White Paper Sustainability 5.24.13

7/30/2019 White Paper Sustainability 5.24.13

1/36

PresentsTwo white papers on Sustainable Agriculture

Sustainable Agriculture White Paper

Local, Organic, Sustainable, Profitable

Jason Bradford, Ph.D. and Craig Wichner May 2009

This paper effectively defines and describes sustainable agriculture,why its important, how to obtain it, and what a sustainable agr iculturesystem will look like. The authors establish metrics for determiningwhether a farm could be considered to be sustainable.

Sustainable Agricultural Systems Science White Paper

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Research, Education and Economics

Office of the Chief Scientist

July 24, 2012

The second paper describes USDA science in effort to promotesustainability. It is separated into four areas, or strategies, that focus onintegrating the environmental and social principals and capabilities of

mainstream and alternative systems. These areas include:1. Integrating sustainability issues into a range of USDA science priorities.

2. Building a framework for sustainability data andinformation.

3. Advancing the understanding of local and regional foodsystems.

4. Improving the performance of organic agriculture.


2/36


3/36

Sustainable Agriculture Whitepaper

Loca l Organic Sustainable Profi table

Jason Bradford, Ph.D. and Craig Wichner

May 2009


4/36

FarmlandLP.com

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP Page 2

Sustainable Agriculture Whitepaper

Contents

1. Framing the Discussion

2. The Impetus for Change

3. Defining Sustainable Agriculture

4. Benefits of Sustainable Agriculture

5. What A Sustainable Agriculture System Will Look Like

Framing the Discussion: Sustainable Agriculture = Sustainable Society

Developing a sustainable agriculture is a necessary part of creating a sustainable society. Theroot of the word sustainable is the verb, to sustain, which means to nourish and prolong. In socialand environmental contexts we say something is sustainable when we believe it can persistindefinitely without exhausting resources or causing lasting damage.

The actions we take as individuals are at the core of both the problems and the solutions. Just by purchasing conventional goods at your local supermarket, you cause 4 lbs of pesticides to be putinto the environment each year. The food supply chain averages of 4200 miles to reach your

plate, when it could come from local farms and use a fraction of the transportation fuels. And the2.6 acres of U.S. farmland (your pro-rata share) have lost 50% of the carbon in the soil since

1907, the equivalent CO2 of burning 90 barrels of oil on top of your normal carbon emissions.Cumulatively, agriculture impacts our society at a scope and scale that few appreciate, far

beyond the initial realms of our food safety, quality, and the local environment. Due to the scaleof natural resources required to provide food, fiber and fuel to 6.7 billion people, agriculturerequires continued global-scale supplies of fertile land, clean water, fossil fuels, fertilizers,

pesticides, and transportation infrastructure. These issues underpin our civilizations energysecurity, population distribution and capacity, national security, and cause agriculture to be a key

player, for good and bad, in the fate of our planets climate.

A 2008 article in the popular journal New Scientist titled How our economy is killing the Earthincluded a number of graphics 1 showing the exponential growth in consumption of planetaryresources leading to an exponential growth in problems (Figs. 1 & 2). Agriculture, bothdirectly or indirectly, contributes to resource consumption and pollution, and can be used to

benefit or aggravate the situation.

1 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.000-special-report-how-our-economy-is-killing-the-earth.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.000-special-report-how-our-economy-is-killing-the-earth.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.000-special-report-how-our-economy-is-killing-the-earth.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.000-special-report-how-our-economy-is-killing-the-earth.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.000-special-report-how-our-economy-is-killing-the-earth.html


5/36

FarmlandLP.com


Fig. 1. Human economies have increased consumption of resources at an exponential rate.


6/36

FarmlandLP.com


Fig. 2. Negative ecological indicators have also grown exponentially.

Exponential growth is by definition unsustainable, and signs such as fishery collapses, forest lossand species extinctions, and melted glaciers and other evidence of climate change all are warningsigns at besttrip -wires at worst.


7/36

FarmlandLP.com


Discussions of an alternative path, or sustainable development, often begin by reviewing aschematic of development that balances social, economic and environmental parameters, whichare often called the three pillars (Fig. 3). 2

Fig. 3. A common schematic of sustainable development.

Ecological Economists would produce a different schematic that places the economy and allsocial systems as a subsets of the environment to reflect that humans are a part of and totallydependent upon the environment (Fig. 4). 3 In other words, these are not three parts in a balancedrelationship but a nested set of parts with a clear hierarchy.

2 Graphic from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development 3 Graphic from: http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/VTLAW-EcoEcon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_developmenthttp://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/VTLAW-EcoEcon/http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/VTLAW-EcoEcon/http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/VTLAW-EcoEcon/http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/VTLAW-EcoEcon/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development


8/36


9/36

FarmlandLP.com


Even with its history of yield improvements, agricultural production today is no longer keepingup with current demands. For example, from 1998 to 2008 the global consumption of grain hasoutpaced total production in most years, leading to low carry-over stocks (Fig. 6). 5

Fig. 6. Production of cereals has generally been lower than consumption for the past decade.(Graphic from FOAs Food Outlook November 2008).

Achieving expected growth is daunting as well. If demographic trends continue, agriculturaloutput will need to nearly double by 2050 6, yet the available fertile farmland per person will beone-third the levels in 1950. 7 Demand for farmland production is increasing due to rising

population, greater consumption of meat (requiring additional grains to feed the animals), andnew biofuel mandates consuming corn and oil-seed crops. Meanwhile farmland acreage

worldwide is decreasing due to land development, soil and water depletion, increasing soilsalinity, and other factors.

Furthermore, these farm practices are environmentally unsustainable on a global level, as they:

1) Degrade soil, air and water quality from tillage, chemical applications, and concentratedwastes. Topsoil with low organic matter content and little biological activity is unable tohold onto the added chemicals, with the runoff causing algal blooms and then deadzones in fresh water and oceans .

5 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) , see especially FAOs Food Outlook:http://www.fao.org/giews/english/fo/ ; and Crop Prospects and Food Situation:http://www.fao.org/giews/english/cpfs/index.htm 6 Tweeten, L. and S. Thompson, 2008 Long -term Global Agricultural Output Supply-Demand Balance and RealFarm and Food Prices, http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ohswps/46009.html

7 FAO, FAOSTAT & the U.N. Population Division
http://www.fao.org/giews/english/fo/http://www.fao.org/giews/english/fo/http://www.fao.org/giews/english/cpfs/index.htmhttp://www.fao.org/giews/english/cpfs/index.htmhttp://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ohswps/46009.htmlhttp://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ohswps/46009.htmlhttp://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ohswps/46009.htmlhttp://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ohswps/46009.htmlhttp://www.fao.org/giews/english/cpfs/index.htmhttp://www.fao.org/giews/english/fo/


10/36

FarmlandLP.com


2) Consume and deplete non-renewable resources such as ancient aquifers, natural gas and petroleum-based fuels, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, and use mined minerals suchas rock phosphate to promote productivity. 8

3) Put 5 billion pounds of potentially harmful chemicals into the environment each year through pesticide use (includes herbicides, insecticides and fungicides), with over a

billion pounds in the U.S. alone.9

This goes directly into our food, with 77% of the foodconsumed in the U.S. containing pesticide residue, and 47% containing residue frommultiple pesticides. 10

4) Contribute to greenhouse gas emissions from the direct use of fossil fuels, and indirectlythrough the breakdown of soil carbon and the conversion of natural ecosystems such asforests and wetlands. About 16% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. come fromfood production, distribution and retail (Fig. 5). 11

Fig. 5. A study of the relative contributions of foods and their production, distribution and salestowards CO2e for the United States shows that production accounts for 83% of GHG emissionsfrom agriculture. (Graphic from Weber and Mathews, 2008).

