a long-term
goal and long-term profitability within that realm is very
real.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, and what I was struck, when you talked
about how much beef you are able to raise with an operation
that doesn't have a ton of hired hands and doesn't have a ton
of equipment. I mean, just your family over generations has
really been able to build cattle that put on weight, build that
great marbled protein in a way that is efficient, as well as,
as you mentioned, just rely on forage alone. It is really an
incredible success story. What else do you want to make sure we
understand about this progress you have been able to make?
Mr. Vance. I think the biggest thing is continuing to work
to allow us to be able to grow in this sector, whether it be
through funding for research, for public entities, and then
getting those public entities to partner with private-sectors
and private farmers and ranchers and work with us to gather
more recent information. I think there is definitely a lag in
information between real-time producers, at least in the beef
cattle world, and the researchers that we work with. And so I
think we need to speed that up and we need to bridge that gap.
And that way, we can work with more traditional operators that
are wanting to bridge their own gap into more climate-friendly
practices and more profitable practices. In a time like this
where inputs are so expensive for a lot of operators, we have a
lot of newer adapters that are paying attention whenever
markets were better and when inputs were cheaper. They may not
have been so quick to pay attention to our types of operations.
But now we are in a time where we are much needed. There are
going to be many operators that are going to have to innovate
to survive, and that is the only way they are going to survive.
Mr. Johnson. Very well said, Mr. Vance. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
And now the gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Axne, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Axne. Thank you so much, Chairman Scott. And thank you
to our witnesses for being here today to share your expertise
on this incredibly important subject.
At the very first hearing we held within the Committee in
this Congress, we discussed the increased unpredictability and
devastating effects that climate change poses and the serious
threat that it has on how we grow and produce our food in this
country. So we are focused single handedly on this issue to
make sure that we address this. While we are dealing with the
weather and we know that this is nothing new for farmers in
general, climate change has absolutely led to a dramatic
increase in extreme weather events over recent years, which has
greatly increased our costs and the risks and the uncertainty.
In the few short years that I have been here in office, my
home State of Iowa has experienced major droughts and a
derecho, a storm we hadn't heard of until a few years back,
and, of course, unprecedented flooding. And with almost 90
percent of family farmers needing off-farm income just to make
ends meet, we absolutely need to make sure that we are
addressing this because there is no room for error.
So farmers are definitely on the frontline of climate
change. And we know that. And while there have been significant
improvements in increasing efficiencies and inputs, ultimately
allowing us to produce more food with less inputs, we can and
we have to do more. In fact, without some action, researchers
expect crop yields to decline by the end of the century due to
climate change. So we have to make sure that every single
option is on the table here.
One area I am particularly interested in is how we can
equip our farmers to further reduce their inputs such as more
timely application of nitrogen to help reduce runoff and
emissions. And of course, as fertilizer costs have skyrocketed,
reducing the need for nitrogen or any input will go a long way
with improving profitability as well.
So before I ask my questions, first thing I want to do is
thank my friend and fellow Representative Harder for his
legislation to provide additional assistance for nutrient
management practices through the EQIP program. I look forward
to passing that bill tomorrow, as well as many other important
bills to lower food and fuel costs.
And my first question goes to you, Dr. Brouder. I believe
you are working on efforts to integrate public and private data
to make it easier for farmers to make data-driven decisions,
particularly when it comes to fertilizer use. Can you expand on
that work and hopefully what you think it can accomplish?
Dr. Brouder. So recommendations that have been produced by
land-grant universities and extensions over the years, they
tend to be fairly generalized. And in the era of precision
agriculture, there is a strong desire for site- and soil-
specific recommendations. I can't, as an extension specialist
and applied researcher at Purdue, do the research on all the
different acres out there, even just within the State of
Indiana. So what we are doing with a NIFA-funded grant is
collaborating with a big ag consultant who works directly with
farmers and trying to use a combination of on-farm data or
using in a case study on-farm data with our research data to
generate a site- and soil-specific recommendation that is
beyond the current guidelines and the approach that land-grants
have to developing guidelines.
Mrs. Axne. Okay. Okay. So I appreciate that. So let me just
combine a couple of last questions here, then. What are some of
the challenges of getting this into the farmers' hands? It
sounds like we can, but we have some challenges there. And then
second, I want to reference Rep. Craig's question of the
promising research that is out there. What type of support do
we need for our land-grant universities, the research
capabilities that you could have if you have the support you
needed? I met with Iowa State yesterday, and I know that we
could be working on a lot of key issues. So what do we need to
do across the board?
Dr. Brouder. Well, I think across the board, there is a
need to reinvest in our research and its infrastructure. I can
assure you that my colleagues at Purdue would say the same
probably as the people you met with that at Iowa. In terms of
getting to a point where farmers' own data can be used to
develop a customized recommendation within a framework that is
based on scientific evidence and you can understand how it
works, that kind of thing. One of the biggest challenges is
pulling the data together and using it together. And so farmers
need tools and researchers need tools to wrangle that data.
They need workflows, they need infrastructure, such that you go
to a recommendation app, put it in there, and it ingests your
information and gives you that customized recommendation.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time
has expired.
And now the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Thompson. And I always appreciate all the witnesses taking time
to share their expertise with us about the important issues
facing agriculture.
And I especially want to welcome Dr. Brouder from Purdue
University, which is in my district in Indiana, so welcome.
And my first question goes to Dr. Brouder. In your written
testimony, you discussed the importance of improving data
sharing and some of the challenges that impede complete and
efficient sharing of agriculture data. You mentioned the need
for support for initiatives like the Agricultural Advanced
Research and Development Authority, or AgARDA, to enhance
partnerships between ag data stakeholders and facilitate the
development of improved data infrastructure. So could you
elaborate on the important progress that could be made through
using the proper funding for AgARDA, please?
Dr. Brouder. So data is a huge issue in agriculture. There
is a lot of it, but it is not prepared to be used in an easy,
seamless way. It is not like you can just go find various bits
and pieces of data. So the reason in our analysis that we
focused on AgARDA as a pathway forward is that AgARDA, Office
of the Chief Scientist, et cetera, has the convening power to
bring together all of the stakeholders in the agricultural data
value chain to address a huge array of issues that range from
data ownership and data privacy for on-farm data to simply the
human resource capacity and infrastructure needed to organize
and house agricultural research data. We have repositories all
over the place now. They don't necessarily talk to each other.
Mr. Baird. So let's take that one step farther, because my
next question that you mentioned is the fact that these data-
driven solutions in agriculture, how do we make sure that we
have students that understand this and know how to apply the
data and the computation for science?
Dr. Brouder. We work on our curriculum and we get some data
skills infusion into the agricultural curricula, as well as
students--not everybody--I think I said this already--is going
to need to be a data scientist, but they need to have an
understanding of what data is and how to look at a piece of
data and understand whether or not that represents what they
think it does. That is a very simple thing, but students need
to know how to evaluate data and to use it correctly. And then
they need to have some understanding of the computational tools
that allow them to handle and wrangle data and the programs
that they are pushed into. So they have to have an appreciation
that is more than this is just a box, a black box, and I put my
data in and something comes out. They have to have the
intellectual ability to understand whether what comes out of
the black box makes sense.
Mr. Baird. Well, thank you for that very, very important
information. And thank you for being here. Do any of the other
witnesses--we have about 50 seconds left. Any of the other
witnesses have any comments in that regard?
Dr. Velez. Yes, Mr. Baird, I have a comment specific to
data. And I think the importance--and Dr. Brouder mentioned
this earlier--is to make data more accessible is really
important. But as she is speaking about students understanding
the science, we also need to equip people to make that data
accessible. And so when we talk about data science, that data
needs to be presented to farmers and to ranchers and growers
and foresters in ways that they can readily understand, and I
think that is something that needs capacity building within our
nation and our land-grant institutions as well.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Anyone else? I have about 10 seconds.
Dr. Fares. I think building capacity in this area is
important, human capacity especially, so we have to train our
teachers who are going to teach these students and provide them
with the infrastructure they need to train these students for
the future jobs that they will be holding, not to train them
for the past jobs or the jobs of the past.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
And now the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Chairman Scott. And this has just
been an excellent panel of witnesses this morning. I am just so
proud to have been able to listen to them in person this
morning.
I wanted to say a word if I might about key concerns of my
own based on the testimony. Dr. Fares, I was very interested in
the discussion about the 1890s land-grants and the HBCUs. And
all I am saying as we move toward a new farm bill, I hope we
can find greater connectivity between them and between our
urban food deserts and our urban school systems. I think we
have to go back to raising and teaching young people what good
food is. I think that in many communities that are deprived--
because all the agriculture technology was in the countryside,
the city was given help to try to get food to people, but we
need to move some of those skills back into places that have
been literally abandoned. So that is just a point of view.
Number two, I represent many, many companies that are
involved in climate-controlled agriculture, big companies on
both sides of the Great Lakes, which we share with Canada are
companies like Nature Fresh, Mucci, and so forth. And because
of the rising rainfall and the pounding of our fields by really
flood-level conditions many times, our climate-controlled
agriculture becomes more important to us. But one of the
challenges is 40 percent of the bottom line is power. And in
addition to that, the houses, as currently designed, emit
CO2, so we have a problem. And we have put in a
decade of effort trying to get the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of Energy to work together. Good luck if you
can do it. But in effect, we need to perfect the growing
chamber and make it affordable for business.
That is not happening right now even though I represent
companies that have over 200 acres under cover. So Michigan and
Ohio, Ontario, Canada, we're big producers and we can help to
produce what California is unable to produce now. So I just
wanted to mention that area of cooperation between the
Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture. And,
Dr. Fares, I was interested in the convergence of those words,
energy and water in your title as you testified this morning.
Finally, and this will be my last point, and a little bit
of a question. For the Western Basin of Lake Erie we have
witnesses from Purdue and also Dr. Velez graduated from Ohio
State University. I really think there needs to be an Indiana-
Ohio connection for the Western Basin of Lake Erie. This is the
largest watershed in the entire Great Lakes. And it is fragile,
and it needs more attention. And field practices have been
adapted, but we have so much phosphorus and nitrogen that is
now going into our lake. The lake is sick. And Toledo's water
system was turned off for 3 days a couple of years ago, and
that was a very rude awakening for people in our area.
So my question is to anyone, where might I go to obtain a
detailed map of the tiling of the Western Basin of Lake Erie,
which is the most tiled area in the country, so that we can
take a look at better control of rising water, as well as
filtration of the nutrients that come off the fields with it?
Dr. Brouder. Can you clarify, you were asking for where can
you go to get the most up-to-date mapping of tile drains?
Ms. Kaptur. Drainage tile underground. It is the most tiled
in the country. I think we need a separate title in the farm
bill to deal with Lake Erie's Western Basin because it is so
sick.
Dr. Brouder. Okay. Yes. I mean, I understand the issue. And
I can't tell you off the top of my head, but I certainly have
colleagues who can tell you where the updated maps for tiles
are easily accessed.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, then you would do better than the U.S.
Department of Agriculture if you could help me with that.
Dr. Houlton. If I could add a comment. So if you look at
some research going on through the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, you will find an ensemble of researchers, including
Cornell and other land-grants, working together, and it is a
great repository for information on agricultural efficiencies,
how to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen loading, and work in a
collaborative model. So there is great, great information
there.
Ms. Kaptur. I just want to say also, we need to manage
manure in a much better way and make it a product. I have seen
a revolution here in Washington at the D.C. wastewater
treatment plant. I just put that on the record. And it would be
great if that could happen around the country if we could help
those folks who raise beef cattle and dairy and so forth to be
able to have more technologies to help them turn that manure
into a marketable product. It is happening in some places but
not everywhere. Thank you all very much. I think my time has
expired.
The Chairman. Yes. And thank you, Ms. Kaptur, excellent
points that you have made.
And now the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lawson, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Thompson. This is a great group of witnesses testifying to the
Committee today. It has been great listening to everyone.
Dr. Houlton, in your testimony, you mentioned that many
farmers, particularly farmers of color, cannot afford to
embrace climate-smart practices that create measurable impact,
underline that measurable impact. Requiring an increased need
for higher financial incentives to support farmers. To your
knowledge, are there current programs that Congress can use to
target resources to historically underserved farmers to better
help them transition to net-zero agriculture? What additional
support should Congress provide for these type programs?
