Growing Returns

By Suzy Friedman

Thanks to GPS and the Internet, many farmers have been collecting data about their farms – water usage, inputs, crop yields – for over 20 years. Only in recent years has the term “big data” taken on a new meaning, given the plethora of new tools and technologies available today to help farmers collect and analyze data on all aspects of their farm operations.

This week also marks the launch of the first-ever Big Data Roundtable Series, an annual event that brings together experts from across the agricultural arena to discuss how major retailers can leverage data to improve business sustainability, and how growers can utilize measurement tools and analyze data to use fertilizer more efficiently and save on input costs.

Here, I ask Kristin Weeks Duncanson, a crop and livestock operator and member of the AGree advisory committee, to explain the value of collecting data for farm operations and the environment and why many farmers are still hesitant to collect data.

What are the benefits of measuring farm practices with the technologies available today?

There are four major benefits for farmers who embrace the use of data tools:

1. Measurement data can help farmers better manage their operations – the more information they have, the more they can make decisions that are tailored to their farm’s specific needs.
2. The information obtained can help farmers identify efficiencies that lead to higher productivity and profitability, lower input costs, and optimized fertilizer use.
3. The more a farmer knows about his or her farm, the better their opportunities to strengthen supply chain relationships. Data help farmers eliminate volatility and risk which is beneficial not just to the grower but also to the supplier – so the supplier is more apt to work with that farmer on a long-term basis. At the same time, the data allows the producer to work with the supply chain to help companies and retailers increase the transparency of their ingredients.
4. Data collection allows for farmers to approach conservation at a landscape-scale, versus at the farm or even the county level. The more information growers have, the better the opportunities to work together with others at a watershed-scale to make informed decisions about conservation priorities.

What does big data and measurement have to do with sustainability?

While the vast majority of farmers and ranchers have done great work maintaining or increasing soil health using conservation practices alone, measurement tools will be instrumental for ensuring a sustainable farming future. In order to maintain yields and meet the food demands of a growing population while also protecting natural resources, we will need to make additional changes – and data tools can help us determine what these changes should be.

For example, we need to measure not just bushels or pounds grown but also what happened to the soil, water and air to get that production level. For example, high levels of organic matter in the soil often lead to better yields, and fertilizer optimization can improve water quality.

What kinds of data management tools are available to farmers?

Recently, one of our suppliers came to our farm offering a data measurement tool that records hundreds of data points at a premium cost, and the results can be integrated into our financial records. I think the supplier could tell by the look on my face that I was overwhelmed by how we could use and analyze that amount of information. There are only so many days in the year and so much money in the budget, but I am so excited by the limitless possibilities to analyze farm operations and improve the health of our environment.

There isn’t a week that goes by that we don’t have a new measurement or data collection tool at our disposal. Data tools are being developed at astonishing rates – and this is a great thing. These new tools provide us with a good opportunity to take a step back and examine what sustainable farming goals we want to achieve.

What are the barriers to embracing the use of measurement tools?

The number of tools and technologies available is overwhelming – this can be daunting for farmers interested in measuring farm practices. What’s really important is for growers to think about what they want to accomplish when making choices about tools and technologies. Measurements can certainly add to productivity and efficiency, but growers need to think critically through which tools can help them achieve particular outcomes. Then, tools and measurements can be matched to help meet environmental and business outcomes.

By Maggie Monast

At first, the idea that fertilizer companies should help farmers become more efficient with fertilizer use is counterintuitive. After all, fertilizer retailers are in business to make money, so it makes sense that they would want to maximize sales of their core product.

Fortunately, using fertilizer more efficiently – even if this means less in some cases — can create more profit for retailers and growers. Fertilizer retailers have good reasons to incorporate fertilizer efficiency in their business strategies.

• Customer retention: If customers save money, they usually return again and again. Fertilizer efficiency saves farmers money by helping them apply a more accurate amount of nutrients needed by their crops. Retailers will gain loyal customers.
• Value-added products and services: Some products that help farmers increase fertilizer efficiency also provide new business opportunities for retailers. By widening their sales offerings, retailers can continue to make a profit while reducing fertilizer lost to the environment.
• Meeting supply chain demand: Fertilizer retailers must recognize that their customers increasingly will request products and services to improve fertilizer efficiency. That's because growers are being asked by major food retailers and companies for sustainably-grown grain.

Sustainability is no longer a niche issue. It is becoming an integral part of any successful business.

Despite those benefits, a recent study in the Journal of Environmental Quality documents that farmers who get their information from fertilizer retailers are less likely to use nitrogen efficiency tests and products, such as nitrogen soil testing, plant tissue testing, and nitrogen transformation inhibitors – each of which can help decrease nutrient losses from crops and improve water quality and climate stability.

Another survey found that 82 percent of farmers in Iowa would turn to a fertilizer dealer first for information on fertilizer application rates. Clearly, retailers have influence.

Retailers changing course

Some fertilizer retailers are ready to change course when it comes to promoting nitrogen efficiency practices and products.

Industry predictions for 2015 include two encouraging trends:

• The use of precision agriculture will soar.
• There will be wider adoption of the 4R principles of nutrient stewardship (the Right fertilizer source, at the Right rate, at the Right time, and in the Right place).

Sustainability is no longer a niche issue. It is becoming an integral part of any successful business.

Leading the way

An outstanding example of innovation is United Suppliers’ SUSTAIN program. United Suppliers is a cooperative of locally-controlled ag retailers. Its SUSTAIN program is training the company’s owner-retailers on best practices and precision agriculture technologies that improve nutrient use efficiency and soil health, all while keeping growers productive.

