Farmer Resources | Page 8 | California Climate & Agriculture Network

Governor’s Second Drought Declaration Strikes a Delicate Balance

May 3, 2014 by Adam Kotin Leave a Comment

With nearly all of California unable to shake off one of the most stubborn droughts in its history, Governor Brown is taking steps to prepare the state for the long dry season that looms ahead.

Last week, he issued his second proclamation of drought emergency since the start of the year. In doing so, he called out the likely connection between the drought and climate change, stating, “We are playing Russian Roulette with our environment.”

The Governor’s proclamation orders expedited actions and eases regulations across key state agencies and local actors, including the Department of Food and Agriculture, Department of Water Resources, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and local homeowners associations.

In addressing the needs of water users across the state, it is clear the Governor faces some tough decisions for managing drought impacts on farms, cities, and the environment. Too timid a response could leave water users stranded; too heavy a hand could hurt regulatory authority and damage fragile ecosystems already crippled by drought.

The Governor has gone for a balance between these approaches, and last Friday’s executive order has largely been praised by stakeholders across the spectrum.

So what does the Governor’s second set of drought orders mean for California’s farms and ranches?

Easier water transfers may improve delivery in some areas.Thus far, 2014 has not been a good year for operations dependent upon water deliveries. In preparation for the coming months, the Governor has lessened restrictions and shortened approval processes for water transfers and exchanges in the state. In doing so, he has also suspended or lowered some water quality control standards for achieving these actions. Most notably, he has suspended California Environmental Quality Act review for some key actions—a step frequently taken during extreme droughts such as this one. While these regulations are crucial to protecting water users and ecosystems alike, their suspension has so far only seen mild critiques from environmental groups. Still, it is unclear what practical effect the Governor’s actions will have for individual farm operations so long as water remains exceedingly scarce.

Tightened conservation and efficiency requirements for state-funded projects that impact water resources. The Governor’s order requires all state agencies that distribute funding related to water resources to ensure ‘appropriate conservation and efficiency programs’ are in place.

Increased attention to groundwater monitoring will continue into the future.The drought has brought California’s long and troubled history with groundwater management to the fore once again. Agricultural stakeholders across the state have been chewing on the issue through the last few months of drought. A bill by Senator Fran Pavley that would create the statutory framework for a Sustainable Groundwater Management Strategy Act has advanced through its policy committee. The Governor addressed groundwater resources in his January drought declaration, and the Department of Water Resources has just released a report in response to that first drought declaration. That report finds decreased groundwater resources in all areas of the state since spring 2013, and highlights that over two-thirds of High and Medium Priority basins are not monitored by the state program.

The Governor’s second declaration orders an update of the DWR report by November 30th, including updated monitoring of agricultural land fallowing related to the drought. With this most recent order, the Governor has made clear that he intends for improvements in groundwater monitoring and planning to remain high on the agenda moving forward.

Drought assistance to agricultural operation is moving forward.The Governor has fast-tracked the creation of a program at the California Department of Food and Agriculture to provide financial incentives for efficient water irrigation treatment and distribution systems. He recently signed into law an appropriation of $10 million in cap-and-trade revenues towards agricultural water use efficiency projects.

Although a series of storms over the past few months have brought some much-needed relief, it is clear that California is still in a dire water crisis. While there are still water stewardship actions to improve efficiency and planning at the individual farm level, the state’s role as overseer of our water resources is even more crucial in times of drought.

Governor Brown’s plan attempts to strike a delicate balance between a variety of pressing interests, and the next few months will reveal where it has succeeded. But this crisis also presents an opportunity. We urge the Governor and Legislature to move beyond emergency declarations toward recognizing the longer-term implications of an historic drought and its implications for a future under climate change.

Check out and share the list of Drought Resources on CalCAN’s website at www.calclimateag.org/drought-resources.

