Initially, it was McDonald's, but the push to get gestation stalls out of the supply chain for pork has hardly stopped there. The latest news today from Feedstuffs newspaper notes that Cracker Barrel is now joining in (among many others):

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc., with 615 restaurants in 42 states, has reported that it will begin formulating plans for procurement of "stall-free" pork from its suppliers.

The announcement was made June 14 in a joint statement with The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Just since February, other leading food companies — McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Denny’s, Kroger and Safeway — have announced moves toward gestation crate-free supply chains.

There is "an evolution" in Americans' attitudes regarding higher levels of animal welfare in meat production, and "we recognize that gestation crates may not be the best method to meet" those levels of welfare, said Cracker Barrel vice president for strategic sourcing Vance Fouraker. "[We] are committed to evolving sustainable alternatives." See the full story at Feedstuffs (subscription required)

I'm not attacking or defending gestation crates or stalls. This is not my area of expertise -- and I'll let those of you with direct experience on this topic comment here if you'd like.

However, the broader point to note -- and really get -- is that sustainability concerns and market demand runs much deeper than many people realize. As one of the farmers I work with a lot said on this topic, "Data is never wrong and is high ground, but emotion can trump science." 

The only thing I would add to that is that emotion runs high on all sides, as it is an inescapable part of being human.  

My hope is that future outreach and education efforts will try to listen to the concerns of consumers and connect with them at the emotional level. Then, we can offer some of that data that may change their minds.  

It's been my experience that you have to be open to changing your own mind if you are to create the kind of relationship that leads to change in others.

It is a scientific fact that energy never "dies," it just changes form.  Now think about political issues as a form of energy.

This week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new rules for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants for the first time.  As the March 26, 2012 Wall Street Journal noted:

"The new rules will essentially make it unviable to build new coal-fired power plants, unless they are fitted with yet-to-be-commercialized carbon-capture technology. The rules would limit the permissible emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to a little more than half of what a typical coal plant emits today, administration officials have said."

Natural-gas fired power plants will meet the new regulations.

Under the Lieberman-Warner climate change market-based bill that was being debated in Congress – and even more so in the Stabenow ag offsets bill expected to be included until the climate change debate fell apart in the Senate, there would have been a way for coal plants to continue operating by purchasing greenhouse gas reductions, or offsets, from the uncapped and exempt agricultural sector.  Utilities could have purchased offset credits from farmers undertaking approved activities like soil carbon sequestration, methane capture from manure and nitrous oxide reductions from precision application and management of fertilizers. 

There were several news stories about the new regulations, but the world did not end as many had feared/predicted it would.  This is partly because things have shifted in ways that could not have been foreseen during the heyday of the climate debates in Congress.  First, and foremost, significant new amounts of natural gas have been found – bringing the cost of natural gas to record low levels.  In fact, there aren’t many coal-fired power plants that are being planned right now anyway both because of the highly competitive position of natural gas and of the uncertain regulatory outlook for coal-fired plants both on the GHG issue and having to do with the further restricting of conventional pollutants.

Still, proponents of the coal industry point out that this could all change again if natural gas prices swing back up suddenly – as they have done before.  This could leave the U.S. power sector with fewer fuel choices and potentially higher costs down the road – since there is no climate law in place outlining an offsets purchase alternative.

So what does this have to do with the agricultural industry?  This example serves as a powerful anecdote of why it is critical for the ag sector to jump in and set its own course on sustainability. 

In working on legislative issues for more than a decade now, I have seen many controversial policies and issues ebb and flow – but rarely do issues of magnitude simply "go away." 

Usually what happens is an issue will be addressed by a particular policy proposal – a legislative bill or agency regulation.  If that particular way of handling the issue is too unpopular, a specific bill may fail.  That does not, however, mean that the underlying issue is gone – but rather, that the energy of that issue has gone somewhere else.  Some people who were deeply engaged in the fight over the particular bill might then gleefully declare the entire issue to be "dead." But this is often confusing the end of a particular incarnation of a policy with the larger forces driving an issue.

