Governmental Regulations

New WOTUS Proposal Could Reduce Red Tape for Farmers and Ranchers

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:01:44 GMT

Farmers and ranchers could soon face fewer regulatory hurdles when working near waterways, as EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released a new proposal on Nov. 17 to redefine “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The agencies say the proposed rule is designed to bring long-requested clarity to what features fall under federal jurisdiction potentially reducing permitting uncertainty for agriculture, landowners and rural businesses.

The proposed rule can be found on the Federal Register . The public can submit comments online there or via Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. During the announcement event on Nov. 17, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin urged the public to submit comments.

The definition of WOTUS determines when producers must secure permits for projects that could affect surface water quality, including common activities such as building terraces, installing drainage or expanding livestock operations. EPA officials say the new proposal aims to align fully with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision and prevent farmers from needing lawyers or consultants simply to determine whether a water feature on their land is federally regulated.

The proposal follows Zeldin’s promise in March to launch the biggest deregulatory action in history and a series of listening sessions in April and May that asked states, tribes, industry and agriculture to weigh in on WOTUS needs.

Clearer Definition After Years of Confusion

Zeldin and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle emphasize the rule is designed to be clear, durable and commonsense.

Key elements include:

Defined terms such as relatively permanent, continuous surface connection, and tributary to outline which waters qualify under the Clean Water Act.
A requirement that jurisdictional tributaries must have predictable, consistent flow to traditional navigable waters.
Wetlands protections are limited to wetlands that physically touch and are indistinguishable from regulated waters for a consistent duration each year.
Reaffirmed exclusions important to agriculture, including prior converted cropland, certain ditches and waste treatment systems.
A new exclusion for groundwater.
Locally-familiar terminology, such as “wet season,” to help determine whether water features meet regulatory thresholds.

EPA says these changes are intended to reduce uncertainty that has stemmed from years of shifting definitions across administrations.

Impact of WOTUS Proposal on Agriculture

For producers, the proposal could simplify compliance by narrowing which water features fall under federal oversight and confirming exclusions that many farm groups have long advocated.

Zeldin says the aim is “protecting the nation’s navigable waters from pollution” while preventing unnecessary burdens on farmers and ranchers. He criticizes past Democratic administrations for broad interpretations that, in his view, extended federal reach to features that did not warrant regulation.

Farm groups have argued for years that unclear or overly broad definitions can lead to significant costs, delays and legal risks when planning conservation work, drainage projects or infrastructure improvements. A more consistent rule could reduce project backlogs and limit case-by-case determinations that often slow progress during planting, construction or livestock expansion.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” said Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, during the May 1 EPA listening session for agriculture . He adds: “farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

Several of those who gave testimony and public comment during the ag listening session argued that farmers and ranchers, who already struggle with unpredictable markets and tight margins, shouldn’t have to hire experts to identify elements of their own land.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” says Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, who also gave testimony in May.

Alignment With the Sackett Decision

After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA ruling , which restricted federal authority over many wetlands, the agencies say the previous WOTUS definition no longer aligned with the law. EPA already issued a memo earlier this year clarifying limits on jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands. The newly proposed rule is the next step in that process.

The proposed rule focuses on relatively permanent bodies of water — streams, rivers, lakes and oceans — and wetlands that are physically connected to those waters. Seasonal and regional variations are incorporated, including waters that flow consistently during the wetter months.

The current situation is a regulatory patchwork. Due to litigation that followed the January 2023 WOTUS rule, which was considered in the Sackett decision, different states are following different rules. Currently, 24 states, mostly the coastal and Great Lakes states, are operating on the 2023 rule, while the other 26 states, mostly those in center and in the Southeast, are operating on pre-2015 WOTUS rule.

Oversight Rests With State and Tribes

A major theme of the proposal is cooperative federalism, giving more authority to states and tribes to manage local land and water resources. EPA says the rule preserves necessary federal protections while recognizing states and tribal governments are best positioned to oversee many smaller or isolated water features.

Sections 101b and 510 of the CWA are key structural examples of the concept of cooperative federalism. The sections give states and tribes the right to set standards and issue permits for federal activities that could discharge pollutants into a water of the U.S. within the state or territory. The most common example of this are 404 dredge and fill permits.

This focus on cooperative federalism was the main chorus of the EPA’s listening session for states , held April 29, especially as it concerns wetlands.

“If more wetlands are excluded from WOTUS, then certain federal projects would not require a section 401 water quality certification by the states,” noted Jennifer Congdon, director of federal affairs for New York Department of Environmental Conservation, during the states’ listening session. She argues that such a situation could impair water quality within a state, thus violating states’ rights under the CWA.

What Happens Next

The proposed rule is available online for public comment on the Federal Register and Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will hold two hybrid public meetings, and details for submitting comments or registering to speak will be available on EPA’s website .

After the comment period, the agencies plan to move quickly toward a final rule.

“Once the rule is finalized, it typically takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register pursuant to Congressional Review Act requirements,” the EPA press office told The Packer earlier this summer .

Based on these potential timelines, a new — potentially final — WOTUS rule could take effect as early as early March.

Wisconsin Ag Regulators Propose Massive Livestock Fee Increases

Thu, 11 Sep 2025 19:33:29 GMT

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) is proposing changes to rules, ATCP 10 and 12 , regulating animal disease and movement and animal markets, dealers and truckers.

According to the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation (WFBF) , these changes include massive fee increases that will be a substantial financial burden to markets, dealers and truckers that will unavoidably be passed down to farmers.

The license fee for what the DATCP calls “Animal Market Class A” would change from $420 to $7,430. A late fee for those markets would also increase by nearly 1,700% by shifting from the current price of $84 to $1,486. The registration fee paid by about 1,000 truckers transporting livestock in the state would increase 517%, from the current price of $60 to $370.

(Wisconsin Farm Bureau)

WFBF Government Relations Director Jason Mugnaini says it is important to clarify that Wisconsin’s program had historically received state funding support through DATCP, but this proposal shifts that onto industry fees.

The WFBF also reports the inspections and public health activity costs of these programs have previously been partially funded by state funding in Wisconsin, as they are in neighboring states. DATCP’s proposal shifts the full cost of these programs onto industry fees.

DATCP Secretary Randy Romanski explains the fees have not been adjusted since 2009 and the increases are needed to maintain critical animal health and transportation services.

“This program is currently in deficit because these have not been adjusted for so long,” Romanski explains. “Costs have increased during that time.”

He is transparent about the financial realities driving these increases. While the percentage increase might seem large, it reflects 17 years of accumulated cost pressures. He summarizes the goal is not to burden the industry, but to ensure the continued provision of critical animal health and movement services.

According to Sam GO, DATCP communications director, the DATCP Division of Animal Health receives federal funding through cooperative agreements for specific goals and objectives, such as animal disease surveillance and animal traceability. The cooperative agreements are separate from the programs in the proposed fee rules and do not fund the programs in the proposed fee rules.

She explains as federal funding for the cooperative agreements has decreased, those activities that are partially federally funded (such as animal disease surveillance and animal traceability) need to have a larger portion of their costs covered by the state animal health general program revenue. That means there is less state GPR remaining to cover the deficit in program revenue for the ATCP 10 and ATCP 12 programs.

The ATCP 10 fees support the following animal health programs: Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) Forms, Intermediate Handling Facilities, Disease Certifications (Brucellosis, Tuberculosis, Pseudorabies), Equine Infectious Anemia Retests, Equine Quarantine Stations, Feed Lots, Medical Separation, National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), Farm-Raised Deer, and Fish Farms.

The Process

Romanski explains the administrative rule process is collaborative and takes about two and a half years. He says the process is designed to be collaborative with multiple opportunities for public input and engagement. He encourages stakeholders to not just critique the increases, but to offer constructive feedback and potential alternative solutions.

The current stage is specifically about public comment and engagement. He says the department wants to hear from industry members, producers and other stakeholders. They are actively seeking input that can help shape the final rule package.

The public can participate and provide feedback that can be considered by the department’s staff through several channels:

Attending public hearings
Submitting written comments by Oct. 15

The remaining hearings will be hosted virtually and at the Prairie Oaks State Office Building, Room 106, 2811 Agriculture Dr., Madison, WI 53708. For more information, dial-in instructions and to register for online access click on the ATCP 10 or 12.

ATCP 10:
• Monday, Sept. 15 – 1 p.m.
• Wednesday, Sept. 17 – 9 a.m.

ATCP 12 :
• Tuesday, Sept. 16 – 1 p.m.
• Wednesday, Sept. 17 – 1 p.m.

Individuals can submit written comments by Oct. 15 to: Angela.fisher1@wisconsin.gov or Angela Fisher, DATCP, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708

Romanski explains after the public comment period, DATCP staff will review all submissions, consider suggested changes, and then present any revisions to their policy-making board. This ensures multiple layers of review and public involvement.

Neighboring State Comparisons

According to the proposal document , programs in adjacent states (Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois) are similar to Wisconsin, as all are based on federal standards. Neighboring states primarily fund these types of programs through general program revenue; therefore, they have lower fees than Wisconsin’s current fees. While Wisconsin’s program fees are collected from a small number of licensees, these critical programs have impacts and benefits across animal health, animal industries and public health.

In Iowa, a livestock market permit is $50 per year. The livestock dealer and livestock market agent permits are $10 per year. A bull breeder license is $20 every two years. A livestock dealer or order buyer permit is $50 per year. A feeder pig dealer agent permit is $6 every two years. A pig dealer’s agent permit is $3 per year.

In Michigan, an action Class I is $400 per year. A buying station (Class II) is $250 per year. The remaining fees are waived for veterans: A dealer (Class III) is $50 per year. An agent broker (Class III) is $50 per year. A collection point (Class III) is $50 per year. A trucker (Class IV) is $25 per year.

In Minnesota, a livestock market agency and public stockyard is $300 per year. A livestock dealer is $100 per year. A livestock dealer agent is $50 per year.

In Illinois, a livestock auction market license is $200 per year. The livestock dealer license is $25 for a new license, $10 for the annual renewal, as well as $10 for each location in addition to the first location, and $5 for each employee. A feeder swine dealer license is $25, the renewal is $10, and there is a fee of $5 for each employee. There is no fee for a slaughter livestock buyer’s license, just a requirement to submit an annual report.

Industry Feedback

Both the Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association (WCA) and WFBF have come out opposed to the fee increases.

Tressa Lacy, WCA president from Rio, Wis., voiced her concern at the first hearing on Sept. 11.

“The Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association is in opposition to the proposed fee increases inspections and registrations related to a variety of activities by Wisconsin animal dealers, truckers and markets in ATCP 10 and 12,” she says. “I raise beef cattle with my husband and our 8-month-old in Columbia County. We both work off the farm in agriculture to financially afford our beef and hay farm operation, and I know the cost of these fees will be passed directly on to producers like us.

“The result of such significant increases will be fewer livestock marketing options, the potential for reduced disease traceability and fewer opportunities to sell livestock in the state of Wisconsin. Fewer options inevitably mean lower prices and thinner margins in an industry that is already being pushed on thin profit lines.”

She explains the inspections and animal health protections funded by these programs serve a broad public purpose — protecting animal health and consumer confidence in the meat raised in Wisconsin.

“It is fundamentally unfair to shift the entire cost onto the users as this is certainly a public food safety conversation,” Lacy adds. “I share the industry concern that these initial proposals are just the start of all programs in Wisconsin shifting to being user funded. Other states fund these programs with state support as the benefits are shared by everyone. DATCP should restore and continue the approach for these outlined programs.”

She concluded her comments saying: “WCA respectfully ask that DATCP reconsider these unreasonable fee increases and maintain a funding structure with state support that is fair, practical and supportive of both public health and Wisconsin agriculture.”

Mitch Giebel a WFBF member from Lyndon Station, Wis., also shared his thoughts on the proposed fee increases.

“I’m very concerned about the massive increases of fees being proposed,” he says. “As a young farmer, every dollar really does matter on our operation. We work hard to raise our livestock, and we already face high input costs, tight margins and unpredictability when it comes to marketing. Adding thousands of dollars in new fees, especially increases as massive as what is proposed doesn’t seem realistic. It’ll undoubtedly make it harder and tighter for the sale barns and livestock markets to survive, and unavoidably, it is probably going to be passed to us as the producers and farmers.”

He also explains programs such as animal health, disease control and traceability benefit everybody in the state, not just farmers.

