Farm Foundation’s Meet Your Farmer podcast featured Hannah Borg in season1, episode 5.
Hannah is a sixth-generation farmer from Wakefield, Nebraska. In 2019, she returned home to the family business, Borg Farms. She and her family raise crops, cattle, and chickens for Costco. She holds a degree in agricultural communications from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
In the episode, Hannah discusses what it was like to grow up on the farm, navigating the transitions between generations, how she came to be raising chickens for Costco, among many other topics.
Farm Foundation’s Meet Your Farmer podcast featured A.G. Kawamura in season 1, episode 4.
A.G. is a third-generation farmer in Southern California and operates Orange County Produce with his brother. He served as California Secretary of Agriculture from 2003 to 2010. He is founding chair of Solutions for Urban Agriculture, which grows produce for area food banks. He is involved in many other organizations, including as founding co-chair of Solutions from the Land, and with Farm Foundation as a Roundtable Fellow since 2011, and currently serving on the Farm Foundation Board of Directors. He also serves on the board of Western Growers.
In this episode, A.G. discusses what it means to be a landless farmer, his work to solve food insecurity, and some of the dynamics of the fresh produce industry that are not widely known.
Farm Foundation’s Meet Your Farmer podcast featured Steve Kaufman in season 1, episode 3.
Steve is a fifth-generation farmer. He returned to his family’s Idaho farm full time in 2014 when his uncles and father were ready to retire. He and his two brothers farm 14,000 dryland crop acres, growing primarily winter wheat, spring wheat, peas, garbanzo beans, and canola. Prior to that, he worked at Northwest Farm Credit Services while also farming part time. Steve is an alum of Farm Foundation’s Young Farmer Accelerator Program.
In this episode, Steve talks about how gratifying it is to produce enough grain for 30 million loaves of bread on his farm, the hard work of trying to balance life with young kids and farm life, and what the process was like to switch over to no-till.
Farm Foundation’s Meet Your Farmer podcast featured Amanda Butterfield and her daughter, Evelyn, in Season 1, Episode 2.
Amanda Butterfield is director of corporate partnerships at The Meat Institute, and she also owns and operates a farm in Pennsylvania. With her husband and daughter, they raise beef cattle at Maple Valley Cattle Company, a 180-acre cow-calf operation. The farm was recently selected as a finalist for the 2024 Pennsylvania Leopold Conservation Award, which honors farmers and forestland owners who go above and beyond in their management of soil health, water quality and wildlife habitat on working land.
At her farm, Amanda uses strategies like rotational grazing, cover crops, integrated pest management strategies, and has preserved the farm’s woodlands and wetlands and native grasslands to improve soil health and support biodiversity.
The conversation covered some of the logistics of rotational grazing and land restoration on the farm, Amanda’s path to farming as a first-generation farmer, and what the future holds for young people on the farm today.
Farm Foundation’s Meet Your Farmer podcast featured Klaas Martens in season 1, episode 1. Klaas is a third-generation farmer in New York. He operates Martens Farm and Lakeview Organic Grain Mill with his wife Mary Howell Martens and their son Peter. On 1,600 acres, he produces numerous crops, including corn, soybeans, spelt, wheat, einkorn, emmer, triticale, buckwheat, oats, barley, rye, cabbage, dry beans, and hay. He’s been farming since the 1970s and shifted to organic farming in the 90s. Klaas is a Farm Foundation Round Table Fellow (since 2015) and also serves on the Farm Foundation Board of Directors. He also serves as a mentor in our Young Farmer Accelerator Program.
In this episode, Klaas discusses being the son of immigrant farmers, how his farming practices changed over the years, and one of his favorite things about wheat. He also shares some stories of how he has helped young farmers get into farming and the importance of community.
A spending bill to be debated in Congress this week includes a provision to allow sales of a gasoline blend that includes up to 15% ethanol nationwide throughout the year. (Getty Images stock photo)
A spending bill U.S. House appropriators released Tuesday evening to keep the government open into next spring includes a provision to allow sales of a gasoline blend that includes up to 15% ethanol nationwide throughout the year.
After years of prohibiting the blend, known as E15, from being sold at gas stations during the summer months, the Environmental Protection Agency this year allowed year-round sales in eight Midwestern states. The provision in the stopgap funding bill would allow E15 sales in all states throughout the year.
The provision is a major win for corn producers and their allies in Congress from both parties. Supporters of ethanol, which is derived from corn, say it boosts U.S. production and lowers gas prices.
Sen. Deb Fischer, a Nebraska Republican who sponsored a bill to make the blend available all year, said the move was part of the GOP agenda to “unleash American energy.”
“My bill puts an end to years of patchwork regulations and uncertainty — year-round, nationwide E15 will now be a reality,” Fischer said. “This legislation also delivers on the mandate we received in November to unleash American energy. Not only will my bill lower gas prices and give consumers more choices, but it will also create new opportunity for American producers, who are especially hurting right now from lower prices.”
House Energy and Commerce ranking Democrat Frank Pallone of New Jersey applauded inclusion of the measure, saying it would help reduce gas prices and bolster U.S. energy production.
“By allowing for a higher blend of ethanol in our gasoline, Americans can rely more on homegrown biofuels that save drivers money at the pump and help insulate Americans from dramatic global price fluctuations,” Pallone said in a statement.
U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., one of a handful of farm-state House Republicans pushing for the E15 provision, said in a statement, “Year around E-15 is the most important policy we can embrace for Midwestern farmers and ranchers. I was glad to advocate for this on the Agriculture Committee and to our Speaker, and glad to see it embraced. I also know our entire Nebraska delegation was pulling for this. It is a team win.”
At a U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing last year, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska promoted E15 availability as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions and lower prices.
The EPA issued a waiver in May 2022 to allow the blend to be available nationwide throughout the year, as President Joe Biden’s administration sought to tame gas prices.
The stopgap measure, known as a continuing resolution, would keep the government funded at current levels through mid-March. It includes a few additional provisions, including funding to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Maryland.
The House and Senate are expected to pass the catch-all measure before members depart for their holiday break on Friday. Biden is expected to sign the bill.
Nebraska Examiner reporter Aaron Sanderford and D.C. Bureau senior reporter Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.
Holstein milking cows at an Idaho dairy on July 20, 2012. (Photo by Kirsten Strough/USDA)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Friday it will require dairy farms to share samples of unpasteurized milk when requested, in an effort to gather more information about the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza.
Public health officials have tracked the spread of bird flu or H5N1 in domestic poultry flocks for years before the virus began showing up in the country’s dairy herds this March, raising concerns.
While the risk to the general public remains low and there is no evidence to suggest bird flu can spread from person to person, nearly 60 people, mostly farmworkers, have contracted the virus this year.
The new milk testing requirements from USDA will apply nationally but will begin first in California, Colorado, Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon and Pennsylvania, the week of Dec. 16.
“Among many outcomes, this will give farmers and farmworkers better confidence in the safety of their animals and ability to protect themselves, and it will put us on a path to quickly controlling and stopping the virus’ spread nationwide,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a written statement.
Unpasteurized milk
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly tested pasteurized milk on store shelves throughout the country to reaffirm it’s safe to drink. Other dairy products, like cheese and ice cream, have also been found safe.
But the FDA continues to urge people against consuming unpasteurized milk, since it doesn’t go through the heating process that kills off viruses and bacteria.
Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a written statement the new milk “testing strategy is a critical part of our ongoing efforts to protect the health and safety of individuals and communities nationwide.”
“Our primary responsibility at HHS is to protect public health and the safety of the food supply, and we continue to work closely with USDA and all stakeholders on continued testing for H5N1 in retail milk and dairy samples from across the country to ensure the safety of the commercial pasteurized milk supply,” Becerra said. “We will continue this work with USDA for as long and as far as necessary.”
The USDA began a voluntary bulk tank testing program for milk this summer in an attempt to make it easier for farmers to move their cattle across state lines without having to test each cow. The department also began a year-long study in August to test for bird flu in dairy cattle moved into meat production, seeking to confirm prior studies that found it safe to eat.
The bird flu outbreak has affected 720 dairy herds throughout 15 states so far this year, though California became the epicenter during the last month, according to data from the USDA.
The Golden State holds nearly all of the 273 herds diagnosed, with just four found in Utah during the last 30 days.
California also holds the bulk of bird flu infections in people, with 32 of the 58 diagnosed cases this year, according to information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Colorado accounts for another 10 human cases and Washington state confirmed 11 people infected with H5N1. Michigan has had two cases this year, while Missouri, Oregon and Texas have each had one positive human case.
USDA order
The USDA federal order announced Friday will require anyone responsible for a dairy farm — such as a bulk milk transporter, bulk milk transfer station, or dairy processing facility — to share unpasteurized or raw milk samples when requested.
Any farm owners whose dairy herds test positive for H5N1 will be required to share epidemiological information that would allow public health officials to perform contact tracing and other types of disease surveillance.
Additionally, private laboratories and state veterinarians must alert USDA to positive samples that were collected as part of this National Milk Testing Strategy.
TheNovember Farm Foundation® Forum, Growing Together: Trends and Transformation in U.S. Agriculture Labor, highlighted some of the findings from a recent multi-day symposium that explored the future of the U.S. agricultural workforce. The symposium, held by Farm Foundation and the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, aimed to convene a network of researchers and stakeholders to engage in productive discussions focused on farm labor issues. The primary goal was to strengthen and enhance ongoing farm labor research.
This forum highlighted the critical importance of farm labor to the competitiveness of US agriculture, particularly for labor-intensive commodities like fruits and vegetables. The discussion was moderated by Michael Marsh, president and CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, and featured panelists: Philip Martin Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Davis; Andrew Padovani, senior research associate with JBS International; and Alexandra Hill, assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
The Forum covered a wide range of topics, including wage rates and competition, legislative and regulatory challenges, litigation and legal actions, mechanization and labor alternatives, and economic and demographic trends.
Numerous Issues to Consider
One point brought up was that there has been no significant agricultural labor reform since 1986, making it difficult to address current labor issues. Farmers must also contend with many new regulations, including those related to wage rates and worker protection. The impact of the Adverse Effect Wage Rate and competition with countries like Mexico was also discussed.
One solution to rising labor costs is a push toward mechanization, which brings about its own set of questions around adaptation to this change. In some cases, robotic harvesters are not yet fast enough or inexpensive enough to replace human hand pickers, but the gap may be closing fastest for crops like apples.
The H2-A program was also a large part of the discussion. The use of H-2A workers is increasing, but the program’s costs and regulatory requirements are significant. The anticipated impacts of the incoming administration on the potential for ag labor reform was also briefly discussed during audience question and answer session.
Overall, the Forum underscored the urgent need for comprehensive agricultural labor reform to ensure the sustainability and competitiveness of US agriculture. The discussions highlighted the complex interplay of wage rates, regulatory challenges, and the need for mechanization and alternative labor sources.
The two-hour discussion, including the audience question and answer session, was recorded and is archived on the Farm Foundation website.
The return of the sandhill crane to Wisconsin is a conservation success, but now the state needs to manage the population and the crop damage the birds can cause. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)
The Wisconsin Legislature’s study committee on sandhill cranes held its second to last meeting Wednesday, taking a comb to the conclusions, findings of fact and legislative proposals that will be published when the body finishes its work next month.
The 12-member panel, made up of two legislators from each party and a group of advocates for agriculture, hunting, cranes and the environment, met for more than five hours, appearing to get close to consensus on an issue that has been raised a number of times in the state Legislature over the past decade with little progress.
The resurgence of the sandhill crane in Wisconsin is a conservation success story, with the number of breeding pairs in the state reaching new highs after nearly being extirpated in the 1930s. But that success has increased conflicts with farmers — largely because the best land in the state for growing corn overlaps with the bird’s historical habitat in the wetlands of central Wisconsin. Sandhill cranes cause an estimated $900,000 of damage to corn grown in the state every year, a number that is almost certainly an undercount and doesn’t include damage to other crops such as potatoes.
Recent attempts to pass crane-related legislation have failed after being injected into the partisan politics of the state’s divided government. A 2021 bill to allow the hunting of sandhill cranes died after Republicans invited controversial hunting advocate and rock star Ted Nugent to speak about the bill at a news conference. That bill was also supported by Hunter Nation, a non-profit that had played an instrumental role in the hotly debated wolf hunt that year.
Three years later, the work of the study committee has brought wildlife advocates and Democrats into the discussion.
Anne Lacy, director of eastern flyway programs at the Baraboo-based International Crane Foundation, said at the meeting that the science doesn’t show a hunt will solve the crop damage problem and that there’s still too many unknowns to determine if the current crane population in Wisconsin can support a hunt. But even without solving the crop damage issue, Wisconsinites might want to hold a crane hunt for social, cultural and recreational reasons and that may be possible if the state Department of Natural Resources can develop a plan that allows for a hunt while not harming the bird’s population in the state or surrounding region.
“Cranes are a powerful symbol of Wisconsin’s conservation efforts, an effort which all Wisconsin citizens have contributed to and have a vested interest in maintaining, certainly,” she said. Science, she added, “allows a hunt when and where it is biologically appropriate for the species, and there are data which indicate that even a modest level of harvest of sandhill cranes could lead to a decline … that could potentially jeopardize seasons throughout the flyway.”
Finally, she added, “given that hunting will have no impact on crop damage, a hunt is purely a social recreation issue.”
The committee discussed three pieces of legislation that relate to hunting sandhill cranes and much of the debate Wednesday focused on the very fine details of these proposed bills, such as what fees should be charged to hunters, how permitting would work and what rules would guide the hunting season.
Any bill passed that allows the hunting of sandhill cranes in the state would need approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The first two proposals are essentially the same, with one of the bills increasing the wildlife damage surcharge paid by hunters when they obtain their permit. The third proposal mimics the federal migratory bird depredation permit program, which allows farmers to obtain a permit to kill a bird that has been destroying crops. The committee has criticized the federal program because it requires the farmer to leave the carcass in the field so as to not encourage consumptive uses of the animal.
“Hunters have a history of paying for opportunities, and so I like the bill with increased surcharges, and hunters have proven time and time again that we’re willing to pay,” Paul Wait, editor of Delta Waterfowl Magazine, said. “We’re willing to pony up, we’re willing to put that money forward to help with the crop damage fund, provided we gain access and opportunity, and that’s what we’re talking about here, from just a pure hunting standpoint, is, you know, providing a new opportunity for hunting in the state of Wisconsin.”
The committee also spent much of the meeting discussing proposed legislation that would compensate farmers for the use of Avipel, a chemical that can be applied to corn seeds that makes the seeds unappetizing to the birds and protects the corn from being damaged.
The two proposals include one from the committee’s chair, Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc), which would authorize the Department of Natural Resources to compensate farmers for the cost of treating their seeds with Avipel if they can demonstrate they had crop damage in a previous growing season. The other proposal, from committee member and farmer David Mickelson, creates a rebate program through the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP).
The seed treatment bills gained more consensus support than the hunting bills, with much of the discussion focusing on how to structure the payment system, how the payments would be capped and how the program’s success could be measured so future Legislatures can assess its effectiveness.
Rep. David Considine (D-Baraboo) said he was in favor of the proposal that puts the program in the hands of DATCP because “farmers, some of them, tend to distrust the DNR and that might not be news to some of you, but they trust DATCP.”
Tittl and Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) had several discussions about what the ultimate text of the legislation should look like so it can pass through the Legislature and have funds appropriated to the program by the Joint Finance Committee, including reducing cost by capping use of the program.
“I could say, ‘You know what, we’ll do it a lot more,’” Tittl said. “And then the chances of it passing through Joint Finance are almost zero. But I’d rather be more realistic.”
The committee’s next meeting, at which it will finalize its proposed legislation, is scheduled for Dec. 10.
Migrants wait throughout the night on May 10, 2023, in a dust storm at Gate 42, on land between the Rio Grande and the border wall, hoping they will be processed by immigration authorities before the expiration of Title 42. (Photo by Corrie Boudreaux for Source NM)
It seems absurd to take the time to refute the preposterous claims about immigrants made by Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans in Wisconsin, including U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden and Sen. Ron Johnson. But the campaign of slander targeting vulnerable workers who milk our cows, pick our crops, build our roads and prop up our economy is genuinely dangerous.
Trump hit a new low when he claimed during Tuesday’s presidential debate that “in Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”
Kamala Harris’ bemused reaction, laughing and shaking her head, reflected the feelings of a whole lot of viewers who were appalled to hear the former president spreading a racist internet fable from the debate stage.
This was not a one-off. Outrageous lies about immigrants are the centerpiece of Republican campaigns this year.
On Monday, as Henry Redman reported, Van Orden held a press conference to turn a single criminal case against a Venezuelan immigrant into fodder for his reelection campaign in Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District.
“American citizens’ human rights are being violated. They’re being kidnapped, raped and murdered by criminal, illegal aliens, and it’s just got to stop,” Van Orden declared.
In reality, an extensive study led by Stanford University economist Ran Abramitzky shows that immigrants are significantly less likely to be locked up for serious crimes than people born in the U.S. “From Henry Cabot Lodge in the late 19th century to Donald Trump, anti-immigration politicians have repeatedly tried to link immigrants to crime, but our research confirms that this is a myth and not based on fact,” Abramitzky said.
As dairy farmer John Rosenow, who lives in Van Orden’s district, told Redman, anti-immigrant rhetoric does nothing to help farmers like him, who employ some of the immigrants performing 70% of the labor on Wisconsin dairy farms. Almost all of those workers are not here legally and could be deported at any time, because Congress has failed to enact a visa program for year-round farm work.
“If there’s one thing you can do to help us [it’s to] tone down the rhetoric,” Rosenow said he told Van Orden’s staff. “They’re doing all the work, and why do we select one person that does something wrong that’s an immigrant and make it like all immigrants are like that person?” Rosenow added. “We don’t do that for Americans. We’ve got plenty of bad white people around here that do bad things, and we don’t extrapolate that to everyone else.”
