Commentary

By Rachel Nettleton and Alex Arroyo

In April, the 2024 Leadership Farm Bureau class flew to Washington, D.C., where we engaged in a series of meetings with key policymakers to advocate for the interests of California agriculture, particularly regarding the upcoming farm bill.

Throughout our time in the nation’s capital, we gained valuable insight into the complex world of agricultural policy and laid the groundwork for impactful advocacy on behalf of our farming and ranching communities back home.

Leadership Farm Bureau is the emerging leaders program for the California Farm Bureau, which represents more than 26,000 member farmers, ranchers and agricultural professionals in the Golden State. The nine members selected to the LFB class this year are participating in a 10-month educational and professional development program, which includes 250 hours of instruction.

The class provides immersion in agricultural issues, public speaking and advocacy on critical matters affecting farmers, ranchers and agricultural businesses on local, state and national levels. The LFB class learns about agriculture in different regions of the country, about government, legislation, media and communications.These experiences equip our team to represent our counties and California Farm Bureau in the future.

Central to our agenda in Washington, D.C., were legislative visits aimed at lobbying for the farm bill, cornerstone legislation that shapes the future of America’s agricultural policy and funding. Armed with research, data and firsthand accounts from our constituents, we met with many members of Congress, such as Reps. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, and Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, to articulate the priorities and concerns of California agriculture.

We also had the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Embassy of Canada to discuss international trade policy. They emphasized the impact of the international trade relationship with Canada, an export destination for more than $5 billion in California agricultural commodities in 2022.

These meetings provided a platform to discuss a wide range of issues, from crop insurance and conservation programs to research funding and trade policy. We emphasized the importance of maintaining robust support for specialty crops, which are a key part of California’s agricultural economy. We stressed the importance of some of the major California commodities not covered by crop insurance, which include garlic, melons, broccoli, lettuce, carrots and cauliflower.

One of the major takeaways from our discussions was the recognition of agriculture’s vital role in addressing pressing societal challenges, from food security and environmental sustainability to rural economic development. By advocating for policies that support innovation, resilience and equity within the agricultural sector, we are not only safeguarding the livelihoods of farmers and ranchers but also advancing broader goals of economic and environmental stewardship.

Our meetings with members of Congress also highlighted the importance of bipartisan collaboration in advancing agricultural policy. Despite differing political affiliations and priorities, there was a shared recognition of the significance of agriculture to the nation’s economy and well-being. By fostering dialogue and finding common ground, we can work together to craft policies that benefit all stakeholders across the agricultural value chain.

The Leadership Farm Bureau group also engaged in dialogue with several U.S. Department of Agriculture leaders, including Robert Bonnie, undersecretary for farm production and conservation. He explained the different types of programs USDA has to offer for emergency relief for farmers and conservation programs. We highlighted the importance of rapid emergency financial relief, because it is crucial to all the small farmers around the state and country.

As we reflect on our time in Washington, D.C., one thing is clear: The work of advocating for agricultural policy is ongoing and multifaceted. While our meetings with key stakeholders were a critical step in the process, they represent just one piece of the puzzle. Moving forward, we are committed to continuing our engagement with policymakers, stakeholders and the broader agricultural community to shape policies that reflect the needs and aspirations of California agriculture.

In the months ahead, as the farm bill takes shape and debates unfold on Capitol Hill, we will remain vigilant and proactive in advocating for policies that promote the sustainability of California agriculture. Our journey in Washington, D.C., may have come to an end, but our work is far from finished. Together, as leaders in our industry, we will continue to navigate the complex terrain of agricultural policy, ensuring that the voices of California’s farming and ranching communities are heard and heeded at every turn.

(Rachel Nettleton is executive director of the Kern County Farm Bureau and Alex Arroyo is general manager of King City Transplanting in the Salinas Valley. They may be contacted at kcfb@kerncfb.com and Alex@KingCityTransplanting.com. Both are members of the 2024 Leadership Farm Bureau class, www.cfbf.com/ag-programs/leadership-farm-bureau.)

By Mike Wade 

As the lifeblood of the arid American Southwest, the Colorado River stands as a symbol of vitality and a testament to the intricate balance between human necessity and environmental stewardship.

Flowing through seven U.S. states and Mexico, its waters sustain more than 40 million people, vast agricultural lands that feed much of America, tribal interests and a myriad of ecosystems. Yet, despite its crucial role, the Colorado River faces an unprecedented challenge: Its robust flow has dwindled, signaling a looming crisis for population centers and millions of acres of critical farmland dependent on the river.

The Upper Colorado River Basin, consisting of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico, and the Lower Basin, comprised of California, Arizona and Nevada, have a combined interest in solving the crisis, and everyone that relies on the river must be part of the effort to ensure its long-term viability.

Since the passage of the 1922 Colorado River Compact, the river’s supplies have been equally divided between the Upper and Lower basins, each entitled to 7.5 million acre-feet, or 15 million acre-feet in total. However, a recent study by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Climate Science indicated that the Colorado River has lost 10.3% of its runoff since 1880.

Solving this requires a concerted effort to reduce demand on the river. And it must be done in a way that protects farm production, which benefits Americans on a national level and sustains local economies that depend on farms and farm-related businesses. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which oversees much of the river’s operation, is developing new guidelines to manage the river after 2026, when the current guidelines expire. The Upper and Lower basins submitted competing alternatives earlier this year, with distinctly different approaches to the problem.

The Upper Basin’s alternative centers on limiting releases from Lake Powell, which stretches from Southern Utah into Northern Arizona, to the Lower Basin. In other words, that means pinning the burden almost solely on the Lower Basin states should hydrological conditions worsen, while sparing Upper Basin states of additional water cuts.

In contrast, the Lower Basin’s alternative looks at managing the system as a whole, as it was designed by the bureau, which built seven dams and reservoirs—Mead, Havasu, Mohave, Powell, Navajo, Flaming Gorge and Blue Mesa—from 1931 to 1966.

For Imperial Valley farmers, the Colorado River is their sole source of water, meaning that any reductions in water supply without the benefit of conservation programs would have a devastating effect on the regional economy.

Still those farmers, who hold senior water rights to the Colorado River, have sacrificed, invested and innovated to save 7.75 million acre-feet of water during the last two decades. They have achieved water savings by largely switching to high-efficiency irrigation systems on thousands of acres of lettuce, broccoli, carrots, citrus and alfalfa.

Importantly, they have been aided in their efforts by a 2003 agreement between the Imperial Irrigation District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Coachella Valley Water District and the San Diego County Water Authority. The landmark pact facilitated agricultural water transfers to ensure reliable supplies for communities in exchange for financial support for on-farm conservation projects to help sustain America’s leading winter vegetable region.

California, Arizona and Nevada have also committed to reducing Lower Basin water usage by up to 1.5 million acre-feet per year, more than enough to offset the 1.3 million acre-feet of structural deficit, or water lost from the system due to leaks in canals and evaporation.

The Lower Basin plan is built on operating the system as a whole and allocates additional water supply cuts, when needed, evenly across both basins triggered by the reductions in the combined storage of all seven reservoirs. These types of solutions would be an effective way to address dwindling Colorado River supplies across the Upper and Lower basins, as California has done successfully between agricultural and urban water users for more than three decades.

The ramifications of a depleted Colorado River ripple far beyond its banks, impacting communities, economies and ecosystems that rely on its waters for survival. The Lower Basin Plan and 2003 agreement stand as examples of how parties can work together.

As California Colorado River Commissioner and IID board member JB Hamby said in support of the Lower Basin alternative, “Each basin, state and sector must contribute to solving the challenges ahead. No one who benefits from the river can opt out of saving it.”

That’s the kind of common sense the Colorado River needs. And our farmers are doing their part to protect this critical resource.

(Mike Wade is executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition. He may be contacted at mwade@farmwater.org.)

By Colin Sueyres

The cost of farming and ranching operations—specifically moving hay, grain and produce—may be about to get a lot more expensive in our state.

That will be the outcome if the California Air Resources Board adopts its proposed rule to eliminate internal combustion engine, or ICE, forklifts across the state. The regulation, scheduled to be voted on June 27, would mandate that all Class IV cushion-tire combustion forklifts and the majority of Class V pneumatic-tire models be removed from existing fleets in favor of electric vehicles, namely forklifts powered by rechargeable batteries.

