Climate change

RFK Jr. and Zeldin Comment on How They Would Implement Trump Policy

Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:46:07 GMT

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s confirmation hearing for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Wednesday (Jan. 29) before the Senate Finance Committee lasted over three hours, revealing key points:

Vaccine stance: Kennedy attempted to soften his past anti-vaccine rhetoric, stating support for vaccines but struggling to explain previous controversial statements.
Health policy priorities: He emphasized addressing chronic diseases, promoting safe food, removing conflicts of interest in health agencies, and using “gold-standard science.” Kennedy said that federal dollars spent on SNAP and school lunch programs could be one place to start, “helping kids” avoid obesity and chronic illness by cutting out sugary drinks and “ultra-processed foods.” He would also fund federal research into the link between food additives and chronic illnesses, though he didn’t specify which ingredients sparked the most concern. “I don’t want to take food away from anybody,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy emphasized his support for American farmers, stating:
- “American farms are the bedrock of our culture, of our politics, [and] of our national security.”
- He was a “4-H kid” and spent summers working on ranches.
- He wants to work with farmers and food producers to remove burdensome regulations and unleash American ingenuity.
Agricultural practices and health. Kennedy expressed concerns about current agricultural practices:
- He criticized the use of certain chemicals in farming, stating they destroy soil microbiomes and cause erosion.
- He linked chemical-intensive agriculture to health problems, mentioning clusters of cancers, autoimmune diseases, and obesity in farming communities.
- He called for incentivizing transitions to regenerative agriculture and less chemically intensive practices.Kennedy told Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) that farmers are affected by cancers and autoimmune illnesses that he believes are caused by ingredients like food dyes. “We need to fix our food supply,” Kennedy said, noting that “seeds and chemicals” used by U.S. farmers are “destroying our soil” in the long term. When asked about Kennedy’s “seeds and chemicals” comment, Grassley told Politico: “I’ll have someone from Iowa State University talk to him.”
Collaboration with USDA. Kennedy emphasized his intention to work closely with the Department of Agriculture:
- He stated that MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) “simply cannot succeed without a partnership a full Partnership of American farmers.”
- He committed to working collaboratively with USDA and other federal agencies before implementing policies affecting food supplies.
- Kennedy mentioned that President Trump instructed him to work with Brooke Rollins at USDA to ensure policies support farmers. Rollins told reporters last week that she was supportive of Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement. “But what is important and, if confirmed, what my role will be, will be to strike a balance between defending our farmers and our ranchers but also working with Bobby Kennedy, who I adore, to effectuate the president’s vision on all of the above,” Rollins said
Regulatory approach. Kennedy outlined his approach to agricultural regulations:
- He promised to work with farmers to remove burdensome regulations.
- Kennedy acknowledged the “very thin margins” farmers operate on and stated he doesn’t want any farmer to leave their farm for economic or regulatory reasons.
- He agreed that agricultural practice regulations should primarily be left to USDA and EPA.
- “I expect you to leave agricultural practice and regulation to the proper agencies,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told Kennedy. That means, for the most part, leaving policies that impact farmers to USDA and EPA, Grassley clarified.
Future of agriculture. Kennedy shared his vision for the future of American agriculture:
- He called for fixing the food supply as a top priority. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told Kennedy that he was happy the nominee addressed the “social media rumors” about agriculture.
- “You made it very very clear you’re not going to tell Americans what to eat, but you do want Americans to know what they’re eating,” Lankford said, calling that a “pretty fair perspective” on food policy.
- Kennedy advocated for supporting the transition to regenerative and sustainable farming practices.
- He mentioned plans to rewrite regulations to give smaller operators “a break.”
- Throughout the hearing, Kennedy attempted to position himself as an ally to farmers while also advocating for changes in agricultural practices to address health and environmental concerns.
Controversial past: Democrats challenged his history of health misinformation and grasp of Medicare and Medicaid.
Republican support: Some GOP senators backed Kennedy, with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) calling him “awesome,” though the final vote remains uncertain.
Financial concerns: His financial ties to lawsuits against Merck raised conflict-of-interest questions.
Abortion stance: Kennedy sidestepped direct answers but aligned with Trump’s anti-abortion policies, shifting from his previous pro-choice stance.

Bottom line: With strong opposition and divided support, Kennedy’s confirmation vote is expected to be closely contested. Today he attends another confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The Senate Finance Committee expects to hold its RFK Jr. vote next week.

Zeldin Confirmed as EPA Administrator

On Wednesday (Jan. 29), the Republican-led Senate confirmed former Congressman Lee Zeldin as the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a 56-42 vote. A staunch Trump ally, Zeldin is expected to steer the agency in alignment with the former president’s environmental policies.

Vote breakdown: All 53 Republicans backed Zeldin, joined by three Democrats — Sens. Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), and John Fetterman (Pa.).
Policy direction: Zeldin is expected to roll back environmental regulations, emphasizing economic growth and private-sector collaboration.
Biofuel policy. Zeldin has raised concerns among ethanol and biofuel advocates due to his past opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and ethanol. However, during his confirmation process, Zeldin made some commitments that suggest a potential shift in his stance. As a congressman, Zeldin had a history of opposing biofuels and the RFS. He signed letters expressing concern about proposed RFS volume increases, citing issues with the “E10 blend wall.” In 2017, Zeldin cosponsored an unsuccessful bill to repeal the RFS. He raised concerns about the validity and practicality of higher ethanol blends like E15 and E85. But during his confirmation process, Zeldin made several statements that indicate a potential change in his approach:
- He committed to giving producers and the industry certainty in the marketplace regarding Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs).
- Zeldin acknowledged the importance of the RFS issue to President Trump and certain senators.
- He stated that no person or industry has any special influence over his decision-making, addressing concerns about his past connections to the oil industry.
Biofuel industry representatives have expressed cautious optimism:
- The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) looks forward to working with Zeldin on keeping the RFS on track and addressing other priorities like E15 availability.
- The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA) encouraged Zeldin to pursue the role biofuels can play in U.S. energy dominance.
- The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) appreciated Zeldin’s commitments to follow the law regarding RVO rulemakings and supporting year-round E15 nationwide.

Of note: While Zeldin’s past positions raised initial concerns, his recent statements during the confirmation process suggest he may be open to working with the biofuels industry in his new role as EPA Administrator.

Climate stance: Critics warn his leadership could weaken climate initiatives, favoring fossil fuel interests.
Reactions: Republicans praise his “common-sense regulation” approach, while environmental groups call his confirmation a serious setback for public health and environmental justice.

Bottom line. As Zeldin assumes leadership, his tenure is likely to reshape the EPA’s role in U.S. environmental policy for years to come.

Cassidy Casts Doubt on RFK Jr.’s HHS Nomination

Senate HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.) delivered a blunt message to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during Thursday’s hearing, signaling serious concerns about his nomination for Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary.

“I’ve been struggling with your nomination,” Cassidy stated in his closing remarks, a potential roadblock for Kennedy, given Cassidy’s influential position on the Senate Finance Committee. If Cassidy votes against Kennedy in the panel’s decision, the nomination may not advance.

