From a field on an Illinois university campus, to rare, untouched land in Texas, here are some efforts to replant once-abundant prairie in the Midwest and Great Plains.

The post Most American prairies are gone. These people are working to bring them back. appeared first on WPR.

At least 2.5 million low-income people quickly lost help affording groceries under a Republican-passed law that added new requirements for the nation’s largest nutrition program and shifted hundreds of millions of dollars in costs from the federal government to states, according to a study the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities published Wednesday.

Some 6% of the 41 million Americans enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, when President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, 2025, were no longer receiving benefits by the end of the year. 

The left-leaning think tank’s report was based on U.S. Department of Agriculture and state agency data from July to December 2025. 

Arizona was the largest outlier in the data, with a whopping 47% of people in the program — about 424,000 Arizonans — losing benefits in 2025, according to the think tank, which cited more recent state agency data in addition to last year’s USDA numbers.

Full-year 2025 data from the USDA, which operates the federal side of SNAP, shows an even bigger drop of 3.4 million people, or roughly 8% of the program’s total, CBPP said. SNAP is federally funded and administered by states, though that cost-share will change under the law.

In a late Wednesday email, a USDA spokesperson applauded the drop in SNAP participation, noting the program’s rolls had fallen below 40 million for the first time since the pandemic. The spokesperson said the program would continue “to serve those with the greatest need while also strengthening program integrity.”

“This change reflects several factors, including the most comprehensive work requirement reform since 1996, the One Big Beautiful Bill of 2025, as well as USDA initiatives that expand access to employment services, career and technical education, and case‑management support through USDA’s More Than a Job campaign,” the spokesperson wrote.

Incentives for states

The study did not intend to find a cause for the decline, co-author Joseph Llobrera, CBPP’s senior director of research for food assistance, said in an interview. But he noted the law created incentives for states to limit participation in the program. 

Under a provision of the law that is not yet in force, the share of the program’s cost that states must shoulder is tied to the state’s “error rate” — payments a state makes that were either more or less than the beneficiary should have received.

That motivates states to restrict access to the program, without providing a corresponding reward for expanding access, Llobrera said.

“So the incentive structure that’s in place, it really pushes states to make it harder to get onto the program for people who need that assistance,” he said.

The drop in participation happened without improving economic conditions, such as a decline in the unemployment rate, the researchers said. 

That indicates people are moving off the rolls due to changes in the program, not because their circumstances have improved to the point they no longer need food assistance, the study said.

Many provisions of the law have not yet gone into effect. The error rate penalties, for example, start in fiscal year 2028.

Design, not a bug

In part, though, that restriction is by design, as the law’s supporters intended to cut SNAP benefits for recipients who met certain criteria and to control what they portrayed as fraud and waste at the state level. 

The cuts in the federal share of SNAP funding helped pay for massive tax cuts and a boost to military spending in other parts of the megabill, which Republicans passed without any Democratic support through a process known as budget reconciliation.

The proponents of the agriculture section of the megabill championed provisions to make beneficiaries report their eligibility more often, boost work requirements, disqualify certain categories of legal immigrants, raise the age of children at which parenting would cease to qualify as work and otherwise tighten the availability of the program.

The provisions would help ensure only those who truly needed the federal assistance would get it, advocates said. 

It would also create an incentive for states to control erroneous payments, which was not the case when the federal government took on the entire cost of the program before the bill’s enactment.

“It is a disservice to the truly needy to rely on SNAP,” House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said as the committee marked up the bill last year. “Clearly, SNAP is not working as Congress intended. We must ensure the proper incentives are in place for states to administer the program more effectively for those it serves.”

Llobrera said he understood members of both parties would engage in rhetoric about restrictions on SNAP, but that the center at the time was “raising the alarm that the bill was going to hurt people.”

A spokesperson for Thompson did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

Arizona

The CBPP report included a breakout section on Arizona, where the SNAP enrollment dropped much further than any other state.

