[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

TITLE II CONSERVATION PROGRAMS: EXPLORING CLIMATE-SMART PRACTICES

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

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MAY 12, 2021

__________

Serial No. 117-5

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

45-387 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman

JIM COSTA, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania,
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts Ranking Minority Member
FILEMON VELA, Texas AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
Chair Arkansas
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York DOUG LaMALFA, California
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
Northern Mariana Islands TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire DON BACON, Nebraska
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona CHRIS JACOBS, New York
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
RO KHANNA, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida TRACEY MANN, Kansas
J. LUIS CORREA, California RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
JOSH HARDER, California BARRY MOORE, Alabama
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa KAT CAMMACK, Florida
KIM SCHRIER, Washington MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia

______

Anne Simmons, Staff Director

Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director

______

Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry

ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia, Chair

FILEMON VELA, Texas DOUG LaMALFA, California, Ranking
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine Minority Member
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
JIMMY PANETTA, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
J. LUIS CORREA, California DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
BARRY MOORE, Alabama

Felix Muniz, Jr., Subcommittee Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from California,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Spanberger, Hon. Abigail Davis, a Representative in Congress from
Virginia, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Submitted report............................................. 55

Witnesses

Isbell, Jr., Charles ``CJ'' Edwin, Farmer and Co-Owner, Keenbell
Farm, Rockville, VA............................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Ratcliff, Kimberly, Manager/Owner, Caney Creek Ranch, Oakwood, TX 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Paustian, Ph.D., Keith H., Distinguished Professor, Department of
Soil and Crop Science, Colorado State University; Senior
Research Scientist, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, CSU... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Johansson, Jamie, President, California Farm Bureau, Sacramento,
CA............................................................. 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25

TITLE II CONSERVATION PROGRAMS: EXPLORING CLIMATE SMART PRACTICES

----------

WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2021

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Abigail Davis
Spanberger [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Spanberger, Pingree,
Kuster, O'Halleran, Panetta, Schrier, Costa, LaMalfa,
DesJarlais, Allen, Kelly, Johnson, Miller, and Moore.
Staff present: Lyron Blum-Evitts, Prescott Martin III,
Felix Muniz, Jr., Ashley Smith, John Konya, John Busovsky, Josh
Maxwell, Patricia Straughn, Erin Wilson, and Dana Sandman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA

The Chair. The Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee's
hearing entitled, Title II Conservation Programs: Exploring
Climate-Smart Practices, will come to order.
Welcome and thank you for joining today's hearing.
After brief opening remarks, Members will receive testimony
from our witnesses today. And then the hearing will be open for
questions. Members will be recognized in order of seniority,
alternating between Majority and Minority Members, and in the
order of arrival for those Members who have joined us after the
hearing was called to order.
When you are recognized, you will be asked to unmute your
microphone. And you will have 5 minutes to ask your questions
or make a comment. If you are not speaking, I ask that you
remain muted in order to minimize background noise.
In order to get in as many questions as possible, the timer
will stay consistently visible on your screen.
In consultation with the Ranking Member and pursuant to
Rule XI(e), I want to make Members of the Subcommittee aware
that other Members of the full Committee may join us today.
I am excited to be here today for our first hearing of the
Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry in the 117th Congress
and for the opportunity to work alongside my colleague, Ranking
Member Doug LaMalfa, and the rest of the esteemed Members of
this Subcommittee. In addition to increasing farm productivity
and profitability, conservation agriculture holds enormous
potential in our efforts to combat the climate crisis, both
through increased soil carbon sequestration and reduced
greenhouse gas emissions.
As we look to scale the adoption of conservation practices,
there is perhaps no greater tool available than the farm bill's
conservation programs.
Title II programs provide much needed technical and
financial assistance to encourage the adoption of cover crops,
reduced- to no-till management systems, and prescribed grazing
systems, among many other climate-smart practices. As we have
seen firsthand, these programs are working well in central
Virginia. Studies show that these programs are effective. Not
only do they facilitate greater adoption of conservation
practices, but they also make it more likely that farmers will
keep implementing these practices in the long-term to the
benefit of our climate, clean water, and the health of our
rural communities.
What's more, these investments are paying dividends to
farmers' bottom line. When farmers participate in these
voluntary conservation programs, they do not only reduce carbon
dioxide emissions in the environment by sequestering carbon
through healthier soils, but they also improve crop quantity,
yield, and profit margins. Put simply, any investment Congress
makes in title II programs are an investment in the long-term
economic success of rural America and America's farmers.
In recent years, USDA has developed new tools that make it
easier than ever to consider climate mitigation benefits during
the conservation planning process. And thanks to USDA's
publication of the blue book, we have technical guidelines and
science-based methods to quantify emission sinks in
agriculture, and, likewise, the development of the COMET-Farm
online tool has made it possible to assess a farm's carbon
footprint and see how alternative voluntary management projects
and practices could achieve greenhouse gas emissions--or
reductions, excuse me.
These tools are exciting ways to maximize climate benefits
while also making things easier for farmers. And as these tools
are refined, I am hopeful that they will strengthen
conservation programs and maximize the benefits delivered to
farmers.
In this spirit, I worked across the aisle to introduce the
H.R. 2820, Growing Climate Solutions Act on Earth Day this
year. This legislation would create a certification program at
the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help solve technical
entry barriers that prevent farm and forest landowner
participation in carbon credit markets. This bill is almost
universally endorsed by national farmer organizations, like the
American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union,
while also gaining support from large environmental groups,
like the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Wildlife
Federation, and corporations, like McDonald's, Bayer, and
Microsoft.
This legislation has built a broad coalition because it
empowers farmers to continue climate-friendly conservation
practices, it helps farmers unlock new revenue streams through
private carbon markets, and it empowers the USDA to further
develop tools that empower climate-friendly conservation
practices.
I am excited to hear from our witnesses today on their
experiences utilizing these practices and the role that the
farm bill's programs play in facilitating their adoption. And
while we have made great progress in developing the science and
the tools that let us better quantify the climate benefits of
conservation, I also hope to hear today if there are areas
where further research or support may be needed.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Spanberger follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Good morning. I'm excited to be here today for our first hearing of
the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry in the 117th Congress and
for the opportunity to work alongside my colleague, Ranking Member Doug
LaMalfa, and the rest of the esteemed Members of this Subcommittee.
In addition to increasing farm productivity and profitability,
conservation agriculture holds enormous potential to help combat the
climate crisis--both through increased soil carbon sequestration and
reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
As we look to scale the adoption of conservation practices, there
is perhaps no greater tool available than the farm bill's conservation
programs. Title II programs provide much needed technical and financial
assistance to encourage the adoption of cover crops, reduced- and no-
till management systems, and prescribed grazing systems--among many
other climate-smart practices. And we have seen firsthand these
programs working in central Virginia.
Studies show that these programs are effective. Not only do they
facilitate greater adoption of conservation practices, but they also
make it more likely that farmers will keep implementing these practices
in the long-term to the benefit of our climate, clean water, and the
health of our rural economies. What's more, these investments are
paying dividends to farmer's bottom lines. When farmers participate in
these voluntary conservation programs, they not only reduce carbon
dioxide emissions in the environment by sequestering carbon through
healthier soils, they can also improve crop quantity, yield, and profit
margins. Put simply, any investment Congress makes in title II programs
are not just an investment in the future of our planet, but also in the
long-term economic success of rural America and America's farmers.
In recent years, USDA has developed new tools that make it easier
than ever to consider climate mitigation benefits during the
conservation planning process. Thanks to USDA's publication of the
``blue book,'' we have technical guidelines and science-based methods
to quantify emissions sinks in agriculture. Likewise, the development
of the COMET-Farm online tool has made it possible to assess a farm's
carbon footprint and see how alternative, voluntary management
practices could achieve greenhouse gas reductions.
These tools are exciting ways to maximize climate benefits while
also making things easier for farmers. And as these tools are refined,
I'm hopeful that they will strengthen conservation programs and
maximize the benefits delivered to farmers.
In this spirit, I worked across the aisle to introduce the H.R.
2820, Growing Climate Solutions Act on Earth Day this year. This
legislation would create a certification program at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) to help solve technical entry barriers that
prevent farmer and forest landowner participation in carbon credit
markets. This bill is almost universally endorsed by national farmer
organizations, like the American Farm Bureau Federation and National
Farmers Union, while also gaining support from large environmental
groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Wildlife
Federation and corporations like McDonald's, Bayer, and Microsoft. This
legislation has built a broad coalition because it empowers farmers to
continue climate-friendly conservation practices, helps farmers unlock
new revenue streams through private carbon markets, and empowers USDA
to further develop tools that empower climate-friendly conservation
practices.
I'm excited to hear from our witnesses today on their experience
utilizing climate-smart practices and the role that farm bill programs
play in facilitating their adoption. And while we have made great
progress in developing the science and the tools that let us better
quantify the climate benefits of conservation, I also hope to hear
today if there are areas where further research or support may be
needed.

The Chair. With that, I would like to recognize the Ranking
Member, Congressman Doug LaMalfa, for any opening remarks.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. LaMalfa. Well, good morning, everyone.
And thank you, Chair Spanberger, for convening the hearing
today and for our panelists that will be speaking with us.
The 2018 Farm Bill offered important environmental and
resource benefits through USDA's suite of voluntary incentive-
based conservation programs. The conservation title provides an
estimated $6 billion per year to farmers, ranchers, and forest
landowners for the implementation of practices that truly do
work. Through these voluntary programs, producers can improve
soil health and water quality, better manage their lands, and
incorporate innovations like increased energy-efficient farming
practices.
Our conservation delivery system is a proven model that
leverages significant funding as a win-win for both producers
and the environmental needs. Because of its effectiveness,
NRCS's conservation programs have been in the spotlight in
recent years and become a staple in ongoing climate
discussions. While these programs generate countless on-farm
benefits, they also directly result in carbon sequestration.
As we continue to dwell on climate-related policy,
voluntary conservation does have an important role to play. I
think it is very important to recognize the great conservation
work farmers, ranchers, and foresters are already doing each
and every day, and they don't always get credit for what has
been done in the past before this became such a hot topic.
Despite the calls from some climate alarmists, the U.S. is
already making great progress towards meeting carbon reduction
goals. The U.S. generates less than 15 percent of the world's
anthropogenic carbon emissions. That number is continuing to
decline in the coming decades. Currently U.S. farm productivity
and management practices have increased dramatically over the
past 70 years. U.S. farm productivity has increased by 287
percent since 1948, the inputs have remained relatively the
same. That means the efficiency is going up, more bang for the
buck, more bang for the same amount of carbon. In short, we are
producing more food and fiber while using the same amount of
resources we did generations ago.
Additionally, we need to recognize the considerable
resources already provided by the farm bill to support
voluntary conservation and not rush to unproven approaches that
may not actually address the concern being made of climate or
consider if it will benefit farmers and ranchers directly.
In addition to improving soil health, there are a variety
of other existing agricultural practices and technologies that
are just as beneficial and must be fully utilized. This
includes increasing the deployment of precision agriculture to
reduce over-fertilization and runoff, and adoption of
technologies such as anaerobic digesters that convert
livestock-generated methane to renewable natural gas.
Incorporating new technologies and innovative practices
will reduce emissions, improve water and air quality, and
provide new revenue for farmers and ranchers in the process. No
singular solution will be appropriate to each crop, each
cropping system, or region. Opportunities in ag extend beyond
soil health and cover crops. What works for corn in Iowa will
not necessarily work for wheat out in the West, or rice in the
Mississippi Delta or rice in northern California.
We need to resist turning the farm bill conservation title
into the climate title. We cannot allow one natural resource
concern to completely overshadow all others. These programs
must continue to be voluntary, which means we must offer
practices that provide farmers choices.
Although forests are not the focus of today's hearing
necessarily, they must be part of the conversation. Our forests
are natural carbon sinks and hold great potential for reducing
emitted carbon and sequestering it. For example, any finished
wood product stores carbon indefinitely. By improving forest
health and actively managing our forests, we can encourage
healthier lands, prevent potential fires and the millions of
acres of destruction we see so much of these days, as well as
the release of more carbon dioxide than all of California's
power.
So, during a recent House Appropriations Committee hearing,
U.S. Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen mentioned our
forests are sequestering 14 percent of all U.S. carbon
emissions. That number could be nearly doubled to 20 to 28
percent through more reforestation and restoration, greater
forest resiliency, and the use of more forest products which
store carbon. But we must not be hamstrung from actually
getting out there and doing the work.
With that in mind, as we talk about climate and reducing
carbon dioxide, I believe we must take a hard look at how we
manage our forests and how we address the wildfire crisis and
the huge costs via budget or to our landscape. 2020 was the
most devastating fire season we have had on record. That
includes especially significant fires in my home State of
California. We must do more to prevent small fires from
unnecessarily becoming huge mega-fires that reduce enormous
amounts of otherwise stored carbon dioxide. Addressing
wildfires is a crisis and an emergency we can no longer ignore
or continue to kick the can down the road.
Thanks again to all of our witnesses for taking the time to
come be a part of this today, to provide your testimony, and
that we can have this good conversation. As we consider the
many stewardship proposals and ideas before Congress, as this
Committee starts thinking about the next farm bill, your input
will be invaluable from here on out. And it is much
appreciated.
I yield back. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Ranking Member LaMalfa.
Your comments made me think of something that a constituent
producer said, which is: ``Farmers are the original
conservationists.''
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so witnesses may begin their
testimony and to ensure that there is ample time for our
questions.
I am pleased to welcome such a distinguished panel of
witnesses to our hearing today. Our witnesses bring to our
hearing a wide range of experience and expertise, and I thank
you all for joining us.
Our first witness today is Mr. Charles Isbell, Jr. Mr.
Isbell raises livestock on his family's 340 acre farm, Keenbell
Farm, in Rockville, Virginia, not too far from the district I
represent. The farm specializes in grass-fed beef, pork,
poultry, turkey, eggs, and specialty grains using intense
rotational management, precision agriculture, and conservation
practices like cover cropping. He was named the 2020 Virginia
Farmer of the Year. He is a founding member of the Common Grain
Alliance and a member of the Virginia Association of Biological
Farming, as well as the Virginia Farm Bureau Young Farmers
Program.
Our next witness today is Ms. Kimberly Ratcliff. Ms.
Ratcliff manages Caney Creek Ranch, a diversified ranch in east
central Texas that was started by her parents. She has worked
on the ranch since 2007 and also owns Farm to Freezer Beef, a
family-run business that offers fresh beef direct from east
Texas ranches. In 2008, Kimberly helped found 100 Ranchers,
which is an organization comprised of minority farmers and
ranchers in Texas, to promote agriculture at the local level.
And last year Ms. Ratcliff was appointed to serve on the USDA
Advisory Committee on Minority Farmers.
Our third witness today is Dr. Keith Paustian. Dr. Paustian
serves as the University Distinguished Professor in the
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences and Senior Research
Scientist at the National Resource Ecology Laboratory at
Colorado State University. A major focus of his work involves
modeling, field measurement, and development of assessment
tools for soil carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas
emissions from soils. Dr. Paustian assisted with the
development of the COMET-Farm tool used by USDA and the
development of models and methodology used to estimate the U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions reported annually by the EPA.
Our fourth and final witness today is Mr. James Johansson.
Mr. Johansson has been serving as President of the California
Farm Bureau since 2017. He serves on the American Farm Bureau
Federation Board of Directors, and previously he served as the
Chairman of the California Young Farmers and Ranchers State
Committee. Mr. Johansson is a farmer himself, growing olives
and citrus fruit in Oroville, California.
Welcome to all of our witnesses today, and we will now
proceed with hearing your testimony. You will each have 5
minutes, and there should be a timer visible on your screen
that will count down to zero, at which point your time has
expired.
Mr. Isbell, please begin with your opening statement
whenever you are ready. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES ``CJ'' EDWIN ISBELL, Jr., FARMER AND CO-
OWNER, KEENBELL FARM, ROCKVILLE, VA

Mr. Isbell. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, thank
you for allowing me the opportunity to testify here today. I am
a third-generation farmer, co-owner of Keenbell Farm located in
Hanover County and resident of Virginia's First District.
On our farm, we utilize regenerative agriculture practices
while we work to produce and market directly to the consumer
quality grass-fed beef, pasture-raised pork, chicken, turkeys,
eggs, and specialty non-GMO grains. Our mission is to improve
the quality of life of our customers, community, environment,
and ourselves by producing the highest quality foods and
products using humane, sustainable, biological sound practices.
Our focus since inception has been to promote a living, healthy
soil utilizing forages, livestock, and crops as the management
tools to accomplish this goal.
While growing and developing our farming operation, we have
been able to develop relationships with our local Natural
Resources Conservation Service offices, soil and water
conservation districts, Virginia Cooperative Extension agents,
and USDA service centers.
While working towards our overall mission statement,
sharing our vision of healing the land utilizing innovative
approaches to livestock and crop production, our approach
relies heavily on the use of cover crops, particularly multi-
species cover crops, no-tillage, and additionally incorporating
livestock into this cover/cash crop rotation.
Our local agency's recognition of our approach to
environmental stewardship made us aware of title II
conservation programs that would fit our production model and
we are dedicated to utilizing the conservation programs,
regardless of whether we receive an award, if the practices are
economically feasible, and, if awarded, the offset in capital
is put towards other conservation programs, which are not
covered by these outlined conservation programs.
We have been fortunate to participate in numerous
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, in which we
have implemented stream exclusion fencing, prescribed grazing
systems, cover crop, nutrient management planning, livestock
water systems, just to name a few.
Environmental stewardship is the foundational value of our
farm and one key factor when we evaluate management decisions
in our operation. Being that our farm is in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, we made the decision to install exclusion fencing to
keep livestock out of lakes and streams on the farm. The
fencing was installed with twice the minimum buffer to provide
additional filter support and stimulate wildlife refuge areas.
As part of our conservation efforts, we practice intense
rotational management of all of our livestock species we raise.
Most are moved daily but at a minimum every 3 days. This
rotation allows for natural distribution of manure, preventing
the buildup and potential runoff of nutrients, and this
rotational management system, combined with the exclusion from
our lake and streams, require the installation of over 12,000
of underground waterlines and 40,000 of fence lines.
We utilize precision agriculture with grid sample and
variable rate fertility application. And, in addition, we
utilize multi-species cover crops, both to sustain a living
cover in the traditional sense but also as a key component in
our crop production cycle that has virtually eliminated the
need for chemical applications.
Our structured management of livestock and cover crops have
allowed for almost doubling of the soil organic matter, which
reduces erosion, increases nutrient holding capacities, and
reducing runoff. Conversion of cropland, formerly under a
conventional management system, was a hurdle to work through as
we grew. Time and management have allowed for this stimulation
of soil biology and building of soil organic matter and health.
This continues to be our focus in current managed land as we
take on new land in expanding our operation.
While implementing this approach to livestock and crop
production with the assistance of title II conservation
programs, we have seen substantial benefits from the
implementation of these practices. We have eliminated erosion,
doubled our soil's organic matter, improved our forage and crop
quality. We have confirmed these improvements with both
anecdotal observation and empirical scientific data.
Although the benefits from title II conservation programs
are great in number, the implementation of these programs could
be improved. As with most programs reliant on budgetary
allocations, there are many more dollars applied for than
funding provides. Focus needs to be directed to allow for
greater access to these programs and assistance provided to
ensure continuation of these conservation practices when
funding is not available. As producers, we see the financial
and physical benefits of conservation. But they will be more
prone to continuing previously awarded practices with this
focus.
Barriers to greater adoption of these programs and
practices include limited staffing at NRCS service centers,
limited access to the offices themselves, excessive paperwork
for application, capital costs requirement up-front for the
producers, and program requirements sometimes can be too
restrictive for today's environmental conditions, which
sometimes eliminate their eligibility due to inability to
comply with outlined timeframes. And it doesn't allow for some
of the newer dynamic regenerative agriculture practices to be
implemented with the same.
But, with these problems, I also provide recommendations
that would assist in improving the implementation and adoption
of these conservation programs and practices. Support continued
increased funding allocation for title II programs with a
directed focus of continued outreach post-producer funding to
encourage the continuation of conservation practices. For
example, after a program is awarded, providing the technical
assistance to assist the producer in understanding both the
environmental and financial benefits from the awarded program.
This additional support will give confidence to producers to
continue conservation efforts beyond the program award once the
operational benefits can be identified.
Conversion of the NRCS brick-and-mortar paper application
process to a more computer-based system with remote
accessibility. Understandable that some efforts have been
placed with the pandemic to do so, but still, as a producer, I
have to go in person to file for crop reporting, most recently
the CFAP applications, and the like. If a farmer had a web
portal with all the farms associated to them, they could apply,
file for cover crop reporting, publish yield data without the
need for the infrastructure to house the current paper system.
We should provide NRCS agents with the tools, technology,
and flexibility to spend more time out in the field with
producers. This will allow them to make more contact and
hopefully convey the benefits of these conservation programs
for continued use.
Some of the program restrictions, they require producers to
provide all up-front payment to implement these programs with
the hope of reimbursement at a later date as long as complying
with the defined requirements of the program. If we allow for
up-front funding at the time of award, we may see more adoption
of these conservation programs.
Last, I would recommend for allowing more flexibility
within the program guidelines to better reflect the changes in
climate, environmental events, and modern regenerative
agriculture practices to be more compliant and allow for
greater adoption of these practices.
By working together through the implementation of
conservation and regenerative agriculture practices, we can
heal the soil that feeds the plants which, in turn, feeds all
of us.
I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
testify and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Isbell follows:]

Prepared Statement of Charles ``CJ'' Edwin Isbell, Jr., Farmer and Co-
Owner, Keenbell Farm, Rockville, VA
Dear Madam Chair,

I am a third-generation farmer, co-owner of Keenbell Farm located
in Hanover county, and resident of Virginia's First Congressional
District. On our farm we utilize regenerative agriculture practices
while we work to produce and market directly to the consumer quality
grass-fed beef, pasture raised pork, chicken, turkey, eggs, and
specialty non-GMO grains. Our mission is to improve the quality of life
of our customers, community, environment, and ourselves by producing
the highest quality foods and products using humane, sustainable,
biologically sound practices. Our focus since inception is to promote a
living, healthy soil; utilizing forages, livestock, and crops as the
management tools to accomplish this goal.
My grandfather started the farm in 1951 and progressed from a
laying hen operation into a farrow-finish hog operation, and then all
beef cattle with finishing feedlot. This was all while growing
conventional grains for area elevators. My father left the farm full
time during the 1980s due to the inability for the farm to support
multiple families, but still worked nights and weekends to help out. My
grandfather retired from farming in the late 1990s and sold some
adjacent tracks of land, all the livestock, most of the equipment,
removed fencing infrastructure, and rented out the land to a local
grain farmer. Growing up in the farm, I had always wanted to farm but
was told ``there is no money in farming and to go get an in-town job
for stability''. In 2006, I started to work and clean up the neglected
remains of farm buildings and 2 acres not utilized by the grain farming
tenant. I was also providing labor to a local farmer, who had a cow
pass away leaving a week-old calf. He gave the calf to me and told me
that ``we can settle up if she makes it''. Well she made it, and I
started to do research for opportunities that would allow for
profitable farming at a level in which my family's home place could
provide. This research yielded a lack of local meat proteins available
to local consumers, so I formulated a business plan to take my single
heifer and expand over the next 10 year period. With my business plan
in hand, and the primitive base farm operation started; my father and I
sat down and formally started our partnership with the creation of our
LLC in 2008. Since that time, we have grown and diversified to
incorporate a multitude of livestock species and food grade grains for
direct to consumer sales.
While growing and developing our farming operation, we have been
fortunate to have developed relationships with our local Natural
Resources Conservation Service office, Virginia Soil and Water
Conservation District, Virginia Cooperative Extension agents, and USDA
service centers. While working towards our overall mission statement
and sharing our vision of healing the land utilizing innovative
approaches to livestock and crop production. Our approach relies
heavily on the use of cover crops, particularly multi-species cover
crops, no-tillage, and additionally incorporating livestock into this
cover/cash crop rotation. Our local agency's recognition of our
approach to environmental stewardship, made us aware of title II
conservation programs that would fit our production model. We are
dedicated to utilizing conservation programs regardless of whether we
receive an award, if the practices are economically feasible. And if
awarded, the offset in capital would be put toward other conservation
practices that are not covered by these outlined conservation programs.
We have been fortunate to participate in numerous Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) in which we have implemented stream exclusion
fencing, prescribed grazing systems, cover crop, nutrient management
planning, livestock watering systems to name a few.
Environmental stewardship is a foundational value of our farm and
one of our key factors when we evaluate management decisions in our
operation. Being that our farm is in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, we
made the decision to install exclusion fencing to keep livestock out of
the lake and streams that are on the farm. The fencing was installed
with twice the minimum buffer from water to provide additional filter
support and stimulate wildlife refuge areas. As a part of our
conservation efforts we practice intense rotational management of all
livestock species we raise. Most are moved daily, but at a minimum
every 3 days. This rotation allows for natural distribution of manure,
preventing the buildup and potential runoff of nutrients. This
rotational management in combination with exclusion from our lake and
streams required the installation of over 12,000 of underground water
lines and over 40,000 of fence line. We also utilize precision
agriculture, with grid sampling and variable rate fertility
application. In addition, we intensely utilize multi-species cover
crops both to sustain a living cover in the traditional sense but also
is a key component in our crop production cycle that has virtually
eliminated the need for routine chemical applications. Our structured
management of both livestock and cover crops has allowed for the almost
doubling of soil organic matter, which reduces erosion and increases
water/nutrient holding capacities, thus reducing runoff potential.
Conversion of cropland formerly under a conventionally managed system
was a hurdle to work through as we grew. Time and management have
allowed for the stimulation of the soil biology and building of soil
organic matter & health. This continues to be our focus both in
currently managed land and as we take on new land during the expansion
of our operation. While implementing this approach to livestock and
crop production with the assistance of title II conservation programs,
we have seen substantial benefits from the implementation of these
practices. We have eliminated erosion, doubled our soils organic
matter, reduced water runoff, increased our soil biology, increased our
carbon sequestration and improved our forage/crop quality. We have
confirmed these improvements with both anecdotal observation and
imperial scientific data.
Although the benefits of title II conservation programs are great
in number, the implementation of these programs could be improved. As
with most programs reliant on budgetary allocations, there are many
more dollars applied for than funding provisions. Focus needs to be
directed to allow for greater access to these programs and assistance
provided to ensure continuation of these conservation practices when
funding is not available. As producers see the physical and financial
benefits of conservation, they will be more prone to continuing
previously awarded practices. Barriers to greater adoption of these
programs and practices include: limited staffing at local NRCS service
centers, limited access to NRCS offices, excessive paperwork required
for application, capital cost requirement up-front, and program
requirements are too restrictive. For example, they do not account for
environmental conditions which may eliminate eligibility for producers
due to inability to comply with outlined timeframes, and the strict
verbiage does not account for newer dynamic regenerative agriculture
practices.
I have several recommendations that would assist in improving the
implementation and adoption of conservation programs/practices. Support
continued and increased funding allocation for title II conservation
programs, with a directed focus of continued outreach post producer
funding award to encourage the continuation of conservation practices.
For example, after a program award providing the technical assistance
to assist the producer in understanding both the environmental and
financial benefits from the awarded program. This along with additional
support to give confidence to the producers to continue conservation
efforts b[e]yond program award, once operational benefits can be
identified. Conversion of the current NRCS brick and mortar paper
application process, to a computer-based system. Understandable that
some efforts have been placed with the pandemic to do so, but as a
producer I continue to have to go in person to file crop reporting,
CFAP application, and the like. If each farmer had a web portal with
all of the farms associated to them, then could apply, file crop
reporting, yield data, etc., without the need for the infrastructure to
house the current paper system. Provide NRCS agents the tools,
technology, and flexibility to spend more time in the field with
producers. Revise program restrictions to allow for up-front program
payments to producers when awarded, currently many producers are
discouraged to apply due to the financial burden having to spend the
up-front capital costs to implement the program, in hopes for
reimbursement at a later date. Last, allow for more flexibility within
program guidelines to better reflect the changes in climate,
environmental events, and modern innovative regenerative agriculture
practices.
By working together through the implementation of conservation and
regenerative agriculture practices we can heal the soil that feeds the
plants, and in turn feeds all of us.
I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify.

