Dairy checkoff initiatives of 2024 successfully increased dairy access in schools, expanded market share for U.S. dairy products domestically and internationally and supported the industry’s commitment to sustainability. 

Dairy Management Inc. President and CEO Barbara O’Brien says the checkoff is working and achieving a lot in building its next chapter. She outlined the “Now, Next, and Future” checkoff strategies at the joint annual meeting. “All of the successes were made possible by the dedication and hard work of everyone across the checkoff federation,” O’Brien said. “This was a strong year of results as we continue to work with and through others to catalyze action in energizing our trust- and sales-building priorities.” 

The Dairy Checkoff launched the Dairy Conservation Navigator, a resource hub designed to give farm advisors, stakeholders, and conservation professionals science-based information on sustainable practices and technologies. DMI also unveiled its InnovateWithDairy.com tool to help spur industry innovation ideas.

Dairy checkoff initiatives of 2024 successfully increased dairy access in schools, expanded market share for U.S. dairy products domestically and internationally and supported the industry’s commitment to sustainability. Dairy Management Inc. President and CEO Barbara O’Brien says the checkoff is working and achieving a lot in building its next chapter. She outlined the “Now, Next, and Future” checkoff strategies at the joint annual meeting. “All of the successes were made possible by the dedication and hard work of everyone across the checkoff federation,” O’Brien said. “This was a strong year of results as we continue to work with and through others to catalyze action in energizing our trust- and sales-building priorities.” The Dairy Checkoff launched the Dairy Conservation Navigator, a resource hub designed to give farm advisors, stakeholders, and conservation professionals science-based information on sustainable practices and technologies. DMI also unveiled its InnovateWithDairy.com tool to help spur industry innovation ideas.- NAFB

Dairy Checkoff Highlights 2024 Work

The U.S. is on pace to surpass five billion gallons of biodiesel and renewable diesel consumption for the first time. 

That caps a 2024 that saw increased efforts from states to drive adoption, updates to technical standards, growth in soybean crush capacity, and growing public support for clean transportation fuel. Clean Fuels Alliance America CEO Donnell Rehagen says a strong 2024 has set the industry up for further growth in air, marine, rail, and heavy-duty transportation use. “Consumers and corporations are demanding more clean fuel, and they are increasingly turning to biodiesel and renewable diesel for it,” Rehagen said. “Our industry has become a central force in the global effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions.” 

One factor in the improvement is the number of states that implemented clean fuel policies. Updated fuel specs will create opportunities in the new year. Biodiesel and renewable diesel will continue making farms stronger in 2025.

The U.S. is on pace to surpass five billion gallons of biodiesel and renewable diesel consumption for the first time. That caps a 2024 that saw increased efforts from states to drive adoption, updates to technical standards, growth in soybean crush capacity, and growing public support for clean transportation fuel. Clean Fuels Alliance America CEO Donnell Rehagen says a strong 2024 has set the industry up for further growth in air, marine, rail, and heavy-duty transportation use. “Consumers and corporations are demanding more clean fuel, and they are increasingly turning to biodiesel and renewable diesel for it,” Rehagen said. “Our industry has become a central force in the global effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions.” One factor in the improvement is the number of states that implemented clean fuel policies. Updated fuel specs will create opportunities in the new year. Biodiesel and renewable diesel will continue making farms stronger in 2025.- NAFB

Rapid Growth for Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel in 2024

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association says a recent decision putting the Corporate Transparency Act reporting requirements on hold is “confusing.” 

Kent Bacus, NCBA Executive Director of Government Affairs, says the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court reversed the ruling it had issued before Christmas and has instead decided to uphold the injunction blocking the Corporate Transparency Act from taking effect. “This means U.S. cattle producers have yet another reprieve from filing beneficial ownership information with the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCen,” Bacus says. “These court rulings have gone back and forth and continue to add to the overall confusion.”

 He also says NCBA urges all cattle producers to consult with their attorney and tax professional for the latest information in case of more changes. “NCBA is continuing to urge Congress to pass legislation that will permanently protect cattle farmers and ranchers from this burdensome mandate,” Bacus added.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association says a recent decision putting the Corporate Transparency Act reporting requirements on hold is “confusing.” Kent Bacus, NCBA Executive Director of Government Affairs, says the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court reversed the ruling it had issued before Christmas and has instead decided to uphold the injunction blocking the Corporate Transparency Act from taking effect. “This means U.S. cattle producers have yet another reprieve from filing beneficial ownership information with the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCen,” Bacus says. “These court rulings have gone back and forth and continue to add to the overall confusion.” He also says NCBA urges all cattle producers to consult with their attorney and tax professional for the latest information in case of more changes. “NCBA is continuing to urge Congress to pass legislation that will permanently protect cattle farmers and ranchers from this burdensome mandate,” Bacus added.- NAFB

NCBA Reacts to Temporary Relief from CTA

Thanks to a dedicated group of 16 Angus breeders, the Fund the Future Campaign garnered $36,400 for the Angus Fund in fiscal year 2024. 

The funds help support the Foundation’s mission and events like the Beef Leaders Institute and Young Cattlemen’s Conference. The Angus Foundation is excited about the new year and the opportunities it brings. In the new year, an anonymous donor pledged to match the first $30,000 raised, effectively doubling the impact of every dollar donated. “I’m thrilled to watch the campaign expand and see more breeders getting involved in 2025,” says Jaclyn Boester, Angus Foundation executive director. “The simplicity of participation has sparked excitement, with breeders eager to contribute and knowing their donations are making an impact on the Angus breed.” 

The Fund the Future Campaign offers breeders a unique opportunity to give back through annual production sales, consignment sales, bull sales, or even private treaty opportunities.

Thanks to a dedicated group of 16 Angus breeders, the Fund the Future Campaign garnered $36,400 for the Angus Fund in fiscal year 2024. The funds help support the Foundation’s mission and events like the Beef Leaders Institute and Young Cattlemen’s Conference. The Angus Foundation is excited about the new year and the opportunities it brings. In the new year, an anonymous donor pledged to match the first $30,000 raised, effectively doubling the impact of every dollar donated. “I’m thrilled to watch the campaign expand and see more breeders getting involved in 2025,” says Jaclyn Boester, Angus Foundation executive director. “The simplicity of participation has sparked excitement, with breeders eager to contribute and knowing their donations are making an impact on the Angus breed.” The Fund the Future Campaign offers breeders a unique opportunity to give back through annual production sales, consignment sales, bull sales, or even private treaty opportunities.- NAFB

Angus Foundation is Funding the Future

Following Congressional votes on year-end legislation, National Corn Growers Association President Ken Hartmann, Jr., says corn growers were disappointed about no year-round access to E15. 

“We thought it would be in the end-of-year legislation package,” he said. “This no-cost provision would have provided a market-driven solution to farmers experiencing low corn prices.” The organization is calling on legislators to address this matter as quickly as possible at the start of the new Congress and fix the issue once and for all. 

“The National Corn Growers Association is appreciative of House and Senate Agriculture Committee leadership and our other champions who worked hard to extend the farm bill and provide much-needed economic and disaster assistance in farm country,” said Hartmann, Jr., a farmer from Illinois. “This assistance will help growers reeling from natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires and multiple years of low crop prices paired with higher input costs.”

Following Congressional votes on year-end legislation, National Corn Growers Association President Ken Hartmann, Jr., says corn growers were disappointed about no year-round access to E15. “We thought it would be in the end-of-year legislation package,” he said. “This no-cost provision would have provided a market-driven solution to farmers experiencing low corn prices.” The organization is calling on legislators to address this matter as quickly as possible at the start of the new Congress and fix the issue once and for all. “The National Corn Growers Association is appreciative of House and Senate Agriculture Committee leadership and our other champions who worked hard to extend the farm bill and provide much-needed economic and disaster assistance in farm country,” said Hartmann, Jr., a farmer from Illinois. “This assistance will help growers reeling from natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires and multiple years of low crop prices paired with higher input costs.”- NAFB

NCGA Disappointed in No Year-Round E15

U.S. agriculture is bracing for a potential work stoppage at East and Gulf Coast ports that could greatly disrupt American red meat exports. 

Contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association and the U.S. Maritime Alliance broke down in mid-November over issues related to automation and have shown little progress over the past month. The two sides reached a tentative agreement on wages in early October and temporarily extended the existing labor agreement. However, the contract extension will expire on January 15. The U.S. Meat Export Federation says the uncertainty is already impacting red meat exports. 

USMEF President Dan Halstrom says ocean carriers are announcing surcharges related to a potential strike, and exporters are forced to look, where possible, to divert shipments to other ports. Approximately 45 percent of waterborne U.S. pork exports ship out of the East and Gulf Coast ports, and on the beef side, that total is 30 percent.