As in other states, economic gains did not explain the changes in Arizona, the case study said.

“This dramatic drop cannot be explained by a rapid improvement in people’s economic well-being or reduced need for help affording food,” the report said, noting that Arizona’s unemployment rate rose over the period of the study, while the cost of groceries rose about 4% in 2025.

The state’s Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, and state agency spokespeople have blamed the GOP law for the drastic reduction in benefits, the study said, but the decline goes beyond what would be expected based on the law’s provisions. 

That suggests that state administrators — even under Democratic leaders — are going beyond the minimum requirements of the law to restrict access, the authors said.

“Thus, it appears that a combination of factors, including the megabill and the state’s response to it, are contributing to the sharp decline in the number of Arizona families getting SNAP,” they wrote.

Because the law also raises the costs to states of administering the program, in addition to requiring states pay for some portion of benefits, some, including Arizona, cut staff ahead of the law’s enactment, Llobrera said. 

“With the cuts to the administrative funding for states due to that megabill, those are only just going to accelerate,” he said.

Shutdown

Such changes to SNAP rules added to an already tumultuous period for the program’s recipients. Over the course of a then-record-long partial government shutdown last year, benefits were constantly turned off and on as the Trump administration said it could not spend SNAP funds during a shutdown and federal courts held that benefits must be paid.

Spokespeople for the White House did not return messages seeking comment Wednesday.

A union leader representing Forest Service employees in Wisconsin says workers may have to move as part of the Trump administration’s plan to shift its headquarters out west and shutter regional offices.

The post Forest Service workers in Wisconsin may have to move after reorganization, union leader says appeared first on WPR.

Traditional diets can be ineffective. But as a UW-Madison researcher recently told Larry Meiller that an eco-friendly diet can bring about long-lasting benefits for both individual and planetary health.

The post How to sustain an eco-friendly diet appeared first on WPR.

A bipartisan pair of U.S. senators from the Midwest on Thursday asked the Commerce Department to investigate major agricultural machinery manufacturers, saying they paid shareholders handsomely while offshoring jobs.

Sens. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, and Bernie Moreno, an Ohio Republican, asked Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to open an investigation under a law that allows tariffs to be used for national security purposes.

John Deere, Caterpillar and the Wisconsin-based Case New Holland had all laid off U.S. workers in recent years while moving manufacturing jobs to Mexico. The moves hollowed out Midwest industrial towns but made the companies enormous profits, Baldwin and Moreno wrote. 

“These companies should not be allowed to eliminate American jobs, pay Mexican workers poverty wages, and then ship products back to the U.S. for additional profit on the backs of our communities,” they wrote. “They argue that offshoring is necessary to remain competitive, but when it comes time to pay executives or shareholders, they are never short of money.”

The companies have all delivered generous payments to shareholders in recent years, the senators said. John Deere has paid $8.4 billion, CNH has paid $1.7 billion and Caterpillar has paid $18.2 billion through dividends and stock buybacks, they wrote.

But payouts for investors came at the expense of their blue-collar workforce, Baldwin and Moreno wrote.

CNH laid off 220 workers from its Racine, Wisconsin, facility in 2024 and moved production to Mexico. All of the roughly 200 CNH workers in a Burlington, Iowa, facility are set to lose their jobs after the company announced in January it would close the plant. And John Deere laid off more than 3,600 union employees after moving production from Iowa to Mexico, the senators said.

Representatives for the companies did not immediately return messages seeking comment Thursday. 

Section 232

The lawmakers asked Lutnick to open an investigation that could result in so-called Section 232 tariffs to deter the companies from moving production to Mexico. 

“These companies and their executives should not be rewarded for destroying American jobs or permitted to import their products without facing a penalty,” they wrote.

The tariffs, named for the section of the 1962 law that created them, permits the administration to levy tariffs for national security purposes. Though created in 1962, no administration used them until President Donald Trump’s first term, when he imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum.

