Climate change

RFK Jr. and Zeldin Comment on How They Would Implement Trump Policy

Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:46:07 GMT

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s confirmation hearing for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Wednesday (Jan. 29) before the Senate Finance Committee lasted over three hours, revealing key points:

Vaccine stance: Kennedy attempted to soften his past anti-vaccine rhetoric, stating support for vaccines but struggling to explain previous controversial statements.
Health policy priorities: He emphasized addressing chronic diseases, promoting safe food, removing conflicts of interest in health agencies, and using “gold-standard science.” Kennedy said that federal dollars spent on SNAP and school lunch programs could be one place to start, “helping kids” avoid obesity and chronic illness by cutting out sugary drinks and “ultra-processed foods.” He would also fund federal research into the link between food additives and chronic illnesses, though he didn’t specify which ingredients sparked the most concern. “I don’t want to take food away from anybody,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy emphasized his support for American farmers, stating:
- “American farms are the bedrock of our culture, of our politics, [and] of our national security.”
- He was a “4-H kid” and spent summers working on ranches.
- He wants to work with farmers and food producers to remove burdensome regulations and unleash American ingenuity.
Agricultural practices and health. Kennedy expressed concerns about current agricultural practices:
- He criticized the use of certain chemicals in farming, stating they destroy soil microbiomes and cause erosion.
- He linked chemical-intensive agriculture to health problems, mentioning clusters of cancers, autoimmune diseases, and obesity in farming communities.
- He called for incentivizing transitions to regenerative agriculture and less chemically intensive practices.Kennedy told Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) that farmers are affected by cancers and autoimmune illnesses that he believes are caused by ingredients like food dyes. “We need to fix our food supply,” Kennedy said, noting that “seeds and chemicals” used by U.S. farmers are “destroying our soil” in the long term. When asked about Kennedy’s “seeds and chemicals” comment, Grassley told Politico: “I’ll have someone from Iowa State University talk to him.”
Collaboration with USDA. Kennedy emphasized his intention to work closely with the Department of Agriculture:
- He stated that MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) “simply cannot succeed without a partnership a full Partnership of American farmers.”
- He committed to working collaboratively with USDA and other federal agencies before implementing policies affecting food supplies.
- Kennedy mentioned that President Trump instructed him to work with Brooke Rollins at USDA to ensure policies support farmers. Rollins told reporters last week that she was supportive of Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement. “But what is important and, if confirmed, what my role will be, will be to strike a balance between defending our farmers and our ranchers but also working with Bobby Kennedy, who I adore, to effectuate the president’s vision on all of the above,” Rollins said
Regulatory approach. Kennedy outlined his approach to agricultural regulations:
- He promised to work with farmers to remove burdensome regulations.
- Kennedy acknowledged the “very thin margins” farmers operate on and stated he doesn’t want any farmer to leave their farm for economic or regulatory reasons.
- He agreed that agricultural practice regulations should primarily be left to USDA and EPA.
- “I expect you to leave agricultural practice and regulation to the proper agencies,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told Kennedy. That means, for the most part, leaving policies that impact farmers to USDA and EPA, Grassley clarified.
Future of agriculture. Kennedy shared his vision for the future of American agriculture:
- He called for fixing the food supply as a top priority. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told Kennedy that he was happy the nominee addressed the “social media rumors” about agriculture.
- “You made it very very clear you’re not going to tell Americans what to eat, but you do want Americans to know what they’re eating,” Lankford said, calling that a “pretty fair perspective” on food policy.
- Kennedy advocated for supporting the transition to regenerative and sustainable farming practices.
- He mentioned plans to rewrite regulations to give smaller operators “a break.”
- Throughout the hearing, Kennedy attempted to position himself as an ally to farmers while also advocating for changes in agricultural practices to address health and environmental concerns.
Controversial past: Democrats challenged his history of health misinformation and grasp of Medicare and Medicaid.
Republican support: Some GOP senators backed Kennedy, with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) calling him “awesome,” though the final vote remains uncertain.
Financial concerns: His financial ties to lawsuits against Merck raised conflict-of-interest questions.
Abortion stance: Kennedy sidestepped direct answers but aligned with Trump’s anti-abortion policies, shifting from his previous pro-choice stance.

Bottom line: With strong opposition and divided support, Kennedy’s confirmation vote is expected to be closely contested. Today he attends another confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The Senate Finance Committee expects to hold its RFK Jr. vote next week.

Zeldin Confirmed as EPA Administrator

On Wednesday (Jan. 29), the Republican-led Senate confirmed former Congressman Lee Zeldin as the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a 56-42 vote. A staunch Trump ally, Zeldin is expected to steer the agency in alignment with the former president’s environmental policies.

