Introduction
Climate change is an immediate threat to every part of human life. As climate change continues to be a problem left unsolved, issues caused by climate change will only continue to progress. One sector that is clearly seeing a negative effect from the results of climate change is agriculture, especially the category of livestock. The agriculture sector accounts for 22% of the worlds global greenhouse gas emissions, and 80% of that number alone comes from the category of livestock. While the blame is always put on carbon dioxide for the warming of the Earth, nitrous oxide and methane are the gases to blame for the great impact that the agriculture sector is having on climate change especially when it pertains to livestock.
Methane is produced through the digestion process of many livestock animals, but especially cows which the sector is in high demand since the consumption of beef in the United States has skyrocketed in recent years. The process of digesting plants such as grass is explained as “fermenting and digesting them in a multi-part specialized stomach. This “enteric fermentation” process allows them to obtain nutrients from grazing in fields and pastures. However, grass is more difficult to digest than grain, and so grazing livestock tend to produce more methane (the notorious “cow burps and farts” problem), a greenhouse gas with roughly 28 times the warming potential of CO2 over a 100-year time frame”(Climate Nexus).
As of now the category of livestock is booming in American food consumption. “Americans consume more than 36 million metric tons of meat and poultry annually. Livestock and poultry account for over half of U.S. agricultural cash receipts, often over $100 billion per year”(EPA). While the sector of agriculture is producing a very hefty ecological footprint already through livestock and meat production the sector shows no sign of slowing down as America’s consumption rate of meat is going to continue to expand. The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook of 2018-2027 projects, “Global meat production is projected to be 15% higher in 2027 relative to the base period. Developing countries are projected to account for the vast majority of the total increase, with greater use of a grain-intensive feeding system in the production process, resulting in increased carcass weight”(OECD-FAO).
While Americans are calling for more meat, many experts are expressing the dire need for a dramatic shift in consumption practices. The EAT- Lancet Commission goes in-depth in the drastic changes that would need to occur to be able to stop the process of global warming from a consumption standpoint. The EAT- Lancet Commission states, “Transformation to healthy diets by 2050 will require substantial dietary shifts. This includes a more than doubling in the consumption of healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts, and a greater than 50% reduction in global consumption of less healthy foods such as added sugars and red meat” (EAT-Lancet Commission). The report goes further into explaining the dietary switch, which will not only benefit the environment but human health as well as there are significant health downfalls that follow the habit of consuming meat. EAT-Lancet Commission reported on the effects the dietary shift could have on human health. The report stated, “preventing approximately 11 million deaths per year, which represent between 19% to 24% of total deaths among adults” (EAT-Lancet Commission). While the increase in meat consumption is not only hurting human health but is also directly affecting the Earth. With the increase of meat consumption,y the agriculture sector is needing to turn more land into usable resources to meet the growing demands of meat consumption. At an alarming rate, land is being converted to be used by the agricultural sector to be able to use for pastures and to grow more crops to be able to feed livestock. This process is having a very negative impact on the Earth as the Nuffield Department of Population Health reported, “conversion of land to pasture and arable feed crops results in an increase in pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus which have a detrimental effect on biodiversity” (CEU). Not only is land being affected by the livestock sector, but the quality of water has taken a hard hit as well. The pollutants from the livestock sector have trickled into the water system. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports, “In the last 20 years, a new class of agricultural pollutants has emerged in the form of veterinary medicines (antibiotics, vaccines and growth promoters [hormones]), which move from farms through water to ecosystems and drinking-water sources” (FAO).
As Americans continue to consume massive amounts of livestock the sector will continue to produce and raise livestock to meet the ever-growing consumption rates. While companies are trying to meet consumer demands the environment feels the grave effects brought on by the rise of greenhouse gases produced by livestock. Experts predict the many negative effects that will arise out of climate change. The first negative effect that the sector will see is through the increase of heat waves due to the rise in temperatures. “Heat stress affects animals both directly and indirectly. Over time, heat stress can increase vulnerability to disease, reduce fertility, and reduce milk production” (EPA). While experts predict this increase of heatwaves the IPCC report provides substantial backing for these ideas. The report concludes, “a confidence level > 90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, [and] heat waves” (THE LANCET).
