<a href="mailto:jbklaudt@ksu.edu">By JACOB KLAUDT </a>K-State Research and Extension news service

The inaugural Kansas Landowner Conference took place in 2023, helping landowners removed from agriculture learn more about managing their properties and developing relationships with tenants.

This year, K-State Research and Extension farm economist Robin Reid said event coordinators added a day to the conference due to positive feedback from past attendees.

The conference is set for Oct. 10-11 at the K-State Alumni Center in Manhattan, Kansas.

“We had a great turnout at the first conference,” she said. “Previously, it was all in one day. We have found since then that there are many issues that landowners want to learn more about, so we expanded it to two days, giving participants more availability to desired information.”

“We know that this is smack dab in the middle of harvest for some people,” said Ashlee Westerhold, K-State director of the Office of Farm and Ranch Transition. “However, our target audience are those who own Kansas land but are not operating the land themselves.”

Reid added, “A demographic that we really want to experience this conference are those who did not necessarily grow up on the farm or those who inherited a farm and do not know where to start on how to handle being a landowner and working with a tenant.”

Due to the recent downturn in the farm economy, Reid said this year’s event will include more breakout sessions around topics that will “impact every Kansas landowner’s bottom line.”

“For crop-share landlords that do their grain marketing, we have an awesome session on how to put together a marketing plan, navigate crop insurance and select government support programs,” she said.

“Some of the other sessions revolve around components of a well-written lease, leasing rates and how to effectively negotiate with tenants.”

Additional breakout sessions happening during the 2024 Kansas Landowner Conference on Oct. 10 include:

Wind and Solar Leases, with Kansas Farm Bureau’s Wendee Grady – 1:30 p.m.

Climate and Carbon Credits, with K-State’s Micah Cameron-Harp – 1:30 p.m. Hunting leases, with K-State wildlife specialist Drew Ricketts – 2:30 p.m. &nbsp;Charitable Strategies in Agriculture, with K-State Foundation senior director of gift planning Darci Cain – 2:30 p.m.

Reid said landowners on the fence about participating should strongly consider it because industry experts will be presenting on the topics they receive the most questions about.

“The agricultural economics department gets information requests all the time about things like ‘What is the going rate for pasture rental in my area?’, ‘What are the legal implications of renting?’ and ‘What should I have in a written lease?’” she said.

“Our attendees will be able to answer those questions after the conference, feel comfortable with that information and know the people to contact if they want to learn more,” Westerhold said.

Currently, the early-bird cost of attendance is $350 per person, or $650 for two business partners. Westerhold said prices will increase after Sept. 15.

“At the 2024 conference, we are offering a business partner discount rate because we know a lot of our attendees are couples, siblings and parents/children, so having both people there to experience this event is something we wanted to encourage,” she said.

More event information is available online from the&nbsp;<a href="https://agmanager.info/landowner">K-State Department of Agricultural Economics</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725463500929.png" alt="K-State Research and Extension farm economist Robin Reid says the 2024 Kansas Landowner Conference will be a completely in-person event with no virtual option. " />
 <figcaption>K-State Research and Extension farm economist Robin Reid says the 2024 Kansas Landowner Conference will be a completely in-person event with no virtual option. </figcaption>
 </figure><a href="mailto:jbklaudt@ksu.edu">By JACOB KLAUDT </a>K-State Research and Extension news serviceThe inaugural Kansas Landowner Conference took place in 2023, helping landowners removed from agriculture learn more about managing their properties and developing relationships with tenants.This year, K-State Research and Extension farm economist Robin Reid said event coordinators added a day to the conference due to positive feedback from past attendees.The conference is set for Oct. 10-11 at the K-State Alumni Center in Manhattan, Kansas.“We had a great turnout at the first conference,” she said. “Previously, it was all in one day. We have found since then that there are many issues that landowners want to learn more about, so we expanded it to two days, giving participants more availability to desired information.”“We know that this is smack dab in the middle of harvest for some people,” said Ashlee Westerhold, K-State director of the Office of Farm and Ranch Transition. “However, our target audience are those who own Kansas land but are not operating the land themselves.”Reid added, “A demographic that we really want to experience this conference are those who did not necessarily grow up on the farm or those who inherited a farm and do not know where to start on how to handle being a landowner and working with a tenant.”Due to the recent downturn in the farm economy, Reid said this year’s event will include more breakout sessions around topics that will “impact every Kansas landowner’s bottom line.”“For crop-share landlords that do their grain marketing, we have an awesome session on how to put together a marketing plan, navigate crop insurance and select government support programs,” she said.“Some of the other sessions revolve around components of a well-written lease, leasing rates and how to effectively negotiate with tenants.”Additional breakout sessions happening during the 2024 Kansas Landowner Conference on Oct. 10 include:Wind and Solar Leases, with Kansas Farm Bureau’s Wendee Grady – 1:30 p.m.Climate and Carbon Credits, with K-State’s Micah Cameron-Harp – 1:30 p.m. Hunting leases, with K-State wildlife specialist Drew Ricketts – 2:30 p.m. &nbsp;Charitable Strategies in Agriculture, with K-State Foundation senior director of gift planning Darci Cain – 2:30 p.m.Reid said landowners on the fence about participating should strongly consider it because industry experts will be presenting on the topics they receive the most questions about.“The agricultural economics department gets information requests all the time about things like ‘What is the going rate for pasture rental in my area?’, ‘What are the legal implications of renting?’ and ‘What should I have in a written lease?’” she said.“Our attendees will be able to answer those questions after the conference, feel comfortable with that information and know the people to contact if they want to learn more,” Westerhold said.Currently, the early-bird cost of attendance is $350 per person, or $650 for two business partners. Westerhold said prices will increase after Sept. 15.“At the 2024 conference, we are offering a business partner discount rate because we know a lot of our attendees are couples, siblings and parents/children, so having both people there to experience this event is something we wanted to encourage,” she said.More event information is available online from the&nbsp;<a href="https://agmanager.info/landowner">K-State Department of Agricultural Economics</a>.

Kansas Landowner Conference 2024 schedule

&nbsp;As grasses within a pasture mature, various physical changes occur, which impact the cattle grazing them. For instance, older plants dry out and lose nutritional value, but also develop coarse stems – making cattle more susceptible to injuries involving their face and eyes.

<a href="https://ksubci.org/2024/07/26/heat-feeding-risk-management-facial-diseases-cull-criteria/" target="_blank">On a recent episode of the Cattle Chat podcast</a>, Kansas State University veterinarians recommend producers watch for lumpy jaw and wooden tongue as their pastures start getting “stemmy.”

“Green, growing grass isn’t likely to cause these problems,” said K-State veterinarian Bob

Larson. “Lumpy jaw and wooden tongue happen when the tissues of the mouth are damaged on rough textured forages.”

In the case of wooden tongue, damaging incidents to the mouth allow for germs that live within the animal to cause an infection.

“It’s not really something that cattle get from other cattle. It’s caused by bacteria that are normally in the mouth and throat area,” Larson said.

K-State veterinarian Brad White adds: “Coarse feeds and grasses can damage the mucous membranes and cause lesions.”

Cattle with wooden tongue display obvious physical symptoms, according to Larson and White.

“Their tongue gets large and tends to hang out of their mouth, making eating difficult. They look like they are panting or drooling,” Larson said.

“It gets stiff, swollen and painful,” White said. “You do not very often see an animal – a cow especially – sticking their tongue out of their mouth; they’re not doing it to play. They are doing it because their tongue won't go back in.”

Like wooden tongue, cattle contract lumpy jaw through the bacteria that inhabit their mouths.

“After an injury, (bacteria) gets into some of the other tissues of the mouth,” Larson said. “What's dangerous about that one is it can invade bone. If that happens, it becomes difficult to cure.”

Larson said when producers discover lumpy jaw and wooden tongue in their earlier stages, cattle have a better chance of recovering.

“A lot of times these cases will be treated intravenously,” he said. “This is pretty effective at bringing those two syndromes back to normal but contact your local veterinarian before making any treatment decisions.”

When examining an animal’s mouth and face for lumpy jaw and wooden tongue, Larson suggests that producers monitor the eyes as well for squamous cell carcinoma, or cancer eye.

