Carbon

Sustainability is Not a Dirty Word: Think of it as Stewardship

Wed, 26 Jun 2024 13:58:00 GMT

The Clarity and Leadership for Environmental Awareness and Research Center—known as the CLEAR Center at the University of California, Davis—uses research and extension to advance sustainability in animal agriculture. Team leader Frank Mitloehner, professor and air quality specialist in cooperative extension in the Department of Animal Science, joined AgriTalk’s host Chip Flory and Farm Journal’s PORK editor Jennifer Shike to discuss his message to farmers during World Pork Expo.

“One message is that I want farmers to lose their fear of things such as the term sustainability. Many farmers think this is some kind of curse word, when I think it as largely a misunderstanding,” Mitloehner says. “I think sustainability is pretty much the same as stewardship.”

Mitloehner believes stewardship means being the best steward of your land, your soil and the water on your land. That’s the natural resource and environmental part. Farmers are also the best steward of the animals they have control over.

“You are the best steward of the people who work with you, making sure you attract and retain a qualified workforce,” he adds. “You are the best steward of the product quality and safety. And last, but not least, the best steward of your financial resources.”

Mitloehner says if you were to ask a farmer and they say, ‘No, that doesn’t apply to me,’ these people better be out of business because that’s not being a good steward or sustainable.

The Five Pillars of Sustainability

Environmental Quality
Animal Welfare
Product Quality and Safety
Quality Workforce
Financial Viability

He points out they are also the five pillars of stewardship.

“If you are a farmer, your consumers, your buyers, use the term sustainability and many of them live in cities,” he says. “Those in agriculture use the term stewardship. Isn’t it time that we mash them together? Isn’t it time we just run with it and say, ‘Let’s be proud of what we do and how we do it’ and talk with it in a way that’s not political, but resonating with the consumers we are trying to reach.”

Shike points out that pork producers are sustainable. And that’s how they stay in business.

“They wouldn’t have survived all the things that so many of them have been through without being sustainable, and being good stewards of what they’ve been entrusted to care for,” she says.

While initially some farmers have hesitated at the word sustainability, Mitloehner reminds them of the impact it has on consumers.

“If that is what sells my product to people in cities, and these are the people who pay my bills, then I better not only understand it and endorse it, but be the carrier of it. That’s your legacy,” says Mitloehner.

The sustainability message also appeals to consumers overseas.

“If we can start selling this sustainability of U.S. pork in some of those overseas Asian markets, it can help to build that market as well,” Flory says.

That also particularly applies to Europe, Mitloehner adds.

Another message Mitloehner wants to communicate with producers is the narrative around animal agriculture and sustainability is changing for the better.

“I think we’re making real progress,” he says. “I’ve seen it at the highest levels at the United Nations Food and Agriculture. The FAO, for many years, had a very negative view of animal agriculture said livestock is worse than global transportation in producing greenhouse gas. That same organization today says we can achieve our sustainability goals and use [agriculture] tools to do that.”

An additional change Mitloehner shares is the willingness of farmers to engage with consumers on many agriculture topics.

“I think that farmers are just much more open these days,” he says. “People are now more understanding of their role being informing people by asking questions rather than blocking. When a 20-year-old asks you something about an uncomfortable situation on pigs, or some environmental impact, rather than sending them the other way, more farmers now actually talk and explain.”

He points out farmers are in high regards with most consumers and are believable.

“The question is, do they want to engage? And if they do, and when they do, the result is oftentimes very good,” he adds.

The goal at the CLEAR Center is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of animal agriculture.

“It’s not just that we do emission reduction research around bovines and other species, but we’re dealing with sustainability issues overall,” Mitloehner explains. “That spans all the way from environmental impact to animal welfare to workers. Our forte is to reduce environmental footprints.”

Mitloehner points out on the ruminant side they are looking at methane emissions through cows belching while on the pig side it deals more with manure management.

“For example, recently, we tried a new additive in pig slurry, and we had a drastic impact on greenhouse gases as well as on ammonia and hydrogen sulfide,” he says. “To see that that there are technological solutions that really have a big impact on their emissions is always a breakthrough.”

Listen to the full episode here.

What To Know From The Biden Administration's New Carbon Policy Statement

Thu, 30 May 2024 19:03:45 GMT

At the end of May, the Biden Administration published the Joint Policy Statement and Principles on Voluntary Carbon Markets . Farm CPA Paul Neiffer joined the AgriTalk podcast to break down the details of this 12-page document and what the ag industry needs to know.

According to Neiffer, part of the publication’s purpose is to steer companies toward more reliable methods of using carbon.

“You have these large, publicly traded companies that have been greenwashing. They’ve been trying to help the climate, so they go out and buy these credits that really aren’t very valid,” he says. “They’re trying to state the goals for these companies should not be to buy these carbon credits. Their goal really should be to fix their own carbon footprint in their own company and in their supply chain.”

Overall, he says the publication isn’t quite a policy, but more of a statement encouraging companies to clean up their supply chains.

When it comes to farmers, Neiffer believes the ag industry should begin focusing more on 45z tax credits and carbon intensity scores rather than carbon credits.

“It seems to be implying if you’ve already done a great job of reducing your carbon footprint, you’re not going to get a payment because you can’t really reduce your carbon footprint any further,” he says. “Whereas if you’re a farmer that maybe hasn’t done a great job [of reducing your carbon footprint], we’ll give you a payment because we can see in that case where we can reduce your footprint.”

For those who still intend to purchase carbon credits, the second half of the policy statement made an effort to create standards for program participation and make sure there is transparency, identification and documentation.

“They want to make sure it’s legit if you’re buying this carbon credit that you’re actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,” Neiffer says.

To hear more from Neiffer, listen to this episode of AgriTalk.

Related Stories

There’s a New Way to Cash in on Your CI Score on the Farm, Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act

How To Increase Your Potential SAF Tax Credits Now

The New GREET Model is Finally Here: An In-Depth Look at What it Means for Farmers

Fri, 03 May 2024 15:01:37 GMT

The U.S. Treasury and IRS issued updated guidance on the Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) tax credit, aligning with the Inflation Reduction Act’s goal to boost SAF production by providing incentives based on lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. The initial guidance on the Biden Administration’s SAF subsidy program, which includes three climate-smart practices for corn-based ethanol to qualify; two qualifying practices for soy-based biodiesel and producers of SAF are eligible for a tax credit of $1.25 to $1.75 per gallon

The new guidance includes the release of the now called 40BSAF-GREET 2024 model, designed to calculate these GHG reductions more accurately, incorporating new data and methodologies including climate-smart agricultural practices for soybeans and corn as a feedstock for SAF. GREET stands for Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies.

EPA’s new model is designed to address previously identified shortcomings in the R&D GREET model, particularly in how it calculated lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. The lifecycle approach accounts for all emissions from the initial production stages through to the final use of the fuel.

Similarity to CORSIA Methodology

The Treasury Department notes that the methodology used by the new 40BSAF-GREET 2024 model is like that of the CORSIA (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) methodology. CORSIA also evaluates the full fuel lifecycle, which includes all stages from the production of feedstock to the end use of the finished fuel.

Both these methodologies aim to provide a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact of aviation fuels, focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions throughout the entire lifecycle of the fuel. This is crucial for developing effective strategies and regulations for mitigating the aviation industry’s impact on climate change.

