The next generation of farmers is struggling to secure land. It turns out that “living offa the fatta the lan’” (thank you, Lennie; Of Mice and Men) isn’t that easy when you can’t even get the land in the first place.
Enter LAPIs: These are land access policy incentives at both the state and federal levels. One of the most noteworthy LAPIs is the Transition Incentives Program aka TIP. TIP is a project of the USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) funded by national farm bills.
Landowners who have farmland due to be released from CRP are given two years of financial incentives if they lease or sell to a “beginning or socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher” with TIP.
Is CRP-TIP working? In a recent evaluation of the program, as part of the Land Access Policy Incentives project, supported by the American Farmland Trust, Indiana University, and Portland State University, the authors found interesting results.
First of all, participation is low, with an average of 300 CRP-TIP contracts per year (January 2014-April 2022). The majority are in the Midwest, Mountain West, and Plains regions.
The gap: There is quite literally a “spatial mismatch” between where next-gen farmers live and where there are high rates of TIP participation.
One consistency is actually inconsistency. Inconsistency in outreach is causing erratic participation. Plus the incentives focus on the landowners with land retiring from CRP, providing next-gen purchasers with opportunities to buy, but no incentives.
TIP needs tipped: The authors suggest TIP could be reformed to focus on the next-gen specifically and make incentives applicable to all farmland, not just expiring CRP. Information and support for TIP must be consistent, and federal staff must be ready to support and educate about the program.
At the end of the day, this could give farmers more tools to feed their herds, while also making the additive approval process more efficient and consistent.
Soundbite: “This legislation would provide food manufacturers with a pathway to make truthful, non-misleading production, environmental, and well-being claims for animal foods that have been substantiated to provide such benefits more efficiently.” — David Fairfield, Senior VP of Feed at the National Grain and Feed Association
Late last week, the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine revoked a 25-year-old policy that made it more difficult for animal food ingredient manufacturers to invest in the U.S. because of the slow regulatory process. Now, feed additives can be reviewed through the appropriate ingredient review process, not the CVM’s animal drug review rules.
However, for these changes to the regulatory review process to be codified, it will take a vote from Congress on the Innovative FEED Act.
Short Corn Packs a Punch
Dynamite comes in small packages—which can be true with new seed technology. What’s...
Congress to EPA: What’s Your BEEF with Meat Packers?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering new regulations that take aim at meat and poultry processors.
And some members of Congress have a BEEF with the EPA’s proposals.
The proposed rules: In late January, the EPA released the details of its proposed “Clean Water Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point source category.”
Huh?
Basically, the EPA formally published its proposals to combat wastewater contaminants that come from slaughterhouses.
Okay… that makes more sense.
At the heart of the rules proposal is a concern from environmental groups about nitrogen and phosphorus pollutants that originate from slaughterhouses. In some cases, the wastewater goes directly into waterways. In other cases, the water goes to municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
But not everyone is on board with the EPA’s suggestions…
Congress responds: Last week, two U.S. representatives—Eric Burlison (MO) and Ron Estes (KS)—pushed back against the EPA and introduced the “Banning EPA’s Encroachment of Facilities (BEEF) Act.” If passed and signed by President Biden, the law would prohibit the EPA from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the rule.
According to the lawmakers, the proposed rules place undue burden on small processors—costs that can be absorbed by larger companies.
Soundbite: “The… proposed regulation isn’t just an attack on family-run small businesses, it’s an attack on rural communities,” said Burlison. “These meat and poultry processors are the lifeblood of our communities. The BEEF Act… lets these hardworking Americans do what they do best, produce safe, affordable food for our families.”
University of Illinois Makes Big Mooves in Milk Production
Pump it up: Scientists led by Matt Wheeler at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign are...