Governmental Regulations

Why The ITC Review May Not Be a Silver Bullet to High Fertilizer Prices

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 21:04:32 GMT

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has l aunched its scheduled five-year “sunset review” of countervailing duties (CVD) on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. While these duties were intended to protect domestic industry, the landscape has shifted: one of the nation’s two major phosphate producers is now calling for their removal.

The Cost of Protection

In place since April 2021, the CVDs have been a flashpoint for farmers and trade groups who argue the duties have artificially inflated input costs. Recent research backs those concerns:

Texas A&M (AFPC) : Found the CVD increased diammonium phosphate (DAP) prices by 28.6%, costing U.S. farmers an additional $6.9 billion between 2021 and 2025.
Oklahoma State University : Estimated a 34% price hike on DAP specifically linked to Moroccan duties.

During an October congressional hearing, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) urged the administration to act, saying, “There is something that the Trump administration can do right now to help ease the burden for farmers: lowering the countervailing duties on phosphate from Morocco.”

(Data Source: USDA)

Declining U.S. Production

The U.S. phosphate market is highly concentrated. Two producers—Mosaic and Nutrien—account for 90% of domestic volume (Mosaic’s share is roughly 75%).

In a statement, Nutrien said: “Based on evolving global phosphate supply and demand dynamics since 2021, we believe removing countervailing duties on phosphate imports would be a constructive step that supports U.S. farmer economics, balanced fertilizer application and agricultural productivity. Farmers and food security are at the center of everything we do, and we continuously engage with our customers and associations on issues that are important to U.S. agriculture.”

Mosaic has been contacted for a statement.

The Resource Reality

Opponents of the duties point to a stark reality: U.S. phosphorus rock extraction has plummeted by more than half since 1995, dropping from 45 million metric tons to just 20 million in 2023.

Globally, there are five key phosphate suppliers, in order of largest volumes of production: China, Saudia Arabia, Russia, Morrocco and the U.S.

The “Coin Flip” Outcome

Despite the pressure to remove duties, experts warn it may not be a silver bullet for high prices. Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at StoneX, describes the ITC’s upcoming decision as a “coin flip.”

Even if the duties vanish, Linville notes that global headwinds remain.

“Whether the CVD rate is in place or not, it doesn’t fix the fact that China is not participating [in exports],” Linville said on the Top Producer podcast.

He notes that high anhydrous and sulfur prices—the two biggest variable costs in phosphate production—will keep a floor under prices.

He continues: “If we drop NOLA DAP prices by $100 per ton or $150, it would be phenomenal, but if it’s only $100 to $150 per ton, you’d see U.S. phosphate production be curtailed. We’ve got a finite amount of phosphate rock in this country. They are not going to be produce the tons of an upgraded product and sell them at a loss when they know it’s a finite supply. And once the market gets back to where we can make money, they’ll supply it again.”

Trump’s Glyphosate Executive Order Frames Food Security As National Security

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:12:23 GMT

On Feb. 18, President Trump signed an executive order related to domestic elemental phosphorus and glyphosate production touching on three policy tenets common to the administration: national security, food production and affordability. One connection that wasn’t made: Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), as some MAHA-aligned advocates have been critical of the pervasive use of glyphosate in agricultural production.

The executive order outlines why and how USDA will ensure adequate supplies of elemental phosphates and glyphosate herbicides.

From the executive order: “As the most widely used crop protection tools in United States agriculture, glyphosate-based herbicides are a cornerstone of this Nation’s agricultural productivity and rural economy, allowing United States farmers and ranchers to maintain high yields and low production costs while ensuring that healthy, affordable food options remain within reach for all American families.”

Elemental phosphorus is used in many industrial and defense-related applications and notably is a key ingredient in the process to formulate glyphosate.

Bayer, through its subsidiary Monsanto, is the only domestic producer of glyphosate in the U.S. Bayer mines phosphorus in Soda Springs, Idaho, formulates glyphosate production in Muscatine, Iowa, and finishes the formulation and production in Luling, La. Due to legal liabilities over lawsuits related to allegations of glyphosate leading to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, last year Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said the company may stop producing the herbicide.

Bayer subsidiary Monsanto provided this statement: “President Trump’s executive order reinforces the critical need for U.S. farmers to have access to essential, domestically produced crop protection tools such as glyphosate. We will comply with this order to produce glyphosate and elemental phosphorus.”

Noting the supply chain vulnerability, the executive order mentions the Department of the Interior has designated elemental phosphorus as a scarce material. Every year, 6,000,000 kilograms of elemental phosphorus are imported into the U.S.

Per the president’s executive order, “Consistent with these findings, I find that ensuring robust domestic elemental phosphorus mining and United States-based production of glyphosate-based herbicides is central to American economic and national security. Without immediate Federal action, the United States remains inadequately equipped and vulnerable.”

The order delegates Defense Production Act authorities to the secretary of agriculture to help ensure adequate supplies of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides, including issuing orders and adopting implementing regulations in coordination with defense officials, while avoiding actions that would jeopardize the viability of domestic producers.

Supporters of the MAHA movement have posted on social media reacting negatively to the White House supporting glyphosate production and use in the U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., who has been critical of glyphosate, has not commented on the executive order.

While the first MAHA report issued in May 2025 opened up the discussion to criticize pesticide use, including glyphosate, the follow-up action strategy related in September 2025 was more well received by the agricultural industry for how it cited scientific standards for pesticide regulation and use.

Bayer Proposes Class Settlement Deal in Monsanto’s Roundup Litigation

Tue, 17 Feb 2026 20:09:58 GMT

Announced today, Bayer’s subsidiary Monsanto has reached a class settlement deal —pending court approval—to reach the company’s goal of containing glyphosate litigation.

The deal includes $7.25 billion over 21 years for current and future glyphosate cases.

Almost two years ago, then-new CEO Bill Anderson said it was his goal to have the legal liabilities “under control” by 2026, which had weighed on Bayer. Company leaders said the settlement provides the greatest possible closure for the Roundup litigation by addressing all present and potential claims of non-Hodgkin-lymphoma (NHL) allegedly due to Roundup exposure.

In his statement today, Anderson said the company is “choosing speed and containment over a lengthy battle in the courts.”

“Today’s announcement does not take away from the truth, a truth that scientists and regulators around the planet continue to uphold: that glyphosate is a safe and essential tool for farmers in the U.S. and around the world,” Anderson said.

He continued, “This settlement comes at a cost, even beyond its direct monetary price. It has cost employees their jobs. It’s diverted funding away from new medicines and new seeds and towards litigation, an industry that costs the average U.S. household more than four thousand dollars every year. So, while this settlement is necessary for the company today, we maintain our significant objections to the broken tort system that makes it necessary.”

The settlement is filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The class includes people who allege Roundup exposure before Feb. 17, 2026 and who already have NHL or are diagnosed within 16 years after final court approval.

“With more than 40,000 Roundup personal injury non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma claims already in court or under tolling agreements, new filings arriving daily, a pending Supreme Court petition that could restrict plaintiffs’ recovery rights, and crowded dockets offering limited trial dates, Motley Rice began negotiating with other proposed class counsel to reach a settlement with Monsanto,” said Motley Rice co-founder and settlement negotiator, Joseph F. Rice. “I believe this $7.25 billion proposed national class settlement reached in Missouri state court is the best path forward to finally bring the Roundup® litigation to a closing chapter. Based on the hard work of class counsel and Monsanto’s counsel, both occupational and residential exposures will be covered, the rights of future claimants have been uniquely protected, and payments should begin in 2026.”

Six years ago, Bayer proposed a class settlement which did not move forward. That proposal was limited to four years of funding and future litigation beyond those four years required an expert science panel for determination of qualifications.

Beyond the class proposal, Bayer says it has reached separate confidential agreements to settle certain other Roundup cases.

Today’s news comes one month after the Supreme Court agreed to hear one of the cases , referred to as a the Durnell case, which calls into question federal preemption of pesticide labels.

Lawsuit Claims Rail Fee Blocks Competition, Cuts Plains Farmers’ Grain Prices

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 20:42:03 GMT

In a lawsuit filed in late January in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, two agribusiness plaintiffs and 13 farmers allege antitrust violations by a Class I railroad, Union Pacific, and a short-line operator, Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad.

Plaintiffs include Weskan Grain and Colorado Pacific Railroad, along with D&L Farms, GP; E&D Farms, GP; D&C Farms, GP; L&E Farms, GP; North Four Farms, GP; Marienthal Grain, LLC; D&A Farms, GP; Hineman Land & Cattle, Inc.; Hineman Ranch, L.L.C.; Circle C Farms, Inc.; Steven Compton; Mark Sanders; and JLD Partnership.

The lawsuit alleges UP and K&O worked together to stifle competition after Colorado Pacific Railroad rehabilitated the Towner Line. Plaintiffs claim the alleged conduct gave the railroads unfair control over westbound grain shipments — affecting the prices farmers receive for grain in Lane, Scott, Wichita, and Greeley Counties in Kansas and Kiowa County, Colo.

Union Pacific provided this statement, noting its view that the matter falls under the Surface Transportation Board’s purview: “Union Pacific denies the allegations of the lawsuit and will present the facts to the court and Surface Transportation Board who handles these issues.”

Will Bramblett, CEO of Weskan Grain, said after Soloviev Group acquired Colorado Pacific Railroad, Union Pacific and K&O put in place what he described as a “paper barrier” that makes interchange across the Kansas-Colorado line uneconomic–reportedly over $500 per car.

“What we’re trying to do is just get a more competitive environment for our local producers — farmers in the area — to be able to ship grain to markets across the U.S. and export markets in a more competitive manner,” Bramblett said.

As an example, he said in eastern Colorado, Weskan has been able to use a 110-car shuttle served by both BNSF and Union Pacific to bring cost savings and basis improvements of 25 to 40 cents.

“We’d just like to see that same thing happen in western Kansas,” he said.

Watco, the parent company of K&O, provided this statement: “We do not comment on litigation matters, but as a matter of course we will defend our commitment to the values that define us through the proper legal channels.”

Farm Journal TV subscribers: Watch the full fireside chat with Stefan Soloviev, chairman of the Soloviev Group, from the 2026 Top Producer Summit.

Lawmakers Raise Concerns Over Ag Shipping Impacts in Proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern Merger

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 03:53:51 GMT

Early in February, U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., sent a letter to Surface Transportation Board Chairman Patrick Fuchs urging a “rigorous and comprehensive review” of the potential merger between Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). Johnson said 47 House members joined the letter. Here’s a link to the letter dated Feb. 4, 2026.

Johnson said the merger could directly affect agriculture’s ability to move grain to domestic and export markets.

“I want to make sure they take a really good look at this. I’m not saying I’m opposed. What I am saying is this is clearly going to have an impact on how agriculture gets crops to market, particularly to the coast,” he told AgriTalk host Chip Flory.

He said he’s hearing concerns from South Dakota constituents and agricultural stakeholders, noting that agriculture is among the nation’s largest rail shipping customers.

“It’s hard to overstate the impact of rail to agriculture, and the STB is supposed to make sure that this is good for customers and good for the public interest,” Johnson said.

The proposed UP-NS combination would be the largest rail merger ever to come before the STB. It would also be the first considered under the agency’s newer merger review rules and amid heightened scrutiny of market concentration.

“I am pretty distrustful of high degrees of market concentration,” Johnson said. “When you remove a major player from the market… we want to make sure there’s still robust competition.”

The companies’ initial STB application was recently rejected without prejudice, meaning UP and NS can revise and refile, because it was deemed incomplete. The companies have until Feb. 17 to file a letter stating their intent to reapply. Until then, the STB and industry stakeholders are awaiting an updated application.

What the Treasury’s Announcement on 45Z Tax Credits Means to Farmers

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 22:56:54 GMT

On Feb. 3, the Treasury Department confirmed farmers will have a seat at the table to benefit from 45Z tax credits with its release of a 170-page document stating its proposed rule.

“They made a bunch of clarifications for the biofuel producers today — who qualifies, what qualifies, how to calculate and how to register,” says Mitchell Hora, an Iowa farmer and founder of Continuum Ag. “It says farmers are going to a have a seat at the table, too, which is what we’ve been advocating for this whole time.”

There have been questions over the past nearly four years since 45Z was first proposed as a biofuel producer tax credit based on carbon intensity of feedstocks. It’s had iterations through the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, and now the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

As written in the proposed rule, biofuels feedstocks would be limited to be sourced from the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

“Clearly, the Treasury has been very concerned about foreign feedstock, especially foreign used coconut oil and palm oil,” Hora says.

For farmers, three big questions remain.

1. What’s the model used to calculate carbon intensity?

Before today’s announcement, there were two competing models, one from the Department of Energy (known as GREET) and one from USDA announced last January. Today, the Treasury confirmed it’ll be a model from USDA, though it’s a new version now called 45Z FD-CIC.

“It’s going to be something different altogether, which is a combo of the two,“ Hora says. “We don’t know all the details yet, but we know they are going to utilize the language from USDA regarding verification, traceability and audits.”

Hora expects the model to use ag practices in its calculations, including cover crops, reduced tillage, fertilizer efficiency, manure and yield.