In this case, the end of the climate change bill in the U.S. Senate, has not at all been the end of the climate change issue – or policies to address it.  They have simply morphed into agency regulations using existing laws and into private "corporate sustainability policies." 

I argue that in many ways, the way that climate change is being addressed now – without a defined legislative outline and without an offsets market, could be worse for the agricultural sector than if a bill like Lieberman-Warner containing a robust offsets title had passed.

Why? 

First, under that bill, as I mentioned before, there would have been the ability for farmers to get paid in exchange for choosing to quantify, measure and sell some of the environmental benefits they can provide through good stewardship of their land.   Without that bill, farmers are left being pushed in this direction by multiple and often disagreeing elements of the private market – except they will likely not be paid for it.  Instead, measuring and improving sustainability will likely, in the long run, become the price for doing business.

Second, although our legislative process can be messy, it is well-defined, understood and provides input opportunity in a forum (the Senate) that protects minority interests.  Since climate change was not able to be addressed there, it is now being addressed in the much more difficult arenas of agency regulation (for example, these latest EPA rules on power plants) and in the private marketplace.  Here, agriculture makes up about 2% of the population and there is no Senate to hold special the rights of that small number.

Third, the offsets market would have provided a new agricultural "eco-market" solution for a major environmental problem at a time when the consumer-farmer trust gap has been a growing.  It would be tougher for urban "elite" foodies to make the claims they do about conventional agriculture if the industry was playing a major part in solving the climate change issue these folks care so much about.

As Shakespeare said, "What’s past is prologue."   

Looking out at the evolving sustainability discussions, debates and policies, it seems clear to me that there is another messy opportunity before the industry.  I know many will say "Agriculture is engaging in sustainability!" Yes, there is more involvement in this topic every day.  Still, there is a great difference between re-stating what you think, only louder, and recognizing the need to roll up your sleeves to do the tough business of compromise. 

Certainly, there are elements within ag that are working hard and smart on this.  And, just like any other market force – there will be those who understand and get ahead of this issue to their own market advantage.  The question is whether the broader industry positions itself well on this issue.  Much of that will depend on which lessons industry leaders take away from examples like the one we have talked about today.

Last week, I attended the U.S. Dairy industry’s Sustainability Council meeting – and had the privilege of hearing the stories of their first ever Sustainability Award winners. 

From left to right: Mike Brubaker of Brubaker Farms, Mount Joy, Pa.; Kenn Buelow of Holsum Dairies, LLC, Hilbert, Wis.; Bill Bennett of Oakhurst Dairy, Portland, Maine; Andy Werkhoven of Werkhoven Dairy, Inc., Monroe, Wash.; Marie Audet of Blue Spruce Farm, Bridport, Vt.; Bob Joblin of DF-AP, LLC, Gooding, Idaho; and Steve Rowe of Darigold, Inc., Seattle.

What struck me most as I listened to these farmers and processors accept their awards, and talk a little about their operations, was the emotion in their voice at being recognized by such a broad set of stakeholders (the Council has members like McDonald’s and Starbucks as well as environmental groups like World Wildlife Fund and of course dairy farms, co-ops and companies of all stripes).  The farms highlighted by these awards are pretty well-known within their industry for being top tier operations, but still, to have their example lifted up, validated and promoted meant a great deal to them.  Also striking about their examples was just how much excellence in one area spread across to excellence across the board.  A number of the winners emphasized, "We are not alone!" 

Indeed, they are not alone as good stewards of their land and their animals – but they are among a relatively small, but growing segment of mainstream agriculture who understand keenly how the issue of sustainability connects the often disparate data dots of how they do "the right thing," to the operation’s bottom line to the processor/retailer’s reporting needs to the desires and interests consumers have for their purchases to support something beyond just the product they are buying.

It is a tall order to "get it" on the level that I’m describing.  Its not like farmers don’t have enough to do already!  Still, as the term "sustainability" has been picking up usage and some might say steam in the last several years, there remains much grumbling and upset in the larger ranks.  Understandably, some fear the burdens of additional cost or unruly new requirements that may come from the supply chain in the name of making things that have seemed to work just fine for a long time, "sustainable." 