The Louisiana senator expressed deep skepticism about Kennedy’s stance on vaccines, questioning whether he could be trusted to uphold sound public health policy. Cassidy specifically criticized Kennedy’s history of vaccine skepticism, warning that such views could erode trust in essential immunizations.

“A worthy movement, called MAHA, to improve the health of Americans?” Cassidy asked. “Or will it undermine it, always asking for more evidence and never accepting the evidence that is there?”

He also recounted a recent case of two children dying in a Baton Rouge ICU from vaccine-preventable diseases. “My concern is that if there’s any false note, any undermining of a mama’s trust in vaccines, another person will die from a vaccine-preventable disease,” Cassidy warned.

Beyond his own reservations, Cassidy’s remarks signal broader challenges for Kennedy’s nomination. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a childhood polio survivor, is unlikely to back a nominee with anti-vaccine ties. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also remain key votes to watch, with both urging Kennedy to support vaccinations.

Cassidy, up for re-election in 2026, has already drawn a Trump-aligned challenger, State Treasurer John Fleming. Though Cassidy emphasized his desire for Trump’s policies to succeed, he warned that anti-vaccine rhetoric could tarnish Trump’s legacy.

“I want President Trump’s policies to succeed,” Cassidy said. “But if there’s someone that is not vaccinated because of policies, of attitudes we bring to the department, and there’s another 18-year-old who dies of a vaccine-preventable disease… The greatest tragedy will be her death. I can also tell you an associated tragedy will be that it will cast a shadow over President Trump’s legacy, which I want to be the absolute best legacy.”

Bottom line: With Cassidy’s support in doubt and broader Senate skepticism, Kennedy’s path to confirmation remains steep.

Top Takeaways from Zeldin’s Confirmation Hearing for EPA Lead and the Impact On Ag

Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:36:45 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin, underwent hours of testimony Thursday, commenting on everything from year-round E15, the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) and the controversial WOTUS rule. When pressed about climate and environmental policies, Zeldin stated he believes climate change is real.

During the hearing, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) asked Zeldin to ensure access to year-round E15, but he did not make a definitive commitment, responding cautiously. Zeldin stated that while he couldn’t prejudge the outcomes of any processes, he acknowledged the importance of the issue to Sen. Ricketts and President Trump.

His exact words were: “Senator, while I can’t prejudge outcome of processes to follow across the board, I know how important this issue is to you and I know how important this is to President Trump.”

Despite this non-committal response, leaders of ethanol industry groups, including the American Coalition for Ethanol and Growth Energy, expressed appreciation for Zeldin’s commitment to doing his part to ensure nationwide availability of year-round E15.

Zeldin’s Stance on Ethanol
Zeldin’s stance on ethanol has been a point of interest, given his previous opposition to ethanol usage mandates during his time in Congress. Zeldin was asked about upholding legal deadlines for new Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) standards, which are part of the RFS program.

Ricketts criticized the Biden administration for setting RVOs below industry production levels and not meeting the law’s deadlines. Zeldin expressed his commitment to implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as written by Congress.

He stated, “If confirmed, I commit to you that I will faithfully execute the law as written by Congress.” This statement was seen as an attempt to reassure senators from agricultural states who are concerned about the EPA’s implementation of biofuel policies.

Zeldin addressed his past opposition to ethanol usage mandates. He acknowledged that his views on the issue have evolved since his time in Congress.

Zeldin stated, “My position has evolved. I’m not in the same place I was years ago.”

He explained that his perspective has changed due to conversations he’s had with farmers, producers, and others in the industry. Zeldin emphasized that he now has a better understanding of the importance of ethanol to rural economies and energy security.

To further illustrate his evolving stance, Zeldin mentioned that he has visited ethanol plants and spoken with industry stakeholders.

He said, “I’ve learned a lot more about ethanol. I’ve visited plants. I’ve talked to a lot of people in the industry.”

WOTUS Rule Opposition
The EPA nominee has been vocal about his opposition to the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. He expressed strong criticism of the Biden administration’s decision to reinstate and expand the WOTUS rule. Zeldin argued that the WOTUS rule represents federal overreach and places an undue burden on farmers, landowners, and local governments.

He stated that the rule would negatively impact agriculture, construction, and other industries by expanding federal authority over water bodies and wetlands. The congressman emphasized that the expanded definition of WOTUS would lead to increased regulations and permitting requirements for activities on private property. He contended that this expansion of federal control would hinder economic growth and development in rural areas.

In his statement, Zeldin called for the repeal of the WOTUS rule, advocating for a more limited interpretation of federal jurisdiction over water bodies. He supported efforts to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority in implementing the rule, arguing that states should have more control over their water resources.

Zeldin’s position on WOTUS aligns with many Republican lawmakers who view the rule as an example of government overreach and excessive environmental regulation. His statements reflect a broader debate about the balance between environmental protection and economic development in water resource management.

Zeldin’s Criticism of EPA Staff
Zeldin made notable comments regarding EPA staff. He criticized EPA employees for what he described as their attempts to undermine the Trump administration’s policies.

Specifically, Zeldin accused some EPA staff members of leaking information to the media and actively working against the administration’s agenda. He expressed concern that these actions were hindering the implementation of policies and creating unnecessary obstacles for the agency’s leadership. The congressman’s remarks were part of a broader discussion on government accountability and the role of career civil servants in executing administration directives.

Zeldin emphasized the importance of loyalty to the current administration’s goals, regardless of personal political beliefs.

Climate Change and Climate Policies
As for his position on climate change, the hearing showed the political dynamics and implications surrounding the issue considering President-elect Donald Trump’s stance, particularly as seen through an exchange involving Zeldin with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). Sanders emphasized the existential threat of climate change, framing it as a matter transcending politics. Whitehouse voiced concern about Zeldin’s ability to resist fossil fuel industry influence.

Zeldin stated, “I believe that climate change is real,” marking a departure from previous EPA leaders during the first Trump administration and from President-elect Trump, who has previously labeled climate change a “hoax.”

Regarding EPA’s role in regulating carbon dioxide emissions, Zeldin referenced a 2007 Supreme Court decision, noting that while the ruling grants the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it does not mandate such action. He emphasized that the agency is “authorized, not required” to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

When pressed on specific climate policies, such as reducing reliance on fossil fuels, Zeldin refrained from committing to particular actions. He expressed a desire to collaborate with scientists and policymakers, stating, “I don’t sit before you as a scientist.”

In response to inquiries about campaign donations from fossil fuel companies, Zeldin asserted that financial contributions would not influence his decisions, emphasizing his commitment to impartiality in his role as EPA Administrator.

Of note:
Throughout the hearing, Zeldin underscored the importance of protecting the environment without hindering economic development. He stated, “We can, and we must, protect our precious environment without suffocating the economy.”

Economists React to Zeldin’s Nomination

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

In the December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor and prior to this week’s hearing, Farm Journal asked economists about what Zeldin’s past stance on ag issues could mean if he’s approved as the next EPA adminstrator.