Dr. Houlton. Great, great question. So, the Climate-Smart
Commodities Grant that is open for proposals is one that is
encouraging the active participation of minority farmers, those
that have lost land over time, to engage in climate-smart
solutions so that they can be a part of the opportunity through
which carbon can bring new forms of revenue to farmers. So that
is one specific way that the USDA is beginning to engage in
this incredible challenge.
Mr. Lawson. Thank you. And, Dr. Fares, I see that you have
done a lot of work at Prairie View A&M University. Would you
like to comment on that area? Because I know particularly you
probably interact with a lot of HBCUs under the same
circumstances about what kind of incentives that can be given
to encourage minority farmers and farmers of color to get
involved in this climate change fight.
Dr. Fares. Thank you, Congressman, for this question. And I
think I echo what my colleague just mentioned. We appreciate
the initiative that USDA has been doing in the bill that you
referred to on the funding where it is recommended to have
limited-resources farmers involved in this type of solution. So
that type of initiative, that type of requirement is key to
help limited-resources farmers be in the forefront of the
solution. So these type of decisions and policy are helpful to
us to make sure that limited-resources farmers are part of
this. And if we remember that 80 percent of the world
population of farmers in the world are limited-resources
farmers, small farmers, so I think any solution that is
developed here in the states for limited-resources farmers have
far reach beyond the states. And the technology evolved here
will also help businesses who develop this technology to be
applicable outside and overseas. So it is a win-win situation
for the limited-resources farmers and also for the industry to
be competitive global-wide.
Mr. Lawson. Okay, thank you. And, Dr. Fares, the
unpredictable weather conditions and climate changes have
emerged as a major concern for farmers and ranchers. To address
these conditions, USDA created a Cooperative Extension System,
CES, which operates through the land-grant university system
and particularly with the Federal, state, and local government
to translate climate resources and knowledge into action,
practice, and product. Doctor, can you explain in more detail
the impact a program like CES through growing partnerships with
land-grant institutions to address these climate changes
challenges?
Dr. Fares. It is for me, right?
Mr. Lawson. Yes.
Dr. Fares. Okay. The cooperative agriculture experiment
stations are doing a great job in connecting with farmers and
helping them adopt research-based solutions. So supporting them
and training them and giving them the tools that they need to
reach these limited-resource farmers that they don't have the
same needs, they don't have the same technology, and they don't
have the same support that other farms do is very critical. So
they need special attention because the circumstances of the
population that you deal with have different circumstances than
others. So special attention to limited resources through the
extension program is key for this process. And we would like to
echo that they need help in this regard to have the tools, to
have the training, and to have the right information that they
need to deliver to help limited resources.
Mr. Lawson. Okay. Thank you very much. And I would just
like to say my time has run out, but I have worked with the
Chairman on HBCUs and getting the resources even with
Congressman Adams and something that has been overlooked for
many, many years, and now become very prevalent that we need to
do a great deal more. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. All right, thank you all very much.
And now, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from the
Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett. You are now recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to the witnesses and to my colleagues for what I think has
been a very productive discussion.
I wanted to ask question to Dr. Velez of the Organic
Farming Research Foundation. Dr. Velez, we know that
agriculture looks different around the country with different
crops and production practices. The U.S. Territories have
unique ecological, cultural, and agricultural practices that
are also on the front-lines of climate change. Can you speak
about the importance of climate research in U.S. Territories,
given the unique challenges these communities face?
Dr. Velez. Yes, and thank you for your question, Ms.
Plaskett. I think, as some of you may know, I did research in
Puerto Rico post-Hurricane Maria. And all of the Territories,
the U.S. Virgin Islands included, are just facing extreme
climate-related disasters, hurricanes, changes with respect to
drought, and flooding in some regions.
One of the bigger things that I have heard from the growers
on the ground with respect to addressing climate resilience is
to have solutions rooted in farmer-led work and so having
researchers work closely with the farmers on the ground to
breed specific crop cultivars that are adapted for those
regions. It is also important to recognize that there is a
reliance on imports, which is too risky when facing climate-
related disasters. Land access is something that is an issue.
We need to increase domestic production within those
Territories to address that. And there is extensive evidence
showing that organic practices, which do align with a lot of
the agroecology, the science of agroecology can help growers
respond to climate change in various ways, whether that means
rebounding quickly from a hurricane and being able to use
specific commodities that are resilient, whether that is
cassava or plantains, things that will produce very quickly,
but then they do also help adapt to drought. And so I think
making sure that climate research is specific to the U.S.
Territories, building that out, that is something that I think
the southern SARE region can do more of and trying to make sure
that there is more capacity building for the folks on those
island nations.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Since the Tropical-Subtropical
Agricultural Research Program, TSTAR, expired in 2011, it has
been difficult for tropical specialty crops to compete for
research funding vis-a-vis other crops. Can you speak to the
importance of tropical-subtropical agricultural research and
its benefits to agriculture in the Caribbean region?
Dr. Velez. Yes, I think that having specific crops we know
for each region we hear those organic growers and conventional
growers have been saying that they need specific cultivars bred
for their regions. We cannot use crop cultivars of tomatoes,
for example, or something else that is bred for Ohio or
California where much of the breeding happens, or Maine, for
example. We cannot use those varieties within the subtropical
and tropical regions. We do need more research investment in
developing breeds and crops for those regions. And I think
having more research funding going to these areas is critical,
and it is something that we internally at OFRF have been
exploring how can we better get more resources out to the U.S.
Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico as well.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
And to, Dr. Fares, Dr. Ali Fares, thank you so much for the
information you have provided thus far to the Committee. I
wanted to ask you about the idea that studies have shown that
climate change disproportionately impacts underserved and
under-resourced communities who are least able to prepare for
and recover from climate-related disasters. As the Virgin
Islands Representative to Congress, and indeed speaking on
behalf of so many communities like them, I am acutely aware of
the unique challenges our Islands face, including more severe
weather patterns, long-term prospect of rising sea levels, as
well as ecosystem changes. What additional research and
engagement needs to be done to help address socioeconomic
issues related to climate change adaption and mitigation and to
assure equity and environmental justice, sir?
Dr. Fares. Thank you. And I appreciate the question. I
appreciate the question, especially about TSTAR. I was in
Hawaii for 11 years, and it was beneficial of that program. And
I understand the problems of small islands' issues. So they
have different issues, especially when it comes to size of
farm. They only have very limited size of farm that can only
and usually these farms are prone to flooding, prone to other
diseases that are not exist. So having site-specific research
being conducted on those topics, under those conditions of
limited resources is very, very helpful. Also providing them
with additional fundings that being able to find solution for
their problems is another important issue. Also dealing with
the issue of flooding and other resources as it related to many
of them are in urban areas. Look at Houston, for instance. You
have a large population of underserved, limited resources in
urban areas where they have specific needs different from those
in rural or other conditions. So these are some of the issues
that are being faced by limited resources and minorities in
urban areas. I think, yes, I would like to--these are some of
my thoughts about this topic.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you so much, and thank you. I yield
back.
The Chairman. Yes, thank you, Ms. Plaskett.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, it comes to the end of our
hearing. And I just want to thank you. I want to thank each of
you. This has been a very informative and helpful hearing. We
are determined that we are on the right track of being able to
answer the challenges that this climate is providing. It is
obvious. It has an impact on everything, all the way down to
the cost of our food. If we can't produce it, just look at the
damage that it does.
We have to understand that there is no industry that is
impacted by climate change more than agriculture. We produce
our food from the climate, from the sunshine, from the natural
healthy oxygen supply that is provided. When we look across our
nation and see our ranches and farms burning up on the West
Coast and in the mountains, we see them. And so it is so
important that we understand the significance when I say, when
this Committee says that agriculture is the most important
industry that we have, because it is the food we eat, and it is
the clothes we wear, it is our shelter, and beginning more and
more, our alternative fuel sources. All this is our survival.
And the greatest threat to it is our failure to address climate
change.
And it is urgent that we overcome this challenge by
supporting you, our researchers, our developers, our land-grant
institutions, and the United States Department of Agriculture's
research efforts. This is a team, and we have to work together.
And we got to do it across party lines. And as you can see, I
am working hard to pull this together.
And one of the demonstrations that you will see is
tomorrow, when we put on the floor a bill that expresses our
nation's two number one concerns, and that is the rising cost
of food, which this bill will bring down, and the rising cost
of gas and fuels, that this bill tomorrow will bring down.
And so I just want to thank you for that. I am very proud
of this hearing. And I want to thank each of our witnesses.
First, let me thank Dr. Thelma Velez, who is the Research
and Education Program Manager with the Organic Farming Research
Foundation from Sunrise, Florida. Thank you very much.
And to you, Dr. Sylvie Brouder, Professor and Wickersham
Chair of Excellence in Agriculture Research at Purdue
University on behalf of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop
Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of
America. Boy, that title speaks volumes for exactly why we are
here.
And to you, Dr. Ali Fares, Endowed Professor of Water
Security and Water Energy Food Nexus at the distinguished 1890s
Institution Prairie View A&M University in Prairie View, Texas.
And to you, Dr. Benjamin Houlton, Ronald P. Lynch Dean and
Professor of Ecology and Global Development at the
distinguished Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.
And to you, Mr. Michael Vance, thank you, Managing Partner
of Southern Reds, LLC of Gainesville, Texas. Thank you all so
much. Let's give our panelists a hand, won't you? Didn't they
do a remarkable job? Thank you so much.
And now, I wouldn't have been able to put this together, we
couldn't have done this without our hardworking staff. They did
a wonderful job. So I want to thank our Staff Director, Ms.
Anne Simmons. She is wonderful. Our Deputy Staff Director Ms.
Ashley Smith, she is great. And Ms. Malikha Daniels, Mr.
Michael Stein, Mr. Paul Babbitt, Ms. Emily Pliscott, and Mr.
Ellis Collier, give them a hand, won't you? They put it
together.
And now under the Rules of the Committee and the record of
today's hearing--oh, I did not want to forget my Chief of
Staff. Give her a hand, too, Catherine Kuerbitz. Raise your
hand, Catherine. She works hard, too.
And so under the Rules of the Committee, the record of
today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to
receive additional material and supplementary written responses
from the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, this hearing of the
Committee on Agriculture is now adjourned. Thank you, and God
bless you.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Article by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from
California
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Sylvie M. Brouder, Ph.D., Professor
of Agronomy, Wickersham Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Research,
Department of Agronomy: Crops, Soils, and Environmental Sciences,
Purdue University; Past President, American Society of Agronomy; on
Behalf of Crop Science Society of America; Soil Science Society of
America
Insert 1
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Okay. And have you provided any
recommendations to the EPA?
Dr. Brouder. We have provided review of--I am, again, just
reappointed, so there was an ongoing group of people. But we
just provided information on the redefinition of Waters of the
United States, as well as their strategy for environmental
justice that would be in their risk assessment programs, in
their environmental risk assessment programs.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Would you provide that to the
Committee? I would like to see what your committee provided to
the EPA.
The SAB reports providing advice to EPA including this report on
the Waters of the United States are available for downloading from the
EPA SAB website (SAB Public (epa.gov). This particular report (EPA-SAB-
22-005) is available via the ``Recent Reports'' link off the homepage:
https://sab.epa.gov/ords/sab/f?p=114:12:12204432494965.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: entries annotated with are retained in Committee
file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of procedure, as reports are drafted, they are
discussed in open meetings of the SAB, notifications for which are
posted in advance on the SAB webpage along with draft materials and
instructions for how the general public can participate.
Insert 2
Mr. Davis. I actually passed a provision in the 2014 Farm
Bill to allow someone from production agriculture to have a
seat on the EPA Science Advisory Board. Has that provision been
implemented? Do you have somebody----
* * * * *
Mr. Davis. Is that next person somebody also associated with
academia though?
Dr. Brouder. I would have to check for you.
Mr. Davis. I would appreciate that.
As this question pertains to provision implementation, the question
of how it was implemented is beyond my purview as an SAB member. I
encourage you to contact one or both of the following individuals to
gain a better understanding of how agricultures' interests are
represented in EPA activities:
Thomas Armitage, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, EPA
Science Advisory Board Office, 202-564-2155, (Redacted).
Venus Welch-White, Designated Federal Officer, Farm, Ranch,
and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 1101A, Washington, D.C.
20460, 202-564-7719, (Redacted).
