A Bloomberg article has a large number of soybean farmers around the world worried about the future of Chinese soybean demand. 

The Chinese government is attempting to boost the country’s food security by trying to lower the number of soybeans turned into animal feed. 

The farm ministry says feed grains are the biggest problem when it comes to China’s food supply. 

Ministry officials are asking the feed sector to learn from some of the country’s top producers who have successfully cut down on the amount of soybean meal used in their livestock rations as their main source of protein. 

China is by far the biggest importer of soybeans in the world, and the import bill last year totaled more than $50 billion. Bloomberg says, “Even modest shifts in soy consumption would help control both import costs and inflation and represent a worry for ‘legions’ of overseas farmers that rely on Chinese demand.”

A Bloomberg article has a large number of soybean farmers around the world worried about the future of Chinese soybean demand. The Chinese government is attempting to boost the country’s food security by trying to lower the number of soybeans turned into animal feed. The farm ministry says feed grains are the biggest problem when it comes to China’s food supply. Ministry officials are asking the feed sector to learn from some of the country’s top producers who have successfully cut down on the amount of soybean meal used in their livestock rations as their main source of protein. China is by far the biggest importer of soybeans in the world, and the import bill last year totaled more than $50 billion. Bloomberg says, “Even modest shifts in soy consumption would help control both import costs and inflation and represent a worry for ‘legions’ of overseas farmers that rely on Chinese demand.”

China food security policy may mean lower soybean demand

The Department of Agriculture will invest $178 million in seven international development projects on four continents to support U.S. government priorities. 

The projects include promoting climate-smart agriculture, facilitating trade and addressing the root causes of migration in Central America. 

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the funding Wednesday and says, "By partnering with private-sector organizations, local governments, and local producers and businesses, we are helping to build more equitable and resilient food systems." 

Through Food for Progress, USDA donates U.S. agricultural commodities to eligible entities such as private voluntary organizations and foreign governments, which then sell the commodities on the local market and use the proceeds to support agricultural, economic or infrastructure development programs. 

USDA will donate 240,000 metric tons of commodities this year, valued at $129.6 million. The seven new Food for Progress projects funded by USDA in 2022 are in addition to 41 projects currently underway in 38 countries.

The Department of Agriculture will invest $178 million in seven international development projects on four continents to support U.S. government priorities. The projects include promoting climate-smart agriculture, facilitating trade and addressing the root causes of migration in Central America. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the funding Wednesday and says, "By partnering with private-sector organizations, local governments, and local producers and businesses, we are helping to build more equitable and resilient food systems." Through Food for Progress, USDA donates U.S. agricultural commodities to eligible entities such as private voluntary organizations and foreign governments, which then sell the commodities on the local market and use the proceeds to support agricultural, economic or infrastructure development programs. USDA will donate 240,000 metric tons of commodities this year, valued at $129.6 million. The seven new Food for Progress projects funded by USDA in 2022 are in addition to 41 projects currently underway in 38 countries.

Biden administration invests $178 million in International Food for Progress projects

The Department of Agriculture will invest $220 million in eight new school feeding projects. 

The projects are expected to benefit more than a million children across 2,200 schools in food-insecure countries in Africa and East Asia. 

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the funding Wednesday, awarded through the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. 

This year's awards are part of the $2 billion investment to strengthen global food security, announced by President Joe Biden at the United Nations General Assembly. 

USDA's 2022 commitment includes direct financial support for the projects and funding for purchasing and transporting 41,350 metric tons of U.S.-grown commodities to be donated to the projects for use in school meals. 

The awards also include $23.7 million for purchasing nearly 13,000 tons of locally or regionally produced commodities, supporting producers and supply chains in the target countries, and improving the nutritional diversity of school meals.

The Department of Agriculture will invest $220 million in eight new school feeding projects. The projects are expected to benefit more than a million children across 2,200 schools in food-insecure countries in Africa and East Asia. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the funding Wednesday, awarded through the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. This year's awards are part of the $2 billion investment to strengthen global food security, announced by President Joe Biden at the United Nations General Assembly. USDA's 2022 commitment includes direct financial support for the projects and funding for purchasing and transporting 41,350 metric tons of U.S.-grown commodities to be donated to the projects for use in school meals. The awards also include $23.7 million for purchasing nearly 13,000 tons of locally or regionally produced commodities, supporting producers and supply chains in the target countries, and improving the nutritional diversity of school meals.

USDA funding International School Feeding projects

The National Pork Board received three grants totaling $155 million as part of the USDA Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities funding. 

The three grants are part of the $2.8 billion awarded to 70 selected projects in the first round of funding for the program. 

The first grant, valued at $20 million, will incentivize soil health and manure management practice adoption and support on-farm sustainability reports for pork operations. 

The second grant, totaling $95 million, will support a program to advance the adoption of cover crops and conservation tillage in 20 states. The third grant, worth $40 million, will support testing and evaluating climate-smart data in all segments of agriculture in ways that add increased value and support to producers. 

National Pork Board Sustainability Vice President Ashley McDonald says, “Pork producers stand out as leaders in sustainability with the data aggregation tools they have invested their dollars into already, continually driving to position U.S. pork as the protein of choice here.”

The National Pork Board received three grants totaling $155 million as part of the USDA Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities funding. The three grants are part of the $2.8 billion awarded to 70 selected projects in the first round of funding for the program. The first grant, valued at $20 million, will incentivize soil health and manure management practice adoption and support on-farm sustainability reports for pork operations. The second grant, totaling $95 million, will support a program to advance the adoption of cover crops and conservation tillage in 20 states. The third grant, worth $40 million, will support testing and evaluating climate-smart data in all segments of agriculture in ways that add increased value and support to producers. National Pork Board Sustainability Vice President Ashley McDonald says, “Pork producers stand out as leaders in sustainability with the data aggregation tools they have invested their dollars into already, continually driving to position U.S. pork as the protein of choice here.”

Pork board receives $155 million in Climate-Smart funds

By ALLISON WINTER <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/clash-over-climate-change-funding-emerging-in-farm-bill-debate/">States Newsroom</a>

WASHINGTON — &nbsp; As lawmakers begin
 envisioning the next farm bill, some U.S. House Republicans are wary of
 making climate change a priority for farmers and ranchers.

The pushback from Republicans at a Tuesday hearing came as the Biden 
administration has tried to make significant new investments in climate 
change mitigation on farmland, last week announcing 70 pilot projects to
 support climate-friendly food production.

Lawmakers must rewrite the sweeping farm bill every five years to set
 policy and funding for agriculture, conservation and nutrition 
programs. The next farm bill is due in 2023, and some environmental 
groups are eyeing it as a potential boon for fighting climate change.

It’s also unclear which party will control the U.S. House and Senate following November’s midterm elections.

The farm bill includes massive funding for conservation programs—the 
previous legislation budgeted nearly $30 billion over five years.

More than 140 million acres of farmland in the U.S. are currently 
receiving conservation-related financial and technical assistance from 
the federal government, according to an analysis from the Farm Bureau. 
By comparison, the national park system has more than 85 million acres, 
according to the National Park Service.

The farmland conservation programs have received bipartisan support 
in the past, but some Republicans on Tuesday expressed concern about a 
growing interest in climate mitigation on farmland.

“Congress must be mindful of this massive amount of funding before 
amending programs or making policy changes that reorient programs toward
 climate. No one natural resource concern should be prioritized over 
others,” California Republican Rep. Douglas LaMalfa said at a hearing in
 a panel of the House Agriculture Committee.

LaMalfa is currently the top ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.

At issue is both how to shape the conservation programs in the next 
farm bill and how to manage an extra funding infusion from the recently 
approved&nbsp; Inflation Reduction Act.

That bill, which the House and Senate passed in August, has a slate 
of programs to address climate change, including more than $20 billion 
for climate investments on farmland. Those include support for no-till 
agriculture, cover crops or other programs that affect the soil’s 
ability to hold carbon.

It will provide about a 47 percent increase over previous farm bill 
levels, according to an analysis from the National Sustainable 
Agriculture Coalition.

But for his part, the top Republican on the full committee indicated he would prefer to go his own way in directing the funding.

“I don’t feel bound by the amount of funding or the specific program 
allocation passed in the partisan IRA bill. I am especially worried 
about earmarking of all the new money just for climate, rather than 
letting the locally led process work,” Rep. Glenn Thompson, a 
Pennsylvania Republican, told colleagues at the hearing.

Republicans were critical of the new USDA initiative.

