Pesticides are still common in agriculture. Organic producers who avoid them have seen ups and downs in pushing for stronger regulations, and they point to a South Dakota example of the harm associated with widespread use among neighboring farms.

At the heart of the regulatory fight is the application of the weed-killing pesticide dicamba, and how it can drift from one farm to another. Last month, a federal court blocked "over the top" spraying of dicamba products, but the EPA followed with an order to allow the spraying of existing supplies.

Glenn Pulse, co-owner of an organic farm in Vermillion, said a 2017 drift incident had a big impact on his operation.

"Our entire farm was covered. We lost a lot of livestock, and thousands of bees were killed," he explained.

It also resulted in health concerns for his family, having to regain his organic farmer certification, and a legal battle over restitution. Groups such as the National Family Farm Coalition have been fighting what they call the deregulation of these chemicals, arguing the drift and runoff effect has damaged millions of crops.

Dicamba-manufacturing companies deny responsibility, instead blaming farmers who apply it for not following guidelines.

The EPA has said there were already millions of gallons of dicamba in circulation prior to the court's ruling, prompting the agency's order. Pulse feels there are farmers who are careful in spraying chemicals, but he wants stronger enforcement against those he describes as "loose cannons."

"The guys that are not following the labels and they're spraying in weather conditions that are not favorable, that is where, I would say, 90% of the problems are happening with drift incidents," Pulse said.

His calls for better responses to these incidents coincide with policy demands to heavily restrict dicamba products. Meanwhile, Rep. Dusty Johnson, D-South Dakota, is the main sponsor of a bill supporters say would assure uniformity in national pesticide labeling under federal law. But opponents argue it would limit longstanding state and local pesticide safety rules.

Farms in the Midwest should become more resilient to challenges created by climate change, with a $10 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The money will go toward working with farmers in Ohio and Missouri on ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, improve soil and water quality and respond to extreme weather conditions, all while remaining profitable.

Ernie Shea, president of the nonprofit Solutions from the Land, one of the partners in the project, said the grant is unique because it centers around farmers' needs.

"When you approach a farmer in that way, you're beginning the conversation with what's important to him or her, which is surviving, continuing to operate," Shea explained. "You then can talk about co-benefits that can help the public."

This grant will also feature partners like Ohio State University and will fund education programs, research and collaborations with other stakeholders. The federal government is investing billions in climate-smart programs trying to reach its goal of a net-zero-emissions economy by 2050.

Agriculture is responsible for about one-tenth of the greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., mostly from livestock and fertilizer use. Shea pointed out there are many ways for Midwestern ag producers to be climate smart, including no-till operations, where farmers do not plow the ground and plant directly into soil, and much more.

"They could plant cover crops that provide green photosynthesis activity beds for many months of the year," Shea suggested. "We could implement practices where we're substituting nutrient inputs; where we're making a greater use of livestock manure instead of synthetic fertilizers."

Ohio has more than 13 million acres of farmland and agriculture is responsible for about 3% of the state's gross domestic product.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. Department of Agriculture will soon require electronic eartags for cattle and bison that cross state lines.

The USDA says its rule will affect some 11 million cattle, or about 12% of the nation's herd.

But the controversial eartag mandate is worrying some small ag producers, like Judith McGeary - a Texas rancher and executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance.

She said it's expensive and unnecessary.

"We have a system that works well right now," said McGeary. "And USDA's own tests of that system show that a cow that crosses state lines can be traced back, in most cases, within an hour. That is more than sufficient."

The USDA argues it will prevent future epidemics, cut down on paperwork errors, and protect international beef exports. The rule is set to go into effect in about six months.

McGeary, who supports the position of the National Family Farm Coalition on this issue, said it will be easy for large meat companies to implement but challenging for smaller family farms, which could lead to more consolidation in agriculture.

Right now, the USDA is giving away electronic tags through state veterinary offices.

But McGeary said there are other costs with this rule for an industry already on thin margins, including the fact that technology keeps changing.

"For instance, we've had reports of a sale barn that went and got an electronic reader to handle the cows that were coming through with electronic tags," said McGeary, "and within a couple of years, couldn't find batteries for those readers."

She added that the rule could be expanded to more domestic herds.

Other stockgrowing groups have supported transitioning to electronic tags, which could cut down on quarantine times during outbreaks.

Multiple bills in Congress seek to block the USDA's rule, but they've yet to build much support.




get more stories like this via email

An Iowa nonprofit group helps ag-related businesses grow to serve more farmers and get more cover crops planted in the state.

Cover crops like rye and wheat are typically planted to protect the soil in winter months - and in and between row crops like corn and soybeans to control weeds in the growing season.

Practical Farmers of Iowa is making up to $10,000 available to farmers who want to commercialize their cover crop practice through the Cover Crop Business Accelerator Program.

PFI's Senior Field Crops Viability Manager Lydia English said while cover crops are good for weed control and soil health, most farmers who use them have another goal.

"Ninety percent of the time, it's to combat erosion, either wind or water," said English. "So, I think seeing that soil loss is really real - and that's a lot of value that we're washing down the drain, literally, that we don't need to, with a practice like cover crops."

English said PFI wants to plant 12 million of Iowa's 30 million acres of farmland with cover crops and thinks the accelerator program will encourage farmers to help reach that goal.

Iowa corn and soybean Farmer Dan Bahe owns a business that plants cover crops for its clients on about 7,000 acres.

He and his brother were already experienced farmers who have used cover crops for more than a decade, but Bahe said they used PFI's accelerator program to scale up their operation - especially by taking advantage of a personalized business coaching program.

"Helping us put a business plan together," said Bahe. "Ideas on creating a legal entity, marketing, branding. Because we were already established, but we really didn't have a game plan. We were just taking orders, going out and seeding cover crops."

The 2022 Census of Agriculture reported nearly 1.3 million acres of cover crops in Iowa. That's a 32% increase since 2017.

PFI's accelerator program is in its fifth year.