The SAF tax credit provides a base of $1.25 per gallon for SAF that achieves at least a 50% reduction in GHG emissions compared to traditional jet fuels, with additional incentives for greater reductions, capped at $1.75 per gallon. This move is aimed at fostering the use of domestically produced, lower-carbon fuels and enhancing the role of U.S. agriculture in sustainable fuel production.

Related Story: There’s a New Way to Cash in on Your CI Score on the Farm, Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act

Significantly, a pilot program was introduced to credit SAF production using feedstocks grown under specific climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices, like no-till farming and cover cropping. This pilot, part of the broader strategy to decarbonize aviation fuels, represents a shift towards recognizing and rewarding agricultural practices that contribute to carbon reduction. The release from Treasury on the credit noted that the CSA practices incorporated into the USDA CSA Pilot Program “are not a part of either the 40BSAF-GREET 2024 model or any CARB program including the LCFS program. Therefore, the Treasury Department and USDA have developed additional unrelated party certification requirements for the USDA CSA Pilot Program.”

Industry Reaction

Industry reactions have been largely positive, highlighting the progress towards integrating farming practices into carbon scoring for biofuels. However, some critiques focus on the need for less rigid frameworks to encourage broader adoption of innovative, carbon-reducing technologies and practices in agriculture and biofuel production. There is a desire for ongoing refinement of these models to ensure they are scientifically robust and economically beneficial, paving the way for significant reductions in GHG emissions from aviation fuels and strengthening the role of American agriculture in achieving these goals.

SAF production requirements:

SAF producers seeking to use the CSA reduction for producing SAF from CSA crops must contract directly with farmers enrolled in the USDA CSA Pilot Program for either CSA corn or CSA soybeans.

CSA corn production practices:

Farmers producing CSA corn for Alcohol to Jet (ATJ)-ethanol must implement three specific practices on the same acreage:

No-till farming.
Planting cover crops.
Using enhanced efficiency nitrogen fertilizer.

CSA soybean production practices:

For CSA soybeans, only two practices are required:

No-till farming.
Planting cover crops.

Added nitrogen is not required for soybean production.

USDA CSA pilot program and emissions reduction:

In partnership with the USDA, the Treasury Department allows for a SAF synthetic blending component produced from CSA corn or soybeans to be eligible for an additional proxy reduction (CSA reduction) in emissions calculation, without needing a full lifecycle analysis.

Emissions reduction example:

A synthetic blending component using CSA corn or soybeans is granted a safe harbor, with Treasury citing an example where CSA corn used in SAF production achieves a 53% emissions reduction.

Regulatory alignment and definitions:

The definitions and practice requirements outlined by the Treasury in their notice align with USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) practice standards and enhancements, with specific details provided in the notice.

Related Story: SAF IRS Guidance Released - Is it Worthless?

CSA pilot program practices:

No-till farming defined:

No-till involves limiting soil disturbance to manage the amount, orientation, and distribution of crop and plant residue on the soil surface year-round.
Residue must not be burned and should be uniformly distributed over the entire field. Removal from the seeding or transplanting area is acceptable.
In-row soil disturbance is permitted during strip tillage, planting, and when closing seed rows/furrows. Full-width soil disturbance is prohibited between crop cycles.
The Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR) for the crop interval must not exceed 20. Examples include a tandem disk (STIR 19.5) and a rotary stalk chopper (STIR 31.2).

Cover crop practices:

Include grasses, legumes, and forbs for seasonal vegetative cover.
Planting must adhere to local criteria regarding species, seedbed preparation, seeding rates, dates, depths, fertility, and methods.
Cover crops should be compatible with other cropping system components and selected herbicides.
Establishment can occur during the fallow season, or as companion or relay planting.
Residue from cover crops cannot be burned, and crops must be terminated according to NRCS guidelines.
If grazed or hayed, management must not compromise soil health or organic matter.
Cover crops cannot be harvested for seed.

Enhanced Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizer (EENF) practices for corn:

EENF is used to improve nutrient use efficiency, reduce nutrient loss risk, and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Defined by AAPFCO as products that increase plant uptake and reduce nutrient losses compared to standard fertilizers.
For corn, strategies include using nitrification inhibitors, urease inhibitors, or slow-release fertilizers for a minimum of 50% of nitrogen applications.
This practice does not apply to soybeans as they do not require added nitrogen.

Upshot: These practices and definitions are integral to the USDA CSA Pilot Program and aim to enhance sustainability in crop production by minimizing environmental impact and improving resource efficiency.

Record Keeping Requirements for Farmers in the CSA Pilot Program

General records:

Maintain records on the type and amount of feedstock produced.
Document ownership or operational control of the enrolled land; if leased, the lessee must declare operational control.
List all CSA practices implemented as per the guidelines.
Sign a letter of intent to continue using no-till and cover crops on the same acreage, allowing periodic tillage only once every five or ten years.
Declare that the produced feedstock using CSA practices is exclusively for SAF production and affirm no sale of GHG offset credits or associated GHG benefits.
Provide all records to an unrelated third party for verification.

Crop-specific records:

Document crop rotation and tillage practices for each crop before implementation and note any changes to ensure compliance with no-till practices.
Record planting and harvesting dates for each crop, detailing the month and year.
Document field operations and the timing of these operations.
Record total planted and harvested acreage and yield for crops produced under the no-till system and sold as SAF feedstock.
Keep records of seed purchases, seeding dates and rates, and field locations (using FSA maps or other reliable sources).
Document the amount of SAF feedstock delivered to various points such as elevators, millers, refiners, or other delivery locations.

Cover crop and fertilizer management:

Maintain similar records for cover crops as required for primary crops.
Keep management records for the use of Enhanced Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizer (EENF) strategies.

Bottom line: These record-keeping practices are crucial for ensuring accountability and verifying compliance with the sustainable practices stipulated by the CSA Pilot Program.

SAF producer requirements

Contractual obligations:

Farmers must have a direct contract with the SAF producer.

Record keeping and compliance:

SAF producers are responsible for collecting and maintaining all records from each supplying farmer. Note that the EENF portion is not relevant for soybean production.
Maintain full supply chain traceability records as per requirements.
If a grain elevator is used as an intermediary for storing feedstock, it must also maintain appropriate records linked to those bushels.

Intermediary entities:

Any intermediary entity that takes physical possession of the feedstock, including the registered SAF producer, must comply with traceability requirements aligned with the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).

Documentation and forms:

Forms for farmers to provide their supporting information for the CSA Pilot are included in the notice covering the process, ensuring transparency and adherence to guidelines.

Impacts and Implementation

CSA pilot program requirements and participation:

All three CSA actions are required for corn, while only the first two (no-till and cover crops) are needed for soybeans.
Soybeans might qualify more easily due to the commonality of no-till, but fewer farmers use both no-till and cover crops together.

Land eligibility and coverage:

According to the Census of Agriculture, no-till is practiced on 105.2 million acres, but cover crops are much less common at 17.99 million acres.
There are 382 million acres of cropland, with 301 million acres harvested, raising questions about the universe of land eligible for the CSA Pilot.

SAF production and consumption:

SAF consumption has risen from 5 million gallons in 2021 to 24.5 million gallons in 2023.
The limited number of SAF producers in the US could pose a challenge for meeting program goals.

Periodic tillage and soil health:

Periodic tillage is crucial for some farmers using no-till to maintain soil health, requiring clarity on permissible tillage practices under the program.