Filed Under: California Policy, Climate & Ag Research, Farmer Resources, Featured - Sidebar, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: Agriculture and climate change, drought, Governor Brown

Senate Leader Proposes Climate Change Investments

April 17, 2014 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg released on Monday his cap-and-trade investment proposal, which projects $5 billion in annual investment starting in 2015. Steinberg’s proposal includes “permanent” investments in transit, housing and high speed rail, but makes no mention of investments in agricultural solutions to climate change. The glaring omission of agriculture in the Senate leader’s investment proposal is in stark contrast to Governor Brown’s cap-and-trade expenditure plan, which includes investments in farmland conservation, on-farm management strategies, bioenergy and ag-water use efficiency.

Steinberg’s proposal is heavily focused on implementation of sustainable communities strategies with a focus on affordable housing and transit-oriented development. The implementation of smart growth, in-fill development strategies is also a significant focus of the Governor’s proposal. But unlike Steinberg’s proposal, the Governor’s proposal includes investments in conserving agricultural lands at risk of development, a key smart growth strategy.

Leaving agriculture out of California’s climate change investment proposal would be a missed opportunity. California agriculture is uniquely positioned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration. Climate-friendly farming practices can preserve and enhance carbon stores in soils and woody biomass, generate renewable energy and reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Farmland conservation is also an essential climate mitigation strategy. Farms and ranches provide significant carbon sinks and have much lower GHG emissions compared with urban areas. For more background on the multiple benefits of investing in agriculture, please see CalCAN’s input on the state’s Scoping Plan.

The Pro Tem acknowledged that his proposal is a work in progress and we are optimistic that more can be done to incorporate sustainable agricultural strategies into the final plan. In May, the Governor will release his revised budget which will present another opportunity to weigh in on the future of state investments in climate change solutions. Meanwhile, we will post regular updates on cap-and-trade investments and ask for your help in educating policymakers on the important role sustainable agriculture can play in the state’s climate change efforts.

Filed Under: AB 32 Implementation, California Policy, Farmer Resources, Farmland Protection, Renewable Energy Tagged With: AB 32, cap-and-trade, smart growth, Sustainable agricultural solutions

Federal Plans Begin to Address Climate Realities

March 18, 2014 by Dru Marion Leave a Comment

Photo: Wally Skalij, Associated Press

Despite producing mixed results for sustainable agriculture interests, President Obama’s 2015 budget request is an encouraging sign that the federal government is getting serious about climate change, and particularly about adapting to its impacts.

The President’s proposal includes a $1 billion dollar Climate Resilience Fund, which is intended to strengthen preparedness of states and communities for increasingly extreme weather like floods, droughts, and wildfires. The fund would support investment in research, technologies, and infrastructure across numerous agencies and sectors, including agriculture.

Of course, we need not look far to find proof of the urgent need for such an initiative.

Word of the fund first came out in February, when Obama met with growers and ranchers in the San Joaquin Valley, the heart of drought-stricken California. While touring the farm of Joe and Maria Del Bosque, who have fallowed their melon fields due to water shortages, the President emphasized the role federal support could play in alleviating drought impacts and preparing for the future.

“A changing climate means that weather-related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms, and floods are potentially going to be costlier,” he noted, “And they’re going to be harsher.”

More and more, the President’s administration seems to be acknowledging the link between climate change and adaptation needs in agriculture. Last month’s visit from the President followed close behind Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s announcement that the USDA will be launching seven ‘Climate Hubs’ across the country, intended to “deliver science-based knowledge and practical information to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners within each region of the United States to support decision-making related to climate change.” (See the USDA fact sheet).

These centralized facilities aim to provide access to tailored information on climate risks and vulnerabilities, as well as technical support for dealing with impacts like drought, longer growing seasons and new pests. The hubs will also facilitate outreach with key partners including land grant universities; private sector organizations; state, local and regional governments; USDA researchers; and Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Department of Interior (DOI) climate experts.

A ‘sub-hub’ based at UC Davis will focus on climate change issues facing specialty crops and Southwest forests.