“We got the White House combined with my colleagues who are a real 
threat to the family farm today, in the name of this climate god, this 
new world religion,” said Rep. Rick Allen, a Georgia Republican.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2022/09/14/usda-more-than-triples-funding-for-climate-smart-agriculture/">announced last week</a>&nbsp;that the administration would invest $2.8 billion in pilot projects.

The program,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.usda.gov/climate-solutions/climate-smart-commodities">Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities</a>,
 will fund programs for greenhouse gas reductions on dairy farms, and 
projects to build markets for climate-smart beef, grains and fruits and 
vegetables.

“There is strong and growing interest in the private sector and among
 consumers for food that is grown in a climate-friendly way,” Vilsack 
said in a statement announcing the new programs.

The Agriculture Department plans a second round of funding for more pilot projects later this year.

Applicants submitted more than 450 project proposals for this first funding pool, according to USDA. The money comes from the<a target="_blank" href="https://www.usda.gov/ccc">&nbsp;Commodity Credit Corporation</a>,
 a government corporation created in 1933 that has traditionally funded 
foreign market development projects, price support, domestic farm income
 and conservation programs.

Vilsack and other Democrats see farmers as key stakeholders in 
addressing climate change. Agriculture was responsible for just over 11 
percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, according to the EPA.

Virginia Democrat Abigail Spanberger, the chairwoman of the 
conservation subcommittee, said that she hopes to partner with farmers 
on climate programs.

“We are looking to find on-farm efficiencies and boost the bottom 
line for producers and make sure we are combating the climate crisis 
with the first conservationists, who are our nation’s farmers and 
producers,” Spanberger said at the conclusion of the hearing.

The hearing is one in a series to prepare for the 2023 farm bill.

The farm bill’s conservation programs pay farmers to make 
environmental improvements on working land or to replace crops on highly
 erodible and environmentally sensitive land.

Despite the funding increases in recent farm bills, demand from 
producers for the programs still outpaces the availability from the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the agency within the 
Agriculture Department that oversees most of the conservation programs.

“NRCS continues to be oversubscribed,” said Nicole Berg, president of the National Association of Wheat Growers.

Since the 2018 farm bill, wheat farmers have entered 7,500 contracts 
in conservation programs, but another 5,000 valid applications from 
wheat growers did not receive funding, according to Berg.

“Noticing that a significant number of producers on the ground want 
to participate and can’t is a good call to action for us in the future,”
 Spanberger said.

Other producers complained that the application process is lengthy, 
and it can take months to get a response—which can be particularly 
problematic if producers want to address a pressing issue on their land.

“We were in a drought, and we needed some new water infrastructure, 
it was our biggest dilemma. I applied to NRCS, and we waited and waited 
but finally had to bite the bullet and do the project ourselves,” Shayne
 Wiese, a rancher from Manning, Iowa, told the committee—noting that new
 farmers and ranchers might not be able to finance a project on their 
own.

Lawmakers agreed they would like to support staffing for NRCS and a simpler application process for producers.

“I don’t think we need to reinvent the wheel here. What we need are 
common sense adjustments to ensure that programs are serving their 
producers and their land well,” said Rep. Kim Schrier, a Washington 
Democrat.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/9/1663772933681.jpg" alt="Image courtesy of Pixabay" />
 <figcaption>Image courtesy of Pixabay</figcaption>
 </figure>By ALLISON WINTER <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/clash-over-climate-change-funding-emerging-in-farm-bill-debate/">States Newsroom</a>WASHINGTON — &nbsp; As lawmakers begin
 envisioning the next farm bill, some U.S. House Republicans are wary of
 making climate change a priority for farmers and ranchers.The pushback from Republicans at a Tuesday hearing came as the Biden 
administration has tried to make significant new investments in climate 
change mitigation on farmland, last week announcing 70 pilot projects to
 support climate-friendly food production.Lawmakers must rewrite the sweeping farm bill every five years to set
 policy and funding for agriculture, conservation and nutrition 
programs. The next farm bill is due in 2023, and some environmental 
groups are eyeing it as a potential boon for fighting climate change.It’s also unclear which party will control the U.S. House and Senate following November’s midterm elections.The farm bill includes massive funding for conservation programs—the 
previous legislation budgeted nearly $30 billion over five years.More than 140 million acres of farmland in the U.S. are currently 
receiving conservation-related financial and technical assistance from 
the federal government, according to an analysis from the Farm Bureau. 
By comparison, the national park system has more than 85 million acres, 
according to the National Park Service.The farmland conservation programs have received bipartisan support 
in the past, but some Republicans on Tuesday expressed concern about a 
growing interest in climate mitigation on farmland.“Congress must be mindful of this massive amount of funding before 
amending programs or making policy changes that reorient programs toward
 climate. No one natural resource concern should be prioritized over 
others,” California Republican Rep. Douglas LaMalfa said at a hearing in
 a panel of the House Agriculture Committee.LaMalfa is currently the top ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.<h2>New money at hand</h2>At issue is both how to shape the conservation programs in the next 
farm bill and how to manage an extra funding infusion from the recently 
approved&nbsp; Inflation Reduction Act.That bill, which the House and Senate passed in August, has a slate 
of programs to address climate change, including more than $20 billion 
for climate investments on farmland. Those include support for no-till 
agriculture, cover crops or other programs that affect the soil’s 
ability to hold carbon.It will provide about a 47 percent increase over previous farm bill 
levels, according to an analysis from the National Sustainable 
Agriculture Coalition.But for his part, the top Republican on the full committee indicated he would prefer to go his own way in directing the funding.“I don’t feel bound by the amount of funding or the specific program 
allocation passed in the partisan IRA bill. I am especially worried 
about earmarking of all the new money just for climate, rather than 
letting the locally led process work,” Rep. Glenn Thompson, a 
Pennsylvania Republican, told colleagues at the hearing.Republicans were critical of the new USDA initiative.“We got the White House combined with my colleagues who are a real 
threat to the family farm today, in the name of this climate god, this 
new world religion,” said Rep. Rick Allen, a Georgia Republican.<h2>Climate-smart commodities&nbsp;</h2>Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2022/09/14/usda-more-than-triples-funding-for-climate-smart-agriculture/">announced last week</a>&nbsp;that the administration would invest $2.8 billion in pilot projects.The program,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.usda.gov/climate-solutions/climate-smart-commodities">Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities</a>,
 will fund programs for greenhouse gas reductions on dairy farms, and 
projects to build markets for climate-smart beef, grains and fruits and 
vegetables.“There is strong and growing interest in the private sector and among
 consumers for food that is grown in a climate-friendly way,” Vilsack 
said in a statement announcing the new programs.The Agriculture Department plans a second round of funding for more pilot projects later this year.Applicants submitted more than 450 project proposals for this first funding pool, according to USDA. The money comes from the<a target="_blank" href="https://www.usda.gov/ccc">&nbsp;Commodity Credit Corporation</a>,
 a government corporation created in 1933 that has traditionally funded 
foreign market development projects, price support, domestic farm income
 and conservation programs.Vilsack and other Democrats see farmers as key stakeholders in 
addressing climate change. Agriculture was responsible for just over 11 
percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, according to the EPA.Virginia Democrat Abigail Spanberger, the chairwoman of the 
conservation subcommittee, said that she hopes to partner with farmers 
on climate programs.“We are looking to find on-farm efficiencies and boost the bottom 
line for producers and make sure we are combating the climate crisis 
with the first conservationists, who are our nation’s farmers and 
producers,” Spanberger said at the conclusion of the hearing.The hearing is one in a series to prepare for the 2023 farm bill.<h2>&nbsp;High demand</h2>The farm bill’s conservation programs pay farmers to make 
environmental improvements on working land or to replace crops on highly
 erodible and environmentally sensitive land.Despite the funding increases in recent farm bills, demand from 
producers for the programs still outpaces the availability from the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the agency within the 
Agriculture Department that oversees most of the conservation programs.“NRCS continues to be oversubscribed,” said Nicole Berg, president of the National Association of Wheat Growers.Since the 2018 farm bill, wheat farmers have entered 7,500 contracts 
in conservation programs, but another 5,000 valid applications from 
wheat growers did not receive funding, according to Berg.“Noticing that a significant number of producers on the ground want 
to participate and can’t is a good call to action for us in the future,”
 Spanberger said.Other producers complained that the application process is lengthy, 
and it can take months to get a response—which can be particularly 
problematic if producers want to address a pressing issue on their land.“We were in a drought, and we needed some new water infrastructure, 
it was our biggest dilemma. I applied to NRCS, and we waited and waited 
but finally had to bite the bullet and do the project ourselves,” Shayne
 Wiese, a rancher from Manning, Iowa, told the committee—noting that new
 farmers and ranchers might not be able to finance a project on their 
own.Lawmakers agreed they would like to support staffing for NRCS and a simpler application process for producers.“I don’t think we need to reinvent the wheel here. What we need are 
common sense adjustments to ensure that programs are serving their 
producers and their land well,” said Rep. Kim Schrier, a Washington 
Democrat.