As for when the final USDA-driven 45Z FD-CIC will be released, Hora says ‘hopefully soon.’

2. Which chain of custody methodology will be used?

Hora is advocating for book and claim, which he says is more straightforward and would allow a farmer to sell their crop based on the carbon intensity (CI) score of a field, avoiding identity preservation or blending. The alternative is mass balance.

“The big thing that we want to see happen in the USDA rules is that the farmer data should be accounted for via a book and claim,” he says.

3. How much is this worth to the farmer?

Hora says today’s announcement clarifies a lot of the rule for the biofuels producer, which is the recipient of the tax credit. How much of that value will be shared with the farmer is still unknown.

“We’ve shown that farmers could contribute an average CI reduction of 18 CI points, which could translate to pretty substantial value, upwards of close to a dollar a bushel,” he says. “That’s to the ethanol plant, though. The biofuel producer gets the money. A farmer would get a portion of that, and we don’t know how the pie is going to be split, but the total pie that the farmers could contribute to, under the current models, the math ends up being $1.08 per bushel.”

While today’s announcement doesn’t mean money will start moving, Hora says we’re closer than ever to having opportunities for farmers.

Moving Forward With What is Known

Hora says while those questions have yet to be answered, he knows record keeping is paramount to seize on the opportunity. As such, he’s encouraging farmers to get their field-level data in order, including as applied maps, receipts, shape files, aerial imagery, etc.

“At least we got clarity today that this thing is going to happen. [There’s] still a process ahead, but farmers have a seat at the table. It’s a huge day for American ag,” Hora says.

Industry groups reacted in support of the Treasury’s proposed rule.

“Treasury’s proposal is a definite step in the right direction and will allow corn growers to transition into and supply the aviation sector,” Ohio farmer and National Corn Growers Association President Jed Bower says in a news release. “Being able to fuel commercial planes with fuel derived from corn would be important to the long-term economic viability of farming. After today we are one step closer to that possibility.”

The American Soybean Association (ASA) and the National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA) sent a joint release emphasizing how the 45Z rule should be in conjunction with a final Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) blend target announcement.

“Updating federal biofuel policies to prioritize soy-based fuels is a key ASA priority, and we applaud Treasury for this action which will help build domestic markets for U.S. soybeans,” says Scott Metzger, ASA president and Ohio farmer. “While Treasury’s work to update tax guidance is critical, ASA strongly urges the administration to immediately finalize RFS blending targets that complement the work of Treasury and Congress, by setting robust biofuel volumes and implementing new policies that will prioritize the utilization of U.S. soybeans in production.”

“These policies work hand in hand,” says Devin Mogler, NOPA president and CEO. “Treasury’s updated 45Z guidance is an important step forward, but it must be reinforced by finalizing the RFS as proposed. A strong RFS that includes the import RIN reduction mechanism is critical to putting American farmers and rural manufacturing first and providing the certainty our industry needs to continue to invest and grow so we can crush more soybeans right here in the U.S.”

Supreme Court Will Review Roundup Case

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 22:32:08 GMT

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it will review a case that could impact litigation that involves Roundup. This comes after Monsanto, a subsidiary of Bayer, petitioned the court and received a brief in support of the appeal from the U.S. solicitor general’s office.

“The Supreme Court decision to take the case is good news for U.S. farmers, who need regulatory clarity,” said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson. “It’s also an important step in our multi-pronged strategy to significantly contain this litigation. It is time for the U.S. legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements.”

The specific case to be reviewed (Durnell) originated in Missouri in October 2023, when the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, saying the company failed to warn of the product’s risk, and awarded them $1.25 million.

There has been a split among federal circuit courts in Roundup personal injury litigation, which brought it to the Supreme Court. The company says this raises the cross-cutting question of whether federal law preempts state claims based on failure-to-warn theories.

To date, Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to plaintiffs in litigation claiming Roundup as the cause of their cancer. The company has budgeted more than $17 billion toward the glyphosate litigation.

Anderson became Bayer CEO in 2023, and one of his commitments was to get the glyphosate litigation “under control” by the end of 2026. In total, there have been about 180,000 lawsuits brought forward, with about 60,000 cases open now.

Previously, Bayer announced a multi-prong strategy to achieve Anderson’s goal, including court case management, state law advocacy and a call to the Supreme Court to review the FIFRA’s preemption provision.

The company has said it could withdraw from the market if they aren’t successful with the goal of containing the litigation next year. Currently, Bayer is the only domestic producer of glyphosate in the U.S.

How Trump’s Bridge Payments Could Affect Farmland Prices

Wed, 10 Dec 2025 18:11:55 GMT

Farmers National Company president Paul Schadegg sees the recently announced $12 billion in bridge payments to farmers having a variety of effects on the ag economy.

“They think it’ll be a shot of adrenaline to the ag economy,” he says on “AgriTalk.” “There are some people who say they’ll use it to pay down debt or use for operating cash. Some need a new combine or tractor, and it might go toward that. And subsequently, it could add to the cash a buyer has in their pocket that they can deploy toward a land purchase, so it’s going to cover a broad spectrum.”

The bridge payment announcement coincides with the busiest time of year with higher volumes of land sales.

“It’s really active this time of year. We see a lot of land sales between October and March. We’re in the thick of it now,” Schadegg says. “The pipeline is full as we get into January and February for land sales.”

Steve Breuere from Peoples Company tells Paul Neiffer on the “Top Producer Podcast” about 40% of their land sales volume happens in the fourth quarter of the year.

Before the bridge payment announcement, Farmers National released their 2026 Farm Input Outlook. According to that report, input costs are projected to increase slightly compared to last year. Fertilizer prices are the biggest driver, most notably nitrogen. There will be modest increases in chemicals, financing costs, equipment and labor. Categories showing flat to small increases include seed, fuel and land.

Specific to cash rent, Schadegg calls out farmland in Colorado, western Nebraska and southwestern Kansas for illustrating elevated pressure on those rates because of increased input costs. However, more central areas of the country Iowa, the Dakotas and Minnesota aren’t as pressured.

New House Bill Pushes For Fertilizer Price Transparency

Thu, 20 Nov 2025 19:40:04 GMT

A companion bill to the Fertilizer Research Act has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House version, sponsored by U.S. Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (R-IA), echoes the same goal as the Senate’s Fertilizer Research Act of 2025 (S.2808) – to provide U.S. farmers with more clarity and certainty regarding fertilizer costs and supply.

“America’s farmers are being squeezed by high fertilizer costs and low commodity prices, making it incredibly difficult to afford the inputs needed to maintain strong yields,” Hinson said in a statement on Thursday, noting that farmers tell her they need greater fertilizer price transparency and stability.

The legislation, if passed, would require the USDA to conduct a study on the competition and trends in the fertilizer market and their subsequent impact on fertilizer prices and then provide a comprehensive report of the agency’s findings.

The study would examine market competition and trends, the impact of these trends on fertilizer prices, the size and value of the U.S. market over the past 25 years, and the impact of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on retail fertilizer prices. It would also assess market concentration and the regulatory environment.

Within one year of the bill’s passage, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Economic Research Service, would be required to issue a report on USDA’s website regarding the U.S. fertilizer industry.

Mark Mueller , an Iowa farmer and president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, had said during a Senate hearing last month that increases in fertilizer costs are “crushing corn growers” in Iowa and other states.

“We need to assess the fertilizer industry to better understand pricing practices, tariffs and the exertion of market power by companies within the industry,” Mueller added. “The continued commitment to highlighting the impact of fertilizer prices on corn farmers does not go unnoticed by Iowa’s corn growers.”

Co-sponsors of the bipartisan House bill included Republican Randy Feenstra of Iowa, and Democrats Nikki Budzinski of Illinois and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington.

Budzinski noted, “Fertilizer is an essential tool for farmers to maximize their crop yields, but they often lack insight into how fertilizer prices are determined – making it harder to balance their books. I’m proud to introduce this common-sense, bipartisan legislation to give our farmers more transparency and ensure that farm inputs are priced fairly.”

Hinson said that the House bill is supported by the American Soybean Association, the National Farmers Union, the Iowa Farmers Union, the Iowa Farm Bureau, the Iowa Corn Growers Association, and the Iowa Soybean Association.

Your next read: Fertilizer Prices Under Fire: Monopoly or Markets to Blame?

Abuse of Liberty? Landowner Demands End to DNR’s Warrantless Entries on Private Acres

Tue, 18 Nov 2025 12:20:53 GMT

David Martin is raising hell in Michigan, determined to curtail the power claimed by government officials to enter private land without restrictions and surveil at will.

Martin, a landowner and 68^th District representative in Michigan, hopes to end adherence to the Open Fields doctrine that gives conservation officers open access to private property.

“Open Fields is an abuse of liberty and we want it to stop in Michigan. It’s the 250^th anniversary of the American Revolution and our forefathers would be disgusted to see how much government control the state has over private land. Enough.”

Co-sponsor of two bills blocking unfettered access for Department of Natural Resources (DNR) game wardens on private acreage, Martin’s legislative fight is echoed by pending Open Fields lawsuits around the U.S. in Alabama, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

“At a basic level,” Martin emphasizes, “when people find out about Open Fields, they know it’s wrong.”

Without Reason
Open Fields ranks among the most consequential of all government powers. The doctrine stems from two Supreme Court decisions in 1924 (Hester) and 1984 (Oliver), giving federal officials permission to enter private land with no limits on frequency, duration, or scope. Essentially, the government can access any acreage without warrant or probable cause, excluding a personal residence and immediate yard/lawn/curtilage. Open Fields asserts that on private land, the Bill of Rights’ Fourth Amendment protections from search and seizure do not exist.

However, Martin contends the Michigan State Constitution provides protection from Open Fields, at least at the state level. House bills 4073 and 4421 require probable cause or a warrant for any DNR agent seeking access to private land without owner permission.

Open Fields provides the government with access to at least 1.12 billion private acres.

(Graphic courtesy of IJ)

“It’s past time for people to remember who we are as Americans. I’m not going to capitulate to excuses or the latest trends in legal thought. Open Fields is fundamentally wrong and bad law, but in Michigan we are protected by our state constitution. No private property owner should be subject to the presence of government officials on their private land without reason. I own 40 acres and the last thing I expect is to turn around and see a game warden unannounced. That’s crazy.”

Get a Warrant
Removal of Open Fields powers would impede DNR, says Jason Haines, chief of the DNR’s Law Enforcement Division.

“We oppose the bills ( 4073 and 4421 ) in their current form which would significantly hinder efforts to protect Michigan’s natural resources and environment on private lands in Michigan,” he explains. “These resources are held in the public trust for the benefit of all, and the DNR is charged with the responsibility of protecting those resources. The Open Fields doctrine says that acreage outside the curtilage of a private residence does not have the same Fourth Amendment protections like persons, houses, papers, and effects.”

Open Fields ranks among the most consequential of all government powers.

(Photo by IJ)

“Also, wildlife and fish don’t respect private land boundaries,” Haines continues. “No individual owns the wildlife that happens to be on their property at the time. These are public resources.”

Despite citing Open Fields, Haines contends DNR entries on private land must include reasonable suspicion or probable cause. “In Michigan we require every officer to document their justification for entering private land. We also don’t put up trail cameras on private property without a court issued warrant.”

However, Martin’s bills would establish probable cause as a baseline for state entries onto private property. “DNR should be subject to the exact same bar as our regular law enforcement,” Martin says. “Our bills allow the state entry onto private land when in pursuit of criminals or something nefarious. That should be fairly rare and fairly obvious. It should be simple: If someone is doing something illegal on private land—get a warrant.”

Reasonable Limits
Including Michigan, how much nationwide private acreage is subject to Open Fields? At least 1.12 billion acres , estimates Institute for Justice.

Since 2020, lawsuits challenging Open Fields at the state level have been successfully litigated in Tennessee (game wardens in Tennessee must now obtain a warrant before entering privately marked land), and are ongoing in Alabama , Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Louisiana.

According to the Supreme Court, federal officials from USDA, DOJ, FBI, Interior, Treasury, FWS, EPA, Bureau of Land Management, Corps of Engineers, and other departments or agencies all possess the power the enter and surveil private land without restriction.

Martin’s legislative fight in Michigan is echoed by pending Open Fields lawsuits around the U.S. in Alabama, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

(Photo by IJ)

In Michigan, Martin wants to draw a line. “I swore an oath to uphold the Michigan Constitution, and I will do so. The Michigan Constitution, Article I, Section 11, protects all our possessions, including land. The U.S. Supreme Court has taken the wrong view of the Fourth Amendment, but we’re still protected here by our state constitution.”

How does the public in Michigan view Martin’s bills? “We’ve had overwhelming support, and we even hear from people out of state supporting us,” he notes.

Bills 4073 and 4421 passed the Michigan House on Nov. 4, 2025, with a 63-37 vote, with all 56 Republicans in support, along with seven Democrats. Next up, the Democrat-controlled Senate.

“The DNR has far too much latitude on private property,” Martin concludes. “It’s time to recognize reasonable limits in law.”

