In the last couple of weeks, I’ve talked about water and the unique role it plays in a modern agricultural economy. I mentioned how some nations without adequate rainfall have nonetheless developed thriving agriculture sectors, through the use of “fossil water” – water laid down and locked up thousands or even millions of years ago in aquifers - which countries like Saudi Arabia pump to the surface and use to irrigate strategic food crops, such as grain. That era is coming to an end, because the easily accessible aquifers are being drained dry, and fossil water does not replenish itself in the way that the normal water cycle provides.

In the immediate years to come, that’s probably good news for US farmers, because it means that grain and other commodity crop prices will be rising globally, without a parallel rise in American farmers’ cost of production. Irrigation is important to many US farmers, but most of our crops are grown with dryland techniques – they rely on rainfall, not engineered water systems, for the water every crop needs to grow. In addition, the irrigated crops that we do use don’t tend to use fossil groundwater – instead, we bring water from the natural water cycle to a new geographical location.

In the medium and long term, however, US agriculture may be facing a water crisis of epic scale. The reason is our old friend, climate change. Global warming alarmists are fond of claiming a stronger scientific consensus than actually exists, but regardless of the politics and controversies, there has been one constant in the history of weather and climate: it changes. It changes on the short timescale, and it changes on the long timescale. Northern Britain used to be a tropical forest. The Great Plains used to be a glacial tundra. Whether Al Gore is an idiot or a genius is irrelevant: we can predict with 100% certainty that our current climate expectations will be changing.

And unfortunately for many US farmers, one of the most commonly forecast change is a vast reduction in the amount of snowfall over the western United States. Unlike the eastern half of the country, which is well-watered through rainfall, the west relies on the snowpack to even out water flows throughout the year. Snow accumulates all winter, then melts and runs off all through the spring and summer – turning the Colorado River, among other vital arteries, into a huge torrent of water that is used for drinking and irrigation. Even modest warming can have an enormous impact on the west, because modest warming means rain instead of snow – and rain in wintertime does agriculture no good whatsoever absent some means of storing that water until it is needed. Snowpack provided that service for free – we can construct reservoirs, but the quantity of water involved is truly stupendous and so would be the expense.

The results of continued reduction in the snowpack could be very grim for western farming and ranching in general. Most farmers have water rights, entitling them to a certain amount of water from local sources and from rivers like the Colorado. But those water rights will not be worth much if the water isn’t there to fulfill the contract. Climate change could put a serious cramp in western agriculture’s style in the next few decades.

Next week we’ll see how the water problem is likely to affect agriculture worldwide.

I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural.

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison; December 20, 1787

You’ve probably heard a lot about how global warming is going to cost you a lot of money –higher taxes to pay for mitigation efforts, higher prices for energy like gas or heating oil, and so on. However, if you’re farming, global warming (or at least, the fight against it) might end up putting some money into your pocket. You may have heard of “carbon credits” – a mechanism for people or companies who want to reduce their environmental impact by paying others to do eco-friendly things. Many farmers nationwide are in a favorable position to take part in the carbon credit marketplace – providing carbon and methane sequestration and in return getting paid real money.

This particular program is run by the National Farmers Union, and over the last couple of years has paid out more than $8 million to participating farmers and ranchers. They offer programs for farmers who engage in no-till agriculture, who plant hay or alfalfa, who follow a list of environmental best practices for ranchland management, who put part of their land into a forest preserve, and who collect and “flame off” (burn) methane. The amount of the credits vary widely depending on the practice, the amount of land involved, and so on, but it basically amounts to getting paid for following environmentally sensible practices. No one farm is going to qualify for everything – obviously, you can’t have a hay field and a forest on the same acre – but a little planning can really pay off.

The program has open enrollment, but enrollment periods are periodically closed off to permit a group of enrollees to be checked out and verified. Most of the current program enrollment deadlines aren’t until next year, but the current no-till/grassland period closes on August 15, 2008.

Credit: Custom Illustration by IDEAVIZ

Gilroy, California, just celebrated the thirtieth annual Gilroy Garlic Festival. In 1978, when the festival first brought food journalists, farmers, and chefs together, the purpose of the festival was to convince a skeptical American population that garlic was a delicious part of a healthy diet. At the time, Gilroy was the world’s leading garlic producer.

Thirty years later, garlic doesn’t need to be “sold” to a dubious world; the aromatic bulb has become one of the most popular vegetables around. Things haven’t fared so well for Gilroy – although the town holds on to its crown as “Garlic Capital of the World”, that’s the result of the huge garlic processing operations that have taken root. There are only three garlic farms left in Gilroy.

The reason is extremely low-cost imported garlic from China. China now produces 75 percent of the world’s garlic, exporting more than 138 million pounds annually. American growers say that the Chinese are able to undercut them severely because of the greatly lower cost of production in China. A box of garlic that costs $25 to produce in the United States can be produced for $6 in China. Aficionados say that there’s no competition when it comes to taste; the US-grown produce is of distinctively higher quality. However, with most garlic being used in processed foods rather than as a stand-alone dish, the quality differential hasn’t been enough to keep US growers competitive, and more and more of them have simply shut down or switched to other crops.

The US imposed a 377% tariff on Chinese garlic imports in 1994, and for a few years the tariff worked to limit imports of Chinese garlic to the US. However, in the intervening years, Chinese growers and shippers have found ways around the tariff, which was limited in its scope to a specific list of growers and exporters. Other exporters have entered the business, and even the old group which was subject to the tariff have found ways to route their garlic through third countries, evading the tariff and underselling the US producers significantly.

Gilroy will continue to host its wildly popular Garlic Festival each year, and thousands of attendees will enjoy the delicious roast garlic and learn about the many uses of this versatile and health-boosting plant. Unless something changes, however, the garlic those festival-goers enjoy back at home is unlikely to have been grown in the United States.  Perhaps the new Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) will help steer more Americans to buy US garlic.

Credit: Original Illustration by IDEAVIZ, Title Quote by William Shatner