The Chair. Thank you very much for your opening statement,
Mr. Isbell.
Ms. Ratcliff, please begin whenever you are ready.

STATEMENT OF KIMBERLY RATCLIFF, MANAGER/OWNER, CANEY CREEK
RANCH, OAKWOOD, TX

Ms. Ratcliff. Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member LaMalfa,
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
speak on behalf of Caney Creek Ranch.
After leaving a New York City financial information firm in
2007, I returned to Caney Creek Ranch, my family operation, in
Oakwood, a small town in central east Texas. Our family-owned
ranch was established in 2002 by my parents, Wesley and Marie
Ratcliff. I manage daily operations where we produce Charbray
cattle, from which bulls, replacement heifers, semen, embryos
are sold across the world.
Working with my father and brother, I am leading our family
business into the future, developing new line of businesses,
using best practices on the ranch to increase resilience and
efficiency, and strongly contributing to the success of our
entire community.
I am one of the founders of the 100 Ranchers, a community-
based organization supporting minority producers across the
country. It has introduced me to a number of producers who have
shared their personal stories about their journey into
agriculture and many important conservation lessons I have
learned.
A friend of mine, a third-generation rancher from North
Carolina, shared with me the importance of keeping forests as
forests and passing on this responsibility to future
generations. A friend of mine, a third-generation family,
started in 1916, where his grandfather purchased 38 acres for
$864. As he described, this was a great feat for a man but
particularly for an African American. Initially the focus was
to clear the land, but as the old saying goes, money does not
grow on trees. But today the story is different.
Organizations like Sustainable Forestry and African
American Land Retention Project, where I serve on the Prairie
View A&M local chapter board are working with small landowners
to introduce them to sustainable forestry as a tool to increase
family income and land value. This includes silvopasture, a
management system that integrates trees with forage and
livestock production. Silvopasture system optimized three
components: forage, livestock, and ecosystem. Trees are planted
into rows or cluster, or forests are thinned to provide
significant light for forage.
On our family operation, we incorporate existing forest
area to provide shade, timber, food for our livestock. The
carbon captured in the soil and the trees more than makes up
for the greenhouse gases ruminants emit through belches and
gas. The silvopasture system increases our production of meat
and milk in part because the shade of the trees reduces stress
on the livestock.
The trees also provide a haven for wildlife habitat. The
additional trees have brought about an increase in the number
of quail, deer, turkey that inhabit our farm. The trees also
act as a buffer, preventing harmful nutrients from entering the
nearby water source.
We also practice rotational grazing, allowing our pastures
to rest and recover and soil health to improve.
We were introduced to many conservation plans, including
rotational grazing, when we started working with USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service. We learned how to improve the
efficiency of our pasture, about cross-fencing, and about
programs after working with NRCS to develop a conservation
plan.
Conservation plan is free. It is often the introduction to
NRCS cost-sharing programs like EQIP, Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, like Conservation Stewardship Program,
Conservation Reserve Program. These programs support voluntary
conservation efforts with landowners in the United States,
helping direct owners to practice benefits of environment.
Unfortunately, participation rate of conservation plans and
cost-sharing programs are low among small landowners. Minority
landowners have even lower rates of participation, have fewer
acres enrolled, are less likely to afford cost-share
requirements, and less satisfied with the program.
To close this gap, there needs to be a new approach to
encourage program participation by small landowners in general
but especially minority landowners. Peer-to-peer education
about proper management is essential to achieve conservation
goals. This is why it is important to support organizations
like the Texas Agriculture Life, the Texas Agricultural Land
Trust, the National Grazing Lands Coalition, and the
Sustainable Forestry and African American Land Retention
Project to provide resources and technical support to producers
on the ground.
While there are a number of wonderful programs in NRCS, it
is important for us to remember our work is not complete. For
the past 60 years, agriculture industry admittedly focused on
treating climate symptoms with practices and inputs rather than
addressing the problem with science-based holistic principles.
Innovative producers today understand that we do not solve
ecological problems by implementing old practices. Rather we
implement best practices that we know work based on science and
explore new ways of working. It begins with maintaining a solid
foundation with the healthy soil that helps money grow on
trees.
We need investment in capital to engage in best practices.
We need education. We need access to market. We need
partnerships to ensure that we all benefit from opportunities
for my industry, specifically minority producers to address
climate change, to ensure food security and diversity of our
networks of producers.
I appreciate you allowing me to submit this here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ratcliff follows:]

Prepared Statement of Kimberly Ratcliff, Manager/Owner, Caney Creek
Ranch, Oakwood, TX
Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member LaMalfa, Members of the Committee,
thank you for this opportunity to submit a written statement on behalf
of the Caney Creek Ranch.
After leaving a New York City financial information firm in 2007, I
joined Caney Creek Ranch to create a generational family business
operation. Caney Creek Ranch is located in Oakwood, a small town in
central east Texas. Our family-owned ranch was established in 2002 by
my parents Wesley and Marie Ratcliff. I manage daily operations of our
family business producing Charbray cattle, from which bulls,
replacement heifers, semen and embryos are sold nationally and
internationally. Working with my father and brothers, I am leading our
family business into the future--developing new lines of business,
instituting best practices on the ranch for resilience and efficiency,
and strongly contributing to the success of our entire community.
Having witnessed my own family's journey establishing a new ranch,
I understand the challenges facing new farmers and ranchers. I am
passionate about supporting these groups, particularly minority
producers like me. That's why I am engaged in 100 Ranchers. Established
in 2008, The 100 Ranchers is a community-based organization for
Minority Producers with members from across the country whose primary
mission is to unite production agriculture producers to increase their
livelihood by strengthening their capacity to produce safe, clean and
marketable products.
My experience with 100 Ranchers has introduced me to a number of
individuals who have shared their personal stories about their journey
into agriculture and many important conservation lessons that I have
implemented into my own practices. A friend of mine, a third generation
rancher from North Carolina shares with me the importance of keeping
forests as forests and passing on this responsibility to future
generations. His story, like so many others, connects the dots between
forests, sustainable management, and the economic and environmental
benefits that come with being a responsible steward of the land.
His family's story starts in 1916 when his grandfather purchased 38
acres of land for $864. As he describes, ``This was a great feat for
any man at the time, but particularly so for an African American.''
Initially, the focus was on clearing the land for agriculture--as the
old saying goes, ``Money doesn't grow on trees''.
But today, the story is different. Organizations like the
Sustainable Forestry & African American Land Retention Project (SFLR)
where I serve on the Prairie View A&M University local chapter board
are working with small landowners to introduce them to sustainable
forestry as a tool to increase family income and land value, with a
broader goal of providing future generations with a better quality of
life through pasture and forestland ownership and retention.
Silvopasture is integrates trees with forage and livestock
production. The goal of a Silvopasture system is to optimize production
of three components: forage, livestock and ecosystems. A Silvopasture
operation can enhance soil protection and increase long-term income
with the simultaneous production of trees and grazing animals. For
Silvopasture, trees are planted or thinned to provide sufficient light
for good forage production. Grouping trees into rows or clusters
concentrates their shade and root effects while providing open spaces
for pasture production.
The Roque Family, a member of the 100 Ranchers and descendants of
African slave received more than 660 acres of land through a land grant
and established multiple farming operations. They currently operate 600
native pecan trees and feed over 500 calves on the pasture between the
pecan trees. For decades, the Roque Family's pecan orchard has provided
double source of income from the same parcel of land (pecans + beef),
improved soil health, improves water quality, reduces erosion, and has
had a greater carbon storage than traditional pasture systems.
On our family operation, we incorporated existing forest area to
provide shade, timber and food for our livestock. The carbon captured
in soil and trees more than makes up for the greenhouse gases that
ruminants emit through belches and gas. The Silvopasture systems
increased our production of meat and milk, in part because the shade
from the trees reduces stress on livestock. The trees also provide a
haven for wildlife habitat. The addition of trees has brought about an
increase in the number of quail, deer and turkey that inhabit at the
farm. The trees also act as buffers, preventing harmful nutrients from
entering a nearby water sources. By implementing a Silvopasture system
we are less likely to raise environmental concerns related to water
quality, odors, dust, noise, disease problems and animal treatment.
Our family operation stands by a long-term stewardship plan of
maintaining and enhancing the quality of our resources by using them in
a way that allow them to regenerate for the future. We concentrate on
creating a system that rely more on the cycling of nutrients to support
our production agriculture with fewer potentially toxic interventions.
The prioritization is caring for the soil, because we recognize that a
healthy soil promotes healthy crops and livestock. The buildup our soil
organic matter help ease the increase of atmospheric CO2 and
therefore climate change.
Our soil management system evaluates the nutritional and forage
needs of our cattle, and shifts livestock to a different paddock on a
regular sequence to allow recovery and growth of the pasture plants
after grazing. This management system is called rotational grazing.
At the very beginning of our operation, we were introduced to
rotational grazing when we started working with the local USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service office on developing a conservation plan.
We learned how to improve efficiency of our pastures and about cross-
fencing to support rotational grazing practices. Since implementing
rotational grazing, we have improved the grass structure, the
production of the grass, and the production and the performance of the
cattle.
The NRCS also supported our family as we developed a conservation
plan. A conservation plan is a document that lays out the steps for how
an agricultural landowner will implement specific conservation
practices on their land. This document is important tool for
understanding the soil, water, air, plant and animal resources on your
property and the resources available to you to improve these conditions
through the NRCS. Unfortunately, participation rates are low among
small landowners. Minority landowners have even lower rates of
participation, have fewer acres enrolled, are less likely to be able to
afford cost-share requirements, and are less satisfied with programs.
To close this gap, there needs be a new approach to encouraging program
participation by small landowners in general and by minority landowners
in particular.
Peer-to-peer education about proper management is critical in
working with ranchers to achieve conservation goals. This is why it is
important to support organizations like the Texas Agriculture Land
Trust, the National Grazing Lands Coalition, and the Sustainable
Forestry & African American Land Retention Project that provide
resources and technical support to producers on the ground.
Part of the Solution to Climate Change
Grazing lands are one of America's greatest natural resources. They
provide the nation and the world with a secure food supply, renewable
energy, improved water quality and availability, productive plants that
sequester carbon, robust wildlife habitat, and healthy soils, serve as
the foundation for our country's farming and ranching families and
contribute to food security for our nation and the world. Grazing lands
contribute billions annually to the U.S. economy by supporting an
estimated 60 million head of cattle. To sustain agricultural
production, grazing lands must be conserved and properly managed to
produce robust, resilient stands of grasses and forage. All of this
starts below our feet with ``soil health,'' the foundation of our
operations.
The natural biological processes of grazing by roaming herds and
periodic fire that created the natural grazing lands are no longer at
work. A decade-long drought, and poor management practices contributed
to the great Dust Bowl of the 1930s. This disaster brought about the
birth of land conservation and the Conservation Act of 1935, which
created the Soil Conservation Service, now the NRCS. Notwithstanding,
in the 1950s the Green Revolution took hold, and great advancements
were made in agricultural technology, including the development of
commodity and forage crops that responded well to fertilizer, advanced
farm machinery and other technological advancements that expedited crop
production with less need for labor.
In the years that followed, the agricultural industry operated on
cheap feed, cheap fertilizer and cheap fuel. Our industry and our
research during that time focused on the chemical and physical
characteristics of soils with little to no consideration of biological
interactions within the soil.
In recent years, however, prices for feed, fertilizer and fuel have
increased to a point that has become unsustainable for many operations.
Many producers have had to make a choice: continue doing what they have
always done or working with nature to find a new way to farm and ranch.
Born out of equal parts necessity and frustration, producers began to
experiment with farming and ranching techniques that limited the use of
inorganic fertilizer, fuel and feed.
They began to see that limiting or eliminating tillage reduced
their fuel bill, using the ageless practice of ``cover crops'' to keep
their fields covered provided numerous benefits to the soil (i.e.,
preventing erosion, increasing water holding capacity and increasing
biodiversity), converting marginal soils to perennial pasture land to
eliminate tillage and minimize erosion, and through managed rotational
grazing the pastoral lands improved in composition and production due
to the recovery allowed between grazing events.
In essence, they built a foundation of principles that many
producers follow today to manage healthy soils and restore deteriorated
soils. These soil health management principles were set forth to
achieve specific goals that are inherent to all soils. They are based
on mimicking highly diverse, heterogeneous, native grazing land plant
communities by harnessing the power of biologic interactions between
plants, soil microbes, fungi and other of life in our soils. These
principles build soil aggregation, which further builds soil structure.
These principles have proven the path forward for many innovative
producers and substantiated that the conventional farming and ranching
practices of the last 6 decades are not the only way to succeed.
Climate-Smart Agriculture
Since producers are often the most vulnerable to the effects of
climate change, working with them to build ``climate resilience'' is
critically important for global food security. Working with producers
to advance agricultural methods that boost their productivity and
decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. These ``climate-smart'' techniques
also increase resilience against droughts, torrential rains, and
changing growing seasons. Climate-smart agriculture is not a new form
of agriculture. It's a holistic system that identifies the risks posed
by climate change and the best practices to address those challenges.
These strategies begin at our feet. Soil is among our greatest
resource to combat climate change, serving as a bank to draw carbon
deep within. Proper grazing management through livestock production can
accelerate this.
Developing a proper grazing plan that provides an effective
mechanism for implementing the soil health principles and the natural
laws of grazing management is essential for sustainable grazing
operations. A well-designed and well-managed grazing plan results in
healthy soils and grasses, proper nutrition for grazing animals, and
greater livestock production at a lower cost. This is achieved by
managing stocking rate, livestock rotation, utilization rate and plant
rest and recovery in unison.
Livestock producers must actively manage their stocking rate, or
the number of animals on a given area of land over a certain period, by
measuring available forage. It is important that the stocking rate
match the available production and be used optimally. Improper stocking
of grazing lands leads to over-grazing or under-grazing, neither of
which provides favorable outcomes. Over-grazing for extended periods of
time leads to the degradation of the grazing land and an overall
reduction in pasture productivity, soil health and livestock
production. Determining a proper stocking rate is essential for proper
grazing management and requires balancing the animal numbers with
available grass and forage production.
Livestock are selective grazers, and left unmanaged they tend to
disproportionally graze more-productive plants over less-productive
plants. Livestock also prefer the fresh regrowth over mature leaves.
That is why is important for producers to consider where to graze, when
to graze, how long to graze, and how long to allow a grazed area to
rest and recover. The purpose of a grazing rotation is to manage the
impact of grazing on the grazing land while maintaining or improving
livestock production. A good grazing management practice is ``take half
and leave half.'' Conceptually, this means graze the top half of the
leaves and leave the rest to allow for rapid recovery and regrowth.
After being grazed, plants need an adequate recovery period. The
more severe the grazing intensity, the longer it takes for the plants
to fully recover. Soil moisture and seasonal temperatures also affect
the rest and recovery period. In favorable moisture conditions, the
recovery period is shorter than in low moisture conditions. As moisture
becomes more limiting, longer rest and recovery periods are required.
It is important to determine the recovery period based on the key
species in the grazing land being managed. In a native grass pasture,
the key species are those more productive, more palatable species that
have a longer recovery period than the less desirable species.
Introduced pastures usually have a shorter recovery period than the
native prairies and have to be managed differently for optimum results.
Well-managed rest and recovery periods increase pasture production and
offer greater potential for livestock production.
To achieve these outcomes, producers should consider the following:
1. Have a Plan
You need to know where you are to know where you're going. A sound
management plans allow producers to be better poised to increase their
food output, combat food insecurity, run more efficiently, save money,
and reduce their climate impact. Reaching out to your local Natural
Resource[s] Conservation Office for assistance in creating a baseline
assessment which will provide farm managers a clear picture of how the
farm operates, and how it can run more efficiently while producing more
food. Running more efficiently means reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Producing more food with land already in use means reduced need for
fresh farmland, cleared from forests. Meanwhile, farms also keep close
track of weather and farm data, which can help them predict patterns
and plan more effectively.
2. Water Conservation
Access to water resources is vital to any operation. Since
agriculture consumes roughly 70 percent of the world's freshwater,
water conservation is urgent and necessary in areas where water is
becoming increasingly scarce. Climate-smart agriculture promotes a
number of water conservation practices, such as planting a buffer of
trees and bushes along streams and rivers to prevent erosion and
contamination from crop runoff.
3. Save the Soil!
Not only does fertile soil impart better flavor and higher
nutritional value to food, soil is one of the biggest carbon sinks on
the planet. Tending to the soil increases the amount of greenhouse
gasses sequestered, and leads to healthier plants with higher yields.
Healthy soil holds more moisture, keeping plant roots hydrated in dry
periods. Soil conservation methods such as contour planting or no-till
farming reduce erosion, keeping the soil in place during heavy rains or
floods--a major concern in certain parts of the Unites States. All of
this equates to higher climate resilience for farms, and better soil
for years down the road.
4. More Trees
Farmers using climate-smart practices understand that trees do a
lot on farms: they can act as windbreaks, reduce soil erosion; enrich
soil; filter water that results in higher water quality; shade and
forage for livestock; habitat for wildlife and wildlife corridors; and
suck up and store greenhouse gasses--the list of benefits goes on and
on. Approximately 80 percent of deforestation is caused by agricultural
expansion, and that conversion from forest to cropland produces a
significant amount greenhouse gas emissions. But farmers who utilize
climate-smart agriculture practices have lesser need to expand their
farms--higher yields negate the need to clear forest, and keeps those
greenhouse gases sequestered in the forest.
Conclusion
Money can in fact grow on trees. A collective action of
governments, non-governmental organizations, businesses, families, and
individuals worldwide need to collaborate to accelerate nature-based
solutions and conserve, restore and grow trees. Working together and
integrating systems like Silvopasture, we can support environmentally
friendly and economically viable ranching operations. However, we must
ensure that producers have access to the resources they need to be
successful.
Because silvopasture takes advantage of underutilized ecosystems,
it has the ability to create the most inclusive forest movement ever.
Our efforts can support agricultural producers who have often been over
looked, helping under-resourced family forest and landowners use
sustainable forestry to increase family wealth and to build a legacy.
But this movement does more. It supports conservation, and our quest to
combat some of the greatest challenges facing our planet. These
Silvopastures deliver benefits shared by all, such as purifying our air
and water, conserving wildlife habitat, producing sustainable wood
products, and sequestering carbon to mitigate climate change. Forests
are an essential part of the solution to tackle climate change and
biodiversity collapse, as well as important for jobs and sustainable
livelihoods.
It's also important for us to remember our work is not complete.
For much of the past sixty years, the agriculture industry admittedly
focused on treating climate symptoms with practices and inputs rather
than addressing the problem with science-based, holistic principles.
Innovative producers today understand that we do not solve ecological
problems by implementing old practices, rather, we implement best
practices that we know work based on science, and explore new ways of
working. We can and are addressing ecological degradation by following
principles that rebuild ecological processes and habitat from the
ground up rather than focusing on specific singular species or
management practices.
It all begins with maintaining a solid foundation with healthy soil
as the cornerstone to any agricultural enterprise.
We need investment in capital to engage in best practices,
education, access to markets, and partnerships to ensure that we all
benefit from the opportunities for our industry and specifically
minority producers to address climate change, ensure food security, and
diversify the network of producers.

The Chair. Thank you so much very, Ms. Ratcliff, for your
testimony today.
And, Dr. Paustian, please begin whenever you are ready.

