Biden could do a lot to fight factory farming even without Congress, “We do not need another pro-agribusiness USDA secretary,”

More lobbying of Biden administration policy by the enviro-progressives on food, farm and animal rights, along with speculation on Secretary of Ag nominees.

******************************* 

...Jonathan Lovvorn, a colleague of Morris’s and faculty co-director of Yale’s Law, Ethics, & Animal Program, tells me he’d like to see Biden “issue an [executive order] directing USDA, EPA, and other agencies to catalog all the regulatory and enforcement exemptions currently bestowed on factory farms, and to develop a regulatory action plan to restore environmental, labor, animal welfare, and climate accountability to this industry.”

Specifically, Lovvorn also highlights the need to incorporate animal agriculture, which accounts for a huge chunk of greenhouse gas emissions, into Biden’s climate policies, including by listing emissions from CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations, the technical acronym for factory farms) as pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. He’d also like to see a Biden executive order halting explicit government support for the construction or expansion of any new CAFOs.

Leah Garcés, president of the animal protection group Mercy for Animals, echoed the need for the EPA to use the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act to regulate CAFOs. On climate in particular, “EPA previously studied CAFO emissions, but it was highly flawed and even excluded beef cattle and turkeys from the study,” she says.

She and Mercy for Animals call on the Biden Administration to “update Clean Water Act regulations to reduce the minimum size requirement for CAFOs to be regulated under the CWA. Under the existing definition …only about 10% of all current CAFOs are large enough to qualify as a regulated source point under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program.” Reducing the minimum size requirement would effectively put more factory farms under the regulation of the EPA.

Garcés also wants the EPA to “take action against states for failing to enforce the CWA against CAFOs. For example, in 2012, the EPA found that Iowa was not conducting inspections to determine whether CAFOs needed permits, assessing adequate penalties against CAFOs, or issuing NPDES permits when appropriate.”

A more specific animal welfare move both Lovvorn and Garcés endorsed is directing the USDA to interpret the Humane Slaughter Act, a 1958 law that while poorly enforced nonetheless provides valuable protections to cattle and pigs, so it applies to poultry for the first time.

Lovvorn also has a set of Covid-19-specific policy recommendations. “The Biden administration should issue an emergency rule setting a mandatory OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] standard to ensure proper social distancing, PPE, and other protections for slaughterhouse workers — something the Trump administration flatly refused to do,” Lovvorn says. Garcés also highlighted the need for the Biden administration to ban cruel “depopulation” measures that farms shutting down, including ones shutting down due to shocks to the meat-packing industry during Covid, use to kill their animals.

Yale’s Morris argues for breaking up the monopolistic meat industry using antitrust levers as a priority, and points to a proposal from antitrust groups to do just that.

**************************************

And here is their preference for Secretary of Agriculture:

*************************************

...Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), one of the most active advocates for food stamps in Congress, is reportedly one of the candidates Biden is considering for secretary.

...“We do not need another pro-agribusiness USDA secretary,” Morris says. “[Rep. Chellie] Pingree or Fudge, two of the other candidates being mentioned in the press, would be better choices for people and animals.”

Pingree (D-ME), a veteran of the House Appropriations subcommittee for agriculture and the Ag Committee, is actually an organic farmer herself, with a 200-acre vegetable, pig, and chicken farm on North Haven Island off the coast of Maine.

Either she or Fudge would seem to be sound choices if the Biden administration actually wants to confront factory farming and animal agriculture head-on.

*********************************

Please note they make no pretensions about the CWA or the CAA being about clean water or clean air. Instead they are to be used as a bludgeon to impose their policy preferences. Exactly the way the enviros use the ESA, NEPA, etc. on federal lands.