Vote breakdown: All 53 Republicans backed Zeldin, joined by three Democrats — Sens. Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), and John Fetterman (Pa.).
Policy direction: Zeldin is expected to roll back environmental regulations, emphasizing economic growth and private-sector collaboration.
Biofuel policy. Zeldin has raised concerns among ethanol and biofuel advocates due to his past opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and ethanol. However, during his confirmation process, Zeldin made some commitments that suggest a potential shift in his stance. As a congressman, Zeldin had a history of opposing biofuels and the RFS. He signed letters expressing concern about proposed RFS volume increases, citing issues with the “E10 blend wall.” In 2017, Zeldin cosponsored an unsuccessful bill to repeal the RFS. He raised concerns about the validity and practicality of higher ethanol blends like E15 and E85. But during his confirmation process, Zeldin made several statements that indicate a potential change in his approach:
- He committed to giving producers and the industry certainty in the marketplace regarding Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs).
- Zeldin acknowledged the importance of the RFS issue to President Trump and certain senators.
- He stated that no person or industry has any special influence over his decision-making, addressing concerns about his past connections to the oil industry.
Biofuel industry representatives have expressed cautious optimism:
- The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) looks forward to working with Zeldin on keeping the RFS on track and addressing other priorities like E15 availability.
- The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA) encouraged Zeldin to pursue the role biofuels can play in U.S. energy dominance.
- The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) appreciated Zeldin’s commitments to follow the law regarding RVO rulemakings and supporting year-round E15 nationwide.

Of note: While Zeldin’s past positions raised initial concerns, his recent statements during the confirmation process suggest he may be open to working with the biofuels industry in his new role as EPA Administrator.

Climate stance: Critics warn his leadership could weaken climate initiatives, favoring fossil fuel interests.
Reactions: Republicans praise his “common-sense regulation” approach, while environmental groups call his confirmation a serious setback for public health and environmental justice.

Bottom line. As Zeldin assumes leadership, his tenure is likely to reshape the EPA’s role in U.S. environmental policy for years to come.

Cassidy Casts Doubt on RFK Jr.’s HHS Nomination

Senate HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.) delivered a blunt message to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during Thursday’s hearing, signaling serious concerns about his nomination for Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary.

“I’ve been struggling with your nomination,” Cassidy stated in his closing remarks, a potential roadblock for Kennedy, given Cassidy’s influential position on the Senate Finance Committee. If Cassidy votes against Kennedy in the panel’s decision, the nomination may not advance.

The Louisiana senator expressed deep skepticism about Kennedy’s stance on vaccines, questioning whether he could be trusted to uphold sound public health policy. Cassidy specifically criticized Kennedy’s history of vaccine skepticism, warning that such views could erode trust in essential immunizations.

“A worthy movement, called MAHA, to improve the health of Americans?” Cassidy asked. “Or will it undermine it, always asking for more evidence and never accepting the evidence that is there?”

He also recounted a recent case of two children dying in a Baton Rouge ICU from vaccine-preventable diseases. “My concern is that if there’s any false note, any undermining of a mama’s trust in vaccines, another person will die from a vaccine-preventable disease,” Cassidy warned.

Beyond his own reservations, Cassidy’s remarks signal broader challenges for Kennedy’s nomination. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a childhood polio survivor, is unlikely to back a nominee with anti-vaccine ties. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also remain key votes to watch, with both urging Kennedy to support vaccinations.

Cassidy, up for re-election in 2026, has already drawn a Trump-aligned challenger, State Treasurer John Fleming. Though Cassidy emphasized his desire for Trump’s policies to succeed, he warned that anti-vaccine rhetoric could tarnish Trump’s legacy.

“I want President Trump’s policies to succeed,” Cassidy said. “But if there’s someone that is not vaccinated because of policies, of attitudes we bring to the department, and there’s another 18-year-old who dies of a vaccine-preventable disease… The greatest tragedy will be her death. I can also tell you an associated tragedy will be that it will cast a shadow over President Trump’s legacy, which I want to be the absolute best legacy.”

Bottom line: With Cassidy’s support in doubt and broader Senate skepticism, Kennedy’s path to confirmation remains steep.

Top Takeaways from Zeldin’s Confirmation Hearing for EPA Lead and the Impact On Ag

Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:36:44 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin, underwent hours of testimony Thursday, commenting on everything from year-round E15, the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) and the controversial WOTUS rule. When pressed about climate and environmental policies, Zeldin stated he believes climate change is real.

