Farmers are facing record-high land prices due to a bevy of factors.
According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report, Virginia farm real estate prices have risen 8.5% in the last four years, and cost is not the only problem farmers face in trying to acquire land. Some Black farmers find it challenging to lay claim to their place in the ag industry.
Duron Chavis, board member of the Central Virginia Agrarian Commons, said the lack of intergenerational wealth among Black families is a major factor in trying to buy farmland.
"If I don't have the money, I don't have the money," Chavis acknowledged. "The reality is it's not like I can go walk into a bank and be like, 'Hey, I'd like to get an equity loan on a home that I don't even own,' if I'm a renter. That's just not how the system works."
He sees more immediate solutions to the issue as land redistribution and reparative justice. A 2022 study from the American Economic Association Journal examines Black land loss from 1920 to 1997, and found the compounded value of the loss is roughly $326 billion.
John Ikerd, professor emeritus of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri, said farmland prices pose other challenges. For anyone who wants to get into agriculture, paying several thousand dollars per acre eats through a lot of the startup funds for the farm needed to get going. He added there are also challenges for current farmers.
"If things are going to continue as it has in the past, if you're one of the farmers that's been expanding and got a lot of land, got a lot of equity, you're going to continue to compete for the prices," Ikerd pointed out. "I think what we're going to see is, we're going to see fewer and fewer farmers that can compete."
Ikerd believes land and farms should be sold to the people who are actually working the land, rather than large, investor-owned farms consolidating available acreage. He said one of the bigger concerns is the land being used for all its profitability, and then being sold after it's depleted.
get more stories like this via email
Indiana farm leaders are pushing back against a bill that would increase inspections at large livestock farms.
Senate Bill 193, sponsored by Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, would require the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to double inspections at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations for permits.
Josh Trenary, executive director of the Indiana Pork Producers Association, said the department said it will not need more staff but a study suggested otherwise.
"The agency's ability to balance inspecting where the needs are, or the risks are, while still making sure they get around to enough operations every year to receive their grant funding from the federal government," Trenary contended.
Supporters said the bill strengthens oversight and protects water quality, while opponents argued it adds costs and unnecessary burdens on farmers. A Senate committee moved the bill to the full chamber despite concerns from industry leaders and no public testimony in favor of it.
Trenary stated livestock farmers carefully manage manure because they use it as fertilizer instead of costly commercial products. He wants the regulatory program to be efficient.
"We want the regulatory program to run well -- it makes our environmental record look good if IDEM is quickly responding and solving problems before they happen -- that's what we want," Trenary emphasized. "We want them to make those discretionary risk based inspections instead of a blanket statutory requirement."
Trenary argued the proposal creates more regulation without addressing a real problem. He wants lawmakers to focus on better environmental solutions.
get more stories like this via email
North Dakota lawmakers are still sorting out a thorny agricultural issue getting to the heart of local zoning restrictions for animal feedlot operations.
The state is looking to revise standards capping setbacks a county or township puts in place when figuring out how close feedlots can sit near a community.
State agricultural leaders want more livestock production in North Dakota. The recommendations call for reducing distance caps involving smaller sites but to extend allowed setbacks for larger ones, known as concentrated animal feeding operations.
Sen. Paul Thomas, R-Velva, at a committee hearing Friday, acknowledged the growing debate.
"There's a lot of communication from constituents, from agriculture organizations on all sides of this," Thomas observed.
Thomas proposed an amendment to do away with the longer setbacks for the larger feedlots. He argued the current limit of one mile is sufficient. It is unclear what a final bill would look like but Thomas' proposal is likely to anger local residents and environmentalists opposed to concentrated animal feeding operations, which are under increased scrutiny in the U.S. over concerns about air and water pollution.
Opponents had already spoken out against elements of the bill during earlier testimony this session, noting the push chips away at local control.
Jeff Kenner, a farmer from the Devils Lake area, was among those who expressed frustration with the broader pressure applied to townships to welcome feedlots with large animal herds.
"Why try to bully your way and get as close to a town, residence, lake or business (as possible) when there are miles and miles of open land to put animal feeding operations on?" Kenner asked.
Opponents of factory farms said not only are air and water quality affected, local road infrastructure is burdened with increased truck traffic. Backers of boosting livestock output in North Dakota said the state is falling behind its neighbors, while arguing the modern large-scale approach to producing food is needed to meet global demand. They said the bill in its original form strikes a balance between community needs and helping farmers. The amendment was tabled, for now.
get more stories like this via email
Groups working to protect Iowa's air and water rally at the State Capitol this afternoon, against a bill they say would protect pesticide companies from lawsuits if their products make people sick.
Iowa Senate Study Bill 1051, the so-called Cancer Gag Act, "provides defense from civil liability tied to the use of pesticides," as long as their labeling meets Environmental Protection Agency standards - which can be 15 years old.
Iowa Food and Water Watch Central Iowa Organizer Michaelyn Mankel said the measure would essentially change the law to protect pesticide companies from accountability, in a state that's already seeing a "public health crisis."
"We have rising cancer rates," said Mankel. "We're the only state in the nation where incidents of cancer are increasing, and we rank second in the nation for rates of cancer."
The International Agency for Research on Cancer has said that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans," but the EPA says there's no evidence to supports that.
Pesticide makers - including Bayer, which has four lobbyists in Iowa alone - have said they're following current law and need protection from what they deem frivolous lawsuits, and this bill would provide that.
But Mankel said the measure would further erode Iowans' ability to take legal action if they think these products caused health problems.
"This is not a matter of stopping frivolous lawsuits," said Mankel. "It's a matter of not robbing Iowans of the only avenue we have to hold the pesticide industry accountable at a time where we're really suffering."
The rally at the Capitol will begin with an altar ceremony to memorialize Iowans who have died from cancer, many of whom advocates say were deaths related to pesticides.
get more stories like this via email