Editor’s Note: This blog post was written by Gordon Merrick, Policy Program Director at the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), an NSAC member and first appeared on their site here.

Ensuring that there are sufficient research resources for organic producers is central to OFRF’s mission and represents the backbone of a resilient food system. That’s why we’re proud to announce that we have led the development of a letter urging Congress to include the Organic Science and Research Investment (OSRI) Act in the next Farm Bill, just introduced this month by Representatives Eugene Vindman (D-VA-07) and Mike Lawler (R-NY-17). This bill provides substantial support and funding for agricultural research programming that benefits all farmers, from those certified organic, transitioning to organic farming, and those who are not certified. The bipartisan introduction of the OSRI Act builds on the collaborative work with Senator John Fetterman’s (D-PA) and Senator Alex Schiff’s (D-CA) offices to introduce this bill in the Senate earlier this year.

What Is the Organic Science and Research Investment Act?

The OSRI Act would strategically identify and expand the USDA’s investments into organic research and data programs. Key provisions include:

• Coordinating and Expanding Organic Research Initiative – Directs USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics agencies to catalog and strengthen organic research, ensuring coordination and growth across programs.
• Increased funding for Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) – Steps up funding from $60 million in 2026 to $100 million by 2031, while expanding priorities to include climate change, organic alternatives to prohibited substances, and Traditional Ecological Knowledge.
• Authorization of Researching the Transition to Organic Program (RTOP) – Provides Congressional authorization for the RTOP, currently known as the Organic Transitions Research Program (ORG), with $10 million annually from 2026–27 and $12 million from 2028–31.
• Doubling funding for the Organic Data Initiative (ODI) – $10 million over the life of the Farm Bill to improve data for risk management and market development, while directing ERS to conduct a comprehensive study of the economic impacts of organic agriculture.

These policies directly respond to the reality that organic agriculture currently represents over 6% of U.S. food sales and 15% of produce sales, yet the USDA’s investments into organic-applicable research are less than 2% of research budgets.  Importantly, organic agricultural research is applicable to all farm operations, while research into more efficient use of synthetic inputs, or compatibility of genetic engineering with chemistry applications can never apply to an organic farm.

How Does the OSRI Act Help All Farmers?

Investing in organic agriculture research isn’t just about advancing one production system; it’s about giving farmers across the United States the tools, knowledge, and resources to stay resilient in the face of a variety of consistent issues, from climate disruptions and volatile supply chains to rapidly changing market dynamics. While the OSRI Act focuses on organic systems, the innovations developed through these programs regularly spill over to the broader agricultural sector. From cover cropping to integrated pest management, organic innovations often set the stage for widespread adoption of ecologically sustainable and economically beneficial practices and systems. Ultimately, these investments empower farmers to make the right choices for their land and market opportunities.

Alongside this direct benefit to farmers through answering questions and addressing agronomic issues, this research funding also flows to the rural communities that host agricultural research stations. According to analysis done by the Economic Research Service, for every $1 invested into agricultural research, over $20 of economic benefit is triggered, both through the project work itself—which can be high-paying and not require an advanced degree—but also through the long-term gains in farm profitability and competitiveness that are the backbones of rural economies.

Broad Support for the OSRI Act Exists, You Can Help!

OFRF is joined by over 100 farms, businesses, and organizations from across the country in signing a letter urging the House Agriculture Committee to incorporate OSRI into the Farm Bill.  But there is always more we can do to ensure Congress understands the importance of this bill and the policies it represents.

You can help strengthen the future of agricultural research by:

• Signing up for our Communicating with Legislators Course
• Contacting your Representatives and Senators to urge them to co-sponsor the bill.
• Share this announcement and amplify the message using #InvestInOrganicResearch
• Writing a Letter to The Editor or Opinion Piece in your local newspaper, publicly calling on your elected officials to support this legislation.

Please reach out if you have any questions about how to get involved, we’re here to help! Contact gordon[at]ofrf.org

. . . . .

Support for the OSRI Act:

“Investing in organic agriculture research helps farmers and communities improve resiliency to both climate and supply chain disruption. These research programs build essential knowledge that empowers regionally appropriate organic programs to thrive. In turn, the benefits ripple across society by lifting rural communities, strengthening organic supply chains, and expanding healthy options for consumers.” – Renaud des Rosiers, Amy’s Kitchen

“The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition strongly endorses the Organic Science and Research Investment Act (OSRI Act). The OSRI Act makes meaningful investments in providing organic producers with the research and tools they need to continue to improve upon already resilient farming systems and meet the growing market demand for organic products. A boost in funding for scientific research and economic data and analysis within NIFA and ARS will support both organic and conventional agricultural producers so they can sustain and improve their operations while helping us reach meaningful solutions for the climate crisis.” – Nick Rossi, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)

“Research is critical to the growth of the organic sector, which is an extraordinarily important tool in mitigating the threats to health, biodiversity, and climate.”  – Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides

“Expanding American consumers’ access to healthy foods, free of synthetic pesticides, will significantly contribute to Making America Healthy Again. Organic agriculture remains the single best way to achieve this goal. Developing strong research and extension programs to support US organic agriculture are critical to the expansion of this important sector of our food economy.” – Matthew Grieshop, Grimm Family Center for Organic Production and Research at California Polytechnic State University

“Organic research is vital to maintain the backbone of critical agricultural efforts that help small-scale farmers and ensure that farming works for consumers as well.” – Colehour Bondera, Kanalani Ohana Farm

“Supporting the Organic Science and Research Investment Act means investing in soil health, the living foundation of organic farming and long-term sustainability.” – Karlin Warner, OneCert, Inc.

“We have heard time and time again from our local organic extension office that their organic extension agents serve more non-organic producers than they do already certified producers.  There is a lot of interest from non-organic producers in learning new and innovative ways to incorporate organic practices on their farms.  This reinforces what organic advocates have been suggesting for decades – that investments in organic research benefits ALL producers.” – Mike Dill, Organically Grown Company

“Strong, verifiable peer-reviewed research is needed to give organic farmers the tools that they need to be successful and competitive with sustainable organic cropping systems.   Funding research so that researchers, such as those in the American Society for Horticultural Science, can continue to develop innovative research-based solutions and technologies is critically important to farm success.” – Curt R Rom, American Society for Horticultural Science

The post Cross Post: The Organic Science and Research Investment Act: What It Is and How It Benefits All Farmers appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Release: NSAC Applauds Introduction of the Organic Science and Research Investment Act

Washington, DC, April 11, 2025 – Earlier this week, US Senators John Fetterman (D-PA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced the Organic Science and Research Investment Act, joined by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Peter Welch (D-VT), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Angus King (I-ME). By ensuring organic research is prioritized at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and increasing funding for research agencies and universities, this bill would provide much-needed support to the organic farming industry.

“Pennsylvania is home to some of the best organic farmers in the world – and we need to support them in every way possible,” said Senator Fetterman. “I’m proud to introduce this bill to increase organics research within the federal government and at our leading research institutions to ensure our commonwealth can remain on the cutting edge of this growing industry. I’m grateful for Senator Schiff’s partnership as we work to pass this crucial support for American farmers.”

“America’s agriculture is the envy of the world, and agriculture research is essential to ensuring that food and farm organizations have the resources they need to grow food affordably, safely, and sustainably,” said Senator Schiff. “California is a leader in organic farming, and this legislation is essential for California farmers as they continue to be a driving force in the organic market.”

“NSAC applauds the introduction of the Organic Science Research and Investment Act, which makes meaningful investments in providing organic producers with the research and tools they need to continue to improve upon already resilient farming systems and meet the growing market demand for organic products” said Nick Rossi, Policy Specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC).

Find out more information about the bill here.

###

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Release: NSAC Applauds Introduction of the Organic Science and Research Investment Act appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This blog post is a guest post authored by Gordon Merrick, Senior Policy and Programs Manager at the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) and Mark Schonbeck, Research Associate, also at OFRF, which is an NSAC member.

The world is increasingly recognizing the value of sustainable food systems, and organic agriculture plays a vital role in this movement. Organic practices enhance soil health and biodiversity, foster resource regeneration, and help mitigate and build resilience to climate change. This translates to healthier food and a healthier environment and reduces reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. 

However, recent budget proposals by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) suggest a concerning decrease in funding for organic research programs. If implemented, this shift could stifle the progress documented by these programs, hindering the growth and innovation of the organic sector at a critical juncture.

