Tractors will be cruising around the countryside in Holt County this weekend as part of the 11th annual Keep Missouri Farming Tractor Cruise fundraiser to benefit the Missouri Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture.

Jason Kurtz, with Missouri Farm Bureau, says registration will be held at 7:30 Saturday morning at Squaw Creek Trap Range in Mound City.

All age tractors may participate but it was noted they cannot have duals or implements attached. The registration cost for open-station tractors is $35 and air-conditioned tractors are $50. Lunch is included with that fee.

After traveling a total of forty miles throughout the county, lunch will be served at 11:30 at River of Hope Fellowship. Vernon Hart, with Missouri Farm Bureau, says, "Its a pork lunch with three or four sides. So we have a great meal for the drivers." Hart added that members of the public can attend the lunch and tickets will be available on-site. The cost is $10 for adults and $5 for children.

By RYAN SKAITHSt. Joseph PostTractors will be cruising around the countryside in Holt County this weekend as part of the 11th annual Keep Missouri Farming Tractor Cruise fundraiser to benefit the Missouri Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture.Jason Kurtz, with Missouri Farm Bureau, says registration will be held at 7:30 Saturday morning at Squaw Creek Trap Range in Mound City.All age tractors may participate but it was noted they cannot have duals or implements attached. The registration cost for open-station tractors is $35 and air-conditioned tractors are $50. Lunch is included with that fee.After traveling a total of forty miles throughout the county, lunch will be served at 11:30 at River of Hope Fellowship. Vernon Hart, with Missouri Farm Bureau, says, "Its a pork lunch with three or four sides. So we have a great meal for the drivers." Hart added that members of the public can attend the lunch and tickets will be available on-site. The cost is $10 for adults and $5 for children.The tractor cruise begins at 9:00 a.m.

Keep Missouri Farming Tractor Cruise in Holt County this Weekend

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/marymccuebell/">MARY MCCUE BELL</a>

WASHINGTON — As the number of dairy cows infected with a strain of bird flu virus grows across the country, 17 of Missouri’s roughly 60,000 dairy cows have been tested while agriculture officials and farmers keep watch for signs that the outbreak has entered the state.

So far, Missouri farmers haven’t reported any cows with the virus, called H5N1, state officials said.

However, national biosecurity and public health experts are concerned that a lack of testing in states across the country, and the economic implications of quarantining cattle, may be allowing the virus to spread undetected.

“You want to work on the assumption that it’s there, and you’re trying to find it,” said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, who focuses on pandemic policy and the intersections of infectious disease and national security. Adalja said 17 tests aren’t enough to give him confidence that Missouri’s herds are virus-free.

“Just because you’re not looking, doesn’t mean it’s not there, that you’re going to avoid the consequences,” Adalja said.

Missouri State Veterinarian Steve Strubberg acknowledged that only a small fraction of the state’s dairy cows have been tested for the virus. Strubberg, who leads the Missouri Department of Agriculture Animal Health Division, said he believes Missouri farmers would have reported sick cows to their veterinarians if their herds were becoming infected.

Because H5N1 is a “Reportable Disease,” veterinarians and laboratories are required to disclose detections. However, while farmers are encouraged to report H5N1 symptoms, it’s not a requirement because there is no confirmation they are ill with the H5N1 virus.

“We just feel like most livestock producers, they really do a great job of watching the health of their animals,” Strubberg said. “I mean, it’s their livelihood.”

Health experts investigating the H5N1 outbreaks in Texas and Colorado told&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-farmers-barb-petersen-07bd5accb01441bc5d279464271d2371" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a>&nbsp;that because labs must report positive results to agriculture departments, many farmers may decide against testing and try to outlast the outbreak to avoid a negative stigma.

In dairy cattle, the virus causes low appetite and reduced milk production, and the milk can have an abnormal appearance. Occasionally, farmers have cows with similar symptoms, which can also be caused by other diseases.

While H5N1 is associated with high mortality rates in poultry, reports indicate infected dairy cattle rarely die. Even when cows in a herd become sick, they seem to recover rather quickly after a few weeks, as long as dairy farmers are using disease management procedures, Strubberg said.

Since&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/mammals.html#:~:text=A" target="_blank">March 25</a>, when the world first learned H5N1 had developed the ability to infect and spread among cows, infections have been reported so far in at least&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/hpai-confirmed-cases-livestock" target="_blank">140 herds in 12 states</a>&nbsp;– including Missouri’s neighboring states of Kansas and Iowa — according to the USDA dashboard updated July 3.

However, experts say the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s numbers&nbsp;<a href="https://www.statnews.com/2024/06/26/bird-flu-outbreak-avian-flu-containment-h5n1-eradication-in-cattle" target="_blank">likely underestimate the size of the outbreak</a>&nbsp;because so few cattle are being tested.

Currently, the USDA requires lactating cattle to be tested before being shipped&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/aphis-requirements-recommendations-hpai-livestock.pdf" target="_blank">across state lines</a>.

Adalja said that because of the lack of proactive testing, he said he doesn’t believe “anybody in the field would think that those 38 states could be declared non-H5N1 cow (infected) states.”

Historically, when the H5N1 virus has infected people on rare occasions,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2024-DON512" target="_blank">the death rate has been over 50%</a>. In the current U.S. dairy cattle outbreak, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/p-0703-4th-human-case-h5.html" target="_blank">four farm workers with documented infections</a>&nbsp;have had mild cases, mostly including symptoms of eye redness, following&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/prevention/farm-workers.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/h5/farm-workers.html" target="_blank">direct contact with sick cows</a>. The most recent human case was announced as of last week.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/spotlights/h5n1-response-06282024.html#:~:text=To" target="_blank">health risk to the general public remains low</a>&nbsp;and has recommended&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/prevention/worker-protection-ppe.html" target="_blank">personal protective equipment</a>&nbsp;for those working with infected cows.

While dairy cows have generally recovered during this current outbreak, the virus has proven to be fatal to cats who drank raw milk from infected cows.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration said its tests indicate that the pasteurization process used in commercial milk processing is effective at inactivating the H5N1 virus. While there is concern that the virus can be transmitted to humans through the consumption of unpasteurized, or raw, milk from infected cows, the FDA continues to emphasize its longstanding recommendations about ingesting raw milk because of its potential to be contaminated.

The fact that no farms are reporting symptoms in cows is the best indication that H5N1 is not in Missouri, state officials said. One of the reasons they believe Missouri has avoided the virus is because the state imports so few cows.

Missouri’s tests on 17 dairy cows, as of Monday, occurred because the animals were being moved across state borders. However, it remains unclear how the virus is circulating, and in some states, herds have become infected despite no movements of cattle.

It appears that farm workers may be involved in the outbreak’s spread, but Missouri has minimal shared labor between farms, state officials said.

Even so, in preparation for the 2024 Missouri State Fair, scheduled to begin Aug. 8 in Sedalia, the Missouri Department of Agriculture and Strubberg announced last week updated biosecurity protocols for exhibiting dairy cattle. All lactating dairy cattle must have a negative H5N1 test within seven days before arrival at the Missouri State Fairgrounds.

The Missouri Department of Agriculture has been doing outreach to dairy producers and veterinarians and providing updated information on the virus.

Scott Poock, a dairy and beef cattle veterinarian with the University of Missouri Extension, said he would be confident that Missouri “probably hasn’t had it.”

“Can I say 100%? Absolutely not. Never,” Poock said.

Missouri, like other states, has been battling H5N1 in poultry for some time. And as it remains unclear how the virus jumped from birds to dairy cows, Strubberg said the lack of many new H5N1 detections in Missouri poultry can provide more confidence, to a degree, that the virus isn’t in Missouri cows.

While some experts are concerned about a lack of proactive testing, there is a risk aversion for farmers who would have to quarantine lactating cattle with a positive test. The USDA has taken some actions to help farmers, including offering loans to farmers and livestock producers to alleviate biosecurity measurement costs, such as veterinary and testing expenses.

Like experts in infectious diseases, farmers are aware of the issue but have differing opinions and levels of concern, Strubberg said.

Chloe Collins, an MU Extension dairy field specialist, said that most farmers she has recently spoken with have been optimistic about the H5N1 risk. She said farmers are practicing good biosecurity and are tapping into expert resources. Collins also described the state’s dairy industry as “prepared and resilient.”

Adalja said he believes that the USDA and state agriculture departments are walking a tightrope trying to balance the economic and public health implications. This includes what stigma might occur if a farm tests positive.

“These (cows) are not pets,” Adalja said. “They are economic vessels, basically, that are important for the economies of those farms, the economies of those counties and the states.”

