Gordon’s Policy Corner

Gordon’s Policy Corner has a guest author this month! This blog post was written by our Fall 2024 Policy and Communications Intern, Jazea Kalea Smith.

Being a Religious Studies major and an Oceanography minor, one might say that I’m a bit of an untraditional intern for OFRF. Besides a passion for being outdoors and a dream of running off to become a farmer I’ve harbored since I was 14, I generally live and work on the ocean side of conservation and food production. I’m happy to report that my time with OFRF, although brief, has ignited a flame in me to broaden my understanding of food systems both on land and at sea within my future academic and professional career. However, today I write from that foundational marine science perspective as we explore just how detrimental conventional agricultural runoff is for ocean health and resource viability.

A shrimp boat drifts along the North Carolina shoreline.

This article seeks to provide context for why the continued use of conventional farming practices are unsustainable for the health of marine ecosystems, with an emphasis on fisheries. We first define what runoff is, and what its impacts are on water quality. Next, marine and estuarine systems impacts are described in depth, including the largest “dead zone” in the U.S. Then, the impacts of pesticide, herbicide, and bacterial contamination on marine life, human illness, and decrease in support for shellfish aquaculture operations. After focusing on the widespread effects, a background on the regulatory bodies and monitoring projects related to agricultural operations is provided, as well as a brief exploration of the EPA’s role. In conclusion, this blog highlights how and why organic practices inherently improve upon this crucial issue. 

What is runoff? 

Agricultural “runoff,” a type of nonpoint source pollution, refers to irrigation and rainfall originating on agricultural land that makes its way outside of the bounds of a farm site. This runoff can carry nutrients, bacteria from livestock manure, and other chemicals from poorly managed land into downstream lakes, rivers, estuaries, and coastal areas. Survey efforts, including the National Water Quality Assessment, have demonstrated that runoff from agricultural operations is the leading source of impacted water quality in the United States. Both artificial chemicals and unnatural levels of naturally occurring chemical compounds infiltrate our water supplies and can lead to devastating human health consequences. Although more research is urgently needed, there is a documented correlation between pediatric cancer rates and high levels of nitrate and the herbicide Atrazine in drinking water. Approximately 13 million households in this country are supplied with water by private wells, which are at a higher risk of contamination than public systems often are. Furthermore, runoff destabilizes soil integrity, causing destructive erosion and decreasing soil compositional health.

U.S. Geological Survey

What are the effects of runoff on marine and estuarine systems?

Twenty-one percent of the coastal waters in the U.S. contain excess levels of nutrients, and more than 80% of marine ecosystem pollution originates on land. Nitrogen and phosphorus are the primary nutrients contained in runoff, and the result of excess concentrations in marine and estuarine environments is hypoxia: oxygen concentrations of less than 2 milligrams per liter. Affected areas are commonly referred to as “dead zones,” because the overproduction and subsequent decomposition of algae decreases dissolved oxygen levels to the point where very few organisms can survive. Fish that have been subjected to hypoxia exposure additionally demonstrate abnormal behavior, lower reproduction and growth rates, a shift in the dynamics of the food web, and a decrease of overall resilience. The loss of planktonic fish eggs to hypoxic waters impacts vulnerable population numbers, often previously devastated by overfishing practices. A highly relevant example of this reaction is the Chesapeake Bay, the largest, and one of the most polluted, estuaries in the United States. The historical average (based on conditions between 1985-2023) of hypoxic waters in the Bay is 2.3-7.9 [km3]. To put this area into perspective, 1 km3 of water is the equivalent of 400,000 Olympic swimming pools! Agricultural runoff is the number one source of excess nitrogen flow into the Chesapeake, contributing 48% of the total load. 

What is a major U.S. example of a “dead zone” and its widespread impacts?

The largest dead zone in the United States runs along the coast of eastern Texas and all of Louisiana, with a staggering 6,705 square miles of hypoxic waters recorded in the summer of 2024. Runoff from farms throughout the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin, which comprises 31 states and two Canadian provinces, empties into the Gulf more than 70% of the excess nitrogen load and more than 80% of the phosphorus load. Not only does runoff play a role in impacting healthy waters and biodiversity, but it’s estimated that the Gulf of Mexico dead zone has led to economic losses of approximately $2.4 billion annually since 1980. These losses largely stem from the increasing lack of viability of shrimp fisheries, most prominently brown shrimp, as well as the Atlantic croaker and oyster fisheries. Economic hardship for commercial fishers paired with deprivation of Cultural ecosystem services (CES), the intangible benefits garnered from living and working with industries dependent on interaction with ecosystems, have the potential to devastate livelihoods. These services are understudied yet often indispensable to the health of the affected communities. 

How does pesticide, herbicide, and bacterial contamination affect marine life?

In addition to the widespread effects of fertilizer over-application, the USGS estimates that 500,000 tons of pesticides are applied to U.S. crop fields annually. Chlorpyrifos are a widely applied organophosphate pesticide that is highly toxic to most marine and freshwater organisms. Further, the most commonly used herbicide in conventional agriculture worldwide is glyphosate, which has been directly linked to alterations in foraging, predator evasion, and mating behavior in aquatic species. These changes compromise the ability of aquatic organisms to survive and reproduce, and a rise in ocean temperatures correlated with global climate change also poses significant future risk—under higher temperatures, static concentrations of glyphosate-based formulations’ and chlorpyrifos’ toxicity and lethal potential for marine life grows. 

Finally, research shows that bacterial contamination derived from the application of uncomposted, raw manure slurry as a fertilizer and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) pose a risk to marine life and aquatic organisms broadly. Manure is generally considered an organic fertilizer, depending on its source, and is used on certified organic farms in conjunction with other soil conservation techniques designed to minimize runoff and stabilize soil. It’s been determined that 30% of surface-applied manure on conventionally cultivated corn fields (the most planted U.S. crop by acreage) is never incorporated, resulting in lower nutrient retention and economic losses. 16.3% of corn fields are treated with manure fertilizer. Incorporation of manure into the soil, a more commonly used organic farming practice, has been examined in recent studies and was shown to decrease runoff potential, preventing manure-borne pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli, and Vibrio from entering greater watershed areas.