For the FY25 budget, NIFA is suggested a $3.5 million, or a nearly 50% budget decrease, for the Organic Transitions Research Program (ORG), justifying it through the need to transfer organic research funding into broader programs like the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). Yet, a closer look reveals a gap exists between stated intentions, even congressional direction, and reality. This analysis found that AFRI has historically funded low levels of organic research, while the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) has been erratic in supporting organic research projects. Both programs have a sustained trend of funding fewer and fewer organic research projects. 

On the other hand, analysis of past funding allocations through dedicated organic agriculture programs reveals a wealth of cutting-edge research and innovative outreach that can support organic, transitioning, and conventional producers in succeeding. Nonetheless, there are also persistent knowledge gaps regarding specific needs and challenges that organic producers face that must be addressed.

A Flourishing Landscape of Organic Research at Risk

A review conducted by our organization, the Organic Farming Research Foundation, revealed a flourishing landscape of existing USDA-funded research and outreach with significant value to organic agriculture. We examined projects funded between 2015 and 2021 through the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and the ORG. These programs stand as testaments to the power of dedicated research in propelling the organic sector forward, reinforcing that this is no time to stop growing or even suggest reducing their impact. They offer valuable resources and practical solutions for organic and transitioning producers, as well as conventional producers interested in ecologically and economically sound practices. These programs work together synergistically to build the scientific foundation for a more successful, climate-friendly, and resource-conserving organic agricultural sector that can thrive well into the future.

Investing in organic research provides farmers, both certified organic and non-certified, with innovative solutions and practical tools that enhance profitability, mitigate financial and ecological risks, and foster economic growth and social well-being in rural communities. By addressing specific challenges and knowledge gaps, dedicated research funding helps current and aspiring organic farmers overcome barriers to realizing this potential.

Let’s delve into a few examples of how dedicated funding has demonstrably fostered innovation within organic agriculture.

Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)

The OREI program awards funds for research conducted on certified organic land to address production, marketing, and socioeconomic constraints on the growth of the organic sector and to elevate the economic and social benefits of organic farming.

OREI funds integrated projects that combine research with an outreach component—extension (delivering practical outcomes to producers) and/or education (training students and service providers in organic practices). The UC Davis Student Collaborative for Organic Plant Breeding Education (SCOPE) is an excellent example. This initiative trains future plant breeders and develops new crop varieties specifically suited for organic systems. It addresses a critical need for organic producers who often lack access to cultivars optimized for their production methods.

Most OREI projects address multiple aspects of an organic farming system, practice, problem, or commodity. For example, researchers utilize the long-term farming systems trials at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service station in Beltsville, MD, to address nutrients, weeds, soil health, greenhouse gas mitigation, and net economic returns in organic field crop rotations. OREI also prioritizes research that takes place on working farms, like this research project that investigated the pest management services a robust bird population can provide orchards.

Additionally, OREI funds conferences and planning projects that bring farmers, processors, input vendors, buyers, chefs, researchers, service providers, and students together to share knowledge and innovations, identify priorities, develop integrated OREI proposals, and provide professional development opportunities. The 2022 Student Organic Seed Symposium and the 2021 Northeast Organic Seed Conference built robust and lasting collaborations. They engaged Black, Indigenous, and other minority farmers and scientists at a level not realized in the past.

Organic Transitions Research Program (ORG)

The ORG program focuses on helping producers overcome the challenges of transitioning to organic practices, such as production and marketing obstacles, infrastructure needs, and policy or administrative constraints. Additionally, ORG provides funding for research and development of alternatives to substances on the USDA’s National List of allowed synthetic substances, which are subject to periodic review and potential removal from the List. For example, ORG supports the development of fish meal in lieu of synthetic methionine supplements in poultry feed and the use of biological controls instead of streptomycin to manage fire blight in organic apple and pear production.

OREI and ORG benefit all major agricultural regions across the country by tackling region-specific challenges. For instance, farmers in the Southern region face acidic, low-fertility soils, intense weed, pest, and disease pressures, along with marketing and infrastructure constraints. Responding to these challenges with ORG and OREI projects, North Carolina State University researchers integrated cover crops, diverse rotations, and organic amendments to accelerate soil improvement. Additionally, a team at Texas A&M University combined cultivar selection, biological seed treatments, cover crops, and seeding rates to enhance weed, pest, and disease resilience and increase yield in organic rice.

Addressing Critical Production Challenges to Fuel Innovation

OREI- and ORG-funded research benefits all farmers and ranchers, not just those who hold or seek USDA Organic Certification. Many conventional farmers implement organic practices such as compost applications, diversified rotations, cover cropping, or biological integrated pest management (IPM) to build healthy soil and reduce the direct and environmental costs of production. 

USDA organic research has addressed top challenges identified by organic farmers in a recent OFRF survey, including:

• Soil health, fertility, and crop nutrition.
• Maintaining yields and managing production costs.
• Managing weeds, diseases, and pests.
• Accessing crop cultivars suited to organic systems (especially OREI).
• Managing the farm as a system to reduce reliance on inputs.
• Market research and development for organic commodities (especially OREI).
• Overcoming barriers to organic transition (especially ORG).

Specific examples of OREI and ORG outcomes that address these challenges include:

• Strategic crop rotations that maximize cover, minimize tillage, and limit weed competition in organic grains. 
• New organic crop and whole-rotation budgeting tools to help new and aspiring organic farmers assess and manage the economic risks of organic transition.
• Development of carrot and tomato cultivars with enhanced plant-root-microbe associations for disease resistance, nutrient use efficiency, and nutritional quality. 
• Anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD), a NOP-compliant alternative to soil fumigation that reduces pathogen loads and promotes a disease-suppressive soil microbiome to protect organic vegetables and strawberries. 

Exploring Uncharted Knowledge Gaps

Working with limited funding, OREI and ORG have enabled tremendous strides in advancing the science and practice of organic farming and ranching over the past two decades. Yet, knowledge gaps remain that warrant additional research attention. These include:

• Livestock and poultry breed development for organic systems.
• Climate resilience strategies for organic systems.  
• Organic production of crop seeds and transplants.
• Organic production of pork, beef, poultry and eggs, tree nuts, herbs, and cut flowers.
• Managing soil health, pests, and diseases in protected cultivation such as high tunnels.
• Organic utilization and production of perennial planting stock.
• Policy and socioeconomic constraints on the growth of the organic sector (adopted in 2018 as a specific program priority).

While gaps exist, impactful projects are underway to address these challenges.

Scientists and farmers in Mississippi have identified sheep resistant to gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN), a significant hurdle in organic sheep production. These findings can inform breeding programs for improved animal health in organic systems. Additionally, research in dairy cattle genetics holds promise for identifying and evaluating breeds suited for organic production, which generally requires a lot more walking and mobility than conventional milk operations, a trait that has not been selected for in many commercial breeds.

Climate resilience has become a priority for OREI and ORG. For example, University of Wisconsin scientists are working with farmers to develop vegetable cultivars with increased resilience to the changing climate conditions in the Midwest. Similarly, Clemson University received funding to develop salt-tolerant rice cultivars for organic farms affected by rising sea levels. Further research is crucial to supporting organic farmers in simultaneously mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change.

Several OREI plant breeding projects train farmers in organic seed production. However, challenges remain. Difficulties with seed increases for cover crop breeding and a decline in organic seed production due to factors like climate change highlight the need for further research, outreach, and training in this critical area.

High tunnels offer high-return opportunities for organic producers but also present unique challenges regarding soil health (salinity, nutrient imbalances) and specific pests and diseases. OREI-funded research on cover crops for high tunnels and advanced IPM strategies has made significant progress in addressing these challenges. However, further research is needed to optimize organic production fully within high tunnels in all regions.

From a commodities perspective, OREI- and ORG-funded research has greatly advanced the support for a wide range of agricultural commodities, fostering innovation and diversification among organic farmers. Researchers at the University of Minnesota are tackling the leading challenges in organic pork production, including swine nutrition and parasite control. Several teams, including those at Washington State University, the Agricultural Research Service in Mississippi, and Montana State University, have made advances in managing diseases in organic poultry and integrating crop and poultry production to improve soil, nutrient, and weed management. Researchers at Middle State Tennessee University were awarded an ORG grant that has supported the research and development of advanced biological control strategies to manage diseases in the medicinal herb ginseng, a high-value crop for the region. Beef, pork, tree nuts, and herbs play important roles in American diets, and demand for cut flowers continues to be strong; yet, organic market share for these products remains low. Additional research is needed to remove barriers to expanding organic production and sales of these commodities.