The administration now “has a unique opportunity,” the senators said, to prevent heavy equipment manufacturers from moving more jobs out of the country.

However, they added that any Section 232 investigation would be limited by a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that Trump approved in his first term. They called for the administration to “address … issues” created by the agreement, known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.

The agreement “has incentivized major heavy equipment manufacturers to locate production in Mexico,” they wrote. “Any efforts that the Administration takes solely on Section 232 will be weakened by the shortcomings that currently exist in USMCA.”

Spokespeople for the Commerce Department and White House did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

MAGA appeal

The senators’ letter appeals to key parts of Trump’s political coalition. 

Throughout his decade in politics, he has focused messaging on protecting farming and reviving domestic manufacturing industries. 

In both his victorious presidential elections, the Republican won unusually large slices of union workers in swing states with legacy manufacturing industries while running up a major advantage with rural voters.

Trump has aggressively — and controversially — employed tariffs to encourage domestic production.

He is scheduled to host nearly 1,000 farmers at the White House on Friday. 

The conflict has not only affected oil and gas prices, but has dramatically slowed shipments of nitrogen fertilizers from Gulf countries.

The post Iran war sets up another year of uncertainty for farms appeared first on WPR.

University of Illinois researchers analyzed traces of DNA in rivers and streams to learn how strips of trees near water — called riparian buffers — impact land species.

The post This conservation practice boosts wildlife species on farmland, new research finds appeared first on WPR.

Cleanup is ongoing after a Jefferson County egg farm spilled thousands of gallons of wastewater amid an outbreak of bird flu.

The post Cleanup of spill ongoing at Jefferson County egg farm amid bird flu outbreak appeared first on WPR.

Wisconsin and 20 other states filed a lawsuit Monday that seeks to prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture from imposing “anti-discrimination” conditions on all the money the department disburses to the states. 

USDA provides billions of dollars in funding to the states every year to administer programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — which in Wisconsin helps nearly 700,000 residents afford groceries. 

Under a new policy issued late last year, USDA states it will not provide any financial disbursements unless the states agree to conditions involving “gender ideology,” “fair athletic opportunities” for women and girls and immigration. 

The lawsuit argues the conditions are overly broad and vague, that sub-agencies within USDA are interpreting the rules differently, potentially conflict with existing state laws and amount to unconstitutional roadblocks between the states and the money that Congress has already appropriated to be sent to the states. 

“With billions at stake for life sustaining food and critical funding for their residents, the States may be forced to accept funding conditions that they fundamentally do not understand, that are designed to coerce the States and their instrumentalities to adopt USDA’s policies, and which are ultimately unlawful,” the lawsuit states. 

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, along with the attorneys general of California, Illinois and Massachusetts led the development of the suit which is being joined by Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. 

Aside from the nutrition assistance programs, USDA also funds programs that aid and support Wisconsin farmers, prevent forest fires and protect local ecosystems. UW-Madison received $68 million from USDA during the 2024-25 fiscal year for agricultural research and other programs. On Monday, USDA announced more than $2 million in spending to support timber operations in Monroe and Shawano counties.  

“USDA funding helps keep kids and families fed and healthy,” Kaul said in a statement. “Attempting to use this critical funding to further unrelated policy goals of the Trump administration is wrong and unlawful.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Agriculture leaders and producers are urging Congress to allow year-round sales of fuel made with up to 15 percent ethanol, which they say could boost domestic demand for corn — and offer a cheaper gas option for U.S. drivers this summer.

The post Gas prices are surging. Farm groups say American ethanol could help ease the pain. appeared first on WPR.

Veterinary experts are urging owners of commercial and backyard flocks to take steps to protect their birds as the nation sees an increase in bird flu outbreaks during spring migration.

The post Uptick in bird flu outbreaks expected in Wisconsin and nationwide appeared first on WPR.

The Wisconsin Senate unanimously passed legislation Tuesday that, once signed, will release $125 million set aside nearly three years ago to address PFAS contamination in the state’s water supplies. 

