Presents Two white papers on Sustainable Agriculture

Sustainable Agriculture White Paper Local, Organic, Sustainable, Profitable Jason Bradford, Ph.D. and Craig Wichner May 2009

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

Sustainable Agricultural Systems Science White Paper U.S. Department of Agriculture Research, Education and Economics Office of the Chief Scientist July 24, 2012

The second paper describes USDA science in effort to promote sustainability. It is separated into four areas, or strategies, that focus on integrating the environmental and social principals and capabilities of mainstream and alternative systems. These areas include: 1. Integrating sustainability issues into a range of USDA science priorities. 2. Building a framework for sustainability data and information. 3. Advancing the understanding of local and regional food systems. 4. Improving the performance of organic agriculture.

Sustainable Agriculture Whitepaper

Local Organic Sustainable Profitable

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

FarmlandLP.com

Sustainable Agriculture Whitepaper Contents 1. Framing the Discussion 2. The Impetus for Change 3. Defining Sustainable Agriculture 4. Benefits of Sustainable Agriculture 5. What A Sustainable Agriculture System Will Look Like

Framing the Discussion: Sustainable Agriculture = Sustainable Society Developing a sustainable agriculture is a necessary part of creating a sustainable society. The root of the word sustainable is the verb, to sustain, which means to nourish and prolong. In social and environmental contexts we say something is sustainable when we believe it can persist indefinitely without exhausting resources or causing lasting damage. The actions we take as individuals are at the core of both the problems and the solutions. Just by purchasing conventional goods at your local supermarket, you cause 4 lbs of pesticides to be put into the environment each year. The food supply chain averages of 4200 miles to reach your plate, when it could come from local farms and use a fraction of the transportation fuels. And the 2.6 acres of U.S. farmland (your pro-rata share) have lost 50% of the carbon in the soil since 1907, the equivalent CO2 of burning 90 barrels of oil on top of your normal carbon emissions. Cumulatively, agriculture impacts our society at a scope and scale that few appreciate, far beyond the initial realms of our food safety, quality, and the local environment. Due to the scale of natural resources required to provide food, fiber and fuel to 6.7 billion people, agriculture requires continued global-scale supplies of fertile land, clean water, fossil fuels, fertilizers, pesticides, and transportation infrastructure. These issues underpin our civilizations energy security, population distribution and capacity, national security, and cause agriculture to be a key player, for good and bad, in the fate of our planets climate. A 2008 article in the popular journal New Scientist titled How our economy is killing the Earth included a number of graphics1 showing the exponential growth in consumption of planetary resourcesleading to an exponential growth in problems (Figs. 1 & 2). Agriculture, both directly or indirectly, contributes to resource consumption and pollution, and can be used to benefit or aggravate the situation.

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 2

FarmlandLP.com

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 3

FarmlandLP.com

Fig. 2. Negative ecological indicators have also grown exponentially. Exponential growth is by definition unsustainable, and signs such as fishery collapses, forest loss and species extinctions, and melted glaciers and other evidence of climate change all are warning signs at besttrip-wires at worst.

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 4

FarmlandLP.com

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

Fig. 3. A common schematic of sustainable development. Ecological Economists would produce a different schematic that places the economy and all social systems as a subsets of the environment to reflect that humans are a part of and totally dependent upon the environment (Fig. 4).3 In other words, these are not three parts in a balanced relationship but a nested set of parts with a clear hierarchy.

2 3

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 5

FarmlandLP.com

Fig. 4. Ecological economics views the relationships among the environment, society and the economy as being nested. Both views of sustainability, however, establish criteria for understanding the long-term viability of related environmental, social and economic systems. This white paper will do so for agriculture. The Impetus for Change Our modern agricultural system, the so-called green revolution, has enabled tremendous productivity gains from the land, enabling us to grow from 2 billion to 6.7 billion people on the planet over the past 100 years. Modern farming methods are designed to generate maximum financial and production returns, and they do this well over the short and even medium term. For example, conventional farmers usually grow a single crop over large acreage; use herbicides to sterilize the soil prior to planting, then add artificial fertilizers to stimulate crop growth and pesticides to treat overpopulated pests (caused by monocropping); all the while decreasing the productivity of the soil over time. However, such practices have been shown to reduce returns (net of fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide costs) by 25% to 30% in as few as five years 4, while requiring increasing amounts of costly and toxic artificial inputs. Unfortunately, once started, the system is very difficult to escape.

Source: Linking Land Quality, Agricultural Productivity, and Food Security, USDA, 2003

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 6

FarmlandLP.com

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

Fig. 6. Production of cereals has generally been lower than consumption for the past decade. (Graphic from FOAs Food Outlook November 2008). Achieving expected growth is daunting as well. If demographic trends continue, agricultural output will need to nearly double by 2050 6, yet the available fertile farmland per person will be one-third the levels in 1950. 7 Demand for farmland production is increasing due to rising population, greater consumption of meat (requiring additional grains to feed the animals), and new biofuel mandates consuming corn and oil-seed crops. Meanwhile farmland acreage worldwide is decreasing due to land development, soil and water depletion, increasing soil salinity, and other factors. Furthermore, these farm practices are environmentally unsustainable on a global level, as they: 1) Degrade soil, air and water quality from tillage, chemical applications, and concentrated wastes. Topsoil with low organic matter content and little biological activity is unable to hold onto the added chemicals, with the runoff causing algal blooms and then dead zones in fresh water and oceans.