In turn, farmers are using the SUSTAIN toolkit to guide their fertilizer decisions.

As other fertilizer retailers follow the example of United Suppliers and SUSTAIN, they will reap the business benefits of sustainability – and so will their farmer clients and the environment.

By Eileen McLellan

Wacky weather isn’t just a fluke. According to the National Climate Assessment (NCA), extreme weather events are becoming more common and are likely to increase in the future, which poses challenges for farmers and communities.

Traditional ways of responding to weather crises, such as building higher flood walls and digging deeper wells are expensive and often fail.

The good news is that farmers are increasingly turning to more natural solutions and practices, often referred to as “green infrastructure,” that use nature to reduce the impacts of both floods and droughts.

Green infrastructure is also needed to reduce fertilizer pollution and restore the Gulf of Mexico dead zone to safe levels, as a new study published today in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) reports.

Benefits of green infrastructure

Green infrastructure helps keep water on the landscape, both preventing it from rushing downstream to create a flood and keeping it available on the farm (or in underground reservoirs known as aquifers) to support agricultural production and downstream drinking water supplies in case of drought.

Practices at the field-level include:

• Conservation tillage, which prevents soil erosion and helps keep water on the farm to reduce floods and cope with drought. Estimates are that reduced tillage increases water infiltration by 30-45% – a huge saving for farmers with irrigated cropland.
• Cover crops, whose deep root systems help expand the soil’s capacity to store water, and their leaves help move water from the soil to the atmosphere, so they can reduce the impacts of floods and droughts.

Storage wetlands

At the landscape scale, structural practices improve water management not only for individual farmers but also for downstream communities. These practices include wetlands and stream channel restoration, drainage ditch enhancements, and floodplain reconnection.

• Wetlands are especially important as they both recharge groundwater supplies and store excess rainfall. In Indiana, a team of researchers has quantified the value of storage wetlands, and found that creating wetlands on 1.5% of the landscape can reduce flood peaks by 29%.

Economic incentives

There is also increasing interest in paying farmers to invest in these kinds of practices. For example, the government of Alberta province in Canada has established a Watershed Resiliency and Restoration Program to pay farmers to implement green infrastructure practices.

Wacky weather isn’t going away, but by embracing natural solutions, farmers can protect themselves against a changing climate.

By Eric Holst

Earlier this month, the USDA authorized nearly $400 million in federal funds through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) to improve soil quality, water quality and quantity, and wildlife habitat.

The program funded 115 initiatives covering a wide range of conservation benefits, from improving wildlife conservation efforts in California’s ricelands to reducing fertilizer runoff in the Mississippi River Basin.

These projects demonstrate that by prioritizing spending of conservation dollars on projects where large numbers of farmers are committed to cooperative conservation, we can avoid the need for costly regulatory programs.

Helping farmers helps everyone

“We’re giving private companies, local communities and other non-government partners a way to invest in a new era in conservation that ultimately benefits us all.” – USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack said that the program will support rural economies, paying contractors and small businesses to do the hands-on work. With heavy attention paid to the interest and willingness of farmers in key regions, I am excited to see the results of these local investments.

Here are two examples of local projects with big potential to help wildlife, people and the economy:

1) Protecting valuable wildlife in California’s Central Valley

The California Rice Commission is the lead partner on a project that will allocate $7 million in voluntary waterbird conservation projects in the Sacramento Valley.

A black-necked stilt nests in a California rice farm

California ricelands provide habitat to nearly 230 wildlife species – millions of birds that fly along the Pacific Flyway. The value of winter waterfowl habitat in California Rice is estimated at $2 billion.

Large numbers of rice growers have indicated willingness to enhance waterbird habitat, but cost is a limiting factor. The chance to match willing rice growers with federal funds that will unlock more habitat for birds is an opportunity that we can’t afford to pass up. I am pleased that NRCS has prioritized California’s piece of the Pacific Flyway for this level of investment and can’t wait to see these cost-effective habitat projects on the ground soon.

When combined with complementary wildlife conservation projects like the Central Valley Habitat Exchange, Sacramento Valley famers will be delivering significant conservation that will not only help wildlife, but also the local community and economy.

2) Reducing phosphorus in the Western Lake Erie Basin

The Tri-State Western Lake Erie Basin Phosphorus Reduction Initiative will receive $17.5 million in funding to help farmers implement conservation practices that reduce phosphorus runoff, which contributes to algal blooms like the one that shut down Toledo’s water supply in August.

The funds will help identify high-priority sub-watersheds for phosphorus reduction and increase farmer access to resources and technical assistance to implement conservation practices to ensure and preserve water quality.

Farmers in the Western Lake Erie Basin are already playing a key role in protecting waterways and drinking water by voluntarily conducting research on their fields to better understand how to achieve greater efficiencies in nutrient management. Additional funding for this type of proactive approach is exactly what’s needed to assure reliable water supplies in the future.

More funding to come

Funding for these projects was authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill at a level of $1.2 over five years, so there is more to come.

With close to 500 grant proposals unfunded in this round of spending, USDA is now looking to help strengthen applications for future rounds of funding, which will be announced later this year.

I am encouraged by the initial grants and look forward to seeing more funding flow to farmers investing in quality conservation.

By Karen Chapman

No-till expert Barry Fisher. Credit: NRCS

Everyone agrees that no-till farming should be used in conjunction with other practices to maximize soil health – but in reality, “no-till” means different things to different people across the agricultural world.