Based on Zeldin’s track record, 60% of economists said they don’t think Zeldin’s policies will be positive for agriculture. 40% said they do think his policies will be good for agriculture.

In the survey, economists said:

“I expect there to be fewer new regulations in the Trump Administration. This is positive for agriculture.”
“I imagine many of the tax credits for new demand (either low carbon fuels or carbon programs) will be on the table to be cut.”
“He generally is not a fan of the RFS. My guess is that he will impact the RFS only marginally.”
“A deregulatory agenda could be positive for many farmers, but Zeldin has a record that is not favorable toward biofuels. How he (and the President) will address biofuel issues is unclear--in the first Trump administration, there were many large disputes between pro-biofuel and pro-fossil fuel interests.”
“His track record is negative toward liquid biofuels, which is a big part of our domestic demand.”

Related News:

Trump Taps Lee Zeldin to Lead EPA; What Does It Signal for Agriculture?

BIF Speaker Shares How Cow Efficiency Influences UK Ag Policy

Wed, 23 Oct 2024 17:21:38 GMT

At the 2024 Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Symposium June 12 in Knoxville, Tenn., Mike Coffey, Scotland’s Rural College shared his perspective on the United Kingdom’s (UK) progress towards reducing methane emissions in beef and dairy cattle.

“That’s the one driving force in the UK funding and government policy – is how to reduce methane per kilogram of product…a couple of important words there: now and speed. We can’t wait to do it and when we decide to do it, we need to do it fast,” Coffey said.

Updates included current selection and management trends in dairy and beef populations, his perspective on what the future of UK production will look like, some of the challenges the UK will face, and his vision for solving the challenge of methane emissions.

Where is the dairy industry now and what progress has been made?
Coffey emphasized that production per cow had increased, which plays a role in reduced methane emissions per unit of product. Like the U.S. dairy, selection for production alone negatively affected disease resistance and cow fertility. Selection on the overall index PLI, which is like net merit indices in the U.S. dairy population, has been successful in not only increasing production but improving disease resistance and fertility in cattle.

The future
Coffey said he believes more needs to be done to meet climate change goals, farmers’ needs and society’s needs. Old practices, such as antibiotic use and exporting calves for veal or euthanizing calves, were not deemed socially acceptable and UK market demands for dairy products reflected as such.

He explained this is where utilizing sexed beef semen can play a role and give calves a purpose in the system. He also believes dairy cows will need to be even less susceptible to illness, have increased fertility and live longer to decrease the number of environmentally and fiscally expensive replacements that need to be raised. Current levels of fertility, disease resistance and longevity are not enough.

“More efficient cows that are good for the environment actually are more profitable than not,” he said emphasizing the cows with the least environmental impact should also be the most profitable.

There will, however, be challenges to achieving these lofty goals. Coffey noted climate change and extreme weather events, geopolitical events that can drastically impact input costs and supply chains, energy prices, increasing cow sizes, and a lack of weight data collection will be obstacles that need to be overcome for these goals to be met — with an emphasis on decreasing cow size.

Coffey summarized, “Change is coming, but you are capable of dealing with it. It’s not scary, it’s an opportunity.”

To watch the full presentation, visit

For more information about this year’s Symposium and the Beef Improvement Federation, including additional presentations and award winners, visit BIFSymposium.com .

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.

What's Causing These Frigid Temperatures Right Now?

Fri, 19 Jan 2024 20:48:23 GMT

Another round of arctic freeze is blasting the U.S. The first round of cold weather brought historic temperatures, with Montana’s temperatures falling to 40 to 50 degree below zero. With another round of frigid temperatures blanketing the U.S. again, what’s behind the cold?

While El Niño can be to blame for the back-to-back winter storms, something else is spurring the cold. Brad Rippey, USDA meteorologist, says moisture pumping up from the Gulf is a hallmark of El Niño.

“As I always say, you can’t blame an individual or a single storm and El Niño, but you start looking at the overall patterns, and there’s absolutely no question that when you start seeing a pattern setting up like this, a storm pipeline from the Pacific coming across the Southwest and into the Midwest or east, that is El Niño,” says Brad Rippey, USDA meteorologist.

The cold, however, is being pushed down from the north. Drew Lerner of World Weather says the arctic air is caused by a warming that occurs in the stratosphere, which is outside of where we live in the troposphere. Sudden stratospheric warming events, like what the U.S. is experiencing now, can be caused by large atmospheric waves in either the stratosphere or the troposphere. Planetary waves have ridges and troughs like ocean waves, but span huge distances in the atmosphere.

“The stratosphere, when it turns warmer, it expands that layer in the atmosphere and it pushes, puts pressure on the troposphere and forces cold air that’s aloft down to the surface. And then it gets spread out from the arctic,” says Lerner. “What happens a lot of times when you get these stratospheric warming events is that you displace the polar vortex and or you split it into two vortices, and that’s what’s happening.”

He says this can lead to a splitting of the polar vortex, so instead of cold air being locked above the polar region, it pushes further south into the mid-latitudes.

The good news? This latest round of frigid air is short-lived. The Climate Prediction Center (CPC) 10-day forecast, which is below, shows a much more mild view, at least compared to what we’re seeing now.

(Farm Journal)

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.”

Ag Climate Data Collection to be Improved with $300 Million Investment

Wed, 12 Jul 2023 21:24:05 GMT

Ag accounts for 11.2 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to a USDA’s 2020 estimates . While these estimates are two years old, USDA intends to improve the future measure, monitoring, reporting and verification of ag climate emissions via a $300 million investment announced on Wednesday.

“We have to improve the scientific backbone of our programs. This new investment by USDA in improving data and measurement of greenhouse gas emissions…is unmatched in its scope and potential to increase accuracy, reduce uncertainty and enhance overall confidence in these estimates,” says Tom Vilsack, USDA secretary. “We’re data driven, and we seek continuous improvement in our climate-smart agriculture and forestry efforts.”

With the funds and stakeholder recommendations in tow, USDA says it will:

• Create a soil carbon monitoring and research network
• Establish a GHG network
• Expand data management, infrastructure and capacity
• Improve models and tools for assessing GHG outcomes at state, regional and national levels
• Improve NRCS conservation standards and use data to reflect GHG capture opportunities
• Revamp coverage of conservation activity data
• Strengthen GHG inventory and assessment programs at the USDA

The investment follows the ethanol industry calling out the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for using obsolete data to measure ethanol’s GHG contributions.

“EPA is using outdated analysis from more than a decade ago to measure the carbon intensity of ethanol and other biofuels, despite the Department of Energy having updated data,” says Chris Bliley, Growth Energy’s senior vice president. “This practice limits ethanol markets.”

Related story: Fuels Parity Act Could Open a New Market Door for Ethanol

New legislation, titled the Fuels Parity Act , was introduced in the U.S. House to address the EPA GHG data and market limitations. While this act could help open market doors, the Food and Ag Climate Alliance (FACA)—an 80+ member ag coalition that includes committee members from groups such as Farm Bureau and NASDA—is confident this USDA funding will help pry open market doors as well.