The vote, on the last day the Senate was scheduled to be in session for the year, was the culmination of a multi-year legislative saga involving negotiations between legislative Republicans, Gov. Tony Evers, the state Department of Natural Resources and a number of outside interest groups. 

A similar bill passed the Legislature during the last legislative session but was vetoed by Evers over objections from Democrats and environmental groups that the bill was too lenient to polluters responsible for PFAS contamination. 

The “innocent landowner” exemptions at issue in the first version of the bill were more narrowly constructed this time after a negotiation process with the DNR. Those changes drew the ire of the state’s largest business lobby, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and groups representing the state’s paper industry over concerns that industrial manufacturers such as paper mills were being singled out. 

The two-bill package passed unanimously in both legislative chambers despite the opposition from WMC, which is usually one of the largest supporters of Wisconsin Republicans. 

The bill’s author, Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) noted on the floor Tuesday how “meticulously drafted” the final version was to make sure all the parties were on board. 

“The result is a bill that helps people who need to be helped and stops the government from going after people who are genuinely innocent of causing a hazardous discharge,” he said.

Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement that he was looking forward to signing the bill so the money could get out the door. 

“While I wish it wouldn’t have taken nearly as long for the Legislature to join me in this important work, I’m thrilled that these bills will soon be on the way to my desk so that we can get these critical and long-overdue investments out the door to the folks and families who need them,” Evers said. “Whether it’s kids in the classroom, families at home, or our farmers and agricultural industries, folks should be able to trust that the water coming from their tap is clean and safe. I’m incredibly proud we were able to work across the aisle to get this done — and get it done right.”

Under the bill, landowners who spread PFAS contaminated materials on farm fields under a DNR-authorized permit, local governments and airports that used PFAS-containing firefighting foams, solid waste disposal facilities and anyone who had PFAS move onto their property through shifting groundwater will not be held responsible for PFAS pollution under the state’s toxic spills law. 

The spills law allows the DNR to require property owners responsible for pollution to pay for testing and cleanup of that pollution. The risk that the PFAS legislation could undermine the spills law was the largest objection from environmental groups to the first version of the bill introduced in the last session. 

The second bill in the package creates the programs through which the $125 million will be spent. Those programs include grants to municipal water systems and private well owners, as well as expanding the state’s testing capabilities and studying the long-term effects of PFAS.

The $125 million was first set aside in the state’s 2023-25 biennial budget. Throughout that time, communities across the state have continued to be affected by PFAS contamination of their water supplies. Places including Marinette, the town of Stella near Rhinelander and French Island near La Crosse have been managing the pollution, which has been tied to birth defects and cancer, for years. 

Save Our Water, an advocacy group made up of residents of PFAS-affected communities, frequently complained throughout the long negotiations that the Legislature wasn’t working to enact standards for the acceptable level of PFAS pollution in the state’s groundwater. The state has established standards for PFAS in municipal drinking water and surface water, but not groundwater, which is the source of drinking water for residents across the state with private wells. 

In a statement, the organization celebrated the bill’s passage while noting they’ll continue to push for the creation of a groundwater standard. 

“This legislation will help impacted communities and innocent landowners who are forced to deal with PFAS contamination which they didn’t cause and don’t have the resources to clean up,” the group said. “[We] will continue to push forward to achieve a meaningful groundwater standard for PFAS and look toward using the bipartisan approach taken with this legislation as a model for future PFAS legislation.” 

Erik Kanter, the government affairs director of Clean Wisconsin, said this bill is only the first step as the state continues to manage the effects of widespread PFAS contamination, including the likelihood that even more money will need to be spent on the effort and the need for a groundwater standard. 

