Halloween has come and gone, the fourth crop of alfalfa is in the barn (without having been rained upon), the soybeans are combined, and the corn is currently being harvested and will soon be in someone’s gas tank. All of which means that my annual field report is overdue. This series of essays, which began as a lark more than a decade ago, is now my most-read publication! This 12^th edition, however, is different from its predecessors. In prior years I have reported that I was a Professor of International Agricultural Policy and Economics at Stanford who happened also to own a family farm in Iowa. But 50 years after joining the Stanford faculty, I have fully retired.  I write now as a full-time Iowan who is (partly!) adjusting to a new lifestyle. Fortunately, I had a few papers in the pipeline that helped ease the process of transition.  I am also enjoying the quiet of the farm. The year has also given me time to recall earlier experiences that needed both time and distance for me to put comfortably on paper. (I am hoping this essay will appear before Christmas.)

The 2022 agricultural year was a most unusual one. The Ukraine war added volatility to global grain markets. The doubling of nitrogen fertilizer prices from $750 to $1,500 per ton, coupled with much higher hybrid seed costs, caused a large substitution of soybeans for corn. And widespread drought across the United States curtailed production of both grain and roughage crops.

Despite the troubling global context, the situation on our farm in east central Iowa was near optimal.  Rainfall was slightly less than normal but was perfectly timed.  We went heavily toward soybeans (away from corn) and yields were spectacular.  “Normal” bean yields for our farm are in the 45-50 bushels per acre range.  This year the yield was 71 bushels per acre.  The beans were sold to the local Cargill crushing plant directly from the field, so this measurement (at 11.5 percent moisture) is precise.  Moreover, bean prices were very high--$13.25 per bushel-- delivered to the plant only 15 miles from the farm. Two years before the comparable price was $8.25 per bushel.

The widespread drought in the South and West had significant impacts on regional hay and straw markets.  We have been receiving more than $200 per ton for hay f.o.b. the farm, , and with four cuttings and few costs other than baling, alfalfa proved also to be a big money maker.  The corn story is yet to be told, but it appears to be a good, but not record crop in terms of yield.  We budget on the basis of 240 bushels per acre, but my conjecture is that yields will be in the 215 to 220-bushel range. In part, this reduction occurred because it is the second year for corn on this ground.  Deer also feasted at our expense, raising havoc with quite a large area. (It turns out that our neighbor developed a habitat area for wildlife as part of a new conservation initiative.  He provided the bed for the deer; we apparently provided the breakfast.)  We did not skimp on fertilizer, but the extremely high costs of nitrogen fertilizer caused many farmers to curtail nitrogen applications. Where there was adequate moisture, significant portions of U.S. corn acreage simply did not reach its full potential.  To complete the price trifecta, corn prices are also high--$6.10 per bushel delivered to the local ADM ethanol plant.

We are fortunate in being close to a large processing center (Cedar Rapids). Trucking costs have skyrocketed, and a major drought over the Mississippi Valley is raising havoc with river flows. The current flow of the Mississippi River is the lowest since the dust bowl years of the 1930s This dimension of climate change has sharply curtailed barge movements. A significant portion of Iowa corn and soybean production goes by barge to Gulf ports for export.  This curtailment is beginning to affect the relationship been cash and futures prices, and will also have adverse effects on much of the fertilizer, road salt and other bulk commodities that come North via the barge back-haul.

Image

Lest anyone think that this is a great year to get started in farming, however, he or she needs to look at macro policy.  Inflation and interest rates are really squeezing farmers.  For example, a new John Deere combine harvester costs $950,000, unless one opts for a better German machine that costs $1.5 million.  With diesel at $5 per gallon, it costs in excess of $2,000 for the daily fill of the fuel tank.  Thirty-year fixed interest rates for land purchase have doubled in the last 18 months, and now exceed 6 percent.  Despite these rates, land prices are rising, not falling, as are cash rents.  Locally, farms are selling in the $15,000 per acre range, and cash rents are running between $250-$300 per acre depending on land quality. Interestingly, in 2008, another price-spike year, farms were selling for less than $5,000 per acre and corn prices were at $5.30 per bushel.