The negative effect of heat increase will produce a double negative for the production rate of the sector. While companies will continue to try and meet consumers’ demands they will be doing themselves a disservice as the overproduction of livestock and the emissions produced from said livestock will increase warming therefore reduce fertility rates. Another major implication of rising temperatures is the increase of diseases and parasites that directly affect livestock. “This could increase the risk of pesticides entering the food chain or lead to evolution of pesticide resistance, with subsequent implications for the safety, distribution, and consumption of livestock and aquaculture products”. As temperatures increase companies may still be able to produce massive amounts of meat, but the meat may be contaminated through parasites and diseases. Climate change will also drastically affect livestock through the change in weather patterns. Drought will affect the pastures that animals graze so animals that rely on grain could become gravely affected. Companies who raise and produce a large number of livestock have a very large stake in stopping climate change as drought poses the risk of wiping away a company's entire inventory.
Because of the many negative impacts that the current way of agriculture in the livestock sector is bringing to the Earth, many changes need to be adopted by the United States to fight climate change through policy. Through our research, and by analyzing livestock policies from all around the world, we have analyzed three policies that we believe could be useful tools for the United States to use when creating our country's own policies in regard to livestock and climate change.
Policy Innovations
Silvopasture (Argentina)
The expansion of monoculture into not just flora agriculture, but fauna agriculture like cattle ranching, has only exasperated the encroachment of climate change and its effects. An evident result of this expansion has been the rampant deforestation of different biomes all across the world. Popular agricultural practices, like open grazing cattle ranching, are depleting the soil’s ability to sequester carbon. Carbon sequestration, or the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, mainly affects the soil’s ability to absorb water. This raises the risk of land disasters, such as the flooding seen in the Great Plains in March 2019, and also a biome’s resistance to drought.
In Argentina’s northern woodland biome, these environmental changes caused by the expansion of cattle ranching and soybean production into forested land are evident. The effects of these unsustainable measures was not small. By 2004, Argentina saw a huge influx of anti-deforestation activism from locals, international organizations, and politicians alike. Environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) like Greenpeace helped push for forest protection in northern Argentina.
Such activism opened a window for policy change in the form of the “Bill of Forests Protection” (what is now known as the Forest Law) which requires the Argentine provinces to create territorial regulations of native forests to protect them from the expansion of agricultural and livestock practices. It includes measures to “encourage enrichment, conservation, restoration, improvement, and sustainable native forest management activities.” However, this law does not include silvopasture, which is an agricultural practice that allows for the integration of trees, forage, and livestock in a symbiotic manner to occur, as a form of conservation.
At the federal level, the National Secretariat of Environment and Sustainable Development and the Environmental Federal Council (COFEMA) are responsible for the administration of the Forest Law and supplement land planning and soil conservation. COFEMA, which contains one representative from each province in Argentina, is largely responsible for the regulation of the National Fund for Native Forests Conservation and Enrichment. Funding allotments break down like this: 70% of the funds are allocated to compensate landowners when they submit their own land-use plan that establishes a contractual obligation over a period of time set by the landowner, and 30% is to establish a monitoring system and to provide the funds for authorities to assist the process.
The Forest Law was developed with an understanding of the indigenous populations (Article 19 of the law) and an emphasis on provincial-level capacity. The provinces then assigns zones into three conservation categories. Zones designated as red are under category 1 and are fully protected and cannot be changed. Category 2 (yellow) is considered medium conservation which can be used, but must be used for restoration and conservation. Meanwhile category 3 (green) can be converted to the owners wishes under the law, under Article 9.
This policy is an example of a Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) policy. PES programs are designed to promote healthier, sustainable agricultural practices through government payments to farmers. These payments would help offset any costs associated with the transition from unsustainable to sustainable agriculture.