8 See Heinberg, R., and M. Bomford, 2009: http://www.postcarbon.org/food for an excellent review of resourceconsumption and pollution from agriculture.9 For 20 years of U.S. data see: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/document_pi179 ; Global and U.S. data from 2001 are here:http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/table_of_contents2001.htm ; and for a review of trends see:http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/87/8707cover1a.html 10 See page 165 of this report from the USDA Pesticide Data Program:http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5074338 11 See the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html ; and a life cycle analysis of the U.S. food system by Weber C. and S. Mathews, 2008:http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f?cookieSet=1
http://www.postcarbon.org/foodhttp://www.postcarbon.org/foodhttp://www.postcarbon.org/foodhttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/document_pi179http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/document_pi179http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/document_pi179http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/table_of_contents2001.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/table_of_contents2001.htmhttp://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/87/8707cover1a.htmlhttp://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/87/8707cover1a.htmlhttp://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5074338http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5074338http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.htmlhttp://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f?cookieSet=1http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f?cookieSet=1http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f?cookieSet=1http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.htmlhttp://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5074338http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/87/8707cover1a.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/table_of_contents2001.htmhttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/document_pi179http://www.postcarbon.org/food


11/36

FarmlandLP.com


Climate change and water supply issues are likely to significantly affect agricultural production.About 70-90% of global freshwater withdrawals are used for agricultural irrigation. 12 Globally,crop models show a general decline in the yields of major food crops and livestock, with thecarbon dioxide fertilization effect being overwhelmed by extreme events and trends intemperature, water availability and pest pressures. 13 For example, over the course of this centuryclimate models show California's water supply declining overall, but especially during the springand summer months when irrigation use is critical. 14 A recent study from a University of California agricultural economist projected that the productivity and value of California farmlandcould drop by about 50% (range 13% to 67% across several models) due to higher temperaturesand reduced water availability. 15

In summary, demographic momentum is pushing the human population into a predicamentwhere more and more food is expected to come from less and less land and water, all the whilerequiring full and growing production and keeping no reserve. While food today is still generally

plentiful and inexpensive, the trends suggest we are nearing system limits. At the same time,most agricultural practices degrade key ecological assets, including topsoil, fresh water, and theclimate system. Unfortunately agriculture today cannot be easily relocated due to climate change,

loss of topsoil or water the loss of growing regions or growing capacity due to a degradedenvironment will have a direct affect on us.

Defining Sustainable Agriculture

With respect to the environment, society and economics, sustainable agriculture would:

(1) Not harm the environment from pollution,

(2) Not be reliant on non-renewable inputs or degrade renewable ones,

(3) Nourish people with non-toxic, healthy food and other useful feed stocks, and

(4) Provide a fair, steady, return on effective investment in labor and capital.

How can these goals be achieved?

Sustainable farms employ productivity systems inspired by nature to deliver high yields throughecological synergy, diversity and resilience (Fig. 7). Sustainable farms are managed as fully-integrated ecosystems, where knowledge of soils, macro and microscopic organisms such as

bacteria and fungi, water, crops, weeds, pests, equipment and techniques are used to maximizethe long-term health, productivity and economic profitability of the farm.

12 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006WR005486.shtml ; http://www.worldwater.org/data.html ; http://faostat.fao.org/Portals/_Faostat/documents/pdf/world.pdf 13 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter5.pdf ; http://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19686.full 14 http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/CALVIN/ReportCEC/CECReport2003.pdf 15 Fischer, A. Determinants of California Farmland Values and Potential Impacts of Climate Change, Departmentof Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley:http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/extension/update/articles/v9n5_2.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006WR005486.shtmlhttp://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006WR005486.shtmlhttp://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006WR005486.shtmlhttp://www.worldwater.org/data.htmlhttp://www.worldwater.org/data.htmlhttp://www.worldwater.org/data.htmlhttp://faostat.fao.org/Portals/_Faostat/documents/pdf/world.pdfhttp://faostat.fao.org/Portals/_Faostat/documents/pdf/world.pdfhttp://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter5.pdfhttp://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter5.pdfhttp://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter5.pdfhttp://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19686.fullhttp://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19686.fullhttp://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/CALVIN/ReportCEC/CECReport2003.pdfhttp://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/CALVIN/ReportCEC/CECReport2003.pdfhttp://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/CALVIN/ReportCEC/CECReport2003.pdfhttp://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/extension/update/articles/v9n5_2.pdfhttp://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/extension/update/articles/v9n5_2.pdfhttp://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/extension/update/articles/v9n5_2.pdfhttp://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/CALVIN/ReportCEC/CECReport2003.pdfhttp://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19686.fullhttp://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter5.pdfhttp://faostat.fao.org/Portals/_Faostat/documents/pdf/world.pdfhttp://www.worldwater.org/data.htmlhttp://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006WR005486.shtml


12/36

FarmlandLP.com


Fig. 7. The transition from conventional to sustainable farming is depicted by the NationalSustainable Agriculture Information Service. 16

To know if a farm is sustainable we should be able to measure its impact on the environment,society, and its finances. Does the balance of farm activities emit or sequester carbon dioxide? Istopsoil being lost or built? Is the runoff of water from the farm clean or a burden to local rivers?Metrics can be developed for a number of important sustainability indicators, including: 17

(1) No build-up of persistent pollutants into the environment,

(2) Development of soil carbon and a balanced soil food web

(3) Enhancement of regional biodiversity and ecosystem services,

(4) Use of renewable energy and recycled mineral resources,

(5) Humane care of farm animals,

(6) Food quality and health,

(7) Worker fairness and safety, and

(8) Economic viability.

For example, an idealized sustainable farm wouldnt use non-renewable fossil fuels and wouldstore at least as much greenhouse gasses as it emits (Fig. 8). Energy use is a major area where

sustainable goes beyond the soil management, pesticide and herbicide regulation s of organicfarming. Farms are ideal places to deploy renewable energy systems, as they typically haveabundant sunshine and may include significant wind or moving water resources. Liquid fuels arehighly valued in farming because they can be used in machines to perform highly time sensitive

16 Graphic from: http://attra.ncat.org/ 17 An example of these metrics is here: http://cuesa.org/sustainable_ag/CUESA_Sustainable_Ag_Framework.pdf
http://attra.ncat.org/http://attra.ncat.org/http://attra.ncat.org/http://cuesa.org/sustainable_ag/CUESA_Sustainable_Ag_Framework.pdfhttp://cuesa.org/sustainable_ag/CUESA_Sustainable_Ag_Framework.pdfhttp://cuesa.org/sustainable_ag/CUESA_Sustainable_Ag_Framework.pdfhttp://cuesa.org/sustainable_ag/CUESA_Sustainable_Ag_Framework.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/


13/36

FarmlandLP.com


work, such as planting and harvesting. Perhaps 20% of farmland would need to be set aside for biofuel crops for on-farm use. 18 Some are exploring options to electrify tractors. 19

Fig. 8. Trends in energy consumption by U.S. agriculture show that U.S. farms have becomemore energy efficient, but still rely heavily on fossil fuels. Fertilizers and pesticides generally usefossil fuels as a feedstock. (Adapted from Miranowski 2004, by Bomford and Heinberg, 2009).

The Benefits of Sustainable Agriculture

A compelling need exists for restorative and sustainable agriculture to help address the pressingtrends of population, climate, energy, water, soil and food. The science and practices for sustainable and highly productive agriculture exist, and people are paying 50% to 200%

premiums for organically farmed goods, but the farmers and farmland are convertingslowlytoo slowly, as only 0.5% of U.S. farmland is certified organic due to the barriers of cost,knowledge, time, and effort in shifting from conventional to organic and sustainable

production. 20

Will society make the investments necessary to create a sustainable food system fast enough?Few people probably understand that shifting from conventional, chemical dependent farmingtakes time. The hidden world of the soil needs to recover. A farmer may need to wean fieldsfrom chemicals over two years, and then be chemical free for three years before becomingorganic certified and benefit from both high yields and good prices.