Clash over climate change funding emerges in farm bill debate

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Tuesday introduced the Biochar Research Network Act. 

The Iowa Republican’s legislation seeks to study the effectiveness of biochar, which is a carbon-rich material produced from biomass. 

Specifically, the bill would establish a national biochar research network to test the impact of biochar across various soil types, application methods and climates to learn more about its capacity to benefit farmers and the environment. 

Grassley says, “A lot of work remains to fully understand the benefits biochar could provide, and that’s why I’m honored to lead the introduction of the Biochar Research Network Act.” The proposed research network would work to understand productive uses for biochar to help with crop production and climate mitigation. 

The network would also assess biochar’s potential for soil carbon sequestration and deliver cost-effective and practical information to farmers on sustainable biochar production and application. A companion bill was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Tuesday introduced the Biochar Research Network Act. The Iowa Republican’s legislation seeks to study the effectiveness of biochar, which is a carbon-rich material produced from biomass. Specifically, the bill would establish a national biochar research network to test the impact of biochar across various soil types, application methods and climates to learn more about its capacity to benefit farmers and the environment. Grassley says, “A lot of work remains to fully understand the benefits biochar could provide, and that’s why I’m honored to lead the introduction of the Biochar Research Network Act.” The proposed research network would work to understand productive uses for biochar to help with crop production and climate mitigation. The network would also assess biochar’s potential for soil carbon sequestration and deliver cost-effective and practical information to farmers on sustainable biochar production and application. A companion bill was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Grassley introduces bipartisan Biochar Research Network Act

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association expressed disappointment Tuesday over an Executive Order announced last week. 

The White House last week released the Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy. 

NCBA President Don Schiefelbein says, "Unfortunately, we are extremely disappointed that this Executive Order also addresses fake meat production under the guise of food security." 

He adds, "Supporting cell-cultured, fake meat products is the wrong approach, and the administration should remain focused on supporting America's farmers and ranchers." NCBA encourages the administration to support the biotechnology innovations already occurring in the cattle industry. 

According to the organization, technology like gene editing is critical to improving cattle health and wellbeing, while also helping the U.S. cattle industry demonstrate climate neutrality by 2040. 

NCBA says cattle producers play an important role in ensuring food security and has long fought for policies that help producers remain in business while raising the highest quality beef in the world.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association expressed disappointment Tuesday over an Executive Order announced last week. The White House last week released the Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy. NCBA President Don Schiefelbein says, "Unfortunately, we are extremely disappointed that this Executive Order also addresses fake meat production under the guise of food security." He adds, "Supporting cell-cultured, fake meat products is the wrong approach, and the administration should remain focused on supporting America's farmers and ranchers." NCBA encourages the administration to support the biotechnology innovations already occurring in the cattle industry. According to the organization, technology like gene editing is critical to improving cattle health and wellbeing, while also helping the U.S. cattle industry demonstrate climate neutrality by 2040. NCBA says cattle producers play an important role in ensuring food security and has long fought for policies that help producers remain in business while raising the highest quality beef in the world.

NCBA extremely disappointed with White House Biotechnology Executive Order

The Department of Agriculture continues to expand opportunities for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, participants to conveniently shop online for groceries. 

USDA reported Tuesday more than 150 additional retailer chains now offer online shopping to SNAP participants, representing thousands of stores. 

In collaboration with state agencies and vendor partners, USDA expanded the availability of SNAP online purchasing to 49 states and the District of Columbia, providing more than 99 percent of all SNAP participants with access to online purchasing. 

USDA's Stacey Dean says, "Expanding the diversity of our online shopping retailers is a critical component of our nutrition security goal to provide better access to healthy, safe, affordable foods." 

In July 2022, just over three million SNAP households shopped online, a substantial increase from March 2020, when about 35,000 SNAP households shopped online. In the last four months, 44 retailers were added to the program, representing 1,240 store locations.

The Department of Agriculture continues to expand opportunities for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, participants to conveniently shop online for groceries. USDA reported Tuesday more than 150 additional retailer chains now offer online shopping to SNAP participants, representing thousands of stores. In collaboration with state agencies and vendor partners, USDA expanded the availability of SNAP online purchasing to 49 states and the District of Columbia, providing more than 99 percent of all SNAP participants with access to online purchasing. USDA's Stacey Dean says, "Expanding the diversity of our online shopping retailers is a critical component of our nutrition security goal to provide better access to healthy, safe, affordable foods." In July 2022, just over three million SNAP households shopped online, a substantial increase from March 2020, when about 35,000 SNAP households shopped online. In the last four months, 44 retailers were added to the program, representing 1,240 store locations.

USDA expands SNAP online shopping, adds new retailers

By DAVID CONDOS <a href="https://www.hppr.org/hppr-news/2022-09-20/how-the-drought-killing-kansas-corn-crops-could-make-you-pay-more-for-gas-and-beef">Kansas News Service</a>

This dry, hot summer has claimed its share of victims in Marc Ramsey’s cornfields.

Fewer
 than seven inches of rain have fallen this year in the area he farms 
between Dighton and Scott City — nearly one foot below the historical 
average.

“This is a year unlike anything I’ve ever seen,” Ramsey 
said. “There are lots of times this year I’ve just kind of been at a 
loss for words.”

Across western Kansas, vast swaths of brown, 
shriveled corn plants succumbed to the oppressive weather before 
reaching more than a couple of feet tall. Others grew ears with no 
kernels or no ears at all. Some of Ramsey’s stalks that stretched to 
six-feet-tall on July rains withered down to nothing under the late 
summer sun.

The harvests from these western Kansas cornfields 
typically fuel billion-dollar industries, such as feeding cattle. But 
with so little corn to go around this year, those industrial customers 
are paying a premium to ship grain in from other states just to keep 
their operations running.

Even during the region’s last big drought a decade ago, Ramsey said, 
his cornfields still had a decent number of bushels to harvest. This 
year, he estimates roughly half of the corn he planted won’t yield a 
single piece of grain.

“Just saying ‘zero yield’ is a painful thing to say,” Ramsey said. “It’s hard not to be disappointed.”

The ripple effects of this year’s poor corn harvest in Kansas will extend well beyond stressing farmers and their livelihoods. 

As
 it becomes more difficult and expensive for cattle feedlots — where 
animals are fattened up for slaughter — and ethanol plants to get the 
corn they need, people across Kansas could face higher prices at the 
grocery store and the gas pump.

Historically, it’s been common to see corn sell in western Kansas for about $4 a bushel.

Dan
 O’Brien, a Kansas State University agricultural economist based in 
Colby, said that number has roughly doubled. Prices had already been 
creeping up since Russia invaded Ukraine — another major corn exporter —
 and now thanks to the drought-fueled shortage, the price in western 
Kansas is around $8 per bushel.

“The reason that we built those 
grain-using industries out here had to do with availability of grain, 
and now they’re crunched,” O’Brien said. “That sets off a whole series 
of responses … all of them not good.”

The lack of local corn 
supply is already pushing Kansas cattle and ethanol companies to bring 
in grain by rail from places like Iowa, Illinois and Ohio. That’ll 
inflate corn prices across the Midwest, as local corn-dependent 
industries in those states suddenly have to compete with more buyers 
from Kansas.

But it’ll especially hurt Kansas. O’Brien estimates 
it’ll cost Kansas industries an extra $1 per bushel to ship in corn from
 other states.

Each steer at a feedlot can eat up to <a href="https://www.iowabeefcenter.org/ResearchProjects/IBC4.pdf" target="_blank">60 bushels</a> of corn before it gets turned into beef. Kansas feedlots have <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Kansas/Publications/Livestock_Releases/Cattle_on_Feed/2022/KS-cof2208.pdf" target="_blank">2.35 million</a> bovine mouths to feed. So paying an extra dollar to ship in those bushels could add up quickly.

In the short term, O’Brien expects the corn crunch to push meat and ethanol prices up. Beef prices had <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/08/30/1120023642/beef-prices-are-down-right-now-but-that-may-not-last" target="_blank">fallen recently</a> as the drought forced livestock owners to sell off more of their cattle.

