The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is updating the rules defining how manure is stored at animal feeding operations.

For generations, groundwater has been threatened by soil runoff from these operations, and environmental advocates want to see tougher standards. Farmers routinely apply the manure to their land as fertilizer. But erosion, unpredictable weather and rules that are difficult to enforce leave the manure contaminating ground and surface water.

Michael Schmidt, staff attorney for the Iowa Environmental Council, is calling for greater separation between manure storage facilities and karst soil, which contains porous rock, limestone and underground caves.

"And if you build a manure storage structure on top of that, it can basically all run into those caves and get into the groundwater and the surface waters," Schmidt explained.

The DNR said despite its existing rules, there are still hundreds of streams, lakes and private wells teeming with high levels of fecal coliform and other pollutants.

Schmidt pointed out the environmental council is also asking the DNR to modernize manure management plans for farmers, so they are an up-to-date reflection of what is happening on their land. Right now, plans are submitted on paper, which Schmidt argued means a less than accurate account of what really takes place at confinements across the state.

"We have roughly 9,000 animal feeding operations in Iowa," Schmidt noted. "And so, it is an overwhelming task to try to provide oversight for all of these. And having the contents be electronic and geospatial would let DNR and the public have a much better sense of where the manure should be applied and how much should be applied."

The DNR plans to hold a public hearing on its proposed new rules at the end of September.


get more stories like this via email

If you live in a flood prone community, soil health from nearby farmland may have something to do with it. Ag voices in Wisconsin say government-funded conservation programs are effective in mitigating risks and disaster expenses.

Congress will soon renew debate over long-term Farm Bill funding, including incentives for producers to adopt practices like no-till farming, which allow the soil to hold more water after heavy rain.

Juli Obudzinski, sustainable agriculture policy consultant for the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said it is not only an issue for farmers and policymakers. She emphasized taxpayer dollars come into play when programs are underfunded.

"Some of the costs that they pay because of the lack of investment in soil health practices, especially municipalities, rural communities, even state budgets when they're looking at costs to repair flooding damages," Obudzinski outlined.

Her research showed between 2009 and 2019, Wisconsin suffered nearly $36 million in flood damage. On the other side, she acknowledged soil health investment and improved water quality pay off for communities, such as boosting home values along watersheds. The discussions also follow recent conservation funding boosts from the Inflation Reduction Act, with advocates noting they are poised to help more rural areas.

Ron Schoepp, a farmer from south-central Wisconsin, is among those who have tapped into Inflation Reduction Act incentives this year through the federal Conservation Stewardship Program. He is adding to the soil health practices he has carried out over the years, providing benefits reaching beyond his property.

"We farm right on Lake Wisconsin and so there's less runoff," Schoepp explained. "That definitely helps neighbors by keeping a cleaner Lake Wisconsin."

He also contended making incentives more accessible could place less stress on disaster aid programs for farmers. Congress has until next fall to adopt a new Farm Bill after extending the recent version for another year. While many programs have bipartisan support, it is unclear how funding disagreements and the 2024 election will influence reauthorization.

Women, LGBTQ, and minority farmers in Ohio face compounding stressors, according to a study from Ohio State University.

Researchers surveyed and interviewed a group of nontraditional, mostly first-generation organic farmers. Results showed 58% of survey respondents reported mild to severe symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Fiona Doherty, doctoral candidate in the College of Social Work at Ohio State University and the study's lead author, said the survey was done in 2020 during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. She said many farmers expressed disappointment at the financial reality of farming, including not making ends meet and having to pick up a second or even third job.

"Part of what inspired us to do this particular research study was really acknowledging the generations, the decades of structural discrimination in the U.S. agricultural industry," Doherty explained. "That's led to unequal access to land, unequal access to farm resources."

Some study participants also identified climate change and unpredictable weather as sources of stress.

Doherty pointed out the research is a step toward creating structural support such as policies to improve equity, accessibility, and representation for beginning, women, racial and ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+ farmers, especially as traditional farmers age out of the field.

"Really thinking about those cumulative impacts and what that does to someone's well-being, to their success as a farmer, as a beginning farmer," Doherty outlined. "That's one main take-away, is just thinking about those cumulative stressors."

According to census data, in 2017, the U.S. had around 321,000 farmers age 35 or younger, accounting for just 9% of the country's roughly 3 million producers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has said as legacy producers retire, the nation will need a new generation of farmers to grow food and feed.

Mexico has issued a ban on importing genetically modified corn from the U.S., potentially opening a new market for American farmers.

Mexico is the second-largest importer of U.S. grown corn. The latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show Mexico imported about $18.7 billion worth of American corn, or about 40% of what the U.S. exported. Now, the Mexican government is moving to ban genetically modified corn, opting for natural, organic options, much to the dismay of American ag product and fertilizer companies.

Joe Maxwell, co-founder of the group Farm Action, said the government should not be involved in deciding what other countries can import.

"We disagree with the United States government's position," Maxwell explained. "They ought to be representing a market opportunity for America's farmers that pays a premium."

Maxwell argued market opportunities would be created by Mexico's demand for more naturally grown corn, which could yield American farmers willing to grow it an additional 50 cents per bushel and as much as 75 cents more in Iowa, based on the state's soil quality for growing a specialty crop. Corn growers have continued to modify crop genetics in search of higher, more predictable yields.

Maxwell emphasized farmers deserve the right to capitalize on the opportunity, but argued the USDA is pushing back on the ban because of support from U.S. corporate farm interests who stand to profit on genetically modified crops, especially fertilizer companies, who are working to stop Mexico's ban.

"In this case, marketing Bayer-Monsanto's patented traits," Maxwell noted. "Marketing their particular chemicals when it goes against an opportunity for farmers to have access to a premium market that could pay over $80 an acre more on almost 4 million acres of U.S. corn ground."

Farm Action has submitted an application to testify before a panel discussing the trade dispute between the U.S. and Mexico created by the genetically modified corn ban.


get more stories like this via email