To clarify what exactly is involved in no-till farming, a key topic of discussion at this week’s Soil Health Partnership (SHP) summit in St. Louis, I asked one of Indiana's leading tillage experts, Barry Fisher, an agronomist and soil health specialist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

How do you define no-till farming?

NRCS defines no-till farming as limiting soil disturbance to manage the amount and distribution of crop and plant residue on the soil surface year round. In other words, no-till is just planting directly into the previous year’s crop residues, without any tillage having occurred. But this is just for any given year – and we’re trying to focus on quality no-till systems that take multiple years into account, since no-till farming works best if it is implemented on a continuous basis and combined with other conservation practices such as cover crops and nutrient management.

What practices do you consider "no-till"?

True no-till means you don’t till the soil at all, even between crops. Strip tillage – where soil disturbance occurs on 30 percent or less of the field – also qualifies as no-till. However, most farmers in the Midwest practice rotational tillage, which involves tilling every other year and alternating between a no-till soybean and a tilled corn system. This is what separates quality no-till from the common term “conservation tillage,” which may involve more disturbance to the soil surface.

Credit: NRCS

What are the benefits of no-till?

By leaving the surface covered with the previous crop’s residues, you can reduce erosion and runoff, protect your field from rain impacts and extreme summer temperatures, maintain or increase soil quality and organic matter content, and reduce energy use.

Increased organic matter is especially important, since for every 1 percent of organic matter you can build into the topsoil, you build a bank account of about 1,000 pounds of nitrogen and 100 pounds of phosphorous in the soil’s reserve, per acre. This means that nutrient-use efficiency is improved and, since the soil becomes nutrient-rich, less fertilizer may be required based on adaptive management measures.

No-till also means that your soil starts to act as a sponge instead of a deflector of water; this in turn increases the resiliency and productivity of the soil. Healthy soils also have greater water holding capacity, so they can store more water longer into the season and help to replenish aquifers.

Input costs are also lowered with no-till, since the equipment requires less horsepower. There is also a time-saving benefit since tilling requires multiple passes across a field, whereas with no-till, you can plant your crop with just one trip across the field.

What are the barriers to adopting no-till across the Midwest?

The reasons farmers have yet to broadly adopt true no-till systems are varied. For example, farmers have a long-standing tradition of tilling the soil. Transitioning to no-till is seen as a risk since equipment modifications are required. And they often receive mixed messages about the economic benefits.

These farmers’ experiences point to a critical fact that no-till by itself may not be enough to ensure success, but by incorporating adaptive nutrient management techniques and cover crops to the system, the cropping system is jump-started, soil health improves, and the economic benefits come much sooner.

How are you working to get more farmers on board with no-till?

It’s hard to fully understand the benefits of no-till until you’ve been down into a soil pit and seen the results first-hand.

Fortunately, the farmers who have embraced no-till are tremendous advocates for this system. Many farmers using no-till practices are helping train NRCS employees and other conservation professionals here in Indiana on the practice, and speaking at conferences to talk about the benefits they’ve experienced. Indiana’s Conservation Cropping Systems Initiative (CCSI) website also has information on upcoming workshops to help farmers get started.

By David Festa

We need fertilizers to maintain and increase farm productivity and feed a rapidly growing population, yet 50 percent of the nitrogen fertilizer applied to crops is lost to our waterways or into the air.

That’s not good – not for the grower, nor  for the environment.

I’m optimistic that nutrient losses will soon be trending downward while productivity climbs. Here are four reasons why:

1. California’s proposed crop-based carbon protocol will set a strong precedent.

The California Air Resources Board is considering a crop-based carbon offset protocol that will let American rice growers earn additional revenue for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cultivation.

If the protocol is approved this year, the door will be open for the state’s clean air agency to develop and approve a similar protocol that awards carbon credits for fertilizer optimization. This would give farmers and ranchers additional incentives to use fertilizer more efficiently and drive serious improvements in water quality along with emission reductions.

2. Walmart and food companies are creating demand for sustainably grown grains.

As part of Walmart’s commitment to cutting 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from its supply chain, the company asked its top food suppliers to create fertilizer efficiency plans for their own supply chains.

The 15 companies that responded represent 30 percent of the food and beverage market in North America.

Several of these food companies, such as Smithfield and General Mills, approached Environmental Defense Fund to help them create or implement these efficiency plans and meet Walmart’s demand.

And with Walmart leading the charge for nutrient-efficient grains, look for additional food companies and retailers to get on board with fertilizer optimization.

3. New technologies are helping farmers optimize fertilizer use.

Fertilizer optimization tools are being introduced to the market at a staggering pace. Already, platforms such as SUSTAIN, a fertilizer efficiency and soil health platform run by United Suppliers, and Adapt-N, a breakthrough nitrogen use efficiency tool, are being used by General Mills and others to increase fertilizer efficiency.

This year, we’ll also work with our supply chain collaborators to promote the NutrientStar program, a robust scientific review process that EDF and a team of experts are developing to evaluate these and other tools. The process will make it easier for farmers and agribusiness to select the most effective and appropriate mechanisms to optimize their fertilizer use. It will also help food companies prioritize good tools in their sustainable sourcing plans.

4. Farmers have an incentive to reduce fertilizer costs.

Fertilizers are often applied to crops as a kind of insurance policy to protect yields – if some fertilizer washes away, the goal is to have enough remaining on the field to help sustain optimal crop production.