U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), see especially FAOs Food Outlook: http://www.fao.org/giews/english/fo/; and Crop Prospects and Food Situation: http://www.fao.org/giews/english/cpfs/index.htm 6 Tweeten, L. and S. Thompson, 2008 Long-term Global Agricultural Output Supply-Demand Balance and Real Farm and Food Prices, http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ohswps/46009.html 7 FAO, FAOSTAT & the U.N. Population Division

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 7

FarmlandLP.com

2) Consume and deplete non-renewable resources such as ancient aquifers, natural gas and petroleum-based fuels, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, and use mined minerals such as rock phosphate to promote productivity. 8 3) Put 5 billion pounds of potentially harmful chemicals into the environment each year through pesticide use (includes herbicides, insecticides and fungicides), with over a billion pounds in the U.S. alone.9 This goes directly into our food, with 77% of the food consumed in the U.S. containing pesticide residue, and 47% containing residue from multiple pesticides. 10 4) Contribute to greenhouse gas emissions from the direct use of fossil fuels, and indirectly through the breakdown of soil carbon and the conversion of natural ecosystems such as forests and wetlands. About 16% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. come from food production, distribution and retail (Fig. 5).11

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

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 8

FarmlandLP.com

Climate change and water supply issues are likely to significantly affect agricultural production. About 70-90% of global freshwater withdrawals are used for agricultural irrigation. 12 Globally, crop models show a general decline in the yields of major food crops and livestock, with the carbon dioxide fertilization effect being overwhelmed by extreme events and trends in temperature, water availability and pest pressures. 13 For example, over the course of this century climate models show California's water supply declining overall, but especially during the spring and summer months when irrigation use is critical. 14 A recent study from a University of California agricultural economist projected that the productivity and value of California farmland could drop by about 50% (range 13% to 67% across several models) due to higher temperatures and reduced water availability.15 In summary, demographic momentum is pushing the human population into a predicament where more and more food is expected to come from less and less land and water, all the while requiring full and growing production and keeping no reserve. While food today is still generally plentiful and inexpensive, the trends suggest we are nearing system limits. At the same time, most agricultural practices degrade key ecological assets, including topsoil, fresh water, and the climate system. Unfortunately agriculture today cannot be easily relocated due to climate change, loss of topsoil or water the loss of growing regions or growing capacity due to a degraded environment will have a direct affect on us. Defining Sustainable Agriculture With respect to the environment, society and economics, sustainable agriculture would: (1) Not harm the environment from pollution, (2) Not be reliant on non-renewable inputs or degrade renewable ones, (3) Nourish people with non-toxic, healthy food and other useful feed stocks, and (4) Provide a fair, steady, return on effective investment in labor and capital. How can these goals be achieved? Sustainable farms employ productivity systems inspired by nature to deliver high yields through ecological synergy, diversity and resilience (Fig. 7). Sustainable farms are managed as fullyintegrated ecosystems, where knowledge of soils, macro and microscopic organisms such as bacteria and fungi, water, crops, weeds, pests, equipment and techniques are used to maximize the long-term health, productivity and economic profitability of the farm.

12

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 9

FarmlandLP.com

Fig. 7. The transition from conventional to sustainable farming is depicted by the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. 16 To know if a farm is sustainable we should be able to measure its impact on the environment, society, and its finances. Does the balance of farm activities emit or sequester carbon dioxide? Is topsoil being lost or built? Is the runoff of water from the farm clean or a burden to local rivers? Metrics can be developed for a number of important sustainability indicators, including:17 (1) No build-up of persistent pollutants into the environment, (2) Development of soil carbon and a balanced soil food web (3) Enhancement of regional biodiversity and ecosystem services, (4) Use of renewable energy and recycled mineral resources, (5) Humane care of farm animals, (6) Food quality and health, (7) Worker fairness and safety, and (8) Economic viability. For example, an idealized sustainable farm wouldnt use non-renewable fossil fuels and would store at least as much greenhouse gasses as it emits (Fig. 8). Energy use is a major area where sustainable goes beyond the soil management, pesticide and herbicide regulation s of organic farming. Farms are ideal places to deploy renewable energy systems, as they typically have abundant sunshine and may include significant wind or moving water resources. Liquid fuels are highly valued in farming because they can be used in machines to perform highly time sensitive

16
17

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 10

FarmlandLP.com

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

Fig. 8. Trends in energy consumption by U.S. agriculture show that U.S. farms have become more energy efficient, but still rely heavily on fossil fuels. Fertilizers and pesticides generally use fossil fuels as a feedstock. (Adapted from Miranowski 2004, by Bomford and Heinberg, 2009). The Benefits of Sustainable Agriculture A compelling need exists for restorative and sustainable agriculture to help address the pressing trends of population, climate, energy, water, soil and food. The science and practices for sustainable and highly productive agriculture exist, and people are paying 50% to 200% premiums for organically farmed goods, but the farmers and farmland are converting slowlytoo slowly, as only 0.5% of U.S. farmland is certified organic due to the barriers of cost, knowledge, time, and effort in shifting from conventional to organic and sustainable production.20 Will society make the investments necessary to create a sustainable food system fast enough? Few people probably understand that shifting from conventional, chemical dependent farming takes time. The hidden world of the soil needs to recover. A farmer may need to wean fields from chemicals over two years, and then be chemical free for three years before becoming organic certified and benefit from both high yields and good prices.

18

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 11

FarmlandLP.com

Healthy, organic soils are only one piece of a big picture. Sustainability also means incorporating renewable energy in all aspects of agriculture, transportation and food processing: Are electric or biofuel-driven tractors viable? How can natural gas be replaced when drying grains? Can relocalizing the food system be more profitable, use less energy, and reduce carbon emissions? While many questions on how to create a sustainable agriculture still remain, the human and environmental benefits of organic farming are scientifically documented. The benefits are reviewed in the context of the environment, society and economics respectively. 21 Environmental Benefits Improved soil and water conservation: Organic production methods increase soil carbon (organic matter), water infiltration rates and water holding capacity, making more water available to plants per inch of rainfall received. Soils with less organic matter allow more surface runoff (removing topsoil and nutrients with the water), permit higher surface evaporation, and retain much less water within the soil structure (Fig. 9).22

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

21

22

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 12

FarmlandLP.com

Mitigation of global warming: Sustainable farming on a large scale could dramatically mitigate CO2 emissions by increasing energy efficiency, enhancing soil carbon stocks, and switching to renewable fuels (Figs 10, 11 & 12).23 Agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gases. About 35% of the ice-free land surface is used for crops and livestock, and current agricultural practices produce about 25% of carbon, 50% of methane and >75% N20 emissions worldwide (including both land and energy use).24 However studies show that sustainable farming methods such as cover cropping and no or minimal till can sequester carbon for 20 to 50 years before reaching saturation.25 Conservatively, if each acre sequesters 0.2 metric tons of carbon per year, then 4 tons would be sequestered over 20 years. For comparison, 4 tons of carbon is emitted by the average U.S. vehicle (20 mpg, 12,500 miles per year) in 2.3 years. 26 If these same farming practices are applied to all the worlds 3.5 billio n tillable acres, close to 9 percent of all global CO2 emissions would be mitigated. In addition to shifts in tillage practices, pyrolysis of crop residues to form biochar is being studied for its significance in carbon sequestration and enhancement of agricultural soils. 27 Furthermore, the process of making biochar releases energy that can replace fossil fuels in many applications.