Record-keeping requirements:

Farmers must maintain detailed records and provide them to third parties for verification.
Elevators used by SAF producers for storing CSA commodities also have specific record-keeping requirements.

Regulatory and financial considerations:

New domestic plants using the ATJ pathway with ethanol as feedstock are expected, though details are sparse.
Farmers selling CSA crops to SAF producers cannot earn GHG offset credits or sell associated GHG benefits, impacting participation in private carbon credit efforts.

Future developments and clarity:

The Clean Fuel Production Credit (45Z) starting in 2025 will require further modeling, data assumptions, and verification.
A new 45Z-GREET model will be developed to align with the 45Z tax credit, necessitating rapid development and expanded use of cover crops.

What is a Carbon Intensity Score (CSI) and what does it mean for farmers? We share some FAQs from farmers.

Data Makes the Difference: PIC Seeks Answers to Environmental Impact of Genetics

Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:04:22 GMT

When it comes to valuing innovation such as genetic improvement, one of the most important steps you can take is to complete a life cycle assessment (LCA), explains Chris Hostetler, director of animal science at the National Pork Board.

LCAs verify the environmental impact data is defensible, Hostetler says, so you don’t have a situation where an innovation is accused of greenwashing. LCAs allow you to test and verify the entire system to determine if carbon equivalents were, in fact, generated.

“It’s very critical that an LCA be conducted for any innovation that would be coming into the market in terms of a carbon asset,” he adds. “I cannot tell you if I can fit a metric ton of carbon equivalents in my front pocket. Carbon is not visible. So, the data is where the reliability of those claims comes from. For me, being able to collect the data accurately, and in a defensible manner, is critical to ensuring that the carbon assets are what they say they are.”

That’s a gap that PIC has been working to address.

What’s the Benefit of Genetic Improvement?

PIC is in the process of wrapping up LCAs to quantify the environmental benefits that can be achieved through the use of PIC’s genetic improvements, including those achieved through gene editing. The company saw an opportunity for the entire industry to potentially monetize genetic improvements because healthier, more robust pigs are more feed efficient and create less waste.

For PIC, LCAs allow them to compare how their full-line PIC genetics compare to the industry average. Highly respected LCA modeler Greg Thoma is serving as the lead principal investigator for PIC, looking at the impact of genetic improvements in North America, Europe and Asia.

“He’s running independent LCAs that allow us to understand specifically what the impact of our genetics are comparable to the industry averages in those countries. He’s running a separate LCA on the impact of PRRS and with our PRRS-resistant pig, isolating the impact of what that product would do for the environment,” says Banks Baker, global director, product sustainability for PIC.

PIC received International Organization of Standardization (ISO) conformance for its North American LCA in February. The LCA shows that in North America, a full program PIC animal delivers a 7.5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to the industry average, Baker says.

“Essentially, what that’s saying is, we’re taking the production efficiencies achieved through using a full-program PIC animal and we’re expressing those as an environmental benefit. For a downstream corporation that uses a national emissions factor that says this is the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per pound of pork, if that system utilized a PIC full-program animal, it would have a 7.5% reduced greenhouse gas emissions comparable to that average,” Baker explains.

Although that’s great news, what he’s most excited about is that this LCA is one of the first to experience that level of validation to quantify the impact of genetics on environmental outcomes.

“There’s a lot of people making bold, ambitious commitments,” Baker says. “A recent lawsuit says that is not enough, you need to go further now. We’re starting to see a huge increase in greenwashing claims. We’re not interested in being general, we’re interested in doing this 100% correctly.”

That’s why PIC’s LCA is going through such rigorous due diligence, including plans to submit each LCA for academic peer review. There is no doubt that this space is going to have scrutiny, Baker adds.

“We’re talking about creating some type of carbon value that is transferable,” Baker says. “There’s something tangible to that, and especially in a space that’s so immature, we need to make sure that that’s real.”

What is the Cost of Disease?

Not only are there a number of diseases that affect swine production, but there are a number of welfare issues and management practices that affect swine production, too. One of the diseases that weighs on the minds of pork producers across the country is porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS).

“PRRS is devastating disease. It is a costly disease that’s a huge drag on our efficiency,” Hostetler says. “Efficiency, whether that’s feed efficiency or efficiency of throughput of animals, is really at the heart of sustainability. Improvements in efficiency through mitigation of the impact of disease has a great potential for conveying a carbon asset.”

PIC is currently conducting an LCA on its gene edited PRRS-Resistant Pig genetics and the resulting reduction that can be claimed.

“PIC believes that one of the most important things that can be done to improve the sustainability of protein production is to raise the right animal, one that is healthy, robust and efficient,” says Baker. “Genetic sustainability offers unique opportunities because it mitigates emissions rather than sequestering them and is effective regardless of geographic location.”

PIC expects the results to be coming soon on the PRRS-Resistant Pig LCA.

A Sustainable Pathway

Because animal genetics have never been utilized or invested in this way, PIC is collaborating across the pork value chain to ensure a credible standard is established that allows genetic benefits to be understood, shared and claimed.

“If the gene edit for PRRS becomes commercially available, there will be other gene edits that become commercially available down the road, whether that’s for swine health issues or a practice that reduces painful procedures,” Hostetler says.

This effort could serve as a roadmap for other gene edit innovations to come to the market as well, Hostetler says.

“Some of the strongest programs we’re seeing incorporate sustainability around greenhouse gas reductions. If we can show that genetic improvements can support that, including those that can be achieved through gene editing, it allows for a better platform for market acceptance,” Baker says. “It shows we’re creating a shared value that goes further than just a producer and allows everybody to share in that win.”

Read More:

How Valuing Carbon Could Open Doors for Pork Producers

The Wild Wild West of Carbon Markets: Where Do Swine Genetics Fit?

How Valuing Carbon Could Open Doors for Pork Producers

Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:24:35 GMT

Pork producers often think about meat as the only commodity they produce. But Chris Hostetler, director of animal science at the National Pork Board, argues they produce so much more and deserve to see benefits for their efforts.

In October 2022, PIC and the National Pork Board teamed up to develop a framework that will help demonstrate the valuable role genetics play in creating a more sustainable protein supply . This framework will help determine what needs to credibly be done and demonstrated in order for corporations to claim a genetic improvement as a greenhouse gas reduction.

PIC recently completed its first life cycle assessment (LCA) to quantify the sustainability benefits that can be achieved through the use of their program’s genetic improvements. A second LCA quantifying the sustainability benefits achieved through gene editing is forthcoming. The company saw an opportunity for the entire industry to potentially value genetic improvements because healthier, more robust pigs are more feed efficient and create less waste.

LCAs are standardized models that allow the environmental impact of a product to be quantified. Hostetler says it’s a good time to gather data to create LCAs to quantify alternative value streams for pork producers.

“We have the ability now, through a variety of technological platforms, to collect data in a very robust way. I think that the timing, in terms of where we’re at as an industry, is really good for gathering that information, warehousing that data, and then scaling that up to the industry as a whole,” Hostetler says.

The ultimate goal is physical monetization of carbon credits that are attributed to innovation leading to genetic improvement, he explains.

“In this project, we are working on innovations related to genetics, but there are other innovations that may convey a carbon benefit as well,” Hostetler adds. “Development of this framework, and ultimately the writing of the protocol and executing a pilot project, creates a roadmap for other innovations in place of a genetic innovation.”

