STORY CITY, Iowa - The supply chain for meat processing still is dealing with issues caused by the pandemic, and smaller operations have been picking up the slack. A proposal in the Iowa Legislature would create a grant program to help with the surge in demand.

Supporters of House File 857 have said that when COVID outbreaks forced larger meat-packing plants to pause operations, producers looked elsewhere. At the same time, consumer preferences shifted to buying local meat.

Johnathan Hladik, policy director at the Center for Rural Affairs, said this created a logjam at local meat lockers that would like to scale up their operations, but can't. Today, he said, they're still in a holding pattern, asking the same questions: "How I can manage my business, how I can manage my product, and how I can serve my clients."

He said the bill would provide financial assistance to boost capacity at a time when some of the smaller meat-packers are booked into 2023. He added that the unpredictable nature of the business makes it hard to get bank loans. HF 857 cleared the Iowa House this week with no opposing votes, but it's unclear if it will advance in the Senate.

Ty Gustafson owns Story City Locker in central Iowa, where he estimated they've processed about 20% more product over the last 12 months. Gustafson was able to take advantage of some COVID relief funding for an initial expansion, but said more is needed to meet the demand that isn't going away.

"It would be beneficial to be able to do that without having to pause," he said, "or raise prices to make that happen."

Gustafson said he fears a price hike would prompt producers to look for other processers. According to the Center for Rural Affairs, maintaining new clients is crucial in the growing direct-sales industry for meat processing.

North Dakota's farming landscape is seeing policy shifts dealing with corporate ownership of agricultural interests. Now, there's fresh debate at the federal level.

Earlier this year, the Legislature loosened restrictions under the state's longstanding anti-corporate-farming law. The changes, which followed lengthy debate, focus on livestock operations.

In Congress, the National Family Farm Coalition is among the groups calling for passage of the Farmland for Farmers Act, which would restrict the amount of farmland large corporations can own.

Ben Vig, who farms small grains in east-central North Dakota, said he's happy to see the federal proposal, noting the broader corporate influence within agriculture these days.

"The idea that we have checks and balances when we purchase our food -- well, sometimes, the corporations own everything and we're subjected to what they put as a price," Vig observed.

He's referring to corporate dominance in such areas as meat processing. And foreign ownership of U.S. ag property also has emerged as a concern; the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports foreign investors hold about 40 million acres of American farmland.

The North Dakota Farmers Union has said it doesn't think the federal bill would overlap with the state-level changes, but it does support the Congressional efforts.

Groups representing large ag firms have criticized recent federal attempts to establish market fairness, warning they would harm consumers. But Vig said giving the little guy more "wiggle room" to operate keeps farming communities thriving.

"And we still have people taking care of the land or taking care of small-town infrastructure," Vig pointed out. "Whether we're serving on a township board, or serving on a church board and a school board, we still know who the neighbors are."

Corporate influence within agriculture also has led to concerns about the impact on land prices.

The Farmland for Farmers Act was introduced by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey. And separate bipartisan efforts are focused on foreign investors.

At the state level, North Dakota got attention for the livestock-related ownership changes, but lawmakers also advanced legislation to restrict foreign governments from acquiring farmland.

If you live in a flood prone community, soil health from nearby farmland may have something to do with it. Ag voices in Wisconsin say government-funded conservation programs are effective in mitigating risks and disaster expenses.

Congress will soon renew debate over long-term Farm Bill funding, including incentives for producers to adopt practices like no-till farming, which allow the soil to hold more water after heavy rain.

Juli Obudzinski, sustainable agriculture policy consultant for the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said it is not only an issue for farmers and policymakers. She emphasized taxpayer dollars come into play when programs are underfunded.

"Some of the costs that they pay because of the lack of investment in soil health practices, especially municipalities, rural communities, even state budgets when they're looking at costs to repair flooding damages," Obudzinski outlined.

Her research showed between 2009 and 2019, Wisconsin suffered nearly $36 million in flood damage. On the other side, she acknowledged soil health investment and improved water quality pay off for communities, such as boosting home values along watersheds. The discussions also follow recent conservation funding boosts from the Inflation Reduction Act, with advocates noting they are poised to help more rural areas.

Ron Schoepp, a farmer from south-central Wisconsin, is among those who have tapped into Inflation Reduction Act incentives this year through the federal Conservation Stewardship Program. He is adding to the soil health practices he has carried out over the years, providing benefits reaching beyond his property.

"We farm right on Lake Wisconsin and so there's less runoff," Schoepp explained. "That definitely helps neighbors by keeping a cleaner Lake Wisconsin."

He also contended making incentives more accessible could place less stress on disaster aid programs for farmers. Congress has until next fall to adopt a new Farm Bill after extending the recent version for another year. While many programs have bipartisan support, it is unclear how funding disagreements and the 2024 election will influence reauthorization.

Women, LGBTQ, and minority farmers in Ohio face compounding stressors, according to a study from Ohio State University.

Researchers surveyed and interviewed a group of nontraditional, mostly first-generation organic farmers. Results showed 58% of survey respondents reported mild to severe symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Fiona Doherty, doctoral candidate in the College of Social Work at Ohio State University and the study's lead author, said the survey was done in 2020 during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. She said many farmers expressed disappointment at the financial reality of farming, including not making ends meet and having to pick up a second or even third job.

"Part of what inspired us to do this particular research study was really acknowledging the generations, the decades of structural discrimination in the U.S. agricultural industry," Doherty explained. "That's led to unequal access to land, unequal access to farm resources."

Some study participants also identified climate change and unpredictable weather as sources of stress.

Doherty pointed out the research is a step toward creating structural support such as policies to improve equity, accessibility, and representation for beginning, women, racial and ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+ farmers, especially as traditional farmers age out of the field.

"Really thinking about those cumulative impacts and what that does to someone's well-being, to their success as a farmer, as a beginning farmer," Doherty outlined. "That's one main take-away, is just thinking about those cumulative stressors."

According to census data, in 2017, the U.S. had around 321,000 farmers age 35 or younger, accounting for just 9% of the country's roughly 3 million producers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has said as legacy producers retire, the nation will need a new generation of farmers to grow food and feed.