How can contamination cause human illness and hurt sustainable aquaculture efforts?

Exposure to these pathogens in marine bivalves (planktonic filter-feeders) can increase the hazards of human consumption of raw shellfish, potentially reducing demand for farmed shellfish. Oyster, clam, and mussel farms are being adopted as a solution to eutrophication (high nutrient influx and subsequent algal blooms), so public acceptance and confidence in farmed shellfish is more critical than ever. Regarding fisheries broadly, bioaccumulation, the process by which chemicals such as those in pesticides and herbicides build up in organisms when they cannot be metabolized or excreted faster than they are taken in, can lead to obesity, cancer, endocrine disruption, and more in human consumers.

How is agricultural runoff monitored and regulated in the U.S.? 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary federal agency that facilitates water quality monitoring and protection, and provides funding for numerous long-term research projects. The EPA collaborates with and supports many federal, state, and regional departments that support water quality assessments. At the federal level, highly involved agencies include the United States Geological Survey (facilitator of the National Water Quality Program), the  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office for Coastal Management, and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) created the Nonpoint Source Management Program, providing grants to U.S. states and territories for the purpose of increasing regional involvement in runoff mitigation. $178 million was appropriated in 2022 for this program, funneled towards resources such as public educational programing, technical and financial aid, demonstration projects, and monitoring. 22,500 watershed projects have been funded under Section 319 since 2000, successfully improving water quality across the country. Additionally, the National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program (NNPSMP) was established under Section 319, and is intended to provide proof of the viability of nonpoint source control methods.

What is the “Total Maximum Daily Load” and how is it achieved?

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits are required by the CWA in impaired watersheds, subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations (which specifically address point source pollution), set by each state, and confirmed by the EPA. TMDLs must factor in seasonal variability and build in a “margin of safety.” They are designed to ensure that waterways meet water quality standards for toxic pollutants. In 2014, the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was set at a limit of 12.5 million pounds of phosphorus, 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment annually entering the estuary. In comparison to 2009, these limits represent a 25% nitrogen decrease, 24% phosphorus decrease, and 20% sediment influx decrease. To reach these reductions, nutrient management planning is a mandatory step in the large farm permitting process in many states, including Maryland, Vermont, California, and Washington. In order for production to legally commence on any operation in these states, a plan with a detailed layout of the status of the land (including soil tests) and records of nutrient application timing must annually be submitted to the state.

Research has found that there are Best Management Practices (BMPs) that can mitigate pollution, like cover cropping and forest buffers, and are sometimes prescribed by state agencies and regional organizations to reach TMDL restrictions. Organic practices oftentimes align with BMPs, and are being increasingly adopted by farmers, largely with the assistance of incentive programs; 39% of farmland in Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake watershed implemented cover cropping between 2016 and 2021, versus 5% of the broader U.S. Runoff forecasts have also been identified as a crucial aid to farming operations, allowing farmers to make informed decisions about when to apply inputs to avoid storm events. Check out these interactive maps from NOAA on runoff risk in 5 U.S. states.

Why do the harmful effects of runoff continue to increase?

NOAA has set a goal to reduce the 5-year average extent of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone down to 1,900 square miles by 2035, and to bring nutrient runoff down 20% by 2025. However, despite successful efforts to increase compliance, the levels of runoff have not decreased significantly in the wake of the setting of these deadlines; in contrast, between 2012 and 2022, the underground drainage tube network has increased by 9.5% and hog production increased 12%. Between 2016 and 2020, combined synthetic fertilizer sales in Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota increased by 10.6%. From the climate change perspective, spring storm frequency in the Midwest is climbing, allowing less time for pesticide and fertilizer application to absorb before entering drainage pathways. 

NOAA’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is a joint effort with the EPA to support states with guidance on management practices for addressing runoff from five nonpoint sources, of which agriculture is one. Management measures to be applied by states (required under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990) include erosion prevention tactics such as conservation tillage. The application of pesticides that are the “most environmentally benign” and 3-year cycle nutrient management plans are additional mandatory measures. Cover cropping, green manure incorporation, and crop rotations are non-required but recommended management practices under the CZARA. As the aforementioned research tells us, the most prevalent pesticides in the U.S. today carry a wide variety of environmental and human health dangers. Runoff risk is on the rise with increasing toxicity of many of the commonly found chemicals, even if overall American usage may be declining.

Enforcement success has been plagued by the simple fact that many of these departments are spread thin. Within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the Maryland Department of the Environment only employed three people who were assigned to conduct in-person inspections at poultry operations. Nutrient management plans of 5,000 farms in the state were monitored by nine Maryland Department of Agriculture employees. This is seemingly the case for many agencies throughout the country. Given the sheer number of farms and CAFOs in the U.S., enforcement can be seen as a challenging logistical endeavor and largely the product of limited departmental funding.

How does organic agriculture support marine conservation and ecosystem health?

Ingrained within the organic farming methodology are many courses of action for reducing agricultural runoff through rebuilding soil health. Practices that are in line with organic systems such as crop rotation and cover cropping have been shown to lead to increased nitrogen availability and soil stabilization. No-till and conservation till methods protect soil integrity and are associated with lower risks of runoff. However, they are a major challenge for organic farmers. In some cases, runoff risk may be lessened on organic farms still using tillage when combined with cover cropping and compost application, by growing active soil organic carbon concentrations. Although organic farmers can utilize nutrient-dense inputs like chicken litter or composted manure to maximize crop yield and quality of product, standard practices allow for operations to infrequently rely on fertilizers alone. Use of “green manure,” often legume plants that are grown and incorporated into fields, can significantly increase nitrogen availability for the primary crop. 