This story originally appeared in the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/few-missouri-dairy-cows-tested-for-bird-flu-virus/article_03ab77de-3df9-11ef-aaa3-134d712ffccc.html#tncms-source=Top%20Story" target="_blank">Columbia Missourian</a>. It can be republished in print or online.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719397041671.png" alt="File photo Holstein milking cows&nbsp; photo by Kirsten Strough/USDA" />
 <figcaption>File photo Holstein milking cows&nbsp; photo by Kirsten Strough/USDA</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/marymccuebell/">MARY MCCUE BELL</a>WASHINGTON — As the number of dairy cows infected with a strain of bird flu virus grows across the country, 17 of Missouri’s roughly 60,000 dairy cows have been tested while agriculture officials and farmers keep watch for signs that the outbreak has entered the state.So far, Missouri farmers haven’t reported any cows with the virus, called H5N1, state officials said.However, national biosecurity and public health experts are concerned that a lack of testing in states across the country, and the economic implications of quarantining cattle, may be allowing the virus to spread undetected.“You want to work on the assumption that it’s there, and you’re trying to find it,” said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, who focuses on pandemic policy and the intersections of infectious disease and national security. Adalja said 17 tests aren’t enough to give him confidence that Missouri’s herds are virus-free.“Just because you’re not looking, doesn’t mean it’s not there, that you’re going to avoid the consequences,” Adalja said.Missouri State Veterinarian Steve Strubberg acknowledged that only a small fraction of the state’s dairy cows have been tested for the virus. Strubberg, who leads the Missouri Department of Agriculture Animal Health Division, said he believes Missouri farmers would have reported sick cows to their veterinarians if their herds were becoming infected.Because H5N1 is a “Reportable Disease,” veterinarians and laboratories are required to disclose detections. However, while farmers are encouraged to report H5N1 symptoms, it’s not a requirement because there is no confirmation they are ill with the H5N1 virus.“We just feel like most livestock producers, they really do a great job of watching the health of their animals,” Strubberg said. “I mean, it’s their livelihood.”Health experts investigating the H5N1 outbreaks in Texas and Colorado told&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-farmers-barb-petersen-07bd5accb01441bc5d279464271d2371" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a>&nbsp;that because labs must report positive results to agriculture departments, many farmers may decide against testing and try to outlast the outbreak to avoid a negative stigma.In dairy cattle, the virus causes low appetite and reduced milk production, and the milk can have an abnormal appearance. Occasionally, farmers have cows with similar symptoms, which can also be caused by other diseases.While H5N1 is associated with high mortality rates in poultry, reports indicate infected dairy cattle rarely die. Even when cows in a herd become sick, they seem to recover rather quickly after a few weeks, as long as dairy farmers are using disease management procedures, Strubberg said.Since&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/mammals.html#:~:text=A" target="_blank">March 25</a>, when the world first learned H5N1 had developed the ability to infect and spread among cows, infections have been reported so far in at least&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/hpai-confirmed-cases-livestock" target="_blank">140 herds in 12 states</a>&nbsp;– including Missouri’s neighboring states of Kansas and Iowa — according to the USDA dashboard updated July 3.However, experts say the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s numbers&nbsp;<a href="https://www.statnews.com/2024/06/26/bird-flu-outbreak-avian-flu-containment-h5n1-eradication-in-cattle" target="_blank">likely underestimate the size of the outbreak</a>&nbsp;because so few cattle are being tested.Currently, the USDA requires lactating cattle to be tested before being shipped&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/aphis-requirements-recommendations-hpai-livestock.pdf" target="_blank">across state lines</a>.Adalja said that because of the lack of proactive testing, he said he doesn’t believe “anybody in the field would think that those 38 states could be declared non-H5N1 cow (infected) states.”Historically, when the H5N1 virus has infected people on rare occasions,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2024-DON512" target="_blank">the death rate has been over 50%</a>. In the current U.S. dairy cattle outbreak, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/p-0703-4th-human-case-h5.html" target="_blank">four farm workers with documented infections</a>&nbsp;have had mild cases, mostly including symptoms of eye redness, following&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/prevention/farm-workers.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/h5/farm-workers.html" target="_blank">direct contact with sick cows</a>. The most recent human case was announced as of last week.U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/spotlights/h5n1-response-06282024.html#:~:text=To" target="_blank">health risk to the general public remains low</a>&nbsp;and has recommended&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/prevention/worker-protection-ppe.html" target="_blank">personal protective equipment</a>&nbsp;for those working with infected cows.While dairy cows have generally recovered during this current outbreak, the virus has proven to be fatal to cats who drank raw milk from infected cows.U.S. Food and Drug Administration said its tests indicate that the pasteurization process used in commercial milk processing is effective at inactivating the H5N1 virus. While there is concern that the virus can be transmitted to humans through the consumption of unpasteurized, or raw, milk from infected cows, the FDA continues to emphasize its longstanding recommendations about ingesting raw milk because of its potential to be contaminated.The fact that no farms are reporting symptoms in cows is the best indication that H5N1 is not in Missouri, state officials said. One of the reasons they believe Missouri has avoided the virus is because the state imports so few cows.Missouri’s tests on 17 dairy cows, as of Monday, occurred because the animals were being moved across state borders. However, it remains unclear how the virus is circulating, and in some states, herds have become infected despite no movements of cattle.It appears that farm workers may be involved in the outbreak’s spread, but Missouri has minimal shared labor between farms, state officials said.Even so, in preparation for the 2024 Missouri State Fair, scheduled to begin Aug. 8 in Sedalia, the Missouri Department of Agriculture and Strubberg announced last week updated biosecurity protocols for exhibiting dairy cattle. All lactating dairy cattle must have a negative H5N1 test within seven days before arrival at the Missouri State Fairgrounds.The Missouri Department of Agriculture has been doing outreach to dairy producers and veterinarians and providing updated information on the virus.Scott Poock, a dairy and beef cattle veterinarian with the University of Missouri Extension, said he would be confident that Missouri “probably hasn’t had it.”“Can I say 100%? Absolutely not. Never,” Poock said.Missouri, like other states, has been battling H5N1 in poultry for some time. And as it remains unclear how the virus jumped from birds to dairy cows, Strubberg said the lack of many new H5N1 detections in Missouri poultry can provide more confidence, to a degree, that the virus isn’t in Missouri cows.While some experts are concerned about a lack of proactive testing, there is a risk aversion for farmers who would have to quarantine lactating cattle with a positive test. The USDA has taken some actions to help farmers, including offering loans to farmers and livestock producers to alleviate biosecurity measurement costs, such as veterinary and testing expenses.Like experts in infectious diseases, farmers are aware of the issue but have differing opinions and levels of concern, Strubberg said.Chloe Collins, an MU Extension dairy field specialist, said that most farmers she has recently spoken with have been optimistic about the H5N1 risk. She said farmers are practicing good biosecurity and are tapping into expert resources. Collins also described the state’s dairy industry as “prepared and resilient.”Adalja said he believes that the USDA and state agriculture departments are walking a tightrope trying to balance the economic and public health implications. This includes what stigma might occur if a farm tests positive.“These (cows) are not pets,” Adalja said. “They are economic vessels, basically, that are important for the economies of those farms, the economies of those counties and the states.”This story originally appeared in the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/few-missouri-dairy-cows-tested-for-bird-flu-virus/article_03ab77de-3df9-11ef-aaa3-134d712ffccc.html#tncms-source=Top%20Story" target="_blank">Columbia Missourian</a>. It can be republished in print or online.&nbsp;

Few Missouri dairy cows have been tested for bird flu virus

U.S. beef export value topped $900 million in May, the highest point since June 2023. 

According to data compiled by the U.S. Meat Export Federation, U.S. beef exports totaled 110,133 metric tons, down five percent from a year ago but the second largest amount in 2024. 

Beef export value reached $902.4 million in May, three percent higher than last year and the highest in 11 months. Exports trended higher year-over-year to Japan, Mexico, the ASEAN Region, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Central America. January-May beef exports followed a similar trend, increasing five percent in value to $4.29 billion despite a four percent decline in volume. 

May pork exports totaled 251,447 metric tons, down four percent from a year ago, and valued at $715.8 million. That’s two percent below last year. Shipments to leading market Mexico were below last year’s volume but still trended higher in value, topping $200 million.

U.S. beef export value topped $900 million in May, the highest point since June 2023. According to data compiled by the U.S. Meat Export Federation, U.S. beef exports totaled 110,133 metric tons, down five percent from a year ago but the second largest amount in 2024. Beef export value reached $902.4 million in May, three percent higher than last year and the highest in 11 months. Exports trended higher year-over-year to Japan, Mexico, the ASEAN Region, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Central America. January-May beef exports followed a similar trend, increasing five percent in value to $4.29 billion despite a four percent decline in volume. May pork exports totaled 251,447 metric tons, down four percent from a year ago, and valued at $715.8 million. That’s two percent below last year. Shipments to leading market Mexico were below last year’s volume but still trended higher in value, topping $200 million.-NAFB

May beef exports hit high point

Appropriations leaders in both chambers of Congress will convene this week with the goal of working out key spending plans. 