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

23

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 13

FarmlandLP.com

Fig. 11. The U.S. has lost about half of the carbon stored in its agricultural soils since the early 20th century. Improved management methods can put that carbon back while enhancing soil quality. (Graphic from the Soil Carbon Center).

Fig. 12. A number of means exist to use agricultural landscapes to sequester carbon. This graphic estimates the relative contribution of each one (from Lal, R., et al. 1998).

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 14

FarmlandLP.com

Enhanced biodiversity: Organic systems host a greater diversity of plant species, beneficial insects, and wildlife, thus improving the ecological health of bio-regions. Sustainable agriculture utilizes this biodiversity to its advantage to suppress pests and weeds, enhance nutrient cycling in the soils, and pollinate plants without having to ship in bees (Colony Collapse Disorder may make this essential in the future). Reduction of persistent pollution: Every year, 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides are applied in the U.S. for agriculture and over 5 billion pounds are applied worldwide. 28 Nearly every pesticide that has been investigated has been detected in air, rain, snow or fog across the U.S. at different times of year.29 Many of these pesticides persist for long periods in soil and groundwater and can cause acute poisoning, cancer, birth defects, sterility, neurotoxicity, and damage to developing animals and children.30 Organic farming does not use pesticides, and part of the purpose of the three year organic conversion process is to bioremediate the soils and groundwater. Social Benefits

Increased food nutrient density: Organically grown foods often contain more nutrients than conventionally grown foods (Fig. 13).31 Conventional nitrogen fertilizers tend to increase the water and sugar levels of foods while diluting the phytonutrients and minerals.

28 29

U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/usage2001.htm USGS, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/pdf/sources.pdf 30 United Nations Environmental Program, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and World Health Organization (WHO), May 2004 31 For a review of the research on organic food health benefits, including nutrition density and pesticides, see Benbrook, C. et al., 2008: http://www.organiccenter.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=126; Delate, K. et al., 2006: http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/symposium/organics/Delate/; Heaton, S, 2001: http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/a71fa2b6e2b6d3e980256a6c004542b4/de88ae6e5aa94aed80256ab d00378489?OpenDocument; and these popular articles, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10587.php and http://www.motherearthnews.com/Real-Food/2004-06-01/Is-Agribusiness-Making-Food-Less-Nutritious.aspx

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 15

FarmlandLP.com

Fig. 13. Vitamin and mineral concentrations tend to be higher in organically grown foods. (Graphic from Benbrook et al. 2008). Reduced toxic load in adults and children who eat organic: By substituting organic fresh fruits and vegetables for corresponding conventional food items, the median urinary metabolite concentrations were reduced to non-detected or close to non-detected levels for malathion and chlorpyrifos at the end of the 5-day organic diet intervention period in both summer and fall seasons. . . The findings from this study demonstrate that dietary intake of OP (i.e., organophosphorus) pesticides represents the major source of exposure in young children.32 Eliminating petrochemical toxins in farming practices improves the health of food, people who eat that food, and the environment. Better conditions for farm workers. The people who currently apply pesticides, breath dust from tilled fields, and drink polluted ground water would obviously benefit from a healthier environment provided by sustainable agriculture.33 Economic Benefits Competitive yields: A recent global review of modern organic agriculture shows similar to higher yields vs. conventional practices (Fig. 14).34

32 33

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 16

FarmlandLP.com

Fig. 14. A study comparing the yields of organically and conventionally farmed foods showed that yields from organic fields were generally higher. (Table from Badgley et al. 2007). Price premiums: Even when sold to commodity markets, organic food receives significant premiums of 50% to 200% over conventional items. 35 Direct-to-Consumer marketing channels: Organic foods can be sold directly to consumers via CSA subscriptions or Farmers Markets, local businesses such as restaurants, or food service institutions including schools and hospitals. By capturing retail prices, direct-to-consumer sales increase the farmers revenue by 4x to 5x over the 20 cents on the dollar average farmgate income. 36 Lower input costs: Organic farming practices reduce external input costs (e.g., pesticides, GMO seed, and fertilizers) (Fig. 15).37 A three-year study in Iowa demonstrated that corn and soybean returns from organic systems were significantly greater than returns in conventional corn and soybean crop rotations. These organic rotations were more profitable even when market-based organic premiums were excluded from the analysis. Returns to land, labor, and management were higher in the organic rotations regardless of whether an organic price premium was received or not.38

35

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 17

FarmlandLP.com

Fig 15. A farm managed sustainably has few outside input needs, making it less vulnerable to the kind of price spikes seen in 2007-2008. (Chart from USDA ERS, March 2009). Higher per farm income: CSA farms are 2.5x more likely than conventional farmers to earn $40,000 to $100,000 per year. About 15% of CSAs earn over $100,000 per year (Fig. 16).39

39

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 18

FarmlandLP.com

Fig. 16. CSA farms are more likely to have an income level in the middle to high range compared to non-CSA farms. (Graph from the Center for Integrated Agriculture, University of Wisconsin). Improved resilience/lower volatility: Organic systems produce significantly better yields under both extremely wet and extremely dry weather years, and produce comparable yields in years with favorable weather conditions. Drought has a major impact on food production, accounting for 60 percent of food emergencies, according to the FAO. The resilience of organic fields speaks to its capability to maintain food production even through erratic and extreme weather events, potentially adapting better to climate change (Fig. 17).40