During the hearing, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) asked Zeldin to ensure access to year-round E15, but he did not make a definitive commitment, responding cautiously. Zeldin stated that while he couldn’t prejudge the outcomes of any processes, he acknowledged the importance of the issue to Sen. Ricketts and President Trump.

His exact words were: “Senator, while I can’t prejudge outcome of processes to follow across the board, I know how important this issue is to you and I know how important this is to President Trump.”

Despite this non-committal response, leaders of ethanol industry groups, including the American Coalition for Ethanol and Growth Energy, expressed appreciation for Zeldin’s commitment to doing his part to ensure nationwide availability of year-round E15.

Zeldin’s Stance on Ethanol
Zeldin’s stance on ethanol has been a point of interest, given his previous opposition to ethanol usage mandates during his time in Congress. Zeldin was asked about upholding legal deadlines for new Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) standards, which are part of the RFS program.

Ricketts criticized the Biden administration for setting RVOs below industry production levels and not meeting the law’s deadlines. Zeldin expressed his commitment to implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as written by Congress.

He stated, “If confirmed, I commit to you that I will faithfully execute the law as written by Congress.” This statement was seen as an attempt to reassure senators from agricultural states who are concerned about the EPA’s implementation of biofuel policies.

Zeldin addressed his past opposition to ethanol usage mandates. He acknowledged that his views on the issue have evolved since his time in Congress.

Zeldin stated, “My position has evolved. I’m not in the same place I was years ago.”

He explained that his perspective has changed due to conversations he’s had with farmers, producers, and others in the industry. Zeldin emphasized that he now has a better understanding of the importance of ethanol to rural economies and energy security.

To further illustrate his evolving stance, Zeldin mentioned that he has visited ethanol plants and spoken with industry stakeholders.

He said, “I’ve learned a lot more about ethanol. I’ve visited plants. I’ve talked to a lot of people in the industry.”

WOTUS Rule Opposition
The EPA nominee has been vocal about his opposition to the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. He expressed strong criticism of the Biden administration’s decision to reinstate and expand the WOTUS rule. Zeldin argued that the WOTUS rule represents federal overreach and places an undue burden on farmers, landowners, and local governments.

He stated that the rule would negatively impact agriculture, construction, and other industries by expanding federal authority over water bodies and wetlands. The congressman emphasized that the expanded definition of WOTUS would lead to increased regulations and permitting requirements for activities on private property. He contended that this expansion of federal control would hinder economic growth and development in rural areas.

In his statement, Zeldin called for the repeal of the WOTUS rule, advocating for a more limited interpretation of federal jurisdiction over water bodies. He supported efforts to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority in implementing the rule, arguing that states should have more control over their water resources.

Zeldin’s position on WOTUS aligns with many Republican lawmakers who view the rule as an example of government overreach and excessive environmental regulation. His statements reflect a broader debate about the balance between environmental protection and economic development in water resource management.

Zeldin’s Criticism of EPA Staff
Zeldin made notable comments regarding EPA staff. He criticized EPA employees for what he described as their attempts to undermine the Trump administration’s policies.

Specifically, Zeldin accused some EPA staff members of leaking information to the media and actively working against the administration’s agenda. He expressed concern that these actions were hindering the implementation of policies and creating unnecessary obstacles for the agency’s leadership. The congressman’s remarks were part of a broader discussion on government accountability and the role of career civil servants in executing administration directives.

Zeldin emphasized the importance of loyalty to the current administration’s goals, regardless of personal political beliefs.

Climate Change and Climate Policies
As for his position on climate change, the hearing showed the political dynamics and implications surrounding the issue considering President-elect Donald Trump’s stance, particularly as seen through an exchange involving Zeldin with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). Sanders emphasized the existential threat of climate change, framing it as a matter transcending politics. Whitehouse voiced concern about Zeldin’s ability to resist fossil fuel industry influence.

Zeldin stated, “I believe that climate change is real,” marking a departure from previous EPA leaders during the first Trump administration and from President-elect Trump, who has previously labeled climate change a “hoax.”

Regarding EPA’s role in regulating carbon dioxide emissions, Zeldin referenced a 2007 Supreme Court decision, noting that while the ruling grants the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it does not mandate such action. He emphasized that the agency is “authorized, not required” to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

When pressed on specific climate policies, such as reducing reliance on fossil fuels, Zeldin refrained from committing to particular actions. He expressed a desire to collaborate with scientists and policymakers, stating, “I don’t sit before you as a scientist.”

In response to inquiries about campaign donations from fossil fuel companies, Zeldin asserted that financial contributions would not influence his decisions, emphasizing his commitment to impartiality in his role as EPA Administrator.