However there is mounting evidence that the current structure of the Forest Law and its connection to agriculture is weak and needs proper amendments in order to be considered a successful PES program. The first problem is a lack of monetary support for the national fund established by the Forest Law. While the fund itself is legally supposed to be no less than 0.3 percent of the national budget, the amount in the fund has consistently decreased. In 2014, the fund was 14x less than the legal minimum, and by 2016, it was 23x less. PES policies cannot work if individuals are not being properly compensated.
Second, there is evidence that deforestation has continued in areas that are designated as protected. Corporations are continuing to clear forests because fines are tiny in comparison to the amount of profit they make form agricultural development in, for example, soybean production. Clearing protected forests is regarded as a civil violation rather than a criminal violation, and these laws are just getting weaker. Local governments are also allowing deforestation to occur in some areas through decrees, which are more flexible than federal law. This is an example of the National Secretariat of Environmental and Sustainable Development’s lack of capacity in judicial enforcement. Raising the capacity of all actors will be key to the implementation of any modified version of the policy that could be implemented in the United States.
Lastly, and most importantly, the Forest Law limits landholders ability to develop sustainable agroforestry systems like silvopastures in Category 2 (yellow) zones. The idea that silvopasture could be considered a conservationist practice or technique instead of a policy, along with the federal government’s inability to administrate the regulations of Forest Law, poses a challenge to implementation.
There is mounting scientific evidence which demonstrates the effectiveness of such policy in fighting climate change. It supports a return to simpler agricultural practices and a support for local biodiversity. Economic gains need to be emphasized due to the time required to develop comparable yields to non-silvopastoral practices (such as having open fields), the question of productivity, and quality of forage for livestock. However after a year of production, yields at least matched forage produced from open pastures.
Silvopastures provide greater ecosystem support. Silvo-forage can also have a higher protein content, while having similar fibre composition to open grasses. (This is important because the livestock-produced GHGs are a direct result of the plant matter they consume. Grass is more difficult to digest than grain, and so grazing livestock produce more methane.) Certain leaves and pods from trees can also be added to livestock diets to decrease methane outputs. Because silvopastures provide moderate shade, many examples of grasses and legumes grow larger yields and provide protection of forage in times of drought. Finally, silvopastures promote carbon sequestration because they provide a higher organic carbon density when compared to an open pasture with low biodiversity. The organic carbon and its symbiotic root system reach deeper into soil providing a healthier soil in the process.
Silvopastures also support livestock. Given time, forage for livestock will not just be maintained, but increased. It increases the soil’s organic carbon density and depth, thus allowing for more carbon dioxide to be sequestered out of the atmosphere. Cattle would be able to consume natural leaf and pod additives which reduce methane output. Overall, silvopastures can help humankind resist the byproducts of climate change: flooding resistance through stable root systems and higher water absorption capacities, as well as providing adequate shade in case of extended dry spells.
The deforestation concerns are different for the two states. In Argentina, the rate of deforestation is enormous compared to the United States, and can be attributed to a desire to develop and support a growing economy, national food security, and a foothold in the global economy. By contrast, the United States experiences deforestation on a much smaller scale, and would benefit less from a policy strictly regarding deforestation. (Such policy may work on the county or state levels in heavily forested areas, or to balance reforestation with cattle and ranching needs.) Instead, we would suggest a PES or tax break system to support sustainable livestock production practices, such as silvopastures.
The key point of PES programs is that their implementation and acceptance of funds are voluntary in nature. Overall, the federal government would need only be responsible for the broad establishment of guidelines in order for a local rancher to receive funds; implementation would be reliant on state and county level actors. Institutionally, these lower levels have a greater understanding of the local flora and fauna types that are integral to pastures, as well as soil types, effective agricultural practices, and regulations. There is also a greater communal connection between individuals.
