THE ROAD AHEAD
The Basics of Regenerative Agriculture
THE CRISIS OF CLIMATE Steps Farmers Can Take to Combat Climate Change
SUPPORTING SMALL What Consumers Can Do to Support Local Farmers
LAS CRUCES — One in eight New Mexicans experience food insecurity on a daily basis. In an effort to reduce this statistic, the New Mexico Department of Agriculture, the New Mexico Association of Food Banks, The Food Depot and the New Mexico Farmers’ Marketing Association have initiated the Regional Farm to Food Bank Program. This program allows local ranchers, farmers and other food suppliers to receive fair market prices for their products while feeding those in need.
The Regional Farm to Food Bank Program is a result of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s prioritization of food security investments that bolster New Mexico agriculture. Led by the New Mexico Association of Food Banks, the program uses funds from the United States Department of Agriculture to purchase locally-produced foods to help feed those in need. The program strengthens local food systems by offering fair market prices to farmers, ranchers and other food suppliers, while ensuring that New Mexicans who experience food insecurity can access healthy and fresh foods.
“We encourage producers across the state to apply to participate in this program,” said New Mexico Secretary of Agriculture Jeff Witte. “This program will not only give producers a market price for their products, but it will help New Mexicans in need.”
There is no producer that is too small to apply for this program. To participate in the Regional Farm to Food Bank program, producers must be a part of the New Mexico Grown Approved Supplier Program. The Approved Supplier Program allows New Mexico producers to sell to schools, food banks and other institutions by ensuring their products are safe, traceable and use quality assurance practices.
The Approved Supplier Program is managed by the New Mexico Farmers’ Marketing Association on behalf of the state of New Mexico. The Farmers’ Marketing Association has worked to strengthen the local food systems by supporting New Mexico agriculture producers and cultivating strong networks for a healthier New Mexico. The association has served as an access point for producers to sell through New Mexico Grown to state agencies and now to food banks.
“New Mexico Farmers’ Marketing Association works with approximately 1,000 farmers, ranchers and other food suppliers each year, connecting them to local market opportunities across the state, including through sales at farmers’ markets, in grocery stores, to schools and preschools and to senior centers, among other outlets,” said Bryan CrawfordGarrett, Director of Food Systems Initiatives. “The new Regional Farm to Food Bank project provides an incredible new market opportunity for local producers that will provide food bank customers with healthy, local food. It’s truly a winwin program that will strengthen the local agricultural economy in New Mexico, while simultaneously helping to address food insecurity.”
There are five regional food bank headquarters: Roadrunner Food Bank (Albuquerque and Las Cruces), The Food Depot (Santa Fe), Food Bank of Eastern New Mexico (Clovis), Community Pantry (Gallup) and Echo Food Bank (Farmington). Within these five headquarters, New Mexico Association of Food Banks distributed 48,375,536 pounds of food in 2022.
Once food has been delivered to these food banks, personnel and volunteers get to work sorting and packaging the food products to the 33 counties across New Mexico. Food is then supplied to free food programs, such as food pantries, schools
and community centers. Hunger relief is then provided to tens of thousands of New Mexicans each week.
“New Mexico food banks are excited to work with our partners, New Mexico Grown, New Mexico Department of Agriculture and New Mexico Farmers’ Marketing Association on the development of the Regional Farm to Food Bank program,” said Sherry Hooper, New Mexico Association of Food Banks Chairperson. “To address food insecurity, New Mexico food banks provided enough food for more than 40 million meals in 2022. The food banks are challenged in accessing enough food to meet the growing demand for emergency food assistance. They are eager to begin receiving New Mexico-produced food for their hungerrelief efforts.”
Historically, 46% of distributed food from the New Mexico Association of Food Banks has been fruits and vegetables, while 13% has been protein content. The program is hoping to expand to make the program more enticing for animal producers to get more protein added to the food banks’ acquisitions.
Suppliers of qualified minimallyprocessed, value-added food products may also participate. For details regarding what value-added products qualify, or for more information about the Regional Farm to Food Bank Program, please email Alyssa Pearson, New Mexico Department of Agriculture Ag Marketing Specialist, at apearson@nmda.nmsu.edu or visit the Regional Farm to Food Bank Program website.
WASHINGTON — Tom Brundy, an alfalfa grower in California’s Imperial Valley, thinks farmers reliant on the shrinking Colorado River can do more to save water and use it more efficiently. That’s why he’s installed water sensors and monitors to prevent waste on nearly twothirds of his 3,000 acres.
But one practice that’s off-limits for Brundy is fallowing — leaving fields unplanted to spare the water that would otherwise irrigate crops. It would save plenty of water, Brundy said, but threatens both farmers and rural communities economically.
“It’s not very productive because you just don’t farm,” Brundy said.
Many Western farmers feel the same, even as a growing sense is emerging that some fallowing will have to be part of the solution to the increasingly desperate drought in the West, where the Colorado River serves 40 million people.
“Given the volume of water that is used by agriculture in the Colorado River system, you can’t stabilize the system without reductions in agriculture,” said Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. “That’s just math.”
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is looking at paying farmers to idle some fields, many in the vast Imperial Valley in California and Yuma County in Arizona that grow much of the nation’s winter vegetables and rely on the river. Funding would come from $4 billion set aside for Western drought aid in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Federal officials and major irrigators have been negotiating for months. Neither side has disclosed details of the negotiations or said how much money is being sought or offered.
U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Colorado Democrat, said fallowing has to be on the table. The challenge is figuring out fair payments when farmers work land of varying quality and plant crops of varying value, he said.
“Water in certain parts of the Colorado River basin is worth more than water in
other parts. And somehow the Bureau of Reclamation has got to address that in a way that is fair, or at least perceived to be,” Hickenlooper said in an interview.
Agriculture uses between 70% and 80% of the Colorado River’s water, and ideas for reducing that have long been contentious. Farmers and the irrigators who serve them say their water use is justified since nearly the entire country eats the produce grown in the region, as well as meat from cattle fed on the grasses grown locally.
Water officials from cities and other states with less demand from farms say agriculture’s large take from the river allows wasteful farming practices to continue even as water grows scarcer. They note that Western water law, which gives preference to more senior users, allows farmers with those rights to grow thirsty crops in converted desert even as key reservoirs fed by the Colorado dip to all-time lows.