18 See discussion of this topic in Bomford and Heinberg (2009): http://www.postcarbon.org/food ; and graphic fromhere: http://energyfarms.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/how-much-energy-goes-into-our-food-system/ 19 For example, the RAMSES project in Europe, discussed here: http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4606 ; and theUSDA funded electric tractor conversion project: http://www.flyingbeet.com/electricg/ 20 http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/
http://www.postcarbon.org/foodhttp://www.postcarbon.org/foodhttp://www.postcarbon.org/foodhttp://energyfarms.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/how-much-energy-goes-into-our-food-system/http://energyfarms.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/how-much-energy-goes-into-our-food-system/http://energyfarms.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/how-much-energy-goes-into-our-food-system/http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4606http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4606http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4606http://www.flyingbeet.com/electricg/http://www.flyingbeet.com/electricg/http://www.flyingbeet.com/electricg/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/http://www.flyingbeet.com/electricg/http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4606http://energyfarms.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/how-much-energy-goes-into-our-food-system/http://www.postcarbon.org/food


14/36

FarmlandLP.com


Healthy, organic soils are only one piece of a big picture. Sustainability also means incorporatingrenewable energy in all aspects of agriculture, transportation and food processing: Are electric or

biofuel-driven tractors viable? How can natural gas be replaced when drying grains? Canrelocalizing the food system be more profitable, use less energy, and reduce carbon emissions?

While many questions on how to create a sustainable agriculture still remain, the human and

environmental benefits of organic farming are scientifically documented. The benefits arereviewed in the context of the environment, society and economics respectively. 21

Envir onmental Benefi ts

Improved soil and water conservation: Organic production methods increase soilcarbon (organic matter), water infiltration rates and water holding capacity, making morewater available to plants per inch of rainfall received. Soils with less organic matter allowmore surface runoff (removing topsoil and nutrients with the water), permit higher surface evaporation, and retain much less water within the soil structure (Fig. 9). 22

Fig. 9. Probability plots of rates of soil erosion from agricultural fields under conventional (e.g.,tillage) and conservation agriculture (e.g., terracing and no-till methods), with erosion rates fromareas and plots under native vegetation, rates of soil production, and geologic rates of erosion.(Graphic modified from Montgomery D. 2007)

21 See this summary report for non-referenced statistics: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdf 22Montgomery D. 2007: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/33/13268.abstract
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdfhttp://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdfhttp://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdfhttp://www.pnas.org/content/104/33/13268.abstracthttp://www.pnas.org/content/104/33/13268.abstracthttp://www.pnas.org/content/104/33/13268.abstracthttp://www.pnas.org/content/104/33/13268.abstracthttp://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdf


15/36

FarmlandLP.com


Mitigation of global warming: Sustainable farming on a large scale could dramaticallymitigate CO 2 emissions by increasing energy efficiency, enhancing soil carbon stocks,and switching to renewable fuels (Figs 10, 11 & 12). 23 Agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gases. About 35% of the ice-free land surface is used for crops and livestock,and current agricultural practices produce about 25% of carbon, 50% of methane and>75% N 20 emissions worldwide (including both land and energy use). 24 However studiesshow that sustainable farming methods such as cover cropping and no or minimal till cansequester carbon for 20 to 50 years before reaching saturation. 25 Conservatively, if eachacre sequesters 0.2 metric tons of carbon per year, then 4 tons would be sequestered over 20 years. For comparison, 4 tons of carbon is emitted by the average U.S. vehicle (20mpg, 12,500 miles per year) in 2.3 years. 26 If these same farming practices are applied toall the worlds 3.5 billio n tillable acres, close to 9 percent of all global CO 2 emissionswould be mitigated. In addition to shifts in tillage practices, pyrolysis of crop residues toform biochar is being studied for its significance in carbon sequestration andenhancement of agricultural soils. 27 Furthermore, the process of making biochar releasesenergy that can replace fossil fuels in many applications.

Fig. 10. Greenhouse gas reductions in farming include energy efficiency, sequestering of carbon in soil, and replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy. We would adddevelopment of local distribution channels to be resilient in the context of peak oil.(Graphic from Climate Friendly Farming).

23 Climate Friendly Farming: http://cff.wsu.edu/ ; Lal, R., et al. 1998. The Potential of U.S. Cropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Ann Arbor Press, 128 p.; Soil Carbon Center handout,http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/docs/C%20sequestration%20Handout.pdf 24 Tubiello, F. et al., 2007; http://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19686.full 25 http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/rates.html 26 http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator2.html 27 http://www.biochar.org ; http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar/ ; http://www.biochar-international.org/
http://cff.wsu.edu/http://cff.wsu.edu/http://cff.wsu.edu/http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/docs/C%20sequestration%20Handout.pdfhttp://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/docs/C%20sequestration%20Handout.pdfhttp://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19686.fullhttp://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19686.fullhttp://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19686.fullhttp://www.epa.gov/sequestration/rates.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/sequestration/rates.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/sequestration/rates.htmlhttp://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator2.htmlhttp://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator2.htmlhttp://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator2.htmlhttp://www.biochar.org/http://www.biochar.org/http://www.biochar.org/http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar/http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar/http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar/http://www.biochar-international.org/http://www.biochar-international.org/http://www.biochar-international.org/http://www.biochar-international.org/http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar/http://www.biochar.org/http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator2.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/sequestration/rates.htmlhttp://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19686.fullhttp://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/docs/C%20sequestration%20Handout.pdfhttp://cff.wsu.edu/


16/36


17/36

FarmlandLP.com


Enhanced biodiversity: Organic systems host a greater diversity of plant species, beneficial insects, and wildlife, thus improving the ecological health of bio-regions.Sustainable agriculture utilizes this biodiversity to its advantage to suppress pests andweeds, enhance nutrient cycling in the soils, and pollinate plants without having to ship in

bees (Colony Collapse Disorder may make this essential in the future).

Reduction of persistent pollution: Every year, 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides areapplied in the U.S. for agriculture and over 5 billion pounds are applied worldwide. 28 Nearly every pesticide that has been investigated has been detected in air, rain, snow or fog across the U.S. at different times of year. 29 Many of these pesticides persist for long

periods in soil and groundwater and can cause acute poisoning, cancer, birth defects,sterility, neurotoxicity, and damage to developing animals and children. 30 Organicfarming does not use pesticides, and part of the purpose of the three year organicconversion process is to bioremediate the soils and groundwater.

Social Benef it s

Increased food nutrient density: Organically grown foods often contain more nutrientsthan conventionally grown foods (Fig. 13). 31 Conventional nitrogen fertilizers tend toincrease the water and sugar levels of foods while diluting the phytonutrients andminerals.

28 U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/usage2001.htm 29 USGS, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/pdf/sources.pdf 30 United Nations Environmental Program, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and World Health

Organization (WHO), May 200431 For a review of the research on organic food health benefits, including nutrition density and pesticides, seeBenbrook, C. et al., 2008: http://www.organiccenter.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=126 ; Delate, K.et al., 2006: http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/symposium/organics/Delate/ ; Heaton, S, 2001:http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/a71fa2b6e2b6d3e980256a6c004542b4/de88ae6e5aa94aed80256abd00378489?OpenDocument ; and these popular articles, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10587.php andhttp://www.motherearthnews.com/Real-Food/2004-06-01/Is-Agribusiness-Making-Food-Less-Nutritious.aspx
http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/usage2001.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/usage2001.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/usage2001.htmhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/pdf/sources.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/pdf/sources.pdfhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/pdf/sources.pdfhttp://www.organiccenter.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=126http://www.organiccenter.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=126http://www.organiccenter.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=126http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/symposium/organics/Delate/http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/symposium/organics/Delate/http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/symposium/organics/Delate/http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/a71fa2b6e2b6d3e980256a6c004542b4/de88ae6e5aa94aed80256abd00378489?OpenDocumenthttp://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/a71fa2b6e2b6d3e980256a6c004542b4/de88ae6e5aa94aed80256abd00378489?OpenDocumenthttp://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/a71fa2b6e2b6d3e980256a6c004542b4/de88ae6e5aa94aed80256abd00378489?OpenDocumenthttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10587.phphttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10587.phphttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10587.phphttp://www.motherearthnews.com/Real-Food/2004-06-01/Is-Agribusiness-Making-Food-Less-Nutritious.aspxhttp://www.motherearthnews.com/Real-Food/2004-06-01/Is-Agribusiness-Making-Food-Less-Nutritious.aspxhttp://www.motherearthnews.com/Real-Food/2004-06-01/Is-Agribusiness-Making-Food-Less-Nutritious.aspxhttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10587.phphttp://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/a71fa2b6e2b6d3e980256a6c004542b4/de88ae6e5aa94aed80256abd00378489?OpenDocumenthttp://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/a71fa2b6e2b6d3e980256a6c004542b4/de88ae6e5aa94aed80256abd00378489?OpenDocumenthttp://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/symposium/organics/Delate/http://www.organiccenter.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=126http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/pdf/sources.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/usage2001.htm


18/36

FarmlandLP.com


Fig. 13. Vitamin and mineral concentrations tend to be higher in organically grown foods.(Graphic from Benbrook et al. 2008).