But even those higher prices might not be enough to keep corn-dependent companies profitable in western Kansas.

“Is
 that enough to offset the major increase in the cost of corn?” O’Brien 
said. “Whether it’s livestock feeders or ethanol plants, they all 
operate on the margin.”

Feedlots that can’t afford to pay a 
premium for getting corn from out of state may have to send some animals
 to slaughter early. And if the drought continues and corn prices remain
 high for months, it could start to reshape the future of those 
industries in western Kansas.

There might not be enough corn in 
western Kansas to keep ethanol plants going here for the long term, 
O’Brien said, when they could shift operations to the other parts of the
 Corn Belt where the grain is more readily available. Likewise, some 
Kansas feedlots may buy less cattle next year because of the rising cost
 of grain.

Cattle ranching and feeding has the largest economic impact of any agricultural sector in Kansas, contributing roughly <a href="https://www.agriculture.ks.gov/docs/default-source/ag-marketing/county-ag-stats/2022-county-ag-stats/state-of-kansas-reports-8-12-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=553e9bc1_4" target="_blank">$9 billion</a> to the state economy. Ethanol production contributes another <a href="https://www.agriculture.ks.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/ag-contribution-2018-with-retail-ethanol-combined-update-final.pdf?sfvrsn=49078bc1_0" target="_blank">$850 million</a>.

“If
 things get rough enough out in the west,” O’Brien said, “it affects the
 economic livelihood of everybody in the whole state.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that Kansas farmers will harvest <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/crop0922.pdf" target="_blank">628 million bushels</a> of corn this year. That would be 122 million bushels less than last year.

If
 you multiply those 122 million missing bushels by the elevated 
$8-per-bushel prices, it means the state’s agricultural economy is 
missing out on nearly $1 billion due to the drought.

“If you just 
look at the typical annual Kansas corn and sorghum production,” Kansas 
State University agronomist Lucas Haag said, “and then figure the 
reductions that are going to be due to drought, we’re talking huge sums 
of money.”

The USDA says <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Kansas/Publications/Crop_Progress_and_Condition/2022/KS-weekly0912.pdf" target="_blank">more than half</a> of the state’s corn is in poor or very poor condition. That’s up from around 20% at this point <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Kansas/Publications/Crop_Progress_and_Condition/2021/KS-weekly0913.pdf" target="_blank">last year</a>.

It’s
 a similar story for sorghum, which is typically considered a more 
drought-tolerant alternative to corn. More than half of Kansas sorghum 
is in poor or very poor condition — up from just 15% last year.

While
 irrigation has helped some farms avoid the worst, Haag said, many 
fields with center pivot sprinklers will still be abandoned because 
farmers just couldn’t pump enough water to save them.

“There's 
very few areas of the state where we actually have wells that have the 
capacity to match up for when we're this short of precipitation,” Haag 
said.

Water levels in the Ogallala aquifer — the primary water source for most of western Kansas — have been <a href="https://www.hppr.org/hppr-news/2022-03-31/how-kansas-could-lose-billions-in-land-values-as-its-underground-water-runs-dry" target="_blank">declining for decades</a> since the dawn of irrigated farmland. Estimates show that if pumping trends continue,<a href="https://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/aug13/groundwater82613.html" target="_blank"> </a><a href="https://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/aug13/groundwater82613.html" target="_blank">more than two-thirds</a> of the water under Kansas will be gone within 40 years.

And it’s unclear when farmers in western Kansas will feel some relief.

It’s the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/09/12/1122259523/triple-dip-la-nina-explained-weather" target="_blank">first time in decades</a>&nbsp;that a La Niña weather pattern, which fueled droughts across the West and Great Plains in 2022, will show up for a third consecutive winter.&nbsp;And the National Drought Mitigation Center expects drought to persist 
across Kansas through at least the end of this year.

To make 
matters worse, a poor crop this season will likely leave fields with 
less residue — the pieces of plant matter that remain on the ground to 
help soil store moisture. And with so much of western Kansas already in a
 deep precipitation deficit, Haag said, it’ll take more than a few rains
 here and there to get the region back on its feet.

“We can really
 end up in one of these death spirals,” Haag said, “until we get a 
really above-average year in terms of precipitation and crop yields that
 then kind of pulls us back out of it.”

Marc Ramsey has heard from other western Kansas farmers who consider 
him lucky for having anything to harvest at all. Lots of folks who 
planted dryland, or nonirrigated, corn this year won’t even bother 
taking a combine into their fields.

“I guess they get to relax a 
little bit more in the next couple of weeks,” Ramsey said. “But, you 
know, that's the kind of relaxation none of us want.”

Last year 
was dry too, Ramsey said, but his soil still had enough residual water 
to produce more than 50 bushels of corn per acre. This year, one of the <a href="https://www.hppr.org/hppr-news/2022-08-24/here-are-7-ways-this-dry-hot-year-stacks-up-against-the-worst-droughts-in-kansas-history" target="_blank">hottest, driest summers</a> on record has rung that dirt dry — the USDA reports that <a href="https://www.agriculture.com/weather/news/86-of-kansas-is-short-or-very-short-on-soil-moisture" target="_blank">86% of the soil</a> across Kansas doesn’t have enough moisture.

And
 just a couple of weeks from now, Ramsey and farmers across western 
Kansas will be planting their winter wheat crop into that same dry 
ground.

“Hopefully we've taken care of it, and it'll give us another shot.”