Tina Shields is water manager for the Imperial Irrigation District, and advises farmers to first save water through efficiencies like drip irrigation, choosing less water-intensive crops and using water sensors to cut waste. But she acknowledged that fallowing will have to be part of the equation as states heed a call by the federal government to cut their use by 15% to 30%.
“As much as we don’t like fallowing,”
Shields said, joking that the practice is known as the “F-word down here,” she said some amount will be needed to conserve the additional 250,000 acre-feet of water the district has said it would save — or roughly 8% of its allotment from the Colorado River. (An acre-foot of water is enough to submerge one acre of land with a foot of water and roughly how much two to three U.S. households use per year.)
In the Imperial Valley, leaving fields idle to save water isn’t a new idea.
For 15 years, Imperial Irrigation District ran fallowing programs as part of a historic water transfer deal it cut with San Diego in 2003. The programs expired in 2017. Nearly 300,000 acres of farmland were fallowed, conserving 1.8 million acrefeet of water and costing $161 million in payments to farmers, the district said.
The Colorado River is in worse shape now, but in Imperial Valley, memories of that program linger. And farmers want far more than they were paid back then.
Larry Cox, who has grown produce and grasses in the Imperial Valley for decades, said he idled a few hundred of his 4,000 acres back then. He used the payments to buy sprinkler pipes and other equipment to make his irrigation systems more efficient. But he also let go between 5% and 10% of his workforce of irrigators, farm hands and
tractor drivers.
Today, he worries about the effect of fallowing on rural communities. Besides the potential economic losses to farmers, the businesses that supply them with tires, fertilizer, gas and other needs are affected.
“It damages our community as a whole,” he said.
Many farmers also fear that once land is taken out of production, it won’t be farmed again. Part of the fear comes from how water rights work in the West, but also because fallowing can degrade soil quality and make it difficult to return the land to production later.
Paul Brierley, executive director of the Yuma Center of Excellence for Desert Agriculture at the University of Arizona, said disrupting farm operations has downstream effects.
“Farming is just like any other business,” Brierley said. “They’ve got capital invested, they’ve got employees, they’ve got markets for their products. You can’t just farm part of the time and not the rest.”
A failed proposal from Yuma County farmers last year showed how difficult it may be for federal officials and the farmers they’ve targeted to reach a deal. In that case, the farmers proposed the government pay them around $1,500 per acre-foot of water not used for four years, but the deal went nowhere.
A measure of how much Reclamation is willing to pay came in a separate offer made to farmers in Lower Basin states — Arizona, California and Nevada — for $400 per acre-foot.
Buschatzke said farmers in Arizona felt even the $1,500 offer was lower than they deserved based on what they make on the produce — let alone how important it is to consumers, he said.
“It is certainly a business, but they also see it as doing a lot of good for the entire nation with what they grow out there in Yuma,” Buschatzke said.
Since farmers in Imperial Valley hold senior rights to Colorado River water, mandating water cuts there is almost impossible without inviting litigation.
“We can’t make our growers participate,” Shields said. “We have to provide them with a business decision.”
LAS CRUCES — Alan Parker, agricultural educator at Hagerman Middle and High School, was selected by his peers as the 2022-2023 NM Rookie Ag Teacher of the Year at the annual midwinter conference of the New Mexico Agriculture Education Teachers Association held in Las Cruces, February 18-19.
Parker is a recent graduate of New Mexico State University’s Agriculture Extension Education program. He student taught during the Spring 2022 semester at Hagerman High School under the supervision of Codi Montes-Dennis. Currently his teaching assignment includes Introduction to Agricultural Mechanics, Animal Science, Small Gas Engines and Dual Credit Welding. During the summer of 2022 he completed the Lincoln Welding NC3 accreditation program to further his knowledge. Parker was also named the District V Rookie of the Year securing his spot on the ballot.
This honor is bestowed on a member of the NMAETA annually in recognition
for outstanding service in meeting the three rings of the Ag Education model as a first year teacher. The model consists of classroom instruction, leadership in the FFA and experiential learning through supervised agricultural experience programs.
The NMAETA is the state affiliate of the National Association of Agricultural Education with the purpose of serving NM agriculture educators with the professional development and recognition opportunities to serve the nearly 6000 students enrolled in agricultural education classrooms across the state. NAAE is the professional organization in the United States for agricultural educators. It provides its nearly 8,000 members with professional networking and development opportunities, professional liability coverage, and extensive awards and recognition programs. The mission of NAAE is “professionals providing agricultural education for the global community through visionary leadership, advocacy and service.” The NAAE headquarters are in Lexington, Ky.
Greenhouse gas emissions from the way humans consume food could add nearly 1 degree of warming to the Earth’s climate by 2100, according to a new study.
Continuing the dietary patterns of today will push the planet past the 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) limit of warming sought under the Paris climate agreement to avoid the worst effects of climate change, according to the study published Monday in Nature Climate Change, and will approach the agreement’s limit of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
The modeling study found that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from three major sources: meat from animals like cows, sheep and goats; dairy; and rice. Those three sources account for at least 19% each of food’s contribution to a warming planet, according to the study, with meat contributing the most, at 33%.
All emit large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas with more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide, in the way they are currently farmed. The researchers calculated that methane will account for 75% of food’s share of warming by 2030, with carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide accounting for most of the rest.
“I think the biggest takeaway that I
would want (policymakers) to have is the fact that methane emissions are really dominating the future warming associated with the food sector,” said Catherine C. Ivanovich, a climate scientist at Columbia University and the study’s lead author.
Ivanovich and colleagues from the University of Florida and Environmental Defense Fund calculated the three major gases produced by each type of food over its lifetime based on current consumption patterns. Then they scaled the annual emissions over time by gas based on five different population projections.
And then they used a climate model frequently used by the United Nations’ panel on climate change to model the effects of those emissions on surface air temperature change.
Stanford University climate scientist Chris Field, who wasn’t involved in the study, said it used well-established methods and datasets “to produce a novel, sobering conclusion.”
“The study highlights that food is absolutely critical to hitting our Paris Agreement climate targets — failure to consider food is failure to meet our climate targets globally,” said Meredith Niles, a food systems scientist at the University of Vermont who was not involved in the study.
