By Lauren Kobley for Cronkite News.
Broadcast version by Alex Gonzalez for Arizona News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

Jesse Garcia was first introduced to farming in his grandmother’s garden. As a child, he recalls not quite understanding the true purpose of growing and how important it is.

It was in high school that he first started taking an interest in farming and agriculture. After graduating, he had a number of jobs, but he did not feel passionate about any of them. It was then that he found the Ajo Center for Sustainable Agriculture.

Arizona farmers are aging. With a hope to sustain farming practices in the state, particularly within Indigenous communities, the co-executive directors of Ajo CSA, Sterling Johnson and Nina Sajovec, are training the next generation of growers through their beginning farmer apprenticeship program.

As of the 2017 Census of Agriculture from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 59% of farmers in Arizona were Indigenous, more than any other state. The vast majority of farmers in the U.S. are over the age of 35, with an average age 57.5. With the average age of farmers increasing, advocates say it is important to train the next generation of farmers to maintain the state’s agriculture industry.

“Arizona did things backwards. We became a state. We created a job force. But, we didn’t include farming,” Johnson said. “The wrong assumption was that farming was going to stay within the family, but things have changed. The ways of thinking have changed, the way we do things have changed and there’s no one else to take over.”

The Ajo CSA program trains three to five aspiring farmers like Garcia each cycle in Ajo and on the Tohono O’odham Nation. The eight- to 11-month program allows apprentices to visit local farms, establish their own growing space and attend workshops to learn about local sustainable farming techniques.

The apprentices practice growing and harvesting different varieties of crops each season, including lettuce, tomatoes, chiles, squash, beans and corn. Because the farm is a teaching farm, the produce is not sold, but the organization saves the seeds to distribute throughout the community and use for later growing periods.

Johnson was born and raised on the Tohono O’odham Nation in a ranching and rodeo family. He has overseen more than 40 apprentices and youth interns, 70% of whom are Tohono O’odham.

“I’m very excited that we get to teach them (the apprentices) our ways, and we get to promote our ways. Not just to the outside, but to our people. They should be proud of who they are and where they come from,” Johnson said.

On the Tohono O’odham Nation, the apprentices practice climate-smart agriculture and dryland farming. The three main objectives of climate-smart agriculture are to sustainably increase productivity, adapt to climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Dryland farming is the practice of producing sustainably by using the soil’s own moisture and limited irrigation to plant and grow.

“The soils are the key factor in order to have a good nutritious crop. If you overtax those soils, you lose all the nutrients and all the natural things that are in the soils that would be healthy for us as people,” said Michael Kotutwa Johnson, a Hopi farmer and professor at the University of Arizona.

Indigenous farmers have developed and practiced these sustainable farming techniques for generations and they were almost lost, he said. One of the reasons they are successful is because of the adaptation seeds have undergone through the years to grow in desert-like climates.

“Our seeds are like us. They are human beings to the same extent that they also need to be out and adapt to these different environmental conditions. You have organizations … and they’re just holding on to those seeds. They’re also not raising them in the places where they’re from, so they’re losing their chance to adapt,” UArizona’s Johnson said.

Opportunities like the Ajo CSA apprenticeship program give young farmers the chance to get hands-on experience to develop climate-smart agricultural skills and get in touch with Indigenous culture.

“Farming’s a tradition, just like Grandma’s recipe. You don’t want Grandma’s recipe to die out and go away. You got to pass it on,” Gilbert Villegas Jr., an Ajo CSA apprentice, said.

Not only does the apprenticeship build their skills, it prepares them to farm their own land and grow on a larger scale.
Since finding Ajo CSA seven years ago, Garcia said he has learned invaluable information about farming that he has been able to apply to his own farm on the Tohono O’odham Nation.

“Working with Ajo kind of gives you the whole insight of how to run the business: How to apply for grants, how to get partners, how to use those partners, how to organize events – anything that can kind of help your business grow,” he said.

He said building his roots in farming has been a challenge, but he has had incredible mentors like Sterling Johnson that have helped guide him along the way. Garcia now comes back to Ajo CSA as a volunteer and mentor. He hopes to have an impact on those who are in the program now.