If this affliction goes untreated, cattle may face the same fate as their lumpy jaw and wooden tongue-infected counterparts.

“Cattle can get a cancer of the eye – often in their third eyelid. If you treat it early with surgical removal of that area, those animals respond well and can go ahead and have multiple years of productive life after that,” Larson said.

However, “If that cancer spreads and it involves the bones of the head, that is not going to get better, and it is time to think about euthanasia just from an animal welfare standpoint.”

To hear the full discussion,&nbsp;<a href="https://ksubci.org/2024/07/26/heat-feeding-risk-management-facial-diseases-cull-criteria/" target="_blank">listen to Cattle Chat&nbsp;</a>on your preferred streaming platform.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/7/1722362402192.jpeg" alt="Wooden tongue and lumpy jaw – diseases that affect older cattle – become more prevalent as grasses and forage mature. K-State veterinarians share their causes, and treatments and discuss another facial disease: cancer eye." />
 <figcaption>Wooden tongue and lumpy jaw – diseases that affect older cattle – become more prevalent as grasses and forage mature. K-State veterinarians share their causes, and treatments and discuss another facial disease: cancer eye.</figcaption>
 </figure>By JACOB KLAUDT KSRE&nbsp;As grasses within a pasture mature, various physical changes occur, which impact the cattle grazing them. For instance, older plants dry out and lose nutritional value, but also develop coarse stems – making cattle more susceptible to injuries involving their face and eyes.<a href="https://ksubci.org/2024/07/26/heat-feeding-risk-management-facial-diseases-cull-criteria/" target="_blank">On a recent episode of the Cattle Chat podcast</a>, Kansas State University veterinarians recommend producers watch for lumpy jaw and wooden tongue as their pastures start getting “stemmy.”“Green, growing grass isn’t likely to cause these problems,” said K-State veterinarian BobLarson. “Lumpy jaw and wooden tongue happen when the tissues of the mouth are damaged on rough textured forages.”In the case of wooden tongue, damaging incidents to the mouth allow for germs that live within the animal to cause an infection.“It’s not really something that cattle get from other cattle. It’s caused by bacteria that are normally in the mouth and throat area,” Larson said.K-State veterinarian Brad White adds: “Coarse feeds and grasses can damage the mucous membranes and cause lesions.”Cattle with wooden tongue display obvious physical symptoms, according to Larson and White.“Their tongue gets large and tends to hang out of their mouth, making eating difficult. They look like they are panting or drooling,” Larson said.“It gets stiff, swollen and painful,” White said. “You do not very often see an animal – a cow especially – sticking their tongue out of their mouth; they’re not doing it to play. They are doing it because their tongue won't go back in.”Like wooden tongue, cattle contract lumpy jaw through the bacteria that inhabit their mouths.“After an injury, (bacteria) gets into some of the other tissues of the mouth,” Larson said. “What's dangerous about that one is it can invade bone. If that happens, it becomes difficult to cure.”Larson said when producers discover lumpy jaw and wooden tongue in their earlier stages, cattle have a better chance of recovering.“A lot of times these cases will be treated intravenously,” he said. “This is pretty effective at bringing those two syndromes back to normal but contact your local veterinarian before making any treatment decisions.”When examining an animal’s mouth and face for lumpy jaw and wooden tongue, Larson suggests that producers monitor the eyes as well for squamous cell carcinoma, or cancer eye.If this affliction goes untreated, cattle may face the same fate as their lumpy jaw and wooden tongue-infected counterparts.“Cattle can get a cancer of the eye – often in their third eyelid. If you treat it early with surgical removal of that area, those animals respond well and can go ahead and have multiple years of productive life after that,” Larson said.However, “If that cancer spreads and it involves the bones of the head, that is not going to get better, and it is time to think about euthanasia just from an animal welfare standpoint.”To hear the full discussion,&nbsp;<a href="https://ksubci.org/2024/07/26/heat-feeding-risk-management-facial-diseases-cull-criteria/" target="_blank">listen to Cattle Chat&nbsp;</a>on your preferred streaming platform.

KSRE Cattle Chat: Cattle Chat: Look out for lumpy jaw and other facial diseases

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>

WASHINGTON — The stalemate over the current farm bill may be solidifying a new era in farm politics as it joins the last three farm bills in a trend of delays and partisan division — a contrast from the legislation’s history of bipartisanship.

Every five years, Congress is tasked with drafting a new federal farm bill. The omnibus law that began 90 years ago as various kinds of payments to support farmers now has an impact far beyond the farm, with programs to create wildlife habitat, address climate change and provide the nation’s largest federal nutrition program.

The current farm bill process, already nearly a year behind schedule, is at an impasse as Democrats and Republicans clash over how to pay for the bill and whether to place limits on nutrition and climate programs. The previous farm bill expired in September 2023 and has been extended through the end of this September.

Historically, farm bills were completed within a few months of their expiration date. Ten of the 13 farm bills since 1965 were enacted by December 31 in the year of their expirations. But three of the four farm bills since 2008 went beyond that date.

The last three bills — including the 2018 bill, which is the one recent version that passed on time — each had partisan disagreements about spending.

The trend represents a change in how the once-bipartisan legislation is viewed.

“The last two farm bills were the anomaly,” said Jonathan Coppess, a professor of Agricultural Law and Policy at the University of Illinois who has written a history of the farm bill. “Now that it has been three in a row, I’m not sure that holds.”

A recent&nbsp;<a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45210.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that starting in 2008, farm bills have been subject to delays, vetoes and insufficient votes to pass on the floor.

The report concluded: “Over time, farm bills have tended to become more complicated and politically sensitive. As a result, the timeline for reauthorization has become less certain.”

That uncertainty is true of the current farm bill, as Republicans in the House and Senate push for spending limits that Democrats say are non-starters.

“I don’t think we’re close to getting a farm bill done until the folks who are negotiating the farm bill are realistic about what’s doable within a constrained resource environment,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview on the radio program&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjdcUT0r3o" target="_blank">AgriTalk</a>&nbsp;June 21.

The Republican-led House Agriculture Committee approved its farm bill proposal&nbsp;<a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/05/24/farm-bill-advances-from-u-s-house-panel-but-faces-a-tough-row-to-hoe/" target="_blank">largely on party lines</a>&nbsp;at the end of May, after hours of debate and complaints from Democrats that the process had not been as bipartisan as in years past.

Four Democrats voted for the bill in committee, but they joined 20 other Democrats on the committee in a “dissenting views” letter expressing “genuine concern over the trajectory of the Majority’s partisan farm bill” — which they predicted would be stuck in delay and dysfunction without significant changes.

The Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to vote. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee have each put forward contrasting bills and expressed their frustration.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie&nbsp; Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who is retiring after this term, has called the process the “most frustrating” of her career and said she would not let the Republican approach for the farm bill be her legacy.

“I’ve actually been involved in six farm bills and led on three of them, and this has been the most frustrating time,” said Stabenow&nbsp;<a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2024/06/26/stabenow-says-gop-farm-bill-is-not-balanced-and-wont-pass-through-the-us-senate/" target="_blank">in an interview with&nbsp;Michigan Advance</a>&nbsp;at the end of June. “Because it’s so much more partisan than usual and particularly around food assistance.”

Partisan division is not uncommon in today’s Congress but is notable on the farm bill, which had historically brought together lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan support can be necessary for final passage because the size of the $1.5 trillion farm bill means it inevitably loses some votes from fiscal conservatives and others.

“If you don’t have a bipartisan bill, this is not going to happen, and that is no matter who’s in charge. The margins are too close to be able to get this done without bipartisan support,” said Collin Peterson, a former Democratic House member from Minnesota and Agriculture Committee Chairman.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/" target="_blank">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats this year is a funding calculation that would place limits on the “Thrifty Food Plan” formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.

Republicans are using the limits to offset other spending in the bill on crop subsidies. The top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, said he wants to put “more farm in the farm bill.”

Peterson, who is now the head of an eponymous consulting firm, said in an interview with States Newsroom that Republicans would likely have to make changes to the nutrition title to get a bill to final passage.

“It is unrealistic to think they are going to get this done without significant changes in that part of the bill,” he said.

The nutrition program that is at the center of the impasse was added to the legislation 50 years ago to help build a coalition of wide-ranging bipartisan support.