STATEMENT OF KEITH H. PAUSTIAN, Ph.D., DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF SOIL AND CROP SCIENCE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY;
SENIOR RESEARCH
SCIENTIST, NATURAL RESOURCE ECOLOGY LABORATORY, CSU

Dr. Paustian. Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member LaMalfa, and
Committee Members, my name is Dr. Keith Paustian. I am a
Professor at Colorado State University. I do research and
teaching on soils, agriculture, and climate. Thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to speak at your hearing today.
Agriculture, both in the U.S. and globally, is facing
several challenges, while being called upon to deliver more and
more products and services to an increasing global population.
Agriculture is a significant source of greenhouse gases,
accounting for about ten percent of total U.S. emissions and 14
percent of global emissions. However, agricultural soils can
also be a carbon sink, removing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere and converting it to soil or organic matter that
improves soil fertility and soil health.
The key determinants for sequestering carbon and improving
soil health are the agronomic practices employed by the farmer.
Past management practices have over time significantly depleted
soil carbon stocks on our agriculture lands. However, we can
reverse much of these historic losses by adopting a variety of
conservation practices, including reduced- and no-tillage cover
crops, more diverse crop rotation, and other practices.
In addition to sequestering carbon, many of these practices
help to tighten up nutrient cycles, reducing nutrient losses
that contaminate ground and surface waters. Also soils rich in
organic matter are more resilient to flooding and drought
conditions.
So, while these agricultural practices, these conservation
practices have seen increased use, there is massive room for
additional adoption. For example, cover crops are currently
planted on about less than five percent of our annual cropland.
USDA programs, such as EQIP, Conservation Stewardship Program,
and others have been key to encouraging producers to adopt
conservation practices across the country. Although many of
these practices can pay for themselves in the long run by
improving soil function and crop yields, there are numerous
barriers to adoption. Farming is inherently risky, and farmers
tend to be risk averse. Thus, the support payments and
technical assistance from USDA help to mitigate risks while
farmers transition to these new practices.
My research team at Colorado State University has been
involved with USDA over the past 12 years in developing the
COMET-Farm system. COMET-Farm is an online tool that is used to
evaluate different conservation practices that can increase
carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions on an
individual farm or ranch. The tool is available. It is free. It
is on the internet. The tool implements USDA's Entity-Scale
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methods, which were developed by top
experts from government, academia, and industry. COMET-Farm
currently has thousands of users, including Federal agencies,
state governments, NGOs, companies, as well as individual
farmers and ranchers.
To bring about transformative changes on our nation's
agriculture lands will also require increased participation
from the private-sector. Over the past couple of years, there
has been growing interest from major companies towards
investing in carbon drawdown approaches to help meet corporate
sustainability goals. To increase the willingness of the
private-sector to invest in soil carbon solutions and also to
design optimal public policy, we need to improve our abilities
to cost-effectively measure and monitor carbon sequestration.
While we have many excellent field experiments, as well as
highly capable tools such as COMET-Farm, there are a number of
R&D initiatives that could significantly improve our
capabilities. A number of these priorities have been documented
in a 2019 study by the National Academy of Sciences.
One is the need for a national system of on-farm
measurements of soil carbon stock changes. The National
Resources Inventory System currently managed by USDA would be
an ideal platform to supplement with some on-the-ground soil
measurements. Our Forest Inventory System provides this type of
information on biomass carbon stocks. We need something similar
for our soils. We also need additional capabilities for
performance testing of new technologies, such as new crop
varieties, new soil amendments, new regenerative conservation
practices.
Finally, there is a growing scientific consensus that
improved quantification systems can be achieved by more fully
integrating ground-based measurements and monitoring networks,
remote sensing, and dynamic models.
In summary, USDA title II programs have been instrumental
in promoting the adoption of conservation practices that yield
significant climate benefits, as well as healthier soils and
ecosystems. Good tools exist to expand and advance policies to
promote climate-smart agriculture. Further improvements in
quantification technologies can help increase engagement by the
private-sector to take these improved practices to scale.
Thank you, and I will be happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Paustian follows:]

Prepared Statement of Keith H. Paustian, Ph.D., Distinguished
Professor, Department of Soil and Crop Science, Colorado State
University; Senior Research Scientist, Natural Resource Ecology
Laboratory, CSU
Chair Spanberger and Ranking Member LaMalfa, my name is Dr. Keith
Paustian; I'm a Professor at Colorado State University, Department of
Soil and Crop Sciences. I do research and teaching on soil ecology and
biogeochemistry related to agriculture and climate. Thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to speak at your hearing today.
Agriculture, both in the U.S. and globally, is facing several
challenges, while being called upon to deliver more and more products
and services to an increasing global population. Agriculture is a
significant source of GHGs, accounting for about 10% of total U.S.
emissions \1\ and 14% of global emissions.\2\ However, agricultural
soils can also be a carbon sink, removing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere and converting it into soil organic matter that improves
soil fertility and soil health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-
emissions.
\2\ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key determinants for reducing soil GHG emissions, sequestering
carbon and improving soil health are the agronomic practices employed
by the farmer. Many so-called conventional practices--including use of
continuous annual crops, heavy tillage, extended bare-fallow periods
and cultivation of marginal lands--have, over time, significantly
depleted soil carbon stocks. However, we can reverse much of those
historic carbon losses by adopting a variety of conservation practices
including reduced- and no-tillage, cover crops, more diverse crop
rotations, field buffers, agroforestry, and other practices.\3\ These
management practices lead to more carbon dioxide being taken up by
plants and converted to organic matter stored in the soil and with less
soil disturbance, which also helps to maintain more of that added
organic matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Paustian, K., J. Lehmann, S. Ogle, D. Reay, G.P. Robertson & P.
Smith. 2016. Climate smart soils. Nature 532: 49-57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to sequestering carbon, many of these practices help to
``tighten'' nutrient cycles, reducing leaching losses that contaminate
ground and surface waters and reducing emissions of nitrous oxide--
another GHG--from soils. In addition, soils rich in organic matter are
also more resilient to both flooding and drought conditions, which
reduces yield loss due to extreme climate events.
While these conservation management practices are seeing increasing
use in the U.S., there's massive room for additional adoption--for
example, cover crops are still only planted on less than 5% of our
annual cropland. USDA conservation programs such as EQIP, the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) and others have been key to introducing appropriate
conservation practices to producers across the country and to encourage
adoption through cost-sharing, direct payments and technical
assistance. Although many conservation practices can pay for themselves
in the long run by improving soil function and yield stability, there
are numerous barriers to adoption. Farming is inherently risky and
farmers tend to be risk averse. Thus, the support payments and
technical training and outreach from these USDA programs help to
mitigate risk while farmers transition to these new practices.
One of the activities that my research team at Colorado State
University has been involved in with USDA over the past 12 years has
been the development of the COMET-Farm system. COMET-Farm \4\ is an on-
line tool that farmers, ranchers, crop consultants, NRCS field staff
and others can use to do a full carbon and GHG inventory of their
operation and explore implementing different conservation management
practices to estimate how much they could increase carbon sequestration
and reduce other greenhouse gas emissions. The tool is free and
available for any one that has an internet connection. The tool
implements USDA's Entity Scale Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methods which
were developed by top experts from government, academia and industry,
overseen by USDA's Office of Energy and Environmental Policy and first
published in 2014.\5\ We've also developed a related tool called COMET-
Planner \6\ that gives a quick overview at the regional scale of the
impacts of implementing NRCS-prescribed conservation practices on
carbon sequestration and GHG reductions. The COMET tools are currently
being used by 10s of thousands of users, including Federal agencies,
state governments, NGOs, companies, consultants, extension personnel,
students, as well as individual farmers and ranchers (see attached
Appendix A of current COMET users.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://comet-farm.com/.
\5\ https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
USDATB1939_07072014.pdf.
\6\ http://comet-planner.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To bring about truly transformative changes on the nation's
agricultural lands will require continued support from Federal and
state governments but also increased participation and investment from
the private-sector. Over the past couple of years there's been growing
interest from major companies towards investing in carbon drawdown
approaches, including soil carbon sequestration, to help meet corporate
carbon neutrality and sustainability goals. In addition, many
agriculturally-related industries are striving to develop low carbon
food and fiber products.
To increase the confidence and willingness of the private-sector to
invest in soil carbon solutions, and to design optimal public policy,
we need to improve our abilities to cost-effectively measure and
monitor carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reduction in the
agricultural sector and reduce uncertainties in our estimates. While we
have many excellent long-term field experiments documenting the
performance of conservation practices, as well as highly capable models
and tools such as COMET-Farm, there are a number of research and
development initiatives that could significantly improve our
capabilities. A number of these R&D priorities have been documented in
a 2019 study by the National Academy of Sciences \7\ on so-called
negative emission technologies, including soil carbon sequestration. I
will just mention a couple of them here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/developing-a-
research-agenda-for-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One is the need for a national system for on-farm measurements of
soil carbon stock changes over time. The National Resources Inventory
(NRI) system is managed by USDA and provides a statistical sampling of
farms that tell us what management practices (such as crop rotations,
irrigation, fertilizer use, etc.) are being used but there are no on-
the-ground measurements of, for example, soil carbon stocks. If USDA
chose a few thousand NRI points on which to measure soil C stocks every
7-8 years, we would be able to build up a record of soil C stocks
changes over time. Our forest inventory system provides this type of
information on biomass C changes; we need something similar for our
soils.
We also need capabilities for field performance testing of new
technologies, such as new crop varieties, new soil amendments and new
practices that aren't currently included in long-term field
experiments. Typically assessing the impact of new practices or crop
types on soil carbon sequestration can take a decade or more; we need
systems to assess capabilities of new technologies much more rapidly.
Finally, there's a growing scientific consensus that improved
quantification systems can be achieved by more fully integrating
multiple data sources, including ground-based measurements and
monitoring networks, remote sensing, crowd-sourced data on management
activities and dynamic models.\8\ Further R&D investments in developing
an integrated soils information system can yield major improvements in
the next few years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Paustian, K., et al. 2019. Quantifying carbon for agricultural
soil management: from the current status toward a global soil
information system. Carbon Management 10: 567-587.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, USDA title II programs have been instrumental in
promoting the adoption of conservation practices that can yield
significant climate benefits along with promoting healthier soils and
ecosystems. Good tools exist now to advance and expand policies to
promote climate-smart agriculture. Further improvements in
quantification technologies can help increase engagement by the
private-sector to take these improved agricultural conservation
practices to scale.
Thank you. I'll be happy to take any questions.
Appendix A. Report to USDA/NRCS, March 2021, Summary of COMET-Farm and
COMET-Planner Users

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

COMET-Tools Outreach Report
03/12/2021

COMET-Farm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Total Users Annual Sessions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 3,769
2016 140 4,201
2017 407 2,497
2018 777 3,273
2019 901 2,500
2020 4,181 12,342
2021 * 1,345 3,111
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As of 3/12/2021.

COMET-Planner
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Total Sessions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 4,582
2017 7,985
2018 10,029
2019 8,564
2020 5,626
2021 * ** 679
Lifetime 37,460
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As of 3/12/2021.
** Excluding an anomaly of 1,121 users on 2/1/2021.

User Support via Help Desk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solution
Year Sessions People Hours Article
Views
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 37 54 35.2 --
2017 26 40 21.7 --
2018 38 26 11.5 --
2019 74 104 67.8 --
2020 377 398 321.5 413
2021 * 92 59 16 284
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As of 3/12/2021.

YouTube Training Video Views
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Video Views
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessing Animal Ag (Dairy) 170
Using Shape Files in COMET-Farm 107
Assessing Agroforestry 123
Assessing Croplands 449
Assessing Croplands (Rice) 89
Assessing Forestry 96
Introduction to COMET-Energy 131
COMET-Planner video (2015) 2,250
COMET-Planner video (2017) 1,157
New Drag and Drop Feature 46
COMET-Farm & COMET-Planner Introduction *New Channel* 136
Creating a COMET-Farm Account *New Channel* 27
Navigating COMET-Farm *New Channel* 29
Carbon Farm Planning Using COMET-Farm 231
New Animal Ag Accounting (flexible baseline, defining 19
herds, herd copy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outreach to Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal, State, Regional and Local Government
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA Agricultural Research Service State of Hawaii
USDA Farm Services Agency San Miguel County, Colorado
California Department of Food and Boulder County, Colorado City of
Agriculture Boulder, Colorado LaPlata County,
Colorado
California Air Resources Board Summit County, Utah Johnson County,
Resource KS
Conservation Districts throughout Sierra Resource Conservation
California District
WHATCOM Conservation District, NRCS--Annapolis, MD; Walhalla, SC;
Washington State McMinnville, OR; Washington, D.C.;
Wilkin Soil and Water Conservation Connecticut; Madison, WI;
District, Minnesota Columbia, MO;
Colorado Energy Office
Department of Agriculture, Forestry Boulder County (Colorado) Parks and
& Fisheries (S. Africa) Open Space
California Air Resources Board Alameda County Resource
New Mexico Department of Conservation District
Agriculture
Indiana Department of Agriculture Tualatin Soil and Water
Conservation District
Wisconsin Land + Water Napa Resource Conservation District
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher Education
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado State University University of Northern Colorado
Bard College University of Wyoming
North Dakota State University University of Hawaii
University of Maryland University of Vermont
Western Colorado University Oklahoma State University
University of Guelph Yale University
Rutgers University Northern Arizona University
Georgia Institute of Technology University of California Composting
Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College-- Education Program
North Dakota
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NGO's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Marin Carbon Project Sunflower City
Environmental Defense Fund Carbon Cycle Institute
The Nature Conservancy Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Climate Action Reserve American Farmland Trust
Verra (formerly Verified Carbon American Carbon Registry
Standard--VCS) Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy
Solano Land Trust Colorado Carbon Fund
The Pinhead Institute Ducks Unlimited
Sustainable Tompkins Soil Health Institute
National Corn Growers Soil Health Partnership
Straus Family Farm Project Together
Clear Frontier Ag Management Shelburne Farms
Fish Friendly Farming Energy District
Carbon 180 California Land Stewardship
Institute
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Industry Organizations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Farm Bureau California Almond Growers Rocky
Mountain Farmers Union Hawaii Agriculture Research Center
Australian Department of
Environment and Water
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben & Jerry's Pure Strategies
Fibershed & The North Face NORI Indigo
Ag Coca Cola Agrisoma
Unilever Monsanto
Strauss Dairy Stemple Creek Ranch
Native Energy Mad Agriculture
Cargrill NORI
Sustainable environmental Upstream
Consultants
Watershed Climate Nutrient
Indigo Agriculture Microsoft Azure
Logiag Boston Consulting Group
GD Associates PIF California
Anthesis Group SBC Global
Handsome Brook Farms Post Holdings
Land O' Lakes Wheat Sheaf Group
Blue Skye Simplot
First Earth Jackson Family Wines
Mondelez International Keystone Pacific/Wild Rose LLC
Lozensky Farms Active Renewals
Wheat Sheaf Group Gould Family Farms
Anuvia Agrocares
FoodTBS Solution TF
KWS Berlin GmbH Frontier Farmland
TeamAg Inc. Stonyfield Organic
Arcor Group Quivira Coalition
Polytechnique Montreal Heffernan Consulting, Inc. Home &
Caterpillar Farm Consulting
CiBO Technologies McKinsey & Company
SMARTFARM Casella Waste Systems
Hudson Carbon Pipestone Nutrition
Kloberdanz Consulting Growell Consulting
Locus Agriculture Solutions Sofies Environmental Consulting
McKinsey & Company Florida Crystal Corporation
Alltech--Quality Animal Nutrition, Philosopher's Farm
Health and Feed Supplements Blockware Technologies (Canada)
Levi's Indigenous Fruit Enterprises Soletrac Electric Tractors
Treasury Wine Estates Biome Makers
Team Ag Inc Royal Dairy
Mountain View Acres Farm & Orchard Ag Grow Tech
Kytech Consultant Hem Mills
Smart Farmer (Thailand) Net Zero Carbon Buildings
Frogs Leap Winery Pifer's Land Management
Triple Crown Consulting African Data Technologies
Carbon Credits Group Fresh Del Monte
Pekrul Engineering LandFund Partners
Sesenta (South Africa) Farmer's Business Network
Deveron Cedar Valley Farms
EMBRAPA (Brazil) Farmer's Edge
North Iowa Agronomy Partners Dari Gold
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haley Nagle,
Outreach and Education Specialist--COMET Tools
Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory,
Colorado State University.
Haley.nagle@colostate.edu

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

The Chair. Thank you, Dr. Paustian.
Mr. Johansson, please begin with your 5 minutes when you
are ready.

STATEMENT OF JAMIE JOHANSSON, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA FARM
BUREAU, SACRAMENTO, CA

Mr. Johansson. Thank you, Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member
LaMalfa, and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
I am Jamie Johansson, President of California Farm Bureau
and a first-generation olive and citrus farmer.
California's producers are all too familiar with changing
weather conditions. The current U.S. Drought Monitor reports
that over 97 percent of California is experiencing moderate to
exceptional drought, impacting over 34 million Californians.
We are also forecast to have above-normal fire potential
this year. California's wildfires are very personal to me. Not
only as President of an organization who has witnessed
countless stories of farmers' loss and frustration but also
because my family has been evacuated three times in the last 4
years due to wildfire. Sadly, there is no wildfire season in
California. The risk is now year-round, and it is immense.
Last year, the U.S. Forest Service stated in testimony they
would need $2 billion to $3 billion per year for treatments
required to get ahead of hazardous fuel levels. We urge the
Committee to include both forestry and grazing practices as
strategies to restore forest health and rangeland health and
increase fire resilience. We also ask that the Subcommittee
helps to ensure that sufficient disaster assistance programs,
such as the Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus, are made
available to producers.
Our producers are at the forefront of investment in
agricultural research and adopting practices that improve
productivity while enhancing sustainability. Conservation is
widespread in California agriculture. Our farmers and ranchers
have a proven track record of doing more with less. Practices
include water recharge, irrigation efficiency, energy
conservation, and investment in farm equipment with cleaner
emissions.
With so much already happening at the field level, it is
important to consider how new Federal policies and programs
will overlay with existing state climate programs and, most
importantly, grower-led initiatives.
Title II programs provide producers with additional ability
to adopt conservation practices while improving agricultural
production. We are appreciative of the improvements made to the
conservation title by this Committee in the last farm bill,
including enhanced flexibility of programs to meet producer
needs. EQIP is the most utilized program in California,
assisting producers with options and achieving greater
conservation goals. It is important that any changes to title
II do not walk back those flexibilities.
To help ensure climate benefits are adopted, NRCS can
consider prioritizing EQIP contracts that result in emission
reductions, increased carbon sequestration, and improved
climate resilience. Prioritization would still need to retain
flexibility for all crop types with sufficient levels of
financial and technical assistance.
California produces over 400 commodities with various
cropping systems and farm sizes. Practices will need to be
broad and outcome-based, emphasizing a list of options as
opposed to a prescriptive checklist. The nexus between a lack
of broadband in many agricultural areas and implementation
should also be considered.
We also urge the Committee to considered adding feed,
genetics, and nutrition management as eligible practices within
the Conservation Innovation Grant Program to provide additional
opportunities for farmers to test the newest technologies and
evaluate their impact within their operation. While trials
around feed additives and genetics are not explicitly excluded,
it is also not clear that they are included.
We are also very supportive of the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program, which offers producers the opportunity to
work collaboratively with NRCS and other conservation partners.
We supported the change in the 2018 Farm Bill that reconfigured
RCPP as a standalone program. And we are currently an RCPP
partner, working collaboratively on Tricolored Blackbird
nesting colonies with many of our dairy farms in the Central
Valley.
Regardless of programs or practice, financial and technical
assistance must be consistent, sustainable, and long-term, if
our expectations as producers are also long-term. We must also
consider the indirect pressure this may place on important CCC-
funded programs for California. These programs would include
programs like the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market
Development Program, the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program,
as well as livestock and other disaster programs.
California Farm Bureau supports producer participation in
voluntary climate-smart practices, that is, sequester carbon,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and build climate resilience.
While many have been incorporating climate-smart practices on
their operations for years, to further adoption of the on-farm
climate-smart climate practices, we must not only compensate
early adopters but also consider the economics of the farm and
assist those being expected to do more. Only in working
together can we achieve solutions that make agriculture more
climate resilient while remaining viable.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johansson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jamie Johansson, President, California Farm
Bureau, Sacramento, CA
Introduction
Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member LaMalfa, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
about the important topic of farm bill title II conservation programs
and exploring climate-smart agricultural practices.
My name is Jamie Johansson, President of the California Farm
Bureau. California Farm Bureau is California's largest farm
organization, representing over 31,000 members across 53 counties, that
contribute the largest agricultural economy of any state in the nation.
Our agricultural producers provide food, fiber and feed to our local
communities, the nation and foreign economies across the globe. Farm
Bureau strives to protect and improve the ability of farmers and
ranchers engaged in production agriculture to provide a reliable supply
of food and fiber through responsible stewardship of California's
resources. California Farm Bureau has long served as a leading
agriculture organization representing over 400 commodities with diverse
production practices and continues to work collaboratively with
stakeholders within our state and across the nation, including being a
general member of the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance (FACA).
In addition to serving as the California Farm Bureau President
since 2017, I am also a first-generation farmer. My family grows olives
and citrus fruit in Oroville, California and operates an olive oil
company, Lodestar Farms. I am also a co-founder of the Sierra Oro Farm
Trail Association and a former board member of the California Olive Oil
Council. Additionally, I also serve on the Board of Directors for
American Farm Bureau Federation.
General Comments
California's farmers, ranchers and foresters are all too familiar
with changing weather conditions including, but not limited to,
changing hydrological conditions that result in cyclic drought and
catastrophic wildfire seasons that are lengthening and burning more
intensely. In addition to the numerous market impacts brought on by the
COVID-19 pandemic, California producers have also grappled with burned
and smoke tainted crops, dead and injured livestock, and farming at
times in dangerous air quality conditions due to catastrophic wildfires
and extremely limited access to personal protective equipment.
As our producers look ahead to 2021, they are once again being met
by immense weather-related challenges. The most recent data provided by
the U.S. Drought Monitor reports that over 97% of California is
experiencing moderate (D1) to exceptional (D4) drought resulting in
over 34 million Californians experiencing drought. Precipitation totals
remain well below normal, and California's below-normal snowpack is
melting rapidly. Dry soils are expected to reduce runoff and vegetation
is already showing signs of stress. A warmer than normal summer is also
forecasted meaning that there will be significant, above normal fire
potential for many areas in our state starting in July and continuing
through the summer and into the fall.
Wildfire & Forest Management
California's wildfires are very personal to me; not only as the
President of an organization who has heard countless stories of loss
and frustration from my members but also because my employees and my
family have been evacuees three times due to wildfire. Sadly, there is
no fire season in California anymore; the risk is now year-round.
Destructive mega-fires do not discriminate what or where they burn and
the impacts on our water, energy, environment, and economy are being
consistently felt, both in rural and urban areas. This makes it
critically important that Federal, state and private forest and
rangeland stakeholders across ownership types, including grazing
permittees, be included in emerging climate policy discussions.
Additionally, there are many forest management policies designed
with preservation, rather than active management and multiple-use
approaches in mind. This has resulted in restrictive and inflexible
parameters that hinder improving current conditions on our forestlands
despite drought, pest infestation, and backlog from underfunded
management programs that lack adequate resources to realistically
address the catastrophic wildfire risk we now face. During testimony
last year, the U.S. Forest Service indicated that they would need $2-$3
billion per year to treat the number of acres required to increase the
pace and scale of forest management and get ahead of fuel levels
exacerbating wildfire across the National Forest System.
Healthy forests provide an abundant source of clean water, clean
air, wildlife habitat and unsurpassed recreational opportunities. It is
estimated that California's forests store and filter more than 60% of
the state's water supply and store massive amounts of carbon, assisting
in our efforts to combat climate change. For these reasons, it is
imperative that forest management strategies and adequate funding that
significantly increase efforts to improve forest health and resilience
are part of the climate conversation. This includes, but is not limited
to, focusing attention on both forestry and grazing practices that can
help restore forest and rangeland health, increasing our resilience to
fire, and reducing fuel load on our National Forests. We must also
direct resources toward reforesting the vast areas that have been
harmed by recent fires.
We would also ask that the Subcommittee consider the immense impact
of wildfire on agricultural producers due to the onset of a changing
climate, by ensuring that sufficient disaster assistance, such as the
Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus (WHIP+), is made
available to agricultural producers who experience production losses
caused by wildfire. Additionally, we urge USDA to consider making
grants available to rural communities and producers to replace
equipment, infrastructure and fencing damaged due to wildfire.
Climate-Smart Agriculture & Forestry Practices
Because agriculture provides society with numerous benefits
including, but not limited to, food security, environmental benefits
and community stability, California Farm Bureau believes it is
critically important that we consider the economics of the farm when
considering new climate policies. Only in working together can we
achieve climate solutions that not only make agriculture more
resilient, but our country stronger because competitiveness and
productivity are not hampered.
California's farmers, ranchers and foresters are at the forefront
of promoting soil health, utilizing water resources efficiently,
enhancing wildlife on working lands, efficiently applying nutrients and
caring for their animals. Through investment in agricultural research
and adopting practices that improve productivity while enhancing
sustainability, California's producers have a proven history of
innovation. Conservation is widespread in California agriculture. Our
farmers and ranchers have been managing soil health and conserving
natural resources for generations and have a proven track record of
doing more with less.
Examples of this include applying precision agricultural practices
focused on methods that keep our soil, water and air quality as
sustainable and healthy as possible. Strategies include water recharge,
irrigation efficiency, energy conservation, energy production and
investing in farm equipment with cleaner emissions. Depending on the
operation, some farmers have also found that diversifying their
operation helps make certain that their soil never fatigues. They work
with a variety of different crops on the same ranch that are designed
to work together. This can help stop soil erosion while keeping the
ground fertile. Crop diversification can also help the producer remain
economically secure because no single crop makes up most of their
income.
Title II Conservation Programs in California
Title II, the conservation title of the farm bill, incorporates
several voluntary conservation initiatives that provides California
farmers, ranchers and foresters with additional ability to adopt
numerous conservation practices while improving agricultural
production. California's producers utilize the tools included in title
II to help maintain the quality of their operations while also
stewarding the environment around them. The conservation title of the
2018 Farm Bill makes up 7% of the bill's total projected mandatory
spending over 10 years ($60 billion of the total $867 billion). Within
title II, we urge the Subcommittee to focus on the working lands
portion of theconservation title.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
We are very appreciative of the many improvements that were made by
this Committee in the conservation title of the last farm bill. Of the
conservation title programs, the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) is by far the most utilized program in California
assisting producers in achieving greater conservation goals. We
particularly thank you for including funding for air quality
incentives, which has been incredibly important to farmers in
California who face strict air standards. EQIP has assisted farmers in
making great strides in the areas of air quality and water conservation
and we believe additional opportunities exist.
The 2018 Farm Bill also focused on enhancing the flexibility of
conservation programs to meet producer needs and it is important that
any changes to title II do not walk back those flexibilities.
California producers largely turn to the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) because of its flexibility and wide array of
uses. For this reason, California Farm Bureau was extremely supportive
of the 2018 Farm Bill's expansion and reauthorization of EQIP with
increased funding levels.
In 2020, California had 1,473 active and completed EQIP contracts
over nearly 408,000 treated acres of land. EQIP assists producers with
making beneficial, cost-effective changes to production systems,
including, but not limited to, addressing resource concerns related to
organic production grazing management, fuels management, forest
management, crop and livestock nutrient management, pest management,
irrigation management, adaption and mitigation to increasing weather
volatility, and drought resiliency measures.
To help ensure climate benefits are adopted, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) could consider prioritizing EQIP contracts
that result in a reduction of emissions, boost carbon sequestration,
and provide climate resilience in addition to the practice areas listed
above. This would help ensure that positive climate benefits are
identified and adopted as part of current and new EQIP contracts,
encouraging producers to continue to adopt new climate stewardship
measures voluntarily. Given the diversity of the agricultural sector,
especially in states like California, we must also emphasize the
importance of contacts remaining flexible for all crop types and
practices. This change in prioritization would also need to be
accompanied by proportionate levels of financial and technical
assistance.
Conservation Innovation Grants
Feed, genetics and nutrition management should be eligible under
the Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) On-Farm Trial Program. CIG on-
farm trials are a critical tool for farmers to test and prove new
practices with reduced risk. While trials around feed additives and
genetics are not explicitly excluded, it is also not clear that they
are included. Inclusion would provide additional opportunities for
farmers to test the newest technologies and evaluate their impact
within their operation.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) offers
producers the opportunity to work collaboratively with NRCS and other
conservation partners to work together and expand voluntary, private
lands conservation. For this reason, California Farm Bureau was
supportive of the change in the 2018 Farm Bill that reconfigured RCPP
as a stand-alone program with its own funding and producer contracts.
Currently, California Farm Bureau is still collaborating in a RCPP
partnership with other organizations in the California Bay-Delta region
to address the decline of the Tricolored Blackbird. The geographic
focus of this RCPP project is in the San Joaquin Valley where nesting
of Tricolored Blackbird colonies on agricultural fields conflicts with
producer's harvest schedule. This conflict has represented a unique
challenge of finding a balance between natural habitat, protecting
colonies on agricultural lands and supporting the livelihood of our
dairy farmers. While the program has been successful in numerous ways,
consistency in funding assistance and funding levels has been a
challenge. As we seek to add additional climate-smart practices, this
RCPP project is an example of the importance of funding sources being
consistent, sustainable and long-term if our expectations of producers
are also long-term.
Conservation Reserve Program
There has been much attention on the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP). Compared to other states, California is a relatively low user of
this program with less than 100,000 acres enrolled in CRP. As mentioned
above, within title II, we urge the Subcommittee to focus on the
working lands portion of the conservation title in help keep working
lands working.
Title II Conservation Program Recommendations
California Farm Bureau supports enhancing and expanding the ability
for growers of all agricultural commodities to be able to voluntarily
participate in climate-smart agriculture and forestry practices that
help to sequester carbon, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
build climate resilience. Additionally, we are aware of legislation and
proposals seeking to address the current borrowing authority of the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Absent additional, sustainable and
long-term funding for climate-smart agriculture and forestry practices
added to title II conservation programs, we also urge the Subcommittee
to consider the additional pressure this could place on the CCC and the
important programs the CCC funds.
CCC funding is a critical tool for agriculture. As more demands are
put on the CCC, it is important to ensure sufficient funding remains
for existing core programs. For that reason, California Farm Bureau is
supportive of updating the CCC borrowing amount. In California, farmers
and ranchers heavily rely on programs funded by the CCC such as:
Market Access Program & Foreign Market Development Program
California farmers and ranchers need continued investment in the
Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development (FMD)
Program. The twin challenges presented by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
as well as spikes in competitors' export promotion programs and
activities highlight the need for continued investment in these public-
private partnerships. In 2019, California exported nearly $21.7 billion
in agricultural goods. Programs like MAP and FMD will continue helping
us export to current markets as well as new and emerging markets. It is
critical the CCC funds be used for these programs to help U.S. farmers,
ranchers and food exporters keep pace and to help us make up for lost
time after 2\1/2\ years of trade conflict and retaliatory tariffs.
Market Facilitation Program
As trade negotiations and tariff issues persist, it is important
that we continue supporting our farmers and ranchers through policies
and programs such as the Market Facilitation Program (MFP). MFP was
created to help those who were impacted by the retaliatory tariffs
which resulted in the loss of certain exporting markets. The MFP helped
address the financial hit farmers took due to the tariffs. Although the
program did not provide relief to all producers, it did help the dairy
industry, along with walnuts, pecans and table grape growers in
California.
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program
Direct payments through the CCC to producers impacted by the
pandemic have played a big role in providing much needed relief to keep
them afloat. California farms collected nearly $1.8 billion in CFAP
payments with most of these payments going to producers in the Central
and Imperial valleys of California, regions with large amounts of
dairy, fruit, vegetable and nut production that have traditionally
received little to no direct USDA assistance.
Livestock and Disaster Programs
California farmers and ranchers heavily rely on disaster programs
and aid as drought and wildfires continue to worsen in the western
states. While not all disaster programs are funded by the CCC, our
members continue to utilize those that are. Whether it be the Dairy
Margin Coverage (DMC) program, Livestock Forage Program (LFP),
Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), Emergency Assistance for Livestock,
Honeybees, and Farm-raised Fish (ELAP) or others, California producers
cannot afford to see a funding shortfall in any of these programs that
they, unfortunately, continue to utilize.
General Climate Policy Recommendations
As this Subcommittee reviews title II conservation programs and how
to encourage the voluntary adoption of climate-smart agricultural and
forestry practices generally, we urge Members of the Subcommittee to
consider the following:

Policy analyses characterizing domestic U.S. crop and
livestock systems should reflect American agriculture's
leadership globally in sustainable farming practices. Policy
changes will have real world impacts on farmers, ranchers,
foresters and the rural communities that depend on them. For
this reason, it is important that the Subcommittee continue to
engage a broad spectrum of opinions, especially producers who
will be directly affected, as it is doing today.

Retroactive efforts or incremental improvements undertaken
by agriculture leaders to reduce greenhouse emissions and/or
sequester carbon must be fully eligible to participate and
receive applicable compensation. Many farmers and ranchers in
California have been incorporating climate-smart practices,
such as cover cropping, no-till farming and compost
application, on their operations for years. These producers
should be acknowledged and appropriately rewarded for their
work.

The Subcommittee should consider how the overlay of any new
Federal policies and programs will impact existing state
climate policies and programs. Additionally, the Federal
Government should consider ways to partner with state
departments of agriculture as appropriate. Recently, the
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has been
holding stakeholder meetings to solicit feedback on ways to
boost climate resilience, greenhouse gas mitigation and food
security. This work will eventually inform scoping plans, as
well as ongoing and future work, associated with state climate
laws. We support the Federal Government following a similar
approach where crop specific, producer feedback is solicited.

To further the adoption of on-farm climate-smart practices,
we must not only compensate early adopters, but also assist
those being expected to do more. This will require a
sustainable, stable and long-term funding source for both
financial and technical assistance. Additionally, funding
parameters attached to farm characteristics, such as size or
adjusted gross income levels, should not apply. We also request
that the Subcommittee consider how much funding will be
allocated to non-farm intermediaries who may divert funding to
narrow or non-farm-related purposes.

Consider the diversity and scale of American agriculture.
There has been much discussion on the role of cover crops in
climate-smart agriculture. While cover crops can be an
effective tool, California produces more than 400 different
commodities and has a variety of cropping systems and farm
sizes. A one-size-fits-all approach, or emphasizing only one or
few practices, will not be the best path forward for American
agriculture, especially in states like California that produce
large amounts of specialty crops among others.

Additionally, some crops are more cost-intensive to produce and
may be grown on higher-value land than other areas. The cost of
production per acre as well as the value per acre of each crop
will influence which practices and which incentives are most
attractive. For these reasons, we encourage the Subcommittee to
be broad and inclusive, emphasizing a menu of practice choices
as opposed to a prescriptive checklist. Every farm, every
ranch, and every field have a different story to tell.
Producers should be able to choose which outcome-based
practices best fit their operation.

Access to technical assistance from USDA staff, USDA
Technical Service Providers (TSP), Cooperative Extension
specialists, and crop advisors is critical to assist farmers,
ranchers and foresters with planning and implementing
conservation practices. Being inclusive of these groups will
help maximize reach and enhance program delivery. We also
support a streamlined approach to TSP certification.

Climate-smart agricultural practices must be grounded in
science but also field-trialed to prove that they have
practical applicability for farmers to undertake. Technologies
and conservation practices that are readily understood,
scalable and easy to implement will likely be the most
utilized. Implementing an on-farm change with a full
understanding of its tradeoffs (pests, costs, regulatory
ramifications, etc.) is also important. This should be coupled
with funding and emphasis on agricultural research and
extension. Additional technologies, traits, and production
practices are far more beneficial than burdening the economy
with additional, prescriptive regulations.

The overarching goal should be to keep working lands
working. We oppose pursuing practices that do not consider and
encourage the economic base value of the property. For farms
and ranches to meet their conservation goals, they must also be
able to meet their economic goals.

Consider the nexus between the lack of broadband in many
agricultural areas and the modern use of precision agriculture
equipment. Precision agriculture tools and practices can result
in quantifiable benefits for both the farmer and the
environment. However, it is very difficult to implement such
practices if the farm location lacks adequate connectivity.