The Road Ahead for Investing in a Sustainable Future

A thriving organic sector offers numerous benefits, including environmental sustainability, economic growth, and increased consumer choice. Without robust, consistent investments in organic agriculture research into critical topics like livestock breeding, addressing agronomic challenges, and organic seed production, the organic sector will not be able to reach its full potential. These research efforts are essential for building a resilient food and farm system that meets the growing consumer demand for organic products while safeguarding the environment and providing economic opportunities to rural communities.

Positive signs are on the horizon. With annual OREI funding increasing to $50 million in 2023, the program has considerably increased its capacity to address these research needs. The research being funded by these programs can be perused using USDA’s DataGateway. Given its history of supporting highly innovative and practical research, ORG merits an increased investment through formal authorization in the next Farm Bill and robust funding in the annual Appropriations process. Continued and strengthened support for both OREI and ORG is crucial. 

Organic agriculture is crucial for sustainable farming, biodiversity, a healthy food system, and combating climate change. However, the 2024 Farm Bill falls short in addressing the funding needs for organic agriculture research. 

We are working with the National Organic Coalition to make sure your voice is heard by providing a tool to send a personalized message to your representatives, urging them to support increased funding in organic agriculture research. By investing in the future of organic agriculture, we can unlock its full potential and contribute to a more sustainable and healthy food system for all.

The post Guest Post: Is the Future of Organic Food at Risk? Research Funding Holds the Answer appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This post is the fifth post in a multi-part series exploring some of the key sustainable agriculture and food systems challenges that the farm bill can address. Through a series of posts comparing the House and Senate Agriculture Committees’ proposals, we provide an assessment of how each chamber’s bill would address a given challenge, and our recommended path forward. Other posts explore how the next farm bill can tackle issues in regional market development, crop insurance access, and more.

In comparison to the enormous opportunity that sustainable and organic agriculture represents for farmers and rural communities, federal investment in related research, education, and extension has been minuscule. Failure to robustly fund public research that promotes ecologically-based production systems stifles scientific and technical innovation and leaves US farmers and ranchers unable to fully participate in and benefit from emerging markets for sustainably-produced foods. The effects of climate change on farmers are becoming ever more apparent. At the same time, the US is losing small and mid sized family farms at a rapidly increasing rate. It is therefore imperative that the next farm bill prioritizes research that benefits a broad range of farmers through the growth of more diversified and resilient farming systems, instead of directing limited public funding into research that promotes monoculture-based systems and benefits only a small subset of farmers.

Background

Over the last several decades, publicly funded agricultural research has led to the advancement of countless innovative techniques and practices that have helped farmers across the country increase their profitability and sustainability. This public research and development (R&D) investment is the primary driver of long-term productivity growth in US agriculture. In addition to increasing farm productivity, public agricultural R&D investment also supports improvements in natural resources and forestry management, helps advance rural development, and enhances food safety and quality. All farmers need access to high-quality research, and investing in research at the intersection of agriculture and climate change is critical to both short-term and long-term efforts to protect the viability of the agricultural industry. In its key public role,  research funded by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) can seek to optimize the balance among production, nutrition security, environmental services, and socio-economic sustainability.

Land-grant universities and other non-federal institutions perform about 70 percent of US public agricultural research. USDA agencies, such as the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) perform the remainder. USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) administers most of the funds for extramural research funded by USDA. Extramural research programs like the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Program (SARE), Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), Organic Research and Education Initiative (OREI), and Organic Transitions Program (ORG) are available to land-grant institutions, farmers, non-profits, private entities, and individuals.

Despite its strong record of serving public needs, US public agricultural R&D investment has fallen by about one-third since its peak in 2002, according to a 2022 report by the Economic Research Service (ERS). Underscoring the important role of public research, the study found that every dollar invested in publicly funded agricultural research generates $20 in economic activity. 

In addition to the overall drop in US public agricultural R&D investment, organic research continues to be significantly underfunded compared to its share of the food sales market. Currently, the ARS invests less than 1% and NIFA invests approximately 2% of their budget into direct organic agriculture research, while organic agriculture makes up more than 6% of the food sales market. A review of the research projects awarded through the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) and AFRI from 2009-2023 shows that the allocation for organic research does not meet the ongoing need. Within AFRI, funding levels have been historically substantial but have been falling short recently, while organic continues to grow its market share and presence. Through SCRI, funding has been sporadic and ultimately makes a small dent in the total funding for organic research topics. While OREI exists to support organic agriculture, one program alone cannot meet the full range of research needs the organic sector faces. Ultimately, decreased dedicated funding for organic research across USDA research programs undermines the growth of organic farming practices vital to addressing environmental challenges and health concerns.

Finally, the current demand for SARE grants far outweighs available resources. Since 1988, more than $26.6 million in research funds have gone directly to America’s most innovative farmers and ranchers. In total, SARE has invested over $334 million in more than 7,700 projects.

However, according to SARE’s 2021-2022 Biannual Report From the Field, less than half of all Farmer Rancher Grant proposals were able to receive funding in 2021. Farmers and ranchers have critical insight when it comes to improving their systems, and the increasing demand for farmer-led research continues to outpace federal funding. Increased funding for SARE will play a crucial role in helping SARE’s farmer-driven research keep pace with the growing challenges related to the state of the rural economy, soil health, and competitiveness of American producers.

Senate Farm Bill Proposal: Sustainable and Organic Research

Chairwoman Stabenow’s (D-MI) Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act (RPFSA) proposal offers some provisions that would increase coordination and funding for sustainable and organic agriculture. Notably, this includes provisions from the Agricultural Resilience Act, the Organic Science Research and Investment Act, and the Seeds and Breeds for the Future Act.

Two of the more exciting provisions offered in the Senate proposal include the creation of an Organic Agriculture Research Coordinator within the Office of the Chief Scientist and formal authorization for USDA’s “Climate Hubs” network. This organic initiative charges USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics agencies to catalog current, ongoing research on organic food and agriculture topics and provide a path to increase organic agriculture research conducted and funded by USDA. Authorization of Climate Hubs will help USDA meet the needs of farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in addressing the climate crisis. 

The Senate proposal also offers meaningful steps forward to address the hyper-consolidation of seed systems that has led to a dominant culture of seed commodification. This problem has grown over the past several decades. To take steps toward combating it, the Senate proposal includes the addition of regionally adapted cultivar and breed development for priority areas in AFRI and requires the Secretary of Agriculture to submit a report to Congress on the public cultivar and animal germplasm research funded by USDA and any research gaps in these areas. However, the framework also adds shellfish; measuring, monitoring, reporting, and verifying (MMRV) greenhouse gas emissions; precision agriculture technologies; controlled-environment agricultural technologies; technologies for food loss and waste prevention and reduction; and agricultural climate adaptation and mitigation to priority areas for the Initiative, without any additional funding for the program. While many of these priorities – such as agricultural climate adaptation and mitigation, MMRV of greenhouse gas emissions, and public cultivar development – are important additions to improve AFRI’s focus on agroecological research, without increased funding, AFRI will be limited in its ability to address these new priority areas.

Another promising piece of the senate proposal increases SCRI mandatory funding from $80 million to $130 million per year and allows the Secretary to waive the matching funds requirement for SCRI grants, which can help make the program more accessible to a wider range of applicants. 

The Senate proposal also greatly expands investments in 1890 institutions, including for first time mandatory funding for the 1890s Scholarship Program and the addition of four new 1890s Centers of Excellence focusing on climate change; forestry resilience and conservation; food safety, bioprocessing, and value-added agriculture; and food and agricultural sciences and the social sciences. 

Despite these positive steps, RPFSA falls short in several critical areas important to NSAC members. While reauthorizations of SARE and OREI are important, RPFSA includes no additional investment in discretionary or mandatory funding for either program. It is disappointing that effective, popular, and climate-oriented research programs like SARE, OREI, and ORG receive no additional funding despite tens of millions in discretionary and mandatory funding increases disbursed elsewhere in the title. RPFSA makes the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority (AgARDA) a permanent program with an authorization of $100 million per year, increases mandatory funding for SCRI from $80 million to $130 million per year, increases authorization of FFAR from $200 million to $250 million in mandatory funding over the life of the farm bill, and provides $100 million in mandatory funding for fiscal year 2025 in relation to the agricultural research facilities act. It is not that case that none of the programs within the research title are going without increases in funding authorization.   Rather, RPFSA chooses not to invest in programs like OREI, SARE, and ORG which  have decades of on the ground results that have helped drive innovation on farms across the country, funding some of the most cutting-edge and relevant research projects among any federal agriculture-focused grant programs. This underinvestment will lead to limits on the ability of sustainable and organic agriculture sectors to thrive or innovate at the pace required to address pressing agricultural challenges.

