Climate-Smart Research for the Farms of the Future

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to learn from our briefing which explored the latest advancements in agricultural research, technology, and practices. As climate change continues to trigger extreme weather of increasing frequency and severity, farmers and ranchers are looking for innovative techniques to bolster crop resilience and ensure food security. Research in areas ranging from drought-resistant crops to carbon sequestration and precision agriculture can provide new ways of mitigating and adapting to climate change.

Department of Agriculture-supported research programs and partnerships are generating creative, climate-smart solutions to enhance resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions on farms and ranches. During this briefing, panelists will discuss innovations in agricultural research, as well as how to invest in, scale up, and evaluate effective practices. The briefing also explored how new policies could further support ongoing agricultural research.

Highlights

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Publicly-funded agriculture research and development provides a scientific foundation that enables farmers to produce more food with less land, labor, fertilizers, pesticides, and, notably, fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR), and the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) are dependent on the Farm Bill for funding, and these programs are critical to climate mitigation research in the agriculture sector. The Federally-Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) was created through the 1990 Farm Bill to address the inequities in agricultural education (extension) offered to Native American farmers and ranchers. However, due to a lack of funding, FRTEP has not reached its full potential. Research conducted by land-grant universities can cover broad issues involving the agriculture sector, such as nitrate pollution and eutrophication. Research can also explore on-farm challenges like soil erosion and yield sensitivity to extreme weather events as well as how policies, like crop insurance, relate to on-farm activity. The biggest barrier to providing incentives for farmers to implement climate-friendly practices is a lack of data surrounding which methods are effective. To start to address this challenge, the Inflation Reduction Act allocates $300 million for measuring, monitoring, verifying, and reporting carbon sequestration and methane and nitrous oxide emission reductions.

 

Rep. Kim Schrier, U.S. Representative (D-Wash.)

• Implementing conservation and climate-smart practices in the agriculture industry is vital to the United States' long-term strength and security.
• In the face of a changing climate and increased pressure on U.S. food supply, Congress must support farmers to ensure the country has resilient crops that can sustain the United States.
• The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (L. 117-169) dedicates nearly $20 billion to support conservation efforts and address climate change impacts on the agricultural industry.
• This investment repositions the United States for long-term success, competitiveness, and leadership in global agriculture research. The United States needs to continue to prioritize next-generation research in the agricultural sector.

 

Dan Blaustein-Rejto, Director of Food and Agriculture, The Breakthrough Institute

• The Breakthrough Institute is a non-profit organization that identifies and advocates for technological solutions to environmental challenges.
• The Farm Bill offers opportunities to increase funding for agricultural research and development (R&D), which is critical to improving the competitiveness of U.S. farmers and reducing food prices.
• Publicly-funded agriculture R&D provides a scientific foundation that enables farmers to produce more food with less land, labor, fertilizers, pesticides, and, notably, fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
• Every dollar spent on publicly-funded agriculture R&D generates about $20 in value to U.S. consumers, producers, and the broader economy.
• Investment in R&D can reduce greenhouse gas emissions for as low as $12 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent.
• Despite its value, public funding for agriculture R&D has fallen by one-third in the past 20 years, while other countries have continued to significantly increase their funding. China has now replaced the United States as the top funder of publicly-funded agriculture R&D.
• The Farm Bill offers opportunities to reverse this trend. Title VII of the Farm Bill supports agriculture research and farmer education programs, yet research accounts for less than 0.2 percent of all the 2018 Farm Bill’s mandatory spending.
• The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR), and the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) are dependent on the Farm Bill for funding, and these programs are critical to climate mitigation research in the agriculture sector.
• FFAR does not receive permanent funding, but it is critical to climate-smart research. Over 40 percent of its projects develop tools that are of immediate relevance and use to farmers and the agricultural industry.
• Agriculture Advanced R&D Authority (AgARDA) is a pilot research effort established in the 2018 Farm Bill that invests in long-term, high-risk, high-return agricultural research projects that the private sector is unwilling to invest in. AgARDA projects can help overcome barriers to the development of technologies that enhance environmental sustainability and climate-smart agriculture.
• Federal agencies and programs can also consider ways to use existing funds to invest in key research areas related to climate mitigation.