Of note:
Throughout the hearing, Zeldin underscored the importance of protecting the environment without hindering economic development. He stated, “We can, and we must, protect our precious environment without suffocating the economy.”

Economists React to Zeldin’s Nomination

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

In the December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor and prior to this week’s hearing, Farm Journal asked economists about what Zeldin’s past stance on ag issues could mean if he’s approved as the next EPA adminstrator.

Based on Zeldin’s track record, 60% of economists said they don’t think Zeldin’s policies will be positive for agriculture. 40% said they do think his policies will be good for agriculture.

In the survey, economists said:

“I expect there to be fewer new regulations in the Trump Administration. This is positive for agriculture.”
“I imagine many of the tax credits for new demand (either low carbon fuels or carbon programs) will be on the table to be cut.”
“He generally is not a fan of the RFS. My guess is that he will impact the RFS only marginally.”
“A deregulatory agenda could be positive for many farmers, but Zeldin has a record that is not favorable toward biofuels. How he (and the President) will address biofuel issues is unclear--in the first Trump administration, there were many large disputes between pro-biofuel and pro-fossil fuel interests.”
“His track record is negative toward liquid biofuels, which is a big part of our domestic demand.”

Related News:

Trump Taps Lee Zeldin to Lead EPA; What Does It Signal for Agriculture?

Have You Heard of Scope 3? It Offers Opportunity for Agriculture

Thu, 08 Feb 2024 19:43:45 GMT

You might have heard the term Scope 3 thrown around. It’s all the buzz lately in the world of sustainability. But what does it mean?

A company’s emissions are broken down into Scopes 1, 2 and 3. This helps them account for different categories of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions:
• Scope 1 refers to direct emissions controlled by the company, which include emissions from their operations and facilities.
• Scope 2 addresses indirect emissions from energy an organization purchases or brings in to operate the business.
• Scope 3 covers indirect emissions from the company’s supply chain, both upstream and downstream.

Scope 3 is where things get interesting for farmers and the rest of agriculture’s “upstream” supply-chain partners. Upstream means all of the materials and transportation required before something gets to the company for production or processing.

We’re all aware companies are evolving their sustainability strategies. Increasingly, they’re working to meet the sustainability demands of their customers and the various voluntary initiatives established by their leadership and downstream supply-chain partners. As a result, businesses must be able to measure and reduce their Scope 3 emissions. It’s especially important for companies whose supply chain includes agriculture. Like it or not, agriculture is considered one of the primary contributors of GHG emissions and climate change. McKinsey & Company recently reported agriculture is responsible for about 24% of global emissions, making agricultural emissions a major focus of decarbonization efforts.

Onerous as this sounds, this creates tremendous opportunities for farmers who have already reduced emissions, or will in the future, through on-farm practices, such as reduced energy usage, improved soil health measures and reduced machinery passes on a field.

When will Scope 3 opportunities be available in your area? This is the big question. Many existing and new companies are collaborating to understand which methodologies, strategies and systems are required to support this new type of sustainability accounting in a way that’s consistent and realistic for our fragmented industry. New pilot programs are popping up regularly. But, so far, they have been concentrated in very small regions and vary greatly from one program to the next.

If you believe you have practices that could support Scope 3 reductions, talk to your local agribusiness partners to see what’s available in your area. Consider reaching out to your grain elevator, meat packer, dairy processor or other supply-chain partners.

If there is a new sustainability company or expert reaching out to you for a meeting, take the time to listen. They could be bringing you new opportunities to monetize sustainable practices on your farm or providing valuable information to help better educate you on decarbonization or Scope 3 opportunities in your area. Not every opportunity might be right for your farm, but taking the time to get better educated on the landscape will be valuable now and in the future.

Heather Gieseke’s insights help position agribusinesses for growth and profitability – from risk management to carbon mitigation, emission reduction and other agriculture advocacy related initiatives. A leader of Pinion’s sustainability practice, Heather champions sustainability for the farm, family and business.

What's Causing These Frigid Temperatures Right Now?

Fri, 19 Jan 2024 20:48:23 GMT

Another round of arctic freeze is blasting the U.S. The first round of cold weather brought historic temperatures, with Montana’s temperatures falling to 40 to 50 degree below zero. With another round of frigid temperatures blanketing the U.S. again, what’s behind the cold?

While El Niño can be to blame for the back-to-back winter storms, something else is spurring the cold. Brad Rippey, USDA meteorologist, says moisture pumping up from the Gulf is a hallmark of El Niño.