Insert 3
Mr. Thompson. Very good, and this for all, and I probably
don't have time for response, but I am going to tee up my
question. And if we don't get a chance for a response, I would
love to hear from each of our witnesses. The Biden
Administration, and inside the beltway think-tanks, have been
pushing a climate agenda that creates new programs and added
what I see commonly unnecessary bureaucracy. However, when
producers, when you talk with those folks that are farmers,
ranchers, and foresters talk about climate solutions, they
mention the importance of research, boots-on-the-ground
support, access to precision agriculture, and the need for
broadband technology. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with
precision agriculture. To me this all sounds like assistance
available within the farm bill programs. And for all the
witnesses, is the solution as simple as doubling down on these
proven programs? And what research is being done to further
technologies and practices that we know are already working?
And I apologize, I probably have just about 40 seconds for a
response from anyone who would like to take that, and then
anyone else, I would love to hear in writing.
In terms of the ``translational research'' that specifically
targets furthering already proven technologies, there is a critical
need for investment in ``synthesis'' science. Common barriers to moving
a technology off the shelf and onto a large number of farms include
inconsistent messaging from scientists regarding how well a practice
works and consequent distrust in science. Often the source of this
messaging/trust problem can be traced to very real differences in the
results achieved by an array of small studies conducted across regions
with highly variable farming conditions, which can generate strongly
held beliefs regarding practice incompatibility with operations on an
individual's farm. Not all technologies work equally well everywhere
and recommendations for technologies need to be nuanced for the array
of different contexts in which they may be deployed. Synthesis science
entails rigorously organizing and statistically synthesizing all the
existing studies that have been done for a particular management
technology (1) to characterize how well it works as a function of
common attributes or features of agricultural systems, and (2) to
identify key knowledge gaps for additional research. Such meta-analyses
are seminal to understanding where and why a particular practice does
and doesn't work, to providing the foundation for recommendations on
technology use that is transparent to the supporting science, and to
promoting public trust in the science.
As mentioned in my original testimony, this synthesis step has been
routinized in medicine for tailoring research results for optimal use
in a clinical setting; the Cochrane Collaborative serves as a trusted
resource for clinical doctors and patients alike seeking information to
personalize options for medical interventions.\1\ However, although a
few meta-analyses of studies documenting the effectiveness of new
technologies are now being undertaken, agriculture has yet to
prioritize this synthesis step. Furthermore, the costs of good
syntheses are akin to those of conducting a new experimental study and
resources to facilitate this step are sparse. Competitive grant
programs specifically targeting synthesis science versus new field or
laboratory research could greatly accelerate the movement of science to
practice. However, ongoing support is and will be needed to develop and
maintain the supporting data infrastructure and user interfaces
required for continuous recommendation updating as new studies are
completed and for equitable and inclusive access by the public. To
facilitate technology transfer and translational research, my original
testimony also highlighted the need for new curricula that encompasses
both data and synthesis sciences; this curricular reorientation could
also serve to attract a more diversified workforce to agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more information on The Cochrane see https://
www.cochrane.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to doubling down on original 2018 Farm Bill programs
with respect to the resources they supply to incentivize and facilitate
practice adoption (e.g., the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
EQIP, etc.), I am aware of a fair amount of recent survey work that
explores why farmers do not adopt practices that will improve their
resilience to climate change despite these existing programs. In
addition to perceptions of risk and uncertainty regarding which
practices are most important to implement and where (discussed above),
barriers include the high prevalence of rented farmland (currently 54%
of U.S. cropland is rented on short-term contracts),\2\ and complex and
burdensome application and reporting requirements including ones that
may constrain future decision making.\3\ Studies dating back more than
a decade suggest many also consider available payments to be
insufficient. In our 2021 survey of our membership (scientists and
practicing professionals), economics, policies, and/or regulations were
all identified as major barriers to adopting strategies for protecting
the soil, improving water and nutrient management, and diversifying
cropping systems.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For a rented acres of cropland see https://www.ers.usda.gov/
topics/farm-economy/land-use-land-value-tenure/farmland-ownership-and-
tenure/.
\3\ The following are two academic publications summarizing survey
work to identify barriers to adoption: Ranjan, P., Church, S.P.,
Floress, K., & Prokopy, L.S. (2019). Synthesizing conservation
motivations and barriers: what have we learned from qualitative studies
of farmers' behaviors in the United States?. Society & Natural
Resources, 32(11), 1171-1199 and Ranjan, P., Wardropper, C.B., Eanes,
F.R., Reddy, S.M., Harden, S.C., Masuda, Y.J., & Prokopy, L.S. (2019).
Understanding barriers and opportunities for adoption of conservation
practices on rented farmland in the U.S. Land Use Policy, 80, 214-223.
If you would like more and updated information on barriers, I
highly recommend contacting co-author Linda Prokopy (Redacted)
\4\ A one page summary of our member survey on strategies for
climate change mitigation and adaptation can be found here: https://
www.agronomy.org/files/science-policy/letters/climate-change-survey-
one-pager.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last, insufficient funding for Extension programs has greatly
hampered timely delivery of science-based resources for climate-smart
agriculture. To alleviate confusion and mistrust regarding emerging
programs like carbon markets, there is a critical need for wholistic,
unified, nationally coordinated programming that meets the needs of all
farmers and ranchers irrespective of the size and scale of their
enterprise. At present, climate-smart outreach efforts are not only
constrained by a lack of human resources but also by a pervasive lack
of connectivity among existing programs and resources. Indeed, I
suspect the sparsity of resources is likely exacerbating siloing within
outreach entities rather than fostering collaborations as entities
compete for resources to sustain themselves.
USDA's NIFA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative has one
Program Area Priority targeting Extension, Education and Climate Hubs
Partnership. Proposals are due in October and there is an opportunity
to fund one national scale Coordinated Agricultural Project Grant for
Climate Smart Extension at a 5 yr. funding level of $10M.\5\ The stated
goal is ``to build and enhance existing climate Extension networks,
while identifying synergies among existing programs, and catalyzing new
resources and tools that provide accessible, usable, and actionable
science, . . .'' However, while the goal is laudable, the funds
allocated are completely insufficient to build a national-level program
from where we currently stand. The short duration nature of the funds
also do not bode well for lasting success. We need deliberate and
sustained resources for a unified agenda that builds bridges among
outreach entities including among Climate Hubs, the Extension entities
of Land Grants and minority serving institutions, and the Natural
Resource Conservation Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See pages 93-97 of the Request for Applications, Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, Foundational
and Applied Sciences available here: https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/2022-05/FY22-AFRI-FAS-RFA-MOD1-508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collectively, the farmer survey work and our membership survey
suggest that ``doubling down'' on existing programs may offer some
benefits provided the doubling down includes the following:
(1) Increasing the amount of incentive payments at least for initial
years when farmers may experience the strongest urge to
dis-adopt a practice with which they lack familiarity;
(2) Increasing technical service resources to increase capacity and
unify the messaging across evidence-based technical service
providers including Land-Grant Extension, the Natural
Resource Conservation Service, and independent certified
crop advisors;
(3) Specifically target resources to the unique needs of non-
operating landowners such that they are empowered to
participate in the decisions regarding practices that are
implemented on their own lands, and
(4) Explicitly supporting synthesis science either by creating
dedicated funding opportunities to ensure that research is
synthesized for practice at scale or by embedding this
objective in competitive funding opportunities for
Extension and outreach.
Certainly, care should be taken to resources don't get wasted to
support building new infrastructure where infrastructure already
exists. For example, where entities already have a broad geographic
footprint and local trust (e.g., the county level Extension Offices)
resources should go to updating and modernizing capacity and broadening
the reach to underserved populations versus creating entirely new
entities to fill voids.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Ali Fares, Ph.D., Endowed Professor
of Water Security and Water Energy Food Nexus, College of Agriculture
and Human Sciences, Prairie View A&M University
Mr. Thompson. Very good, and this for all, and I probably
don't have time for response, but I am going to tee up my
question. And if we don't get a chance for a response, I would
love to hear from each of our witnesses. The Biden
Administration, and inside the beltway think-tanks, have been
pushing a climate agenda that creates new programs and added
what I see commonly unnecessary bureaucracy. However, when
producers, when you talk with those folks that are farmers,
ranchers, and foresters talk about climate solutions, they
mention the importance of research, boots-on-the-ground
support, access to precision agriculture, and the need for
broadband technology. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with
precision agriculture. To me this all sounds like assistance
available within the farm bill programs. And for all the
witnesses, is the solution as simple as doubling down on these
proven programs? And what research is being done to further
technologies and practices that we know are already working?
And I apologize, I probably have just about 40 seconds for a
response from anyone who would like to take that, and then
anyone else, I would love to hear in writing.
Farmers are faced with several challenges in their effort to meet
the ever-increasing demands for food and renewable energy, despite
dwindling water resources and multiple biotic (pests) and abiotic
(extreme temperatures, droughts, and floods) stressors. The USDA
predicts that variable precipitation and rising temperatures will harm
crop production and quality. Also, it forecasts a surge in weeds,
diseases, and extreme weather events driven by climate change that will
further hinder crop growth and yields. Animal production will also be
negatively impacted by making them vulnerable to diseases and water
stress due to higher temperatures.
Farmers have an opportunity to adopt climate-smart practices that
mitigate and adapt the negative impacts of climate change. Reducing
NO2 and CH4 emissions while sequestering
CO2 through climate-smart farming will mitigate the leading
greenhouse gases effect. Soil is the largest terrestrial C pool; it can
hold about 2,500 gigatons of C, three times the amount of C in the air
and four times the amount of C in living matter. Estimates suggest that
U.S. cropland soils are only sequestering less than 10% of their
potential. Adopting more resilient cropping systems will lessen the
effect of climatic change-induced damages. Protecting and maintaining
soil health is vital to reducing soil carbon sequestration and
NO2 and CH4 emissions.
A 2019 National Academy of Sciences report estimated that increased
conventional cropland and grassland management practices could
potentially remove .25 Gt/y CO2 Equivalents in the U.S. and
that frontier technologies like high C crop phenotypes and C burial
could reduce emissions by .8 Gt/y CO2 Eq. in the U.S. and 8
Gt/y CO2 Eq. globally.
Cover crops, permanent land cover (no or minimum tillage),
alternative and perennial crop rotations, and optimum water and
nutrient management are essential management practices to ensure
healthy soils. Regarding animal production, optimum grazing, modifying
animal feeding programs by including oils and concentrates, and
improving manure management using anaerobic digesters are proven to
reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. Vegetated and riparian buffers
are proven to minimize GHG emissions and improve water quality.
Accelerated adoption of precision agriculture and the use of renewable
energy sources can revolutionize American agriculture.
The 2018 Farm Bill supported adopting these practices to mitigate
and adapt to climate change. However, the impacts of these practices on
climate change have been treated as non-essential goals instead of main
goals to ensure the most effective practices are being endorsed and
continued.
These are some of the recommendations for your consideration:
Given the importance of U.S. farming, there is a need to
support more farm-based research to adapt and mitigate climate
change through climate-smart and precision farming practices.
Research is needed to develop more accurate methods of
measuring, reporting, and verifying GHG emissions and
sequestration on U.S. farmlands across various soils, weather
regimes, and cropping systems. Without this research, farmers
will continue to receive low payments for adopting practices
that mitigate GHG emissions and sequester C.
Research is needed to accelerate the adoption of climate-
smart and precision farming practices that mitigate GHG
emissions and increase C sequestration. Better decision support
tools are needed to assist farmers in identifying where and
when these practices are practical and what tradeoffs exist
with these practices relating to sequestration of carbon,
mitigation of GHG emission, and crop yield or quality. In other
words, where and when is it possible to adopt these practices
to increase the sequestration of carbon in the soil, decrease
the emission of GHG, and increase the production of food, feed,
fuel, or fiber?
A better understanding of soil health impacts is needed to
implement the practices effectively on all land and soil types
and make a strong case for scaling up adoption.
Supporting innovation in soil health is needed by exploring
alternative, non-conventional practices to understand better
farmers' ability to capture and store GHG emissions.
NRCS should pursue longer-term monitoring to understand and
practice permanent soil carbon sequestration potential.
There is a need for a comprehensive understanding and
quantification of how soil parameters, e.g., aeration,
microbes, soil properties, and plant residue affect GHG
mitigation and sequestration from the soil surface to the
bottom of the soil profile.