For more from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106), see:

Outraged Farmers Blame Ag Monopolies as Catastrophic Collapse Looms

Family Farm Wins Historic Case After Feds Violate Constitution and Ruin Business

County Shuts Down 15-Yr-Old’s Bait Stand on Family Farm, Threatens Daily Fines

Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told

How the Deep State Tried, and Failed, to Crush an American Farmer

Game of Horns: Iowa Poacher’s Antler Addiction Leads to Historic Bust

Ghost Cattle: $650M Ponzi Rocks Livestock Industry, Money Still Missing

New WOTUS Proposal Could Reduce Red Tape for Farmers and Ranchers

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:01:42 GMT

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

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

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

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

Clearer Definition After Years of Confusion

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

Key elements include:

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

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

Impact of WOTUS Proposal on Agriculture

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alignment With the Sackett Decision

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

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

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

Oversight Rests With State and Tribes

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

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

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

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

What Happens Next

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

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

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

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

Beef Industry Chaos: Tight Supplies, Strong Consumer Demand and Political Interference

Wed, 12 Nov 2025 20:04:16 GMT

The current state of the cattle market and beef industry has been described as chaotic. “There’s chaos in cattle,” as Chip Flory, AgriTalk host, put it.

The industry turmoil follows recent statements made by President Donald Trump regarding the need to lower beef prices as well as his request for the Department of Justice to immediately begin an investigation into meatpackers for driving up the price of beef.

Derrell Peel, Extension livestock marketing specialist from Oklahoma State University, affirms these are unique times, emphasizing while political factors have always indirectly influenced agriculture, it’s unprecedented for the cattle and beef markets to be at the center of direct political debate.

On a recent AgriTalk segment, Peel points out the inherent biological and production constraints of the cattle industry — particularly the fixed timeline to raise cattle — make quick fixes impossible. Both Flory and Peel stress that no political policy can shorten the cattle production process; any effective supply response requires patience and long-term adjustment.

Packers Under Fire

The concept of industry consolidation and foreign packer ownership has long drawn scrutiny with frequent government investigations. Peel says highly concentrated industries such as beef packing have been targets for skepticism and regulatory attention for over a century, to the point suspicion of packers is almost “a cultural thing” within segments of the industry.

He characterizes the latest call as another attempt to target convenient scapegoats rather than addressing deeper systemic realities of supply and demand.

“The reason we have the industry structure we do is because the economies of size and cost efficiencies are such a powerful economic force,” Peels explains.

He confirms researchers have long studied market power, and while concentration does have a small negative price impact for producers, the efficiency and cost-savings from large-scale firms more than compensate. These benefits, he says, keep cattle prices higher for producers and beef prices lower for consumers than they would be with a less efficient structure.

Dissecting the economics of margin markets Peels explains why price changes in different parts of the beef supply chain — cow-calf, feeders, packers and retailers — don’t move in lockstep. He uses a “bungee cord” analogy to illustrate the complex, dynamic and time-lagged interactions linking cattle prices at the farm with retail beef prices.

“All cattle prices and beef prices are ultimately connected, but they’re not connected with a stick or a chain,” Peel summarizes.” They’re connected with a bungee cord. There’s just an enormous amount of dynamics in this thing.”

Regarding the foreign ownership debate, Peel says there is no evidence foreign ownership alters packer behavior within the U.S. marketplace. He emphasizes foreign firms have made large investments in U.S. facilities and continue to operate them by the same market logic that would govern domestic ownership.

He also points out it is unclear who else would be in a position to make such significant investments if these foreign companies were not involved. This pragmatic view suggests the ownership issue might be less important than is commonly believed, at least concerning everyday operations and market outcomes.

A Lot Hinges on Rebuilding the Cow Herd

In his latest article, “ All Bets are Off ,” Peel says: “The latest edition in the torrent of recent political attentions directed at the cattle and beef industry includes allegations of market manipulation against the beef packing industry. Beef packers are the one segment that has been most negatively impacted in the current market, incurring huge losses due to poor margins and limited cattle supplies.”

(Meat Institute)

Peel reports packers have been losing enormous amounts of money for about the past 18 to 24 months. According to the Meat Institute, packer margins slipped into the red in September 2024. Through the week ending Oct. 4, 2025, packer margins were a negative $126.50 per head, up slightly from a year earlier at a negative $125.65 per head, according to Sterling Profit Tracker. The outlook for the year is a negative $165.96 per head packer margin.

“There’s just simply not enough cattle for them to operate at cost efficient capacities,” Peel explains.

This negative trend was anticipated — the reduced supply of cattle has made it difficult for packing plants to function at cost-efficient capacities, leading to the accumulation of operating losses. Peel points out the combination of low unit margins and insufficient cattle supplies challenges the economic viability of packers, further illustrating the complexity of the current environment.

This decline in inventory is not the result of a single factor but is driven by several years of drought and other market pressures. It is clear high beef and cattle prices are a result of these tight supplies and, according to Peel, these high prices are likely to persist for several years. The industry simply cannot turn around production levels quickly, and it will take time — a matter of years, not months — for conditions to normalize.

“Using logic that only works in the office of a politician, packers are supposedly wielding unacceptable market power while paying record high cattle prices and artificially raising beef prices … but not enough to avoid losing a couple hundred dollars on every animal they process — certainly many millions of dollars,” Peel says. “If beef packers had any significant ability to exercise market power, I am certain that we would not have record high cattle prices and packers would not be losing money.”

Peel suggests the federal government attacks on beef packers are aided and supported by a vocal minority of the cattle industry and a few sympathetic politicians who view packers as a perennial villain and always worthy of attack anytime the opportunity is presented.

“The timing of such attacks this time is particularly puzzling as dismantling the packing industry would certainly jeopardize current record high cattle prices and the best economic returns most producers have ever enjoyed,” Peels says. “I guess some cowboys just can’t stand prosperity.”

R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard says the cattle market is fundamentally broken citing years of an inverse relationship between falling cattle prices and increasing retail beef prices when the only ingredient in beef is cattle. Read more about his perspective.

Patience not Politics

Beef and cattle prices, Peel notes, are historically high, a result of industry-wide low cattle inventory. Rebuilding the nation’s cow herd will be a long, slow process, keeping prices elevated for an extended period. And Peel says there is no definitive evidence producers are saving heifers to start the rebuilding process.

“2025 may prove to be technically the cyclical low, but 2026 is going to be barely bigger, if it is, and no growth in 2026 and probably none in 2027 ... it’s 2028 into 2029 before that turns into increased beef production,” Peel predicts.

He summarizes neither regulatory nor political action will can speed up the rebuilding process. It will take years of concerted effort, market healing and stability before the industry can expect a meaningful rebound in herd numbers and production — a reality that requires patience across the industry.

“There is absolutely nothing anybody can do to make beef prices go down, or cattle prices, other than maybe tear up the industry completely,” Peels says. “And if we tear up the industry, it’ll make cattle prices go down, but it won’t make beef prices go down. It’ll make beef prices go even higher for consumers and the only way to fix this is to give the industry time to rebuild, and that’s going to take two to four years if we ever get started.”

He says a majority of cattle producers understand the beef industry is extremely complex and all segments are critical and essential.

“Though the outcome of current political actions is uncertain, the potential for long-term harm to the industry is substantial,” Peel says. “Anytime politics trumps economics, the strong supply and demand fundamentals that have determined the outlook for the industry to this point become irrelevant. Expectations for prices and production going forward are now completely clouded…therefore… all bets are off.”

Your Next Read: You Be The Judge: The Big Bad Beef Packers Are On Trial

What Row Crop Farmers Can Expect, Rabo Gives Harvest Outlook

Fri, 31 Oct 2025 15:56:40 GMT

More volatility and at least one to two more years of challenged/negative margins. That is the summary of the harvest outlook from Rabo analysts.

As Steve Nicholson, grains and oilseeds analyst, points out the average price cycle for row crop farmgate prices ranges from 25 to 35 years since 1900 to the present.

“When we think about that 25 to 35 year cycle, it helps us understand what’s happening and the movement of prices over time, and how we’ve moved each time to new plateaus,” he says. “So we are now in year 17 of the current cycle. And what’s important to note that is different than past cycles is the range was typically $1/bu to $1.50/bu in each cycle, now in our current cycle the price range is $4/bu. The range is bigger. There’s more volatility.”

(Rabobank)

Nicholson says fundamentally the volatility is driven by supply and demand shocks. for most crops.

“Take corn and wheat, for example, exporters are holding a smaller share of stocks in the world, and there’s a similar story for rice,” Nicholson says. “Soybeans are the exception, as the two big producers have big stocks being held by those exporters.”

As for stocks-to-use ratio, Nicholson says corn and wheat are at comfortable levels but in a multi-year decline, and as such when there’s any production shortfall, the potential price volatility increases and the market can move quickly.

As for how this translates to farm gate economics, Nicholson and his colleagues say their modeling shows corn and soybeans production margins return to breakeven or positive in 2027/2028 marketing year. The main culprit dragging down margins is “stickier than usual input costs.”

“We’re still two crops from breakeven,” Nicholson says.

Sam Taylor, ag inputs analyst at Rabo says since this time last year there’s been a notable dislocation between costs and returns.

(Rabobank)

“Fertilizer has kept us awake for several years,” he says. “But through 2020 to 2023, the anomaly of high fertilizer was matched by commodity price run ups. That has dissipated into the current circumstances where since May of last year we’ve had a sequence of one after another of compounding geopolitical events: gas supplies out of northern Africa, Chinese limits on exports of urea and phosphates, issues in the Stait of Hormuz, and companies limiting exports and curtailing production.”

Taylor says the current affordability indexes for fertilizer should be resulting in demand destruction, but there’s no evidence of farmers cutting back on inputs.

“For example with phosphates, the affordability index since 2022 has gotten worse. It’s a terrible situation for US growers. It doesn’t fit into our traditional context of displaying it,” Taylor says. “It hasn’t been as bad as 2008, which had a different dynamic as we had credit issues and affordability issues. But then farmers cut back on phosphates by 25%, which created an ability to correct the market. Prices corrected back to the mean.”

Taylor says to see a similar price correction, demand would have to decrease by 20 to 25%.

“We are creating a moat in trade and tariffs. U.S. farmers are paying a 10% price premium on MAP as a result of countervailing duties,” he says. “We have become near enough self-supplying in MAP as long as we don’t export any we can make our ends meet. We have headwinds going into 2026. It’s not just government subsidies that have created confusion to the market, but the tariffs and taxes have impacted the cost of production for U.S. growers.”

Taylor says there’s a delay and distortion in the market signals caused by the government interventions, which supports his idea that prices will remain higher for longer. This includes not only phosphates but nitrogen as well.

Higher production costs are weighing on the farmer balance sheet.

(Rabobank)

“If we go two or three years back, folks were pulling 20% to 30% of their operating lines. And now that number is 50% pulling off that operating line,” Nicholson says. “They need the financing because they aren’t getting the returns. And we’ve already see them pull back—pretty dramatically—on equipment purchasing for example.”

Owen Wagner, ag policy analyst for Rabo, says in assessing the levers to pull agriculture out of this lack of profitability are indicating the current government supports for farmers are potentially delaying the correction.

“More of these government supports are insurance subsidies and ad-hoc payments, and as such risk management programs are melding into income supports,” Wagner says. “The supports out of Washington are necessary in the short term, but what are the long term impacts of the well intentioned policies?”

Comparing 2025 production costs for soybeans in Iowa vs. Mato Grosso, Brazil, Wagner says it would take a 10% decline in land rental rates for Iowa’s production costs to be competitive.

(Rabobank)

As for 2026 production, Nicholson says the current models point to 2 to 3 million less acres of corn, with soybean acres changing day-to-day.

Farmers Say They Shoulder The Cost Of Mergers In Seed, Fertilizer Industries

Wed, 29 Oct 2025 21:41:09 GMT

Testimony from farmers, economists and legislators during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday painted a stark picture of the challenges row crop growers are up against to stay in business as input prices continue to climb and profit margins are severely squeezed.

The hearing exposed a critical challenge for U.S. production agriculture: as a handful of corporations controls more of the agricultural supply chain for seed and fertilizer, farmers say they are left with fewer choices, higher costs and diminishing control over their own operations.

Noah Coppess, a fifth-generation farmer based in Cedar County, Iowa, shared his personal observations on the industry’s transformation over the past few decades.

“The reality in farming today is we’re price takers rather than price makers,” he said, highlighting how farmers have lost bargaining power as agricultural manufacturers and suppliers have become increasingly concentrated.

“It’s further complicated by lack of price transparency, with farmers forced to operate at the liberty of the market at the front and back end,” Coppess added. “I have concerns with our input and equipment supply chains and their ability to manipulate our costs.”

‘The Cost Of Fertilizer Is Crushing Growers’

Coppess also told the committee how farmers are routinely asked to prepay for fertilizer three to six months prior to a needed application, and up to 14 months before their crop will be harvested.

“Many of the contracts are written with a narrow window to get the products applied, or the contract expires and the input is repriced at a higher value, or monthly fees can be applied to extend the contract,” he said.