Grazing Patterns (United Kingdom)
A heavy reliance on beef and other cattle products as a source of protein is not a sustainable path to provide food. Grass-fed beef initiatives and some preliminary agriculture studies have been marketing this management style as a sustainable way to fight climate change through carbon sequestration. Instead of cattle relying on grain as their main source of food, these cattle are put into much larger pasturelands and consume a bulk of their calories in the form of grass. How this is beneficial for the soil requires some explanation. As these cattle consume grass in their large pasture lands, they defecate on the grass they are eating and have to move to another location. This spreads the fecal matter around and forces the animals to not overgraze in one spot and gives the grass time to grow. The manure is a natural fertilizer which contains high levels of nitrogen, which is beneficial for the soil and does not require a heavy use of fertilizer. As the grass grows it will pull carbon dioxide out of the air through photosynthesis and will use this carbon to grow both the visible part of grass and its much larger roots. This process is known as carbon sequestration. There are different standards for the label of grass fed beef that vary across the world. Private labels in the UK, such as Pasture for Life Certification Standards, have rigorous requirements such as 100% of the food that the cows eat must be grass. While in the United States, the USDA has removed any requirements about what grass fed beef should be defined as. While this practice is a sustainable practice and has significant benefits for better soil health and carbon sequestration, it is misleading to say this practice could help solve climate change.
The purpose of Grazed and Confused? Is to make a collection of all the available facts of their narrow study without diving into the details of some factors that are also related to ruminant animal production such as water use, nutritional differences between grazing styles, animal ethics and other factors. Ruminant animals are animals with digestive system with a multi-chambered stomach and chew cud, examples of domestic ruminants are cow, sheep, and bison. The main observation the article is trying to show is the relationship between soil carbon sequestration and grass-fed ruminants and their impact on emissions. While grass-fed beef initiatives are considered to be more sustainable than our current land management practices it is an ineffective way to produce food and manage the land in terms of climate and production. There are a number of different reasons why.
Regarding carbon soil carbon sequestration. If the pasture or field is lacking high concentrations of carbon in the topsoil, this could be a potential solution to improve soil health and restore levels of carbon that would increase organic matter. However the soil will reach a point of equilibrium where it cannot store any more carbon and will diminish the high rates of carbon sequestration over time. This process of sequestration is not a fast acting solution for the reduction of emissions. Soil carbon sequestration can take upwards of fifty to one hundred years before the soil is able to meet a new point of equilibrium. The most significant gains will be made within the first thirty to seventy years. These carbon sinks can also reverse the equilibrium if the conditions are right. If there is a drought or if the cattle stop grazing on these pastures the "extra" carbon that had been stored in the soil can reverse and release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Grass is not as effective at storing carbon in comparison to woodland carbon sequestration and other land uses, trees are able to store more biomass in above ground storage. Overall grass-fed land management is not the viable solution for reducing the emissions.“The sequestration potential from grazing management is between 295–800 Mt CO2-eq/year: this offsets only 20-60% of annual average emissions from the grazing ruminant sector, and makes a negligible dent on overall livestock emissions (Garnett & Godde, 2017).” The problem of livestock emissions is not due to the management styles, it is the livestock. The overwhelming amount of emissions is the result of enteric fermentation, the gases that ruminants produce during digestion in the form of belching, which accounts for 40% of global emissions from livestock supply chains. The total emissions from the livestock supply chain emissions are estimated at 7.1 gigatonnes CO2-ep/year, which does include poultry and pig, cattle consists of 65% of that total.
Why this becomes an ineffective solution for climate mitigation, ruminants produce high rates of methane gas as part of their enteric fermentation. Any gains made by storing the carbon in the soil will be lost by the cattle producing more methane which is more volatile than carbon dioxide. A tonne of methane will have a short term impact on warming the climate than a tonne of carbon dioxide. However methane does not stay in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide will. Hypothetically speaking, if all methane production were stopped today, there would be a lasting warming effect for a roughly a decade. Whereas carbon dioxide will have a lasting impact that will last well over a century. There is no effective way of reducing the amount of gases emitted by ruminants other than not having as many. The production and reliance on cattle have only continued to grow across the urbanized world, which will only further the climate change problem.
Our current agriculture system is set up to provide food security for all Americans and to prevent another Dust Bowl. A hypothetical example of how our current system provides food security for humans and the cattle; if we were to use this grazing management of grass-fed cattle across the nation and there was a drought, the cattle would simply starve because there would be less grain to ride out the drought. If farmers were to use a grass fed management, they would have to convert fields used to grow grain into grazing lands.