Farmers have only so much control. California's farmers and
ranchers continue to farm amidst great uncertainty when it
comes to reliable water supplies and cyclic drought. Drought
followed by wet years has recently illustrated what both
extended drought and extreme rainfall cycles look like with
inadequate water infrastructure. If longer and drier droughts
coupled with powerful floods are the future of California's
possible larger climate trend, it means we must do a better job
of investing in water infrastructure and capturing water
resources when they are available.
Conclusion
On behalf of California's farmers, ranchers and foresters, I
appreciate the opportunity to come before the Subcommittee today and
share our perspective on climate strategies that impact American
agriculture. Having faced many climate initiatives at the state level
already, California Farm Bureau is well equipped and stands ready to
assist. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Johansson.
At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority
Members. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each in order to
allow us to get as many questions as possible. Please keep your
microphones muted until you are recognized in order to minimize
background noise.
I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
But before I begin, I would like to offer a USDA report,
Cover Crop Trends, Programs, and Practices in the United
States, for the record.
[The report referred to is located on p. 55.]
The Chair. Mr. Isbell, in addition to reduced soil erosion,
improved water filtration, and greater weed and pest
suppression, cover crops provide important environmental
benefits, including carbon storage. And according to the latest
report, cover crop adoption increased by approximately 50
percent from 10.3 million acres in 2012 to 15.4 million acres
in 2017. While kind of rather modest in terms of national
cropland acreage, the report does demonstrate that programs
like CSP and EQIP are helping to drive practice adoption.
In your opening statements you did talk to some degree
about the ways that implementation could be improved. You
talked about some of the programs being too restrictive, the
value of technical assistance, particularly post-
implementation.
But, I was wondering if you could speak to the importance
of these programs, EQIP and CSP, in achieving greater carbon
sequestration through practices like the use of cover crops
because, as we here in Congress are debating policies that are
investing in expanded economic opportunities and combating the
climate crisis, I want to have a firm understanding of the
practical impact on growers and producers. If we are thinking
about potentially making additional investments in these
voluntary and incentive-based programs while also increasing
funding for technical assistance, I am curious what your
thoughts would be in terms of what that would mean for you on
the ground.
Mr. Isbell. Thank you. Absolutely.
So forages and grasslands have the greatest ability to
sequester carbon in that the carbon is then stored in the soil.
And so the greatest flexibility to increase carbon
sequestration is by cycling those forages and grasses via
grazing, haying, mowing, and so. And that is what we have been
able to do with our cover crops utilization. And by doing so,
not only are we sequestering more carbon, but we are also able
to cycle and retain nutrients, free up nutrients that are
previously insoluble in the soil, and then also, more
importantly, build organic matter which increases our water-
holding capacity, thus drought-proofing.
And so, with utilization of these programs and these
conservation practices, we have been able to increase our
financial bottom line, and in that, we are able to produce more
forages, more crops, despite direct potential drought or lack
of rainfall, because of the building of that organic matter, in
addition to capturing the nutrients, which then reduces the
need for additional fertility application.
I think that it is important to continue these fundings and
then also to ensure that the technical assistance is there to
follow through with the farmers to actually be able to show
them the long-lasting financial and environmental benefits from
these programs.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
Dr. Paustian, in your testimony, you noted that, while
payments from our working lands program, like EQIP and CSP, can
help cover some of the initial costs of embracing some of these
conservation programs, they don't often cover the full cost of
the practices experienced by farmers up-front. You also noted
that, while on-farm benefits like improved soil function and
yield stability can help pay for these benefits, there are
still significant barriers in adoption of these practices.
So, given that, I am curious: What value do you see in
helping farmers gain access potentially to private carbon
markets that provide additional revenue streams for growers who
may choose to adopt these practices?
Dr. Paustian. Thank you, Chair Spanberger.
I certainly think there are opportunities, and they are
growing, for farmers to monetize, if you will, some of the
ecosystem benefits that they are creating with these practices.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that a number of industries
are interested in carbon drawdown, and soil carbon offers a way
to do that.
As long as farmers can participate and get a fair return
and are able to implement the practices that work well on their
operations, then it is certainly an opportunity that would be
good to see if it could increase.
I will mention another thing, and that is that the farmers
also have potential to get a premium on their products if
consumers are looking to pay more for low-carbon products that
are produced in the agriculture space, and we see increasing
interest in that, and so that is another way in which farmers
can increase their bottom line to help cover this transition
period in particular.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Dr. Paustian.
Certainly, as consumers learn the benefit of, let's say,
grass-fed beef, understanding actually the environmental impact
as well of making food choices along those lines, is important
and particularly helpful for the producer.
Continuing on, I now will recognize Ranking Member LaMalfa
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you again, Madam Chair.
To my neighbor, Mr. Johansson there, California Farm
Bureau, thank you for your testimony today and for your good
work.
Let me jump right into it here. Now the conservation
programs and the conservation title we have had in the farm
bills, they are currently oversubscribed. There are more
farmers applying for them than are really able to utilize it.
How do you think, if we are moving into new programs, is this
going to take away from the current ones we have in place with
EQIP, et cetera? Ought not we prioritize the existing ones that
are indeed very well-liked and voluntary, is I think a key
point? What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Johansson. Well, the important part of any conservation
program, coming out of the USDA is also, how does it work with
state programs as well to further those Federal dollars? We can
do that at the state level. We have a Healthy Soils Program
here in California that has been successful, administered by
the California Department of Food and Agriculture but also
works well with NRCS conservation practice standards. It also
is a practice ironically that uses the COMET-Planner, which we
are discussing here today as well to implement.
I think it is that we also have programs here in California
in terms of equipment replacement for more efficient tractors,
irrigation pumps as well.
I think it is a good thing that we are over-prescribed.
But, we have to figure out how we engage the private market as
well, since there are consumer benefits to this, who can also
participate, because it is always going to be a level, and that
is one of the things. We can have these programs for farmers,
and one of the problems we have here in California is the
inconsistency of funding. You start a program, and then the
next year maybe the funding isn't there to do it.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.
Mr. Johansson. I think it is vitally important that, as
these programs are over-prescribed, unless we can get more
funding for it, that we leverage and prioritize with those
states and those farmers who bring in additional dollars.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, that looks like we will either have to
boost funding on the current programs and discover new funding
for a new direction or we are going to see these current
programs perhaps be reduced in order to go in a new direction.
That is my concern on that.
Mr. Johansson, also, please we had some very compelling
testimony by our neighbor, a great guy, Dave Daley in the
Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and
Public Lands last week on the fire situation over there in east
Butte County and one that is kind of a microcosm of much fire
all around the country.
What do you see we should be doing to further prioritize on
our forest management, as you mentioned your own area being
evacuated? And then the litigation that seems to bog down, as I
kind of alluded to in my opening statement, that bogs down any
management or salvage operations needing to be done for making
forests healthy and good carbon grabbers, so to speak.
Mr. Johansson. Yes, Dr. Daley, a tragic story. I would
encourage everyone to look him up and his story, the
generations he spent up there in the Plumas National Forest.
Now will be probably multiple generations before forests return
to normal.
But we are seeing that in California as we saw 4 million
acres burned in California. Believe it or not, while it is a
record in the modern time, in the early 1900s, it wasn't
unusual for 8 million to 9 million acres to burn at a time in
California. As we say, California is either under water or it
is on fire. And how do we appropriately deal with these natural
disasters? And it is about management, and we have great
resources in California. Whether it is our soils that produce
for different commodities or our forests that at one time
really fueled rural California, particularly in the Redwood
Coast, where I grew up in Humboldt County, working summers at
the Pacific Lumber Company, but it has changed.
And with any amount of resources that we have and if we
define what a resource is, that which is to be used for
economic gain or in a time of need, that is what we have in
California, a lot of resources. However, we haven't properly
managed it. The opposite of what happens with a resource we
have proven has become a liability. And the same also goes with
the recent drought declaration so soon after the last emergency
drought declaration that we had in California.
How do we manage our water as well? As we know, the
temperatures are changing. Lake Oroville, head water, state
water project, is 4 miles as the crow flies from my farm, is
dependent on snow. And Lake Shasta, which is the Central Valley
Project, the Federal project, it is dependent on rain for the
most part. But we know that the snowpack, which this year we
saw 500,000 extra acres disappear because the snow didn't make
its way down the mountain. We have to adapt to either expand
our advantage in those high runoff periods or also important
part that we are discovering is groundwater recharge.
We have to manage our resources better and how to return
funding and profitability to our forests because simply if the
National Forests aren't being properly managed, as we have seen
in the private forest, it gets overwhelmed with fuel and great
destruction happening on private property as well.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, great point on that at the end there with
people around here don't understand why we have the funds like
Secure Rural Schools that make up for the forestry that used to
cause timber receipts to help keep local schools and local
county roads up. That was the impetus for that. So, without the
forest industry, instead, we get millions of acres of fire with
this lack of management. I appreciate that testimony.
And I will yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from New Hampshire for 5
minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the opportunity, and I appreciate this
Committee. It is great to be back on the Agriculture Committee
and the Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee this Congress.
I do want to begin by noting the dedication and commitment
of farmers and foresters in New Hampshire to reducing emissions
and mitigating climate change on our land. Many have already
undertaken practices like tillage management, crop rotation,
and the use of cover crops. Sometimes it is on their own
initiative, but often it is through participation in the title
II programs.
In the Granite State, we are lucky to have an incredible
team at the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS.
The staff understand our unique agricultural needs of our
region and are terrific partners and technical advisors for
both farmers and foresters. They expertly manage New
Hampshire's participation in NRCS programs, including enrolling
over 55,000 acres last year alone.
While programs like EQIP and CSP are much relied-upon
staples in the Granite State, NRCS fosters many other climate-
smart practices that support our region. Just last month the
Merrimack River Watershed Council received nearly $7 million in
RCPP funding to conserve land, enhance climate resilience, and
restore wildlife habitats in our watershed. This type of
public-private partnership is truly a win-win. Critical farm
and forest lands are safe, while the water supply for cities
like Nashua are also protected.
Additionally, NRCS has supported unique projects like the
construction of a high tunnel at the New Hampshire Technical
Institute in Concord that was completed just last week. The
tunnel will allow beginning farmers to field test farming and
conservation techniques right on campus. And I am always
excited to hear about these types of projects and look ahead to
the next farm bill. I am eager to explore how Congress can
strengthen NRCS' role in combating climate change in the years
to come.
On that note, Dr. Paustian, I was very interested in your
research concerning carbon capture in agricultural soils. And I
am curious how you see working forests fitting into the broader
picture. Based on your research or your colleagues', would you
have recommendations about how NRCS programs can best support
carbon capture in our working forests?
Dr. Paustian. Well, thank you, Representative Kuster.
I think there are several opportunities that are both in
working forests, as well as in forests in agricultural lands,
if you will, things like agroforestry, and Ms. Ratcliff
mentioned silvopasture in her operation, and these kinds of
systems, as has been pointed out, can both sequester carbon in
the soil but also in the biomass--in woody biomass, it persists
for a long time--as well as providing shade and other ecosystem
benefits and those kind of things. NRCS does have a pretty
active involvement in agroforestry systems, as they do also in
working forests.
I would say, in general, in most--if you think of private
forest land as forest land, so they are just producing wood or
wildlife habitat, these sorts of things, probably the key
quantity for carbon sequestration is still in the biomass
carbon, and most of the work involved in how do we manage the
vegetation to optimize forest health, as well as carbon
sequestration, really focuses primarily on the biomass.
But certainly, there are, in instances like afforestation
or reforestation and to the extent that NRCS provides advice on
that, then there are soil carbon benefits that also accrue with
reestablishing forests on, for example, degraded lands or other
things like that.
Ms. Kuster. Good. Thank you.
Just quickly, Mr. Isbell, I am glad to hear of your work
that you are doing. I appreciate your collaboration with groups
like 4-H. Briefly, could you tell us more about encouraging
farmers, including young and beginning farmers, to adopt good
conservation practices?
And I apologize. My time is almost up.
Mr. Isbell. Thank you, Representative Kuster.
We do a lot of outreach, and I think that within the
farming community, farmers are rather slow to adopt new
practices, and so that is why the importance of having field
days, outreach to neighboring farmers is the greatest
opportunity to actually show financial and physical benefits
from these conservation practices and which then we have seen
our neighboring farms and farmers who have attended our events
to start to implement some of these conservation practices
because of being able to see and talk to somebody who has been
doing it and realizing those benefits.
Ms. Kuster. Great. Well, thank you so much.
And, with that, I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes,
Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. To all
of our witnesses, I would like to say thank you for offering
your time and expertise, particularly those of you that are our
farmers and ranchers because I know this is a busy time of
year.
Climate change is clearly the topic of this Congress. We
have already had innumerable briefings, Member meetings,
hearings, and proposed legislation over the past year or so to
address it.
However, when I am in the district, this is not an issue
that I hear frequently about. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't
even make the top ten. What my constituents are more concerned
about, particularly in agriculture, is labor.
I have spent the last several weeks in the district,
meeting and communicating with constituents. And I will tell
you: they have a lot of concerns. In fact, right now, I
understand in Atlanta, Georgia, there is no gas, already lines.
You know, there are pipelines down. We have a war on fossil
fuels, and it is chaos everywhere, the border, major cities, a
lot of things that we need to be addressing, but certainly none
more important than agriculture because if certain people get
control of this country, I believe climate change is going to
exceed starvation.
And that is what we are talking about here is the food
needs of the country. In fact, there are many leaders, one
business leader, in particular, said that we need to go to
synthetic beef, and so I don't know where all this is coming
from, but, obviously, it affects many of our witnesses here
right now.
The other thing is skyrocketing lumber prices. This is the
Subcommittee on Forestry. And, it is adding $35,000 to the cost
of an average home in my district. Obviously, gasoline is up.
Food prices are skyrocketing. Folks, we need to get to work on
these issues that are affecting the American people. And we got
to do it quick.
The best conservationists in the world are our farmers, and
what we have done from a technological standpoint is amazing,
and certainly we want this Congress to help with these
conservation issues. But, at the same time, it does not need to
be top-down, one-size-fits-all by a bunch of intellectuals in
Washington, D.C. It needs to be bottom-up, as the testimony
from Ms. Ratcliff, on how--the practices she has put into
place, which I was very impressed with, to be successful and to
sell some of the finest beef, I would propose, in this country.
As far as the academic study called, World Market
Conditions Suggest Set-Asides Not an Effective Farm Policy for
Corn and Soybeans,* argues that set-aside programs are not an
effective farm policy because it sends a market signal to our
competitors to plant more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the farmdoc Daily article is available at: https:/
/farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2020/07/world-market-conditions-suggest-set-
asides-not-an-effective-farm-policy-for-corn-and-soybeans.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Allen. Dr. Paustian, how concerned are you that by
idling tens of millions of acres in the U.S. we could very
likely be exacerbating greenhouse gas emissions as our
competitors respond to take the U.S. market share here?
Dr. Paustian. Well, thank you, Representative Allen, for
that question. I am not an ag economist, but I have studied the
question some. My understanding is that the things like the
Conservation Reserve Program as currently configured is not
leading to markedly increased commodity prices that would be a
driver then of, say, agriculture expansion on forest lands in
the tropic or something like that. That is certainly my
understanding.
Another thing I would point out about some interesting
research going on now is also looking at our--even some of our
most productive lands in the Midwest, for example, have areas
within the field that are actually unprofitable. And so, as
farmers add seed and fertilizer, they actually, if you look at
it in a detailed view of the field, they are, in fact, losing
money year-in and year-out on particular areas within the
fields.
As we get these kinds of understandings of maximizing
profitability and how farmers utilize the land, things like,
for example, putting in perennial grasses and buffer strips
within areas of the field that are not productive can actually
maintain production but also improve the bottom line for
farmers.
We have the opportunity to look at a more nuanced way of
going forward with some of the technologies we have now to
obviously keep our agriculture production at the highest level
in terms of quality products and enhancing farmers' income but
also maintaining, yes, protection for sensitive lands or lands
that are not necessarily well suited for production.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, sir.
And, unfortunately, I am out of time. Madam Chair, I
apologize.
And I yield back.
The Chair. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Washington
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for
convening this hearing.
Thank you to our witnesses. First, just some comments. I
would like to speak about an issue of critical importance in
Washington State, which is the status of the State Acres for
Wildlife Enhancement, or the SAFE Initiative.
In Washington State, these state acres are particularly
critical for two native birds. Sage grouse are currently state
listed as threatened, and sharp-tailed grouse are state listed
as endangered, and their population estimates in 2019 were only
677 and 834 individuals, respectively. Most of the habitat
remaining to support prairie grouse in Washington State is on
private lands. And the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, and
SAFE, in particular, is really one of the only programs
available to conserve this habitat and these acres at
meaningful scale.
Now, there is a cap on the number of acres of
environmentally sensitive land that the CRP program will pay
landowners to farm or not to farm per county and the SAFE acres
used to be eligible for a waiver to exempt them from those
acres, but because of provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill that is
no longer the case. Limiting the acreage that CRP will support
by including SAFE lands in that overall number will remove
financial incentives for farmers to conserve that land and will
have a devastating effect, not just on soil and water but also
on these wildlife resources, like the threatened sage grouse
and the sharp-tailed grouse on private lands.
So should those SAFE acres remain ineligible for exemption,
sage and sharp-tailed grouse conservation efforts could falter
as nearly 50,000 acres of CRP land expire and this could leave
our farmers subject to violations further endangering these
birds. I wanted to ask about reinstating these waivers. I will
be sending a letter to FSA Administrator Ducheneaux asking
about the best way to re-establish this waiver process and I
wanted to bring this to your attention.
Now, I also want to touch on other conservation programs,
including the EQIP program, which provides financial and
technical assistance to agricultural producers looking to
conserve natural resources on their farms and ranches. And
through EQIP, the Federal Government provides producers the
financial resources and the one-on-one help to plan and
implement conservation practices that can lead to cleaner water
and air, healthier soil, and more resilient crops all while
improving agricultural productivity, as we have heard about
already.
EQIP worked so well for the farmers and producers in my
district that I have recently heard of some concerns, concerns
specifically about the reimbursement rates that NRCS uses being
out of date and not really reflecting the true cost of the
practices being implemented. This is especially true in urban
or semi-urban areas where the costs are so much higher.
So, for example, an EQIP supported irrigation efficiency
project in Pierce County, NRCS's reimbursement rate came back
at only 31 percent of the total cost forcing the local
conservation district to pony up $89,000 to cover the
shortfall.
I have a question for Mr. Johansson. You talked about the
EQIP program and its importance in California. Have you come
across similar issues with reimbursement rates in the farm
bill's conservation programs? And given this, how can we better
incentivize climate-smart ag practices?
Mr. Johansson. Well, certainly, like I mentioned in my
opening statement, it is the most popular program in
California, EQIP. Currently, I believe we have 1,400 different
EQIP projects covering about 400,000 acres. The reimbursement
rates are going to be, are always a question in terms of it
makes sense and it depends on what the time is. And right now,
any type of irrigation adjustment--if you are going out trying
to source any sort of irrigation, it just simply isn't there.
I think Representative Allen had mentioned that we are in a
scarcity time for whatever reason when it comes to either
timber or also steel. Yes, certainly that has to be taken into
account, and that is something that, in California where it is
extremely expensive to do business, as it turns out most
probably like Washington, too, those rates, there can be an
inequity in terms of the reimbursement rates.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I yield back the remainder of my
time. I appreciate it.
The Chair. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Good afternoon. It is great to be on here. I
am a farmer and we implement these practices on our farm, all
of them, and we have had great success, but I do have a
question for Mr. Johansson. We have observed two issues, and I
was wondering if you have any ideas/solutions for this. One is
that the other--so we are in the minority of using these
practices--cover crops, crop rotation, no-till rotation, and
all that, but other farmers will tell us that they want to
implement these, but they sharecrop or they are cash renting
their land, and the owners are not open to these conservation
practices.
And where we are, our big issue is soil erosion because of
very flat land. It is the best soil in the world, and our
topsoil is running down to the Gulf. If we could just do cover
crops and reduced-tillage, that would be fantastic.
So does anybody or do you have ideas of how to motivate the
landowners to want to get on board with these practices?
Mr. Johansson. And that is a difficult part in terms of the
long-term investments, a lot of these programs are, especially
with rented land. And, are landowners willing to sign those
long-term leases? Putting in fence that can last up to, for a
good organic grazing kind of methods, is a 10, 15 year
investment. I think that there could be a part of it, in terms
of landowners, outreach to them. They are probably, maybe a
generation removed. A lot of times in California, the land that
is being rented, the owner actually lives maybe in San
Francisco or Los Angeles. I haven't really thought about how we
engage the landowner, but certainly, I mean, it is an education
part of it. But I would think that most landowners I know, as a
first-generation farmer, the first time I tried to go rent
land, I lost to the guy who had been farming for 40 years
because the landowner was more assured that he knew the
practices that would keep that land productive and keep it
going.
I think there could be part of the outreach that would have
to get in to, and we certainly do at Farm Bureau in terms of
outreaching to the urban communities of what we are already
doing on our farms to adapt smart agricultural climate
practices.
Mrs. Miller. And I have one other question. Another thing
we have observed is--so I have seven children, and several of
them have gone to universities, and some have gone to the local
community colleges, and some have majored in ag production. And
our observation is that the community colleges seem to be
slower about teaching these conservation practices than the
universities. And I was wondering if you had any ideas for
solutions on that end?
Mr. Johansson. No. I appreciate you bringing that up
because one of the things--I see Professor Paustian is on here
as well, and he would confer that one thing I probably didn't
put into my opening statement, but is in the written statement,
is the necessary--is the need to fund education. And, in
agriculture, that has been our extension advisors, our
extension offices, our UC extension offices will be critically
important and critically important parts of climate-smart
agriculture. And it has been a funding--a difficulty of
funding--funding has been cut in California, but they are
critical.
UC Davis is our major research university coming up with
great programs, but I farm up in Oroville, Chico State, in that
area, Butte County, hour north of Sacramento, a different place
to farm, a different climate than say farming in the Salinas
Valley or farming down in Kern County. It is important that we
have--while we invest in our universities and the agricultural
research, we can't forget that, at some point, it has to get
down to the lower level, whether that is community college or
state schools like at Chico State (CSU, Chico), which has a
demonstration farm which is tasked with, how do we apply these
technologies at the local level that serves local farmers. And
certainly as is right now I am sure in community college in
California, with the type of budget cuts at one point we
thought we were facing--of course now the Governor's announcing
a huge surplus so hopefully that trickles down to more
investment in our research, a lot of the first programs they
cut is in the agricultural program because it is equipment- or
property-intensive cost to do those programs, but you bring up
a great point.
It does come to having enough funding to engage both at our
community college/state schools but also a cooperative
extension, who is a trusted entity for farmers.
Mrs. Miller. Well, if I may add, I believe it is
information more than the funding that is my opinion. But any
way, thank you so much.
And I yield back.
The Chair. I now recognize the gentleman from California,
Mr. Panetta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking of the
Salinas Valley--no. I am kidding.
Thank you, President Johansson, for mentioning the salad
bowl of the world in your answers, which obviously I am going
to go into where I come from on the Central Coast of
California. Like many of my colleagues, I was in the district
for the past 2 weeks and having a good opportunity to speak
with and have sit downs with farmers, ranchers, and forest
landowners. And as you can imagine, the topics that are coming
up labor, as labor always does, as Mr. Allen mentioned from
Georgia, but in California, obviously, that is a big issue. But
then, of course, water and wildfire, what is going on in our
state and what we have been and will continue to deal with when
it comes to our drought and then our wildfire season as well.
As many of you know, our Governor expanded the state's
drought emergency proclamation to include 41 counties,
including San Benito County in my district, and that means that
basically 30 percent of California's population is now living
in a drought state of emergency. At the same time, many of
these places are still recovering from the historic 2020
wildfire season. In my district alone, we endured wildfires in
or around my district that affected 650,000 acres that were
actually burned, unfortunately. And then we had to go through
the post-wildfire effects dealing with the flooding and burn
scars as well. And, we can all probably acknowledge that
climate change is at the root of these crises, and that is why
this hearing is so important today.
I thank you, Madam Chair, for holding it. As we look to
reassess and build on our Federal conservation programs, I do
believe that we have to ensure that farmers, ranchers, and
foresters have a seat at the table in these types of
discussions, first of all. Second of all, they have to have the
ability to access and fully leverage these programs to save
water, reduce wildfire risk, and to ultimately invest in the
long-term health of their lands.
Now, Dr. Paustian, in California, you are probably familiar
with the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, the
NRCS, that has been helping producers employ irrigation water
management techniques, including irrigation scheduling.
Can you elaborate in ways that those types of Federal
programs can better help producers who are seeking to conserve
water, and what are some of the co-benefits of these types of
water-saving practices that they employ?
Dr. Paustian. Thank you, Representative Panetta, and you
make a really great point. And that is there is a lot of
synergism between things like water management, drought, soil
carbon, greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient management. And we
are working a lot with NRCS in California but also with the
California Department of Food and Ag, and we have actually been
working with them recently on developing a new online tool
called the SWEEP (State Water Efficiency Enhancement Program)
tool, which looks at the co-benefits of water savings from
improved irrigation management systems on things like water
savings but also greenhouse gas emissions.
There is a lot of room for, yes, for improving programs
that support conservation practices that are, if you will,
holistic, that look at the multiple benefits of not only carbon
storage, greenhouse gas, but water use efficiency and nutrient
use efficiency and things of this nature. It is really key that
we take that approach, and, fortunately, I would say that the
conservation practices that NRCS has defined and which are
supported by these different programs, one of the real virtues
of them is they have these multiple benefits. They are, in
general, they help the health and productivity of the systems,
and so there is not so often that you have major tradeoffs: Oh,
I want to save water; oh, that is going to hurt my carbon.
It tends to be synergistic.
Mr. Panetta. Okay. And I appreciate that, and I agree. And,
look, I just want to follow up real quickly on Mrs. Miller's
line of questioning of how we get the benefits of no-till
farming and cover cropping, but, man, in my district, we have
specialty crops, and we don't have the water resources
necessary to do that.
Can you assure us that the Federal conservation programs
can better take into consideration these realities of the
different crops throughout our nation?
Dr. Paustian. Well, I can't really speak for USDA, but
certainly from the scientific standpoint, we understand that
there is not a single solution that works everywhere, right? We
have to have not only programs, but also the scientific
knowledge that is granular, that looks at the particular
circumstances in a particular area, particular soil type,
climate growing system. I think we can do that, and I think
that needs to be, perhaps, emphasized more in policy, but I
believe it is to a large extent.
Thanks.
Mr. Panetta. Great. Thank you, Dr. Paustian.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I yield back.
The Chair. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
it. I agree with so much of what my colleagues have said today
and, of course, that is what I hear from a lot of farmers and
ranchers. And really any time I am talking to South Dakotans
who work in production ag, they emphasize time and time, again,
to me two things: First, farmers and ranchers really are a part
of the climate solution, and they have contributed so much to
the progress we have already made as a country, and they have
pride behind that. And then, second, the rural economies really
do need production agriculture, and, frankly, the world needs
American production agriculture if we are going to continue to
feed the world.
And so, with those things in mind, I would like each of the
panelists, and we will just go in the witness list order, so
Isbell, Ratcliff, Paustian, and Johansson, I have concerns, I
have serious concerns, and I know many of my producers have
concerns, when they hear about 30 by 30. And I know it is more
of a concept right now than a plan. I mean, details are pretty
light, but when we hear about setting aside and conserving at
least 30 percent of the American land mass by 2030, I think
that causes them concern about what does that mean for American
competitiveness, what does that mean for a push to feed the
world, and what does that mean with regard to environmental
stewardship?
So could each of you comment about how you would prioritize
these efforts with regard to whether or not we should be idling
lands or whether or not we should be focusing on working lands
conservation?
And, again, we will start with Mr. Isbell. And if you could
each keep your answers to between 40 and 60 seconds, I think
that would be fair to the other witnesses. I want to make sure
they have time to respond as well.
Mr. Isbell. Thank you for that. I will take an approach to
it. So, for me, the concept of feeding the world and
conservation are not exclusive. They can be synergistic. New
challenges require new approaches. Setting aside 30 percent of
our land mass and not allowing it for food production is not
contributing towards our goal of American competitiveness and
feeding the world, but we have to look at the way CRP is
implemented, and we have ways to be able to set aside land from
tillable agriculture but be able to still produce food in a
regenerative way, sequester carbon, but also keep the American
edge and provide financial stability for farmers.
Mr. Johnson. Is it fair to say, Mr. Isbell, you wouldn't
want us to overly prioritize idling land over working
conservation? There is a role for both and an important role
for working lands conservation. Is that right?
Mr. Isbell. Absolutely. Working lands conservation should
be the number one priority.
Mr. Johnson. Very good. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Ratcliff.
Ms. Ratcliff. And I am in agreement with him. I think my
main comment would be is, what is the goal of the 30 by 30? And
is the goal actually accomplished by the producer? Is the goal
actually going to hit the ground? Is the goal actually
something that is ultimately going to affect the producers?
Because a lot of times, these programs are implemented without
even coming down to people who are producers and asking our
input in them. We have to have a seat at the table when it
comes to programs that are initially coming out, so we can put
our input in and allow us to be profitable and allow us to have
some kind of success story when it comes out. I don't know if
the 30 by 30 will actually provide that.
Mr. Johnson. Oh, Ms. Ratcliff, that is very well said,
ma'am. Thank you.
Dr. Paustian.
Dr. Paustian. Thanks for the question. I would echo what
Mr. Isbell said that there is not a conflict between, yes, best
regenerative practices on our working lands, and if there are
some lands that are not as well suited for production
agriculture, that there is this role for some set aside there,
but I don't believe the conflict. I think they go together. You
know, 30 by 30 is looking at focusing on biodiversity, it is
looking at all land covers, and certainly we have deserts and
forests and other things where there is a lot of biodiversity.
Our working lands can, they can supplement that pollinator
habitat, for example, in some of the systems that Mr. Isbell
and Ms. Ratcliff manage, I am sure is an important attribute of
those as well. So that it contributes to the overall goal of
biodiversity maintenance.
Mr. Johnson. Dr. Paustian, I have to cut you off to be fair
to Mr. Johansson.
Mr. Johansson, any final comments.
Mr. Johansson. I agree with my fellow farmers here on the
panel. Focus on working lands, of course, in California, we
have already embarked on this with the Governor's executive
order, I believe, last January for a 30 by 30 by 2030. We have
already engaged in roundtables. And, as we remind the Governor,
working lands only work when people are allowed to work them.
And if you look at California, which is already at 49 percent
public land, both state and federally owned, we can meet that
number because farmers at heart are conservationists, and we
know that if we look at some of the state programs we have
implemented, depending how you look at it, we are already at
around 23 to being over 30 percent already working lands
conservation.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir.
Madam Chair, thanks for your indulgence.
And I yield back.
The Chair. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Maine, Ms.
Pingree, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And thank you
for hosting this hearing. I apologize to some of our
presenters. I had to go off to a different agricultural hearing
for a little while, and if I am repeating a question, I also
apologize, but I did appreciate the testimony that I heard.
And, Ms. Ratcliff, you really made a very important point
about the barriers to participation for smaller operations and
minority farmers. Some of the NRCS conservation programs have
set-asides or advanced payment options for historically
underserved producers, but it seems like the barriers are still
too high for many farmers.
So what recommendations would you make to increase
awareness of access to NRCS resources for smaller farms and
farmers of color?
Ms. Ratcliff. Thank you for that question. I think the
number one issue is I don't know if they are really coming to
smaller producers and looking at our goals. The goal that
necessarily NRCS wants and the goal that is actually hitting
the ground might be a little bit of disconnect. The number one
thing needs to be outreached and figure out what the small
producer's goals are and then from there try to move it up.
Because a lot of times it is coming down instead of moving up.
And it is prohibiting us because we do have some barriers. Our
barriers might be because we don't have the cost to actually
implement these programs. We need some cost assistance to help
implement those programs. We might not even have the resources
to implement the program, and we might not have the capacity to
aptly implement these programs.
So my first thing is that we need to sit at the table. We
need to make sure that these small producers are sitting at the
table to help make these decisions and help make these
decisions that are good for our operation because a lot of
times you come to us and say you must implement these, which we
might not have the capacity to implement.
So, please, we need a foot at the table.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you. I think that is a really important
point, and I would certainly hope that new USDA understands the
importance of having small farmers, farmers of color at the
table, but also to change the way the systems work so we are
asking the questions, not just deciding how the system should
work.
Dr. Paustian, I want to talk a little bit about COMET-Farm.
We often hear that climate change solutions can't be one-size-
fits-all, and we certainly know that agriculture doesn't look
the same in every part of the country. I represent Maine, and
our farmers certainly have different climate-related challenges
and opportunities to reduce emissions and sequester carbon than
someone would in the Midwest or California.
So could you talk a little bit about the accuracy of COMET-
Farm and accounting for carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas
emissions across different types of operations? Yes, that would
be helpful to know.
Dr. Paustian. Thank you for that question. Probably one of
the advantages of COMET-Farm is it is really a platform that
includes quite detailed data on things like weather and soil
types that are down to the field and subfield scale, so you are
capturing some of the differences, obviously, as you go across
the landscape and certainly from region to region.
The other attribute is that it uses a dynamic model that
integrates things like soil moisture and temperature and the
conditions that determine the agricultural system's
performance. In a sense, it is quite good at capturing these
local capabilities. Our basis for how good the model is, is
really based to a large extent on our fundamental
understanding, but also on field experiments that are out
across the nation. And, we utilize sort of all the data that we
can from field experiments that have looked at measuring carbon
changes over several decades even in different practices.
So we try to integrate all that in there. I do think there
are some improvements that could be made that I mentioned in my
opening remarks, including development of an on-farm monitoring
system attached to the national resource inventory system.
Thanks.
Ms. Pingree. Yes. And thank you for that. I did see those
recommendations in your testimony, and it is critically
important that we make this a reliable tool and a dependable
and credible measurement system. It is important to look at
your recommendations, and I have the good fortune of sitting on
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. I will certainly
make that a priority to support the system.
With that, I yield back, Madam Chair, and thank you, again,
for having this hearing.
The Chair. I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Moore, for 5 minutes.
Impeccable timing, Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I have a couple of
other committee meetings going on as well. This is for Dr.
Paustian. I thank you all for appearing today. [inaudible]
Leading conservation efforts, often through partnerships with
land-grant universities, such as Auburn University, where I
graduated, Tuskegee University and Alabama A&M. Would you be
willing to go into more detail regarding state programs and
land-grant universities support producers in improving soil and
water health and incorporating technology such as precision
agriculture?
Dr. Paustian. Now thanks for that question. And, as a
number of the other panelists had mentioned before, this
outreach to producers is critically important. We have more
that we can do from the university side, bringing this
information out to farmers. We are actually working with NRCS,
as well as some NGOs, including the Carbon Cycle Institute and
Mad Agriculture [inaudible] And other universities in
developing a curriculum for carbon farm planning that we hope
to be launching soon and working with NRCS so that their
technical service providers can go out and help to provide more
information about how these new practices work and how they can
best be implemented for the particular areas that farmers are
in because, as we mentioned before, kind of the site-specific
context, things in Alabama are very different than they are in
Minnesota or Maine or other places. We really need to have that
granularity. And, both the ag college folks as well as NRCS
have a key role to play there.
Mr. Moore. [Inaudible.]
The Chair. Mr. Moore, it appears you have a challenged
connection. We are having trouble hearing you.
Mr. Moore. [Inaudible.]
The Chair. Mr. Moore, the connection that you have is--Mr.
Moore, we are having trouble understanding your question with
your connection.
Mr. Moore. [inaudible.]
The Chair. Mr. Moore, we have a connection that is not
working with you. We are going to continue on----
Mr. Moore. [inaudible.]
The Chair. Mr. Moore, if you can hear me, we are having
trouble hearing you. The connection is quite bad. It appears to
be the case for everyone else. We are going to continue on with
Mr. Costa's question and come back to you, Mr. Moore, if we get
the connection rectified. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Costa for 5 minutes. And Mr.
Moore, we are going to try and get your connection clearer, and
we will come back to you. Thank you so much.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the Subcommittee
hearing. This is an important hearing that the Subcommittee is
holding looking at title II and exploring smart climate change
practices because I believe American agriculture can play and
is playing an important role in reducing our carbon footprint,
as well as wastewater waste streams.
I want to underline a comment that our colleague
Congressman Panetta talked about that really many of you have
spoken to and that is one size doesn't fit all in terms of
regional challenges that we face as it relates to our carbon
footprint and how we can make efforts. And I am glad that, Dr.
Paustian, you indicated that cover crops may have good
applications in some areas, but certainly where you have
drought conditions in the West, especially in California, as we
are experiencing extreme drought conditions, cover crop is just
not going to work.
Kimberly Ratcliff, you talked about some of the issues that
was raised with my previous colleague about programs for small
farmers, minority farmers, and my experience over the years has
been that NRCS and Farm Service Administration, frankly, don't
have the capability to reach out to small farmers.
In my area, especially, we have cultural and language
barriers that exist. Would you agree that we need to do a
better job--and I have said that to the current Secretary of
Agriculture--in making these efforts with the USDA more user-
friendly?
Ms. Ratcliff. I would absolutely agree. One of the major
issues is the locations of a lot of the USDA office. They are
so distant from a lot of producers that it is pretty much hard
to participate in the program. If you have to drive an hour and
a half just to see someone within the USDA office, it is going
to be hard for someone to get off a ranch or a farm that are
out there every day to go visit a USDA office. So many USDA
offices were shut down. So that is one thing. We need to open
up all these USDA offices back up in regions that will assist
more producers.
The other thing that is key that can actually help USDA is
partnerships. I am going to go back to 100 Ranchers. We have
private university partnership and USDA partnership. All of us
help get out the USDA requirements. All of us help fill out
documentations for producers. If there are more ways for us to
partner with private institutions, I think that will be a
tremendous help.
Mr. Costa. And I would agree with you. My time is expiring,
but the public-private partnerships are essential, as well as
with our colleges and universities, land-grant universities,
and I am attempting in California to do just that.
Jamie Johnson--Johansson, I am sorry, my friend. You are
doing a terrific job as the President of California Farm
Bureau, your leadership nationwide. I have limited time, but
you talked about the importance of title II programs, EQIP. I
think we are going to get broadband expanded nationwide. It is
one of the good things to come out of this horrific pandemic,
but I would like you to talk about the efforts that we have had
in California in terms of Federal conservation programs to
complement California's efforts. Do they work together? Do we
need to make changes as we work on additional strategies to
help farmers implement climate-smart practices?
Mr. Johansson. Yes. It is fairly--I had mentioned that EQIP
does work or our Healthy Soils Program does work well with the
EQIP. It is a potential there. The other big program we have,
and I know important in the Valley as well, is the FARMER
Program, which is the Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures
for Emission Reductions program. That is to replace tractors,
and so cleaner, more efficient tractors, cleaner engines,
cleaning burning engines. It has been a struggle to maintain
that funding. Certainly, there could be greater interaction on
the Federal level along with that program.
Another important program, and Dr. Paustian had mentioned,
it was our SWEEP Program, the State Water Efficiency and
Enhancement Program, that we have going on in California that
has been successful in conserving around 130,000 acres now
annually as we bring in water efficiencies.
If we can use these state programs and the Federal program
just to build on each other and expand, there is a lot of
opportunities out there.
Mr. Costa. My time is expiring, Jamie, but you are doing a
terrific job, but on the soliciting solutions, I have worked
with Karen Ross, our Ag Secretary in California, about the
reviews that they have done to assess California's success. I
want to talk to you further about how we implement that in
terms of a nationwide effort and your thoughts and ideas. I
don't know if you care to comment or if we have any--I have no
time left, but it is an important effort.
Mr. Johansson. Always happy to visit, Congressman. And all
too often, it feels like California kind of we have been down
this road before. I am happy to share our experiences, whether
that is a success or even just the burden of new programs
sometimes.
As farmers, we get a lot of programs that start out as
carrots and can end up as a stick down the road. And we have to
remember that, like the climate, it can change and so can
conditions on the farm in terms of what works and what doesn't
work based on that condition.
Mr. Costa. Long-term funding commitments are critical.
Mr. Johansson. Absolutely.
Mr. Costa. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing
me to sit in on your Subcommittee. Let's keep up the good work
and work together. You are doing a great job.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
And to the witnesses, we have heard from Mr. Moore's office
that he will not be coming back to ask a question, but the
Committee invites him to submit any additional questions in
written form, moving forward.
This concludes the first round of questions. The Ranking
Member and I would like to do an additional round for anyone
who might have any additional questions.
And so I will begin. Very briefly, Mr. Isbell, I would like
to ask you a pretty straightforward, simple question. We have
gone into depth in your written testimony and in your spoken
testimony as well about the benefits of the different practices
and programs that you make use of on your farm, but if you
could just tell us a little bit for anybody who might be
watching this hearing and not with an agricultural background,
not someone who is really focused on these topics, what
compelled you to utilize these practices on your farm, and what
does that look like from a day-to-day perspective, and why do
you keep doing it?
Could you explain kind of more in layman's terms some of
the real benefits of the practices that you utilize on your
farm?
Thank you.
Mr. Isbell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
So, for me, when we were growing and developing our farming
operation and me being the third generation and my kids
hopefully becoming the fourth, for us, it is looking about
sustainability. And a lot of people throw around the term
sustainability, but it is not just about conservation,
environmental sustainability, but also financial stability and
sustainability. And so, by utilizing these practices, we were
turned on to them through a lot of research, talking to folks
who have implemented the practices and the benefits that they
have seen from that implementation, and that is what led us
down that direction.
So, instead of continuing a traditional sense of cropping
and livestock raising, we wanted to see--we could see things
changing within the environment, within the marketplace and
wanting to adapt and knowing that the practices of the last 50
years are not going to get us to the next 50 years.
And so, looking at those and how they would incorporate.
And so really we have seen a reduction in our manpower that is
needed to accomplish the same goal. We have increased our soil
organic matter, which holds more water, which helps prevent us
from seeing the effects of the droughts that we are seeing. We
are seeing greater soil biology. That biology then gives us
fertility, which allows the plants to grow at a better rate
without us having to purchase/implement a nutrition program. We
are able to recycle nutrients by incorporating our livestock
into our cover crops and our crop rotations. So it is really a
synergistic effect. It is not a one-size-fits-all, but it is
definitely an approach that, with adaptation, can be
implemented across the states.
Of course, with each environment, there are different needs
and conditions that dictate different implementation, but it is
certainly utilizing a land stacking enterprising operation,
allows for both conservation, food production, and economic
stability for us.
The Chair. Thank you very much for that answer.
And if I could get you, again, for anyone who may not be
focused on these issues, the use of cover crops and the use of
rotational grazing in pretty basic straightforward terms, what
does that actually mean, the use of cover crops?
Mr. Isbell. Yes, for us, typically, a grain operation would
plant a harvestable crop, say, corn, and then they may leave it
fallow or empty and not plant anything else until the following
year when they would plant, say, soybeans or sometimes, in
Virginia, we have a typical three crop rotation where it is
corn, soybeans, and wheat in succession. If you leave the land
fallow in between with nothing growing on it, the cover crop
then takes that place. It allows for you to grow a crop that
you are not going to harvest, which captures nutrients to keep
them from running off in the off-season. It reduces erosion.
And in turn, when we roll down the cover crop or terminate
it mechanically, so what we are doing at that point is we are--
and the whole time that cover crop is growing, we are
sequestering carbon. The plant that is growing, is pulling
carbon, pulling it into its roots. Then, when the plant dies
off, we are now adding carbon to the soil, which feeds the
biology of the soil. We are capturing nutrients, feeding the
soil, growing organic matter, and all this in a time in which
the average producer would not have anything growing in the
field.
It costs us money up-front, and most farmers, well, why
would I spend the money to put in the crop that I am not going
to gain anything out of? You see it leave your bank account,
but don't see anything come in return. But it requires--to
convey to farmers that really what I see when I am investing in
a cover crop is I am putting money in the bank for the future.
By building that organic matter and soil health, I am putting
money in the bank that I will be able to utilize later by
having my successive cash crop after the cover crop usage.
And, in turn, with our livestock operation, we are also
able to utilize the livestock on those cover crops,
periodically grazing them, stimulating vegetative growth, and
furthering our sequestering of carbon and building of soil
biology.
The Chair. Thank you, Mr. Isbell.
I appreciate you indulging me in that question. Living in
the county just next door to where you are and representing a
district that is suburban and rural in agriculture, it is so
important that those who may not have an agricultural
background really understand the benefits and the choices that
you all are making on your land.
And so I am grateful that you took the time to make that
explanation. Hopefully, it will make clear why these programs
are so important, and so I thank you for that.
And I now yield to the Ranking Member for a second round of
questions.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, again, Madam Chair. I will probably
go mostly with Dr. Paustian on this. I want to get into maybe a
little technical on no-till and on sequestration. This isn't
some political rhetorical question here. I am a farmer in my
real life myself, and so we farm rice. We farm it in a certain
way that has been successful for many, many years. And so we
don't generally engage in the cover crop kind of thing because
we don't really have the luxury of time and certainly, this
year in California, we don't have the luxury of water to do
anything other than trying to grow--whether it is my or any of
my neighbor's crops or anybody else up and down the state, we
got to grow to try and stay in business this year with what
water they have.
And as we have seen, some areas have been cut dramatically.
Some were told they are going to get five percent of their
normal allocation, now they are going back and taking that five
percent. That is from right out of--from Bureau of Reclamation
in certain parts of the state. I mean, zero percent allocation.
They don't have any options on doing any of this that we are
talking about here because it is survival.
Klamath Basin same thing. I mean, it is just incredible how
difficult it is going to be this year.
And so--but when we are talking about whether it is no-till
and what is sequestered in, say, that top 4" to 8", maybe 12"
layer of soil, what are the effects when you do finally go back
and till the land to change a crop or put it back into play
after it has been idle for 1 year, 5 years, what have you?
The next time you till that ground, are we releasing the
carbon that you have just done all the work to try to sequester
in the soil? I understand carbon stays sequestered in wood
products and things like that that are more or less permanent,
but talk about that, Dr. Paustian, and others on the panel that
would like to weigh in on that, feel so. Thank you.
Dr. Paustian. Yes. Thank you, Representative. Yes, when we
are looking at soil carbon, we are really trying to essentially
manage a balance, right, and what Mr. Isbell said was really
important that conservation practices, you are generally trying
to accomplish two things to add more carbon to the soil. And
one is, you want to, the carbon is in the atmosphere. The
longer you can have a growing plant on the soil and capturing
more of that CO2 and introducing it into the soil
through the roots and the crop residues, the better off you
are.
Also, in general, if you can reduce the amount of soil
disturbance, you tend to maintain the organic matter from being
decomposed as quickly as it might otherwise do. You are trying
to manage that carbon balance and increase the stocks there.
But, it is different with different types of systems. And you
mentioned rice cultivation, and typically I would say, in a
rice system probably from a climate standpoint, the thing that
you want to focus on is probably the ways to reduce methane
emissions from rice either through varieties, if they are
suitable, or through water management to have the system not
flooded quite as often.
So there are management techniques that work in rice
systems to reduce methane emissions.
Mr. LaMalfa. We have been trying them all for 90 years. It
is a situation where we used to burn the rice straw at the end
of the season, which wasn't popular finally more recent years.
And so my own farm, we have been working really hard to bail it
and remove it and find other products for it, but it is a very
extremely limited market. We are stuck with having to instead
of the burn, chop, disc, and flood, which does have its own new
problems when you do that making the straw decompose.
We don't have the option of cover crop or no-till in that
situation, and there are other crops that would probably chime
in with other unique situations. I guess what is the bottom
line, though, on if you do till the soil, are you going to lose
the carbon that you have sequestered?
Dr. Paustian. Let's say you are doing, maybe not rice
farming, but maybe you are in upland soils and you have been
doing no-till and cover crops and things like this, if you then
sort of abandon those practices, then over time your carbon
levels will tend to go back down towards where they were
before.
So it is important that we have systems that--as in Mr.
Isbell said, are not only environmentally sustainable but
economically sustainable. So, if you have a system that is
sequestering carbon, building that carbon, and you are making
more money doing that, then the good news is that the
likelihood of maintaining those practices over time is much
greater if they are more profitable.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. Many in the Midwest are multi-cropping on
a rotation and such so. I am not here to bad mouth it or
anything. It sounds to me like, once you get into a particular
flow on this, a particular method, that you don't get out of a
no-till method without the carbon penalty, I guess you would
say. And that will lead to other concerns for me as somewhere
on the line are you required to stay in that type; otherwise,
you are emitting carbon, and now you are one of the bad guys.
Even though, crop rotations, changing crops, or just the
necessity to air the soil and maybe you have--when they change
orchards and such, they have to go in a deep rip and kill
nematodes, things like that. Anyway, it is just an ongoing
discussion, and I want to be sure that we all have flexibility
in ongoing programs that if there is a need to change or to
move in a different direction with that crop, that doesn't
become a penalty or a red letter on how our farmers need to
practice.
So thank you for the extra time. I appreciate it.
The Chair. The chair now recognizes Mr. Costa, of
California, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. Okay. I want to, once again, thank the Chair for
this important Subcommittee hearing today and make a few
points.
Certainly, my colleague from California, Congressman
LaMalfa, makes some important points. It gets back to one size
doesn't fit all, but beyond that, farming has changed. We know
a lot more today than we did a generation ago. I farm too. It
is my primary source of income, but I don't farm the way my
father farmed because of a lot of reasons, not only technology,
but obviously change in crop patterns and the impacts of
climate change.
I want to make a point I would like the three of you to
respond. I have been simultaneously, Madam Chair, participating
in the Foreign Relations Committee hearing today with Senator
Kerry talking about our role in the international arena towards
climate change. It seems to me that American agriculture has
played a role and continues to play a role in reducing our
carbon footprint and reducing waste streams, but you need two
things, and the Chair and I have discussed this. I have
discussed it with Senator Kerry and Secretary Vilsack.
You need two things to be successful in that for outcomes:
one, determine what consistent funding sources we can have on a
regional basis throughout the country to reduce that carbon
footprint and the waste stream, water waste streams; and, two,
continuous funding to determine which management practices work
best on a farm and the dairies and the ranches, realizing the
regional differences. But, goals over the next 10 years are
critical, that are achievable, and a commitment on funding
sources on this public-private partnership. Where, to your
knowledge, are there realistic goals based upon existing
practices and hopefully new practices that we can achieve in
the next 10 years in American agriculture, and what are the
consistent revenue streams you believe necessary as we develop
a legislative package and strategy?
In less than 2\1/2\ minutes, who would like to respond?
Mr. Johansson. Well, I will start, Congressman. And thanks,
again. I mean, really quickly, we haven't really discussed it
here, but one of the difficulties as well to in implementing
these programs is what is the baseline, right? Where do we set
the baseline at and how do we not punish the early adopters?
Mr. Costa. Absolutely.
Mr. Johansson. And you saw that in our own carbon program
here in California and what that meant to our food processors,
and that is the other part of this equation, too, is our food
processors and ultimately those brands that sell our products.
How do we engage them that we know the economic benefit they
get for marketing a product that is, say, carbon neutral or has
a lower carbon footprint, how does that end up back to the
farmer which encourages them further in those practices?
I mean, we certainly saw it in the organic industry as that
grew in the 1980s and 1990s to where it is today, but how do we
engage that private-sector to reward those farmers and those
ranchers who are taking those steps, but, again, as we
implement these programs, as we come up with this baseline, it
is going to be critical that the early adopters aren't
penalized.
Mr. Costa. I agree. And, voluntary is an important concept
in that public-private partnership.
Ms. Ratcliff, you care to comment?
Ms. Ratcliff. Absolutely. And I am in agreement with that
baseline, and I guess my baseline would be the size--you
mentioned it previously in your open comment is not all size
fits everyone. There are always different climates. There are
different grasses. There are different soil types. Just within
Texas, our big state, is different from north to south. I think
you really have to do it regionally and look at each region
separately.
I don't think you can do a global around the United States
and, say, ``Hey, this is what needs to go in every single
state.'' I really think we need to concentrate it on regionally
because it is different for each region.
Mr. Costa. It has to be a regional strategy to set national
goals.
Ms. Ratcliff. Exactly.
Mr. Costa. Finally, Doctor, would you care to comment?
Dr. Paustian. I would agree with Ms. Ratcliff. We have the
technologies to integrate local solutions with national
policies, and I think we want to work in that area.
Mr. Costa. And as a 30 year member of the California Farm
Bureau, to Jamie Johansson's comments, we don't want to punish
under the category of no good deed goes unpunished, the fact
that good practices have already been installed, and we want to
incentivize those good practices if we want to develop a
successful, overall nationwide strategy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate you allowing me
to participate, once again.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
If there are any other Members remaining on with us today
who would like to ask additional questions, please unmute
yourself and seek recognition.
All right. Seeing none, we are going to move towards
closing today. Ranking Member LaMalfa needed to head to the
floor and will not be giving closing statements. I will
continue and close out this hearing.
I want to thank Ranking Member LaMalfa.
And, to all of our witnesses here today, I truly appreciate
this discussion. It has been informative. I thank you for
spending extra time with us for our second round of questions.
And I want to emphasize my commitment to ensuring that we are
exploring every avenue for addressing the climate crisis
through every avenue for improving upon our conservation
programs. I appreciate the time that you all spent today,
answering our questions, making clear why these programs are so
incredibly important, the value that they have on the farms in
your states.
Dr. Paustian, thank you for all of your research.
And as the committees consider opportunities to leverage
title II programs and research, our continuing possibilities
for mitigating climate change, I do want to keep in mind many
of the excellent points that were raised here today. I also
hope that we will walk out of this hearing with a greater
clarity of the benefits of these conservation programs and also
how we may continue to ensure that we are seeing these benefits
at a larger scale.
So I appreciate you bringing your personal experiences,
answering our questions, and really helping to inform Committee
Members here today. So, to all of our witnesses, again, I thank
you very much.
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses to the
witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing on the Subcommittee on Conservation and
Forestry is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Reports by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative in
Congress from Virginia