Coppess noted that phosphate has become “a bare minimum usage fertilizer” on his farm due to the rising cost. “We have invested significant capital and time trying to find other ways to manage our phosphorus needs, as the cost of this input is at a point of negative return,” he said.

Mark Mueller, an Iowa farmer and president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, gave written testimony for the committee, saying the massive increase in the cost of fertilizer is “crushing corn growers” in Iowa and other states.

“Growers across the country are facing an impossible decision: buy fertilizer or stay solvent. This is not sustainable, and it is well past time to stop ignoring the role of the fertilizer monopolies that dominate critical input markets,” Mueller said. “Right now, the price of our most essential input, fertilizer, is squeezing the life out of the American farmer like a vise. We must take action and return competition to our ag economy.”

Mueller discussed his report to the judiciary committee in more detail during a conversation on AgriTalk on Wednesday, which is available here:

Testimony from Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, highlighted how the seed and fertilizer industries are dominated by only a handful of companies. She referenced a USDA study that shows two seed companies accounted for 72% of planted corn acres and 66% of planted soybean acres. In addition, Moss said the fertilizer industry is equally consolidated, with four firms controlling 77% of nitrogen production and 100% of potash and phosphate markets.

John Latham, president of Latham Hi-Tech Seeds, an independent seed company based in Alexander, Iowa, weighed in with his perspective on consolidation within the seed industry.

“Independent seed companies can offer products better suited for specific geographies than the multinationals. Unfortunately, many independent companies are going out of business as these multinational companies have become more powerful and, frankly, predatory,” Latham said, noting that the seed corn industry is 90% controlled by two companies.

Seed Costs Have Soared

Moss noted that the average price farmers paid for seed rose by 270% between 1990-2020.

“For crops planted predominately with GM seed, such as corn, soybeans, and cotton, seed prices rose by an average of 463%,” she said. “These price increases compared with commodity price inflation of 56% over the same period.”

Moss also warned that farmers also have little price transparency due to the practice of rolling seed technology prices into the total price of GM crop seed, making it harder to compare seed costs over time. “Farmers also see lower quality as previous generations of technology begin to lose their effectiveness,” she added.

Latham noted that seed prices aren’t just increasing for the newest and latest seed technology, but also on older technologies that are going off patent, or soon to be off patent. One example Latham gave is NK603, a glyphosate-resistant corn product, which went off patent in 2022.

“Farmers are being charged the highest royalties ever for this off-patent technology. More than 90% of biotech-traited corn in the United States is glyphosate resistant, so farmers are paying billions of dollars for seed royalties on a trait that has been off patent for three years,” Latham said.

Along with that, seed royalties have increased significantly. Latham said about 70% of the cost of a bag of seed goes to royalties now, compared to 42% just five years ago.

Farmers Ask For Workable Solutions

Senators from both parties expressed concern during the committee hearing, suggesting potential legislative solutions including improved transparency, antitrust enforcement, and support for independent agricultural research.

Caleb Ragland, a Kentucky farmer and president of the American Soybean Association, said Congress and the Trump administration need to take immediate action to reduce farm production costs and prevent additional family farm closures. He outlined three urgent policy priorities to improve economic conditions for U.S. soybean farmers:

1. Provide tariff relief on critical agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, seed, pesticides, machinery, and parts.

2. Finalize biofuel policy, including RFS volume obligations and 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit guidance, to expand domestic markets for soy.

3. Deliver targeted farmer assistance to help producers manage severe market losses and negative basis impacts.

The complete committee meeting – Pressure Cooker: Competition Issues in the Seed & Fertilizer Industries – is available on YouTube.

Your next read: ‘The System Is Failing Us:' Why Real Change is Needed in U.S. Agriculture

Family Farm Saved From Eminent Domain After Capturing Nationwide Attention

Mon, 27 Oct 2025 17:09:31 GMT

Andy Henry beat eminent domain. His 21-acre, 175-year-old farm will no longer be targeted for government housing.

Henry’s fight to save his livestock operation from development caught the nation’s eye, followed by the attention of USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, and interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba.

An agreement is set to permanently protect the Henry family farm. Concrete will not replace grass.

Refusal to Roll
For decades, Henry declined $25 million development offers for Highland Ranch, his 21-acre farm in Middlesex County, N.J.

However, in April 2025, the Cranbury Township Committee tagged the entire Henry property as the ideal location for an affordable housing apartment complex of 130 units. Henry, a 20-year Air Force veteran, refused to sell, even though his land was designated by the Cranbury Township Committee for replacement with apartment buildings.

He hired attorney Timothy Duggan and held tight to his farm. “The public is disturbed by the government’s actions in this case,” Duggan told Agweb. “The details are so over the top to average people that they think they’re watching a Saturday Night Live skit.”

After decades of development, Henry’s 21 acres are the last farm standing on South River Road.

(Photo by Google)

In July, Henry filed a lawsuit challenging the township’s ordinance allowing seizure by eminent domain. He followed in August with a separate challenge to the affordable housing plan.

The Cranbury Township Committee then narrowed its acquisition of Henry’s land by targeting half the farm for concrete, leaving him with 9 acres and a farmhouse. Again, Henry declined.

Henry’s refusal to roll drew admiration from multiple government figures. As political pressure mounted, the Cranbury Township Committee changed course.

Henry won. On Oct. 24, 2025, Agriculture Secretary Rollins posted an announcement on X: After months of bipartisan, federal-state collaboration, the state of New Jersey has secured an agreement that would spare the 175-year-old Henry family farm from the state’s affordable housing plan. Further efforts are also underway by USDA and the New Jersey Department of Agriculture to protect this prime farmland in perpetuity.

N.J. Gov. Murphy followed with a statement : “From the very beginning, I have opposed efforts to seize the Henry Family Farm through eminent domain. While every town in New Jersey must do its part to resolve our state’s affordable housing crisis, these efforts must be pursued thoughtfully and collaboratively,”

Henry’s farmland was technically saved via a change in the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency rules. (To read the legislation/agreement, see here .)

“My family sacrificed on this land for 175 years,” Henry told Agweb in June 2025, as the legal saga began unfolding. “All the other farms disappeared. We did not. We will not.”

Sincerely. A legacy saved.

Feds Target Family Over Wetlands Regulations, Ignore Supreme Court Ruling?

Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:46:42 GMT

What happens when a family’s landlocked agriculture property is deemed a wetland and the feds disregard a historic Supreme Court ruling? U.S. landowners and farmers move two steps forward and three steps back.

In May 2025, the Army Corps of Engineers tagged 1.13 acres belonging to Caleb and Rebecca Linck of Bonner County, Idaho, as a wetland, essentially dropping Clean Water Act (CWA) authority over their entire property. Significantly, the Linck’s ground is hundreds of feet from the nearest stream and 2 miles from the nearest lake. Close enough, according to federal officials.

Astoundingly, the Lincks live in the precise county where another family won a landmark CWA Supreme Court ruling in 2023, Sackett v. EPA, essentially protecting landowners from agency overregulation.

The Lincks, represented by Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), are preparing for a legal fight. “It’s an outrage,” says PLF attorney Charles Yates. “After Sackett, the agencies went back to the drawing board. They simply won’t accept that the highest court in the land definitively told them they could not keep doing what they were doing. And it’s happening again in other cases, right now, to people all over the country.”

“This is part of a deliberate strategy on the part of these agencies to continue regulating as if Sackett didn’t happen,” Yates adds.

Even when government shrinks, it expands. Welcome to the Linck’s alarming case.

Leapfrog
In the northernmost reaches of Idaho, Caleb and Rebecca Linck own a 4.7-acre parcel inherited from family. Their hope? Live on the land and turn the spot to agriculture production in the future.

Prior to any disturbance or broken ground, the couple hired a wetlands consultant to ensure CWA adherence. The move backfired. On May 14, 2025, the Corps claimed authority over 1.13 acres of their ground—a purported federal wetland. Two months later, the Lincks, represented by PLF, filed an appeal.

The Linck’s acre of “wetlands” is hundreds of feet away from the nearest water—a stream. Their acre, zoned agriculture, is bordered by an elevated 35’-wide gravel road with no culverts. There are no land features within the acre that qualify for agency regulation. How is the Linck’s dry ground a wetland, according to the Corps?

(When contacted by Agweb.com regarding the Linck case, Corps representatives declined comment.)

A leapfrog association, claims the agency. Across the road from the Linck’s property is a farm pasture containing a swale depression. The pasture touches a stream that connects to a creek that spills into a navigable waterway. Thereby, the Linck acre is a connect-the-dots wetland in the eyes of government.

The Sackett case, arguably a mirror of the Linck case, still shocks many Americans.

(Photo by Chris Bennett)

“The Corps uses what they call a ‘wetlands complex theory,’” describes Yates. “They’re aggregating a whole bunch of wetlands in one area, and calling them one giant wetland, even if they’re separated by roads or berms or other structures.”

Subsurface connections. Groundwater hydrology. All water flows downhill. Catchall.

“By the Corps’ logic, because one little bit of the wetlands complex touches or abuts a covered water, then the whole thing can be regulated,” Yates continues. “That’s illegal for obvious reasons and it flatly violates the Sackett test.”

The Sackett case, arguably a mirror of the Linck case, still shocks many Americans.

Dozens of Cases
In Bonner County—the exact locale of the Linck’s property—the Sackett family attempted to build a subdivision home roughly a third- to half-mile distant from Priest Lake. Several previously constructed homes (and a road) stood between the Sackett property and the lake.

EPA designated the Sackett lot a wetland and issued a cease-and-desist construction order, threatening the couple with fines upward of $40,000 per day. Represented by PLF , the Sacketts fought back in court.

In May 2023, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a seismic 9-0 decision in favor of the Sacketts. In a major rebuke to EPA and the Corps, SCOTUS noted that wetlands designations should be obvious to the public, i.e., common sense should be in play. In a nutshell, SCOTUS said CWA regulations only apply to wetlands with a continuous surface water connection to navigable waters.

Justice Samuel Alito was specific: “the CWA’s use of ‘waters’ encompasses only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.”

Following the 2023 SCOTUS ruling, have regulatory agencies operated by the newly minted CWA enforcement restrictions?

Ask Iowa landowner Dan Ward. “No. They broke it immediately,” Ward said in 2024. “They ignored it and carried on, right on my property.”

“We’ve reached a place where our own officials believe they can disregard Supreme Court law,” Ward contends. “What the government is doing on my land is 100% about keeping power.”

(Photo courtesy of Dan Ward)

Ward was blocked by the Corps from building a pond on his 420-acre farm property because agency officials considered a dry depression that runs half-a-mile across his land, over 100 miles from the nearest navigable river, to be “waters of the United States.”

How many nationwide CWA cases are ongoing related to jurisdictional determinations, enforcement actions, compliance orders, or negotiations where regulatory agencies are pressing authority beyond Sackett?

“Widespread,” Yates emphasizes. “This is not just happening in Idaho or California. This is in North Carolina. This is in Iowa. This is in every corner of the country and I’m speaking about dozens of cases that I’m personally aware of.”

No Accident, No Oversight
Wash, rinse, repeat, contends Yates, who was a member of the PLF litigation team that argued the Sackett case at the Supreme Court. “The Lincks are falling victim to the exact same agency actions taken against the Sacketts. After the Sackett decision, the agencies wouldn’t accept that the highest court in the land definitively told them they could not keep doing what they were doing. Now it’s back to business as usual to assert authority to the maximum extent possible.”

The Linck’s landlocked farm property—is not so landlocked, per agency assertion.

“The Linck case is an egregious example of an agency blatantly disregarding the Supreme Court,” Yates concludes. “This is not an accident. This is not bureaucratic oversight. This is, I believe, part of a deliberate strategy on the part of these agencies to continue regulating as if Sackett didn’t happen. These agencies are holding tight to power.”

For more from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106), see:

Outraged Farmers Blame Ag Monopolies as Catastrophic Collapse Looms

Family Farm Wins Historic Case After Feds Violate Constitution and Ruin Business

County Shuts Down 15-Yr-Old’s Bait Stand on Family Farm, Threatens Daily Fines

Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told

How the Deep State Tried, and Failed, to Crush an American Farmer

Game of Horns: Iowa Poacher’s Antler Addiction Leads to Historic Bust

Ghost Cattle: $650M Ponzi Rocks Livestock Industry, Money Still Missing

Farmer Unearths Lost Treasure, Solves WW2 Mystery

Outrage Builds as City Attempts to Turn Historic 21-Acre Farm into Government Housing

Tue, 05 May 2026 22:05:58 GMT

One tiny farm, standing alone against the power of eminent domain, has caught the attention of the nation. Bureaucrats aim to seize the ground for government housing.

For decades, brothers Andy Henry and Chris Henry, owners of a 175-year-old, 21-acre livestock operation in Middlesex County, N.J., declined $25 million development offers, preserving the farm for the sake of family legacy and county history. Their reward? In a surreal turn bordering on parody, in April 2025, the local council of Cranbury Township designated the entire Henry farm as the ideal location for an affordable housing apartment complex of 130 units. Sell or get covered by a concrete blanket.

