Farmers and ranchers from Colorado and across the U.S. are headed to Washington, D.C., this week in hopes of transforming the 2023 Farm Bill.

Mike Callicrate, owner of Ranch Foods Direct in Colorado Springs, said previous farm bills have been at odds with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's own dietary recommendations. He pointed out the lion's share of farm subsidies do not help grow food people eat. They help grow commodities that can be used to create more profitable but less healthy processed foods.

"And so at the same time as USDA is promoting more fruits and vegetables and healthier food going into our diets, we support something entirely different," Callicrate contended.

The USDA recommends a diet of 50% fruits and vegetables, but only 4% of farm subsidies support their production. Big agribusiness has long had Congress' ear when it comes to structuring the Farm Bill, and the Food Not Feed Summit, set for Tuesday, hopes to amplify concerns of family farmers, workers, health and nutrition experts and faith-based and animal welfare groups.

Callicrate argued part of the farm bill should support local and regional food systems paying farmers a fair price for bringing healthy foods directly to consumers, which can strengthen rural economies. He believes the Farm Bill should benefit the people on the land who take the risk, and do the work of producing food.

"The whole attitude of USDA has been for a long time, 'Get big, or get out,' " Callicrate emphasized. "All of that is to the benefit of the biggest corporations who have financialized and industrialized our food system to capture the wealth that's created by that farmer and rancher."

Nearly eight in 10 Americans said the production of healthy, sustainable food for people should be prioritized over producing feed for livestock, according to a recent survey.

But Callicrate explained the USDA continues to direct farm subsidies to commodities used to produce things like high fructose corn syrup and feed for livestock, using tax dollars to keep costs artificially low for Big Ag.

"Much of it goes to the livestock," Callicrate stressed. "But the thing is, whether it goes to livestock or goes into commodity value-added further production, we're still feeding the corporation. We're feeding corporations, we're not feeding family farmers and people."

The chair of the Federal Trade Commission will be in rural Iowa this weekend to hear from farmers and other residents about the proposed sale of Iowa Fertilizer to Koch Industries.

The sale is pending FTC approval. Iowa spent $500 million to build an Iowa Fertilizer factory in Weverly to create competition in an already consolidated industry.

Aaron Lehman, president of the Iowa Farmers Union, said he plans to tell FTC Chair Linda Khan a sale to Koch Industries would backtrack on any competitive progress the state has made.

"Our concern is that an industry that already lacks competition and has all sorts of monopoly problems would only get worse if this sale is allowed to go through," Lehman explained.

Koch and other corporate ag conglomerates have said consolidating allows them to provide better products to farmers more efficiently. The hearing is set for Saturday on Main Street in Nevada.

In addition to reducing competition for fertilizer, Lehman argued the sale would increase prices for farmers, and ultimately mean higher food prices for Iowans. He wants Khan to hear stories firsthand, from the people on the ground in Nevada.

"We know that we might not be able to have a dialogue with the people who are investigating this situation, because they need to be impartial," Lehman acknowledged. "But our farmers need to tell their story about how the industry is already in a monopoly state."

Some 18 other ag organizations have joined the Iowa Farmers Union calling on the FTC and the Justice Department to investigate the proposed sale.

A farm group is helping Iowa agriculture producers find ways to reduce the amount of nitrogen they use on their crops.

Excess nitrates can wind up in ground and surface water, and cause health problems.

Practical Farmers of Iowa is encouraging farmers to find just the right amount of nitrogen they need for their crops - while avoiding applying too much, which the group says is common.

PFI's Field Crops Viability Coordinator - Chelsea Ferrie - said thanks to federal grants and private funding, the group will pay farmers up to $35 for every acre that has a lower than normal yield if they didn't apply enough nitrogen.

"No cost to the farmer, either," said Ferrie. "We're trying to help incentivize them. This is something that farmers want to do - I mean, they want to be good stewards of the land - but also, that they need to have a profitable farm."

The application period for the program is open through the end of April.

To help them reach the right nitrogen balance, Ferrie said PFI will help farmers on the front end of the process, too - so they aren't left guessing how much to apply.

"Talk through what your typical fertilizer plan is, and what your reduction plan would be," said Ferrie. "Then you would implement this year, going into the spring and into the season."

Farmers have relied on nitrogen-based fertilizers for generations - but when applied in excess, nitrates run off into ground and surface water, posing health concerns for animals and people.




get more stories like this via email

Pesticides are still common in agriculture. Organic producers who avoid them have seen ups and downs in pushing for stronger regulations, and they point to a South Dakota example of the harm associated with widespread use among neighboring farms.

At the heart of the regulatory fight is the application of the weed-killing pesticide dicamba, and how it can drift from one farm to another. Last month, a federal court blocked "over the top" spraying of dicamba products, but the EPA followed with an order to allow the spraying of existing supplies.

Glenn Pulse, co-owner of an organic farm in Vermillion, said a 2017 drift incident had a big impact on his operation.

"Our entire farm was covered. We lost a lot of livestock, and thousands of bees were killed," he explained.

It also resulted in health concerns for his family, having to regain his organic farmer certification, and a legal battle over restitution. Groups such as the National Family Farm Coalition have been fighting what they call the deregulation of these chemicals, arguing the drift and runoff effect has damaged millions of crops.

Dicamba-manufacturing companies deny responsibility, instead blaming farmers who apply it for not following guidelines.

The EPA has said there were already millions of gallons of dicamba in circulation prior to the court's ruling, prompting the agency's order. Pulse feels there are farmers who are careful in spraying chemicals, but he wants stronger enforcement against those he describes as "loose cannons."

"The guys that are not following the labels and they're spraying in weather conditions that are not favorable, that is where, I would say, 90% of the problems are happening with drift incidents," Pulse said.

His calls for better responses to these incidents coincide with policy demands to heavily restrict dicamba products. Meanwhile, Rep. Dusty Johnson, D-South Dakota, is the main sponsor of a bill supporters say would assure uniformity in national pesticide labeling under federal law. But opponents argue it would limit longstanding state and local pesticide safety rules.