“The Legislature created the PFAS trust fund 32 months ago, and since then, people in Marinette, Peshtigo, the Town of Campbell, the Town of Stella, and communities throughout the state have waited and waited for our state government to create the programs through which the PFAS trust fund can be allocated. Now, an end to that waiting is finally in sight,” Kanter said in a statement. “The long, difficult work toward compromise on what should have been a straightforward spending bill is a telling sign that toxic PFAS contamination is evolving into a widespread, costly public health and environmental crisis — one that touches everyone from consumers to farmers and manufacturers. It’s a crisis our state cannot ignore. This must be the first of many actions from Wisconsin lawmakers to take real, meaningful action that protects all of us from these pervasive, harmful chemicals. The state must now establish PFAS groundwater standards to provide clean water protection for rural Wisconsinites on private wells.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In 2025 alone, nearly 200 school groups visited, bringing about 8,500 students to learn about agriculture and the many careers connected to food production.

The post Central Wisconsin center helps visitors reconnect with the story behind their food appeared first on WPR.

The growth of industrial farms in America’s dairyland is outpacing regulators tasked with reviewing permits and overseeing compliance with waste regulations.

The post Wisconsin agency tasked with industrial farm permits plagued by low-staffing levels appeared first on WPR.

The U.S. House Agriculture Committee advanced a sweeping farm bill early this month, attempting to revive Congress’ stalled effort to rewrite the nation’s agriculture law the same way it’s been done for decades.

But the vote also exposed the fragile coalition that will determine whether the legislation can ever move forward. 

Those who watch the process closely told States Newsroom they are not sure a new farm bill will be enacted, given the rupture in the traditional alliance that has in the past successfully brought together agriculture interests and anti-hunger advocates to support farm bills across party lines.

Historically, farm bills have brought together a diverse coalition of advocates and lawmakers across party lines. The arrangement dates back to the 1973 farm bill, when Congress first combined nutrition programs with farm subsidies to build a coalition strong enough to pass the legislation. The sweeping legislation now includes food and nutrition programs, energy, conservation, and rural development, as well as farm support and crop insurance. 

Now, cuts and changes in the nation’s biggest nutrition program, which could impose major new financial burdens on states, have been made by Republicans completely outside the usual farm bill process. This added to changes Democrats made in 2022, when they skipped the farm bill and used budget reconciliation to increase funding for climate-friendly farm conservation programs — though it is the food aid cuts that have most roiled the current debate.

These recent shifts could fundamentally change how the farm bill moves through Congress, said Christopher Neubert, deputy director of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University. He is also a former Democratic staffer on both the Senate Agriculture and Budget committees.

“It’s a careful balance …. but the farm bill was one thing that felt kind of certain,” Neubert said in an interview. “Now we’re entering a new period that I think does make a lot of people uneasy.”

“Unless there’s a real push to take a look at some of the serious challenges that exist and meaningfully address them, it might be very difficult to get a five-year farm bill across the finish line,” Neubert said.

Policy and funding together

The Agriculture Committee approved its version of the farm bill in a 34–17 vote March 5, following a markup that stretched more than 20 hours and featured sharp partisan disputes, particularly over the previous cuts to nutrition programs.

The legislation would set policy and funding levels for major food, agriculture and conservation programs for the next five years. The text and a title-by-title summary of the 802-page bill can be found here. 

The farm bill’s five-year timeline in the past gave some certainty and planning ability to farmers and ranchers, while bringing lawmakers and stakeholders back to the table periodically to reexamine the programs.

Congress last passed a farm bill in 2018, which expired in 2023. Since then, lawmakers have kept many programs running through temporary extensions, as negotiations over new versions fell through.

In the meantime, Congress made some of the largest changes to farm bill programs outside the normal reauthorization process – a major shift that has disrupted the usual process.

Last year’s GOP spending and tax cuts package, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” reshaped nutrition funding, cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. 

SNAP, administered by states, is the nation’s largest anti-hunger program. It provides monthly, income-based benefits to help low-income individuals and families purchase groceries. Democrats have widely criticized the changes to the program.

Some Democrats do sign on 

Even so, the House Agriculture Committee vote showed some bipartisan support. 