READ ENTIRE COLUMN

Farmers & ranchers in the middle of a fight between Congress

For decades the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), with authorities granted by Congress, has provided funding to stabilize and support farm income and commodity prices through programs related to commodity and income support, conservation, export promotion, international food aid and disaster assistance, among others. Since 1987, the CCC has been replenished annually at $30 billion to fund many programs farmers rely on, such as Agriculture Risk Coverage, Price Loss Coverage, Dairy Margin Coverage, and the Conservation Reserve Program. However, this year it has yet to be replenished. The continuing resolution scheduled to be voted on in the House of Representatives this week does not include a replenishment of the Commodity Credit Corporation. According to American Farm Bureau Federation, “Because CCC funds were used to help farmers and ranchers impacted by retaliatory tariffs and COVID-19 through the Market Facilitation Program and the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, respectively, some in Congress are considering not immediately reimbursing the CCC via the expected continuing resolution to extend government funding.” If a replenishment of CCC funds are not included in the continuing resolution, “Farm bill programs and payments expected to go out in early October would likely exhaust CCC resources by November. As a result, farm bill program payments after this point would be significantly delayed. With farm-level cash receipts at a decade-low, the lack of CCC resources would jeopardize farm income, farm profitability and conservation efforts,” according the the market report from Farm Bureau. More than 40 agriculture-related associations sent a letter to Congressional leadership requesting they replenish the funding to the Commodity Credit Corporation...MORE

###########################################

Some will view this as shoddy treatment of ag producers, others will be displeased to see ag lining up at the government trough. 

Notice the concern expressed is over the delay in funding, not whether or not the programs will be funded.

What I see is a another great example of Congress delegating away its authority. They have authorized the President, at his whim, to raise or lower tariffs. To pick winners and losers in international trade. To raise tariffs to benefit one sector of business while damaging another. In addition, they have delegated authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to design and issue subsidies to ag producers who are harmed by the tariff powers they have handed the President. That's a helluva lot of authority the Congress has delegated to the Executive. Multiply that across other programs and all the Executive Agencies and you will see the tremendous amount of power that Congress has given away to the Executive.

 

Trump and Biden: What solutions do they bring to ag?

The long, strange pandemic-ridden election season certainly looks different in 2020. But two things remain the same: Candidates are fielding questions from voters and media, and very few of those questions are about food and agriculture.

But Farm Progress editors want you to hear specifically from this year’s presidential candidates on the issues that are important to rural America. So, we posed the same 10 questions to the campaign teams for the Republican nominee, President Donald Trump, and the Democratic nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden.

 The candidates’ exclusive responses are also available verbatim in the download at the end of the story.

The following questions were asked (click question to jump to answer):

1. How would you prioritize U.S. food production to improve national security?
2. What is the greatest threat to American agriculture today?
3. What actions will you take to secure trade opportunities for U.S. farmers?
4. What are your goals for the Renewable Fuel Standard?
5. What food chain vulnerabilities were exposed during the pandemic, and how would you address them?
6. What changes could improve federal health care policy for rural Americans?
7. Do you anticipate continuing recent ad hoc assistance, including trade payments (Market Facilitation Program) and coronavirus payments (Coronavirus Food Assistance Program) into 2021?
8. How do you plan to partner with farmers in addressing the changing climate?
9. Farmers are concerned about balancing regulations. What regulations do you anticipate expanding or rolling back?
10. In our surveys, farmers say the top priority for the election is “the way Washington operates.” If elected, how do you anticipate changing the way Washington operates?

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Let's face it:  If Biden wins, he'll do exactly what the National Farmers Union and the enviros tell him, and if they disagree he'll go with the enviros.

USDA releases initial probe findings

Last fall, USDA announced it would begin investigating the economic fallout of a fire at a Tyson Fresh Meats processing facility in Holcomb, KS. The plant processes around 6 percent of slaughter cattle in the U.S., so the impacts and damages were substantial. After the fire, processing capacity was severely disrupted and cash market fed cattle prices dropped, while the price of wholesale beef rose. Just as things began getting back on track earlier this year, the COVID-19 pandemic occurred and similarly impacted the cattle and beef markets on a larger scale. USDA expanded their market investigation in April to include the impact of the pandemic on plant shutdowns...

The report made several key findings about the Tyson fire:

• The largest spread between dressed fed cattle price and the Choice boxed beef cutout value was recorded at $67.17/cwt after the plant fire;

• Packers increased their processing volume by increasing Saturday slaughter shifts;

• The timing of the Holcomb fire coincided with the seasonal increase of beef demand leading up to Labor Day;

• Futures prices for fed cattle and fed cattle market prices decreased significantly after the fire; and

• The number and percentage of negotiated cash sales of fed cattle dropped after the fire.

