More

USDA Funds Climate Change Research For $60 Million

Usda Climate Change

By STEVE KARNOWSKI   03/21/11 03:32 AM ET   AP

MINNEAPOLIS -- The federal government is investing $60 million in three major studies on the effects of climate change on crops and forests to help ensure farmers and foresters can continue producing food and timber while trying to limit the impact of a changing environment.

The three studies take a new approach to crop and climate research by bringing together researchers from a wide variety of fields and encouraging them to find solutions appropriate to specific geographic areas. One study will focus on Midwestern corn, another on wheat in the Northwest and a third on Southern pine forests.

Shifting weather patterns already have had a big effect on U.S. agriculture, and the country needs to prepare for even greater changes, said Roger Beachy, director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And since the changes are expected to vary from region to region, he said different areas will need different solutions. Some areas may gain longer growing seasons or suffer more frequent floods, while others may experience more droughts or shorter growing seasons.

"What the climatologists have predicted is that the areas that were at one time wet will in fact be dry and hot, not wet and cool," Beachy said as an example. "If that's correct, then we need to have varieties of crops that will grow in those areas and are adaptable to the changes in the climate. So really it comes down to if we don't do this, we may have some food shortages in certain kinds of foods."

The corn project will be led by a rural sociologist, Lois Wright Morton of Iowa State University. She said the collaboration between climatologists, soil scientists, plant scientists and others means the researchers will be asking questions they might never have thought of before.

"We really have assembled what I really think of as the really top scientists in the agricultural arena to address these (issues)," Wright Morton said, adding that her team members are not only experts in their fields, they're willing to learn from others. "That's a pretty potent combination."

Tim Martin, a professor of tree physiology at the University of Florida and the head of the forestry project, said it will focus on the loblolly pine, which covers 80 percent of the planted forest land in the southeastern U.S. Southern pine forests produce more wood products than any others in the country, and they pull a huge amount of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, making them important to the economy and environment, he said.

"Southern forests contain a third of all the sequestered carbon – stored carbon – in all the lower 48 states," Martin said. "And every year, Southern forests store enough additional carbon to offset about 13 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the region. So just by virtue of growing, forests take CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in the wood and in the soil."

Martin's team will aim to maximize the amount of carbon stored in those forests and in wood products, such as 2-by-4-inch boards used to build houses.

All three projects also will try to develop crops and forests better able to withstand climate change. For example, Martin said, his team will help foresters choose the best varieties of pines to plant in a particular place given changes expected in the climate there.

The leader of the wheat project, Sanford Eigenbrode, an entomologist at the University of Idaho, said grain crops store less carbon than trees, but they can be managed to maximize the benefit, such as with better tillage practices. His team also will look at nitrogen fertilizers, which are used heavily in wheat and corn production. When farmers use fertilizers efficiently, they don't have to buy as much – lowering their costs – and most of the nitrogen fuels crop production. When used inefficiently, he said, fertilizers pollutes water with nitrate runoff and air with nitrous oxide.

"It's a much stronger greenhouse gas, molecule by molecule, than is CO2," Eigenbrode said of nitrous oxide. "So if we can learn to use our nitrogen as efficiently as possible we'll be doing good things for the farmer, the consumer and the climate."

NIFA announced last month that each of the projects would receive $20 million. All three studies call for researchers to communicate closely with farmers and foresters to better understand their business decisions and try to improve the odds producers will adopt their recommendations. The research will be spread out among some two dozen universities.

A fair number of farmers are skeptical of the idea that human activities cause climate change, but Martin said he'd tell them the research is still worthwhile. The studies aim to improve management of economically and ecologically important crops, and will make farmers better able to handle variable weather no matter what happens to the climate over time, he said.

"Regardless of what one may think about the cause, there's certainly plenty of evidence that climates are changing and those changes can affect our production systems for agriculture," Eigenbrode said. "It's important for our food security. So as climates change, agriculture has to change."

___

Online:

Array

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

MINNEAPOLIS -- The federal government is investing $60 million in three major studies on the effects of climate change on crops and forests to help ensure farmers and foresters can continue producing ...
MINNEAPOLIS -- The federal government is investing $60 million in three major studies on the effects of climate change on crops and forests to help ensure farmers and foresters can continue producing ...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 310
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
02:03 PM on 03/29/2011
I hope they make the results very public. Maybe that will encourage some more people to educate themselves about this issue!
12:20 PM on 03/22/2011
More immediate issues than climate change: GE crops, non-native invasive plants, forest loss.
photo
Wanderland
Barbie arm candy
03:48 PM on 03/22/2011
I disagree. How will invasive species beat completely changing one of the physical parameters of an ecosystem?

And reforestation and the conversion of marginal croplands to grasslands happens to be one of the key ways to quickly remove GHGs from the atmosphere. Many birds can be killed with one stone.
04:57 PM on 03/23/2011
Invasive plant species force out native plant species which essentially support the bottom of the food chain which in turn support the top of the food chain. Most of the time the only way to control these invasive plant species is a broad herbicide application. Invasive plant species DO completely change the physical parameters of an ecosystem.
08:25 PM on 03/22/2011
Thank you! You are correct, while all of those areas should be of concern, forest loss to me is the one that stands out. Most ecosystems cannot be rebuilt by simply planting trees in place of those that have been cut down. Perfect example, the Amazonian rain forest, most people would think that the soil found there is the most fertile soil on Earth, however that is a huge misconception. Rather it is some of the most infertile soil on the planet, the only reason the ecosystem is able to foster such diverse life there is because of the constant organic matter that is cycled through the soil. Currently, land is being cleared to grow soybeans in place of these forests. And because the nutrient cycle that was provided naturally has been disrupted, the land can only support agriculture for a couple of years and then the soil is incapable of producing anything else including trees. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of the most important ecosystem "the Earth's lungs" essentially reduced to barren waste land.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
goingstrong
The troII gene pool could use a little chlorine
04:23 AM on 03/23/2011
Wow that is SCARY stuff...and add to that the Amazon has suffered two century droughts in the past 10 years and starts putting C02 back into the environement rather than taking it out
photo
RealConservativeAmerican
Conservation is Key
11:20 AM on 03/22/2011
Why is the GREEN section of Huffpost under Politics?
photo
Wanderland
Barbie arm candy
03:18 PM on 03/22/2011
Similarly, 'animals' and 'food' are under it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kringle
Resurrection of the Gifting Spirit
06:58 PM on 03/22/2011
Why do you think AOL purchased HuffingtonPost?
03:00 AM on 03/22/2011
Farming is not easy. Farmers want to care for the land and grow good food. Farmers could probably tell us in minutes what to plant and how to grow in dry, wet, cool or warmer weather. $60 million would be spent better on improving other aspects of farming. When food is simply a commodity, produced on land that is treated like a commodity, it leads to destruction.
The example here is the Red River Valley of ND and MN. Land that is laser leveled, drains into road ditches minutes after a thaw or rain. Each section of land drains into drainage ditches that drain into tributaries then on to the Red River. Natural potholes and wetlands that once held moisture back, are gone. The flooding produced every year has cost billions of dollars. Each farmer acting in his own best interest is not in the best interest of society. Conservatives blame the government however, very few rules are applied to the destruction of the land. Tons of topsoil are used to produce small amounts of corn. Thousands of acre feet of water are used to irrigate small amounts of food. Compaction of the soil necessitates larger equipment in a vicious circle. RoundUp, for one example, is on it's way out as never before seen problems are produced.
photo
Wanderland
Barbie arm candy
03:22 PM on 03/22/2011
"Farmers could probably tell us in minutes what to plant and how to grow in dry, wet, cool or warmer weather."
----------------------

Not true. Farmers are very well attuned to what they grow on their land. If conditions change, and they are, they do not possess innate knowledge of the new environment in which they find their farms.
07:47 PM on 03/22/2011
HuffPo limited my rant and a paragraph was cut but, I would pose your statement directly to farmers. In the past few years, temperature extremes not only happen from year to year but from month to month and week to week now more often. Drought resistant seed and farming practices are as common as wet year practices on the same fields here. Grain grows in dry climates, corn in wet. The distances between these crops can succeed just miles apart or one year to the next. One of the points here is that wetlands should never have been put into production. Dry areas should never have been irrigated. Climate change is real and agricultural practices have contributed to it. Farmers mostly beget farmers. Knowledge of the 1930's seems firsthand to many farming today because of the dirty thirties lore handed down. Would a farmer know what to do if their growing season were 10 days shorter? Would a farmer know what to do if 20 days out of 85 were above 90 degrees? Some farmers' elevators go to the top floor.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kringle
Resurrection of the Gifting Spirit
10:33 PM on 03/21/2011
The only reason this seems so obviously corruption-related is that there are only 3 crops covered: Timber, Corn, and Wheat.

For that much money, doesn't it seem reasonable that some broad testing might be concluded to compare/contrast various situations upon a great number of crops? For example, how would cannabis/hemp compare to timber or to corn for both economic function as well as environmental impact, etc.? Can cannabis/hemp be used for ethanol or bio-diesel/bio-mass fuel replacements for petroleum or GMO-provided corn?
12:24 AM on 03/22/2011
I don't know about some of the questions you posed, but I can tell you for sure hemp could easily replace cotton, the crop which requires more nutrients and pesticides than any other that we grow in the states. Hemp is harvested from a different plant than the one we harvest marijuana to smoke. It doesn't make since not to grow hemp, Hops are related to the same cannabus ( in the same family Cannabaceae) plants we use for drugs much as hemp is, so why are hops not illegal to grow?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kringle
Resurrection of the Gifting Spirit
06:56 PM on 03/22/2011
Well, for the budget ceiling, why only set up an experiment that only covers a small handful of economic crops?

"Business as Usual" politics would simply answer "lobbying", but such policy practice has become "out-dated" due to the MAJOR technology disruption of the "internet". Corruptions and frauds are becoming more greatly exposed because it enables larger groups of collective action.

So do you now see Wisconsin's part to play?

The chain of "Business as Usual" corruption is falling apart like a house of cards, and yes...I believe it shall have beneficial global impact. For the same reason you and I can discuss solutions, interested parties can similarly come together virtually anywhere online...from diverse backgrounds, which may blossom innovation to these problems which are commonly faced around this planet.
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
09:01 PM on 03/21/2011
I see farmers aren't allowed to comment today. What are you afraid of?
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
09:06 PM on 03/21/2011
The farmers on Hpost making comments on farming methods are not trolls.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
john649
01:57 PM on 04/24/2011
just the Monsanto ones....
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
08:19 PM on 03/21/2011
Instead of a big lawn with an irrigation system, try growing as many vegetables and berries of the varieties you enjoy as you can using rooftop rainwater barrels and ollas (unglazed ceramic water containers buried in the soil next to crops; the plant's roots grow around it and extract water as needed- 100% efficient).

Instead of a cat, try getting a hen. Companionship AND eggs. Yum.

Instead of a dog, try a dairy goat. Similar size, similar vet bills, plus milk!

Instead of having 4 kids, try having 2 and adopting 1.

But no. People aren't willing to do things they're unfamiliar with, even if it would enrich their lives and make society more stable.

So I'm not inclined to support a food supply chain that I don't need which supports selfish people while simultaneously destroying our resources. I hope it collapses. It does more harm than good.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:43 PM on 03/21/2011
I agree that everyone should grow at least some of their own food (I do) and instead of grass, you can replace that lawn with low-growing herbs such as creeping mother of thyme. Not only will your food be local (and probably organic), but you'll be doing your soil a favour, increasing your neighbourhood's biodiversity, and supporting wildlife, wild birds, and especially pollinators. Good for everyone!
photo
RealConservativeAmerican
Conservation is Key
11:02 AM on 03/22/2011
I just remembered that I am, in fact, a farmer. Holy cow! We grow our own food, we eliminated our lawn to plant pollinator friendly gardens, We have fruit trees & berries growing everywhere, We have chickens, our neighbors have chickens & goats, we all share food with each other and only live 4 miles from downtown. I see lots of urban & suburban farming around here. It's very satisfying.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:15 AM on 03/22/2011
excellent post!
07:56 PM on 03/21/2011
Using wood at all is just outdated technology.

Cannabis sativa (hemp) can produce several times more dry fiber in the same acreage than any tree is capable of. And hemp can do that every year, not once every 30. The composite products produced from hemp replace wood products entirely, including 2x4s and plywood. The hemp products are stronger and more moisture-resistant than wood.

Due to it's high silica content, hemp can be mixed with lime to produce a mineral-substance called hempcrete. Hempcrete can replace concrete in many applications, and very much unlike concrete, hempcrete is actually carbon-negative.

Hemp also has a very high cellulose content, so it can produce paper and plastics efficiently.

That's all just the stalk. The seeds can be eaten or processed into foods in a variety of ways.

Hemp also improves soil by increasing the nitrogen content while extracting heavy metals like lead and mercury, so growing hemp on 'fallow' land can increase productivity and efficiency.

The hempseed oil can be made into biodiesel, which can power the machines which sow and harvest the hemp. If this takes place on what was fallow land, one has just increased the total efficiency and output of their operation considerably.

Hemp production could begin immediately without taking up new land while improving the efficiency and sustainability of current farmland.

Wood is outdated technology.

I won't even get into hemp easily displacing cotton, polyester, and silk.

Or replacing corn, soy, wheat, and rice.
photo
Soule23
Anti-micro-biol
08:10 PM on 03/21/2011
Hemp is kind of a nitrogen hog. I would recommend rotating it with a legume or other nitrogen-fixer.

Moreover, our current hemp production technologies are quite far behind those of our peers in France, Chile and China--that would be an important hurdle to overcome.
photo
Wanderland
Barbie arm candy
03:35 PM on 03/22/2011
Hemp is an annual row crop. It cannot be planted on much of our forest lands.

Hemp removes more nitrogen from the soil than it fixes, by far.

Canola and other oil seeds produce at least 3x as much biodiesel as hemp, per acre.

A hemp field is a biologically barren by comparison to a mixed forest.

While it's silly to exclude hemp production, and similarly silly to outlaw marijuana, there is a lot of overstatement about the benefits of hemp.
photo
Soule23
Anti-micro-biol
07:16 PM on 03/21/2011
These silly farmers--and I am a farmer--would do well to acknowledge the real threat to their livelihood posed by climate change. Not only that, but farmers have more options for going green than virtually any other group in the US. For instance, I am looking into the possibilities of using wind turbines to generate all of the electricity we use on our farm and carbon-neutral, soy-based bio-diesel to fuel all of our tractors.
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
08:53 PM on 03/21/2011
I also have a farm. I must be of those silly ones. BUT we are making great strides in becoming more energy efficient and more green and don't get credit for it. For example, we grow corn with yields averaging over 160 bu/acre today versus 100 bu/acre 30 years ago AND we do it with mush less labor and less fuel used per acre. Farmers grow soybeans in my area with no-till methods. Farmers do 4 passes through the field each season versus 9 or more the old fashioned way of plow,disc, drag, plant, spray, cultivate cultivate, cultivate and harvest. Even the most math challenged person can see less fuel is used. Soil erosion drops a huge amount too. All this reduces greenhouse gas. Sound good? This is not the future it is today. Name another part of society that has made dramatic advances like that?

But--But--BUT HPost and my fellow lefties scream and holler when I bring up how farmers do this. They are AGAINST everything I mentioned and RANT against it constantly. Yes..we save energy, use less labor, increase average yields and protect those yields using something called science. The secret is we use highly engineered farm equipment and GMO seeds obtained from "Big Ag". Oh the horror. the horror.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
11:13 PM on 03/21/2011
And a lot of round up.
05:21 PM on 03/27/2011
Real questions for a real farmer---
Are you seeing any decline in the effectiveness of GMO seeds?
Any cross over into fields not planted with GMO seeds?
How are you containing fertilizer so it stays on your fields and out of water systems?
Do rotate crops? If so on what schedule? Using what crops?
Do you own your own land or lease? Does this change how you decide what to plant? How you take care of the land?

Last one--in your fields what is the "count" for worms and little soil building critters?

We hear so much from "experts" of every stripe. How does it really look on the Farm?
photo
CajunSpectre
Laissez Le Bon Temps Roulet
07:06 PM on 03/21/2011
The article didn't mention that large areas in the Southeast where the loblolly pines are grown are owned or leased by the large paper companies such as the Koch brothers' owned Georgia Pacific. I am in favor of agricultural research, but when this research is benefiting the large corporations it should be financed by theses corporations not the taxpayers
photo
Soule23
Anti-micro-biol
07:20 PM on 03/21/2011
This research will benefit a lot more than just a few corporate leaseholders--what the USDA has set into motion is perhaps the most extensive study of climate change and its effects on global food production in history. The article did not touch on all of the other food crops involved in the study (I'm somewhat familiar with it) or any of the other countries participating (most of Europe, parts of Asia, and almost all of South America).

Sorry to ramble, but it's exciting research.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
11:15 PM on 03/21/2011
Pardon my cynicism, but if this corporatist admin did it, it must be welfare for the multinational farm and farm product companies.
05:30 PM on 03/27/2011
gee-- you mean owners will benefit? How terrible! (sarcasm off)

I don't care--someone always benefits! As long as it answers questions that effect the general good (like feeding them ) it is a worthwhile use of tax money.

Tax breaks on solar benefit the ones who buy and sell them--but they also benefit the whole as well by reducing stress on electric infrastructure and reducing polution. Are you cynical about that as well??
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:41 PM on 03/21/2011
It's a shame they are not looking at replacing corn and wheat with plants that have few pests, virtually no diseases, and do not require fertilization. If you could eat every part of the plant, that would be even better.

Amaranth, salsify and prickly pear come to mind.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
05:50 PM on 03/21/2011
Investors take note.
06:41 PM on 03/21/2011
I agree with the fact that we shouldn't be growing so much corn or soybeans as they are extremely needy crops and there is such an abundance of both that producers keep having come up with new products to put them in. However, nobody wants to eat amaranth or prickly pear as a major component of their diet, statements like this are why environmentalists are never taken seriously. Rather the real problem with agriculture is that outdated farm techniques are still being practiced in an outdated agricultural system. The only science that farmers in our current system seem to be applying are genetically modified crops that are more detrimental than beneficial in the long run. Since mechanized farming began, we slowly have lost educated farmers as new generations opt to go into better paying careers, in essence the dumb sibling stayed behind at the family farm. There need to be more educated farmers in our country who question the current system and choose more updated environmentally friendly techniques that in return produce crops with less of a reliance on fertilizer and pesticides therefore making them more affordable in the process.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:45 PM on 03/21/2011
"However, nobody wants to eat amaranth or prickly pear as a major component of their diet, statements like this are why environmentalists are never taken seriously."

Oh, really? I was under the impression that people in Mexico eat these plants as a major part of their diet. Salsify was the most popular vegetable of the nineteenth century.
05:33 PM on 03/27/2011
Don't know many farmers-do you. The ones I kinow are all college educated--some with full times jobs in industry to suppliment farm earnings.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:39 PM on 03/21/2011
Why in the world don't we put that money toward getting us off our oil addiction and actually reduce CO2 emissions? Gee, I know it is a radical position to actually deal with the real problem but maybe we should actually try it for a change. These band aid solutions will never get us where we need to go.

You can have all the resistant crops you want, but you still need a functioning ecosystems to survive. For example, if you drive honey bees to extinction by allowing climate change to damage every ecosystem, we'll lose our pollinators and all our crops, no matter what fancy laboratory engineered crop Monsanto wants to make a fortune on.

When will we wise up?
06:21 PM on 03/21/2011
You are so right. When will mankind realize that all things are connected on this planet? Instead of trying to rule over nature and controlling it, we need to start to learn to live WITH Nature! That would mitigate alot of our problems, IMHO. Fanned!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
06:24 PM on 03/21/2011
You're right that we should be spending much more on developing clean, renewable energy solutions, but we still need this kind of research. It's already too late to stop a significant change in the climate, and we need to figure out what we can do.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
05:34 PM on 03/21/2011
We have a healthy helping of berts today. Let's help them out, shall we?
What part of "promote the general Welfare" do you fail to understand?
You don't want to give 20 cents to a contribute to a scientific study, but you will give thousands of dollars per year to Saudi Arabian petroleum Sheiks!
Yeah, that is real robbery... 20 cents per person.
05:07 PM on 03/21/2011
what a scam. but that is what man made global warming is by definition. I scam intended to redistribute wealth. i am sick of being robbed
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:24 PM on 03/21/2011
Then look to where all the wealth has concentrated.
05:35 PM on 03/21/2011
Wow, you almost formed a coherent sentence that other people could understand, but not quite. You obviously have no idea what the phrase "redistribute wealth" means or why the USDA exists. You know what I'm sick of? Hearing the right complain about wanting lower taxes. Do you realize we had to borrow billions from China to pay for the renewal of the Bush Tax Cuts for wealthiest two percent of Americans?