“Healthy animals and safe food are the best interest for our state; other states recognize that and utilize state funding to maintain these programs and cover these costs,” he says. “Wisconsin needs to restore and maintain its state funding that has historically existed for these programs, rather than shifting a substantial burden on a small number of farmers and marketers. I am asking you to please reject these fee increases as they are written. They are too steep, too fast and out of line with our neighboring states.”

WFBF is calling on producers to share their concerns: “These unprecedented fee increases cannot move forward without your voice being heard. Share how these proposals would impact your farm, your business and Wisconsin agriculture.”

California's Dry Dilemma: No Clear Winners in the Battle for Water Conservation

Tue, 09 Sep 2025 11:21:22 GMT

Living in a hostile regulatory environment is nothing new to California. This is the perspective and viewpoint of Geoffrey Vanden Heuvel, director of regulatory and economic affairs at Milk Producers Council.

“California dairies are managing,” he says. “Right now, we have the water we need, but we are dependent on having at least an average water year to keep things going. A very dry year would make our situation very difficult quite quickly.”

Earlier this year, Senator Anna M. Caballero introduced SB 72, California Water for All, to modernize water planning by establishing statewide water supply targets, enhancing long-term planning, and promoting stakeholder collaboration to address the state’s water challenges.

Symbolism in Legislation
Vanden Heuvel believes SB 72 is great symbolism.

“I don’t believe there are any enforcement mechanisms in the bill to give it weight,” he says, noting that symbols can be important. “But the same legislature that passed SB 72 is also on the verge of passing AB 1319, which will give State of California Endangered Species protection to any species that the Federal Endangered Species Act regulations lessen protection for.”

According to Vanden Heuvel, the Federal Endangered Species Act regulations have significantly reduced the supply of water available to California’s communities and farms.

Impact on Water Supply
“These regulations have reduced the water supply by tens of millions of acre feet over the past 30 years by requiring fresh water that used to be delivered to urban and agricultural use to the ocean to allegedly help fish,” he says. “The tragedy is that the species are in worse shape now than when these regulations took effect. Nothing has been achieved for the environment at a huge cost to society.”

Vanden Heuvel fears that with strong differences among California’s administration and President Donald Trump’s, AB1319 will advance.

“The reality is that there are no consequences in SB 72 for failure,” he says. “It is an aspirational goal.”

The nation’s largest milk-producing state, home to 1.71 million milk cows, continues to navigate regulations that add layers of complexity, costs and concerns toward producers.

Farmers Perspective
For Ryan Junio , owner of Four J Jerseys in Pixley, Calif., his No. 1 concern is the states’ ongoing water crisis.

“As a dairy producer, this is an ever-growing challenge,” he says, reflecting the sentiments of his fellow producers in the state.

David Lemstra relocated his dairy farm from central California to South Dakota due to constant headaches farming in California caused. He said three pivotal factors — feed availability, easier permitting and processing capacity — led them to their new home where they now milk 4,000 cows.

“It’s not one blow that took us out of California,” he says. “It was death by 1,000 cuts.”

The intricate and often burdensome regulatory environment in California continues to shape the landscape of the dairy industry. The multifaceted challenges faced by producers emphasize the need for practical and enforceable legislative solutions to secure the future of dairy in California.

Your Next Read:
Celebrating Excellence in Dairy: 2025 Milk Business Award Recipients Announced

Could EPA Decision Signal The Beginning Of The End For DEF?

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:27:17 GMT

Mike Berdo has strong words to describe his ongoing experiences using machinery requiring DEF ( Diesel Exhaust Fluid ) on his southeast Iowa farm.

“It has been an absolute nightmare, at least for us. Mechanics make trip after trip to do little stuff that’s very expensive to fix,” said Berdo, who produces grain and beef cattle near Washington. “We had planting delays last spring … little stuff that came from it and just seemed like [an issue to deal with] day after day.”

The ongoing mechanical issues and costs are why Berdo said he is “all for” EPA rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The Finding has enabled the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and, in recent years, and launch requirements such as the use of DEF systems in diesel-powered engines.

EPA Draws A Line In The Sand
On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a proposal to rescind the 2009 Finding.

If finalized, the proposal would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, EPA said in a follow-up press release .

The move would start with EPA’s first greenhouse gas standard set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles and those set in 2011 for medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles and engines.

EPA said the proposal is expected to “save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards, including the Biden EPA’s electric vehicle mandate, under conservative economic forecasts.”

Zeldin made the announcement to rescind the Finding in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

What The Decision Could Mean To Farmers
Specific to U.S. farmers, the proposal could potentially result in DEF systems no longer being included on new tractors and other heavy equipment using diesel-powered engines, said Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk, during a Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday.

South Dakota farmer Ryan Wagner told Flory he has a wait-and-see perspective on how or whether the EPA proposal goes into effect. He anticipates that reversing the Finding will take considerable time and effort for EPA to implement.

“It took a long time with the interim engines and things to get into full DEF in the first place,” Wagner said. “I don’t know how long it would take to unwind all that and how quickly manufacturing will just take those systems right off, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens.”

To Wagner’s point, here’s a brief look back at some timing showing when DEF rolled out in agriculture and nonroad equipment and became mandatory . The regulations were phased in over several years based on the type of equipment and engine size:

2008: DEF became required for all new diesel engines with engine sizes over 750 horsepower.

2011: the regulations expanded to include equipment with engine sizes between 175-750 horsepower.

By 2015, all new nonroad diesel engines were required to be Tier 4 compliant and utilize DEF, regardless of equipment type or engine size.

As Wagner considers DEF, he noted its use in diesel engines has provided him with one benefit: “On the plus side, I do like that they don’t make the walls of my shop black. That’s been nice,” he said. “You can run them inside for a short time and not not feel like you’re breathing in a bunch of soot and making everything black.”

Expect Legal Challenges To EPA Decision
A number of environmental groups have already blasted the move by EPA, saying it spells the end of the road for U.S. action against climate change, according to an online article by Reuters .

Legal challenges from various environmental groups, states and lawyers are likely ahead.

That fact wasn’t lost on Flory and the Farmer Forum participants during the AgriTalk discussion on Wednesday.

“If this proposal is finalized, it’s going to start a lot of conversations … and the dominoes are going to start to fall, something that we need to keep track of, no doubt,” Flory said. You can hear the complete Farmer Forum discussion on AgriTalk here:

EPA will initiate a public comment period to solicit input. Further information on the public comment process and instructions for participation will be published in the Federal Register and on the EPA website .

Your next read: Right To Repair Granted? John Deere Launches Digital Self-Repair Tool for $195 Per Tractor

USDA Set To Downsize With Reorganization Plan

Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:10:23 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced July 24 that the USDA would reorganize, representing consolidation and elimination of programs and personnel.

Dubbed the “ USDA Department Reorganization Plan ,” the move will include moving more than half of the agency’s Washington, D.C.-area staff to five different hubs across the country, “refocusing its core operations” on USDA’s founding mission, and reducing overall staff. According to the announcement and plan document, the move is intended to “improve the internal management” of the department.

“Here at USDA, we are refocusing our core operations to better align with President Lincoln’s founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching, and forestry, as well as serving American taxpayers,” Rollins wrote Thursday morning on social platform X.

Here @USDA, we are refocusing our core operations to better align with President Lincoln’s founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching, and forestry, as well as serving American taxpayers.
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) July 24, 2025

The reorganization is built around what the agency calls four pillars:

Ensure the size of USDA’s workforce aligns with financial resources and priorities.
Bring USDA closer to its customers by relocated resources outside of the national capital region.
Eliminate management layers and bureaucracy.
Consolidate support functions.

USDA Workforce Costs and Location Changes

Highlighting the high cost of living in the nation’s capital — where average monthly rent in January 2024 was $2,475, according to real estate and rental search site RedFin — USDA’s reorg seeks to move roughly 2,600 of its current 4,600 D.C.-area personnel to five “hub locations” across the country.

According to the plan document, these locations were selected considering cost of living and “existing concentrations of USDA employees.”

These hubs (and their January 2024 average rent levels) are:

Salt Lake City, Utah ($1,627)
Fort Collins, Colo. ($1,607)
Raleigh, N.C. ($1,371)
Indianapolis, Ind. ($1,265)
Kansas City, Mo. ($1,140)

“In addition to these five hubs, USDA will maintain two additional core administrative support locations: Albuquerque, New Mexico and Minneapolis, Minnesota,” the reorg plan reads. “USDA will continue to maintain critical service centers and laboratories including agency service centers in St. Louis, Missouri; Lincoln, Nebraska; and Missoula, Montana.”

The department says it aims to have no more than 2,000 staff members remain in the National Capital Region.

“The details are still to be determined,” adds Callie Eideberg, a Principal with The Vogel Group. “It will be helpful when we know the pace and cadence of these changes, as that will determine how smooth or chaotic this move will be.”

She agrees that the reorganization could benefit those employees looking for a lower cost of living, but the distance between hubs will make for its own workforce management issues.

“Different administrations have tried, in smaller ways, to move the federal workforce to other regions and they’ve been met with these management obstacles,” adds Eideberg. “Stakeholders, as well, will now need to travel to five different locations around the country to have their conversations with USDA instead of ‘one stop shopping’ in Washington.”

The location changes are not limited to personnel only, however. The physical buildings USDA will be occupying in the capital area will also change. The reorg plan cited costs associated with maintaining and repairing some of the overly large buildings as part of the motivation.

Announced building changes include:

The South Building and Braddock Place facilities will be vacated.
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center will be vacated over several years “to avoid disruption of critical USDA research activities.”
George Washington Carver Center, currently being used for area USDA personnel during the reorg, will be sold or transferred eventually.

The department said the Whitten Building will remain the USDA headquarters, and both the Yates Building and the National Agricultural Library “will be retained for use.”

Consolidation and Elimination

Though the reorg document stressed that “USDA is not conducting a large-scale workforce reduction” as part of the change, it also highlighted that the move is part of its ongoing process of reducing its workforce.

“Much of this reduction was through voluntary retirements and the Deferred Retirement Program (DRP), a completely voluntary tool. As of today, 15,364 individuals voluntarily elected deferred resignation,” the reorg document read.

According to the agency’s own site — both currently and during the previous administration — the USDA has “nearly 100,000 employees.” This makes the stated number of USDA employees who have taken deferred resignation slightly more than 15% of the agency’s overall staff.

Programs within USDA will also be consolidated or eliminated. Those programs and efforts highlighted include:

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will eliminate its area offices, with “residual functions” to be preformed by its Office of National Programs.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) will consolidate its current 12 regions into five “over a multi-year period.”
The Food and Nutrition Service will reduce its current seven regions into five, aligned with the five hubs, in the next two years.
The Forest Service will “phase out” its nine regional offices in the coming year. It will maintain a reduced state office in Juneau, Alaska, and consolidate its stand-alone research stations into one in Fort Collins, Colo. It will keep its Fire Sciences Lab and Forest Products Lab.
Most “support functions” previously done within the USDA — such as civil rights functions, Freedom of Information Act responses, IT and HR, legislative and tribal relations, and others — will be moved into other agencies of the federal government in an effort “to reduce duplication” within the department.

The reorg document also notes that it will consolidate grants and financial assistance: “This consolidation will include, where feasible, the transfer of grant making and administration functions from USDA offices and agencies that currently have limited capacity to perform such duties to other offices and agencies.”

Most extension personnel in hub-area institutions whom The Packer reached out to about the potential impacts of the reorg either had not responded as of press time or reported that it is too early to provide any meaningful insight.

The News Service from Colorado State University in Fort Collins said, “CSU is continually tracking changes at the federal level and assessing impact to our work.”

Rollins: Impact in Her Own Words

Midday July 24, Rollins spoke to AgriTalk ‘s Chip Flory to talk about the announcement.

“This is just another step in the implementation of getting the government out of Washington, D.C., and getting it to the people,” she says, adding that the move “will save a lot of money.”

When asked if the existing D.C. staff will make the move to the five hubs or if new personnel will need to be hired in those areas, Rollins says she thinks it will be “half and half.”

“For those that do want to continue leading in the Forest Service or working hard on food stamps or, of course, our key work supporting farmers and ranchers, they’re going to have an amazing opportunity to move to, frankly, a better part of the country,” she says. “Out of Washington, D.C., better quality of life, better cost of living and continue to serve the great people of our country. I think that’s a win-win.”