Andy Henry, with 20 years of military service in the Air Force, refused to roll. His courage has caught the support of Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, spurring USDA to look at the loss of family farms via eminent domain.

Henry is prepared for a benchmark court battle, emphasizes attorney Timothy Duggan. “Farms are getting picked off one by one, but now USDA leaders are intent on protecting these families. The public is shocked when they hear the crazy circumstances of this case, but Andy Henry is ready. He’s going the distance for himself and farmers everywhere.”

Saturday Night Live
Surrounded by warehouses, industrial buildings, and turnpike exits, the Henry farm is an agriculture island on South River Road. Despite steady buyout attempts, the Henry siblings have maintained one of the oldest ag outfits on the East Coast—in operation since 1850, composed of 21 acres of pasture, barns, and a historic home.

As seen from above, Henry’s 21 acres represent the last farm standing on South River Road.

(Photo by Google)

However, when a statewide court order directed construction of 146,000 affordable housing units by 2035, Henry’s livestock farm was tagged by the Cranbury Township Committee for forced replacement with apartment buildings: We’re from the government and we’re here to help.

Henry didn’t follow the Committee’s script. He hired bulldog attorney Timothy Duggan and held tight to his farm. “The public is disturbed by the government’s actions in this case,” Duggan emphasizes. “The details are so over the top to average people that they think they’re watching a Saturday Night Live skit.”

In July, Henry filed a lawsuit challenging the township’s ordinance allowing seizure by eminent domain. He followed in August with a separate challenge to the affordable housing plan. “Our primary challenge was the plan is unconstitutional because it builds low-income housing in an area surrounded by warehouses,” Duggan explains, “and that’s not an appropriate location for housing.”

(See City Gov to Seize 175-Year-Old Farm by Eminent Domain for more details on Henry’s private property battle.)

“The public is shocked when they hear the crazy circumstances of this case, but Andy Henry is ready,” says Timothy Duggan. “He’s going the distance for himself and farmers everywhere.”

(Photo by AH)

Henry’s stand has drawn the public eye: “The support from everyday Americans has been overwhelming as evidenced by the social media posts and contributions to our GoFundMe ,” Henry says. “We’ve even had international support.”

Support extends to the top office of USDA. On June 17, USDA Secretary Rollins noted Henry’s potential loss. On her X account, @BrookeLRollins , she posted: We hear you, and I am looking into this situation immediately. We must protect our family farms at all costs. Standby.

Easy Targets
Rollins’ support of Henry has deepened. On Sept. 24, alongside Aubrey Bettencourt , chief of NRCS, Rollins met with Henry and Duggan in Washington, D.C.

“The purpose of the meeting was to discuss what we can do nationwide to try to help preserve additional farms and stop the use of eminent domain to go after farms,” Duggan notes. “Quite often, these old family farms are easy targets.”

L-R, at the Sept. 24 meeting: Jacquelyn A. Suarez, Commissioner of New Jersey Department of Community Affairs; John Koufos; USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins; Andy Henry; Timothy Duggan; and Edward Wengryn, New Jersey Secretary of Agriculture.

(Photo courtesy of Timothy Duggan)

“We’ve been very happy with the support from Secretary Rollins and Chief Bettencourt on how to develop a nationwide program and defense of the farmland we lose each day throughout the country. Secretary Rollins, from the very beginning, has been all-in, wanting to help all the way up the federal level. Our case, over a small amount of land in New Jersey, is about protecting farmland nationwide.”

The Trigger
Henry is prepared for a long-haul court battle.

“Think about the circumstances,” Duggan concludes. “You have farm owners of a wonderful 175-year-old operation turning down big money over and over, because they genuinely believe in preserving a legacy for their entire state. Their actions are then abused by eminent domain. At gut level, people know this is terribly wrong.”

Initially, Henry intended to save his 21 acres. Now, he hopes his legal fight triggers protection for agriculture operations across the nation.

“This started out with a threat to take a property we simply did not want to sell, and people rallied because they could see it was wrong,” Henry says. “I sincerely hope the publicity this has generated will help many other farmers.”

For more from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106), see:

Family Farm Wins Historic Case After Feds Violate Constitution and Ruin Business

County Shuts Down 15-Yr-Old’s Bait Stand on Family Farm, Threatens Daily Fines

Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told

How the Deep State Tried, and Failed, to Crush an American Farmer

Game of Horns: Iowa Poacher’s Antler Addiction Leads to Historic Bust

Ghost Cattle: $650M Ponzi Rocks Livestock Industry, Money Still Missing

Farmer Unearths Lost Treasure, Solves WW2 Mystery

Sisters of Farm Fraud: How 4 Siblings Fleeced USDA for $10M

EPA Updates A/C Rules: What Farmers Need to Know

Mon, 29 Sep 2025 20:03:19 GMT

EPA has again revised standards for refrigerant used in vehicles.

R-12 refrigerant (aka “Freon”) was the go-to coolant for more than 50 years. Then it was discovered that chlorine atoms in escaped R-12 molecules accumulated in the atmosphere and damaged the ozone layer.

A new refrigerant, R-134a, came out in 1991 and replaced R-12’s miscreant chlorine atom with a fluorine atom — which breaks down in 10 to 12 years.

To further minimize damage to the environment, another new refrigerant, R-1234yf, was developed and replaced R-134a’s fluorine atom with a propylene atom — which breaks down in one day.

A transition to R-1234yf is underway. Professional mechanics who use refrigerant recovery and recycling (R&R) machines must have special training and EPA Section 609 certification to buy more than 2 lb. of R-1234yf.

Necessary Adjustments
Cans of R-1234yf are at auto parts stores and have Schrader-type valves, which need a matching fitting on R&R machines or sets of pressure gauges.

Older R-134a refrigerant and new R-1234yf refrigerant are not interchangeable. The propylene atoms in R-1234yf make it mildly flammable. For that reason, newer systems are designed with spark-free compressors and other components.

If farmers have on-farm R&R machines, they can be carefully flushed between exposures to R-134a and R-1234yf, but the newer refrigerant is slightly caustic. Long-term exposure to R-1234yf can damage internal components in machines designed for R-134a.

Farmers who own a set of air conditioning gauges have a similar situation.

“You can buy adapters to hook up an R-134a set of gauges to a R-1234yf system,” says Jeff Weidecke, trainer for MasterCool refrigerant handling systems. “If a guy has an R-134a set of gauges and uses adapter fittings, he’s going to start the vehicle up, disconnect from whatever keg or 1 lb. can they’re using and turn on the machine’s air conditioning system so the clutch and compressor engage. Any R-134a refrigerant left in the hoses will be boiled off and pulled into the vehicle’s R-134a system. Then you can run R-1234yf through those gauges to check or fill a system.”

Weidecke notes that because R-1234yf is a more efficient than R-134a, compressors and other air conditioning system components are smaller, and less refrigerant is used.

“The factory-fill for a lot of new cars is only 12 to 14 ounces,” he says.

Farm Groups Offer Additional Thoughts On MAHA Strategy Report

Thu, 11 Sep 2025 22:23:22 GMT

As the dust settles from the rollout of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) strategy report – the action plan for the initial report which was released in May – farmers, farm groups and industry continue to assess what this latest document means to agriculture.

There was “a lot more transparency” in the process of developing the strategy report, released Tuesday, according to Brian Glenn, director of government affairs at American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF).

“It led to a more positive outcome in this report,” Glenn told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory.

That was not the case in May, when the initial report – which did not include farmers’ input – called out atrazine, chlorpyriphos and glyphosate as pesticides that are “exposure pathways” for potential chronic disease issues in U.S. children.

“Our biggest plea coming back into this August report was, ‘Please listen to the farmers. Ask us for our input.’ And they did ask us,” says Amy France, who farms with her family in western Kansas, near Scott City, and chairs the National Sorghum Producers.

“We had great conversations, and a big chunk of those conversations were directed to education,” France adds.

France addresses the MAHA report and her outlook for the sorghum industry at the AgriTalk link below:

Specifics On Soil Health And Precision Agriculture
What the Commission delivered on Tuesday was a 20-page report outlining 128 recommendations – a roadmap it plans to enact via a series of research projects and multiple federal agencies. Among those recommendations, pages 18-19 of the latest report specifically address “Soil Health and Stewardship of the Land” and “Precision Agriculture.”

The report says “USDA and EPA will promote and incentivize farming solutions in partnership with the private sector that focus on soil health and stewardship of the land,” and provides six specific actions. Read them and the entire report here .

Glenn told Flory that the NFBF had a mostly positive reaction to the report, which included several positive policy recommendations that support U.S. farmers and ranchers.

“There were recommendations to provide a foundation for a lifetime of smart choices, which include focus on American-grown fresh fruits, vegetables and meat. They included a recommendation on reintroducing whole milk into school meal programs. They took an opportunity to highlight efforts to prioritize and support voluntary conservation programs under USDA-NRCS and specifically mentioned the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,” Glenn says. “They even included a recommendation on highlighting EPA’s already robust pesticide regulatory process … with ways to optimize that robust process to accelerate innovation.”

While Glenn says the Commission acknowledged the safety and health of the American food supply, he stressed the importance of the Commission having continued discussions with farmers and farm groups.

“More engagement is needed [with agriculture] as there are a lot of recommendations in this report, asking for different federal agencies to look at different things, and I certainly don’t think this will be our only bite at the apple,” Glenn says.

“I think there will be more opportunities for us to engage, and that is really the message that needs to ring loud and clear for farmers and ranchers. I think us sharing our voice and story has led to a more positive outcome in this report, and I think we need to continue to do that,” he adds.

Glenn offers more perspective from the NFBF on the new MAHA strategy plan here:

Wisconsin Ag Regulators Propose Massive Livestock Fee Increases

Thu, 11 Sep 2025 19:24:36 GMT

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

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

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

(Wisconsin Farm Bureau)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Process

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

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

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

Attending public hearings
Submitting written comments by Oct. 15

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

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

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

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

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

Neighboring State Comparisons

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

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

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

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

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

Industry Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAHA Report 2.0 Gets A Thumbs Up From Farmer Groups And Industry

Tue, 09 Sep 2025 21:36:10 GMT

The Department of Health and Human Services released its action strategy to address children’s health from its Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission on Tuesday.

This is the second installment of the MAHA report – a highly anticipated follow-up to the report released by the Commission in May. Many farm organizations had said the original document was filled with “ fear-based rather than science-based information about pesticides .”

The latest report offers more than 120 initiatives that will serve as a road map to help address and resolve what Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. described as “America’s escalating health crisis, with a focus on childhood chronic diseases.”

Among the initiatives, the second report is calling for better nutrition, more physical activity and the need to address environmental health factors to improve children’s health.

Regarding environmental health, the report stops short of calling for restrictions on pesticide use. Instead, the report recommends collaboration with the agriculture industry to identify “precision agricultural techniques” that can help farmers reduce their use of crop-protection products.

🚨 Putting America’s farmers first starts with our kids. That’s why @USDA is launching a new Farm to School Grant opportunity!

What it means:

✔️Easier applications for schools & communities
✔️More small family farms connected to the lunch line
✔️Fresh, local food fueling kids’… pic.twitter.com/xBMROKGNKZ
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) September 9, 2025

“Together with our partners at HHS and EPA, we are charting a new course, strengthening the health of our families, and ensuring the United States leads the world with the safest, strongest, and most abundant food supply,” said U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins, in a statement about the report.

As examples, Rollins referenced the removal of artificial food dye from major brands, providing technical assistance to states interested in restricting junk food and soda from SNAP, and providing farmers with new tools to maintain and improve soil health, including the introduction of a regenerative farming practice pilot program.

Farm Groups Weigh In With Their Perspective

The 20-page report was met with varying degrees of approval and feedback from U.S. farm organizations.

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) said the latest report appears to be a reasonable and science-based approach for achieving its objectives.

“We are encouraged that when the commission engaged with agricultural stakeholders and followed the science, it reaffirmed what we already know: EPA is the appropriate agency for regulating crop inputs,” Kenneth Hartman Jr., NCGA president, said in a statement. “We are also delighted to see precision agriculture, soil health and land stewardship prioritized, as these are areas in which corn farmers have led the way for many years.”

The Make America Healthy Again Commission released its recommendations today. We are encouraged that when the commission engaged with agricultural stakeholders and followed the science, it reaffirmed what we already know: EPA is the appropriate agency for regulating crop inputs.… pic.twitter.com/1ildZ39Wl2
— National Corn (NCGA) (@NationalCorn) September 9, 2025

The American Soybean Association (ASA) expressed cautious optimism about the report with some caveats.

“Soybean farmers are thankful the MAHA Commission recognized EPA’s approval process as the global gold standard,” said Caleb Ragland, ASA president, in a statement. “Between the May report and today’s strategy, the Commission was accessible and open to learning more about modern farming practices. We truly felt like we had a seat at the table, and for that, we are incredibly appreciative.”

However, the statement from ASA said the organization remains concerned about the misinformed rhetoric from some Commission members around edible soybean oil. “We urge careful consideration of any upcoming rulemakings that could negatively impact U.S. farmers and the public,” ASA said.

