[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

INCREASING RESILIENCY, MITIGATING RISK: EXAMINING THE RESEARCH AND
EXTENSION NEEDS OF PRODUCERS

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
BIOTECHNOLOGY, HORTICULTURE, AND RESEARCH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

JUNE 12, 2019

__________

Serial No. 116-10

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-089 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Ranking
JIM COSTA, California Minority Member
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
FILEMON VELA, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands Arkansas
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
Vice Chair VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia DOUG LaMALFA, California
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York TED S. YOHO, Florida
TJ COX, California RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MIKE BOST, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOSH HARDER, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
KIM SCHRIER, Washington JAMES COMER, Kentucky
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa

______

Anne Simmons, Staff Director

Matthew S. Schertz, Minority Staff Director

______

Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands, Chair

ANTONIO DELGADO, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida Ranking
TJ COX, California Minority Member
JOSH HARDER, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey DOUG LaMALFA, California
KIM SCHRIER, Washington RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine TED S. YOHO, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JIMMY PANETTA, California JAMES COMER, Kentucky
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida

Brandon Honeycutt, Subcommittee Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Dunn, Hon. Neal P., a Representative in Congress from Florida,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Panetta, Hon. Jimmy, a Representative in Congress from
California, submitted reports.................................. 61
Pingree, Hon. Chellie, a Representative in Congress from Maine,
submitted fact sheet........................................... 59
Plaskett, Hon. Stacey E., a Delegate in Congress from Virgin
Islands, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2

Witnesses

Wolfe, Ph.D., David W., Professor of Plant and Soil Ecology,
Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant Science,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Godfrey, Ph.D., Robert W., Director, Agricultural Experiment
Station, University of the Virgin Islands, Kingshill, St.
Croix, VI...................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Tencer, Brise S., Executive Director, Organic Farming Research
Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA..................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Godwin, Sam, apple, pear, and cherry grower, Godwin Family
Orchard, Tonasket, WA.......................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Gmitter, Jr., Ph.D., Fred G., Professor, Horticultural Sciences,
Citrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Lake Alfred, FL.. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 33

Submitted Material

Youngblood, Abby, Executive Director, National Organic Coalition,
submitted statement............................................ 227

INCREASING RESILIENCY, MITIGATING RISK: EXAMINING THE RESEARCH AND.
EXTENSION NEEDS OF PRODUCERS

----------

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2019

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Stacey
E. Plaskett [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Plaskett, Delgado, Cox,
Harder, Brindisi, Van Drew, Schrier, Pingree, Panetta, Peterson
(ex officio), Dunn, Thompson, Yoho, and Baird.
Staff present: Kellie Adesina, Malikha Daniels, Brandon
Honeycutt, Keith Jones, Ricki Schroeder, Patricia Straughn,
Jeremy Witte, Dana Sandman, and Jennifer Yezak.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STACEY E. PLASKETT, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM VIRGIN ISLANDS

The Chair. Good morning, everyone. This hearing of the
Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research
entitled, Increasing Resiliency, Mitigating Risk: Examining the
Research and Extension Needs of Producers, will come to order.
I want to thank you all for being with us this morning as
we examine the research and extension needs for producers.
Looking back on the past year, we have seen intense
flooding in the Midwest, hurricanes in the Southeast, and
wildfires out West.
Just this week, USDA released a Crop Progress Report
detailing that 60 percent of soybeans have been planted in
surveyed states, compared to 88 percent historical planting
average.
As we speak, flooding is keeping farmers out of the field.
These disasters, driven by an increasingly variable climate,
pose serious threats to the domestic agricultural industry and
the rural communities depending on this sector.
Unfortunately, I have seen this firsthand in the Virgin
Islands. In 2015, the territory suffered a serious drought. In
2017, we were hit by two major hurricanes. Now, once again,
back in drought. Recovery continues to be an ongoing process.
My farmers and ranchers need tools that not only help them
survive but thrive in the face of a changing climate.
These examples show that farmers and ranchers throughout
the country are constantly forced to deal with variables that
are outside their control.
To remain economically viable and to protect already slim
margins, producers seek to create resilient operations by
mitigating risk when possible. Advancements in technology and
management practices are made possible by robust agriculture
research efforts, a topic that is squarely within the
jurisdiction of this Subcommittee.
This Committee recognizes the value of investment in public
research. In the 2018 Farm Bill, our Committee supported
increased funding for programs like the Specialty Crop Research
Initiative and the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension
Initiative. I strongly supported these increased investments,
but we cannot become complacent.
As detailed in a report by the Economic Research Service,
the Chinese Government increased spending on agricultural
research nearly eight fold between 1990 and 2013. Their
spending on public agricultural research surpassed ours in
2008. Ten years later we continue to fall behind.
If we want our agricultural sector to remain competitive,
particularly when operating in an increasingly variable
climate, we must bolster the resources available to producers.
According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, there are over
396 million acres farmed in the United States. That is a great
number. The farmers and ranchers tending these acres are on the
frontlines of a changing climate.
As we seek to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies
aimed at combating climate change, farmers and agricultural
researchers must have a seat at the table. Their understanding
of working the land is vital, and their voices must be heard.
Farmers and ranchers are an integral partner in the fight
against climate change.
To show that farmers have always been climate focused, I
have here, if you can believe this, a 1941 Yearbook of
Agriculture from the USDA. It is entitled, Climate and Man. One
line from the foreword that still rings true today is this,
``The first step in increasing knowledge is to have a healthy
awareness of what we do not know.'' Though farmers have always
been acutely aware of climate, their ability to respond to
shifts in the climate are changing.
So that is why we are here today, to hear directly from the
stakeholder community on the research and extension needs of
farmers as they seek to increase resiliency and mitigate risk.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I thank
them for taking time out of their schedules to engage with us
on this critically important topic.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today,
and I look forward to receiving their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Plaskett follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, a Delegate in Congress
from Virgin Islands
Thank you for joining us today as we examine the research and
extension needs of producers. Looking back on the past year, we've seen
intense flooding in the Midwest, hurricanes in the Southeast, and
wildfires out West. Just this week, USDA released a Crop Progress
Report detailing that 60% of soybeans have been planted in surveyed
states compared to an 88% historical planting average. As we speak,
flooding is keeping farmers out of the field.
These disasters, driven by an increasingly variable climate, pose
serious threats to the domestic agriculture industry and the rural
communities depending on this sector.
Unfortunately, I have seen this firsthand in the Virgin Islands. In
2015, the territory suffered a serious drought. In 2017, we were hit by
two major hurricanes. Now, the territory is once again facing another
drought. Recovery continues to be an ongoing process. My farmers and
ranchers need tools that not only help them survive, but thrive, in the
face of a changing climate.
These examples show that farmers and ranchers throughout the
country are constantly forced to deal with variables that are outside
their control. To remain economically viable and to protect already
slim margins, producers seek to create resilient operations by
mitigating risks when possible. Advancements in technology and
management practices are made possible by robust agriculture research
efforts, a topic that is squarely within the jurisdiction of this
Subcommittee.
This Committee recognizes the value of investments in public
research. In the 2018 Farm Bill, our Committee supported increased
funding for programs like the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and
the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative. I strongly
supported these increased investments, but we cannot become complacent.
As detailed in a report by the Economic Research Service, the Chinese
Government increased spending on agriculture research nearly eightfold
between 1990 and 2013. Their spending on public agriculture research
surpassed ours in 2008. Ten years later, we continue to fall behind. If
we want our agriculture sector to remain competitive, particularly when
operating in an increasingly variable climate, we must bolster the
resources available to producers.
According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, there are over 396
million acres farmed in the U.S. The farmers and ranchers tending these
acres are on the frontlines of a changing climate. As we seek to
develop mitigation and adaptation strategies aimed at combating climate
change, farmers and agricultural researchers must have a seat at the
table. Their understanding of working the land is vital, and their
voices must be heard. Farmers and ranchers are an integral partner in
the fight against climate change.
To show that farmers have always been climate-focused, I have here
the 1941 Yearbook of Agriculture from USDA. It is titled ``Climate and
Man.'' One line from the foreward that still rings true today is this:
``The first step in increasing knowledge is to have a healthy awareness
of what we do not know.'' Though farmers have always been acutely aware
of climate, their ability to respond to shifts in the climate are
changing.
So that is why we are here today, to hear directly from the
stakeholder community on the research and extension needs of farmers as
they seek to increase resiliency and mitigate risks. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses, and I thank them for taking time out of
their schedules to engage with us on this critically important topic. I
would like to thank the witnesses for being here today and I look
forward to receiving their testimony.

The Chair. I now yield to the distinguished Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dunn.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NEAL P. DUNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA

Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Farmers and ranchers are some of the most resilient people
that I know, and thanks to our agricultural research and
extension system, they are at the forefront of innovation and
productivity.
As we look forward, there are always new threats
developing, and producers are going to need new tools in order
to adapt to changing conditions.
Congress recognized the need for research all the way back
in 1862 with the passage of the Morrill Act which created the
land-grant university system.
Since then, Congress has provided additional investments in
American agricultural research and extension, most recently
with the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill.
The livelihoods of farmers, ranchers, foresters, and
consumers continue to depend on innovation, and today's
challenges are no different than the past.
In the past 2 years, Florida's producers and foresters saw
devastating losses from hurricanes, and the citrus industry has
been nearly wiped out by citrus greening disease. We are seeing
more subtle, yet perhaps even more consequential threats
developing, including aggressive pest and disease pressures
which will undoubtedly have an impact on food production and
availability.
Climate policies like the Green New Deal have consumed the
headlines from Congress, often blaming the agricultural sector
as the problem. I could not disagree more. I wholeheartedly
believe that innovation in American agriculture is part of the
solution.
We know that the U.S. agriculture uses a tiny percentage of
the energy consumed in the U.S., but the changes proposed in
the Green New Deal would have significant implications for the
ability of U.S. agriculture to continue to meet the demand for
fresh, safe, and affordable food both in the U.S. and abroad.
In contrast, Congress chose a better solution passed in the
2018 Farm Bill, which is arguably the greenest farm bill ever.
In addition to significant investment in research, the farm
bill programs protect farm and forest lands and assist
producers in voluntary practices that sequester carbon, reduce
pollution, and greenhouse gas submissions. They preserve
farmland and they improve the energy efficiency of farming
practices, all while providing America with abundant and
affordable food and fiber.
I would like to call out President Trump for his leadership
on this important issue with the signing of yesterday's
agricultural biotechnology Executive Order. This Administration
is now on a path to eliminating unnecessary regulatory hurdles,
while creating opportunity for additional investment in some of
the innovative tools we are going to discuss here today.
I look forward to watching the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Food and Drug Administration follow the USDA's
lead.
I would like to thank each of the witnesses for taking time
to have this important dialogue with us, and I look forward to
a productive discussion.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you.
I would note for the record, the presence of the Chairman
of our full Committee, Mr. Collin Peterson, who is here with
us. Thank you for your presence in this Subcommittee hearing.
I would request that any other Members submit their opening
statements for the record so that the witnesses may begin their
testimony, and to ensure that there is ample time for
questions.
I would like to welcome all of our witnesses and thank you
for being with us here today.
At this time I will introduce our first witness, Dr. David
Wolfe. Dr. Wolfe is a Professor of Plant and Soil Ecology at
Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Thank you for being
with us.
The second witness is my own constituent, Dr. Robert
Godfrey. Dr. Godfrey is the Director of the Agricultural
Experiment Station at the University of the Virgin Islands,
where he is primarily on the St. Croix campus. Thank you so
much for being with us.
The third witness we will hear from, Ms. Brise Tencer, who
will be introduced by Congressman Panetta.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity.
Ranking Member Dunn and Mr. Chairman, of course, thank you for
this opportunity.
It is a real pleasure to introduce one of my good friends
and a staunch--and we are so fortunate to have her--advocate,
Ms. Brise Tencer, the Executive Director of the Organic Farming
Research Foundation, located in Santa Cruz, California on the
Central Coast.
Brise brings 20 years of leadership experience on organic
food policy, farming, and research issues to OFRF.
She has been a strong, dependable resource and advocate for
the organic producers in my district. And let me tell you,
historically, as many of you know, especially Brise, it is a
district that has been dominated by conventional farming.
However, because Brise has spoken up, has spoken out, and
continues to speak for our organic industry and our organic
farmers, her voice is heard across this country, and that is
why organic farming and what the benefits it does for our
farmers across this country is heard loud and clear.
So, let me just take this time to introduce to you, Brise,
and thank you for being here.
The Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Panetta. I yield back. Thank you.
The Chair. I will turn to Congresswoman Schrier to
introduce out fourth witness, Mr. Sam Godwin.
Ms. Schrier. Good morning. Thank you, Chair.
I am so pleased to welcome Mr. Sam Godwin to testify this
morning.
He operates a family organic farm of 300 acres, growing
apples, pears, and cherries, true Washingtonian, with his wife,
Gwynn and oldest daughter in Tonasket, Washington.
Mr. Godwin received his undergraduate degree from
Washington State University, and then Masters from Seattle U.
Prior to his career in agriculture, he worked at the Boeing
Company. He currently serves on the Washington State Tree Fruit
Association's Board of Directors.
I am excited to hear from you this morning and hear your
thoughts about how low- and no-till farming, regenerative
farming, crop rotation, and carbon sequestration can really
show us that farmers could literally save our planet.
Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
And I also welcome Dr. Fred Gmitter. Is that the correct
way?
Dr. Gmitter. Yes.
The Chair. Okay. And he will be introduced by the Ranking
Member Dunn.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Madam Chair and Chairman Peterson.
It is my honor to introduce a fellow Floridian, Dr. Fred
Gmitter.
He is a Professor of Citrus Genetics at the University of
Florida Citrus Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred,
Florida, and he is currently doing great work to help producers
find solutions to the devastating citrus greening disease.
He is truly one of the world's most preeminent experts in
this field and I am honored to introduce him to you today.
Dr. Gmitter, thank you very much for being here.
The Chair. Thank you.
We will now proceed to hearing the testimony, each of our
witnesses will have 5 minutes.
So that you are aware, you are going to see the numbers
right there in front of you there are at 5. When 1 minute is
left, the light will turn yellow, and unlike my driving, that
does not mean speed up. That means that you have 1 minute left.
And when it is red, that means the time is up, the 5 minutes
are up.
Dr. Wolfe, will you please begin when you are ready?

STATEMENT OF DAVID W. WOLFE, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF PLANT AND SOIL
ECOLOGY, HORTICULTURE SECTION, SCHOOL OF INTEGRATIVE PLANT
SCIENCE, CORNELL
UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY

Dr. Wolfe. Thank you.
Well, I would like to start by thanking Chair Stacey
Plaskett, Ranking Member Neal Dunn, and Members of the
Subcommittee for holding this important hearing.
I appreciate the opportunity to share with you my views on
research and extension needs in this time of increasing climate
variability and weather extremes.
My perspective has been shaped by more than 3 decades at
Cornell University with a program focus on soil and water
management and climate change adaptation and mitigation.
In addition to extension and academic research papers, I
have also co-authored numerous regional and national climate
assessments.
I currently am lead project director for the New York Soil
Health Program, and I serve on various advisory boards relevant
to today's hearing, and I teach a course on climate change and
food security.
So with my few minutes I want to just highlight three major
points that are gone over in more detail in my written
testimony.
First, climate change impacts are turning out to be more
complex, and in some cases more severe than we imagined 30
years ago.
One example of climate change surprise has been an
increased risk of cold damage for woody perennials such as
apples and grapes in a warming world. This can occur when
warmer and more variable late winter temperatures trigger an
unusually early bloom that leaves the plants vulnerable to an
extended period of frost risk.
This problem has been particularly acute in my region in
the Northeast, where in 2012 and again 2016, apple, grape and
other fruit crop growers lost millions of dollars due to this
lack of synchrony between bloom and spring frost.
Now, another area, climate models have projected for years
an increase in both drought and flooding risks for many
regions, but the severity of recent flooding impacts has left
many areas unprepared.
As we meet here today, and as we all know, many farmers in
the Midwest are suffering from a record-breaking spring
flooding that has delayed planting to the point where for some
the season will be a total loss. This is what concerns farmers
the most, extreme weather events that are more frequent and
more catastrophic than previous generations have had to face.
While not as severe, many farmers in the Northeast have
also had delays in planting and flooding damage this spring and
in the past 2 years, but if we go back to 2016, a record-
breaking drought revealed unique vulnerabilities of this
historically humid region where we lack the infrastructure to
deliver water in a summer with low rainfall.
Okay. My second point is just that farmers are already
responding, already adapting as they can no longer rely on
historical climate norms for their region to determine what
crop to plant, when to plant it, or how to grow it.
Business as usual is not a winning strategy today, and
farmers are making changes accordingly. I will mention just a
few here briefly. Diversification is one widely adopted and
often effective approach to hedge bets in an uncertain climate.
This might involve staggered planting dates, more diverse
cropping mixes, or other strategies.
Improving soil health has become a popular win-win-win
approach that can reduce input costs for the grower, build
resilience to drought and flooding, and also sequester carbon
in soils.
Farmers are more tuned in today to their integrated pest
management specialists who can help them to anticipate and
control a much more intense pressure from insect pests,
diseases, and weeds.
And finally, one other adaptation is for some farmers an
investment in larger scale farm equipment. To cover more
acreage more quickly is a strategy for adapting to smaller
windows of opportunity for farm operations. For example,
getting in between heavy rainfall events.
Finally and most importantly perhaps, and more specific to
our hearing today, for farmers to be successful they will need
support from those beyond the farm. And some key areas of need
that I want to mention are: first, improved delivery of
regional climate data to help farmers discern between ``normal
bad weather'' and changes in weather patterns that truly
warrant adaptation investments. Also, more research is needed
to improve seasonal forecasts for longer range planning beyond
just the 5 day forecast into things that might cover more of
the growing season.
Another one is, we need all hands on deck to develop a
digital agriculture approach that will take full advantage of
satellite and other data sources, new sensor network
technology, and computer systems to translate massive data into
usable information for field-level management. This will
require new collaborations in integrating knowledge from
climate science, agronomy, engineering, and computer science.
Regional centers for coordination, synergy, and
accessibility of decision tools. Some land-grant universities,
the regional USDA climate hubs, and others have made a start
here, but a more permanent and better-funded solution is
needed.
Integrating conservation policy programs with climate
change adaptation and mitigation: This could warrant expansion
of appropriations for soil and water conservation programs,
such as those funded through the farm bill and implemented by
the USDA NRCS.
Disaster assistance insurance policies, access to capital
for adaptation: This is the big complex issue, but I think
warranting review at this point in time to make sure our
policies are relevant and adequate within the context of
recurring weather-related disasters that have a link with
climate change.
The possibility of a parallel track providing incentives
for adaptation deserves further study.
And finally, breeding and biotechnology for climate
resilient crops and livestock is important. More than just corn
and beans but also specialty crops.
And finally, I see my time is up. I would like to thank the
Committee again for holding this important hearing. With
strategic investments in research and extension, and policies
that facilitate adaptive management, there is no doubt that our
farmers will be better prepared than they are today to meet the
challenges and take advantage of any opportunities that a
changing climate may bring.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wolfe follows:]

Prepared Statement of David W. Wolfe, Ph.D., Professor of Plant and
Soil Ecology, Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant
Science,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
I would like to start by thanking Chair Stacey Plaskett, Ranking
Member Neal Dunn, and Members of the Subcommittee for hosting this
important hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you my
personal views on research and extension needs of producers in a time
of increasing climate variability and more extremes in temperature and
precipitation. My perspective has been shaped by more than 3 decades of
experience as a faculty member at Cornell University, with a research
and extension program focused on soil and water management, and climate
change adaptation and mitigation strategies for the agriculture sector.
I am very grateful for the grant funding I have received over the years
from USDA-NIFA, USDA-SARE, and USDA-Hatch programs. I am also grateful
for support from New York State for some of my regional projects, and
for the collaboration with many farmers, which has been essential to
creating an outreach program that addresses their needs.
In addition to peer-reviewed research and extension publications,
my science communication efforts have included analyses relevant to
policy-makers, such co-authoring chapters of the 2008 and 2014 National
Climate Assessments, and serving as lead author of the Agriculture and
Ecosystems chapters of the state-funded study, ``Responding to Climate
Change in New York State''. Currently I am lead project director for
the New York Soil Health program (www.newyorksoilhealth.org), am on the
Advisory Boards for the New York State Water Resources Institute and
the Cornell Institute for Climate Smart Solutions, and teach a course
on Climate Change and Food Security.
Farmer Vulnerability to Climate Change
When I became involved in climate change research almost 30 years
ago, the evidence for impacts on agriculture was subtle, and we relied
heavily on climate and crop model projections to discern future
impacts. But unfortunately this new challenge for agriculture has crept
up on us more quickly than some expected. Farmers today are feeling the
effects in real-time, and having to make difficult decisions to cope.
They can no longer rely on weather patterns that for centuries have
been characteristic for their region to determine what crop to plant,
when to plant it, or how to grow it. In addition to an increase in
drought and heat risk in many regions as one might expect with ``global
warming'', there have also been many surprises. Below are a few
examples.
Too much water
The frequency of intense rainfall events compared to historical
averages has increased in the past 40 years for most regions of the
U.S. (Kunkel, et al., 2013). In a warmer world, more of the earth's
water is in the air as water vapor, so there is more up there to come
down during an upper atmosphere condensation event. Too much water can
cause direct crop damage or yield losses from disease. When prolonged
wet conditions in the spring or fall limit field access during planting
or harvest, farmers are not able to take advantage of the climate
change trend for a longer frost-free period that has been observed in
most regions. Excessive rain also can lead to increased soil erosion,
and runoff of sediments, fertilizers, manure, and agriculture chemicals
into waterways.
As we meet here today, many farmers in the Great Plains and Midwest
are suffering from a particularly severe and record-breaking spring
flooding that has delayed planting to the point where, for some, the
season will be a total loss (Van Dam, et al., 2019). This is what
concerns fa[r]mers the most: extreme weather events that are less
predictable, more frequent, sometimes occur in clusters, and are more
catastrophic than previous generations have had to face.
For most Americans climate change impacts on food production might
mean a shortage or higher price for some of our favorite grocery items.
But for the two percent of our population supplying our food, it can
have devastating economic consequences. It can force farm families into
increasing loan debt, taking part-time work outside the farm, or even
selling part or all of the farm. These farmers may not be keeping up
with the latest climate change reports or debates, but they are the
ones in the trenches, dealing with the challenges on a daily basis.
Drought vulnerability in historically ``humid'' regions
The Northeast is typical of many humid regions, with summer
rainfall usually adequate for production of field crops and hay and
forage animal feedstocks. Those producing high value fruit and
vegetable crops often have some capacity for supplemental irrigation
for at least part of their acreage. But an increased risk of short-term
summer drought has been projected for the region, reflecting an
increase in crop water needs with longer, warmer summers, combined with
projections of little change or a decline in summer precipitation
(Wolfe, et al., 2018; Hayhoe, et al., 2007). The region has not
invested in infrastructure to deliver water to farmlands from lakes and
reservoirs as is the case in historically more arid regions. The
region's vulnerability to drought was made apparent in 2016 when a
severe drought reduced yields of rain-fed crops by more than half in
many parts of region. Even those growing high value crops with
supplemental irrigation suffered losses, either because they did not
have enough equipment to keep up with demand, or because farm wells,
ponds, and creeks went dry (Ossowski, et al., 2017; Sweet, et al.,
2017).
The 2016 drought was not the end of the story for the Northeast.
The following 2017 growing season was unusually wet, and many of the
same farmers suffered crop (and soil) losses from heavy rains and
flooding (Sweet and Wolfe 2018).
More cold damage in a warming world?
Another climate change surprise has been an apparent increased risk
of cold damage for woody perennials such as apples and grapes in a
warming world. This can occur when warmer and more variable late winter
temperatures trigger an unusually early bloom that leaves the plant
vulnerable to an extended period of frost risk. While frost damage is
not a new phenomenon, a lack of synchrony between bloom and spring
frost appears to be occurring more frequently in recent years, and a
recent modeling study for apples suggests this trend may continue in
the Northeast, at least for the next few decades (Wolfe, et al., 2018).
An example of the impact this can have was seen in 2012 when unusually
warm temperatures in late winter led to record-breaking early flowering
of many plant species (Ellwood, et al., 2013). In that year apple and
grape growers in the Northeast lost millions of dollars (Horton, et
al., 2014). Significant damage to apple buds occurred again in spring
2016 after another mild winter, followed by April frost.
More dynamic and intense pest and weed pressure
We now have overwhelming documentation that the living world is
rapidly responding to climate change. Longer, warmer summers can lead
to more generations of insect pests per season, and increased
competition from weeds. In addition, farmers in higher latitude regions
are facing new pests, weeds, and plant pathogens coming up from the
south as temperatures warm and the suitable habitat for these species
expands northward.
Farm-Level Adaptation Strategies
Many farmers today have seen enough evidence to be convinced that a
significant change is going on with the weather patterns; one that will
require a proactive, adaptive management to stabilize productivity and
remain profitable. The table below provides examples of some key
strategies that are being implemented in some areas as ways to build
resiliency and reduce risk. (for a more thorough review, see: Walthall,
et al., 2012; Wolfe 2013).

Diversify with more staggered planting dates, a more diverse
crop variety mix, and/or diverse rotation sequences. Explore
new crop and market opportunities possible with a longer
growing season, and/or in relation to climate change impacts
and farmer responses in other regions. This is a way to ``hedge
bets'' in a context of uncertainty.

Improving soil health is a ``win-win'' approach with
multiple benefits, including resilience to climate variability,
and capturing and storing carbon in soils (Wolfe 2019). Healthy
soils have relatively high organic matter, which provides
resilience to short-term droughts, flooding, and compaction.
Maintaining vegetation cover as much of the year as possible
with fall and winter cover crops--one of the key methods to
rebuild organic matter on depleted soils--also has the benefit
of reducing erosion losses during heavy rainfall events. And
soil organic matter is often more than 60 percent carbon,
carbon that otherwise would be in the air as the greenhouse
gas, carbon dioxide.

Regional Integrated Pest Management for anticipating and
controlling new pests, diseases, and weeds.

Better water management. This could range from building
resilience through better soil management, to using new sensors
and tools for optimized irrigation scheduling, to capital
investment in irrigation or drainage systems.

Fruit crop frost protection begins with site selection at
initial planting, and methods during frost events, such as
misting or air circulation fans, to reduce damage.

Investment in large scale farm equipment to cover more
acreage quickly is a strategy for adapting to smaller windows
of opportunity (e.g., between rainfall events) for farm
operations such as planting or harvesting.

Reduce heat stress in livestock facilities by improving
design of new facilities, or improving existing facilities with
better air circulation, or retrofitting with fans and
sprinklers, or more sophisticated cooling systems.
Research, Extension, and Policy Needs
The adaptation strategies discussed above focus on farm-level
adaptation, but for farmers to be successful they will need support
from those beyond the farm. Below are several key needs where
researchers, extension and other educators, government agencies,
policy-makers, agriculture service providers, nonprofit organizations,
and communities can play a role.
Climate change science and delivery of information to farmers
Farmers are intimately familiar with the day-to-day weather
challenges on their farm, but this information is local and anecdotal.
Climate scientists, through extension networks, can provide a broader
view that includes data from other regions, historical analyses of
trends, and climate projections. This can help farmers identify changes
in weather patterns that are part of a long-term trend and warrant
investment for adaptation. While some regions have reasonably effective
programs for getting this information to farmers, others do not.
Seasonal climate forecasts
More research is needed to improve our ability to provide seasonal
climate forecasts, for longer range planning (e.g., the entire growing
season). This is particularly needed in regions where the climate is
not strongly influenced by ENSO cycles, for example.
Economics of climate change impacts and adaptation strategies
Impact assessments of climate change on the U.S. agriculture sector
have often assumed an ``autonomous'' adaptation by farmers, and largely
ignored the risk and costs for the agricultural sector. Also, prior
analyses have often focused on the major world food crops such as corn,
soybean, and wheat. More attention is needed regarding impacts and
costs of adaptation of other agriculture systems, such as high-value
fruit and vegetable crops, and livestock, which are major components of
the agricultural economy in many regions of the U.S.
Regional centers for coordination and exchange of climate change and
adaptation information
This can also increase synergy of efforts among researchers,
educators, and farmers. Some land-grant universities, nonprofit
organizations, and government agencies provide useful information and
training for farmers and extension staff, and/or host websites with
resources, climate data and decision tools for farmers (e.g.,
www.climatesmartfarming.org). But these efforts are not available in
many parts of the country, and are typically under-funded and, at
discontinued when short-term funding runs out. The current regional
USDA climate ``hubs'' have provided a valuable service recently that is
national in scope and been successful at coordinating regional
activities, and organizing regional assessments, conferences, and
webinars, despite limited funding. Establishing some version of these
as a long-term and appropriately funded program of the agency would be
a good alternative to what we have today.
Environmental monitoring, data analytics, and digital agriculture
The challenges imposed by climate change demand a radical
transformation in information available to farmers for decision-making.
The agricultural sector is not taking advantage of satellite and other
data sources available, new sensor network technology, and computer
systems that can translate massive data into useable information for
field-level management decisions on a daily basis and for long-term
land use planning. To address this will require new collaborations and
integrating knowledge from meteorology, climate science, biology,
ecology, engineering, and computer science. The public sector can play
an important role in ensuring equity of access to all farmers.
Policy incentives and cost-sharing for climate change adaptation and
conservation
Many soil and water conservation policies, such as those
implemented by the USDA-NRCS [EQIP] programs, also have relevance to
climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Where appropriate
this could warrant an expansion of appropriations through the farm bill
for some of these programs. Also, these policies should be reviewed for
their impact on flexibility required for adaptation to climate change
at the farm level.
Various aspects of farm policy could be reviewed in search of
mechanisms to facilitate farmer adaptation to climate change without
unintended or inequitable negative consequences for farmers, the
environment, or markets and trade. Disaster assistance and production
or income insurance policies will be an essential component of helping
farmers cope with less predictable weather patterns, but the
possibility of blending these with incentives for adaptation to avoid
adverse impacts of climate change where appropriate deserves study.
Breeding and biotechnology for climate-resilient crop and livestock
varieties
Our knowledge of plant and animal genetics, and the development of
new molecular-assisted and genetic engineering techniques have
increased exponentially in the past few decades. Targeting specific
genes or suites of genes for environmental stress tolerance will
require continued research to better understand key factors associated
with climate change that determine yield. For example, evaluation of
historical meteorological and yield data for Midwest grain crops has
indicated that increasing minimum nighttime temperatures, as well as
daytime heat stress and seasonal precipitation, are factors (Hatfield,
et al., 2017; Ortiz-Bobea, et al., 2019). To date, most effort has been
applied to major world food crops such as corn, soybean, wheat, and
rice. University and other public sector emphasis should be on high
value fruit and vegetable crops important to the agricultural economy
of many regions of the country, but not addressed by commercial seed
companies.
Concluding Remarks
Many farmers in the United States are already beginning to change
practices to adapt to a less predictable climate. They will need
support and access to the latest environmental monitoring technology,
as well as weather and climate information, to make timely, strategic
farm management decisions. With sustained major investments in research
and extension, and policies that facilitate adaptive management,
farmers will be better prepared to meet the challenges and take
advantage of any opportunities that a changing climate may bring.
References Cited

Ellwood E.R., Templer S.A., Primack R.B., Bradley N.L., Davis C.C.
(2013) Record-breaking early flowering in the eastern United States.
PloS-One 8(1): e54, 788. (https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.005378).
Hatfield J.L., L. Wright-Morton, D. Hale. 2017. Vulnerability of
grain crops and croplands in the Midwest to climatic variabilities and
adaptation strategies. Climatic Change (https://doi:10.1007/s/0584-017-
1997-x).
Hayhoe K., Wake C., Huntington T., Luo L., Schwartz M., Sheffield
J., Wood E., Anderson B., Bradbury J., DeGaetano A., Troy T., Wolfe
D.W. (2007) Past and future changes in climate and hydrological
indicators in the U.S. Northeast. Climate Dyn 28: 381-407.
Horton R., Yohe G., Wolfe D.W., Easterling W., Kates R., Ruth M.,
Sussman E., Whelchel A. (2014) Northeast (Chapter 16). In: Mellilo J.,
Richmond T.C., Yohe G., et al. (eds.). Third National Climate
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Washington, D.C.
Kunkel K.E., Stevens L.E., Stevens S.E., Sun L., Janssen E.,
Wuebbles D., Rennells J., DeGaetano A., Dobson J.G. (2013) Part 1.
Climate of the Northeast U.S. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-1. NOAA,
Washington D.C.
Ortiz-Bobea A., H. Wang, C.M. Carillo, T.R. Ault. 2019. Unpacking
the climatic drivers of United States agricultural yield. Environ. Res.
Lett. 14(201)9064003. (https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/able75).
Ossowski E., Mecray E., DeGaetano A., Borisoff S., Spaccio J. (2017)
Northeast drought assessments 2016-2017. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Integrated Drought Information
System (www.drought.gov).
Sweet S. and D. Wolfe. March 2018. Anatomy of a wet year: Insights
from New York Farmers. Cornell Institute for Climate Smart Solutions
(CICSS) Research and Policy Brief. Issue 4.
(www.climatesmartfarming.org)
Sweet S., Wolfe D.W., DeGaetano A.T., Benner R. (2017) Anatomy of
the 2016 drought in the Northeastern United States: Implications for
agriculture and water resources in humid climates. Agric. Forest.
Meteor. 247: 571-581.
Van Dam A., L. Karklis, T. Mako. June 4, 2019. After a biblical
spring, this is the week that could break the corn belt. Washington
Post. www.washingtonpost.com.
Walthall C.L., et al., 2012. Climate Change and Agriculture in the
U.S.: Effects and Adaptation. USDA Tech. Bull. 1935. Washington D.C.
186 pp.
Wolfe D.W., 2019. The New York Soil Health Roadmap. Cornell
University. 39 pp. (www.newyorksoilhealth.org).
Wolfe D.W., A. DeGaetano, G. Peck, M. Carey, L. Ziska, J. Lea-Cox,
A. Kemanian, M. Hoffmann, D. Hollinger. 2017. Unique challenges and
opportunities for Northeastern U.S. crop production in a changing
climate. Climatic Change 146: 231-245.
Wolfe D.W. 2013. Climate change solutions from the agronomy
perspective. In: Hillel D. and C. Rosenzweig (eds). Handbook Climate
Change and Agroecosystems: Global and Regional Aspects and
Implications. Chapter 2. Imperial College Press. London.

The Chair. Thank you.
We will now hear from my constituent, Robert Godfrey, who
is on the frontline of changing climate, assisting the farmers
in the Virgin Islands through his work at the Extension
Program.
Doctor?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. GODFREY, Ph.D., DIRECTOR,
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, UNIVERSITY OF THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS, KINGSHILL, ST. CROIX, VI

Dr. Godfrey. Good morning, Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member
Dunn, Members of the Subcommittee and Chairman. Thank you for
this opportunity to speak with you today.
My name is Dr. Robert Godfrey, and I am the Director of the
Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of the Virgin
Islands. Our faculty and staff conduct research in the
disciplines of agroforestry, agronomy, animal science,
aquaculture, biotechnology, and horticulture.
The cooperative extension service provides outreach to the
community in agricultural and natural resources, 4-H/family and
consumer sciences, and communications technology and distance
learning.
Most of our research projects incorporate climate and the
environment as a necessity due to our location. Currently we
have research projects evaluating micro-irrigation to enhance
water use efficiency for crops, mulching systems and cover
crops to minimize external inputs for soil improvement,
evaluating adaptive traits of local livestock breeds such as
Senepol cattle and St. Croix white hair sheep, and selecting
and developing field crop varieties for enhanced production in
the tropics.
It is estimated that the U.S. Virgin Islands imports 90 to
95 percent of its food items, indicating that there is enormous
potential market opportunity for local farmers to tap into.
Farming in the U.S. Virgin Islands is characterized by
small farms averaging less than 5 acres in size. Most
agricultural production inputs are imported and high shipping
costs contribute significantly to the costs of production and
operation.
Based upon USDA definitions, the majority of farmers in the
U.S. Virgin Islands are limited resource and socially
disadvantaged farmers. They face many constraints unique to
small-scale tropical agriculture, such as seasonal rainfall,
high incidents of pests and diseases, high organic matter
turnover in the soils, high temperature and humidity,
increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events,
and limited access to financing for farm support.
In September of 2017, two Category 5 hurricanes devastated
the U.S. Virgin Islands, 12 days apart, enhancing the level of
destruction and hampering recovery efforts. After Hurricane
Irma devastated St. Thomas and St. John, St. Croix farmers,
AES, CES, the Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture, and
several community groups collected and shipped relief supplies
to our sister islands by commercial and private boats. Then St.
Croix and Puerto Rico were hit by Hurricane Maria and suffered
severe damage.
The ports of St. Croix, St. Thomas and Puerto Rico were all
shut down, even just temporarily at the same time, which
limited access to relief and recovery resources. Many crops
were lost due to wind damage and saltwater contamination.
Livestock farmers suffered damage to fences, animal pens, and
loss of animals from airborne debris. As an example, the
University sheep research flock lost \1/3\ of its breeding
ewes.
The lack of locally available resources such as irrigation
supplies, seedlings, fence wire, fence posts, and animal feed
made recovery efforts for all farmers difficult.
In addition to hurricanes, there have also been periods of
drought in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The average annual rainfall
is 51", but in 2015 we received less than 25" of rain. The
Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture was able to offer
imported feed and hay at reduced fees, but their ability to
provide other services and water for farmers was very limited.
The ability for livestock farmers to sell animals was
hampered by the limited capacity of the one federally inspected
abattoir on St. Croix. The abattoir on St. Thomas is still not
operating after suffering damage during Hurricane Irma.
The field research facilities of the Agriculture Experiment
Station were severely damaged and limited our ability to
conduct research for most of 2018. Our research programs are
slowly coming back online but we still have a long way to go.
A proposal has been submitted by AES to the FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program to develop an Agricultural Hazard
Mitigation and Resiliency Plan. It will coordinate with the
territory-wide Comprehensive Hazard Mitigation and Resiliency
Plan managed by other units in the University.
In response to stakeholder needs after the recent storms
and drought, cooperative extension service has offered training
to help livestock producers rehabilitate their pastures,
training for use of composting, micro-irrigation and soil
conservation, workshops on restoring trees damaged by the
storms and droughts using proper pruning techniques, and AES
and CES staff had joined an Advisory Committee that developed a
plan for recycling the large amounts of vegetative and wood
debris left by the hurricanes by making that mulch available
for distribution to farmers and the community.
In conclusion, I want to say that agriculture in the U.S.
Virgin Islands will continue to be impacted by climate change
through increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather
events. These extreme events serve to highlight the importance
of food security and accessibility in a remote island location
such as ours.
As the University of the Virgin Islands continues to
support and develop agriculture in the U.S. Virgin Islands by
working with our local stakeholders and regional and Federal
partners, the impact of climate change will play a significant
role in the development of our resiliency, mitigation, and
sustainability plans.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify before this
Subcommittee and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Godfrey follows:]

Prepared Statement of Robert W. Godfrey, Ph.D., Director, Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of the Virgin Islands, Kingshill, St.
Croix, VI
Resiliency of Agriculture in the U.S. Virgin Islands
Introduction
Good morning, Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member Dunn, and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony
for this Subcommittee.
My name is Dr. Robert Godfrey and I am the Director of the
Agricultural Experiment Station (AES) at the University of the Virgin
Islands. Our faculty and staff conduct research in the disciplines of
Agroforestry, Agronomy, Animal Science, Aquaculture, Biotechnology and
Horticulture. The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) provides outreach
to the community in Agriculture & Natural Resources, 4-H/Family &
Consumer Sciences and Communications, Technology & Distance Learning.
Most of our research projects incorporate climate and the
environment as a necessity due to our location. Currently we have
research projects evaluating micro-irrigation to enhance water use
efficiency for crops, mulching systems and cover crops to minimize
external inputs for soil improvement, evaluating adaptive traits of
local livestock breeds such as Senepol cattle and St. Croix White Hair
sheep and selecting and developing field crop varieties for enhanced
production in the tropics.
Overview of Agriculture in the U.S. Virgin Islands
It is estimated that the U.S. Virgin Islands imports 90 to 95% of
its food items indicating that there is an enormous potential market
opportunity for local farmers to tap into. Farming in the U.S. Virgin
Islands is characterized by small farms averaging less than 5 acres in
size.\1\ Most agricultural production inputs are imported and high
shipping costs contribute significantly to the costs of operating a
farm.
Based upon the USDA definitions, the majority of the farmers in the
U.S. Virgin Islands are limited resource and socially disadvantaged
farmers. They face many constraints that are unique to small scale
tropical agriculture such as seasonal rainfall, high incidence of pests
and diseases, high organic matter turnover in soils, high temperature
and humidity, increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather
events, limited market, and limited access to financing for farm
support.
Impact of Extreme Weather on Agriculture in the U.S. Virgin Islands
In September 2017 two category 5 hurricanes devastated the U.S.
Virgin Islands only 12 days apart enhancing the level of destruction
and hampering recovery efforts. After Hurricane Irma devastated St.
Thomas and St. John, St. Croix farmers, AES, CES, the Virgin Islands
Department of Agriculture and community groups collected and shipped
relief supplies to our sister islands by commercial and private boats.
St. Croix also served as a base of operations for Federal support
efforts with cargo and personnel being flown back and forth between the
islands' airports. Then St. Croix and Puerto Rico were hit by Hurricane
Maria and suffered severe damage. The ports of St. Croix, St. Thomas
and Puerto Rico were all shutdown, even just temporarily, at the same
time which limited the access to relief and recovery resources.
Many crops were lost due to wind damage and saltwater
contamination. Livestock farmers suffered damage to fences, animal pens
and loss of animals from airborne debris. As an example, the University
sheep research flock lost \1/3\ of the breeding ewes in its flock. the
lack of local resources available such as irrigation supplies,
seedlings, fence wire, fence posts and animal feed made recovery
efforts for all farmers difficult.
In addition to hurricanes, there have also been periods of drought
in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The average annual rainfall is 51" \2\ but
in 2015 we received less than 25" of rain. The Virgins Islands
Department of Agriculture was able to offer some livestock feed and
imported hay at reduced fees but their ability to provide other
services and water for farmers was very limited. The ability for
livestock farmers to sell animals was hampered by the limited capacity
of the one federally inspected abattoir on St. Croix. The abattoir on
St. Thomas is still not operating after suffering damage during
Hurricane Irma.
Response to Extreme Weather Events
The field research facilities of the Agricultural Experiment
Station were severely damaged and limited our ability to conduct
research for most of 2018 after the Hurricane Maria. Our research
programs are slowly coming back online but we still have a long way to
go.
A proposal has been submitted by AES to the FEMA Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program to develop an Agricultural Hazard Mitigation and
Resiliency Plan. It will coordinate with the territory-wide
comprehensive Hazard Mitigation and Resiliency Plan managed by other
units within the University.
In response to stakeholder needs after the recent storms and
drought, CES has offered training to help livestock producers
rehabilitate their pastures, training on the use of composting, micro-
irrigation, and soil conservation, and workshops on restoring trees
damaged by storms and droughts using proper pruning techniques. AES and
CES staff joined an ad hoc advisory committee that developed a plan for
recycling the large amounts of vegetative/wood debris left by the
hurricanes by making mulch that is available for distribution farmers
and the community.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I want to say that agriculture in the U.S. Virgin
Islands will continue to be impacted by climate change through
increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. These
types of extreme events only serve to highlight the importance of food
security and accessibility in a remote island location such as ours. As
the University of the Virgin Islands continues to support and develop
agriculture in the U.S. Virgin Islands by working with our local
stakeholders and regional and Federal partners, the impact of climate
change will play a significant role in the development of our
resiliency, mitigation and sustainability plans.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee.
I look forward to your questions.
Supplemental Information
St. Croix is the largest U.S. Virgin Island of approximately
84\2\ miles displaying relatively flat topography. St. Thomas,
40 miles to the north, is approximately 32\2\ miles and is well
known for its mountainous terrain and excellent harbors. Three
miles east of St. Thomas, St. John is approximately 20\2\
miles, and \2/3\ of this island has been designated a U.S.
National Park.

The University of the Virgin Islands was named as an 1862
land-grant institution in 1972, and is also a Historically
Black College and University (HBCU).

The U.S. Virgin Islands have been impacted by several
hurricanes in the past 30 years. The most impactful storms to
hit the U.S. Virgin Islands in recent history were Hurricane
Hugo in 1989, Hurricane Marilyn in 1995, Hurricane Georges in
1998, Hurricane Lenny in 1999, and Hurricanes Irma and Maria in
2017.

The most recent data for agriculture in the U.S. Virgin
Islands from the 2007 Census of Agriculture \1\ indicated
between 2002 and 2007 the number of small farms increased, both
in number (23%) and acreage occupied (15%). Farm size is small
with 64% of farms in the Virgin Islands being 4 acres or less.
There has been no Census of Agriculture survey conducted in the
U.S. Virgin Islands since 2007 so newer data is unavailable.

The limited availability and high cost of arable land is a
major drawback to farm ownership in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Land ownership is also a concern as 41% of farms, occupying 29%
of the total acreage of lands in farms, are on land rented from
either the Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture or private
individuals.
Figure 1. Location of farmers in the U.S. Virgin Islands \3\

Table 1. Total acreage of farms in U.S. Virgin Islands (in percent) from survey conducted by UVI in 20183
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response Category St. Croix St. Thomas & St. John Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of respondents 132 49 181
Less than 2 acres 44.2 53.0 44.2
2 to 4 acres 19.9 24.5 19.9
5 to 9 acres 9.4 8.2 9.4
10 or more acres 26.5 14.3 26.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure [2]. Monthly average rainfall and high and low temperatures on
St. Croix (1987-2011) measured at UVI-AES Sheep Research
Facility \2\

Figure [3]. Annual total rainfall on St. Croix (1987-2011) measured at
UVI-AES Sheep Research Facility \2\

Figure [4]. Comparison of annual total rainfall to average on St Croix
(1987-2011) collected at UVI-AES Sheep Research Facility \2\

[Endnotes]
\1\ 2007 Census of Agriculture. United States Department of
Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service, Issued February
2009.
\2\ Godfrey, R.W. Impact of Drought on Livestock. USVI Drought
Monitoring Forum. August 30, 2016. Sponsored by: USDA Office of the
Chief Economist, National Drought Mitigation Center, NOAA National
Weather Service, USDA Farm Service Agency, USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, UVI Cooperative Extension Service, VI Department
of Agriculture, VI Climate Council.
\3\ United States Virgin Islands Agro Processing/Packaging Plant
Feasibility Study. 2018. University of the Virgin Islands, Institute
for Leadership & Organizational Effectiveness.

The Chair. Thank you.
The next witness, if you would? Ms. Tencer?

STATEMENT OF BRISE S. TENCER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ORGANIC FARMING RESEARCH FOUNDATION, SANTA CRUZ, CA

Ms. Tencer. Thank you, Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member Dunn,
and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for your
time and attention on this pressing issue.
Farmers have always had to manage a variety of risks, and
now with climate change disruptions exacerbating these risks,
with weather extremes that are modifying the lifecycle of crop
pests and pathogens, delaying planting seasons, and
accelerating soil degradation, farmers face new challenges that
pose increased threats to both their livelihoods and their
ability to produce food for a growing population.
Organic producers utilize innovative strategies that
support agricultural resiliency and show exciting potential to
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, strong market demand and high prices for
certified organic farm products can help reduce economic risks
for producers.
Since 1990, the Organic Farming Research Foundation has
worked to foster both improvement and widespread adoption of
organic farming systems across the United States. Our recent
publication on risk and resiliency based significantly on USDA
funded research, documents the importance of soil health, a
guiding principle of organic systems, in reducing production
cost and minimizing risk.
Organic systems that maintain higher soil organic matter
and biological activity, improve moisture infiltration and
storage, and foster efficient nutrient cycling, result in
greater yield stability through weather extremes and other
stresses.
Such soil-sustained crops through dry spells require less
irrigation water and undergo less ponding, runoff, and erosion
during heavy rains.
Organic practices such as cover cropping can enhance soil
health, support management of weeds, pests, and diseases and
build overall resilience to stress while sequestering carbon
and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
The importance of crop rotation and diversification, and
improving soil health, managing stresses, and reducing risk of
catastrophic financial losses when one crop fails, has been
well documented in both conventional and organic systems.
We believe that continued research investment is essential
to realizing the full potential of organic farming strategies,
and that such research can benefit all types of producers.
Our last national survey of organic farmers and ranchers
across the country provided robust insight into the research
needs of the organic farming community.
Based on input from nearly 2,000 certified organic
operations, we can say with confidence that although research
priorities vary by region, there are major commonalities in
their desire for better information on soil health criteria,
efficacy of amendments, weed insect disease management, and
development of regionally adapted cultivars equipped to
withstand region-specific climate stresses.
Our in-depth analysis of USDA organic research portfolio
documents some exciting research and promising new strategies
that merit further research and development into site-specific
applications and practical guidelines for producers.
Several USDA studies have clearly shown that organic
systems can effectively sequester soil organic carbon and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Further research investments can help maximize growers'
ability to monitor their soil organic carbon, measure the
specific impacts of their practices.
Research is also urgently needed to help all farmers reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, especially nitrous oxide from
fertilized or manured soils.
We greatly appreciate the USDA funding for research
education and extension that is crucial to helping build
resiliency and address risk.
The Sustainable Agriculture and Research and Education
Program, the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension
Initiative, and the Organic Transitions Program have supported
hundreds of studies that help both organic and conventional
farmers address the threat of climate disruption.
Thanks to these programs, farmers are using more efficient
irrigation systems, adopting organic managements practices that
build healthy soil, sequester carbon, and limit application of
fertilizers and pesticides.
More research, education, and extension is needed to help
farmers and ranchers implement the best practices for climate
mitigation and adaptation for their locales and specific
systems.
In addition to the organic-specific programs, we encourage
other USDA research agencies, including the Agricultural
Research Service and the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, to invest more in development and adoption of
organic farming systems.
Extension and education is essential to delivering new
skills, tools, technology into the hands of growers. As a
country, I believe we are under-investing in cooperative
extension programs, but organic producers are often at
additional disadvantage because the organic expertise of
organic extension agents varies significantly state by state.
Farmers depend on the continued capacity of NIFA and ERS to
maintain expertise in a centralized location. We believe that
the centralized location is essential to helping effectively
share key research findings with NRCS, Risk Management Agency,
and other agencies so they can also support adaptation of best
practices.
These are challenging times for the people who grow our
food. Thank you for your commitment and support of policies
that help our nation's agricultural producers manage risk,
increase resiliency, and provide food security to our
population.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tencer follows:]

Prepared Statement of Brise S. Tencer, Executive Director, Organic
Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA
Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member Dunn, and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, thank
you for your time and attention on the pressing issues of resiliency
and risk in agriculture.
Since 1990, OFRF has been working to foster the continuous
improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming systems. Organic
producers have developed innovative strategies that support
agricultural resiliency and show potential to mitigate greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and lessen the impacts of climate change on production.
In addition, strong market demand and high prices for certified organic
farm products can help reduce economic risks for organic producers.
Even in the best circumstances, farmers are managing a variety of
risks, including fluctuating markets, increasing production costs, and
annual weather variations that may cause production challenges. Climate
disruptions are increasing in intensity and frequency, which
exacerbates existing risks. For instance, life cycles and geographic
ranges of crop pests and pathogens are rapidly shifting, and soil
health is degrading at a concerning rate (IPCC 2014, Kirschbaum, 1995;
Montanarella, et al., 2016). These shifts in abiotic and biotic
stressors are already contributing to crop losses and threatening food
security (Myers, et al., 2017).
In fact, climate disruptions are having a significant impact on
family farmers and ranchers around the country. In the face of global
climate change, extreme weather events are becoming more common.
Increasingly, farmers have to contend with severe droughts and
flooding, increased heat waves, warmer winters that allow pest and
disease pressures to intensify, and loss of winter chill hours that
regulate bud break and fruit development in tree crops. This spring,
flooding left farm fields across the Midwest under water; preliminary
analysis of satellite data from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) Near Real-Time Global Flood mapping tool
estimates 1 million acres of U.S. farmland were flooded (Huffstutter &
Pamuk, 2019). Meanwhile, growers across the Southeast and the islands
are continuing the hard work to recover from devastating hurricanes and
tropical storms. In my home state of California, farmers and ranchers
are still dealing with the aftermath of last year's record-breaking
wildfires intensified by increasingly warm and dry weather. We need
science-based solutions that will help farmers adapt and become more
resilient to these changes.
OFRF's national survey of organic farmers and ranchers, published
in the National Organic Research Agenda (NORA) report, provides an
authoritative understanding of the research needs of the organic
community (Jerkins & Ory, 2016). Together with Taking Stock, our
analysis of USDA funded organic research, NORA informs USDA
researchers, universities, agricultural extension agents, farmers,
ranchers, and others to ensure research, education, and extension
activities are relevant and responsive to the organic sector
(Schonbeck, et al., 2016).
More than 1,000 organic farmers and ranchers across the U.S.
participated in OFRF's online survey. Additional input was gathered
through 21 listening sessions. Based on their stated priorities, OFRF
recommends intensified research funding in the areas of soil health and
fertility management, weed, insect, and disease management, plant
breeding to develop public cultivars better suited to organic
production systems, and meeting the challenges of climate change.
Farmer-identified topics related to climate disruptions included
water and soil management to cope with drought and flooding, managing
new insect pest and weed species, and adapting to fluctuations in
chill-time for nuts and fruit crops. One farmer put it bluntly,
``climate change is about to put me out of business. 2011 was too wet,
2012 too dry, 2013 and 2014 too wet . . . plus devastating extreme cold
temps in Jan. 2014 and Feb. [2015]. How can I, as the manager deal with
it?'' Another farmer lamented, ``Sadly, I think climate change is going
to catch up with all of us: it is getting hard to produce crops that
have been routine to me over the decades.''
The main difference between organic and conventional approaches to
these new challenges is that organic producers cannot rely on synthetic
inputs. Rather, they must experiment with and tailor biological and
ecological approaches to fit their unique farming practices. To be
successful, organic farmers need an intimate understanding of the
lifecycles and biological interactions of crops, livestock, soil life,
pests, and their natural enemies, as they rely on ecological processes
to address production challenges. The organic approach has potential to
sequester C, mitigate GHG emissions, reduce environmental impacts
related to fertilizers and pesticides, and build resiliency to changing
and unpredictable weather patterns. An increased investment in research
for organic systems is essential to realize this potential.
We greatly appreciate USDA's funding of research, education, and
extension that is crucial to helping farmers build resiliency and
address risk. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)
program, as well as the Organic Research and Extension Initiative
(OREI) and Organic Transitions Program (ORG) have supported hundreds of
studies that help both organic and conventional farmers around the
country address the threat of climate disruption. Now, it is critical
to increase our investment in research that will help farmers increase
resiliency.
Building Resiliency to Climate Disruptions
Organic systems that build soil organic matter and soil health,
diversify crop rotations and farm enterprises, and utilize biological
and cultural approaches to nutrient, pest, weed, and disease management
can make agricultural production more resilient to abiotic stresses,
including those related to climate change (Blanco-Canqui and Francis,
2016; Lal, 2016). These systems are inherently knowledge-intensive and
site specific, and the challenges all producers face in managing crops,
livestock, soils, nutrients, and both beneficial and harmful organisms
in this time of climate change are highly interconnected. Therefore, it
is essential for Congress to continue supporting integrated research,
education, and outreach to provide farmers with the tools, technology,
and support they need to build healthy resilient farming systems that
can withstand climate disruption, and to steward the land for
generations to come.
Healthy Soils
As documented in our recently published Reducing Risk Through Best
Soil Health Management Practices in Organic Crop Production (with
funding from the USDA Risk Management Agency), soil health plays a key
role in reducing production costs and risks, and will become ever more
critical as climate disruption continues to unfold. The USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has established four science-
based principles of soil health management: keep the soil covered,
maximize living roots, enhance cropping system diversity, and minimize
soil disturbance. Management systems that address all of these
principles build organic matter and overall soil health more
effectively than adopting a single practice such as no-till or green
manuring (Schonbeck, et al., 2017, 2018).
Sustainable organic systems that maintain higher soil organic
matter and biological activity, improve moisture infiltration and
storage, and foster efficient nutrient cycling result in greater yield
stability through weather extremes and other stresses. For example,
while organic and conventional crop rotations in the Rodale long-term
farming systems trials gave similar yields over a 35 year period, the
organic systems sustained much better crop condition and 31% higher
grain yield in corn during drought years (Rodale, 2011a, 2015). In
another instance, regenerative range management helped a Texas ranch
maintain its herd through the extreme drought of 2012 that forced other
ranchers to sell livestock (Lengnick, 2016).
Healthy soils have good structure (tilth), which allows them to
absorb and hold moisture, drain well, maintain adequate aeration, and
foster deep, healthy crop root systems. Such soils sustain crops
through dry spells, require less irrigation water, and undergo less
ponding, runoff, and erosion during heavy rains (Magdoff and van Es,
2009; Moncada and Sheaffer, 2010; Rodale, 2015).
During California's recent drought, vegetable growers were faced
with irrigation water use restrictions. In an OFRF-funded study
conducted with Dr. Amelie Gaudin and colleagues at UC Davis, organic
farmer Scott Park showed that his integrated approach to soil building,
including diversified rotation, winter cover crops, minimum tillage,
and applications of compost and beneficial microbes doubled his soil's
moisture capacity and reduced irrigation water needs for tomato
production by 6" to 11" per season (Gaudin, et al., 2018).
Healthy, biologically active soils support plant root symbionts
such as mycorrhizal fungi, and other beneficial soil microorganisms
that help crops obtain nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients from
soil organic matter and other slow-release organic sources, thereby
reducing the need for soluble nutrient applications that can threaten
water quality (Kloot, 2018; Rosolem, et al., 2017; Sullivan, et al.,
2017; Hamel, 2004; Wander, 2015b; Wander, et al., 2016). In a study of
13 organic tomato fields in central California, four of the best-
managed fields showed ``tightly coupled nitrogen cycling'' in which
soil soluble nitrogen levels were low enough to protect water resources
yet the crop absorbed sufficient nutrients for top yields (Bowles, et
al., 2015). Tight nutrient cycling not only reduces fertilizer bills
and enhances crop resilience to weather extremes, but also minimizes
emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas nitrous oxide from soils.

Research recommendation: Development of management strategies to
promote tightly coupled nutrient cycling in other crops and regions
appears quite feasible, and should be considered a top research
priority for agricultural resilience to climate change.
Cover Crops
Idle, bare soil is at risk. Protracted fallow periods such as a
corn-soy or vegetable rotation without winter cover crops, or the
traditional wheat-fallow system for dry farming in semiarid regions can
deplete soil organic matter, starve-out mycorrhizal fungi and other
beneficial organisms, aggravate soil erosion and compaction, and
increase fertilizer and irrigation costs (Kabir, 2018; Rillig, 2004;
Rosolem, et al., 2017; Six, et al., 2006). Growing cover crops during
the off-season can sustain soil life, conserve nutrients, sustain soil
health, and increase cash crop yields.
In Mediterranean climates such as central California and the
Pacific Northwest, most of the rainfall occurs in winter while
intensive vegetable production takes place from spring through fall,
often depending on irrigation. Currently, few of these acres are
planted in winter cover crops, yet cover crops can play a vital role in
water and nutrient management. During the wet winter of 2017, cover
crops made the difference between prompt infiltration and prolonged
ponding in fields and orchards (Kabir, 2017). In the Salinas Valley of
California, an organic vegetable double crop system of spring lettuce
followed by fall broccoli sustained high lettuce yields only if a
winter cover crop was planted after the broccoli to recover surplus
nitrogen and deliver it to the following lettuce crop; winter fallow
often led to a lettuce crop failure (Brennan, et al., 2017). In
addition to greatly enhancing resilience, the cover crop protected
water quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Organic systems studies have shown that cover crops enhance soil
health, nutrient cycling and crop nutrition, crop rooting depth and
moisture acquisition, and overall stress resilience in other locations,
including Illinois, Minnesota, Maryland, North and South Carolina
(Gruver, et al., 2016; Hooks, et al., 2015; Hu, et al., 2015; Marshall,
et al., 2016; Moncada and Sheaffer, 2010; Rosolem, et al., 2017).
Farmers in Montana, New York, and across the U.S. are gradually
increasing their use of cover crops, citing soil health, yield
stability, and reduced production costs (Jones, et al., 2015; Mason and
Wolfe, 2018; USDA SARE, 2017).

Research recommendation: Selecting the right cover crops and
management methods can be challenging, especially in low rainfall
regions where cover crops can deplete soil moisture and reduce yield in
the following crop (Miller, 2016). While farmers and researchers have
had good results with winter pea in dryland grain rotations (Olson-
Rutz, et al., 2017), more research is urgently needed to develop a menu
of best cover crop options for limited-rainfall regions throughout the
western half of the U.S.
Crop Rotation
The importance of crop rotation and diversification in improving
soil health, managing weeds, pests, and diseases, and reducing risks of
catastrophic financial losses when one crop fails, have been well
documented in both conventional and organic systems (Mohler and
Johnson, 2009; Moncada and Sheaffer, 2010; Ponisio, et al., 2014).
Adding a perennial grass-legume sod phase (1 to 3 years) to a rotation
of annual crops can be especially effective in restoring soil health
and fertility, and reducing weed populations. Crop-livestock integrated
farming systems can recover much of the income foregone by rotation
cropland into perennial sod through grazing and haying. Farming systems
studies funded through the Organic Research and Extension Initiative
and other USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
programs have demonstrated the soil health and climate resilience
benefits of sound crop rotations, and provided practical guidelines for
designing rotations for organic systems (Cavigelli, et al., 2013;
Moncada and Sheaffer, 2010; Wander, et al., 1994).
Management-intensive rotational grazing systems can restore
grassland soil health and moisture capacity, improve forage quality,
protect water resources, and greatly enhance resilience in livestock
production as well as sequestering carbon in the soil. For example,
North Dakota rancher Gabe Brown (2018) restored 5,000 acres of degraded
crop and rangeland by applying the four NRCS principles to his crops,
rotationally grazing multispecies livestock, and nearly eliminating
synthetic inputs. Over a 20 year period, soil organic matter recovered
from 2% to 7%, representing about 125,000 tons of carbon removed from
the atmosphere; meanwhile the ranch continues to thrive economically.
Other success stories with regionally-adapted rotational grazing
systems abound from across the U.S. (Teague, et al., 2016; The Natural
Farmer, 2014-15 and 2016-17).

Research recommendation: Additional research is needed to address
educational, economic, social, and logistical barriers to transitioning
more of the nation's livestock production to this promising approach.
Compost and Organic Nutrient Sources
Compost, manure, and other organic sources of nutrients has long
been a hallmark of organic systems, and can, when used judiciously,
contribute to soil health, agricultural resilience, and mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions. In organic farming systems trials in Hawaii,
Iowa, Maryland, and elsewhere, cover cropping in conjunction with
compost or manure applications enhanced soil health and organic matter
to a greater degree than either practice alone (Delate, et al., 2015;
Hooks, et al., 2015). A single compost application to grazing lands in
California substantially improved forage vigor and carbon sequestration
(Ryals and Silver, 2013). A life cycle analysis confirmed that
diverting manure from storage lagoons and yard and food wastes from
landfills for composting greatly reduced net greenhouse gas impacts
(DeLonge, et al., 2013).

Research recommendation: Research is needed to end ``organic
waste'' in the U.S. and ensure that municipal leaves, yard waste, food
waste, and confinement manure is composted and returned to the land at
rates consistent with sound nutrient management.
Crop and Livestock Breeding
Crop breeding for development of new crop varieties that perform
well in soil health-enhancing organic and sustainable production
systems, and that show increased resilience to drought, temperature
extremes, and other weather-related stresses. In a 2015 project to
identify plant breeding needs for the northeastern U.S., farmers and
breeders noted, ``Cultivars are most productive under the conditions
for which they were bred. Northeast growers [need] regionally-adapted
varieties that were bred to thrive in the Northeast, with the climate
and pests unique to our region. Furthermore, cultivars bred under
conventional management--aided by synthetic fertilizer, herbicides and
pesticides--will likely not be as productive under organic
management.'' (Hultengren, et al., 2016, page 26). Scientists have even
documented a loss in the capacity of some modern crop cultivars to
partner with beneficial soil microbes for nutrient uptake and disease
resistance. In their work with organic producers to develop new
cultivars, they have begun to restore this capacity, which can play a
key role in overall agricultural resilience to climate change
(Goldstein, 2015, 2016; Zubieta and Hoagland, 2016).
Over the past 15 years, several farmer-scientist participatory
plant breeding teams funded through the USDA Organic Research and
Extension Initiative (OREI) and Organic Transitions Program (ORG) have
begun to address the need for new crop cultivars better suited to
organic systems.
For example, the Northern Vegetable Improvement Collaborative or
NOVIC (three rounds of OREI funding from 2010-2018) has released
several new cultivars of tomato, sweet corn, squash, and broccoli for
organic systems, with more on the way, including cucumber, cabbage, and
pepper. NOVIC has produced two books to help farmers enhance organic
seed systems: Organic Crop Breeding and The Organic Seed Grower.
Other OREI funded projects focus on wheat, soybean, and dry bean,
including selecting improved strains of N fixing nodule bacteria
(rhizobia), and development of vigorous, weed-competitive strains. One
new food-grade soybean cultivar has been released (Orf, et al., 2016;
Place, et al., 2011; Worthington, et al., 2015).
Based on research confirming genetic regulation of plant root depth
and extent, Kell (2011) has recommended breeding crops for larger,
deeper root systems to build SOM, sequester carbon deep in the soil
profile, and enhance nutrient and moisture use efficiency. Each of
these plant breeding developments can contribute to soil health and
risk reduction by increasing climate resilience, reducing nutrient and
water input needs, and enhancing organic matter inputs to the soil.

Research recommendation: Additional long-term research investment
in plant breeding for sustainable and organic systems is essential for
realizing potential to enhance beneficial plant-soil-microbe
interactions, nutrient use efficiency, soil carbon sequestration, and
resilience to drought and other stresses. Farmers especially need
regionally adapted cultivars equipped to withstand anticipated region-
specific climate change stresses.
Identifying and developing livestock breeds that can tolerate
weather extremes and thrive in management intensive rotational grazing
systems is also a top research priority. We appreciate that, in recent
years, OREI Requests for Applications include animal breeding for
pasture-based organic production, and urge Congress to continue and
expand funding for USDA development of public livestock breeds and crop
cultivars to help all farmers and ranchers meet the climate challenge.
Conservation Agriculture and Organic
Conservation agriculture integrates crop rotations, cover crops,
and organic soil amendments with no-till practices to build soil health
and protect soil organic carbon from physical disturbances. However,
continuous no-till production of annual crops relies on synthetic
inputs for weed control and fertility. This chemical disturbance can
harm soil biota and negatively impact the surrounding environment and
human health. For example, normal use rates of glyphosate herbicides
have been shown to inhibit mycorrhizal fungi, which play significant
roles in soil carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and overall
resilience (Druille, et al., 2013; Hamel, 2004).
While organic systems require some level of physical disturbance to
control weeds, they eliminate synthetic inputs and can significantly
reduce tillage as well. Reduced tillage coupled with the full suite of
soil health practices--crop diversification, cover cropping, organic
amendments, and sound nutrient management--can enhance carbon
sequestration and build climate resiliency in organic agricultural
systems.
Concern has been raised that large-scale farms that adopt USDA
certified organic practices through input substitution may not reduce
net GHG footprints (Lorenz and Lal, 2016; McGee, 2015). What we are
recommending today is research, education and extension to support a
holistic approach to implementing the National Organic Standards that
embraces the NRCS Soil Health Principles. One research priority is to
address the socioeconomic, logistical, and policy barriers to
implementation of sustainable organic systems that will enhance soil
carbon sequestration, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and improve
resilience on both large and smaller scale farms.
Organic Practices and Climate Mitigation
All farmers have a major stake in efforts to curb further climate
change and improve the resilience of farming and ranching systems.
Resilient, diversified agriculture systems, including crop-livestock
integration, can help maintain and even improve economic, ecological,
and social benefits for farm families in the face of dramatic exogenous
changes such as climate change and price swings; and will thereby
maintain and improve the nation's food security.
In addition to improving resilience to the impacts of climate
changes already underway, the soil health practices outlined thus far
can sequester carbon and reduce direct agricultural greenhouse gas
emissions. Estimates of potential climate mitigation through widespread
adoption of sustainable farming range from reducing U.S. agriculture's
GHG footprint in half (Chambers, et al., 2016), to making U.S.
agriculture carbon negative. Organic production methods also
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions through decreased use of
fossil fuel-based inputs.
Several USDA supported studies have conducted in-depth comparisons
of C sequestration or total net greenhouse gas footprint in organic
versus conventional systems, which clearly show that organic systems
can effectively sequester soil organic carbon and build resilience to
climate disruption by implementing the NRCS principles of keeping soil
covered, maintaining living roots, enhancing biodiversity, and
minimizing soil disturbance. However, other greenhouse gas emissions,
especially nitrous oxide from fertilized or manured soils, show more
complex responses to management practices. For example, while optimal
soil and nutrient management of organic production of lettuce in
Colorado and tomato in California have virtually eliminated nitrous
oxide losses, broccoli required so much N from organic sources to reach
optimum yield that nitrous oxide emissions were estimated to negate
soil carbon sequestration from best organic practices (Bowles, et al.,
2015; Li and Muramoto, 2009; Toonsiri, et al., 2016).