When No Standards Exist

The framework is almost complete and will answer a lot of questions for companies interested in monetizing innovation, says Banks Baker, global director, product sustainability for PIC.

“It outlines all the things that must exist in order for a corporation to make a claim. How do you validate? What does the reduction have to occur? Who gets the claim? It’s kind of a precursor to a carbon protocol,” he says.

In this emerging carbon space, limited standards exist, Baker adds. Because of that, there are no standards to create a standard either.

“We worked with National Pork Board and the Context Network, an agricultural-based consultancy, to help us build out what that framework would look like. They helped us engage with the whole value chain all the way from producers to carbon experts to downstream buyers of this potential asset, like foodservice and processors. We wanted to know what they would have to see in this framework to make it credible and usable,” Baker says.

They opened up the proposed framework for public comment for a two-month period, received over 100 pieces of feedback and revisions, and then went back to work on the framework. A final public comment period for the revised framework was held in March.

“We’ll make revisions again,” Baker says. “And then we’ll have an outline of what needs to exist in order for genetic improvements to be claimed as a scope three greenhouse gas reduction downstream.”

Once the framework is finished, PIC plans to pilot it with the food system partners to go out and demonstrate that carbon value can be created, that it exists and that it can also be transferred to other stakeholders in the supply chain.

“We’re in the final stages of building out what those pilots could look like,” Baker says. “We’d like to do a full inset carbon program pilot, where we’ll start with a producer that utilizes a full-program PIC animal and track the carbon reduction benefits to the packer/processor and the primary origin foodservice or retail user. There may also be opportunities to include a renderer and user of that rendered product.”

There is a piece of that carbon value that each member in that inset pilot project can claim, he adds.

“We don’t know if this will end up being a minted carbon credit. I think we’re starting to see carbon treated as a preferential product attribute similar to what you would see in the meat industry like a quality grade or some type of differentiated product, like a no antibiotic ever or specific housing system,” Baker says. “But we believe there’s some value the producer can get from that, whether it be a direct economic incentive from a premium, or a minted carbon credit that can be sold, and they can retain some of the value.”

At the end of the day, PIC and National Pork Board are trying to figure out the different ways that this could potentially play out, while understanding how they can enable significant reductions at scale for all of those different members that are in the value chain.

“We’re hoping to have the pilot done by the end of 2024,” Hostetler says. “We welcome and encourage other companies that have genetic innovations or other innovations to use this framework and protocol adopted to their specific needs to monetize their carbon credit, too. This has been paid for by the pork producers, so it’s publicly available for use by others.”

How Can It Help You?

Coming off nearly two years of economic challenges, Hostetler encourages producers to think about additional revenue streams that they produce beyond pork.

“We see it over on the dairy side,” he says. “The dairy producers in California are not making money on their milk. They’re making money on methane that they harvest off of their manure storage.”

There may be other valuable components to sustainability that pork producers produce beyond carbon, Hostetler points out. For example, water may be monetized at some point in time. Through manure, nitrogen is monetized already. As other markets develop for ecosystem assets in the future, he believes what the pork industry is doing today in the carbon space could have direct correlation to those ecosystem asset markets as well.

Production efficiency already delivers value back to a producer, Banks says, through healthy, robust, efficient animals. But he’s excited that there could be even more captured from improvements in efficiency beyond the farm.

“Now we’re able to share that outcome back to corporations that need these benefits,” Baker says. “Many things we’ve seen invested in, like regenerative agriculture, no-till and grazing, are all important interventions and will be a part of the solution that get us to 2030 and 2050.”

But he points out that they are also very complex models to validate progress. Typically, they focus on sequestering carbon, which is a biological process that can be hindered by a variety of environmental variables.

“One of the things we’re excited about on the genetic side is that it’s a mitigation opportunity. We’re able to actually abate those emissions before they even occur. We’re lucky in pork because so many of our production systems are inside. We’ve got limited environmental variables and the models we use to estimate those impacts are much cleaner and easier to demonstrate,” Baker says.

All of this results in a higher degree of credibility.

“I think it will be exciting when we get large brands on board and this goes from being this theoretical possibility to something that’s real where we can actually show that this value does exist and there’s a new value proposition for producers at the end of it,” Baker says.

Read More:

Data Makes the Difference: PIC Seeks Answers to Environmental Impact of Genetics

The Wild Wild West of Carbon Markets: Where Do Swine Genetics Fit?

Climate and Tech Expected to Affect Ag Most This Year

Fri, 08 Mar 2024 19:43:28 GMT

Farm Journal’s Smart Farming Week is an annual week-long emphasis on innovation in agriculture. The goal is to encourage you to explore and prioritize the technology, tools and practices that will help you farm smarter. Innovation today ensures an efficient, productive and sustainable tomorrow.

Every year before the ball drops in Times Square, it seems everyone wants to pull out a crystal ball and prophesize what the new year will bring. And the ag industry loves a good prophet.

Before 2023 became history, Forbes Magazine took its shot at predicting agriculture’s highlights for 2024. So before Father Time turns the predictions stale, I thought it might be insightful, or at least entertaining, to provide some color commentary on the article, which focused on the following five areas where change in agriculture could be the greatest.

1. Farmland Holds the Key to Carbon Management
No different from last year or the prior year, agriculture has a bull’s-eye on its back when it comes to carbon intensity. According to the USDA Economic Research Service, U.S. agricultural operations are responsible for 10.6% of the nation’s overall greenhouse gas emissions. Climate scientists and Al Gore have told us this for years now. Expect the barrage of white papers and warnings to continue in 2024.

The good news, according to the pundits, is it will become increasingly clear this year that farmland is the key to carbon management. By default, nature has been seen as the most scalable way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. What is becoming more obvious to those outside the sphere of agriculture is that farmland is the best place to store it.

Look to see more announcements at the consumer packaged goods level regarding programs and collaboration across industries and sectors to foster regenerative practices at the production level. Companies such as Walmart, PepsiCo and General Mills are seeking programs able to scale such practices across millions of acres.

2. Alternative Proteins Will Recover From Their Sophomore Slump
Last year, the stock market and the population’s tastes soured on meatless burgers and chickpea chicken nuggets. Beyond Meat’s market cap plummeted from an all-time high of $14.2 billion to just more than $500 million at the turn of this year.

But don’t count out the alternative protein industry yet. Those quoted in the Forbes article anticipate 2024 to be a renaissance year for animal-based product substitutes.

The reason for such renewed hope is a tactical marketing change adopted by the second wave of alternative protein startups. Instead of taking full-blown consumer-ready products direct to the grocery store shelf and the fast food drive-through lane, they are focusing on selling alternative protein products as ingredients.

For example, the Every Company is touting that “the world’s first liquid egg made without the hen” could replace real eggs in thousands of processed food items. Rue the day these eggs find their way into my favorite lemon meringue pie.

3. Forget Counting Calories. Count Carbon
A new diet seems to be on the table every new year. This year, paring down the amount of carbon in your life may be as important as limiting your calories. Just like requirements for disclosing calories through food labels, the social, political and regulatory environment is forcing food companies to be fully transparent about their carbon footprints.

Instead of carbon credits, experts say carbon insets are needed to move the climate needle. With recently passed climate disclosure legislation, such as California’s SB 253, expect more food companies looking to measure, report and reduce their carbon emissions.

