DEWITT, Iowa - With the coming start of the growing season in Iowa, a group of volunteer "drift catchers" is preparing to spread out across the state to monitor the air for floating pesticides. Among the group is Greg King, who grows vegetables, fruits and flowers in rural DeWitt, and had some problems with agricultural drift last spring.

"It was later found out to be drift of glyphosate or Round-Up," he said. "It affected one of our crops, which was tomatoes, and they're extremely sensitive. It also affected some of the trees in our yard, curling up the leaves and in one case, one of the plants died."

According to Practical Farmers of Iowa, there were nearly 200 reported instances of pesticide drift in the state last year, although many go unseen and unreported.

King said one way rural residents and horticulture farmers can minimize the potential for pesticide drift damage is to get on the sensitive crops registry, a directory compiled by the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship for use by pesticide applicators.

"And it gives the various sprayers in the area an opportunity to look up your particular address in the area where they're going to be spraying and a chance to realize that perhaps they need to be more diligent," King said.

Beehives can also be registered with the state.

King said that when pesticide applicators know they're working in a sensitive area, they do have options to minimize drift.

"They can slow the machines down, slow the pumps down, drop the booms. There are several things that can work in conjunction with what I might do on my side of the fence," he said. "And in my case with a high tunnel, I would drop the sides down, close it off, turn the ventilation fans off, and that type of thing." A high tunnel is a sort of greenhouse made of plastic sheeting supported by frames.

King urged those who want to get on the registry to act before May 1, since the start of the month is frequently when applicators will review the sensitive-crops list.

Information on the sensitive-crop registry is at IowaAgriculture.gov. Details on the drift-catcher program are at PANNA.org.




get more stories like this via email

President Donald Trump is set to impose sweeping global tariffs this week, a move expected to spark retaliation against a range of American products including food.

Tad DeHaven, policy analyst at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, said farmers in Colorado and across the U.S. who endured losses during Trump's first-term tariffs are again facing uncertainty.

"What's frustrating to me is that taxpayers end up footing the bill," DeHaven pointed out. "Last time around, it cost taxpayers $23 billion in farm bailouts, and I think it looks like we're headed down that road again."

Trump said tariffs, which are taxes on imports mostly paid for by U.S. consumers, will compel companies outsourcing labor to places like China to move their operations back to the U.S. Trump has also floated the idea of replacing income taxes with tariffs in what would amount to a national sales tax.

DeHaven believes Trump's tariff strategy will backfire.

"The administration talks about shrinking government and cutting waste," DeHaven observed. "But I'd argue these trade wars create exactly the opposite: more bailouts, more government spending and more taxpayer-funded damage control."

Republicans in Congress have proposed $230 billion in cuts to ag funding, mostly from SNAP, formerly food stamps. But a recent poll found 60% of Trump voters said cutting SNAP is unacceptable. Trump has also canceled $13 million in funding for Colorado food banks and schools to buy food from local producers.

DeHaven added many U.S. farmers still have not recovered from Trump's first-term tariffs.

"You have to feel bad for farmers, they're getting squeezed from both ends," DeHaven emphasized. "Not only are they losing foreign markets but they are also seeing higher costs at home for essentials like equipment and fertilizer, all thanks to tariffs."


get more stories like this via email

Cuts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture have affected farming communities nationwide but a national group said its Black farmers remain unaffected.

The Memphis-based Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association represents more than 20,000 heirs of Black landowners and ranchers across the country.

Thomas Burrell, president of the association, said because of long-standing discrimination, its members, many of whom are farmers or descendants of farmers, have not been impacted by the USDA freeze.

"What our concern has always been, notwithstanding any administrative efforts or the lack thereof, is the constant, unfortunately, of discrimination that prevents our members from being able to participate," Burrell explained. "Key phrase is 'food production.'"

Burrell noted the association's farmers operate under the USDA and still face challenges from the Pigford v. Glickman settlement. He added Congress has introduced multiple measures this year to compensate Black farmers for past discrimination. Last summer, the Biden administration provided more than $2 billion in direct payments to minority farmers affected by USDA discrimination.

Burrell argued tariffs will have both short- and long-term effects on Tennessee farmers and beyond. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently announced the USDA will distribute up to $10 billion to agricultural producers through the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program for 2024 crops, with another $20 billion for disaster-affected farmers.

"Now the administration is going to use this $30 billion to sustain these farmers," Burrell observed. "While that pain is being as a result of the tariffs, and hopefully, in theory, at least once the ship rights itself again, it's full speed ahead, and the economy should benefit in the long term."

Burrell pointed out the Secretary of Agriculture has promised tariffs will not harm them and disaster and commodity payments should help. But Black farmers who are long victims of discrimination still struggle to access the benefits. The core issue remains: Are they receiving equal resources to stay competitive?


get more stories like this via email

A new study says agriculture co-ops are a strong economic force in states like South Dakota - but their future is murky, because of federal tax cuts set to expire.

Farm cooperatives have been around for more than a century, allowing smaller farmers to pool together resources to buy supplies and market their products.

South Dakota State University Ness School of Management and Economics Associate Professor Matthew Elliott helped lead research into co-op profits in North and South Dakota and Minnesota.

Even though corporations and industrial farms have a growing presence in agriculture, he said co-ops have staying power.

"There is consolidation going on to achieve efficiencies, but generally we see cooperatives still maintaining a good business volume in these industries," said Elliott, "and that's been pretty consistent, steady, for a long time."

He said co-ops benefit from the tax cut law enacted during the first Trump administration by allowing income from member sales to be taxed at lower rates.

The study says in 2022, that newer deduction helped generate $255 million in economic activity in South Dakota farming towns.

Republicans in Congress want to extend the broader tax cuts. But skeptics say that would require drastic spending cuts, which would harm rural communities and eat away at farmers' profits.

When focusing solely on the co-op tax deduction, Elliot said it's likely a more effective tool in this part of the country.

"It can be a struggle to get investment interested in our region," said Elliott. "It's one of those ways the dollars we do generate, we can keep here and keep multiplying and growing our economy."

He said those are extra dollars farmers can use to boost worker pay or buy equipment from local dealers at a time when small towns struggle with population loss.

If the deduction expires, observers say these farmers will have higher tax bills.

Overall, the planned extension of the Trump tax cuts has renewed debate about whether they mostly benefit wealthier Americans, and leave middle- and low-income workers behind.




get more stories like this via email