http://e360.yale.

edu/features/helping_us_farmers_increase_production_and_protect_the_land

Helping U.S. Farmers Increase Production and Protect the Land

American agriculture is steeped in a chemical-intensive system that wastes money and pollutes the
environment. But by making use of new technology and innovative approaches, farmers can boost
production and profits — while at the same time improving soil quality, enhancing biodiversity, and
protecting habitat.

By Julie Menter • July 5, 2012

In California, farmers can go online and access detailed data on evapotranspiration from a state
network of weather stations, helping them calculate the optimal amount of water to apply on a given
day to irrigated crops in their region. In a pilot study, growers using the California Irrigation
Management Information System (CIMIS) reduced their water use by 13 percent while increasing their
yields by 8 percent. Still, despite these benefits, farmers use CIMIS data on only 5 percent of irrigated
cropland in California, the U.S.’s leading agricultural state.

In Iowa, the U.S.’s top producer of soybeans, farmers can participate in a program that assists them in
conducting research on their farms to improve soybean yields, reduce use of fertilizer and pesticides,
and increase profitability. Soybean farmers participating in the On-Farm Network of the Iowa Soybean
Association have reduced fertilizer use by 33 pounds per acre, allowing them to save $16 per acre
without reducing yields. Although this environmentally beneficial program is expanding in the U.S.,
farmers tilling far less than 1 percent of U.S. cropland are taking advantage of it.

Unfortunately, as these programs demonstrate, innovative farmers are the exception in American
agriculture today. Although much of the technology, tools, and know-how to usher in the “farm of the
future” exist, these reforms have not been widely adopted, even when they provide positive financial
returns. As a result, many farmers — steeped in a system focused on selling them more fertilizer, more
herbicides and insecticides, and more equipment — waste money on excessive chemicals and nutrients
that

U.S. agriculture cannot afford to wait for a piecemeal adoption of better practices and solutions.

pollute the environment and weaken the ecosystems farmers depend upon: clean water, healthy soils,
beneficial insects, and more.

U.S. agriculture has been far behind the curve in adopting the principles of “lean manufacturing,” which
has seen businesses as varied as Toyota, General Electric, and FedEx use key performance indicators,
statistical analysis of outcomes, and goal-setting to improve profitability — and protect the
environment. But the good news is that enormous opportunities exist to turn the situation around,
creating profitable farms across the U.S. that produce an abundance of healthy food while improving
http://e360.yale.edu/features/helping_us_farmers_increase_production_and_protect_the_land

the soil, enhancing biodiversity, and protecting habitats. Such farms might seem like an impossible
dream today, but they are not.

As a sustainability consultant who has worked to help improve the economic and environmental
performance of the U.S. retail, apparel, and dairy industries, I have seen how a systematic emphasis on
helping individuals and companies improve their environmental performance has led to real economic
gains. For example, my colleagues worked with the U.S. dairy industry to mobilize a campaign from
“grass-to-glass” that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the industry by 25 percent by
2020. The 12 innovation projects launched to reach this goal — including energy efficiency initiatives
and installation of methane digesters — should also generate more than $250 million a year in savings
by 2020.

The U.S. agriculture system cannot afford to wait for piecemeal adoption of better practices and
solutions. If we are going to help feed the world’s 9 billion to 10 billion people in 2050, food production
must increase by 70 percent. To preserve the ecosystems and resources upon which food production
depends, this dramatic increase needs to happen on the same amount of land, with fewer resources
and less waste. Through interviews with agriculture experts — including farmers, food processors,
academics, and representatives from non-profit organizations — I have identified three keys to
unlocking an unprecedented wave of change in agriculture.

1.      Farmers need better solutions

While many innovative technologies do exist, they often are not integrated into the tools that farmers
use every day. Experts say that a big reason genetically modified seeds have been so successful is that
they can be used with the same equipment and the same farming schedule that farmers already
employ.

