Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: Hundreds Call for Strong Investments in Farmer-Led Research, Urban Agriculture, and Conservation in FY2027 Appropriations

Washington, DC, April 16, 2026 – Yesterday, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), alongside hundreds of organizations, delivered letters calling for strong investments in Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 Agriculture Appropriations legislation. The letters, which focused on the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP), and Conservation Operations and Conservation Technical Assistance, arrive as Congressional Appropriators are drafting spending legislation, and several weeks after the Administration released its own FY2027 budget proposal.

The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program is the only regionally based, farmer driven, and outcome-oriented competitive research program that involves farmers and ranchers directly as the primary investigators in research and education projects. SARE provides grants directly to producers, which removes the financial risk of testing new ideas for making their operations more economically viable, productive, and sustainable. To meet the current demand for farmer driven research, stakeholders are requesting full funding for SARE at its authorized level of $60 million.

“Farmers and ranchers are at the center of everything SARE does, from important leadership positions at the national level, to participating in the regional grant review process, to designing and implementing projects for on-farm research. This farmer led model that SARE champions ensures that funding continues to go to America’s most innovative farmers and ranchers,” said Nick Rossi, NSAC Policy Specialist. “Despite nearly 40 years of helping farmers develop and adopt cutting edge practices and systems, SARE has yet to receive its fully authorized funding, and every year more than half of eligible farmer/rancher grants go unfunded.”

The Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP) offers programs and services that support the unique needs of agricultural production in urban, suburban, and indoor settings, ensuring business success and an ample supply of nutritious foods in their communities. OUAIP grants, cooperative agreements, and programming have reached 43 states and Puerto Rico, despite being significantly underfunded. This year, stakeholders are requesting funding at the authorized level of $25 million.

“The combined effect of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff losses and cuts to nutrition programs makes OUAIP awards and timely implementation even more essential for organizations and local stakeholders to fill the gaps left in communities. Previous awards have funded incubator farms and community garden infrastructure, as well as producer training and youth education; all of which have been difficult for producers to access in traditional USDA service centers,” commented Hannah Quigley, NSAC Policy Specialist. 

Conservation Operations and Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) funds facilitate the administration of USDA conservation programs by supporting our conservation workforce, conservation planning, and the extension of specialized technical assistance to producers. According to USDA, CTA funds supported over 4,400 full time NRCS positions in every state in the nation in 2025, as well as TA providers at third-party organizations. This year, NSAC partnered with the National Associations of Conservation Districts, as well as a long list of stakeholders, in requesting $1.05 billion for Conservation Operations.

“Producers across the country depend on the availability of on-the-ground technical assistance to implement effective conservation practices. These funds support conservation professionals providing detailed, unbiased agronomic advice to producers in every state, most often at the county level. It’s no surprise to see such strong support from organizations and producers alike for these investments at a time when producer access to TA is so dramatically reduced,” said Jesse Womack, NSAC Policy Specialist.

### 

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: Hundreds Call for Strong Investments in Farmer-Led Research, Urban Agriculture, and Conservation in FY2027 Appropriations appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth and final post in a four-part blog series analyzing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on March 5. The first post provides an overview of the markup process and the bill as a whole. The second post provides a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on local and regional food systems. The third post offers an analysis of its impacts on the farm safety net, farms’ ability to access land and capital, and fair competition. This post covers conservation, climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research. 

The past eleven years have been the hottest on record, and for American farmers and ranchers, the effects of climate change continue to pose a severe, even existential, threat. Farmers and farmworkers continue to face unprecedented heat and drought, more intense weather from heavy rains to erratic freezes, increasing pest pressures, and rising hospitalizations and fatalities from heat. In the face of these challenges, significant policy improvements and robust financial investments are critical to ensuring successful farms and a resilient agricultural economy for future generations. 

As the weather becomes more volatile, the need to fund technical assistance, conservation projects, and research that supports farmers in preparing for and bouncing back from extreme events is increasingly urgent. While Americans, more than ever before, recognize the impact of extreme weather on farmers, unfortunately, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA) fails to fully grasp the challenges and consequently falls short. 

The farm bill should seize the moment by prioritizing long-term solutions that build a resilient future. This includes solutions that improve access to on-farm conservation programs for all farmers who steward our environment and serve our communities, and that prioritize investments into diversified farming systems and agroecological approaches that work with our natural resources, such as agroforestry, organic, and regenerative production systems. While the FFNSA includes some policies that head in the right direction, the bill categorically falls short of the moment. Its shortcomings are especially disappointing given the recent abandonment of targeted support to help farmers deal with the impacts of climate change and increasingly severe weather, USDA’s extreme staffing reduction that weakens its ability to deliver conservation assistance, and the administration’s cancellation and disincentivization of climate research. The following analysis is divided into two primary sections addressing:

• Conservation Programs and Funding
• Research, Education, and Extension Programs

Conservation Programs and Funding

Funding

The FFNSA largely maintains recent investments in conservation programs from 2025’s budget reconciliation bill, which moved the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) climate-smart conservation funding into programs’ permanent baseline budgets. There are, however, two major exceptions.

First, FFNSA siphons off $1 billion in Conservation Stewardship Programs (CSP) funding over 10 years for a new grant program supporting states and Tribes administering soil health programs (Section 2303). While the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) has championed providing federal support for state and Tribal soil health programs, the FFNSA’s iteration of that idea is a non-starter. Currently, only about 53% of farmers applying to CSP have been able to secure contracts. It makes little sense to further stretch already limited and clearly popular resources across new purposes and subprograms. Doing so would ensure that farmers interested in CSP continue to get left behind.

Further, CSP is capable of delivering funds to farmers quickly, as was demonstrated by the speed with which IRA investments flowed through the existing CSP infrastructure within nine months of IRA’s passage. Conversely, brand new programs take time to set up and require procedural steps such as rulemaking before the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) can administer them, which can take years. As the agricultural economy writ large continues to struggle and farmers need all available forms of support right now, it would be a poor decision at this moment in history to disinvest in an existing, successful program that can quickly provide producers with five years of financial support for their ongoing conservation efforts to experiment with a new program. Now is not the time to rob a helpful Peter to pay a new Paul.

Placing a state and Tribal soil health assistance program in CSP makes even less sense, given that other conservation programs, such as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), are already designed to provide federal support for conservation work led by non-federal partners. NSAC hopes that Congress continues to see the wisdom of authorizing state and Tribal soil health programs, either as a new stand-alone program with its own funding source, as proposed in the Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA), or as part of RCPP as proposed in the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act in the Senate. NSAC opposes diverting CSP funding for subprograms or initiatives.

The second proposed change to funding is in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The FFNSA proposes reducing EQIP’s budget authority (BA) by just over $1 billion over the first five years of its 10-year implementation window. This means farmers would experience an immediate cut to EQIP funding in the field, since BA is the total amount of money that NRCS is authorized to spend. When NRCS is fully staffed and there are no administrative disruptions to programs, EQIP often obligates all available funding every year. However, since BA was left intact for the final five years of the budget window, or the “out years”, EQIP’s long-term increased baseline was not reduced in the FFNSA. This means that the next time Congress tinkers with EQIP, whether in a farm bill extension, budget reconciliation, or a full farm bill reauthorization, EQIP’s budget will remain as high as it is today. NSAC strongly supports maintaining a strong long term baseline budget for EQIP, though it questions the wisdom of the proposed reductions in near term BA.

