Improving Soil Health Not Just Feel-Good Endeavor

(4/1/25) Indiana Prairie Farmer describes how Rodney Rulon’s 30-year soil health journey utilizing no-till and cover cropping is paying dividends not just environmentally, but economically as well. Highlights:

• The National Association of Conservation Districts and the Soil Health Institute performed a budget analysis on 29 farms across the U.S. that incorporate conservation practices. The analysis shows that Rulon has a financial advantage on his farm of $83.86 per acre for corn and $70.59 per acre for soybeans.
• Improving soil health also has allowed Rulon to cut back on inputs like fertilizer, reduce soil compaction in his fields, and save money on fuel. “Healthy soil puts dollars in the bank,” says the farmer.
• Building soil health is easier than when Rulon got started implementing conservation practices, given the wealth of knowledge now available, according to Indiana Prairie Farmer. Barry Fisher, president of Fisher Soil Health, says that early adopters of soil health practices already have made the mistakes and paved a smoother path for new adopters.

In 2015 and 2016, the Land Stewardship Letter published a series of articles on the Indiana soil health hubs that brought together farmers, resource professionals, implement dealers, and input suppliers. These networks helped make the state a leader in cover cropping and greatly influenced LSP’s development of similar soil health hubs in Minnesota. For more information on building soil health profitably, check out LSP’s Soil Builders’ web page.

♦ ♦ ♦

USDA Halts Millions of Dollars Worth of Deliveries to Food Banks

(3/19/25) The USDA has halted millions of dollars worth of deliveries to food banks without explanation, according to Politico. Highlights:

• USDA had previously allocated $500 million in deliveries to food banks for fiscal year 2025 through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
• This comes after the USDA separately axed two other food programs, ending more than $1 billion in planned federal spending for schools and food banks to purchase from local farmers.

• The money that was clawed back across the three programs came from the Commodity Credit Corporation, a New Deal-era fund that gives USDA flexibility to prop up farmers facing natural disasters or adverse market conditions. It’s not clear how much of the $500 million for the emergency assistance program has been cut, but one USDA employee told Politico that the Trump administration has been trying to claw back CCC money the Biden administration previously allocated in order to devote funds to other priorities. One of those priorities may be related to offsetting the impacts of a trade war. The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported on April 1 that the administration may provide emergency aid to farmers — as it did during Trump’s first term — to offset losses from retaliatory tariffs on agriculture exports imposed by America’s trading partners.

An LSP blog describes how the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program was benefiting food banks and farmers in areas like western Wisconsin. Check out LSP’s Myth Busters on food assistance programs and the local economic impacts of commodity agriculture.

♦ ♦ ♦

Rural voices, Farmers Push for Government Accountability in Town Halls

(3/19/25) Minnesota Public Radio reports on one in a series of town halls the Minnesota Farmers Union has been holding in rural communities around the state. The focus of the town halls is how recent policy initiatives coming out of Saint Paul and Washington, D.C., were impacting farmers and rural communities. Highlights:

• One discussion focused on what impacts tariffs and the impending trade war will have on agriculture, as well as how cuts to basic food and health care programs threaten rural communities.
• James Kanne, a Land Stewardship Project organizer and dairy farmer, said the lack of transparency and accountability the government was showing by cutting programs and targeting certain groups of people was not what people voted for. “We are better people than what we have been seeing in the last couple of months,” Kanne said. “I see my neighbors, and they’re good people. Maybe they voted for what they thought they voted for, but I don’t think they voted for this. I don’t think they voted for what we have now seen come at us, and we’re better than what we’re seeing where we’re making people starve.”

For a schedule of future MFU town halls, see LSP’s events calendar. LSP is holding a series of “Connecting Communities Over Shared Values” meetings in western Minnesota (April 8 in Pipestone, April 14 in Pipestone, and April 24 in Madison) to identify the problems that are affecting us, connect over our common values, and identify existing groups that share our goals. The Impact Project has developed a map showing examples of federal funding freezes in each state. For details on how to get a message to federal lawmakers about the importance of supporting local food programs as well as farm conservation initiatives, see LSP’s action alert.