With the scale of how much cattle we have in America, we would not have enough space to convert all the fields into grazing land in order to effectively feed all the cattle and to produce enough food. Due to our heavy reliance on beef as a source of protein, we dedicate large areas of grazing land for ruminants to make their food. "Grasslands are among the largest ecosystems in the world, occupying between 2600 to 6100 Mha (Godde et al., 2017) or about 20–47% of the earth’s land area as estimated by FAO (2017). Of this total, one analysis suggests that about 2,600 Mha – the lower end of the estimates – are grazed by domestic animals (Garnett & Godde, 2017)." To be clear, there is a difference between grazing lands and grasslands. Grasslands are defined as the ecosystem the are naturally found and are dominated by grass. Humans may use the grasslands for grazing for domestic animals in some cases. All grazing lands are used for domestic animal use and are usually not found naturally and are made by humans. There is some grey area between the two definitions.
With our current system, we are able to make more meat then grass-fed beef pasturelands. The main conclusion of Grazed and Confused?, despite the fact that grass-fed beef management styles are considered more sustainable it is not the way to solve climate change. It is a misleading statement. The most effective way to fight climate change through agriculture/food is to consume less ruminant animal products for protein and eat more pork, poultry, and plant based proteins. Chicken and pig production require less space to produce their food and emit less emissions. “When emissions are expressed on a per protein basis, beef is the commodity with the highest emission intensity (amount of GHGs emitted per unit of output produced), with an average of over 300 kg CO2-eq per kg of protein... Cow milk, chicken products and pork have lower global average emission intensities, all below 100 kg CO2-eq per kg of edible protein (Gerber et al, 2013).”
We are incredibly reliant on ruminant animals as a source of protein, "Ruminant milk and meat contributes 13 g protein/person/day – about half of the world’s terrestrial animal protein supply (27 g protein/person/day), or just over a third of animal protein supply if sources from aquaculture are also included (Garnett & Godde, 2017)."
Manure Storage (Netherlands)
With the livestock production rapidly increasing around the world we tend to forget about the inevitable by product of manure. Not only is our livestock demands going up our manure treatment continues to remain poor. Manure is an important source of organic matter for agricultural soils and could be a big benefactor to biological, physical, and chemical soil qualities. It contains naturally high levels of Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P). So what is the issue with manure? Increased manure production and poor manure management can cause unwanted consequences.
When you have high concentrated areas of livestock you get nutrient accumulation and environmental pollution. This is done through nitrogen and phosphorus runoff which causes nutrient leaching and eutrophication. Eutrophication is when water gets excessive nutrient inputs, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, from fertilizer runoff and that leads to massive algae blooms. These algae blooms remove the oxygen from the water causing dead zones. In the end, this can have a negative impact on the soil such as soil deprivation.
On the other side you can have areas of focused crop growth and production causing nutrient depletion and soil degradation. Nutrient depletion and soil degradation can damage soils through offsetting natural nutrient balances such as nitrogen and phosphorus. On one side we have manure overstock and on the other manure demand. This is where the Netherlands government came into effect to solve this problem.
The Netherlands Department of Agriculture and the Plant Research International Study Program came together to make a policy correcting the issues stated above. The department's policy had farmers meet required nitrogen and phosphorus levels within a three year time period. These levels were set in order to satisfy new national food quality laws as well as keep groundwater nitrogen and phosphorus levels within the drinking limit. This was done through annual soil and groundwater tests required by national food quality laws. Another step taken was to properly store manure through many different options, such as biochemical storage or even simple composting methods. These storage methods helped with nutrient leaching, as well as containing or eliminating smells. The most important part of the manure storage was to analyze the manure nutrient content in order to better disperse it throughout selected areas. This would better nutrient flows within the fields ecosystems. Also education was given out to the farmers in order to better understand the effectiveness of manure fertilizers. These education programs informed farmers of the importance of organic and inorganic fertilizers as well as how to properly use both in certain scenarios. This was for farmers to better understand the fertilizer recommendations to lower the nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the soil and water on their lands. For all these regulations there was a positive outcome.