Fundamental knowledge of soils and their dynamic evolution
with external factors, including cultural practices, cropping
system, and temperature rise, among others, is needed. Such
dynamic knowledge is essential to better manage soils for the
complex and interaction challenge of water, food, and climate
securities
Water and food security are closely interconnected as most
fresh water supply goes to the food system. A better
understanding of climate and its role in this nexus is critical
to the future of water and food security.
Design of policies through rigorous cost-benefit analysis to
incentivize climate-smart agriculture.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Benjamin Z. Houlton, Ph.D., Ronald
P. Lynch Dean, Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Professor,
Department of Global Development, College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences, Cornell University
Mr. Thompson. Very good, and this for all, and I probably
don't have time for response, but I am going to tee up my
question. And if we don't get a chance for a response, I would
love to hear from each of our witnesses. The Biden
Administration, and inside the beltway think-tanks, have been
pushing a climate agenda that creates new programs and added
what I see commonly unnecessary bureaucracy. However, when
producers, when you talk with those folks that are farmers,
ranchers, and foresters talk about climate solutions, they
mention the importance of research, boots-on-the-ground
support, access to precision agriculture, and the need for
broadband technology. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with
precision agriculture. To me this all sounds like assistance
available within the farm bill programs. And for all the
witnesses, is the solution as simple as doubling down on these
proven programs? And what research is being done to further
technologies and practices that we know are already working?
And I apologize, I probably have just about 40 seconds for a
response from anyone who would like to take that, and then
anyone else, I would love to hear in writing.
Congressman Thompson:
Thank you for this important and vital question. Agricultural
research will be the critical key to providing farmers with proven ways
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also sustainably intensifying
food production for the United States and the world. In the last farm
bill, spending on agricultural research and development represented
approximately 2% of the total appropriations. The United States has
fallen significantly behind on its investment in agricultural research,
with a budget that has remained relatively stagnant since the 1970s. A
recent USDA ERS report determined that the United States is, in fact,
behind both China and Brazil in its investments in public agricultural
public research. It is vitally important that the next farm bill
significantly ramp up the investment in agricultural research. Speaking
as, a climate scientist, I recommend creating a new agricultural
research program that focuses specifically on climate adaptation and
mitigation with an eye toward developing tools to help farmers manage
emerging risks while mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. For example,
adaptation research can help dairy farmers address climate-related
problems like the enhanced heat stress on dairy cows that causes losses
in milk production. Similarly, it can help growers cope with changing
climate and weather patterns through the development and improvement of
drought resistant crops. Mitigation research to develop and improve
precision agriculture strategies and tools, for example, can help
farmers decrease emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, like
methane and nitrous oxide.
If the U.S. is serious about improving the ability of the
agricultural sector to address climate change, the Committee must make
it a priority over the long-term to reinvest in the research and
infrastructure capacity of Land-Grant Universities. For example,
climate models all predict that current extremes in weather will only
increase, adding demand for development of publicly-available plant
varieties that can withstand greater extremes in temperature and
moisture conditions. As you point out, we already compensate farmers
for adopting conservation practices. It will take research to build on
existing programs and develop science-based mechanisms that allow--and
pay--farmers to draw carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it in the
soil. Another example from my home state: New York is a major dairy
producer, with an ambitious goal to develop net-zero dairies. To
succeed, it will be critically important for Cornell to find new ways
to help dairy farmers reduce methane emissions--perhaps through
development of appropriate feed additives--caused by the natural
processes of animal digestion, as well as to develop improved and
innovative systems of manure management.
USDA programs, as well as market-based incentives, will be critical
to help farmers implement and pay for science-based climate solutions.
Until a market develops for climate-forward food, farmers will need
cost-share and technical assistance to implement environmental
solutions. Hence, the farm bill and agricultural appropriations process
will be singularly important in the next few years. Existing
conservation programs like EQIP will be critical to ensure sustained
food production in a changing climate. At the same time, it is
important to ensure that these programs are flexible and responsive
enough to provide appropriate incentives for farmers to adopt practices
that are science based, verifiable, and have durable climate benefits.
You will have to determine whether that requires the Committee to
create additional incentive programs, like the USDA's recent climate-
smart commodities partnership grants, or simply to give the USDA more
flexibility to change the incentives for farmers as research leads to
more innovative technology in the future. Giving USDA the ability--
along with the resources--to change and innovate in voluntary cost-
share and incentive programs to include the latest science-based
strategies would be wise in my view.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Michael S. Vance, Managing Partner,
Southern Reds, LLC; on behalf of Noble Research Institute, LLC
Mr. Thompson. Very good, and this for all, and I probably
don't have time for response, but I am going to tee up my
question. And if we don't get a chance for a response, I would
love to hear from each of our witnesses. The Biden
Administration, and inside the beltway think-tanks, have been
pushing a climate agenda that creates new programs and added
what I see commonly unnecessary bureaucracy. However, when
producers, when you talk with those folks that are farmers,
ranchers, and foresters talk about climate solutions, they
mention the importance of research, boots-on-the-ground
support, access to precision agriculture, and the need for
broadband technology. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with
precision agriculture. To me this all sounds like assistance
available within the farm bill programs. And for all the
witnesses, is the solution as simple as doubling down on these
proven programs? And what research is being done to further
technologies and practices that we know are already working?
And I apologize, I probably have just about 40 seconds for a
response from anyone who would like to take that, and then
anyone else, I would love to hear in writing.
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members
of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide a formal
reply to Ranking Member Thompson's questions cited above.
To build resiliency in American agriculture, doubling down on
existing programs in the farm bill is not the solution.
As noted in my written testimony, programs that continue to fund
classic agricultural research portfolios are not successfully
supporting agricultural resiliency. Because these programs focus on
reductionary studies that attempt to isolate one issue within a
complex, everchanging environmental ecosystem, they rarely result in
practical applications. Moreover, very few programs (including
technical assistance programs) in the current farm bill promote the six
principles of soil health--a proven tool in building resiliency in the
soil and agricultural operations.
Research programs must be reimagined and redesigned to study
agricultural management at the whole-ranch or landscape scale, not only
assessing alternative management actions but also evaluating ways in
which these actions and biophysical processes interact and evolve over
time.
Programs must be interdisciplinary, interpretative, as well as
analytical and must be performed in partnership with agricultural
producers to achieve new knowledge about productive and regenerative
agriculture. This research will drive future education and guide the
boots-on-the-ground (or technical assistance) that benefits the
nation's farmers and ranchers. These outcomes--the application of
research knowledge--will advance agricultural resiliency.
Why is change needed? Classic academic research programs define
success based on a faculty member's number of grants received or number
of manuscripts written. Industry-based research programs define success
based on the direct economic returns to the company funding the
research. Consequently, very few organizations are focused on
landscape-scale research that enhances soil health, leading to
increased productivity and resiliency, ultimately leading to increased
profitability for the producer.
To my knowledge, Noble Research Institute, a small number of like-
minded collaborators, and a handful of innovative land-grant professors
are leading the charge in conducting research to scientifically
demonstrate that intentional management practices based on all six soil
health principles at a landscape-scale can lead to agricultural
resiliency and increased producer profitability.
Just as we need innovation to address and feed a changing world, we
need to step outside the shadow of the past and seek innovation in the
design of this farm bill and future USDA programs. We need to promote a
soil-based research agenda to build resiliency not only in the land but
the operations and economics of American farmers and ranchers.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this question.
______
Submitted Letter by Lotanna Obodozie, Climate Campaign Director,
National Young Farmers Coalition
Date: June 24, 2022
Hon. David Scott, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Re: In Regards to The Role of Climate Research in Supporting
Agricultural Resiliency hearing before the U.S. House of
Representatives
The National Young Farmers Coalition (Young Farmers) thanks the
U.S. House of Representatives for holding this hearing on the important
role of climate research in supporting agricultural resiliency. As
farmers are on the front-lines of the climate crisis, climate research
is a critical tool for farmers to discover and test best practices and
build on-farm resiliency. We thank the Honorable David Scott and Glenn
`GT' Thompson for holding this hearing to discuss the impact of and
opportunities for climate research in the agricultural sector.
The National Young Farmers Coalition works closely with young
farmers across the country to assist them in building resilience to
climate change through training, building nation-wide farmer networks,
and advocating for policy change at the state and Federal levels of
government. Our campaigns focus on key issues, identified by our
members, to address the major obstacles young farmers face. In a 2017
national survey of our coalition, 66% of respondents reported
experiencing unpredictable weather, and 53% attributed those changes to
climate change.\1\ * Furthermore, in a 2020 survey of policy issues,
our members across the country identified addressing climate change as
their number one priority.\2\ Young farmers, particularly Black,
Indigenous and other people of color (BIPOC) farmers, are on the front-
lines of experiencing and responding to this crisis. Our farmers have
experienced increased pest pressure, droughts and floods, and rates of
plant and animal disease, with seemingly no end in sight. Young farmers
have lost crops and livestock and have dealt with sustained damage to
their farms due to extreme weather events, causing them to suffer
severe economic losses. Some farmers have even shut down their
operations due to droughts and unsafe conditions from uncontrolled
wildfires. However, farming is a huge opportunity for mitigating the
harmful effects of climate change. Farmers have the transformative
power to sequester carbon on their farms by using climate-smart
methods, including no- and reduced-till methods, managed grazing, and
soil health practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sophie Ackoff, Andrew Bahrenburg, and Lindsey Lusher Shute,
Building a Future with Farmers II, National Young Farmers Coalition,
November 2017, https://www.youngfarmers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/
NYFC-Report-2017_LoRes_Revised.pdf.
* Footnotes annotated with are retained in Committee file.
\2\ National Young Farmers Coalition, ``2021 Climate Policy
Recommendations,'' May 2021, https://www.youngfarmers.org/2021/05/
2021-climate-recommendations/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the National Young Farmers Coalition, we believe that climate
action should be science-based and data-driven while prioritizing the
experiences of Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems that have
proven histories of placing agriculture in the right relationship with
the environment. Quality public research is a crucial tool for farmers,
and young and BIPOC farmers know the important role that research plays
in managing and operating a farm. The Sustainable Agriculture Research
and Education (SARE) program is the only farmer-led research program
and a critical tool in helping farmers fight climate change. In
addition to providing grant funding for farmers to lead research on
sustainable agriculture, the program also supports peer-to-peer
learning by sharing the research findings with other farmers across the
country. Research from SARE helps small-scale, diversified farmers
implement conservation practices and measure their climate mitigation
impacts. The SARE program funds on-farm research into sustainable
agricultural farming systems, including organic systems. Increased
funding for SARE would put more money directly into the hands of
farmers and allow them to create more and new innovative grant programs
that are responsive to their needs and the issues they confront in the
field daily. This is particularly important, as public investment in
agriculture research is declining despite farmers facing increased
challenges due to climate chaos.
USDA Climate Hubs are another important resource for farmers in
fighting climate change. Climate Hubs, led by the Agricultural Research
Service and the Forest Service, support applied research and
development and work closely with extension providers to deliver
research, tools, and information to farmers and other professionals.
Climate hubs have the potential to make a significant impact in
providing young and BIPOC farmers with up to date and accurate
information, specific to the geographic region in which they are
located. An increase in funding to Climate Hubs to support enhanced
outreach will allow more farmers to engage with their work through
extension providers and gain access to additional resources to support
on-farm climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience that is relevant
to their region.
Young Farmers would like to thank the Honorable David Scott and
Glenn `GT' Thompson for convening this hearing to discuss the role of
climate research in agricultural resilience. Sound research is critical
for assisting farmers in the fight against climate change. We look
forward to working with you to find ways to improve climate and
agriculture research for young, beginning, and BIPOC farmers.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Lotanna Obodozie,
Climate Campaign Director,
National Young Farmers Coalition.
______
Submitted Letter by Earthjustice
June 24, 2022
Hon. David Scott,
Chairman,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the role of climate
research in supporting agricultural resiliency. We believe there is a
unique opportunity in the 2023 Farm Bill to increase funding for
research and development related to climate-friendly practices with the
ultimate goals of advancing the adoption of these practices and
improving agricultural resiliency while mitigating climate change. This
testimony highlights some of our recommendations for areas on which to
focus increased research and development (R&D) funding.
Over the last several decades, Federal funding for agricultural
research has fallen sharply; at the same time, the need to address the
carbon footprint of the agricultural sector and to shift to climate-
friendly systems and practices has become essential. It is critically
important that we increase our investment in publicly funded
agriculture research to recover from decades of declining investments.