U.S. agriculture is bracing for a potential work stoppage at East and Gulf Coast ports that could greatly disrupt American red meat exports. Contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association and the U.S. Maritime Alliance broke down in mid-November over issues related to automation and have shown little progress over the past month. The two sides reached a tentative agreement on wages in early October and temporarily extended the existing labor agreement. However, the contract extension will expire on January 15. The U.S. Meat Export Federation says the uncertainty is already impacting red meat exports. USMEF President Dan Halstrom says ocean carriers are announcing surcharges related to a potential strike, and exporters are forced to look, where possible, to divert shipments to other ports. Approximately 45 percent of waterborne U.S. pork exports ship out of the East and Gulf Coast ports, and on the beef side, that total is 30 percent.- NAFB

Port Labor Dispute Affecting Red Meat Exports

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association wants to remind all producers that the Corporate Transparency Act filing requirements are back in effect. A recent court of appeals decision reversed an injunction that previously had stopped the mandate. NCBA Executive Director of Government Affairs, Kent Bacus says, “The Corporate Transparency Act requires millions of family farmers and ranchers to file complex paperwork and disclose beneficial ownership information with the federal government under penalty of severe fines and jail time.”  

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association wants to remind all producers that the Corporate Transparency Act filing requirements are back in effect. A recent court of appeals decision reversed an injunction that previously had stopped the mandate. NCBA Executive Director of Government Affairs, Kent Bacus says, “The Corporate Transparency Act requires millions of family farmers and ranchers to file complex paperwork and disclose beneficial ownership information with the federal government under penalty of severe fines and jail time.”

Beneficial ownership deadline extended

A Continuing Resolution keeping the government fully funded through March 14, 2025, also included economic aid for farmers experiencing one of the biggest income drops in many years. In fact, over the past two years, USDA projects that farmers will experience the steepest two-year decline in net farm income in history. Meanwhile, due to an ineffective safety net, government help for producers is slated to be at the lowest level since 1982. 

A Continuing Resolution keeping the government fully funded through March 14, 2025, also included economic aid for farmers experiencing one of the biggest income drops in many years. In fact, over the past two years, USDA projects that farmers will experience the steepest two-year decline in net farm income in history. Meanwhile, due to an ineffective safety net, government help for producers is slated to be at the lowest level since 1982.

Economic assistance for farmers will be distributed

The 2024 Organic Grower Summit in Monterey, California, again proved to be the premier gathering for the Organic farming community. The event welcomed hundreds of participants from across the U.S. organic industry. 

“This year’s enthusiastic participation underscores the growing interest in sustainable and innovative farming practices,” says Matt Jungmann, Farm Progress national events director. “The Organic Grower Summit provides a platform for collaboration and learning for stakeholders who are shaping the future of organic farming.” 

The seminar’s educational sessions covered critical topics like soil health, ag technology, and market resiliency. A major focus was the increasing importance of regenerative farming practices.

 “It’s inspiring to see the organic community come together to share knowledge and celebrate progress,” says Jungmann. “We’re grateful to our sponsors, partners, and exhibitors, and we’re already looking forward to next year.” 

The 2025 Organic Summit will return to Monterey, California, December 3-4. For updates, go to<a href="http://www.organicgrowersummit.com/en/home.html"> OrganicGrowerSummit.com</a>.

The 2024 Organic Grower Summit in Monterey, California, again proved to be the premier gathering for the Organic farming community. The event welcomed hundreds of participants from across the U.S. organic industry. “This year’s enthusiastic participation underscores the growing interest in sustainable and innovative farming practices,” says Matt Jungmann, Farm Progress national events director. “The Organic Grower Summit provides a platform for collaboration and learning for stakeholders who are shaping the future of organic farming.” The seminar’s educational sessions covered critical topics like soil health, ag technology, and market resiliency. A major focus was the increasing importance of regenerative farming practices. “It’s inspiring to see the organic community come together to share knowledge and celebrate progress,” says Jungmann. “We’re grateful to our sponsors, partners, and exhibitors, and we’re already looking forward to next year.” The 2025 Organic Summit will return to Monterey, California, December 3-4. For updates, go to<a href="http://www.organicgrowersummit.com/en/home.html"> OrganicGrowerSummit.com</a>.

Farm Progress holds successful 2024 Organic Grower Summit

Cattle and calves on feed for the slaughter market in the United States for feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 head or more totaled 12 million head on December 1, 2024. 

That inventory level was slightly below December 1, 2023. Placements in feedlots during November totaled 1.8 million head, four percent below the same time in 2023. Net placements totaled 1.74 million head. 

During November, placements of cattle and calves weighing less than 600 pounds were 495,000 ahead, 600-699 pounds were 420,000 head, 700-799 pounds totaled 375,000 head, 800-899 pounds were 276,000 head, 900-999 pounds totaled 145,000 head, and 1,000 pounds or greater reached 85,000 head. 

Marketings of fed cattle during November totaled 1.73 million head, one percent below November 2023. Other disappearances totaled 55,000 ahead during November, which was two percent higher than in 2023.

Cattle and calves on feed for the slaughter market in the United States for feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 head or more totaled 12 million head on December 1, 2024. That inventory level was slightly below December 1, 2023. Placements in feedlots during November totaled 1.8 million head, four percent below the same time in 2023. Net placements totaled 1.74 million head. During November, placements of cattle and calves weighing less than 600 pounds were 495,000 ahead, 600-699 pounds were 420,000 head, 700-799 pounds totaled 375,000 head, 800-899 pounds were 276,000 head, 900-999 pounds totaled 145,000 head, and 1,000 pounds or greater reached 85,000 head. Marketings of fed cattle during November totaled 1.73 million head, one percent below November 2023. Other disappearances totaled 55,000 ahead during November, which was two percent higher than in 2023.-NAFB

U.S. cattle on feed down slightly

In a major win for the nation’s corn growers, a USMCA dispute panel ruled that Mexico violated its commitments under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. 

The violation took place in early 2023 when Mexico issued a decree that banned genetically modified corn imports. 

“This is an incredible development for the nation’s corn growers and rural communities,” says Kenneth Hartman, Jr., president of the National Corn Growers Association. “The outcome is a direct result of advocacy efforts of corn grower leaders from across the country.” 

The U.S. Grains Council also hailed the good news. 

“Mexico has always been a powerful partner to U.S. corn growers and exporters, so when the country tried banning GM imports, it would have severely affected our industry,” says Ryan LeGrand, USGC President and CEO. “The Council worked to help ensure the dispute result was fair, and we look forward to continuing our work with our top U.S. grains-in-all-forms customer.”

In a major win for the nation’s corn growers, a USMCA dispute panel ruled that Mexico violated its commitments under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The violation took place in early 2023 when Mexico issued a decree that banned genetically modified corn imports. “This is an incredible development for the nation’s corn growers and rural communities,” says Kenneth Hartman, Jr., president of the National Corn Growers Association. “The outcome is a direct result of advocacy efforts of corn grower leaders from across the country.” The U.S. Grains Council also hailed the good news. “Mexico has always been a powerful partner to U.S. corn growers and exporters, so when the country tried banning GM imports, it would have severely affected our industry,” says Ryan LeGrand, USGC President and CEO. “The Council worked to help ensure the dispute result was fair, and we look forward to continuing our work with our top U.S. grains-in-all-forms customer.”-NAFB

Groups react to USMCA panel decision

On Monday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court lifted a federal district court’s earlier order, which had previously halted the January 1, 2025 deadline for small businesses to file their beneficial ownership information with the Treasury Department. 

The Corporate Transparency Act passed by Congress in 2021 requires the paperwork to be filed by the Treasury’s Finanicial Crimes Enforcement Network. The CTA requires that owners and part-owners of an estimated 32.6 million small businesses, including 230,000 farms, must register their personal information with FinCEN. 

The American Farm Bureau estimates that this appeals court ruling now puts tens of thousands of farms back on the legal deadline to register their businesses with the federal government. Of the 230,000 farms that are likely required to file, only 11 percent had done so as of October.

 Farmers are encouraged to contact an accountant or an attorney if they are unsure about whether they are required to file the information.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On Monday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court lifted a federal district court’s earlier order, which had previously halted the January 1, 2025 deadline for small businesses to file their beneficial ownership information with the Treasury Department. The Corporate Transparency Act passed by Congress in 2021 requires the paperwork to be filed by the Treasury’s Finanicial Crimes Enforcement Network. The CTA requires that owners and part-owners of an estimated 32.6 million small businesses, including 230,000 farms, must register their personal information with FinCEN. The American Farm Bureau estimates that this appeals court ruling now puts tens of thousands of farms back on the legal deadline to register their businesses with the federal government. Of the 230,000 farms that are likely required to file, only 11 percent had done so as of October. Farmers are encouraged to contact an accountant or an attorney if they are unsure about whether they are required to file the information.&nbsp;&nbsp;-NAFB

Court reinstates beneficial ownership requirement

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/eganward/">EGAN WARD</a>

DEXTER, Missouri – On an early August morning in 2023, Shawn Hinkle received a call from one of his technicians at Tyson Foods who, through tears, told him the company’s plant in Dexter was shutting down.