 

Kristy Borrelli, Associate Director, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), University of Maryland

• SARE is a farmer-driven grants and education program funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). SARE is committed to supporting farmers using sustainable agriculture practices through three separate programs that fund research, education, and professional development.
• SARE’s grant programs are managed by four regional offices, each with its own administrative council made up of representatives from federal agencies and local farmers. The councils decide which projects receive grant funding and which issues should be prioritized in their regions.
• Each office operates their grant programs differently, but some grant programs exist in all offices. These programs include Research and Education, Farmer/Rancher programs, “On Farm” Research/Partnership programs, Graduate Student programs, and Professional Development programs. Each program is centered on practices and research that is directly relevant to current farming practices and concerns.
• Between 1988 and 2022, SARE funded 469 projects related to soil health ($23.3 million), 1,331 projects related to cover crops ($22.3 million), 1,243 projects related to organic matter ($19.7 million), and 51 projects related to soil carbon ($17.1 million).
• SARE-funded research has focused on climate change adaptation and mitigation, rotational grazing, crop cover, on-farm renewable energy, and other issues that impact producers and farming communities.

 

Lawson Connor, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness, University of Arkansas

• Land-grant institutions like the University of Arkansas and their cooperative extension programs play an important role in agriculture research.
• Research can cover broad issues involving the agriculture sector, such as nitrate pollution and eutrophication. Research can explore on-farm challenges like soil erosion and yield sensitivity to extreme weather events. Researchers also study how policies, like crop insurance, relate to on-farm activity.
• Researchers at the University of Arkansas have examined agriculture topics like crop diversification, continuous living roots, minimum disturbance, and residue retention in order to determine the economic benefits of the practices along with any unintended effects of the practices and the federal programs that support them.
• Research looking at topics like cover crop use and crop insurance participation is important to improve the efficiency of dollars allocated by the Farm Bill.
• Programs like USDA’s AFRI and FFAR help to fund research that aims to better understand and innovate current farming practices to increase their efficiency and meet sustainability aspirations. The University of Arkansas is using this funding to do research on the risk profile of different farming practices, including crop rotation and cover cropping, and to develop an open-access cover crop dataset.

 

Tracy Morgan, 4-H Coordinator, Federally-Recognized Tribes Extension Program - Kalispel Tribe, Washington State University Cooperative Extension

• The Federally-Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) was created through the 1990 Farm Bill to address the inequities in agricultural education (extension) offered to Native American farmers and ranchers. However, due to a lack of funding, FRTEP has not reached its full potential.
• FRTEP helps with positive youth development programs, the Native Farmer and Rancher Productivity Management Program, and Native community development, which includes work on food sovereignty and food systems and how to adapt these systems to environmental changes.
• Climate change disproportionately affects Native American reservations and communities, which have already experienced consequences like extreme water shortages, drought, flooding, loss of soil integrity, inconsistent lengths of growing seasons, and increased livestock disease. These climate change impacts negatively affect food production and agriculture in Native communities.
• Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge (ITEK) can help shift practices across the United States toward more sustainable production since the techniques often consider perpetuation and propagation of plants and animals.
• ITEK practices have been adopted into small-scale planting and are making an impact on post-colonial industrial agriculture. These practices include multiple cropping, no till farming, companion planting, fallowing fields, staggering planting times, and polycultures.
• FRTEP is a catalyst for healing relationships between land-grant universities, local governments, and tribes. Ranching-based programs that are culturally focused can help revive practices that are on the verge of extinction.
• It is important to use tribal practices that have managed land sustainably for thousands of years in order to combat climate change.
• Agriculture needs to adapt to climate change. ITEK practices can combat food insecurity on and off the reservation.

 

David Hayes, Lecturer in Law, Stanford University; Former Special Assistant to President Biden for Climate Policy

• Agricultural practices can have significant positive and negative climate impacts.
• Agriculture provides an opportunity to sequester carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide through soil management; however, farming also produces large amounts of greenhouse gases, particularly methane.
• In terms of greenhouse gas impacts, nitrous oxide is 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide and methane is 30 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. One third of all excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere come from methane molecules.
• The agriculture sector is the single largest source of methane emissions in the United States, even greater than methane emissions from the oil and gas industries. Nitrous oxide emissions make up 7 percent of all U.S. emissions, and 80 percent of this nitrous oxide comes from agriculture.
• Implementing better management practices not only represents an opportunity to reduce emissions, it can also lead to higher crop yields, reduced costs, and increased climate resilience for farmers.
• The IRA sets aside $20 billion for existing agricultural conservation programs. The Secretary of Agriculture must confirm that these programs are associated with climate benefits in order for these funds to be accessed and programs to be expanded.
• The biggest barrier to providing incentives for farmers to implement climate-friendly practices is a lack of data surrounding which methods are effective. To start to address this challenge, the IRA allocates $300 million for measuring, monitoring, verifying, and reporting carbon sequestration and methane and nitrous oxide emission reductions.
• A lack of investment in climate-smart technologies and methodologies has put the United States behind in the field of sustainable agriculture.
• Payment for engaging in voluntary carbon markets has not historically been administered in a reliable way, which disincentivizes farmers to participate in conservation programs.
• Heterogeneity of agriculture soil and lack of investment in new technologies have been barriers to increased sequestration and decreased emissions.
• Monitoring farming practices for environmental benefit is expensive, time consuming, and resource intensive, which deters many farmers from experimenting with new methods. Implementing a standardized monitoring process that can be used to repay farmers for climate-friendly practices ensures environmental benefits and encourages participation in the agricultural sector.
• Recent federal investments present a historic opportunity for the USDA to identify climate-smart methodologies and establish consensus protocols.