It is uncertain exactly how the Climate Hubs will be funded, however, and USDA Climate Change Program Office Director Bill Hohenstein has declined to comment on the overall estimated costs of the program. Meanwhile, the 2015 budget request for USDA comes in at $23 billion – about a billion dollars below FY2014 levels. The Climate Resilience Fund is an obvious place to provide needed financial support to the Climate Hubs, but it remains unclear as to whether the President intends for the Fund to provide that support, and also whether Congress will approve the expenditure.

Despite these uncertainties, National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson has voiced his support for Obama’s budget plan, saying, “The President’s proposed Climate Resilience Fund will provide farmers and ranchers with much-needed assistance after extreme weather events, which are occurring with increasing frequency.”

A growing acknowledgement of the link between climate change and agriculture on a federal level is heartening, to be sure, but it is worth noting that the budget plan leaves significant room for improvement with regard to sustainable ag programs more generally. Funding for Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in the budget plan cut $250 million out of the amount signed into the Farm Bill mere weeks ago, and for the first time in five years, the president did not propose an increase in funding for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE). For a full overview of what the budget request means for sustainable ag interests, click here.

Beyond agriculture, the budget proposal pushes forward many of the measures outlined in last year’s Climate Action Plan, particularly highlighting the need for EPA regulations on fossil fuel emissions from power plants. It directs funds towards clean energy production tax credits and technology, wildfire research and suppression, a new fleet of weather satellites, and research on infrastructural vulnerabilities to climate change. It also makes cuts to the tax breaks currently enjoyed by oil and gas companies.

President Obama has continued to emphasize both the environmental and economic realities that call for climate legislation and adaptation planning. Although his budget proposal will likely face stiff resistance from a divided congress, it is nonetheless an encouraging step towards federal policies that take climate change seriously.

—

Read about California’s plans to improve agriculture’s resilience to climate change impacts in our recent blog here.

Filed Under: Farmer Resources, Featured - Sidebar, Federal Policy, Impacts of Climate Change, Uncategorized Tagged With: Adaptation, budget, climate change, President Obama, USDA

New Climate Change Plan Looks to Farmers, Ranchers for Solutions

March 4, 2014 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

CA NRCS – Buffer strip in Sonoma County

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently released a new Scoping Plan, which lays out measures the state is pursuing to achieve AB 32’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This update to the original Scoping Plan of 2008 goes a lot further than the original in laying out strategies that reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions while also achieving economic and environmental co-benefits.

CalCAN has long advocated for increased investments in agricultural research and grower technical and financial assistance to support agricultural systems that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have made the case for investing in agricultural systems that have multiple ‘wins’, like increased energy efficiency, improved air and water quality, and input savings.

We were pleased to see that CARB’s new plan calls for research, technical assistance and financial incentives that provide resources for farmers and ranchers to implement reduction strategies. What’s not clear in the plan is how we’re going to get there.

CARB calls on California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to strengthen technical assistance and financial incentives to help farmers develop carbon plans and reduce emissions. While CDFA can play an important coordinating role, the network of technical service providers lies elsewhere with UC Cooperative Extension, Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) and nonprofit and private consultants. Rather than create something new, we need to strategically invest limited funding—and that means putting public dollars into existing public resources like Cooperative Extension and the RCDs.

The plan also calls out specific strategies to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Among them is a new focus on working lands conservation, which we were pleased to see in both the Agriculture and Natural and Working Lands sections of the plan.

CARB calls for convening an interagency workgroup in 2015 to establish a coordinated land use program with local agencies “to develop recommendations and targets for incorporating farmland conservation in local and regional land use planning.” We support this effort, but ask – why wait? Let’s start now while the economy picks up steam, as large new infrastructure proposals and local development projects with significant implications for farmland conservation get underway.