Farm Policy News says the coming weeks are critical for pushing funding bills ahead of the upcoming August recess. The Senate Appropriations Ag-FDA subcommittee is scheduled to mark up its fiscal year 2025 spending bill on Thursday. 

Senate appropriators will unveil their fiscal 2025 Ag-FDA spending bill in the coming days ahead of what’s expected to be another bruising federal spending clash with House Republicans. Democrats have already expressed staunch opposition to the House GOP’s agriculture spending bill, which includes spending cuts and a controversial pilot program to test restrictions on the types of foods people can buy with SNAP benefits. 

The House Appropriations Committee is set to vote on that bill on July 10. The Agriculture-FDA funding proposal published Monday would allocate $25.9 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2025.

Appropriations leaders in both chambers of Congress will convene this week with the goal of working out key spending plans. Farm Policy News says the coming weeks are critical for pushing funding bills ahead of the upcoming August recess. The Senate Appropriations Ag-FDA subcommittee is scheduled to mark up its fiscal year 2025 spending bill on Thursday. Senate appropriators will unveil their fiscal 2025 Ag-FDA spending bill in the coming days ahead of what’s expected to be another bruising federal spending clash with House Republicans. Democrats have already expressed staunch opposition to the House GOP’s agriculture spending bill, which includes spending cuts and a controversial pilot program to test restrictions on the types of foods people can buy with SNAP benefits. The House Appropriations Committee is set to vote on that bill on July 10. The Agriculture-FDA funding proposal published Monday would allocate $25.9 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2025.-NAFB

Federal Ag spending bills considered this week

Farmers National Company says the agricultural land market has been exceptional over the past five years. Value gains show up in all classes of land in every region of the country. 

“A lot has changed in the last 12 months, and even more has changed in the past five years,” says Paul Shadegg, senior vice president of real estate options. “Moving into the second half of 2023 and the first half of this year, we’ve experienced significant increases in interest rates, declining grain markets, and inflation.” 

Despite the negative pressures, Shadegg says the land market has been relatively resilient. However, it does show signs of settling in general, including single-digit decreases in specific areas. 

As buyers consider land purchases during the second half of 2024, the additional expenses for interest and lower commodity prices will be at the forefront of decision-making.

 “Ag land has never been more valuable,” adds Shadegg.

Farmers National Company says the agricultural land market has been exceptional over the past five years. Value gains show up in all classes of land in every region of the country. “A lot has changed in the last 12 months, and even more has changed in the past five years,” says Paul Shadegg, senior vice president of real estate options. “Moving into the second half of 2023 and the first half of this year, we’ve experienced significant increases in interest rates, declining grain markets, and inflation.” Despite the negative pressures, Shadegg says the land market has been relatively resilient. However, it does show signs of settling in general, including single-digit decreases in specific areas. As buyers consider land purchases during the second half of 2024, the additional expenses for interest and lower commodity prices will be at the forefront of decision-making. “Ag land has never been more valuable,” adds Shadegg.-NAFB

Ag land market shows signs of settling

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>

WASHINGTON — The stalemate over the current farm bill may be solidifying a new era in farm politics as it joins the last three farm bills in a trend of delays and partisan division — a contrast from the legislation’s history of bipartisanship.

Every five years, Congress is tasked with drafting a new federal farm bill. The omnibus law that began 90 years ago as various kinds of payments to support farmers now has an impact far beyond the farm, with programs to create wildlife habitat, address climate change and provide the nation’s largest federal nutrition program.

The current farm bill process, already nearly a year behind schedule, is at an impasse as Democrats and Republicans clash over how to pay for the bill and whether to place limits on nutrition and climate programs. The previous farm bill expired in September 2023 and has been extended through the end of this September.

Historically, farm bills were completed within a few months of their expiration date. Ten of the 13 farm bills since 1965 were enacted by December 31 in the year of their expirations. But three of the four farm bills since 2008 went beyond that date.

The last three bills — including the 2018 bill, which is the one recent version that passed on time — each had partisan disagreements about spending.

The trend represents a change in how the once-bipartisan legislation is viewed.

“The last two farm bills were the anomaly,” said Jonathan Coppess, a professor of Agricultural Law and Policy at the University of Illinois who has written a history of the farm bill. “Now that it has been three in a row, I’m not sure that holds.”

A recent&nbsp;<a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45210.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that starting in 2008, farm bills have been subject to delays, vetoes and insufficient votes to pass on the floor.

The report concluded: “Over time, farm bills have tended to become more complicated and politically sensitive. As a result, the timeline for reauthorization has become less certain.”

That uncertainty is true of the current farm bill, as Republicans in the House and Senate push for spending limits that Democrats say are non-starters.

“I don’t think we’re close to getting a farm bill done until the folks who are negotiating the farm bill are realistic about what’s doable within a constrained resource environment,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview on the radio program&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjdcUT0r3o" target="_blank">AgriTalk</a>&nbsp;June 21.

The Republican-led House Agriculture Committee approved its farm bill proposal&nbsp;<a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/05/24/farm-bill-advances-from-u-s-house-panel-but-faces-a-tough-row-to-hoe/" target="_blank">largely on party lines</a>&nbsp;at the end of May, after hours of debate and complaints from Democrats that the process had not been as bipartisan as in years past.

Four Democrats voted for the bill in committee, but they joined 20 other Democrats on the committee in a “dissenting views” letter expressing “genuine concern over the trajectory of the Majority’s partisan farm bill” — which they predicted would be stuck in delay and dysfunction without significant changes.

The Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to vote. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee have each put forward contrasting bills and expressed their frustration.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie&nbsp; Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who is retiring after this term, has called the process the “most frustrating” of her career and said she would not let the Republican approach for the farm bill be her legacy.

“I’ve actually been involved in six farm bills and led on three of them, and this has been the most frustrating time,” said Stabenow&nbsp;<a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2024/06/26/stabenow-says-gop-farm-bill-is-not-balanced-and-wont-pass-through-the-us-senate/" target="_blank">in an interview with&nbsp;Michigan Advance</a>&nbsp;at the end of June. “Because it’s so much more partisan than usual and particularly around food assistance.”

Partisan division is not uncommon in today’s Congress but is notable on the farm bill, which had historically brought together lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan support can be necessary for final passage because the size of the $1.5 trillion farm bill means it inevitably loses some votes from fiscal conservatives and others.

“If you don’t have a bipartisan bill, this is not going to happen, and that is no matter who’s in charge. The margins are too close to be able to get this done without bipartisan support,” said Collin Peterson, a former Democratic House member from Minnesota and Agriculture Committee Chairman.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/" target="_blank">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats this year is a funding calculation that would place limits on the “Thrifty Food Plan” formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.

Republicans are using the limits to offset other spending in the bill on crop subsidies. The top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, said he wants to put “more farm in the farm bill.”

Peterson, who is now the head of an eponymous consulting firm, said in an interview with States Newsroom that Republicans would likely have to make changes to the nutrition title to get a bill to final passage.

“It is unrealistic to think they are going to get this done without significant changes in that part of the bill,” he said.

The nutrition program that is at the center of the impasse was added to the legislation 50 years ago to help build a coalition of wide-ranging bipartisan support.

Lawmakers added the nutrition title to the farm bill in 1973, a move that widened the vested interest in the bill in the House. Lawmakers who wanted to increase payments for cotton and wheat farmers in their districts were able to bring in support from representatives from districts whose citizens could benefit from food aid.

“That was the first coalition building between the two interests,” Coppess said. “But it was pretty intense. And it was an uneasy alliance from the start.”

Since then, the farm bill in many ways has become a food bill. Three-quarters of the mandatory spending in the bill falls under the nutrition title, which includes SNAP, the largest U.S. program that addresses hunger.

The program, formerly called food stamps, supplements food budgets for low-income households. Anti-hunger groups have joined the outside interests pushing for the bill every five years.

But with such a large funding line, the nutrition program has become a target for Republicans who want to cut it to offset other spending in the bill.

“The dispute is all the pay-fors,” Peterson said. “And that has been the issue for the last three farm bills and issue on this one as well.”

Peterson, who was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee for the 2008 farm bill and was the top Democrat on the committee for the 2013 and 2018 bills, said partisan division on the committee is not unfamiliar at this phase of the process.