The most fundamental practice associated with organic farming is a clear solution to runoff-caused marine ecosystem damage: the strict prohibition of chemical pesticide and herbicide application. The evidence that these chemicals are invading human and animal communities is strong, and the correlation between exposure to many of the commonly utilized conventional products and illness is well-studied. Reframing this issue as an environmental injustice is critically important to fully convey the human impacts of chemical usage: BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities are disproportionately impacted by exposure to environmental pollutants. Organic systems are more aligned with TEK (Traditional Ecological Knowledge) by emphasizing comprehensive understanding of the landscape and natural processes that can be utilized for sustainable production.

Organic farming is a sustainable farming method that is constantly evolving and improving, and is consistent with the goals of decreasing runoff and protecting both marine environments and human communities. Because we face these issues alongside a rapidly changing climate, acting as stewards of ocean biodiversity is more essential than ever; advocacy for organic agriculture can truly be interpreted as a serious climate and coastal pollution mitigation tactic. 

If you want to learn more about the impact of agricultural runoff on the two largest estuaries in the United States, watch this PBS Frontline documentary on coastal pollution in the Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay.

If you want to get active in helping OFRF advocate for expanded technical and financial services for organic producers, and the research programs that inform them, please reach out! 

As Gordon says, eat well and breathe deep,

Jazea

This year’s election results have brought with them a significant shift in the political landscape in Washington, which will undoubtedly influence food and agriculture policy at the federal level.  While every presidential election brings change, the dynamics of this year’s tumultuous election are particularly significant. With a Trump presidency and a solid, multi-seat Republican majority in the Senate, the USDA will likely be shaped and directed in line with the new administration’s vision. The House remains an open question, but current projections suggest the Republican majority will at least be maintained, if not strengthened.

What does this mean for the Organic Farming Research Foundation and organic agriculture at large?  We are stepping into a period of uncertainty, with many unanswered questions about Congressional priorities and the coming USDA leadership and their associated agenda. For context, during Trump’s previous presidency, the USDA’s cabinet position was last to be nominated, January 18th, 2017, suggesting that this agricultural leadership and direction may not come quickly. We must remain nimble and on our toes until we understand the priorities this new administration plans to act on.

A Potentially Hostile Funding Environment

Over the next two years at least, we anticipate facing a very challenging financial climate in Congress. Budget allocations for agricultural research, technical assistance, and conservation funding may be targeted as an opportunity for budget cuts. The push for austerity measures could represent significant hurdles for securing the resources organic farmers and researchers need. But, even among these challenges there are potential opportunities.

One factor worth noting is the influence of Robert Kennedy Jr. on Trump’s campaign. RFK Jr. has voiced support for certain agricultural values that align with organic and regenerative organic production. It remains unclear how much sway he will hold in shaping agricultural policy, as Trump has made many unkept promises in the past. But, this alignment opens up the possibility for strong bipartisan support for organic agriculture research. Recent meetings OFRF staff have had with conservative members of Congress have revealed some exciting interest in organic agriculture. While we cannot rely on this support alone, it does represent an opportunity for expanding organic agriculture.

Our Path Forward: Advocating for Organic Farmers

Despite the uncertainty and potential funding challenges, our mission remains the same: 

“Organic Farming Research Foundation works to foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming systems. OFRF cultivates organic research, education, and federal policies that bring more farmers and acreage into organic production.“

As outlined in our new strategic plan, our policy work will continue to focus on advocating for organic farmers, and ensuring that the research programs and supports they depend on are not only preserved, but expanded. Our strategic plan emphasizes several key areas:

• Securing Funding for Organic Research: We will continue to make the case for robust investments in organic agriculture research. The data is clear: organic practices benefit not only certified organic farmers but also conventional farmers who adopt sustainable techniques, improving soil health, reducing chemical dependency, and increasing resilience to climate change.
• Promoting Organic as Climate-Smart Agriculture: We will work to ensure that organic systems are recognized as essential tools for climate mitigation and adaptation. Organic practices are proven to enhance carbon sequestration and conserve water, and we will highlight these benefits in discussions with policymakers.
• Building a Lasting Bipartisan Community: We recognize that the best way to advance our priorities is through collaboration. Our strategy will include building and leveraging relationships across the aisle, making organic agriculture a bright spot in bipartisan conversations.

The potential for bipartisan support hinges on our ability to communicate the universal benefits of organic research. Research investments not only support organic certification standards but also generate best practices that conventional operations can use to reduce inputs and build healthier ecosystems. This broad appeal makes organic agriculture a rare unifier in a divisive political environment.

As we navigate this changing landscape, we call on our community to stay engaged. We will be developing a variety of ways you can get involved if you’re interested. The influence of grassroots advocacy cannot be underestimated, especially when we emphasize how organic practices contribute to healthier soils, cleaner water, and more resilient food systems for everyone. Keep an eye out for those tools and resources early next year!

Our Commitment

Regardless of the makeup of Congress or the Executive Branch, our commitment to organic farmers and sustainable agriculture will not waver. We will continue to fight for research programs and policy supports that empower farmers to adopt practices that are good for the planet and their bottom line. The winds of change in Washington sometimes shrouds our path forward, but our mission to foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming systems remains unshakeable.

Stay tuned, stay engaged, and know that we are here, as always, working tirelessly to ensure that organic agriculture has a seat at the table and a voice in the conversation.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

A Call for Action on Congressional Investments in Organic Research

Earlier this morning we had our first frost of the year here on the farm in Vermont; late for our area yet it came all the same. The arrival of frost, whether early or late, is inevitable for the Northern regions of the country, a seasonal deadline that irrevocably holds firm. The same can’t be said for the Farm Bill or the federal appropriations process, behind their deadlines by 25 months and two months, respectively. But, both of these pieces of policy face a real deadline come December. Just as frost signals the arrival of a new phase in the agricultural year, the pending deadlines for these federal actions marks a pivotal moment for the future of agricultural research, climate resilience, and conservation programming.