Lawmakers added the nutrition title to the farm bill in 1973, a move that widened the vested interest in the bill in the House. Lawmakers who wanted to increase payments for cotton and wheat farmers in their districts were able to bring in support from representatives from districts whose citizens could benefit from food aid.

“That was the first coalition building between the two interests,” Coppess said. “But it was pretty intense. And it was an uneasy alliance from the start.”

Since then, the farm bill in many ways has become a food bill. Three-quarters of the mandatory spending in the bill falls under the nutrition title, which includes SNAP, the largest U.S. program that addresses hunger.

The program, formerly called food stamps, supplements food budgets for low-income households. Anti-hunger groups have joined the outside interests pushing for the bill every five years.

But with such a large funding line, the nutrition program has become a target for Republicans who want to cut it to offset other spending in the bill.

“The dispute is all the pay-fors,” Peterson said. “And that has been the issue for the last three farm bills and issue on this one as well.”

Peterson, who was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee for the 2008 farm bill and was the top Democrat on the committee for the 2013 and 2018 bills, said partisan division on the committee is not unfamiliar at this phase of the process.

The farm bills he worked on also had partisan votes in the House but eventually found support from both sides after conferencing with the Senate.

“At the end of the day, every one of those bills was partisan, until we got through the conference committee, and then at that point it was bipartisan, because the Senate brought some of that to the table,” Peterson said. “So, kind of, what’s going on here went on the last three farm bills.”

The most recent farm bill in 2018 was marked by contentious partisan debate centered on SNAP’s work requirements and other eligibility rules.

The House Agriculture Committee’s bill that year initially failed on the House floor and later squeaked through on a 213-211 vote. Twenty Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against that bill.

After reconciling with the Senate bill and the removal of some of the contentious changes to SNAP, most Democrats flipped their votes in support and the House agreed to the final conference report in a bipartisan vote of 369-47. The dissenting votes included 44 Republicans and three Democrats.

The partisan division over the nutrition title creates new fault lines for the farm bill.

Historically, farm bill alliances were more regional than partisan. They were built on a common ground of support for shared crops or producers: cotton in the South, corn in the Midwest and wheat in the Western Plains.

“What was our biggest issue back in the four farm bills that I wrote was not Republican versus Democrat. It was usually Midwest against the Southeast or the Northeast or the Southwest from a crop standpoint,” former Senator Saxby Chambliss said in an interview.

Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, was on the House Agriculture Committee from 1995 to 2002 and the Senate Agriculture Committee 2005 to 2011, which included a stint as chairman and ranking member.

“There’s a different political dynamic that exists in the Senate today that did not exist when I was there,”&nbsp; Chambliss said. “How much of that bleeds into the farm bill? I don’t know the answer to that, but obviously it’s a little more acrimonious than what I ever experienced.”

As partisan politics have become more entrenched in regions of the country, with the South becoming more closely aligned with the Republican Party, it has played out in farm-bill politics.

“You see a staunch realignment around where the regional and the partisan are now very similar,” said Coppess.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/7/1625596705829.png" alt="Partisan gridlock in Congress has led to a stalemate on the current farm bill, which provides crop subsidies and nutrition assistance. Hays Post photo" />
 <figcaption>Partisan gridlock in Congress has led to a stalemate on the current farm bill, which provides crop subsidies and nutrition assistance. Hays Post photo</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>WASHINGTON — The stalemate over the current farm bill may be solidifying a new era in farm politics as it joins the last three farm bills in a trend of delays and partisan division — a contrast from the legislation’s history of bipartisanship.Every five years, Congress is tasked with drafting a new federal farm bill. The omnibus law that began 90 years ago as various kinds of payments to support farmers now has an impact far beyond the farm, with programs to create wildlife habitat, address climate change and provide the nation’s largest federal nutrition program.The current farm bill process, already nearly a year behind schedule, is at an impasse as Democrats and Republicans clash over how to pay for the bill and whether to place limits on nutrition and climate programs. The previous farm bill expired in September 2023 and has been extended through the end of this September.Historically, farm bills were completed within a few months of their expiration date. Ten of the 13 farm bills since 1965 were enacted by December 31 in the year of their expirations. But three of the four farm bills since 2008 went beyond that date.The last three bills — including the 2018 bill, which is the one recent version that passed on time — each had partisan disagreements about spending.The trend represents a change in how the once-bipartisan legislation is viewed.“The last two farm bills were the anomaly,” said Jonathan Coppess, a professor of Agricultural Law and Policy at the University of Illinois who has written a history of the farm bill. “Now that it has been three in a row, I’m not sure that holds.”A recent&nbsp;<a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45210.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that starting in 2008, farm bills have been subject to delays, vetoes and insufficient votes to pass on the floor.The report concluded: “Over time, farm bills have tended to become more complicated and politically sensitive. As a result, the timeline for reauthorization has become less certain.”<h2>Spending debate</h2>That uncertainty is true of the current farm bill, as Republicans in the House and Senate push for spending limits that Democrats say are non-starters.“I don’t think we’re close to getting a farm bill done until the folks who are negotiating the farm bill are realistic about what’s doable within a constrained resource environment,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview on the radio program&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjdcUT0r3o" target="_blank">AgriTalk</a>&nbsp;June 21.The Republican-led House Agriculture Committee approved its farm bill proposal&nbsp;<a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/05/24/farm-bill-advances-from-u-s-house-panel-but-faces-a-tough-row-to-hoe/" target="_blank">largely on party lines</a>&nbsp;at the end of May, after hours of debate and complaints from Democrats that the process had not been as bipartisan as in years past.Four Democrats voted for the bill in committee, but they joined 20 other Democrats on the committee in a “dissenting views” letter expressing “genuine concern over the trajectory of the Majority’s partisan farm bill” — which they predicted would be stuck in delay and dysfunction without significant changes.The Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to vote. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee have each put forward contrasting bills and expressed their frustration.<h2>‘The most frustrating time’</h2>Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie&nbsp; Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who is retiring after this term, has called the process the “most frustrating” of her career and said she would not let the Republican approach for the farm bill be her legacy.“I’ve actually been involved in six farm bills and led on three of them, and this has been the most frustrating time,” said Stabenow&nbsp;<a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2024/06/26/stabenow-says-gop-farm-bill-is-not-balanced-and-wont-pass-through-the-us-senate/" target="_blank">in an interview with&nbsp;Michigan Advance</a>&nbsp;at the end of June. “Because it’s so much more partisan than usual and particularly around food assistance.”Partisan division is not uncommon in today’s Congress but is notable on the farm bill, which had historically brought together lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan support can be necessary for final passage because the size of the $1.5 trillion farm bill means it inevitably loses some votes from fiscal conservatives and others.“If you don’t have a bipartisan bill, this is not going to happen, and that is no matter who’s in charge. The margins are too close to be able to get this done without bipartisan support,” said Collin Peterson, a former Democratic House member from Minnesota and Agriculture Committee Chairman.The&nbsp;<a href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/" target="_blank">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats this year is a funding calculation that would place limits on the “Thrifty Food Plan” formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.Republicans are using the limits to offset other spending in the bill on crop subsidies. The top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, said he wants to put “more farm in the farm bill.”Peterson, who is now the head of an eponymous consulting firm, said in an interview with States Newsroom that Republicans would likely have to make changes to the nutrition title to get a bill to final passage.“It is unrealistic to think they are going to get this done without significant changes in that part of the bill,” he said.<h2>‘An uneasy alliance’ from the start</h2>The nutrition program that is at the center of the impasse was added to the legislation 50 years ago to help build a coalition of wide-ranging bipartisan support.Lawmakers added the nutrition title to the farm bill in 1973, a move that widened the vested interest in the bill in the House. Lawmakers who wanted to increase payments for cotton and wheat farmers in their districts were able to bring in support from representatives from districts whose citizens could benefit from food aid.“That was the first coalition building between the two interests,” Coppess said. “But it was pretty intense. And it was an uneasy alliance from the start.”Since then, the farm bill in many ways has become a food bill. Three-quarters of the mandatory spending in the bill falls under the nutrition title, which includes SNAP, the largest U.S. program that addresses hunger.The program, formerly called food stamps, supplements food budgets for low-income households. Anti-hunger groups have joined the outside interests pushing for the bill every five years.But with such a large funding line, the nutrition program has become a target for Republicans who want to cut it to offset other spending in the bill.“The dispute is all the pay-fors,” Peterson said. “And that has been the issue for the last three farm bills and issue on this one as well.”Peterson, who was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee for the 2008 farm bill and was the top Democrat on the committee for the 2013 and 2018 bills, said partisan division on the committee is not unfamiliar at this phase of the process.The farm bills he worked on also had partisan votes in the House but eventually found support from both sides after conferencing with the Senate.“At the end of the day, every one of those bills was partisan, until we got through the conference committee, and then at that point it was bipartisan, because the Senate brought some of that to the table,” Peterson said. “So, kind of, what’s going on here went on the last three farm bills.”The most recent farm bill in 2018 was marked by contentious partisan debate centered on SNAP’s work requirements and other eligibility rules.The House Agriculture Committee’s bill that year initially failed on the House floor and later squeaked through on a 213-211 vote. Twenty Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against that bill.After reconciling with the Senate bill and the removal of some of the contentious changes to SNAP, most Democrats flipped their votes in support and the House agreed to the final conference report in a bipartisan vote of 369-47. The dissenting votes included 44 Republicans and three Democrats.<h2>A trend toward fracture</h2>The partisan division over the nutrition title creates new fault lines for the farm bill.Historically, farm bill alliances were more regional than partisan. They were built on a common ground of support for shared crops or producers: cotton in the South, corn in the Midwest and wheat in the Western Plains.“What was our biggest issue back in the four farm bills that I wrote was not Republican versus Democrat. It was usually Midwest against the Southeast or the Northeast or the Southwest from a crop standpoint,” former Senator Saxby Chambliss said in an interview.Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, was on the House Agriculture Committee from 1995 to 2002 and the Senate Agriculture Committee 2005 to 2011, which included a stint as chairman and ranking member.“There’s a different political dynamic that exists in the Senate today that did not exist when I was there,”&nbsp; Chambliss said. “How much of that bleeds into the farm bill? I don’t know the answer to that, but obviously it’s a little more acrimonious than what I ever experienced.”As partisan politics have become more entrenched in regions of the country, with the South becoming more closely aligned with the Republican Party, it has played out in farm-bill politics.“You see a staunch realignment around where the regional and the partisan are now very similar,” said Coppess.

