Minnesota has been in the headlines over nitrate levels in drinking water and some conservation groups argued industrial farms are being given too many federal incentives to maintain operations, creating more environmental concerns.

Nearly 200 groups have sent a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, opposing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to allow factory farms to qualify for climate-smart conservation payments using Inflation Reduction Act funding.

Sean Carroll, policy and organizing director for the Minnesota-based Land Stewardship Project, suggests it would only allow Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to proliferate without having to fully confront their emissions.

"They should be responsible for that," Carroll asserted. "The public shouldn't be paying them to do it."

In the meantime, he pointed out farming communities bear the brunt of air and water pollution from the operations, while the companies continue to dominate ag markets. The USDA did not respond to a request for comment.

Separately, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has called on Minnesota to be more aggressive in blocking nitrates from entering water sources in southeastern counties.

Those who pushed for EPA action cited the permitting process for large livestock facilities. Meanwhile, Carroll said popular USDA conservation aid programs need to prioritize smaller producers who have shown a willingness to curb farm emissions and protect soil health.

"People that are applying for real environmental quality practices on our land are being denied," Carroll noted.

He pointed to recent reports from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, which showed the USDA still rejects more than three in four farmers' applications to the Conservation Stewardship Program, despite some progress seen in 2022.

Large livestock operations said they are responding to a rising demand for safely grown meat and are constantly working to modernize their environmental practices.Minnesota has been in the headlines over nitrate levels in drinking water and some conservation groups argued industrial farms are being given too many federal incentives to maintain operations, creating more environmental concerns.

Nearly 200 groups have sent a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, opposing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to allow factory farms to qualify for climate-smart conservation payments using Inflation Reduction Act funding.

Sean Carroll, policy and organizing director for the Minnesota-based Land Stewardship Project, suggests it would only allow Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to proliferate without having to fully confront their emissions.

"They should be responsible for that," Carroll asserted. "The public shouldn't be paying them to do it."

In the meantime, he pointed out farming communities bear the brunt of air and water pollution from the operations, while the companies continue to dominate ag markets. The USDA did not respond to a request for comment.

Separately, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has called on Minnesota to be more aggressive in blocking nitrates from entering water sources in southeastern counties.

Those who pushed for EPA action cited the permitting process for large livestock facilities. Meanwhile, Carroll said popular USDA conservation aid programs need to prioritize smaller producers who have shown a willingness to curb farm emissions and protect soil health.

"People that are applying for real environmental quality practices on our land are being denied," Carroll noted.

He pointed to recent reports from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, which showed the USDA still rejects more than three in four farmers' applications to the Conservation Stewardship Program, despite some progress seen in 2022.

Large livestock operations said they are responding to a rising demand for safely grown meat and are constantly working to modernize their environmental practices.


get more stories like this via email

Massachusetts farmers said they are bracing for revenue losses due to cuts in fresh produce SNAP benefits.

Starting Dec. 1, families who utilize the state's Healthy Incentives Program to buy food directly from farmers will see their benefits cut to just $20 a month, regardless of household size.

Rebecca Miller, policy director for the Massachusetts Food System Collaborative, said many farmers have structured their operations around SNAP customers.

"A lot of them are worried that they might have to do layoffs," Miller pointed out. "Especially for folks that they've hired that are multilingual that serve folks with SNAP benefits."

Miller stressed less money being spent at farmers' markets will have a ripple effect across the state's agricultural industry. Nearly 300 farmers participate in the SNAP program but state officials said the cuts are needed due to budget constraints.

The Healthy Incentives Program provides a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement when SNAP users buy healthy, local food directly from Massachusetts farmers. A state survey found that each dollar spent in the program results in an additional $2 in local economic impact, when farmers spend the money on local goods and services. Miller emphasized she is concerned about families getting through the winter.

"We expect to see increased food insecurity," Miller explained. "Folks needing to visit food pantries more, folks having to take more medicine to address chronic diet-related health needs."

Miller noted a study found each program participant increased their fresh fruit and vegetable intake by one serving per day, which leads to lower public health care costs over time. She added supporters are asking the legislature for an additional $10 million to maintain current funding levels through June. State officials say they are restructuring the program to ensure long-term viability.


get more stories like this via email

Kentucky farmers are using biosolids or "biosludge" from city sewage as cheap fertilizer but the price tag is high in terms of health, from toxic industrial chemicals known as PFAS and heavy metals contaminating produce, groundwater and soil.

Kentucky lawmakers have passed regulations experts said weaken protections for biosludge application on farmland.

Tom FitzGerald, attorney and former director of the Kentucky Resources Council, warned farmers in the Commonwealth trying to save money on fertilizer by using biosludge could end up with a significant headache down the road.

"Unless the cities are properly managing the waste that come into the system, and are sampling and clearing them for release for public use, I would simply tell the farmers not to take these biosludges, because the risks are so high," FitzGerald asserted.

According to open records request data from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, lab samples from around a dozen wastewater treatment plants statewide revealed most contained detectable levels of PFAS.

Adam Nordell said his small family-owned vegetable farm dream in Maine became a nightmare when he discovered sewage sludge applied decades prior had irreparably contaminated his land and groundwater with high levels of PFAS. He stressed he wants to raise awareness among farmers in other states about the risks, and the importance of testing.

"We had been living on contaminated land," Nordell explained. "We've been drinking contaminated water. We've been irrigating our crops and supporting our livestock with contaminated groundwater."

FitzGerald said Kentucky's regulations reduce accountability and do not require cities to test the biosludge before it's applied to farmland.

"The cabinet should have used its authority to broaden out the list of contaminants, to broaden out the sampling and testing requirements and to broaden out the notice requirements to farmers," FitzGerald contended.

According to the Environmental Working Group, at least 5% of all crop fields nationwide could be using biosludge likely contaminated with PFAS. And since 2016, more than 19 billion pounds of biosludge have been applied to farm fields.


get more stories like this via email

Some Iowa farmers are putting a new spin on an age-old animal behavior.

They're using goats to remove weeds, overgrown brush, and non-native grasses - while helping some landowners restore native habitat to their acres at the same time.

Goats are pretty well known for producing milk and cheese. They're even used to help practice yoga these days.

Matt Vermeersch is a member of Practical Farmers of Iowa who farms about 170 acres near Red Oak - near the Nebraska state line - and operates Goats-On-The-Go, a side business stocked with herds of goats hungry for woody vegetation.

"A lot of really what we refer to as weeds, or pain-in-the-butt plants," said Vermeersch. "Things that they love are things like poison ivy, nettles, wild berry species with their thorns - then more woody species like Honeysuckle or buckthorn."

Vermeersch estimated his three Goats-On-The-Go herds cleared about 120 acres of various vegetation this year, and could have done more had it not been for Iowa's severe spring and summer weather.

There are ecological benefits to the practice, too. People hire Vermeersch's goats to clear land where native species once grew, and where farmers want it to return.

Vermeersch said while Iowa landowners are often trying to clear overgrown brush and reintroduce native species, sometimes they just need stands of troublesome weeds and brambles removed.

At which, Vermeersch said, the goats have no equal.

"It almost looks like a wildfire went through there the day after you take the goats off," said Vermeersch. "We refer to it as a grazing line - and pretty much anything under 6 feet tall all that will be left are sticks and stems. All of the leafy material underneath that is usually consumed."

Vermeersch said the goats are used for different reasons across the country.

In western states, for example, they are dispatched to clear brush that can serve as wildfire fuel, reducing the chances that a fire can become catastrophic by keeping the underbrush down.