David Condos covers western Kansas for High Plains Public Radio and the Kansas News Service. You can follow him on Twitter<a href="http://twitter.com/davidcondos" target="_blank"> @davidcondos</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/9/1663680425377.png" alt="Many cornfields in western Kansas, like this one just outside of Garden City, have been parched by the drought. Estimates predict that Kansas corn farmers will harvest 122 million fewer bushels this year than they did last year. David Condos / Kansas News Service" />
 <figcaption>Many cornfields in western Kansas, like this one just outside of Garden City, have been parched by the drought. Estimates predict that Kansas corn farmers will harvest 122 million fewer bushels this year than they did last year. David Condos / Kansas News Service</figcaption>
 </figure>By DAVID CONDOS <a href="https://www.hppr.org/hppr-news/2022-09-20/how-the-drought-killing-kansas-corn-crops-could-make-you-pay-more-for-gas-and-beef">Kansas News Service</a>This dry, hot summer has claimed its share of victims in Marc Ramsey’s cornfields.Fewer
 than seven inches of rain have fallen this year in the area he farms 
between Dighton and Scott City — nearly one foot below the historical 
average.“This is a year unlike anything I’ve ever seen,” Ramsey 
said. “There are lots of times this year I’ve just kind of been at a 
loss for words.”Across western Kansas, vast swaths of brown, 
shriveled corn plants succumbed to the oppressive weather before 
reaching more than a couple of feet tall. Others grew ears with no 
kernels or no ears at all. Some of Ramsey’s stalks that stretched to 
six-feet-tall on July rains withered down to nothing under the late 
summer sun.The harvests from these western Kansas cornfields 
typically fuel billion-dollar industries, such as feeding cattle. But 
with so little corn to go around this year, those industrial customers 
are paying a premium to ship grain in from other states just to keep 
their operations running.Even during the region’s last big drought a decade ago, Ramsey said, 
his cornfields still had a decent number of bushels to harvest. This 
year, he estimates roughly half of the corn he planted won’t yield a 
single piece of grain.“Just saying ‘zero yield’ is a painful thing to say,” Ramsey said. “It’s hard not to be disappointed.”The ripple effects of this year’s poor corn harvest in Kansas will extend well beyond stressing farmers and their livelihoods. As
 it becomes more difficult and expensive for cattle feedlots — where 
animals are fattened up for slaughter — and ethanol plants to get the 
corn they need, people across Kansas could face higher prices at the 
grocery store and the gas pump.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/9/1663680497163.png" alt="This map from Kansas Mesonet shows how many inches below-average precipitation totals are for various places across Kansas. A higher number (and darker red coloring) means that a location is more dry this year compared with historical averages." />
 <figcaption>This map from Kansas Mesonet shows how many inches below-average precipitation totals are for various places across Kansas. A higher number (and darker red coloring) means that a location is more dry this year compared with historical averages.</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>The corn crunch</h2>Historically, it’s been common to see corn sell in western Kansas for about $4 a bushel.Dan
 O’Brien, a Kansas State University agricultural economist based in 
Colby, said that number has roughly doubled. Prices had already been 
creeping up since Russia invaded Ukraine — another major corn exporter —
 and now thanks to the drought-fueled shortage, the price in western 
Kansas is around $8 per bushel.“The reason that we built those 
grain-using industries out here had to do with availability of grain, 
and now they’re crunched,” O’Brien said. “That sets off a whole series 
of responses … all of them not good.”The lack of local corn 
supply is already pushing Kansas cattle and ethanol companies to bring 
in grain by rail from places like Iowa, Illinois and Ohio. That’ll 
inflate corn prices across the Midwest, as local corn-dependent 
industries in those states suddenly have to compete with more buyers 
from Kansas.But it’ll especially hurt Kansas. O’Brien estimates 
it’ll cost Kansas industries an extra $1 per bushel to ship in corn from
 other states.Each steer at a feedlot can eat up to <a href="https://www.iowabeefcenter.org/ResearchProjects/IBC4.pdf" target="_blank">60 bushels</a> of corn before it gets turned into beef. Kansas feedlots have <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Kansas/Publications/Livestock_Releases/Cattle_on_Feed/2022/KS-cof2208.pdf" target="_blank">2.35 million</a> bovine mouths to feed. So paying an extra dollar to ship in those bushels could add up quickly.In the short term, O’Brien expects the corn crunch to push meat and ethanol prices up. Beef prices had <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/08/30/1120023642/beef-prices-are-down-right-now-but-that-may-not-last" target="_blank">fallen recently</a> as the drought forced livestock owners to sell off more of their cattle.But even those higher prices might not be enough to keep corn-dependent companies profitable in western Kansas.“Is
 that enough to offset the major increase in the cost of corn?” O’Brien 
said. “Whether it’s livestock feeders or ethanol plants, they all 
operate on the margin.”Feedlots that can’t afford to pay a 
premium for getting corn from out of state may have to send some animals
 to slaughter early. And if the drought continues and corn prices remain
 high for months, it could start to reshape the future of those 
industries in western Kansas.There might not be enough corn in 
western Kansas to keep ethanol plants going here for the long term, 
O’Brien said, when they could shift operations to the other parts of the
 Corn Belt where the grain is more readily available. Likewise, some 
Kansas feedlots may buy less cattle next year because of the rising cost
 of grain.Cattle ranching and feeding has the largest economic impact of any agricultural sector in Kansas, contributing roughly <a href="https://www.agriculture.ks.gov/docs/default-source/ag-marketing/county-ag-stats/2022-county-ag-stats/state-of-kansas-reports-8-12-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=553e9bc1_4" target="_blank">$9 billion</a> to the state economy. Ethanol production contributes another <a href="https://www.agriculture.ks.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/ag-contribution-2018-with-retail-ethanol-combined-update-final.pdf?sfvrsn=49078bc1_0" target="_blank">$850 million</a>.“If
 things get rough enough out in the west,” O’Brien said, “it affects the
 economic livelihood of everybody in the whole state.”<h2>Breaking the drought</h2>The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that Kansas farmers will harvest <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/crop0922.pdf" target="_blank">628 million bushels</a> of corn this year. That would be 122 million bushels less than last year.If
 you multiply those 122 million missing bushels by the elevated 
$8-per-bushel prices, it means the state’s agricultural economy is 
missing out on nearly $1 billion due to the drought.“If you just 
look at the typical annual Kansas corn and sorghum production,” Kansas 
State University agronomist Lucas Haag said, “and then figure the 
reductions that are going to be due to drought, we’re talking huge sums 
of money.”The USDA says <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Kansas/Publications/Crop_Progress_and_Condition/2022/KS-weekly0912.pdf" target="_blank">more than half</a> of the state’s corn is in poor or very poor condition. That’s up from around 20% at this point <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Kansas/Publications/Crop_Progress_and_Condition/2021/KS-weekly0913.pdf" target="_blank">last year</a>.It’s
 a similar story for sorghum, which is typically considered a more 
drought-tolerant alternative to corn. More than half of Kansas sorghum 
is in poor or very poor condition — up from just 15% last year.While
 irrigation has helped some farms avoid the worst, Haag said, many 
fields with center pivot sprinklers will still be abandoned because 
farmers just couldn’t pump enough water to save them.“There's 
very few areas of the state where we actually have wells that have the 
capacity to match up for when we're this short of precipitation,” Haag 
said.Water levels in the Ogallala aquifer — the primary water source for most of western Kansas — have been <a href="https://www.hppr.org/hppr-news/2022-03-31/how-kansas-could-lose-billions-in-land-values-as-its-underground-water-runs-dry" target="_blank">declining for decades</a> since the dawn of irrigated farmland. Estimates show that if pumping trends continue,<a href="https://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/aug13/groundwater82613.html" target="_blank"> </a><a href="https://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/aug13/groundwater82613.html" target="_blank">more than two-thirds</a> of the water under Kansas will be gone within 40 years.And it’s unclear when farmers in western Kansas will feel some relief.It’s the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/09/12/1122259523/triple-dip-la-nina-explained-weather" target="_blank">first time in decades</a>&nbsp;that a La Niña weather pattern, which fueled droughts across the West and Great Plains in 2022, will show up for a third consecutive winter.&nbsp;And the National Drought Mitigation Center expects drought to persist 
across Kansas through at least the end of this year.Corrected 8 a.m. WednesdayTo make 
matters worse, a poor crop this season will likely leave fields with 
less residue — the pieces of plant matter that remain on the ground to 
help soil store moisture. And with so much of western Kansas already in a
 deep precipitation deficit, Haag said, it’ll take more than a few rains
 here and there to get the region back on its feet.“We can really
 end up in one of these death spirals,” Haag said, “until we get a 
really above-average year in terms of precipitation and crop yields that
 then kind of pulls us back out of it.”<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">The Seasonal Drought Outlook for the rest of 2022 shows that drought may develop in and around the Central and Southern Plains. Drought may improve or be removed in the Northwest, Northeast and Hawaii<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Drought?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Drought</a> may persist in areas west of the Mississippi River and across the West <a href="https://t.co/LJTlJi5C6Z">pic.twitter.com/LJTlJi5C6Z</a>&mdash; Drought Center (@DroughtCenter) <a href="https://twitter.com/DroughtCenter/status/1571585975574462464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </div>Marc Ramsey has heard from other western Kansas farmers who consider 
him lucky for having anything to harvest at all. Lots of folks who 
planted dryland, or nonirrigated, corn this year won’t even bother 
taking a combine into their fields.“I guess they get to relax a 
little bit more in the next couple of weeks,” Ramsey said. “But, you 
know, that's the kind of relaxation none of us want.”Last year 
was dry too, Ramsey said, but his soil still had enough residual water 
to produce more than 50 bushels of corn per acre. This year, one of the <a href="https://www.hppr.org/hppr-news/2022-08-24/here-are-7-ways-this-dry-hot-year-stacks-up-against-the-worst-droughts-in-kansas-history" target="_blank">hottest, driest summers</a> on record has rung that dirt dry — the USDA reports that <a href="https://www.agriculture.com/weather/news/86-of-kansas-is-short-or-very-short-on-soil-moisture" target="_blank">86% of the soil</a> across Kansas doesn’t have enough moisture.And
 just a couple of weeks from now, Ramsey and farmers across western 
Kansas will be planting their winter wheat crop into that same dry 
ground.“Hopefully we've taken care of it, and it'll give us another shot.”David Condos covers western Kansas for High Plains Public Radio and the Kansas News Service. You can follow him on Twitter<a href="http://twitter.com/davidcondos" target="_blank"> @davidcondos</a>.

How drought killing Kan. corn could make you pay more for gas, beef

By ALLISON KITE <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/20/missouri-supreme-court-weighs-whether-counties-can-regulate-cafos/">Missouri Independent</a>

Did legislators violate Missouri’s 
constitution when they overruled counties to clear the way for 
industrial hog farms across the state? Does new legislation prohibiting 
local regulation apply to counties that already had their own rules?

These are some of the questions before the Missouri Supreme Court in a <a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/03/21/as-cafo-lawsuit-heads-to-missouri-supreme-court-counties-weigh-options/">case challenging the state’s attempt to bar counties</a> from regulating <a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2021/06/23/some-of-missouris-largest-cafos-are-seeking-less-stringent-state-regulation/">concentrated animal feeding operations</a>,
 or CAFOs. County officials’ years-long battle to retain the ability to 
regulate CAFOs culminated in arguments before the Missouri Supreme Court
 Tuesday.&nbsp;

The court will now weigh whether a 
state law prohibiting local governments from enacting regulations on 
CAFOs that differ, at all, from state rules violates the Missouri 
Constitution.&nbsp;

But beyond that, Stephen Jeffery, an 
attorney for the plaintiffs, said the statute doesn’t apply to existing 
county CAFO regulations that predated the new state law, such as those 
in Cooper and <a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2021/07/15/while-cedar-county-awaits-ruling-in-cafo-lawsuit-a-large-chicken-operation-moves-in/">Cedar counties</a>, which are plaintiffs in the case.&nbsp;

“Just look at the plain language in 
the statute, and you can resolve the whole case on the basis of that,” 
Jeffery said, adding that the court wouldn’t even have to weigh 
complicated constitutional questions.