‘Frustrating’ partisan stalemate: the new normal for farm bills?

K-State Research and Extension news service

While they may be a more common pest in garbage, raccoons also target the home garden. Ever-so-clever, it seems as though racoons harvest sweet corn right before it is to be picked.

Kansas State University horticulture expert Cynthia Domenghini says fencing may be the best way to prevent raccoons from stealing the year’s harvest.

To install electric fencing, use two or more wires, the first about five inches above the ground and the second four inches above the first (or nine inches above ground). Raccoons must not be able to crawl under, go between or go over the wires without being shocked.

Fence posts and insulators used for electric fences work well for this application.

“It is much easier to use the woven electric wire with strands of wire embedded than to use a solid metal wire. The woven wire is easier to bend around corners and to roll up when done for the year,” Domenghini said.

Domenghini suggests using battery operated fencing rather than plug-ins.

“Start the charger before the corn is close to being ripe. Once raccoons get a taste of the corn, they are more difficult to discourage,” Domenghini said.

She encourages weed control around the wire to prevent them from intercepting the voltage.

READ MORE:&nbsp;<a href="https://salinapost.com/posts/42c272c9-264b-4518-95cd-9b37f9bf3c0a">SFD launches lifesaving Safe Haven Baby Box initiative</a>

Kennel fencing can also be an alternative protection from raccoons.

“Make sure that the panels are tied together well enough that raccoons can’t squeeze through corners,” Domenghini said.

A covering over the top may be needed if the raccoons figure out how to climb the panels.

Welded garden fence can work well for this.

Domenghini and her colleagues in K-State's Department of Horticulture and Natural Resources produce a weekly&nbsp;<a href="https://hnr.k-state.edu/extension/info-center/newsletters/index.html">Horticulture Newsletter</a>&nbsp;with tips for maintaining home landscapes and gardens. The newsletter is available to view online or can be delivered by email each week.

Interested persons can subscribe to the newsletter, as well as submit their garden and yard-related questions, by sending email to Domenghini at&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Cdom@ksu.edu">Cdom@ksu.edu</a>, or contact your&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ksre.k-state.edu/about/statewide-locations.html">local K-State Research and Extension office</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1718831025726.jpeg" alt="Protecting sweet corn from raccoons. K-State horticulture expert shares tips for raccoon control. Image Courtesy KSRE" />
 <figcaption>Protecting sweet corn from raccoons. K-State horticulture expert shares tips for raccoon control. Image Courtesy KSRE</figcaption>
 </figure>K-State Research and Extension news serviceWhile they may be a more common pest in garbage, raccoons also target the home garden. Ever-so-clever, it seems as though racoons harvest sweet corn right before it is to be picked.Kansas State University horticulture expert Cynthia Domenghini says fencing may be the best way to prevent raccoons from stealing the year’s harvest.Electric FencingTo install electric fencing, use two or more wires, the first about five inches above the ground and the second four inches above the first (or nine inches above ground). Raccoons must not be able to crawl under, go between or go over the wires without being shocked.Fence posts and insulators used for electric fences work well for this application.“It is much easier to use the woven electric wire with strands of wire embedded than to use a solid metal wire. The woven wire is easier to bend around corners and to roll up when done for the year,” Domenghini said.Domenghini suggests using battery operated fencing rather than plug-ins.“Start the charger before the corn is close to being ripe. Once raccoons get a taste of the corn, they are more difficult to discourage,” Domenghini said.She encourages weed control around the wire to prevent them from intercepting the voltage.READ MORE:&nbsp;<a href="https://salinapost.com/posts/42c272c9-264b-4518-95cd-9b37f9bf3c0a">SFD launches lifesaving Safe Haven Baby Box initiative</a>Kennel FencingKennel fencing can also be an alternative protection from raccoons.“Make sure that the panels are tied together well enough that raccoons can’t squeeze through corners,” Domenghini said.A covering over the top may be needed if the raccoons figure out how to climb the panels.Welded garden fence can work well for this.Domenghini and her colleagues in K-State's Department of Horticulture and Natural Resources produce a weekly&nbsp;<a href="https://hnr.k-state.edu/extension/info-center/newsletters/index.html">Horticulture Newsletter</a>&nbsp;with tips for maintaining home landscapes and gardens. The newsletter is available to view online or can be delivered by email each week.Interested persons can subscribe to the newsletter, as well as submit their garden and yard-related questions, by sending email to Domenghini at&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Cdom@ksu.edu">Cdom@ksu.edu</a>, or contact your&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ksre.k-state.edu/about/statewide-locations.html">local K-State Research and Extension office</a>.

Raccoons eating your sweet corn? K-State horticulturist shares control tips

HUTCHINSON, Kan. — The Senate Republicans released their&nbsp;<a href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate%20Republican%20Framework%20Short%20Summary.pdf">Farm Bill framework</a>&nbsp;Tuesday, and Kansas U.S. Senator Dr. Roger Marshall held a press availability on Zoom to talk about it.&nbsp;

"This Farm Bill touches, I would think, every Kansan, in some way, somehow," Marshall said. "What are the next steps? I would explain it like this. A farmer goes in to buy a combine and he agrees with the dealer, all the ins and outs he wants, what type of header he wants on that combine. What we haven't agreed on yet is the price."

It sounds like the difference really isn't that large, all things considered.

"The Democrats and Republicans, we both want strong crop insurance, we both want strong nutrition programs," Marshall said. "We want rural economic development. I think it's just a matter of where we're going to move some dollars from one place to the other and still keep this on budget, because our Farm Bill is completely paid for. We're not asking for any more monies. The Democrats Farm Bill has a request for, I think $20 or $30 billion more each year."

Practically speaking, there's not a lot of legislative time between now and the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30.

"We'll see how far apart we are," Marshall said. "There will be a lot of talks between the two staffs, the two ag committee staffs, as well and see where we can close the gap. There really aren't very many legislative days left up here this summer. We have an election in November. I understand. We'll see if we can mark up something here in the next month or so. It will probably be this summer."