For those who don’t want to move, she says “there are plenty of opportunities in the private sector.”

Rollins adds that the transition is not going to be easy, but the department is ready to do hard work that will streamline its operations and bring services closer to the communities being served. She gave the example of the Forest Service.

“A lot of people don’t know that the USDA manages all of our national forests. We’ve got 11,000 full-time firefighters on the USDA payroll that are constantly battling our fires and are the frontliners,” she says. “The fact that that leadership is in Washington, D.C., but most of the fires are in the West — that doesn’t make any sense. Why don’t we have the leadership of the Forest Service closer to the fires and the firefighters that they serve?”

Breaking: Mexican Border Closed Again as New World Screwworm Comes Within 370 Miles of the U.S.

Thu, 10 Jul 2025 02:18:05 GMT

On July 8, Mexico’s National Service of Agro-Alimentary Health, Safety and Quality reported a new case of New World screwworm (NWS) in Ixhuatlan de Madero, Veracruz, Mexico, which is approximately 160 miles northward of the current sterile fly dispersal grid on the eastern side of the country and 370 miles south of the U.S./Mexico border.

This new northward detection comes approximately two months after northern detections were reported in Oaxaca and Veracruz, less than 700 miles away from the U.S. border, which triggered the closure of our ports to Mexican cattle, bison and horses on May 11, 2025 .

While USDA announced a risk-based phased port re-opening strategy for cattle, bison and equine from Mexico beginning as early as July 7, 2025 , this newly reported NWS case raises significant concern about the previously information shared by Mexican officials and severely compromises the outlined port reopening schedule of five ports from July 7 to Sept. 15. Therefore, in order to protect American livestock and the U.S. food supply, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has ordered the closure of livestock trade through southern ports of entry effective immediately.

“The United States has promised to be vigilant — and after detecting this new NWS case, we are pausing the planned port reopening’s to further quarantine and target this deadly pest in Mexico. We must see additional progress combatting NWS in Veracruz and other nearby Mexican states in order to reopen livestock ports along the Southern border,” Rollins says. “Thanks to the aggressive monitoring by USDA staff in the U.S. and in Mexico, we have been able to take quick and decisive action to respond to the spread of this deadly pest.”

To ensure the protection of U.S. livestock herds, USDA is holding Mexico accountable by ensuring proactive measures are being taken to maintain a NWS free barrier. This is maintained with stringent animal movement controls, surveillance, trapping and following the proven science to push the NWS barrier south in phases as quickly as possible.

In June, Secretary Rollins launched a 5-point plan to combat NWS by protecting our border at all costs, increasing eradication efforts in Mexico, and increasing readiness. USDA also announced the groundbreaking of a sterile fly dispersal facility in South Texas. This facility will provide a critical contingency capability to disperse sterile flies should a NWS detection be made in the Southern U.S.

Simultaneously, USDA is moving forward with the design process to build a domestic sterile fly production facility to ensure it has the resources to push NWS back to the Darien Gap. USDA is working on these efforts in lockstep with border states – Arizona, New Mexico and Texas – as it will take a coordinated approach with federal, state and local partners to keep this pest at bay and out of the U.S.

USDA will continue to have personnel perform site visits throughout Mexico to ensure the Mexican government has adequate protocols and surveillance in place to combat this pest effectively and efficiently.

Click to enlarge.

(USDA)

Your Next Read: Protect Your Livestock: Signs of New World Screwworm

Despite Sunny Optimism: Ongoing Challenges Remain for Dairy Farmers

Thu, 26 Jun 2025 14:28:06 GMT

Editor’s Note: This is one article in a series that is included in the 2025 Farm Journal’s State of the Dairy Industry report. The full 16-page report will appear in the May/June issues of Dairy Herd Management and Milk Business Quarterly and will be published in this space over the next several weeks. To download the full report for free click here.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

The dairy industry has recently been riding a wave of cautious optimism, as producers work tirelessly to steer through a myriad of complex challenges. Despite the sunny optimism, underlying issues such as rising operational costs, labor shortages, regulatory conundrums and unpredictable markets pose significant threats to the industry’s sustainability.

Rising Costs and Material Concerns

When we surveyed producers, obstacles such as inflation and the escalating costs of materials emerged as top concerns. These financial pressures, alongside sharply rising land costs, loom large over the potential for growth and expansion. Increased operational expenses, including those related to labor, equipment and inputs, stand as formidable barriers that must be navigated as producers strive toward future prosperity.

Labor Shortages: A Persistent Challenge

While the concern regarding availability of labor has slipped a bit in ranking, the issue remains significant. Frequent shortages and labor force hurdles are continually cited as obstacles preventing the achievement of growth milestones. With many dairy operations relying on non-family labor for at least half of their workforce, the challenge of finding and maintaining a dependable labor pool is a pressing issue that cannot be overlooked.

Regulatory and Environmental Hurdles

Another growing concern in the dairy industry is the maze of environmental and regulatory obstacles that dairy operators must traverse. Feedback from respondents highlighted increasing anxieties over inconsistent and burdensome regulations, particularly those surrounding environmental practices, labor laws and immigration. The impact of such obstacles is clear: They create uncertainty and heighten operational stress, which in turn hampers growth and expansion potential.

Market Volatility

Confidence in the milk market has emerged as a prominent challenge for growth. Producers express frustration over the volatile nature of milk prices, especially when coupled with rising input and operating costs.

Despite these challenges, there has been little change over the past year in anticipated investments for the next three to five years. Nearly half of the producers plan to replace or improve facilities and acquire additional acreage for growing crops. This trend signals a cautious, yet optimistic, outlook toward the future growth of the dairy industry.

Water Woes, Labor Limitations and Regulatory Restrictions Put California's Dairy Industry At A Crossroads

Wed, 26 Mar 2025 16:51:19 GMT

The California dairy industry, renowned for its significant contributions to agriculture, is navigating a series of challenges that demand substantial adaptation to ensure future success. Water scarcity, stringent labor laws and complex permitting regulations top the list of challenges in the Golden State, the nation’s largest milk producer and home to 1.71 million milk cows.

Regulatory and Economic Pressures

Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, emphasizes the need to support the state’s farmers during these challenging times.

“What we would like to do is focus on smart incentives because, over the years, the cumulative effect of so many regulatory agencies is adding to the complexity … as well as the cost of compliance,” Ross said in a one-on-one interview with Farm Journal during the California Dairy Sustainability Summit. “We’re engaged in a very small pilot project with the state water board to see if it’s possible to cut through some of that [complexity], find ways to ease the burden [on producers] and educate agencies about how complex and costly regulations are.”

In addition to the regulatory challenges in California, Ross is concerned about market disruptions and stresses the importance of compensation strategies to ensure dairy operations can look to the future.

“Secretary Rollins has already made it clear they’ll offer help for farmers through these periods of disruption, and certainly [that was the case] in the first Trump administration,” she says. “What I’m most concerned about is the lost markets that still haven’t fully recovered and the opportunity costs lost. But [Rollins] has been very clear they want to make sure there’s compensation for growers to keep them in business.”

Water Woes

For Ryan Junio , owner of Four J Jerseys in Pixley, Calif., his primary concern is the states’ ongoing water crisis.

“As a dairy producer, this is an ever-growing challenge,” he says, reflecting the sentiments of his fellow producers in the state.

The California water issue is complex and long-standing. Geoff Vanden Heuvel, director of regulatory and economic affairs with the California Milk Producer Council, says some of the surface water that used to come into the Central Valley from northern California was diverted to the ocean to save fish in the early 1990s as part of the Endangered Species Act.

“California has overdrafted about 2-million-acre feet on average over the years,” he says. “We had a crisis in 2014 with a drought and the state decided to regulate groundwater, which they probably should have done 50 years ago.”

Labor Limitations

Layton, Calif., dairy producer Melvin Medeiros says the labor quality is tough and he doesn’t have a magic wand to fix it. In 2019, California began phasing in overtime for agricultural workers. In 2022, the state began requiring any agriculture employees working more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week receive overtime compensation.

“I do know when legislation gets involved, it turns into a mess,” Medeiros says. “We’re in that mess now and trying to figure out how to invest in this farm to make it more efficient and cut back on labor.”

David Lemstra’s story illustrates the transition faced by many. After searching for a decade, Lemstra and his family relocated from central California, where they had been established for more than 40 years, to South Dakota. Three pivotal factors — feed availability, easier permitting and processing capacity — led them to their new home where they now milk 4,000 cows and supply Agropur.

One benefit Lemstra has discovered in South Dakota is a more favorable labor market.

“Some locals say labor is very hard, but they don’t know how hard it can potentially get,” he says, appreciating the motivated workforce available in the region.

Regulatory Restrictions

Lemstra describes his family’s coordinated departure from the state as “death by 1,000 cuts,” citing the impact of long-standing political and resource management decisions. California’s overtime labor rule stands out as a considerable obstacle, especially when compared to South Dakota’s business-friendly environment.

As California continues to confront these pressing issues, the resilience and adaptability of its dairy producers are noteworthy. While some, such as Lemstra, found new horizons elsewhere, efforts are ongoing to streamline regulatory processes and stabilize one of the state’s most crucial agricultural sectors.

Mike Boudreaux, Tulare County Sheriff, who also spoke at the California Dairy Sustainability Conference in Visalia this week, expresses the need for the state and federal government to reduce the regulatory burden, thereby allowing greater industry control.

“Some of the issues many of you are facing, quite frankly, just explodes my mind when it comes to large sustainability, manure and different regulations,” he says. “The state of California and the federal government need to lift and reduce the amount of regulation the state can control for our dairy industry.”

Innovation and Sustainability Efforts

Despite the challenges producers continue to face, the dairy industry is making strides in sustainability. California boasts 238 dairy digester projects, capturing methane to create renewable energy sources and contributing to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

“I’m very proud of the work we’ve been able to do on climate smart agriculture,” Ross says. “I love the fact that 24.3 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent reductions in greenhouse gasses are because of dairy digesters.”

When it comes to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), Ross is grateful for how the industry has handled the outbreak that started in September in California, six months after it was first reported in Texas and Kansas. As of late March, HPAI has impacted 755 herds in the state.

The path forward for California’s dairy industry relies on innovative strategies, supportive policies and the continuous perseverance of its producers. As the industry adapts, the focus remains steadfast on ensuring the vitality and sustainability of a sector pivotal to California’s heritage and economy.

Your Next Read — California Dreams: Transformation Through Innovation

RFK Jr. and Zeldin Comment on How They Would Implement Trump Policy

Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:46:07 GMT

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s confirmation hearing for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Wednesday (Jan. 29) before the Senate Finance Committee lasted over three hours, revealing key points:

Vaccine stance: Kennedy attempted to soften his past anti-vaccine rhetoric, stating support for vaccines but struggling to explain previous controversial statements.
Health policy priorities: He emphasized addressing chronic diseases, promoting safe food, removing conflicts of interest in health agencies, and using “gold-standard science.” Kennedy said that federal dollars spent on SNAP and school lunch programs could be one place to start, “helping kids” avoid obesity and chronic illness by cutting out sugary drinks and “ultra-processed foods.” He would also fund federal research into the link between food additives and chronic illnesses, though he didn’t specify which ingredients sparked the most concern. “I don’t want to take food away from anybody,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy emphasized his support for American farmers, stating:
- “American farms are the bedrock of our culture, of our politics, [and] of our national security.”
- He was a “4-H kid” and spent summers working on ranches.
- He wants to work with farmers and food producers to remove burdensome regulations and unleash American ingenuity.
Agricultural practices and health. Kennedy expressed concerns about current agricultural practices:
- He criticized the use of certain chemicals in farming, stating they destroy soil microbiomes and cause erosion.
- He linked chemical-intensive agriculture to health problems, mentioning clusters of cancers, autoimmune diseases, and obesity in farming communities.
- He called for incentivizing transitions to regenerative agriculture and less chemically intensive practices.Kennedy told Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) that farmers are affected by cancers and autoimmune illnesses that he believes are caused by ingredients like food dyes. “We need to fix our food supply,” Kennedy said, noting that “seeds and chemicals” used by U.S. farmers are “destroying our soil” in the long term. When asked about Kennedy’s “seeds and chemicals” comment, Grassley told Politico: “I’ll have someone from Iowa State University talk to him.”
Collaboration with USDA. Kennedy emphasized his intention to work closely with the Department of Agriculture:
- He stated that MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) “simply cannot succeed without a partnership a full Partnership of American farmers.”
- He committed to working collaboratively with USDA and other federal agencies before implementing policies affecting food supplies.
- Kennedy mentioned that President Trump instructed him to work with Brooke Rollins at USDA to ensure policies support farmers. Rollins told reporters last week that she was supportive of Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement. “But what is important and, if confirmed, what my role will be, will be to strike a balance between defending our farmers and our ranchers but also working with Bobby Kennedy, who I adore, to effectuate the president’s vision on all of the above,” Rollins said
Regulatory approach. Kennedy outlined his approach to agricultural regulations:
- He promised to work with farmers to remove burdensome regulations.
- Kennedy acknowledged the “very thin margins” farmers operate on and stated he doesn’t want any farmer to leave their farm for economic or regulatory reasons.
- He agreed that agricultural practice regulations should primarily be left to USDA and EPA.
- “I expect you to leave agricultural practice and regulation to the proper agencies,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told Kennedy. That means, for the most part, leaving policies that impact farmers to USDA and EPA, Grassley clarified.
Future of agriculture. Kennedy shared his vision for the future of American agriculture:
- He called for fixing the food supply as a top priority. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told Kennedy that he was happy the nominee addressed the “social media rumors” about agriculture.
- “You made it very very clear you’re not going to tell Americans what to eat, but you do want Americans to know what they’re eating,” Lankford said, calling that a “pretty fair perspective” on food policy.
- Kennedy advocated for supporting the transition to regenerative and sustainable farming practices.
- He mentioned plans to rewrite regulations to give smaller operators “a break.”
- Throughout the hearing, Kennedy attempted to position himself as an ally to farmers while also advocating for changes in agricultural practices to address health and environmental concerns.
Controversial past: Democrats challenged his history of health misinformation and grasp of Medicare and Medicaid.
Republican support: Some GOP senators backed Kennedy, with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) calling him “awesome,” though the final vote remains uncertain.
Financial concerns: His financial ties to lawsuits against Merck raised conflict-of-interest questions.
Abortion stance: Kennedy sidestepped direct answers but aligned with Trump’s anti-abortion policies, shifting from his previous pro-choice stance.

Bottom line: With strong opposition and divided support, Kennedy’s confirmation vote is expected to be closely contested. Today he attends another confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The Senate Finance Committee expects to hold its RFK Jr. vote next week.

Zeldin Confirmed as EPA Administrator

On Wednesday (Jan. 29), the Republican-led Senate confirmed former Congressman Lee Zeldin as the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a 56-42 vote. A staunch Trump ally, Zeldin is expected to steer the agency in alignment with the former president’s environmental policies.

Vote breakdown: All 53 Republicans backed Zeldin, joined by three Democrats — Sens. Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), and John Fetterman (Pa.).
Policy direction: Zeldin is expected to roll back environmental regulations, emphasizing economic growth and private-sector collaboration.
Biofuel policy. Zeldin has raised concerns among ethanol and biofuel advocates due to his past opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and ethanol. However, during his confirmation process, Zeldin made some commitments that suggest a potential shift in his stance. As a congressman, Zeldin had a history of opposing biofuels and the RFS. He signed letters expressing concern about proposed RFS volume increases, citing issues with the “E10 blend wall.” In 2017, Zeldin cosponsored an unsuccessful bill to repeal the RFS. He raised concerns about the validity and practicality of higher ethanol blends like E15 and E85. But during his confirmation process, Zeldin made several statements that indicate a potential change in his approach:
- He committed to giving producers and the industry certainty in the marketplace regarding Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs).
- Zeldin acknowledged the importance of the RFS issue to President Trump and certain senators.
- He stated that no person or industry has any special influence over his decision-making, addressing concerns about his past connections to the oil industry.
Biofuel industry representatives have expressed cautious optimism:
- The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) looks forward to working with Zeldin on keeping the RFS on track and addressing other priorities like E15 availability.
- The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA) encouraged Zeldin to pursue the role biofuels can play in U.S. energy dominance.
- The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) appreciated Zeldin’s commitments to follow the law regarding RVO rulemakings and supporting year-round E15 nationwide.

Of note: While Zeldin’s past positions raised initial concerns, his recent statements during the confirmation process suggest he may be open to working with the biofuels industry in his new role as EPA Administrator.

Climate stance: Critics warn his leadership could weaken climate initiatives, favoring fossil fuel interests.
Reactions: Republicans praise his “common-sense regulation” approach, while environmental groups call his confirmation a serious setback for public health and environmental justice.

Bottom line. As Zeldin assumes leadership, his tenure is likely to reshape the EPA’s role in U.S. environmental policy for years to come.

Cassidy Casts Doubt on RFK Jr.’s HHS Nomination

Senate HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.) delivered a blunt message to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during Thursday’s hearing, signaling serious concerns about his nomination for Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary.

“I’ve been struggling with your nomination,” Cassidy stated in his closing remarks, a potential roadblock for Kennedy, given Cassidy’s influential position on the Senate Finance Committee. If Cassidy votes against Kennedy in the panel’s decision, the nomination may not advance.

The Louisiana senator expressed deep skepticism about Kennedy’s stance on vaccines, questioning whether he could be trusted to uphold sound public health policy. Cassidy specifically criticized Kennedy’s history of vaccine skepticism, warning that such views could erode trust in essential immunizations.

“A worthy movement, called MAHA, to improve the health of Americans?” Cassidy asked. “Or will it undermine it, always asking for more evidence and never accepting the evidence that is there?”

He also recounted a recent case of two children dying in a Baton Rouge ICU from vaccine-preventable diseases. “My concern is that if there’s any false note, any undermining of a mama’s trust in vaccines, another person will die from a vaccine-preventable disease,” Cassidy warned.

Beyond his own reservations, Cassidy’s remarks signal broader challenges for Kennedy’s nomination. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a childhood polio survivor, is unlikely to back a nominee with anti-vaccine ties. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also remain key votes to watch, with both urging Kennedy to support vaccinations.

Cassidy, up for re-election in 2026, has already drawn a Trump-aligned challenger, State Treasurer John Fleming. Though Cassidy emphasized his desire for Trump’s policies to succeed, he warned that anti-vaccine rhetoric could tarnish Trump’s legacy.

“I want President Trump’s policies to succeed,” Cassidy said. “But if there’s someone that is not vaccinated because of policies, of attitudes we bring to the department, and there’s another 18-year-old who dies of a vaccine-preventable disease… The greatest tragedy will be her death. I can also tell you an associated tragedy will be that it will cast a shadow over President Trump’s legacy, which I want to be the absolute best legacy.”

Bottom line: With Cassidy’s support in doubt and broader Senate skepticism, Kennedy’s path to confirmation remains steep.

Iowa Secretary of Ag Weighs In on The H5N1 Battle, Vaccine Potential And Trade Sensitivities

Wed, 29 Jan 2025 13:49:17 GMT

Eggs continue to be a hot topic in the news as supplies are down, prices are up – and expected to go even higher – and consumers are understandably concerned.

At the center of the issue, fanning the on-going problem for poultry and dairy producers as well, is the Highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza A virus (HPAI H5N1).

AgriTalk Host Chip Flory broached the topic with Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig on Tuesday.

At the heart of their conversation was a two-part question – how does the U.S. address the virus and, in the process, prevent any potential negative ramifications on trade?

Naig says the federal government is taking what he described as a three-legged stool approach to addressing the problem in both industries.

He described the three legs of the stool as being USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), individual state animal health officials and industry.

“We work very closely with APHIS on this, meaning that they’re the ones that are providing the indemnity payments to producers. They are providing the disposal and cleanup assistance, but they must work in close collaboration with the states and state animal health officials,” Naig says. “And then, of course, you’ve got to have the third leg, which is industry.”

Biosecurity Measures
Naig noted that while the virus hit the poultry industry hard in 2015, it struck even harder in 2024.

“It’s not just in the Midwest or West, it’s been really all across the country now, affecting the egg laying industry, broilers and turkey production,” Naig says.

A significant positive, Naig says, is that biosecurity measures in the poultry industry appear to be preventing farm-to-farm spread. “The industry continues to get high marks for that, which wasn’t the case in 2015, which was so devastating because we didn’t have those strategies in place.”

“I believe, and our experience has been, that our USDA partners in this regard have been very strong,” he adds.

As Naig addressed the three-legged stool approach the U.S. is taking to addressing the virus in dairy, he says the three partners have more work to do.

“Frankly, there’s been a lot of criticism to share around the three legs, if you will, on how states have reacted, or how strongly USDA should have reacted, and what the industry is doing to try to contain that virus. So, I would say on the dairy side of things, it’s a different story (than in poultry). There’s a lot more work that’s yet to be done to even understand how that virus is impacting those (dairy) herds.”

What Is The Role For Vaccines?
Flory asked Sec. Nagy whether he believes a vaccine could be part of the solution to the virus or whether that would set up too many trade barriers. Flory also asked whether the virus is stable enough for a long enough period of time for a vaccine to be developed that would work effectively.

Both are questions the U.S. is grappling with as it tries to get ahead of the virus in dairy and poultry.

Earlier this month, Reuters reported the U.S. will rebuild a stockpile of avian influenza vaccines for poultry that match the strain of the virus circulating in commercial flocks and wild birds, citing the Department of Agriculture.

Naig told Flory that he believes a vaccine could be developed, with regard to poultry specifically, and its use negotiated into trade agreements.

“Those are challenges, and yet those are things that can be worked on and can be done, but it’s not easily done. I would want to put a flag there,” Naig says.

“I’m supportive of developing … we should try to figure out whether this can be an effective tool. If you’re in the broiler business or if you’re in the turkey meat business or if you’re in the egg business or maybe you’re in the genetics business, those are very different in terms of how you view that vaccine.”

Naig explains part of the different viewpoints on vaccine use have to do with the difference between poultry business segments.

“We need to recognize that those sectors are different in how they’ll view and potentially use a vaccine,” Naig says.

“Don’t treat them all the same. It’ll make way more sense for some than others.”

Naig did not weigh in on vaccine development for the dairy industry specifically.

The full conversation between Naig and Flory on AgriTalk is available below.

Your next read: Think Egg Prices Are Already Too High? USDA Says Retail Egg Prices Could Jump Another 20% in 2025

FDA Proposes New Front-of-Package Food Labeling to Help Consumers Make Healthier Food Choices

Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:17:52 GMT

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed a new front-of-package (FOP) labeling rule aimed at helping consumers make healthier food choices quickly and easily. This “Nutrition Info box,” a black-and-white design, will display levels of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars, categorized as “Low,” “Med,” or “High,” along with the percent Daily Value for each nutrient.

Based on extensive research involving nearly 10,000 U.S. adults, this initiative seeks to complement the existing Nutrition Facts label and simplify decision-making for shoppers. If finalized, large manufacturers would have three years to comply, while smaller businesses (less than $10 million in annual food sales) would have four.

Example of Proposed Info Box

(FDA )

The FDA anticipates this measure will empower consumers, encourage healthier product formulations, and contribute to reducing chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.

“For example, when comparing yogurt, the Nutrition Info box could help them identify a yogurt that is lower in added sugars,” said FDA in a statement.

Public comments on the proposal are open until May 16, 2025.

This new label is designed to complement the existing Nutrition Facts label found on the back of food packages, providing a more accessible and quick-reference guide for consumers.

FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D., emphasized the importance of this proposal, stating, “It is time we make it easier for consumers to glance, grab and go. Adding front-of-package nutrition labeling to most packaged foods would do that.”

FDA also says that by displaying simplified, at-a-glance, nutrition information that details and interprets the saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar content of a food as “Low,” “Med,” or “High” on the front of food packages would provide consumers with an accessible description of the numerical information found in the Nutrition Facts label.

What are other examples of what the nutrition info boxes could look like? FDA provided the examples below.

Examples of nutrition box info.

(FDA)

How the Supreme Court's Big Decision to Overturn the Chevron Doctrine Could Impact Agriculture

Mon, 01 Jul 2024 17:11:47 GMT

On Friday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, overturned Chevron and handed authority back to Congress and the courts. Overturning the doctrine is a significant ruling that limits federal regulatory power.

The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, had directed courts to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws.

