Progress on the new Farm Bill remains stalled as members of Congress argue over price increases for commodity crops and proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the latest version of the $1.5 trillion agriculture package.

Hank Graddy, volunteer on the food and agriculture team for the Kentucky chapter of the Sierra Club, said even if the bill's future remains uncertain, now is the time for farmers to take advantage of additional funding in the Conservation Title. He noted around $20 billion in conservation money through the Inflation Reduction Act are available to be used now, even if farmers' have not had luck in the past applying for programs.

"The Conservation Title is the part of the Farm Bill that helps prevent soil erosion, attempts to keep animal manure out of our rivers and streams," Graddy outlined. "It attempts to reduce water pollution, it attempts to maintain soil."

The conservation programs provide financial incentives to farmers who plant cover crops, diversify crops, reduce tillage and plant grasslands. They are strategies to help protect natural resources from industrial farming, like Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Such large operations leak substantial amounts of livestock waste into soil, waterways and drinking water, including hormones, nitrates and pathogens like E. coli.

Some House lawmakers want to modify the Conservation Title to incorporate precision agriculture technologies into water conservation and irrigation practices. Graddy believes it would weaken the original goals of the conservation programs, which have greatly benefited Kentucky farmers.

"We need more money in these programs because they help farmers become better farmers," Graddy explained. "And reduce agricultural impact on the environment, and on people downstream."

According to the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, to date more than 500,000 farmers have participated in conservation programs, with more seeking to participate than there is funding available.


get more stories like this via email

More than 20 groups are urging Michigan lawmakers to reject two bills they say would turn the state's farmland and rural towns into dumping grounds for poorly regulated industrial waste.

The organizations warn that House Bills 4257 and 4265 would weaken Michigan's environmental protections, by easing oversight of the farm waste processed in anaerobic digesters.

They say this could pollute nearby communities, fuel large-scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, and put small farms at risk.

Dr. Cheryl Ruble, MD - an environmental health advocate - explained why she believes these bills would benefit oil, waste, and agribusiness sectors.

"Increased biogas production, expansion of CAFOs, new CAFO construction," said Ruble. "What these bills would do is make it easier and cheaper to dispose of harmful, sometimes toxic, industrial waste streams."

Supporters of the bills say they would simplify rules, helping farmers use anaerobic digesters to turn waste into renewable energy that could power a million homes.

They also contend that if passed, the legislation would create jobs, making it easier to expand biogas projects in Michigan.

Michigan has almost 300 CAFOs that produce around 63 million pounds of waste each day. It's usually stored in lagoons or spread on fields as fertilizer.

The state also has more than 130 operating biodigesters. But Ruble argued that despite the marketing for these digesters, they do not turn waste into renewable energy.

"They call it renewable natural gas," said Ruble. "It's the exact same thing as fossil gas - it's methane, okay? It's a combustion fuel, and it still emits, you know, carbon dioxide."

Supporters of biogas maintain it's produced from organic waste, so it's seen as a more sustainable alternative to fossil fuels.

The legislation is currently under review by the House Agriculture Committee.



get more stories like this via email

By Dawn Attride for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Greater Dakota News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

At the supermarket, you're often met with a choice: organic or not? Organic foods - largely free of synthetic pesticides, hormones and antibiotics - are synonymous with sustainability in the minds of many shoppers. But sustainability is a fraught and complex measure - does it mean better for you or for the planet? And how do farm animals, farmers and workers fare? About the only measure that's simple here is the nutrition, which remains the same whether you buy organic or conventional foods. After that, however, the tradeoffs quickly become complicated.

When it comes to the environment, organic food isn't necessarily better and can even be worse, in part because it requires more land to raise animals and grow their feed. In other words, that additional land means farm animals get a little more living space under U.S. organic rules. But unfortunately, unless we cut back on how much meat we eat, farming with even more land comes at a steep climate cost (and we're already way over budget).

After reviewing publicly available data and the scientific literature on the impacts of organic versus conventionally farmed meat, Sentient breaks down the tradeoffs.

Organic: Not As Environmentally Friendly As It Sounds

A 2017 review of hundreds of studies compared the environmental impacts of organic foods with their conventionally produced counterparts. The researchers looked at life cycle assessments to account for all the inputs, outputs and environmental effects of a food system. According to the findings, organic meat requires slightly lower energy on average than conventional meat - things like machinery and fertilizer production - but is less environmentally friendly in terms of nutrient runoff and higher land use.

Organic livestock standards require that farm animals be allotted more land than intensive agriculture operations, such as factory farming. Across all animal products (including milk and eggs), organic requires around 75 percent more land based on our analysis of the 2017 paper.