Research recommendation: More research, education, and extension is
needed to help farmers and ranchers implement the best practices for
climate mitigation and adaptation for their locales, climates, soils,
crop mixes, and production systems. Research is critical to developing
effective tools for organic farmers and ranchers, but we need to ensure
this information is verified, delivered, demonstrated, and adopted by
the agricultural community. The funding and support of the University
Extension system is critical to completing this cycle and ensuring that
Federal research funding produces farming strategies that are widely
adopted. We need trained Extension personnel to do this work. Farmers
obtain their information from many sources, but they need trusted
scientific resources to be successful.
Conclusion
We greatly appreciate the support Congress has provided for key
USDA programs that address research, education, and extension for
organic and sustainable agriculture. These programs have been on the
cutting edge of addressing climate change and helping farmers build
resiliency and manage risk. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education (SARE) program, as well as the Organic Research and Extension
Initiative (OREI) and Organic Transitions Program (ORG) have supported
hundreds of studies that help both organic and conventional farmers
build soil health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, sequester carbon,
and address the threat of climate disruption. Thanks to these programs,
farmers are using more efficient irrigation systems and adopting
organic management practices to limit the application of fertilizers
and pesticides as well as build the health and resiliency of their
soil.
SARE, ORG, and OREI programs invest in innovative research that
helps farmers be more resilient and adaptable to climate disruptions.
The SARE program has made huge contributions in many areas, especially
cover cropping, rotational grazing, local and regional food systems,
and agroecology systems research. In general, SARE has a strong focus
on delivery of information to the farming community. ORG has
prioritized research related to the impacts of crop rotation,
livestock-crop system integration, tillage, cover crop, and fertility
inputs on greenhouse gas mitigation and other ecosystem services. ORG
has also helped address barriers to successful transition to organic
practices. OREI has greatly advanced our understanding of best soil,
nutrient, crop, weed, pest, and disease management for organic systems,
and has provided vital support for development of crop cultivars and,
more recently, livestock breeds suited to organic production. OFRF
thanks Congress for investing in these crucial programs.
However, adaptation strategies will require both short- and long-
term changes, including cost-effective investments in new technologies,
water infrastructure, emergency preparation for response to extreme
weather events, development of resilient crop varieties that tolerate
temperature and precipitation stresses, building soil health, and
adopting new or improved land use and management practices. More
research is necessary to understand the challenges, and to create
solutions.
Researchers have identified some promising new strategies that
merit further research and development into practical guidelines for
producers. Additional research is needed to bridge the remaining gaps
between findings to date and practical application in the context of a
particular farm, soil type, climate, crop mix, and production system.
Producers need guidance on context-specific management practices,
including a menu of options that they can apply to their specific
agricultural systems. Farmers also need practical, reliable tools to
monitor soil organic carbon (SOC) and measure the impact of their
practices on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Research is only the first step. Farmers will require continued and
enhanced support to take the results of the research and integrate
relevant components into their farming operations. It is critical to
our success that farmers are provided adequate education, training, and
technical assistance. Building and expanding our current Extension
programs to support farmers during these difficult transitions is
essential for farmers to acquire new skills, tools, and technology
necessary to adapt to climate change. Programs that support the
delivery and dissemination of information into the hands of America's
farmers and ranchers are more important than ever. Extension and
education for farmers is key, yet organic expertise of Extension agents
varies significantly state by state. Organic producers in all parts of
the country need to be served effectively by Extension. Congress has
worked hard to increase the funding for important research programs at
USDA; much more support is needed to ensure that both basic and applied
research is available and more easily adopted by the farmers and
ranchers around the country that are on the front lines of climate
change.
We urge Federal policy-makers to prioritize support and oversight
of Federal farm bill policies and programs that enable farmers and
ranchers to adopt sustainable and organic agricultural production
systems to address the challenges posed by a rapidly changing climate.
We encourage USDA research, education, and economic divisions such as
the Agriculture Research Service (ARS) and National Institute of Food
and Agriculture (NIFA) to invest more in the improvement and adoption
of organic farming systems, and to prioritize addressing solutions that
help farmers be more sustainable and successful in the face of changing
agricultural conditions. The capacity of NIFA to support outstanding
research, and the Economic Research Service to provide unbiased
analysis of agricultural economics, helps support farmers and
strengthen our agricultural system. Maintaining this capacity and
expertise in a centralized location will help ensure these agencies
continue to serve the agriculture community in a coordinated and
efficient manner.
Coordination and sharing of key research findings with agencies
such as the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Risk
Management Agency (RMA) is critical to ensuring farmers can implement
these best practices. Both NRCS and RMA programs provide support for
farmers managing and addressing risk. In the past, NRCS has struggled
to support organic producers in simultaneously planning, implementing,
and complying with conservation and organic standards. Although NRCS
has expanded and significantly improved their outreach and services to
organic producers across the country, several conservation measures
that help farmers build resilience are sometimes penalized in crop
insurance programs. The farm bill did make it easier for farmers to
integrate cover cropping practices on their farms. Thanks to new
language in the farm bill, it will be easier for RMA to include cover
cropping in their list of Good Farming Practices. We believe the time
is now for RMA to amend Good Farming Practices and conservation
practice guidance to provide that all NRCS conservation practices and
enhancements are automatically recognized as Good Farming Practices by
RMA, without any caveats or qualifications. In our view, no farmer
should be penalized or lose coverage under any crop insurance policy
for using conservation practices and enhancements that are approved by
NRCS.
These are challenging times for the people who grow our food, and
we urge Congress and USDA to ensure Federal programs that include
research, education, extension, and program implementation support
organic producers and other farmers and ranchers that seek to integrate
organic practices into their operations. Thank you for your commitment
and support of policies that will help our country's agricultural
producers manage risk, increase resiliency, and provide food security
for our population.
References

Blanco-Canqui, H., and C.A. Francis. 2016. Building resilient soils
through agroecosystem redesign under fluctuating climatic regimes. J.
Soil & Water Conserv. 71(6): 127A-133A.
Bowles, T.M., A.D. Hollander, K. Steenwerth, and L.E. Jackson. 2015.
Tightly-Coupled Plant-Soil Nitrogen Cycling: Comparison of Organic
Farms across an Agricultural Landscape. PLOS ONE. http://
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131888.
Brown, G. 2018. Dirt to Soil: One Family's Journey into Regenerative
Agriculture. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT. 223
pp.
Cavigelli, M.A., Teasdale, J.R., and J.T. Spargo. 2013. Increasing
Crop Rotation Diversity Improves Agronomic, Economic, and Environmental
Performance of Organic Grain Cropping Systems at the USDA-ARS
Beltsville Farming Systems Project. Crop Management 12(1) Symposium
Proceedings: USDA Organic Farming Systems Research Conference. https://
dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/cm/tocs/12/1.
Chambers, A., R. Lal, and K. Paustian. 2016. Soil carbon
sequestration potential of U.S. croplands and grasslands: implementing
the 4 per Thousand Initiative. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 71(3): 68A-74A.
Delate, K., C. Cambardella, and C. Chase. 2015. Effects of cover
crops, soil amendments, and reduced tillage on carbon sequestration and
soil health in a long-term vegetable system. Final report for ORG
project 2010-03956.
DeLonge, M.S., R. Ryals, and W.L. Silver. 2013. A lifecycle model to
evaluate carbon sequestration potential and greenhouse gas dynamics of
managed grasslands. Ecosystems 16: 962-979.
Druille, M., Cabello, M.N., Omacini, M., and Golluscio, R.A. 2013.
Glyphosate reduces spore viability and root colonization of arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungi. Applied Soil Ecology 64: 99-103; doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2012.10.007.
Gaudin A., Park S., Lloyd M., Azimi A., Velasco R., and Renwick, L.
2018. Developing integrated irrigation management strategies to improve
water and nutrient use efficiency of organic processing tomato in
California. Final report to Organic Farming Research Foundation.
Goldstein, W. 2015. Breeding corn for organic farmers with improved
N efficiency/N fixation, and protein quality. Proceedings of the
Organic Agriculture Research Symposium, LaCrosse, WI February 25-26,
2015. http://eorganic.info/node/12972.
Gruver, J., R.R. Weil, C. White, and Y. Lawley. 2016. Radishes A New
Cover Crop for Organic Farming Systems. http://articles.extension.org/
pages/64400/radishes-a-new-cover-crop-for-organic-farming-systems.
Hamel, C. 2004. Impact of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on N and P
cycling in the root zone. Can. J. Soil Sci. 84(4): 383-395.
Hooks, C.R., K.H. Wang, G. Brust, and S. Mathew. 2015. Using Winter
Cover Crops to Enhance the Organic Vegetable Industry in the Mid-
Atlantic Region. Final report for OREI project 2010-01954. CRIS
Abstracts.*
Hu, S., S. Hu, W. Shi, A. Meijer, and G. Reddy. 2015. Evaluating the
Potential of Winter Cover Crops for Carbon Sequestration in Degraded
Soils Transitioning to Organic Production. Project proposal and final
report for ORG project 2010-04008.
Huffstutter, P.J., and Pamuk, H. 2019. ``1 Million Acres of Midwest
Farmlands Flooded as Corn Planting Deadlines Approach.'' Insurance
Journal. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2019/04/01/
522389.htm.
Hultengren, R., M. Glos, and M. Mazourek. 2016. Breeding Research
and Education Needs Assessment for Organic Vegetable Growers in the
Northeast. (Dataset). eCommons Digital Repository at Cornell
University, 35 pp.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate
Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Working Group III
Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/. Chapter
11 Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU), and Annex II
Metrics and Methodology.
Jerkins, D. and J. Ory. 2016. 2016 National Organic Research Agenda:
Outcomes and Recommendations from the 2015 National Organic Farmer
Survey and Listening Sessions. Organic Farming Research Foundation
(www.ofrf.org).
Jones, C., R. Kurnick, P. Miller, K. Olson-Rutz, and C. Zabinski.
2015 Montana Cover Crop Survey Results. Dept. of Land Resources and
Environmental Sciences, Montana State University. 15 pp.
Kabir, Z. 2018. Rethinking the nutrient management paradigm for soil
health. NRCS webinar, August 14, 2018. Science and Technology Training
Library. http://www.conservationwebinars.net/listArchivedWebinars.
Kell, D.B. 2011. Breeding crop plants with deep roots: their role in
sustainable carbon, nutrient and water sequestration. Ann. Bot. 108(3):
407-418.
Kirschbaum, M.U.F. 1995. The temperature dependence of soil organic
matter decomposition, and the effect of global warming on soil organic
C storage. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 27(6): 753-760.
Kloot, Robin. 2018. Using adaptive nutrient management to answer
``how much fertilizer do you actually need?'' NRCS webinar May 8, 2018.
Science and Technology Training Library. http://
www.conservationwebinars.net/listArchivedWebinars.
Lal, R. 2016. Beyond COP21: Potential challenges of the ``4 per
thousand'' initiative. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 71(1): 20A-25A.
Lengnick, L. 2016. New Times, New Tools: Cultivating Climate
Resilience on Your Organic Farm. http://articles.extension.org/pages/
73466/new-times-new-tools:-cultivating-climate-resilience-on-your-
organic-farm.
Li, C., Salas, W. and Muramoto, J. 2009. Process Based Models for
Optimizing N Management in California Cropping Systems: Application of
DNDC Model for nutrient management for organic broccoli production.
Conference proceedings 2009 California Soil and Plant Conference, 92-
98. Feb. 2009. http://ucanr.edu/sites/calasa/files/319.pdf.
Lorenz, K., and R. Lal. 2016. Environmental Impact of Organic
Agriculture. Advances in Agronomy. 139: 99-152.
Magdoff, F. and van Es, H. 2009. Building Soils for Better crops,
3rd ed. Sustainable Agriculture research and Education (SARE). http://
www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Books/Building-Soils-for-Better-Crops-3rd-
Edition.
Marshall, M.W., P. Williams, A. Mirzakhani Nafchi, J.M. Maja, J.
Payero, J. Mueller, and A. Khalilian. 2016. Influence of Tillage and
Deep Rooted Cool Season Cover Crops on Soil Properties, Pests, and
Yield Responses in Cotton. Open Journal of Soil Science, 6, 149-158.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2016.610015.
Mason, C.W., and D.W. Wolfe. 2018. Survey of Costs, Constraints, and
Benefits of Soil Health in New York: Initial Report and Summary.
Reduced Tillage in Organic Systems Field Day Program Handbook, July 31,
2018, Cornell University Willsboro Research Farm, Willsboro NY, pp 8-9.
https://rvpadmin.cce.cornell.edu/uploads/doc_699.pdf.
McGee, J.A., 2015. Does certified organic farming reduce greenhouse
gas emissions from agricultural production? Agric. Hum. Values 32, 255-
263.
Miller, P., 2016. Using cover crop mixtures to improve soil health
in low rainfall areas of the northern plains. Final report for Western
SARE project SW11-099, 40 pp. http://landresources.montana.edu/
soilfertility/documents/PDF/reports/CCMFinalRptSW11-099Apr2016.pdf.
Mohler, C.A. and S.E. Johnson. 2009. Crop Rotations on Organic
Farms. Sustainable Agriculture research and Education (SARE) and
Natural Resource, Agriculture and Engineering Service (NRAES). 156 pp.
http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Books.
Moncada, K., and Sheaffer, C., 2010. Risk Management Guide for
Organic Producers. U. Minnesota. 300 pp. Chapter 13, Winter Cover
Crops. http://organicriskmanagement.umn.edu/.
Myers, S.S., Smith, M. R., Guth, S., Golden, C. D., Vaitla, B.,
Mueller, N. D., Dangour, A. D., Huybers, P. 2017. Climate change and
global food systems: Potential impacts on food security and
undernutrition. Annual Review of Public Health. 38. 259-277.
Olson-Rutz, K., C. Jones, and P. Miller. 2010. Soil nutrient
management on organic grain farms in Montana. Montana State University
Extension bulleting EB0200, 16 pp. http://msuextension.org/publications/
AgandNaturalResources/EB0200.pdf.
Orf, J.H., T.E. Michaels, M.J. Sadowsky, and C.C. Sheaffer. 2016.
Improving soybean and dry bean varieties and Rhizobium strains for
organic systems. Final report on OREI project 2011-01942.
Place, G.T., S.C. Reberg-Horton, D.A. Dickey and T.E. Carter. 2011.
Identifying soybean traits of interest for weed competition. Crop
Science 51: 2642-2654.
Ponisio, L.C., M'Gonigle, L.K., Mace, K.C., Palomino, J., de
Valpine, P., Kremen, C., 2014. Diversification practices reduce organic
to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 2014 1396.
Rillig, M.C. 2004. Arbuscular mycorrhizae, glomalin, and soil
aggregation. Can. J. Soil Sci. 84(4): 355-363.
Rodale Institute. 2014. Regenerative organic agriculture and climate
change: a down-to-earth solution to global warming. 16 pp. https://
rodaleinstitute.org/assets/
RegenOrgAgricultureAndClimateChange_20140418.pdf.
Rosolem, C.A., K. Ritz, H. Cantarella, M.V. Galdos, M.J. Hawkesford,
W.R. Whalley, and S.J. Mooney. 2017. Enhanced plant rooting and crop
system management for improved N use efficiency. Advances in Agronomy
146: 205-239.
Ryals, R., and W.L. Silver. 2013. Effects of organic matter
amendments on net primary productivity and greenhouse gas emissions in
annual grasslands. Ecol. Appl. 23(1): 46-59.
Schonbeck, M., Jerkins, D., and J. Ory. 2016. Taking Stock:
Analyzing and Reporting Organic Research Investments, 2002-2014.
Organic Farming Research Foundation (www.ofrf.org).
Schonbeck, M., Jerkins, D., and J. Ory. 2017. Soil Health and
Organic Farming: Building Organic Matter for Healthy Soils: An
Overview. Organic Farming Research Foundation (www.ofrf.org), 39 pp.
Schonbeck, M., Jerkins, D., and Snyder, L.D. 2018. Soil Health and
Organic Farming: Organic Practices for Climate Mitigation, Adaptation,
and Carbon Sequestration. Organic Farming Research Foundation
(www.ofrf.org), 79 pp.
Six, J., S.D. Frey, R.K. Thiet, and K.M. Batten. 2006. Bacterial and
Fungal Contributions to Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosystems. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70(2): 555-569.
Sullivan, D. M., E. Peachey, A.L. Heinrich, and L.J. Brewer. 2017.
Nutrient Management for Sustainable Vegetable Cropping Systems in
Western Oregon. Oregon State Extension Bulletin EM 9165.
Teague, R. 2016-17. Regeneration of soil by multi-paddock grazing.
Transcript of Sept. 7, 2016 presentation at Harvard by Jack Kittredge.
The Natural Farmer, winter 2016-17: B26-B30.
The Natural Farmer 2014-15 Grazing and 2016-2017 Carbon Farming.
Toonsiri, P., S.J. Del Grosso, A. Sukor, and J.G. Davis. 2016.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Solid and Liquid Organic Fertilizers
Applied to Lettuce. J. Environmental Quality Vol. 45 No. 6, p. 1812-
1821.
USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) 2017.
Annual cover crop survey reports. http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/
Topic-Rooms/Cover-Crops/Cover-Crop-Surveys.
Wander, M. M., 2015b. Soil Fertility in Organic Farming Systems:
Much More than Plant Nutrition. http://articles.extension.org/pages/
18636/soil-fertility-in-organic-farming-systems:-much-more-than-plant-
nutrition.
Wander, M., N. Andrews, and J. McQueen. 2016. Organic Soil
Fertility. http://articles.extension.org/pages/18565/organic-soil-
fertility.
Worthington, M., S.C. Reberg-Horton, G. Brown-Guedira, D. Jordan, R.
Weisz, and J.P. Murphy. 2015. Morphological Traits Associated with
Superior Weed Suppressive Ability of Winter Wheat against Italian
Ryegrass. Crop Science 55: 50-56.
Zubieta, L. and L.A. Hoagland. 2017. Effect of Domestication on
Plant Biomass and Induced Systemic Resistance in Tomato (Solanum
lycopersicum L.). Poster Number 1209, Tri-Societies Meetings, Tampa,
FL, Oct. 24, 2017.

Mr. Cox [presiding.] Thank you. And Mr. Godwin, please
begin when you are ready.

STATEMENT OF SAM GODWIN, APPLE, PEAR, AND CHERRY GROWER, GODWIN
FAMILY ORCHARD, TONASKET, WA

Mr. Godwin. Thank you, Chair Plaskett and Ranking Member
Dunn for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee
today.
I am Sam Godwin. I operate a family organic farm of 300
acres with my wife and daughter. I also partner with my brother
to run another 85 acre orchard that was our father's farm.
Growing up in the center of an orchard has many rewards,
but the business-related issues that our industry is facing can
be overwhelming at times. I am here today to share some of my
experiences from the farm to underscore the importance of
research and extension for our future.
Emerging or evolving threats come in many forms. For
example, pests like brown marmorated stink bug and spotted wing
drosophila that were previously not present in our region now
have become established in some areas because of changing
weather patterns that prevent the larva from being killed by
sustained cold temperatures over the winter.
Fire blight, which is a debilitating bacterium that infects
pears and apple trees when spring weather is warmer or wetter
than normal, has become an increasing challenging condition and
an economic reality for growers.
In 2018 alone, a sobering 88 percent of pear, 17 percent of
apple acreage was impacted by fire blight in Washington State,
resulting in an estimated $37 million loss.
Changes in seasonal weather patterns are also forcing
growers to pursue more tools to prevent sunburn in the orchards
and needs to come up with an inventive solution to prevent
heat-related storage disorders, post-harvest.
Our growers have long recognized the need to invest in
pursuing solutions to these challenges that have assessed
themselves on every box of tree fruit commercially sold since
1969 through the creation of the Washington Tree Fruit Research
Commission.
Since 2013, growers have also funded an additional $32
million tree fruit endowment at Washington State University.
However, these investments by industry only take us so far.
Federal research programs like ARS and SCRI are critical to
leveraging grower resources to address the multitude of
challenges that our growers and packers are facing on a daily
basis.
We appreciate the funding increase Congress has provided
recently. We are especially pleased to see funding provided to
create a new scientist position focusing on pear genetics and
genomics which will be housed down the road from my orchard in
the Wenatchee ARS facility. Unfortunately, in spite of these
funds being provided more than a year ago, due to the glacial
pace of ARS hiring process, this position has yet to even be
advertised.
This is part of a much larger problem, as hundreds of
vacant scientist and support positions, many due to
retirements, are remaining open at ARS for years. These
positions have been funded by Congress. We would appreciate any
help that Members of this Subcommittee can make to encourage
ARS to eliminate this HR bottleneck and fill these much-needed
positions.
The SCRI has also provided great benefits to the specialty
crop industry. A primary example is the RosBREED Program, which
delivered breeding tools to accelerate the commercialization of
tree fruit varieties and enhanced disease-resistant and
superior consumer attributes in enhancing the resiliency for
growers' operations by reducing production costs and increasing
returns.
Unfortunately, a drafting error in last year's farm bill
removed the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to waive the
hundred percent matching requirement for the SCRI. Because of
the change in rules halfway through the budget cycle,
scientists have had to withdraw several valuable projects from
consideration. I request that you work with your Senate
counterparts to fix this drafting error without delay so that
these, as well as future valuable, projects are not lost.
Research means nothing without a focused effort to get the
information discovered into the hands of the growers. We
encourage you to reintegrate Federal investment into extension
activities through the Hatch Act and the Smith-Lever Act.
Agriculture research is most successful with the investment
and support of industry, Federal Government, and university
extension systems. This success is modeled in Washington State,
where ARS scientists work across the parking lot from the WSU
scientists who both utilize the Tree Fruit Research Commission
and other commodity organizations for funding.
Today tree fruit growers find themselves caught in a
business that requires significant investment and long cycle
improvements with customers and consumers who want short-term
benefits. When you add on the additional risk created by new
unknown cultivar, changing weather patterns, and new pests, we
end up in a very high-stakes game that can drain your working
capital in a single season.
Federal investment and research is key to ensuring that we
can continue to provide top-quality American-grown apples,
pears, and cherries to consumers.
Once again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for
giving me the opportunity to testify before you today. I am
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Godwin follows:]

Prepared Statement of Sam Godwin, Apple, Pear, and Cherry Grower,
Godwin Family Orchard, Tonasket, WA
Thank you, Chair Plaskett and Ranking Member Dunn, for the
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today on the research
and extension needs of tree fruit producers when it comes to increasing
resiliency and mitigating risk.
I am Sam Godwin. I operate a family organic farm of 300 acres with
my wife and oldest daughter. I also partner with my brother on another
85 acre orchard that was our father's farm. I have been tied to the
industry for as long as I can remember. Growing up in the center of an
orchard has many rewards but the business-related issues that our
industry is facing can be overwhelming at times. I am here today to
share some of my experiences from the farm to underscore the importance
of research and extension for our future. I spend much of my time
working with others from within our industry to help ensure that our
children experience the same opportunities in the future as farmers
that we did.
As a farmer, you learn that there are many things that are outside
of your control. You learn to trust the process and have faith in your
plans or actions. The problem we face is straightforward--we grow
products that are not increasing in value at the same rate as input
costs.
As a labor-intensive specialty crop industry, we rely on improved
technological breakthroughs to drive future competitive advantages with
our commodities. Today we find ourselves caught in a business that
requires significant investments in long-cycle improvements, with
customers and consumers who want short-term benefits. When you add on
the additional risk created by new unknown cultivars, changing weather
patterns, and new pests, we end up in a very high stakes game that
could drain your working capital in a single season.
The Pacific Northwest is home to family-owned orchards like mine
that provide approximately 67 percent of the apples, 74 percent of the
pears, and 73 percent of the sweet cherries grown in the United States.
Roughly 30 percent of each commodity is exported each season. Together,
these crops are valued at an average of $3 billion annually, and create
tens of thousands of jobs in rural communities throughout our region.
There are a number of reasons why our growers are so successful in
what they do. One is our arid climate, consisting of cool nights and
hot days during the growing season. A second is the innovative and
collaborative nature of our industry, and our recognition that
investments in new ideas are essential to staying ahead of the
constantly-evolving threats to our continued success.
Emerging or evolving threats come in many forms. For example, pests
like the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug and the Spotted Wing Drosophila
(SWD) that were previously not present in our region have now become
established in some areas because changing weather patterns have
prevented larvae from being killed by sustained cold temperatures over
the winter. Changing weather patterns have also contributed to our
growers now needing to fight three or four generations of codling moth
per season, instead of the two generations they faced twenty years ago.
It should be noted that SWD is considered a quarantine pest for
cherries, and codling moth for apples, in some key export markets for
these fruits--meaning that a finding of these pests in a shipment of
fruit can jeopardize future access to these important markets.
Fire blight, which is a debilitating bacterium that infects pear
and apple trees in years when the spring weather is warmer and wetter
than normal, has become an increasingly challenging condition and
economic vulnerability for growers. In 2018 alone, a sobering 88
percent of pear and 17 percent of apple acreage was impacted by fire
blight to some degree, resulting in losses of an estimated $37 million.
Changes in seasonal weather patterns are also forcing growers to
pursue more tools to prevent sunburn in the orchard, and the need to
come up with inventive solutions to prevent heat-related storage
disorders post-harvest. In drought years, growers in some irrigation
districts are facing water shortages just at the time that they need
more water to protect the fruit from burning during the heat of summer.
Our growers have long recognized the need to invest in pursuing
solutions to these ever-evolving challenges. In 1969, Washington State
tree fruit growers voted to assess themselves on every box of apples,
pears, and cherries commercially sold to establish and maintain the
Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission (WTFRC). Last year alone, the
WTFRC funded more than $4.5 million in research projects to address
priorities of our growers. In 2013, we voted to impose an additional
assessment on ourselves to fund a $32 million Tree Fruit Endowment at
Washington State University (WSU). This endowment supports up to ten
new research and extension positions, focusing on enhancing orchard and
post-harvest operations. This is the largest contribution to WSU in the
university's history.
Ongoing projects funded by the WTFRC that deal with resiliency and
mitigating risk include: maximizing the use of limited irrigation water
to reduce stress on pear trees; modeling the effect of changing weather
patterns on pests of concern; and improving soil health by looking at
the effect of woodchip mulch, mowing, and cut grass that is blown into
the tree strips. Dr. Whiting of WSU is also looking at the use of
nanocrystals to reduce cold damage in apples and cherries. This is only
a glimpse of the work tree fruit growers are supporting through the
WTFRC.
However, these investments by industry only take us so far. Federal
research programs like the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the
Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) are critical to leveraging
grower resources to address the multitude of challenges that our
growers and packers are facing on a daily basis.
There are two ARS facilities in Washington State that conduct
research on issues that are important to our growers: the Temperate
Tree Fruit and Vegetable Research laboratory in Wapato, and the
Physiology and Pathology of Tree Fruits Research laboratory in
Wenatchee. Research conducted at these two laboratories have yielded
many benefits for growers through the years, ranging from innovative
methods for pest control to game changers in improving the post-harvest
storage of apples.
For years, ARS has been level funded while costs have increased,
leaving research stations struggling to meet staff and infrastructure
needs. We appreciate the increase that Congress provided to ARS
salaries and expenses, as well as buildings and facilities, in Fiscal
Year[s] 2018 and 2019. We were especially pleased to see funding
provided to create a new scientist position focusing on pear genetics
and genomics, which will be housed in the ARS facility in Wenatchee.
This has been a high priority of the pear industry for more than a
decade. While there are countless ways a scientist with these
qualifications can provide benefits to the industry, the development of
a dwarfing rootstock for pears is something growers have long sought.
By making trees shorter, it reduces the need for workers to use ladders
in the orchard--enhancing safety and reducing labor needs at a time
when finding an adequate number of workers for activities ranging from
pruning to picking is becoming increasingly difficult. Growers have
invested substantial resources in pursuing this goal, and this
scientist will play a key role in achieving this objective.
Unfortunately, in spite of these funds being provided more than a
year ago, due to the glacial pace of ARS's hiring process, this
position has yet to even be advertised. This is part of a much larger
problem, as hundreds of vacant scientist and support positions--many
due to retirements--are remaining open at ARS for years. These
positions have been fully funded by Congress, and we would appreciate
any effort the Members of this Subcommittee can make to encourage ARS
to eliminate this HR bottleneck and fill these much-needed positions.
In addition to the Federal resources dedicated to agricultural
research through ARS, the SCRI has also provided great benefits to the
specialty crop industry since day one. During the first year of the
SCRI program, a grant provided to a group led by Carnegie-Mellon was
used to develop a machine vision system. That system is now a critical
component of an automated robotic harvester that has been developed by
a California company with support from the WTFRC, providing a new tool
to help growers adapt to an increasingly scarce labor supply. This next
season will be the first in which it will be in, albeit limited,
commercial operation.
Another example of an SCRI success is the RosBREED program, which
is delivering breeding tools to accelerate the commercialization of
tree fruit varieties with enhanced disease resistance and superior
consumer attributes--enhancing the resiliency of growers' operations by
reducing production costs and increasing returns.
We would like to thank Congress, and in particular the House and
Senate Agriculture Committees, for fully funding the SCRI in last
year's farm bill. While we certainly recognize the challenges that
citrus growers are facing with citrus greening, the decision to fund
efforts to combat that devastating condition separate from the overall
SCRI program frees up much sought-after resources in this over-
subscribed program for other important priorities.
Unfortunately, it was discovered several months ago that a drafting
error in the farm bill removed the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture's
authority to waive the 100 percent matching requirement for the SCRI.
This made SCRI unique in agricultural research programs without the
opportunity to waive this requirement, and changed the rules for those
seeking grants this year in the middle of the application process--and
the middle of their budget cycle. This has led to a number of valuable
projects that made it through the first round being withdrawn from
consideration due to the inability of the applicant to quickly come up
with the 100 percent match. This includes several projects important to
tree fruit growers such as myself.
We request that you work with your Senate counterparts to fix this
drafting error without further delay so that these, as well as future,
valuable projects are not lost.
There are other important programs within the research arena that
benefit our industry, including the Technical Assistance for Specialty
Crops Program that provides resources to address sanitary and
phytosanitary barriers to trade. Our industry has utilized this program
several times, most recently to develop pest lists for Myanmar to keep
this market open for apples, pears, and cherries.
The IR-4 program, which supports research to facilitate the
registration for crop protection tools for minor crops, is also
valuable. Registrants often choose not to expend the resources to
register a product for a specialty crop, where the market for that
product is much smaller than for major commodities grown on more acres.
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative and the Organic
Research and Extension Initiative are two additional competitive grant
programs that serve as a resource for addressing grower challenges.
Research means nothing without a focused effort to get the
information discovered into the hands of growers. Federal formula funds
provided to universities for research and extension activities through
the Hatch Act and Smith-Lever Act have eroded over the years. This has
created a void in this critical last mile of allowing agricultural
research to be applied on a broad scale. We encourage you to
reinvigorate Federal investments into extension activities.
Agricultural research is like a three-legged stool--it fails to
fully achieve its purpose without the investment and support of
industry, the Federal Government, and the university/extension system.
The success of this model is exemplified in Washington state, where ARS
scientists work across the parking lot from WSU scientists, who both go
to the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission and other commodity
organizations for funding of individual projects.
It is a challenging time to be a tree fruit grower. We are facing
new trade barriers in key export markets. Labor, which is our largest
input cost, is becoming exponentially more costly and difficult to find
year-after-year. Pest and disease pressures certainly aren't getting
any less challenging, while the rapid growth in specialty varieties of
apples with different sets of characteristics that respond differently
to these pressures further complicate the scene. Our growers do not ask
for direct subsidies. Investment in research is key to ensuring that we
can continue to provide top-quality, American-grown apples, pears, and
cherries to consumers both here in the U.S. and around the globe.
Once again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for giving me
the opportunity to testify before you today on the research needs of
growers like myself when it comes to resiliency and mitigating risk. I
am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Cox. Thank you so much, Mr. Godwin.
And, Dr. Gmitter.

STATEMENT OF FRED G. GMITTER, Jr., Ph.D., PROFESSOR,
HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES, CITRUS RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION CENTER, INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, LAKE ALFRED, FL

Dr. Gmitter. Good morning, Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member
Dunn, and Members of the Subcommittee.
I am Fred Gmitter, a Professor in Horticultural Sciences at
the University of Florida. I am pleased to be here today to
testify on behalf of the University of Florida's Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences.
For more than 30 years my major area of study and research
has been the genetic code of citrus trees and fruit.
I have no doubt that today plant breeding is one of the
most important and powerful tools at our disposal to combat
global challenges in agriculture and food production.
Over the years I have seen a dramatic increase in our
knowledge of plant biology and genetics that enable us to
better understand what makes a plant do what it does in
response to various environmental and man-made stressors.
This information is what has enabled us to develop new,
innovative breeding tools like gene editing. It is these new
tools that also will enable us to capitalize on the tremendous
investment into the knowledge base we have already developed to
improve plants in ways that were just a dream when I first
began to work in this field.
As temperatures rise, pests and disease evolve and spread,
and natural resources become scarcer, we need to develop new
varieties that are resilient to these emerging threats.
In my State of Florida, the citrus industry has been
devastated by citrus greening disease, and production has been
dramatically decreased by 75 percent in less than 15 years. We
are running out of time.
Citrus growers need long-term sustainable solutions. There
is no question that plant breeding innovation holds the key.
Using gene editing, my team and others are working right now on
developing citrus trees that are resistant if not immune to
citrus greening disease.
Innovation is enabling us to potentially do in just years
what would previously only have been possible in decades or
longer, and with the rapid spread of citrus greening disease in
the U.S., and in the world, time is a luxury that we don't
have.
Scientists are now using gene editing technologies to
precisely duplicate many naturally-occurring mutations, but to
do so in elite plant varieties and in a relatively rapid
fashion.
For example, to develop heat-tolerant lettuce that may be
grown in the Central Valley of California, even with increasing
temperatures; to develop potatoes that don't turn brown to
decrease food waste which accounts for seven percent of the
annual global carbon footprint; to develop crop plants with
deeper roots that can sequester carbon from the atmosphere and
keep it deep in the soil after harvest; to develop rice that
can be grown with saline irrigation water or even under dry
conditions, just to name a few.
However, for these and many more real-world benefits to be
fully realized and widely adopted across breeding programs of
all sizes and sectors, developers need clear science-based
policy direction.
I am pleased that USDA in its new proposed rule on
agriculture innovation policy, recognized that applications of
gene editing can result in plant varieties that are essentially
equivalent to varieties developed through more traditional
breeding, and in those cases, it only makes sense that they
should be treated in the same way from a policy perspective.
Historically, under the Coordinated Framework for
Regulation of Biotechnology, USDA, FDA, and EPA have each
served a specific function in ensuring the health of our food
and the environment. We encourage the U.S. Government to ensure
alignment in risk-based policies around plant products of the
newer breeding methods across these three Federal agencies, and
I appreciate the Executive Order announced just yesterday which
seeks to accomplish that.
Any lack of consistency among the agencies will stifle
research investments and activity and prohibit widespread
access for public-sector scientists to these evolving tools,
and the array of critical benefits they hold for society now
and in the future.
It is also important that the U.S. continues to take a
leadership role in driving consistent plant breeding policies
at the global level. We must continue moving forward in
supporting research and plant breeding solutions to solve our
collective global challenges.
With that, I will be happy to take any questions you have,
and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gmitter follows:]

Prepared Statement of Fred G. Gmitter, Jr., Ph.D., Professor,
Horticultural Sciences, Citrus Research and Education Center, Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Lake Alfred,
FL
Good morning, Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member Dunn, and Members of
the Subcommittee. I am Fred Gmitter, a Professor in Horticultural
Sciences at the University of Florida and I'm pleased to be here to
testify on behalf of the UF Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences.
For more than 30 years, my major areas of study and research have
been the genetic code of citrus trees and fruits--the genes that
determine how the fruit tastes, smells, looks, and how the tree
responds to pressures like disease and pests--and using that knowledge
to develop improved citrus trees and fruit. I have no doubt that,
today, plant breeding is one of the most important and powerful tools
at our disposal to combat global challenges in agriculture and food
production.
Also, over those years, I have seen a dramatic increase in our
knowledge of plant biology and genetics that enable us to better
understand what makes a plant do what it does in response to various
environmental and man-made stressors. This information is what has
enabled us to develop new, innovative breeding tools like gene editing;
and it is these new tools that also will enable us to capitalize on the
tremendous investment into the knowledge base we have developed, to
improve in ways that were just a dream when I first began to work in
this field, the plants that serve all humanity.
As temperatures rise, pests and diseases evolve and spread, and
natural resources become scarcer, we need to develop new varieties that
are resilient to these emerging threats. This is what plant breeders
have been doing for centuries: combining genetic knowledge with plant
breeding tools to improve seeds and plants for better crops for the
benefit of our environment, our health, and our food.
With the rapid development of environmental threats, diseases and
pests, we are up against the clock. Long-term, sustainable food
production requires continued application of innovations, like gene
editing, that allow us to develop more resilient plant varieties.
An increasingly warming climate means an increase in: disease
intensity, mutation rates, and the range of pests and diseases in areas
where they formerly didn't exist. In my State of Florida, the citrus
industry has been devastated by citrus greening disease, and production
has been dramatically decreased by 75% in less than 15 years. We are
running out of time. Citrus growers need long-term, sustainable
solutions. There is no question that plant breeding innovation holds
the key. Using gene editing, my team and others are working right now
on developing citrus trees that are resistant, if not immune, to citrus
greening, and the bacteria that causes it and the insect that spreads
it. Innovation is enabling us to potentially do in years what would
previously only have been possible in decades, or longer. And with this
rapidly moving disease, time is a luxury we don't have.
The University of Florida is engaged is a number of other research
initiatives directly related to mitigating the impacts of climate
change. AgroClimate is an innovative web-resource for decision-support
and learning, providing interactive tools and climate information to
improve crop management decisions and reduce production risks
associated with climate variability and change. Developed by the
Southeast Climate Consortium, AgroClimate is a coalition of eight
universities including: Florida State, University of Florida,
University of Miami, University of Georgia, Auburn, North Carolina
State, Clemson University and University of Alabama-Huntsville.
The Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) is
a software application program that comprises crop simulation models
for over 42 crops, as well as tools to facilitate effective use of the
models. DSSAT and its crop simulation models have been used for a wide
range of applications at different spatial and temporal scales. This
includes on-farm and precision management, regional assessments of the
impact of climate variability and climate change, gene-based modeling
and breeding selection, water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and long-
term sustainability through the soil organic carbon and nitrogen
balances. And these are just a few . . .
Outside of Florida, researchers are using cutting-edge plant
breeding methods to develop new water-efficient varieties of crops.
With 70% of the world's freshwater used for agriculture, reducing the
amount of water needed to grow food could have a significant
environmental impact. In California, lettuce struggles in the heat. But
researchers have found a wild variety of lettuce that is capable of
germinating at high temperatures in the Central Valley of California--a
useful characteristic given warming global temperatures. Using gene
editing they have shown that it is possible to develop lettuce
varieties that have the same heat tolerance as their wild relative,
with the same taste and nutritional value as the lettuce we enjoy
today.
Salinity in irrigation water is a major factor limiting the
production of rice, a globally significant food crop. Gene editing has
been used to develop rice lines that can be grown using saline water,
with no changes to any other genes and no deleterious changes on any
other aspects of plant yield and performance; this result was achieved
in 1 year, where it could have taken a dozen years or more to
accomplish this by conventional breeding. Work is underway to address
drought tolerance in rice as well. With decreasing land and water
resources available to meet the future needs of humanity, such changes
become critical for our future.
Another area where researchers are working is in food waste
reduction. In 2007, the global carbon footprint of wasted food was 3.3
billion tons--about 7% of greenhouse gas emissions, according the U.N.
Food and Agriculture Commission. Plant breeders are using gene editing
to develop new crop varieties specifically designed to cut the amount
of food wasted. By making a small change to a potato's DNA, for
instance, researchers will be able to make it less likely to bruise and
brown. The new characteristic could eliminate 1.5 billion pounds of
wasted potatoes.
Innovation is also key to the ability--and in fact, the necessity--
to grow more food on less land, using fewer inputs. For example, using
gene editing, scientists can develop higher-yielding crop varieties--
from vegetables to corn and soybeans. These new plant varieties could
produce more food, without additional inputs. The result: farmers can
grow more food on less land, and in many cases on lands once deemed
marginal for food production. Potentially this can also slow the rate
of global deforestation, and thereby put the brakes on increasing
CO2 levels by sequestering more carbon.
And speaking of carbon, researchers are even looking at solutions
to develop plants that can reduce carbon pollution. Naturally, plants
take carbon out of the atmosphere and release oxygen through
photosynthesis. A key to controlling carbon pollution could be to train
plants to suck up just a little more CO2 and keep it longer.
Scientists at the Salk Institute in San Diego are looking to do
just that, by engineering crops to have bigger, deeper roots made of a
natural waxy substance called suberin--found in cork and cantaloupe
rinds--which is incredibly effective at capturing carbon and is
resistant to decomposition.
The roots would store CO2, and when farmers harvest
their crops in the fall, those deep-buried roots and the carbon they
have sequestered would stay in the soil, potentially for hundreds of
years. Thanks to innovation, we could see real-life climate-change-
fighting plants in our future!
These are just a few of the many examples of the tremendous
investment by public and private-sector plant-scientists around the
world in research across a wide variety of crops--with groundbreaking
potential.
However, in order for these benefits to be fully realized, and
widely adopted across breeding programs of all sizes and sectors,
developers need clear, science-based policy direction. This is why we
appreciate the recognition of USDA, in its new proposed rule on
agriculture innovation policy, that applications of gene editing can
result in plant varieties that are essentially equivalent to varieties
developed through more traditional breeding methods. And in those
cases, it only makes sense that they should be treated in the same way
from a policy perspective.
Historically, under the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of
Biotechnology, USDA, FDA and EPA have each served a specific function
in ensuring the health of our food and the environment. We encourage
the U.S. Government to ensure alignment in risk-based policies around
plant products of newer breeding methods across these three Federal
agencies. Any lack of consistency among the agencies will stifle
research investments and activity, and prohibit widespread access to
for public sector scientists to these evolving tools and the array of
critical benefits they hold for society now and in the future.
It's also important that the U.S. continues to take a leadership
role in driving consistent plant breeding policies at the global level.
Late last year 13 countries, including the U.S., joined together in
signing an International Statement on Agricultural Applications of
Precision Biotechnology. This was a strong and encouraging show of
support by governments around the world in recognition of plant
breeding innovation, and the critical role that it will play in
ensuring a more sustainable and secure global food production system.
In order to maintain the United States' position as an economic
world-leader in innovation, it's critical that we continue moving
forward in supporting research in plant breeding solutions to solve our
collective global challenges. With that, I'll be happy to take any
questions you have. Thank you.

Mr. Cox. Thank you all so much for your testimony on this
very important topic.
Now, Members will be recognized for questioning in the
order of seniority for Members who were here at the start of
the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in order of
arrival.
And, with that, I will recognize myself for the first 5
minutes, and so, but just give me 1 second here.
My district, the 21st Congressional District of California,
is successfully the top agricultural district in the top
agricultural state, and like so many producers all across our
country, the farmers and ranchers in my district are currently
dealing with: first, increased trade uncertainty; second,
continuously shrinking labor pool, and giving those existing
pressures you put on top of that a changing climate and/or
natural disaster that is driven by climate change. You have
seen that certainly in California and throughout the nation
this year.
Really, the question gets down to the producers and what
effect do all those pressures, particularly the climate change,
are going to have on a producer's ability to remain profitable.
And, Mr. Godwin, I think you probably can speak directly to
that.
Mr. Godwin. Yes. There are a lot of things that we can't
control as farmers, and you appreciate those every day. Climate
is one of them. But we do things and we have learned to do
things to help ourselves.
For example, this year on our farm we are installing our
first 8 acres of nets covering a commercial crop, so we are
doing that to control the sun and the impact of sunburn on
fruit, as well as to mitigate potential hailstorms. And in
addition to that, we are adding side curtains to keep pests out
of the crops, and we are working with our local university to
actually do some beneficial insect release within the nets to
see if we can control environment within the nets without
pesticides, as an example, or any chemical for that means.
Those are the kinds of things that we are doing. The
unfortunate part is that these types of things are very
expensive and there is not enough research right now to really
validate, so it takes a kind of a good faith effort and a
jumping in and really being committed at this point, because it
is a lot of money. To cover an 8 acre field is a tremendous
investment.
Mr. Cox. Very good. And certainly on the organic portion of
it, side of it, Ms. Tencer, do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Tencer. I would just echo that the--there is--oops.
Thank you.
I would just echo that there is a risk of new practices and
sometimes we see with new practices which are able to provide
resiliency and the ability for producers to adapt, there may be
up-front costs. Sometimes those costs pay off economically for
producers in their yield or stability, but sometimes those
payoffs may not be seen for another 5 or even more years down
the line, and so there are some real challenges with being able
to make those long-term commitments to those practices.
I would say the other thing that we have seen is that if
you implement a single practice, whether that relates to your
cover crop or your rotation or some of these additional
techniques, as Mr. Godwin mentioned, you don't see the same
success rate in terms of adaptation and risk management as you
do with a portfolio of practices, and that again can be both
complex and sometimes there are up-front costs. We really
support the research, education, and extension efforts to help
producers be most efficient in choosing that suite of
practices.
Mr. Cox. Thank you. And, Dr. Gmitter, you were talking
about utilizing science to directly confront the challenges of
climate change for some of these crops, and if you could
reiterate some of the techniques and things that you are doing?
Dr. Gmitter. The biggest focus of our work these days is
citrus greening disease, and this in some ways is a consequence
of the movement of pests and diseases that they carry into
places where they didn't exist previously, and so this is a
very important thing for us.
I witnessed some hurricane damage three seasons ago on the
Indian River area, the east coast of Florida, where some groves
were under water for 7 days, and we had a root stock trial,
trying different kinds of root stocks that happened to be
planted in one of these places, and as we went back a month, 2
months, and a year afterwards we saw very clear genetic
differences. Certain root stocks survived the flooding for 7,
almost 10 days in some locations, and others did not, and so
these are the kinds of things that as a plant breeder, we look
at the totality of the needs of the industry, and although we
are primarily focused on citrus greening disease, we have to
look at all of these other factors, and this is just one
example of the kinds of things that we see and we are learning.
Mr. Cox. Well, thank you. And, Dr. Wolfe, recently this
Committee held a hearing expressing the valuable role public
research plays in ensuring the ag community is well-equipped to
address these challenges, pests and disease, and now we are
talking about protecting operations against climate change.
And I guess the question is, how do we best share the
information with farmers so they are best able to protect their
livelihoods from these risks?
Dr. Wolfe. Yes, as I mentioned in my initial comments,
there is a real need for real permanence to hubs or centers
where farmers can get that information reliably and we can
build the materials available for farmers in terms of
resources, but also developing real-time decision tools that
they might have such as phone apps on their farm and that sort
of thing, and do a lot of synergy working with farmers and with
researchers to provide that sort of thing for them.
And right now a lot of land-grant universities as well as
the USDA, et cetera, have developed some of these but there is
a lack of permanence and real long-term funding for them. A lot
of work can go into developing a great source for farmers to
get this information, great way of getting the communication
back and forth, and then, but they are dependent on soft
funding, so that is a very important area.
I want to mention one other thing. You mentioned labor and
I am thinking of horticultural crops, fruit and vegetable
crops. It is so labor intensive, as you know. A single farmer
might have hundreds of people they have to hire, and climate
change is interfering with the timing of planting and harvest
and so farmers are more challenged with the timing of when
they, those labor force appears, et cetera, and it is a big
challenge for our specialty crops.
Mr. Cox. Well, thank you so much. With that, we will
recognize the Ranking Member from Florida. Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Chairman Cox.
Dr. Gmitter, can you discuss what role biotechnology may
play in addressing citrus greening? You had begun to do that.
You have touched on that, but we had the opportunity to speak
before the meeting, and I am not sure that people realize just
how long this has been a problem for decades and decades around
the world, and you have experience looking into all that. I
wonder if you would address that for a minute or 2?
Dr. Gmitter. Yes. Citrus greening is a disease that has
been known for more than 100 years. In Florida we have been
living with it for more than 15 years.
Citrus breeding is a slow process. We are working with
plants when we make crosses that take 5 to 7 years before they
set their first crop of fruit to evaluate, so it is a very slow
process.
It is further complicated in the case of sweet orange and
grapefruit in that all of the sweet orange varieties that we
know in the world, all that arose from mutations. That is to
say, they weren't created by crossing things. They are
mutations from some ancestral form, and the market is focused
on orange juice or grapefruit, and grapefruit has the same
story. We can't very easily use conventional breeding to bring
in changes to these crops.
However, as we look at the range of genetic diversity that
exists in citrus and we find types that are more tolerant to
this disease, we can understand the genetic control in those
plants, look into the sweet orange plant genome itself and find
the same sorts of genes that we need to slightly change the
spelling of the order of the nucleotides to make a plant go
from something that is very sensitive to something that is
tolerant and perhaps even resistant to the disease.
Mr. Dunn. Outstanding. Also, I wonder if you could address
some of the other pest and disease threats that affect us. I am
interested obviously in Florida, but let us not be too
parochial if you have other areas in fruits that you are
studying. I would like to hear that.
Dr. Gmitter. Well, there are a number of citrus diseases
that we have lived with for many years. Our growers these days
would be very happy to go back to the days when those serious
diseases were the only problems they had to deal with, because
they would impact production to the five to ten percent, 20
percent range, as opposed to something that is really knocked
75 percent of our production away.
Citrus tristeza virus is an important disease. Citrus
canker was a very important disease that the Federal Government
spent millions of dollars attempting to eradicate in an effort
that failed ultimately because we had hurricanes that came and
blew the disease all over the rest of the State of Florida.
Citrus canker is a disease that can be more easily
addressed by genetic approaches. There is a number. I could
give you a seminar that would take a day long to go through all
the disease problems we have.
Mr. Dunn. Unfortunately we only have 2 more minutes, sir.
Just yesterday President Trump signed an Executive Order to
streamline the agricultural biotechnology regulations in an
effort to harmonize the FDA, the Department of Agriculture and
the EPA. Can you elaborate a little bit on how important that
is? You did mention it in your testimony and I want to drive
that point home.
Dr. Gmitter. Well, that is critical and from my own
perspective it is especially critical for specialty crops,
things such as apples, pears, and citrus, because you have a
small army of public-sector researchers, plant breeders, plant
pathologists who are working on these crops that don't get the
attention of the large companies like Monsanto/Bayer and so on.
They are not particularly interested in those crops.
And as we are looking at using some of the new breeding
technologies in these plants, the question becomes in my mind
and many other researchers, ``Well, if we are successful, are
we actually going to be able to have an impact in these
industries?'' There are smaller industries as researchers we're
smaller guys as well, and we don't have $15 to $35 million to
deregulate some particular modification that we have made.
It is very important for us that there is harmonization and
we would hope the harmonization would be on a science-based
risk-based analysis of what the technology is and what it can
accomplish and what it means to our industries.
Further, globally we have to look to the Federal Government
to work with us so that on a global basis there is a more
common understanding of the nature of what we are doing and
what it means.
Mr. Dunn. Well, I thank you very much for that, Dr.
Gmitter. I am going to say, I had a chance to review your
biography before this hearing, and I was surprised and pleased
to see that you actually had the patents on more than six
varieties of citrus trees, so I applaud your innovative and
industrious career, and we certainly look forward to you and
your colleagues saving our citrus industry.
And with that, Madam Chair, I will yield back.
The Chair [presiding.] Okay. Thank you all.
I had a couple of questions, and of course, Ms. Tencer, in
your testimony you note that research is only the first step,
and you went on to say that farmers need continued education,
training, and technical assistance.
What methods are most effective in sharing scientific
advancements with farmers and ranchers, and what messages
resonate the best with producers related to resiliency and risk
mitigation?
Ms. Tencer. Thank you for the question.
In our most recent survey of certified organic producers
around the country, they stated that they are going to other
farmers, then their certifiers, and then their public
universities third in terms of resources that they go to, but
organic producers around the country would like to increasingly
rely on the same sources of information, extension agents, NRCS
personnel, even the risk management field staff to better
support and disseminate those research needs.
We are really pleased to see progress in all of those
areas, the new farm bill language supporting training of risk
management agents in organic practices, NRCS is taking new
initiatives to better train their staff in organic practices,
but there is still work to do, in particular with extension
service.
We think there is a lot of progress yet to be made both in
terms of overall investment and in making sure that we have
expertise in every, every part of the country in organic
systems because it is inconsistent, and farmers get frustrated
when they go to their extension agent and they can't help them
with their organic suite of practices.
The Chair. Well, moving to an extension agent, Dr. Godfrey.
I am putting you on the spot here.
What lessons have you learned with the drought, hurricanes,
and now drought again? What lessons do you think have been
learned that can be applied broadly to how U.S. agriculture
industry will respond to the changing climate?
Dr. Godfrey. Adaptation to the changing climate is
something that especially in the Virgin Islands our farmers are
going to have to deal with probably on a little more frequency
than other locations throughout the country, and some of the
aspects of adapting to that can apply across the board, having
resources in place for dealing with the aftereffects.
That has been a big problem for us, primarily because of
our location. We can't stockpile materials. We don't have a lot
of local resources, as I mentioned in my testimony. Our food is
imported, our support supplies and support materials are all
imported and it is difficult to have those things in place to
help with immediate recovery.
And some of that deals with access to finances to get these
materials and supplies by farmers, whether it is through
Federal or local government-funded programs. There are issues
with getting into those programs, getting those funds in place
in a timely manner, and dealing with the aftermath. The
devastation we received from the local hurricanes, those two
back-to-back hurricanes, really impacted our local
infrastructure in finding support for everything involved,
agriculture, the community in general, our education system,
hospitals, and everything.
There are a lot of things that we just don't have the
capital and the capacity to have these things in place that we
need after the fact.
The Chair. Well, I know that some of that is geographic,
but how much would you say, and what are the specific ones that
are related more to just being small-scaled farming? Because
you talked about farmers farming in less than 5 acres as
opposed to other places where potentially organics may be
pretty much smaller in scale than some of their partner or
larger scale, more conventional farming. What are the
particular issues that those small-scale farmers face
throughout the country that are not resonating or are not the
same with larger-scale farming?
Dr. Godfrey. Right. Yes. Small-scale farmers have the issue
of any kind of disaster, whether it is drought, floods,
hurricanes, freezing, whatever can impact their whole crop.
The Chair. Yes.
Dr. Godfrey. Whereas a large-scale, they can absorb that.
They have buffers because of their size. They can lose a
portion of their crop and still survive and make it work out,
where small-scale farmers, and especially they do a lot of
monoculture, they are growing one crop and disease or an
environmental event can come through and wipe that out and then
there is no rebound, nothing left for them to fall back on.
They have to start over whereas larger-scale farming, they do
have that resiliency built in just because of their physical
size. Any event is not going to impact their total crop. It may
be portions of it, so they will have something to harvest and
sell, whereas small-scale farming they just, by definition they
just don't have a lot of resiliency built in because of their
limited space and number of crops they are growing.
The Chair. Mr. Godwin, can you say, what are some of the
practices that you may have in place to increase resiliency and
mitigate risk as an actual grower yourself, and where would you
think there should be additional support for that?
Mr. Godwin. Well, it is a very good question. I know our
strategy on the farm when I came back from the city to become a
farmer again, we started with a 20 acre orchard, and we have
developed and added other orchards and I like to say we put the
farm back together, because we live in a narrow valley and it
was owned by lots of different people and we, as neighbors
retired and left, we have been able to add stuff back together
to reach critical mass.
There is advantage to growing multiple crops and that is
why we grow apples, pears, and cherries. It is not an accident.
It is to mitigate the risk because all crops cycle differently
and that gives you some benefit.
It also is important because it lets you start to spread
some of your cost, whether it is equipment or computer systems
and networks and monitoring that is available now with
technology. It helps you to afford access to some of that
technology, because as you grow you have a broader base to
spread that cost on.
But at the end of the day what I see is that getting larger
means it takes more investment, it takes more time, and it is a
lot more work. And so, yes, you get some risk but there are
always problems, so you think, ``Well, I am going to mitigate
risk by having three crops. That means I should do really well
on the good years.'' In 19 years now of farming there is always
something somewhere that takes a hit.
The Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much.
At this time I would ask my colleague, Mr. Baird of Indiana
for your questions.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and we really appreciate
you and Ranking Member Dunn for holding today's hearing. And I
want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today.
As a Member of this Subcommittee and as well as the House
Space, Science, and Technology Committee, I care deeply about
the leadership that we have, U.S. leadership, in research and
technology, and I am grateful we are discussing what our
farmers need to address the challenges we have heard about here
today.
It is estimated that by 2050 we will have a need to feed an
additional two billion people, and we can agree that we want to
do that and meet that challenge in a way that is good for our
environment and is sustainable by our farmers.
My question comes down to the issue that I believe the
United States must be a leader in agricultural technology
including biotechnology, both to keep our environment healthy
as well as to feed our families, but also for our economic and
national security.
My question is, are we at risk of falling behind other
countries in terms of agricultural research and technology
related to resiliency, and if you feel that is true, are there
any areas that we should be focusing our energy and research
on?
Dr. Gmitter, we will start with you. I have only got 5
minutes, so we will see how far you go with that.
Dr. Gmitter. I will try not to go too far.
Mr. Baird. Okay.
Dr. Gmitter. There is no doubt in my mind, and I, again, I
speak from personal experience. I have had a long-term
relationship with one of the most important research
universities in the area of citrus in China for nearly 30
years, and 25 years ago, 20 years ago, it was very common for
my colleagues to send graduate students and post-docs to my lab
to work together with us so we could accomplish things
together, but more importantly for them to learn the technology
that we have.
I was invited to the 120th anniversary of this university
just last year, and to see the effort and the number of people
and the resources that are devoted to citrus breeding and
genetics in that university, which went from very primitive to
where it is today, is astounding. We look at it and we say,
``How can we possibly compete with this, not only in putting
out academic papers but in getting real world results.''
I have definitely seen in my lifetime, in the short period
that I have worked, a real change in what the level of support
is in other countries, and that is my crop, that is my
business, my world, and it is probably the same I would bet in
many other commodity research areas.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Do any of the other witnesses care to
say or make a comment?
Dr. Godfrey. Yes. I would like to mention that the land-
grant university system in the United States is the envy of the
world for agriculture research and community outreach, and it
is a model that other countries look at with envy and try and
develop in their own countries. We have been the benefactors of
that since 1862 when it was first started at the land-grant
universities.
And there are non-land-grant universities in the country as
well conducting a lot of good agriculture research, but the
partnership between the Federal Government and the local
governments in the land-grant system to enhance research,
community outreach, training the next generation of scientists
to bring efforts forward to solve our problems and address
issues such as sustainability and climate change, are some of
the best we can see around the world, and people come to us for
information, faculty, students, and modeling the program after
the land-grant system.
Really, a lot of us in this room have benefitted from that
over the years. I know I have personally. I have come up
through my graduate and professional careers in a land-grant
system and it has been a great benefit.
Mr. Baird. Anyone else?
Mr. Godwin. From a farm perspective the two things that I
worry about is the soil, rhizosphere ecology and improving that
understanding of what is happening under the ground, and then
the genetics and genomics and plant breeding. I think those are
clearly two areas that we need more activities.
Dr. Wolfe. Well, I would just add I just recently had a
whole contingent of researchers from the Chinese Academy of Ag
Science come into Cornell to hear about what we are doing on
climate change adaptation and mitigation here and also soil
ecology and soil biology.
On the other hand, I have also been there with exchanges
and they have, as was mentioned earlier, amazing advances from
20, 30 years ago, very sophisticated field research equipment
and technology and all of that.
I think our outreach system is still excellent here and we
have a lot going for us.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. I am out of time, but I did
appreciate, Dr. Godfrey, you mentioning the land-grant
universities, because Purdue University is in my district, so
thank you.
The Chair. Thank you. At this time I will call on my
colleague, Mr. Brindisi of upstate New York.
Mr. Brindisi. Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling on me.
Thank you to all of our witnesses who are here today,
especially Dr. Wolfe. Thank you for being here representing
Cornell University, a very important institution to upstate New
York and to farmers across my Congressional district.
This question really is for all of our witnesses, whoever
wants to take a crack at it, but reports indicate that as USDA
considers moving research out of the Washington, D.C. area,
Economic Research Service employees working on politically
sensitive topics are being asked to relocate in high numbers,
meaning there is a good chance they might leave the agency and
decide to take their talents elsewhere. I am concerned that
important topics like impacts of climate change won't be fully
understood and recognized if we don't have skilled staff within
these agencies doing this work.
Are you concerned that research on topics like climate
change will be negatively impacted by this proposal?
Dr. Wolfe. I might take a first crack at that, and I mean,
it has been a fantastic partnership for all of my career
working with various USDA agencies, and they have also funded
much of the work in soil health and also climate change from
the SCRI Program to NIFA and Hatch Act funding, et cetera.
And my partners there, we just work hand in hand and it is
so important to us, and I really appreciate talking to them
because they also understand what is coming from the Department
of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, because
they are right here in Washington, and it is really useful to
know what is happening in terms of policies and actually
keeping us informed about that. If they were disengaged from
the Washington, D.C. area, that avenue of information, for
myself. I would miss that help in understanding better the
initiatives that might be coming down through the USDA in the
Department.
Also, the Washington, D.C. area is kind of a neutral ground
in terms of commodities, and if people were to dissipate we
might focus much more on the Midwest. I like the idea of
keeping the USDA that has really got a very broad view of
important commodities, and its being in D.C. helps that.
Mr. Brindisi. Any of the other witnesses? Yes.
Ms. Tencer. I would just like to share that one of the
challenges we have seen, particularly in the organic sector, is
the need for research findings and trends about best practices
to be well distilled and communicated to other Federal
agencies, particularly looking at how the USDA's NRCS and Risk
Management Agency understand the best practices in organic
systems. And those have been challenging areas and there has
been a lot of progress but there is still more to do.
Speaking from personal experience, I can say I have been
invited over the years to go present and help facilitate
information sharing across USDA agencies where we invite staff
from various arms of the USDA to come sit together and talk and
share what is happening on organic within their arms, and while
USDA has always done a good job of inviting folks who were not
based in D.C. to call in and listen, it was much more
challenging for those USDA staff to hear, to engage in those
conversations, while those who were in the room from RMA, NRCS,
NIFA arms, et cetera, were able to more easily share
information. We are a little bit nervous that that ability
would be lost.
Dr. Godfrey. I would like to add the convenience of having
the NIFA offices here in Washington, D.C. makes interacting
with them much more affordable from an economic standpoint and
accessibility to the people.
In fact, I have an appointment this afternoon with some
folks at NIFA to discuss some of the issues for the Virgin
Islands. Having them in this central location where we can
combine efforts during a visit such as this Subcommittee
hearing, meeting with NIFA, meeting with other colleagues and
partners that we have, makes it much more practical and that
partnership can be strengthened if we can meet in one location
instead of having it distributed through different locations,
with some of the NIFA people remaining here and some at a new
proposed location. Just makes sense to have them all in one
spot for us and interacting with other government agencies as
well.
And from the Virgin Islands, it is relatively easy to get
here from the Virgin Islands, but colleagues across the
country, there are time and travel efforts that are involved in
getting here, so you want to get the most bang for your buck.
Mr. Brindisi. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back my time.
The Chair. Thank you. Doctor, it is not easy to get here
from the Virgin Islands. I am trying to convince everyone of
all the hardship I have to go through traveling back and forth
through the Miami airport, no less.
Dr. Godfrey. Sorry I blew your cover.
Mr. Dunn. But what a place to live.
The Chair. Yes. Yes. Getting there makes it worthwhile.
At this time I will call on my colleague, Mr. Thompson, for
your questioning.
Mr. Thompson. Madam Chair, thank you very much. Ranking
Member Dunn, thank you for having this hearing, and thank you
for each of the panel that are here. I greatly appreciate it.
We know that it has quite frankly always been challenging
times for those who grow our food, and for many different
reasons but especially with climate. It is the history of it.
It is the nature of agriculture, in fact, the form of our
current Federal agriculture policy in the farm bill was a
direct result of the climate disruption that we know as the
Dust Bowl.
We know that the Irish Potato Famines where normally those
potatoes do really well in kind of a cooler, maybe a little bit
moist environment and when it gets to extremes which it did
several times in history resulting in a million deaths when the
temperature and the moisture got to an extreme level with the
mold, water mold, that resulted in those famines.
In Statuary Hall, Iowa honors Dr. Norman Borlaug who was
credited with saving a billion lives. At most it was, figure
out the math, it is probably closer to two billion lives today
by using science to adapt to the impact of changing climates.
Agriculture is science- and technology-based on necessity
and it always has been, and yet we need more funding for USDA
research. This Committee has done a good job, at least the past
two farm bills I have been involved with, at supporting USDA,
but we need the rest of Congress outside this Committee to
recognize the importance of making that investment.
Where I look and compare what we fund, the National
Institute of Health, and there is no criticism there, but quite
frankly what they get this much and USDA gets this much and
there is nothing more fundamental to health than good
nutrition. It is what we take in, what we consume, and so I,
part of what I would like to see is a better bridging, more
collaboration with the folks at NIH that have been blessed with
increased funding every year with the folks with USDA.
Dr. Wolfe, can you speak more on the importance of the role
of cover crops in promoting healthy soils? I was proud to lead
the first Congressional hearing we ever did on healthy soils a
couple years back. And also, how do healthy soils facilitate
the retention of moisture within the soil, which is really
important obviously for folks impacted by drier climates?
Dr. Wolfe. Yes. Thank you for the question.
Yes, cover crops are one of the core methods of really
rebuilding our soils, many of which have over time had organic
matter depletion. And almost every farmer I talk to today is
very interested in rebuilding that organic matter, rebuilding
the health of their soils so that they are not passing on to
the next generation soils that are not as good as they
inherited from their parents.
Cover crops are out there. In addition to your cash crop
you have fall/winter cover crops, you have more vegetation out
there sucking up CO2 from the atmosphere, which is
the greenhouse gas, and putting it into the soil as organic
matter and it is just one of the key building strategies.
Although, building the organic matter can take some time,
but even in the first year of use of cover crops, if it is a
year that we have heavy rainfall events, farmers see immediate
benefits in terms of reduction of soil erosion which is a huge
devastating consequence for farmers from heavy rain. It is one
of the main strategies, also directly adding organic matter
like manures and then also reducing tillage which can also lead
to loss of organic matter.
So all of those are key strategies, and what is fascinating
about this soil health thing right now is all farmers are
talking about organic as well as conventional. There is really
a bit of a revolution going on even. I see this worldwide. I do
some work in East Africa, there, too, rebuilding soils, and it
has this advantage for coping with climate change as well as
providing better nutrition for crops, reducing other inputs,
and also, by the way, storing carbon in soil playing a role in
mitigation. It is a very important strategy.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Pennsylvania and I assume New York
based on some of your research you have been involved in, the
anatomy of a wet year.
Dr. Wolfe. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. We are not really getting so much warmer as
wetter.
Dr. Wolfe. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. There has been lots of rainfall. Any specific
mitigation actions that you would recommend for farmers in our
area, given sort of the pattern that we are in for the time
being?
Dr. Wolfe. Yes. Well, relevant to your previous question,
too, I mean, building healthy soils also affects the structure
of the soil such that it drains better as well as holding water
better, it buffers from both drought and flooding, so that is
one strategy that it kind of builds some resilience. But still
if you have very heavy rainfall events there are different
strategies for drainage and all of that, also thinking about
different timing of operations so that we don't have impacts on
water quality. There is a whole range of strategies for dealing
with that.
And when I talk to farmers about wet years versus dry
years, they say a dry year comes and goes, I might lose
something that year, but a really wet year, if I lose a lot of
my soil, that is going to take a generation to replace. They
are really concerned about that, and we have seen more of that
than, 30 years ago we thought mostly about drought when we
thought about climate change, and we are actually seeing that
too much water is as big or bigger problem than too little at
this point in time.
Mr. Thompson. I am sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. At this time, the gentlewoman from
Maine, Ms. Pingree, for your 5 minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to
you and the Ranking Member for having this hearing, and
certainly to the panelists for being here. I really appreciated
all of your remarks and testimony.
I have so many questions, but I am going to just keep it to
a few.
Ms. Brise, thank you so much for the work you do. I know
you know that I am very supportive of organic farming and
organic research and it is really a vital role that you play. I
am also a certified organic farmer, so I am well aware of these
challenges, but one thing I just wanted to mention is that
sometimes we think about organics as sort of this mysterious
thing that happens with different kind of inputs and outputs,
but basically the fundamentals are around soil health. This is
an important moment in time, because as we have been talking
about, there is so much focus now on soil health, and we have a
lot to learn and a lot of sharing that should and could go on.
And, Mr. Godwin, I wanted to mention to you that I also sit
on Agriculture Appropriations, and we have been working very
hard on that specialty crop grant match that you talked about,
so we are hoping that we can get some language in the bill. It
doesn't help anybody if we get these bills passed by the end of
September, but it is really important that you brought that up
and for people to know it. It is also important for the entire
Committee to understand the issue you raised here on ARS. There
is no hiring freeze at the Department of Agriculture, but not a
lot of positions are being filled right now, and this Committee
should be particularly concerned, as we should all, about the
importance of those people to do the work, and you made that
really clear.
Dr. Wolfe, you have a wonderful career here in researching
soil health, and many of the things that we are so focused on
and that farmers are anxious to participate in more, and I know
you were a little bit involved in some of the work that was
going on in the New York Soil Health Program.
Dr. Wolfe. Yes.
Ms. Pingree. We have a lot to learn from individual states.
I am particularly interested in how farmers can participate in
carbon markets. I see it as, of course, an important tool. It
is good for the farmers and then it is also good if there is a
potential for another source of income. And some of that was
talked about in New York. I don't think it has moved forward,
but in terms of looking to the states right now for what is
going on, can you tell us just quickly about that, and I am
particularly interested in how we are going to measure, what
kind of metrics we are going to use so that we can understand
how much carbon is being sequestered in the soil so that
farmers can be paid fairly for what they are doing?
Dr. Wolfe. Yes, that is a complicated area and something,
in New York, we have had a long history actually of farmers,
pioneer farmers, working in that area of soil health on their
own and then also working with Cornell and other agencies to do
the appropriate research to back them up and move forward, and
then also getting a lot of good input from our organic farmers
who have been at that for a long time.
Yes, and with the interest and the recognition now that
soil health is not just something that farmers are motivated
about from the standpoint of building resilience and reducing
inputs, but also can be part of the solution in terms of
slowing the pace of climate change. A lot of work is turning
that way and looking at that.
I actually have a project right now where we are trying to
get some baseline data on soil carbon in our soils and that
sort of thing.
We have one district of New York, an Assemblyperson in New
York State who received funding for a pilot project, trying to
look at ways we might compensate or incentivize farmers to
adopt soil health in part for the benefits of this ecosystem
service of storing carbon. It is tricky.
I actually head a USDA NIFA-funded project, and part of
that was to look at low-cost approaches to monitoring.
Ms. Pingree. Yes.
Dr. Wolfe. I have a graduate student who is still finishing
up even though the funding has run out from that, worked on
infrared spectroscopy, for example, even have on-the-go
tractor-mounted spectrometers that can give you meter by meter
estimates of the carbon in the soil. But even with those lower
cost approaches, I do think monitoring farm by farm changes in
carbon, it is the air bars around those measurements and the
time it takes for that to happen, my personal opinion on
approaches to this are focusing more on the practices that we
know will build carbon in soils. Getting some baseline data on
carbon in a region or a farm, then having a plan at different
farms or for a region, how we are going to increase the acreage
of farmers adopting practices, cover cropping, reducing
tillage, using more organic amendments to get there, and
tracking that acreage, and periodically perhaps every 3 to 5
years, maybe actually going in and seeing what progress this
has made in terms of carbon.
There are also ways of discounting the incentives you might
provide in case farmers, for example, for whatever reason they
decided to till the heck out of their soil and all of a sudden
the carbon is lost, you can discount the initial benefits. But,
creating more incentives and educational information to get
farmers moving in the right direction with practices.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I am out of time, but thank you
very much for that. And you certainly have hit on the key
question as to whether we are going to measure outputs or
practices, and the sooner we can figure that out, the sooner
the farmers can start benefitting from the markets that are
going to continue to grow, thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Yoho.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate you holding
this hearing. I appreciate you all being here.
And as the debate on climate change goes on and up here in
Congress how we can't solve like border security and things
like that, I am going through the Old Testament right now and I
notice there was drought, disease, famine, and pestilence, and
what I have noticed is human nature has adapted and that is
what you guys do in biotech, especially in the agricultural
sector, is we adapt. We make better strains like Dr. Borlaug
did that were drought resistant that could be more heat-
tolerant.
As we move forward in the science of all this, do you
believe that the use of biotechnology in agriculture, it is a
pretty rhetorical question, will increase or decrease over the
next 10 years? It will increase, right? I mean, we are going
to----
Dr. Wolfe. Let us hope, yes. We need it more than ever.
Mr. Yoho. I am going to have to talk to my question writer.
Moving on. As we use biotech, especially with Florida citrus,
and Dr. Gmitter, you are doing fabulous work on that, we know
some of the technologies to solve that problem and it is so
critical for an iconic crop for Florida, because Florida
without oranges is like Wal without Mart. They kind of go hand
in hand or Bud without Weiser. It is imperative that we get a
cure for this, and one of the things will probably be a GMO or
CRISPR gene technology. Is that true?
Dr. Gmitter. It is very likely that that is going to be one
of the things that is going to contribute to the solution and a
major contributor to that solution.
It is interesting to hear the discussion about soil health
and cover crops, and one thing that we see in Florida, which is
basically a beach.
Mr. Yoho. Sandy----
Dr. Gmitter. Very, very sandy soils with minimal organic
matter. One of the things that is happening in the meantime
while we are waiting for long-term solutions is our citrus
growers have paid an enormous amount of new attention toward
soil health.
I know so many citrus farmers who are putting out compost,
who are growing cover crops, and so all of this is, it is a
complicated disease. It is going to take a complicated set of
steps to put this all together, but clearly a genome edited
solution is going to be a big part of that problem.
Mr. Yoho. And I appreciate you bringing that up, because
what we have seen in the past and you are probably real aware
of, the GMO for the papaya ring virus, spot ring virus, that
the University of Florida worked on. They found a GMO that was
tolerant of that virus, yet it took 12, 15 years to take that
research to market.
The regulatory environment, how much does that impede
incentivation for development and research but then to move a
product from finding a cure to market? What needs to change in
your realm with the work that you guys have done?
Dr. Gmitter. We really need to look at this on a scientific
basis on what is the science. There is an awful lot of
negativity about GMOs and I can understand some of that. What
we are talking about with the newer breeding technologies;
however, gene editing, we can accomplish things that would
occur naturally spontaneously in nature, and it can be done in
such a way because we have learned some new tricks in such a
way that there is no footprint, no thumbprint, no fingerprint
left behind. It is just a change in the DNA, the natural DNA of
the plant.
Mr. Yoho. Natural selection, right?
Dr. Gmitter. Nothing that is brought in from an outside
organism. There is no jellyfish. There is no bee. It is citrus.
It is citrus DNA, and so this holds huge promise for us.
Mr. Yoho. Well, I hope you guys are involved in that
process when it comes to the GMOs and the Internet, because we
know the hundred Nobel laureate scientists said there were no
negative consequences of the GMO. We need your voice out there
educating the public of what a GMO or CRISPR gene technology is
or isn't.
I want to move on to something that, and I sit on the
Foreign Affairs Committee, too. What safeguards do we have in
place to land-grants or all of our universities to protect
intellectual property? And I bring this up because we had one
of our professors at the University of Florida that was going
on a sabbatical to China. I said, ``What are you working on?''
He goes, ``Well, I am taking the research I have been working
on over there.'' And I am like, ``No, you are not, that is our
intellectual property.'' And if you guys, I have 15 seconds if
somebody wants to chime in on that.
Dr. Gmitter. I can hit that very quickly. Every variety
that is released from the University of Florida plant breeding
programs is protected by plant patents and it is protected
abroad by plant breeder's rights, and as we find partners
internationally to license things, we work with them. It is
important to have an international partner involved with this
because if we don't have a partner in a foreign country, you
know what, citrus trees fly anyway.
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Dr. Gmitter. And the technology goes away, so it is
important that we have a recognition of the importance, the
significance of having a partner.
Mr. Yoho. I appreciate you all being here.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you. Dr. Gmitter, I have a question for
you. In your testimony you talked a little bit also about
saline in water and irrigation and the usage of that in terms
of rice. In the Virgin Islands we have huge issues with
irrigation and desalinization plants. How is this science
working in that and do you see real support, not just in rice
crops and others, but that could be utilized in other areas as
well?
Dr. Gmitter. Yes, it is interesting talking about foreign
affairs. The paper that was published on this technology came
from China.
The Chair. Yes.
Dr. Gmitter. And they found----
The Chair. We took their intellectual property?
Dr. Gmitter. I am sorry?
The Chair. We took their intellectual property?
Dr. Gmitter. I wouldn't say we have done that, no. The
information is out there.
The Chair. Right.
Dr. Gmitter. The information is out there and maybe.
The Chair. Don't answer.
Dr. Gmitter. They found a single gene that modulates the
plant's response to salinity.
The Chair. Yes.
Dr. Gmitter. And by knocking down the expression of this
gene, they can water the plants with salty water and the plants
grow normally. They found there were no other changes to any of
the other genetics of the plant, and so this is the kind of
thing that the scientific community as a whole were just
beginning to scratch the surface.
We have a lot of information and understanding of some of
the fundamental biology and underlying genetics, and if we can
just simply change a gene in a very minor fashion, we can
dramatically change the behavior of the plant. This thing about
salinity in rice, those genes are actually in common in almost
all plants. Very similar systems have evolved over the millions
of years that plants have evolved. There are huge opportunities
for that.
They are working also on genes that are involved with
tolerance of drought stress. There are people now who think
that we can grow rice in the same kinds of places where we grow
wheat without flooding, and these are large globally-important
food crops and this is the future that is ahead of us if we can
find the appropriate way to get there.
The Chair. I see. Thank you so much. That is very
informative. I am waiting for it to become changing the genetic
disposition for the behavior of my five sons, my four sons, so
that they would have a tolerance to homework.
Dr. Gmitter. Let the record show I raised my hands.
The Chair. Mr. Panetta of California, you are next for your
5 minutes.
Mr. Panetta. Once again, thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking
Member Dunn, and to all the witnesses, thank you for your time
for being here today as well as your preparation in order to be
here and all the work that you have done to become experts in
this area. Thank you very much.
Obviously, everybody in this room would agree that
agriculture and people in agriculture are uniquely positioned
to contribute to the mitigation efforts when it comes to
climate change, and I think that is why it is very, very
important. I think all of us could agree why farmers, organic,
conventional, need to be at the table when we talk about
reducing our national greenhouse gas output and our footprint.
And so, Ms. Tencer, in your experience, obviously being
from the Central Coast of California and understanding the
balance and the work that our people in agriculture, be it
organic or conventional, have taken I would say on the
forefront in this area, what is your experience in working with
either the organic or the conventional community when it comes
down to the steps that those type, those producers, are taking
to be proactive when it comes to climate change and dealing
with the effects of climate change?
Ms. Tencer. Thank you. It is exciting to see that farmers
of all types are innovators and experimenting on their farms
day in and day out with diversity of practices, and what we are
seeing again and again is that farmers who are implementing a
variety of practices are having the most impact on both
increasing their ability to adapt, as well as to mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions.
We are seeing that reduced tillage coupled with the full
suite of organic soil health practices, including crop
diversification, cover cropping, organic amendments, and sound
nutrient management, can really enhance carbon sequestration
and build climate resiliency.
We are also seeing incredible innovations between farmers
and researchers on how to adapt. I know we recently supported a
project at the University of California-Davis, a researcher
there, Emily Gowden, who was interested in how to help farmers
deal with drought situations and worked with an organic tomato
grower. And by changing their soil health practices, increasing
their compost rates, and doing a few other soil health-related
practices, they were able to reduce irrigational requirements
by 6" to 12" per year without impacting yield. That is a really
exciting innovation and on an organic farm with the supportive
research to directly support growers' ability to adapt to
climate change.
Mr. Panetta. Definitely.
Mr. Godwin, have you worked with producers that have taken
steps to deal with efforts, mitigation efforts, when it comes
to the effects of climate change? And if so, what types of
things are they doing?
Mr. Godwin. Sure. Yes. Yes, I have, and we do some on our
farm as well as other neighbors and friends.
One of the big things that we are doing for soil building
is, I mean, farmers are simple, ingenious people. We do a lot
of mow and blow, so we cut out holes on the side of our mower
and we blow the clippings under the tree, as an example.
Where we farm organically, we have gotten away from
herbicides and chemicals, so we are trying to grow the cover
crops to the tree and finding cover crops that are low growing
so they don't interfere with irrigation and tree growth, as an
example.
And then there are some places where we incorporate biochar
and other things to try to, again, change the soil biology to
get favorable conditions.
Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. And let me ask both of you, what
here on this Subcommittee, and in that building across the way
and within our Federal Government, what can we do to help
support those types of efforts and to expand on it? What can
happen here?
Mr. Godwin. I think that the biggest area is making sure we
have the smart people helping get the right research. There are
snake oil guys that come by every day with new stuff with very
little documentation and data, and so the right researchers and
the right efforts happening, that is where the extension comes
in and it is so important, because then it helps me make better
choices because there is a lot of people selling a lot of
stuff.
Mr. Panetta. Well, fair enough.
Ms. Tencer?
Ms. Tencer. I want to thank the Committee because we did
see some real gains in the most recently passed farm bill to
further the field of research both in organics specifically,
but in climate resiliency and adaptation more generally.
And we are really excited about that and there is still
more to do. I would say that one thing is not looking at
certain programs to address the full suite of challenges we
face in both climate resiliency, adaptation, and mitigation.
One program alone can't fix this all, but it really has to be
integrated across various USDA programs.
And last but not least, we have more work to do as a
community, and with your help in ensuring that research results
aren't sitting on the shelves of academia but are translated
and usable for producers across the country.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you. And I thank the other witnesses for
their leadership in this area.
And I yield back my time. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. Ms. Schrier of Washington State, your
questions?
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have had a lot of my questions already answered, so this
is going to be a smattering of little detailed ones. This is
what happens when you stay through everything.
Okay. The first is that I see this commitment from all of
you because you are science-based and farmers, our smaller
farmers, but you are committed to all of this. And yet, just
yesterday I had a conversation with our Chairman, Collin
Peterson, about this topic, and I got the impression that
overall there was a ton of skepticism and feet dragging, so I
just wanted to get your perspective.
If you look at farming across the country, what is the buy-
in, what is the interest, where is the passion about soil
health and doing these things? Is it only organic farmers? Is
it only small farmers? Can you give me that sense? And I don't
even know where to start. Whoever wants to answer.
Dr. Wolfe. I might start. I mean, I have been at this for
30 years and I do think it is changing as farmers are beginning
to see changes on their own farms. Thirty years ago we had the
climate models to talk about looming threats, but now they see
so many changes so they are much more open to that.
In fact, there was a big, one of the biggest farmer surveys
I am aware of, was done by a colleague, Arbuckle, at University
of Iowa, I believe, Iowa State, and over 4,000 corn and soybean
growers, and something like 67 percent said they felt climate
change was happening. Not all of those were convinced that
humans were the primary cause, but they are all convinced
something is changing on their farm and they are interested in
adaptation.
And actually another 20, 30 percent are kind of on the
fence about it. Only a few percent said, ``We just don't
believe in it.'' I think the attitudes are changing as they are
seeing impacts on their farm, that is one thing.
I think that also I don't know any farmers who aren't
interested in renewable energy and what that might mean for the
bottom line for them, and that is kind of relevant to all of
this. You can go Iowa, and you see all the farms have their
wind turbines up. This has to do with state and Federal
policies that have helped facilitate this just like at the
individual homeowner level. There has to be a way for them to
break into that, that sort of renewable energy area.
So another area that has been kind of positive is a major
mitigation strategy for farmers is reducing nitrogen
fertilizers used, because it is not just about nitrate in
waters, but also nitrous oxide emissions, which all of you
would know, which is a very potent greenhouse gas. And, for
example, at Cornell and other places as well, a colleague of
mine has developed a phone app called Adapt In which allows
farmers to reduce their nitrogen application levels without
risk to yields. It is kind of been demonstrated over and over
on farms.
Ms. Schrier. And one of the best ways, my understanding is
one of the best ways to do that is to do no-till or low-till
farming so you don't have erosion in the first place. You don't
have to keep applying nitrogen. You can have more soil.
Dr. Wolfe. Yes.
Ms. Schrier. My question is, I think most farmers, probably
a hundred percent of farmers should understand the climate is
changing. Farmers really could save our planet. With soil
health and with cover crops and crop rotation, farmers can
decrease our greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon and
take 20 percent out of our atmosphere.
Dr. Wolfe. Yes.
Ms. Schrier. That is what I want to know. Where is the
interest? Is the interest there and what can we do? I don't
think they want to hear from ``Suburban Schrier'' here about
this; but, farmers learning from farmers like we heard from Ms.
Tencer, having the researchers available, and the outreach
programs, how do we make that connection happen?
Dr. Wolfe. There are still constraints to adaptation and
adoption of practices, like most farmers are really quite
convinced that they have seen enough pioneer farmers using soil
health practices that are seeing benefits, for example, in a
dry year, surviving quite well, whereas they are not. But, they
have to purchase no-till farm equipment, new types of actual
capital investments. There is more management complexity in
using cover crops, so it is those kind of real challenges, and
this is where it is just a matter of time and also farmer-to-
farmer training. Those have been successful.
Ms. Schrier. Sounds like this is a place where we could
help, with helping with financing that.
Dr. Wolfe. Yes.
Ms. Schrier. I have a couple questions. I am running out of
time.
I had a question for you, Dr. Gmitter, about whether there
are perennial wheats, perennial crops. You had talked about not
having to till and some genetic engineering. I was wondering if
there is anything on the horizon there?
Dr. Gmitter. I am sorry. Can you repeat?
Ms. Schrier. Perennial crops so that you wouldn't have to
plant every year?
Dr. Gmitter. Yes.
Ms. Schrier. Anything on the horizon with genetic
engineering?
Dr. Gmitter. Well, citrus is a perennial crop, so----
Ms. Schrier. You were talking in a grander scale, like you
were talking about genetic engineering for rice to grow with
saline, so this would be about whether those prospects----
Dr. Gmitter. Converting annual crops into perennial plants?
Ms. Schrier. Yes.
Dr. Gmitter. I am not personally aware of a whole lot of
work going on in that area.
Ms. Schrier. Okay. And then last comment. I only have 10
seconds.
If you can get it in. There was some discussion of GMOs,
and I just, in my mind there is a difference between GMOs where
you are doing what you are talking about, taking some naturally
occurring features and then reproducing them versus GMOs where
you modify an organism to be resistant to a pesticide, for
example, and then can cover a crop with a pesticide. I wondered
if you could comment about the difference there? It seems like
a very over-arching term.
Dr. Gmitter. Yes, it is a very simple distinction actually.
In general, the GMOs that we look at are cases where genetic
material is taken from other plants or other organisms and
moved into the plants that we grow.
What we are talking about with gene editing is much
different. It is simply doing something, and we have the
technology to do it now, doing something with the plant's own
natural DNA, which given an infinite period of time would
happen naturally, but because of the way things are changing,
we don't have infinity to wait.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. Thanks for your work. Thank you,
all of you.
Dr. Gmitter. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
From the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Van Drew.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you all for
being here today and taking the time out of your busy schedules
to discuss the impacts of climate change on our farmers and
what they can do to mitigate these risks.
Working with our extensions in land-grant universities, it
is vital to the success of our producers across the country,
and I know I am very proud, I am from New Jersey, of Rutgers
University, what was Cook College and was the College of
Agriculture Environmental Science, and now is the College of
Biological and Environmental Sciences. And the reason I know,
is that is where I graduated, but they have done a lot of good
work with this as well.
And as we continue to deal with the climate change and its
impacts, including changing weather conditions and rising sea
levels, it is important we continue to meet the needs obviously
of producers with advancement in research, new technologies and
improved management; technology matters.
The question I have, and I don't mean to go back to this
again, because I really read two different stories about this,
and I just want to go back to it a little bit, and I don't want
to be China-phobic because I am not, but they are really
becoming a leader in the world in many, many areas and are very
competitive with the United States in many areas as well. But
do you feel that they are moving ahead at a faster rate, that
they are competing more, that they do have the potential? As
much as we love our land-grant universities and everything that
we do, and it is all good, are we in a real competition here?
Because there are folks absolutely in the agriculture world,
and I have read some of your periodicals, that do believe it is
really happening.
And any one of you can answer that.
Dr. Gmitter. May I, please?
Mr. Van Drew. Sure.
Dr. Gmitter. There is no question that technologically the
Chinese system is moving much more rapidly than ours is today.
Mr. Van Drew. Okay, that is the answer I wanted.
With that being said, candidly is that because they are to
some degree stealing our technology, utilizing our technology,
our intellectual property? Is it just because they are
investing so much in research and because of the system they
have of government, they can control that so much? Which is it?
Dr. Gmitter. In my opinion, part of it is investment. It is
financial and they are pouring a lot of money into equipment.
They are sending their students not only to the U.S. but
everywhere around the world to try and gather the best
information that is available in the world of science. As
scientists, we openly communicate and they are doing a good job
at that.
One thing that has always been important in my mind where
we have an advantage is even though these Chinese researchers,
and I am speaking about citrus now specifically, but it
probably is more broad. Even though they are racing ahead
technologically, there is no connection, no connection really,
between what goes on in the research laboratory and what goes
to the field.
Twenty years ago I was invited and I gave a talk and we met
with some important political guys and they asked us what can
we do to help our citrus farmers in this province, and we said,
``Well, you have excellent researchers here doing really good
things, but you don't have any connection between what they are
doing to the farmers.'' And this is an advantage that we have.
We talked about the land-grant system and the ability to extend
this information.
Mr. Van Drew. Okay, to make sure I understand: The real
advantage we have is, and I am familiar with it if I keep my
voice here, is that we get our information out to the farmer.
That is part of the thing. Farmers have questions, they call
the universities, there are people who actually will come out
to the farm, help you, work with you, train you, et cetera, so
they are learning a great deal of information but they aren't
getting that information to their farmer who is still farming
in somewhat of a traditional way?
Dr. Gmitter. That is a part of it, but another part of it
is you have researchers, and I am an example of that. I don't
have an extension appointment, but I interact with citrus
farmers all the time, nearly 30 percent of my time goes that
way, and it is because I need that information from them for me
to structure the research that I do to provide benefits to
them. There is a good two-way communication as opposed to a
vacuum between agriculture and researcher.
Mr. Van Drew. They don't have a two-way street? What are
they doing with all this information they are learning?
Dr. Gmitter. A lot of it becomes publications and the
researchers are rewarded for publishing in high-level
international journals, and there is little recognition or
reward, at least in the world of citrus, for any of that
getting translated to something that helps agriculture.
Mr. Van Drew. It is really not practical, actually, in
their case? It is not a practical application?
Dr. Gmitter. Not immediately practical.
Mr. Van Drew. Is that true anywhere else? I mean, any other
thoughts, please?
Ms. Tencer. I would just like to share that we hold an
annual research forum to bring researchers from all over the
country together with organic farmers to discuss both research
findings as well as hear needs from the organic farming
community, and the events are incredibly successful with
farmers and researchers hungry for those opportunities.
Last year our forum was hosted by Rutgers University which
is very satisfying for us. It is not an area that has always
been proactive. They actually sought us out and said, ``The
farmers and researchers in this region want to do this, come
together and share,'' and so I just want to say it was very
successful.
We publish all those findings, but both the farmers and the
researchers say they benefitted from those exchanges.
Dr. Wolfe. I would just like to add, I agree with what the
others have said.
I still think though that our universities establish a
certain approach to research that is very creative, and I don't
think some of these other places like China have really gotten
there yet.
Mr. Van Drew. We are not getting blown away?
Dr. Wolfe. No, there is an issue where my graduate students
by the time they are ready and their Ph.D. is just about done,
they know more about their topic than I do and they are
challenging me constantly about it.
That sort of challenge between faculty and students is not
quite the same in China, I would say, and this really breeds a
certain level of creativity. It is a subtle nuance maybe, but
it is significant.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Dunn, if you have any closing remarks?
Mr. Dunn. I do not. Thank you.
The Chair. Okay. I want to thank our witnesses and all of
my colleagues who were here this afternoon to be with us and
this morning to participate in what has been for me extremely
informative. We have really developed a record here with the
kind of work and research that is going on, and it is efficacy
and importance in resilience and mitigation and what can and
should be done in this area for farmers and ranchers which are
facing threats now, flooding, heat, drought, all of those
things are faced by farmers, livestock owners, et cetera,
throughout this country.
There is real value in investments for public agricultural
research. Our farmers need more resources to better mitigate
the risks that they face. They are our lifeblood and those that
feed us and many people around the world, and we have to
safeguard that resource.
This hearing underscored the importance of ensuring that
farmers, ranchers, and researchers have a seat at the table in
that discussion.
I want to thank you all for the information you have
provided us, and let the record reflect that under the Rules of
the Committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open
for 10 calendar days to receive additional material,
supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any
questions posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Biotechnology,
Horticulture, and Research is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Fact Sheet by Hon. Chellie Pingree, a Representative in
Congress from Maine
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Organic Farming Practices Benefit the Environment