The decision was split along ideological lines, with the conservative majority voting to overturn Chevron. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, called the Chevron framework “unworkable” and said the court was ending “our 40-year misadventure with Chevron deference.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine is expected to have far-reaching implications for federal regulations across various sectors, including environmental protection, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections. It impacts the power of federal agencies, such as EPA, to issue regulations. The Chevron doctrine previously allowed agencies to interpret vague laws. This change provides opponents a clearer legal path to challenge regulations, potentially forcing agencies to be more cautious in drafting rules.

Environmental regulators, such as EPA, will face tougher judicial challenges. The decision is expected to slow down the regulatory process, requiring more time to craft, weigh comments and finalize rules. Many environmental rules stem from old laws with few modern amendments, adding to the uncertainty.

Mixed Reaction After Decision

Proponents of overturning Chevron argue it will reduce the power of unelected bureaucrats and increase accountability.

Critics warn the decision could lead to legal and administrative chaos, making it harder for agencies to respond to new challenges and implement regulations.

The ag and energy sectors are already asking how this ruling could impact energy and environmental regulations — both existing and new. Biofuel interests are wondering if this will impact the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Given that EPA has more leeway to set RFS levels without the mandates in law, it could. But the RFS levels have been challenged before and the resolution takes a long time, so it really doesn’t affect the mandates, i.e., the 2023 standards included 250 million gallons to meet a court remand of the 2016 standards.

Possible Impact on Agriculture Regulations and Farm Bill

USDA and EPA will no longer have the broad authority to interpret ambiguous statutes. This change is expected to limit their ability to create and enforce regulations without explicit congressional authorization. For instance, regulations related to farm subsidies, crop insurance, and environmental practices, including the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, will now face closer judicial scrutiny.

Farm subsidies and crop insurance: Agencies will need clear statutory authority to implement or modify programs related to farm subsidies and crop insurance ... could lead to fewer regulatory changes ... unless explicitly directed by Congress.

Environmental practices: Regulations under the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws will be more challenging to enforce if they rely on ambiguous statutory language. This could affect rules aimed at protecting wetlands and managing agricultural runoff.

Animal welfare standards: The ruling could impact regulations like those via the Packers & Stockyards Act, which aim to ensure fair competition and treatment in livestock markets.

Support from agricultural groups. They argue that it restores a balance of power by ensuring that unelected bureaucrats cannot impose regulations beyond what Congress has explicitly authorized.

Impact on the farm bill. The ruling puts pressure on Congress to draft more precise and detailed legislation. This is particularly relevant for the new farm bill, as lawmakers will need to ensure that the statutory language is clear to avoid judicial challenges and ensure effective implementation by federal agencies.

The decision is expected to increase accountability within the legislative and executive branches. Congress will need to be more explicit in its directives, and federal agencies will be limited to implementing laws as written, without broad interpretative leeway.

Potential for legal challenges. With the Chevron deference overturned, there may be an increase in legal challenges to existing and new regulations. Courts will now play a more significant role in interpreting agricultural laws, which could lead to a more stable regulatory environment but also more litigation as stakeholders seek judicial clarification on ambiguous statutes.

Opportunity to review prior cases? The conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) said House committees “have an opportunity to review any regulatory action that was justified by Chevron deference toward agency interpretation.” The RSC views the overturning of Chevron as a way to “reclaim congressional authority” and roll back what they see as executive overreach. The committee’s memo encouraged its members to “scour Biden-era regulatory actions and highlight any that should be considered for judicial review post-Chevron.” This indicates a specific focus on reviewing and potentially challenging regulations implemented during the Biden administration.

Bottom line: This ruling represents a significant shift in administrative law and is likely to have broad impacts on how federal agencies interpret and implement laws passed by Congress. It may lead to more challenges of agency regulations in court and could potentially slow down or complicate the regulatory process across various sectors of government.

Why Farmers Are Protesting In Europe

Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:08:22 GMT

Farmers are protesting across the European Union, saying they are facing rising costs and taxes, red tape, excessive environmental rules and competition from cheap food imports. Demonstrations have been taking place for weeks in countries including France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Italy and Greece.

While many issues are country-specific, others are Europe-wide. Here is a detailed look at the problems that have prompted the protest movement across the bloc and in individual countries.

IMPORTS

Demonstrations in eastern Europe have focused on what farmers say is unfair competition from large amounts of imports from Ukraine, for which the EU has waived quotas and duties since Russia’s invasion. Polish farmers have been blocking traffic at the border with Ukraine, which Kyiv says is affecting its defense capability and helping Russia’s aims. Meanwhile, Czech farmers have driven their tractors into downtown Prague, disrupting traffic outside the farm ministry.

The farmers resent the imports because they say they put pressure on European prices while not meeting environmental standards imposed on EU farmers. Renewed negotiations to conclude a trade deal between the EU and South American bloc Mercosur have also fanned discontent about unfair competition in sugar, grain and meat.

RULES AND BUREAUCRACY

Farmers take issue with excessive regulation, mainly at EU level. Centre stage are new EU subsidy rules, such as a requirement to leave 4% of farmland fallow, which means not using it for a period of time.

They also denounce bureaucracy, which French farmers say their government compounds by over-complicating implementation.

In Spain, farmers have complained of “suffocating bureaucracy” drawn up in Brussels that erodes the profitability of crops.

In Greece, farmers demand higher subsidies and faster compensation for crop damage and livestock lost in 2023 floods.

RISING DIESEL FUEL COSTS

In Germany and France, the EU’s biggest agricultural producers, farmers have railed against plans to end subsidies or tax breaks on agricultural diesel. Greek farmers want a tax on diesel to be reduced.

In Romania, protests in mid-January were mainly against the high cost of diesel.

In France, many producers say a government drive to bring down food inflation has left them unable to cover high costs for energy, fertilizer and transport.

WHAT ARE GOVERNMENTS DOING?

The European Commission late last month proposed to limit agricultural imports from Ukraine by introducing an “emergency brake” for the most sensitive products - poultry, eggs and sugar - but producers say the volume would still be too high. The Commission has also exempted EU farmers for 2024 from the requirement to keep some of their land fallow while still receiving EU farm support payments, but they would need to instead grow crops without applying pesticides.

French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal announced measures including controls to insure imported foods do not have traces of pesticides banned in France or the EU, and talks to get farmers higher prices and loosen bureaucracy and regulation.

Paris and Berlin have both relented to the pressure and rowed back on plans to end subsidies or tax breaks on agricultural diesel. In Romania, the government has acted to increase diesel subsidies, address insurance rates and expedite subsidy payments.

In Portugal, the caretaker government has announced an emergency aid package worth 500 million euros, including 200 million euros to mitigate the impact of a long-running drought.

WHY FARMERS ARE PROTESTING, BY COUNTRY:

FRANCE

- EU red tape

- Diesel prices

- Need more support to shore up incomes

- Access to irrigation

- Criticism over animal welfare and use of pesticides

POLAND

- Cheap imports from Ukraine

- EU regulation

CZECH REPUBLIC

- Bureaucracy

- Cheap imports

- EU farm policy

SPAIN

- “Suffocating bureaucracy” drawn up in Brussels that they say erodes the profitability of crops

- Trade deals that they say open the door to cheap imports

PORTUGAL

- Insufficient state aid, subsidy cuts

- Red tape

ROMANIA

- Cost of diesel

- Insurance rates

- EU environmental regulations

- Cheap imports from Ukraine

BELGIUM

- EU requirement to leave 4% of land fallow

- Cheap imports

- Subsidies favoring larger farms

GREECE

- Demands for higher subsidies and faster compensation for crop damage and livestock lost in 2023 floods

- Diesel tax and surging electricity bills

- Falling state and EU subsidies

(Reporting by Sybille de La Hamaide and Gus Trompiz; Editing by Crystal Chesters)

EPA’s New WOTUS Rules: What Producers Need to Know About

Tue, 29 Aug 2023 19:25:51 GMT

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rules on Tuesday, following a May Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA , that required EPA to revise the WOTUS definition.

“We have worked with EPA to expeditiously develop a rule to incorporate changes required as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. “With this final rule, the Corps can resume issuing approved jurisdictional determinations that were paused in light of the decision.”

Under the new rule, two primary changes were made, including:
• Clarification that wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act must have a continuous surface connection to navigable waterways
• Removal of the highly debated “significant nexus” test, which was used to determine whether there was a connection between small and large bodies of water

What do these policy changes mean? Private property is better protected from being taken by the government, according to Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.). But this isn’t the first time WOTUS rules have been modified.

Is the new WOTUS definition good for ag?

WOTUS rules have evolved many times in the past 50 years, with each administration crafting their own version of the rules.

In December 2022, EPA revised WOTUS—ahead of the Supreme Court’s ruling—to give federal protection to large waterways, like interstate rivers and streams and wetlands that are adjacent to them. Many ag groups did not support these changes and shared their concerns in discussions, and in court. Some, including Ted McKinney of the National Association of State Departments of Ag (NASDA), don’t think EPA got the message.

“The ruling in Sackett v. EPA was a chance for EPA and the Army Corps to correct a deeply flawed, prematurely released rule and work to truly improve water quality outcomes. It is baffling that the revised rule does not accurately address all the issues and questions raised by the Supreme Court, nor does it address many of the questions stakeholder groups raised about the WOTUS rule EPA released at the end of last year,” McKinney said.

Zippy Duvall, Farm Bureau president, mirrored McKinney, saying the new WOTUS definition is another round of whiplash on growers.

“We’re pleased the vague and confusing ‘significant nexus’ test has been eliminated as the Supreme Court dictated. But EPA has ignored other clear concerns raised by the Justices, 26 states, and farmers across the country about the rule’s failure to respect private property rights and the Clean Water Act,” Duvall said.

Related story: WOTUS Ruling Causing Confusion in Key Ag States

Mary-Thomas Hart, chief counsel at National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), took a different stance on EPA’s announcement. While she applauded the EPA’s swift transition to a new rule, Hart says the association will monitor changes to ensure cattle producers are protected.

Moving forward, EPA says it plans to host events to communicate WOTUS changes. To kickstart the conversation, the agency scheduled a public webinar on Sept. 12, when it will outline the latest WOTUS revisions. Those interested in attending can register here .

John Phipps: Why Water is the New Oil for Landowners

Wed, 09 Aug 2023 13:38:50 GMT

There are signs that water is the new oil.

This is a question sent in by U.S. Farm Report viewer David Marshall of Lafayette, Indiana: “You’ve covered the subject of foreign land ownership and rightly noted that it’s a very small percentage. I think the issue that we really need to address, especially in the southwestern states, is the purchasing of farmland by corporate entities that have nothing to do with farming but who solely want to obtain the water rights that the purchase of the ground includes. Their main reason for purchasing the land is to have a resource that they can sell to the highest bidder. How long before hedge funds and corporations own all the water rights and the farmer and the public are left to be the highest bidder or do without the needed resource?”

As Mark Twain said, “Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting”. While our arguably arcane water rights laws have provided thousands of billable hours for water lawyers in the West, I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet.

“First in time, first in line” may have seemed like a good idea centuries ago when rivers and groundwater appeared inexhaustible, the enormous use by modern agriculture - about 80% of our nation’s resources - is testing the practicality of those laws. I can’t imagine modern lawmakers reforming our laws with the needed speed, so the backup method of acquisition for water consumers is to buy the water needed from agriculture.

Bluntly put, there is a price for every gallon, and many farmers are just now realizing how extremely valuable those gallons are.

As I have argued in every land-use debate -from solar panels to suburban development - with rare exceptions due to location or unique qualities, the rights of landowners should be preeminent to allow the market to redistribute those assets.

Consider the rapidly growing cities of the Southwest, like Phoenix. Spending millions to buy water rights from nearby farmers currently growing alfalfa in the desert to feed dairy cows, when milk is being dumped in Wisconsin, looks to me like an inefficient market hampered by regulation and unable to rationally allocate assets.

Between our outdated milk pricing programs and water laws, the outcome you describe is capitalism’s way of solving a problem. Farming may always be the optimal use for our ever-scarcer water.

I think not, but I think this is a problem being solved by accountants, not lawyers.

Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in WOTUS Case

Tue, 08 Aug 2023 20:10:09 GMT

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with an Idaho couple in a significant environmental case against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over a plan to develop a small lot near Priest Lake. This decision has national implications for water quality, ag, development and the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule.

The court was unanimous in finding that the land owned by the Idaho family was not subject to the Clean Water Act. The court was split 5-4 on the court’s new “test”, which stated that only wetlands with a continuous surface connection to a body of water are covered by the law.