The farm bills he worked on also had partisan votes in the House but eventually found support from both sides after conferencing with the Senate.

“At the end of the day, every one of those bills was partisan, until we got through the conference committee, and then at that point it was bipartisan, because the Senate brought some of that to the table,” Peterson said. “So, kind of, what’s going on here went on the last three farm bills.”

The most recent farm bill in 2018 was marked by contentious partisan debate centered on SNAP’s work requirements and other eligibility rules.

The House Agriculture Committee’s bill that year initially failed on the House floor and later squeaked through on a 213-211 vote. Twenty Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against that bill.

After reconciling with the Senate bill and the removal of some of the contentious changes to SNAP, most Democrats flipped their votes in support and the House agreed to the final conference report in a bipartisan vote of 369-47. The dissenting votes included 44 Republicans and three Democrats.

The partisan division over the nutrition title creates new fault lines for the farm bill.

Historically, farm bill alliances were more regional than partisan. They were built on a common ground of support for shared crops or producers: cotton in the South, corn in the Midwest and wheat in the Western Plains.

“What was our biggest issue back in the four farm bills that I wrote was not Republican versus Democrat. It was usually Midwest against the Southeast or the Northeast or the Southwest from a crop standpoint,” former Senator Saxby Chambliss said in an interview.

Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, was on the House Agriculture Committee from 1995 to 2002 and the Senate Agriculture Committee 2005 to 2011, which included a stint as chairman and ranking member.

“There’s a different political dynamic that exists in the Senate today that did not exist when I was there,”&nbsp; Chambliss said. “How much of that bleeds into the farm bill? I don’t know the answer to that, but obviously it’s a little more acrimonious than what I ever experienced.”

As partisan politics have become more entrenched in regions of the country, with the South becoming more closely aligned with the Republican Party, it has played out in farm-bill politics.

“You see a staunch realignment around where the regional and the partisan are now very similar,” said Coppess.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/7/1625596705829.png" alt="Partisan gridlock in Congress has led to a stalemate on the current farm bill, which provides crop subsidies and nutrition assistance. Hays Post photo" />
 <figcaption>Partisan gridlock in Congress has led to a stalemate on the current farm bill, which provides crop subsidies and nutrition assistance. Hays Post photo</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>WASHINGTON — The stalemate over the current farm bill may be solidifying a new era in farm politics as it joins the last three farm bills in a trend of delays and partisan division — a contrast from the legislation’s history of bipartisanship.Every five years, Congress is tasked with drafting a new federal farm bill. The omnibus law that began 90 years ago as various kinds of payments to support farmers now has an impact far beyond the farm, with programs to create wildlife habitat, address climate change and provide the nation’s largest federal nutrition program.The current farm bill process, already nearly a year behind schedule, is at an impasse as Democrats and Republicans clash over how to pay for the bill and whether to place limits on nutrition and climate programs. The previous farm bill expired in September 2023 and has been extended through the end of this September.Historically, farm bills were completed within a few months of their expiration date. Ten of the 13 farm bills since 1965 were enacted by December 31 in the year of their expirations. But three of the four farm bills since 2008 went beyond that date.The last three bills — including the 2018 bill, which is the one recent version that passed on time — each had partisan disagreements about spending.The trend represents a change in how the once-bipartisan legislation is viewed.“The last two farm bills were the anomaly,” said Jonathan Coppess, a professor of Agricultural Law and Policy at the University of Illinois who has written a history of the farm bill. “Now that it has been three in a row, I’m not sure that holds.”A recent&nbsp;<a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45210.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that starting in 2008, farm bills have been subject to delays, vetoes and insufficient votes to pass on the floor.The report concluded: “Over time, farm bills have tended to become more complicated and politically sensitive. As a result, the timeline for reauthorization has become less certain.”<h2>Spending debate</h2>That uncertainty is true of the current farm bill, as Republicans in the House and Senate push for spending limits that Democrats say are non-starters.“I don’t think we’re close to getting a farm bill done until the folks who are negotiating the farm bill are realistic about what’s doable within a constrained resource environment,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview on the radio program&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjdcUT0r3o" target="_blank">AgriTalk</a>&nbsp;June 21.The Republican-led House Agriculture Committee approved its farm bill proposal&nbsp;<a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/05/24/farm-bill-advances-from-u-s-house-panel-but-faces-a-tough-row-to-hoe/" target="_blank">largely on party lines</a>&nbsp;at the end of May, after hours of debate and complaints from Democrats that the process had not been as bipartisan as in years past.Four Democrats voted for the bill in committee, but they joined 20 other Democrats on the committee in a “dissenting views” letter expressing “genuine concern over the trajectory of the Majority’s partisan farm bill” — which they predicted would be stuck in delay and dysfunction without significant changes.The Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to vote. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee have each put forward contrasting bills and expressed their frustration.<h2>‘The most frustrating time’</h2>Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie&nbsp; Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who is retiring after this term, has called the process the “most frustrating” of her career and said she would not let the Republican approach for the farm bill be her legacy.“I’ve actually been involved in six farm bills and led on three of them, and this has been the most frustrating time,” said Stabenow&nbsp;<a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2024/06/26/stabenow-says-gop-farm-bill-is-not-balanced-and-wont-pass-through-the-us-senate/" target="_blank">in an interview with&nbsp;Michigan Advance</a>&nbsp;at the end of June. “Because it’s so much more partisan than usual and particularly around food assistance.”Partisan division is not uncommon in today’s Congress but is notable on the farm bill, which had historically brought together lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan support can be necessary for final passage because the size of the $1.5 trillion farm bill means it inevitably loses some votes from fiscal conservatives and others.“If you don’t have a bipartisan bill, this is not going to happen, and that is no matter who’s in charge. The margins are too close to be able to get this done without bipartisan support,” said Collin Peterson, a former Democratic House member from Minnesota and Agriculture Committee Chairman.The&nbsp;<a href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/" target="_blank">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats this year is a funding calculation that would place limits on the “Thrifty Food Plan” formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.Republicans are using the limits to offset other spending in the bill on crop subsidies. The top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, said he wants to put “more farm in the farm bill.”Peterson, who is now the head of an eponymous consulting firm, said in an interview with States Newsroom that Republicans would likely have to make changes to the nutrition title to get a bill to final passage.“It is unrealistic to think they are going to get this done without significant changes in that part of the bill,” he said.<h2>‘An uneasy alliance’ from the start</h2>The nutrition program that is at the center of the impasse was added to the legislation 50 years ago to help build a coalition of wide-ranging bipartisan support.Lawmakers added the nutrition title to the farm bill in 1973, a move that widened the vested interest in the bill in the House. Lawmakers who wanted to increase payments for cotton and wheat farmers in their districts were able to bring in support from representatives from districts whose citizens could benefit from food aid.“That was the first coalition building between the two interests,” Coppess said. “But it was pretty intense. And it was an uneasy alliance from the start.”Since then, the farm bill in many ways has become a food bill. Three-quarters of the mandatory spending in the bill falls under the nutrition title, which includes SNAP, the largest U.S. program that addresses hunger.The program, formerly called food stamps, supplements food budgets for low-income households. Anti-hunger groups have joined the outside interests pushing for the bill every five years.But with such a large funding line, the nutrition program has become a target for Republicans who want to cut it to offset other spending in the bill.“The dispute is all the pay-fors,” Peterson said. “And that has been the issue for the last three farm bills and issue on this one as well.”Peterson, who was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee for the 2008 farm bill and was the top Democrat on the committee for the 2013 and 2018 bills, said partisan division on the committee is not unfamiliar at this phase of the process.The farm bills he worked on also had partisan votes in the House but eventually found support from both sides after conferencing with the Senate.“At the end of the day, every one of those bills was partisan, until we got through the conference committee, and then at that point it was bipartisan, because the Senate brought some of that to the table,” Peterson said. “So, kind of, what’s going on here went on the last three farm bills.”The most recent farm bill in 2018 was marked by contentious partisan debate centered on SNAP’s work requirements and other eligibility rules.The House Agriculture Committee’s bill that year initially failed on the House floor and later squeaked through on a 213-211 vote. Twenty Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against that bill.After reconciling with the Senate bill and the removal of some of the contentious changes to SNAP, most Democrats flipped their votes in support and the House agreed to the final conference report in a bipartisan vote of 369-47. The dissenting votes included 44 Republicans and three Democrats.<h2>A trend toward fracture</h2>The partisan division over the nutrition title creates new fault lines for the farm bill.Historically, farm bill alliances were more regional than partisan. They were built on a common ground of support for shared crops or producers: cotton in the South, corn in the Midwest and wheat in the Western Plains.“What was our biggest issue back in the four farm bills that I wrote was not Republican versus Democrat. It was usually Midwest against the Southeast or the Northeast or the Southwest from a crop standpoint,” former Senator Saxby Chambliss said in an interview.Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, was on the House Agriculture Committee from 1995 to 2002 and the Senate Agriculture Committee 2005 to 2011, which included a stint as chairman and ranking member.“There’s a different political dynamic that exists in the Senate today that did not exist when I was there,”&nbsp; Chambliss said. “How much of that bleeds into the farm bill? I don’t know the answer to that, but obviously it’s a little more acrimonious than what I ever experienced.”As partisan politics have become more entrenched in regions of the country, with the South becoming more closely aligned with the Republican Party, it has played out in farm-bill politics.“You see a staunch realignment around where the regional and the partisan are now very similar,” said Coppess.

