Other Ag News:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Laura Zaks
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
lzaks@sustainableagriculture.net
Tel. 347.563.6408
The Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholarship honors the co-founder of the first network for African American organic farmers in the United States by providing $5000 scholarships to two undergraduate students and one graduate student who identify as Black and/or Indigenous.
Washington, DC, June 30, 2026 – At the end of May, the Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholarship Review Committee, composed of representatives from the Southeastern African American Farmers’ Organic Network (SAAFON), NSAC, and an existing Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholar, completed the meticulous process of discussing this year’s applications. With joy and gratitude for each of the students who submitted applications, the Committee is proud to present this year’s scholars.
Daniel Sanders is a citizen of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and is working towards a Bachelor’s degree in Applied Industry Leadership at Oklahoma State University Institute of Technology. His passion for food sovereignty came after getting a work-study position in the campus garden at College of Muscogee Nation. It was there that he became closer to his Seminole/Mvskoke roots and his people’s traditional agricultural practices. He learned of the large communal fields his ancestors planted. Their crops were grown organically, with love, and for the entire community. This is a value he holds dear to his heart and strives to incorporate in all of his work.
“Food is medicine. I believe a healthy diet is essential for the well-being of an individual and their community. By combining my ancestor’s agricultural knowledge with modern sustainable growing practices, I hope to help underrepresented communities gain access to food, improve health outcomes, strengthen food sovereignty, and build more resilient local food systems,” says Daniel.
After his work-study position, Daniel continued to work for College of Muscogee Nation Extension as a research assistant. This allowed him to further help educate the surrounding community of Mvskoke traditional agricultural knowledge, as well as help community members start their own gardens, and conduct research on Black Mvskoke crops.
Sulaiman Mathew-Wilson is a rising senior at Howard University in Washington, DC, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Honors Environmental Studies with a Minor in Spanish. Originally from Jersey City, New Jersey, Sulaiman’s introduction to food systems work began in his hometown, where witnessing food access inequities and the effects of gentrification shaped his early commitment to environmental justice.
“Food justice and environmental justice are inseparable—the same communities denied access to clean air and water are often also denied access to healthy food. My goal is to ensure that land, food, and a healthy environment are recognized as rights, not privileges, and to build the policy frameworks that make that a reality for frontline communities,” says Sulaiman.
In high school, Sulaiman worked as a Student Grower at Bethel AME Ardmore Victory Gardens, putting freshly harvested produce directly into the hands of residents with limited access to fresh food. Since arriving at Howard, he has continued this work at Halo G.R.E.E.N. Garden, where he now serves as President. Sulaiman is passionate about regenerative agriculture, food sovereignty, and building a food system rooted in justice and equity for Black and Indigenous communities.
Peninnah “Nina” Morgan is a community organizer from rural Alabama whose work focuses on environmental justice, food sovereignty, and community-driven planning. Her interest in food systems began as a volunteer with Flash Mob Grow Space, a Birmingham-based organization that used guerrilla gardening to expand access to healthy food and strengthen self-determination in historically disinvested neighborhoods. That experience sparked a deep appreciation for the ways farming can cultivate not only food, but also community power. It later inspired her to work alongside community members to organize pop-up free markets that distributed fresh food, PPE, and other essential resources at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“‘Destroy through building’ has become my guiding philosophy. As a community organizer working on the frontlines of environmental justice, I see this as transforming systems rooted in exploitation and harm by building a political economy grounded in care, human rights, and collective stewardship. Through landscape architecture, planning, and agroecology, I hope to support communities impacted by extractive industry and austerity in building just and resilient futures,” says Nina.
Currently, Nina serves as an apprentice with Fountain Heights Farms Cooperative, supporting Black farmers across Central Alabama while learning Afro-Indigenous agricultural practices. She is also pursuing a dual Master’s degree in Community Planning and Landscape Architecture at Auburn University, where she is focused on learning how agroecological design, and community-driven planning can advance environmental justice and build community power. In her spare time, she enjoys working outside at her off-grid homestead and learning space, Humble Hill.
About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net
###
The post Release: NSAC and SAAFON Celebrate the Eighth Cohort of Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholars appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
(Washington, D.C., June 30, 2026) – Today, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins announced the Strengthening Processing for U.S. Ranchers (SPUR) Program that will provide temporary support for eligible beef processing establishments. Under SPUR, the U.S. Department of Agriculture will provide up to $500 million in payments to eligible entities to support stronger and more stable market opportunities for American ranchers.