Missouri officials have taken several
 steps in recent years to clear the way for CAFOs to operate in the 
state. The controversial facilities can house tens of thousands of 
animals and, environmentalists argue, threaten air and water quality 
with the massive amounts of manure produced.&nbsp;

Rural neighbors in some parts of the state have fought proposed CAFOs.&nbsp;

In 2019, the Missouri General Assembly passed <a target="_blank" href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/19info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=3780907">legislation</a>
 barring counties from enacting rules for CAFOs that are “inconsistent 
with or more stringent than” from state regulations. In 2021, <a target="_blank" href="https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB271&amp;year=2021&amp;code=R">they updated it</a> to also bar county rules “in addition to” or “different from” state law, tightening the language around the original ban.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The legislation, plaintiffs argue, violates the “Right to Farm” amendment to the Missouri Constitution.&nbsp;

That amendment, approved by voters in
 2014, enshrines the rights of farmers and ranchers in Missouri “subject
 to duly authorized powers” conferred by the Constitution. That 
includes, according to plaintiffs, the ability to regulate agriculture.&nbsp;

“The clear intent of the voters had 
to be for county commissions and county health boards to continue to 
have such existing authority to adopt and enforce such health ordinances
 and health regulations,” plaintiffs say in their pre-trial brief.&nbsp;

One judge noted that the state’s 
lawyers argued eliminating local regulations on CAFOs would advance the 
right to farm, not diminish it. But Jeffery said the amendment doesn’t 
preclude all local regulation, just those inconsistent with state law.&nbsp;

At the very least, plaintiffs say, 
the state law should not be applied retroactively to county ordinances 
that were already in existence.&nbsp;

The state’s attorney, Justin Smith, 
argued when a pre-existing local ordinance conflicts with state statute,
 the state law overrules it. He noted one of the counties challenging 
the state law —&nbsp;Cooper County —&nbsp;only enacted its CAFO regulations a few 
weeks before the state law disallowing them went into effect.&nbsp;

“A bill had already been passed by 
the legislature, already been signed by the governor and the locality 
was on notice that it was about to go into effect and attempted to race 
to the courthouse, so to speak, to try to put something into effect 
prior to the state law,” Smith said.&nbsp;

He argued existing county CAFO ordinances are void and that determination isn’t retroactive.&nbsp;

“Today, there is a conflict between 
(the laws), and tomorrow there would be a conflict between that, and it 
is prospective that going forward from the time those bills went into 
effect that the prior ordinance…is void,” he said.&nbsp;

While they await a ruling, Jeffery said the two counties are treading lightly.

“Just given the political 
sensitivities of this whole issue — the ordinances remain valid, remain 
on the books, but neither government agency has taken any type of 
enforcement action against anyone,” he said. 

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/9/1663702327459.jpg" alt="Image courtesy of Pixabay" />
 <figcaption>Image courtesy of Pixabay</figcaption>
 </figure>By ALLISON KITE <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/20/missouri-supreme-court-weighs-whether-counties-can-regulate-cafos/">Missouri Independent</a>Did legislators violate Missouri’s 
constitution when they overruled counties to clear the way for 
industrial hog farms across the state? Does new legislation prohibiting 
local regulation apply to counties that already had their own rules?These are some of the questions before the Missouri Supreme Court in a <a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/03/21/as-cafo-lawsuit-heads-to-missouri-supreme-court-counties-weigh-options/">case challenging the state’s attempt to bar counties</a> from regulating <a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2021/06/23/some-of-missouris-largest-cafos-are-seeking-less-stringent-state-regulation/">concentrated animal feeding operations</a>,
 or CAFOs. County officials’ years-long battle to retain the ability to 
regulate CAFOs culminated in arguments before the Missouri Supreme Court
 Tuesday.&nbsp;The court will now weigh whether a 
state law prohibiting local governments from enacting regulations on 
CAFOs that differ, at all, from state rules violates the Missouri 
Constitution.&nbsp;Plaintiffs argue it does.&nbsp;But beyond that, Stephen Jeffery, an 
attorney for the plaintiffs, said the statute doesn’t apply to existing 
county CAFO regulations that predated the new state law, such as those 
in Cooper and <a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2021/07/15/while-cedar-county-awaits-ruling-in-cafo-lawsuit-a-large-chicken-operation-moves-in/">Cedar counties</a>, which are plaintiffs in the case.&nbsp;“Just look at the plain language in 
the statute, and you can resolve the whole case on the basis of that,” 
Jeffery said, adding that the court wouldn’t even have to weigh 
complicated constitutional questions.Missouri officials have taken several
 steps in recent years to clear the way for CAFOs to operate in the 
state. The controversial facilities can house tens of thousands of 
animals and, environmentalists argue, threaten air and water quality 
with the massive amounts of manure produced.&nbsp;Rural neighbors in some parts of the state have fought proposed CAFOs.&nbsp;In 2019, the Missouri General Assembly passed <a target="_blank" href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/19info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=3780907">legislation</a>
 barring counties from enacting rules for CAFOs that are “inconsistent 
with or more stringent than” from state regulations. In 2021, <a target="_blank" href="https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB271&amp;year=2021&amp;code=R">they updated it</a> to also bar county rules “in addition to” or “different from” state law, tightening the language around the original ban.&nbsp;&nbsp;The legislation, plaintiffs argue, violates the “Right to Farm” amendment to the Missouri Constitution.&nbsp;That amendment, approved by voters in
 2014, enshrines the rights of farmers and ranchers in Missouri “subject
 to duly authorized powers” conferred by the Constitution. That 
includes, according to plaintiffs, the ability to regulate agriculture.&nbsp;“The clear intent of the voters had 
to be for county commissions and county health boards to continue to 
have such existing authority to adopt and enforce such health ordinances
 and health regulations,” plaintiffs say in their pre-trial brief.&nbsp;One judge noted that the state’s 
lawyers argued eliminating local regulations on CAFOs would advance the 
right to farm, not diminish it. But Jeffery said the amendment doesn’t 
preclude all local regulation, just those inconsistent with state law.&nbsp;At the very least, plaintiffs say, 
the state law should not be applied retroactively to county ordinances 
that were already in existence.&nbsp;The state’s attorney, Justin Smith, 
argued when a pre-existing local ordinance conflicts with state statute,
 the state law overrules it. He noted one of the counties challenging 
the state law —&nbsp;Cooper County —&nbsp;only enacted its CAFO regulations a few 
weeks before the state law disallowing them went into effect.&nbsp;“A bill had already been passed by 
the legislature, already been signed by the governor and the locality 
was on notice that it was about to go into effect and attempted to race 
to the courthouse, so to speak, to try to put something into effect 
prior to the state law,” Smith said.&nbsp;He argued existing county CAFO ordinances are void and that determination isn’t retroactive.&nbsp;“Today, there is a conflict between 
(the laws), and tomorrow there would be a conflict between that, and it 
is prospective that going forward from the time those bills went into 
effect that the prior ordinance…is void,” he said.&nbsp;While they await a ruling, Jeffery said the two counties are treading lightly.“Just given the political 
sensitivities of this whole issue — the ordinances remain valid, remain 
on the books, but neither government agency has taken any type of 
enforcement action against anyone,” he said.

Mo. high court weighs whether counties can regulate CAFOs

Legislation introduced last week would remove burdensome government regulations from the trucking industry, according to Senator Mike Rounds. 

The South Dakota Republican introduced the Trucking Regulations Unduly Constricting Known Service-providers, or TRUCKS Act. 

Rounds says the regulations are burdensome to agriculture, school districts and trucking companies. In 2012, then-President Obama signed into law legislation that set in motion a new rule that created a requirement for Entry-Level Driver Training. 

The final rulemaking went into effect earlier this year. All new drivers who wish to obtain their Commercial Driver’s License must now complete Entry-Level Driver Training, adding a burdensome requirement at a time when the American Trucking Association estimates a nationwide trucker shortage of 80,000 drivers. 