Yet this can result in unnecessary fertilizer application – and in high costs for farmers, who spend up to 25 percent of their operating costs on fertilizer. Fortunately, the new tools in development can potentially lower farmers’ operating costs while still maintaining high yields – another powerful economic incentive for farmers to optimize their fertilizer use.

By Ann Hayden

Credit: Paulo Vescia

It’s not always easy to incentivize private landowners to voluntarily implement water efficiency and conservation measures, particularly when there’s a drought. When drought hits, farmers desperately need water to grow thirsty crops and remain profitable. In the near term, it’s a lot easier, as “60 Minutes” recently reported, to keep drilling deeper and deeper to access quickly dwindling groundwater – at any cost.

As the "60 Minutes" story notes, groundwater is like a savings account that should primarily be used in times of need to supplement surface water supplies. With the most severe drought ever on record and surface water supplies at an all-time low, farmers all across California are pumping groundwater in record amounts – putting the state in serious risk of widespread groundwater overdraft.

That’s why the case of Full Belly Farm, a 400-acre, 30-year old certified organic farm located in Northern California – and recent winner of the prestigious Leopold Conservation Award – is especially impressive.

Credit: Full Belly Farm

Halting depletion

The growers at Full Belly Farm are maximizing soil health and making sure nutrients are replenished through compost application – which allows the soil to retain more water and have better seepage. This in turn leads to better groundwater replenishment and prevention of aquifer depletion.

Maximizing soil health

While the average soil organic matter in California’s Central Valley is 0.7 percent, Full Belly’s soils have an average of 3 percent soil organic matter. This can be attributed to rotating crops, using cover crops during the off season, and applying compost, all of which contribute to healthy soils.

Cover crops not only can help increase famers’ yield, but they also reduce soil erosion, increase organic matter in the soil, and prevent nutrient loss by holding on to nitrogen and phosphorous that might otherwise run off into our waterways.

During the growing season, water efficiency also plays a key role – 90 percent of the farm’s crops are watered using drip irrigation, and many use buried drip systems that lose less water to evaporation than traditional systems.

Voluntary measures

Credit: Full Belly Farm

But that’s not the only way Full Belly is a conservation leader. Here’s what else they’re doing:

• Planting habitat to benefit local wildlife and insects, which help pollinate crops
• Selling produce within 120 miles of the farm to limit GHG emissions caused by food transport
• Hosting an annual festival to create awareness about sustainable food production and ethical farm labor
• Implementing a seasonal rotation of crops, herbs and grains to maximize crop diversity

As the growers at Full Belly note, the diversity of crops grown on the farm’s more than 50 independently managed fields contribute to the farm’s economic and ecological resilience in the face of climate change.

Leading the way

Full Belly Farm is demonstrating that voluntary conservation by private landowners is one of the most effective and efficient ways of stewarding and protecting our state’s land, water and wildlife.

As the drought continues in California, other private landowners – big and small – can and should consider implementing similar water efficiency and soil health measures to ensure better reliability of our precious water resources.

By Eileen McLellan

At last week’s State Ag and Rural Leaders’ summit in Florida, legislators from across the U.S. discussed sustainability initiatives in the food supply chain. The conversations and presentations were informative for all – but what was missing from the conference was discussion about the role the private sector can play in supporting public sustainability initiatives.

State programs to support farmers

State programs can go a long way towards supporting farmers’ conservation efforts without economic downsides (and potentially increased revenues). 

For example:

• In Michigan, farmers can earn certification for sustainable farming through the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program, allowing them to promote the use of the green label to consumers, thereby increasing market appeal.
• In Maryland, a market-based nutrient trading program provides funding for growers to install conservation measures on their farms.
• In Minnesota, under the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program producers that meet a certain standard of sustainability are protected from regulatory enforcement and gain positive recognition.

Yet few states have such programs, often because they lack the tools and expertise to evaluate which growers and farms are actually operating sustainably.

So, how can we enable more states to offer sustainable farming initiatives such as these? How can we make it easier for them to determine which farms are actually implementing practices that reduce their environmental footprint?

Private ag sustainability efforts

Private sector efforts focused on measurement, such as Field to Market, are developing goals for sustainability and quantifying farmers’ progress towards these goals. These efforts help farmers measure the environmental improvements their sustainable farming methods are achieving so they can meet growing demands from food companies and retailers such as Walmart, which is calling for more nutrient-efficient grains in the products they sell.

But these programs could also help states identify the highest-performing farms, and give those farms priority access to state funding and technical assistance. This could provide real incentive for farmers to implement sustainable farming practices.

Private sector and states need to talk

While the public sector is helping incentivize and support farmers’ sustainability efforts, there is little connection with private sector initiatives which are collecting performance data that would be invaluable.

In order to bring agricultural sustainability to scale, this needs to change. The gap in state sustainability and private sector initiatives is large – but not impossible to resolve.

The first step is to bring all the key stakeholders to the table, and get the discussion going.

By Aaron Citron

Pat O'Toole (second from left) and his family at Ladder Ranch.

Pat O’Toole is a rancher and farmer at Ladder Livestock, a sixth-generation family operation on the Little Snake River along the Wyoming-Colorado border. A leader in collaborative conservation, Pat is engaged in a number of innovative land and water conservation efforts in his capacity as president of the Family Farm Alliance and a member of the AGree advisory board.

This past September, Pat co-authored an AGree paper with Dan Keppen, Executive Director of Family Farm Alliance. The paper – Securing the Future of Western Agriculture: A Perspective of Western Producers – addresses some broad challenges facing the global food and agriculture system. Namely, the need to meet future demands for food while simultaneously enhancing water, soil and other natural resources.