This reduction in EQIP BA appears to be paying for two things: a small list of other conservation programs that also needed funding; and policy reforms across FFNSA’s conservation title (Title II) that are projected to increase outlays for a given program, or were “scored as a cost” by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Starting with smaller conservation programs that receive funding, totals are clearly listed in the text of the FFNSA:

• Conservation Reserve Program – Transition Incentive Program – $50 million
• Conservation Reserve Program – Forest Management Incentive Program = $12 million
• Forest Conservation Easement Program = $240 million
• Feral Swine Eradication & Control Program = $150 million  

Total new baseline authority = $452 million 

This accounts for just under half of the lost EQIP BA. For the CRP TIP program in particular, NSAC is glad to see efforts to find funding for one of the primary tools in Title II of the farm bill for improving land access for beginning producers. Access to land remains one of the most significant challenges for new and beginning producers, and Congress should seek to invest in and improve these tools at every opportunity. However, EQIP can also be a useful tool for beginning producers, who may be making major purchases for the first time, such as buying fencing to support a new rotational grazing business. As such, this again seems like an unnecessary instance of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

For the second source of EQIP BA reductions, the picture is less clear. As of posting, there’s no reliable indicator on which specific provisions increased outlays and therefore drove the reduction in EQIP BA, though it is clear that outlays increased. CBO’s summary cost estimate for the FFNSA showed increased outlays for all major conservation programs, indicating that many policy provisions sought in this bill “cost” money that could otherwise be going to farmers interested in the EQIP program as it exists right now. NSAC strongly encourages Congress to be more transparent regarding trade offs like these, so producers and agricultural stakeholders can make informed choices about the trade offs being proposed.

Precision Agriculture

The FFNSA dramatically increases support for precision agriculture technologies in conservation programs (Section 2202, 2204, 2302). While NSAC recognizes that precision agriculture has demonstrable benefits for some operations, it remains a relatively high-cost conservation solution that does not serve all farmers. Conservation program funding is limited, and providing overly robust support for practices unsuitable for all operations leads to a small set of farms consuming an outsized portion of program resources. This is an irresponsible use of limited government funding, especially when there are size- and scale-neutral management alternatives that serve far more farmers and deliver greater environmental benefits per dollar spent. NSAC calls on Congress to consider a fairer and more balanced approach to supporting precision agriculture in this farm bill.

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)

CSP is perhaps the most impactful tool available to address climate change on farms today. The program rewards producers who build holistic conservation systems across their entire operation, investing in new practices and practice permanence over the long term – both of which are necessary to address the climate crisis. CSP is the only conservation program designed to achieve both goals. Unfortunately, the FFNSA proposes some negative changes to CSP.

While proposed diversions of CSP funding are discussed above in the funding section, the FFNSA also proposes creating Supplemental Activity Payments (SAP) for adopting and acquiring precision agriculture technologies through CSP. Currently, CSP only offers SAPs for Resource Conserving Crop Rotations, Improved Resource Conserving Crop Rotations, and Advanced Grazing Management. Each of these three conservation activities represents a holistic approach to improving conservation across an entire operation, either by requiring producers to adopt multiple practice enhancements on the same acres or to pursue ambitious, measurable soil health goals, such as increasing organic matter (OM) over the life of their CSP contract. NRCS offers 150% of a normal activity payment through SAPs for these high level activities because of the increased conservation benefits they create and the additional labor it takes to plan and manage such holistic systems. 

However, purchasing or utilizing precision agriculture technology does not rise to the same level of stewardship as these holistic practices, nor does it require the same level of increased labor. Further, CSP already offers sufficient support for precision agriculture through five separate precision agriculture bundles that compensate producers at 115% of the normal activity payment rate. These bundle payments reflect the value of using precision agriculture technologies in concert with other base conservation practices, and NRCS already has the authority to create additional precision agriculture bundles at any time. Therefore, NSAC opposes FFNSA’s proposal to create additional, outsized payments for precision agriculture in CSP.

Perhaps the most positive change to CSP proposed in the FFNSA, compared to the previous version of the bill, is the codification of a $4,000 minimum payment option. Raising the minimum payment has long been a priority for NSAC to reduce administrative burden and ensure adequate cost share for smaller farms enrolling in the program. NSAC is pleased to see FFNSA adopt our position and create in statute a $4,0000 minimum CSP payment. This mirrors the minimum payment that NRCS began offering to producers in recent years, and would ensure producers will have that option going forward. NSAC strongly supports including this provision in any final farm bill.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

EQIP is a voluntary conservation program that offers farmers and ranchers financial cost-share and technical assistance to implement conservation practices on working agricultural land. EQIP assistance is available through both a general pool and special initiatives. EQIP’s special initiatives highlight specific practices or natural resources, such as the Organic Initiative, which provides separate funding pools for transitioning and certified organic producers. Beyond the funding reductions discussed above, the FFNSA makes several modifications to EQIP, some of which are deeply concerning.

The most meaningful and problematic changes to EQIP in the FFNSA adjust which practices and farmers stand to gain the most from the program. Once again, the bill plays favorites by offering an excessive cost share – increased to 90% – for acquiring or adopting precision agriculture technology. Current EQIP payments cover 75% of costs associated with planning, design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, or training needed for conservation activities that involve precision agriculture technologies. Raising the rate to 90% is an unnecessary overinvestment with the potential to exacerbate trends in farmers being turned away from the program due to insufficient funding. Further, individual states can already raise cost share rates for precision agriculture conservation activities if they deem such activities to be among their top 10 priorities for the year (16 USC 3839aa(2)(d)(7)). Therefore, mandating that all states raise cost share rates for precision agriculture to 90% is not only excessive, but it also stands in stark opposition to the locally-led conservation planning process that House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-PA-15) has championed. 

The FFNSA maintains the existing carveout that ensures livestock producers will receive 50% of total EQIP funding during the life of the farm bill. This long standing set aside has led to significant portions of EQIP spending going towards infrastructure practices of questionable environmental value. This is a major loss, as the ARA proposed retargeting two-thirds of this carveout towards sustainable grazing practices, which have been shown to help mitigate climate change and build increased resilience to drought and floods on farms and ranches around the nation.

Additionally, the FFNSA fails to make a series of important improvements to EQIP that were proposed in former Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow’s Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act (RPFSA), leaving in place long standing obstacles barring certain producers and stakeholder groups from meaningful participation in EQIP. The FFNSA fails to create a funding set-aside for small farms, as proposed in the Small Farms Conservation Act (bill #) and the RFPSA, signaling loudly and clearly the FFNSA’s bias toward farmers and ranchers who have amassed a minimum amount of acreage. Similarly, the FFNSA does not add a requirement that NRCS State Technical Advisory Committees consult with Tribes when determining the top 10 priority practices that will receive increased cost share support through EQIP, as proposed in the RPFSA. This leaves in place a barrier for Tribes seeking to ensure EQIP addresses the most pressing natural resource concerns impacting their communities. Finally, FFNSA leaves in place a discriminatory lower payment limit for organic producers accessing EQIP. While it does increase the limit to $200,000, a small step up from the existing $140,000 organic payment limit, the FFNSA still falls well short of providing organic producers with the same payment limit of $450,000 to which all other producers are subject. The RPFSA, on the other hand, would establish equal payment limits for both organic and non-organic producers.

Elsewhere, the FFNSA does make a few changes to EQIP that are not outright harmful. The bill authorizes a producer enrolled in EQIP to receive a loan or loan guarantee through the Conservation Loan Program to cover costs for the same practices on the same land covered by the EQIP contract. Further, FFNSA requires the Secretary to notify producers participating in EQIP that they may be eligible to participate in the Conservation Loan Program. While this policy comes dangerously close to paying for the same conservation practices twice with different pools of public funds, if well implemented, it has the potential to be a more judicious option for providing increased support to producers without building outsized cost share rates into EQIP. NSAC is hopeful that this concept can be refined and improved as the farm bill debate continues.

The FFNSA also addresses the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program. CIGs support the development and testing of promising new conservation technologies and approaches with the goal of making them available for use as quickly as possible by farmers and ranchers. In addition to providing funds directly to farmers and ranchers looking to adopt and enhance conservation practices on their land, NRCS also provides CIGs to fund projects that seek to develop and improve access to innovative conservation solutions for farmers and ranchers nationwide through on-farm pilots and demonstration projects. The FFNSA directs the Secretary to use CIGs for the development and evaluation of new and innovative technologies that may be incorporated into Conservation Practice Standards (CPS), including CPS that involve precision agriculture technology. NSAC sees this explicit instruction to use CIGs to improve CPS as positive. It’s a common sense policy that ensures the latest information USDA has on conservation practices is put to use when designing conservation practices on the ground across the country. However, NSAC has reservations about building an overemphasis on precision agriculture technology into conservation programs.