Fig. 17. Crops in organically farmed soils handle stress better than in conventional ones. (Image from the Rodale Institute). Energy savings: Organic agriculture reduces the energy required to produce a crop by 20 to 50 percent. Reduction of fossil fuel use in agricultural production reduces the exogenous risks of high energy prices on production and profits. A sustainable farming system based on local, renewable energy would reduce energy costs even further. Income from carbon markets: Minimal tillage practices expect a sequestration rate of 0.2 metric tons of carbon per acre per year. At $50 per metric ton, a 100 acre farm could earn an additional $1000 per year.41

40 41

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

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 19

FarmlandLP.com

What a Sustainable Agricultural System Will Look Like Many terms are used to describe alternatives to conventional, industrial agriculture. Organic, local, and sustainable come to mind. Less often used is agro ecology, which views the agrarian landscape the same way an ecologist views the natural landscape. Farms also cant exist in isolation from the broader society. A truly sustainable farm is an integral part of the local community. There are biophysical reasons for this, as plants and animals essentially draw nutrients from the soil that in a closed-loop system must be returned. When food is exported across the globe, soils and water are being exported too. In ecosystems nutrient cycling is predominantly local, and this is why sustainable food systems must be locally oriented. Because humans are omnivores, our normal diets tend to draw upon diverse agro ecosystems. Tree fruits and nuts are a type of forest. Pasture is a type of mature grassland that can raise meat. Fields of grains and legumes are immature grasslands. And vegetables and root crops represent very early successional plant communities. We evolved from people who combined hunting and gathering across fields and into forests with garden-scale plots. Sustainable farm landscapes reflect the omnivory of human diets. After reviewing the benefits of organic and sustainable agriculture, it is helpful to summarize what a sustainable farm would be like in contrast to 99% of farms today (Table 1). Operations and Structure Fertility Conventional Farm Sustainable Farm

Buy tons of compost or inorganic NPK products Buy commercially developed and patented seeds Buy liquid fuels and electricity for equipment to perform tasks Buy chemicals to combat unwanted organisms

Use nitrogen fixing cover crops, compost animal bedding, and recycle local organic waste Select open pollinated seeds and save those that perform best, buy from regional seed developers when necessary Whenever possible let biological processes do necessary work, seek local renewable energy options otherwise Focus on the health of the soil and the appropriate soil biology to grow healthy crops. Know weed and pest biology well enough to keep them in check through smart management of the whole farm. Create habitat along field edges.

Seeds

Energy

Managing biodiversity

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 20

FarmlandLP.com

Landscape diversity

Low, usually specializing in one class of food, e.g., grains, dairy, vegetables National to global via commodity markets

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

Distribution

Local to regional via fair trade and direct to consumer channels

Table 1. Conventional farms depend largely on external inputs, harm the environment, have low diversity, and dont contribute directly to regional food security. By contrast sustainable farms internalize costs, benefit the environment, encourage diversity, and participate in local food systems. In summary, a transition to organic and sustainable farming is required for environmental, social and economic reasons. Fortunately, organic farming is a robust business model, delivering superior economics over conventional farming on a wide variety of metrics such as crop yields, gross and net income per acre, cost of inputs, per farm income and more. As society provides the financial and organizational capital to re-create agriculture, the living soils, plants and animals will respond, over time, to support us. Each acre converted to organic, sustainable methods is one acre closer to a societal tipping point for sustainability or at least one less acre as a source of harm.

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

Management Team
Craig Wichner, Managing Director: Mr. Wichner directs the farmland investment program, including overseeing property acquisitions, leases and sales, and oversees the financial and legal affairs for the Partnership. Mr. Wichner is a seasoned executive with 20 years building companies which have, among other things, developed and currently produces an FDA-approved treatment for metastatic brain cancer, and automated employee contribution programs for Fortune 500 Companies such as GM, EDS, and Charles Schwab. Mr. Wichner has helped raise over $125 million in 14 funding transactions (including a $33 million IPO) and has led three M&A transactions. Mr. Wichner served as CEO/President/CFO for three successful companies, two of which were venture-funded, and has served on boards and advisory boards including two venture funds. Mr. Wichner also helps manage a multi-million dollar real estate investment
Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP Page 21

FarmlandLP.com

property company. Mr. Wichner received a Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from the Universit y of California at San Diego in 1992, earning Provosts Honors and performing graduate-level research on HIV/AIDS as an undergraduate. Mr. Wichners agricultural experience includes spending 10 summers growing up on a ranch and farm, where he did everything from milking cows to tending chickens, crops and horses, to wrangling cattle and building a barn. Jason Bradford, Ph.D., Manager: Dr. Bradford leads the farmland management program, including organic certification and sustainability planning, cropping programs, and tenant and operations management. Dr. Bradford is a highly-regarded ecological scientist and expert in sustainability and relocalization, in addition to being a successful organic farmer and CSA manager, author and entrepreneur. After receiving his Ph.D., Dr. Bradford worked on issues related to species extinction and the overall decline in global ecosystem integrity, funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Geographic Society. Dr. Bradford was a leader of the Tropical Ecosystem team of BioMERGE (www.columbia.edu/cu/biomerge), a National Science Foundation funded research network of over 100 scientists from 17 countries integrating the study of biodiversity and ecosystem function. Dr. Bradford also taught Ecology at Washington University. Dr. Bradfords focus is now on addressing the problem of ecological overshoot through direct action. Dr. Bradford founded and manages Brookside Farm, certified organic farm in Willits, CA; is a Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute; hosts a radio program on KZYX&Z (The Reality Report); is a contributor to The Oil Drum ( www.TheOilDrum.com); and serves on the Boards of Directors for the Renewable Energy Development Institute (REDI) and Willits Economic LocaLization (WELL). Dr. Bradford received his Ph.D. in Evolution and Population Biology from Washington University in St. Louis in 2000, and his Bachelor of Science in Biology from the University of California Davis, with High Honors in 1992.