Finally, the focus on precision agriculture, automation, and “high risk high priority research” across the research title detracts from much needed investments in farmer-led, scale-appropriate research. Programs like AgARDA, a carve out in SCRI for mechanization and automation, and a greater emphasis on automation and precision agriculture in the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), demonstrate a continued quest for reductionist or “silver-bullet” solutions to climate change and other agricultural challenges.  

It is clear that the prevailing narrative surrounding these types of agriculture research is aimed not at improving diversified systems, but at further enabling large-scale, input-intensive, monoculture agriculture. This approach is misguided and will not meaningfully address the climate crisis. Instead, USDA funding should be directed toward building an understanding of the ecological aspects of our food and farm systems and integrating diverse knowledge and practices of agroecological farmers and farm workers, rather than continuing to explore and promote the narrow constraints of monoculture-based systems.

House Farm Bill: Sustainable and Organic Research

For the most part, when it comes to the research title, there is little difference between the Senate proposal and the House’s Farm, Food, and National Security Act (FFNSA). Similar to the Senate proposal, FFNSA meets the low bar of reauthorizing popular sustainable and organic research programs like SARE and OREI, but without the inclusion of additional funding for either program.

Another similarity is the welcome addition of regionally adapted cultivar and breed development, breeding for environmental resilience, and the addition of workforce training and development – including for meat and poultry processing – in the agriculture economics and rural communities priority area. However, these new additions alongside several others – like controlled-environment agriculture production and precision agriculture – all come without any additional funding for AFRI, spreading the program across many issues areas and likely resulting in the program’s limited ability to support more agroecologically focused agricultural research.

The Senate and House also agree on various funding opportunities for 1890s. FFNSA provides several important investments, including increasing mandatory funding for the 1890s Scholarship program to $100 million until expended, increasing funding for 1890s Extension from its current 20 percent to no less than 40 percent, and increasing the number of 1890 Centers of Excellence from no less than 3 to no less than 8.

Finally, equally disappointing in both the House and Senate bills is the focus on what they classify as “high-priority research”. Significant levels of funding for programs like AgARDA, a carve-out in SCRI for mechanization and automation, and a greater emphasis on automation and precision agriculture in AFRI will direct limited public funding into research that promotes monoculture-based systems and benefits only a small subset of farmers. 

It is a troubling narrative promoted by both the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, to classify research that further enables large-scale, monoculture agriculture as “high priority” suggesting that agricultural research that benefits a broad range of farmers through the growth of more diversified and resilient farming systems is “low priority”. This narrative is particularly troubling given the proven benefits of diversification for climate resilience. Many practices can lower a farm’s greenhouse gas emissions, including alternative manure management techniques and the use of renewable energy. Other practices that build soil organic matter, such as cover crops, compost, perennials and conservation tillage, can sequester carbon in the soil. Research that focuses on soil health and diversifying farm enterprises are prime examples of how USDA can help farms adapt to climate change.

The Way Forward

Over the last several decades, publicly funded agricultural research has led to the advancement of countless innovative techniques and practices that have helped farmers across the country increase their profitability and sustainability. Investments in research underpin the success of any sector, including agriculture. All farmers need access to high-quality research relevant to their particular region and type of operation. This is particularly critical for diversified and organic growers – who on average tend to be younger, operate smaller operations, and have less access to capital and other resources. Federal research programs help farmers learn which crops will do well in their soils, which varieties and breeds are best suited for their climates, and how they and their communities can drive innovation and market opportunities. The farm bill provides an immediate opportunity for Congress to invest in agriculture as a climate solution. 

This means a final farm bill must:

• Prioritize climate change mitigation and adaptation agricultural research and outreach, which spans disciplinary boundaries and includes agroecological, applied economics, integrated human nutrition science and policy, and system science principles across Research, Education, and Economics (REE) agencies;
• Direct USDA to prioritize capacity-building for BIPOC farmers within key programs in the REE mission area such as 1890s Centers of Excellence, 1890s Extension, 1890s Scholarship Program, New Beginning for Tribal Students, and the Federally Recognized Tribal Extension Program;
• Establish soil health and agricultural resilience to climate change and other stresses as research priorities within ARS and across all NIFA competitive grant programs;
• Establish diversified, perennial-based and perennial annual integrated farming systems, advanced grazing management, and livestock-crop integrated systems as ARS and NIFA priorities;
• Prioritize organic agricultural research at ARS and NIFA with funding commensurate to organic’s market share;
• Prioritize research, development, and release of new, regionally adapted, public crop cultivars and livestock breeds;
• Add climate change mitigation and adaptation as a new priority and purpose within SARE’s statutory mission, provide $50 million in mandatory funding, and increase the authorization of appropriations for SARE;
• Provide mandatory funding for OREI at no less than $60 million per year in 2024, stair-stepping up to $100 million per year in 2028, to ensure that the organic industry continues to grow;
• Provide first-time Congressional authorization for the Researching the Transition to Organic Program (RTOP), currently known as the Organic Transition Research Program (ORG).

The post Path to a New Farm Bill: Sustainable and Organic Research  appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This blog post is the first in a two-part series through which NSAC examines the latest Census of Agriculture in more detail. This post explores some of the high-level themes from across the Census, while the subsequent post will take deeper dives into conservation and local foods.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released the 2022 Census of Agriculture. The Census of Agriculture, which has been conducted since 1840 and currently is updated once every five years, serves as perhaps the primary data source for understanding the state of U.S. food and agriculture and is a critical tool for farmers, researchers, and stakeholders because of the wealth of data it contains about everything from farmer demographics to cover crop acreage.

In remarks made on February 13 while releasing the new Census data, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack directed attention to the loss of farmland and farms since the 2017 Census saying:

“What you find is in 2017 there were 2 million farmers, today the survey report shows we have 1.9 million, 142,000 fewer farms in 5 years.” Vilsack continued by asking the gathered audience, “as a country are we ok with losing that many farms, are we okay with losing that much farmland, or is there a better way?”

The disappearance of farms has been a decades-long trend and is commonly traced back to Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz’s 1973 encouragement of farmers to “get big or get out.”  While perhaps unsurprising, this continued trend remains troubling, and is one that NSAC is actively working to address through our federal policy advocacy, asking Congress to prioritize the passage of a strong farm bill to ensure that federal programs – from the farm safety net and conservation programs to programs that invest in local and regional food systems – are consistently accessible for all.

Separately, the Secretary highlighted the increasing average age of farmers in the United States. In 2022, the average age of all U.S. farm producers was 58.1 years, up 0.6 years from 2017, continuing a long-term trend of aging in the U.S. producer population. Additionally, the number of producers between the ages of 35-64 declined by 9%, and the number of producers 65 and over increased by 12%.

One bright spot is the significant increase in young producers since the 2017 Census. The data show a 7% increase in farmers under 44 with the largest jump among the youngest producers, those under 25 years of age. Furthermore, new and beginning producers, defined as farmers and ranchers who have operated a farm or ranch for not more than 10 consecutive years, increased in both the number of producers and the share of all producers. Slightly over 1 million of the 3.4 million producers in 2022 have farmed for less than 10 years. 

Larger and Fewer

Overall, as noted above, the 2022 Census of Agriculture reports that the total number of farms is down nationwide, while the average size of farms continues to increase. As of 2022, there were 1.9 million farms and ranches across the U.S. – a decrease of 6.1 percent over the past 5 years and almost double the rate of decline seen between the 2017 and 2012 census. At the same time, the average size of farms increased slightly to 463 acres, a trend that has continued since the 2012 Census.

While the total number of farm operations shrank markedly, the overall value of all agricultural production decreased only slightly – meaning that as 100,000+ small and medium-sized farms transitioned out of farming over the past five years, their land and production were folded into larger and larger operations. This trend towards increased consolidation is also evident from looking at trends across farm sizes. Over the last five years, all categories of farms declined, except the two largest categories: farms with farms with sales between $1-4.9m and farms with sales over. See the chart below.

