A diverse group of Southwest Wisconsin farmers are using federally funded conservation programs to help improve their farms' soil health and resiliency to extreme weather, from droughts to floods.

Joe Stapleton, farmer-leader for the Iowa County Uplands Watershed Group and owner of Stapleton Farms, a 535-acre mixed crop and livestock farm in Spring Green, said implementing practices like no-till and cover crops have made a significant difference in his crop outcomes.

"When you get the droughts, the dry times, they don't to seem to be as serious," Stapleton explained. "Because land that isn't tilled holds more water and '23 was a really dry year, and we had respectable crops."

A fourth-generation farmer, Stapleton pointed out the outcomes are very different from previous droughts. Erosion is also a big issue in hilly Southwestern Wisconsin, where soil is especially susceptible to it. Stapleton acknowledged while erosion cannot completely be prevented, it can be minimized. Conservation practices are allowing him, and other farmers, to do that while maximizing their efforts.

The Uplands Watershed Group was created by a group of farmers in the Dodgeville-Spring Green area. The group focuses on priorities like protecting soil and nutrients lost through polluted farm runoff, increasing water filtration into the soil, keeping water on farmland and decreasing the damage costs associated with heavy rainfalls. Stapleton added when there's too much rainfall -- as was the case this year -- the effects are also not as damaging.

"A lot of water got into the ground on these dry ridges and we produced more crops, whereas in a lot of years it would kind of drown them out, or it would run off," Stapleton outlined. "With no-till, it actually gets in the ground better, and I've never had better corn."

He learned his beans, on the other hand, do better in dryer seasons. However, he is finding that any year, no matter the weather, is still a good year for crops on Stapleton Farms because of the conservation practices he is implementing.


get more stories like this via email

A Utah legislator has introduced a bill to increase transparency for consumers in the Beehive State when purchasing cultivated meat products.

Cultivated meats are genuine animal meat, but are produced by cultivating animal cells in a controlled environment.

But since the beginning of the year, two U.S. states have proposed cultivated meat bans as policymakers have expressed concerns about the impacts cultivated meat could have on livestock producers.

For state Representative Neil Walter - R-St. George - HB 138 is all about ensuring Utahns are aware and have a choice.

His bill would enact a state provision that requires cultivated meat products to be labeled as such.

"This bill, by requiring meat to be labeled if it is cultivated, plant-, or insect-based meat substitutes, just makes sure consumers have a choice," said Walter. "It doesn't restrict manufacturers and it doesn't restrict the market."

Walter said the potential state provision would be complementary to regulations imposed by the United States Department of Agriculture.

In 2019 the department created a formal agreement to help ensure foods containing cultured animal cells entering the market were both safe and properly labeled.

The agency has remained open to labeling considerations. HB 138 is heading to the state Senate with bipartisan support from the House.

Walter called his bill straightforward. He added that within a consumer protection and disclosure context, one of the legal definitions that needed to be updated in the state was surrounding cultivated meat.

"We needed to be specific about what that was, and so this bill allowed for that definition," said Walter. "This isn't a complicated bill - it is pretty straightforward. It defines meat substitutes and it just says if you're selling a meat substitute, you can't tell the public it is something different than what it is."

And while some meat producers are concerned about the impact cultured meats could have on conventional meat and seafood industries, moving forward alternative forms of proteins could help mitigate things like deforestation, habitat loss, antibiotic resistance, as well as zoonotic diseases.

Walter said the bill would make sure the state is ready for developments down the line.

"This isn't anything new. It's something that in a lot of contexts we've been doing for a long time. We just have some alternatives that are different than maybe the alternatives we've had in the past. "

About 20% of fish caught in the wild are not used to feed people across the world but a recent study found the unused portions of fish prepared for the public could be a sustainable alternative.

Inedible portions, called byproducts, can increasingly be rendered to create fish meal and fish oil. The bulk of fish meal and fish oil has traditionally come from wild-caught fish but researchers looked at rendering practices in five fisheries across the globe.

Dave Love, research professor for the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins University, said using byproducts from industrial fisheries is the most promising alternative to catching fish just to produce fish oil and meal. He added consumers in the U.S. have plenty of byproducts they could use.

"U.S. consumers favor things like fillets over eating whole fish or minimally processed fish," Love explained. "When you make a fillet, about 50% of the fish goes to the human food supply. About 50% goes to other uses. So we're really looking at that 50%, asking how much of it is used to produce fish meal and fish oil."

Fishmeal and fish oil are typically made from catching fish such as anchovy, sardine and menhaden, which are crucial to the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

Of fish caught specifically to produce fish oil and fish meal, less than 60% of byproducts were reused. Love pointed out there can be tension in the industry as it both fishes to feed humans and to make fish meal for other fish. He said disposing of byproducts by fisheries is not the most sustainable method and it can be better used to make sure fewer fish are being caught solely to feed other fish.

"The ones that were not using their byproducts were grinding it and dumping it in the ocean," Love noted. "That's not a really great use of this resource. And we think going forward, we'd like to see policymakers really encourage industries to better utilize byproducts and not grind and dump them at sea."

The aquaculture industry is the biggest user of fish meal and fish oil.


get more stories like this via email

School districts across Arkansas have until February 28 to apply to participate in the Farm to School Institute.

The yearlong program, through the department of agriculture, helps schools launch or expand their Farm to School programs.

Jessica Chapman, program coordinator with the state Department of Agriculture Farm to School Institute, said selected schools will bring a team to a summer retreat to devise a one-of-a-kind plan for their campus.

"Even if they already have something going, this is a great way to build their Farm-to-School program in all different aspects," said Chapman. "So, we focus on classroom, we focus on getting Farm-to-School in the cafeteria and in the community."

Each team will be paired with a coach and receive $1,000 to implement its plan. The application is available at ARfarmtoschool.org.

Nearly 85% of schools in Arkansas are participating in at least one Farm to School activity. All schools can apply to be part of the institute.

Chapman said each campus is different, and they look for programs with a strong community base and an engaged administration.

"You've got some elementary schools that's got an outdoor classroom," said Chapman. "You've got some that are at middle schools, and they've got maybe a hydroponic system, or maybe at the high school it has like a really strong FFA program. We help you evaluate where your school's at."

Arkansas is one of only 16 states nationwide to offer the institute. Fifteen teams will be selected to participate.




get more stories like this via email