Seven Democrats joined Republicans in backing the legislation: Reps. Jim Costa of California, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, Adam Gray of California, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan and Josh Riley of New York. 

That was slightly more bipartisan than when the committee advanced a farm bill two years ago. Only four Democrats supported a measure that included some SNAP cuts within the farm bill.

Among those crossing party lines this year was Rivet, a freshman lawmaker and member of the moderate New Democrat Coalition.

Rivet hosted a press event on March 10 at a Saginaw County farm to promote the bill, highlighting the balancing act some moderate Democrats may face if the legislation reaches the House floor in an election year. 

“Farmers need solutions and certainty,” Rivet said, noting that she backed the bill because of provisions related to disaster relief, crop insurance and specialty crop support.

Still, she acknowledged the legislation will need changes as it moves forward.

“I was excited to be able to vote ‘yes’ on this farm bill,” Rivet said. “But I need to say that the bill is not perfect. We do need to reverse the devastating cuts to SNAP for hungry kids and families.”

Restoration of SNAP funding resisted

The debate over SNAP and other nutrition programs loomed over much of the committee’s work and will continue to be a major factor as the legislation moves forward. 

“The historic cuts to SNAP jeopardize the path forward for this bill and future farm bills,” Davids said during the committee debate.

Democrats offered multiple amendments to restore SNAP funding, but Republicans did not support any.

Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the liberal-leaning Environmental Working Group and a longtime farm policy advocate, said the longstanding alliance between those who back SNAP and farm supporters helped Congress pass farm bills for decades even as fewer Americans lived in rural communities. 

But he argues that the recent policy decisions have effectively dismantled that agreement. The cuts to nutrition programs in last year’s budget reconciliation bill helped offset new investment in farm subsidies, which Faber and other advocates contend go disproportionately to large farmers and do little to support smaller farms.

“Republicans chose to blow up the farm bill coalition in the one big, beautiful bill …so if Congress fails to pass another farm bill ever again, it will be Republicans who rightfully will bear the blame,” Faber said in an interview.

Faber called the political shift around the farm bill “a historic once-in-a-generation miscalculation by the farm lobby that will, in the long run, undermine public support for the farm safety net.”

Full effects of SNAP cuts still to come

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the SNAP changes would reduce federal SNAP spending by roughly 20% through 2034 while imposing stricter work requirements and shifting some program costs to states.

Some provisions will not take effect until 2027 and 2028, meaning the full effects have yet to be felt.

The changes have drawn criticism from hunger advocates and state officials who warn the shift could strain state budgets and make it harder for families to access food assistance.

In a recent letter, the National Governors Association and other state and local organizations told Congress that the policy changes could throw hundreds of millions of dollars in costs onto states and risk destabilizing the program if lawmakers do not intervene.

During debate on an amendment from Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., that would have reversed the SNAP cuts, a proposal that ultimately failed, the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota, warned the longstanding farm bill coalition could be unraveling.

“We could be driving the last nail in the coffin of this coalition today,” Craig said. “For some of us, this is your first farm bill markup. For all of us, it could likely be our last, because by decimating the nutrition title in the farm bill, by splitting the food and farm programs apart as Republicans have done in this process, you have destroyed the farm bill coalition.”

Craig said a path forward for this committee’s bill would be fraught, calling it a “shell of a farm bill” that is “absolutely flawed” and “a missed opportunity” to address the economic pressures facing agriculture.

“It is going to have challenges getting broad bipartisan support on the House floor if it even makes it there,” Craig said during the markup. “My sincere hope is that this is just ‘act one’ of several acts.”

‘There is more work to be done’

The House Agriculture Committee’s farm bill proposal, titled the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, closely resembles the legislation the panel advanced two years ago. 

That earlier bill never received a vote on the House floor, and the Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to advance its own farm bill framework.

Throughout the markup, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa., urged lawmakers to support the measure. He repeatedly encouraged members to “not let the perfect be the enemy of the good” as they debated amendments to the bill’s 12 titles covering farm supports, conservation, trade, rural development and nutrition.