Reduced toxic load in adults and children who eat organic: By substituting organicfresh fruits and vegetables for corresponding conventional food items, the median urinarymetabolite concentrations were reduced to non-detected or close to non-detected levelsfor malathion and chlorpyrifos at the end of the 5-day organic diet intervention period in

both summer and fall seasons. . . The findings from this study demonstrate that dietaryintake of OP (i.e., organophosphorus) pesticides represents the major source of exposurein young children. 32 Eliminating petrochemical toxins in farming practices improves thehealth of food, people who eat that food, and the environment.

Better conditions for farm workers. The people who currently apply pesticides, breathdust from tilled fields, and drink polluted ground water would obviously benefit from ahealthier environment provided by sustainable agriculture. 33

Economi c Benef its

Competitive yields: A recent global review of modern organic agriculture shows similar to higher yields vs. conventional practices (Fig. 14). 34

32 Lu C. et al., 2008: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10912/abstract.html 33 http://aghealth.nci.nih.gov/ 34 Badgley et. al, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22 (2007): 86-108.;http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12245-organic-farming-could-feed-the-world.html ; http://sitemaker.umich.edu/perfectolab/files/badgley_et_al_2006.pdf
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10912/abstract.htmlhttp://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10912/abstract.htmlhttp://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10912/abstract.htmlhttp://aghealth.nci.nih.gov/http://aghealth.nci.nih.gov/http://aghealth.nci.nih.gov/http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12245-organic-farming-could-feed-the-world.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12245-organic-farming-could-feed-the-world.htmlhttp://sitemaker.umich.edu/perfectolab/files/badgley_et_al_2006.pdfhttp://sitemaker.umich.edu/perfectolab/files/badgley_et_al_2006.pdfhttp://sitemaker.umich.edu/perfectolab/files/badgley_et_al_2006.pdfhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12245-organic-farming-could-feed-the-world.htmlhttp://aghealth.nci.nih.gov/http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10912/abstract.html


19/36

FarmlandLP.com


Fig. 14. A study comparing the yields of organically and conventionally farmed foodsshowed that yields from organic fields were generally higher. (Table from Badgley et al.2007).

Price premiums: Even when sold to commodity markets, organic food receivessignificant premiums of 50% to 200% over conventional items. 35

Direct-to-Consumer marketing channels: Organic foods can be sold directly toconsumers via CSA subscriptions or Farmers Markets, local businesses such asrestaurants, or food service institutions including schools and hospitals. By capturingretail prices, direct-to-consumer sales increase the farmers revenue by 4x to 5x over the20 cents on the dollar average farmgate income. 36

Lower input costs: Organic farming practices reduce external input costs (e.g., pesticides, GMO seed, and fertilizers) (Fig. 15). 37 A three-year study in Iowademonstrated that corn and soybean returns from organic systems were significantlygreater than returns in conventional corn and soybean crop rotations. These organicrotations were more profitable even when market-based organic premiums were excludedfrom the analysis. Returns to land, labor, and management were higher in the organicrotations regardless of whether an organic price premium was received or not. 38

35 See USDA, ERS, March 2009 Amber Waves Newsletter for a review of produce premiums,http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/March09/Findings/OrganicProduce.htm ; and check Rodales Organic PriceReport for ongoing data on all major food categories, http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/Organic-Price-Report 36 USDA, Farm-Retail Price Spreads, December 2008, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/ 37 USDA, ERS, March 2009 Amber Waves Newsletter,http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/March09/Features/FertilizerPrices.htm 38 Delate et al. 2003, http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/organicag/researchreports/orgeconomics.pdf
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/March09/Findings/OrganicProduce.htmhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/March09/Findings/OrganicProduce.htmhttp://www.rodaleinstitute.org/Organic-Price-Reporthttp://www.rodaleinstitute.org/Organic-Price-Reporthttp://www.rodaleinstitute.org/Organic-Price-Reporthttp://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/March09/Features/FertilizerPrices.htmhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/March09/Features/FertilizerPrices.htmhttp://extension.agron.iastate.edu/organicag/researchreports/orgeconomics.pdfhttp://extension.agron.iastate.edu/organicag/researchreports/orgeconomics.pdfhttp://extension.agron.iastate.edu/organicag/researchreports/orgeconomics.pdfhttp://extension.agron.iastate.edu/organicag/researchreports/orgeconomics.pdfhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/March09/Features/FertilizerPrices.htmhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/Organic-Price-Reporthttp://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/March09/Findings/OrganicProduce.htm


20/36

FarmlandLP.com


Fig 15. A farm managed sustainably has few outside input needs, making it lessvulnerable to the kind of price spikes seen in 2007-2008. (Chart from USDA ERS, March2009).

Higher per farm income: CSA farms are 2.5x more likely than conventional farmers toearn $40,000 to $100,000 per year. About 15% of CSAs earn over $100,000 per year (Fig. 16). 39

39 Center for Integrated Agriculture, University of Wisconsin. http://www.cias.wisc.edu/
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/http://www.cias.wisc.edu/http://www.cias.wisc.edu/http://www.cias.wisc.edu/


21/36

FarmlandLP.com


Fig. 16. CSA farms are more likely to have an income level in the middle to high rangecompared to non-CSA farms. (Graph from the Center for Integrated Agriculture,University of Wisconsin).

Improved resilience/lower volatility: Organic systems produce significantly better yields under both extremely wet and extremely dry weather years, and produce

comparable yields in years with favorable weather conditions. Drought has a major impact on food production, accounting for 60 percent of food emergencies, according tothe FAO. The resilience of organic fields speaks to its capability to maintain food

production even through erratic and extreme weather events, potentially adapting better to climate change (Fig. 17). 40

Fig. 17. Crops in organically farmed soils handle stress better than in conventional ones.(Image from the Rodale Institute).

Energy savings: Organic agriculture reduces the energy required to produce a crop by 20to 50 percent. Reduction of fossil fuel use in agricultural production reduces theexogenous risks of high energy prices on production and profits. A sustainable farming

system based on local, renewable energy would reduce energy costs even further. Income from carbon markets: Minimal tillage practices expect a sequestration rate of

0.2 metric tons of carbon per acre per year. At $50 per metric ton, a 100 acre farm couldearn an additional $1000 per year. 41

40 Image source: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdf 41 0.2 metric tons of carbon is equivalent to 0.73 tons of carbon dioxide.
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdfhttp://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdfhttp://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdfhttp://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdf


22/36

FarmlandLP.com


What a Sustainable Agricultural System Will Look Like

Many terms are used to describe alternatives to conventional, industrial agriculture. Organic,local, and sustainable come to mind. Less often used is agro ecology, which views the agrarianlandscape the same way an ecologist views the natural landscape. Farms also cant exist inisolation from the broader society. A truly sustainable farm is an integral part of the localcommunity. There are biophysical reasons for this, as plants and animals essentially drawnutrients from the soil that in a closed-loop system must be returned. When food is exportedacross the globe, soils and water are being exported too. In ecosystems nutrient cycling is

predominantly local, and this is why sustainable food systems must be locally oriented.

