[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




      SOIL HEALTH PRACTICES AND PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT REGENERATIVE
                              AGRICULTURE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-38




                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




          Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                         agriculture.house.gov






                                 ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

49-701 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            MAYRA FLORES, Texas
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia      BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota
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
Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from North 
  Carolina; submitted statement on behalf of Environmental 
  Working Group..................................................    77
Allen, Hon. Rick W., a Representative in Congress from Georgia, 
  submitted article..............................................    78
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia, 
  opening statement..............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     3

                              Witnesseses

Moyer, Jeffrey W., Chief Executive Officer, Rodale Institute, 
  Kutztown, PA...................................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Supplementary material.......................................    87
    Submitted question...........................................   104
Nygren, Steve, Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Serenbe, 
  Chattahoochee Hills, GA........................................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
McCarty, Ken, Partner, McCarty Family Farms LLC, Colby, KS.......    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
Clark, Rick, Owner, Farm Green & Clark Land and Cattle, 
  Williamsport, IN; on behalf of Regenerate America..............    20
    Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Submitted questions..........................................   105
Larson, Ph.D., Rebecca L., Chief Scientist and Vice President, 
  Government Affairs, Western Sugar Cooperative, Denver, CO......    37
    Prepared statement...........................................    39
    Supplementary material.......................................    98




 
      SOIL HEALTH PRACTICES AND PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT REGENERATIVE
                              AGRICULTURE

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 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: David Scott of Georgia, Costa, McGovern, 
Adams, Spanberger, Hayes, Brown, Pingree, Sablan, Kuster, 
Maloney, Plaskett, O'Halleran, Carbajal, Craig, Harder, Axne, 
Schrier, Panetta, Bishop, Davids, Thompson, DesJarlais, 
LaMalfa, Allen, Kelly, Bacon, Johnson, Baird, Mann, Feenstra, 
Miller, Cammack, Fischbach, Flores, and Finstad.
    Staff present: Lyron Blum-Evitts, Ellis Collier, Ashley 
Smith, Michael Stein, Kelcy Schaunaman, Adele Borne, Josh 
Maxwell, Ricki Schroeder, Patricia Straughn, and Dana Sandman.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                     CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA

    The Chairman. Welcome, everyone, and welcome. And I thank 
you for joining us today. And the Committee will come to order.
    This is an important hearing, ladies and gentlemen, because 
we can do without a lot of things, but one thing we cannot do 
without is food. And there are a number of critical issues 
threatening the future of our food supply. And we are going to 
really get into a very important process that must be done if 
we are going to prevent a food shortage. That is how important 
this hearing is.
    And after my opening statement, Members will receive 
testimony from our outstanding witnesses today, and then the 
hearing will be open for questions.
    And now, before we get to the business today, I would like 
to take a moment and yield to our distinguished Ranking Member, 
Mr. Thompson, for a very important announcement about our 
newest Member.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I 
would like to reiterate the Chairman's comments in welcoming 
Representative Finstad to the House Agriculture Committee. Brad 
is the operator of a family farm and has held numerous 
positions where he has served as a valuable voice for farmers 
in rural communities, including State Director for USDA's Rural 
Development in Minnesota, Executive Director of the Minnesota 
Turkey Growers Association, area director with the Minnesota 
Farm Bureau, and more.
    And so given his extensive background, his knowledge, and 
experience in agriculture, I can't think of another committee 
that would be better served by Brad's presence. So welcome, 
Brad, and we look forward to working with you. And, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Very fine. Welcome, Brad. Good to have you 
with us.
    Ladies and gentlemen, today, our farmers, our ranchers, our 
foresters are able to use USDA's technical and financial 
assistance to support a variety of ways to increase soil 
health. This is what is so important today. Our food comes from 
the soil. The soil, the earth is the start of our food supply 
chain, and that is why we wanted to have this hearing, so we 
could share the latest information about regenerative farming, 
what we must do to enrich our soil. That is the way we make 
sure that we have food security.
    And I want to just thank so many people who have been 
active in this and been putting it together, and I want to 
first mention Kiss the Ground, an extraordinary film that 
opened my eyes to much of what I was only dimly aware. And Mr. 
Finian Makepeace, what a name, Makepeace, did an extraordinary 
job. And I am going to show a small clip of it. Mr. Makepeace, 
thank you. You have really opened our eyes to what we need to 
certainly address and supply the support that we need for 
regenerative agriculture.
    And additionally, I want to mention the exciting work being 
funded by the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities 
Program that is being led by my good friend, Agriculture 
Secretary Tom Vilsack with the USDA. And just this morning, 
Secretary Vilsack announced funding for $25 million to the 
outstanding Rodale Institute to be able to work with the 
University of Georgia and Emory University in my state, that I 
represent here in Congress, Georgia. And it will help our farm 
producers expand their markets, their produce, while reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions, educating consumers, and developing 
technology that will improve scalability of their model. This 
is so important, and I am so very supportive of what Secretary 
Vilsack is doing with this program. And this project is one of 
70 receiving funding. And of course, with it being in Georgia, 
I can assure you that it will be most successful.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. David Scott follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Georgia
    Good morning and welcome to today's important hearing on soil 
health and the existing practices and programs that support producers 
as they protect and improve the health of the soil.
    For decades, USDA programs have provided producers with support to 
address their resource concerns. As a matter of fact, the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service began as the Soil Conservation Service, 
with an original focus primarily on soil health and erosion.
    Today, farmers, ranchers, and foresters are able to use USDA's 
technical and financial assistance to support a variety of ways to 
increase soil health. Addressing soil health helps improve their 
operations and has additional benefits such as increased water 
retention and carbon sequestration in the soil.
    I would be remiss if I didn't mention the work of the many 
advocates and innovators who have driven awareness among producers and 
the public, alike. For example, the excellent moving documentary Kiss 
the Ground directed by Mr. Finian Makepeace who is here with us today 
that brought attention to soil health. I am thrilled to play a short 
clip here today created by individuals involved in that documentary 
that provides agricultural producers' perspectives on practices and 
programs that support regenerative agriculture.
    I would like to thank our witnesses here today, as well as their 
supporters. I would also like to thank those who are not able to be 
here today but have made significant contributions as advocates for 
innovation in agriculture.
    Additionally, I would be remiss if I did not use this opportunity 
to mention the exciting work being funded by the Partnerships for 
Climate-Smart Commodities Program at USDA. Just this morning Secretary 
Vilsack announced funding of $25 million for the Rodale Institute 
working with the University of Georgia and Emory University to help 
producers expand markets for their produce, while reducing greenhouse 
gas emissions, educating consumers, and developing technology that will 
improve scalability of their model. This is so important and I am so 
very supportive of what Secretary Vilsack is doing with this program. 
This project is just one of 70 receiving funding, but with it being in 
Georgia, I am sure it will be the most successful.
    Now I would like to play a clip from the producers of Kiss the 
Ground.

          Video Can Be Viewed Here *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file; and is 
available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npk_eZ0W0kM.

    With that, I'd now like to welcome the distinguished Ranking 
Member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, for any opening 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
remarks he would like to give.

    The Chairman. And now I want to share with you this clip, 
and I want you to see the brilliance, the dynamic message that 
Kiss the Ground is doing. This is the movement that got me 
involved with this issue. So I believe our technician is ready 
to play it. Enjoy and learn.
    Oh, just a second. We are going to make sure we get the 
volume up. We are going to pause for a moment to get the film 
ready. Thank you. The Ranking Member says technology is 
wonderful when it is working. So give us a moment, and we will 
get it going.
    What we are going to do, we do have some technological 
issues. And we are going to now recognize our distinguished 
Ranking Member, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, for his opening 
statement, and hopefully, technology will come to our rescue.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Thompson. All right, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I 
see our newest Member transitioned from attending virtually to 
being in person here. So, once again, Brad, welcome. We are so 
honored and pleased to have you on the Agriculture Committee 
with your family history of farming and your service in so many 
different ways to the industry, the number one industry in this 
country, agriculture. And thank you, and we are glad to have 
you on the Committee, honored to have you on the Committee.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Encouraging soil health and responsible conservation 
practices in agriculture has been a central goal and a priority 
supported by Congress since the 1930s and certainly a priority 
of mine since coming to Congress.
    Through the farm bill, producers, landowners can access a 
variety of conservation programs and tools to incorporate 
activities that support a variety of natural resources. These 
programs are voluntary, they are incentive-based, and locally 
led, while directly benefiting the producer and, quite frankly, 
the economy and the environment. These tools that we provide 
are why American farmers are really the climate heroes around 
the world. These tools contribute greatly to the conclusion in 
research that is pretty striking. It talks about if we want to 
reduce greenhouse gases around the world, we want to do that on 
this day of September of 2022, all we need to do is for 
American farmers, ranchers, and foresters to produce more and 
export it overseas.
    So the farmers and ranchers are the original 
environmentalists and have adopted proven conservation 
practices to encourage soil health and other environmental 
benefits. Producers and landowners are also generating soil 
health benefits through grazing and active management of forest 
lands. Science, technology, and innovation have always been 
important to the success of agriculture, and I would say that 
is the purest definition of American agriculture.
    This continues to be true as we build out technologies that 
improve soil health. For example, biotechnology, the use of 
crop protection tools, and access to precision ag technology 
will help deliver soil health and climate benefits in both 
short- and long-term. Because of the investments in 
agricultural research, the U.S. has become the most efficient 
agricultural producer in the world. In fact, American farmers, 
ranchers, and landowners produce 287 percent more than in the 
1940s with little to no change in inputs. And I believe that 
this industry is not static, it is dynamic, and we will 
continue to provide tools. Perhaps we can take that to 400 
percent increase by 2035.
    Some want you to believe that regenerative agriculture is 
somehow revolutionary and it is very positive, but soil health 
has been a fundamental tenant of the farm bill conservation 
programs from their very inception. In the 2018 Farm Bill, we 
made improvements to programs like creating a conservation 
incentive contract that would pave the way for easier adoption 
of management activities like cover crops. We have also made 
soil health a major component of the new on-farm conservation 
innovation trials, and soil health is a central purpose of the 
Conservation Stewardship Program.
    Unfortunately, today's panelists do not represent the 
breadth of the conservation movement in the United States but a 
small minority that wants to redefine regenerative agriculture 
as only organic, which is just not true. And while I support 
farmers who want to receive a premium through organic 
agriculture, I think that is a wonderful thing, I appreciate 
the premiums that our organic farmers and ranchers are able to 
generate through organic agriculture, we cannot let the idea 
permeate that organic is the only way to be a conservation 
steward. And attacks on industrial agriculture or conventional 
agriculture, quite frankly, are divisive and unhelpful.
    Now, please don't get me wrong. Soil health is critically 
important for American agriculture and rural communities around 
the nation. I got my first introduction on Schrack Farm in 
Clinton County, a county I am picking back up by the way it 
looks like, wonderful soil health, a day that we spent there 
looking at soil samples and the difference and the changes that 
can be facilitated with good, solid agricultural practices. In 
fact, I was proud to host and chair actually one of the first 
soil health hearings in Congress in 2014 as then-Chairman of 
the Conservation, Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee.
    However, I think it is necessary to make the distinction 
that organic agriculture production is not the only means of 
production that promotes and maintains soil health. That will 
be largely what we are concentrating on at the hearing today: 
organic agriculture. And I support an all-of-the-above approach 
when it comes to soil conservation. We also must ensure our 
USDA's conservation programs remain voluntary, locally led, and 
incentive-based, and most importantly, keeps the producer 
first.
    The European Union's Farm-to-Fork Initiative has shown that 
tying food policy to climate policy is harmful to food 
production and economic viability for all. In fact, the USDA's 
Economic Research Service found that the EU will see a 
production decrease of 12 percent and prices increase by 17 
percent by 2030 under their Farm-to-Fork Initiative. Worldwide, 
we will see a nine percent price increase as a result of the 
EU's adoption. And if there were to be a global adoption of 
this program worldwide, food prices would increase 89 percent 
by 2030.
    So looking forward to the next farm bill, I am not going to 
sit idly as we let decades of real bipartisan progress be 
turned on its head to satisfy people who at their core think 
agriculture is a blight on the landscape. I have been leaning 
into the climate discussion, embracing it, and leading, but I 
am not going to have us suddenly incorporate buzzwords like 
regenerative agriculture into the farm bill or overemphasize 
climate within the Conservation or Research Title, while 
undermining the other longstanding environmental benefits that 
these programs provide.
    As we begin the farm bill process, we cannot allow the 
promises of organic agriculture, which are many, or climate 
policy to cause us to lose sight of the many other benefits 
that our current food system provides under the broad goals of 
farm conservation.
    So, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, I am looking forward 
to hearing from our witnesses in this hearing, and I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you, Ranking Member, for your 
excellent opening statement.
    And what we are going to do, we are going to give our 
hardworking and excellent technicians a little more time to get 
this film together because it is extraordinary.
    And what I would like to do while we give them a little 
more time is introduce to you in the Committee and those who 
are watching across the nation our distinguished lineup of 
witnesses today.
    And also, I want to request that other Members just submit 
your opening statements for the record so that we can get our 
witnesses' testimony and ensure that we have ample time for 
everyone's questions. Now, our first witness today is Mr. Jeff 
Moyer. Mr. Moyer is the Chief Executive Officer of the Rodale 
Institute. And Mr. Jeff Moyer is doing an excellent job at the 
Rodale Institute. And then certainly, congratulations to you 
for the wonderful financial $25 million that we are giving to 
you today to carry on that excellent work.
    Our next witness is Mr. Steve Nygren. Mr. Nygren is the 
founder and Chief Executive Officer of the great Serenbe, and 
he is also one of my constituents. Serenbe is in the great 
Chattahoochee Hills in Georgia in our 13th district. You are 
doing such an outstanding job, and you are a national leader in 
our agriculture industry. Welcome.
    Our third witness today is Mr. Ken McCarty, who is a 
partner in the McCarty Family Farms from Colby, Kansas. 
Welcome.
    Our fourth witness is Mr. Rick Clark, who is the owner of 
Farm Green and Clark Land and Cattle, and he is testifying on 
behalf of Regenerate America.
    And our fifth and final witness today is Dr. Rebecca 
Larson, who is the Chief Scientist and Vice President, 
Government Affairs for the Western Sugar Cooperative.
    Ranking Member, what a distinguished group we have today.
    And now, as I mentioned this film, and you all are about to 
witness an extraordinary message about the urgency, the need 
for us to kiss the ground. All right, technicians, we are 
ready. Thank you, Ashley.
    [Video shown.]
    The Chairman. Thank you. And once again, we apologize for 
this technical operation, but you got a part of this film. I 
encourage you to pursue it and see much more. And again, I 
apologize. Technology sort of interrupted us there.
    And now what I would like to do is to start with our 
testimony. And, as I mentioned, the whole purpose here is to 
open up this discussion and share with our nation the 
importance to understanding that the very start of our food 
supply chain is the Earth, and we are losing the vital 
component of carbon. And so we have to do all that we can to 
make sure we are getting this carbon back in the ground, and 
this is why we are here.
    And so our first witness today will be Mr. Moyer. Mr. 
Moyer, you can start when you are ready.

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY W. MOYER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RODALE 
                    INSTITUTE, KUTZTOWN, PA

    Mr. Moyer. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify before you today. The written testimony I provided to 
the Committee expands on the points I will make here.
    First, I want to thank you for holding this historic 
hearing. It is critically important that we focus on the health 
of America's soil. It is key to solving problems I know you and 
your constituents are focused on. Members of the Committee, if 
you are looking for an agricultural method that increases farm 
profitability, is regenerative, better for the environment, and 
produces healthier food for Americans, then all you need to do 
is look beneath your feet. Regenerative organic agriculture, 
which prioritizes soil health, accomplishes all of that.
    A strong, viable economic model that supports American 
farmers transitioning to regenerative organic agriculture 
already exists. And it doesn't matter what kind of tractor a 
farmer drives or what kind of crops they plant. All farms can 
benefit from regenerative organic practices. But we need to 
adopt changes now because America's food system is broken. It 
is too reliant on unstable foreign supply chains, chemical 
pesticides, and government subsidies for foods that aren't 
healthy for our constituents or profitable for America's 
farming families. And our current agricultural systems are also 
degrading America's soils.
    Recent events have shown that this country must begin 
working toward food independence. Russia's war against Ukraine 
exposed dangerous cracks and frailties in the global food 
system and supply chains. However, this is not a doomsday 
scenario. We have the tools and the time to fix this and set 
our farms on a positive track, and regenerative organic 
agriculture is our path forward.
    Rodale Institute is the 75 year old Pennsylvania-based 
nonprofit research and education institution that I manage. We 
confront this challenge every day with our staff of Ph.D. 
scientists and farmers like me, who work to create a resilient 
food system that improves soil health and the economics of 
farming. So we champion regenerative organic agriculture. That 
is because it is reliable, resilient, and does not depend on 
foreign agricultural inputs like Russian-made synthetic 
fertilizers.
    Regenerative organic farms use a whole-systems approach to 
grow food that actively restores soil health, which is critical 
because healthy soil has always been the foundation of 
successful farming. After all, soil impacts harvests and the 
long-term viability of any farm. But right now, we are not 
doing enough to protect our soil. And that is foolish because 
it is a finite resource key to our survival.
    Current estimates suggest that by 2050, soil degradation 
may reduce crop yields up to ten percent. But research shows 
organic farming can reverse soil degradation and actually 
improve soil health. And that is not its only benefit. 
Regenerative organic agriculture showcases production 
strategies that conventional farmers can take advantage of like 
the use of roller-crimpers, along with cover crops, to reduce 
or eliminate tillage and the need for nitrogen fertilizer. But 
in order for these practices to be employed at scale, we need 
to tweak EQIP and crop insurance regulations to incentivize the 
outcomes we want, not disincentivize them.
    Rodale Institute has a 40 year long farming systems trial, 
the longest of its kind running in this country, where we 
examine organic agriculture and conventional agriculture side 
by side in real-world contexts. The study's recent findings 
show that organic systems will be more profitable for farms 
while improving soil health.
    Members of the Committee, we can make that the standard for 
this country, more profit for farmers and healthier soil, too. 
Look, it would be a lot easier if we as humans could just eat 
soil. No one would go to the supermarket or restaurant and ask 
for soil laced with fungicides, pesticides, and salt-based 
fertilizer. We would ask for good organic soil and rich 
compost. Well, in effect, we do eat soil, or at least the 
plants we eat do. Let's make it possible for us all to choose a 
plan that improves our soils, makes farming families more 
economically secure, and puts America on a path to food 
independence. Regenerative organic agriculture is how we get 
there.
    Thank you for taking time to listen to my testimony today, 
and I do look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Moyer follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jeffrey W. Moyer, Chief Executive Officer, Rodale 
                        Institute, Kutztown, PA
I. Introduction
    Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
    Given your positions on this esteemed Committee, it's likely you 
already know that America's food system is broken. And it's likely you 
already know why it's broken. It's too reliant on unstable foreign 
supply chains, chemical inputs, and government subsidies for foods that 
aren't nutritious for your constituents or profitable for American 
farming families.
    Conventional agricultural models are also degrading American 
farmland.
    But this is not a doomsday scenario--not just yet. We have the 
tools and the time to fix this and set our farms on a positive track, 
and regenerative organic agriculture is our path forward.
    A strong, viable economic model that supports American farmers 
transitioning to regenerative organic already exists, and there's a 
role for everyone as we make this change, including conventional 
farmers, organic farmers, lenders, landowners, suppliers, and 
policymakers.
    But we must move to make this transition now. U.S. national 
security, the health of our people, and the financial stability of the 
nation's farming families are all at risk.
    Rodale Institute, the 75 year old Pennsylvania-based nonprofit and 
research institution that I run, confronts this challenge every day. 
Our 100 person staff, including nearly a dozen Ph.D.s and a handful of 
farmers, are dedicated to creating a resilient food system that works 
to improve soil health and the economics of farming.
    Recent events, such as Russia's war against Ukraine and the 
subsequent disruptions in the worldwide food system, forced American 
agriculture into an inflection point and an opportunity.
    We shouldn't waste it.
II. American Food Independence
    Just as America works towards energy independence, it should work 
towards food independence. Relying on fragile international supply 
chains could jeopardize U.S. national security and lead to widespread, 
unstable food prices for everyday Americans.
A. The War in Ukraine Exposed Dangerous Cracks in the Global Food 
        System
    With farmers and commodities experts predicting lower yields, 
skyrocketing prices, and extreme hunger in some parts of the world, we 
have to rethink our food systems to break American agriculture's 
reliance on fragile international supply chains.
    If we do this right, we can produce healthier, chemical-free food. 
That should be a priority because not only must we figure out how to 
feed this nation, we must feed it better.
    The food system that can accomplish that objective--producing 
enough nourishing food in the United States--is regenerative organic 
agriculture.
B. The Answer to American Food Independence Can Be Found Right Under 
        Our Feet
    Russia's war in Ukraine caused a near doubling of the price of 
natural gas, a key ingredient in nitrogen fertilizer. The increased 
cost and limited availability forced some farmers to reduce fertilizer 
use for their crops, which shrunk yields in some cases. Facing a 
profitless growing season, some farmers may have given up altogether.
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture responded by issuing $250 
million in grants to spur U.S. fertilizer production. But that was a 
Band-Aid for a wound that will never heal. The long-term solution is 
right under our feet.
    Regenerative organic agriculture is a reliable, resilient method of 
growing food that does not depend on synthetic fertilizers or off-farm 
inputs. Regenerative organic farms use a whole-systems approach to 
agricultural production, which actively restores the health of soil. 
Farms practicing these methods rely on cover crops, crop rotations, 
reduced-till practices, composting, and, in some cases, fertilization 
by animal manures--spread by responsible grazing practices--to nourish 
and enhance soils.
III. The Science
    Soil is the foundation of successful farming. It is also the 
foundation for the ecosystem services that life depends on.
A. Unmitigated Soil Erosion and Destruction Could Jeopardize the Food 
        Supply
    Research shows that 30% of the world's arable land (land that is 
used for growing crops) has become unproductive in the past 40 years 
due to soil erosion. Soil degradation is the physical, chemical, and 
biological decline in soil quality occurring in various forms such as 
erosion, salinization, acidification, compaction, loss of fertility, 
decline in soil biological activity, and loss of soil organic matter. 
About \1/3\ of the world's soil has already been degraded, and if the 
current rate of soil degradation continues, all of the world's topsoil 
could be lost within 60 years.
    Unsustainable agricultural practices, such as over grazing, 
improper land use change, and deforestation--especially clear cutting--
are major contributors to soil degradation.
    In the U.S., 98 percent of farms practice conventional agriculture, 
which relies heavily on pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, many of 
which are toxic to humans, animals, pollinators, and soil micro and 
macro biota.
    In addition, conventional farms usually have low crop diversity, 
which can contribute to the destruction of biodiversity in soil. That's 
important because when there are fewer microorganisms in the soil, it 
compromises nutrient cycling and nutrient availability for plants. The 
result is weaker plants that are more susceptible to infections and 
pests and therefore require additional synthetic fertilizers for the 
plant to grow to maturity. This all leads to increasing dependence on 
synthetic inputs, increased emissions from the soil, increased water 
pollution, and reduced soil health.
    Current estimates suggest that by 2050, soil erosion may reduce up 
to 10% of crop yields, the equivalent of removing millions of acres of 
land from production. Simultaneously, the world's population is 
expected to exceed nine billion, which puts global food security in 
jeopardy.
B. Regenerative Organic Agriculture Improves Soil, the Environment, and 
        the Economic Security of U.S. Farming Families
    The term ``regenerative organic'' describes a holistic approach to 
farming that encourages continuous innovation and improvement of 
environmental, social, and economic factors. The regenerative organic 
farming model doesn't just maintain resources--it improves them. In 
addition, it is a food system that relies on natural cycles and 
management.
    Critically, research shows that organic farming has the potential 
to diminish soil erosion (Erhart and Hartl 2009).\1\ Soil erosion rates 
measured under simulated heavy rainfall in the Swiss Farming System and 
Tillage experiment revealed that organic farming decreased mean 
sediment delivery compared to conventional farming by 30% (0.54 t 
ha-1 h-1) (Seitz, et al., 2019).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-018-0545-
z#ref-CR12.
    \2\ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-018-0545-z.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Key Methods of Regenerative Organic Agriculture:

     Utilizing Organic no-till: Organic no-till practices 
            are central to maintaining or improving soil quality and 
            vitality in the regenerative organic model. The practice is 
            both a technique and a tool to reduce tillage and improve 
            soil organic matter.

     Utilizing the Roller-Crimper: Employing the roller-
            crimper tractor attachment is an indispensable tool to 
            avoid destructive practices to terminate cover crops, such 
            as tillage and pesticide application. The roller-crimper, 
            which was developed at Rodale Institute, reduces soil 
            erosion, improves soil health, and increases biodiversity. 
            Of note, Rodale Institute posts the roller-crimper's 
            blueprints online. Those blueprints can be accessed at no 
            financial cost.

     Managing Weeds with Cover Crops: Cover Crops are 
            critical to weed management in a regenerative organic 
            farming system as they actively suppress weed growth and 
            enhance soil health. Cover crops also protect soil from 
            erosion and nutrient loss and play an important role in 
            carbon drawdown.

   Key Benefits:

     Drought Resistant Crops: Crop yields under organic 
            farming systems are more likely to be resilient to extreme 
            weather. Rodale Institute's long-running Farming Systems 
            Trial found that in drought years, yields were consistently 
            higher in organic systems. For example, in one case, 
            organic corn yields were found to be 28% to 34% higher than 
            conventional. Part of the organic system's resilience is 
            linked to the increased soil organic matter that has 
            greater moisture holding capacity during a drought episode.

     Greater Economic Returns for U.S. Farmers: Research 
            conducted by Rodale Institute has proven that organic 
            systems earn three to six times greater profit for American 
            farmers. In addition, Flanagan State Bank found from 2016-
            2020, organic incomes were 163% higher than conventional 
            incomes for corn, 145% higher for soybeans, 182% higher for 
            wheat, and 103% higher for hay. Organic systems also use 
            45% less energy than conventional systems and improve a 
            farm's soil health by building organic soil matter over 
            time.

     Less Reliance on Off-Farm Inputs, Especially Synthetic 
            Fertilizers: Regenerative organic farmers are less 
            vulnerable to foreign supply chain disruptions and price 
            shocks in the agricultural commodities market as they don't 
            use off-farm inputs as much as conventional farmers.

     Higher Quality Food for Consumers: Industrial 
            agriculture has depleted soils and bred plants for size and 
            rate of growth--not nutrition--in a narrow pursuit of ever-
            increasing yields. Additionally, plants are more often 
            exposed to stressful situations in organic systems due to 
            the lack of pesticides use which can lead to increased 
            biosynthesis and accumulation of natural defense 
            substances, such as phenolic compounds \3\ (Faller & 
            Fialho, 2009).\4\ The food consumed today also contains 
            less protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin, and 
            vitamin C than food produced just a half-century ago. 
            Results from Rodale Institute's projects show that all 
            essential amino acids (except lysine, histidine and 
            methionine) were greater in organic oat grains compared to 
            conventional grains (Omondi, et al., 2021).*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/food-science/phenolic-
compound.
    \4\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0924224417303679?.
    * Editor's note: there was no embedded hyperlink for this in-text 
reference.

     Predictable Food Prices: Relying on the regenerative 
            organic farming model and its domestic inputs can insulate 
            American producers from the unstable costs conventional 
            farming is subject to due to its reliance on foreign 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            agricultural commodities.

     Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Research by Rodale 
            Institute shows that after 40 years of management, soil 
            organic matter levels were significantly higher in an 
            organic manure-based system than in the conventional 
            systems studied, which reflects greater carbon 
            sequestration in the organic system (FST 40 year report).*
IV. Farmer Choice: The U.S. Government Must Level the ``Farmer Playing 
        Field''
    Crop insurance is at odds with organic farming. Current federally 
backed crop insurance policies create disincentives for American 
farmers seeking to transition to and operate under a regenerative 
organic model. But it doesn't have to be this way.
A. U.S. Taxpayers and Crop Insurance
    Established following the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and expanded 
since, the U.S. crop insurance program is operated by the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation (FCIC), which is wholly owned by the Federal 
Government and managed by USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA). RMA 
oversees 14 private sector insurance companies, which issue more than 
one million policies covering nearly 375 million acres of U.S. farm and 
ranch land.
    Under the program, participating farmers receive compensation when 
farms are ravaged by disasters such as fires, storms, and drought. 
Indemnity payments are also made to farmers when their yields fall 
below expectations or if oversupply drives down the prices they can 
charge. And all of this is underwritten by taxpayer-funded subsidies, 
which help farmers purchase crop insurance at an annual cost to 
taxpayers of nearly $10 billion.
B. The Bad News About Crop Insurance Policies
    Today's crop insurance programs are impeding widespread adoption of 
regenerative organic farming methods.
    That's because, too often, crop insurance policies provide no 
incentive to farmers who use regenerative organic methods, such as 
cover crops and reduced tilling. In fact, the premiums they are charged 
are typically not discounted, even though the risk of droughts and 
flooding is substantially lower on regenerative organic land. Likewise, 
today's policies do not incentivize farmers to use regenerative organic 
methods, even though they significantly stabilize yields from season to 
season. Instead, the crop insurance program effectively underwrites 
conventional intensive farming, causing harm to topsoil, waterways, the 
climate, population health, and--most paradoxically--the long-term 
financial health of farmers themselves.
C. The Good News About Crop Insurance Policies
    USDA's newly established $300 million Organic Transition Initiative 
offers the potential for issuance of a wider array of crop insurance 
policies that recognize and provide appropriate coverage for the risks 
faced in regenerative organic agriculture. Similarly, the crop 
insurance premium subsidies recently announced by Secretary Vilsack for 
the Transitional and Organic Grower Assistance (TOGA) Program is much-
needed to support climate-smart farmers and ranchers.
    Crop insurance is far from being the most headline-grabbing aspect 
of USDA's broad portfolio, but the fact that most producers already 
rely on crop insurance coverage makes it an unparalleled tool for 
effecting sweeping change. With USDA and Congress' engagement, RMA will 
make more climate-smart policies available to America's farmers and 
ranchers. And this single step has the power to do more than any other 
to modernize agricultural practices, improve the nutritional content of 
food, and foster repair of the environment.
D. 2023 Farm Bill
    Regenerative organic agriculture demands planning, resources, and 
investment. The 2023 Farm Bill should include priorities that support 
American farmers pursuing regenerative organic models.
    These priorities include:

  1.  Allocating funding for cover crop utilization by farmers.

  2.  Allocating additional funding for the USDA's Organic Transition 
            Initiative, which provides technical and financial 
            assistance to farmers during the 36 month organic 
            transition period.

  3.  Establishing a Strategic Plan with key stakeholders for data 
            collection, policy creation, monitoring, reporting, and 
            standards development to better serve farmers adopting 
            regenerative organic models.
V. Conclusion
    Regenerative organic agriculture can improve soil health and the 
economics of farming and put the U.S. on a path towards food 
independence. With proper support at the Federal level, American 
farmers can be encouraged to adopt the practices that achieve these 
goals.
    Thank you for offering me the opportunity to testify before the 
Committee. I look forward to your questions.

    The Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Moyer, for your excellent 
testimony.
    And now, Mr. Nygren, you are now recognized for your 5 
minutes. And welcome to our Committee.

 STATEMENT OF STEVE NYGREN, FOUNDER & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 
                SERENBE, CHATTAHOOCHEE HILLS, GA

    Mr. Nygren. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 
Thompson, and Members of the Committee, for the honor of 
addressing you today. My name is Steve Nygren, founder and CEO 
of Serenbe located in Chattahoochee Hills, Georgia's 13th 
Congressional District.
    I want to talk about soil health and how it leads to 
economic vitality. My written testimony will expand on these 
points. It starts with the local farm and farmers. The 
recognition that we need healthy soil should compel us to 
recognize our American agrarian economy and what drives it, 
starting with how we inhabit the landscape. We must produce 
food locally, implement policies and programs that support this 
local production, and prioritize regenerative organic farming.
    You are aware of the shrinking number of U.S. farmers and 
the conversion to industrial agriculture, replacing the local 
family farm. What we do not talk about is the effect on the 
local agrarian economy. Industrial ag dollars do not support 
the local bank, the local hardware store, or the main street 
merchants in the same way that local farmers do. Rural America 
has been stripped of its identity and economic stability. We 
are now feeling some of the negative results of this drastic 
shift and consolidation.
    The good news is there has been a renewed interest in local 
farms, markets, and foods that continues to accelerate. The 
pandemic has also placed a spotlight on food production, the 
increased health issues our country faces, and how people are 
dramatically reassessing where they live and what they eat.
    In 1950, Georgia produced 80 percent of the food consumed 
in the state. Today, it is a fraction of that amount. We are 
consuming products imported from around the world and eating 
food grown on U.S. soil with detrimental chemicals based on 
relationships with foreign governments. This increased 
dependence on a global supply chain for our food can make the 
difficulties of the pandemic seem mild should there be a 
disruption in our global industrial food system.
    I grew up on a generational farm in Colorado. Following 
college, I became a hospitality entrepreneur. For those of you 
who worked on the Hill in the 1980s and early 1990s, you might 
remember the Peasant on Pennsylvania. During this period, I 
bought a historic farm just outside Atlanta in an area that 
would later become Chairman Scott's district, enabling my young 
children to experience in a small way the rural life I had 
grown up with.
    Recognizing the need for investments in local community and 
our farmlands, in 2000 I drove an effort to save the rural 
landscape we had come to love with 500 local neighbors. We 
formed a county overlay for 40,000 acres, saving 70 percent of 
the land for agriculture. We passed historic legislation for 
Georgia and in 2004 broke ground on Serenbe, a community model 
of balanced growth with a working organic farm at its center. 
Serenbe is an example of how agriculture can be incorporated 
within developments as a financial and lifestyle advantage.
    For $34 a week, 75 families receive a farm share that 
includes their produce for the week, hundreds more reached 
through our farmers' market and local restaurants. And to 
combat food waste, our farm has opened the first citywide 
compost station. Serenbe stands as a model of the agri-hood 
movement.
    I may have built a town, but Will Harris of White Oak 
Pastures has saved one. Bluffton, Georgia, has gone from a 
ghost town to a destination in 1 decade. His transition to 
regenerative cattle farming now employs 180 people with more 
than $100,000 in weekly payroll. White Oak is the largest 
private employer in the county, restoring an economy and 
changing the lives of one small rural community.
    Today, we need programs in place to support and promote the 
growing market for locally produced food grown in chemical-free 
soil. Small farms and regenerative organic farmers need an 
equal opportunity. They need supporting policies, designated 
dollars that will reach the hardworking farmers in the fields 
such as Matthew Raiford, who is with us today. Think of soil 
health as a platform to bring our small towns back to life. 
When farming and soil is rescued, then many other businesses 
and value-added production will follow.
    Soil health is imperative to American health. Through the 
farm bill and the direct actions of this Committee, you can 
affect real change for our farmers, our food systems, our 
economy, and our communities. I urge you to fund organizations 
that will directly impact small and historically marginalized 
farmers working to produce regenerative organic foods. Thank 
you for your time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Nygren follows:]

Prepared Statement of Steve Nygren, Founder & Chief Executive Officer, 
                    Serenbe, Chattahoochee Hills, GA
    Thank you to Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members 
of the Committee for the honor to address you today.
    My name is Steve Nygren, Founder & CEO of Serenbe, a 20 year old 
community located in Chattahoochee Hills, in Georgia's 13th District. I 
want to talk about soil health and how it can lead to economic 
vitality--my written testimony will expand on these points.
    It starts with the local farm and farmers. It leads to the physical 
and economic health of our citizens and our planet.
    The recognition that we need healthy soil should compel us to 
reorganize our American agrarian economy and what drives it--starting 
with how we inhabit the landscape. We must produce food locally, 
implement policies and programs that support this local production, and 
prioritize regenerative organic farming.
    You are very aware of the shrinking number of U.S. farmers and the 
conversion to industrial agriculture, replacing the family farm. The 
U.S. lost \2/3\ of farms during the 25 years period from 1945-1970. 
What we don't talk about is the damage to the local agrarian economy. 
Industrial ag dollars do not support the local banks, the local 
hardware stores, or the main street merchants in the same way that 
local farmers do. Prior to this Industrialization, every rural 
community processed its farm production locally. These foods were also 
consumed locally. Every farm community had an abattoir and butcher, a 
grist mill, a creamery, a vegetable packing shed, and all other 
necessary infrastructure to maintain a local foodshed. Farmers strove 
to increase the value of their production by adding as much quality as 
they could. In essence, they were competing against each other in their 
local market. After the Centralization, the goal was to merely meet 
``minimum standards'' and accept commodity prices for it. Rural America 
has been stripped of its identity and economic stability. And it 
doesn't end on the country roads but bleeds into the suburbs and urban 
centers.
Farms, land in farms, and average acres per farm, 1850-2021
Million farms, billion acres, or 100 acres per farm

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


          Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, 
        National Agricultural Statistics Service, Censuses of 
        Agriculture (through 2017) and Farms and Land in Farms: 2021 
        Summary (February 2022).

