Governmental Regulations

What is the Livestock Consolidation Research Act?

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 16:24:30 GMT

Senate Agriculture Committee members Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Tina Smith (D-Minn.) have introduced the Livestock Consolidation Research Act , bipartisan legislation to support research into the economic impact of livestock market consolidation on farmers, ranchers and consumers.

“Consolidation in the meat and poultry industry impacts Iowa producers and consumers alike, and right now, they’re feeling the squeeze,” Grassley says. “The current patchwork of available data isn’t enough to tackle this problem. Our bipartisan legislation will work to address ag concentration by providing farmers, ranchers and shoppers a full picture of how the market is working.”

According to Grassley’s press release , “Cattle producers often make pennies on the dollar due to a lack of transparency and competition in the cattle processing industry, where just four companies control 85% of the market. The lack of competition means farmers get less for their products, while consumers pay more at the grocery store.”

The senators’ goal with the act is to move beyond existing research to discover the impact of this consolidation on farmers and ranchers, as well as the downstream impacts on consumers. The legislation directs the USDA Economic Research Service to conduct this research.

“Just a handful of large companies dominate the meat and poultry processing industry, which means higher prices for consumers and shrinking earnings for farmers. On top of that, farmers and ranchers are dealing with the worst farm economy in 30 years, skyrocketing input costs, and a cost-of-living crisis at home. We can all see that this market concentration spells disaster,” Smith says. “Our bipartisan bill would bring to light the impact of this consolidation on farmers and consumers and help us create the best possible solutions to fix the problem. I look forward to working with Sen. Grassley and my colleagues to pass this legislation as part of a farm bill.”

Grassley and Smith plan to push for the bill’s inclusion in the research title of the farm bill, which could form a base of data to inform future decisions.

Regulatory Concerns: The Economic Impact of Increased Oversight

“Significant liquidation of cattle herds has brought U.S. cattle numbers to a 70-year low and pushed prices and subsequently, cow-calf returns, to record highs,” says John Nalivka, Sterling Marketing Inc. president. “At the same time, Sterling Marketing’s estimate for beef packer margins is to average — $191/head during the first quarter of 2026.”

Nalivka says consolidation has become a top news headline in livestock and meat industries quite often lately.

“As I read about this [proposed legislation], I once again become concerned about the information that leads to this research effort,” he says.

He stresses packing capacity is a significant factor in the market.

“Consequently, I maintain a rather significant database of plants and their capacities for both the beef and pork industries. This database goes back to the late 1980s when I started focusing on capacity and its impact on the market,” he explains. “I adamantly point out that the importance of capacity in the beef and cattle market goes beyond the packing industry to include all aspects of the supply chain from production to packing and processing to the retail meat case.”

Nalivka has often pointed out that consolidation in any industry is the result of businesses growing larger to achieve economies of scale.

“This is extremely important as it has a direct and beneficial impact on the cost structure of a business and ultimately, its financial success,” he says. “It is related to and has an impact on production capacity and ultimately, the ownership of capacity across the supply chain.”

He predicts with Tyson’s closure of the Lexington plant and reducing Amarillo to one shift, the total U.S. beef packing capacity (including both fed cattle and cows) is 36.7 million head. He adds the strike at JBS’s Greeley, Colo., plant brings annual fed cattle plant capacity down to 27.3 million from 28.9 million.

“This leaves my estimate for the four-firm fed cattle plants concentration with the Greeley plant included at 75.7%,” he says. “That is a notable difference from the quoted figure of 85%.”

Nalivka says a study such as the one proposed by Grassley and Smith should not be taken lightly considering the definite potential for increased regulatory activity.

“For those who do not believe that increased government oversight leads to greater government regulations, in 2025, there were 243 volumes in the Federal Register, proposed and final rules and regulations, which begs the question — Is this too much government oversight?”

New WOTUS Proposal Could Reduce Red Tape for Farmers and Ranchers

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:01:44 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

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

Tue, 30 Sep 2025 14:48:09 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.

Wisconsin Ag Regulators Propose Massive Livestock Fee Increases

Thu, 11 Sep 2025 19:08:28 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.”

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

Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:52:52 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

Could EPA Decision Signal The Beginning Of The End For DEF?

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:25:52 GMT

Mike Berdo has strong words to describe his ongoing experiences using machinery requiring DEF ( Diesel Exhaust Fluid ) on his southeast Iowa farm.

“It has been an absolute nightmare, at least for us. Mechanics make trip after trip to do little stuff that’s very expensive to fix,” said Berdo, who produces grain and beef cattle near Washington. “We had planting delays last spring … little stuff that came from it and just seemed like [an issue to deal with] day after day.”

The ongoing mechanical issues and costs are why Berdo said he is “all for” EPA rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The Finding has enabled the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and, in recent years, and launch requirements such as the use of DEF systems in diesel-powered engines.

EPA Draws A Line In The Sand
On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a proposal to rescind the 2009 Finding.

If finalized, the proposal would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, EPA said in a follow-up press release .

The move would start with EPA’s first greenhouse gas standard set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles and those set in 2011 for medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles and engines.

EPA said the proposal is expected to “save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards, including the Biden EPA’s electric vehicle mandate, under conservative economic forecasts.”

Zeldin made the announcement to rescind the Finding in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

What The Decision Could Mean To Farmers
Specific to U.S. farmers, the proposal could potentially result in DEF systems no longer being included on new tractors and other heavy equipment using diesel-powered engines, said Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk, during a Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday.

South Dakota farmer Ryan Wagner told Flory he has a wait-and-see perspective on how or whether the EPA proposal goes into effect. He anticipates that reversing the Finding will take considerable time and effort for EPA to implement.

“It took a long time with the interim engines and things to get into full DEF in the first place,” Wagner said. “I don’t know how long it would take to unwind all that and how quickly manufacturing will just take those systems right off, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens.”

To Wagner’s point, here’s a brief look back at some timing showing when DEF rolled out in agriculture and nonroad equipment and became mandatory . The regulations were phased in over several years based on the type of equipment and engine size:

2008: DEF became required for all new diesel engines with engine sizes over 750 horsepower.

2011: the regulations expanded to include equipment with engine sizes between 175-750 horsepower.

By 2015, all new nonroad diesel engines were required to be Tier 4 compliant and utilize DEF, regardless of equipment type or engine size.

As Wagner considers DEF, he noted its use in diesel engines has provided him with one benefit: “On the plus side, I do like that they don’t make the walls of my shop black. That’s been nice,” he said. “You can run them inside for a short time and not not feel like you’re breathing in a bunch of soot and making everything black.”

Expect Legal Challenges To EPA Decision
A number of environmental groups have already blasted the move by EPA, saying it spells the end of the road for U.S. action against climate change, according to an online article by Reuters .

Legal challenges from various environmental groups, states and lawyers are likely ahead.

That fact wasn’t lost on Flory and the Farmer Forum participants during the AgriTalk discussion on Wednesday.

“If this proposal is finalized, it’s going to start a lot of conversations … and the dominoes are going to start to fall, something that we need to keep track of, no doubt,” Flory said. You can hear the complete Farmer Forum discussion on AgriTalk here:

EPA will initiate a public comment period to solicit input. Further information on the public comment process and instructions for participation will be published in the Federal Register and on the EPA website .

Your next read: Right To Repair Granted? John Deere Launches Digital Self-Repair Tool for $195 Per Tractor

USDA Set To Downsize With Reorganization Plan

Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:10:23 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced July 24 that the USDA would reorganize, representing consolidation and elimination of programs and personnel.

Dubbed the “ USDA Department Reorganization Plan ,” the move will include moving more than half of the agency’s Washington, D.C.-area staff to five different hubs across the country, “refocusing its core operations” on USDA’s founding mission, and reducing overall staff. According to the announcement and plan document, the move is intended to “improve the internal management” of the department.

“Here at USDA, we are refocusing our core operations to better align with President Lincoln’s founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching, and forestry, as well as serving American taxpayers,” Rollins wrote Thursday morning on social platform X.

Here @USDA, we are refocusing our core operations to better align with President Lincoln’s founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching, and forestry, as well as serving American taxpayers.
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) July 24, 2025

The reorganization is built around what the agency calls four pillars:

Ensure the size of USDA’s workforce aligns with financial resources and priorities.
Bring USDA closer to its customers by relocated resources outside of the national capital region.
Eliminate management layers and bureaucracy.
Consolidate support functions.

USDA Workforce Costs and Location Changes

Highlighting the high cost of living in the nation’s capital — where average monthly rent in January 2024 was $2,475, according to real estate and rental search site RedFin — USDA’s reorg seeks to move roughly 2,600 of its current 4,600 D.C.-area personnel to five “hub locations” across the country.

According to the plan document, these locations were selected considering cost of living and “existing concentrations of USDA employees.”

These hubs (and their January 2024 average rent levels) are:

Salt Lake City, Utah ($1,627)
Fort Collins, Colo. ($1,607)
Raleigh, N.C. ($1,371)
Indianapolis, Ind. ($1,265)
Kansas City, Mo. ($1,140)

“In addition to these five hubs, USDA will maintain two additional core administrative support locations: Albuquerque, New Mexico and Minneapolis, Minnesota,” the reorg plan reads. “USDA will continue to maintain critical service centers and laboratories including agency service centers in St. Louis, Missouri; Lincoln, Nebraska; and Missoula, Montana.”

The department says it aims to have no more than 2,000 staff members remain in the National Capital Region.

“The details are still to be determined,” adds Callie Eideberg, a Principal with The Vogel Group. “It will be helpful when we know the pace and cadence of these changes, as that will determine how smooth or chaotic this move will be.”

She agrees that the reorganization could benefit those employees looking for a lower cost of living, but the distance between hubs will make for its own workforce management issues.

“Different administrations have tried, in smaller ways, to move the federal workforce to other regions and they’ve been met with these management obstacles,” adds Eideberg. “Stakeholders, as well, will now need to travel to five different locations around the country to have their conversations with USDA instead of ‘one stop shopping’ in Washington.”

The location changes are not limited to personnel only, however. The physical buildings USDA will be occupying in the capital area will also change. The reorg plan cited costs associated with maintaining and repairing some of the overly large buildings as part of the motivation.

Announced building changes include:

The South Building and Braddock Place facilities will be vacated.
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center will be vacated over several years “to avoid disruption of critical USDA research activities.”
George Washington Carver Center, currently being used for area USDA personnel during the reorg, will be sold or transferred eventually.

The department said the Whitten Building will remain the USDA headquarters, and both the Yates Building and the National Agricultural Library “will be retained for use.”

Consolidation and Elimination

Though the reorg document stressed that “USDA is not conducting a large-scale workforce reduction” as part of the change, it also highlighted that the move is part of its ongoing process of reducing its workforce.

“Much of this reduction was through voluntary retirements and the Deferred Retirement Program (DRP), a completely voluntary tool. As of today, 15,364 individuals voluntarily elected deferred resignation,” the reorg document read.

According to the agency’s own site — both currently and during the previous administration — the USDA has “nearly 100,000 employees.” This makes the stated number of USDA employees who have taken deferred resignation slightly more than 15% of the agency’s overall staff.

Programs within USDA will also be consolidated or eliminated. Those programs and efforts highlighted include:

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will eliminate its area offices, with “residual functions” to be preformed by its Office of National Programs.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) will consolidate its current 12 regions into five “over a multi-year period.”
The Food and Nutrition Service will reduce its current seven regions into five, aligned with the five hubs, in the next two years.
The Forest Service will “phase out” its nine regional offices in the coming year. It will maintain a reduced state office in Juneau, Alaska, and consolidate its stand-alone research stations into one in Fort Collins, Colo. It will keep its Fire Sciences Lab and Forest Products Lab.
Most “support functions” previously done within the USDA — such as civil rights functions, Freedom of Information Act responses, IT and HR, legislative and tribal relations, and others — will be moved into other agencies of the federal government in an effort “to reduce duplication” within the department.

The reorg document also notes that it will consolidate grants and financial assistance: “This consolidation will include, where feasible, the transfer of grant making and administration functions from USDA offices and agencies that currently have limited capacity to perform such duties to other offices and agencies.”

Most extension personnel in hub-area institutions whom The Packer reached out to about the potential impacts of the reorg either had not responded as of press time or reported that it is too early to provide any meaningful insight.

The News Service from Colorado State University in Fort Collins said, “CSU is continually tracking changes at the federal level and assessing impact to our work.”

Rollins: Impact in Her Own Words

Midday July 24, Rollins spoke to AgriTalk ‘s Chip Flory to talk about the announcement.

“This is just another step in the implementation of getting the government out of Washington, D.C., and getting it to the people,” she says, adding that the move “will save a lot of money.”

When asked if the existing D.C. staff will make the move to the five hubs or if new personnel will need to be hired in those areas, Rollins says she thinks it will be “half and half.”

“For those that do want to continue leading in the Forest Service or working hard on food stamps or, of course, our key work supporting farmers and ranchers, they’re going to have an amazing opportunity to move to, frankly, a better part of the country,” she says. “Out of Washington, D.C., better quality of life, better cost of living and continue to serve the great people of our country. I think that’s a win-win.”

For those who don’t want to move, she says “there are plenty of opportunities in the private sector.”

Rollins adds that the transition is not going to be easy, but the department is ready to do hard work that will streamline its operations and bring services closer to the communities being served. She gave the example of the Forest Service.

“A lot of people don’t know that the USDA manages all of our national forests. We’ve got 11,000 full-time firefighters on the USDA payroll that are constantly battling our fires and are the frontliners,” she says. “The fact that that leadership is in Washington, D.C., but most of the fires are in the West — that doesn’t make any sense. Why don’t we have the leadership of the Forest Service closer to the fires and the firefighters that they serve?”

Breaking: Mexican Border Closed Again as New World Screwworm Comes Within 370 Miles of the U.S.

Thu, 10 Jul 2025 02:16:37 GMT

On July 8, Mexico’s National Service of Agro-Alimentary Health, Safety and Quality reported a new case of New World screwworm (NWS) in Ixhuatlan de Madero, Veracruz, Mexico, which is approximately 160 miles northward of the current sterile fly dispersal grid on the eastern side of the country and 370 miles south of the U.S./Mexico border.

This new northward detection comes approximately two months after northern detections were reported in Oaxaca and Veracruz, less than 700 miles away from the U.S. border, which triggered the closure of our ports to Mexican cattle, bison and horses on May 11, 2025 .

While USDA announced a risk-based phased port re-opening strategy for cattle, bison and equine from Mexico beginning as early as July 7, 2025 , this newly reported NWS case raises significant concern about the previously information shared by Mexican officials and severely compromises the outlined port reopening schedule of five ports from July 7 to Sept. 15. Therefore, in order to protect American livestock and the U.S. food supply, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has ordered the closure of livestock trade through southern ports of entry effective immediately.

“The United States has promised to be vigilant — and after detecting this new NWS case, we are pausing the planned port reopening’s to further quarantine and target this deadly pest in Mexico. We must see additional progress combatting NWS in Veracruz and other nearby Mexican states in order to reopen livestock ports along the Southern border,” Rollins says. “Thanks to the aggressive monitoring by USDA staff in the U.S. and in Mexico, we have been able to take quick and decisive action to respond to the spread of this deadly pest.”

To ensure the protection of U.S. livestock herds, USDA is holding Mexico accountable by ensuring proactive measures are being taken to maintain a NWS free barrier. This is maintained with stringent animal movement controls, surveillance, trapping and following the proven science to push the NWS barrier south in phases as quickly as possible.

In June, Secretary Rollins launched a 5-point plan to combat NWS by protecting our border at all costs, increasing eradication efforts in Mexico, and increasing readiness. USDA also announced the groundbreaking of a sterile fly dispersal facility in South Texas. This facility will provide a critical contingency capability to disperse sterile flies should a NWS detection be made in the Southern U.S.

Simultaneously, USDA is moving forward with the design process to build a domestic sterile fly production facility to ensure it has the resources to push NWS back to the Darien Gap. USDA is working on these efforts in lockstep with border states – Arizona, New Mexico and Texas – as it will take a coordinated approach with federal, state and local partners to keep this pest at bay and out of the U.S.

USDA will continue to have personnel perform site visits throughout Mexico to ensure the Mexican government has adequate protocols and surveillance in place to combat this pest effectively and efficiently.

Click to enlarge.

(USDA)

Your Next Read: Protect Your Livestock: Signs of New World Screwworm

Breaking News: Mexican Ports to Reopen in Phases for Cattle Trade Starting July 7

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 21:55:31 GMT

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced today a risk-based phased port re-openings for cattle, bison and equine from Mexico beginning as early as July 7.

The announcement is following the extensive collaboration between USDA–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) experts and their counterparts in Mexico to increase New World screwworm (NWS) surveillance, detection and eradication efforts. The port reopening timeline is:

Douglas, Ariz. – July 7
Columbus, N.M. – July 14
Santa Teresa, N.M. – July 21
Del Rio, Texas – Aug. 18
Laredo, Texas – Sept. 15

After each reopening, USDA will evaluate to ensure no adverse effects arise.

Progress Being Made to Stop Progress of NWS

According to USDA, progress has been made in several critical areas since the ports were closed on May 11 , including:

Resolution of challenges with conducting flights in Mexico that has allowed the team to consistently conduct sterile NWS fly dispersal seven days each week
Dispersal of more than 100 million flies each week
USDA sent five APHIS teams to visit, observe and gain a deeper understanding of Mexico’s NWS response. The APHIS teams were allowed the opportunity to share feedback.

USDA says there has not been a notable increase in reported NWS cases in Mexico, nor any northward movement of NWS over the past eight weeks.

“At USDA we are focused on fighting the New World screwworm’s advancement in Mexico. We have made good progress with our counterparts in Mexico to increase vital pest surveillance efforts and have boosted sterile fly dispersal efforts. These quick actions by the Trump Administration have improved the conditions to allow the phased reopening of select ports on the Southern Border to livestock trade,” Rollins says. “We are continuing our posture of increased vigilance and will not rest until we are sure this devastating pest will not harm American ranchers.”

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says it supports the plan to strategically reopen key ports of entry.

“NCBA and our state affiliates have spent months working with USDA to safeguard the U.S. cattle industry from the threat of New World screwworm. We strongly support USDA’s five-pronged plan to fight the screwworm, which includes bolstering sterile fly production by renovating a facility in Metapa, Mexico, and by building a new fly dispersal facility at Moore Air Base in south Texas,” says NCBA CEO Colin Woodall. “Today’s announcement to reopen key ports of entry is a measured, thoughtful approach by Secretary Rollins to allow some trade while also ensuring the American cattle industry is protected from this pest.”

While the Douglas, Ariz., port presents the lowest risk based upon the geography of Sonora and a long history of effective collaboration between APHIS and Sonora on animal health issues, USDA intends to reopen additional ports in New Mexico, and if it is proven safe to do so, in Texas, over the coming weeks. Additional port openings will be based on APHIS’ continuous reevaluation of the number of cases and potential northward movement of NWS, Mexico’s continued efforts to curb illegal animal movements, and implementation of further rigorous inspection and treatment protocols.

“We trust Secretary Rollins made this decision with the latest information from USDA staff in Mexico, and we know she will continue holding her counterparts in the Mexican government accountable for eradicating screwworm,” Woodall adds. “NCBA and our state affiliate partners will continue working with USDA and key members of Congress to protect the United States from New World screwworm.”

Continuing Efforts

USDA is working with Mexico’s National Department of Health, Food Safety and Food Quality (SENASICA) on outreach, education and training efforts to raise awareness and put producers on high alert about NWS, along with utilizing their well-functioning central laboratory for diagnosing cases. While Mexico has made great progress on animal movement controls and surveillance, additional progress will help ensure the remaining U.S. ports reopen. Enhanced animal movement controls to stem illegal animal movements from the south, along with robust surveillance and NWS risk mitigations beyond check points will be critical in pushing back NWS. APHIS technical teams continue to engage with SENASICA to improve the overall NWS posture in Mexico and implement the rigorous steps needed to keep this pest away from our border.

Mexico will also begin renovation of its sterile fruit fly facility in Metapa this week, with renovation expected to be completed by July 2026. Renovation of this facility will allow for production of between 60-100 million sterile NWS flies each week. This is a critical step towards reaching the goal of producing the estimated 400-500 million flies each week needed to re-establish the NWS barrier at the Darien Gap.

Only cattle and bison, born and raised in Sonora or Chihuahua, or that are treated according to cattle and bison NWS protocol when entering these states, will be eligible for import. See Importing Live Cattle and Bison From Mexico to the United States for more information on cattle and bison import requirements.

In addition, reopening the Del Rio (Aug. 18) and Colombia Bridge (Sept.15) ports will be contingent on Coahuila and Nuevo Leon adopting the same NWS protocols for cattle and bison as those now required of Sonora and Chihuahua for cattle or bison entering those states.

Equine may import from anywhere in Mexico. They require a seven-day quarantine at the port of entry and must import in accordance with the equine NWS protocol and other requirements detailed on USDA APHIS | Import Horses from Mexico webpage . Approved equine facilities are available at the Santa Teresa, N.M., port and will be available for entry of horses when that port is reopened.

In May 2025, USDA suspended imports of live cattle, bison, and equines from Mexico into the U.S. due to the continued and rapid northward spread of NWS. During the weeks of June 2 and June 16, teams of APHIS experts conducted robust onsite assessments of Mexico’s NWS response efforts to fully reassess the risk of NWS incursions to the U.S. posed by importation of Mexican cattle across our southern border.

Your Next Read: Open Heifers Explained: What You Need to Consider to Increase Preg Rates

250-Plus Ag Groups Ask Trump Administration To ‘Correct’ MAHA Commission’s ‘Activities’

Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:01:08 GMT

Four weeks have passed since the Make Our Children Healthy Again: Assessment (MAHA report) was released. Since that time, the report has drawn criticism from farmers and various state and national agricultural groups that are focused on crop and livestock production.

One overarching concern the various groups and farmers cite, is what actions and practices will the MAHA Commission recommend in their follow-up report, which is due for release by Aug. 12, 2025.

Ag Groups Ask For A Course Correction

Concern about the MAHA report led 250-plus agriculture groups to ask the Trump administration to “correct” the direction of its Make America Healthy Again goals, in a letter dated June 13. The letter was addressed to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.’

Groups signing the letter included: American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.

In the letter, the groups criticized the MAHA Commission’s “lack of transparency” in creating the report, adding it also did not allow any opportunity for public engagement.

“As a result, the report contained numerous errors and distortions that have created unfounded fears about the safety of our food supply,” the letter says. “Your leadership is greatly needed to correct the Commission’s activities, as well as create processes for greater transparency and input.”

In an article published by NOTUS, a digital news outlet, reporters noted the MAHA report contained a number of citation errors and “false claims” that could have been avoided with better industry input ahead of the commission’s report release.

Farmers Say ‘Use Some Common Sense’

The MAHA report, with regard to the use of crop protection products, specifically calls out atrazine, chlorpyrifos and glyphosate.

Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of Modern Ag Alliance, says the commission’s decision to call out specific chemistries, while no surprise, is concerning nonetheless.

“I think that’s something that every farmer, regardless of what part of agriculture you’re involved in, should be concerned about,” she told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory on Thursday.

Albert Lea, Minn., farmer, Brad Nelson, says he is concerned about the future of crop protection products but hopes “common sense” will prevail. He describes the finger-pointing at glyphosate, in particular, as bogus.

“We have used Roundup in the Midwest, myself personally, for 40-some years, and the retailers around me have done the same. And you know what, there’s no cancer,” Nelson says. “If it was a problem, it would be rampant. Hopefully common sense will rule the day, and the studies that have gone on for years and years and years will finally get believed.”

Burns-Thompson says she wonders whether the people involved in developing the MAHA report action plan understand how the chemistries in question have helped modernize farming practices – in some cases even helping reduce farmers’ reliance on pesticides and contributing to conservation farming efforts.

Her recommendation to other farmers at this point: talk with your local, state and federal government officials. Educate them on how the targeted chemistries support food production and consumers’ well-being.

“It’s important that we are reaching out to these individuals all the way up and down the political hierarchy, and inviting them out to our farms, talking to them about why we do things, and making it very practical, so that they understand not only the what, but the why and the how,” she says.

Where To From Here?

The 250 ag groups, in the June 13 letter to Kennedy, Rollins and Zeldin, have asked the Commission to hold a public comment period for all of its future reports and activities.

“… We urge the administration to formally include farmers, ranchers, and food producers in a collaborative stakeholder process throughout all future work of the Commission. We also advise the administration to create the opportunity for public comment on all future reports and activities of the Commission.”

For her part, Burns-Thompson wants more farmers at the table, able to share their perspective on what kind of practices the action plan should detail.

“What’s the voice of the farmer in all this? It needs to be part of this, right? It’s one thing to have the Department of Agriculture at the table, but I think there’s no such thing as too many farmer voices,” she says.

Catch the AgriTalk discussion with Burns-Thompson here:

Your next read: Is Food Inflation Heating Up July 4th Grills?

California Sheriffs Join in Support of Livestock Producers' Fight Against Wolves

Thu, 01 May 2025 17:17:33 GMT

Over the past 28 days, ranchers and residents in California’s Sierra Valley have been under siege from escalating gray wolf activity. While the presence of wolves in the valley is not new, this spring has seen a dramatic increase in attacks.

The Sierra County Sheriff’s Office says it’s joining with six other sheriff’s departments in support of California’s livestock producers. The sheriffs say they are opposing environmental polices they believe threaten ranchers and farmers — including new proposed restrictions on predator management.

In a recent Facebook post, it was stated that the Sheriffs of Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, Shasta, Plumas, Sierra and Tulare Counties stand united in opposing environmental policies that threaten our ranchers and farmers; including new proposed restrictions on predator management.

The California Fish and Game Commission’s Wildlife Resources Committee (WRC) is proposing regulatory changes that would prohibit the taking of coyotes unless direct evidence of property or agricultural damage can be shown. This would eliminate proactive protection and force livestock producers into a depredation-based system, requiring proof of harm after the damage is done.

The Commission will meet on May 15, 2025 , to discuss these changes. If adopted, they will make it even harder for ranchers to protect their livestock from escalating predator attacks.

The University of California–Davis recently released results from a study that quantified the direct and indirect costs due to wolf-related losses. You can read more about that research: One Wolf Can Cause Up To $162,000 in Losses Due To Reduced Growth and Pregnancies

Your Next Read: Be A Good Neighbor: Check In and Watch for Signs of Stress

One Wolf Can Cause Up To $162,000 in Losses Due To Reduced Growth and Pregnancies

Fri, 25 Apr 2025 19:33:23 GMT

Long believed extinct in California, a lone gray wolf was seen entering the Golden State from Oregon in 2011, and a pack was spotted in Siskiyou County in 2015. By the end of 2024, seven wolf packs were documented with evidence of the animals in four other locations. As wolves proliferated, ranchers in those areas feared they would prey on cattle.

Tina Saitone, a University of California, Davis professor and cooperative Extension specialist in livestock and rangeland economics, sought to quantify the direct and indirect costs after the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) launched a pilot program to compensate ranchers for wolf-related losses.

“There’s not really any research in the state on the economic consequences of an apex predator interacting with livestock,” Saitone says in a release from UC Davis about the project .

Results from the study include:

One wolf can cause between $69,000 and $162,000 in direct and indirect losses from lower pregnancy rates in cows and decreased weight gain in calves
Total indirect losses are estimated to range from $1.4 million to $3.4 million depending on moderate or severe impacts from wolves across the three packs
72% of wolf scat samples tested during the 2022 and 2023 summer seasons contained cattle DNA
Hair cortisol levels were elevated in cattle that ranged in areas with wolves, indicating an increase in stress

According to the Public Lands Council , “The recovery of the gray wolf is a success story for the Endangered Species Act, and the time is now to recognize that success. Delist wolves now.”

They encourage producers to contact their members of Congress and ask them to support H.R. 845, The Pet and Livestock Protection Act of 2025 .

In the press

The “Los Angeles Times” published an article on April 21 “ Beautiful, deadly: Wolves stalk rural California. ” Cattleman Joel Torres was interviewed for the article and shared how wolves are tearing into baby calves and yearlings.

In the article, Torres explained what the apex predators do to the cattle in his care at Prather Ranch, an organic farm in Siskiyou County dedicated to raising beef in a natural, stress-free environment.

Wolves often attack from behind and rip victims apart while they’re trying to flee. Once they bring a cow or calf to the ground, the pack will pick around, eat the good stuff, particularly the rectum and udders, and then leave them and go to the next one, Torres says.

There’s no saving the calves that have been attacked by the wolves. He explains he’d like to shoot the wolves, at least a few, to teach the pack that there are “consequences to coming around here and tearing into our cattle.”

But the predators remain on the state’s endangered species list, and aggressive measures to control their behavior are strictly forbidden.

Not just California
Wolf attacks are not confined in California. Since wolves were reintroduced in Colorado in December 2023, ranchers have also been dealing with depredation of calves.

As reported by Drovers, the wolves released in Colorado were from packs in Oregon that were known to have killed livestock in 2022 and 2023.

Your Next Read: Ranchers Concerned Over Six Confirmed Wolf Kills in Colorado

Rollins: First 50 Days Fighting for Our Country Has Been A Joy, But There's More Work To Do

Fri, 11 Apr 2025 18:56:39 GMT

USDA Chief Brooke Rollins is feeling pretty good about her first 50 days as President Donald Trump’s secretary of agriculture.

The Texas native, who just celebrated her 53rd birthday on April 10, is proud of what her team at USDA has accomplished since taking the reins from former Secretary of Agriculture and Iowa attorney Tom Vilsack.

But despite that progress, her list of issues to tackle soon is quickly filling up. Among those action items is deciding if American farmers will need another round of assistance payments later this year and if USDA headquarters should be relocated.

If Trump’s tariff plan proves successful, Rollins says we’ll be “shipping and selling more of our row crops than ever before.”

In that case, she doesn’t anticipate needing to sign off on additional USDA assistance payments for farmers later this summer. But there’s also a potential worst-case scenario where the agency may need to provide direct farmer aid, which also happened in 2019 during tariff disruption.

Rollins hopes to soon have answers to the rumor that USDA headquarters are being relocated. With more than 106,000 employees across 29 divisions, she says USDA is a “mammoth agency” and alluded that the agency may be better positioned to serve America’s farmers and ranchers in a location closer to the major crop and livestock producing areas of the country.

“Does it make sense for one of the bigger divisions to be in Washington, D.C.? Maybe not,” she says. “So, how do we get the government closer to the people we serve? That is one of the President’s key visions in realigning the entire government and returning the power to the people – by ensuring we have the right governance structure in place, and we’re not strangling the very people we’re trying to help with more regulation and more bureaucrats.”

Rollins also expects some reductions in the USDA workforce could be coming as the Trump administration and the Department Of Government Efficiency (DOGE) set out to “realign USDA around farmers, ranchers, foresters and ag producers first.”

Of course, the issue most farmers have top of mind today, besides low commodity prices and high interest rates, is the ongoing tariff saga.

Rollins says she can’t promise anything on that front yet, but she is confident President Trump’s negotiating chops will be able to finagle the best deal possible. Her USDA onboarding agenda included a deep dive into the global ag economy and tariffs – lessons that have proven rather enlightening for the former D.C. think-tank policy director.

“I’ll tell you what I understand now, and I’ve studied the numbers, the non-tariff barriers and what these other countries have done – not just to all American imports, but specifically to our farmers and our ranchers,” she says. “I’ve heard the President say multiple times just in the last few days how it’s unbelievable what these other countries have gotten away with for decades. And that’s what he’s changing (with tariffs).”

Your Next Read - China Increases Tariffs to 125%: What Ag Exports Will Be Most Impacted

State-Sanctioned Trespass? Ranchers Defend Property and Water Rights

Tue, 18 Mar 2025 21:03:12 GMT

Non-navigable water on private land? No problem for public access. At least in the eyes of government.

Lucia Sanchez’s 80-acre ranch is crossed by a knee-high, non-navigable stream, and for decades, her family could preclude trespass up and down the flow. No more. The public has a right to Lucia Sanchez’s private property—so decrees the state.

“Property rights were once sacred here,” she says. “You always had to ask permission before you went on someone’s land. Now, the government has given people open-ended access to non-navigable streams. I have cattle all around the water and now I deal with the public coming at will and not knowing who they are. If I stop them, I could be the one prosecuted.”

Sanchez, along with other landowners, is fighting back with a lawsuit: “When property rights go,” she warns, “all your other rights eventually go with them.”

Private to Public
An absence of “common sense,” Sanchez contends, has forced her to court. “How many people across our country have non-navigable creeks, ditches, streams, or tributaries on their land? Should those be fully accessible to the public? Of course not.”

Fifth-generation producer Sanchez lives in northern New Mexico’s Rio Arriba County. Along with her brother, Michael, she runs cattle on 80 acres. The siblings work off-farm in public works and law enforcement. “We’re average people with one goal: protect our family legacy,” she says. “We rotate our livestock between here in New Mexico and another piece of family land in New Mexico just below the Colorado border, and like our family before us, we do whatever it takes to stay on the farm.”

“One lawsuit and I’m ruined,” says Lucia Sanchez. “One hothead to cut my fences and shoot my cows and I’m ruined. All these are possibilities in the real world—opposite of the government fantasy.”

(Photo by Michael Sanchez)

With national forest surrounding most of the property, Sanchez’s acreage is a scenic mix of flatland and woodland, split by the Rio Tusas Creek spanning the entire parcel. She has title to the Rio Tusas streambed on her ground.

In 2022, the public gained access to the creek—and by proxy her entire operation—in the name of recreation or fishing, backed by the New Mexico State Game Commission.

Sanctity of private property, Sanchez contends, is gone, replaced by trash and insecurity. “It’s a stream that’s so non-navigable that you can’t even float it. There’s no way to even access it without crossing my fence and my land to get to the water. Despite what the government claims, the public comes across my land to get to the water—and it’s all approved by the state.”

“I can’t even keep a fence up on the water now or I get prosecuted, but if my cattle get out, I’m liable. I want everyone to know: The government doesn’t pay or mitigate liability, but it’s turned my private property into a public park.”

Real World
In 2022, following a lawsuit headed by the Adobe Whitewater Club of New Mexico (along with NM Wildlife Federation and NM Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers) against the New Mexico State Game Commission (NMSGC), the New Mexico Supreme Court gave the public access to private, non-navigable streambeds.

(New Mexico Department of Game and Fish declined Farm Journal interview requests.)

“Where water was navigable, the public always had full rights to cross it or go down it,” says Jeremy Talcott, Sanchez’s attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). “After 2022, the public could access non-navigable spots that were private. Many of these people don’t respect the land and now the landowners deal with people disputing the peace, enjoyment, productive use, or environmental quality of ranching and similar activities. Previously, the landowners could put up signs or wire mesh gates across to prevent trespass. Now they can’t.”

In June 2024, Michael Sanchez sued Raul Torrez, state attorney general; Richard Stump, NMSGC chair; and seven other NMSGC officials.

(Photo by Lucia Sanchez)

For decades prior to the court decision, state government officials supported private property owners. In 1991, NMSGC instructed the public to “obtain permission before fishing on private lands” and stated, “nothing in this proclamation will be construed to authorize entry into or onto any privately owned property, including stream beds, without the landowner’s permission.”
In 1998, NMSGC instructed the public to “obtain permission before entering into or onto private lands, including streambeds.”

In 2015, the New Mexico state legislature again backed private land rights, declaring: “no person engaged in hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, the operation of watercraft or any other recreational use shall walk or wade onto private property through non-navigable public water or access public water via private property…”

Further, NMSGC gave landowners declarative signs to post on private property recognizing “within the landowner’s private property is a segment of a non-navigable public water, whose riverbed or streambed or lakebed is closed to access without written permission from the landowner.”

The Sanchez family lives in northern New Mexico’s Rio Arriba County. They raise cattle and work off-farm in public works and law enforcement.

(Photo by PLF.)

That was then, this is now: Posting those same department-issued signs is a breach of the law. “Anyone and everyone suddenly can come onto privately owned, non-navigable streambeds,” Sanchez says. “You can be armed; you can be a thief; you can be on drugs. If the landowner confronts you, all you do is say, ‘I’m fishing.’”

“And who believes the public will stick strictly to the water? No, sometimes they cut across private acres or wander around,” Sanchez adds. “The landowner has everything to lose. One lawsuit and I’m ruined. One hothead to cut my fences and shoot my cows and I’m ruined. All these are possibilities in the real world—opposite of the government fantasy.”

Fifth Amendment
In June 2024, represented by PLF, Sanchez and her brother, Michael, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court and sued Raul Torrez, state attorney general; Richard Stump, NMSGC chair; and seven other NMSGC officials. Three landowners in San Miguel County who have acreage around the non-navigable Pecos River, also joined in the suit: Erik Briones, Richard Jenkins, and Roland Rivera.

“The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has held that when you change private into public, the Constitution says you must pay just compensation,” says PLF attorney Jeremy Talcott.

(Photo by PLF)

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause, explains PLF attorney Talcott. “There are multiple branches of New Mexico government suddenly changing what has long been private into public. The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has held that when you change private into public, the Constitution says you must pay just compensation.”

However, Sanchez is not seeking compensation, Talcott adds. “We are seeking injunctive relief, where a court tells state agencies they can’t take these enforcement actions. Landowners must have the right to exclude.”

Long Battle
On Jan. 16, 2025, a federal judge dismissed Sanchez’s case, writing: “Absent constitutional amendment or the New Mexico Supreme Court reversing its position, landowners remain powerless to remove members of the public from their streambeds with or without executive enforcement, and therefore, their injury will remain.”

Siblings Lucia and Michael Sanchez. “When property rights go,” Lucia says, “all your other rights eventually go with them.”

(Photo by PLF)

The case likely will move to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Talcott says the issue could land before the U.S. Supreme Court. “These are the same issues we see in other cases whether there’s water or not. How far do public rights extend? The issues in Lucia Sanchez’s case speak to a lot of people. She’s not denying anyone in the public the right to recreate; she is preserving private property rights.”

Sanchez is ready for a long battle. “We’re already at threat to fires because the government refuses to thin the forest. Now, the water is a danger too because the state will penalize and prosecute us because we try to protect our land and herds from people sometimes cutting fences, dumping trash, and tearing up the terrain on UTVs and ATVs, all while they talk about nature and the environment.”

“The loss of private property rights can happen to anyone in this country,” Sanchez concludes. “Your rights are also under threat. I’m not afraid of this fight and to keep my mouth shut would be a travesty. I will not stay silent.”

For more from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106), see:
Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told

Cottonmouth Farmer: The Insane Tale of a Buck-Wild Scheme to Corner the Snake Venom Market

EPA To Address ‘Government Overreach’ on Defining WOTUS

Thu, 13 Mar 2025 19:12:03 GMT

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced on Wednesday the agency will undertake 31 historic actions “to advance President Trump’s day one executive orders and power the great American comeback.”

Among the announcements, Zeldin said EPA will work with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to deliver on President Donald Trump’s promise to review the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS).

“The agencies will move quickly to ensure that a revised definition follows the law, reduces red tape, cuts overall permitting costs, and lowers the cost of doing business in communities across the country while protecting the nation’s navigable waters from pollution,” Zeldin said in a prepared statement.

“Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, it is time for EPA to finally address this issue once and for all in a way that provides American farmers, landowners, businesses, and states with clear and simplified direction,” he added.

Zeldin’s announcement was an important step forward in correcting what the Supreme Court had ruled in 2023 as EPA’s overreach in defining WOTUS. At the time, the agency had charged ahead ignoring concerns raised by the Supreme Court, 26 states, and farmers and ranchers across the country, according to American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) President Zippy Duvall.

“The Supreme Court clearly ruled, almost two years ago, that the government overreached in its interpretation of what waters fell under federal jurisdiction, but inaction and vague implementation guidelines by EPA led to permitting delays, litigation and uncertainty,” Duvall said in a prepared statement on Wednesday.

Listening Sessions Are Being Scheduled By EPA
Mary-Thomas Hart, chief counsel for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory on Thursday the Supreme Court had ruled EPA’s overreach on WOTUS in 2023 amounted to a violation of a landowners’ constitutional rights.

“Because there are criminal liabilities that attach to violation of the Clean Water Act, a landowner has to be able to know when they look at their land or when they look at a water feature, what is or isn’t WOTUS,” Hart said.

A priority for the Trump Administration moving forward will be working cooperatively with state partners, empowering them and local officials to protect water bodies while accelerating economic opportunity. As a result, “decisions will be made efficiently and effectively while benefiting from local knowledge and expertise,” EPA’s Zeldin said.

To inform those decisions, EPA has issued a request for information from stakeholders about how they’re impacted by WOTUS and will host a series of listening sessions from late March through April 2025, according to information on the agency’s website.

EPA will hold at least six listening sessions, with two open to all stakeholders, one open to States, one open to Tribes, one open to industry and agricultural stakeholders, and one open to environmental and conservational stakeholders.

The agency said registration instructions and dates will be forthcoming at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/wotus/public-outreach-and-stakeholder-engagement-activities.

Persons or organizations wishing to provide verbal recommendations during the listening sessions will be selected on a first-come, first-serve basis. Due to the expected number of participants, EPA said individuals will be asked to limit their spoken presentation to three minutes. Once the speaking slots are filled, participants may be placed on a standby list to speak or continue to register to listen to the recommendations.

Listen to the AgriTalk discussion on WOTUS with NCBA’s Mary-Thomas Hart here:

RFK Jr. and Zeldin Comment on How They Would Implement Trump Policy

Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:46:07 GMT

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s confirmation hearing for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Wednesday (Jan. 29) before the Senate Finance Committee lasted over three hours, revealing key points:

Vaccine stance: Kennedy attempted to soften his past anti-vaccine rhetoric, stating support for vaccines but struggling to explain previous controversial statements.
Health policy priorities: He emphasized addressing chronic diseases, promoting safe food, removing conflicts of interest in health agencies, and using “gold-standard science.” Kennedy said that federal dollars spent on SNAP and school lunch programs could be one place to start, “helping kids” avoid obesity and chronic illness by cutting out sugary drinks and “ultra-processed foods.” He would also fund federal research into the link between food additives and chronic illnesses, though he didn’t specify which ingredients sparked the most concern. “I don’t want to take food away from anybody,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy emphasized his support for American farmers, stating:
- “American farms are the bedrock of our culture, of our politics, [and] of our national security.”
- He was a “4-H kid” and spent summers working on ranches.
- He wants to work with farmers and food producers to remove burdensome regulations and unleash American ingenuity.
Agricultural practices and health. Kennedy expressed concerns about current agricultural practices:
- He criticized the use of certain chemicals in farming, stating they destroy soil microbiomes and cause erosion.
- He linked chemical-intensive agriculture to health problems, mentioning clusters of cancers, autoimmune diseases, and obesity in farming communities.
- He called for incentivizing transitions to regenerative agriculture and less chemically intensive practices.Kennedy told Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) that farmers are affected by cancers and autoimmune illnesses that he believes are caused by ingredients like food dyes. “We need to fix our food supply,” Kennedy said, noting that “seeds and chemicals” used by U.S. farmers are “destroying our soil” in the long term. When asked about Kennedy’s “seeds and chemicals” comment, Grassley told Politico: “I’ll have someone from Iowa State University talk to him.”
Collaboration with USDA. Kennedy emphasized his intention to work closely with the Department of Agriculture:
- He stated that MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) “simply cannot succeed without a partnership a full Partnership of American farmers.”
- He committed to working collaboratively with USDA and other federal agencies before implementing policies affecting food supplies.
- Kennedy mentioned that President Trump instructed him to work with Brooke Rollins at USDA to ensure policies support farmers. Rollins told reporters last week that she was supportive of Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement. “But what is important and, if confirmed, what my role will be, will be to strike a balance between defending our farmers and our ranchers but also working with Bobby Kennedy, who I adore, to effectuate the president’s vision on all of the above,” Rollins said
Regulatory approach. Kennedy outlined his approach to agricultural regulations:
- He promised to work with farmers to remove burdensome regulations.
- Kennedy acknowledged the “very thin margins” farmers operate on and stated he doesn’t want any farmer to leave their farm for economic or regulatory reasons.
- He agreed that agricultural practice regulations should primarily be left to USDA and EPA.
- “I expect you to leave agricultural practice and regulation to the proper agencies,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told Kennedy. That means, for the most part, leaving policies that impact farmers to USDA and EPA, Grassley clarified.
Future of agriculture. Kennedy shared his vision for the future of American agriculture:
- He called for fixing the food supply as a top priority. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told Kennedy that he was happy the nominee addressed the “social media rumors” about agriculture.
- “You made it very very clear you’re not going to tell Americans what to eat, but you do want Americans to know what they’re eating,” Lankford said, calling that a “pretty fair perspective” on food policy.
- Kennedy advocated for supporting the transition to regenerative and sustainable farming practices.
- He mentioned plans to rewrite regulations to give smaller operators “a break.”
- Throughout the hearing, Kennedy attempted to position himself as an ally to farmers while also advocating for changes in agricultural practices to address health and environmental concerns.
Controversial past: Democrats challenged his history of health misinformation and grasp of Medicare and Medicaid.
Republican support: Some GOP senators backed Kennedy, with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) calling him “awesome,” though the final vote remains uncertain.
Financial concerns: His financial ties to lawsuits against Merck raised conflict-of-interest questions.
Abortion stance: Kennedy sidestepped direct answers but aligned with Trump’s anti-abortion policies, shifting from his previous pro-choice stance.

Bottom line: With strong opposition and divided support, Kennedy’s confirmation vote is expected to be closely contested. Today he attends another confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The Senate Finance Committee expects to hold its RFK Jr. vote next week.

Zeldin Confirmed as EPA Administrator

On Wednesday (Jan. 29), the Republican-led Senate confirmed former Congressman Lee Zeldin as the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a 56-42 vote. A staunch Trump ally, Zeldin is expected to steer the agency in alignment with the former president’s environmental policies.

Vote breakdown: All 53 Republicans backed Zeldin, joined by three Democrats — Sens. Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), and John Fetterman (Pa.).
Policy direction: Zeldin is expected to roll back environmental regulations, emphasizing economic growth and private-sector collaboration.
Biofuel policy. Zeldin has raised concerns among ethanol and biofuel advocates due to his past opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and ethanol. However, during his confirmation process, Zeldin made some commitments that suggest a potential shift in his stance. As a congressman, Zeldin had a history of opposing biofuels and the RFS. He signed letters expressing concern about proposed RFS volume increases, citing issues with the “E10 blend wall.” In 2017, Zeldin cosponsored an unsuccessful bill to repeal the RFS. He raised concerns about the validity and practicality of higher ethanol blends like E15 and E85. But during his confirmation process, Zeldin made several statements that indicate a potential change in his approach:
- He committed to giving producers and the industry certainty in the marketplace regarding Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs).
- Zeldin acknowledged the importance of the RFS issue to President Trump and certain senators.
- He stated that no person or industry has any special influence over his decision-making, addressing concerns about his past connections to the oil industry.
Biofuel industry representatives have expressed cautious optimism:
- The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) looks forward to working with Zeldin on keeping the RFS on track and addressing other priorities like E15 availability.
- The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA) encouraged Zeldin to pursue the role biofuels can play in U.S. energy dominance.
- The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) appreciated Zeldin’s commitments to follow the law regarding RVO rulemakings and supporting year-round E15 nationwide.

Of note: While Zeldin’s past positions raised initial concerns, his recent statements during the confirmation process suggest he may be open to working with the biofuels industry in his new role as EPA Administrator.

Climate stance: Critics warn his leadership could weaken climate initiatives, favoring fossil fuel interests.
Reactions: Republicans praise his “common-sense regulation” approach, while environmental groups call his confirmation a serious setback for public health and environmental justice.

Bottom line. As Zeldin assumes leadership, his tenure is likely to reshape the EPA’s role in U.S. environmental policy for years to come.

Cassidy Casts Doubt on RFK Jr.’s HHS Nomination

Senate HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.) delivered a blunt message to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during Thursday’s hearing, signaling serious concerns about his nomination for Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary.

“I’ve been struggling with your nomination,” Cassidy stated in his closing remarks, a potential roadblock for Kennedy, given Cassidy’s influential position on the Senate Finance Committee. If Cassidy votes against Kennedy in the panel’s decision, the nomination may not advance.

The Louisiana senator expressed deep skepticism about Kennedy’s stance on vaccines, questioning whether he could be trusted to uphold sound public health policy. Cassidy specifically criticized Kennedy’s history of vaccine skepticism, warning that such views could erode trust in essential immunizations.

“A worthy movement, called MAHA, to improve the health of Americans?” Cassidy asked. “Or will it undermine it, always asking for more evidence and never accepting the evidence that is there?”

He also recounted a recent case of two children dying in a Baton Rouge ICU from vaccine-preventable diseases. “My concern is that if there’s any false note, any undermining of a mama’s trust in vaccines, another person will die from a vaccine-preventable disease,” Cassidy warned.

Beyond his own reservations, Cassidy’s remarks signal broader challenges for Kennedy’s nomination. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a childhood polio survivor, is unlikely to back a nominee with anti-vaccine ties. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also remain key votes to watch, with both urging Kennedy to support vaccinations.

Cassidy, up for re-election in 2026, has already drawn a Trump-aligned challenger, State Treasurer John Fleming. Though Cassidy emphasized his desire for Trump’s policies to succeed, he warned that anti-vaccine rhetoric could tarnish Trump’s legacy.

