From North Dakota to Texas, the beef raised on farms goes through a production process controlled by four major companies and independent ranchers hope a proposed federal rule gives them more power to act if they feel they have been ripped off.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said the plan it unveiled last week would provide clarity regarding unfair market practices under the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Aaron Shier, government relations director for the National Farmers Union, said in the past, some courts have said there needs to be proof the broader market is harmed. He noted the update addresses the problem within the long-standing law.

"It has many producer protection elements," Shier explained. "Over the long history of this law, that has gotten confused and muddled. And so, this proposed rule is meant to set the record straight on that issue."

Supporters said not only does it help prevent smaller farmers from going out of business but potentially gives consumers a fair shake on the prices they pay for meat and poultry. Industry groups like the Meat Institute are criticizing the move, saying it would set meat production back decades by encouraging litigation while actually hurting consumers.

The Institute also questioned such efforts when cattle prices are at record levels. Shier suggested there are specific examples of questionable tactics beyond current market dynamics.

"Failure to pay," Shier emphasized. "If a meatpacker, someone in the market fails to pay a producer, that is something USDA has consistently taken action on."

With more clarity under the law, policy analysts said there might be more consistency regarding court decisions when individual farmers push back against an industry giant. Shier pointed out the ultimate goal is to avoid lawsuits with this action and similar steps recently taken by the USDA setting a tone to foster market competition. A public comment period is the next step ahead of the rule becoming final.


get more stories like this via email

Wisconsin's agriculture industry could see both wins and losses under the new federal budget.

Climate change isn't a priority for the Trump administration, so the new budget redirects funds for farm conservation initiatives. Chuck Anderas, policy director for the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said it lacks investments in key areas, such as technical assistance, to help farmers implement conservation measures.

Anderas predicted the gutted support - and incentives that will go to large farms that need it least - will weaken conservation efforts and could have long-term implications.

"And so, you're having more runoff and more nitrates in the drinking water," he said. "But then you're also having birth defects in babies from the nitrates in the drinking water, and you're having huge medical costs beyond the devastating effects to human health from that."

Wisconsin's new state budget does include some funding for programs that incentivize farmers to use conservation practices and reduce nitrogen pollution. Anderas said this kind of investment will help prevent flood damage, improve water quality and make agricultural systems more resilient - all of which affect public health.

As part of its agenda to curb government fraud and waste, the Trump administration has slashed staffing at agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service. The new budget proposes cutting nearly one-third of additional staff.

Anderas says that agency provides critical technical assistance to farmers - and the lack of support will create barriers for farmers who rely on its guidance.

"Everybody downstream from a farmer doing conservation practices benefits from that, because there's less water running off their fields, there's less nitrates in the drinking water, there's less phosphorus in our streams and rivers," he said. "And the very best people helping people to do that have been NRCS staff."

Anderas said the new federal ag budget appears to mostly benefit large farms through commodity payments and crop insurance, while small and midsize farms primarily rely on conservation programs.

"And a lot of that's been paid for at the expense of SNAP benefits," he said. "And so, that's basically the choice that's been made in this budget bill is, continue investing more and more in the largest farms, and invest less in people and in small and medium-sized farms."

He added that the new federal budget also redirects Biden-era conservation funds that hadn't yet been used away from practices that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions on farms.

Hoosier businesses across the state are feeling the ripple effects of rising tariffs and shifting trade policies, especially in farming, manufacturing and retail.

Aaron Lehman is president of the Iowa Farmers Union, but his concerns extend across state lines.

"We put off buying machinery and making other farm improvements," he said. "We're less likely to support our local suppliers and manufacturers. Sometimes we even put off bringing the next generation onto the farm."

Indiana ranks in the top 10 nationally for corn and soybean production, two markets directly hit by trade volatility. Supporters of tariffs say they protect U.S. jobs and fight unfair trade. However, small business owners in other states say rising costs and unpredictability are hindering their growth.

Americans voiced concerns during a call organized by Farmers for Free Trade and Tariffs Cost US.

Indiana distillers and retailers that rely on exports and imported materials could face similar risks. Nick Colombo, co-founder of Switchgrass Spirits in Missouri, said uncertainty from tariffs is impacting the way he does business.

"We are no longer trying to sell our goods outside of this country," he said. "That's a huge mess not only for us but also for the people we buy grain from and the people we buy barrels from."

Business owners nationwide say they need trade stability to hire, invest and grow.


get more stories like this via email

Iowa is the nation's number one corn and soybean producer and federal polices are designed to keep it that way but more farmers are moving away from traditional crops to protect the state's waterways.

Corn and soybeans both require a lot of fertilizer, which eventually seeps into groundwater.

Lee Tesdell, owner and operator of the 80-acre Tesdell Century Farm, in rural Slater, about 30 miles north of Des Moines, has adopted conservation methods. Instead of relying on the "big two" crops, he sites research at Iowa State University that says a four-crop rotation could reduce the amount of fertilizer farmers need.

"Soybeans, corn, oats and alfalfa would be just as profitable," Tesdell pointed out. "Yields would be similar (to) a corn-soy, corn-soy, corn-soy, or corn-on-corn."

Some farmers have pushed back on moving away from corn and soybeans because they have been so reliable and profitable for generations. Adding new crops also means adding new costs.

Tesdell noted pollution from fertilizer runoff has become so bad in Iowa, the state's largest utility company has banned lawn watering to reduce nitrates in groundwater.

"Central Iowa Water Works cannot produce enough potable water every day to both send us good drinking water and enough water to water our lawns that's below 10 milligrams per liter, which is the EPA standard for drinking water," Tesdell explained.

Gov. Kim Reynolds recently vetoed a bill which would have banned companies from using eminent domain to construct CO2 pipelines on Iowa farmland, further promoting fertilizer-hungry corn and soybean production which can threaten Iowa's waterways.


get more stories like this via email