A Focus On Collaboration For Crop Protection

The MAHA strategy report offers the crop protection industry some degree of a reprieve, according to Callie Eideberg, a policy expert and principal at The Vogel Group, an international government affairs and consulting firm headquartered in Washington, D.C.

“We saw…an effort to educate the public about the EPA and their processes that they use to approve chemicals,” Eideberg told AgDay TV’s Clinton Griffith on Tuesday.

“We saw a partnership with the private sector to focus chemical applications in a very precise way. I think, overall, the chemical industry in the agricultural space is probably doing cartwheels right now because they could have faced some really tough questions and some tough recommendations. But this report, at least the way I read it, is not making major changes or really any changes at all to how agricultural chemicals are regulated by the federal government,” Eideberg said.

TFI welcomes the release of the second Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) report and the chance to highlight how nutrient stewardship, cover crops, and conservation practices strengthen both our land and our communities.

Read our full statement here: https://t.co/7taWqM4qIh
— The Fertilizer Institute (@Fertilizer_Inst) September 9, 2025

Her message was similarly echoed by the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA):

”ARA commends the MAHA Commission for its common-sense, forward-thinking recommendations related to agricultural innovations and environmental stewardship. This report recognizes the importance of essential tools needed for America’s production agriculture using innovative precision ag technologies and other innovations,” said Daren Coppock, ARA president and CEO.

Report Recognizes The Nutritional Value Of Meat

Eideberg said she is pleased to see the approach the strategy report is taking to resolve issues laid out in the initial report through a large emphasis on education and awareness.

“Whether that is in nutrition and health or the pesticide industry, education and awareness are a big emphasis of this report, and we also saw a big push for deregulation,” Eideberg said. “The deregulation options in this report are primarily focused on smaller meat and dairy processors, which has been a big concern in [those industries] for a while. But I think those folks are going to really like what they see in this report.”

The Meat Institute noted that the latest report “is a good first step toward recognizing the nutritional value of meat and poultry after years of misguided policies attacking meat consumption.”

Farm Journal’s Drovers and Pork Business editors highlighted feedback on the MAHA strategy details from their respective industry leaders in separate reports.

Your next read: MFP 2.0? Ag Committees Consider Farm Aid Through Farm Bill 2.0

Family Farm Wins Historic Case After Feds Violate Constitution and Ruin Business

Tue, 05 May 2026 22:06:35 GMT

It ranks as a monumental injustice and ruin of an American family.

Seizing on a paperwork violation and over $500,000 in fines, Department of Labor (DOL) agents hounded a fourth-generation farm into collapse, trapping brothers Joe and Russell Marino in nine years of bureaucratic hell.

Denied access to an outside court or jury, the Marinos were subjected to an in-house agency process from pillar to post. Pursuit by DOL agents, enforcement by DOL personnel, trial by DOL attorneys, decision by DOL judge, and approval by DOL appellate judges.

“They took us down a dark, dark hole that I can’t describe properly with words,” says Joe Marino. “I never thought honesty and facts wouldn’t matter in America, but that’s what happened. We were presumed guilty from the start, and it’s shameful what they did to us.”

Shameful, indeed, according to a panel of independent federal judges. In a landmark decision, the Marinos were vindicated after the 3^rd Circuit unanimously ruled DOL’s actions in violation of the Constitution.

“People need to know our whole story because this is how government agencies operate,” Joe says. “The public will be sickened to find out what DOL did. I don’t want this to ever, ever happen to another farmer or small business owner or American. The time for change is right now. It has to be now.”

Beginning of the End
Arriving on U.S. shores from Sicily in roughly 1900, the Marino family carved out a farming operation in Gloucester County, New Jersey. For the next 125 years, from a toehold in dirt to an expanse of 3,000 acres, four generations of Marinos grew vegetables outside Swedesboro at Sun Valley Orchards. No more. Their farm is gone.

Integrated from seed to sale at its peak, and helmed by Joe and Russell, Sun Valley became the largest produce farm in New Jersey, and one of the biggest on the East Coast, growing asparagus, cucumbers, broccoli, cabbage, bell peppers, eggplant, sweet corn, and more. At the heart of crop season, Sun Valley employed approximately 180 seasonal workers and was a hive of industry, with 15-20 tractor-trailer loads of produce per day exiting the facility, bound for the Northeast, South, Midwest, and Canada.

DOL claimed Sun Valley fired its H-2A workers without compensation and stole food money from their pockets.

(Photo by Andrew Wimer, IJ)

Department of Labor (DOL) inspections were par for the course. DOL popped on site in mid-summer to examine payrolls, transport, living conditions, and more clipboard categories, usually wrapping up in less than a day.

“That was our experience with DOL inspections. Basically, they’d give us a few things to repair and we’d fix them immediately,” Joe explains. “As far as how we treated our employees, our workers were invaluable. They busted their asses for us and we thought the world of them. To think we’d later be accused of mistreating any of them was the furthest thing from the truth. But that’s where the whole craziness was headed.”

In 2015, feeling the pressure of a building labor crisis in U.S. agriculture, the Marinos turned to the federal H-2A Temporary Agriculture Worker Program, filling over half their seasonal manpower needs with foreign nationals. Sun Valley’s first H-2A workers arrived in early spring, and as the crop year marched on, DOL, as expected, popped in for an on-site inspection.

However, instead of the typical lone official, DOL arrived with three inspectors. And rather than a day or less, the trio stayed at Sun Valley for roughly four days. “I kept telling my brother, Russ, ‘Something feels off. Something feels different,’” Joe recalls. “It was like DOL knew something we didn’t and had already made up their minds.”

His intuition was in the bull’s-eye. It was the beginning of the end for Sun Valley.

Pay Up or Else
Silence speaks volumes. Typically, DOL provided findings upon completion of inspection, but into fall 2015, DOL did not send the Marinos a report or checklist of corrections. DOL let the entire 2015 season pass without indication of any concerns. In January 2016, DOL brass from Washington, D.C., arrived at Sun Valley’s farm gate in New Jersey.

“They showed up in person, a director from D.C. and two agents,” Joe recalls. “I’ll never forget the scene. They came walking in with hellos, small talk, and stupid little jokes, as if they were conducting some kind of everyday bureaucratic procedure. And for them, maybe it was. For me and my family, it was a life-altering moment.”

“It’s incestuous,” Joe Marino contends. “That’s how all our government agencies operate and maintain power. They play judge, jury, and executioner.”

(Photo by Andrew Wimer, IJ)

Seated in the Sun Valley farm office on opposite sides of a large desk, the tiny space separating two farmers and three federal bureaucrats was chasmic. Minutes beyond a handshake and greeting, the D.C. director dropped a bomb, accusing Sun Valley of mistreating H-2A workers: You owe $550,000 in back wages and civil penalty fines.

“I felt the ground spinning underneath me,” Joe recounts. “One minute they were smiling and asking how we were doing, and the next telling us the results of their inspection showed we had to pay them an incredible amount of money. For our entire lives we worked to be the best farmers we could ever be and carry our family legacy. In an instant, I was numb, stunned, angry, horrified, and shocked, all wrapped together. It was a $550,000 accusation.”

Literally, the federal government had sent agents on-site to Marino’s farm, demanding over a half-million dollars, most of it for a single paperwork violation. Pay up or else.

Kangaroo Court?
In a nutshell, DOL claimed Sun Valley fired its H-2A workers without compensation and stole food money from their pockets.

Back in late spring 2015, when Sun Valley’s first wave of H-2A workers, 17 Mexican nationals, arrived in Gloucester County, the Marinos were preparing to cut asparagus—notoriously difficult harvest labor. In the H-2A paperwork process, Sun Valley’s employment requirements had included asparagus cutting. The 17 prospects all attested to asparagus experience.

Yet, after a single day in the fields, the 17 workers went to Russell and threw in the towel. No mas.

“They told my brother, Russ, ‘Asparagus cutting is not for us. We’re leaving,’” Joe recalls. “Apparently, some of these 17 people had never even been on a farm, and some of them didn’t complete the first day of work. But we were desperate because asparagus grows every day. We talked and talked and tried to reason with them, but they were done.”

“What the hell could we do? We documented the whole deal with advice from our H-2A consultant,” Joe continues. “The 17 signed off saying they wanted to go home and didn’t want to work. They left. We picked up the pieces and kept going.”

However, according to DOL, Sun Valley terminated the 17 workers. Therefore, Sun Valley owed each of the 17 three-quarters of their total work contracts for the crop year—one of several DOL concerns never raised during the onsite inspection, according to Joe.

(When contacted by Agweb regarding the Sun Valley case, DOL referred all questions to DOJ. When contacted by Agweb, DOJ did not respond.)

“The charges were insane,” Joe exclaims. “And then they got crazier. They basically charged us with exploiting food from our own workers.”

During the initial H-2A application process, Sun Valley had a food choice: Give workers a kitchen to self-prepare meals or provide a meal plan. Sun Valley’s H-2A consultant chose the “kitchen” option—a paperwork error, contends Joe.

“There was no sinister food plot,” Joe exclaims. “Our consultant checked the wrong box on the paper. The wellbeing of our workers was vital to our operation and everyone’s success. There’s no way in hell we would steal their food or money. Outrageous and ridiculous.”

Sun Valley workers had long been provided on-site meals cooked by a crew member’s family. DOL already knew this from past inspections, Joe insists. “This was an arrangement for years and DOL inspectors used to rave about the wonderful smells and fantastic food. The crew leader followed all federal guideline pertaining to the meal plan and was able to feed everyone for roughly the DOL-federally mandated $80 per week—a tremendously low-cost deal for our workers. Instead, DOL said we tricked all our H-2A workers, about 96 people, into thinking they’d get a kitchen when they arrived, but instead forced them onto a meal plan. Total bullshit.”

DOL hammered Sun Valley for the meal plan, demanding full reimbursement, along with a $2,400 penalty per person, not only for the 96 H-2A visa workers, but also the additional domestic workers—all to the tune of over $300,000 for ticking the wrong box.

“Again, no mention of this mid-season during the inspection so that it could be cleared up,” Joe notes. “Instead, they let the 2015 season pass and charged us for the entire season. Not to mention Sun Valley never deducted, collected or garnished workers’ wages for food or any other reason”.

“And things only got darker from there,” Joe adds. “Much darker. Guilty until proven innocent. We hired private attorneys and decided to go down fighting, even though we knew it was a kangaroo court.”

Case closed, according to DOL. The Marinos bounced into a fixed government game. No jury of peers allowed to hear the evidence; no independent judge allowed to hear the case. Essentially, DOL fined the Marino brothers $550,000 ($212,250 in civil penalties and $369,703 in back wages) without having to prove anything beyond agency walls.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here. Move along.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat
DOL knew. They knew. If Marino was able to sit before a jury and explain Sun Valley actions, the DOL case might crumble.

“That was the most frustrating thing of the entire affair,” Marino says. “It’s not hard to tell the truth. I wanted to tell a jury with passion and conviction, but the government machine would not let me. I tried so hard to fight and expose DOL. I sent emails to all the big news outlets, politicians, and reporters, but no one in the big media responded. They wouldn’t touch us.”

The Marino brothers were cast by DOL as cruel farmers and unscrupulous businessmen. Yet, for decades, Joe, along with his father, Russell Sr., had served as state ag board members, crop association presidents, township mayors, congressional ag testimony witnesses, and national ag organization participants.

“No one should forget: The Marino family had to close their farm,” says IJ attorney Bob Belden. “Their hardship is not adequately conveyed in a court decision. It’s so good they won, but the toll on them was heavier than words.”

(Photo by Google Earth)

Yet, by DOL edict, the Marinos were instant lepers. “The people that truly knew us knew the truth. But the ag associations and organizations? They ran away. Their assumption? We were charged; therefore, the charges were true; and therefore, we were guilty. DOL made certain nobody outside the four walls of the agency could hear the facts and evidence.”

At a week-long trial in July 2017, Joe and Russell faced the agency machine in a DOL courtroom before a DOL judge who was a former DOL attorney. “It’s incestuous,” Joe contends. “That’s how all our government agencies operate and maintain power. They play judge, jury, and executioner.”

DOL, via video link, allowed testimony from three of the original 17 H-2A workers initially hired at Sun Valley. “What a farce,” Joe says. “DOL used a human rights group rep, posing as a federal DOL agent, to locate three workers in Mexico. The three didn’t have to appear in person, and we couldn’t even see on camera who was off to the side coaching them, and we didn’t know if they’d been promised a payout, and it was outrageous. A Mickey Mouse trial.”

“Through it all, not a single witness said they’d been fired. Didn’t matter. The DOL judge found us guilty anyway, on all counts. I will never forget when the DOL judge read her decision, she wouldn’t even look me in the eye while she made her remarks. I could see it on her face that she knew what she was playing a part in was wrong. I said to myself, “This can’t be America. This can’t happen here,’ but it did and it does.”

What about an appeal? Sure—in DOL appellate court, before another DOL judge. Wash, rinse, repeat.

“That’s the system,” Joe says. “Does anyone really think one DOL judge is going to reverse what their friend in a DOL courtroom just ruled on? They bleed you until you’re all appealed out, and by that time you can finally take it to an outside court, but almost no one has money for that. Through and through, it’s abuse by a government agency weaponized by elected officials.”