Further, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) set aside $37.5 million for each fiscal year for CIG projects that address air quality, an increase from the $25 million annual allocation in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill). The FFNSA preserves this allocation for air quality projects, though NSAC advocated for an increase to $50 million per year. Given the pressing climate crisis, more CIG funds need to be dedicated to addressing air quality concerns, especially if projects will be utilized more consistently to improve CPS under the next farm bill. Such a combination of policies would help build NRCS’ capacity to support farmers in mitigating climate change and building resilience in their operations through all conservation programs offering practice cost share.

Similarly, the 2018 Farm Bill established On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials (On-Farm Trials), a CIG subprogram, to provide funding directly to partners, who can then offer technical assistance and payments to producers interested in implementing innovative conservation practices on their land. On-Farm Trials support the implementation of innovative approaches that have a positive conservation effect but have not yet been widely adopted by producers. NRCS is authorized to provide $25 million per year for on-farm trials. The FFNSA continues this $25M funding for on-farm conservation innovation trials, a slim silver lining given the need for more funding. On-Farm Trials have their own subprogram, the Soil Health Demonstration Trials, which focuses exclusively on conservation practices and systems that enhance soil health and increase soil carbon. Improving soil health on farms provides producers with a host of environmental and financial benefits, and as such, NSAC has been advocating for at least $50 million in funding each year for this subprogram. As the farm bill debate continues, NSAC hopes Congress will consider increasing funding for these high impact CIG subprograms.

Finally, the FFNSA makes a few meaningful improvements to EQIP. The existing statute allows states to raise the cost share to 90% for up to 10 practices that meet at least one of four broad environmental goals (16 USC 3839aa(2)(d)(7)). The FFNSA adds carbon sequestration and GHG reduction as a new fifth goal that states can seek to address when selecting priority practices that receive 90% cost share. NSAC agrees wholeheartedly with this common sense approach to targeting conservation funds to address the climate crisis, especially since it closely mirrors the program-wide targeting of EQIP funds formerly built into the IRA. NSAC encourages Congress to adopt this change in a final farm bill, as well as similar climate-targeting language for all major conservation programs.

Turning back to the CIG program, the FFNSA adds “perennial production systems, including agroforestry and perennial forages and grain crops” to the scope of CIG On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials. Perennial systems are among the most powerful agriculture systems for mitigating the climate crisis, building resilience in the landscape, and realizing a host of additional conservation benefits. As such, NSAC strongly supports an explicit focus on perennial systems in the CIG program.

Alternative Manure Management Practices (AMMP)

The FFNSA does not contain a proposal to support AMMP technologies as envisioned in the ARA or the COWS Act. NSAC is disappointed to see this omission, as shifting the technologies used to handle manure on midsized livestock operations is critical to addressing agriculture’s contributions to climate change. As many parts of the country cannot transition fully to year-round, grass-based livestock systems, it is vital to dedicate funding to AMMP technologies to ensure that instances where confinement is likely to continue are as ecologically friendly as can be. NSAC calls on the House and Senate to include the bipartisan COWS Act provisions in a final farm bill.

Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI)

The FFNSA maintains the current appropriations authorization of $60 million per year for GLCI. NSAC believes strongly that grazers need dependable access to technical assistance and that such funding should not be subject to the whims of the annual appropriations process. Therefore, GLCI needs a minimum of $50 million per year in mandatory funding to provide sufficient funding to meet the strong demand for technical assistance and ensure such assistance is provided without interruption.

Research, Education, and Extension Programs

In comparison to the enormous opportunity that sustainable agriculture represents for farmers and rural communities, federal investment in sustainable agriculture research, education, and extension has been minuscule. Without robust funding for public research that promotes ecologically-based production systems, scientific and technical innovation is stifled, and U.S. farmers and ranchers are unable to fully participate in and benefit from emerging markets for sustainably-produced foods. At a time when the effects of climate change on farmers are becoming ever more apparent, and the country is losing small and mid-sized family farms at an alarming rate, the FFNSA maintains the status quo. Instead of investing in research and innovation that builds on-farm resilience and moves our food and farm system forward, the bill continues down the same detrimental path for the next five years.

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program

While FFNSA meets the low bar of reauthorizing popular sustainable and organic research programs like the SARE program (Section 7201) and the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) (Section 7205), the bill does not include additional funding for either program. SARE was first created in 1988, and in 1990, Congress authorized the SARE program and determined that it should be funded at no less than $60 million a year, consistent with recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences. However, after nearly 40 years as USDA’s only farmer-driven, sustainable agriculture competitive research grant program, SARE has yet to see an increase in funding authorization. Combined with inflation, level funding for SARE in a new farm bill would effectively amount to a funding cut. 

SARE provides farmers and researchers with vital opportunities to better understand agricultural systems, increase profitability, and build resilience to climate change. Farmers and ranchers have critical insight when it comes to improving their systems. Yet, the demand for farmer-led research continues to outpace federal funding. According to SARE’s 2025-2026 Biannual Report, 60% of eligible farmer/rancher grant proposals go unfunded.

Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)

OREI is one of a still limited number of research, education, and extension programs that provide focused support for organic systems. Strong investments in research underpin growth in numerous sectors, as all farmers – sustainable, organic, conventional, or otherwise – rely on cutting-edge research to maintain robust and thriving operations. Although FFNSA maintains level funding for OREI, it does not reflect the growth of the organic market since 2018 or the current challenges facing organic farmers. Level funding fails to provide the organic sector with the tools to create thriving businesses in the face of changing weather patterns and shifting markets. 

Organic Transitions Program (ORG)

A long time priority for NSAC has been official authorization for the Organic Transitions Program (ORG), which supports research helping farmers move from conventional to organic production. The program has historically been funded through appropriations, but has never been formally authorized in statute. Amendment 102, introduced by Representative Eugene Vindman (D-VA-07), proposed to formally authorize ORG, renaming it to the Researching the Transition to Organic Program (RTOP) and providing $7.5 million in discretionary funding. NSAC supported this amendment, and it was glad to see it approved by voice vote during markup.

Precision Agriculture

FFNSA’s 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 the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority, a $30 million carve out in the Speciality Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) for mechanization and automation (Section 7305), and a greater emphasis on automation and precision agriculture in the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), demonstrate a continued quest for “silver-bullet” solutions to climate change and other agricultural challenges, and appear to come at the expense of more robust research investments in diversified agriculture.  

While NSAC supports research that directly contributes to “a reduction in, or improved efficiency of, inputs used in crop or livestock production,” 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, monoculture agriculture. This approach is misguided given the ample evidence that scale-neutral, management-intensive practices likely yield even greater environmental benefits. USDA funding should be directed toward building an understanding of the ecological aspects of our food and farm systems and integrating the diverse knowledge and practices of agroecological farmers and farm workers, rather than continuing to explore and promote the narrow constraints of monoculture-based systems.

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)

NSAC is pleased to see some inclusion of the ARA in FFNSA’s proposal for AFRI. For example, NSAC welcomes the addition of regionally adapted cultivar and breed development, breeding for environmental resilience, and the addition of workforce training and development, including meat and poultry processing in the agriculture economics and rural communities priority area (Section 7305). 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 issue areas, likely resulting in the program’s limited ability to support more agroecologically focused agricultural research.

Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach (FOTO) program

FFNSA reauthorizes FOTO and maintains $50 million in mandatory funding. FOTO was a new initiative established in the 2018 Farm Bill that combined two of USDA’s flagship training and technical assistance programs for historically underserved farmers – the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) and the Section 2501 program. However, management of BFRDP was kept under the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), while management of 2501 was moved into the newly created Office of Public Partnerships and Engagement (OPPE). In addition to maintaining mandatory funding for FOTO established in the 2018 Farm Bill, FFNSA proposes moving the management of 2501 back to NIFA.

During markup, Representative Brad Finstad (R-MN-01) introduced Amendment 19, which proposed significant changes to FOTO – affecting both 2501 and the BFRDP.  

For 2501, the amendment proposed moving the program to NIFA, altering its priority in making grants and contracts to “organizations that provide training and technical assistance in budgeting, business planning, and similar financial and management skills that focus on the ongoing economic viability of beginning farm and ranch enterprises”, and changing the peer review process by removing the requirement for review panels to include a broad representation of peers and instead include “a broad representation of individuals with demonstrated expertise in farm business management.” 

For BFRDP, similar changes were made to entities prioritized when making agreements and contracts and peer review panels. However, this amendment went one step further with BFRDP, removing prioritization in making contracts and agreements to partnerships and collaborations that are led by or include nongovernmental, community-based organizations and school-based educational organizations with expertise in new agricultural producer training and outreach, and instead prioritizing programs that provide training and technical assistance in budgeting, business planning, and similar financial and management skills that focus on the ongoing economic viability of beginning farm and ranch enterprises. 

While NSAC supports giving NIFA clearer authority to run 2501, the changes to priority areas and peer reviews with FOTO deprioritizes community based organizations, and give USDA greater authority to influence peer review panels, watering down the effectiveness of the program. NSAC opposed this amendment, and it was approved by voice vote.

1890 Land Grant Institutions

NSAC was pleased to see FFNSA provide several important investments in 1890s Institutions, 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.

National Organic Program (NOP)

FFNSA caps funding for the National Organic Program (NOP) at $24 million annually and does not increase the funding level over the life of the farm bill. In addition, the bill authorizes NOP to provide technical assistance to farmers transitioning to organic, but does not provide any additional funding to support TA.  NOP currently oversees more than 46,000 operations in more than 100 countries, and the organic sector continues to grow.  NOP’s expanded authority, coupled with the growth of the organic sector, signals the need for more, not level funding, to adequately enforce organic regulations, provide TA to transitioning farmers, and tackle fraud in organic supply chains.

The post Unpacking the House Farm Bill: Part 4 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

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.

*Despite the current government shutdown, these RFA’s will remain open, and the review process will continue. If the timeline changes, NSAC will update this blog post to reflect that.

Since 1988, the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program has funded more than 9,380 farmer-driven research and education initiatives through competitive grant awards totaling nearly $478 million. As the only farmer-driven, sustainable agriculture competitive research grant program offered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), SARE provides farmers and researchers with vital opportunities to better understand agricultural systems and to increase profitability and build resilience to climate change. SARE-backed initiatives have furthered land and natural resource stewardship by funding research on topics such as soil health management, crop and livestock integration, soil erosion and runoff mitigation, and organic farming practices. In addition to research, many SARE projects also address social and demographic challenges faced by farming communities, including those encountered by underserved farmers, access to land, obstacles for young and beginning farmers, and rural quality of life.

SARE is administered through four regional councils of producers, researchers, educators, and government representatives. SARE regions include: North Central, Northeast, Southern, and Western. These regional councils are responsible for setting SARE policies and grant making processes. Because each of the SARE councils designs and administers their own regional grant programs, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) provides a periodic aggregation of funding opportunities and other activities from across the regions in our “SARE Roundup.”

Each of SARE’s four regional programs administers three primary grant programs: Research and Education (R&E), Professional Development Program (PDP), and Producer Grants. Some regions also offer additional grants for community innovation, graduate student research, agricultural professionals conducting on-farm research, and region-specific initiatives.

Read on for details about what is going on in your SARE region!

North Central SARE

NC-SARE currently has four grants open for proposals: the Partnership Grant, the Farmer Rancher Grant, the Research and Education Grant, and the Professional Development Grant.

The Partnership Grant Program is intended to foster cooperation between agriculture professionals and small groups of farmers and ranchers to catalyze on-farm research, demonstration, and education activities related to sustainable agriculture. NC-SARE anticipates funding 20 projects this year, with each project receiving up to $50,000. Projects are funded for up to 24 months and typically involve three or more farmers or ranchers. University educators, including extension agents and specialists, NRCS field staff, agricultural consultants, and nonprofit or agency staff assisting farmers and ranchers at the local level can apply for this grant program.

The deadline for the Partnership Grant Program is November 20, 2025 by 4:00 pm CST. 

Farmers and ranchers have critical insight when it comes to improving their systems. Whether they need to limit off-farm inputs, reduce erosion, create more time for family or community activities, learn marketing skills, or find other ways to enhance their livelihoods, farmers and ranchers can turn to the Farmer and Rancher Grant Program for grant opportunities and information. In 1992, NCR-SARE began a competitive Farmer Rancher Grant Program exclusively to fund farmers and ranchers striving for agricultural sustainability.

NC-SARE anticipates funding 40 Farmer and Rancher Grant Program projects this year. Projects must be completed in 23 months, and award limits vary based on grant team size: individual grants can receive up to $15,000, teams of two or more grants can receive up to $30,000. 

The deadline for the Farmer Rancher Grant Program is December 4, 2025 by 4:00 pm CST.

The NCR-SARE Research and Education (R&E) Grant Program is a competitive grant program for researchers and educators involved in projects that explore and promote environmentally sound, economically viable, and socially responsible food and/or fiber systems.

Research and Education projects include a strong outreach component and significant farmer/rancher or other end-user involvement from the inception of the idea through the implementation of the project. NC-SARE anticipates funding 16 R&E Grant Program projects this year. Projects must be completed in 36 months, and grant awards range from $10,000 to $250,000.

The deadline for the Research and Education (R&E) Grant Program is December 4, 2025 by 4:00 pm CST.

The Professional Development Grant Program supports state professional development programs and competitive grants for training agricultural professionals. Professional Development Program (PDP) competitive grants emphasize training agricultural educators in extension, Natural Resources Conservation Service, private, and not-for-profit sectors, using farmers as educators and addressing emerging issues in the farm community. Applicants are educators who often represent but are not limited to, Extension, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and non-profit groups. PDP competitive grants are awarded for state and multi-state PDP projects that emphasize cross-agency training, using farmers as educators and addressing emerging issues in the farm community. 

NC-SARE anticipates funding 10-12 PDP projects this year. Projects may last up to 36 months, and grant awards are made up to $120,000.

The deadline for the Professional Development Grant Program (PDP) is November 5, 2025 by 4:00 pm CST.

For a list of NC-SARE grants funded in your region search the SARE database.

Northeast SARE

NE-SARE currently has one grant open for proposals, the Farmer Grant Program.

Northeast SARE offers grants to farmers to explore new concepts in sustainable agriculture conducted through experiments, surveys, prototypes, on-farm demonstrations or other research and education techniques. Farmer Grant projects address issues that affect farming with long-term sustainability in mind.

Competitive proposals explore new ideas and techniques or apply known ideas in new ways or with new communities. Reviewers look to fund projects that are well-designed to meet proposed objectives and promise the greatest benefit to farming communities.

Awards typically range from $5,000 to $30,000, depending upon a project’s complexity and duration. Projects that are more complex include multi-farm collaboration, intensive education for other farmers and/or service providers, and/or replicated research over multiple years or locations. Simpler, straightforward proposals with modest budgets are equally encouraged.

The deadline for Farmer Grants is December 9, 2025 by 5:00 pm EST. Northeast SARE Farmer Grant Administrator Candice Huber will be hosting a series of drop-in Q&A sessions from Noon to 1:00 pm EST on Tuesdays in November. Sessions will take place on: Nov 4, 11, 18, and 25. You can register for a Q&A session here.

