In a move to address historical injustices, the Biden administration announced $2 billion dollars in direct payments for Black and minority farmers discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But for many in Florida, this aid comes too little, too late.
According to the USDA, more than 23,000 farmers have been approved for payments ranging from $10,000 to $500,000. An additional 20,000 people who planned to start farms but did not receive USDA loans will get between $3,500 and $6,000, mostly in Mississippi and Alabama.
Courtney Wilson, president of the Florida Black Farmers and Agricultualists Association, said the assistance comes amid ongoing struggles for land and financial support in the Sunshine State.
"It's a move in the right direction," he said, "but it's kind of late because of the ones that was going through the process of getting loans and doing things that way - trying to buy tractors and land, and farm equipment and fertilizer - either sold their land or lost their land."
Loss of land is a significant issue. Wilson said many Black farmers who leased land have been forced out because of new developments, and finding new land to lease is becoming more difficult. He said he plans to visit his local USDA office for more details on how he and his members can tap into needed funds.
According to legal documents, the historical context of this struggle is rooted in systemic discrimination. During President Barack Obama's era, the Pigford Settlement provided $50,000 to Black farmers who were discriminated against. Wilson said that also came too late to make anyone whole.
"If you go back to the Pigford case, you gave those farmers $50,000," he said. "But when they lost 200 acres and lost their tractors and lost equipment, what's $50,000 going to do for the ones that lost their land? All we're doing is playing catch-up."
And yet, Wilson said he appreciates the little help that comes around, and he's hoping to attract more young people to farming so they can breathe new life into the industry.
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