“It starts with you as a person. You have to want to change and try to bring everything (the farming techniques) back. If you don’t see the big picture then what’s the point of you trying to spread it?” Garcia asked. “There’s always somebody out there you can go and keep passing it on … hopefully somebody hears.”

Looking toward the future of the program, Sterling Johnson hopes that Native American traditional agricultural practices are given their proper recognition, acknowledgement and respect.

“This is our way of keeping our traditions alive. … We pray for those who are on the ground and those who are on top guiding in this modern world as we need agriculture to have a future for all of us,” Johnson said.


Lauren Kobley wrote this article for Cronkite News.


get more stories like this via email

More than 20 groups are urging Michigan lawmakers to reject two bills they say would turn the state's farmland and rural towns into dumping grounds for poorly regulated industrial waste.

The organizations warn that House Bills 4257 and 4265 would weaken Michigan's environmental protections, by easing oversight of the farm waste processed in anaerobic digesters.

They say this could pollute nearby communities, fuel large-scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, and put small farms at risk.

Dr. Cheryl Ruble, MD - an environmental health advocate - explained why she believes these bills would benefit oil, waste, and agribusiness sectors.

"Increased biogas production, expansion of CAFOs, new CAFO construction," said Ruble. "What these bills would do is make it easier and cheaper to dispose of harmful, sometimes toxic, industrial waste streams."

Supporters of the bills say they would simplify rules, helping farmers use anaerobic digesters to turn waste into renewable energy that could power a million homes.

They also contend that if passed, the legislation would create jobs, making it easier to expand biogas projects in Michigan.

Michigan has almost 300 CAFOs that produce around 63 million pounds of waste each day. It's usually stored in lagoons or spread on fields as fertilizer.

The state also has more than 130 operating biodigesters. But Ruble argued that despite the marketing for these digesters, they do not turn waste into renewable energy.

"They call it renewable natural gas," said Ruble. "It's the exact same thing as fossil gas - it's methane, okay? It's a combustion fuel, and it still emits, you know, carbon dioxide."

Supporters of biogas maintain it's produced from organic waste, so it's seen as a more sustainable alternative to fossil fuels.

The legislation is currently under review by the House Agriculture Committee.



get more stories like this via email

By Dawn Attride for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Greater Dakota News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

At the supermarket, you're often met with a choice: organic or not? Organic foods - largely free of synthetic pesticides, hormones and antibiotics - are synonymous with sustainability in the minds of many shoppers. But sustainability is a fraught and complex measure - does it mean better for you or for the planet? And how do farm animals, farmers and workers fare? About the only measure that's simple here is the nutrition, which remains the same whether you buy organic or conventional foods. After that, however, the tradeoffs quickly become complicated.

When it comes to the environment, organic food isn't necessarily better and can even be worse, in part because it requires more land to raise animals and grow their feed. In other words, that additional land means farm animals get a little more living space under U.S. organic rules. But unfortunately, unless we cut back on how much meat we eat, farming with even more land comes at a steep climate cost (and we're already way over budget).

After reviewing publicly available data and the scientific literature on the impacts of organic versus conventionally farmed meat, Sentient breaks down the tradeoffs.

Organic: Not As Environmentally Friendly As It Sounds

A 2017 review of hundreds of studies compared the environmental impacts of organic foods with their conventionally produced counterparts. The researchers looked at life cycle assessments to account for all the inputs, outputs and environmental effects of a food system. According to the findings, organic meat requires slightly lower energy on average than conventional meat - things like machinery and fertilizer production - but is less environmentally friendly in terms of nutrient runoff and higher land use.

Organic livestock standards require that farm animals be allotted more land than intensive agriculture operations, such as factory farming. Across all animal products (including milk and eggs), organic requires around 75 percent more land based on our analysis of the 2017 paper.

What we do with land has serious opportunities or consequences for climate change. For example, peatlands can suck in huge amounts of carbon by sequestration, and trees can also capture and store carbon. But if we were to expand how much of our food was sourced from organic farms, we would have to clear more land. When we clear land for farming, it loses its capacity to store carbon for as long as it stays a farm (essentially until it is rewilded), which is very bad for the planet.