The study offered some ways to change global food production and consumption that could limit warming.
Many of these changes are already being called for or adopted. U.S. President Joe Biden touted the climate benefits of planting cover crops that can draw down carbon from the atmosphere in an April 2021 address to Congress. Multiple recent studies and reports have recommended eating less meat in order to reduce greenhouse gas creation by animals raised for consumption. And California started a mandatory food waste recycling program in 2021 to reduce the emissions created by decaying food.
But reducing methane may be the most important goal of all. Although methane is far more potent than carbon, it also
is much shorter-lived — meaning cuts in methane emissions can have a quick benefit, Ivanovich siad.
“So that’s going to help us stay under the dangerous warming target,” she said, “as well as give us some time to build up resilience and adaptation to climate change in the meantime.”
A major question that remains is whether food producers and consumers can change their behavior in order to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gases laid out in the study. There’s a roadmap, but will it be followed?
OMAHA, Neb. — The ongoing bird flu outbreak has cost the government roughly $661 million and added to consumers’ pain at the grocery store after more than 58 million birds were slaughtered to limit the spread of the virus.
In addition to the cost of the government response that the USDA tallied up and rising prices for eggs, chicken and turkey, farmers who raise those animals have easily lost more than $1 billion, said an agricultural economist, though no one has calculated the total cost to the industry yet.
The bad news is that with the outbreak entering its second year and the spring migratory season looming, there is no end in sight. And there is little farmers can do beyond the steps they have already taken to try to keep the virus out.
Unlike past years, the virus that causes highly pathogenic avian influenza found a way to survive through the heat of last summer, leading to a rise in cases reported in the fall.
The outbreak is already more widespread than the last major bird flu outbreak in 2015, but it hasn’t proven as costly yet partly because the government and industry applied lessons learned eight years ago.
“The past year has been devastating for the turkey industry as we experience, unequivocally, the worst HPAI (highly pathogenic avian influenza) outbreak in the industry’s history,” National Turkey Federation spokeswoman Shelby Newman said.
In the current outbreak, 58.4 million birds have been slaughtered on more than 300 commercial farms in 47 states. That is because any time the virus is detected, the entire flock on that farm — which can number in the millions — must be killed to limit the spread of the disease. Only Hawaii, Louisiana and West Virginia have yet to report a case of bird flu. Iowa — the nation’s biggest egg producer — leads the nation with nearly 16 million birds slaughtered.
In 2015, about 50 million chickens and turkeys were slaughtered on more than 200 farms in 15 states.
That previous outbreak remains the most
expensive animal health disaster in U.S. history. The federal government spent nearly $1 billion to deal with infected birds, clean up barns and compensate farmers. It cost the industry roughly $3 billion as farmers incurred additional costs and lost money when they didn’t have any birds on their farms.
This bills continue to pile up this year as cases spread, and that includes the cost to consumers.
Egg prices shot up to $4.82 a dozen in January from $1.93 a year earlier, according to the latest government figures. That spike prompted calls for a price-gouging investigation although the industry maintains that the combination of bird flu and significantly higher feed, fuel and labor costs is what’s driving prices so high.
The price for a pound of chicken breast was $4.32 in January. That’s down slightly from last fall when the price peaked at $4.75, but it is up significantly from the year before when chicken breasts were selling for $3.73 per pound.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t track retail turkey prices the same way as part of its inflation data, but the Agriculture Department says the wholesale price of turkey went from $1.29 per pound last January just before the bird flu outbreak began to $1.72 per pound last month.
The number of birds slaughtered peaked last spring at almost 21 million in March, leaving farmers leery of what they must face in the months ahead. University of Georgia virus researcher David Stallknecht said there is some hope that this spring might not be quite as bad because turkeys and chickens may have developed some immunity to the virus.
The key problem with bird flu is that the highly contagious virus is spread easily by wild birds through their droppings and nasal discharges. Despite the best efforts of farmers, it is hard to keep the virus out.
Farmers have gone to great lengths by requiring workers to shower and change clothes before entering barns, sanitizing trucks that enter a farm and investing in separate sets of tools for every barn. Some farms have even upgraded barn ventilation and installed laser systems to discourage wild birds from congregating.
“We recommend all producers redouble
their efforts to protect their birds through good biosecurity practices,” said Lyndsay Cole, a spokeswoman for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that’s leading the government’s response.
Farmers began following those steps after the 2015 outbreak, and this outbreak has only reinforced the need to tighten biosecurity.
“America’s egg farmers continue to double-down on biosecurity protocols to protect our flocks and maintain a stable egg supply. We are grateful that there has been little to no farm-to-farm spread in this current outbreak,” said Oscar Garrison, senior vice president of food safety and regulatory affairs at the United Egg Producers trade group.
Poultry and egg producers, partnering with the government, are parsing this outbreak for new lessons in keeping birds healthy.
“That’s really the key – early detection. It’s kind of like a forest fire - the earlier you detect it, the easier it is to contain and eradicate,” National Chicken Council spokesman Tom Super said.
Officials say bird flu doesn’t represent a significant threat to human health. Human cases are extremely rare and none of the infected birds are allowed into the nation’s food supply. And properly cooking poultry to 165 degrees Fahrenheit will kill any viruses.
By alex roSS roSwell daily record
President Joe Biden has nominated Las Cruces resident and former New Mexico U.S. Rep. Xochitl Torres Small to be the second highest-ranking official at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
On its website, the White House announced Torres Small’s appointment to be the next Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. She will replace current Deputy Secretary Jewel Bronaugh.
“The nomination of Xochitl Torres Small to serve as Deputy Secretary reflects the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to rural prosperity, advancing equity, and making USDA the best place to work,” Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a press release.
Torres Small has served as Undersecretary for Rural Development at the Department of Agriculture since October 2021. In his release, Vilsack called Torres Small, 38, an exemplary member of the Department’s subcabinet and a dedicated advocate for rural communities.
Vilsack noted in the release that her agency was the first in the federal government to invest funds from the bipartisan infrastructure law for physical infrastructure related to expanding highspeed internet access and to disperse funds from the Inflation Reduction Act to drive down energy costs for agriculture producers and small businesses.