Hundreds of jobs at the poultry slaughterhouse would be lost and farmers like Hinkle, who contracted with Tyson to raise egg-laying hens, would be out of business.

A decade earlier, Hinkle borrowed $2.3 million to build two chicken houses on his land. After struggling to keep up with Tyson’s standards and investing in his farm, Hinkle now owed $2.8 million and faced the prospect of losing it all in bankruptcy.

Tyson said the Dexter plant closure was part of a national effort to streamline production and boost profits —&nbsp;<a href="https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/05/08/early-morning-calls-barren-chicken-barns-millions-in-debt/" target="_blank">the company also closed three other poultry plants and two beef packing plants</a>.

But Tyson’s explanation didn’t make sense to Hinkle and several other farmers who, in December 2023, sued the giant meat company for breaking its contracts.

As the lawsuit moves forward, a&nbsp;<a href="https://watchdogwritersgroup.com/" target="_blank">Watchdog Writers Group</a>&nbsp;analysis of documents filed in the case, in partnership with Investigate Midwest, reveals Tyson coordinated closely with Cal-Maine Foods, the company that ended up buying the Dexter plant. That coordination prevented farmers from continuing their same operations with another Tyson competitor.

Documents also show Tyson tried to prevent its former contract farmers from seeking legal remedies over the broken contracts, and has possibly attempted to discourage farmers from speaking with federal officials and journalists.

Tyson Foods declined to answer detailed questions about the allegations of the lawsuit.

After purchasing the Dexter plant, Cal-Maine offered contracts to local farmers if they retrofitted their farms to raise table egg-laying hens rather than chickens for meat. Unlike many area farmers, Hinke raised egg-laying hens to produce more chicks, which were sent to other farmers. Raising hens for Cal-Maine would have required a significant operational overall for Hinkle and other farmers.

But Cal-Maine’s offer came with a catch: The farmers would have to agree not to sue Tyson Foods for any losses because of the plant closure, according to court filings.

In another sign of coordination, Tyson provided the data that Cal-Maine used in its offer to farmers, according to a copy of the offer letter obtained by the Watchdog Writers Group.

By working with Cal-Maine, Tyson prevented the Dexter plant from being purchased by a competing poultry meat company, like *Perdue Foods or Sanderson Foods, according to attorneys representing Hinkle and his neighbors. Local poultry farmers could have transitioned more easily to new contracts with those competitors that produce meat, rather than eggs for consumption.

“Why on earth would Tyson do this?” Russ Oliver, a local attorney representing Hinkle and his neighbors asked during a court hearing in June. “Because if you keep it secret, then Perdue doesn’t find out about your plans. Then Sanderson doesn’t find out about your plans. And you gain a market advantage over the rest of the competition because they have six plants that are a​​ll of a sudden stopping production.”

Tyson Foods, which produces about one-fifth of all meat in the U.S., has faced numerous lawsuits and federal investigations over accusations of price fixing.

In&nbsp;2016, Tyson was sued in civil court by large meat wholesalers who claimed the company cut supplies to inflate chicken prices. Tyson settled that case for $221.5 million.

In&nbsp;2020, the U.S. Department of Justice sued large poultry companies, including Tyson, for allegedly colluding with competitors to raise prices. The case ended in a mistrial in 2022.

In&nbsp;2021, producers in Oklahoma, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia and Texas&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2021/09/23/growers-alleged-tyson-perdue-reduce" target="_blank">filed a lawsuit</a>&nbsp;that alleged Tyson and Perdue Foods shared grower pay data in order to suppress wages. Both companies settled for $35.8 million later that year.

None of these actions have significantly curbed Tyson’s market power, which, together with its next biggest competitor, Pilgrim’s Pride, controls about half the national market for chicken. In the&nbsp;late 1970s, more than 40 companies controlled half the market,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/41108/18011_aer785_1_.pdf?v=0" target="_blank">according to the USDA</a>.

The latest class action lawsuit filed by Hinkle and other Missouri farmers claims Tyson and Cal-Maine signed an agreement restricting how the Dexter poultry complex can be used for the next 25 years.

Since the lawsuit was filed, Hinkle and his attorneys also believe Tyson has tried to intimidate farmers and suppress media coverage. Tyson asked the court to compel Hinkle and others to reveal all contacts and conversations with officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates antitrust laws on behalf of farmers.

Tyson has also asked the court to make Hinkle and others reveal any and all contacts and conversations with journalists. Hinkle said he is undeterred and will continue seeking compensation through the lawsuit, which does not request a specific dollar amount.

“None of this is anything that we wanted. I didn’t ask for a year’s worth of not sleeping,” he said. “Then again, I’m not going to sit back and get screwed.”

Tyson’s promise of prosperity comes at a cost

Hinkle’s career with Tyson Foods began in 2013 when two managers from the plant said they had an offer that would change his life.

They said Hinkle could build a massive factory farm on his land — using borrowed money that Tyson would help him obtain — where he could raise tens of thousands of chickens at a time under contract for Tyson and earn a stable income for decades.

Hinkle lived on a sprawling cattle farm handed down to him from his father, a farm where Hinkle had been doing daily labor and chores since he was 12 years old. *By the time the Tyson managers came to visit, his 1,200-acre spread was nearly paid off.

Hinkle was hesitant about Tyson’s offer. He had heard stories about farmers being forced to borrow money and upgrade equipment, only to have contracts later terminated without warning.

But the Tyson managers assured him those were old stories.

Hinkle’s original fears came true a decade later when Tyson closed the Dexter plant.

Tyson’s tactics: Countersuits and secret deals

When Hinkle decided to sue Tyson, he wanted a lawyer who understood his perspective. He found that with Russell Oliver.

Born and raised in Puxico, Missouri (15 miles from Dexter), Oliver was a farm boy himself. Before becoming the district’s prosecuting attorney, a young Oliver dreamed of carrying on the legacy of his family’s farm. When Oliver’s father died in 1974, several of his family members dropped their individual pursuits for the sake of the farm. So, when Hinkle approached him, heartbroken and desperate for answers, Oliver felt he had no choice but to help him.

“Everything about this (case) hits so close to home, it’s so much more than lawsuits and money,” Oliver said. “I see my neighbors that share the same identity that I share going through something like this — there’s no way I can’t fight for them.”

In addition to Hinkle, the lawsuit includes four other farmers once under contract with Tyson: Jessie Bridwell, Richard and Samantha Green, as well as R&amp;S Green Farms LLC.​​ The plaintiffs allege that Tyson deliberately misled them by shutting down the Dexter Complex, which caused severe financial damages.

During an April 29 hearing in Stoddard County, Tyson’s lawyers pushed back on the allegation, pointing out that the farmers are still receiving payment from Tyson to this day. This compensation is called outtime payments and refers to the money given to farmers to cover the time it takes to remove birds, clean out their houses and bring in new birds.

Outtime payments are $0.02 per square foot of chicken houses, significantly less than a monthly payment. Hinkle said the payments have been inconsistent and are far lower than what’s needed to cover his debt. He said Tyson technicians assured him that it would take no longer than four to six weeks to receive outtime payments; however, Hinkle said payments sometimes took as long as 20 weeks to show up.’

“My outtime pay doesn’t even cover the electric bill, so what are we supposed to do?” he said. “You’re always in a tumble of not knowing what to do. You can’t budget anything, it’s just a constant state of chaos.”

The lawsuit also claims Tyson knew about the plant closure as early as 2021 when the company filed a disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission stating that it had “identified” and “targeted” $1 billion in recurring savings year to year as part of their new “Productivity Program.”

The lawsuit also claims Tyson tried to thwart competition with its sale of the Dexter plant to Cal-Maine Foods, which included an agreement restricting how the plant could be used.

Hinkle’s lawyers alleged that they have a copy of the agreement, and they quoted from it in a court filing. However, the contract language was redacted in the public court filing.

The agreement between Tyson and Cal-Maine “has eliminated (and will eliminate for 25 years) any competition in the Dexter market area for the services of chicken growers,” the lawsuit claims. The farmers believe Tyson intentionally prevented the sale to a competitor in order to cut supply and raise prices on poultry. The exact mechanisms by which the contract might restrict competition were redacted and remain under seal, according to court filings and Hinkle’s attorneys.