“As I always say, you can’t blame an individual or a single storm and El Niño, but you start looking at the overall patterns, and there’s absolutely no question that when you start seeing a pattern setting up like this, a storm pipeline from the Pacific coming across the Southwest and into the Midwest or east, that is El Niño,” says Brad Rippey, USDA meteorologist.

The cold, however, is being pushed down from the north. Drew Lerner of World Weather says the arctic air is caused by a warming that occurs in the stratosphere, which is outside of where we live in the troposphere. Sudden stratospheric warming events, like what the U.S. is experiencing now, can be caused by large atmospheric waves in either the stratosphere or the troposphere. Planetary waves have ridges and troughs like ocean waves, but span huge distances in the atmosphere.

“The stratosphere, when it turns warmer, it expands that layer in the atmosphere and it pushes, puts pressure on the troposphere and forces cold air that’s aloft down to the surface. And then it gets spread out from the arctic,” says Lerner. “What happens a lot of times when you get these stratospheric warming events is that you displace the polar vortex and or you split it into two vortices, and that’s what’s happening.”

He says this can lead to a splitting of the polar vortex, so instead of cold air being locked above the polar region, it pushes further south into the mid-latitudes.

The good news? This latest round of frigid air is short-lived. The Climate Prediction Center (CPC) 10-day forecast, which is below, shows a much more mild view, at least compared to what we’re seeing now.

(Farm Journal)

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack Reveals the Final COP28 Declaration Will Not Focus on Agriculture and Food

Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:28:02 GMT

Despite calls from countries to focus on food and agriculture as a way to meet the world’s climate goals, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack revealed that the final COP28 declaration would not focus on agriculture and food. This decision was influenced by a request from the G77 group of developing countries for additional review and participation related to agriculture and food, leaving no time for negotiations.

While Vilsack highlighted the importance of a special day dedicated to agriculture and food policy and the participation of U.S. farm and food leaders, he considered the Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Change, signed by 152 nations, and commitments by countries and companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fund related projects as significant achievements. However, some observers were disappointed because this would delay progress until June 2024.

Today, at the first-ever day dedicated to food and agriculture at a COP conference, we’re proud to highlight the steps we’re taking to tackle the climate crisis, invest in food systems innovation, and bring new opportunities to producers #COP28 pic.twitter.com/69uyWVdmcZ
— Secretary Tom Vilsack (@SecVilsack) December 10, 2023

Vilsack mentioned the Agriculture Innovation Mission (AIM) for Climate , a joint initiative between the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates aimed at addressing climate change and global hunger through increased investment in climate-smart agriculture and food systems innovation.

Regarding reducing meat consumption, Vilsack said he had not heard much about that goal but instead emphasized strategies for reducing methane emissions related to livestock. The U.S. is taking a leadership role in methane reduction through research, feed additives, recapturing methane for energy production, and managing manure.

A Focus on Dairy to Start

Leading into the meeting, there was a lot of talk about how agriculture practices and food production may be impacted by the climate goals. And to start the meeting, dairy was on the list.

According to a report from Reuters last week, advocacy groups said that tackling livestock methane should be a major priority at this year’s COP28 summit. In addition, at the summit in Dubai this week, six of the world’s largest dairy companies announced an alliance to cut methane emissions from dairy cows.

Reuters reported members of the Dairy Methane Action Alliance include Danone, Bel Group, General Mills, Lactalis USA, Kraft Heinz and Nestle. The Alliance says it will begin reporting their methane emissions by mid-2024 and will write methane action plans by the end of that year.

While the world’s largest dairy companies are working together, it’s also sparking an argument of how essential dairy is in the diets of people around the globe.

#UN #Roadmap to 1.5 #Livestock plan unveiled at #cop28 listed in this thread.

Livestock plays a crucial economic role contributing to the livelihoods of about 1.7 billion poor people and 70 percent of those employed in the sector are women
— Steven Middendorp (@smiddendorp22) December 10, 2023

Cop28: An Explanation

What is COP28? It’s a meeting of politicians, diplomats, NGOS and representatives of national governments. There are also other stakeholders who attend to try to influence the outcome. The meeting actually dates back to June of 1992 when 154 countries signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). At the time, those countries agreed to combat human impacts on the climate.

COP meetings have been held every year since, with a different country becoming the COP president. Since that country is in charge of organizing the meeting, the host city typically moves year to year. Then, any new agreements struck from that year’s meeting, is typically named after the host city, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement and the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact.