The past 5 years has seen large changes in the way hay is being harvested—from 75-pound small rectangular bales moved mainly by hayrack and hand, to 800-pound bales moved by skid loaders. These changes have in turn made many older barns with overhead hay mows obsolete for storage. As a consequence, we splurged and over the summer erected a new 60 x 80 feet multipurpose shed that can house both hay and larger machinery.  Its design is something quite different—at least for us.  It has a wooden frame, metal sides, steel tubular trusses and a canvas hoop roof.  The roof has a 15-year guarantee—forever, from our 86-year-old perspective.  The shed itself is huge, and it is already too small!

Image

The fairs now are also back in full swing.  The Iowa State Fair set all kinds of records.  More than a million people attended in a state of only 3.2 million people; super-bull “Albert” checked in at 3,042 pounds; and the champion 4-H market steer, weighing 1,400 pounds, sold for $135,500.  (Talk about high-end hamburgers!) The most interesting (disgusting?) new fair food was a pork tenderloin sandwich made with two glazed doughnuts as the bread. Science’s “Fair Warning,” showing the possible link between hog shows and flu viruses, has yet to make the Iowa press.

Iowa, like the rest of the country, seems overrun with political ads.  The forever Iowa senator Charles Grassley (now 89) is in a surprisingly tight race, but it appears that Iowa will vote overwhelmingly red this year.  I am both amused and offended by the strident ads that openly accuse opponents of trying to convert Iowa into California or of being a “Pelosi Puppet”.  The current Governor is running for re-election, and one of her ads praises Iowans for “knowing right from wrong and the difference between boys and girls”. Donald Trump is little discussed, but Trumpism is alive and well throughout the state.

Unfortunately, one useful local institution did not survive the pandemic and demographic change. The 8 am gathering of farmers at the tavern in nearby Waubeek is no more.  Covid caused the initial disruption, but deaths, moves to nursing homes, and migrations to the South decimated the ranks of the regular attendees. No one misses the terrible coffee; everyone misses the conversation and gossip.  

Farmers need to be agronomists, veterinarians, carpenters, mechanics………. Being a lawyer would not hurt either.  Consider this implausible case—yet 100 percent of it is true.  We rent one of our pastures to a neighbor, who uses it to graze a bull and 30 cows.  That pasture adjoins another pasture that we use for our own cow herd, plus a bull that we rent annually.  In what can only be described as a harem dispute, the neighbor’s bull broke the fence between the two pastures, prompting our own version of a bull fight.   In addition, that night we had a flash flood. Our rented bull, who had since got into the pasture we rent attempted to cross the raging creek, literally got stuck and injured his leg so badly that he could not walk and had to be put down.  This seems like a cock and bull story, but it is precisely what in fact happened.  The legal question is who pays for the dead bull?  Is it the farm insurance policy? The renter whose bull broke the fence? The owner of the bull?  Or the Falcon farm that had rented the bull?  Interestingly, all the above got settled very amicably (in less than 10 minutes) on the following basis.  Since no farmer negligence was involved, Iowa law says that neither the insurance company nor the neighbor was liable. The owner of the bull and we ended up sharing the loss 50/50 after solving the equally difficult problem of what a good purebred breeding bull was worth.   The biggest problem, however, was loss of the bull per se.  His loss was much more than a tax deduction. This year he sired an extraordinary group of calves. His progeny were small and not even the first-year heifers needed assistance in calving; moreover, the entire cow herd less one all calved within 3 weeks.  That we should be so lucky as to find a comparable sire for next year.

The real lawyers at both the Iowa and U.S Supreme Courts were busy with Iowa livestock as well.  We currently do not raise hogs, but our neighbors do. Confined pork systems often emit strong odors, creating a pollution effect for anyone down wind.  The Iowa court held that growing livestock was constitutionally protected, and that bringing suits against farmers for these odors was unconstitutional. It seems to me that the Court got perilously close to giving farmers a constitutional right to pollute!   And if livestock production is guaranteed by the Iowa Constitution, so too must be the growing of crops. By analogy, does this mean that farmers cannot be sued for fertilizer runoff—perhaps Iowa’s greatest environmental problem?  Stay tuned.