But stirring up white voters with race-baiting stories about immigrants is a vote-getter, Republicans figure.
On Wednesday, Wisconsin’s Sen. Johnson joined Senate GOP colleagues in a press conference demanding immediate passage of the SAVE Act “to protect integrity in U.S. elections and ensure only U.S. citizens can vote.” Republicans are threatening to shut down the U.S. government over the non-issue of alleged voting by undocumented immigrants — something that is already a felony.
Instances of unauthorized immigrants voting are “so rare as to be statistically nonexistent,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnik, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, told the Christian Science Monitor — hardly a “crisis” that merits the extreme measures Johnson and his colleagues are calling for.
For the most part, Democrats have responded to Republican alarmism about immigration by sticking to policy and brushing off the fearmongering and grotesque caricatures of immigrants. Taking the high road might be a smart political strategy, particularly for Harris, who is herself the child of immigrants and the first woman of color with a serious shot at the White House. Like Barack Obama, the first Black president of the United States, Harris has responded to race-baiting attacks by rising above them and encouraging Americans to do likewise, to “turn the page” on ugly, divisive politics, to embrace a big-hearted sense of ourselves as having “more in common than what divides us.” Calling out racism directly is a loser for candidates of color, political consultants advise.
At the same time, Democrats including Harris and Wisconsin’s incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin point out — correctly — that Republicans in Congress abandoned a bipartisan border security deal they’d helped negotiate because Trump told them to let it die so he could use immigration as a campaign cudgel.
It’s true that the incident shows the GOP’s lack of seriousness about tackling the U.S. immigration system they are constantly complaining about. But the border security bill also drew a lot of criticism from immigrant rights groups, particularly for the way it turns the U.S. asylum application process into a game of roulette, allowing a future administration to deny asylum protections, and changing the rules on a day to day basis when border crossings exceed a certain threshold.. Harris has pledged to sign it anyway if she’s elected.
That’s too bad, because the bill does nothing to address the issue she was charged with looking into as vice president: the root causes of mass migration. Nor will it stop people from sneaking across the border to fill jobs while employers are desperate for their labor — including on Wisconsin dairy farms.
These workers are already vulnerable to exploitation. They come here with no legal protections and work long hours for low pay doing back-breaking jobs Americans won’t take. They pay taxes through wage withholdings into social safety net programs they can never access.
To a lot of citizens they are invisible. Anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric casts them in an ugly glare, focusing resentment on people who are already living in tenuous circumstances. They are not only doing our dirty work, they are boosting the wages of U.S. workers and making our economy stronger.
The injustice of Republicans’ anti-immigrant libel, set beside immigrant contributions to the U.S. economy, is overwhelming.
Political point-scoring aside, it would be nice to see Democrats stand up more forcefully on this topic, instead of tacitly agreeing with Republicans’ false claims that immigrants are harming our country. Eric Hovde, the Republican challenging Baldwin this year in the U.S. Senate race, claims without evidence that immigrants are causing the lack of affordable housing and driving up the cost of health care. Baldwin has said she supports the bipartisan border security bill and wants to stop fentanyl from crossing the border.
What we don’t hear enough about is that the big reason migrants pour across our southern border is because employers like the farmers here in Wisconsin demand it. Without those immigrants — if, for example, Trump launched his promised “mass deportation,” sending federal agents door to door to arrest undocumented workers — our dairy industry would go belly-up overnight.
“Immigrants are driving the U.S. economic boom,” the Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell writes in a recent column. “That is: The United States has escaped recession, hiring growth has exceeded expectation, and inflation has cooled faster than predicted — all largely because immigration has boosted the size of the U.S. labor force. Don’t just take my word for it; ask the Federal Reserve chair or Wall Street economists.”
Van Orden, in his recent press conference, acknowledged the contributions of immigrants to the dairy industry in his district, along with the construction and hospitality industries, and said that’s why he supports the H-2A visa program, which gives temporary visas to migrants to do seasonal farm work in the U.S.
But the H-2A program “means nothing to dairy farmers,” Rosenow told the Examiner, since it doesn’t apply to workers who labor year-round on dairy farms, as well as in all of the other industries Van Orden mentioned.
Instead of scapegoating, we owe hard-working immigrants a debt of gratitude. And we need to listen to employers like Rosenow, who are asking politicians to show some common decency and come up with policy solutions that acknowledge what they’ve known for decades: Our country benefits tremendously from immigrants.
Login