Increase in Farm Sales, Income, and Farm Expenses

Overall, both net farm cash income and expenses per farm have increased significantly since 2017. Average net farm cash income was $80 million, up 46% since the last census. Farm expenses averaged $2.2 million, up 28% from $1.6 million in 2017. It is important to note that the 2017 Ag Census came at a time where the data clearly reflected the realities of a sluggish farm economy. In the past several years, farm income and expenses have reached record highs and are projected to level out over the next 2-3 years. 

• In 2022, U.S. farms and ranches produced $543.1 billion in agricultural products, up from $388.5 billion in 2017. 
• The total value of crop commodities in 2022 was $281 billion, up 45% from 2017. For livestock, the value was $262 billion, up 35%.
• Large farms ($5 million or more in sales) accounted for 42% of all sales, up significantly from only 35% in 2017, despite being just one percent of all farms. Small farms ($50,000 or less in sales) made up 74% of all farms and yet only contributed to 2% of all sales in 2022.
• Over half of all sales, 55%, came from just 10 states, with California remaining on top as the largest producer at $59 billion. Iowa ranks second at $44 billion, with Texas, Nebraska, and Minnesota rounding out the top five.

Beginning Farmers

The 2022 Ag Census saw an increase in the total number of New and Beginning Producers. Slightly over 1 million of the 3.4 million producers in 2022 were beginning farmers. Their average age was 47.1, and their farms were smaller than average in both acres and sales. In addition, there was an over 10% increase in beginning farmers since 2017. 

• The average age of a beginning farmer was 47.1, 11 years younger than the average farmer.
• Farms with young producers manage 105 million acres or roughly 12% of all land in farms. Similar to the overall data, the farm size category that included the most farms with young producers was 10-49 acres.
• The amount of land and farms where at least one of the producers is a beginning farmer or rancher went up slightly – from 193.4 million acres to 196.5 million. There was an increase of nearly 33,000 farms owned or leased by beginning farmers. 
• The top three states for beginning farmers were Rhode Island, Alaska, and Maine with 41% of all farmers in Rhode Island having farmed for less than 10 years.

Producers and Farms by Ethnicity and Race

One of the most alarming statistics to come out of the 2022 Census was the loss of Black farms. Farms with at least one producer reporting as Black decreased by 13% between 2017 and 2022, from 32,910 farms in 2017 to 28,723 in 2022. This is nearly double the percentage of overall farm loss in the US. The statistics in this next section pertain to farms with at least one producer reporting their race as follows:

• 96% of farms in the US report at least 1 producer as white.
• The number of farms across demographics showed a decrease since 2017 with the exception of Asian and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander farms:
  • 7% loss of farms in the US 
  • 7% loss of White farms
  • 13% loss of Black farms
  • 5% loss of Native American farms
  • 3% loss in Hispanic, Latino, Spanish farms
  • 2% increase Asian farms
  • 8.7% increase in Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Organic Production 

While the 2017 Census found robust growth in organic production in terms of sales, number of certified farms, and acres transitioning to organic, the 2022 Census saw a decline in the number of National Organic Program (NOP) Certified Organic Farmers (4% decrease) and an even steeper decline in the number of farms with acres transitioning to organic (43% decrease). This decrease comes in despite the significant increase in the sale of organic commodities since the 2017 census (24% increase).

• There are 17,048 certified organic farm operations in the U.S., a decrease of 4% since 2017. However, when including organic operations exempt from NOP certification, the decrease was 7%.
• Sales of organic commodities were valued at $9.6 billion.
• 2,125 farms were transitioning acreage into certified organic production in 2022, a 43% decrease since the last Census.

For more on the 2022 Census of Agriculture stay tuned to the NSAC blog, and check out the following resources:

• NASS Press Release
• 2022 Census of Agriculture Report
• Ag Census Highlights 

The post Examining the Latest Agricultural Census Data appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

On October 1, 2023, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 – more commonly known as the 2018 Farm Bill – expired. The expiration did not come as a surprise, as Congress’ timeline for reauthorizing the 2018 Farm Bill has been increasingly drawn out for a variety of reasons such that neither the House nor Senate Agriculture Committees have yet been ready to unveil their bills.

Observers of federal food and agriculture policy will be familiar with the oft-repeated albeit misleading message that the impacts of an expired farm bill don’t really kick in until January 2024, with the start of the new crop year. While it’s true that there are new and significant impacts beginning in the new year, the consequences of allowing the 2018 Farm Bill to expire without a replacement are already beginning to mount. Thankfully, in recent days Congress has begun to turn its attention toward a much-needed extension of the 2018 Farm Bill – discussed at the end of this post. Yet until an extension is passed, many essential programs will continue to be impacted.

There are three primary ways in which a program might be negatively impacted – or “stranded” – due to the expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill. First, a program may lack funding beyond October 1, 2023. Second, a program may lack the legal authority to continue operating beyond that same date absent a farm bill extension. And third, a program could have no funding and no legal authority. With this simple framework in mind, this blog post takes a deep dive into the current and potential future impacts of the expired 2018 Farm Bill by examining which programs are stranded, and what it means for food and agriculture.

Local and Regional Food Systems

Due to NSAC member advocacy during the 2018 Farm Bill, many local and regional food system programs will not see a significant interruption following the expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill on October 1, 2023.

While the 2023 Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP) awards – including the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion, Regional Food System Partnership, and Value-Added Producer Grants – have not yet been announced, the review process has been well underway for months and we anticipate announcements will occur before the end of the year. Nevertheless, these initiatives that seek to develop new market opportunities for local farmers and food businesses could be impacted beginning in the FY2024 cycle. Despite permanent mandatory funding for LAMP, the authority for the grant program lapsed on October 1, 2023. Without an extension or reauthorization, the grant cycle may be interrupted. 

Similarly, states should be able to finish Senior Farmers Market Nutrition (SFMNP) programming without interruptions for the remainder of the 2023 season. Many states operate their program seasonally, distributing vouchers or funds to senior citizens at the beginning of peak market seasons, giving some breathing room for Congress to reauthorize the program. However, SFMNP’s operations could be impacted in calendar year 2024 if there is a significant delay in a Farm Bill reauthorization or extension.

Conservation and Climate

USDA conservation programs will remain largely unaffected by the expiration of the Farm Bill. This is a direct result of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which invested in and reauthorized several conservation programs ahead of the full Farm Bill reauthorization. These programs are:

• The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
• The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
• The Agriculture Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)
• Regional Conservation Program (RCPP)

Each of these programs has been reauthorized through 2031 and will continue to function without further action from Congress. The next Farm Bill may change or preserve this new authorization window, but only time will tell. 

While much of the Farm Bill-funded conservation work will continue uninterrupted, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) will not. Administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), CRP conserves and improves soil, protects water quality, and provides wildlife habitat by establishing long-term cover on highly erodible land or land in need of conservation buffers that has previously been in row crop production. In exchange for cost-share and rental payments, farmers remove environmentally sensitive land from production and plant resource-conserving land cover to protect soil, water, and wildlife habitat.

CRP’s statutory authorization ended along with the rest of the Farm Bill on September 30, and as such no new work can occur within that program without action from Congress. Effective as of October 1st: 

• FSA will not approve CRP contracts for any signup types
• FSA will not process offers for enrollment in CRP for all signup types
• FSA will not authorize any CRP contract revisions or corrections

Contracts that were approved on or before September 30 will receive annual rental and cost-share payments, and signing incentive and practice incentive payments, as applicable.

Farmers interested in signing up for CSP and EQIP should check their state’s application ranking dates and contact their local service center to learn how and when to apply. For organizations interested in ACEP and RCPP, USDA recently announced changes and anticipated future grant making rounds.

Organics and Research

The programs highlighted so far lack the authority to operate, but do not lack funding authority – meaning that if their authority is extended, they will continue operating even without an additional infusion of funding. However, there are numerous notable programs that are currently stranded without funding. One such notable program is the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program (OCCSP). OCCSP does not have ‘permanent baseline’ funding and therefore without a provision that specifically offers continued funding and authorization for OCCSP, the cost share program will expire, leaving thousands of organic farmers with a huge net increase in their annual certification costs. 