The policy was a success. It ended up lowering Nitrogen levels in all categories. That is levels in grasslands and arable lands. The same thing happened with phosphorus levels in the land categories. As stated in the Dutch databank “N surplus for grassland decreased from 300 kg ha-1 in 1998 to 180 kg ha-1 in 2004 and even to 140 kg ha-1 on dry sandy soils, where a relatively large part of the N surplus is lost by nitrate leaching. Meanwhile, the P surplus decreased from 17.5 to 8.7 kg P ha-1.” But even though it was a success it had its limitations.
Some of these limitations are that the farmers had a hard time adjusting to the new regulations in such a short period of time. Some never had to worry about nitrogen and phosphorus levels and now they had to measure those levels regularly in order to be able to sell their crops. Another issue the farmers had was calculating those levels within their lands. Many restrictions and rules made it difficult to correctly calculate. So much so that farmers would find ways to allow higher levels by purchasing more lands but simply not using them. Just buying land to help disperse nitrogen and phosphorus levels. Also farmers did not change right away, with a 60% failure rating within the first year. And the last limitation given was that there simply isn't enough research yet. There needs to be more on evaluations in crop responses and nutrient utilization. The research now is on small cases that need to be expanded on. But even with these limitations it still gained public support.
Many farmers and citizens in the Netherlands now support this policy. With organic and inorganic fertilizer combination it offers the best manure management while also minimizing environmental pollution. And at the same time it is giving confidence among farmers in the use of animal manures with an increase in crop production which causes economic benefits as well as environmental benefits.
Livestock manures play an enormous part in maintaining high levels of crop production which in return helps feed ourselves along with the livestock. In the end manure is a complex combination of livestock demand, soil science, and plant production. Manure needs to be used effectively as a resource instead of being labeled as a pollutant.
The likelihood of a policy, like stated above, being implemented in the United States is reassuring. The Netherlands gained support of their programs and policies through higher crop yield rates. If we can inform our local farmers and get them to take the first step, they will be the ones to show everyone else that this method isn't just good for the environment but can also benefit them financially. Giving the farmers real personal results would be the best way to get through to them, and maybe they would begin understand the big picture of climate change.
Assessment
The methodology for the following predictions is based on statements made by current legislators, priorities on the agenda for the House Committee on Agriculture, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, funding allocations under the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill), and any major changes coming out of the US Department of Agriculture.
To start, let us consider the 2018 Farm Bill. This law will fund and support agricultural funds, conservation efforts, initiatives, programs, research, and institutions until 2023. It is critical to view support for climate-smart agriculture (CSA) through this lens, not simply because it is current; rather, the majority of action taken to mitigate catastrophic climate change will be taken under its duration. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has estimated that humankind has twelve years before such change is unavoidable; after the 2018 Farm Bill is renewed, there only remains eight years to produce substantial change.
Our first two policies focus on grazing patterns and the use of pastoral lands. The Farm Bill continued funding for the Grazinglands Research Laboratory that would support innovation in grazing-land use and associated practices, established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (2008). Title 2 of the current Farm Bill continues providing funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); EQIP supports “conservation incentive contracts” in order to balance environmental concerns with livestock grazing patterns. Educational programming and other measures which would support the development of silvopasture practices throughout different areas of rural America. Support for a modified version of this policy is also demonstrated in the continuation of funding for the Providing Producers Certainty and Regulatory Relief programme which involves promoting individual actions to support efforts to meet the Endangered Species Act. This program would be part of the social protections necessary to make silvopastures an acceptable form of agriculture. Additionally, under the current Farm Bill, financial support was extended for a provision of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act (1977) that provides grants to support “rangeland research programs.”
When looking for support for our fertilizer-enhancement policy, there are several research avenues that could be pursued. Under the current Farm Bill, there are several provisions regarding agricultural research and education that would support investment in making fertilizers more climate-friendly and productive. The bill continued funding for a provision in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act (1990) that supports the creation of research or education programs that “optimize crop and livestock potential and are environmentally sound.” The policy recommended here would fall under such a provision that had support in the 1990s and in 2018 with the passage of the Farm Bill.