Key impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic:

• The largest spread between dressed fed cattle price and the Choice boxed beef cutout was over $279/cwt the second week of May, the highest ever recorded;

• Market reactions during March were a result of sudden increased consumer demand for beef;

• Large numbers of plant workers contracted COVID-19 in April and May, which led to significant beef supply disruptions. USDA notes this caused a reduced demand in cattle, which could have contributed to lower fed cattle prices; and

• The economy gradually began to open in May and plant shutdowns eased. Boxed beef prices began to decrease and fed cattle prices started to increase.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Farmers dial back crop plantings as COVID uncertainty rocks markets

U.S. farmers planted nearly 5 million fewer acres of corn this spring than estimated by the U.S. government in March, the biggest cut in 37 years, as the coronavirus pandemic roils demand for the crop. The drop in corn seedings, as well as an 11.1% cut in cotton plantings, accounted for the bulk of the U.S. Agriculture Department's 7.2 million-acre reduction to its estimate of the amount of major crops seeded this spring. Soybean plantings fell below market expectations, with export demand in focus due to uncertainty about purchases from China arising from trade tensions. Both corn and soybean futures soared to multi-month highs after the closely watched report was released. "We were planting into peak fear," said Ted Seifried, chief ag market strategist of the Zaner Group. "There was poor pricing, poor outlook in the market ... some guys not able to get into the fields - and we were in the middle of the pandemic."...MORE

The Great Dust Bowl of the 1930s Was a Policy-Made Disaster

...In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, wishing to ensure that nothing like the Dust Bowl could ever happen again, put together the Great Plains Drought Area Committee. He charged the committee with determining the exact causes of the Dust Bowl. The first, preliminary report of the committee was filed on August 27, 1936, with an extended memo being released by the end of the year.
In The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl, Timothy Egan quotes from the first report: “Mistaken public policies have been largely responsible for the situation, [specifically] a mistaken homesteading policy, the stimulation of wartime demands which led to over cropping and overgrazing, and encouragement of a system of agriculture which could not be both permanent and prosperous.” In short, according to Roosevelt’s committee, three government policies were responsible for the Dust Bowl: The Homestead Act of 1862, which provided settlers with 160 acres of public land, followed by the Kinkaid Act of 1904 and the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909. These acts led to a massive influx of new and inexperienced farmers across the Great Plains, many of whom believed in the myth that “the rain follows the plow.”
Though Roosevelt, who believed that government policies could be a force for good in improving the human lot, didn’t like the findings of his committee, he accepted them. Of course, policymakers did not set out to create the Dust Bowl, but they aren’t entirely off the hook. As Egan points out, three groups of people testified before Congress on the potentially disastrous consequences of policies that would encourage plowing the land in the Plains States: ecologists, American Indians, and farmers. Despite their testimony, legislators went ahead with their policies. These three groups became the Cassandras of the aforementioned policies: like Cassandra in the Greek myth, they told the truth, but no one would listen.
Whether or not legislators have learned them, several lessons emerge from the experience of the Dust Bowl. First, the full consequences of a given policy can take many years, even decades, to play out. This makes it very difficult to pinpoint the ultimate cause of a particular event. Second, multiple policies can combine to create a situation that no single policy would have brought about by itself.
In this case, the Homestead Act of 1862 brought people to the Great Plains, but it wasn’t enough to get people to plow the land. The other acts, which followed the Homestead Act by over forty years, encouraged people to act in a way that disrupted the delicate ecological balance that had been established over the course of millennia. Finally, when policymakers are committed to a certain course of action, they will often proceed regardless of input received from experts...MORE

Post-COVID-19 pandemic: What’s it mean for agriculture?