But as is so often the case in life – being open to new experiences, even ones that may seem challenging or not valuable, usually brings far greater reward than initially anticipated – in no small part due to the creativity and social good will that gets unleashed.  Time and again I have seen the power of positive action shape and make meaning out of a force that could otherwise have been very destructive.  In these dairy sustainability awards, I see the seeds of a larger agricultural renewal.

So, let’s take a look at some of these exemplary dairy producers -- more stories from the full supply chain can be found by clicking here. (*material taken from the Innovation for U.S. Dairy website, links provided).

"Blue Spruce Farm (Birdport, VT)
Blue Spruce Farm was one of the first farms in the country to install a variable speed vacuum pump control, reducing energy used during milking by nearly 60 percent. Inspired, they pursued new technologies in lighting, milking, milk cooling, barn construction, ventilation and water heating that reduced energy use from an average of 1,000 kWh per cow per year, to an average of 500 kWh per cow per year. These savings, in turn, reduced greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 500 pounds of CO2e per cow per year.  The Audets also designed systems that reuse water in many ways to reduce overall consumption and improve the water consumed by the animals. ??Blue Spruce Farm is probably best known for being the first dairy to participate in Central Vermont Public Service’s groundbreaking Cow Power™ program, which allows consumers to purchase renewable energy generated on dairy farms."

"Holsum Dairies, LLC: Elanco Award for Outstanding Dairy Farm Sustainability
Sustainability practices woven into farm’s foundation ?More than a motto, sustainability is a cornerstone for Holsum Dairies in Hilbert, Wis.  Long-term sustainability, according to Holsum, must benefit the dairies, employees and the community financially and socially; have a positive impact on the environment; maintain the welfare of animals; and produce safe, high-quality milk. These were significant considerations when Holsum selected a location for their two dairies in 2001 and 2006. 

Over the past 25 years, Calumet County lost animal operations but significantly increased crop production. Spotting this imbalance, Holsum worked with 40 local crop farmers and five custom harvesters to provide all of the dairies' forage needs fostering trust and delivering benefits for all parties. During their annual meetings, the farmers share information and best practices — resulting in a stronger knowledge base and higher efficiency as well as higher profit and higher quality feed for the animals.

In this win-win relationship, the environment also reaps the benefits by having 11,000 acres under a single nutrient management plan, lower cost and emissions associated with manufacturing and transport of fertilizer, more efficient crop production and more precise fertilizer application. Thoughtful and collaborative planning has yielded benefits for the community, the environment and the dairies."

"Werkhoven Dairy, Inc.: Elanco Award for Outstanding Dairy Farm Sustainability 
Unlikely partnerships achieving common goals.  In an area threatened by urban sprawl and endangered salmon runs, three groups — farmers, Native American tribes and environmentalists — have worked together toward a common good, rather than focus on any differences they might have.

Ten years ago, Werkhoven Dairy in Monroe, Wash., assumed a leadership role in developing a collaborative partnership between the farm and the neighboring dairy and beef producers of the Sno/Sky Ag Alliance; the Northwest Chinook Recovery (an organization working to restore salmon habitat); and the 3,500-member Native American Tulalip Tribes. Together, they focused on opportunities for resource conservation and formed Qualco Energy.??Qualco — which means "where two rivers come together" in the region's native language — is a nonprofit entity that collects manure from the cows and pre-consumer food waste from nearby companies, and Qualco uses those materials to generate energy through a digester system.

The system produces enough energy each day to power 300 homes while keeping the air and water clean, protecting salmon streams and creating Grade A compost for the Werkhovens to naturally fertilize their fields and share with their neighbors.

The organizations are working toward additional conservation efforts with a collective goal of investing profit from the digester in new renewable energy and recycling projects, fish and wildlife habitat restoration and sustainable farming practices."

The power of a good example is strong.  It connects to people in a way that data doesn’t.  But the key to the strength of the example is in the results it produces -- and that does ultimately come down to some type of measurement.  These aren’t just stories that create a human connection to the people providing your food (although they do that as well), they are examples of how dairy producers are solving the very concerns many of their customers have – on things like greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy and community support.  Critically, these examples also contain in them the point that they are able to do this because they are profitable not in spite of the fact.