Copyright 2009 by Farmland LP

Page 22

Sustainable Agricultural Systems Science White Paper U.S. Department of Agriculture Research, Education and Economics Office of the Chief Scientist July 24, 2012 The concept of sustainability has been prominent since the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Bruntland, 1987). Sustainability and its relevance to U.S. agriculture were also discussed in the 1989 Alternative Agriculture report of the National Research Council (1989). In 1990, Congress gave the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a definition of sustainable agriculture to undergird its science programs, and USDA committed to sustainability more broadly in a memorandum issued by the USDA Secretary in 1996 (see Gold, 1999). The core concept of sustainability is that lasting success (and avoiding crises) requires an integrated approach to producing food and other products; farm profitability; quality of life for farmers, workers, and communities; and stewardship of natural resources. That is, sustainability requires recognizing and acting upon productivity, economic, social, and environmental goals as a simultaneous set of system attributes. U.S. agriculture has made regular improvements in annual productivity and the efficiency with which it uses certain natural resources and inputs such as fertilizer, water, and energy (Keystone Center, 2009; Tilman et al., 2001). But despite these gains and despite the stewardship orientation and efforts of Americas producers, many key environmental, economic, and social concerns related to agriculture persist or are worsening both globally and in the United States. For example, an estimated 60 percent of the ecosystem services that support life on Earthsuch as fresh water; ocean fish stocks; and clean airare being degraded or used unsustainably, with many of these changes caused in part by past management of land for food, fiber, and timber (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Global estimates of reactive nitrogen, climate change, and biodiversity loss are judged to have dramatically exceeded planetary boundaries, or critical thresholds that represent unacceptable environmental change (Rockstrom et al., 2009). In the United States, persistent concerns include loss of prime farmland, water scarcity, hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, reduced genetic diversity, increasing costs of production, loss of midsized commercial farms, threats to the health and safety of farm workers, and declining prosperity of agriculturally dependent communities (National Research Council, 2010). Efforts to understand and address these and related concerns in isolation from one another can certainly contribute to marginal improvement along some dimensions of sustainability. The urgency, breadth, and depth of the interrelated challenges, however, call for a more integrated approach (Clark, 2007) that emphasizes the role of science in understanding the integration of the many elements into systems where understanding and exploiting linkages among elements of coupled human-environment systems can reduce tradeoffs and capture synergies. Addressing sustainability as a multigoal synthesis is a timely and critical leap in the advancement of agriculture. It is essential to the grand challenge of meeting future demand for food in the face of changing climate within the limits of natural resources and social systems. A growing list of government, academic, and private sector efforts are creating the conditions for such a synthesis to succeed. For example:

Companies are incorporating sustainability measures into their business strategies and supply chains and, in response, many regional, national, and global organizations and coalitions, including virtually all major agricultural commodity groups, are developing systems for documenting and advancing progress toward sustainability outcomes. Many professional societies are organizing symposia and publications on sustainability. The Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology added the issue of sustainability to its Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) joint memorandum on science and technology priorities for the fiscal year 2012 budget included Managing the competing demands [on land and water] for the production of food, fiber, biofuels and ecosystem services based on sustainability and biodiversity as a key challenge. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has launched a multiyear Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability investment area to address climate and energy issues. The USDAs Sustainable Development Council has worked over the years to help elevate sustainable agriculture in United Nations discussions by sharing examples and practices from the United States and by learning from other countries.

Current State of the Science The National Research Council (NRC) report Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century, effectively summarized the current state of science and practice in the United States. It documented the considerable science-based progress in American agriculture: producing more food and fiber on about the same acreage as a century ago with less labor, energy, and water per unit of output and considerably less soil erosion. It described the challenge ahead in meeting greater demands for food, feed, fiber, and biofuels despite the loss of farmland; water scarcity; declining quality of water, soil, and air; loss of genetic diversity; and rising input costs. It also cataloged concerns about the survival of mid-sized commercial family farms, farm labor conditions, food security, animal welfare, and community well-being (National Research Council, 2010; Reganold et al., 2011). The NRC report recommended that the scientific community pursue two concurrent approaches to meet these challenges. One, an incremental approach, expands the use of improvements that many farms and ranches have made and many more can yet make that would involve the majority of production agriculture and the nations landscapes. The other, a transformative approach, seeks to advance farming systems that balance the goals of sustainability from the outset. Examples of so-called transformative systems include organic agriculture, integrated crop-livestock systems, management-intensive rotational grazing, low-confinement integrated hog production systems, and perennial crop production for grains and biofuel feedstocks. Agroforestry, while not discussed in the NRC report, is another example. The emphasis on transformative systems is consistent with the OSTP guidance to pursue transformational solutions to the Nations practical challenges. While the private sector continues to make improvements, publicly supported science is required to accelerate both incremental change 2

(particularly in social and environmental dimensions undervalued by markets) and to advance transformative systems that hold great potential if they are better understood. The NRC report made five recommendations for USDA to increase its investments in science: 1. Research that clarifies economic and social aspects of current and potential technologies and management practices and that addresses issues of resilience (i.e., the capacity to absorb shocks) and vulnerability in biophysical and socioeconomic terms. 2. Integrated research and extension on farming systems that focus on the interactions among productivity, environmental, economic, and social sustainability outcomes, and how the properties of agroecosystems and the interdependencies between their biophysical and socioeconomic aspects could make the systems robust and resilient over time. 3. Long-term research and extension at the scale of watersheds and landscapes to understand the aggregate effects of farming, leading to better environmental quality, economic viability, and community well-being (which NRC recommended should be led by USDA in partnership with the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, universities, and farmer-led sustainable agriculture groups). 4. Research in which farmers participate in farmer-managed trials and peer-to-peer education and information exchange. 5. Empirical studies of the effects of markets, policies, and knowledge institutions so that USDA can implement changes that are found to be effective in expanding the use of more sustainable farming practices and systems. Similar trends and conclusions were noted in a comprehensive two-volume series of review papers on global sustainable agriculture published by the Royal Society of Britain (Pollock et al., 2008). Furthermore, the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board (2010) recommended that USDA research focus on models for the food system that can quantify effects on land use, soil loss, water and energy use, and climate change; on producing greater quantities with emphasis on improved efficiency in the use of natural resources; and on reducing losses and waste in the food system. Whereas the NRC report touched upon topics in marketing, civic agriculture, local foods, and community economic security, its primary focus was on the farm and the landscape more than the food system. Many scholars, particularly those from the social sciences, consider food systems and civic agriculture (the embedding of local agriculture and food production in the community) to be central to the concept of sustainability (e.g., Hinrichs and Lyson, 2008). For those reasons, and as further discussed below, local and regional food systems are given more attention in this paper than they were given in the NRC report. Current Research Challenges and Proposed Research Program USDAs science agencies have a track record of carrying out research, education, information, and extension programs in sustainable agriculture, forestry, and communities, and both 3