According to a 2018 report from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service, the Federal share of
overall R&D spending as a percentage of gross domestic product is now
at its lowest point since the 1950s, and food and agriculture lags even
further behind most other Federal R&D areas.\1\ * Between 2003 and
2011, public funding for agricultural research fell from $6 billion to
$4.5 billion after adjusting for inflation.\2\ Among total agricultural
R&D investments by high-income countries, the U.S. share has decreased
from 35 percent in 1960 to less than 25 percent by 2013.\3\ Today, the
United States is the only advanced economy where private-sector
agricultural research funding exceeds that of the public-sector.\4\
This funding lag in public R&D investment has long-term implications
for America's food security, farmers' incomes, economic growth, and
resilience of the agricultural sector which accounts for over ten
percent of total U.S. employment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Heisey, Paul W., and Keith O. Fuglie. Agricultural Research
Investment and Policy Reform in High-Income Countries, ERR-249, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, May 2018.
* Footnotes annotated with are retained in Committee file.
\2\ Matthew Clancy, et al., U.S. Agricultural R&D in an Era of
Falling Public Funding, Amber Waves, Nov. 10, 2016, at https://
www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/november/us-agricultural-rd-in-an-
era-of-falling-public-funding/.
\3\ See supra note 1.
\4\ See supra note 2.
\5\ See USDA, Economic Research Service. 2021. Agriculture and its
related industries provide 10.3 percent of U.S. employment. https://
www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/
?chartId=58282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the need for increasing publicly funded agricultural
research support in general, there is an urgent need to focus this
research on building climate resiliency and reducing agriculture's
climate footprint. Declining and inadequate public funding for
agricultural research has hindered our capacity to transition to an
agricultural system that mitigates climate change and adapts to
changing resource threats. For example, less than 15 percent of USDA
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) funds include any
element of agroecology.\6\ Additionally, USDA-funded research grants
consistently favor major commodity crops, which receive three to 4.5
times more funding and three to five times as many grants as the minor
commodity crop groups that can help diversify our food system and build
climate resiliency.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DeLonge, M.S., Miles, A., & Carlisle, L. (2016). Investing in
the transition to sustainable agriculture. In Environmental Science &
Policy (Vol. 55, pp. 266-273). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsci.2015.09.013.
\7\ See Bollington, A., DeLonge, M., Mungra, D., Hayek, M.,
Saifuddin, M., & McDermid, S.S. (2021). Closing Research Investment
Gaps for a Global Food Transformation. In Frontiers in Sustainable
Food Systems (Vol. 5). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fsufs.2021.794594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investments in climate research can and should bolster our food and
agriculture research capacity, and in the process can enhance
agricultural resilience. The next farm bill should ensure that existing
and expanding publicly-funded research efforts focus on soil health,
diversified cropping systems (including agroforestry and silvopasture,
where ecologically appropriate), advanced grazing management, crop-
livestock integration, organic agriculture, on-farm and food system
energy efficiency, renewable energy production, manure management, high
efficiency irrigation, feed efficiency and enteric methane emission
reduction, farmland preservation and viability, and food waste
reduction are all critical to reducing net greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from agriculture.
Publicly funded research plays a unique role in solving the climate
crisis. The private-sector generally invests in research leading to
processes and products that can provide profits for investors, while
the public-sector funds more foundational R&D that can reduce reliance
on purchased inputs like fertilizer, promote ecosystem services, or
result in innovations that cannot easily be commercialized. Private-
sector agroecological research is not an effective or adequate
substitute for publicly funded research. Declining and inadequate
public funding for agricultural research has hindered our capacity to
transition to an agricultural system that mitigates climate change and
adapts to changing resource threats.
To reverse this trend and increase funding for R&D that is
essential to addressing the climate crisis, we recommend the following:
Rebuilding USDA's Research Education and Economics (REE)'
science capacity and increasing support for publicly funded
climate related food and agriculture research.
The next farm bill should dedicate funding to rebuild USDA's
research capacity, in particular, to increase the staff of the REE
subagencies NIFA and Economic Research Service (ERS) which in 2019 were
relocated from Washington, D.C. to the Kansas City Region. This
geographic move resulted in massive staff attrition, which led to
delayed grants and discontinued research--including climate related
food and agriculture research. Recovering from this setback and
ensuring that all REE science agencies are fully staffed and operating
at full capacity is necessary to support publicly-funded climate
related food and agriculture research. REE should use increased funding
from the farm bill to focus research efforts on agricultural practices
to reduce GHG emissions, increase soil carbon sequestration, and
improve efficiency for all farms--including small and mid-sized farms.
Adding climate resilience to the overall purpose of National
Institute of Food and Agriculture's Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education (SARE) competitive grants program and
creating a new SARE Agriculture and Food System Resilience
Initiative (AFSRI) as described in Section 203 of the
Agriculture Resilience Act (H.R. 5861).
The 2023 Farm Bill should increase funding for SARE, the only USDA
research program focused entirely on sustainability and the only farmer
driven competitive research grant program at USDA. Through its regional
Administrative Councils, SARE provides Research and Education Grants,
Professional Development Grants, Graduate Student Grants, and other
small grants for sustainable agriculture research. Although research
related to climate resilience is tangentially supported within SARE, it
should be centered as a separate overall purpose of the SARE grants
program to ensure a dedicated funding stream for climate resilience
research.
In addition, the next farm bill should include support for AFSRI,
which would establish a research, education, extension, and outreach
initiative as laid out in H.R. 5861. This initiative may include farmer
and rancher research and demonstration grants. It should use an
interdisciplinary approach and increase the resilience of agriculture
and the food system in the context of a changing climate and related
economic, social, and environmental shocks. This initiative would also
encourage Tribal colleges to enter into research and extension project
agreements.
Fully supporting NIFA's Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI) program and creating a new climate change
adaptation and mitigation subprogram within AFRI as described
in Section 208 of the Agriculture Resilience Act (H.R. 5861).
As the largest Federal agricultural research competitive grant
program that funds projects across six farm bill priorities, AFRI has
the power to shape the national agricultural research agenda. Thus, the
2023 Farm Bill should increase funding for AFRI. REE should then focus
this increased funding on greater allocations for projects that
contribute to our understanding of mitigating, adapting to, and
building resilience to climate change. It can use some of this funding
to create a dedicated subprogram to track research related to climate
adaptation and mitigation.
Adding a new tenth purpose to Federal Investment in
Agriculture Research, Extension, And Education dedicated to
carbon sequestration.
In addition seeking more funding for R&D, the next farm bill should
add a new climate-focused purpose to the Federal Investment in
Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education. Currently, there is no
statutory purpose for Federal investment in agriculture and the food
system to contribute to reductions in GHG emissions or increase carbon
sequestration. Adding this 10th purpose will increase public funding
for climate research, which is needed to meet climate targets and
enhance the health of soils, forests, grasslands, wetlands, waters, and
oceans and the ecosystem benefits they provide.
Authorizing Climate Hubs, expanding Climate Hubs, making
them permanent, and seeking increased funding for them.
The 2023 Farm Bill should also designate separate funding for the
Climate Hubs, which have successfully integrated research, outreach,
and technical assistance programs across USDA subagencies yet currently
lack legislative authorization. Climate Hubs provide a mechanism to
align research, data, technical assistance, and outreach with regional
needs and effectively work towards climate goals. Legislative
authorization for the USDA Climate Hubs should specify that they be
administered by ARS and the USFS in coordination with other USDA and
Federal agencies and in cooperation with educational institutions,
NGOs, private entities, and state and local agencies. Regional hubs
should solicit stakeholder input, work with extension programs,
conservation districts, and NGOs to assist farmers with business and
conservation planning which specifically address climate change.
Additionally, Climate Hubs should facilitate a better understanding of
climate risks by working closely with the Risk Management Agency
(``RMA'') to improve accounting of climate risk in RMA's actuarial
tables.
Expanding extension, technical assistance, and outreach
efforts for GHG-reducing, climate-friendly, and carbon
sequestering practices.
Outreach, technical assistance, and extension efforts are among the
most effective ways to increase adoption of climate-friendly practices.
REE can bolster these efforts by strengthening and broadening Climate
Hubs, establishing regional agroforestry and diversified cropping
centers, and expanding funding for the Cooperative Extension System. In
improving these outreach and extension resources, special consideration
should be given to ensure they are made available to communities that
shoulder disproportionate burdens of environmental pollution and
climate change.
Permanently establishing the Long-Term Agroecological
Research (LTAR) Network and seeking funding for it.
The 2023 Farm Bill should also permanently establish the LTAR
Network and seek funding for it. Long-term site-based research networks
such as the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research
(LTER) Network have been productive for coordinating ecological
research efforts and sharing data across regions, primarily in
unmanaged ecosystems. The next farm bill should establish the ARS's
LTER Network, as recommended in the Agricultural Resilience Act (H.R.
5861 Sec. 205). This network would coordinate continuous research
related to agroecological practices in the context of climate change
adaptation and mitigation at experimental and observational sites
distributed across the nation. Long-term field studies are particularly
important for characterizing the lifecycle of environmental effects
associated with shifting agricultural practices and optimizing
conservation programs accordingly.
These networks also facilitate collaborations across sectors and
play a key role in outreach and education. ARS currently manages
several datasets and sites spanning hundreds of years of critical data
collection, particularly related to water quality, which can be used to
form the core of the LTAR Network.
Expanding funding for the National Agroforestry Center (NAC)
and other agroforestry research and outreach, and permanently
establishing regional agroforestry centers.
The next farm bill should expand support for the NAC to ensure that
farmers and ranchers have access to the tools and expertise they need
to adopt agroforestry practices, and it should expand the focus of the
NAC to include a broad array of crop diversification practices as well.
Agroforestry offers the highest carbon sequestration potential among
agricultural practices on a per-acre basis, and provides multiple
benefits for farmers and rural communities, yet agroforestry research
and extension receive little public support. As a result, farmers and
ranchers rarely have access to professionals with the training and
expertise necessary to help them implement these practices. Since its
authorization in the 1990 Farm Bill, the NAC has helped to fill this
gap, spurring the sector's rapid growth throughout the country.
However, the NAC has been chronically underfunded, leaving it unable to
match the growing need for agroforestry research, extension, and
technical assistance. The 2018 Farm Bill authorized only $5 million for
NAC and it has never been fully funded.
The farm bill should also include funding to establish regional
agroforestry centers in each of the 12 major ecoregions of the United
States. These regional agroforestry centers will help implement
agroforestry plans while also helping to develop new markets for
agroforesters. With sufficient funding, these centers could also work
closely with, and provide resources to, 1890 institutions and Tribal
land-grant institutions to ensure the communities they serve benefit
from agroforestry's financial and environmental impacts. And they
should incorporate a variety of diversified cropping systems into their
work so that farmers and ranchers can learn about and have access to
tools related to practices that are most ecologically appropriate for
their geography.
Doubling funding for the Cooperative Extension System (CES).
Funding for the CES has fallen by more than half in real terms
since the early 1980s. This has severely damaged the ability of the CES
to disseminate information on new practices or reach underserved
populations. The number of extension agents in some regions, for
example, has declined by more than 80 percent in the past thirty years.
As a result, farmers must increasingly turn to agribusiness dealers
focused on making sales for information about crops, practices, and
services. These private-sector advisors are unlikely to help farmers
adopt the most climate-friendly practices, which often reduce the need
for the products they sell. The next farm bill should reverse these
cuts, doubling Federal support for the CES and focusing these new funds
on climate mitigation and adaptation and underserved communities.
Expanding soil health demonstration trials.
The 2018 Farm Bill created the Soil Health Demonstration Trial, a
program that pays farmers to adopt practices that will sequester carbon
in the soil. The program collects data from participating farmers to
feed into climate models, to better understand the relationship between
soil carbon sequestration and climate. The program aims to help develop
new revenue streams for farmers, who could be paid for verifiable
carbon sequestered. This program has tremendous potential to increase
the amount of carbon sequestered in the soil, improve soil health, and
build climate resilience. It has the added benefit of improving farm
productivity and thus increasing farmer profits. The 2023 Farm Bill
should increase funding to expand this program.
Funding the monitoring and evaluation of conservation
programs.