    We are now feeling some of the negative results of this drastic 
shift and consolidation.
    The good news is there has been a renewed interest in local farms, 
markets and foods that continues to accelerate. The pandemic has also 
placed a spotlight on food production, the increased health issues our 
country is facing and how people are dramatically [reassessing] where 
they live and what they eat.
    In 1950, Georgia produced over 80% of the food consumed in the 
state.\1\ Today it is a fraction of that amount. We are consuming 
products imported from around the world and eating food grown on U.S. 
soil with detrimental chemicals based on relationships with foreign 
governments. This increased dependence on a global supply chain for our 
food could make the difficulties of the pandemic seem mild--should 
there be a disruption to our global industrial food system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Sanford H. Bederman. Southeastern Geographer Vol. 10, No. 2, A 
Special Issue on Agriculture in the South (November 1970) (https://
www.jstor.org/stable/i40182694), pp. 72-82 (11 pages) Published By: 
University of North Carolina Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I grew up on a generational family farm in Colorado. Following 
college I entered a different segment of the food industry as a 
hospitality entrepreneur opening restaurants across the county. For 
those of you who worked on the Hill in the 1980s and early 1990s, you 
may remember my restaurant, the Peasant on Pennsylvania. During this 
period, I bought a historic farm just outside of Atlanta--in an area 
that would later become Chairman Scott's district--enabling my young 
children to experience in a small way the rural life I had growing up.
    Recognizing the need for investment in the local community and our 
farmlands, in 2000, I drove an effort to save the rural landscape we 
had come to love with 500 neighboring landowners. We formed a county 
overlay for 40,000 acres saving 70% of the land for agriculture. In 
2003, we passed Transfer Development Rights (TDR) \2\ legislation for 
Georgia and in 2004 broke ground on Serenbe, as a community model of 
balanced growth \3\ with a working organic farm at its center, Serenbe 
Farms.\4\ Serenbe is an example of how agriculture can be incorporated 
within developments, as a financial and lifestyle advantage. For $34/
week, 75 families receive a farm share that includes their produce for 
the week. Hundreds more are reached through our farmers market, local 
restuarants--and to [combat] food waste, our farm has opened the first 
citywide compost station. Americans throw away about 25% of the food 
they purchase for at-home consumption.\5\ The Serenbe model and the 
emergence of the Agrihood \6\ movement is replacing the indulgence in 
the golf course communities of the 1980s and 1990s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Georgia Planning. Transfer of Development Rights. April 23, 
2007. https://georgiaplanning.org/student_reports/2007/13--
TDR%20and%20Chatt%20Hill/CHC_TDR_re
port.pdf.
    \3\ Serenbe. https://www.serenbe.com Accessed September 11, 2022.
    \4\ Serenbe Farms. https://serenbefarms.com Accessed September 11, 
2022.
    \5\ American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture's Food and Farm 
Facts book (2021 edition) https://www.agfoundation.org/resources/food-
and-farm-facts-2021.
    \6\ Urban Land Institute. Agrihoods: Cultivating Best Practices. 
2018. https://2os2f877tnl1dvtmc3wy0aq1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Agri
hoods-Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2040 Farms Under Threat analysis from American [Farmland] Trust 
(AFT) mapped development scenarios for every state in the U.S. If 
recent trends continue, 798,400 acres of Georgia's farmland will be 
paved over, fragmented, or converted to uses that jeopardize 
agriculture. That's 7%. And the equivalent of losing 7,200 farms, $756 
million in farm output and 10,700 jobs.\7\ This speaks to not only the 
loss of the most productive versatile and resilient soils, it points 
out the loss of farms, farm output, farm jobs. These are compounded by 
the inland migration that will result from coastal flooding. We can 
slash conversion, save farmland and safeguard the future of agriculture 
and the environment by choosing compact development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ American Farmland Trust. Farms Under Threat. 2022 
www.farmland.org/farmsunderthreat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The local regenerative organic farm is an economic solution. I may 
have built a town but Will Harris of White Oak Pastures, has saved one. 
Bluffton, Georgia has gone from a ghost town to a destination in a 
decade. His transition to regenerative cattle farming \8\ now employs 
180 with more than $100,000 in weekly payroll--White Oak is the largest 
private employer in the county restoring the economy and changing lives 
in one small rural community.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Little, Amanda. Bloomberg. The Biggest Ideas in Farming Today 
are Also The Oldest. March, 5, 2021. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/
articles/2021-05-15/the-biggest-ideas-in-farming-today-are-also-
theoldest?.
    \9\ White Oak Pastures. Our [Transition]. https://
whiteoakpastures.com/pages/our-transition Accessed September 11, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many people are interested in returning to the land and there is a 
growing market for locally produced food grown in soil without 
chemicals. But we need programs in place to support and promote these 
efforts. Small farms and organic regenerative farmers need an equal 
opportunity. They need supportive policies with designated dollars that 
reach hard working farmers in the fields. A few examples of Georgia 
organizations that support farmers to thrive by providing funds and 
programs are Georgia Organics and The Conservation Fund.
    The member-supported, nonprofit organization, Georgia Organics, has 
been rooted in providing direct support to small and organic farmers 
across our state since the 1970s. It has more than doubled the number 
of organic farms in the state through its organic transition campaign--
bringing nearly 3,000 more acres under organic management. They 
prioritize direct outreach to farmers and also provide advice and 
assistance with paperwork and organic requirements. They pair their 
organic transition work with a farmer Accelerator Program that coaches 
farmers on business planning, recordkeeping, and other skills that 
support financial stability for farms. They point to staff training on 
the organic certification process and maintaining close relationships 
with producers as two key elements of their success.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Georgia Organics. Farmers Services: Accelerator Program. 
https://farmerservices.squarespace.com/accelerator Accessed September 
11, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2018, with financial support from the USDA Office of 
Partnerships and Public Engagement and the Bradley-Turner Foundation, 
Georgia Organics led a 1 year project to develop a supply chain and 
marketplace around Certified Organic peanuts that could support small 
farmers. One of their Accelerator Program participants, Sedrick Rowe, 
is building the organic peanut sector in Georgia, one farmer at a 
time.\11\ Rowe worked with Georgia Organics to experiment with organic 
peanut production and build the Georgia Organic Peanut Association.\12\ 
He entices more farmers to transition by showing that organic peanut 
production is both healthier and more profitable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Black Farmer Network. Sedrick Rowe Organic Farmer. https://
blackfarmersnetwork.com/sedrick-rowe-rowe-organic-farm/ Accessed 
September 11, 2022.
    \12\ Georgia Peanut Tour. Growing Peanuts for The Organic Market. 
https://georgiapeanuttour.com/2019/09/growing-peanuts-for-the-organic-
market/ Accessed September 11, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Conservation Fund is working to secure farmland with its 
Working Farms Fund (WFF), to create patient pathways to [affordable] 
land ownership and build wealth for a diverse community of next 
generation farmers.\13\ In the 2021-2022 year they were able to save 
eight Georgia farms across 705 acres, securing $5.9M in land, 
supporting 33 farmers and $100k was invested directly in on-farm 
infrastructure. Plus 75% of the farm business are minority/immigrant/
women-owned.\14\ WFF partnerships include Common Market, a distributor 
of [sustainable], local farm foods helping farmers connect to new 
markets by providing access to a wide variety of wholesale and retail 
customers and connecting them with [institutions] and communities 
throughout the Southeast.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ The Conservation Fund. Working Farms Fund. https://
www.conservationfund.org/our-work/working-farms-fund Accessed September 
11, 2022.
    \14\ Conservation Fund. Summer Update 2022. https://
www.conservationfund.org/images/WFF22-Summer-Update-Brochure-
081722.pdf.
    \15\ The Common Market. https://www.thecommonmarket.org Accessed 
September 11, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Think of soil health as the platform to bring our small towns back 
to life. This foundational element can be local networks of 
agriculture, supply and retail. When farming and the soil is rescued, 
then many other businesses and value-added production will follow. 
After a while, we'll have fully functioning towns again, built on 
social and economic roles that give people a reason to think that life 
is worth living.
    Soil health is imperative to America's health.
    Through the farm bill and the direct actions of this Committee, you 
can affect real change for our farmers, our food systems, our economy 
and our communities. I thank the Committee for their time, and urge you 
to fund organizations that will directly impact small and historically 
marginalized farmers working to produce regenerative organic foods. In 
2020, only 1% of producers of color received EQIP and CSP funding.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ American Farmland Trust. 2023 Farm Bill Recommendations. July 
2022. https://farmland.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/
AFT_2023_Farm_Bill_Recommendations_Summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Supporting innovative farmers and ranchers in adopting conservation 
practices is key to adapting to and mitigating climate change while 
also improving water and air quality, soil health, and even 
profitability. Farm bill conservation programs provide cost share and 
technical assistance (TA) to help producers implement these practices, 
but these programs often need more funding and staff to address service 
gaps and fulfill demand. More must be done to equitably scale up long-
term adoption of conservation and climate-smart practices by farmer-
leaders, and to set up systems of support to help others build the same 
resilience. In the 2023 Farm Bill, AFT recommends that Congress:
Increase Conservation Program Funding
   Increase funding to meet demand for financial support and 
        TA, especially for practices that improve soil health, 
        contribute to climate and water resilience, and reduce GHG 
        emissions.

   Expand funding set asides for historically marginalized 
        producers.
Support Producers in Long-Term Adoption of Soil Health and Climate-
        Smart Practices
   Increase funding for the EQIP Conservation Incentive 
        Contracts program and focus these longer 5-10 year contracts on 
        soil health practices to mitigate transition risks.

   Direct NRCS to continue to increase TA capacity, fill 
        service gaps, and streamline programs to address bottlenecks, 
        reduce producer wait times, and improve implementation.

   Improve the Technical Service Provider program to enable 
        additional qualified experts to provide TA.

   Establish a peer-to-peer program that offers CSP awardees 
        and experienced EQIP awardees training and financial incentives 
        to mentor other producers interested in trying out conservation 
        practices.

   Increase funding for Conservation Innovation Grants and 
        Trials and soil health demonstrations. Prioritize applications 
        that measure soil health improvements and carbon sequestration.
Help Small-Scale and Historically Marginalized Producers Access USDA 
        Programs
   Increase support for small-scale farms by creating an Office 
        of Small Farms, by piloting a tiered payment rate system that 
        increases EQIP and CSP payments for small farms, and by 
        tailoring application processes to small-scale growers' needs.

   Fund Community-Based Navigators to help historically 
        marginalized producers apply for NRCS programs.

   Support NRCS in continuing its examination of potential 
        inequities that may disadvantage producer participation based 
        on farm size, race, income, or gender through the current 
        application process, program ranking criteria, or payment rate-
        setting process.
Improve NRCS Program Application Processes and Increase Transparency
   Direct NRCS to streamline the application process for 
        practices that address multiple resource concerns, especially 
        practices that help farmers adapt to and/or mitigate climate 
        change.

   Direct NRCS to regularly share additional aggregated 
        information on program applicants and awardees based on race, 
        gender, farm size, income level, and funded practices.

   Direct USDA to regularly share additional information on 
        program outcomes, including GHG reductions, carbon 
        sequestration, water quality, and soil health.

    These specific programs and recommendations were pulled from the 
American Farmland Trust ``Building Resilience in a Change World: AFT's 
2023 Farm Bill Recommendations''.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ American Farmland Trust. 2023 Farm Bill Recommendations. July 
2022. https://farmland.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/
AFT_2023_Farm_Bill_Recommendations_Summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additional legislation to highlight is the Agriculture Resilience 
Act,\18\ that supports soil health through crop insurance, EQIP, CSP 
and state assistance. Authored by folks at NSAC (National Sustainable 
Agriculture Coalition), this legislation is currently looking for 
cosponsors, it is a marker bill that we hope gets adopted into the farm 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. Agriculture 
Resilience Act. April 2021. https://sustainableagriculture.net/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/ARA-Section-by-Section-2021_FI
NAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I look forward to your questions.

    The Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Nygren, for your excellent 
testimony.
    And now, Mr. McCarty, please begin when you are ready.

 STATEMENT OF KEN McCARTY, PARTNER, McCARTY FAMILY FARMS LLC, 
                           COLBY, KS

    Mr. McCarty. Good morning, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 
Thompson, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing 
me to join the conversation today as you prepare for the 
upcoming farm bill. I am Ken McCarty, and I look forward to 
discussing what regenerative agriculture means to McCarty 
Family Farms.
    My three brothers and I are fourth-generation dairy 
farmers, originally from a small farm in Bradford County, 
Pennsylvania, where my family farmed for more than 100 years. 
In the late 1990s, my parents began searching for opportunities 
that would allow my brothers and I to continue our family's 
farm. Eventually, that led us to Rexford, Kansas, where we have 
gradually grown our business to include five dairies, three 
dairies in northwest Kansas, one in southwest Nebraska, and 
most recently a partnership dairy with another fourth-
generation family farm in Mercer County, Ohio. We also own and 
operate a milk condensing plant at the Rexford Farms that 
reduces the freight to move our finished products by 75 percent 
while reclaiming 65,000 gallons of fresh water every day. We 
are currently in the process of building a state-of-the-art 
dairy farm near the original Rexford Dairy and expanding the 
processing capacity of the milk plant.
    Continually improving our farm management and implementing 
sustainable farming practices is key to the success and growth 
of our business. Every day, we strive to create wholesome dairy 
foods in a responsible and sustainable manner, and we are 
deeply committed to regenerative ag practices and have been 
recognized as a leader in that space. For example, McCarty 
Family Farms is Validus DairyCARE-certified, FARM Program-
verified, and a Certified B Corp. And for the past 2 years, we 
have been recognized as a best-for-the-world B Corp in the 
environmental impact area. We have also received multiple 
awards from the U.S. Dairy Innovation Center, National Milk 
Producers Federation, IDFA, the State of Kansas, and others. 
Also, since 2016, we have worked annually with sustainable 
environmental consultants to evaluate and verify our ecosystem 
impact, which is reported publicly on our website.
    This approach to transparency and third-party validation 
helps us market our milk and creates a foundation for 
sustainable business growth. As an example, we sell most of our 
milk to Danone North American, another Certified B Corp and a 
leading global food and beverage company who processes our milk 
into products such as Dannon, Oikos, Octavia, and Light & Fit 
yogurts.
    Regenerative agriculture may be a buzzword for some, but 
for McCarty Family Farms, it is a holistic mindset that 
encourages us to consider a multitude of practices across our 
farms, especially those associated with core values like soil 
health, resource conservation, animal welfare, and the welfare 
of our team members, families, and communities. Practices such 
as cover crops, reduced tillage, improved nutrient management, 
and excellent animal care practices under one coherent vision 
can optimize the performance and sustainability of our farms.
    In general, regenerative agriculture should provide 
measurable economic, social, and environmental benefits that 
help improve rather than just sustain our ecosystems. And we 
have been able to demonstrate just that. For example, water 
conservation technologies have helped to save millions of 
gallons of fresh water every year while reducing our input 
costs. Enhancements to animal welfare has helped ensure more 
milk production with fewer resources consumed.
    For McCarty Family Farms and our partners, regenerative 
agriculture must move beyond a qualitative concept towards 
making decisions based on quantitative outcomes. By 
benchmarking and tracking our environmental and economic 
performance, we can better understand the impacts and make 
better business decisions. In general, these regenerative 
efforts have helped demonstrate that dairy farming and all of 
agriculture can be a part of the solution for our climate and 
our economy while, of course, helping to feed the world.
    At times, USDA programs are helpful to incentivize new 
ideas and reduce up-front costs when a clear short-term ROI 
isn't possible. And while we know regenerative practices 
produce economic benefits in the long-term such as increased 
efficiency and resilient yields and improved market 
opportunities, up-front costs can still be a barrier to 
implementation. Traditional ag lending looks year-to-year, 
while regenerative agriculture takes a longer-term view, which 
is why conservation funding and incentives are crucial to 
greater adoption.
    When considering USDA conservation programs, budgets are 
just one barrier to greater adoption. Challenges such as EQIP 
backlogs, rigid contract structures, cumbersome applications, 
and burdensome follow-up reporting create additional strain. We 
work with our partners, including Danone, to explore different 
financing and incentive models. USDA programs such as the 
Conservation Innovation Grant for On-Farm Trials allowed us to 
work with non-Federal partners such as Danone, Sustainable 
Environmental Consultants, and National Fish and Wildlife 
Foundation to finance scalable regenerative management.
    By considering the applications and contract costs to 
farmers and allowing farmers to work with familiar partners 
rather than just USDA alone, I believe programs can support 
more farms investing in regenerative agriculture. We need a 
simpler, more streamlined process to engage with USDA and other 
stakeholders to implement a wider variety of regenerative 
innovations.
    Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to 
answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McCarty follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Ken McCarty, Partner, McCarty Family Farms LLC, 
                               Colby, KS
    Good morning, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, Members of 
the Committee. Thank you for allowing me to join the conversation today 
as you prepare for the upcoming farm bill. I'm Ken McCarty and I look 
forward to discussing what regenerative agriculture means to McCarty 
Family Farms
Introduction
    My three brothers and I are fourth generation dairy farmers 
originally from a small farm in Bradford County Pennsylvania where my 
family farmed for more than 100 years. In the late 1990s my parents 
began searching for opportunities that would allow my brothers and I to 
continue our family's farm. Eventually that led us to Rexford, Kansas 
where we have gradually grown our business to five dairies. Three 
dairies in Northwest Kansas, one in Southwest Nebraska and most 
recently a partnership dairy with another fourth-generation farm in 
Mercer County Ohio. We also own and operate a milk condensing plant at 
the Rexford farm that reduces the freight to move our finished products 
by 75% while reclaiming 65,000 gallons of fresh water per day. We are 
currently in the process of building a state-of-the-art dairy farm near 
the original Rexford dairy and expanding the processing capacity of the 
milk plant.
    Continually improving our farm management and implementing 
sustainable farming practices is key to the success and growth of our 
business. Every day we strive to create wholesome dairy foods in a 
responsible and sustainable manner, and we are deeply committed to 
regenerative agricultural practices and have been recognized as a 
leader in that space.
    For example, McCarty Family Farms is Validus DairyCARE certified, 
FARM Program verified and are a Certified B Corp and for the past 2 
years, we have been recognized as a ``Best For the World'' B Corp in 
the Environmental Impact area. We have also received multiple awards 
from the U.S. Dairy Innovation Center, National Milk Producers 
Federation, IDFA, The State of Kansas, and others. Also, since 2016, we 
have worked annually with Sustainable Environmental Consultants to 
evaluate and verify our ecosystem impact which is reported publicly on 
our website.
    This approach to transparency and third-party validation helps us 
market our milk and creates a foundation for sustainable business 
growth. As an example, we sell most of our milk to Danone North 
America--another certified B Corp and a leading global food and 
beverage company--who processes our milk into products such as Dannon, 
Oikos, Activia and Light & Fit yogurts.
What is Regenerative Agriculture?
    Regenerative Agriculture may be a buzz word for some, but for 
McCarty Family Farms it is a holistic mindset that encourages us to 
consider a multitude of practices across our farms; especially those 
associated with core values like soil health, resource conservation, 
animal welfare, and the welfare of our team members, families, and 
communities. Practices such as cover crops, reduced tillage, improved 
nutrient management, and excellent animal care practices under one 
coherent vision, can optimize the performance and sustainability of our 
farms.
What are the benefits of Regenerative Agriculture?
    In general, regenerative agriculture should provide measurable 
economic, social, and environmental benefits that help improve, rather 
than just sustain our ecosystems and we have been able to demonstrate 
just that. For example, water conservation technologies have helped us 
save millions of gallons of fresh water every year while reducing our 
input costs. Enhancements to animal welfare have helped ensure more 
milk production with fewer resources consumed.
    For McCarty Family Farm and our partners, regenerative agriculture 
must move beyond a qualitative concept towards making decisions based 
on quantitative outcomes. By benchmarking and tracking our 
environmental and economic performance we can better understand the 
impacts and make better business decisions
    In general, these regenerative efforts have helped demonstrate that 
dairy farming, and all of agriculture can be a part of the solution for 
our climate and our economy, while of course helping to feed the world.
Policy Recommendations
    At times, USDA programs are helpful to incentivize new ideas and 
reduce up-front costs when a clear, short-term ROI isn't possible and 
while we know regenerative practices produce economic benefits in the 
long term such as increased efficiency, resilient yields, and improved 
market opportunities, up-front costs can still be a barrier to 
implementation. Traditional ag. lending looks year-to-year, while 
regenerative farming takes a longer-term view which is why conservation 
funding and incentives are crucial greater adoption.
    When considering USDA conservation programs, budgets, are just one 
barrier to greater adoption. Challenges such as EQIP backlogs, rigid 
contract structures, cumbersome applications and burdensome follow up 
reporting create additional strain.
    We work with our partners, including Danone, to explore different 
financing and incentive models. USDA programs such as the Conservation 
Innovation Grant for On-Farm Trials allowed us to work with non-Federal 
partners such as Danone, Sustainable Environmental Consultants and 
National Fish & Wildlife Foundation to finance scalable regenerative 
management. By considering the applications and contract costs to 
farmers and allowing farmers to work with familiar partners rather than 
just USDA, I believe programs can support more farms investing in 
regenerative agriculture. We need a simpler more streamlined processes 
to engage with USDA and other stakeholders to implement a wider variety 
of regenerative innovations.
    Thank you for the time today and I look forward to answering your 
questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McCarty, for your excellent 
testimony.
    And now, Mr. Clark, please begin when you are ready.

  STATEMENT OF RICK CLARK, OWNER, FARM GREEN & CLARK LAND AND 
            CATTLE, WILLIAMSPORT, IN; ON BEHALF OF 
                       REGENERATE AMERICA

    Mr. Clark. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, Members 
of the Committee, thank you for having me here today. I am 
absolutely honored.
    My name is Rick Clark. I am a fifth-generation farmer from 
west central Indiana, and we farm about 7,000 acres of row 
crops.
    Folks, this is urgent and it is critical that we have 
bipartisan action on the topic at hand today. I am a 
Republican, and I have spoken to thousands of farmers across 
this country, and not once has my party affiliation come up. 
The witnesses here today do not represent the diversity of 
regenerative farmers and ranchers. We are especially missing 
voices of indigenous leaders and farmers of color. And it is 
critical in this farming journey that you have the support of 
your family, and I am going to tell you, they have my back.
    American farmers are the most productive in the world, but 
we have to acknowledge the condition our soils are in. We are 
in trouble. Five-point-six tons per acre per year of soil are 
leaving our fields. I am not here today to offend the practices 
of any farmer, and we have to understand the heritage and 
history they have. We also need to understand our soil is 
fragile and degrading right in front of our eyes, which leads 
me to why I am here today. Adopting soil health practices can 
slow down and reverse the degradation of soil. I want to leave 
you today with the confidence that regenerative agriculture can 
be incorporated into any farming operation and be far better 
for your bottom line.
    After decades of heavy tillage on our farm, a 1" rain event 
created so much erosion on our farm, I knew it was time to do 
something different. Like thousands of farmers, I started cover 
cropping through EQIP. This is an essential program to increase 
farmers' comfort level of change. In my written testimony, 
there is a photo of my soil and my neighbor's soil just 20 
apart from each other. The difference is astounding. My soils 
have water infiltration rates of 20" per hour, and the 
neighbors have an infiltration rate of \1/2\" of rain per hour. 
Our soils have 1.5 million earthworms per acre; the neighbor's 
farms have nearly zero earthworms.
    So how do we get there? We need to follow the six 
principles of soil health. One, context. This is key. While 
practices change from Texas to Indiana, principles are 
universal. Two, minimize disturbance; three, maximize 
diversity; four, living roots; five, armor the soil; six, 
animal integration.
    Here is a little bit more about our operation. We have not 
used starter fertilizer, seed treatments, fungicides, 
insecticides, pesticides, phosphorus, or potassium in 8 years. 
And to boot we are organic with no tillage. I am far down this 
path, but any farm can start and experience incredible results 
with ecologically and economically, especially with proper 
education and support. And note, it doesn't have to be organic.
    Cover crops are doing more than protecting and building 
soil. On our operation, cover crops have become an offensive 
juggernaut with cereal rye giving us upwards of $435 per acre 
worth of NPK and legume cover crops giving us upwards of $969 
worth of value when terminated with a roller-crimper at 
maturity. Most farmers can't achieve this without tools, 
education, and changes to crop insurance rules that require 
termination well before maturity.
    On our farm, we have currently reduced diesel fuel 
consumption by 50 percent, chemistry and fertility by 100 
percent, and, based on regional input spending averages, we are 
saving $1,957,000 annually.
    Last, our farm is more resilient against flood and drought, 
we are more resilient to supply disruptions, and we have a 
systematic approach that will be economically profitable and 
viable for generations to come. We need to help American 
farmers integrate cover crops into their operation within their 
context. We need to also help American ranchers adopt 
regenerative grazing practices.
    On behalf of Regenerate America Coalition, we are pushing 
to ensure the next farm bill robustly supports regenerative ag. 
We need better education and technical assistance, equitable 
opportunities and access, infrastructure and processing, 
healthy and regionally sourced food, farmland preservation, 
incentives for soil health and risk mitigation.
    Thank you so much for allowing me to speak today. I look 
forward to future hearings and conversations with each of you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Rick Clark, Owner, Farm Green & Clark Land and 
       Cattle, Williamsport, IN; on Behalf of Regenerate America
    Dear Honorable Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members 
of the Committee--thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify 
before you today.
    My name is Rick Clark. I am the owner and operator of Clark Land 
and Cattle, a 7,000 acre regenerative-organic farm near Williamsport, 
Indiana, where we have transitioned from conventional tillage to 100% 
organic no-till and use 100% cover crops and non-chemical termination 
(roller-crimpers) to build soil health and soil organic matter as we 
suppress weeds and sequester carbon. I am a fifth generation family 
farmer. Our family has farmed this land since the 1880s, producing food 
and agricultural products during each generation in what we have 
believed to be the best and most innovative ways that the latest 
science and our personal experience taught us was vital to keeping the 
land healthy and viable to be handed down to the next generation.
    I am honored to be here on behalf of Regenerate America,\1\ where I 
serve as a member of the Farmer Leadership Council. Regenerate America 
is a national, bipartisan coalition of farmers, businesses, nonprofits 
and individuals. Alongside thousands of farmers and ranchers across the 
country, I am asking Congress to make soil health and regenerative 
agriculture a primary focus in the 2023 Farm Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Regenerate America. 2022. https://regenerateamerica.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I want to thank Chairman Scott for having the vision and courage to 
call this hearing today about what I believe is one of the most 
important issues of our time: How will we, as farmers and a nation, 
continue to feed ourselves and our families and neighbors in ways that 
are the least harmful to the land and have the most beneficial impacts 
for recovering our soils and human health?
    I also want to thank Ranking Member G.T. Thompson, who, as a fellow 
farmer not only knows the challenges that farmers face personally, but 
also as someone who is in a critical leadership position, has the 
chance to help farmers transition to better soil health and climate-
smart practices at a time of economic instability and increasing 
threats posed by inclement weather.
    As a registered Republican, I want to say that healthy soil and 
improving our nation's soil resource need not be a political issue. 
Soil health is truly our common ground, and is one of the most 
bipartisan issues I have found as I have transitioned our family's farm 
over the past 13 years and worked with thousands of farmers across the 
country to help them save money and climate-proof their own fields 
through regenerative soil health practices. We cannot afford to make 
soil health a political issue today. This is about helping farmers and 
our nation.
    While it is an incredible honor to be here representing on behalf 
of the regenerative agriculture movement, among such distinguished 
experts, I feel it is important to acknowledge that not any one of us 
portray the breadth and origins of regenerative agriculture. The 
principles and practices that help us rebuild soil health and ecosystem 
function combine indigenous knowledge, adaptive holistic management 
frameworks, and recent discoveries in science and technology; it needs 
all, and is all.
    Many critical voices and perspectives are missing from this hearing 
today. And, might I remind us, that many of these practices and 
principles were utilized by earlier generations of American farmers, 
and many of our parents and grandparents. Farmers and ranchers are, by 
nature, land stewards, however, because of policies and other long-
lasting intentions, such as ``get big or get out'' of the 1970s, our 
practices have been steered away from what is ultimately best for 
farmers and the betterment of the soil.
The State of Our Soils
    In addition to being a farmer, I have had the incredible honor of 
crisscrossing the entirety of this country to train farmers in 
regenerative and biological approaches. Because of this, I have visited 
and seen hundreds of farms in 25 states. While American farmers and 
ranchers are at the heart of this country and are some of the most 
innovative, successful, and productive farmers in the world, I want to 
be crystal clear for a moment to recognize the perilous state of our 
soils--the real wealth of our nation, the foundation of American 
resilience and prosperity. The situation is urgent and must be 
considered as such.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Changing land use, particularly the shift to our modern systems of 
agriculture in the United States and across the world, has been one of 
the biggest drivers of many issues we face today. Through 
mismanagement, our land and our soil are now heavily degraded and in 
many cases barely function, or worse, are completely desertified.
    Right now the majority of American agricultural soils (over 50%) 
are severely degraded.2, 3  We are losing topsoil at a rate 
of 5.6 tons per acre (ten times faster than it is being 
replenished).\4\ Conventional practices have led to the Corn Belt 
completely losing \1/3\ of its topsoil.\5\ This is causing serious 
flooding, drought and soil loss and erosion, and depletion of water 
resources across rural America, leading to a concerning loss of 
biodiversity, significant declines of on farm stability, and is costing 
our farmers $44 billion annually.\6\ One study found lost topsoil in my 
state of Indiana is causing annual losses of $362 million, and 6-9% in 
annual crop yield reductions per county.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/soil-health-
agriculture-trend-usda-000513.
    \3\ The numbers in the United States are mirrored around the world, 
with scientists estimating that some 52% of global agricultural land is 
degraded.
    \4\ https://www.farmprogress.com/soil-health/economics-soil-loss.
    \5\ Thaler, Evan A., Larsen, Isaac J., and Yu, Qian. 2021. The 
extent of soil loss across the US Corn Belt. Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences, 118(8), https://www.pnas.org/content/118/
8/e1922375118.
    \6\ The $44 billion per year includes lost productivity, along with 
sedimentation and eutrophication of water reservoirs according https://
www.farmprogress.com/soil-health/high-cost-soil-erosion. Sartori, et 
al. (2019) estimated the global costs of soil erosion due to water at 
$8 billion annually, reducing global food production by 33.7 million 
tonnes and raising prices by up to 3.5%.
    \7\ Thaler, Evan A., et al. ``The extent of soil loss across the US 
Corn Belt.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is greatly concerning to me, and is a huge problem for food 
security and national security. I want to make clear that it's not just 
a question of carbon or greenhouse gasses. To a large extent, in 
breaking our soils, we've broken the hydrological cycle, carbon storage 
capacity, and nutrient cycle. Much of our land's soil is degraded to 
such a state it is no longer properly functioning, and it will only be 
worsened by climate change.
    Over the past several decades, farmers across the country have 
faced increasingly severe weather events, such as swings between 
drought conditions and sudden, intense rainfalls and windstorms that 
are not only battering crops and profitability for that season, but 
also washing away their long-term profitability with massive erosion 
events that are leaving vast scars on the land across millions of acres 
of farmland.
    Just 2 years ago, on August 10, 2020, the Midwest experienced the 
most expensive thunderstorm in U.S. history, with winds gusting over 
100 miles per hour over a 14 hour period while a derecho traveled over 
770 miles across Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana and Ohio.\8\ These 
winds moved with hurricane force, devastating over $11.5 billion in 
corn and soybean crops across the Midwest and damaging an estimated 14 
million acres of crops in Iowa, and millions more acres across the Corn 
Belt.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Sorace, Stephen, ``Iowa farmers devastated after derecho 
damages 14 million acres of farmland, grain bins'', Fox Business New, 
August 24, 2020. https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/iowa-farmers-
devastated-after-derecho-damages-14-million-acres-of-farmland-grain-
bins.
    \9\ Barreda, Virginia, ``Today marks 2 years since devastating Aug. 
10 derecho slammed Iowa'', Des Moines Register, August 10, 2022. 
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/weather/2022/08/10/iowa-
weather-two-years-since-derecho-blew-across-state/10286537002/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These storms are both a cause and a consequence of soil erosion. 
This spring, the derecho that ripped through the Midwest caused an 
estimated 3-12 tons of lost soil per acre (1 ton is approximately equal 
to a pickup truck bed full of soil) on South Dakota farms on the day 
the storm hit.\10\ The maximum amount farmers in the region can lose 
before it impacts their production levels is 5 tons per acre per 
year.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Gewin, Virginia. June 6, 2022. ``A Wild, Windy Spring Is 
Creating a Soil Erosion Nightmare for Farmers''. Civil Eats. https://
civileats.com/2022/06/06/a-wild-windy-spring-is-creating-a-soil-
erosion-nightmare-for-farmers/.
    \11\ Gewin, Virginia. June 6, 2022. ``A Wild, Windy Spring Is 
Creating a Soil Erosion Nightmare for Farmers''. Civil Eats. https://
civileats.com/2022/06/06/a-wild-windy-spring-is-creating-a-soil-
erosion-nightmare-for-farmers/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As these extreme weather events occur more regularly, now is the 
time to invest in helping farmers climate-proof their fields, increase 
resilience, and build soil health, rather than continuing to pay out 
billions of dollars in disaster assistance. Agriculture is one of the 
few sectors that can not only reduce its emissions but with the right 
management practices, can be emissions negative. Failure to act will 
have a catastrophic impact on our ability to grow food to feed 
ourselves and other nations and will have a significant and 
increasingly negative impact on our economy over the coming decades.
The State of Farm Economics
    Just as farmers and ranchers are needing to transition to better 
soil health and regenerative farming practices, current market and 
policy conditions impede the process or make it nearly impossible, 
significantly harming our nation's ability to meet present and future 
challenges of climate change.
    Today, our farmers are facing unprecedented challenges. Record high 
farm input costs, short supply of fertilizers, price inflation, and 
supply chain disruptions from the pandemic and war in Ukraine are 
squeezing already razor-thin margins and jeopardizing farmer's 
livelihoods. Fertilizer prices have risen 300% since 2021.\12\ 
According to Farm Progress: ``Since 2020, all nitrogen fertilizers are 
now more than double in price: anhydrous is up by 131% and urea by 
110%. Potash is up by 120%. In October of 2021 alone, the price of 
anhydrous fertilizer jumped 26% from the previous month to levels not 
seen since 2008.'' \13\ This year alone, nitrogen fertilizer, which 
accounts for more than 50% of the commercial fertilizer used by 
farmers, is expected to see price increases of more than 80% from the 
previous year.\14\ This is forcing farmers to decide between planting 
fewer acres or selling out to keep from going into foreclosure, and 
lower supplies of commodities means increased prices for consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Campbell, Lindsay, ``Farmers Struggle to Keep Up With the 
Rising Costs of Fertilizer: Fertilizer prices have skyrocketed as much 
as 300 percent since early 2021. Is there any relief in sight?'', 
Modern Farmer, March 2, 2022. https://modernfarmer.com/2022/03/
fertilizer-prices/.
    \13\ Fatka, Jacqui, ``DOJ investigation sought for fertilizer price 
hikes'', Farm Progress, December 9, 2021. https://www.farmprogress.com/
farm-policy/doj-investigation-sought-fertilizer-price-hikes.
    \14\ Carlson, Claire, ``Skyrocketing Fertilizer Prices Gouge Farmer 
Profits, Groups Blame Consolidation'', The Daily Yonder, March 15, 
2022. https://dailyyonder.com/skyrocketing-fertilizer-prices-gouge-
farmer-profits-groups-blame-consolidation/2022/03/15/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsidies have been the knee-jerk response. In 2020, U.S. farm 
subsidy payments rose to a record $46.5 billion, triple the normal 
amount, which was up from $22.4 billion from the year before in 2019.
    A big question is: what are America's farmers and the U.S. taxpayer 
really getting from these subsidies? The government is willing to hand 
this money out but we get very little back in return. In our current 
system, subsidy payments often end up promoting farming practices that 
are not improving soil health or resilience. While I do believe these 
programs should remain voluntary and incentive-based, they would be 
improved by implementing a tiered system wherein farmers and ranchers 
who are utilizing best practices receive the biggest share of the 
subsidy benefits. We will not be able to subsidize our way out of this 
crisis, but by incentivizing soil health practices, farmers can regain 
independence and reduce reliance on inputs.
    The situation is highlighting the extent to which our current food 
production system is trapping farmers in a cycle of dependency. Farm 
debt is rising by 4% each year,\15\ yet even as more of the food dollar 
leaves the farmers' pocket, rural communities are left behind as those 
dollars leave the local economy. At one point during the pandemic, 
cattle prices had declined by 18%, while box beef prices increased by 
80%. And just 14% of every food dollar goes to the farmer today.\16\ 
According to an American Farm Bureau Federation survey, a strong 
majority of farmers/farmworkers think financial issues (91%), fear of 
losing the farm (87%), and farm or business problems (88%) impact the 
mental health of farmers.\17\ I encounter this all the time--from 
loans, insurance, peer pressure, markets, to simply not jeopardizing 
the livelihood of the farm, there is so much stress on the farmer's 
plate, there is so much out of their control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2018/08/agricultural-debt-
continues-to-increase-2.html.
    \16\ Editor's note: this footnote was blank in the submitted 
statement.
    \17\ American Farm Bureau Federation. 2019. ``Rural Stress Polling 
Presentation''. https://www.fb.org/files/
AFBF_Rural_Stress_Polling_Presentation_04.16.19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsidies and inputs are, at best, band-aids to the current farm 
crisis--at worst, they are exacerbating it. Regenerative agriculture is 
a permanent solution that works for farmers of all sizes, from small 
diversified farms to large scale row-crop producers like me, all across 
the nation, and benefits not only farmers and their families but all 
Americans.
The Soil Solution
    Regenerative agriculture focuses on improving soil health using a 
variety of agricultural management practices that work in alignment 
with natural systems. Increasing soil organic matter content in our 
soils can reduce or stop soil erosion, and improve aggregate stability, 
water infiltration, water retention, nutrient cycling, plant health, 
crop yields, crop resilience, biodiversity, and more. More organic 
matter in the soil also means we are moving carbon from the atmosphere 
and depositing it into the soil, where it can be a net positive for the 
planet and society.
    When we are looking at a farm or ranch, regenerative agriculture 
incorporates six key components. The first one is really important and 
unique to each person, the other five are the principles that are 
employed depending on your context:

  1.  Understand Context: Economic, personal, community, ecological, 
            climate, bioregion, etc.

  2.  Minimize Disturbance: This refers to tillage, chemical 
            fertilizers, pesticides, and more.

  3.  Establish a ``Living Root'': Have a plant photosynthesize and 
            pump carbon-based exudates into the soil to feed the soil 
            biology for as long as possible throughout the growing 
            season.