Along with farmland conservation, the plan recognizes that farm management activities can reduce potent greenhouse gases, like methane and nitrous oxide, and increase carbon sequestration. We were pleased to see the mention of organic farming systems as one area of focus, but left baffled by the characterization of supporting “highly efficient management (precision agriculture) for both conventional and organic farming.” What is “highly efficient management” in agriculture? It suggests an emphasis on technology-driven applications of fertilizers and other inputs over biological management practices.

It would be a mistake for CARB to ignore low-input, biologically-based farming systems, which studies find can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve soil carbon stores while providing multiple health and environmental benefits. More, not less must be done to support moves towards biological farming systems.

Importantly, for the first time, CARB proposes setting greenhouse gas emission reductions targets in the agriculture sector for interim date of 2030 to help meet the state’s target of 80 percent greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050. An interagency group is proposed to begin discussions this year on setting the agriculture targets. CalCAN strongly supports using research, technical assistance, and financial incentives that enable a sustainable, thriving California agricultural economy that can offer important climate solutions.

So what’s next? The legislature is now taking up the Governor’s proposed FY 2014-15 budget. Among the proposals is an investment of $850 million of cap-and-trade revenues in greenhouse gas emissions reduction activities, including farmland conservation and agriculture management strategies. CalCAN and our allies will be engaging in the budget discussions, supporting direct investments for sustainable agricultural solutions to a changing climate.

Filed Under: AB 32 Implementation, Farmer Resources, Farmland Protection Tagged With: AB 32, California climate law, Climate Solutions in Agriculture, Greenhouse Gas Reductions, Scoping Plan

Agricultural Water Stewardship for Drought Preparedness

February 12, 2014 by Adam Kotin 1 Comment

By Kendall Lambert, Water Program Coordinator at Community Alliance with Family Farmers

In the third and final blog of our series on the California drought, guest blogger Kendall Lambert discusses the benefits of water stewardship practices. View parts one and two of this series.

Photo Credit: CAWSI

As we are all very much aware, California is now faced with an historic drought. Among other things, this means that farmers and ranchers will have limited access to surface water for irrigation, and many growers will not be able to sufficiently and sustainably substitute groundwater. To better prepare for water shortages like this one, growers can adopt on-farm ‘water stewardship’ practices to optimize agricultural production, achieve economic savings, and boost ecological and human health benefits.

A water stewardship approach carries forward the mindset of water conservation to a more integrated view of water’s place in the farm’s ecosystem. Stewardship measures are widely accepted as effective and relatively inexpensive tools to optimize water on the farm. Through sound water management, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) estimates that California agriculture can decrease its use by up to 1 million acre-feet per year.

Many of these tools and techniques are not new. But according to the Pacific Institute, adoption of on-farm water stewardship practices has been slow. There are many reasons why: American Farmland Trust surveyed growers and found that risk, cost, and a lack of information are significant barriers to adopting new practices. The cost of water has been relatively low in California, which is a disincentive to conserve, and programs that provide much-needed education, outreach, and technical assistance are underfunded and understaffed. For example, with only 200 farm advisors, UC Cooperative Extension staff levels were down 40% in 2010 compared to what they were in the 1990s.

On the bright side, this means there are still opportunities for farmers to achieve enhanced drought resiliency through the use of new water stewardship practices.

So what can farmers do? Below are a few on-farm practices featured in the California Agricultural Water Stewardship Initiative (CAWSI) online resource center:

Irrigation Management:

Certain practices optimize water use when irrigating. Best management practices include, but are not limited to:

More efficient systems. Micro/drip irrigation can reduce water use by 30-50%.
Irrigation scheduling. Based on crop water needs, growers can use some combination of soil moisture monitoring, weather station information, and crop data as appropriate.
System maintenance. Regular inspections and upkeep improve the efficiency and uniformity of irrigation equipment.
Growers can also work with local Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) staff to create irrigation plans and consult the NRCS Guide to Effective Irrigation Practices.