Aligning conservation programs with climate goals will require
improved monitoring and evaluation of practices. Monitoring and
evaluation programs can help optimize conservation efforts to maximize
climate benefits. The next farm bill should include funding for
comprehensive monitoring and program evaluation programs to assess
progress in reaching natural resources and environmental objectives and
the contribution of those programs to that process, as proposed in H.R.
4751, the Healthy Fields and Farm Economies Act and S. 3429, the Farmer
Driven Conservation Outcomes Act.
* * * * *
In sum, we urge the Committee to push for increased funding for
climate-related R&D and related programs in the 2023 Farm Bill given
the critical role research plays in agricultural resiliency and climate
mitigation. The farm bill provides a ready-made tool that has powerful
potential to make real and lasting change that will better equip the
agricultural sector to address and adapt to climate change.
Respectfully submitted,
Earthjustice.
CC:
Ranjani Prabhakar,
Senior Legislative Representative,
Earthjustice.
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Thelma I. Velez, Ph.D., Research & Education Program
Manager, Organic Farming Research Foundation
Question Submitted by Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in
Congress from California
Question. Climate change is without a doubt one of the biggest
challenges facing the entire world. Addressing this challenge will take
innovative solutions, collaboration, and decarbonatization of every
sector. Agriculture is no exception.
In California, like many states across our nation, we are already
experiencing the consequences of climate change. Severe drought and
frequent fires pose a legitimate threat to our hardworking farmers and
our nation's food supply.
The time for action is now. The longer we wait, the harder it is
going to be to react.
In Congress, we look to experts, like you all, to best inform
public policy so that we can work to enact laws that will bring about
real, meaningful change. I want to stress the importance of listening
to scientific experts, especially when it comes to climate change,
because the distrust in the scientific community over the last few
years.
My district is home to a number of organic growers. What lessons do
you think the agriculture can learn from organic growers? What
investments from Congress would be most helpful?
Answer. August 18, 2022
Representative Carbajal, thank you for the opportunity to highlight
the promise of organic agriculture in responding to the climate crisis.
Below is a narrative description of the importance of organic
agriculture in light of our changing climate, from both a mitigation
and adaptation perspective; a condensed recommendations section; and a
list of scientific papers that support a policy recognizing organic
agriculture as an effective climate strategy.
The Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) has been working for
over 3 decades to expand the research being done on organic production
systems. We work closely with researchers, organic farmers, and policy
makers across the U.S. to understand the challenges farmers face, and
to provide the research and education tools needed to help them thrive.
Our changing climate, and the disruptions in weather patterns it
brings, present new and intensifying challenges to farmers. In our
recently published 2022 National Organic Research Agenda (NORA), we
received responses from over one thousand certified organic growers
across the U.S. to produce a 230 page report identifying the needs of
our domestic growers. Over half of these farmers were concerned with
adapting to climate change. In listening sessions, they discussed
challenges such as unpredictable precipitation, including increased
flooding and prolonged periods of drought, earlier and later frost
dates, and changing pest challenges (Snyder, Schonbeck, Velez, 2022).*
All of these challenges alter planting and growing cycles, negatively
impact the stability of farms, and expose the fragile nature of our
current food system, which ultimately threatens national security
(ibid; Petersen-Rockney, et al., 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the in-text citations in Dr. Velez's response do
not have a corresponding descriptive ``Endnotes'' listing. It has been
reproduced herein as submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these challenges, we know that organic growers lead the
nation when it comes to climate resilience, climate adaptation, and
climate mitigation. Organic growers regularly implement climate-smart
practices that build healthy, fertile soils. Soil is the foundation of
our farms, and healthy soils have increased capacity to hold plant-
available water and nutrients, suppress pathogens, and support vigorous
crops and pasture. To build soil health, nearly 90% of organic farmers
plant cover crops regularly, compared to just 10% of conventional
farmers (Snyder, Schonbeck, Velez 2022). Other practices organic
growers lead the way in are crop rotation, intercropping, and green
manures, all of which are research-backed methods to improve resilience
and increase fertility (ibid). Organic farming is the original climate-
smart agriculture.
OFRF has spent the past 7 years researching and reviewing the
literature to better understand the importance of soil health to
climate resilience and mitigation. We have carried out this work with
grants and through a partnership agreement with USDA NIFA. In reviewing
the existing research, we found that there is extensive evidence
showing organic production systems help farmers in various ways,
including: increasing resilience to climate stress, such as droughts
and floods, enhancing soil fertility and protecting against soil
erosion, supporting increased biodiversity, and increasing soil carbon
sequestration services. For example, in the case of extended drought,
studies show that cover crops can reduce irrigation needs anywhere from
33-50%, particularly when using integrated strategies such as
diversified rotation, reduced tillage, and compost application (Gaudin,
et al., 2018; Renwick, et al., 2017; DeVincentis, 2019). Relatedly,
organic agriculture systems have been found to decrease soil loss rates
due to erosion, with soils under organic management having greater
aggregate stability while increasing water infiltration rates (Morvan,
et al., 2018). Research has found that biodiversity on organically
managed lands have higher rates of both species richness and abundance
when compared to conventional cropping systems (Stein-Bachinger 2021).
With respect to climate mitigation, research indicates that organic
farming systems can sustain higher levels of soil organic carbon (SOC)
and have lower per-acre GHG emissions than conventional systems
(Schonbeck 2020; Crystal-Ornelas, Thapa, & Tully, 2021). There are
multitudes of studies describing the importance of organic production
systems in addressing both current and emerging climate challenges.
While the organic method has been shown to have great potential to
contribute to both climate mitigation and climate resilience, much more
action-oriented research is needed to make widespread adoption
possible. Less than 1% of the USDA's annual research budget is spent on
organic production topics, which is not aligned with the organic
sector's continually growing market share of 6%. Organic farmers need
greater research investment to continue to advance soil health and
fertility management to better sequester carbon and reduce GHG
emissions. To reduce risk and enhance resilience, they also need
improved crop cultivars specific to organic production systems,
including traits like disease-resistance, nutrient efficiency, seedling
vigor, and competitiveness toward weeds. We at OFRF believe it is
crucial for Congress to recognize and elevate USDA-certified organic
agriculture as a climate-smart and -resilient system of production and
provide the resources to meaningfully meet the need of organic
producers. This is in line with Secretary Vilsack's recent comments
when presenting the Food System Transformation Framework.
Moving forward, more research, education, and extension is needed
to help farmers and ranchers implement the best practices for climate
mitigation and adaptation specific to their operations and locales.
This includes breeding regionally adapted crop cultivars and
identifying the best cover cropping systems for specific regions and
production systems. We also need to advance organic research on
advanced grazing management and crop-livestock integration which are
known to sequester carbon, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and enhance
climate resilience of livestock production systems. Further, we believe
it is imperative to increase funding not only for existing organic
research programs, but also integrate organic research into other
research programs across the USDA's portfolio. Increasing mandatory
funding for NIFA Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI),
while also expanding the amount of organic research within the ARS,
such as work underway at Long Term Agroecosystem Research sites, is
imperative. Alongside investing in the research, investment in
Extension and education is essential to getting new research-informed
skills, tools, and technology into the hands of growers. Cooperative
Extension programs have been historically underfunded, and organic
producers are often at an additional disadvantage because the organic
expertise of Extension agents is currently lagging. Therefore, we also
recommend expanding technical assistance resources and Extension
services available to organic growers.
In conclusion, these are challenging times for the people who grow
our food. American farmers are no strangers to challenges, from the
Dust Bowl to the 1980s farm crisis, but the scale of challenges facing
our farmers are unprecedented. Destabilizing climate conditions only
contribute to continually thinning margins and market disruptions that
negatively impact the health of our agriculture industry. We deeply
appreciate the USDA funding research, education, and extension that is
crucial to helping farmers build resiliency. The Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program, the Organic Research
and Extension Initiative (OREI) and the Organic Transitions Program
(ORG) have supported hundreds of studies that help both organic and
conventional farmers address the threat of climate disruption. But,
there is still much more investment needed to meet the needs of our
farmers if we want to make meaningful progress on mitigating and
adapting to climate change. Thank you for all of the great work you
have done so far and the work you continue to do.
Condensed Recommendations
Research:
Increase funding for organic research programs
administered by the National Institute for Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), including the Organic Research and
Extension Initiative, Organic Transitions Program, and the
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)
programs. These programs are ideally positioned to help
producers sustain and increase production while
contributing to climate adaptation and mitigation through
expanded research in organic agriculture and food systems
Continue and expand research funding through the
Agriculture Research Service's Long Term Agroecosystem
Research (LTAR) Network. For example, organic systems
research at the long term organic trials at the Beltsville,
Maryland research station can be a model for expanding LTAR
programming. This long-term research will continue to be
critical in preparing farmers and ranchers, both organic
and non-organic, to adapt to and mitigate the changing
climate.
Fund organic farming research at levels commensurate
with organic's market share. This will require at least a
six fold increase that could be spread out over several
years. We believe that increasing funding for organic
research, building on the recently-released ARS strategic
plan for organic research, will help the agency address
this historical lack of investment in organic agriculture
research and help organic and non-organic producers alike
overcome challenges to realize their potential to adapt to
and mitigate the impacts of the changing climate.
Extension and Education:
Expand Extension services available to organic
growers. Extension is essential to delivering new skills,
tools, and technology into the hands of growers. As a
country we are under-investing in Cooperative Extension
programs, and organic producers are at an additional
disadvantage because the organic expertise of Extension
agents lags significantly.
Increase the level of coordination between USDA's
research agencies and programs with their technical
assistance agencies. Farmers depend on the continued and
expanded capacity of NIFA and ARS to continue effectively
sharing key research findings with NRCS and other technical
assistance-focused agencies, so they can support the
adoption of best practices and sustainable systems of
production.
Up-To-Date Scientific Literature on Soil Carbon in Organic Systems of
Production
Agricultural soils have been increasingly recognized as a crucial
piece in the response to our changing climate, both for their capacity
to draw down and store carbon, as well as their ability to create a
more-resilient landscape. Organic systems of production offer
substantial benefits in both mitigating and adapting to climate change,
and should be employed at a greater scale. Updates in the field of soil
science have found that soil life plays a central role in soil
fertility and carbon (C) sequestration. Managing soils to enhance
microbial biomass, biodiversity, and activity builds reserves of both
active (mineralizable) and stable (sequestered) soil organic carbon
(SOC). Following are recent pieces of research on SOC dynamics in
agricultural soils managed organically to inform the design of
agricultural policies, programs, and practices that optimize the
mitigation and adaptation capacities of agricultural soils.
Rethinking soil carbon:
1. Dynarski, Katherine A., et al. ``Dynamic Stability of Soil
Carbon: Reassessing the `Permanence' of Soil Carbon
Sequestration.'' * Frontiers in Environmental Science,
vol. 8, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.514701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbered entries annotated with are retained in Committee file.
The scientific world's understanding of how soil carbon behaves
has fundamentally changed over the past decade, but policy
makers and implementers have not kept pace with these
advances. This Review Article provides a general overview
of the advances in our understanding of soil-C, finding
that the overwhelming majority of soil-C is made up of
microbial communities and their necromass. Current debates
on this topic fall prey to two outdated concepts: that
``stable'' SOC is composed of complex macromolecules
(``humic substances'') that remain in the soil permanently,
and that any SOC accrued through improved practices is
rapidly lost through any amount of tillage or other changes
in management. Recent research has shown that SOC accrual
is a dynamic process based on microbial processing of
plant-derived organic carbon (Dynarski, et al., 2020).
Rather than focus on the permanent nature of soil-C, this
review suggests that we should be looking at the
persistence of carbon in our soils, and that this
persistence is driven by the flow of carbon regulated and
facilitated by the microbial community in the soil. Put
another way, it is not necessarily how much humified carbon
locked in the soil that matters, but the abundance and
vibrancy of the life in soil that can draw down carbon. Key
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
findings include:
Most soil organic matter (SOM) is derived from
microbial consumption
and transformation of root exudates and plant residues
into metabolites
and necromass (dead microbes) that bind to soil clays
and silt, forming
mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM).
SOM can leach down into the subsoil before adsorbing
to soil minerals.
In deep soils, more than half of total SOC ( SOM 0.5)
occurs as MAOM
below 30 cm depth. Near-surface measurements miss this
SOC.
MAOM is not ``permanent.'' It exists in a dynamic
equilibrium, but it can
last 1,000 years or longer, especially at depths below
30 cm depth if the
health of the soil can be maintained.