longstanding and new policies and coordinating mechanisms upon which to build a new approach. USDA science agencies address sustainability through programs focused on sustainable systems (e.g., the Agricultural Systems Competitiveness and Sustainability national program in the Agricultural Research Service [ARS] and the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program in the National Institute of Food and Agriculture [NIFA]) and by incorporating appropriate sustainability dimensions into the goals of other programs. Some programs do so by explicit reference to balancing or integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability. Other programs do so in more general terms; for example, the mission statement of ARS Food Animal Production national program aims to ensure a supply of animal products produced in a healthy, competitive and sustainable animal agriculture sector and NIFAs Agriculture and Food Research Initiative 2010 request for applications require all proposals to describe their contributions to the potential long-range improvement in and sustainability of U.S. agriculture and food systems. The data collections of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and research and analysis of the Economic Research Service (ERS) address many topics related to sustainability (e.g., farm economics, farm production practice adoption, environmental indicators, rural community well-being, local food systems, domestic and international food security, and organic agriculture). The Forest Services research and development efforts have had longstanding emphasis on sustainability in resource use, environmental sciences, and forest management, and the Forest Service periodically reports on sustainability indicators in its National Report on Sustainable Forests. USDA science is building on this foundation to enhance sustainable systems in ways too diverse to describe here. This paper describes USDA science in four areas that focus on integrating productivity, profitability, and environmental and social dimensions in ways that leverage the current state of knowledge, stakeholder interests and initiatives, Federal priorities, and unique USDA capabilities to have the maximum beneficial effect on a balanced spectrum of mainstream (i.e., incremental) and alternative (i.e., transformative) systems. These four areas are as follows: 1. Integrating sustainability issues and approaches into a range of USDA science priorities, including food security, crop and animal production and protection, bioenergy, climate change, and natural resource management. 2. Building a framework for sustainability data and information, and supporting research, education, and extension efforts to develop critical scientific and management information to fill gaps in the framework. 3. Advancing the understanding of local and regional food systems, a key part of the USDA strategy for rural prosperity and a promising market for connecting producers with consumers, many of whom are interested in farmers and land management. 4. Improving the performance of organic agriculture (the largest of the transformative system examples described in the NRC report). Taken together, these strategies build upon existing strengths and unique capabilities of USDA science programs while also addressing many of the NRC recommendations. 4

Strategy 1: Incorporating Sustainability Issues and Approaches across Science Programs at USDA Sustainability is a cross cutting priority across the USDA science goals. It is included in the guiding principles and in many specific strategies and actions in the Research, Education and Economics Action Plan (Woteki, 2012). Examples (in addition to those detailed in strategies 2, 3, and 4 below) include the following: 1. Goal 1A. Crop and Animal Production: Includes identifying and implementing best management practices for animal and plant systems that are environmentally, economically, and socially sound; integrating superior germplasm and best management practices into profitable, productive, and environmentally sound integrated systems for crop and animal production; and other actions described more fully below. 2. Goal 1B. Crop and Animal Health: Includes research to establish more sustainable systems that enhance crop and animal health. 3. Goal 1C. Crop and Animal Genetics, Genomics, Genetic Resources, and Biotechnology: Includes assessing new biotechnology varieties for their contributions to sustainable agricultural systems, and assessing policies and management strategies for their ability to contribute to the coexistence of different agricultural production systems. 4. Goal 2A. Responding to Climate Variability: Includes the investigation of both existing and transformative systems (in the sense offered within NRC 2010) to adapt to and mitigate climate change and enhance a broader set of ecosystem services. 5. Goal 2B. Bioenergy/Biofuels and Biobased Products: Includes developing sustainable, new feedstock production systems, targeting multifunctional landscapes, and models and other tools to understand and improve the effects of biofuel feedstock systems on social, economic, and environmental outcomes, including long-term productivity and ecosystem services. 6. Goal 3: Sustainable Use of Natural Resources: Includes many strategies and action items related to ecosystem services and other sustainability outcomes under both the water and landscape conservation and management subgoals. The Long-Term AgroEcosystem Research network, in particular, responds to the NRC recommendation for more long-term research at the scale of watersheds and landscapes. Strategy 2: Sustainability Data, Information, and Management Systems While sustainability goals are integrated into many USDA science programs, USDA lacks a systematic frameworka common modelfor reviewing different approaches to sustainability to assess their multidimensional outcomes and effects and to make the results accessible to the public (National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board 2010). Producers, food companies, and coalitions working on sustainability criteria, indicators, and standards, and policymakers responsible for evaluating the sustainability effects of policies and programs all want to understand the multidimensional implications of different systems of production and different supply chains on the basis of transparent and consistent data and analyses. Being able to provide this critical information to the many stakeholder-led efforts to 5