The bill would allow states to issue a new “Small Business Restricted CDL” so Entry-Level Driver Training requirements would not affect small businesses with nine CDLs or less. The U.S. Custom Harvesters have endorsed the legislation.

Legislation introduced last week would remove burdensome government regulations from the trucking industry, according to Senator Mike Rounds. The South Dakota Republican introduced the Trucking Regulations Unduly Constricting Known Service-providers, or TRUCKS Act. Rounds says the regulations are burdensome to agriculture, school districts and trucking companies. In 2012, then-President Obama signed into law legislation that set in motion a new rule that created a requirement for Entry-Level Driver Training. The final rulemaking went into effect earlier this year. All new drivers who wish to obtain their Commercial Driver’s License must now complete Entry-Level Driver Training, adding a burdensome requirement at a time when the American Trucking Association estimates a nationwide trucker shortage of 80,000 drivers. The bill would allow states to issue a new “Small Business Restricted CDL” so Entry-Level Driver Training requirements would not affect small businesses with nine CDLs or less. The U.S. Custom Harvesters have endorsed the legislation.

Legislation would reduce regulation on trucking industry

Fuel prices fell again last week, but GasBuddy says the near-term future is murky. 

The decline marks the 14th&nbsp;consecutive week of declines. The nation's average gas price declined 3.9 cents from a week ago to $3.64 per gallon. 

The national average is down 25.7 cents from a month ago but 45.9 cents higher than a year ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;The average diesel price declined 7.0 cents last week and stands at $4.93 per gallon. 

However, this week could change the downward trend, according to GasBuddy’s Patrick De Haan, who says, “With some issues arising in Plains and Great Lakes states as the transition to winter gasoline begins, I think we have the best potential to see the weekly trend of falling prices snapped.” 

West Coast states also continue to see increases as unexpected refinery issues continue to percolate, preventing a downward move. De Haan adds, “diesel prices should continue to ease after a much-needed jump in inventories last week.”

Fuel prices fell again last week, but GasBuddy says the near-term future is murky. The decline marks the 14th&nbsp;consecutive week of declines. The nation's average gas price declined 3.9 cents from a week ago to $3.64 per gallon. The national average is down 25.7 cents from a month ago but 45.9 cents higher than a year ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;The average diesel price declined 7.0 cents last week and stands at $4.93 per gallon. However, this week could change the downward trend, according to GasBuddy’s Patrick De Haan, who says, “With some issues arising in Plains and Great Lakes states as the transition to winter gasoline begins, I think we have the best potential to see the weekly trend of falling prices snapped.” West Coast states also continue to see increases as unexpected refinery issues continue to percolate, preventing a downward move. De Haan adds, “diesel prices should continue to ease after a much-needed jump in inventories last week.”

Murky future for fuel prices

The Climate-Smart agriculture partnerships funding announced last week has some environmental groups drawing criticism. 

While welcomed by many in the food and agriculture sector, environmental group Friends of the Earth says some of the funding recipients are unacceptable. 

Funding recipients and partners include a range of corporations, universities, NGOs, trade associations, farms, tribal organizations, and state agencies. 

USDA is expected to soon make another announcement of $700 million for smaller projects under this initiative. Jason Davison, Senior Food and Agriculture Campaigner at Friends of the Earth, says, “Unfortunately, several of them will funnel tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to some of the most egregious climate offenders — Big Ag corporations like JBS, Cargill, and ADM.” 

Davison adds, “Many of these corporations and trade associations have historically fought climate mitigation measures, refusing to report data on their emissions and other pollution.” Friends of the Earth called on Congress and the Department of Agriculture to ensure transparency and accountability for the projects.

The Climate-Smart agriculture partnerships funding announced last week has some environmental groups drawing criticism. While welcomed by many in the food and agriculture sector, environmental group Friends of the Earth says some of the funding recipients are unacceptable. Funding recipients and partners include a range of corporations, universities, NGOs, trade associations, farms, tribal organizations, and state agencies. USDA is expected to soon make another announcement of $700 million for smaller projects under this initiative. Jason Davison, Senior Food and Agriculture Campaigner at Friends of the Earth, says, “Unfortunately, several of them will funnel tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to some of the most egregious climate offenders — Big Ag corporations like JBS, Cargill, and ADM.” Davison adds, “Many of these corporations and trade associations have historically fought climate mitigation measures, refusing to report data on their emissions and other pollution.” Friends of the Earth called on Congress and the Department of Agriculture to ensure transparency and accountability for the projects.

Not all happy with Climate-Smart practices funding

By ARIANA FIGUEROA <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/09/17/topsoil-protection-should-be-stressed-in-the-next-farm-bill-u-s-house-ag-panel-told/">States Newsroom</a>

WASHINGTON — Farmers and academics at
 a hearing this week stressed the need for members of the U.S. House 
Agriculture Committee to support regenerative agriculture farming 
practices in the upcoming farm bill in order to protect topsoil.

U.S. House Agriculture Committee 
Chair David Scott said he held the hearing Wednesday to discuss ways 
policymakers and the Department of Agriculture could help farmers 
incorporate regenerative agriculture practices. That investment in soil 
health would curb climate change and prevent a food shortage, the 
Georgia Democrat said.

Regenerative agriculture occurs in 
farming and grazing practices that focus on rebuilding organic matter in
 topsoil, restoring degraded soil biodiversity and improving the water 
cycle. All of these mitigate climate change by growing plants that 
capture carbon dioxide and move it into the soil.&nbsp;

“Conventional agriculture models are 
degrading American soil,” Jeff Moyer, the chief executive officer of 
Rodale Institute in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, said. Rodale was a pioneer 
in organic farming.

About 95% of food is grown from 
topsoil, which is the most important component to food systems. If soil 
cannot filter water and adsorb carbon, it will hinder farmers’ ability 
to grow food to feed people, creating a food crisis. Around the world, 
soil is eroding 10<a target="_blank" href="https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-soil-erosion-threatens-human-health-and-welfare"> to 40 times faster than it can be replaced.&nbsp;</a>

Moyer said that a third of the 
world’s soil has already degraded, and if “the current rate of soil 
degradation continues, all of the world’s topsoil could be lost within 
60 years.”

“The very start of our food supply 
chain is the Earth, and we are losing the viable component of carbon,” 
Scott said, adding that it’s important to get carbon back into the soil.
 Carbon is the primary energy source for plants.

<a target="_blank" href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021EF002396">A study</a>
 by the University of Massachusetts Amherst in February found that “the 
Midwest has lost approximately 57.6 billion metric tons of topsoil since
 farmers began tilling the soil, 160 years ago.”&nbsp;

“The historical erosion rates exceed 
predictions of present-day erosion rates from national soil erosion 
assessments and levels considered tolerable by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture,” according to the report.

The Biden administration has funneled
 as much as $3 billion to projects that will reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions and sequester carbon in agriculture. On Wednesday, <a target="_blank" href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2022/09/14/usda-more-than-triples-funding-for-climate-smart-agriculture/">USDA announced</a> an expansion of the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program to fund conservation programs.

Scott said a documentary, titled “<a target="_blank" href="https://kissthegroundmovie.com">Kiss the Ground</a>,” helped open his eyes to the need to invest in regenerative agriculture.

“That is the way that we make sure that we have food security,” he said.

Republicans on the committee stressed
 that USDA programs based around regenerative agriculture should not 
become mandatory, and the top GOP lawmaker, Glenn Thompson, of 
Pennsylvania, argued that “tying food policy to climate policy is 
harmful.”&nbsp;

“Small farmers can’t always take on 
the risks that large farms can when adopting new practices, and I 
certainly don’t want to be the person that walks on to one of their 
farms and tells them the federal government mandates that they uphold 
your economic viability of their operations and livelihoods for the sake
 of climate change,” Thompson said.

He added that inflation was also more of an issue to farmers and that many farmers in his state <a target="_blank" href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/100551/eib-222.pdf">already practice regenerative agriculture</a> such as cover crops, which help prevent soil erosion and keep nutrients in the soil.&nbsp;

Rep. Jim Baird, an Indiana 
Republican, also questioned whether organic food was more nutritious 
than that produced by standard farming practices.&nbsp;

Rebecca Larson, the vice president of
 the Western Sugar Cooperative in Denver, said there’s no substantial 
research that organic food has more nutrients and much of that rhetoric 
is “fear-based marketing.”

<a target="_blank" href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26878105/">A study from 2019</a> has found that organic production can boost some key nutrients in foods, but most of those increases are moderate.