In August, Tyson Foods countersued two Dexter farmers — Elija and Melissa Skaggs — claiming their case should be dismissed because the farmers turned down a chance to sign new contracts with Cal-Maine.

In the countersuit, Tyson acknowledged the agreement’s existence by saying it had terminated it in July. Tyson said that it had originally signed the agreement because it was worried that Cal-Maine might buy the Dexter plant but then quickly sell it to a competing company that would raise “broiler” chickens for food. If that happened, Tyson would have essentially sold the plant to a direct competitor. Tyson said in the court filing that the company later became “comfortable that Cal-Maine was not trying to flip the Dexter complex,” so Tyson terminated the property use-agreement.

*Brandon Boulware, an attorney from Boulware Law representing Dexter’s farmers against Tyson, said terminating the agreement didn’t help the farmers, because the plant had already been transformed into a table-egg producing facility rather than one that produced broilers.

“The damage has already been done,” Boulware said.

Tyson’s agreement with Cal-Maine has also drawn the attention of state and federal lawmakers.

https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/25449738-us-sen-josh-hawley-letter/?embed=1

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, Missouri’s senior Republican senator, said Tyson’s CEO, Donnie King, personally reassured him in 2023 that Tyson would not prevent a competitor from buying the Dexter plant.

“You misled me,” Hawley wrote in a July 9 letter to King. “These are serious allegations, and the people of Missouri deserve to know the truth.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey echoed Hawley in an Oct. 3 letter to King, where he stated that it is “paramount that you do everything in your power to either keep the facilities open or sell to any interested party, including a competitor.”

When Hawley later learned about the property-use agreement between Tyson and Cal-Maine that Tyson kept from public filings, he called for it to be made public. The agreement was part of the larger sales contract between Tyson and Cal-Maine, and was not filed publicly with the county recorder of deeds, according to court documents. Bailey later joined the farmer’s lawsuit.

Confidential or concealed? Tyson’s documents under scrutiny&nbsp;

On June 26, the parties gathered in a small New Madrid County courtroom for a hearing. Behind the four lawyers for Tyson were seven empty wooden benches. On the other side, the plaintiffs’ legal counsel was made up of six lawyers, as well as Oliver’s son. Behind their table sat 11 people, many of them farmers in dirt-ridden boots and plaid dress shirts.

The 9 a.m. hearing was fiery from the outset. Of the 1,325 documents produced by Tyson Foods in the lawsuit, the plaintiff’s attorneys complained all three were being kept confidential. Tyson’s lawyers, led primarily by Zach Chaffee-McClure, argued that the opposing legal counsel had used some of the confidential documents without permission. They asked for the plaintiff’s lawyers, Brandon Boulware and Oliver, to be sanctioned.

Boulware and Oliver were quick to express their disbelief.

“This isn’t how we practice law in the (Missouri) Bootheel,” Oliver said. “(Tyson) wants to deflect, they want this to be about the lawyers and not the crimes.”

Boulware, who was from Kansas City, echoed Oliver’s sentiment. “I’ve been in law since 2005, and I have never been sanctioned; this is a first for me,” Boulware said. “I agree, this is not how things are done in the Bootheel, but it’s not how they are done in Kansas City, either.”

Later, Oliver argued that Tyson was concealing evidence of breaking the law. Oliver asked for four confidential documents to be made public, which included the sale agreement with Cal-Maine.

Oliver also said he had no plans to settle with Tyson and promised the judge that, if given permission, they would disclose these documents to government officials like Bailey, Hawley, USDA and the Department of Justice.

McClure, Tyson’s attorney, responded that his client cooperates with the federal government “all the time,” and that the company is allowed to designate any business or competitive document confidential.

Tyson’s other lawyer argued, using the example of a donut shop, that a business preventing the sale of its property to a competitor happens all the time and is not a crime.

Tyson’s market power under the microscope&nbsp;

If the allegations of antitrust violations are accurate, Tyson Foods could face serious consequences, said Claire Kelloway, program manager for fair food and farming systems at Open Markets Institute, a Washington, DC-based think tank focused on the dangers of monopolization.

“Tyson is a brand that comes with a lot of baggage for those covering the food industry,” Kelloway said. “Tyson gets some of the credit for turning the industry into this really vertically-integrated model that centralizes a lot of control over the supply chain in one company.”

Calling the poultry industry “extremely unfair” and “exploitative” of farmers, Kelloway added that Tyson’s size and political power make it difficult to hold them accountable.

“The industry needs a lot of sunlight and scrutiny,” she said. “Hopefully, the reforms and rulemaking keep coming until these antitrust laws are being enforced as intended.”

Just shy of two months after the hearing, Tyson’s legal counsel said it would depose Hinkle and the other plaintiffs.

Hinkle was also sent a more demanding request. Tyson filed a motion that would compel him to provide complete copies of all recordings and written communications that he and his attorneys had with media outlets. Tyson also demanded all of Hinkle’s communications with the USDA, which enforces antitrust law for farmers.

Boulware said that his law firm had obeyed Tyson’s subpoena and was compelled to hand over documents related to the firm’s communication with journalists.

“It’s unprecedented for a defendant to seek documents, or communication between a lawyer and the press, rather than defend their own misconduct,” Boulware said.

Tyson also subpoenaed two news organizations: KFVS12, a television station in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and Talk Business and Politics, a news website in Arkansas. In the subpoenas, Tyson demanded copies of all communications between reporters and Hinkle. The local media outlets that were subpoenaed refused to cooperate, Boulware said, and Tyson has refused to enforce those subpoenas.

Both KFVS12 and Talk Business and Politics declined to comment.

With a trial date set for next June, a lifestyle of financial and emotional uncertainty persists for many of the farmers of the Dexter complex. For Hinkle and other plaintiffs, this lawsuit is personal. They, along with Oliver and Boulware, insist this has never been about money; it is about what is right and wrong.

“These companies need to understand that the days of building an empire on our backs and then just throwing us out like garbage is over,” Hinkle said. “Not anymore.”

In November, Tyson Foods reported its quarterly earnings. The news was great for Tyson shareholders. Tyson’s poultry division made a profit of $409 million for the quarter, compared to a loss of $267 million the year before.