‘Frustrating’ partisan stalemate: the new normal for farm bills?

HUTCHINSON, Kan. — The Senate Republicans released their&nbsp;<a href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate%20Republican%20Framework%20Short%20Summary.pdf">Farm Bill framework</a>&nbsp;Tuesday, and Kansas U.S. Senator Dr. Roger Marshall held a press availability on Zoom to talk about it.&nbsp;

"This Farm Bill touches, I would think, every Kansan, in some way, somehow," Marshall said. "What are the next steps? I would explain it like this. A farmer goes in to buy a combine and he agrees with the dealer, all the ins and outs he wants, what type of header he wants on that combine. What we haven't agreed on yet is the price."

It sounds like the difference really isn't that large, all things considered.

"The Democrats and Republicans, we both want strong crop insurance, we both want strong nutrition programs," Marshall said. "We want rural economic development. I think it's just a matter of where we're going to move some dollars from one place to the other and still keep this on budget, because our Farm Bill is completely paid for. We're not asking for any more monies. The Democrats Farm Bill has a request for, I think $20 or $30 billion more each year."

Practically speaking, there's not a lot of legislative time between now and the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30.

"We'll see how far apart we are," Marshall said. "There will be a lot of talks between the two staffs, the two ag committee staffs, as well and see where we can close the gap. There really aren't very many legislative days left up here this summer. We have an election in November. I understand. We'll see if we can mark up something here in the next month or so. It will probably be this summer."

If the deal doesn't get done by the deadline, there is still the idea of a short term continuation of the current bill, which has already been extended for a sixth year, at least to past the election. Ag state legislators really don't want that, as they'd like more certainty, if possible.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1718131641346.jpeg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>NICK GOSNELL&nbsp;Hutch PostHUTCHINSON, Kan. — The Senate Republicans released their&nbsp;<a href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate%20Republican%20Framework%20Short%20Summary.pdf">Farm Bill framework</a>&nbsp;Tuesday, and Kansas U.S. Senator Dr. Roger Marshall held a press availability on Zoom to talk about it.&nbsp;"This Farm Bill touches, I would think, every Kansan, in some way, somehow," Marshall said. "What are the next steps? I would explain it like this. A farmer goes in to buy a combine and he agrees with the dealer, all the ins and outs he wants, what type of header he wants on that combine. What we haven't agreed on yet is the price."It sounds like the difference really isn't that large, all things considered."The Democrats and Republicans, we both want strong crop insurance, we both want strong nutrition programs," Marshall said. "We want rural economic development. I think it's just a matter of where we're going to move some dollars from one place to the other and still keep this on budget, because our Farm Bill is completely paid for. We're not asking for any more monies. The Democrats Farm Bill has a request for, I think $20 or $30 billion more each year."Practically speaking, there's not a lot of legislative time between now and the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30."We'll see how far apart we are," Marshall said. "There will be a lot of talks between the two staffs, the two ag committee staffs, as well and see where we can close the gap. There really aren't very many legislative days left up here this summer. We have an election in November. I understand. We'll see if we can mark up something here in the next month or so. It will probably be this summer."If the deal doesn't get done by the deadline, there is still the idea of a short term continuation of the current bill, which has already been extended for a sixth year, at least to past the election. Ag state legislators really don't want that, as they'd like more certainty, if possible.

Senate Republicans release their Farm Bill framework

<a href="mailto:jbklaudt@ksu.edu">By JACOB KLAUDT</a> K-State Research and Extension news service

Drought plaguing parts of Kansas created shorter wheat plants and thinner crop stands this year. In turn, Kansas State University wheat production specialist Romulo Lollato advises growers to make adjustments at harvest time.

“This year, the biggest cause for short wheat has been drought stress,” he said. “During springtime, the crop starts to go through a phase called stem elongation. That’s when plant height is determined. In certain areas, there was virtually no moisture, which caused the plants to be short.”

Not all areas of Kansas have experienced this level of drought. Lollato said irregular rain patterns gave rise to significant plant height differences across counties and even in the same fields.

“The Kansas crop is not uniformly short. A very sparse and variable rainfall distribution created these ‘waves’ within areas where tall and short plants occur, simultaneously, in those locations,” he said.

According to Lollato, producers can attach stripper headers to the front of their combines to effectively harvest small wheat plants. Stripper headers separate the grain head from the remaining plant. On the other hand, traditional headers detach plants halfway down their stems.

Lollato said, “Essentially, they have fingers on them. Those fingers pluck the heads out from the stem. The stripper headers feed the combine with only the wheat heads, which means having a cleaner product go into the combine, with increased efficiency.”

Harvesting low-standing wheat plants with a stripper header can help improve soil quality in semi-arid areas.

“They leave more crop residue behind. It will act as a barrier against weeds and shade the fields, which cools soil temperatures and delays weed emergence. Moisture retention is another important advantage. Stripper headers reduce water loss through evaporation, runoff and erosion.”

If a producer uses a stripper header this year, future crops have the potential to benefit as well, according to Lollato.

“There is a lot of value in having more residue left in the fields,” he said. “When growers plant wheat directly into that crop residue after this year’s harvest, they get all of those benefits, like added moisture, weed control, and erosion reduction, which can help return a very good dollar amount the following summer.”

Conventional headers remain as another workable solution for operations not able to invest in additional implements.

“A stripper header is a pricey investment,” Lollato said. “However, there might be more challenges operating with a conventional header – especially on ground with a great slope – but they still work in this case.”

Making alterations to a traditional header may yield better results when harvesting stunted wheat fields with them.

“The most important thing to keep in mind is to maintain the cutting height as high as possible. You can also adjust the reel on the header to get more movement of wheat from the cutter bar to the auger,” Lollato said.

Other combine headers appropriate for harvesting poorer quality wheat stands include draper and flex heads. More information on considerations for harvesting short wheat is available in the&nbsp;<a href="https://eupdate.agronomy.ksu.edu/article/considerations-when-harvesting-short-wheat-593-1">May 24 issue of the Agronomy eUpdate</a>, published weekly by the K-State Department of Agronomy.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1717505835672.jpeg" alt="Dry weather conditions have brought about a poorer wheat crop set to be harvested this summer. K-State wheat production specialist Romulo Lollato suggests specialized equipment to make the most of a tough situation. Image Courtesy KSRE" />
 <figcaption>Dry weather conditions have brought about a poorer wheat crop set to be harvested this summer. K-State wheat production specialist Romulo Lollato suggests specialized equipment to make the most of a tough situation. Image Courtesy KSRE</figcaption>
 </figure><a href="mailto:jbklaudt@ksu.edu">By JACOB KLAUDT</a> K-State Research and Extension news serviceDrought plaguing parts of Kansas created shorter wheat plants and thinner crop stands this year. In turn, Kansas State University wheat production specialist Romulo Lollato advises growers to make adjustments at harvest time.“This year, the biggest cause for short wheat has been drought stress,” he said. “During springtime, the crop starts to go through a phase called stem elongation. That’s when plant height is determined. In certain areas, there was virtually no moisture, which caused the plants to be short.”Not all areas of Kansas have experienced this level of drought. Lollato said irregular rain patterns gave rise to significant plant height differences across counties and even in the same fields.“The Kansas crop is not uniformly short. A very sparse and variable rainfall distribution created these ‘waves’ within areas where tall and short plants occur, simultaneously, in those locations,” he said.According to Lollato, producers can attach stripper headers to the front of their combines to effectively harvest small wheat plants. Stripper headers separate the grain head from the remaining plant. On the other hand, traditional headers detach plants halfway down their stems.Lollato said, “Essentially, they have fingers on them. Those fingers pluck the heads out from the stem. The stripper headers feed the combine with only the wheat heads, which means having a cleaner product go into the combine, with increased efficiency.”Harvesting low-standing wheat plants with a stripper header can help improve soil quality in semi-arid areas.“They leave more crop residue behind. It will act as a barrier against weeds and shade the fields, which cools soil temperatures and delays weed emergence. Moisture retention is another important advantage. Stripper headers reduce water loss through evaporation, runoff and erosion.”If a producer uses a stripper header this year, future crops have the potential to benefit as well, according to Lollato.“There is a lot of value in having more residue left in the fields,” he said. “When growers plant wheat directly into that crop residue after this year’s harvest, they get all of those benefits, like added moisture, weed control, and erosion reduction, which can help return a very good dollar amount the following summer.”Conventional headers remain as another workable solution for operations not able to invest in additional implements.“A stripper header is a pricey investment,” Lollato said. “However, there might be more challenges operating with a conventional header – especially on ground with a great slope – but they still work in this case.”Making alterations to a traditional header may yield better results when harvesting stunted wheat fields with them.“The most important thing to keep in mind is to maintain the cutting height as high as possible. You can also adjust the reel on the header to get more movement of wheat from the cutter bar to the auger,” Lollato said.Other combine headers appropriate for harvesting poorer quality wheat stands include draper and flex heads. More information on considerations for harvesting short wheat is available in the&nbsp;<a href="https://eupdate.agronomy.ksu.edu/article/considerations-when-harvesting-short-wheat-593-1">May 24 issue of the Agronomy eUpdate</a>, published weekly by the K-State Department of Agronomy.

