Farmers have long been committed to sustainability, though they haven’t always called it that. Over the years, it’s been known as “stewardship” or “conservation,” while companies and brands often speak to it in terms of “scopes” of emissions. The promising part is that the end results and ultimate goal have always been the same, while the path to achieve the goal has just looked a little different.
For the farmer, the goal has always been productivity and profitability, which allow them to grow and thrive while caring for the land, animals and natural resources in their care. Companies and brands, however, have been more focused on reducing their varying scopes of emission (Scope 1 – direct emissions; Scope 2 – emissions associated with utilities; and Scope 3 – emissions related to their supply chain).
Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas (GHG), and because agriculture naturally produces a significant amount of methane, the focus quickly became lowering the total, or absolute, amount of methane produced. Researchers collected and interpreted data, governments across the globe provided funding, companies and brands engaged to finance these efforts, and farmers implemented the suggested options on their farms. Scientists continue to be creative and bring options forward that can reduce methane production. The downside with many of these solutions is that, although they accomplish the goal of methane reduction, they do not provide any benefit to the farmer in the form of productive gain. This lack of alignment has made it difficult to make meaningful progress.
While progress around methane reduction has been slow, the impact of climate change is being felt. We are experiencing greater swings in weather patterns, water resources are becoming a greater issue and changes in growing seasons are palpable. As supply chains become less predictable and costs become more volatile, it not only impacts farmers but also companies and brands. These impacts are causing the approaches to broaden. Instead of simply looking at how to lower the absolute methane emissions from the animal or the farm, there is more weight being put on how to lower the carbon intensity (the amount of CO2 equivalents per pound of protein produced).
During 2020-24, the U.S. government made the largest investment in agriculture sustainability in our history. The investments were broad, spanning from enteric methane reductions, manure interventions, regenerative agriculture applications, water conservation and more. Recently, the government has refocused and reprioritized spending. Simultaneously, we have seen many companies step back from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) stated goals. Additionally, Europe has paused some of the proposed regulations that would compel companies to take additional action.
Power of partnership
While all of this is occurring, there are also several organizations and brands that are moving forward, staying engaged with their supply chain and fully committed to assisting farmers and mitigating the risks of adopting new technology. They are doing this not only to be able to report on reducing their Scope 3 emissions (supply chain) but also because it benefits them. It helps ensure they have farms to supply their needs. Their investments will ultimately help stabilize their supply chain. The investments they are making are largely associated with technologies that not only improve the environmental impact of their supply chain but also improve the profitability of the farms they partner with. There is a clearer understanding that farmers must remain profitable to be sustainable.
There is a real danger in losing sight of the impact of implementing measures that do not contribute to the economic strength of the farm. When a technology is used that simply increases costs, the question becomes, “Who is paying for this?” Ultimately, it trickles down to the consumer.
The U.S. is arguably the wealthiest country in the world, and according to the Pew Research Center in 2023, it had 42.4 million people, or 22.7 million households, that were food insecure. Globally, the World Health Organization estimates 2.33 billion people faced moderate or severe food insecurity during that same time frame. Driving the cost of sustainability to the consumer further divides our populations and puts more at risk of food insecurity.
Agriculture’s top priority has always been, and must remain, feeding our global population, while being good stewards of our environment. This partnership model that focuses on assisting farms to adopt new technologies that accomplish both objectives is exactly what we need to make tangible progress.
Partnership opportunities exist. To find them, you must engage with your cooperative, your feed supplier and your consultants. Companies and brands rely on those who have direct relationships with farms to share these programs and activate on these opportunities. Most of these programs are farm-size agnostic, and there are as many opportunities for 100-cow farms as for 10,000-cow farms. Don’t bypass an opportunity because it is associated with sustainability or carbon reduction; stay focused on evaluating the potential return on investment for your business and take advantage of the partnership opportunity.
Agriculture has the greatest potential to heal our planet. It is the only industry that naturally sequesters carbon from the atmosphere and converts it into a source of nutrition for animals and humans. A wise dairyman once told me that what he admired most about agriculture was its reliance on science. As an industry, we have always adopted new technology and done the best we could with what we had to work with.
When we know more, we do more. It is this very spirit that has allowed the U.S. dairy industry to be one of the most efficient in the world. The future of the industry is absolutely profitable – and sustainable.
