The U.S. Department of Agriculture is making direct payments to minority ag producers that the government had previously discriminated against. But some advocates are hoping for more transparency about selection criteria and other information.

More than $2 billion is going to tens of thousands of farmers, ranchers and foresters, with 129 awards going to Missourians.

The USDA has a long history of discriminatory practices, including denying loans to Black and other minority farmers at greater rates than their white counterparts.

Sharon Mallory, executive director of the 2020 Farmers Co-op, said these payments are great, but the program could be improved.

"I'm not personally dazzled about numbers or dollar amounts unless I can connect that to the people that are being most impacted," said Mallory, "which is our our Black and small-scale farmers."

She said she wants the USDA to disclose its methodology for choosing applicants for these payments. Plus, more info about who reviewed the grants, and the racial demographics and farm sizes of the payouts.

The range of awards is large - between a few thousand dollars and a half-million dollars, with the average being about $82,000.

The money was authorized through the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act, and the majority of the recipients are from the deep South.

Mallory said agriculture has been consolidating in recent decades and smaller minority farmers have often been forced out of business. She said she's pushing for the USDA's program to improve, in part because of this history.

"You can be like an ostrich and put your head in the hole, you can put your blindfolds on, you can turn your head the other way," said Mallory. "But the fact of the matter is, it did happen. It's documented. It's not a secret, so let's address it."

One study found that Black American farmers lost more than $300 billion worth of land in the 20th century, in part due to the USDA's discriminatory practices.




get more stories like this via email

A federal bill could spell trouble for New York farmers.

The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act would remove local and state governments' power to enact policies affecting farms. Studies show it could spell the end for more than 1,000 public health, safety and welfare laws.

Michael Chameides, a member of the Columbia County Board of Supervisors, said farmers do not want such vital farm laws terminated.

"There's a real urgency to pass a robust Farm Bill that really does support rural communities and support farmers and support people all around the country to get healthy, safe and affordable food," Chameides contended. "There's lots of reasons for Congress to take action to support farmers and the EATS Act is not it."

The measure began as a way to counter the animal welfare laws enacted through California's Proposition 12. The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court about Proposition 12. After the court rejected it, several Republican governors sent a letter to Congressional lawmakers urging the reintroduction of the act.

Recently, the Columbia County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution opposing the EATS Act.

Some lawmakers want to put elements of the act into the Farm Bill. But Chameides noted what farmers really need is access to land, loans and support from the federal government through the Farm Bill. He argued the bill's effects on New York would mean repealing laws ranging from controlling invasive species to animal welfare.

"Rolling those laws back you might see the spread of either diseases or invasive species which are going to have both public health impacts," Chameides pointed out. "But also that it could impact the viability of certain kinds of farming."

Chameides noted regional response laws are important because of the rapid and often unpredictable nature of certain invasive species and the spread of disease. He added passing the act could upend states' rights.

The growing season is winding down in New Mexico and experts want to make sure the people preserving green chile for the colder months are doing it right.

Amber Benson, Bernalillo County extension agent, said four food preservation techniques will be highlighted during online training workshops next month for the native New Mexico chile. They include drying, freezing, freeze-drying and pressure-cooking. She noted the presentations are free and participants may attend one or all.

"There's an increasing interest in home food preservation, with the cost of food, and during COVID we learned that our food supply chain obviously had some weak points," Benson recounted. "It's just a really great way for people to empower themselves over their own food."

She explained freeze-drying dehydrates food by freezing it and is different from older methods of food preservation. New Mexico State University will hold online training workshops on four Tuesday mornings in October. Capacity is limited to 50 people per session and advance registration is required.

Benson noted green chile can refer both to a plant and a prepared dish, which can vary in consistency from a thick, pork-laden stew to salsa. The series of classes on green chile preservation is the first of its kind, with extension agents in five different counties participating.

"Particularly in New Mexico, we're buying roasted green chile most of the time," Benson observed. "People need to know, 'Oh, do we take the tops off? Do we keep the seeds in? Will it get hotter over time?' People have tons of questions about freezing and drying, so we'll definitely cover both of those."

She added several extension offices across the state have freeze dryers available for the public to use. Last year, New Mexico lawmakers and the governor attracted loads of national attention for approving legislation that declared the smell of roasting green chile the state's aroma, the first state in the nation to adopt an official aroma.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering new rules, seeking to level the playing field for independent farmers in Iowa and across the country.

Food price gouging has become a campaign issue in the Midwest, where the election could be won or lost.

Berleen Wobeter and her husband Pete raise cattle on about 300 in central Iowa. She said family farmers want Congress to strengthen the century-old Packers and Stockyards Act, address alleged food price gouging and fix the lack of competition in the beef industry, where four companies control 85% of the market.

"That's not going to happen the more consolidated it is," Wobeter pointed out. "Then if there isn't a market for all of our beef, then I guess some of us need to get out. But it needs to be fair."

The Biden administration has proposed a new rule designed to update the Packers and Stockyards Act, which was signed in 1921. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is taking public commentthrough Sept. 11.

Congress is considering restoring mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef in the next Farm Bill, which would allow domestic producers to charge higher prices for beef grown in the U.S.

Wobeter said despite being in a highly consolidated industry among large corporate ag producers, she and Pete have continued to succeed on their 300 acres near Toledo.

"I think that has been my husband's approach to things," Wobeter explained. "In the '80s, when it was 'go big or get out' he said no, that's not the way he was raised. You just kind of stay steady, stay within your budget, don't overspend, and it's worked for us."

The 2023 Farm Bill, which has already been extended until the end of this month, remains on hold in Washington.


get more stories like this via email