document and track continuous improvement is, quite likely, the single most important thing USDA can do to document and accelerate progress by mainstream production agriculture and to establish the common ground for assessing diverse approaches to sustainability. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a framework that has come into increasing use for assessing the sustainability implications of products and processes. Long used to assess the environmental effects of industrial products, LCA is increasingly being used in food and agriculture to compare the effects of different production and marketing methods, identify stages where improvements may have the biggest benefits, help producers meet requirements of U.S. and global markets, and provide transparency to sustainability claims for consumers and everyone along the supply chain (Horn and Grant, 2009). LCA will also benefit the scientific community by providing a systematic framework for identifying where data are strong and where gaps need to be filled by additional research. LCA is also being adapted to include social outcomes (Norris 2006), thereby better reflecting the multiple dimensions of sustainability. USDAs National Agricultural Library (NAL) is leading a cross-government initiative, the LCA Digital Commons, to develop a framework for organizing and providing access to life-cycle data and information on sustainability in agricultural supply chains. It will provide open access to transparent, quality-controlled data and documentation compatible with internationally accepted protocols for LCA. In the meantime, however, as the NRC report has detailed, many gaps have already been identified that need to be filled, particularly the integration of economic and social consequences with biophysical data (recommendation 1) and more attention to participatory research and extension efforts on transformative integrated systems (recommendations 2 and 4). This research can also be useful for the science-based action programs of the Department by helping to provide the basis for rewarding producers for stewardship through conservation incentive programs, the development of environmental markets, or other means. This strategy leverages several key USDA assets: the NALs pivotal expertise in information management; ARS ability to conduct long-term farming systems research; NIFAs programs and expertise funding participatory systems research; and NASS and ERS data and analytical resources. It also integrates well with other Federal agencies (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy) that are addressing sustainability across other nonagricultural products and processes. Current USDA Science NAL has developed the basic structure of the framework and initial data. More data and information to populate the framework will come from a variety of existing sources (NASS and ERS data; ARS and NIFA research, education, and extension efforts; and other Federal and nonFederal sources), new research on specific priorities (e.g., biofuels, climate change, conservation, watersheds), and greater investment in integrated research and extension in participatory farming 6

systems that focus on interactions among productivity, environmental, economic, and social outcomes. Primary Goals The primary goal is to provide science-based knowledge to accelerate both incremental and transformative progress toward sustainable agriculture through systems research and extension and through the development and population of a framework for understanding the sustainability (productivity, economic, environmental, and social) outcomes of agriculture, food, and forestry practices and systems. Anticipated Outcomes A system for capturing and delivering data and information on environmental, economic, and social consequences of food, agriculture, and forestry systems and processes at appropriate geographic scales over the life cycle of product supply chains (NAL). Well-developed life-cycle inventory data on environmental, economic, and social consequences of key agriculture-related processes to fill gaps in the framework, resulting in transparent, science-based analyses to support product declarations and continuous improvement programs (ARS, NIFA, ERS, NASS). Development, assessment, extension, and education on incremental/mainstream improvements (e.g., soil/water/nutrient management, pest management, livestock management) evaluated for their sustainability outcomes, including all four dimensions (productivity, profitability, environmental, and social). Development, assessment, extension, and education on transformative systems approaches to sustainable agriculture (NIFA, ARS) including but not limited to the systems in the NRC report (2010).

Strategy 3: Local and Regional Food Systems Developing and supporting local and regional food systems is one of five key components of USDAs strategy for enhancing rural prosperity. The Departments Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative is its primary mechanism for accomplishing cross-USDA coordination on local and regional food systems and reconnecting farmers and consumers in order to benefit farmers, strengthen rural communities, promote healthy eating, and protect natural resources. While the concept of local has somewhat different meanings to different consumers, it appears to be one promising way for farmers to tap markets that may be more likely to reward them for stewardship and proximity. Local food systems are a small but rapidly growing segment of U.S. agriculture, representing approximately $4.8 billion in sales in 2008 (Low and Vogel, 2011). The number of farmers markets nearly doubled in 10 years to 5,247 in 2009 and the number of farm-to-school programs grew fivefold in 5 years to 2,095 in 2009 (Martinez et al., 2010). Some sociologists and others consider local and regional food systems more important to sustainable agriculture than their numbers would indicate, arguing that the social value of closer connections 7

between farmers and consumers is as important to the social dimension of sustainability as are production practices to the biophysical dimensions (Hinrichs and Lyson, 2008; Jordan and Constance, 2008). Local and regional food systems can be considered at one end of the marketing spectrum, complementary to the national and global supply chains whose sustainability advances will be informed by the research and data initiatives described above. Understanding where and how regional food systems are a good fit and how they complement or compete with national and global supply chains is one area of active research. This strategy leverages key USDA assets through the cross-Departmental collaboration and coordination of the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative. Current USDA Science USDA Research, Education and Economics (REE) agencies are all active in the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative through leadership in its data gathering and research subcommittees, and through relevant agency programs. While some USDA programs have been supporting the development of local and regional food systems for some years (e.g., community food projects, SARE, NALs Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, and programs of USDAs Agricultural Marketing Service), only recently has a more comprehensive analysis of regional food systems begun (e.g., ERS primer and case study publications in 2010 and the Agriculture and Food Research Initiatives Sustainable Food Systems program, which was new in 2010). Primary Goals The primary goals are to inform policies and practices in local and regional food systems through research on the current and potential contributions of local/regional food systems to economic development and human well-being (including environmental and social dimensions) and the characteristics and factors that foster or limit their development and application. Anticipated Outcomes Understanding the potential value and effects of regional food systems in the Northeast, and the development, sharing, and application of mapping/modeling tools to other regions (ARS, NIFA). Identification and evaluation of best practices, constraints, and barriers in sustainable, local, and regional food systems and public sharing of those best practices through eXtension and other means (ARS, NIFA, and NALs Alternative Farming Systems Information Center). Knowledge of how market conditions and constraints affect local food system performance (ERS). Understanding the participation in farm-to-school initiatives, their dollar value, and their effect on fruit and vegetable consumption by school meal participants (ERS). Understanding the food environment factors that influence availability and selection of local food and how the availability of local foods in low-income areas affects food choice (ERS). 8

Enhanced knowledge among agricultural and food system professionals, both now and in the next generation, through both formal education programs and informal youth education programs (NIFA). Expanded local and regional markets for new, beginning, and existing small- and mid-size farmers (ARS, NIFA). Improved statistical data on local and regional marketing (NASS, ERS).

Strategy 4: Organic Agriculture U.S. organic production has more than doubled and organic food sales have more than quintupled to $22.9 billion in 2009 since the late 1990s (Greene et al., 2009). With more organic programs called for in the 2008 Farm Bill, USDA has increased its focus on the potential role of organic agriculture in achieving outcomes such as economic development, environmental services, resource conservation, climate change mitigation, nutrition, food safety, and other outcomes. This approach is consistent with the NRC report that discussed organic agriculture as an example of a system that holds promise for achieving transformative progress and a market for producers seeking higher reward for stewardship. It is also consistent with trends in the scientific community, with organic agriculture receiving more attention at professional societies (e.g., the American Society of Agronomys Organic Management Systems section and its new monograph; Francis, 2009) and at universities (e.g., new degree programs in the past 5 years at land-grant universities in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, and Washington, plus courses and research programs at many other universities). REE agencies have a solid basis of field science, new data, and longstanding analyses that can provide the foundation for this shift to a more science-based, outcome-based view of organic agriculture. While universities and other institutions are increasing their investments in research and education efforts that are necessarily site-specific, USDA is uniquely situated to integrate field research and extension at the regional and national levels, assess their outcomes with respect to national priorities, and integrate the efforts and results with other USDA agencies (e.g., the National Organic Program of the Agricultural Marketing Service, conservation programs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, etc.) through the USDA Organic Working Group and other relationships. USDA Science ARS has invested $12.6 million in research at 20 locations that directly address organic agriculture challenges. In addition, the NAL provides information on organic agriculture, primarily through its Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. ERS develops a broad range of economic research and analysis on organic agriculture, and organic activities are included in all three ERS divisions. The Food Economics Division is modeling consumer demand for organic food; the Market and Trade Economics Division is conducting research and analysis of organic costs and returns in major crop and livestock sectors; and the Resource and Rural Economics Division is examining the adoption of organic farming 9

systems and the economic characteristics of the U.S. organic industry. NASS surveys land acreage and sales of organically produced products in the Census of Agriculture. As a follow-up to the 2007 Census, NASS conducted its first-ever wide-scale survey of organic agriculture in the United States, including production of crops and livestock, production practices, production expenses, marketing practices, and value-added production and processing. Results were published on February 3, 2010. NASS also collaborates with ERS on surveys of targeted organic commodities (so far, soybeans, apples, wheat, dairy, and corn) and is working with the Risk Management Agency to develop a data series on prices received for organic crops. NIFA funds organic agriculture through multiple programs, including the Organic Research and Extension Initiative, Integrated Organic Program, and portions of other NIFA programs such as Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, Small Business Innovation Research, and the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. Primary Goals 1) Help stakeholders implement successful organic production and marketing systems in response to growing consumer demand; 2) compile knowledge to guide policies and practices regarding organic agricultures contributions to sustainability outcomes such as rural prosperity, clean water, and climate change mitigation and adaptation; and 3) use the integrated nature of the organic paradigm as a platform for developing integrated approaches to sustainability in general. Anticipated Outcomes Improved productivity and profitability of organic production systems (ARS, NIFA). Understanding the organic sectors effects on ecosystem services and sustainability outcomes (ERS, NIFA, ARS). Understanding consumer demand for organic food and the behavior of organic markets (ERS). Knowledge of factors that influence the adoption of organic farming systems (ERS, NIFA). Better data on organic production and marketing practices (NASS, ERS). Better coordination of stakeholder interactions (ERS, NIFA, ARS, NASS, and other USDA agencies). New models of research and education for integrated, transformational systems of agricultural production and marketing.

References Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Published as an Annex to U.N. General Assembly document A/42/427. New York, NY: The United Nations. 10

Clark, W. C. (2007). Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science,104: 17371738. Francis, C. (Ed.). (2009). Organic Farming: The Ecological System. (Agronomy Monograph 54). Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America. Gold, M. (1999). Sustainable Agriculture: Definitions and Terms. Special Reference Briefs Series no. SRB 99-02. Beltsville, MD: National Agricultural Library. Retrieved from http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902.shtml Greene, C., Dimitri, C., Lin, B., McBride, W., Oberholtzer, L., & Smith, T. (2009). Emerging Issues in the U.S. Organic Industry. Economic Information Bulletin Number 55. Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib55/ Hinrichs, C. C. & Lyson, T. A. (Eds.). (2008). Remaking the North American Food System: Strategies for Sustainability. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Horne, R. & Grant, T. (2009). Life cycle assessment and agriculture: challenges and prospects. In R. Horne, T. Grant, and K. Verghese (Eds.), Life Cycle Assessment: Principles, Practice and Prospects (pp. 107-124). Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Publishing. Jordan, J. L. & Constance, D.H. (2008). Sustainable agriculture and the social sciences: getting beyond best management practices and into food systems. Southern Rural Sociology, 23(1):122. Keystone Center. (2009). Environmental Resource Indicators for Measuring Outcomes of OnFarm Agricultural Production in the United States, First Report. Keystone, CO: Author. Low, S.A., & Vogel, S. (2011). Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States. Economic Research Report No. 128. Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service. Martinez, S., Hand, M., DaPra, M., Pollack, S., Ralston, K., Smith, T., Vogel, S., Clark, S., Lohr, L., Low, S., and Newman, C. (2010). Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts and Issues. Economic Research Report No. 97. Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

11

National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board. (2010). Report on Sustainability in Support of Food Security. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Research Council. (1989). Alternative Agriculture. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2010). Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Norris, G.A. (2006). Social impacts in product life cyclestowards life cycle attribute assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(Special Issue 1): 97104. Pollock, C., Pretty, J., Crute, I., Leaver, C., & Dalton, H. (2008). Introduction. Sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 363(1491):445446. Reganold, J.P., Jackson-Smith, D., Batie, S.S., Harwood, R.R., Kornegay, J.L., Bucks, D., Flora, C.B., Hanson, J.C., Jury, W.A., Meyer, D., Schumacher Jr., A., Sehmsdorf, H., Shennan, C., Thrupp, L.A., & Willis, P. (2011). Transforming U.S. agriculture. Science, 332:670 671. Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., deWit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J.A. (2009). A Safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461: 472475. Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R. and Polasky, S. (2001). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418: 671677. Woteki, C. 2012. Research, Education, and Economics Action Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

12