On Tuesday, June 23, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-AR) released the long-awaited text of the Agricultural Act of 2026 (the Agricultural Act). Clocking in at just over 900 pages, the Agricultural Act would update wide swaths of federal food and farm policy – yet NSAC’s initial analysis found that the draft falls well short of tapping its full potential. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives approved their own, separate version of the farm bill, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
The most recent full farm bill – the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill, PL 115-334) – was signed into law in December 2018. As of July 2026, we are in uncharted waters – over seven and a half years have passed since the 2018 Farm Bill was signed into law, the longest such stretch in recent memory. In 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB, P.L. 119-21) split the traditional farm bill coalition by updating some farm bill policies while excluding the rest – from rural development and credit, to conservation and local and regional food systems – leaving them to an uncertain future.
As of posting, the Agricultural Act’s immediate prospects remain hazy. While Chairman Boozman has signaled that a Committee markup could be held in the near future, the hypothetical markup date has slipped repeatedly in recent months. Meanwhile, Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has made clear that Committee Democrats want the farm bill to directly alleviate the OBBB’s impacts on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program before entertaining a broader negotiation. Ultimately, 60 votes are required to approve a farm bill in the Senate – and in the 119th Congress, that means a successful Senate farm bill must be the product of a bipartisan process.
The remainder of this blog post offers NSAC’s initial deep dive analysis of the Agricultural Act of 2026.
Title 1 – Commodities
The Agricultural Act discussion draft addresses select components of Title I programs, with the most significant changes being proposed to disaster assistance programs. In 2025, Congress approved and the President signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), which addressed many of the policies typically included in Title 1 of a farm bill.
New Disaster Assistance Frameworks: Similar to the House’s Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA), the Agricultural Act includes two provisions that significantly impact the future delivery of ad hoc assistance: a Specialty Crop Emergency Assistance Framework and an authorization of state disaster block grants.
- Through the Specialty Crop Assistance Framework, the discussion draft establishes a consistent method for delivering ad hoc aid to specialty crop farmers. The proposed program – which shares some similarities with the Marketing Assistance for Speciality Crops (MASC) program, but is not identical – would calculate payments for future ad hoc assistance programs based on sales from the previous market year (Section 1304). However, while the proposed framework is a step in the right direction, as written it includes high payment limits of $900,000 for farmers deriving at least 75% of their income from farming activities. While specialty crop farmers may need higher payments than commodity growers due to higher costs, payment limits must still be structured to responsibly and equitably deliver program resources. The framework would also exclude new producers who were impacted by an adverse event but had no recorded sales in the year prior – the MASC program accounted for this by allowing for certified expected sales for the following year to qualify for payments.
- Separately, the Agricultural Act also gives the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) the authority to administer future disaster programs through state block grants (Section 1305). While block grants in theory provide flexibility to tailor programs to local needs, in practice, they often face significant delays in funding disbursement, create inconsistent standards across states, and reduce USDA’s ability to ensure compliance across programs and reduce duplicative payments. As written, the draft provides few protections to ensure these issues do not hinder relief efforts when administered through state block grants.
Limited NAP Improvements. Despite a continued need to improve risk management tools for farmers without access to traditional crop insurance, the Agricultural Act only makes a small improvement to the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) – allowing NAP payments for losses due to damage to shared community ditches used for irrigation. Instead, the bill should institute reforms – such as creating a revenue-based option within NAP – to streamline paperwork burdens for new farmers and to serve as an on-ramp to enroll in WFRP.
Title 2 – Conservation
The Agricultural Act discussion draft misses the opportunity to drive agricultural conservation forward by undoing generational reinvestments in popular, oversubscribed conservation programs, failing to address USDA staffing cuts, and leaving out provisions that could build the resilience of farm operations.
Cuts to Popular Conservation Programs. The Agricultural Act cuts over $1.9 billion from the first five years of the Environmental Quality Incentive Program’s (EQIP) budget window, and $500 million permanently from the Conservation Stewardship Program’s (CSP) baseline. Both cuts will result in an immediate reduction in the resources available to producers in 2027, though EQIP’s long term baseline budget is maintained after 2031. CSP on the other hand, takes a permanent, unacceptable cut. These reductions come as reports show producers are once again struggling to access CSP and EQIP due to lack of funding, with only 24-37% of valid applicants receiving contracts in 2025. Any farm bill that moves forward this year must not reduce budgets for these popular programs; rather, it should include additional resources commensurate with the high producer demand for conservation we see across the country.
No Staffing Fix. In order to effectively administer conservation program resources, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) needs field staff. NRCS lost 23% of its staff between January 2025 and January 2026, reducing its ability to give farmers a reasonable customer service experience. NRCS staff work directly with farmers and landowners to identify conservation practices that are well-suited to their needs and local natural resource concerns. They provide vital technical assistance for farmers and landowners and help them apply for and manage contracts with conservation programs that help share the cost of conservation practices. Any farm bill that passes this year must address the ongoing staffing shortages at USDA, and at NRCS in particular.
