The milk you drink or the beef you eat may have come from a farm that rotates its livestock in a certain way to establish a healthier landscape. Wisconsin farmers who practice managed grazing have another chance for new federal funding.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced $22 million is available for regional networks of farmers who offer peer-to-peer technical assistance on this practice. Managed grazing involves raising and feeding livestock on a pasture and moving them regularly, to allow that section of land to recover.
When federal funding was restored last year, Margaret Krome, policy director at the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said the demand was overwhelming.
"It really wasn't a very long application period, and we still had a lot of applicants that couldn't get funded because there was just not enough money," she said, "and we anticipate that will happen again; we really want to make sure Wisconsin farmers have their organizations apply."
These waves of assistance come after a 15-year absence of federal funding for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative. Krome said they're hoping to regain the momentum for this practice from previous decades. The application deadline is May 26. Benefits linked with managed grazing include improved soil health and carbon sequestration.
In northwestern Wisconsin, dairy farmer Kevin Mahalko has been doing managed grazing on his land for nearly 30 decades. He said it has allowed his operation to survive difficult stretches, including drought. And it keeps his expenses lower.
"The cow is doing more of the work," he said, "and using fencing instead of as much equipment, it cuts down on a lot of repairs and maintenance and diesel fuel."
Krome said expanding these education networks can especially help beginning farmers as technology improves, with things such as electric fences for moving livestock.
"That technology, and others that are emerging, has made it a much less expensive investment than many, many approaches to farming," she said.
Disclosure: Michael Fields Agricultural Institute contributes to our fund for reporting on Hunger/Food/Nutrition, Rural/Farming, Sustainable Agriculture. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Minnesota will soon hold public hearings on proposed water permit changes as it seeks to get control of nitrate pollution from industrial farms.
This week, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency released its plan to overhaul standards for a pair of water permits issued to the largest animal feedlots in the state. The main focus is livestock operations in areas vulnerable to groundwater pollution. The farms would have to adopt certain practices related to manure application in the fields.
Joy Anderson, supervising attorney at the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, calls the plan a commonsense approach to a pervasive problem. She hopes the public takes notice of what is happening.
"People who care about Minnesota's drinking water, people who care about the swimability and fishability of our water," Anderson explained.
Organizations like hers urged residents to speak up during public hearings scheduled for July. Comments can also be submitted to the agency until Aug. 9. The proposed changes are expected to face strong pushback from those representing so-called factory farms. Despite the hope from plan supporters, the changes would only apply to about 5% of livestock feedlots in Minnesota.
Past efforts to enact modest permit changes resulted in outcry from industrial ag interests. Anderson admitted the proposed changes cover a limited number of farms but added they send a signal regulators realize the scope of the contaminated water crisis linked to nitrate pollution.
"This is sort of a first step," Anderson asserted. "It tells us the MPCA is at least a little serious about making some changes."
Her group hopes what is unfolding now leads to rule changes covering all the state's 17,000 feedlots, also known as concentrated animal feeding operations. This week's move follows a recent order from the federal Environmental Protection Agency for Minnesota to clean up contaminated drinking water in the southeastern part of the state, caused by farm runoff.
get more stories like this via email
The U.S. House of Representatives will likely vote this summer on a version of the Farm Bill, which passed through the committee process last month.
Some farmers and ranchers are concerned about cuts to climate-smart programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, which distributed more than $31 million to South Dakotans last year. The program and three others have been funded by Inflation Reduction Act dollars since 2022, when President Joe Biden approved nearly $12 billion for the national programs over four years.
It could change under the House version of the Farm Bill, which instead proposes increased subsidies for large-scale operations.
Tanya Svec, a member of Dakota Rural Action who helps run her in-laws' small cattle farm in Deuel County, which received a grant this year, said it is appropriate the program provides opportunities for small-scale farms to get grants, rather than just the large-scale operations policy tends to favor.
"That's really helpful for those small economies and keeping things local and building some resiliency into the farming communities," Svec explained.
Svec pointed out the business is currently finalizing a grant to fund a water system to help the operation with rotational grazing, a practice benefiting landscapes by letting some pastures rest while others are in use. It allows native plants to grow and protects watersheds. Demand for the program exceeded supply in 2023. Of the nearly 1,500 South Dakota applicants, only 27% were accepted, according to a report from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
Svec observed more people sought out her farm's beef during and since the pandemic, which exposed supply-chain issues. She sidesteps big industrial distribution by marketing directly to customers.
"We like to raise cattle in a particular way," Svec stressed. "It's hard to be rewarded for going the extra mile for not using antibiotics, for grass-fed grass-finished beef if you remain in the standard agricultural system."
get more stories like this via email
When Minnesota farmers watch their crops grow this summer, some will monitor land that has better soil health. It's because of a fairly popular conservation tool, and supporters are calling for more "real-time" data to measure progress.
Cover crops are plants grown between commodity crops to prevent soil erosion and nitrates from flowing into nearby waterways, harming water quality and natural resources. In recent years, Minnesota has emerged as one of the better-performing states for participation.
Jon Stevens has adopted the practice for his farm operation north of the Twin Cities.
"There's been years that we've just phenomenal corn yields while you're standing in 10 to 12 inches of beautiful oat grass," he said, "and we did it with reduced fertilizer inputs."
Stevens said that's good news for local creeks that connect with the St. Croix River.
The latest Census of Agriculture, released this year, showed a 17% increase in cover-crop acreage compared with 2017. The growth rate has slowed, however, and the report only comes out every five years. The National Wildlife Federation and other groups want to see a more consistent national effort to track participation, making it easier to guide assistance.
Federal programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture help cover expenses for farmers who agree to plant cover crops. Stevens said they have become more flexible, but he suggested certain types of messaging to convince those still on the fence.
"Sign up a five- or ten-acre parcel [of land] and get your cover crops perfected on that five or 10 acres," he said, "and then you can just step into full-scale."
Stevens indicated that approach might help avoid turning off farmers who run into obstacles after making big cover-crop investments. There's also research indicating this practice doesn't always translate to higher yields, but Stevens said that way of thinking needs some fine-tuning.
"We've been taught decades of 'maximize your yield,'" he said, "and it's like, 'Nope, that system doesn't work that way.' You're going to reduce tillage costs."
Disclosure: National Wildlife Federation contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Endangered Species & Wildlife, Energy Policy, Water. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email