Why the Farm Bill and Appropriations Processes Matter

Both the Farm Bill and the federal appropriations processes are the primary drivers of agricultural research policy, especially for those interested in organic production systems. At OFRF, our core concerns are:

• Building resiliency to both climate and supply chain disruption through organic management and more localized food systems.
• Investing in research for organic agriculture in order to provide answers to pressing environmental and production challenges. 
• Supporting the expansion of organic production to meet increasing market demand for organic products.
• Making sure organic producers, and those interested in transitioning to organic production, have the research tools and opportunities needed to thrive.

Our existing Farm Bill and Appropriations Priorities still call for both legislative vehicles to authorize and then robustly fund organic agriculture research programs that our farmers so desperately need. 

Unfortunately, progress on these crucial processes has been slow, and now Congress has just a couple short months left to meet the December deadlines. A delay beyond that will have real-world impacts—stalled funding could limit the USDA’s ability to support conservation programs, climate-smart practices, and organic research that underpins a resilient agricultural system.

Like our late first frost in the NE, increased federal investment in agricultural research is long awaited. Every dollar invested in research funding generates $20 in public benefits. Despite this high return on investment, funding for agricultural research has fallen by nearly a third over the past two decades. Today, organic produce makes up more that 15% of the total market, and yet less than 2% of USDA’s research budget is allocated to organic topics, and less than 1% of the Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS) budget is dedicated to organic research.

An Opportunity to Act During Congressional Recesses

As we’ve highlighted before, Congressional recess is a unique opportunity for you to engage directly with your elected officials, as many will be back in their home states and districts. It’s a great time to attend town halls, community events, listening sessions, or other scheduled appearances to hear from them and, most importantly, to have your voice be heard. Organizationally, OFRF is working to bring Members of Congress to organic research fields, joining with coalitions to express our appetite for a Farm Bill now, and bringing the stories of research projects to decision makers across the federal government this Congressional Recess. 

Whether you’re a farmer, a researcher, or simply an eater, this is your chance to ask questions and emphasize the importance of strong federal support for organic agriculture research. Explain that organic agricultural research is not just for certified organic operations but benefits the entire agricultural sector by promoting climate resilience and sustainable practices. Check your local news sources for upcoming Town Halls and other events with your representatives.

Questions to ask your representatives:

• How are they prioritizing funding for organic agricultural research in the upcoming Farm Bill and appropriations processes?
• Will they commit to increasing investments in organic research to help meet national climate, conservation, and nutrition goals?
• What specific steps are they taking to ensure that USDA programs support organic practices and long-term soil health?

Just as we all are noticing our signals of changing seasons in our home environments, these federal deadlines mark an important milestone for agricultural policy. December is fast approaching, and how Congress decides to act will shape the future of agricultural research for years to come. To continue the growth and success of organic agriculture and the businesses that rely on it, we need public investments that support the researchers who are answering crucial agricultural questions.

If you’re interested in getting involved or want to know more about advocating for organic research investments, please reach out to us. Let’s work together to secure a sustainable and resilient future for agriculture, one where organic practices receive the support they need to benefit all.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

An Intern’s Journey into Food and Agricultural Policy with OFRF

By Julia Nelson

After spending a chunk of my first year of graduate school learning about food and agricultural policy in the U.S., I began my internship at OFRF with the goal of understanding how those policy mechanisms play out in the real world for the different parties involved in the process. Over the past 12 weeks, I have welcomed the opportunity to contribute to OFRF’s advocacy work focused on increasing funding for organic research in the most important U.S. agricultural policies – the agricultural appropriations and the Farm Bill. Through this experience, I have had the chance to practice a range of policy skills such as: writing catchy and persuasive email campaigns, synthesizing complicated federal data into a leave-behind document that tells a compelling story, and engaging in conversations with coalitions and members of Congress. 

One major goal of this work is to spread awareness to Senators and Representatives on the various agricultural committees that funding organic agricultural research doesn’t just support the scientific community, but also contributes to the local economy and helps the country move closer to climate goals. Through this process, I have also been able to experience firsthand the nuts and bolts of the federal policymaking process and better understand how major political events (such as a looming presidential election) affect the pace of advocacy work. 

Another hope of mine for this internship was to develop my professional skills in a way that would prepare me for future roles at nonprofit organizations or in public service. Because of its importance in the nonprofit world,  I was interested in learning more about development and funding during my time at OFRF. I had the opportunity to help the Development team with prospect research, which meant I spent time researching and identifying foundations that were and were not a good fit for our needs. I enjoyed getting a sense of the funding landscape for organizations who work on organic agriculture and hope to continue working with grants in some capacity in my future career. 

Additionally, I had the opportunity to put the data management and analysis skills that I have acquired through various statistics and economics classes to work. I helped with a few different data projects for the Policy team and the Research & Education (R&E) team, cleaning and categorizing large amounts of data on organic research from USDA and universities. The goal of my project for the Policy team was to be able to provide an honest estimate of the amount of federal funding that has gone towards organic agricultural research. The purpose of my work for R&E was to help populate OFRF’s soon-to-be organic research hub, which aggregates educational resources on organic agriculture to provide farmers with a one-stop shop of quality information. These projects reminded me of the importance of data in storytelling, illuminated the hard work that goes into any useful website that aggregates different resources, and reminded me that I need to keep up with my Excel skills. 

Finally, on a different note, I appreciated being able to gain insight into how a remote, national organization operates and builds community. As I gear up for entering a workforce that is becoming increasingly virtual, it’s been helpful to see positive examples of how you can connect and develop relationships with coworkers without being face-to-face. I have really enjoyed the catch-ups that happen during staff meetings and our informal community-building Zoom calls. 

