Massachusetts farmers said they are bracing for revenue losses due to cuts in fresh produce SNAP benefits.

Starting Dec. 1, families who utilize the state's Healthy Incentives Program to buy food directly from farmers will see their benefits cut to just $20 a month, regardless of household size.

Rebecca Miller, policy director for the Massachusetts Food System Collaborative, said many farmers have structured their operations around SNAP customers.

"A lot of them are worried that they might have to do layoffs," Miller pointed out. "Especially for folks that they've hired that are multilingual that serve folks with SNAP benefits."

Miller stressed less money being spent at farmers' markets will have a ripple effect across the state's agricultural industry. Nearly 300 farmers participate in the SNAP program but state officials said the cuts are needed due to budget constraints.

The Healthy Incentives Program provides a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement when SNAP users buy healthy, local food directly from Massachusetts farmers. A state survey found that each dollar spent in the program results in an additional $2 in local economic impact, when farmers spend the money on local goods and services. Miller emphasized she is concerned about families getting through the winter.

"We expect to see increased food insecurity," Miller explained. "Folks needing to visit food pantries more, folks having to take more medicine to address chronic diet-related health needs."

Miller noted a study found each program participant increased their fresh fruit and vegetable intake by one serving per day, which leads to lower public health care costs over time. She added supporters are asking the legislature for an additional $10 million to maintain current funding levels through June. State officials say they are restructuring the program to ensure long-term viability.


get more stories like this via email

In North Dakota, 2025 could be another year when the state puts out the welcome mat for the livestock industry.

Following task force recommendations, the Legislature will consider updating how much local governments can restrict feedlot operations. The panel was specifically looking at distances allowed between larger livestock sites and homes, businesses and schools.

Doug Goehring, North Dakota's agriculture commissioner, took part in the discussions and argued while the rules would be more relaxed, they are still tougher than those in other states. He said exemptions could be carved out -- moving feedlots back a bit -- by the use of an "odor modeling tool"

"It looks at prevailing winds and information that's collected from different data points, weather stations," Goehring explained. "Counties can actually look at it and determine if the setbacks that are in place are sufficient, or they could actually grant a variance."

Feedlots with large animal herds, sometimes known as concentrated animal feeding operations, are under scrutiny from environmentalists over the effects on air and water quality. State leaders say North Dakota lags behind neighboring states in animal agriculture but some projects have faced local backlash. A Senate bill, based on panel recommendations, calls for reducing the maximum setback distance by a quarter mile in most cases.

Supporters of expanding livestock output said it brings more jobs to smaller towns.

Aaron Birst, executive director of the North Dakota Association of Counties, who sat in on the task force, said it recognized the need but cautioned it cannot outweigh how a local community values quality-of-life metrics and whether they would be harmed by an industry.

"It's not even just concentrated feeding-lot operations. It's any economic development, whether it's oil activity or putting in a large Amazon station," Birst outlined. "Those all, if they want to be successful, have to have local government buy-in."

While Birst acknowledged a healthy balance is desirable, his group has yet to take a stance on the proposed changes. There were similar debates in 2023 when the Legislature narrowed the scope of corporate farm regulations. More broadly, researchers at the University of Missouri found despite what backers of large livestock operations say, their economic strengths do not stretch as far as advertised.


get more stories like this via email

Wisconsin has just added more than 30,000 acres across two counties to its protected agricultural lands, advancing its commitment to preserve the state's farming heritage and supporting conservation farming practices.

Agricultural Enterprise Areas are community-driven initiatives aimed at protecting farmland and boosting the local economy.

Wednesday Coye, Farmland Preservation Program manager for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, said the process is one of two ways Wisconsinites can participate in the Farmland Preservation Program.

"We get to see what landowners identify as areas that are important to their local agricultural communities -- both economically and historically -- and then, also seeing how that interacts overall with the statewide agricultural landscape," Coye explained.

Agricultural Enterprise Area landowners also contribute to conservation practices across the state by voluntarily signing agreements to use their land for agricultural purposes for a set time period and implement environmentally friendly farming methods. In return, they may be eligible for farm tax credits.

The assurance of long-term land preservation also provides farmers with peace of mind for future investments. Coye pointed out the new Delavan Lake Watershed Agricultural Enterprise Area serves to protect land near large lake attractions like Lake Geneva.

"There are a lot of interests there in developing the area but then there's also a lot of interest from their agricultural producers to protect the farmland that's there," Coye observed.

By designating new Agricultural Enterprise Areas, she stressed landowners and community members are taking proactive steps toward preventing development, which could convert land to nonagricultural use.

The latest areas, across Sauk and Walworth counties, add to the state's nearly 2 million acres of Agricultural Enterprise Areas. Wisconsin now has 51 areas spanning 140 towns and the Bad River Reservation.


get more stories like this via email

Some farm advocates in rural America, including Nebraska, are calling on the Trump administration to continue investing in small communities.

They propose that new federal investments in agriculture wind up in the hands of farmers in rural communities.

Nebraska Farmers Union President John Hansen said he is cautiously optimistic about how rural policy will look in the new administration, but said it will start with fair competition in the agriculture markets.

"The markets are not competitive now," said Hansen. "So, if they're not competitive, they're not functional. They don't perform as they should. And we want more competition. So, in order to get there, we need some appropriate regulation in order to create competition. And in the absence of competition, there's collusion."

Hansen and other rural farm advocates are calling for increased competition in the supply chain and food processing sectors of the agriculture economy, and for more federal investments at the local level - where he said farmers are facing unprecedented financial stress.

Hansen added that markets are far more consolidated today than they were when lawmakers created the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921, especially in beef and pork.

"So, when you look at it through the lens of time," said Hansen, "are we winning or losing here?"

Hansen said consolidation and a lack of market competition have put unprecedented pressure and financial stress on farmers, and he said no matter what policies are set in Washington, most solutions happen at the local level.




get more stories like this via email