For a list of NE-SARE grants funded in your region, search the SARE database.

Southern SARE

S-SARE currently has three grants open for proposals: the Research and Education Grant, the Professional Development Program Grant, and the Producer Grant.

Research and Education Grants are competitive research grants for teams of interdisciplinary researchers that encourage a systems approach in sustainable agriculture.

S-SARE offers three categories for Research and Education Grants: production research, postharvest-food systems research, or a continuum that spans both.

• Production research—Focused on actual production methods, this kind of research has made up the bulk of SARE’s project portfolio in the past and has developed techniques that have become common tools for farmers. SSARE continues to fund these types of research proposals as they provide key parts of a larger holistic system, particularly as they relate to farmer participation in our program and complement the Producer, On-farm, Professional Development, and Graduate Student grant programs.
• Postharvest/food systems research—These projects examine what happens past the farm gate such as in the markets, distribution systems and policy making. This category can serve as a funding path for social science researchers to also make a difference in our farm and food systems.
• A combination of production and postharvest/food systems research—While some research can be separated into production and postharvest levels, we also seek to encourage attempts to provide integration of the different levels of the agricultural system, as well as the different sciences that lend more value to the results. The ultimate in systems research would connect what goes on in the ground with everything that happens after a crop is harvested, including adding value, marketing, infrastructure for processing and transportation, as well as policy making.

Research and Education Grants require a two-step application process: A pre-proposal application process and a full proposal application process for those invited by the review committee to submit a full proposal. Research and Education Grant project maximums are $400,000, limited to three 3 years.

The deadline for Research and Education Grants is November 21, 2025 by 12:00 pm EST.

Professional Development Program Grants, known as train-the-trainer grants, are available to help further education and outreach strategies for ag professionals and ag educators who work directly with farmers and ranchers.

The grant funds training activities that educate ag professionals in up-to-date strategies and technologies to help farmers and ranchers increase profits and lessen environmental impacts. PDP grants support such activities as producing workshops, creating educational manuals and videos, or conducting on-farm tours and demonstrations.

The application process for Professional Development Program Grants requires a pre-proposal, followed by a full proposal for those applicants invited to submit one by the regional review committees. One or two year projects can be funded up to $100,000. 

The deadline for Professional Development Program Grants is November 14, 2025 by 12:00 pm EST.

Producer Grants support farmers and ranchers in developing sustainable production and marketing practices. The goal of the program is for farmers and ranchers to conduct projects to solve challenges and problems they face and develop information on what works and does not work, so that others facing those same problems can benefit from the results of the funded project. Any farmers or ranchers and farmer/rancher organizations throughout the Southern region are eligible to apply, and the maximum funding amount for individual farmers/ranchers is $20,000 and $25,000 for farmer/rancher organizations. Project duration is for 2 years.

The deadline for the Producer Grants is December 5, 2025 by 12:00 pm EST.

For a list of S-SARE grants funded in your region, check out these examples in the SARE database.

Western SARE

W-SARE currently has five grants open for proposals: the Research and Education Grant, the Professional + Producer Program Grant, Framer/Rancher Program Grant, the Professional Development Grant, and the Local Education and Demonstration Grant.

The Research and Education Grants involve scientists, agricultural producers, and others using interdisciplinary approaches to advance sustainable agriculture at local and regional levels. With the collaboration of producers, projects must integrate rigorous research and education aiming to advance the three components of sustainable agriculture- environmental, economic, and social- and use innovative educational outreach to disseminate new knowledge to students, producers, and other agricultural stakeholders. 

Projects must incorporate research and education, and bring together a team of researchers, students, ag professionals, and producers. Project budget is $350,000 maximum, with project length 1-3 years.

The deadline for Research and Education Grants is November 10, 2025 by 5:00 pm MST.

The Professional + Producer Grant Program involves agricultural technical advisors (main applicant) and producers implementing projects to address identified needs in sustainable agriculture. With the collaboration of at least three producers, projects must integrate research and education aiming to advance the three components of sustainable agriculture- environmental, economic, and social- and use innovative educational outreach to disseminate new knowledge to producers and other agricultural stakeholders.

Project budget is $85,000 maximum, with project length 1-3 years.

The deadline for Professional + Producer Program Grants is November 20, 2025 by 12:00 pm MST.

The Farmer/Rancher Grants Program supports agricultural producers (main applicant) working with technical advisors in implementing projects addressing identified needs in sustainable agriculture and conducting outreach on the topic. Producers and technical advisors must integrate research and education to conduct on-site/on-farm experiments to improve production, marketing, and the environment. Both research and education components must be distinct elements of the proposal. The goal of this program is to find ways to protect the environment, enhance farm income, and improve the quality of life for farming/ranching families, communities, and society as a whole. 

Farmer/Rancher projects are limited to $35,000 with project length 1-3 years.

The deadline for the Farmer/Rancher Grants Program is November 20, 2025 by 12:00 pm MDT.

The Professional Development Grants Program focuses on training agricultural professionals to help them spread knowledge about sustainable agriculture concepts and practices. Projects should increase agricultural professionals’ sustainable agriculture knowledge, skills and action, and they should have outreach plans demonstrating delivery of knowledge. 

Projects can be up to 3 years (36 months) in length and funded up to $100,000.

The deadline for Professional Development Grants is November 20, 2025 by 12:00 pm MST.

For a list of W-SARE grants funded in your region search the SARE database!

SARE Application Process

SARE proposals must be submitted online via this portal. Once submitted, proposals are reviewed by a Technical Review Panel against the criteria outlined in the grant’s open call and in comparison, with other submitted grant proposals. The SARE Administrative Council for the region – typically, a board of agricultural producers, scientists, educators and business leaders – then makes the final selections of projects to fund. The Council typically selects proposals that are diverse in subject matter and geography, and that demonstrate outcomes that farmers and ranchers in the region can successfully adopt.

SARE publishes a summary of funded projects by state. The portfolio summary breaks down funding by SARE project type and total funding per state since 1988, and the grant list includes every grant awarded in the state by title.

Find out more about SARE projects in your state here.

The post SARE Roundup: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program Opportunities appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

“As USDA’s only farmer-led research program, SARE has invested in farmer profitability, stewardship, and quality of life for over 35 years. At a time when farmers need more answers than questions, SARE’s stellar, decades-long track record proves it can offer exactly that,” said Mike Lavender, Policy Director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. 

“The current demand for sustainable agriculture solutions far outweighs available resources. SARE plays a critical role in helping farmer driven research keep pace with the growing challenges related to the state of the rural economy, soil health, and competitiveness of American producers. NSAC remains a strong supporter of SARE and continues to advocate for growing the program’s research and funding capacity,” said Nick Rossi, Policy Specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Since 1988, the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE), has funded more than 9,000 farmer-driven research and education initiatives through competitive grant awards totaling nearly $478 million. As the only farmer-driven, sustainable agriculture competitive research grant program offered by the USDA, SARE provides farmers and researchers with vital opportunities to better understand agricultural systems and to increase profitability, build on farm resilience, and strengthen rural communities.

Find the letter here. 

Read what farmers are saying about their involvement with SARE: 

“I received a SARE grant to help the Kansas City Food Hub – a Cooperative owned by 15 farmers (including myself- we are now owned by 30 farmers) about six years ago when the Hub had been in business for 4 years and had outgrown systems that were under strain from increased sales. Our project aimed to upgrade our food safety system and develop a new brand for the business. Our upgraded food safety protocols helped us bring on a new big institutional client. When COVID hit and that institution closed, because of our new branding and website, the public was able to find us easily and we were able to pivot our sales from 100% wholesale to 100% retail,” said Katie Nixon of Green Gate Family Farm, Missouri.

“I received a Farmer/Rancher grant in the late 1990’s. I served on the NC Region SARE advisory committee for 8 years. I still serve on the Kansas advisory committee.I have seen firsthand how frugally SARE’s implementation structure operates. This program is 37 years old, and is very well respected throughout rural America. It would have been such a crime to see it eliminated. Thankfully, common sense prevailed” said Donn Teske, a sixth generation beef cow/calf rancher, Kansas.