Recycled Water:

Growers can use treated municipal wastewater, reuse agricultural runoff or tailwater from irrigation events, or even use household grey water or roof runoff for small scale crop irrigation. Marin County Farm Advisors estimate that with 40,000 square feet of roofing, growers in Chileno/Hicks Valley could collect over an acre-foot of roof runoff for reuse.

Soil Management:

Through proper soil management, growers can increase the water holding capacity of the soil, decrease erosion, and increase water infiltration rates. Stewardship practices include reduced tillage/conservation tillage, using soil amendments such as mulch or compost, and planting winter cover crops (though these do require winter rains to grow). Through these techniques, growers can build soil organic matter (SOM); studies have shown that for every 1% increase in SOM, soils can hold an additional 16,000 gallons of water in the top foot of soil.
Photo Credit: CAWSI

On-Farm Ponds:

When winter rains do occur, on-farm ponds capture and store rainwater for use later in the season. Ponds can also be used to store runoff or tailwater from irrigation events to be reused on farm. Penn State Extension estimates that one 2-acre clay-lined pond with an average depth of 7 feet can provide roughly 10 acre-feet of irrigation water when filled.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of on-farm practices. Depending on the severity of water scarcity, growers may even consider switching to more drought-tolerant crops or even fallowing fields. The feasibility and usefulness of each practice will also vary by farm.

Growers should consult with local UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE) Advisors, NRCS staff, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs), or their relevant commodity group, such as the Almond Board or California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance, for crop-specific water management advice during and after the drought.

Policy Recommendations

As CAFF, CalCAN, and others have made clear, more resources for technical and financial assistance are needed to support California farmers when facing the effects of climate change, including drought.

California lawmakers have an opportunity to direct funding to on-farm water stewardship practices with the upcoming 2014 Water Bond. In the past, Water Bond funding has overwhelmingly been allocated to large infrastructure projects, such as dams and pipelines. For example, CAFF estimates that nearly 70% of Proposition 50 (2002) Agricultural Water Use Efficiency grant money awarded by the Department of Water Resources since 2005 has been for implementation/infrastructure projects.

Large infrastructure projects take years to complete and, given the changing climate, the water quantity outcomes are uncertain. Meanwhile, on-farm water stewardship practices can result in immediate individual water savings, as well as increased resiliency and self-sufficiency for the future. The more farmers that use these tools, the greater the collective water savings will be. And we will be supporting California farmers in the face of drought and uncertainty.

The 2014 Water Bond needs specific language that directs funding to support on-farm water stewardship in the following areas:

Outreach, Education, and Technical Assistance: Provide funding to support groups such as the RCDs, UCCE, NRCS, and similar organizations who supply farmers with the knowledge to adopt new practices.
Research and Development: Provide funding for universities and researchers to further develop best management practices for on-farm water use efficiency.
Financial Assistance: Provide direct financial assistance to growers in the form of loans or cost shares to assist with the financial risk of adopting new practices.

There are also opportunities for a portion of cap-and-trade funds to go towards water stewardship activities that achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions, with associated energy savings in having to move less water.

There is still time for spring rains to come, but in the event that the drought continues and disaster relief is needed, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has put together a Drought Resources webpage with news and information. Please check there for Federal and State Assistance programs, including crop insurance, disaster assistance programs, and emergency loan services.

Filed Under: California Policy, Farmer Resources, Featured - Sidebar, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: drought, irrigation, soil m, soil moisture management, water bond, water stewardship

Conservation Aims Deserve Attention in Food Safety Modernization Act

October 24, 2013 by Dru Marion 1 Comment

Hedgerow

Until November 15^th, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is accepting public comment on the first draft of regulations for the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The bill, passed by Congress and signed by the Administration in 2011, represents the most significant overhaul of federal food safety laws in more than six decades.

Historically, the FDA has sought to regulate only the processing, handling, and manufacturing aspects of food safety. The proposed rules now extend considerably to the farm level and have the potential to impact, and possibly prohibit, beneficial farm management practices that contribute to climate mitigation and adaptation. Despite stating an intent to encourage conservation in the Act’s preamble, the FDA has not yet adequately integrated conservation aims – to protect biodiversity, soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife – into the draft’s relevant regulations.