According to the COP28 website, the goal is to “correct course and accelerate action to tackle the climate crisis.” The website also states, “COP28 is where the world will take stock of progress on the Paris Agreement – the landmark climate treaty concluded in 2015 – and chart a course of action to dramatically reduce emissions and protect lives and livelihoods.”

The Goal

According to COP28 organizers, the science shows “to preserve a livable climate, the production of coal, oil, and gas must rapidly decline, and global renewable power capacity – including wind, solar, hydro and geothermal energy – needs to triple by 2030. At the same time, financing for adaptation and investments in climate resilience need a quantum leap.”

COP28 organizers say the goal is to create “concrete solutions to the defining issue of our time.”

Going Live on The Weather Channel, the New Mexico Milkmaid Zeros in on Dairy Sustainability

Thu, 20 May 2021 16:20:28 GMT

Fifth-generation dairy farmer, Tara Vander Dussen, also known as the New Mexico Milkmaid, from eastern New Mexico was recently a live guest on The Weather Channel, sharing dairy’s commitment to reducing its carbon footprint. The Weather Channel’s “Growing Solutions” series features farmers from across the country; focusing on how farmers are part of climate solution.

Searching for the word ‘dairy’, a producer from The Weather Channel came across Tara’s blog, The New Mexico Milkmaid and reached out to her. “It was as simple as that,” the New Mexico dairy advocate says.

Tara knew after speaking with the show’s producer the Growing Solutions series was going to be a positive story for agriculture and she said yes to the opportunity to tell dairy’s sustainability story to a larger audience. The New Mexico Milkmaid felt comfortable going on live television, as she has engaged telling dairy’s sustainability story in many faucets. Although, this was the longest live interview Tara has ever done before and unlike previous experiences, she did not know the host, she said she could tell from the initial interview that this segment was going to shine a positive light on dairy.

In high school, Tara’s father was on a board that worked with dairy government regulations and Tara was intrigued from the get-go, as she saw a massive gap in the conversation between the dairy producer and government regulations personnel. “I wanted to bridge the gap between those two groups and social media allowed me to do that,” Tara says. “It all morphed into bringing consumers into the mix and wanting to engage with them and narrowing that gap as well.”

Tara holds a degree in environmental science from the University of Arizona and after that she moved back to New Mexico, got married and began working as an environmental scientist. Tara, and her husband, Daniel, and their two young daughters live and work on their family-owned dairy, which is home to nearly 2,000 cows.

Going live via zoom from the Curry County New Mexico dairy feed pad, Tara lit up The Weather Channel segment with her passion for dairy sustainability. Tara openly talked about the fact that dairy only contributes to 2% of U.S. greenhouse emissions and the Net Zero initiative set forward by the industry to become carbon neutral or better by 2050. “We have a long track record and have set huge industry wide goals for the future,” Tara stated on live television.

Tara explained to The Weather Channel how a single gallon of water on a dairy farm is reused up to five times—from cooling down milk, cleaning equipment, flushing the barn and how water is collected in a lagoon to then water the crops, which then feed the cows. “It all comes full circle,” Tara adds.

The New Mexico Milkmaid blog was developed by Tara because she found that often people have several misconceptions about farming. “I wanted to set the record straight about dairy farm life and on farm sustainability.”

The New Mexico dairy farmer was able to do just that on her recent live television segment. Check out The Weather Channel’s full clip featuring Tara here.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by TARA | Dairy Farmer (@newmexicomilkmaid)

John Phipps: Sustainable Agriculture Movements Often Miss the Mark

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:55:14 GMT

While it’s always been a buzzword, sustainability has grown into a movement. It pervades the food chain, but also energy, urban development, and even clothing. Usually the term refers to a set of standards, typically vague.

Agriculture is into “sustainable” now, as well. Driven by consumers who have demonstrated the term resonates with them, retailers are sending strong signals down our value chains to come up with a way to get that label on their product. The result is a small side industry of sustainability advisers and innovators.

The beef industry has a good model: The US Roundtable For Sustainable Beef. It is one of the more thorough I have seen because it includes more of the entire value chain than most other industry plans. It is a remarkable step in the right direction, even though its specifics and metrics still need full details, which are the hardest part of all. For example, one metric for cow-calf producers is to have a Grazing Management Plan, but I’ve seen several versions of those from researchers and universities.

In the same way other organizations are working to be able meet various other sustainability standards. All of these efforts are worthwhile, but most are reaching a point where enough planning has been done and actual farming practices have to be affected by those goals. One good example of the detail needed for measurable crop farmer actions to promote sustainability is the STAR program developed in Illinois by Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Its adoption has been slow as is typical for voluntary programs of this nature, but it does list explicit practices to meet sustainable standards.

