Five years ago, land in southeastern Ohio that Lindsay Crownig and her partner purchased was unsuitable for farming. It was 80 acres of heavily eroded hills and depressions susceptible to flooding, where cow dung and manure from a previous dairy operation ran into the waterways.
But with climate-friendly technology and a little support from the Department of Agriculture, Crowig now grows heirloom vegetables, raises grass-fed cows and goats, and produces a small amount on her farm in Appalachia. I am making chocolate. ”
Rotating herds through smaller patches of pasture allowed vegetation to regrow and rebuild vigor. erosion of the topsoil was prevented by sowing vegetation. Also, by using varieties suitable for the local climate, we were able to obtain a higher yield without the need for environmentally harmful substances such as pesticides and fertilizers.
These techniques are used to reproduce or climate friendly farming, is the cornerstone of the USDA’s approach to addressing global warming. For Ms. Crownig, these practices have practical benefits and stick to her beliefs.
Nevertheless, farmers, experts, and the federal government widely agree that these practices provide benefits such as improving soil and water health, building resilience to drought, and enhancing biodiversity. increase.
“All of this brings together mitigation and adaptation aspects of climate-smart agriculture,” said Caitlin Welsh, a food security and climate change expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank. It will help,” he said. .
The Biden Administration’s Environmental Agenda
Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, said farmers played a key role in ensuring a habitable planet.
“We tend to believe that farmers are good stewards of their land,” he added, but said that positive perceptions could change. At 30% of your emissions, you’re shattered.”
Most of the federal funds about $19.5 billion The Inflation Reduction Act, which Mr. Biden signed into law last month, could strengthen existing agricultural conservation programs that encourage climate-friendly practices. The USDA has announced additional spending in recent weeks. $2.8 billion Establish and study climate-smart production on 20-25 million acres of worksite.
Demand for existing conservation programs far exceeds the amount of funding the Ministry of Agriculture can provide. Half to two-thirds of farmers who apply are turned down every year. Similarly, the USDA has received more than 1,000 of his applications for climate-friendly pilot projects, with requested support totaling $20 billion, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said at a press conference earlier this month. .
“Farmers want to implement conservation programs for this species,” said Ben Liliston of the Agricultural Trade Policy Institute, a Minnesota-based research and advocacy nonprofit. We need this money and these resources to help farmers transition.”
Currently, climate-smart farming is still a niche, but a growing trend. latest agricultural census With about 100 million acres of cultivated land, farmers are estimated to use a no-till system (planting crops directly into the land without digging or turning over). The farmer has also planted about 15 million acres of his 900 million farmlands in the United States with cover crops that are sown to prevent erosion and increase moisture.
Farmers leveraging existing conservation programs have directly observed the ecological and economic benefits of such climate-smart practices.
Seth Watkins, who raises cattle on about 2,800 acres in southwestern Iowa, uses practices such as grazing rotation and planting clover as a cover crop to keep monarch butterflies and songbirds on his farm. It is said that it also contributed to the summons and profit.
He purchased less store feed for his cows, which were allowed to graze longer in the pasture. Their health has improved with fresh air and grass, which has led to lower veterinary costs. There is no
“My savings come from reducing my use of fossil fuels across the board,” he said. “We cannot allow agriculture to continue to rely on finite resources.”
In nearby Indiana, Brian Scott has been planting cover crops such as radishes and ryegrass on about a quarter to a third of his 2,400-acre farm for 10 years, as well as corn, soybeans and wheat. increase. He has also refrained from working his land for several years.
“For us, the real reason to do it was less labor and less equipment,” he said. With more funding available, Scott wants to apply for another round to expand cover crops.
Hannah Smith Brubaker turned cornfields into pasture on her organic vegetable farm in Pennsylvania. Planted rows of trees, known as windbreaks, control erosion and protect against gusts of wind. and built grass channels or channels planted with vegetation to collect water.
“We have had a terrible drought this year,” she said. “And if we hadn’t put some of these conservation efforts in place, I don’t know what we would have done. The soil would dry out so much that we could close.”
Their experience is reflected in the data. March report A USDA study evaluating the effectiveness of conservation programs over a decade ago found that these practices reduced water erosion by 76 million tons and wind erosion by 94 million tons annually. Average yearly fuel usage also decreased by 110 million gallons on diesel. This equates to 1.2 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
Still, experts warn that to really reduce agricultural emissions, we need programs to discourage practices that have been labeled harmful and encourage farming and ranching practices that have proven results. Did.
Welsh of the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that existing programs and new grants are inadequate to directly address major sources of emissions from agriculture. fertilizerThey release nitrous oxide, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Encouraging more precise fertilizer application and encouraging more sustainable manufacturing processes would benefit both climate change and producers, “given the impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine and the current high price of fertilizers.” would,” she said.
Liliston said the additional funding was a good start, but “it’s not transformative and doesn’t address the underlying system.” The system, along with agricultural policies, encourages practices that aren’t very good for the planet, he said.
“Large-scale commodity production requires the use of large amounts of fertilizers and pesticides,” he said. “There are still major farm bill programs that anchor these systems.”
Faber argued that of the hundreds of practices encouraged by existing conservation programs, only a few dozen can actually mitigate climate change. According to a study by the Environmental Working Group, only 20% of funding for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, one of the USDA’s largest conservation programs, supports practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most funding supports farmers and ranchers for structural projects that do not limit emissions, such as installing irrigation systems.
“We are very supportive of these programs because they are the best chance to reduce emissions,” he said.
But he added, “There is a real risk that much of this money will be wasted, based not just on past history, but on recent history.”
Watkins, a self-described “treehugger,” was more hopeful. He recently recalled a lunchtime conversation with two of his neighbors new to farming and regenerative farming. They recently obtained funding to convert some farmland to pasture.
“Building these projects can turn your farm into a little oasis,” he said. “Nature is very generous. You give her half a chance and she gives a lot in return. I think that’s what this thing is about.”