Because humans are omnivores, our normal diets tend to draw upon diverse agro ecosystems.Tree fruits and nuts are a type of forest. Pasture is a type of mature grassland that can raise meat.Fields of grains and legumes are immature grasslands. And vegetables and root crops representvery early successional plant communities. We evolved from people who combined hunting andgathering across fields and into forests with garden-scale plots. Sustainable farm landscapesreflect the omnivory of human diets.

After reviewing the benefits of organic and sustainable agriculture, it is helpful to summarizewhat a sustainable farm would be like in contrast to 99% of farms today (Table 1).

OperationsandStructure

Conventional Farm Sustainable Farm

FertilityBuy tons of compost or inorganic NPK

products

Use nitrogen fixing cover crops, compostanimal bedding, and recycle local organicwaste

SeedsBuy commerciallydeveloped and patentedseeds

Select open pollinated seeds and save thosethat perform best, buy from regional seeddevelopers when necessary

Energy

Buy liquid fuels andelectricity for equipment to performtasks

Whenever possible let biological processes donecessary work, seek local renewable energyoptions otherwise

Managingbiodiversity

Buy chemicals tocombat unwantedorganisms

Focus on the health of the soil and theappropriate soil biology to grow healthy crops.Know weed and pest biology well enough tokeep them in check through smart managementof the whole farm. Create habitat along fieldedges.


23/36

FarmlandLP.com


Landscapediversity

Low, usuallyspecializing in oneclass of food, e.g.,grains, dairy,vegetables

High, usually adapting production to thelandscape and rotating crops as needed.

Distribution National to global viacommodity marketsLocal to regional via fair trade and direct toconsumer channels

Table 1. Conventional farms depend largely on external inputs, harm the environment, have lowdiversity , and dont contribute directly to regional food security. By contrast sustainable farmsinternalize costs, benefit the environment, encourage diversity, and participate in local foodsystems.

In summary, a transition to organic and sustainable farming is required for environmental, socialand economic reasons. Fortunately, organic farming is a robust business model, deliveringsuperior economics over conventional farming on a wide variety of metrics such as crop yields,gross and net income per acre, cost of inputs, per farm income and more. As society provides thefinancial and organizational capital to re-create agriculture, the living soils, plants and animalswill respond, over time, to support us. Each acre converted to organic, sustainable methods isone acre closer to a societal tipping point for sustainability or at least one less acre as a sourceof harm.

About Farmland LPFarmland LP (www.FarmlandLP.com ) was established in part to help cross the three-year chasmof production during the conversion from conventional to organic agriculture, thus earningsubstantial equity returns while also delivering environmental and societal value-add. ThePartnership acquires low-utility conventional farmland and transitions it to high-value organic,sustainability best-practices farmland. Investment returns will be from leasing and operatingfarmland, and from the sale of property.

Management Team

Craig Wichner, Managing Director: Mr. Wichner directs the farmland investment program,including overseeing property acquisitions, leases and sales, and oversees the financial and legalaffairs for the Partnership. Mr. Wichner is a seasoned executive with 20 years building

companies which have, among other things, developed and currently produces an FDA-approvedtreatment for metastatic brain cancer, and automated employee contribution programs for Fortune 500 Companies such as GM, EDS, and Charles Schwab. Mr. Wichner has helped raiseover $125 million in 14 funding transactions (including a $33 million IPO) and has led threeM&A transactions. Mr. Wichner served as CEO/President/CFO for three successful companies,two of which were venture-funded, and has served on boards and advisory boards including twoventure funds. Mr. Wichner also helps manage a multi-million dollar real estate investment
http://www.farmlandlp.com/http://www.farmlandlp.com/http://www.farmlandlp.com/http://www.farmlandlp.com/


24/36

FarmlandLP.com


property company. Mr. Wichner received a Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from the Universit y of California at San Diego in 1992, earning Provosts Honors and

performing graduate- level research on HIV/AIDS as an undergraduate. Mr. Wichnersagricultural experience includes spending 10 summers growing up on a ranch and farm, where hedid everything from milking cows to tending chickens, crops and horses, to wrangling cattle and

building a barn.Jason Bradford, Ph.D., Manager: Dr. Bradford leads the farmland management program,including organic certification and sustainability planning, cropping programs, and tenant andoperations management. Dr. Bradford is a highly-regarded ecological scientist and expert insustainability and relocalization, in addition to being a successful organic farmer and CSAmanager, author and entrepreneur. After receiving his Ph.D., Dr. Bradford worked on issuesrelated to species extinction and the overall decline in global ecosystem integrity, funded by the

National Science Foundation and the National Geographic Society. Dr. Bradford was a leader of the Tropical Ecosystem team of BioMERGE (www.columbia.edu/cu/biomerge) , a National

Science Foundation funded research network of over 100 scientists from 17 countries integratingthe study of biodiversity and ecosystem function. Dr. Bradford also taught Ecology atWashington University. Dr. Bradfords focus is now on addressing the problem of ecologicalovershoot through direct action. Dr. Bradford founded and manages Brookside Farm, certifiedorganic farm in Willits, CA; is a Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute; hosts a radio program onKZYX&Z (The Reality Report); is a contributor to The Oil Drum (www.TheOilDrum.com) ;and serves on the Boards of Directors for the Renewable Energy Development Institute (REDI)and Willits Economic LocaLization (WELL). Dr. Bradford received his Ph.D. in Evolution andPopulation Biology from Washington University in St. Louis in 2000, and his Bachelor of Science in Biology from the University of California Davis, with High Honors in 1992.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biomergehttp://www.theoildrum.com/http://www.theoildrum.com/http://www.theoildrum.com/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biomerge


25/36

Sustainable Agricultural Systems Science White PaperU.S. Department of Agriculture

Research, Education and EconomicsOffice of the Chief Scientist

July 24, 2012

The concept of sustainability has been prominent since the 1987 report of the World Commissionon Environment and Development (Bruntland, 1987). Sustainability and its relevance to U.S.agriculture were also discussed in the 1989 Alternative Agriculture report of the NationalResearch Council (1989). In 1990, Congress gave the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) adefinition of sustainable agriculture to undergird its science programs, and USDA committed tosustainability more broadly in a memorandum issued by the USDA Secretary in 1996 (see Gold,1999).

The core concept of sustainability is that lasting success (and avoiding crises) requires anintegrated approach to producing food and other products; farm profitability; quality of life for farmers, workers, and communities; and stewardship of natural resources. That is, sustainabilityrequires recognizing and acting upon productivity, economic, social, and environmental goals asa simultaneous set of system attributes.

U.S. agriculture has made regular improvements in annual productivity and the efficiency withwhich it uses certain natural resources and inputs such as fertilizer, water, and energy (KeystoneCenter, 2009; Tilman et al., 2001). But despite these gains and despite the stewardshiporientation and efforts of Americas producers, many key environmental, economic, and socialconcerns related to agriculture persist or are worsening both globally and in the United States.For example, an estimated 60 percent of the ecosystem services that support life on Earthsuchas fresh water; ocean fish stocks; and clean airare being degraded or used unsustainably, withmany of these changes caused in part by past management of land for food, fiber, and timber (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Global estimates of reactive nitrogen, climatechange, and biodiversity loss are judged to have dramatically exceeded planetary boundaries,

or critical thresholds that represent unacceptable environmental change (Rockstrom et al., 2009).In the United States, persistent concerns include loss of prime farmland, water scarcity, hypoxiain the Gulf of Mexico, reduced genetic diversity, increasing costs of production, loss of mid-sized commercial farms, threats to the health and safety of farm workers, and declining

prosperity of agriculturally dependent communities (National Research Council, 2010).