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Cover Crop Trends, Programs, and Practices in the United States
Steven Wallander, David Smith, Maria Bowman, and Roger Claassen
Economic Research Service
Economic Information Bulletin Number 222
February 2021

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Economic Research Service
www.ers.usda.gov

Steven Wallander, David Smith, Maria Bowman, and Roger
Claassen. Cover Crop Trends, Programs, and Practices in the
United States, EIB 222, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service, February 2021.
Cover is a derivative of images from Getty Images.
Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or
constitute endorsement by USDA.
To ensure the quality of its research reports and satisfy
government-wide standards, ERS requires that all research
reports with substantively new material be reviewed by
qualified technical research peers. This technical peer review
process, coordinated by ERS' Peer Review Coordinating Council,
allows experts who possess the technical background,
perspective, and expertise to provide an objective and
meaningful assessment of the output's substantive content and
clarity of communication during the publication's review.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and
policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and
institutions participating in or administering USDA programs
are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including
gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age,
marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a
public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or
retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or
activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to
all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by
program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of
communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large
print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact
the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-
2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay
Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information
may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA
Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA
office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the
letter all of the information requested in the form. To request
a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your
completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-
9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email:
program.intake@usda.gov.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Cover Crop Trends, Programs, and Practices in the United States
Steven Wallander, David Smith, Maria Bowman, and Roger Claassen
Abstract
On U.S. cropland, the use of cover crops increased by 50 percent
between 2012 and 2017. During this same period, Federal and state
conservation programs increased efforts to promote cover crops through
financial and technical assistance. When farmers introduce cover crops
into a crop rotation, there can be important on-farm benefits for the
farmers as well as benefits to society. These benefits depend upon how
the farmers manage the cover crop, such as the type of cover crop, the
method used to terminate its growth, and other soil health and residue-
management practices employed. Based on a series of farm- and field-
level surveys, this report details how cover crops are managed on corn,
cotton, soybean, and wheat fields. These surveys reveal that there are
many different approaches to using cover crops. This includes
considerable variation in the other soil-health-related practices
farmers use with cover cropping, such as no-till farming, conservation
cropping, and soil testing.
Keywords: Cover crop, conservation practice, soil health,
conservation program, financial assistance, erosion, tillage.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Robert Dubman of USDA, Economic
Research Service (ERS) for assistance with Agricultural Resource
Management Survey (ARMS) data, and Dave Buland of USDA, Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for assistance with Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP) payments data. For review comments, we would
like to thank Andrew Rosenberg (ERS), Tara Wade (University of
Florida), Alejandro Plastina (Iowa State University), and many
reviewers from within the NRCS Science and Technology Deputy Area and
Soil and Health Science Division coordinated by Bianca Mobius-Clune and
Jimmy Bramblett. We appreciate the editorial support provided by
Melanie Scarborough, ERS editor, and production layout assistance by
Andrea Pimm, ERS designer.
About the authors: Steven Wallander is an economist with the USDA,
Economic Research Service (ERS). David Smith, Maria Bowman, and Roger
Claassen were economists at ERS when this research was conducted.
Contents
Summary
Background
Adoption of Cover Crops
Conservation Programs for Cover Crops
Conservation Rotation, Tillage, and Nutrient Management
Conclusions
References

A report summary from the Economic Research Service
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERS is a primary source of economic research and analysis from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, providing timely information on
economic and policy issues related to agriculture, food, the
environment, and rural America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Is the Issue?
Farmers grow cover crops for a variety of production and soil
health benefits that do not include the sale or direct use of the crop.
This distinguishes cover crops from both cash crops, which are
harvested and sold, and forage crops, which are grazed by livestock or
harvested for hay or silage. Well-managed cover crops provide a living,
seasonal coverage of soil between commodity or forage crops. Depending
upon the field, soil, climate, and weather, cover crops can result in a
variety of on-farm benefits: reduced soil erosion and compaction,
improved water infiltration and storage within the soil profile,
greater weed and pest suppression, and better nutrient cycling and soil
stability to support machine operations. Cover crops can also provide
public environmental benefits: less runoff of sediments and nutrients
into waterways, reduced flooding in watersheds, and greater soil carbon
sequestration. As the understanding of links between soil health and
these environmental benefits has grown, USDA and many states have
increased financial assistance for cover crops through working lands
conservation programs. This report summarizes unique, nationally
representative data available on cover crop adoption rates, crop type,
and management choices, and the links between cover crop use and other
conservation practices.
What Did the Study Find?
U.S. farmers are rapidly expanding the adoption of cover crops.

In 2017, farmers reported planting 15.4 million acres of
cover crops, a 50 percent increase compared to the 10.3 million
acres reported in 2012.

Field-level surveys of corn, cotton, soybean, and wheat
fields reveal the use of cover crops; and rates of expanded
adoption are highest on fields that include corn silage in the
rotation and lowest on fields that include wheat.

Financial incentives provided by Federal, state, and private
organizations to encourage cover crops are one driver of increased
cover crop adoption.

In 2018, about \1/3\ of the acreage planted with a cover
crop received a financial assistance payment from either
Federal, state, or other programs that support cover crop
adoption.

In Fiscal Year 2018, USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) obligated $155 million in planned payments
toward cover crops on about 2 million acres. This is about 20
times the level of financial support for cover crops through
EQIP in 2005, driven primarily by an increase in acres enrolled
in a cover crop practice.

Between 2011 and 2015, the total acreage enrolled in USDA's
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) through contracts,
including cover crop practices and enhancement, increased from
about 350,000 acres to more than 2 million acres.

A variety of incentive programs administered by at least 22
states supported more than 1 million acres of cover crops in
2018.

In 2018, financial assistance for cover crops across a
variety of Federal and state programs, excluding CSP, ranged
from $12 per acre to $92 per acre.

Farmers use a variety of cover crops and diverse strategies to
manage them.

Fields in cotton and corn silage are much more likely to use
cover crops compared to fields in corn-for-grain or soybeans.

The most common cover crops are rye (cereal rye or annual
ryegrass) and winter wheat. (Note Summary figure).

To prepare for the planting of cash crops, most cover crops
are terminated with herbicide or tillage.

Cover crops are often part of a suite of conservation practices
that comprise a farmer's soil health management system. Other
conservation practices, such as no-till farming and a written nutrient
management plan, are more common on fields with cover crops than on
fields without cover crops.

No-till planting is two to three times more likely on fields
with cover crops.

Testing for nutrients and soil organic matter and the use of
written nutrient management plans are all more likely on fields
with a cover crop.
How Was the Study Conducted?
We estimate cover crop adoption rates using data from the 2012 and
2017 Census of Agriculture and the Agricultural Resource Management
Survey (ARMS), a national survey of farming operations and production
practices conducted by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) and Economic Research Service (ERS). The field-level data are
based on the Production Practice and Cost Report (Phase 2) ARMS that is
conducted periodically for corn (2010 and 2016), cotton (2015), wheat
(2017), and soybeans (2018). Field-level data on cover crop adoption
and management are obtained from a series of questions that ask farmers
about what crops they grew during the 4 years prior to the survey,
whether the crop was a cover crop, and what tillage and termination
practices were used. To capture potential relationships between cover
cropping and other management practices, we also use field-level survey
data to estimate the extent to which different tillage practices,
conservation cropping, soil testing, and other practices are associated
with the use of cover crops on surveyed fields.
We use data obtained from the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) ProTracts database and other online NRCS resources to
estimate the magnitude of Federal financial incentives for cover crops
and trends in these incentives provided through EQIP and CSP.
Information on state-level programs and financial incentives for cover
crops was compiled from various sources, including publicly available
documents and conservation program reporting, and personal
communication with state departments of agriculture and conservation
districts.
Cover Crop Trends, Programs, and Practices in the United States
Background
Maintaining, supporting, and enhancing soil health is a cornerstone
of an agroecosystem that sustains productive agricultural land. Soil
health management follows four basic principles: (1) minimize soil
disturbance; (2) maximize soil cover; (3) maximize biodiversity; and
(4) maximize the presence of living roots in the soil (USDA-NRCS,
2018f). Cover crops, a soil-health-related conservation practice, have
received increased attention from Federal and state conservation
programs, farmers, and nongovernmental organizations. This single
conservation practice meets three of the four basic principles for
improving soil health (principles 2-4).
The soil health improvements that can come with the use of cover
crops are associated with a variety of potential on-field benefits for
the farmer. Cover crops can enhance soil properties such as aggregate
stability, beneficial microbial activity, and the amount of organic
matter in the soil (Snapps, et al., 2005). Depending upon the local
soil and climate, these changes can help suppress and control weeds,
reduce nutrient and pesticide losses, increase infiltration, and
increase the volume of water retained in the soil profile, which may
lead to greater drought resilience (Myers, et al., 2019). The types of
soil health improvements and on-farm benefits are variable, complex,
and context-specific (Tonitto, et al., 2006). Many of these benefits
are also associated with public benefits, such as improved downstream
water quality (Dabney, et al., 2001).
Cover crops can also have costs--both monetary and non-monetary--
that limit the willingness of many farmers to plant them (Plastina, et
al., 2018). Establishing a cover crop involves seed, machinery, and
time. Managing a cover crop to achieve the desired benefits can require
significant learning and adjustments in other aspects of the farming
system. Terminating a cover crop to prepare for the following cash crop
also involves machinery, time, and sometimes additional herbicide. In
some situations, there can be unintended or undesired negative
consequences from cover crops, such as allelopathy or an increase in
certain crop pests (Lu, et al., 2000; Bakker, et al., 2016).
This report relies on survey data in which farmers self-report
whether they are growing cover crops on their operation or on a given
field. For any management practice, such data collection relies upon
survey respondents defining the practice in the same way as the
analysts interpreting the survey data. What is a cover crop? In
general, a cover crop can be a single species or a mix of grasses,
legumes, or forbs grown primarily to provide seasonal cover and related
benefits. For example, cereal rye is often planted as a cover crop in
the fall to provide winter cover between the planting of cash crops
such as corn and soybeans.
USDA defines a cover crop based on the primary intended use for the
crop (see box ``How does USDA define a cover crop?''). This definition
separates cover cropping from double cropping, a practice in which
farmers plant and harvest a second cash crop within a year (Borchers
and Wallander, 2014). Sometimes this distinction is simplified to
define cover crops as crops that are not harvested; though as the data
below show, many farmers use harvesting as a method to terminate the
cover crop. In some cases, farmers even harvest a cover crop for grain.
While such cover crop management is not allowed in USDA financial
assistance programs (NRCS, 2014b), some state programs have allowed for
such management of cover crops in return for reduced payments. For
example, between 2007 and 2017, roughly 20 to 40 percent of the cover
crop acres planted in Maryland as part of the state's Agricultural
Water Quality Cost Share Program were ``commodity cover crops'' that
could be harvested for sale (Bowman and Lynch, 2019). Since there are
conflicting rules around cover crops in these conservation programs,
statistics on cover crop adoption inherently capture a certain amount
of acreage that would not qualify as having cover crops under some
program definitions. This challenge of consistently defining cover
crops reflects the inherent complexity of managing cover crops.