Forklifts are essential for many ranch and farm operations. Yet under the proposed rule, there are no exemptions for small fleets of forklifts moving goods within the agricultural sector. The rule would impact leased forklifts and force all owners and operators to purchase zero-emission forklifts by 2026—regardless of whether their current fleet of internal-combustion forklifts is still in good working condition.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is not a 1:1 replacement, meaning farmers will have to purchase multiple electric forklifts to replace just one ICE forklift. This is because electric-vehicle forklifts require time to charge and cool and cannot run for 24 hours. Also, many EV forklifts cannot accommodate heavy loads like ICE forklifts can.

There will be associated infrastructure costs as electric forklifts need to be stored and charged indoors and new structures will need to be built, if not already available. Importantly, there are no exemptions for agricultural use or feasibility.

The Air Resources Board estimates that the number of impacted forklifts is approximately 95,000. However, an economic analysis by the Western Propane Gas Association found that the true number is closer to 220,000 ICE forklifts, more than half of all forklifts in the state.

The Western Propane analysis also found that, under the proposed new rule, costs to forklift owners and operators throughout the state could total up to $27 billion. These costs would include $10.2 billion for replacement of ICE forklifts even after factoring in salvage value and $4.6 billion in lost utilization costs for the premature retirement of currently functional ICE forklifts. In addition, charging station costs would exceed $6.3 billion to implement.

It is important to note that these costs do not factor in the cost of building power supply upgrades or infrastructure upgrades for the generation, transmission and delivery of electricity.

In numerous regulatory decisions across California’s history, the governmental body in charge has recognized that different regions or industries require different solutions. Unfortunately, the state Air Resource Board is moving forward with a one-size-fits-all rule that would set mandates without regard to the size of the business or the nature of the work.

Arguments regarding implementation from manufacturers, retailers, nonprofits and more have been ignored or rejected in favor of the board’s preferred technology solution.

Fortunately, there is a cheaper, more feasible and effective way to meet the state’s air-quality goals. Western Propane Gas Association has proposed an alternative pathway to compliance to ensure the state is meeting its greenhouse gas reduction goals while also protecting the goods-movement sector in critical industries across the state from untenable costs.

That alternative pathway would accomplish the following:

• Ensure that California has an accurate understanding of how forklifts are utilized within the state and how the rulemaking would affect real-world operations. Currently, there are no standardized databases within California to track actual forklift usage—leading CARB to significantly underestimate the true impact of the rule.

• Increase standards for future nitrogen oxide, or NOx, forklift emissions that recognize trends in capture technology and allow California to still meet its federally mandated emissions goals without a costly and ineffective one-size-fits-all technology mandate.

• Accelerate the phase-out of older, less efficient, higher emission pre-2011 forklifts to provide an immediate improvement in local air quality and reduce carbon intensity.

Unlike other industries such as the tech sector, which can outsource manufacturing or even relocate to more affordable states, the agricultural industry is here to stay. If you are concerned about how the California Air Resources Board rule will impact your farming operations, I encourage you to reach out to board members before the June vote.

I’m hopeful that, after hearing about real-world impacts of this regulation, the board is willing to come to the table and find a feasible and cost-effective way to meet our state’s ambitious air quality goals.

To review the analysis and see additional information regarding the impact of this rule across California, visit westernpga.org/forklift.

(Colin Sueyres is president and CEO of the Western Propane Gas Association. He can be reached at colin@westernpga.org.)

By Renee Pinel

California is the agricultural heart of our nation’s food supply chain. It produces more than 400 commodities, more than one-third of the nation’s vegetables and nearly three-quarters of its fruits and nuts.

Yet California agriculture is under constant attack from invasive pests and diseases. These nonnative plants and insects pose a significant threat to California ecosystems and our food supply. Some 84% of infestations result from insects that can attack crops, spread diseases from field to field and even sicken residents, according to the Center for Invasive Species Research at the University of California, Riverside.

Invasive pests, such as the varroa destructor mites from Asia, pose an ongoing threat. Then there’s the nonnative Mediterranean and oriental fruit fly and the glassy-winged sharpshooter, which have decimated crops and residential fruit trees. Dutch elm disease, spread by an invasive bark beetle, has led to the death of thousands of elms. These pests also endanger pollinators and habitat.

As we navigate challenges of environmental safety and community health, the conversation around pesticide use and regulation becomes increasingly relevant. Chemical formulas offer a solution. As with any tool, the key lies in its judicious use.

With losses exceeding $3 billion annually due to invasive species, California is at the forefront of this battle. Both federal and state regulatory agencies must fulfill their roles in shielding Californians from these threats. With much of it coming from invasive insects, registration of insecticides should be of special focus to California’s pest control authority, the Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Globally, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in 2019 highlighted the economic impact of invasive species, with estimated damages of more than $423 billion annually. These species also play a major role in plant and animal extinctions, emphasizing the critical need for effective pest management strategies to protect our food sources and maintain biodiversity.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization notes that up to 40% of global crop production is lost to plant pests and diseases. Before insecticides were used, 50% of the artichoke crop was lost due to damage from worms. Without the use of pesticides, there would be a 78% loss of fruit production and a 54% loss of vegetable production.

Yet developing and approving new pesticides is time-consuming and expensive for registrants, often requiring more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars before a product can be brought to market. This includes a five- to seven-year review process by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with more than 300 health and environmental peer-reviewed studies, followed by duplicative California-specific evaluations, another set of studies and an extended timeline of another five or more years.

Proposals to transition agriculture to “softer chemistries” is another complicated aspect of pest control that must be evaluated when replacing effective registered products with newer versions. The process often requires multiple product applications, which can then lead to resistance and potentially increase the agricultural sector’s carbon footprint due to additional tractor passes and pesticide applications.

While the efficacy of softer chemistries is promising, they cannot be viewed as simple one-to-one replacements. Most must be used in combination with traditional tools or other new tools. As a result, California regulators must not restrict traditional crop protection tools until a proven combination of tools—not just one new product—is available.

There is a clear need to streamline the approval process of pesticides, particularly those designed to combat emerging pests and diseases. Legislative and regulatory efforts to impose bans on pesticides without thorough scientific evaluation and evidence must be rejected. Science, not political pressure, should guide our decisions.

The pandemic taught us the importance of being prepared and adaptable to unforeseen challenges. Banning pesticides or eliminating certain entire classes of pesticides could severely limit our ability to respond to new threats to agriculture. This could endanger our food supply and the well-being of our communities.

As we face challenges of climate change and invasive species, a balanced and scientifically informed approach to regulation is essential. This means keeping all options on the table, including pesticides, when scientifically justified and necessary for public health.

When used responsibly, pesticides are our best bet against these invasive threats for safeguarding our food supply and the precious biodiversity of regions such as California. If you take away tools to combat these harmful pests, we will see increased plant and tree diseases and dead vegetation worsening wildfire dangers.

Decisions on pesticide use must be based on scientific evidence, including careful consideration of our agricultural resilience, food security and environmental health. By promoting a regulatory environment rooted in scientific integrity, adaptability and sustainability, we can secure California’s agricultural future and protect our diverse ecological landscape, and the health and safety of all Californians.

(Renee Pinel is president and CEO of Western Plant Health, a Sacramento-based trade association representing fertilizer and crop protection companies. She may be contacted at reneep@healthyplants.org.)

By Tori Norville and Katie Low

Valley, Tubbs, Nuns, Atlas, River, Glass and August Complex. These are names of just some of the large wildfires that have impacted coastal and inland communities in Northern California since 2015.

In the past nine years, more than 2 million acres of forests, rangelands, chaparral and cropland burned from Sonoma, Napa, Humboldt and Trinity counties to multiple counties in the Sacramento Valley and Sierra Nevada.

Despite highly intense wildfire seasons in the past decade, the last two fire seasons were relatively calm. Slower fire seasons provide landowners the opportunity to improve their wildfire preparedness.

Agricultural infrastructure, including barns, wood fencing, hay and more, has inherent vulnerabilities to wildfire. However, buildings and infrastructure can be designed and maintained to reduce their vulnerability to fire and fire-related damage to agricultural resources. A combination of structure hardening, improving defensible space and implementing landscape-level fuel reduction projects can help buildings and assets survive wildfires.

Structure hardening involves improving or maintaining building components such as roofs, gutters and vents to reduce exposure to flames and embers. Improvements can range from cleaning to replacing structures.

When assessing your buildings for wildfire preparedness, consider:

• Are roofs and gutters clear of debris or have dry leaves and other flammable material accumulated?

• Are there gaps in the roof or siding that need to be covered?

• Are flame- and ember-resistant vents installed, or are vents covered with a 1/8th-inch mesh screen?