This switch will put pressure on producers as food companies off-load the burden of carbon reduction on them. Look for additional emphasis on cutting methane emissions from livestock through innovative feeds and carbon-capture techniques and improving soil health through biotech innovation, data and artificial intelligence.

4. Technology Will Make Ag More Hip and Exciting
Agriculture has long been characterized in literature, and even nursery rhymes, as boring and depressing—think Grapes of Wrath and Old MacDonald Had a Farm. Well, technology is continuing to turn this industry on its head.

Specialty crop operations’ use of automation will grow quickly as ag labor shortages persist. Meanwhile, the food prep industry is transforming as food- and medicine-focused companies take root. Think HelloFresh and Blue Apron meet your medical dietician. Companies such as ModifyHealth are tailoring chef-inspired medical meals to support consumers’ specific health needs, and companies such as Farmer’s Fridge allow you to select a green goddess salad or Thai noodle bowl instead of a Snickers bar from a vending machine.

5. Capital Investment in Ag Will Be Even More Deliberate and Disciplined
Once viewed as the hot new space for disruption, the ag tech sector is now weeding out the venture capital investors who entered it with hopes of quick wins. That culling really started in earnest two years ago and is predicted to continue this year.

But all is not gloom and doom in the ag startup arena. Investors see the market stabilizing and valuations returning to more realistic levels. Quality companies that are scaling, have good economic fundamentals and growing customer demand will likely find the capital they are seeking in 2024, but expect no more free lunches.

So there you have it. This recaps the Forbes take on agriculture in the new year: climate, carbon, technology, money and a world with eggs but no chickens.

If you think that’s weird, then just wait. The year has only begun. In agriculture, nearly anything can happen. Just wait a day.

How To Increase Your Potential SAF Tax Credits Now

Tue, 05 Mar 2024 22:54:02 GMT

With sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credits beginning in 2025, the practices farmers use during the 2024 growing season will have a direct impact on their ability to take advantage of these incentives.

Mitchell Hora of Continuum Ag recently joined the Top Producer podcast to share the best ways to begin preparing now.

“If you’re selling to a biofuel plant, the company will be asking you for management information, and they might be just directly asking you for your carbon intensity score,” Hora says.

A grower’s carbon intensity (CI) score is calculated based on a tool from the U.S. Department of Energy called the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model. The score can vary from field to field and year to year.

According to Hora, the GREET model tells growers what their crop’s carbon footprint is. And for the corn and soybeans that will be planted this spring, the footprint is already being made.

“To maximize this opportunity in the calendar year 2025, we need to optimize the carbon intensity of the corn that we’re going to grow, and the soybeans we’re going to grow in 2024,” he says. “The practices that we did this fall, like tillage, manure, fertilizer and cover crops directly impact the carbon intensity of this 2024 crop.”

The upcoming tax credits are dependent on the crop’s CI score, and the maximum credit would be $1 per gallon for ethanol and biodiesel and $1.75 per gallon for SAF. However, Hora doesn’t advise expecting to receive that value.

“I think it’s going to be tough to get there,” he says. “If my corn has a CI score of zero, it doesn’t necessarily mean the ethanol has a score of zero because there are a lot of other factors that go into it.”

He shares on average, U.S. ethanol has a CI score of 55.5 while U.S. corn has a CI score of 29 – though he has seen scores range from 44 to -13.

How to Find and Improve Your Score
As far as how to figure a CI score, producers can download the GREET model and input their data, but Hora warns it can get complicated. He shares Continuum Ag has developed a program that simplifies the model, though there is a fee to access it.

“It plugs in your typical fertilizer, typical yield, what you do for tillage, if you use cover crops, fuel usage, etc.,” he says. “Then we run the actual GREET model and as they create updates, we’re ready for it and just plug in the new model. All of our farmers will get their updated CI score.”

Once growers receive their CI scores, they may be curious how certain practices change it. Hora lists a few of the ways producers can lower their scores, such as:
• Using a cover crop ahead of corn
• Supplementing or replacing synthetic fertilizer with manure
• Reducing tillage by implementing strip till or no till practices
• Decreasing diesel fuel usage and energy inputs
• Improving yield to spread carbon input across more bushels

He also encourages consulting with your agronomist to find the steps you need to take next.

“We cannot just sit back and wait,” Hora says. “There 6 billion bushels of corn that goes into ethanol every year in this country, and right now all 6 billion bushels have a default CI score. We need to keep having the conversation of getting more farmers aware and getting more farmers to get their CI score.”

To hear more about SAF tax credits, listen to this episode of the Top Producer podcast.

Related Stories:

Carbon’s Next Chapter On The Farm

Carbon Intensity Is Going To Be A Team Sport

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.”

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

Wed, 28 Dec 2022 03:26:54 GMT

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

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

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

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

Insurance

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

Research

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

Conservation

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

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

Infrastructure

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

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

Relief Aid

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

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

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

• $25 million for specialty crop equitable relief.

Broadband

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

Food Assistance

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

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

Carbon

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

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

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

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

More on policy :

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

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

Tue, 20 Dec 2022 17:19:29 GMT

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

Here are the details that might impact your farm:

Disaster Relief

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

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

Food Aid

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

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

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

Conservation

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

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

Inputs

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

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

Climate

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

Farm Business

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

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

Livestock

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

Markets

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

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

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

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

More on policy :

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

European Union Clinches a Deal on a Carbon Border Tax

Mon, 19 Dec 2022 19:58:12 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

More on carbon :

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

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

Mon, 12 Dec 2022 20:03:24 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

View Across the Table

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

1. Cybersecurity in Ag

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

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

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

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

2. Carbon Credit Opportunities

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on farm bill 2023:

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

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

Fri, 16 Sep 2022 15:00:21 GMT

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

The goals of Horizon II include:

• Enhance climate-smart markets

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)

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

• Create opportunities for small and underserved producers

• Benefit soil health

• Clean water

• Flood control

• Habitats for native wildlife

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

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

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

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

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

Partner organizations involved in the RAE Horizon II project include

• Biostar Renewables

• Conservation Districts of Iowa

• Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance

• Iowa Soybean Association•

• Iowa State University

• Missouri Prairie Foundation

• Sievers Family Farms

• Soil and Water Outcomes Fund

• Smithfield Foods

• The Nature Conservancy

• University of Missouri

• Verdesian

• Veterans in Agriculture.

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

New Data Shows Ag’s Climate Footprint is Shrinking

Thu, 14 Jul 2022 20:42:19 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Farm Journal)

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

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

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

Take Our Poll: Are You Enrolled in a Carbon Program?

Thu, 28 Apr 2022 17:28:53 GMT

In just a few years, the carbon markets available to farmers have accelerated to more than 16 different programs to choose from. Although each contract’s requirements vary, all programs are set up for enrollment once a year. Some programs are still available for the 2022 growing season.

Are you enrolled in a carbon program this year? If not, are you considering it? Let us know in the poll below.

QuizMaker

Thinking Beyond ‘Check The Box’ Carbon Programs

Tue, 08 Mar 2022 21:21:34 GMT

Mitchell Hora, an Iowa farmer and founder of ContinuumAg, says today’s discussions around carbon markets illustrate opportunities for some farmers and also give support to deepen the conversation about agriculture’s role in carbon use and sequestration.