What this means on the ground is that FSA and some state Departments of Agriculture are currently accepting 2023 OCCSP applications using remaining 2018 Farm Bill funds. Farmers who apply for OCCSP by October 31 can still receive reimbursements even with the expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill. FSA generally announces the availability of cost share funding in April or May. Therefore, if Congress passes a Farm Bill before then with renewed funding, OCCSP should be able to operate without interruption in 2024. If, however, Congress does not include dedicated funding for OCCSP in a Farm Bill extension, this critical program will be unable to operate in 2024, unless and until a new Farm Bill is passed with new funding.

Unfortunately, OCCSP is not the only program without ‘permanent baseline’ beginning October 1, 2023. The Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives (ODI) and Scholarships for 1890s Institutions both lack permanent baseline, and will also need dedicated funding in any Farm Bill extension.

Due to NSAC member advocacy during the 2018 Farm Bill, the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Program (OREI) – like LAMP, described above – now has what is called ‘permanent baseline’ funding. This means that even if Congress extends the Farm Bill for another year, OREI is assumed to be part of that extension at its current funding level, which is $50 million annually. However, despite mandatory funding for the program, the authority for the grant program ends after 2023. Without an extension or reauthorization, the next grant cycle may be interrupted. 

Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach

The Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach (FOTO) program, which is a combination of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development program (BFRDP) and the Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program (2501), was created in the 2018 Farm Bill in part to secure mandatory baseline funding for both 2501 and BFRDP. FY2023 grants for 2501 were just recently announced, with new BFRDP grants soon likely to follow. Despite mandatory funding for the program, the legal authority for the grant program lapsed on October 1, 2023. Therefore, like LAMP and OREI discussed above, absent an extension or reauthorization, the next grant cycle may be interrupted.

Farm Safety Net

By and large, the farm safety net – ranging from credit to crop insurance and commodity programs – will continue to operate with little interruption through the end of 2023. 

The Federal Crop Insurance Program – which is permanently authorized and funded at such sums as necessary in perpetuity by Congress – will continue to function without interruption in the absence of a Farm Bill reauthorization or extension. Permanent disaster programs, including the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program and programs to support livestock and fruit tree producers, are also authorized to continue. 

The Farm Bill also permanently authorizes USDA to make and guarantee loans, for which money is allocated by Congress in the annual appropriations process. Failure to reauthorize or extend the Farm Bill is not likely to impact the availability or servicing of farm loans. 

Meanwhile, commodity programs – including the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) programs – will continue to function, but only for a short time. The government is obligated to make payments until the end of the 2023 crop’s marketing year, or a full 12 months post-harvest into 2024. 

If the Farm Bill is not reauthorized or extended by January 1, 2024, commodity programs will begin to be replaced with “permanent law,” or non-expiring provisions established in the 1938 and 1949 Farm Bills. The first commodity to be impacted is dairy. Congress has maintained but suspended permanent law in each Farm Bill since the 1960s as a force-function to reauthorize the Farm Bill, lest the temporary suspension expire and force USDA to implement antiquated farm intervention programs.

Extending the 2018 Farm Bill

Already, the consequences of allowing the 2018 Farm Bill to expire without a replacement are mounting, and the longer Congress waits to act, the greater the negative impact will be. NSAC encourages lawmakers to remain focused on passing a strong, bipartisan farm bill as soon as possible. In the meantime, an extension of the 2018 Farm Bill – with extended programmatic authorities and full funding for programs without permanent baseline – is the most critical step we can take to support farmers, ranchers, and food system stakeholders throughout the country.

As Congress turns its attention toward the details of an extension, they must ensure that authority is extended for key programs such as LAMP and FOTO. Importantly, programs without permanent baseline – such as OCCSP, SFMNP, Scholarships for 1890’s, and ODI – must explicitly receive funding in any extension in order to continue to operate. And finally, any extension must also extend CRP’s authorization, as well an extension of payment limits within EQIP and CSP.

The post What the Expiration, and Likely Extension, of the 2018 Farm Bill Means for Food and Agriculture appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Mike Lavender

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

mlavender@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 734.417.8710

Comment: NSAC Applauds Introduction of the Organic Science and Research Investment Act

Washington, DC, July 13, 2023 – Today, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) issued the following comment, attributable to Nick Rossi, NSAC Policy Specialist, in response to the introduction of the Organic Science and Research Investment Act by Senators John Fetterman (D-PA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bob Casey (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

“NSAC applauds the introduction of the Organic Science Research and Investment Act, which makes meaningful investments in providing organic producers with the research and tools they need to continue to improve upon already climate friendly and resilient farming systems and meet the growing market demand for organic products. 

The Organic Science and Research Investment Act increases public investments in critical organic research programs such as the Organic Agriculture Research and Education Initiative (OREI), formally authorizes the Organic Transitions Program (ORG) by creating the Transition to Organic Program (RTOP), and provides structure for USDA to coordinate and expand organic agriculture research across REE agencies. This will increase the scientific research and economic data and analysis these agencies are able to provide so that both organic and conventional agricultural producers can sustain and improve their operations while helping us reach meaningful solutions for the climate crisis. We thank Senator Fetterman and the bills co-sponsors for their leadership in organic agriculture and research investments.”

Find out more information about the bill here.

### 

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC): The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net

The post Comment: NSAC Applauds Introduction of the Organic Science and Research Investment Act appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

“Do no harm” to crop insurance has become a common refrain in Washington DC as we gear up for a new farm bill this year. NSAC agrees that a top priority should be to not harm crop insurance as the 2023 Farm Bill debate heats up. In fact, we aim to improve it. Barriers in program design and implementation leave small to mid-sized, beginning, specialty crop, and organic farmers without access to this pivotal safety net program, and Congress has the opportunity to address these shortfalls. 

Background

A federally subsidized farm safety net is a necessary tool to help protect farmers from the many risks of farming. Yet NSAC members have long supported and worked with farmers for whom crop insurance is inaccessible. Limited resource, small, beginning, diverse, and organic farmers find themselves choosing between either purchasing crop insurance each year, if a relevant policy is even available and advertised to them, or adopting on-farm conservation practices and diversifying production and markets to mitigate risk and improve long-term resilience against disasters. Almost invariably, they choose the latter. 

If a farmer chooses to adopt conservation measures and diversification but then does not have enough remaining resources to be able to enroll in support of the farm safety net, it suggests that the program as it currently stands is not an effective tool that meets the needs of all farmers. No farmer should be forced to choose, and in fact, both strategies should be incentivized to help farmers manage risk. 

While more than 85 percent of planted acres for commodity crops (e.g., corn, soybeans, cotton, and wheat) are insured under the federal crop insurance program (FCIP), the chart below illustrates most farms are not served at all by the program. Most farms above 500 acres hold insurance policies, yet very few farms under 260 acres are enrolled in the FCIP relative to the total number of operations. 

All Farms and Farms Purchasing FCIP Policies, by Acres Operated

The reason for this disparity in access is not because these farmers do not want a safety net to protect against the once-in-a-generation weather event or market pitfall that have become regular features of the farm economy. Rather, the FCIP was not designed to meet the needs of small, beginning, specialty crop, and organic farmers.

Why is crop insurance not working for everyone?

First, because it is not accessible to farmers looking to diversify their income streams or differentiate themselves in the marketplace. 

The federal crop insurance program is a public-private partnership. Farmers purchase insurance policies from private sector insurers, known as Approved Insurance Providers (AIPs). USDA, specifically the Risk Management Agency (RMA), regulates the policies sold by AIPs, uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize farmer premiums (the cost of purchasing a policy), and subsidizes AIPs for the cost of selling and servicing crop insurance policies. 

Farmers may file a claim to receive an indemnity payment when they experience an insurable event, either a natural peril or revenue losses (depending on the type of insurance policy purchased: yield, revenue, or area-based policies, and more). Insurable commodities vary by location and depend on whether data exists to verify the projected value of a farmer’s product confidently and appropriately. 

This variability in whether a crop is insurable already places small, beginning, and specialty crop growers at a structural disadvantage. For example, a beginning farmer who wishes to grow strawberries in a Montana county where no other producer grows that crop will almost certainly not have the option to purchase an insurance policy that insures strawberries. If they desire the security of a safety net, the farmer will be incentivized to instead grow a commodity that is already widely grown in the county – such as wheat – which is unlikely to unlock market opportunity and allow the beginning farmer to differentiate themselves, but for which an insurance product is readily available. 

Second, because it promotes monoculture commodity production over specialty crops and on-farm conservation. 