This&nbsp;<a href="https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/12/17/tyson-foods-cut-contracts-with-poultry-farmers-now-the-company-is-working-to-silence-their-legal-fight/" target="_blank">article</a>&nbsp;first appeared on&nbsp;<a href="https://investigatemidwest.org/" target="_blank">Investigate Midwest</a>&nbsp;and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/12/1734607642518.png" alt=" A farm near Sikeston on April 17 where the owner raised chickens before market changes (photo by Daniel Byrd, for Investigate Midwest)." />
 <figcaption> A farm near Sikeston on April 17 where the owner raised chickens before market changes (photo by Daniel Byrd, for Investigate Midwest).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/eganward/">EGAN WARD</a>DEXTER, Missouri – On an early August morning in 2023, Shawn Hinkle received a call from one of his technicians at Tyson Foods who, through tears, told him the company’s plant in Dexter was shutting down.Hundreds of jobs at the poultry slaughterhouse would be lost and farmers like Hinkle, who contracted with Tyson to raise egg-laying hens, would be out of business.A decade earlier, Hinkle borrowed $2.3 million to build two chicken houses on his land. After struggling to keep up with Tyson’s standards and investing in his farm, Hinkle now owed $2.8 million and faced the prospect of losing it all in bankruptcy.Tyson said the Dexter plant closure was part of a national effort to streamline production and boost profits —&nbsp;<a href="https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/05/08/early-morning-calls-barren-chicken-barns-millions-in-debt/" target="_blank">the company also closed three other poultry plants and two beef packing plants</a>.But Tyson’s explanation didn’t make sense to Hinkle and several other farmers who, in December 2023, sued the giant meat company for breaking its contracts.As the lawsuit moves forward, a&nbsp;<a href="https://watchdogwritersgroup.com/" target="_blank">Watchdog Writers Group</a>&nbsp;analysis of documents filed in the case, in partnership with Investigate Midwest, reveals Tyson coordinated closely with Cal-Maine Foods, the company that ended up buying the Dexter plant. That coordination prevented farmers from continuing their same operations with another Tyson competitor.Documents also show Tyson tried to prevent its former contract farmers from seeking legal remedies over the broken contracts, and has possibly attempted to discourage farmers from speaking with federal officials and journalists.Tyson Foods declined to answer detailed questions about the allegations of the lawsuit.After purchasing the Dexter plant, Cal-Maine offered contracts to local farmers if they retrofitted their farms to raise table egg-laying hens rather than chickens for meat. Unlike many area farmers, Hinke raised egg-laying hens to produce more chicks, which were sent to other farmers. Raising hens for Cal-Maine would have required a significant operational overall for Hinkle and other farmers.But Cal-Maine’s offer came with a catch: The farmers would have to agree not to sue Tyson Foods for any losses because of the plant closure, according to court filings.In another sign of coordination, Tyson provided the data that Cal-Maine used in its offer to farmers, according to a copy of the offer letter obtained by the Watchdog Writers Group.By working with Cal-Maine, Tyson prevented the Dexter plant from being purchased by a competing poultry meat company, like *Perdue Foods or Sanderson Foods, according to attorneys representing Hinkle and his neighbors. Local poultry farmers could have transitioned more easily to new contracts with those competitors that produce meat, rather than eggs for consumption.“Why on earth would Tyson do this?” Russ Oliver, a local attorney representing Hinkle and his neighbors asked during a court hearing in June. “Because if you keep it secret, then Perdue doesn’t find out about your plans. Then Sanderson doesn’t find out about your plans. And you gain a market advantage over the rest of the competition because they have six plants that are a​​ll of a sudden stopping production.”Tyson Foods, which produces about one-fifth of all meat in the U.S., has faced numerous lawsuits and federal investigations over accusations of price fixing.In&nbsp;2016, Tyson was sued in civil court by large meat wholesalers who claimed the company cut supplies to inflate chicken prices. Tyson settled that case for $221.5 million.In&nbsp;2020, the U.S. Department of Justice sued large poultry companies, including Tyson, for allegedly colluding with competitors to raise prices. The case ended in a mistrial in 2022.In&nbsp;2021, producers in Oklahoma, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia and Texas&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2021/09/23/growers-alleged-tyson-perdue-reduce" target="_blank">filed a lawsuit</a>&nbsp;that alleged Tyson and Perdue Foods shared grower pay data in order to suppress wages. Both companies settled for $35.8 million later that year.None of these actions have significantly curbed Tyson’s market power, which, together with its next biggest competitor, Pilgrim’s Pride, controls about half the national market for chicken. In the&nbsp;late 1970s, more than 40 companies controlled half the market,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/41108/18011_aer785_1_.pdf?v=0" target="_blank">according to the USDA</a>.The latest class action lawsuit filed by Hinkle and other Missouri farmers claims Tyson and Cal-Maine signed an agreement restricting how the Dexter poultry complex can be used for the next 25 years.Since the lawsuit was filed, Hinkle and his attorneys also believe Tyson has tried to intimidate farmers and suppress media coverage. Tyson asked the court to compel Hinkle and others to reveal all contacts and conversations with officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates antitrust laws on behalf of farmers.Tyson has also asked the court to make Hinkle and others reveal any and all contacts and conversations with journalists. Hinkle said he is undeterred and will continue seeking compensation through the lawsuit, which does not request a specific dollar amount.“None of this is anything that we wanted. I didn’t ask for a year’s worth of not sleeping,” he said. “Then again, I’m not going to sit back and get screwed.”<h2>Tyson’s promise of prosperity comes at a cost</h2>Hinkle’s career with Tyson Foods began in 2013 when two managers from the plant said they had an offer that would change his life.They said Hinkle could build a massive factory farm on his land — using borrowed money that Tyson would help him obtain — where he could raise tens of thousands of chickens at a time under contract for Tyson and earn a stable income for decades.Hinkle lived on a sprawling cattle farm handed down to him from his father, a farm where Hinkle had been doing daily labor and chores since he was 12 years old. *By the time the Tyson managers came to visit, his 1,200-acre spread was nearly paid off.Hinkle was hesitant about Tyson’s offer. He had heard stories about farmers being forced to borrow money and upgrade equipment, only to have contracts later terminated without warning.But the Tyson managers assured him those were old stories.Hinkle’s original fears came true a decade later when Tyson closed the Dexter plant.<h2>Tyson’s tactics: Countersuits and secret deals</h2>When Hinkle decided to sue Tyson, he wanted a lawyer who understood his perspective. He found that with Russell Oliver.Born and raised in Puxico, Missouri (15 miles from Dexter), Oliver was a farm boy himself. Before becoming the district’s prosecuting attorney, a young Oliver dreamed of carrying on the legacy of his family’s farm. When Oliver’s father died in 1974, several of his family members dropped their individual pursuits for the sake of the farm. So, when Hinkle approached him, heartbroken and desperate for answers, Oliver felt he had no choice but to help him.“Everything about this (case) hits so close to home, it’s so much more than lawsuits and money,” Oliver said. “I see my neighbors that share the same identity that I share going through something like this — there’s no way I can’t fight for them.”In addition to Hinkle, the lawsuit includes four other farmers once under contract with Tyson: Jessie Bridwell, Richard and Samantha Green, as well as R&amp;S Green Farms LLC.​​ The plaintiffs allege that Tyson deliberately misled them by shutting down the Dexter Complex, which caused severe financial damages.During an April 29 hearing in Stoddard County, Tyson’s lawyers pushed back on the allegation, pointing out that the farmers are still receiving payment from Tyson to this day. This compensation is called outtime payments and refers to the money given to farmers to cover the time it takes to remove birds, clean out their houses and bring in new birds.Outtime payments are $0.02 per square foot of chicken houses, significantly less than a monthly payment. Hinkle said the payments have been inconsistent and are far lower than what’s needed to cover his debt. He said Tyson technicians assured him that it would take no longer than four to six weeks to receive outtime payments; however, Hinkle said payments sometimes took as long as 20 weeks to show up.’“My outtime pay doesn’t even cover the electric bill, so what are we supposed to do?” he said. “You’re always in a tumble of not knowing what to do. You can’t budget anything, it’s just a constant state of chaos.”The lawsuit also claims Tyson knew about the plant closure as early as 2021 when the company filed a disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission stating that it had “identified” and “targeted” $1 billion in recurring savings year to year as part of their new “Productivity Program.”The lawsuit also claims Tyson tried to thwart competition with its sale of the Dexter plant to Cal-Maine Foods, which included an agreement restricting how the plant could be used.Hinkle’s lawyers alleged that they have a copy of the agreement, and they quoted from it in a court filing. However, the contract language was redacted in the public court filing.The agreement between Tyson and Cal-Maine “has eliminated (and will eliminate for 25 years) any competition in the Dexter market area for the services of chicken growers,” the lawsuit claims. The farmers believe Tyson intentionally prevented the sale to a competitor in order to cut supply and raise prices on poultry. The exact mechanisms by which the contract might restrict competition were redacted and remain under seal, according to court filings and Hinkle’s attorneys.In August, Tyson Foods countersued two Dexter farmers — Elija and Melissa Skaggs — claiming their case should be dismissed because the farmers turned down a chance to sign new contracts with Cal-Maine.In the countersuit, Tyson acknowledged the agreement’s existence by saying it had terminated it in July. Tyson said that it had originally signed the agreement because it was worried that Cal-Maine might buy the Dexter plant but then quickly sell it to a competing company that would raise “broiler” chickens for food. If that happened, Tyson would have essentially sold the plant to a direct competitor. Tyson said in the court filing that the company later became “comfortable that Cal-Maine was not trying to flip the Dexter complex,” so Tyson terminated the property use-agreement.*Brandon Boulware, an attorney from Boulware Law representing Dexter’s farmers against Tyson, said terminating the agreement didn’t help the farmers, because the plant had already been transformed into a table-egg producing facility rather than one that produced broilers.“The damage has already been done,” Boulware said.Tyson’s agreement with Cal-Maine has also drawn the attention of state and federal lawmakers.https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/25449738-us-sen-josh-hawley-letter/?embed=1U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, Missouri’s senior Republican senator, said Tyson’s CEO, Donnie King, personally reassured him in 2023 that Tyson would not prevent a competitor from buying the Dexter plant.“You misled me,” Hawley wrote in a July 9 letter to King. “These are serious allegations, and the people of Missouri deserve to know the truth.”Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey echoed Hawley in an Oct. 3 letter to King, where he stated that it is “paramount that you do everything in your power to either keep the facilities open or sell to any interested party, including a competitor.”When Hawley later learned about the property-use agreement between Tyson and Cal-Maine that Tyson kept from public filings, he called for it to be made public. The agreement was part of the larger sales contract between Tyson and Cal-Maine, and was not filed publicly with the county recorder of deeds, according to court documents. Bailey later joined the farmer’s lawsuit.<h2>Confidential or concealed? Tyson’s documents under scrutiny&nbsp;</h2>On June 26, the parties gathered in a small New Madrid County courtroom for a hearing. Behind the four lawyers for Tyson were seven empty wooden benches. On the other side, the plaintiffs’ legal counsel was made up of six lawyers, as well as Oliver’s son. Behind their table sat 11 people, many of them farmers in dirt-ridden boots and plaid dress shirts.The 9 a.m. hearing was fiery from the outset. Of the 1,325 documents produced by Tyson Foods in the lawsuit, the plaintiff’s attorneys complained all three were being kept confidential. Tyson’s lawyers, led primarily by Zach Chaffee-McClure, argued that the opposing legal counsel had used some of the confidential documents without permission. They asked for the plaintiff’s lawyers, Brandon Boulware and Oliver, to be sanctioned.Boulware and Oliver were quick to express their disbelief.“This isn’t how we practice law in the (Missouri) Bootheel,” Oliver said. “(Tyson) wants to deflect, they want this to be about the lawyers and not the crimes.”Boulware, who was from Kansas City, echoed Oliver’s sentiment. “I’ve been in law since 2005, and I have never been sanctioned; this is a first for me,” Boulware said. “I agree, this is not how things are done in the Bootheel, but it’s not how they are done in Kansas City, either.”The motion was denied by the judge.Later, Oliver argued that Tyson was concealing evidence of breaking the law. Oliver asked for four confidential documents to be made public, which included the sale agreement with Cal-Maine.Oliver also said he had no plans to settle with Tyson and promised the judge that, if given permission, they would disclose these documents to government officials like Bailey, Hawley, USDA and the Department of Justice.McClure, Tyson’s attorney, responded that his client cooperates with the federal government “all the time,” and that the company is allowed to designate any business or competitive document confidential.Tyson’s other lawyer argued, using the example of a donut shop, that a business preventing the sale of its property to a competitor happens all the time and is not a crime.<h2>Tyson’s market power under the microscope&nbsp;</h2>If the allegations of antitrust violations are accurate, Tyson Foods could face serious consequences, said Claire Kelloway, program manager for fair food and farming systems at Open Markets Institute, a Washington, DC-based think tank focused on the dangers of monopolization.“Tyson is a brand that comes with a lot of baggage for those covering the food industry,” Kelloway said. “Tyson gets some of the credit for turning the industry into this really vertically-integrated model that centralizes a lot of control over the supply chain in one company.”Calling the poultry industry “extremely unfair” and “exploitative” of farmers, Kelloway added that Tyson’s size and political power make it difficult to hold them accountable.“The industry needs a lot of sunlight and scrutiny,” she said. “Hopefully, the reforms and rulemaking keep coming until these antitrust laws are being enforced as intended.”Just shy of two months after the hearing, Tyson’s legal counsel said it would depose Hinkle and the other plaintiffs.Hinkle was also sent a more demanding request. Tyson filed a motion that would compel him to provide complete copies of all recordings and written communications that he and his attorneys had with media outlets. Tyson also demanded all of Hinkle’s communications with the USDA, which enforces antitrust law for farmers.Boulware said that his law firm had obeyed Tyson’s subpoena and was compelled to hand over documents related to the firm’s communication with journalists.“It’s unprecedented for a defendant to seek documents, or communication between a lawyer and the press, rather than defend their own misconduct,” Boulware said.Tyson also subpoenaed two news organizations: KFVS12, a television station in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and Talk Business and Politics, a news website in Arkansas. In the subpoenas, Tyson demanded copies of all communications between reporters and Hinkle. The local media outlets that were subpoenaed refused to cooperate, Boulware said, and Tyson has refused to enforce those subpoenas.Both KFVS12 and Talk Business and Politics declined to comment.With a trial date set for next June, a lifestyle of financial and emotional uncertainty persists for many of the farmers of the Dexter complex. For Hinkle and other plaintiffs, this lawsuit is personal. They, along with Oliver and Boulware, insist this has never been about money; it is about what is right and wrong.“These companies need to understand that the days of building an empire on our backs and then just throwing us out like garbage is over,” Hinkle said. “Not anymore.”In November, Tyson Foods reported its quarterly earnings. The news was great for Tyson shareholders. Tyson’s poultry division made a profit of $409 million for the quarter, compared to a loss of $267 million the year before.This&nbsp;<a href="https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/12/17/tyson-foods-cut-contracts-with-poultry-farmers-now-the-company-is-working-to-silence-their-legal-fight/" target="_blank">article</a>&nbsp;first appeared on&nbsp;<a href="https://investigatemidwest.org/" target="_blank">Investigate Midwest</a>&nbsp;and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<figure>
 <img src="https://investigatemidwest.org/?republication-pixel=true&amp;post=749800&amp;ga4=G-R9VE8P61LG" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>