If the deal doesn't get done by the deadline, there is still the idea of a short term continuation of the current bill, which has already been extended for a sixth year, at least to past the election. Ag state legislators really don't want that, as they'd like more certainty, if possible.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1718131641346.jpeg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>NICK GOSNELL&nbsp;Hutch PostHUTCHINSON, Kan. — The Senate Republicans released their&nbsp;<a href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate%20Republican%20Framework%20Short%20Summary.pdf">Farm Bill framework</a>&nbsp;Tuesday, and Kansas U.S. Senator Dr. Roger Marshall held a press availability on Zoom to talk about it.&nbsp;"This Farm Bill touches, I would think, every Kansan, in some way, somehow," Marshall said. "What are the next steps? I would explain it like this. A farmer goes in to buy a combine and he agrees with the dealer, all the ins and outs he wants, what type of header he wants on that combine. What we haven't agreed on yet is the price."It sounds like the difference really isn't that large, all things considered."The Democrats and Republicans, we both want strong crop insurance, we both want strong nutrition programs," Marshall said. "We want rural economic development. I think it's just a matter of where we're going to move some dollars from one place to the other and still keep this on budget, because our Farm Bill is completely paid for. We're not asking for any more monies. The Democrats Farm Bill has a request for, I think $20 or $30 billion more each year."Practically speaking, there's not a lot of legislative time between now and the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30."We'll see how far apart we are," Marshall said. "There will be a lot of talks between the two staffs, the two ag committee staffs, as well and see where we can close the gap. There really aren't very many legislative days left up here this summer. We have an election in November. I understand. We'll see if we can mark up something here in the next month or so. It will probably be this summer."If the deal doesn't get done by the deadline, there is still the idea of a short term continuation of the current bill, which has already been extended for a sixth year, at least to past the election. Ag state legislators really don't want that, as they'd like more certainty, if possible.

Senate Republicans release their Farm Bill framework

<a href="mailto:jbklaudt@ksu.edu">By JACOB KLAUDT</a> K-State Research and Extension news service

Drought plaguing parts of Kansas created shorter wheat plants and thinner crop stands this year. In turn, Kansas State University wheat production specialist Romulo Lollato advises growers to make adjustments at harvest time.

“This year, the biggest cause for short wheat has been drought stress,” he said. “During springtime, the crop starts to go through a phase called stem elongation. That’s when plant height is determined. In certain areas, there was virtually no moisture, which caused the plants to be short.”

Not all areas of Kansas have experienced this level of drought. Lollato said irregular rain patterns gave rise to significant plant height differences across counties and even in the same fields.

“The Kansas crop is not uniformly short. A very sparse and variable rainfall distribution created these ‘waves’ within areas where tall and short plants occur, simultaneously, in those locations,” he said.

According to Lollato, producers can attach stripper headers to the front of their combines to effectively harvest small wheat plants. Stripper headers separate the grain head from the remaining plant. On the other hand, traditional headers detach plants halfway down their stems.

Lollato said, “Essentially, they have fingers on them. Those fingers pluck the heads out from the stem. The stripper headers feed the combine with only the wheat heads, which means having a cleaner product go into the combine, with increased efficiency.”

Harvesting low-standing wheat plants with a stripper header can help improve soil quality in semi-arid areas.

“They leave more crop residue behind. It will act as a barrier against weeds and shade the fields, which cools soil temperatures and delays weed emergence. Moisture retention is another important advantage. Stripper headers reduce water loss through evaporation, runoff and erosion.”

If a producer uses a stripper header this year, future crops have the potential to benefit as well, according to Lollato.

“There is a lot of value in having more residue left in the fields,” he said. “When growers plant wheat directly into that crop residue after this year’s harvest, they get all of those benefits, like added moisture, weed control, and erosion reduction, which can help return a very good dollar amount the following summer.”

Conventional headers remain as another workable solution for operations not able to invest in additional implements.

“A stripper header is a pricey investment,” Lollato said. “However, there might be more challenges operating with a conventional header – especially on ground with a great slope – but they still work in this case.”

Making alterations to a traditional header may yield better results when harvesting stunted wheat fields with them.

“The most important thing to keep in mind is to maintain the cutting height as high as possible. You can also adjust the reel on the header to get more movement of wheat from the cutter bar to the auger,” Lollato said.

Other combine headers appropriate for harvesting poorer quality wheat stands include draper and flex heads. More information on considerations for harvesting short wheat is available in the&nbsp;<a href="https://eupdate.agronomy.ksu.edu/article/considerations-when-harvesting-short-wheat-593-1">May 24 issue of the Agronomy eUpdate</a>, published weekly by the K-State Department of Agronomy.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1717505835672.jpeg" alt="Dry weather conditions have brought about a poorer wheat crop set to be harvested this summer. K-State wheat production specialist Romulo Lollato suggests specialized equipment to make the most of a tough situation. Image Courtesy KSRE" />
 <figcaption>Dry weather conditions have brought about a poorer wheat crop set to be harvested this summer. K-State wheat production specialist Romulo Lollato suggests specialized equipment to make the most of a tough situation. Image Courtesy KSRE</figcaption>
 </figure><a href="mailto:jbklaudt@ksu.edu">By JACOB KLAUDT</a> K-State Research and Extension news serviceDrought plaguing parts of Kansas created shorter wheat plants and thinner crop stands this year. In turn, Kansas State University wheat production specialist Romulo Lollato advises growers to make adjustments at harvest time.“This year, the biggest cause for short wheat has been drought stress,” he said. “During springtime, the crop starts to go through a phase called stem elongation. That’s when plant height is determined. In certain areas, there was virtually no moisture, which caused the plants to be short.”Not all areas of Kansas have experienced this level of drought. Lollato said irregular rain patterns gave rise to significant plant height differences across counties and even in the same fields.“The Kansas crop is not uniformly short. A very sparse and variable rainfall distribution created these ‘waves’ within areas where tall and short plants occur, simultaneously, in those locations,” he said.According to Lollato, producers can attach stripper headers to the front of their combines to effectively harvest small wheat plants. Stripper headers separate the grain head from the remaining plant. On the other hand, traditional headers detach plants halfway down their stems.Lollato said, “Essentially, they have fingers on them. Those fingers pluck the heads out from the stem. The stripper headers feed the combine with only the wheat heads, which means having a cleaner product go into the combine, with increased efficiency.”Harvesting low-standing wheat plants with a stripper header can help improve soil quality in semi-arid areas.“They leave more crop residue behind. It will act as a barrier against weeds and shade the fields, which cools soil temperatures and delays weed emergence. Moisture retention is another important advantage. Stripper headers reduce water loss through evaporation, runoff and erosion.”If a producer uses a stripper header this year, future crops have the potential to benefit as well, according to Lollato.“There is a lot of value in having more residue left in the fields,” he said. “When growers plant wheat directly into that crop residue after this year’s harvest, they get all of those benefits, like added moisture, weed control, and erosion reduction, which can help return a very good dollar amount the following summer.”Conventional headers remain as another workable solution for operations not able to invest in additional implements.“A stripper header is a pricey investment,” Lollato said. “However, there might be more challenges operating with a conventional header – especially on ground with a great slope – but they still work in this case.”Making alterations to a traditional header may yield better results when harvesting stunted wheat fields with them.“The most important thing to keep in mind is to maintain the cutting height as high as possible. You can also adjust the reel on the header to get more movement of wheat from the cutter bar to the auger,” Lollato said.Other combine headers appropriate for harvesting poorer quality wheat stands include draper and flex heads. More information on considerations for harvesting short wheat is available in the&nbsp;<a href="https://eupdate.agronomy.ksu.edu/article/considerations-when-harvesting-short-wheat-593-1">May 24 issue of the Agronomy eUpdate</a>, published weekly by the K-State Department of Agronomy.

KSRE — Drought affected wheat fields call for supplemental equipment

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>

WASHINGTON — Republicans moved their long-awaited new farm bill through the U.S. House Agriculture Committee this week, despite opposition from most Democrats that could stall further advancement of the bill.