As it stands, over a third of land globally is used for agriculture, resulting in deforestation in places like the Amazon rainforest. If we keep eating meat at the rate we do now, and the population keeps on growing, which is what the United Nations expects to happen, we will drive up greenhouse gas emissions even further, making the planet a more challenging place to live.

More Land Is Better for Animals, Not So Good for Climate

When we dig into the details, "better" depends on what you measure and how. A different review focusing on Western European farming found that organic animal foods have lower carbon emissions per hectare than producing those foods conventionally. But here's where things get tricky: this was mainly due to land management practices used in organic farming, which the authors argued would increase the carbon sequestration of the system.

The argument for this kind of farming - sometimes called regenerative or climate-smart - doesn't track with the many studies showing these carbon farming practices tend to only add carbon to soils for a short period of time and then release it back into the atmosphere, which is not what you need for climate mitigation. In any event, when the researchers measured emissions by weight of meat produced, organic animal foods emitted more greenhouse gases per pound.

While organic foods' inefficiency can contribute to higher emissions, it can be better in terms of welfare for farm animals. More land means more room for animals to graze than what they experience in factory farms. Raising more animals in the most confined spaces translates to lower emissions, while the higher-emissions organic livestock farms can offer animals better living conditions. This is the crux of the tradeoff between organic and conventional meat.

Demand for Organic Food Is Growing - But It's Not Scalable

In the United States, demand for organic food is surging, despite only a tiny fraction of farmland being used for organic food production. Between 2023 and 2024, organic meat sales increased 14.3 percent in dollar terms to hit $3.1 billion. Although typically more expensive, the label is in high demand, particularly among younger generations. A recent survey by the Organic Trade Association found that two-thirds of young consumers look for the label in nearly every food purchase.

Keeping up with this demand means using more land. What would happen if animal farming went entirely organic - and humans ate the same amount of meat, eggs and dairy, but using roughly 75 percent more land? The land area needed for farm animals would increase from 36 percent to 63 percent of the world's habitable area. Under current global warming estimates, this expansion likely wouldn't be sustainable given the dire need for carbon-cutting solutions which involves avoiding deforestation and preserving land.

The Bottom Line

Based on the way we eat now, organic livestock farming is not scalable to feed the projected 9.7 billion people who will be living on the planet by 2050. While organic production gives animals more space, that higher land usage isn't so good for climate change. But there are alternatives. Proteins like beans - whether organic or conventional - could substitute the growing protein demand while remaining low on emissions and avoiding typical animal welfare concerns.


Dawn Attride wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

A new mapping tool shows South Dakota is a big player on the farm conservation scene.

The online feature coincides with a new poll, revealing most farmers want stronger funding for climate-smart practices. In a survey of nearly 500 farms around the U.S., the National Wildlife Federation said three of four respondents support an increase in long-term funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's voluntary conservation programs. The initiatives incentivize farmers and ranchers to work their land in ways that make it more resilient to extreme weather, from prolonged droughts to widespread flooding.

Aviva Glaser, senior director of agriculture policy for the federation, said survey support was consistent across geographic areas.

"The poll also found that farmers not only supported this funding, but they got a lot of value out of this funding," Glaser reported. "They cited things like soil health and improved yields."

Congress is debating future funding levels for programs under the Farm Bill, which needs to be reauthorized for five more years. Conservation dollars usually enjoy bipartisan support but this year could be trickier with talks of spending cuts needed to offset tax cut extensions. Meanwhile, the map shows South Dakota farmers have enrolled more than 7 million acres in the Conservation Stewardship Program, above all other states.

Conservation in farming might seem like "inside information" to producers and policymakers. But Glaser and other advocates emphasized it benefits the public to learn about practices farmers adopt, to make their fields healthy and strong.

"That could be a range of different practices -- practices like cover crops or grazing management -- or it could be a conservation easement," Glaser outlined. "It could be putting in a buffer strip."

Buffer strips can slow and prevent harmful runoff, like nitrates, from leaving farm fields and finding their way into lakes and streams. Agricultural researchers said making landscapes less prone to flooding protects taxpayers, too, by not having to spend money on property cleanup for surrounding communities.