“FACA supports science-based evaluation mechanisms for GHG quantification that account for the diversity and breadth of ag and forestry production systems. This work is critical to enhancing trust and confidence in the measurement of emissions outcomes that will allow new markets to flourish,” said FACA in a press release .

The $300 million will be tapped from the $20 billion Inflation Reduction Act that was signed into law in August 2022.

Ag Will be Granted $11 Million to be Part of the Climate "Solution"

Tue, 16 May 2023 20:10:03 GMT

John Kerry, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, highlighted the need to address ag sector emissions in the fight against climate change during his keynote address at USDA’s recent AIM for Climate Summit. He noted that ag production accounts for 33% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making it essential to focus on reducing these emissions in the pursuit of a net-zero future.

“We can’t get to net zero, we don’t get this job done, unless ag is front and center as part of the solution,” Kerry said.

Details

Ag generates 10% to 12% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The food system as a whole —including packaging, transportation, and waste management — generates a third of global emissions, according to a 2021 study published in the academic journal Nature Food.

As the global population continues to grow, emissions from food systems are projected to cause an additional half a degree of warming by mid-century. Kerry stressed that lives depend on developing the necessary tools to lower ag emissions, urging for innovation within the sector. The global food system, which encompasses land-use change, agricultural production, packaging, and waste management, generates approximately 18 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, or 34% of total worldwide emissions.

A Farmer’s Reflection on Climate

Fox Business News recently interviewed Nicole Ort Moke of Ort Farms. She said “agriculture is very green and as farmers we are the most invested in keeping the land sustainable, keeping it viable for future generations. And everything we do, environmentally, that’s always at the top of our mind.”

Nicole was asked to comment about making planters and other farm equipment electric vehicles.

“Going electric with the tractors, the concerns that I have are, are they able to be efficient enough with keeping up the battery life and having enough horsepower for us to be able to feed the nation in an economic, affordable way?”

The outlet then talked with Bjørn Lomborg, a Danish author and the president of the think tank Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is the former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Lomborg was asked if the U.S needs to restrict farming on a vast scale. Lomborg’s response:

“What John Kerry is telling us is that a third of all emissions come from farming, most of that is in developing countries and remember, what is it that is also mostly a core part of the world? It’s a lot of people starving. There’s something fundamentally wrong about that. Look, there’s maybe 750 million people who are starving, but do we need to make it harder to do ag? No. The solution is focused on innovation. First, what matters a lot more is to get cheaper and more food so you can feed your kids. That’s not what John Kerry is pushing for,” he says. “Secondly, if we innovate to have better ag that produces more at lower cost, it also helps the environment because it reduces climate emissions because you don’t need to cut down a lot of forests.”

Upshot

Lomborg says Kerry’s solution to the climate problem is not going to work and should be withdrawn. He says the U.S. and other countries should be spending the money that we’re spending on innovation and technology.

“Look at all the other problems that are also facing the world. All these problems have smart solutions as we just talked about for ag. This is about getting more innovation, especially for the world’s poorest for cassava and sorghum and all these other grains… all these other ag products that don’t get a lot of funding because they’re not growing in rich countries. Those could be better, cheaper, more effectively produced. More production, lower price and lower emissions.”

The pros and cons of focusing on U.S. ag’s climate change:

Pros:

Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions: Agriculture is a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane and nitrous oxide. By focusing on sustainable farming practices, emissions can be reduced.
Carbon sequestration: Certain agricultural practices, such as cover cropping and no-till farming, can help sequester carbon in the soil, reducing atmospheric CO2 levels.
Improved water management: Sustainable agriculture can help manage water resources more efficiently, reducing stress on freshwater sources and mitigating the effects of droughts and floods.
Biodiversity protection: Promoting agricultural practices that protect habitats and ecosystems can contribute to biodiversity conservation and support ecosystem services that are crucial for human well-being.
Food security: Climate-resilient agricultural practices can help ensure a stable food supply in the face of climate change-induced threats like extreme weather events, pests, and diseases.
Economic benefits: Investing in sustainable agriculture can create jobs and stimulate economic growth in rural areas, fostering the development of green technologies and practices.

Cons:

Short-term economic costs: Transitioning to sustainable agricultural practices may require significant investments in new technologies, infrastructure, and training, which could be costly in the short term.
Resistance to change: Farmers and other stakeholders might be resistant to change due to a lack of understanding, financial incentives, or concerns about potential negative impacts on their livelihoods.
Trade-offs and unintended consequences: Focusing on agriculture alone may not be sufficient to address climate change, and some solutions might lead to trade-offs with other environmental, social, or economic objectives.
Political challenges: Policy changes necessary to support sustainable agriculture may face opposition from powerful interest groups, such as the agribusiness sector or the fossil fuel industry, making it difficult to implement effective policies.
Global coordination: While focusing on U.S. agriculture can contribute to mitigating climate change, it’s essential to recognize that climate change is a global problem that requires international cooperation and coordination to address effectively.

While people like Kerry say this focus can yield significant environmental, social, and economic benefits, others note there are challenges to overcome, such as the short-term costs, resistance to change, and the need for global coordination.

The news comes as USDA announces $11 billion for rural clean energy transition. The Biden administration plans to make nearly $11 billion in grants and loan opportunities available to rural electric providers to help them transition to clean energy.

This represents the largest investment in rural electricity since the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. The funds aim to support cleaner energy, create new jobs, reduce energy costs, and combat climate change.

Clean energy grant details

The Empowering Rural America (New ERA) program will make $9.7 billion available to eligible rural electric cooperatives for deploying renewable energy systems, zero-emission systems, and carbon capture systems.

The Powering Affordable Clean Energy (PACE) program will provide $1 billion in partially forgivable loans to renewable-energy developers and electric service providers for financing large-scale solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower projects, and energy storage systems.

To apply for the New ERA program, eligible entities must submit a Letter of Interest between July 31 and August 31.

For the PACE program, USDA will accept Letters of Interest starting on June 30 until Sept.29. Loans through the PACE program may be forgiven by 40% of the loan amount, and up to 60% for applicants in Puerto Rico, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and Tribal communities.

Background on energy grants

Cooperatives are tax-exempt and can’t take advantage of renewable energy tax credits that large power companies can get. The loans and grants are meant to fill that gap and speed rural America’s transition to clean energy, instead of coal and oil-burning power plants.

The funds can be used to deploy renewable energy systems, zero emission systems and carbon capture systems.

USDA’s Cover Crop Program Would be Made Permanent through Biden's Budget

Fri, 10 Mar 2023 22:23:44 GMT

A $6.8 trillion budget proposal was released by the Biden administration on Thursday with the continued “bottom up, middle out” theme, according to USDA.

“The President’s budget provides USDA with the tools needed to serve all Americans by providing effective, innovative science-based public policy leadership at home and around the world,” Tom Vilsack, USDA secretary said in a press release .

The proposed budget includes:

• $19 trillion to be borrowed through FY 2033
• 10.2 trillion in interest on national debt
• $3 trillion in debt deficit reduction
• $6.9 trillion for spending

So, what’s ag’s stake in the $6.8 trillion plan? As is generally the theme in a farm bill, nutrition would take most of the cake.