Related story: What’s Wrong with the Current Waters of the U.S. Rule?

The case focused on the interpretation of the 1972 Clean Water Act and asked for a clearer definition of what the law intended by giving the EPA authority to regulate WOTUS.

Michael Regan, EPA administrator, shared in an EPA press release that he’s “disappointed” by the Supreme Court’s ruling that “erodes longstanding clean water protections.”

"[The administration] worked to establish a durable definition of ‘waters of the United States’ that safeguards our nation’s waters, strengthens economic opportunity, and protects people’s health while providing the clarity and certainty that farmers, ranchers, and landowners deserve,” Regan said. “These goals will continue to guide the agency forward as we carefully review the Supreme Court decision and consider next steps.”

What Supreme Court justices have to say on the WOTUS ruling

Court Justice Samuel Alito, joined by four conservative justices, wrote the opinion stating that the federal government could regulate water that has a “continuous surface connection” to major bodies of water. This ruling overturns a previous decision by a federal appeals court that supported the EPA.

Alito said the EPA’s interpretation of its powers went “too far.”

“We hold that the Clean Water Act extends to only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right, so that they are ‘indistinguishable’ from those waters,” Alito wrote, quoting from past court opinions.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court’s liberals, comparing the ruling to last term’s decision limiting the EPA’s ability to combat climate change.

“The vice in both instances is the same: the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy,” she wrote, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote separately to object to the majority’s reading of the law. He wrote that the majority’s new test “departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this Court’s precedents” and will have “significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.” Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson joined Kavanaugh.

What the ag industry has to say on the WOTUS ruling

Rep. G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) calls the ruling a “victory” for farmers, ranchers and landowners.

“The decision reaffirms the rights of property owners and provides long-needed clarity to rural America. In light of this decision, the Biden Administration should withdraw its flawed final WOTUS rule,” Thompson said. “It is time to finally put an end to the regulatory whiplash and create a workable rule that promotes clean water while protecting the rights of rural Americans.”

Zippy Duvall, American Farm Bureau president, echoed Thompson, saying the EPA “clearly overstepped” its authority under the Clean Water Act.

“The justices respect private property rights. It’s now time for the Biden administration to do the same and rewrite the Waters of the United States Rule,” Duvall said. “Farmers and ranchers share the goal of protecting the resources they’re entrusted with, but they deserve a rule that provides clarity and doesn’t require a team of attorneys to properly care for their land.”

Background on the WOTUS case

The case began when Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased a vacant lot in a residential subdivision in Idaho in 2004. They acquired the necessary county permits to develop the site, but the EPA argued that the land was subject to its review because it contained wetlands about 300 feet from Priest Lake.

Related story: What Bodies of Water are Considered WOTUS?

This case, having returned to the Supreme Court for the second time, was closely monitored by environmentalists, developers, and farming groups due to the ongoing debate over the extent of the EPA’s jurisdiction beyond navigable lakes, rivers, and into smaller streams and wetlands.

What’s Next for WOTUS?

A court decision against the EPA, said Attorney Rafe Petersen, who represents miners, offshore wind developers and others seeking EPA permit, likely leaves the Biden administration to start all over again from scratch.

“I don’t see how they get away from that,” Petersen said. “The Biden administration is really boxed into the corner.”

The ruling trims the jurisdiction of EPA to regulate waters under the Clean Water Act to interstate and navigable waters and immediately adjacent wetlands. It is a return to the traditional understanding of what Congress passed in the early 1970s.

Broadband Bill Would Push Internet to Every “Last Acre” in Rural America

Thu, 27 Jul 2023 20:53:15 GMT

USDA’s Farm Computer Usage and Ownership report revealed that in 2022, roughly 18% of U.S. farms don’t have access to the internet. While efforts to link the broadband gaps have been put in motion, no piece of legislation addresses every corner of the U.S.

Current rural development programs focus on connecting networks to rural households and businesses—a “last mile” approach. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) rolled out the LAST ACRE Act on the Senate floor this week, with the hopes of pushing connectivity to every U.S. farm in a “last acre” approach.

“Producers looking to adopt precision ag technologies need network connectivity that extends far past their residences. They need to be able to make real-time decisions that increase yields and employ resources more efficiently. Our LAST ACRE Act will ensure USDA has the strategy and resources needed to support last acre connectivity,” said Fischer.

If passed, the LAST ACRE Act would:
• Establish an initial bid application for internet access across farms and ranches
• Create a system for connectivity devices to be placed on farm sites, structures and machinery
• Generate a competitive bidding process for service providers
• Direct USDA to include Census of Ag questions about broadband

Kip Eideberg, Ag Equipment Manufacturer’s senior vice president of government and industry relations, echoed Fischer’s comments, saying the act would ensure all aspects of rural America are connected, “from the hospital to the school and from the farmhouse to the field.”

A comprehensive breakdown of the LAST ACRE Act can be found here .

New Farmland Bill Would Create a Public Database for Foreign Land Ownership

Sat, 22 Jul 2023 03:07:00 GMT

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) introduced a new bipartisan bill , the Farmland Security Act of 2023 , seeking to further boost transparency in foreign ownership of U.S. farmland.

The legislation builds upon measures introduced by the same senators in the Farmland Security Act of 2022 and amendments to the 1978 Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act. This bill would require greater transparency for foreign purchases of U.S. ag land, impose stronger penalties for reporting non-compliance, and mandate USDA to audit a minimum of 10% of foreign ag land ownership reports annually.

The issue of foreign ownership is increasingly important as nearly half of U.S. ag land is owned by individuals aged 65 and over, and approximately 100 million acres are expected to change hands over the next decade due to retirement.

What’s included in the Farmland Security Act of 2023?

The measure necessitates a transition to a digital filing system and a public database on foreign ownership for researching ownership trends. It also requires the USDA to report on foreign investment impacts. The bill further emphasizes transparency, complete and accurate data collection, and greater understanding of foreign ownership.

The new legislation introduces stricter penalties for non-compliant foreign owners or “shell companies” by removing the current fee cap of 25% of land valuation, imposing a 100% land valuation fee for non-reporting shell companies unless corrected within 60 days of notification. It authorizes $2 million annually for administration as amended in the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act.

Other stipulations include USDA research into foreign ownership of agricultural production capacity and foreign participation in U.S. ag, along with investigations into the use of “shell companies”. State and county-level staff would also be trained to identify non-reporting foreign-owned farmland.

USDA Initiates Aid Program to Address Farm Lending Discrimination

Tue, 11 Jul 2023 19:30:00 GMT

USDA initiated an aid program last week for victims who have faced discrimination in farm lending programs. The program targets those who were discriminated against before Jan. 1, 2021, or those still in debt from discriminatory USDA farm loans.

“The opening of the application process is an important step in delivering on our commitment of providing financial assistance to those who faced discrimination in USDA farm lending, said Tom Vilsack, USDA secretary. “USDA will continue to work with our national vendor partners and community-based organizations to make sure eligible farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners have clear information about what is available to them, how to apply, and where to obtain assistance with their questions at each step of the way.”

Related story: USDA Requests Comments on Aid to Producers Discriminated in Farm Lending Programs

The department also issued a warning about fraud, as there have been reports of misleading information circulated by some groups and attorneys about applying for the aid. Despite scams, USDA confirms the application process, open until October 31, does not require an attorney’s involvement.

Funding for the program, totaling $2.2 billion, is provided by the IRA, with individual assistance capped at $500,000.

US Treasury Dept. Moves to Limit Foreign Land Purchases Near Military Bases

Mon, 08 May 2023 20:20:32 GMT

By now, you’ve likely heard of the Chinese balloons that made their way across the U.S. in late January and early February and were eventually shot down. The spy balloons, coupled with a Chinese-owned company purchasing land 12 miles from a U.S. Air Force base in North Dakota, have sounded alarms on both state and federal levels.

To limit further foreign activity on U.S. lands, particularly the sale of land, the Treasury Department’s Office of Investment Security proposed a rule on Friday that would require foreign entities to garner U.S. government approval before they are able to purchase land within 100 miles of eight military bases.

Related story: Out-of-Country Farmland Investors: Here’s What The Numbers Show

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) welcomed news of the proposed rule, which could have blocked the North Dakota land sale to the Fufeng Group.

“This is a good first step to bolster reviews and mitigate threats similar to what we saw with Fufeng,” Cramer said in a statement on Thursday.

The Office of Investment Security is responsible for screening foreign business dealings in the U.S. and has the authority to block or force term changes in sales in order to protect national security.

Backstory on Fufeng Group’s North Dakota Purchase

Fufeng Group says it plans to use the land to build a $700 million corn milling plant, which would create at least 200 jobs, as well as residual opportunities for logistics, trucking and other services.

Many North Dakotans made their sentiments on the sale known, which led to a review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. However, the committee’s review found no issue with the sale.

Related story: China’s Latest Land Purchase Could Pose Major U.S. Security Risk

“More needs to be done to ensure the U.S. food supply chain is secure and independent,” says Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.). “If we do not prevent these land grabs, we are failing to protect our farmers, our families and our country.”

In September, Newhouse, along with 50 other members of Congress, asked USDA and other agencies to take effective action in addressing the potential national security risks that appear to arise from this transaction.

Instead of waiting on the government, some states are taking legislative action on their own.

Missouri Puts Up a Foreign Land Ownership Wall

The Missouri Senate made moves on the issue in April when it backed a plan to amend the state’s foreign land ownership threshold from 1% to 0.5%. The bill also includes a provision that would limit foreign countries — including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea — from acquiring farmland in Missouri by Sept. 1.

“We’re not going to allow for foreign ownership in the state of Missouri,” said Sen. Rick Brattin (R-31). “We have to draw a line in the sand today. It protects our sovereignty as a nation.”

Related story: Missouri Moves to Tighten Reins On Foreign Land Ownership

According to the Missouri Department of Agriculture, foreign land ownership in Missouri accounts for 0.36%, just shy of the 0.5% proposed limit. In total, the department says China owns roughly 42,596 acres in Missouri.

Bipartisan Group Pushes for Stepped-Up Basis Tax Rule Protections

Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:54:17 GMT

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is trying to protect a tax provision that reduces the capital gains tax on inherited property, saying elimination would hurt farmers and businesses.

The Joint Committee on Taxation says the failure to collect these taxes costs $40 billion per year, and Democrats have proposed ways to eliminate the provision, while leaving an exemption for farmers.

The resolution, introduced Tuesday by Reps. Tracey Mann (R-Kan.), Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.), Angie Craig (D-Minn.), and Bob Latta (R-Ohio), would support the “preservation” of the rule and “oppose efforts to impose new taxes on family farms or small businesses.”

President Joe Biden’s budget request included changes that would tighten loopholes related to partnerships and the stepped-up basis rule and those who have over $100 million in wealth, according to the Treasury Department’s Greenbook . Democrats have said the provision allows the wealthy to avoid paying taxes.

Bottom line

The resolution cites a study from the USDA’s Economic Research Service that found 66% of midsize farms would see a tax liability increase if the stepped-up basis was cut.

USDA’s New School Meal Proposal Keeps Low-Fat Flavored Milk on the Menu

Fri, 03 Feb 2023 21:51:54 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced on Friday new nutrition standards for school meals. The proposed updates to the school nutrition standards, which will be rolled out gradually over the next few years, aim to help give kids the right balance of nutrients while still offering appealing meals.

If passed, the new standards would limit both sugar and sodium intake while increasing whole grain consumption. For dairy specifically, the USDA plans to keep low-fat flavored milk as an option for the nearly 30 million students who consume school lunches each day.

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) both applauded the USDA’s proposed updates.

“Children having access to the healthful foods they need to grow and focus in school is a key priority for dairy farmers,” said Jim Mulhern, NMPF President and CEO. “Milk is the top source of calcium, potassium, phosphorus, and vitamin D in kids ages 2-18, and 1% flavored milk is a nutrient-dense, low-fat option students will actually choose to drink.”

While NMPF is “pleased with USDA’s move, they aren’t fully sold on the rollout.

“Providing low-fat flavored milk will increase students’ intake of nutrients vital for their growth and development. We question why USDA would propose school meal options that could limit a child’s access to these nutrients and we urge instead that they expand access to dairy options,” Mulhern said.