“SARE helps growers like me do practical, on-farm research that is specific to my climate. Right now, precious little research is done on semi-arid, small-scale vegetable growing, so another farmer and I are doing the research ourselves through a SARE grant. The emphasis of SARE on the E (education) means that this research doesn’t go on a shelf somewhere–it goes directly from farmers to farmers who can use it now... If USDA cuts this small but mighty program, it will be another confirmation that the government is only interested in corporate export agriculture, not local family farms like mine. It shows a real lack of understanding of food access and security and who really feeds people in America,” said Nella Mae Parks of Nella Mae’s Farm, Oregon.

“As a farmer, I value the SARE program because it provides crucial funding for research that helps us develop farming practices that protect our soil and water while still maintaining profitable operations. Because so much research is carried out by researchers without a farmer’s perspective, the program’s focus on farmer-to-farmer education means we’re learning practical solutions from other producers who understand the real challenges we face in the field every day. SARE’s support for on-farm research projects allows us to test sustainable methods on our own land in real world scenarios and share those results, creating a community of farmers working together to build markets, techniques, and know-how that leads to a more resilient agricultural industry,” said Bill Pluecker of Begin Again Farm, Maine.

“I am still glowing from taking big steps on my SARE project yesterday. We signed an agreement with another farmer and that farmer accidentally “caught lightning in a bottle” on part of their farm. Our SARE project is partially about replicating their success. By sheer coincidence, their crops spontaneously did something extraordinary. We are working to replicate what happened, so that other farmers can benefit... I was in the field with some other chestnut farmers. The land use history of that place is unusual- a coal company cleared the forested land, an oak and American chestnuts- and then changed their mind about mining that spot, so they planted Chinese chestnuts, before deciding to sell the land. Because of this, something weird happened. A section of this Chinese chestnut orchard has North American species of Boletus variipes mushroom growing under Chinese chestnuts. Maybe the mushroom survived in the soil for a few years, from the forest trees that used to grow there. The combination of an American porcini and a Chinese chestnut is unknown. We were hoping to find this pairing, however, because our goal is to produce Boletus mushrooms to sell on the global porcini market. We didn’t want to introduce an Asian or European species of mushroom to our chestnut orchard, because we didn’t want to accidentally unleash a new invasive species. Now that we’ve found a native species, we think we can help Chinese chestnut trees produce a type of expensive, nutrient-dense mushrooms for sale- much like farmers in Europe and Asia have been doing for centuries!” said Badger Johnson of Paradise Ecological Services, Ohio.

### 

 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: Over 500 Farmers Rally Behind the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

On July 24, 2025, Secretary Rollins released a memo (SM-1078-015) describing the planned reorganization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff, drafted without any consultation with farmers or other stakeholders. USDA has already lost more than 20,000 staff since January 2025 and if the reorganization moves forward as planned, it will result in the likely loss of thousands more staff. This is the second post in a series discussing the loss of USDA staff since January 2025 and the expected impacts of the proposed USDA reorganization across issue areas. This post examines staffing losses and planned cuts across the research agencies at USDA and their devastating impacts on agricultural research and innovation. Our previous post describes the staffing losses across the USDA and states. 

USDA’s research agencies – the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), Economic Research Service (ERS), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) –  have been hit particularly hard by recent staff losses and have significant cuts planned in the reorganization. These research staff and sites provide the human capital and infrastructure for agricultural research as well as data collection and analysis for commodities and rural communities. Unfortunately, recent history has shown that staff losses in these agencies leads directly to reduced productivity and support for stakeholders. In this post, we examine the toll of staffing declines and proposed cutbacks in USDA research agencies, and what they mean for the future of agricultural knowledge and innovation.

After widespread concerns about the proposed reorganization, USDA opened an adhoc public comment opportunity. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) encourages organizations and individuals to submit their comments, questions, and concerns regarding the reorganization to USDA at reorganization@usda.gov by September 30, 2025. NSAC remains  concerned about the lack of transparency involved in this comment period, given that the opportunity for public comment has not been formally provided through the Federal Register, as is standard practice for proposals of this scope.

Research Staff Have Been Gutted

The four major research agencies of USDA have already lost approximately 23% of their staff since January 2025. 1,600 employees left the research agencies through DOGE’s Deferred Resignation Program (DRP). DRP offered federal employees fully paid administrative leave through September 2025 if employees voluntarily resigned their positions. 351 research agency staff accepted the DRP in the first round beginning in January 2025 and an additional 1,249 research staff accepted the second round of DRP in April 2025.

Figure 1: Research Staff Losses

According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), approximately 370 additional staff separated from the research agencies between January and March 2025. Separations include staff who retired (voluntary, early, or for disability), quit, had their contracts expired or terminated, were fired, transferred to a different agency, or otherwise separated from employment.

Table 1: Research Staff Losses by Agency

NASS, the internal statistical branch of the USDA, has lost the highest percentage of staff since January 2025 among research agencies, losing approximately 30% of their staff to DRP and 4% additional staff who separated from the agency. NASS collects hundreds of surveys on agriculture and food and prepares a wide range of reports on virtually every component of American agriculture. They administer the Census of Agriculture every five years, the only dataset that provides information on every American county and farm over time. They also collect and analyze data on every commodity and market in American agriculture. NASS provides essential unbiased data on US agriculture that undergirds farmers’ decisions and the decisions of policymakers. 

ARS, the internal in-house scientific research agency of the USDA, has lost the largest number of employees since January 2025 among research agencies. ARS lost 1,225 employees to DRP and an additional 298 staff who separated from the agency between January and March 2025. ARS’s mission is to “deliver scientific solutions to national and global agricultural challenges” and they employ a wide range of scientists and staff at a network of research sites throughout the country, often in partnership with universities and private sector companies. The loss of ARS staff undermines the ability of the agency to fulfill its mission and provide the research needed by American farmers and ranchers. ARS researchers, in particular, are highly specialized scientists with skills that are very difficult to replace. 

The loss of ARS scientists means that several research projects vital to the resilience of American agriculture have already stopped. In an interview with Wyoming Public Radio, two former ARS researchers talked about the losses caused by the loss of staff such as themselves. According to one scientist: “I worked directly with a lot of farmers, visiting farms, going to meetings of farmers, and making sure that they had the most up-to-date research to inform their management decisions. Also listening to what challenges they were facing, and making sure that those challenges were being reflected in the research that the Agricultural Research Service was doing [and] bringing those concerns back to the researchers.” The scientist further shared: “All my projects revolved around helping smaller farmers deal with the impacts of drought in this region and all of those projects have been cancelled.”

The nearly 2,000 employees lost from USDA research agencies directly hinder the ability of the department to fulfill its mission to “advance scientific knowledge related to agriculture.” These staffing losses and administrative setbacks have already led to significant disruptions including delaying or deferring several NIFA research programs for fiscal year 2025. The Foundational and Applied Science Program, for example, was delayed so significantly that the fiscal year 2025 program was skipped altogether and the request for applications is now for fiscal year 2026. 

The Reorganization Will Further Degrade Research Agencies

USDA research agencies are already experiencing significant losses in their ability to serve stakeholders and the planned reorganization will cause further damage. 

ARS is hit particularly hard by the planned reorganization. The reorganization includes a plan to close the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), located in Beltsville, Maryland. BARC has operated since 1910. Comprising approximately 6,000 acres of agricultural research fields and facilities, BARC is the largest ARS research facility and hosts research on food animal production, animal health, entomology, food safety, water management, soil quality, air quality, rangeland systems, sustainable agriculture, plant genetics, plant diseases, crop protection, crop production and virtually every aspect of agricultural production systems. 