• Is there a way to close windows or large openings in the event of a wildfire to prevent flames and embers from entering the building?

Another key is creating defensible space by reducing vegetation and combustible materials around structures. Eliminating pathways of combustible materials can prevent wildfire from burning directly to structures by reducing the potential for ignition and provide a safe zone for firefighters to defend structures.

Landowners can approach defensible space using the three-zone strategy. Each zone has a role in helping increase structural survival and prevent wildfires.

Removing combustible material from Zone 0, which is within 5 feet of structures, is the most critical part of an effective defensible space strategy. This can reduce the likelihood of fire near a building. Best practices include removing all vegetation and combustible material around structures, outbuildings and attached decks or stairs. Proposed state legislation under review would require 5 feet of defensible space around structures.

When assessing Zone 0 consider:

• Does a combustible material fence or gate attach to the structure?

• Are there combustible materials such as woodpiles or crates, etc., next to the structure?

Zone 1, which is 5 feet to 30 feet from structures, emphasizes well-spaced and well-maintained vegetation and can provide safe areas for firefighters to work.

Considerations for Zone 1 include:

• Do trees need to be pruned up to 6 to 10 feet from the ground?

• Is there dead vegetation to be removed?

• Does the grass height exceed 4 inches?

Zone 2, which is 30 feet to 100 feet or more, aims to reduce flame heights of an approaching wildfire through well-spaced and well-maintained vegetation.

Considerations for Zone 2 include:

• Are trees or groups of trees spaced by at least 10 feet?

• Is there dead vegetation to be removed?

Most fields, vineyards and orchards contain defensible space due to their lines of sight and road access that allow firefighters to see and work. However, many properties have wildland around the fields, which can be weak points in a property’s fire protection strategy.

Many agricultural landowners in Sonoma and Napa counties are engaging in forest thinning, pile burning, prescribed fire and targeted grazing to reduce fire hazards and achieve other management objectives. These include increased biodiversity, postfire restoration and forest health.

More information about structure hardening, defensible space and wildfire preparedness for farms and ranches can be found at the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources website https://ucanr.edu/fire.

(Tori Norville is a UC Cooperative Extension fire science advisor in Sonoma, Napa and Marin counties. Katie Low is statewide coordinator for UC ANR’s Fire Network. They may be contacted at trnorville@ucanr.edu and katlow@ucanr.edu.

By Daniel Munch 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last month published its estimate of all man-made greenhouse gas emission sources in the U.S., a report submitted to the United Nations as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change reporting guidelines.

According to the findings, U.S. agriculture represents less than 10% of total U.S. emissions. While overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased from 2021 to 2022 by 1.3%, agricultural emissions dropped 1.8%—the largest decrease of any economic sector. Agricultural emissions in 2022 were the lowest in a decade.

The drop in emissions highlights the success and continued importance of voluntary, market- and incentive-based conservation practices that help farmers and ranchers access finances for the research and technology needed to take ever better care of our natural resources.

In 2022, crop cultivation emissions were down 1.7% from 2012. Agricultural fuel combustion was down 1.2%. For livestock categories, enteric emissions from beef cattle sat at 2.19% of total U.S. emissions in 2022. That is a 2.43%, or 3.3 million metric-ton, decline from 2021. Dairy cattle contributed just 0.77% of total emissions and recorded a 451,000-metric-ton decrease from 2021.

U.S. agricultural emissions for 2022 totaled 593 million metric tons, down 11 million metric tons from 2021, representing 9.3% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Agricultural soil management represents approximately 50% of all agricultural emissions but only 4.6% of total U.S. emissions.

Agricultural productivity is increasing, as it must to keep feeding a growing global population, and emissions are on the decline relative to this productivity and population increase. Innovation and advancements in technology have allowed farmers and ranchers to increase their productivity while using the same amount of inputs.

Acreage in operation has declined by 323 million acres since 1950, almost double the size of Texas. This means that farmers and ranchers continue to produce more using fewer resources. The additional decrease in agricultural emissions shows that voluntary, market-based incentives are helping farmers and ranchers accomplish this.

Production of food is important not just for farmers and ranchers, but also for the millions of families in the U.S. and around the world that U.S. agriculture feeds. Agriculture’s sustainable intensification through productivity gains, in addition to the adoption of practices that further shrink the environmental footprint of farms and ranches, has had remarkable results in crop yields and animal nutrition and breeding.

Between 1990 and 2022, U.S. dairy farmers increased milk output by 53%, going from 148 billion pounds to 226 billion pounds to meet increasing global demand for products such as cheese, butter and dairy powders. During this same timeframe, emissions from enteric fermentation from dairy cattle per billion pounds of milk produced dropped 26%.

In 1990, U.S. farmers produced 39 billion pounds of red meat; this grew 44% to 55.6 billion pounds in 2022. In the same timeframe, greenhouse gas emissions from enteric fermentation from beef cattle dropped 28%. Livestock producers have embraced technological innovation and production practices that increase output while reducing associated emissions.

Not only have producers focused on improvements to production and sustainability, but they have also focused on feeding more families, both at home and abroad. Since 1990, U.S. agricultural emissions have increased by 6.4% while the U.S. population increased 33%, adding more than 83 million people in three decades. This means U.S. agriculture has been called upon to feed more people than ever before.

When factoring in productivity and population gains, however, both per unit and per capita agricultural emissions are declining. That means U.S. agriculture is producing more food, fiber and renewable fuel for more people while using fewer resources and emitting fewer greenhouse gases. Additionally, the adoption of conservation practices through voluntary, market-based incentives has helped farmers and ranchers trap 854 million metric tons of carbon in the soil.

With conversations on a new farm bill gaining momentum, it is vital that investments in conservation are maintained to assist farmers in further improving efficiency. Ensuring that the U.S. leads in agricultural research that allows farmers and ranchers to be part of cutting-edge plant and animal technologies that increase productivity, capture more carbon in the soil and reduce livestock-related emissions even more, among many other environmental benefits, is also vital.

The data show that when agriculture is recognized as a partner in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, farmers and ranchers have more opportunities to use voluntary, market-based incentives that work to reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint. This also helps farmers and ranchers economically produce the food, fiber and renewable fuel that U.S. families—and the world—rely on.

(Daniel Munch is an economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. He may be contacted at dmunch@fb.org. This article is adapted from his April 15 Market Intel report, which can be found at fb.org/market-intel.)

By Doug Beretta 

Sonoma County’s diverse agricultural heritage is under attack as a measure that effectively seeks to eliminate dairy, livestock and poultry farms from operating in the county will be on the November ballot.

The “Prohibition on Concentration Animal Feeding Operations” measure, backed by organizations that represent an extreme fringe of the animal rights movement, would deem existing animal agriculture operations in the county as “a nonconforming use” and seek to force them out of business within three years.

The effort that qualified the local initiative was largely led by out-of-county activists for groups including Coalition to End Factory Farming and Direct Action Everywhere, or DxE.

Notably, in November, the San Francisco founder of DxE was sentenced to 90 days in jail on felony conspiracy and misdemeanor trespassing charges for his role in invasive protests at Sonoma County poultry farms. District Attorney Carla Rodriguez described his actions as criminal activity “putting farmers, their employees and flocks of birds at risk of harm.”

Simply stated, organizations such as these have a broader agenda to phase out animal agriculture across California, if not nationwide, by targeting dairy, meat and poultry production. This ill-conceived local initiative has made our county a test case and potential steppingstone for this movement.

Yet the activists behind the measure neither understand agriculture in Sonoma County nor its commitment to safeguarding animal welfare and the environment.

As a third-generation organic dairy farmer in Santa Rosa, my family’s priority is first and foremost the health and well-being of the animals we raise. Like all animal agriculturalists, we embody principles of care, respect and well-being for our cattle. Our practices not only support nutrition of our herd through grazing but also contribute to the conservation of wildlife habitats, including those of the California tiger salamander, red-legged frog and a variety of plant species.

Sustainable farming in Sonoma County goes beyond mere terminology; it represents our commitment to environmental stewardship and community engagement. Our operations are finely tuned to the unique environmental conditions of our region, emphasizing the importance of soil and water conservation through thoughtful management practices.

These steps include providing shelter for our cattle during adverse weather conditions and implementing effective manure management strategies to enrich the soil while minimizing runoff.

The ballot measure threatens not only our way of life but also the legacy of multigenerational family farms across the county. These farms, which produce a diverse array of products, from dairy to poultry and beef, are cornerstones of our local food system, embodying high standards of animal care and environmental responsibility.

