Policy Updates

A New Era for the West: Public Lands Rule Repealed as BLM Overhauls Grazing Regs

Tue, 12 May 2026 21:13:28 GMT

In a sweeping move to restore the federal government’s commitment to multiple-use management, the Trump administration Tuesday finalized the rescission of the Biden-era Conservation and Landscape Health Rule (the Public Lands Rule) while simultaneously unveiling a landmark proposal to modernize the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) aging grazing regulations.

According to the Public Lands Council (PLC), individually, these actions are consequential to cattle and sheep producers across the West; together, they are a clear signal of BLM’s commitment to restoring effective multiple-use management and the agency’s investment in promoting strong rangeland resilience.

“From day one, public lands ranchers were clear with the Trump administration: we needed them to remove policies that illegally picked winners and losers in public land management, and we needed them to deliver on their commitment to bring important reforms to the agency’s 35-year-old grazing regulations,” says PLC President and Colorado permittee Tim Canterbury. “Today, they have delivered repeal of the Public Lands Rule that would have resulted in removal of grazing under the guise of ‘conservation’ principles, even though science demonstrates the benefits of our highly managed grazing on these landscapes.”

He adds, “For far too long, BLM has been operating under a set of rules that were developed in response to the ‘cattle free by [19]93’ campaign. The resulting regulations all but ensured ranchers did not have the flexibility to take full advantage of the scientific and management advances that the industry has made over the last 35 years. PLC called on the administration early in their term to incorporate principles of adaptive management into these regulations. Cattle and sheep producers – and the agency line officers they work with – should have the flexibility to make the best possible management decisions for the land, water and permit conditions, unconstrained by antiquated regulations. Today’s announcement is a massive step forward.”

What the Repeal Means for Ranchers

Restoring Multiple-Use: The repeal removes “conservation leases” that critics argued illegally prioritized nonuse over livestock production and energy development.
Wildfire Risk Reduction: Managed grazing is now formally recognized as a primary tool for reducing fuel loads and preventing catastrophic wildfires.
Regulatory Flexibility: Updated regulations provide “adaptive management” power, allowing ranchers to respond to weather and forage changes without waiting for lengthy federal approvals.

What was the Public Land Rule?

According to the Associated Press , the 2024 rule adopted under former President Joe Biden was meant to refocus the BLM, which oversees about 10% of land in the U.S. It allowed public property to be leased for restoration in the same way that oil companies lease land for drilling.

AP reports, “ Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the rule could have blocked access to hundreds of thousands of acres (hectares) of land — preventing energy and timber production and hurting ranchers who graze on public lands.”

Supporters argue conservation had long been a secondary consideration at the land bureau, neglecting its mission under the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act. While the bureau previously issued leases for conservation purposes in limited cases, it never had a dedicated program prior to the Biden administration.

PLC led industry efforts to repeal the Public Lands Rule since it was initially finalized in 2024, including through congressional resolutions of disapproval and seeking legal remedies for the harm that would have been done to public lands ranchers and the resources they manage.

According to PLC, “Not only was this rule illegal, but it would also have enabled the federal government to remove family owned livestock operations from working lands and increase the risk for catastrophic wildfires by leaving countless acres of rangeland unmanaged.”

Your Next Read:

What is the New Grazing MOU?

Reciprocity and Balance: The New Blueprint for U.S. Agricultural Trade Agreements

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 21:01:54 GMT

Ambassador Julie Callahan is the chief ag negotiator at the U.S. Trade Representative, and she reports positive momentum toward rebuilding trade agreements equating to a positive U.S. ag trade balance.

“We came into a situation in January 2025 where the US ag trade deficit was ballooning in a really unsustainable manner,” she says.

At the beginning of 2025, USDA forecasted a $50 billion deficit for U.S. agricultral trade.

“Compare that to an agricultural trade surplus in 2020 when President Trump left office, of a $6 billion surplus. So we were $56 billion in the hole, you might say, at the beginning of the administration, but through the efforts of the president ensuring trading partners understand they need to treat U.S. farmers and ranchers right, we are seeing real shifts in our trade balance and chipping away at the deficit toward a surplus.”