  4.  Provide Soil Armor: cover cropping or ensuring to leave mulch or 
            plant residue is critical. Bare soil exposed to the 
            elements harms soil health, so it's recommended to always 
            have some living or dead debris covering the soil.

  5.  Integrate Animals: Have one or more types of animals move across 
            your fields if it can work in your context, otherwise known 
            as planned grazing.

  6.  Enhance Diversity: Add diversity to whatever it is you are 
            growing--this could be planting diverse hedgerows 
            throughout the farm, installing owl boxes, integrating 
            honeybees, or diverse multi-species cover crops.

    Important practices for implementing these principles include: 
cover cropping, no-till/reduced-till, planned/adaptive multi-paddock 
(AMP) grazing, diverse crop rotations, and much more.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


My Regenerative Journey
    I was fortunate enough to see some of the problems of soil loss 
coming almost 2 decades ago, when I began my transition to no-till and 
cover crops. Many years ago when we were still practicing conventional 
tillage, there was a 1" rain event that created so much erosion on my 
farm, I was determined to do something about it. This was the turning 
point for me.

          A 1" rain event should not cause any issues on your land--
        your soil should easily be able to absorb and retain that water 
        (for every additional 1% of soil organic matter, any acre can 
        capture an extra 27 thousand gallons more water).\18\ We do not 
        have a ``flood problem'' when it rains 1" to 3" in an hour and 
        most of the water runs off--we have a water infiltration 
        problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Editor's note: this footnote was blank in the submitted 
statement.

    As I've incorporated more regenerative soil health practices over 
the years, I have been able to reduce my input costs on fertilizer 
(chemistry and fertility) to zero dollars and decrease our fuel usage 
by 60%. Currently, I'm saving $286 per acre per year on avoided 
inputs--that's $2 million in savings per year on 7,000 acres. And I'm 
maintaining stability through hard times.
    Here is a great example of where savings come from on my operation:
The Power of Legume Cocktails

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          August 1, 2022.

    Farmers usually look to cover crops and no-till as defenses to 
combat a problem like erosion. But, once you become comfortable with 
cover crops and no-till, they become offensive juggernauts, providing 
far more benefits than just erosion control. We are currently utilizing 
complex mixes of cover crops, no-till, and non-chemical termination 
with roller-crimpers across our row crop operation growing corn and 
soybeans. I was able to eliminate the practice of ``burning down'' or 
killing cover crops with herbicides in 3 years. I now use a roller-
crimper to flatten cover crops, which provide a mulch for soybeans to 
suppress weeds. I always encourage farmers to not till or plow their 
fields. Every time you till, you not only make your soil more 
vulnerable, you are also regerminating weeds.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Photo: My farm is doing non-chemical termination of a diverse 
        cover crop with roller-crimper while simultaneously direct 
        seeding cash crop with no-till drill.

    We're not just saving costs, we're bringing in a healthy profit 
that gives us the room to experiment and incorporate new practices that 
we can then share with others. The farm's best return on investment 
(ROI) was when we reduced inputs by 60%. The yields were increasing 
year over year. This is when corn was valued at $3.75 and soybeans were 
at $7.85.
    Another key point is that although yield is a critical benchmark, 
what is not talked about sufficiently and is honestly even more 
important, is yield stability. Conventional systems are not only 
vulnerable to increasingly severe cycles of flood and drought (because 
poor soil health limits the amount of water retention and absorption), 
they are also at the mercy of global energy pricing, as chemical inputs 
are tied to those markets. The hyper focus on yields has ultimately 
made our soils more vulnerable and therefore less consistent because of 
drought, flood, etc. Maximizing returns in a single year is simply not 
as critical as being able to produce year after year in a sustainable 
fashion, resilient to both weather and markets.
Stability
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Yield stability on my operation through soil health 
        practices.

    5,600 of our 7,000 acres are also certified organic and the rest 
are in transition. As I mentioned previously, I first turned to 
regenerative practices to combat erosion and soil loss. My regenerative 
journey put me within reach of the market opportunity and demand for 
domestically produced organic products. However, as I always tell 
farmers, whatever you're doing, whether or not you are doing organic, 
soil function is what really matters.
    No-till organic isn't always easy, but I am particular about doing 
things a different way in order to prove this model. And, because 
myself and so many other farmer leaders around the country have 
challenged ourselves, these practices are now much more accessible and 
within reach than when I began my journey.
    It is very important to understand that this is a systematic 
approach to building soil health, human health, and ensuring water 
quality. When you start down the regenerative journey, you see soil 
change before your eyes. Increased water infiltration rates, increased 
water holding capacity, increased aggregate stability, increased 
earthworm counts, increased beneficial organisms, increased nutrient 
density, and increased microbial activity: these accomplishments are 
only done if you follow the principles of soil health. Period.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Photos: Two shovels full of soil, taken Sunday Sept 11th, 
        2022 during a rain event. Left: my neighbor's corn field. 
        Right: my soybean field planted into cover crops that were 
        terminated while green with roller-crimper. Fields are only 15 
        yards apart.

    Above are two photographs of a shovel full of soil. The neighbor's 
field is on the left. It has no aggregate stability, no visible 
earthworms, slow infiltration rate around \1/2\" per hour, very little 
water holding capacity, and no root exudates that would feed the 
microbes and create soil aggregation. On the other hand, the shovel 
full of soil on the right is from one of our fields. It has aggregate 
stability that measures down 8", this soil's infiltration rate is now 
20" an hour and the earth worm count is currently 1.5 million 
earthworms per acre (compared to when we began this trajectory it was 
near zero).
    The difference of healthy soil is the difference of input cost 
reductions, it is the difference of flooding or drought, it is the 
difference of wind and water erosion rates and keeping fertility on my 
land, it is the difference between knowing my family is safe from so 
many harmful chemicals, and, it is possible for all farmers and 
ranchers to implement this principles in all agriculture in every 
region of this country and experience substantial results.
    As my fellow regenerative agriculture pioneer, Gabe Brown, says, 
``Whether your primary concern is a farmer's bottom line, rural 
economic recovery, climate mitigation, reversing biodiversity collapse, 
cleaning our water and air, rehydrating our land so aquifers charge and 
springs flow again, providing land access for minorities and beginning 
farmers, or addressing the health crisis, regenerative agriculture 
provides the solution.''
5. Scaling Up Regenerative Ag
    Over the past several years, I have witnessed incredible advances 
in the adoption of regenerative agriculture practices. The demand for 
regenerative agriculture is here and on the rise--now is time for all 
of us to help farmers lead this incredible opportunity for our country.
    While the expansion and adoption of practices like no-till and 
cover cropping is important (in 2017, 104 million acres were under no-
till production, 15.4 million acres were under cover crops), by 
combining these practices we can achieve far greater financial and 
ecological benefits, which is a tremendous opportunity that we must 
more broadly support.
    I want to share a few case studies from my fellow farmers that 
demonstrate this is not an anomaly for my farm in Indiana. Yes, this 
can work with farmers in your district. Soil health practices work in 
every corner of our country.
    David Brandt, Carroll, Ohio: 19, 20 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ https://understandingag.com/case_studies/brandt-farms-case-
study/.
    \20\ https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/oh/soils/
STELPRDB1166409/.

   One of the first and likely the longest term no-till farmers 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        in Ohio. 100% no-till since 1971.

   He currently has 736 acres of no-till row crops and cover 
        crops on his corn, wheat, and soybean operation, and uses a 
        diverse cover crop species mix with 8- to 14-way blends.

   In 1971 the soil organic matter on David's newly purchased 
        farm was 0.75%. By 2019, the soil organic matter ranged from 
        6.8% to 8.0%.

   David's ability to infiltrate water has increased from less 
        than 25,000 gallons per acre to more than 175,000 gallons of 
        water per acre.

   From 150-250 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre for corn 
        in 1971, he now uses 20-30 pounds. He uses no fertilization for 
        his soybeans. No fungicides or insecticides. No seed treatment.

   His cash crop yields have been increasing by an average of 
        5% annually for the past 5-6 years.

   His input costs have decreased 72-78% from 2009 to 2019.

   David also has a cover crop seed company and a seed-cleaning 
        business that operate on the farm.

   The operation now involves three generations of the family 
        that are actively involved.

   ``It will take 6-7 years to change or improve a soil with 
        just no-till, but that time can be shortened to 4-5 years or as 
        few as 3 years if you also use the right blend of cover 
        crops.''

    Loran Steinlage, West Union, Iowa: \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ https://www.agtechsowhat.com/agtechsowhatepisodes/2021/9/8/
getting-off-the-commodities-treadmill.

   Second-generation farmer, owns and operates FLOLOfarms, 
        farming 750 acres in Iowa's northeast corner, and custom farms 
        another 750 acres in West Union with his wife, Brenda. 
        Currently producing corn, soybeans, cereal rye, winter wheat, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        malt barley and buckwheat.

   Uses relay cropping, the practice of planting the second 
        crop into the first crop before harvest. This allows him to 
        grow a crop 365 days a year, even under snow.

   Loran also uses no-till, interseeding, cover crops, and 
        controlled traffic farming.

   Works in equipment design for technology that helps farmers 
        build soil health.

   Restored native trout to his stream by purifying water and 
        improving water quality.

   While other farmers in the area are focused on growing row 
        crops at scale, Loran is focused on increased crop diversity, 
        reducing the costs of production, and ultimately getting off 
        the ``commodities treadmill''.

    Keith Berns, Bladen, Nebraska[:] 22, 23 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ https://greencover.com/keith-berns/.
    \23\ https://non-gmoreport.com/articles/green-cover-seed-leads-the-
charge-on-cover-crop-
growth/.

   Fourth-generation farmer; operates 2,500 acres of irrigated 
        and dryland corn, soybeans, rye, triticale, peas, sunflowers, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        and buckwheat under no-till in south central Nebraska.

   Co-owns and operates Green Cover Seed, one of the major 
        cover crop seed providers and educators in the United States, 
        which sells 120 different cover crop varieties. In 2021, Green 
        Cover sold enough cover crop seeds to cover a million acres. 
        The seeds are non-GMO and not treated, and there are plans to 
        sell certified organic seed mixes.

   Honored by the White House as a 2016 Champion of Change for 
        Sustainable and Climate-Smart Agriculture.

   Developed the SmartMix CalculatorATM}\24\ one of 
        the most widely used cover crop selection tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ https://smartmix.greencoverseed.com/.

   Appointed by Nebraska Governor to serve as Chairman of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Nebraska Healthy Soils Task Force.

   Teaches on cover crops and soil health more than 30 times 
        per year to various groups and audiences.

    Dan DeSutter, Attica, Indiana[:]25, 26, 27, 28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ https://hoosiergrassfedbeef.com/about-our-farm.
    \26\ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/business/cover-crops-a-
farming-revolution-with-deep-roots-in-the-past.html.
    \27\ https://www.ccsin.org/post/dan-desutter-fountain-county.
    \28\ https://www.morningagclips.com/farmer-teacher-student/.

   Owns and operates Hoosier Grassfed Beef, a 5,000 acre 
        grassfed beef and organic row-crop operation where he practices 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        organic no-till and uses cover crops to build soil health.

   The livestock and row-crop model allows the cows to graze 
        cover crops in the off season, increasing the number of days 
        the cows are on fresh pasture.

   The no-till organic system relies on a multi-pronged 
        approach to weed management that includes cover crops, roller-
        crimpers, mowing and electrical termination.

   Actual production history (APH) in corn is 30 to 35% over 
        the county average.

    One thing each of these regenerative farmers has in common is that 
they focus on educating other farmers in these practices. At the same 
time, larger scale studies are confirming what we already knew: farmers 
across the country are achieving profitability, resilience, and 
economic benefits with soil health systems. The National Association of 
Conservation Districts and Datu Research found that soil health 
practices can result in an economic return of over $100 per acre,\29\ 
while American Farmland Trust found soil health practices to improve 
bottom lines between $4-$824 per acre per year.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ National Association of Conservation Districts, ``Case studies 
show big economic benefits of soil health practices,'' August 29, 2017, 
https://www.nacdnet.org/newsroom/case-studies-show-big-economic-
benefits-soil-health-practices/.
    \30\ American Farmland Trust, ``Quantifying Economic and 
Environmental Benefits of Soil Health,'' https://farmland.org/project/
quantifying-economic-and-environmental-benefits-of-soil-health/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Soil Health Institute recently interviewed 100 farmers in nine 
Midwestern states who have adopted soil health systems on corn and soy 
operations to determine the impact of soil health practices on 
profitability.\31\ Through adopting soil health systems:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Soil Health Institute and Cargill. 2022. ``Economics of Soil 
Health Systems in Midwest Corn and Soy''. https://
soilhealthinstitute.org/economics.

   Net income increased for 85% of farmers growing corn and 88% 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        of farmers growing soybean

   Average costs decreased by $24/acre for corn and $17/acre 
        for soybean

   Average net farm income increased by $52/acre for corn and 
        $45/acre for soybean

   67% reported a higher yield than their conventional system

   100% reported improved water quality

   97% reported increased crop resilience to extreme weather

   93% reported increased access to their fields

   83% reduced fertilizer inputs
Congress Must Support the Advancement of Regenerative Agriculture
    There is much more awareness and support for adopting soil health 
today than when I started, such that a farmer can pair cost share 
programs, private sector incentives, and advice from local farmers to 
implement systems correctly, so that their farm doesn't have to suffer 
a huge loss in profitability during the transition. However, there are 
still widespread barriers that have led to low adoption rates 
nationwide.\32\ Congress has an incredible opportunity to remove 
barriers for farmers and ranchers and invest in regenerative transition 
across the board to address a wide range of policy issues from 
restoring food security and public health, to reviving rural America, 
to building climate resilience. Here are some of the top priority 
areas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Editor's note: this footnote was blank in the submitted 
statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ensure all farmers and ranchers are getting access to education and 
technical assistance: Seeing results on my operation took time, but 
with the right education, we can enable more farmers and ranchers to 
shift to and realize the immense benefits of regenerative soil health 
practices. We want producers to have success with these practices the 
first time so they will stick with them. We know education, especially 
farmer-centered and farmer-led, is absolutely essential for successful 
adoption. With the right knowledge and support, we can see positive 
economic and ecological results within the first year, and significant 
changes within 3 years.
    Our current conventional agriculture education and technical 
assistance systems are not adequately addressing the fact that the 
average farm in America is still losing over 5.8 tons of topsoil per 
acre per year. The agriculture education that is available today favors 
short-term results and chemistry-oriented solutions while overlooking 
biological and physical soil function. America's farmers, and the 
institutions that support them, need urgent access to updated education 
that promotes resilient, healthy soil and the transition to 
regenerative agriculture, based on the latest cutting-edge science and 
context-based principles for climate adaptation. This must include deep 
context-based education not only for cropping systems, but also for 
regenerative pasture and rangeland management, with an emphasis on 
opportunities for the integration of crops and animals.
    While I in no way think that livestock are a fit for every farmer, 
we need to understand the critical role of livestock in building soil 
health (one of the most efficient and quickest ways possible). While 
everyone's situation is different, as Will Harris says, ``I would argue 
that truly degraded land cannot cost-effectively be regenerated without 
animal impact. Every ecosystem I am familiar with had animal impact in 
its evolution.'' \33\ The benefits of grazing can double carbon 
sequestration--for example, Gabe Brown realized significant carbon 
gains on his farm from no-till but the real change came from 
integrating livestock. We must make sure transition tools for 
implementing planned/AMP grazing like cost share for mobile fencing are 
much more widely available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lroe4pXNtKw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is very important that we do not offend any farmers with their 
current practices. We are not here to put anyone down or say they are 
doing it wrong. This is why teaching is so critical. When I speak to a 
group of farmers, I hope to instill a thinking process to change one or 
two dynamics of their farm. This is success. Ultimately, it needs to 
work for your economics and your situation.
    Access to USDA soil health programs--a hand up not a hand out: To 
get farmers started but ultimately save the government money. I have so 
much gratitude and appreciation for programs like EQIP because it is 
literally what allowed me to begin this journey. The cost-share paid 
for the cover crop seed and let me see the benefits without the risk. 
This was huge. Farmers are generally not eager for change but programs 
like this, especially if they were extended out to 5 years, would allow 
for much more confidence and staying power through the transition. 
Long-term and individualized support is vital so farmers don't walk 
away from the practices after their contracts end. I have seen this 
happen too many times.
    To rebuild soil, we need to help farmers and ranchers cover more of 
the land with living plants for more of the year. And we need to ensure 
support for cover crops and equipment like roller-crimpers are more 
regionally available.
    BIPOC, Tribal, women, beginning, limited resource, and veteran 
farmers and ranchers, as well as small farms are often likely to use 
soil health principles in their operations, but face barriers in 
accessing USDA programs and support. As a result, historically 
underserved producers and small operations struggle to access and 
retain farmland, and have to fight to start out and keep up in the 
farming business. We need to make sure all farmers can get the support 
they need to start building soil health.
    Rebuild local and regional infrastructure for processing to make 
the regenerative transition economically feasible: The current lack of 
access to local processing and markets for producers is preventing a 
huge opportunity to increase net farm or ranch profitability and keep 
more food dollars inside local economies. Investing in local and 
regional access to infrastructure, processing and markets will help 
regenerative producers make new products available and meet the 
increasing consumer demand for their products, while reducing foreign 
supply chain dependence and increasing domestic food supply. Increasing 
access will allow more farmers to integrate regeneratively managed 
livestock or specialty crops into their cropping systems (building soil 
health and reducing reliance on chemical inputs), while improving 
public health and providing local food security during times of crisis. 
And if the farm has access to processing and distribution, the farmers 
can operate on any scale that's comfortable for them.
    Removing barriers and incentivizing soil health in financing and 
insurance: The finance and insurance products that farmers rely on have 
immense potential to support a transition to regenerative agriculture, 
but current policies have created a system that often undermines, or 
even actively prevents, common sense soil health practices that reduce 
risk on farms--resulting in large scale soil loss and land degradation 
at an enormous cost to U.S. taxpayers.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/federal-crop-
insurance-program-reforms-ip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the past decade, crop insurance has become the most important 
component of the farm safety net. The Federal Crop Insurance Program 
(FCIP), administered by the USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA), receives 
a greater portion of funding than all conservation programs combined, 
and has more than 90 percent of U.S. cropland enrolled.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46686.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Crop insurance payouts have nearly doubled in the last decade in 
the face of ever increasing extreme weather.\36\ Without mitigating 
actions, one study found that rising temperatures could increase annual 
subsidies by $2.2 billion (or 34%), while USDA research found that 
unmitigated climate impacts could increase subsidies for key crops by 
$4.2 billion annually.\37\ This is putting the entire program in danger 
over the long term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/federal-crop-
insurance-program-reforms-ip.pdf.
    \37\ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2902688.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The most effective way that we have of reducing on-farm risk is 
applying conservation practices that build soil health. As my own 
experience and that of my fellow farmers has shown (and the lesson 
applies whether or not you take out crop insurance), these practices 
decrease production risk in the face of increasing flood and drought, 
and improve long-term resilience and stability for farmers.
    If we are to have an effective farm safety net, then we have to 
help farmers reduce risk (i.e., increase conservation practice 
adoption) so we can keep premiums affordable, save rising taxpayer 
costs, and keep the farm safety net resilient and strong for producers 
in the years to come. This means bolstering crop insurance by removing 
outdated barriers and creating incentives that recognize the risk-
reduction benefits of soil health and conservation practices and reward 
farmers implementing those practices--it's like a ``good driver'' 
discount on your car insurance. By improving your soil health, you're 
making your operation less risky and providing significant benefits to 
society.
    When the day comes that carbon markets fully arrive, farmers will 
absolutely need the principles of soil health to leverage that 
opportunity. Healthy soil is what's going to get the outcomes needed to 
make participation in carbon markets successful.
    If Congress provides the resources and correct program funding for 
the transition to climate adaptive and soil regenerating practices, 
farmers, ranchers and rural America will thrive.
    Mr. Chairman, supporting America's farmers and ranchers in adopting 
soil health, regenerative agriculture and climate-smart practices is 
both an imperative and the opportunity of our time--not only to avert 
imminent food supply and insecurity issues, but also to reverse soil 
degradation, safeguard food security, farm profitability and 
productivity, revive rural communities, and mitigate the impacts of a 
changing climate.
                               Attachment

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The Chairman. Thank you. Excellent testimonies we are 
getting here today, right on target. Thank you.
    And now, Dr. Larson, you are now recognized for your 5 
minutes.

STATEMENT OF REBECCA L. LARSON, Ph.D., CHIEF SCIENTIST AND VICE 
   PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, WESTERN SUGAR COOPERATIVE, 
                           DENVER, CO

    Dr. Larson. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today. 
I have a Ph.D. in plant science and 22 years of diverse 
experience with sugarbeets. I work for 800 small family farmer 
owners of Western Sugar Cooperative. We have a 100 year history 
that spans 110,000 acres across Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, 
and Montana. I help measure the environmental impact of our 
farmers' practices and guide their investment in public 
research. Included with my written testimony is the data 
substantiating the gains our farmers have made in soil health 
and regenerative agriculture.
    Soil health is critical for farmers. It reduces crop 
inputs, increases crop productivity, and instills resiliency in 
the agroecosystem. The USDA recognizes four soil health 
principles: minimize soil disturbance, keep soil covered, 
maintain living roots, and employ diverse crop rotation. 
Tillage, mechanical work into the soil, works against three of 
those principles and is arguably the biggest threat to soil 
health.
    I am here to provide concrete examples from our cooperative 
and national trends that demonstrate conventional farming has 
made significant gains in soil health. Since the 1950s, modern 
agriculture has enabled exponential adoption of conservation 
tillage across the U.S. Today, a majority of conventionally 
produced U.S. commodity crops use conservation tillage. One out 
of every five is no-till. Clearly, farmers value soil health, 
as \1/3\ of conservation tillage was adopted with zero outside 
incentive.
    I see similar trends for sugarbeets. Eighty-two percent of 
Western Sugar growers use conservation tillage, which has 
tangibly improved soil health and imparted other dramatic 
environmental benefits. At the same time, our yield has climbed 
from 8,000 to more than 11,000 pounds of sugar per acre. This 
is true sustainable intensification.
    Conventional agriculture paved the way with conservation 
tillage. More recently, no-till organic cropping has emerged. 
However, most organic systems still rely on tillage, especially 
row crops, small grains, and vegetable crops. For both 
conventional and organic farms, adoption of conservation 
tillage is highly dependent on soil type, climate, scale, and 
cropping system. Ultimately, for Western Sugar farmers, the 
adoption of genetically engineered sugarbeets with glyphosate 
tolerance has allowed for widespread elimination of plowing and 
conversion to conservation tillage.
    Some claim pesticides are harmful to soil health. We have 
not found that to be true. Our farm measurement across Western 
Sugar shows microbial diversity and function is up six-fold 
following the adoption of conservation tillage, despite 
judicious use of pesticides. The data suggests tillage is far 
more detrimental to soil health than pesticides. Despite that, 
in the last decade and a half Western Sugar farmers have cut 
the quantity of pesticides applied by 40 percent and reduced 
the overall environmental impact by 92 percent, similar to 
national trends across conventional farming. Technology on the 
horizon will further reduce reliance on pesticides in the 
future. However, mandates against pesticides today will hurt, 
not help, the climate-smart agenda, most critically in the 
areas of food waste and land conversion.
    Cover crops also promote soil health. Most closely 
associated with organic farming, it is also used in 
conventional systems across the United States. Implementation 
varies by region and cropping system, as does method of cover 
crop termination. Western Sugar farmers use cover crops under a 
variety of circumstances. However, our primary soil armor is a 
residue left from the previous crop, which also serves to 
promote soil health as we integrate in livestock for managed 
grazing, further building soil health.
    Conservation crop rotation is also key to soil health. All 
Western Sugar growers rotate a diverse range of crops, 
including the occasional perennials. These rotations include 
high-residue and low-nitrogen-demand crops that balance 
nutrient demands and protect the biodiversity that is important 
to crop health.
    The evolution of conventional ag practices has reduced soil 
erosion by 35 percent across the United States. It is important 
to recognize that the U.S. is currently a leader in climate-
smart ag, and farmers are accepting of further improvement. 
Innovations in modern, conventional agriculture are primed to 
achieve climate-smart goals. Programs authorized by this 
Committee like CIG, the Sustainable Ag Research and Education 
Program, and EQIP have been highly effective in helping growers 
adopt climate-smart practices. Western Sugar has used these 
programs to improve nutrient stewardship and implement high-
carbon soil amendment to regenerate soil health.
    As you turn your attention to drafting the next farm bill, 
I encourage you to continue to support programs like these and 
invest in outcomes-based solutions that keep the farmer in the 
driver's seat as they understand the nuance in their production 
system. It is also imperative to bolster research for 
agricultural outcomes to enable our next step change in 
farming.
    In summary, conventional farming has employed conservation 
practices like reduced tillage, cover cropping, and diverse 
rotations and are continuing to innovate. Thank you for the 
time today, and I look forward to taking questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Larson follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Rebecca L. Larson, Ph.D., Chief Scientist and 
Vice President, Government Affairs, Western Sugar Cooperative, Denver, 
                                   CO
    Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for inviting me today. I have a Ph.D. in Plant 
Science and 22 years' diverse experience with sugarbeets. I'm work for 
the 800 small family farmer-owners of the Western Sugar Cooperative. 
The cooperative spans 110,000 acres across Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, 
and Montana. I help measure the environmental impact of our farmers' 
practices and guide their investment in public research. Included with 
my written testimony is the data substantiating the gains our farmers 
have made in soil health and regenerative agriculture.
    Soil health is critical for farmers and the environment. For the 
farmer healthier soil reduces crop inputs, increases crop productivity, 
and instills resiliency in the agroecosystem. For the environment, it 
can help mitigate climate change, using the soil as a sponge to absorb 
carbon from the atmosphere.
    The USDA recognizes four soil health principles: (1) keep soil 
covered, (2) minimize soil disturbance, (3) employ diverse crop 
rotation, and (4) maintain living roots.\1\ Tillage, mechanical working 
of the soil, works against three of the four principles making it 
arguably the biggest threat to soil health.
    I am here to provide concrete examples from our cooperative and 
national trends that demonstrate conventional farming has made 
significant gains in soil health. Since the 1950s,\2\ modern 
agriculture has enabled exponential adoption of conservation tillage 
across the U.S.\3\ Today, a majority of conventionally produced U.S. 
commodity crops use conservation tillage; 1 out of 5 acres is no till. 
Clearly, farmers value soil health, as a third of conservation tillage 
was adopted with zero outside incentive.\4\ I see similar trends for 
sugarbeet; 82% of Western Sugar growers use conservation tillage 
(Figure 1). The switch to conservation tillage improved soil health and 
imparted other dramatic environmental benefits: (1) erosion is down 90% 
(Figure 2), (2) soil microbial diversity and function is up six-fold 
(Figure 3), (3) fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are down 
40% (Figure 4), and (4) water use efficiency is up 30%. Concurrently, 
yield has climbed from 8,000 to more than 11,000 pounds of sugar per 
acre,\5\ true sustainable intensification (Figure 5). Conventional 
agriculture paved the way with conservation tillage. More recently no 
till organic cropping has emerged.\6\ However, most organic systems 
23 still rely on tillage,7, 8 especially row 
crops, small grains, and vegetable crops. For both conventional and 
organic farms, adoption of conservation tillage is highly dependent on 
soil type, climate, scale, and cropping system.4, 6, 9, 10 
Ultimately, for Western Sugar farmers, the adoption genetically 
engineered sugarbeets with glyphosate tolerance allowed for widespread 
elimination of plowing and conversion to conservation tillage.
    Some claim pesticides are harmful to soil health. We have not found 
that to be true. On farm measurement across Western Sugar shows 
microbial diversity and function is up six-fold following the adoption 
of conservation tillage (Figure 3), despite judicious use of 
pesticides. The data suggests tillage is far more detrimental to soil 
health than pesticides (Figure 9), consistent with reports in the 
literature.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Despite that, in the last 
decade and a half Western Sugar farmers have cut the quantity of 
pesticides applied by 40% and reduced the overall environmental impact 
by 92%, similar to national trends in conventional farming.\17\ Western 
Sugar, like all beet sugar cooperatives, determines what seeds can be 
planted on our farms. We require the seed largely defend itself against 
prevalent pests and diseases, allowing for robust integrated pest 
management. Combined with disease prediction models and precision 
application tools, pesticides are used with the highest levels of 
stewardship. Technology on the horizon will further reduce reliance on 
pesticides in the future.18, 19, 20 However, mandates 
against pesticides today will hurt, not help climate-smart agendas, 
most critically in the areas of food waste \21\ and land 
conversion.\22\
    Cover crops also promote soil health. Most closely associated with 
organic farming, it is also used in conventional systems across the 
U.S.23, 24 Implementation varies by region and cropping 
system,\25\ as does method of cover crop termination. Western Sugar 
farmers use cover crops under a variety of circumstances: (1) 15-20% of 
sugarbeet harvest occurs early enough to be followed by a fall-seeded 
crop like winter wheat, (2) where irrigation allows, fall-seeded cover 
crops are planted following regular harvest as well, and (3) spring 
planted rye is used to protect delicate seedlings from prevalent, 
seasonal winds and shows promise for additional weed management (Figure 
7). However, our primary soil armor is the residue left from the 
previous crop (Figure 1) which also serves to promote soil 
health.26, 27 Across Western Sugar, crop residue allows for 
the integration of livestock through managed grazing further building 
soil health.\28\
    The USDA recognizes conservation crop rotation \29\ is also key to 
soil health. All Western Sugar growers engage in this practice, 
rotating small grains, corn, dry edible beans, and sugarbeets. Many 
also integrate perennial crops such as alfalfa in the rotation. These 
diverse rotations such as these that include high residue and low 
nitrogen demand crops are paramount for soil health by balancing 
nutrient demands in the agroecosystem and protect biodiversity 
important to crop health.30, 31
    The evolution of conventional ag practices has reduced soil erosion 
by 35% across the U.S.\32\ It is important to recognize the U.S. is a 
leader in climate-smart ag,33, 34, 35 and farmers are 
accepting of further improvement. Innovations in modern, conventional 
agriculture are primed to achieve climate-smart goals. Programs 
authorized by this Committee--the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG), 
the Sustainable Ag Research and Education (SARE) program, and the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) have been highly 
effective in helping growers adopt climate-smart practices. Western 
Sugar has used these programs to improve nutrient stewardship and 
implement high carbon soil amendment \36\ to regenerate soil health 
(Figure 8). As you turn your attention to drafting the next farm bill, 
I encourage you to continue to support programs like these and invest 
in outcome-based solutions that keep the farmer in the driver's seat as 
they understand the nuance of their production system. It is also 
imperative to increase investment in agricultural research to develop 
frontier technologies that will drive the next step change in farming. 
In summary, conventional farming practices have improved soil health by 
employing conservation tillage, cover cropping and diverse crop 
rotations and are continuing to innovate. Again, thank you for inviting 
me to be here today. I look forward to taking questions.
(Figure 1)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Photos from a Western Sugar farm using conservation tillage. 
        (A) sugarbeets planted into previous crop's wheat stubble. (B) 
        zoomed in image of sugarbeets growing in wheat stubble. Residue 
        prevents wind/water erosion and evaporative loss of water; 
        remaining roots feed the micro/microbiome & build organic 
        matter.
(Figure 2)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Western Sugar partnered with the Irrigation Innovation 
        Consortium (FFAR project, Dr. Jay Hamm, Colorado State 
        University) on a 3 year study collecting samples in edge-of-
        field monitoring to determine the impact of conservation 
        tillage on irrigation-based soil erosion. Water was collected 
        during each rain and irrigation event (A). Sediment and 
        nutrient load were analyzed following filtration of the samples 
        (B). Conservation tillage significantly reduces erosion and 
        therefore protects water quality.
(Figure 3)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Soil samples collected and analyzed by Dr. Pankaj Trivedi 
        (Colorado State University) to compare the soil microbiome 
        under conventional and no-tillage systems from across the 
        cooperative. Greater diversity in bacteria (A, blue dot) and 
        fungi (A, orange dot) under conservation tillage (A). Soil 
        function was also measured by Dr. Trivedi by measuring nutrient 
        cycling (B); greater diversity/quantity of soil microbes = six-
        fold higher nutrient cycling (B). Western Sugar continues to 
        financially support Dr. Trivedi ($30,000/annually) in the 
        development of soil health bioindicators.
(Figure 4)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          * conservation tillage has reduced emissions from soil 83%.
          Western Sugar hired Dr. Douglas Warner and his team 
        (University of Hertfordshire, UK) to conduct a lifecycle 
        assessment of sugarbeet production in the cooperative before 
        and after the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) 
        sugarbeets. Emissions dropped 40% with GE sugarbeets primarily 
        because of the adoption of conservation tillage. Note emissions 
        are denoted in terms of units of production this is a key 
        component of sustainable intensification. Ignoring productivity 
        can force the unintended consequence of land conversion and 
        market leakage.
(Figure 5)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          As Lancet Commission noted, environmental gains must be 
        balanced against productivity to protect the global 
        environment. Promoting environmental gains that reduce per unit 
        productivity can lead to worsening climate change as additional 
        acres are converted from native habitat to cropland to 
        compensate for yield losses with a growing population. It is 
        imperative Climate-Smart agendas focus on sustainable 
        intensification: improving environmental outcomes while 
        promoting yield. Western Sugar has made significant advances in 
        climate-smart practices while also improving crop productivity 
        30% thanks to the adoption of genetically engineered (GE) 
        sugarbeets.
(Figure 6)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          All beet sugar cooperatives operate as closed systems, 
        approving what seed can or cannot be sold to our growers and 
        enabling robust integrated pest management. Western Sugar 
        requires the plant be [able] to defend itself against seven 
        prevalent pests and diseases. In addition, switching from non-
        genetically engineered (GE) and conventional herbicides to GE 
        and glyphosate has reduced the environmental impact of 
        sugarbeet production 92% as determined from pesticide fate and 
        risk modeling conducted by Dr. Douglas Warner at the University 
        of Hertfordshire in the UK.
(Figure 7)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Western Sugar farmers who use cover crops tend to use wheat 
        or rye (fast growing & cold tolerant). Some growers plant cover 
        crops between rows (A), others seed the whole field to wheat 
        then strip-till prior to planting sugarbeets (B). Western Sugar 
        is currently funding development of best management practices 
        for spring planted rye cover crops for additional weed control 
        and resistance management at the University of Wyoming (Dr. 
        Andrew Kniss) and Montana State University (Dr. Lovreet 
        Shergill).
(Figure 8)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Western Sugar pioneered the use of a factory waste stream for 
        beneficial use in high carbon soil amendment Using this product 
        to regenerate soil health improves soil water holding capacity, 
        reduces soilborne nitrous oxide emissions, increases long-term 
        soil carbon sequestration potential and avoids methane 
        emissions from land-filling the product [status quo (A); 
        repurposing waste for beneficial use (B)]. The product has now 
        been applied to nearly 6% of acres across the Rocky Mountain 
        West with tangible improvements to soil health quantified by 
        Dr. Bijesh Maharjan at the University of Nebraska. Growers 
        readily adopted the practice because of the immediate benefit 
        of improved crop productivity [visual impact on corn (C) and 
        dry beans (D)].
(Figure 9)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Dr. Pankaj Trivedi at Colorado State University analyzed 
        population diversity of bacteria (A) and fungi (B) in different 
        production systems (no-till or tillage) and with herbicide (H) 
        and without herbicide (C) mimicking options for Western Sugar 
        producers. Samples were collected at three different times (T1-
        T3). In all instances, tillage was the main driver of diversity 
        loss; use of herbicides did not impact diversity (statistical 
        significance denoted by letter above box plot, those with 
        different letters are statistically different from one 
        another).