Nutrition and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

According to the release, the administration anticipates 6.5 million people will participate in SNAP. To meet these “critical” SNAP needs, the proposal devotes $6.3 billion of a total $7.1 billion in nutrition for SNAP.

“The budget also includes $15 billion over 10 years to allow more states and schools to leverage participation in the community eligibility provision to provide healthy and free school meals to an additional 9 million children,” the release says.

Ensuring SNAP availability is one obstacle. Ensuring food is available for purchase is another issue the budget looks to address.

Supply Chain Resilience

COVID-19 and the Russia–Ukraine war exposed many broken supply chain links. To solder the chain back together, the White House plans to create programs that will:

• Bolster markets through oversight by the Agricultural Marketing Service.
• Safeguard livestock against pests and disease through Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) investments.
• Ensure “safe and healthy” work environments by hiring more inspectors and health officials.

“These programs build on the pandemic and supply chain assistance funding in the American Rescue Plan to address COVID-19 pandemic-related vulnerabilities in the food system,” the plan says.

The supply chain won’t be the only sector to see new or reestablished programs. A similar approach will also be taken up in the climate department.

Climate Resilience

Cover crop pilot programs would be made permanent if this budget were to pass.

With $208 million more in conservation funds from the 2023 enacted funding level, the NRCS would work to “increase the voluntary adoption of conservation practices that sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural production.”

Related article: Producers Eliminate Fungicide and Insecticide Use, Cut Fertilizer 50%

To put the investments in motion, NRCS would use draw on federal, state and private conservationists to hire “thousands” of employees that would be available to rural America.

These employees would also work alongside climate researchers, which will also be funded in the budget.

Ag Research

In the past, many legislative officials have speculated American ag is falling behind in research compared with other countries. But research might finally see its needs met if this budget proposal passes.

“The People’s Republic of China has become the largest funder of agricultural research and development in the world, surpassing the U.S. and the EU” the report says. “The budget restores American innovation in agriculture by providing a total of more than $4 billion, a $299 million increase above the 2023 enacted level, for ag research, education and outreach.”

Some, including Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Ca.), feel these research funds are long overdue.

“This administration is taking an important step toward undoing years of underinvestment – as public funding for agriculture research has declined by one-third since 2002,” Carbajal said in a press release.

A letter sent in February to the Office of Management and Budget by Carbajal and other members of Congress stressed the need for increases in ag research.

If these proposed investments are taken-up, Carbajal says American innovation in ag will be “restored.”

Taxes

Arguably the heaviest hitter in the budget bundle is rooted in tax changes that would make American’s pay “their fair share” toward the nation’s debt, according to Janet Yellen, U.S. treasury secretary.

To ensure the “share” is paid, the budget would:

• Raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. For most farmers this would be almost an 100% tax increase from 2017 when most farmers only paid 15%.

• Include several proposals to eliminate or reduce tax deductions and credits related to oil and natural gas operations.

Many farmers have ground that enjoys oil and gas revenues. This could indirectly reduce those revenues.

• Any farmer with a net worth greater than $100 million would be subject to a minimum tax rate of 25% on all income included unrealized gains not yet tax.

As an example, assume a farmer is worth $125 million and they have $25 million on unrealized gains not yet taxed. They would owe $5 million that can be paid over 9 years in the first year of this proposal or 5 years thereafter.

Plus, if the asset is illiquid, they could make an election to defer the tax until the asset is sold but would owe an “interest charge”. There appears to be no refund if your net worth decreases.

• Increase the Statute of Limitations from 3 years to 6 years for prohibited transactions and material misstatement of assets in a retirement plan.

• Treat all capital gains and dividend income for taxpayers with more than $1 million of taxable income as being taxed at ordinary rates.

As example, assume a farmer had $500,000 of capital gains and $1 million of other net taxable income. All of the capital gains would be taxed at 44.6%.

The administration wants to make farmers and their heirs pay capital gains taxes on any transfers of appreciated property either via gift or at death. They have increased the exemption amount to $5 million per person or $10 million for a married couple and allow portability of any unused amount at the first death.

Related article: Review of President Biden’s Green Book

So, what are the odds of this budget passing? It depends on who you talk to.

Upshot

According to Jim Wiesemeyer , ProFarmer policy analyst, democrats in the House and Senate aren’t sure they’ll produce their own budget documents, saying they’ll review Biden’s proposal and only draft their own resolutions if they need to take a different approach from the president.

Paul Neiffer , farm CPA, believes, with the House in Republican control, there is little chance that much of this will pass in

Crop Insurance, Production Costs, ERP Among Key Topics at Senate Ag Farm Bill Hearing

Fri, 10 Feb 2023 21:00:25 GMT

A Senate Ag Committee hearing Thursday on the new farm bill raised a issue that is now evident: the Title 1 farm bill safety net can no longer deal with the current ag environment of rising production costs and relatively high prices for some commodities. USDA officials also faced criticism about its handling of Phase 2 payments via the Emergency Relief Program (ERP).

Other topics that have previously surfaced included Republican concerns about climate and conservation changes to crop insurance, while Democrats continued to urge expansion of the program to more producers.

Need for change

Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said the 2018 Farm Bill largely lived up to expectations, but she suggested its successor must deal with several challenges: increasingly damaging natural disasters and accelerated costs of production.

“There are still gaps in the farm safety net as farmers continue to face global market uncertainty and climate-fueled weather disasters,” she said. “While many commodity prices are at historic highs, which is good, we also know that land and fertilizer and input costs are also near record highs.”

Farm safety net gaps

Ranking Member John Boozman (R-Ark.) said a focus on boosting nutrition and climate programs has obscured the fact that farm safety net programs like Price Loss Coverage (PLC) are ill equipped to deal with the current situation.

Related articles: Stepped-Up Basis Leaning in Favor of Rural America on House Ways and Means Panel

“Prices for many of our major commodities would have to drop sharply before the current Title 1 Price Loss Coverage safety net would start to work,” Boozman said, noting corn prices would need to plummet 46% before PLC would provide enrolled farmers any assistance. “By the time corn prices fell that low, the significant damage would have already been done.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) asked if USDA had looked at how the two safety net programs respond to inflation, such as adjusting reference prices — which trigger payments under the PLC program.

“I will tell you my legislative staff is always quick to tell me to emphasize that Congress writes the farm bill, and then that’s going to be important here too, obviously those reference prices are in statute,” USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation Robert Bonnie told Tuberville. “When we talk to producers, there’s lots of concern about obviously rising input costs,” he added, but then emphasized USDA can only operate farm safety net programs as dictated by Congress.

USDA disaster aid implementation was both praised and criticized

Democrats and Republicans agreed with farmers who have complained about USDA’s methodology for payments under Phase 2 of the ERP, saying they do not adequately compensate farmers for their losses. “I appreciate USDA’s efforts through Phase 1 of ERP, which generally worked well in supporting producers with crop losses and [2020 and 2021],” said Sen John Thune (R-S.D.). “But the Phase 2 methodology… often does not accurately reflect crop losses that Congress meant to cover.”