Trade Wins Highlighted by Government Officials

Callahan points to eight signed trade agreements with: Malaysia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Argentina, Bangladesh, Taiwan and Indonesia. She says these are binding agreements, where the foreign governments are:

lowering tariffs for U.S. ag products
removing unfair trade practices
and lifting regulatory barriers

“These are serious binding trade agreements that will deliver real value for U.S. farmers and ranchers,” Callahan says. And when asked if Congressional action to codify agreements is necessary, Callahan says that action would be supported but should not be necessary.

“These foreign governments have made binding commitments in terms of adjusting tariff schedules, they are also making regulatory changes. USTR will be enforcing these agreements. They are enforceable.”

Examples of enforceable commitments include:

Indonesia removes its import licensing requirements
Malaysia accepts facilities on their registration list as long as FSIS has them on their list

The Future of the U.S./China Trade Relationship

At the 2026 Top Producer Summit, Lyu Jiang, minister for economic and commercial affairs at the Chinese Embassy in the U.S., characterized the U.S. and Chinese relationship being a phase of stabilization.

When prompted to react, Callahan agreed saying, “We very much want a stable, predictable, transactional relationship with our Chinese counterparts. We do want to normalize, bring reciprocity and balance back to our trade relationship and ensure that U.S. farmers, and ranchers can benefit from the Chinese market again.”

She says her office is balancing the agricultural stakeholders wanting access to the large-scale Chinese market with a strategy to also diversify trade partnerships as to not be too reliant on a single country.

“We are working through the agreement on reciprocal trade to diversify our markets so we don’t overly rely on China,” she says. “We are looking to address that very serious situation where China may see agriculture as a pain point for the United States.”

With the upcoming meeting of President Trump and President Xi in April, Callahan says her team and the larger U.S. trade team is working to prepare and set the stage for a positive outcome. Callahan points to specific issues to be worked through and market focuses spanning crops and livestock.

“Both sides want the meetings to be a success,” she says. “Certainly, in the meetings leading up to the president level discussion, we will be having open and frank conversations with China where we need to see areas of improvement. That’s not limited to soybeans to sorghum. Our beef producers don’t have access to China due to China’s unfortunate actions that are not renewing facility registrations.”

The Review of USMCA

With a goal of “reciprocity and balance across north America” the trade team is working on its review of the North American trade deal.

“We absolutely understand the importance of USMCA for U.S. farmers and ranchers,” Callahan says.

Describing this as a “comprehensive review” she says that spans:

Look at what is working
Maintain what is working
Improve on areas not be delivering the benefits U.S. farmers and ranchers expect

She brings up the overall trade balance with Canada and specifically, Canadian dairy.

“With Canada, we went from a $3 billion deficit in 2020 and now we have an $11 billion ag trade deficit. So there are certainly areas for improvement, and we’re taking all of our stakeholders’ comments into consideration,” Callahan says.

HELP Act Seeks Relief for Livestock Haulers

Mon, 28 Jul 2025 15:26:57 GMT

The Hauling Exemptions for Livestock Protection (HELP) Act , HR 4500, was introduced July 17 and has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The HELP Act would allow truck drivers who haul livestock, insects and aquatic animals to be permanently exempt from Hours-of-Service (HOS) requirements in order to accommodate the unique and ever-changing needs of the live cargo they are carrying.

The bill builds on previous temporary exemptions given to livestock haulers during COVID.

“These provisions regulating livestock haulers have proven time and time again to be unnecessary and burdensome,” says Colorado Congressman Jeff Hurd in a press release . “Live animals have unique care needs and require flexibility to be safely transported along the supply chain. Frequent road closures and adverse weather makes this flexibility especially important in Colorado. The HELP Act provides this critical regulatory relief and allows haulers to continue delivering for our producers and food supply safely and effectively, as they’ve shown for over two years during the pandemic.”

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) announced its support of the legislation.

“When you are hauling cattle, you are dealing with livestock that must be protected from the elements and cannot be easily unloaded until you get to your destination. Livestock haulers need flexibility to complete their trips free from government mandates,” says NCBA policy division chair Skye Krebs, an Oregon rancher who hauls livestock and holds a commercial driver’s license. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, haulers and ranchers like me were granted additional flexibility on hours of service and electronic logging devices. In that time, we proved we could safely transport our livestock and also support the overall supply chain.”