Several rules and guidelines that determine how the FCIP is administered challenge the ability of nonconventional farmers to remain eligible for full crop insurance protections. For example, farmers must adhere to “Good Farming Practices” as defined by RMA to qualify for indemnity payments in the aftermath of an insurable event. RMA currently maintains that a practice which reduces yields may not be considered a Good Farming Practice. This is a serious deterrent against adoption of many conservation practices because temporary yield drags are common on farms transitioning to climate-friendly, regenerative, and organic systems before yields can stabilize and even rise. 

Additional guidance on when and how cover crops may be terminated creates a similar disincentive. What should be a farm-specific decision is applied to a broad region wherein conditions may vary wildly from farm to farm. 

Likewise, RMA determines regionally appropriate final planting dates, wherein acres planted on or before this date receive the full yield or revenue guarantee that a farmer selected when purchasing their insurance policy. Organic and conventional operations are currently held to the same final planting date, even though certified organic farmers sometimes plant crops such as corn later than their conventional counterparts to avoid cross-contamination with neighboring genetically engineered seed. The value of a yield or revenue guarantee is reduced each day for farmers who plant after the final planting date. 

This structure to incentivize monoculture commodity production over specialty crops and diverse rotations is mirrored in eligibility considerations to receive agriculture loans as well as other public and commercial resources. The Whole-Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) program is an exception to this paradigm and the dominant insurance model where the availability of policies is determined by crop and county. WFRP is the only insurance product designed to protect a farmer’s entire operation, not just one crop, and it is available nationwide. It also includes a built-in insurance premium discount for crop and enterprise diversification that considers the inherent risk reduction impacts of diversification. However, significant red tape has made it difficult for farmers to purchase WFRP. Recent changes announced by RMA are expected to improve farmers’ ability to access the product, and additional changes can and should be made.

How can insurance be improved to expand access?

There are many reasons why small, beginning, organic, diversified, and specialty crop farmers rarely purchase crop insurance. Historical barriers include limited policy availability, bureaucratic red tape (including burdensome paperwork), and insufficient outreach and education. While Congress and USDA in recent years have taken steps to address these challenges and expand insurance coverage for nonconventional producers, additional reforms are needed. 

NSAC’s 2023 Farm Bill Platform proposes recommendations that will be key to improving crop insurance access for small and diversified farmers. In summary, these needed reforms include:

• Expanding insurance options and further streamlining the WFRP program;
• Directing RMA to provide continued education to insurance agents about agronomic practices and coverage options for nonconventional producers;
• Reforming barriers to conservation practice adoption perpetuated by insurance rules, including the RMA definition of Good Farming Practices and cover crop termination guidelines; and
• Establishing a secure data service to collect, link, and analyze data on conservation practices so this information can be integrated into crop insurance actuarial tables, as proposed in the Agriculture Innovation Act of 2021.

Remember: low enrollment in federal crop insurance policies among small and diversified farms does not reflect disinterest in participation. Overwhelmingly, these farmers desire a safety net to protect themselves from the worst impacts of unpredictable weather events and market variability, just as any other farmer does. It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure these historically underserved farmers can purchase an insurance policy as easily as their conventional counterparts.

The post DON’T HARM CROP INSURANCE, IMPROVE IT! appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

The end of a year signifies a time to reflect on all of the most important accomplishments and tribulations of the past year. At NSAC, we had the opportunity to celebrate and find new reasons to expand our advocacy to support sustainable agriculture practices, small-scale producers, diversified farming, local food systems, and beginning and underserved farmers and ranchers. Here are NSAC’s Top 10 accomplishments of 2022: 

1. NSAC’s In-Person Engagement!

After two long, difficult years managing the COVID-19 pandemic, NSAC members gathered for the annual summer meeting in Durham, North Carolina for the first time since the pandemic began. With nearly 100 members in attendance, NSAC’s coalition celebrated a renewed commitment to sustainable agriculture with many in-person conversations, connections made, and visits to local farms and food processing facilities that are doing the hard work to make our food system more sustainable and equitable. 

The NSAC Summer Meeting subsequently launched more in-person engagement with our incredible members. September 2022 saw the first in-person NSAC Fly-In since the beginning of the pandemic, bringing together farmers and food systems professionals from across the country to Washington, DC to discuss important policy and program improvements for a more sustainable and resilient farm system. With visits to Capitol Hill to share grassroots stories, important themes came to the forefront, including the need for increased investment in conservation programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program, government support for local food systems, the passage of legislation like the Agriculture Resilience Act. 

These in-person events provided a much needed return to normalcy. Beyond Zoom meetings and computer screens, NSAC and our member organizations experienced the power and impact of in-person engagement both in the field and on Capitol Hill. 

2. NSAC’s 2023 Platform Has Launched!

With the 2023 Farm Bill reauthorization next year, NSAC staff and members have been busily developing recommendations for ways the Farm Bill can invest in healthy communities, level the playing field for small- and mid-sized farms, build a climate resilient future, and advance racial equity across the food system. After months of hard work from the NSAC staff and with valuable input from our members, we released NSAC’s 2023 Farm Bill Platform, a comprehensive set of policy recommendations for nearly every title of the farm bill informed by expert analysis and the experiences of farmers and food systems professionals on the ground. 

Since the release of NSAC’s 2023 Farm Bill Platform, staff have been busy setting up meetings all over Capitol Hill to share key recommendations. By proactively building solid relationships with Congressional offices now, NSAC is gearing up for an exciting and impactful farm bill year ahead. You can learn more about NSAC’s 2023 Farm Bill Platform by reading our blog series on the Platform here. 

3. Making Strides in Equity

2022 also saw  new initiatives to advance a more resilient and equitable food and farm system. 

In particular, the USDA began convening its new Equity Commission, a 15-member independent body dedicated to addressing the Department’s investments and commitments to improving racially and socially equitable outcomes for USDA programs. Implemented as part of USDA’s Equity Action Plan, the inaugural meeting of the Commission occurred in February 2022, and invited members of the public to register and provide oral comments for the Commission to consider as it began the work of formally addressing equity across USDA programs and policies. Subsequent meetings occurred in May and September of 2022. NSAC strongly supports efforts taken to ensure the equitable distribution of USDA resources such that farmers of all backgrounds, including people of color, beginning farmers, and veteran farmers, have the opportunity to thrive in our agricultural system. For more information on NSAC’s commitment to racial equity, click here. 

4. Breaking Climate Ground with the Inflation Reduction Act

During the summer of 2022, Washington, DC was abuzz with news that Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Chuck Schumer had negotiated the most comprehensive climate change bill ever passed in the history of the United States. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) offered more than 700 pages of substantive investments in a variety of climate-oriented programs, many of which were relevant to food systems. Of note, agriculture conservation programs, including the Conservation Stewardship Program, Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, Regional Conservation Partnership Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program were reauthorized.  More than $20 billion dollars in incremental payments was allocated through 2026. Additionally, organic producers and those transitioning to organic received explicit support in the bill. Further still, the IRA codified key elements of conservation programs that NSAC has long fought for, including removing the requirement that 50 percent of EQIP funds go to livestock operations, which has long resulted in Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) receiving large portions of conservation funds. While the IRA did not address every issue in climate and conservation programs, it certainly made some major improvements. 

Beyond conservation program support, the Section 22006 of the Inflation Reduction Act provided $3.1 billion in funding for USDA to provide relief for distressed borrowers with at-risk agricultural operations. Nearly $800 million has already been disbursed to distressed borrowers with direct or guaranteed loans administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA).

As we round out 2022, NSAC staff are busy responding to requests for comments from USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) on ways to best implement the expansive funds that have been allocated to agricultural conservation programs in the IRA. With immense dedication and input from our members, our staff have prepared a substantive comment filled with recommendations on how to improve programs and implement new funds for conservation. 

5. Moving Forward on Appropriations

This year NSAC worked with the Biden-Harris Administration and with Congressional appropriators to seek increased sustainable agriculture investments in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 federal spending, including for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, conservation technical assistance, and much more. The fiscal year 2023 omnibus appropriations bill, as it currently stands, includes significant funding for key NSAC priorities including a. If the bill makes it through the House and Senate this week, we will see a $5 million increase for SARE, and a more than $40 million increase for CTA, while GLCI would receive flat funding at $14 million. As of this writing, the omnibus FY23 bill is awaiting final passage before the end of 2022.

6. Celebrating Crop Insurance, Competition, and Credit Reforms 

Throughout the year, both crop insurance and credit programs have seen huge improvements that NSAC has been advocating for. 