KSRE — Drought affected wheat fields call for supplemental equipment

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>

WASHINGTON — Republicans moved their long-awaited new farm bill through the U.S. House Agriculture Committee this week, despite opposition from most Democrats that could stall further advancement of the bill.

The massive $1.5 trillion legislation would set policy and funding levels for key food, agriculture and conservation programs for the next five years. After a marathon markup Thursday, the GOP-authored bill cleared the committee after midnight Friday, 33-21, with four Democratic votes.

The committee’s bill would increase farm “safety net” payments for some commodity crops, expand eligibility for disaster assistance and increase funding for speciality crops, organic farmers and dairy farmers.

It is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years. A title-by-title summary of the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/discussion_draft_ffns.pdf">942-page bill</a>&nbsp;can be found&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/detailed_summary_final.pdf">here</a>.

Democrats Don Davis of North Carolina, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Yadira Caraveo of Colorado and Eric Sorenson of Illinois&nbsp;joined all committee Republicans to vote to advance the bill.

After hours of heated debate and criticism from Democrats, support from the four lawmakers across the aisle seemed to surprise House Agriculture Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican who was the bill’s primary sponsor.

His microphone picked up his aside as the vote concluded: “That was bipartisan. I did not see that one coming.”

But the tepid Democratic support is likely not enough to see this version of the bill through to final passage in the House.

A handful of Republicans typically oppose farm bills over fiscal concerns. And even Democrats who voted for the bill in the House committee said it needs major changes before it could make it into law.

The measure does not have support of Democrats in the Senate or the White House.

“Everyone knows that this bill would never become law. The Senate won’t accept it and the administration won’t accept it,” Rep. David Scott of Georgia, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said at the markup. “And while this bill is a giant misstep, it nevertheless begins our journey toward passing a farm bill.”

As the House committee debated the bill, Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow, the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in an interview Thursday that the House proposal has no chance in the Senate.

“It tears up the farm and food coalition and does not have the votes to pass on the House floor. And certainly not in the Senate,” Stabenow told States Newsroom.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/usda-chief-voices-deep-concerns-over-us-house-gop-farm-bills-nutrition-cuts">said earlier this week</a>&nbsp;that the farm bill draft would damage the coalition that traditionally has united behind farm bills and “raises the real possibility of being unable to get a farm bill through the process.”

The committee vote – which came eight months after the previous farm bill expired – was the first step in what is expected to continue to be a protracted dispute over food and farm policy.

Many farm commodity groups have come out in support of the bill, but it faces opposition from hunger advocacy groups as well as fiscal conservatives.

Heritage Foundation, National Taxpayers Union and Taxpayers for Common Sense, along with Environmental Working Group, united this week to oppose the legislation, which they characterized as a government giveaway to favored special interests.

The groups, which span the ideological spectrum, contend the proposed legislation would spend tens of billions of dollars in subsidies that would overwhelmingly go to a relatively small number of farmers who grow certain commodity crops.

Historically, farm bills have brought together lawmakers across party lines, uniting on regional interests. The massive bill stitches together support for agriculture producers, energy and conservation programs on farmland and food and nutrition programs for families in need.

But committee members are deeply divided over limits on nutrition and climate programs that are the funding mechanisms for the Republican bill.

“This, on the policy side, is a very good bill,” Rep. Angie Craig, a Minnesota Democrat, said. “But on the payment side, how do you get to your math?”

The&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats is a funding calculation that would place limits on the formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, the food aid program formerly referred to as food stamps.

“One of the reasons it is so hard to negotiate the little items on this bill is because the big items and the funding mechanism are so fundamentally flawed,” Maine Democrat Chellie Pingree said.

The bill would limit future updates to the Thrifty Food Plan, the formula that calculates benefits for SNAP. This would result in a nearly $30 billion reduction in spending over ten years, based on the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, lawmakers say.

“If we want a farm bill that is able to pass into law with the bipartisan levels that it requires to pass beyond this committee, it is necessary that we go back to the negotiating table and remove this provision,” Caraveo said.

Caraveo, who faces a tough re-election in a toss-up district, ultimately voted in favor of the bill.

Connecticut Democrat Jahana Hayes offered an amendment that would have struck the changes to the program. But after more than two hours of impassioned debate on the issue Thursday night, the amendment failed on a party-line vote, 25-29.

The farm bill has to remain budget neutral, so lawmakers must fit their proposals into a baseline projection of how much the government would spend over the next 10 years if the current farm bill was extended.

The House Republican bill would offset increases in payments for farmers by placing limits on SNAP and a discretionary account at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The committee-passed bill would put limits on USDA’s discretionary Commodity Credit Corporation account and would remove climate-smart policy requirements for about $13 billion in conservation projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act.

“Farmers agree that this is good money that has come to all of our states, and is critically important,” Pingree said. “So taking away this authority from one Agriculture secretary maybe because you don’t like one program is completely misguided. It’s not thinking into the future.”

On the Senate side, Stabenow released an outline of her own&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/dem/press/release/chairwoman-stabenow-unveils-the-rural-prosperity-and-food-security-act">proposal</a>&nbsp;for the farm bill in early May but said she is waiting for language from Republicans before they can move forward.

Among other things, Stabenow’s bill would boost eligibility for nutrition programs for low-income people like SNAP. Stabenow made public a summary of the bill, but not legislative text.

Arkansas Republican John Boozman, the Senate Agriculture Committee’s top Republican, said Thursday he supports the direction on the farm bill from the House Agriculture Committee but was not optimistic about swift movement in his chamber.

“We’ve got a lot of headwinds,” Boozman said in an interview with&nbsp;States Newsroom&nbsp;Thursday.

Boozman said he plans to release language in the coming weeks but indicated lawmakers might be headed toward another extension if they cannot make progress swiftly.

“When I visit with the farm groups, I think their attitude is that rather than just doing something, if it’s not meaningful, we’re better off waiting,” Boozman told States Newsroom. “This is a five-year commitment. And, again, if we’re not going to do meaningful changes, to improve the safety of the farmers, it’s probably not worth doing.”

The farm bill is generally considered “must-pass” legislation. Lawmakers must rewrite the sweeping legislation every five years to set mandatory funding levels and policy. The current farm bill expired at the end of September 2023 but most programs have continued through extensions.

The current extension lasts until the end of September, but it is not clear if lawmakers will make that deadline – especially as attention turns to election campaigns over the summer and fall.

The farm bill votes could be fuel in upcoming elections.

As the House committee debated the measure Thursday, the GOP candidate in the Michigan U.S. Senate race to replace Stabenow criticized Democratic candidate and committee member Elissa Slotkin for her stance on the bill. Republican Mike Rogers took to X (formerly Twitter) to say Slotkin had not focused enough on the bill.

While the House committee engaged in 13 hours of debate on the farm bill markup, both Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that there would need to be more negotiations on the bill before it could become law.

Rep. Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican and longtime committee member who chaired the panel from 2011 to 2015, characterized the committee vote as “the first step of a long journey.”

“Now, ultimately, ultimately, we must work with each other to advance a comprehensive committee product,” Lucas said.