BARC has produced impactful research for over a century, benefiting American farmers and agriculture. For example, BARC researchers developed and licensed a patented antibody designed for wide-spectrum identification of potyviruses, a major group of plant viruses with high economic impact. These anti-viral technologies are now widely developed and sold by Agdia to detect and prevent potyviruses in a variety of crops such as beans, potatoes, and industrial hemp and prevent billions in lost productivity every year.

Closing and relocating the Beltsville facility will be extremely difficult and costly and will cause unavoidable damage to research productivity. Long-term field studies are particularly important to agricultural research to understand the long-term functioning of agricultural systems such as soil health and pest burden. The long-term field research at Beltsville cannot simply be relocated, and losing these field sites means losing irreplaceable scientific knowledge. Relocating facilities such as the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Unit (ECMU) would be extremely difficult and expensive, if possible at all. While the USDA reorganization plans to close and relocate BARC over several years to minimize research disruptions, experts are highly doubtful that the closure would be able to do so or would generate any cost savings. 

Despite claiming to want to move the Department closer to farmers, the reorganization also calls for the closure of ARS Area Offices. ARS is currently divided into five geographic areas: Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Plains, and Pacific West. Each area has an Area Office that oversees the facilities and staff in that region, ensuring that the research addresses regionally significant topics and problems. Closing Area Offices would undermine the ability to prioritize regional issues and weaken connections to farmers and stakeholders in the region. It would also mean administrative processes such as hiring and facilities management would be funneled through a single national office, creating delays and inefficiencies and would undermine the important regional partnerships and networks with collaborators such as land-grant universities. Closing ARS Area Offices will not “streamline” services, it will weaken local accountability and slow down work.

Likewise, the reorganization calls for the closure of NASS regional field offices to be replaced with offices in five new USDA hubs. NASS has twelve regional field offices in the country, each responsible for the statistical work in that region. These field offices oversee the data collection and management in the states of their region and provide the data and statistics for those states. The field offices are essential to maintaining stakeholder relationships and making sure that farmers and ranchers in every state and region are adequately represented in national statistics. Consolidating NASS offices to the newly proposed hubs in Raleigh, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fort Collins, Colorado; and Salt Lake City, Utah would leave large swaths of the country unrepresented. Farmers and ranchers in the Northeast  and West Coast, in particular, would have inadequate representation to ensure they are adequately included in agricultural statistics. 

NASS regional offices are essential to improving farmers’ trust of the agency and to boosting survey response rates from farmers. Ensuring every farmer is counted in national statistics is essential and regional offices are vital to that effort.

The Deterioration Continues: Staff Losses at ERS and NIFA Since 2019 Relocations

Despite significant public outcry, ERS and NIFA were relocated to Kansas City, Missouri in 2019 during the previous Trump Administration. ERS provides research on economics and agriculture, producing research on future commodity price projections, farm income, and essentially all aspects of American agriculture and rural communities. The economic reports and research generated by ERS are used by farmers, policymakers, and other stakeholders as they make major decisions for the agricultural economy such as changes to commodity programs or loans. NIFA oversees the department’s competitive grant programs, investing in research, education, and extension programs for American agriculture. NIFA funds universities and other partners to advance agricultural science, innovation, and education nationwide.

This relocation of ERS and NIFA led to hard-learned lessons concerning how destructive relocations can be. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), these staff losses reduced the number of reports and articles generated by ERS staff in half and led to the loss or delay of several vital industry reports. The loss of these publications and reports meant that farmers and other stakeholders had to make risky decisions with less information. Within NIFA, the relocation led to delays and suspensions of several grant programs and payments. For example, land grant universities across the country struggled as NIFA’s Capacity Grants that support basic research facilities were delayed by more than a fiscal quarter, undermining the research and services of those universities. When NIFA grants are delayed or suspended, vital research is threatened and American farmers and the agricultural sector suffer. 

It has taken years for ERS and NIFA to rebuild their capacity following the relocation and attempt to replace the lost institutional knowledge needed to serve American agriculture and stakeholders. But both agencies are again being decimated by staff losses. ERS has lost 27% of their staff to DRP and an additional 2% to other separations. NIFA has also experienced widespread staffing losses since January 2025. NIFA lost 11% of their staff to DRP and an additional 8% to other separations. These staffing losses have already led to delayed and deferred grant programs and will, we can infer based on recent history, lead to further losses in research productivity and delays that undermine American agriculture. 

USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics mission area that houses ARS, ERS, NASS, and NIFA is tasked with providing reliable scientific research, data, and analysis for America’s farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and stakeholders. The staff in these agencies are highly skilled and specialized workers who are dedicated to public service. Each of the four agencies have already lost overwhelming numbers of staff and the planned USDA reorganization will further compromise their ability to fulfill their missions. 

The post USDA Staffing Crisis: Research Agencies Face Steep Losses as Reorganization Advances  appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Recently, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), alongside 100 food, farm, conservation, and rural organizations, delivered a letter to Congressional appropriators urging them to fully fund the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE) at $60 million in fiscal year (FY) 2026. 

SARE was one of NSAC’s first legislative accomplishments over 35 years ago, and to this day, it remains one of our Coalition’s top funding priorities.  However, after more than 35 years of proven on-the-ground results, the program has yet to reach its fully authorized funding amount of $60 million. Under current law, SARE is funded at $48 million. In May, the President’s Budget suggested funding SARE at $40 million for FY2026, and last week, the House FY26 Agriculture Appropriations Bill proposed $40 million for SARE, a roughly 16% cut to an already underfunded program. 

SARE funding is divided and administered by four regional Administrative Councils that coordinate with four regional host institutions and a National Coordinating Center. The four regional SARE programs (Northeast, Southern, North Central, and Western) manage several regionally based grant programs, including the Research and Education (R&E) grant program, the Professional Development Program (PDP), Farmer and Rancher (F&R) grants, and the Graduate Student Grant Program. SARE’s regional delivery structure ensures that local needs are met and all regions of the country benefit equally. The program’s priority on outreach ensures that SARE research results are disseminated directly to farmers and that practices can consequently be adopted in their fields at a much faster pace than through traditional agricultural research. 

For example, a recent impact report from North Central SARE showed that from 2014 to 2024,  8,329 farmers reported meaningful changes, like adopting new practices or reducing inputs, after participating in a NCR-SARE project. That means for each NC SARE project funded, seven farmers made meaningful changes to their operation, and 124 farmers were reached, building new farmer-to-farmer connections. This makes the SARE program one of the most cost effective and administratively efficient competitive research programs within the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The current demand for sustainable agriculture solutions far outweighs available resources. According to SARE’s 2023-2024 Biannual Report From the Field, less than 40% of Farmer Rancher Grant proposals were able to receive funding between 2022-2023. 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. 

Background 

Since 1988, SARE has funded 9,781 farmer-driven research and education initiatives through competitive grant awards totaling nearly $475 million. As the only farmer-driven, sustainable agriculture competitive research grant program offered by the USDA, SARE provides farmers and researchers with vital opportunities to better understand agricultural systems, increase profitability, and build resilience to climate change. SARE-backed initiatives have furthered stewardship of the land and its natural resources by funding research on topics such as soil health management, crop and livestock integration, soil erosion and runoff mitigation, and organic farming practices. In addition to research, many SARE projects also address social and demographic challenges faced by farming communities, including challenges faced by minority and underserved farmers, access to land, challenges for young and beginning farmers, and rural quality of life.

Top 5 States for SARE Funding (1988-2025)

Key Projects Funded by SARE in each Region

North Central SARE, Nebraska

Cover Crop Innovators

• Brian and Keith Berns combined decades of no-till experience with a background in agriculture and computer science to found Green Cover Seed, now one of the leading cover crop companies in the United States. It all started with a Farmer Rancher grant from NCR-SARE. SARE funding enabled them to scale research into over 80 species and hundreds of seed mix combinations. Their free SmartMix Calculator, developed with farmer input, allows producers to tailor mixes for nitrogen fixation, water use, and livestock grazing. It gives farmers a practical tool to reduce inputs while improving soil health. It is one of the most widely used cover crop selection tools on the internet. 