The HELP Act codifies HOS and ELD exemptions that were issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for about two years during the pandemic. Since then, America’s livestock haulers have been burdened by HOS rules again, but this legislation would reinstate permanent exemptions — providing the flexibility necessary to safely transport livestock.

“Anyone who has spent time around agriculture knows livestock require unique care and flexibility,” says Rep. Tracey Mann from Kansas, who joins Hurd in leading the legislation. “The Department of Transportation’s hours of service and electronic logging device rules fail to take that reality into account and puts unnecessary burdens on livestock, livestock haulers and the nation’s food supply chain as a whole. Our bill rolls back these burdensome regulations and gives our nation’s livestock haulers the flexibility they need to keep our food supply chain strong.”

Last week, FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced they are withdrawing a proposed rule to mandate speed limiters in trucks. This announcement was welcome news for livestock haulers, but HOS and ELD mandates continue to pose a threat to drivers.

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?

Quiet Crisis, Unfolding Rapidly: Big Questions Remain For Next Gen Farmers

Tue, 10 Jun 2025 21:43:13 GMT

Florida fresh produce grower Jim Alderman says one thing is his biggest worry.

“Who is coming behind us? That’s the part that keeps me up at night. It’s not just about growing crops, it also passing down knowledge, discipline and our way of life,” he said during a recent congressional hearing on the aging workforce in agriculture.

Earlier this year, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) spearheaded a special committee report on America’s Aging Farm Workforce.

Four drivers were highlighted:

Aging demographics
Declining farm numbers
Barriers for new farmers
Regulatory and economic pressures

As a follow up, on June 4, the senate special committee he oversees had a hearing “America’s Vanishing Family Farms.”

“Unfortunately, the farming and agricultural workforce is aging and nearing retirement, and fewer and fewer young people are looking to take over their family’s farms or enter the agriculture industry,” Sen. Scott said. “We face significant challenges to agricultural production, rural community sustainability, and U.S. food security. Here’s why this matters: U.S. food security is national security.”

Recent stats he points to include:

1/3 of farmers and ranchers are over the age of 65
This same group owns more than 40% of U.S. farmland
More than 80% of farmers work a second job
Since 2007, 200,000 farms have disappeared
The 2022 census showed the loss of over 140,000 farms in 5 years. That’s an average of 77 farms per day. 
Since 2007, more than 40 million acres of farmland is now used for commercial, residential or industrial purposes
Farmland prices have increased 7% in three years

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) is ranking member on the special committee for aging and said, “To encourage younger generation to returning to Farmer we farming, we must invest in our rural communities.”

Witnesses shared testimony highlighting the pain points, overall trends and discussed potential policy solutions.

“As I travel the country and see farms across our great country, I see a lot of gray hair, and while the wisdom of older generations is critical, we must ensure that we make a way for young and beginning farmers to fill our boots,” said Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

What are those policy provisions that could assist with the farm labor issues?

1. The Farm Bill
In his testimony, Duvall shared a getting a farm bill passed by congress is critical to signal stability and predictability in agriculture.

“We need a modernized 5 year farm bill,” he said. “Rising interest rates, higher energy prices, supply costs that have gone unchecked, farmers will plant the most expensive crop ever planted this year, and many have faced a tough decision of whether or not to even plant that crop. This is why the farm bill and its Title One safety net is so critical.”

2. Estate tax provisions

Duvall also highlighted the importance of the estate tax exemption for farmers for transitioning the farm business from one generation to the next. He applauded the House for its consideration of in the One Big Beautiful Bill it recently passed, and encouraged the senate to follow.

3. Farm worker programs, specifically H-2A

“It’s time to modernize our outdated system, and only Congress can meaningfully do that,” Duvall said.

Alderman uses H-2A labor and says reform is a must.

“We are now dependent on H-2A labor from Mexico,” he said. “Without them, we can’t harvest our crops.”

For Alderman in Florida, whereas minimum wage is $12.50/hour, H-2A labor is compensated at $26/hour plus the expense of housing, transportation and visas.