Tyson Foods cut contracts with Missouri farmers and is working to silence their legal fight

The National Association of Farm Broadcasting’s Board of Directors sent a letter to Congressional leadership on the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act being included in the Omnibus Continuing Resolution. The CR will be introduced before the end of the Lame Duck Session. The letter points out that for over 80 years, the NAFB’s broadcasters have worked hard to serve rural and urban residents with timely and accurate information in daily programming.

 “Failure to approve this critical AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act will allow automakers to eliminate access to critical information to the people we serve,” the letter says. “Rural and urban residents should not be forced to subscribe to an unreliable data stream for urgent information.” Radio access is especially important for America’s producers and rural audiences in times of emergency. For people working out in the open and miles from home, response time is critical.

The National Association of Farm Broadcasting’s Board of Directors sent a letter to Congressional leadership on the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act being included in the Omnibus Continuing Resolution. The CR will be introduced before the end of the Lame Duck Session. The letter points out that for over 80 years, the NAFB’s broadcasters have worked hard to serve rural and urban residents with timely and accurate information in daily programming. “Failure to approve this critical AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act will allow automakers to eliminate access to critical information to the people we serve,” the letter says. “Rural and urban residents should not be forced to subscribe to an unreliable data stream for urgent information.” Radio access is especially important for America’s producers and rural audiences in times of emergency. For people working out in the open and miles from home, response time is critical.-NAFB

NAFB letter supports AM radio in the continuing resolution

House Speaker Mike Johnson announced a last-minute breakthrough on help for farmers. A must-pass bill to avert a government shutdown will now include farm aid, giving farmers something to celebrate the Christmas season. A high-pressure lobbying effort by multiple farm groups and Johnson himself has paid off. “What you’ll see reflected in this final package is $10 billion to start,” Johnson says. “In addition, USDA moved some things around and has added $2 billion for specialty crops they announced in late November, all of which means help is coming.” 

Johnson hopes with this announcement that a great sigh of relief is coming from farm country. “I’ve talked to several leaders in the ag community who say they’re greatly relieved,” Johnson added. While it’s not the $15 to $20 billion the American Farm Bureau and many others were asking for, Johnson says the new aid comes not a moment too soon.

House Speaker Mike Johnson announced a last-minute breakthrough on help for farmers. A must-pass bill to avert a government shutdown will now include farm aid, giving farmers something to celebrate the Christmas season. A high-pressure lobbying effort by multiple farm groups and Johnson himself has paid off. “What you’ll see reflected in this final package is $10 billion to start,” Johnson says. “In addition, USDA moved some things around and has added $2 billion for specialty crops they announced in late November, all of which means help is coming.” Johnson hopes with this announcement that a great sigh of relief is coming from farm country. “I’ve talked to several leaders in the ag community who say they’re greatly relieved,” Johnson added. While it’s not the $15 to $20 billion the American Farm Bureau and many others were asking for, Johnson says the new aid comes not a moment too soon.

Last minute breakthrough on farm assistance 

Legislators are working to try and pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded, but there were rumblings over the weekend that essential aid for the nation’s farmers wouldn’t be included. Reports say Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow moved conservation dollars from the Inflation Reduction Act into the baseline for the farm bill. She’d like to take the majority of those funds and put them into a package for farmers immediately. 

However, Speaker Mike Johnson says the majority of the GOP conference wouldn’t support a proposed agreement that adds Inflation Reduction Act funding into the legislation’s baseline. House GOP leadership says this is a Democratic priority, even though many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle support the move. Ultra-conservative GOP members want to outright cut those IRA dollars and block any additional federal spending. Additionally, some key Republican leaders want more money included for direct farmer aid.

Legislators are working to try and pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded, but there were rumblings over the weekend that essential aid for the nation’s farmers wouldn’t be included. Reports say Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow moved conservation dollars from the Inflation Reduction Act into the baseline for the farm bill. She’d like to take the majority of those funds and put them into a package for farmers immediately. However, Speaker Mike Johnson says the majority of the GOP conference wouldn’t support a proposed agreement that adds Inflation Reduction Act funding into the legislation’s baseline. House GOP leadership says this is a Democratic priority, even though many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle support the move. Ultra-conservative GOP members want to outright cut those IRA dollars and block any additional federal spending. Additionally, some key Republican leaders want more money included for direct farmer aid.