The fight between animal rights activists in California and pork producers in Iowa, mentioned last year, is now being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case turns out to be quite important.  California consumes 13 percent of all the pork produced in the U.S.  Three-fourths of these pork products are grown in other states—importantly from Iowa.  The issue is whether California can ban shipments from other states whose farmers do not provide 24 square feet to sows versus the more common 16 square feet typically found in Iowa.  There are some important issues of detail—monitoring, enforcement, and penalties—but the central issue is whether the California referendum is unconstitutional because it violates the interstate commerce clause of the U. S. Constitution.  My betting is that the Court will rule the referendum unconstitutional, but only fools predict how this Court will rule on almost anything. 

I close with a non-event.  Few people realize that the growing of hemp—supposedly for medicinal and industrial purposes—is embraced under the current U.S. farm legislation.  I frequently am asked if we grow hemp, and the answer is no.  Some thought that hemp was the new get-rich crop.  It turns out, however, that supply and demand also work for hemp.  Despite supply regulations, supplies far exceeded demand and hemp prices crashed.  Better to stick with corn, soybeans and alfalfa!

All signs point to a long and cold winter.  Given that the year thus far has been near perfect, I suppose we deserve it.

Walter P. Falcon is Farnsworth Professor of International Agricultural Policy and Economics, Emeritus. He and his wife,  Laura, reside on their farm near Marion, Iowa. (wpfalcon@stanford.edu)

Usually, increasing agricultural productivity depends on adding something, such as fertilizer or water. A new Stanford University-led study reveals that removing one thing in particular – a common air pollutant – could lead to dramatic gains in crop yields. The analysis, published June 1 in Science Advances, uses satellite images to reveal for the first time how nitrogen oxides – gases found in car exhaust and industrial emissions – affect crop productivity. Its findings have important implications for increasing agricultural output and analyzing climate change mitigation costs and benefits around the world.

“Nitrogen oxides are invisible to humans, but new satellites have been able to map them with incredibly high precision. Since we can also measure crop production from space, this opened up the chance to rapidly improve our knowledge of how these gases affect agriculture in different regions,” said study lead author David Lobell, the Gloria and Richard Kushel Director of Stanford’s Center on Food Security and the Environment.

A NOx-ious problem

Nitrogen oxides, or NOx, are among the most widely emitted pollutants in the world. These gases can directly damage crop cells and indirectly affect them through their role as precursors to formation of ozone, an airborne toxin known to reduce crop yields, and particulate matter aerosols that can absorb and scatter sunlight away from crops.

While scientists have long had a general understanding of nitrogen oxides’ potential for damage, little is known about their actual impacts on agricultural productivity. Past research has been limited by a lack of overlap between air monitoring stations and agricultural areas, and confounding effects of different pollutants, among other challenges to ground-based analysis.

To avoid these limitations, Lobell and his colleagues combined satellite measures of crop greenness and nitrogen dioxide levels for 2018-2020. Nitrogen dioxide is the primary form of NOx and a good measure of total NOx. Although NOx is invisible to humans, nitrogen dioxide has a distinct interaction with ultraviolet light that has enabled satellite measurements of the gas at a much higher spatial and temporal resolution than for any other air pollutant.

“In addition to being more easily measured than other pollutants, nitrogen dioxide has the nice feature of being a primary pollutant, meaning it is directly emitted rather than formed in the atmosphere,” said study co-author Jennifer Burney, an associate professor of environmental science at the University of California, San Diego. “That means relating emissions to impacts is much more straightforward than for other pollutants.”

Image

Calculating crop impacts

Based on their observations, the researchers estimated that reducing NOx emissions by about half in each region would improve yields by about 25% for winter crops and 15% for summer crops in China, nearly 10% for both winter and summer crops in Western Europe, and roughly 8% for summer crops and 6% for winter crops in India. North and South America generally had the lowest NOx exposures. Overall, the effects seemed most negative in seasons and locations where NOx likely drives ozone formation.

“The actions you would take to reduce NOx, such as vehicle electrification, overlap closely with the types of energy transformations needed to slow climate change and improve local air quality for human health,” said Burney. “The main take-home from this study is that the agricultural benefits of these actions could be really substantial, enough to help ease the challenge of feeding a growing population.”

Previous research by Lobell and Burney estimated reductions in ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide between 1999 and 2019 contributed to about 20% of the increase in U.S. corn and soybean yield gains during that period – an amount worth about $5 billion per year.