I recently had the opportunity to visit Pat’s ranch to get a sense of these challenges that he and other Western producers face, and to learn more about what Pat is doing to overcome these challenges on his ranch. I asked him to give us a recap of our discussion and to tell us more about his vision for the future.

What do you consider to be some of the biggest challenges facing Western producers?

Today we are facing some critical food supply issues, and agriculture is expected to not only produce food to feed the nation, but also to expand their conservation practices.

As the West’s population has grown, issues like water security have become increasingly important – and polarized. But by working with groups like Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy and Trout Unlimited, we are finding that we have a lot more in common than not. It’s within this common ground that we are coming up with some really interesting and innovative solutions to tackle these problems.

What are some specific challenges you face on your ranch?

Every farm and every farmer has a different individual experience based on their land. My family has lived and thrived off of this land for six generations, but today we are trying to figure out how to survive moving into the future. We keep hearing that we need to improve water quality, water quantity and endangered species habitat, but we can’t do it alone. Agriculture can’t be expected to bear all the burdens of a growing population and constrained natural resources.

Take water for example – if farmers fallow great swaths of farmland so that water can be transferred to meet other demands, this would have grave implications for our country’s ability to produce enough food for everyone. Instead, we need to take a close look at our irrigation practices to see which ones are appropriate in a particular landscape and can work for farmers and for the environment. On my ranch, we’ve tried delivering water to crops through flood irrigation at the right times and quantities to simultaneously recharge rivers and wetlands at critical times for wildlife. We’ve had some promising results.

What does collaborative conservation mean to you?

I have found from my experience working with various partners through AGree that it’s all about respect. Finger pointing is discouraging to us farmers. We can’t blame our environmental problems on farmers. We have to work together and accept each other’s expertise.

Pat and his family have been working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners Program for a number of years on a project to help fish and improve irrigation on Battle Creek. The project includes a number of structures that enhance habitat for fish, especially Colorado Cutthroat Trout, and provide improved flood irrigation for native hay meadows. This, in turn, benefits the wetlands that support bird populations.
See more photos on the Ladder Ranch blog.

It’s when people sit down and put their heads together – being cognizant of the farmer’s burden to balance food production and environmental health – that I find we come up with some really intelligent solutions. We just have to keep sharing our experiences and learning from one another.

What is your vision or hope for the future?

My hope is that Western producers have and will continue to have the water, materials and resources we need to protect human health and our environment. That is how I define sustainability.

Are you optimistic that we can achieve this?

I am generally optimistic because I have seen that it can work. If you look in the Upper Rocky Mountains or in the Central Valley of California, you can find examples of farmers adjusting their irrigation practices to put more water in the river channel, helping protect habitat for fish and migratory birds. On my own ranch, I am experimenting with projects to improve stream flows and restore flood plains that will hopefully benefit my farm and the wildlife on it.

Wendell Berry said it best when he wrote, “You can’t save the land without the people; to save either, you have to save both.” With all the great minds I know working on this, I am hopeful that we can achieve it.

By Suzy Friedman

Regulations and lawsuits generate more tension, disagreement, division, and, too often, failure to communicate, than just about anything else in the agricultural world. Regulations are on my mind of late because of several developments:

• Ohio recently considered legislation to increase regulations on fertilizer applications after a toxic algae bloom last August shut down water supplies to nearly half a million people.
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the final stages of a proposal to resolve ongoing confusion about the extent of federal jurisdiction over isolated wetlands and streams under the Clean Water Act (CWA), clarifying which are protected and which are not, based on science. Sixty percent of our nation’s streams lack clear protection from pollution under the CWA, yet one of every three Americans gets their drinking water from streams that are vulnerable to pollution.  Just this week, new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell noted that Congress will address this proposal in the current legislative session.
• EPA is also in the news of late over how it will act to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in the Mississippi River Basin. Last month, the Fifth Circuit Court heard arguments in a case brought against the EPA for denying a 2008 petition to establish nutrient criteria and limits (total maximum daily load of nutrients) for the Gulf of Mexico. If the court rules in favor of the litigants, EPA will have to develop water quality standards for nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients for states that have not already done so.


Water quality crisis

The reality is that we have a water quality crisis on our hands. And despite the significant conservation improvements on the part of farmers, as well as a number of regulatory efforts, agriculture remains the largest contributor to water quality problems in the U.S.

But is further regulating the agricultural industry the only answer to reducing its impact on water quality? Is there a better way, a more viable alternative? If yes, what can compel us to make that alternative happen?

Making the business case for water quality

Instead of battling over regulations or pointing fingers, we at EDF want to focus on finding the ways that work – not just environmentally, but also economically and logistically. We need solutions that deliver benefits for water and climate and also make business sense for farmers and the agricultural sector over all.

That’s why we’re working with companies like Walmart, Smithfield/Murphy Brown, General Mills, and United Suppliers, which are all stepping forward to make fertilizer optimization and soil health in commodity agriculture a part of their business model.

But of course, changes to the supply chain can’t happen without the farmers we all rely on for food every day. We need the agricultural community to be full partners in developing and implementing practical solutions that can head off regulation. During my almost 15 years at EDF, I’ve had countless conversations and interactions with farmers and agricultural leaders, most of whom are fully on board to play this role.

Economic upsides of sustainable farming

We believe there is a solid business case for farmers to embrace sustainable management and to bring about water quality improvements without regulatory controversy. But we need to do a much better job laying out the economic upsides in order to scale up approaches to farm management that not only are sustainable today, but in a future of even greater productivity demands.