The push to eliminate these operations, spearheaded by activists based primarily in Berkeley and elsewhere in the Bay Area, relies on emotional appeals and misinformation, obscuring the reality of our conscientious farming practices. These practices are often validated by third-party certifications, attesting to our commitment to animal welfare and ecological preservation.

The implications of this measure are far-reaching. Should it pass, it would not only jeopardize the viability of local family farms but also disrupt the supply of locally sourced, ethically raised animal products.

This disruption would extend beyond the immediate agricultural community, affecting processors, feed stores, veterinarians and the broader Sonoma County economy. The loss of these farms would lead to job losses, housing insecurities, diminished diversity of agricultural-related jobs and increased food insecurity.

At the heart of this issue is the fundamental right of individuals to make informed choices about their food.

The campaign against our animal agriculture operations, masked in language of animal rights and environmentalism, ultimately seeks to dictate dietary choices based on a narrow ideological stance.

This stance fails to acknowledge comprehensive efforts of farmers and ranchers in Sonoma County and beyond to maintain a balance between productive agriculture and environmental stewardship.

As we confront this challenge, it is crucial to recognize the broader implications of such measures. They not only threaten the economic and social fabric of agricultural communities but also undermine principles of choice and diversity in our food system.

This is a moment that calls for informed decision making, grounded in an understanding of the integral role that agriculture plays in our lives and the environment.

In Sonoma County, the future of agriculture and the variety and availability of food choices for our community hang in the balance. And what happens here could have implications for agricultural communities across California and beyond.

(Doug Beretta is president of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau and operator of Beretta Family Dairy, winner of the 2022 Leopold Conservation Award, which honors farmers and ranchers for employing sustainable practices protecting natural resources. He may be contacted at president@sonomafb.org.)

By Zippy Duvall 

There are few times when Congress has the opportunity to take a single action that benefits every family in America. One of those opportunities is in front of our lawmakers now.

I’m not overstating when I tell you the farm bill may be one of the most consequential pieces of legislation before the 118th Congress.

The farm bill suffers from an oversimplified name. It implies that it exists to benefit only the 2 million farm families in America. But, in fact, it touches every dinner table in every home in the United States.

Americans spend the lowest percentage of their income on food than any other nation, and that is made possible, in part, due to the farm bill. It spells out programs that help farmers survive the hard times brought on by natural disasters and economic downturns, which is in the best interest of all of us who like to eat.

But the farm bill goes even further. It should more accurately be called the food and farm bill. Many people would be surprised to learn that roughly 80% of farm bill funding supports nutrition programs that ensure millions of families facing hard times don’t go hungry.

The need for assistance programs is real. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated in 2021 that more than 33 million people in America faced food insecurity. More than 12% of households with children need nutrition assistance. We are a nation that’s been blessed with the ability and the means to feed all of its people.

You don’t need to look very far to see how the investments from the farm bill have paid off in protecting America’s food supply. We’re not far removed from the COVID-19 pandemic, where supply-chain disruptions led to empty store shelves across the country. Restaurants were forced to shut down, and some farmers couldn’t get the food they grew to America’s families.

Add to that more than $21 billion in crop and rangeland losses from drought, wildfires, hurricanes and flooding in 2022 and you start to realize the risks farmers take to grow the food we rely on. Without the safety net the farm bill provides, many family farms wouldn’t be able to survive these disasters.

The farm bill also invests in the future through conservation programs. Farmers have already established an impressive record in their efforts to protect America’s natural resources. About one-third of U.S. farmland is in conservation programs and practices.

Farmers are doing more with less. Just 30 years ago, it would have taken 100 million more acres—the approximate land mass of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina—to produce the same amount of food farmers grow today. This productivity growth is the only thing that will allow us to achieve our conservation goals and meet the food, fuel and fiber needs of America and the world.

Overall, agriculture represents just 10% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, far lower than transportation and energy, and much lower than the agriculture sector worldwide. These advances are made possible, in part, because programs in the farm bill recognize farmers as partners and invest in their effort to care for the land. They are also fueled by research and innovation that help pave a path forward.

The farm bill must be renewed every five years, giving lawmakers an opportunity to update programs and renew their commitment to ensuring America’s families continue to have access to a safe, affordable and abundant food supply. It presents an opportunity to ensure programs reflect today’s realities and seize tomorrow’s opportunities.

Leaders in Congress said they needed more time to draft and debate the legislation, so they passed a one-year extension. But modernization of the farm bill must remain a priority. It’s now time all lawmakers step up to pass a farm bill soon. The closer we get to the 2024 elections, the less likely Congress is to achieve this goal.

In a recent Morning Consult poll, a majority of Americans said they would be more likely to support a member of Congress who votes to pass a farm bill.

The farm bill is too important to be kicked down the road.

The Senate and House agriculture committees dedicated 18 months to farm bill hearings, listening sessions and farm tours to learn what is needed in the next farm bill. Congress should build on this momentum.

The farm bill has been a shining example of bipartisanship in the past—an issue in which both sides have put aside differences to work for the common good of the nation. They can do it again. Every family in America is counting on it.

(Vincent “Zippy” Duvall, a poultry, cattle and hay producer from Georgia, is president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.)

By Matthew Viohl

Catastrophic weather events wreaked havoc on U.S. agriculture last year, causing nearly $22 billion in crop and rangeland losses, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. California accounted for $1.14 billion of that figure, including nearly $880 million in damages from severe storms and flooding.

The figures represent a significant shift from previous years, when drought and wildfires were California’s biggest challenges. Since then, atmospheric rivers, Tropical Storm Hilary and other weather events battered our farming communities.

Disasters are certainly nothing new for California farmers and ranchers, but the ways in which producers are protected have changed. Despite crop insurance and other loss recovery programs in place at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the prevalence of specialty crops and the historical impacts of fire and drought have made insuring our resources challenging.

Of roughly 400 different commodities produced in California, less than a quarter are covered by a direct federal crop insurance program. When a wildfire or flood happens, uninsured producers are often left relying on ad hoc disaster programs, which are typically unreliable and slow to issue payments.

Previously, farmers in the West could rely on the Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus, or the WHIP+ disaster relief program. In late 2021, the California Farm Bureau worked to secure congressional approval of $10 billion for disaster payments for 2020 and 2021.

Unfortunately, it took some six months for USDA to make an official announcement on how those funds would be distributed. Ultimately, WHIP+ was altered to become the Emergency Relief Program, which divided payments for producers into two phases.

Phase one payments covered crop losses for producers that were already in the system via pre-existing crop insurance enrollments and other markers, while phase two payments covered everyone else. The problem? With so many California producers unable to even use crop insurance due to lack of coverage, many were stuck waiting for the more complicated phase two process.

The latter phase did not open applications until Jan. 23, 2023, with payments for 2020 and 2021 events slowly trickling out throughout much of the year. In some cases, farmers and ranchers did not receive payments until more than three years after the disaster impacts.

Last year, I received a call about an ERP payment that could not be received by a particular farm because it had gone out of business while awaiting assistance. While I don’t know if the ERP payments would have helped the farm maintain solvency, the very nature of a disaster assistance program should be one that assists farmers and ranchers as quickly as possible to avoid risk of financial ruin.

As it stands, the ERP program is neither quick nor reliable. In addition, it now faces a significant funding shortfall, with projected financial impacts far exceeding the budgetary capacity to cover losses experienced by U.S. agricultural producers in 2022 and 2023. This underfunding has led the agency to alter the payment calculations for producers, meaning less money in their pockets.

Ever since the creation of the ERP program, the California Farm Bureau has dedicated significant time working with local, state and national partners trying to navigate the USDA’s various recovery programs to improve distribution of payments. This has included advocating in Washington, D.C., for additional funds and a more efficient, easier-to-understand system for those seeking disaster relief.

Natural disasters remain a constant threat to communities around the country, as we were reminded last month, when the second-largest wildfire event in U.S. history scorched more than 1.1 million acres, devouring Texas Panhandle ranchlands and killing more than 7,000 cattle.

As these events continue to impact agricultural lands and producers, it is important for USDA to fulfill its mission of safeguarding the farms and ranches that deliver our food supply.

As we often say, food security is national security. It is difficult to envision how a three-year wait for federal disaster assistance constitutes food security. But we continue to push federal and legislative offices for solutions to shrink these unacceptable delays.

Notably, several California members of Congress joined in a letter calling for a lasting solution in the upcoming farm bill. But disaster funding remains a tricky subject in our nation’s capital.