The balance that these producers place on profit, community care and environmental stewardship is extremely impressive.  The creative way in which they solve problems and the outcomes they have achieved make these model farms.

From where I sit, at the intersection of working with farmers and ag groups, their supply chain and some environmental groups, there is a striking lack of strong, clear examples put forward in a way that unifies this long string of interests, rather than adding fuel to the divisive fire.  Three cheers for the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy for finding and highlighting strong examples of achieving this important balance.  The power of a good example – backed by sound practices, data . . . and a willingness to share it can make a world of difference. 

In the coming years, if market trends continue as they have been going, this key ingredient of a successful agricultural operation will become exponentially important.  As processors and retailers seek to capture and quantify the fuller story behind the goods they sell, those who have experience and results to show will be the sought out providers for a supply chain hungry for data as well as good examples.

It is great to see the dairy industry pursuing a path that will enable them to chart their own course on the sustainability issue.  Recognizing some of the amazing leaders within their ranks does more than lift up the individual efforts of these operations, it helps build an industry profile on sustainability that is fair, credible and celebrated.

What was I just saying about risk management and food companies/retailers expanding their sustainability plans as risk management . . . ?

Well, if you'd like a more detailed look at what one company is doing, I recommend you read the PR Newswire press release on Kraft Foods environmental footprint map (see below).  Some things that caught my eye:

1.  "The bulk of Kraft Foods' environmental footprint originates on the farms that grow ingredients for the company's products."

2.  "From a 2010 base, by the end of 2015, Kraft Foods plans to increase sustainable sourcing of agricultural commodities by 25%."

As you think about these two points -- let alone all the other parts of the plan laid out below, ask yourself how they will be defining "sustainable sourcing," how they are determining pollution burden (i.e. which parts of their supply chain are causing which amounts of pollution) and who are the new producers they will be sourcing from?  

More food for thought!

When talking about "sustainable agriculture," people often jump to the short-hand descriptors of "small, local and organic" – or, they become mired down in arguments about the need to defend conventional agriculture from attacks made by activists wanting to roll back the clock to a time when everyone farmed.

What I have learned about sustainability from working on these issues for many years and by working within many of the ongoing sustainability measurement initiatives that include food retailers and processors is that there is an entirely different discussion about "sustainability" and agriculture going on in the marketplace that often doesn’t get talked about much. 

Food retailers and processors have increasingly been looking with concern at the long-term security of their supply chains.  With the challenge of 3 billion more people joining the planet within the next few decades, resource scarcity or contamination is a real threat in certain areas. 

Imagine if your company is primarily or exclusively, in some cases, sourcing its raw materials from an area that has been hit hard by drought and projected to lose access to a secure water supply source within the next 20 years!  This is a major, and costly, business risk you are facing.  I know from first hand conversations with processing companies that they are already making plant siting decisions based on these types of projections to both limit costs as well as avoid sustainability issues in the future.

Add to that numerous consumer research reports that indicate your next generation consumers are used to knowing a lot of information about anything they want – in the palm of their smartphone-holding hand; and you can see the outlines for why retailers, and consequently, food processors are becoming more and more interested in first understanding and ultimately, managing their long-term sustainability risks.

The key is that sustainability issues for these food retailers and food processors is really just a fancy and all-encompassing term for good old fashioned risk management.  This is perhaps one of the biggest reasons why the burgeoning demand for sustainability data has not gone away even in a bad economy.  The point I make to producers is that they should think about sustainability this way as well.

It is easy to think that "sustainability" is just the latest market fad that will disappear in a few years, and therefore, its just fine to ignore it.  In fact, ignoring it could help make it disappear – the thinking goes.  Having worked within a number of efforts that include food retailers and processors, I have to strongly disagree.  For example, click on the highlighted links that follow to see what a number of companies are up to on this topic:  Safeway, Walmart, Giant Grocery Stores, Kraft, Unilever, PepsiCo, Cargill (and many, many more . . .)

It is clear if you look at the stated policies and trendlines these businesses are following that sustainable data collection and ultimately, specific sustainable practice and data preferences are on the way for agriculture as an industry. 