As part of the FSMA’s “Produce Rule,” Congress has required that the FDA increase the safety of fruits and vegetables on farms through a standardization of practices specifically related to “animals in the growing area.” However, while animals can and have introduced contamination to produce production on farms, research has shown that native U.S. wildlife actually tend to have a low prevalence of carrying pathogens. It seems that on-farm wildlife habitats may be unreasonably regarded as the principle culprit of bacterial contamination.

The Wild Farm Alliance, which promotes agricultural practices that preserve wildlands and increase biodiversity, has made the above point in a recent guide to conservation and food safety for producers facing the implementation of FSMA. The publication notes that scrutiny of wild areas on farms reflects a current social and political climate of “food-safety angst,” which has been built up in recent years by a rise in national attention to outbreaks of produce-borne illness and increasing concerns about bioterrorism.

Crucially, important conservation and biodiversity measures such as wetlands, windbreaks, and hedgerows could be considered wildlife habitats that would be thus impacted by the Produce Rule. Under the proposed FSMA regulations, ranchers and farmers may face restrictions on integrated grazing practices and/or be required to remove forested areas and riparian plantings that contribute to carbon sequestration. Enhanced on-farm biodiversity can also help regulate farmscape microclimates, enhance pollinator habitat and improve water quality—all essential climate adaptation services. In order to avoid unnecessarily sacrificing climate-friendly farm management practices, it is essential that the FDA address conservation considerations alongside existing food safety concerns.

This overview from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) provides an accessible account of how food safety and conservation can be successfully “co-managed” when conservation measures are directly incorporated into food safety standards. NSAC has also launched a campaign encouraging farmers and consumers to respond to the regulations available thus far.

Farm management undoubtedly must be aimed at reducing the risk of pathogen introduction and survival. Keeping food safety auditors happy, however, should not have to come at the expense of responsible on-farm conservation practices.

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research, Farmer Resources, Federal Policy Tagged With: biodiversity, conservation, FDA, food safety, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Wild Farm Alliance

New CDFA Report Identifies Adaptation Strategies for California Agriculture

October 8, 2013 by Dru Marion Leave a Comment

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) recently released a new report outlining recommendations for agriculture’s ongoing adaptation to climate change. The report was based in large part on the input of a Climate Change Consortium comprised of stakeholders from the California agriculture community, including CalCAN.

In a related and broader effort, the California Natural Resources Agency is preparing to release an update to their 2009 Climate Adaptation Strategy, which covers several sectors including agriculture. They are conducting a series of public workshops to gain public input on the updates.

The CDFA report, titled “The Climate Change Consortium for Specialty Crops: Impacts and Strategies for Resilience,” identifies known challenges – such as higher overall temperatures, reduced water supply and quality, and unpredictable changes to pest and pollination dynamics – that farmers of specialty crops will increasingly confront due to climate change. The paper acknowledges that growers have already found ways to mitigate some of these impacts, which may often be experienced as increases in weather variability and extremes. It also concludes that agricultural adaptation and preparedness for climate events will ultimately depend on farmers having access to “agricultural support services, scientific answers to fundamental climate change impact questions, investment in planning and preparedness, and technological innovations” (pg. 4). The Consortium identified a role for state agencies, including the CDFA, to support the agriculture sector in shoring up its climate adaptation capacity.

Recognizing the essential role of public agencies in strategic adaptation, the Consortium has suggested specific ways that the CDFA and other state, federal and research groups should contribute to adaptive efforts. All action items are located within the categories of Outreach and Education, Planning and Resource Optimization, Research Needs, and Technology and Innovation, and each one notes a corresponding priority level, expected timeframe and potential costs to the CDFA (starting on pg. 50). High-priority measures include conducting environmental and economic assessments of adaptive actions (like crop relocation and changes to water management practices), revising specific regulations acting as barriers to adaptation, providing technical assistance to growers, and including agricultural interests in the Integrated Regional Water Management process.