Farm bill legislation might finally be on the docket after the Easter recess, so it may soon become clearer on how realistic such a push might be. Whether through the farm bill or other means, we must continue to implore USDA and federal lawmakers to eliminate the inefficiencies, red tape and underfunding plaguing our disaster recovery programs.

(Matthew Viohl is director of federal policy for the California Farm Bureau. He may be contacted at mviohl@cfbf.com.)

By Norm Groot 

For many decades, farmworkers have been vital to the harvesting of food crops in the Salinas Valley and other parts of the Monterey County agricultural region.

Monterey County farm employers do their part to attract and support farmworkers in a diminishing agricultural labor pool. Many pay significantly higher wages to their employees than the current California minimum wage of $16 per hour, plus benefits such as healthcare and retirement programs.

But some workers are losing hours and income due to California legislation intended to help them. In 2016, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1066 to extend overtime hours to farmworkers after 8 hours of work each day, or 40 hours each week. Previously, overtime was paid after 10 hours a day to accommodate seasonal harvesting hours.

In a recent study analyzing AB 1066, Alexandra E. Hill of the Foundation of Agricultural Economics at the University of California explained the bill’s underlying premise that “workers would benefit from higher incomes for the same time at work” if their hours and overtime remained unchanged. But she also noted an economic risk.

“If employers reduce hours to remain below the new thresholds, worker incomes could fall, making workers who value the extra income more than additional leisure time worse off,” Hill wrote. “In this case, employers would also need to hire additional workers, invest in labor-saving or labor-augmenting technology, or make larger business changes like switching to less labor-intensive crops.”

The bill has led to the latter scenario, with farm employers cutting hours to save on overtime costs. This results in smaller paychecks, as daily work hours have been reduced to meet the new overtime standard. Relying on worker-reported federal data, the research found that California farmworkers worked 15,000 to 45,000 fewer hours in 2019 and 2020 while making $6 million to $9 million less per week than they would have if the 10-hour workday overtime exemption had continued.

As a result, Hill concluded, “In 2019 and 2020, the two years following the phase-in of California’s new overtime standards for agricultural workers, the average California crop worker experienced reduced hours and earnings.”

Labor unions, including the United Farm Workers, supported the passage of AB 1066 as a means to increase farmworker earnings. Meanwhile, civil rights icon and UFW co-founder Dolores Huerta noted that fewer working hours could be a benefit, given the strenuous nature of farm work and global warming’s negative impact on working conditions. This is contrary to the bill’s intent.

AB 1066 ultimately forced financial decisions for farm employers already facing rising input and regulatory costs, plus increasing amounts paid for employee health-care benefits and mandatory paid time off. With the overtime law increasing pressure on farms to balance their books, many farmworkers saw their work time reduced by more than 10 hours a week.

Local growers in Monterey County have adjusted their harvest work hours to comply with the rule change, as many predicted when AB 1066 became law. When harvest work is finished in one field, farm employers and their labor contractors send farmworkers home instead of moving to another field for continued work each day.

This has resulted in shorter hours for farmworkers, sometimes even shorter than the regular eight-hour day. With almost continuous harvest of fresh food crops in the Salinas Valley region, there are tight windows available for peak harvest of crops. Careful planning of harvest activities has altered some production plans to maintain the eight-hour workday.

Thus, while many employers pay generous hourly rates and benefits, their practical solution to AB 1066 has been to limit daily work hours rather than have the same crew work multiple fields that will result in overtime pay.

The higher farm wage rates in Monterey County can increase the overtime costs exponentially—and the worker compensation insurance premiums based on total payroll. Now, after devastation suffered by local agriculture from flooding events in 2023, farm employers are seeking every way possible to remain financially viable.

With prices for fresh food products contracted well in advance of the planting of a crop, there is no ability to increase sale prices when production costs, such as labor, increase during the production season. Careful control of labor costs—the largest line item in fresh food production—is necessary to keep the bottom line in the black.

Additional costs for overtime hours appear to be a threshold that farm employers are not willing to cross. It is unfortunate that lawmakers did not consider their insights or heed their voices before passing a bill that has led to reduced hours and pay for farmworkers.

(Norm Groot is executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau. He may be contacted at norm@montereycfb.com.)

By Amrith Gunasekara 

Farmers around the world are making their voices heard through protests and organized political actions and achieving success in defeating misguided policies that harm food production.

In France, farmers used tractors to block highways into Paris and piled high bales of hay at a border crossing to Spain. In Brussels, farmers protested outside the European Union headquarters. In India, they marched to the capital of New Delhi, massing before police barricades.

India and the EU are home to almost 2 billion people, or a quarter of the world’s population. Agriculture in these regions is central to ensuring food security, and farmers are airing frustrations over shrinking incomes, cuts in agricultural subsidies, rising inflation and regulatory burdens.

As in California, French farmers struggle for access to water for irrigation. They’re criticized over animal welfare and pesticide use while saddled with high fuel prices and production costs that exceed farm sales.

In California, farming costs are also fast increasing. Despite record moisture levels, there are still limits on water use for agriculture. And safe, commonly used pesticides are on the chopping block for regulators.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has a new effort called Sustainable Pest Management. It seeks to reduce available pesticide tools for farmers while appeasing environmentalists by deregistering pest-control materials that protect our food supply. The SPM roadmap calls for eliminating use of priority pesticides by 2050.

Research studies by the California Bountiful Foundation, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit science and research organization of the California Farm Bureau, show that increased regulations and deregistration of pesticides lead to higher food costs. In addition, farmers in regions with high regulatory standards, such as the EU and California, often cannot compete with cheap imports that do not have to comply with the same regulations.

It is commonly understood that regulations lead to higher costs. The implications are significant for policies that push locally grown agricultural products. When the local cost of production in regulation-heavy regions exceeds the cost of less-regulated imports, the imports make their way into grocery stores over the more-expensive local products.

In California, farmers see cheaper imports coming in from Mexico and South America, where regulations fall well short of California’s environmental standards for agriculture.

In the EU, farmers are mobilizing in response to concerns about an environmental policy known as the Green Deal. It calls for limits on pesticide use and greenhouse gas emissions. One of the pillars of the Green Deal is “a zero-pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment.” The provision seeks to cut in half the number of available chemical crop protection products by 2030 and ban their use entirely in certain areas.

European farmers are also protesting an EU requirement to leave 4% of agricultural land fallowed. Similar initiatives are on the table in California for farmers, though they are structured differently. The Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program by the state Department of Conservation pays farmers to take land out of production to lessen water use.

Another thing the EU and California have in common is the degree to which environmental politics and language such as “sustainability” are incorporated into the EU Green Deal and California policy initiatives for agriculture. Yet the same intensity is lacking when it comes to working to protect food security and agricultural production, despite ominous disruptions to the global food system, including supply-chain challenges, soaring farm input costs and the Russian invasion of Ukraine that upset grain production worldwide.

In Europe, farmer protests have shown remarkable success in rolling back misguided farm reforms. Breaking with the Green Deal and Farm to Fork framework, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that she would withdraw the draft “Sustainable Use Regulation” that sought to halve the use of chemical pesticides in Europe by 2030.

In response to farmer protests, the European Commission adopted regulations that grant partial exemptions from land fallowing requirements. After demonstrations in India, the government dropped new rules that would have undercut price guarantees for farmers.

While California hasn’t seen such turbulent protests, there is significant overlap here with challenges and ill-conceived policies facing farmers elsewhere.

The California Farm Bureau, our state’s largest agricultural organization, works to protect family farms and ranches. It supports important agricultural research through its California Bountiful Foundation. It amplifies the voice of farmers, ranchers, agricultural businesses and advocates for sensible policies to protect and enhance our vital farming sector.

We share a mission with fellow farmers elsewhere, standing up for agriculture that feeds the world.

(Amrith Gunasekara, Ph.D., is director of science and research for the California Bountiful Foundation, an affiliate 501(c)(3) of the California Farm Bureau. He may be reached at agunasekara@cfbf.com.)

By Margaret Honig 

Every farmer knows soils are more than just dirt. They are a living ecosystem and cornerstone of our local, national and global agricultural food production.

Ensuring our agricultural soils stay healthy takes work. Improving soil health can be achieved by implementing one or more of several conservation management practices established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service.

State and federal programs are helping farmers adopt soil conservation management practices that improve soil organic matter, promote microbial biodiversity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to carbon sequestration.