“As we begin this process, I want to remind all my colleagues, the real struggle is not here in the Ag Committee, but on the floor of the United States House and in the conference committee. We will sort out our differences with the United States Senate.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/5/1589039066122.png" alt="&nbsp;The U.S. House Agriculture Committee approved a bill this week to renew farm and nutrition programs, the the measure faces a tough road to becoming law. File photo" />
 <figcaption>&nbsp;The U.S. House Agriculture Committee approved a bill this week to renew farm and nutrition programs, the the measure faces a tough road to becoming law. File photo</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>WASHINGTON — Republicans moved their long-awaited new farm bill through the U.S. House Agriculture Committee this week, despite opposition from most Democrats that could stall further advancement of the bill.The massive $1.5 trillion legislation would set policy and funding levels for key food, agriculture and conservation programs for the next five years. After a marathon markup Thursday, the GOP-authored bill cleared the committee after midnight Friday, 33-21, with four Democratic votes.The committee’s bill would increase farm “safety net” payments for some commodity crops, expand eligibility for disaster assistance and increase funding for speciality crops, organic farmers and dairy farmers.It is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years. A title-by-title summary of the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/discussion_draft_ffns.pdf">942-page bill</a>&nbsp;can be found&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/detailed_summary_final.pdf">here</a>.Democrats Don Davis of North Carolina, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Yadira Caraveo of Colorado and Eric Sorenson of Illinois&nbsp;joined all committee Republicans to vote to advance the bill.After hours of heated debate and criticism from Democrats, support from the four lawmakers across the aisle seemed to surprise House Agriculture Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican who was the bill’s primary sponsor.His microphone picked up his aside as the vote concluded: “That was bipartisan. I did not see that one coming.”<h2>Changes ahead</h2>But the tepid Democratic support is likely not enough to see this version of the bill through to final passage in the House.A handful of Republicans typically oppose farm bills over fiscal concerns. And even Democrats who voted for the bill in the House committee said it needs major changes before it could make it into law.The measure does not have support of Democrats in the Senate or the White House.“Everyone knows that this bill would never become law. The Senate won’t accept it and the administration won’t accept it,” Rep. David Scott of Georgia, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said at the markup. “And while this bill is a giant misstep, it nevertheless begins our journey toward passing a farm bill.”As the House committee debated the bill, Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow, the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in an interview Thursday that the House proposal has no chance in the Senate.“It tears up the farm and food coalition and does not have the votes to pass on the House floor. And certainly not in the Senate,” Stabenow told States Newsroom.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/usda-chief-voices-deep-concerns-over-us-house-gop-farm-bills-nutrition-cuts">said earlier this week</a>&nbsp;that the farm bill draft would damage the coalition that traditionally has united behind farm bills and “raises the real possibility of being unable to get a farm bill through the process.”The committee vote – which came eight months after the previous farm bill expired – was the first step in what is expected to continue to be a protracted dispute over food and farm policy.Many farm commodity groups have come out in support of the bill, but it faces opposition from hunger advocacy groups as well as fiscal conservatives.Heritage Foundation, National Taxpayers Union and Taxpayers for Common Sense, along with Environmental Working Group, united this week to oppose the legislation, which they characterized as a government giveaway to favored special interests.The groups, which span the ideological spectrum, contend the proposed legislation would spend tens of billions of dollars in subsidies that would overwhelmingly go to a relatively small number of farmers who grow certain commodity crops.<h2>Funding dispute</h2>Historically, farm bills have brought together lawmakers across party lines, uniting on regional interests. The massive bill stitches together support for agriculture producers, energy and conservation programs on farmland and food and nutrition programs for families in need.But committee members are deeply divided over limits on nutrition and climate programs that are the funding mechanisms for the Republican bill.“This, on the policy side, is a very good bill,” Rep. Angie Craig, a Minnesota Democrat, said. “But on the payment side, how do you get to your math?”The&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats is a funding calculation that would place limits on the formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, the food aid program formerly referred to as food stamps.“One of the reasons it is so hard to negotiate the little items on this bill is because the big items and the funding mechanism are so fundamentally flawed,” Maine Democrat Chellie Pingree said.The bill would limit future updates to the Thrifty Food Plan, the formula that calculates benefits for SNAP. This would result in a nearly $30 billion reduction in spending over ten years, based on the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, lawmakers say.“If we want a farm bill that is able to pass into law with the bipartisan levels that it requires to pass beyond this committee, it is necessary that we go back to the negotiating table and remove this provision,” Caraveo said.Caraveo, who faces a tough re-election in a toss-up district, ultimately voted in favor of the bill.Connecticut Democrat Jahana Hayes offered an amendment that would have struck the changes to the program. But after more than two hours of impassioned debate on the issue Thursday night, the amendment failed on a party-line vote, 25-29.The farm bill has to remain budget neutral, so lawmakers must fit their proposals into a baseline projection of how much the government would spend over the next 10 years if the current farm bill was extended.The House Republican bill would offset increases in payments for farmers by placing limits on SNAP and a discretionary account at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.The committee-passed bill would put limits on USDA’s discretionary Commodity Credit Corporation account and would remove climate-smart policy requirements for about $13 billion in conservation projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act.“Farmers agree that this is good money that has come to all of our states, and is critically important,” Pingree said. “So taking away this authority from one Agriculture secretary maybe because you don’t like one program is completely misguided. It’s not thinking into the future.”<h2>Slow Senate progress</h2>On the Senate side, Stabenow released an outline of her own&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/dem/press/release/chairwoman-stabenow-unveils-the-rural-prosperity-and-food-security-act">proposal</a>&nbsp;for the farm bill in early May but said she is waiting for language from Republicans before they can move forward.Among other things, Stabenow’s bill would boost eligibility for nutrition programs for low-income people like SNAP. Stabenow made public a summary of the bill, but not legislative text.Arkansas Republican John Boozman, the Senate Agriculture Committee’s top Republican, said Thursday he supports the direction on the farm bill from the House Agriculture Committee but was not optimistic about swift movement in his chamber.“We’ve got a lot of headwinds,” Boozman said in an interview with&nbsp;States Newsroom&nbsp;Thursday.Boozman said he plans to release language in the coming weeks but indicated lawmakers might be headed toward another extension if they cannot make progress swiftly.“When I visit with the farm groups, I think their attitude is that rather than just doing something, if it’s not meaningful, we’re better off waiting,” Boozman told States Newsroom. “This is a five-year commitment. And, again, if we’re not going to do meaningful changes, to improve the safety of the farmers, it’s probably not worth doing.”<h2>Election issue</h2>The farm bill is generally considered “must-pass” legislation. Lawmakers must rewrite the sweeping legislation every five years to set mandatory funding levels and policy. The current farm bill expired at the end of September 2023 but most programs have continued through extensions.The current extension lasts until the end of September, but it is not clear if lawmakers will make that deadline – especially as attention turns to election campaigns over the summer and fall.The farm bill votes could be fuel in upcoming elections.As the House committee debated the measure Thursday, the GOP candidate in the Michigan U.S. Senate race to replace Stabenow criticized Democratic candidate and committee member Elissa Slotkin for her stance on the bill. Republican Mike Rogers took to X (formerly Twitter) to say Slotkin had not focused enough on the bill.<h2>More negotiations ahead</h2>While the House committee engaged in 13 hours of debate on the farm bill markup, both Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that there would need to be more negotiations on the bill before it could become law.Rep. Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican and longtime committee member who chaired the panel from 2011 to 2015, characterized the committee vote as “the first step of a long journey.”“Now, ultimately, ultimately, we must work with each other to advance a comprehensive committee product,” Lucas said.“As we begin this process, I want to remind all my colleagues, the real struggle is not here in the Ag Committee, but on the floor of the United States House and in the conference committee. We will sort out our differences with the United States Senate.”Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

Farm bill advances from U.S. House panel but faces a tough row to hoe

WASHINGTON (AP) —A Michigan dairy worker has been diagnosed with bird flu — the second human case associated with an outbreak in U.S. dairy cows.

The worker had been in contact with cows presumed to be infected, experienced mild eye symptoms and has recovered, U.S. and Michigan health officials said in announcing the case Wednesday. A nasal swab from the person tested negative for the virus, but an eye swab tested positive, “indicating an eye infection," the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a statement.

The risk to the public remains low, but farmworkers exposed to infected animals are at higher risk, health officials said. They said those workers should be offered protective equipment, especially for their eyes.

The first case happened in late March, when a farmworker in Texas&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-texas-cows-355f1e288e72df8b81b0e2efd8b3ae2f">was diagnosed</a>&nbsp;in what officials called the first known instance globally of a person catching this version of bird flu from a mammal. That patient also reported only eye inflammation and recovered.