As part of a growing recognition for action on adaptation, the Consortium identifies implementable recommendations and suggests that the state go beyond simply considering how agriculture might adapt to a changing climate. Several recommendations are low or medium cost (i.e., less than $1,000 and $10,000 respectively), so cost is not a barrier to CDFA action. Other measures, such as research and monitoring, are more expensive and in the ongoing era of fiscal austerity will require new sources of funding. This report provides more evidence of the need for state investments in agriculture in the face of climate change and bolsters the CalCAN case for allocating a portion of cap-and-trade funds for research, technical assistance and financial incentives for growers to mitigate climate change and help with adaptation strategies.

Filed Under: California Policy, Climate & Ag Research, Farmer Resources, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: California agriculture, CDFA, climate adaptation, effects of climate change, policy, technical assistance

Farmer Perceptions of Climate Change: A Path Forward

September 20, 2013 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

Bing cherries are harvested from Jeff Colombini’s orchard in Lodi, where a shorter chilling season has resulted in many stunted, half-grown blossoms. Credit: Serene Fang/Center for Investigative Reporting

A recent UC Davis survey of Yolo County farmers finds that perceptions of environmental regulations can influence how they view climate change. The majority of farmers surveyed (54 percent) said that climate change is occurring. But for those skeptical of climate change, the UC Davis researchers found that perceptions of past environmental programs matters.

Those who had negative experiences with past policies, such as pesticide use reporting, rice straw burning ban, water quality and diesel engine regulations, were more likely to express skepticism about climate change.

Despite past negative experiences, a near majority of farmers surveyed (48 percent) said they would participate in a government incentive programs on climate change mitigation and adaptation.

“This shows that farmers are willing to overlook negative past perceptions if there are incentives offered for them,” said Meredith Niles, PhD candidate and lead author of the study.

The UC Davis study offers a path forward: we can achieve real climate solutions in agriculture by offering incentives, likely combined with complementary research and technical assistance, to realize the multiple benefits that climate friendly agricultural systems have to offer.

Filed Under: California Policy, Farmer Resources Tagged With: California agriculture and climate change, Climate Change Policy, Farmer Perceptions of Climate Change

Rancher-to-Rancher holistic management program

August 29, 2013 by Renata Brillinger Leave a Comment

Thanks to the Holistic Management International and Sallie Calhoun of Paicines Ranch for permission to repost the following article.

How can we get more ranchers to try Holistic Management? How can we help people who do try Holistic Management be more successful? How can we get more people to incorporate Holistic Management into their day-today management? These are questions that have faced HMI and the Holistic Management community for years. There is obviously no single answer, but a group of central California ranchers and educators have some ideas that are currently being tested in the new Rancher–to–Rancher program.

The program was born early this year during a meeting at the Morris Ranch in San Juan Bautista. The group discussed best and worst possible outcomes of trying to get a broad group of ranchers involved in trials on their ranches, and what the characteristics of such a program might look like. Key points behind the thinking were:

Create an opportunity for peer to peer learning and support on an ongoing basis.
Minimize the cost and risk of trying something new.
Make it simple yet meaningful.
Make it fun.

The day ended with clear ideas on how to start the program and commitment from the group to support the effort. The consensus was that it was important to get started, monitor, and re-plan as necessary.

The idea is to help ranchers set up a small, no-risk learning site on their ranches of a few acres or less. The rancher concentrates livestock there for a few hours to a day once or twice a year, thereby ensuring a substantial recovery period. There is support for the planning to work within the rancher’s goals and requirements, simple monitoring of the soil surface, and optional carbon baseline plots. Most ranches have small areas that are already fenced or small areas can be set up using electric fence. There is no need to worry about water as the animals are only there for a few hours. With a small area, it is easy to stick with the plan and allow the recovery period. In the best case, the trial is set up to involve neighbors, burgers, and beer.