Now a collaborative effort will provide financial support for healthy-soil conservation management practices for citrus farmers in 11 California counties. This initiative was made possible after the California Department of Food and Agriculture awarded $5 million from the Healthy Soils Program Block Grant to the California Citrus Quality Council, the California Bountiful Foundation and the Xerces Society.

The Citrus Quality Council represents citrus growers and works with farmers, state agencies and the University of California to ensure that citrus production meets domestic and international regulatory standards.

The California Bountiful Foundation, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit science, research and education arm of the California Farm Bureau, is administering all aspects of the $5 million Healthy Soils Program grant. Xerces Society, a science-based conservation organization working with farmers and communities, will provide technical assistance on pollinator-plant aspects of the program, focusing on native plants, hedgerow planting and identifying optimal locations that balance pollinator health with crop productivity.

California’s citrus sector, with $2 billion in annual production, is pivotal for job creation and contributes significantly to agricultural and environmental sustainability. Through the Healthy Soils Program Block Grant, citrus growers are afforded the opportunity to reduce costs associated with adopting healthy soil conservation-management practices.

Program enrollment begins March 25 for citrus farmers in Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Placer, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura counties. For details on how to apply for funding and to register for a March 26 webinar on the program, visit californiabountifulfoundation.com and click on the Healthy Soils Program link.

The program encourages practices, such as planting hedgerows to enhance pollinator habitat, applying compost to build soil organic matter and sequester carbon and undertaking whole orchard recycling of citrus trees that have exceeded their productive stages. This initiative aligns with the sustainable demands of consumers, reinforcing citrus production’s commitment to agricultural and environmental sustainability.

The program aims to provide funding for 20 to 45 applicants during the next three years. With a cap of $200,000 in financial support per grower, the program offers flexibility in choosing and implementing practices that best suit needs of specific citrus orchards.

The initiative seeks to empower growers to make informed decisions that will have long-term benefits for their operations, soil health and the environment.

One of the program’s requirements is to use 25% of the funds to support socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers as defined by the 2017 Farmer Equity Act, as well as women and military veterans.

Practices supported include conservation cover to reduce soil erosion and enhance wildlife habitats, filter strips to improve water quality and hedgerow planting for biodiversity and pollinator support. Healthy Soils Program initiatives also support mulching to improve soil moisture and whole orchard recycling to enrich soil organic matter.

The program helps establish windbreaks and shelterbelts to curb erosion. It supports compost application to increase soil fertility, cover crops to bolster pollinators and improve soil organic matter, and reduced till or no-till practices to reduce energy use and nutrient management to optimize crop productivity.

The initiative emphasizes principles of soil health, such as minimizing soil disturbance, protecting surface soils from sediment erosion with cover crops and promoting biodiversity through hedgerows. The program aims to secure agriculture’s legacy by turning farms into solutions for mitigating impacts of climate change and promoting adaptation to help with drought resiliency.

Beyond environmental benefits, the economic rewards of healthier soils are multifold: improved yields, high-quality produce, potential reduction in fertilizers, and the opportunity to meet consumer demands for sustainably grown food.

This program, in support of California’s citrus sector, is a testament to achieving results through agricultural collaboration.

This is the first time the California Farm Bureau is administering such a grant program focused on soil health. The Farm Bureau, California Bountiful Foundation, Xerces Society and California Citrus Quality Council all look forward to making this a successful program.

(Margaret Honig is the Healthy Soils Program Project administrative lead for the California Bountiful Foundation. She may be contacted at mhonig@cfbf.com.)

By Christopher Reardon

California rightly celebrates its technological innovations and cultural diversity, as well as its robust economic standing, which approaches that of Germany, the world’s 4th-ranked economy.

Agriculture is a key component of California’s economic engine, with its farm prowess extending far beyond the Golden State. In 2022, California agricultural production totaled $59 billion, up by $13.8 billion from 2017, with the state producing more than one-third of America’s vegetables and three-quarters of its fruits and nuts.

The impact of this agricultural abundance of more than 400 crops—from leafy greens to almonds, citrus to winegrapes, strawberries to tomatoes—is profound. California agriculture is a critical driver of economic growth, providing jobs, income and stability, particularly in rural areas.

Yet, California is currently in the throes of a budget mess—and that isn’t good news for the state’s critical agriculture sector. This year, the state is facing a $38 billion budget deficit that is expected to worsen. This is on top of a $31 billion fiscal deficit in 2023.

While there is much to celebrate in California, there are storm clouds on the horizon related to fiscal mismanagement in Sacramento and potential future regulatory requirements impacting our farmers, ranchers and agricultural businesses.

Continued budget deficits could affect issues such as the implementation of zero-emission vehicles, electrification of farms and ensuring adequate resources to keep investing in needed water management projects. The budget crisis could also impact future investment in research and innovation, which would limit advancements in crop technology that could enhance future farming practices.

Cuts are looming for the state’s Healthy Soils, Livestock Enteric Methane Emission Reduction, Pollinator Habitat and State Water and Efficiency and Enhancement programs. These monies provide grants to meet some of the challenges California agriculture is addressing on issues of water, air quality and climate change.

It is important to provide continued support for these programs through the California Department of Food and Agriculture. This is because the preservation of biodiversity, soil health and water quality is not just a goal but a fundamental aspect of California’s agricultural ethos, aligning with the state’s broader commitment to environmental sustainability.

California’s commitment to farming practices sets a national standard for environmental stewardship. Farmers in the state embrace innovative techniques, such as precision agriculture and water conservation measures to ensure the responsible use of natural resources.

In addition, connections between agriculture and surrounding communities foster a resilient economy, ensuring that prosperity extends beyond the farm gate. Besides the bounty of food produced by our farms and ranches, California agriculture supports employment in food processing, transportation, marketing and research.

Agriculture contributes to the vitality of our communities, especially in rural California, where small towns provide the home base for many farms, ranches and agribusinesses. The economic livelihood of these communities is closely tied to the success of local agriculture.

Agriculture often shapes the identity and culture of rural communities. The traditions, practices and festivals associated with farming contribute to a strong sense of community and shared values. These connections also extend between rural communities and local food systems, supporting farmers markets, farm-to-table initiatives and Community Supported Agriculture programs.

Additionally, these areas often host agricultural research institutions, University of California Cooperative Extension services and innovation hubs that play a crucial role in advancing agricultural practices in disseminating knowledge and supporting farmers with the latest technologies and research.

We will know more about California’s budget picture when a revised state budget comes out in May. But Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget proposal in January would cut statewide spending on water-related programs from $8.7 billion in 2022 to $7.3 billion. Funding for water recycling and groundwater remediation would drop from $622 million to $348 million. Additionally, the proposal strips away $79 million from sustainable agriculture programs.

It is important to consider potential impacts of the budget crisis on California agriculture and our rural communities. Agriculture is truly more than just one sector in the vast economy of the Golden State. It is a cornerstone and driving force in America’s agricultural landscape.

From economic prosperity and job creation to environmental stewardship and global influence, the importance of agriculture in California extends far beyond farm fields. That is why a stable budget environment that strikes a balance between current obligations and long-term investment is important to all of us.

As we celebrate the abundance that graces our tables, let us acknowledge and champion the farmers and agricultural communities that ensure our food supply and support a resilient future.

(Christopher Reardon is director of governmental affairs for the California Farm Bureau. He may be contacted at creardon@cfbf.com.)

By Zippy Duvall

From a window atop my grandfather’s old barn, you can see my family’s whole farm, from the hay fields to the chicken houses to the pasture where the mama cows are grazing. I love watching the sunrise from there, taking in the big picture.

But even from that bird’s-eye view, I can only see so far. I can’t see across the country, my home state or even my whole county. That’s where the U.S. Department of Agriculture comes in, bringing us all the big picture of American agriculture with its Census of Agriculture.

Every five years, this census offers a sweeping view of America’s farms and ranches.

What did we learn about the farm landscape from the 2022 census? A key takeaway from the Feb. 13 report is an overall decrease in the number of family farms across the country.

While the number of producers held steady, the number of farms and ranches is down 7% from 2017. (The trend was similar in California, where the state’s 63,134 farms in 2022 represented a 10% decrease from 2017.) This decrease largely hit small- and medium-sized farms, with the number of large farms up slightly.

We have seen the for-sale signs pop up across farmland, so this lower number is likely not a surprise to most farmers. From rapidly increasing regulatory requirements to inflation to skyrocketing labor costs, it’s getting harder for small- and medium-sized farms to hold on, and we’re starting to see an increase in consolidation of farms.

This big picture from the Census of Ag riculture should serve as a wakeup call to our lawmakers. The latest census numbers put in black and white the warnings our Farm Bureau members have been expressing for years. These aren’t just statistics to farm and ranch families across the country. They are deeply personal stories of heartbreaking decisions.

Farm and ranch families, and the men and women they employ, cannot hold on for long overdue reform on issues like the farm bill, tax reform and farm labor to name a few.

Now, it’s not just dark clouds on the horizon. I firmly believe we can find hope when we look at the big picture, and it’s no different here. I, for one, am encouraged by looking to the future with the growing number of beginning farmers.

According to USDA, in 2022, the number of beginning farmers was just over 1 million. That’s up 11% from 2017.

That said, the average age of a farmer ticked up again to 58, so we need to find ways to encourage more young people to get involved in farming or to come back to the farm.

With expenses and high startup costs, such as interest rates up 43%, young farmers need more tools to keep them farming rather than obstacles that drive them out of business.

We need to keep exploring ways to ensure that farming is economically sustainable for all farmers.

We urge Congress to heed the warning signs of having fewer family farms. The importance of the farm bill cannot be overstated. Passing a new farm bill that addresses these challenges is the best way to help create an environment that attracts new farmers and enables families to pass their farms to the next generation.

We need a modernized farm bill in 2024, one that helps family farms during difficult times and keeps our food supply secure in all seasons.

The Census of Ag riculture data isn’t just about the big picture, however. The census gets down in the weeds with 6 million data points. That level of detail is critical for USDA in its work to ensure farms of all sizes and types have the support they need.

The big picture—and all the details in it—helps USDA allocate funds down to the county level to support farms and ranches.

Our team of economists at Farm Bureau has been diving into this important research. You’ll see Farm Bureau employing USDA data along with our analysis throughout the year, from sharing the great strides farmers are making in sustainability to helping consumers better understand where their food comes from.

None of this research and analysis is possible without participation by farmers and ranchers across the country. The Census of Agriculture is a critical tool in sharing our farm and ranch stories.

The big picture of agriculture should matter to all Americans—because we are all counting on the success of America’s farmers and ranchers.

(Vincent “Zippy” Duvall, a poultry, cattle and hay producer from Georgia, is president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. This commentary is adapted from the Feb. 14 edition of his column, The Zipline, which appears online at fb.org/the-zipline.)

By Tod Kimmelshue 

By 2050, there will be nearly 10 billion people in the world. To California farmers, this is a staggering number and an opportunity to produce more food to meet the growing need.

According to a report from the World Resources Institute, as the population is expected to grow from 7 billion people in 2010 to 9.8 billion in 2050, food demand is projected to increase by more than 50% and demand for animal-based foods by nearly 70%.

As California farmers continue to curb water use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we all agree that they face a significant challenge in growing more food to serve the world’s population.

Today’s demands require California farmers and ranchers to embrace technology that makes their operations more efficient and environmentally friendly. Farmers use precision agricultural techniques to make informed decisions about fertilizer needs, water conservation, and the appropriate type and amount of herbicides or pesticides.

To provide further access to new technologies, it is important that California farmers and ranchers have access to high-speed broadband internet. Yet for nearly 77,000 farms that employ more than 400,000 individuals across California and grow the food for grocery stores and restaurants, accessing high-speed internet is often a challenge.

Technology is changing the agriculture industry, and anyone not connected will fall behind.

As a fifth-generation farmer and a Butte County supervisor who represents the largest agriculture district in the county, I understand how critical it is that we work together to make sure our agricultural industry is successful and thriving.

California produces more than one-third of the nation’s vegetables and two-thirds of its fruits and nuts. This production accounted for more than $51 billion in 2021.

The future of sustainable farming in California will rely on having access to fast, affordable and reliable broadband. Having access to broadband and agricultural technology is key to producing more food in a sustainable manner while also competing in a modern economy.

Greater connectivity means that farmers can use smartphone apps to track the health of livestock, use precision agriculture, optimize irrigation scheduling, run modern farming equipment and upload files to the cloud.

That is why I support reforming state regulations to incentivize delivering broadband to California’s rural communities along with taking advantage of the historic investment in broadband from the federal and California state government to connect rural communities to reliable, affordable high-speed internet.

This isn’t just about the future of agriculture. As a community leader, I understand that California’s rural communities need access to health care, emergency services, government services, and educational and business opportunities. In many cases, broadband is the only link to these vital services.

The 21st century ushered in vast technological advancements that have changed just about every facet of our lives. It has changed the way we communicate, receive healthcare and do business. And believe it or not, it has enhanced the way we grow the food on our dinner tables.

We also need more connectivity to help stem exodus from California’s rural areas. Many of our rural community leaders fear that the younger generation will migrate to urban communities for jobs and other opportunities, creating a challenge to recruiting and retaining workers.

The expansion of broadband connectivity will help young workers stay in the communities they grew up in, which will strengthen community ties and support economic activity in rural areas.

There is no question that everyone, including state policymakers, must share a vision where no Californian is left offline. Our digital infrastructure and telecommunications regulations need to be as forward-thinking as our aspirations.

Just as we once committed to bringing water and landlines to rural communities, we must commit to bringing modern broadband technology to rural families and small businesses.

California’s rural communities can’t afford to be left behind, and the state can’t afford to leave us behind either. Technology infrastructure and forward-looking policies are key to transforming California’s food industry and delivering prosperity in rural communities. High-speed fiber broadband lets us have more efficient and sustainable ways to monitor crops, water supply, nutrients and pests.

Investing in digital connectivity is both a technological advancement and a vital step towards sustaining California’s agricultural legacy and maintaining the strength of its communities.

(Tod Kimmelshue is chair of the Butte County Board of Supervisors, a fifth-generation farmer and past president of the Butte County Farm Bureau. He may be contacted at TKimmelshue@buttecounty.net.)

By Jackson Alves

National FFA Week kicked off Feb. 19 as students began to celebrate in chapters across all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The tradition originated in 1948, recognizing George Washington’s legacy as an agriculturist and farmer.

FFA was founded by a group of young farmers in 1928. Since then, the organization has been influencing generations of agriculturalists with not just planting and harvesting but also science, business, leadership and more. The National FFA Organization is a school-based youth leadership development organization of more than 945,000 student members.

The agriculture department at Hamilton High School in Glenn County prides itself on the opportunities provided to the students. Comprising teachers Ashley Thorpe, Janice Lohse and Andrew Martin, the agriculture department offers an array of course studies and projects for students to experience. The equipment and infrastructure made possible in the past few years make student learning fun and relevant, with animal husbandry projects, field crops, technology and industry tours. The industry partners that support these teachers and students are instrumental in making it the program it is today.

Hamilton City FFA takes pride in giving students the best opportunities to become successful and develop a love for the agriculture industry. Career Development Event teams are a major part of our chapter and provide students with the chance to join teams such as farm power, vet science and tree judging.

Many students gain passion and often center their career goals around what they have learned through being a part of Hamilton City FFA CDE teams. Speaking competitions are another way for students to gain experience in public speaking and center what they have gained through agriculture. Classes also play a big role in involvement and the interest of our students. By teaching our students about agriculture from different perspectives and through different industry focuses, it will help spark the passion of our students.

Trips and conventions occur often for the students of our chapter. Trips can reach across the country and include industry tours and FFA-related events. This allows students to gain an understanding of agricultural production in California and other states across the country.

Factory tours give students the opportunity to see how different byproducts are produced and learn about the process from start to finish. Students are able to explore possible careers in different fields of the agriculture industry. FFA-related trips include conferences where students get to meet new people and learn new leadership skills that can be brought back to their home chapter.

Several of our students recently spoke about the impact FFA has made on their lives and how our chapter has helped them develop a love for agriculture.

FFA member Claire Boles said, “Hamilton City FFA has impacted my life in a positive way. I am thankful for my advisors. Their encouragement has led me to become a more confident person both at school and in my community. I am sure that this impact will follow me for many years to come.”

Anthony Alves said, “Hamilton City has positively impacted my life because it has opened doors to what I’m capable of, and I have accomplished so much through my years of involvement. For example, I am a part of the Farm Power team at Hamilton, and I have gained so much knowledge in mechanics and farming that I would not have gained if I wasn’t a part of it. This has helped me recognize my love for diesel mechanics and what I want to do as my career in the future.”

As you can see, our chapter is like a second home to our students and has changed the outlook of many people. By providing these opportunities to our students and continuing to educate the next generation, the agriculture industry has a very bright future.