Economic aid for farmers in jeopardy

The Association of Equipment Manufacturers released the November 2024 Ag Tractor/Combine Sales Report that shows lower numbers than November 2023. U.S. sales of tractors in all classes dropped 14.5 percent compared to the same time last year. U.S. combine sales remain soft, showing a decline of 24 percent year to date in 2024. 

The Association of Equipment Manufacturers released the November 2024 Ag Tractor/Combine Sales Report that shows lower numbers than November 2023. U.S. sales of tractors in all classes dropped 14.5 percent compared to the same time last year. U.S. combine sales remain soft, showing a decline of 24 percent year to date in 2024.

November tractor and combine sales fall

The U.S. continues benefiting from solid economic growth, low unemployment, and moderating inflation, and the overall economy will likely continue on that trajectory next year. However, the rural economic outlook is more uncertain. According to a comprehensive year-ahead outlook report from CoBank’s Knowledge Exchange, the high level of policy uncertainty facing rural industries adds to their already long list of headwinds. 

The U.S. continues benefiting from solid economic growth, low unemployment, and moderating inflation, and the overall economy will likely continue on that trajectory next year. However, the rural economic outlook is more uncertain. According to a comprehensive year-ahead outlook report from CoBank’s Knowledge Exchange, the high level of policy uncertainty facing rural industries adds to their already long list of headwinds.

CoBank report shows forces shaping the 2025 rural economy

The USDA’s Economic Research Service’s 2024 edition of America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance says most U.S. farms, 86 percent, are small family farms. These farms operate on 41 percent of U.S. agricultural land and account for 17 percent of the total value of American production. Large-scale family farms accounted for 48 percent of the total value of production and 31 percent of agricultural land in 2023. 

In total, family farms accounted for about 96 percent of total farms and 83 percent of the total production in 2023. Large-scale farms accounted for the majority of the value of cash grains and soybeans (52 percent), cotton (71 percent), and dairy (77 percent). Small family farms produced 45 percent of the value of hay and 46 percent of the total value of U.S. poultry and egg output in 2023.  Small farms accounted for 22 percent of the overall U.S. beef production.

The USDA’s Economic Research Service’s 2024 edition of America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance says most U.S. farms, 86 percent, are small family farms. These farms operate on 41 percent of U.S. agricultural land and account for 17 percent of the total value of American production. Large-scale family farms accounted for 48 percent of the total value of production and 31 percent of agricultural land in 2023. In total, family farms accounted for about 96 percent of total farms and 83 percent of the total production in 2023. Large-scale farms accounted for the majority of the value of cash grains and soybeans (52 percent), cotton (71 percent), and dairy (77 percent). Small family farms produced 45 percent of the value of hay and 46 percent of the total value of U.S. poultry and egg output in 2023. Small farms accounted for 22 percent of the overall U.S. beef production.

Almost all U.S. farms are family-owned

Banning foreign ownership of farmland has been a hot button topic in Missouri, and is expected to be one again in the legislature’s upcoming session. 

Currently, no more than one-percent of Missouri’s agricultural land can be owned by a foreign entity. 

Chillicothe Senator Rusty Black’s legislation would ban foreign businesses and governments from acquiring ag land in the state.

&nbsp;“It goes back to the language that was in state statute before it was changed in 2013 that no foreign entity, person, or business can own farmland within our state to farm," Black tells Missourinet

The idea has been muddied up with different viewpoints of foreign ownership over the years, including attempts to prevent ANY ownership of land across Missouri rather than just agricultural land.

Black says that he understands this takes the right to sell to whomever they want away from farmers, BUT.

“If you’re a farmland owner then that does cut out somebody that you can sell to, right? So, I do understand that. And that causes, even I have neighbors around me that we discuss it. I’m thinking, their right of way from choosing who they can sell to, but I think, overall, for our state, that this is the direction we need to go," Black says

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719235999080.jpeg" alt="Senator Rusty Black speaks with KFEQ News Director Brent Martin/ File photo" />
 <figcaption>Senator Rusty Black speaks with KFEQ News Director Brent Martin/ File photo</figcaption>
 </figure>Banning foreign ownership of farmland has been a hot button topic in Missouri, and is expected to be one again in the legislature’s upcoming session. Currently, no more than one-percent of Missouri’s agricultural land can be owned by a foreign entity. Chillicothe Senator Rusty Black’s legislation would ban foreign businesses and governments from acquiring ag land in the state.&nbsp;“It goes back to the language that was in state statute before it was changed in 2013 that no foreign entity, person, or business can own farmland within our state to farm," Black tells MissourinetThe idea has been muddied up with different viewpoints of foreign ownership over the years, including attempts to prevent ANY ownership of land across Missouri rather than just agricultural land.Black says that he understands this takes the right to sell to whomever they want away from farmers, BUT.“If you’re a farmland owner then that does cut out somebody that you can sell to, right? So, I do understand that. And that causes, even I have neighbors around me that we discuss it. I’m thinking, their right of way from choosing who they can sell to, but I think, overall, for our state, that this is the direction we need to go," Black says-MissouriNet

Back by popular Republican demand next year: Bills to ban foreign ownership of Missouri farmland

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/tadeoruizsandoval/">TADEO RUIZ SANDOVAL</a>

Every day, Missourians pay a small tax with each purchase they make that’s been supporting conservation efforts in the state. And now that Missouri is in a drought alert, those dollars are helping farmers prepare.

Since 1984, Missourians have approved the tax, which is one-tenth of a percent on every purchase, every 10 years. In the 2024 fiscal year, the tax generated around $137 million, which was evenly split between the state park system and the Soil and Water Conservation Program.

Revenue from the tax makes up 99% of the conservation program’s budget. It has been used to help people mitigate drought and heavy rainfall’s effects on farmland. Its story, though, began at a time when one of Missouri’s biggest threats was erosion.

In the 1930s, the United States faced a catastrophe that uprooted 400,000 people. A heavy drought and poor land management practices in the Great Plains region like intensive plowing left the soil vulnerable to being blown away by wind.

And when that wind came, it swept up the dirt with such force that dust storms could engulf entire towns. At one point, a giant dust storm 1,500 miles long and 600 miles wide dragged itself across the Great Plains. Eventually the storm reached Chicago and dropped 12 million tons of dust on the city. The New York Times reported the size of the cloud darkened the city’s sky in five hours.

The Dust Bowl showed the importance of soil conservation. In response, new agencies were created and developed practices to address drought and water quality, among other things.

And in 1982, Missouri was facing a big challenge.

Land in the state was losing nutrients in its soil through erosion. According to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the state had the second-highest erosion rates in the nation. Lawmakers decided to act.

Merle Doughty, who was president of the Missouri Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts at the time, was advocating for more support to the program. He met with then Missouri House Rep. LeRoy Braungardt, who introduced the sales tax bill in 1983. A year later, Missourians voted the bill into law.

Since then, the Soil and Water Conservation Program’s main focus has been working with farmers across the state to better prepare their land for harsh weather conditions.

Jim Plassmeyer is the current director of the Soil and Water Conservation Program, which is part of the Department of Natural Resources. His team’s cost-share programs have helped farmers implement conservation practices. They are completely optional for farmers, who can contact their county’s district to send an agent to assess their land.

“It’s all about the producers coming to the district saying, ‘I have a resource concern I need to need to address. Can you help me?’” Plassmeyer said.

Kenny Reichert, a Chariton County farmer, was one of the first to reach out shortly after the tax passed into law. He said he grew up on a corn and soybean farm that needed help with its soil practices. His family didn’t know much about conservation then, but they wanted to learn.

“I was always looking for something, but I didn’t know what it was,” Reichert said. “The cost share helped show me there was an avenue to get conservation accomplished.”

On his farm, Reichert would come to plant cover crops. When rain falls, it does so at a high speed that dislodges the earth like tiny explosions. The soil’s nutrients move with it. When a crop is planted, its leaves serve as an umbrella, protecting the dirt from impact. The crop’s roots also help the soil retain its structure and absorb more nutrients for the plant.

Reichert said he saw an improvement in crop yield on his farm. He later joined the Chariton County Soil and Water Conservation Board in north-central Missouri to help other farmers. It’s one of 114 Soil and Water Conservation Districts in the state — one in each county.

Plassmeyer said since 1986, more than 193 million tons of soil have been saved from eroding. In this fiscal year, the program treated more than 361,500 acres. But the team doesn’t work alone.