Under Title VII of the current Farm Bill, $780 million was allocated for research programs. The Urban, Indoor, and Other Emerging Agricultural Production, Education, and Extension Initiative received $10 million in funding (to be used over five years); this initiative supports “emerging” ideas within agriculture and could support funding into research that makes manure and other fertilizers more efficient and less damaging to the environment.
Of course, support for these policies has to be viewed with the capacities of the United States. There are already challenges to the implementation of agricultural policy within the United States. Inadequate capacity of both farmers and institutions at the local, state, or national levels, is the main barrier to greater competitiveness and sustainability. This is not for a lack of trying or willingness on either the part of the individual farmer or other local, state, or national actors; rather, it stems from a need for greater research, support for rural communities, and wider financial and technical support for agricultural education in primary, secondary, and tertiary schools across the spectrum of American politics.
In order to make the implementation of CSA possible, besides just sustainability within agricultural policy, there will need to be greater investment into U.S. infrastructure, especially in the areas of transportation and information and communications (ICTs) technologies. The Farm Bill begins to address these concerns through continued support for programmes including the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program, which focuses on community development, and several programmes related to rural energy expansion.
Support for these policies will also be determined by the priorities of US Agriculture. Currently, the focus appears to be on risk management and the effects of the trade war with China. The House just passed a bill to support Americans affected by extreme weather events. However, the Office of Management and Budget has opposed greater financial support for farmers who lost farming inputs, citing the prevalence of USDA crop insurance. It will be important to expand such social protection programming to allow farmers to adapt to the effects of climate change beyond what has been considered normal farm protections and assistance. Expansions of such programming will be key for the implementation of our policies. Support will be determined when the bill goes to the Senate, where it will likely face opposition.
The atmosphere for research also appears to be shifting. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue has come under fire for moving the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) out of Washington D.C. In response, researchers at both organizations have planned to unionize (NIFA will hold a vote on June 11). Economists have also been leaving the ERS, citing an atmosphere of criticism from the current administration over its reports that farm incomes have decreased.
Supporters of this plan point out that the movement of these agencies to the heartland would provide economists and researchers with closer access to key rural constituencies. Critics state that this move appears consistent with an administration not fond of opinions that conflict with their narrative. This may indicate a lack of support for research; although, as Perdue has noted, moving the ERS and NIFA to the heartland reduces cost and places it closer to key agricultural regions of the US.
Additionally, one cannot survey American agriculture without noting the increasing partisanship that now marks political discussions within the United States. The 2018 Farm Bill (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018) took eight months to negotiate and pass in a second vote after the first did not pass in the House of Representatives. It should be noted that this occurred with a Republican supermajority, and that inter-party negotiations add a layer of complexity to an already intricate bill.
In contrast, the 2014 Farm Bill required 21 months (just under two years) to become law, and, in 2008, the duration was also just over a year. The 2014 Farm Bill was unique, not for its content, but because it was the first Farm Bill to require two Congresses to achieve passage. It marked the height of partisan gridlock between the Obama Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Farm Bills have always been complicated, going back to the 1970 Farm Bill, and the increased number of actors and represented interests has only increased the complexity. However, even within the past Farm Bill, we can see support for programs related to our three policies. The 2014 Farm Bill was responsible for several crop insurance options for farmers, conservation programming, and program expansions for themes including bioenergy, organic farming, and rural development.
There is a chance that our three policies could pass given the similarities within existing agricultural programs or initiatives, current funding allotments under the current Farm Bill which is responsible for funding until 2023, and due to the need for localized policies and farming practices. Even if such policies were implemented at a small or medium scale, or a county-state level, the benefits to the environment would be clear. In the American sphere, one can see a shift in how discussions of climate change are occurring.
Conclusion
By 2050, the world’s population is projected to reach 9.8 billion. This will place a strain on food production, land use, and water availability. With more mouths to feed, it will be incredibly important to find ways to continually support an economically-viable and sustainable agriculture sector. Given the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, the need is ever-pressing. It will be critical to shape US agriculture to include climate-smart policy if the world is to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change and meet food security goals.