 

Q&A

 

What steps are being taken to ensure that the programs and practices discussed today are achieving their full potential and that these investments in research are delivering the maximum climate benefits that they promise?

 Blaustein-Rejto

• There are three elements that are important to consider when measuring the effectiveness of these programs:
• Analyzing all the greenhouse gas emissions involved, not just carbon dioxide.
• Incorporating an assessment of the impact of practices on yields. If yields go down, this could lead to carbon leakage where greenhouse gas emissions are produced by farmers elsewhere to make up for these decreased yields.
• Ensuring additionality, which means making sure that a federal incentive or program leads to a change the producer would not otherwise make.

 Borrelli

• From a technical standpoint, it is important to prepare producers to ask the questions that they want to be measuring, find the results that they want to attain, and be able to quantify those results.
• Understanding how these programs impact people’s personal lives, experiences, relationships, and communities is also important to remember and may not be something that is considered or measured beforehand.
• The SARE program has seen benefits a couple years after implementation that were not anticipated. This gets into the importance of using social science methods to evaluate community and grant users to see larger impacts.

 Connor

• It really depends on what programs are setting out to do and trying to measure. For example, where carbon is concerned, measurement and additionality will be the biggest questions to address.
• The Chesapeake Bay area has effectively addressed local concerns like runoff by adopting appropriate programs like cover crop adoption. Part of their success involved setting up an evaluation of the biggest needs in local areas and using appropriate practices to address those concerns and goals.

 Hayes

• This should not just be a carbon climate calculation—it is important to look at methane and nitrous oxide in the agriculture sector.
• In the soil health area, regular soil testing, which is required for many federal programs, is expensive and labor intensive. There are emerging technologies that will help break down some of these costs, but farmers should not be expected to do this testing. Rather, the federal government should do this testing on a regional basis and with regular verification.
• Regarding methane and nitrous oxide, it is important to set up good protocols, take advantage of current research, and increase funding.

 

What strategies does SARE use to design grant application processes that are accessible to diverse applicants and to lower the barrier to entry for applicants with less administrative capacity or experience applying for and managing federal grants?

 Borrelli

• SARE as a whole is focused on addressing barriers. Our mission is to represent the whole of American agriculture and support farmer-based programs.
• SARE acknowledges there is some internal work to do to make sure programs are inclusive, and part of it is asking those communities what we should know. SARE asks questions like, “what are some of the limitations with our grant programs?”
• One example of a change that has been made is that SARE had a definition of a farm that was very convenient: An area of land generating $1,000 or more from production. SARE realized that the definition excluded communities that might be producing that volume of food, but giving the food back to their community, not selling it. That was a limiting factor, so it changed the definition to not require that the production be sold.
• Invoice funding can also be a barrier because the funding has to be provided upfront, which is not available to everybody. SARE is working to address this challenge.

Connor

• In terms of supporting access to information or funding in rural communities, land-grant institutions have a role in increasing access through extension and delivery programs.

Hayes

• The USDA’s Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program wanted to hear how grants given out by the program would help frontline communities, disadvantaged communities, and small farmers. The USDA worked hard to fund partnerships that are broad based and that take into account those factors.
• The Justice40 initiative is going to be guiding a lot of climate spending. The Biden-Harris Administration is working to make sure that 40 percent of the benefits of that spending goes to disadvantaged communities.

Blaustein-Rejto

• There has been a significant disparity in research funding between the historically-Black land-grant institutions and the Tribal colleges compared to the 1862 Land-Grant Institutions.
• The Center for American Progress report, The 2023 Farm Bill Must Address Inequities in the Land-Grant University System, found that the endowments of the older land-grant institutions are four to eight times higher on average than at the historically-Black and Tribal institutions. This impacts the research that these institutions can carry out and has indirect impacts because it is more difficult for universities and colleges to provide matching funds, which are often required for federal grants.
• Historically-Black land-grant institutions have forfeited tens of millions of dollars in federal funds, because they do not have sufficient state-sponsored matching funds or funds from their endowments to secure that funding.
• There is also a disparity in terms of the amount of research funding available for crop research versus livestock research. There is a lot less funding available for livestock research, both from the public sector as well as the private sector, despite the economic value of the two being similar.

 

Compiled by Maggie Christianson and Laura Gries and edited for clarity and length. This is not a transcript.