From North Dakota to Texas, the beef raised on farms goes through a production process controlled by four major companies and independent ranchers hope a proposed federal rule gives them more power to act if they feel they have been ripped off.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said the plan it unveiled last week would provide clarity regarding unfair market practices under the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Aaron Shier, government relations director for the National Farmers Union, said in the past, some courts have said there needs to be proof the broader market is harmed. He noted the update addresses the problem within the long-standing law.

"It has many producer protection elements," Shier explained. "Over the long history of this law, that has gotten confused and muddled. And so, this proposed rule is meant to set the record straight on that issue."

Supporters said not only does it help prevent smaller farmers from going out of business but potentially gives consumers a fair shake on the prices they pay for meat and poultry. Industry groups like the Meat Institute are criticizing the move, saying it would set meat production back decades by encouraging litigation while actually hurting consumers.

The Institute also questioned such efforts when cattle prices are at record levels. Shier suggested there are specific examples of questionable tactics beyond current market dynamics.

"Failure to pay," Shier emphasized. "If a meatpacker, someone in the market fails to pay a producer, that is something USDA has consistently taken action on."

With more clarity under the law, policy analysts said there might be more consistency regarding court decisions when individual farmers push back against an industry giant. Shier pointed out the ultimate goal is to avoid lawsuits with this action and similar steps recently taken by the USDA setting a tone to foster market competition. A public comment period is the next step ahead of the rule becoming final.


get more stories like this via email

From declining commodity prices to unpredictable weather, American farmers are at a crossroads - especially smaller operations.

And they're wondering what things will be like after President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

As it did in Trump's first term, the incoming administration is poised to revive trade disputes by implementing tariffs.

Analysts say the first go-round had a negative effect on farmers, with agricultural exports suffering $27 billion in losses.

Emergency aid was approved, but observers say larger agri-businesses were prioritized too much.

Ben Lilliston - the director of rural strategies and climate change at the Minnesota-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy - said he wonders if similar patterns will emerge.

"That definitely is a concern because we've seen consolidation in farmland," said Lilliston. "We're losing farmers - particularly losing small, mid-sized farmers - and this would be just another advantage for the largest operators."

Those larger sites, namely concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs, are growing in number, creating environmental impacts.

That's on top of talk from Trump and his aides about mass deportations of undocumented individuals, potentially disrupting the farm labor force.

However, Lilliston said Trump has raised legitimate questions about the need for trade reforms.

The Biden administration has been aggressive in addressing market fairness for farmers and improving their climate outlook, but also has been criticized for certain moves.

One is funding bio-digesters, which opponents say helps expand CAFOs.

Lilliston said they're unsure what Trump will do on that front, but conservation funding through the Inflation Reduction Act could take a hit.

"It's given a huge boost and made more money available, close to $20 billion," said Lilliston. "So, the question is, as the Trump administration comes in, how are they going to use that Inflation Reduction Act money?"

He pointed to rumblings that the incoming administration wants to roll back unspent IRA funds. But it could be a thorny issue with Republican lawmakers who tout these investments for their districts.

Those conservation dollars are viewed as ways for smaller farms to make their land more resilient and competitive in the face of climate change.

Lilliston said there are other uncertainties, such as the person chosen for Ag Secretary. She has little policy background, leaving farmers guessing.




get more stories like this via email

Rural communities across Massachusetts are benefiting from state grants aimed at strengthening the local food supply and building climate resilience.

State officials have awarded nearly $4 million to help farmers improve soil health, upgrade irrigation systems and prepare for extreme weather events, including the current critical drought conditions.

Ashley Randle, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, said farms are helping the state meet its ambitious climate goals.

"They're a mitigation and resilience strategy so that farms can be best positioned to withstand the changing weather conditions that they are facing," Randle explained.

Randle pointed out grants will help farms improve efficiency and environmental controls and reduce greenhouse gases. Massachusetts has set a goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

From cranberries to oysters, the majority of farms in Massachusetts are smaller, family-owned operations. Randle noted grants will help farmers purchase high tunnels and other equipment needed to extend their production season. She emphasized it helps secure jobs and provides income to local economies during the winter months.

"All of these grants are really helping to ensure that we have a stable food supply," Randle stressed. "And to continue to grow and adapt should there be climate change impacts like we saw last year that devastated the sector."

Last year, a deep freeze in February spoiled the peach crop while a late frost in May damaged most tree fruits. Significant flooding last summer severely damaged 13,000 acres, resulting in more than $65 million in losses. Randle added farms often face unpredictable factors but grant programs can help them adapt and thrive in the face of uncertainty.


get more stories like this via email

A Missouri-based farm group is fighting to keep the proposed "FARM Act" from becoming law, warning it would benefit large corporate farms at the expense of smaller ones.

The Farm Action Fund, a nonpartisan advocacy group, contended the proposed legislation in Congress, which is an extension of the five-year Farm Bill, would funnel more money to big corporate farms, giving them an unfair advantage and making it harder for small and mid-sized farms to survive.

Joe Maxwell, president of the Farm Action Fund, believes the legislation is making history but not in a good way.

"As far as I know, and I've been doing this for about 40 years, it's the first time there's been policy that would discriminate among the commodity crop growers in the United States, saying that the largest ones get more money," Maxwell explained. "Oftentimes, they're the ones that need the least money."

The National Farm Coalition reported 20% of farms control nearly 70% of U.S. farmland, which it said shows significant consolidation. If passed, The FARM Act would allocate around $21 billion in aid.

Nearly 90% of Missouri farms are smaller, family-owned operations. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, small farms are the backbone of U.S. agriculture. They make up 88% of all farms, controlling nearly half of the nation's farmland. Maxwell pointed out his organization is urging them to take a stand on the FARM Act, because the competition is formidable.

"I think it's the power of the dollar expressing itself in the halls of our United States Capitol," Maxwell contended. "The largest farmers have brought in the lobbyists and the trade organizations, to give them an upper hand."

Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., and Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., are cosponsors of the FARM Act.


get more stories like this via email