Here are some key benefits:

• Improved profitability and yields. Efficient fertilizer management and measures to improve soil productivity increase a farmer’s bottom line by ensuring that input costs are returning improved long-term yields.
• Increased confidence. Many sustainability tools are based on improved collection and interpretation of field data. Better information means growers can be more confident in the decisions they make.
• Increased market appeal. Retail and food companies are committing to sustainability goals and making sustainability demands on their suppliers. Embracing sustainable management will position growers at the forefront of this marketplace momentum.
• Improved reputation. Sustainable production offers growers and their advisors a way to document and communicate their effective and responsible management of the land, and their contributions to improved water quality, climate stability, soil conservation, and food security.
• New revenue streams. Sustainable management will create opportunities for farmers to participate in the carbon credit market through California’s cap-and-trade program, which will soon pay farmers in the United States for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.


Encouraging innovation

New tools that enable sustainable management enter the market on a regular basis. How can we further support these innovations that advance precision agriculture? And how can we find win-win, pragmatic solutions, instead of waiting until water quality problems are so severe that regulation is the only option? What else can we do to speed the road to scale for agricultural sustainability?

Our ears are open – so please share your ideas and thoughts with us.

By Eric Holst

The greater sage-grouse

You may have seen a strange looking bird causing quite a stir in the news recently. That’s because there’s a lot at stake with the greater sage-grouse, especially now that a rider in the federal spending bill prevents the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the species under the Endangered Species Act in 2015 (a decision was originally expected in September). But this delay isn’t stopping ranchers, conservationists and other key stakeholder from moving full speed ahead to find a solution.

You might not get this sense from the political dialog and the media, but out on the ground, there is a real spirit of cooperation when it comes to the greater sage-grouse. That’s because everyone realizes that – rider or no rider, listing or no listing – this bird needs help.

Greater sage-grouse once numbered in the millions, but in the past 30 years its population has shrunk 30 percent to no more than 500,000 birds, and it could be less than half that. We don’t have another year to sit back and watch populations decline further. Doing nothing will only increase the need for federal action in the future.

The best thing we can do is to use this time to build a conservation program that works – fast.

That’s exactly what state agencies, landowners, energy companies and conservation groups are trying to do through habitat exchanges, which will enable landowners such as ranchers and farmers to get paid for growing sage-grouse habitat.

“We are more determined than ever to work with the states, ranchers, energy developers and other stakeholders who are putting effective conservation measures in place with the shared goal of reaching a ‘not warranted’ determination.” — Interior Secretary Sally Jewell

Habitat exchanges are unique in that they’ve been designed to work whether or not a species is actually listed – providing incentives to get good conservation on the ground before any last minute Hail Mary federal protections are needed.

“Research has shown that society can better avoid significant costs with upfront actions, rather than reactive regulations,” said Terry Fankhauser, executive vice president of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association. “Everyone sees the opportunity; they realize that species like the greater sage-grouse can thrive as a managed component of a successful beef cattle ranch.”

Landowners can learn more about the Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Exchange here.

What landowners can do now

There is a number of voluntary conservation activities that landowners can choose from to participate in an exchange, all of which are conducive to agricultural practices like cattle ranching. These activities include:

• Controlling the expansion of pinyon-juniper trees into sagebrush habitats;
• Permanently protecting the best sagebrush habitats from development;
• Restoring sagebrush on degraded lands;
• Managing livestock grazing to improve habitat;
• Controlling the expansion of invasive plants that degrade habitat.

The sooner landowners can engage in activities like this, the sooner we will see sage-grouse populations grow and the better prepared we will be when the Fish and Wildlife Service makes a final determination.

We should all want to see populations grow so that a listing is not necessary. But crossing our fingers and hoping for the best is not a winning strategy. We must nurture the productive partnerships that have already been developed in sage-grouse country to promote solutions like habitat exchanges that benefit everyone: the oilman, the cattle rancher and the sage-grouse.

2014 was a milestone year for sustainable agriculture across the United States and around the world. In the U.S., we saw food companies and agribusiness like United Suppliers step up to the plate to meet Walmart’s new demand for sustainable grains, and EDF’s launch of the new Sustainable Sourcing Initiative. We also saw the launch of the United Nations’ Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture, which aims to enable 500 million farmers worldwide to practice sustainable farming.

On the Colorado River, countless stakeholders including U.S. and Mexican policymakers, conservation organizations and farmers came together to orchestrate and witness the Colorado River Delta pulse flow – the temporary release of water across the United States-Mexico border that brought relief and restoration to the dry, empty river delta ecosystem – an historic accomplishment for people and the environment.

EDF and partners also laid the framework for pilot habitat exchanges to take place in 2015 that will protect species such as the greater sage-grouse. And, for the first time, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) considered a land-based carbon offset protocol that will allow U.S. rice growers to earn additional revenue for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cultivation.

So what lies ahead for 2015? And what remains to be done?

We asked some of our Growing Returns expert bloggers to share their hopes, dreams, visions, and goals.

Reducing ag’s GHG footprint

From Robert Parkhurst, EDF director of Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Markets:

• My vision of success for 2015 would be to see rice growers from California and Arkansas generate 15,000 tons of offsets for the California cap-and-trade market. These will be the first greenhouse gas offsets generated by farmers, ever.
• Along these lines, I look forward to seeing the ARB begin development of a nutrient management protocol which applies to rice, almonds and corn, and unlocks the potential development of millions of tons of greenhouse gas reductions. I also expect to see more than 500,000 acres of U.S. farmland generate voluntary offsets from the American Carbon Registry’s fertilizer management protocol.