Duvall adds the federal government needs to revisit its wage structure for H-2A labor, citing the wage rates were set by a study done 60 years ago intended to calculate on-farm employment totals, not compensation.

“We’re going to price ourselves out of farming,” he says. Duvall is advocating for an updated program and one that includes year-round provisions for dairy farmers, and other parts of the industry that need full-time labor not just seasonal help.

“How can a young farmer come back to the farm and bring his expertise that he learned in college, expand that farm without having a labor force to do that. It’s one of the biggest limiting factors we have,” Duvall says.

4. Economic stability, risk management and trade.

“The incentive to make a profit isn’t there,” Alderman says. “If the farmer isn’t going to make money, he’s not able to expand his operation.”

Aaron Locker, Managing Director, Kincannon & Reed calls this a quietly unfolding crisis that is rapidly cutting across the agriculture.

“And the consequences for our food supply, our rural communities, and our national security are serious,” he said. “The 1980s farm crisis didn’t just damage balance sheets. It’s changed the interest of being involved in agriculture. That gap is being realized today in board rooms, field office, agronomy teams and more.”

The witnesses answered questions about President Trump’s trade policy and tariffs, with Duvall saying farmers have supported the president’s long-term vision to bring a “level playing field,” but he also says this fall will be a critical time for some progress when farmers are slated to harvest and sell commodities at low prices with high input costs.

5. Regulatory considerations.

Alderman says there are areas of his fresh produce business being over-regulated, which has put extra financial pressure when competing with imported crops. As an example, he points to multiple food safety inspections which could be replaced with a one-time inspection.

And in conjunction with the regulation on his business, he has seen how a lapse in regulatory authority over imported produce inspected at the borders has negatively effected the industry.

“For example, the citrus industry with citrus greening, it’s devastated the cirtrus industry. We have gone from 240 million boxes of oranges in production to around 40 million boxes today,” he said, and added Florida produce growers are introduced with a new thirp or weevil every growing season, which takes months to contain and identify proper controls.

6. Provide mental health resources

Christopher A. Wolf, Ph.D. from Cornell University says its New York FarmNet receives 700 calls a year. Financial stress include price uncertainty, labor cost and availability, capital costs, land access, and estate and succession planning. Family-related farm stressors include health insurance, childcare, eldercare, and drug and alcohol abuse.

“Male farmers have a suicide rate 3.5 times higher than the national,” he said. “Financial stress is one of the primary contributors to the depression and suicide rate. Additionally, mental health stigma and lack of access to care are major barriers.”

Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act Introduced to Promote Fair Play

Thu, 10 Apr 2025 20:07:06 GMT

With the goal of strengthening the enforcement of the Stockyards and Packers Act, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the senate judiciary committee and a member of the senate agriculture committee, joined Senators Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Mike Rounds, R-S.D.; and Peter Welch, D-Vt., to introduce the Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act .

The act would create and empower a team of investigators at USDA to prevent anticompetitive practices in the meat and poultry industry by enforcing existing antitrust laws, in coordination with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.

In a press release, the senators said the legislation will allow more opportunities for ranchers and drive down meat prices for shoppers.

“For decades, America’s big four meatpackers’ anticompetitive practices have made it harder for Iowa cattle producers to receive a fair price,” Grassley said. “Our bill empowers USDA, in coordination with the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission, to crack down on bad actors, ensuring a fair and functional marketplace that supports everyone who produces and enjoys quality American meat.”

Wyden, Welch, Rounds and Grassley’s bipartisan legislation would specifically strengthen the enforcement of existing price-fixing laws to ensure the big four meatpackers comply.

“For too long, Oregon ranchers and consumers have been greedily exploited by the big four meatpackers that sneak their way around regulations,” Wyden said. “While local ranchers work tirelessly day and night to support their small business and feed families across the country, these big companies keep raking in bigger bills at the expense of local communities in red and blue states alike. It’s way past time to level the playing field for local ranchers and bring grocery prices down for consumers at the meat counter by better enforcing laws that are already on the books.”

Rounds added, “Anticompetitive practices in the meatpacking industry hurt producers and consumers alike. Currently, four large companies, two of which are foreign-owned, control over 80% of the meat processing market. Our legislation would establish an office within the USDA to investigate violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, which will support competition in meat and poultry markets.”

Reducing meat and dairy prices at the grocery store is a goal of the legislation.

“Vermonters rely on fresh foods from local farmers and ranchers to feed their families,” Welch said. “But with meat and dairy prices at the grocery store soaring sky high, small producers across the country are struggling to make ends meet and support their businesses. The rapid consolidation of the meatpacking industry further cripples fair competition. Our bipartisan bill will bring down costs for consumers and create opportunities for producers in red and blue states alike.”

The Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act is endorsed by the National Farmers Union and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association.

Your Next Read: New Food Security and Farm Protection Act Protects Farmers and Consumers From Government Overreach

How Your Income Taxes Will Change This Year

Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:01:31 GMT

The Trump tax cuts, officially known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, have been a topic of significant debate since their inception. It appears the Republicans might have enough political capital to both extend the TCJA and enact additional tax cuts that could help farmers.

The major tax cuts that have helped farmers since 2017 include (but not limited to):

Reduction in most tax rates
100% bonus depreciation through 2022
Section 199A 20% net deduction on farm income
Doubling the estate tax exemption (currently $13.99 million)
Increasing the child tax credit to $2,000

However, there were also some provisions that penalized many farmers:

Limiting the state and local tax (SALT) deduction to $10,000
Eliminating the tax-free treatment of equipment trades
Reducing 100% bonus depreciation (there will be none starting in 2027)
Dropping the corporate tax rate to 21% (most farmers paid 15%, so this was a 40% tax increase)

The House Republicans passed a budget bill to allow income taxes to rise by $4.5 trillion over 10 years. The Senate is proposing to ignore the budget effect of making the Trump tax cuts permanent, and the House could go along with this proposal.

This effectively allows Congress to make the Trump tax cuts permanent and allows for an additional $4.5 trillion of reduced taxes in other areas such as:

Eliminating taxes on tip income
Eliminating taxes on social security income
Eliminating taxes on overtime
Eliminating estate taxes
Reducing the corporate income tax rate to 15% for domestic production

However, there are many provisions of the Trump tax cuts that some Republicans are not in favor of, such as the $10,000 cap on the SALT deduction. Eliminating this cap would cost about a trillion over 10 years. Most republicans are also not in favor of the Inflation Reduction Act “green” provisions and many of them will be repealed or reduced, that could include the Section 45Z fuel tax credit.

The bottom line is income tax law will change this year, and it will be dramatic. Our crystal ball right now is fairly cloudy as to the final provisions, but for most farmers the changes will likely be beneficial.

NCBA Warns Cattle Producers That Corporate Transparency Act Reporting Requirements Will Return Due to Court Ruling

Fri, 27 Dec 2024 15:01:13 GMT

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) warns cattle producers that Corporate Transparency Act filing requirements are back in effect following a court decision that reverses the injunction that previously halted this mandate.

“The Corporate Transparency Act requires millions of family farmers and ranchers to file complex paperwork and disclose beneficial ownership information with the federal government under penalty of severe fines and jailtime,” says NCBA Executive Director of Government Affairs Kent Bacus. “FinCEN should do the right thing and provide a realistic delay to the Corporate Transparency Act until Congress has an opportunity to provide a permanent fix that protects family farmers and ranchers.”

On Monday, Dec. 23, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a nationwide preliminary injunction on the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act, holding that the government is likely to prevail in a constitutional challenge. This decision places many small businesses in jeopardy that have not yet filed Beneficial Ownership Information with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

In light of the Fifth Circuit’s decision, FinCEN announced it will delay enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act until Jan.13, 2025—just three weeks from now. This delay does not allow enough time for millions of small businesses to comply with the law, and it is deeply concerning that FinCEN will proceed with enforcing this law when it has failed to give adequate notice and instructions to law abiding family business owners.

NCBA will continue fighting for a permanent solution that protects cattle farmers and ranchers from this overreaching mandate. In the meantime, cattle producers are advised to consult their attorney and/or tax professional regarding this new development.

Your next read: 10 Understated Things Economists Say Could Impact Agriculture in the New Year

Where Do Harris and Trump Stand On Ag Policy Issues?

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 19:19:35 GMT

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) released the unedited responses from Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump to its questionnaire on federal agricultural policy. This initiative allows Farm Bureau members to directly compare each candidate’s platform.

AFBF has been collecting and sharing responses from presidential candidates across parties for over 40 years to provide transparency on key agricultural issues.

Overview
Trump supports increasing commodity price supports, improving crop insurance, and focusing on innovation to keep ahead of China. He also pledged to lower energy bills and end Biden’s net-zero emissions policies.

Harris highlights the Biden administration’s initiatives to protect small farmers from unfair competition, citing Trump’s previous proposals for deep cuts to critical farming programs.

Farm policy and programs

Trump emphasized strengthening crop insurance and risk management programs, as well as supporting beginning farmers and ranchers. He highlighted his previous administration’s efforts, including signing a “massive Farm Bill” that improved agriculture programs and increased borrowing limits for farmers.
Harris focused on defending programs that allow farmers and ranchers to prosper, criticizing Trump’s proposed cuts to essential farming programs. She emphasized the importance of crop insurance and risk management tools.

Regulatory issues

Trump pledged to slash regulations that he believes stifle American agriculture and increase costs. He cited his previous administration’s efforts to cut regulations, claiming it saved farmers and taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Harris committed to reducing excessive red tape while maintaining necessary protections.

On labor, both were vague.

Trump said he supports merit-based immigration.
Harris advocates for immigration reform to benefit the economy and farmers.

Environmental issues

Trump emphasized increasing ethanol production and reducing EPA regulations. Trump promised to end Biden’s net-zero emissions policies.
Harris underscored the importance of clean water and conservation efforts.

Trade policy

Trump promised to fight barriers to agricultural exports and highlighted his previous administration’s trade deals, including the Phase 1 agreement with China.
Harris vowed to stand firm against unfair trade practices, especially from China. She criticized Trump’s previous trade war, citing the costs to farmers and taxpayers.

Endangered Species Act

Trump suggested focusing on incentive-based programs for species recovery, criticizing the current law’s effectiveness.
Harris emphasized the need for cooperative initiatives that consider all Americans, including farmers and ranch owners, in conservation efforts.

White House Reaches Tentative Accord to Avert National Rail Strike

Tue, 20 Sep 2022 06:18:25 GMT

In a statement, President Joe Biden said the White House has reached a tentative agreement to avert a national rail strike. He says the offer will guarantee “better pay, improved working conditions, and peace of mind around their health care costs” for the workers.

“The agreement is also a victory for railway companies who will be able to retain and recruit more workers for an industry that will continue to be part of the backbone of the American economy for decades to come,” Biden said in the statement.

A Department of Labor official confirmed that a deal “that balances the needs of workers, businesses, and our nation’s economy” was reached in the early hours of the morning on Thursday after 20 consecutive hours of negotiations between rail companies and union negotiators.

“Secretary Walsh and the Biden administration applaud all parties for reaching this hard-fought, mutually beneficial deal,” a labor official said. “Our rail system is integral to our supply chain, and a disruption would have had catastrophic impacts on industries, travelers and families across the country.”

Update:

Union members hold final say on us rail deal, or possible strike. Marathon talks led to a tentative agreement Thursday. What happens next depends on more than 100,000 workers represented by a several different unions, who’ll have to decide whether to ratify their leaders’ deals or reject them, setting the stage for a massive work stoppage.
The tentative deal, the text of which hasn’t been publicly released, included record wage increases and new protections but didn’t include paid sick days workers had sought, according to union leaders. The tentative freight-rail agreements include a 24% wage increase over five years, 2020 through 2024, including 14.1% effective immediately, as well as five annual $1,000 payments, the National Carriers’ Conference Committee said.
The cooling-off period in which work stoppages are prohibited has been extended to last several weeks past when workers vote to accept or reject its terms, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said. A timeline for those votes has not been released.
The dilemma: Union members are likely to weigh the viability of pulling off a successful strike and the political impact it could have before the midterm elections, as well as how much the tentative deal does to address their core concerns, said Wilma Liebman, a former deputy director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and former chair of the National Labor Relations Board.
Another try: The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union says it is now working to get a new agreement after its members rejected a tentative deal that had been struck earlier.
Some agreement: The BLET, the International Association of Sheet Metal Air, Rail & Transportation Workers, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen have all now agreed to the tentative pact, according to the National Carriers’ Conference Committee, which represents national freight railways in bargaining. Together, the three speak for about 60,000 workers, it said in a statement.
Feel the Bern? Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement: “Now it’s up to the rank-and-file union members to evaluate this deal and determine whether it works for them. These workers have not had a raise in three years and continue to work incredibly long hours under brutal working conditions. I will respect and support whatever decision they make.”
Freight railroads immediately restored services they had suspended earlier in the week. Union Pacific Corp. and Norfolk Southern Corp. said they are working to resume normal operations after halting some service in anticipation of a work stoppage.
Bottom line: The deal, if approved, could raise shipping costs as railroads try to recoup their added labor costs, analysts said. But it could improve service, which has suffered from capacity and labor shortages.

Report on Cash Cattle Mandate: ‘Attempting to Solve a Problem that Does Not Exist’

Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:26:47 GMT

Revised legislation by a bipartisan group of senators did not fare well in an assessment by a group of agricultural economists ahead of a hearing April 26 on the topic by the Senate Ag Committee ( link ). The House Ag panel on April 27 will hold a hearing on the meat packing industry with several meat packer CEOs testifying in a hearing titled, “An Examination of Price Discrepancies, Transparency, and Alleged Unfair Practices in Cattle Markets.”

The senators hope the revamped piece of legislation will ensure more price transparency in the cattle markets. The bill was first introduced in November and was initially proposed by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

The proposed bill:

• Requires USDA to establish 5-7 regions covering the continental United States and that reasonably reflect similar fed cattle purchases.

• Designates a set of approved pricing mechanisms for covered packers that contribute to price discovery and transparency. These include fed cattle purchases through negotiated cash, negotiated grid, at stockyards, and through trading systems where multiple buyers and sellers can make and accept bids.

• Requires USDA to set minimum levels of purchases through approved pricing mechanisms that covered packers — those controlling five percent or more of fed cattle slaughter — must make.

• Mandates that each regional mandatory minimum be not less than the average of that region’s negotiated trade for the two-year period of 2020-2021. Additionally, sets a maximum threshold for any region at 50%.

• Requires USDA to conduct an initial review of mandatory minimums after two years.

• Allows USDA to work with the cattle and beef industry to periodically review and modify regional minimums after a public notice and comment period.

The following are comments on the revised legislative proposal from these economists:

Derrell S. Peel, Breedlove Professor of Agribusiness and Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist, Oklahoma State University

David Anderson, Professor and Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist, Texas A&M University

John Anderson, Professor and Head, Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness and Director, Fryar Price Risk Management Center of Excellence, University of Arkansas

James Mitchell, Assistant Professor and Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist, University of Arkansas

Christopher Bastian, Professor, University of Wyoming

Scott Brown, Professor and Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist, University of Missouri

Stephen Koontz, Professor and Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist, Colorado State University

The working group provided the following comments:

“The cattle contract library (CCL) may add transparency and understanding as to the nature of types of contracts used in AMAs. Should this library happen, there needs to be some mechanism for weeding out contracts that are not used on a regular basis or perhaps putting them in some type of archive by date of use. This would allow producers and researchers to investigate current contract norms versus contract terms that are not currently in use. This is a problem with the current pork contract library.
“Does AMS really have the resources and ability to implement this CCL in the way intended? It seems unlikely.

“There is no research evidence of any significant or persistent fed cattle price discovery problem at this time. This legislation is attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. As such, this legislation offers zero benefits for fed cattle markets and imposes many millions of dollars of additional cost, added risk, and lost value. The exact cost will depend on details of implementation, but the cost is minimally hundreds of millions of dollars resulting in lower feeder cattle prices and higher consumer beef prices.
“Thinning negotiated trade is a concern and could become a problem. Price discovery is a public good problem, in that market participants collectively value and use negotiated price information, but individually have numerous incentives to not participate in price discovery. There is a need for continued monitoring and research to understand how to mitigate a potential lack of adequate price discovery and to identify alternatives and mechanisms to mitigate or compensate for the disincentives to participate in price discovery.

“Definition of regions may well be an issue given confidentiality rules. For example, three separate parties must be in a region for something to be reported, not three separate plants. If three plants operate in a region, but only two parties own them, confidentiality rules will preclude public reporting from those three plants. In some instances, large regions would need to be defined to include three separate parties that also slaughter 5% of the weekly total. How useful these regions would be for providing regional market information on prices is questionable.
“The public price reporting system has never before been used for regulatory purposes. Using reported prices in a regulatory system will create incentives for market participants to circumvent intended definitions. That is, firms will seek ways to reduce their transactions costs by defining trades such that they meet the negotiated trade rule. This could result in more cash trade (according to the definition), but lower quality information that is actually less useful.

“The previous version of the bill had language related to the USDA Office of the Chief Economist being involved in implementation. Language in this version of the bill puts the responsibility of setting minimum threshold levels solely with the Secretary of Ag. The current language suggests the Secretary will “examine the academic literature regarding minimum levels of negotiated transactions necessary to achieve robust price discovery…”. These thresholds do not exist in the reviewed/published academic literature. Moreover, it is our contention that even if such thresholds did exist they would not simply be constant values. Rather, these thresholds would vary with supply changes, demand changes, and unforeseen exogenous shocks occurring in the market. Given the complexity of this concept and the paucity of objective data and analysis related to it, the Secretary of Agriculture will be more than likely left with “political” objectives, not “economic efficiency” as a guiding principle in determining “minimum thresholds”. The current cap of 50% is in the bill, will this be the new threshold? What other politically driven numbers could this result in? The higher the thresholds, the higher the “known economic costs and negative impacts to the beef sector overall.”
“The incentives to reduce risks and transactions costs for producers and packers associated with quality and timing of sales and deliveries to plants will still exist with implementation of this bill. As such, forcing “minimum thresholds” will increase these risks and transactions costs for both producers and packing plants utilizing AMAs at a level beyond whatever the prescribed minimums, that cannot be objectively justified, turn out to be if this bill is implemented.
“There is no academic literature that indicates any analysis pointing toward benefits that can be quantified with these minimum thresholds. Benefits of reduced AMA use (alternatively, higher negotiated cash trade) are generally speculative. As noted, evidence that higher negotiated trade will positively impact prices, reduce marketing margins, or improve price discovery is lacking. However, many market participants clearly see negotiated cash trade as a good in and of itself. To the extent the industry desires greater cash market engagement, lower cost means of achieving this outcome are available.
“Feedlots and packers will respond to the incentives that this legislation creates. Research is needed to understand the incentives the bill creates and the market outcomes that would follow. Specific areas of research are highlighted below.
1. The bill would be administered at the plant level, and a plant-level assessment of the data is needed to fully understand how plants would realize increased costs and adjust their business models and marketing practices.
2. Research is needed to understand how feedlots and packers will substitute formula trades with negotiated trades. Similarly, research is necessary to know how feedlots and packers will substitute away from formulas using a cash base price to other formulas, e.g., futures price plus basis as the base price. Determining which of these substitution effects dominates will be a crucial piece of information. If the latter example (futures market) substitution dominates the market, the bill could actually lead to further erosion in cash market participation.
3. The bill proposes redefining market reporting regions. Considerable research is needed to evaluate the impacts on public information of alternative specifications for these regions. Consideration should also be given to how some level of continuity of data could be maintained in the event of a significant reconfiguration of regions. This is necessary for an accurate assessment of any benefits or costs associated with such change before and after implementation of different regions.
“The phrase “robust price discovery” is subjective, with no formal definition in the economics literature. To our knowledge, no research exists that offers prescriptive levels of regional negotiated trade that would improve a subjective measure of robust price discovery. On the basis of improving price discovery, it is unlikely that research will be able to offer estimates for regional mandatory minimums because price discovery is dependent on the situational supply and demand fundamentals. An alternative research perspective would be to determine the regional mandatory minimums that minimize the economic deadweight loss of restrictions on marketing alternatives such as those proposed in the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act of 2022.”

Texas A&M University is expected to release an updated report soon on the proposed legislation.