Thune urged USDA consider reverting to the approach used in Phase 1 of the ERP effort for 2022 losses, a suggestion echoed by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who said farmers in her state “are grateful for the quick and effective approach taken during the implementation of ERP Phase 1,” but “a number of them have been less enthusiastic of the income tax-based approach taken during the rollout of ERP Phase 2.”

Bonnie said USDA’s approach on ERP Phase 2 focused on ensuring more producers had access to aid, but said if there are resources remaining after the effort the department may look at a shallow loss effort to address some of the concerns with Phase 2.

Related articles: The Cost of a Farm Bill: 2023 Row Crop Priorities

Bonnie said ad hoc programs like ERP have helped farmers facing disaster-related losses, but he stressed that federal crop insurance remains a key risk management tool, and that USDA has worked to expand the program to cover more producers.

Crop insurance and climate intersect

Boozman again raised a concern voiced by many Republicans about any move to use crop insurance to incentivize climate or conservation practices — which GOP members contend could undermine the actuarial soundness of the program and move it away from its core focus as a risk management tool.

“Can you commit to making sure that any efforts to expand the crop insurance programs are science based, peer reviewed, and protect the integrity of the program,” he asked Bonnie, saying a “one-size fits all” approach that elevates certain practices like cover cropping could disadvantage farmers in areas where those practices are not practical.

Bonnie responded that “with respect to crop insurance, everything we have to do has to be actuarially sound as we’ve got to maintain the integrity of crop insurance.” He said recent incentives offered to farmers for cover cropping have taken the form of premium rebates — not changes to premiums or the overall premium subsidy paid by the government.

Stabenow praised federal crop insurance, calling it “the number one risk management tool for producers.” However, improvements are needed, she said, promising improvements to the program, “including specialty crop growers, organic producers, beginning and diversified farmers.”

Regarding prevent plant coverage

Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.) asked if USDA was looking at expanding prevented plant coverage under crop insurance, which pays farmers when they are unable to plant an insured crop due to extreme weathers. He noted eligibility currently hinges on a farmer being able to plant, insure and harvest crops in one of the four preceding crop years — known as the four-in-one rule — and some farmers in the West are at more risk of losing coverage due to prolonged drought conditions.

“One in four is very regionalized in a lot of cases,” acknowledged USDA Administrator Marcia Bunger. “So, for this coming year, we’ve made an exception for several western states to step outside of that one and four,” adding USDA would consult with stakeholders over the next year about a potential long-term solution to the issue.

Related articles: How USDA’s $2.8 Billion Climate-Smart Investment Might Impact Your Operation

USDA climate program efforts were raised by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who noted concern over USDA’s move to tap more than $3 billion from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to fund its Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC) effort that funds climate-smart ag pilot projects.

“Spending over $3 billion without input from Congress is a serious concern for everybody in the Congress,” Grassley stated.

Grassley then asked Bonnie if USDA had any plans to tap CCC for additional USDA programs. Bonnie reiterated what USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has said — that PCSC falls within the CCC’s charter as it looks to expand and create new markets for ag commodities.

However, Bonnie ultimately said there were no plans for new CCC-backed programs under the Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) mission area.

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

Soil Health a Priority in Latest USDA Climate Funding

Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:07:50 GMT

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack on Monday announced $325 million of funding for second round of climate-smart ag pilot projects.

The funding includes 71 smaller projects seeking $250,000 to nearly $5 million under the second round of the department’s Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC) effort. Vilsack says the latest round is focused on projects targeting underserved producers and partnerships with minority-serving academic institutions.

“Small and underserved producers are facing the impacts of climate change head on, with limited resources, and have the most to gain from leveraging the growing market demand for agricultural goods produced in a sustainable, climate-smart way,” Vilsack said in the press release . “Our goal is to expand markets for climate-smart commodities and ensure that small and underserved producers reap the benefits of these market opportunities.”

The second round follows an initial round of $2.8 billion in funding across 70 larger projects — seeking $5 million to $100 million — that USDA rolled out in September. Total funding awarded under both rounds stands at $3.1 billion, up from an initial $1 billion USDA originally set aside for the effort.

Examples of the newly funded programs include:

Biochar for Climate-Smart Farms in Missouri - $4,935,000 to Missouri Organic Association to provide direct on-farm assistance and support to convert on-farm ag-waste into biochar, a soil amendment, for Missouri farms and measure and market the resulting climate-smart commodities.
Precision Ag Tech to Expand the Participation of Small Grazing Dairy Farms - $4,770,000 to Dairy Grazing Apprenticeship Inc. to make direct payments and provide technical assistance to small-scale dairy farmers to implement climate-smart grazing management.
Beef Cattle Management in Utah’s Semi-arid Rangelands - $4,999,000 to Utah ranchers running small scale operations would receive financial and technical assistance to participate in an innovative grazing pilot project to produce climate-smart beef and establish viable and accessible cattle marketplaces.

Fund Funnel

Funding is being drawn from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) , a development that has caught Republican lawmakers’ attention.

CCC requires funds be used “for the expansion of markets in US commodities and the promotion of U.S. exports,” and the department has said PCSC is consistent with the requirement as the pilots seek to promote the development and marketing of climate-smart commodities that can fetch a premium in the marketplace.

Pushback from Congress

Some Republican lawmakers have questioned how the move might impact CCC’s other obligations like making farm bill program payments to farmers, along with their concerns about a lack of oversight over the spending.

Incoming House Ag Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.) has signaled he will increase oversight related to the use of CCC funds for the PCSC program. However, ag interests have been generally supportive of the pilot program, and major farm and commodity groups are among the partners that have been awarded funding under both rounds of the effort.

A complete list of projects is available through the USDA.

More on USDA :

How USDA’s $2.8 Billion Climate-Smart Investment Might Impact Your Operation
Farm Share of the U.S. Food Dollar Hit a Record Low; What Does this Mean for Producers?

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

Ag and Oil Industries Get Methane Makeover to Reach New Emissions Goal by 2030

Tue, 15 Nov 2022 15:37:55 GMT

In Egypt on Friday, President Biden announced the U.S. will implement measures to further decrease methane emissions by 2030.

According to EPA, the proposals would collectively reduce 36 million tons of methane emissions between 2023 and 2035, which it says is almost the planet-warming equivalent of GHG emissions emitted from all U.S. coal-fired power plants in 2020.

Building on the Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan , the proposal would tighten regulations on the oil and gas industry in order to cut emissions by 87%, up from the proposed 74% decrease announced in 2021, through:

• Accelerated methane standards
• Stronger incentives
• Addressing leaks from orphaned oil and gas wells
• A new approach to fuel lines

With the war in Ukraine as backdrop, Biden says it’s more urgent than ever that U.S. double-down on its climate commitments.

“Russia’s war only enhances the urgency of the need to transition the world off its dependence on fossil fuels,” Biden said at the conference. “We are racing forward to do our part to avert the ‘climate hell’ that the U.N. Secretary-General so passionately warned about earlier this week.”