The massive $1.5 trillion legislation would set policy and funding levels for key food, agriculture and conservation programs for the next five years. After a marathon markup Thursday, the GOP-authored bill cleared the committee after midnight Friday, 33-21, with four Democratic votes.

The committee’s bill would increase farm “safety net” payments for some commodity crops, expand eligibility for disaster assistance and increase funding for speciality crops, organic farmers and dairy farmers.

It is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years. A title-by-title summary of the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/discussion_draft_ffns.pdf">942-page bill</a>&nbsp;can be found&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/detailed_summary_final.pdf">here</a>.

Democrats Don Davis of North Carolina, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Yadira Caraveo of Colorado and Eric Sorenson of Illinois&nbsp;joined all committee Republicans to vote to advance the bill.

After hours of heated debate and criticism from Democrats, support from the four lawmakers across the aisle seemed to surprise House Agriculture Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican who was the bill’s primary sponsor.

His microphone picked up his aside as the vote concluded: “That was bipartisan. I did not see that one coming.”

But the tepid Democratic support is likely not enough to see this version of the bill through to final passage in the House.

A handful of Republicans typically oppose farm bills over fiscal concerns. And even Democrats who voted for the bill in the House committee said it needs major changes before it could make it into law.

The measure does not have support of Democrats in the Senate or the White House.

“Everyone knows that this bill would never become law. The Senate won’t accept it and the administration won’t accept it,” Rep. David Scott of Georgia, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said at the markup. “And while this bill is a giant misstep, it nevertheless begins our journey toward passing a farm bill.”

As the House committee debated the bill, Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow, the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in an interview Thursday that the House proposal has no chance in the Senate.

“It tears up the farm and food coalition and does not have the votes to pass on the House floor. And certainly not in the Senate,” Stabenow told States Newsroom.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/usda-chief-voices-deep-concerns-over-us-house-gop-farm-bills-nutrition-cuts">said earlier this week</a>&nbsp;that the farm bill draft would damage the coalition that traditionally has united behind farm bills and “raises the real possibility of being unable to get a farm bill through the process.”

The committee vote – which came eight months after the previous farm bill expired – was the first step in what is expected to continue to be a protracted dispute over food and farm policy.

Many farm commodity groups have come out in support of the bill, but it faces opposition from hunger advocacy groups as well as fiscal conservatives.

Heritage Foundation, National Taxpayers Union and Taxpayers for Common Sense, along with Environmental Working Group, united this week to oppose the legislation, which they characterized as a government giveaway to favored special interests.

The groups, which span the ideological spectrum, contend the proposed legislation would spend tens of billions of dollars in subsidies that would overwhelmingly go to a relatively small number of farmers who grow certain commodity crops.

Historically, farm bills have brought together lawmakers across party lines, uniting on regional interests. The massive bill stitches together support for agriculture producers, energy and conservation programs on farmland and food and nutrition programs for families in need.

But committee members are deeply divided over limits on nutrition and climate programs that are the funding mechanisms for the Republican bill.

“This, on the policy side, is a very good bill,” Rep. Angie Craig, a Minnesota Democrat, said. “But on the payment side, how do you get to your math?”

The&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats is a funding calculation that would place limits on the formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, the food aid program formerly referred to as food stamps.

“One of the reasons it is so hard to negotiate the little items on this bill is because the big items and the funding mechanism are so fundamentally flawed,” Maine Democrat Chellie Pingree said.

The bill would limit future updates to the Thrifty Food Plan, the formula that calculates benefits for SNAP. This would result in a nearly $30 billion reduction in spending over ten years, based on the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, lawmakers say.

“If we want a farm bill that is able to pass into law with the bipartisan levels that it requires to pass beyond this committee, it is necessary that we go back to the negotiating table and remove this provision,” Caraveo said.

Caraveo, who faces a tough re-election in a toss-up district, ultimately voted in favor of the bill.

Connecticut Democrat Jahana Hayes offered an amendment that would have struck the changes to the program. But after more than two hours of impassioned debate on the issue Thursday night, the amendment failed on a party-line vote, 25-29.

The farm bill has to remain budget neutral, so lawmakers must fit their proposals into a baseline projection of how much the government would spend over the next 10 years if the current farm bill was extended.

The House Republican bill would offset increases in payments for farmers by placing limits on SNAP and a discretionary account at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The committee-passed bill would put limits on USDA’s discretionary Commodity Credit Corporation account and would remove climate-smart policy requirements for about $13 billion in conservation projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act.

“Farmers agree that this is good money that has come to all of our states, and is critically important,” Pingree said. “So taking away this authority from one Agriculture secretary maybe because you don’t like one program is completely misguided. It’s not thinking into the future.”

On the Senate side, Stabenow released an outline of her own&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/dem/press/release/chairwoman-stabenow-unveils-the-rural-prosperity-and-food-security-act">proposal</a>&nbsp;for the farm bill in early May but said she is waiting for language from Republicans before they can move forward.

Among other things, Stabenow’s bill would boost eligibility for nutrition programs for low-income people like SNAP. Stabenow made public a summary of the bill, but not legislative text.

Arkansas Republican John Boozman, the Senate Agriculture Committee’s top Republican, said Thursday he supports the direction on the farm bill from the House Agriculture Committee but was not optimistic about swift movement in his chamber.

“We’ve got a lot of headwinds,” Boozman said in an interview with&nbsp;States Newsroom&nbsp;Thursday.

Boozman said he plans to release language in the coming weeks but indicated lawmakers might be headed toward another extension if they cannot make progress swiftly.

“When I visit with the farm groups, I think their attitude is that rather than just doing something, if it’s not meaningful, we’re better off waiting,” Boozman told States Newsroom. “This is a five-year commitment. And, again, if we’re not going to do meaningful changes, to improve the safety of the farmers, it’s probably not worth doing.”

The farm bill is generally considered “must-pass” legislation. Lawmakers must rewrite the sweeping legislation every five years to set mandatory funding levels and policy. The current farm bill expired at the end of September 2023 but most programs have continued through extensions.

The current extension lasts until the end of September, but it is not clear if lawmakers will make that deadline – especially as attention turns to election campaigns over the summer and fall.

The farm bill votes could be fuel in upcoming elections.

As the House committee debated the measure Thursday, the GOP candidate in the Michigan U.S. Senate race to replace Stabenow criticized Democratic candidate and committee member Elissa Slotkin for her stance on the bill. Republican Mike Rogers took to X (formerly Twitter) to say Slotkin had not focused enough on the bill.

While the House committee engaged in 13 hours of debate on the farm bill markup, both Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that there would need to be more negotiations on the bill before it could become law.

Rep. Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican and longtime committee member who chaired the panel from 2011 to 2015, characterized the committee vote as “the first step of a long journey.”

“Now, ultimately, ultimately, we must work with each other to advance a comprehensive committee product,” Lucas said.