 
 
 
                               [Endnotes]
 
    \1\ https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/
 soils/health/?cid=stelprdb1048783.
    \2\ Islam, R., Reeder, R. (2014). No-till and conservation
 agriculture in the United States: An example from the David Brandt
 Farm, Carroll, Ohio. International Soil and Water Conservation
 Research. 2(1): 97-107.
    \3\ https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/11095-timeline-of-the-no-
 till-revolution.
    \4\ Tillage Intensity and Conservation Cropping in the United States
 (https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/90201/eib-197.pdf)
 (usda.gov).
    \5\ Pulled from USDA ERS and NASS reporting for sugarbeet production
 in Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska & Colorado.
    \6\ https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/11095-timeline-of-the-no-
 till-revolution.
    \7\ What is ``Organic No-till,'' and Is It Practical? (https://
 eorganic.org/node/2594) eOrganic.
    \8\ Farming Systems Trial (https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/
 farming-systems-trial/) Rodale Institute.
    \9\ Uri, N.D. (1999) Factors affecting the use of conservation
 tillage in the United States. Water, Air and Soil Pollution. 116: 621-
 638.
    \10\ Carr, P.M., Gramig, G.G., Liebig, M.A. (2013) Impacts of
 organic zero tillage systems on crops, weeds, and soil quality.
 Sustainability. 5(7): 3172-3201.
    \11\ Barre, K., Le Viol, I., Julliard, R., Chiron, F., Kerbiriou, C.
 (2018) Tillage and herbicide reduction mitigate the gap between
 conventional and organic farming effects on foraging activity of
 insectivorous bats. Ecology and Evolution. 8(3): 1496-1506.
    \12\ Babujia, et al. (2016) Impact of long-term cropping of
 glyphosate-resistant transgenic soybean on soil microbiome. Transgenic
 Research. 25: 425-440.
    \13\ Gornish, et al. (2020) Buffelgrass invasion and glyphosate
 effects on desert soil microbiome communities. Biological Invasions.
 22: 2587-2597.
    \14\ Schlatter, et al. (2017) Impacts of repeated glyphosate use on
 wheat-associated bacteria are small and depend on glyphosate use
 history. Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
    \15\ Lupwayi, et al. (2020) Profiles of wheat rhizobacterial
 communities in response to repeated glyphosate applications, crop
 rotation and tillage. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. https://doi.org/
 10.1139/cjss-2020-0008.
    \16\ Wilkes, et al. (2020) Tillage, glyphosate and beneficial
 arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: optimizing crop management for plant-
 fungal symbiosis. 10(11): 520.
    \17\ Brooks, G., Barfoot, P. (2020). Environmental impacts of
 genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996-2018: impacts on pesticide use
 and carbon emissions. GM Crops and Food. 11(4): 215-241.
    \18\ See & SprayTM Ultimate D Precision Ag D John Deere US (https://
 www.deere.com/en/sprayers/see-spray-ultimate/).
    \19\ Carbon Robotics (https://carbonrobotics.com/).
    \20\ Zabala-Pardo, D., Gaines, T., Lamego, F.P., Avila, L.A. (2022)
 RNAi as a tool for weed management: challenges and opportunities.
 Advances in Weed Science. 40 (Spec1): e020220096.
    \21\ https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1203273/
    \22\ Willet, et al. (2019) Food in the [Anthropocene]: the EAT-
 Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The
 Lancet Commission. 393(10170): 447-492.
    \23\ https://www.sare.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-2020-National-
 Cover-Crop-Survey.pdf.
    \24\ Cover Crop Trends, Programs, and Practices in the United States
 (https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/100551/eib-222.pdf)
 (usda.gov).
    \25\ USDA ERS (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/
 gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=103975) Chart Detail.
    \26\ Melman, D.A., Kelly, C., Schneekloth, J., Calderon, F., Fonte,
 S.J. (2019) Tillage and residue management drive rapid changes in soil
 macrofauna communities and soil properties in a semiarid cropping
 system of Eastern Colorado. Applied Soil Ecology. 143: 98-106.
    \27\ Nunes, M.R., Karlen, D.L., Veum, K.S., Moorman, T.B.,
 Cambardella, C.A. (2020) Biological soil health indicators respond to
 tillage intensity: A US meta-analysis. Geoderma. 369: 114335.
    \28\ Carvalho, P.C.d.F., et al. (2010) Managing grazing animals to
 achieve nutrient cycling and soil improvement in no-till integrated
 systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 8con8: 259-273.
    \29\ Conservation Choices: Crop Rotation (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
 wps/portal/nrcs/detail/null/?cid=nrcseprd414440) (usda.gov).
    \30\ Yang, T., Siddique, K.H.M., Liu, K. (2020) Cropping systems in
 agriculture and their impact on soil health--A review. Global Ecology
 and Conservation. 23: e01118.
    \31\ Nunes, M.R., van Es, H.M., Schindelbeck, R., Ristow, A.J.,
 Ryan, M. (2018) No-till and cropping system diversification improve
 soil health and crop yield. Geoderma. 328(15): 30-43.
    \32\ 2017NRISummary_Final (1).pdf (file:///C:/Users/rlarson/
 Downloads/2017NRISummary_Final%20(1).pdf).
    \33\ Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Derpsch, R. (2022) Successful
 experiences and lessons from conservation agriculture worldwide.
 Agronomy. 12(4): 769.
    \34\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/
 chart-detail/?chartId=98305.
    \35\ Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data (https://www.epa.gov/
 ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data) US EPA.
    \36\ Paustian, K., Larson, E., Kent, J., Marx, E., Swan, A. (2019)
 Soil carbon sequestration as a biological negative emission strategy.
 Frontiers in Climate 1:8.
 


