LANCASTER, Pa. - The federal Farm Bill expires on Sept. 30, but different versions of its replacement could have a big impact on Pennsylvania's clean-water efforts.

According to current U.S. Department of Agriculture risk-management rules, if something goes wrong with a cover crop, a farmer could lose eligibility for crop insurance. Farmers in the Keystone State are increasingly interested in planting cover crops between cash crops to control erosion and improve soil health.

According to Steve Groff, a Lancaster County farmer and founder of Cover Crop Coaching, cover crops not only help with farm yields but also protect waterways from sediment and nutrient pollution from animal waste and fertilizer that fouls waterways all the way to Chesapeake Bay.

"By using cover crops," he said, "we can help control the nutrients a lot better so that they're not subject to leaching down into the groundwater or running off with the surface water."

The Senate's proposal for a new farm bill includes a legislative fix to insurance rules on cover crops, while the House version would cut almost $800 million from the conservation title over 10 years.

Cover crops have been found to reduce nitrogen pollution by up to 50 percent and phosphorus pollution by up to 36 percent. Groff said they maintain biological activity in the soil for longer periods of time, "which actually has a side benefit of being able to lower our inputs, like fertilizer and so forth, because we're essentially working with nature."

While there is growing interest among farmers in cover crops, Groff said, there's still a long way to go.

"There's not enough adoption yet on every acre," he said. "So until that happens, I'm going to do all I can to educate farmers on how to do this correctly, not only so that they can benefit but also downstream."

He said cover crops also help wildlife species in decline, such as the monarch butterfly and the sage grouse, a Western-state cousin to Pennsylvania's state bird, the ruffed grouse.

More information on cover crops is online at cbf.org.


get more stories like this via email

Some northeast Wisconsin residents are challenging a wastewater permit issued by the state to a large dairy operation.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources reissued the wastewater permit to Pagel's Ponderosa Dairy in August. Petitioners are now requesting the State Division of Hearings and Appeals to review the terms for water monitoring and limits on the number of animals.

Adam Voskquil, attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates, said the DNR has the authority to protect communities.

"We've been pushing for a few years now to see them use that more often, and this is one of those instances where they didn't do enough," Voskquil contended.

A 2021 Supreme Court ruling allowed the DNR to include terms on groundwater monitoring and setting size limits on concentrated animal feeding operations. But with more than 330 of them across the state, Voskquil said the DNR has included the terms in only a handful of permits. A spokesperson for the agency said they cannot comment on ongoing litigation.

Pagel's Ponderosa Dairy owns about 20,000 animals between its two locations in Kewaunee County, and produces more than 100 million gallons of liquid manure it spreads across 10,000 acres of land. Voskquil argued the land is susceptible to contamination.

"Pagel's is kind of playing a shell game with transferring manure between their operations," Voskquil asserted. "There just needs to be some threshold, some limit, to the growth of this operation."

The DNR states concentrated animal feeding operations are required to spread manure on land set back from drinking water wells, sinkholes and fractured bedrock and cannot have any runoff to rivers and lakes, among other requirements.


get more stories like this via email

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified the name of the poultry producer. (9:55 a.m. MDT, Oct. 28, 2924)


Some Wisconsin poultry farmers have been left in the lurch after a sudden bankruptcy shed light on a law that prevented state officials from coming to their aid.

The processor Pure Prairie worked with about 50 farms in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa to raise broiler chickens.

Agriculture departments in the other two states stepped in to help farmers after Pure Prairie filed for bankruptcy last month. But in Wisconsin, farmers had to resort to giving away tens of thousands of chickens on Facebook.

Jason Mugnaini, executive director of government relations for the Wisconsin Farm Bureau, said the state just didn't have the structure to deal with such a situation.

"This very particular circumstance identified a gap in our state and federal laws," said Mugnaini. "That's really what it came down to, is that we didn't know that this was even a gap that existed in state statute."

He explained that in Wisconsin dairy, vegetable, and grain farmers have an indemnity fund available to make a claim in situations like this. Poultry farmers don't.

Reports from one farmer in western Wisconsin say Pure Prairie owes him nearly $100,000.

Mugnaini said the first part of the crisis was getting the chickens off the farms. Now, it's about keeping these farmers in business.

"The abrupt nature in which this really occurred left people in some really dire straits," said Mugnaini, "and that's really what the biggest challenge is right now, is how are we going to get these folks back up and running, continuing to produce agriculture, get them paid for what they're owed?"

On the federal level, poultry farmers have coverage under the Packers and Stockyards Act to make a claim and be compensated.

Mugnaini said it's just taking longer than they expected and there's no way to speed up the process.

"Working though trying to get those dollars out the door is going to be the most important piece of the next steps of this," said Mugnaini, "and then really trying to figure out how something like this happens, how we can prevent it from going forward."

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau says there are about 300 poultry farms like these in Wisconsin.


get more stories like this via email

Utah's leaders are taking steps to protect the state's shrinking agricultural land by issuing conservation easements. The move will limit non-agricultural uses on protected lands and ensure they remain dedicated to farming and ranching.

Jeremy Christensen, land conservation program manager for the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, said the easements are necessary so that Utahns in the future can consume locally grown food. Because of the expected population growth in the Beehive State, farm land is being targeted by developers for housing and industrial projects.

Since the 1960s, Christensen said, the state has already lost a quarter of its farm land. He said that figure could likely rise if more isn't done.

"We are really struggling to produce enough food to feed the number of people that are coming into and are growing in our state," he said, "so a lot of the food that we eat comes from elsewhere."

Christensen said he is confident the answer may lie within conservation easements. The latest round of awards from the LeRay McAllister Working Farm and Ranch Fund is set to protect more than 5,500 acres throughout the state and award six privately-owned farms and ranches a total of about $1.7 million.

Christensen said landowners will receive funds for the developmental rights they're willing to giving up.

Christensen said farmers have welcomed the conservation easements, and added that there is a "huge demand," especially among multi-generational farming operations that are concerned with their longevity and vitality. But Christensen added that they're aiming to dispel misconceptions, "whether or not the land owner remains the owner of the property at the end of the day, which they do, or whether there is some mechanism by which they could lose control of the property through doing this easement, which they really can't."

Christensen contended the benefits of protecting these private properties extend "far beyond the boundaries of the properties themselves." He added that it is a benefit to not only landowners, but for all in the state who'll be able to consume local food and learn to value open lands.


get more stories like this via email