Before the COVID-19 outbreak, massive pandemics seemed relegated to the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918. So, could a COVID equivalent happen today in crops? There have been some ominous signs in recent years. In 2005, Asian soybean rust (which originated in Japan in 1902) ravaged Brazilian soybeans, threatening U.S. production. Fortunately, it could not survive the hard freezes that occur in most of the U.S. Citrus greening (which has placed the future of U.S. citrus crops at risk) is caused by a bacterium spread by the Asian citrus psyllid. This crop plague originated in China. “Those are a couple examples of diseases that have been spread on a global basis,” says Mike Miile of Joyn Bio.  
Ag trade remains in flux
Joe Glauber of the International Food Policy Research Institute says there are obvious impacts to agriculture due to the COVID-19 outbreak. The impact on the health of farm labor and workers in the meatpacking plants rises to the top. Then there is the disruption of supply chains causing rising retail prices as producers’ prices fall. Less-covered issues and challenges for U.S. agriculture cannot be forgotten, Glauber quickly adds. “If it weren’t for coronavirus, we would be talking about many of these things today. We have a new NAFTA agreement (USMCA) that is supposed to be going into effect July 1. There are a lot of people asking if we can put this off (especially in the automotive sector) as companies fight supply problems. White House officials say they are going forward.” The U.S.-China trade agreement is facing hurdles, too. Glauber doesn’t see China being able to successfully meet its Phase One agreements of buying U.S. ag products due to COVID-19. “I just don’t see much happening before the end of the year – with everything else (coronavirus) going on,”...
 Fertilizer supplies, prices stable
If there’s a bright spot for farmers from COVID-19, it’s that fertilizer supplies are secure and prices are competitive. “Farmers are getting the fertilizer they need, and prices are at a very low level,” says Rick McLellan of The Mosaic Company. Whether future fertilizer prices remain low hinges on supply and demand. “There are not a lot of new phosphate plants coming on right now, so as demand continues to grow, prices will come up,” McLellan says. Prices also hinge on Chinese phosphate exports. “Chinese exports have been quite large and growing over the last 15 to 20 years, and they may stabilize,” he says...
Chemical Supplies are secure
China is a large supplier of chemical and chemical components, and that raises COVID-19-related concerns. Major manufacturers say they have diversified to limit exposure to any challenges to Chinese manufacturing. Bayer officials observe that issues around COVID-19 have not created a domestic or international shift in how the company currently sources its products. Corteva Agriscience, too, has sourced chemicals from multiple locations across the world, which lowers dependence on China, says Tim Glenn of Corteva Agriscience. Long term, he says Corteva will examine its diversification strategy to help ensure it has resiliency and reliability in its supply chain. “Right now, though, we’re satisfied with having a diversified supply chain,” he adds...

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE  

Hemp was supposed to boost farmers. It’s turned out to be a flop.

Farmers and manufacturers who wanted to capitalize on the frenzy around CBD, which comes from hemp, were lured into the industry after Congress passed the 2018 farm bill. It legalized cultivation of the crop, a low-potency sibling of marijuana. Hemp acreage in the U.S. more than tripled from 2018 to 2019. McConnell was a driving force behind legalization. “It was a mad rush,” said Colorado Agriculture Commissioner Kate Greenberg. But the boom has quickly turned into a bust. In recent months, several CBD businesses declared bankruptcy — including GenCanna, a hemp processing facility in Winchester, Ky., that McConnell visited in April of last year. “I hope that hemp will be for us some day what tobacco was at its peak,” McConnell told the crowd. But his hope has so far failed to materialize as the industry struggles on several fronts: The gold rush mentality led to an oversupply, tanking wholesale prices. CBD remains unregulated by the FDA. Consumers are left with conflicting messages about the legality of hemp products while unscrupulous businesses tout CBD as a potential treatment for every illness under the sun, including the coronavirus. The 2018 farm bill legalized both hemp crops and extracts of hemp, seemingly opening up a federally legal market for CBD products. There was a “clear expectation” after the farm bill passed that hemp-derived CBD was a new, legal commodity, said Jonathan Miller, general counsel for U.S. Hemp Roundtable. But soon after the bill passed, the FDA made clear that CBD products violated the federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act — essentially rendering them illegal. The agency hasn’t offered any regulatory clarity for CBD products that are now widely available everywhere from gas stations to grocery stores. In December, McConnell touted hemp provisions in the 2020 appropriations package, including a measure encouraging the FDA to issue formal guidance. So far, all that's materialized from the provision is a March report from the FDA to Congress stating that the agency is "actively evaluating" CBD regulations...MORE