Efforts to understand and address these and related concerns in isolation from one another cancertainly contribute to marginal improvement along some dimensions of sustainability. Theurgency, breadth, and depth of the interrelated challenges, however, call for a more integrated approach (Clark, 2007) that emphasizes the role of science in understanding the integration of the many elements into systems where understanding and exploiting linkages among elements of

coupled human-environment systems can reduce tradeoffs and capture synergies.

Addressing sustainability as a multigoal synthesis is a timely and critical leap in the advancementof agriculture. It is essential to the grand challenge of meeting future demand for food in theface of changing climate within the limits of natural resources and social systems. A growinglist of government, academic, and private sector efforts are creating the conditions for such asynthesis to succeed. For example:


26/36

2

Companies are incorporating sustainability measures into their business strategies and supplychains and, in response, many regional, national, and global organizations and coalitions,including virtually all major agricultural commodity groups, are developing systems for documenting and advancing progress toward sustainability outcomes.

Many professional societies are organizing symposia and publications on sustainability. The Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology added the issue of sustainability to its Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and

the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) joint memorandum on science and technology priorities for the fiscal year 2012 budget included Managing the competing demands [on land and water]for the production of food, fiber, biofuels and ecosystem services based on sustainability and

biodiversity as a key challenge. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has launched a multiyear Science, Engineering and

Education for Sustainability investment area to address climate and energy issues. The USDAs Sustainable Development Council has worked over the years to help elevate

sustainable agriculture in United Nations discussions by sharing examples and practices from

the United States and by learning from other countries.

Current State of the Science

The National Research Council (NRC) report Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the21st Century, effectively summarized the current state of science and practice in the United States. It documented the considerable science-based progress in American agriculture:

producing more food and fiber on about the same acreage as a century ago with less labor,energy, and water per unit of output and considerably less soil erosion. It described thechallenge ahead in meeting greater demands for food, feed, fiber, and biofuels despite the loss of farmland; water scarcity; declining quality of water, soil, and air; loss of genetic diversity; and

rising input costs. It also cataloged concerns about the survival of mid-sized commercial familyfarms, farm labor conditions, food security, animal welfare, and community well-being (NationalResearch Council, 2010; Reganold et al., 2011).

The NRC report recommended that the scientific community pursue two concurrent approachesto meet these challenges. One, an incremental approach, expands the use of improvements thatmany farms and ranches have made and many more can yet make that would involve themajority of production agriculture and the nations landscapes. The other, a transformativeapproach, seeks to advance farming systems that balance the goals of sustainability from theoutset. Examples of so-called transformative systems include organic agriculture, integrated crop-livestock systems, management-intensive rotational grazing, low-confinement integrated

hog production systems, and perennial crop production for grains and biofuel feedstocks.Agroforestry, while not discussed in the NRC report, is another example. The emphasis ontransformative systems is consistent with the OSTP guidance to pursue transformationalsolutions to the Nations practical challenges. While the private sector continues to makeimprovements, publicly supported science is required to accelerate both incremental change


27/36

3

(particularly in social and environmental dimensions undervalued by markets) and to advancetransformative systems that hold great potential if they are better understood.

The NRC report made five recommendations for USDA to increase its investments in science:

1.

Research that clarifies economic and social aspects of current and potential technologies and management practices and that addresses issues of resilience (i.e., the capacity to absorbshocks) and vulnerability in biophysical and socioeconomic terms.

2. Integrated research and extension on farming systems that focus on the interactions among productivity, environmental, economic, and social sustainability outcomes, and how the properties of agroecosystems and the interdependencies between their biophysical and socioeconomic aspects could make the systems robust and resilient over time.

3. Long-term research and extension at the scale of watersheds and landscapes to understand the aggregate effects of farming, leading to better environmental quality, economic viability,and community well-being (which NRC recommended should be led by USDA in

partnership with the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency,

universities, and farmer-led sustainable agriculture groups).4. Research in which farmers participate in farmer-managed trials and peer-to-peer educationand information exchange.

5. Empirical studies of the effects of markets, policies, and knowledge institutions so thatUSDA can implement changes that are found to be effective in expanding the use of moresustainable farming practices and systems.

Similar trends and conclusions were noted in a comprehensive two-volume series of review papers on global sustainable agriculture published by the Royal Society of Britain (Pollock et al.,2008). Furthermore, the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and EconomicsAdvisory Board (2010) recommended that USDA research focus on models for the food system

that can quantify effects on land use, soil loss, water and energy use, and climate change; on producing greater quantities with emphasis on improved efficiency in the use of naturalresources; and on reducing losses and waste in the food system.

Whereas the NRC report touched upon topics in marketing, civic agriculture, local foods, and community economic security, its primary focus was on the farm and the landscape more thanthe food system. Many scholars, particularly those from the social sciences, consider food systems and civic agriculture (the embedding of local agriculture and food production in thecommunity) to be central to the concept of sustainability (e.g., Hinrichs and Lyson, 2008). For those reasons, and as further discussed below, local and regional food systems are given moreattention in this paper than they were given in the NRC report.

Current Research Challenges and Proposed Research Program

USDAs science agencies have a track record of carrying out research, education, information,and extension programs in sustainable agriculture, forestry, and communities, and both


28/36

4

longstanding and new policies and coordinating mechanisms upon which to build a newapproach.

USDA science agencies address sustainability through programs focused on sustainable systems(e.g., the Agricultural Systems Competitiveness and Sustainability national program in the

Agricultural Research Service [ARS] and the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education(SARE) program in the National Institute of Food and Agriculture [NIFA]) and by incorporatingappropriate sustainability dimensions into the goals of other programs. Some programs do so byexplicit reference to balancing or integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability. Other programs do so in more general terms; for example, the mission statementof ARS Food Animal Production national program aims to ensure a supply of animal productsproduced in a healthy, competitive and sustainable animal agriculture sector and NIFAsAgriculture and Food Research Initiative 2010 request for applications require all proposals todescribe their contributions to the potential long-range improvement in and sustainability of U.S. agriculture and food systems. The data collections of the National Agricultural StatisticsService (NASS) and research and analysis of the Economic Research Service (ERS) address

many topics related to sustainability (e.g., farm economics, farm production practice adoption,environmental indicators, rural community well-being, local food systems, domestic and international food security, and organic agriculture). The Forest Services research and development efforts have had longstanding emphasis on sustainability in resource use,environmental sciences, and forest management, and the Forest Service periodically reports onsustainability indicators in its National Report on Sustainable Forests.

USDA science is building on this foundation to enhance sustainable systems in ways too diverseto describe here. This paper describes USDA science in four areas that focus on integrating

productivity, profitability, and environmental and social dimensions in ways that leverage thecurrent state of knowledge, stakeholder interests and initiatives, Federal priorities, and uniqueUSDA capabilities to have the maximum beneficial effect on a balanced spectrum of mainstream(i.e., incremental) and alternative (i.e., transformative) systems. These four areas are as follows:

1. Integrating sustainability issues and approaches into a range of USDA science priorities,including food security, crop and animal production and protection, bioenergy, climatechange, and natural resource management.

2. Building a framework for sustainability data and information, and supporting research,education, and extension efforts to develop critical scientific and managementinformation to fill gaps in the framework.

3. Advancing the understanding of local and regional food systems, a key part of the USDAstrategy for rural prosperity and a promising market for connecting producers withconsumers, many of whom are interested in farmers and land management.

4. Improving the performance of organic agriculture (the largest of the transformativesystem examples described in the NRC report).

Taken together, these strategies build upon existing strengths and unique capabilities of USDAscience programs while also addressing many of the NRC recommendations.


29/36

5

Strategy 1: Incorporating Sustainability Issues and Approaches across Science Programsat USDA

Sustainability is a cross cutting priority across the USDA science goals. It is included in theguiding principles and in many specific strategies and actions in the Research, Education and

Economics Action Plan (Woteki, 2012). Examples (in addition to those detailed in strategies 2,3, and 4 below) include the following:

1. Goal 1A. Crop and Animal Production: Includes identifying and implementing bestmanagement practices for animal and plant systems that are environmentally,economically, and socially sound; integrating superior germplasm and best management

practices into profitable, productive, and environmentally sound integrated systems for crop and animal production; and other actions described more fully below.