    The Chairman. And thank you for your excellent testimony, 
and all of you, powerful. And this is why we are having this 
hearing.
    Now at this time, Members will be recognized for questions 
in order of seniority, alternating between Majority and 
Minority Members. Each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes 
to get your questions in. And please, as always, keep your 
microphones muted until you are recognized so that we can 
eliminate background noise.
    And now I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    First of all, you all were just brilliant in helping to 
confirm our great need here. And this great need is what I 
refer to as a Paul Revere moment. It might not be the British 
that are coming, but if we do not listen to you and what you 
are saying about the urgency of regenerative farming, dealing 
with the source of our food, which is the soil, we will have a 
food shortage in this country.
    And I want to start with you, Steve, Mr. Nygren, my friend. 
You mentioned the status of us in the world. You mentioned also 
the status of us in our rural communities. And I tell people 
all the time, you love the milk, you love the beef, but it is 
in our rural communities, which must grow the vegetation, the 
soil enrichment, which feeds our animal stocks. Tell us, the 
shape that we are in right now and your level of concern about 
our food security in this nation if we don't move forthrightly 
on what you have suggested.
    Mr. Nygren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having grown up on a 
farm in the 1940s and the 1950s and then moving to Georgia, in 
both states, I have seen the rural communities go from vital 
centers and economic centers to places that are many times 
ghost towns, with many people having to change careers. I have 
18 first cousins. They have all left the industry except for 
three, and they are larger farmers today.
    The idea of our food system is not only going to affect 
what we eat but the very economic fiber of this country. And I 
think some of the things that you see that have happened in 
rural America is an example of the changing systems that we 
have had. As you have heard today, there are solutions that 
will both give us better food and an economic foundation for 
our rural areas, and the farm bill could really change that.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And Mr. Moyer, you are doing a 
wonderful job at Rodale. Tell us about your work there. And do 
you agree with me, if we fail to move on this, we could be 
facing a food shortage? Please.
    Mr. Moyer. Thank you for the question, Chairman Scott. Yes, 
of course, it is critical that we move rapidly to make 
adjustments to allow farmers to express their desire to improve 
the health of their soil. Regenerative agriculture, 
regenerative organic agriculture is all part of a journey. And 
we are not suggesting that conventional agriculture or 
conventional farming has not made great advances since the 
1950s, but we also have a long way to go. The concept that we 
simply want to sustain a current system or current set of 
practices to maintain what we have is not adequate. We really 
need to move forward rapidly with the concept of regenerating 
the health of our soil to build up earthworm populations, as 
Mr. Clark already told us about between his farm and his 
neighbor's. We can do that. Again, we have the tools, we have 
the time, we have the ability. We need support from Members of 
this Committee and from policymakers in order to just tweak 
some of the programs that we have to allow farmers to make the 
decisions on their landscapes to improve the health of their 
soil.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And, Mr. Clark, I want to get to 
your salient points because I believe you are right on target 
here. What will happen if we do not regenerate our soil? Where 
we will be in a world where we have to depend upon Russia for 
our food? We are already depending upon Russia, for 66 
percent--they control 66 percent of the world's fertilizer. 
Yes.
    Mr. Clark. Chairman Scott, thank you for the question. Yes, 
we have gone down this journey, and we have weaned ourselves 
off of these inputs, and we have become more resilient, less 
negativity toward instability within the world. And yes, we 
need to preserve our soil because that is going to be the 
future of the farming industry.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And now I recognize the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, our outstanding 
Ranking Member Thompson, for your 5 minutes.
    Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I appreciate 
your leadership. I appreciate, it is just a pleasure to work 
with you on something we are both very passionate about 
agriculture.
    The Chairman. Same.
    Mr. Thompson. Some of the numbers--well, I referenced a 
number that our productivity has increased 278 percent since 
the 1940s. Just a couple months ago, we were 287 percent, so 
the differential is not an erosion of soil health. And I think 
we all acknowledge that. There are other factors that go into 
productivity, and productivity is important. We are providing 
so much more food and fiber and building material and energy 
resources on the lands. I used to call it rural America. I call 
them essential America today because they are essential to 
every American family, what we produce.
    But the factors are, quite frankly, it has been the 
inflation. It has been the elimination of crop protection 
tools. It has been the fertilizer that has not been available. 
That is what has impacted and put us at risk of being able to 
provide all the food that needs to be produced at this point. 
That is a nine percent reduction. Those things are all fixable. 
They are just bad policy that has come out of out of 
Washington.
    I have had a chance to travel around as Ranking Member to a 
lot of different states, talk with a lot of different farmers 
and ranchers, foresters, and just people in central America. In 
my home state, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is one 
of the top ten cover crop states--excuse me--in the United 
States, there has been a 33 percent increase in cover crop use 
since 2012, which is outstanding. Now, again, this is an 
industry that is not static, it is dynamic, and we can do even 
better. And I think we are all dedicated to that. And that data 
came from the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture.
    However, in my travels to almost 40 states over the past 19 
months, I have seen that cover crops are not economic or 
applicable across all farmlands, which is why the hearing today 
is so important. I have been in states--specifically, it was in 
Texas with the dry conditions. If they put a cover crop in, it 
is going to suck every bit of moisture out of the ground. And 
whatever crop that you are looking to produce will not 
flourish, will not grow, certainly will not produce a 
significant yield.
    So, Dr. Larson, do you agree that we have to make available 
all the tools in the toolbox and that prescribing or endorsing 
certain practices or systems like regenerative organic 
agriculture in a silo, alone, could stifle research, 
technology, and innovation of future practices?
    Dr. Larson. Absolutely. There is no scientific consensus on 
the best practice to farm because there is too much nuance in 
farming. So when you look at the Rocky Mountain West, you 
mentioned it would suck all the water out of the ground. So our 
growers use cover crops very judiciously. So after they dig 
their sugarbeets out of the ground, the ground could be left 
there. Instead, they often opt to plant a subsequent cash crop 
like winter wheat if they can get in there early enough. 
Otherwise, if they get in late, they will plant something like 
rye to keep the ground covered.
    We have a lot of money that we are investing at both the 
University of Wyoming and Montana State to be able to create 
cover crops for weed manage in the spring as well and explore 
additional options. But ultimately, if we didn't have access to 
adequate technology such as herbicides to control a broadleaf 
weed and a broadleaf crop, we would be in big trouble and 
wouldn't be able to implement the conservation tillage that we 
have today.
    Mr. Thompson. Yes, a lot of diversity it is--American 
agriculture is--well, that is something I think all the Members 
of this Committee are very passionate about, but it is--and 
there are a lot of similarities, right, when you walk from one 
farm to another, different parts of country, but there is 
differences, too, the climate and soil types and weather 
patterns. And so it really is--there is no single tool. We have 
to use every tool in the toolbox.
    Mr. McCarty, it is nice to meet somebody whose family 
originated next to my district anyway, Bradford County. I am in 
McKean County right next door. It is one of my counties in 
Pennsylvania. And I get it, you all--the size of your farms--I 
guess first question, Mr. McCarty is, how many dairy cows does 
your family farms have altogether?
    Mr. McCarty. So in total today across the five dairies we 
milk about 13,000 cows. And once our expansion is done, we will 
be close to 19,000 milking cows.
    Mr. Thompson. That is pretty impressive. Knowing Bradford 
County, I have family in Bradford County, I am guessing that 
you were in the average statistics where in Pennsylvania, where 
dairy is our number one agriculture commodity of our largest 
industry, agriculture, and there are 5,200 dairies and the 
average herd size is 91, so that is quite--the geography makes 
a difference for you all with the states and where you have 
moved to.
    So let me just finish up by making the point, small farmers 
can't always take on the risks that large farms can when 
adapting new practices, and I certainly don't want to be the 
person who walks on to one of their farms and tells them the 
Federal Government mandates that they upend their economic 
viability of their operations and livelihoods for the sake of 
climate change, especially when they aren't the bad actors in 
the first place.
    So one of the things that I know, and I think the Chairman 
is committed to this, we are looking at how do we protect the 
small farmer and specifically like the small dairy farmers in 
my district and the small producers across the United States 
who can't afford always the risk that someone like with an 
economy-of-scale like your family has taken on?
    So, Mr. Chairman, I know my time has well expired. I 
appreciate your patience today.
    The Chairman. Oh, my pleasure. And the point you made about 
our dairy farmers, they have informed me that now, right now, 
we are losing a dairy farmer every single day. That is 365 this 
year and next year. So you have hit upon a very important 
thing. And of course, we are addressing that, along with our 
beef cattle, where we are losing 17,000 small beef cattle 
ranchers every year. When you put that together with our 
hesitancy to move forthrightly on our soil erosion, we have a 
burgeoning crisis. That is why we are here. Thank you for your 
excellent remarks.
    And now we will hear from the gentlewoman from Connecticut, 
Mrs. Hayes, who was also the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on 
Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations. Mrs. Hayes, 
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My district is a growing leader in climate-smart 
agriculture. Our producers use ecofriendly practices like cover 
crops to run their small, diversified farms. Last month, I 
hosted a roundtable in my district, with U.S. Deputy Secretary 
Dr. Jewel Bronaugh. Farmers there stressed how committed they 
were to expanding their regenerative agricultural practices. 
Unfortunately, as many of you know, this can be expensive and 
risky. This is especially true for the small farmers and new 
and beginning farmers that I represent in Connecticut's Fifth 
District.
    As this Congress continues to make critical investments to 
mitigate climate change, I am hoping that our witnesses can 
provide testimony that gives us solutions to help farms of all 
sizes. Mr. Moyer, you talked about soil health quite 
extensively. Can you tell me a little bit about how improved 
soil health can protect farmers against increased drought and 
flooding? Because that is what we are hearing a lot about in my 
State of Connecticut.
    Mr. Moyer. Certainly, and thank you for the question. There 
are certain things we can do with soil health and certain 
things we can't. We can't change the weather, we can't change 
weather patterns, we can't change the impact of climate change. 
What we can do is change the soil's ability to interact with 
weather. So we can, as you heard from other testimony here this 
morning, we can change the soil's ability to hold and retain 
water. So while we heard western states, they say it is too dry 
to go cover crops, we have many farmers in western states that 
say it is too dry not to grow cover crops. We can grow cover 
crops, hold moisture in the plant. Cover crops is a term, but 
it doesn't really clearly spell out all the varieties of crops 
that we can grow as cover crops. There are hundreds and 
hundreds of different species of crops we can grow that all 
serve different purposes. So while we say cover crops as one 
word, there are many different tools that we can use.
    So we are suggesting that farms have the ability, through 
changes and tweaks in our EQIP and crop insurance legislation 
in the farm bill, that will allow farmers to make those 
decisions on their own farm, whether they are conventional or 
organic, to try to improve the health of their soil and improve 
their ability to interact with changing weather patterns to 
build resiliency and sustainability into their production 
models.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I appreciate that and look forward 
to getting more information. I can tell you every news station 
in my home state last week was running stories about drought 
and showing just the devastation to small farmers and what it 
means, we can't change weather patterns, so we need to really 
be proactive in solutions to how do we engage differently in 
these environments.
    Mr. Clark, you talked about your family's farm switching to 
regenerative agricultural practices.
    Mr. Clark. Yes.
    Mrs. Hayes. Can you talk to us about some of the positive 
changes you saw in the first few years after those switches?
    Mr. Clark. Right. Thank you for the question. 
Representative Hayes, thank you. Yes, when we started this 
journey several years ago, we were actually at a point where I 
was having discussions with my wife, I am not sure if we are 
going to be able to afford to plant corn and beans anymore. We 
have to do something different. So the first immediate thing 
that we saw was the simple fact that the soil came to life. You 
could see it change right in front of your eyes. We have 
aggregate stability now that is that is 8" deep. We have water 
infiltration rates of 20" an hour. We have water holding 
capacity. We are sequestering carbon, all of these things we 
are doing, and you can see a lot of these changes with very 
simple tests. You can have a hammer, ring, a couple of tubes 
full of water, and you can show soil health every single day.
    So the immediate thing that we saw was just the breath of 
fresh air that we are now able to expand and grow vertically 
and not just be tied to a corn and soybean type rotation.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, that is very important information.
    Mr. Nygren, the Working Farms Fund at the Conservation Fund 
has helped 33 farmers secure land in the past few years. How 
can we better engage to expand those programs so that more 
farmers can access them and have help with conservation on the 
ground?
    Mr. Nygren. I believe make sure that the money is going to 
organizations that do not have large overhead so that it is 
hitting the farmers actually in the fields. And there are many 
organizations that are connected directly with the small 
farmers, and I think we need to be aware of those programs and 
how the money is distributed.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Right on time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. Good job. And now the gentleman from 
California, Mr. LaMalfa, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Larson, you are 
beet grower or cover that in Colorado, and I heard some really 
positive things, some of the methods that you have been able to 
utilize there, a lot of it gearing around no-till. Tillage is 
being looked down upon more and more these days, but that might 
apply well for beets and other crops. But do you see that there 
are other crop types that can be readily converted to no-till 
that--I mean, is this supposed to be a one-size-fits-all for 
all crops be converting to no-till?
    Dr. Larson. It is absolutely not one size fits all. As I 
mentioned, controlling broadleaf weeds and a broadleaf crop 
thanks to genetically engineered sugarbeets with glyphosate 
tolerance was a gamechanger for us. If you can control the 
weeds, you don't need to use mechanical removal or tillage to 
get rid of them. So there are a lot of crops like ours that are 
difficult to control weeds in that require some alternative 
method to control them. And often, farmers rely on tillage. 
Overwhelmingly, organic and conventional farmers rely on 
tillage.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Certainly, okay. So when you talk about the 
beets, you have had to use genetically modified so that you can 
use different types of pesticides?
    Dr. Larson. Yes, to use a specific herbicide that helps 
control the weeds more consistently and completely.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Did you see any market reverberations for 
switching to genetically modified seeds?
    Dr. Larson. No, we did not.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. All right. Mr. Moyer, you mentioned in 
the testimony that America's food system is broken, and 
conventional ag models are degrading farmland. Now, way back in 
the 1930s in the Dust Bowl and even before that, but the 
Federal Government set on a path to try and do things to 
conserve soil because we saw some terrible outcomes from 
weather and such affecting soil. So much work has been done 
over the years before this concept of doing things to conserve 
soil, not lose it to erosion and things of that nature. So we 
have seen tremendous gains made in crop yield, and less labor 
being required for agriculture in this country. It used to be 
50 percent. Now, it is less than one percent of people work in 
agriculture these days, it seems. So labor's declined, land use 
has declined in order to get increased crop yields.
    So one thing I found and am in strong agreement with you on 
is the reliance on international food supply is really going to 
be dangerous for all of us. We see Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine. The world is going to be in a bad way. With that, 
India and Hungary have decided they are not going to export 
grain this year. And so we are going to have a real 2023 food 
supply issue, as well as the gas and fertilizer needs that we 
have to produce fertilizer, natural gas. So Sri Lanka has tried 
to go against using fertilizer and such, and their economy is 
collapsing. The Netherlands, the Dutch dairy farmers are in an 
all out protest over that. And we see Canada, our friendly 
neighbor to the North, go in that direction, too. But The 
Netherlands will close 11,000 farms and affect over 17,000 
farmers.
    So if our government enacts similar measures, getting rid 
of nitrogen and all these things, it would have a catastrophic 
effect on the U.S. food supply and also the world. So the 
suggestion to reapproach farming as regenerative organic seems 
to be counterintuitive to part of the testimony. So how is it 
when we have a global food shortage, that when we are talking 
about these alternative forms of farming and we are going to 
end up with less food and less crop grown, or we are converting 
to cover crops, we are going to have lower yield with 
regenerative organic as you term it, how is that going to work 
in a world that is already going to see perilous food 
shortages, as even promised by President Biden?
    Mr. Moyer. Well, I think there is--thank you for the 
question, Congressman. I think there are a whole lot of issues 
that you stated that need to be unpacked. It is not as simple 
as saying organic or regenerative organic food production has 
lower yields. That is not true. Our science and our research 
indicates that we can match or in many cases during drought or 
when it is either too wet or too dry, our regenerative organic 
yields surpass those of conventional farming.
    Mr. LaMalfa. I farm rice. My family has been doing it since 
31 and my cousin since 13.
    Mr. Moyer. Yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. When you farm organic rice, you lose yield, 
and it costs a lot more. So which \1/3\ of the people aren't 
going to get food?
    Mr. Moyer. So I am suggesting that a lot more research 
needs to be done in the area of regenerative organic 
agriculture to show how we can sustain yields that are equal or 
greater than conventional yields. It is not all about--we are 
sacrificing short-term yield for long-term stability in our 
soil. And yes, while we have reduced erosion, over the years, 
we are down to a national average of 6 ton per acre, which is 
not something we can sustain. There are many different forms of 
soil degradation. Erosion is just one of them. Nutritional 
quality and nutritional content of the soil is another. 
Microbial activity, biological activity is another. We have 
lost over 50 percent of the soil's fungal capacity to maintain 
the integrity of a phytonutrient called ergothioneine. 
Ergothioneine has a health impact on our----
    Mr. LaMalfa. On the whole, yields have been increasing and 
more production has been coming out of the land. Now, we need 
to do things to conserve soil and keep going in that direction, 
but a one-size-fits-all--if government ends up, because of this 
climate change situation, forcing this on farmers, we are going 
to be in a bad way in this country as our people and others 
around the world look to us----
    The Chairman. Unfortunately, the----
    Mr. LaMalfa. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. And I appreciate your line of questioning. 
You hit the nail on the head. This is exactly why we are here, 
to avoid a food shortage in our nation. Thank you for your 
questions.
    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 helpful as 
we look ahead to the next farm bill.
    Unlike organic agriculture, which must meet Federal 
standards and are subject to inspections, regenerative 
agriculture lacks a clear scientific definition. And it is 
currently not governed by any USDA standards. So my question is 
for Mr. Clark, but I welcome others to jump in if they have 
thoughts as well. Mr. Clark, should USDA clarify and set 
standards as to what it means to label something regenerative?
    Mr. Clark. Yes. And thank you for the question, 
Representative Brown, and you are exactly correct. There is not 
a standard definition of regenerative ag. I am not saying today 
that we need one, but if we do work toward that goal, let's 
keep it simple. Something like incorporating agricultural 
practices that continue to build soil health. That is pretty 
simple. And yes, I think that that type of nomenclature or 
designation needs to be on the food that is available for the 
consumer.
    Ms. Brown. Any others?
    Dr. Larson. I would like to comment on that, too, if I may, 
please. I think it is very dangerous to try and come up with a 
blanket statement or a blanket label for one particular type of 
practice because there is so much nuance in it that requires 
physical measurement of the impact of the practices that you 
are implementing. One of the studies cited by Mr. Moyer gave an 
example of erosion differences between different cultivation 
practices. And it showed that conventional no-till had far 
superior erosion prevention capability than the best management 
practices within organic. So we want to be very careful about 
trying to say one particular type of production practice should 
have the label of regenerative and rather focus on measuring 
the physical outcomes that we all desire to have to mitigate 
climate change.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. Thank you all. It seems to me that 
further clarity can also help consumers understand what it 
means when they see a product at the grocery store with the 
words farmed using regenerative techniques. So I appreciate 
your responses.
    Mr. Clark, in your testimony, you also talked about the 
demand for scaling up regenerative agriculture practices. As we 
look to the next farm bill, what can we as Congress and the 
USDA do to be supportive of these efforts?
    Mr. Clark. Yes, I am sorry. Did you say scaling up? Is that 
what you said?
    Ms. Brown. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clark. Yes, yes, what we need to do is we have to start 
with the education process. We have to make sure that the 
teachers are in place. I think it is absolutely imperative that 
when a farmer goes down this road of change and they are so 
unfamiliar with this, they need the guidance, the support to 
help make the very first time they try this to be successful 
because I am afraid if they do not have success, they will not 
come back. Believe me, I have heard every excuse. I live too 
far north, it is too cold, growing season is too short. I have 
heard them all. So we need to take those excuses away and help 
build that confidence within that farmer.
    So within answering your question, we need to make sure the 
six principles of soil health are implemented and that they 
then are put on a system that monitors the progress. Teaching 
and support group is so critical here. Thank you.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. And if you could just go over those 
six points again very quickly.
    Mr. Clark. Sure. You need to--it is context, it is 
diversity, the living root, armor the soil, integrate 
livestock, and I am--and minimize disturbance. That is my 
number one. Thank you. Minimize disturbance. So those are the 
six.
    Ms. Brown. Okay, thank you. So much for reminding us, and 
thank you for your comments.
    Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. And now the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Baird, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I 
really appreciate having this conversation. And I always 
appreciate the witnesses taking the time to share their 
background and ideas with the Committee so we can have a better 
idea of some of the issues that we have in the farm bill.
    But my first question goes to Dr. Larson. And it has to do 
with the idea that others on the panel have claimed that 
organically produced food is more nutritious because the soil 
in their system is healthier. What does the science say about 
that? Any thoughts there?
    Dr. Larson. Yes, thank you for the question. I am happy to 
provide copious amounts of scientific research from peer-
reviewed journals that shows that there is no correlation 
between soil health and nutrition within a plant. I can also 
show you that there is no scientifically credible evidence that 
suggests that food grown through organic practices is safer or 
more nutritious than food grown with conventional ag. Just to 
give a couple of examples of where some of that fear-based 
marketing can have negative effects, especially for 
marginalized and low-income communities, is that when people 
are led to believe that one type of production practice is 
safer or more nutritious than another, it actually drives down 
total consumption of fruits, vegetables, and grains. So there 
can be a negative impact from not speaking to the facts of 
science and scientific consensus.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 98.]
    Mr. Baird. Very good.
    Mr. Moyer. I would add that Rodale Institute would be more 
than happy to supply additional data that showcases the 
opposite side of that conversation because science can show 
what people want it to show, but there are clear differences in 
nutritional quality of crops that are produced in soils that 
are farmed differently.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 89.]
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. You can submit those to the 
Committee.
    So Dr. Larson, one more question. Can you elaborate on your 
comment about how the wholesale elimination of pesticides will 
hurt, not help climate-smart in this? And you specifically 
referenced effects on food waste and food conversion. Can you 
make any additional comments about those issues?
    Dr. Larson. Yes, thank you so much for the question. 
Twenty-twenty was recognized by the UN as the year of plant 
health. And, as a plant pathologist, that made me very happy. 
Forty percent of all food waste happens on-farm before anything 
gets to the grocery store because there is poor pest and 
disease management. So access to pesticides to be able to 
control those pests and diseases on-farm is critically 
important. And more and more farmers are engaged in integrated 
pest management that reduces their reliance on synthetic 
fertilizers, and emerging breeding techniques like gene editing 
are going to reduce reliance on pesticides even further, but 
need to be able to control the pests and diseases that are 
going to be prevalent on farms.
    Mr. Baird. And one more question for you, Dr. Larson, if 
you will. In your testimony, you mentioned Western Sugar 
farmers would not have been able to transition to no-till or 
conservation tillage without the use of glyphosate. Will you 
expand upon the role of glyphosate and what it plays in 
facilitating conservation practices in the farms? And why do 
some claim it is detrimental to soil health?
    Dr. Larson. Yes, thank you so much. For us controlling 
broadleaf weeds, which are a prevalent weed species across the 
Rocky Mountain West, is very difficult in a broadleaf crop. It 
is hard to kill something that is very similar in nature 
without dinging the crop as well. So it is critical. When we 
got glyphosate, it allowed farmers to have more consistent and 
complete weed control so they could put away their plows, they 
could put away their cultivation equipment and not have to 
disturb the ground anymore. They had chemical correction.
    And because of the sentiment that glyphosate is killing the 
soil microbiome, we actually have invested tens of thousands of 
dollars doing routine soil analysis across all of our farms to 
show that the depth and breadth and diversity and soil function 
has not been affected by the application of glyphosate. In 
fact, the diversity and activity of our soil microbiome is up 
six-fold, suggesting that tillage itself is far more 
detrimental to soil health and the soil microbiome than 
chemical applications.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you very much. And I see my time is almost 
over, so I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Baird.
    And now the gentlewoman from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 
you so much for holding this hearing. It is a critically 
important topic as we go into work on the next farm bill, and I 
am very grateful for that. And I want to thank all the 
witnesses. You have all really given us a lot of interesting 
testimony from all points of view, but it all leads back to an 
important understanding of how critical soil health is to both 
dealing with climate change and then the future of farming and 
success for our farmers, so thank you for that.
    I am glad to hear about all of this because I think the 
more we can move conventional agriculture into regenerative 
practices, the better off we will all be and better off our 
environment and our farmers will be. But I have a particular 
interest in organic farming, having been a certified organic 
farmer myself and involved in it for a very long time, also a 
big fan of the Rodale Institute. So thank you so much, Mr. 
Moyer, for being with us today.
    I know you have done some work there, sort of a more of a 
big-picture scale about conversion to organic agriculture and 
soil health and how much carbon can actually be sequestered out 
of the atmosphere. And since that is such a critical topic 
right now, what techniques do we use to sequester carbon, can 
you talk a little bit more about the studies that have been 
done there and sort of the quantification of how much carbon we 
can sequester?
    Mr. Moyer. Yes, thank you very much for the question about 
the conversation around carbon and carbon sequestration. We 
know that the way we manage soils can have a huge impact on its 
ability to sequester carbon. Many of our practices that we 
employ, we have already discussed about cover crops, and we may 
have discussed about crop rotations. These are all tools that 
farmers can implement to sequester carbon. It is becoming more 
and more critical. The amount of carbon we can sequester is 
certainly dependent upon the relationship between the practices 
that we are superimposing on the landscape and the soils innate 
ability through clay particles and the different soil types to 
sequester carbon.
    What is equally as important is that we sequester carbon at 
greater depths. As those of us who are being pulled into the 
concepts around carbon marketing, want to know that our carbon 
is not simply cycling. If you are aware of carbon, then you are 
aware of the word carbon cycle, which means it moves throughout 
the environment. It is in the air, it is in the water, it is in 
the soil. And we want to be able to sequester carbon at greater 
depths so it is more permanently sequestered and not 
volatilized back into the atmosphere.
    So yes, our work at Rodale Institute is continually 
exploring and expanding the concepts around carbon 
sequestration, and we have a tremendous amount of data that we 
would be more than happy to share with this Committee and with 
you in particular.
    Ms. Pingree. Thanks so much. We will look forward to 
exploring that more.\1\ And I do appreciate your mention of the 
deep roots, which was also one of the principles that Mr. Clark 
mentioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Editor's note: Mr. Moyer's supplementary material submission is 
located on p. 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Now I am going to get a little more technical or I guess 
into the weeds, which is sort of a bad pun. But, we are talking 
a little bit about the use of glyphosate and how challenging it 
can be, particularly, in organic farming to deal with weeds, to 
deal with sort of ending the life of your cover crop and doing 
so with no-till. And so if maybe Mr. McCarty or Mr. Clark, you 
both are practicing organic farmers on a big scale, how do you 
deal with this challenge or how do you see us looking at that 
in the future and what more research or support needs to be out 
there to avoid having to use herbicides in practices like we 
are talking about?
    Mr. Clark. Great, great question. Thank you for the 
question. What we have found is the basis for our weed 
suppression is the biomass that is generated by the cover crop. 
Then you mechanically terminate that cover crop with a roller-
crimper. You are creating a mat, a mulch, an armor on the soil. 
And this armor does many, many things. And you can now look at 
arid environments that make the claim we can't grow cover crops 
here, but once you armor the soil and eliminate or mitigate the 
evaporation that is taking place and you build that soil 
health, you are building the aggregate stability, you are 
building your water holding capacity. So when it rains, and 
your neighbor says, ``Hey, I have a 1" of rain, how much did 
you get?'' Your answer is, ``I got it all because it went into 
the ground.''
    Ms. Pingree. That is great. I have to move to Mr. McCarty, 
but I do appreciate that and maybe I can follow up with you. 
And thanks for reminding us that this topic is nonpartisan. So 
Mr. McCarty, what do you do as a technique? I thought the 
roller-crimping is interesting.
    Mr. McCarty. Yes, so one thing that I think is important to 
know is that my farms are not organic farms. We are non-GMO 
project verified, but we are not organic. But the practices 
that we use to mitigate the use of pesticides is varied, we 
live in a very different climate than what Rick lives in. And 
we utilize cover crops. We have explored different planting 
population densities and planting row widths to try to shade 
out those weeds faster. We are working on different varieties 
of cover crop programs that will help choke out pests, weeds, 
especially those that are resistant to current herbicide 
chemicals. We are also looking at different crop rotations and 
exploring those types of crop rotations where we can break that 
weed cycle, as opposed to a corn on corn on corn type of 
cropping cycle. All of those different methodologies have shown 
some and varied levels of effectiveness at controlling weed 
populations across our farms.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Unfortunately, the gentlelady's time----
    Ms. Pingree. I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    And now the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 
Thompson, for holding this hearing today.
    I want to start out by just giving a shout-out to our 
producers. They do an amazing job. They are the breadbasket to 
the world. They are the literal ones that are producing the 
food. My district, Iowa's Fourth District, is either number one 
or two in the nation when it comes to corn and soybean 
production. Actually, my county where I live, Sioux County, is 
number one when it comes to corn and cattle and other things. 
So I take this very seriously.
    And I want to say this about our producers--my in-laws are 
one of them--is that we take soil health very seriously. Why do 
we take it seriously? Because when you have good soil health, 
you also create more production. It goes hand-in-hand, 
literally goes hand-in-hand. So our farmers in the Midwest, in 
Iowa, are every day looking at better ways to create soil 
health from cover crops and no-till to rotations to terraces, 
you name it. And I think about when I was a kid, when we hear 
about how if we can only get 125 bushel of corn per acre, today 
the farmer is looking at over 200, and if he doesn't get over 
200, it is a disappointment. And frankly, in Sioux County, if 
we don't hit over 250, we are upset. It is just amazing what 
has happened.
    But there is always research that is needed, and that is 
why I love my land-grant institution so much, Iowa State 
University that does a tremendous job.
    And with that, Dr. Larson, I would like to ask, Iowa State 
is doing a lot of different research on hybrids, on soils and 
stuff like that. Where do you see more research needed from our 
land-grant institutions?
    Dr. Larson. Thank you for the question. Having worked in 
basic research at a university and USDA myself, I see a lot of 
value in what these third-party researchers do. To me, there 
are a lot of really interesting ideas that come out of academic 
research that lack the capability to be scaled, and so we need 
a way for universities to have better structure and 
scalability. I think that is first and foremost.
    And I think one thing that has not been mentioned on this 
panel is that all of these great practices that we have talked 
about today, soil scientists recognize they only have the 
capacity to offset current emissions. If everybody everywhere 
around the world that is farming did all of those practices, it 
would only sequester enough carbon to offset what we emit 
today, does nothing for the legacy load. So soil scientists are 
crying for frontier technologies like high carbon soil 
amendment, perennial grains that are going to allow us to be 
able to start pulling down and actually draw down on that 
legacy load. And universities will play a big role in that.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes, I agree 100 percent, Dr. Larson, and 
thank you for those comments. And I love the academic arena 
that is looking at different things. But we always have to 
remember that, my in-laws, the producers out there, they want 
to do what is best, they really do, but they also want to make 
a living. They want to add value. And we see this, and if you 
could talk about this, Dr. Larson. So, we talked about 
academic. I was an academic. I was a professor. How do we take 
it from academia to the real world? And I think about Iowa 
State Extension, by the way, started in my hometown, Hull, 
Iowa. But how do we deploy these new strategies and get the 
farming community to add value to what they are already seeing 
in production?
    Dr. Larson. We are big fans of private-public partnerships. 
So I will give you a quick example from Nebraska. Western Sugar 
farmers pulled dollars out of their pockets, funded a 
university scientist to see can we improve nutrient 
stewardship. He demonstrated in 110\2\ that we can, but that 
is not enough to convince farmers that that is the option, 
going forward. So we applied for a USDA SARE grants and got 
$75,000 that allowed us to test that on five large pivots to 
show our growers that even though we have increased yield 35 
percent, we can cut back on fertilizer by 30.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes.
    Dr. Larson. So that is an excellent example of scale-up 
from academic to practical.
    Mr. Feenstra. And you nailed it, right? If you can cut back 
fertilizer, that is an input cost and a significant input cost, 
especially today, right? And that helps added value. And I 
sometimes think that we are going at it the wrong way is how do 
we add value to the production? Because that is all the farmers 
want. They want to have great soil, they absolutely do, but 
they also have to make a living. And we are the breadbasket to 
the world, and we continually will be, all right? Everybody 
looks to us, all right? And I don't ever want anybody to think 
that we are the monsters in the room. We are not. I mean, our 
producers are the greatest people in this great country. And I 
just, I am here to say, how can I help them? How can we make a 
difference? I know, Dr. Larson, you think the same thing. So 
thank you. With that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And now the gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Axne, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Axne. Thank you, Chairman Scott. Thank you to my 
colleague from Iowa, Representative Feenstra. He is absolutely 
right. We have the best stewards of the environment in Iowa 
because we got a lot of farmers. And you all certainly know all 
about that.
    Thanks for being here. This is a really important topic. 
And, as you just heard Representative Feenstra describe what we 
produce in Iowa, we have the best soil in the country, often 
described as black gold, that we absolutely want to keep and 
that we are unfortunately scared that this runoff is going to 
continue, that we will continue to see less nutrients, and so 
we are doing everything we can to protect it. So today is a 
very important discussion. Thank you.
    There is some serious concerns about the sustainability of 
our practices. It has been estimated that the Corn Belt has 
lost \1/3\ of our topsoil, and we are losing it ten times 
faster than that of replenishment. And the studies estimate 
that soil loss in Iowa is worse than any other state, greatly 
endangering our state's biggest asset and the ability for 
future generations to farm as their predecessors had.
    But thankfully, there are a lot of tools that we can 
utilize to help combat this problem, and studies are showing 
that farmers are utilizing those tools to combat that soil 
loss. Cover cropping of course, for example, is a key 
regenerative approach to help us rebuild our soil. And while 
there are a number of USDA programs that can be used to support 
cover cropping, I was particularly pleased to see the USDA 
rollout the Pandemic Cover Crop Program, a $5 per acre 
incentive crop insurance to help farmers employ cover crops as 
a risk management tool. It is a bill I am on, so I am pretty 
supportive of it.
    You may know that in 2021 in Iowa, this program 
incentivized over 850,000 acres of cover crops with over 4.2 
million to Iowa farmers to incentivize soil health. And 
nationwide last year, almost $60 million for cover crops were 
distributed on over 12 million acres, so it is clearly 
successful. And codifying it in the next farm bill will ensure 
farmers have long-term opportunity to ramp up the opportunity 
for cover crop adaptation. So let's hopefully get my 
legislation, the COVER Act (H.R. 8527, Conservation Opportunity 
and Voluntary Environment Resilience Program Act), passed 
because it will ensure resilience in the crop--I like that 
thumbs up from the crowd over there--insurance program to 
strengthen this long-term success.
    So let me get to a producer right here, Mr. Clark. 
Obviously, we know you utilize cover crops on all your acres. 
Can you elaborate on what you have seen with implementing cover 
crops, and what has it done for your soil health, your yields, 
your input? Let's talk bottom line here.
    Mr. Clark. Yes, exactly. Well, so many times, 
Representative Axne, a farmer's success is based on yield. And 
we are looking at how are we going to maximize our ROI per acre 
on everything that we have in the farming operation. So when 
you start to look at the journey that we were on, when we were 
absolutely maximizing our efficiency on the farm, we were at 
100 percent no-till, 100 percent cover crop, and a 60 percent 
reduction of inputs. So we were still using some fertilizers, 
some chemistry, but at a greatly reduced rate. We had yields 
that were increasing year over year, and our stability within 
the system had gone from a yield variance of 30 bushels of corn 
to less than 5. So that means it is a stable environment. When 
you have a stable environment, you then are powerful because 
then you can react to market fluctuations. When something crazy 
happens and the markets spike and they take off, you have the 
ability and the comfort to safely sell into that anomaly 
because you have this stability now that has been created. And 
it is not just 1 year, it is 2. This is multiple years of 
seeing this stability. Thank you for the question.
    Mrs. Axne. Well, and listen, thank you for that answer. If 
there is anything I know, certainty for our farmers is the 
number one thing that they are looking for.
    Mr. Clark. I would like to say that there is a county in 
Iowa, Washington County is a tremendous--I am not sure whose 
district that would be in--tremendous county, and that is a 
county that absolutely--they feed off of each other, and they 
are just growing this. This soil health regenerative movement 
is exploding in that county.
    Mrs. Axne. Well, that is good to know, and I will 
absolutely check into it.
    So I want to follow up a bit here on this need for more 
education on technical assistance, which you have mentioned. I 
want to really--because I hear from our farmers, and they are 
talking about the great soil testing and the data that they are 
getting from that and how they are using it. Do you think that 
is an area where we could be using more technical assistance in 
soil testing and interpretation of those results?
    Mr. Clark. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Well, here is what we are 
doing at home in Indiana. Every year, we have a USDA NRCS 
training on our farm, so we are talking to the leaders of the 
state within USDA. They contact the district conservationists. 
The DCs are coming to our farm, and we are having a soil health 
day on our farm. And exactly--we are doing these principles. We 
are showing the--like the slake test or a slope test. We are 
showing these things. Then these DCs get to understand this 
because the DC is the first contact that farmer is going to 
have. It is imperative that this group of individuals are 
properly trained so they know how to have a conversation about 
what is that guy down the road doing?
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired 
unfortunately.
    Mr. Clark. Thank you.
    The Chairman. And now I recognize the gentlelady from 
Minnesota, Mrs. Fischbach, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate the opportunity. And, first, even though I am from 
Minnesota and we don't often agree with people from Iowa, I 
just wanted to join Mr. Feenstra in thanking the producers, 
because I really think that is something that we don't always 
do and really recognize them as a vital part of the country. 
And I strongly share his thoughts on the producers and their 
concerns and their care for the soil health and that we really 
should be here to help them. And so I just wanted to just 
reiterate what Mr. Feenstra had mentioned.
    And then I just wanted to--Dr. Larson, I appreciate all of 
your thoughtful answers and have been listening carefully. And 
in your opinion, Dr. Larson, how do we correct the narrative 
that American agriculture has killed our soils? And I know that 
one of the other panelists actually had said that in the 
written testimony, and so I just wanted to see what your 
thoughts on how we stop that kind of narrative that is going 
through America?
    Dr. Larson. Yes, I appreciate that question. As you know, 
as a scientist and looking at the scientific literature, doing 
direct physical measurements of the soil to show improvements 
is tough because the soil by itself is very heterogenic. There 
is not much uniformity. So to be able to get concrete data and 
be able to measure very, very tiny changes and this very 
variable background in immediate time is tough. So we have 
pivoted to actually looking at the soil microbiome, so 
measuring the little microbes that are there, the fungi and the 
bacteria, to understand how our cultural practices impact that 
dynamic because all of those critters that are in the soil are 
responsible for ultimately building soil health, cycling 
nutrients and sequestering carbon. So I think that getting 
those tools affordable and in the hands of farmers is critical. 
And I am a strong believer in trying to create bioindicators. 
So instead of having to look at the entirety of the soil 
microbiome community, find some key indicator species that can 
reliably be used to predict in real time what cultural 
practices are helping or hurting so that we can get that real-
time measurement.
    Mrs. Fischbach. And I appreciate that answer. And I would 
just say I think that we also just need to really recognize and 
continue to talk about, like Mr. Feenstra did, that for 
producers that is their first concern: soil health. It is their 
livelihood. They need to make a living. And I am just concerned 
that this kind of narrative that agriculture is ruining soil is 
a problem, but there are certainly things that we can do to 
help change that, and I appreciate it.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And now the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. Schrier, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to all of 
our witnesses. I am loving this discussion. As this Committee 
examines soil health practices with the farm bill on the 
horizon, it is worth exploring existing USDA programs that aid 
growers looking to improve the health of their soils, as we 
have heard a lot about today. One of the lesser known programs, 
although I just heard a nod to it earlier, is SARE, the 
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Program. SARE is 
a USDA research program that provides grants to farmers to 
focus research on their very specific needs and communicate 
their findings and best practices to their community. SARE has 
funded nearly 200 projects in Washington State alone, focusing 
on a broad range of topics, including soil additives, tree 
fruit pests, and sustainable grazing practices.
    I am currently working on a bill to modernize SARE to 
ensure that we are maximizing every tool at our disposal to 
improve ag research capacity and our ability to study novel 
regenerative practices that will improve soil health and on-
farm productivity.
    Dr. Larson, I would love to get your input here. We know 
that programs like CSP are very popular and often 
oversubscribed, even in the neighborhood of like three to one 
in Washington State. I was wondering if you could talk a little 
bit about SARE or other small-dollar programs that have an 
outsized impact on soil health and associated climate and 
yields, as we just heard, benefits?
    Dr. Larson. Yes, so as an academic myself, I appreciate 
this question. There is so many cool things that happen in 
110\2\. And academics are very quick to say, hey, look what I 
did. Now, let's do that on every farm across America. It is not 
that simple. And I am a huge fan of SARE and promote it widely 
across all of the sugarbeet cooperatives because it is a very 
useful tool to help bridge from that interesting academic idea 
to prove scalability. And we see it honestly as a stepping 
stone. So I mentioned we are able to use a SARE grant to show 
our farmers that what happened in 110\2\ in this instance is 
going to work at large scale, that we can cut back fertilizer 
30 percent even though we have increased yield 35 percent. And 
it provides a foundation of data now for next week.
    Dr. Bijesh Maharjan at the University of Nebraska and 
Western Sugar are jointly submitting a CIG On-Farm Innovation 
Trial grants with the data that we obtained from SARE, the 
learnings that we had from SARE about the hurdles for grower 
adoption to be able to scale it up across 100 farmers in two 
states over 5 years. So SARE is a really important program, and 
I am so happy that you are expanding and supporting that 
program.
    Ms. Schrier. I love that answer because especially now with 
scarcity of fertilizer and increased costs, the notion that you 
can cut inputs and increase yields is so important.
    I also wanted to highlight the Washington Soil Health 
Initiative. It is an innovative partnership between Washington 
State Department of Agriculture, Washington State University, 
and the Washington State Conservation Commission. And the 
initiative established a coordinated approach to soil health 
across the state. The initiative is currently doing a state-of-
the-soils assessment to track soil health over time in region 
and different soil types and developing soil carbon 
verification metrics for the State Sustainable Farms and Field 
Program that provides funding for farmers and ranchers to adopt 
climate-smart practices, and we need the data to back those up. 
So this is a unique model that uses a multi-pronged approach to 
study the scientific nuances, while providing pathways for 
adoption of behavior change. This initiative requires 
tremendous coordination, and I am so proud to say that 
Washington State is leading the way.
    And as we look to the next farm bill, the initiatives staff 
highlighted for me and my staff that a national soil health 
effort would greatly benefit from similar coordination and 
collaboration between agencies, universities to unify and 
maximize the impact. So we need to make sure, for example, that 
we have adequate and diverse staffing like economists and 
sociologists, data scientists, in addition to farmers to 
demonstrate the impacts of regenerative practices in organized 
national and regional adoption efforts. So I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to provide Federal investment in the 
SARE program and in these collaborative programs to improve 
soil health across the board.
    And I yield back. Thank you for this discussion.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Schrier.
    And now the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Finstad, please, 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Finstad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First and foremost, I 
just want to say it is so great for me to be here. This is my 
first Committee hearing as a new Member to Congress. And it 
couldn't be a better Committee hearing to be at and a Committee 
to be on.
    I am a fourth-generation farmer from southern Minnesota. 
Soil is important to us. It is something that we have passed on 
generation to generation, and the health of the soil is so 
important that my family actually started and owns and operates 
a soil laboratory. So you can imagine I am geeking out here 
today with all of you and the interest that you have in soil 
health, so it is near and dear to me.
    When I look at what we do in southern Minnesota, it is so 
generationally driven that we care about our land because we 
know that that is what we have to pass on. And so I am proud to 
say that my senior in high school, oldest son, has taken an 
interest in farming, so the soil is pretty important to us and 
making sure that we are leaving it better for him to farm in 
the next generation.
    But as I look at farming practices and policy that we have 
the opportunity to discuss here, I like looking at data and I 
like trying to understand the science behind the data and 
understanding the application and the implication of the 
policies that we do here.
    So, Dr. Larson, a 2017 survey found that more than 95 
percent of Nebraska growers use herbicide to terminate cover 
crops. A 2021 study found that about 80 percent of all U.S. 
growers use herbicides to terminate cover crops. And so 
presumably, this is because herbicides are the most effective 
methods to do that. And, as a farmer and as someone that has 
seen the pros and cons and the effects of using herbicides and 
using them at the right rate at the right time to control 
cropping decisions, my question, Dr. Larson, is would you agree 
that herbicides are an important tool for growers to have 
available at our fingertips to improve cover crop adoption in 
the United States?
    Dr. Larson. Absolutely 100 percent. And I appreciate that 
question. If we lose those tools, it is going to be a major 
step backwards in terms of conventional agriculture that 
dominates a majority of the farming acres. If we take those 
away, mechanical removal is the next best option, and that is 
going to disturb the soil, it is going to release the carbon 
that was captured in the soil back into the atmosphere, and it 
is going to destroy the soil microbiome down beneath the soil.
    Mr. Finstad. Thank you, Dr. Larson. And, for me, the 
discussion of herbicides and the use of herbicides, the when 
and the where and the how, is just a real and alive issue for 
me, someone that grew up walking beans in southern Minnesota. 
There was definitely great value in that work ethic and that 
family bonding that happened during that process. But there is 
also the efficiencies gained and the yields that we were able 
to see the increase based on the timely use of herbicide and 
the right use of herbicides. And I will say that as we as 
farmers are asked to feed a growing global world, it is so 
important for us to have that balance and maybe not a one-size-
fits-all or nothing approach. So I appreciate your willingness 
to be here today and your adding to this conversation and all 
of you for the work that you are doing, again, to preserve the 
soil that is the greatest asset that we have to pass on to our 
next generation, so thank you all.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And now the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Panetta, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 
witnesses. And, Mr. Finstad, welcome. I look forward to working 
with you. It is good to be here. Thank you.
    I come from the Central Coast of California. Obviously, we 
have a lot of specialty crops there. As you know it and as I 
like to say, you name it, we grow it. But despite that, I feel 
that my producers in my district are doing a lot when it comes 
to paving the way for climate-smart, soil-smart farming 
practices.
    To that end, I want to address a bill that Representative 
Baird from Indiana and myself have put forward, H.R. 7752, the 
Plant Biostimulant Act. As some of you may be aware, plant 
biostimulants are an emerging and rapidly growing ag input that 
have the ability to improve and enhance our soil health. The 
plant biostimulant category covers a diverse set of 
technologies, but most of the products are derived from 
naturally occurring materials or microbes that were discovered 
to be beneficial to the soil or plant health or even both.
    Now, similar to how probiotics are good for us, plant 
biostimulants can increase diversity of the soil microbiome, 
fix nitrogen in the soil, make nutrients more available to the 
plants, and improve soil structure that increase water holding 
capacity or organic content. The bill that we introduced would 
create a Federal definition for plant biostimulants, which is a 
term that has not yet been defined at the Federal level. It 
would also amend and clarify two other related definitions and 
authorize USDA to perform a soil health study on plant 
biostimulants so that we can fully understand and advance the 
contributions to better our soil health. That is why I do 
believe that H.R. 7752 is an important bill.
    Now, Mr. Clark or Mr. McCarty that is virtual, have you 
heard of the term plant biostimulant?
    Mr. Clark. Oh, yes. I am glad you brought this up.
    Mr. Panetta. Great.
    Mr. Clark. This is right where I want to be.
    Mr. Panetta. In what way?
    Mr. Clark. I am not a biologist, but I do know that there 
is a living, breathing microbiome below our feet. And I feel 
like, through our journey, I was very stubborn in not pursuing 
these avenues of bringing these stimulants to the farm because 
this is going to speed up the soil health-building process. 
Okay? So my stubbornness has probably delayed our seeing this 
by a few years, but I think if a person is in a high-tillage 
environment and they want to transition to regenerative 
practices, this is what you add as an augmentation to your 
system. And it is a system. The microbial package has got to be 
a system just like anything else is.
    Mr. Panetta. Yes. Now, Mr. Clark, what do you think we in 
Congress or this Committee could be doing better to ensure 
further education around plant biostimulants or other 
innovative soil health technologies and practices?
    Mr. Clark. I think there needs to be--academia needs to 
have students that are going to go out and we need to identify 
more of this microbial biome. And then what do certain sectors 
do? For example, I think where we are going to head one day is 
we are going to sit down and we are going to say, ``Okay, what 
are your three biggest weed problems? What is your next cash 
crop going to be? And now this is the cocktail package we are 
going to put together and augment it with a stimulant package 
because it is going to create an environment that water hemp, 
for example, is not going to want to germinate and grow in.'' 
That is where this needs to go.
    Mr. Panetta. Great. And that starts with the passing of the 
Plant Biostimulant Act, right?
    Mr. Clark. Yes.
    Mr. Panetta. Great. Thank you.
    Mr. Clark. Thanks for bringing this up.
    Mr. Panetta. Just checking.
    Mr. Moyer, let me pivot to you. Your testimony describes 
regenerative organic. In my district, look, we get it when it 
comes to the value of organic and the reason why consumers 
trust that label. Now I met with a group yesterday that 
referenced how regenerative could mean six or seven different 
things when it comes to agriculture. To me, that seems to 
complicate things for our longstanding organic producers that 
have relied on the National Organic Program for years to market 
and certify their products. Can you discuss, Mr. Moyer, whether 
there is a need to formalize that definition at the Federal 
level at the USDA and what the lack of standards or consistent 
definitions might mean for producers on both sides of the 
conversation?
    Mr. Moyer. Yes, a complicated question, and thank you very 
much for it. I do not think that we need a national standard at 
this point in time. We have great partnerships with industry 
and nonprofits and the Federal Government currently, so we do 
have a standard out there for regenerative organic that is 
being rolled-out across the world, and we are seeing great 
success in that partnership between the Federal Government, 
nonprofits, and the food industry, giving people the 
opportunity to have great input and impact into how they define 
it.
    Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Moyer. I am out of time. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Absolutely. Thank you.
    And now the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is great to have a Nebraska panelist with us as well, so 
welcome. In fact, my first question is for you, Dr. Larson, if 
I may. I have read this, and I want you to just give me your 
comments if it is true or not or your insights. People say 
organic food is produced without the use of pesticides, but 
that is not really the case. While organic production cannot 
use synthetic pesticides, you can still use organic pesticides. 
Because these organic pesticides are generally less effective, 
they tend to be used more intensely. And organic producers 
often have to apply them multiple times throughout the growing 
season. Dr. Larson, can you talk more about how organic 
herbicides are not always better for soil health and just give 
us your insights?
    Dr. Larson. Yes, so organic farmers do have the capability 
to use non-synthetic herbicides, so oftentimes, they will 
resort to things like acids. Acetic acid is a common one to 
terminate cover crops. But they primarily rely on tillage in 
order to destroy cover crops and manage weeds. And even in the 
no-till organic system that--if you look at the Rodale 
Institute's website--indicates they still have to plow every 
other year. And so if you have taken the time to sequester all 
that carbon into your soil and then you reintroduce a plow, 
whether it is every year or every other year, that carbon 
storage is not permanent. It is reversible. And so when they go 
through with that plow, they are releasing all of that carbon 
that they have stored and worked so hard for back into the 
environment. But yes, tillage is the primary thing that they 
rely on. But yes, many people think that there are no chemicals 
in organic, but there are. They are just natural and usually 
less effective.
    Mr. Moyer. I would like to correct one statement, having 
being at Rodale Institute. If you look at the data that we put 
out there, and I would encourage you to look at the facts that 
we do not till every other year. That is not the system that we 
are employing. So tillage is not the enemy, depending on how 
and where you do it, and I think we can mitigate many of those 
problems.
    Mr. Bacon. But you do use organic herbicides or pesticides, 
right?
    Mr. Moyer. I am sorry?
    Mr. Bacon. But you do use organic--I want to make sure I 
get my right terms on here--inputs.
    Mr. Moyer. We use organic inputs?
    Mr. Bacon. Okay.
    Mr. Moyer. I am sorry----
    Mr. Bacon. The question was--okay, let me find my right 
question here, go back to this one. You are still using organic 
pesticides. Am I correct?
    Mr. Moyer. We do not.
    Mr. Bacon. Okay.
    Dr. Larson. I will recognize the fact that I did cite the 
Rodale Institute's website directly, and it is within my 
written comments that says that with organic no-till, you have 
to plow every other year. I don't implement it, I don't know 
much about it, but that was just pulled from Rodale Institute's 
website.
    Mr. Bacon. Okay. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield 
back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And now 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 so much also 
to the Ranking Member for today's hearing on soil health. And 
to our witnesses, thank you for your testimony.
    Soil is the source of our lives, and it is responsible for 
life on Earth. So listening to our witnesses today describe a 
broken food system and sound the alarm--the alarm is going 
off--the alarm to increasing soil degradation leads me to 
acknowledge that regenerative agriculture is part of the 
solution to this crisis. It has also proven to be a profitable 
way to farm, but yet only one percent of American farmland is 
certified organic and farmed regeneratively. So it is time for 
a massive shift to save our agri-system.
    Mr. Clark, the importance of conservation opportunities has 
been cited throughout this panel. Farmers can sign up for 
climate-friendly bundles under the Conservation Stewardship 
Program, but not many do. What incentives can we provide to 
farmers to increase their participation in CSP?
    Mr. Clark. Right, that is a great question. I think it goes 
back to the teaching again. I think, unfortunately, there may 
be just plain and simply the farmer does not have faith in that 
individual to guide them in the right direction. For example, I 
mentioned earlier in testimony that we have teachings at our 
farm through USDA NRCS. We were very fortunate to have a very 
great group of young DCs. Every one of these DCs did not have 
any agricultural background. So it is imperative that the 
proper teaching is given to these folks so that they then can 
properly implement these great programs like CSP, EQIP, no-till 
programs and such. So thank you for the question, 
Representative Adams.
    Ms. Adams. Education is the key.
    So, Mr. Nygren, in my home State of North Carolina, 
millions of hogs and chickens are being raised in large factory 
farms. These operations are clustered within communities of 
color, and many have faced environmental and health impacts. So 
how can more regenerative agriculture help strengthen the 
economies of rural communities in North Carolina?
    Mr. Nygren. We realize that we have lost a lot of our small 
family farms. They are the ones that really support the 
agrarian economy, the local merchants. And if we bring small 
farms back into our rural communities across the United States, 
we will not only have a local food system that doesn't depend 
on the fossil fuels to get it to the shelf, but it can go 
directly from the farms to the consumer. But it will really 
stimulate the local economy, which will totally change our 
small towns across America.
    Ms. Adams. Okay, thank you. So let me ask Mr. Clark about 
regenerative practices that that you have undertaken. You 
mentioned that the transition to some can take years, while 
incentives are sometimes only focused on the short-term. So how 
were you able to successfully bridge that gap?
    Mr. Clark. Yes, that that is a great question. It takes 
courage. You have to be faithful and understand that you are 
starting to work with Mother Nature. And we need to figure out 
how the best ways are to accommodate working with this 
microbial biome. I mean, this was just 15 years ago. I knew 
nothing about this. It has been there for a long time. I knew 
nothing about it. I am not a biologist. I am not an expert in 
this area. I do know that biology exists. I have seen it. I 
have a microscope myself. I can get it out. I can look at 
things. I don't know what they are all called. But I can see 
the change. I can see the numbers are different. So it is very, 
very important that you surround yourself with positive people 
that give you reinforcement. This is very important. Negativity 
brings everybody down, so positive reinforcement, and everyone 
is on the journey, the ride of the journey. And that is what 
this is. You are trying to figure out how to work and grow with 
Mother Nature and build soil health and what we haven't talked 
much about today is human health.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir. I am out of time.
    Thank you so much.
    Mr. Clark. Human health is very important also.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir. I am out of time. Mr. Chairman, 
I yield back.
    Mr. Clark. Thank you.
    The Chairman. And thank you, Vice Chairlady.
    And now gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Cammack, is now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 
appreciate the conversation today regarding soil health. 
Representing a state that produces over 300 specialty crops and 
is a major contributor to our nation and the world's 
agriculture, this is a very important topic.
    I am going to focus in on a couple of key issues, but this 
first question goes to all of our panelists. We can start going 
down the line. First and foremost, thank you for being here 
today both to, as I said, the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
    But I want to start out with a discussion about biochar in 
agricultural production and its application. In Florida, the 
use of biochar derived from wood products or waste is viewed as 
a positive new advancement for soil health and agricultural 
production. For example, there are a number of nurseries, 
citrus groves, and others who have incorporated the use of 
biochar into their operations. Now, according to the University 
of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, IFAS, 
biochar can have benefits for waste production, energy 
production, carbon sequestration, and soil fertility without 
sacrificing any production tools needed. Now, moreover, UF IFAS 
notes that biochar can positively and simultaneously improve 
crop yields and reduce fertilizer requirements for crops in 
certain environments, and we are going to continue to push for 
additional studies on this issue. But would any one of our 
witnesses be able to speak to the potential benefits for both 
producers and soil health by increasing the use of biochar in 
certain production areas throughout the United States?
    Dr. Larson. I would like to speak to that question if that 
is okay?
    Mrs. Cammack. Wonderful.
    Dr. Larson. We actually got a grant just this morning from 
the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities that is focused 
on this exact principle, high carbon soil amendment with 
biochar. This is imperative in terms of trying to address our 
soil health challenges. As I mentioned, all the stuff that we 
have talked about today that is currently recognized in 
conservation practice standards by NRCS is not enough to do 
more than just offset current emissions. We need frontier 
technologies such as biochar and high carbon soil amendment to 
help repair some of the damage from the past and be able to 
take care of some of that legacy load of carbon within the 
atmosphere. And this is an excellent opportunity. We are 
actually recycling a waste stream from our factory to implement 
this high carbon soil amendment, but the overarching goal of 
our project is to be able to build in best management practices 
to this brand new interim conservation practice standard 808 as 
the biochar infrastructure is developing across the nation.
    This is a great way to take material that could just sit 
and rot and cause emissions into the atmosphere and turn it 
into a high carbon, stable form of carbon that can be injected 
directly into the soil. This is going to be a gamechanger in 
terms of replacing compost. It is going to be a gamechanger for 
dealing with food waste. It is an excellent opportunity for 
everybody, going forward.
    Mrs. Cammack. Wonderful. Thank you so much for that.
    Mr. Clark. I am not an expert in biochar. I don't claim to 
be. But what I would like to say is that when you implement the 
principles of soil health, you increase your biomass that you 
are producing from your cover crops, you are feeding this 
microbial biome. I am not sure that in that instance biochar is 
going to benefit me as much as I can benefit with mechanically 
terminating cover crops that will feed this microbial biome. 
But again, I am not an expert.
    Mrs. Cammack. I appreciate your insight, Mr. Clark.
    Mr. Moyer. Yes, I would agree with you, Rick. I think it 
depends where you are in the spectrum of transition and the 
quality and the current health of your soil. What we have 
noticed is that soils that are highly degraded, the input of 
biochar makes a big difference, same with those biostimulants 
that we talked about earlier. And as you progress in your 
journey towards a healthier soil, you see less and less impact 
or measurable impact from that biochar. But there is certainly 
an opportunity there to have great success by using these new 
tools.
    Mr. McCarty. I would add to that as well that, in 
particular, where I live in the country in northwest Kansas, in 
particular in the areas such as the one we are going through 
today under extreme drought conditions, cover crops might not 
be an issue. Frankly, they are not an issue or an option right 
now for most dryland farmers. But having the tool of biochar 
available in the toolbox allows for continued improvements in 
soil health, carbon sequestration in years when implementing 
cover crop programs are not a viable option, such as this year.
    Mrs. Cammack. That is wonderful. And my time is about to 
expire. I have a follow-up question that I will submit for the 
record. If we could get a response, I sure would appreciate it. 
And thank you all for appearing before the Committee today. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And now the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me 
thank you and Ranking Member Thompson for hosting this hearing. 
It is very, very timely. And I want to thank our witnesses and 
a special shout-out to Mr. Nygren, who is from Georgia. And I 
would like to address this question to Mr. Nygren.
    I was very pleased to see you mentioned Mr. Will Harris in 
your testimony. As you know, I represent the Second District in 
Georgia where Mr. Harris lives and where he operates White Oak 
Pastures. He has been recognized throughout our state, the 
nation, and even globally for his impeccable stewardship and 
commitment to regenerative agriculture. Mr. Sedrick Rowe, also 
referenced in your written statement, is another constituent of 
Georgia's Second District, and many of the practices that he 
implements on his farm demonstrate benefits for both soil 
health and mitigating climate change.
    So I have several questions to follow up on your written 
testimony. You mentioned the efforts to build the organic 
peanut sector in Georgia and how organics can be more 
profitable. Can you tell us what makes organic farming more 
profitable? And how does the transition to organic farming 
affect the bottom line cost of production?
    Second question, you stated that industrial agriculture 
damaged the local agrarian economy. Do you believe that the 
ultimate goal is to replace industrial farming with local 
regenerative farms? And if so, will the production of food from 
these farms be sufficient to feed the growing population in the 
U.S. and across the world? Or do you think the number of 
regenerative farms should be increased to build a more 
resilient supply?
    And finally, you in your testimony discuss the threat that 
is posed by the development of agricultural land. And you 
mentioned the loss of jobs and farm output. How can existing 
programs help and our easement programs a viable way to keep 
land in production? Those are three questions. I hope you 
caught them.
    Mr. Clark. Is that question to me or Mr. Moyer?
    Mr. Bishop. It is to Mr. Nygren I think.
    Mr. Nygren. Yes, I can answer the economic piece, but I 
would yield to Mr. Moyer to talk about the science.
    Mr. Bishop. Very good. Very good.
    Mr. Nygren. Yes. But if you look at Will Harris in your own 
district, I think you would admit that the local merchants and 
the local economy, there was a lot of vacant housing that 
existed a couple decades ago.
    Mr. Bishop. Absolutely.
    Mr. Nygren. And it was when he changed his farm practices--
and I don't know the science, I just know the economics of it--
that totally changed the economy for the entire county. I 
believe you now have a housing shortage. You have a complete 
employment base that is being attracted to your county that did 
not exist before Will Harris changed his practices.
    Mr. Bishop. Absolutely. Absolutely.
    Mr. Nygren. I will yield if possible to Mr. Moyer to talk 
about the science of that.
    Mr. Bishop. Okay.
    Mr. Moyer. I am not sure what the question was about the 
science or the economics. I mean, there is really a great 
difference in the economics of organic agriculture because what 
we are seeing is a marketplace that is supporting farmers at 
the point of purchase for the true cost of producing that food. 
So many organic farmers, depending on their scale, do not 
necessarily avail themselves to government subsidy programs. 
They are making money by selling the product at a point of 
purchase for the value that it takes to produce that crop. And 
that has really been able to change the economic picture of 
many farms across the country.
    Mr. Bishop. The other question I really would like to 
follow up on, and any panelists can chime in on this. Do you 
believe that the ultimate goal is to replace industrial farming 
with local regenerative farms? And if so, will the regenerative 
farms be sufficient to feed the growing U.S. population or do 
you think the number of regenerative farms should be an 
increase so we have a more resilient supply chain?
    Dr. Larson. A meta-analysis that was recently completed 
shows that organic agriculture at scale lags behind 
conventional farming to a point of 20 percent. And if they were 
able to implement best management practices, that yield gap may 
increase up to 34 percent compared to conventional farming, and 
I will provide those citations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Editor's note: the supplementary material referred to located 
on p. 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The other issue that you face is you can reduce, or you can 
increase that--decrease that yield gap between conventional 
organic, and at optimum, scientists predict that you could get 
between an eight to nine percent yield drag, which, as Mr. 
Moyer indicated in his testimony, a ten percent loss of yield 
due to soil health degradation would be devastating for climate 
change because it would require millions of acres to be 
converted. And there is nothing more detrimental to the 
protection of climate change and biodiversity than land use 
change.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    And now I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
panel for your expertise.
    Obviously, innovation is important to this nation. However, 
we have been in our districts for the last month, and I have 
gotten an earful from the people. My constituents are sick and 
tired of this government perpetrating its will on them on what 
to drive, what is morally right and wrong, and it is one issue 
after the other. And so well, it is just, I don't care if the 
policies are terrible. This is just the way it is going to be. 
And, I am afraid we are caught up in another one of those 
things here where we are talking about changing the way we feed 
this country. And obviously, the importance, it is a national 
security issue.
    And, the best example that that I have is Sri Lanka. I 
mean, that government perpetrated on its farmers banning the 
use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. We are already 
having issues with that on our farms today, and it is going to 
affect yields this year, I mean, what the EPA is trying to do 
to them. The result of this was catastrophic. Yields for rice 
fell by 20 percent within the first 6 months of the policy, 
driving up food prices and forcing the largely self-sufficient 
country to import substantial quantities of rice to feed its 
people. We can't have this in this country. Plus the fact that 
what our farmers have been able to achieve in yields and other 
things has really allowed us to participate in feeding the 
whole world. The whole world is using us as an example of the 
freedom to innovate and to produce yields and to use the 
products available to us to do that.
    And there are no better conservationists than our farmers. 
This land has been, most of it, been in their families for 
generations. They have to protect the land, and we have to 
assist them with that, but we don't need these one-size-fits-
all government policies that are creating havoc in the 
marketplace out there.
    Dr. Larson, you talked about the wholesale elimination of 
pesticides and how that is going to affect what we are dealing 
with here. You specifically referenced effects on food waste 
and land conversion. Any way to predict what is going to 
happen? If this is--like I said, we don't want to be another 
Sri Lanka.
    Dr. Larson. Why don't I give you a personal example of when 
mandates have gone wrong in my own life? So I live in Boulder 
County, Colorado. The County Commissioners passed a ban on all 
GMOs and pesticide usage on Boulder County open space that 
encompassed a lot of our sugarbeet acreage because they had 
some folks come in and promise them that no-till organic was 
possible and would have better environmental and economic 
outcomes for our farmers. Well, 10 years later almost and 
millions of dollars spent trying to scale that up, there is not 
a single organic or conventional farmer that has switched to 
that within our geography because it has been too difficult to 
amass enough biomass with a spring-planted cover crop. So they 
have reverted back to what the farmers had done and come to 
their conclusions on their own to promote soil health because 
the science never added up and the economics never added up.
    Mr. Allen. And with that, without objection, Mr. Chairman, 
I would like to submit an article for the record titled, In Sri 
Lanka, Organic Farming Went Catastrophically Wrong. This 
article was published on March 5, 2022, in Foreign Policy and 
dives further into Sri Lanka's organic crisis.
    The Chairman. Without objection, Mr. Allen.
    [The article referred to is located on p. 78.]
    Mr. Allen. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Larson and others on the panel--and we have about 50 
seconds here--claim organically produced food is more 
nutritious because the soil in their system is healthier. What 
does the science say on this matter?
    Dr. Larson. As I mentioned, I will provide some scientific 
literature because I think what is important is to look at the 
peer-reviewed literature in terms of scientific consensus on 
this matter.\3\ And there isn't any evidence that the food 
produced through organic farming methods is more nutritious, 
safer, or healthier for people to consume. And in fact, 
promoting that misconception that does not agree with 
scientific consensus is causing Americans, especially low-
income and marginalized communities, to purchase and consume 
fewer fruits, vegetables, and grains that was found from an 
Oxford University study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Editor's note: the supplementary material referred to located 
on p. 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Allen. Yes. And for the record, Mr. Chairman, I grew up 
on raw milk, and I am still here. So anyway, with that, I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir. I did, too.
    Mr. Allen. And you are still here.
    The Chairman. Right from the cow on my grandfather's farm 
where I grew up.
    Mr. Allen. On my dad's farm.
    The Chairman. There you go. All right. And now the 
gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett, who is 
also the Chair of the Subcommittee on Biotechnology, 
Horticulture, and Research for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
so much for convening this hearing and for the Members who have 
offered your questions. And this has really been very 
informative. I am really appreciative.
    I have a question for Mr. Moyer. In your written testimony, 
sir, it includes three priorities, funding for cover crop 
utilization; two, additional funding for USDA organic 
transition initiatives; and three, strategic planning to better 
serve farmers adopting regenerative organic models. Why are 
these three the most important priorities for Rodale, and to 
what extent can existing programs achieve these goals?
    Mr. Moyer. Well, thank you very much for the question and 
opening up the conversation around support mechanisms for 
farmers wishing to make that transition. We have heard 
throughout the testimony today that education is clearly 
important to farmers. Anytime a farmer is making a transition--
and we are not suggesting we do away with industrial 
agriculture. We are suggesting we transition agriculture from 
one mode of production to something that is more focused on 
soil health.
    In order to make that transition, you have farmers--no 
matter what the transition is, people need help and guidance, 
support, education, consulting, and we want to make those 
dollars at the Federal level available for farmers who choose, 
not who are mandated, but who choose to make a difference in 
their farming operation, whether in whole or in part, by acre 
or by crop. The USDA program allows for multiple implementation 
strategies. But farmers need that guidance and support in order 
to make that change. They need to know that they are not alone 
in making that transition and that there are support mechanisms 
in place.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. In my district of the Virgin 
Islands, our farmers are operating on very small farms. And so 
they need to really be conscious of soil health because to be 
able to pass it throughout generations, this is an important 
component. So, as you said, this is not mandated. This is a 
choice. And I think it is important for USDA to provide the 
support, and so I am grateful to you for sharing with us those 
priorities and how that is done.
    Mr. Nygren, your written testimony refers to soil health as 
the platform to bring our small towns back to life. You 
mentioned that you believe value-added production will follow 
healthy soil. Do you believe that these are areas where soil 
health should be targeted, and how do we do that?
    Mr. Nygren. I think one of the important things in the 
entire discussion is that we are not suggesting one or the 
other. I think this is talking about giving the small farmers, 
the farmers that are willing to address the science, an equal 
chance and that has not happened with a lot of the policy and 
the funds that come out of the past farm bills. And that is one 
thing that you can change in this farm bill, to give them 
simply an equal chance with the industrial farms.
    Ms. Plaskett. Right. Thank you. And I am so glad that both 
of the witnesses are pointing this out, that what we are giving 
individuals are choices, particularly for small farmers. I know 
that often in testimony that I have heard, it plays well to say 
that these are absolutes and that the Democrats are forcing you 
to do something. That creates a good sound clip. But that is 
not what we are talking about here in the farm bill. What we 
are talking about is giving those who are interested the 
opportunity to do that. And I think that that is what we, as 
all Members, used to be interested in doing.
    Mr. Clark, thank you as well for your testimony and for 
your measured responses. I am really very appreciative of that. 
Your testimony mentions the need to build local and regional 
processing infrastructure. In the Virgin Islands we are very 
interested in how do we bring value added? How do we do that 
processing infrastructure? How does that impact soil health in 
that?
    Mr. Clark. Yes, it is very important that the--one of the 
principles of soil health is integrating livestock, and then 
you have to be able to have an outlet for those livestock to go 
to. So it is very important that we have processing facilities 
for small operations, medium-sized operations, and the larger 
operations. I see this as a benefit to building soil health 
because integrating livestock, we do it on our farm. If you 
want to increase soil health the quickest and the most 
efficient way, you need to have livestock on your property, and 
you need to follow the proper rotational grazing rules.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Thank you so much, again, to the 
Chairman, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. And now, ladies and 
gentlemen, we have reached the end of this outstanding, 
informative, and historic hearing. I want to thank each of you. 
Mr. Jeff Moyer, CEO of Rodale Institute, Kutztown, 
Pennsylvania, thank you.
    My good friend, Mr. Steve Nygren of Georgia, founder and 
CEO of Serenbe, Chattahoochee Hills, Georgia, and my 
constituent, thank you for your leadership over the years. You 
pioneered this area years ago, and you stuck to it. I followed 
your career closely through the years jointly with mine, as you 
have.
     Mr. Ken McCarty, partner of the McCarty Family Farms in 
Colby, Kansas, I can't thank you enough for dramatizing and 
hitting the critical nature, the crisis that we face for the 
future of our food supply. Thank you.
    And to Dr. Rebecca Larson, Ph.D., Chief Scientist and Vice 
President, Government Affairs, Western Sugar Cooperative of 
Denver, excellent, all of you. Thank you.
    And we also had--did I miss--oh, Rick Clark, there he is. 
Rick, I can't thank you enough. You sound the alarm. Paul 
Revere will be very proud of you. As I said, the British might 
not be coming, but a food shortage, a crisis is coming if we 
fail to act. So I want to thank you, Rick, owner, Farm Green 
and Clark Land and Cattle of Williamsport, Indiana. I can't 
thank you enough.
    And it is so important that we clearly point out how 
important our soil it is. It is the earth. The good Lord 
created us from there. As he scooped down to the earth, we come 
from there. We are a part of it. And so I just want to thank 
you because we call it Mother Earth for a reason. It is the 
origination of us, our food, our existence, and we have to take 
care of it. And you all have helped us here. The nation is 
grateful. I think we have opened a light and showed that we are 
moving ahead. And this was why it was important for this 
Committee to do it. And I want to thank you.
    And you heard from both the Republicans and Democrats, who 
shared their feelings, individual of our sincere appreciation, 
and their top-of-the-line interests to make sure that we never 
have a food shortage. In order to do that, we have to take care 
of our soil that produces our food and our survival.
    So I can't thank you enough. And I just want to say God 
bless you and thank you. And Oh, I see. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Baird. Congressman Baird. Congressman Baird from 
Indiana.
    The Chairman. Oh, yes, Mr. Baird. Go right ahead.
    Mr. Baird. I just wanted to add to what you have said and 
welcome and express my appreciation for Mr. Clark from my 
district being here and being on the panel. So thank you for 
letting me do that.
    The Chairman. Amen. And I say to you, thank you for having 
Mr. Clark.
    Mr. Clark. It was an honor to be here. Thank you.
    The Chairman. As I said, I know if he were here, but I said 
Paul Revere would be proud of him. He sounded the alarm for us 
to get ready, and we are going forward with this.
    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 question posed by a Member.
    And with that, this hearing of the Agriculture Committee of 
the House of Representatives in Congress is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Statement by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress 
     from North Carolina; on Behalf of Environmental Working Group
    Agriculture is a significant and growing source \1\ of greenhouse 
emissions. In particular, nitrous oxide \2\ emissions from fertilizing 
crops and animal feed, and methane \3\ emissions from livestock and 
their manure, are growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Unless 
we reduce agricultural emissions of nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and 
methane, we will fail to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions needed 
to \4\ avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/#agriculture/
entiresector/allgas/category/all.
    \2\ https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/#iallsectors/
allsectors/nitrousoxide/invent
sect/all.
    \3\ https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/#iallsectors/
allsectors/methane/invent
sect/all.
    \4\ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Voluntary conservation programs administered by the Department of 
Agriculture could play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions and help ensure farms are better able to withstand the 
extreme weather caused by climate change. Conservation practices that 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions can also improve air and water quality 
and provide habitat for wildlife.
    But, because of its misplaced spending priorities, USDA turns away 
\5\ two out of every three farmers seeking conservation assistance 
designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The historic funding 
included in the Inflation Reduction Act for conservation practices 
could help reduce this backlog and reduce emissions. But Congress must 
reform these programs to fulfill the promise of the IRA funding and 
ensure it flows to greenhouse gas reducing practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2021/08/growing-farm-
conservation-backlog-shows-need-congress-spend-smarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To accomplish this goal, Congress must:

