Organic farmers want more time to get their corn crops in the ground and still be able to qualify for crop insurance. Right now, they are held to the same timelines as conventional farmers, which they say puts them at a disadvantage and could cost them their full insurance coverage.

Both conventional and organic farmers are required to have their corn crops in the ground by the end of May in order to be eligible for all of their crop insurance if they need it. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency sets final planting dates based on crop and location.

Kelsey Willardson, policy associate at the Center for Rural Affairs, said organic farmers face challenges their conventional counterparts do not, and organic producers need more time for planting without losing their crop insurance coverage.

"Organic farmers need to plant later because they need the soil to be warmer for their seeds, so they will emerge quicker," Willardson pointed out. "It also is a big part of organic weed management, is the timing of their planting."

Willardson noted organic farmers also have to wait until neighbors who may be conventional farmers are done planting before they put their crops in the ground to avoid pollen contamination. Currently, for each day farmers go past the planting deadline, they are penalized 1% of their potential crop insurance coverage while still paying for the full amount.

Noah Wendt, an Iowa crop insurance salesman and owner of A&W Organic Farms, sees stark differences in what conventional and organic farmers are allowed to use on their crops. Organic farmers use fewer seed treatments and other chemicals so they can retain their certification.

Wendt said as a result, organic farmers plant their crops two to three weeks later than conventional ones, putting them right up against the crop insurance deadline. He said an extension by the Risk Management Agency would give organic producers a lot more flexibility.

"So they don't feel like they're under the gun to get it planted when the soil conditions and the weather is not fit," Wendt explained. "It gives them more time and allows them to still achieve a higher revenue guarantee on crop insurance."

The Center for Rural Affairs said the Risk Management Agency can improve the equity of its services and protect the organic producers who are taking extra effort to care for and responsibly manage their land.

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

Family farm advocates are calling for cuts in federal subsidies to large animal feeding operations - technically known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations - in the Farm Bill being debated in Congress.

Iowa family farmers want more support for conservation programs that benefit smaller agriculture operations.

Right now, CAFOs can qualify for as much as $100 million every year to reduce some of the environmental damage they can cause.

That's taxpayer money that Barb Kalbach - a fourth-generation family farmer in Adair County, Iowa - said could be put to much better use by small family farmers on their land.

"Things like filter strips along streams and rivers," said Kalbach, "which helps with erosion, and it also helps with nitrates and other pollutants entering the water."

CAFO operators contend they use the federal money to defend against environmental damage and that they're always looking for cleaner, safer ways to raise high-quality meats while responding to increased consumer demand.

As a board member for the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, Kalbach said she is calling for more support of conservation programs that would help family farmers. But she said she is just as adamant that the long-standing rules governing CAFOs are changed.

"Industrial-scale factory farms, even though they are industrial scale, they do not have to go by industrial standards," said Kalbach. "They go by ag standards. And that's why we have the problem with pollution that we have. That should be addressed in the Farm Bill."

The Farm Bill saw its first action in the House Agriculture Committee May 23.

The House version of the measure also proposes $30 billion in cuts to SNAP benefits over the next decade, including $170 million in Iowa.

For 15 years, U.S. restaurant chains have pledged to stop using gestation crates for pregnant pigs but a new report from an animal welfare group showed many are still dragging their feet.

Devon Dear, institutional outreach manager for the group Animal Equality, said too many restaurants still source their pork from suppliers who lock pregnant pigs in cages so small they cannot turn around. Eleven states, not including New Mexico, have already made the practice illegal, for good reason, Dear emphasized.

"Pigs are under lots of stress in crates," Dear explained. "More stress means more antibiotics; more and more antibiotics means higher chances of antibiotic resistance, and stressed animals are less healthy."

Hog production is not a major contributor to New Mexico's ag statistics, but the state does have its fair share of fast food restaurants. Dear pointed out some big chains have moved away from crates including McDonald's, Wendy's and Chipotle. The report lists Denny's, Chick-fil-A, Dunkin and KFC among 13 companies it contends have not been aggressive enough in reducing their use of crates.

The report comes as Congress is debating an update to the Farm Bill. As proposed, Animal Equality's analysis shows it would have negative effects for animals across the board. She hopes the report will put the inhumane treatment of pregnant pigs in the spotlight.

"One thing we do want to emphasize is that these corporate commitments predate any version of this Farm Bill," Dear noted. "Many are back from 2009, 2012, so irrespective of what happens with the Farm Bill, consumers expect companies to do better for animals."

U.S. pork production is highest in Iowa, while New Mexico is better known for crops such as chili peppers, corn, pecans and onions.