Michael Dykes, D.V.M., IDFA president and CEO, agreed with Mulhern on all counts:

“The most recent Dietary Guidelines report is clear: children are not receiving enough essential nutrients for growth, development, healthy immune function, and overall wellness,” Dykes says. “While we are pleased that this proposed rule continues to make dairy central to child nutrition, we are concerned with USDA’s ongoing efforts to propose limitations to milk and dairy in school meals, which run counter to the Dietary Guidelines and the mandate of America’s parents.”

Comments on the proposed standards can submitted from Feb. 7, 2023, through April 10, 2023. For a full description on the proposed provisions, click here.

No, Wyoming Isn't Looking to Ban Electric Vehicles...Yet

Fri, 20 Jan 2023 19:33:15 GMT

California turned heads in August when its lawmakers pushed and passed legislation to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles state-wide by 2035. In Wyoming, similar legislation was recently proposed, but on the opposite side of the aisle.

Sen. Jim Anderson (R-Wyo.) introduced a resolution last Friday aimed at phasing out electric vehicle sales in Wyoming by 2035. According to the resolution, the concept is being considered in order to sustain the state’s oil and gas industry.

“The oil and gas industry in Wyoming has created countless jobs and contributed revenue to the state,” says Sen. Dan Dockstader (R-Wyo.). “Wyoming will be robbed of 12,000 to 16,000 jobs if we dismiss gas vehicles for the sake electric. It’s unacceptable.”

Tabled Until 2024

Following the proposal, the resolution was referred to Wyoming’s minerals committee, where it was discussed and tabled, “at least,” through the year, Dockstader says.

“The resolution won’t be heard on the Senate floor in 2023, but we will revisit it in 2024,” he says.

The resolution discussion follows the Biden administration’s federal ban on oil and gas leasing. According to Dockstader, the ban is costing Wyoming $304 million per year, from 2021 to 2025.

“At some point as a state we have to push back and say our people and our jobs are more important. Our mineral and gas industry, that’s what’s employing our families across the state, and we stand with them.”

Electric Outlook

Outside of electric vehicles, Dockstader says he and his fellow Wyoming legislators aren’t completely closed off to new technologies.

“We’re using hydroelectric power here in Wyoming as well as wind power and solar. We’re not saying we’re not interested in trying other energy outlets. But if you step away from our current energy sources, or step away from gas-powered vehicles, you can’t drive the economy,” he says.

Docskstader pointed to California, saying the state—and any others that choose to ban gas-powered vehicles—can expect “serious” economic consequences.

“The havoc the U.S. is experiencing now with rapid inflation will reach far beyond the economy if we take away oil and gas and continue this electric vehicle spending,” he says. “We didn’t need this before and we won’t need this in the future, at least not in Wyoming.”

USDA Proposes Amendments to APHIS's Traceability Regulations

Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:04:19 GMT

USDA published a proposed rule which would amend U.S. animal disease traceability regulations to require eartags in cattle and bison that are both visually and electronically readable — electronic identification (EID) tags.

Some changes have been made to a prior APHIS plan, including now the agency using the term EID tags instead of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. APHIS said that is to accommodate the potential for future technologies other than RFID relative to the tags.

Industry Responds

Ethan Lane, vice president of government affairs at NCBA, broke down the timeline for the transition to EID tags in Thursday’s AgriTalk.

“We currently have the RFID tag rule that we saw at the end of the Trump administration that took a three or four year period to ramp up and transition to,” Lane says. “This EID tag will go live as soon as it is finalized, which is likely to be a year to 18 months.”

What’s at Stake

The EID system is aimed at helping the U.S. cattle industry deal with the emergency response to animal disease events, with APHIS concluding that while foot and mouth disease (FMD) and other diseases have been largely excluded from the U.S., “exclusion of every high impact disease through every pathway of introduction is likely an unachievable task.”

Kent Bacus, NCBA’s executive director of government affairs, echoes APHIS, saying FMD is one of his association’s biggest concerns.

“We haven’t had a case of FMD in the U.S. since the 1920s, and there hasn’t been FMD in North America since the 1950s,” he says. “We have a very naive herd that would be devastated by FMD, as would other hoofed livestock.”

Disease management tactics aside, Bacus says the domino affect FMD would have on the supply chain that is continuously being soddered and broken would be “catastrophic.” He points to highly-pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and African swine fever (ASF) as examples.

The Gameplan

Under the proposed rule, APHIS would require tags to be used that are both visually and electronically readable for interstate movement of cattle and bison six months after a final rule is published in the Federal Register.

Comments on the APHIS proposed rule are due Mar. 20. There is not yet a definitive date when the plan will finally be in place.

Is Carbon the New Cash Cow? Elanco CEO Thinks Dairy Farmers Could Make More Money Off Carbon Than Milk

Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:19:22 GMT

Work on Vir-Clar Farm this time of year is in constant motion. A dairy doesn’t have a day off—but fall manure applications means the rhythm is even faster than normal, even with supply chain headaches.

“We’ve had problems getting some supplies, we’ve had problems getting parts and products like milking gloves and blood tubes, penicillin now has been a problem; products that I could have never even imagined being a problem getting,” says Katie Grinstead with Vir Clar Farm in Fond du Lac County, Wisc.

Grinsted admits she’s seen a lot of firsts since 2020, but what may be one of the most challenging pieces is the amount of money she’s had to pay up front in order to secure parts and other products she needs on the farm. Another heavy weight isn’t just the availability of feed for dairies out West, but the cost of feed products across the U.S.

“Feed costs continue to be our number one expense here at the dairy. Some ingredients have been up as much as 50%,” she adds.

Grinstead says across the board, most costs are 30% higher today, forcing the dairy to become even more efficient.

“We’ve embraced automation in our feed center,” she explains. “All of our expensive ingredients are put in bins. We utilize augers and the computer to really only use the precise amount of each ingredient that we need.”

Move to Automation

She says the move to more automation has helped produce higher accuracy on the farm, now achieving 98% accuracy every time they make a batch of feed. That efficiency is helping not only in terms of money savings, but also with their cattle.

Automation is helping address the second biggest cost on their farm today – labor. The dairy is an industry that’s been labor tight, even before the pandemic. That’s why Vir-Clar Farm has made employee retention a top priority.

“We started a few years ago really focusing on our employees and which employees maybe want to learn and grow and maybe go from being a milker to then grow into being somebody who’s in the maternity barn, who then might be the next assistant herdsman,” says Grinstead. “That’s really helped us maintain employees that have the drive to want to do more.”

The dairy also offers a ride service to and from work, as well as a uniform program.

“We like to have fun,” she says. “We try to have fun parties, whether it’s Christmas or a summer party. We recently had a pizza party to celebrate being done with corn silage. I cook when they’re in the fields late, just whatever we can do to try to make it a good work environment for them.”

Powering a Community Via Waste

What also makes this dairy farm a leader is how they continue to embrace technology. The farm put in a methane digester in 2004.

“We’ve been producing electricity for roughly 800 homes a day here utilizing the manure as a fuel source,” she says.

Powering a community by what was once considered waste is not only helping the farm’s sustainability efforts, but it’s also generating additional income.

“We’re actually taking something that is considered a waste product to most by producing electricity, separating bedding, the dry solids off for bedding, reducing the odor. We’ve been doing that already and we’re going to take it to the next step and produce renewable natural energy,” Grinstead says.

Strong Vision for the Future

Dairy’s ability to turn waste into an energy source, is something Elanco, the world’s second largest animal health company, sees as an opportunity.

“There are numerous countries, all parts of the value chain governments that are saying we are going to do something about the climate,” says Jeff Simmons, president and CEO of Elanco .

Simmons not only thinks climate neutrality is possible for the livestock industry, he believes the industry is already well on its way. Simmons says there are four ways farmers can look at not only reducing their environmental footprint, but also cashing in on carbon.

“There’s on the land, what are you doing on the land; no- till, all the different things that are done the land,” he says. “Second, what you do in the animal. That’s where Elanco comes in; the ruminant of the cow. How do we create less methane coming out of that cow by what we do in the cow with nutrition with other things. Third is out in the land is digesters, it’s saying what are we doing with the manure in the waste? And lastly, is what are you doing in the value chain with ESG? Whether that’s purifying water and getting credits from a nestle, or whether that’s some you know, someone that’s trying to target and want that.”

Dairy is the Part of the Climate Solution

Simmons is so confident in livestock’s ability to be part of the climate solution, he thinks dairy farmers could soon make more money off carbon credits than they do off the dairy products they sell.

“It starts when you look at what your is footprint today? How much greenhouse gas are you creating? What are you doing to reduce that? And can you get to a state where you’re actually taking care of all the gas you create where you’re not making any footprint? And that comes from methane to carbon, etc. So, it is possible because people are getting closer and closer,” says Simmons.

Simmons’ statements aren’t just bold, he says he’s seeing some of the most innovative dairy producers across the country who are less than two years away from making more money off the carbon contracts they sell than the dairy products they produce.

Hungry for Animal Protein

It comes at a time when protein is in high demand, which is a fact Simmons says is often overlooked and under celebrated.

“Animal protein demand continues to grow,” he says. “It’s probably the biggest misnomer, even inside our industry, sometimes. The last 10 years, we have increased 60 million metric tons, the prediction is the next 10 years, we’ll need to get to 90 million, another 50% more growth. Why? There are people in other continents that are increasing their GDP. But the second is, you’re seeing this Western diet, more protein, less carbs. What we produce is under tremendous demand, the fastest growing food segment today is animal protein. When demand is up, you turn and say, ‘Hey, there’s real opportunity here for the farmer to play a role.’”

Supply Chain Impacting Timeline

While dairy leaders like Simmons say livestock producers are part of the climate solution, those on the farm level says supply chain issue are also impacting the timeline to grow renewable natural energy.

“The supply chain has actually slowed that whole process down, that should be up and running,” says Grinstead. “We had equipment and parts and stuff sitting on ships that we couldn’t get here. We’re very anxiously waiting for that project to be done.”

A project driving diversity on Vir Clar Farm could finally cross the finish line in 2023, at a time when livestock producers could be the climate solution.

For more on sustainability, read:

U.S. Commerce Sec. Ross: U.S.-Mexico Trade Deal Reached, Duties Averted

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 02:58:25 GMT

The US and Mexico have reached agreement in principle on sugar trade issues between the two countries that will allow Mexican sugar access to the U.S. market as before and will suspend US antidumping and antisubsidy duties against imports of Mexican sugar, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced in Washington.

Mexico agreed to “nearly every” request from the U.S. to fix issues under the prior sugar deal, Ross said, and it bodes well for longer-term relations between the two countries. “We have gotten the Mexican side to agree to nearly every request made by US industry to address flaws in the current system and ensure fair treatment of American sugar growers and refiners,” He said. Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo and his colleagues “have been honest and collaborative partners in seeking a fair and sustainable solution – this bodes well for our long-term relationship,” Ross added.

Plus, Ross noted the package will address US concerns and will avert negative impacts to other industries such as confectioners and corn producers. However, Ross noted the US sugar industry is “not on board” with the agreement. However, he added there would be a final drafting stage, during which the two sides would try to make it easier for US sugar producers to “come on board” with the deal.

“Unfortunately, despite all of these gains, the US sugar industry has said it is unable to support the new agreement, but we remain hopeful that further progress can be made during the drafting process,” Ross observed. “We look forward to continuing discussions with them as we finalize the agreement. We remain confident that this deal defends American workers across many industries and is the best way to ensure stability and growth.”

The draft amendments, if finalized, would update certain provisions, such as, in the countervailing duty (CVD) agreement, the ratio between the quantities of Refined and Other Sugar that Mexico may export to the United States during a given export limit period, and the polarity division between the two types of sugar, according to information from the US Commerce Department

Further, in the antidumping (AD) agreement, Commerce said the minimum prices of Other Sugar and Refined Sugar would be higher to ensure that Mexican sugar imports do not suppress or undercut domestic price levels, in accordance with statutory requirements. The reference price for Other Sugar is being raised from 22.25 cents per pound to a level of 23 cents per pound, while the Refined Sugar price is being raised from 26 cents per pound to a price of 28 cents per pound.

There are also enhanced monitoring and enforcement provisions such as a requirement for polarity testing and stiff penalties for non-compliance, Commerce said. The AD and CVD Agreements signed by the Department and the Mexican government in December 2014 differentiated between “Refined Sugar” at a polarity of 99.5 degrees and above, and “Other Sugar” at a polarity less than 99.5 degrees, and provided that no more than 53 percent of Mexican exports could be of Refined Sugar.