Microbial activity supports both crop nutrient release
through SOM min-
eralization and MAOM formation. Providing crop
nutrients and seques-
tering SOC are directly correlated, rather than
contradictory goals.
Organic inputs that include sufficient nitrogen (N)
and other nutrients
along with C support a robust microbial community.
Frequent tillage results in net loss of SOC, but
infrequent or low inten-
sity tillage usually does not. Ending the use of C
sequestering practices
may not result in immediate loss of SOC accrued.
Informing farmers on the multiple benefits of SOC
building practices--
improved nutrient cycling, greater moisture capacity,
and increased yield
stability--can motivate them to continue the practices
after financial in-
centives expire.
Additional research on SOC and MAOM accrual in
different soil types,
textures and climates, and C dynamics throughout the
soil profile (sur-
face to 200 cm) can help realize the full SOC
sequestration potential.
2. Gunstone, Tari, et al. ``Pesticides and Soil Invertebrates: A
Hazard Assessment.'' Frontiers in Environmental Science,
vol. 9, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.643847.
This scientific review found that the use of pesticides
overwhelmingly negatively impacts soil invertebrates
(arthropods and other multicellular organisms), whose
activities enhance the functions of the soil microbiome,
including carbon sequestration (Gunstone, et al., 2021).
Soil invertebrates comprise a crucial aspect of a vibrant
soil ecosystem.
3. Bhattacharyya, Siddhartha Shankar, et al. ``Soil Carbon
Sequestration--an Interplay between Soil Microbial
Community and Soil Organic Matter Dynamics.'' Science of
The Total Environment, vol. 815, 1 Apr. 2022, p. 152928.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.152928.
Based on a review of 197 peer-reviewed publications,
Battacharyya, et al. (2022) concludes that, given the
central role of soil life in soil carbon cycling,
agricultural practices must restore the soil microbial
community in order to enhance and stabilize SOC
sequestration.
Advances in understanding soil-C dynamics in organically managed
systems:
4. Crystal-Ornelas, Robert, et al. ``Soil Organic Carbon Is Affected
by Organic Amendments, Conservation Tillage, and Cover
Cropping in Organic Farming Systems: A Meta-Analysis.''
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 312, 1 June
2021, p. 107356., https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agee.2021.107356.
In a global meta-analysis of 36 organic farming systems
studies, adoption of a single best management practice
enhanced SOC by an average of 18% and microbial biomass
carbon (MBC) by 30%. SOC concentration increased 24% with
the use of organic amendments, rose 14% under conservation
tillage, and showed gradual growth in rotations that
include cover crops, which were significant after 5 years.
(Crystal-Ornelis, et al., 2021) The report suggests more
research is needed on the benefits of longer or more
diverse crop rotations, biochar applications, and systems
of multiple practices such as cover crop + reduced till +
organic amendment.
5. Smith, Olivia M., et al. ``Organic Farming Provides Reliable
Environmental Benefits but Increases Variability in Crop
Yields: A Global Meta-Analysis.'' Frontiers in
Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 3, 2019, https://doi.org/
10.3389/fsufs.2019.00082.
In a global meta-analysis comparing organic versus conventional
production in developed countries, organic systems
maintained about 12% higher SOC, 30% greater biodiversity,
and more consistent soil and ecosystem health. Though this
analysis found that conventional systems sustained 25%
higher yields with lower yield variability due to access to
synthetic fertilizers and pest controls, it also found that
organic systems were more profitable than conventional
systems (Smith, et al., 2019).
6. Krauss, M., et al. ``Reduced Tillage in Organic Farming Affects
Soil Organic Carbon Stocks in Temperate Europe.'' Soil
and Tillage Research, vol. 216, Feb. 2022, p. 105262.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105262.
In nine organic farming systems trials, researchers compared
SOC stocks under reduced tillage (non-inversion, 2-6")
versus moldboard plowing (8-12"). Reduced tillage increased
SOC at 0-6" and 28-39" yet decreased SOC at 6-12" (Krauss,
et al., 2022). Reducing tillage resulted in a net SOC
sequestration of 80-240 lb/ac-year. However, crop biomass
decreased while weed biomass increased, indicating a need
for more research into optimizing organic reduced tillage
management.
7. Mandal, Agniva, et al. ``Impact of Agricultural Management
Practices on Soil Carbon Sequestration and Its Monitoring
through Simulation Models and Remote Sensing Techniques: A
Review.'' Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and
Technology, vol. 52, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-49., https://
doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2020.1811590.
This review found that organic systems of management
significantly increase the ability of agricultural soils to
sequester carbon, and that individual practices commonly
adopted by organic producers--cover cropping, reduced
tillage, diverse rotations, compost and other organic
amendments, and more recently biochar--each contribute to
increasing the amount of SOC (Mandal, et al., 2020).
Additional research and improved Extension and technical
assistance are needed to support wider adoption of organic
systems that maximize SOC sequestration.
8. Prescott, Cindy E., et al. ``Managing Plant Surplus Carbon to
Generate Soil Organic Matter in Regenerative Agriculture.''
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 76, no. 6,
Nov. 2021, https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2021.0920a.
Managing crops to provide surplus photosynthetic carbon and
organic N to soil microbes via root exudates enhances SOC
sequestration by stimulating microbial activity and MAOM
formation (Prescott, et al., 2021). Three key strategies
include:
Maintain plant available N, P, and water at levels
slightly below the opti-
mum for top growth, which can reduce fertilizer and
irrigation inputs.
Include legumes in crop rotations and grazing land
vegetation.
Manage rotational grazing to occur when forages
approach the end of the
rapid growth stage, during which root exudation is
greatest.
9. Franzluebbers, A.J. ``Short-Term C Mineralization (Aka the Flush
of CO2) as an Indicator of Soil Biological
Health.'' CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture,
Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, vol.
13, no. 017, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1079/
pavsnnr201813017.
Soil Test Biological Activity (STBA), defined as soil
respiration measured over a 3 day period under controlled
laboratory conditions, is a reliable indicator of other
soil health metrics such as microbial biomass and N
mineralization potential (Franzluebbers, 2018). Studies
conducted at multiple sites within a state or region with
similar soil types have shown very strong correlations
between STBA and total SOC. Although high soil microbial
activity manifests as greater CO2 emissions from
soil, it also drives SOC sequestration, likely through
formation of MAOM.
10. Morugan-Coronado, Alicia, et al. ``The Impact of Crop
Diversification, Tillage and Fertilization Type on Soil
Total Microbial, Fungal and Bacterial Abundance: A
Worldwide Meta-Analysis of Agricultural Sites.''
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 329, 1 May
2022, p. 107867., https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agee.2022.107867.
This meta-analysis by Morugan-Coronado, et al., (2022)
documents the impacts of several agricultural practices on
fungal, bacterial, and total microbial biomass in cropland
soils. Findings include:
The use of organic fertilizers in lieu of synthetic
NPK doubled total mi-
crobial biomass.
Reduced tillage (non-inversion, 4-6") doubled
bacterial, fungal, and total
microbial biomass compared to moldboard plowing (8" or
deeper).
Compared to plowing, no-till somewhat increased fungal
biomass but not
total microbial biomass. Increased compaction and
reduced aeration
under continuous no-till may have depressed bacterial
activity (Morugan-
Coronado, et al., 2022).
Crop diversification (rotation or intercropping)
tended to enhance micro-
bial biomass, especially fungi.
Given the central role of soil microbes in formation of MAOM,
the use of organic nutrient sources, reduced tillage, and
diversified cropping systems likely play key roles in
enhanced SOC sequestration in organic production.
Response from Sylvie M. Brouder, Ph.D., Professor of Agronomy,
Wickersham Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Research,
Department of Agronomy: Crops, Soils, and Environmental
Sciences, Purdue University; Past President, American Society
of Agronomy; on Behalf of Crop Science Society of America; Soil
Science Society of America
Question Submitted by Hon. Jahana Hayes, a Representative in Congress
from Connecticut
Question. Your testimony highlighted the low levels of adoption of
new practices and pointed out the current level of investment is too
low to increase capacity in climate-smart programming. In 2019, a Five-
Year Review of USDA Climate Hubs listed the Hubs' work with new
audiences to help build climate resilience across the country,
particularly underserved and small-scale farms, as a strength.
Do you agree that this outreach is a strength for USDA Climate
Hubs, and what recommendations would you make to improve outreach and
adoption for small farms?
Answer. Initially, I did not feel qualified to answer this question
based on my own experiences as an Extension Specialist in Indiana.
Therefore, I solicited feedback from Agronomy, Crops, and Soil Science
Societies of America members through our Science Policy Committees.
Unfortunately, I did not receive much feedback. However, rather than
interpret this as an indication I should raise concerns about this
claim of value of Climate Hubs to small and underserved farmers, I
believe it represents a much larger and more general problem in
``climate-smart'' outreach and Extension.
As I originally noted in my written testimony, the need to bolster
capacity for technology transfer is widely recognized throughout the
public- and private-sectors. For climate-smart agriculture, the need is
for wholistic, unified, nationally coordinated programming. A truly
wholistic program would necessarily encompass the specific needs of big
and smaller entities alike and therefore address the needs of
underserved and small-scale farms. Unfortunately, at present, climate-
smart outreach efforts are not only constrained by a lack of human
resources but also by a pervasive lack of connectivity among existing
programs and resources. Indeed, I suspect the sparsity of resources is
likely exacerbating siloing within outreach entities rather than
fostering collaborations as entities compete for resources to sustain
themselves.
At present, USDA's NIFA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
has one Program Area Priority targeting Extension, Education and
Climate Hubs Partnership. Proposals are due in October and there is an
opportunity to fund one national scale Coordinated Agricultural Project
Grant for Climate Smart Extension at a 5 yr. funding level of $10M.\1\
* The stated goal is ``to build and enhance existing climate Extension
networks, while identifying synergies among existing programs, and
catalyzing new resources and tools that provide accessible, usable, and
actionable science, . . .'' However, while the goal is laudable, the
funds allocated are completely insufficient to build a national-level
program from where we currently stand. The short duration nature of the
funds also do not bode well for lasting success. We need deliberate and
sustained resources for a unified agenda that builds bridges among
outreach entities including among Climate Hubs, the Extension entities
of Land-Grants and minority serving institutions, and the Natural
Resource Conservation Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See pages 93-97 of the Request for Applications, Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, Foundational
and Applied Sciences available here: https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/2022-05/FY22-AFRI-FAS-RFA-MOD1-508.pdf.
* Footnotes annotated with are retained in Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question Submitted by Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in
Congress from California
Question. Climate change is without a doubt one of the biggest
challenges facing the entire world. Addressing this challenge will take
innovative solutions, collaboration, and decarbonatization of every
sector. Agriculture is no exception.
In California, like many states across our nation, we are already
experiencing the consequences of climate change. Severe drought and
frequent fires pose a legitimate threat to our hardworking farmers and
our nation's food supply.
The time for action is now. The longer we wait, the harder it is
going to be to react.
In Congress, we look to experts, like you all, to best inform
public policy so that we can work to enact laws that will bring about
real, meaningful change. I want to stress the importance of listening
to scientific experts, especially when it comes to climate change,
because the distrust in the scientific community over the last few
years.
You know the importance of soil health better than just about
anyone. Can you elaborate on the importance soil health plays in
producing nutritious food and maintaining water quality? Do you think
there is a need to improve educational outreach to farmers on the
importance of soil health?
Answer. Without doubt, soil health is critical to the sustained
production of nutritious food and to the maintenance of water quality.
Two key characteristics of a healthy soil are:
1. The ability for rainfall to infiltrate (versus run off the soil
surface carrying nutrient rich surface soils) and for soil
to hold that moisture within the root zones of plants so
that they can use that water to continue growth between
rainfall (or irrigation) events.
2. The ability to filter water entering the soil of nutrients and
contaminants and to cycle nutrients, making them available
to plant roots to support growth but retaining them against
losses including in water running off the soil surface or
leaching through the soil profile thereby protecting water.
These characteristics are facilitated by maintaining a wide
diversity in soil organisms and good physical structure of the soil.
Healthy soils can contribute to the suppression of pests and pathogens.
Lastly, for a soil to be considered healthy it must be free of an array
of introduced contaminants (e.g., E. coli and other bacteria from
manure, heavy metals, etc.). These contaminants can enter the food
supply when plant roots take them up and transport them to the
marketable portion of the plant and/or they transfer and adhere to
tissue surfaces during harvest and post-harvest handling.