   Reform CSP. Congress should reform the Conservation 
        Stewardship Program (CSP) \6\ * to make the reduction of 
        greenhouse gas emissions its primary purpose. Congress should 
        reward ``early adopters'' by linking CSP eligibility to past 
        climate stewardship; focusing funding on practices that reduce 
        emissions; prioritizing contracts to reward those that include 
        multiple emissions-reduction practices; and prohibiting CSP 
        spending on practices that increase greenhouse gas emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/08/usda-
conservation-stewardship-program-could-do-more-tackle-climate.
    * Editor's note: footnotes annotated with  are retained in 
Committee file.

   Reform EQIP. Congress should expand and reform the 
        Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) \7\ to make 
        climate the primary purpose of EQIP incentive contracts; \8\ 
        provide 90 percent cost-share for EQIP practices that reduce 
        greenhouse gas emissions; reduce Federal cost-sharing for 
        structural practices that provide few environmental benefits; 
        create a methane emissions demonstration project; and prohibit 
        EQIP spending on practices that increase greenhouse gas 
        emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/04/climate-change-
isnt-high-priority-12-billion-usda-farm-stewardship.
    \8\ https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/05/few-states-are-
prioritizing-climate-usda-incentive-bonus-program-0.

   Reform CRP. Congress should expand and reform \9\ the 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) by increasing program 
        funding and focusing CRP enrollment on marginal, 
        environmentally sensitive land through long-term and permanent 
        \10\ easements. In general, 80 percent of CRP acres should be 
        enrolled through CLEAR30, Conservation Reserve Enhancement 
        Program agreements, or continuous enrollment categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/09/we-must-expand-
and-reform-usdas-conservation-reserve-program-0.
    \10\ https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/04/its-time-
reform-conservation-reserve-program-not-reason-you-might-think.

   Reform ACEP. Reform the Agricultural Conservation Easement 
        Program (ACEP) by increasing funding for wetland reserve 
        easements; making past and future climate stewardship a 
        condition for enrollment in Agricultural Land Easements (ALE); 
        and prohibiting ALE easements on farmland that increase 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        greenhouse gas emissions.

    Practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions \11\ are not getting 
enough support from USDA conservation funding. For example,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.ewg.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/
EWG%20Conservation%20Testimony%20-%20Conservation%20Programs%20-%202-2-
22.pdf.

   Just 20 percent of EQIP funding \12\ supports practices that 
        reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and some EQIP funding supports 
        those practices that increases emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://conservation.ewg.org/.

   Almost 40 percent of CSP practices offered \13\ between 2017 
        and 2022 scored poorly for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 
        according to USDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/08/usda-
conservation-stewardship-program-could-do-more-tackle-climate.

   Most CRP acres are returned to production after contracts 
        expire, releasing soil carbon \14\ into the atmosphere, and the 
        number of acres enrolled in long-term CREP agreements is 
        falling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0399.

   Farmers enrolled in ALE are not required to take steps to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    Congress should also take steps to prohibit misleading claims about 
the benefits of conservation practices, including ``regenerative 
agriculture'' claims. Unlike organic claims,\15\ which must meet 
Federal standards \16\ and are subject to audits,\17\ assertions that 
foods regenerate soil are not tied to Federal standards and do not 
require third-party verification. Some private and nonprofit 
regenerative standards and auditors \18\ have emerged, but there is not 
yet a widely accepted \19\ definition of the term ``regenerative,'' and 
farmers and food companies do not have to seek third-party audits when 
making these claims. As a result, many food companies make misleading 
``regenerative'' claims \20\ that have created significant consumer 
confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling.
    \16\ https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling.
    \17\ https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/enforcement/organic.
    \18\ https://regenorganic.org/#storytime.
    \19\ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/
fsufs.2020.577723/full.
    \20\ https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/05/beware-
misleading-regenerative-soil-claims-non-organic-foods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress should also support efforts to scale up the production of 
plant-based or vegetarian options. USDA has provided $50 billion in 
subsidies \21\ to livestock operations since 1995 but just $30 million 
to plant-based or vegetarian operations. By investing in plant-based or 
vegetarian alternatives, Congress would support not only consumer 
choices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also farmers' growing 
soybeans, wheat, mushrooms, and pulse crops, and more than 50,000 \22\ 
jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/02/usda-livestock-
subsidies-near-50-billion-ewg-analysis-finds.
    \22\ https://www.plantbasedfoods.org/wp-content/uploads/PBFA-Jobs-
Report-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record.
                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Article by Hon. Rick W. Allen, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Georgia
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
]

Analysis \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://foreignpolicy.com/channel/analysis/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sri Lanka, Organic Farming Went Catastrophically Wrong
          A nationwide experiment is abandoned after producing only 
        misery.

March 5, 2022, 7:00 a.m.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Tea pickers remove weeds at an organic tea plantation in the 
        southern district of in Ratnapura, Sri Lanka, on Aug. 3, 2021. 
        Ishara S. Kodikara/AFP Via Getty Images.

          By Ted Nordhaus,\2\ the executive director of the 
        Breakthrough Institute, and Saloni Shah,\3\ a food and 
        agriculture analyst at the Breakthrough Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://foreignpolicy.com/author/ted-nordhaus/.
    \3\ https://foreignpolicy.com/author/saloni-shah/.

    Faced with a deepening economic and humanitarian crisis, Sri Lanka 
called off an ill-conceived national experiment in organic agriculture 
this winter. Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa \4\ promised in 
his 2019 election campaign to transition the country's farmers \4\ to 
organic agriculture over a period of 10 \4\ years. Last April, 
Rajapaksa's government made good on that promise, imposing a nationwide 
ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides 
and ordering the country's two million farmers to go organic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.economist.com/asia/2021/10/16/a-rush-to-farm-
organically-has-plunged-sri-lankas-economy-into-crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The result was brutal and swift. Against claims that organic 
methods can produce comparable yields to conventional farming, domestic 
rice production fell 20 percent in just the first 6 months. Sri Lanka, 
long self-sufficient \5\ in rice production, has been forced to import 
$450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices for this staple of 
the national diet surged by around 50 percent.\6\ The ban also 
devastated the nation's tea crop, its primary export and source of 
foreign exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4815756/.
    \6\ https://economynext.com/sri-lanka-seeks-rice-bailout-from-
china-after-fertilizer-ban-89819/.
    \7\ https://www.ifad.org/en/web/latest/-/blog/a-second-chance-for-
sri-lankan-tea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By November 2021, with tea production falling, the government 
partially lifted its fertilizer ban on key export crops, including tea, 
rubber, and coconut. Faced with angry protests, soaring inflation, and 
the collapse of Sri Lanka's currency,\8\ the government finally 
suspended the policy for several key crops--including tea, rubber, and 
coconut--last month, although it continues for some others. The 
government is also offering $200 million \9\ to farmers as direct 
compensation and an additional $149 million in price subsidies to rice 
farmers who incurred losses. That hardly made up for the damage and 
suffering the ban produced. Farmers have widely criticized \10\ the 
payments for being massively insufficient and excluding many farmers, 
most notably tea producers, who offer one of the main sources of 
employment in rural Sri Lanka. The drop in tea production alone is 
estimated to result in economic losses of $425 million.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/sri-lanka-declares-
economic-emergency-contain-food-prices-amid-forex-crisis-2021-08-31/.
    \9\ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/26/sri-lanka-200-million-
compensation-farmers-organic-crops-drive.
    \10\ https://www.ucanews.com/news/sri-lankan-farmers-reject-govt-
compensation-paddy-price/95903.
    \11\ https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/
DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=
Sri%20Lanka%20Restricts%20and%20Bans%20the%20Import%20of%20Fertilizers%2
0and%20
Agrochemicals_New%20Delhi_Sri%20Lanka_05-14-2021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Human costs have been even greater. Prior to the pandemic's 
outbreak, the country had proudly achieved upper-middle-income 
status.\12\ Today, half a million people \13\ have sunk back into 
poverty. Soaring inflation \14\ and a rapidly depreciating currency 
\14\ have forced Sri Lankans to cut down on food and fuel purchases as 
prices surge. The country's economists have called on the government to 
default \15\ on its debt repayments to buy essential supplies for its 
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-country-
classifications-income-level-2019-
2020?fbclid=IwAR3gkSoxhIjTSuxJzaLmwI6rMKhLwOY-vT_-
vIVutL1OoW_AQuvcuqw5Dww.
    \13\ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/covid-crisis-
sri-lanka-bankruptcy-poverty-pandemic-food-prices.
    \14\ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/sri-lanka-declares-
economic-emergency-contain-food-prices-amid-forex-crisis-2021-08-31/.
    \15\ https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Sri-Lanka-economists-tell-
government-to-default-on-bond-buy-food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The farrago of magical thinking, technocratic hubris, ideological 
delusion, self-dealing, and sheer shortsightedness that produced the 
crisis in Sri Lanka implicates both the country's political leadership 
and advocates of so-called sustainable agriculture: the former for 
seizing on the organic agriculture pledge as a shortsighted measure to 
slash fertilizer subsidies and imports and the latter for suggesting 
that such a transformation of the nation's agricultural sector could 
ever possibly succeed.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          A worker carries leaves at a tea plantation in Ratnapura, Sri 
        Lanka, on July 31, 2021. Ishara S. Kodikara/AFP Via Getty 
        Images

    Sri Lanka's journey through the organic looking glass and toward 
calamity began in 2016, with the formation, at Rajapaksa's behest, of a 
new civil society movement called Viyathmaga.\16\ On its website,\17\ 
Viyathmaga describes its mission as harnessing the ``nascent potential 
of the professionals, academics and entrepreneurs to effectively 
influence the moral and material development of Sri Lanka.'' Viyathmaga 
allowed Rajapaksa to rise to prominence as an election candidate and 
facilitated the creation of his election platform. As he prepared his 
Presidential run, the movement produced the ``Vistas of Prosperity and 
Splendour,'' \18\ a sprawling agenda for the nation that covered 
everything from national security to anti-corruption to education 
policy, alongside the promise to transition the nation to fully organic 
agriculture within a decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ https://www.cpalanka.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/CPA-
Report-Technocratic-Populism-and-the-Pandemic-State.pdf.
    \17\ http://www.viyathmaga.org/about/.
    \18\ http://www.doc.gov.lk/images/pdf/NationalPolicyframeworkEN/
FinalDovVer02-Eng
lish.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite Viyathmaga's claims to technocratic expertise, most of Sri 
Lanka's leading agricultural experts were kept out of crafting the 
agricultural section of the platform, which included promises to phase 
out synthetic fertilizer, develop two million organic home gardens to 
help feed the country's population, and turn the country's forests and 
wetlands over to the production of biofertilizer.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/
fsufs.2021.606815/full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following his election as President, Rajapaksa appointed a number 
of Viyathmaga members to his cabinet, including as minister of 
agriculture. Sri Lanka's Ministry of Agriculture, in turn, created a 
series of committees to advise it on the implementation of the policy, 
again excluding most of the nation's agronomists and agricultural 
scientists and instead relying on representatives of the nation's small 
organic sector; academic advocates for alternative agriculture; and, 
notably, the head of a prominent medical association who had long 
promoted dubious claims \20\ about the relationship between 
agricultural chemicals and chronic kidney disease \21\ in the country's 
northern agricultural provinces.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ https://island.lk/gmoa-president-misleading-the-public/.
    \21\ https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/
DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=
Sri%20Lanka%20Restricts%20and%20Bans%20the%20Import%20of%20Fertilizers%2
0and%20
Agrochemicals_New%20Delhi_Sri%20Lanka_05-14-2021.pdf.
    \22\ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19628295.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Then, just a few months after Rajapaksa's election, COVID-19 
arrived. The pandemic devastated the Sri Lankan tourist sector,\23\ 
which accounted for almost half of the nation's foreign exchange \24\ 
in 2019. By the early months of 2021, the government's budget and 
currency were in crisis, the lack of tourist dollars so depleting 
foreign reserves that Sri Lanka was unable to pay its debts to Chinese 
creditors \25\ following a binge of infrastructure development over the 
previous decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/sri-lanka-
travel-and-tourism.
    \24\ https://economynext.com/sri-lanka-ends-2019-with-us7-6bn-in-
forex-reserves-39859/.
    \25\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/deepening-debt-crisis-in-sri-
lanka-stokes-controversy-over-chinese-lending-11642514503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Enter Rajapaksa's organic pledge. From the early days of the Green 
Revolution in the 1960s, Sri Lanka has subsidized \26\ farmers to use 
synthetic fertilizer. The results in Sri Lanka, as across much of South 
Asia, were startling: Yields for rice and other crops more than 
doubled. Struck by severe food shortages \27\ as recently as the 1970s, 
the country became food secure while exports of tea and rubber became 
critical sources\28\ of exports and foreign reserves. Rising 
agricultural productivity allowed widespread urbanization, and much of 
the nation's labor force moved into the formal wage economy,\29\ 
culminating in Sri Lanka's achievement of official upper-middle-income 
status in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ https://www.canr.msu.edu/prci/publications/Policy-Research-
Notes/PRCI_PRN_3.pdf.
    \27\ https://www.nytimes.com/1974/05/13/archives/sri-lanka-short-
of-food-faces-an-economic-crisis-people-are-well.html.
    \28\ https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/
publications/otherpub/
60th_anniversary_managing_sri_lankas_foreign_reserves.pdf.
    \29\ https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-country-
classifications-income-level-2019-
2020?fbclid=IwAR3gkSoxhIjTSuxJzaLmwI6rMKhLwOY-vT_-
vIVutL1OoW_AQuvcuqw5Dww.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By 2020, the total cost of fertilizer imports and subsidies was 
close to $500 million \30\ each year. With fertilizer prices rising, 
the tab was likely to increase further in 2021. Banning synthetic 
fertilizers seemingly allowed Rajapaksa to kill two birds with one 
stone: improving the nation's foreign exchange situation while also 
cutting a massive expenditure on subsidies from the pandemic-hit public 
budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/
DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=
Sri%20Lanka%20Restricts%20and%20Bans%20the%20Import%20of%20Fertilizers%2
0and%20
Agrochemicals_New%20Delhi_Sri%20Lanka_05-14-2021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But when it comes to agricultural practices and yields, there is no 
free lunch. Agricultural inputs--chemicals, nutrients, land, labor, and 
irrigation--bear a critical relationship to agricultural output. From 
the moment the plan was announced, agronomists in Sri Lanka and around 
the world warned that agricultural yields \31\ would fall 
substantially. The government claimed it would increase the production 
of manure and other organic fertilizers in place of imported synthetic 
fertilizers. But there was no conceivable way the nation could produce 
enough fertilizer domestically to make up for the shortfall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ https://www.ft.lk/front-page/Inorganic-fertiliser-ban-could-
harm-production-with-major-implications/44-719325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Having handed its agricultural policy over to organic true 
believers,\32\ many of them involved in businesses that would stand to 
benefit from the fertilizer ban, the false economy of banning imported 
fertilizer hurt the Sri Lankan people dearly. The loss of revenue from 
tea and other export crops dwarfed the reduction in currency outflows 
from banning imported fertilizer. The bottom line turned even more 
negative through the increased import of rice and other food stocks. 
And the budgetary savings from cutting subsidies were ultimately 
outweighed by the cost of compensating farmers and providing public 
subsidies for imported food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ https://www.pmdnews.lk/presidential-task-force-for-green-
agriculture-established/.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Workers are seen at a tea plantation in Ratnapura, Sri Lanka, 
        on July 31, 2021. Ishara S. Kodikara/AFP Via Getty Images. 
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        
          A Sri Lankan farmer carries paddy on his head in a field on 
        the outskirts of Sri Lanka's capital, Colombo, on Sept. 7, 
        2018. Lakruwan Wanniarachchi/AFP Via Getty Images.

    Farming is, at bottom, a fairly straightforward thermodynamic 
enterprise. Nutrient and energy output in the form of calories is 
determined by nutrient and energy input. For most of recorded human 
history, the primary way humans increased agricultural production was 
by adding land to the system, which expanded the amount of solar 
radiation and soil nutrients available for food production. Human 
populations were relatively small, under one billion people in total, 
and there was no shortage of arable land to expand onto. For this 
reason, the vast majority of anthropogenic changes in global land use 
and deforestation has been the result of agricultural extensification--
the process of converting forests and prairie to cropland and pasture. 
Against popular notions that pre-industrial agriculture existed in 
greater harmony with nature, \3/4\ \33\ of total global deforestation 
occurred before the industrial revolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even so, feeding ourselves required directing virtually all human 
labor to food production. As recently as 200 years ago, more than 90 
percent of the global population labored in agriculture. The only way 
to bring additional energy and nutrients into the system to increase 
production was to let land lie fallow, rotate crops, use cover crops, 
or add manure from livestock that either shared the land with the crops 
or grazed nearby. In almost every case, these practices required 
additional land and put caps on yields.
    Starting in the 19th century, the expansion of global trade allowed 
for the import of guano-mined from ancient deposits on bird-rich 
islands--and other nutrient-rich fertilizers from far-flung regions 
onto farms in Europe and the United States. This and a series of 
technological innovations--better machinery, irrigation, and seeds--
allowed for higher yields and labor productivity on some farms, which 
in turn freed up labor and thereby launched the beginning of large-
scale urbanization, one of global modernity's defining features.
    But the truly transformative break came with the invention of the 
Haber-Bosch process by German scientists in the early 1900s, which uses 
high temperature, high pressure, and a chemical catalyst to pull 
nitrogen from the air and produce ammonia, the basis for synthetic 
fertilizers. Synthetic fertilizer remade global agriculture and, with 
it, human society. The widespread adoption of synthetic fertilizers in 
most countries has allowed a rapid increase in yields and allowed human 
labor to shift from agriculture \34\ to sectors that offer higher 
incomes and a better quality of life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0304387817300172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The widespread application of synthetic fertilizers now allows 
global agriculture to feed nearly eight billion people, of whom about 
four billion depend on the increased output \35\ that synthetic 
fertilizers allow for their sustenance. As a result, the modern food 
systems that have allowed global agriculture to feed Earth's population 
are far more energy intensive than past food systems, with synthetic 
fertilizers accounting for a significant source of the energy for 
crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-people-does-synthetic-
fertilizer-feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As synthetic fertilizers became increasingly available globally 
after World War II and combined with other innovations, such as modern 
plant breeding and large-scale irrigation projects, a remarkable thing 
happened: Human populations more than doubled \36\--but thanks to 
synthetic fertilizers and other modern technologies, agricultural 
output tripled \37\ on only 30 percent more land over the same period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ https://ourworldindata.org/yields-vs-land-use-how-has-the-
world-produced-enough-food-for-a-growing-population.
    \37\ https://www.pnas.org/content/109/31/12302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The benefits of synthetic fertilizers though go far beyond simply 
feeding people. It's no exaggeration to say that without synthetic 
fertilizers and other agricultural innovations, there is no 
urbanization, no industrialization, no global working or middle class, 
and no secondary education for most people. This is because fertilizer 
and other agricultural chemicals have substituted human labor, 
liberating enormous populations from needing to dedicate most of their 
lifetime labor to growing food.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          A Sri Lankan farmer applies fertilizer at a vegetable farm in 
        Horana South, Sri Lanka, on Oct. 25, 2017. Lakruwan 
        Wanniarachchi/AFP Via Getty Images

    Virtually the entirety of organic agriculture production serves two 
populations at opposite ends of the global income distribution. At one 
end are the 700 million or so people globally who still live in extreme 
poverty. Sustainable agriculture proponents fancifully call the 
agriculture this population practices ``agroecology.'' \38\ But it is 
mostly just old-fashioned subsistence farming, where the world's 
poorest eke out their survival from the soil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-10-winter-2019/after-
agroecology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    They are the poorest farmers in the world, who dedicate most of 
their labor to growing enough food to feed themselves. They forego 
synthetic fertilizers and most other modern agricultural technologies 
not by choice but because they can't afford them, caught in a poverty 
trap where they are unable to produce enough agricultural surplus to 
make a living selling food to other people; hence, they can't afford 
fertilizer and other technologies that would allow them to raise yields 
and produce surplus.
    At the other end of the spectrum are the world's richest people, 
mostly in the West, for whom consuming organic food is a lifestyle 
choice tied up with notions about personal health and environmental 
benefits as well as romanticized ideas about agriculture and the 
natural world. Almost none of these consumers of organic foods grow the 
food themselves. Organic agriculture for these groups is a niche 
market--albeit, a lucrative one for many producers--accounting for less 
than one percent of global agricultural production.
    As a niche within a larger, industrialized, agricultural system, 
organic farming works reasonably well. Producers typically see lower 
yields.\39\ But they can save money on fertilizer and other chemical 
inputs while selling to a niche market for privileged consumers willing 
to pay a premium for products labeled organic. Yields are lower--but 
not disastrously lower--because there are ample nutrients available to 
smuggle into the system via manure. As long as organic food remains 
niche, the relationship between lower yields and increased land use 
remains manageable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ongoing catastrophe in Sri Lanka, though, shows why extending 
organic agriculture to the vast middle of the global bell curve, 
attempting to feed large urban populations with entirely organic 
production, cannot possibly succeed. A sustained shift to organic 
production nationally in Sri Lanka would, by most estimates, slash 
yields \40\ of every major crop in the country, including drops of 35 
percent for rice, 50 percent for tea, 50 percent for corn, and 30 
percent for coconut. The economics of such a transition are not just 
daunting; they are impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ https://www.canr.msu.edu/prci/publications/Policy-Research-
Notes/PRCI_PRN_3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Importing fertilizer is expensive, but importing rice is far more 
costly.\41\ Sri Lanka, meanwhile, is the world's fourth largest tea 
exporter, with tea accounting for a lion's share of the country's 
agricultural exports, which in turn account for 70 percent \42\ of 
total export earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ https://island.lk/looming-spectre-of-rice-shortage/.
    \42\ https://www.ifad.org/en/web/latest/-/blog/a-second-chance-for-
sri-lankan-tea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is no conceivable way that export sales to the higher value 
organic market could possibly make up for sharp falls in production. 
The entire global market for organic tea, for example, accounts for 
only about 0.5 percent of the global tea market. Sri Lanka's tea 
production alone is larger than the entire global organic tea 
market.\43\ Flooding the organic market with most or all of Sri Lanka's 
tea production, even after output fell by half due to lack of 
fertilizer, would almost certainly send global organic tea prices into 
a spiral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ https://phys.org/news/2021-09-sri-lanka-revolution-threatens-
tea.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The notion that Sri Lanka might ever replace synthetic fertilizers 
with domestically produced organic sources without catastrophic effects 
on its agricultural sector and environment is more ludicrous still. 
Five to seven times more animal manure would be necessary to deliver 
the same amount of nitrogen to Sri Lankan farms as was delivered by 
synthetic fertilizers in 2019. Even accounting for the overapplication 
of synthetic fertilizers, which is clearly a problem, and other 
uncertainties, there is almost certainly not enough land in the small 
island nation to produce that much organic fertilizer. Any effort to 
produce that much manure would require a vast expansion of livestock 
holdings, with all the additional environmental damage that would 
entail.
    Sustaining agriculture in Sri Lanka, for both domestic consumption 
and high-value export products, was always going to require importing 
energy and nutrients into the system, whether organic or synthetic. And 
synthetic fertilizers were always going to be the most economically and 
environmentally efficient way to do so.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa (center) waves to 
        supporters during a rally ahead of the upcoming parliamentary 
        elections, near Sri Lanka's capital, Colombo, on July 28, 2020. 
        Ishara S. Kodikara/AFP Via Getty Images