The new deal defines “Refined Sugar” as sugar at a polarity of 99.2 degrees and above, and “Other Sugar” as sugar at a polarity less than 99.2 degrees and shipped in bulk, according to the Commerce Department. There are also shipping conditions for Other Sugar with provisions to address concerns regarding ensuring an adequate supply of sugar in the US market, and concerns that a large portion of Other Sugar is bypassing cane refiners for direct consumption or end use.

Because these changes substantially decrease the proportion of sugar from Mexico that may be Refined Sugar and mean that a higher reference price applies to semi-refined sugar, Commerce said, there is a greater likelihood that sufficient sugar for further processing would be available in the US market.

“This agreement protects American workers and consumers and marks a dramatic improvement for the US sugar industry,” USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue said in a statement. “The accord sharply reduces the percentage of Mexican refined sugar that may be imported into the United States and also lowers the polarity dividing line between refined and raw sugar. We also achieved better pricing agreements for the industry. And significantly, the agreement requires that raw Mexican sugar be shipped flowing freely in the holds of ocean-going vessels, rather than being shipped in packages or by land. Finally, it is of great importance that USDA will have the flexibility to protect the U.S. sugar industry by making polarity adjustments in the event of extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances. These are important wins in the negotiations, and I congratulate President Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross for their tenacity.”

The deal also “prevented potentially significant and retaliatory actions by the Mexican sugar industry and sets an important tone of good faith leading up to the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement,” Perdue said. “I maintain that if the rules are fair and the playing field is level, American agricultural products will succeed, thrive, and lead the way.”

U.S. sugar growers said they are worried that a “loophole” in the preliminary sugar trade deal undermines the entire agreement and damages USDA’s ability to operate the sugar price-support program. Sugar growers fear the agreement, as it currently stands, gives Mexico too much of the existing U.S. power to determine the “type and polarity” of any additional sugar that needs to be imported to meet U.S. domestic demand. Polarity refers to the purity of sugar, including whether it is classified as raw or refined. “Mexico could exploit this loophole to continue to dump subsidized sugar into the U.S. market and short U.S. refineries of raw sugar inputs,” Phillip Hayes, a spokesman for the American Sugar Alliance, said in a statement. “It is important to note that the U.S. sugar industry has made substantial compromises throughout the negotiations,” Hayes continued. “That includes giving Mexico 100 percent of additional U.S. needs on the condition that the U.S. government retains its authority to regulate additional imports into the U.S. market.”

The sugar growers, however, commended Commerce Secretary Ross for making progress toward reaching a deal and said they will work with him “in the coming days to see if that loophole can be effectively closed.”

What are the Key Elements of the Deal?

The Department of Commerce and the Government of Mexico (GOM) and the Mexican sugar industry have reached agreement on draft amendments to the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) suspension agreements on sugar from Mexico.

The draft amendments, if finalized, would update certain provisions, such as, in the CVD agreement, the ratio between the quantities of Refined and Other Sugar that Mexico may export to the United States during a given export limit period, and the polarity division between the two types of sugar.

Further, in the AD agreement, the minimum prices of Other Sugar and Refined Sugar would be higher to ensure that Mexican sugar imports do not suppress or undercut domestic price levels, in accordance with statutory requirements.

Finally, each agreement would contain enhanced monitoring and enforcement provisions such as a requirement for polarity testing and stiff penalties for non-compliance.

Each of these elements of the draft amendments, if finalized, would ensure that the agreements provide an adequate remedy to the US domestic sugar industry against the dumping and unfair subsidization determined in the investigations.

In addition, the amendments will ensure that the sugar suspension agreements continue to promote stability in the US sugar market, in coordination with USDA’s sugar program.

What are the Improvements and How Do They Address the Problems?

The AD and CVD Agreements signed by the Department and the GOM in December 2014 differentiated between “Refined Sugar” at a polarity of 99.5 degrees and above, and “Other Sugar” at a polarity less than 99.5 degrees, and provided that no more than 53 percent of Mexican exports could be of Refined Sugar.

By contrast, the draft amendments define “Refined Sugar” as sugar at a polarity of 99.2 degrees and above, and “Other Sugar” as sugar at a polarity less than 99.2 degrees and shipped in bulk, freely flowing.

These changes, which move the dividing line between Refined and Other Sugar down to 99.2 from 99.5 degrees, and add shipping conditions for Other Sugar, address concerns regarding ensuring an adequate supply of sugar in the U.S. market, and concerns that a large portion of Other Sugar is bypassing cane refiners for direct consumption or end use.

Specifically, the petitioners have asserted that the sale of Mexican semi-refined sugar subject (to which the lower reference price of Other Sugar set in the AD Agreement applies) hinders the competitiveness of U.S. cane refiners by substantively diminishing the supply of Mexican sugar for their processing operations, and suppressing U.S. prices for refined sugar.

Because these changes substantially decrease the proportion of Sugar from Mexico that may be Refined Sugar and mean that a higher reference price applies to semi-refined sugar, there is a greater likelihood that sufficient sugar for further processing would be available in the U.S. market.

For post-April 1 additional needs sugar (over the expected fiscal year U.S. needs) granted to Mexico, USDA will specify whether raw or refined sugar is needed but at a polarity divide of 99.5 and without regard to the pre-April 1 70/30 split. Importantly, when additional needs sugar is granted to Mexico prior to April 1, such sugar shall be subject to the pre-April 1 70/30 split and the 99.2 polarity divide, added protections for U.S. domestic refiners. Further, USDA retains the flexibility to specify the polarity of post-April 1 additional needs sugar specifically needed to rectify certain extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances that seriously threaten the economic viability of the U.S. sugar refining industry.

Further, the reference price for Other Sugar is being raised from 22.25 cents/pound to 23 cents/pound, while the Refined Sugar price is being raised from 26 cents/pound to 28 cents/pound.

In addition, the spread between the two prices has increased. This enhanced pricing structure serves to ensure that U.S. producers’ prices are not suppressed or undercut by imports of Mexican sugar, thereby ensuring that the agreements provide an adequate remedy to the U.S. domestic industry found to have been injured.

First Thing Today: Budget Cut Proposals Could Include Crop Insurance, Food Stamps

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 02:58:21 GMT

Softer tone in grain and soybean markets overnight... Corn and soybean futures are steady to fractionally lower of as of 6:30 a.m. CT. Winter wheat futures are down 4 to 5 cents, while spring wheat is mixed with a downside bias. The U.S. dollar index is holding near unchanged, while crude oil futures are slightly higher.

Export sales report out this morning... USDA will release its weekly update on export sales activity at 7: 30 a.m. CT. Traders expect the report to show corn sales ranging from 650,000 MT to 1.050 MMT, soybean sales between 350,000 and 750,000 MT, wheat sales of 300,000 MT to 500,000 MT, soymeal sales ranging from 50,000 MT to 300,000 MT and soyoil sales between 8,000 MT and 40,000 MT..

Mandatory budget cut proposals could include food stamps, crop insurance... House Budget Committee Republicans are close to a fiscal 2018 budget resolution that would raise defense spending and cut nondefense spending slightly and require a minimum of $150 billion in mandatory spending cuts over 10 years, with tentative cuts for food stamp funding and perhaps crop insurance. House Ag Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas) has been talking with the budget committee and arguing against raiding the ag budget. Spending limits would be $72.5 billion above the fiscal 2018 defense discretionary cap of $549 billion, and $5 billion below the nondefense cap of $516 billion. The goal is to mark up the budget next week, likely Wednesday. If the committee marked up the plan next week, House floor consideration would not likely occur until after the July Fourth recess.

Trump comments on ethanol, estate tax, regulations and trade policy... President Donald Trump in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Wednesday, said that his administration’s efforts to remove regulations, negotiate better trade deals, eliminate the death tax, promote ethanol and focus on worker training “will usher in a new era of prosperity for American agriculture.” Trump noted that, “Farming, that is something very beautiful to me; I’m not a farmer, but I’d be very happy to be one.” Of note, Trump acknowledged that erasing the estate tax won’t be so easy. “I don’t know if we are going to pull that one off, but we are working very hard to do it,” he said.

Senate Republicans to release version of healthcare reform legislation this morning... It will be the first time the public will get to see what they have been working on behind closed doors. The Congressional Budget Office is expected to release its analysis of the bill early next week, with a Senate vote possible before the July 4 recess. There are concerns the bill would undermine coverage in Rural America.

Paraguayan farmers protest new tax on ag exports... Farmers in Paraguay protested yesterday against a proposed 15% tax on corn, soy and wheat exports that its Senate will likely vote on today. Growers argue the tax would end corn and wheat planting and diminish soybean production. The proposal stemmed from a leftist coalition in Congress, but President Horacio Cartes’s party agreed to support the measure as part of a political deal formed last week that allowed the party to take back control of Congress. Paraguay’s finance minister warned the tax would hurt the country’s fast-growing economy and suggested raising the value-added tax on agriculture as an alternative.

Bigger Mexican corn crop to curb its 2016-17 import needs... Mexico’s 2016-17 corn crop will likely total 27.4 MMT, says a USDA ag attaché in the country, which is above USDA’s official 27.0-MMT crop peg. “This in turn will reduce corn imports,” the post notes. It pegs Mexico’s 2016-17 imports at 13.9 MMT, which is 900,000 MT lighter than USDA’s official forecast. The U.S. is expected to contribute 13.6 MMT of this figure. Looking ahead to 2017-18, the attache expects Mexico to bring in 15.5 MMT of corn, including 15.350 MMT from the United States.

Ergot played a role in Egyptian court’s decision to halt new food inspection system... This month, an Egyptian court suspended the country’s new food inspection system, and the written verdict explained that the inspection system “resulted in a breach of the [import] requirements stipulated by the agriculture ministry’s quarantine service, which banned the entry of wheat shipments containing pests that are prohibited from entering the country, including the fungus ergot.” This raises concern that the controversial rule on ergot could be reenacted if the ag ministry resumes authority over inspections.

Light sales of 2013-crop corn at Chinese reserve auctions... China sold 120,924 MT of 2013 corn at its auction of state reserves today, or just 9.38% of the more than 1.288 MMT up for grabs. The grain sold at an average price of 1,386 yuan ($202.90) per metric ton.

U.S. cattle futures trading firm gets fined by CFTC… Fines totaling $5 million were levied against McVean Trading and Investments (MTI) and three associates for market manipulation in live cattle futures, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced. Civil penalties of $2 million were leveled against McVean Chairman and Chief Executive Charles Dow McVean, Sr., with $1.5 million to be paid by MTI. President Michael J. Wharton was fined $1 million and Samuel C. Gilmore, an MTI consultant, was ordered to pay $500,000.

Brazil suspends beef exports to the U.S. from some plants amid food-safety concerns... Brazil suspended exports of fresh beef to the U.S. from five slaughterhouses belonging to the country’s three biggest meat producers because of what the ag ministry called “irregularities” observed in the beef by U.S. authorities. A June 21 statement from the Brazilian Association of Beef Industry Exports (ABIEC) said the suspension occurred “after the detection of [bovine] reactions to the vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease, that in some cases can provoke internal, and not externally visible abscesses.” ABIEC called the suspension “a temporary, preventative action to avoid problems on the U.S. market.” The ministry received an alert from USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service about the irregularities June 16 and suspended exports from the five slaughterhouses the same day, the ministry said. The suspension will last until “corrective measures are taken to normalize the situation,” the statement said.

Cash cattle trade gets underway at lower levels, as expected... Cash cattle trade picked up across the Plains yesterday around $122. While packer profit margins are near the $200 per cwt. threshold, an uptick in showlist numbers and softer beef prices meant they could slash cash prices this week. Last week, trade took place at an average price near $130.

Pork price surge continues... The pork cutout value climbed another $1.67 today, putting it within 3 cents of the $100.00 per cwt. level. Also encouraging, movement was impressive at 360.99 loads, keeping concerns that the lofty price level might slow demand at bay for now. Bellies again led gains.

Overnight demand news... Egypt tendered to buy an unspecified amount of wheat from global suppliers. Japan bought 69,961 MT of food-quality wheat from the U.S. as well as 31,106 MT from Canada and 34,680 MT from Australia.

Today’s reports:

7:30 a.m., Weekly Export Sales -- FAS
7:30 a.m., Drought Monitor -- USDA/NWS
2:00 p.m., Cold Storage -- NASS
2:00 p.m., Livestock Slaughter -- NASS