Future analysis could incorporate other satellite observations, including photosynthetic activity measured through solar-induced fluorescence, to better understand nitrogen dioxide’s effects on crops’ varying degrees of sensitivity to the gas throughout the growing season, according to the researchers. Similarly, more detailed examination of other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and ammonia, as well as meteorological variables, such as drought and heat, could help to explain why nitrogen dioxide affects crops differently across different regions, years, and seasons.

“It’s really exciting how many different things can be measured from satellites now, much of it coming from new European satellites,” said study coauthor Stefania Di Tommaso, a research data analyst at Stanford’s Center on Food Security and the Environment. “As the data keep improving, it really drives us to be more ambitious and creative as scientists in the types of questions we ask.”
 

Lobell is also a professor of Earth system science in Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, the William Wrigley Senior Fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Burney also holds the Marshall Saunders Chancellor’s Endowed Chair in Global Climate Policy and Research at UC San Diego and is a research affiliate at UC San Diego’s Policy Design and Evaluation Laboratory, a fellow at the Stanford Center on Food Security and the Environment, and head of the Science Policy Fellows Program at UC San Diego.

A major bill with bipartisan support in Congress would reward farmers for an unusual harvest. The Growing Climate Solutions Act(link is external) promises billions of dollars for climate-smart agriculture practices, such as planting cover crops to reduce erosion and sequester carbon. The bill highlights farming’s potential as a climate change solution, as well as the challenge of controlling the sector’s growing greenhouse gas emissions. Below, Stanford Earth scientists Inês Azevedo, David Lobell and Rob Jackson discuss the surprising amount of greenhouse gases emitted by farming, how farmland conservation programs can help reverse the trend and what the federal government can do to promote more climate-friendly agriculture, among other issues.

Azevedo is an associate professor in the Department of Energy Resources Engineering at Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth). Her research examines the role of food systems in reaching de-carbonized economies. Lobell is the Gloria and Richard Kushel Director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment. He uses unique datasets to study rural areas; his research has shown how reduced soil tillage can increase yields while nurturing healthier soils and lowering production costs. Jackson is the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Provostial Professor of Energy and Environment in Stanford Earth. His work has shown that global emissions of nitrous oxide increased by 30 percent over the past four decades due mostly to large-scale farming with synthetic fertilizers and cattle ranching, and that well-managed soil’s ability to trap carbon dioxide is potentially much greater than previously estimated.

What might the average person be surprised to learn about greenhouse gas emissions from America’s agricultural lands?

Lobell: First, I think people are surprised that the food system actually uses a very small share of fossil fuels, even when you include all the fertilizer production. Second, people are surprised by how many things they think are good, like eating organic or local foods, have very little effect on emissions and can even be worse than conventional alternatives.

Jackson: Many people are aware that fossil fuel use drives most carbon dioxide emissions, but they might not know that more than half of methane and nitrous oxide emissions attributable to human activities come from agriculture.

Azevedo: I think the average person would be surprised to learn agriculture – including livestock, agricultural soils and agricultural production – accounts for about 10 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and, in contrast to some other sectors of the economy, they have increased over time.

Does the Growing Climate Solutions Act go far enough to mitigate and reduce emissions? How could it be stronger?

Lobell: I worry that there isn’t enough emphasis on the main greenhouse gases that agriculture contributes to – nitrous oxide and methane – where progress could probably be made a lot faster than for carbon dioxide. Soil carbon is like motherhood and apple pie – nobody is against it – but I wish that half the energy I see going into how to get more carbon into soil was going into how to reduce emissions of the other gases.

How can programs that reward farmers for certain conservation practices help? 

Jackson: The world’s soils contain far more carbon than the atmosphere, but agricultural activities such as plowing have released two hundred billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from soils. Conservation programs can help us put some of that carbon back where it belongs, making our soils more fertile and better at retaining water.

Lobell: On one level, these programs can help start the process of making agriculture carbon neutral or even carbon negative. This is important if we want to meet aggressive climate goals. On another level, they can help build a broader political coalition devoted to solving climate change. This might be even more important for climate goals, especially given the disproportionate role of rural states in our federal government.

How should such programs be designed for maximum efficiency and cost-effectiveness?

Lobell: I’m concerned there is a lot of hype out there now on what specific practices can deliver, for example by companies trying to raise large funding rounds on the idea of selling carbon credits. I think it’s important that the programs have a strong system of verification and ability to adjust over time as we learn about what is truly effective.