“Today’s carbon programs, are privatized cost share,” he says. “You can get paid to reduce tillage, add cover crops, reduce synthetic fertilizer. The more new things you adopt, the more you could get paid.”

Hora is a speaker at the Online Top Producer Summit. Learn more here.

He says there’s a value in ‘checking the box’ with those additional practices because it’s providing another way for farmers to start focusing on soil health while getting paid up to $40/acre.

“Agriculture is one of the key solutions in a more carbon positive future,” he says.

At the same time, he acknowledges that his own farm in Iowa doesn’t qualify for any of the programs centered on additionality.

“It’s important to help a farmer to better understand their actual carbon footprint: what is their usage, what are their emissions, things like fuel, electricity, fertilizer and more,” he says.

That’s where he is encouraging everyone to get rooted in the principles of soil health.

“I think regenerative ag is a journey ,and it’s a continual implementation of the principles of soil health,” he says.

Here are those 6 principles of soil health:

Maintain soil armor
Minimize disturbance
Living roots always
Foster diversity
Integrate livestock
Context

You can still register for the Online Top Producer Summit, which gives you access to content through March 31. Use the code “VIRTAL” to take 50% off your registration fee.

Will Sustainable Fuel Power Your Farm Equipment In 10 Years?

Thu, 10 Feb 2022 21:03:59 GMT

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

Crafting a Farm Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renewable Fuels Reach New Heights

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

> Sustainable Aviation Fuel has Several High Hurdles

> Fuel the Crush: Renewable Diesel Pumps Up Soybean Demand

4 Questions Farmers are Asking about Carbon Markets

Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:36:27 GMT

As farmers wade through the ever-deepening amount of carbon information available, they routinely ask for answers to these four questions.

1. How do I know which carbon program makes the most sense for my farm?
It depends on your goals. Consider how much time and effort you want to invest, how long your land will be committed to the program and what kind of financial payback you want to achieve.

Know how each program will compensate you. For instance, some programs pay based on outcomes achieved.

“We actually model and measure both the soil sequestration and the emissions reduction from the field, which requires farmers to submit a bit more data but tends to provide them more economic benefit,” says Ben Gordon, carbon and ecosystems global portfolio lead for Corteva Agriscience.

Some other carbon programs pay farmers for implementing practices, such as using no-till or planting cover crops. This strategy tends to require less data and work on the farmer’s part. The downside is it’s likely to pay less per acre. However, you might be paid sooner versus with a program that is outcome-based, which can take up to a year before a payment is made because of the data collection and crunching required.

2. Why should I bother participating?
In years when margins are thin, an annual carbon payment can help bulletproof your balance sheet.

Beyond income, some farmers are interested in the carbon industry as an opportunity to learn practices and benefit from technology that can help them build a strong, more sustainable future.

“Agronomy, agronomy, agronomy is the name of the game,” says Dan Hansen, who farms near Avoca, Iowa. “Obviously, there has to be an ROI, but we have to continue to examine our practices and grade ourselves on how we can do better and improve.”

In the past five years, Hansen says he has experimented with cover crops as well as different nitrogen tools that have helped him see value in variable-rate nitrogen or reduced nitrogen use, intensive grid sampling and variable-rate fertilizer.

“We want to continue to see soil health improve on our farm, so we’re evaluating (programs and practices) and risks while we’re trying to move the needle forward and improve ROI in the process,” he adds.

3. Are carbon markets going to be around, or are they just hype?
As in any new industry, not every program will succeed. However, companies both within and outside agriculture (Disney, IBM, Microsoft, to name a few) are making long-term commitments that extend into the next decade.

“We’re talking real transactions that are already happening, so that gives me confidence,” says Corteva’s Gordon. “I’d urge farmers to make sure that they’re signing up for programs that have the flexibility to evolve with the market, not against it,” he adds.

4. How can I protect myself from a bad decision or being taken advantage of?
Explore what the various companies are offering. Talk with other farmers, and seek counsel from your banker, agronomic consultant and legal representative, who can help you evaluate the fine print in contracts.

In addition, like with other practices, start small and scale up as you become more comfortable and confident with the various programs.

For more insights on the carbon marketplace, check out these resources:

Carbon Innovation Center | AgWeb

The rapid pace of U.S. carbon market activity has left many farmers dazed and confused. To help answer your questions, Farm Journal is sharing the first-ever carbon market comparison tool to assess how several of the most prominent frameworks stack up. We will continue investing in enterprise reporting as carbon markets mature and evolve.

Farmer Shares Top 10 Considerations With Carbon Markets

Will Carbon Markets Drive Farmers to Collect More Data?

Grassroots Carbon Targets Grazing and Pastureland

Field Work: Are Carbon Markets an Opportunity to Stack Multiple Benefits on the Farm?

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

Tue, 13 Jul 2021 20:35:03 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:09:11 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to hear the entire discussion.

USDA Dishes Out More Details on Possible Climate-Smart Farming Practices in New Report

Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:07:52 GMT

USDA’s is giving more insight into climate initiatives and how ag could play a part. The agency issued a 90-day progress report on what it calls climate-smart agriculture and forestry.

The strategy includes broad ideas, but does not provide specific goals as of yet. The report does not mention establishing a carbon bank, either. However, it does note there are voluntary markets for carbon where agriculture and forestry can provide “carbon offsets or credits”.

There is no mention of using the department’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) spending authority to make payments to farmers. It outlines some of the agency’s plans to work along with President Biden’s executive order on tackling climate issues at home and abroad with seven main areas of focus.

“Data and metrics, how we make sure these strategies work for all farms and all farmers, how we integrate these things into our programs, how we enhance and encourage improved technical assistance and deal with some of the gaps we have there, how we leverage private interest and maximize the benefits of these emerging markets, how we improve forest health and then how we revitalize and energize our research program,” says Bill Hohenstein, director of Office of Energy and Environmental Policy.

USDA acknowledged that many farmers and ranchers may have already adopted climate-smart practices on their own. It also says the agency should provide options to ensure early adopters are not put at a disadvantage.

Creating a Sustainable Pig...All Starts in the Field

Fri, 21 May 2021 14:20:42 GMT

By Roger Cochrane, Feed Mill Director, Pipestone Nutrition

The pork industry is a buzz with carbon reduction goals and even carbon neutrality. Two questions often asked are what is a carbon neutral pig and what can farmers do? A carbon neutral pig has net zero carbon dioxide emission equivalents (CO2e) into the atmosphere during its lifetime. CO2e is a term used to express the impact of multiple greenhouses gases in a common unit of CO2 which would give a single value for global warming potential. The lower the CO2e the more sustainable an operation has become.

In a pig’s lifetime, 88% of the CO2e is represented by feed and manure. When looking further into what causes these numbers to be the driving factors for CO2e it boils down to crops, the associated tillage, and manure management practices. A pig consumes roughly 540 lbs. of corn, 100 lbs. of DDG, and 40 lbs. of SBM. This makes up 96% of their overall feed consumption. Because of the large percentage associated with the three ingredients, it is worthwhile to look further into crop management practices that can help to reduce CO2e of the crops thus lowering the footprint for feed and manure.

Below are strategies that farmers may be using from a management standpoint that serve as CO2e reduction strategies.

Strategies
Two of the major contributors to the CO2e of pigs are soil nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Both are major contributors to the overall carbon footprint for the farm and pig.