What we do with land has serious opportunities or consequences for climate change. For example, peatlands can suck in huge amounts of carbon by sequestration, and trees can also capture and store carbon. But if we were to expand how much of our food was sourced from organic farms, we would have to clear more land. When we clear land for farming, it loses its capacity to store carbon for as long as it stays a farm (essentially until it is rewilded), which is very bad for the planet.

As it stands, over a third of land globally is used for agriculture, resulting in deforestation in places like the Amazon rainforest. If we keep eating meat at the rate we do now, and the population keeps on growing, which is what the United Nations expects to happen, we will drive up greenhouse gas emissions even further, making the planet a more challenging place to live.

More Land Is Better for Animals, Not So Good for Climate

When we dig into the details, "better" depends on what you measure and how. A different review focusing on Western European farming found that organic animal foods have lower carbon emissions per hectare than producing those foods conventionally. But here's where things get tricky: this was mainly due to land management practices used in organic farming, which the authors argued would increase the carbon sequestration of the system.

The argument for this kind of farming - sometimes called regenerative or climate-smart - doesn't track with the many studies showing these carbon farming practices tend to only add carbon to soils for a short period of time and then release it back into the atmosphere, which is not what you need for climate mitigation. In any event, when the researchers measured emissions by weight of meat produced, organic animal foods emitted more greenhouse gases per pound.

While organic foods' inefficiency can contribute to higher emissions, it can be better in terms of welfare for farm animals. More land means more room for animals to graze than what they experience in factory farms. Raising more animals in the most confined spaces translates to lower emissions, while the higher-emissions organic livestock farms can offer animals better living conditions. This is the crux of the tradeoff between organic and conventional meat.

Demand for Organic Food Is Growing - But It's Not Scalable

In the United States, demand for organic food is surging, despite only a tiny fraction of farmland being used for organic food production. Between 2023 and 2024, organic meat sales increased 14.3 percent in dollar terms to hit $3.1 billion. Although typically more expensive, the label is in high demand, particularly among younger generations. A recent survey by the Organic Trade Association found that two-thirds of young consumers look for the label in nearly every food purchase.

Keeping up with this demand means using more land. What would happen if animal farming went entirely organic - and humans ate the same amount of meat, eggs and dairy, but using roughly 75 percent more land? The land area needed for farm animals would increase from 36 percent to 63 percent of the world's habitable area. Under current global warming estimates, this expansion likely wouldn't be sustainable given the dire need for carbon-cutting solutions which involves avoiding deforestation and preserving land.

The Bottom Line

Based on the way we eat now, organic livestock farming is not scalable to feed the projected 9.7 billion people who will be living on the planet by 2050. While organic production gives animals more space, that higher land usage isn't so good for climate change. But there are alternatives. Proteins like beans - whether organic or conventional - could substitute the growing protein demand while remaining low on emissions and avoiding typical animal welfare concerns.


Dawn Attride wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

A new mapping tool shows South Dakota is a big player on the farm conservation scene.

The online feature coincides with a new poll, revealing most farmers want stronger funding for climate-smart practices. In a survey of nearly 500 farms around the U.S., the National Wildlife Federation said three of four respondents support an increase in long-term funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's voluntary conservation programs. The initiatives incentivize farmers and ranchers to work their land in ways that make it more resilient to extreme weather, from prolonged droughts to widespread flooding.

Aviva Glaser, senior director of agriculture policy for the federation, said survey support was consistent across geographic areas.

"The poll also found that farmers not only supported this funding, but they got a lot of value out of this funding," Glaser reported. "They cited things like soil health and improved yields."

Congress is debating future funding levels for programs under the Farm Bill, which needs to be reauthorized for five more years. Conservation dollars usually enjoy bipartisan support but this year could be trickier with talks of spending cuts needed to offset tax cut extensions. Meanwhile, the map shows South Dakota farmers have enrolled more than 7 million acres in the Conservation Stewardship Program, above all other states.

Conservation in farming might seem like "inside information" to producers and policymakers. But Glaser and other advocates emphasized it benefits the public to learn about practices farmers adopt, to make their fields healthy and strong.

"That could be a range of different practices -- practices like cover crops or grazing management -- or it could be a conservation easement," Glaser outlined. "It could be putting in a buffer strip."

Buffer strips can slow and prevent harmful runoff, like nitrates, from leaving farm fields and finding their way into lakes and streams. Agricultural researchers said making landscapes less prone to flooding protects taxpayers, too, by not having to spend money on property cleanup for surrounding communities.