Looking into the future, this experience has cemented my interest in pursuing the ‘policy’ part of my MS degree in Food and Nutrition Science & Policy after I graduate. My time with OFRF has reinforced my passion for working at the intersection of climate and food systems.  As I begin the final year of my graduate program, I will be focusing my time on gaining the policy & organizational leadership skills I need to pursue a career at a government agency or nonprofit organization based in my home area of New England. I could not be more grateful to OFRF for providing me with an enriching internship experience, and also for the support and inclusivity of all of the team members I collaborated with throughout the summer.

A Call for Insights from Split and Non-Certified Operations

Our mission at OFRF is to “foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming systems.” Organic certification has long been celebrated for its benefits to a variety of ecological and social systems; but we know that these benefits are not limited to fully certified organic farms. We understand that for a variety of reasons an operation will only have a portion of their land certified, or possibly forego certification entirely, but still operate as an organically-managed system. For those of you who manage operations like this, you have a unique perspective to observe and compare the impacts of organic practices across different types of land management systems.

We want to hear from producers like you about your relationship with and utilization of organic agriculture research. Research focused solely on conventional or chemical-based agriculture often cannot be applied to organic systems because it relies on inputs that are prohibited in organic farming. However, the opposite is not true: many organic practices can be beneficial for conventional farming operations as well. By understanding how split operations utilize organic principles, we can strengthen the case for increased funding in organic agriculture research that serves the entire agricultural community.

There are insights to gain from both split and non-certified organic operations about the benefits of organic.

Split Operations and the Potential of Organic Agricultural Systems

Split operations, where some fields are certified organic and others are managed using conventional chemistry- and genetic-based agricultural systems, provide an opportunity to offer valuable insights into the real-world application and benefits of organic farming practices and systems of management. This dual approach is a ripe opportunity for the observation of the effects of organic principles, such as cover cropping, complex crop rotations, reduced chemistry-dependance, and integrated pest management on their non-certified land. 

We’re eager to hear your experiences and results from grasping this opportunity! The potential for healthier soils, increased resiliency of ecosystems, and even reduced input/fuel/labor costs is real.

Help Us Understand the Broader Impacts of Organic Research

Do you operate a split or non-certified operation that uses organic principles and systems? Do you know someone who does? We’re trying to hear from these operations to better understand how they might be using organic research in their decision making. Their experiences can help us better understand how organic agriculture research benefits the entire agricultural system, not just certified organic producers.

Quantitative analysis already shows that organic research benefits all of agriculture by developing methods that can improve soil health, enhance biodiversity, reduce input costs, and increase resilience against climate change. These benefits are not exclusive to certified organic farms—they are valuable to all farmers who are looking for sustainable, long-term solutions. Now we need your stories to make the qualitative points that illustrate these benefits!

Your Story Matters

Time and again, we hear in Washington that appropriators are hesitant to increase budgets for organic research programming because it is seen as too “niche” or doesn’t apply to all agricultural operations. If you or someone you know has a story to tell on this topic, it will be a crucial piece in helping us demonstrate the importance of organic agriculture research for the broader agricultural landscape. 

Let’s work together to ensure that the benefits of organic agriculture are fully understood and leveraged for the good of all farming systems! Please reach out at gordon@ofrf.org.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

As we have discussed before, climate change and ecosystem degradation are some of the most potent challenges facing our food and agriculture systems. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS, NRCS) offers technical and financial assistance programs, like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), aimed at directly addressing those challenges. These programs help farmers adopt sustainable practices and systems, address resource concerns like water quality and soil health, and both mitigate and adapt to our changing climate. But, for these programs to be truly effective, they must be grounded in robust scientific research. Public investments in agricultural research, especially in systems approaches like organic agriculture, are essential to ensure these initiatives can achieve their full potential and are based on evidence that reflects climate-smart systems.

The Underfunding of Agricultural Research

Agricultural research is an incredibly valuable investment. Studies have shown that every dollar invested in public agricultural research generates $20 in public benefits. That is why it is so troubling that public agricultural research budgets in the United States have fallen by nearly a third in the past two decades. This decline threatens the development of new technologies and practices that are crucial for sustainable agriculture. With reduced funding, researchers struggle to address emerging issues such as climate change, soil degradation, and water scarcity. As a result, farmers are left without the tools and knowledge they need to adapt and thrive in a changing environment.

Adding to the challenge, the nature of agricultural research funding is changing. Increasingly, private sources are directing funding away from public welfare and toward profit-driven goals. This shift means that research priorities are often set by business interests rather than public or farmer needs. As a result, much of the funding goes towards innovations that enhance profitability for corporations like genetic development and new chemistries for pesticides rather than addressing critical issues such as sustainability and climate resilience.

The Importance of Organic Agriculture Research

Organic agriculture research is particularly important because it benefits all farmers, not just those who farm organically. Organic practices, such as conservation tillage, cover cropping, and  ecological weed management enhance soil health, improve biodiversity, and reduce dependency on chemical inputs. These practices can be and oftentimes are adopted by conventional farmers as well, promoting sustainability across the agricultural sector. In contrast, research focused on chemical-based agriculture is not applicable to organic producers, as it relies on inputs that are prohibited under organic standards. This discrepancy highlights the need for more inclusive research that supports a broad range of farming systems and addresses the diverse needs of the farming community.

Despite the broad benefits of organic agriculture research, it receives disproportionately low funding. Currently, less than 2% of the USDA’s research budget is allocated to organic topics, and less than 1% of the Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS) budget is dedicated to organic research. This significant underfunding limits the potential for organic farming practices to be fully explored, developed, and disseminated and likely undermines the effectiveness of conservation and climate programs.

Investing in organic agricultural research is crucial for the success of conservation and climate programs in agriculture. These investments ensure that programs are grounded in reality, based on the latest scientific findings, and equipped to address the diverse needs of farmers. By increasing funding for agricultural research, particularly in organic agriculture, we can develop effective, inclusive, and innovative solutions that promote sustainability and resilience in the agricultural sector.

Recognizing this importance, OFRF has recently entered into a cooperative agreement with NRCS to ensure that their programs, standards, and staff understand organic’s conservation benefits. This critical work underscores the necessity of continued robust research investments to develop and promote effective agricultural practices.