Many pig farmers today are using manure (organic fertilizer) to replace synthetic fertilizers. By replacing synthetic fertilizers with 50% manure and utilizing a nitrogen application rate of 132 lbs N/acre, a reduction of up to 66% CO2e has been modeled for a field compared to a typical rate of 200 lbs N/acre with no manure in Southwest Minnesota. An option is also available for those who do not have access to manure in which a reduction of synthetic fertilizer from 200 to 132 lbs N/acre reduced the CO2e of the field by 46%.

A second step that can be taken is the use of carbon considerate tillage practices. Conventional tillage creates the most soil disturbance followed by reduced and no-till. In general, the less soil disturbance that occurs, the lower and better the CO2e for the field. For instance, moving from a conventional to reduced tillage or no till practice can reduce CO2e by 37% and greater than 100%, respectively.

A third step is the incorporation of cover crops into the crop rotation. This strategy can also help improve the soil health by preventing erosion, suppressing weeds, and increasing nutrient management. Cover crops help to hold soil in place during the vulnerable time of year and hold key nutrients in the soil. Improving the soil quality can benefit crop yields, resulting in a more sustainable field. Utilizing cover crops correctly can reduce N needed for the following crop year, thus reducing the CO2e.

Carbon Sink
Combining each of the practices listed before in a field can lead to what is known as a carbon sink. A carbon sink is when a field can hold carbon in the soil that would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere.1 Reducing tillage practices, and adding crop rotations and cover crops will hold carbon in the soil that would otherwise be emitted. For example, if a field moves from conventional till with synthetic fertilizer to reduced tillage with 50% manure, an 86% reduction in CO2e per field could be achieved thus lowering the carbon footprint.

To reduce the footprint even further, no-till can be incorporated with manure and cover crops to achieve over a 100% reduction meaning a carbon sink was created for the field. The reason the sink is important to the field is that it would give a net zero or negative land emission factor for corn and soybeans harvested from the land. This in turn would be factored into the corn and SBM that is processed and used to feed the pigs.

In some cases, farmers are doing one or all the above practices in their fields today. I hope this sheds light on the sustainability side of the equation for those already using these strategies. For those not currently using one of these practices, I hope this helps you to think about adoption of sustainable efforts on your farm.

Sheehan, J.J., et al., 2014. Scenarios for low carbon corn production.

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

The Carbon-Neutral Pig and Chicken: The Pivotal Moment is Now

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

Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:40:33 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Few Farmers are in the Marketplace Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Vs. Private Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outlaw says the demands for carbon sequestration are high today.

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

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

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

The Final Say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Stories:

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

7 Considerations Before You Sign a Carbon Contract

Improved Nutrient Digestion Can Reduce Pork’s Carbon Footprint

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:56:25 GMT

Giving pigs the ability to digest more nutrients in their grains could help reduce the pork industry’s environmental impact, says new research published in eLife.

Pigs are one of the most economically important meat sources in agriculture, with demand for pork products increasing continually. However, a large amount of their feed is wasted as they are unable to digest two key nutrients that cause environmental damage: nitrogen and phosphorus. Excessive amounts of these nutrients are subsequently released through the animals’ manure into the environment.

“Pigs release harmful amounts of these nutrients as they lack the microbial enzymes that break down phytate - the main source of nitrogen and phosphorus - and types of fiber called non-starch polysaccharides,” explains first author Xianwei Zhang, postdoctoral researcher at the South China Agricultural University.

“We suggest that making up for the pigs’ deficiency in these enzymes - β-glucanase, xylanase and phytase - will benefit the pork industry by increasing the animals’ feed use and reducing their nutrient emissions.”

To test this idea, Zhang and his team delivered the three enzymes into the genome of pigs. These enzymes, which are secreted by microbial communities, were optimized to adapt to the pigs’ digestive tract environment. They were expressed specifically in the pigs’ salivary gland, allowing the digestion of phytate and non-starch polysaccharides to begin in the mouth.

“Previous studies have shown that genetically modified pigs that release the microbial enzyme phytase from their salivary glands have significantly reduced levels of phosphorus in their manure,” says senior author Zhenfang Wu, Professor at the South China Agricultural University. “The aim of our study was to enhance the digestion of feed grain in pigs to see if it lowered the release of both phosphorus and nitrogen from their manure.”

Successful Outcome
The results of the feeding trials indeed showed that the pigs were able to digest these and other key nutrients, lowering their emissions as a result. The team also found that the animals’ increased nutrient uptake led to a faster growth rate.

Furthermore, no negative side effects were reported in the pigs. Their mood, behavior, reproductive capacity, blood physiology and natural biochemical processes remained unchanged.

Wu concludes: “The use of genetically modified pigs and other animals in food production, both in China and globally, is restricted by current policy. However, our findings indicate that these pigs are promising resources for improving feed efficiency and reducing the carbon footprint of the pork industry.”

Editor’s Note: The paper ‘Novel transgenic pigs with enhanced growth and reduced environmental impact’ can be freely accessed online at https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.34286 . This paper also has an accompanying Insight article, ‘Pollution: Transgenic pigs to the rescue’, which can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37641 .

Meat Taxes Seen Joining Carbon, Sugar to Help Curb Emissions

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:42:28 GMT

Move over, taxes on carbon and sugar: the global levy that may be next is meat.

Some investors are betting governments around the world will find a way to start taxing meat production as they aim to improve public health and hit emissions targets set in the Paris Climate Agreement. Socially focused investors are starting to push companies to diversify into plant protein, or even suggest livestock producers use a “shadow price” of meat -- similar to an internal carbon price -- to estimate future costs.

Meat could encounter the same fate as tobacco, carbon and sugar, which are currently taxed in 180, 60, and 25 jurisdictions around the world, respectively, according to a report Monday from investor group the FAIRR (Farm Animal Investment Risk & Return) Initiative. Lawmakers in Denmark, Germany, China and Sweden have discussed creating livestock-related taxes in the past two years, though the idea is encountered strong resistance.

Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock are about 14.5 percent of the world’s total, according to the Food & Agriculture Organization, which projects global meat consumption to increase 73 percent by mid-century, amid growing demand from economies like India and China. That could result in as much as $1.6 trillion in health and environmental costs for the global economy by 2050, according to FAIRR, a London-based initiative created by Coller Capital.

“Investors are starting to consider this in a similar way to how they have considered climate risk,” said Rosie Wardle, who manages investor engagements at FAIRR. “It’s kind of accepted now that we need to address livestock production and consumption to meet that 2 degree global warming limit.”

The Guardian newspaper reported on the FAIRR report earlier Monday.

Sugary Drinks

FAIRR’s sustainable protein engagement plan, currently supported by 57 investors with $2.3 trillion under management, plans to ask 16 major food multinationals this year to “future proof” their supply chains by diversifying their protein sources.

The possible impact of a meat tax could be similar to sugar taxes. While sugar taxes aimed at fighting obesity in the U.S. have faced some resistance, similar levies have been implemented in 18 countries and six U.S. cities, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence. When Mexico imposed a special tax in 2014 on sugary drinks, it lowered per capita consumption of those beverages by 6 percent in 2014, 8 percent in 2015 and 11 percent in the first half of 2016, according to Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health.

The idea of taxing meat has been hamstrung by fears of creating a political backlash by taxing farmers, FAIRR said in the report.