In July 2022, NSAC released a report on the benefits of crop insurance payment caps entitled “An Economic Analysis of Payment Caps on Crop Insurance Subsidies,” which calculated the potential savings of taxpayer dollars that would result from the implementation of modest payment caps on crop insurance subsidies. This policy would address both the outsized capacity for larger-scale producers to continually receive subsidies on crop insurance while also allowing for greater investments in conservation and other programs that provide farmers with the capacity to manage disasters that might affect crops in other ways. The report was updated in October 2022 to further demonstrate the minimal negative impacts of crop insurance payment caps. 

NSAC also supported a number of updated rules to the Packers and Stockyards Act, which advanced the Biden Administration’s commitment to giving extra teeth to the enforcement of antitrust law and giving livestock producers a fair shake. The first of the rules that NSAC supported included provisions to reform the Poultry Tournament Payment System, which will allow for smaller family farms to receive greater transparency from poultry production companies regarding their contracts. The second rule contained provisions to prevent prejudice against market-vulnerable individuals and to prohibit the use of false or misleading statements regarding contract formation, performance, and termination, among other protections. These two new rules offered significant advancement to ensure a fairer livestock system for producers and keeps in check the antitrust and otherwise unfair practices of powerful livestock and poultry companies. 

In late August, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Risk Management Agency (RMA) announced several changes to improve the effectiveness of the Whole-Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) program, the only insurance product designed to protect a farmer’s entire operation. RMA also announced a Road Show that offered two virtual workshops in October 2022 which developed into a series of virtual and in-person events this fall to educate producers and crop insurance agents about WFRP. NSAC supports a number of the new provisions that RMA has announced, including increasing maximum revenue limits, adjusting yield reporting requirements, and increasing maximum insurable revenue limits. NSAC looks forward to continuing to work with RMA to continue these positive changes, as well as prohibit negative provisions, such as the ability to adjust price and production expectations at the time of a loss claim, which causes significant discouragement from enrolling in WFRP. By advocating for good WFRP policies, NSAC hopes that more farmers will be able to protect their sustainable, diversified operations. 

7. Making Investments in Local Agriculture Programs

In September 2022, USDA announced its intention to establish Regional Food Business Centers, designed to provide technical assistance and capacity building for local and regional supply chain rebuilding from the impacts of COVID-19. NSAC celebrates this distribution of funds to strengthen local food systems to increase their resilience, and the particular focus on overcoming market barriers for underserved farmers, ranchers, and food businesses. 

The Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Grant Program (LFPA) also saw massive infusions of funds this year, with over $900 million dedicated to state, tribal, and local governments to facilitate local food purchasing to expand economic opportunities for local and underserved producers. This large investment in local food economies shows great potential for supporting smaller food producers, and also offers state and other regional government entities the flexibility to meet local needs. This program further expands on the extensive support that local food systems received through the American Rescue Plan and other supports throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. NSAC will be working to ensure that these and similar programs find a more permanent home in the 2023 Farm Bill to bolster local food systems in the long-term. 

COVID-19 relief also included more capacity for the Value-Added Producer Grant Program (VAPG), which as part of the LAMP program, offers resources to create or expand local value-added producer-owned businesses. Through COVID-19 relief funding, VAPG grants saw reductions in matching requirements and overall increases in funding available, enhancing access to this valuable business assistance program and contributing to local economic development.

8. Expanding Food Safety and Inspection Opportunities for Smaller Operations

NSAC’s Food Systems Integrity portfolio has also seen an exciting year with a number of key programs receiving both fiscal and programmatic support, leading to better conditions for smaller producers and processors. 

The Strengthening Local Processing Act (SLPA), initially introduced in 2020, supports small meat processors dealing with supply chain challenges. Changes made to the legislation in reintroduction will expand access to workforce development funds for a wider variety of groups. NSAC supports this expansion and is advocating for SLPA’s inclusion in the 2023 Farm Bill. 

2022 saw other administrative efforts to support small meat processors. In November 2022, it was announced that USDA would invest over $70 million in 21 grant funded projects in the initial round of the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program (MPPEP) – a program which aims to increase options for livestock producers, promote competition across the economy, and lower costs for American families. NSAC was very supportive of these grants, recognizing that their implementation allows for more proactive steps from the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to anticipate the unique capacity and personnel challenges that smaller processors face and support them in building their resilience.

Further, the Meat and Poultry Inspection Readiness Grant (MPIRG) program prioritized smaller plants looking to become USDA-inspected, which further supported smaller processors in meeting the need for more independent, regional meat processing capacity.

9. Introducing the SARE Marker Bill and Other Research Advancements 

The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, or SARE, is a keystone program that supports and funds critical research to advance sustainable agriculture practices across the United States. NSAC strongly supports the SARE Program and is keen on supporting new marker bill legislation that will ensure that SARE receives adequate funding and support to continue to inform our agricultural system’s advancement towards a more sustainable landscape. NSAC hopes to set the stage for increased SARE and other research investments in the 2023 Farm Bill. 

Organic programs at USDA also saw significant investments this year, including $300 million dollars invested in the Organic Transition Initiative (OTI) which will help build new income streams for organic producers. Increased funding to OTI, and other similar programs, such as the Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP), are already facilitating stronger organic producer networks to help organic farmers gain the top dollar for their products. NSAC is proud that many of its coalition members are strong partners within TOPP, and hope that their influence will continue to strengthen the transition of many producers to more sustainable organic systems.

10. Coming in 2023: The NSAC Climate Rally for Resilience!

The Farmers for Climate Action: Rally for Resilience was announced this year at the 38th annual FarmAid Concert, held in September 2022. Led by NSAC and supported by a number of other farm and food organizations from around the country, the Rally for Resilience, scheduled for March 2023, will be a mass mobilization of farmers and producers from across the United States demanding meaningful climate resilience action from the federal government. The entire slate of programming will include a march, rally and concert, and a fully lobby day dedicated to bringing attention to the critical role that farmers play on the frontlines of climate change. To be involved with NSAC’s efforts for the Rally for Resilience, click here. 

While successes have been plenty, there will certainly be tough battles ahead. As the 2023 Farm Bill reauthorization process gets underway, NSAC will be spending dedicated time and energy to ensure that the successes seen in 2022 continue to grow in the Farm Bill and beyond, all in line with the important proposals put forward in NSAC’s 2023 Farm Bill Platform. As we pause before the New Year, we want to take a moment to celebrate the monumental victories that our coalition has accomplished this year. We cannot do our work without the support and engagement of our members, allies, champions, and supporters. Thank you for a highly impactful year, and we look forward to creating more sustainable, equitable food systems change in 2023. 

The post NSAC’s Top 10 of 2022: A Year in Review appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

On October 24, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced cooperative agreements in six regions across the country for the Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP). TOPP will invest up to $100 million over five years in cooperative agreements with non-profit organizations to provide technical assistance to transitioning and existing organic farmers. 

TOPP is a part of the newly created Organic Transition Initiative, the details of which were announced last August. This program will assist producers in navigating the transition process and accessing new organic markets. Led by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), six regional partnership networks across the US will work with local organizations that connect transitioning farmers with mentors. These partnerships will prioritize building paid mentoring networks to share practical knowledge and advice between established organic farmers and those transitioning. This includes train-the-mentor support, as well as technical assistance, workshops, and field days about managing organic operations, such as production practices, certification, conservation planning, business development (for example, navigating the supply chain), regulations, and marketing. 

A significant number of National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) across the country will participate in establishing the partnership network for transitioning and existing organic farmers. These members include:

More details and the list of non-profit organizations participating in the TOPP network can be found here. Farmers interested in serving as an organic mentor or who are interested in transitioning to organic, as well as non-profits interested in being a part of TOPP can get involved here.

On November 15, 2022 at 3pm EST USDA will hold a virtual listening session to gather input on the Organic Transition Initiative, Pinpointed Organic Market Development grant program. Register here.

Last year, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) submitted recommendations to USDA which included investments in organic research and procurement. Several of these recommendations were unfortunately not included as a part of this recent announcement, yet they remain priorities for NSAC. However, given the challenges organic programs have recently faced, including the funding shortfall of the National Organic Certification Cost-Share program, USDA’s commitment to supporting organic producers will help boost productivity and consumer confidence in the organic standard and markets.

The post <strong>$100 Million to Support Transitioning and Existing Organic Producers</strong> appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.