Proposed ‘Fed Cattle Set-Aside Program’ Surfaces

Greg Henderson

A proposal that would fund placing feedlot cattle on a maintenance diet for 75 days is being circulated in Washington D.C. The seven-page proposal, called a “Fed Cattle Set-Aside Program,” would seek to “alleviate the risk of massive economic collapse in the beef cattle industry.” The proposal was developed by the Beef Alliance and modeled after a set-aside program used in Canada after the BSE crisis in 2004. The Beef Alliance is an organization of commercial cattle feeders with members in Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Texas and the Pacific Northwest. According to the Beef Alliance, the group represents approximately 25% of the U.S. fed cattle supply. According to Pro Farmer policy analyst Jim Wiesmeyer, the proposal is “floating around Washington and the cattle industry.” A Beef Alliance spokesperson told Drovers the proposed fed cattle set-aside program was developed using USDA data with assistance from CattleFax. The Beef Alliance hopes to build a coalition of support for the proposal from other beef industry groups and members of Congress. The Fed Cattle Set-Aside Program proposal would fund placing cattle on a maintenance diet for 75 days. Under the guidelines, an advisory committee would make a weekly recommendation to the program administrator on the number of fed cattle to take into the 75-day program, and the number of cattle which may be released from the program earlier than 75 days. The proposed payment rate for cattle in the set-aside program would be fixed at $2.90 per head per day and is intended to offset additional feed and operating costs incurred by holding cattle back from slaughter for 75 days. For the first enrollment period, the total carryover will be available for enrollment, and through April 30 that carryover was 600,000 head. Other provisions of the proposal include:

• Fed cattle placed in the program may not be offered for slaughter until after 75 program days
• Any decision by the advisory committee regarding number of cattle to take into the program will be based on the weekly backlog of market-ready cattle, and any decision by the advisory committee to release early will be based on a return to 95 percent processing capacity based on the daily harvest total capacity (pre-COVID-19 was approximately 98,000 head per day).
• Cattle released early from the program are exited on a “first-in, first-out” basis on a prorated basis per region – cattle in the program for the longest time will be released before cattle in the program with fewer days.
• Additional feed and operating costs incurred are roughly offset by program payments

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Federal Red Tape Is Keeping Local Meat Processors From Helping Fix Our Supply Problem

...Reason's Brian Doherty has documented how the broad shutdown of commerce is harming the world's food supply, and it's likely going to get worse. Reason food policy writer Baylen Linnekin noted on Saturday that the federal government already does not have a great track record in regulating the food industry in a way that makes it easy to stay in business. We shouldn't assume the government is going to do a good job at helping businesses reopen. But what Massie has been proposing is legislation that reduces some of this massive red tape to make like easier for smaller slaughterhouses and meat processors to work within their own states, thereby increasing the number of businesses able to provide us with our hamburgers, bacon, and pork chops. The Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act, a.k.a. the PRIME Act, would exempt smaller specialty slaughterhouses from having to comply with the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) guidelines in order for their meat to be sold to consumers and businesses within the state. They would, instead, be bound by state regulations for meat processing and sales. So while a slaughterhouse in Colorado wouldn't be able to process meat for sale in California unless it follows USDA guidelines, it would be able to sell meat to nearby towns. The PRIME Act dates back to 2015. Long before the pandemic forced big meat processing plants to shut down, America had a massive shortage of slaughterhouses that could sell to consumers. When Linnekin wrote about the PRIME Act in 2017, Wyoming had just opened one (in a state with more than 1 million heads of cattle). This is all due to a law passed 50 years ago called the Wholesome Food Act that prohibits slaughterhouses from selling meat directly to the public unless they follow all of the USDA's rules. People who own their own livestock can bring them to slaughterhouses for their own consumption, but that's not a feasible solution for most people. This extensive red tape has made it impossible for smaller meat processing facilities to help deal with the supply breakdown, even in their own states and communities...The latest version of the bill was reintroduced in May 2019 and has picked up 13 new cosponsors since the COVID-19 pandemic hit the United States. The 35 total cosponsors are mostly Republican, but there are some Democrats in the mix from agriculture-heavy states like California and Florida...MORE

I wrote about the need and positive benefits of this approach here.

Farmer Sentiment Drops to Three-Year Low

The COVID-19 pandemic and its many market-moving disruptions continue to cause stress at the farm level, according to the Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer. The barometer hit 96 in the April survey. “This is the first time the barometer has been below 100 in over three years,” says James Mintert, the barometer’s principal investigator and director of Purdue University’s Center for Commercial Agriculture. “Over the past two months, producers have felt the first shockwaves being created by the coronavirus.” In March, the barometer was 122, and in February it hit 168. The April reading was first time the barometer has fallen below 100 since October 2016, effectively wiping out the improvement in farmer sentiment that took place following the 2016 election. Producers’ expectations for current and future agricultural economic conditions also declined sharply. The Index of Current Conditions suffered its largest one-month drop, down 39 points in April to 72. The Index of Future Expectations fell 18 points to 108. April’s decline pushed the Current Conditions Index 53% below its all-time high set back in February, while the Future Expectations Index fell 39% over the same two-month period...MORE