Improving fertilizer efficiency and water quality

From Suzy Friedman, EDF director of Agricultural Sustainability:

• I look forward to seeing the launch and rollout of United Suppliers’ SUSTAIN platform not only draw significant interest and enrollment from ag retailers and their growers, but also generate significant new business and growth for United Suppliers and its retailers. This will reflect strong interest and engagement in sustainable agriculture from food companies and growers, who are reaping economic benefits.
• I would also like to see additional major food companies and retailers set measurable goals and commitments for sustainable sourcing of commodity crops, GHG emissions reductions, and water quality improvements, and those with existing commitments making rapid progress on those goals. At the same time, I hope farmers are eager to tap into the sustainable agriculture market using programs like SUSTAIN and tools like Adapt N.
• I also hope that Smithfield/Murphy Brown’s leadership shows other companies in the meat industry that it is possible for them to engage their grain supply chains and improve their sustainability in ways that benefit the bottom lines of both farmers and companies.

Photo credit: Flickr user CAFNR

Launching NutrientStar

From Karen Chapman, EDF project manager, Agricultural Sustainability:

• My hope is that our supply chain partners endorse and promote the NutrientStar program, a robust scientific review process that EDF is developing to evaluate fertilizer optimization tools and technologies.
• I would also love to see 10 new farmer networks in the Corn Belt ready to conduct field trials for the tools, technologies and products that will be reviewed by NutrientStar.

Paying ag producers to grow habitat

From Eric Holst, EDF senior director of Working Lands:

• My vision for success in 2015 is simple – to see populations of greater sage-grouse, lesser prairie-chicken and Swainson’s hawk reverse their declines and begin to thrive in their native landscapes.
• We are anticipating pilot transactions under the Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Exchange to begin in Colorado soon, and a habitat exchange pilot is already underway in California’s Central Valley for the Swainson’s hawk. I look forward to seeing the results of these pilots and encouraging more landowners to voluntarily enroll in conservation.

Reliable water supply

From Ann Hayden, EDF senior program manager of Working Lands:

• I would really like to see an increase in public funding for conservation, such as funding for the California water bond, with ties to performance so that there is a true environmental return on investment.
• And although it’s out of our control, I’d love to see California doused with enough rain and snow that we can finally break the multi-year drought cycle and allow people, farms and critters to reap the benefits of reliable water supply for many years to come.

From Jennifer Pitt, EDF director of the Colorado River Program:

• I also hope that drought relief becomes a reality in 2015, in the form of a record-busting snowpack that keeps our farms watered and our rivers flowing (though we know this is out of our hands!).
• In the category of things we can control, I hope to see robust funding for programs that help farmers realize greater productivity from the water they are able to use, while improving water supply reliability for communities and river health.

By Rebecca Shaw

Rebecca Shaw participated in the first working meeting of the Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture on December 17 and 18 in Rome.

The President’s Climate Data Initiative launched earlier this year to bring vast amounts of government data together in one place for communities and businesses to use when making decisions in the face of climate change. Last week, the Department of Interior and other executive branch offices released more data specific to water and ecosystems, as well as new geospatial tools, that will help natural resource managers – including farmers – better prepare for the future.

The newly released data sets include critical information about stream flow, soil, land cover and biodiversity, and are complemented by tools that will enable users to visualize and overlay data sets related to ecosystems, land use, water and wildlife. Together, the new data and tools will help farmers build resilience to the impacts of changing weather.

What kind of climate impacts?

The National Climate Assessment, released in May 2014, confirmed that climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century, with potentially devastating impacts on the agricultural sector. These impacts include changes in crop yields – which could drop 73 percent in some states – and increases in food prices as a result of higher temperatures, heavier downpours, and more frequent and intense droughts.

Specifically, the assessment found that:

• Average U.S. temperatures have increased by 1.3 to 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since record-keeping began in 1895.  Most of this warming has occurred since 1970.
• The U.S. will likely see more warming in the next few decades – possibly up to another four degrees Fahrenheit in some areas.
• The U.S. is seeing increasingly intense heat waves in the western portion of the country, and increasingly intense flooding in the eastern portion.
• Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves everywhere are projected to become more intense in the future.
• Climate change increases the likelihood of water shortages. The western U.S. relies heavily on mountain snowpack for water storage, and spring snowpack is declining in most of the West.

How does data help?

The Climate Data Initiative is designed to connect farmers, food distributors and agricultural businesses with the data, tools and information they need to understand how these impacts are going to affect their operations and, ultimately, their bottom lines.

The EcoINFORMA map viewer available on data.gov/ecosystems enables visualizations and mashups of spatial data related to ecosystems, natural resources and species.

Data include:

• USDA Census of Agriculture data on production expenses, market value of products and operator characteristics
• Current and historical data on production, supply and distribution of agricultural products
• Data on climate-change-related risks such as storms, pests and drought
• Climate models that project potential future climate impacts

Beyond government data, the President’s initiative also calls private-sector innovators to leverage open government data and other resources to build additional tools that will make the U.S. and global food systems more resilient. So far, this includes commitments from Microsoft, IBM, Coca-Cola, Walmart and several other private-sector interests.

Building food resilience through data-driven innovation

It’s a nerve-wracking time to be a farmer. But it’s also exciting.

