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

The U.S. Department of Agriculture will soon require electronic eartags for cattle and bison that cross state lines.

The USDA says its rule will affect some 11 million cattle, or about 12% of the nation's herd.

But the controversial eartag mandate is worrying some small ag producers, like Judith McGeary - a Texas rancher and executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance.

She said it's expensive and unnecessary.

"We have a system that works well right now," said McGeary. "And USDA's own tests of that system show that a cow that crosses state lines can be traced back, in most cases, within an hour. That is more than sufficient."

The USDA argues it will prevent future epidemics, cut down on paperwork errors, and protect international beef exports. The rule is set to go into effect in about six months.

McGeary, who supports the position of the National Family Farm Coalition on this issue, said it will be easy for large meat companies to implement but challenging for smaller family farms, which could lead to more consolidation in agriculture.

Right now, the USDA is giving away electronic tags through state veterinary offices.

But McGeary said there are other costs with this rule for an industry already on thin margins, including the fact that technology keeps changing.

"For instance, we've had reports of a sale barn that went and got an electronic reader to handle the cows that were coming through with electronic tags," said McGeary, "and within a couple of years, couldn't find batteries for those readers."

She added that the rule could be expanded to more domestic herds.

Other stockgrowing groups have supported transitioning to electronic tags, which could cut down on quarantine times during outbreaks.

Multiple bills in Congress seek to block the USDA's rule, but they've yet to build much support.




get more stories like this via email

An Iowa nonprofit group helps ag-related businesses grow to serve more farmers and get more cover crops planted in the state.

Cover crops like rye and wheat are typically planted to protect the soil in winter months - and in and between row crops like corn and soybeans to control weeds in the growing season.

Practical Farmers of Iowa is making up to $10,000 available to farmers who want to commercialize their cover crop practice through the Cover Crop Business Accelerator Program.

PFI's Senior Field Crops Viability Manager Lydia English said while cover crops are good for weed control and soil health, most farmers who use them have another goal.

"Ninety percent of the time, it's to combat erosion, either wind or water," said English. "So, I think seeing that soil loss is really real - and that's a lot of value that we're washing down the drain, literally, that we don't need to, with a practice like cover crops."

English said PFI wants to plant 12 million of Iowa's 30 million acres of farmland with cover crops and thinks the accelerator program will encourage farmers to help reach that goal.

Iowa corn and soybean Farmer Dan Bahe owns a business that plants cover crops for its clients on about 7,000 acres.

He and his brother were already experienced farmers who have used cover crops for more than a decade, but Bahe said they used PFI's accelerator program to scale up their operation - especially by taking advantage of a personalized business coaching program.

"Helping us put a business plan together," said Bahe. "Ideas on creating a legal entity, marketing, branding. Because we were already established, but we really didn't have a game plan. We were just taking orders, going out and seeding cover crops."

The 2022 Census of Agriculture reported nearly 1.3 million acres of cover crops in Iowa. That's a 32% increase since 2017.

PFI's accelerator program is in its fifth year.

A ruling from a federal judge will keep Washington state growers from depressing wages for farmworkers this harvest season.

Judge John Chun has temporarily reinstated piece-rate wages - the wages paid for the amount of fruit a worker can pick in an hour, which can be twice as high as the hourly wage. It's a victory for domestic farmworkers, who have to compete with H-2A workers - foreign farmworkers allowed temporary visas who typically work for less.

Andrea Schmitt, Columbia Legal Services staff attorney, said growers offering the lower hourly wage can dissuade local workers.

"The grower then goes to the government and says, 'Nobody wanted my job! There's a shortage of local workers.' But the shortage isn't a shortage of local workers. The shortage is a shortage of local workers who want to do the job for a significant pay cut," she said.

H-2A visas are allowed to be issued if it doesn't adversely affect domestic workers. Schmitt said that's exactly what was happening without proper wage setting from the U.S. Department of Labor. Growers who objected to the decision say it ignores the ever-changing market conditions on farms.

Schmitt said the timing of this preliminary decision is important because the court's final decision likely won't be ready until harvest is over this year. That means workers would have had another year of depressed wages - and that wouldn't just affect them this year.

"It will also depress wages for the future because growers will report those depressed wages on the wage survey for this year and prevailing wages are likely to be lower in the future if they're allowed to pay depressed wages now," she continued.

Edgar Franks, political director for the Familias Unidas por la Justicia, AFL-CIO in northwest Washington, which brought the case against the Labor Department, said this decision is important because farmworkers often don't have their voices heard.

"We just want to have that opportunity to be heard and have our case being taken as seriously as the industry," he continued.


get more stories like this via email