Funding for a longstanding food-assistance program is at the center of the Farm Bill reauthorization debate. But there also are calls to make it easier for farmers in North Dakota and elsewhere to access climate-linked programs. The Farm Bill is updated by Congress every five years, and like previous attempts, lawmakers are clashing over funding levels for SNAP benefits, a key component of the policy. The bill also covers conservation programs, which offer incentives for farmers to adopt practices that make their land more resilient.

Michael Happ, program associate, Climate and Rural Communities at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policies said it is reasonable for some farm groups to want to make these programs stronger.

"A small farmer, stretched really thin, might not have time to fill out a 20 page application," Happ said. "We need to keep accountability in these programs, and we need to make sure they're not weakened. But it's not easy right now for farmers to access these programs."

Among its Farm Bill requests, the North Dakota Farmers Union wants Congress to increase flexibility for existing conservation programs and provide sufficient funding to meet demand, and Happ added accessibility
issues at the state level. In North Dakota last year, fewer than 20% percent of regional farmers who applied for Conservation Stewardship Program funding were approved.

However, North Dakota fared better in applications for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Still, Happ continued because there is a long gap between each Farm Bill, lawmakers have a narrow window to make changes as agriculture faces pressure to do its part in addressing climate change.

"If it turns out that we're not dealing with any additional funds, that we're [just] using the funds that we have, I think we need to take a hard look at where the money is going and how it can be better spent," he said.

There are separate proposals in Congress to make improvements to specific conservation programs. As for the Farm Bill, Happ said there appears to be a bipartisan appetite for various upgrades. But some Republicans have signaled they would like to divert funding that falls under the conservation umbrella, such as extra support approved under last year's Inflation Reduction Act. The current Farm Bill expires this fall.

Mexico has issued a ban on importing genetically modified corn from the U.S., potentially opening a new market for American farmers.

Mexico is the second-largest importer of U.S. grown corn. The latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show Mexico imported about $18.7 billion worth of American corn, or about 40% of what the U.S. exported. Now, the Mexican government is moving to ban genetically modified corn, opting for natural, organic options, much to the dismay of American ag product and fertilizer companies.

Joe Maxwell, co-founder of the group Farm Action, said the government should not be involved in deciding what other countries can import.

"We disagree with the United States government's position," Maxwell explained. "They ought to be representing a market opportunity for America's farmers that pays a premium."

Maxwell argued market opportunities would be created by Mexico's demand for more naturally grown corn, which could yield American farmers willing to grow it an additional 50 cents per bushel and as much as 75 cents more in Iowa, based on the state's soil quality for growing a specialty crop. Corn growers have continued to modify crop genetics in search of higher, more predictable yields.

Maxwell emphasized farmers deserve the right to capitalize on the opportunity, but argued the USDA is pushing back on the ban because of support from U.S. corporate farm interests who stand to profit on genetically modified crops, especially fertilizer companies, who are working to stop Mexico's ban.

"In this case, marketing Bayer-Monsanto's patented traits," Maxwell noted. "Marketing their particular chemicals when it goes against an opportunity for farmers to have access to a premium market that could pay over $80 an acre more on almost 4 million acres of U.S. corn ground."

Farm Action has submitted an application to testify before a panel discussing the trade dispute between the U.S. and Mexico created by the genetically modified corn ban.


get more stories like this via email

Today is the deadline for small farmers seeking financial assistance to apply for grants from a farm advocacy organization designed to help them get their start.

Practical Farmers of Iowa's Savings Incentive Program also teaches them important financial knowledge.

The SIP is a two-year program offering targeted learning and networking opportunities with guidance from experienced farmer-mentors. It also teaches new farmers how to set goals and create a business plan.

PFI's Senior Farm Viability Manager Kayla Koether said they're making $2,400 available in matching funds to farmers who can save that amount during the two-year program.

"For every dollar that they save, we will match them a dollar from our funds," said Koether. "So, when they buy an asset then, essentially the purchase of the asset is 50% dollars that they've saved and 50% dollars that we're contributing once they've graduated and hit the program milestones."

Today is the last day to apply for the savings-investment program.

Koether said money to buy land is often the biggest stumbling block for up-and-coming farmers who have the knowledge and desire to succeed, but just need a financial leg up.

"It's very hard for beginning farmers to find purchase, to get access to land, to set up sustainable businesses," said Koether. "PFI really wants to support people in our network to make sure that we have the next generation of farmers getting started and being successful in Iowa and beyond. "

So far, Iowa farmers have invested over $500,000 in their new operations with PFI's help. Applications for the program are available online.

Minnesota has been in the headlines over nitrate levels in drinking water and some conservation groups argued industrial farms are being given too many federal incentives to maintain operations, creating more environmental concerns.

Nearly 200 groups have sent a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, opposing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to allow factory farms to qualify for climate-smart conservation payments using Inflation Reduction Act funding.

Sean Carroll, policy and organizing director for the Minnesota-based Land Stewardship Project, suggests it would only allow Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to proliferate without having to fully confront their emissions.

"They should be responsible for that," Carroll asserted. "The public shouldn't be paying them to do it."

In the meantime, he pointed out farming communities bear the brunt of air and water pollution from the operations, while the companies continue to dominate ag markets. The USDA did not respond to a request for comment.

Separately, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has called on Minnesota to be more aggressive in blocking nitrates from entering water sources in southeastern counties.

Those who pushed for EPA action cited the permitting process for large livestock facilities. Meanwhile, Carroll said popular USDA conservation aid programs need to prioritize smaller producers who have shown a willingness to curb farm emissions and protect soil health.

"People that are applying for real environmental quality practices on our land are being denied," Carroll noted.

He pointed to recent reports from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, which showed the USDA still rejects more than three in four farmers' applications to the Conservation Stewardship Program, despite some progress seen in 2022.

Large livestock operations said they are responding to a rising demand for safely grown meat and are constantly working to modernize their environmental practices.Minnesota has been in the headlines over nitrate levels in drinking water and some conservation groups argued industrial farms are being given too many federal incentives to maintain operations, creating more environmental concerns.

Nearly 200 groups have sent a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, opposing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to allow factory farms to qualify for climate-smart conservation payments using Inflation Reduction Act funding.

Sean Carroll, policy and organizing director for the Minnesota-based Land Stewardship Project, suggests it would only allow Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to proliferate without having to fully confront their emissions.

"They should be responsible for that," Carroll asserted. "The public shouldn't be paying them to do it."

In the meantime, he pointed out farming communities bear the brunt of air and water pollution from the operations, while the companies continue to dominate ag markets. The USDA did not respond to a request for comment.

Separately, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has called on Minnesota to be more aggressive in blocking nitrates from entering water sources in southeastern counties.

Those who pushed for EPA action cited the permitting process for large livestock facilities. Meanwhile, Carroll said popular USDA conservation aid programs need to prioritize smaller producers who have shown a willingness to curb farm emissions and protect soil health.

"People that are applying for real environmental quality practices on our land are being denied," Carroll noted.

He pointed to recent reports from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, which showed the USDA still rejects more than three in four farmers' applications to the Conservation Stewardship Program, despite some progress seen in 2022.

Large livestock operations said they are responding to a rising demand for safely grown meat and are constantly working to modernize their environmental practices.


get more stories like this via email