Jackson: Rather than focusing primarily on carbon dioxide, agricultural incentives would be well served to reduce emissions of methane and nitrous oxide through practices such as better fertilizer and manure management. Methane’s warming potential is 30 times higher than carbon dioxide’s over a century, and nitrous oxide’s warming potential is nearly 300 times higher. Reducing them is a great bang for our climate buck.

From a global perspective, how important is agriculture’s role as a potential climate change solution, and how can policymakers better quantify and track it?

Azevedo: One of the recent things our recent research has shown is that although reducing emissions from fossil fuels is essential for meeting the Paris Agreement goals, other sources of emissions may also preclude its attainment. Specifically, even if all fossil fuel emissions were immediately halted, the achievement of the agreement’s 1.5 degree Celsius maximum temperature increase target would likely not be feasible if global food systems continue along their current trends.

Lobell: I think accelerating public research in this area will be critical, particularly for ways to accurately measure carbon accumulation or emissions reductions on individual farms. If this had been a well-funded area, we might be in a much better position in terms of leveraging all of the private sector enthusiasm for it. Since food is a traded commodity, it will also be important to monitor global land-use change and the extent to which our domestic policies might be having unintended consequences elsewhere.

New research from David Lobell and team finds small satellites can help target agricultural interventions in locations where impact will be greatest.

Data from microsatellites can be used to detect and double the impact of sustainable interventions in agriculture at large scales, according to a new study led by the University of Michigan.

By being able to detect the impact and target interventions to locations where they will lead to the greatest increase or yield gains, satellite data can help increase food production in a low-cost and sustainable way.

According to the team of researchers from U-M, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, and Stanford and Cornell universities, finding low cost ways to increase food production is critical given that feeding a growing population and increasing the yields of crops in a changing climate are some of the greatest challenges of the coming decades.

“Being able to use microsatellite data, to precisely target an intervention to the fields that would benefit the most at large scales will help us increase the efficacy of agricultural interventions,” said lead author Meha Jain, assistant professor at the U-M School for Environment and Sustainability.

Microsatellites are small, inexpensive, low-orbiting satellites that typically weigh 100 kilograms (220 pounds) or less.

“About 60-70% of total world food production comes from small holders, and they have the largest field-level yield gaps,” said Balwinder Singh, senior researcher at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.

To show that the low-cost microsatellite imagery can quantify and enhance yield gains, the researchers conducted their study in small-holder wheat fields in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains in India.

They ran an experiment on 127 farms using a split-plot design over multiple years. In one half of the field, the farmers applied nitrogen fertilizer using hand broadcasting, the typical fertilizer spreading method in this region. In the other half of the field, the farmers applied fertilizer using a new and low-cost fertilizer spreader.

To measure the impact of the intervention, the researchers then collected the crop-cut measures of yield, where the crop is harvested and weighed in field, often considered the gold standard for measuring crop yields. They also mapped field and regional yields using microsatellite and Landsat satellite data.

They found that without any increase in input, the spreader resulted in 4.5% yield gain across all fields, sites and years, closing about one-third of the existing yield gap. They also found that if they used microsatellite data to target the lowest yielding fields, they were able to double yield gains for the same intervention cost and effort.

“Being able to bring solutions to the farmers that will benefit most from them can greatly increase uptake and impact,” said David Lobell, professor of Earth System Science at Stanford University. “Too often, we’ve relied on blanket recommendations that only make sense for a small fraction of farmers. Hopefully, this study will generate more interest and investment in matching farmers to technologies that best suit their needs.”

The study also shows that the average profit from the gains was more than the amount of the spreader and 100% of the farmers were willing to pay for the technology again.

Jain said that many researchers are working on finding ways to close yield gaps and increase the production of low-yielding regions.

“A tool like satellite data that is scalable and low cost and can be applied across regions to map and increase yields of crops at large scale,” she said.

The study is published in the October issue of Nature Sustainability. Other researchers include Amit Srivastava and Shishpal Poonia of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in New Delhi; Preeti Rao and Jennifer Blesh of the U-M School of Environment and Sustainability; Andrew McDonald of Cornell; and George Azzari and David Lobell of Stanford.

This story originally appeared on the Univeristy of Michigan's School for Environment and Sustainability website.