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does USDA define a cover crop?
In 2014, USDA agencies revised their definition of a cover crop for
consistency across agencies, as follows:

``Crops, including grasses, legumes, and forbs, for seasonal cover
and other conservation purposes. Cover crops are primarily used for
erosion control, soil health improvement, and water quality
improvement. A cover crop managed and terminated according to these
guidelines is not considered a `crop' for crop insurance purposes.
The cover crop may be terminated by natural causes such as frost, or
intentionally terminated through chemical application, crimping,
rolling, tillage, or cutting'' (USDA-NRCS, 2014c; USDA-NRCS 2014e).

Further, USDA's definition allows for grazing and harvesting under
specific conditions, as follows:

``Cover crops may be grazed or harvested as hay or silage, unless
prohibited by RMA (Risk Management Agency) crop insurance policy
provisions. Cover crops cannot be harvested for grain or seed'' (USDA-
NRCS, 2014c; USDA-NRCS, 2014e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adoption of Cover Crops
In 2017, U.S. farmers reported planting 15.4 million acres of cover
crops. The adoption of cover crops increased 50 percent from 2012 when
farmers reported planting 10.3 million acres of cover crops (USDA-NASS,
2019, table 47). Various conservation groups and experts have suggested
long-run targets for cover crop adoption that range from 20 million
acres by 2020 to 100 million acres by 2025 (Hamilton, et al., 2017).
Currently, though, there is no official USDA goal or target for the
extent of cover crop adoption.
Looking at adoption rates, rather than total acreage, allows for
comparison across regions. Previous research has suggested that total
cropland is not the correct denominator for calculating adoption rates
(Hamilton, et al., 2017). For this study, we calculate adoption rates
using a denominator of harvested cropland minus harvested alfalfa
acreage.\1\ Harvested cropland excludes fallow land, failed crops, and
the long-term, perennial cover on land enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP). As a share of harvested cropland, excluding
alfalfa, cover crop adoption increased from 3.4 percent in 2012 to 5.1
percent in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We do not exclude orchards, as suggested by Hamilton, et al.,
(2017), because it is possible to plant cover crops within an orchard.
We do not exclude non-alfalfa hay and haylage because an examination of
county-level data makes clear that in some areas, particularly the
northeastern United States, a large share of cover crops is reported as
hay or haylage. We do not exclude double-cropped acres, which are
similar to perennial rotations in lacking the ability to include crops,
because the Census of Agriculture data do not capture double-cropped
acreage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cover crop adoption rates in 2017 and the change from 2012 to 2017
vary a great deal across the United States (figure 1). Maryland, which
has been heavily promoting cover crops for well over a decade, has both
a high adoption rate (about 33 percent in 2017) and a high growth rate
(more than six percentage points from 2012 to 2017). States with both
high adoption and high growth rates are often in the eastern United
States (e.g., Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Georgia). Several states in
the Midwest and Great Lakes regions had moderate adoption and growth
rates (e.g., Missouri, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio). There was a slight
decline in cover crop adoption in Colorado, Washington, and Wyoming,
and a much larger decline in New Mexico.
Adoption levels can also vary considerably within states,
reflecting the combined effects of different soils, primary crops,
livestock density, outreach and training availability, and conservation
technical assistance and financial incentive programs (figure 2). For
example, within Texas, some of the highest adoption rates are in the
panhandle, where a larger share of acreage is planted to cotton. As
shown later in this report, cotton fields have higher adoption rates
than corn for grain or soybeans. In Pennsylvania, cover crop adoption
is more common in counties within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which
could reflect greater conservation program- or regulation-related
incentives in those counties. In Iowa, cover crop adoption is more
common in the southeastern portion of the state, where soils have lower
organic matter and higher erodibility compared to the rest of the
state. These potential drivers of variation in adoption suggest a
complex mix of both the benefits and costs of using cover crops, which
include variation in cover crop incentive programs.
As noted above, cover crop adoption was high in 2017 compared to
where it was in 2012 but is still relatively rare at a 5.1 percent
adoption rate. Given the extensive interest in cover crops and calls
for expanded adoption, comparing cover crop acreage to the acreage of
other crops, conservation practices, and land uses can provide useful
perspective even though these other practices and land uses generally
provide different economic, agronomic, and environmental benefits
(figure 3).
Figure 1
State comparisons of 2017 cover crop adoption rates and 2012-17 trends

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Notes: Alaska and Hawaii are not included in the chart. Share
of acreage is calculated as harvested cropland acreage (which
excludes Conservation Reserve Program, fallow, and failed
cropland acres) minus harvested hay and forage acreage. The
size of circles is proportional to the total cover crop acreage
in 2017; states with more total acreage in cover crops have
larger circles.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA,
National Agricultural Statistics Service.

As a conservation practice focused on both increasing organic
matter and reducing erosion, cover crops are often considered alongside
tillage practices. Both no-till (104 million acres) and conservation
tillage (97 million acres, excluding no-till) are much more widely
adopted than cover crops, which suggests there is still potential for
cover crop adoption to increase.\2\ However, no-till and conservation
tillage generally involve reduced on-farm costs because of fewer field
operations and lower input use relative to conventional tillage. In
contrast, cover crops can involve increased costs, at least in the
short run, due to seed purchases and additional field operations and,
often but not always, greater use of inputs such as herbicide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ According to the NASS Census of Agriculture definition,
conservation tillage includes all reduced tillage operations, excluding
no-till, that leave at least 30 percent of the soil covered in crop
residue at the time of planting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2
Cover crop adoption as a share of harvested acreage by county, 2017

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Note: County boundaries are clipped to show only cropland.
Non-cropland appears white. Missing data occur when county-
level estimates cannot be publicly released due to an
insufficient number of observations in a county.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using 2017
Agricultural Census, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics
Service.

As a crop that is generally not harvested and that can have very
high benefits if used on highly erodible land, cover crops may also be
compared to the CRP. In 2017, CRP contracts enrolled 24 million acres.
However, there are very different costs and benefits involved in the
two different land uses since the environmentally sensitive land in CRP
is effectively retired from active crop production for at least 10
years.
Given that cover crops are integrated into cash crop rotations, it
is also helpful to compare cover crop acreage to cash crop acreage. In
2017, only corn, soybeans, winter wheat, and hay had more total acreage
than cover crops. Winter wheat and hay are probably the most relevant
comparisons because of the potential use of cover crops for forage in
some circumstances. There were more cover crops planted in 2017 than
spring wheat (including durum), cotton, sorghum, and many other crops.
Figure 3
Comparing cover crop acreage to other crop and conservation acreage in
2017

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Note: Conservation tillage acreage does not include no-till
acreage.
Source: Crop acreages are from USDA, National Agricultural
Statistics Service annual surveys. Cover crop and tillage
acreages are from 2017 Census of Agriculture. Conservation
Reserve Program acreage is from September 2017, USDA, Farm
Service Agency monthly report.
Conservation Programs for Cover Crops
Federal and state conservation programs reduce the cost of cover
crop adoption through financial assistance payments, which encourage
greater adoption of cover crops than would occur without the program
payments. As detailed in this section, during 2017, these programs
provided more than $180 million in total incentives for the adoption of
cover crops on more than 5 million acres of cropland. The per-acre
payment rates, the eligibility requirements, and even the types of
cover crops and management practices vary significantly across programs
as well as between states and regions within Federal programs.
USDA has two major programs that provide such financial assistance:
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). In addition to the Federal
programs, farmers may be eligible for state programs that provide
financial assistance to farmers who plant cover crops. In most cases,
farmers cannot simultaneously receive payments from multiple programs
for the cover crops on the same field in the same year, although some
exceptions do exist.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Under EQIP, farmers may be eligible to receive annual payments for
introducing cover crops if the conservation planning process finds
their fields have environmental resource concerns that cover crops
could address. Farmers are ineligible for payment through EQIP on
fields where they are already planting cover crops. In this way, EQIP
is meant to encourage trial adoption of cover crops for up to 5 years.
Farmers who receive an EQIP payment cannot harvest their cover crop
for grain or seed. In many cases, participants can terminate their
cover crop by grazing livestock on the forage or harvesting the cover
crop for hay or silage (USDA-NRCS, 2014c), but these requirements can
vary by state. Each EQIP contract specifies the type of cover crop to
be established, seeding rates and dates, when and how farmers will
apply nutrients, and how they will terminate their cover crop (USDA-
NRCS, 2014b).
Cover crops are considered an annual practice in EQIP and can be
included in an EQIP contract for a maximum of 5 years on the same field
(USDA-NRCS, 2017b). Per-acre payment levels for cover crops through
EQIP differ by region, in part due to variation in the costs of
implementing the practice (USDA-NRCS, 2018a). In FY 2017, the median
per-acre payment at the state level for the cover crop practice ranged
from $62.33 (Illinois) to $92.27 (Delaware). Payment rates for cover
crops in EQIP vary according to whether a single crop or multiple crop
mix is planted, may differ in organic production systems, and can be
higher if the farmer is a member of a historically underserved producer
group.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Historically underserved producer groups, as defined by the
Agricultural Act of 2014, include Limited Resource Farmers, Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers, Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, and Veteran
Farmers (NRCS, 2014d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a significant upward trend in total funding going toward
cover crops through both EQIP and CSP. During the past 14 years, USDA
funding for cover crops through EQIP has increased--both in absolute
terms and relative to other practices included in the programs such as
no-till. Between 2005 and 2018, funding for cover crops through EQIP
increased from about $7 million to more than $155 million (in 2018
dollars) (figure 4). During this same period, funding for no-till
declined substantially.
Figure 4
Spending trends on conservation tillage and cover crops in EQIP

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Note: Dollar figure is the total amount of funding obligated
for financial assistance (``cost-share'') payments on the cover
crop practice within EQIP contracts signed in each fiscal year.
Adjustments for inflation are made with the Consumer Price
Index.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of USDA,
Natural Resources Conservation Service ProTracts data on
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) obligations.

The growth in total financial assistance for cover crops reflects
both an increase in the per-acre financial assistance payment for cover
crops and the large increase in the total number of acres enrolled in
the cover crop practice (figure 5). The analysis here reports total
funding by the fiscal years in which contracts are initiated. However,
many practices in a contract are planned to be implemented in
subsequent years, at which point payments for the practices will be
made. For this reason, the actual increase in cover crop acreage
receiving financial assistance through EQIP lags slightly behind the
increase in quent years, at which point payments for the practices will
be made. For this reason, the actual increase in cover crop acreage
receiving financial assistance through EQIP lags slightly behind the
increase in EQIP funding levels for cover crops. For example, total
planned acreage for cover crops in 2018, about 2.4 million acres,
reflects contracts from the 2018 Fiscal Year as well as from earlier
fiscal years.
Figure 5
Cover crop acres enrolled in EQIP

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of USDA,
Natural Resources Conservation Service ProTracts data for the
Environmental Quality Incentive Program.

To examine how well the increase in EQIP funding explains the
increase in cover crop adoption in the Census of Agriculture data, we
estimate the correlation between the county-level change in adoption
between 2012 and 2017 and the total planned acres of cover crop in EQIP
for 2013 to 2017 by county. If EQIP financial assistance were the only
driver of changes in cover crop adoption and all contracts resulted in
new adoption, then we would expect to see a perfect (one-to-one)
correlation between the share of acreage enrolled in EQIP cover crop
practices and the change in the cover crop rate of adoption. On
average, there is a positive correlation, and a one-percentage-point
enrollment of county-harvested cropland in EQIP is associated with a
0.5-percentage-point increase in cover crop adoption (figure 6). That
this correlation is less than one-to-one is consistent with both the
fact that not all farmers will continue the use of cover crops after an
EQIP contract expires, and that some farmers receiving financial
assistance would have adopted the cover crops without the payments
(Claassen, et al., 2018).
Figure 6
County-level changes in cover crops and EQIP participation

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Note: Change in cover crop adoption is the difference between
the share of harvested, non-alfalfa cropland with cover crops
in 2017 and 2012. EQIP enrollment in cover crop practices is
expressed as the share of harvested, non-alfalfa cropland
enrolled for financial assistance on the cover crops (practice
code 340) in at least 1 year from 2013. Enrollment acreage is
the total number of acres based on planned year in the original
contract and divided by 3 since most contracts specify 3 years
of cover crops on the same fields. Only counties with at least
100,000 acres of harvested, non-alfalfa cropland are included
in the chart because of the noisier adoption rates in the
smaller counties. The predicted line is a simple linear fit to
the displayed data with no weighting.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of USDA,
Natural Resources Conservation Service ProTracts data for the
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and Census of
Agriculture (2012 and 2017), USDA, National Agricultural
Statistics Service.

In addition, while this correlation is statistically significant,
there is a lot of variation in cover crop adoption rates not explained
by EQIP funding. This likely reflects the influence of other programs,
weather, shifts in cash crop acreage, and perhaps other factors such as
cover crop seed availability.
The Conservation Stewardship Program
While EQIP generally focuses on incentivizing new adoption of
practices to address resource concerns and deliver environmental
benefits, CSP seeks to incentivize enhanced conservation stewardship on
farms that have the potential to achieve even higher levels of
environmental benefits by implementing enhancements to existing
practices (USDA-NRCS, 2016a). This means farmers who are already using
cover crops (with or without financial assistance) might be eligible
for CSP if they shift to enhanced cover crop systems, such as more
diverse cover crop mixes or systems that promote specific ecosystem
services or address additional resource concerns. Examples of eligible
CSP enhancements involving cover cropping include the use of multi-
species cover crops to improve soil health and increase soil organic
matter.\4\ Cover crop enhancements can be used to address several
resource concerns, including soil erosion, weed and pest pressure, soil
health degradation (e.g., aggregate instability, soil organism habitat
degradation, compaction, organic matter depletion), and water quality
degradation (USDA-NRCS, 2018b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For a full list of 2018 CSP enhancements, including
enhancements that incorporate cover cropping, see USDA-NRCS, 2018b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers enrolled in CSP sign a 5 year contract committing to engage
in conservation activities (``practices, enhancements, and bundles of
enhancements'') included in a whole-farm stewardship plan. In 2017, CSP
shifted to a system with enhancement-based payment rates similar to the
structure of EQIP. Under this system, the per-acre payment levels for
CSP are generally lower than those for EQIP (table 1). In part, this
reflects the fact that CSP payment rates are based only on the
enhancement component of the activity--such as moving from a simple
cover crop, which typically would be required to meet eligibility for
CSP, to a more complex cover crop--and these costs are lower than the
costs of adopting cover crops for the first time.
Going further back into the history of the program, CSP payments
are not itemized by activity during the timeframe covered by this
report, so it is generally not possible to disaggregate CSP funds by
specific activity. Therefore, the trends in cover crop funding under
CSP cannot be charted in the same way as for EQIP. For CSP, the cover
cropped acres are estimated as the total acres under contracts with at
least one cover crop practice or enhancement receiving financial
assistance. The total cover crop acreage receiving CSP payments
increased from just over 350,000 acres in 2010 to more than 2 million
acres in 2015. This growth in CSP acreage with cover crop practices or
enhancements mirrors the shift toward cover crops in EQIP.
State Programs
In addition to Federal sources of funding to incentivize the
adoption of cover crops, there are many state programs (AGREE, 2019).
The seven largest and longest standing state programs enrolled about
1.4 million acres in 2017 (table 2). In combination with the 1.8
million acres planned for 2017 in EQIP (figure 5) and the approximately
2 million acres in CSP (table 1), this means that at least 5 million
acres, \1/3\ of total cover crop acres, were receiving some form of
financial assistance for cover crops in 2017. In addition to the seven
states listed in table 2, at least 17 other states or conservation
districts within states have provided a per-acre incentive payment for
cover crops.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Other states that offer either statewide or conservation
district-level cover crop incentive programs include California,
Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Since a few programs allow participants
to receive assistance from multiple sources, simply adding acreage
across programs can lead to some double counting. However, such
allowances are an exception to most programs and the total acreage
receiving payments is consistent with reported acreage receiving
assistance in ARMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of both total funded acreage and per-acre payment levels,
Maryland has the largest program in the United States: In FY 2017, the
Maryland program provided incentives on 639,710 acres and payments of
more than $20 million statewide. After Maryland, the next-largest
programs were in Iowa and Virginia. In FY 2017, Iowa spent $5 million
to incentivize the planting of cover crops on 250,000 acres; in FY
2016, Virginia spent $5.1 million to incentivize cover cropping on
approximately 200,000 acres.
The requirements of these state programs vary widely; some
substitute for Federal programs, while others are complementary to
Federal financial assistance or are designed to make sure the farmer is
receiving a 100 percent cost-share for using a cover crop practice.
Some programs limit the total acreage a farm can enroll or the length
of time a field can enroll. Others limit their programs to farmers who
have never previously used cover crops. In Missouri, the Department of
Natural Resources requires farmers participating in the cover crop
cost-share program to provide initial soil samples to the University of
Missouri Soil Health Assessment Center, and they are encouraged to
complete a follow-up soil health test after 4 or 5 years of cover
cropping (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2016).
In addition to per-acre payments to plant a cover crop, several
other types of incentives or cover crop support also exist. Examples of
other support include tax credits and programs that rent out or loan
equipment related to cover cropping, such as no-till drills, cover crop
inter-seeders, or roller crimpers. Pennsylvania has a tax credit
program that gives farmers a 50 percent tax credit for eligible cover
crop costs (such as equipment and cover crop seed) in their first year
of cover cropping.\6\ The Scott Soil and Water Conservation District in
Minnesota rents out no-till drills and interseeders (Scott Soil and
Water Conservation District, 2017), and the Three Rivers Soil and Water
Conservation District in Virginia rents out no-till drills and has a
pilot project providing free use of a roller crimper to terminate cover
crops (Three Rivers Soil and Water Conservation District, 2018). In the
fall of 2017, the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
began a 3 year demonstration project offering farmers a $5 per acre
reduction on their crop insurance premium if they planted a cover crop
in the fall and were not enrolled in other state or Federal cover crop
programs (Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The 50 percent tax credit in Pennsylvania was capped at a
maximum $45 per acre in FY 2018 (Pennsylvania State Conservation
Commission, 2016).

Table 1
Comparison of incentive payments for cover crops in USDA working lands
conservation programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practices or Scope of Payment range
Program enhancement program in FY 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Cover crop (basic, About 2.4 Median per-acre-
Quality or with multiple million acres payment from
Incentives species) planned in $62.33
Program (EQIP) 2018 (Illinois) to
1997-present $92.27
(Delaware)
Conservation Various types of More than 2 Median per-acre-
Stewardship cover crops and million acres payment from
Program (CSP) management in 2015 $7.96
2010-present (Arizona) to
$14.65
(Wyoming).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Per-acre median payment range for CSP enhancements represent the
additional activity payment for a single cover crop enhancement, not
the total amount of the farmer's per-acre CSP payment.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using USDA, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) online resources and NRCS ProTracts data.

Table 2
Summary of select state programs for cover crops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per-acre
State Program/ Scope of payment Annual state
(years Implementing program range spending
active) agency (acres) (dollars) (dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland Agricultural 639,710 30-75 22.5 million
(2009-pre Water Quality
sent) Cost-Share
Iowa (2013- Department of 250,000 15-25 5 million
present) Agriculture
and Land
Stewardship
(IDALS)
Virginia Virginia 200,539 15-33 5.1 million
(1998-pre Department of (2016) (2016)
sent) Conservation
and Recreation
with funding
from Water
Quality
Improvement
Fund and real
estate
recordation
fees
Missouri Department of 117,175 30-40 3.8 million
(2015-pre Natural
sent) Resources
Delaware County 85,438 30-50
(at least conservation
2011-pres districts
ent)
Ohio (2012- Various, 50,000 12-40 600,000
present) including
Muskingum
Watershed
Conservancy
Project, Ohio
Department of
Natural
Resources, and
Ohio
Department of
Agriculture
Indiana Watersheds and 18,278 Up to 20 307,385
(2015-pre county
sent) conservation
districts with
funding from
Indiana State
Department of
Agriculture
(ISDA) Clean
Water Indiana
Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, drawing from publicly available
information on state websites and personal communication with staff at
programs and implementing agencies.

Cover Crop Management
Field-level surveys reveal the many variations in how farmers
manage cover crops, including the types of cover crops, the frequency
of cover crop use, and the method of terminating growth of the cover
crop to prepare for planting a cash crop. These cover crop management
decisions can affect the success of the cover cropping, the cost of
cover cropping, and strategies for managing cash crops on the field.
Crop Rotation
The crops preceding and following a cover crop can influence the
decisions about cover crop selection and cover crop management. In most
fields, cash crops are rotated to improve nutrient cycling, control
pests, and improve soil health. For example, alternating corn and
soybeans is a very common rotation. One challenge for farmers in
managing cover crops is determining how to fit them into an existing
rotation.
Since cash crop planting and harvesting occur at different times of
the year, the sequence of cash crops planted can influence decisions
about whether to use a cover crop and how that cover crop is managed.
The earlier a spring cash crop is planted, the tighter the window to
terminate the cover crop and prepare the soil for planting. Similarly,
the later the cash crop is harvested, the shorter the window in the
fall to plant the cover crop. For example, in major corn and soybean
regions, soybeans are planted in late May and early June, while corn
tends to be planted earlier--in late April and early May. On the other
end of the season, corn-for-silage is harvested in September, while
corn-for-grain is harvested in October and early November. Such
differences in timing may affect the viability of planting cover crops
before and after certain crops; later planting and earlier harvest of
the cash crop both increase the length of the cover crop season and
facilitate cover crop use.
The benefits of cover crops depend upon the planned cash crops in
the rotation. Legume cover crops, which increase available nitrogen,
will be more beneficial to subsequent nitrogen feeding crops (e.g.,
corn) than to a legume crop (e.g., soybean). However, legume cover
crops often take longer to produce biomass in the spring. In contrast,
grasses or small grains work well to scavenge leftover nitrogen from
the preceding crop. However, these high-residue cover crops have a high
carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, which reduces the availability of nitrogen
for the following cash crop (USDA-NRCS, 2011). In addition to their
potential nutrient benefits, cover crops also increase residue on the
soil surface, which can reduce erosion between cash crop seasons,
contribute organic matter to the soil for long-term soil health,
suppress weeds, and buffer soil temperature extremes. This residue can
be especially beneficial following low-residue crops such as corn
silage, cotton, and soybeans.
Cash Crops and Cover Crop Adoption Rates
To examine differences in cover crop adoption by rotation, we draw
on commodity-specific field-level data from the Phase 2 Agricultural
Resources Management Survey (ARMS). For this report, we use a sample of
fields that were planted as corn in 2010 or 2016, cotton in 2015, wheat
in 2017, or soybeans in 2018. For each survey year and targeted
commodity, we also ask about 4 years of cropping history including
cover crops.
The level of cover crop adoption varies considerably by the primary
commodity (figure 7). In the fall preceding the survey year, cover crop
adoption ranged from just over five percent of acreage on corn-for-
grain (2016), to eight percent on soybeans (2018), just under 13
percent on cotton (2015), and just under 25 percent on corn-for-silage
(2016). Wheat has an adoption below two percent of acreage (2017) for
the preceding fall on spring wheat and the previous year on winter
wheat. Some fields, particularly those with winter wheat, have 4 year
crop sequences that mix spring-planted and fall-planted cash crops in
different years. In some cases, these include spring-planted rather
than fall-planted cover crops. The statistics above look only at fall-
planted cover crops since they are much more common, which is true even
for the surveyed winter wheat fields.
Figure 7
Trends in fall cover crop adoption by related cash crop

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Note: For each crop, the sampled fields are planted with the
designated crop in the survey year and a mix of other crops in
earlier years. The samples used to calculate these adoption
percentages are restricted to fields that had a 4\1/2\ year
history of crops.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service; 2010, 2016, 2017, 2018
Agricultural Resource Management Surveys.