The Hamilton City FFA chapter is extremely unique and is much different from other FFA chapters. The continuous effort of teachers and students has helped build a structured and effective chapter.

FFA member Bryant Odom said , “Our program has a plethora of different ag facilities and a great community. We have a large school farm with many animals and crops, as well as a shop and great courses to take. Our small school aspect allows all members to feel personally welcomed and involved in Hamilton City FFA.”

The Hamilton City FFA program is the home of three amazing teachers who dedicate their time to helping students succeed and find a love for agriculture. The environment at Hamilton City FFA is very positive and makes you feel at home whenever you are in the agriculture department.

As the agriculture industry continues to evolve, so does the next generation of farmers. The FFA organization is one of a kind and truly is the future. The education of the students in FFA is vital and has proven to be a difference maker in the success of the industry as a whole. Gaining involvement and interest in all chapters will help with the growth of the FFA organization.

(Jackson Alves is the FFA reporter at Hamilton High School in Hamilton City in Glenn County. Ag Alert invites future submissions from other FFA reporters.)

By Amrith Gunasekara 

On Feb. 21, online enrollment will begin for a new program to help prepare the next generation in California agriculture.

The California Bountiful Foundation, the science, research and education arm of the California Farm Bureau, has secured funding to offer a mentoring program for 400 beginning farmers and ranchers.

The Expanding Our Roots program will connect beginning and early-career farmers and ranchers with one to10 years of experience with mentors who have worked for more than a decade in farming and ranching. Two hundred participants will be trained in 2024.

The goal of Expanding Our Roots, a first-of-its-kind program in California, is to help ensure agricultural sustainability and food security well into the future. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has awarded $1 million in grants to the California Bountiful Foundation to support this effort. Half of program participants must be specialty crop growers. As per funding requirements, primary consideration will be given to military veterans and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

Agriculture in California and nationally faces the challenge of an aging farming population, with many farmers and ranchers nearing retirement. These agricultural veterans and their mid-career peers have a vast array of knowledge and life experiences not found in textbooks, classrooms or other academic pursuits.

Their experiences come through built relationships, through learning from doing, and from trial and error on the farm and ranch. Our farmers handle challenges as complex as developing unique nutrient management plans or irrigation water schedules tailored to specific social types and crops. They are knowledgeable about market opportunities and maximizing food production to meet demand.

But for beginning farmers and ranchers, learning through trial and error may translate to financial risk, which can put upstart farms and ranches in peril.

This is at the heart of the Expanding Our Roots program—connecting beginning agricultural producers with seasoned professionals familiar with established methodologies and emerging agricultural technologies.

How can we help beginning farmers and ranchers who are already farming reduce their risk of doing business? One way is to provide them with mentors—someone they can trust and who has been down the pathway of exploring new markets and farming and ranching approaches. The mentor has already dealt with the risks. They can impart knowledge to help position the new generation that will soon guide our agricultural future.

The funding secured through grants by the California Bountiful Foundation will financially compensate mentor farmers and ranchers who provide valuable expertise and training through Expanding Our Roots. By serving as mentors, they will share California’s agricultural heritage and legacies for others to follow.

Mentoring is used in business and finance and by numerous organizations to promote knowledge transfer, increase profitability and ensure future growth. For California agriculture, this means sustaining and expanding America’s most productive farming and ranching sector to meet the needs of our growing population.

Beginning farmers and ranchers who enroll in Expanding Our Roots will be provided with four annual one-day workshops at no cost, thanks to funding awarded to the program. The workshops will be held throughout the state. There will also be online opportunities for attendees to participate remotely.

The workshops will provide insights on regulations for farming and ranching in California. Participants will learn about financial incentives, including grant opportunities that can help them fund conservation management practices and climate-smart agriculture. They will be exposed to resources from the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources and UC Cooperative Extension.

The Bountiful Foundation is partnering in Expanding Our Roots with the California Farm Bureau, 54 county Farm Bureaus and the Black Agriculture Working Group, with assistance from Michael O’Gorman, founder of the Farmer Veteran Coalition. To sign up for a Feb. 16 webinar and learn more about the program, visit californiabountifulfoundation.com.

The effort integrates well with existing programs such as the California Farm Bureau’s Young Farmers & Ranchers program. YF&R provides opportunities to develop leadership skills through involvement in Farm Bureau at county, state and national levels. YF&R members represent the diversity of farmers and ranchers across the state. We hope that many participants in YF&R programs at state and county levels will seek to participate in the Expanding Our Roots program.

California is the nation’s most productive agriculture sector and is critical to our food security. As longtime California farmers and ranchers prepare to pass the torch to the next generation of agriculturists, we believe our beginning farmers and ranchers will meet the challenge. Through Expanding our Roots, they will get a valuable head start.

(Amrith Gunasekara, Ph.D., is director of science and research for the California Bountiful Foundation, an affiliate 501(c)(3) of the California Farm Bureau. He may be reached at agunasekara@cfbf.com.)

By Mike Wade

Water, the essence of life, is an indispensable resource intricately woven into the fabric of our daily existence. From the food on our plates to the gadgets in our hands, water silently plays a pivotal role in the creation of almost everything we encounter.

In a world where water scarcity is a looming concern, it is essential to explore the profound impact of water in the production of goods and services that shape our lives as well as the food we feed our families.

Criticism often falls on agriculture for its water use. Consumers in California face limits of 55 gallons per person, per day in allowable indoor water use. It isn’t surprising that they might react negatively when confronted with the fact that more than 800 gallons of water is needed to grow the food one person consumes in one day.

However, food is something we literally cannot live without. In addition, it’s crucial to recognize that the end user of farm water is not farmers but consumers. Whether you’re shopping for the items in a chicken fajita recipe, a bunch of broccoli or a carton of ice cream, you’re carrying water home from the farm.

Take a moment to consider a cup of coffee, a staple in many people’s mornings.

The water footprint of a single cup of coffee is estimated to be around 37 gallons. Spaghetti sauce with ground beef, garlic, oregano, onion and basil adds up to about 365 gallons, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. A serving of rice and beans requires around 65 gallons of water to produce, and the fruit in a fruit medley needs 71 gallons of water.

From a statewide perspective, the total amount of water in the food consumed by California’s roughly 40 million people exceeds the entire amount of water devoted to the state’s irrigated agriculture industry.

A little over 25 million acre-feet of water is consumptively used to grow food on the state’s 7.8 million irrigated acres. The water required to feed the state’s population adds up to more than 30 million acre-feet. This means if there were no imports or exports, the amount of food grown in the state would be insufficient to meet the needs of all the people who live here.

If state and federal regulations continue on their current path, even less water will be available for farmers to use to grow food, increasing our reliance on imported products. That’s why efforts to capture more water during wet years and banking it for the dry years is so important.

What few people realize is that water is a required component in almost everything we need to get through the day. Our lives are filled with products that demand significant water inputs, and sometimes the water footprint is less apparent.

Here are a few examples:

• The manufacturing process of a mobile phone involves various water-intensive stages, from mining rare minerals to assembling electronic components, all of which total almost 3,200 gallons of water per phone.

• The production of electric vehicles and the ongoing need to charge them entails substantial water use, from mining lithium for batteries to manufacturing the vehicle components. Auto manufacturing requires 13,700 gallons of water to almost 22,000 gallons of water for each vehicle produced.

• The vast digital landscape we navigate daily is hosted in data centers that necessitate significant amounts of water for cooling systems and infrastructure maintenance. Every 200 gigabytes of internet access consume 40 gallons of water, or about one-fifth of a gallon per gigabyte.

• It takes twice as much water to produce a plastic water bottle as the volume of water inside the bottle, and every gallon of gasoline requires up to 2.5 gallons of water to refine it.

• Producing a pair of leather shoes requires more than 2,100 gallons of water.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggests that public awareness and understanding are vital to navigating the intricate web of water usage. Misunderstandings about the water footprint of everyday products can lead to misplaced concerns and hinder progress toward sustainable water management.

Water is the silent hero and unsung companion in our daily lives, touching every facet of our existence. California is already a global leader in agricultural water-use efficiency. To foster a more sustainable future, consumers, industries and policymakers must collaborate to enhance water efficiency and raise awareness about our unseen water use.

By educating the public on the diverse ways water influences our lives, we can help put into perspective the water farmers use to grow the food we all need every day.

(Mike Wade is executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition. He may be contacted at mwade@farmwater.org.)