Plant protein, however, is already capturing a sizable amount of demand for protein, pushed partially by millennials and a trend toward incorporating more vegetarian food into Western diets. About 4 in 10 Americans and Canadians are actively trying to incorporate more plant-based food into their diets, according to a Nielsen Co. global survey.

Gates, DiCaprio

A venture capital fund owned by Tyson Foods Inc., made its second investment last week in Beyond Meat, which creates a plant-based burger that’s also backed by billionaire Bill Gates and Leonardo DiCaprio and sold in thousands of U.S. grocery stores and restaurants. Tyson took an initial 5 percent stake in the burger creator last year, following a shareholder proposal from Green Century Capital Management asking the poultry powerhouse to explore more plant-based protein opportunities.

“Besides all of the risks that are in the meat industry, where you are talking about huge amounts of emissions and water pollution, this is about diversifying and figuring out what areas can lead to growth,” Marissa LaFave, shareholder advocate at Boston-based Green Century, said in an interview.

The firm, which oversees about $500 million, plans to introduce more plant-based proposals at food companies this year, according to LaFave, who said companies including General Mills Inc., Campbell Soup Co., Unilever NV, Kraft Heinz Co., Kellogg Co. and Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. are already introducing more plant-based food. Danone SA agreed to acquire WhiteWave Foods, a top maker of nut and soy milks, for a 23 percent premium last year, and said in July that the acquisition is expected to help sales.

Tyson, which described itself for years as a producer and marketer of chicken, beef and pork, is quickly recasting its image. The company now calls itself “one of the world’s largest food companies and a recognized leader in protein.”

New Website Connects Livestock Producers to Carbon for Composting

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:13:56 GMT

As swine producers hit hard by COVID-19 grapple with the last-resort decision of depopulation, Nebraska Extension is stepping up to help producers who are facing this challenge.

Composting is one of several ways that producers can dispose of animal carcasses. However, most don’t have access to the large amounts of carbon—such as mulch, hay, manure or lawn waste—needed to safely perform composting of large volumes of carcasses.

Benny Mote, swine Extension specialist, and Amy Schmidt, livestock bioenvironmental engineer and Extension specialist, both at University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), helped launch DisasterCARE.unl.edu. This website allows municipalities, businesses or individuals with carbon materials to list their available products, and for producers to search for needed materials.

“This is an extremely difficult spot for producers to be in, both financially and emotionally,” Mote said, in a UNL news release. “Helping connect producers with a carbon source gives them one less thing to worry about.”

Those who wish to donate carbon sources can visit DisasterCARE.unl.edu , create an account, and fill out a simple form in which they provide information on the type of carbon they can provide, how much they have, where they are located and whether they can assist with loading or delivery. Producers in need can create an account to view and connect with suppliers of carbon sources.

“Our estimates had it taking nearly 20 semi loads of carbon to do above-ground composting of a 2,400-head finisher barn of market hogs,” Mote told Farm Journal’s PORK. “When the reality of producers needing to euthanize a large number of heavyweight hogs hit, we realized the only list we had in Nebraska for carbon was a PDF that was 5 years old. We wanted to make a ‘live’ list that anyone needing to find carbon could get an active list.”

The website accepts entries from any state, Mote said, because this issue does not stop at the Nebraska state lines. The site is searchable by county, and they hope a feature can be added in the future for the producer to enter in his barn address and put a radius on the search distance.

“While all states could enter in their data for big carbon sources, we hope that if the need really gets large, that word can go out to the public, specifically farmers, ranchers, and municipalities, that we are in need of large carbon sources that are available for donation/sale,” Mote said.

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

Depopulation: 4 Things Producers Need to Consider

Peterson Promises Indemnity for Depopulation in Next COVID Bill

Sen. Grassley: It’s Time to Analyze Aid Packages

A Mortality Composting How-To

Carbon Goal Will Create Undue Hardships For Farmers, Congressman Says

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:11:56 GMT

The goal for the U.S. to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, as it currently is proposed, will create undue hardships for rural Americans and, specifically, farmers, according to U.S. Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA, 8th District).

Scott, who is a member of both the House Ag Committee and the House Committee on Armed Services, shared his opinions on the goal during last week’s agriculture subcommittee hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives. The hearing was a result of the proposal, which was announced by House Democrats on June 30.

“The first thing that we need to understand is that the people that are driving the agenda on the left, the Environmental Defense Fund and others, do not like production agriculture,” Scott told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory on Tuesday. “If they had their way, everything would be small organic farms.”

Scott noted that one Georgia farmer who was part of the hearing last week does use organic production practices, which Scott said usually results in higher priced food products.

“I would tell the American citizens that he sells a small chicken for $20.99 on his website and four dozen eggs for $30,” Scott said. “There’s a certain segment of America that is extremely wealthy and is capable of paying those prices. But if you want to walk into the grocery store and buy a rotisserie chicken for $6, then you need to understand the end result of these environmental policies that they want to apply to the farm is the end of that $6 rotisserie chicken.”

Flory interjected that he believes organic farming enterprises are viable options today in some scenarios. “If consumers want to buy the products, and producers can fill the demand and make a premium, good for them,” he said.

Flory added that his challenge is, “I don’t see how organic and sustainability go together—not a $20 chicken.”

Scott replied that he is keenly focused on profitability, which he views as a key part of sustainability.

“I’m from the South and from the farm, and I recognize if the bills don’t get paid then the tractor doesn’t run in the fields,” he said. “If there are (sustainable production practices) that are cost-effective, farmers will do those things—we just don’t want to mandate those things from Washington D.C.”

More of Scott’s comments during the AgriTalk segment are available here:

In his statements before the subcommittee last week, Scott added that he is prepared to work in a bipartisan manner to improve upon current programs and find new solutions to climate issues. “However, I will not support an extreme climate agenda that fails to consider that rural Americans will have to shoulder the burden of these staff proposals.”

Scott said he is sensitive to farmers’ current economic plight and that his district still struggles as result of Hurricane Michael, which swept through southwest Georgia in October of 2018. The storm caused more than $2.5 billion in losses to the state’s agriculture industry, according to estimates from University of Georgia Cooperative Extension economists.

“We lost a tremendous amount of capital, due to natural disaster,” Scott said. “Production has been good (since then), but the prices… quite honestly, if the yields aren’t record yields, we’re still upside down. There’s no margin left.”

Scott said he is advocating for another round of Market Facilitation Program (MFP) assistance to farmers and ranchers.

“Let’s be honest…MFP is not the long-term solution to the crisis we have in farming country right now,” Scott said. “But we have got to get the value of our products high enough so that good farmers can make their bills if they’re doing their jobs, and we’re not there right now.”

Flory added that he believes the ongoing pandemic has exposed some of the vulnerabilities in the supply chain. He also asked Scott about his concerns regarding foreign ownership of some parts of the U.S. food supply.

“It’s not just foreign ownership—it’s them injecting things into our food supply that concerns me,” Scott said. “You’ve got African swine flu out there in China and other parts of the world. We have to protect our food supply from those invasive diseases and invasive species.

“We’ve seen now where people are receiving packets of seed from China that are unmarked and that they didn’t order,” he adds. “Certainly, if you look at what the python has done to the Florida Everglades and the destruction of that habitat, we have to be very careful in this country of what we bring into our country and the damage that it can do to our food supply, and we don’t talk enough about that.”

U.S. Warns Against Planting Unsolicited Seeds from China

Senate Releases New Stimulus Bill

Additional Guidance on Senate Proposals