COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Climate change may be hurting rural communities in Ohio and other states, but new research says federal investments could help turn things around.

At the Center for American Progress, senior policy analyst Ryan Richards said rural areas face unique challenges -- from flooding and droughts that reduce crop yields to conversion of farmland for development and oil and gas expansion. The research showed that federal programs that improve soil health and trap carbon can help safeguard rural areas against climate volatility, but Richards noted there isn't enough money to go around.

"Agriculture programs, for example, have way more people who are interested who cannot participate," he said. "Really, we're not talking about reinventing the wheel here. We have these tools that are underfunded, and we need to give them a boost to help folks who want to do good go out there and take action."

Richards said doubling the investment in four federal conservation programs could drive $3.5 billion in annual revenue to farms, and about $1.4 billion in cost savings. The study also recommended setting a national goal of protecting 30% of U.S. lands by 2030.

Also in the research, a shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources, such as solar and wind, would benefit rural communities. Fadhel Kaboub, an associate professor of economics at Denison University, agreed, and said the environmental and quality-of-life costs associated with oil and gas drilling are unsustainable.

"These create temporary bursts of job creation and income creation," he said, "but as soon as those oil and gas wells are dry, they shut down and the jobs are gone, and the communities are left behind in a much worse situation than they originally were."

Richards said rural Ohio has what it takes to protect its way of life, and contended that federal climate policy needs to take rural voices into account.

"You really see broader economic challenges that communities are facing, combined with these increasingly common climate challenges," he said, "and a lot of these solutions give communities a chance to really use their resources to take charge of their own future -- and, in doing so, help society."

The report also recommended that federal leaders improve investments in rural broadband and encourage smart growth in rural towns and cities.

The report is online at americanprogress.org.


get more stories like this via email

A new study shows how extreme weather conditions negatively affect production yields on Midwest dairy farms, with a disproportionate impact on smaller farms.

Researchers at the University of Illinois studied milk production records from nine Midwest dairy farmers. Considering both temperature and humidity when measuring extreme heat, they found farms lose about 1% of milk yield annually because of heat stress, while smaller farms lose closer to 2%.

Marin Skidmore, study co-author, said when cows are in extreme heat, it can cause increased restlessness and risk of infection, and decreased appetite, which reduces milk yield and impacts bottom lines.

"To some extent, it's only 1.6%. But if you're really making every dollar from your paycheck count, because you're living in a time with high costs, then 1.6% of your paycheck being gone in a given year is meaningful," she said.

The study predicts extreme heat days to be much more frequent in years to come and milk yield losses to increase about 30% in the next 25 years.

The Midwest tends to have smaller dairy farms compared with other states, with herds ranging from 100 to 200 cows. Researchers say being able to track and compare daily milk yields across a large region with similar climates has never been done before. Skidmore said their findings suggest that larger herds seem to have some level of protection to extreme heat compared with smaller farms, which start to see impacts of heat stress at lower thresholds.

"And this is additionally concerning in the context that we're studying because we've seen a lot of dairy farm exits over the last decade or two, and many of those are small farms," she added.

While researchers say there's no silver bullet for mitigating the effects of heat stress on herds, recommendations include adjusting feeding and calving timing, and using sprinklers and improved ventilation systems.

Skidmore emphasized the need for additional support for small farms since capital costs can be particularly constraining.

"Having the access to enough capital to make these really big investments is difficult, and grants or loans to help small farms adopt some of these management technologies could be one avenue to help small farms cope with heat stress and keep them competitive," she continued.

Skidmore said more research is also needed to explore other options to best manage extreme heat on dairy farms.


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