Farmers in North Dakota and the rest of the country are monitoring an evolving legal case against a giant equipment manufacturer and they said repair restrictions are not the only service headaches farmers encounter.

The Federal Trade Commission last week sued John Deere, accusing the company of an unfairly dominant market share. It said farmers have to rely on Deere's network of authorized dealers for necessary repairs, driving up costs and creating scheduling delays.

Mark Watne, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, said he hopes the case brings out the facts in securing a resolution. He added the need for flexibility covers other ground, too.

"Items such as technology fees, and items such as, 'Well, you can only use this chemical with this seed, and it's got to be this brand,'" Watne outline. "Those things start to play out that we think are concerning."

He pointed out another area is transportation, where farmers might encounter vastly different price structures in getting their commodities shipped out, depending on the railway competition in various parts of the country. John Deere called the lawsuit "meritless," and said it plans to offer self-repair capabilities as farmers work with emerging technologies on tractors.

Watne acknowledged depending on the administration in the White House, they will see either aggressive or more lax approaches in confronting repair issues. He sees a long-standing pattern of laws being underutilized.

"There's really rules in place that have been there for 50 years or more that, through a number of administrations, haven't necessarily been enforced," Watne emphasized.

He admitted some of the progress seen in the Biden administration faces an uncertain future in the second term of President-elect Donald Trump, as some Trump appointees might prioritize certain fairness issues but could pass on other concerns voiced by smaller, independent farmers. Trump's selected appointee for FTC Chairman has been a vocal critic of the John Deere lawsuit.

Winter in Pennsylvania brings farmers not only snow and freezing temperatures but stricter manure-spreading regulations to minimize water pollution.

Putting manure on farm fields is discouraged during winter months or when the ground is snow-covered or frozen at least four inches deep.

Robert Meinen, assistant research professor and extension specialist at Pennsylvania State University, said manure can provide essential nutrients to crops and reduce fertilizer costs but the nutrients have to stay in the fields to maximize their value and not run off into waterways.

"One of the drawbacks is, and the trade-off is, that we have to be careful because we also have environmental risk -- in particular, nitrogen and phosphorus -- if they get into surface water or groundwater, can cause pollution," Meinen explained.

Meinen pointed out in Pennsylvania, farms fall into different categories, including concentrated animal feeding operations, which the Environmental Protection Agency defines based on animal numbers and manure output. The large-scale operations face stricter federal oversight but the state's winter manure laws apply to all farms.

Meinen noted farmers applying manure in winter must follow strict guidelines, including Manure Management Plan requirements. He added winter applications require more conservative measures than in warmer weather, from lower application rates to field slope limitations.

"Restrictions on the slope of the field that you can go on, so a steep slope is to be avoided," Meinen emphasized. "Ground cover requirements, meaning that we can't have a bare soil surface that manure's applied to in the wintertime. It must have some kind of cover crop, or thick ground cover from crop residue."

He stressed Pennsylvania and other states have tightened their rules for putting manure on farm fields in the winter. The state defines winter as mid-December through the end of February, although the rules also apply when the ground is frozen or snow-covered.


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