How You Can Help

Public investments in agricultural research are not just beneficial; they are necessary. They provide the foundation for effective conservation and climate programming, ensuring that our efforts to combat climate change and promote sustainable agriculture are both practical and impactful. It is time to recognize the critical role of research and take action to secure the necessary funding to drive progress in the agricultural sector.

Together with the National Organic Coalition (NOC) and many other partners, we are asking Congress to give organic its fair share of investment in the Farm Bill. You can join us by asking your Member of Congress to support organic research in the Farm Bill.

Will you take action today? The button below makes it quick and easy!

Be well,

Gordon

Community is one of the most potent tools organic agriculture both relies on and fosters. The challenges we all face—from climate change to food security—are far-reaching and intimately connected, requiring collective action and shared knowledge. An intentional effort to build community among research and extension officials that farmers rely on is a necessity for fostering innovation, resilience, and sustainability.

At OFRF, we are acting on that intention. We don’t just believe collaboration is the cornerstone of progress; we are actively building the foundation for it. By creating structured space and time for researchers and extension professionals within an ecoregion, we can enhance the impact of our own work and that of those researchers and extension officials. We are proud to be involved in the Transition to Organic Partnership Program for the Western and Southwestern States (TOPP-W/SW). Through this involvement, we have embarked on an initiative that brings these intentions to fruition.

Through TOPP-W/SW, we have launched a regional Research/Extension Affinity Group. This is a dedicated effort to foster connections between researchers studying problems and extension agents who are often the first to hear of an issue or challenge farmers are facing. This group is more than a network; it aims to be a vibrant community of professionals committed to collaboration and mutual support. Ultimately, this group has been designed to:

1. Foster Collaboration: By bringing together researchers and extension agents from across the W/SW states, we create a platform for sharing knowledge, resources, and best practices. This collaboration is crucial for tackling complex issues in organic agriculture and developing innovative solutions that benefit all.
2. Provide Resources and Learning Opportunities: Access to grant funding and other resources is a common challenge. Our affinity group facilitates learning from each other’s experiences, offers guidance on navigating funding opportunities, and provides tools to help researchers and extension agents more effectively support the farmers they work with.
3. Enhance Enjoyment and Fulfillment: The work we do in organic agriculture is challenging but incredibly rewarding. By building a community where members can share their successes, challenges, and experiences, we create an environment that nurtures personal and professional growth, making the journey more enjoyable and fulfilling.

The importance of community to organic production cannot be overstated. When we come together, we amplify our collective strengths, remedy our weaknesses, and ultimately create a powerful force for improving systems. Community fosters a sense of belonging and purpose, which encourages the exchange of ideas and knowledge, building a foundation of support and collective action that is essential for overcoming the challenges of our time and achieving our goals of a just and sustainable society.

As we continue in this effort, we hope you will join us! Whether you are a researcher, extension agent, farmer, or advocate, your participation is what differentiates success from failure. Together, we can break down the silos that separate us and foster a thriving community that advances the organic movement towards a sustainable future.

Let’s continue to build bridges, share knowledge, and support each other in our common goal of widespread adoption and simultaneous improvement of organic agriculture. The Research/Extension Affinity Group for the W/SW is just the beginning. With your involvement and energy, we can expand this collaborative effort and make a lasting impact on the organic farming community.

If you’re interested in hearing more about this group, especially if you live in one of the W/SW states (AZ, CA, HI, NM, TX, UT), reach out to Gordon at gordon@ofrf.org today! Together, we can and will make a difference.

Eat well,

Gordon

As active participants in the 2023-2024 (and maybe into 2025?) Farm Bill process, we work diligently to stay informed and active in developing legislative proposals that affect organic agriculture research, but also the organic ecosystem at large. Part of what we do is participate in coalition lobby days, like earlier in May where OFRF joined members of the Organic Trade Association, like Stonyfield, to make sure we are all consistently engaged with legislators and the organic sector. Two significant developments took place the past two months: Senator Stabenow unveiled the Section-by-Section (SBS) of the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act, and the House Agriculture Committee passed the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 (FFNSA). Now that the initial positions have been struck, we’re at a critical juncture in advocating for robust organic research programming.

Dana Bourne, sustainability program manager for Lactalis (Stonyfield)
and OFRF’s Executive Director, Brise Tencer at the OTA Organic Week in DC, May 2024.

Despite some significant improvements included in the Senate SBS for the organic industry at large, including the Coordinating Organic Research Initiative, this framework does not address the critical need of increased budgets for organic research programs. The FFNSA misses its mark even further, only providing flat funding for USDA’s National Institute for Food and Agriculture’s Organic Research and Extension Initiative. Although the safeguarding of agricultural research programs is always important, flat funding at 2018 levels is equivalent to a nearly 25% cut in the program’s effective budget in the current economy due to inflation. 

Organic farming systems are inherently designed to enhance local ecosystems through practices like cover cropping, crop-livestock integration, and the use of perennials. These methods have been scientifically proven to increase soil organic matter, improve soil structure, and foster robust microbial communities—all of which are essential for long-term fertility and productivity. Beyond ecological benefits, organic agriculture is a vital economic driver for rural economies, generating higher revenues and supporting local businesses at a rate far exceeding that of conventional farming.

Despite organic products making up 6% of the total food market and over 15% of the produce market, less than 2% of USDA-REE agencies’ budgets are allocated to organic topics. This persistent underfunding risks stifling the growth potential of the organic sector and jeopardizes the competitive edge of the United States in global organic markets.

In light of the demonstrated positive impacts and the increasing consumer demand for organic products, we have authored a letter that over 80 organizations have joined to reiterate the need for the following provisions in the upcoming Farm Bill:

• An annual increase of $10 million for the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI).
• Congressional authorization of the Researching the Transition to Organic Program, starting at $10 million a year and increasing to $20 million in the third year of the Farm Bill.
• An increased budget for the Organic Markets and Data Initiative, along with a mandated report on the economic impact of organic farming on communities.
• The creation of an Organic Research Coordinator position within the Office of the Chief Scientist to enhance the organization and communication of organic research at the USDA.
• The inclusion of climate change adaptation measures and the facilitation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge, ensuring the respect and consent of tribal communities, into legislative priorities for OREI.

As we navigate the legislative process, it is imperative that we, alongside our partners and policymakers, ensure organic agriculture research receives the attention and funding it critically needs. We urge all supporters of sustainable agriculture to join us in advocating for a Farm Bill that reflects the significance of organic farming in today’s food system.

We are grateful for the leadership shown by legislators like those who have cosponsored the SOAR act in the House and the OSRI Act in the Senate addressing these issues, and we look forward to seeing increased collaboration to strengthen organic agriculture research.

We invite you to join us in this critical advocacy effort. Here’s how you can get involved:

Contact your legislators: Urge them to support increased funding for organic research programs. Use this easy Action Alert from the National Organic Coalition!

Spread the word: Share this blog post and information about the Farm Bill with your networks.

Stay informed: Follow our updates on the Farm Bill process and other legislative developments affecting organic agriculture.

We are grateful for the leadership shown by legislators who have co-sponsored the SOAR Act in the House and the OSRI Act in the Senate. We look forward to increased collaboration to strengthen organic agriculture research.

Eat well and breathe deep,

Gordon

gordon@ofrf.org

Agricultural Research: Helping Organic and Conventional Farmers Alike

In agriculture, we often draw a line between conventional and organic farming based on their differences. However, organic agriculture research breaks through that barrier, offering benefits beyond the organic sector, which can support both conventional and organic growers. Organic research projects funded through Competitive Grant programs operated by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) like the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), Organic Transitions Research Program (ORG), and the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) and in-house, long-term research conducted by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) offer valuable insights and practices that are adopted universally, by both organic and conventional producers, to enhance sustainability, profitability, and resilience against climate change.

Economic Viability: Shortening the Runway to Profitability

Salvador Prieto uses his front loader to pick up a load of mulch for his Hass avocado and Meyer lemon orchards, in Somis, CA, on Nov 15, 2018. USDA Photo by Lance Cheung. Original public domain image from Flickr

Agricultural research plays a pivotal role in “derisking” agricultural businesses by testing innovative practices that individual farmers might consider too risky to adopt without seeing proven benefits. Organic agriculture research has continuously pushed the envelope on how to optimize resource use and reduce reliance on expensive synthetic inputs like fertilizers and pesticides. For example, an OREI study investigated the economic benefit that wild birds can offer agricultural operations by providing pest management services. Research projects like this have unearthed methods that cut down costs and boost farm profitability through more efficient practices. For conventional farmers, adopting these strategies can and has led to significant savings in materials, fuel, and labor costs. 

Agricultural research is not limited to agronomic practices but extends to market demands and trends that farms should stay aware of. These new markets will generally lead back to agronomic questions of how to grow the crop in a farmer’s region, but knowing that a market exists for a crop is crucial for an agricultural business deciding to invest in production. Research into these questions ensures farmers are well-informed of new opportunities that can influence their business decisions.

Ecological Vitality: Understanding Synergistic Benefits of Organic Management

Organic agriculture research uniquely focuses on the interconnectedness of soil health, biodiversity, and the farm’s ability to withstand climate irregularities. Practices developed in the organic sector, such as cover cropping, reduced tillage, and diverse crop rotations, are proven to enhance soil structure, increase biodiversity, and improve water retention—all contributing to a farm’s resilience against climatic stresses. However, one important piece that research continues to confirm is that organic management is not about one single practice but about the interplay and relationship between all the practices being utilized in a management system. For example, an ORG-funded project looks at a systems approach to day-neutral strawberry production in the Upper Midwest. Research like this underscores the importance of continued investment in understanding each bioregion’s agroecological system and how to manage it effectively.

Federal Funding: The Public Good Nature of Organic Research Requires Public Investment

The broad public-good benefits that organic agriculture research provides underscore the critical need for continued and increased federal funding. Despite a 20% reduction in federal funding since 2000, every dollar invested in agricultural research generates $20 of economic activity. It is essential to not only safeguard but increase this funding to support sustainability, economic viability, and resilience across all agricultural production systems. Federal investment in organic research yields dividends in sustainability, economic viability, and resilience that benefit all forms of agriculture. In April, we worked with our partners at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition to publish a blog that laid out the troubling reality of shrinking investment into organic agriculture research within general USDA programming, exacerbating the problem of general funding decline.

Because of its very nature, organic agriculture research is less attractive to private funding sources, which are increasingly funding university research programming. This private funding is generally more interested in marketable products rather than public-good-oriented research that aims to decrease reliance on expensive inputs. By fostering these universally beneficial production systems through robust public investment, we ensure an agricultural future capable of facing future environmental and market challenges.

Get Involved, Share Your Story

Have you utilized a research finding, participated in a research project, or have a question that could shape future studies? Please reach out and share your story with me directly at gordon@ofrf.org. Your experiences are crucial as they help us demonstrate the real-world impact of these research programs to legislators and policymakers. 

Let’s not just tell policymakers about the benefits — let’s show them. 

Eat well,

Gordon

Examining & Refuting USDA’s Justifications for Decreasing Dedicated Organic Funding

This blog was co-written by OFRF’s Senior Policy and Programs Manager, Gordon Merrick, in collaboration with our partners at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), and is available on their website here as well. We are grateful to work alongside our coalition partners to amplify and strengthen the organic movement.

As the world becomes increasingly attuned to the sustainability and health implications of our food systems, the role of organic agriculture has never been more crucial. Organic management has been shown to not only build resilience in ecological systems, but also in economic ones. However, recent developments in the Presidential Budget Request for fiscal year 2025 (PBR25) reveal a concerning decrease in funding specifically allocated for organic-dedicated competitive grant programs. This shift requires a closer look and a strong response from the scientific community, policymakers, and funding agencies alike. In this blog, we aim to look at the justifications given for these policy changes, and discuss the impacts that will follow if these changes are made.

