Legislation aimed at stopping U.S. adversaries from owning farmland in Indiana will be argued before the full state Senate today.

Rep. Kendell Culp, R-Rensselaer, authored House Bill 1183. If approved, it would bar citizens and companies from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela from buying or leasing agricultural land in the state, any property located within 10 miles of military armories or within 50 miles of military bases.

"If we lose even a fraction of our food production this quickly would become a national security issue," Culp asserted. "Chinese interests, for example, own about 400,000 acres in the U.S. In Indiana, 2.2% of Indiana's farmland is owned by foreign entities."

Culp noted Indiana's Attorney General would be tasked with enforcing the law. Opponents argued the bill goes too far and punishes Hoosiers who fled one of the six targeted countries to legally become U.S. citizens.

Chris Daley, executive director of the ACLU of Indiana, asked state lawmakers to step back and ask whether the proposed legislation represents Hoosier values.

"You are telling them they are no longer welcome here except for as employees of someone else," Daley contended. "The attorney general's representative was very helpful and making very clear this isn't just about ownership; it's about leasing. This bill is far too broad for the goal that you have stated."

However, proponents of the bill say the issue goes beyond food security.

Brian Cavenaugh, senior vice president of the national security consulting firm American Global Strategies, warned the Senate Ag Committee our adversaries are strategic and do their homework.

"The one that keeps me up at night is the People's Republic of China," Cavenaugh explained. "Many national security experts, including myself, believe that China represents the greatest threat to our national security in this generation. What they're doing is prepositioning stuff in a way to cripple our economy, cripple the society."


get more stories like this via email

A Wisconsin-based nonprofit hopes a new law can help some of its struggling farmers quickly recoup federal grant funds they are owed.

The Honor Farmer Contracts Act would order the United States Department of Agriculture to resume paying farmers from previously signed agreements.

The Michael Fields Agriculture Institute is one of more than 350 organizations to have signed on to a letter of support to Congress.

Ryan Martin, executive director of the institute, said federal cuts have affected both their network and their organization.

"There's also a lot of legal and operational chaos, so we're sort of stuck navigating these legal gray zones around signed contracts," Martin explained. "My part-time job right now, unfortunately, has been canceling contracts and laying off contractors, and we've had to lay off several staff."

The act would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to unfreeze all signed agreements and contracts, make past-due payments quickly and prohibit the agency from canceling contracts unless there is a breach of contract.

The sudden cuts blindsided farmers across the country. Hundreds of farmers in the Upper Midwest region served by the Michael Fields Institute participate in USDA-funded programs to pay farmers for serving their communities.

Clint Bland, owner of Bland Family Farm and founder of the organic farming collective Farms of Illinois, said the programs have been instrumental in supporting small local farms and creating a synergistic ecosystem.

"This funding has far more impacts than just paying one farmer," Bland pointed out. "All this food was going out throughout the communities that we were serving to disadvantaged folks who need food, and then it was also helping the business and everything was just kind of flowing around and it kept the money right here and helped out the community."

Bland added the uncertainty has forced him to make operational changes, such as staff cuts and modifications to planting strategies, to mitigate potential losses.

Rachel Smedberg, cofounder of Tulip Creek Gardens, said grant program participation helped them expand from one staff member to five and serve as aggregators for other local farmers. She emphasized the cuts affect not only their operation but also their network of farmers and the food-insecure communities they serve.

"I just hope that regardless of what side you're on, that we can unify around farmers are feeding us and people need to eat," Smedberg emphasized. "We're so divided right now and there's so much chaos in the world that this would be something that can bring us together."

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