The danger of this is of course significant.  If "sustainability" is defined in ways that are unworkable or biased against large-scale, efficient agriculture – or even focused on a one-size-fits all approach that so rarely works for diverse, dynamic living systems, there could be significant added cost and a push by the market for counterproductive practices stemming from unintended consequences.

Still, there is significant potential in this new trend as well.  Agriculture, as an industry, is engaged in a mighty effort to "tell its story" to urban consumers who in many cases feel disconnected from the food they buy and increasingly are expressing or buying into concerns pushed by activists.  This gap between growers and consumers is not good for either group.  Yet, if the focus is on essentially, just a large public relations campaign, the result could be limited.  But if agriculture’s "story" is paired with hard data backing up how efficient, safe, pro-community and yes, "sustainable" the industry is – then there is a real chance for connection trust-building between these two different cultures.  That trust acts as a social license to continue doing business unfettered by bad regulation (not all regulation) that ends up not solving the underlying problem but making life harder for farmers.

So, given the new market forces driving the desire to assess, measure and improve the sustainability of agricultural products, it becomes extremely important for producers and the groups that represent them to engage in understanding, shaping and facilitating this new market need.  This is all the more important because this is a market force, not a legislative one.  If the type of efforts being sought by food retailers were instead being asked for by our government, they would likely be dead in the water – because it is relatively easy for any lobbying group these days to kill something on Capitol Hill.  But you can’t call up your Senator and tell him to get Walmart, Safeway and Giant – among others, to stop measuring sustainability.

Agricultural groups are engaging on this topic, but of course, they remain very cautious.  As a result, action from the retailers appears to be far outpacing involvement from producer groups – at least on the whole.  To be clear, retailers are in the process right now of beginning to accumulate a list of sustainability "hotspots" they will look at as they decide who to buy agricultural products from.  That’s pretty far down the road.

Far be it from me to tell any farmer how to do their business, but from where I sit, it seems to be a pretty good idea for producers to include as part of their risk management plan education at the least about what is emerging on the sustainability market side.  A next step would be to engage either directly with efforts that are working on this issue or to support your farm organization’s greater involvement on these issues.

A few efforts you might be interested in on that front are Field-to-Market and Triple Bottom Line Commodities.  Full disclosure, I work with clients that are engaged in field-to-market and I am the coordinator of Triple Bottom Line Commodities.

Field-to-Market is an initiative facilitated by the non-profit Keystone Center that brings together a wide range of interests from grower groups to environmental groups to food processing companies.  The effort has resulted in a fieldprint calculator tool which allows growers to enter data specific to their farm and see how they compare on a number of environmental issues to others in their state and nationally.  The tool also allows farmers to run different practice scenarios and see the changes in their score that would occur.  This type of a tool empowers growers to assess their own land in a way that is anonymous.  It also allows growers to see some of the hotspot issues that food processors and retailers are increasingly interested in measuring and understand how different practices utilized in different regions stack up.

A key benefit of this approach to assessing sustainability is that it is focused on measuring actual performance rather than merely meeting some arbitrarily assembled check list that supposedly encompasses sustainability.  It helps the farmer see the value to their farm and to the environment if a certain practice is used on their soil type with their slope and in their growing region.

Another effort working on the business side of this issue is a unique network of farmers called Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Commodities.  This group’s focus is on influencing and facilitating the private market’s growing needs for sustainability data.  The group contains a diverse set of strategic-minded top producers growing commodities like corn, soy, wheat, beef, hogs, dairy and ethanol.  Recently, this group joined The Sustainability Consortium – an independent organization housed within the University of Arkansas and Arizona State University focusing on developing a sustainability measurement system.  With members like Walmart, Safeway, Giant and numerous food processors, the Consortium is becoming a unifying nexus for establishing general parameters for sustainability measurement.  There are only 3 grower groups that are part of the Consortium: Dairy Management Inc., Cotton Inc., and TBL Commodities. 

I’ve always believed its better to be "at the table, than on the menu."  Well friends, the sustainability "dinner" is being planned.  Now is definitely the time to help create the menu!