Cornfields harvested for silage differ from cornfields harvested
for grain in three primary ways. First, and probably most importantly
for cover crops, corn silage involves removing both the grain and
stalks, thus leaving a low amount of residue in the field after
harvest. Second, corn silage is used exclusively for feeding livestock,
which may imply that farmers growing corn silage are capitalizing on
the opportunity to grow cover crops for both the soil health and the
grazing or forage benefits. Third, corn silage is harvested much
earlier than corn-for-grain, allowing for more time to plant cover
crops in the fall.
Like corn for silage, cotton is also a low-residue crop. In
addition, cotton is the dominant crop in the rotation with non-cotton
crops rotated in every 3 to 4 years. Because of the prevalence of low-
residue crops in these fields, cover crops provide an opportunity for
cotton farmers to increase residue. This may reflect the common
practice of growing cotton following a winter cover crop such as winter
wheat so that the stalks protect the cotton seedlings from early spring
winds.
The trends evident in these field-level surveys largely mirror the
national trends revealed in the Census of Agriculture data; however,
there are important differences between the crops. The differences
between the 2010 corn survey and the 2016 corn survey track the year-
by-year trends within the different fields captured by each of those
surveys. The soybean and corn-for-grain trends largely overlap,
reflecting the fact that a random survey of cornfields and a random
survey of soybean fields will capture similar fields given the
prevalence of a 2 year rotation of corn-for-grain and soybeans. The
trend within fields for 2016 corn-for-silage fields is much steeper
than any of the other crops.
Frequency of Adoption
Some of the benefits of cover crops, particularly the accumulation
of soil organic matter, require frequent or sustained adoption. The
ARMS data on crop history provide detail on the frequency with which
cover crops are adopted (figure 8). With the upward trend in adoption,
these numbers are impacted by new adopters, so fields that are adopting
cover crops in only 1 or 2 years out of the 4 years will be more common
than they would be if cover crop adoption were stable.
Figure 8
Frequency of cover crops within 4 year crop sequences

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Note: For each surveyed commodity, fields with a full 4 years
of reported cropping history and at least 1 year with a cover
crop are included. Percentages are weighted to reflect the
share of total planted acreage for the targeted commodity. Of
acres with a cover crop planted in at least 1 of the last 4
years, 16 percent of 2015 cotton acres, 27 percent of 2016 corn
silage acreage, 53 percent of 2016 corn grain acres, and 52
percent of soybean acres planted a cover crop. The share of
adoption in all 4 years also varies across crops with 52
percent of 2015 cotton, 42 percent of 2016 corn silage, 11
percent of 2016 corn grain, and 24 percent of 2018 soybean
acres.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, 2015 (cotton), 2016 (corn),
and 2018 (soybeans), Agricultural Resource Management Survey.

Looking at the subpopulation of fields with cover crops in at least
1 of 4 years, sustained cover cropping over the 4 year history, which
we define as 3 or 4 years of adoption, occurs on 19 percent of (2016)
corn-for-grain acres, 56 percent of (2016) corn-for-silage acres, 69
percent of (2015) cotton acres, and 32 percent of (2018) soybean acres.
Given the similar trajectories for corn-for-grain and soybeans, the
greater sustained adoption among soybean acreage may have more to do
with the later timing of the soybean survey (2018) relative to the corn
survey (2016).
A closer look at the fields with only 1 or 2 years of adoption
reveals that many of these appear to be farmed by new adopters. Half of
the corn-for-grain acres (2016) using a cover crop in 2016 had not used
a cover crop in the previous 3 years. On corn-for-silage fields that
used cover crops in 1 or 2 out of every 4 years, many (79 percent) had
not used cover crops at all in 2013 or 2014. On just over half of
soybean fields (52 percent), cover crops were used only once in the 4
years preceding the survey.
We find mixed evidence on whether the frequency of cover crop
adoption is related to the specific crops grown within a 4 year
rotation. On corn-for-grain (2016) fields, the frequency of cover crop
adoption in the prior years is not statistically different for
different spring crops. In contrast, on corn-for-silage fields,
patterns of cover crop usage were correlated with crops in the
rotation. When corn-for-silage was rotated with soybeans and cover
crops, cover crops were used on average about half the time (47
percent). However, when corn-for-silage was grown every spring and
rotated with cover crops, cover crops were used almost all the time (92
percent). These patterns of usage suggest a strong link between growing
corn-for-silage and cover crop usage. A similar relationship holds for
cotton; rotations that planted cotton more often used cover crops.
Type of Cover Crop
When planting cover crops, farmers have a myriad of choices for the
type of cover crop to plant. The choice of cover crop typically depends
on its purpose as well as its limitations because of harvesting and
planting dates of the cash crops in the crop rotation. If the cover
crop is harvested for forage or grazed, farmers may choose a cover crop
that provides abundant and nutritious forage. If the purpose of
planting the cover crop is to build soil organic matter, then the
farmer may choose a high-residue cover crop. The farmer may also be
using the cover crop to reduce erosion or provide nutrients to the
succeeding cash crop. The costs of the cover crop are also a
consideration. In corn, cotton, and soybeans--the crops for which we
have a statistically reliable sample of the type of cover crops--small
grains are planted most often preceding these spring crops (figure 9).
Small grains are used as a cover crop in corn most of the time (94
percent). Rye, which in the earlier years of the ARMS questionnaire
included both cereal rye and annual ryegrass, is used before corn more
than twice as often as winter wheat, regardless of whether the corn was
harvested for grain or silage. Rye is also commonly used in soybeans.
In contrast, winter wheat is used most often as a cover crop on cotton
acres. In 2018, for the first time, the field-level ARMS asked farmers
about the use of a cover crop mix and found that just under a quarter
of soybean fields with cover crops were planted with a cover crop mix.
One important consideration when choosing a cover crop is the cost
of the seed. In corn, cotton, and soybeans, the average cover crop seed
costs (table 3) did not differ statistically by the type of seed (i.e.,
winter wheat, rye, oats, mixed, or other). Seed costs for these cover
crops were also similar to seed costs for cash crops as captured in
other USDA surveys (USDA-ERS, 2019).
Figure 9
Type of cover crop planted in the fall before the cash crop

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Note: The 2015 and 2016 ARMS did not ask farmers about the
use of a cover crop mix.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, 2015 (cotton), 2016 (corn),
and 2018 (soybeans) Agricultural Resource Management Survey
(ARMS).
Cover Crop Termination
Farmers who use cover crops must plant either a cover crop killed
by cold (e.g., ``winter kill'' cover crops such as oats or radishes) or
terminate (kill) their cover crop so that it does not compete with
their cash crop. This could include terminating the cover crop after
the cash crop is planted (i.e., planting green). Farmers have four main
ways to terminate a cover crop: mechanical (i.e., tillage, mowing, or
rolling); chemical (i.e., herbicides); livestock (i.e., grazing); or
harvest (i.e., forage). The choice of method will depend on the purpose
of the cover crop, type of cover crop, need for livestock forage,
seedbed preparation needs of the cash crop, and the need to minimize
tillage in the field.
In soybean, corn-for-grain, and cotton fields, chemical termination
was used on almost \2/3\ of the acreage (figure 10). Tillage was also a
common termination method, used on about 30 percent of the acreage
surveyed. Termination methods on corn-for-silage fields are somewhat
different. Corn silage growers report termination through harvest on
more than 25 percent of acres. They are less likely to use herbicide
for termination and more likely to use tillage.
Harvesting is a common termination method for cover crops in
soybeans and corn-for-silage. According to the USDA, NRCS practice
standard, a farmer can harvest a cover crop for forage but not for
grain. If a farmer harvests a winter crop for grain, then the field is
double-cropped. In about ten percent of the soybean fields in 2018,
farmers self-reported planting cover crops and harvesting that cover
crop for grain. This is about 550,000 acres of self-reported cover
crops in soybeans that appear to be double cropping. Most of this
acreage (84 percent) is winter wheat followed by soybeans and is found
only in states that typically double crop (i.e., Kentucky, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia). As noted above, the
distinction between cover crops and double cropping is based on the
intended use of the cover crop. The expansion of survey questions to
include information about harvesting for grain and termination through
grazing reveals that, given the multiple uses and purposes of cover
crops, national statistics on cover crop adoption necessarily include
some fields that might not meet practice standard definitions of cover
crops.
Figure 10
Cover crop termination method

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Note: The grazed and rolled categories are combined because,
for some crops, the number of positive responses is too low to
report individually. Soybeans (2018) was the first year the
survey asked separately about harvesting for forage and
harvesting for grain.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, 2015 (cotton), 2016 (corn),
and soybean (2018) Agricultural Resource Management Survey.

Table 3
Cover crop seed costs on cotton, corn, and soybean fields, and commodity seed costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton (Dollars Corn (Dollars per Soybean (Dollars Commodity seed cost (Dollars per
per acre) acre) per acre) acre)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 2016 2018 2015 2016 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oats 20.48 R 7.05 11.09 R 4.30 20.65 19.54 19.08
Rye 16.22 R 6.55 14.26 R 2.03 16.27 R 5.96
Winter wheat 14.22 R 2.76 12.79 R 5.01 27.38 R 7.68 16.12 15.26 15.08
Mix 21.99 R 11.09
Other D 14.51 R 4.97 26.12 R 14.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: ``D'' indicates a disclosure limitation. The estimate cannot be reported due to sample size limitations.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2015 (cotton), 2016
(corn), and 2018 (soybeans) Agricultural Resource Management Survey; USDA, Economic Research Service,
Commodity Costs and Returns.

Conservation Rotation, Tillage, and Nutrient Management
While cover crops can help conserve soil, keep nutrients in place
for the next cash crop, and promote improved soil health, these
benefits may be more fully realized when cover crops are used in
conjunction with other practices. We consider conservation crop
rotation, several forms of conservation tillage, manure and compost
applications, as well as testing for soil organic matter, nitrogen, and
phosphorous. The exact mix of practices that is optimal on any given
farm will depend on the climate, ecosystem, soil, and other factors
(USDA, 2018a).
ARMS data for corn (2016), cotton (2015), and soybean (2018)
provide evidence that farmers who planted cover crops in the fall
before planting these crops are more likely than other farmers to use
other conservation practices along with cover crops. The descriptive
analysis presented here suggests cover crop users might be adopting a
suite of practices to promote soil health or that they believe the
benefits of these practices are greater when used together (i.e., that
cover crops complement other practices).
Conservation crop rotation is growing a planned sequence of various
crops on the same piece of land for a variety of conservation purposes
including soil erosion control, soil health, and others (USDA-NRCS,
2014f). In terms of soil health management principles, conservation
rotations can help ensure soil cover and promote crop diversity (USDA-
NRCS, 2017a). While crop rotation is common in the United States, not
all rotations are conservation rotations. We use a definition of a
conservation rotation based on four criteria: \7\ (1) an average
residue rating greater than 1.5; (2) inclusion of more than one crop;
(3) including a low-nitrogen-demand crop; (4) and at least one crop
with residue rating greater than or equal to 2. The average residue
rating is the sum of residue ratings for individual crops in the
conservation rotation divided by the number of years in the rotation.
For each crop in the crop history, we assign an annual residue rating
obtained from NRCS. Residue ratings range from 0.25 to 4.0 for each
crop. Very high-residue perennial crops (e.g., alfalfa and grasses)
have a residue rating of 4. High-residue annual crops (e.g., corn,
wheat, sorghum, and barley) have a residue rating of 2. Low-residue
annual crops (e.g., soybeans and cotton) have a residue rating of 1.
Extremely low-residue rotations typically involve the harvesting of
nearly all biomass, such as in corn silage rotations. To examine
conservation rotations, we used all 4 years of cropping information
available in the field-level ARMS, while acknowledging that not all
crop rotations fit neatly into a 4 year timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ These criteria are designed to be consistent with
characterizations of conservation crop rotations used in the
Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) carried out by USDA's
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (Norfleet, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cropping systems that include cover crops are, in fact, more likely
to be in conservation rotations because cover crops help satisfy
residue and crop diversity requirements (figure 11). For example, a
simple corn and soybean rotation would not meet the definition of a
conservation rotation, but a corn and soybean rotation with winter
cover crops would meet the definition. For corn (2016), 70 percent of
acres preceded by a cover crop were in a conservation rotation; for
cornfields not preceded by a cover crop, only 26 percent of acres were
in a conservation rotation. For cotton (2015), 34 percent of acres
preceded by a cover crop were in a conservation rotation; only four
percent of cotton not preceded by a cover crop was in a conservation
rotation. For soybeans (2018), 94 percent of acres preceded by a cover
crop were cropped in a way that met the definition of a conservation
rotation, compared to only 13 percent of acres on fields without a
preceding cover crop. The association between cover crops and the use
of conservation rotations in corn and cotton is more limited than for
soybeans because corn and cotton fields do not always include a legume
or other crop with low-nitrogen fertilizer demands.
Figure 11
Adoption of conservation rotations with and without cover crops

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

No-till can help minimize physical soil disturbance (including soil
compaction), particularly when farmers use no-till continuously over
time. Farmers who reported using a cover crop in the fall before
planting were also more likely to use no-till in corn (43 percent
versus 26 percent), cotton (41 percent versus 14 percent), and soybeans
(72 percent versus 36 percent) (figure 12). Continuous no-till (no-till
in the survey year and on all crops in the crop history--a total of 4
years)--is less frequent. In 2016, for example, 27 percent of corn was
in no-till, but less than 20 percent of surveyed fields had been in no-
till continuously for more than 4 years (Claassen, et al., 2018). No-
till is often rotated with other tillage practices and is frequently
based on the crop grown in any given year (e.g., no-till is more likely
in soybeans than in corn) (Wade, et al., 2015). Land with a cover crop
in 2015 was also more likely to have been in no-till continuously over
the full 4 year crop history compared to fields without cover crops (30
percent versus 17 percent in corn; 21 percent versus 8 percent in
cotton; and 57 percent versus 24 percent for soybeans). Differences in
mulch till \8\ adoption rates between cover crop and non-cover crop
fields were not statistically significant in corn or cotton; soybean
farmers who reported cover crops were less likely than all other
farmers--non-cover crop soybeans as well as cotton and cornfields
regardless of cover crop use--to use mulch till.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Mulch till involves full-width tillage that is limited so that
the Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR) is 80 or less. What we define
as ``mulch tillage'' is similar to ``reduced tillage'' in the most
recent Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) practice standards
(USDA NRCS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 12
Adoption of selected tillage practices with and without cover crops

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Nutrient management is also important when applying soil health
principles. This is one reason that USDA working lands programs
sometimes provide financial assistance for soil testing. Adjustments to
nutrient management strategies may be needed to account for changes in
the availability of nitrogen from increased use of legumes (as cover
crops or part of conservation rotations), higher levels of crop
residue, reduced tillage, and the amount of nitrogen mineralized from
soil organic matter (Kabir, 2018; Geisseler, et al., 2018). Nitrogen
may also be tied up in the residue of small grain cover crops during
the early part of the season, a situation that could require additional
fertilizer early in the growing season for some crops. Corn farmers who
planted a fall cover crop were more likely than other corn farmers to
have performed a soil nitrogen test within 2 years (48 percent versus
26 percent), a soil phosphorous test within 2 years (62 percent versus
35 percent), or a soil organic matter test within 10 years (71 percent
versus 58 percent) (figure 13). For cotton preceded by a cover crop,
soil testing is more likely for both nitrogen (54 percent versus 29
percent) and phosphorous (57 percent versus 30 percent). On soybean
fields, there is no difference in the frequency of soil nitrogen
testing, but fields with cover crops were more likely to be tested for
soil organic matter (52 percent versus 39 percent) and soil phosphorous
(24 percent versus 17 percent).
Figure 13
Use of soil testing with and without cover crops

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Note: Acres adopting cover crops are based on whether the
selected fields had a cover crop on the field in the survey
year
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, 2015 (cotton), 2016 (corn),
and 2018 (soybean) Agricultural Resource Management Survey.

Manure and composted manure are soil amendments that have been
shown to increase soil organic matter, soil microbial activity, and
improve soil physical properties (e.g., water holding capacity) when
applied consistently at agronomic rates (Haynes and Naidu, 1998). Corn
farmers who planted a cover crop were more likely to apply manure or
compost compared to other farmers (41 percent versus 15 percent)
(figure 14). On cotton and soybean fields, the data suggest there is no
statistically significant difference in the frequency of manure or
compost application or soil organic matter testing on cover crop and
non-cover crop fields. Compared to corn, a relatively small portion of
land in cotton (four percent of acres without cover crops) and soybeans
(two percent of acres without cover crops) receive manure.
Our descriptive analysis suggests that cover crop users also are
more likely than other farmers to engage in other soil health-related
conservation practices. However, since cover crop adoption is still
quite modest, the use of management systems that include cover crops as
well as other soil health practices is occurring on only a limited
number of acres.
Figure 14
Application of manure or compost with and without cover crops

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Note: Acres adopting cover crops are based on whether the
selected fields had a cover crop on the field in the survey
year.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, 2015 (cotton), 2016 (corn),
and 2018 (soybean) Agricultural Resource Management Survey.
Conclusions
In 2017, farmers in the United States planted an estimated 15.4
million acres of cover crops. This area is larger than the area planted
to spring wheat, cotton, sorghum, or rice. The recent growth in cover
crop acreage has been rapid, with cover crop acreage increasing 50
percent between 2012 and 2017. Corn-for-grain and soybean fields
accounted for most of this growth in acreage. However, corn-for-silage
and cotton fields had the highest adoption rates. Compared to practices
such as no-till, overall adoption rates remain low with only about five
percent of cropland using a cover crop in 2017.
Some of the growth in cover crop acreage is due to Federal and
state conservation programs that pay farmers to plant cover crops. In
2015, more than 3 million acres received a cover crop payment from
either CSP or EQIP. In EQIP alone, funding for cover crops has
increased by nearly $150 million (2018 dollars) between 2005 and 2018.
In addition to the Federal programs, at least 22 states also had cover
crop programs of their own. The largest of these are the Maryland and
Iowa programs with approximately 640,000 acres and 250,000 acres in
2017, respectively.
In the spring, most cover crop farmers commonly terminate their
cover crops using chemicals. On corn-for-silage fields, using chemicals
for termination is less common than on fields in corn-for-grain,
soybeans, and cotton. Harvesting of cover crops is also practiced on
more than 25 percent of corn-for-silage acreage.
Managing for soil conservation and soil health requires more than
just the use of cover crops. Conservation tillage, conservation crop
rotations, and nutrient management are among the practices that can
make up a soil-health-focused management system. In corn, soybean, and
cotton fields that used cover crops, no-till, including continuous no-
till, is more common than it is on fields without cover crops. The use
of manure or compost is also more common on cornfields with cover crops
than those without. Cover crop fields are also more likely to be
testing for soil organic matter and nutrients (with the exception of
soil organic matter on cotton fields).
While this report provides a number of insights, future cycles of
the ARMS will be able to provide additional information about cover
crop trends and management in U.S. field crops as cover crops become a
more common practice. Of particular interest will be the impact of
government programs on adoption, the impact of cover crops on
production practices (e.g., nutrient management), and the impact of
cover crops on soil health and yields.
References

AGREE. 2019. ``Cover Crop Programs and Incentives: Landscape
Assessment, Fall 2019.''
Bakker, M.G., J. Acharya, T.B. Moorman, A.E. Robertson, and T.C.
Kaspar. 2016. The potential for cereal rye cover crops to host corn
seedling pathogens. Phytopathology 106: 591-601.
Borchers, Allison and Steven Wallander. 2014. ``Double Cropping by
U.S. Farmers Varies Over Time and Regionally.'' Amber Waves. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. June 2, 2014.
Bowman, M. and L. Lynch. 2019. ``Government Programs that Support
Farmer Adoption of Soil Health Practices: A Focus on Maryland's
Agricultural Water Quality Cost-Share Program.'' Choices. Quarter 2.
Conservation Technology Information Center. 2019. Crop Residue
Management Survey. Online report summary. Accessed April 1, 2019.
Claassen, Roger, Eric N. Duquette, and David J. Smith. 2018.
``Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation Program.'' Land
Economics. 94(1): 19-35.
Claassen, Roger, Maria Bowman, Jonathan McFadden, David Smith,
Steven Wallander. 2018. Tillage Intensity and Conservation Cropping in
the United States, EIB-197, USDA, Economic Research Service, September.
Dabney, S.M., Delgado, J.A., and D.W. Reeves. 2001. Using winter
cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Communications in Soil
Science and Plant Analysis 32: 1221-1250.
Geisseler, D., P. Lazicki and W. Horwath. 2018. ``Field-Specific
Nitrogen Fertilization Adjustments'' University of California, Davis.
Hamilton, Abbe V., David A. Mortensen, and Melanie K. Allen. 2017.
``The state of the cover crop nation and how to set realistic goals for
the popular conservation practice.'' Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation. 72(5): 111A-115A.
Haynes, R.J., and R. Naidu. 1998. ``Influence of Lime, Fertilizer
and Manure Applications on Soil Organic Matter Content and Soil
Physical Conditions: A Review,'' Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems
51(2): 123-137.
Horowitz, J., R. Ebel, and K. Ueda. 2010. ``No-till'' Farming is a
Growing Practice, EIB-70, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, November.
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. 2017. ``Iowa
Farmers Using Cover Crops May Be Eligible for Crop Insurance Premium
Reduction.'' Press Release.
Kabir, Z. 2018. ``Rethinking the Nutrient Management Paradigm for
Soil Health.'' U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Conservation Webinar. Accessed 10/30/2018.
Lu, Y.C., K.B. Watkins, J.R. Teasdale, and A.A. Abdul-Baki. 2000.
Cover crops in sustainable food production. Food Reviews International
16: 121-157.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2016. State Cost-Share
Handbook.
Myers, Rob, Alan Weber, and Sami Tellatin. 2019. ``Cover Crop
Economics: Opportunities to Improve Your Bottom Line in Row Crops.''
SARE Technical Bulletin. June.
Norfleet, M. Lee. 2018. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, personal communication.
Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission, 2016.
Plastina, Alejandro; Liu, Fangge; Sawadgo, Wendiam; Miguez, Fernando
E.; Carlson, Sarah; and Marcillo, Guillermo (2018) ``Annual Net Returns
to Cover Crops in Iowa,'' Journal of Applied Farm Economics: Vol. 2:
Iss. 2, Article 2.
Snapp, S.S., Swinton, S. M., Labarta, R., Mutch, D., Black, J.R.,
Leep, R., Nyiraneza, J. and O'Neil, K. 2005. Evaluating cover crops for
benefits, costs and performance within cropping system niches. Agronomy
Journal 97(1): 322-32.
Scott Soil and Water Conservation District. 2017. Equipment Rental,
available online.
Three Rivers Soil and Water Conservation District, 2018. Equipment
Rental, available online.
Tonitto, C., M.B. David, and L.E. Drinkwater. 2006. Replacing bare
fallows with cover crops in fertilizer-intensive cropping systems: a
meta-analysis of crop yield and N dynamics. Agriculture, Ecosystems, &
Environment. 112: 58-72.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2018.
ARMS Farm Financial and Crop Production Practices, Documentation,
available online.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2019.
Commodity Costs and Returns, available online.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics
Service. 2014. 2012 Census of Agriculture: Volume 1, Part 51, table 50.
(AC-12-A-51). May 2014.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics
Service. 2019. 2017 Census of Agriculture: Volume 1, Part 51, table 47.
(AC-17-A-51). April 2019.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2011. Carbon to Nitrogen Ratios in Cropping Systems.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2014a. Cover Crop Conservation Practice Standard Overview.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2014b. Cover Crop Conservation Practice Standard.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2014c. NRCS Cover Crop Termination Guidelines.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2014d. EQIP and CSP for Historically Underserved Producers.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2014e. Revised Cover Crop Termination Guidelines. NRCS
National Bulletin NB 450-15-1 TCH.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2014f. ``Conservation Practice Standard Code 328: Conservation
Crop Rotation.''
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2016a. ``Conservation Stewardship Program.''
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2016b. ``Conservation Practice Standard Code 345: Residue and
tillage management, reduced tillage.''
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2017b. Title 440--Conservation Programs Manual.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2018a. 2018 State Payment Schedules.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2018b. Activity Lists.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2018c. ``Principles for high functioning soils.''
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2018d. ``Soil Health'' topic page.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2018e. Part 507--Conservation Stewardship Program.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2018f. ``Principles for High Functioning Soil.'' February.