The program kick-off happened in April at Hollister Hills State Park where Joe Morris grazes. About 40 ranchers gathered for a day to learn about the program, eat burgers, drink beer, and see a demonstration of high stock density. There was an introduction to holistic goal setting and the ecosystem processes. Joe and the other presenters made a number of important points.

The first animals we are trying to increase on our ranches are the soil microbes, especially the fungi.
If we plan our grazing and feed the microbes, we will increase the vegetation on the ranch for cattle, sheep, or microbes.
Increased vegetation is increased wealth.
There is no set recipe – there are ingredients, principles, and management.
Everything happens within the context of your holistic goal. What do you want, and what does it take to get that?

After everyone had a beginning holistic goal, it was time for the highlight of the day (at least for all the ranchers in attendance). Joe explained how different stock densities create different amounts of trampling versus grazing, where trampling is one good way of getting litter on the ground to feed the soil microbes. With the crowd watching, Joe and a ranch hand moved the 421 head of cattle into a .29 acre area created with single wire electric fence. We watched from another hill as the cattle calmly spread over the small area.

After an hour the fence was taken down and the herd spread out. We walked the temporary paddock, noticing that 80% of the vegetation had been trampled rather than grazed. Pictures of the soil surface were taken. There was plenty of marvel and conversation generated by the results on the ground and the stockmanship we had seen.

Since that day there have been several other demonstrations, and there seems to be good interest. By lowering the barrier to entry, acknowledging that support is crucial, and always taking the ranchers’ point of view, we seem to be piquing the interest of people who are curious but have not known how to begin. Starting with one very small trial and seeing what the results are may be just the key. During the next growing season, which will start in late fall, the program will help ranchers who have done trials to monitor their progress, evaluate the results, and make a plan for next season.

Hopefully, the trials and the results after just one year will be interesting enough to keep people involved for several years.

Filed Under: Farmer Resources Tagged With: grazing, holistic management, ranching

Feeling the Heat: Effects of a changing climate happening now, California study finds

August 16, 2013 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) released earlier this month a unique report on the effects of climate change that the state is experiencing now. The report comes as a recent public opinion poll finds a record number of Californians want immediate state action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Many climate science reports project into the future what we may experience as greenhouse gases accumulate and heat up our planet. Such studies are critical to our understanding of climate change, but can make its impacts feel far and distant from our day-to-day.

But the most recent CalEPA report documents current climate change impacts that Californians are living with now. And the news has implications for all of us and especially for farmers and ranchers who are among the first to feel the effects of a changing climate.

Wildfires are increasing in intensity and frequency. Since 1950, annual acreage burned in wildfires statewide has been increasing. The state’s three largest fire years occurred in the last ten years.

Sea levels are rising. Over the last 100 years, measurement stations in the San Francisco Bay Area and La Jolla have measured a rise of 8 and 6 inches, respectively. Sea level rise threatens flooding of low-lying areas, saltwater intrusion of water supplies and infrastructure impacts.

Over the last century, snowmelt runoff that feeds our reservoirs is declining. The state is experiencing more precipitation in the form of rain instead of snow. The amount of snowmelt from April to June has declined about 9 percent with implications for water availability and wildlife.

Extreme heat events have increased in intensity, frequency and duration since 1950. Nighttime heat waves are especially increasing in all regions of the state.

Since 1950, we have experienced a decreasing number of winter chill hours, which are needed for fruit and nut tree production, critical California industries.

These and other climate change impacts can strain our communities, including the ability of farmers and ranchers to produce the food we rely upon.

Californians continue to rally in support of efforts to tackle climate change. There is still much to be done to support farmers and ranchers to be a part of these efforts and CalCAN continues to make the case for sustainable agricultural solutions to climate change.

Filed Under: AB 32 Implementation, Farmer Resources, Featured - Sidebar, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: CalEPA, climate change impacts, heat waves, sea level rise, snowmelt, wildfires, winter chill