Better solutions for farmers are ones that are more user-friendly, do not require significant change in
practices or tools, and are accurate, automated and based on robust science. Quite often great
solutions languish because

One system now being developed will use satellite measurements to determine the optimal amount
of water required.

they are missing one of these characteristics. For example, a new solution currently being developed
could help increase adoption of California’s CIMIS irrigation information network. The Satellite Irrigation
Management Support system, being designed by NASA scientists in partnership with the California
Department of Water Resources, will use satellite measurements of crop canopies and the data
provided by CIMIS to determine the optimal amount of water required for a specific field and will
provide recommendations for farmers delivered directly on a mobile phone or other handheld device.
http://e360.yale.edu/features/helping_us_farmers_increase_production_and_protect_the_land

Real-time kinematics (RTK), a geopositioning system with accuracy down to a centimeter, allows
farmers to precisely plant, fertilize, water, and apply crop protection chemicals. For example, it allows
farmers like Clay Mitchell of Geneseo Township, Iowa, to plant seeds exactly where fertilizer was placed
a few weeks earlier, increasing yields while reducing fertilizer use. But RTK remains difficult to set-up
and manage effectively and needs further impovement.

2.      Broader awareness is required

Even when solutions are powerful and easy to use, they do not always reach farmers locked into
traditional systems focused on having them buy increasing amounts of fertilizer and chemicals. New
solutions often need their own dedicated sales force, which can be cost-prohibitive for start-up
technology providers. Sarah Alexander, director of Sustainability and Leadership Programs at the non-
profit Keystone Center, noted that different farmers trust different sources of information, such as
vendors, crop consultants, and university extension services. “There is no single strategy that is effective
in reaching farmers in large numbers,” she said. This further increases the cost of distributing new
solutions. Finally, the limited availability of reliable benchmarks on fertilizer use, soil quality, and other
data makes it difficult for farmers to identify potential opportunities for improvement.

But tools and solutions are emerging to help farmers see these opportunities. Measurement systems
like the free, online Field-to-Market fieldprint calculator can help growers measure the efficiency of
their operations — water use, energy use, soil conservation, etc. — and compare their performance to
state and national averages. Unfortunately, adoption of these tools is still growing slowly, in part
because there are no strong financial incentives or support mechanisms for farmers to use them.

3.      Farmers need the right incentives

Conventional farmers do not gain recognition for reducing the environmental impact of their farms.
Additional incentives would help improve the economics and make solutions more attractive. As
farmers start measuring the impact of their operations, those results can be used in scorecards that
food buyers could use to recognize and reward the top performers with better contract terms or even
higher purchase prices. A small but growing number of consumers have shown a willingness to pay
more for such food, providing an incentive for farmers who adopt sustainable growing practices.

Identifying new sources of revenue for environmental conservation could help create additional
incentives for farmers to adopt more advanced solutions and practices — in particular the ones that
don’t always provide quick returns on investment today, such as keeping some farmland planted with
native vegetation to provide pollution buffers along rivers or streams.
http://e360.yale.edu/features/helping_us_farmers_increase_production_and_protect_the_land

One potential opportunity is the valuation of ecosystem services, which could allow farmers to generate
income not just from the crops they sell but also from protecting watersheds, increasing biodiversity,
or capturing carbon in the soil. One such example is a system for nutrient trading under

A growing number of consumers have shown a willingness to pay more for food grown on farms using
sustainable practices.

development in the Chesapeake Bay. This initiative, similar to cap-and-trade system for carbon
emissions, would set a ceiling on farmers, towns, or industries for their discharge of nutrients from
fertilizer, waste water, or animal excrement. Those who discharge nutrients below their allocation
could sell emissions credits to other organizations that might find it too difficult or expensive to reach
their cap. For example, municipal wastewater treatment plants could choose to buy nutrient credits
from farmers rather than invest in costly retrofits. Some states in the Midwestern U.S., including
Wisconsin and Minnesota, are experimenting with or considering similar nutrient-trading programs in
an effort to reduce the size of the nutrient-fed “dead zones” in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mobilizing all three “keys” at once will not be easy. In order to unlock the potential value for farmers
and for the environment, many different groups need to work together and coordinate their actions. It
may be complex, but it is possible. My colleagues and I have been working with the Sustainable Apparel
Coalition (SAC), which faces a similarly daunting task.

In working to make U.S. agriculture more sustainable, a coalition of farmers, companies, and
organizations across the food supply chain could make real progress toward producing more food with
less waste and a lighter environmental impact.