2. Goal 1B. Crop and Animal Health: Includes research to establish more sustainablesystems that enhance crop and animal health.

3. Goal 1C. Crop and Animal Genetics, Genomics, Genetic Resources, and Biotechnology:

Includes assessing new biotechnology varieties for their contributions to sustainableagricultural systems, and assessing policies and management strategies for their ability tocontribute to the coexistence of different agricultural production systems.

4. Goal 2A. Responding to Climate Variability: Includes the investigation of both existingand transformative systems (in the sense offered within NRC 2010) to adapt to and mitigate climate change and enhance a broader set of ecosystem services.

5. Goal 2B. Bioenergy/Biofuels and Biobased Products: Includes developing sustainable,new feedstock production systems, targeting multifunctional landscapes, and models and other tools to understand and improve the effects of biofuel feedstock systems on social,economic, and environmental outcomes, including long-term productivity and ecosystemservices.

6. Goal 3: Sustainable Use of Natural Resources: Includes many strategies and actionitems related to ecosystem services and other sustainability outcomes under both thewater and landscape conservation and management subgoals. The Long-Term Agro-Ecosystem Research network, in particular, responds to the NRC recommendation for more long-term research at the scale of watersheds and landscapes.

Strategy 2: Sustainability Data, Information, and Management Systems

While sustainability goals are integrated into many USDA science programs, USDA lacks asystematic frameworka common modelfor reviewing different approaches to sustainabilityto assess their multidimensional outcomes and effects and to make the results accessible to the

public (National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board 2010). Producers, food companies, and coalitions working on sustainability criteria, indicators,and standards, and policymakers responsible for evaluating the sustainability effects of policiesand programs all want to understand the multidimensional implications of different systems of

production and different supply chains on the basis of transparent and consistent data and analyses. Being able to provide this critical information to the many stakeholder-led efforts to


30/36

6

document and track continuous improvement is, quite likely, the single most important thingUSDA can do to document and accelerate progress by mainstream production agriculture and toestablish the common ground for assessing diverse approaches to sustainability.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a framework that has come into increasing use for assessing the

sustainability implications of products and processes. Long used to assess the environmentaleffects of industrial products, LCA is increasingly being used in food and agriculture to comparethe effects of different production and marketing methods, identify stages where improvementsmay have the biggest benefits, help producers meet requirements of U.S. and global markets, and

provide transparency to sustainability claims for consumers and everyone along the supply chain(Horn and Grant, 2009). LCA will also benefit the scientific community by providing asystematic framework for identifying where data are strong and where gaps need to be filled byadditional research. LCA is also being adapted to include social outcomes (Norris 2006),thereby better reflecting the multiple dimensions of sustainability.

USDAs National Agricultural Library (NAL) is leading a cross-government initiative, the LCA

Digital Commons, to develop a framework for organizing and providing access to life-cycledata and information on sustainability in agricultural supply chains. It will provide open accessto transparent, quality-controlled data and documentation compatible with internationallyaccepted protocols for LCA.

In the meantime, however, as the NRC report has detailed, many gaps have already beenidentified that need to be filled, particularly the integration of economic and social consequenceswith biophysical data (recommendation 1) and more attention to participatory research and extension efforts on transformative integrated systems (recommendations 2 and 4). Thisresearch can also be useful for the science-based action programs of the Department by helpingto provide the basis for rewarding producers for stewardship through conservation incentive

programs, the development of environmental markets, or other means.This strategy leverages several key USDA assets: the NALs pivotal expertise in informationmanagement; ARS ability to conduct long-term farming systems research; NIFAs programsand expertise funding participatory systems research; and NASS and ERS data and analyticalresources. It also integrates well with other Federal agencies (e.g., Environmental ProtectionAgency and Department of Energy) that are addressing sustainability across other nonagricultural products and processes.

Current USDA Science

NAL has developed the basic structure of the framework and initial data. More data and information to populate the framework will come from a variety of existing sources (NASS and ERS data; ARS and NIFA research, education, and extension efforts; and other Federal and non-Federal sources), new research on specific priorities (e.g., biofuels, climate change, conservation,watersheds), and greater investment in integrated research and extension in participatory farming


31/36

7

systems that focus on interactions among productivity, environmental, economic, and socialoutcomes.

Primary Goals

The primary goal is to provide science-based knowledge to accelerate both incremental and transformative progress toward sustainable agriculture through systems research and extensionand through the development and population of a framework for understanding the sustainability(productivity, economic, environmental, and social) outcomes of agriculture, food, and forestry

practices and systems.

Anticipated Outcomes

A system for capturing and delivering data and information on environmental, economic, and social consequences of food, agriculture, and forestry systems and processes at appropriategeographic scales over the life cycle of product supply chains (NAL).

Well-developed life-cycle inventory data on environmental, economic, and socialconsequences of key agriculture-related processes to fill gaps in the framework, resulting intransparent, science-based analyses to support product declarations and continuousimprovement programs (ARS, NIFA, ERS, NASS).

Development, assessment, extension, and education on incremental/mainstreamimprovements (e.g., soil/water/nutrient management, pest management, livestock management) evaluated for their sustainability outcomes, including all four dimensions(productivity, profitability, environmental, and social).

Development, assessment, extension, and education on transformative systems approaches tosustainable agriculture (NIFA, ARS) including but not limited to the systems in the NRCreport (2010).

Strategy 3: Local and Regional Food Systems

Developing and supporting local and regional food systems is one of five key components of USDAs strategy for enhancing rural prosperity. The Departments Know Your Farmer, KnowYour Food initiative is its primary mechanism for accomplishing cross-USDA coordination onlocal and regional food systems and reconnecting farmers and consumers in order to benefitfarmers, strengthen rural communities, promote healthy eating, and protect natural resources.

While the concept of local has somewhat different meanings to different consumers, it appearsto be one promising way for farmers to tap markets that may be more likely to reward them for

stewardship and proximity. Local food systems are a small but rapidly growing segment of U.S.agriculture, representing approximately $4.8 billion in sales in 2008 (Low and Vogel, 2011).The number of farmers markets nearly doubled in 10 years to 5,247 in 2009 and the number of farm-to-school programs grew fivefold in 5 years to 2,095 in 2009 (Martinez et al., 2010). Somesociologists and others consider local and regional food systems more important to sustainableagriculture than their numbers would indicate, arguing that the social value of closer connections


32/36

8

between farmers and consumers is as important to the social dimension of sustainability as are production practices to the biophysical dimensions (Hinrichs and Lyson, 2008; Jordan and Constance, 2008). Local and regional food systems can be considered at one end of themarketing spectrum, complementary to the national and global supply chains whosesustainability advances will be informed by the research and data initiatives described above.

Understanding where and how regional food systems are a good fit and how they complement or compete with national and global supply chains is one area of active research.

This strategy leverages key USDA assets through the cross-Departmental collaboration and coordination of the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative.

Current USDA Science

USDA Research, Education and Economics (REE) agencies are all active in the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative through leadership in its data gathering and researchsubcommittees, and through relevant agency programs. While some USDA programs have been

supporting the development of local and regional food systems for some years (e.g., communityfood projects, SARE, NALs Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, and programs of USDAs Agricultural Marketing Service), only recently has a more comprehensive analysis of regional food systems begun (e.g., ERS primer and case study publications in 2010 and theAgriculture and Food Research Initiatives Sustainable Food Systems program, which was newin 2010).

Primary Goals

The primary goals are to inform policies and practices in local and regional food systems throughresearch on the current and potential contributions of local/regional food systems to economic

development and human well-being (including environmental and social dimensions) and thecharacteristics and factors that foster or limit their development and application.