“She has worked to foster a dedicated and diverse workforce ready to serve the American people in Rural Development offices across the country,” Vilsack said in the release.
Torres Small grew up in the New Mexico
borderlands before going on to work as a field representative to former New Mexico Democratic Senator Tom Udall and clerk for U.S. District Judge Robert Brack.
She later became an attorney practicing water rights and natural resource law. In 2018, Torres Small, a Democrat, pulled off a narrow win over Republican Yvette Herrell in an open race to represent New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District. Herrell later unseated Torres Small in a rematch for the seat in 2020.
Members of the state’s congressional delegation lauded the nomination.
“Congratulations to my friend Xochitl Torres Small on her nomination as USDA Deputy Secretary. As a granddaughter of farmworkers, New Mexico native, and dedicated public servant, she will achieve great things in this position. I look forward to working with her on behalf of New Mexico,” Sen. Ben Ray Lujan, D-NM, and a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture Forestry and Nutrition said in a tweet Wednesday.
Lujan, former congressman for the 3rd Congressional District, served with Torres Small during her time in Congress. The state’s other senator, Martin Heinrich, also congratulated her.
“From her vast experience to her ability to bring people together, I am confident that she will continue to make New Mexico proud,” Heinrich said in a tweet.
When many New Mexico communities along the Animas and San Juan rivers were negatively impacted by the 2015 Gold King Mine wastewater spill, New Mexico State University assisted not only with the emergency response but also has been conducting longterm monitoring through NMSU’s Cooperative Extension Service and agricultural research presence in San Juan County.
Recently, NMSU was awarded approximately $940,000 by the state for agricultural projects in San Juan County. NMSU’s Northwest New Mexico Agricultural Restoration Project will focus on continued farmer, consumer and community education, research and training that will aid in economic development for
the agricultural sector of San Juan County and Four Corners region.
“The funding will be utilized to fund educational positions at the San Juan County Extension office and the Farmington Agricultural Science Center, as well as fund project materials, educational supplies and outreach efforts,” said San Juan County Extension Program Director Bonnie Hopkins, who is teaming with Kevin Lombard, superintendent at the Agricultural Science Center at Farmington.
Key objectives include: training for integrated and improved greenhouse and field production practices; on-site business incubator to increase land linkages and access, hands-on training programs with available land, and increased market access; diversity, equity and inclusion agricultural development training around mental health coping skills through agriculture, landscape
skills for entrepreneurship, and agricultural production skills and certifications; and infrastructure enhancements for research, demonstration, community development and outreach.
“Finding participants who are ready to hit the ground running in a farm operation is going to be a challenge,” Hopkins said. “I anticipate that we will have to do a lot of educational programs and direct work with participants to help them feel prepared to succeed in their new farm operation. It will be process, but we are up to the challenge. We are excited to work with our community to develop programs to help new farmers get into production.”
In the collaboration, the San Juan County Extension office aims to train new farmers; assist in land restoration of fallow land; continue to build land-linking program to connect landowners and land seekers;
expand educational programs for youth and community on Growing Forward Farm; expand farm food safety programs to get 10 local producers on the New Mexicoapproved supplier list; and promote outreach and marketing for food safety and promotion of local food.
The Agricultural Science Center at Farmington plans to enhance and expand rigorous scientific evaluation of controlledenvironment agriculture, including agricultural photovoltaics, high-value specialty crop research and conservation plantings for soil health to help the agricultural community make informed decisions and disseminate results in collaboration with Extension through field days and digital and print publications.
Over the years, our business in this community has given us a healthy appreciation for just how hard our local farmers and ranchers work to nourish our families and our nation’s economy. On National Agriculture Day, we salute the dedicated men and women of agriculture for all that they bring to the table.
Thank you!
Farmers have been pressured to increase production to meet the demand of a growing population. This may require employing more efficient measures to ensure maximum output. Unfortunately, efficiency doesn’t always mesh with sustainability, so commercial operations have had to make some modifications to find a balance between serving the public and protecting the planet.
Green farming utilizes different technology and practices in order to decrease detrimental impact on the environment. According to the farming resource NuFarming, agricultural operations have a significant impact on climate change. Simply adopting some new practices can lessen that impact.
Growing plants are not the only thing on a farm that can benefit from the sun. Farmers can convert a portion or all of their power needs to solar. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, there are benefits when solar companies and
farmers work together. Solar developers reduce installation costs and upfront risk by placing solar modules on previously tilled agricultural land. Vegetation under modules also can contribute to lower soil temperatures and increased solar performance. Agricultural land managers can reduce energy costs and diversify their revenue streams with solar. Plus, they can market products to sustainability-minded customers.
Solar is not the only renewable energy option. Farmers can incorporate wind and hydroelectric power as well.
This farming technique has been used for thousands of years and involves growing different crops in different seasons over a period of time. Farmers reduce the chances for pests and diseases becoming problems in the soil because frequent crop changes prevent invaders from gaining a foothold. Farmers use fewer fertilizers and pesticides as a result.
Farmers can improve productivity while also reducing environmental impact with these two growing methods. NuEnergy states that hydroponic systems grow plants in mineral solutions or in materials like perlite or gravel. Aquaponics involves raising aquatic animals in addition to
the plants by growing them in this nutrientrich water. Both methods remove the need for soil.
Drip irrigation methods deliver water to the roots of plants through a series of pipes or tubes. Because water is not being sprayed into the air through sprinklers and other methods, less is lost to evaporation, and less water overall may be needed to provide for crops.
Plastic seems like it may not have a purpose on the farm, but recycled plastic, which is used in plastic mulch, can help produce plentiful crops with less water.
grow faster and mature sooner. Invasive weeds also may be less likely to take root in plastic mulch or when crops are grown on black plastic.
Farmers can introduce plants that pests tend not to like to reduce reliance on chemical pesticides. For example, interspersing crops with natural bug repellants, such as basil, lavender and lemongrass, may keep insects at bay. Alliums, chrysanthemums, marigolds, and other flowers planted nearby also may deter bugs.
Green farming is something more agricultural operations may want to adopt.
Can dietary shifts help the agricultural industry create a sustainable food future?