With production and profits so closely tied to increasingly unpredictable weather, it’s critical that we all work together to share and utilize all of the data, tools and technology at hand.

With leadership from the White House and commitments from leading private-sector companies, I’m excited to watch us together, as a nation and a global food system, build a more resilient agricultural community.

By Robert Parkhurst

A significant milestone was achieved today in the California cap-and-trade market. For the first time, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) considered a land-based carbon offset protocol that will allow U.S. rice growers to earn additional revenue for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cultivation.

This is a big deal. U.S. agriculture has tremendous potential to not only provide the nation with the food we eat, but also the climate solutions we need to sustain our growth.

Farmers grow carbon credits

The protocol covers rice cultivation practices in both the Sacramento Valley of California and the Mississippi River Valley, which encompasses Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana. Growers here can implement any combination of three practices – dry seeding, early drainage or alternate wetting and drying – and collect data to be independently verified to create a carbon credit.

Nearly two dozen farmers have already expressed interest and are starting to gear up their operations to generate offsets in the spring of 2015.

The tools to succeed

The rice protocol contains a number of very important components that will help growers generate offsets. The first is the ability of growers to join together in co-operative agreements to generate a single offset project. This allows projects to decrease the administrative cost and burden for generating credits. It also maximizes growers’ revenue while minimizing cost.

Additionally, the protocol enables farmers to use a variety of state-of-the-art technologies to confirm the implementation of emissions-reducing practices on his or her farm.  Farmers can use “remote sensing, video conferences, digital photographs (dated and geotagged), or digital escrow services” to demonstrate that they have implemented the chosen practice(s).

Balancing emissions reductions with wildlife benefits

Particularly encouraging is the attention the protocol pays to wildlife benefits. ARB’s technical staff carefully balanced the reduction of methane from rice cultivation with the maintenance of critical waterbird habitat for both the Pacific Americas Flyway and the Mississippi Americas Flyway. Specifically, the protocol does not include practices that decrease water or food availability to waterbirds.

To be even more cautious, the Butte Sink Wildlife Management Area – which has the highest concentration of waterfowl per acre in the world – was banned from generating offsets.

Gaining momentum towards harvest

Stakeholders at today’s meeting were overwhelmingly positive about the protocol and the precedent it sets. More than fourteen organizations provided positive written comments on the protocol and everyone from the California Rice Commission to The Nature Conservancy to Pacific Gas and Electric attended the meeting to support the protocol and urge its speedy adoption.

ARB technical staff will now consider the comments from the public and the Board and return this spring with the final version of the protocol to be voted on.

Growers now have a strong signal of the interest of ARB to include rice cultivation in California’s cap-and-trade program and can start planning to implement the practices this growing season. At this rate, the opportunity to grow credits should be finalized before rice farmers harvest their next crop.

By Rebecca Shaw

Future fertilizer pill would detect signals from plant roots to reduce nutrient losses. Photo credit: Liz Bokt

Can a little pill solve the problem of fertilizer waste? It sounds futuristic, but it could become a reality in the next 10 years, according to recent article on AgWeb.com.

The article highlighted new developments in nanotechnology aimed at creating a “fertilizer pill” that could detect chemical signals from plant roots and release nitrogen according to those signals. The pill would allow for nitrogen to be released on an as needed basis, thereby reducing fertilizer waste byproducts that are harmful to the environment.

Although fertilizer has undeniable benefits for crop yields, excess fertilizer that runs off into our waterways is damaging to rivers, oceans and the climate.

Global potential

This development could have huge potential for agriculture across the globe – today, we are using the best available science to recommend when and where to apply fertilizer to maximize yield and minimize environmental impact, but we can’t yet make recommendations at the micro level that would avoid fertilizer excess.

Researchers are hopeful that this technology will be ready for implementation within the next 10 years. Of course, we can’t afford to wait, which is why we’re working with farmers, crop advisors and service providers to meet new demands in the U.S. supply chain for fertilizer efficient grains.

Redefining precision agriculture

But what’s so exciting about the fertilizer pill is that it takes the idea of precision agriculture to a whole new level. Individualized, plant-specific releases of nitrogen would eliminate the need for blanket application of fertilizer, which is common practice to ensure high yields and to meet the increasing demand for food across the globe. With 9 billion mouths to feed by 2050, high yields are critical to ensuring a stable food supply.

There are many researchers, scientists and farmers working to develop technologies that fine-tune the manual delivery of fertilizer. For example, we use models that take into account how much fertilizer is needed given weather conditions and time of year, and make application recommendations to ensure high yields.

But even in the same field, certain parts of the crop will have different needs than plants located in other parts of the field. The bottom line is that the needs of the crop and of an individual plant change from year to year and from location to location. So it’s hard for current precision farming technologies to know exactly where and when plants need fertilizer.

Reducing nitrogen losses

In the U.S., nitrogen fertilizer also accounts for at least half of farmers’ input costs, even though on average, 50 percent of the nitrogen applied is lost – resulting in emissions of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent that carbon dioxide, and pollution of our drinking water supplies.

The fertilizer pill technology claims to reduce losses to 15 percent or lower – which is an exciting prospect for farmers’ bottom line as well as for the environment and our communities.

On the other hand, this product and others like it may have limitations.

Additional research will need to ensure that such a product doesn’t have environmental side effects such as toxicity. If we’re trading one set of environmental impacts for other problems, then the technology’s potential is severely limited. But on the whole, if the fertilizer pill doesn’t have other impacts, and if the price is right, this could be a real win-win for farmers and food security in the developed and the developing world.