“I am proud of this bill and the work we have done to further improve it. There is more work to be done,” Thompson said at the conclusion of the markup, which he called a “long slog.” 

Thompson has said he has met with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., about bringing the measure to the House floor. 

But the legislation will likely need some Democratic support, particularly to move through the Senate, where votes to advance legislation like the farm bill typically require a 60-vote supermajority.

Senators, farm interests

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said during a hearing March 10 that she hopes lawmakers can craft a bipartisan farm bill that addresses the needs of both farmers and families who rely on SNAP.

“I am hoping we can get to a better place. I hope as we look at a farm bill, that we include some corrections to what happened last summer,” Klobuchar said, referencing the “big beautiful” law.

For his part, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., said he appreciated the House effort to advance the farm bill and indicated he may want to go in a similar direction.

“This builds off the historic investments we made in the Working Families Tax Cuts to strengthen the farm safety net and provide producers with greater certainty while demonstrating unwavering support for strengthening rural communities and safeguarding our food supply,” Boozman said in a statement. 

Farm groups are watching closely, hoping a five-year farm bill will provide some certainty farmers have lacked in recent years.

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall called on Congress to “finish the job and deliver a modern farm bill” and urged farmers to contact lawmakers and encourage them to advance the legislation. The Farm Bureau has 5 million members.

The National Farmers Union, which represents about 220,000 family farmers and ranchers, said it is grateful for progress on the farm bill but offered a more cautious response.

“We remain concerned that this proposal does not yet meet the scale of the crisis facing family farmers and ranchers,” NFU President Rob Larew said in a statement. “The path from committee to a final, signed farm bill is long. NFU will continue working with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to strengthen this legislation.”

A Republican bill would allow the sale of public lands near a commercial egg farm as one of the country’s largest egg producers in Wisconsin has been forced to cull millions of birds due to avian flu.

The post GOP lawmakers want to allow sale of public lands near egg farm amid bird flu outbreaks appeared first on WPR.

The Trump administration's federal workforce cuts shrunk U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies that inspect produce, provide conservation resources and collect data on crops and livestock. It's creating longer wait times for farmers seeking federal services and programs, people working in agriculture say.

The post USDA lost 24K workers under Trump, hurting critical resources for farmers appeared first on WPR.

Two large-scale commercial poultry farms in southeastern Wisconsin have been hit with avian flu, each with roughly 1.5 million birds that will be culled.

The post ‘We’ve seen this before’: Bird flu again hits Wisconsin poultry farms appeared first on WPR.

Applications are now open for FarmPath, a national, multi-year program designed to make farming more accessible and achievable for aspiring and beginning farmers across the United States.

The program is supported by The Mosaic Company Foundation for Sustainable Food Systems and The PepsiCo Foundation whose investments reflect a shared focus on helping to strengthen the next generation of farmers and build a more resilient food system.

FarmPath is grounded in a simple reality: as many U.S. farmers approach retirement, the sector needs a new generation of skilled producers. Yet beginning farmers often face barriers including limited access to land, capital, business planning skills, agronomic knowledge, and mentorship.

By investing in these new farmers, FarmPath helps support stronger rural, urban, and suburban economies, strengthens food security, and builds a more diverse and resilient agricultural community.

The free, three-year program provides practical education in best practices for resilient agriculture and farm management, access to experienced mentors, and connection to a national network of professionals working across food and agriculture. FarmPath integrates training in production skills with in-depth instruction on the systems, markets, and decisions that shape long-term success.

“American agriculture is entering a new era, with generational shifts, growing interest in diversification, and new market opportunities, including regenerative production and regional food systems,” said Shari Rogge-Fidler, President and CEO of Farm Foundation. “Through structured business training, mentorship, professional networks, and up to $10,000 in implementation funding, FarmPath is Farm Foundation’s direct investment in a new generation of farmers prepared to meet this moment in American agriculture.”