    While the proximate cause of Sri Lanka's humanitarian crisis was a 
bungled attempt to manage its economic fallout from the global 
pandemic, at the bottom of the political problem was a math problem and 
at the bottom of the math problem was an ideological problem--or, more 
accurately, a global ideological movement that is innumerate and 
unscientific by design, promoting fuzzy and poorly specified claims 
about the possibilities of alternative food production methods and 
systems to obfuscate the relatively simple biophysical relationships 
that govern what goes in; what comes out; and the economic, social, and 
political outcomes that any agricultural system can produce, whether on 
a regional, national, or global scale.
    Rajapaksa continues to insist that his policies have not failed. 
Even as Sri Lanka's agricultural production was collapsing, he traveled 
to the U.N. climate change summit in Glasgow, Scotland, late last year, 
where--when not dodging protests \43\ over his human rights record as 
Sri Lankan defense minister--he touted his nation's commitment to an 
agricultural revolution \44\ allegedly ``in sync with nature.'' Not 
long afterward, he fired two \45\ government officials within weeks of 
each other for publicly criticizing the increasingly dire food 
situation and fertilizer ban.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ https://declassifieduk.org/greenwashing-genocide-the-uk-
welcomes-sri-lankas-notorious-president/.
    \44\ https://slembassyusa.org/new/component/content/article/58-
headline/2409-speech-by-president-gotabaya-rajapaksa-at-the-
rediscovering-nitrogen-solutions-and-synergies-for-climate-change-
health-biodiversity-and-circular-economy-cop26-side-event-scotland-uk-
on-31-october-2021.html?Itemid=101.
    \45\ https://www.news18.com/news/world/amid-economic-crisis-sri-
lankan-president-sacks-critical-minister-and-official-issues-gag-order-
for-others-4625522.html.
    \46\ https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/sri-lanka-
leader-sacks-minister-criticized-farm-policy-82067841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As farmers begin their spring harvest, the fertilizer ban has been 
lifted,\47\ but fertilizer subsidies have not been restored. Rajapaksa, 
meanwhile, has established yet another committee \48\--this one to 
advise the government on how to increase organic fertilizer production 
in a further demonstration that he and his agricultural advisors 
continue to deny the basic biophysical realities that constrain 
agriculture production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/sri-lanka-rows-
back-organic-farming-goal-removes-ban-chemical-fertilisers-2021-11-24/.
    \48\ https://www.pmdnews.lk/presidential-task-force-for-green-
agriculture-established/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Much of the global sustainable agriculture movement, unfortunately, 
has proven no more accountable. As Sri Lankan crop yields have 
plummeted, exactly as most mainstream agricultural experts predicted 
they would, the fertilizer ban's leading advocates have gone silent. 
Vandana Shiva, an Indian activist and ostensible face of anti-modern 
agrarianism in the global south, was a booster of the ban but turned 
mute as the ban's cruel consequences became clear. Food Tank, an 
advocacy group funded by the Rockefeller Foundation that promotes a 
phase-out \49\ of chemical fertilizers and subsidies in Sri Lanka, has 
had nothing to say now that its favored policies have taken a 
disastrous turn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ https://foodtank.com/news/2017/12/sri-lankan-food-production/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Soon enough, advocates will surely argue that the problem was not 
with the organic practices they touted but with the precipitous move to 
implement them in the midst of a crisis. But although the immediate ban 
on fertilizer use was surely ill conceived, there is literally no 
example of a major agriculture-producing nation successfully 
transitioning to fully organic or agroecological production. The 
European Union has, for instance, promised a full-scale transition to 
sustainable agriculture for decades. But while it has banned 
genetically modified crops \50\ and a variety of pesticides \51\ as 
well as has implemented policies to discourage the overuse of synthetic 
fertilizers, it still depends heavily \52\ on synthetic fertilizers to 
keep yields high, produce affordable, and food-secure. It has also 
struggled with the disastrous effects of overfertilizing surface and 
ground water with manure from livestock production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ https://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/
countriesruleoutgmos/.
    \51\ https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/
journal.pone.0256719.
    \52\ https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
AG.CON.FERT.ZS?locations=1W-EU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Boosters of organic agriculture also point to Cuba, which was 
forced to abandon synthetic fertilizer when its economy imploded 
following the Soviet Union's collapse. They fail to mention that the 
average Cuban lost an estimated 10 to 15 pounds \53\ of body weight in 
the years that followed. In 2011, Bhutan, another darling of the 
sustainability crowd, promised to go 100 percent organic by 2020.\54\ 
Today, many farmers in the Himalayan kingdom continue to depend \55\ on 
agrochemicals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/cuba-can-teach-america-
farming.
    \54\ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bhutan-emissions-farming/
to-build-a-greener-economy-bhutan-wants-to-go-organic-by-2020-
idUSKCN0RS0DO20150928.
    \55\ https://kuenselonline.com/achieving-organic-pledge-not-
possible-agriculture-officials/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Sri Lanka, as elsewhere, there is no shortage of problems 
associated with chemical-intensive and large-scale agriculture. But the 
solutions to these problems--be they innovations that allow farmers to 
deliver fertilizer more precisely to plants when they need it, 
bioengineered microbial soil treatments that fix nitrogen in the soil 
and reduce the need for both fertilizer and soil disruption, or 
genetically modified crops that require fewer pesticides and 
herbicides--will be technological, giving farmers new tools instead of 
removing old ones that have been proven critical to their livelihoods. 
They will allow countries like Sri Lanka to mitigate the environmental 
impacts of agriculture without impoverishing farmers or destroying the 
economy. Proponents of organic agriculture, by contrast, committed to 
naturalistic fallacies and suspicious of modern agricultural science, 
can offer no plausible solutions. What they offer, as Sri Lanka's 
disaster has laid bare for all to see, is misery.

          Ted Nordhaus is the co-founder and executive director of the 
        Breakthrough Institute and a co-author of An Ecomodernist 
        Manifesto. Twitter: @TedNordhaus
          Saloni Shah is a food and agriculture analyst at the 
        Breakthrough Institute. Twitter: @SaloniShah101
                                 ______
                                 
 Supplementary Material Submitted by Jeffrey W. Moyer, Chief Executive 
                       Officer, Rodale Institute
Insert 1
          Ms. Pingree. . . .
          . . . And since that is such a critical topic right now, what 
        techniques do we use to sequester carbon, can you talk a little 
        bit more about the studies that have been done there and sort 
        of the quantification of how much carbon we can sequester?
          Mr. Moyer. Yes, thank you very much for the question about 
        the conversation around carbon and carbon sequestration. We 
        know that the way we manage soils can have a huge impact on its 
        ability to sequester carbon. Many of our practices that we 
        employ, we have already discussed about cover crops, and we may 
        have discussed about crop rotations. These are all tools that 
        farmers can implement to sequester carbon. It is becoming more 
        and more critical. The amount of carbon we can sequester is 
        certainly dependent upon the relationship between the practices 
        that we are superimposing on the landscape and the soils innate 
        ability through clay particles and the different soil types to 
        sequester carbon.
          * * * * *
          So yes, our work at Rodale Institute is continually exploring 
        and expanding the concepts around carbon sequestration, and we 
        have a tremendous amount of data that we would be more than 
        happy to share with this Committee and with you in particular.
          Ms. Pingree. Thanks so much. We will look forward to 
        exploring that more.
I. Soil Health and Drought
    Enhancement of soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil organic matter 
(SOM) is the foundation of soil health improvement. It has been shown 
that increasing soil organic carbon and soil organic matter enhances 
drought tolerance in agricultural systems. A 1% increase in soil 
organic carbon is estimated to result in a 2% to >5% increase in soil 
Available Water Holding Capacity depending on the soil texture (Olness 
and Archer, 2005). In a review paper, Lal (2020) concluded that 
management practices that enhance soil health by restoring SOM content 
increase soil water retention and the plant's available water capacity. 
Ankenbauer and Loheide (2016) quantified the effect of soil organic 
content on soil water retention and water use by plants in the Tuolumne 
Meadows, a groundwater-dependent ecosystem in the Sierra Nevada of 
California. They reported a substantial dependence of soil water 
retention on soil organic content by correlating Van Genuchten soil 
water retention parameters with soil organic content, independent of 
soil texture. Their results showed that the increased water retention 
by soil organic matter contributes as much as 8.8 cm to transpiration, 
or 35 additional water-stress free days, during the dry summer when 
plants experience increased water stress. Izum and Wagai (2019) 
evaluated the extent to which SOC build-up could reduce agricultural 
drought risk. Using statistical analysis of spatially-explicit global 
crop and soil datasets, they reported that relatively small enhancement 
in topsoil (0-30 cm) organic carbon content (OCtop) could increase 
drought tolerance of the food production systems operating over 70% of 
the global harvested area (particularly drylands). By closing the gap 
between current and upper limit of tolerance levels through SOC 
addition of 4.87 GtC at the global scale, farmers' economic output in 
drought years would increase by 16%. Their findings highlight that 
progress towards multiple development goals can be leveraged by SOC 
enhancement in carbon (C)-poor soils in drier regions around the world. 
Oldfield, et al., (2019) developed a quantitative model exploring how 
SOM relates to crop yield potential of maize and wheat in light of co-
varying factors of management, soil type, and climate. They found that 
yields of these two crops are on average greater with higher 
concentrations of SOC. A survey study by Soil Health Institute showed 
that 97 out of 100 farmers have the perception that soil health 
management systems improve yield resilience (Bagnall, et al., 2021).
    The real-world benefit of increased SOC as a benefit to farmers is 
demonstrated by the resilience and long-term yield stability in organic 
systems within Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial during periods 
of drought and low rainfall (Lotter, Seidel, and Liebhardt 2009). Over 
a fourteen year period, organic corn yield was 5% higher than 
conventional while conventional soybean was 5% higher than organic 
(these represent statistically significant differences). During most 
low rainfall or drought years during that same time period, the organic 
systems out-yielded the conventional system which was attributed to 
higher soil water retention due to higher soil organic carbon levels in 
the organic system. This yield stability along with price premiums in 
organic results in increased economic stability for organic farmers 
(Hanson, Lichtenberg, and Peters 2009, Pimentel, et al., 2005). 
Concerning flood mitigation, data from the Farming Systems Trial 
demonstrate improved hydraulic properties (Alfahham, et al., 2021) and 
soil structure that is related to carbon fractions of soil aggregates 
(Littrell, et al., 2021) in the organic systems that are expected to 
increase water infiltration and retention. Recent yet unpublished data 
(currently under review) from the Farming Systems Trial is finding 
water infiltration rates in some organic systems are double the 
conventional tilled and no-till systems. These results are corroborated 
by studies that include long-term systems trials from across the United 
States, including the Farming Systems Trial, that conservation 
practices that include organic fertility, cover crops, and reduced 
tillage result in improved soil hydraulic properties (Bagnall, Morgan, 
Bean, et al., 2022) that result in greater food security (Bagnall, et 
al., 2021).

 
 
 
                               References:
 
    Alfahham, Abdelrahman, Matthew T. Amato, Emmanuel Omondi, Daniel
 Gimenez, and Alain F. Plante. 2021. ``Assessing the impact of organic
 versus conventional agricultural management on soil hydraulic
 properties in a long-term experiment.''  Soil Science Society of
 America Journal 85 (6): 2135-2148.
    Ankenbauer, K.J., & Loheide, S.P. (2017). The effects of soil
 organic matter on soil water retention and plant water use in a meadow
 of the Sierra Nevada, CA. Hydrological Processes, 31(4), 891-901.
    Bagnall, Dianna K., Cristine L.S. Morgan, G. Mac Bean, Daniel
 Liptzin, Shannon B. Cappellazzi, Michael Cope, Kelsey L.H. Greub,
 Elizabeth L. Rieke, Charlotte E. Norris, and Paul W. Tracy. 2022.
 ``Selecting soil hydraulic properties as indicators of soil health:
 Measurement response to management and site characteristics.''  Soil
 Science Society of America Journal.
    Bagnall, D.K., Shanahan, J.F., Flanders, A., Morgan, C.L., &
 Honeycutt, C.W. (2021). Soil health considerations for global food
 security. Agronomy Journal, 113(6), 4581-4589.
    Hanson, James C., Erik Lichtenberg, and Steven E. Peters. 2009.
 ``Organic versus conventional grain production in the mid-Atlantic: An
 economic and farming system overview.'' American Journal of Alternative
 Agriculture 12 (1): 2-9. doi:10.1017/S0889189300007104.
    Iizumi, T., & Wagai, R. (2019). Leveraging drought risk reduction
 for sustainable food, soil and climate via soil organic carbon
 sequestration. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-8.
    Lal, R. (2020). Soil organic matter and water retention. Agronomy
 Journal, 112(5), 3265-3277.
    Littrell, James, Sutie Xu, Emmanuel Omondi, Debasish Saha, Jaehoon
 Lee, and Sindhu Jagadamma. 2021. ``Long-term organic management
 combined with conservation tillage enhanced soil organic carbon
 accumulation and aggregation.'' Soil Science Society of America Journal
 85 (5): 1741-1754.
    Lotter, D.W., R. Seidel, and W. Liebhardt. 2009. ``The performance
 of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate
 year.'' American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18 (3): 146-154.
 doi: 10.1079/AJAA200345.
    Oldfield, E.E., Bradford, M.A., and Wood, S.A.: Global meta-analysis
 of the relationship between soil organic matter and crop yields, SOIL,
 5, 15-32, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-15-2019, 2019.
    Olness, A., & Archer, D. (2005). Effect of organic carbon on
 available water in soil. Soil Science, 170(2), 90-101.
    Pimentel, David, Paul Hepperly, James Hanson, David Douds, and Rita
 Seidel. 2005. ``Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of
 Organic and Conventional Farming Systems.''  BioScience 55 (7): 573-
 582. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.CO;2.
 
References annotated with  are retained in Committee file.

Insert 2
          Mr. Baird. . . .
          But my first question goes to Dr. Larson. And it has to do 
        with the idea that others on the panel have claimed that 
        organically produced food is more nutritious because the soil 
        in their system is healthier. What does the science say about 
        that? Any thoughts there?
          * * * * *
          Mr. Moyer. I would add that Rodale Institute would be more 
        than happy to supply additional data that showcases the 
        opposite side of that conversation because science can show 
        what people want it to show, but there are clear differences in 
        nutritional quality of crops that are produced in soils that 
        are farmed differently.
II. Nutritional Quality in Our Food System and Relationship to Soil 
        Health
    The information below is specifically addressing Representative 
Baird's request to provide references related to nutritional quality of 
food that is grown using different methods and the link between soil 
health and nutritional quality. My comment on this topic at the hearing 
was in response to Dr. Larson's comment that there is no data to 
support the correlation between soil health and nutrition in a plant 
and no evidence that organic food is safer or more nutritious than food 
grown using conventional ag. Therefore, included here are references 
related to food safety as well as nutritional quality.
A. Safety
    The largest health concern related to consumption of conventionally 
grown foods is the risk of exposure to toxic chemicals from pesticides. 
There is an increasing body of evidence indicating high exposure to 
pesticides through diet in the United States (Lu, et al., 2008) and 
that dietary intervention that includes organic food reduces or 
eliminates this health risk (Lu, et al., 2006, Curl, Fenske, and 
Elgethun 2003, Hyland, et al., 2019). Using data from three U.S. 
sources: The Pesticide Data Program of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, the Marketplace Surveillance Program of the California 
Department of Pesticide Regulation, and private tests conducted by 
Consumers Union, Baker, et al. (2002) found statistically higher levels 
of pesticide residues on conventional versus organic crops. The USDA 
data indicated that 73% to 90% of all conventional crops had pesticide 
residues, depending on crop category. Only 23% of organic samples had 
pesticide residues. When researchers controlled for persistent, legacy 
chemicals that have long been banned the conventional crops dropped 
from 73% to 71% but the organic samples dropped to 13%, suggesting that 
exposure from organic crops is not from current management but past 
practices. Baranski, et al. (2014) has done the most recent and 
rigorous analysis of food safety concerning organic and conventional 
foods. This meta-analysis included data from 343 comparative studies 
and found that the incidence of pesticide residue on conventional crops 
to be four times higher than organic crops and that conventional foods 
had significantly higher cadmium levels, one of three recognized highly 
toxic metals, lead and mercury being the others. Neither of these 
studies reported on the toxicity of the chemicals found on food 
samples, an area of concern requiring more research.
B. Nutritional Quality
    During the past 70 years, grain yields have more than doubled 
(Tilman, et al. 2002) and global food production tripled (FAO 2018), 
mostly through improved varieties and increased use of pesticides, 
fertilizers, and irrigation. While this increase in food production has 
reduced worldwide chronic malnourishment it has come at a cost to the 
environment, the soil, and potentially human health. More than \1/3\ of 
the Earth's soils are now degraded (Cherlet, et al., 2018, Middleton 
and Thomas 1997), limiting their potential to adequately provide human 
nutrition (Lal 2009). Soils of the United States have also suffered 
degradation with significant soil carbon loss (Collins, et al., 2000, 
Senthilkumar, et al., 2009, Sanderman, Hengl, and Fiske 2017) through 
tillage and conventional practices (Douds, Jr., et al., 1995, Hepperly, 
Douds, and Seidel 2006, 2007) that put food security and human 
nutrition at risk (Ghimire, Machado, and Bista 2018, Lal 2009). Nearly 
one in nine people worldwide suffers from chronic malnourishment and it 
is estimated that more than half of all people suffer from ``hidden 
hunger'' whereby caloric demands are met but levels of micro-nutrients 
are below levels sufficient to maintain proper health (Welch and Graham 
2000, Welch 2002). This may be attributed to the decline of the 
concentration of minerals, vitamins, and proteins of grains, fruits and 
vegetables that has occurred over the past 70 years, coinciding with 
the aforementioned soil degradation (Davis 2009, Davis, Epp, and 
Riordan 2004, Jarrell and Beverly 1981). Davis, Epp, and Riordan 
(2004), using U.S. Department of Agriculture nutritional data in 1950 
and 1999 found significant declines in the concentration of protein, 
calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C for 43 
vegetables and fruits measured. Similarly, protein concentrations in 
grains in the U.S. and Europe have declined significantly [corn: 8% 
(Davis 2009, Scott, et al., 2006), sorghum 18%, rice 18% wheat 30%, 
barley 50% (Simmonds 1995)]. The apparent negative relationship 
between increased yield and reduced nutrient concentrations in food 
that has occurred over the past 70 years has been termed a ``dilution 
effect'' (Davis 2009, Jarrell and Beverly 1981) and typically occurs 
when fertilization with one or a few macro-nutrients increases crop 
yields, resulting in a decline in other micro-nutrients. How this drop 
in nutritional quality is linked to soil degradation and has broadly 
affected human health is basically unexplored.
    We recognize that there is a gap in knowledge in how soil health 
impacts crop nutritional quality. This is partly due to the fact that 
few studies have concurrently measured soil quality and nutritional 
quality and older studies measured only a small set of nutrients such 
as macro- and micro-minerals. It is now recognized that macro- and 
micro-mineral levels are largely regulated by plant needs and the 
inherent property of soils. However, there is a need to look at a 
broader suite of important human nutrients in our foods. Considering 
that most studies find soil health improved under organic management, 
studies comparing nutritional quality of organic and conventional foods 
is a starting place to link soil and human health. Several meta-
analysis studies have shown higher mineral, vitamin, protein, or 
phytonutrient concentrations in organic foods (Baranski, et al., 2014, 
Brandt and M2e per ha per 
year) (Poeplau and Don 2015) but including multiple conservation 
practices within a good crop rotation (3.14 Mg CO2e per ha 
per year) (Drinkwater, Wagoner, and Sarrantonio 1998) and the addition 
of compost (8.66 Mg CO2e per ha per year) (Hepperly, et al., 
2009) in temperate regions typical of the majority of U.S. cropping 
regions could sequester significantly more carbon in the nations soils. 
The potential is even higher in perennial systems and warmer climates 
with greater plant biomass production potential (Beer, et al., 1990, 
Vicente-Vicente, et al., 2016) but data is limited for these regions, 
including the southern parts of the United States. New data in the last 
5-10 years has demonstrated the tremendous potential of adaptive 
grazing to sequester carbon in the soil (13.7-29.36 Mg CO2e 
per ha per year) (Gosnell, Charnley, and Stanley 2020, Rowntree, et 
al., 2019, Rowntree, et al., 2020, Stanley, et al., 2018, Machmuller, 
et al., 2015). Previous models of livestock systems that ignored soil 
carbon may not have captured this potential. These findings become more 
profound when we consider a great portion of the global land base is 
not suitable for cropping but is suitable as pasture and rangeland for 
livestock. Therefore, the global potential to drawdown carbon through 
adaptive grazing may be as high as a 77% offset of global greenhouse 
gas emissions. If we were to apply conservation practices and 
installation of perennial systems across the globe, we start to see the 
potential for regenerative organic agriculture to significantly offset 
total greenhouse gas emissions. However, the capacity for soils to 
store carbon is limited and can approach maximum and diminishing levels 
over time so soil carbon sequestration is a short-term solution while 
other technologies and strategies work to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions from other sectors in order to bring the climate into 
balance.

 
 
 
                               References:
 
    Beer, J., Arnim Bonnemann, Wilfredo Chavez, Hans Werner Fassbender,
 A.C. Imbach, and I. Martel. 1990. ``Modelling agroforestry systems of
 cacao (Theobroma cacao) with laurel (Cordia alliodora) or poro
 (Erythrina poeppigiana) in Costa Rica.''  Agroforestry Systems 12 (3):
 229-249.
    Drinkwater, Laurie E., Peggy Wagoner, and Marianne Sarrantonio.
 1998. ``Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen
 losses.'' Nature 396 (6708): 262-265.
    Gosnell, Hannah, Susan Charnley, and Paige Stanley. 2020. ``Climate
 change mitigation as a co-benefit of regenerative ranching: insights
 from Australia and the United States.''  Interface Focus 10 (5):
 20200027.
    Hepperly, Paul, Don Lotter, Christine Ziegler Ulsh, Rita Seidel, and
 Carolyn Reider. 2009. ``Compost, manure and synthetic fertilizer
 influences crop yields, soil properties, nitrate leaching and crop
 nutrient content.'' Compost Science & Utilization 17 (2): 117-126.
    Machmuller, Megan B., Marc G. Kramer, Taylor K. Cyle, Nick Hill,
 Dennis Hancock, and Aaron Thompson. 2015. ``Emerging land use practices
 rapidly increase soil organic matter.''  Nature Communications 6 (1):
 1-5.
    Moyer, Jeff, Andrew Smith, Yichao Rui, and Jennifer Hayden. 2020.
 Regenerative agriculture and the soil carbon solution. Rodale
 Institute.
    Poeplau, Christopher, and Axel Don. 2015. ``Carbon sequestration in
 agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops--A meta-analysis.''
 Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 200: 33-41.
    Rowntree, Jason E., Paige L. Stanley, Isabella C.F. Maciel, Mariko
 Thorbecke, Steven T. Rosenzweig, Dennis W. Hancock, Aidee Guzman, and
 Matt R. Raven. 2020. ``Ecosystem impacts and productive capacity of a
 multi-species pastured livestock system.''  Frontiers in Sustainable
 Food Systems: 232.
    Rowntree, Jason, Paige Stanley, David Beede, Marcia DeLonge, and
 Michael Hamm. 2019. ``143 Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life
 cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing
 systems.'' Journal of Animal Science 97 (Suppl. 3): 147.
    Stanley, Paige L., Jason E. Rowntree, David K. Beede, Marcia S.
 DeLonge, and Michael W. Hamm. 2018. ``Impacts of soil carbon
 sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA
 beef finishing systems.''  Agricultural Systems 162: 249-258.
    Vicente-Vicente, Jose Luis, Roberto Garcia-Ruiz, Rosa Francaviglia,
 Eduardo Aguilera, and Pete Smith. 2016. ``Soil carbon sequestration
 rates under Mediterranean woody crops using recommended management
 practices: A meta-analysis.'' Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
 235: 204-214.
 
References annotated with  are retained in Committee file.

IV. Organic Rice Production and Yields
    Organic systems are knowledge-based, and farmers work in harmony 
with nature. There might be cases whereby organic rice producers failed 
to grow crop successfully but there are numerous rice farmers that 
transitioned to organic successfully and profitably. A report by Texas 
A&M shows that the acreage of organic rice in Texas has steadily 
increased over the past decade, driven by increased market demand 
(Zhou, et al., 2021). Since 1995, organic rice acreage has increased in 
the U.S. by almost six-fold, with a majority of acreage being grown in 
the Southern U.S. The acreage in Texas alone reached more than 17,000 
acres in 2020. A report by Sullivan (2003) provides additional examples 
of successful organic rice producers across the county.
    Demand in the U.S. for organic rice exceeds domestic supply 
encouraging significant competition from imports. While there is 
substantial potential for growth and expansion of the U.S. organic rice 
sector, the industry needs insight into the economic opportunities in 
the organic rice market to take advantage of this potential.
    A study in Bhutan (Tashi and Wangchuck, 2015) compared organic and 
conventional rice production within and between three agroecological 
zones (AEZ) under farmers' management in Bhutan. There was no 
statistically significant difference in grain yields between organic 
and conventional rice farms. They found that the production cost from a 
hectare of land was significantly higher in organic farms, so without a 
price premium conventional rice was more profitable. However, if 
organic rice receives a premium price, then the organic system was 
similar or more profitable than the conventional system.
    Studies comparing organic production to the standard or 
conventional form of production have found reduced yields in organic 
that are typically 10-18%, yet organic systems are more profitable, 
largely due to increased price premiums (Crowder and Reganold 2015). We 
also need to emphasize that a small portion of public funds for 
agricultural research have been devoted to organic farming (see figure 
below). With more investment of public funds in organic farming 
research, including more funding for breeding organic varieties, the 
farmers in the U.S. could close that yield gap and grow organic rice 
and other commodities successfully and benefit from premium prices 
currently available across the world.
[Organic funding in Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) 
        2011-2015 (%)]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        
[Organic Research within Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) 
        2010-2014 (%)]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        
          Source : https://www.nationalorganiccoalition.org/organic-
        research.

    In the Farming Systems Trial at Rodale Institute, the diversified 
organic system maintains yields over time similar to the conventional 
system (Lotter, Seidel, and Liebhardt 2009, Hepperly, Douds, and Seidel 
2006, Pimentel, et al., 2005, Pearsons, et al., 2022). Recent economic 
analysis that includes twelve years of no-till production indicates 
that a diversified organic cropping system is more stable (less risk) 
and more profitable than conventional and low-input organic systems 
without price premiums (see figure below. Pearsons 2022, under review). 
This study also found reduced yields in the no-till conventional 
compared to the tilled conventional system which may be a reason more 
farmers in the U.S. are not wholly embracing no-till farming.
Figure 5.7. Net returns
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          (Left, without organic price premiums; Right, with organic 
        price premiums) of each of the systems in the Farming Systems 
        Trial from 2008-2020. All systems Including Conventional, 
        Organic Legume, and Organic Manure systems were spit into full-
        till (FT) and reduced-till (RT).

 
 
 
                               References:
 
    Crowder, David W., and John P. Reganold. 2015. ``Financial
 competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale.'' 
 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (24): 7611-7616.
    Hepperly, P.R., David Douds, and Rita Seidel. 2006. ``The Rodale
 Institute Farming Systems Trial 1981 to 2005: long-term analysis of
 organic and conventional maize and soybean cropping systems.'' Long-
 Term Field Experiments in Organic Farming. ISOFAR Scientific Series,
 Berlin: 15-32.
    Lotter, D.W., R. Seidel, and W. Liebhardt. 2009. ``The performance
 of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate
 year.'' American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18 (3): 146-154.
 doi: 10.1079/AJAA200345.
    Pearsons, Kirsten Ann, Emmanuel Chiwo Omondi, Brad J Heins, Gladis
 Zinati, Andrew Smith, and Yichao Rui. 2022. ``Reducing Tillage Affects
 Long-Term Yields but Not Grain Quality of Maize, Soybeans, Oats, and
 Wheat Produced in Three Contrasting Farming Systems.''  Sustainability
 14 (2): 631.
    Pearsons, K., Chase, C., Omondi, E., Zinati, G., Smith, A., Rui, Y.
 . 2022. ``Does reducing tillage improve the profitability of organic
 and conventional agricultural systems? Results from a long-term field
 trial.'' Sustainability (under review).
    Pimentel, David, Paul Hepperly, James Hanson, David Douds, and Rita
 Seidel. 2005. ``Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of
 Organic and Conventional Farming Systems.''  BioScience 55 (7): 573-
 582. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.PCO;2.
    Sullivan, Preston. 2003. Organic Rice Production. CT143. Appropriate
 Technology Transfer for Rural America--National Center for Appropriate
 Technology (ATTRA-NCAT).
    Tashi, S., & Wangchuk, K. (2016). Organic vs. conventional rice
 production: comparative assessment under farmers' condition in Bhutan.
 Organic Agriculture, 6(4), 255-265.
    Zhou, X.G., Way, M. O., McClung, A., Dou, F. (2021). Texas Organic
 Rice Production Guidelines. Texas A&M AgriLife Research. https://
 beaumont.tamu.edu/eLibrary/Bulletins/
 2021_OrganicRice_Production_Guidelines.pdf.
 
References annotated with  are retained in Committee file.

V. Tillage and Organic Pesticide Use
A. Tillage
    Organic crop farming does typically use tillage to control weeds. 
Reducing tillage in organic systems has been a major area of research 
for Rodale Institute over the past 20 years. Rodale Institute pioneered 
the development of the roller-crimper, a tool used in organic and 
conventional farming to increase use of cover crops and reduce tillage 
(Moyer 2020). Despite tillage in organic systems, the soil health in 
the organic systems in the 42 year Farming Systems Trial at Rodale 
institute have improved soil health and increased soil organic carbon 
levels compared to the conventional system (Hepperly, Douds, and Seidel 
2006, Hepperly, et al., 2009, Hepperly, et al., 2007, Littrell, et al., 
2021). This is most pronounced in the diversified organic system that 
includes compost and perennial forages. In 2008, reduced tillage 
systems were added as a treatment in all of the farming systems, which 
is continuous no-till in the conventional system and rotational no-till 
in the organic systems since tillage is still used to plant cover crops 
and small grains. Recent studies measuring soil organic carbon and 
other soil health indicators (Littrell, et al., 2021, Alfahham, et al., 
2021, Sanderman, et al., 2021) find higher soil carbon in the organic 
systems, which is more pronounced at deeper depths, while the 
conventional no-till system has the lowest soil health amongst all 
comparative systems when looking at multiple soil health indicators. 
This is due to the combination of cover crops, compost, crop rotation 
and reduced tillage in the organic systems. Most studies comparing 
tillage systems have been done under conventional management, limited 
crop rotation, and without conservation practices such as cover crops, 
manures, and compost. If we dig deeper (literally), a recent meta-
analysis of 1061 pairs of published data comparing tilled and no-till 
management found increased soil organic carbon at the surface but a 
loss of soil organic carbon at deeper layers, resulting in a net carbon 
loss from no-till (Cai, et al., 2022). However, the benefits of 
conservation practices that are standard in organic production are 
corroborated by other studies that include a larger set of studies 
across the United States (Bagnall, Morgan, Bean, et al., 2022, Crystal-
Ornelas, Thapa, and Tully 2021, Bagnall, Morgan, Cope, et al., 2022).
B. Pesticides in Organic Systems
    Rodale Institute farm and research staff employee an Integrated 
Pest Management approach on all organic production that includes 
cultural, mechanical, and biological strategies with chemical 
strategies as a last resort. Currently the Rodale Institute does not 
use any pesticides for management in organic grain or forage cropping 
systems. We are using USDA Certified Organic-approved pesticides to 
manage insects and disease in vegetable and fruit production. Materials 
used include oils, kaolin clay, botanical extracts, hydrogen peroxide, 
minerals such as sulfur and copper, and biologicals that target 
specific pests. None of the organically approved products fall under 
the category of Restricted-Use. Most conventional products fall under 
the category of Restricted-Use because they pose a significant health 
risk to the applicator, farm workers, the nearby community, and the 
environment. They therefore require training and an applicators license 
to purchase and apply.

 
 
 
                               References:
 
    Alfahham, Abdelrahman, Matthew T. Amato, Emmanuel Omondi, Daniel
 Gimenez, and Alain F. Plante. 2021. ``Assessing the impact of organic
 versus conventional agricultural management on soil hydraulic
 properties in a long-term experiment.''  Soil Science Society of
 America Journal 85 (6): 2135-2148.
    Bagnall, Dianna K., Cristine L.S. Morgan, G. Mac Bean, Daniel
 Liptzin, Shannon B. Cappellazzi, Michael Cope, Kelsey L.H. Greub,
 Elizabeth L. Rieke, Charlotte E. Norris, and Paul W. Tracy. 2022.
 ``Selecting soil hydraulic properties as indicators of soil health:
 Measurement response to management and site characteristics.''  Soil
 Science Society of America Journal.
    Bagnall, Dianna K., Cristine L.S. Morgan, Michael Cope, Gregory M.
 Bean, Shannon Cappellazzi, Kelsey Greub, Daniel Liptzin, Charlotte L.
 Norris, Elizabeth Rieke, and Paul Tracy. 2022. ``Carbon-sensitive
 pedotransfer functions for plant available water.''  Soil Science
 Society of America Journal 86 (3): 612-629.
    Cai, Andong, Tianfu Han, Tianjing Ren, Jonathan Sanderman, Yichao
 Rui, Bin Wang, Pete Smith, and Minggang Xu. 2022. ``Declines in soil
 carbon storage under no tillage can be alleviated in the long run.'' 
 Geoderma 425: 116028.
    Crystal-Ornelas, Robert, Resham Thapa, and Katherine L. Tully. 2021.
 ``Soil organic carbon is affected by organic amendments, conservation
 tillage, and cover cropping in organic farming systems: A meta-
 analysis.'' Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 312: 107356.
    Hepperly, Paul, Don Lotter, Christine Ziegler Ulsh, Rita Seidel, and
 Carolyn Reider. 2009. ``Compost, manure and synthetic fertilizer
 influences crop yields, soil properties, nitrate leaching and crop
 nutrient content.'' Compost Science & Utilization 17 (2): 117-126.
    Hepperly, Paul, Rita Seidel, David Pimentel, James Hanson, and David
 Douds. 2007. Organic farming enhances soil carbon and its benefits: 
 CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA.
    Hepperly, P.R., David Douds, and Rita Seidel. 2006. ``The Rodale
 Institute Farming Systems Trial 1981 to 2005: long-term analysis of
 organic and conventional maize and soybean cropping systems.'' Long-
 Term Field Experiments in Organic Farming. ISOFAR Scientific Series,
 Berlin: 15-32.
    Littrell, James, Sutie Xu, Emmanuel Omondi, Debasish Saha, Jaehoon
 Lee, and Sindhu Jagadamma. 2021. ``Long-term organic management
 combined with conservation tillage enhanced soil organic carbon
 accumulation and aggregation.'' Soil Science Society of America Journal
 85 (5): 1741-1754.
    Moyer, Jeffrey. 2020. Organic No-Till Farming, 2nd Edition. Edited
 by Jeffrey Moyer. Greeley, CO: ACRES USA.
    Sanderman, Jonathan, Kathleen Savage, Shree R.S. Dangal, Gabriel
 Duran, Charlotte Rivard, Michel A. Cavigelli, Hero T. Gollany, Virginia
 L. Jin, Mark A. Liebig, and Emmanuel Chiwo Omondi. 2021. ``Can
 Agricultural Management Induced Changes in Soil Organic Carbon Be
 Detected Using Mid-Infrared Spectroscopy?''  Remote Sensing 13 (12):
 2265.
 
References annotated with  are retained in Committee file.

                                 ______
                                 
  Supplementary Material Submitted by Rebecca L. Larson, Ph.D., Chief 
    Scientist and Vice President, Government Affairs, Western Sugar 
                              Cooperative
Insert
          Mr. Baird. . . .
          But my first question goes to Dr. Larson. And it has to do 
        with the idea that others on the panel have claimed that 
        organically produced food is more nutritious because the soil 
        in their system is healthier. What does the science say about 
        that? Any thoughts there?
          Dr. Larson. Yes, thank you for the question. I am happy to 
        provide copious amounts of scientific research from peer-
        reviewed journals that shows that there is no correlation 
        between soil health and nutrition within a plant. I can also 
        show you that there is no scientifically credible evidence that 
        suggests that food grown through organic practices is safer or 
        more nutritious than food grown with conventional ag. Just to 
        give a couple of examples of where some of that fear-based 
        marketing can have negative effects, especially for 
        marginalized and low-income communities, is that when people 
        are led to believe that one type of production practice is 
        safer or more nutritious than another, it actually drives down 
        total consumption of fruits, vegetables, and grains. So there 
        can be a negative impact from not speaking to the facts of 
        science and scientific consensus.

    There is no credible evidence that organic food is safer, more 
nutritious, or healthier than conventionally produced food. Firstly, 
the National Organic Program (NOP) is managed under the marketing arm 
(Agricultural Marketing Service) of the USDA and nowhere on the website 
does the USDA assert that organic production leads to a healthier 
product.\1\ Upon creation of the NOP, then Secretary Dan Glickman 
stated ``Let me be clear about one thing, the organic label is a 
marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is 
`organic' a value judgment about nutrition or quality.'' \2\ * 
Furthermore, when outlining steps for food safety, the FDA makes no 
reference to buying or consuming organic food.\3\ However, consumers 
still buy organic based on the perceived superiority of the product in 
terms of health, safety, and nutrition.\4\ These false assumptions are 
rooted in misleading marketing claims.\5\ The scientific consensus 
differs: organically produced food is no safer, healthier, or more 
nutritious; it is just more expensive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Organic Regulations D Agricultural Marketing Service (usda.gov) 
(https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic).
    \2\ Miller, H.I. (2019) Buying `organic' to get `authenticity'? Or 
safer and more nutritious food? Think again. And again. Missouri 
Medicine. 116 (1): 8-11.
    * Editor's note: references annotated with  are retained in 
Committee file.
    \3\ Food Safety at Home  D FDA (https://www.fda.gov/consumers/
free-publications-women/food-safety-home).
    \4\ Gundala, R.R., Singh, A. (2021) What motivates consumers to buy 
organic foods? Results of an empirical study in the United States. 
PLOS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.
    \5\ press_release_distribution_0383762_77592.pdf  (24-
7pressrelease.com) (https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/attachments/038/
press_release_distribution_0383762_77592.pdf). Editor's note: the above 
link is to a third-party posting site; the origination of the report is 
from the Academics Review website blog posting (https://academics-
review.bonuseventus.org/2014/04/why-consumers-pay-more-for-organic-
foods-fear-sells-and-marketers-know-it/) and original link is (https://
academics-review.bonuseventus.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/
AR_Organic-Marketing-Report_Print.pdf).

   Stanford University study (2012): Examined results of 240 
        peer-reviewed studies. There was no clinically relevant 
        difference between organic and conventional food. There were a 
        limited number of instances where pesticide levels were 
        different between the two systems, but of no biological 
        relevance. Conclusion: there is no strong evidence of a 
        clinical benefit to organic food consumption.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Smith-Spangler, C., et al. (2012). Are organic foods safer or 
healthier than conventional alternatives? A systemic review. Annals of 
Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-
00007.

   The Alliance for Food and Farming, representing organic and 
        conventional farmers launched a safety calculator to combat the 
        misinformation of the Environmental Working Group's dirty 
        dozen. This tool takes USDA market basket data and peer-
        reviewed literature to easily illustrate how detection of 
        pesticide residue does not equal risk (e.g., a child could 
        ingest thousands of servings a day of blueberries without 
        negative effects).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Calculate--Safe Fruits and Veggies (https://
www.safefruitsandveggies.com/calculate/).

   A systematic review of the literature conducted by 
        researchers in Greece (2007) concluded ``. . . what should be 
        made clear is that `organic' does not automatically equal 
        `safe.' '' \8\ The same authors published in the University of 
        Cambridge Press said ``If producers adopt proper agricultural 
        practices and consumers maintain hygienic conditions, risks 
        associated with food contaminants can be minimized, regardless 
        of the food's organic or conventional origin.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Magkos, F., Arvaniti, F, Zampelas, A. (2007) Organic Food: 
buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the 
literature. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 46(1): 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10408690490911846.
    \9\ Putting the safety of organic food into perspective  D 
Nutrition Research Reviewss D Cambridge Core (https://
www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nutrition-research-reviews/article/
putting-the-safety-of-organic-food-into-perspective/
5C8EC98C76B56852375507CE9B29EE1F).

   Health Canada meta-analysis on nutrient composition (2017) 
        dispels many myths of the ties between soil health and modern 
        agriculture on reduced nutrient content in fruit, vegetables, 
        and grains. The comprehensive review of the literature showed 
        no biologically relevant change in nutrient content over time 
        and no evidence of a link to soil health (as Mr. Nygren, Mr. 
        Clark, Mr. Moyer all claimed). However, they did state 
        ``statistically significant decreases in the content of 
        particular mineral nutrients per dry weight of fruits, 
        vegetables, or grains . . . were not likely to have any 
        significant impact on the nutritional health of consumers, a 
        fact glossed over in some popular press reports citing these 
        studies.'' The main driver of these differences was dilution 
        effect. As yield increased, some nutrients decreased without 
        any biological relevance. A fact that the authors highlight as 
        critical since ``the benefits from increased yield of crops in 
        addressing world hunger are significant.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Marles, R.J. (2017) Mineral nutrient composition of 
vegetables, fruits and grains: the context of reports and apparent 
historical declines. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 56: 93-
103.

   Despite the lack of evidence in the scientific literature, 
        Mr. Moyer claimed in oral testimony that I was wrong about my 
        assertions of the lack of health benefit for organic food. Mr. 
        Moyer cites Faller and Fialho (2019) in his written testimony 
        in support of organic food containing more beneficial phenolic 
        compounds. This is not what the authors concluded. The authors 
        evaluated the impact of heat on phenolic compound stability and 
        found organic produce more sensitive to heat processing than 
        conventional. However, the conclusion was ``polyphenols showed 
        a positive correlation with antioxidant capacity in raw and 
        cooked vegetables from both types of agriculture'' meaning 
        conventional or organic.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Faller, A.L.K., Fialho, E. (2009) The antioxidant capacity and 
polyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegetables after 
domestic cooking. Food Research International. 42(1): 210-215.

   Mr. Moyer then cites his own research from Rodale Institute 
        to justify grains produced with organic methods are superior 
        nutritionally to conventionally produced grains. However, as 
        the table excised from that publication demonstrates, there was 
        no statistical difference between production systems (see table 
        below).\12\ So this study does not show any superiority of 
        organic grains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Long-term organic and conventional farming effects on nutrient 
density of oats D Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems D Cambridge 
Core (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renewable-agriculture-
and-food-systems/article/abs/longterm-organic-and-conventional-farming-
effects-on-nutrient-density-of-oats/
75F08331A10BACBB3672AA6550493C4F#supplementary-materials).

                                                                 Supplementary Materials
  Supplemental Table 1: Mineral concentration in oat grain under organic and conventional grain cropping systems at the Farming Systems Trial. Key: LEG
   (organic legume); MNR (organic manure); CNV (conventional); T or NT (tilled or no-till). Means within a column followed by the same letter are not
                                                         significantly different (LSD, a = 0.05)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  B        Ba       Ca        Cu       Fe         K         Ni       Cr       Vd        Pb        Cd       As       Al      Str     Na
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         mg Kg	1
    CNV-NT     5.515a   5.3675a   770.66a  3.7275a  37.593a   3,775.1a   2.175a   3.855a   0.155a    0.0925a   0.07a    0.45a    6.53a    2.1a    41.472
                                                                                                                                                  a
     CNV-T     5.385a   5.2575a   809.13a  4.1025a  39.45a    3,782.8a   1.995a   3.48a    0.17a     0.075a    0.0725a  0.4575a  6.115a   1.98a   45.308
                                                                                                                                                  a
          LEG-N5.59a    5.43a     756.11a  3.83a    37.855a   3,770.9a   1.8375a  3.2425a  0.155a    0.06a     0.0675a  0.4625a  5.21a    2.04a   42.297
                                                                                                                                                  a
          LEG-T5.3775a  5.245a    790.56a  3.835a   40.935a  3,658a      1.7375a  3.46a    0.17a     0.08a     0.0675a  0.4725a  8.1625a  2.01a   40.99a
    MNR-NT     5.7575a  5.6025a   812.77a  4.3225a  42.228a   3,832.8a   2.3525a  4.4675a  0.1675a   0.1425a   0.07a    0.475a   5.715a   2.15a   45.057
                                                                                                                                                  a
     MNR-T     5.52a    5.3925a   804.53a  4.8775a  38.588a   3,942.4a   1.7725a  3.6275a  0.17a     0.0825a   0.0725a  0.495a   6.45a    2.17a   43.98a
 
                                                                     Standard Errors
    CNV-NT     0.1546   0.1465     23.094  0.1719    0.9628     183.07   0.2688   0.2836   0.002887  0.0149    0        0.0173   1.1784   0.0799  1.0765
     CNV-T     0.0656   0.0547     12.505  0.1943    2.2187      71.489  0.1121   0.4233   0.005774  0.0185    0.0025   0.0131   0.6086   0.0261  1.9704
          LEG-N0.1257   0.1107     14.924  0.0528    1.5901      44.14   0.12     0.3507   0.005     0.01      0.0025   0.0155   0.2333   0.0819  0.8785
          LEG-T0.1063   0.0992     16.185  0.1248    2.3869      98.721  0.1501   0.3711   0.005774  0.005774  0.0025   0.0144   1.7818   0.1125  1.2279
    MNR-NT     0.1411   0.1355     28.118  0.6472    1.8566      88.686  0.3057   0.4474   0.004787  0.063     0        0.0126   0.0603   0.1453  0.7725
     MNR-T     0.1774   0.1788     18.02   0.7638    0.434      158.33   0.0487   0.0898   0.007071  0.008539  0.0025   0.0202   0.7276   0.0819  0.8987
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Misleading consumers about the benefits of organic food are not 
without consequence. This fear-based marketing most directly impacts 
low income and marginalized communities, both in terms of health and 
prejudice. Hence, calls for FDA and FTC to begin enforcing truth in 
labeling laws for organic food.\13\ As the FTC revisits and updates 
Green Guides in 2022, it is an excellent opportunity to clamp down on 
the unscientific claims of the organic food industry.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ FDA and FTC need to end anti-GMO deception in organic food 
advertising  D The Hill (https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/
399939-fda-and-ftc-need-to-end-anti-gmo-deception-in-organic-food-
advertising/).
    \14\ FTC Guide Revision: Avoiding Misleading Environmental Claims  
(natlawreview.com) (https://www.natlawreview.com/article/environmental-
marketing-claims-regulatory-and-litigation-outlook).

   False marketing claims affect our psyche. Organic labels 
        have been proven to trick the brain into thinking something 
        tastes better.\15\ In a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts, the 
        more people consume organic food, the more they believe their 
        false assumptions that organic food is more healthful, tastier, 
        and less caloric.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., Echebarria, C., Barrutia, J.M. 
(2017) Organic label's halo effect on sensory and hedonic experience of 
wine: A pilot study. Journal of Sensory Studies. https://doi.org/
10.1111/joss.12243.
    \16\ Prada, M., Garrido, M.V., Rodrigues, D. (2017) Lost in 
processing? Perceived healthfulness, taste and caloric content of whole 
and processed organic food. Appetite. 114: 175-186.

   Misinformation promotes bias and discrimination. So much 
        misinformation has been presented to society, that whether or 
        not someone consumes organic food now dictates how others view 
        their honesty, openness and overall disposition.\17\ As 
        research shows, this bias would unduly affect historically 
        underserved, low income and marginalized communities.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Richentin, J., Perugini, M. (2022) The organic diet effect on 
person perception. Appetite. 168: 105696.
    \18\ Dimitri, C., Dettmann, R.L. (2012) Organic food consumers: 
what do we really know about them?  British Food Journal. 114(8): 
ISSN:0007-070X.

   False claims promote obesity. The perceived health of a food 
        creates a halo which unconsciously drives consumer over-
        consumption.19, 20  Therefore, false claims around 
        the ``health'' of organic food can spur weight gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Her, E., Seo, S. (2017) Health halo effects in sequential food 
consumption: The moderating roles of health-consciousness and attribute 
farming. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 62: 1-10.
    \20\ Sundar, A., Kardes, F.R. (2015) The role of perceived 
variability and the health halo effect in nutritional inference and 
consumption. Psychology and Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1002/
mar.20796.

   False claims disproportionately impact low-income families. 
        Promoting misinformation about organic produce being safer than 
        conventional produce leads low-income families to consume fewer 
        fresh fruits and vegetables regardless of production 
        method.\21\ As Dr. Elizabeth Pivonka, President of Produce for 
        Better Health Foundation notes ``we have been concerned . . . 
        for some time, that safety fears may be another barrier to 
        consumption of these healthy and nutritious foods. The impact 
        of the fear-based messaging on low-income consumers is 
        especially troubling since many don't have access or can't 
        afford organic''[.] \22\ Scientists from John Hopkins found 
        similar alarming results when interviewing low-income residents 
        in Baltimore and concluded ``Consumers' perceptions of organic 
        can swamp or compete with other messages about healthy 
        eating.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Huang, Y., Edirisinghe, I., Burton-Freeman, B. (2016) Low-
income shoppers and fruit and vegetables. What do they th[i]nk?  
Nutrition Today. 51(5): 242-250.
    \22\ Fear-Based Messaging Reduces Produce Consumption--Both Organic 
and Conventional --California Agriculture News Today 
(californiaagtoday.com) (https://californiaagtoday.com/fear-based-
messaging-reduces-produce-consumption/).
    \23\ Rodman, S.O., et al. (2014) ``They just say organic food is 
healthier'': perceptions of healthy food among supermarket shoppers in 
southwest Baltimore. The Journal of Culture and Agriculture. 36(2): 
83-92.

    As outlined above, presence of minute levels of pesticide in food 
has no impact on human health. However, some claim that even if 
pesticides are not a risk through food consumption, they negatively 
impact soil health. Again, this does not align with the scientific 
consensus. We also have not found this to be true as evidence by the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
data from Western Sugar farms submitted with my written testimony.

   One study looking at conventional versus organic farming 
        impacts on biodiversity concluded conventional systems, even 
        those using herbicides, can match the ecological benefit of 
        organic farming. Since implementing the conventional practices 
        required less expense and maintained high yields, the authors 
        conclude reducing farm impacts would be better served by 
        expanding conventional farming's best management practices 
        rather than switching to organic systems.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Barre, K., Le Viol, I., Julliard, R., Chiron, F., Kerbiriou, 
C. (2018) Tillage and herbicide reduction mitigate the gap between 
conventional and organic farming effects on foraging activity of 
insectivorous bats. Ecology and Evolution. 8(3): 1496-1506.

   Examining long-term effects of glyphosate on the soil 
        microbiome, one group of scientists showed greater diversity 
        between sites than between treatments and that ``high taxonomic 
        and functional microbial diversity was observed in all 
        treatments''.\25\ This goes against claims of Dr. Kristine 
        Nichols of the Rodale Institute quoted in Kiss the Ground 
        stating soils on conventional farms are ``essentially devoid of 
        life''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Babujia, et al. (2016) Impact of long-term cropping of 
glyphosate-resistant transgenic soybean on soil microbiome. Transgenic 
Research. 25: 425-440.

   Yet another study in a sensitive desert environment found 
        ``. . . no evidence of glyphosate effects on the soil 
        microbiome''[.] 26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Gornish, et al. (2020) Buffelgrass invasion and glyphosate 
effects on desert soil microbiome communities. Biological Invasions. 
22: 2587-2597.

   The lack of impact of glyphosate on the soil microbiome 
        holds true even with repeated, prolonged use. A study in wheat 
        production using glyphosate for over 20 years found less than 
        1% of the soil microbiome was impacted and when combined with 
        no-till provides positive environmental benefits.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Schlatter, et al. (2017) Impacts of repeated glyphosate use on 
wheat-associated bacteria are small and depend on glyphosate use 
history. Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

   Another study in wheat, found pesticides did not affect the 
        diversity of the soil microbiome.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Lupwayi, et al. (2020) Profiles of wheat rhizobacterial 
communities in response to repeated glyphosate applications, crop 
rotation and tillage. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. https://
doi.org/10.1139/cjss-2020-0008.

    The alternative to chemical management of weed species, is tillage. 
Less than 3% of the organic crop production acreage in the United 
States uses ``no-till'' practices,\29\ therefore tillage is extensively 
used in these systems. Tillage has a major, negative impact on soil 
health regardless of frequency. Even single tillage events 
significantly alter soil chemical, physical and microbial 
properties.\30\ Therefore, one can't help but question whether no-till 
organic is the ``soil health solution'', since Rodale Institute even 
highlights: ``We have found that organic no-till practices year after 
year do not yield optimal results, so our organic systems utilize 
reduced tillage and the ground is plowed only in alternating years.'' 
\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/90201/eib-
197.pdf.
    \30\ Kraut-Cohen, et al. (2020) Effects of tillage practices on 
soil microbiome and agricultural parameters. Science of the Total 
Environment. 705: 135791.
    \31\ Farming Systems Trial--Rodale Institute (https://
rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The scientific consensus is clear, there is no nutritional, health 
(soil or human), or safety advantage for organic production systems. 
However, there is a clear risk when organic production is implemented 
at scale: loss of productivity. If there is any hope for climate change 
mitigation, land conversion must cease. Therefore, we must strive 
towards optimizing sustainable intensification from acreage already 
dedicated to agriculture. Thankfully, environmental benefit does not 
need to come at the cost of productivity.
    Organic production cannot compete with conventional production 
systems regarding yield, improving soil health, and overall sustainable 
agriculture. The preeminent source of information for yield performance 
comparison is peer-reviewed, published results from both on-farm and 
research-scale data. Even more reliable yield performance comparisons 
can be concluded from analyzing all available published data, known as 
meta-analysis. Many meta-analyses comparing yields with various 
approaches have been published in the last decade and all come to the 
same conclusion: yield is roughly 20% lower for organic production 
systems than conventional.

   University of California-Berkley meta-analysis (2015): 
        organic yields are 19.2% lower than conventional. Yield gaps 
        could be reduced to 8-9% through multi-cropping/crop rotation. 
        However, those conservation practices improved yields in both 
        conventional and organic systems.\32\ Therefore, as both 
        systems improve, organic production continues to lag in 
        productivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Ponsio, L.C., et al. (2015) Diversification practices reduce 
organic to conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 
DOI:10.1098/rspb.2014.1396.

   Universidad de Buenos Aires meta-analysis (2021): organic 
        yields were 25% lower than conventional. When considering lower 
        use intensity [e.g., organic systems needing to take land out 
        of food production for year(s)], overall organic productivity 
        was 29-44% lower than conventional.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Alvarez, R. (2021) Comparing Productivity of Organic and 
Conventional Farming Systems: a Quantitative Review. Archives of 
Agronomy and Soil Science, DOI:10.1080/03650340.2021.1946040.

   Technical University of Munich meta-analysis (2018): organic 
        production systems have 15% greater variability in yield 
        compared to conventional. The authors also highlight reduced 
        tillage, cover cropping and crop rotation applied in 
        conventional systems had positive impacts on soil health and 
        biodiversity.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Knapp, S., van der Heijden, M.G.A. (2018) A global meta-
analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture. 
[Nature Communications]. 9: 3632.

   A meta-analysis published in the prestigious peer-reviewed 
        journal, Nature (2012): organic yields are 34% lower than 
        conventional contrasting most comparable production systems. 
        The authors did note yield gaps vary by scale of the operation, 
        crop being grown, and cultural practice employed, with certain 
        legumes and perennials having just 5% lower yield in organic 
        production. The data led the authors to conclude that the lower 
        productivity of organic production systems results ``. . . in 
        more widespread deforestation and biodiversity loss, and thus 
        undermining the environmental benefits of organic 
        practices''.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A. (2012) Comparing the 
yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature. 485(7397): 
229-232.

    Claims made in the hearing of organic yields being superior to 
conventional based on the small-plot research generated on Rodale 
experimental farms contradict the scientific consensus on the matter. 
That data should be considered an experimental outlier unsuitable to 
challenge facts presented and reviewed in the scientific literature. 
Furthermore, it has been known since at least the 1940s that small 
plots bias yield estimates.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Bias in the Use of Small-size Plots in Sample Surveys for 
Yield D Semantic Scholar (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Bias-
in-the-Use-of-Small-size-Plots-in-Sample-for-Sukhatme/
918d445c37d3e04dc7efd28c89e9497efd94a186). Editor's note: the original 
article is from the May 11, 1946 publication of Nature, Vol. 157. p. 
630; and is available at (https://www.nature.com/articles/
157630b0.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The loss of productivity in organic systems has real consequences. 
As Mr. Moyer noted in his written testimony: a ``10% [reduction] of 
crop yields, [is] the equivalent of removing millions of acres of land 
from production''. Further, as noted by the EAT-Lancet Commission \37\ 
the biggest threat for agricultural contributions to climate change is 
unrealized yield potential that forces more native land into 
agricultural production. Clearly, from the data presented, a wholesale 
switch to organic farming would result in major land conversion, 
biodiversity loss, and increases in land-based emissions which further 
exacerbates climate change. The mission of regenerative agriculture is 
not to maximize profits (e.g., accepting price premiums for lower 
productivity systems), but to reduce environmental impact associated 
with production. If all farmers ignored yield, we would be facing an 
environmental and humanitarian crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-
6736(18)31788-4/fulltext.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some would argue that a loss in yield is acceptable because of the 
overwhelming benefit that organic production has on soil health. But 
those assumptions are false. As outlined above, judicious use of 
pesticides does not impact soil health, but even more consequential is 
the overall best management practices within conventional agriculture 
can exceed the soil health benefits of organic production.

   Again, as the authors of the meta-analysis published in 
        Nature noted, the lower productivity of organic production 
        systems results ``. . . in more widespread deforestation and 
        biodiversity loss, thus undermining the environmental benefits 
        of organic practices''.\4\

   My fellow panelists at the hearing provided data in their 
        written testimony that supports the fact conventional 
        agricultural advances soil health:

     Mr. Moyer states ``Critically, research shows that 
            organic farming has the potential to diminish soil erosion 
            (Erhart and Hartl 2009).'' This statement references a non-
            peer reviewed book chapter in which the authors acknowledge 
            they never directly measure erosion, but rather infer 
            erosion through ``measured topsoil thickness''. This is an 
            inadequate measurement for soil retention, especially in 
            organic farming that injects high rates of manure and 
            compost into the system that confound soil physical 
            measurements.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Armstrong-Brown, S.M., Cook, H.F., Lee, H.C. (2000) Topsoil 
characteristic from a paired farm survey of organic versus conventional 
farming in southern England. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture. 
1: https://doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2000.9754863.

     Mr. Moyer goes on to state ``Soil erosion rates 
            measured under simulated heavy rainfall in the Swiss 
            Farming System and Tillage experiment revealed that organic 
            farming decreased mean sediment delivery compared to 
            conventional farming by 30% (0.54 t ha-1 
            h-1) (Seitz, et al., 2019).'' However, Mr. Moyer 
            fails to inform the Committee of the authors overall 
            conclusion in this study: conventional with no-till is over 
            three times as effective at erosion reduction than reduced 
            till organic. To quote the authors of the manuscript: 
            ``This study demonstrated that reduced tillage in organic 
            farming decreased sediment delivery (0.73 tha-1 
            h-1) compared to intensively tilled organic 
            plots (1.87 tha-1 h-1) by 61%. 
            Nevertheless, the combination of conventional farming and 
            no tillage showed the lowest sediment delivery (0.24 t 
            ha-1 h-1)''.\39\ This is not 
            surprising as even as Mr. Moyer admits in an interview that 
            ``no-till'' organic is a misnomer and is really 
            ``rotational tillage''.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Seitz, S., et al. (2019). Conservation tillage and organic 
farming reduce soil erosion. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 39: 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0545-z.
    \40\ ``tillage is limited, and best described as rotational 
tillage'' An Introduction to the Organic No-Till Farming Method  D 
EcoFarming Daily (https://www.ecofarmingdaily.com/build-soil/tillage/
book-week-organic-no-till-farming/).

     Mr. Clark cites four farmer success stories in his 
            testimony. The one with the greatest advancement in soil 
            health is Mr. David Brandt of Carroll, Ohio. He has vastly 
            increased soil health as evidenced by an increase in 
            organic matter from 0.75% to 6.8-8%. Mr. Brandt is a 
            conventional farmer who uses synthetic fertilizers and 
            herbicides. This directly contradicts Mr. Clark's and Mr. 
            Moyer's assertions that regenerative organic is needed to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            promote soil health.

     Further evidence of the power of conventional 
            agriculture in promoting soil health is provided by Mr. 
            Clark's citation of the Soil Health Institute's survey.\41\ 
            Mr. Clark did not highlight the fact these farmers' 
            accomplishments were the result of conventional, not 
            organic agriculture. As evidenced from the data tables in 
            the survey, the farmers achieved all these benefits to soil 
            health, even while using conventional systems (including 
            GMO seeds, synthetic fertilizer, and pesticides).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Economics of Soil Health Systems in Midwest Corn and Soy--Soil 
Health Institute (https://soilhealthinstitute.org/our-work/initiatives/
economics-of-soil-health-systems/).

       The fertilizer savings were due to ``. . . farmers 
            implementing nutrient 
              management practices such as grid soil sampling (86%), 
            variable rate fer-
              tilizer application (82%), and split application of 
            nitrogen (89%) as part of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              their soil health management system.''

       Although not explicitly stated by the authors, it is 
            inferred a majority of 
              the farmers in the study used GMO seed and none were 
            organic producers 
              from statements like the following: ``Some farmers 
            planted non-GMO corn 
              or soybean after adopting a soil health management system 
            that provided 
              a price premium'' contained with the document.

    Last, during the hearing claims were made of the agricultural 
system being ``broken'' \42\ alongside alarmist statements of global 
topsoil erosion in the next 60 years.\43\ As noted in the National 
Resources Inventory, erosion from U.S. farmland is down 35%.\44\ As Mr. 
Moyer notes in his written testimony, ``98 percent of farms practice 
conventional agriculture'', so this improvement is directly driven 
through advancements in conventional farming. Hence, the system is not 
broken; we don't need a replacement for a functional system, we need to 
continue to build upon it's demonstrated success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ ``Given your positions on this esteemed Committee, it's likely 
you already know that America's food system is broken.'' Mr. Moyer's 
written testimony page 1 of 14. ``While American farmers and ranchers 
are at the heart of this country and are some of the most innovative, 
successful, and productive farmers in the world, I want to be crystal 
clear for a moment to recognize the perilous state of our soils--the 
real wealth of our nation, the foundation of American resilience and 
prosperity. The situation is urgent and must be considered as such.'' 
Mr. Clark's written testimony page 2 of 17.
    \43\ ``About \1/3\ of the world's soil has already been degraded, 
and if the current rate of soil degradation continues, all of the 
world's topsoil could be lost within 60 years.'' Mr. Moyer's written 
testimony page 3 of 14.
    \44\ 2017NRISummary--Final (1).pdf (C:/Users/rlarson/Downloads/
2017NRISummary_Final (1).pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As One World Data, led by Oxford University scientist Dr. Max 
Roser, found claims of ``only 60 harvests left'' is ``overblown'', yet 
``repeated over and over''. Despite the fact no reference to this 
``fact'' can be found in any scientific literature, just newspaper 
headlines.\45\ Through analysis of the data it was determined ``Half of 
the soils managed with conservation management had a lifespan greater 
than 5,000 years; and 40% exceeded 10,000 years.'' They agree that 
improvements are possible and needed, especially in areas with high 
amounts of bare soil, but warn these alarmist claims not based in 
science ``. . . forces some people towards solutions that are 
ineffective or counterproductive. Some blame the decline . . . on the 
use of fertilizers and other chemical inputs.'' However, the authors 
highlight ``In some contexts organic farming can play a role, but it's 
not the ultimate solution. Misleading headlines convince people that it 
is.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Do we only have 60 harvests left?--Our World in Data (https://
ourworldindata.org/soil-lifespans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
                          Submitted Questions
Questions Submitted by Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in 
        Congress from California
Response from Jeffrey W. Moyer, Chief Executive Officer, Rodale 
        Institute
    Question. Mr. Moyer, it seems some hesitancy in implementing 
regenerative practices comes from concerns that farmers may see their 
yield decrease, hurting their bottom line.
    How can Congress help educate growers across the country on the 
benefits of implementing the regenerative practices you've outlined 
today?
    Answer. We must understand that farmers take on a fair bit of risk 
every year in their operations based on uncertain markets, shifts in 
weather patterns, unstable supply chains and fluctuating costs. To add 
in an additional risk of ``changes in production models'' can often be 
more than the system can bare, even if those changes lead to positive 
farm (soil health and economics) and global outcomes.
    Congress can help by instituting language in the farm bill that 
works to mitigate this risk through: enhanced EQIP regulations that 
encourage practices, based on science, that improve soil health; 
restructure crop insurance programs that reduce premiums for farmers/
ranchers/producers that are attempting to implement regenerative 
organic practices; adjust tax structures or cost supports designed to 
help farmers/ranchers/producers during the USDA mandated 3 year 
transition period where the farmer/rancher/producer is required to 
produce farm commodities or products using organic or regenerative 
organic certification standards but due to regulatory statues and 
labeling regulations, must market their commodities or products as 
conventional.
Response from Rick Clark, Owner, Farm Green & Clark Land and Cattle; on 
        behalf of Regenerate America
    Question 1. I am encouraged to hear about the successes of your 
regenerative farming practices. It is possible to grow food for our 
nation and the world while also benefiting the environment. You are 
proof of that.
    Mr. Clark, you have clearly found success in your regenerative 
practices and could very well serve as a model for other farmers across 
the country.
    How did you implement regenerative farming? Was it trial and error 
or research? And how can Congress help take the lessons you and others 
have learned and use that knowledge to help other farmers successfully 
transition to regenerative farming?
    Answer. Our old farming practices created a lot of erosion. All it 
took for me was a 1" rain event to realize something had to change, and 
so we started looking at no-till practices and at adding cover crops. 
At the time, I had no idea what regenerative was and what it could do 
for the soil. This was originally a defensive reaction to a problem, 
but when I began to understand the power that cover crop species have, 
I was then able to turn our system into an offensive juggernaut.
    The number one driver for me in my quest to maximize regenerative 
practices was Mother Nature. She created situations that I had no idea 
how to combat. My willingness to stay the course and test and learn on 
our own farm has gotten us to where we are today.
    That is how we began implementing the principles of soil health and 
getting our soil ready for the reduction of inputs--it was all trial 
and error, because there were not many or any organizations or 
educators teaching this at the time, and I didn't know other farmers 
trying this. We have since taken our farm to the summit of soil health 
practices and eliminated all inputs. This makes us very solid for the 
future generations coming on board.
    What Congress must recognize is that funding for soil health 
practices and conservation programs are an essential step to help 
farmers improve soil health, but these funds alone don't guarantee 
success for the farmer. Education, research, and technical support are 
necessary for successful implementation at scale. In order to see the 
results I have had on my farm across the country, America's producers 
urgently need access to updated education and peer-to-peer support 
systems, based on the latest science and context-based principles for 
building soil and climate adaptation. That means we need to include a 
focus on regenerative agriculture and soil health in Title VII of the 
farm bill which increases funding for regenerative agriculture 
research, education, and technical assistance. We need train-the-
trainer programs for Extension personnel so that they can help farmers 
with this needed transition. We also need to foster a feedback loop 
between the research, education, and Extension technical service 
providers so that the latest research on regenerative agriculture and 
soil health are being shared with farmers and ranchers across the 
country.

    Question 1a. How did you determine what combination of cover crops 
would best benefit your fields and how should other farmers make this 
determination? Is this an area where USDA could offer assistance to 
help growers make better informed decisions?
    Answer. There were not a lot of people to talk to about cover crops 
at that time, so I made the decision that we would test on our farm and 
see what works and does not work. Today, there are so many outlets for 
farmers to find information about regenerative practices like cover 
cropping, but we still have to remember that change is hard and there 
needs to be a solid support group available to help these farmers in 
real-time. The farmer needs to be supported to have success when they 
are trying new practices for the first time; if they are not, they may 
be discouraged from trying new practices in the future.
    This is an area that the USDA can and should be offering assistance 
in, but to do so, we must first ensure that USDA agents are educated in 
the principles of soil health. Successful applications of cover crops 
depend upon a deep understanding of the context of the region, and what 
would work best for the soil type, the production system, and the 
climatic region.
    Learning how to effectively use cover crops can take some time, and 
it's imperative that producers receive both technical assistance and 
financial incentives over a period of time. We have seen producers try 
cover crops one year and if not immediately successful, abandon the 
practice. This is especially true in drier areas of the county, and 
once this happens, farmers share with other farmers ``it does not work 
here.'' This is unfortunate, because we have seen tremendous success 
with cover crops in these areas, but it can take a few years to see the 
economic and ecological benefits. Farmers must receive the proper 
support to get them over the learning curve to reap the incredible 
benefits of cover crops.
    The farmer cannot be expected to jeopardize the livelihood of their 
farm to implement a concept they are not familiar with--that is why 
education and consistent support are necessary to the success of any 
planned programs in the future.

                                [all]