Rick Clark, a farmer from 
Williamsport, Indiana, said he adopted regenerative farming practices 
for his 7,000-acre cattle farm to rebuild the soil health over the past 
decade.&nbsp;

“We need to preserve our soil, ’cause that is going to be the future of our farming,” he said.

Rep. Shontel Brown, an Ohio Democrat, asked Clark how Congress can support regenerative farming efforts.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Clark, a representative from 
Regenerate America, urged lawmakers to consider bolstering education and
 technical assistance to farmers wanting to start using those practices,
 such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program from USDA. 
Regenerate America is a coalition of farmers and business partners that 
lobby for regenerative farming practices in the upcoming farm bill.&nbsp;

“Teaching and a support group is so critical here,” he said.

Clark said that he believes these 
programs should remain voluntary but that the government should consider
 giving farmers who implement these practices the biggest share of 
federal subsidiary benefits. He also urged lawmakers to bolster crop 
insurance to help reduce the risk farmers have when implementing 
regenerative farming practices.&nbsp;

“This means bolstering crop insurance
 by removing outdated barriers and creating incentives that recognize 
the risk-reduction benefits of soil health and conservation practices 
and reward farmers implementing those practices — like a ‘good driver’ 
discount on your car insurance,” he said.

Moyer also pushed for lawmakers to 
reform crop insurance because current policies “create disincentives for
 American farmers seeking to transition and operate under a regenerative
 organic model.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/9/1663608069576.jpg" alt="Image courtesy of Pixabay" />
 <figcaption>Image courtesy of Pixabay</figcaption>
 </figure>By ARIANA FIGUEROA <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/09/17/topsoil-protection-should-be-stressed-in-the-next-farm-bill-u-s-house-ag-panel-told/">States Newsroom</a>WASHINGTON — Farmers and academics at
 a hearing this week stressed the need for members of the U.S. House 
Agriculture Committee to support regenerative agriculture farming 
practices in the upcoming farm bill in order to protect topsoil.U.S. House Agriculture Committee 
Chair David Scott said he held the hearing Wednesday to discuss ways 
policymakers and the Department of Agriculture could help farmers 
incorporate regenerative agriculture practices. That investment in soil 
health would curb climate change and prevent a food shortage, the 
Georgia Democrat said.Regenerative agriculture occurs in 
farming and grazing practices that focus on rebuilding organic matter in
 topsoil, restoring degraded soil biodiversity and improving the water 
cycle. All of these mitigate climate change by growing plants that 
capture carbon dioxide and move it into the soil.&nbsp;“Conventional agriculture models are 
degrading American soil,” Jeff Moyer, the chief executive officer of 
Rodale Institute in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, said. Rodale was a pioneer 
in organic farming.About 95% of food is grown from 
topsoil, which is the most important component to food systems. If soil 
cannot filter water and adsorb carbon, it will hinder farmers’ ability 
to grow food to feed people, creating a food crisis. Around the world, 
soil is eroding 10<a target="_blank" href="https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-soil-erosion-threatens-human-health-and-welfare"> to 40 times faster than it can be replaced.&nbsp;</a>Moyer said that a third of the 
world’s soil has already degraded, and if “the current rate of soil 
degradation continues, all of the world’s topsoil could be lost within 
60 years.”“The very start of our food supply 
chain is the Earth, and we are losing the viable component of carbon,” 
Scott said, adding that it’s important to get carbon back into the soil.
 Carbon is the primary energy source for plants.<a target="_blank" href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021EF002396">A study</a>
 by the University of Massachusetts Amherst in February found that “the 
Midwest has lost approximately 57.6 billion metric tons of topsoil since
 farmers began tilling the soil, 160 years ago.”&nbsp;“The historical erosion rates exceed 
predictions of present-day erosion rates from national soil erosion 
assessments and levels considered tolerable by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture,” according to the report.<h2>USDA project funding</h2>The Biden administration has funneled
 as much as $3 billion to projects that will reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions and sequester carbon in agriculture. On Wednesday, <a target="_blank" href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2022/09/14/usda-more-than-triples-funding-for-climate-smart-agriculture/">USDA announced</a> an expansion of the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program to fund conservation programs.Scott said a documentary, titled “<a target="_blank" href="https://kissthegroundmovie.com">Kiss the Ground</a>,” helped open his eyes to the need to invest in regenerative agriculture.“That is the way that we make sure that we have food security,” he said.Republicans on the committee stressed
 that USDA programs based around regenerative agriculture should not 
become mandatory, and the top GOP lawmaker, Glenn Thompson, of 
Pennsylvania, argued that “tying food policy to climate policy is 
harmful.”&nbsp;“Small farmers can’t always take on 
the risks that large farms can when adopting new practices, and I 
certainly don’t want to be the person that walks on to one of their 
farms and tells them the federal government mandates that they uphold 
your economic viability of their operations and livelihoods for the sake
 of climate change,” Thompson said.He added that inflation was also more of an issue to farmers and that many farmers in his state <a target="_blank" href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/100551/eib-222.pdf">already practice regenerative agriculture</a> such as cover crops, which help prevent soil erosion and keep nutrients in the soil.&nbsp;Rep. Jim Baird, an Indiana 
Republican, also questioned whether organic food was more nutritious 
than that produced by standard farming practices.&nbsp;Rebecca Larson, the vice president of
 the Western Sugar Cooperative in Denver, said there’s no substantial 
research that organic food has more nutrients and much of that rhetoric 
is “fear-based marketing.”<a target="_blank" href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26878105/">A study from 2019</a> has found that organic production can boost some key nutrients in foods, but most of those increases are moderate.<h2>Rebuilding soil health</h2>Rick Clark, a farmer from 
Williamsport, Indiana, said he adopted regenerative farming practices 
for his 7,000-acre cattle farm to rebuild the soil health over the past 
decade.&nbsp;“We need to preserve our soil, ’cause that is going to be the future of our farming,” he said.Rep. Shontel Brown, an Ohio Democrat, asked Clark how Congress can support regenerative farming efforts.&nbsp;&nbsp;Clark, a representative from 
Regenerate America, urged lawmakers to consider bolstering education and
 technical assistance to farmers wanting to start using those practices,
 such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program from USDA. 
Regenerate America is a coalition of farmers and business partners that 
lobby for regenerative farming practices in the upcoming farm bill.&nbsp;“Teaching and a support group is so critical here,” he said.Clark said that he believes these 
programs should remain voluntary but that the government should consider
 giving farmers who implement these practices the biggest share of 
federal subsidiary benefits. He also urged lawmakers to bolster crop 
insurance to help reduce the risk farmers have when implementing 
regenerative farming practices.&nbsp;“This means bolstering crop insurance
 by removing outdated barriers and creating incentives that recognize 
the risk-reduction benefits of soil health and conservation practices 
and reward farmers implementing those practices — like a ‘good driver’ 
discount on your car insurance,” he said.Moyer also pushed for lawmakers to 
reform crop insurance because current policies “create disincentives for
 American farmers seeking to transition and operate under a regenerative
 organic model.”Clark added that USDA should consider
 defining what regenerative agriculture means and those practices should
 be added to labels for consumers. Clark added that many of the 
practices used in regenerative farming originated from Indigenous 
farming practices, and said those voices need to be heard by the 
committee.<h2>Economic benefits</h2>&nbsp;Rep. Alma Adams, a North Carolina 
Democrat, asked one of the witnesses, Steve Nygren from Chattahoochee 
Hills, Georgia, how regenerative agriculture can help build local 
economies.Nygren is the founder and chief 
executive officer of Serenbe, which is an urban village within the city 
limits of Chattahoochee Hills that he and his wife <a target="_blank" href="https://www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=47383">created</a> with the vision of a sustainable community.&nbsp;“Soil health leads to economic vitality,” he said.He said the shrinking of family farms
 has an economic impact on the local community. Industrial agriculture 
is not going to support the local economy the way local farmers do, he 
said.&nbsp;“Think of soil health as a way to bring small towns back to life,” Nygren said.He pointed to his state as an 
example. In 1950, nearly half of Georgia’s food came from the state, and
 today that number is nearly a quarter. In Serenbe, 70 percent of the 
40,000 acres is reserved for agriculture and each week 75 families pay 
$34 for their weekly produce.&nbsp;“If we bring small farms back into 
rural communities across the United States we’ll not only have a local 
food system that doesn’t depend on fossil fuels to get it to the shelf, 
but it can go directly from the farms to the consumer … it will really 
stimulate the local economy,” he said.&nbsp;