Northeast SARE, New York

Increasing Hudson Valley Farm Viability Through Cooperative Bulk Purchasing

• Letterbox Farm used a Farmer/Rancher grant to research, develop, and pilot a bulk supply purchase program, in which area farmers can source needed inputs at negotiated bulk prices and/or reduced shipping costs. This project generated $21k in savings for the farm community in 2021 and went on to provide a further $39k in cost savings in the following year. 65 farmers participated and, using their two years of bulk order organizing experience, they generated a set of templates and tools for other farmers and service providers to use to replicate their program. 

Southern SARE, Arkansas

Taking Your Farm to the Next Level: Business and financial planning for sustainable farms and ranches

• The National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT), an NSAC member, used an Education grant to develop “Take Your Farm to the Next Level,” a six-part curriculum that covered how to develop business and financial plans, streamline recordkeeping systems, and improve labor management and marketing. The training series was then provided to an in-person group of farmers over the course of six months. 115 farmers participated in this SARE project.

Western SARE, California

Facilitating Food Safety for Small, Sustainable Farms

• Agriculture & Land-Based Training Association (ALBA), an NSAC member, used a SARE grant to educate agriculture professionals working with small, sustainable farmers to efficiently comply with newly adopted food safety standards in reaching growing markets for sustainably grown produce. The project reached over 150 participants with direct training (webinars, presentations, audit shadowing, and technical assistance) and hundreds more with project materials.

Going Forward 

As this fiscal year’s appropriations process continues on Capitol Hill in the weeks ahead, NSAC remains a strong supporter of SARE and continues to advocate for growing the program’s research and funding capacity. To learn more about SARE and its impacts, visit the NSAC Grassroots Guide.

The post Support for Farmer-Led Research Hinges on SARE Funding appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Since its establishment in the 2008 Farm Bill, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) has advanced research that helps American farmers and ranchers stay at the cutting edge of innovation and adapt to challenges such as natural disasters. Farmers and ranchers depend upon NIFA-supported research that invests in developing resilient crops, innovative soil practices, and other science that serves producers at all scales. But this critical work is now under threat. 

A series of recent Executive Orders has placed NIFA’s research portfolio, particularly research related to agricultural climate resilience and adaptation, at risk. American farmers and ranchers are already on the front lines of the climate crisis, facing increasingly extreme droughts and floods. Terminating NIFA’s climate research would undermine its future resilience. In addition, the recently released FY26 Presidential Budget Report suggests reducing NIFA’s budget by over $600 million. It specifically calls to eliminate what the President’s office says is wasteful programming in NIFA, such as activities related to climate change, renewable energy, and more.

Research underpins every aspect of successful and viable farming, whether it’s a fifth-generation commodity producer looking to diversify their crop rotation, or a beginning farmer interested in tapping into the huge unmet demand for grass fed beef. NIFA programs, like Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) and Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), remain widely popular with farmers, farmer-serving organizations, and research institutions alike. The targeting of “climate related” research, as well as the continued attempts to cut public funding that supports agricultural research at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), puts American farmers at a disadvantage as agricultural research tries to keep pace with the growing challenges related to the state of the rural economy, soil health, and competitiveness of producers.

This blog post examines the scope of climate change research at NIFA, and the potential loss posed by deprioritizing climate change research.

Driving Climate Resilience in Agriculture: Insights from NIFA’s Climate Action Agenda

NIFA is the primary extramural science funding agency of USDA and plays a vital role in advancing agricultural research, education, and outreach to address pressing societal challenges. In May 2022, NIFA published its Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan, outlining an ambitious set of goals for NIFA to advance science and technology to tackle the climate crisis and its impact on the nation’s farming, ranching, forestry, fishery, and rural communities. 

Then, in November 2024, NIFA released the NIFA Climate Change Priority Team: Accomplishments and Action Agenda Report, highlighting their ongoing efforts to invest in research that tackles the impacts of climate change on agriculture and food systems. This recent report outlines major accomplishments in achieving those goals, such as integrating climate change into competitive funding opportunities and fostering innovation in climate-smart practices.

Broadening the Scope of Climate-Focused Investments

One of NIFA’s most significant achievements is incorporating climate change into its major funding opportunities, such as those within the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). These investments span research, education, and extension activities and support groundbreaking solutions like climate-smart perennial crops and methane-reducing feed additives for livestock.

Several key programs, such as the Foundational and Applied Sciences (FAS) and Sustainable Agricultural Systems (SAS) initiatives, have become hubs for multidisciplinary efforts, funding projects that integrate cutting-edge technology with practical farming applications. For instance, the FAS program Rapid Response to Extreme Weather Events Across Food and Agricultural Systems supports “critical and urgent solutions in rapid response to extreme weather and disaster impacts on the nation’s food and agricultural systems.” 

The SAS initiative supports transdisciplinary projects that focus on “mitigating, adapting, and increasing the resilience of agricultural and forestry production systems to climate change.” For example, the University of Minnesota’s Kernza® initiative is revolutionizing sustainable grain production by developing perennial crop systems that enhance soil and water health while supporting rural economies. NIFA has awarded approximately $36.5 million in awards through FAS and $525 million through SAS. 

Unfortunately, the SAS Request for Applications (RFA) is currently not posted and listed as “under review.” The termination or major transformation of this initiative would be a serious loss to developing a resilient agricultural and food system that serves American farmers and ranchers.

Figure 1: SAS Funding Awarded

Integrating Climate into Long-standing Programs

In addition to new initiatives such as FAS and SAS, NIFA has invested in climate change science through established programs. In 2022, approximately 15% of NIFA’s total competitive funding supported research, education, and extension related to climate change. Climate research continues to play an important role in established programs such as the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), Organic Transitions Program (ORG), and Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE). Unfortunately, OREI and ORG also do not have a current Request for Applications (RFA) and are currently “under review.”

SARE has awarded approximately $176 million in funding since 2019. While SARE is not solely focused on climate related research, education, and extension, it has a systemic focus on resilience and sustainability. 

Figure 2: SARE Funding Awarded

Established in 1988, SARE is unique in its emphasis on farmer-driven research and its regional approach to addressing agricultural challenges. For example, The Hawaii Good Food Alliance and partners are driving a project to address regional challenges like geographic isolation, climate change, and limited infrastructure in Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, American Samoa, and CNMI. They are doing this by delivering tailored workshops, training, and technical assistance focused on sustainable practices, such as soil health, agroforestry, and ecological farming, empowering communities to build resilient and self-reliant food systems.

Collaborating with Other Agencies for Climate 

NIFA has actively collaborated with other federal agencies to advance climate change science and solutions, leveraging partnerships to maximize impact. For instance, NIFA worked with the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop programs like “Signals in the Soil,” which focuses on innovative sensors and soil-ecosystem modeling, and Future-Proofing Plants to a Changing Climate, which supports multidisciplinary research to connect plant sciences with field performance. Additionally, NIFA has partnered with the US Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE Regional Resource Hubs to support the development of low-carbon bioenergy and biobased products, aligning agricultural innovations with energy sustainability. These interagency efforts demonstrate NIFA’s commitment to integrating resources and expertise to tackle climate challenges comprehensively. The recent Executive Orders place not just NIFA-funded RFAs at risk but also these innovative inter-agency collaborations. 

Looking Ahead: Continue to Invest in NIFA Climate Research

The 2024 NIFA Climate Change Priority Team Report is a testament to how NIFA has invested in innovation, empowering vulnerable communities, and fostering cross-sector collaboration to lay the groundwork for a sustainable agricultural future. The research supported by NIFA helps producers adapt and innovate in the face of increasing natural disasters. Gutting this research would undermine decades of scientific innovation and threaten the future of American agriculture.

The post Farmers Need Climate Research to Thrive 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.