“I want President Trump’s policies to succeed,” Cassidy said. “But if there’s someone that is not vaccinated because of policies, of attitudes we bring to the department, and there’s another 18-year-old who dies of a vaccine-preventable disease… The greatest tragedy will be her death. I can also tell you an associated tragedy will be that it will cast a shadow over President Trump’s legacy, which I want to be the absolute best legacy.”

Bottom line: With Cassidy’s support in doubt and broader Senate skepticism, Kennedy’s path to confirmation remains steep.

FDA Proposes New Front-of-Package Food Labeling to Help Consumers Make Healthier Food Choices

Tue, 14 Jan 2025 20:09:35 GMT

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed a new front-of-package (FOP) labeling rule aimed at helping consumers make healthier food choices quickly and easily. This “Nutrition Info box,” a black-and-white design, will display levels of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars, categorized as “Low,” “Med,” or “High,” along with the percent Daily Value for each nutrient.

Based on extensive research involving nearly 10,000 U.S. adults, this initiative seeks to complement the existing Nutrition Facts label and simplify decision-making for shoppers. If finalized, large manufacturers would have three years to comply, while smaller businesses (less than $10 million in annual food sales) would have four.

Example of Proposed Info Box

(FDA )

The FDA anticipates this measure will empower consumers, encourage healthier product formulations, and contribute to reducing chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.

“For example, when comparing yogurt, the Nutrition Info box could help them identify a yogurt that is lower in added sugars,” said FDA in a statement.

Public comments on the proposal are open until May 16, 2025.

This new label is designed to complement the existing Nutrition Facts label found on the back of food packages, providing a more accessible and quick-reference guide for consumers.

FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D., emphasized the importance of this proposal, stating, “It is time we make it easier for consumers to glance, grab and go. Adding front-of-package nutrition labeling to most packaged foods would do that.”

FDA also says that by displaying simplified, at-a-glance, nutrition information that details and interprets the saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar content of a food as “Low,” “Med,” or “High” on the front of food packages would provide consumers with an accessible description of the numerical information found in the Nutrition Facts label.

What are other examples of what the nutrition info boxes could look like? FDA provided the examples below.

Examples of nutrition box info.

(FDA)

President-elect Trump Names Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Head Of Department of Health and Human Services

Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:40:21 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Politico was the first to report the development ( link ).

On X, Trump posted:

I am thrilled to announce Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as The United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it…
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 14, 2024

Kennedy, a former presidential candidate and well-known anti-vaccine activist, dropped his own presidential bid to endorse Trump. During his victory speech, Trump promised to let Kennedy “go wild” with health and food policy in his administration, stating, “He’s going to help make America healthy again... He wants to do some things, and we’re going to let him get to it.”

Kennedy will likely face a tough confirmation battle as he would take over a department with an annual budget that tops $1.7 trillion, more than 80,000 employees and 13 operating divisions, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Most of its spending goes to Medicare and Medicaid.

This nomination may face significant challenges:

Public health concerns: Kennedy’s appointment would likely roil many public health experts due to his history of promoting debunked claims about vaccines, particularly the discredited notion that vaccines cause autism.
Senate confirmation: If nominated, Kennedy would need to go through Senate confirmation hearings, which could prove challenging. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would likely scrutinize his stance on vaccines and other controversial health-related views.
Political divide: Some Republican senators, including moderates like Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), may be hesitant to support Kennedy’s nomination. However, others, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), have expressed strong support for Kennedy playing a key role in the Trump administration.

In a social media post, Trump said: “For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health.”

This development marks a significant move for Donald Trump, indicating a willingness to appoint controversial figures to high-ranking positions in his administration. Kennedy’s nomination suggests a potential upheaval in public health policy, with sweeping proposed changes that reflect his long-standing criticisms of the medical and regulatory establishment. As a vocal skeptic of vaccines and an advocate for revisiting food and drug regulations, Kennedy’s policies could reshape key areas within the health sector, from nutrition oversight to vaccine safety and approval processes.

Kennedy has argued that unhealthy food, medicines and water have fueled the rise of chronic disease in America, and that government regulators have been corrupted by corporate influence.

His previous environmental activism and complex relationship with both Trump and the political establishment present a dynamic narrative, with his past criticisms of U.S. public health responses coming under intense scrutiny. His track record and vocal stances, including doubts on vaccine safety and opposition to fluoride use, have drawn strong reactions from public health experts, many of whom view his potential influence with concern.

Kennedy has outlined several controversial positions on agricultural topics. He’s been strongly critical of modern industrial agriculture, arguing that current practices are damaging to human health, soil, and water resources. He claims that existing farm policies have led to:

Overuse of chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides
Concentrated monocropping and feedlots
Production of “commodities” rather than healthy food
Destruction of soil health

Kennedy advocates for a major shift towards regenerative and organic farming practices. Key aspects include:

Encouraging sustainable farming methods that build soil health
Replenishing aquifers and improving water management
Moving away from chemical-intensive agriculture
Supporting smaller family farms over large industrial operations

Kennedy has stated he wants to “reverse 80 years of farm policy” in the U.S. This includes:

Shifting agricultural subsidies away from commodity crops
Providing incentives for regenerative and organic practices
Giving farmers an “off-ramp” from the current system
Stricter Regulation of Agricultural Chemicals

A major focus for Kennedy is reducing or eliminating the use of certain pesticides, herbicides, and other agricultural chemicals. He has proposed:

Banning agricultural chemicals prohibited in other countries
Conducting more research on health impacts of farm chemicals
Using federal agencies to “squeeze” pesticides and herbicides out of farming

Changes to dietary guidelines and food programs. Kennedy argues that corporate interests have too much influence over U.S. dietary guidelines and food programs. He wants to:

Remove “conflicts of interest” from dietary guideline panels
Reduce ultra-processed foods in federal nutrition programs
Get processed foods out of school lunch programs
Promote “clean foods” and natural unprocessed options

Some of Kennedy’s positions on food and health issues are considered fringe or not scientifically supported. These include:

Claims that certain common food ingredients are “poison”
Advocacy for raw milk despite safety concerns
Support for psychedelic treatments and dietary supplements
Belief that seed oils are responsible for rising obesity rates

Of note: Sources wonder if RFK Jr.’s selection will impact Trump’s choice for USDA secretary

USDA Aims to Boost Fair Competition and Lower Food Prices, Targeting Seed and Meat Industries

Tue, 08 Oct 2024 15:08:35 GMT

USDA announced several initiatives to promote fair competition in American agriculture and reduce food prices for consumers Tuesday morning, in line with President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American economy.

Seed competition framework. USDA introduced a three-part strategy to enhance seed system diversity, competition, and resilience:
• Improving patent-related disclosure for seeds to clarify research opportunities.
• Providing guidance to USDA researchers on using protected germplasm.
• Encouraging the sharing of federally funded germplasm for research and plant breeding.

Meat Retail Industry Report

USDA published an interim report assessing competitive conditions in the meat retail industry, focusing on beef markets as a case study. The report identifies:
• Increasing market concentration among top packers, distributors, and retailers.
• Concerns from farmers and small to midsize processors about problematic practices by intermediaries.

Cattle Price Discovery Initiative

USDA announced steps to enhance price discovery and fairness in cattle markets through an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). This initiative aims to:
• Improve the base prices in fed cattle purchasing agreements.
• Address concerns about the negative effects of Alternative Marketing Agreements (AMAs) on the spot market.

Impact and Next Steps

These actions are part of the Biden/Harris administration’s efforts to:
• Open new markets for farmers
• Provide more competitive choices
• Lower food costs for consumers
• Support small businesses and family farms

USDA said it will continue its investigative study, including through subpoenas, and seek public input on potential next steps to ensure fair competition in the agricultural sector. Additionally, in the upcoming months, USDA will issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking public input around how best to address practices used in meat merchandising that may violate the Packers and Stockyards Act.

How The Deep State Tried, And Failed, To Crush An American Farmer

Thu, 12 Sep 2024 15:40:16 GMT

Under the nose of U.S. marshals and FBI agents, Wayne Cryts stole 32,000 bushels of his own soybeans, and then faced the wrath of a judiciary hellbent on his imprisonment. Staring at 20 years behind bars, Cryts was acquitted by three separate juries.

“It’s called lawfare,” he says, “but there was always one thing the government didn’t understand. When they took everything I had, there was nothing left for me to lose.”

Judas farmers, kangaroo courts, bucket brigades, gun grabs, crooked politicians, sacks of cash, crazy Cubans, tractorcades, and The Dukes of Hazzard: Welcome to the saga of Wayne Cryts, the farmer who charged hell with ice water.

An Old Flame

In 1946, a stone’s throw north of the Missouri Bootheel in Stoddard County, Cryts was born to corn and cotton 12 miles west of Crowley’s Ridge. The fourth-generation, teen-aged Missouri grower fell to the charms of Sandy Hyten, and the pair wed in 1964, living in a bare-bones, tin-roof shack, grateful for a crude outhouse and a kitchen sink with no drain.

A decade later, pennies pinched and dollars stretched, on winding gravel outside the tiny town of Puxico, the couple built a small, ranch-style house—the home where they remain today. Simple. Private.

Wayne and Sandy Cryts, Puxico, Missouri.

(Photo by Chris Bennett)

By the late 1970s, Cryts worked roughly 2,700 dryland acres (1,400 owned) of corn, milo, and soybeans. He stored a portion of the grain roughly 45 miles southeast in New Madrid County at the Ristine Elevator.

“Ristine. Ristine. Ristine,” Cryts, 78, slowly repeats, as if conjuring the name of an old flame. His words slide out in the crawl of a heavy drawl—a sonorous voice registered between backwoods and Southern. “If Ristine hadn’t happened, you’d have never heard of me.”

Lizards and Levi’s

Farm country was on the boil in the late 1970s. A deep market rut and high interest rates pushed many farmers toward a dire fork—pathetic commodity prices to the left and foreclosure to the right.

In 1977, five farmers in Campo, Colo., seeded the American Agriculture Movement ( AAM ), sparking an explosion of grassroots meetings across the U.S. with participation from 1.5 million producers. AAM’s dual pillars rested on a call for parity (a crop price to cover production costs and enable a survivable living) and country of origin (COOL) changes.

Epic 5,000 tractor army on the streets of Washington, D.C., in 1979.

(Photo courtesy of Oklahoma Historical Society)

Cryts heard the AAM gospel and caught the fire. He stood in the conversation pit at scores of meetings, rallied the faithful, and joined tractor caravan protests. “I was the guy that took no interest in anything beyond my own rows, but I finally woke up to the trouble all farmers were in.” (Cryts drove in the epic AAM 5,000-tractor army to Washington, D.C. and was part of the McAllen Bridge war in Texas.)

“Wayne was a workaholic and never took off for nothing, but he took to AAM naturally,” Sandy echoes. “One day he wasn’t a coffee shop farmer; then suddenly he was.”

In 1979, as Cryts felt populism’s pull, he averaged 35 bushel-per-acre soybeans, and held back part of the crop, hoping to catch a market wave. He deposited 32,331 bushels in three 1950s vaulted Quonset huts at the 23-acre Ristine Elevator facility—owned by the James Brothers Co. of Corning, Ark. The price for storage? One-twelfth of a penny per bushel per day.

Cryts was the single largest holder of soybeans at Ristine. He had a Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) loan on the soybeans at $4.54 per bushel; $146,778. The December 1979 market price was $10.86; $351,103.80.

“I was holding tight,” he recalls. “Beans had climbed over $10 per bushel and I was looking to nail that crest. Interest rates were at 18% and I needed every penny from those beans. They were my family’s future.”

In August 1980, with his present year’s soybeans burning in the rows due to severe drought and his previous year’s soybeans still in the Ristine bin, Cryts hit the Big Apple. Alongside Texas producer David Senter (future AAM director) and Nebraska producer Corky Jones, Cryts hauled a Ford tractor to New Jersey, hopped into the open-cab seat, and drove across the George Washington Bridge to crash the Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden. “I was a yellow dog Dem,” he recalls, wearing a wide grin. “I couldn’t be more opposite now, but things were sure as hell different then.”

Loosed on the streets of NYC, Cryts was transformed into a 5’ 10” concrete cowboy, and the sight of a Missouri farmer atop a tractor decked in AAM flags rolling down cosmopolitan streets was a genuine spectacle. “We went through Harlem and the south Bronx and got stopped under an overpass surrounded by hookers and homeless,” he describes. “I honestly don’t think they’d seen anything like us in their lives. The police sent a vice squad over to make the hookers leave us alone.”

Tractorcade snakes along the highway to D.C. in 1979.

(Photo courtesy of Oklahoma Historical Society)

Rumbling down the final stretch of Seventh Avenue wearing a jean jacket, high-rise AAM trucker hat, ever-present Levi’s, and a Case knife on his hip, Cryts pulled directly in front of Madison Square Garden, turned off the engine, and stepped onto the sidewalk in lizard-skin Justin boots, surrounded by a circus of activity: suits-and-ties hollering in thick NYC accents; environmental protestors in sandwich boards alarmed over acid rain, purple-haired gay rights activists, and a host of characters screaming for peace in the Middle East.

Cryts split the throng and beelined to a payphone to assure his wife of a safe arrival. Standing in a booth outside the Garden, over 1,000 miles from Bootheel dirt, Cryts heard words that changed his life when Sandy picked up the horn: “Wayne, the Ristine Elevator went bankrupt.”

Flash to bang, Cryts was hurtling toward history.

A Bureaucrat Scorned

James Brothers Co. (Corning, Ark.) had pledged 11 grain facilities in Arkansas and Missouri against a $3 million loan from the First Tennessee Bank of Memphis. The bank called the loan; James Brothers nosedived.

A federal bankruptcy judge in Little Rock, Charles Baker (born and raised in Missouri), stepped into the fray, and took control of the elevators, including Ristine. Baker determined that stored grain was an asset of James Brothers to be sold free and clear of liens to pay off elevator debts.

“I was supposed sit back, be quiet, risk getting pennies on the dollar, and like it,” Cryts says.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

Concern creeping, Cryts dialed Tom Hopkins, director of the Division of Grain Inspection and Warehousing at the Missouri Department of Agriculture. “The James Brothers told the Ristine manager to ‘take a vacation’ because he wouldn’t let them sneak out the stored grain,” Cryts explains. “The manager blew the whistle to Tom, who put padlocks on the elevator. Tom assured me all the grain was accounted for and that I’d have access in a month after the red tape was cut.”

“Ristine was the same old story,” Cryts continues. “Bankruptcy comes in; lawyers appear who play a game of receipts; a trustee is appointed who is paid by percent and drags it out five years; judges lord over the whole business; and farmers eat a crap sandwich. It’s called a gravy train and everyone gets a seat, except the farmer.”

Cryts and family in 1981. Photo courtesy of Wayne Cryts

(Photo courtesy of Wayne Cryts)

“I knew how these bankruptcies worked,” Cryts adds. “The elevator’s bills get paid, with farmers last in line. Then they tell everyone farmers got paid 100%. Hell yes, farmers sure do get paid 100%, but only of whatever was left in the pool at the end. From 1974 to 1982, there was something close to 140 elevators in 20-plus states that went under. Most of those farmers got 5 cents to 59 cents on the dollar. In my case, I was supposed sit back, be quiet, risk getting pennies on the dollar, and like it.”

Days later, eating breakfast over television with Sandy, Cryts watched a reporter announce the reopening of the Ristine Elevator the following day at 8 a.m. Was his grain was about to pour out of Ristine?

Cryts called New Madrid producer N.J. Howell, the second largest holder of soybeans at Ristine—25,000 bushels and delivered the news. “Wayne, what should we do?” responded Howell.

At sunrise, starting in nearby Kewanee, Cryts hooked a disk to a 1586 International, and drove to Ristine with Howell (also on a tractor and disk). They parked and unfolded on opposite ends of the elevator scales. No grain in; no grain out.

“I had to keep the grain from getting away,” Cryts says. “As long as the beans were in the bin, I had a chance. Once they were turned into money, it was all over because I sure wasn’t going to rob a bank.”

Two-hundred and fifty miles southwest, Judge Baker was taking notes. Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.

The Great Soybean War

A monumental showdown brewed, pitting farmer against government, and state against federal authority, all over who owned a Bootheel bean crop.

Baker ordered federal seizure of the Ristine Elevator. Arriving in sedans, decked in suits and badges, U.S. marshals, led by George Welch, set up shop at Ristine on Sept. 16, establishing a control center inside the elevator office.

Cryts held tight to his warehouse receipts. “The grain was not leaving. I would go to court and prove my case, but I would not let them take my beans.”

After marshals put additional padlocks on the elevators, Cryts and his fellow farmers responded with their own padlocks, resulting in ludicrous soybean security: three separate sets of locks on the bins.

Cryts and company kept eyeballs on the elevator. All day, all night. “We slept in the parking lot, or on cots inside the office, watching every minute over the grain. We knew there was grain moving out of other elevators involved in the bankruptcy, like in Piggott, Arkansas, and we made sure Ristine didn’t follow.”

“The marshals were highly sympathetic to us and were just doing their job,” Cryts notes. “We agreed to move our machinery, with assurance that grain could go in, but not out. But guess how many farmers delivered grain? None. Who in the hell would risk delivery to such a place? In fact, the trustee, Robert Lindsey, sued 20 farmers for failure to deliver grain. You couldn’t make up how crazy it was getting.”

Cryts’ phone rang off the hook with producers providing advice and warnings about nightmare experiences in elevator crashes. As media picked up the story, support swelled for Cryts across farm country.

Homer repeat: Homer Evans of Puxico, Mo., and Homer Evans of Ulysses, Kan., helped organize the Ristine coup.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

Support also flowed from the governor’s office: Judge Baker’s claims of federal authority ruffled feathers in Jefferson City. Backing Cryts, Missouri Gov. Joseph Teasdale and Secretary of Agriculture Jack Runyan declared Ristine within their state jurisdiction. Teasdale obtained a temporary injunction in the Missouri Circuit Court of New Madrid County, along with an order to use force if necessary to control Ristine.

However, when Baker called the bluff, firing back with contempt of court charges and the potential arrest of Teasdale, the governor washed his hands of Cryts. The constitutional jam ended with a whimper. Teasdale and the Missouri Department of Agriculture walked away, leaving Cryts, 35 years young, holding the bag.

“It was a gut punch when Teasdale backed off,” Cryts recalls. “Suddenly, there was nothing standing between me and the federal government.”

The Great Soybean War was on: Farmer versus feds.

Damn Farmer

Refusing to close a pocketknife he didn’t open, Cryts attended a drumbeat of hearings, stretched across months, over grain ownership in Little Rock, all while overseeing a 24-7 vigil at Ristine. The steady drip of courthouse trips was maddening for Cryts: He listened as sticky-fingered attorneys argued over his soybeans.

Cryts holds a sample jar of his “liberated” beans from Ristine.

(Photo by Chris Bennett)

“That’s how they bleed a man,” he says. “We had to be at each hearing so we didn’t lose our claim. I’m talking about endless court dates and postponements and gavels and collection of bills, only for Judge Baker to deny, deny, deny.”

“The fix was in and everyone knew it,” Cryts contends. “The notorious Rose Law Firm was involved and it’s no coincidence that Baker was hired by the Rose Law Firm shortly after my case. Baker called me a ‘damn farmer’ behind closed doors. I don’t know where his personal hate came from, but it was very real.”

In January 1981, the month of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Cryts caught advice from a Minnesota farmer, urging Cryts to ask freshly arrived USDA staff to pay the difference between market price and loan, an out used in several prior elevator crashes. Alongside Missouri Rep. Bill Burlison, Cryts flew to Washington, D.C., and met with two newly appointed USDA undersecretaries: An agreement was reached. Finally, relief.

Cryts had full support from Sandy: Return with your shield or on it.

(Photo by Chris Bennett)

“All of a sudden, this career USDA bureaucrat, Arnold Grunden, walks in the room,” Cryts recalls. “He was an unelected lifer, in position regardless of who was president. He said, ‘No. I’m legal counsel here and we’re not doing it.’ Congressman Burlison smacked both hands down on the table in disgust, but it was over. That was a moment I understood the second, third, and fourth layer of bureaucrats. That was a moment I understood who controlled government. I flew back to Missouri—emptyhanded.”

The time was nearing for Cryts to steal his own grain—and he didn’t care if it harelipped the judge.

No More Talk

No secrets. Cryts announced his intention to raid Ristine. On Jan. 15, 1981, an American farmer proclaimed open defiance of the federal judiciary.

In a conference room at the Ramada Inn in Sikeston, assisted by KSIM’s radio man Bill Anderson, Cryts held a press conference with flash bulbs galore: newspaper and television reporters from Memphis, St. Louis, Jonesboro, and more. Additionally, the FBI and U.S. Marshals attended, along with a large contingent of AAM farmers.

AAM’s five founding fathers with Wayne Cryts on Ristine coup eve. L-R: Jerry Wright, Derral Schroder, Lynn Bitter, Gene Schroder, Wayne Cryts, and Alvin Jenkins.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

Cryts promised he would remove his grain from Ristine on Feb. 16, George Washington’s birthday, at 10 a.m. on a Monday. “I told them there was going to be no sneaking or hiding. I was going right through the front door to get my beans before I financially bled to death. Shoot me, beat me, lock me up—it’s happening.”

Cryts had the full support of his wife, Sandy: Return with your shield or on it.

“Everyone in farming knew Wayne was going to Ristine to get our grain or get arrested. He had given his word and he would back up his word,” Sandy says. “Talking was over.”

Pillow of Doubt

Ristine’s fuse burned shorter by the day. Against a backdrop of barrel-roof bins, the 23 acres of elevator grounds were packed with federal marshals, FBI agents, Judas farmers—government moles dressed in in ill-fitting overalls and trucker hats, Pinkerton Detectives, Missouri state troopers, television reporters, newspaper writers, Cryts’ contingent of Bootheelers, and a steadily increasing flow of farmers from across the nation.

Federal marshals wait to serve Cryts with papers at Ristine.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

Twenty-plus state flags, each representing a block of on-site farmer support, along with countless AAM slogans, signs, and banners, adorned the elevator. And still they came.

“As we got closer to Feb. 16, there was about 3,000 farmers piled in, including a few fake farmer plants working for the feds who tried to blend in the crowd,” Cryts says. “The pressure was building on me because I had no clue what might happen. There was going to be no violence on my part, but that grain was coming out.”

The night of Feb. 15, Cryts held a rally and called for calm. “Farmers were talking rough. Hell, everybody back then had a shotgun and rifle in their back window. And all the government officers certainly were armed. But I declared there would be no violence no matter what on our part, and I told the marshals that if anyone in our farmer group acted out, then they should be arrested accordingly.”

Sidestepping potential congestion, Cryts’ farmer army parked 70 trucks on the gravel shoulder beside Ristine, with an additional 10 trucks parked at the Ramada Inn in Sikeston. Inside one of the trucks, in case of emergency, were stacks of 5-gallon pails—enough to arm a bucket brigade. If by no other means, Cryts was ready to hand-scoop 32,331 bushels of soybeans.

As Sunday, Feb. 15 wrapped, Cryts laid his head on a pillow of doubt. The swirling dynamic was bizarre. Farmers watched the grain; marshals watched the farmers; news media watched the marshals; and Judge Baker watched them all.

The Dukes of Hazzard

Cryts woke to a deep-holler fog. Wrapped in a peculiarly heavy, early-morning mist blanketing the level land around Sikeston, Cryts took a phone call from a constitutional lawyer with a last-minute legal pointer. Cryts scratched down the incoming advice on a napkin and stuffed the paper in a front pocket. He walked toward a white Ford bob-truck, and ushered his daughter, Paula, into the cab, alongside Sandy. His son, Terry, climbed into the bed, and stood at the ready beside a dozen Bootheel farmers. Fifteen miles from hotel to elevator.

Flanked by Alvin Jenkins, Cryts walks the federal gauntlet at Ristine.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

At Ristine, Cryts approached Ristine like Bootheel Moses, fronting a bewildering cavalcade of several thousand farmers driving pickups, bob trucks, and 10-wheelers, caboosed by an elderly Oklahoma farmer pushing a wheelbarrow mounted with Old Glory.

At 9:50 a.m., Cryts waited in his cab, nervously chewing over the final 10 minutes. In all the details and rabbit trails of preparation, he had made a glaring omission. A thick logging chain ran across the driveway—a simple, but effective deterrent. Into the gap stepped Herman Linville, a Hatfield & McCoy type farmer from Stoddard County, cloaked in a long-hanging Levi’s jacket atop bib overalls. Often mistaken for Cryts’ shadow, Linville had stood with Cryts during the McAllen Bridge melee. Wielding heavy-duty bolt-cutters, Linville waltzed in plain view of authorities and dropped the chain.

At 10 a.m. on the dial, Cryts exited his truck and walked up to big and tall Howard Safir, the U.S. marshal lead. Safir produced a court order and read aloud, forbidding Cryts from grain removal. Cryts stood his ground, fumbled in his pocket, pulled out the breakfast napkin, and responded in kind, toe to toe: Your court order was written under equity law. I am a sovereign individual and a citizen of the State of Missouri operating under common low; therefore, your court order has no weight of law against me, nor does it have jurisdiction over me.

Safir handed Cryts the court order, and in a surreal, impromptu diplomatic response, Cryts presented Safir with the napkin. Cryts then proceeded down the line and shook hands with each marshal, before climbing back in the cab, putting the Ford in granny low, and easing forward, unsure if the marshals and agents would pull sidearms.

“I had no backup plan in that moment,” Cryts admits. “If they’d have refused to move, I wasn’t going to run anybody over. Maybe we would have cranked up the bucket brigade—by any peaceful means necessary.”

Cryts reads his napkin declaration to federal marshals.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

As Cryts rolled forward, Safir and his subordinates parted. Cryts pulled onto the scales and an open-air heist began, with Homer Evans, a Bunge elevator manager and farmer from Ulysses, Kan., and Corky Jones, an elevator operator and farmer from Brownsville, Neb., handling the scales, running a probe, and sampling for trash.

The grain removal centered on three of Ristine’s five Quonset huts: Peel off a sheet metal section with a railroad pinch bar, drop in a vacuum pipe, and fill each vehicle. By 5:30 p.m., with 50-plus trucks loaded, Cryts shuttered the operation until the next day, and returned to his Sikeston motel room. (The infamous pinch bar, dubbed the “Ristine Key,” was auctioned by AAM members and sold for $4,000 to a group of Texas farmers.)

A heist in motion at Ristine.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

The following morning, Cryts proceeded at Ristine. At 1:30 p.m., with loading completed, the FBI, commanded by Glenn Young, requested a final meeting with Cryts in the elevator office.

“They told me I was going to get people killed, get people arrested, get people in trouble, and it’d all be my fault,” Cryts says. “Glenn Young was playing the good cop, with his arm around me, gently telling me to stop for the good of my family, and that if I’d leave today, no arrests would be made.”

Tin peeled via the “Ristine Key” before bean removal.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

Leaning in close, Young delivered an ultimatum: “This is it, Wayne. You’ve gone as far as you’re gonna go. It’s over.’”

Cryts paused. For one year he’d eaten stress by the spoonful while holding meaningless warehouse receipts, attending countless court hearings, maintaining elevator vigils, and watching crops burn in the field—all while the Ristine grain dangled in limbo and loans loomed. He was worn to the bone. The FBI agents surrounding Cryts could smell weakness.

Three days running with no sleep, hand across temples, he spoke softly to Young: “Could you please leave the room? Just give me a minute and take everyone out. Guard the door and don’t let nobody in.”

Spotting a crack in the levee, Young cleared the office room and left Cryts in silence.

Unraveling like chewed twine, Cryts fought back tears and replayed the events of past months. “No one but me and the Lord ever knew how close I came to giving up. I stayed alone in that room for what seemed like 20 minutes or more, weighing it out. I didn’t want anyone hurt or in jail. I asked myself one last time if I was willing to pay the price.”

Composure regained, Cryts knocked against the door to recall the FBI personnel.

Entering the room, Young patted Cryts on the back, and asked, “Wayne, what are you going to do?”

“Glenn, have you ever seen The Dukes of Hazzard?”

Young smashed his fist on the desk, roiled by the reference to General Lee in flight from the law: “Is that your final answer?”

“Final,” Cryts answered, walking out of the office. “And I’m going right now.”

A massive crowd of farmers, 77 trucks and 1 wheelbarrow, all loaded, awaited Cryts.

One wheelbarrow and 77 trucks: The Ristine coup.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

The Pledge of Allegiance rang out across the elevator grounds, led by Colorado producer Alvin Jenkins, an original founder of AAM. Sheet metal repair, sealing, and repainting was in the sure hands of Clarence Banfield, an 80-year-old Kansas farmer who road to Stoddard County on a Greyhound bus. Stan DeBoer, a Nebraska grower, oversaw road grating and cleanup—down to the last cigarette butt. As noted in a subsequent FBI report, Cryts and company left the Ristine Elevator in better condition than prior to their arrival.

“The people helping me were a bunch of regular Americans from across the country that had enough of government,” Cryts says. “They put their farms in jeopardy. They willingly walked into the federal crosshairs. I was acting out of desperation for my livelihood, but they had nothing to gain but upholding their own beliefs about freedom. They were the heroes.”

The FBI made no arrests. As the convoy departed Ristine, every farmer signed a scale ticket, and every farmer was photographed and plated by the FBI—including the wheelbarrow pusher.

Destination? Twenty-five miles west to the MFA Elevator in Bernie, Mo., and a high-wire game of cat-and-mouse played with soybeans.

Get Cryts

In late afternoon of Feb. 17, under clear skies and warm sunshine stroking 60 degrees, Cryts’ soybean convoy chugged into Bernie, where mayor R.B. Woods moved engines out of the firehouse and provided snacks, coffee, and shelter, along with meals from local restaurants.

The next morning, 8 a.m., with a convoy yet to unload, Cryts felt a one-two punch combo. The fix was in.

The conspirators at Bernie MFA.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

Cryts called the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) office, explaining his intention to sell grain to the MFA Elevator, exchange checks at the bank for cash, and deliver the cash to ASCS toward his Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) loan.

ASCS’ response was simple and succinct: “No.”

ASCS officials declined Cryts’ payment attempt with check or cash, citing direct orders from Washington, D.C. Additionally, CCC threatened to pull MFA’s license if the grain facility accepted Cryts’ soybeans. Judge Baker piled on, threatening impounding and conspiracy charges for any elevator accepting Cryts’ grain.

Resolute: “I have many regrets in life ... But Ristine? I’d do it all again in a heartbeat,” says Cryts.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

Cryts was reeling. “How could I pay off my loan? Where could I put all these beans?”

Despite the setup, Cryts slipped the noose when the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis made an emergency ruling, ordering MFA to take the grain until determination of ownership.

However, Cryts was slipping into legal hell. “That’s when I truly realized my fight with the government was only just beginning.”

FBI top agent Glenn Young, genuinely concerned after reading the tea leaves, offered sage advice on the sly, according to Cryts. “This is just starting,” Young warned. “Take everything out of your name and Sandy’s name or you will lose it. Everything. The government is going to take everything you have, Wayne. They’re coming for you.”

Get Cryts.

Bat Outta Hell

An arrest warrant was issued for Cryts three weeks after the Ristine raid. On March 6, 1981, he was arraigned in St. Louis by U.S. Magistrate William Bond on felony charges of interfering with the duties of U.S. marshals, a crime punishable by six years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

A grand jury was convened. The panel refused to indict. The judge dismissed all charges. Cryts was safe—in the short term.

Inside the ASCS office: Cryts’ payment via check or cash was denied.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

Four months later, in the anvil heat of July, Cryts’ mailbox clinked with a letter from the CCC, calling in the loan: Pay up now or forfeit grain. Translated: Adios, amigo.

Almost cornered, Cryts weighed options. ASCS refused cash or check, but the technical language of the letter allowed for payment via commodity. “I was infuriated by how crazy the whole thing was,” he continues, “but at least I had a lifeline.”

(For more, listen to a podcast interview with Wayne Cryts at Farming The Countryside With Andrew McCrea )

Cryts called Eric Thompson, elevator manager at MFA Bernie, and asked for his soybeans. Thompson was in a pickle. Give Cryts access to the soybeans and face conspiracy charges, or refuse access and watch Cryts go under?

Thompson’s solution came with a heavy wink. He told Cryts that MFA would stand aside if Cryts threatened “use of force.” Following the feint, Cryts told Thompson, “Yessir, I’m willing to force my way in.”

Instantly absolved from legal responsibility, Thompson gave Cryts the green light to load soybeans—77 trucks all over again. Beans in hand, Cryts drove like a bat outta hell to the ASCS office in Bloomfield: “I’m here to pay my loan with grain. Where do you’uns want it?”

ASCS reps, strings pulled from on high, denied delivery: “We’ve been instructed not to receive your grain.”

Further stymied by a ruling from Baker deeming any purchasing elevator as part of the conspiracy, Cryts pressed the nuclear option: Bean by bean, scatter the grain to the wind. Sell, baby, sell, and pay whatever is owed to whoever will accept cash on the barrelhead.

How so? Cryts’ cohort of AAM farmers took the truckloads of soybeans and disappeared. “I told them all, ‘Boys, just go sell wherever you can and get me the money whenever you can.’”

However, Cryts’ instructions for Harley Sentell, a close farming brother in Butler County, Missouri, were precise and included a direct jab at Judge Baker via the grain elevator at Corning, Ark.—part of the bankruptcy and technically owned by Baker.

“I told Harley, ‘Sell two loads of beans to the James Brothers headquarters in Corning. The guys there won’t know me from Shinola, so put my name on the ticket. That purchase will make Baker’s own elevator part of the conspiracy and therefore he’ll hesitate before he charges any other elevator.’”

“Harley sold Corning the grain and they never knew what hit’em,” Cryts adds. “That was just one more reason for Baker to hate me.”

Seeds of Sedition

The Ristine boomerang hit Cryts on Feb. 9, 1982. Called to appear before Judge Baker, Cryts was granted immunity and ordered to provide the names of all farmers who helped steal the Ristine soybeans. It was political chess: The government already possessed the identity of each farmer involved (photos and signed scale tickets) and didn’t need Cryts’ attestation.

Tickets and receipts from Ristine: Wayne Cryts kept them all.

(Photo by Chris Bennett)

Nonetheless, Cryts declined to allow the judge to hang the wrong horse thief: “No way would I give him a name—not even one.”

Frustrated by Cryts’ refusal to play canary, Baker tossed a pencil across the courtroom and threatened civil contempt of court. Cryts responded with disdain: “... I am so sick and tired of this forced mockery of justice and those thieving, money hungry lawyers that come into a bankrupt elevator like a bunch of vultures and milk every dollar out of the escrow account. And by the time they are finished, the farms are left with nothing. They take the assets of honest, hardworking people and get rich off them. Your Honor, I think this circus has gone on for long enough. You do whatever you have to do and let’s get on with it.”

Baker chose to lock up Cryts until the Bootheel farmer broke. On April 28, 1982, Cryts was processed at the Pope County Jail in Russellville, Ark., with Baker promising freedom upon testimony: “Cryts can be released from jail by telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ... Cryts has planted the seeds of sedition and must harvest the bittersweet bounty of his own folly by staying in jail.”

However, Baker’s heavy hand ignited media coverage and kicked an anthill in farm country. In southeast Missouri, pickup trucks sported a common bumper sticker: ''Free Wayne, Jail The Judge.’'

Jailhouse phone lines were jammed. “Donations for my defense came pouring in, AAM hired the famous attorney F. Lee Bailey to represent me, and the news went crazy because people started realizing what the government was doing,” Cryts says. “The mayor of Russellville brought me the key to the city; high school groups came into jail to hear me speak; and all of it made Baker’s blood boil because he created a circus he couldn’t control.”

“Bill Clinton showed up at jail to visit with me, and that tells you how deep corruption ran in the bureaucracy. After this case was all over, Judge Baker suddenly got a sweet job with the Rose Law Firm. Please don’t tell me that was a coincidence.”

During incarceration, Wayne Cryts tells Bill Clinton how the cow ate the cabbage.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

In early May, Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas requested Cryts’ testimony in Washington, D.C., at a Senate bankruptcy hearing. Baker refused to let his prisoner go. (Cryts also received significant support from Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, who offered to serve a portion of Cryts’ time and petitioned Reagan for a pardon. “Hell no,” Cryts says. “I told Grassley I would never take a pardon. I didn’t do anything.”

When Baker balked at Dole’s request, DOJ provided additional encouragement. “DOJ threatened Baker and told him they were going to find him in contempt and put him in jail with me. I reckon we’d have been great cellmates. Anyhow, the judge suddenly let me go to Washington.”

Given a furlough, Cryts flew to D.C. and told the Ristine tale. Four days later, he was back behind bars in Arkansas, while a whirlwind of pressure circled Baker. On June 2, after 30-plus days in jail, Cryts was released, but Baker was not finished, recommending criminal prosecution for Cryts: “It is obvious to this court that Mr. Cryts envisions himself to be some sort of folk hero who has been called on from on high to right the wrongs inflicted upon farmers when grain elevators fail. His refusal to cooperate should be deemed criminal...”

Additionally, Baker levied a fine of $287,000 and went after Cryts’ finances, assets, and bank accounts.

“There was nothing left in our name for him to get,” Cryts reflects. “Baker even tried to seize my farm equipment, but my neighbors got there first and hid all my machinery on their ground.”

For almost two years, Cryts had walked a high wire above ruin. “The whole time, I thought proving the facts would set things straight. Turns out, the government only cared that I had dared to break its rules—truth be damned. And for that, I had to pay.”

Cargill Blinks

Paper sacks, rubber bands, and greenbacks.

As Cryts’ farming brethren sold his grain at the four corners, money flooded in, spurring Cryts to stash the cash in safety deposit boxes rented by a friend. “Guys literally walked up and handed me sandwich bags filled with bills, no questions asked. I started paying off all the people I owed. I sure as hell didn’t want to use that system, but my hand was forced.”

In response, Baker issued an order to over 100 Bootheel banks to confiscate any money deposited by Cryts. The Internal Revenue Service knocked next in a sequence of curious timing, demanding payment for overdue taxes.

Cryts drove to the IRS office in St. Louis and asked if he could pay via asset seizure.

All over again: Loading soybeans out of Bernie.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

“I’m sitting there with this IRS agent, and I asked him if I could pay in beans. He says, ‘I think so. Just let me make certain with my supervisor.’”

“The supervisor comes in, and I explained the situation all over again. All of a sudden, the supervisor sat up in his chair: ‘Wait. Wait,’ he said, as everything dawned on him. ‘You’re that soybean guy? You’re that Cryts guy? No way. We’re not doing it.”

“That’s the level of government collusion I was up against,” Cryts says. “Courts, agencies, departments, and career bureaucrats were madder than hell, all because their lifetime power was threatened.”

In the fall of 1982, in legal limbo, Cryts began harvesting and hauling grain to Cargill in New Madrid. Baker issued a grain confiscation order to Cargill.

Cryts went on-site to Cargill’s concrete elevators and spoke plainly, warning of a Ristine repeat. “Give me back my grain or give me cash. It’ll be tough busting in one of your elevators, and I don’t know right now how to do it, but I’ll get my grain out. I promise to do the least amount of damage I can, and I’ll pay for repairs when I’m done.”

Cryts addresses a media swarm.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

Cargill blinked. However, the New Madrid facility was barge-only and had no load-out for trucks. “They told me I could go inland and get my grain from another elevator. I went to Dexter and got my grain, and then drove it to MFA Bernie and sold it. That marked the event where the government gave up on confiscations.”

The feds may have grown tired of chasing Cryts’ grain, but the government exchanged its grip on Cryts’ soybeans for a better handle on his collar. As in, a 20-year stay in the penitentiary. “Guilt or innocence was out the window,” Cryts exclaims. “They weren’t turning loose of me no matter what.”

Rat on a Cheeto.

A Cold Day In Hell

The home phone rang at all hours with calls from farmers, agriculture organizations, and mayors across the nation, asking for a Cryts appearance or speech. “It became a way of saying thanks and I never asked or wanted a penny in return,” Cryts describes. “Sometimes my expenses were paid; sometimes not. I made it to every event possible out of gratitude.”

In August 1982, Cryts took a call from the northwest corner of Arkansas and the tiny town of Gravette, just under the state line, roughly an hour south of Springfield, Mo. On the horn was Bob Pigott, chamber of commerce president, asking Cryts to speak at the Eighty-Ninth Annual Gravette Day Celebration and serve as grand marshal of the parade.

Wash, rinse, repeat. At home, Cryts unloads a portion of beans from Bernie.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

Bud Shell, owner of the Ford dealership in Dexter, Mo., stepped up and provided Cryts with a blue travel van, a repeat gesture by Shell. On the morning prior to the Gravette festivities, as Cryts sat in Pigott’s clothing store, the office phone rattled with a call from a familiar and trusted voice—U.S. marshal George Welch, a highly-respected presence at the Ristine affair.

“Wayne, they’re coming for you,” Welch stated. “This is a setup. There is a federal marshal tracking you and they’re going to find a way to arrest you. I know this because they tried to get me to do it and I told them to go to hell.”

Welch was preaching gospel. At 9 a.m. the following day, as Cryst again sat inside Pigott’s store, a team of U.S. marshals surrounded the building. Chuck Papachio, a U.S. marshal from Brooklyn, NYC, entered the premises and handed Pigott a writ garnishing any payment planned for Cryts. (However, the Chamber did not pay Cryts.)

Papachio turned to Cryts: “Do you have any valuables on you?”

“I’ve got my watch, wedding ring, boots, and about $150 in cash,” Cryts answered.

Papachio requested turnover of said valuables. Cryts refused.

During the verbal exchange, Papachio’s men were covering the rear exit, pistols drawn. Cryts only found out about Papachio’s backdoor coverage at trial, months later. “When I heard during testimony that the government was locked and loaded that day, I have to ask if they were hoping I’d resist. I’ll always wonder if I’d have run out the back door whether they were going to shoot me dead. It shows you an outrageous level of government overkill.”

If lizard-skin could talk: Cryts’ Justin boots have a tale to tell.

(Photo by Chris Bennett)

As the confrontation continued between Papachio and Cryts, a bystander hollered, “Wayne, the marshals are outside taking your van.”

Cryts raced to the street and stepped off the curb, blocking a tow truck from van access. Papachio warned Cryts to move or face arrest. “I can accept being arrested,” Cryts answered, “but I can’t accept you stealing this van.”

Cryts maintained calm and told Papachio. “I’m not going to be a problem. Just let me be the grand marshal and as soon as the parade ends, do your thing if you want to arrest me that bad.”

Fearing an unruly Gravette citizenry, Papachio acquiesced, but his hesitation almost went sideways. After the parade concluded, Papachio cuffed Cryts and placed him in a county patrol vehicle. The crowd erupted, tearing off the antennae and kicking in the doors before the car picked up speed. “It got wild,” Cryts remembers. “People were rocking the car back and forth, and the officers were bad shook up.”

Processed at the Sebastian County jailhouse in Fort Smith, Cryts traded his jean jacket and Levi’s for blue-and-white stripes. He was fingerprinted, photographed for a mugshot, issued a tin cup, and deposited in a cell with eight Cubans. “These were genuine criminals dumped by Castro in his 1980 prison cleanout, and I was scared to death. I had no options but to act tough and be ready to fight, bite, whatever it took. Helluva night: I ended up killing 280 cockroaches.”

Two days later, Cryts posted bond and was released until trial. “My van,” he recalls. “They kept my damn van.”

Jack Lewis holds the “Ristine key” sold at auction for $4,000.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

In October 1982, in Fayetteville, Ark., Cryts’ trial process began on charges of interference with a federal marshal, with a potential sentence of 20 years in federal prison. His attorney, Bill Wilson, pushed for a guilty plea, Cryts recalls.

“Wayne, plead or you’re looking at a couple decades of hard time in maximum security. Baker issued you a court order not to remove the grain, and you violated that order, but the marshals and FBI officers refused to back Baker and stop you. Basically, you stripped Baker naked of his power and you’re a threat to the entire system. They’re going to make an example of you one way or another. Plead guilty now.”

Undaunted, Cryts insisted on a jury trial.

Federal Magistrate Judge Franklin McWaters presided in Fayetteville.

“The prosecutor spouted all kinds of crap to the jury,” Cryts contends. “He said, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, don’t get on a cruise ship with Wayne Cryts. He’ll take the lifeboats and leave the women and children behind. He wants notoriety. He wants fame. He wants power.’”

Cryts took the stand, looking as guilty as the boy who burned down the barn. “I told them I did it. I hid nothing. The prosecution said I refused a direct order from a federal marshal, and I told the jury that was true.”

After Cryts exited the stand, Bill Wilson put head to hands and whispered, “Wayne, you’re the best witness the prosecution has had.”

After closing statements, Judge McWaters put a thumb on the scales: I want to tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury one thing. If you come back with anything other than a guilty verdict, we might as well throw our laws out the window, everybody strap on a six-gun, and go down the street shooting.

“Can you imagine how that felt,” Cryts says. “I’m up for 20 years and the judge tells the jury they sure as hell better find me guilty. Literally, those were the last words heard by the jury.”

Seated at the defense table, Cryts was lost, unable to read blank expressions worn by the jury as they shuffled out. No smiles. No frowns.

Retreating to a hallway, Cryts collapsed on the floor, and waited for the inevitable. Three hours later, the jury returned, again filing in with faces set in stone.

The bailiff handed the decision to Judge McWaters, who read in silence, then peered down at the jury: “Is this unanimous?”

McWaters then tossed the decision on the courtroom floor. The bailiff picked up the paperwork and read aloud: “Not guilty.”

The prosecutor scrambled out of his chair and demanded a jury poll. Each juror rose, stated a name, and sounded off.

McWaters rapped the gavel. Court dismissed.

Knees to jelly and adrenaline gone, Cryts wept.

As McWaters exited the room in a fury, Bill Wilson hollered out: “Your honor, what about Mr. Cryts’ van? Your honor?”

McWaters turned about for one final pause: “It’ll be a cold day in hell when I release that van.”

Mysterious Corn Cob

Double jeopardy? Triple jeopardy? The government took another bite at the Cryts apple.

“They were going to change up the charges and put me on trial until they got their guilty verdict,” Cryts insists. “When Ristine didn’t work, they just tried something else.”

Ristine relief: “It wasn’t years ago,” says Cryts. “It was yesterday. I’ll die with a debt for those farmers who stood with me.”

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

In June 1983, throwing in the towel on Ristine, federal judge Thomas Eisele rang up Cryts on charges of criminal contempt for removing his soybeans from the MFA Elevator at Bernie.

Mirroring his previous trial, Cryts refused to plead guilty, and a jury was seated in a Little Rock courtroom.

Prosecutors subpoenaed Cryts’ father, William, but the move backfired on the witness stand. William claimed a mysteriously cloudy recall of the grain removal at MFA due to his perpetually poor memory sustained in a farm accident as a child after a fall from a loft when struck by a “wet corn cob.”

The jury deliberated for 30 minutes, voting unanimously for acquittal. Eisele was incensed.

“He cussed and criticized the jury. He openly told them he disagreed with their decision,” Cryts explains.

“Since the jury acquitted me, Eisele did what he could to make my life miserable. He charged with me with civil contempt and fined me $341,000. To this day, I reckon it’s compounded to millions of dollars. I never paid.”

“If Ristine hadn’t happened, you’d have never heard of me,” says Cryts.

(Photo courtesy of AAM)

In less than two years, Cryts had faced a grand jury that refused to indict, and two trial juries that voted not guilty. Yet, the government was not finished.

“That’s how the bureaucracy and deep state work in unison,” he says. “Make no mistake: There were going to keep trying me, but the story had caught too much media attention, and they couldn’t sneak it past the American people. Instead, they came for my guns.”

Hands Down

With federal fines sitting on Cryts’ shoulder, his assets were at risk. The courts grabbed his guns.

“I didn’t have hardly anything in my name they could get, so they sent me notice of gun confiscation.”

Cryts didn’t cotton to dead lion status. “I’d come too far,” he says. “I fought over beans, but I wasn’t going to fight over guns because I knew how this episode would have ended, and I didn’t want it to turn into a Ruby Ridge situation like we saw some years later. The government would have eventually taken my guns by force.”

He broke down his rifles, shotguns, and pistols, placed the parts in the backseat and floorboards of the family sedan, and drove the firearms to law enforcement.

On the steps of the Cape Girardeau courthouse, Cryts’ guns were auctioned by the government. Significantly, there were no bids beyond the raised hands of Cryts’ neighbors. Excluding Cryts’ farming brethren, the crowd was silent. “Like so many other times, the people around me were the heroes,” he says. “I got my guns back, bought and returned to me by my neighbors.”

Ristine Dreams

Forty-three years past Ristine, Cryts is a satisfied man, grateful for a quiet life in a modest home perched on a rise off gravel, surrounded by corn, cotton, rice, and soybeans in every direction.

Looking backward at the Ristine raid, would Cryts do it again?

“I have many regrets in life. I wish I’d have married Sandy earlier; 60 years is not enough with her. I wish I’d have not been short with my words with people many times; I’d take back speaking harshly at different points. Those are genuine regrets. But Ristine? I’d do it all again in a heartbeat.”

“In the end, Ristine drew attention to major problems in elevator bankruptcies, and some states changes made real changes in their laws—some didn’t.”

Beyond bankruptcy law changes, Cryts contends Ristine exposed the extremes of the bureaucracy. Process was punishment.

“There was always one thing the government didn’t understand,” says Cryts. “When they took everything I had, there was nothing left for me to lose.”

(Photo by Chris Bennett)

“You may or may not agree with what I did, or how I did it. I understand. But if you’ll look at how the government came after me, with charge after charge, just to get something—anything—to stick, then you can see what laws the bureaucracy is willing to abuse once the ball gets rolling and how they work in unison. I call it the deep state.”

(For more, listen to a podcast interview with Wayne Cryts at Farming The Countryside With Andrew McCrea )

Two years shy of 80, almost 55 years removed from the Great Soybean Raid, Cryts often vividly dreams of Ristine, surrounded by hundreds of farmers loading grain in truck after truck. “It wasn’t years ago,” he says. “It was yesterday. I’ll die with a debt for those farmers who stood with me.”

“I’m so blessed today,” he adds. “I don’t have much, but I have all the things I truly need. Here I am in Puxico, Missouri. The government knows where to find me. Come get me.”

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

American Pie Reborn: How An Iowa Farmer Saved Buddy Holly

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

American Gothic: Farm Couple Nailed In Massive $9M Crop Insurance Fraud

Priceless Pistol Found After Decades Lost in Farmhouse Attic

Cottonmouth Farmer: The Insane Tale of a Buck-Wild Scheme to Corner the Snake Venom Market

Power vs. Privacy: Landowner Sues Game Wardens, Challenges Property Intrusion

Tractorcade: How an Epic Convoy and Legendary Farmer Army Shook Washington, D.C.

Bizarre Mystery of Mummified Coon Dog Solved After 40 Years

While America Slept, China Stole the Farm

Property Owner Fights Government’s Warrantless Search Power

Wed, 17 Jul 2024 19:23:52 GMT

A rural Kansas landowner challenging government’s warrantless searches of his homestead and business has a green light to continue the fight. Scott Johnson’s civil rights and private property lawsuit, reinstated by an appeals court, cuts to the heart of the Fourth Amendment.

In 2022, represented by the Kansas Justice Institute, Johnson filed suit against the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA), contending the state agency’s demand for surprise, no-warrant access to his property under penalty of fines and loss of business license is a violation of the Bill of Rights.

Commonsense Principle
In Cowley County, Kansas, roughly one hour southeast of Wichita, Johnson operates nationally recognized Covey Find Kennel and trains prize-winning bird dogs. His house, shop, and kennels sit together, adjacent to pastureland and wheat fields.

Scott Johnson says the state’s demand for surprise, no-warrant access to his property is a violation of the Bill of Rights.

(Photo by Covey Find Kennel)

In Kansas, bird dog training is a “pervasively regulated industry”—lumped into the same restricted arena as commercial fishing, animal breeding, horse racing, liquor, firearms, and mining. Operation of a dog training business requires a state-issued license, and all applicants must waive Fourth Amendment rights. Licensees must agree to warrantless, unannounced inspections of premises and facilities.

Johnson lives where he works. In 2020, when KDA demanded no-warrant access to Johnson’s property, Johnson fought back. Backed by the Kansas Justice Institute , he launched a lawsuit against KDA in October 2022, asserting that KDA’s warrantless search policy violates Fourth Amendment search and seizure protections, and contesting the inclusion of dog training as a pervasively regulated industry. (Johnson did not challenge Kansas law concerning breeders, shelters, animal rescues, pet stores, research facilities, or distributors.)

On May 6, 2023, Johnson’s lawsuit against KDA was denied in federal court. He appealed to the Denver, Colo.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and in June 2024, the appeals court ruled that Johnson’s Fourth Amendment lawsuit should not have been dismissed and reinstated the case.

Johnson’s house, shop, and kennels sit together, adjacent to pastureland and wheat fields.

(Photo by Institute for Justice)

Kansas Justice Institute attorney Sam MacRoberts addresses the crux of the ruling: “The point of the Tenth Circuit’s decision is that government cannot conduct warrantless searches because it feels like it.”

“Warrantless searches are totally unnecessary for dog trainers like Scott Johnson ,” MacRoberts continues. “Scott has a vested interest in making sure the dogs he trains are very, very well taken care of. His business model is to do right by the dogs and do right by the customers. The Tenth Circuit understands this commonsense principle.”

Incredibly Narrow
Why is dog training and dog handling considered a pervasively regulated industry—on the same level as government oversight of mining and firearms—by the state of Kansas?

(Citing ongoing litigation, Kansas Department of Agriculture declined a Farm Journal interview request.)

“It makes no sense that Kansas insists on lumping dog handling and training in with underground mining or other such industries, but the Tenth Circuit ruling makes clear that this Fourth Amendment exception is industry specific, fact-dependent, and incredibly narrow,” MacRoberts notes.

Scott Johnson’s civil rights and private property lawsuit, reinstated by an appeals court, cuts to the heart of the Fourth Amendment.

(Photo by Covey Find Kennel)

“As a means to get around the Fourth Amendment, both municipalities and state governments increasingly have used the pervasively regulated industry exception, starting in about the mid-1980s and thereafter exploding in use. It has become a blank check for government to conduct warrantless searches. That is one reason why Scott Johnson’s case is so important. The government must have an extremely unique necessity to conduct a warrantless search—not dog handling.”

No Waiver, No License
Following the Tenth Circuit ruling, Johnson’s lawsuit goes back to district court in Kansas.

At present, to maintain his livelihood, Covey Find Kennel, Johnson still must waive Fourth Amendment rights. No waiver, no license. No license, no business.

“Our legal arguments have remained the same since day one,” MacRoberts says. “Your home is your castle, and the government can’t search it just because it wants. We’re confident that ultimately we will succeed based on the merits of Scott’s case. This is a great step toward protecting property and privacy rights.”

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

American Pie Reborn: How An Iowa Farmer Saved Buddy Holly

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

American Gothic: Farm Couple Nailed In Massive $9M Crop Insurance Fraud

Priceless Pistol Found After Decades Lost in Farmhouse Attic

Cottonmouth Farmer: The Insane Tale of a Buck-Wild Scheme to Corner the Snake Venom Market

Power vs. Privacy: Landowner Sues Game Wardens, Challenges Property Intrusion

Tractorcade: How an Epic Convoy and Legendary Farmer Army Shook Washington, D.C.

Bizarre Mystery of Mummified Coon Dog Solved After 40 Years

While America Slept, China Stole the Farm

How the Supreme Court's Big Decision to Overturn the Chevron Doctrine Could Impact Agriculture

Mon, 01 Jul 2024 17:11:48 GMT

On Friday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, overturned Chevron and handed authority back to Congress and the courts. Overturning the doctrine is a significant ruling that limits federal regulatory power.

The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, had directed courts to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws.

The decision was split along ideological lines, with the conservative majority voting to overturn Chevron. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, called the Chevron framework “unworkable” and said the court was ending “our 40-year misadventure with Chevron deference.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine is expected to have far-reaching implications for federal regulations across various sectors, including environmental protection, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections. It impacts the power of federal agencies, such as EPA, to issue regulations. The Chevron doctrine previously allowed agencies to interpret vague laws. This change provides opponents a clearer legal path to challenge regulations, potentially forcing agencies to be more cautious in drafting rules.

Environmental regulators, such as EPA, will face tougher judicial challenges. The decision is expected to slow down the regulatory process, requiring more time to craft, weigh comments and finalize rules. Many environmental rules stem from old laws with few modern amendments, adding to the uncertainty.

Mixed Reaction After Decision

Proponents of overturning Chevron argue it will reduce the power of unelected bureaucrats and increase accountability.

Critics warn the decision could lead to legal and administrative chaos, making it harder for agencies to respond to new challenges and implement regulations.

The ag and energy sectors are already asking how this ruling could impact energy and environmental regulations — both existing and new. Biofuel interests are wondering if this will impact the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Given that EPA has more leeway to set RFS levels without the mandates in law, it could. But the RFS levels have been challenged before and the resolution takes a long time, so it really doesn’t affect the mandates, i.e., the 2023 standards included 250 million gallons to meet a court remand of the 2016 standards.

Possible Impact on Agriculture Regulations and Farm Bill

USDA and EPA will no longer have the broad authority to interpret ambiguous statutes. This change is expected to limit their ability to create and enforce regulations without explicit congressional authorization. For instance, regulations related to farm subsidies, crop insurance, and environmental practices, including the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, will now face closer judicial scrutiny.

Farm subsidies and crop insurance: Agencies will need clear statutory authority to implement or modify programs related to farm subsidies and crop insurance ... could lead to fewer regulatory changes ... unless explicitly directed by Congress.

Environmental practices: Regulations under the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws will be more challenging to enforce if they rely on ambiguous statutory language. This could affect rules aimed at protecting wetlands and managing agricultural runoff.

Animal welfare standards: The ruling could impact regulations like those via the Packers & Stockyards Act, which aim to ensure fair competition and treatment in livestock markets.

Support from agricultural groups. They argue that it restores a balance of power by ensuring that unelected bureaucrats cannot impose regulations beyond what Congress has explicitly authorized.

Impact on the farm bill. The ruling puts pressure on Congress to draft more precise and detailed legislation. This is particularly relevant for the new farm bill, as lawmakers will need to ensure that the statutory language is clear to avoid judicial challenges and ensure effective implementation by federal agencies.

The decision is expected to increase accountability within the legislative and executive branches. Congress will need to be more explicit in its directives, and federal agencies will be limited to implementing laws as written, without broad interpretative leeway.

Potential for legal challenges. With the Chevron deference overturned, there may be an increase in legal challenges to existing and new regulations. Courts will now play a more significant role in interpreting agricultural laws, which could lead to a more stable regulatory environment but also more litigation as stakeholders seek judicial clarification on ambiguous statutes.

Opportunity to review prior cases? The conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) said House committees “have an opportunity to review any regulatory action that was justified by Chevron deference toward agency interpretation.” The RSC views the overturning of Chevron as a way to “reclaim congressional authority” and roll back what they see as executive overreach. The committee’s memo encouraged its members to “scour Biden-era regulatory actions and highlight any that should be considered for judicial review post-Chevron.” This indicates a specific focus on reviewing and potentially challenging regulations implemented during the Biden administration.

Bottom line: This ruling represents a significant shift in administrative law and is likely to have broad impacts on how federal agencies interpret and implement laws passed by Congress. It may lead to more challenges of agency regulations in court and could potentially slow down or complicate the regulatory process across various sectors of government.

Swampbuster Challenged By Iowa Farmland Owner In Blockbuster Lawsuit

Wed, 05 Jun 2024 12:13:03 GMT

USDA’s sweeping Swampbuster power over private land is conservation by coercion and therefore unconstitutional, according to a blockbuster lawsuit filed by Iowa farmland owner Jim Conlan.

Swampbuster statutes compel farmers to steer clear of wetlands in perpetuity or risk losing all federal agriculture benefits. USDA is judge and jury: designating wetlands, weighing landowner violations, administering penalties, and holding power over appeals.

Conlan contends Swampbuster is compelled conservation under the threat of lost benefits—all government stick and no carrot.

Sealed in Perpetuity

In 2022, Jim Conlan bought a 71-acre (71.85) farm in eastern Iowa’s Delaware County, bringing his total farmland to 1,075 acres as owner of CTM Holdings.

Within the 71-acre farm, 21 acres is forested, of which 9 acres—broken into five separate spots across the timberland—are wetlands, designated by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in 2010.

Conlan’s 9 acres of wetlands do not the fit the public perception of bottomland, swamp, delta, or property adjacent to water. “My wetland isn’t wet,” he says. “It’s the polar opposite of a wetland. It’s extremely valuable black dirt and there’s no water on it at any point of the year. We could remove the trees and farm it tomorrow with no need for tile or drainage.”

(Farm Journal)

In October 2022, Conlan asked NRCS for a wetlands redetermination. Four months later, in January 2023, NRCS declined Conlan’s request and said he had no right to appeal, citing the finality of its prior 2010 wetlands determination. “The same agency that makes the wetlands designation, NRCS, is the same agency that gets to judge the sufficiency of its own designation,” Conlan notes.

(USDA-NRCS declined all Farm Journal questions related to Jim Conlan’s lawsuit , citing pending litigation.)

According to NRCS, Conlan’s 9 acres of wetlands are permanently designated. Case closed.

“It’s outrageous,” he says. “The government took a permanent easement on my land and doesn’t have to pay a dime, forever. If we dare to work that land, USDA can cut off us and everyone associated with us from all farm program benefits, including all the tenants that work the rest of the 1,000 acres. And the whole process stays in-house with one agency, NRCS, the entire time.”

“That is constitutionally off on so many levels,” Conlan emphasizes. “Most landowners and farmers get bullied by USDA, but I’m fighting and our lawsuit shows exactly why Swampbuster is fundamentally wrong.”

Classic Overreach?

Attached to the 1985 Farm Bill, Swampbuster (a common byname) was promoted as a wetlands conservation measure. However, its passage was conservation by government force, Conlan alleges.

(Farm Journal)

Swampbuster withholds federal farm program benefits from anyone planting “an agricultural commodity on a converted wetland that was converted by drainage, dredging, leveling, or any other means (after December 23, 1985),” or anyone converting “a wetland for the purpose of or to make agricultural commodity production possible (after November 28, 1990).”

Right, wrong, good, bad, or ugly, Swampbuster enabled USDA to drop a hammer on any farmer or farmland owner that worked any acreage deemed as wetlands. As in, adios to USDA loans, payment programs, and crop insurance subsidies on all farmland—in Conlan’s case well over 1,000 acres. (Additionally, a producer in violation of Swampbuster rules could lose future Conservation Reserve Program payments and be required to refund all payments from 8 years prior.)

Further, USDA’s denial of benefits stretches far beyond the landowner or entity within the Swampbuster crosshairs, potentially extending to spouse, minor child, guardian of a minor child, tenant, and participants or stockholders of a corporation, partnership, and joint venture.

“Where does USDA’s authority to do all of this on private land come from?” Conlan asks. “It’s certainly not in the Constitution. In fact, this is exactly the type of government behavior our forefathers were trying to prevent when they wrote the Constitution.”

On April 16, 2024, Conlan sued USDA and NRCS in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, represented pro bono by Liberty Justice Center , Pacific Legal Foundation , and Upper Midwest Law Center .

“Swampbuster requires that if a farmer wants any federal USDA benefits they must first agree, without compensation, to conserve any part of their property that the government designates as wetlands,” says Loren Seehase, attorney with Liberty Justice Center. “Then any land determined to be wetlands is to remain in perpetuity untouched, undeveloped, and definitely not used for any agriculture. Otherwise, the government could not only revoke all USDA benefits for that property—like crop insurance, disaster payments, farm dwelling loans, and agricultural structure loans, but also for other properties owned or run by the farmer, and even in some instances require the farmer to repay benefits previously received. That is unconstitutional.”

“The government cannot condition the receipt of federal benefits on the relinquishment of a constitutional right, nor can the government require a private property owner to create a conservation easement without paying just compensation,” Seehase adds. “This is classic government overreach and a violation of private property rights. There are many, many farmers out there who have had wetlands on their farms for decades with absolutely no compensation, but they can’t afford to fight the federal government and jeopardize their federal benefits thereby risking their farm’s financial viability. That is why we are fighting this unconstitutional scheme.”

Act of God

Conlan’s legal case against USDA and NRCS rests on five claims.

One, violation of the Commerce Clause. Federal power to regulate interstate commerce does not include an isolated wetland on private property in Iowa, i.e., Conlan’s 9 acres of wetlands have no effect on commerce and therefore are outside the scope of federal regulation.

(Farm Journal)

Two, government benefits cannot be conditioned on the surrender of a constitutional right.

Three, government is in breach of the Fifth Amendment: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Four, action beyond authority. Without congressional approval, NRCS beefed up the text of the Swampbuster rule by adding “removal of woody vegetation.”

Five, a second action beyond authority. The Swampbuster statute allows landowners to request review of a wetlands determination. However, the NRCS administrative rule only allows reviews if there is an Act of God change in the landscape or if NRCS feels that they previously made an error.

Paige Gilliard, attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, summarizes the claims. “The government believes that to be eligible for farm programs that predate Swampbuster, a landowner must have the property delineated and if any wetlands are discovered the landowner cannot touch those parts of the property.”

“However, the government cannot condition benefits on a landowner signing away their right to use private property as they see fit,” Gilliard continues. “Normally, if the government takes your property, they must pay you. As it stands right now, we’re talking about forced non-use and the government never paying anything.”

Frozen Forever

How many acres of private land are categorized as wetlands? According to a USDA spokesperson, the “estimate for wetlands on non-federal land is 111.2 million acres.”

When asked how many acres of U.S. farmland are in the Swampbuster scope, the same USDA spokesperson says: “NRCS does not track wetland determination results in a way that acreage totals are available on a national or state basis.”

(Farm Journal)

Conlan contends most farmers with Swampbuster acreage would contest the determination if money and time allowed. “I believe the majority of producers do not want any part of their property designated as a wetland. What makes it even more egregious is that the value of land has changed so much since 1985. Farmland values, both by sale or rent, are much higher, and therefore the economic pain is far greater today than in 1985, and the government’s taking has grown in terms of economic impact with no compensation.”

Could Conlan’s lawsuit reach the Supreme Court? Gilliard says SCOTUS recently has shown considerable interest in cases related to agency overreach and protection of private property rights under the Constitution—both of which are tapped by Conlan’s claims.

“The arguments here, if successful, have the potential to help a lot of farmers and landowners. That is part of why Jim Conlan is doing this. This case also has an interesting connection to the Clean Water Act,” says Gilliard, who was a member of the PLF team that won the benchmark 2023 Sackett v. EPA case before SCOTUS. “We’re convinced that since SCOTUS recently scaled back the government’s reach via the Clean Water Act, the agencies may look to use Swampbuster to regulate land.”

In summation, Seehase says the direct link between Swampbuster and loss of USDA benefits is an “egregious” constitutional violation. “No one should have to forfeit their constitutional right to just compensation to ensure they don’t lose their federal benefits, but that’s exactly what’s been happening to Jim Conlan and many other farmers out there. If you are a farmer and your land has been put under a similar designation, please reach out to us for help at LibertyJusticeCenter.org .”

As for Conlan, he is confident in his constitutional standing: “This case is a legal winner because it is backed by the Bill of Rights. USDA can’t take a piece of private property and let it sit frozen forever. It’s true the government can take property—but they have to pay for it with just compensation. That’s what the Constitution says.”

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

Power vs. Privacy: Landowner Sues Game Wardens, Challenges Property Intrusion

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

American Gothic: Farm Couple Nailed In Massive $9M Crop Insurance Fraud

Priceless Pistol Found After Decades Lost in Farmhouse Attic

Cottonmouth Farmer: The Insane Tale of a Buck-Wild Scheme to Corner the Snake Venom Market

Tractorcade: How an Epic Convoy and Legendary Farmer Army Shook Washington, D.C.

Bizarre Mystery of Mummified Coon Dog Solved After 40 Years

While America Slept, China Stole the Farm

Iowa Third State to Create Legislation Regarding Lab-Grown Meat

Tue, 21 May 2024 14:15:35 GMT

In an effort to maintain trust with consumers and protect livestock producers, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds recently signed into law SF 2391 , a bill prohibiting the misbranding of certain food products, including lab-grown meat.

Beginning July 1, lab-grown meat and plant-based imitation meat and egg products will have to be labeled with words such as fake, lab-grown, meatless, imitation or vegan, if sold in Iowa stores. The labeling requirements also apply to meat alternatives made with insect protein.

Gov. Reynolds shared her response to signing SF 2391.

“This legislation prohibits companies from exploiting the trust consumers have with our livestock producers and misleading consumers into buying products they don’t want,” she says. “This is about transparency. It’s about the common-sense idea that a product labeled chicken, beef, or pork, should actually come from an animal.”

Rep. Heather Hora, R-Washington, sponsored the bill in the House. As a pork producer herself, she says the bill protects farmers’ checkoff dollars that are used to market meat and eggs.

According to an Iowa Public Radio (IPR) article, the law will require the Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals and Licensing to inspect food processing plants or grocery stores for compliance if they receive a credible complaint about food products being mislabeled as meat. The law also provides penalties for not following labeling rules.

Furthermore, the law prohibits school districts, community colleges and public universities in Iowa from purchasing lab-grown meat and any foods misbranded as meat or egg products. In addition, the law requires the state to request a federal waiver to prohibit the use of federal food assistance to buy imitation egg products.

While many praised the legislation, some Democrats said their issue was with the purchase of egg alternatives.

IPR reported Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, says he was proud to vote for the original version of the bill but had concerns with the final version.

“Truth in labeling is certainly something that I strongly believe in for consumer protection,” he says. “But I’m also concerned with consumer nutrition. And there are some people who can’t eat eggs because of allergies but still need the nutritive content that might be supplied by alternative products.”

That same day, Gov. Reynolds signed HF 2649 , a bill providing capital gains relief for farmers and ranchers selling certain classes of livestock. This was a bill to reinstate previous tax break exemptions that had ended in 2022.

“Our tax code should promote livestock production, which we know is often how beginning farmers get their start in agriculture,” says Rep. Derek Wulf, R-Hudson, who co-sponsored the bill. “We know that livestock production supports rural communities and drives our rural economic activity…We want to make sure that we don’t increase taxes on our livestock producers and farmers here in this state.”

Continued legislation against lab-grown meat

Iowa becomes the third state in the country to pass legislation regarding lab-grown meat. Florida and Alabama both passed laws banning the sale of the cell cultured alternative meat product in their states this month. Florida’s law was signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis on May 1, 2024, and Alabama’s Gov. Kay Ivey signed the Alabama Bill , which the prohibits “the manufacture, sale, or distribution of food products made from cultured animal cells,” on May 7.

Jack Hubbard, executive director of the Center for the Environment and Welfare, shares that consumers have several concerns in the matters of cell cultured meat.

“Policymakers nationwide are grappling with growing consumer concern regarding lab-grown meat’s use of immortalized cells, bioreactors, chemicals and the lack of long-term health studies,” Hubbard says. “I think a lot of this legislative activity is politicians and elected representatives voicing and acting on the concerns of constituents who are saying ‘what is this stuff and have we done our due diligence.’ And to be frank, there is a major yuck factor that a lot of people have when they actually learn about how this is made.”

Hubbard see additional states likely following suit in creating legislation.

“From a transparency perspective, it just seems like the right thing that consumers ought to have a right to know what they’re buying,” he says.

Read more...
North American Cattle Groups Advocates for Oversight of Lab-Grown Proteins

Warrantless Searches of Private Land Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Rules

Fri, 10 May 2024 19:10:24 GMT

State officials in Tennessee cannot conduct warrantless searches of private, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee ruled unanimously on May 9. The ruling applies to private land under “actual use” via fencing, farming, posting, gating, hunting, fishing, camping, or other activities.

The ruling backed a circuit court ruling in favor of Benton County landowners Terry Rainwaters and Hunter Hollingsworth. The pair sued the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) after game wardens entering their posted land and installed trail cameras for surveillance purposes.

Judge Jeffrey Usman wrote: “TWRA’s contention is a disturbing assertion of power on behalf of the government that stands contrary to the foundations of the search protections against arbitrary governmental intrusions in the American legal tradition, generally, and in [Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution], specifically.”

“TWRA’s abuse of power had to stop,” Hunter Hollingsworth said. “For as long as I can remember, these officers have acted like a law unto themselves. But nobody—not even a game warden—is above the Constitution, and yesterday’s decision makes that crystal clear.”

“This decision has been a long time coming. For too long, TWRA officers have treated my private land like public property,” Terry Rainwaters added. “But in Tennessee, our land means something to us. It’s part of who we are.”

TWRA contended warrantless searches were legal under the federal Open Fields doctrine. In 1924, SCOTUS held the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect land beyond the home and its immediately surrounding area. The Court reaffirmed the doctrine in 1984 when it held that landowners have no “reasonable expectation of privacy” on any land considered to be an “open field.”

Rainwaters and Hollingsworth were represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ). “Fortunately, the Tennessee Constitution provides greater protection than what the U.S. Supreme Court currently says about the Fourth Amendment,” said Robert Frommer, IJ senior attorney.

“This decision is a massive win for property rights in Tennessee,” Joshua Windham said. “TWRA claimed unfettered power to put on full camouflage, invade people’s land, roam around as it pleases, take photos, record videos, sift through ponds, spy on people from behind bushes—all without consent, a warrant, or any meaningful limits on their power.”

TWRA has 60 days to appeal the decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Currently, there are three other Open Fields cases pending in Louisiana , Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

(For more, see Power vs. Privacy: Landowner Sues Game Wardens, Challenges Property Intrusion )

Rancher Sues Biden Over 1M Acre Claim, Contends Abuse of Presidential Authority

Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:05:03 GMT

How much acreage can a president take with the stroke of a pen? 10 million acres? 500 million acres? More?

The answer, says sixth-generation rancher Chris Heaton, is not a single acre beyond the law. Heaton’s livestock operation is at risk from the federal government’s latest land appropriation—a near million-acre claim by President Biden via the Antiquities Act through creation of the Ancestral Footprints National Monument.

Contending abuse of presidential authority, Heaton, in the crosshairs of potential fines and imprisonment for everyday activity on his ranch, has filed a federal lawsuit against Biden.

“My forefathers built this ranch and I’m not going to lose it on my watch,” Heaton says. “I’ll do this the proper way in the courts, and if Biden wants a fight, then he’s going to get one.”

A Weapon

In August 2023, Biden issued a proclamation turning 917,618 federal acres in northern Arizona into the Ancestral Footprints National Monument by wielding the power of the Antiquities Act, a law intended for the protection of archeological sites or landmarks and their immediate, surrounding acreage.

Biden dropped a blanket of government regulation on every inch of the Monument, an area 150,000 acres larger than Yosemite, and 75,000 acres bigger than the Grand Teton National Park and Great Smoky Mountains Park put together. Biden’s proclamation covers landscapes, species, and objects—named and unnamed—within all 917,618 acres, including plateaus, canyons, tributaries, remnants of homes, storage buildings, pottery, tools, other physical remnants of human habitation, 50 species of plants, groundwaters that flow into the Colorado River, geological features, cliffs, faults, deserts, grasslands, woodlands, forests, riparian vegetation, and a variety of endangered species.

(Farm Journal)

“Normal ranching is now gone here, and that’s what my family has practiced for decades,” Heaton insists. “Overnight, we’re not allowed to disrupt or destroy objects, both known and unknown, on the Monument. We literally don’t know all the objects because some are listed and some are not, yet they have associated criminal penalties. This is like putting someone in a game and expecting them to play by the rules—without telling them the rules.”

On a mix of private land and acres leased from Arizona and the Bureau of Land Management, Heaton, 37, runs cattle on 48,603 acres now overlapped by the Monument. He has three federal grazing permits and 47 private water rights.

Every day of the year, Heaton’s 200 cow pairs are on land designated for the Monument. In daily rhythm, Heaton and his family tend livestock, clean water holes, cut overgrowth, remove silt, mend fences, drop minerals, chop ice, repair roads, and a host of other standard production practices—all now in jeopardy.

In February 2024, represented by Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), Heaton filed suit against Biden; Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack; Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland; and Bureau of Land Management Director Tracy Stone-Manning.

(DOJ, USDA, DOI, and BLM all declined Farm Journal requests for comment on Chris Heaton’s suit.)

“We’re asking a federal court to check Biden’s executive overreach,” says PLF attorney Adam Griffin. “Biden has taken 1 million acres and said a ‘landscape’ is an object and everything on it is an object. Look at the absurdity: The entire landscape Chris Heaton is on is now a national monument. How does a landscape become an object? I’ve never heard anyone in my life look at a landscape and say, ‘That’s a beautiful object.’”

PLF attorney Frank Garrison says the Biden administration is making “law through proclamation.”

“Only Congress can pass such laws—not the president. Biden is using a work-around to pass regulations that could never get through Congress, and the impact hits people who rely on natural resources to make a living,” Garrison notes. “Chris Heaton is in compliance with all land use statutes, but suddenly the government can turn him into a criminal over his everyday ranching activities.”

“If anyone wants a clear picture of how government power expands to all-powerful levels,” Griffin echoes, “look no further than what has become a weapon in the hands of the president—the Antiquities Act.”

“Does The Law Not Matter?”

In 1906, at the urging of Theodore Roosevelt, Congress passed the Antiquities Act. Contained on a single page, a mere 441 words authorized the president to “declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments…”

(Farm Journal)

Congress approved the Antiquities Act to allow a president to protect specific locations in tight crosshairs, evidenced by congressional debate on whether monuments should be limited between 320 to 640 acres. (Congress kept the power to create big-acreage national parks to itself, having started with the establishment of Yellowstone in 1872.)

At passage of the Antiquities Act, the text allowed a president to “reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected…”

Over the next 120 years, the “smallest area” ballooned to millions of acres, and “objects” expanded to ecosystems. Since 1906, successive presidents have used the Antiquities Act to cordon off staggering swathes of land—roughly 800 million acres in total.

Turns out, the race for land in U.S. history never ended, with Uncle Sam still leading the scramble—never mind the law or Constitution. In recent decades, multiple presidents have vastly increased acreage claims for national monuments. Jimmy Carter; 55 million acres. Bill Clinton; 5 million acres. George W. Bush; 215 million acres. Barak Obama; 554 million acres (mainly via two marine monuments).

“They act as if there is no limiting principle,” Garrison says, “but that’s not how our Constitution works. What next? If a president can designate species, landscapes, ecosystems, and amorphous concepts like objects, then how much land can a president rope off next? The entire West?”

Heaton, via his lawsuit, asks glaring questions: “Does the law not matter? Does the will of the people not matter? Do the reps, senators, state legislators, county boards, and resolutions not matter? One president gets total control and the people and elected officials mean nothing?”

Ranching, Mining, Logging?

Heaton’s Y-Cross Ranch is 40 miles north of the Grand Canyon. He has worked the land, once in the shadows of his father and grandfather, since the age of 8. “My family ranched here before BLM existed. We take care of the land, pay grazing fees, and get nothing for free. There are national monuments with millions of acres all around us in Arizona and Utah, but if you talk to people in coffee shops, grocery stores, or regular folks on the street, you find out that our local economies are strangled because the government forces our area to be dependent on tourism.”

“Ranching, mining, or logging—the government wants to control all of it or shut it down,” Heaton says. “That’s why presidents in the past, and Biden now, are willing to ignore the law. My ranch and many, many other producers are in the crosshairs of his control.”

(Northern Arizona is estimated to have at least 2.6 billion pounds of uranium. In 2022, 95% of uranium needed by U.S. nuclear power plants was imported from foreign countries, including Russia.)

“Special interest groups turned to the president to get this land under federal control because they knew it couldn’t be done legitimately through congress,” concurs PLF attorney Adam Griffin. “However, before this much federal land is locked up, the process should go to the people through their reps in Congress. It shouldn’t be, and wasn’t intended to be, up to a single individual.

Whose Wishes?

Will Heaton’s lawsuit, or a similar case, eventually land before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)?

(Farm Journal)

In 2021, SCOTUS declined to hear Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association v. Raimondo , an Antiquities Act-related case triggered when Obama declared 5,000 square miles of ocean to be a national monument and banned all fishing, but Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern in a four-page statement :

While the Executive enjoys far greater flexibility in setting aside a monument under the Antiquities Act, that flexibility, as mentioned, carries with it a unique constraint: Any land reserved under the Act must be limited to the smallest area compatible with the care and management of the objects to be protected. Somewhere along the line, however, this restriction has ceased to pose any meaningful restraint. A statute permitting the President in his sole discretion to designate as monuments “land- marks,” “structures,” and “objects”—along with the smallest area of land compatible with their management—has been transformed into a power without any discernible limit to set aside vast and amorphous expanses of terrain above and below the sea.

The Antiquities Act began as a simple measure to protect the past: When the legislative branch via Congress put the ball in motion, the executive branch via the president took the ball and ran. Heaton contends the president has run beyond the Constitution.

“I’m suing because Biden assumes he has power to affect the livelihoods of so many people in agriculture and other industries with a baseless declaration,” Heaton concludes. “He wants to act according to his own wishes, but I’m demanding he act according to the law.”

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

Power vs. Privacy: Landowner Sues Game Wardens, Challenges Property Intrusion

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

American Gothic: Farm Couple Nailed In Massive $9M Crop Insurance Fraud

Priceless Pistol Found After Decades Lost in Farmhouse Attic

Cottonmouth Farmer: The Insane Tale of a Buck-Wild Scheme to Corner the Snake Venom Market

Tractorcade: How an Epic Convoy and Legendary Farmer Army Shook Washington, D.C.

Bizarre Mystery of Mummified Coon Dog Solved After 40 Years

While America Slept, China Stole the Farm