The Mosaic Company executes its mission to help the world grow the food it needs by delivering critical crop nutrient products to customers in 40 countries around the globe. The company is committed to advancing global food security through coordinated action and strong collaboration with partners and stakeholders. For over two decades, The Mosaic Company Foundation for Sustainable Food Systems has partnered with local organizations, farmers and communities in the U.S., Brazil and India to identify and maximize their potential, emphasizing sustainability, resilience, and entrepreneurship.

“We’re excited to support a program that puts practical, farmer‑focused learning front and center. Our work with young and smallholder farmers in India and Brazil shows that when farmers build skills, confidence, and resilience in the face of a changing landscape, they’re better equipped to thrive long term.” Ben Pratt, president of The Mosaic Company Foundation for Sustainable Food Systems.

As one of the world’s leading food and beverage companies, PepsiCo’s business is rooted in agriculture with more than 50 crops and ingredients sourced from over 60 countries. To help support the farmers that grow these crops, the PepsiCo Foundation has worked alongside Farm Foundation through previous partnerships including Field to Future. Now, to continue helping farmers thrive, the PepsiCo Foundation is building on previous work with Farm Foundation through FarmPath.

Monica Bauer, SVP Social Impact, PepsiCo, said, “As the backbone of our communities, farmers play a vital role in driving local economies and helping families access nutritious and affordable food. Alongside Farm Foundation, we’re excited to support the next generation of farmers who will continue to help strengthen food systems for generations to come. Together, we can help expand access to the resources needed to support long-term success for new farmers.”

How to Apply

FarmPath is open to participants from a wide range of backgrounds, including farm-raised innovators, urban and community growers, career changers, those curious about farming as a career path, and early-stage farmers seeking to diversify or strengthen their operations. The program includes a flexible virtual learning model and an online peer community designed to accommodate various schedules nationwide.

Applications are open through March 23, 2026. This application cycle is the only entry point into the current three-year program. Up to 300 participants will be selected for Year One, with competitive progression into Years Two and Three. Participants must complete Year One to be eligible for advancement.

Additional information, eligibility details, and the application are available at FarmPath.org

---

About the Partners

The Mosaic Company Foundation for Sustainable Food Systems supports well-defined, transformational investments in food and nutrition security, sustainable agricultural productivity growth, and community development located in India, Brazil, and the United States. The Foundation is a tax-exempt private foundation described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Foundation is funded through contributions from The Mosaic Company.

The PepsiCo Foundation, the philanthropic arm of PepsiCo, invests in the essential elements of a sustainable food system with a mission to support thriving communities. Working with non-profits and experts around the globe, we’re focused on helping communities obtain access to food security, safe water and workforce development opportunities. We strive for tangible impact in the places where we live and work—collaborating with industry peers, local and international organizations, and our employees to affect large-scale change on the issues that matter to us and are of global importance. Learn more at www.pepsicofoundation.com. Follow us on LinkedIn.

The post FarmPath Seeks 300 New and Aspiring Farmers for Free, National Program appeared first on Farm Foundation.

Flocks of poultry in Dane, Jefferson and Walworth counties have been infected with highly pathogenic avian influenza, according to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. 

The virus has been circulating across North America since 2021, infecting both wild and domesticated birds. The birds on the affected properties will be killed to prevent the further spread of disease, and DATCP has established a 10 kilometer control area around the infected premises in which the movement of poultry is restricted. 

The infected birds in Dane County were in a backyard poultry flock while in Jefferson and Walworth counties the affected birds were in commercial flocks, according to DATCP. 

Officials and farmers in Wisconsin have been managing avian flu infections since spring 2022 when outbreaks across the state shut down poultry shows, exhibits and swap meets. Last year, a dairy herd was quarantined after an infection was discovered. 

DATCP said it is monitoring farm workers at the affected facilities for signs of infection and recommends biosecurity measures to protect flocks and herds near where the current infections were found.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE