By RACHEL LANE

D.C. Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Farmers and ranchers were among the first feeling the impacts of climate change and are instrumental in the success of addressing potential causes.

The science behind climate change was not discussed during the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry hearing “Climate Change and the Agriculture Sector” before Memorial Day. Instead, the focus was on the impact it has had on agriculture in the United States, the ways farmers are using conservation practices that benefit them financially and environmentally, and the ways strict legislation can negatively impact the industry.

“The industry takes very seriously its obligation to protect the environment while providing the nation with a safe and affordable beef supply,” said Debbie Lyons-Blythe, owner of Blythe Family Farmers LLC, member of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc., and one of the founding members of U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

She was one of four experts interviewed by the committee. She said ag, the beef industry specifically, gets blamed for increased carbon emissions, but beef cattle represent only 2 percent of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the country. Legislation that targets cattle producers fails to recognize the positive role those farms have on the environment and threaten the viability of the industry.

“Our livelihood is made on the land; through the utilization of our natural resources, being good stewards of the land not only makes good environmental sense; it is fundamental for our industry to remain strong,” she said.

In addition to benefiting soil and flora health, the open spaces of farms benefit wildlife. Farmers preserve grasses for grazing, crop rotations, and cover, and provide the large areas from which wildlife benefit – but many farms that go out of business end up being divided into parcels and sold for development.

The tall-grass prairie used to stretch from Canada to Mexico, but because of urban sprawl, only 4 percent of it remains – and that’s still there because of cattle ranchers. Lyons-Blythe said the grass stands 6 feet high with roots as deep as 20 feet. The plants take carbon out of the air and pull it deep into the soil.

Using genetic testing, farmers can determine which bulls have superior traits that will enhance meat quality, feed efficiency, and growth, as well as measuring mothering ability, docility, fertility, and calving ease in females.

“An animal who will reach harvest faster and yet produce a high-quality meat product will impact the environment for a shorter period of time,” she said. Today, she said the same amount of beef is produced as in the 1970s, but using 33 percent fewer animals.

Cattle have the ability to eat things humans cannot or will not eat, too, including a byproduct of ethanol – distilled grains. Prior to discovering cattle could eat this grain, it was dumped in landfills.

Frank Mitloehner, Ph.D. professor of animal science and air quality specialist in the Department of Animal Science at the University of California-Davis, said one of his responsibilities is speaking around the world about animal agriculture. He often needs to debunk the myth that it is the greatest environmental threat to Earth.

Animal agriculture is blamed as the major source of GHGs like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases form a barrier that prevents the sun’s rays from leaving Earth’s atmosphere. He said some of these gases are needed or the planet would be too cold to sustain life – the problem is in overabundance of GHG.

According to reports by the U.S. EPA in 2016, transportation and energy were each responsible for 28 percent of GHG, industry was responsible for 22 percent, and ag was responsible for 9 percent, livestock 3.9 percent of that. Food waste is the largest contributor to U.S. agriculture’s carbon emissions. EPA said the majority of food waste happens at the consumer level.

Removing all animal protein from the diet of Americans would cause a decrease in GHG emissions of 2.6 percent, Mitloehner said, while causing other problems like not providing for their dietary needs.

In 1950, there were 25 million dairy cows in the country. Today, there are 9 million, but the herds produce 60 percent more milk, making the carbon footprint of a U.S.-produced glass of milk two-thirds smaller today, he said.

Other areas of the world aren’t advancing as quickly. In Mexico, it takes five cows to produce the same amount of milk as one U.S. cow. In India, it takes up to 20 cows to produce the same milk. He said statistics point to the U.S. having the lowest GHG emissions per unit of milk worldwide.

Tom Vilsack, president and CEO of the U.S. Dairy Export Council (and former USDA secretary) said dairy farmers have worked hard to implement conservation programs, from planting cover crops to precision feed management, but these are expensive. Add in the low prices for milk, and they are having difficulty implementing new conservation practices.

The dairy industry has worked to try to reduce the industry’s environmental footprint, he said. It has a plan but implementing it, even on a few test farms, would be expensive.

Paying for the programs will rely heavily on USDA funding. While money is available in the farm bill, if the USDA had more money and the ability to have a long-term view of projects, more could be done faster to implement the changes.

Vilsack said there are feed additives that have been shown to reduce cattle’s methane emissions. These additives require Food and Drug Administration approval; while he’s not asking for a relaxation of the review process, he would like to see it move faster.

"In short, we – the dairy sector, Congress, and USDA – need to rethink the way voluntary conservation is funded and delivered,” he said. “Congress and federal agencies must also modernize the regulatory review process, while maintaining its integrity, so that farmers and ranchers can access the technologies required for them to protect our environment.”

Matt Rezac, a corn and soybean grower in Nebraska, said farmers protect the land for their children and grandchildren. About 15 years ago, he realized he needed to do something different to make the farm profitable. After research, he realized the problem was soil health. So he worked his farm with a focus on that.

"Instead of just treating the symptoms of poor soil health, we diagnosed the root cause and the world opened up,” he noted. “Since then, we’ve always focused on how we can do the right things for our farm and protect our soil and water for the future.”

Technology and innovation were key. Using precision agriculture, he tests not just the soil, but the plants. Rezac wouldn’t have been able to make the changes to his farm without help from the Natural Resources Conservation Service to help tailor a conservation solution for the farm. But his local office is overworked, and he turned to a local co-op to help.

The changes on his farm wouldn’t have been possible without the private and public sectors working together. It needs to happen more in order to improve conservation practices, he pointed out.

“Because we’re embracing technology and because we are willing to work together, farmers are ready to lead on climate solutions,” Rezac said.

Farmers make stewardship decisions that impact more than 1.4 billion acres of rural land, he added. They talk about maintaining soil health, protecting water quality and quantity, and controlling erosion – but they don’t talk about climate issues, even as Rezac says he knows the weather is changing.

“I try to control what I can control. I know what we are doing with soil health can help with weather variability and make my farm more resilient, at the same time.”

The farmers are willing to do the work, but it needs to make economic sense, too. Rezac favors providing marketing and policy incentives that complement the goals of farmers and give them the economic impact of any new practices.