Organic agriculture is based on practices that not only protect
environmental health, but also strive to improve it. By absorbing more
carbon dioxide from the air and prohibiting the use of petroleum-based
fertilizers, organic agriculture helps to reduce humans' carbon
footprint, combat climate change, and protect the land and natural
resources for future generations.
Organic Protects Natural Resources

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Organic farming is a production system of
cultural, biological, and mechanical practices
that foster cycling of resources, promote
ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.
Organic farmers are required to manage their
operations in a manner that does not contribute
to environmental contamination of crops, soil,
or water. Production and management practices
on organic farms must maintain or improve the
natural resources of the farm, including soil,
water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.
Organic Prohibits Use of Toxic Synthetic Pesticides and Fertilizers

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Instead of relying on synthetic pesticides
and fertilizers that can deplete the soil of
valuable nutrients and increase environmental
degradation, organic farmers build soil and
plant health using practices that incorporate
organic materials like manure and compost.
Petroleum-based fertilizers are prohibited as
are most synthetic pesticides. Organic
practices help keep our water supply clean of
runoff from toxic and persistent chemicals.
Organic Promotes Soil Health and Reduces Erosion

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Organic farmers use tillage and cultivation
practices that maintain or improve soil
conditions and minimize soil erosion. Using
complex and diversified crop rotations, cover
crops, green manure crops, and catch crops,
organic practices build soil health and
biodiversity, improve soil structure, and
increase nutrient availability without
synthetic fertilizers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Recommendations:

b Establish a commission to evaluate ecosystems services delivered
by organic production, and recommend policies to reward and
incentivize these ecosystem services.

b Develop a competitive grant program for providing technical
services to organic and transitioning farmers.

b Provide market and infrastructure development grants for minor
rotational crops that improve soil health.

b Provide tax credits for landowners who have long-term leases under
organic production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

The Science Behind Organic and Soil Health
Organic standards require that farmers use practices that maintain
or improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and
minimize soil erosion. Many research studies have found that organic
practices improve a variety of soil health components.
Organic Farming Sequesters Carbon In The Soil
Many organic practices reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase
carbon sequestration in the soil. Organic farming increases soil
properties that enhance long-term storage of carbon, providing a viable
greenhouse gas mitigation strategy.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cooper J.M., et al. 2016. Shallow non-inversion tillage in
organic farming maintains crop yields and increases soil C stocks: a
meta-analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36, 1-20.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Featured Study: The Organic Center co-authored a groundbreaking
study with the National Soil Project at Northeastern University showing
that organic soils combat climate change by locking away carbon, which
would otherwise be in the atmosphere, in long-term reserves. The
research compared over 1,000 soil samples from organic and agricultural
soils as a whole to understand how organic compares to average
agricultural management practices that influence components of soil
organic carbon. The study was the first to compare the amount of total
sequestered soil organic carbon--found in the form of long-lived humic
substances--between agricultural systems on such a wide-scale basis.
The findings showed that the components that make up humic substances
were respectively 150% and 44% greater in organic soils. The results
also show that soils from organic farms sequester 26% more carbon.
Overall, these results demonstrate that organic farms store more carbon
in the soil, and keep it out of the atmosphere for longer than other
farming methods.\2\
\2\ Ghabbour E.A., et al. 2017. Chapter One--National Comparison of the
Total and Sequestered Organic Matter Contents of Conventional and
Organic Farm Soils. Advances in Agronomy, 146, 1-35.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organic Farming Supports Soil Biodiversity
Since synthetic pesticides are prohibited, important organisms in
the soil can thrive. Increased soil organic carbon found on organic
farms provides important building blocks for beneficial microorganisms
in the soil that are vital to decomposition and nutrient cycling.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Moebius-Clune B.N., et al. 2016. Comprehensive Assessment of
Soil Health--The Cornell Framework Manual, Edition 3.0. Cornell
University: Geneva, NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Farming Increases Water Retention in the Soil
Organic management improves the ability of soil to store and retain
water, which is critical for protecting crops against extreme weather
events such as drought and flooding. It also protects water quality
because less agricultural water is contaminated by runoff.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Lotter, D.W. 2003. Organic Agriculture. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture, 21, 59-128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______

Submitted Reports by Hon. Jimmy Panetta, a Representative in Congress
from California
report 1
2016 National Organic Research Agenda_Outcomes and Recommendations from
the 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey and Listening Sessions
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

By Diana Jerkins and Joanna Ory
Brise Tencer, Project Director
Vicki Lowell, Staff Contributor

We thank the following reviewers for their invaluable
feedback.

Heather Darby (University of Vermont)
Carolyn Dimitri (New York University)
Keith Richards (Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group)
Mark Schonbeck (Virginia Association of Biological Farming)
Carol Shennan (University of California, Santa Cruz)
Jane Sooby (California Certified Organic Farmers)
Deborah Stinner (Ohio State University, retired)
Dawn Thilmany (Colorado State University)

Thank you to the organic farmers and ranchers who
participated in the OFRF Organic Farmer Survey and listening
sessions.
Survey Hosting and Analytics were provided by:

Rose Krebill-Prather
Thom Allen (Washington State University)

Thank you to the following organizations whose financial
support made this project possible.

Cascadian Farm
Organic Valley
Driscoll's
Lundberg Family Farms
Foundation of Sustainability and Innovation
UNFI Foundation
Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction

Current Needs for Organic Research
About OFRF
Goals of the 2016 NORA Report

Chapter 1. National Research Recommendations

U.S. Wide Priorities for Research, Education and Extension
Regional Recommendations
Recommendations for Organic Research Methods and Outreach
Strategies

Chapter 2. OFRF 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey

Methods
Farmer Demographics
Selected Research Priorities
Top Rated Research Topics U.S. Wide
Soil Health, Biology, Quality, and Nutrient Cycling
Special Topic: Climate Change
Weed Management
Fertility Management
Nutritional Quality, Health Benefits, and Integrity of
Organic Food
Special Topic: Food Safety
Insect Management
Economic and Social Science Research
Top Areas for Increased Research Related to Organic Marketing
and Economics
Special Topic: GMO Impact on Organic Farmers
Livestock and Animal Agriculture Research Needs
Organic Seed Breeding
Special Topic: Organic Seed
Information Sources and Formats
Production Challenges
Research Priorities

Chapter 3. Discussion And Supplemental Reviews

Review of USDA Funded Research on Organic Farming
Review of OFRF Surveys and Report
Overlap of OFRF and NOSB Recommendations
Conclusion
Citations

Appendices

Appendix A: Western Region
Appendix B: Northeast Region
Appendix C: North Central Region
Appendix D: Southern Region
Appendix E: GMO Impact on Organic Farmers
Appendix F: Organic Seed
Appendix G: Listening Sessions 2015-2016
Appendix H: Web Survey Instrument
Executive Summary
This 2016 National Organic Research Agenda (NORA) report provides
comprehensive recommendations for future investment in organic
agricultural research. These recommendations are based on the Organic
Farming Research Foundation's 2015 survey of organic farmers,
nationwide listening sessions with organic farmers, and a review of key
documents and recommendations from other organizations, including the
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The 2015 Organic Farmer Survey
was conducted online and completed by over 1,000 organic farmers. Their
responses directly inform our top recommendations for organic research.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top OFRF Recommendations

Based on feedback from survey respondents regarding high priority
needs, OFRF recommends intensified research funding and attention to
the areas of:

Soil health and fertility management

Weed management

Nutritional benefits of organic food

Insect management

Disease management
------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFRF also recommends prioritizing research in the following areas:

Building the economic, environmental, and social
sustainability of organic systems through more holistic
studies, using functional agricultural biodiversity,
permaculture, crop-livestock integration, and other advanced
agroecological or agroecosystem research frameworks and
methodologies.

The impacts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on
organic farms and strategies to avoid GMO contamination.

The efficacy and environmental sustainability of approved
products included on the USDA National List of Allowed and
Prohibited Substances (organic insecticides, fungicides, and
soil amendments).

Livestock health, especially parasite control and organic
animal nutrition.

Development and selection of public livestock and poultry
breeds for organic systems: performance in pastured systems,
and parasite resistance.

Social science research on the marketing, policy, and
economic barriers to successful organic production and barriers
to transition.

Development of public crop cultivars bred and selected for
organic systems: regional adaptation, nutrient efficiency, weed
tolerance, and disease resistance.

This report details the research priority areas and includes a
discussion of the survey results leading to the development of OFRF's
recommendations.
Chapter One of this report discusses the research areas OFRF
recommends for increased funding and prioritization. The first set of
recommendations is directly informed by results from the 2015 National
Organic Farmer Survey. The second set of recommendations refers to
methodology and outreach activities related to organic farming
research, and these recommendations are based on a broader review of
recommendations from partner groups and the listening sessions that
were held across the country. The chapter concludes with research
priorities for each of the four U.S. regions.
Chapter Two provides detailed results from the 2015 National
Organic Farmer Survey. These results include farmer demographics,
stated research priorities, production challenges, and responses to
open-ended questions. In addition, this chapter includes survey results
on the special topics of climate change, food safety, and GMO impacts,
and organic seed availability.
Chapter Three reviews several farmer surveys and reports that
inform the OFRF recommendations. This chapter describes overlap between
recommendations made by OFRF and other entities. This chapter also
describes the research topics that were recommended for prioritization
in the past, such as soil health and organic plant breeding, which
remain areas in need of increased attention.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Joanna Ory.

The report concludes in the appendices section with four reports
containing regionally specific results from the 2015 National Organic
Farmer Survey and regional recommendations for organic research. The
survey found that the topics of soil health and weed management were
top priorities for all four regions. However, there was variability
among regions for other top research priorities. For example, in the
Southern region, there is a strong need for social science research to
identify and provide strategies for overcoming barriers to market
entry. In the Western region, a top priority is research on irrigation
efficiency and coping with drought. For the North Central region,
research on GMO impacts was among the top priorities. Pollinator health
was a high priority for survey respondents in the North East region.
The recommendations and information in this 2016 NORA report will
ensure research funding is relevant and responsive to the needs of
today's organic farmers. In addition, we hope this research will be
used to expand organic farming education at colleges, universities, and
farms. We expect this report to help significantly increase funding for
research that assists producers in adopting new practices that enhance
the environmental sustainability and economic viability of organic
operations.
Introduction
There have been significant advances in our knowledge of organic
agriculture since OFRF's 2007 National Organic Research Agenda (NORA)
(Sooby, et al., 2007). This landmark document provided a clear and
comprehensive blueprint for successful organic research systems,
drawing upon the results of regional and topical working sessions of
farmers, scientists, and agricultural professionals that took place
over a period of 3 years to identify and prioritize research needs for
organic agriculture.
The seed for the 2007 NORA report was planted almost a decade
earlier when the OFRF report, ``Looking for the `O' Word,'' (Lipson,
1997) documented the virtual absence of Federal support for research
relevant to organic agriculture. OFRF then worked to rectify this
unacceptable omission by sponsoring unique collaborations between
organic farmers and agricultural researchers to set organic research
priorities.
The 2007 NORA report centered on four core topic areas: soil
microbiology and fertility; system approaches to pest management;
ruminant and poultry production systems; and crop and animal breeding
and genetics. The report consolidated the results of existing research
with practical experience from the field to validate the benefits of
organic agriculture, especially with regard to yield potential,
resource conservation, and biodiversity. Many of the recommendations
from the 2007 report are still relevant today.
The 2007 NORA report firmly endorsed four principles that have
become hallmarks of organic research:

Work must occur on certified operations.

Farmers must be actively engaged in experimental design and
data analysis.

Work should employ multidisciplinary system approaches
rather than input substitution.

Research must be maintained over an extended period of time.
Current Needs for Organic Research
Continued interest in organic research from the research community,
combined with incremental increases in funding for organic research,
inspired OFRF to provide a new, updated research agenda for organic
agriculture.
The 2016 NORA report reviews areas of the original research agenda
where significant progress has been made, and identifies areas where
research needs have yet to be met. This analysis will help focus the
next generation of research on the most relevant needs of farmers and
ranchers.
Organic agricultural producers face unique challenges, from the
availability of organic seeds, crop cultivars, and livestock breeds
adapted to organic systems, to coping with weeds and pests, and using
approved organic methods. As consumer demand for organic products
soars, there is a growing need for solutions to organic farming
challenges, training for future agriculture producers and leaders, and
information on the benefits of organic agriculture.
Organic farming methods are knowledge-intensive and site-specific.
Organic agriculture uses methods that protect the environment, avoiding
the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, antibiotics, and
genetically engineered crops. Because organic farmers cannot use
synthetic pesticides to control weeds and pests, they must rely on
practices that holistically promote health of the agroecosystem and
protect against pest infestations and soil degradation. Careful organic
management includes:

Selecting varieties suited for local soil, pest, and weather
conditions.

Managing the soil fertility specific to the past and present
conditions of the land.

Using rotations and crop diversity to protect against crop
diseases and pests.

The needs of farmers in this quickly growing industry are
continually evolving and include new concerns about food safety and
regulation, invasive pests, environmental and social issues, changes in
and expansion of national and international markets, changing weather
patterns, and biological threats. These trends call for a fresh
analysis of the needs of organic farmers and ranchers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Demand

Domestic demand for organic products is growing rapidly. Although
U.S. organic sales reached an all time high of $6.2B in 2015, there was
also an increase in the importation of organic products in order to
meet demand (USDA, 2016 a). To meet the growing U.S. demand for organic
products in the long-term, domestic production of both crops and
livestock and poultry products (especially milk and eggs) will need to
increase. The majority of organic sales are concentrated in the top
five organic-producing states: California, Washington, Pennsylvania,
Oregon, and Wisconsin (USDA, 2016 a). These states have historically
had strong links with land grant universities and non-government
organization infrastructure supporting the growth of their organic
industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Specific research, education, and extension programs are necessary
to foster partnerships between producers and organic agriculture
professionals; programs that integrate scientific knowledge with farmer
expertise to develop practical and sustainable solutions.
In order to meet the growing demand for organic products
domestically and internationally, research efforts need to provide
solutions to production, risk management, marketing, and social issues
confronting organic producers and distributors. In conjunction with
these research efforts, there needs to be greater organic-specific
extension activities to educate producers and consumers. By furthering
research that directly meets the needs of the organic sector, we can
enable U.S. producers to meet more of this demand. The 2016 NORA report
helps chart the most efficient and effective course for USDA spending
for organic agricultural research and for university and broader
funding by State Departments of Agriculture, private foundations, and
NGOs.
About OFRF
OFRF is sowing the seeds to transform agriculture by working for
the continuous improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming
systems. OFRF sponsors organic farming research and education projects
and disseminates the results to organic farmers and growers interested
in adopting organic production systems. The organization also informs
the public and policymakers about organic farming issues.
OFRF is a leading grant maker for organic agriculture research and
education, funding innovative research and education projects that lead
to new production solutions for farmers and a stronger community among
organic farmers. Since its founding, OFRF has funded 322 research
projects with the aim of directly addressing the needs of organic
farmers and ranchers. OFRF is one of the first nonprofit organizations
to award grants dedicated to organic farming research, making important
scientific contributions to organic knowledge and practice since 1990.
OFRF and its partners successfully lobbied for increased Federal
funding for organic research in the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (aka 2002 Farm Bill), which resulted in the establishment
of the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)
grant program authorizing $3M annually for 5 years specifically for
organic farming research. Section 7408 of the 2002 Farm Bill directed
research resources reflecting the growing interest in organic
production and the need to provide enhanced research for the growing
organic sector. This section of the 2002 Farm Bill created the Section
406 ``Organic Transitions'' competitive grants program.
In fiscal 2016, Congress approved the highest ever budget of $2.94B
for USDA agricultural research. Within the USDA National Institute for
Food and Agriculture (NIFA), funding for Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI) programs, the primary competitive grants programs
within NIFA, has increased 20% over the last 5 years, and is slated in
the 2017 Presidential budget for additional funding.
Only 0.1% of AFRI funding was used specifically for organic
research between 2010-2014 (National Organic Coalition, 2016). Non-
organic research within AFRI was $1.38B, while spending on organic
research was $1.48M.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Joanna Ory.
Goals of the 2016 NORA Report
The 2016 NORA report presents a catalogue of research needs for
organic agriculture based on feedback OFRF obtained through an
extensive survey and listening sessions with organic farmers. This
survey was an opportunity to make organic farmers' and ranchers' voices
heard. In an ongoing effort to reach out to the organic community, OFRF
wanted to learn about challenges and research priorities directly from
producers. The feedback received identified the obstacles today's
farmers face and the information they need most to be resilient, grow,
and thrive.
As with any agricultural endeavor, scientific research needs can be
applicable to all farmers and ranchers and/or specific to location,
soil type, crop, and livestock produced, and the agricultural knowledge
level of the farmers and ranchers. As seen in previous surveys and
reports, the specificity of research needs is almost unlimited in the
sense that each farmer or rancher has unique needs and requirements to
meet the demands of their individual enterprise
This research agenda looks at both the general research needs and
specific challenges identified by multiple stakeholder groups. The
recommendations cover six topical areas from national and regional
perspectives, as well as the most appropriate approaches to conducting
organic research. The report also includes continuing priorities and
specific research topics that were identified in previous surveys and
reports. It also includes recommendations to address basic and applied
research needs, as well as organic agriculture education and extension
activities to promote optimum delivery and use of research outcomes.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Vicki Lowell.

The 2016 NORA report will inform USDA researchers, universities,
agricultural extension agents, farmers, ranchers, and others on how
research, education, and extension activities can be focused to meet
the needs of organic farmers and ranchers to support organic
agriculture and increase organic acreage. The report provides key
information for how OFRF and other funding entities can continue to
inform grant making to most effectively support the success of organic
farmers and ranchers.
1. National Research Recommendations
U.S. Wide Priorities for Research, Education and Extension
OFRF's 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey, auxiliary stakeholder
input, and supplemental reviews provide a basis for making
recommendations for future research to support the production,
marketing, environmental, and societal needs of current organic
farmers, ranchers, and those entering organic agriculture. Farmers were
asked to rate research topics based on their priority. The five areas
rated highest in priority by the 2015 respondents are displayed in
Table 1.

Table 1. Priority ratings for research topics from the 2015 OFRF
National Organic Farmer Survey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of survey
Research Topic participants who rated
as a high priority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soil health, quality, and nutrient management 74%
Weed management 67%
Fertility and nutrient management 66%
Nutritional quality, health benefits, and 55%
integrity of organic food
Insect management 51%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on these top priorities, OFRF recommends increased research
in the following areas.

Soil health as the basis of organic agricultural
productivity, specifically:

Defining soil health criteria.

Researching soil health and best practices for coping
with climatic variability.

Developing tools for rapid measurement of soil health/
quality.

Investigating the relationship between soil quality
and crop management practices, such as cover cropping, crop
rotation and diversification, crop-livestock integration,
and reduced tillage.

Researching the efficacy of different soil amendments
for building soil fertility and enhancing yield.

Organic weed control, specifically:

Researching how weed infestations are impacted or
enhanced by soil management, crop rotation, cover crops,
crop-livestock integration, and inputs.

Researching the most economical ways to manage weeds
in organic systems.

Evaluating weed management strategies that integrate
soil improving practices (cover crops, rotation, reduced
tillage) with NOP-allowed control tactics.

Organic fertility methods and practices, specifically:

Researching agroecological approaches to organic
farming and moving beyond input substitution.

Determining appropriate levels of fertility inputs to
match crop needs throughout the season and minimize
nutrient losses.

Researching how organic farming can integrate
agricultural methods from biodynamic and permaculture
practices to decrease environmental impacts.

Evaluating, breeding, and selecting crop cultivars for
greater nutrient use efficiency and ability to thrive on
low-solubility organic nutrient sources.

The relationship between nutrient balancing
fertilization practices and microbial life in the soil and
susceptibility or resistance to pests.

The whole farm ecosystem, specifically:

The impact of habitat diversity and cropping systems
on biological diversity on the farm as well as yield
stability and pest and disease resistance.

The ecosystem services provided by diverse
agroecological systems.

How food safety practices can coexist with practices
that protect wildlife.

The environmental and agricultural effects of
homogeneity in conventional production management, i.e.,
only using GMO seeds, only chemical sprays, etc.

The environmental benefits of organic farming for
water, soil, climate, biodiversity (including pollinators),
wildlife, native plants, soil microbes, and agro-
biodiversity.

Nutritional quality, health benefits, and integrity of
organic food, specifically:

Researching how organic and conventional foods differ
in terms of nutrients, pesticide residues, and impacts on
consumer health.

Researching how to best educate and inform consumers
about the benefits of organic food.

Comparing the nutritional value of organic versus
conventional food.

Examining the best ways to attract new organic
consumers and increase consumer demand for organic
products.

Organic insect pest control, specifically:

The control of new, invasive insect pests.

The efficacy of organic pest control products,
especially the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI)
approved products.

Integrated pest management strategies.

In addition to the 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey results,
OFRF conducted listening sessions with organic farmers and researchers
to further understand how research can meet the challenges of organic
farmers. Based on these listening sessions and review of the
recommendations presented by the National Organic Standards Board
(NOSB), OFRF offers additional recommendations aimed to increase the
environmental, economic, and social sustainability of organic farming
and ranching in the U.S. These recommendations include:

Increase research on specific systems within organic
agriculture to understand best management practices.

Researching the applicability and benefits of
techniques used in aquaponics, biodynamic production, and
permaculture to enhance organic production.

Researching different tillage systems such as low or
no tillage systems for organic systems.

Measuring the benefits of ecosystem services and how
organic producers can enhance these services for their
economic benefit.

Increasing research on row crops to raise the
percentage of agriculture adopting organic methods to
produce row crops.

Increase research investment in grain and seed production,
specifically:

Economic and agronomic research to increase organic
grain production. Grain production in the U.S. does not
meet the demand for the organic food, seed, and feed
industry (USDA, 2013). A difficulty for farmers is a lack
of scientific knowledge and training on how to change from
traditional continuous grain production to more complex
rotational patterns needed for organic production.

Researching rotational patterns that take into account
plant nutritional needs, water resources, soil quality,
weed and disease control mechanisms, and the variety of
crops to be grown for soil building and economic needs.

Increase investment in animal production research,
specifically:

Researching organic production of minor species such
as sheep, pigs, and bees.

Past research funding by OFRF and OREI has focused on
crop production instead of animal production. For example,
OREI funding was allotted 71% to crops, 10% to livestock
and poultry, and 19% to general topics covering both crops
and animals, including crop-livestock integrated systems.
OFRF recommends that a greater portion of research funds be
allotted for animal production research.

Increase research on climate change and associated
environmental and agronomic impacts, specifically:

Researching precipitation variability and the impacts
and innovations for drought and flooding.

Researching climate change adaptation strategies for
organic farmers.

Increase breeding crop varieties specific to organic
production, specifically:

Crop breeding to enhance performance in sustainable
organic production systems.

Crop breeding to improve market quality and
nutritional content.

Crop breeding to increase resilience to stresses like
disease and weed pressure.

Increase research on economic and social issues, including:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority and women farmers are making up a greater percentage of the agricultural workforce and may have
specific needs (USDA, 2014).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic and social barriers to adopting organic
farming practices.

How to decrease barriers to entrance into organic
agricultural production.

The unique technical assistance and programmatic needs
of minority producers and women farmers and ranchers.
Minority and women farmers are making up a greater
percentage of the agricultural workforce and may have
specific needs (USDA, 2014).

How to balance economic and environmental outcomes in
a multifunctional agricultural production system.

The retention of current producers, access of new and
transitioning farmers, and how to entice new farmers/
ranchers, i.e., access to land and financing, economic
support, training, and long-term mentoring.

Ways to decrease the loss of agricultural lands in
rural areas and nurture the revitalization of urban
agriculture.

How to improve and meet market demand for organic
agriculture products nationally and internationally.

The link between crop insurance and organic production
and conservation practices.

Researching the marketing needs of future farmers
including market access and structure, land access, and
rural economics.

Regional Recommendations
The National Organic Farmer Survey results were analyzed by region
to take into account specific geographic needs, cropping/animal
species, and environmental issues. In general, the regional research
priorities reflect the overall national trends, with some variations
based on regional concerns. Based on the survey results, OFRF
recommends the following research prioritization by region (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Regions listed by color. Blue = Western, Yellow = North
Central, Green = Northeast, and Red = Southern.
Source: SARE.
Western Region
Provide beginning and transitioning farmers and ranchers the
tools, knowledge, and on-going mentoring to be successful
organic producers.

Prioritize research on water management in drought
conditions, water efficiency technologies, and innovations for
water deficit management.

Continue long-term research on soil health with focus on
nutrient and water management.

Prioritize research on organic production practices that can
increase carbon sequestration and mechanisms for producers to
capture economic benefits from that ecosystem service. Current
research shows that organic soils with higher soil organic
matter can increase the sequestration of carbon in the soils.
Organic practices such as cover cropping and incorporating
residues into the soil build organic matter and sequester
carbon.

Prioritize research on weed control. Research can increase
the effectiveness of weed control practices, especially for
decreasing the pressure from invasive weeds. Efficacy of
organic weed management practices and products will also
benefit farmers as they select efficient and cost-effective
products. Different tillage regimes and plant and animal
rotations are of special interest to the relationship between
soil quality and weed control.

Invest in research to find solutions for disease and pest
problems of high regional importance. In addition to general
research on specific insect controls, continued efforts in
breeding plants specific to organic production challenges, will
increase the productivity and economic viability of organic
producers.

Increased research and extension efforts need to be provided
for all aspects of animal production, especially information on
best practices for rotational and grass fed animals. The
Western region is a major producer of milk products and organic
livestock and poultry, and research should prioritize animal
health in relationship to environmental health as well as
follow the integrative OneHealth approach to attain optimal
health for humans, animals and the environment. In addition,
forage and pasture management is an important focal area for
research.
North Central Region
Increase research on soil health, especially soil fertility
under different tillage regimes.

Increase research related to livestock production and
management.

Increase research on the environmental and economic impacts
of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on organic farmers, as
well as strategies for GMO avoidance.

Increase research on any verifiable health benefits of
organic food, and how this can be used to enhance labeling and
broader marketing strategies.
Southern Region
Increase research on marketing strategies and profitability
of southern organic operations.

Increase research and technical outreach on maintaining soil
health through organic methods like cover cops, crop rotations,
and soil amendments.

Increase research on weeds and insect management, especially
pests of increasing concern like squash bug.

Increase research on climate adaptive agricultural practices
for coping with the higher prevalence of extreme weather
patterns like excessive rain and flooding.
Northeast Region
Increase research on different tillage techniques and the
impact on soil health and weed control.

Increase research on the soil health and fertility impacts
of integrating animal production within field crop systems.

Increase research on cover crops (different varieties) for
erosion control and fertility management.

Increase research on the nutritional benefits of organic
production practices and the resulting foods produced.

Increase research on pollinator health and providing native
pollinator habitat.

Increase research on managing weeds, disease, and animal
health challenges during wet years.
Recommendations for Organic Research Methods and Outreach Strategies
Research for organic systems must reflect the foundational
principles of sustainable organic production, and be compatible with
restrictions of practices or products used in organic production and
processing.
Specifically, organic research should:

Be conducted under certified organic conditions.

Involve organic producers as active team members.

Organic farmers should be trained to write research
proposals and conduct research, maintain records of data,
and maintain areas where trials have been established. They
should be engaged in project goal setting and planning as
well as execution, outreach, and evaluation.

Advisory boards that include producers, and compensate
them for their time and expertise, should be a priority for
funding research.

Expand the work in farmer participatory plant breeding and
animal breeding, and evaluation of cultivars and livestock and
poultry breeds for organic systems. Organic and sustainable
farmers need access to plant and animal germplasm suited to
their regions and management systems, and resilient to climate
change.

Emphasize multidisciplinary and agroecological systems
approaches, rather than input-substitution approaches.

Have capacity for long-term studies of organic systems.

Include compliance with the National Organic Program (NOP)
rules and the principles of sustainable agriculture as
criterion for proposal review and field management during the
study.

Include research on medium- and large-scale production
systems. Research questions should also include the
techniques needed for scaling up or the adoption of larger
scale organic agriculture, i.e., production techniques,
technologies, transition methodologies, and marketing
strategies.

Ensure information is delivered in appropriate forms to
appropriate audiences.

Education and extension programs intended to deliver research
outcomes to organic farmers and ranchers must be tailored to the unique
needs and learning styles of the organic farming sector. Producers must
be engaged as equal partners with scientists, service providers
(Extension, other agencies, independent consultants), and other
stakeholders in the process of acquiring and applying science-based
information. Specifically, education and extension efforts should:

Enhance and encourage producer adoption of research results
by engaging producers in all phases of research and outreach,
and by presenting scientific outcomes as complementary to
farmer experience, skills, perspectives, and on-the-ground
knowledge of their farming systems, integrating education and
extension with research efforts.

Identify the most effective approaches to facilitate
adoption of organic production and marketing research results.

Identify appropriate venues to successfully reach growers,
crop consultants, agency personnel (Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Risk Management Agency, Farm Service
Agency, etc.), commodity organizations, state organic
organizations, the extension system, and consumers.

Organic research funders should provide dedicated
funding through scholarships and fellowships for
undergraduate and graduate students choosing to work in
fields related to agriculture and specifically organic
agriculture to support future teaching and technical
careers. Attention should be given to the special need for
more plant and animal breeders and soil scientists.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Liz Birnbaum.
2. OFRF 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey
The 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey describes new and
continuing research needs that farmers and ranchers have expressed
since the last NORA report. OFRF believes this information will provide
a basis to guide researchers, extension personnel, and educators in
identifying future work that will be most relevant to producers. This
information is especially needed for new and transitioning organic
farmers and ranchers. In order to meet the goal of significantly
increasing participating organic producers and acreage into organic
production, relevant research information is required. Justification
for the need and relevance of research on organic agriculture has been
well documented. Therefore, the goal of this report is to identify the
next generation of research activities.
Methods
A mixed methods approach was adopted to better understand the
research needs of certified organic farmers in the U.S. A national
survey, developed by OFRF and administered by Washington State
University, was used to solicit feedback. The survey data was augmented
by 21 listening sessions held around the country, in conjunction with
regional organic farming meetings.
Researchers, farmers, and other organic organizations vetted the
survey to determine the most appropriate questions to understand the
current needs of organic farmers and ranchers, and their responses were
consolidated into the survey document. OFRF conducted the survey from
July to September 2015. It was sent electronically to six,631 certified
organic producers who provided email addresses on the USDA National
Organic Program certified producers list. OFRF mailed postcards to
farmers who did not provide emails to inform them of the survey
opportunity. In addition, organic certifiers contacted farmers on
OFRF's behalf to encourage them to participate in the survey. However,
because the survey was web-based, there may be a bias that farmers with
computers and Internet were much more likely to participate in the
survey than those without.
The survey received a response rate of 1,403 organic farmers, which
represents approximately 10% of the current population of U.S. organic
farmers (USDA, 2015). Survey responses came from every state, yet there
was a predominance of responses from the Western (45%) and North
Central (28%) regions, as defined under the USDA Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program.
Concurrent with the development of the survey document, OFRF worked
in partnership with regional farming associations to gather additional
input through 21 listening sessions around the country. Attendees were
asked about general research topics and participated in small breakout
groups related to specific topics. For example, at the MOSES
conference, the listening sessions covered the topics of animal
production, plant health, and soil health.
Farmer Demographics
Survey participants included organic farmers throughout the U.S.
The Western region had the highest participation (555 farmers),
followed by the North Central region (341), the Northeast region (204),
and the Southern region (139). According to the 2014 USDA NASS organic
survey, the number of organic farmers are: Western region (5,029);
North Central region (4,309), Northeast region (3,371), and Southern
region (1,294). Thus, about 11% of Western and Southern region farmers
participated in the survey, while participation was closer to 7-8% in
the Northeast and North Central regions.

Farmers ranged from 20 to 84 years in age, with the average
of 55 years of age. The median age was in the 60-65 age
bracket.

70% of respondents identifying as the primary farmer or
rancher were male and 30% were female.

Farmers ranged in their organic farming experience from less
than 1 year to 80 years, with the average being 13 years.

Most farmers had between 5-10 years of organic farming
experience, indicating that many survey respondents were either
beginning farmers or had recently transitioned to organic
production.

The size of organic farms ranged from less than an acre to
40,000 acres. The median organic farm size was 48 acres.

98% of surveyed respondents had certified organic acres, 24%
also had conventional acres, 18% had acres transitioning to
organic, 16% had organic but uncertified acres, 7% had organic
acres exempt from certification, and several farmers used
biodynamic methods.

The farmers in the survey were evenly divided among those
who transitioned to organic agriculture from conventional
farming (46%) and those who began farming using organic
practices (48%). Several other farmers began farming in other
ways, such as transitioning part of their land or starting to
farm on conservation acreage.

38% of farmers earned 75-100% of their net income from
organic farm production, yet the majority of farmers also
received much of their income from off farm activities.

46% of respondents reported that a family member works off-
farm for more than 20 hours a week.

25% of respondents stated that neither they nor their
employees have access to health insurance practices, and 48%
began farming using organic practices.

6% percent of farmers entered into organic farming either by
taking over an existing organic farm, starting a split organic/
conventional farm, or farming land from the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP).

Surveyed farmers grew a wide variety of crops, with the most
common being vegetable crops (55%). Forty-one percent (41%) of
farmers produced animal products, with the most commonly
produced animal product being beef. Twenty-eight percent (28%)
of respondents also produced value added products.
Educational Background
Twenty-five percent of respondents received a masters or higher
degree, 38% received a 4 year (bachelor) college degree, 8% received a
2 year college degree, 17% had 1 or more years of college but did not
receive a degree, and 11% had high school education or less.
On-farm Research
Most surveyed farmers (66%) reported that they are experimenting or
trying new production techniques on their farm. On-farm experimentation
included the use of different cover crops, trying different tillage
practices, performing variety trials, growing new crops, using
different kinds of mulch, using different rotational design, monitoring
and experimenting with irrigation practices, and breeding animals. One
farmer expressed their experience as, ``Almost every act is an
experiment in improvement. Every year I try something new.''
Marketing Venues
Surveyed farmers sold their products in many different venues. The
most common marketing strategy was selling wholesale to processors or
packers. The second most common marketing strategy was selling to a
local food store or co-op. Direct to consumer marketing was commonly
achieved through ``U Pick,'' farmers' markets, and community supported
agriculture (CSA). Only 21% of surveyed farmers used their websites for
direct-to-consumer sales
Selected Research Priorities
When survey participants were asked to designate their highest
priority overall for organic farming research, the most common topic
was weed, pest, and disease management. The second most common top
priority was soil health, followed by farming practices, environmental
factors, and rural societies and economics (Figure 2). Weed, pest, and
disease management as the highest priority matches the results of the
2011 National Organic Farmer Survey. Soil health, which ranked as a
moderate challenge in 2011, has increased as a current priority. This
may be due to a better understanding of the importance of healthy soil
as the basis of organic production, and the ability to better cope with
environmental and nutritional impacts.
Figure 2.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Prioritization of research topics by surveyed organic farmers
(N = 1,039).
Top Rated Research Topics U.S. Wide
Producers surveyed were asked to rate specific research topics
individually as high priority, moderatepriority, low priority, or not
applicable. Each topic was ranked independently, and surveyed
farmerswere able to mark multiple topics as high priority. Figure 3.
shows the topics most often rated as highpriority research topics by
survey participants. The five research areas that received the greatest
percentof high priority ratings are:

1. Soil health, biology, quality, and nutrient management

2. Weed management

3. Fertility management

4. Nutritional quality, health benefits, and integrity of organic
food

5. Insect management

We selected these top five priorities for further discussion in the
following section of this chapter.
Figure 3.

Topics rated as high priority research topics U.S. wide.
Soil Health, Biology, Quality and Nutrient Cycling
Federal organic standards require producers to maintain or improve
soil organic matter content. Practices such as cover cropping, reduced
tillage, compost application, and rotational grazing are standard
organic farming practices. The research topic of soil health, biology,
quality, and nutrient cycling was consistently rated as a high priority
in all regions, and overall was rated a high priority by 75% of
respondents.
Specific needs in this research area focused on the interactions
between soil health and the need for holistic soil research that
examines the farming challenges of weeds, soil disease, maintaining a
diversity of soil microbial life, climate stresses, and the economics
of maintaining fertility. One farmer stated, ``I would like to know
more ways to increase healthy mycorrhizal interactions and other
microbial activity, as well as improve the health for our plants
without importing a ton of stuff.''
Top issues related to soil health for which respondents requested
research include:

The connection between different tillage practices and the
loss of soil carbon.

The effects of cover crops, compost, and diverse rotations
on fertility rates.

Strategies for building soil organic matter.

The needs of soil microbes and their role in crop health and
disease and weed suppression.

Insect and disease management interactions with soil
biology, including the control of nematodes.

The best ways to source effective and affordable soil
amendments.

The 2007 NORA report had several recommendations for applied soil
health research. Many of these recommendations have been addressed in
research funded by the USDA OREI program. Sixty-five percent (122) of
projects funded by OREI from 2002-2014 studied a topic related to soil
management in organic production systems, with most projects focusing
on soil fertility and nutrient management. These projects have produced
important contributions to the knowledge surrounding organic soil
health.
At least 36 OREI and ORG funded projects tackled the weed
management/soil health dilemma with integrated approaches emphasizing
cover crops, diversified crop rotations, and reduced tillage. Many of
these projects also addressed nutrient management, crop pests, and
diseases. In addition to field assessments of soil quality, weeds, and
crop yields, many project teams analyzed soil microbiological
communities or weed seed banks, and soil carbon sequestration. An
example of a holistic project with a focus on soil health is: Cropping
intensity and organic amendments in transitioning farming systems:
effects on soil fertility, weeds, diseases, and insects (ORG 2003-
04618, PI: Eastman, University of Illinois, $483,000).
Most organic crop growers operate on the premise that high quality
soils are healthy soils, which yield healthy plants that are better
able to resist insect and disease pests and produce high-quality food.
Research on the relationships between above- and below-ground
biodiversity, soil quality, plant health, systemic pest resistance, and
crop quality need to be prioritized for future funding.
Climate Change
The survey respondents were asked about research needed on
climate change. Specifically, respondents were asked to
prioritize research on adaptation and mitigation for
fluctuations in temperature and rainfall. Thirty-four percent
of respondents nationwide marked this topic as a high priority
for research (Figure 4). The Southern region stood out with 42%
of respondents having marked climate fluctuations as a high
priority for research.
Figure 4.

Priority rating for research on adaptation and mitigation to
temperature and rainfall fluctuations (N = 1,104).
Recommendations
It is recommended that future research focus on the following
topics of importance to organic farmers:

Water and soil management to cope with drought and
flooding (in crop and
pasture systems).

Coping with new insect and weed species.

Ways to manage fluctuations in chill-time for nuts and
fruits crops.

Education and outreach on organic farming climate change
adaptation and
mitigation.
Survey Participant Comments
Specific comments given in the survey related to climate
change reveal that organic farmers are experiencing negative
impacts from climatic shifts. Impacts reported by farmers
include new challenges with irrigation, weeds, energy costs,
chill time for tree crops, and the difficulty of dealing with
variability in the production system. Farmer quotations related
to research needs and challenges of climate change include:

Irrigation is not truly sustainable, and especially with
challenges due to cli-
mate change we need better practices that improve our
water capture, reten-
tion, and cycling (rather than relying upon irrigation
that too often utilizes
below ground water faster than those reserves can be
replenished). It is clear
that much of the farming (even certified organic) being
practiced in arid
parts of the U.S. and abroad is not sustainable. We need
to retain sustain-
able agriculture in more temperate areas (subject to
development and land
use conversion pressure) before that land is lost forever
to farming. Research
is needed to ``validate'' and further the alternative
practices that are work-
ing.

How can I cope with effects of climate change and
increased energy costs?

We need better ways to manage weeds and new insects. How
to cope with
them? Old diseases showing up more often due to climate
change.

Climate change is about to put me out of business. 2011
was too wet, 2012
too dry, 2013 and 2014 too wet and 2015 on track to be
too wet. Plus dev-
astating extreme cold temps in Jan 2014 and Feb 2105. How
can I, as the
manager, and the beef cattle deal with it?

Two perennial crops particularly important to our farm
income are (1) ber-
ries; (2) dry hay. In climate change, it will be very
important for us to know
what varieties of berries and varieties of dry forage we
should eliminate and
what varieties we should add.

Climate change, radical fluctuations of temperatures and
rainfall.

Climate change adaptive techniques and crop breeds.

Climate change, and specifically chilling hours, is
negatively affecting our
walnut orchards. Research into this field is very
important to us.

The role of grazing livestock to reverse climate change.

Anticipating the changes on the horizon--increased
energy costs, climate
change, depleting natural resources--and how to adapt.

Weather fluctuation from climate changes. Hot to cool or
overly wet to bone
dry conditions.

Impact of climate change (weather extremes) on vegetable
production.

Climate change has drastically affected our pistachio
production due to in-
sufficient chilling hours. We need trials and research to
help this growing
industry survive these new challenges.

Impact of climate change and unpredictability.
Flexibility to adapt to unex-
pected and extreme conditions.

Climate change disrupting fruit set and maturity dates.

Climate change with water issues.

Weeds and climate change.

Sadly, I think climate change is going to catch up with
all of us: it is getting
hard to produce crops that have been routine to me over
the decades.
Weed Management
Weed management was rated a high priority for research by 67% of
respondents. One farmer stated, ``Weeds are killing me. I need better
ways to control them in row crop production.'' Another farmer noticed
cyclical patterns in the weed pressure on their farm, stating, ``Weed
pressures on our farm seem to change over time. When we were
conventional, we had a lot of velvetleaf. While we can still find it
since we have gone organic 16 years ago, it is not a problem for us at
all. However, in recent years, we have some fields with a terrible
bindweed infestation that we struggle with, and last year jimsonweed
went from something we were hardly aware of to a big problem. More
information on weed control would be valuable to us.''
Respondents stated the need for research on several weed related
topics, including:

Cost effective methods for controlling weeds in medium/small
scale operations (including organic herbicides).

The role of cover crops in improving weed control.

The role of crop rotations in improving weed control.

Specific weed species: jimsonweed (Datura stramonium),
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), field bindweed (Convolvulus
arvensis), pigweed (Amaranthaceae amaranthus spp.),
lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), and problematic perennial
weeds.

Weeds and What They Tell by E. Pfeiffer needs to be updated
and expanded.

Weed pests, insect problems, and diseases can be symptoms of
wrong cultural practices and we need to learn to read the
symptoms and know how to address the core problems.

Recommendations for research on weed management from the 2007 NORA
report are still relevant, especially the need for models of weed
population dynamics under different cover crop, tillage, and crop
rotation management strategies. In addition, bindweed, pigweed,
nutsedge, lambsquarters, and Canada thistle were all identified in the
2007 NORA report as difficult-to-control weeds. These weeds continue to
be problematic and were identified in the 2015 National Organic Farmer
Survey as top weed pests.
Fertility Management
Fertility management was rated the third highest priority, with 66%
of respondents rating it a high priority. This research category is
closely linked with the soil health category, yet it is more specific
to the soil fertility challenges experienced by many organic growers.
Growers' comments expressed particular research needs on soil fertility
including:

The correlation between soil biology adjustments (compost
tea and other products to stimulate soil biology) and yield and
fertility.

The connection between soil fertility and weed pressure.

How cover crops can be used to provide fertility
requirements in perennial systems where tillage is not used.

The types of compost that work best to maintain fertility
and improve biological processes. Research on varieties that
require less fertility inputs and compete better with weeds.

The preparation of soil for pasture management, including
timing and technique for amendment application and
incorporation and grazing. What does the 5 to 10 year pasture
management plan look like?
Nutritional Quality, Health Benefits, and Integrity of Organic Food
OFRF recommends increased research on nutritional quality and the
integrity of organic food. Organic marketing faces the challenge of
many different food labels, like natural and non-GMO, which may lead to
consumer confusion about the organic label. Fifty-five percent (55%) of
growers rated nutritional quality, health benefits, and integrity of
organic food as a high priority. Increased research in this area is
important for aiding organic farmers with marketing tools. Key issues
for research include:

The quality, health benefits, and organic integrity of
organic food and body care products.

Consumer education regarding the irregularities in
appearance of organic produce, the health benefits of organic
food, and the environmental benefits of organic farming.

Joanna Ory.

Research that shows the nutritional and other benefits
(environmental and consumer) of mindfully, truly sustainably
grown organic products (e.g., 100% grass-fed organic dairy
products vs. confinement organic dairy).

Research to educate the younger generation on the benefits
of organic nutrition and farm practices.

Economic structure and integrity of labeling and marketing
messages of organic milk products.

The organic integrity of imported organic grain, including
the environmental and social impacts of production. Farmer
quote: ``The rising tide of industrial scale organic grain and
livestock production threatens the integrity of organic food
and the social and environmental benefits that come with
ecologically based, diversified organic crop/livestock
production systems.''

The organic label needs to integrate good labor practices
and reduced energy use.
Food Safety
In 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USDA) created
a new law, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This act
directed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish a
set of preventative controls across the food system in order to
minimize the occurrence of food-borne illness. These controls
include requirements that food facilities develop a food safety
plan that includes hazard analysis, prevention controls such as
a food allergen controls and recall plans, monitoring,
corrective actions, and verification such as product testing.
Farms are required to have produce safety standards for the
safe production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables,
considering potential sources of pathogens, the use of soil
amendments, hygiene, packaging, temperature, and the presence
of animals in crop production areas. These on-farm requirements
have the potential to affect organic farms. For example,
compost must be stabilized in order to limit the amount of
bacteria like Salmonella spp. FSMA also encourages waiting
periods between grazing and harvest. The rule exempts small
farms (sales less than $500,000/year), which sell directly to
local consumers.
In the 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey, OFRF asked
organic farmers to rate their familiarity with the FSMA rules.
Most respondents (64%) reported little or no familiarity with
the rules, and only 12% stated they were very familiar (Figure
5).
Figure 5.

Familiarity of respondents to FSMA.

Further, farmers were asked to rate and describe any possible
impacts they feel FSMA may have on their operations. Most farms
stated that FSMA would have a slight or moderate impact on
their operations (Figure 6).
Figure 6.

Respondent predicted impact severity of FSMA.

When asked what the specific impacts may be, many farmers
stated that they are uncertain. The most common impact reported
is the burden of record keeping and paperwork. However, some
farmers stated more significant impacts like changing their
growing practices. One farmer stated, ``We have been USDA
certified (food safety) now for 3 years and have had to fight
to maintain our livestock on the farm each year. We have
decided to quit growing leafy greens and other crops that keep
hitting the news with food scares. We have been able to
maintain our tree crops as food safety certified because these
crops do not come into contact with the ground. The food safety
regulations are totally against integrated crop-livestock
operations, which have so much potential to stabilize farm
income and provide a great agronomic program as well. The cost
of the inspections is very high, and the effort we go through
to pass inspections is very taxing. I'm certainly not against
food safety, but there needs to be more research to demonstrate
the real causes of food poisoning: it's the processing,
handling and packaging on an industrial scale.''
Other farmers mentioned no longer growing crops that will be
eaten raw. Still others were concerned that the costs of
inspections and compliance could ``force them out of
business.'' One respondent stated, ``We are facing the
possibility of losing my ability to do simple on-farm
processing (sun-drying) of my products, because of ill-guided
`food safety' new regulations.''
Many farmers feel that the rule will have minor impacts
because they already have certain rules in place to meet
organic certification. For example, the rule for the waiting
time between raw manure application and harvest will most
likely be equivalent to the National Organic Program standards.
Therefore, many organic farmers are already in compliance with
at least some of the new food safety rules. One farmer stated
that there is a benefit of the new rule, ``I think it can help
make our farm more aware of food safety issues on the farm and
therefore will likely motivate us to pay closer attention to
this often overlooked area.''
Research on Food Safety
Research on food safety issues was rated a high priority by
36% of respondents. Farmers stated they were interested in
several research areas related to food safety, including:

Quantifying food safety risk, or lack thereof, in
providing on-farm habitat
in the form of hedgerows and buffer strips.

Evaluating post-harvest handling with regard to food
safety.

Evaluating the wait time before harvest for food safety.

Minimizing food safety risks on small farms--beyond just
getting GAP cer-
tified.

Researching food safety risks of animal manure (either
left there by grazing
rotations or applied).
Insect Management
Insect management was rated a high priority by 51% of respondents.
Farmers noted specific insect pests for which they would like new
research and treatment options, as well as more general topics such as
insect conservation and research on habitats for beneficial insects,
like syrphid flies. The most frequently reported problematic insect
pests are aphids, flea beetles such as Phyllotreta cruciferae, ants,
Bagrada bug (Bagrada hilaris), and cucumber beetles (Aclymma vittatum,
A. trivittatum, and Diabrotica undecimpunctata). Since the publication
of the 2007 NORA, there have been several invasive insect pests that
have been introduced to the U.S. or increased their range. These new
invasive pests include:

Chilli thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood) was discovered in
Florida in 2005.

European grapevine moth (Lobesia botrana) was first
discovered in California in 2009.

Kudzu bug (Megacopta cribaria) was introduced to the U.S. in
2009.

Light brown apple moth (Epiphyyas postvittana) was
introduced into California in 2007.

Bagrada bug (Bagrada hilaris) was first discovered in
California in 2008.

Spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) was first
detected in California in 2008 and has since spread through the
West Coast and has been problematic in many states nationwide.

Brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys), although
detected in 2001, the BMSB has become a serious pest in many
Eastern region states (Figure 7).
Figure 7.

Brown marmorated stink bug, by Yerpo--own work, https://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Halyomorpha_halys_nymph_lab.jpg.

Insect pests are a major cause of crop losses, with one farmer
stating, ``There is no organic approved method to control pecan weevil
(Curculio caryae Horn). This insect will cut my production from 10-35%
in most years.''
Some topics for future research include:

Influence of soil components on disease and insect
vulnerability.

Varieties with insect resistance for organic production.

Impact of rotations and companion crops on insect pressure.

Beneficial insect habitat through green manures and field
borders and other habitat plantings.

The impact of beneficial insects on crop yields.

Fly and parasite management practices and their impact on
non-target insects (dung beetles, pollinators, etc.).

Control of insects in organic fruits in humid eastern U.S.

Developing biocontrols for Swede midge (Contarinaia
nasturtii) (first discovered in the U.S. in 2004) and leek moth
(Acrolepiopsis assectella).
Economic and Social Science Research

Joanna Ory.

OFRF recommends increased social and economic research to address
the marketing challenges experienced by organic farms. Throughout the
survey responses, the topic of economic viability of different
production practices was a recurring focal area for growers. Farmers
expressed the challenges of knowing where to source affordable soil
fertility inputs as well as frustration among struggling enterprises to
pay their farm crew the fair and livable wages they deserve. Several
expressed challenges related to isolation from markets. One farmer
stated, ``Local people, including restaurants, don't want to pay the
organic price for vegetables or hay. We are a small grower but we live
within 20 miles of some areas who might pay the price.''
Top Areas for Increased Research Related to Organic Marketing and
Economics Include

Research on the different approaches to organic marketing
(such as using a CSA, farmers market, cooperative, etc.) and
the associated costs and benefits.

Research on reducing high transportation costs, especially
for meat producers whose distance from processors makes it
difficult to do direct and wholesale marketing.

Research on how to enter or remain viable in a saturated
market.

Research on how to best educate consumers about different
organic practices with the goal of increasing market demand and
opportunities.

Research on how to best educate consumers about the organic
label and standards in order to avoid confusion with other
labels, such as natural and non-GMO.

Research on the discrepancies of how animal operations are
providing adequate outdoor access, specifically how large
operations may be shifting demand from smaller, diversified
operations which provide greater outdoor access.

Research and training for finding buyers who will purchase
from small-scale farms or strategies for how small producers
can collaborate to approach institutional buyers.

Research on building markets to help domestic organic
farmers compete with inexpensive imports (especially grain).

Research on how small farms can cope with the pressure to
make organic food affordable and the need to receive a fair
price.

Research on how the organic check-off may affect organic
farmers of different scales.

Research on how to create alternative markets for imperfect
produce.

Research on viable price information and market volume data.

Joanna Ory.
GMO Impact on Organic Farmers
Under the National Organic Program, organic agriculture
prohibits the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO).
Nationwide, 39.8% of surveyed organic farmers rated the impact
of GMO crops on production, practices, sales, markets, and seed
availability as a high research priority. Regions in the
Midwest where there are more GMO crops grown (like corn and
soy) expressed the greatest need for research on GMO impacts.
Farmers stated that there is a need for specific types of
research and information on GMO drift and other contamination
issues. In addition, farmers stated that there is a need to
communicate with conventional farmers about problems of drift
without alienating them. One farmer mentioned that there is an
opportunity to find solutions to the problem and conflicts
surrounding GMO contamination by reinforcing the understanding
that both small organic farmers and small conventional farmers
make important economic and social contributions to the
economic viability of rural communities.
Impacts on Organic Farmers
The survey asked whether organic farmers had experienced GMO
contamination and the rejection of a shipment of goods.
Nationally, 2.2% of farmers reported having a shipment of
product rejected due to GMO contamination (N = 881). However,
this rate of contamination is not uniform throughout the U.S.
The North Central region had 6% of respondents report having a
product shipment rejected due to GMO contamination (Figure 8).
Figure 8.

Regional distribution of organic rejections due to GMO
contamination (N = 881).

The survey asked farmers to describe the impact GMOs have had
on their farm. The responses indicate that in addition to the
direct financial impacts of having products rejected as
organic, organic farmers expressed a range of different
ecological, financial, and psychological impacts they
experience from the threat of GMO contamination. The 263 open-
ended responses fall into several categories: pollen drift,
delayed or altered planting, lost production, environmental
pollution, increased pesticide pollution/drift, and
psychological/emotional concern.
A word cloud created using keyword counts visually depicts
the important terms represented in the survey (Figure 9).
Figure 9.

Word cloud for GMO impact open-ended questions.
The size of the word represents the number of times it was
mentioned in the survey responses.
Recommendations
Based on the survey data collected and listening sessions,
OFRF makes the following recommendations for research:

Increase research on GMO avoidance practices, especially
in the North Cen-
tral region.

Increase research and monitoring of the true economic
impact of GMOs on
organic farmers.

Increase research on environmental impacts of GMOs.

For the complete discussion of GMO impacts, see Appendix E.
Livestock and Animal Agriculture Research Needs
In the U.S., about 120M acres of pasture land (e.g., cultivated or
native grassland managed for grazing or forage harvesting) are used by
ruminant animals to produce milk, meat, and fiber (NRCS, 2014). In
addition, of the more than 100M head of livestock that utilize grazing
lands in the U.S., about 45% is concentrated on pasture lands in the
humid eastern region of the conterminous U.S. Today, grassland-based
agriculture is valued at $44B annually (Natural Resources Conservation
Service, 2014).
Forty-one percent (41%) of farmers in the 2015 National Organic
Farmer Survey produced animal products, with the most commonly produced
animal product being beef followed by poultry and dairy. A commonality
among recent surveys and research reports has shown a significant lack
of funding related to organic animal agriculture, including OFRF and
USDA OREI/ORG programs. The reason for this discrepancy compared to
funding for plant related research efforts is unclear. It may be due to
a lower number of animal producers as compared to plant producers, the
lower number of proposals submitted to funding agencies on animal
production topics, or the high cost of animal research. Inherently, it
should be noted that crops are part of animal production systems as
they are a major feedstuff/input for those systems, so they indirectly
benefit from cropping systems.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that the organic
dairy sector provides more economic opportunity and generates more jobs
in rural communities than conventional dairies. The first-of-its-kind
study, ``Cream of the Crop: The Economic Benefits of Organic Dairy
Farms,'' calculated the economic value of organic milk production.
``Over the past 30 years, dairy farmers have had a choice: either get
big or get out. Dairy farmers either had to dramatically expand and
become large industrial operations or they went out of business,'' said
Jeffrey O'Hara, agricultural economist for the Food and Environment
Program at UCS and author of the report. However, in a summary of work
conducted through USDA NIFA, it was found that organic dairy production
offers farmers another option--one that is better for the environment,
produces a healthier product, and leads to greater levels of economic
activity (O'Hara and Parson, 2012).
Organic livestock farmers experience particular issues of concern
related to food safety standards, animal health, and veterinarian care.
Research needs on organic animal production were assessed at the 2015
Organic Agriculture Research Symposium. The results of a breakout
session on animal research needs determined there are several areas in
need of prioritization for organic farming. These topics include:

Efficacy of available treatments, therapies, and approved
products.

Impact of grass-based systems on animal disease (long-term
study).

Incidence of lameness on organic farms, causes, nutrition,
symptoms, housing, stress, environment, and preventative
practices.

Breed performance in organic systems (health, pathogens, and
parasites).

Parasite prevention on pastures.

Poultry breed and ration customization for season/climate,
environment, available feeds, pasture, and markets.

Integrated livestock/crop systems (food safety and pest/
disease suppression).

Effective treatment options for poultry diseases and the
interactions with human pathogens.

Effective alternatives to synthetic methionine.

Soil health and mineral balancing impacts on animal health,
i.e., how to assess holistic impacts/nutritional informatics.

More research on the economics and efficacy of probiotics
for animal health (efficacy, risks, costs/benefits, regulatory
status).

Parasite management for hogs and small ruminants.
Organic Seed Breeding
The 2007 NORA report stated that the organic seed requirement for
organically certified crops, combined with increasing risk of organic
crop contamination by GM gene sequences, has led to increased interest
in organic variety development and seed production on the part of
organic farmers. Organic farmers have two distinct needs relating to
seed. The first is for well-adapted crop varieties that perform well
under organic management; the second is for accessible, affordable,
high quality seed that produces what a grower expects it to produce.
Schonbeck, et al., (2016) indicates that even though classical
breeding research for crops and animals has increased over time, there
is still a very limited number of breeding programs and a decline in
professional researchers in this specialty.
In the 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey, farmers commonly stated
the need for increased on-farm plant breeding and variety improvement
for organic seeds. Specifically, farmers noted the need to develop more
organic hybrids for disease resistance. Farmers also expressed
different views related to the policy for organic seed sourcing,
especially the need to increase the number of organic seed breeders and
distributors.
Organic Seed
According to the National Organic Program guidelines, organic
farmers must use organic seed when it is commercially available.
However, if the desired organically produced seed or planting stock
variety is commercially unavailable, organic farmers may use
conventionally grown, untreated, non-GMO seeds. To assess the
availability of organic seed, we asked the survey participants to
categorize the frequency of organic seed availability for the primary
crops they grow. The survey found that for 20% of respondents, organic
seed was rarely or never available (Figure 10). There were some
regional differences. Farmers in the Western region reported less
organic seed availability; reporting that organic seed was never
available 14% of the time.
Figure 10.

Frequency of organic seed availability as reported by U.S.
organic farmers.

Farmers reported several major areas of concern regarding organic
seed. The biggest challenge reported was the price of organic seed
being much higher than non-organic seed. Other major challenges are the
quality and regional and temporal unavailability. As a result of
challenges regarding the availability of organic seed, many surveyed
farmers reported doing their own seed saving.
One farmer described the disadvantage small organic farmers face
with obtaining organic seed in a rural market. The farmer stated,
``Many of the large agricultural product cooperatives through which
rural people source feed and seed do not carry organic seed as a
standard. They require the purchase of a full semi load to even
consider making the order. Small- and mid-scale operations struggle to
gain affordable access to untreated, non-GMO, and certified organic
field seed.''
Organic Seed Price
The higher price for organic seed was the most common
challenge reported by growers in the survey. The large price
discrepancy between organic and conventional seed is a
disincentive for farmers to use organic seed. Survey
participants stated that high organic seed cost is interfering
with profit, and that price is an important factor with regards
to seed sourcing. Several farmers also expressed an
understanding that the limited number of organic seed
distribut[o]rs is helping to create the situation of high
prices for organic seed.
Organic Seed Quality
Survey respondents reported that the quality of organic seed
was often inferior to conventional seed in terms of germination
rate, yield, vigor, and contamination with weed seeds.
Respondents also reported that there are fewer organic seed
varieties to choose from. Organic farmers need varieties
specific to their needs, such as high nutrient-use efficiency,
disease resistance, insect resistance, weed competition, and
good quality. Although there has been progress in seed breeding
for organic production, it is a slow process and some farmers
report dissatisfaction with organic seed germination rates.
Organic Seed Availability
Many farmers reported that organic seed was not available
locally in their area for certain crops, or became harder to
find during the peak of the planting and growing season. There
were several crops for which respondents reported very little
availability, specifically grass, cover crops, kale, and flower
seeds.
Specific Areas of Need
Surveyed farmers highlighted several areas for which there is
a need for more research or policy change regarding organic
seed. Farmers commonly stated the need for increased on-farm
breeding and variety improvement for organic seeds for the
development of more organic hybrids for disease resistance.
Farmers also expressed different views related to the policy
for organic seed sourcing. Several farmers stated the need for
stricter enforcement of using organic seed.
For a complete discussion of organic seed issues, see
Appendix F.

Jack Dykinga.
Information Sources and Formats
The 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey asked participants to list
their primary source of organic production and marketing information.
Respondents listed many different information sources including the
Internet, other farmers, certifiers, chemical companies, seed catalogs,
and conferences. Despite having many different resources for organic
farming information, several farmers expressed the need for greater
availability of organic specific production and marketing information.
For example, one farmer stated, ``We are lacking of research into our
main problems in the Great Northern Plains on the problems that we face
in organic agriculture.''
Of the farmers surveyed, 902 responded to an open ended question
about their primary source of production and marketing information. The
top sources of information used in order of their priority are:
Internet searches, other farmers, magazines like Acres and Tilth,
certifiers, university publications and research, producer association
newsletters, and their own research (Figure 11). As farmers gain
experience, they report moving from learning from books and classes to
doing their own research on the Internet and in the field. Because
Internet searches are the most used source of information, it is
important to strengthen resources like eOrganic and let organic farmers
know about reliable data sources and sites where they can exchange
information with other farmers.
Figure 11.

Most used information sources for production and marketing by
surveyed farmers.

When asked to rate different information sources based on their
usefulness, information from other farmers was listed as the most
highly useful information resource (Figure 12). For example, one farmer
stated, ``I get my information from other farmers. Extension is
helpful, but usually a bit behind many farmers in assessing production
techniques.'' Another farmer stated that getting information from other
farmers has a long history in the development of organic agriculture,
``Other farmers who share their experiences--we learn and support one
another. When you're developing or on the cutting edge of adopting new
practices there isn't research out there to benefit from. Such was the
case with organic when we certified 20 years ago--we only had other
farmers and our own (expensive) process of trial and error.''
Other resources with high scores for being highly useful include
organic certifiers, growers' associations and university researchers.
Many farmers reported limited use of information from crop consultants
and nonprofit organizations.
Figure 12.

Respondent rating of high usefulness of different information
sources.

Respondents were asked to rate their preferences for different
information formats. The respondents listed field days/on-farm
demonstrations as the most highly preferred format (Figure 13). Other
popular formats include conferences and workshops, websites, and print
periodicals. Considering this was administered as an online survey,
there may be a bias towards online informational resources as the
survey does not include responses from farmers who lack Internet
access. The preference for field days and conferences indicates that
the respondents prefer experiential, in-person learning on organic
production and marketing topics.
Figure 13.

Respondent rating of high preference for different
information formats.
Regional Results
Production Challenges
In the survey, farmers and ranchers were asked to describe their
biggest production challenges. These challenges varied depending on the
region (see major challenges for each region below). These challenges
are areas for which future research can be prioritized, as they
indicate the most difficult obstacles growers face in organic
production.
Western Region
Coping with and adapting irrigation systems to drought
conditions.

Weeds: puncture vine weeds (Tribulus terrestris),
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), and cape ivy (Delairea
odorata).

Soil diseases like fusarium pathogens.

Insect pests like Bagrada bug (Bagrada hilaris).

Insufficient animal slaughter facilities.
North Central Region
Marketing and profitability strategies best suited to
organic enterprises.

Weed management.

Weather and climate change, e.g., too much rain.

GMO contamination and avoidance.

Not enough organic meat processors and USDA meat and poultry
inspectors, and how such supply chain barriers can best be
addressed.

Meeting the Food Safety Modernization Act requirement.
Southern Region
Stink bugs such as the brown marmorated stink bug
(Halyomorpha halys).

Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense).

Lack of accessibility to the commercial market.

The development of a food safety plan that suits organic
production systems well.

Weather and climate change--heavy rain causing weed and
disease problems.

Profitability and consumer education.

Lack of reliable labor, of particular import to organics
because of increased labor intensity.
Northeast Region
Maintaining soil health.

Weed control.

Animal health, including availability of good pasture and
forages.

Frequent and severe precipitation causing flooding and
increased disease.

High labor and land costs.
Research Priorities
There was regional variance for the top research priorities
depending on the production challenges and crops grown in different
parts of the country. For example, the Western region rated irrigation
and drought management as a top priority, and the North Central region
rated research on genetically modified organisms (GMO) contamination as
one of the top priorities. Despite these regional differences, the
topics of soil health and weed management were consistently top
priorities for future research throughout the nation. The list below
shows the top high rated priorities with the percent of respondents who
marked ``high priority'' in parentheses.
Western Region
Soil health, biology, and nutrient management (71%)

Fertility management (66%)

Weed management (63%)

Irrigation and drought management (56%)

Insect management (56%)
North Central Region
Soil health, biology, and nutrient cycling (78%)

Weed management (75%)

Fertility management (66.6%)

Nutritional quality and health benefits of organic food
(62%)

Soil conservation and restoration (59%)

Contamination from genetically modified organisms (GMO)
(52%)
Southern Region
Soil health, biology, and nutrient cycling (79%)

Weed management (69%)

Fertility management (67.4%)

Nutritional quality and health benefits of organic food
(66%)

Insect management (61.9%)
Northeast Region
Soil health, quality, and nutrient management (74%)

Fertility management (66%)

Weed management (61%)

Nutritional quality and health benefits of organic food
(51%)

Pollinator health (48%)

Soil conservation and restoration (48%)
3. Discussion and Supplemental Reviews
To inform the recommendations in this NORA report, OFRF reviewed
USDA funded research, results from other surveys, OFRF funding
programs, and recommendations from other organizations such as the
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).
OFRF reviewed USDA OREI and Organic Transitions (ORG) funded
programs between 2002 and 2014, to evaluate what research, education,
and extension projects had been funded. Research recommendations from
that review have been evaluated in reference to the research objectives
identified by farmers and ranchers in the 2015 National Organic Farmer
Survey
In addition to national reviews, OFRF has conducted internal
reviews of research funded since the beginning of the OFRF competitive
grants program in 1992. Relevant research recommendations have been
provided based on gap analysis of not only what was funded, but also
the priorities for future funding needs. The first review was Investing
in Organic Knowledge, Impacts of the First 13 Years of the Organic
Farming Research Foundation's Grantmaking Program (Sooby, 2006). The
most recent report was the Trends and Impacts of the Organic Farming
Research Foundation Grants Program: 2006-2014 (Ory, 2015). This report
provides an analysis of 106 OFRF-funded projects that have had positive
impacts on organic farming in many areas. From research projects
examining new varieties and organic seed breeding, to educational
projects that link beginning farmers with mentors, OFRF grants have
helped produce important tools and informational sources for organic
farmers.
Review of USDA Funded Research on Organic Farming
The Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming issued by the
Organic Study Team in 1980, provided an initial review of organic
programs within the USDA. The report acknowledged that the USDA knew
very little scientifically about organic agricultural productivity,
much less about the economic benefits and costs of organic farming
(USDA Study Team on Organic Farming, 1980). A dominant question posed
by the Study Team was, ``Under what specific circumstances and
conditions can organic farming systems produce a significant portion of
our food and fiber needs?'' Now that organic agriculture is an
established part of U.S. and international diets, it is clear there is
a need to increase organic production worldwide. Not only is research
on organic methods and practices important to organic producers, it is
also relevant to conventional producers as they may adopt many of the
fundamental organic practices to meet environmental and societal goals
for agricultural sustainability (USDA Study Team on Organic Farming,
1980).
Since the 2007 NORA report (Sooby, et al., 2007), USDA investment
in organic research has increased. In 2016, OFRF conducted a review of
the USDA OREI and ORG organic grants programs titled, Taking Stock:
Analyzing and Reporting Organic Research Investments, 2002-2014. This
report examines the research, education, and extension areas that have
been funded and those that have been under-served (Schonbeck, et al.,
2016). The majority of funded projects related to crop instead of
animal systems with 91% studying crops and 25% researching animals
(some projects included both). Only 6% of awards went to animal system
projects. Similar to the NORA report, Taking Stock recommends increased
research on animal health, organic plant breeding, soil quality and
weed management, as well as pollinators and pollinator habitat. In
addition, Taking Stock recommends that USDA:

Continue funding priorities identified in the 2007 and 2016
NORA reports, especially on the topic of organic weed control,
soil health and fertility, and co-management of weeds,
nutrients, and soil health.

Increase research on organic livestock production systems,
especially pork, beef, and turkey.

Increase funding for historically underrepresented
commodities such as rice, cotton, tree nuts, and cut flowers.

Invite and fund proposals on functional agricultural
biodiversity, and practical strategies for different regions to
meet the National Organic Program (NOP) requirement to conserve
biodiversity and use cover crops.

Fund meta-analyses of outcomes of multiple OREI and ORG
projects on complex topics such as soil quality/weed co-
management; and carbon sequestration/net greenhouse gas impacts
of different systems; and the challenges of dryland organic
production in semiarid regions.

Although advances have been made, organic agriculture research
remains under-funded and requires greater commitment by funding
agencies. OFRF recommends significant increases in USDA funding for
organic agriculture research in order to implement the recommendations
of both this NORA report and the Taking Stock report.
Review of OFRF Surveys and Reports
OFRF has published several national farmer surveys and reports to
assess farmer needs and advocate for better policies. The 2007 NORA
report had a significant influence on the dramatic expansion of Federal
organic research funded through the Food, Conservation and Energy Act
of 2008, commonly known as the 2008 Farm Bill. It also helped guide
OREI program priorities and was widely cited in applications to the
USDA OREI program as justification for specific research projects.
Since the 2007 NORA report, the research community has focused and
contributed knowledge in several key areas. For example, there have
been new successes in organic plant breeding, including the development
of several varieties of open-pollinated sweet corn. In addition, many
OREI projects funded by the USDA addressed issues of organic soil
health and fertility, a top priority identified in the 2007 NORA
report.
Even with increased attention to key organic priority areas, many
of the recommended areas for research require continued attention from
the research community. The 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey results
show that soil health and applied research for weed and pest management
are the highest priorities for organic research.
Soil organic matter, fertility, and microbial impacts are
identified as needs in both reports. Weed pressure remains a major
concern for farmers and ranchers, as well as appropriate control
measures, efficacy of control products, and effects of different
tillage practices. Major outbreaks of specific insect pests may have
changed, but insect and disease control research needs are of high
priority, especially in more humid and warm geographic areas. Since the
2007 NORA report was released, there are several new insect pest
species that affect organic growers, like Bagrada bug (Bragda hilaris),
Asian citrus psyllid which transmits citrus greening disease, and Light
Brown Apple Moth (Epiphyas postvittana).
Animal systems research has been limited in past research efforts,
and the specific needs for nutritional studies, pasture management, and
breeding remain high priorities.
A survey of organic farmers conducted in 2011 by OFRF provides
complementary information to the 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey
regarding why organic farmers choose to become organic. The survey
asked 422 farmers to rate the importance of the reasons they became
organic farmers. The reason most commonly rated as very important was
land stewardship, and the reason least commonly rated as very important
was price premiums for organic products (Figure 14).
Figure 14.

2011 Survey results on why farmers became organic.

The 2011 farmer survey found that the production challenge most
rated as a strong challenge was weed management (Figure 15). This
finding of weed management as a top priority was reinforced in the 2015
National Organic Farmer Survey with weed, pest and disease management
rated the top research priority by 39% of respondents. Other top
challenges in 2011 included finding organic seed and the cost of
organic certification. The USDA is now providing payment support for
initial certification costs through the National Organic Certification
Cost Share Program (NOCCSP) and the Agricultural Management Assistance
(AMA) Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. These programs provide
a combined $11,632,000 in assistance in 2016 (USDA, 2016 b, https://
www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/occsp). During FY 2012, 7,245
producers received assistance from the NOCCSP and 2,348 received
assistance from the AMA (https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/
media/2013OCCSPReport%20to%20Congress.pdf)
Figure 15.

2011 survey responses on top production challenges.

In the 2011 survey, the marketing challenge most rated a strong
challenge was downward price pressure from less expensive or imported
products (Figure 16). The competition of less expensive/imported
products was rated a strong challenge by 21% of respondents,
demonstrating that importation of organic products is a major concern
for U.S. farmers. Other top challenges included the difficulty of
obtaining sufficient prices for sustaining the farm, and competition
with ``unverified'' organic product.
Figure 16.

2011 survey responses on top marketing challenges.

The 2011 National Organic Farmer Survey gave important background
on the different production and marketing challenges of organic
growers. The 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey builds off this
information by focusing on the specific current research needs of
organic growers.
The 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey and listening sessions
highlighted some of the most pressing economic, social, and marketing
challenges and research needs of organic farmers, an area that was not
well developed in the 2007 report. The information in the 2011 survey
on marketing challenges provides support for the recommendations in the
2016 NORA Report to increase consumer education and economic and
marketing research.
Overlap of OFRF and NOSB Recommendations
The NOSB is a Federal Advisory Board that makes recommendations
regarding the production, handling and processing of organic products.
Attention to production issues as they relate to evolving organic
standards is an important area of research. OFRF recommends
strengthening the communication channels between the NOSB, NOP, and the
research community in order to provide growers with information and
recommendations in advance of phasing-out a previously approved
substance. (www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/
recommendations)
NOSB created a list of research recommendations, mostly related to
the organic certification standards which were presented to the NOP in
2015 (AMS, 2015; https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
MS%202015%20NOSB%20Re
search%20Priorities_final%20rec.pdf). The 2015 National Organic Farmer
Survey results support many of the NOSB recommendations, including:

Increased research on field management practices for organic
whole farm systems.

Increased research on organic plant and animal breeding.

Appropriate product reviews for toxicity and efficacy of NOP
approved products, including food additives and food packaging
products.

Increased research on the effects of GMO materials,
including GMOs in organic compost.

Increased research on organic livestock systems, including
animal herd health, parasite treatment and avoidance, and
animal nutrition.

In addition, OFRF recommends increased research to support improved
clarity in the standards that govern animal welfare on organic farms.
The 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey respondents and listening
session participants stressed the need to verity the efficacy of
products and practices used by producers and approved by NOSB.
The 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey results indicate a concern
regarding GMO contamination (see GMO critical issues section). OFRF is
in agreement with NOSB that research to prevent GMO contamination is a
high priority. Specific topics for future research include: evaluation
of effectiveness of prevention practices (cleaning equipment, creating
buffer rows, maintaining seed purity, reducing spread of GMO pollen by
pollinators.) In addition, research on practices conducted by
conventional growers to determine where GMO contamination is coming
from, is a valuable research area. Other NOSB recommendations that
complement OFRF recommendations include:

Comparing till and no-till practices related to soil health,
level of soil organic matter, biodiversity, fertility, weed
control, and pest management.

Finding effective alternatives to allow eliminating the use
of antibiotics for plant disease control and animal production.

Finding alternative plant disease management practices and
materials, especially in humid (i.e., Southern region) areas.

Increasing information on biological control of plant
diseases and bio-pesticides.
Conclusion
This report demonstrated the importance of monitoring the needs of
organic farmers. OFRF is committed to our ongoing effort of
communicating the research needs of organic farmers to the policy and
research communities. We encourage the funding of projects that have
solving farmer needs at the core of the research questions and full
farmer participation in the research process.
This report contains recommendations for future research to be put
into action by the USDA and the broad agricultural research community.
Greater regional and Federal funding will be necessary to achieve the
growth of organic agriculture and the associated environmental and
social benefits.
We encourage policy makers and researchers to use the findings in
this report to work towards funding and conducting research projects
that will solve the challenges faced by organic farmers.
Results from the 2015 Survey of Organic Farmers and listening
sessions provide insights into the most pressing challenges and topic
areas that require additional research and outreach. Increased funding
for research on critical issues related to soil health and fertility,
weed control, invasive insect pests and the nutritional quality of
organic food will provide organic farmers with knowledge and tools to
enhance their production and marketing. In addition, areas of
particular concern to organic farmers, such as GM crop contamination
and climate change, warrant increased attention. The survey results
highlighted the opportunity for farmer-to-farmer learning, field days,
and online resources to increase farmer learning and the application of
research results. Through greater extension and outreach to the organic
sector, organic farming will benefit from information and guidance that
supports the most environmentally and economically sustainable
agricultural production systems.
Citations

Greb, Peggy, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense).
Hollinger, Jason, Bindweed (Convolvulus arvenis).
Huffington, Matt, Spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii).
Lipson, 1997. Looking for the `O' Word. Organic Farming Research
Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.
Marose, Betty. 2016. Jimsonweed. University of Maryland Extension.
National Organic Coalition. 2016. Organic Research.
www.NationalOrganicCoalition.org.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014. National trends and
resource concerns in managing grazing land ecosystem services.
September 2014, USDA, Washington, D.C.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. 2016. State of
the Climate: Global Analysis for December 2015, published online
January 2016, retrieved on February 3, 2016 from http://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201512.
Northeastern IPM Center, 2016. Stop BMSB: Biology, ecology, and
management of brown marmorated stink bug in specialty crops.
www.stopbmsb.org.
O'Hara, J. and Parson, R. 2012. ``Cream of the Crop: The Economic
Benefits of Organic Dairy Farms.'' Union of Concerned Scientists,
Cambridge, MA.
Ory, J. 2015. Trends and Impacts of the Organic Farming Research
Foundation Grants Program: 2006-2014. Organic Farming Research
Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.
Organic Trade Association. 2016. US organic state of the industry.
http://ota.com/sites/default/files/indexed_files/
OTA_StateofIndustry_2016.pdf.
Pomplid, Palmer amaranth pigweed.
Schonbeck, M., Jerkins, D., Ory, J. 2016. Taking Stock: Analyzing
and Reporting Organic Research Investments: 2002-2014. Organic Farming
Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.
Sooby, J. 2006. Investing in Organic Knowledge, Impacts of the First
13 Years of the Organic Farming Research Foundation's Grantmaking
Program. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.
Sooby, J., Landeck, J., and Lipson, M. 2007. 2007 National Organic
Research Agenda. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.
Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education (SARE). 2016. SARE's
Four Regions. www.sare.org/ About-SARE/SARE-s-Four-Regions.
Svoboda, M. 2016. U.S. drought monitor. The National Drought
Mitigation Center, Lincoln, NE, Retrieved on Feb. 3, 2016 from http://
droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CAhttp://
droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA.
UC IPM. 2016. Harlequin bug-Murgantia histrionica. ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/
GARDEN/VEGES/PESTS/harlequinbug.html.
USDA. 2013. USDA AMS National Organic Program Cost-Share Programs
Report to Congress. USDA, Washington, D.C.
USDA. 2014. Socially disadvantaged farmers: race, Hispanic origin,
and gender. USDA ERS.
USDA, 2014. 2012 Census of Agriculture.
USDA. 2016 a. 2015 Certified Organic Survey. National Agricultural
Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C.
USDA. 2016 b. Organic Certification Cost-Share Programs. https://
www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/occsp.
USDA Study Team on Organic Farming. 1980. Report and Recommendations
on Organic Farming. USDA, Washington, D.C.
Vicente Selves, Victor M., Coryneum blight (pathogen Wilsonmyces
carpophilus).

Appendix A: Western Region
Introduction
The Western region includes Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Micronesia, Montana, Nevada,
New Mexico, N. [Mariana] Islands, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming
(see blue region on map; Figure A.1). The Western region is a leader in
organic production with four states (California, Washington, Oregon,
and Colorado) in the top ten U.S. states for organic product sales
(USDA, 2015).
Research, Extension, and Educational Recommendations for the
Western Region
Provide beginning and transitioning farmers and ranchers the
tools, knowledge, and on-going mentoring to be successful
organic producers.

Prioritize research on water management in drought
conditions, water efficiency technologies, and innovations for
drought management.

Continue long-term research on soil health with focus on
nutrient and water management.

Prioritize research on organic production practices that can
increase carbon sequestration. Current research shows that
organic soils with higher soil organic matter can increase the
sequestration of carbon in the soils.

Prioritize research on weed control. Weed control continues
to be an area where research can benefit more sustainable weed
control practices, especially for resistant and invasive weeds.
Efficacy of organic products will also benefit the farmers as
they select efficient and cost-effective products. Tillage and
plant and animal rotations are of special interest.

Invest in research on disease and pest problems of high
importance in California. In addition to general research on
specific insect controls, continued efforts in breeding
specific for organic production and management of these issues
will increase productivity and economic viability of organic
producers.

Increased research and extension efforts need to be provided
for all aspects of animal production, especially information
for rotational and grass fed animals. California is a major
producer of milk products and organic livestock and poultry.
Figure A.1.

Western region in blue (SARE, 2015).

The Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) conducted a
nationwide survey of organic farmers to identify their research needs.
Three hundred and ninety-seven organic farmers from the Western region
completed the survey. This report is based on their responses.
Organic Farmer Survey Results
Western farmers who participated in the survey ranged from having 1
year of organic farming experience to those who have been farming
organically for more than 50 years. The size of the organic farms
ranged from less than a tenth of an acre to over 20,000 acres. Forty-
six percent of farmers surveyed transitioned to organic farming from
conventional farming practices, and 48% began farming using organic
practices. While 98% of the survey respondents had at least part of
their land certified organic, many farmers also had uncertified acres
under organic production and acres in transition to organic production.
Twenty-seven percent of respondents had a mix of acres under organic
and conventional production. CCOF was the certifier for 40% of the
survey respondents. Other top organic certifiers included Oregon Tilth,
the Washington State Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Department
of Agriculture, and the Idaho Department of Agriculture.
Top Research Priorities for the Western Region
The highest priority identified for research in the Western region
was soil health, quality, and nutrient management, which was rated as a
high priority by 70.7% of respondents. Other top research priorities in
order of importance included: fertility management, weed management,
irrigation and drought management, insect management, disease
management, and the nutritional quality and health benefits of organic
food (Figure A.2).
Figure A.2.

Top six research priority areas identified in the OFRF survey
of organic farmers in the Western Region.
Soil Health, Biology, and Nutrient Cycling
Research on soil health was identified as a high priority by 70.7%
of respondents (Figure A.3). A common theme for transitioning growers
is the need for cost effective ways to ``jump-start'' soils that have
been weathered from conventional production practices. Survey
respondents reported the need for research on:

How to maintain and enhance soil biology while using
standard tillage.

How to maintain and enhance soil biology while using minimal
tillage.

How to bring health to soils that were degraded by
conventional agriculture.

The role of tillage in the ability of soil to sequester
carbon.

Best ways to add organic matter to soil with minimal or no
till practices for commercial scale.

How to design diverse cropping systems to optimize soil
health. Impact of specific crop and crop mixes on soil biology.

How to remediate glyphosate residue in the soil profile.

Building soil health via cover cropping with limited water.

How to measure the health of the soil microbiome and how
soil microbes influence crop health.
Figure A.3.

Priority rating of research on soil health by Western region
organic farmers in 2015.
Fertility Management
Research on fertility management was identified as a high priority
by 66% of respondents (Figure A.4). Survey respondents reported the
need for research on:

Microorganisms and fertility.

Cover crops for building fertility in perennial crops.

Nitrogen-fixing cover crops for the arid west, specifically
for use in surface/sub-surface drip irrigation systems between
beds.

Research related to biology and nutrient cycling for a
desert climate.

Nutrients added by sheep grazing in winter, specifically
nitrogen (N).

Soil fertility for organic apples.

How much fertilizer should be used when, and in what form?

Liquid fertility management techniques also important to
reduce leaching of N.

Research on varieties that require less fertility inputs and
compete better with weeds.

Organic seed production, use of poultry in rotation to build
soil fertility.
Figure A.4.

Priority rating of research on the soil fertility management
by Western region organic farmers in 2015.
Weed Management
Weed research was a high priority for 63% of respondents (Figure
A.7). Farmers expressed the need for solutions to weed challenges, such
as optical weeding research and organic herbicides. One farmer stated,
``We are losing organic farmers due to field bind weed. It will be
vital to organic farming in this area to have some way to eradicate
this weed. Disking only slows it down.'' Common problematic weeds in
the Western region include: field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)
(Figure A.5), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) (Figure A.6), common
lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon),
yellow foxtail (Setaria lutescens), johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense),
nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale),
common cocklebur (Xanthium pennsylvanicum), hawkweed, puncture vine
weeds, and cape ivy (Delairea odorata). Some farmers also reported what
is working for them in terms of weed control. For example, one farmer
stated, ``Cows for grass between the trees, goats for star thistle and
berry vines coupled with our dry farming practices has resulted in a
strong grove with many less issues than our neighbors.''

Figure A.5. Figure A.6.

Bindweed (Convolvulus Canada thistle (Cirsium
arvenis) (Photo: Jason arvense) (Photo: Peggy Greb)
Hollinger)

Figure A.7.

Priority rating of research on weed management by Western
region organic farmers in 2015.

There was substantial interest in the role crop and livestock
rotation management could play in weed control. Survey respondents
reported the need for research on:

Using animals to manage weeds, disease and pests and the
effect animals might have on these types of management.

Rotation strategies to decrease annual weed pressure.

Rotation/tillage strategies or organic approved materials to
eliminate bind weed.

Weed tillage to benefit soil. Reducing the cost of weed
control.
Water and Drought Management
As of January 2016, California has been in drought for over 4
years. Other areas of the arid West also struggle with having a
reliable water supply for agriculture. One farmer stated, ``Drought
conditions, increased temperatures, long `over 90' heat waves, and the
cost/time involved in mitigation has me concerned that I can no longer
do this cost effectively.'' The topic of water management, irrigation,
and drought was rated a high priority by 56% of Western region farmers
(Figure A.8).
Figure A.8.

Priority rating of research on the drought by Western region
organic farmers in 2015.

Many growers, especially those in California, listed the impact of
the drought as their biggest production challenge. Growers also
expressed concern about weather fluctuations and unpredictability
caused by climate change.
``Weather, particularly drought issues are our most pressing
concern. However, 3 years ago we were faced with the issues associated
with drowning rain and lack of sunshine. We seem to be swinging between
extremes annually. This June our weather was a 1 in 400 year drought.''
Survey respondents reported the need for research on:

Tracking water quantity, increasing soil water retention,
water storage grant funding, and design for drought resistance.

Coping with high salinity soils due to drought.

Absorption and soil moisture maintenance.

The impact of drought on pasture management (both soil and
grass health).

Increasing compost to reduce water use.

The correct timing and type of irrigation (drip versus
sprinkler) to reduce water use.

Drought and pasture management.

The effects of drought on soil and grass health.
Insect and Pest Management
Research on insect management was identified as a high priority by
56.3% of respondents (Figure A.9). Specific insect pests identified in
the survey included bagrada bug (Bagrada hilaris), vine mealybug
(Planococcus ficus), lygus bug (Lygus Hesperus), codling moth (Cydia
pomonella), peach twig borer (Anarsia lineatella), wooly aphids
(subfamily: Eriosomatinae), black cherry aphid (Myzus cerasi), cherry
fruit fly (Rhagoletis indifferens Curran), filbertworms (Cydia
latiferreana), olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae), aphids, wireworms,
spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) (Figure A.10), and alfalfa
weevil (Hypera postica Gyllenhal).
Figure A.9.

Priority rating of research on insect management by Western
region organic farmers.
New Pests of Interest
Survey participants listed management challenges with several new
pests of interest that have recently become invasive in Western region
states. There is a special need for research on these pests. Below are
a few examples that were listed in the survey as top pests. A full list
of invasive insect pests is available through the UC IPM Program at:
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/EXOTIC/.
Figure A.10.

Spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) (Photo: Matt
Huffington).

The Asian citrus psyllid (Diaphorina citri)--Since 2008, the Asian
citrus psyllid has been present in California, and there is concern
that it will spread to other Western region states. The Asian citrus
psyllid can ultimately kill citrus trees by infecting the tree with
toxic bacteria.
Polyphagous shot hole borer (Euwallacea sp.)--This is a type of
ambrosia beetle that has been prevalent in Southern California since
2010. It attacks over 200 tree species and can cause severe damage by
infecting them with Fusarium fungus.
Bagrada bug--The bagrada bug was found in June 2008 in southern
California, and it has now become a major problem throughout southern
California and southern Arizona. Bagrada bug is a pest of crop plants
in the Brassicaceae (Cruciferae), which includes important foods like
cabbage, kale, turnip, cauliflower, mustard, broccoli, and radish.
Survey respondents reported the need for research on:

Effective controls to supplement current organic pest
control products to avoid resistance.

Citrus and wine grape insect control.

Natural enemy introduction.

Influence of changing climate on insect pests.

Crop management to encourage beneficial insects.

The use of organic insecticides.
Other Pests
Respondents reported problems with symphylans, voles, gophers,
moles, squirrels, frogs and birds.
Disease Management
Research on disease management was identified as a high priority by
52% of respondents (Figure A.12). Several diseases were identified as a
concern for Western region organic growers, including fusarium wilt
(Fusarium oxysporum), charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina), curly top
virus, downy mildew (example: Peronospora farinosa), powdery mildew
(example: Podosphaera xanthii), Pierce's disease (Xylella fastidiosa),
verticillium wilt (Verticillium spp.), phytophthora (Phytophthora
spp.), fireblight (Erwinia amylovora), coryneum blight aka shothole
blight (Wilsonmyces carpophilus) (Figure A.11), Pseudomanas syringae,
peach brown rot (Monilinia fructicola), and botryosphaeria canker
(Botryosphaeria spp.).
Figure A.11.

Coryneum blight (pathogen Wilsonmyces carpophilus) on the
leaves and stems of orchard trees (Photo: Victor M. Vicente
Selves).

Specific disease issues noted in the survey include:

Soil disease and nematode control.

Plant breeding for disease resistance.

Disease resistant rootstocks for avocado, citrus, and
grapes.

Disease control research for peaches, basil, tomatoes,
grapes, and kiwis.
Figure A.12.

Priority rating of research on the disease management by
Western region organic farmers in 2015.
Animal Agriculture
Survey respondents noted several areas related to animal health and
production for additional research. Food safety and the new
requirements of the Food Safety Modernization Act are a topic of
concern for many growers.

``We have been USDA certified now for 3 years and have had to
fight to maintain our livestock on the farm each year. We have
decided to quit growing leafy greens and other crops that keep
hitting the news with food scares. We have been able to
maintain our tree crops as food safety certified because these
crops do not come into contact with the ground. The food safety
regulations are totally against integrated crop-livestock
operations, which have so much potential to stabilize farm
income and provide a great agronomic program as well.''
Western region respondent.
Survey respondents reported the need for research on:

The causes of food poisoning related to processing, handling
and packaging on an industrial scale.

How to reduce or eradicate plant species that the cattle
cannot eat.

How to get the best marbled meat through genetics.

What is the most efficient and, cost-effective way to get
the most out of our pasture while keeping it healthy and
productive?

An effective way to discourage flies on the cattle's face.

Protection against pathogens such as E. coli, Listeria, for
grazing animals.

Research on integrated crop-livestock farming in arid
climates, examining both economics and agronomics.

Comparisons of USA beef and imported beef.

Information on the nutritional benefits of grass-fed organic
beef.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Survey and listening session participants raised the need for
research on broad-scale questions, such as the difference between
organic and conventional production in terms of the impacts on water
quality, biodiversity, and ecosystem health. Based on the responses,
more research and education should be focused on:

Providing beginning and transitioning farmers and ranchers
the tools, knowledge, and ongoing mentoring to be successful
organic producers.

Prioritizing water management in drought conditions for
Western region growers. Research on water efficiency
technologies and innovations for drought management are of high
priority for organic farming.

Continuing long-term research on soil health focused on
nutrient and water management.

Current research shows that organic soils with higher
soil organic matter can increase the sequestration of
carbon in the soils. Additional research needs to improve
production practices that can increase sequestration
levels. This increase can lead to increases in soil organic
matter levels and economic benefit to the producer through
carbon credits.

Controlling weeds. Weed control continues to be an area
where research can benefit more sustainable weed control
practices, especially for resistance and invasive weeds.
Efficacy of organic products will also benefit the farmers as
they select efficient and cost-effective products. Tillage and
plant and animal rotations are of special interest.

Managing disease and pest problems is of high importance. In
addition to general research on specific insect controls,
continued efforts in breeding crops specific for organic
production and management of these issues will increase
productivity and economic viability of organic producers.

Researching challenges involved with animal agriculture in
the Western region. The Western region is a major producer of
milk products and organic livestock and poultry. To increase
the availability of these products to the market place,
significant increases in research and extension efforts need to
be provided for all aspects of animal production, especially
information for rotational and grass fed animals.
References

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, 2016. State of
the Climate: Global Analysis for December 2015, published online
January 2016, retrieved on February 3, 2016 from http://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201512.
Svoboda, M. 2016. U.S. Drought Monitor. The National Drought
Mitigation Center, Lincoln, NE, Retrievedon Feb. 3, 2016 from http://
droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CAhttp://
droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA.
USDA. 2014. 2014 Organic Survey. USDA National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS). Washington, D.C.

Appendix B: Northeast Region
Recommendations for Future Research in the Northeast Region
Increased research on different tillage techniques and the
impact on soil health and weed control.

Increased research on the soil health and fertility impacts
of integrating animals with field crops.

Increased research on cover crops (different varieties) for
erosion control and fertility management.

Increased research on the nutritional benefits of organic
food.

Increased research on pollinator health and providing native
pollinator habitat.

Increased research on managing weed, disease, and animal
health challenges during wet years.
Respondent Characteristics
The Northeast region includes Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, D.C., and West
Virginia (see green region on map; Figure B.1).
Figure B.1.

Northeast region in green (SARE, 2016).

The Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) distributed a
nationwide survey to organic farmers asking about their research needs.
One hundred and thirty-six complete responses came from the
Northeastern region, and there were also 60 partially completed surveys
that were used in this analysis. Northeast region survey participants
are farmers with diverse production systems, farming backgrounds,
educations, ages, and income levels.
Organic Farming
Ninety-eight percent of respondents had certified organic acres,
and 14.4% of respondents had mixed farms with both organic and
conventional production. Thirty-seven percent of northeastern farmers
transitioned to organic farming from conventional farming practices,
and 60.4% began farming using organic practices. Of the certified
farmers in the Northeast, the most common certifiers in order are Maine
Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), Pennsylvania
Certifies Organic (PCO), NOFA New York and NOFA Vermont, New Hampshire
Department of Agriculture, and Global Organic Alliance (Figure B.2).
Figure B.2.

Certifying agencies for the northeastern farmer survey
participants (N = 196).
Type of Farm Products
Northeastern farmer survey participants grew a wide range of crops.
The most common type of crop produced was vegetables, with 67% of
respondents growing vegetables (Figure B.3). In addition to the crops
listed in Figure B.3, Northeast region farmers reported growing nuts,
gourds, maple trees and syrup, seeds, garlic and ginger.
Figure B.3.

Plant based products produced by surveyed farmers in the
Northeast.
Type of Animal Products
75.8% of respondents produced animal products. The most common
animal product produced was eggs, but the surveyed respondents produced
many different animal products including dairy, beef, and poultry
(Figure B.4).
Figure B.4.

Animal products produced by surveyed farmers in the
Northeastern region.
Farming Experience
Surveyed farmers have been farming from 1 to 60 years, with the
largest percent (17.6%) farming for 1-5 years and the fewest number of
farmers having farmed for more than 45 years (Figure B.5). Many farmers
started farming organically, yet the majority (54.7%) report
transitioning to organic.
Figure B.5.

Number of years survey respondents reported farming.
Demographic Information
Of the Northeastern respondents, 68.2% were male and 31.8% were
female. Participating farmers ranged in age from 23 to 79. The average
age of northeastern farmers in the survey was 53.7 years (N = 150). It
was most common for the respondents to have completed a 4 year
educational degree (37%), yet many participants also had master's
degrees (18%). 13% of participants did not go on to pursue higher
education after college, and 14% completed some college.
Farm Economics
Northeastern farmers who took the survey vary in the size, value,
and income coming from their farming operations. It was most common for
respondents to rely on farm production for 76-100% of their net income,
yet other farmers had diversified incomes and jobs other than farming
(Figure B.6). Half of the farmer participants had farms where a
household member worked off-farm for more than 20 hours a week.
Figure B.6.

Percent of income from farm production.

Gross income from farming ranged from no income or a loss, to over
$5M for northeastern survey respondents. It was most common for
respondents to earn between $100,000 and $249,999, yet there was great
variability in income (Figure B.7).
Figure B.7.

Annual gross income for survey respondents in the Northeast
regions.
Top Research Priorities
For the Northeast region, the highest priority identified for
research was soil health, quality, and nutrient management, which was
rated as a high priority by 74.4% of respondents. The top ten research
priorities in order of importance include: (1) soil health, quality,
and nutrient management; (2) fertility management; (3) weed management;
(4) nutritional quality and health benefits of organic food[;] (5)
pollinator health; (6) soil conservation and restoration; (7) disease
management; (8) insect management; (9) breeding crops and animals; and
(10) cover cropping and green manure (Figure B.8).
Figure B.8.

Research priorities of surveyed farmers in the Northeastern
region.

Northeastern growers were asked to list their top production
challenge. Several themes emerged including: weed management, coping
with variable weather, lack of time, economic pressures, aging, soil
health, balancing cover crops with economics, finding enough forage,
sourcing labor, large pests (groundhogs and deer), and livestock
health. One farmer stated that their most pressing challenges are,
``labor, cost of labor, and not being able to pay farm crew fair/
livable wages that they deserve for the physically demanding work.'' A
common theme in the responses was the challenge of weed and pest
control. One farmer explained their challenges as the ``accumulation of
weeds, insects and disease. Each year I have more volume of each and
more variety of each. These three issues make farming more difficult
each year.'' The economic challenges of being a small organic farmer
were expressed by many farmers. One farmer stated their challenge is
``balancing monetary needs with soil health needs. I should have half
of my organic land in cover crop right now but financially I can't
afford it, I need land to be in crop production to pay all of my
overhead and labor costs.'' Another farmer expressed the pressure
wielded by the structure of the food system, and stated that the
``biggest threat we face is the gobbling up of smaller producers by big
producers. Pressures of regulation, created by the pressure of large
food corporations on legislators, cripple smaller producers.''
Soil Health, Biology and Quality
Of the farmers surveyed in the Northeast, 74.4% rated soil health,
biology, and quality as a high priority for organic farming research,
making it the most commonly rated high priority research topic (Figure
B.9). 18.5% of respondents rated it as a moderate priority, showing
that it is a major priority for the vast majority of farmers in the
survey. In an open-ended question on soil health research needs, many
farmers commented on the specific needs of their farms. One farmer
stated the need for ``more accessible information on proper soil
management and what is being done in our region would be helpful. A
stronger network of farmers and shared information on best practices.''
Common comments include a need for more research on:

The interaction between soil health and weed management.

Nutrient cycling details as it relates to specific crop
rotation patterns.

Using livestock and grazing as a way to increase soil,
livestock and human health.

How best to manage and balance nutrients when using compost,
cover crops, and a very diverse rotation.

Keeping healthy soils through minimized tillage.

Developing beneficial soil microbes and mycorrhizae.

Soil building and nutrient management.

The effect of compost, cover crops, and diverse rotations on
soil health.

How organic farming can contribute to carbon sequestration.

Soil health and nutrient cycling related to weed control,
livestock forage and hay production.
Figure B.9.

Priority rating of soil health research.
Fertility Management
The majority of respondents rated fertility management as a high
priority (66.1%), with many rating it as a moderate priority (28.1%)
(Figure B.10). One farmer stated, ``I'm interested in how fertility
connects with weed, pest, and disease management and whether it's
possible to build fertility to grow disease and pest resistant crops.
Also, how fertility management relates to weed pressure.''
Specific research needs stated by farmers in the Northeast region
include:

How the soil fertility balance relates to weed growth,
specifically wild mustard.

Apple and chestnut fertility needs.

Soil building and fertility improvements for increased
yields and carrying capacity.
Figure B.10.

Priority rating of fertility management research.
Weed Management
Over 60% of Northeastern growers listed weed management as a high
priority, and many commented that weeds are a major challenge (Figure
B.12). One grower stated, ``Weeds are the number one problem to being a
successful organic grower.'' Respondents were commonly interested in
research on the following topics:

No-till weed control.

Organically approved herbicides.

Rotations for weed control.

How to prevent weeds from overtaking early stage corn.

How fertility connects with weed management.

Effective and economic weed control.

Weed management techniques during wet years.

Weed management in orchards.

Farmers also reported specific weeds being challenging in the
Northeast region, including: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), jimson
weed (Datura stramonium) (Figure B.11), annual grasses and field
bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis).
Figure B.11.

Jimson weed (Durata stramonium; Photo by Betty Marose,
University of Maryland Extension, 2016).
Figure B.12.

Priority rating of weed management research.
Nutritional Quality of Organic Food
The majority of Northeastern region respondents rated nutritional
quality, health benefits, and integrity of organic food as a high
priority (Figure B.13). One farmer stated, ``Consumers are largely
unwilling to pay the appropriate prices for certified organic produce
that reflect the higher costs of production.'' To increase consumer
knowledge and demand for organic food, farmers expressed interested in
the following research topics:

Distinguishing nutritional variance between new and heirloom
varieties.

How consumers view organic and non-GMO. How consumers see
the relationship between the two and what farmers can do with
labeling to get them to look for organic.

Meeting animal welfare guidelines.

Vitality and storage quality comparisons between
conventional, organic and biodynamic food.

Scientific findings on the value of organic food over
conventional.
Figure B.13.

Priority rating of nutritional quality of organic food
research.
Pollinator Health
Pollinator health was rated as a high priority for 48% of
Northeastern respondents (Figure B.14). With bee health a major topic
of environmental concern, it is expected that farmers who rely on
pollinators for the success of their crops desire research on how to
improve pollinator health. Northeastern farmers expressed the need for
more research on wild pollinator mortality in greenhouses and which
native plant species are best for aiding pollinators. Northeastern
farmers also noted the need for organic open-pollinated crop seeds and
seeds for organic, native flowering plants.
Figure B.14.

Priority rating of pollinator health research.
Soil Conservation and Restoration
Most respondents rated soil conservation and restoration as an
important area of organic research. Forty-eight percent of respondents
rated this topic a high priority (Figure B.15). Particular issues of
interest include:

Using perennial crops/pasture and no-till for soil health
and conservation.

Erosion prevention.

Managing cover crops for soil conservation.
Figure B.15.

Priority rating of soil conservation and restoration
research.
Disease Management
Plant diseases were reported as a production challenge in the open-
ended portion of the survey. Farmers listed the following as topics of
interest: soil diseases in high tunnels, potato late blight, livestock
diseases, and the need for an effective fungicide other than copper.
Insect Management
Insect management is an important challenge for northeastern
growers. Several survey respondents reported managing flies and
parasites in cattle as a major obstacle. One farmer stated the need for
a computer application to be used in the field for pest and disease
identification. Insect pests reported in the survey include mushroom
flies, swede midge (Contarinia nasturtii), leek moth (Acrolepiopsis
assectella Zeller), cucumber beetles, squash bugs, spotted wing
drosophila (Drosophila suzukii), and potato leafhopper (Empoasca
fabae).
Breeding of Crops, Animals, and Seeds for Organic Production
Over 70% of respondents listed breeding of crops, animals, or seeds
as a moderate or high priority. Only 39.7% of respondents listed
breeding as a high priority, demonstrating that issues related to soil
are more widely applicable and of interest to the northeastern farmers.
Farmers were asked to comment on their specific needs related to
breeding. Open-ended responses to the question included the need for
fruit varieties with disease and insect resistance, like scab resistant
apple, alternative crops suited for the Northeast temperature zone, and
developing nitrogen fixing green manures.
Animal Agriculture
With 75% of the surveyed farmers producing animal products like
eggs and dairy, many farmers desired research on animal health topics.
Farmers expressed interest in research that would lead to better fly
and parasite control for livestock. In addition, some farmers expressed
their success with dealing with animal production challenges. For
example, one northeastern farmer noted that during a wet year they
limited the hours of time dairy cows spent on pasture and increased the
time spent resting in the barn with plenty of shade and water. As a
result, the cows had lower somatic cell counts and had almost no hoof
problems.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Surveyed farmers and listening session participants were asked to
describe their most pressing production challenge. Several topics
emerged as recurrent challenges experienced by many of the Northeast
region producers. These challenges are topics for which future research
can be prioritized in this region, and include:

Managing soil health in conjunction with managing pests,
weeds and diseases.

Managing weeds, especially in times of heavy rain.

Adapting to extreme weather conditions.

Controlling parasites in livestock.

In addition, recommendations for additional research based on
listening sessions in the Northeast, especially the meeting held at the
Organic Trade Association Organic Center in Washington, D.C., include:

Control practices for wireworm and nematodes.

Marketing/consumer education about organic agriculture as a
GMO free production system.

Weed control/use of perennial crops to reduce weed pressure.

Economic research on organic production systems.

Alfalfa as a rotational crop and the impact of GM alfalfa on
organic production.

Technology for the field knowledge, funding, technology.
Appendix C: North Central Region
Research, Education, and Policy Recommendations in the North Central
Region
Increased research on livestock health.

Increased research on GMO contamination and prevention.

Increased research on soil health practices.
Respondent Characteristics
The North Central Region encompasses 12 states: Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin (see yellow states in Figure C.1).
Figure C.1.

North Central region in yellow (SARE, 2016).

This regional report is based on 253 complete responses and 68
partially completed surveys from the North Central region.
North Central survey participants are farmers with diverse
production systems, farming backgrounds, educations, ages, and income
levels.
Farmers in the North Central region had been farming from a range
of 1 to 51 years.
Organic Farming
The size of the farms in the survey ranged from 0.25 acres to over
5,000 acres. Fifty five percent of farmers in the North Central region
transitioned to organic farming from conventional farming practices,
and 37% began farming using organic practices. Seventy-seven percent of
respondents only farmed organically, and 23% had mixed organic and
conventional production. Some farmers began farming organically as a
gardening project, or bought land already certified organic, and
several farmers had land taken out of a conservation reserve program
(CRP). Of the certified farmers in the North Central region, the most
common certifiers in order are Global Organic Alliance, OCIA, MOSA, and
OEFFA (Figure C.2). Because the survey was conducted online, the
opinions of the Amish organic dairy farms in the North Central region
are not part of this analysis.
Figure C.2.

Top organic certifiers for North Central operations.
Type of Farm Products
North Central farmer survey participants grow a variety of crop and
animal products, however production is concentrated on grain, pasture,
and livestock. The most common type of crop produced was small grains
and beans with 67.5% (Figure C.3). Other common crops grown include
alfalfa, field corn, soybean, and forage and pasture. The dominance of
these crops distinguishes this region from other regions that grow
predominantly fruit and vegetables. The production of corn, soy, and
alfalfa crops in the North Central regions puts these growers at
increased risk of GMOs, and the survey found that these farmers are
more concerned with GMO contamination than farmers from other regions.
Figure C.3.

Crops grown by North Central operations.

Of the surveyed farmers, 61% produced animal products. Out of the
farmers that do produce animal products, the most common product was
beef, followed by eggs and poultry (Figure C.4). The survey identified
research questions and needs specific to animal production. One north
central participant stated, ``Organic livestock nutrition and health
practices are important research areas for us, especially identifying
and testing effective allowable treatments for when animals are sick
(pneumonia, scours and other intestinal problems, milk fever, pinkeye,
etc.). It's fine to say organic farmers should use systems that keep
animals healthy, but they do get sick and you want to know how to be
able to help them right away.''
Figure C.4.

Animal production by North Central producers.
Top Research Priorities in the North Central Region
Farmers in the North Central region marked many research topics as
high priority (Figure C.5). The top five priorities in order of highest
number of respondents rating it a high priority are: (1) soil health,
biology, and nutrient cycling, (2) weed management, (3) fertility
management, (4) nutritional quality and health benefits of organic
food, (5) soil conservation. The impact of GMOs, crop rotation, cover
cropping, and pollinator health were also all marked as high priorities
by 50% or more of the respondents.
Figure C.5.

Top research priorities listed by North Central producers.
Soil Health, Biology, and Nutrient Cycling
Research on soil health was identified as a high priority by 78% of
respondents in the North Central region (Figure C.6). Main areas for
which farmers requested research were tillage and reduced tillage and
soil health, cover crops and soil health, and crop rotations and soil
health. Farmers expressed the need for research to answer questions
such as:

``How can cover crops be used to provide fertility
requirements in perennial systems where tillage is not used?''

``How does active soil biology relate to lessening of
erosion?''

``What is the impact of various methods of tillage on
soils?''

``How can I find products and sources I can trust to build
my soils at affordable costs?''

``How does livestock manure affect soil biology?''

``What are practices to improve soil carbon/ increase soil
organic matter, water holding capacity, and biology?''
Figure C.6.

Priority rating of soil health among farmer respondents.
Weed Management
Weed research is a high priority for 75% of North Central farmer
respondents (Figure C.7). North Central farmers identified several
problematic weeds in the region, including purslane (Portulaca
oleracea), bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and giant ragweed (Ambrosia
trifida). There was substantial interest in the role crop and livestock
rotation management could play into weed control. Farmer comments on
specific needs include:

``Using animals to manage weeds, disease and pests. The
effect animals might have on these types of management.''

``Rotation strategies to decrease annual weed pressure.''

``Rotation/tillage strategies or organic approved materials
to eliminate bind weed.''

``Using weeds to our benefit--what do they put back into the
soil if tilled in?''
Figure C.7.

Priority rating for weed management.
Fertility Management
Fertility management, as part of the larger topic of soil health,
was rated as a high priority by 66.6% of respondents (Figure C.8).
Survey respondents particularly highlighted the need for research
related to fertility management and soil conservation and crop
rotations.
Figure C.8.

Priority rating for fertility management.

The respondents listed the following as specific topics of
interest:

Soil fertility balance and natural nitrogen, phosphorous,
and potassium sourcing.

Need research on cost effective ways to maintain or improve
soil health and fertility when farmed organically particularly
when there is no access to organically improved inputs within a
reasonable distance.

Fertility based on microbial populations as opposed to
inputs.

There are many inputs for fertility with little research to
back it up. Much more could be done with this.

Building and maintaining soil fertility organically without
manure.

Pasture and forage soil fertility topics to support organic
dairy and grassfed systems.
Nutritional Quality and Health Benefits of Organic Food
Sixty-two percent of respondents rated nutritional quality and
health benefits of organic food as a high priority (Figure C.9).
Figure C.9.

Priority rating for nutritional quality and benefits of
organic food.

North Central farmers stated they were interested in the:

``Impact of pesticides: drift, health impacts to farmers,
consumers, wildlife and livestock.''

``Nutritional information of organic versus conventional
food.''

``Consumer perspective on food health and safety.''
Impact of GMOs
Research on the impact of GMOs on organic farming was rated as a
high priority by 52% of North Central farmer respondents. GMO research
is of greater interest to North Central growers than for growers in
other regions. One farmer stated, ``Organic crop markets are very
strong at this time. The issue for me is that I would like to see some
sort of common sense policy within USDA that would address the issue of
GMO contamination given that I was not able to sell all my entire corn
crop into the food grade market this past spring, (2014 crop), due to
GMO contamination from my neighbor's farm. It appears that people
within USDA consider our loss to be a loss in our premium only. They do
not realize that typically the potential of receiving a premium comes
at a cost, such as growing specific varieties that yield a little less,
more time and money dedicated to weed control, etc.'' Six percent of
farmers (15 farmers) in the region reported having a shipment of
product rejected due to GMO contamination. Farmers in the survey
report:

Feeling ``uneasiness and concern.''

``Losing production due to sizable buffer strips.''

``We have to plant later to prevent cross pollination. This
really hurt us.''

``All my neighbors plant GMO and I am always concerned with
cross pollination.''

``We need more published research on the effects and
differences of GMO vs. non GMO crops. Also for pollinator
health!!''
Cover Crops
Of the North Central farmers surveyed, 47.3% reported regularly
using cover crops, demonstrating that this is an important fertility
management strategy. Many farmers (51%) reported that research on cover
crops is a high priority. One farmer stated the need for ``optimal
practices in terms of cover crop incorporation (timing and tillage
tools).'' Another farmer expressed the desire for enhanced educational
opportunities on the topic of cover crops, and stated, ``I would like
to have more discussions, trainings, workshops and specifically
examples. I would like to visit farms that are doing cover crops and
talk to farmers who have tried it.''
Pollinator Health
Research on pollinators was rated as a high priority by 50% of
North Central farmer respondents. One farmer respondent stated,
``Regarding pollinator health, insufficient attention is given to the
benefits of legumes that bloom multiple times of year, such as alfalfa
and red clover, distributed over multiple farms in a community so that
there are always some field in bloom.'' Another farmer stated that
there needs to be more research on pollinator habitat and conservation.
Insect Pests
Respondents rated research on insect pests as less of a priority
than weed management, with only 44% of respondents listing insect
research as a high priority. However, farmers did list several topics
for which they would like more research. These include:

Types of insects in our area that are harmful and helpful to
row crops.

Fly and parasite management practices and their impact on
non-target insects (dung beetles, pollinators, etc.).

Organic control of diseases and insects in organic fruits in
humid eastern U.S.

Livestock insect management (flies and parasites).
Livestock Research
OFRF held a listening session in La Crosse, Wisconsin at the MOSES
Conference in 2015. During this listening session, a group of organic
farmer attendees were asked to list their research needs related to
livestock management. The needs identified include:

Veterinary care (costs, preventative practices).

Impact of grass-based systems on animal disease (long-term
study).

Incidence of lameness on organic farms; causes; nutrition;
symptoms; and housing.

Stockmanship/cattle handling/humane treatment best
management practices.

Breed performance in organic systems (health, pathogens, and
parasites).

Parasite prevention on pastures.

Poultry breed and ration customization for season/climate,
environment.

Feeds, pasture, and markets.

Food safety and health implications for outdoor access of
poultry.

Integrated livestock/crop systems (food safety; pest/disease
suppression).

Effective treatment options for poultry diseases and human
pathogens.

Effective alternatives to synthetic methionine.

More research on probiotics for animal health (efficacy,
risks, costs, and benefits).

Parasite management for hogs and small ruminants.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In the survey, farmers were asked to describe their biggest
production challenge. Several topics emerged as recurrent challenges
experienced by many of the North Central producers. These challenges
are topics for which future research can be prioritized in this region,
and include:

Marketing and profitability.

Weed management.

Weather and climate change (excess rain).

GMO contamination and avoidance.

Insufficient organic meat processors and USDA meat and
poultry inspectors.

Meeting the Food Safety Modernization Act requirements.

In addition, comments from the listening sessions in the North
Central region emphasized the need for additional research on more
consumer related research on:

Food quality as a function of production practices.

Food waste in organic production chains compared to
conventional chains.

Sociological research on the transition to organic
production and data that establishes the economic benefits or
organic production.
Appendix D: Southern Region
Summary of Research Recommendations
Based on the organic farmer survey detailed below, the Organic
Farming Research Foundation recommends research in the Southern region
that focuses on top priorities, including:

Management of fertility and soil health.

Management of problematic insect pests such as stink bugs.

Control of weed pests like johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense).

Market opportunities and consumer awareness concerning
organic food.
Respondent Characteristics
The Southern region encompasses Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. (See red states in Figure D.1).
Figure D.1.

Southern region is shown in red (SARE, 2016).

This regional report is based on 93 complete responses and 46
partially completed surveys, for a total of 139 participants in the
Southern region. Southern survey participants are farmers with diverse
production systems, farming backgrounds, educations, ages, and income
levels. The length of time farmers in the Southern region have been
farming ranged from less than 1 year to 56 years.
Organic Farming
The size of the farms in the survey ranged from less than 1 acre to
over 57,500 acres. Thirty five percent of southern farmers transitioned
to organic farming from conventional farming practices, and 58% began
farming using organic practices. Seventy-two percent of respondents
only farmed organically, and 27% had mixed organic and conventional
production.
Type of Farm Products
Southern region survey participants grew many different crops. The
most common type of crop produced was vegetable crops with 67.5%
(Figure D.2). Other common crops grown in this region include: herbs,
small fruit, nursery crops, and small grains. In addition to the crops
listed in Figure D.2, growers in this region grew pecans, tobacco,
peanuts, and chia seeds.
Figure D.2.

Percent of Southern region survey participants growing
different crops.

Of the surveyed farmers, 45.8% produced animal products (Figure
D.3). Out of the farmers that produce animal products, the most common
product was eggs, followed by beef and honey. The survey identified
research questions and needs specific to animal production in the
Southern region. One farmer expressed concern about the Food Safety
Modernization Act requirements and another farmer requested research to
study using chickens to improve soil health.
Figure D.3.

Animal products produced by surveyed farmers in the Southern
region.
Top Research Priorities in the Southern Region
Farmers in the Southern region marked many research topics as high
priority (Figure D.4 and D.5). The top five priorities in order of
highest number of respondents rating it a high priority are: (1) soil
health, biology, and nutrient cycling, (2) weed management, (3)
fertility management, (4) nutritional quality and health benefits of
organic food, (5) insect management. The impact of GMOs, crop rotation,
cover cropping, and pollinator health were also all marked as high
priorities by 50% or more of the respondents.
Figure D.4.

Priority ratings for all research topics listed in the
survey.
Figure D.5.

Top six priorities in the Southern region.
Soil Health, Biology, and Nutrient Cycling
Research on soil health was identified as a high priority by 79% of
respondents in the Southern region, making it the topic most commonly
marked high priority (Figure D.6). Main areas for which farmers
requested research were no-till organic practices, fertility for pest
and disease resistance, identifying the soil bacteria and microbial
requirements, cover cropping and green manures for improved soil
health, and tillage and reduced tillage practices to build soil
fertility. One southern farmer stated, ``Soil health is the foundation
to the organic method. As a new farmer, the more that I can learn about
improving the soil, the better my farm results will be.'' Another
farmer stated that their goal is, ``achieving adequate fertility levels
so that crop yields can approach those of conventional farming.'' This
farmer went on to voice a concern about ``the exposure of viruses and
bacteria to workers spreading approved manure based soil supplements.''
Figure D.6.

Priority rating of soil health among farmer respondents.
Weed Management
Weed research is a high priority for 69% of southern farmer
respondents (Figure D.9). Southern farmers identified several
problematic weeds in the region, including knotgrass (Paspalum
distichum), coffee weed, pigweed (Amaranthus palmeri) (Figure D.7),
crab grass (Digitaria sanguinalis), johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense)
(Figure D.8). One Southern farmer stated, ``Weeds/Pig weed has come out
of nowhere to consume my tomato, eggplant, okra and pepper field. We
are hand pulling thousands of the weeds from 1 to 5 tall.''

Figure D.7. Figure D.8.

Palmer amaranth pigweed, By Johnsongrass (public
Pompilid--Own work, CC BY-SA domain).
3.0, https://
commons.wikimedia. org/w/
index.php?curid=20082880.

Another farmer expressed the magnitude of the research need as
follows: ``Weeds have been the biggest issue through the years.
Research into the favored growing conditions of different weeds would
be great. If possible, we farmers can create a soil environment which
favors crops and hampers weeds by different nutrient levels.
Information on the growth cycles of weeds would be helpful in order to
delay planting to miss prime weed germination periods.'' Farmer
comments on specific needs include the need for research on:

Weed control in perennial crops.

The plant diseases carried by weeds.

The impacts of climate change on the invasion of weedy,
woody vines.

Controlling weeds in high rainfall and high humidity
conditions.
Figure D.9.

Priority rating for weed management.
Fertility Management
Fertility management, as part of the larger topic of soil health,
was rated as a high priority by 67.4% of respondents (Figure D.10).
Figure D.10.

Priority rating for fertility management research by Southern
survey respondents.

Southern respondents listed the following as specific fertility
topics of interest:

Achieving adequate fertility levels so that crop yields can
approach those of conventional farming.

Optimum fertility not only for production but also for pest
and disease resistance.

Maintaining fertility while reducing soil borne disease and
overwintering pests.

Inputs. One farmer stated, ``We need more research on the
different fertility inputs. There are many `snake oil' products
out there which cost people money. Some research on the timing
of the release of nutrients from different fertility products
would help as well.''

Restoring abused land and improving fertility under organic
practices.
Nutritional Quality and Health Benefits of Organic Food
Sixty-six percent of respondents rated nutritional quality and
health benefits of organic food as a high priority (Figure D.11).
Figure D.11.

Priority rating for nutritional quality and health benefits
of organic food research.

Southern farmers stated they were interested in the views of
consumers regarding the integrity of organic certification. For
example, one farmer stated, ``The organic label has lost its luster
among consumers, who prefer `local' foods now. Organic production has
high input costs but cannot command a corresponding price point to
remain competitive.'' Another farmer voiced concerns regarding the
health of the nation and convention agriculture's link to cancer.
``Educating the public on how much healthier it is to go organic.
People need to wake up and understand that this country is overweight,
lazy and dying. People want to find a cure for cancer and I strongly
believe that the rapid growth in cancer is what we are eating. And the
drug makers are getting wealthy on selling a pill for all of our health
problems when it could be fixed with food!!!!''
Insect Pests
Research on insect pests was rated as a high priority by 61.9% of
Southern respondents (Figure D.12).
Figure D.12.

Priority rating for insect pest research in the South.

Farmers listed specific pests and the most challenging crops
infestations such as: root maggots in garlic, onions and cabbage, worm
larva in sweet peppers, and stink bug damage in corn and beans. Main
pests listed by growers include stink bugs (including harlequin bugs;
Figure D.13), spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii), pickleworm
(Diaphania nitidalis), squash bug (Anasa tristis), Japanese beetle
(Popillia japonica), kudzu bugs (Megacopta cribraria), and flea beetle.
One farmer described the stink bug problem, ``Stinkbugs on all
tomatoes, eggplant, and peppers this spring. 100% crop devoured and
unsalable.'' One farmer stated their interest in better understanding
of how to use beneficial insects instead of approved substances such as
dipel. One farmer also mentioned the need for effective parasite
control in beef cattle.
Figure D.13.

Harlequin bug (left) and plant damage from harlequin feeding
(Right) (Source: UC IPM).
Disease Management
Sixty-two percent of Southern region survey respondents rated
disease management as a high priority (Figure D.14). The wet and humid
conditions throughout much of the Southern region create conditions
which are conducive to the establishment of crop diseases. One farmer
stated, ``Humidity and high rainfall of the U.S. Southeast makes
vegetable crop production difficult given the resulting disease.''
Specific diseases of concern include orange cane blotch (C. vericens)
in blackberry and blueberry, downy mildew in cucurbits, and mildew in
grape vines.
Figure D.14.

Priority rating for disease management research among
Southern region farmer respondents.

Specific research needs regarding disease management include:

Maintaining fertility while reducing soil borne disease and
overwintering pests.

Breeding disease resistant cultivars.

Disease research for organic vegetables in hot, humid, high-
rainfall climate.

Disease control through companion crops and rotation.

Controlling diseases during wet spells and with climate
change.
Farm Economics and Marketing
Many farmers (59%) rated farm economics and marketing research as a
high priority (Figure D.15). Compared with the other regions,
economics, marketing, and consumer behavior is a much higher priority
in the South. With the smallest share of organic acres and value in the
South, there is a great need to expand the market and strengthen
organic production in the region.
Figure D.15.

Priority rating for farm economics and marketing among
Southern region farmer respondents.

Some of the specific research priorities in the Southern region
include:

Processing and marketing.

Balancing production output to match marketing demand. One
farmer stated, ``Markets are plentiful. Prices are all over the
board with different channels. Toughest problem is achieving a
steady production volume to fit which volume marketing channel
best fits our production from week to week and predicting and
marketing to the channel a week or 2 in advance of actual
harvest. Crops come in weak, then strong and the channel varies
from wholesale to CSA to farmers market depending on the volume
from that crop. Prices vary drastically from channel to channel
and juggling which call to make is tough.''

Marketing the organic label.

Transitional crop marketing.

Optimal marketing practices for small farm sales

Effective marketing tools geared toward those with limited
education and resources. Creating a new model that supports new
farmers.

Food literacy to encourage more southerners to eat fruits
and vegetables.
Pollinator Health
Research on pollinators was rated as a high priority by 58% of
southern farmer respondents. Farmers in the south emphasized planting
more pollinator attractors and building pollinator habitat (Figure
D.16).
Figure D.16.

European honey bee (Apis mellifera).
Conclusions and Recommendations
In the survey, farmers were asked to describe their biggest
production issue. Several topics emerged as major challenges for
Southern region producers. These challenges are topics for which future
research can be prioritized in this region. They include:

Insect pests, especially stink bugs.

Weed control, especially johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense).

Lack of accessibility to the commercial market.

The development of a food safety plan.

Weather and climate change--heavy rain which is causing weed
and disease problems.

Profitability and consumer education.

Lack of reliable labor.

In addition, comments from the listening sessions held in the
Southern region reinforced the need for research on the areas listed
above. In particular, we recommend research and outreach in the
Southern region related to access to markets, soil health, and coping
with troublesome insects and weeds.
Appendix E: GMO Report
Results from the 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey
Under the National Organic Program, organic agriculture prohibits
the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops. Organic farmers must not
use GE crops and they also must take steps to avoid contact with GE
products in order to prevent cross contamination. Examples of GE
avoidance methods by organic farmers include the following:

Testing seed sources for GE traits.

Changing the schedule of crop planting to have different
flowering times for organic and GE crops.

Creating agreements with neighbors who plant GE crops.

Creating buffer zones between neighboring GE crop fields.

Despite these methods, organic farmers experience unintentional
crop contamination with GE traits. For crops like corn and alfalfa,
there is a risk that pollen from neighboring GE crop plantings will
contaminate the organic crops. Unintentional GE crop contamination is a
source of worry for organic producers, who fear having their products
rejected if they are found to be contaminated. GMO avoidance practices
are costly for organic farmers due to delayed planting and lost
production due to taking land out of production for buffer areas.
In 2015, the Organic Farming Research Foundation surveyed organic
farmers and asked about their experience with GMO contamination and the
impacts on their farms. Nine hundred and nine organic farmers completed
the survey and 494 partially completed the survey. This response of
1,403 organic farmers represents approximately 10% of the current
population of U.S. organic farmers (USDA, 2015).
Importance of GMO Research
Nationwide, 39.8% of organic farmers rated the impact of GE crops
on production, practices, sales, markets, and seed availability as a
high research priority (Figure E.1). Regions in the Midwest where there
are more GE crops grown (like corn and soy) expressed the greatest need
for research on GE crop impacts.
Figure E.1.

Priority rating of GE crop research among surveyed organic
farmers (N = 1,130).

Farmers stated that there is a need for specific types of research
and information on GE pollen drift and other contamination issues. In
addition, farmers stated that there is a need to communicate with
conventional farmers about problems of drift without alienating them.
One farmer mentioned that there is an opportunity to find solutions to
the problem and conflicts surrounding GE crop contamination by
reinforcing the understanding that both small organic farmers and small
conventional farmers make important economic and social contributions
to the economic viability of rural communities.
Impacts on Organic Farmers
The survey asked whether organic farmers had experienced GE crop
contamination and the rejection of a shipment of goods. Nationally,
2.2% of surveyed farmers reported having a shipment of product rejected
due to GE crop contamination (N = 881). However, this rate of
contamination is not uniform throughout the U.S. The North Central
region had 6% of respondents report having a product shipment rejected
due to GE crop contamination (Figure E.2).
Figure E.2.

Regional distribution of organic rejections due to GE crop
contamination (N = 881).

The survey asked farmers to describe the impact GE crops have had
on their farm. The responses indicate that in addition to the direct
financial impacts of having products rejected by buyers for failing to
be GE free, organic farmers expressed a range of different ecological,
financial, and psychological impacts from the threat of GE crop
contamination. For example, one farmer stated, ``We test before
shipment and do not ship if contaminated. In the past our corn was
highly contaminated by pollen from neighbors' GE corn. We treated it as
hazardous material because we had no use on our farm for GE corn. The
result was severe economic loss. We are committed to organic
integrity.'' The 263 open-ended responses fall into several categories
of impacts on farmers: pollen drift, delayed or altered planting, lost
production, environmental pollution, increased pesticide pollution/
drift, and psychological/emotional concern.
A word cloud created using keyword counts visually depicts the
important terms represented in the survey (Figure E.3).
Figure E.3.

Word cloud for GE crop impact open-ended questions. The size
of the word represents the number of times it was mentioned in
the survey responses.
Concern
It was common for survey participants to express psychological
distress related to GE crops. Words like worry, concern, fear, stress,
and uneasiness were commonly used to describe the feelings the organic
farmers had regarding GE impacts. One farmer stated, ``I have constant
stress due to possible cross contamination and fines for inadvertent
violation.'' Farmers may also feel powerless when neighbors plant GE
crops. One farmer stated, ``A neighbor planted GMO (genetically
modified organism) alfalfa right next to our alfalfa fields. We are
asking ourselves: what do we do now??''
Pollen Drift
Many respondents mentioned pollen drift as a major impact on their
farms. Responses included the need to monitor what their neighbors are
planting. Corn and alfalfa are common crops for which farmers expressed
concern for pollen drift. One farmer stated, ``I am concerned that GMO
pollen is contaminating my beehives and honey.'' One respondent stated,
that they ``always have fear that traveling pollen may impact our
farm.'' Another farmer stated that they grow Indian corn for masa and
animal feed, and that there is ``always a threat of GMO contamination
from wind borne pollen.'' Part of the problem with pollen drift is that
many organic farmers are in proximity to conventional neighbors. This
issue of contamination from adjacent fields was the most common concern
expressed in the survey. One farmer stated that their 2013 corn crop
was over 90% contaminated and their 2014 corn crop was 30-35%
contaminated. Other responses included:

``We watch and try to manage our crop rotation alternate to
neighboring crops giving us less contamination, as a 25
buffer/border is not enough to stop it.''

``We avoid growing corn on main farm site and try to time
plantings on second farm site around the one corn grower.''

``Accidental spaying of herbicide on the comer of our field
by neighbor resulting in buffer strip! We get GMO stalks and
stover blown all over our property and all over our bottomlands
with the yearly floods.''

``Sometimes have to adjust crop rotation schedule to avoid
drift from one neighbor.''

``All my neighbors plant GMO so I am always concerned with
cross-pollination.''

``We border a GMO corn and alfalfa grower. We worry about
drift.''

``I am always concerned about GMO contamination, but we are
currently surrounded by fallow land or woodlands, so it is not
a big issue, but at anytime, someone could buy that land and
put in GMO corn.''

``Concern over what, when and where my neighbors are
planting.''

``Difficult to demonstrate buffer against contamination of
surrounding conventional corn pollen. Try to have different
tasseling dates compared to conventional neighbors, but this is
not always possible.''

``We cannot grow sweet corn because we are surrounded by GMO
corn.''

``An adjoining field raises conventional crops. Under
current law and regulation, any contamination issues are our
responsibility. The most significant impact on us is loss of
production acreage, which is being used as a buffer.''

``We have had to purposely plant squash away from our
neighbor's farm.''

``They are surrounding us, primarily GMO corn, and our main
concern will be contamination of our alfalfa, over time, by GMO
alfalfa.''

``We have apples and are concerned about the new GMO
varieties due to cross-pollination.''

``GMO alfalfa is grown in our area, and impacts local hay;
we try to grow all our own feed and not buy hay.''
Seed Sourcing and Integrity
Many farmers expressed the difficulty in sourcing non-GE seed, or
if they are seed producers, having their production at risk for
contamination. Responses related to GE traits contaminating organic
seed include:

``We need stricter testing at the seed companies for GMO's
in their organic seed.''

``We cannot grow seed crops for anything that could be
pollinated by GM plants (corn).''

``Seed industry consolidation . . . somewhat caused by
introduction of GMOs in the marketplace, is affecting baseline
prices and limiting the number of sources of availability.''

``We grow seed corn and are at risk.''

``I am concerned about feed fed to hens from organic
supplier and increasing pressure to find appropriate layer
pellets and scratch feed for hens. I am thinking I may source
seed to sprout for my small flock--and am concerned about
sourcing solid non-GMO seed for this purpose.''

``As more GMO crops are allowed it is also a nightmare to
keep up with the paperwork saying the seed in non-GMO.''

``We are starting to grow our own alfalfa seed to avoid GMO
contamination of alfalfa seed.''

``It is hard to get some of the corn varieties that interest
me.''

``GMOs were very disruptive to our growing of chard seed.''

``As organic seed growers, in seed growing region we deal
with isolation concerns all the time. As members in the
Willamette Valley Specialty Seed Association (WVSSA) we
participate in the pinning map system and respect our
neighbors. We have GMO sugar beets being grown for seed in our
area, which prevents us from growing any beta crops. So far
we've succeeded in keeping GMO canola out of the valley, but if
that ban is ever lifted, we'll be in trouble for all brassica
production.''

``We cannot find non-GMO canola seed.''

``We bought organic seed, planted on organic land, had
adequate space, about 1-2 miles from neighbors and still had
some GMO contamination. We wonder about the organic seed being
cleaned in elevators who also clean GMO seed.''

``It is impossible to find compostable carbon sources, i.e.,
peanut hulls and cotton gin trash that is non-GMO.''

``Since papaya is pollinated via all means possible (wind,
bees, birds, etc.) it is impossible to declare papaya GMO free.
The fruit can be if tested in advance, but through pollination,
the seeds cannot be so declared.''
Environmental Impacts
Respondents often cited environmental impacts as a larger,
ecosystem-wide way in which they are being affected by GE crops. The
respondents cited impacts of bees and pollinators and water and air
pollution from the increased use of pesticides like glyphosate. One
farmer also mentioned that their personal health was being affected as
a result of more intensive pesticide spraying. One farmer stated, ``GMO
crops often mean Roundup and other chemicals are being used to excess,
and may runoff onto our land and end up in our water table. They impact
the larger ecosystem of which our farm is but a small part.''
Additional comments related to environmental impacts include:

``Neighbors pollute my air with their glyphosate.''

``GMOs contribute to hazardous algae blooms and water
contamination.''

``My apiary has ten beehives I manage for honey production
and pollinator stability. I am concerned that GMO pollen is
contaminating my beehives and honey. Is there an easy test for
this? No.''

``I am concerned over the potential of resistant insects
developed by GMO overuse becoming an issue.''

``I am worried about the potential loss of BT
effectiveness.''

``Roundup resistant weeds that have become superweeds.''
Societal Impacts
Many farmers expressed the idea that GE crops are having negative
effects on the food system as a whole. These effects include
consolidation of the agricultural industry as well as the legal
ramifications for organic farmers if they experience GE crop
contamination. For example, farmers stated:

``GMOs have had a heavy effect on my community. Round Up
Ready corn and beans have made for a huge consolidation of
acres. The very large, 6-10,000 acre farming operations, don't
have time for the community. Feed lot dairy has came to our
region in the last 20 years replacing the many 50 to 100 cow,
200-500 acre dairy farms with 3,500 cow operations on 80 acres.
These are huge changes, that I don't think would have been
quite as extreme without GMOs.''

``Fewer farmers are covering more ground. I feel like I farm
by myself.''

``I believe that the lawsuits that have prevailed to the
demise of small farms are a shame to our history. Lawyers who
have never farmed are controlling our food supply, and that is
very scary to me.''

``The overall transformation of the global food system away
from one in which local people buy food from local farmers.''

``We worry about the government siding with corporations
instead of farmers and not allowing labeling or interfering
with organic's right to say no to GMOs.''

``We need a major class action lawsuit against these
companies for contamination of the seed supply and our soils.''

``Hawaii is trying to keep Monsanto off of the Island and
out of Hawaii. I have attended many Community/County Council
meetings.''
Monetary Costs
As a result of GE crop contamination of organic products, organic
farmers have suffered financially due to displaced planting schedules,
loss of revenue due to project rejection, decreased yield due to buffer
areas, and the loss of certain marketing opportunities (like the
European markets which have zero contamination standards). Economic
losses reported in the survey include:

``I tried sweet corn seed and it was contaminated by Roundup
ready corn in the area--lost the sale.''

``It is becoming increasingly impossible to maintain zero
contamination as is required in European markets.''

``Decreases in yields due to missing optimum planting
windows for crops in order to avoid contamination. As more GMO
crops are allowed it is also a nightmare to keep up with the
paperwork saying the seed in non-GMO.''

``Lost production due to sizable buffer strips.''

``We have to plant later to prevent cross-pollination. This
has really hurt us on particular years.''

``Sometimes have to adjust crop rotation schedule to avoid
drift from one neighbor.''

``Loss of organic premiums.''

``Lower yields from later planting.''

``Insect pressure from conventional fields.''

``Corn that was sold for food grade and had a 1.2% GMO
detection and it needed to be less than 1%.''

``All of my 2014 corn crop was rejected for the food grade
market due to contamination that came in from most likely my
neighbor's corn field. Non-organic corn pollinated later than
usual last year due to a cool spring and summer which
overlapped into my pollination window I always plant my corn
much later although due to what I mentioned above caused a huge
negative impact for me.''

``We spend money on testing, which Monsanto should be
paying.''

``Increasing the buffer areas therefore decreasing the land
that cam be certified as organic.''
Customer Confusion
Many farmers stated that customer confusion about organic products,
GMOs, and GE free products as hurting their marketing. Comments
addressing customer confusion include:

``We get a lot of customers very concerned that we are
growing GM grass or alfalfa for our cows. One of the reasons we
certify as much of our pasture as we can is for this reason.''

``Consumer confusion regarding the allowance by USDA to grow
the GMO Arctic varieties. They don't realize the `organic'
means GMO free.''

``Consumers don't realize the Certified Organic seal is
better than a non-GMO seal.''

``We need to certify products as GMO free for marketing
reasons.''
Conclusions
The comments from organic growers depicting the impacts from GE
crops highlights the need for greater education, research, and policy
interventions. Education and training for both organic and conventional
farmers is needed on best practices to avoid GE crop contamination of
organic crops. Research and monitoring on the magnitude of GE crop
contamination is needed at both regional and national scales. Research
on the efficacy of different avoidance practices should be a focus of
future research. There is a need for stronger U.S. policies designed to
protect organic farmers from GE pollen drift and reduce the economic
hardships caused by GE crop contamination avoidance practices.
Appendix F: Seeds
Seed Availability
According to the National Organic Program guidelines, organic
farmers must use organic seed when it is commercially available.
However, if the desired organically produced seed or planting stock
variety is commercially unavailable, organic farmers may use
conventionally grown, untreated seeds. To assess the availability of
organic seed, we asked the survey participants to categorize the
frequency of organic seed availability for the primary crops they grow.
The survey found that for 20% of respondents, organic seed was rarely
or never available (Figure F.1). There were some regional differences.
Farmers in the Western region reporting less organic seed availability;
reporting that organic seed was never available 14% of the time.
Figure F.1.

Frequency of organic seed availability as reported by U.S.
organic farmers.

``Production hasn't reached the place where it is
economically feasible to plant certified organic seed.''

``We grow about 100 vegetable varieties, and all but about
six are available as certified organic seed. However, we have
stopped growing certain organic transplant crops (Brussels
Sprouts, for one) because the seed has become so expensive we
cannot sell tray packs of the starts. The price rises in
organic seed in the past 4-6 years are very large, especially
since in our region there is no price premium for organic
vegetable transplants.''

``Would like to see affordable organic strawberry plants.''

``Cost is more of problem than availability--at least for
small grains and forages.''

``It is difficult to obtain small quantities of organic
seed--many suppliers have astronomical prices for small
quantities and the `next size up' is huge and way out of
practical for small farmers. ''

``Organic nursery stock is unavailable for the latest
commercial fruit tree varieties. The few that are available are
insanely expensive and geared toward the home garden market.''

``Organic seed is usually available, even though I may have
to order online instead of local availability. But the price is
sometimes many times more expensive. Example organic soybeans
($50/lb.), non-treated soybeans ($3/lb.).''

``Organic seed costs are triple and quadruple sometimes
their untreated counterparts, to remain profitable it's very
hard to purchase all of your seed organic, but this is not
acceptable to NOP and certifying bodies.''

``If it wasn't for a local organic farmer who saves his own
seed, purchasing organic wheat, rye, and soybeans would be cost
prohibitive.''

``Why do they have to cost so much? Makes it hard to turn
profit when I am paying over $410/LB for organic grass seed!?''

``Honestly--the less organic seed available the better--it's
very expensive and cuts into our profitability, plus the
quality is often inferior. We would feel very differently if
there were cultivars developed specifically to thrive under
organic management because the additional cost would be offset
by increased productivity.''

``When we were conventional we spent $60,000 a year on
fertilizers and sprays. Now that money is all spent on seeds
and soil amendments.''
Quality
Survey respondents reported that the quality of organic seed was
often inferior to conventional seed in terms of germination rate,
yield, vigor, and contamination with weed seeds. Respondents also
reported that there are fewer organic seed varieties to choose from.
Organic farmers need varieties specific to their needs, such as high
nutrient-use efficiency, disease resistance, insect resistance, weed
competition, and are of good quality. Although there has been progress
in seed breeding for organic production, it is a slow process and some
farmers report dissatisfaction with organic seed germination rates.
Respondent comments regarding the quality of organic seed include:

``Organic seeds for the most part are open-pollinated older
varieties which don't have the appeal or plant vigor of the
commercial conventional seeds.''

``Want newer varieties.''

``In many crops we are generally disappointed with the
organic varieties either due to yield or traits.''

``We like good disease resistance, yield, flavor and some
capacity for shipping and shelf life.''

``Most companies aren't interested in developing drought
resistant varieties with characteristics we need for organic.''

``The genetics are horrible--conventional non treated non-
GMO, always out yields organic hybrids.''

``Need to develop better grasses.''

``The wonderful varieties of bell peppers, eggplant,
cucumbers, and round tomatoes that are conventionally available
are generally unavailable organically. This is very
frustrating, as our certifier wants us to have 70% organic
seed.''

``Not enough quantity or variety! I often have to use non-
organic seed because the organic varieties aren't as developed
or as good.''

``Many seed varieties don't yield enough product. This means
I have to grow more, which uses more water, seed, labor and
land space. Not cost effective.''

``Because we farm in an area that is dominated by large
production vegetable farms there are lots of disease inoculum
present throughout much of the year. As such, we often rely on
`cutting edge' varieties that resist the latest races of
prevalent diseases, but for the most part, they are not
available from organic seed.''
Availability
Many farmers reported that organic seed was not available locally
in their area for certain crops, or became harder to find during the
peak of the planting and growing season. There were several crops for
which respondents reported very little availability, specifically
grass, cover crops, kale, and flower seeds. Comments related to the
lack of availability of organic seed include:

``There's a need for cover crop seed.''

``Open pollinated, drought tolerant grain sorghum (milo) is
generally not available.''

``Not much for selection in corn and alfalfa. Never find
organic seed for grasses. Sometimes clover is available.
Organic oat seed is sporadically available.''

``Sweet corn for the south is hard to find. Silver Queen
grows best but none available organically. Sun Gold tomatoes a
must for markets but not available organically. Cover crop seed
is expensive and almost prohibitive with shipping cost.''

``I use tree planting stock. Organically raised trees are
almost impossible to find here in CA.''

``Seed sources for herbs is very limited for specialty
crops. Also, seed quantity is often limited, and suppliers
rarely offer bulk pricing. Finally, we have had minor problems
with mislabeling and/or unknowingly cross pollinating species,
resulting in the wrong species.''

``Need more variety development in carrot seed, onion seed,
radish and corn seed. There was a nation-wide lack of Breen
(mini red romaine) lettuce and curly blue kale. As bigger farms
get into organic they are pushing the rest of us around, buying
up limited seed, hogging up larger markets, pushing prices
down.''

``As for flowers (we sell seedlings) there is almost no
significant availability of organic seed. I don't know why, but
that is a big area of need.''

``Organic sunflower seed has doubled in price and become
much less available.''

``It's almost impossible to find organic pasture mixes or
even dryland cover crops, or specific to your area strains of
wheat, sudan, bmr sorghum, alfalfa, etc. (Strains that the
other conventional growers near you have access to but you
don't because there isn't an organic version).''

``There is only one known organic spawn for mushrooms and it
is not commercially acceptable. There needs to be more research
and development for this.''
Specific Areas of Need
Surveyed farmers highlighted several areas for which there is a
need for more research or policy change regarding organic seed. Farmers
commonly stated the need for increased on-farm breeding and variety
improvement for organic seeds for the development of more organic
hybrids for disease resistance. Farmers also expressed different views
related to the policy for organic seed sourcing. Several farmers stated
the need for stricter enforcement of using organic seed. For example,
farmers stated:

``If we did not allow conventional seed at all, we would all
whine and complain, but then we would have to pay for it, the
companies would contract with farmers to grow it for seed, and
it would be done. Just like the conventional guys.''

``We need to continue to pressure farms to use organic seed
and trial organic varieties to replace their conventional
untreated varieties. To be organic you must use organic seed.''

``As long as organic crops can be grown from non-organic
seed, there is little incentive to develop a reliable seed
production infrastructure. The `loophole' in standards should
be closed over a 10 year period to allow and incentive
necessary development of an organic seed system.''

Farmers also expressed the need for new priorities for the seed
breeding industry and university breeders. One farmer stated that wheat
varieties currently are ``short wheat, short root systems, lower
protein and mineral content, higher nitrogen needs, are really not what
we need.'' The farmer expressed the need for breeding that focuses on
good root systems for interacting with healthy organic soil (rather
than depleted conventional soil). Another farmer stated that they are
very concerned about the loss of public seed varieties and declines in
non-GMO seed varieties, particularly with soybeans. The farmer stated,
``I am also very concerned about the widespread GMO contamination
potential from GMO alfalfa. GMO wheat could be a disaster as well I
think the availability of public varieties and farmers ability to save
and reuse their own seed is fundamental to agricultural
sustainability.'' Farmers expressed the need for universities to
rebuild their public variety development and distribution systems.
Farmers expressed the need for growth in the number of organic seed
producers and distributors in order to supply seed at a lower price and
in more varieties. One farmer pointed out that lowering the high cost
of organic seed is one possible opportunity to change the organic
industry and encourage greater adoption of organic farming. ``Lower
cost of organic seed would lead to better availability of product and
better economics for smaller producers. This would entice more folks to
grow organic.'' Another farmer stated, ``Sometimes it feels like all
the farmers are buying from the same handful of seed companies which
makes it feel like nobody is growing anything very special or unique.
It would be great if more `local' and regional variety began to emerge
which would add a level of depth to the organic food system and a nice
sense of local identity for farming communities around the country.''
Appendix G: Listening Sessions 2015-2016
Twenty-one listening sessions were held in 2015 and 2016 to inform
the 2015 National Organic Research Agenda report. The following list
contains the names and locations of the meetings where the listening
sessions were held.

Midwest Organic & Sustainable Education Service (MOSES)
Conference, (Midwest/Wisconsin) (2015 and 2016)

Ecological Farming Conference, (West/California) (2015 and
2016)

Virginia Biological Farmers Association, (East/Virginia)

North East Sustainable Agriculture Working Group Conference,
(East/New York)

Minnesota Organic Conference in 2015, (Central/Minnesota)

Organicology Conference (West/Oregon)

Organic Agriculture Research Symposium, (West/Wisconsin)

Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group Conference
(SSAWG), (South/Alabama)

Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA),
(South/Pennsylvania)

Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association (OEFFA), (Central/
Ohio)

Organic Seed Alliance Conference, (West/Oregon)

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) (East/
Washington, D.C.)

Idaho Organic Growers Conference, (Central/Idaho)

Natural Products Expo East, (East/Maryland)

Organic Trade Association, Organic Confluences Summit (East/
Washington, D.C.)

California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) meetings, (three
meetings; West/California)
Appendix H: Web Survey Instrument
Questions from the 2015 National Organic Farmer Survey

Note: At Question 11 the survey displayed only the topics
selected with a high, moderate or low priority in Questions 6
through Question 10, including the text from any of the
``Other'' categories. Additionally, this page only allowed up
to three selections.

report 2
Reducing Risk through Best Soil Health Management Practices in Organic
Crop Production

By Mark Schonbeck & Michael Stein

View more reports at: http://ofrf.org/reports
Table of Contents
Introduction
Why Soil Health is Important to Production
Challenges and Opportunities in Co-Managing Soil Health and
Production Risks

Concept #1: USDA Organic Standards Require Long-term
Investment in Soil Health

Crop Rotation, Diversity, and Cover Crops

Concept #2: Idle, Bare Soil is Starving and at Risk
Concept #3: Choosing and Managing Cover Crops Where Rainfall
is Limited: Not All ``Drought Tolerant'' Cover Crops Conserve
Moisture

Nutrients, Compost, Manure, and Crop-livestock
Integration

Concept #4: Nutrients and Compost: More is Not Always Better

Other Organic Amendments

Concept #5: Navigating the Organic Input Smorgasbord

The Tillage Dilemma and Integrated Systems
Soil Health in High Tunnels
Organic Transition

Human Health, Environmental, and Regulatory Risks;
USDA Program and Resources

Practical Tips for Reducing Risk through Soil Health in Organic
Systems

Worksheet 1: Evaluate Your Soil Resources
Worksheet 2: Reviewing Current Practices
Adding Crops

Concept #6: A Few Cover Crop Pitfalls to Avoid and a Few Tips
to Reduce Risks
Concept #7: Elwood Stock Farm: A Crop-livestock Integrated
System

Worksheet 3: Adding crops
Reducing Tillage
Adjusting Inputs
Managing Risk During Organic Transition

Recent Research on Selected Topics in Soil Health and Risk
Management

Farmer Perceptions of Benefits and Risks Associated with
Cover Cropping
Cover Crops in Moisture Limited Regions
Plant Breeding and Genetics

Conclusion
Information Resources and Decision Support Tools

Nationwide
Northeastern Region
North Central Region
Western Region
Southern Region

References
Introduction
The purpose of this guide is to provide farmers with research-based
information and resources to help identify and implement effective soil
health based risk reduction practices. The companion guide,
Introduction to Crop Insurance for Organic and Transitioning Producers,
provides information on how crop insurance works and how to determine
which crop insurance options are right for your operation.

Farmers must manage an array of risks. Production risks include
yield losses resulting from poor germination and establishment;
drought, hail, and other adverse weather events; weeds, pests, and
diseases; nutrient limitations; and long-term declines in productivity
related to soil erosion, compaction, or degradation. Climate change is
expected to exacerbate risks by intensifying weather extremes,
modifying life cycles of crop pests and pathogens, and accelerating
decomposition of soil organic matter (SOM) (IPCC 2014, Kirschbaum,
1995).
Financial risks arise when total costs of production, including
seed, fertilizers and other inputs, labor, field operations, and fixed
costs (e.g., loan payments), exceed gross proceeds as determined by
yields and market prices. Careful evaluation of economic risks becomes
especially important when you diversify crops or enterprises, adopt new
practices for soil health or other objectives, or undertake transition
to organic production. Farmers can also face legal, regulatory, and
human health risks related to food safety, water quality and other
environmental impacts of farming practices.
Strong market demand and high prices for certified organic farm
products can help reduce economic risks for organic producers, and
organic price elections (somewhat reflecting organic prices) are
available for insurance of some crops in certain areas (Schahczenski,
2018a). However, without the use of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides,
and pesticides, organic farmers face increased risks of crop losses to
nutrient deficiencies especially nitrogen (N), weed competition, insect
pests, and diseases. Compared to conventional systems, organic crop
production depends more heavily on soil biological processes to provide
crop nutrition and sustain yields. Building and maintaining a healthy
soil--rich in organic matter and beneficial organisms--is a top
management priority.
Why Soil Health is Important to Production
Soil health plays a key role in reducing production costs and risks
(Table 1). Healthy soil enhances crop resilience to drought, pests, and
other stresses; and thereby minimizes losses during ``bad'' years. For
example, while organic and conventional crop rotations in the Rodale
long-term farming systems trials gave similar yields over a 35 year
period, the organic systems sustained much better crop condition and
31% higher grain yield in corn during drought years (Rodale, 2011a,
2015). Higher soil organic matter, biological activity, and moisture
infiltration and storage in the organic systems resulted in greater
yield stability.
Healthy soils with optimum soil organic matter (SOM) content and
biological activity develop good structure (tilth) with reduced surface
crusting and compaction, and ample interconnected macro and micro pore
spaces extending deep into the soil profile. Desirable soil test SOM
levels vary with soil texture and climate, from 2% in Southeastern
U.S. coastal plain sandy loams, to 6% or more in Northern Corn Belt
clay loams (Magdoff and van Es., 2009). Such soils drain well, maintain
sufficient aeration, and readily absorb, retain, and deliver plant-
available moisture. In addition to sustaining crops through dry spells,
healthy soils undergo less ponding, runoff, and erosion during heavy
rains (Magdoff and van Es, 2009; Moncada and Sheaffer, 2010; Rodale,
2015).

Table 1. How healthy soil reduces risks in organic crop production
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functions of a Healthy Soil Risks and Costs Mitigated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintains good structure (tilth). Requires less tillage to make
Accrues and maintains stable seedbed.
organic matter. Easy to work.
Improves crop emergence and
establishment.
Cultivation for weed control is
more effective.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drains well. Provides yield stability in wet
years, and less root disease.
Reduces delays in planting and
other field operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resists erosion, crusting, and Increases soil and crop resilience
compaction; recovers from tillage to weather extremes.
and other stresses. Reduces risk of losing fertile
topsoil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absorbs, retains, and delivers Provides yield stability in drought
plant-available moisture. years.
Reduces need for irrigation.
Reduces runoff and erosion;
protects water quality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retains and recycles nitrogen and Maintains crop yield and quality.
other nutrients. Reduces fertilizer needs.
Maintains sufficient but not Reduces nutrient losses.
excessive levels of plant- Protects water quality.
available nutrients.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hosts abundant, diverse, beneficial Reduces risk of crop losses to
organisms; harbors few pests or diseases and pests.
pathogens
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good soil structure facilitates planting, crop emergence, and stand
establishment; improves efficacy of cultivation for weed control, and
may reduce the number of passes needed. In addition, as soil physical
condition improves, crop roots extend deeper into the soil profile,
thereby relieving subsurface hardpan and enhancing the soil's plant-
available water holding capacity by building SOM below the plow layer
(Rodale, 2015).
Abundant, active, and diverse soil life in healthy soils enhance
the release of N and other nutrients from crop residues, active SOM,
and organic amendments (Wander, 2015b; Wander, et al., 2016). Healthy
soils promote mycorrhizal (fungus-root) symbioses and other beneficial
root-microbe associations that aid crop uptake of nutrients and
moisture (Hamel, 2004). These biological processes, combined with
deeper and larger root systems, reduce the amount of fertilizer and
irrigation needed to sustain yields, and mitigate environmental and
regulatory risks related to soluble N and phosphorus (P) losses to
ground and surface waters (Kloot, 2018; Rosolem, et al., 2017;
Sullivan, et al., 2017).
A diverse and balanced soil microbiota can suppress plant
pathogenic fungi, bacteria, and nematodes, thereby reducing risks of
crop losses to diseases (Baker, 2016). Beneficial soil fungi can also
induce systemic resistance (ISR) to foliar pathogens, such as late
blight and gray mold in tomato (Egel, et al., 2018).
Challenges and Opportunities in Co-Managing Soil Health and Production
Risks

While optimum soil health in itself generally reduces production
costs and risks (Table 1), management practices adopted to improve soil
health can add new costs and risks as well as benefits, especially for
organic producers (Table 2). The National Organic Standards require
certified organic producers to make a long-term investment in soil
health (see Concept #1). One challenge faced by all farmers is how to
put a dollar value on soil health benefits, especially since financial
returns (yield) on this investment can take 5 or 10 years to accrue.

Table 2. Benefits, risks, and costs associated with soil health
management practices in organic systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practice Benefits Costs and Risks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cover crop Reduces erosion. Consumes soil
Adds organic matter, moisture.
feeds soil life. Can delay cash crop
Fixes N (legumes). planting.
Recovers and retains Can tie up N (non-
nutrients. legumes).
Suppresses weeds. Can leach N
(legumes,
crucifers).
Adds costs for seed
and planting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diversified crop Enhances soil microbial New crops entail
rotation diversity. marketing
Reduces weeds, pests, challenges.
and diseases. Increases system
Opens new market complexity.
opportunities. May require new
equipment and
skills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sod crop in rotation Prevents erosion during Sod years may entail
sod phase. foregone income.
Depletes annual weed Tillage usually
seed banks. needed to break
Restores soil health and sod.
fertility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum tillage Conserves soil organic Often increases weed
matter. pressure.
Conserves soil Can delay N release
structure. to cash crops.
Reduces erosion. Can complicate crop
establishment.
Require new
equipment and
skills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compost and other Adds and stabilizes Can build excess P
organic amendments organic matter. or other nutrients
Provides slow-release Some amendments can
nutrients. leach N.
Manure can pose food
safety risks.
Adds purchase and
shipping costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organic farmers face a somewhat different suite of production risks
from conventional farmers. Yields of organically produced corn,
soybean, and other field crops average about 19% lower than
conventional yields (Ponisio, et al., 2014). Leading causes of this
yield gap include insufficient plant-available N (Caldwell, et al.,
2012), increased weed pressure (Hooks, et al., 2016), and challenges in
managing pests and diseases without synthetic crop protection chemicals
(Jerkins and Ory, 2016). The historical lack of research investment in
organic agriculture and development of crop cultivars suited to organic
systems have contributed to lower organic yields (Hultengren, et al.,
2016; Ponisio, et al., 2014). Although USDA organic research funding
still lags behind the 5% organic market share in the U.S. food system,
the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and Organic
Transitions Program (ORG) have begun to address many organic farmers'
research priorities (Schonbeck, et al., 2016).
Exclusion of synthetic inputs from organic systems can reduce or
offset certain production and economic risks. Consumer demand for food
grown without pesticide sprays and with environmentally benign
practices has led to higher prices for organic farm products. Non-use
of pesticides and herbicides saves money on inputs, and eliminates
risks from herbicide-resistant weeds, herbicide carryover in
diversified crop rotations, and chemical impacts on water quality
(Rodale, 2011a). Purchased organic fertilizers cost more per pound of
nutrient than conventional soluble fertilizers, yet can pay for
themselves when yields of high-value crops like broccoli respond to the
input (Collins and Bary, 2017). In field crops, reduced total input
expenditures and organic price premiums could result in competitive or
higher net returns from organic (legume covers + manure) versus
conventional (soluble fertilizer) systems (Delate, et al., 2015b;
Rodale, 2011a, 2015).
Concept #1: USDA Organic Standards Require Long-term Investment in Soil
Health
The USDA National Organic Program (NOP) requires organic producers
to use ``tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or improve
physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil, and minimize
erosion,'' and to use cover crops and organic amendments to build SOM
(USDA NOP Final Rule). In essence, NOP requires organic producers to
make a long-term business investment in soil health, with up-front
costs and risks, and economic benefits (yield stability, input
efficiency) that may take years to accrue. For example, corn grain
yield benefits from cover cropping increase after 4 consecutive years
of the practice (USDA, SARE, 2016).

NOP defines organic production as a system of practices that
``foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and
conserve biodiversity.'' Toward this end, the Crop Rotation
Standard requires organic farmers to ``implement a crop
rotation including . . . sod, cover crops, green manure crops,
and catch crops that . . . maintain or improve soil organic
matter, provide for pest management, manage deficient or excess
plant nutrients, and provide erosion control''
(USDA NOP Final Rule).

Concept #2: Idle, bare soil is starving and at risk
The long fallow periods in a typical corn-soy or vegetable rotation
without winter cover crops subject the soil life to a protracted
``fast'' that can deplete populations of mycorrhizal fungi and other
beneficial organisms (Kabir, 2018; Rillig, 2004; Six, et al., 2006). In
addition to increasing risks of erosion and depleting SOM (photo),
prolonged bare fallows reduce efficacy of fertilizer inputs, and
exacerbate leaching losses (Kabir, 2018, Rosolem, et al., 2017).
Growing cover crops during the off-season can sustain soil life,
conserve nutrients, and reduce long-term risks to fertility. When
planting schedules or moisture limitations make a living cover
impractical, crop residues or organic mulch can reduce the adverse
effects of fallow.
In perennial fruit production, maintaining a bare orchard floor
through tillage or herbicides can cut SOM levels by \1/2\ compared to
perennial cover with periodic mowing (Lorenz and Lal, 2016). In an
organic orchard in Utah, alleys in a birdsfoot trefoil living mulch
substantially enhanced SOM, microbial activity, tree root growth, and
tree N nutrition over tilled bare fallow, with intermediate levels of
soil and crop health under applied organic mulch (Reeve, 2014).

Stop, Thief! Exposed soil is highly prone to wind and water
erosion, which rob fertility by selectively removing organic
matter and clays, along with their adsorbed nutrients and
microbiota. Nature creates only about an inch of new soil every
500 years; thus soil loss is one of the worst risks a farmer
might face. You don't have to see rills deep enough to twist an
ankle to be losing soil. Watch for signs of sheet erosion, such
as water-flow or wind-blow patterns on the soil surface, a
smooth or ``sealed'' surface, or ``perched stones''.
Crop Rotation, Diversification, and Cover Crops
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has
developed four principles of soil health management:

Keep the soil covered as much as practical.

Maintain living roots in the soil.

Build soil microbial diversity through crop diversity.

Minimize soil disturbance.

Research into organic and sustainable agricultural systems has
largely validated these principles (Schonbeck, et al., 2017). Organic
producers face significant challenges in putting these principles into
practice, and can incur costs and risks doing so. However, extended
fallow periods without living cover and the erosion that can ensue
constitute some of the gravest risks that any farmer can face (see
Concept #2).
The importance of crop rotation in protecting soil quality and
reducing risks related to pests, weeds, and diseases is well documented
(Mohler and Johnson, 2009). Diversified rotations can reduce risks of
catastrophic financial losses when one crop fails, and have been shown
to enhance yield and soil health in organic systems (Moncada and
Sheaffer, 2010; Ponisio, et al., 2014). Adding a perennial grass-legume
sod phase (1 to 3 years) to the rotation can be especially effective in
restoring SOM, tilth, and fertility, and reducing annual weed
populations (Moncada and Sheaffer, 2010). In cash grain rotations,
income foregone by rotating into perennial sod can sometimes be
recovered in part by haying or grazing the sod. Rotationally-grazed
livestock can also enhance the soil building effect.
Costs related to adding new crops to the rotation may include
acquiring new skills, tools, and equipment. In addition, rotating into
perennial sod phase to restore soil health in an intensive vegetable
rotation could result in significant income foregone, and may not be
practical for small-acreage market gardens. Diversifying cash crops
requires careful market research and enterprise budgets to ensure that
the expanded suite of crops is likely to maintain or improve net
returns.

Cover cropping plays an essential role in soil health and fertility
management in organic cropping systems (Hooks, et al., 2015; Moncada
and Sheaffer, 2010). For example, the roots of winter annual legume
cover crops enhance both SOM and plant-available N (Hu, et al., 2015).
Deep rooted cover crops can penetrate hardpan and enhance rooting
depth, moisture and nutrient acquisition, and yield by cash crops, such
as corn or soybean after tillage radish, or cotton after winter rye
(Gruver, et al., 2016; Marshall, et al., 2016; Rosolem, et al., 2017).
Yet, adding cover crops can entail new risks (Moncada and Sheaffer,
2010). In selecting and managing cover crops, the organic producer must
consider costs of seed, planting, and termination, as well as the cover
crop's effects on planting dates, soil moisture, and nutrient
availability for the following crop. In drier regions, a high biomass
cover crop may not leave sufficient moisture for optimum yield in a
subsequent grain crop (Thompson, et al., 2016). In colder regions with
short growing seasons, cover crops can hurt yields by delaying planting
or slowing N mineralization (Liebman, et al., 2017; Moncada and
Sheaffer, 2010).
Annual nationwide farmer surveys have shown that, on average, cover
cropping slightly enhances corn, soybean, and wheat yields, especially
in drought years (USDA SARE). Farmers cite soil health benefits,
followed by yield stability and weed management as their leading
motivations for cover cropping, and a growing number perceive a net
economic advantage from the practice (USDA SARE, 2017). Challenges
include identifying the best cover crop species, mixes, and management
practices for the grower's site, climate, soils, and management system;
and, for organic producers, managing the cover crop without herbicides.
In a survey of New York farmers, most participants reported that cover
cropping reduced costs for soil erosion repairs; nearly \1/2\ saved
money by reducing fertilizer inputs, and slightly more than \1/2\
reported improved crop yields (Mason and Wolfe, 2018). In semiarid
regions such as Montana, the Dakotas, and interior Washington and
Oregon, cover cropping can play a vital role in maintaining soil health
in grain rotations, yet cover crop species must be selected and managed
with care to realize benefits and minimize yield tradeoffs (see Concept
#3).
Concept #3: Choosing and managing cover crops where rainfall is
limited: not all ``drought tolerant'' cover crops conserve
moisture
Some drought tolerant cover crops are light users of soil moisture,
and can be good choices for semiarid regions. These include barley,
camelina, phacelia, medics, foxtail millet, pearl millet, amaranth,
lablab, and pigeon pea (USDA ARS, 2018). However, the drought
resilience of alfalfa, sainfoin, sunflower, rye, triticale, and tillage
radish results from their deep, extensive root systems that consume
large amounts of moisture throughout the soil profile. While alfalfa
and perennial forage grasses can be excellent choices for soil building
in moderate to high rainfall regions, their use during organic
transition in semiarid regions like Montana can deplete moisture
reserves throughout the soil profile, thus limiting subsequent crop
yield for several years (Menalled, et al., 2012).
In addition, the contrasting rainfall patterns of the Dakotas
(mostly in summer) and the interior Pacific Northwest (mostly in
winter) may require different cover crop species and strategies for
these two regions (Michel, 2018). NRCS scientists worked with 20
farmers for 4 years in eastern Washington to determine the best cover
crops to use in lieu of the traditional wheat/herbicide fallow
rotation, known to deplete soil health. Cover crops planted in late
spring (not in fall immediately after wheat harvest, when the soil is
driest) performed best. Surprisingly, cowpea and sunnhemp, noted for
their vigor and resilience to heat and drought in the southeastern
U.S., did poorly in eastern Washington, whereas a cool season field pea
(Pisum sativum) performed well as a N fixing rotation crop (Michel,
2018). Depending on soil moisture levels remaining after the cover
crop, wheat yields varied from 20% higher to 60% lower than without
cover; yet participant farmers remain eager to fine-tune the cover
cropping practice to achieve both satisfactory yield and healthy soil.

Nutrients, Compost, Manure, and Crop-Livestock Integration
``Feed the soil, and let the soil feed the crop,'' is a founding
principle of organic agriculture. While it provides a good starting
point, it does not eliminate production risks related to deficient or
excess nutrients, particularly nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). Organic
crop yields are often limited by insufficient N, especially in soils
recently transitioned from conventional to organic management, in which
SOM, soil life, and N mineralizing capacity are initially below
optimum. Increasing organic fertility inputs can help maintain yields,
but may also incur risks (see Concept #4).

The NRCS Nutrient Management conservation practice standard (CPS
590) outlines the ``four Rs'' of nutrient management for crop yields
and resource protection: right placement, right amount, right nutrient
source, and right timing (USDA NRCS). However, because of the complex
nature of biologically mediated nutrient cycling, nutrient release from
manure, cover crops, and other organic nutrient sources can be
difficult to predict and manage precisely, especially for N. As a
result, organic systems can be challenged by crop N deficiencies, N
surpluses subject to leaching, and sometimes both within the same
growing season (Muramoto, et al., 2015; Sullivan, et al., 2017).
Finding the optimal N rate can be tricky for certain crops, such as
broccoli and strawberry. In the Pacific Northwest and California,
broccoli gave highly profitable yield responses to organic N
fertilizers such as feather meal ($4-$10 per $1 on fertilizer) at rates
up to 200 lb N/ac or more, yet harvest removed less than \1/2\ this
much N, with much of the balance leached to groundwater or converted
into the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (Collins and Bary, 2017;
Li, et al., 2009). In organic strawberry production, preplant
applications of organic N from compost, cover crops, or broccoli
residues are mineralized and leached months before the strawberry crop
can utilize it (Muramoto, et al., 2015). On the other hand, an organic
lettuce trial in Colorado showed optimum yield and N use efficiency at
just 25 lb/ac (Toonsiri, et al., 2016). Because of the complex and site
specific nature of N cycling, farmers may need to conduct simple trials
to fine-tune fertilizer rates for best economic and soil health
outcomes. For example, a Virginia organic farmer planted fall broccoli
and cauliflower after a summer cover crop of pearl millet and cowpea
was mowed and solarized for 2 days under clear plastic, and applied 0,
90 or 180 lb N per acre. The brassicas gave excellent yields after the
cover crop alone, with no further response to added N (Anthony
Flaccavento, 2015, personal communication).

Concept #4: Nutrients and Compost: More is not Always Better
Farmers often use a little extra fertilizer as ``insurance''
against yield losses to nutrient deficiencies, and soil test labs have
historically recommended more N, P, and potassium (K) than crops
actually utilize or remove through harvest. Similarly, organic
producers often use compost liberally to ensure sustained yields from
intensively-cropped systems such as high tunnels or small-acreage
vegetable operations. This approach can lead to P surpluses in the
soil.
Recent research has shown that crops may need much less fertilizer
than recommended by soil tests, especially in biologically active soils
that cycle nutrients effectively (Kabir, 2018, Kloot, 2018, Wander,
2015a). Vegetable harvests remove, 7-12 lb P (16-28 lb
P2O5) and 64-93 lb K (77-112 lb K2O)
per acre (Sullivan, et al., 2017; Wander, 2015a). Grain harvests may
remove somewhat more P (25 lb/ac for a 150 bu/ac corn crop), but most
of the K returns to the soil in stover, and only about 35 lb/ac is
removed in the grain (Virginia Cooperative Extension). As little as 1
or 2 tons of compost or manure per acre can replenish the P, compost
and legumes in the rotation replenish N, and many soils have large
subsurface mineral reserves of K, from which deep rooted crops can
replenish the topsoil. Even in the southeastern U.S. coastal plain
where native fertility of the sandy soils is lo w, organically managed
fields with good biological activity may show no crop response to added
P and K, and little or no decline in P or K even when crops are
produced without fertilizer (Kloot, 2018). However, failure to
replenish nutrients removed in harvest over many years can eventually
deplete the soil and lead to declining yields in organic crop
production (Olson-Rutz, et al., 2010).
Based on recent research findings, Oregon State Extension no longer
recommends P or K applications for ``high'' soil test levels, and
subtracts N credits for SOM mineralization, cover crops, and organic
amendments to determine N recommendations (Sullivan, et al., 2017).
While ensuring sufficient N for crop production is a risk
management imperative for all farmers, providing more nutrients than
needed can also pose risks, including:

Increased cost for inputs.

Increased nutrient losses, nutrient pollution of groundwater
and surface waters.

Reduced soil food web function; mycorrhizal fungi suppressed
by high soil P.

Reduced yield, delayed maturity (excess N on pepper and
other fruiting vegetables).

Reduced crop quality, increased blossom end rot or tip burn
(excess N and K).

Increased crop susceptibility to certain pests and diseases.

Increased weed growth.

Grass tetany in pastured livestock (excess K and low
magnesium in forage).

Manure is an important nutrient source for many organic growers,
but its use requires care to minimize food safety risks. NOP Standards
require a 120 day interval between application of manure (raw, aged, or
composted at <130 F) and harvest of most organic food crops. In
addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently
implemented food safety regulations for all produce growers.
Preliminary studies indicate that foodborne pathogens in soil decline
to undetectable levels by 120 days after manure deposition by grazing
livestock (Patterson, et al., 2016), and FDA has accepted the NOP rule
as an interim guideline pending additional research. The hypothesis
that healthy, biologically active soil can speed the attenuation of
human foodborne pathogens in manure requires verification, and is
currently under investigation (Pires, 2017).

Integrating crop and livestock production within the same farming
system and returning manure to the fields is an excellent and time-
honored nutrient management strategy that can optimize nutrient cycling
within the farm and minimize the need for purchased nutrient inputs.
Crop-livestock operations that market fresh produce, must take special
care to prevent contamination of produce from pasture runoff, dust
(particulates) that may contain manure pathogens, and manure storage or
composting operations.
Finished compost can be especially effective for building stable
SOM, water holding capacity, and soil fertility (Lewandowski, 2002;
Reeve and Creech, 2015). However, relying on compost or manure as the
primary means to build SOM or meet crop N needs can build surpluses of
P and other nutrients in the soil. Excessive soil P (``very high'' on
soil tests) inhibits the mycorrhizal symbioses so vital to soil health
and crop nutrition (Rillig, 2004; Van Geel, et al., 2017), and can
threaten water quality (Osmond, et al., 2014). Soils that have been
``built up'' with manure and compost often mineralize more N from the
active organic matter than crops can utilize, and the excess leaches
(Sullivan, et al., 2017). Nutrient-rich organic amendments such as
poultry litter can also intensify weed competition when application
rates exceed crop needs (Cornell, 2005; Mohler, et al., 2008).
Producers must also consider direct costs of purchasing and
applying amendments. For example, in organic dryland wheat production
in Utah, a single heavy application (22 tons dry weight per acre) of
dairy manure/bedding compost doubled topsoil SOM and grain yields for
16 years after application, yet returns on the enhanced organic wheat
harvest did not fully pay for the compost application (Reeve and
Creech, 2015).
Other Organic Amendments
In some cases, purchased organic or natural mineral amendments can
reduce risk by remedying acidic or alkaline pH, deficiencies in
specific micro- or macro-nutrients, or other soil health concerns.
However, today's farm input catalogues offer such a dizzying array of
products that certain risks may arise in trying to sort out what is
actually needed to optimize soil health and crop production (see
Concept #5). The main risks include the costs of purchasing and
applying materials that are not needed or not effective on a particular
soil, and inadvertently using a material that NOP has not approved for
organic production. Some of the most ``tried and true'' materials
include:

Rhizobium inoculants for legume seed. These are vital when
the right species of rhizobia for the legume planted are not
already present in the soil. At a cost of just a few dollars
per acre, legume inoculants are often inexpensive insurance for
effective N [fixation].

Liquid fish and seaweed based fertilizers for in-line
fertigation. Risks include problems with clogging drip systems,
but a number of growers and researchers have used these
materials successfully, realizing high nutrient use efficiency
and low environmental risks (Toonsiri, et al., 2016).

Mycorrhizal fungal inoculants applied to root balls just
before transplanting. Most often used for perennial stock, this
practice can enhance establishment of fruit and nut crops in
soils where the desired mycorrhizal symbionts are not already
present.
Concept #5: Navigating the Organic Input Smorgasbord
In addition to organic and natural mineral fertilizers and
amendments, commercial vendors offer a large and growing plethora of
other products claimed to enhance soil health and fertility, crop
yield, or nutritional and market quality of produce. These include:

Compost teas, bokashi, Effective Micro-organisms, Biodynamic
preparations, and other microbial inoculants or biostimulants
applied to soil, seeds, root balls, or foliage.

Humic acids and humate products.

Biochar.

Rock powders and other natural mineral products with
multiple trace elements.

High calcium limestone, gypsum, and other minerals applied
to achieve specific ratios of cations (Ca, Mg, K, Na) or other
nutrient claimed to improve soil and crop health.

Many organic farmers use one or more of these products or methods,
and consider them a vital part of their production and soil health
management strategies. While most of these products are unlikely to
harm soil, crops, or the environment, not all have been approved by NOP
for organic production, and many lack scientific evidence that their
benefits justify their purchase costs. Rigorous field evaluations of
biochar, humates, and formulaic nutrient management systems such as the
``base cation saturation ratio'' (BCSR) have given mixed and often
highly site-specific results. In other words, they may or may not work
on your farm.
Considerable research has gone into the development of some of the
newer mycorrhizal inoculants and other microbial products now
commercially available. Yet, they often have little impact when applied
to the soil (Kleinhenz, 2018), likely because the indigenous soil
microbiota overwhelms the added inoculum. Mycorrhizal or other
inoculants applied to seeds or root balls can improve crop performance
in depleted soils, but may have no effect in healthy soils whose biota
already perform the functions for which the inoculant has been
selected.
Tips for avoiding unnecessary costs and risks when visiting the
``inputs smorgasbord'':

Beware sweeping claims that a given product can solve all
your soil problems.

Select a product with specific objectives in mind.

Select a product whose development was based on sound
research and field trials.

Make sure the product is NOP-approved for organic
production.

Try the material on a small scale first, in a side by side
comparison trial.
The Tillage Dilemma and Integrated Soil Health Strategies
Over the past 30 years, organic researchers and farmers have
attempted to save soil through rotational no-till systems, in which
high biomass cover crops are roll-crimped or mowed before no-till cash
crop planting. These systems save fuel and labor on field operations,
consistently enhance SOM and soil health, and--with optimum tools and
management technique and favorable weather--can give excellent results
(Rodale, 2011b). However, problems with crop establishment, weed
pressure, and N limitation can reduce organic crop yields and net
returns, especially in northern regions where the organic no-till
system reduced corn and oat grain yields by 63% and soybean yields by
31% in multiple-site field trials (Barbercheck, et al., 2008; Delate,
2013). In Missouri and the mid-Atlantic region, organic no-till soybean
in roll-crimped rye gave full yields, while organic corn showed
significant yield decreases when planted no-till in roll-crimped legume
+ rye covers (Barbercheck, et al., 2014; Clark, 2016). In warm-
temperate or tropical regions, vegetable crops gave similar yields for
the full-till and rotational no-till systems (Delate, et al., 2015a;
Morse, et al., 2007).
Several strategies for reducing tillage intensity in organic
systems have been shown to protect soil quality while maintaining crop
yields. For example, strip tillage speeds soil warming and N
mineralization in the crop row while leaving alleys undisturbed and
residue-covered, and shows promise for organic vegetable and row crop
production (Caldwell and Maher, 2017; Rangarajan, 2018). Other
promising approaches include using a spading machine in lieu of a plow-
disk (Cogger, et al., 2013), chisel plow in lieu of inversion (turn
plow) (Zuber and Villamil, 2016), shallow (3") tillage (Sun, et al.,
2016), ridge tillage (Williams, et al., 2017), and sweep plow
undercutter in lieu of disking to terminate cover crops (Wortman, et
al., 2016). Integrated organic weed management can reduce the number of
cultivations needed, thereby protecting soil and reducing direct costs
for field operations (Michigan State University, 2008).
Integrated soil health strategies that include diversified
rotation, cover crops, compost or manure application, and practical
measures to reduce tillage intensity often yield greater soil benefits
and sometimes higher crop yields than any one of these practices alone
(Cogger, et al., 2013; Delate, et al., 2015a; Wander, et al., 2014).
Long-term grain-forage farming systems trials have shown equal or
greater SOM and soil microbial activity in integrated organic systems
with routine tillage compared with conventional continuous no-till
(Cavigelli, et al., 2013; Wander, et al., 1994). However, integrated
systems can be more complex and costly to implement, and require
greater management skills.
Soil Health in High Tunnels
High tunnels can be especially important for organic specialty crop
growers in cold-temperate climates (season extension) or high rainfall
climates (reduce disease in tomato, tree and vine fruit, etc.).
However, the high tunnel environment presents unique challenges in co-
managing production risk and soil health. Greater capital and labor
investments in a small production area, and the opportunity for year-
round production, impel producers to crop the high tunnel intensively,
and to apply compost frequently to maintain SOM and fertility.
Exclusion of natural rainfall results in net upward movement of soil
moisture, which can accentuate accumulation of P, some other nutrients,
and soluble salts in the topsoil. Visible salt accumulations (white
surface deposit) and salinity-related yield or quality reductions can
occur. Cover crops can play an especially vital role in restoring soil
health and reducing reliance on compost and other organic amendments.
Although rotating high tunnel space out of production foregoes
substantial income in the short run, cover cropping may help sustain
soil health and crop yield in the long run.
Organic Transition
Farmers undertaking the transition to organic production often
encounter greater risks than established organic producers working
fields with a history of organic management because:

Newly organic farmers face a steep learning curve,
especially with regard to nutrient, weed, and pest management
without synthetic agrochemicals.

Organic certification and higher prices for certified
organic products are not available for the first 3 years on
land transitioning from conventional to organic production.

Newly-transitioning fields often have soil health problems
such as low SOM, depleted soil life, depleted or excess
nutrients, surface or subsurface compaction, and erosion.

Soil microbes tend to consume N during the early stages of
soil rebuilding, leaving less plant-available for crop
production.

Weeds, pests, and plant diseases can be difficult to manage
during transition, especially if the previous crop rotation
maintained low aboveground and soil biodiversity.

As a result, crop yields may be substantially lower during
transition, recovering in later years as the soil ecosystem
adapts and responds to organic practices (Rodale, 2015).

It can be especially challenging for a beginning organic farmer to
simultaneously acquire needed skills, restore soil health and
ecological balance on land with conventional management history, and
remain financially solvent during the transition period (Menalled, et
al., 2012). Established organic producers who are transitioning
additional acreage have the advantage of experience, yet still have to
be prepared for higher labor and other costs, soil health issues, and
lower yields and market prices from crops in the new fields.
Results of several studies indicate that rotating fields into a
multispecies perennial sod during the 3 year organic transition can be
especially effective for restoring soil health and fertility, and
reducing weed seed populations (Borrelli, et al., 2011; Briar, et al.,
2011; Cardina, et al., 2011; Eastman, et al., 2008; Hulting, et al.,
2008; Rosa and Masiunas, 2008). Although taking the field out of
production means foregoing income during the transition, management
costs are also greatly reduced compared to battling weeds and ``tired''
soil to bring a demanding crop to market. This strategy may not be
feasible for small-acreage operations unless producers have off-farm
income or other financial resources to tide them over through the
transition period.

Human Health, Environmental, and Regulatory Risks; USDA Programs and
Resources
Organic producers may face several risks related to human and
environmental health:

Unintended contamination of organic crops with NOP-
prohibited substances, resulting in loss of certification for
certain crops, fields, or the entire farm.

Potential exposure of food crops to pathogens in manure
(discussed earlier), leading to risks of liability for customer
health consequences, or state or Federal regulatory action.

Nutrient or sediment pollution of ground or surface water
leading to state or Federal regulatory action (organic
practices generally reduce but do not eliminate this risk).

On the upside, the importance of soil health and benefits of
organic systems are gaining wider recognition, and USDA agencies are
offering more assistance and resources for organic and conservation-
minded farmers and ranchers (see Resources 1-13, 18a and 18b in the
Information Resources section on pages 36-41). In addition to
administering USDA organic certification, the National Organic Program
(NOP) provides excellent resources for organic growers, including an
Organic Certification Cost Share (Resource 11).
The USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) now recognizes NRCS
Conservation Practices for soil, water, air, plant, and animal
resources as Good Farming Practices compatible with crop insurance
eligibility, effective in 2017 and subsequent years (USDA RMA, 2016).

Note: The use of NRCS Conservation Practices may be
recognized by agricultural experts for the area as good farming
practices; however, the use of NRCS Conservation Practices is
not necessarily compatible with all crop insurance policies and
should be discussed carefully with your insurance agent. This
is particularly true if you are making sudden changes in
farming p[r]actices. You must demonstrate that the new
practices do not negatively impact the ability of the insured
crops to make normal progress toward maturity and produce at
least the yield used to determine the production guarantee or
amount of insurance and provided. The NRCS Conservation
Practice is not an uninsurable practice under the terms and
conditions of the individual crop insurance policy.

RMA has worked with NRCS and the Farm Services Agency (FSA) to
develop regional cover crop management guidelines for crop insurance
eligibility (USDA NRCS, 2013). However, these guidelines still limit
the flexibility of management decisions and could deter cover crop use,
especially in lower-rainfall regions (Jeff Schahczenski, National
Center for Appropriate Technology, personal communication, 2018). On
the other hand, the most recent cover crop survey indicated that most
crop insurance professionals now understand and support cover cropping
(USDA, SARE, 2017). In addition, RMA now offers a Whole Farm Revenue
Program (WFRP, Resource 13) that supports crop diversification
(Schahczenski, 2018b).
NRCS working lands conservation programs provide financial and
technical assistance to farmers to implement conservation measures,
including cover crops, crop rotation, nutrient management, and other
soil health practices (Resources 4, 18a, 18b, 18c, and 42c).
Conservation program payments can help defray the up-front costs of
adopting new practices, and NRCS also provides extensive information
resources online related to soil health and soil management.
Other valuable conservation practices include installation of
windbreaks, hedgerows, riparian buffers, filter strips, and other
conservation buffers. These buffers consist of woody or herbaceous
perennial plantings strategically placed: to protect streams, other
sensitive ecosystems, or cropland from runoff containing sediment,
nutrients, or pesticides; to intercept pesticide drift and other
airborne contaminants; to protect soil on highly erodible land; and/or
to provide wildlife habitat. Buffer plantings can entail substantial
capital investments in perennial stock that many farmers could not
afford without NRCS cost share (Resources 4 and 18b). In addition to
helping organic growers meet NOP standards regarding wildlife and
biodiversity, buffer plantings can address several risks related to
food safety and organic integrity as well as soil health:

Soil losses from highly erodible lands.

Nutrient or sediment pollution of on-farm or nearby water
resources.

Pesticide or genetically engineered (GMO) crop pollen drift
into organic fields from neighboring non-organic farms.

Pathogen-laden dust from on- or off-farm livestock and
manure facilities.

Fertilizer, pesticide, or manure runoff from neighboring
farms.
Practical Tips for Reducing Risk Through Soil Health Management in
Organic Systems
The first steps toward reducing risk in organic crop production
are:

Get to know your soil resources. Look up your location on
the NRCS Web Soil Survey and identify the soil type, inherent
properties, and potential constraints (drainage, slope, root-
restrictive layers, etc.) for each field and pasture (Resource
1 on page 36).

Evaluate the current condition of the soil in each
production area.

Obtain a soil test and compare with past season soil
tests if available.

Observe and record the physical and biological
condition of the soil (tilth, workability, earthworms,
etc.).

Supplement with additional in-field or lab soil health
measurements if desired.

Review current practices and assess their potential impacts
on soil health.

Identify simple changes you can undertake to protect,
restore, or improve soil organic matter, fertility, and soil
health without incurring substantial costs or foregone income.

Use worksheets 1 and 2 on pages 20-21 to help you conduct this
initial assessment. Make a copy for each field, production area, or
``map unit'' on the soil survey. Answer each question, filling in
relevant detail.
See the Resources section (pp. 36-41) for more on the science and
practice of soil health and soil management, especially Resources 1, 2,
3, 8, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23b, 29b, 31, and 42f.

Worksheet 1: Evaluate Yours Soil Resources

Farm Location: ________________ Date: ________________
Field No. and Description:
________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS Web Soil Survey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soil series and map unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land capability class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other production constraints
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soil Health Evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there visible signs of sheet,
rill, or gully erosion?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the topsoil soft, dark, crumbly,
and easy to work, or hard and
cloddy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the field drain well after
rain, or does it remain wet, pond,
or run off?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the soil surface crust or seal
readily after rainfall?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a subsurface hardpan that
restricts rooting depth?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you see evidence of abundant
earthworms and other soil life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do most crops thrive well with few
pest, disease, or weed problems?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do crops stand well during dry
spells, or do they soon become
stressed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do crops sustain yields and quality
in dry, wet, and other difficult
years?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do soil tests show an adequate and
stable % SOM, or upward trend in
SOM?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do soil test P and K reach optimum
(``high'') range, then level off?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do soil tests show buildup of
excessive levels of P or other
nutrients?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do soil tests indicate a drawdown
of K or other nutrients below
optimum?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you conducted assessments,
such as microbial respiration,
active SOM, potentially
mineralizable N, in-field soil
health scorecards, or the Cornell
Comprehensive Soil Health
Assessment or other soil health
evaluations?
If so, summarize results here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Worksheet 2: Review Current Production Practices, Their Soil Health
Impacts, and Next Steps To Improve Soil Condition and Reduce
Risk
Consider your production system in the context of the soil
assessment (Worksheet 1), note positive and negative impacts of current
practices, and identify simple, low-risk modifications that can improve
soil health or reduce risks, and can be implemented with current tools
and resources at little additional cost. Examples include growing a
cover crop during a long gap (fallow) in the rotation, leaving surface
residues over winter in lieu of fall tillage, adjusting tillage
implements to lessen soil impact, or adjusting nutrient inputs based on
soil test results. More complex system changes will be considered in
the following pages, including Worksheet 3 for crop rotation changes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soil Health Impacts,
Current Practices Other Costs, Risks, Potential Low-Cost
and Benefits Solutions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crop rotation, fallow
periods:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cover cropping
practices:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tillage tools,
practices, and timing:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cultivation (tools,
frequency) and other
weed control tactics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic amendments and
nutrient (fertilizer)
inputs
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next steps toward effective co-management of soil health and
production risks include adopting new or modified practices in three
general areas:

Adding crops--including cover crops, sod crops, and new cash
crops or enterprises.

Reducing tillage--frequency, intensity, depth, or percentage
of field disturbed.

Adjusting inputs--nutrients, organic matter, etc.

The long-term goal is to build or refine an integrated,
sustainable, and profitable organic production system suited to your
site. The rewards can include greatly improved soil health and water
quality, increased crop resilience and yield stability, and a less
risky, more profitable operation. However, adopting new practices can
require gaining new knowledge, learning new skills, acquiring new
capital equipment, and purchasing new seeds, amendments, or other
supplies. Selecting the right suite of crops and practices for your
climate, soil, and production system requires careful and informed
decision making.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tips:

Take this process one step at a time. Adopting all the
components of a new system at once can make for an impossibly steep
learning curve, or capital investments in new tools that exceed the
farm's financial capacity.

Do a partial budget for each new practice you are
considering. A partial budget estimates costs and benefits
resulting from a specific practice or change in the operation. See
Resources 5 and 21c for a partial budget for cover crops.

Try a new crop, nutrient source, practice, or suite of
practices on a small scale first.

Do side-by-side trials to verify the crop yield or soil
benefits of a new material or practice.

Join a farmer network engaged in on-farm trials or
information sharing. Some examples are listed in Resources 23a, 24,
29c, 30, and 31.

Utilize USDA programs that can help defray costs, reduce
risks, or provide information and technical support. See Resources
4, 11, 12 13, 18, 42a, 42b, 42c, 43, and 45.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adding Crops
Adding a new crop to the rotation--whether annual or perennial,
harvested for sale, grazed by on-farm livestock, or returned to the
soil in its entirety--can address three of the four NRCS soil health
principles: keep the soil covered, maintain living roots, and enhance
biodiversity. A diversified rotation can confer long-term benefits to
soil health, yield stability in cash crops, and net economic returns.
The simplest way to build crop diversity is to add a cover crop to
the existing rotation. Successful cover cropping requires careful
selection of species, seeding rates, and planting and termination dates
and methods, based on the farm's climate, soils, production system, and
rotation niches. Avoid cover crop pitfalls (see Concept #6) and
optimize outcomes with a few basic steps:

Identify your cover cropping goals.

Identify the niches in your crop rotation into which a cover
crop might fit.

Note any cover cropping risks or constraints associated with
your production crop mix, growing season, hardiness zone,
rainfall patterns, soil types, and current soil condition.

Utilize cover crop information and decision tools designed
for your locale or region.

Develop a partial budget for the cover crop, considering
costs of seed, planting, and termination; savings on fertilizer
or weed control; and expected soil and yield benefits. Partial
budgeting tools provide research-based estimates of dollar
value of these benefits.
Concept #6: A few cover crop pitfalls to avoid and a few tips to reduce
risks
A thin, low-biomass, weedy cover crop can result from:

Cover crop species not suited to climate and season, soil
type, or farming system. Nearby farmers or Extension can help
you identify best cover crops for your locale and season.

Late planting (especially fall/winter cover crops).

Low seeding rates.

Old or poor-quality seed. Buy fresh seed yearly (grasses,
buckwheat, oilseeds) or every 2 years (legumes, crucifers).

Inadequate planting method. Broadcast seed usually must be
shallowly incorporated.

Cover crops can interfere with production in certain circumstances:

In regions with short growing seasons, it can be difficult
to fit a cash and cover crop into the season, which means a
difficult choice between terminating the cover crop early (low
biomass, little benefit) and delaying cash crop planting (lower
yield). Interseeding or overseeding cover crops into standing
cash crops can help address this constraint.

In drier regions, cover crops terminated too late (just
before cash crop planting) can leave the soil profile too dry
for crop establishment, thereby reducing yields. Select cover
crops, planting, and termination dates to conserve moisture--
see Concept #3 on page 10.

Nutrient and weed management problems can arise when:

Overmature cover crops self-seed. Mow, roll, or till cover
crops at late flowering.

Overmature or all-grass cover crops tie up soil N during
subsequent cash crop.

All-legume or crucifer cover crops release N too fast for
the following crop to utilize, resulting in N leaching or de-
nitrification. Plant legume with cereal grain or other grass.

Highly diversified cover crop mixes or cocktails have shown great
promise in NRCS and on-farm trials from Pennsylvania to North Dakota,
and elsewhere. However, cocktails can fall short of expectation when:

Added costs of purchasing and blending seed of multiple
crops exceed the added benefits compared to a single-species or
two-species cover crop.

Logistics of planting many different sizes and types of seed
add to labor or equipment costs, or result in poor emergence of
some species. Build your cocktail gradually, add one new
species at a time to the current cover crop on a trial basis.

One or two species in the mix dominate over the others, so
that functions of the latter are lost. Adjust seeding rates
accordingly.

Different species mature at different times, which can make
no-till termination (rolling or mowing) impossible, or lead to
cover crop self-seeding.

Adding a perennial sod phase to your rotation can be an excellent
long-term investment in soil health and yield stability when:

Land resources are sufficient to make a living with some
fields out of production.

Sod provides grazing or hay for on-farm or nearby livestock
operations.

Yield improvements or cost savings from soil restoration
compensate for the income foregone during the sod phase.

See Concept #7 for a successful example of sod phase and crop-
livestock integration.
Concept #7: Elmwood Stock Farm: A Crop-Livestock Integrated System
John Bell, Mac Stone, and Ann Bell Stone of Elmwood Stock Farm in
Scott County, Kentucky (http://elmwoodstockfarm.com/) operate a 550
acre, diversified, certified-organic crop-livestock farm producing
beef, pork, lamb, poultry, eggs, and mixed vegetables. Their rotations
include:

Corn-soybean-winter cereal (for their livestock); pasture
seeded after grain in year 3 and managed for years 4-8 under
multispecies, management-intensive rotational grazing.

Three years of intensive vegetable production with tillage
and cover crops, followed by 5 years pasture managed as above.

Steeper areas are kept in permanent pasture.

Keys to the success of this operation:

A long sod break allows the soil to recover fully.
University of Kentucky found soil health in year 4 of the
vegetable rotation, similar to the permanent pasture.

Crop-livestock integration optimizes nutrient cycling and
minimizes off farm inputs. The farmers bought only 200 lb
organic fertilizers for the entire farm in 2016.

Product diversity and quality, NOP certification, and best
food safety practices ensure a loyal Community Supported
Agriculture (CSA) membership and a profitable operation.

Based on a tour of Elmwood Stock Farm hosted by Ann and John
Stone on January 26, 2017.

Another way to build the diversity of your rotation is to add one
or more new production crops for sale, or to provide pasture, hay, or
feed grains for an existing or new livestock enterprise. Enterprise
diversification can reduce risk if the level of system complexity is
manageable and practical. Farmers can ``go under'' as a result of
trying to manage too many crops or enterprises at once, or launching a
new enterprise or cropping system across the entire farm in one season.
Suggested steps include:

Evaluate your current enterprise mix, noting yields and net
returns, risks, and soil health benefits and drawbacks for each
crop or enterprise, and the overall farming system.

Conduct a similar evaluation of the diversified enterprise
mix under consideration

Develop enterprise budgets for current and proposed new
enterprises including:

Variable costs (seeds/starts, soil amendments, other
inputs, labor, fuel, etc.).

Fixed costs (machinery and equipment, land use, etc.).

Gross income--historical data for current enterprises,
best estimates for new ones.

Try a new crop or livestock enterprise on a small area or
small scale first, then expand it in future years if initial
results are promising.

Add one or two new components (cash crop, soil building
crop, or livestock enterprise) at a time, and gradually build
the functional diversity of your farming system.

Use Worksheet 3 (page 26) to evaluate your current rotation,
identify opportunities to reduce risk and build soil health by adding
crops, and record changes implemented or trialed, and document
outcomes. See examples on page 26.
For more on Adding Crops, see Resources section (pages 36-41),
including:

Crop diversification, designing crop rotations: Resources
10, 22, 25, 27, 29a, 34, and 37.

Cover crops, general: Resources 6, 7, 9, 15, 16c, 21, 25,
26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 39, 40, and 41.

Relay interplanting cover crops into standing production
crops: Resources 26 and 34.

Cover crop selection tools: Resources 5, 21b, 26a, and 29a.

Cover crops for dryland rotations in semiarid regions:
Resources 36, 37, and 38.

Economics of cover cropping: Resources 5, 19d, 21c, 26b,
26c, 30, and 33.

Enterprise budgets and marketing for new enterprises:
Resources 42e and 44.

Crop-livestock integrated systems: Resources 29a and 30.

Worksheet 3--Adding Crops for Soil Health, Profit, and Risk Reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 1: corn-soy rotation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Rotation Concerns New Crop Implementati
on,
Outcome,
Next Steps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May-Sept. Corn Needs lot of
N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct.-May Fall till, Erosion, N Rye cover Plant 10/5,
fallow leaching till 5/15,
good
biomass
Plant again
next year,
larger
scale
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Worksheet 3--Adding Crops for Soil Health, Profit, and Risk Reduction--
Continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
June-Oct. Soybean Some skips
in stand,
yield same,
fewer weeds
Adjust
planter for
better seed
soil
contact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov.-Apr. Fallow Severe Vetch cover Plant 11/2,
erosion poor
biomass,
weedy.
Interplant
into
soybean at
4-leaf
stage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 2: intensive vegetable production
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Rotation Concerns New Crop Implementati
on,
Outcome,
Next Steps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr.-Oct. Greens triple Low residue, 2 greens Plant cover
crop crusting crops, then 8/15 after
oats + peas summer
greens
harvest.
--------------------------------------------
Nov.-Mar. Fallow Erosion Less
erosion,
better
tilth, but
significant
income
foregone.
Harvest pea
tips for
market.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr.-Aug. Potato Needs lot of Higher
N to yield yield, less
response to
added N.
Reduce
feather
meal rate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept.-Apr. Oats + vetch Thin stand, Rye + crimson Seeded cover
cover vetch hard clover crop 9/1
seed, weedy Satisfactory
cover crop
stand and
biomass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May-Sept. Summer vegies Less weeding
labor
Continue rye
+ clover
before
summer veg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct.-Feb. Fall till, Erosion, N Rye + red Plant cover
fallow leaching clover thru 10/1.
year Established
well, but
rotation
now less
profitable.

--------------------------------------------
Mar.-July Head Low yield, Try
brassicas soil specialty
depleted grain for
harvest
(needs
market
research);
expand
rotation to
4 years
with
brassica
after grain/
red clover.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Rotation * Concerns New Crop Implementati
on,
Outcome,
Next Steps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approx. Dates Crops Or
Fallow
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Include all cash crops, cover crops, and fallow periods; note whether
tilled or residue left on surface during fallows.

Reducing Tillage
Look for opportunities to reduce tillage frequency and intensity in
the cropping system. However, remember that it is not necessary to
eliminate tillage. Strip tillage, in which a 4-12" wide swath of soil
is worked up to create a seedbed for each crop row, leaving alleys
untilled, concentrates preplant soil disturbance in the crop row to
promote soil warming, microbial activity and nutrient mineralization,
and better seed-soil contact for prompt crop establishment. A large and
growing number of tools for effective strip tillage, planting, and
mechanical weed management have been developed that make strip tillage
a viable option for many organic producers, especially when weed
pressure is low to moderate.
In the event that high weed pressure, close row spacing for
production crops, or other circumstances necessitate full-width
tillage, several tools exist that do much less damage to soil structure
than ``conventional tillage'' with moldboard plow, disk and/or
rototiller. Examples include the rotary or reciprocating spader, power
harrows that work the soil more shallowly and gently than the
rototiller, and older, simpler tools such as chisel plow and field
cultivator. These tillage methods reduce pulverization of soil
aggregates, lessen damage to soil life, avoid inverting the soil
profile, reduce risks of compaction and erosion, and thereby help
maintain the soil health and resilience gained through cover cropping
and other organic practices.
Cover crop-based rotational no-till is the most ``advanced''
conservation tillage option for annual crop rotations, and is both most
promising for soil health and most risky for cash crop yields.
Rotational no-till is most likely to succeed and be economically
viable:

In warm climates with long growing seasons, in which slower
N mineralization can be beneficial, and the cover crop has
plenty of time to mature and attain high biomass.

In sandy soils that drain and warm up quickly.

Where weed pressure is light and dominated by annual
species.

On farms that already have the needed equipment, and farmers
have past experience with no-till.

When a strong N fixer like soybean or southern pea is sown
into roll-crimped winter cereal grain cover, whose N tie-up
slows weeds but not the legume production crop.

In small-scale operations, in which opaque tarps or
landscape fabric can be laid for 2-4 weeks over mowed or rolled
cover before planting vegetable crops, to ensure full
termination and weed control (Brust, 2014; Rangarajan, et al.,
2016)

Changes in tillage practices often require a significant capital
investment in new tillage and cultivation equipment and tools.
Opportunities for reducing tillage with less up front cost include:

Adjusting current tools to work the soil more gently or
shallowly, e.g., slowing the PTO speed when operating
rototiller or rotary harrow.

Implementing or improving weed IPM to reduce need for
cultivation.

Cooperative purchase and sharing of a new tool.

For more on Reducing Tillage, see Resources section (pages 36-41),
including:

Organic conservation tillage, general: Resources 7, 16d,
16e, 19, and 41.

Roller-crimper and other no-till equipment: 19b, 39, and 40.

Strip till equipment: 19a (demo video), 39, and 40.

Economic analysis of organic no-till: 19d.

Cover crop interseeding: 34.
Adjusting Inputs
As noted earlier, organic growers can face risks related to either
deficient or excessive plant-available nutrients, especially N and P.
The historical lack of research data on crop responses to nutrients in
organically managed soils has left organic producers with insufficient
guidance to minimize these risks. Fortunately, with the growing
understanding of the central role of soil health in crop nutrition,
this is beginning to change. For example, Oregon State Extension
recently updated its nutrient management guidelines for vegetable
crops, taking a more conservative approach. N recommendations account
for N from all sources (SOM, cover crops, compost and other amendments,
irrigation water), and low or zero P and K recommendations are given
when soil test levels are optimal (Sullivan, et al., 2017).
Once the soil is healthy and soil test levels of P, K, and other
nutrients test within optimum (``high'') ranges, try to adjust inputs
to maintain nutrient levels without building them any higher. Using
compost or manure to meet crop N requirements will build soil P and
possibly K, while legumes add N and organic matter without P or K. In
addition, N from legumes costs $2-$3/lb, compared to $5-$6/lb N from
organic fertilizers (Sullivan and Andrews, 2012). As noted earlier, N
can be especially challenging to manage in a manner that both optimizes
net returns and protects water quality and soil health.
Some nutrient related risk reduction tips include:

Build overall soil health to reduce input needs for all
nutrients.

Use living plants (cover, sod, and high residue cash
crops) as the primary source of microbial food and soil
fertility.

Use compost or manure sparingly as a supplement. These
materials complement living plants in building soil health,
and a little goes a long way.

Use legume cover crops to provide N at a fraction of the
cost of organic fertilizers.

Ensure that any fertilizers or amendments are NOP-allowed
before using them.

Conduct side-by-side comparison trials to fine-tune N or
other inputs.

Grow a crop with and without added N, or with
different N rates.

Conduct trials for other nutrients and amendments.

Test microbial products, humates, biochar, and other
products marketed for soil health in this way before
investing in treating whole fields.

Conduct a partial budget analysis to estimate return
on investment on for inputs.

Provide plant-available N near crop roots to maximize
utilization and minimize leaching.

Band-apply organic N fertilizer, or use in-row drip
fertigation.

Use ridge or strip till to promote N mineralization
near crop rows.

Plant legume or crucifer cover crop in future crop
rows, and grass or grass-legume mix in alleys.

Avoid over-irrigation in irrigated crops, which can leach N
and reduce N use efficiency.

For rice production, use the non-flooded System of Rice
Intensification to improve crop and soil health, nutrient
cycling, and yields (Thakur, et al., 2016).

Recycle nutrients within the farm to the greatest extent
practical.

Crop-livestock integration can greatly reduce the need
for NPK imports.

Use crop foliar analysis to help identify actual needs for
NPK and other nutrients.

Test soil every 1-3 years to track nutrient trends and
adjust inputs accordingly.

Use the same lab and take samples to the same depth
and at the same season in successive sampling years.

Adjust compost and manure rates according to current soil
test P levels.

If soil P is low, apply these materials to meet crop N
needs.

If soil P is high (optimal) apply at 10^15 lb P/ac (=
22^35 lb P2O5/ac).

If soil P is very high (surplus) apply little or no
compost or manure

In high tunnel production, avoid or manage crop-limiting
salt accumulations and nutrient excesses or imbalances.

Test soil once or twice a year, including soluble
salts and nitrate-N.

Foliar analysis can be especially important in high
tunnel nutrient management.

Use manure-based compost or fertilizer in moderation,
based on soil test P levels.

Maintain SOM with plant-based compost or other low-
nutrient organic materials.

Integrate legume cover or cash crops into high tunnel
rotation to help meet N requirements, or use low-P organic
N fertilizers.

To leach excess salts out of the topsoil, remove cover
for a few months every few years to admit natural rainfall,
or apply a heavy (4-6") overhead irrigation.

For more on Adjusting Inputs, see Resources section (pages 36-41),
including:

Organic nutrient management, general: Resources 8, 14, 16b,
17, and 25.

Estimating plant-available N in over crops and organic
fertilizers: Resource 33.

Nutrient management for organic dryland grains: Resources 35
and 36.

Nutrient management in high tunnels: Resources 17e and 42d.
Managing Risk During Organic Transition
As noted before, the organic transition period can be especially
risky. A few tips for mitigating this risk include:

Transition one or a few fields at a time, keeping the
majority of your acreage under its current management system to
sustain farm income. In future years, transition more acreage
as feasible until the entire farm is organic.

Be sure to keep organic and non-organic production separate
during harvest, post-harvest handling, and marketing.

Consider rotating transition fields into perennial sod for
1, 2, or all 3 years if practical.

For more on managing risk during organic transition, see Resources
section (pages 36-41), especially Resources 25, 37, 42b, and 43.
Recent Research on Selected Topics in Soil Health and Risk Management
Crop diversification, soil health, organic crop yields, and
production risks

The National Center for Appropriate Technology has conducted a
nationwide farmer survey to compare production and market risks in
diversified organic production systems versus conventional systems
(Schahczenski, 2017). Preliminary findings indicate that organic
producers spread their risk through crop diversification, reduce input
costs by not using expensive GMO seeds and synthetic agro-chemicals,
and having markets for productions with generally higher and perhaps
more stable prices. They may reduce risk through cover cropping and
other soil health management practices. A final report will be issued
after survey analysis is completed.
Other research indicates that crop diversification can also reduce
risk by building soil health directly (Kane, 2015). While organic and
conventional rotations in the Rodale Institute long-term farming
systems trials generated similar aboveground plant biomass, the more
diverse organic rotations accrued higher active and total SOM and soil
microbial activity (Wander, et al., 1994). In addition, the average
``yield gap'' between organic and conventional crop production has been
estimated at about 19%, but this figure diminishes to 8% when organic
crops produced within a diversified crop rotation are compared to
conventional crops in monoculture or low-diversity rotation (Ponisio,
et al., 2014).
Farmer Perceptions of Benefits and Risks Associated With Cover Cropping
Annual farmer surveys conducted by the SARE program since the 2012
growing season have documented a steady increase in the use of the
practice, based on widespread perception of benefits to soil health,
weed management, and crop yield stability. Survey respondents who use
cover crops, planted an average of 217 acres per farm in cover crops in
2012, increasing to more than 400 acres in 2017 (USDA, SARE), citing
soil health, weed management, and crop yield stability as their top
three reasons for adopting or expanding the practice. Eighty-five
percent reported observable improvements in soil health, 69% saw weed
control benefits, \2/3\ noted greater yield stability, and \1/3\
realized greater net profits from cover cropping. While survey
respondents who reported not using cover crops indicated that financial
incentives (such as EQIP cost share under the Cover Crop conservation
practice code 340) would increase the likelihood that they would adopt
the practice in the future; those currently using cover crops consider
financial incentives only a minor factor in their cover cropping
decisions.
Average yield gains from cover cropping have been modest but
consistent over the 5 years of the survey, and tend to increase with
number of years of cover crop use. For example, cover cropping improved
2015 corn yields by an average of 3.4 bu/ac (1.9%), but farmers who had
been cover cropping for 4 or more years saw a corn yield benefit of 8
bu/ac (4.5%). In the severe drought year of 2012, cover cropping
conferred greater yield benefits to soybean (11.6%) and corn (9.6%)
than in the more favorable seasons since then. This illustrates the
yield stability benefits of this practice, an important risk management
consideration.
In a survey of 182 farmers in New York State, respondents cited
poor drainage (60%), soil compaction (60%) and soil erosion (40%) as
leading constraints on production (Mason and Wolfe, 2018). Half of
those who planted cover crops and/or reduced tillage reported yield
improvements from these practices, while only 3% and 10% reported yield
costs from cover crops and reduced tillage, respectively. Over 60% of
farmers reported that both practices reduced soil erosion and flooding,
and enhanced crop drought resilience. Some 83% of respondents who
planted cover crops or reduced tillage saved erosion repair costs; 74%
of those who reduced tillage reported savings on labor, fuel, and
machinery; 47% of those who use cover crops have been able to reduce
fertilizer inputs, and crop-livestock integrated farms used cover crops
as forage.
Cover Crops In Moisture Limited Regions
Dryland grain producers in semiarid regions face a paradox, in that
the traditional wheat-fallow rotation degrades soil quality, even under
no-till management, while growing a cover crop or a production crop
(lentil, pea, dry bean, sunflower, or cereal grain) in lieu of fallow
maintains or enhances health (Engel, et al., 2017; Halvorson, et al.,
2002; Miller, et al., 2008). However, the short-term effects of a cover
crop (in lieu of tilled or herbicide fallow) on the yield of the
following grain crop depends on how the cover crop affects available
soil moisture.
For example, two studies in south-central Nebraska gave contrasting
results with dryland corn grown in rotation with winter wheat. In
trials at two sites (Franklin and Clay Counties), planting a diverse
cocktail of non-winter-hardy grasses, legumes, and crucifers into wheat
stubble in August reduced soil moisture reserves by 1.5" compared to
leaving the field fallow after wheat harvest; as a result, non-
irrigated corn grown the following year showed a 5-10 bu/ac yield loss
after the cover crop (Thompson, et al., 2016). On the other hand, a
SARE-funded on-farm trial in Webster County documented 10% higher corn
yields after diverse cover crop mixtures were planted in July of the
preceding year after wheat harvest (Berns and Berns., 2012). The
mixtures left soil moisture levels similar to wheat stubble alone,
while single-species cover crops of soybean, sunflower, or radish
significantly reduced soil moisture and did not affect corn yield.
A Western SARE funded on-farm project showed significant decreases
in dryland wheat yields after cover crops in the northern Great Plains,
resulting from water consumption and sometimes N consumption by the
cover crop (Miller, 2016). Winter pea generally supports higher
subsequent wheat yields than spring planted legumes, and terminating
legume covers at bloom rather than pod stage reduces water consumption
and improves wheat yield (Olson-Rutz, et al., 2010). While only a
minority of farmers in a Montana survey reported planting cover crops
in dryland grain rotations, most who do plan to continue or expand
cover crop use, cited long-term soil health as the main benefit (Jones,
et al., 2015). Survey respondents also noted the N contributions,
forage value, and long-term net economic benefits of cover crops, and
most often cited seed cost and water consumption as reasons to consider
not planting cover crops.
In a series of on-farm trials (20 farms 4 years) in interior
Washington State, cover crop impacts on wheat yield varied from severe
(65%) reductions to significant (10-22%) increases (Michel, 2018). The
depth to available soil moisture (DtM) at the time of wheat planting
appeared critical: when the cover crop had little effect on DtM, wheat
yields were unaffected or improved; when the cover crop dried the top
several inches of the soil profile, wheat crop establishment and yield
suffered. Field pea planted with cereal grains in spring or summer gave
better cover crop biomass and weed control than covers planted in fall
after harvest of the preceding wheat crop, again because of moisture
limitation in the latter scenario. In addition to total annual
precipitation (9-13" for the farms in this study), the seasonal
distribution of moisture (mostly winter in Eastern Washington vs.
mostly in summer in the Northern Great Plains) plays a key role in
determining best cover crops, planting, and termination dates (Michel,
2018).
Plant Breeding and Genetics

Perhaps one of the greatest sources of risk in organic production
is the relative lack of regionally adapted crop cultivars that are well
suited to organic farming systems. Key traits for successful organic
production include the capacity to emerge vigorously without chemical
seed treatments, to utilize organic sources effectively, to outcompete
weeds, and to withstand pests and pathogens (Lyon, 2018). A 2015 survey
of 210 organic vegetable farmers in the Northeastern region, identified
resilience to diseases, pests, heat, cold, and other stresses as top
priorities for plant breeders (Hultengren, et al., 2016). In addition,
the project's working group of farmers, breeders, Extension personnel,
and other stake holders noted:

``Cultivars are most productive under the conditions for
which they were bred. This central concept of plant breeding
points to the need for Northeast growers to have regionally-
adapted varieties that were bred to thrive in the Northeast,
with the climate and pests unique to our region. Furthermore,
cultivars bred under conventional management_aided by synthetic
fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides_will likely not be as
productive under organic management.''
(Hultengren, et al., 2016, page 26).

A meta-analysis of 115 studies comparing crop yields in organic
versus conventional farming systems showed the greatest ``yield gaps''
in wheat, barley, rice, and corn--crops for which ``Green Revolution''
cultivars were developed to give maximal yields in high-input
conventional systems (Ponisio, et al., 2014). The authors recommended
breeding crops ``under organic conditions'' to narrow the yield gap and
reduce environmental costs of high yield agriculture.
Over the past 15 years, several farmer-scientist participatory
plant breeding teams funded through the USDA Organic Research and
Extension Initiative (OREI) and Organic Transitions Program (ORG) began
to address the need for new crop cultivars better suited to organic
systems. Some promising developments include:

Highly N-efficient and N-fixing corn with enhanced drought
tolerance, giving competitive grain yields of superior protein
content and quality. Seeds are now available to farmers and
scientists through licensing agreements (Goldstein, 2015,
2018).

The Northern Organic Vegetable Improvement Collaborative
(NOVIC) has released cultivars of snap pea, snow pea, and sweet
corn (`Who Gets Kissed?') with excellent emergence from cold
soil (Myers, et al., 2014).

Heritable traits related to crop vigor, canopy closure, and
habit of growth in wheat and soybean correlate with weed
competitiveness; one new food-grade soybean cultivar has been
released (Orf, et al., 2016; Place, et al., 2011; Worthington,
et al., 2015).

Tomato advanced breeding lines that combine excellent flavor
with resistance to several major fungal diseases. The team is
also exploring tomato genetics and soil management practices
that enhance crop interaction with soil microbes that induce
systemic resistance (ISR) to foliar pathogens (Hoagland, 2016;
Myers, et al., 2018).

Carrot advanced breeding lines that combine weed competitive
traits (seedling vigor, large tops, early canopy closure) with
resistance to Alternaria leaf blight, a leading carrot disease
(Simon, et al., 2016a, 2016b, Turner, 2015).

Cover crop (Austrian winter pea, crimson clover, hairy
vetch) breeding trials in IA, MD, NC, ND, NY, WA, and WI
addressing farmer-identified priorities: N fixation, early
emergence, biomass, winter hardiness, and regional adaptation
(Ackroyd, et al., 2016, Mirsky, 2017).

Extensive research confirms genetic regulation of plant root
depth and architecture, and great potential to breed crops for
larger, deeper root systems that build SOM, improve nutrient
and moisture use efficiency, and potentially enhance yields
(Kell, 2011).

Each of these plant breeding developments can contribute to soil
health and risk reduction by facilitating profitable organic
production, reducing nutrient and water input needs, enhancing organic
matter inputs to the soil, or promoting beneficial plant-soil-microbe
interactions.
Conclusion
The past 2 or 3 decades of research have validated what experienced
farmers have known for centuries: healthy, living soils support
resilient farming systems with greater yield stability in the face of
unpredictable weather extremes and other stresses. In other words,
managing for soil health reduces production and financial risks, and
therefore constitutes good business management as well as environmental
stewardship. Research further validates the NRCS four principles of
soil health: keep the soil covered, maintain living roots, increase
diversity, and minimize disturbance.
While healthy soil in itself almost always reduces production
risks, practices undertaken to build soil health can entail new
challenges, costs, and sometimes risks. For example, efforts to
maximize cover crop biomass and eliminate tillage in a rotation of
annual crops can lead to yield tradeoffs, especially for organic
producers who cannot resort to herbicides and soluble fertilizers to
address weed pressure and nutrient limitations. However, a growing body
of research outcomes, producer experience, and innovation by farmers,
scientists, and agricultural engineers has built--and continues to
build--a substantial toolbox for organic growers seeking to optimize
soil health while reducing their production and financial risks.
This guide aims to provide the organic producer with an outline of
the principles of soil health-based risk management, and a set of
information resources and tools to help put these principles into
practice. Because of the highly site-specific nature of best crop
rotation, cover crops, tillage methods, and nutrient management in
organic production, this guide cannot, and does not aspire to prescribe
a formula for best soil-based risk management practices. Its goal is to
equip farmers with the knowledge and tools needed to identify and
implement the best suite of crops and practices to build healthy soils,
reduce risks, and optimize net financial returns from their farming
operations.

Information Resources and Decision Support Tools for Risk Reduction
through Soil Health Management in Organic Farming
Nationwide Resources

1. NRCS Web Soil Survey. Click ``Start WSS,'' enter your postal
address, select the appropriate area on the aerial map,
click on Soil Map, and use Soil Data Explorer to learn more
about each of the Map Units within your farming operation.
Once you have identified your soil types (series), you can
review the Official Soil Series Descriptions (see menu on
survey home page). https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/
App/HomePage.htm.

2. Explore the Science of Soil Health. NRCS video series. Dr. Robin
Kloot interviews farmers and scientists explaining the
science and practice of soil health practices. https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/
health/?cid=stelprdb1245890.

3. NRCS Webinar Archive. Science and Technology Training Library.
Includes cover cropping, nutrient management, and other
practices that reduce risk through soil health improvement.
http://www.conservationwebinars.net/listArchivedWebinars.

4. NRCS working lands programs--Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).
Provide financial assistance to farmers to implement
conservation, including cover crops, rotations, and other
soil health practices. EQIP offers an Organic Initiative to
help organic and transitioning producers meet NOP
conservation requirements. See full listing of NRCS
programs at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/
national/programs/financial/.

5. Cover Crop Economic Decision Support Tool. A spreadsheet-based
online partial budgeting tool for cover crops, available
through NRCS Missouri Soil Health[,] http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/mo/soils/health; or
NRCS Illinois Soil Health, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/il/soils/health/.

6. USDA Cover Crop Chart. Provides succinct information on cover
crop life cycle, habit of growth, and water use intensity
for 58 cover crop species. Updated Feb 2018. https://
www.ars.usda.gov/plains-area/mandan-nd/ngprl/docs/cover-
crop-chart/.

7. SARE Learning Center, Cover Crops Topic Room. https://
www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Topic-Rooms/Cover-Crops.

8. Building Soils for Better Crops, 3rd ed., by Fred Magdoff and
Harold van Es. 2009. Sustainable Agriculture research and
Education (SARE). http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/
Books/Building-Soils-for-Better-Crops-3rd-Edition.

9. Managing Cover Crop Profitably, 3rd edition, USDA Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education (SARE). http://
www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Books.

10. Crop Rotation on Organic Farms: a Planning Manual. Charles L.
Mohler and Sue Ellen Johnson, editors. Developed by a panel
of 12 experienced organic vegetable farmers in the
Northeastern region, this manual illustrates their crop
rotations and discusses principles and practices for
developing rotations that are applicable anywhere.
Published by SARE. http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/
Books.

11. National Organic Program. Provides detailed information about
organic certification https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/
programs-offices/national-organic-program, and National
Organic Certification Cost-Share Program offers 75% cost
share for certification expenses up to a payment of $750,
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/occsp/index.

12. Food Safety Outreach Program (FSOP). Offered by USDA, funds
nonprofit organizations to provide education and training
to help small, diversified, and organic producers meet FDA
produce safety requirements. https://nifa.usda.gov/food-
safety-outreach-program. For more information on farmer
resources developed with FSOP funds, visit http://
sustainableagriculture.net/publications/grassrootsguide/
food-safety/food-safety-training-program/.

13. Whole Farm Revenue Protection. A risk management product offered
by USDA Risk Management Agency, ``tailored for any farm
with up to $8.5M in insured revenue, including farms with
specialty or organic commodities (both crops and
livestock), or those marketing to local, regional, farm-
identity preserved, specialty, or direct markets.'' https:/
/www.rma.usda.gov/policies/wfrp.html. Farm enterprise
diversification is rewarded with premium discounts. For
more on WFRP, see an updated (2018) primer published by
ATTRA at https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/
download.php?id=595.

14. Soil and Fertility Management in Organic Farming Systems.
Extension website, Organic Resource Area. Articles and
video clips cover sustainable organic nutrient budgeting
and management including improved N efficiency and
avoiding/managing P and K excesses. Several articles on
role of soil organisms and soil health in enhancing
nutrient efficiency and reducing crop disease risks. http:/
/articles.extension.org/pages/59460/soil-and-fertility-
management-in-organic-farming-systems.

15. Cover Cropping in Organic Farming Systems. Extension website,
Organic Resource Area. Articles and video clips on cover
crop selection and management for organic systems and
during organic transition, including several on reduced
till management. http://articles.extension.org/pages/59454/
cover-cropping-in-organic-farming-systems.

16. Soil Health and Organic Farming: a series of practical guides
published by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF,
http://ofrf.org/), and webinars archived at https://
articles.extension.org/pages/25242/webinars-by-eorganic.
Topics include:

a. Building Organic Matter for Healthy Soils: An Overview.

b. Nutrient Management for Crops, Soil, and the Environment.

c. Cover crops: Selection and Management.

d. Practical Conservation Tillage.

e. Weed Management: An Ecological Approach.

f. Water Management and Water Quality.

g. Plant Genetics, Plant Breeding, and Variety Selection.

17. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (aka
ATTRA). Offers one-on-one consulting by phone or online
(``Ask an Ag Expert'' on home page), as well as many
information resources available free or for nominal charge.
https://attra.ncat.org/.

a. Soils and Compost. Info sheets and videos at https://
attra.ncat.org/
soils.html.

b. Tipsheet: Assessing the Soil Resource for Beginning Organic
Farmers,
https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/
summary.php?pub=529.

c. Marketing, Business, and Risk Management. Info sheet and
videos at
https://attra.ncat.org/marketing.html.

d. Water Quality, Conservation, Drought, and Irrigation. Info
sheets and vid-
eos, including role of soil health in drought
resilience and water quality.
https://attra.ncat.org/water_quality.html.

e. High Tunnels in Urban Agriculture. Includes nutrient and salt
manage-
ment tips. https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/
summary.php?
pub=552.

18. National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), http://
sustainableagriculture.net/, is the lead policy advocacy
organization for sustainable agriculture and food systems
at the national level. In addition to giving farmers a
voice on Capitol Hill during farm bill negotiations and
within USDA in program implementation, NSAC offers
producers information resources at http://
sustainableagriculture.net/publications/, including:

a. Growing Opportunity: A Guide to USDA Sustainable Farming
Programs.
2017. Summary information on USDA programs including
loans and
microloans, crop insurance, conservation, food safety,
organic certification
cost-share, and more.

b. Grassroots Guide to Federal Farm and Food Programs. Updated
after
each new farm bill reauthorization (approximately every
5 years).

c. Farmers' Guide to the Conservation Stewardship Program. Last
updated
2016.

d. Organic Farmers' Guide to the Conservation Reserve Program
Field Bor-
der Buffer Initiative. May, 2016.

e. Food safety information, including special reports on
Understanding
FDA's Rules for Produce Farms and Food Facilities
(August, 2016),
and Am I affected? (updated July, 2018). A flow chart
to help the pro-
ducer determine what the FDA rules require for their
operation based on
products sold and total annual sales.
Northeast Region Resources
19. Reduced Tillage in Organic Systems Field Day Program Handbook.
Cornell University Cooperative Extension, July 31, 2018 at
Cornell University Willsboro Research Farm, Willsboro NY.
https://rvpadmin.cce.cornell.edu/uploads/doc_699.pdf

a. Excellent information resources on strip tillage, pp. 11-15.

b. Roller-crimper to terminate cover crops--pros, cons, trouble
shooting, pp.
19-40.

c. Roles of soil life in nutrient cycling, soil structure, and
effects of tillage
pp. 41-59.

d. Cover crop-based organic rotational no-till, including
economic analysis
from Rodale Farming Systems Trials, pp. 61-107.

20. New York Soil Health. A joint program of New York Department of
Agriculture, Cornell University, and NRCS has conducted a
farmer survey on benefits and costs of soil health
practices. Ongoing activities include innovative organic
cropping systems, soil amendments, and developing a Soil
Health Roadmap. http://newyorksoilhealth.org.

21. Northeast Cover Crops Council. http://northeastcovercrops.com/.

a. Information by state and cover crop type (grass, legume,
broadleaf, mix).

b. Decision support tool to be released in the near future.

c. Cover Cropping Costs and Benefits. Jeffrey Sanders, U.
Vermont, 2014, 2
pp. Partial budget for several cover crop species and
management sce-
narios in New England. http://northeastcovercrops.com/
wp-content/
uploads/2018/02/Cover-Cropping-Costs-and-Benefits.pdf.

22. Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial. Reports and summaries of
soil health and fertility, crop yield and net economic
returns in long-term (since 1981) comparison of organic
crop-livestock, organic crop, and conventional cash grain
systems. https://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-
systems-trial/.

23. Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA, https://nofa.org/),
with state chapters in CT, MA, NJ, NY, RI, and VT, offers
research-based, practical information on soil health
management practices.

24. Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA).
Conducts farmer-driven research and farmer-farmer exchange
on soil health practices and farm economic viability
through its Soil Institute, https://pasafarming.org/soil-
institute/. PASA received a 2018 Conservation Innovation
Grant to continue and expand its Soil health Benchmark
Study. https://pasafarming.org/.
North Central Region Resources
25. Risk Management Guide for Organic Producers (K. Moncada and C.
Sheaffer, 2010, U. Minnesota, 300 pp). Chapters on soil
health, soil fertility, crop rotation, and cover cropping
for organic corn-soy-forage production in the North Central
region. http://organicriskmanagement.umn.edu/.

26. Midwest Cover Crop Council. Treasure-trove of information on
selecting, planting, and terminating cover crops, including
species descriptions, state-specific information, organic
no-till, and interplanting. http://mccc.msu.
edu/.

a. Cover crop selector tools for vegetable and field crops.
http://
mccc.msu.edu/selector-tool/.

b. Economics of Cover Crops, James J. Hoorman, Ohio State U.,
2015, 54 pp.
http://mccc.msu.edu/economics-cover-crops/.

c. Other economic analyses. http://mccc.msu.edu/?s=economics.

27. Integrated Weed Management: Fine-tuning the System. Michigan
State University Extension, 2008. (131 pp). Excellent
manual developed in collaboration with organic farmers,
with farm case studies. http://www.msuweeds.com/
publications/extension-publications/iwm-fine-tuningthe-
system-e-3065/.

28. Reduced Tillage in Organic Systems Field Day Program Handbook.
Cornell (see item 3 in Northeast Region). Includes
information for the North Central region.

29. Land Stewardship Project. Extensive practical information on
soil health, sustainable farming, and risk management.
https://landsteward
shipproject.org/.

a. Cropping Systems Calculator. Helps producers in MN and IL
evaluate ec-
onomics of alternative crop rotations up to 6 years,
including cash and
cover crops with grazing (crop-livestock integrated)
options. https://
landstewardshipproject.org/stewardshipfood/
chippewa10croppingsystems
calculator.

b. Talking Smart Soil. Podcasts of producers using soil health
practices.
https://landstewardshipproject.org/lspsoilbuilders/
talkingsmartsoil.

c. Soil Builders Network. Farmer stories on soil health,
profits, and resil-
iency. https://landstewardshipproject.org/stewardship-
food/soilquality.

30. Practical Farmers of Iowa. Conducts farmer-driven research into
field crop production including cover crops. https://
www.practicalfarmers.org/. Research findings at https://
www.practicalfarmers.org/member-priorities/cover-crops/,
include a Jan. 4, 2018 report on Economic Impacts of
Grazing Cover Crops in Cow-Calf Operations.

31. Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service (MOSES)
maintains an extensive resource page with fact sheets,
videos, etc. on Soils, Cover Crops, and Systems. https://
mosesorganic.org/farming/farming-topics/soils-systems/.
Western Region Resources
32. Cover Crop (340) in Organic Systems Western States
Implementation Guide. Rex Dufour (National Center for
Appropriate Technology); Sarah Brown, Ben Bowell and Carrie
Sendak (Oregon Tilth); Mace Vaughan and Eric Mader (Xerces
Society), 2013. Excellent information on cover crop
selection, innovative mixes, planting, and termination
methods for organic production in the Pacific Northwest and
California. https://attra.ncat.org/organ
ic/.

33. Cover Crop and Organic Fertilizer Calculator. Provides Excel
calculators for maritime and inland regions to estimate
costs and PAN for cover crops and amendments. Calculator
for Hawaii in development. http://
smallfarms.oregonstate.edu/calculator.

34. Innovations Help Vegetable Growers Find that Cover Crop Niche.
Nick Andrews, Oregon State University,2016. https://
extension.oregonstate.edu/crop-production/vegetables/
innovations-help-vegetable-growers-find-cover-crop-niche.
Relay Seeding Cover Crops in Fall and Winter Harvested
Vegetables. Nick Andrews, 2014. https://
extension.oregonstate.edu/crop-production/vegetables/relay-
seeding-cover-crops-fall-winter-harvested-vegetables.
Practical innovations for integrating cover crops into
organic vegetable and strawberry production in the maritime
Pacific region.

35. Nutrient Management for Sustainable Vegetable Cropping Systems
in Western Oregon. Sullivan, D.M., E. Peachey, A.L.
Heinrich, and L.J. Brewer. 2017. Oregon State Extension
Bulletin EM 9165. More conservative (cost-effective)
nutrient recommendations than past Extension bulletins,
extensive section on N management, and careful
consideration of both risks and benefits of fertilizers and
organic amendments. https://
catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/topic/agriculture/soil-
and-water.

36. Soil nutrient management on organic grain farms in Montana. K.
Olson-Rutz, C. Jones, and P. Miller. 2010. Montana State
University Extension Bulletin EB0200, 16 pp. Research
findings on best cover crop species, and management for
organic dryland wheat; analysis of costs, benefits, and net
returns for various cover crop, intercrop, and crop-
livestock integrated organic production systems. http://
msuextension.org/publications/AgandNaturalResources/
EB0200.pdf.

37. From Conventional to Organic Cropping: what to Expect During the
Transition Years. Menalled F., C. Jones, D. Buschena, and
P. Miller. 2012. Montana State University Extension
MontGuide MT200901AG Reviewed 3/12. Provides guidance for
organic dryland grain growers in meeting economic, cropping
system, nutrient, and weed management challenges during
organic transition. https://store.msuextension.org/.

38. Meeting the Challenges of Soil Health in Dryland Wheat. Leslie
Michel, Okanogan Conservation District. Onfarm research
into cover crop choices (4 years, 20 farms) NRCS webinar
October 9, 2018. Science and Technology Training Library,
http://www.conservationwebinars.net/listArchivedWebinars.
Southern Region Resources
39. Southern Cover Crop Conference, July 18-19, 2016. Includes fact
sheets and videos on cover crop selection and mixes, soil
health and soil life benefits, equipment for no-till and
strip till systems, economics of cover cropping, and more.
https://www.southernsare.org/Events/Southern-Cover-Crop-
Conference.

40. Southern Cover Crop Council is developing a regional information
clearing house at https://southerncovercrops.org, which
currently offers excellent practical information on cover
crop planting and termination tools, and timing for the
Southeast Coastal Plain. Additional information for other
agro-ecoregions across the South is under development.

41. Center for Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS), https://
cefs.ncsu.edu/, in Goldsboro, NC includes an organic
research unit including cover crops, conservation till, and
organic grains. https://cefs.ncsu.edu/field-research/
organic-research-unit/.

42. Carolina Farm Stewardship Association (CFSA). Offers consulting,
beginning farmer training and mentoring, and other
services. https://www.carolinafarmstewards.org/.

a. Food safety--Good Agricultural Practices (GAP consulting.
Manuals and
videos. https://www.carolinafarmstewards.org/gaps-
consulting/.

b. Organic Certification Consulting. Assistance with organic
transition and
NOP [paperwork]. https://www.carolinafarmstewards.org/
organic-certifi
cation-consulting-services/.

c. Conservation Activity Plan and enrollment in NRCS EQIP
Organic Initia-
tive. https://www.carolinafarmstewards.org/cap-
consulting-services/.

d. Sustainable High Tunnel Management Consulting https://
www.carolinafarmstewards.org/high-tunnel-consulting/.

e. Organic enterprise budgets for ten leading vegetable crops.
https://
www.carolinafarmstewards.org/enterprise-budgets/.

f. Expert Tips monthly blog posts by CFSA staff. Topics include
soil health
assessment (Sept. 2018), on-farm conservation and NRCS
programs (July
2018) organic weed management (June 2018), and more.
Older posts
available at link at bottom. https://
www.carolinafarmstewards.org/
forgrowers/experttips/.

43. Organic Transition and Production Handbook, compiled by Eric
Soderholm, Farm Organic Transitions Coordinator, CFSA.
Extensive information on organic certification and soil
fertility and soil health management practices for the
Carolinas. https://www.carolinafarmstewards.org/organic-
transition-handbook/.

44. Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group. https://
www.ssawg.org/. Offers on line courses that can help
producers assess business management risks: Growing Farm
Profits, https://www.ssawg.org/growing-farm-profits/, and
Choosing Your Markets, https://www.ssawg.org/choosing-your-
markets/.

45. Florida Organic Growers (FOG), http://www.foginfo.org/, hosts
Quality Certification Services for USDA organic, http://
www.foginfo.org/our-programs/certification/.
References

Ackroyd, V.J., L. Kissing-Kucek, and S.B. Mirsky. 2018. Northeast
Cover Crop Efforts. http://mccc.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/
MCCC2016_Northeast-Cover-Crop-Efforts.pdf.
Baker, B., 2016. Soil Microbial Interactions and Organic Farming.
Organic Farming Research Foundation. 8 pp. https://ofrf.org/research.
Barbercheck, M.E., W. Curran, J. Harper, R. Hoover, D. Voight, and
G. Hostetter. 2014. Improving Weed and Insect Management in Organic
Reduced-Tillage Cropping Systems. Final report on OREI project 2010-
03391. CRIS Abstracts.*
Barbercheck, M.E., D.A. Mortensen, H. Karsten, E.S. Sanchez, S.W.
Duiker, J.A. Hyde, and N.E. Kiernan. 2008. Organic Weed Management:
Balancing Pest Management and Soil Quality in a Transitional System.
Final report on ORG project 2003-04619. CRIS Abstracts.*
Berns, K., and B. Berns. 2012. Dryland Cover Cropping Boosts Yields.
NC-SARE Producer grant FNC07-653. https://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/
From-the-Field/North-Central-SARE-From-the-Field/Dryland-Cover-Cropping-
Boosts-Yields. Full project report at https://projects.sare.org/
sare_project/FNC07-653/.
Borrelli, K., R. Koenig, I. Burke, E. Fuerst and R. Gallagher. 2011.
Nitrogen Dynamics in Nine Rotation Systems from Transition to
Certification of Organic Dryland Grain Production. ASA Annual Meeting.
https://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2011am/webprogram/Paper66429.html.
Briar, S.S., S.A. Miller, D. Stinner, M.D. Kleinhenz, and P.S.
Grewal. 2011. Effect of Organic Transition Strategies for Peri-Urban
Vegetable Production on Soil Properties, Nematode Community and Tomato
Yield. Applied Soil Ecology 47: 84-91.
Brust, G. 2014. Organic Weed Control in No-Till Systems. https://
extension.umd.edu/sites/default/files/_docs/articles/OrganicWeed-
ControlUsingNo-till_3-2014_0.pdf.
Caldwell, B. , and R. Maher. 2017. Mulch for organic vegetables--
grown in place. Cornell Small Farms Program. http://
smallfarms.cornell.edu/2017/07/03/mulch-for-organic-vegetables-grown-in-
place/.
Caldwell, B., C.L. Mohler, Q.M. Ketterings, and A. DiTommaso. 2012.
Crop Yields During and After Transition in the Cornell Organic Grain
Cropping Systems Experiment. In: Northeast Organic Research Symposium
Proceedings, January 19-20, 2012, Saratoga Springs, NY, pp. 12-13.
Cardina, J., J. Felix, D. Doohan, D. Stinner, D, and M. Batte. 2011.
Transition Strategies that Control Perennial Weeds and Build Soil.
Final report on OREI project 2006-02014. CRIS Abstracts.*
Cavigelli, M.A., J.R. Teasdale, and J.T. Spargo. 2013. Increasing
Crop Rotation Diversity Improves Agronomic, Economic, and Environmental
Performance of Organic Grain Cropping Systems at the USDA-ARS
Beltsville Farming Systems Project. Crop Management 12(1) Symposium
Proceedings: USDA Organic Farming Systems Research Conference. https://
dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/cm/tocs/12/1.
Clark, K. 2016. Organic weed management systems for Missouri.
Proposal and progress report on OREI project 2014-05341. CRIS
Abstracts.*
Cogger, C.G., M. Ostrom, K. Painter, A. Kennedy, A. Fortuna, R.
Alldredge, A.; Bary, T. Miller, D. Collins, J. Goldberger, A.
Antonelli, and B. Cha. 2013. Designing Production Strategies for
Stewardship and Profits On Fresh Market Organic Farms. Final report for
OREI project 2008-01247. CRIS Abstracts.*
Collins, D.P. and A. Bary. 2017. Optimizing nitrogen management on
organic and biologically intensive farms. Proceedings of the Special
Symposium on Organic Agriculture Soil Health Research at the Tri-
Societies Annual Meeting, Tampa, FL, October 22-25, 2017. http://
articles.extension.org/pages/74555/live-broadcast:-organic-soil-health-
research-special-session-at-the-tri-societies-conference.
Cornell University, 2005. Organic Cropping Systems Project: Compost
Experiment. Protocol at http://www.hort.cornell.edu/extension/organic/
ocs/compost/index.html; results summary at http://www.hort.cornell.edu/
extension/organic/ocs/compost/pdfs/20042005results.pdf.
Delate, K. 2013. Developing Carbon-Positive Organic Systems through
Reduced Tillage and Cover Crop Intensive Crop Rotation Schemes. Final
report for ORG project 2008-01284. CRIS Abstracts.*
Delate, K., C. Cambardella, and C. Chase. 2015a. Effects of cover
crops, soil amendments, and reduced tillage on Carbon Sequestration and
Soil Health in a Long Term Vegetable System. Final report for ORG
project 2010-03956. CRIS Abstracts*
Delate, K., C. Cambardella, C. Chase, and R. Turnbull. 2015b. A
review of long-term organic comparison trials in the U.S. Sustainable
Agricultural Research 4(3): 5-14.
Eastman, C.E., M. Bazik, M., D.A. Cavanaugh-Grant, L.R. Cooperband,
D.M. Eastburn, J.B. Masiunas, J.T. Shaw, and M.M. Wander. 2008.
Cropping Systems and Organic Amendments in Transitioning Farming
Systems: Effects on Soil Fertility, Weeds, Diseases, and Insects. Final
report on ORG project 2003-04618. CRIS Abstracts.*
Egel., D., L. Hoagland, and A.K. Jaiswal. 2018. Organic Tomato
Foliar Pathogen IPM Webinar. http://articles.extension.org/pages/74594/
organic-tomato-foliar-pathogen-ipm-webinar.
Engel, R.E., P.R. Miller, B.G. McConkey, and R. Wallander. 2017.
Soil Organic Carbon Changes to Increasing Cropping Intensity and No-
Till in a Semiarid Climate. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81(2): 404-413
Goldstein, W. 2015. Breeding corn for organic farmers with improved
N efficiency/N fixation, and protein quality. Proceedings of the
Organic Agriculture Research Symposium, LaCrosse, WI February 25-26,
2015. http://eorganic.info/node/12972.
Goldstein, W. 2018. High Methionine, N Efficient Field Corn from the
Mandarin Institute/Nokomis Gold Seed Co. Proceedings of the 9th Organic
Seed Growers Conference, Feb. 14-17, 2018, Corvallis OR, pp. 25-26.
wgoldstein@mandaamin.org.
Gruver, J., R.R. Weil, C. White, and Y. Lawley. 2016 Radishes A New
Cover Crop for Organic Farming Systems. http://articles.extension.org/
pages/64400/radishes-a-new-cover-crop-for-organic-farming-systems.
Halvorson, A.D., B.J. Wienhold, and A.L. Black. 2002. Tillage,
nitrogen, and cropping system effects on soil carbon sequestration.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66(3): 906-912.
Hamel, C. 2004. Impact of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on N and P
cycling in the root zone. Can. J. Soil Sci. 84(4): 383-395.
Hoagland, L.A. 2016. Practical approach to controlling foliar
pathogens in organic tomato production through participatory breeding
and integrated pest management. Progress report for OREI project 2014-
05405. CRIS Abstracts.*
Hooks, C., A. Leslie, and G. Chen. 2016. Managing weeds in
vegetables organically. University of Maryland Cooperative Extension,
18 pp. https://extension.umd.edu/sites/default/files/_images/programs/
mdvegetables/OrganicWeedMgntVeg21May2016(1).pdf.
Hooks, C. R., K. H. Wang, G. Brust, and S. Mathew. 2015. Using
Winter Cover Crops to Enhance the Organic Vegetable Industry in the Mid-
Atlantic Region. Final report for OREI project 2010-01954. CRIS
Abstracts.*
Hu, S., S. Hu, W. Shi, A. Meijer, and G. Reddy 2015. Evaluating the
Potential of Winter Cover Crops for Carbon Sequestration in Degraded
Soils Transitioning to Organic Production. Project proposal and final
report for ORG project 2010-04008. CRIS Abstracts.*
Hultengren, R., M. Glos, and M. Mazourek. 2016. Breeding Research
and Education Needs Assessment for Organic Vegetable Growers in the
Northeast. (Dataset). eCommons Digital Repository at Cornell
University, 35 pp. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/44636 or http://
blog.seedalliance.org/2016/10/03/reports-describe-plant-breeding-
priorities-for-organic/.
Hulting, A.G., D.A. Mortensen, and M. Barbercheck. 2008. Fate of
weed seedbank pools during the transition to an organic feed grain crop
rotation in Pennsylvania. Weed Science Society of America 2008
Proceedings, Presentation No. 293.
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change
2014. Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation. Report for Policy Makers.
34 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/
ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf.
Jerkins, D. and J. Ory. 2016. 2016 National Organic Research Agenda:
outcomes and recommendations from the 2015 National Organic Farmer
Survey and Listening Sessions. Organic Farming Research Foundation
(www.ofrf.org), 126 pp.
Jones, C., R. Kurnick, P. Miller, K. Olson-Rutz, and C. Zabinski.
2015 Montana Cover Crop Survey Results. Dept. of Land Resources and
Environmental Sciences, Montana State University. 15 pp.
Kabir, Z. 2018. Rethinking the nutrient management paradigm for soil
health. NRCS webinar, August 14, 2018. Science and Technology Training
Library. http://www.conservationwebinars.net/listArchivedWebinars.
Kane, D. 2015. Carbon sequestration potential on agricultural lands:
a review of current science and available practices. Breakthrough
Strategies and Solutions and National Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition. 35 pp. http://sustainableagriculture.net.publications.
Kell, D.B. 2011. Breeding crop plants with deep roots: their role in
sustainable carbon, nutrient and water sequestration. Ann. Bot. 108(3):
407-418.
Kirschbaum, M.U.F. 1995. The temperature dependence of soil organic
matter decomposition, and the effect of global warming on soil organic
C storage. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 27(6): 753-760.
Kleinhenz, M. 2018. Assessing the Influence of Microbe-containing
Crop Biostimulants on Vegetable Crops and Farms through On-station and
On-farm Study. Presentation at Annual Meetings of the American Society
for Horticultural Science; Aug. 1, 2018; Washington, D.C. Available
from Dr. Kleinhenz, kleinhenz.1@osu.edu.
Kloot, Robin. 2018. Using adaptive nutrient management to answer
``how much fertilizer do you actually need?'' NRCS webinar May 8, 2018.
Science and Technology Training Library. http://
www.conservationwebinars.net/listArchivedWebinars.
Lewandowski, A. 2002. Organic Matter Management. https://
www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/soils/soil-properties/soil-management-
series/organic-matter-management/.
Li, C., Salas, W. and Muramoto, J. 2009. Process Based Models for
Optimizing N Management in California Cropping Systems: Application of
DNDC Model for nutrient management for organic broccoli production.
Conference proceedings 2009 California Soil and Plant Conference, 92-
98. Feb. 2009. http://ucanr.edu/sites/calasa/files/319.pdf.
Liebman, A., S. Perrone, T. Sooksa-nguan, and J. Grossman. 2017.
Linked Crop Production and Soil Organic Matter Impacts of Winter Annual
Legumes in Upper Midwest Organic Agroecosystems. Poster Number 1522,
Tri-Societies Meetings, Tampa, FL, October 22-25, 2017. https://
scisoc.confex.com/crops/2017am/webprogram/start.html.
Lorenz, K., and R. Lal. 2016. Environmental Impact of Organic
Agriculture. Advances in Agronomy 139: 99-152.
Lyon, A. 2018. Facilitating Farmer Collaboration in On-farm Variety
Trials: Lessons from Wisconsin and British Columbia. Proceedings of the
9th Organic Seed Growers Conference, Feb. 14-17, 2018, Corvallis OR, pp
21-22.
Magdoff, F. and van Es, H. 2009. Building Soils for Better crops,
3rd ed. Sustainable Agriculture research and Education (SARE). http://
www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Books/Building-Soils-for-Better-Crops-3rd-
Edition.
Marshall, M.W., P. Williams, A. Mirzakhani Nafchi, J.M. Maja, J.
Payero, J. Mueller, and A. Khalilian. 2016. Influence of Tillage and
Deep Rooted Cool Season Cover Crops on Soil Properties, Pests, and
Yield Responses in Cotton. Open Journal of Soil Science, 6, 149-158.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2016.610015
Mason, C.W., and D.W. Wolfe. 2018. Survey of Costs, Constraints, and
Benefits of Soil Health in New York: Initial Report and Summary.
Reduced Tillage in Organic Systems Field Day Program Handbook, July 31,
2018, Cornell University Willsboro Research Farm, Willsboro NY, pp. 8-
9. https://rvpadmin.cce.cornell.edu/uploads/doc_699.pdf.
Menalled F., C. Jones, D. Buschena, and P. Miller. 2012. From
Conventional to Organic Cropping: What to Expect During the Transition
Years. Montana State University Extension MontGuide MT200901AG Reviewed
3/12. https://store.msuextension.org/
Michel, L. 2018. Meeting the Challenges of Soil Health in Dryland
Wheat. NRCS webinar October 9, 2018. Science and Technology Training
Library, http://www.conservationwebinars.net/listArchivedWebinars.
Michigan State University Extension, 2008. Integrated Weed
Management: Fine-tuning the System, (131 pp.). http://www.msuweeds.com/
publications/extension-publications/iwm-fine-tuningthe-system-e-3065/.
Miller, P., 2016. Using cover crop mixtures to improve soil health
in low rainfall areas of the northern plains. Final report for Western
SARE project SW11-099, 40 pp. http://landresources.montana.edu/
soilfertility/documents/PDF/reports/CCMFinal-RptSW11-099Apr2016.pdf.
Miller, P.R., D.E. Buschena, C.A. Jones, B.D. Maxwell, R.E. Engel,
F. Menalled, and B.J. Jacobsen. 2008. Organic Production in the
Challenging Environment of the Northern Great Plains: from Transition
to Sustainability. Proposal and 2008 progress report for ORG project
2005-04477. CRIS Abstracts.*
Mirsky, S.B. 2017. Creating the Cover Crops that Organic Farmers
Need: Delivering Regionally Adapted Varieties Across America. Proposal
and annual report for OREI project 2015-07406. CRIS Abstracts.*
Mohler, C., T. Bjorkman, and A. DiTommaso. 2008. Control of weed
size by compost application rate in an organic cropping system. Weed
Science Society of America 2008 Proceedings, Presentation No. 261.
Mohler, C.A. and S.E. Johnson. 2009. Crop Rotations on Organic
Farms. Sustainable Agriculture research and Education (SARE) and
Natural Resource, Agriculture and Engineering Service (NRAES). 156 pp.
http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Books.
Moncada, K., and C. Sheaffer, 2010. Risk Management Guide for
Organic Producers. U. Minnesota. 300 pp. Chapter 13, Winter Cover
Crops. http://organicriskmanagement.umn.edu/.
Morse, R.D., H.L. Warren, M. Schonbeck, J.C. Diaz, J. Ruberson, and
S. Phatak. 2007. Integrating No-tillage with Farmscaping and Crop
Rotations to Improve Pest Management and Soil Quality in Organic
Vegetable Production. Final report for ORG project 2003-04625. CRIS
Abstracts.*
Muramoto, J., C. Shennan, and J., M. Gaskell. 2015. Nitrogen
management in organic strawberries: challenges and approaches.
(Webinar) http://articles.extension.org/pages/73279/nitrogen-management-
in-organic-strawberries:-challenges-and-approaches.
Myers, J.R., M. Mazourek, E. Silva, and M. Colley. 2014. Northern
Vegetable Improvement Collaborative. Final report on OREI project 2010-
03392. CRIS Abstracts.*
Myers, J., J. Zystro, T. Hodge, and J. Dawson. 2018. Taking Tomatoes
Totally Organic. Proceedings of the 9th Organic Seed Growers
Conference, February 14-17, 2018, Corvallis, OR, pp 32-39.
Olson-Rutz, K., C. Jones, and P. Miller. 2010. Soil nutrient
management on organic grain farms in Montana. Montana State University
Extension Bulletin EB0200, 16 pp. http://msuextension.org/publications/
AgandNaturalResources/EB0200.pdf.
Orf, J.H., T.E. Michaels, M.J. Sadowsky, and C.C. Sheaffer. 2016.
Improving soybean and dry bean varieties and Rhizobium strains for
organic systems. Final report on OREI project 2011-01942. CRIS
Abstracts.*
Osmond, D.L., J.M. Grossman, G. Jennings, G.D. Hoyt, M. Reyes, and
D. Line. 2014. Water Quality Evaluation of Long Term Organic and
Conventional Vegetable Production under Conservation and Conventional
Tillage. Final report on ORG project 2009-05488. CRIS Abstracts.*
Patterson, L., N. Navarro-Gonzales, M. Jay-Russell, and A. Pires.
2016. Evaluating the Persistence of Escherichia coli in the Soil of an
Organic Mixed Crop-Livestock Farm. Proceedings of the 2016 Organic
Agriculture Research Symposium.
Pires, A.F.A., P.D. Millner, J. Baron, and M.T. Jay-Russell. 2017.
Assessment of Current Practices of Organic Farmers Regarding Biological
Soil Amendments of Animal Origin in a Multi-regional U.S. Study. Food
Protection Trends 38(5): 347-362.
Place, G.T., S.C. Reberg-Horton, D.A. Dickey and T.E. Carter. 2011.
Identifying soybean traits of interest for weed competition. Crop
Science 51: 2642-2654.
Ponisio, L.C., M'Gonigle, L.K., Mace, K.C., Palomino, J., de
Valpine, P., Kremen, C., 2014. Diversification practices reduce organic
to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. B. 282, 20141396.
Rangarajan, A. 2018. Strip Tillage, video on Zone Tillage, Cornell
Small Farms Program. http://smallfarms.cornell.edu/projects/reduced-
tillage/strip-tillage/.
Rangarajan, A., M.T. McGrath, D, Brainard, Z.I. Szendrei, M. Hutton,
E. Gallandt, M. Hutchinson, and B.J. Rickard. 2016. Farmer Designed
Systems to Reduce Tillage in Organic Vegetables. Proposal and progress
report for OREI project 2014-05381. CRIS Abstracts.*
Reeve., J. 2014. Organic Stone Fruit Production: Optimizing Water
Use, Fertility, Pest Management, Fruit Quality and Economics. Final
report for OREI project 2009-01338, CRIS Abstracts.*
Reeve, J., and E. Creech. 2015. Compost Carryover Effects on Soil
Quality and Productivity in Organic Dryland Wheat. http://
articles.extension.org/pages/73247/compost-carryover-effects-on-soil-
quality-and-productivity-in-organic-dryland-wheat.
Rillig, M.C. 2004. Arbuscular mycorrhizae, glomalin, and soil
aggregation. Can. J. Soil Sci. 84(4): 355-363.
Rodale Institute. 2011a. The farming systems trial: celebrating 30
years. 21 pp. https://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-
trial/farming-systems-trial-30-year-report/.
Rodale Institute. 2011b. Cover crops and no-till management for
organic systems. 16 pp. In: Reduced Tillage in Organic Systems Field
Day Program Handbook. Cornell University Cooperative Extension, July
31, 2018. https://rvpadmin.cce.cornell.edu/uploads/doc_699.pdf.
Rodale Institute. 2015. Farming Systems Trial Brochure, 2 pp. http://
rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FST-Brochure-2015.pdf.
Rosa, I., and J. Masiunas. 2008. Transition Approaches and Soil
Amendments Influence Weed Communities. In Padgham, J. 2008. Midwest
Organic Research Symposium, Feb. 21-23, 2008, Research Summaries, p.
29.
Rosolem, C.A., K. Ritz, H. Cantarella, M.V. Galdos, M.J. Hawkesford,
W.R. Whalley, and S.J. Mooney. 2017. Enhanced plant rooting and crop
system management for improved N use efficiency. Advances in Agronomy
146: 205-239.
Schahczenski, J. 2017. Is organic farming risky? Overcoming crop
insurance barriers to expanding organic food production and markets.
Proposal and 2017 annual report for OREI project 2014-05354. CRIS
Abstracts.*
Schahczenski, J. 2018a. Crop Insurance Options for Specialty,
Diversified, and Organic Farmers. ATTRA Sustainable Agriculture, 20 pp.
https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=413.
Schahczenski, J. 2018b. Primer on Whole Farm Revenue Protection Crop
Insurance: Updates for 2018. ATTRA Sustainable Agriculture, 4 pp.
https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/download.php?id=595.
Schonbeck, M., D. Jerkins, and J. Ory. 2016. Taking Stock: Analyzing
and Reporting Organic Research Investments, 2002-2014. Organic Farming
Research Foundation (www.ofrf.org), 222 pp.
Schonbeck, M., D. Jerkins, and J. Ory. 2017. Soil Health and Organic
Farming: Building Organic Matter for Healthy Soils: An Overview.
Organic Farming Research Foundation (www.ofrf.org), 39 pp.
Simon, Pl, M. Colley, L. MeKenzie, J. Zystro, C. McCluskey, L.
Hoagland, P. Roberts, J. Colquhoun, L. du Toit, J. Nunez, E. Silva, and
T. Waters. 2016a. The CIOA (Carrot Improvement for Organic Agriculture)
Project: New Sources of Nematode Resistance and Evidence that Location,
Cropping System, and Genetic Background Influence Carrot Performance.
Pp. 26-31 in Proceedings of the 8th Organic Seed Growers Conference
February 4-6, 2016, Corvallis, OR. http://seedalliance.org/
publications#publication_category_title_13.
Simon, P.W., J. Navazio, M. Colley, L. Hoagland, and P. Roberts.
2016b. Carrot improvement for organic agriculture with added grower and
consumer value. Final report on OREI project 2011-01962. CRIS
Abstracts.*
Six, J., S.D. Frey, R.K. Thiet, and K.M. Batten. 2006. Bacterial and
Fungal Contributions to Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosystems. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70(2): 555-569.
Sullivan, D.M., and N.D. Andrews. 2012. Estimating plant-available
nitrogen release from cover crops. Pacific Northwest Extension
publication PNW 636. 23 pp. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/
bitstream/handle/1957/34720/pnw636.pdf.
Sullivan, D.M., E. Peachey, A.L. Heinrich, and L.J. Brewer. 2017.
Nutrient Management for Sustainable Vegetable Cropping Systems in
Western Oregon. Oregon State Extension Bulletin EM 9165.
Sun H., P. Koal, D. Liu, G. Gerl, R. Schroll, A. Gattinger, R.G.
Joergensen, and J.C. Munch. 2016. Soil microbial community and
microbial residues respond positively to minimum tillage under organic
farming in Southern Germany. Appl. Soil Ecol. 108: 16-24.
Thakur, A.K., N.T. Uphoff, and W.A. Stoop. 2016. Scientific
Underpinnings of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI): What Is
Known So Far? Advances in Agronomy 135: 147-179.
Thompson, L., C. Burr, K. Glewen, G. Lesoing, J. Rees, and G.
Zoubek. 2016. Impact of Cover Crops on Corn and Soybean Yield in
Nebraska On-Farm Research. Midwest Cover Crop Council. http://
mccc.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NE_2016_Impact-of-Cover-Crops-
on-Corn-and-Soybean-Yield-in-Nebraska-On-Farm-Research.pdf.
Toonsiri, P., S.J. Del Grosso, A. Sukor, and J.G. Davis. 2016.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Solid and Liquid Organic Fertilizers
Applied to Lettuce. J. Environmental Quality Vol. 45 No. 6, p. 1812-
1821.
Turner, S. 2015. Evaluation of carrot (Daucus carota, L.) for traits
related to early seedling establishment and canopy growth at different
planting densities in organic systems. 2015 Organic Agriculture
Research Symposium, recording at http://eorganic.info/node/12972.
USDA, Agriculture Research Service (ARS), 2018. Cover Crop Chart, V
3.0. Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory at Mandan, ND. 74 pp. 1.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/plains-area/mandan-nd/ngprl/docs/cover-crop-
chart/.
USDA National Organic Program (NOP) Final Rule. https://
www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Conservation
Practice Standards. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detailfull/national/technical/cp/ncps/?cid=nrcs143_026849.
USDA NRCS. 2013. NRCS Cover Crop Termination Guidelines Non-
Irrigated Cropland. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/
stelprdb1167871.pdf.
USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) and Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation (FCIC). 2016. Good Farming Practice Determination Standards
Handbook, FCIC-Approved Standards and Procedures for Administering Good
Farming Practice Decisions and Determinations for the 2017 and
Succeeding Crop Years. FCIC 14060 (12/2016), 69 pp.
USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), 2014,
2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Annual cover crop survey reports. http://
www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Topic-Rooms/Cover-Crops/Cover-Crop-
Surveys.
Van Geel, M., E. Verbruggen, M. De Beenhouwer, G. van Rennes, B.
Lievens, and O. Honnay. 2017. High soil phosphorus levels overrule the
potential benefits of organic farming on arbuscular mycorrhizal
diversity in northern vineyards. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and
Environment 248: 144-15.
Wander, M.M. 2015a. Nutrient budget basics for organic farming
systems. 6 pp. http://articles.extension.org/pages/18794/nutrient-
budget-basics-for-organic-farming-systems.
Wander, M.M., 2015b. Soil Fertility in Organic Farming Systems: Much
More than Plant Nutrition. http://articles.extension.org/pages/18636/
soil-fertility-in-organic-farming-systems:-much-more-than-plant-
nutrition.
Wander, M., N. Andrews, and J. McQueen. 2016. Organic Soil
Fertility. http://articles.extension.org/pages/18565/organic-soil-
fertility.
Wander, M.M., S.J. Traina, B.R. Stinner, and S.E. Peters. 1994.
Organic and Conventional Management Effects on Biologically Active Soil
Organic Matter Pools. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58: 1130-1139.
Wander, M.M., C. Ugarte, E. Zaborski, and E. Phillips. 2014. Organic
systems and climate change. Proposal and final report for ORG project
2010-03954. CRIS Abstracts.*
Williams, A., A.S. Davis, A. Jilling, A.S. Grandy, R.T. Koide, D.A.
Mortensen, R.G. Smith, S.S. Snapp, K.A. Spokas, A.C. Yannarell, and
N.R. Jordan. 2017. Reconciling opposing soil processes in row-crop
agroecosystems via soil functional zone management. Ag. Eco. Env. 236:
99-107.
Worthington, M., S.C. Reberg-Horton, G. Brown-Guedira, D. Jordan, R.
Weisz, and J. P. Murphy. 2015. Morphological Traits Associated with
Superior Weed Suppressive Ability of Winter Wheat against Italian
Ryegrass. Crop Science 55: 50-56.
Wortman, S., C. Francis, R. Drijber, and J. Lindquist. 2016. Cover
Crop Mixtures: Effects of Diversity and Termination Method on Weeds,
Soil, and Crop Yield. Midwest Cover Crop Council, http://mccc.msu.edu/
wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NE_2016_Cover-Crop-Mixtures_-Effects-of-
Diversity-and-Termination.pdf.
Zuber S.M., and M.B. Villamil. 2016. Meta-analysis approach to
assess effect of tillage on microbial biomass and enzyme activities.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 97: 176-187.

* For project proposal summaries, progress and final reports for USDA
funded Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and Organic
Transitions (ORG) projects, enter proposal number under ``Grant No''
and click ``Search'' on the CRIS Assisted Search Page at:
http://cris.nifa.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/
0?path=crisassist.txt&id=anon&pass=&OK=OK.
Note that many of the final reports on the CRIS database include lists
of publications in refereed journals that provide research findings in
greater detail.

Notes *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the report as submitted contains two blank pages
for taking of notes. For publishing purposes they are not reproduced
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This guidebook is funded in partnership by USDA, Risk
Management Agency, under Award #RM17RMEPP522CO14.
report 3
Soil Health and Organic Farming Organic Practices for Climate
Mitigation, Adaptation, and Carbon Sequestration
An Analysis of USDA Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)
and Organic Transitions (ORG) Funded Research from 2002-2016

By Mark Schonbeck, Diana Jerkins, Lauren Snyder

Thank you to National Co+op Grocers for supporting this
project.
Table of Contents
Introduction

Concept #1: Estimating the Climate Mitigation Potential of
Organic Farming

Challenges in Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in
Organic Farming Systems

Concept #2: Closing the Organic Versus Conventional Yield Gap

Best Management Practices and Information Resources for Carbon
Sequestration and Net Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Organic Farming

Concept #3: Organic is More than Renouncing Synthetics and
GMOs

Resources
Organic Farming, Soil Health, Carbon Sequestration, and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions: A Summary of Recent Research Findings
Questions for Further Research: Organic Farming Soil Carbon, Soil
Health, and Climate
References
Introduction

Climate change threatens agriculture and food security across the
U.S. and around the world. Rising global mean temperatures have already
intensified droughts, heat waves, and storms, and altered life cycles
and geographical ranges of pests, weeds, and pathogens, making crop and
livestock production more difficult. Intense rainstorms aggravate soil
erosion and complicate water management, and higher temperatures
accelerate oxidation of soil organic matter. Warming climates modify
crop development regulated by growing degree-days or ``chill hours,''
and threaten production of perennial fruit and nut crops that have
strict chilling requirements to initiate growth and fruit set. Thus,
agricultural producers have a major stake in efforts to curb further
climate change, as well as improving the resilience of their farming
and ranching systems to the impacts of climate disruption.
Today's climate changes are driven largely by three greenhouse
gases (GHG): carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide
(N2O), and methane (CH4). Prior to the industrial
era, the world's vegetation, soil life, and fauna mediated a vitally
important balance between emissions and uptake of atmospheric
CO2, CH4, and N2O. Modern industrial
civilization has upset this balance, resulting in a sharp rise in
atmospheric concentrations of all three GHG since 1850, leading to the
onset of global climate change in the late 20th century. Agricultural
activities affect climate through direct GHG emissions and impacts on
the soil and plant biomass components of the global carbon (C) cycle
(Cogger, et al., 2014; Harden, et al., 2018).
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) defines soil
health as ``the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital
living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans.'' Healthy
soils host a diversity of beneficial organisms, grow vigorous crops,
enhance agricultural resilience (crop and livestock ability to tolerate
and recover from drought, temperature extremes, pests, and other
stresses), and help regulate the global climate by converting organic
residues into stable soil organic matter (SOM) and retaining nutrients,
especially nitrogen (N) (ITPS, 2015; Moebius-Clune, et al., 2016).
Thus, building soil health through sustainable organic management
practices can mitigate GHG emissions and lessen the impacts of climate
change on production.
Direct Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Agriculture
In addition to fossil-fuel-related CO2 emissions from
field operations and embodied in fertilizers and other inputs,
agricultural operations emit N2O and CH4, whose
100 year global warming potentials (GWP) are about 310 and 21 times
that of CO2, respectively (IPCC, 2015).*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Throughout this Guide, figures for GHG emissions and their
impacts are discussed in terms of their carbon dioxide carbon
equivalents (CO2-Ceq), based on IPCC estimates of 100 year
GWP, Thus, 1 lb N emitted as N2O = 133 lb C emitted as
CO2 (or CO2-Ceq), and 1 lb C emitted as
CH4 = 7.6 lb CO2-Ceq.

Although CO2 accounts for the largest percentage
of GHG emissions, N2O and CH4 are much
more potent greenhouse gases. Methane has roughly 20 times the
global warming potential (GWP) of CO2, and
N2O has about 310 times the GWP of CO2.
The GWP of a given gas is a function of how long it remains in
the atmosphere and its ability to absorb energy. Therefore,
while cutting carbon emissions is an important part of
combating climate change, we also need to develop organic
practices that reduce N2O and CH4
emissions.
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2016

EPA 2016.

Most agricultural N2O is emitted during de-nitrification
and other microbial transformations of soluble N in cropland and
grassland soils that have been fertilized with synthetic N and/or
manure (Burger, et al., 2005; Charles, et al., 2017; Cogger, et al.,
2014). Major sources of CH4 emissions include ``enteric
CH4'' released by ruminant livestock, and anaerobic
microbial metabolism in flooded paddy rice soils (IPCC, 2014). Manure
storage facilities (especially liquid manure systems such as lagoons)
and inadequately aerated composting operations can emit both
CH4 and N2O (Richard and Camargo, 2011).
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that
direct agricultural GHG emissions accounted for 12% of total global
anthropogenic (human caused) GHG emissions (IPCC, 2014). These
emissions were attributed to livestock enteric CH4 (35% of
agricultural CO2-Ceq), N2O from fertilized or
manured soils (35% of agricultural CO2-Ceq), CH4
from rice cultivation (10%) and manure storage (8%), and
CO2 from biomass burning, cultivation of peat soils, and
other sources (12%) (Tubiello, et al., 2013; IPCC, 2014).
In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that, in
2016, direct agricultural GHG emissions account for 8.6% of the
nation's total anthropogenic GHG (EPA, 2018). Soil N2O
emissions accounted for 50.4% of agricultural GHG (reflecting heavier
use of N fertilizers in the U.S., livestock enteric CH4 for
30.2%, manure management facilities 15.2%, rice cultivation 2.4%
(relatively low rice acreage in U.S.), and CO2 from field
burning and from lime and urea applications 1.7%. Total direct
agricultural GHG emissions have increased 17% since 1990, driven
largely by increased use of liquid manure management systems, resulting
in a 68% increase in manure facility GHG emissions (EPA, 2018).
The global IPCC report and U.S.-focused EPA analysis do not include
CO2 emissions from farm machinery and embodied energy in
fertilizers and other inputs; these were subsumed under the categories
of energy for transportation, machinery, and industrial processes. In a
Washington State University analysis that categorized these
CO2 emissions as agricultural, N2O (from all
sources) accounted for 57% of direct U.S. agricultural GHG,
CH4 for 26%, and CO2 for just 17% (Carpenter-
Boggs, et al., 2016). In conventional agriculture, N fertilizer
accounts for a substantial part of the CO2 emissions, since
industrial N fixation releases about 4 lb CO2 per lb
fertilizer N (Khan, et al., 2007).
Soil, Agriculture, and the Global Carbon Cycle
Plant photosynthesis, the foundation of all life on Earth, converts
atmospheric CO2 into organic (carbon-based) compounds, which
are retained in plant biomass and delivered to the soil in plant
residues and root exudates. As the soil life digests plant residues,
about 15-35% of the annual plant carbon input remains in the soil
beyond the current season as soil organic carbon (SOC), the
``backbone'' (58% by weight) of soil organic matter (SOM) (Brady and
Weil, 2008). Thus, in all natural and agricultural ecosystems, the
living plant is the primary source of SOC, and the soil life mediates
soil C sequestration.
The SOC is comprised of several components, including microbial
biomass carbon (MBC), active or labile SOC (readily decomposed by soil
life, with a residence time in the soil of a few weeks to a few years)
and stable SOC (resistant to or protected from decomposition, residence
time of decades to millennia). Soil micro- and macro-organisms
(collectively known as the soil food web or soil biota) play a central
role in two vital processes in the soil C cycle: mineralization, in
which active SOC is decomposed to release CO2 and plant
nutrients, and stabilization, in which active SOC is converted to
stable forms that are protected within soil aggregates, adhered to clay
and silt particles, or chemically resistant to decomposition. Both
processes help regulate climate, as mineralization is vital for ongoing
plant nutrition and growth (formation of new organic C), while
stabilization directly sequesters SOC.

Mineralization is the process by which soil organisms consume
active SOC as their ``food,'' thereby decomposing it into
CO2 and plant nutrients.
Stabilization, also mediated by soil life, converts active
SOC to more stable forms that are physically protected within
soil aggregates, strongly adhered to soil minerals, or
chemically resistant to decomposition.
Figure 1. Components of soil organic matter (SOM)

Soil life processes fresh organic residues into SOM,
converting 10-40% of the carbon in the residues into SOC. While
active SOC turns over relatively rapidly, more stable fractions
can remain sequestered for decades to millennia. More than \1/
2\ of the world's SOC occurs below the plow layer, where it is
less subject to decomposition. Most of this deep SOC is derived
from plant roots; thus, including crops with deep, extensive
root systems in the rotation play an important role in SOC
sequestration.

Agriculture exerts multiple impacts on the global C cycle. Harvest
removes a significant portion of crop-fixed C, leaving less for the
soil. Tillage and overgrazing accelerate decomposition of SOM, and
expose the soil to wind and water erosion, which remove SOM-rich soil
particles and cause major SOC losses (Lal, 2003; Olson, et al., 2016;
Osmond, et al., 2014; Teague, et al., 2016).
Clearing land for agriculture is especially destructive to SOC and
plant biomass C. Historically, deforestation and other land use changes
accounted for 30% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions between 1750 and
2011. These losses have slowed in recent decades and now represent 8-
12% of total emissions (IPCC, 2014; Tubiello, et al., 2013). Converting
temperate forest or prairie to cropland can degrade 30-50% of native
SOC over a 50 year period, and clearing tropical forest can destroy 75%
within 25 years (Brady and Weil, 2008; Lal, 2016; Olson, et al., 2016,
2017). Since the dawn of agriculture 10,000 years ago, land use
conversion has oxidized some 516 billion tons ** of biosphere C (SOC,
vegetation, wetlands) to CO2 (Lal, 2016), equivalent to 34
years' worth of total global GHG at current emissions rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Throughout this Guide, the English system of units is used;
literature reports in metric are converted to English system. One ton
(2,000 lb) = 0.908 metric ton (Mg) = 908 kilograms. One acre (43,560 sq
ft) = 0.405 hectare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The soil plays a central role in the global C cycle, and the
capacity to absorb and hold C is a vital function of healthy soil.
Total SOC held in the world's soils (1,650 billion tons) is nearly 30%
greater than the sum of C in all living organisms plus atmospheric
CO2 (Carpenter-Boggs, et al., 2016; Lal, 2015). The SOC
turns over (is degraded to CO2) at about 66 billion tons
annually (Brady and Weil, 2008). Most of the SOC is replenished through
photosynthesis, but net losses have been estimated at about 2 billion
tons C per year, \1/2\ of which results from soil erosion (Brady and
Weil, 2008; Harden, et al., 2018; Lal, 2003). When these SOC losses are
added to direct agricultural GHG emissions, agriculture and land use
account for about 25% of global anthropogenic GHG (IPCC, 2014; Teague,
2018).
Improved farming and land management practices can reverse this
trend, resulting in carbon sequestration, a net conversion of
CO2-C into SOC. For example, organic cropping systems often
accrue more SOC than conventional systems in long-term trials (Delate,
et al., 2015b; Cavigelli, et al., 2013; Rodale Institute, 2015). While
individual practices such as cover cropping and no-till can sequester
some C, integrated systems such as conservation agriculture,
regenerative cropping, agroforestry, and adaptive multipaddock grazing
(AMP) show much greater C sequestration potential (Table 1). Planting
depleted or marginal cropland to perennial sod or trees also stores
substantial C in soil and plant biomass (Feliciano, et al., 2018;
Jones, 2010). Cropland soils adjacent to tree lines (boundary plantings
or alley crops) benefit from leaf litter, which enhances SOC and
fertility up to a distance equal to tree height (Pardon, et al., 2017).
The potential to design farming practices for C sequestration has
drawn public attention to organic and sustainable agriculture as part
of the solution to the global climate crisis (Ohlson, 2014). In 2015,
the USDA announced ten Building Blocks for Climate Smart Agriculture
and Forestry. The NRCS Conservation Stewardship Program includes GHG
mitigation as a component of the air quality resource concern (USDA,
2016; USDA NRCS). In December 2015, the Paris Climate Summit
(Conference of Parties) launched the ``4 per Thousand Initiative'' to
absorb 25% of total annual global GHG emissions by increasing global
SOC stocks in the top 16" of the soil profile by an average of 0.4% per
year (Lal, 2015). This would approximately offset the world's annual
agricultural GHG emissions.

USDA Building Blocks for Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHG Reduction by
Building Block NRCS Lead/Member 2025 (MMTCO2e)
\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soil Health Bianca Moebius-Clune 4-18
Nitrogen Stewardship Norm Widman, Chris 7
Gross, Dana Ashford-
Kornburger
Livestock Partnerships Glenn Carpenter 21.2
Conservation of Sensitive Mike Wilson .8
Lands
Grazing and Pasture Lands Joel Brown, Sid Brantly, 1.6
Dana Larsen
Private Forest Growth and Eunice Padley, Dan 4.8
Retention Lawson
Stewardship of Federal ---- 2.5
Forests
Promotion of Wood Products ---- 19.5
Urban Forests ---- 0.1
Energy Generation and Rebecca MacLeod 60.2
Efficiency
Metrics and Quantification Adam Chambers, Mike Total = 122-136
Wilson, Katie Cerretani
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MMTCO2e refers to metric tons of CO2 equivalent.

This plan is designed to help farmers, ranchers, forestland owners,
and rural communities respond to climate change. The ten ``building
blocks'' include a range of technologies and practices to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, increase carbon storage, and generate
clean renewable energy:
Conservative estimates of potential climate mitigation through
sustainable farming range from reducing U.S. agriculture's GHG
footprint by a few percent (Galik, et al., 2017; Powlson, et al., 2011)
to cutting it by \1/2\ (Chambers, et al., 2016). Reported SOC gains
from conservation practices such as no-till or surface residue
retention vary widely and often occur near the surface where the
accrued SOC is vulnerable to future mineralization (Powlson, et al.,
2016). Based on these considerations, Powlson, et al., (2011, 2016)
recommend that mitigation efforts focus on soil and nutrient management
to minimize emissions of the more powerful GHG, CH4 and
N2O.
In contrast, other analyses suggest that widespread adoption of
integrated systems can make U.S. agriculture carbon-negative (Harden,
et al., 2018; Teague, et al., 2016), and even offset all anthropogenic
GHG emissions (Rodale Institute, 2014). However, when soil stewardship
improves, SOC levels rise steadily for several years or decades, then
level off as soil C dynamics reach a new steady state (Brady and Weil,
2008; Lugato, et al., 2018). Such ``SOC saturation'' has been observed
in long-term organic farming systems trials (Rodale Institute, 2015,
Carpenter-Boggs, et al., 2016), and after cropland conversion to
pasture (Jones, 2010; Machmuller, et al., 2015). Lal (2016) estimated
that SOC levels in managed lands that currently average 55% of their
native levels, could be restored to 80% through known best practices,
and potentially to 100% or higher through future innovations. Overall,
findings to date suggest that widespread implementation of today's best
soil management practices could achieve the goal of the 4 per Thousand
Initiative announced at the 2015 Paris Climate Summit (Table 1).

Table 1. Per-acre annual C sequestration rates required to achieve three
GHG mitigation goals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOC seq. lb/
Global GHG Mitigation Goal ac-year \1\ References
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offset direct agricultural \2\ 325 Richard & Camargo, 2011
GHG emissions
Offset 25% human-caused GHG \2\ 660 Lal, 2016
emissions thru 4 per
Thousand Initiative
Offset all human-caused GHG \2\ 2,470 Teague, et al., 2016
emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carbon sequestered as SOC.
\2\ Based on C sequestration on the world's 12.2 billion acres of
agricultural lands, including 3.51 billion acres cropland and 8.65
billion acres grazing lands.

Table 2. SOC accrual rates estimated for various farming systems and
practices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOC seq. lb/
ac-year References
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practice: cropland:
Organic system (vs. \1\ 400-600 Coulter, 2012; Delate, et
conventional), long-term al., 2015b; Cavigelli, et
field crop farming systems al., 2013; Rodale, 2015
trials
Continuous no-till 510 West and Post, 2002
Diversified crop rotation 180-470 West & Post, 2002; Alhameid,
(e.g., 4 year 4 crops et al., 2017; Lehman, et
versus 2 year corn-soy) al., 2017
Cover crop (NRCS practice) 135-195 Chambers, et al., 2016
\2\
Cover crop with no-till 440-800 Lal, 2015
Conservation Agriculture 600-1,000 Lal, 2016
\3\
Regenerative cropping 2,400 Aguillera, et al., 2013,
system \4\ Gattinger, et al., 2012,
Teague, et al., 2016
Practice: grazing lands:
Prescribed grazing (NRCS 150-400 Chambers, et al., 2016
practice) \2\
Adaptive multipaddock 2,400 Machmuller, et al., 2015;
grazing (AMP) Wang, et al., 2015; Teague,
et al., 2016
Practice: Perennial
conservation plantings:
Field border, filter strip, 375-850 Chambers, et al., 2016
other herbaceous perennial
conservation planting
(NRCS) \2\
Converting cropland to %2,000 Jones, 2010
grassland/prairie
Conservation Reserve \5\ 3,600 Manale, et al., 2016
Program (NRCS)
Agroforestry, tropical \5\ 6,320 Feliciano, et al., 2018
region \6\
Agroforestry, temperate \5\ 3,700 Feliciano, et al., 2018
region \6\
Agroforestry, arid to \5\ 2,400 Feliciano, et al., 2018
semiarid regions \6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on differences in total SOC between organic and conventional
farming systems.
\2\ For NRCS Conservation Practice Standards, visit: https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/
ncps/?cid=nrcs143_026849.
\3\ Conservation agriculture integrates diversified crop rotation, high
biomass cover crops, no-till, organic soil amendments, and limited use
of synthetic inputs.
\4\ Regenerative cropping is similar to conservation agriculture, and
includes ``biotic fertilizer'' to feed the soil biota, strong emphasis
on legumes and other organic N sources, and crop-livestock
integration.
\5\ Soil + aboveground biomass C sequestration.
\6\ Based on a review of various agroforestry practices such as
silvopasture, alley cropping, permaculture home gardens, and
transitioning cropland or degraded land to woodlot or forest.

Organic Agriculture, Soil, and Climate
The USDA National Organic Program (NOP) Standards mandate best
conservation management practices, including diversified crop rotation,
cover cropping, careful nutrient management, and other practices to
build SOC and protect soil health (USDA National Organic Program Final
Rule). The main difference between organic and conventional approaches
to soil conservation, SOC, and climate mitigation is that organic
farming excludes the chemical disturbance of synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides, but allows judicious tillage; while non-organic
conservation agriculture seeks to eliminate the physical disturbance of
tillage, but allows judicious use of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides,
and other crop protection chemicals when necessary. Extensive research
indicates that the organic approach has potential to sequester C and
mitigate GHG emissions, but that further research and development is
needed to fully realize this potential (see Concept #1 on page 10).
In addition to sequestering C and mitigating GHG emissions,
building soil health can contribute to the resilience of the production
system to abiotic stresses, including those related to climate change
(Blanco-Canqui and Francis, 2016; Lal, 2016). Organic systems tend to
give somewhat lower yields than conventional (Ponisio, et al., 2014),
yet yield stability (resilience) may be improved. For example, the
organic system in a Rodale long-term trial has sustained corn yields in
drought years when conventional corn yields were reduced (Rodale
Institute, 2014). In another instance, regenerative range management
helped a Texas ranch maintain its herd through the extreme drought of
2012 that forced other ranchers to sell livestock (Lengnick, 2016).
Concept #1 Estimating the Climate Mitigation Potential of Organic
Farming
Organic farming practices can enhance the soil's capacity to
sequester carbon. However, assessments of the overall climate impacts
of organic farming range from substantial net GHG mitigation (Rodale
Institute, 2014; Scialabba, 2013), to a net increase in agricultural
GHG emissions as the organic industry has grown in the U.S. (McGee,
2015). There are concerns that lower crop yields in organic production
reduce crop residue returns to the soil and increase GHG emissions per
unit output (Lorenz & Lal 2016); greater reliance on tillage to manage
weeds and cover crops degrades SOM (USDA, NRCS, 2011), and SOC gains
from off-farm organic inputs do not represent net C sequestration
(Gattinger, et al., 2012).
One valuable tool for resolving this question is to conduct a meta-
analysis, a quantitative review of multiple studies across diverse
regions, climates, and soils. Highlights from recent meta-analyses,
reviews, and large-scale studies include:

Soil samples from 659 organic fields and 728 conventional
fields across the U.S. showed 13% higher total SOM and 53%
higher stable SOM (``humic substances'') in organically managed
soils compared to conventional (Ghabbour, et al., 2017).

In 56 studies in humid-temperate, arid, and tropical regions
on six continents, organic systems averaged 19% higher total
SOC, 41% higher microbial biomass C, and 32-84% higher levels
of several enzymes important to nutrient cycling (Lori, et al.,
2017).

In 20 studies across five continents, organic systems
accrued an average of 490 lb C/ac-yr compared to just 80 lb C/
ac-yr for conventional systems (Gattinger, et al., 2012).

In six long-term farming systems trials in CA, IA, MD, MN,
PA, and WI, organic systems accrued more SOC than conventional
(Delate, et al., 2015b). Organic systems with tillage
outperformed conventional no-till in the MD trial (Cavigelli,
et al., 2013).

In a meta-analysis of 38 studies, organic N sources lost
about 0.57% of their N content as N2O, compared to
1.0% or more for synthetic N fertilizers (Charles, et al.,
2017).

Based on 12 studies, organically managed soils emitted
significantly less N2O and absorbed slightly more
CH4 per acre than conventional soils; however soil
GHG emissions per unit output were slightly higher for organic
systems (Skinner, et al., 2014).

Organic systems showed lower total GHG emissions per unit
output than conventional in 72 out of 121 direct comparisons,
while the remaining 49 comparisons showed similar or greater
GHG emissions in the organic systems (Lee, et al., 2015).

A review of 115 studies with over 1,000 observations found
organic yields averaging 19% lower than conventional yields
(Ponisio, et al., 2014). See Concept #2 on page 22 for more.

Statistical analysis of U.S. agriculture indicates that the
growth in USDA certified organic acreage has correlated with an
increase in agricultural GHG emissions, likely because many
organic farms have not adopted integrated, sustainable, SOC-
building systems (McGee, 2015). See Concept #3 on page 27 for
more.
Bottom Line
Best organic management practices can build SOC and soil health,
and potentially reduce GHG emissions. However, further research,
development, demonstration, and adoption of sustainable organic systems
is needed to optimize net climate impact.
Challenges in Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in
Organic Farming Systems
Throughout the history of organic agriculture, practitioners have
emphasized environmental stewardship. In a recent national survey, more
than 86% of 615 participants in the NRCS Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) Organic Initiative cited ``concerns about
environment'' as a reason for adopting organic practices, compared to
just 61% motivated by business opportunities offered by organic markets
(Stephensen, et al., 2017).
Carbon Sequestration
Organic producers face several challenges in assessing and
optimizing the impacts of their practices on SOC and the farm's net
carbon balance.

1. Total SOC, which usually accounts for about 58% of SOM, changes
slowly in response to management and climate factors,
making it difficult to assess short-term (<10 years) trends
in soil C sequestration. Several indices of biologically
active SOC respond more rapidly to management, but they are
not yet widely available through standard soil test labs.
Of these, permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC)
reflects SOC stabilization processes, the Solvita soil
respiration test (which measures potentially mineralizable
carbon or PMC) reflects SOC mineralization, and both SOC
stabilization and mineralization are positively correlated
with crop yields (Hurisso, et al., 2016). Field measurement
protocols have been developed for both indices (Moebius-
Clune, et al., 2016). However, further research is needed
to develop region- and soil-specific guidelines for
interpretation of results (Roper, et al., 2017).

2. Soil samples to determine total SOM (e.g., standard soil tests),
or active SOC are normally taken from the surface to a
depth of 6" (Moebius-Clune, et al., 2016). Although
biological activity is greatest near the surface, 53% of
the world's SOC is located from 12" to 39" below the
surface (Lal, 2015) where SOC residence time is much longer
(Lehmann and Kleber, 2015). Root-derived SOC can play a key
role in long-term SOC sequestration, provided that
rotations include crops with deep, extensive root systems
and soil conditions favor their full development (Kell,
2011; Rosolem, et al., 2017). Deep rooted cover crops such
as forage radish or cereal rye can relieve hardpan and
enhance rooting depth and yield of future crops (Gruver, et
al., 2016; Marshall, et al., 2016). Gypsum applications can
ameliorate root-inhibiting excesses of soluble aluminum
(Al) in certain highly weathered soils (Rosolem, et al.,
2017). Standard soil tests can track long-term (>10 year)
trends in topsoil SOC, but do not reflect the efficacy of
crop rotation and soil management in building deeper SOC.

3. The long-term fate of newly-generated SOC is difficult to predict
and monitor. Relationships among organic C input, soil
biological activity, and long-term C sequestration are
complex. Fresh organic residues undergo a dynamic process
of decomposition and transformation by the soil life. Half
or more of the added C is converted back to CO2
via microbial respiration, and the balance becomes
microbial biomass C and SOC (Grandy and Kallenbach, 2015),
some of which turns over within a few years, while the rest
remains sequestered for decades to millennia. Many
factors--quality of organic inputs, management practices,
species composition and activity of the soil food web, soil
type and texture, soil moisture, climate, and weather
extremes--influence SOC sequestration (McLauchlan, 2006).
For example, much of the SOC gained during no-till accrues
within aggregates near the soil surface, and is readily
destabilized by a single tillage pass (Grandy, et al.,
2006; Kane, 2015). Generally, more plant root biomass C
(35-40%) becomes stable SOC than shoot biomass C (15-20%)
(Brady and Weil, 2008; Rasse, et al., 2005). Diverse
organic inputs with varying C:N ratios tend to build more
SOC than single-source materials with low C:N (e.g.,
poultry litter) or high C:N i (e.g., corn residues)
(Cogger, et al., 2013; Fortuna, et al., 2014; Grandy and
Kallenbach, 2015).

Soil analyses for various soil carbon fractions help tell how
much carbon plants have pulled from atmospheric CO2
and stored in soil organic matter. USDA ARS

4. While plants sequester SOC as they grow and die in situ, SOC from
compost and other amendments from off-farm sources
represents imported, not sequestered, C (Powlson, et al.,
2011). In a review of multiple studies, Gattinger (2012)
found that, although organic systems tend to have higher
SOC than conventional systems, imported C may account for
40% of the SOC increase measured in organic systems.
Therefore, although organic systems have higher SOC, a
substantial portion does not contribute to carbon
sequestration.

Yet, depending on how it is managed, compost can help stabilize SOC
(Bhowmik, et al., 2017; Reeve and Creech, 2015). Compost and cover
crops together build stable SOC while cover crops alone yield more
active SOC that is readily mineralized through microbial respiration
(Hurisso, et al., 2016). In several field trials, cover crops with
manure or compost application have accrued more SOC than either
practice alone (Delate, et al., 2015a; Hooks, et al., 2015). A single
compost application to depleted rangeland in California boosted plant
productivity and sequestered more C than was present in the compost
itself (Ryals and Silver, 2013). Thus, judicious use of compost,
manure, and other organic amendments may play an important
complementary role with in situ plant growth in SOC sequestration.
The net climate impact of utilizing off-farm organic materials
depends in large part on their alternative fate. Diverting food waste
and yard waste from landfills or animal manure from lagoons to amend
cropland, converts these materials from major GHG sources into valuable
soil amendments. A life cycle analysis of applying composted manure and
plant residues to grazing lands indicated a large negative GHG
footprint (net mitigation), primarily through avoided CH4
emissions, and secondarily through enhanced forage biomass and SOC on
acreage receiving the compost (DeLonge, et al., 2013). Carbon emissions
during materials transport, and GHG emissions during the composting
process, were small relative to this offset. Careful management of
compost windrows to maintain aerobic conditions and avoid excessive
moisture and N in the mix minimizes GHG emissions (Brown, et al., 2008;
DeLonge, et al., 2013).

Other opportunities to avoid GHG emissions and build soil by
composting organic ``wastes'' abound. For example, Dr. Girish Panicker
(2017) states:

``[A]ccording to EPA, we throw away 24 million tons of dried
[tree] leaves into the landfills every year . . . This is the
greatest gift of nature, which contains thousands of tons of
macro and micro nutrients for the succeeding plants. It is the
food of our Mother Earth. It can conserve soil and water. EPA
states that Americans pay $65/ton to put it in the landfill.''

Conversely, harvesting plant biomass to make compost or other
organic amendments can deplete the ``donor'' field. Removal of crop
residues (e.g., corn stover) from fields can severely compromise SOC
and soil health (Andrews, 2006), and intensify wind and water erosion
(Blanco-Canqui, et al., 2016a, 2016b). Similar concerns apply to
biochar, a soil amendment created by pyrolysis of organic residues,
which can help stabilize SOC, improve soil structure, and reduce
N2O emissions (Blanco-Canqui, 2017; Cai, et al., 2016 Mia,
et al., 2017). However, the pyrolysis process releases GHG, plant
biomass is consumed as pyrolysis feedstock rather than returning to the
soil in situ, and some biochar enterprises remove forest or other
native plant biomass at unsustainable rates to make the product (North,
2015).

Tips to enhance carbon sequestration:

Implement conservation practices, such as diversified
crop rotations and re-
duced tillage.

Consider regenerative cropping systems that integrate
multiple conservation
practices with judicious use of compost or other organic
amendments.

Incorporate agroforestry practices, such as
silvopasture, alley cropping, and
hedgerows.

Implement management intensive rotational grazing
systems.

Plant marginal cropland to perennial sod or trees.

Plant deep-rooted cover crops, such as forage radish or
cereal rye, to enhance
root biomass.

Diversify crop rotations by adding deep-rooted and
perennial crops.

Use diverse organic inputs that vary in their C:N ratio.

Combine the use of compost and cover crops.

Divert food and yard waste from landfills to amend
cropland.

Finally, organic farmers can face tough choices between
sequestering C and maintaining crop yields and net economic returns.
Organic production relies on sufficient SOC mineralization to provide
crop nutrients, which, at first glance, seems to contradict the goal of
long-term SOC sequestration. Hurisso, et al., (2016) state:

``Soil organic matter levels are the balance of C inputs to
soil (through crop residues and amendments) and losses via
mineralization (i.e., CO2 respiration). These
dynamics (stabilization vs. mineralization) are mediated
through the soil food web, which plays a large role in SOM
decomposition and supports crop nutrition. Growers have a
vested interest in both processes because they rely on
mineralization for short-term crop productivity, but also
strive for stabilization to build soil resilience, tilth, and
quality.''

Compared to conventionally managed soils, organically managed soils
typically have higher microbial respiration rates (PMC) and higher
levels of active (POXC), stable, and total SOC, indicating
that SOC mineralization and stabilization can be enhanced
simultaneously (Hurisso, et al., 2016; Lori, et al., 2017).
Tillage and cultivation present a tougher challenge, as they
accelerate SOC oxidation and sometimes erosion. Cover crop-intensive,
organic no-till systems that maximize SOC often entail substantial
yield tradeoffs, especially in the colder climates of the northern half
of the U.S. (Barbercheck, et al., 2008; Delate, 2013, Larsen, et al.,
2014). Thus, farmers often struggle to find the right balance between
crop production and long-term SOC retention.
Conservation agriculture is a system that aims to achieve this
balance by integrating diversified rotations, cover crops, legumes,
organic soil amendments, crop-livestock integration, and continuous no-
till with limited synthetic inputs to maintain high yields, build soil
health, and sequester C (Delgado, et al., 2011; Teague et al., 2016).
Best sustainable organic practices differ from conservation agriculture
primarily in the complete non-use of synthetic inputs including
herbicides, which protects soil life (Rose, et al., 2016), but makes
continuous no-till infeasible for annual crops. However, organic
systems that reduce tillage intensity, maximize crop biomass and
diversity, and use organic amendments can build more SOC than
continuous conventional no-till (Cavigelli, et al., 2013; Dimitri, et
al., 2012; Kane, 2015). Practical organic conservation tillage
strategies include ridge or strip tillage, which release nutrients in
crop rows and build SOC between rows (Williams et al., 2017), and
implements such as spaders, rotary harrows, and sweep plow
undercutters, which destroy less SOC and leave soil in better condition
than plow-disk or rototiller (Schonbeck, et al., 2017).
Crop diversification is another practice that generally enhances
SOC, especially when perennial and deep rooted crops are added to the
rotation, and this SOC accrual may be more stable than that achieved
through no-till (Cavigelli, et al., 2013; Kane, 2015; Powlson, et al.,
2016; Wander, et al., 1994). Increasing crop diversity also enhances
soil microbial biomass, biodiversity, nutrient cycling, and other soil
food web functions, (King and Hofmockel, 2017; McDaniel, et al., 2014;
Tiemann, et al., 2015. However, adding new crops to the system can
entail acquiring new production tools and skills, market research for
new products, and/or reduced revenues resulting from unharvested cover
or sod crops.
Nitrous oxide, methane, and total greenhouse gas ``footprint'' of the
farming system
Nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from fertilized soils
account for about \1/2\ of direct GHG emissions in U.S. agriculture
(EPA, 2018), and result from microbial transformations of soluble
nitrogen in the form of ammonium (NH4) and nitrate
(NO3) into N2O. The IPCC has estimated that on
average about 1% of applied fertilizer is emitted as N2[O]
(emission factor, EF). However, actual EF values for organic N sources
can vary from nearly zero to as high as 7% depending on the N source
and its C:N ratio, soil texture and drainage, and seasonal rainfall
(Charles, et al., 2017). In a meta-analysis of multiple studies,
organic amendments with a high C:N ratio (e.g., crop residues, paper
mill sludge, etc.) or well-stabilized N (finished compost) had low EF
(0-0.3%), while solid manures ranged from 0.3-1.0%, and liquid manure
slurry and biogas digestate averaged 1.2% (Charles, et al., 2017).
Although a 1% loss from a 150 lb/ac N application has little economic
impact on the farm, this loss in the form of N2O negates
about 200 lb C sequestration.

In conventional farming systems, N2O emissions show
direct relationships with N application rates and methods. Reliable,
research-based nutrient management protocols for reducing
N2O emissions by 50% or more have been developed for field
crops (Eagle, et al., 2017; Millar, et al., 2010). While organic N
sources have a mean EF of 0.57%, and organic practices can mitigate
N2O (Cavigelli, 2010; Charles, et al., 2017; Reinbott,
2015), the dynamics of N2O emissions in organic systems are
complex and challenging to manage, making it difficult to develop
nutrient management protocols for organic systems. Brief, intense
N2O ``spikes'' can occur when high soil moisture levels and
limited oxygen coincide with an abundance of readily-decomposable
organic C and N; for example, when N rich organic fertilizers (e.g.,
poultry litter) or legume green manures are tilled into moist soil
(Baas, et al., 2015; Bhowmik, et al., 2015; Cavigelli, 2010; Han, et
al., 2017).
Annual cover crops usually reduce N2O losses while they
are growing (by taking up N), but may stimulate emissions after
termination, especially when all-legume covers are tilled in higher-
rainfall climates (Basche, et al., 2014; Li, et al., 2009; Rosolem, et
al., 2017). A recent European modeling study indicated that adding
clover cover crops (terminated by tillage) to existing crop rotations
would boost N2O emissions to result in large net GHG
emissions by the year 2100 (Lugato, et al., 2018).
In colder climates, spring thaw/snowmelt is a high-risk time for
N2O (Thies, 2007), especially after a fall alfalfa plowdown
has released an abundance of soluble N into the soil (Westphal, et al.,
2018). Other risk factors include soil compaction, which impedes
aeration and promotes de-nitrification when soil moisture levels are
high; and fine-textured (clayey) soils, in which EF values for organic
N sources averaged 2.8 times those for sandy soils (Balaine, et al.,
2016; Charles, et al., 2017).
The soil microbial community plays a central role in regulating the
conversions of soil N among organic, soluble, and volatile forms, and
thereby modulates N2O emissions. Among the many benefits of
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are their capacity to limit
N2O emissions and build stable SOC (Hu, et al., 2016,
Rillig, 2004). While organic practices and reduced tillage can enhance
AMF activity, heavy compost use may inhibit AMF by building up high
soil P levels (Gottshall, et al., 2017; Hu, et al., 2016; Van Geel, et
al., 2017).

Agricultural methane emissions are related primarily to livestock
and rice production. Livestock-related GHG emissions include enteric
CH4 and GHG released during manure storage. Pasture-based
systems reduce the need for manure storage, yet 100% grass-fed cattle
emit more CH4 than animals that receive concentrates because
the former diet is higher in fiber and lower in protein (Manale, et
al., 2016; Richard and Camargo 2011). Pastured dairy systems also
create N2O ``hotspots'' in areas of high stocking density
where manure is concentrated, and soil becomes compacted (Luo, et al.,
2017).
However, life cycle analyses of management-intensive rotational
grazing systems (MIG) have shown that they can sequester sufficient SOC
to offset enteric and manure GHG emissions, and may reduce enteric
CH4 by 30% through improved forage quality (Kittredge,
2016-17; Manale, et al., 2016; Stanley, et al., 2018; Teague, 2016-17;
Wang, et al., 2015) ). MIG systems divide grazing lands into multiple
paddocks, each grazed intensively for 0.5-3 days at high stocking
rates, followed by sufficient recovery periods for the sod to regrow
fully (Kittredge, 2014-15). Life cycle analyses on MIG systems in
Texas, Michigan, and South Carolina showed a net negative GHG footprint
(i.e., mitigation), though the investigators caution that the rapid SOC
accruals over the initial 5-10 years level off thereafter (Machmuller,
et al., 2015; Stanley, et al., 2018; Wang, et al., 2015).
Well-drained agricultural and grassland soils generally do not
release CH4, and may absorb small amounts of this GHG,
whereas water-saturated rice paddy soils release considerable
CH4 (Richard and Camargo, 2011; Thakur, et al., 2016; Topp
and Pattey, 1997). Terminating cover crops in rice paddies just before
flooding intensifies emissions, whereas draining rice fields for part
of the season can reduce them (Dou, et al., 2016; Oo, et al., 2018;
Tariq, et al., 2017). The System of Rice Intensification (SRI), which
integrates improved crop establishment techniques, compost for
fertility, and non-flooded field management, can enhance soil and crop
root health, improve yields, curb CH4 emissions, and reduce
total GHG emissions per ton of grain by 60% (Thakur, et al., 2016).
Researchers are attempting to develop realistic models and decision
tools for estimating the carbon balance and overall GHG ``footprint''
of a farming operation (Baas, et al., 2015; Jones, 2010; Wander, et
al., 2014). The USDA has developed GRACEnet, a field chamber protocol
for monitoring CO2, N2O, and CH4
emissions in different cropping systems, thereby providing data for
construction of predictive models (Parkin and Venterea, 2010). COMET
Farm and COMET Planner are online tools designed to help producers in
this complex task, and to identify management changes that could reduce
emissions or sequester SOC. Models were initially developed for
conventional production of commodity crops. Additional refinement to
address minor and specialty crops and other farming systems including
organic are underway. OFOOT is another tool under development by the
Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington
State University, designed to help organic producers understand and
improve the net GHG footprint of their farms (Carpenter-Boggs, et al.,
2016).
Positive feedback and the vital role of climate adaptation
Climate change itself can render C sequestration and GHG mitigation
more difficult. Rising temperatures are expected to accelerate the
oxidation of SOC (ITPS, 2015; Kell, 2011, Petit, 2012). Warming-related
SOC losses will be especially pronounced in cold-temperate climates and
in regions where permafrost thawing occurs (Harden, et al., 2018;
Kirschbaum, 1995). Warmer, drier winters and springs in the U.S. Corn
Belt may complicate crop establishment and leave tilled soils more
prone to wind erosion (Daigh and DeJong-Hughes, 2017). N2O
emissions also increase with soil temperature (Ball, et al., 2007), and
with mean summer temperatures (Eagle, et al., 2017). Finally, rising
atmospheric CO2 levels may also stimulate N2O
formation by soil fungi (Zhong, et al., 2018).
These trends highlight the urgent need to strengthen the resilience
of agricultural systems to climate disruptions already underway. As
noted earlier, the deeper, more biologically active soils of mature
organic systems that have higher SOC can improve crop and livestock
resilience to drought and other weather extremes. The soil benefits of
organic practices appear especially pronounced in tropical climates
(Lori, et al., 2017), and thus may become more important in temperate
regions as mean temperatures increase.
New risks, learning curves, and other barriers to climate-friendly
organic farming
Adding new management practices to make a farming system more
climate-friendly and climate resilient can initially increase financial
risks as producers must acquire new knowledge and training, and often
new equipment and infrastructure. The knowledge-intensive and site
specific nature of organic farming is accentuated when C sequestration
and climate mitigation and adaptation are added to the producer's
goals. For example, a cover crop-intensive organic minimum-till system
that works well in the Southeast may lead to crop failures in a colder
or drier region.
Crop diversification requires careful business planning and market
research to ensure sustained profitability.
For example, adding a specialty grain or legume crop to a corn-soy-
wheat rotation may require new market venues for the new crop.
Integrating a sod crop into the rotation builds SOC but often entails
foregone income, and may be infeasible for a small-acreage market
garden.
While the benefits of building soil health and sequestering SOC can
lead to improved yields or yield stability in organic systems, the
financial returns may not be realized for several years. In the
meantime, organic producers encounter economic, infrastructural,
social, and policy barriers to the adoption of climate friendly and
climate resilient farming systems, including:

Up-front costs and delayed benefits of adopting new
practices.

A steep learning curve and lack of qualified technical
assistance to help producers identify and adopt the best suite
of practices for their farm.

A historical under-investment in organic agriculture
research, which has contributed to the ``yield gap'' between
organic and conventional systems (see Concept #2 on page 22).

A lack of crop cultivars adapted to sustainable organic
production systems.

An agriculture and food system infrastructure that
perpetuates unsustainable production systems.

Government agricultural policies and programs that create
dis-incentives to crop diversification, cover cropping, and
other conservation practices.

The lack of viable carbon markets for climate-conscious
producers.

The current lack of political support for addressing climate
change at a societal level.

Social or cultural pressures that deter adoption of organic
or climate friendly practices.

The bottom line is that farmers--organic or otherwise--need to make
a living; thus, any management changes to sequester C or mitigate GHG
emissions must also maintain or improve the farmer's net returns. If
the farm goes out of business and the land undergoes commercial or
residential development, its net per-acre GHG emissions may soar. For
example, one study in Yolo County, California estimated that urban
areas emitted 70 times the GHG (in CO2 equivalents) as
irrigated cropland (Jackson, et al., 2012). Thus, farmland preservation
in itself can be seen as a climate-mitigating endeavor. In addition,
our society must provide farmers with the technical, economic,
infrastructure, and social support to adopt optimal soil-building,
climate-friendly, and profitable systems for their farming or ranching
operations.
Concept #2 Closing the organic versus conventional yield gap
One challenge that organic farmers face as they strive to improve
their environmental stewardship and stay in business is the ``yield
gap.'' Given the lower yields often associated with organic production,
the GHG footprint of organic food in carbon dioxide carbon equivalents
(CO2-Ceq) per unit output is not as small as might be
expected based on CO2-Ceq per acre in production. In
addition, concerns have been raised that lower-yielding organic systems
would require more acres of native vegetation to be cleared to meet
humanity's food and fiber needs, which would further increase the GHG
footprint of organic production.
For grain crops, the mean yield shortfall for organic production
has been estimated at 19%, based on studies in 38 countries (Ponisio,
et al., 2014). In comparisons of organic systems with a diversified
crop rotation or multicropping system versus a conventional monoculture
or low-diversity rotation, the yield difference diminished to 8-9%.
However, in comparisons in which both organic and conventional systems
were diversified, the yield gap remained at 21%.
Much of the yield gap can be attributed to low investment in
organic research and plant breeding for organic systems. Since 2002,
the USDA Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and Organic
Transitions Program (ORG) have begun to address this need (Schonbeck,
et al., 2016). Yet, only 1.5% of USDA research dollars currently go
into organic systems, lagging behind the 5% market share for organic
food. Ponisio et, et al., (2014) add:

``Given that there is such a diversity of management
practices used in both organic and conventional farming, a
broad-scale comparison of organic and conventional production
may not provide the most useful insights for improving
management of organic systems. Instead, it might be more
productive to investigate explicitly and systematically how
specific management practices (e.g., intercrop combinations,
crop rotation sequences, composting, biological control, etc.)
could be altered in different cropping systems to mitigate
yield gaps between organic and conventional production.
``Further, many comparisons between organic and conventional
agriculture use modern crop varieties selected for their
ability to produce under high-input (conventional) systems.
Such varieties are known to lack important traits needed for
productivity in low-input systems, potentially biasing towards
finding lower yields in organic versus conventional
comparisons. By contrast, few modern varieties have yet been
developed to produce high yields under organic conditions;
generating such breeds would be an important first step towards
reducing yield gaps when they occur.''
Bottom Line
Today's climate and food security crises make research into
sustainable organic systems more urgent than ever. The potential of
plant breeding for soil health and economic viability of organic farms
and ranches is discussed in the companion Guide, Soil Health and
Organic Farming: Plant Genetics, Plant Breeding and Variety Selection.
Best Management Practices and Information Resources for Carbon
Sequestration and Net Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Organic
Farming

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first steps toward creating a climate-resilient and climate-
friendly farm or ranch ecosystem are to:

Clarify your objectives and priorities.

Inventory farm resources including soil, water, crops and
livestock, infrastructure, expertise, and labor.

Evaluate your current production practices and their
potential impacts on GHG emissions and the resilience of your
farming system.

Identify opportunities to improve your operation's climate
and environmental impacts while maintaining or enhancing your
bottom line.

Outline your overall strategy to achieve your objectives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gather the information you need on current and potential new
practices or components, their C sequestration or GHG implications, and
their direct costs and benefits to your operation. For example,
diversifying your crop rotation can enhance SOC sequestration and
reduce GHG; it also presents marketing and management challenges and an
opportunity to evaluate and compare net returns of your current crops
and new crops under consideration. Some valuable resources for this
part of the process include enterprise budgets, business planning
templates, and market information on organic farm products, available
online or as Extension bulletins.
Consider seeking technical assistance from NRCS field staff or
independent consultants with a commitment to agricultural
sustainability and expertise in organic systems, soil health, climate
in agriculture, and agricultural economics. These professionals can
help you clarify goals and develop a practical and site specific
strategy for your operation. NRCS has developed a nine-step
comprehensive conservation planning process in which their field staff
or a technical services provider works on the ground with farmers to
clarify objectives, inventory resources and concerns, develop and
implement a strategy, and evaluate outcomes (USDA NRCS, 2014). In
addition, the Conservation Stewardship Program (Resources, item 23)
offers high level conservation strategies that can mitigate GHG and
improve resilience to weather extremes.

Factors to consider and their GHG and resilience impacts (listed in
parentheses) include:

Your soil type(s), including texture, mineralogy, profile,
depth, drainage, topography, inherent strengths and
constraints, and risk factors for soil erosion or degradation.
NRCS Web Soil Survey (Resources, item 22) provides this
information.

Management history and current condition (fertility, tilth,
vegetative cover) of the soil in each field or pasture.

Tillage practices and other field operations (CO2
from fuel, loss of SOC, soil erosion).

Cover crops (C sequestration, N uptake, reduced input
needs), termination of legume and other low C:N cover crops
(N2O emissions).

Compost and other organic amendments, on- or off-farm
sourcing (soil health, SOC stabilization, nutrient cycling,
soil nutrient balance, GHG impacts of manufacture and transport
versus GHG offsets for materials diverted from landfill or
lagoon).

Nitrogen applications such as poultry litter or livestock
manure (N2O).

Critical times in the season or crop rotation when high
levels of soil moisture and soluble N may occur together
(N2O).

Flooded field production systems, e.g., rice
(CH4).

Livestock nutrition, forage quality, grazing and pasture/
range management (enteric CH4 and its mitigation,
N2O ``hotspots,'' C sequestration).

Manure storage facilities and composting operations
(CH4 and N2O).

Opportunities to increase plant cover (days per year),
biomass, and depth and extent of living roots in the farm's
cropland, pasture, or range (enhanced C sequestration and
resilience to drought, temperature extremes, and other
stresses; reduced soil erosion).

Opportunities to diversify the crop rotation and farm
enterprises (C sequestration, resilience, including economic
resilience to crop failure or market fluctuations).

Opportunities to plant trees, shrubs and other perennials,
including orchard and other perennial crops; windbreaks,
hedgerows, alley crops, silvopasture, and other agroforestry;
restoration of native plant communities or wildlife habitat (C
sequestration, erosion control, resilience).

Opportunities to tighten nutrient cycles, such as crop-
livestock integration (N2O mitigation, resilience).

As you fine-tune your organic production system for soil and
climate stewardship, keep in mind that adopting new crops or practices
entail a learning curve and new potential risks, as well as benefits.
Add one or two practices or components at a time, trying them out on a
small scale first, then integrate those that support the farm's
economic viability while advancing your soil health and climate
mitigation/adaptation goals.

Clay soil Sandy soil Silty soil

Remember also that no single practice or new crop will be a
``silver bullet'' solution for soil health, climate, or profit. Your
long-term goal is to develop an integrated systems approach, which is
the essence of organic farming (see Concept #3 on page 27).
See Resources, items 1-5, 8, 9, 12, 14-18, 21, 22, 24 and 25 for
resources to help identify and estimate GHG impacts of your farming
system and practical strategies for mitigation and adaptation.
Concept #3 Organic is More than Renouncing Synthetics and GMOs
How full implementation of NOP Standards can sequester carbon, limit
greenhouse gas emissions, and build agricultural resilience
``Organic agriculture is defined as having no synthetic
inputs, but organic farms may or may not practice the full
suite of cultivation techniques characterizing sustainable
agriculture.''
(Ponisio, et al., 2014).

In order to become part of the climate solution, organic producers
and certifiers have been urged to move beyond a narrow focus on ``input
substitution'' (McGee, 2015) and to fully implement NOP requirements to
protect natural resources, wildlife, and biodiversity (Wild Farm
Alliance, 2017). The NOP Rules provides a clear roadmap to resilient,
climate-friendly farming. Note, these rules are subject to change.

205.2 Definitions:

``Organic Production: a production system that is managed .
to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural,
biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of
resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve
biodiversity.''

205.202 Land Requirements:

``[F]ield or farm parcel . . . must have distinct, defined
boundaries and buffer zones . to prevent the unintended
application of a prohibited substance.''

Tree and shrub plantings to meet this requirement also
sequester C.

205.105 Allowed and Prohibited Substances:

``[Organic] product must be produced . . . without the use of
synthetic substances.''

Non-use of synthetic N stabilizes SOC, enhances
microbial function, and re
duces N2O.

Non-use of synthetic crop protection chemicals protects
soil organisms that
build SOC.

205.203 Soil fertility and crop nutrient management practice
standard:

``[T]illage and cultivation practices [must] maintain or
improve physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil,
and minimize erosion.''

Tilling with care and reducing tillage when practical
protects SOC and soil
health.

205.203 Soil fertility and crop nutrient management practice
standard:

``[M]anage crop nutrients and soil fertility through
rotations, cover crops, and the application of plant and animal
materials . . .''

205.205 Crop rotation practice standard:

``[I]mplement a crop rotation including . . . sod, cover
crops, green manure crops, and catch crops that . . . maintain
or improve SOM, provide for pest management, manage deficient
or excess plant nutrients, and provide erosion control.''

Diversified crop rotations build microbial biodiversity
and biomass, and
total SOC.

Cover crops and rotation reduce the need for applied N,
and thus reduce
N2O risks.

Cover crops, sod crops, and diversified rotations build
yield stability and re-
silience.

Judicious use of compost and other organic inputs
stabilizes SOC and en-
hances soil life.

205.240 Pasture practice standard[:]

``The producer . . . must [have] a functioning management
plan for pasture. to annually provide a minimum of 30 percent
of a ruminant's dry matter in-
take . . . ''

Management intensive grazing can build SOC, distribute
nutrients, and fos-
ter resilience.

In selecting management practices, consider the following detailed
lists as menus of options from which to choose. Some of the
recommendations are well researched and widely applicable, while others
are more specific to certain regions, soils, or production systems, and
may or may not be the right choice for you. A few of the practices
listed are noted as experimental; while they have shown promise, they
are also potentially risky in certain circumstances.
Sequestering and conserving carbon in the soil
Extensive research has illustrated the central role of living
vegetation in restoring and maintaining SOC, and has validated the four
NRCS principles of soil health management as guidelines for C
sequestration and resilience of the farming system. These principles
are:

Keep the soil covered year round.

Maintain living roots throughout the soil profile as much of
the year as practical.

Minimize soil disturbance--tillage, compaction, overgrazing,
chemicals.

Energize the system with biodiversity.

The following practices and strategies can build SOC and
agricultural resilience.

Grow and sequester carbon in place:

Maintain plant cover, biomass, and living roots as much of
the year as practical; avoid or minimize bare fallow periods.

In regions with sufficient rainfall, implement
``tight'' crop rotations after each harvest or cover crop
termination; plant the next crop as soon as practical.

In semiarid conditions such as dryland grain
production, grow one cash or cover crop per year to
maintain SOC and soil health. If extended fallow is needed
to store soil moisture, keep surface covered with plant
residues.

Diversify the crop rotation. Adding just one new crop can
enhance SOC and soil health.

Grow high biomass, multi-species cover crops in rotation
with production crops.

Include a perennial sod phase (1-3 years) in the rotation,
if economically feasible.

Close time and space gaps between crops in the rotation
whenever practical. Some advanced techniques for maximizing
year round living cover include:

Interseed or overseed cover crops into standing grain,
row, or vegetable crops. Interseed cover crops into corn at
the V5-V6 (knee high) stage.

Roll-crimp, mow, or ridge-till cover crops before
planting cash crop (may be risky, especially in colder
regions; experiment first on small area).

Seed row crop into standing cover before roll-down if
soil moisture is ample and good seed-soil contact can be
achieved for the row crop (may be risky; experiment first
on small area).

Plant intercrops of dissimilar but complementary
species, for example

b ``Three sisters'': corn (tall, erect, N demanding), pole beans
(climbing, N
fixing), and winter squash (covers ground, tolerates
part shade).

b Alternate rows of tomato (tall, need good air circulation and
full sun) with
beds of salad greens (low growing, appreciate light
shade in summer).

Manage for high crop root biomass and deeper root growth:

Include deep rooted crops (cash, cover, or sod) in the
rotation.

Choose crop varieties with greater root mass and
depth.

Avoid ``spoon-feeding'' soluble N; use slow-release
fertility sources.

Relieve hardpan using deep-rooted cover crops (subsoil
first if necessary).

If subsoil acidity and high Al constrains root depth,
apply gypsum.

Keep orchard and vineyard floor, and berry crop alleys
covered in living vegetation. Perennial sod maintained by
periodic mowing works well for established fruit crops.

Install windbreaks, hedgerows, silvopasture, alley cropping,
and other functional agroforestry plantings as appropriate to
your operation.

Convert highly erodible cropland to orchard, other perennial
crops, or permanent pasture.

Restore degraded lands, marginal cropland, and riparian or
other ecologically sensitive areas to forest or prairie, with
emphasis on native perennial plants and wildlife habitat.

Use organic amendments to supplement and enhance in-situ plant
based C sequestration:

Apply compost, manure, or other amendments. Start with on-
farm or nearby sources.

Adjust manure and compost use rates to maintain moderate
soil P levels; avoid excess P.

Combine low and high C:N cover crops and organic inputs.

If additional organic materials from off-farm sources are
needed, choose materials that would otherwise ``go to waste,''
e.g., autumn leaves or food waste headed to landfills, or
manure that would otherwise be stored in a lagoon or unmanaged
heap.

Avoid inputs whose ``harvest'' depletes SOC on other lands
(e.g., corn stover biochar).

Commercial microbial soil inoculants may be valuable when
rebuilding depleted soils.

Mycorrhizal inoculants can be valuable, especially for woody
perennial crops.

Slow-release Fertility Sources:

Finished compost

Legume-grass cover crop residues

Alfalfa meal

UC Davis.

Conserve soil carbon:

Prevent or remedy soil erosion--it is an infamous SOC thief.

Reduce tillage whenever practical.

On sloping fields, lay out raised beds or ridges
approximately on contour, with gradual (0.5-1%) row grade
down toward one or both edges of field. Use contour buffer
strips (sod), terraces, or other soil conservation measures
as warranted.

Put steeper, highly-erodible lands in permanent cover-
pasture, silvopasture, forest, orchard with sod understory,
native plants, wildlife habitat, etc.

Avoid breaking perennial sod, and especially native forest,
prairie, wetland, or other natural ecosystems, for annual crop
production.

Avoid harvesting or ``baling-off'' crop residues such as
corn stover or mature cover crops, especially for fuel or off-
farm use. Leave residues on soil surface as long as practical.

Carefully managed grazing of crop residues or cover crops as
part of a crop-livestock integrated system can be compatible
with soil health and SOC sequestration.

Terminate cover crops by mowing, roll-crimping, tarping
(occultation), winterkill, undercutting, or shallow tillage
that leaves most of the root mass undisturbed in the soil
profile (note that no-till cover crop management can be
challenging in organic systems).

Use ridge tillage or strip tillage to promote nutrient
release in crop rows while leaving between-row soil undisturbed
to maximize SOC accrual (experimental for organic systems, has
shown promise in research trials).

Avoid overapplying plant-available N, which can ``burn up''
SOC. On fertile soils, simply replenish N removed by harvest,
550 lb/ac for most vegetables (Wander, 2015).

For more on building SOC and soil health, see Resources, items 2,
5, 6, 7, 9-13, 19-21, 23-25, and the other guides in the Soil Health
and Organic Farming series.

Minimizing nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) emissions from
cropland soils
Although abundant soil moisture and organic C and N during spring
thaw or after green manuring have been identified as risk factors for
N2O emissions, more research is needed to better understand
and minimize pulses of N2O emissions from fertile,
biologically active soils. However, the following strategies can reduce
annual total N2O emissions in organic crop production:

Know your soil properties and plan moisture management accordingly:

Identify soil type, texture, and drainage properties to
better understand N2O risks:

Heavy (clay, clay loam, silt loam) soils have two to
three times the N2O ``emissions factors'' for
organic N inputs as light (sandy loam) soils.

Floodplains, depressions, soils with naturally
occurring hardpan (``fragipan'' or ``duripan''), and areas
with naturally slow drainage (``moderately well drained''
to ``poorly drained'') are likely N2O hotspots
in the farm landscape.

Sodic (high-sodium) soils, which occur in low-rainfall
regions such as interior parts of the western U.S., often
have poor, compacted structure and drain slowly.

Remedy moderate drainage/aeration issues with deep rooted
cover crops, inputs to build SOC and tilth, graded raised beds
(sloping at 0.5-1% grade to field edge), or tile drains.

Plant wetter, high-risk areas in unfertilized perennial
vegetation such as grass sod, edible perennial landscape, or
native woodland or wetland plant communities.

Prevent and remedy soil compaction with deep rooted cover
crops, diversified rotation, controlled traffic, and soil
health building practices. For severe compaction, subsoil or
chisel plow just before planting deep rooted crops.

On irrigated crops:

Manage water applications to avoid prolonged periods
of excessive soil moisture.

Monitor fields for ponding in low spots or tailwater
collection areas--these can be major N2O
hotspots especially in high SOC soils.

In sodic soils, gypsum applications can relieve
compaction, improve water relations, and prevent
waterlogging during irrigation.

Manage soil nitrogen to minimize nitrous oxide emissions:

Aim to meet most of crop N needs through the action of the
soil food web on SOM and slow-release N sources, such as
legume-grass cover crop residues.

If ``quick'' N is needed, use concentrated N sources such as
poultry litter, blood meal, manure slurry, and Chilean nitrate
in moderation, perhaps 50 lb N/ac.

Ration applied N to meet, but not exceed crop N needs.

Conduct simple N rate trials to assess crop response.

On biologically active soils, crop N need may be well
below amounts recommended on a standard soil test.

Measure in-season soil or crop tissue nitrate-N (e.g.,
pre-sidedress nitrate test for corn at 12" height), to
determine if more N is needed.

Match timing of plant-available N with crop N demand, which
usually peaks during the period of most rapid growth, such as
the V9-V10 stage for corn.

Split applications of more concentrated N, such as
feather or blood meal, or

Use in-row drip irrigation to deliver a little N each
week to the crop.

Monitor and ``mop up'' excess soluble N.

Measure soil nitrate-N after harvest. Send soil
samples to a laboratory or use an in-field test kit.

If surplus soluble N (%30 ppm nitrate-N) is found or
expected to remain after harvest, plant a high biomass, N-
demanding cover crop immediately. Intercrop or overseed
before harvest, if practical.

Avoid adding manure or other concentrated N sources or
turning under succulent, high-N cover crops (green manure) when
soil is wet or heavy rainfall is likely.

For the perennial sod phase of a rotation, plant a mix of
legumes with grasses and other non-legumes to minimize risk of
N2O emissions after plowdown.

Manage for mycorrhizal fungi and other soil organisms that
promote tight N cycling:

Avoid excess soil P and soluble N levels.

Monitor P levels in compost and manure, adjust
application rates accordingly.

Use mycorrhizal fungal inoculum to help restore depleted
soils with low P.

Mitigate GHG risks in organic rice production and composting:

Use the non-flooded System of Rice Intensification (SRI).

If your rice production system includes periodic flooding,
time cover crops so that the paddy is not flooded when large
amounts of fresh residue are present.

Make compost from a diversity of organic materials with an
overall C:N ratio between 25:1 and 40:1, and maintain aerobic
conditions (e.g., turn windrows).

See Resources, items 1-5, 14, 15, 18, 24, and 25 for tips on
mitigating N2O and CH4 emissions from cropland;
item 6 for on-farm propagation of mycorrhizal inocula; and item 11 for
SRI production methods. For more on managing N in organic systems, see
Soil Health and Organic Farming: Nutrient Management for Crops, Soil,
and Environment. For more on water management, see Soil Health and
Organic Farming: Water Management and Water Quality.
Minimizing methane (CH4) and net total GHG emissions in livestock
operations
Although grass-fed ruminants emit more enteric CH4 than
grainfed (Manale, et al., 2016), management-intensive rotational
grazing (MIG) systems may sequester sufficient SOC to offset
CH4 and N2O emissions, and higher forage quality
may reduce enteric CH4 (Wang, et al., 2015; Rowntree, et
al., 2016; Stanley, et al., 2018).

To mitigate net GHG emissions during organic livestock production:

Maximize time on pasture and minimize time spent in
confinement (reduces need for manure storage).

Implement mob grazing, holistic management, adaptive
multipaddock (AMP), or other MIG system, adapted to your
region, climate, soils, pasture resources, livestock species
and breeds, and farming or ranching system.

Ensure sufficient rest periods for full recovery of pasture
or range before re-grazing. This is critical for C
sequestration, soil health, forage quality, and livestock
nutrition.

Monitor and manage pasture/range for forage quality and
livestock nutrition; modify grazing schedule and/or overseed
desirable species as needed to improve forage quality.

Arrange paddocks, watering areas, and rotation schedule to
distribute manure evenly and minimize N2O hotspots.

Eliminate manure lagoon storage if possible.

Compost or dry stack manure with sufficient dry, high-carbon
bedding (straw, wood shavings, etc.) to achieve an initial C:N
ratio of 25:1 or higher; turn windrows as needed to maintain
aerobic conditions.

If liquid manure storage is unavoidable, install a facility
to capture CH4 for use as fuel, or at least
``flare'' it (controlled burn) for release as less-harmful
CO2.

Spread manure when soil is well drained and aerobic, not
while saturated, frozen, or snow-covered.

Apply manure at rates consistent with sound nutrient
management, based on soil tests.

See Resources, items 7-10, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, and 23-25 for more
information on estimating and managing GHG emissions in organic
livestock production. Items 10, 19, 21, and 25 provide case studies of
successful MIG systems from different regions across the U.S.
Building soil health for climate adaptation and agricultural resilience
Practices that enhance soil food web function, build SOC throughout
the soil profile, or enhance nutrient cycling and nutrient efficiency,
tend to improve crop and livestock resilience to pests, diseases, and
abiotic stresses such as drought and unpredictable frost dates. So,
don't wait for the farm GHG models to become more accurate or for
carbon trading markets to open. Climate-friendly soil-building
practices can help your farming system adapt to climate changes already
under way, and may improve your economic bottom line in the long run.
See Resources, items 7, 19-21, and 23 for an overview of farm
management strategies for climate adaptation, including farm stories
that illustrate successful strategies.
Resources
1. Greenhouse Gases and Agriculture: Where does Organic Farming Fit?
(Lynne Carpenter-Boggs, D. Granatstein, and D. Huggins,
2016). In-depth webinar on agricultural GHG emissions and
opportunities for mitigation. http://
articles.extension.org/pages/30835/greenhouse-gases-and-
agriculture:-where-does-organic-farming-fit-webinar.

2. Impact of Organic Grain Farming Methods on Climate Change
(Webinar by M. Cavigelli, USDA ARS Beltsville, MD, 2010).
http://articles.extension.org/pages/30850/impact-of-
organic-grain-farming-methods-on-climate-change-webinar.

3. Why the Concern about Nitrous Oxide Emissions? (C. Cogger and D.
Collins, Washington State University, and A. Fortuna, North
Dakota State University, 2014).

4. Management to Reduce N2O Emissions in Organic
Vegetable Production Systems. (A. Fortuna, D. Collins, and
C. Cogger). Webinars 1 and 2 at: http://
articles.extension.org/pages/70280/two-partwebinar-series-
on-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-soil-quality-in-long-term-
integrated-and-tra.

5. Soil Microbial Nitrogen Cycling for Organic Farms (Louise
Jackson, University of California, Davis, 2010). Describes
how soil organisms regulate soil N retention, crop N
nutrition, and N2O emissions. http://
articles.extension.org/pages/18657/soil-microbial-nitrogen-
cycling-for-organic-farms.

6. Soil Fertility in Organic Farming Systems: Much More than Plant
Nutrition (Michelle Wander, University of Illinois, 2015).
N cycling and practical organic nutrient management. http:/
/articles.extension.org/pages/18636/soil-fertility-in-
organic-farming-systems:-much-more-than-plant-nutrition.

7. On-farm Production and Utilization of AM Fungus Inoculum (David
Douds, Jr., USDA Agricultural Research Service, 2015). How
to introduce and foster mycorrhizal fungi in organic
fields. http://articles.extension.org/pages/18627/on-farm-
production-and-utilization-of-am-fungus-inoculum.

8. New Times, New Tools: Cultivating Climate Resilience on Your
Organic Farm (L. Lengnick, 2016). Climate change
adaptation, including adaptation stories from leading
organic farms across the U.S. http://
articles.extension.org/pages/73466/new-times-new-tools:-
cultivating-climate-resilience-on-your-organic-farm.

9. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Dairy Farming Systems
(Tom Richard and Gustavo Camargo, Pennsylvania State
University, 2011) Webinar comparing organic grass, organic
grass/crop, conventional grazing, and confinement systems,
and strategies to mitigate GHG. http://
articles.extension.org/pages/32626/greenhouse-gas-
emissions-associated-with-dairy-farming-systems-webinar.

10. Carbon Farming. Special supplement to The Natural Farmer, Winter
2016-17, 32 pp. Practical C sequestration strategies that
organic farms in New England utilize, including cover
cropping, rotational grazing, and reduced tillage in small
scale vegetable production. http://thenaturalfarmer.org/
issue/winter-2016-17-carbon-farming/.

11. Grazing. Special supplement to The Natural Farmer, Winter 2014-
15, 32 pp. In-depth how-to information on management-
intensive rotational grazing systems that sequester SOC and
build soil, pasture, and herd health. Articles include Mob
Grazing, Allen Savory's Holistic Management system, and
several farmer articles on organic dairy cattle and lamb
grazing systems. http://thenaturalfarmer.org/issue/winter-
2014/.

12. Crop Intensification. Special supplement to The Natural Farmer,
Winter 2013-14, 32 pp. Describes the System of Rice
Intensification (SRI), a non-flooded approach to high-yield
organic rice production developed in Madagascar in the
1980s, and implemented successfully in the U.S. and
elsewhere. Compared to paddy rice, SRI builds soil and crop
health, and sharply reduces CH4 emissions.
http://thenaturalfarmer.org/issue/winter-2013/.

13. Biochar in Agriculture, special supplement to the Fall, 2015
issue of The Natural Farmer includes a number of articles
on the history, science, practical applications, potential
C sequestration benefits, and eco-social pros and cons of
biochar as a soil amendment. http://thenaturalfarmer.org/
issue/fall-2015/.

14. Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial, https://
rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-trial/

a. Farming Systems Trial Brochure. Summary after 35 years. 2015,
2 pp.
http://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FST-Brochure-
2015.pdf.

b. The Farming Systems Trial, Celebrating 30 Years. 2011, 21 pp.
http://
rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FSTbookletFINAL.pdf.

c. Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: a Down
to Earth
solution to Global Warming. 2014, 16 pp. White paper
based on Rodale's
farming systems trial and other farming systems trials
around the world.
https://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/
RegenOrgAgricultureAndClimate
Change_20140418.pdf.

d. Reversing Climate Change Achievable by Farming Organically.
Blog post
at https://rodaleinstitute.org/reversing-climate-
change-achievable-by-
farming-organically/.

15. Denitrification-Decomposition (DNDC) Calculator, developed by
Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at
University of New Hampshire, includes modules for
estimating GHG emissions in farming systems across the U.S.
(US-DNDC Model), in livestock production (Manure-DNDC
Model), and in forestry (Forest-DNDC Model). Models are
updated periodically. http://www.dndc.sr.unh.edu/.

16. Organic Farming Footprint (OFoot), developed by Center for
Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington
State University, aims to provide organic farmers,
certifiers, and carbon traders with a scientifically sound
yet simple estimate of C and N sequestration and net GHG
balance for a given organic cropping scenario. Tool is
available at https://ofoot.wsu.
edu/, with additional information at http://csanr.wsu.edu/
organic-farming-footprints/. The project has also updated
the CropSyst model to support water and nutrient management
of 28 additional crops. http://sites.bsyse.wsu.edu/
cs_suite/cropsyst/documentation/articles/description.htm.

17. Shades of Green Dairy Farm Calculator (Charles Benbrook, The
Organic Center, 2014). Webinar offers instruction on the
use of this GHG footprint calculator for dairy farms, and
discusses the reasons for wildly inconsistent outcomes of
GHG studies. http://articles.extension.org/pages/31790/
shades-of-green-dairy-farm-calculator-webinar.

18. Northeast Dairy Emissions Estimator (NDEE), is an on-line tool
to help dairy producers in New York and New England
estimate GHG emissions from all parts of the farm
operation, and evaluate tactics to reduce GHG. http://
nedairy.ags.io/.

19. GoCrop is an online nutrient management planning tool developed
by University of Vermont. http://gocrop.com/. University of
Illinois is refining modules for estimating plant available
nitrogen and GHG emissions for organic systems.

20. Two Percent Solutions for the Planet: 50 low-cost, low-tech,
nature-based practices for combating hunger, drought, and
climate change (Courtney White, Quivira Coalition,
www.quiviracoalition.org. 2015. Chelsea Green Publishing,
White River Junction VT, 227 pp.). Farmers, ranchers,
conservationists, and food system activists share their
stories and practical solutions to mitigate climate change,
sequester carbon, and build resilient and abundant
agricultural and food systems.

21. The Soil will Save Us: how scientists, farmers, and foodies are
healing the soil to save the planet (Kristin Ohlson, 2014.
Rodale Press, http://rodalebooks.com, 242 pp.). Journalist
Kristin Ohlson interviews leading scientists in sustainable
agriculture and presents the science of soil C
sequestration and soil health in plain English.

22. Soil Health, Water & Climate Change: a Pocket Guide to What You
Need to Know. (Land Stewardship Project, October 2017,
http://landstewardshipproject.org/smartsoil, 51 pp.).
Although not specifically geared towards organic systems,
this Pocket Guide offers valuable practical information on
conservation agriculture and management intensive
rotational grazing practices for soil health, water
quality, and C sequestration in the Midwest. The Guide also
discusses impacts of climate disruption on agriculture and
the urgent need--and opportunities--to build system
resilience to weather extremes.

23. NRCS Web Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/
App/HomePage.htm. Enter your full mailing address to locate
your fields and identify your soil types and their
properties including texture, depth, profile, drainage,
topography, production capability, and constraints.

24. NRCS Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/
financial/csp/. The CSP offers technical and financial
support for farmers and ranchers in adopting a whole-farm
approach to resource stewardship that can enhance
productivity and build resilience to weather extremes. CSP
offers a menu of conservation enhancements including many
that enhance SOC accrual, and some that are designed
specifically for organic systems.

25. Organic Agriculture Resource Area on the Extension website
http://articles.extension.org/organic_production. Articles,
webinars, videos, courses on many aspects of organic
vegetable, grain, and dairy production and marketing,
developed by the eOrganic Community of Practice.

26. ATTRA--National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service,
https://attra.ncat.org/. Offers publications, videos, and
webinars on a wide range of topics; an Ask an Ag Expert
service by phone or online; breaking research news and new
information resources; and a search function that
facilitates information retrieval on topics such as organic
no-till or enterprise budgets. Some topic areas with
substantial offerings include:

a. Organic farming https://attra.ncat.org/organic.html.

b. Marketing, business, and risk management https://
attra.ncat.org/mar
keting.html.

c. Urban agriculture https://attra.ncat.org/urban_ag.html.

d. Soils and compost https://attra.ncat.org/soils.html.
Organic Farming, Soil Health, Carbon Sequestration, and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: A Summary of Recent Research Findings
Research continues to validate the four NRCS principles of soil
health as guidelines for SOC sequestration, climate mitigation and
adaptation. The National Organic Standards require organic producers to
implement these principles (see Concept #3 on page 27), using practices
to keep the soil covered, maintain living roots, and increase
biodiversity that non-organic conservation farmers also use routinely.
As noted earlier, organic producers must take a different approach to
the fourth principle to minimize soil disturbance, as the Organic
Standards exclude synthetic fertilizers and herbicides, and require the
use of organic and natural mineral nutrient sources.
Following are a few highlights from recent research findings on
organic and sustainable agriculture, soil health, C sequestration, and
climate mitigation and adaptation.

Agricultural carbon sequestration and climate mitigation[:]

Protecting the world's agricultural soils from erosion would
reduce GHG emissions by 1.1 billion tons CO2-Ceq
per year, or 7% of humanity's total annual GHG (Lal, 2003).

Worldwide implementation of NOP requirements to ``maintain
or improve soil organic matter'' would check the net decline in
global SOC pools and thereby save 2 billion tons C/year, about
12% of total annual GHG (Harden, et al., 2018).

Growing SOC in place: diversifying and intensifying the crop
rotation[:]

In long-term trials, organic grain rotations have accrued
400-600 lb SOC/ac-year more than conventional grain rotations,
primarily through higher crop diversity (e.g., three annual
grains and a perennial forage versus corn-soy, Cavigelli, et
al., 2013; Delate, et al., 2015b), and greater mean duration of
living plant cover (e.g., 72% vs. 42% of the calendar year,
Wander, et al., 1994).

Organic orchards managed with living orchard floor cover
have double the SOC levels of orchards maintained by clean
tillage or herbicide fallow (Lorenz and Lal, 2016).

Removing annual crop residues (e.g., corn stover for
biofuel) severely depletes SOC and increases erosion risks
(Blanco-Canqui, et al., 2016a, 2016b)

In semiarid regions, alternate year fallow (e.g., in dryland
wheat) causes significant losses of SOC, even under no-till
management, whereas planting one crop per year can sustain SOC
levels (Halvorson, et al., 2002; West and Post, 2002).

Growing and holding SOC in place: the central role of soil life:

Organic practices that build soil microbial activity and
biodiversity, generally enhance POXC (index of SOC
stabilization) and PMC (SOC mineralization). POXC
and PMC are better predictors of crop yields than other SOC
fractions (Hurisso, et al., 2016).

Short-term increases in microbial biomass, microbial
activity, and active SOC generally foretell longer-term
increases in total SOC (Ghabbour, et al., 2017; Lori, et al.,
2017).

Cover crops with compost or manure applications may build
more SOC and microbial functional biodiversity than either
practice alone (Delate, et al., 2015a, Hooks, et al., 2015).

As crop diversity increases from monoculture or corn-soy to
four or five crops, microbial biomass, and functional diversity
increase substantially (Tiemann, et al., 2015).

Reduced tillage (shallow 3", or non-inversion chisel plow)
can improve microbial biomass and function in organic systems
(Sun, et al., 2016, Zuber and Villamil, 2016).

Increased microbial respiration per unit microbial biomass
(metabolic quotient) may indicate stresses on the soil biota,
such as bare fallow, intensive tillage, or excessive soluble N
(Fauci and Dick, 1994; Lori, et al., 2017; Zuber and Villamil,
2016).

Plant root symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) play
a major role in nutrient cycling and transmuting plant organic
C into stable SOC (Hamel, 2004; Rillig, 2004).

Many cover crops, including oats, rye, sorghum, sunnhemp,
and bahiagrass, host AMF and increase soil AMF populations
(Douds, 2015; Duncan, 2017; Finney, et al., 2017).

AMF are deterred by tillage, fallow periods, and excessive
soil P levels, which may occur with heavy use of compost or
manure (Rillig, 2004).

In-row subsurface drip irrigation can enhance water use
efficiency and yield in organic tomato in low-rainfall regions,
but leaving interrow soil unwatered can reduce microbial
activity and SOC sequestration (Schmidt, et al., 2018).

Sequestering C in perennial conservation plantings[:]

The NRCS Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which converts
degraded, marginal, or environmentally sensitive cropland to
perennial grass or woodland has been estimated to sequester
3,200 lb C/ac annually in SOC and aboveground biomass (Manale,
et al., 2016).

Permaculture home gardens planted on previously ``under-
utilized'' land, and replanting degraded cropland to forest can
accrue over 3,000 lb SOC/ac-year (Feliciano, et al., 2018).

SOC saturation: how much C can the land hold?

Restoration of global SOC to pre-agriculture levels (8,000
BC) may be achievable with further advances in soil health
management, and would absorb about 34 years' worth of total
global human-caused GHG emissions at current rates (Lal, 2016).

Looking below the surface: the hidden value of deep roots[:]

While most soil biological activity and nutrient release
occurs in the top 12", at least \1/2\ of all SOC exists below
12" (Brady and Weil, 2008; Lal, 2015).

Deep SOC is deposited mainly by plant roots, and long-term
SOC accrual correlates closely with root biomass (Brady and
Weil, 2018; Kell, 2011; Rasse, et al., 2005).

Many crops send roots 4 to 8 deep if soil conditions allow
it. Cover crops such as pearl millet, sorghum-sudangrass,
sunflower, sunnhemp, radish, and winter rye penetrate
subsurface hardpan and facilitate deep rooting by subsequent
crops (Rosolem, et al., 2017).

Organic practices can enhance cereal grain root biomass up
to 60 percent (Hu, et al., 2018).

Managing for deep, extensive root systems, including plant
breeding, may be a major opportunity for SOC sequestration,
climate mitigation, and resilience (Kell, 2011).

Soil inorganic carbon: an important unanswered question[:]

Soils of prairie, semiarid, and arid regions hold 20-90% of
their total carbon in the form of carbonates (soil inorganic
carbon or SIC) (Brady and Weil, 2008).

Recent research has documented significant management
impacts on SIC, including SIC losses in organic systems in
three out of seven organic-conventional comparisons.

More research on SIC management in drier regions is needed
(Lorenz and Lal, 2016).

Reducing soil disturbance: tillage[:]

Organic rotations with cover crops, compost or manure, and
routine tillage often sequester as much C as conventional no-
till (Syswerda, et al., 2011; Wander, et al., 2014).

In one long-term trial, the organic system accrued 400 lb/
ac-year more SOC than continuous conventional no-till
(Cavigelli, et al., 2013).

Practical reduced-till options for organic producers include
ridge tillage, spading machine, chisel plow, rotary harrow
(shallow till), and sweep-plow undercutter to terminate cover
crops (Schonbeck, et al., 2017).

Compared to plow-disk or rototiller, terminating cover crops
with spader or undercutter can reduce compaction and improve
yields (Cogger, et al., 2013; Wortman, et al., 2016).

Reducing soil disturbance: organic versus conventional inputs[:]

Long-term use of soluble NPK fertilizers has depleted deep
(12-18") SOC and total soil N in the 100+ year Morrow Plots
(University of Illinois) and many other long-term trials around
the world (Khan, et al., 2007).

Regular or heavy use of inorganic N can reduce microbial
biomass, increase metabolic quotient, and compromise nutrient
cycling and soil food web function (Fauci and Dick, 1994).

Organic nutrient sources supported greater SOC accrual and
AMF activity than inorganic (soluble) fertilizers (Zhang, et
al., 2016).

Compost, manure, and other organic amendments[:]

In a meta-analysis of 74 farming system studies, crop-
livestock integrated organic systems that use on-farm manure
and compost accrue 240 lb SOC/ac-year) without relying on
imported organic inputs (Gattinger, et al., 2012).

The percent of applied organic C retained as stable SOC is
generally greatest for finished compost, followed by solid
manure, uncomposted plant residues, and liquid manure (slurry)
or liquid biogas digestate (in that order). (Cogger, et al.,
2013; Hurisso, et al., 2016; Sadeghpour, et al., 2016; Wuest
and Reardon, 2016).

One ton of finished compost may add 220 lb stable SOC, but
GHG emissions (primarily CH4) during compost
production have been estimated at 400 lb CO2-Ceq per
ton (Carpenter-Boggs, et al., 2016). This analysis did not
include offsets from diverting organic materials from landfills
or manure lagoons.

A single compost application (total N 225 lb/ac) to
grasslands in a California study stimulated plant production
and enhanced ``ecosystem C storage'' (soil + biomass C) by 25-
70% over a 3 year period (Ryals and Silver, 2013).

A single application of composted cattle manure (22 tons dry
weight/ac) to a dryland wheat field in Utah enhanced wheat
yields for 15 years, at the end of which SOC in the top 4" was
double that in an adjacent unamended field (Reeve and Creech,
2015).

Biochar[:]

The biochar method is based on findings that up to \1/2\ of
the SOC in fertile prairie soils is ``black carbon'' left by
prairie fires, and that charcoal from indigenous peoples'
cooking fires helped create the anomalously fertile terra preta
soils in the Amazon basin, where the native soils are nutrient-
poor (Kittredge, 2015; Wilson, 2014).