The odd thing is all of these strategies I have seen, and support, tiptoe around the issue of climate change. There are discussions about greenhouse gas emissions, which are de facto admissions of man-caused climate change, but most statements are meticulously drafted to avoid the dreaded “C” words. It appears that proponents of sustainable actions reserve the right to believe that whole idea is based on nonsense, even while making considerable efforts to mitigate climate change. As hypocrisy goes these days, this is fairly trivial and not worth fussing over. Besides, I applaud any movement toward rational action on climate change.

Livestock’s Contribution to Climate Change

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:39:33 GMT

By: Suanne Klahorst, University of California, Davis

In a 1,000 year old village in Germany (Juehnde), methane is not a dirty word. The recovered methane from a manure-fueled bioreactor feeds the burners that heat water for every household in the village. The same hot water provides heating. These households benefit from living adjacent to a livestock economy whose manure was once just a smelly nuisance. The manure is transported by truck to an enclosed bioreactor, thereby reducing odor and feeding a system that powers an entire community. Frank Mitloehner once called this village home. Now a professor and air quality UC Cooperative Extension specialist in the Department of Animal Science at UC Davis, Mitloehner thinks that if this village can do it, so can California.

It is easy to see how Mitloehner was inspired to study ways that California can take advantage of its plentiful supplies of animal methane. In eight bovine bio-bubbles that function as airtight barns, he captures and measures every emission from his resident livestock in order to understand how methane emissions vary with feed and herd management.

At UC Davis, a commercialized version of a similar methane bio-reactor has been patented and licensed by Ruihong Zhang, professor in the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering. It has been constructed at the local landfill and will be used to demonstrate a sustainable village on the UC Davis campus.

Mitloehner recently hosted a seminar for the Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety at UC Davis. Since the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) committee released its 2006 report entitled, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” he has challenged two key misleading sentences in the report. The phrase compared the contribution of livestock emissions to that of transportation. By saying the contributions to climate change were similar, the report led many environmental advocates to the conclusion that eating less meat was the equivalent of taking cars off the road, setting up a meat vs. miles tradeoff that exaggerated the methane contributions of livestock everywhere.

Mitloehner’s response was the publication Clearing the Air, Livestock’s Contribution to Climate Change. After his paper was released, BBC, CNN and other media published his science-based estimate that the livestock contribution in the U.S. is 3.4 percent of U.S. emissions. Globally, 18 percent of warming was estimated to be livestock related. This estimate included livestock in the broadest sense - changes in land use, deforestation and desertification in developing countries.

In spite of Mitloehner’s paper, the meat vs. miles perception has persisted among advocates, while press about transportation GHG has dwindled. Toyota took advantage in their advertising by showing how Prius emissions were more favorable than those of a sheep.

Nonetheless, Mitloehner showed that U.S. methane emissions remain flat, while developing countries are increasing animal production to meet the demand for eggs, meat and dairy, especially in Asia. But why is the U.S. so low?

Mitloehner shared a few facts that help explain the phenomena:

The U.S. has fewer dairy cows. Today’s 9 million dairy cows supply 60 percent more milk than the 16 million cows in production in 1950. That means there is increased efficiency per cow for the same methane produced.

Thirty percent of the methane in dairy production is from manure in ponds. There is the potential for recovery on the approximately 1,500 California farms, where the average herd size is 1,100 head.

Methane has 20 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide, but when burned to heat water or to generate power, its warming potential is reduced by a factor of 20.

The more fiber in the feed, the more methane is released by the rumen of the animal. One dairy cow in the U.S. produces an average of 20,000 lbs of milk per cow annually, the same amount of milk as five cows in Mexico, or up to 100 cows in India for the same, or less methane per cow. Reasons: low fiber diet, less parasites and less disease result in large differences in production per cow.
Mitloehner occupies that middle space between the economically driven farmers who survived years of falling milk prices and the sustainable advocates that want dairy to either disappear entirely or retreat into historical practices. When he is not serving on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) or the National Academies Institute of Medicine, he keeps company with local farmers and students and he answers to science.

Dairy addicts like myself, whose ancestors have evolved on milk for over 10,000 years, are likely to continue to frequent the organic dairy cases, hopeful that there are mutual benefits to paying higher prices for local labels in returnable glass bottles as a way to sustain the farms.

In reality, California has been exporting surplus dairy products to growing populations since the 1890s and that won’t change soon. Those markets do more to keep dairies profitable than my weekly milk and yogurt purchase. Lactose for pharmaceuticals and whey proteins for infant formulas are shipped internationally from several of California’s mammoth cheese factories, sometimes worth more the cheese itself.

Mitloehner believes that “sustainable intensification” is the solution to keeping local dairies viable. He believes that science will provide the path to better regulation. The dairy nations that seem determined to get at the truth - New Zealand, France, Ireland and the Netherlands - have formed an international partnership at FAO entitled LEAP to address the issues. Mitloehner’s leadership as chair of the partnership will keep methane bioreactors on the agenda.

New Study Shows Animals Primarily Consume Foods Not Fit for Humans

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 01:44:48 GMT

A new study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912416300013 by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) finds that animals, particularly cattle, consume a lot less food that humans eat and less an environmental burden than previously reported.

That’s significant, because previous reports, such as FAO’s own “Livestock’s Long Shadow” issued a decade ago, suggested animals are consuming large amounts of food that could be eaten by humans and creating a huge carbon footprint.

Previous studies, often cited without question, suggest that between 12 and 45 lb of grain are needed to produce 1 lb of beef. “Contrary to these high estimates, the current investigation found that an average of only 6.6 lb of cereals are need to produce 1 lb of meat,” says Anne Mottet, a co-author of the FAO study. “Cattle only need 1.3 lb of protein from human food to produce 2.2 lb of protein in meat and milk, which is of higher nutritional value.

“In addition, this study determined that 86% of livestock feed, which includes residues and by-products, is not suitable for human consumption,” says Mottet. “If not consumed by livestock…, these ‘leftovers’ could quickly become an environmental burden as the human populations grows and consumes more and more processed food.

“Animal production, in its many forms, plays an integral role in the food system, making use of marginal lands, turning co-products into edible goods, contributing to crop productivity and turning edible crops into highly nutritious, protein rich food,” she says.

Trusteed IRAs: why they are popular, who should consider them, what benefits they offer

Fri, 23 Sep 2022 20:01:45 GMT

Q: I’ve heard a lot about trusteed IRAs. How do they differ from traditional IRAs?

A: Simply put, trusteed IRAs offer potential tax benefits of traditional or Roth IRAs with the protection and control of a trust. They provide tax advantages that stretch into the future and offer the ability to control how, when and in what amounts assets are distributed. Trusteed IRAs have become more popular given some of the inherent limits of traditional IRAs and the growing prevalence of self-directed retirement accounts combined with the decline of pension plans. They also are more cost-effective than setting up a trust and are generally more compliant with tax laws.

Q: Who should consider a trusteed IRA?

A: There are several reasons why someone should consider a trusteed IRA, the most consequential of which is if an owner has an interest in controlling assets and realizing tax benefits beyond their lifetime. This can mean an owner is concerned with the financial discipline or sophistication of heirs.

Other reasons include if an owner remarries and wants to provide for a current spouse as well as children from a previous relationship and/or is concerned about IRA management in the event of incapacitation.

Q: I’m in the middle of estate planning. How can a trusteed IRA help with the process?

A: They can help process if only to preserve the potential tax-advantaged accumulation of IRA benefits to pass on to heirs. Under traditional or custodial IRAs, a beneficiary is required to withdraw at least the Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) each year. However, a beneficiary may withdraw additional amounts, for any reason, at any time—and incur possible fees or tax penalties.

Additionally, owners can restrict payouts to a beneficiary to the RMD, enabling it to operate as a spendthrift trust. At the owner’s death, the trusteed IRA would be automatically split into separate accounts for individual beneficiaries, with distribution terms defined for each account.

Another benefit is that estate plans don’t need to be rewritten or updated; trusteed IRAs can be added independent of an estate plan to protect IRA assets which legally pass outside of wills.

Q: Is a trusteed IRA better suited to farmers or owners of farm assets?

A: Not expressly, but a trusteed IRA can play an important role in legacy planning and preservation of farm assets over multiple generations. Given the growing generation gap among farming families, trusteed IRAs could be a way help preserve farm family values over generations from beyond the grave. Moreover, as farm economics continues to change, farmers may find value in the highly customizable nature of trusteed IRAs. In the event of a divorce in the family, for example, assets can be made to not leave the family’s bloodlines.

Q: Are there any downsides to trusteed IRAs?

A: Given that a trusteed IRA requires a corporate trustee, it’s harder to change ownership and family members cannot be named as trustees. Not all financial institutions offer trusteed IRAs so they may not be widely available to interested clients. Additionally, while they offer greater customization and more control, trusteed IRAs carry some limits. To have the highest level of customization and control, a trust would need to be created.

Please send questions, comments or requests to address a topic or issue to Rees Mason at rees.mason@ml.com.