Some Wisconsin farmers are now able to see the environmental effects from their sustainable farming practices through a new conservation program that hopes to expand across the Midwest. Farmers for Sustainable Food recently wrapped up the inaugural year of its Climate Smart Program.

Lauren Brey, managing director of Farmers for Sustainable Food, said after one year, the farmers enrolled across four states reduced nearly 50,000 tons of CO2 equivalents.

"That's the kind of impact that we're seeing just on 53 farms," she said. "So we're really looking forward to years two and beyond when we'll have double, quadruple that number of farmers participating and data to share."

Through a partnership with Edge Dairy Farmer Cooperative and a $50 million federal grant, participating farmers are compensated for their time and data sharing.

They also receive support to understand the metrics and outcomes of the conservation practices they're using on their farms -- like how the reductions of carbon dioxide equivalents being made from year one of the program are equivalent to powering more than 6,600 U.S. homes for one year - or removing more than 11,000 passenger vehicles from the road.

"What's cool about it is that farmers are already implementing best-management practices on their cropland, on their farms when they're caring for their animals... and now, through our project, we're able to help quantify what those best-management practices mean for environmental outcomes," Brey continued.

Year one encompassed more than 100,000 acres of cropland with the use of more than 71,000 cattle. The five-year project will continue through 2028, but Brey said they are already looking for additional funding to extend it and reach more farmers in the upper Midwest.


get more stories like this via email

About 20% of fish caught in the wild are not used to feed people across the world but a recent study found the unused portions of fish prepared for the public could be a sustainable alternative.

Inedible portions, called byproducts, can increasingly be rendered to create fish meal and fish oil. The bulk of fish meal and fish oil has traditionally come from wild-caught fish but researchers looked at rendering practices in five fisheries across the globe.

Dave Love, research professor for the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins University, said using byproducts from industrial fisheries is the most promising alternative to catching fish just to produce fish oil and meal. He added consumers in the U.S. have plenty of byproducts they could use.

"U.S. consumers favor things like fillets over eating whole fish or minimally processed fish," Love explained. "When you make a fillet, about 50% of the fish goes to the human food supply. About 50% goes to other uses. So we're really looking at that 50%, asking how much of it is used to produce fish meal and fish oil."

Fishmeal and fish oil are typically made from catching fish such as anchovy, sardine and menhaden, which are crucial to the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

Of fish caught specifically to produce fish oil and fish meal, less than 60% of byproducts were reused. Love pointed out there can be tension in the industry as it both fishes to feed humans and to make fish meal for other fish. He said disposing of byproducts by fisheries is not the most sustainable method and it can be better used to make sure fewer fish are being caught solely to feed other fish.

"The ones that were not using their byproducts were grinding it and dumping it in the ocean," Love noted. "That's not a really great use of this resource. And we think going forward, we'd like to see policymakers really encourage industries to better utilize byproducts and not grind and dump them at sea."

The aquaculture industry is the biggest user of fish meal and fish oil.


get more stories like this via email

School districts across Arkansas have until February 28 to apply to participate in the Farm to School Institute.

The yearlong program, through the department of agriculture, helps schools launch or expand their Farm to School programs.

Jessica Chapman, program coordinator with the state Department of Agriculture Farm to School Institute, said selected schools will bring a team to a summer retreat to devise a one-of-a-kind plan for their campus.

"Even if they already have something going, this is a great way to build their Farm-to-School program in all different aspects," said Chapman. "So, we focus on classroom, we focus on getting Farm-to-School in the cafeteria and in the community."

Each team will be paired with a coach and receive $1,000 to implement its plan. The application is available at ARfarmtoschool.org.

Nearly 85% of schools in Arkansas are participating in at least one Farm to School activity. All schools can apply to be part of the institute.

Chapman said each campus is different, and they look for programs with a strong community base and an engaged administration.

"You've got some elementary schools that's got an outdoor classroom," said Chapman. "You've got some that are at middle schools, and they've got maybe a hydroponic system, or maybe at the high school it has like a really strong FFA program. We help you evaluate where your school's at."

Arkansas is one of only 16 states nationwide to offer the institute. Fifteen teams will be selected to participate.




get more stories like this via email

Recent editorials in The New York Times and Washington Post defending factory farms make one critical mistake, according to environmental advocates: They both assume there is no other option.

Peter Lehner, sustainable food and farming program managing attorney for the advocacy group Earthjustice, said industrial agriculture does not feed the world. It feeds itself, perpetuating a cycle of overproduction, sickness, and environmental degradation. And U.S. taxpayers foot the bill, sending tens of billions of dollars each year to large corporations.

"There are huge numbers of subsidies to the livestock industry," Lehner pointed out. "The hamburger that you pay for is only a fraction of the true cost as reflected by what taxpayers pay."

The New York Times editorial argued the crop yields of smaller-scale family farms are insufficient to meet the world's daily caloric needs. The Washington Post editorial urged readers to save the planet by not eating free-range beef, arguing moving millions of livestock off pastures and into high-density operations, where in many cases animals cannot even move around, conserves valuable farmland.

Lehner contended a better way to make more farmland available is to stop growing inefficient crops. For example, it takes 15 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef.

"We use almost 60 million acres, an area the size of Indiana and Illinois combined, to produce biofuel," Lehner noted. "Where we could produce the same amount of energy with a couple hundred thousand acres of solar panels."

Lehner worries doubling down on industrial agriculture, which mostly produces commodity crops like corn, soy and sugar for highly processed foods, ignores other meaningful reforms like reducing waste. One third of all food produced in the U.S. ends up in landfills.

"Let's try to not have taxpayer subsidies for inefficient products," Lehner urged. "Ensure that we have a food system that produces nutritious food, not one that gets us sick, and we spend a trillion dollars a year in our health care system because of diet-related disease."


get more stories like this via email