Changes to Ag’s Methane Emissions

On the ag front, Tom Vilsack, USDA Secretary, shared the proposal outlines more climate-smart incentives—first announced in Sept .—that will include:

• Expanded markets
• Conservation assistance
• Emission monitoring
• Manure management technology
• Methane-related research
• Continued education, extension projects and grant programs

“As we face down the dual crises of climate change and food insecurity, USDA recognizes that changes to our agriculture and food systems can only happen at the needed scale and speed if farmers are at the center of our solutions,” Vilsack said at COP27.

USDA anticipates the expanded climate-smart commodity markets alone will reach 50,000 farms, or 25 million acres of working land, and sequester or reduce 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over each farm’s lifetime.

More on climate:

How USDA’s $2.8 Billion Climate-Smart Investment Might Impact Your Operation
Tackling the ‘Three C’s'--COVID, Climate, and Conflict--that Threaten Global Food Security
WTO Says the U.S. Passed Inflation Reduction Act Could Lead to a “Subsidy War”

To Address Climate Change, Mend Ruminant Production, Don't End It

Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:41:34 GMT

According to a report by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published in 2013, the global cattle sector (both beef and dairy) accounts for about 61 percent of the livestock sector’s annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which overall represents about 15 percent of global emissions. Production of smaller ruminant animals, such as sheep and goats, add about 450 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent to the annual global total, bringing the ruminant share to about 66 percent. These emissions come primarily from enteric fermentation that occurs during feed digestion in the ruminant animal’s gastrointestinal system, and from emissions associated with producing and delivering feed to these animals.

Some climate activists have suggested the best solution to this problem is to simply mandate the end of production of ruminant animals around the world, but that approach ignores the nutritional impact of removing these foods from the human diet, which provide about one-third of all animal protein and about 17 percent of all calories consumed. The diets of hundreds of millions of people in the developing world are already deficient in animal proteins, which provide necessary amino acids and trace minerals to humans that are not available from a solely plant-based diet. Milk and dairy products also play a crucial role in diets, especially among young children.

Rather than continue to push a politically unpopular approach, since most people enjoy eating red meat--a May 2021 Ipsos poll found that 89 percent of Americans include meat in their diets--groups pushing an aggressive path toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions should work with agricultural organizations and researchers to find and adopt ways to reducing the emissions footprint of the livestock sector.

One key factor to keep in mind is that while the annual GHG footprint of beef produced from the average cow in the world is 300 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per kg of animal protein, that figure falls considerably when one looks at the footprint of beef cattle raised in developed countries such as the United States, because of superior genetics and better feeding practices. A Florida cattle rancher that I work with at the Farm Journal Foundation, Renee Strickland, also exports live animals such as cows, goats, and sheep to developing countries. In a recent conversation, she described exporting dairy cows to a farmer in Pakistan, who will replace his native breed cows with higher productivity U.S. cows, increasing his per cow daily milk yield by two-thirds. In 2020, the United States exported $290 million worth of live animals to developing countries other than Mexico, where animals were likely intended for direct slaughter rather than used for breeding purposes. The U.S. also exported $162 million worth of bovine semen to developing countries in that year.

In developed countries, farmers with ruminant animals can also reduce their operation’s GHG footprint by shifting their animals’ diets away from grain toward more use of forage and grazing, especially if that forage is grown through use of perennial grasses or cover cropping. Both of these practices help to sequester additional carbon in the soil, as does expanded use of rotational grazing practices. A recent study published in the Canadian Journal of Animal Science found that cattle with low forage to grain feed consumption produced 42 percent more methane than did animals fed a higher forage to grain ratio.

There has also been considerable research undertaken to find ways to reduce methane emissions from ruminants through use of feed additives. As described in the policy brief I co-authored with Dr. John Reilly in May 2021, one recent discovery has found that under experimental conditions, particular types of seaweed added in relatively small amounts to the livestock diet can almost completely eliminate methane emissions without negatively
affecting livestock digestion. Efforts to breed animals whose gastrointestinal systems digest feed more efficiently and thus emit less methane is also underway at various universities around the world including in Denmark, Australia, Israel, Finland, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

Pursuing a more offbeat approach, it was reported this month that scientists in Germany had been successful in training a small group of calves to defecate and urinate in a single location, which allows easier collection and neutralization of the ammonium contained in those waste products.

In order to tackle a problem of this magnitude, the U.S. government needs to invest more resources into these areas of research, and also to help research systems in developing countries to do more to improve the genetics and thus productivity of its ruminant livestock herds. As Dr. Frank Mitloehner, professor of animal science at the University of California-Davis has said, “it takes about 15 to 20 cows in India to produce the same amount of milk as one cow in the United States.” Even small improvements in productivity in a national herd of that size can have enormous implications for GHG emissions from livestock. Passage of the Build Back Better Act, which in the House version includes $7.75 billion to fund agricultural research into climate change issues, would be a massive step in the right direction for this effort

Farmers in particular and agriculture in general have to figure out a way to balance the need to mitigate climate change and produce enough food to feed a global population that is expected to approach 10 billion people by the year 2050, while making enough profit to stay in business.

Study: Montana's Average Temperature Continues to Increase

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:48:58 GMT

Montana’s average temperature continues to increase, leading the fire and growing seasons to last longer and causing drought conditions to increase in frequency and duration, a new report said.

The Montana Climate Assessment , carried out by the Montana University System’s Institute on Ecosystem, suggests Montana may need to start storing more water and farmers and ranchers may need to switch to more drought-tolerant crops or grazing grasses.

“So much of our ranging production is irrigation and timing, so the snowpack and these different variables will help us start to make more insightful decisions for our ranchers moving forward,” said Errol Rice, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association.

The two-year study, released Wednesday, looked at past climate data and the impact on the state’s water, forests and agriculture.

The assessment is meant to help Montanans “plan, make wise decisions and become more resilient,” Montana State University Professor Cathy Whitlock said Wednesday.

The authors plan to travel the state over the next year to discuss the findings.

Between 1950 and 2015, Montana saw an average 2 to 3 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, said Kelsey Jensco, state climatologist. “That’s double what the United States as a whole has seen.” The study suggests future temperature changes will be larger in magnitude and occur more rapidly.

The study found no significant trends in annual precipitation, but winter snowpack has decreased while spring rains have increased. That could be due to the natural variability of climate.

The Montana Climate Assessment projects precipitation will increase for all regions of the state in the fall, winter and spring and decrease in the summer. That coupled with the warming trend will lead to longer and deeper droughts and an increase in the size, frequency and severity of forest fires, the study said.

Lola Raska, executive vice president of the Montana Grain Growers Association, said the information will help drive research efforts in creating crop varieties that can thrive in a warmer climate.

The authors plan to expand their work in the future to address the effects of Montana’s climate on tourism and recreation, fish and wildlife, human health and energy development.

Thousands of Texas Cattle May Have Died in Wake of Harvey

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:20:58 GMT

This story has been updated to include details about the Texas cattle industry, and a quote from state agriculture commissioner.

Texas agricultural officials fear thousands of cattle may have died in the aftermath of Harvey, resulting in losses to ranchers of tens of millions of dollars.