Biochar can stabilize SOC, improve soil aggregation and
moisture retention, enhance nutrient availability, and improve
crop yields. Results vary widely, and biochar works best in
conjunction with compost or microbial inoculants (Blanco-
[C]anqui, 2017; Kittredge, 2015; Wilson, 2014).

As biochar ages for several years in the soil, it acquires
cation exchange capacity, binds to soil clays, and stabilizes
SOC more effectively (Mia, et al., 2017).

Sustainability concerns include removal of plant biomass to
create biochar, land grabs in the Global South for biochar
feedstock, and GHG emissions during pyrolysis (North, 2015).

Annual spring burning enhanced root biomass and AMF activity
in a Kansas native tallgrass prairie, suggesting that
prescribed burning might yield some of the benefits of biochar
without the need for off-farm inputs (Wilson, et al., 2009).

Nitrous oxide emissions from cropland soils[:]

Soil N2O emissions are related to soil moisture,
soluble N, and labile organic C; N2O emissions are
minimal when soil nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) is below
6 ppm, or soil moisture is below field capacity (Cai, et al.,
2016; Thomas, et al., 2017).

N2O emissions are directly related to impeded gas
diffusion through the soil, and are therefore related to high
soil moisture, fine (clayey) texture, and soil compaction
(Balaine, et al., 2016; Charles, et al., 2017).

N2O emissions may increase in no-till if roll-
crimped covers maintain soil moisture levels above field
capacity (Linn and Doran, 1984).

In conventional corn production, N2O emissions
rise sharply as rates of fertilizer N begin to exceed crop
needs (Eagle, et al., 2017; Millar, et al., 2010).

Peak N2O emissions occur when rains follow
soluble N applications in conventional agriculture, and after
legume-rich cover crops or sod are plowed down in organic
systems (Burger, et al., 2005; Han, et al., 2017; Westphal, et
al., 2018).

Red clover sod can contain 300 lb N/ac, with 85% of it
below ground. A legume-grass sod is recommended for grain-
forage rotations because it may emit less N2O at
plowdown than an all-legume sod (Han, et al., 2017).

In a meta-analysis and modeling study including 8,000
sites throughout Europe, adding legume cover crops to
existing rotations (clover planted in any fallow period %2
months) was estimated to sequester about 3 tons SOC/ac over
80 years, but also to emit twice that amount of
N2O in CO2-Ceq (Lugato, et al.,
2018).

Studies on N2O emissions from organic systems
illustrate the need for careful management of organic N, and
for more research. For example:

In Colorado organic lettuce trials, reducing preplant
N (feather or blood meal) from 50 to 25 lb/ac cut
N2O emissions by \2/3\ without affecting yield.
Delivering the N in five split applications via drip
fertigation (fish emulsion) during crop growth eliminated
N2O emissions altogether (Toonsiri, et al.,
2016).

In California, N2O emissions from organic
tomato systems were \1/2\ those from conventional tomato
systems (Burger, et al., 2005).

Some California tomato fields under long-term organic
management exhibit ``tight N cycling,'' in which plant-
soil-microbe dynamics and expression of plant N uptake
genes maintain low soil soluble N, yet adequate plant
nutrition and high yields. These fields receive diverse
low- and high-C:N organic inputs, and have high active and
total SOC levels (Jackson, 2013; Jackson and Bowles, 2013).

Organic broccoli in California and Washington required
more than 200 lb N/ac for optimal yield. Providing it with
legume green manure + organic fertilizers released 11-27 lb
N/ac-year as N2O, which negates 1,400-3,400 lb/
ac SOC sequestration (Collins and Bary, 2017; Li, et al.,
2009).

An organic grain rotation in Michigan fertilized with
poultry litter (130-200 lb N/ac-year) emitted five times as
much N2O per year as the conventional system,
mostly during intense bursts after heavy rains (Baas, et
al., 2015).

Indirect emissions take place when NO3-N is
leached from the soil profile and a portion (estimated by IPCC
at 0.75%) is converted to N2O off site (Parkin, et
al., 2016).

Deep rooted cover crops like sorghum, millets, radish,
and chicory scavenge NO3-N, thus curbing
indirect N2O emissions (Rosolem, et al., 2017).

Pearl millet, sorghum, groundnut, and signalgrass,
release natural nitrification inhibitors that reduce
NO3-N leaching and N2O emissions
(Rosolem, et al., 2017).

Active AMF can promote tight nutrient cycling and reduce
N2O provided that soil P levels are not excessively
high (Hamel, 2004; Hu, et al., 2016).

Lab trials suggest that biochar may help curb N2O
emissions (Cai, et al., 2016).

Methane emissions in rice production[:]

Paddy (flooded cultivation) rice can release 110 lb
CH4-C/ac per cropping cycle (840 lb CO2-
Ceq), and emissions increase when a cover crop is terminated
prior to flooding or organic N fertilizer is applied (Dou, et
al., 2016).

While flooded rice shows severe root decay by the time the
crop flowers, roots of SRI (non-flooded) rice remain healthy,
grow larger and deeper, host AMF and beneficial soil bacteria,
and enhance nutrient use efficiency (Thakur, et al., 2016).

Sequestering C and minimizing GHG emissions in organic livestock
production[:]

Higher enteric CH4 and lower milk production in
grass-fed organic dairy cows double direct GHG emissions per
gallon of milk compared to conventional confinement dairy
(Richard and Camargo, 2011). However, this comparison does not
consider potential SOC sequestration under management intensive
grazing (MIG).

Compared to continuous grazing in the cow-calf phase of beef
production in the Southern Great Plains region of Texas,
multipaddock grazing enhanced SOC sequestration by 2,400 lb/ac
annually for 10 years, improved forage quality, and thereby
reduced enteric CH4 about 30%, resulting in a net
negative GHG footprint (Wang, et al., 2015).

In Michigan, conversion of grass-finishing beef operations
from continuous grazing to adaptive multi-paddock grazing
sequestered 3,200 lb C/ac annually for 4 years, and reduced
enteric CH4 by 36%, again resulting in a net GHG
sink (Stanley, et al., 2018).

In coastal South Carolina, converting depleted sandy loam
(0.5% SOC) from row crops to Bermuda grass pasture under MIG
accrued 6,300 lb C/ac annually during the third through sixth
year, after which annual SOC accrual tapered off (Machmuller,
et al., 2015).

Producer success stories with MIG abound from across the
U.S.; before and after photos show dramatic soil and forage
health outcomes from MIG. One farm in upstate New York
documented SOC gains well over 3 tons/ac in 3 years through
dozens of soil tests. (Kittredge, 2014-15).

Crop-livestock integration can enhance SOC, improve nutrient
cycling, and mitigate GHG emissions. While baling-off cover
crops or corn residues reduces SOC and promotes erosion, these
resources can be grazed without seriously compromising soil
health (Blanco-Canqui, et al., 2016a, 2016b; Franzluebbers and
Studeman, 2015).

Breaking the vicious cycle: positive feedback between greenhouse
gases and climate change[:]

Warming temperatures will accelerate SOC decomposition; for
example, models indicate that, with continued warming, no-till
corn fields in Ohio that are currently sequestering C will
begin losing SOC before the end of the century (Maas, et al.,
2017).

Impacts will be most severe in cold climates (a 10% SOC loss
for every 1.8 F increase), and less pronounced in tropical
regions (3% loss per 1.8 F) (Kirschbaum, 1995).

Thawing of permafrost may lead to an additional 600 million
tons SOC loss per year globally, a 30% increase over current
net SOC loss (Hardin, et al., 2018).

Fall tillage combined with warmer, drier winters and springs
leaves Corn Belt soils in an excessively ``fluffy'' condition
that hinders seed-soil contact and stand establishment, leading
to further SOC losses to erosion (Daigh and DeJong-Hughes,
2017).

Soil N2O emissions are directly related to soil
temperature, and thus may increase as climates warm. In a meta-
analysis of 27 studies across the Corn Belt, N2O
emissions increased 18-28% with every 1.8 F increase in mean
July temperatures (Ball, et al., 2007; Eagle, et al., 2017).

Rising atmospheric CO2 levels may directly
accelerate SOC losses. In Florida, scrub oak lands
experimentally subjected to elevated CO2 lost SOC
even as tree growth increased (Petit, 2012).

Experimental CO2 enrichment of grazing lands
increased fungal biomass and N2O emissions, an
unexpected finding given the role of mycorrhizal fungi in
mitigating N2O (Rillig, 2004; Zhong, et al., 2018).

No-till based conservation systems that store SOC near the
surface may not suffice in the face of these trends; new,
innovative approaches, such as integrated organic systems and
deep SOC sequestration, will be needed to break the vicious
cycle (Kell, 2011).
Questions for Further Research: Organic Farming Soil Carbon, Soil
Health, and Climate
Findings to date suggest that widespread adoption of sustainable
organic production systems could make the world's agriculture climate-
neutral, and enhance the resilience of farms and ranches to the impacts
of climate changes already underway. Multiple studies and meta-analyses
on organic systems have validated the National Organic Standards and
the NRCS Four Principles of Soil Health Management as frameworks for
climate-friendly and adaptive farming and ranching. In addition,
researchers have identified some promising new strategies that merit
further research and development into practical guidelines for
producers. However, several major hurdles to realizing the vision of
soil- and climate-friendly agricultural systems remain, including:

A need for tools to help producers and service providers
translate framework principles into effective, economically
viable, site-specific applications.

A need for practical tools that farmers can use to measure
SOC, estimate GHG emissions, and monitor progress toward soil
health and climate goals.

A need for crop cultivars and livestock breeds that will
thrive and yield well in sustainable organic production
systems.

Knowledge gaps in areas such as soil microbial community
dynamics, the nature of stable SOC, and the coupling of C and N
cycles in the agroecosystem.

A need to address economic, logistical, policy, and social
barriers to farmer adoption of soil health and climate
mitigation practices.
Putting principles into practice
Several pivotal strategies appear to offer substantial and fairly
consistent benefits to soil health, SOC sequestration, climate
mitigation, and agricultural resilience:

Crop intensification--maximizing plant biomass and year
round soil coverage.

Maximizing living roots--root biomass, depth, duration,
diverse root architecture.

Diversified crop rotation--production crops, cover crop
mixes, perennial sod phase.

Reducing soil disturbance--physical (tillage, traffic),
chemical (inputs), and biological (overgrazing, invasive exotic
species).

Integrated organic soil and crop management: diverse
rotation + cover crops + organic amendments + nutrient
management + soil-friendly tillage practices.

Management-intensive rotational grazing for livestock
systems.

Crop-livestock integration.

In implementing these strategies on their farms, organic producers
must learn new skills and consider new costs (e.g., cover crop seed,
planting equipment for new crops), risks (e.g., weed pressure and
potential yield reductions in reduced tillage systems), and income
foregone (e.g., adding a sod break to an intensive vegetable rotation).
There are potential economic benefits as well, ranging from new crop or
livestock enterprises to long-term improvements in soil health,
fertility, and resilience. Farmers may have questions such as:

What are the most cost-effective and least risky practices
to increase crop biomass, soil coverage, and living roots in my
crop rotation?

How can I ensure that new crops added to the rotation will
be profitable?

What are the best cover crops for my farm and crop rotation?

When and how should the cover crops be terminated?

How can I minimize N2O emissions upon plowing-
down the sod phase of the rotation?

How much compost should I apply?

What are the most practical and least risky ways to reduce
tillage intensity?

The answers to these questions depend so much upon site specific
factors--climate, soil, topography, farming system, crop and livestock
mix, markets, etc., that research cannot yield prescriptive answers for
all producers. In addition, solutions developed in collaboration with
farmers engaged as equal partners are much more readily adopted than
formulae developed and delivered in a top-down manner. Research
outcomes that could help organic producers implement soil-building,
climate-friendly, and profitable management practices include:

Tools to help the farmer select the best system components
(crop rotation, cover crops, organic fertilizers and
amendments, tillage tools and techniques, etc) for their
climate, soil, production system, and market constraints and
opportunities.

A process similar to the NRCS's Comprehensive Conservation
Planning that farmers and service providers can use to develop
the best site-specific strategies to meet identified
production, soil health, and climate mitigation/adaptation
goals.

Farm case studies and success stories in soil health, C
sequestration, and climate adaptation.

Enterprise budgets and business planning templates to help
producers evaluate the economic viability of current and
potential new crops in a diversified rotation.

Economic analysis and risk management tools to help
producers evaluate the potential costs and benefits of adopting
a new system or practice.
Monitoring SOC, soil N, GHG, and progress toward soil and climate goals
Farmers need practical tools to monitor soil health and fertility,
and the GHG footprint of their production systems. These include
simple, reliable tests that can be conducted on site or by a standard
soils lab for a modest fee, and user-friendly computer models and
decision tools that provide output that is relevant for organic
systems. Most soil test labs estimate total SOM by loss on ignition, a
few labs offer POXC (index of SOC stabilization) and PMC
(SOC mineralization), and several research teams have developed
experimental protocols for estimating the release of plant-available N
via SOC mineralization. Additional research is needed to:

Develop improved sampling and testing protocols for accurate
and meaningful measurement of total SOC, which usually accounts
for about 58% of SOM.

Develop practical sampling and testing protocols for
monitoring subsurface SOC beyond the normal sampling depths of
6" to 12".

Develop benchmarks and realistic site-specific goals for
total SOC based on climate (temperature and rainfall regimes),
soil type and texture, and production system.

Verify and demonstrate a simple in-field soil nitrate-N test
as a N monitoring and management tool in organic production
(Collins and Bary, 2017).

Develop reliable, practical methods to estimate plant-
available N released through SOC mineralization.

Make practical, reliable on-farm monitoring of
POXC, PMC, and other measures of soil microbial
activity and SOC fractions widely available and affordable.

Complete development of OFOOT and organic modules for tools
such as DNDC and COMETFarm, so that organic producers can
estimate soil N2O emissions, enteric CH4,
and net total GHG of their farming system, and identify
mitigation opportunities.
Plant and animal breeding for SOC sequestration, GHG mitigation, and
resilience in organic farming
Development and release of public crop cultivars and livestock
breeds that thrive and perform well in sustainable organic production
systems could enhance organic farmers' yields, and thereby reduce the
GHG footprint per unit output for organic farm products. New cultivars
and breeds that combine this capacity with desired market traits
(flavor, nutritional quality, etc.) will improve organic producers'
bottom line and increase their capacity to implement climate-friendly
soil health management practices. Farmer participatory plant breeding,
in which producers work with plant breeders to identify objectives,
conduct on-farm breeding and selection, and produce seed, have proven
cost-effective in making new, improved cultivars available to farmers
(Schonbeck, et al., 2016). In addition, certain plant breeding
objectives based on known heritable traits can contribute directly to
SOC sequestration, GHG mitigation, and resilience. These include:

Nutrient use efficiency, tight N cycling, capacity to thrive
in soils low in soluble N.

Enhanced rhizosphere interaction with mycorrhizal fungi, N
fixing bacteria, and other beneficial soil biota that
facilitate plant nutrition, vigor, and resilience.

Water use efficiency.

Resilience to drought, excessive moisture, temperature
extremes, and other stresses.

Capacity to maintain normal production despite reduced or
unpredictable chill-hours and frost dates resulting from
climate change (perennial fruit and nut crops).

Deep, extensive, high biomass root systems.

Enhanced total biomass, increased plant residue return to
the soil while maintaining yield, market qualities, and ease of
harvest.

Climate related livestock breeding objectives might include:

Capacity to thrive in management-intensive rotational
grazing (MIG) systems.

Reduced enteric methane production in ruminants.

Increased resilience to heat and other weather extremes.
Developing promising leads into practical applications
Soil health research over the past 10 years has identified several
new strategies that show potential to enhance agricultural SOC
sequestration or GHG mitigation. Some are based on one or a few
studies, and merit further testing in a diversity of regions, soils,
climates, and organic production systems, to evaluate their potential
for practical application. Others have a more substantial track record
in research, and need fine-tuning, demonstration, and outreach to
facilitate more widespread and successful adoption. Promising new
strategies and associated research priorities include:

Tight nitrogen cycling: Identify practical methods to
promote tight N cycling and N use efficiency in a wider range
of organic vegetable, fruit, and grain crops, across a wider
range of soils, climates, and regions (Jackson, 2013; Jackson
and Bowles, 2013).

System of Rice Intensification: Refine, evaluate, and
demonstrate SRI for yield and GHG mitigation in organic rice in
U.S. rice growing regions (Thakur, et al., 2016).

Deep roots, soil health, and climate: Explore the potential
of deep rooted crops and organic practices to enhance deep SOC
sequestration and N recovery; develop and demonstrate practical
applications (Hu, et al., 2018; Kell 2011; Rosolem, et al.,
2017).

Compost for grazing lands: Determine whether the multi-year
gains in forage biomass and SOC from a single compost
application in California grasslands can be replicated in other
regions, soils, and climates (DeLonge, et al., 2013; Ryals and
Silver, 2013).

Prescribed burning for in-situ biochar: Conduct trials on
grazing lands in different regions and climates to determine
whether prescribed fire generates in situ biochar and benefits
soil food web function and root growth as observed in Kansas
(Wilson, et al., 2009).

Forage quality and livestock GHG mitigation: Verify and
demonstrate efficacy of MIG in reducing ruminant enteric
CH4 emissions through improved forage quality on
grazing lands in different regions across the U.S. (Stanley, et
al., 2018; Wang, et al., 2015).
Addressing key knowledge gaps
Additional research is needed to better understand soil C and N
dynamics and soil-plant-microbe interactions as they influence soil
fertility, C sequestration, and GHG emissions in organic systems. For
example, the chemical nature and sequestration mechanisms of ``stable''
SOC remain unclear, and sharply contrasting conceptual models of SOC-
related processes have been proposed (Ghabbour, et al., 2017; Lehman
and Kleber, 2015; Six, et al., 2002). Similarly, since organic N
sources release plant available N through biological processes, their
impacts on soluble soil N levels and N2O emissions are more
challenging to predict and manage than conventional fertilizer N
(Charles, et al., 2017). Research-based N recommendations for organic
production are not available for many crops, and research-based
estimates vary from as little as 25 lb N/ac to optimize organic lettuce
yields (Toonsiri, et al., 2016) and 20-40 lb/ac to replace N removed in
mixed vegetable harvests (Wander, et al., 2015), to >200 lb/ac to
optimize organic broccoli yields (Li, et al., 2009; Collins and Bary,
2017).
GHG impact analyses for organic practices can give widely different
outcomes depending on the factors included in the analysis. For
example, the composting process has been reported to emit more GHG (in
CO2-Ceq) than is sequestered as stable C in the compost
itself; yet, composting can prevent much larger emissions by diverting
organic materials from waste streams (Carpenter-Boggs, et al., 2016;
DeLonge, et al., 2013). The direct GHG emissions of organic grassfed
cattle have been estimated at double those from conventional
confinement, yet total GHG footprint of grassfed livestock can become
negative (net mitigation) based on rapid SOC sequestration during the
first few years after implementation of MIG (Richard and Camargo, 2011;
Stanley, et al., 2018). However, composting and landfill are not the
only two possible fates of organic ``wastes,'' and the initial rapid
increase in SOC under MIG levels off after the first decade. Thus, the
full climate implications of these practices merit further study.

Priorities for additional research on soil, GHG, and climate in
organic production include:

Mechanisms of SOC stabilization and de-stabilization, and
potential impacts of warming climates, tillage, fertility
inputs, and other management practices on long-term SOC
sequestration (Grandy, et al., 2006; ITPS, 2015; Lehman and
Kleber, 2015).

Realistic estimates of total SOC sequestration from improved
practices, taking into consideration climate, soil type and
texture, and production system.

Roles of soil bacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, nematodes, plant
roots, and other soil food web components in soil C and N
dynamics, SOC accrual, and GHG emissions.

Efficacy of microbial inoculants (produced on-farm or
commercial products) for soil health, climate mitigation, and
adaptation.

Impacts of inherent soil properties (soil series, texture,
horizons, drainage, mineralogy, natural hardpans, etc.), on C
and N cycling, soil-plant-microbe dynamics, and response of SOC
and GHG emissions to organic management practices.

Best management of organic N inputs for soil health, plant
nutrition and N2O mitigation:

N sources--compost, manure, organic N fertilizers, and
legume cover crops.

Potential to mitigate N2O emissions from
green manure plowdown by using grass-legume mixtures in
lieu of all-legume, and non-tillage termination methods.

Placement and timing--preplant broadcast or band, or
in-row drip fertigation.

Application rates--establish optimum N rates for a
wide range of crops, based on trials in organic fields in
different regions, climates, and soil.

Life cycle GHG analyses of compost production and
application, including:

Comparison of composting with direct land application
of uncomposted residues, as well as with GHG-intensive
waste disposal (landfills, manure lagoons).

Best management practices for composting processes,
and GHG impacts of variations from optimum starting C:N
ratios, aeration/windrow turning schedules, and moisture
management.

Optimum compost use rates, considering soil nutrient levels,
direct costs and benefits, and potential synergism between
cover crops and compost on SOC [sequestration].

Life cycle GHG analysis of biochar manufacture and use.

Best irrigation practices, including potential tradeoffs
between N2O mitigation and reduced SOC sequestration
under in-row drip fertigation (Schmidt, et al., 2018; Toonsiri,
et al., 2016).

Impacts of organic inputs and management practices on soil
inorganic carbon (SIC) in soils of drier regions (Lorenz and
Lal, 2016).

Life cycle GHG analyses for MIG systems for organic beef,
dairy, and other livestock, conducted over time spans beyond
the initial period of rapid SOC sequestration after conversion
from cropping or continuous grazing to MIG.

Additional strategies to mitigate enteric CH4 in
organic livestock, including forage species composition, and
NOP-allowed dietary supplements.
Overcoming socioeconomic, logistical, cultural, and policy barriers to
adoption of climate-friendly organic farming practices
Farmers face significant economic, social, cultural, and policy
barriers to adopting soil- and climate-friendly production systems. For
example, many of the practices discussed here entail up-front costs,
and economic benefits arising from improved production and resilience
or reduced input needs may not begin to accrue for several years. Given
the great variability in soil-crop-livestock-climate interactions, and
the current lack of political support for climate mitigation, financial
support through carbon markets or carbon offset payments does not
appear feasible at this time.
While socioeconomic and policy issues were beyond the immediate
scope of the research review on which this Guide is based, it has
become clear that several key constraints and missed opportunities must
be addressed before the potential for organic agriculture to mitigate
GHG emissions and build agricultural resilience can be fully realized.
These include:

Lack of educational resources and qualified technical
assistance to help organic farmers learn and successfully adopt
new soil health and climate mitigation practices while
maintaining or improving their bottom line.

Actual and perceived risks associated with new practices,
including the costs of acquiring new skills, equipment, and
infrastructure, and lack of carbon markets or other cost offset
for ecosystem services.

Crop insurance and government farm policies that create
disincentives to adopting conservation practices, such as cover
cropping and diversified crop rotations.

Social and cultural forces that deter adoption of new
sustainable practices, including peer pressure and social
norming in farming communities, as well as a pervasive
political climate hostile to climate change mitigation science
and action.

Current agricultural and food system infrastructure,
markets, and government policies that perpetuate the
segregation of U.S. agriculture into livestock production
within confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), commodity
grains (corn-soy-wheat), and specialty crops; lack of
informational, market, and policy support for diversified
systems.

Society-wide waste management systems that fail to return
organic residues to the land.

Unrealized potential to expand urban agriculture,
agroforestry, and permaculture practices, which are known for
their high per-acre C sequestration potential.
Conclusion
A national and global investment in further research into these
topics is urgently needed to enable all producers--organic,
transitioning, and non-organic--to make effective contributions to
climate mitigation and to enhance the resilience of their farming and
ranching systems to impacts of climate change. Based on research
outcomes to date, producers and society as a whole can anticipate a
substantial return on investment in this field of research.
References

Aguilera, E., L. Lassaletta, A. Gattinger, and B.S. Gimeno. 2013.
Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in
Mediterranean cropping systems: a meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 168, 25-36.
Alhameid, A., M. Ibrahim, S. Kumar, P. Sexton, and T.E. Schumacher.
2017. Soil Organic Carbon Changes Impacted by Crop Rotational Diversity
under No-Till Farming in South Dakota, U.S.A. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
81(4): 868-877.
Andrews, S. 2006. Crop residue removal for biomass energy
production: effects on soils and recommendations. White Paper published
for NRCS soil Quality National Technology Development Team, updated
February 22, 2006. 15 pp.
Baas, D.G., G.P. Robertson, S.R. Miller, N. and Millar, N. 2015.
Effects of Cover Crops on Nitrous Oxide Emissions, Nitrogen
Availability, and Carbon Accumulation in Organic versus Conventionally
Managed Systems. Final report for ORG project 2011-04952. CRIS
Abstracts.*
Balaine, N., T.J. Clough, M.H. Beare, S.M. Thomas, and E.D. Meenken.
2016. Soil Gas Diffusivity Controls N2O and N2 Emissions and their
Ratio. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 80(3): 529-540.
Ball, B.C., C.A. Watson, and I. Crichton. 2007. Nitrous oxide
emissions, cereal growth, N recovery and soil nitrogen status after
ploughing organically managed grass/clover swards. Soil Use. Manag. 23,
145-155.
Barbercheck, M.E., D.A. Mortensen, H. Karsten, E.S. Sanchez, S.W.
Duiker, J.A. Hyde, and N.E. Kiernan. 2008. Organic Weed Management:
Balancing Pest Management and Soil Quality in a Transitional System.
Final report on ORG project 2003-04619. CRIS Abstracts.*
Basche, A.D., F.E. Miguez, T.C. Kaspar, and M.J. Castellano. 2014.
Do cover crops increase or decrease nitrous oxide emissions? A meta-
analysis. J. Soil Water Conserv. 69(6): 471-482.
Bhowmik, A. A-M. Fortuna, L.J. Cihacek, A. Bary, P.M. Carr, and C.G.
Cogger. 2017. Potential carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling in
long-term organic management systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems, 32(6): 498-510.
Bhowmik, A., A-M. Fortuna, L.J. Cihacek, and P.M. Carr. 2015. Use of
Laboratory Incubation Techniques to Estimate GHG Footprints from Clean
and No-Tillage Organic Agroecosystems. ASA-CSSA-SSSA Meetings Nov. 15-
18, 2015 Minneapolis, oral presentation. https://scisoc.confex.com/
crops/2015am/webprogram/start.html.
Blanco-Canqui, H. 2017. Biochar and Soil Physical Properties. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81(4): 687-711.
Blanco-Canqui, H., and C.A. Francis. 2016. Building resilient soils
through agroecosystem redesign under fluctuating climatic regimes. J.
Soil & Water Conserv. 71(6): 127A-133A.
Blanco-Canqui, H., A.L. Stalker, R. Rasby, T.M. Shaver, M.E.
Drewnoski, S. van Donk, and L. Kibet. 2016a. Does Cattle Grazing and
Baling of Corn Residue Increase Water Erosion? Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
80(1): 168-177.
Blanco-Canqui, H., J. Tatarko, A.L. Stalker, T.M. Shaver, and S.J.
van Donk. 2016b. Impacts of Corn Residue Grazing and Baling on Wind
Erosion Potential in a Semiarid Environment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
80(4): 1027-1037.
Brady, N.C., and R.R. Weil. 2008. The Nature and Properties of
Soils, 14th Edition. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle, NJ. 992 pp.
Brown, S., C. Kruger, and S. Subler. 2008. Greenhouse gas balance
for composting operations. Journal of Environmental Quality 37: 1396-
1410.
Burger, M., L.E. Jackson, E.J. Lundquist, D.T. Louie, R.L. Miller,
D.E. Rolston, and K. Scow. 2005. Microbial responses and nitrous oxide
emissions during wetting and drying of organically and conventionally
managed soil under tomatoes. Biol. Fertil. Soils 42: 109-18.
Cai, Z., S. Gao, A. Hendratna, Y. Duan, M. Xu, and B.D. Hanson.
2016. Key Factors, Soil Nitrogen Processes, and Nitrite Accumulation
Affecting Nitrous Oxide Emissions. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 80(6): 1560-1571.
Carpenter-Boggs, L., D. Granatstein, and D. Huggins. 2016.
Greenhouse Gases and Agriculture: Where does Organic Farming Fit
(Webinar). http://articles.extension.org/pages/30835/greenhouse-gases-
andagriculture:-where-does-organic-farming-fit-webinar.
Cavigelli, M. 2010. Impact of Organic Grain Farming Methods on
Climate Change (Webinar) http://articles.extension.org/pages/30850/
impact-of-organic-grain-farming-methods-on-climate-change-webinar.
Cavigelli, M.A., J.R. Teasdale, and J.T. Spargo. 2013. Increasing
Crop Rotation Diversity Improves Agronomic, Economic, and Environmental
Performance of Organic Grain Cropping Systems at the USDA-ARS
Beltsville Farming Systems Project. Crop Management 12(1) Symposium
Proceedings: USDA Organic Farming Systems Research Conference. https://
dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/cm/tocs/12/1.
Chambers, A., R. Lal, and K. Paustian. 2016. Soil carbon
sequestration potential of U.S. croplands and grasslands: implementing
the 4 per Thousand Initiative. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 71(3): 68A-74A
Charles, A., P. Rochette, J.K. Whalen, D.A. Angers, M.H. Chantigny,
and N. Bertrand. 2017. Global nitrous oxide emission factors from
agricultural soils after addition of organic amendments: A meta-
analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 236: 88-98
Cogger, C., A. Fortuna, and D. Collins. 2014. Why the Concern about
Nitrous Oxide Emissions? Webinar 1 at: http://articles.extension.org/
pages/70280/two-part-webinar-series-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-
soil-quality-in-long-term-integrated-and-tra.
Cogger, C.G.M. Ostrom, K. Painter, A. Kennedy, A. Fortuna, R.
Alldredge, A.; Bary, T. Miller, D. Collins, J. Goldberger, A.
Antonelli, and B. Cha. 2013. Designing Production Strategies for
Stewardship and Profits On Fresh Market Organic Farms. Final report for
OREI project 2008-01247. CRIS Abstracts.*
Collins, D.P. and A. Bary. 2017. Optimizing nitrogen management on
organic and biologically intensive farms. Proceedings of the Special
Symposium on Organic Agriculture Soil Health Research at the Tri-
Societies Annual Meeting, Tampa, FL, October 22-25, 2017. http://
articles.extension.org/pages/74555/livebroadcast:-organic-soil-health-
research-special-session-at-the-tri-societies-conference.
Coulter, J.A., T.A. Delbridge, R.P. King, D.L. Allan, and C.C.
Sheaffer. 2012. Productivity, Economics, and Soil Quality in the
Minnesota Variable-Input Cropping Systems Trial. Crop Management--
Symposium Proceedings: USDA Organic Farming Systems Research
Conference. Crop Management 12(1): https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/
publications/cm/tocs/12/1.
Daigh, A.L. and J. Dejong-Hughes. 2017. Fluffy soil syndrome: when
tilled soil does not settle. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 72(1); 10A-14A.
Delate, K. 2013. Developing Carbon-positive Organic Systems through
Reduced Tillage and Cover Crop Intensive Crop Rotation Schemes. Final
report for ORG project 2008-01284. CRIS Abstracts.*
Delate, K., C. Cambardella, and C. Chase. 2015a. Effects of cover
crops, soil amendments, and reduced tillage on carbon sequestration and
soil health in a long-term vegetable system. Final report for ORG
project 2010-03956. CRIS Abstracts*
Delate, K., C. Cambardella, C. Chase, and R. Turnbull. 2015b. A
review of long-term organic comparison trials in the U.S. Sustainable
Agricultural Research 4(3): 5-14.
Delgado, J.A., P.M. Groffman, M.A. Nearing, T. Goddard, D. Reicosky,
R. Lal, N.R. Kitchen, C.W. Rice, D. Towery, and P. Salon. 2011.
Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change. J. Soil
Water Conserv. 66: 118A-129A.
DeLonge, M.S., R. Ryals, and W.L. Silver. 2013. A lifecycle model to
evaluate carbon sequestration potential and greenhouse gas dynamics of
managed grasslands. Ecosystems 16: 962-979.
Dimitri, C., L. Kemp, J. Sooby, and E. Sullivan. 2012. Organic
Farming for Health and Prosperity. Organic Farming Research Foundation
(www.ofrf.org), 76 pp.
Dou, F., M. Hons, J. Pl Wight, and H.A. Torbert. 2016. Improving
soil quality, C sequestration, and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions
in organic rice production. Proposal and final report for ORG project
2012-02983. CRIS Abstracts.*
Douds, D. 2015. On-farm Production and Utilization of AM Fungus
Inoculum. http://articles.extension.org/pages/18627/on-farm-production-
and-utilization-of-am-fungus-inoculum.
Duncan, J. 2017. Cover crop options for hot and humid areas. ATTRA
Bulletin, National Center for Appropriate Technology,
www.attra.ncat.org, 20 pp.
Eagle, A.J., L.P. Oander, K.L. Locklier, J.B. Heffernan, and E.S.
Bernhardt. 2017. Fertilizer Management and Environmental Factors Drive
N2O and NO3 Losses in Corn: A Meta-Analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
81(5): 1191-1202.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. Sources of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-
emissions.
Fauci, M.F., and R.P. Dick. 1994. Soil Microbial Dynamics: Short-
and Long-Term Effects of Inorganic and Organic Nitrogen. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 58(3): 801-806.
Feliciano, D., A. Ledo, J. Hillier, and D.R. Nayak. 2018. Which
agroforestry options give the greatest soil and above ground carbon
benefits in different world regions? Agriculture, Ecosystems, and
Environment 254: 117-129.
Finney, D.M., J.S. Buyer, and J.P. Kaye. 2017. Living cover crops
have immediate impacts on soil microbial community structure and
function. J. Soil. & Water Conserv. 72(4): 361-373.
Fortuna, A., D. Collins, and C. Cogger. 2014. Management to Reduce
N2O Emissions in Organic Vegetable Production Systems. Webinars at:
http://articles.extension.org/pages/70280/two-part-webinar-series-on-
greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-soil-quality-in-long-term-integrated-and-
tra.
Franzluebbers, A.J., and J.A. Stuedemann. 2015. Does grazing of
cover crops impact biologically active soil carbon and nitrogen
fractions under inversion or no tillage management? J. Soil & Water
Conserv. 70(6): 365-373.
Galik, C.S., B.C. Murray, and M.C. Parish. 2017. Near-Term Pathways
for Achieving Forest and Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in the
U.S. Climate 2017, 5, 69; doi:10.3390/cli5030069 www.mdpi.com/journal/
climate.
Gattinger, A., A. Muller, M. Haeni, C. Skinner, A. Fliessbach, N.
Buchmann, P. Mader, M. Stolze, P. Smith, N.E. Scialabba, and U. Niggli.
2012. Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (44) 18826-18231.
Ghabbour, E.A., G. Davies, T. Misiewicz, R.A. Alami, E.M. Askounis,
N.P. Cuozzo, A.J. Filice, J.M. Haskell, A.K. Moy, A.C. Roach, and J.
Shade. 2017. National Comparison of the Total and Sequestered Organic
Matter Contents of Conventional and Organic Farm Soils. Advances in
Agronomy 146: 1-35.
Gottshall, C.B., M. Cooper, and Ss M. Emery. 2017. Activity,
diversity and function of arbuscular mycorrhizae vary with changes in
agricultural management intensity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 245: 142-149.
Grandy, S., and C. Kallenbach. 2015. Microbes drive soil organic
matter accumulation in organic cropping systems. Recording from the
Organic Agriculture Research Symposium LaCrosse, WI. February 25-26,
2015. http://eorganic.info/node/12972.
Grandy, A.S., G.P. Robertson, and K.D. Thelen. 2006. Do Productivity
and Environmental Tradeoffs Justify Periodically Cultivating No-till
Cropping Systems? Agron. J. 98(6): 1377-1383.
Gruver, J., R.R. Weil, C. White, and Y. Lawley. 2016 Radishes A New
Cover Crop for Organic Farming Systems. http://articles.extension.org/
pages/64400/radishes-a-new-cover-crop-for-organic-farming-systems.
Halvorson, A.D., B.J. Wienhold, and A.L. Black. 2002. Tillage,
nitrogen, and cropping system effects on soil carbon sequestration.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66(3): 906-912.
Hamel, C. 2004. Impact of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on N and P
cycling in the root zone. Can. J. Soil Sci. 84(4): 383-395.
Han, Z., M.T. Walter, and L.E. Drinkwater. 2017. Impact of cover
cropping and landscape positions on nitrous oxide emissions in
northeastern U.S. agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 245: 124-134.
Harden, J.W., G. Hugelius, A. Ahlstrom, J.C. Blankinship, B. Bond-
Lamberty, C.R. Lawrence, J. Loisel, A. Malhotra, R.B. Jackson, S. Ogle,
C. Phillips, R. Ryals, K. Todd-Brown, R. Vargas, S.E. Vergara, M.F.
Cotrufo, M. Keiluweit, K.A. Heckman, S.E. Crow, W.L. Silver, M.
DeLonge, and L.E. Nave. 2018. Networking our science to characterize
the state, vulnerabilities, and management opportunities of soil
organic matter. Global Change Biology (2018) 24: e705-e718.
Hooks, C.R., K.H. Wang, G. Brust, and S. Mathew. 2015. Using Winter
Cover Crops to Enhance the Organic Vegetable Industry in the Mid-
Atlantic Region. Final report for OREI project 2010-01954. CRIS
Abstracts.*
Hu, S., C. Reberg-Horton, M. Schroeder-Moreno, Y. Cardoza, J.
Grossman, W. Robarge, and W. Eveman. 2016. Assessing the Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Potential of Organic Systems in the Southeast. Progress
report for ORG project 2012-02978. CRIS Abstracts.*
Hu, T., P. Sorensen, E.M. Wahlstrom, N. Chirinda, B. Sharif, X. Li,
and J.E. Olesen. 2018. Root biomass in cereals, catch crops and weeds
can be reliably estimated without considering aboveground biomass.
Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 251: 141-148.
Hurisso, T.T., S.W. Culman, W.R. Horwath, J. Wade, D. Cass, J.W.
Beniston, T.M. Bowles, A.S. Grandy, A.J. Franzluebbers, M.E.
Schipanski, S.T. Lucas, and C.M. Ugarte. 2016. Comparison of
Permanganate-Oxidizable Carbon and Mineralizable Carbon for Assessment
of Organic Matter Stabilization and Mineralization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 80(5): 1352-1364.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate
Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Working Group III
Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/. Chapter 11
Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU), and Annex II Metrics
and Methodology.
Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS). 2015. Status of
the World's Soil Resources: Technical Summary. United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization.
Jackson, L. 2013. Researcher and Farmer Innovation to Increase
Nutrient Cycling on Organic Farms. Proposal and final report for OREI
project 2009-01415. CRIS Abstracts.*
Jackson, L. and T. Bowles. 2013. Researcher and Farmer Innovation to
Increase Nitrogen Cycling on Organic Farms (Webinar). http://
articles.extension.org/pages/67391/researcher-and-farmer-innovation-to-
increase-nitrogen-cycling-on-organic-farms-webinar.
Jackson, L., V.R. Haden, A.D. Hollander, H. Lee, M. Lubell, V.K.
Mehta, T. O'Geen, M. Niles, J. Perlman, D. Purkey, W. Salas, D. Sumner,
M. Tomuta, M. Demsey, and S.M. Wheeler. 2012. Adaptation Strategies for
Agricultural Sustainability in Yolo County, California: a White Paper
from the California Energy Commission's California Climate Change
Center. University of California, Davis. 205 pp. http://
www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-032/CEC-500-2012-
032.pdf.
Jones, C. 2010. Soil carbon: can it save agriculture's bacon? http://
www.amazingcarbon.com/PDF/JONES-
SoilCarbon&AgricultureREVISED(18May10).pdf.
Kane, D. 2015. Carbon sequestration potential on agricultural lands:
a review of current science and available practices. Breakthrough
Strategies and Solutions and National Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition. http://sustainableagriculture.net.publications. 35 pp.
Kell, D.B. 2011. Breeding crop plants with deep roots: their role in
sustainable carbon, nutrient and water sequestration. Ann. Bot. 108(3):
407-418.
Khan, S.A., R.L. Mulvaney, T.R. Ellsworth, and C.W. Boast. 2007. The
myth of nitrogen fertilization for soil carbon sequestration. J.
Environ. Qual. 36: 1821-1832.
King, A.E., and K.S. Hofmockel. 2017. Diversified cropping systems
support greater microbial cycling and retention of carbon and nitrogen.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 240: 66-76.
Kirschbaum, M.U.F. 1995. The temperature dependence of soil organic
matter decomposition, and the effect of global warming on soil organic
C storage. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 27(6): 753-760.
Kittredge, J. 2014-15. Grazing success through observation and
planning at Bishopp Family Farm. The Natural Farmer, winter 2014-15,
pp. B23-B26.
Kittredge, J. 2015 Introduction to biochar in agriculture. The
Natural Farmer, fall 2015, pp. B1-B3.
Kittredge, J. 2016-17. The truth about ruminants and methane. The
Natural Farmer, winter 2016-17, p. 18.
Lal, R. 2003. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environment
International 29: 437-450.
Lal, R. 2015. Cover cropping and the ``4 per thousand'' proposal. J.
Soil & Water Conserv. 70(6): 141A.
Lal, R. 2016. Beyond COP21: Potential challenges of the ``4 per
thousand'' initiative. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 71(1): 20A-25A.
Larsen E.J. Grossman, J. Edgell, G. Hoyt G.D. Osmond D, and S. Hu.
2014. Soil biological properties, soil losses and corn yield in long-
term organic and conventional farming systems. Soil Tillage Res. 139:
37-45.
Lee, K.S., Y.C. Choe, and S.H. Park. 2015. Measuring the
environmental effects of organic farming: a meta-analysis of structural
variables in empirical research. J. Environ. Manag. 162, 263-274.
Lehman, R.M., S.L. Osborne, and S.E. Duke. 2017. Diversified No-Till
Crop Rotation Reduces Nitrous Oxide Emissions, Increases Soybean
Yields, and Promotes Soil Carbon Accrual. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81(1):
76-83.
Lehmann, J., and M. Kleber. 2015. The Contentions Nature of Soil
Organic Matter. Nature 528: 60-68.
Lengnick, L. 2016. New Times, New Tools: Cultivating Climate
Resilience on Your Organic Farm. http://articles.extension.org/pages/
73466/new-times-new-tools:-cultivating-climate-resilience-on-your-
organic-farm.
Li, C., Salas, W. and Muramoto, J. 2009. Process Based Models for
Optimizing N Management in California Cropping Systems: Application of
DNDC Model for nutrient management for organic broccoli production.
Conference proceedings 2009 California Soil and Plant Conference, 92-
98. Feb. 2009. http://ucanr.edu/sites/calasa/files/319.pdf.
Linn, D., and J. Doran. 1984. Effect of Water-Filled Pore-Space on
Carbon-Dioxide and Nitrous-Oxide Production in Tilled and Non-tilled
Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48(6): 1267-1272.
Lorenz, K., and R. Lal. 2016. Environmental Impact of Organic
Agriculture. Advances in Agronomy 139: 99-152.
Lori, M., S. Symnaczik, P. MaEder, G. De Deyn, A. Gattinger. 2017.
Organic farming enhances soil microbial abundance and activity--A meta-
analysis and meta-regression. PLoS One https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0180442 July 12, 2017, 25 pp.
Lugato, E., A. Leip, and A. Jones. 2018. Mitigation potential of
soil carbon management overestimated by neglecting N2O emissions.
Nature Climate Change 8: 219-223. www.nature.com/natureclimatechange.
Luo, J.J. Wyatt, T.J. van der Weerden, S.M. Thomas, C.A.M. de Klein,
Y. Li., M. Rollo, S. Lindsey, S.F. Ledgard, J. Li, W. Ding, S. Qin, N.
Zhang, N. Bolan, M.B. Kirkham, Z. Bai, L. Ma, X. Zhang, H. Wang, H.
Liu, G. Rys, et al., 2017. Potential Hotspot Areas of Nitrous Oxide
Emissions From Grazed Pastoral Dairy Farm Systems. Advances in Agronomy
145: 205-268.
Maas, E.D. v. L., R. Lal, K. Coleman, A. Montenegro, and W.A. Dick.
2017. Modeling soil organic carbon in corn (Zea mays L.)-based systems
in Ohio under climate change. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 72(3): 191-204.
Machmuller, M.B., M.G. Kramer, T.K. Cyle, N. Hill, D. Hancock, and
A. Thompson. 2015. Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil
organic matter. Nat. Commun. 6:6995. doi:10.1038/ncomms7995.
Manale, A., S. Hyberg, N. Key, S. Mooney, T.L. Napier, and M.
Ribaudo. 2016. Climate change and U.S. agriculture: opportunities for
conservation to reduce and mitigate emissions and to support adaptation
to rapid change. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 71(1): 69-81.
Marshall, M.W., P. Williams, A. Mirzakhani Nafchi, J.M. Maja, J.
Payero, J. Mueller, and A. Khalilian. 2016. Influence of Tillage and
Deep Rooted Cool Season Cover Crops on Soil Properties, Pests, and
Yield Responses in Cotton. Open Journal of Soil Science, 6, 149-158.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2016.610015.
McDaniel M.D., L.K., Tiemann, and S. Grandy. 2014. Does agricultural
crop diversity enhance soil microbial biomass and organic matter
dynamics? A meta-analysis. Ecol. Appl. 24(3): 560-70.
McGee, J.A., 2015. Does certified organic farming reduce greenhouse
gas emissions from agricultural production? Agric. Hum. Values 32, 255-
263.
McLauchlan K. 2006. The nature and longevity of agricultural impacts
on soil carbon and nutrients: A review. Ecosystems 9(8): 1364-82.
Mia, S., F.A. Dijkstra, B. Singh. 2017. Long-Term Aging of Biochar:
A Molecular Understanding With Agricultural and Environmental
Implications. Advances in Agronomy 141: 1-51.
Millar, N., G.P. Robertson, P.R. Grace, R.J. Gehl, and J.P. Hoben.
2010. Nitrogen fertilizer management for nitrous oxide (N2O) mitigation
in intensive corn (Maize) production: an emissions reduction protocol
for U.S. Midwest agriculture. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change
15(2): 185-204.
Moebius-Clune, B.N., D.J. Moebius-Clune, B.K. Gugino, O.J. Idowu,
R.R. Schindelbeck, A.J. Ristow, H.M. van Es, J.E. Thies, H.A. Shayler,
M.B. McBride, D.W. Wolfe, and G.S. Abawi. 2016. Comprehensive
Assessment of Soil Health: the Cornell Framework. Edition 3.1. Cornell
University, Geneva, NY. 123 pp. Available at http://
soilhealth.cals.cornell.edu/training-manual/.
North, K. 2015. Biochar: a Critical View Through the Ecosystemic
Lens. The Natural Farmer. Fall 2015. Special Supplement on Biochar in
Agriculture, pp. B-23-B27. http://thenaturalfarmer.org/issue/fall-2015/
.
Ohlson, K. 2014. The Soil will Save Us: how scientists, farmers, and
foodies are healing the soil to save the planet. Rodale Press, http://
rodalebooks.com, 242 pp.
Olson K.R., M. Al-Kasai, R. Lal, and L. Cihacek. 2016. Impact of
soil erosion on soil organic carbon stocks. J. Soil & Water Conserv.
71(3): 61A-67A.
Olson, K.R., M. Al-Kaisi, R. Lal, and L.W. Morton. 2017. Soil
ecosystem services and intensified cropping systems. J. Soil & Water
Conserv. 72(3): 64A-69A.
Oo, A.Z., S. Sudo, K. Inubushi, M. Mano, A. Yamamoto, K. Ono, T.
Osawa, S. Hayashida, P.K. Patra, Y. Terao, P. Elayakumar, K. Vanitha,
C. Umamageswari, P. Jothimani, and V. Ravi. 2018. Methane and nitrous
oxide emissions from conventional and modified rice cultivation systems
in South India. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 252: 148-158.
Osmond, D.L., J.M. Grossman, G. Jennings, G.D. Hoyt, M. Reyes, and
D. Line. 2014. Water Quality Evaluation of Long Term Organic and
Conventional Vegetable Production under Conservation and Conventional
Tillage. Final report on ORG project 2009-05488. CRIS Abstracts.*
Panicker, G.K. 2017. October 9 response to September 28 blog post by
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Conservation Groups Deliver
Farm Bill Recommendations, available at http://
sustainableagriculture.net/blog/conservation-consensus/.
Pardon, P., B. Reubens, D. Reheul, J. Mertens, P. De Frenne, T.
Coussement, P. Janssens, and K. Verheyen. 2017. Trees increase soil
organic carbon and nutrient availability in temperate agroforestry
systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 246: 98-111.
Parkin, T.B., and R.T. Venterea. 2010. USDA-ARS GRACEnet Project
Protocols. Chapter 3. Chamber-Based Trace Gas Flux Measurements. 39 pp.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/np212/
Chapter%203.%20GRACEnet%20Trace%20Gas%20Sampling%20Protocols.pdf.
Parkin, T.B., T.C. Kaspar, D.B. Jaynes and T.B. Moorman. 2016. Rye
Cover Crop Effects on Direct and Indirect Nitrous Oxide Emissions. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 80(6): 1551-1559.
Petit, C. 2012. Soil's hidden secrets. Science News 181(2): 16.
https://www.sciencenews.org/.
Ponisio, L.C., M'Gonigle, L.K., Mace, K.C., Palomino, J., de
Valpine, P., Kremen, C., 2014. Diversification practices reduce organic
to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20141396.
Powlson, D.S., C.M. Stirling, C. Thierfelder, R.P. White and M.L.
Jat. 2016. Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change
mitigation through soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-
ecosystems? 2016. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 220: 164-174.
Powlson, D.S., A.P. Whitmore, and K.W.T. Goulding. 2011. Soil carbon
sequestration to mitigate climate change: a critical re-examination to
identify the true and the false. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 62(1): 42-55.
Rasse, D.P., C. Rumpel, and M.-F. Dignac. 2005. Is soil carbon
mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilization. Plant and
Soil 269: 341-356.
Reeve, J., and E. Creech. 2015. Compost Carryover Effects on Soil
Quality and Productivity in Organic Dryland Wheat. http://
articles.extension.org/pages/73247/compost-carryover-effects-on-soil-
quality-and-productivity-in-organic-dryland-wheat.
Reinbott, T. 2015. Identification of factors affecting carbon
sequestration and nitrous oxide emissions in three organic cropping
systems. Final report on ORG project 2011-04958. CRIS Abstracts.*
Richard, T. and G. Camargo. 2011. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Associated with Dairy Farming Systems. http://articles.extension.org/
pages/32626/greenhouse-gas-emissions-associated-with-dairy-farming-
systemswebinar.
Rillig, M.C. 2004. Arbuscular mycorrhizae, glomalin, and soil
aggregation. Can. J. Soil Sci. 84(4): 355-363.
Rodale Institute. 2014. Regenerative organic agriculture and climate
change: a down-to-earth solution to global warming. 16 pp. https://
rodaleinstitute.org/assets/
RegenOrgAgricultureAndClimateChange_20140418.pdf.
Rodale Institute, 2015. Farming Systems Trial Brochure, 2 pp. http://
rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FST-Brochure-2015.pdf.
Roper, W.R., D.L. Osmond, J.L. Heitman, M.G. Wagger, and S.C. Reberg-
Horton. 2017. Soil Health Indicators Do Not Differentiate among
Agronomic Management Systems in North Carolina Soils. Soil Sci. Soc,
Am. J. 81(4): 828-843.
Rose, M.T., T.R. Cavagnaro, C., Scanlan, T.J. Rose, T. Vancov, S.
Kimber, I.R. Kennedy, R.S. Kookana, and L. Van Zweiten. 2016. Impact of
Herbicides on Soil Biology and Function. Advances in Agronomy Vol. 136:
133-220.
Rosolem, C.A., K. Ritz, H. Cantarella, M.V. Galdos, M.J. Hawkesford,
W.R. Whalley, and S.J. Mooney. 2017. Enhanced plant rooting and crop
system management for improved N use efficiency. Advances in Agronomy
146: 205-239.
Rowntree, J.E., R. Ryals, M.S. DeLonge, W.R. Teague, M.B.
Chiavegato, P. Byck, and T. Wang. 2016. Potential mitigation of Midwest
grass-finished beef production emissions with soil carbon sequestration
in the United States of America. Future Food J. Food Agric. Soc. 4: 31-
38.
Ryals, R., and W.L. Silver. 2013. Effects of organic matter
amendments on net primary productivity and greenhouse gas emissions in
annual grasslands. Ecol. Appl. 23(1): 46-59.
Sadeghpour, A., Q.M. Ketterings, G.S. Godwin, K.J. Czymmek, and F.
Vermeylen. 2017. Agro-Environmental Consequences of Shifting from
Nitrogen- to Phosphorus-Based Manure Management of Corn. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 81(5): 1127-1138.
Schmidt, J.E., C. Peterson, D. Wang, M. Scow, A.C.M. Gaudin. 2018.
Agroecosystem tradeoffs associated with conversion to subsurface drip
irrigation in organic systems. Agricultural Water Management 202: 1-8.
Schonbeck, M., D. Jerkins, and J. Ory. 2016. Taking stock: analyzing
and reporting organic research investments, 2002-2014. Organic Farming
Research Foundation (www.ofrf.org), 222 pp.
Schonbeck, M., D. Jerkins, and J. Ory. 2017. Soil Health and Organic
Farming: Practical Conservation Tillage. Organic Farming Research
Foundation (www.ofrf.org), 30 pp.
Scialabba, N.E. 2013. Organic Agriculture's Contribution to
Sustainability. Symposium Proceedings: USDA Organic Farming Systems
Research Conference. https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/cm/
tocs/12/1.
Six, J., R. Conant, E. Paul, and K. Paustian. 2002. Stabilization
mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C-saturation of
soils. Plant Soil 241(2): 155-176.
Skinner, C., A. Gattinger, A. Muller, P. Mader, A. Fliessbach, M.
Stolze, R. Ruser, and U. Niggli. 2014. Greenhouse gas fluxes from
agricultural soils under organic and non-organic management--a global
meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 468-469: 553-563.
Stanley, P.L., J.E. Rowntree, D.K. Beede, M.S. DeLonge, and M.W.
Hamm. 2018. Impacts of Soil Carbon Sequestration on Life Cycle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Midwestern USA Beef Finishing Systems.
Agricultural Systems 162: 249-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agsy.2018.02.003.
Stephensen, G., L. Gwin, C. Schreiner, and S. Brown. 2017. Breaking
new ground: farmer perspectives on organic transition. Oregon Tilth and
Oregon State University's Center for Small Farms & Community Food
Systems. 53 pp. https://tilth.org/resources/breakingground/.
Sun H., P. Koal, D. Liu, G. Gerl, R. Schroll, A. Gattinger, R.G.
Joergensen, and J.C. Munch. 2016. Soil microbial community and
microbial residues respond positively to minimum tillage under organic
farming in Southern Germany. Appl. Soil Ecol. 108: 16-24.
Syswerda, S.P., A.T. Corbin, D.L. Mokma, A.N. Kravchenko, and G.P.
Robertson. 2011. Agricultural Management and Soil Carbon Storage in
Surface vs. Deep Layers. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75(1): 92-101.
Tariq, A., Q.D. Vu, L.S. Jensen, S. de Tourdonnet, B.O. Sander, R.
Wassmann, T. Van Mai, and A. de Neergaard. 2017. Mitigating CH4 and N2O
emissions from intensive rice production systems in northern Vietnam:
Efficiency of drainage patterns in combination with rice residue
incorporation. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 249: 101-111.
Teague, R. 2016-17. Regeneration of soil by multi-paddock grazing.
Transcript of Sept. 7, 2016 presentation at Harvard by Jack Kittredge.
The Natural Farmer, winter 2016-17: B26-B30.
Teague, W.R., 2018. Forages and pastures symposium: cover crops in
livestock production: whole-system approach: Managing grazing to
restore soil health and farm livelihoods. Journal of Animal Science 96,
1519-1530.
Teague, W. R., S. Apfelbaum, R. Lal, U.P. Kreuter, J. Rowntree, C.A.
Davies, R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, R Wang, and P.
Byck. 2016. The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon
footprint in North America. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 71(2): 156-164.
Thakur, A.K., N.T. Uphoff, and W.A. Stoop. 2016. Scientific
Underpinnings of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI): What Is
Known So Far? Advances in Agronomy 135: 147-179.
Thies, J.E. 2007. Nitrous oxide losses during soil freeze-thaw
events during winter. http://impact.cals.cornell.edu/project/nitrous-
oxide-losses-during-soil-freeze-thaw-events-during-winter.
Thomas, B.W., X. Hao, F.J. Larney, C. Gover, M.H. Chantigny, and A.
Charles. 2017. Non-Legume Cover Crops Can Increase Non-Growing Season
Nitrous Oxide Emissions. Soil Sci. Am. J. 81(1): 189-199.
Tiemann, L.K., A.S. Grandy, E.E. Atkinson, E. Marin-Spiotta, and
M.D. McDaniel. 2015. Crop rotational diversity enhances belowground
communities and functions in an agroecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 18(8): 761-
771.
Toonsiri, P., S.J. Del Grosso, A. Sukor, and J.G. Davis. 2016.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Solid and Liquid Organic Fertilizers
Applied to Lettuce. J. Environmental Quality Vol. 45 No. 6, p. 1812-
1821.
Topp, E. and E. Pattey. 1997. Soils as sources and sinks for
atmospheric methane. Can. J. Soil Sci. 167-178.
Tubiello, F.N., M. Salvatore, S. Rossi, A. Ferrara, N. Fitton, and
P. Smith. 2013. The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from
agriculture. Environmental Research Letters 8: 015009 (10 pp.).
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015009.
USDA. 2016. USDA Building Blocks for Climate-Smart Agriculture and
Forestry: Implementation Plan and Progress Report. 60 pp. https://
www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/building-blocks-
implementation-plan-progress-report.pdf.
USDA National Organic Program Final Rule, https://www.ams.usda.gov/
rules-regulations/organic.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil health. https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/, and Conservation
Stewardship Program, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/
national/programs/financial/csp/.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. Soil quality
indicators: Particulate Organic Matter. April, 2011. 2 pp. Accessed via
Soil health assessment, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/
soils/health/assessment/.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2014. National Planning
Procedures Handbook (NPPH), Edition 1. https://
directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=36483.wba.
Van Geel, M., E. Verbruggen, M. De Beenhouwer, G. van Rennes, B.
Lievens, and O. Honnay. 2017. High soil phosphorus levels overrule the
potential benefits of organic farming on arbuscular mycorrhizal
diversity in northern vineyards. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and
Environment 248: 144-152.
Wander, M.M. 2015. Nutrient budget basics for organic farming
systems. 6 pp. http://articles.extension.org/pages/18794/nutrient-
budget-basics-for-organic-farming-systems.
Wander, M.M., S.J. Traina, B.R. Stinner, and S.E. Peters. 1994.
Organic and Conventional Management Effects on Biologically Active Soil
Organic Matter Pools. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58: 1130-1139.
Wander, M.M., C. Ugarte, E. Zaborski, and E. Phillips. 2014. Organic
systems and climate change. Proposal and final report for ORG project
2010-03954. CRIS Abstracts.*
Wang, T., W.R. Teague, S.C. Park, and S. Bevers. 2015. GHG
mitigation and profitability potential of different grazing systems in
Southern great plain. Sustainability 7: 13500-13521.
West, T.O., and W.M. Post. 2002. Soil organic carbon sequestration
rates by tillage and crop rotation: a global data analysis. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 66(6): 1930-1946.
Westphal, M., M. Tenuta, and M.H. Entz. 2018. Nitrous oxide
emissions with organic crop production depends on fall soil moisture.
Agriculture, Ecosystems, and the Environment 254: 41-49.
Wild Farm Alliance. 2017. Making Biodiversity a Priority: Updating
Organic System Plans. 10 pp. Available at www.WildFarmAlliance.org.
Williams, A., A.S. Davis, A. Jilling, A.S. Grandy, R.T. Koide, D.A.
Mortensen, R.G. Smith, S.S. Snapp, K.A. Spokas, A.C. Yannarell, and
N.R. Jordan. 2017. Reconciling opposing soil processes in row-crop
agroecosystems via soil functional zone management. Ag. Eco. Env. 236:
99-107.
Wilson, G.W.T., C.W. Rice, M.C. Rillig, A. Springer, and D.C.
Hartnett. 2009. Soil aggregation and carbon sequestration are tightly
correlated with the abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: results
from long-term field experiments. Ecol. Lett. 12(5): 452-61.
Wilson, K. 2014. How Biochar Works in Soil. Biochar Journal, 2014.
Excerpted by Jack Kittredge in The Natural Farmer. Fall 2015. Special
Supplement on Biochar in Agriculture, pp. B8-B12. http://
thenaturalfarmer.org/issue/fall-2015/.
Wuest, S.B., and C.L. Reardon. 2016. Surface and root inputs produce
different carbon/phosphorus ratios in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 80:
463-471.
Zhang, Q., G. Liang, W. Zhou, J. Sun, X. Wang and P. He. 2016. Fatty-
Acid Profiles and Enzyme Activities in Soil Particle-Size Fractions
under Long-Term Fertilization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 80(1): 97-111.
Zhong, L., S. Bowatte, P.C.D. Newton, C.J. Hoogendoorn, and D. Luo.
2018. An increased ratio of fungi to bacteria indicates greater
potential for N2O production in a grazed grassland exposed to elevated
CO2. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and the Environment 254: 111-116.
Zuber S.M., and M.B. Villamil. 2016. Meta-analysis approach to
assess effect of tillage on microbial biomass and enzyme activities.
Soil Biol Biochem. 97: 176-187.

* For project proposal summaries, progress and final reports for USDA
funded Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and Organic
Transitions (ORG) projects, enter proposal number under ``Grant No''
and click ``Search'' on the CRIS Assisted Search Page at: http://
cris.nifa.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/
0?path=crisassist.txt&id=anon&pass=&OK=OK.
Note that many of the final reports on the CRIS database include lists
of publications in referred journals that provide research findings in
greater detail.

______

Submitted Statement by Abby Youngblood, Executive Director, National
Organic Coalition
Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member Dunn, and Members of the
Subcommittee:

I am Abby Youngblood, Executive Director for the National Organic
Coalition. The National Organic Coalition is a national alliance of
organizations representing the full spectrum of stakeholders with an
interest in organic agriculture, including farmers, ranchers,
conservationists, consumers, retailers, certifying agents, and organic
industry members. NOC seeks to advance organic agriculture and ensure a
united voice for organic integrity, which means strong, enforceable,
and continuously improved standards to maximize the multiple health,
environmental, and economic benefits that organic agriculture provides.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the research
and extension needs to farmers to help mitigate risks, particularly
those related to climate change. First and foremost, it is critical
that we be clear about the state of science with regard to climate
change and the farming practices that can help solve our global climate
change challenges. No doubt, the science in this area will continue to
evolve. There is plenty that we do not fully understand about the
relationship between agriculture and climate change. But there are also
some very clear messages that can be gleaned from the existing research
that can point us in the right direction.
In the organic agriculture sector, we are very excited and engaged
in this topic because there is strong science showing that, in general,
organic practices are climate-friendly practices. I welcome this
opportunity to summarize what we have learned from the evolving science
on this topic.
Important Role of Organic Agriculture in Addressing Climate Change
Organic agriculture has led innovations in farming for decades,
particularly in the development of climate-friendly soil building
techniques and farm inputs. Healthy soil is the cornerstone of organic
agriculture and a critical solution for addressing climate challenges.
Organic farming practices help mitigate climate change by keeping roots
in the soil, preventing soil erosion, and sequestering soil carbon.
Nutrient-rich, biodiverse soils foster the ability of crops to
withstand and adapt to extreme weather-induced events such as droughts,
floods, fire, and high winds. Accelerating the adoption of organic
agricultural practices in the U.S. and abroad will go a long way toward
solving the global climate crisis.
Organic Eliminates A Significant Source Of Nitrous Oxide Emissions
EPA estimates that U.S. agriculture contributes 8.6% to the
country's anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, releasing the
equivalent of 574 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually into
the environment, mostly from fossil fuel production and use. Nitrous
oxide emissions from soils comprise 50.4% of all domestic agricultural
emissions.\1\ The chemical is a long-lived GHG and ozone depleter, with
310 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2018) Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-
greenhouse-gas-emissions.
\2\ Schonbeck, M., et al. (2018) Soil Health and Organic Farming,
Organic Practices for Climate Mitigation, Adaptation, and Carbon
Sequestration, Organic Farming Research Foundation, p. 2. https://
ofrf.org/soil-health-andorganic-farming-ecological-approach.

Organic regulations ( 205.105) prohibit the use of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
synthetic substances in crop production.

Prohibiting synthetic fertilizers in organic eliminates a
significant agricultural source of N2O emissions.
Since nitrogen is an essential plant nutrient, many organic
farmers apply soil amendments such as manure and compost, and
grow leguminous cover crops, to fix nitrogen in the soil.

Efficient nitrogen use is key to reducing GHG emissions;
aerated organic soils have low mobile nitrogen, which reduces
N2O emissions from agricultural fields.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ UNCTAD/WTO, FiBL. (2007) Organic Farming and Climate Change,
Doc. No. MDS-08-152.E. Geneva, Switzerland. http://orgprints.org/13414/
3/niggli-etal-2008-itc-climate-change.pdf.

The use of synthetic pesticides is largely prohibited in
organic agriculture.\4\ Synthetic pesticides disrupt nitrogen
fixation and inhibit soil life. The absence of pesticides in
the soil allows diverse organisms and beneficial insects to
decompose plant residues and help sequester carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A small number of synthetic substances are allowed in organic,
after review by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The
Organic Foods Production Act includes a list of review criteria that
the Board must use in determining whether a synthetic substance may be
used in organic, including ``the effects of the substance on biological
and chemical interactions in the agroecosystem, including the
physiological effects of the substance on soil organisms (including the
salt index and solubility of the soil).'' (7 U.S.C. 6518(m)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Practices Can Mitigate Climate Change
Healthy, biodiverse soils are integral to thriving organic farming
systems and they also impact climate change. As biologically active
soils break down crop residues, they release carbon dioxide and
nutrients. Stabilized soil organic carbon that adheres to clay and silt
particles or resists decomposition is sequestered and can remain in
soils for decades or even millennia.

Organic regulations ( 205.203) require the implementation
of soil fertility and crop nutrient management practices to
maintain or improve soil such as crop rotations, cover
cropping, and the application of plant and animal manures.

Research has shown that if the standard practices used by
organic farmers to maintain and improve soils were implemented
globally, it would increase soil organic carbon pools by an
estimated 2 billion tons per year--the equivalent of 12% of the
total annual GHG emissions, worldwide.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid, p. 42.

Cover crops, routinely planted by organic farmers after
harvesting cash crops, rebuild soil nitrogen and improve carbon
sequestration by adding soil organic matter. Planting deep-
rooted cover crops like forage radish or cereal rye further aid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the long-term sequestration of carbon.

Compost is an important organic farming soil amendment and,
when used judiciously and in combination with cover crops, it
accrues more soil organic carbon than when used alone.

Adding compost to rangeland and intensively managing and
rotating livestock can increase plant productivity and heighten
carbon sequestration.

Diverse crop rotations, using plants with deep, extensive
root systems, play an important role in sequestering carbon.
Research has shown that although most soil biological activity
occurs near the earth's surface to take advantage of the sun,
53% of the global soil organic carbon is found at depths 12-39"
below the surface.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Schonbeck, M., et al. (2018) p. 12.

Prudent green and animal manure applications, crop
rotations, intercropping, and cover cropping improve farm soils
and help prevent soil erosion, which depletes the amount of
carbon the soil is able to store.
The Role of No-Till Systems from a Climate Change Perspective
While no-till systems may show benefits in terms of building soil
organic matter and reducing erosion, many of those systems are also
chemical-intensive systems that can degrade the biological activity in
the soil. Biologically active soils have been shown to be a key
component to effective carbon sequestration in soil. Organic practices
build soil structure as a way to reduce erosion, but also enhance soil
biota.7-14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Wang, R., Zhang, H., Sun, L., Qi, G., Chen, S. and Zhao, X.,
2017. Microbial community composition is related to soil biological and
chemical properties and bacterial wilt outbreak. Scientific Reports,
7(1), p. 343. It concludes: ``In a conclusion, the higher abundance of
beneficial microbes are positively related the higher soil quality,
including better plant growth, lower disease incidence, and higher
nutrient contents, soil enzyme activities and soil pH.'' Abd-Alla,
M.H., Omar, S.A. and Karanxha, S., 2000. The impact of pesticides on
arbuscular mycorrhizal and nitrogen-fixing symbioses in legumes.
Applied Soil Ecology, 14(3), pp. 191-200. Shows that pesticide
application reduces ``beneficial'' fungi, which negatively affected
plant growth.
\8\ Giovannetti, M., Turrini, A., Strani, P., Sbrana, C., Avio, L.
and Pietrangeli, B., 2006. Mycorrhizal fungi in ecotoxicological
studies: soil impact of fungicides, insecticides and herbicides.
Prevention Today, 2(1-2), pp. 47-61. Found that spore germination and
cell growth of mycorrhizae, Glomus mosseae, was adversely affected by
pesticides used in agriculture, and in some cases, at much lower
concentrations than are approved for use. The study indicates ``the
experimental tests demonstrated that spore germination and/or mycelial
growth of G. mosseae are adversely affected by most of the substances
tested and, in some cases, at much lower concentrations than those
indicated for use.'' This justifies the use of AM fungi as a measure of
soil health and links it with chemical use. Pesticide use is shown to
have a negative effect on the AM fungus Glomus mosseae.
\9\ The Food and Agriculture Organization, Annex 1 on Soil
Organisms states: ``Where the soil has received heavy treatments of
pesticides, chemical fertilizers, soil fungicides or fumigants that
kill these organisms, the beneficial soil organisms may die (impeding
the performance of their activities), or the balance between the
pathogens and beneficial organisms may be upset, allowing those called
opportunists (disease-causing organisms) to become problems.''
\10\ Prashar, P. and Shah, S., 2016. Impact of fertilizers and
pesticides on soil microflora in agriculture. In: Sustainable
Agriculture Reviews (pp. 331-361). Springer, Cham.
\11\ Six, J., Frey, S.D., Thiet, R.K., & Batten, K.M. (2006).
Bacterial and Fungal Contributions to Carbon Sequestration in
Agroecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70(2), 555.
doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.0347.
\12\ Kallenbach, C.M., Grandy, A.S., Frey, S.D., & Diefendorf, A.F.
(2015). Microbial physiology and necromass regulate agricultural soil
carbon accumulation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 91, 279-290.
doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.09.005.
\13\ Druille, M., Cabello, M.N., Omacini, M., and Golluscio, R.A.
2013. Glyphosate reduces spore viability and root colonization of
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Applied Soil Ecology, 64: 99-103; doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2012.10.007.
\14\ Hamel, C. 2004. Impact of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on N
and P cycling in the root zone. Can. J. Soil Sci. 84(4): 383-395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Agriculture Increases Resilience to Climate Change
By design, organic agriculture builds resilience into the system of
food production. Growing strong crops and livestock on healthy soils
with bountiful biodiversity above and below ground facilitates the
ability of organic systems to tolerate, adapt to, and recover from
extreme weather conditions.

High levels of organic matter in organic farm soils increase
soil water retention, porosity, infiltration, and prevent
nutrient loss and soil erosion. These soil properties make
agriculture more resistant to flooding, drought, high winds,
and the loss of soil organic carbon.

Diverse cropping and intercropping on organic farms keep
pest and predator relationships in check, decreasing crop
susceptibility to insect pests and disease and increasing crop
resiliency and adaptability to the extreme variabilities of
climate change.

``Given its potential for reducing carbon emissions,
enhancing soil fertility and improving climate resilience,
Organic Agriculture should form the basis of comprehensive
policy tools for addressing the future of global nutrition and
addressing climate change.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
(IFOAM). https://www.ifoam.bio/en/advocacy/climate-change.

As Congress debates effective strategies to address the threat of
global climate change, we believe the science shows that organic
agriculture can be part of the solution to this challenge. In addition,
we strongly believe that conventional plant breeding to develop
cultivars that are regionally adapted to changing climates can help to
increase carbon sequestration on farms and to mitigate against the
risks associated with climate change. Additional research and education
funding is critical to expanding our knowledge about the role of
farming practices in addressing climate change challenges.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony on behalf
of the National Organic Coalition member organizations:

Beyond Pesticides
Center for Food Safety
Consumer Reports
Equal Exchange
Food & Water Watch
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service
National Co+op Grocers
Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance
Northeast Organic Farming Association
Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association
Organic Seed Alliance
PCC Community Markets
Rural Advancement Foundation International--USA