Since 2020, a bird flu virus has been spreading among&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/disease-outbreaks-hong-kong-health-bird-flu-animals-75e5d058e0fda23b5359f66cafb74cdf">more animal species</a>&nbsp;— including dogs, cats, skunks, bears and even&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/seals-bird-flu-deaths-oceans-80184a8793fbcc21fab01b1c90b0d71b">seals</a>&nbsp;and porpoises — in scores of countries. The detection&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-cattle-usda-kansas-texas-c3040bb31a9a8293717d47362f006902">in U.S. livestock</a>&nbsp;earlier this year was an&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-farmers-barb-petersen-07bd5accb01441bc5d279464271d2371">unexpected twist</a>&nbsp;that sparked questions about food safety and whether it would start spreading among humans.

That hasn't happened, although there's been a steady increase of reported infections in cows. As of Wednesday, the virus&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock">had been confirmed</a>&nbsp;in 51 dairy herds in nine states, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. Fifteen of the herds were in Michigan.

Health officials in Michigan have declined to say how many people exposed to infected cattle have been tested or monitored. U.S. officials said they had tested 40 people since the first cow cases were discovered in late March.

The CDC's Dr. Nirav Shah praised Michigan officials for actively monitoring farmworkers. He said health officials there have been sending daily text messages to workers exposed to infected cows asking about possible symptoms, and that the effort helped officials catch this infection. He said no other workers had reported symptoms.

USDA is expanding financial incentives to dairy farmers whose herds have not yet been infected with the virus, Eric Deeble. a federal agriculture official, said Wednesday.

The virus has been found in high levels in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-raw-milk-h5n1-6398d2eda26eb41797ee2700cf9d036b">raw milk</a>&nbsp;of infected cows, but government officials say pasteurized products sold in grocery stores are safe because heat treatment has been confirmed to kill the virus.

The new case marks the third time a person in the United States has been diagnosed with what’s known as Type A H5N1 virus. In 2022, a prison inmate in a work program&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-environment-colorado-b98906e0a1899bb1f92da30a7b1dbe28">picked it up</a>&nbsp;while killing infected birds at a poultry farm in Montrose County, Colorado. His only symptom was fatigue, and he recovered. That predated the virus’s appearance in cows.

WASHINGTON (AP) —A Michigan dairy worker has been diagnosed with bird flu — the second human case associated with an outbreak in U.S. dairy cows.The worker had been in contact with cows presumed to be infected, experienced mild eye symptoms and has recovered, U.S. and Michigan health officials said in announcing the case Wednesday. A nasal swab from the person tested negative for the virus, but an eye swab tested positive, “indicating an eye infection," the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a statement.The risk to the public remains low, but farmworkers exposed to infected animals are at higher risk, health officials said. They said those workers should be offered protective equipment, especially for their eyes.The first case happened in late March, when a farmworker in Texas&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-texas-cows-355f1e288e72df8b81b0e2efd8b3ae2f">was diagnosed</a>&nbsp;in what officials called the first known instance globally of a person catching this version of bird flu from a mammal. That patient also reported only eye inflammation and recovered.Since 2020, a bird flu virus has been spreading among&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/disease-outbreaks-hong-kong-health-bird-flu-animals-75e5d058e0fda23b5359f66cafb74cdf">more animal species</a>&nbsp;— including dogs, cats, skunks, bears and even&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/seals-bird-flu-deaths-oceans-80184a8793fbcc21fab01b1c90b0d71b">seals</a>&nbsp;and porpoises — in scores of countries. The detection&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-cattle-usda-kansas-texas-c3040bb31a9a8293717d47362f006902">in U.S. livestock</a>&nbsp;earlier this year was an&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-farmers-barb-petersen-07bd5accb01441bc5d279464271d2371">unexpected twist</a>&nbsp;that sparked questions about food safety and whether it would start spreading among humans.That hasn't happened, although there's been a steady increase of reported infections in cows. As of Wednesday, the virus&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock">had been confirmed</a>&nbsp;in 51 dairy herds in nine states, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. Fifteen of the herds were in Michigan.Health officials in Michigan have declined to say how many people exposed to infected cattle have been tested or monitored. U.S. officials said they had tested 40 people since the first cow cases were discovered in late March.The CDC's Dr. Nirav Shah praised Michigan officials for actively monitoring farmworkers. He said health officials there have been sending daily text messages to workers exposed to infected cows asking about possible symptoms, and that the effort helped officials catch this infection. He said no other workers had reported symptoms.USDA is expanding financial incentives to dairy farmers whose herds have not yet been infected with the virus, Eric Deeble. a federal agriculture official, said Wednesday.The virus has been found in high levels in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-raw-milk-h5n1-6398d2eda26eb41797ee2700cf9d036b">raw milk</a>&nbsp;of infected cows, but government officials say pasteurized products sold in grocery stores are safe because heat treatment has been confirmed to kill the virus.The new case marks the third time a person in the United States has been diagnosed with what’s known as Type A H5N1 virus. In 2022, a prison inmate in a work program&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-environment-colorado-b98906e0a1899bb1f92da30a7b1dbe28">picked it up</a>&nbsp;while killing infected birds at a poultry farm in Montrose County, Colorado. His only symptom was fatigue, and he recovered. That predated the virus’s appearance in cows.

Another farmworker diagnosed with bird flu tied to dairy cows

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">ARIANA FIGUEROA</a>

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Tuesday $300 million in funding for more than 60 groups seeking to diversify American agricultural exports.

“USDA is pleased to be able to provide the startup capital to tap into these opportunities,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on a call with reporters Monday night previewing the announcement.

In total, 66 organizations will be funded under the new Regional Agricultural Promotion Program, or RAPP. The USDA&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://fas.usda.gov/programs/regional-agricultural-promotion-program">launched</a>&nbsp;the $1.4 billion program in October in order to develop new export markets for U.S. food and agricultural products beyond the traditional partnerships with Canada, Mexico, the European Union and China.

“What this program really provides is an opportunity for us not only to expand geographically the opportunities for trade, but also the products that can be made available,” Vilsack said. “It’s a tremendous opportunity for us to diversify in a variety of different ways to grow market opportunity.”

The program focuses on tapping U.S. exports into new markets in regions such as South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/5/1716210763832.png" alt="Photo USDA" />
 <figcaption>Photo USDA</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">ARIANA FIGUEROA</a>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Tuesday $300 million in funding for more than 60 groups seeking to diversify American agricultural exports.“USDA is pleased to be able to provide the startup capital to tap into these opportunities,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on a call with reporters Monday night previewing the announcement.In total, 66 organizations will be funded under the new Regional Agricultural Promotion Program, or RAPP. The USDA&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://fas.usda.gov/programs/regional-agricultural-promotion-program">launched</a>&nbsp;the $1.4 billion program in October in order to develop new export markets for U.S. food and agricultural products beyond the traditional partnerships with Canada, Mexico, the European Union and China.“What this program really provides is an opportunity for us not only to expand geographically the opportunities for trade, but also the products that can be made available,” Vilsack said. “It’s a tremendous opportunity for us to diversify in a variety of different ways to grow market opportunity.”The program focuses on tapping U.S. exports into new markets in regions such as South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.“When you have the major markets, as we’ve had, where 60 to 65% of what we export goes into four or five markets, that can create a sense of complacency,” Vilsack said.<h2>‘The riskiest business in the world’</h2>Vilsack said the funding would be an important step in building wealth in rural areas of the United States.“We want to make sure our foreign-market development programs and agricultural trade in general work for the full spectrum of American agricultural producers, regardless of their size, their location, their product or target market,” he said. “By investing in exports, we’re investing in the future of American agriculture and rural communities.”Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who leads the Senate Committee on Agriculture, joined the call with reporters. She said that USDA investing in exports is crucial to growing American agriculture.“The bottom line is (to) create new revenue for the folks that have the riskiest business in the world,” Stabenow said. “This is a really important way to support them.”According to a list provided by the USDA, some of the grant recipients include:<ul>
 <li>The Hazelnut Marketing Board in Oregon and Washington state will receive $455,000 to conduct market research and trade missions in several countries in Africa.</li>
 </ul><ul>
 <li>The U.S. Dairy Export Council, based in Virginia, will receive $10 million to expand its presence in Africa by using the funds to study and develop dairy import regulations and regulatory frameworks in those markets.</li>
 </ul><ul>
 <li>The U.S. Meat Export Federation based in Colorado will be awarded $21 million to expand its export efforts to new markets throughout Africa. It will also expand its investment in the convenience-store industry in South Korea, Central America and Colombia.</li>
 </ul><ul>
 <li>The Brewers Association in Colorado will be awarded $2 million to partake in the craft beer scene in Southeast Asia, by participating in the region’s premier brewing trade show and festival and bring buyers from that region to top trade shows in the US.</li>
 </ul><ul>
 <li>The Cranberry Institute in Massachusetts will receive $1 million to conduct trade education seminars and other events to identify opportunities in India, Brazil, Colombia and Southeast Asia.</li>
 </ul>