Much has been made of the rising global population and the effects that the increase will have on the planet. Though estimates regarding the global population by 2050 vary considerably, the World Resources Institute notes that finding ways to sustainably feed what could be an additional two to three billion people pose a number of challenges for the agricultural sector. One such challenge is meeting those demands while lowering emissions. The WRI notes that shifting to healthier, more sustainable diets could be part of the solution to that problem.
According to the WRI, consumption of beef, lamb and goat is projected to rise by 88 percent between 2010 and 2050. Beef is the most commonly consumed ruminant meat, and that could pose a problem as the global population expands rapidly between now and 2050. That’s because beef is the most resource-intensive ruminant meat
to produce. Beef requires 20 times more land and emits 20 times as many greenhouse gases per gram or edible protein compared to plant proteins like lentils, beans and peas. Shifting to diets relying on plant-based proteins, including lentils, beans and peas, could help to dramatically reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the need for more agricultural land. The WRI asserts that preventing the expansion of agricultural land could help save more lands for forests, which can play an important role in combatting climate change as the 21st century progresses.
A widespread shift to a plant-based diet is unlikely to happen overnight, but there are steps the agricultural sector and governments working in partnership can take to promote such a shift. The WRI recommends actions to improve the marketing of plant-based foods and efforts to improve meat substitutes, which are already readily available at many grocery stores. Policies that favor consumption of plant-based foods is another step governments can take as they work toward creating a sustainable food future for a global population that figures to expand considerably between 2023 and 2050.
Federal agriculture officials on Monday released new requirements that would allow labels on meat, poultry or eggs to use that phrase — or “Product of USA” — only if they come from animals “born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the United States.” That’s a sharp change from current policy, which allows voluntary use of such labels on products from animals that have been imported from a foreign country and slaughtered in the U.S., but also on meat that’s been imported and repackaged or further processed.
Imports of beef from countries including Australia, Canada and Brazil, for instance, account for about 12% of the total consumed in the U.S. Overall, imports of red meat and poultry account for less than 6%, while imports of eggs account for less than half of 1%.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the proposed rule would better align the labels with consumers’ views. A survey commissioned by the USDA found that nearly twothirds of shoppers believed that a “Product of USA” label meant that most or all meat production steps occurred in the U.S.
“There’s obviously a disconnect between what the consumers’ understandings and expectations are and what the label currently is,” Vilsack said in an interview.
About 12% of all meat, poultry and egg products sold in the country carry the U.S.-origin labels, USDA officials said.
The label change was first proposed by President Joe Biden in 2021 and was included last year in a series of steps to bolster the U.S. meat and poultry supply chain.
The USDA survey, conducted last summer, included a nationally representative sample of more than 4,800 American adults who do the grocery shopping for their families and who bought beef or pork in the previous six months. More than 40% of the shoppers said they look for the USA label when buying meat.
The rule was praised by consumer advocates and representatives for U.S.
ranchers and farmers, including the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, which petitioned the USDA for the label change in 2019.
“The proposed rule finally closes this loophole by accurately defining what these voluntary origin claims mean,” said Justin Tupper, the group’s president. “If it says ‘Made in the USA,’ then it should be from cattle that have only known USA soil. Consumers have the right to know where their food comes from, full stop.”
Thomas Gremillion, director of food policy for the Consumer Federation of America, said the change is a “small but important step” that should have been made long ago.
Under the current rule, Gremillion noted, a cow can be raised in Mexico under that country’s regulations for feed and medications, then shipped across the border and slaughtered that same day to make ground beef and steaks that qualify as “Product of USA.”
Carrie Balkcom, executive director of the trade group American Grassfed Association, said the existing rule also penalizes small domestic producers.
“It’s expensive to raise grass-raised animals from scratch,” Balkcom said. “And these large producers were importing these animals raised elsewhere and just repackaging them and then kind of coasting on the ‘Made in the USA’ label.”
An official with the North American Meat Institute, which represents large firms that process most of the meat and poultry products sold in the U.S., said she hadn’t seen details of the new rule. But Sarah Little added, the group “opposes overly prescriptive labeling requirements that will raise prices for consumers.”
Another industry group, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, has called for eliminating the voluntary USA labels entirely and allowing for strict labeling standards verified by the USDA.
The voluntary labeling rules are different from country-of-origin labels, known as COOL, which required companies to disclose where animals supplying beef and pork are born, raised and slaughtered. That requirement was rolled back in 2015, after international trade disputes and a ruling
from the World Trade Organization. Country-of-origin labels are still required for other foods, including fish, shellfish, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables and more.
Companies won’t have to prove that their products are American-made before using the labels, but they will have to
file documentation. The proposal applies only to meat, poultry and eggs, products overseen by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, which can pull the label if companies are found to violate the rule.
The label proposal is open for public comment before it becomes final.
income in 2021.
Declining interest in the field has also affected the number of farm workers. As more farm operators reach retirement age, fewer young farmers are replacing them due to volatile pricing, high real estate and land costs, steep initial machinery investment costs, and other factors. The physical demand of the industry also takes its toll. So what does this mean for the agricultural industry?
The agricultural workforce is shrinking, and has been for some time. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates there are roughly 2.4 million farm jobs that need to be filled annually, but there has been a drastic decline in workers each year. There are a number of reasons for the shortages. The AFBF says more than 73 percent of farm workers are immigrants from South America and Mexico. While the United States’ H2-A visa program, which allows employers who meet specific
requirements to bring foreign laborers in for temporary work, has increased the number of accepted applications for immigrants to 250,000, this number is still just a drop in the bucket in terms of labor needs.
Another factor is a career in agriculture isn’t always easy or lucrative. According to the U.S Department of Agriculture, for every dollar spent on food, a farmer receives only 7.6 cents. Farmers were predicted to lose 9.7 percent of total net
Many with knowledge of the industry indicate sweeping changes are warranted. Ellen Poeschi, the project director for the National Association of Agricultural Educators Teach Ag campaign, has said that a lack of agricultural education is contributing to the problem. Increasing availability of ag education courses across the country could build interest in the industry. Connecting students to internships or mentors may help, too.
Another option is to rally for greater economic opportunities in agriculture. The ag industry in general needs to find ways to make the economic benefits
more competitive to other industries, and improve the working conditions and job flexibility. Agricultural industries currently average only 60 percent of what other industries offer in salaries. Farm wages have been rising due to the H-2A program, which requires farm worker pay to be higher than the state/federal minimum wage. More change is needed, but this may have to come at the federal level or be sparked by efforts on the part of agricultural advocacy groups.
Additional strategies farm operators can employ to combat shortages are: scaling back farm operations; integrating ag technology to reduce labor burdens; pivoting to crops that require fewer laborers; leasing portions of land to have extra money; employing temporary guest workers; and moving operations abroad. Worker shortages continue to be problematic for the agricultural industry. A greater focus on remedying the issue is needed on a grand scale.
Climate change poses a threat to various industries, not the least of which is the agricultural sector. Agricultural industry insiders recognize that the changing climate has been forcing farmers and agricultural organizations to adapt and adjust for decades, and that need to be flexible won’t change in the years to come.
One of the changes many farmers may consider in coming years, if they haven’t already, is a pivot to regenerative agriculture practices. Regenerative agriculture could have a profound impact on the world over the next half century, so now may be a great time to gain an understanding of the practice.
What
Regenerative agriculture is a production system that focuses on reducing water usage and other inputs as part of a larger attempt to prevent land degradation and deforestation. According to the organization Green America®, regenerative agriculture is designed to harness the power of photosynthesis in plants to sequester carbon in the soil. The ability to do that can improve soil health, crop yields, water resilience, and nutrient density.
GreenAmerica® notes that regenerative agriculture draws down atmospheric carbon dioxide. That’s a significant benefit, as Climate.gov, which is a product of various departments within the National
Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, reports that adding more carbon dioxide to the environment is causing global temperatures to rise. In fact, observations from the NOAA Global Monitoring Lab in 2021 revealed that carbon dioxide alone was responsible for about twothirds of the total heating influence of all human-produced greenhouse gases. GreenAmerica® reports that, at scale, regenerative agriculture could help to reverse the climate crisis by drawing down atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Another reason to consider regenerative agriculture is its connection to topsoil. GreenAmerica® reports that the world is on the cusp of running out of topsoil, which is vital to growing food. Regenerative agriculture rebuilds topsoil, which can lead to greater food security across the globe.
Regenerative agriculture practices include the usage of cover crops, a reduction in tilling, crop rotation, and spreading compost. GreenAmerica® notes that regenerative agriculture practitioners also avoid the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and factory farming.
As the climate crisis continues to challenge the agricultural sector, regenerative agriculture could help farmers and the larger industry successfully confront those issues.
The popularity of organic foods is undeniable. According to a 2021 survey from the Organic Trade Association, total sales of organic foods topped more than $60 billion in 2020. Data from Mercaris, which provides market insight and analysis on organics and non-GMO foods, supports that finding and indicates that organic food sales grew by 9 percent between 2009 and 2019. During that same time period, conventional food sales grew only 3 percent, which illustrates just how popular organics have become over
the last decade and a half. And despite being a year marked by a pandemic and the considerable economic uncertainty it unleashed, 2020 proved to be an especially good year for organics. Mercaris reports that organic food sales increased by 13 percent in 2020, which serves as another indicator that consumers are increasingly demanding organics over conventional foods.
Social media has transformed many industries, and it can do the same for agriculture. Farming supply chains can communicate with one another by getting feedback from customers in real time through social media.
The demand for food is directly related to population growth. By 2050, food needs are expected to double, according to a study published in the journal Agricultural Economics. That puts increasing pressure on the agricultural sector to meet growing demand. However, many experts think the industry will fall short.
In addition to increased food demand, consumer habits, technology, and policies continue to force the agricultural industry to evolve. Indeed, the agricultural sector may look very different in the future.
Social media has transformed many industries, and it can do the same for agriculture. Farming supply chains can communicate with one another by getting feedback from customers in real time through social media. However, agricultural operations will have to devote teams to manage social media presence, especially since misinformation is so widespread on social media.
Apart from social media, local farmers may increase their efforts to utilize mobile apps and direct-to-consumer purchasing options. The global pandemic helped businesses reimagine takeout and curbside shopping. Local farms may want to market to the home-shopping community, providing ways to deliver produce, fresh meat and poultry and other items direct to customers’ homes.
The future may feature a significant shift in the way farms source their ingredients. Regeneration International says that regenerative agriculture can be the future. This describes farming and grazing practices that may help reverse climate change by rebuilding soil organic matter and restoring degraded soil biodiversity. Some insist that
farmers who utilize regenerative agriculture produce food that is more sustainable and healthy. This is something eco- and health-conscious consumers can stand behind.
There’s a good chance that technology will continue to play important and growing roles in farming operations. New agricultural technologies can collect data on soil and plant health and produce results in real time. Precision farming technology can be developed to deliver integrated solutions no matter the size of the operation.
Farmers may give more thought to sustainable products. Crops like hemp and cannabis are being utilized in new and innovative ways, and they’re only the start as consumers have expanded their views on plant-based foods and products.
While there’s no way to see into the future, individuals can anticipate changes that could be in store for the agricultural sector in the decades ahead.
Shifting consumer demands pose a challenge for any industry, including the agricultural sector. Farmers who want to ensure they’re in the best position to meet consumer demands in the coming decades may be happy to learn that an aging population figures to work in the agricultural sector’s favor. The Economic Research Service with the U.S. Department of Agriculture notes that individuals over age 65 are expected to make up a greater percentage of the overall population in the years to come. That should, the ERS notes, benefit farmers, as older individuals tend to be more health-conscious with their eating habits than younger generations. The same trend will likely play out in Canada, where Statistics Canada estimates the percentage of individuals age 65 and older will increase to 22.5 by 2030, marking a nearly 10 percent increase since 2010, when just 14.1 percent of Canadians were 65 or older.
The population is growing and so is its demand for food to fuel those extra bodies. Harvard Business Review reports the global population has quadrupled over the last century. It’s predicted that, by 2050, the population will exceed nine billion people.
The world is not able to feed all of its inhabitants, according to Penn State. There are more than one billion people who are estimated to lack sufficient food, and two billion who do not receive adequate nutrition. Researchers from the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota concluded that, to feed the world by 2030, yields on maize, rice, wheat, and soybeans will have to rise by 60 to 110 percent. At the start of 2023, projections show them only increasing by 45 to 60 percent. There are a few reasons why food supply may not meet up with demand.
• Climate change: Climate change is predicted to cause issues to crop yields, especially in portions of the world where the population is growing the fastest. For example, a recent NASA study published in the journal Nature predicts that high greenhouse gas emissions may cause corn output to decline as early as 2030, but wheat output would increase. Farmers may need to roll with the punches and shift operations to cope with the environmental changes.
• Decreased commercial farming interest: Fewer people are working in farming. Land prices for expansion, new
government mandates and regulations, and the impact of immigration and trade policies have made farming less attractive than it once was. Fewer commercial operations result in a diminished food commodity output.
• Consumer waste: Food loss and waste (FLW) is a widespread issue, posing a challenge to food security. The World Bank estimates 30 percent of all food across the globe is wasted, amounting to 1.3 billion tons of food per year. The average global household wastes 74 kg of food each year, according to the United Nations Environment Programme’s 2021 Food Waste Index. Food waste is an issue that needs a solution as the world looks for ways to feed an expanding population in the decades to come.
In order to improve output, farmers have to make some changes. These can include investment in tools and technologies that enable farmers to apply nutrients more precisely and at lower cost, advises the Environmental Defense Fund. Seeds that need less water and fewer nutrients, as well as new fertilizers that are less likely to be lost to air and water, are some additional ideas. Farmers also may want to employ green practices, such as hydroponics and drip irrigation, if they haven’t already, to improve efficiency and cut costs. The public also may need to petition their lawmakers to make it easier for farm workers arriving on working visas to man the fields.
Food demand continues to rise, and it has become challenging for agricultural operations to keep up.
Farming has never been a vocation for individuals looking for easy work. Farmers typically work long hours, braving the elements regardless of how unpleasant the weather may be. All that hard work ensures individuals who live in rural, urban and suburban communities have constant, readily available access to healthy foods. Such devotion merits support, and thankfully there are many things consumers can do to show their appreciation for local farmers.
• Buy fresh foods at your local farmers market. Farmers markets are many foodies’ favorite places, but they aren’t exclusive to individuals with a passion for food. Everyone needs to eat, so why not eat foods grown locally, which are generally more fresh and appetizing than imported fruits and vegetables sold at chain grocery stores? Even individuals who don’t typically eat fresh fruit and vegetables can find something delectable at a local farmers market, where anything from homemade tomato sauces to locally raised fresh beef and pork might be on sale.
• Order directly from local farms. Some farmers have embraced the e-commerce revolution and begun selling the foods they grow to consumers via their own websites. Research local
farms and determine if it’s possible to buy directly from them. Farms may offer delivery or pick-up, and consumers can enjoy fresh foods even more knowing that they helped farmers earn higher profits by buying directly from them.
• Check labels before buying in local grocery stores. Packaging labels will indicate where fruits and vegetables came from. When possible, choose items produced by local farmers. This may include fruits, vegetables, meat, pork, or even desserts like pies. Locally produced foods often taste more fresh than items sent from overseas or distant farms, and consumers will feel better knowing they helped to support local farmers.
• Spread the word. Get the word out after a satisfying experience with local farms and farmers. Whether it’s buying food from farms or taking advantage of family days that let kids enjoy a day on the farm, sharing positive experiences via social media or word-of-mouth can be a great way to inspire your neighbors to support local farmers as well.
Consumers can do much to support hardworking local farmers. In addition to feeling good about supporting their rural neighbors, consumers also might feel good when they sit down and enjoy a meal featuring locally grown, fresh foods.
For example, one assessment conducted under the World Climate Research Programme and published in 2020 in the Reviews of Geophysics concluded that the warming range of the planet will be between 2.6°C and 3.9°C.
Climate change is a challenge the world must confront together. Though people from all walks of life and in all corners of the world will be affected by rising global temperatures and the ripple effects of such increases, the impact of climate change on the agricultural sector figures to be especially significant.
Farmers have been on the front lines in the fight against climate change for decades. When storms strike and climate patterns shift, farmers must find ways to adapt or potentially lose their livelihoods. Experts warn that the planet is warming at a pace that could prove devastating. For example, one assessment conducted under the World Climate Research Programme and published in 2020 in the Reviews of
Geophysics concluded that the warming range of the planet will be between 2.6°C and 3.9°C.
Everyone must do their part in an effort to avoid the more drastic outcomes associated with climate change. Farmers can explore these ways to combat climate change as they look to protect their personal and financial futures.
• Curtail methane emissions. The European Environment Agency notes that capturing methane from manure is one way for farmers to reduce agriculturerelated greenhouse gas emissions. The California Climate & Agriculture Networks notes that more than half of the state’s agricultural emissions come from livestock in the form of methane.
The nonprofit organization Foodwise reports that holistic, pasture-based livestock management utilizing practices like rotational grazing can help mitigate methane emissions from livestock.
• Emphasize efficient use of fertilizers. The EEA recommends efficient use of fertilizers as another means to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture at the U.S. Department of Agriculture notes that the greatest efficiency typically comes from the first increment of added fertilizer/nutrients, with each additional increment thereafter resulting in lower efficiency. Making every effort to make the most of initial applications can save farmers money and reduce the impact on
the environment.
• Participate in and help promote local farmers markets. Foodwise notes that food in the United States travels an average of 1,500 miles before it ends up on consumers’ plates. Transporting foods that far contributes to more greenhouse gas emissions. Farmers who can sell to local farmers markets can help reduce such emissions. Promoting those efforts via social media pages or other public platforms can increase consumer awareness of the availability of fresh, locally grown foods.
The challenges posed by climate change are not going away. Farmers can take various steps to overcome those challenges.
Waste is a byproduct of every industry, even those that produce food. Crops and animals may feed the masses, but there are items on the farm that require disposal or recycling. Farm waste management is a practice that endeavors to remove waste in ways that are affordable, sustainable and effective.
Substantial waste is produced in agricultural operations. This can include manure, animal bedding, leaves, clippings, and even scraps from the kitchen. According to the University of Massachusetts Amherst, without proper mitigation methods, farm waste can be detrimental to the environment simply due to its volume. Farm waste may be natural, chemical-, animal-, medical-, and/or plant-based. If it is not managed, the waste can pollute water and air, and also disrupt the process of farming. That can make it beneficial to take a deep
look at some of the ways to manage farm waste.
Kitchen waste or crop wastage can be turned into fertilizer and bioenergy through composting. Composting uses natural bacteria and other microorganisms to naturally break down refuse into a safer, more usable form. Compost can be spread over fields and used to feed plants without the need to supplement much with chemical fertilizers.
Feeding livestock animals directly with kitchen leftovers is one way to cut down on waste. Pigs do well with this, as they are omnivorous animals who tend to eat anything. The United States Environmental Protection Agency urges anyone who wants to participate in recycling food waste for animal feed to contact a local solid waste public health agency or county agricultural
extension agency for more information. This way the food waste can be easily handled and safely controlled.
Cow and horse manure can be added to traditional compost piles, but swine and other omnivores’ waste may contain bacteria not suited to such composting. According to the resource ManureToFertilizer.com, pig manure stored in a cesspool needs to be pumped into a solid liquid separator to remove extra water. Solids can be mixed with straw or sawdust to adjust the carbonto-nitrogen ratio and spread out in rows to dry. Farmers also can look to products like MICROBE-LIFT®, which breaks down waste and reduces toxic gases to
enhance manure management.
Waste from farms can be turned into other products. For example, corn cobs, bagasse, rice straw, and husks can be turned into silica, a nonmetallic element that is great for the skin, hair, nails, and bones. Fats from animals can be made into soaps, as can cocoa pods.
Non-organic material, such as chemical waste, will need to be managed according to local regulations. Broken equipment can be taken to recycling facilities to ensure it does not end up in landfills.
Farm waste management is just another cog in the agricultural production machine.
The world faces many unique challenges in the decades to come, including a rapidly expanding global population. The United Nations estimates that the global population will reach 9.71 billion in 2050. That’s an increase of more than 1.7 billion people between 2023 and 2050.
Food security is among the more significant challenges the world will face as the population increases. The United States Agency for International Development notes that food security means all individuals, regardless of their physical or economic circumstances, have access to sufficient food to meet the dietary needs for a productive, healthy life. Food security is a more significant issue than people may recognize, even in first world, fully developed countries. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service indicates that slightly more than 10 percent of U.S. households were food insecure at some point during 2021. In fact, estimates suggest more than 800 million people
night, which underscores the seriousness of the issue.
Food security and the agricultural industry are inextricably linked. The USAID indicates that most of the people who go to bed hungry at night are smallholder farmers who depend on agriculture to make a living and feed themselves and their families. Supporting efforts to strengthen the agricultural
as the USAID reports that growth within that sector has been found to be at least twice as effective at reducing poverty as growth in other sectors. Much of that can be traced to the disproportionate percentage of poor people who live in rural rather than urban areas. For example, the USAID reports that 75 percent of poor people in developing nations live in rural areas.
But the poverty rate is higher in rural areas than urban areas in the United States
Community Survey indicates the poverty rate in rural areas was 15.4 percent in 2019 compared to 11.9 percent in urban areas. Though recent data regarding rural poverty rates in Canada is unavailable, a 2013 discussion paper on the topic from the Government of Canada noted that the country’s rural residents earned less and had lower levels of education than residents in urban areas, suggesting that poverty is likely more prevalent in the Canadian countryside than in the country’s cities.
Though food security poses a significant global challenge, lack of access to healthy foods is preventable. Individuals in rural and urban communities can voice their support for efforts to strengthen the agricultural sector. A thriving agricultural sector can ensure fewer people go to bed hungry each night and bolster the economies of rural communities that are
Plants often are only as strong as the soil in which they grow. While certain greenery may thrive no matter where it’s planted, soil conditions are often key to successful growing.
Sodic soil is one condition people may experience at home or in commercial farming operations. Sodic soils, sometimes called saline-alkali soils or dispersive soils, are defined as having high levels of exchangeable sodium and low levels of total salts, according to the Colorado State University Extension. These conditions compromise growing conditions because sodic soils tend to be poorly drained and crust over. Water intake also can be poor in sodic soils, and pH is usually high — coming in above 9.0.
The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development of the Government of Western Australia advises a simple sodic soil test to check for sodicity. One can collect dry soil aggregates (crumbs of soil) from different depths. Those crumbs should be placed into a clear jar of distilled water, taking care not to mix or agitate the soil. The water around the edges of sodic soil will become cloudy and
appear milky. For highly dispersive soil, the dispersion will be evident after about 10 to 30 minutes. Moderately sodic soil may take 2 hours.
Individuals can take steps to improve sodic soil. Gypsum is the most commonly used amendment for sodic soil, according to Science Direct. It also can reduce the harmful effects of high-sodium irrigation waters. Gypsum is a mineral that is composed of hydrated calcium sulfate. Gypsum has an effect on reducing the rate of soil erosion. It is more effective when gypsum is spread on the soil surface rather than mixed in.
Limestone, which also contains calcium, is another additive that can amend sodic soils. Gardeners may want to add calcium to the soil because it replaces the sodium and then the sodium can be leached out.
Additional mitigation methods for sodic soils include changing plant species or varieties to more tolerant ones that will grow more readily.
Commercial farmers or home gardeners may encounter sodic soil. Though sodic soil is not ideal, it can be remedied in various ways.
Consumers familiar with the disparity in price between organic fruits and vegetables and conventional alternatives may be curious if that difference in price pays off with healthier foods. According to a 2014 study published in the British Journal of Nutrition, it does. Researchers behind the study concluded that the antioxidant compounds in organic fruits and vegetables deliver between 20 and 40 percent higher antioxidant activity. That’s a significant benefit, as the Harvard T.H.
Chan School of Public Health notes that antioxidantrich fruits, vegetables and legumes are associated with a lower risk of various diseases, including cardiovascular diseases and cancer, and deaths from all causes. In addition, the Mayo Clinic notes that organically grown produce has traditionally had lower levels of pesticide residue than conventionally grown alternatives, though safety measures governing conventional produce and residue levels have changed in recent years and reduced that gap.
