Carbon

Old Ranching Heritage Meets New Tech

Thu, 04 Dec 2025 16:30:46 GMT

In Kingsville, Texas, near the Mexico border, the only thing thicker than the accents is the ranching culture.

Natives call it the birthplace of American ranching.

“This is where European immigrants from Scotland, England and Ireland combined with a lot of the native peoples and the Spanish-descended settlers,” says James Clement.

Kingsville is his home, and he knows that heritage well.

“This is where the Catholic mission system and the Western European farming systems collided to create what is known as ranching,” he says.

Much of today’s ranching terminology and practices originated in this South Texas region, and Clement is quick to note that the tradition endures.

“You still see a lot of commitment by the people that own land in this part of the world to maintain large-scale ranches,” he says. “We call this region the last great habitat.”

With his well-worn and scuffed cowboy hat, Clement not only has ranching culture in his heart, it flows through his veins.

At the King Ranch Museum in downtown Kingsville, Clement traces his family’s lineage on a massive, framed portrait that hangs above a stone fireplace. Capt. Richard King and his wife, Henrietta, were Clement’s triple-great-grandparents. His family has all matriculated from the famed King Ranch, a major corporation of modern ranching that has expanded to include farming, luxury retail, recreational hunting and more.

Land of His Own

Though Clement maintains ties to King Ranch, he also now manages his own operation, Bloody Buckets Cattle Co., a ranch deeply steeped in family tradition.

“Our Clement family has been in American military service since the War of 1812, beginning with Sgt. Maj. Kay Clement and his son, Gen. John Clement,” he says. “Four of those generations (from 1812 to 1945), served in the 28^th Division of Pennsylvania.”

During World War II, Clement’s grandfather, Capt. James “Jim” Clement, fought with the division dubbed the Bloody Buckets Division by German forces due to its red keystone insignia

“My grandfather wore the bloody buckets patch on his left shoulder, and we still brand our cattle on the left hip with a brand that is modeled after that patch,” he says.

Bloody Buckets Cattle Co. uses King Ranch American Red genetics. All wear the Bloody Buckets brand on their left hip to pay homage to the ranch’s founder and the family’s military service record.

(Angie Stump Denton)

His grandfather, wounded in France, returned to South Texas as the recipient of a Purple Heart Medal and began a long career with King Ranch, ultimately serving as CEO from 1974 to 1988.

While living in South Texas, he founded Los Hermanos Ranch in 1967, which Clement now operates under the Bloody Buckets Cattle Co. brand. In the 1970s, his father, James “Jamey” Clement Jr., and his uncle, Martin “Martín” Clement II, assumed ownership and day-to-day responsibilities for Los Hermanos. Together, all three men shaped the ranch’s history while each spent his full-time career working for King Ranch.

Clement and his family have been exposed to 400 years of ranching in three operations. Clement’s mother came from the historic Beggs Cattle Company, established in 1876. They, along with their partners, have put that knowledge together and found a way to manage their land and cattle.

“We used the lessons learned from Beggs, King, the experience of our partners and the King Ranch Institute of paying attention to the land, natural resources and wildlife,” he says.

“As we were continuing to grow our operation, we were seeing that we were surviving droughts better, our wildlife quality and quantity was increasing, our water retention was improving and our business lines were growing,” he adds.

A New Approach

Now supporting those heritage practices on-ranch is a host of ag tech advancements. Certainly, they were not seen on his grandfather’s ranch, but Clement knows they are the way of the future, making practices more efficient and easier to accomplish with less labor and fewer man-hours.

He uses Ranchbot Monitoring Systems to keep an eye on his watering systems. Frontiers Market Artificial Intelligence gathers animal health data. On-vehicle cameras are helping to map his land and resources through Enriched Ag.

But his greatest passion lies below the surface in soil carbon capture, so much so that he works as senior vice president and general manager of grass and rangeland for EarthOptics , a company that uses the study of soil biology to predict agronomic outcomes and measure soil carbon. In the role, he helps landowners measure and monetize soil carbon through data-driven insights.

For Clement, it’s a business model that he likens to one he knows well.

“Using an oil and gas analogy, EarthOptics is the drilling company; other people sell the crude (soil carbon in this sense), but we find it.” he says. “What we’re trying to do is help people make more efficient decisions on their land, reduce cost and then potentially also look at additional cash flow streams through the sale of carbon credits.”

Clement calls himself “bullish on carbon” for one particular reason.

“This is really the first opportunity in ranching — first of the growing ecosystem markets — where large companies are paying people to make good stewardship decisions,” he says. “Historically, how did you judge other ranches against each other? Who was selling the most cattle for the most money, selling the most expensive hunts or had the most pump jacks? Now we can pay for taking care of the land and making long-term decisions.”

EarthOptics not only finds a way to quantify and qualify good land and soil stewardship, they validate the data in such a way that farmers and ranchers can capitalize on them.

“We’re at the crossroads of the industry,” Clement says. “EarthOptics is not selling the credits. We’re just advising the ranchers on how to partake in these markets and then also making the introductions and building the industry.”

In November, Bloody Buckets Cattle Company hosted the final 2025 stop in the Trust In Beef Sustainable Ranchers Tour. Owner James Clement III used the event to share the importance his operation places on heritage land stewardship and ag tech advancements for profitability.

(Trust In Beef)

New Land Equals an Accelerated Approach

Clement is broadening the scope of Bloody Buckets Cattle Co., buying additional land and leasing land with his partners, “Poncho” Ortega Sr. and “Poncho” Ortega Jr. They are currently ranching on six ranches in four different South Texas counties. Acquiring new ranches and leases means the work on some of the new land is just beginning.

“On the west side, we acquired some ranches in the last 20 years that had previously been farmed,” he says. “We spend most of our time and resources in the pastures with the worst conditions to build back soil health.”

By applying the same technology he’s helped develop and test elsewhere, Clement is accelerating the restoration process. Their ranching operation has become a testing ground for many of the new ag tech companies in the industry, seeing if these concepts can work in rough country and be beneficial to the operation.

“We’re on a mission to get each of these newer owned or leased properties back in better shape,” he says. “As we expand, we want to make sure that acre is productive.”

Trust In Beef™ works to secure the future of American ranching by providing the information ranchers need to make the decisions that impact the resiliency, profitability and resource management of their working lands. Learn more about Trust In Beef and their Sustainable Ranchers Tour by visiting www.trustinbeef.com

Your Next Read: Ranchers Make Tough Decisions to Weather Intense Southwest Drought

What Ranchers Should Know About Carbon Programs

Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:34:26 GMT

Carbon markets can be a controversial topic, but regardless of where you stand it is important to understand how they work and where they are finding their role in the beef industry. Ryan Dierking and James Clement from the team at Earth Optics, helps ranchers understand the basics of carbon programs and what they need to consider before signing up in Season 8, Episode 7 of the Casual Cattle Conversations Podcast.

There are five key players involved in carbon programs.

1. Ranchers/landowners – cattle producers who are making management changes for the betterment of the soil. These management changes are referred to as “Additionality”.

2. Project Developers – these groups are the ones who enroll producers into programs and collect data from the landowner.

3. Measurement Agency – companies, such as Earth Optics, that provide all of the ground truth data to determine carbon stocks that verifiers then turn into credits

4. Verification Agencies – these groups use the collected data to determine how many carbon credits have been produced based on soil data and associated changes in management.

5. Buyers – these are the companies who want to purchase these credits to offset their own carbon emissions. These are known as Scope 1 offsets.

Earth Optics is a unique company in this space. They help ranchers collect actionable carbon data and help them understand which directions they can go with it.

“We produce carbon distribution maps and can calculate what a carbon stock should be for a particular field or landscape,” Ryan Dierking says. “Another way to think about it is having a yield map of carbon created for your land.”

Earth Optics does not create or sell the carbon credits. They measure and report those values to both the ranchers and project developers.

Carbon is measured through two main methods – modeling and measurement. Modeling can involve looking at satellite imagery and/or collecting management data from software that tracks animal movements to quantify the difference in plant matter on the surface. Essentially, this is measuring the impact of grazing duration, biomass removal and rest and recovery periods based on defoliation and plant regrowth.

Measuring involves taking physical measurements of the soil as well as remotely scanning soil data using EMI sensors. Earth Optics uses a combination of the two methods to quantify the soil carbon baseline for the land and then re-check carbon values in three to five years depending on the contract between the rancher and project developer.

In the United States, carbon programs are voluntary.

“These carbon credits are not subsidized. They are being demanded and purchased by shareholders of private companies,” James Clement says. “Essentially, these companies need landowners which creates the opportunity to get paid for doing what is right by the land and that’s the main draw for many landowners.”

One reason landowners choose not to participate in carbon programs is because of the contract length.

“Most of these contracts are looking at a timeframe of 15 or 30 years and beyond. The challenge is many ranchers don’t or can’t make this decision for the next generation,” Clement says. “Additionally, the contract or program may not be in line with the landowner’s values and goals.”

Landowners also must be committed to upholding their end of the agreement with management changes and data collection and reporting.

“When that change takes place, project developers are requiring management data such as how many cattle were there, when were they moved etc.,” Dierking says. “Data management programs and tools might be available or provided depending on the contract.”

It’s important to note that ranchers who have already been proactive with their soil health and management practices and are focused on good stewardship may already be eligible for some programs with little to no management changes required depending on the Project Developer.

Another challenge these programs can face is the amount of rented land being operated on. This could be private land or government land such as BLM, forest service etc. This creates an added layer of complexity because now a lessee is involved in addition to the other parties.

“It usually comes down to a negotiation between the lessee and the landowner,” Clement says.

If a landowner is interested in engaging in a carbon program, there are numerous things to consider.

“There are only a handful of programs out there. Look at all the programs and do your due diligence. Look at which program is going to fit the needs of your ranch. Don’t jump at the first one that comes by,” says Dierking. “The right opportunity might not arise for another year or two.”

Landowners should also be diligent about reviewing the contracts.

“The difficult thing is you need to find a lawyer who is comfortable thinking through this,” says Clement. “The family lawyer who has helped with pipelines or eminent domain in the past might not be comfortable or familiar with carbon programs.”

After that, landowners should be cognizant of who the buyer is and if it is likely they’ll be in business for the duration of the contract. The language of the contract shouldn’t be complex and what is being asked of the land manager should be clear.

“Ask yourself if it is reasonable to achieve the results they are asking for? For a good steward, 90% of the time it is,” Clement says.

Understanding any management limitations placed in the contract is also important. An example of this is whether land managers will be able to spray for weeds or if they will be required to use other forms of weed control.

Reviewing contracts is also an opportunity to place any clauses to protect yourself in the future if something were to change or if complete liability protection is not included for those who uphold their commitment.

At the end of the day this is new territory for American ranchers.

“It sounds complex, but the bottom line is if you are making long-term good decisions for your land through your management you most likely have the opportunity to participate in these markets,” Clements says. “If enrolling in carbon programs is in line with your goals and values, find someone experienced to help you navigate the opportunities that come your way.”

Listen to the full conversation: https://www.casualcattleconversations.com/casual-cattle-conversations-podcast-shownotes/earth-optics

Washington Grower Shares How To Scale Regenerative Farming

Wed, 04 Dec 2024 13:30:00 GMT

By Deborah Huso

Austin Allred’s family has been farming the Royal Slope region of Washington state between Seattle and Spokane for three generations. He and his two brothers, Derek and Tyson, farm a combined 6,000 acres. They grow potatoes, cherry and apple trees and produce honey, while also running 10,000 beef cattle and milking about 6,000 dairy cows. The family also recently added a worm farm and a beef processing facility.

Like many producers with combined operations, Royal Family Farms focuses on finding a purpose for every acre and every byproduct. In fact, the Allreds have been practicing regenerative farming before it really had its own term.

“My dad was no-tilling before it was billed as regenerative,” Allred explains. “He was doing it to reduce diesel usage. He was also very conscientious about planting woodstock in corners of fields.”

Allred and his siblings took the same approach as they expanded the farm operations.

“I accelerated and defined [what Dad was doing] and put some strategy to it,” Allred says, with the goals of building organic matter in the soil, sequestering carbon and cleaning wastewater.

Royal Family Farms

(Royal Family Farms)

Extended Crop Rotations and Grazing
Allred recognizes the kind of stress agricultural production can put on the land, hence the many inputs required in traditional farming. But Royal Family Farms has demonstrated that not only do regenerative practices work, but one can accomplish them at scale.

“Anytime you’re growing a crop that a human can digest, you’re going to put a lot of pressure on soil,” Allred says. “It’s really hard to do a total no-till strategy. You can’t plant weeds with your wheat.”

Allred says potatoes are the least regenerative crop the farm grows, but says they counteract it by working cattle into a long crop rotation for added soil fertilization.

“If 20% of the ground is in potatoes, that land doesn’t come back online for another six to seven years. And during those years, we do a lot of composting,” he says. “Other years we do cover cropping and planting multispecies crops to grow microbial activity.”

Allred grazes his beef cattle on the cover crops, which provides feed while simultaneously adding more soil amendments, such as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P).

Upcycling Everything
Nothing goes to waste at Royal Family Farms. The Allreds work with all the processors who clean and box their apples and turn their potatoes into French fries to retrieve all of the products that don’t qualify for human consumption to be upcycled into protein, as Allred explains it, providing food for their cattle in the form of potato culls or damaged fruit or nutrient-rich compost for their fields. Meanwhile any wood chips produced when the Allreds retire a cherry or apple orchard is either turned into cattle bedding, used for the worm farm or processed into biochar, a carbon-rich byproduct.

The Allreds’ interest in biochar, a charcoal-like substance derived from organic waste, developed out of a desire to bring more carbon into agricultural systems. And for the past few months, Royal Family Farms has used four machines to burn wood chips into charcoal that, when mixed with compost, recharges carbon in the soil.

“As farmers, we are selling off carbon, whether it’s beef, milk or cherries,” Allred says. “Seventy to 80% of retired apple, cherry and pear trees in Washington were getting burned at the end of their effective life. Biochar was a way to bring in more carbon and upcycle and compost it.”

“We try to upcycle every byproduct into something of value,” Allred says. “Eventually it all becomes a soil amendment. It’s only a loss if we let that carbon into the air.”

Reusing Wastewater With Worms
Water is a critical part of any farming operation, and Royal Family Farms sought out a better way to
filter wastewater from their dairy operations and reuse it. What was their regenerative solution? Worms.

“We started investing in what is now the biggest worm farm in the world about eight years ago,” Allred says.

Working with a company called BioFiltro headquartered in Santiago, Chile, the Allreds’ worm farm includes eight acres of what looks like 5'-deep swimming pools. These pools are able to serve as the home for about 50 million worms at any one time.

“Wood chips make up the medium they live in, and that’s also the filter for the dirty water,” Allred explains. “The dairy is designed to flow to a low spot, where we have two 5,000-gallon vacuums that bring the wastewater to the worms.”

The worms digest the wastewater, removing heavy metals and other contaminants. The waste matter the worms produce is rich in microbials, and the Allreds take the worm castings and mix them with compost to produce nutrient-dense soil.

Royal Family Farms

(Royal Family Farms)

Eliminating Waste and Need for Inputs
Allred says engaging in regenerative practices large-scale required careful consideration of how everything could work together.

“We started integrating vegetable, fruit, protein and bees to get to the next generation of regeneration,” he explains. Allred points out that the digestive systems of cattle along with biochar create compost. “It’s all about upcycling ‘waste’ products.”

The result of instituting these practices is dramatically reduced reliance on inputs.

“This year we used no phosphorus and potassium and had equal to or greater yields without it,” Allred remarks. “And across the board, we have better quality.”

He adds the farm’s greatest payout is not having to input synthetics.

“The more natural systems we have in play, the more nutrients we keep in the loop, the less we have to go get inputs,” he says.

Allred acknowledges farmers can filter water through mechanical or chemical systems, but says natural systems are typically cheaper to implement.

“Natural investments are always going to have a long-term return on investment,” Allred says. “The problem is producers often don’t have the margin to always be investing in long-term ROI.”

Royal Family Farms’ regenerative farming practices offer payoffs 10 to 15 years out, Allred estimates.

“We’ve bridged that gap with carbon credits and vertically integrating to pick up those margins,” he says.

This year Royal Family Farms is starting to see its regenerative operations pay off in a big way.

“We purchased 90% less phosphorus and potassium [K] than we have in the past and significantly less nitrogen,” Allred says. “We’re working on nitrogen for the next five years because ruminants make P and K.”

“Regenerative farming starts to gobble up the biggest expenses any farm is going to pay — your fertilizer bill and your chemical bill,” he says. “On the cattle side, your feed bill is your biggest expense. Regenerative farming gives you higher-quality, local food.”

No one knows better than you that the future of your farm depends on balancing practices and profits that sustain your land, resources and family . The stakes are evolving based on weather patterns, technology, market demand and more. What actions are you taking to remain resilient?

Is Regenerative Agriculture Real?

Mon, 02 Dec 2024 14:54:00 GMT

Recently, I spoke to an investor looking for a fund to help farmers transition to regenerative agriculture. The investor thought there was a clear set of procedures to give farmers a measurable reward in a predictable amount of time. This line of thinking is common, but there currently is not a generally recognized standard that is “regenerative.” There are practices that might work in one location but not another, and there have been attempts to measure and monetize components, such as carbon credits.

Building soil health and cutting inputs will have huge long-term benefits, but there isn’t a standardized premium to index potential near-term ROI, especially for third-party investors.

Farming Is Changing

At a recent regenerative agriculture conference (of which the primary attendance was not farmers), a farmer recalled a conversation he overheard between two relatives weighing the pros and cons of adopting no-till farming practices. The audience was amazed this conversation took place 45 years ago, and the family had been using these practices for over four decades.

This disconnect is typical. In the current hype around regenerative ag, we should not miss the long view that farming is changing and will be more diverse in terms of species grown and potentially carbon negative in terms of how we grow. Fewer inputs will be used through advancements in technology.

Every field has different soil and different needs, and a regenerative plan needs to account for that. At the farm gate, the work needs to be monetized based on standards that have value in the marketplace, which currently don’t exist, and impact the production economics by lowering costs, building soil health and managing water.

3 Actions You Can Take Now

Expand use of regenerative practices. There is currently a lot of grant funding for conservation practices . Now is a good time to get started, but don’t get bound into long-term contracts that are going to lock up your data or rights to sell ecosystem credits in the future.
Don’t be afraid to measure. The future will be in selling products from your farm based on how the crop was produced, as well as selling water, carbon and other credits. The key is to get yourself in a position to reap this value without being committed to companies and organizations still trying to figure it out.
Band together and invest in the tools. Groups of farmers working together can coordinate ways to invest in the enabling tools that will lower barriers to entry, collect data, talk to potential downstream customers who might want to pay premiums and share best practices on what it takes to adopt new practices.

Colorado Rancher Leverages USDA Grant Money to Steward Public Land

Thu, 06 Jun 2024 17:48:57 GMT

On Gayel Alexander’s Colorado ranch, the cow-to-land ratio is enough to leave many scratching their heads.

Every year, she grazes 200-head of beef cows on 40,000 acres of public land that sits on the rugged landscape shared by national monuments and culturally significant mountaintops.

The fact that her cows are scattered across the landscape like needles in a giant haystack of land doesn’t bother Alexander. She knows this land.

In 1936 and 1942, through the Taylor Grazing Act, Alexander’s grandfather was able to secure two land leases.

“Even though he only had an eighth-grade education, my grandfather was a very smart man,” she said.

Now, these separate leases, managed first by her grandfather, then later by her mother and now by Alexander, combined with adjoining private property, make up the Ja Quidi Ranch.

Layered with generational land knowledge, Alexander also knows her cattle. She spends time on the land with them, learning their habits and tracking their grazing patterns.

But Alexander’s knowledge doesn’t necessarily equal control.

“I have range cows, not pasture cows,” she says. “They are very agile, very smart and they are used to doing what they want to do to survive on their own.”

One challenge with range cows is that Alexander is sometimes chasing her herd away from boundaries and shooing them from neighbors’ cropland and hay barns. On a broader scale, this rangeland free-for-all limits her ability to take full advantage of the rotational grazing plans she develops with federal range conservationists from The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. This data-tracking hurdle impacts her management decisions, which, in turn, affects overall profitability and environmental stewardship.

(Farm Journal)

That’s where the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities , USDA’s historic funding package for conservation agriculture comes into play for Alexander. The $3.1 billion investment is broken up into 141 public-private grants aimed at providing both technical and financial support for farmers and ranchers to begin, grow or enhance their conservation journey and connect the data associated with it to both operational success and the climate-smart economy.

One of those grants, Farm Journal’s Connected Ag Project , was the missing piece Alexander needed to connect her practical ranch needs and her dreams of holistic land management to reality.

“We have gathered a coalition of industry and conservation leaders, put the power of their technical expertise alongside $40 million in federal grant dollars and brought all of that to bear for the American farmer,” says Jimmy Emmons, senior vice president for climate-smart programs for Trust In Food , Farm Journal’s sustainable ag group. “Through this project, 500 growers and producers like Gayel will have a true partner in connecting their conservation goals to success both for themselves and for agriculture’s sustainable future.”

Each producer enrolled in the project receives:

technical conservation planning
agronomic support
data tools
coaching for how to maximize data efficacy
financial support to implement climate-smart practices or technology

Andrew Lyon, director of technical assistance for the project, is tasked with assessing the needs of farmers in the program and matching them with partners that can provide both solutions and expertise. As the first producer to implement a conservation program under the grant, Alexander will be using both technology and data-coaching partners to accomplish her conservation goals.

“Virtual fencing and data coaching have been important tools to meet both the current challenges that Gayel has on her public land leases and the aspirational goals that she has for better land overall stewardship through increased rotational grazing,” Lyon says. “Through this program, producers like Gayel will have the information and tools they need to set them up for a future of conservation-minded decision-making on their operations.”

Alexander says she never would have been able to address her challenges and meet those goals on her own – which is the main factor that led Merck Animal Health to sign onto the grant project with their Vence virtual fencing technology.

(Farm Journal)

Other private partners for the program, including Ducks Unlimited, PTx Trimble, AgriWebb, U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, Texas Agricultural Land Trust, ABS Global and Tuskegee University, among others, combine to provide both resources and technical assistance to put practical conservation on the ground throughout the U.S.

“The grant partnership is important to Merck Animal Health because it helps reduce barriers and encourages ranchers to adopt innovative tools, like Vence, to implement strategies to produce beef while reducing their environmental impact,” said Gary Tiller, Commercial Director, Vence Corp., part of Merck Animal Health. “Through our partnership, Merck Animal Health can contribute to sustainability efforts important to the industry.”

Recently, the Connected Ag Project team outfitted Ja Quidi Ranch with technology that is already providing tangible benefit.

Alexander’s cattle have been outfitted with Vence virtual collars, which are allowing her to collect data that she has been “chomping at the bit” to have. She says the data will allow her to make adaptive changes during the growing seasons and better care for the health and wellbeing of her herd.

That level of control could help her increase the size of her herd in the future. Grant partner AgriWebb will provide both the technology and support needed to help get Alexander to that point with their all-in-one livestock management software.

“Those focused on improving their livestock’s efficiency or reducing their fertilizer usage will work with Trust in Food’s technical assistance team, as well as AgriWebb’s customer success team, to ensure the right records are tracked and assessed to support producers on their climate-smart journey,” says Coby Buck, a fifth-generation rancher and director of strategic accounts at AgriWebb.

Alexander believes that the benefits will grow exponentially for her ranch.

“I have feed on both my permits that isn’t getting used right now,” she says. “I normally have four allotments, but when we wrote my summer plan, we tripled it to 12 allotments.”

“Now I can do a lot more intensive rotational grazing which will increase forage and help bring back grasses that have been dormant for years because they haven’t had hoof and cow activity,” Alexander continues.

Range management practices will be beneficial for wildlife and allow Alexander to increase riparian areas that will revive springs and ponds for healthier habitats.

“Some of this land just isn’t healthy anymore, and this will help it come back alive,” she added.

Gazing out over the rugged, rocky landscape Alexander thinks of as her own, you’ll see areas that are part of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument and, just south, the Ute Mountain, a culturally significant landmark for the Ute Nation of Indians.

Alexander is aware of the weight she bears as steward of this land.

“Every time I can better my permits, I’m bettering everything,” she says.

(Farm Journal)

To learn more about Farm Journal’s Connected Ag Project and explore how it could benefit you, visit www.trustinfood.com/grow . Farm Journal also can connect you to expanded opportunities through our Climate-Smart Opportunity Navigator, available here .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under agreement number NR233A750004G096

New Methane Digester Complete at Tri-Cross Dairy, Begins Supplying RNG

Wed, 06 Mar 2024 19:15:26 GMT

Renewable natural gas (RNG) is certainly making a big appearance in 2024. Tri-Cross Dairy, a 5,000-cow operation located in Viborg, S.D., is the second dairy in the state within the last two months to begin supplying RNG to the natural gas pipeline via a methane digester.

According to Clean Energy, Tri-Cross Dairy’s partner for the project, the new facility is forecasted to produce 1 million gallons annually of negative carbon-intensity RNG.

The construction costs of the RNG production facility, which includes the build of digesters and processing plant, totaled $34 million and was completed in December 2023. The injecting of pipeline-quality RNG began shortly after completion. Clean Energy is in the process of filing the necessary applications to generate federal and state environmental credits. The facility is one in a series of projects in the Midwest for which the companies have partnered together.

“We anticipate 2024 to be a pivotal year in the demand for RNG fuel in the transportation market with the introduction of Cummins’ X15N natural gas engine for heavy-duty trucks. Clean Energy’s fueling infrastructure is expanding to meet that demand and we’ll need a constant source of additional low-carbon RNG to supply those stations. The new production facilities at Tri-Cross Dairy and the other farms in the Midwest that are now producing RNG is a critical component to our strategy,” said Clay Corbus, senior vice president for renewables.

Earlier this year, Drumgoon Dairy, a 6,500-cow operation in Lake Norden, S.D., also began producing RNG through its methane digester project. The facility has since begun injecting ultra-low carbon RNG into the interstate natural gas pipeline system. According to a Clean Energy press release, Drumgoon Dairy is expected to supply 1.66 million gallons of negative carbon-intensity RNG annually to the transportation market when at full capacity.

How It’s Made

While dairy cows are known for their ability to make milk, they’re also scrutinized for their ability to produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, agriculture accounts for nearly 10% of U.S. GHG emissions. However, the dairy industry plays a big role in being part of a global climate solution.

“Renewable natural gas is chemically the same as the natural gas you might get in your stove, but what makes it renewable is that it is sourced from landfills or dairy farms,” says Will Flanagan, vice president of strategic development at Clean Energy. “What we’re doing is gathering manure and putting it in a digester, which captures the raw methane, or biogas, that would otherwise be going into the atmosphere. Then we pipe that raw biogas to an on-site gas processing plant where we clean it up by taking out the unwanted constituents.”

Once the methane has been converted into RNG, it is injected into a local natural gas pipeline and distributed to one of Clean Energy’s 540 fueling stations.

For more on sustainability, read:

Have You Heard of Scope 3? It Offers Opportunity for Agriculture

Thu, 08 Feb 2024 19:43:45 GMT

You might have heard the term Scope 3 thrown around. It’s all the buzz lately in the world of sustainability. But what does it mean?

A company’s emissions are broken down into Scopes 1, 2 and 3. This helps them account for different categories of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions:
• Scope 1 refers to direct emissions controlled by the company, which include emissions from their operations and facilities.
• Scope 2 addresses indirect emissions from energy an organization purchases or brings in to operate the business.
• Scope 3 covers indirect emissions from the company’s supply chain, both upstream and downstream.

Scope 3 is where things get interesting for farmers and the rest of agriculture’s “upstream” supply-chain partners. Upstream means all of the materials and transportation required before something gets to the company for production or processing.

We’re all aware companies are evolving their sustainability strategies. Increasingly, they’re working to meet the sustainability demands of their customers and the various voluntary initiatives established by their leadership and downstream supply-chain partners. As a result, businesses must be able to measure and reduce their Scope 3 emissions. It’s especially important for companies whose supply chain includes agriculture. Like it or not, agriculture is considered one of the primary contributors of GHG emissions and climate change. McKinsey & Company recently reported agriculture is responsible for about 24% of global emissions, making agricultural emissions a major focus of decarbonization efforts.

Onerous as this sounds, this creates tremendous opportunities for farmers who have already reduced emissions, or will in the future, through on-farm practices, such as reduced energy usage, improved soil health measures and reduced machinery passes on a field.

When will Scope 3 opportunities be available in your area? This is the big question. Many existing and new companies are collaborating to understand which methodologies, strategies and systems are required to support this new type of sustainability accounting in a way that’s consistent and realistic for our fragmented industry. New pilot programs are popping up regularly. But, so far, they have been concentrated in very small regions and vary greatly from one program to the next.

If you believe you have practices that could support Scope 3 reductions, talk to your local agribusiness partners to see what’s available in your area. Consider reaching out to your grain elevator, meat packer, dairy processor or other supply-chain partners.

If there is a new sustainability company or expert reaching out to you for a meeting, take the time to listen. They could be bringing you new opportunities to monetize sustainable practices on your farm or providing valuable information to help better educate you on decarbonization or Scope 3 opportunities in your area. Not every opportunity might be right for your farm, but taking the time to get better educated on the landscape will be valuable now and in the future.

Heather Gieseke’s insights help position agribusinesses for growth and profitability – from risk management to carbon mitigation, emission reduction and other agriculture advocacy related initiatives. A leader of Pinion’s sustainability practice, Heather champions sustainability for the farm, family and business.

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack Reveals the Final COP28 Declaration Will Not Focus on Agriculture and Food

Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:28:02 GMT

Despite calls from countries to focus on food and agriculture as a way to meet the world’s climate goals, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack revealed that the final COP28 declaration would not focus on agriculture and food. This decision was influenced by a request from the G77 group of developing countries for additional review and participation related to agriculture and food, leaving no time for negotiations.

While Vilsack highlighted the importance of a special day dedicated to agriculture and food policy and the participation of U.S. farm and food leaders, he considered the Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Change, signed by 152 nations, and commitments by countries and companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fund related projects as significant achievements. However, some observers were disappointed because this would delay progress until June 2024.

Today, at the first-ever day dedicated to food and agriculture at a COP conference, we’re proud to highlight the steps we’re taking to tackle the climate crisis, invest in food systems innovation, and bring new opportunities to producers #COP28 pic.twitter.com/69uyWVdmcZ
— Secretary Tom Vilsack (@SecVilsack) December 10, 2023

Vilsack mentioned the Agriculture Innovation Mission (AIM) for Climate , a joint initiative between the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates aimed at addressing climate change and global hunger through increased investment in climate-smart agriculture and food systems innovation.

Regarding reducing meat consumption, Vilsack said he had not heard much about that goal but instead emphasized strategies for reducing methane emissions related to livestock. The U.S. is taking a leadership role in methane reduction through research, feed additives, recapturing methane for energy production, and managing manure.

A Focus on Dairy to Start

Leading into the meeting, there was a lot of talk about how agriculture practices and food production may be impacted by the climate goals. And to start the meeting, dairy was on the list.

According to a report from Reuters last week, advocacy groups said that tackling livestock methane should be a major priority at this year’s COP28 summit. In addition, at the summit in Dubai this week, six of the world’s largest dairy companies announced an alliance to cut methane emissions from dairy cows.

Reuters reported members of the Dairy Methane Action Alliance include Danone, Bel Group, General Mills, Lactalis USA, Kraft Heinz and Nestle. The Alliance says it will begin reporting their methane emissions by mid-2024 and will write methane action plans by the end of that year.

While the world’s largest dairy companies are working together, it’s also sparking an argument of how essential dairy is in the diets of people around the globe.

#UN #Roadmap to 1.5 #Livestock plan unveiled at #cop28 listed in this thread.

Livestock plays a crucial economic role contributing to the livelihoods of about 1.7 billion poor people and 70 percent of those employed in the sector are women
— Steven Middendorp (@smiddendorp22) December 10, 2023

Cop28: An Explanation

What is COP28? It’s a meeting of politicians, diplomats, NGOS and representatives of national governments. There are also other stakeholders who attend to try to influence the outcome. The meeting actually dates back to June of 1992 when 154 countries signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). At the time, those countries agreed to combat human impacts on the climate.

COP meetings have been held every year since, with a different country becoming the COP president. Since that country is in charge of organizing the meeting, the host city typically moves year to year. Then, any new agreements struck from that year’s meeting, is typically named after the host city, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement and the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact.

According to the COP28 website, the goal is to “correct course and accelerate action to tackle the climate crisis.” The website also states, “COP28 is where the world will take stock of progress on the Paris Agreement – the landmark climate treaty concluded in 2015 – and chart a course of action to dramatically reduce emissions and protect lives and livelihoods.”

The Goal

According to COP28 organizers, the science shows “to preserve a livable climate, the production of coal, oil, and gas must rapidly decline, and global renewable power capacity – including wind, solar, hydro and geothermal energy – needs to triple by 2030. At the same time, financing for adaptation and investments in climate resilience need a quantum leap.”

COP28 organizers say the goal is to create “concrete solutions to the defining issue of our time.”

'No Such Thing as Low-Carbon Beef' Leads to One Group's Petition to USDA

Thu, 04 May 2023 19:22:30 GMT

There’s no such thing as “low carbon” beef, suggests the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in a recent petition to the USDA, aiming to prohibit meat producers from claiming their beef is low-carbon and to require independent verification of other climate claims on food, says a release.

Much like the ingredient list and calorie counts, EWG’s petition also urges USDA to require food companies to disclose their company’s carbon emissions on product labels, the release explains.

Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs says in the release, “There is no such thing as low-carbon beef. No food choice results in more greenhouse gas emissions than beef.”

USDA began approving beef as low carbon in late 2021 for producers who have received approval in the Process Verified Program from the Agricultural Marketing Service , according to a Meat and Poultry article .

Additionally, USDA has published an official listing of approved USDA Process Verified Programs service providers who offer verification services that ensure live animals meet various requirements and standards.

Meanwhile, EWG says climate and carbon claims, such as “net zero” and “carbon neutral” on food products lead to consumers “erroneously thinking these claims reflect actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,” and these claims are based on “offsets” generated by other practices that are “hard to measure and not independently verified.”

The group also raised similar concerns in submitted comments to the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides update, aiming to prevent companies from making misleading environmental claims about their products, the release adds.

Faber says consumers expect carbon claims to be verified by an independent third party and are willing to pay for foods that reduce GHG emissions. However, these claims made are either “misleading or false” and are based on “the honor system” for verification.

Ten Considerations Before Signing a Carbon Contract on Your Ranch

Fri, 10 Mar 2023 20:59:00 GMT

Whether it be an added bonus for management practices already implemented on a ranch or funding to help create infrastructure to improve range utilization, there is potential to add a “carbon” revenue stream to many of today’s ranch operations. However, this emerging market has yet to be perfected, so there are many important factors to consider before signing the dotted line.

1. It is a complex and evolving market.

“When you’re trying to package a partially imaginary exchange value, the packaging gets very complicated,” Peter Donovan, founder of the Soil Carbon Coalition, said, largely summing up the complexity of the carbon market.

As the carbon market continues to develop, a multitude of factors lend to its complexity including payment rates and calculations, verification of credits, measurement accuracy, the ethics behind offsets, and early contract terms and designs to name just a few. These intricacies weigh heavy on the minds of many ranchers entertaining the idea of partaking in the carbon market and should be carefully considered prior to making a final decision.

2. Working with an attorney early on is critical.

Given the complexity of the market, carbon contracts can be equally perplexing. Consensus among the panelists speaking during the Good Grazing Makes Cent$ event was that including an attorney early in the contract process is one of the most important steps.

Scott Warner, attorney at Yturri Rose and land broker at Bentz Warner Ranchland, noted that the exchange of promises dictated in a contract must be clearly understood between both parties in order to meet contractual obligations and, conversely, realize when either party has fallen short. He also said its critical to learn carbon contract terms, which are summarized in a publication by Texas AgriLife Extension titled Understanding & Evaluating Carbon Contracts.

Finally, one of the initial considerations from a legal standpoint beyond the real “value” of the contract is the real estate valuation – if the land the contract is attached to sells, depending on whether the buyer finds value in a carbon contract, transferring or terminating the deal may become critical.

Warner also suggested visiting with an accountant to fully realize the tax implications associated with carbon credit payments.

3. It’s important to understand the concept of additionality.

Brekke Munks, Agoro Carbon Alliance carbon cropping agronomist, said additionality is required by Verra (the administrative organization behind the Verified Carbon Standard) as well as many buyers of carbon credits.

“The concept of additionality refers to some companies only paying for new carbon-sequestering practices. If additionality is required, the farmer or rancher would have to undertake a new practice,” the Texas Agriculture Law publication explained.

This concept raises the question about payments for progressive operations already implementing holistic management practices, for example.

“… it’s going to depend on what you have to do,” Jenny Pluhar, Texas Grazing Lands Coalition Executive Director, began. “If you’ve just installed the infrastructure – fences and water – to really upgrade your grazing system, you’re probably in a really good place.”

However, if an intensive rotational grazing system is already being utilized, Pluhar explained, the management changes would need to be much more significant.

“You would need to install a lot more infrastructure to change your surface management positively,” she said. “The numbers will be different because you’re not going to get paid with additionality for what you’re already doing every day.”

Chris Mehus, project coordinator for the Western Sustainabilty Exchange, suggested there is always room for improvement on ranching operations. For example, he worked with a particular ranch to improve water recharge and delivery with the installation of a 2 inch water pipe system and consequently shortened grazing rotations from three to seven days to daily rotations.

Understanding additionality, what practices are required, and who holds the risk if those practices don’t result in the expected soil carbon additionality target is crucial in the early stages of considering a contract.

4. Verification and creditability are legitimate concerns.

Creating trust for market participants, both buyers and sellers, is paramount in the long term success of the carbon market, so science based verification standards are important.

The Chicago Climate Exchange was one of the initial attempts at carbon trading in the early 2000s and failed, largely due to a lack of trust thanks to a lack of metrics, Open Range Consulting President Greg Simonds said.

“When real money changes hands, there has to be trust and there has to be known value,” he said. “One of the people that I have lived by, a famous management consultant Peter Drucker, said ‘how well you measure will determine how well you can manage and how well you can market.’ You have to be able to measure to make markets and in our soil sampling, thousands of them, the thing you learn is that if you just do soil sampling, the samples will be incredibly variable from your left foot where you’re standing to your right foot almost literally.”

Simonds suggested that there are plenty of willing buyers, but solid metrics will be critical for a successful market.

Mehus agreed that the science behind the market needs to be accurate and verified but noted that the momentum and opportunity is prime right now, and the current programs are verified.

“My responsibility is working on the ground with the ranchers themselves,” Mehus said. “Scientist will always argue about the number of samples, the depth we need to sample at, what laboratory method is best… and that’s good, scientists need to argue, that’s what makes the model stronger. The question becomes, when is it good enough to start something? I think the science is what builds the trust between the consumer and the producer so that part needs to be there, but how many people need to check the ‘yes’ box to say it’s good enough for us to have a system that trades and takes money from companies and puts it on the ground? I’m not a very patient person and I know this money needs to be invested on the range now.”

5. Not all carbon contracts are alike.

Agoro Carbon Alliance and Native Energy were just two aggregators represented on the GGMC panel and even their contracts have many differences. Beyond contracts simply paying for sequestered carbon, there are optoins like Native’s Help Build program which offers upfront funding to invest in infrastructure to improve grazing and hopefully result in additionality. Contracts can vary in payment rates, commitment length, management requirements, and much more. Most aggregators provide consultations with on-farm experts, so meet with multiple before pursuing one particular path.

6. Ethical considerations should be weighed.

Conni French, a holistic rancher from Malta, Montana, said they chose to forego a carbon contract for several reasons, one being the ethics behind it.

“Do we want to sell our carbon offsets to companies that are not doing a good job?” French questioned. “Do we want to just put a Band-Aid over something, or do we want those companies to be out there trying to do the right thing as well?”

Mehus said many of the ranchers he has worked with share in that concern as well. He said to combat that, Native Energy works strictly with offset purchasers who have carefully evaluated their carbon footprints and are working to implement other practices to reduce emissions.

7. Time management is a factor for ranchers in other programs.

Another factor French mentioned was the time and energy to successfully partake in a carbon program, particularly on a ranch already participating in other conservation projects.

“We knew this was just one more program we were going to have to spend a lot of time at to do it right, so rather than messing it up and getting into a bad situation, we just backed off,” French said.

Jesse Braatz, Humboldt Ranch Manager and founding partner of Squaw Valley LLC, agreed.

“From the ranching standpoint, it’s hard to be involved in everything. If you open your doors to agency folks and help and markets, if you open them too wide, you get such a wave of help that it’s too much to manage,” Braatz said. “So, prioritizing what you have, what’s going to be the biggest bang, the least risk for the rancher… we really have to prioritize which markets and which programs we’re going to get into just so we can do a good job with what we have.”

8. The demand is there for an opportunistic market.

The emerging carbon market is backed by a large population of consumers all concerned about climate change.

“If we can take advantage of this company money that’s really being driven by consumers demanding companies do something and there are ways to get that money on the ground to improve soil health, then I want to be a part of that,” Mehus said.

9. Compensation greatly varies.

With so many factors for ranchers to consider, the compensation may even become an afterthought. Rates agreed upon in contracts vary, as do the terms for which payment rates are locked in at a specific price. Payments can be based off additionality, percent increases in soil carbon, or even infrastructure updates. Researching contracts and aggregators includes a careful look at compensation calculations. It’s also important to understand any potential hidden fees.

“Native covers all verification, validation, soil sampling, and registry costs so the price you see is what you get,” Colin Mitchell, Native’s NGP Grazing Carbon Program Manager, said. “We pay all ranchers the same rate per ton. You’ll see some projects advertising $30 a ton, but you have to pay for verification and validation so there’s a bunch of hidden feeds and costs and that is not the case with Native. We also adjust the price every three years.”

A cost benefit analysis could be beneficial when weighing the potential of a carbon contract. Munks said Agoro Carbon Alliance assists producers considering a contract by quickly calculating the payment upon potential carbon storage of an implemented practice. Producers can use this figure to further crunch the numbers when making their decision.

10. Exercising caution and asking questions will inform decisions.

As evidenced in the panel discussion, cohosted by Good Grazing Makes Cent$ and Ranchers Stewardship Alliance at the Society for Range Management Annual Meeting in Boise, many questions surround the concept of carbon markets and how they can be applied to ranch operations. Soil Carbon 101 is a helpful publication with some initial questions to consider exploring. Viewing the full panel discussion on the Good Grazing Makes Cent$ YouTube channel also provides further context and may spark more questions to explore before making the right decision for your operation.

More information about Carbon Markets, and many other range management topics, will be covered in upcoming editions of Good Grazing Makes Cent$. Program members receive access to monthly e-newsletters, an interactive Facebook group for range community conversation, a list of range experts on call to answer questions, membership to the Society for Range Management, monthly videos with professionals on the range, and more. Learn more and become a member at goodgrazing.org.

What's in it for Ag in the New Spending Bill?

Wed, 28 Dec 2022 03:26:54 GMT

The House on Friday averted a government shutdown by voting 225 to 201 in favor of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. The $1.7 trillion omnibus bill includes 12 separate bills that cover everything from natural disasters to military pay to foreign aid.

Sanford Bishop Jr., ag, rural development and food and drug administration subcommittee chairman, says the bill is “crucial” to America’s economic success.

“These federal programs make our country a world leader in agriculture, ensure that we have safe, abundant food and medicine to lead healthy lives, support America’s farmers and ranchers, and provide Americans with the materials that clothe us and build our communities,” Bishop says.

Here are highlights of the key ag-sector funding from the omnibus:

Insurance

• Directs USDA to index all administrative and operating expense in the crop insurance program for inflation.

Research

• Agricultural research: Ag research funding will increase by $175 million to $3.45 billion in 2023, including monies for Agricultural Research Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, and Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program.

Conservation

• Includes the SUSTAINS Act, which allows corporations and other private entities to contribute funding for conservation projects and authorize USDA to match the donations.

• Reauthorizes the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, which imposes fees for maintenance and registration of active ingredients. It boosts registration and maintenance fees 30% and allows EPA to raise fees by 5% in 2024 and 2026.

Infrastructure

• $1.48 billion is included on top of annual appropriations funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to make emergency repairs and navigation improvements needed after extreme weather events, including low water on the Mississippi River.

“One of the best returns on investment is when we pump money into our infrastructure, especially the great waterway system,” Jim Wiesemeyer, ProFarmer policy analyst told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory. “This town [Washington, D.C.] has had a mindset change on pumping more money, not only in the new projects, but restoring some of the water transportation endeavors of the past. It’s good news.”

Relief Aid

• $3.7 billion in farm disaster aid, to cover eligible 2022 crop and livestock losses, with $494.5 million to be used for livestock losses due to drought or wildfires, as part of overall $40.6 billion for disasters.

• Requires USDA to make a one-time payment to each rice producer on a U.S. farm in the 2022 crop year. USDA will determine payment rates based on yield history and acreage.

• Authorizes $100 million for the USDA to make pandemic assistance payments to cotton merchandisers that purchased cotton from a U.S. producer from March 1, 2020, through the measure’s enactment date.

• $25 million for specialty crop equitable relief.

Broadband

• USDA’s ReConnect loan and grant program for rural broadband will get $348 million for fiscal 2023.

Food Assistance

• Make permanent a summer EBT (food stamp) program to provide up to $40 a month per child. It allows grab-and-go or home delivery of meals to kids in rural areas as an alternative to meals in group settings Any summer meals benefits issued to a household in the summer of 2023 couldn’t exceed $120 per child. USDA will be required to establish a program beginning in the summer of 2024 and annually thereafter to issue EBT benefits to eligible households to ensure continued access to food when school isn’t in session in the summer.

• Aid for Food for Peace ($1.8 billion) and McGovern-Dole International Food for Education ($248 million) programs.

Carbon

• Includes the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which authorizes USDA to oversee the registration of farm technical advisers and carbon-credit verification services

Wiesemeyer says the swift passage of the spending package signals the coming farm bill might be easier to pass than some had previously thought, despite the new congress moving in next week.

“Congress put more than a few dollars in this for farm bill-related topics, especially food stamps and some of the climate change funding,” he says. “I think this really increases the odds that both the Senate and the house should get a new farm bill done in 2023.”

The bill will now move to President Biden’s desk, where he is expected to sign it this week.

More on policy :

4 Ways to Advocate for Ag in the New Farm Bill
U.S. Defense Spending Bill Leads to China Taking Aim at Taiwan

How the $1.7 Trillion Omnibus Spending Package Might Impact Your Operation

Tue, 20 Dec 2022 17:19:29 GMT

Text of the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending package was released early Tuesday morning. The Senate will vote first and intends to pass the measure before Thursday, leaving the House no time to demand changes before the Christmas holiday.

Here are the details that might impact your farm:

Disaster Relief

• $250 million in aid to rice producers and $100 million to cotton merchandisers to make up for losses related to the pandemic or supply chain disruptions. USDA previously provided $80 million in aid to textile mills and other cotton users. For rice, USDA would determine payment rates based on yield history and acreage.

• $40.6 billion for drought, hurricanes, flooding, wildfire, natural disasters and other matters — $3.7 billion in disaster aid for farmers to cover 2022 crop and livestock losses.

Food Aid

• Funds two programs that provide foreign food aid. These include the Food for Peace Program (PL 480), which is funded at $1.8 billion, and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program, which is funded at $248 million, for an increase of $11 million over fiscal year 2022.

• Summer Meals Program Modernization: Updates the summer food service program to permanently allow states to provide non-congregate meals and summer electronic benefit (EBT) options nationwide to eligible children in addition to meals provided at congregate feeding sites. Non-congregate meals, such as grab-and-go or home delivery, would be provided in rural areas to eligible children, and summer EBT benefits would be capped at $40 per child per month. This provision is fully offset and based largely on the Hunger-Free Summer for Kids Act, which Boozman authored and introduced earlier this Congress.

• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) EBT Skimming Regulations and Reimbursement: Requires USDA to coordinate with relevant agencies and stakeholders to investigate reports of stolen SNAP benefits through card skimming, cloning and other similar fraudulent methods. This provision aims to identify the extent of the problem, develop methods to prevent fraud and improve security measures, and provide replacement of benefits stolen through these fraudulent actions.

Conservation

• Cracks down on “conservation easements,” which allow tax breaks when land is dedicated for conservation purposes. The IRS has identified the transactions as a method for avoiding taxes. The conservation easement provision was expected to raise between $6 billion and $7 billion.

• SUSTAINS Act: Enacts a House bill that allows corporations and other private entities to contribute funding for conservation projects and authorizes USDA to match up to 75% in matching the donations.

Inputs

• Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA 5) Reauthorization: Reauthorizes pesticide registration and review process user-fee programs administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and increases registration and maintenance fees to support a more predictable regulatory process, create additional process improvements, and provide resources for safety, training, bilingual labeling, and other services to advance the safe and effective use of pesticides.

• Pesticide Registration Review Deadline Extension: Extends deadline for EPA to complete registration review decisions for all pesticide products registered as of October 1, 2007. EPA is facing a significant backlog of pesticide registrations due to a variety of factors over the past several years, which raises potential implications for continued access to numerous crop protection tools. The agency will be allowed to continue its registration review work through October 1, 2026, as a result of this extension.

Climate

• Growing Climate Solutions Act: Incorporates updated language from the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which directs USDA to establish a program to register entities that provide technical assistance and verification for farmers, ranchers and foresters who participate in voluntary carbon markets with the goal of providing information and confidence to producers.

Farm Business

• $1.92 billion for farm programs, which is $55 million above the fiscal year 2022 enacted level. This includes $61 million to resolve ownership and succession of farmland issues, also known as heirs’ property issues. This funding will continue support for various farm, conservation, and emergency loan programs, and help American farmers and ranchers. It will also meet estimates of demand for farm loan programs.

• Funding for specialty crops and remarks on crop insurance/A&O. Some $25 million is being made available for specialty crop equitable relief and report language directing USDA to use its legal authority to index all A&O (crop insurance program) for inflation and provide equitable relief for specialty crops going forward.

Livestock

• Livestock Mandatory Reporting Extension (LMR) Extension: Extends livestock mandatory reporting requirements until September 30, 2023. LMR requires meat packers and importers to report the prices they pay for cattle, hogs, and sheep purchased for slaughter and prices received for meats derived from such species to USDA who then publishes daily, weekly, and monthly public reports detailing these transactions.

Markets

• Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Whistleblower Program Extension: Enables CFTC to continue payment of salaries, customer education initiatives and non-awards expenses related to the whistleblower program to ensure it can continue to function even when awards obligated to whistleblowers exceed the program fund’s balance at the time of distribution.

Some ag sector items that did NOT make the omnibus package:

Nothing for the proposed farmworker labor reforms from Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and others. The bill also left out legislation to reform cattle markets or appoint a special investigator at USDA to investigate possible anti-competitive behavior in the meatpacking sector.

We’ll be updating this article as more details become available.

More on policy :

Water Resources Bill Reauthorized with a Component that Will Impact Producers
European Union Clinches a Deal on a Carbon Border Tax
U.S.'s “Candid” GMO Corn Conversation With Mexico Results In Changes To Looming Trade Dispute
Senate Clears Annual Defense Policy, Pushing $858 Billion to Military

European Union Clinches a Deal on a Carbon Border Tax

Mon, 19 Dec 2022 19:58:12 GMT

Members of the bloc agreed on how to create a tool that will force foreign companies to pay for the cost of their carbon emissions. The tax is a key element of the EU’s climate emissions goals, but trading partners accused Brussels of protectionism.

“From 2027 on, it’s crunch time. Everybody needs to reduce emissions by then or will have to pay a lot,” said the lead negotiator for the European Parliament, Peter Liese.

The EU will phase out free CO2 permits by 2034, deeming them no longer necessary to protect European producers from overseas competition after it also approved a so-called carbon border tax targeting that same competition of producers from jurisdictions with lower emission standards than the bloc.

The EU also will be gradually reducing the number of CO2 permits available for purchase in a further effort to stimulate investment in low-carbon energy. Some 90 million permits will be removed from the system in 2024, followed by another 27 million in 2026.

The carbon deal is provisional and has to be approved by the European Parliament and the Council of Europe.

More on carbon :

Research Demonstrates Cover Crops as Carbon Negative
Research in Ag-Tech Top-Of-Mind in Farm Bill Hearing

Research in Ag-Tech Top-Of-Mind in Farm Bill Hearing

Mon, 12 Dec 2022 20:03:24 GMT

The Senate Ag Committee met on Tuesday to hear testimony surrounding the need for ag research funding in the coming farm bill. According to Katy Rainey, associate professor at Purdue University who gave testimony, the hearing showed “signs of hope” for ag research.

Representing the American Seed Trade Association , Rainey underscored farm bill ag research and technology funding needs:
• Public-private partnerships
• Better program support in the National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS)
• Regulatory space that allows technology to come to market.

“There is a misconception that the private sector has the basic and applied research needs for row crops,” Rainey said in her testimony. “We rely on the support of farm bill funding and programs to ensure continued U.S. leadership as the provider of the best seed to the world.”

Outside of sharing her own message, Rainey heard four other testimonials as well as questions from senators. While the on-air discussion proved informative, Rainey says she was most intrigued by the conversations happening off-air.

“Senators are concerned with farmers’ bottom line, but they’re also concerned about global events,” Rainey says. “My takeaway from the senators is that there’s actually a hopeful outlook for global food security because there is so much technology. If we can support the research to get that technology to the field or to the plate that could dispel concerns across the board.”

Rainey is confident research funding will come through in the farm bill to deliver that technology.

View Across the Table

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) was also in attendance of the hearing. In Ernst’s view, there are two highlights from the hearing that deserve a spotlight on Capitol Hill.

1. Cybersecurity in Ag

“We know that our adversaries are targeting our farmers [through cyberattacks] and that does affect our nation’s food chain,” said Ernst in the hearing. “What we want to see is additional work in university ag systems through research, education and outreach activities.”

Chavonda Jacobs-Young, undersecretary for research, education and economics at USDA, said the agency is working to deliver on that additional work.

“We first need to raise the awareness for needs in cybersecurity,” she says. “We also need to train — and retain — the generation of professionals who can help us in this space. That involves high-performance computing, AI and cybersecurity.”

Jacobs-Young and Ernst plan to meet and establish a partnership, along with other groups recommended by Jacobs-Young, to make a gameplan for cyber-awareness in rural America.

2. Carbon Credit Opportunities

In the research corridor, Ernst feels there are carbon questions that still need answers.

“I hear about this all the time from Iowa farmers — they want to participate in carbon markets and create healthy soils,” Ernst says. “Getting the right type of information and translating that so producers can measure carbon on their farms and in their production activities is the bigger issue.”

Ernst and Young both agree the outreach chord needs to be reconnected to rural America, but Jacobs-Young isn’t sure what tactic will flip the ignition switch.

“It’s critically important to talk to producers about what they need and how that can be delivered in a way that they will be receptive to,” said Young in the hearing. “Adoption is part of the issue we have. We can develop wonderful technologies, innovations and tools, but we struggle with producers being receptive.”

For her part, Ernst says she’ll work to allocate farm bill funding toward such programs and communicate with Young on ways to relay the program messages to farmers.

Producers with carbon questions can also seek answers in Farm Journal’s Carbon Innovation Center .

More on farm bill 2023:

Rep. G.T. Thompson Lists His 3 Farm Bill Objectives
Opinion: The Value of Partnerships Between the Agriculture and Energy Industries

$80M in Funding Awarded to Roeslein Alternative Energy Partnership for Climate-Smart Project

Fri, 16 Sep 2022 15:00:21 GMT

To be used in a five-year pilot project in Iowa and Missouri, titled Horizon II, Roeslein Alternative Energy (RAE) and 13 public and private entity partners will dedicate $80 million in awarded funding from USDA’s Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities to demonstrate a climate-smart future for corn, soybean, livestock and renewable natural gas production, a release says.

The goals of Horizon II include:

• Enhance climate-smart markets

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)

• Improve carbon sequestration in corn, soybean, pork and beef commodity production

• Create opportunities for small and underserved producers

• Benefit soil health

• Clean water

• Flood control

• Habitats for native wildlife

Improved management of nitrogen fertilizer and other inputs on agricultural land will also be incentivized.

In the pilot program, Iowa and Missouri producers will have the opportunity to be compensated by:

• GHG reductions and carbon sequestration in soil through an outcomes-based carbon credit program

• Cover cropping and grassland restoration though a market-based program, supporting renewable natural gas production through anaerobic digestion of herbaceous biomass and manure

After full development, deployment and verification, the program may be extended and tailored to other agricultural commodities, such as dairy and poultry, and other regions of the country, the release explains.

Partner organizations involved in the RAE Horizon II project include

• Biostar Renewables

• Conservation Districts of Iowa

• Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance

• Iowa Soybean Association•

• Iowa State University

• Missouri Prairie Foundation

• Sievers Family Farms

• Soil and Water Outcomes Fund

• Smithfield Foods

• The Nature Conservancy

• University of Missouri

• Verdesian

• Veterans in Agriculture.

“Since founding RAE, our overarching goal has been to provide farmers an alternative way to use land, especially highly erodible acres, in ways that will benefit the environment, wildlife, and their own livelihood,” says Rudi Roeslein, RAE founder and CEO. “This funding will propel Horizon II forward more rapidly than otherwise would have been possible. We will show how farmers and landowners can do well for themselves while also providing ecological services and wildlife benefits.”

New Data Shows Ag’s Climate Footprint is Shrinking

Thu, 14 Jul 2022 20:42:19 GMT

The Biden administration’s initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 are well underway.

New year-over-year data shows ag is playing its climate smart part in multiple ways.

According to the USDA, 2020 farming activities in the U.S. made up 11.2 percent, or 670 of 5,981 million metrics tons, of the U.S.’s total carbon contribution.

This data indicates a decrease in American ag’s carbon footprint from 2019 to 2020, dropping from 699 to 670 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

USDA data shows ag’s greenhouse gas contributions are made up of:
• Nitrous oxide = 5.6%
• Methane = 4.2%
• Carbon dioxide = 0.8%
• Electricity = 0.6%

The Department of Ag notes fertilizer application, manure management and animal food digestion are some of the sources in American ag’s carbon contributions.

(Farm Journal)

Outside of ag, the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s defines four other economic sectors that contribute to the U.S.’s greenhouse gas tally, including:
• Industry – 30.3%
• Transportation – 27.3%
• Commercial – 15.4%
• Residential – 15.4%

While ag’s carbon contribution went down in 2020, USDA says its share of carbon emissions in the U.S. economy did go up from 10.6 percent to 11.2 percent.

More on climate:
Is the U.S. Prepared to Support Electric Vehicles?
How Climate Change Amplifies Damage from Invasive Species
Come On In: The Ocean Temperatures Are Hot

“Not About The Cow, But The How” Carbon Program Pays Ranchers $200k

Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:00:00 GMT

Grassroots Carbon has provided payment to 10 Texas ranchers for their adoption of reversative grazing pastures which have resulted in nature-based, measured, verified and certified carbon credits.

Lauren Miller, VP Carbon Footprint Solutions at Grassroots Carbon , says the goal was to provide their buyers with 36,000 tons of carbon, and in 2022 the goal is 200,000.

Grassroots Carbon is a public benefit LLC based in Texas. Its model is based on a profit-sharing structure , which covers the costs of the soil sampling and measurements. One-meter deep soil cores are taken at a pattern based on soil types and topography.

“The amount varies by ranch because of our profit-sharing model,” Miller says. “Depending on the measurement costs, the payment was either fairly low to up to six figure payments.”

So while the company’s first tranche of payments totaled $200,000 to those 10 ranchers, they expect the amounts to be greater in coming years due to the lower sampling expenses. The 2021 cohort had total acreage enrolled ranging from 750 acres to 26,000 acres.

Miller says all of the 2021 participants are re-enrolled for 2022, and Grassroots Carbon is looking to expand its footprint in Nebraska and Kansas.

“We are looking to sign up as many ranchers as we can,” she says.

Loy Sneary, a rancher who participated in 2021 program said, “For ranchers who are considering the type of regenerative grazing management we are doing, this payment could very well give them the impetus to move into this type of grazing management.”

Miller says the ranchers seeing the great carbon drawdown are using adaptive multi-paddock grazing.

Grassroots Carbon uses the bCarbon standard created by the Baker Institute at Rice University. The certification is based on increase in carbon storage. The team at Grassroots Carbon supports the enrolled acres with a team of soil samplers and testing procedures. A baseline measurement is taken in the first year, and then measurements are taken again in 5 years, on average.

“We have the demand for this, and we’ve proven this process works,” Miller says. “We are actively looking to sign up more ranchers. At the end of the day, everything we do is to help folks use more renewable practices,” Miller says.

Will Sustainable Fuel Power Your Farm Equipment In 10 Years?

Thu, 10 Feb 2022 21:03:59 GMT

As the Environmental Protection Agency continues to review renewable fuel blending requirements, the House Ag Committee and USDA are working to set the tone for policies in 2023.

Crafting a Farm Bill

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack announced his department’s Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Initiative to fund climate-smart practices by use $1 billion from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

The legislation defines a “climate-smart commodity” as an agricultural commodity that is produced using agricultural practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon. According to program details, the USDA’s goal with the initiative is to kickstart programs that will:
• Implement climate-smart production practices and systems on working lands
• Verify, monitor and quantify carbon and greenhouse gas benefits associated with each agricultural practice
• Develop markets and promote the identified climate-smart commodities

While we await further details from the USDA regarding the pilot programs, we do know the projects have to report and track GHG benefits “per farm, per project, per commodity produced, per dollar expended, and the anticipated longevity of GHG benefits.”

USDA says the projects are to be “focused on generating climate-smart commodities, and not on projects that focus on generating carbon offsets.”

Various lawmakers spoke out against UDSA dipping into CCC funds for the programs, including Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). He sent a letter to Vilsack, vocalizing disproval of the USDA’s attempt to “avoid” legal process.

“The CCC is authorized to use its general powers only after programs have been submitted to and approved by congress,” says Marshall. “It seems USDA is crafting its own farm bill by using the CCC to create its own programs and priorities that haven’t been established by Congress and to fund projects only USDA deems worthy.”

Marshall then posed various questions to Vilsack, including:
1. How the CCC followed Congressional notification and approval procedures?
2. Has the Department of Justice approved the CCC’s actions in avoiding Congressional notification and approval process?

Marshall also went on to cite the USDAs previously announced Fiscal Year 2021 programs—also said to be funded through the CCC—that will take another $3 billion from the kitty.

In a House Agriculture Subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation Robert Bonnie confirmed his agency is operating under their authority, assuring both parties the notice of funding availability was released by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

According to the CCC, their funds are made available to principal programs established by Congress to aid in domestic farm income, price support and conservation programs, as well as foreign market development, among other activities.

Renewable Fuels Reach New Heights

With sustainable aviation fuel on the rise, Wiesemeyer begs the question of whether there will be a push to power farm equipment with renewable fuels.

AgriTalk Host Chip Flory sees the possibility of tax incentives stretching into farm equipment through renewable diesel and biodiesel, as nine new crushing facilities will be completed by 2025, bringing in 400 million bushels of soybean crush capacity.

ProFarmer Policy Analyst Jim Wiesemeyer says private industry analysts previously dubbed renewable diesel an “overhyped” market topic. He predicts a surge in airline purchases of sustainable aviation fuel due to projected tax incentives.

Of oil refiners, Wiesemeyer says “you don’t spend some $300 million on these [soybean crushing] plants without a solid foundation of a market in the future.”

Flory says soybean oil is where most investors see the most profit. He says an unnamed traditional oil refiner chose to invest in a crush facility in exchange of 100% of the soybean oil produced from the operation.

“If you look at the rise of vegetable oil prices around the globe, you can see we need to double the amount of soybean oil we produce,” says Flory. “With climate initiatives, the soybean oil industry will be based on a different structure than ethanol was.”

Read more:

> McDonald’s Commits $5 Million to Accelerate Climate-Smart Farming Solutions

> Sustainable Aviation Fuel has Several High Hurdles

> Fuel the Crush: Renewable Diesel Pumps Up Soybean Demand

Grassroots Carbon Targets Grazing and Pastureland

Tue, 13 Jul 2021 20:38:23 GMT

There are a few things that set apart Grassroots Carbon from other program opportunities in agriculture.

First, the company is based in Texas and is specifically targeting grazing and pasturelands throughout the Central US. There are no specific practices mandated with enrollment beyond working to maintain and improve soil health.
Which brings us to the second differentiator, Grassroots Carbon uses the bCarbon standard created by the Baker Institute at Rice University. The certification is based on increase in carbon storage. The team at Grassroots Carbon supports the enrolled acres with a team of soil samplers and testing procedures. A baseline measurement is taken in the first year, and then measurements are taken again in 5 years, on average.
The third point is how landowners are compensated for participation. Grassroots Carbon covers the cost of measurement and certification, meaning that they do not require landowners to pay anything out of pocket, and has a profit-sharing model that allows the payments to be adjusted along with the market price. Landowners are paid every year based on pre-assessments of their carbon storage.

“We like to say that the program isn’t about the cow, but the how,” says Lauren Miller, VP Carbon Footprint Solutions at Grassroots Carbon. “Our aim is to scale up the restoration of prairie grasslands and sequester massive amounts of carbon by using cattle and other grazing animals to restore soil health.”

Grassroots Carbon was formed when Soil Value Exchange merged with software company PastureMap in February 2021. Currently, PastureMap has over 4 million acres on its platform for grazing management. Participation in the carbon program requires data be loaded into PastureMap, and the data platform will be used for verification and to help producers transition to regenerative practices.

Initially, the program is enrolling landowners managing at least 2,000 acres, but pooling smaller similar parcels within a region is also possible, and the program looks forward to working with producers at all scales. Soil samples are collected to 3’ deep.
Miller shares that after initial soil measurements, the bCarbon standard rewards the verification of increased carbon storage, and doesn’t mandate any changes in practices.

The company onboarded its carbon credit buyers last fall, and is wrapping up its first measurement campaign with landowners in the coming months. The first round of payments for carbon credits will go to landowners in the next six months.

Learn more in the AgWeb Carbon Innovation Center

Grassroots Carbon FAQs

Eligible areas:

Anywhere in the continental U.S. Land is qualified based on land management practices and climate/soil type.
What practices earn credits? The program targets producers with grazing operations. Producers stay in control of their own management practices, so long as they do not disturb soil health. Instead of paying for practices, the program rewards outcomes in the form of increased soil carbon stocks. The amounts of stored carbon are verified with in-field tests.
Market Launch date: April 2021

Acreage Enrollment Minimum?

2,000 acres

Per-Acre Cash Payment to Farmers?

Profit-sharing model reflects the changing value of a carbon credit. Landowners receive 80% of the carbon profit. Landowners can estimate ½ to 1 ton per acre of sequestered carbon, but this amount may vary based on climate, soil type, and land management practices.

What Do Your Contracts Require Farmers To Do? What Are The Terms?

Data (field boundaries, etc) must be uploaded in PastureMap. Soil and ecological testing, measurement and verification conducted by Grassroots Carbon and an independent measurement team. Participating landowners must commit to maintaining and working to improve their soil health for ten years after every year that they sell carbon.

Learn more in the AgWeb Carbon Innovation Center

Senate's "Growing Climate Solutions" Plan Gets Agriculture's Backing

Tue, 13 Jul 2021 20:35:03 GMT

A plan to help farmers and ranchers reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while gaining more clarity on private carbon markets, is moving through Congress.

The Senate approved the “Growing Climate Solutions Act,” with a vote of 92-8. The bipartisan legislation has 55 cosponsors.

Supporters of the plan say it will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also helping farmers and ranchers navigate voluntary programs, including private carbon credit offerings.

The plan is backed by 75 agriculture, food and environmental groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). AFBF president Zippy Duvall says the act acknowledges the potential of climate-smart farming, while ensuring farmers are respected as farmers. Farm Bureau says, if passed, the legislation would provide clarity and guidance for farmers, ranchers and forest landowners interested in voluntary participation in private carbon credit markets.

“The Growing Climate Solutions Act demonstrates how far we’ve come in climate policy over the past decade,” Duvall said. “Farm Bureau has worked tirelessly through the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance and directly with lawmakers to help them understand the importance of working with America’s farmers and ranchers to ensure climate policy remains voluntary and market-driven. We encourage members of the House to follow the Senate’s lead and work in a bipartisan manner to create responsible policy that protects the environment and protects the farmers and ranchers who rely on clean air and water to feed the nation.”

The House is currently working on its own version of the bill.

4 Things To Know About Cattle And Their Impact on Sustainability

Fri, 25 Jun 2021 21:05:17 GMT

Sara Place likes to say that beef is the original plant-based meat. “I think it’s important for us to remember the power of ruminants and how amazing these critters are,” says Place, Ph.D., chief sustainability officer at Elanco.

During a presentation at the 2021 Alltech ONE Ideas Conference, Place addressed sustainability and beef production. She says the topic is complex, and one reason for that is because people have different values.

“One person may prioritize animal welfare above an environmental footprint; another may prioritize the affordability of food above all other issues,” she explains. “It’s not that one person is right or wrong, it’s just the reality that this is the challenge we’re dealing with in a pluralistic society when it comes to sustainability.”

With that perspective in mind, Place addressed four common questions she hears from consumers.

1. With regard to resource competition, are livestock eating what could be food for humans?

She says yes, in part, but not as much of the total global feed ration as many people think.

According to analysis of research by The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), about 14% of what livestock consume globally, mainly in the form of grains, could be eaten by humans directly. However, 86% of feedstuffs livestock eat are made up primarily of forages that cannot be consumed in a direct manner by people.

“That’s really the headline—ruminants are able to upcycle, taking something with little or no value and upgrading those plants into higher value products,” she says. “That’s what livestock in general, and especially ruminants, excel at in the food system.”

Because the majority of the feed resources used to generate grain-finished beef in the United States is not in competition with the human food supply, and the protein value of beef to humans is 2.63 times greater than corn grain, the U.S. grain-finished beef system is generating more high-quality protein for the human populace than it is using.

“Cattle only need 0.6 kilograms of human edible protein in feed to make 1 kilogram of human animal protein and meat,” she says.

2. Is meat production taking place on land that should be used to grow crops?

Very little. The vast majority of land used for beef production is on land unsuitable for crop production.

“These are landscapes that are too arid, too rocky, and too steep for us to cultivate crops on directly,” she says.

While some groups and individuals would recommend pulling that land out of any agricultural use whatsoever, that move would likely be counterproductive.

Keeping a continuous cover of some type on highly erodible soils is a key to keeping erosion at bay, Place says.

“When ruminant animals are kept on those (fields), they allow for use of rotations and forage crops that can help improve soil health and water retention,” Place says.

Multifunctionality of land is another important consideration.

Place references the southern Great Plains as an area where multifunctionality works well. “Stocker cattle commonly graze winter wheat there until March or April. They are then removed, and the wheat is allowed to grow and be harvested for human food. In the milling process wheat provides byproducts that are then fed back to cattle, which are (then harvested for beef),” she says.

California almond “milk” and orange juice production are two other examples. Both provide byproducts that Place says are fed to dairy cattle that then produce milk and meat.

“For every 100 lb. of human food that comes from crops, 37 lb. of byproducts get generated,” she says. “That’s a global average, and a lot of those byproducts can be fed back to livestock.”

3. What is the impact of U.S. agriculture on greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs)?

About 9% to 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, Place says. She notes that animal agriculture contributes about 4%, and crop production contributes about 5%.

“The single-largest source of emissions in the United States would be burning fossil fuels,” she says. “Somewhere around 75% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are because we are burning fossil fuels, and releasing CO2 (carbon dioxide) that was locked in the Earth’s crust for a long time.”

4. How big an issue is methane production in the beef industry, and how do we address it?

Place says cattlemen are creating more beef today with fewer emissions.

“When cattle go to feedyards and eat a diet containing more fermentable carbohydrates like corn, they tend to reduce their methane emissions,” Place says.

“They’re more feed efficient. And part of that efficiency is a result of not losing as many feed calories to methane; we’re capturing more of them in the animal,” she adds. “Essentially, we’re producing the same amount of beef today as in the mid-1970s, with a third fewer cattle.”

Livestock: A Powerful Tool

I’m a Drover: Preserving a Legacy

A Brittle Environment
Feed Sustainability: Moving the Animal Protein Industry Forward

Missouri Farmer Tells Kamala Harris Rural Broadband Struggles Could Throttle Biden’s Climate Goals

Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:09:11 GMT

The digital divide in the U.S. was center stage this week, as the White House hosted a listening session focused on broadband connectivity. Vice president Kamala Harris hosted the event to hear Americans’ experiences and frustrations in accessing broadband, as the Biden administration continues to craft and implement the American Jobs Plan .

While various industries were represented, agriculture also had a voice. Missouri farmer Meagan Kaiser was one of six individuals invited to join Harris and discuss connectivity issues in the U.S. As a farmer and small business owner in rural Missouri, Kaiser made it clear: Rural connectivity is a major pain point for not just farmers and rural businesses, but also rural residents who struggle to connect to the internet.

“We spent years calling every fiber provider in our area, asking what do we have to do? What can we do to connect our business? And the answer was that it would cost upwards of $40,000 just to connect, not including our monthly fees,” said Kaiser. “Right there is a barrier of access that if we were a new business, we couldn’t possibly justify locating in a rural area.”

Kaiser explained she was able to secure a connection in 2019, and it made a difference in upload speeds. Kaiser said the issue then became a rural development obstacle, as connectivity issues could scare away businesses from making their rural community home.

“But on top of that, the upload speed is so important for us as farmers,” added Kaiser. “We still don’t have this connectivity at our home or farm, we often rely on cellular hotspots. But in rural areas, even cellular data is very difficult to come by.”

Kaiser says when it comes to making data-driven decisions, including when adopting and quantifying climate smart practices, the lack of access to rural broadband is a major hurdle that is growing in importance. Kaiser told Harris connectivity issues could ultimately impact the Biden Administration’s efforts in reducing the overall climate footprint.

“We’ve come so far with precision agriculture. We can test our nutrient content, learn our air and water holding capacity, we know how much fertilizer we applied and exactly how much crop we gained from those applications down to the acre,” says Kaiser. “But we can’t utilize the any of that data and overlay it and make better data-driven decisions if we can’t upload the information to a central source. And, you know, I strongly believe the future for agriculture to play a large role in green alternatives for everything from plastics to fuel and lessen our own carbon footprint while producing these goods is very real. But the only way for us to get there is to have the ability to make better data-driven decisions. And that completely relies on our ability to connect to the internet.”

Harris responded to Kaiser’s experiences and frustrations, saying the solution should be simple.

“It’s such a big point that you’re making, and the solution is so obviously simple,” said Harris. “If we get our act together, the scientists, the farmers. You guys are doing the hard work of coming up with all of all of these innovative practices, figuring out watering how much and when and predicting and projecting. Doing it in a way that is smart and efficient and effective. And you can’t even upload the information to do anything with it.”

Harris went on to ask Kaiser about how the connectivity issues are impacting rural farmers’ ability to stay productive and in business.

“Well, my dad always said, ‘If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it,’’’ responded Kaiser. “If you don’t know what you’re working with. We have tight margins. In many cases, we are a commodity business in agriculture. And if we can’t look at it down to the tee of exactly what we’re putting in, what we’re getting out, we can’t survive. We can’t be financially sustainable. But now we’re looking at it and even greater role in that, the more that we are able to do with less. We’re feeding people or clothing people, we’re fueling people. And we’re replacing products that are not as sustainable with the soybean oil that comes through my farm. I can make biodiesel, I can make plastics. These are things that are better for the earth.”

Click here to hear the entire discussion.

Carbon Contract Reality: Why Conservation-Minded Farmers May Not Qualify for Private Carbon Programs

Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:40:33 GMT

As the chase to capture carbon continues, it’s a possible new source of income for farmers and ranchers.

“It is certainly a new revenue source for farmers,” says Todd Janzen, president of Janzen Schroeder Agricultural Law . “So, that’s a pro no matter how you look at it.”

And as agriculture could be part of the solution, it’s being met with some skepticism.

“It is a wonderful opportunity,” says Joe Outlaw, co-director, Agriculture Food Policy Center, Texas A&M University . “But it’s like every opportunity, you have to understand what you’re getting yourself into.”

Janzen says farmers need to think about possible sacrifices that could be required to make a long-term commitment.

“The contracts are really long and companies want a long-term duration, usually five, 10 or 15 years, because otherwise, it’s not that valuable (to them).”

Few Farmers are in the Marketplace Today

Understanding the value of entering into such a long-term contract is something more farmers are learning about. The latest Ag Economy Barometer from Purdue University found between 30% and 40% of those surveyed said they are aware of opportunities to get paid for sequestering carbon, but only a small group has actually engaged in those discussions.

“On the March survey, which was the most recent survey, just 7% of the people in our larger survey sample actually have engaged in discussions,” says Jim Mintert, director, Center for Commercial Agriculture, Purdue University. Mintert authors the monthly survey.

“A pretty small group of people have actually taken that step to have some discussions,” he adds.

Mintert says while only 7% have actually engaged in carbon contract discussions, even fewer have have actually taken the final step to seal the deal.

“Just 1% of the people in our survey said that they’ve signed a contract,” adds Mintert. “And I have to throw a caveat in there, because when you get down to that small percentage, you’re talking about a handful of people out of our survey. So, that’s a pretty small percentage.”

Mintert suspects the reason few farmers are signing contracts is they don’t see sufficient financial incentives.

“Those that did respond to this suggested that the payment rates simply weren’t high enough to make this very interesting at this point,” he says.

The Ag Economy Barometer found the average carbon contract payment today is less than $20 an acre, with many contracts paying less than $10 an acre.

The payment piece of the puzzle is something to which a nonprofit group is working to bring more transparency.

“Today, I think there’s evidence that 25% and even less is actually going to the farmer and rancher,” says Debbie Reed, executive director, Ecosystem Services Market Consortium (ESMC) . “There’s not a lot of transparency in these markets currently. So, you can’t always tell how many tons have been sold in any given registry, or for what protocol, for what practices, to whom and for what amount.”

Public Vs. Private Programs

ESMC is a public/private partnership, and Reed says the organization is collaborating with the entire agricultural supply chain.

“The reason we came together is because lots and lots of organizations, particularly corporate organizations, have taken on commitments to reduce their supply chain footprint from agriculture, and we do not want every organization to have to make their own investments in infrastructure, in tools and technologies to actually achieve those outcomes,” adds Reed. “And we certainly don’t want farmers and ranchers to have to figure that out themselves on their own.”

Reed believes openness and transparency are part of the solution in today’s carbon contract conundrum, but she also thinks the right tools and technology are also missing.

“Someone does have to pay for them,” says Reed. “But if we can bring new tools and technologies to farmers, ranchers and to the buyers – and reduce quantification costs, reduce verification costs – I think that’s where we can really ensure that more money is going to the farmer and rancher.”

Today, many private groups are creating their own carbon contracts and systems, and she says moving forward, it will be a marriage of both private and public.

“I think this is the private sector effort,” she says. “The private sector, private voluntary markets, are actually leading in this effort and, I think, are far ahead of what we see in the public sector. On the other hand, there are huge public sector roles and opportunities to help here.”

A private sector that’s only willing to pay for farmers to adopt a new conservation practice on their farm, practices like no-till or planting cover crops.

“That’s the way the markets work,” says Reed. “You pay for a new product. You’re not going to pay tomorrow for corn you sold last year or last week. You’re going to pay for new corn, and the markets are the same way. The demand is for new improvements in soil carbon, in reduced greenhouse gases, in water quality. That’s a market function.”

She says the public piece may be able to reward farmers who have been conservation minded for years.

“Maybe the federal government can pay for things that have happened, or that don’t qualify an existing market. Protecting existing soil carbon stocks is a perfect example,” says Reed. “Markets aren’t going to pay for those protecting those stocks. They want new stocks, but we really do need to protect existing soil carbon stocks, because if we lose them, it’s far more expensive to try to get them back.”

As groups like ESMC work to bring more transparency to the marketplace, today the opportunity to sequester carbon is more of a wild west scenario – with no regulation or national structure in place.

“I always warn producers, yes, this is an opportunity,” says Outlaw. “And all bets are off, because the government is not involved. Yet, when the government gets involved, it could either be really, really good, or it could go the other way.”

Outlaw says the demands for carbon sequestration are high today.

“People who are buying these credits have to have proof,” says Outlaw. “And they’re going to be wanting you to provide information to prove that you’ve done these practices, and very specific information, not just a little bit, but quite a bit of information.”

Information from practices that Janzen says farmers are already doing to capture carbon, while other practices may be new.

“They could do that potentially, by growing more crops in the off season,” he says. “So they’re pulling carbon dioxide out of the air. If you’re a livestock farmer, and you have a digester, and you’re able to capture the gas from the manure that before was just going into the atmosphere, that’s a very easy way to quantify carbon credit.”

The Final Say

As farmers measure their impact, Janzen says it ultimately comes down to how consumers perceive these practices.

“I think that we’re going to have to see that in the long-term, because this all depends on consumer trust, ultimately, that what is being sequestered or offset is really happening,” he says. “If we have different models and standards, they’re going to be highly scrutinized. And if people think that it’s just a gimmick, or snake oil, then ultimately, it’s not going to work.”

As the effort gains steam, it’s all to participate in the environmental cryptocurrency world.

“We have the farmers who can unlock these environmental bitcoins, if you will, by undertaking certain protocols and creating this sort of fictional currency that can then be bought and sold on the open market,” adds Janzen.

It’s a carbon world where details on contracts could make or break a farmer’s quest to participate.

“You’re going to have to really watch this very closely, because there’s already things that are happening out there in the current, what I call private market, that’s not very good,” adds Outlaw.

The effort to create change is one that could come with growing pains, as farmers and ranchers wait to see if this is truly the future of agriculture.

“It’s going to be interesting to see how this evolves over time and whether or not it really turns out to be the panacea that some people think it might be,” says Mintert.

View the latest “Carbon Market” news by Farm Journal editors.

Learn about the three biggest trends in carbon markets during the April 15 Farm Country Update. Click here to register for the free webinar featuring Robert Bonnie, USDA; Kelley Delpit, Oregon rancher; Mitchell Hora, Iowa farmer; and Kris Johnson, The Nature Conservancy.

Related Stories:

L ess than 1% of Farmers Have Entered into Carbon Contracts

7 Considerations Before You Sign a Carbon Contract

Georgia Farm’s Beef Reduces Atmospheric Carbon

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:59:10 GMT

White Oaks Farms, a southwest Georgia operation known for its pasture-raised meats, says a third-party sustainability science firm has validated its claims that the farm is storing more carbon in its soil than pasture-raised cows emit during their lifetimes.

The results indicated that White Oak Pastures offsets at least 100% of the 3,200-acre farm’s grass-fed beef carbon emissions and as much as 85% of the farm’s total carbon emissions.

Scientists at Quantis, an environmental research and design firm, conducted a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) on beef raised by White Oak Pastures to “account for the energy and environmental impacts of all stages of a product’s life cycle, such as [the] acquisition of raw materials, the production process, handling of waste byproducts, and more.” Using both soil sampling and modeled data from 2017, the LCA analyzed the farm’s overall greenhouse gas footprint.

The study included enteric emissions (belches and gas) from cattle, manure emissions, farm activities, slaughter and transport, and carbon sequestration through soil and plant matter. The scientists said, “based on historical sampling, White Oak Pastures’ holistically managed fields went from 1 percent soil organic matter to 5 percent.”

White Oak Pastures is a multi-generational 3,200-acre farm that owner Will Harris is committed to returning to its ancestral roots in regenerative farming. He transitioned his conventional farm operations in 1995 to a grassfed, pastured program. Today, White Oak Pastures is the largest Certified Organic farm in Georgia, raising 10 species of livestock: cattle, goats, sheep, hogs, rabbits, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese and guinea fowl.

As part of the farm’s zero-waste philosophy, White Oak Pastures also produces skincare products, soap, and candles from beef tallow, along with pet chews and leather items from cow hides.

Related stories:

Niman Ranch Vows To Double Sustainable Network In 10 Years

Carbon Tax on Beef? Where’s the Science and Logic?

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:45:43 GMT

Twelve people have died in Serbia this year due to a measles outbreak, including two children, a tragedy blamed on the lack of vaccinations.

Last year brought the emergence of “raw water” as a drink craze. Raw water is spring water that’s unfiltered, untreated and unsterilized. Oh, and it sells for more than a bottle of fine whiskey. Consumers of raw water have been warned it’s a dangerous fad that promises health benefits but delivers dysentery.

Those are just two popular furors that ignore science – and even simple logic – placing science-deniers at their own peril. Recognizing the sheer ignorance of those trends, health professionals must be frustrated that their constant dissemination of scientific facts goes unheeded.

So it is with beef. You know, as the scourge of the Earth. It’s the giant, man-made environmental asteroid destroying our planet. Such thoughts are rapidly gaining traction among the type of folks who might be inclined to drink raw water.

New York Times contributing op-ed writer Richard Conniff pushed the beef-as-environmental-boogeyman theory Sunday. He claims to love eating beef, but writes “our collective love affair with beef…has gone wrong, in so many ways.” Conniff believes it’s time for a carbon tax on beef .

A carbon tax is not a new idea, but a recent paper published by French scientists suggests a carbon tax on beef as a way to meet European climate change targets. Conniff is intrigued by such a tax, justifying it to readers by regurgitating some often misused sins of livestock, such as: livestock are responsible for “14.5% of global emissions,” which is “more than the emissions produced from powering all the world’s road vehicles, trains, ships and airplanes combined.” Conniff wrote, “Livestock consume the yield from a quarter of all cropland worldwide. Add in grazing, and the business of making meat occupies about three-quarters of the agricultural land on the planet.”

Dude, did you think about that last sentence when you wrote it? Grazing is a logical use of land that is unsuitable for growing kale or heirloom tomatoes. Vast stretches of the Western U.S. should offer an example of that idea, but grazing is also the dominant agricultural activity in places far removed from the Mountain West.

For perspective, Mr. Cunndiff, take a drive west on Highway 2 in Nebraska from Grand Island to Alliance, or go north on Highway 77 in Kansas from El Dorado to Manhattan. There you will find the “sea of grass” Spanish explorer Francisco de Coronado described nearly 500 years ago.

Here’s the context around the statement “livestock occupy three-quarters of the agricultural land.” A third of the Earth’s landmass is desert – i.e. not much food production. A little more than one-third (37%) is devoted to agriculture. Of that, about 11% is used to grow crops.

Logic suggests we would greatly reduce our food supply if we stopped using livestock to convert grass and sunshine into milk and meat. Which is also the scientific conclusion researchers at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service and Virginia Tech arrived at with a study published in the Proceedings of National Academies of Sciences .

Their take? A healthy and sustainable food system depends on having both plants and animals. For those of us who don’t drink raw water, it’s good to know science supports some of the things logic suggests are true.

In an article published on Medium , Sara Place, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association senior director, sustainable beef production research, said the study suggests that without animal agriculture, “We’d reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by 2.6 percent, and 0.36 percent globally — but we’d also upset our balanced food ecosystem and lack essential dietary nutrients to feed all Americans.”

Place also noted the important role livestock such as cattle play in our sustainable food system. “Taking human inedible food and ultimately making it nutritious. Specifically, cattle act as upcyclers — meaning they eat grasses and plant matter leftover from human food production and upgrade them into nutritional, high-quality protein. In fact, they produce 19 percent more edible protein than they consume.”

Science and logic both seem to refute the theory that eliminating livestock from our diet would mitigate climate change.

The Farm CPA: Carbon Credits from Working Ranch Grasslands

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:18:48 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal Media. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

With the help of a grant from USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, a carbon credit system for private landowners in North Dakota was created who agree to avoid tillage of grasslands. Grasslands store carbon dioxide which are one of the leading greenhouse gases contributing to climate change according to the USDA. Using this new carbon credit system, it was announced today that Chevrolet recently purchased almost 40,000 carbon dioxide reduction tons generated on working ranch grasslands in the Prairie Pothole region of North Dakota.

Per the USDA, this is how the credit system works:

Landowners voluntarily place lands under a perpetual easement but retain rights to work the land, such as raising livestock and growing hay.
The carbon storage benefits of this avoided conversion of grasslands are quantified, verified, and formally registered resulting in carbon credits.
The carbon credits are made available to entities interested in purchasing carbon offsets.
The landowners receive compensation for the carbon credits generated on their lands.

With high commodity prices in recent years, it might be attractive for farmers and ranchers to plant row crops on otherwise marginal agricultural lands, however, the new carbon credits offer land owners another possible revenue stream.

Paul is now part of the fourth generation in America that is involved in farming and hopes the next generation will be involved also. Through his blog he provides analysis and insight to farmer tax questions.

New Zealand Sheep and Beef Farms Close to Being Carbon Neutral

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:09:32 GMT

Independent research has found New Zealand’s sheep and beef farms are already close to being carbon neutral and strengthens calls for the formal recognition of on-farm sequestration.

The study led by Dr Bradley Case at Auckland University of Technology (AUT) estimates the woody vegetation on New Zealand sheep and beef farms is offsetting between 63 percent and 118 percent of their on-farm agricultural emissions.

If the mid-point in the report’s range is used, on average the woody vegetation on sheep and beef farms is absorbing about 90 percent of these emissions.

Beef + Lamb New Zealand CEO Sam McIvor says absolute greenhouse gas emissions from New Zealand sheep and beef production have reduced by 30 percent since 1990.

“This research shows that of the remaining emissions, the vast majority are being offset by the trees on our farms and New Zealand sheep and beef farmers are well on the way to being carbon neutral by 2050.

The study reinforces the importance of farmers getting formal recognition for the sequestration happening on their farms, says Mr McIvor.

“Currently, most vegetation on sheep and beef farms does not qualify for inclusion in the ETS because it does not meet the definition of a forest. If farmers are to face a price for agricultural emissions, it’s only fair they get credit for their sequestration.

“The focus to date on livestock’s climate change contribution has been on emissions, rather than on sequestration. But with any product it makes sense to consider the whole business – in this case, taking a whole of farm approach.

“The study should also reassure consumers that New Zealand beef and lamb is among the most sustainable in the world, and our farmers are making a significant contribution to addressing on-farm agricultural emissions.

“These findings should be of immense pride for New Zealand’s sheep and beef farmers, the 92,000 people employed in what is New Zealand’s largest manufacturing sector, and all New Zealanders.”

Dr Bradley Case, Senior Lecturer in GIS and Remote Sensing in the Applied Ecology Department, School of Science at AUT, said there is a strong case for farmers to get credit for the sequestration happening on their farms.

“This is an integral part of He Waka Eke Noa, the regulatory framework that industry and government are currently developing to manage agricultural emissions and recognise on-farm sequestration.

“This research not only builds understanding of the overall greenhouse gas contribution of the sheep and beef sector, but will help inform the development of policy, and further reinforce the outstanding biodiversity on sheep and beef farms.”

According to the AUT report, the woody vegetation is made up of 1.52 million hectares of native forest and 0.48 million hectares of exotic vegetation.

In addition to sequestering carbon, this vegetation delivers wider benefits for New Zealand’s biodiversity and freshwater ecosystems.

“The report identifies where sheep and beef farmers can focus on to continue to build the native vegetation and biodiversity on their farms,” says Dr Case.

“The regional maps in the research indicate where management is most needed to ensure mature/old growth forests are managed to prevent them becoming sources of atmospheric carbon.”

Importantly, the net carbon emissions estimation assumed a net-neutral rate for soil sequestration so the amount of sequestration happening could be even greater.

“While there is fairly good information about soil carbon stocks, there is not good data about yearly changes in soil sequestration and the science on this is still in development.”

About the research

The AUT research was commissioned by B+LNZ. The report was written by Dr Bradley Case and Catherine Ryan and was peer reviewed by Dr Fiona Carswell, Chief Scientist, Manaaki Whenua -Landcare Research and Dr Adam Forbes, Senior Ecologist, Forbes Ecology, Research Associate and New Zealand School of Forestry, University of Canterbury.

Further points to note

The study has not quantified the sequestration taking place on dairy farms, but the findings are helpful for the dairy farmers who do have sequestration happening on their farms and would like to get credit for this. The beef emissions figure in the research includes an allocation for dairy-beef.

The report uses GWP100, because this is the metric used internationally to compare greenhouse gases and it allows researchers to estimate emissions and subtract sequestration on the same basis.

B+LNZ has commissioned research by AgResearch to use this study to calculate a net carbon footprint for New Zealand beef and lamb and to investigate developing a carbon footprint using GWP*, a metric that new research indicates can better reflect the warming impact of different gases on the globe because of the way it accounts for short-lived emissions such as methane.