Understanding the potential value and effects of regional food systems in the Northeast, and the development, sharing, and application of mapping/modeling tools to other regions (ARS,

NIFA). Identification and evaluation of best practices, constraints, and barriers in sustainable, local,

and regional food systems and public sharing of those best practices through eXtension and other means (ARS, NIFA, and NALs Alternative Farming Systems Information Center).

Knowledge of how market conditions and constraints affect local food system performance(ERS). Understanding the participation in farm-to-school initiatives, their dollar value, and their

effect on fruit and vegetable consumption by school meal participants (ERS). Understanding the food environment factors that influence availability and selection of local

food and how the availability of local foods in low-income areas affects food choice (ERS).


33/36

9

Enhanced knowledge among agricultural and food system professionals, both now and in thenext generation, through both formal education programs and informal youth education

programs (NIFA). Expanded local and regional markets for new, beginning, and existing small- and mid-size

farmers (ARS, NIFA). Improved statistical data on local and regional marketing (NASS, ERS).

Strategy 4: Organic Agriculture

U.S. organic production has more than doubled and organic food sales have more thanquintupled to $22.9 billion in 2009 since the late 1990s (Greene et al., 2009). With more organic

programs called for in the 2008 Farm Bill, USDA has increased its focus on the potential role of organic agriculture in achieving outcomes such as economic development, environmentalservices, resource conservation, climate change mitigation, nutrition, food safety, and other outcomes. This approach is consistent with the NRC report that discussed organic agriculture asan example of a system that holds promise for achieving transformative progress and a market

for producers seeking higher reward for stewardship. It is also consistent with trends in thescientific community, with organic agriculture receiving more attention at professional societies(e.g., the American Society of Agronomys Organic Management Systems section and its newmonograph; Francis, 2009) and at universities (e.g., new degree programs in the past 5 years atland-grant universities in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, and Washington, plus courses and research

programs at many other universities).

REE agencies have a solid basis of field science, new data, and longstanding analyses that can provide the foundation for this shift to a more science-based, outcome-based view of organicagriculture. While universities and other institutions are increasing their investments in researchand education efforts that are necessarily site-specific, USDA is uniquely situated to integrate

field research and extension at the regional and national levels, assess their outcomes withrespect to national priorities, and integrate the efforts and results with other USDA agencies(e.g., the National Organic Program of the Agricultural Marketing Service, conservation

programs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, etc.) through the USDA OrganicWorking Group and other relationships.

USDA Science

ARS has invested $12.6 million in research at 20 locations that directly address organicagriculture challenges. In addition, the NAL provides information on organic agriculture,

primarily through its Alternative Farming Systems Information Center.

ERS develops a broad range of economic research and analysis on organic agriculture, and organic activities are included in all three ERS divisions. The Food Economics Division ismodeling consumer demand for organic food; the Market and Trade Economics Division isconducting research and analysis of organic costs and returns in major crop and livestock sectors;and the Resource and Rural Economics Division is examining the adoption of organic farming


34/36

10

systems and the economic characteristics of the U.S. organic industry.

NASS surveys land acreage and sales of organically produced products in the Census of Agriculture. As a follow-up to the 2007 Census, NASS conducted its first-ever wide-scalesurvey of organic agriculture in the United States, including production of crops and livestock,

production practices, production expenses, marketing practices, and value-added production and processing. Results were published on February 3, 2010. NASS also collaborates with ERS onsurveys of targeted organic commodities (so far, soybeans, apples, wheat, dairy, and corn) and isworking with the Risk Management Agency to develop a data series on prices received for organic crops.

NIFA funds organic agriculture through multiple programs, including the Organic Research and Extension Initiative, Integrated Organic Program, and portions of other NIFA programs such asSustainable Agriculture Research and Education, Small Business Innovation Research, and theAgriculture and Food Research Initiative.

Primary Goals 1) Help stakeholders implement successful organic production and marketing systems inresponse to growing consumer demand; 2) compile knowledge to guide policies and practicesregarding organic agricultures contributions to sustainability outcomes such as rural prosperity,clean water, and climate change mitigation and adaptation; and 3) use the integrated nature of theorganic paradigm as a platform for developing integrated approaches to sustainability in general.


Improved productivity and profitability of organic production systems (ARS, NIFA).

Understanding the organic sectors effects on ecosystem services and sustainability outcomes(ERS, NIFA, ARS). Understanding consumer demand for organic food and the behavior of organic markets

(ERS). Knowledge of factors that influence the adoption of organic farming systems (ERS, NIFA). Better data on organic production and marketing practices (NASS, ERS). Better coordination of stakeholder interactions (ERS, NIFA, ARS, NASS, and other USDA

agencies). New models of research and education for integrated, transformational systems of

agricultural production and marketing.

References

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development:Our Common Future . Published as an Annex to U.N. General Assembly documentA/42/427. New York, NY: The United Nations.


35/36

11

Clark, W. C. (2007). Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 104: 17371738.

Francis, C. (Ed.). (2009). Organic Farming: The Ecological System. ( Agronomy Monograph 54). Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil

Science Society of America.

Gold, M. (1999). Sustainable Agriculture: Definitions and Terms. Special Reference BriefsSeries no. SRB 99-02. Beltsville, MD: National Agricultural Library. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902.shtml

Greene, C., Dimitri, C., Lin, B., McBride, W., Oberholtzer, L., & Smith, T. (2009). Emerging Issues in the U.S. Organic Industry. Economic Information Bulletin Number 55.Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib55/

Hinrichs, C. C. & Lyson, T. A. (Eds.). (2008). Remaking the North American Food System:Strategies for Sustainability . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Horne, R. & Grant, T. (2009). Life cycle assessment and agriculture: challenges and prospects.In R. Horne, T. Grant, and K. Verghese (Eds.), Life Cycle Assessment: Principles,Practice and Prospects (pp. 107-124). Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.

Jordan, J. L. & Constance, D.H. (2008). Sustainable agriculture and the social sciences: getting beyond best management practices and into food systems. Southern Rural Sociology,23(1):122.

Keystone Center. (2009). Environmental Resource Indicators for Measuring Outcomes of On-Farm Agricultural Production in the United States, First Report . Keystone, CO: Author.

Low, S.A., & Vogel, S. (2011). Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in theUnited States. Economic Research Report No. 128. Washington, DC: USDA EconomicResearch Service.

Martinez, S., Hand, M., DaPra, M., Pollack, S., Ralston, K., Smith, T., Vogel, S., Clark, S., Lohr,L., Low, S., and Newman, C. (2010). Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts and Issues. Economic Research Report No. 97. Washington, DC: USDA Economic ResearchService.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis .Washington, DC: Island Press.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902.shtmlhttp://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902.shtmlhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib55/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib55/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib55/http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902.shtml


36/36

12

National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board. (2010). Report on Sustainability in Support of Food Security. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture.

National Research Council. (1989). Alternative Agriculture . Washington, DC: National

Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2010). Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Norris, G.A. (2006). Social impacts in product life cyclestowards life cycle attributeassessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(Special Issue 1): 97104.

Pollock, C., Pretty, J., Crute, I., Leaver, C., & Dalton, H. (2008). Introduction. Sustainableagriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 363(1491):445446.

Reganold, J.P., Jackson-Smith, D., Batie, S.S., Harwood, R.R., Kornegay, J.L., Bucks, D., Flora,C.B., Hanson, J.C., Jury, W.A., Meyer, D., Schumacher Jr., A., Sehmsdorf, H., Shennan,C., Thrupp, L.A., & Willis, P. (2011). Transforming U.S. agriculture. Science, 332:670 671.

Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M.,Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., deWit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M.,Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D.,Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J.A. (2009). A Safe operating space for humanity.

Nature, 461: 472475.Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R. and Polasky, S. (2001). Agricultural

sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418: 671677.

Woteki, C. 2012. Research, Education, and Economics Action Plan . Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	gina-halley-wright
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

White Paper Sustainability 5.24.13

Documents