Kelly Nelson’s office consists of more than 1,500 acres of experimental farmland at the Northern Missouri Research, Extension and Education Center. He’s an agronomist for the University of Missouri. At the Lee Greenley Jr. Memorial Research Farm, he works with a team of faculty, staff and graduate students to develop practices that conserve water and soil resources while enhancing the resiliency of cropping systems.

Nelson said water and soil are connected, and that effective practices incorporate both. He has worked on a terrace system that regulates water runoff.

“(Soil) is like a sponge,” Nelson said. “You can run water on your sponge, and until it gets saturated, it doesn’t run out. If you pick up your sponge, it will drain out a certain amount of water. That is the ability of soil to hold water. Once you fill it all the way up, water can’t go anywhere, so it’s going to run off.”

In the system, cover crops are planted on inclined land, which guides the water down into a gravel-covered patch. The gravel is 6 inches deep, leading to larger chunks of stone above a pipe that directs the water to a reservoir. The gravel makes the pipe inlet hard to see, which is why it’s called a “blind” inlet.

The water is then stored and can be used later. When it rains too much, a second inlet in the reservoir releases the excess into a natural waterway.

“The next generation can look back and say, ‘Hey, they had a vision, and they took care of us,’” Nelson said. “We can preserve that for generations to come.”

Nelson said the blind inlets that were installed cost approximately $1,000 per acre. Already existing research on similar systems has reported the inlets reduce soil loss by 60%. Landowners don’t have to front the whole cost themselves, though, as the Water and Soil Conservation Program offers cost-share programs.

‘We’re the government, and we’re here to help’

The program also offers cost-share assistance for practices that focus on grazing, irrigation management, animal waste and more.

Through it, Reichert was able to add Nelson’s blind inlets to his own farm.

“I wouldn’t go back in a heartbeat to the way we used to farm,” Reichert said. “There’s conservation benefits, economic benefits, fuel benefits. I don’t use the fuel I used to 40 years ago.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/12/1734180128924.png" alt=" Kelly Nelson rides an all-terrain vehicle to navigate places other vehicles can’t reach on farms. The research farm is located in Novelty (Tadeo Ruiz Sandoval/Missouri Business Alert)." />
 <figcaption> Kelly Nelson rides an all-terrain vehicle to navigate places other vehicles can’t reach on farms. The research farm is located in Novelty (Tadeo Ruiz Sandoval/Missouri Business Alert).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/tadeoruizsandoval/">TADEO RUIZ SANDOVAL</a>Every day, Missourians pay a small tax with each purchase they make that’s been supporting conservation efforts in the state. And now that Missouri is in a drought alert, those dollars are helping farmers prepare.Since 1984, Missourians have approved the tax, which is one-tenth of a percent on every purchase, every 10 years. In the 2024 fiscal year, the tax generated around $137 million, which was evenly split between the state park system and the Soil and Water Conservation Program.Revenue from the tax makes up 99% of the conservation program’s budget. It has been used to help people mitigate drought and heavy rainfall’s effects on farmland. Its story, though, began at a time when one of Missouri’s biggest threats was erosion.<h2>A history built on dirt</h2>In the 1930s, the United States faced a catastrophe that uprooted 400,000 people. A heavy drought and poor land management practices in the Great Plains region like intensive plowing left the soil vulnerable to being blown away by wind.And when that wind came, it swept up the dirt with such force that dust storms could engulf entire towns. At one point, a giant dust storm 1,500 miles long and 600 miles wide dragged itself across the Great Plains. Eventually the storm reached Chicago and dropped 12 million tons of dust on the city. The New York Times reported the size of the cloud darkened the city’s sky in five hours.The Dust Bowl showed the importance of soil conservation. In response, new agencies were created and developed practices to address drought and water quality, among other things.And in 1982, Missouri was facing a big challenge.Land in the state was losing nutrients in its soil through erosion. According to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the state had the second-highest erosion rates in the nation. Lawmakers decided to act.Merle Doughty, who was president of the Missouri Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts at the time, was advocating for more support to the program. He met with then Missouri House Rep. LeRoy Braungardt, who introduced the sales tax bill in 1983. A year later, Missourians voted the bill into law.Since then, the Soil and Water Conservation Program’s main focus has been working with farmers across the state to better prepare their land for harsh weather conditions.<h2>Program takes root with farmers</h2>Jim Plassmeyer is the current director of the Soil and Water Conservation Program, which is part of the Department of Natural Resources. His team’s cost-share programs have helped farmers implement conservation practices. They are completely optional for farmers, who can contact their county’s district to send an agent to assess their land.“It’s all about the producers coming to the district saying, ‘I have a resource concern I need to need to address. Can you help me?’” Plassmeyer said.Kenny Reichert, a Chariton County farmer, was one of the first to reach out shortly after the tax passed into law. He said he grew up on a corn and soybean farm that needed help with its soil practices. His family didn’t know much about conservation then, but they wanted to learn.“I was always looking for something, but I didn’t know what it was,” Reichert said. “The cost share helped show me there was an avenue to get conservation accomplished.”On his farm, Reichert would come to plant cover crops. When rain falls, it does so at a high speed that dislodges the earth like tiny explosions. The soil’s nutrients move with it. When a crop is planted, its leaves serve as an umbrella, protecting the dirt from impact. The crop’s roots also help the soil retain its structure and absorb more nutrients for the plant.Reichert said he saw an improvement in crop yield on his farm. He later joined the Chariton County Soil and Water Conservation Board in north-central Missouri to help other farmers. It’s one of 114 Soil and Water Conservation Districts in the state — one in each county.Plassmeyer said since 1986, more than 193 million tons of soil have been saved from eroding. In this fiscal year, the program treated more than 361,500 acres. But the team doesn’t work alone.<h2>The science of a sustainable future</h2>Kelly Nelson’s office consists of more than 1,500 acres of experimental farmland at the Northern Missouri Research, Extension and Education Center. He’s an agronomist for the University of Missouri. At the Lee Greenley Jr. Memorial Research Farm, he works with a team of faculty, staff and graduate students to develop practices that conserve water and soil resources while enhancing the resiliency of cropping systems.Nelson said water and soil are connected, and that effective practices incorporate both. He has worked on a terrace system that regulates water runoff.“(Soil) is like a sponge,” Nelson said. “You can run water on your sponge, and until it gets saturated, it doesn’t run out. If you pick up your sponge, it will drain out a certain amount of water. That is the ability of soil to hold water. Once you fill it all the way up, water can’t go anywhere, so it’s going to run off.”In the system, cover crops are planted on inclined land, which guides the water down into a gravel-covered patch. The gravel is 6 inches deep, leading to larger chunks of stone above a pipe that directs the water to a reservoir. The gravel makes the pipe inlet hard to see, which is why it’s called a “blind” inlet.The water is then stored and can be used later. When it rains too much, a second inlet in the reservoir releases the excess into a natural waterway.“The next generation can look back and say, ‘Hey, they had a vision, and they took care of us,’” Nelson said. “We can preserve that for generations to come.”Nelson said the blind inlets that were installed cost approximately $1,000 per acre. Already existing research on similar systems has reported the inlets reduce soil loss by 60%. Landowners don’t have to front the whole cost themselves, though, as the Water and Soil Conservation Program offers cost-share programs.<h2>‘We’re the government, and we’re here to help’</h2>The program also offers cost-share assistance for practices that focus on grazing, irrigation management, animal waste and more.Through it, Reichert was able to add Nelson’s blind inlets to his own farm.“I wouldn’t go back in a heartbeat to the way we used to farm,” Reichert said. “There’s conservation benefits, economic benefits, fuel benefits. I don’t use the fuel I used to 40 years ago.”Reichert is still trying to share the benefits with farmers around him. Oftentimes, though, he finds it difficult to convince others to adapt from practices that have been around for generations. Reichert said he understands the difficulty of straying from traditional practices. It’s up to everyone to decide what to do with their property; he just hopes people do what’s best for their land.“We’re doing the same thing our grandparents did,” Reichert said. “We just have the research behind us now to show us why it works.”Plassmeyer credits the sales tax for the conservation program’s innovation in soil research. It allows the program to access steady income, rather than relying solely on federal grants. Because the tax is voted on every 10 years, it enables the program to develop long-term projects.Missourians have approved the tax each year it has been up for a vote. In 2016, the tax passed with 80% of the vote, winning approval in every county. It will be up for re-election again in 2026, and Plassmeyer hopes people support the program’s funding.“You know, you hear a lot, ‘We’re the government, and we’re here to help,’” Plassmeyer said. “Well, that is true to the word in this program.”This story originally appeared in the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/how-a-state-sales-tax-helps-missouri-farmers-resist-droughts/article_95525139-32b4-5eef-8d30-06a166d3ddf2.html" target="_blank">Columbia Missourian</a>. It can be republished in print or online.&nbsp;