The April survey asked: What is your No. 1 concern regarding your farm and the COVID-19 situation? Farmers responded:

• 42%: market access
• 37% financial
• 13%: health and safety
• 8%: other

Additionally, 35% of farmers reported they had made changes in how they operate their farm in response to COVID-19. Nearly 70% of farmers said they are fairly worried or very worried about the impact of COVID-19 on their farm’s profitability this year...MORE

A historical perspective on packer concentration

Dr. Frannie Miller (NMSU) recently posted an item on Facebook that generated discussion on several issues, one of which was packer concentration. A participant suggested

Anti-trust legislation in some form to move 80% ownership of beef to multiple smaller percentages with a percentage cap that will also include price discovery on live animals. Secondly we need to energize small america and find a way small butchers/processors can serve as USDA graders and inspectors to allow for a delivery system and a link to grocers, restaurants and communities.

To which I responded

“Secondly we need to energize small america and find a way small butchers/processors can serve as USDA graders and inspectors to allow for a delivery system and a link to grocers, restaurants and communities”

I believe that is our best shot at reform, to allow state or other types of inspection for local processors. It is the quickest and most politically viable option, and it will do exactly what the big 4 don’t want: increase competition.

Let’s remember the big packers, the Big Six as they were known then, not only supported but lobbied heavily for the Meat Inspection Act. They wanted this for two reasons: to gain access to the European market where U.S. beef had been banned, and to limit competition within their own industry. And there was competition. A government study of the meat industry in 1905 found the Big Six killed and sold from 45 to 50 percent of the nation’s beef. The number of slaughtering and meat packing outfits was increasing sharply, from 1,080 in 1889 to 1,641 in 1909. This increase of 52 percent in the number of firms was not appreciated by the big boys. Plus, by 1904, 73 percent of the entire U.S. kill was inspected. “It was the smaller packer that the government inspections system failed to reach, and the major packers resented this competitive disadvantage.” Thus the push for the 1906 bill and the huge increase in appropriations that accompanied it. Even Sinclair Lewis, the author of The Jungle, which is often credited for engaging the public in this issue, afterward wrote “The Federal Inspection of meat was, historically, established at the packers’ request; … it is maintained and paid for by the people of the United States for the benefit of the packers.”

Anyway, the “trust busting” followed by years of regulations, anti-trust laws and so on haven’t worked. Concentration is worse now than when this all started. I say give them a dose of what they most fear – competition. Revise the regulatory regime to give the smaller, decentralized operations a fair chance.

I wrote that hoping to dispel two myths: First, that the regulatory regime was "forced" upon the packers, and second that one of the problems was a lack of competition. 

With fresh support from its billionaire backers Pivot Bio is ushering in a farming revolution

In the first decade of the twentieth century two German chemists, Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, invented fertilizer — the nitrogen compound which ushered in modern agriculture and saved the world from potential starvation. Now, over a century later, a new group of scientists backed by government-owned international investment funds and some of the world’s wealthiest men and women is trying to save the world from their invention. In the hundred years since companies began manufacturing fertilizer at an industrial scale, the chemical has become one of the main sources of the pollution that’s choking the planet and putting millions of the lives its use has helped to feed at risk from severe droughts, fires, floods, and storms caused by climate change. That’s why investors...have backed Pivot Bio with a new $100 million investment. Pivot uses genetically edited microbes to replicate the work that naturally occurring bacteria had done for millions of years to fix nitrogen in the soil, where it could be absorbed through plants’ root structures. Crops like peas, beans, and soybeans have developed a symbiotic relationship with bacteria in the soil that take nitrogen from the air and convert it into a form that the plants can use. But grains like corn and wheat don’t have a link with any nitrogen-fixing bacteria, so they’re not able to grow as robustly. Some farmers rotate crops between plants that have nitrogen fixing bacteria and those that don’t so the soil can remain nutrient rich. Using the company’s products, Pivot Bio estimates that farmers can improve yields and remove one gigaton of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions from the atmosphere. The company also said that it can reduce approximately $4.1. billion in spending on water purification across the U.S. Spending which can be traced back to the water pollution associated with industrial farming and its use of synthetic fertilizers...MORE