♦ ♦ ♦

New Warning Signs Agriculture is in a Recession

(3/28/25) Farm Journal reports that the March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor found 62% of ag economists surveyed think the row crop side of agriculture is currently in a recession. Highlights:

•  “Costs have outpaced revenue for some time now, and recent policy shifts are unlikely to alleviate that pressure,” one economist said in a response to the survey.  The magazine’s monthly monitor survey of nearly 70 ag economists from across the country has been tracking the concerns of a recession for months.
• “Farmers who rent land, and some who own land, are not able to generate enough revenue to cover loan obligations and have to liquidate. Those who own land will likely be the ones to weather the economic downturn we are in,” one economist said.
•  Eighty-five percent of economists who responded to the March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor said they think the current situation will accelerate consolidation not only on farms but also agribusinesses.

Check out LSP’s Farm Crisis Resources web page here. How can we build wealth sustainably in Farm Country? In episode 283 of LSP’s Ear to the Ground podcast, food analyst Ken Meter talks about what can be done to stop the “extractive economy.”

♦ ♦ ♦

Slaughterhouses Get Green Light to Increase Speeds. Workers Say Not So Fast.

(3/25/25) Despite an outcry from unions representing meatpacking workers, USDA is permanently extending a program letting pork and poultry operations process more animals per hour, according to the Star Tribune. Highlights:

• As swine are sliced into distinct cuts of meat at a rate of 1,100 hogs per hour, workers stationed on a slaughterhouse line will rapidly repeat the same cutting motions thousands of times a day. The repetitive motions can lead to carpal tunnel syndrome and other conditions. Plants that recently tested faster line speeds were processing more than 1,300 hogs per hour.

• The USDA is justifying the permanent increase in line speeds by claiming that studies “confirmed no direct link between processing speeds and workplace injuries,” according to a press release the agency issued. But the USDA’s own studies found the piece rate — the number of animal parts a worker handled per minute — was associated with a higher risk of musculoskeletal diseases.

• More than 80% of poultry slaughterhouse workers and half of hog processing employees testing faster line speeds are at high risk of developing chronic conditions like arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome, according to recent USDA reports on line speeds and worker safety.

• The president of the National Pork Producers Council said faster speeds “will provide financial security and more stability for pork producers.”

In a recent LSP Ear to the Ground podcast, Christina Ortiz talks about how Big Ag entities such as meatpackers decimate and divide rural communities. Remember when Big Meat argued that putting slaughterhouse laborers in hazardous work situations was  justified because of the COVID-19 pandemic? Check out this LSP Myth Buster for the truth behind that claim. 

♦ ♦ ♦

Could Checkoff Programs Be Next on DOGE’s Chopping Block?

(3/10/25) The future of mandatory commodity checkoffs may be in doubt under the Trump administration, according to Sentinent. Farmers who produce everything from corn and soybeans to pork, beef, and milk are required to pay a mandatory checkoff “tax” when marketing their product. In theory, these checkoff funds are then used to promote these products to consumers and fund agricultural research, among other things. Small and medium-sized farmers have long criticized checkoffs as a way to promote an industrialized, consolidated form of agriculture. In fact, these farmers argue, they are being forced to fund their own demise. Highlights:

•  Checkoffs are a target of Project 2025, the document that’s been guiding the Trump administration’s overhaul of government programs, among other things. “Marketing orders and checkoff programs are some of the most egregious programs run by the USDA,” states the document. “They are, in effect, a tax — a means to compel speech — and government-blessed cartels. Instead of getting private cooperation, they are tools for industry actors to work with government to force cooperation.”
• When asked if checkoffs were on the chopping block, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said, “That is to be determined … I have not even begun to look at those. I know we’ve got a team looking at them. We’re going to get through the next few weeks and then we’ll start evaluating.”
• “We can’t make meaningful reforms in the American food system until we bring in the checkoffs, because they’re just too much money,” Austin Frerick, antitrust expert and author of Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America’s Food Industry, told Sentient. “They’re too much of a slush fund. They control the conversation too much.”

In episode 333 of the Ear to the Ground podcast, hog farmer and organizer Paul Sobocinski talks about the campaign LSP and other groups coordinated with farmers to bring the future of the pork checkoff to a national vote, and what resulted from that battle. An LSP Myth Buster describes just how unaccountable checkoff programs are to the very farmers who fund them.

♦ ♦ ♦