In the U.S. and throughout the world, the two factors most likely
to limit crop production are water and nutrients. Thus, enhancing soil
health is a ``no regrets'' risk-reduction strategy to stabilizing
yields and enhancing food and nutritional security in a changing
climate. Soils that have improved water infiltration and storage can
both reduce field flooding during extreme rainfall events and increase
plant-available soil moisture to prolong growth during droughts.
Improved cycling of nitrogen and phosphorus not only protects water
quality but may permit farmers to reduce inputs of fertilizers.
A unifying goal of practices that regenerate soil health is
maintaining and increasing the soil's organic carbon (SOC) as SOC is
the linchpin to soil physical structure, moisture retention and
nutrient cycling. Thus, in our 2021 Agronomy-Crops-Soils statement
``Advancing Resilient Agriculture: Recommendations to Address Climate
Change'' we highlight the importance of USDA incentivizing practices
that reduce soil disturbance, keep soil covered, increase biodiversity
and tighten nutrient cycles.\2\ Unfortunately, messaging to farmers on
the importance of maintaining soil health has become conflated with the
political agenda surrounding soil carbon and associated opportunities
to mitigate climate change by using soil as a sink for the increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide associated with fossil fuel use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As noted in my original written testimony, our A-C-S statement
on Advancing Resilient Agriculture: Recommendations to Address Climate
Change is available at https://www.agronomy.org/files/science-policy/
issues/2021-acs-climate-solutions-statement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At present, there is a great deal of excitement regarding the
potential for management practices that improve soil health to be
viewed primarily through the lens of SOC accrual and the potential for
farmers to profit from new carbon credit markets. This has driven a
precipitous proliferation of programming focused on the measurement and
monitoring of soil carbon despite the scientifically well-known fact
that it can take years to decades for changes in SOC to be measurable
in routine soil testing.\3\ Indeed, in our 2021 survey of our
membership (scientists and practicing professionals), enhancing the
health of the soil was identified as the most important pathway for
farmers to both mitigate and adapt to climate change but it was also
identified as among the slowest pathways to direct impact.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In my original written testimony, I provided the following link
to a recent Purdue Univ. analysis of Opportunities and Challenges
Associated with ``Carbon Farming'': https://ag.purdue.edu/
commercialag/home/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/202106_Thompson_Carbon
Markets.pdf. If you desire more information on carbon markets, I can
highly recommend Nathanael Thompson (Redacted) and co-author Carson
Reeling (Redacted).
\4\ A one page summary of our member survey on strategies for
climate change mitigation and adaptation can be found here: https://
www.agronomy.org/files/science-policy/letters/climate-change-survey-
one-pager.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The predominant reason to encourage farmers and ranchers to adopt
practices to improve soil health is the more immediate benefits they
will accrue in terms of resilience in the face of extreme weather.
While it can take years for the direct indicators of changed SOC and
quality to be measurable, other benefits to row-crop farmers and to
water quality of practices such as no-till and cover cropping can be
realized more immediately. Such benefits include rapid reductions of
nutrient and sediment loads to water from reduced runoff and potential
reductions in on-farm energy use. In recent studies on why farmers do
not adopt soil conserving practices, barriers cited include perceptions
of risk versus cost, a high prevalence of rented farmland,\5\ and
complex and burdensome application and reporting requirements including
ones that may constrain future decision making.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Currently it is estimated that 54% of U.S. cropland is rented
on short-term contracts. See https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-
economy/land-use-land-value-tenure/farmland-ownership-and-tenure.
\6\ The following are two academic publications summarizing survey
work to identify barriers to adoption: Ranjan, P., Church, S.P.,
Floress, K., & Prokopy, L.S. (2019). Synthesizing conservation
motivations and barriers: what have we learned from qualitative studies
of farmers' behaviors in the United States?. Society & Natural
Resources, 32(11), 1171-1199 and Ranjan, P., Wardropper, C.B., Eanes,
F.R., Reddy, S.M., Harden, S.C., Masuda, Y.J., & Prokopy, L.S. (2019).
Understanding barriers and opportunities for adoption of conservation
practices on rented farmland in the U.S. Land Use Policy, 80, 214-223.
If you would like more and updated information on barriers, I
highly recommend contacting co-author Linda Prokopy (Redacted)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, there is clearly a need for educational programming that
(1) highlights risk-reduction benefits versus participation in carbon
markets, (2) addresses the landlord-renter relationship, and (3)
focuses on tailoring practices for adoption in the context of the real-
world constraints imposed by other aspects of a farm enterprise.
Response from Benjamin Z. Houlton, Ph.D., Ronald P. Lynch Dean,
Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Professor,
Department of Global Development, College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences, Cornell University
Questions Submitted by Hon. Jahana Hayes, a Representative in Congress
from Connecticut
Question 1. In your testimony, you pointed out that nearly 90% of
American farm families require off-farm income to keep their farms
afloat. You also point out that committing resources to new farming
practices presents financial risks for farmers.
Dr. Houlton, what are the costs associated with climate-resilient
farming, and how much should Congress invest in these programs to
ensure family farms have the financial security to implement new,
climate change resilient practices?
Answer. The USDA's FY23 budget request included over $2 billion for
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which provides
financial and technical assistance to farmers to address natural
resource concerns--including improved water and air quality, conserved
ground and surface water, and increased soil health and soil erosion
prevention. EQIP remains one of the most popular conservation programs
in my state, but the high demand for this program means that many
applications for funding and technical assistance do not get approved.
Increasing funding for the program is one way to meet this demand.
Question 2. The USDA's FY23 budget request included over $2 billion
for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which provides
financial and technical assistance to farmers to address natural
resource concerns--including improved water and air quality, conserved
ground and surface water, and increased soil health and soil erosion
prevention.
EQUIP remains one of the most popular conservation programs in my
state, but the high demand for this program means that many
applications do not get approved. Increasing funding for the program is
one way to meet this demand. What strategies can Congress employ to
ensure small farmers are fairly represented among program participants
or incentivized to participate in conservation programs with Federal
funding?
Answer. Congresswoman Hayes:
Thank you for asking how USDA programs, particularly those
providing climate and environmental stewardship incentives, can be
scaled appropriately so that smaller sized and underserved farmers can
participate freely. In New York, 20% of our farms produce 80% of the
value of the food grown in New York. These larger and largely family-
held farm operations are exceptionally important to providing fresh,
local, agricultural foods and to creating a robust regional foodshed
(that includes our neighbors in Connecticut). Because our larger farms
steward the most farmland acres, and tend to have the more concentrated
livestock and dairy operations, it is not surprising that they receive
the largest share of benefits from EQIP and other Federal conservation
programs. That said, most of the farms in New York State are smaller,
employ few non-family workers, and farm an average of 200 acres. Our
underrepresented farmers, in particular, struggle with profitability,
as net returns for farmers of color tend to be lower than white-owned
farms.
From an environmental perspective, it is critical that the U.S.
provide incentives to larger farms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and sequester carbon in soils, which will help ensure the largest
amount of ``climate benefit'' due to issues of scale. At the same time,
from an equity perspective, these conservation programs must be
available for smaller-scale and traditionally underserved farmers. The
cost share requirements of conservation programs, however, are often a
barrier to participation for small and underrepresented farmers--who,
as I noted, operate on the thinnest of margins and do not have access
to the same resources (capital, collateral) as larger operations. The
best way to achieve greater participation of small farmers in Federal
conservation incentive programs, is to make more resources available
across the board to farmers of all size for environmental protection
and climate-smart agricultural practices. Funding increases, such as
those contained in the new Inflation Reduction Act, will be a
significant tool to assist farmers of all size in adopting climate-
smart production and conservation practices, until a greater private-
sector market is created to incentivize climate friendly practices in
food production. Absent additional resources, the programs could be
modified to allow smaller and underrepresented farmers to contribute a
small cost-share, lowering the most significant barrier to
participation. Funding agencies could also re-think their scoring
criteria to incorporate a measure that adds ``bonus points'' for farms
that are smaller scale or underrepresented to address equity concerns.
I am not aware of any academic studies that recommend a specific
dollar amount by which funding for environmental and climate focused
incentive programs to farmers should be increased. The current social
cost of carbon dioxide, in terms of its climate impact, is estimated to
be more than $100/ton of CO2 emitted on average. This cost,
when internalized, would suggest a similar value frame for level
setting carbon sequestration payments for farmers. Speaking as a
climate scientist, ensuring that the science behind Congressionally-
funded agricultural conservation and climate incentive programs is
accurate, verifiable, and returning innovative climate benefits will be
key to their long-term success. Provision of scientifically-sound
public-sector incentives to farmers--regardless of their size--will
ensure they are a vital part of the climate solution while continuing
to produce a steady supply of food for all.
Question Submitted by Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in
Congress from California
Question. Climate change is without a doubt one of the biggest
challenges facing the entire world. Addressing this challenge will take
innovative solutions, collaboration, and decarbonatization of every
sector. Agriculture is no exception.
In California, like many states across our nation, we are already
experiencing the consequences of climate change. Severe drought and
frequent fires pose a legitimate threat to our hardworking farmers and
our nation's food supply.
The time for action is now. The longer we wait, the harder it is
going to be to react.
In Congress, we look to experts, like you all, to best inform
public policy so that we can work to enact laws that will bring about
real, meaningful change. I want to stress the importance of listening
to scientific experts, especially when it comes to climate change,
because the distrust in the scientific community over the last few
years.
Climate change is impacting our water, air, soil, food and farming
system, and our communities. Given the immense scale, what areas need
additional research to develop a more complete understanding of how the
world can work to develop climate solutions?
Answer. Thank you for this broad ranging and holistic question. As
a former Californian, who came to Cornell from the UC system, I have
great empathy and first-hand knowledge of the challenges faced by
farmers and all residents of your beautiful state. I believe research
is needed to provide the marketplace with science-based, verified, and
permanent ways to sequester carbon in soils, as well as to mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions. Incentives, whether from the public-sector or
from the emerging private-sector carbon markets, need to be provided in
accordance with science-based strategies that can be verifiably proven
to draw down carbon from the atmosphere and mitigate emissions. The
Land-Grant system can not only develop these cutting edge scientific
climate-focused innovations, but can also serve as a demonstration site
and test bed to de-risk the technology before it is widely adopted by
producers. For example, in my own work as a climate scientist, I am
conducting an over 150 acre trial in both California and New York, on
larger scale and smaller scale research and private-sector farms
(including one urban location) to assess whether utilization of ``rock
dust'' can draw down carbon from the atmosphere and store it in our
soils. This work--which has already been tested in lab and greenhouse
settings--is now being tested on actual working farms. The outcome of
these practical tests will provide farmers, land managers, and private-
sector carbon markets and public-sector incentive programs with a
precise and verified calculation of the climate emissions mitigation
benefit of this specific intervention.
I share this level of detail to illustrate the possibility, given
adequate investment in climate science and nature-based climate
solutions research infrastructure, of a new and valuable tool and
income stream for farmers. It is important, however, that the Committee
not lose sight of the importance of the basic research that underpins
every innovative new climate mitigation and adaptation strategy. For
example, the concept of exploring further the genetic structure of
plants to enable enhanced photosynthesis is a promising climate
solution that is not yet at the stage where it can be tested in a more
applied setting. Enhanced photosynthesis through innovations in
synthetic biology is an example of an emerging strategy to breed food
crops that are capable of drawing down additional carbon from the
atmosphere through photosynthesis and storing it through more deeply
rooted plant structures into the soil. To counteract the very real and
growing climate extremes that Californians and others are facing, it is
vitally important to work on climate solutions holistically. In other
words, the Committee should support both development of more immediate
techniques to draw down carbon naturally, as well as investment in
fundamental research into longer term strategies that have innovative
potential.
New York, similar to California, has set a highly ambitious goal to
become a net zero economy. To do that, we will need to reduce steeply
emissions of short-lived climate pollutants like methane and nitrous
oxide. From this perspective, creating an adequately-funded competitive
research that is targeted at developing strategies that mitigate those
pollutants--for example, precision agriculture tools for smart, precise
usage of agricultural fertilizers to reduce nitrous oxide emissions, or
methane reduction strategies for dairy and livestock farmers--is an
should be a top priority.