A Closer Look at the Funding Shift

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) proposes to reduce funding for the Organic Transitions Research Program, opting to include more organic research through broader programs like the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) and the Specialty Crops Research Initiative (SCRI). The rationale provided for this shift hinges on two main points. First, that NIFA is transitioning away from its integrated (§406) authority* to focus on congressionally authorized programs. Put simply, NIFA’s integrated authority is a method for NIFA to answer research and extension questions related to issues not sufficiently covered by existing programming. Second, and relatedly, that several initiatives already support organic research at a substantial level. Despite these justifications, there is substantial evidence to suggest that AFRI and SCRI have historically not allocated adequate resources specifically to organic agriculture research, even with Congressional direction to do so.

The Gap in Organic Research Funding

While it is true that the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) exists to support organic agriculture, the decrease in dedicated funding for organic research in the PBR25 undermines the growth of organic farming practices, which are vital to addressing environmental challenges and health concerns. A review of the research projects awarded through SCRI and AFRI from 2009-2023 shows that the allocation for organic research does not meet the ongoing need. Within AFRI, funding levels have been historically substantial but have been falling short recently, while organic continues to grow its market share and presence. Through SCRI, funding has been sporadic and ultimately makes a small dent in the total funding for organic research topics. This underinvestment can lead to limits on the ability of these sectors to thrive or innovate at the pace required to address pressing agricultural challenges.

The % of funding from the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI), and the total between the two programs that went to a project with an organic agriculture component. This does not mean the entire project was dedicated to organic agriculture topics, but rather they were investigating a topic that involved organic so this is an overestimation of funding.

The NORA-22 report confirmed that there are persistent challenges that also possess regional wrinkles and peculiarities. Without robust, consistent investments into organic agriculture research projects investigating these topics, the Organic Sector will not be able to reach its full potential or meet the need for a climate-resilient food and farm system. Given all of the investments being made by the USDA to support transitioning growers into organic farming through the Organic Transition Initiative, there is a significant need to make sure that when producers have questions, they can readily find the answers. Additionally, even those that are not transitioning into organic certification have time and again been interested in adopting organic practices that are shown to be ecologically sustainable and economically viable.

Given these circumstances, it is essential for the scientific community, legislators, and NIFA itself to take proactive steps:

Take Legislative Action:

Congress must play a pivotal role by explicitly directing NIFA to prioritize and expand funding for organic research within AFRI and SCRI programs. Clear legislative directives can realign priorities and ensure that organic agriculture receives the attention and investment it rightly deserves.

Increase Agency Accountability:

NIFA should refine its Request for Applications (RFAs) to emphasize the importance of organic agriculture. By making organic agriculture a highlighted topic in RFAs, NIFA can communicate its significance to the research community and ensure that it is treated as a priority area for funding and development.

The decision to underfund organic research is more than a budgetary adjustment—it’s a statement about priorities. As participants in the formation of a sustainable future, we must advocate for a recalibration of these priorities towards a more robust support system for organic agriculture. Through collective action and a unified voice, we can ensure that organic research is not only preserved but enhanced, fostering an agricultural system that benefits our health, our environment, and future generations.

What You Can Do

Join us in urging NIFA, Congress, and the scientific community to bolster their commitment to organic agriculture. Whether you are a researcher, a policymaker, or a concerned citizen, your voice matters. Let’s plant the seeds of change and grow a healthier future together. Here are some ways you can get involved today:

• If you are a farmer:
  • Reach out to us! If you have a story about interacting with research, from participating in a research project to reading a research paper, and how it impacted your operation, please share it with us!
  • Reach out to your local research institutions to ask if they have any organic research projects involving crops you grow. If you are comfortable, also ask if they are looking for producers to partner with in future research projects and offer your farm as an option.
  • Reach out to your elected officials in DC, (find their contact info here) both your Congressional Representative as well as both Senators, and use this simple script:
    • “Hello, I am [Name], I live in [Town/City] and am a constituent of [Congressperson/Senator]. I am calling because I am an organic farmer and I hope [Congressperson/Senator] can support programs and agencies that answer my production questions. Can you ask the Agriculture and Appropriations Committees what they are doing to support organic agriculture research in the Farm Bill and FY25 Appropriations?”

• If you are a researcher:
  • Reach out to us! We are always interested in collaborating with researchers on projects, or at the very least can work to connect you with our network of producers and researchers interested in organic agriculture topics.
  • Apply for research funding for organic agriculture research projects through OREI, ORG, SCRI, and AFRI, it is important to make sure that demand for organic research projects is communicated to agency staff in this way.
  • Reach out to your elected officials in DC, (find their contact info here) both your Congressional Representative as well as both Senators, and share what you are working on with this script:
    • “Hello, I am [Name], I live in [Town/City] and am a constituent of [Congressperson/Senator]. I am calling  because I am an organic agriculture researcher with [Institution/Business] and I hope [Congressperson/Senator] can support programs and agencies that fund my work answering producer’s questions and helping them overcome their challenges. Can you ask the Agriculture and Appropriations Committees what they are doing to support organic agriculture research in the Farm Bill and FY25 Appropriations? These opinions are my own, and should not be attributed to my employer. ”

* “The Integrated Research, Education, and Extension (IREE) Competitive Grants Program was authorized in Section 406 (7 U.S.C. 7626) of AREERA to fund integrated, multifunctional agricultural research, education, and extension activities. While the overall approach to solving critical agricultural issues, priorities, or problems will be through an integration of research, education, and extension activities, within IREE individual programs may request applications that are research, education, or extension only, or a combination thereof.” Integrated Applications Information | NIFA, https://www.nifa.usda.gov/integrated-programs-application-information (last visited Apr. 23, 2024)