“As we begin this process, I want to remind all my colleagues, the real struggle is not here in the Ag Committee, but on the floor of the United States House and in the conference committee. We will sort out our differences with the United States Senate.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/5/1589039066122.png" alt="&nbsp;The U.S. House Agriculture Committee approved a bill this week to renew farm and nutrition programs, the the measure faces a tough road to becoming law. File photo" />
 <figcaption>&nbsp;The U.S. House Agriculture Committee approved a bill this week to renew farm and nutrition programs, the the measure faces a tough road to becoming law. File photo</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>WASHINGTON — Republicans moved their long-awaited new farm bill through the U.S. House Agriculture Committee this week, despite opposition from most Democrats that could stall further advancement of the bill.The massive $1.5 trillion legislation would set policy and funding levels for key food, agriculture and conservation programs for the next five years. After a marathon markup Thursday, the GOP-authored bill cleared the committee after midnight Friday, 33-21, with four Democratic votes.The committee’s bill would increase farm “safety net” payments for some commodity crops, expand eligibility for disaster assistance and increase funding for speciality crops, organic farmers and dairy farmers.It is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years. A title-by-title summary of the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/discussion_draft_ffns.pdf">942-page bill</a>&nbsp;can be found&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/detailed_summary_final.pdf">here</a>.Democrats Don Davis of North Carolina, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Yadira Caraveo of Colorado and Eric Sorenson of Illinois&nbsp;joined all committee Republicans to vote to advance the bill.After hours of heated debate and criticism from Democrats, support from the four lawmakers across the aisle seemed to surprise House Agriculture Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican who was the bill’s primary sponsor.His microphone picked up his aside as the vote concluded: “That was bipartisan. I did not see that one coming.”<h2>Changes ahead</h2>But the tepid Democratic support is likely not enough to see this version of the bill through to final passage in the House.A handful of Republicans typically oppose farm bills over fiscal concerns. And even Democrats who voted for the bill in the House committee said it needs major changes before it could make it into law.The measure does not have support of Democrats in the Senate or the White House.“Everyone knows that this bill would never become law. The Senate won’t accept it and the administration won’t accept it,” Rep. David Scott of Georgia, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said at the markup. “And while this bill is a giant misstep, it nevertheless begins our journey toward passing a farm bill.”As the House committee debated the bill, Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow, the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in an interview Thursday that the House proposal has no chance in the Senate.“It tears up the farm and food coalition and does not have the votes to pass on the House floor. And certainly not in the Senate,” Stabenow told States Newsroom.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/usda-chief-voices-deep-concerns-over-us-house-gop-farm-bills-nutrition-cuts">said earlier this week</a>&nbsp;that the farm bill draft would damage the coalition that traditionally has united behind farm bills and “raises the real possibility of being unable to get a farm bill through the process.”The committee vote – which came eight months after the previous farm bill expired – was the first step in what is expected to continue to be a protracted dispute over food and farm policy.Many farm commodity groups have come out in support of the bill, but it faces opposition from hunger advocacy groups as well as fiscal conservatives.Heritage Foundation, National Taxpayers Union and Taxpayers for Common Sense, along with Environmental Working Group, united this week to oppose the legislation, which they characterized as a government giveaway to favored special interests.The groups, which span the ideological spectrum, contend the proposed legislation would spend tens of billions of dollars in subsidies that would overwhelmingly go to a relatively small number of farmers who grow certain commodity crops.<h2>Funding dispute</h2>Historically, farm bills have brought together lawmakers across party lines, uniting on regional interests. The massive bill stitches together support for agriculture producers, energy and conservation programs on farmland and food and nutrition programs for families in need.But committee members are deeply divided over limits on nutrition and climate programs that are the funding mechanisms for the Republican bill.“This, on the policy side, is a very good bill,” Rep. Angie Craig, a Minnesota Democrat, said. “But on the payment side, how do you get to your math?”The&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats is a funding calculation that would place limits on the formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, the food aid program formerly referred to as food stamps.“One of the reasons it is so hard to negotiate the little items on this bill is because the big items and the funding mechanism are so fundamentally flawed,” Maine Democrat Chellie Pingree said.The bill would limit future updates to the Thrifty Food Plan, the formula that calculates benefits for SNAP. This would result in a nearly $30 billion reduction in spending over ten years, based on the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, lawmakers say.“If we want a farm bill that is able to pass into law with the bipartisan levels that it requires to pass beyond this committee, it is necessary that we go back to the negotiating table and remove this provision,” Caraveo said.Caraveo, who faces a tough re-election in a toss-up district, ultimately voted in favor of the bill.Connecticut Democrat Jahana Hayes offered an amendment that would have struck the changes to the program. But after more than two hours of impassioned debate on the issue Thursday night, the amendment failed on a party-line vote, 25-29.The farm bill has to remain budget neutral, so lawmakers must fit their proposals into a baseline projection of how much the government would spend over the next 10 years if the current farm bill was extended.The House Republican bill would offset increases in payments for farmers by placing limits on SNAP and a discretionary account at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.The committee-passed bill would put limits on USDA’s discretionary Commodity Credit Corporation account and would remove climate-smart policy requirements for about $13 billion in conservation projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act.“Farmers agree that this is good money that has come to all of our states, and is critically important,” Pingree said. “So taking away this authority from one Agriculture secretary maybe because you don’t like one program is completely misguided. It’s not thinking into the future.”<h2>Slow Senate progress</h2>On the Senate side, Stabenow released an outline of her own&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/dem/press/release/chairwoman-stabenow-unveils-the-rural-prosperity-and-food-security-act">proposal</a>&nbsp;for the farm bill in early May but said she is waiting for language from Republicans before they can move forward.Among other things, Stabenow’s bill would boost eligibility for nutrition programs for low-income people like SNAP. Stabenow made public a summary of the bill, but not legislative text.Arkansas Republican John Boozman, the Senate Agriculture Committee’s top Republican, said Thursday he supports the direction on the farm bill from the House Agriculture Committee but was not optimistic about swift movement in his chamber.“We’ve got a lot of headwinds,” Boozman said in an interview with&nbsp;States Newsroom&nbsp;Thursday.Boozman said he plans to release language in the coming weeks but indicated lawmakers might be headed toward another extension if they cannot make progress swiftly.“When I visit with the farm groups, I think their attitude is that rather than just doing something, if it’s not meaningful, we’re better off waiting,” Boozman told States Newsroom. “This is a five-year commitment. And, again, if we’re not going to do meaningful changes, to improve the safety of the farmers, it’s probably not worth doing.”<h2>Election issue</h2>The farm bill is generally considered “must-pass” legislation. Lawmakers must rewrite the sweeping legislation every five years to set mandatory funding levels and policy. The current farm bill expired at the end of September 2023 but most programs have continued through extensions.The current extension lasts until the end of September, but it is not clear if lawmakers will make that deadline – especially as attention turns to election campaigns over the summer and fall.The farm bill votes could be fuel in upcoming elections.As the House committee debated the measure Thursday, the GOP candidate in the Michigan U.S. Senate race to replace Stabenow criticized Democratic candidate and committee member Elissa Slotkin for her stance on the bill. Republican Mike Rogers took to X (formerly Twitter) to say Slotkin had not focused enough on the bill.<h2>More negotiations ahead</h2>While the House committee engaged in 13 hours of debate on the farm bill markup, both Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that there would need to be more negotiations on the bill before it could become law.Rep. Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican and longtime committee member who chaired the panel from 2011 to 2015, characterized the committee vote as “the first step of a long journey.”“Now, ultimately, ultimately, we must work with each other to advance a comprehensive committee product,” Lucas said.“As we begin this process, I want to remind all my colleagues, the real struggle is not here in the Ag Committee, but on the floor of the United States House and in the conference committee. We will sort out our differences with the United States Senate.”Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

Farm bill advances from U.S. House panel but faces a tough row to hoe

WASHINGTON (AP) —A Michigan dairy worker has been diagnosed with bird flu — the second human case associated with an outbreak in U.S. dairy cows.

The worker had been in contact with cows presumed to be infected, experienced mild eye symptoms and has recovered, U.S. and Michigan health officials said in announcing the case Wednesday. A nasal swab from the person tested negative for the virus, but an eye swab tested positive, “indicating an eye infection," the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a statement.

The risk to the public remains low, but farmworkers exposed to infected animals are at higher risk, health officials said. They said those workers should be offered protective equipment, especially for their eyes.

The first case happened in late March, when a farmworker in Texas&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-texas-cows-355f1e288e72df8b81b0e2efd8b3ae2f">was diagnosed</a>&nbsp;in what officials called the first known instance globally of a person catching this version of bird flu from a mammal. That patient also reported only eye inflammation and recovered.

Since 2020, a bird flu virus has been spreading among&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/disease-outbreaks-hong-kong-health-bird-flu-animals-75e5d058e0fda23b5359f66cafb74cdf">more animal species</a>&nbsp;— including dogs, cats, skunks, bears and even&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/seals-bird-flu-deaths-oceans-80184a8793fbcc21fab01b1c90b0d71b">seals</a>&nbsp;and porpoises — in scores of countries. The detection&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-cattle-usda-kansas-texas-c3040bb31a9a8293717d47362f006902">in U.S. livestock</a>&nbsp;earlier this year was an&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-farmers-barb-petersen-07bd5accb01441bc5d279464271d2371">unexpected twist</a>&nbsp;that sparked questions about food safety and whether it would start spreading among humans.

That hasn't happened, although there's been a steady increase of reported infections in cows. As of Wednesday, the virus&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock">had been confirmed</a>&nbsp;in 51 dairy herds in nine states, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. Fifteen of the herds were in Michigan.

Health officials in Michigan have declined to say how many people exposed to infected cattle have been tested or monitored. U.S. officials said they had tested 40 people since the first cow cases were discovered in late March.

The CDC's Dr. Nirav Shah praised Michigan officials for actively monitoring farmworkers. He said health officials there have been sending daily text messages to workers exposed to infected cows asking about possible symptoms, and that the effort helped officials catch this infection. He said no other workers had reported symptoms.

USDA is expanding financial incentives to dairy farmers whose herds have not yet been infected with the virus, Eric Deeble. a federal agriculture official, said Wednesday.

The virus has been found in high levels in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-raw-milk-h5n1-6398d2eda26eb41797ee2700cf9d036b">raw milk</a>&nbsp;of infected cows, but government officials say pasteurized products sold in grocery stores are safe because heat treatment has been confirmed to kill the virus.

The new case marks the third time a person in the United States has been diagnosed with what’s known as Type A H5N1 virus. In 2022, a prison inmate in a work program&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-environment-colorado-b98906e0a1899bb1f92da30a7b1dbe28">picked it up</a>&nbsp;while killing infected birds at a poultry farm in Montrose County, Colorado. His only symptom was fatigue, and he recovered. That predated the virus’s appearance in cows.

WASHINGTON (AP) —A Michigan dairy worker has been diagnosed with bird flu — the second human case associated with an outbreak in U.S. dairy cows.The worker had been in contact with cows presumed to be infected, experienced mild eye symptoms and has recovered, U.S. and Michigan health officials said in announcing the case Wednesday. A nasal swab from the person tested negative for the virus, but an eye swab tested positive, “indicating an eye infection," the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a statement.The risk to the public remains low, but farmworkers exposed to infected animals are at higher risk, health officials said. They said those workers should be offered protective equipment, especially for their eyes.The first case happened in late March, when a farmworker in Texas&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-texas-cows-355f1e288e72df8b81b0e2efd8b3ae2f">was diagnosed</a>&nbsp;in what officials called the first known instance globally of a person catching this version of bird flu from a mammal. That patient also reported only eye inflammation and recovered.Since 2020, a bird flu virus has been spreading among&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/disease-outbreaks-hong-kong-health-bird-flu-animals-75e5d058e0fda23b5359f66cafb74cdf">more animal species</a>&nbsp;— including dogs, cats, skunks, bears and even&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/seals-bird-flu-deaths-oceans-80184a8793fbcc21fab01b1c90b0d71b">seals</a>&nbsp;and porpoises — in scores of countries. The detection&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-cattle-usda-kansas-texas-c3040bb31a9a8293717d47362f006902">in U.S. livestock</a>&nbsp;earlier this year was an&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-farmers-barb-petersen-07bd5accb01441bc5d279464271d2371">unexpected twist</a>&nbsp;that sparked questions about food safety and whether it would start spreading among humans.That hasn't happened, although there's been a steady increase of reported infections in cows. As of Wednesday, the virus&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock">had been confirmed</a>&nbsp;in 51 dairy herds in nine states, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. Fifteen of the herds were in Michigan.Health officials in Michigan have declined to say how many people exposed to infected cattle have been tested or monitored. U.S. officials said they had tested 40 people since the first cow cases were discovered in late March.The CDC's Dr. Nirav Shah praised Michigan officials for actively monitoring farmworkers. He said health officials there have been sending daily text messages to workers exposed to infected cows asking about possible symptoms, and that the effort helped officials catch this infection. He said no other workers had reported symptoms.USDA is expanding financial incentives to dairy farmers whose herds have not yet been infected with the virus, Eric Deeble. a federal agriculture official, said Wednesday.The virus has been found in high levels in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-raw-milk-h5n1-6398d2eda26eb41797ee2700cf9d036b">raw milk</a>&nbsp;of infected cows, but government officials say pasteurized products sold in grocery stores are safe because heat treatment has been confirmed to kill the virus.The new case marks the third time a person in the United States has been diagnosed with what’s known as Type A H5N1 virus. In 2022, a prison inmate in a work program&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-environment-colorado-b98906e0a1899bb1f92da30a7b1dbe28">picked it up</a>&nbsp;while killing infected birds at a poultry farm in Montrose County, Colorado. His only symptom was fatigue, and he recovered. That predated the virus’s appearance in cows.

Another farmworker diagnosed with bird flu tied to dairy cows

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">ARIANA FIGUEROA</a>

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Tuesday $300 million in funding for more than 60 groups seeking to diversify American agricultural exports.

“USDA is pleased to be able to provide the startup capital to tap into these opportunities,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on a call with reporters Monday night previewing the announcement.

In total, 66 organizations will be funded under the new Regional Agricultural Promotion Program, or RAPP. The USDA&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://fas.usda.gov/programs/regional-agricultural-promotion-program">launched</a>&nbsp;the $1.4 billion program in October in order to develop new export markets for U.S. food and agricultural products beyond the traditional partnerships with Canada, Mexico, the European Union and China.

“What this program really provides is an opportunity for us not only to expand geographically the opportunities for trade, but also the products that can be made available,” Vilsack said. “It’s a tremendous opportunity for us to diversify in a variety of different ways to grow market opportunity.”

The program focuses on tapping U.S. exports into new markets in regions such as South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.

“When you have the major markets, as we’ve had, where 60 to 65% of what we export goes into four or five markets, that can create a sense of complacency,” Vilsack said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/5/1716210763832.png" alt="Photo USDA" />
 <figcaption>Photo USDA</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">ARIANA FIGUEROA</a>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Tuesday $300 million in funding for more than 60 groups seeking to diversify American agricultural exports.“USDA is pleased to be able to provide the startup capital to tap into these opportunities,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on a call with reporters Monday night previewing the announcement.In total, 66 organizations will be funded under the new Regional Agricultural Promotion Program, or RAPP. The USDA&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://fas.usda.gov/programs/regional-agricultural-promotion-program">launched</a>&nbsp;the $1.4 billion program in October in order to develop new export markets for U.S. food and agricultural products beyond the traditional partnerships with Canada, Mexico, the European Union and China.“What this program really provides is an opportunity for us not only to expand geographically the opportunities for trade, but also the products that can be made available,” Vilsack said. “It’s a tremendous opportunity for us to diversify in a variety of different ways to grow market opportunity.”The program focuses on tapping U.S. exports into new markets in regions such as South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.“When you have the major markets, as we’ve had, where 60 to 65% of what we export goes into four or five markets, that can create a sense of complacency,” Vilsack said.<h2>‘The riskiest business in the world’</h2>Vilsack said the funding would be an important step in building wealth in rural areas of the United States.“We want to make sure our foreign-market development programs and agricultural trade in general work for the full spectrum of American agricultural producers, regardless of their size, their location, their product or target market,” he said. “By investing in exports, we’re investing in the future of American agriculture and rural communities.”Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who leads the Senate Committee on Agriculture, joined the call with reporters. She said that USDA investing in exports is crucial to growing American agriculture.“The bottom line is (to) create new revenue for the folks that have the riskiest business in the world,” Stabenow said. “This is a really important way to support them.”According to a list provided by the USDA, some of the grant recipients include:<ul>
 <li>The Hazelnut Marketing Board in Oregon and Washington state will receive $455,000 to conduct market research and trade missions in several countries in Africa.</li>
 </ul><ul>
 <li>The U.S. Dairy Export Council, based in Virginia, will receive $10 million to expand its presence in Africa by using the funds to study and develop dairy import regulations and regulatory frameworks in those markets.</li>
 </ul><ul>
 <li>The U.S. Meat Export Federation based in Colorado will be awarded $21 million to expand its export efforts to new markets throughout Africa. It will also expand its investment in the convenience-store industry in South Korea, Central America and Colombia.</li>
 </ul><ul>
 <li>The Brewers Association in Colorado will be awarded $2 million to partake in the craft beer scene in Southeast Asia, by participating in the region’s premier brewing trade show and festival and bring buyers from that region to top trade shows in the US.</li>
 </ul><ul>
 <li>The Cranberry Institute in Massachusetts will receive $1 million to conduct trade education seminars and other events to identify opportunities in India, Brazil, Colombia and Southeast Asia.</li>
 </ul>