Gamechanger
At the bottom of a bureaucratic hole, having spent $180,000 in attorney fees and still facing a $500,000-plus fine, Joe found a lifeline.

“It was a true gamechanger,” he recalls. “A gift from God. We were done until the cavalry showed up.”

The “cavalry” was Institute for Justice (IJ), and when the liberty-loving, legal heavyweight organization caught wind of Sun Valley’s plight, IJ attorneys launched a lawsuit against DOL in 2021.

IJ came out swinging in its initial complaint on behalf of Sun Valley: The enforcement proceeding at issue in this case was initiated by DOL personnel, tried by DOL attorneys, heard and decided by a DOL judge, and then affirmed by a panel of DOL appellate judges.

“The Marinos today; any of us tomorrow,” says IJ attorney Bob Belden . “This case doesn’t need flowery explanations. When people hear the details, they quickly recognize it’s wrong to have government actors trying to take money or property from you as a punishment, and the same government actors getting to decide if you are guilty. That is as un-American as you can get.”

Sky-High Win Rates
In 2021, as Sun Valley’s lawsuit against DOL was launched, another parallel case was funneling through federal court: SEC v. Jarkesy. In a seismic 2024 ruling with direct relevance to Sun Valley, SCOTUS ruled that citizens are entitled to a jury trial when hit with civil penalties imposed by administrative law judges.

Jarkesy punched a massive hole through agency walls, and IJ drove a Sun Valley truck through the breach. In July 2025, a panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of the Marinos, declaring DOL actions in violation of the Constitution.

The Marino victory, spearheaded by IJ, was landmark. “This type of agency abuse happens to so many people everywhere in the country, and across so many agencies,” Belden notes.

Currently, the federal government contains at least 400 departments, agencies, and sub-agencies, and their internal courts, such as DOL’s in-house system, have sky-high win rates. “Think about it,” Belden describes, “They get to litigate disputes in front of their colleagues instead of independent judges.”

Emblematic of Belden’s contention, former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright made stunning remarks in 2015 regarding a phenomenally high agency win rate from roughly 1995 to 2015: “In 100 percent of cases where the administrative law judge ruled in favor of the FTC staff, the Commission (appeals board) affirmed liability; and in 100 percent of the cases in which the administrative law judge found no liability, the Commission reversed. This is a strong sign of an unhealthy and biased (emphasis added) institutional process.”

The institutional, in-house system is about more than control and power, Belden notes. Money is a significant player. In 2024 alone, according to an IJ release, DOL collected $4.9 million in back wages and imposed $5.8 million in penalties on agricultural employers.

“The truth is, in these cases, DOL very often fails to return money to workers,” Belden says. “DOL keeps much of the money it collects or kicks it back to Congress. An independent judge or jury would not have money floating in the backs of their minds as potential influence.”

The Bloodbath
Sun Valley’s David v. Goliath victory came with a bitterly painful precursor. Joe and Russell lost their farm in 2021.

A perfect storm of weather and depressed markets from 2019-2021, in tandem with DOL fines and legal fees, crushed Sun Valley. In December 2021, the Marino farming operation—from shovel to tractor to combine to land—went under the gavel. For the last time, the brothers cranked their farm machinery and lined up the vehicles for public purchase.

After surviving for 125 years, Sun Valley disappeared in a two-day farm sale. The Marino brothers sent their father out of town to ensure he wouldn’t witness the gut-wrenching process: hundreds of strangers on the property, pawing the equipment and hauling away a legacy piece by piece. Joe and Russ walked away, pockets empty.

“Tough as hell two days. So heavy on my spirit,” Joe remembers. “I’ve always had a burning passion for agriculture, but at the end of the day, it’s a business and you’ve got to make money. All along, while we were dealing with DOL, I was mindful that we wouldn’t go down with the ship. We are family men with kids and their futures to consider. We also had my father’s and uncle’s buyout balances to protect at all costs.”

“We sold out, took care of my dad and uncle, and got out with next to nothing, but at least we didn’t owe anyone. The DOL played a major role in our demise. At the point when we sold everything, we still didn’t know what would happen in court.”

Four years later, after almost a decade-long legal nightmare, Joe received the news of the Third Circuit’s vindication via a phone call from IJ. Struggling to process the victory, he fell to his knees under a flood of tears—and let go of nine years of pain.

Weaponization
Sun Valley v. DOL was a massive victory for constitutional rights and the ability of common Americans to be heard in independent courts. However, the Marinos paid an extreme price for their fellow citizens’ liberty, Belden explains.

“No one should forget: The Marino family had to close their farm. Their hardship is not adequately conveyed in a court decision. It’s so good they won, but the toll on them was heavier than words.”

“I don’t want this to ever, ever happen to another farmer or small business owner or American,” says Joe Marino. “The time for change is right now.”

(Photo by Andrew Wimer, IJ)

Joe takes solace in the establishment of precedent for genuine change in bureaucracy and agriculture.

“H-2A is a failed system. Everyone knows it. We need a fair, stable, and affordable means of getting skilled seasonal labor to feed this country, but control of the program should be with USDA and not in the hands of DOL. Our elected officials now have what they need to make a switch.”

“In the end, we got our good name cleared, but more important than that, I’m truly thankful because I know our case will help others down the road, and there are people right now enduring this same kind of government abuse,” Joe adds. “It’s time for the weaponization of our government agencies to stop.”

For more from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106), see:

County Shuts Down 15-Yr-Old’s Bait Stand on Family Farm, Threatens Daily Fines

City Gov to Seize 175-Year-Old Farm by Eminent Domain, Replace with Affordable Housing

Ghost Cattle: $650M Ponzi Rocks Livestock Industry, Money Still Missing

Game of Horns: Iowa Poacher’s Antler Addiction Leads to Historic Bust

Farmer Unearths Lost Treasure, Solves WW2 Mystery

How the Deep State Tried, and Failed, to Crush an American Farmer

Sisters of Farm Fraud: How 4 Siblings Fleeced USDA for $10M

Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told

Farmers, Truckers and Gear Heads Rejoice: EPA Rolls Out Streamlined Diesel Engine Fluid Guidelines

Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:08:48 GMT

EPA is rolling out new guidance for manufacturers of farm equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, removing regulatory red tape requiring diesel-powered farm equipment to reduce engine torque dramatically when a problem arises with the machine’s Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system.

You can read EPA’s statement on the announcement here.

The new rule making goes into effect immediately for all new diesel engines on model year 2027 machines. It should also be noted the new guidance from EPA is voluntary for all non road equipment. Ultimately, each manufacturer will have the right to choose whether it implements the new inducement strategy or maintains the status quo with its own machines.

To fix the problem for farm machinery already in the field, EPA’s new guidance, developed in collaboration with farm equipment manufacturers, will work to ensure necessary software changes can be made on the existing fleet.

(EPA)

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin says now all non-road equipment, like farm tractors, combines and sprayers, must be configured so there is no impact on engine power for up to 36 hours when a DEF system malfunction occurs. Once 36 engine hours have passed, a 25% reduction in engine torque will go into effect until the machine is serviced. If the farm equipment is not fixed within 100 engine hours, then a 50% reduction in torque is activated until the machine can be serviced.

Additionally, farm equipment can be restarted with full engine power three times for up to 30 minutes after inducement, according to the EPA release.

“This is the first crack in the ice toward saying we don’t need these expensive systems on our farm equipment,” says Ben Reinsche, owner, Blue Diamond Farming Company in Jesup, Iowa. “We don’t need to immediately shut off an engine or be restricted for 36 hours if you have DEF unavailable or a malfunction.

“This is a positive step and maybe a formative step toward saying that having these emission standards on farm or off-road equipment is not critically necessary,” adds Reinsche. “There are so many other things farmers can do that are planet positive, like using conservation and sustainability practices, rather than having an after treatment system on our diesel engines.”

Small Business Administration (SBA) leader Kelly Loeffler says the new rule will save 1.8 million family farms across America a staggering $727 million per year while offering “vital financial and operational certainty.”

“This announcement today is such a big deal, especially on behalf of our farmers and ranchers,” says USDA secretary Brook Rollins. “At a time when our ag sector is really hurting, our farmers have had to endure a 30% cost increase in inputs, and a $30 billion Biden-era trade deficit, these everyday regulations being lifted makes such a difference.”

The new guidance greatly reduces a machine setting known as DEF derating and allows operators more time to secure DEF, refuel and make repairs. The new guidance also reportedly retains the environmental benefits of Tier 4 engine and DEF regulations for farm equipment and trucks.

“Today we are taking another important step forward by undoing these diesel fluid guidelines that have hurt our farmers and small rural businesses,” says U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa). “Not only will these new guidelines save family-run farms hundreds of millions of dollars per year, but it is also just common sense, folks. No farmer should have their tractor come to a halt in the middle of a field due to Green New Deal-style regulations from Washington.”

How Did We Get Here?

EPA ushered in DEF requirements for large farm equipment when it enacted broader Tier 4 emissions standards in 2004.

Tier 4 Interim rules, which required DEF for farm machines 750 horsepower and up, then went into effect in 2008.

In 2015, EPA’s final Tier 4 regulations were put in place, meaning all new non-road diesel engines — regardless of horsepower rating — had to comply with new emissions standards.

Curious where your farm equipment is made? Check out Farm Journal’s “Who Makes What Where” feature to learn more.

Why Do Many Farmers Hate Using Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF)?

American farmers say they detest using DEF due to the challenges and additional fuel cost it tacks onto their operations.

Here are some reasons farmers aren’t big fans of DEF:

Higher Costs and More Maintenance: DEF adds on extra materials costs for machinery-based field work. Farmers must purchase large amounts of fluid, and the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) framework that processes DEF is prone to malfunctions and expensive to repair. Often a simple-but-unexpected repair can pop up out of nowhere and end up costing farmers thousands of dollars and leave equipment inoperable.
Field Work Interruptions: If a tractor runs out of DEF or if the system breaks down, under the now-defunct previous guidelines engine power was greatly reduced, which is known by many farmers as “going into limp mode.” For farmers who rely on their equipment to operate consistently and reliably during planting and harvesting, any issue quickly becomes a major headache.
Storage Issues: DEF has a limited shelf life and is sensitive to temperature ups and downs. A quick Google search says DEF freezes at around 12°F and can degrade if stored in temperatures above 86°F. And who wants to look at a giant pallet of DEF cartons stacked in their machinery barn? Nobody, that’s who.
Contamination/Quality Control: DEF fluid must be pure and free of contaminants. Accidentally using the wrong type or getting foreign substances in the tank during refilling can wreak havoc throughout the system, leading to repairs and downtime.
Engine Performance Concerns: There are farmers who believe newer emissions systems, including those that use DEF, reduce the machine’s total power output and lower fuel efficiency.

Your Next Read: MAHA Policy Announcement Delayed, Agriculture Waits For Any Implications From Earlier Report

MAHA Policy Announcement Delayed, Agriculture Waits For Any Implications From Earlier Report

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 21:35:37 GMT

In late May, farmers and the agricultural industry were bracing for the release of the Make America Healthy Again report, which was to focus on children’s health and chronic diseases. Then came the 68-page report, which was responded to by farmers and  more than 300 agriculture organizations  sharing their concerns. Per the President’s executive order establishing the timeline for the MAHA report, policy recommendations were to be given to the president by Aug. 12.

Today, the White House said to not expect MAHA policy recommendations to be announced tomorrow. The Commission will deliver its recommendations by the deadline, per the executive order, however, per White House spokesman Kush Desai schedules of the President and cabinet members need to be coordinated for the public announcement.

Particularly in focus for the agricultural groups in their response to the MAHA movement has been any references to three crop protection active ingredients: glyphosate, atrazine and chloripyrifos. These three were included in the MAHA report as a list of products that can contribute to chronic disease in children.

In its response to the MAHA report, National Corn Growers Association said its findings show that if the three pesticides were to disappear completely, crop yields could decrease by more than 70% due to pests, weeds and disease.

Politico reported on unnamed sources saying the White House has been meeting with stakeholder groups leading up to the policy announcements.

Bayer Affirms Support of Glyphosate, Optimistic for a Future with Over the Top Dicamba Labels

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 19:03:07 GMT

Heading into the second half of their 2025 financial year, Bayer leaders echo positive comments surrounding the company’s crop science division.

What has them bullish?

First, Bayer is optimistic the EPA will have an approved label for over the top dicamba products for the 2026 crop year.

“We are working very close with EPA and the process, but we feel confident that we’re going to have the label for the ‘26 season,” said Rodrigo Santos, head of Bayer Crop Science.

In 2024, the labels were vacated by federal courts and over the top application of dicamba was not legal in soybeans and cotton this growing season.

As part of the registration process for the future labels, the public comment period is currently open, and it closes toward the end of this month. Read more here.

Second, 95+ million acres of corn increased the division’s net sales 2.2% year-over-year for the second quarter. Within their business for the quarter, corn seed and traits were up 30%, soybeans were down 18% and cotton was down 26%, of which the later two declines were attributed to the dicamba vacatur effecting the 2025 crop year.

