[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.