The counties that sustained damage when Harvey first came ashore Aug. 25 were home to 1.2 million head of cattle, representing 1-in-4 of all beef cows in Texas, the nation’s largest producer.

Sales of beef cattle and calves in the state averaged $10.7 billion annually between 2011 and 2014, according to the Texas A&M Agri-Life Extension Service and Agri-Life Research.

Most ranchers don’t insure their herds because of the cost, so a rancher could be out hundreds of thousands of dollars if an entire herd drowned, the Houston Chronicle reported . The Oklahoma National Stockyards, branded as one of the world’s largest stocker and feeder cattle markets, sold beef cows for an average of $1,500 in May.

Officials are still in the process of tallying the damages.

“We’re finding cattle in waist-deep water,” said Sid Miller, Texas Agriculture commissioner. “But when we try to drive them to dry ground, many of them just collapse they’re so exhausted.”

Cattle standing in water will have weakened skin and hooves that are susceptible to infection, said Dr. Dan Posey, a veterinarian and clinical professor at Texas A&M. Prolonged standing, lack of food and lack of drinkable water could make the cattle susceptible to respiratory disease, he said.

“Not all of them will recover even though they were rescued,” Posey said.

Texas A&M economists estimated that Hurricane Ike in 2008 caused about $13.3 million in cattle losses, with an additional $23.3 million in damages to fences, hay and other farm equipment.

Harvey may be more costly because it affected a larger area, said David Anderson, an A&M professor and agriculture economist.

However, Anderson said he doesn’t expect the losses to affect meat prices, because the number of cattle lost in Harvey won’t be enough to impact the national beef market, which is expected to yield a record amount next year.

The beef cows in the coastal regions are mostly raised for breeding, so their loss won’t be immediately felt by meat packers. Coastal region calves are sent to Texas Panhandle feedlots where they grow to full size before going to slaughterhouses.

Oklahoma State Receives USDA Grant to Tackle Cattle Climate Adaptability

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:00:27 GMT

Oklahoma State University has been awarded a $1 million grant through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture to provide some of the first climate adaptation tools for beef producers in the form of water management resources.

“The ultimate goal is to develop beef cattle and production systems that are more readily adaptable to the negative effects of drought,” said Megan Rolf, an animal scientist with OSU’s Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources who is the project’s principal investigator.

One of the primary emphases of the project is the development of a water management resources tool, working in conjunction with the Oklahoma Mesonet.

“Oklahoma beef producers already have access to a ‘cattle comfort index’ through the Mesonet system,” Rolf said. “This allows them to fine-tune operational management decisions related to animal well-being, and to essentially do so in real time, as well as forecast possible future concerns.”

Rolf said a major short-term objective is to expand the “cattle comfort index” so the information provided is usable by beef producers no matter where they reside in the nation. Longer term, the project scientists will focus on the use of genetic selection tools to increase the adaptability of beef cattle to climate variability.

“Given the world’s ever-increasing population, it is more important than ever to develop and promote beef production systems that are economically sustainable for both producers and consumers while also fostering environmental stewardship,” said Clint Krehbiel, co-principal investigator and research coordinator for the OSU Department of Animal Science.

The $1 million project is the first of its kind, focusing on the measurement of water intake efficiency at the same time researchers are measuring feed efficiency on a large scale.

“Improved management tools are vital to allow beef producers to better manage operational risk and existing natural resources,” Rolf said. “An important aspect of this study is how scientists are taking research results and tying them directly into decision-support tools that producers can use.”

More than half of agricultural cash receipts in Oklahoma are from cattle and calves, according to National Agricultural Statistics Service data.

“Oklahoma is the nation’s fifth-leading cattle-producing state and is one of the southern Great Plains states suffering through historic drought in recent years, underscoring the importance of research that enhances beef cattle production,” Krehbiel said. “Improving the quality of life for beef producers can have a significant positive effect on them and their families, and by extension the communities in which they live.”

NIFA made the award through its Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) funding opportunity in the Climate Variability and Change challenge area. NIFA’s climate work is focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing carbon sequestration in agricultural and forest production systems and preparing the nation’s agriculture and forests to adapt to changing climates.

AFRI is NIFA’s flagship competitive grant program established under the 2008 Farm Bill and supports work in six priority areas: plant health and production and plant products; animal health and production and animal products; food safety, nutrition and health; renewable energy, natural resources and environment; agriculture systems and technology; and agriculture economics and rural communities.

Source: Oklahoma State University

Potential Impact of Climate Change on Rangeland Plants

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:00:27 GMT

USDA research looks at how global warming will affect native grassland.
By: Ann Perry, U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists and their colleagues have conducted research showing the potential response of rangeland plants in arid regions of the United States to the conditions that will occur with climate change, according to a paper published today in Nature.

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) biological technician Melissa Reyes-Fox and Fort Lewis College assistant professor Heidi Steltzer were the lead co-authors on the paper. ARS is USDA’s chief intramural scientific research agency, and the research supports the USDA priority of responding to climate change.

“Agricultural producers want to know how global climate change is affecting their production and management practices,” said ARS Administrator Chavonda Jacobs-Young. “This work is one example of how ARS scientists are helping producers meet climate change challenges and continue the cost-effective and environmentally sustainable production of food and feed.”

In a 5-year investigation, the researchers assessed the effects of increased temperatures and carbon dioxide levels on plants growing in a native mixed-grass prairie. For their study, they used a field system called Free-Air CO2 Enrichment to elevate current levels of carbon dioxide to 600 parts per million, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is expected in the latter half of this century. Outdoor heaters in the fields kept air temperatures at current levels and at day and night temperatures that were 2.7 and 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than ambient temperatures.

The scientists tracked leaf emergence, flower production, seed maturation, and canopy senescence in four grasses, a shrub, and a forb common to northern mixed-grass prairie plant communities. The resulting yearly data trends indicated that the plants responded to warmer temperatures with earlier leaf emergence and flowering. Some species also responded with earlier seed maturation and canopy senescence. On average, the growing season for plant communities exposed to higher temperatures began five days earlier and lasted six days longer.

However, when plants were exposed to a combination of warmer temperatures and elevated carbon dioxide levels, the growing season began seven days earlier and lasted 14 days longer. The researchers believe that elevated carbon dioxide levels prompt greater water conservation in some of the grassland plants, which in turn delayed early plant senescence and death.

A plant community gets a jump-start on its growing season when the first species leafs out earlier in the spring, and the growing season continues until the last species enters senescence in the fall. So while warming temperatures can increase the length of the growing season in some grasslands communities by promoting earlier spring growth, elevated carbon dioxide levels can help plants conserve water and delay fall senescence.

Other ARS scientists in Fort Collins who contributed to the study included agronomist Gregory McMaster, who works in the Agricultural Systems Research Unit; plant physiologist Dan Lecain and ecologist Dana Blumenthal, who work in the Rangeland Resources Research Unit; and retired plant physiologist Jack Morgan. Colorado State University professors M.J. Trlica (retired) and Allan Andales also contributed to the research.