Santos, head of Bayer Crop Science says that could flip next year.
“We had 95 million acres of corn in US this year. You see that on the future price of corn, you’re probably going to see a little bit more of favor market for soybean next year versus corn. And we see some opportunities with soybean, with the [dicamba] label, but also with the business that we have,” he said.

Santos added the excellent growing conditions for farmers in the U.S. not only supports strong commodity grain yields but also the company’s seed production is benefiting with high quality supply forecasted.

Third, Bayer has expanded its support of glyphosate and protecting the product in its ongoing litigation. Last week, the company announced an additional $1.3 billion allotted toward lawsuit management, court proceedings and settlements.

“These decisions are part of our multi-pronged strategy to significantly contain litigation by the end of 2026, which we affirm today,” said CEO Bill Anderson during the earnings call. “Simply put, every decision we make has the goal of positioning the company to move past our litigation woes.”

He added, “This isn’t a turning point. We are turning over every stone to the various approaches that we’ve called out in the past, and we remain committed to substantially contain this litigation threat to the company by the end of next year.”

Anderson said the company has settled 17,000 cases at a “low cost per case.”

He also added, “in June, the US Supreme Court requested input from the Solicitor General in the glyphosate case. We welcome this step, and we expect a recommendation in the coming weeks or months. This decision keeps intact the broader timeline of having a SCOTUS ruling by summer of next year. But our strategy is multi pronged, and we’re not dependent on a singular milestone like a positive SCOTUS decision.”

You can read more here.

“We continue to examine additional options to protect the company, and everything remains on the table,” Anderson said. “We remain acutely aware of the threat of this issue for U.S. farmers, U.S. consumers and our company, this is an important time with numerous prongs of our strategy advancing toward important junctures. As we move forward, we’re making each decision with one broader goal in mind, narrowing the overall threat, and bringing our company closer to containment.”

Fourth, Bayer boasted on its pipeline and forthcoming products.
It recently submitted Icafolin-methyl for approval in four markets: the U.S., Canada and Brazil. The company says this is a ‘blockbuster’ herbicide molecule employing a mode of action not seen in commercial agriculture in over 30 years.

Read more about it here.

Fifth, the company has progressed with its new business model and operations streamlining.

Now in its second year, dynamic shared ownership, the term coined by Anderson for its new business model continues to progress. Since the rollout started, the company has reduced 12,000 full-time roles and personnel.

Additionally, Bayer has reached an agreement on the single points of a joint declaration with its workers representatives and can begin streamlining its production and operations in Germany.

Iowa Family Fights County Over Loss of Farmland, Rejects Reclassification

Tue, 05 Aug 2025 12:11:59 GMT

Richard Fee’s Iowa farmland, in row crops since the late 1800s, has disappeared. His federal farm number is token, according to county regulators.

“Using the letter of the law, they basically declared I have no farmland,” he insists. “They’ve come for my ground in the name of reclassification, and the end result is that my taxes will more than double.”

From a past of corn, soybeans, and livestock to a present of CRP and pasture, Fee’s acreage is no longer deemed agricultural, per county assessment.

“I’ve taken land stewardship seriously and farmed my land in every way I could to make a dollar since the day I bought it,” he says. “This is unjust and I’m so tired of the government or anyone else that tries to take or inflict undue financial burden that costs people what they’ve worked hard for their entire life.”

Upside Down
In extreme east Iowa’s Scott County, Fee, recently retired out of construction, lives on gravel, alongside his wife, Katherine, who works at a veteran’s hospital in Iowa City.

“Our dream was to buy a farm, work the land, build a house, and mind our own business,” he says. “We did that in 2002, and bought our present 50-acre farm, which had been in row crop and livestock production of different types since the days when the prairie was first busted.”

The property included a severely eroded pond, several outbuildings, a creaking farmhouse, 10 acres of pasture, and roughly 30 acres of tillable soil.

Out of the gate, Fee kept approximately 25 acres in corn and soybeans; raised bobwhite quail and ring-necked pheasants as a state-licensed game farm; bought and raised bottle calves for market; maintained a 60’-by-500’ vegetable garden; and planted scores of pear, apple, and peach trees, selling the vegetables and fruit at local farmers’ markets.

Richard Fee’s Scott County property.

(Photo by Google Earth)

“I worked the land since the day I bought it,” says Fee, 63, who stills grows roughly 6 acres of hay. “The old farmhouse was too far gone, so we built a new home ourselves, and I dug a bypass crick and repaired the 20-foot breech in the dam of the existing pond, stopping the rampart and continuous soil erosion. I dug out 11’ of crap and silt from the pond left by the dairy cows, hogs and other livestock that had previously been raised on the place. I placed all the dugout silt back on the fields around the pond.”

“Finally, at great expense, I placed 6-9” riprap around the 1150’ of bank for further soil erosion prevention,” he continues. “The place wasn’t much in size compared to some farms, but it was everything to us.”

In November 2017, Fee put 21 tillable acres into the federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) on a 10-year contract. “What a regret. The government was encouraging me to turn my corn into CRP, while the state of Iowa was about to penalize me for doing it. I have a federal farm number and USDA considers me a farm, but Iowa turned the whole thing upside down on my head.”

Reclassification
In October 2024, Fee received a letter from the Scott County Assessor’s Office declaring Fee’s property under review:

For property to be assessed as agricultural real estate, a property must meet all of the following criteria: there must be active agricultural production activity on the parcel/property meaning there is ‘present’ ag use and it is ‘producing’ an ag product as of Jan 1 of this year; the agricultural production activity must be the primary use of the parcel/property meaning main, principal, or of chief importance. Not a secondary, accessory, or hobby use; the agricultural production activity must be taking place in good faith and with an intent to profit directly from the activity, meaning the ag use must also make a regular and continuous “net earning” or profit.

Bottom line, Fee’s land was under the lens of reclassification . “They asked a long series of 15-16 questions about where I sold my hay; what animals I had; how many barns; how I stored my chemicals and seed; my income taxes; my CRP; and much more.”

Fee did not reply to the letter. “I didn’t feel it was any of their business. I’m not bothering anyone. Please, please just leave me and my 50 acres alone. Instead, I got another letter in December telling me I was being reclassified. In other words, they told me I owned no farmland. BS.”

Heavyweight Twist?
How was Fee’s property identified for potential reclassification? Aerial imagery, according to Scott County Assessor Tom McManus.

“Mr. Fee’s property was truly a farm for decades and ag use was the primary function. However, in the last four to five years, our aerial imagery confirms changes,” McManus says. “The original old farmhouse, grain bins, barns, and row crops have all changed, and now they have a new house and large pond that never existed. The livestock are gone, as far as we can tell, and the row crop ground is now in a conservation program.”

Fee’s fresh-cut pastures in 2025: “I’m just a simple man, but I’m not gonna be led to the slaughterhouse like a sheep.”

(Photo courtesy of Fee)

“There may potentially be hay ground or alfalfa, but Mr. Fee refused to answer questions so that we can verify,” McManus continues. “We stopped by the property, but Mr. Fee refused to allow us on.”

In opposition to McManus, Fee contends Scott County is aware of his hay ground through aerial photos and “multiple phone conversations.”

The reclassification, Fee insists, comes with a heavyweight financial twist. “All said, my taxes went from $1,500 to $4,500, because of the new house, that was a hard enough hit. Now, it’s going to more than double, again. Here’s a sidenote, the county services that we received back in the beginning were moderately okay at $1,500 taxation, but they have greatly declined, and no way equal $4,500 of taxation. Combine that with insurance, and that means I’ll have to pay about $1,200 per month—all due to reclassification. After years of working hard to steward what I have, I face the loss of everything I’ve saved for.”

Passing the Buck?
Scott County actions are backed by Iowa state code ( 701-102.1(3) ), McManus explains. “We continually look at ag property, along with all other classifications of property, and when it changes in primary use, the assessor, mandated by law, is to make sure the property classification and valuation are reflective of current market value. It’s definitely not the case that it has anything to do with raising taxes.”

Fee contradicts McManus’ contention, pointing to the text of the Scott County Assessor’s Office letter received in October 2024: The classification of property is for taxation purposes and has nothing to do with a property’s zoning.

“McManus says reclassification has nothing do to with taxes?” Fee exclaims. “The letter states the exact opposite. Here’s a thought to a question yet to be answered: How many properties after review have been reclassified from residential to agricultural, lowering the taxes?”

“Using the letter of the law,” Fee says, “they basically declared I have no farmland.”

(Photo courtesy of Fee)

Fee says a “giant difference” exists between county, state, and federal policy. “The feds jump to put my farmland in their CRP program and are excited to use my farmland in their conservation statistics; meanwhile the state says the CRP in my case makes me not a farm; and finally, the county points at the state to justify saying I have no farmland at all. That’s called passing the buck and using my ground to their advantage.”

Scott County’s reclassification action can be appealed, McManus notes. “He (Fee) is not dead in the water if he disagrees with us. He is afforded an appeal process to the local board of review, and he can appeal to the property assessment appeal board. He can also go to district court.”

“Appeal? That’s laughable,” Fee asserts. “What’s the percent of appeal rulings that actually go against the county? I’ve already lost my first appeal, and everyone knew the outcome before I walked in the door.”

Fee’s next appeal, to the Iowa Property Assessment Appeal Board in Des Moines, is Sept. 4. “Telling somebody to appeal, knowing they’ll be denied in 99% of cases, and then pretending that someone like me has the money to go hire a lawyer to go to court is so wrong. It shows how blind bureaucrats are to the financial realities of their policies.”

Big City
Statewide and nationwide, Fee says other landowners are in a similar situation. “Just don’t tell me I wasn’t targeted and don’t tell me the CRP deal makes any sense. I’m old, but I still work to produce anything and everything on my farmland, and I still have about 6 acres of hay, and I’ve got 21 acres of CRP that’ll be out of the damn federal contract in two years, but according to the county, I may as well be living in the heart of the big city.”

“According to the state, putting my ground in CRP was a mistake. According to the county, building a house and fixing my pond were mistakes. I’m not a criminal and all I’ve ever asked for was a little bit of reason: Don’t tell me I have no farmland and don’t go changing the entire tax structure of someone’s property in their 60s on a whim.”

“No matter what happens, I’m not afraid to speak up,” Fee concludes. “I’m just a simple man, but I’m not gonna be led to the slaughterhouse like a sheep.”

For more from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106), see:

County Shuts Down 15-Yr-Old’s Bait Stand on Family Farm, Threatens Daily Fines

City Gov to Seize 175-Year-Old Farm by Eminent Domain, Replace with Affordable Housing

Ghost Cattle: $650M Ponzi Rocks Livestock Industry, Money Still Missing

Game of Horns: Iowa Poacher’s Antler Addiction Leads to Historic Bust

Farmer Unearths Lost Treasure, Solves WW2 Mystery

How the Deep State Tried, and Failed, to Crush an American Farmer

Sisters of Farm Fraud: How 4 Siblings Fleeced USDA for $10M

Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told

$1.3 Billion More: Bayer Gives Details on Litigation Plan For Glyphosate Cases

Mon, 04 Aug 2025 21:38:09 GMT

At the end of July, and before the company’s quarterly earnings report coming on Aug. 6, Bayer announced it has allocated an additional $1.37 billion to its efforts around glyphosate litigation.

The company says this was decided after the adverse verdict on Bayer’s appeal in a Missouri Court of appeals case, Anderson et. al., and Bayer’s application to have the case transferred to the Missouri Supreme Court.

To-date Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to plaintiffs in litigation claiming Roundup as the cause of their cancer. The additional financial provisions support Bayer’s stated goal to get glyphosate litigation and liabilities contained by 2026. The latest announcement from Bayer states the timeframe as “by the end of 2026” whereas previous reports have more been ambiguous about the 2026 deadline.

Three-Pronged Approach

So far this year, there has been a steady stream of news about Bayer’s work with its multipronged strategy to achieve the goal. This includes court case management, state law advocacy, and a call to the Supreme Court to review the FIFRA’s preemption provision.

The company says a recent settlement with a plaintiff’s law firm has helped it reach of milestone of less than 61,000 unresolved glyphosate claims. In total, there have been 192,000 lawsuits brought forward.

A handful of states have considered and some have passed legislation to clarify responsibilities of manufacturers who have products proceed through the federal labeling process.

And third, as reported at the end of June, the company is awaiting news from the Solicitor General and if the Supreme Court will take up its case during the 25/26 judicial session.

How’s Bayer’s Crop Science Business?

The company will report more details on Wednesday, but in its pre-call news release, Bayer says it’s reaffirming its previous guidance for the Crop Science division. In the second quarter of 2025, Bayer Crop Science increased sales by 2.2% on a currency- and portfolio-adjusted basis.

Bayer’s corporate structure and business have been undergoing a global transformation under CEO Bill Anderson. Analysts have said this year, the company’s second year of the new organization, is critical for its success. Acknowledging the work ahead, Anderson previous said in March, “You’re going to see us with our sleeves rolled up, focused on taking the right actions to set up our customers, our company and our owners for a prosperous future.”