Updates to CRP. The draft includes a number of positive reforms to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and a few problematic omissions. The bill restores support for mid-contract management activities necessary to maintain the conservation value of enrolled acres, and further offers dedicated funds for cost share for grazing infrastructure to help ensure that appropriate acres remain in perennial cover at the end of a contract. Additionally, the draft adjusts the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program’s (CREP) authority to better tailor the program toward supporting producers transitioning to dryland farming in the west. These are positive changes that NSAC welcomes. However, there are a few significant omissions. The draft does not raise the overall acreage cap for CRP, despite the broad need for more CRP-enrolled acres at this moment in history. The draft also fails to renew funding for the Transition Incentive Program, one of the few conservation programs designed to transition land to the next generation of farmers and ranchers.
A Lack of Resilience. The Agricultural Act leaves out major provisions of the Agriculture Resilience Act, the comprehensive farmer-informed legislation designed to support more resilient operations. This includes no meaningful investments in perennial production systems, including agroforestry, which remain among the most powerful agriculture systems for mitigating the impacts of climate change while delivering a host of additional conservation benefits. It fails to provide mandatory funding for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative which would help grazers access dependable technical assistance. It also lacks support for alternative manure management practices to help midsized livestock operations shift to more ecologically friendly technologies. Disappointingly, the bill fails to add carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reduction as a new goal to EQIP that states can seek to address when selecting priority practices for higher cost-share rates – provisions that were included in the House’s FFNSA. This is a common sense approach to targeting conservation funds to address the climate crisis. Any farm bill that moves forward this year must close these gaps and match the scale of investments producers desire to build long-term environmental resilience and economic viability.
Title 4 – Nutrition
The Agricultural Act discussion draft includes some positive, bipartisan provisions in the nutrition title – but falls short of following through thanks to a lack of guaranteed funding and provisions that would limit local food representation and market access.
Strengthening Local Food Security. The Agricultural Act discussion draft illustrates the clear bipartisan, bicameral support for creating permanent pathways that support local and regional markets for farmers. The draft includes a state-led local food purchasing program, the Strengthening Local Food Security Program (Section 4306), that would build upon the success of the former Local Food Purchase Assistance Program. While the Senate draft is modeled after the program including in the House-passed FFNSA, it modifies a few elements to reflect the priorities of Senators Justice (R-WV) and Reed (D-RI) from the Strengthening Local Food Security Act (S. 4223). This would ensure a greater share of food purchases (51%) are made from small and mid-sized farms, and beginning and veteran farmers. It also ensures funding can be used for all costs associated with implementation, including technical assistance to farmers. However, the draft fails to include schools as a recipient and significantly hinders the success of a future program without mandatory funding (Section 4306).
GusNIP. Other provisions in the discussion draft have the potential to limit local food representation within federal nutrition programs. The draft adds a provision within the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) that would prioritize projects that offer all forms of fruits and vegetables year-round (Section 4303). This risks a larger share of incentive funding being spent in big box retailers rather than with farmers in local market settings.
SNAP. There are a number of proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that would carry an uncertain impact on farmers. These include permanent authorization of online retail with greater restrictions on who is authorized to accept benefits online, and the addition of protein as an eligible food type for incentive programs (Section 4103, 4104, 4106). However, there is no inclusion of a sought after provision that would provide some states more time to address error rates and reduce their overall cost-share to their SNAP programs.
Title 5 – Credit
The Agricultural Act discussion draft includes several modest improvements in the credit title of the bill by streamlining access to credit and allowing for preapproval for some loans. The draft also increases some loan limits, but does not include a corresponding increase in FSA funding authorization, potentially resulting in bigger loans to fewer farms.
Streamlining access to credit. The discussion draft makes modest improvements to streamline access to farm credit, allowing for a preapproval pilot program for direct farm ownership loans, a prompt approval program for direct and guaranteed loans under $1 million, and increased funds for state mediation programs (Sections 5211, 5214, 213). Similar to the House’s FFNSA, the draft allows limited refinancing of guaranteed loans into direct loans, potentially forcing borrowers to the brink of financial crisis before qualifying for this refinancing opportunity (Section 5210). The draft reduces the prohibition on loan eligibility for farmers who previously received debt relief from a lifetime ban to a seven year waiting period, and removes the requirement for beginning farmers and ranchers engaged in cooperatives or other business arrangements to be related by blood or marriage (Section 5212). Unlike FFNSA, this draft does not reduce experience requirements for farm ownership loans, nor expand state mediation programs to Tribes.
Increased loan limits. The draft raises the limits that any individual borrower may owe to a lender for USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) direct and guaranteed operating and farm ownership loans, matching the changes included in the House’s FFNSA. These changes include increasing microloan limits from $50,000 to $100,000, direct operating loans from $400,000 to $750,000, direct farm ownership loans from $600,000 to $850,000, guaranteed farm ownership loans from $1.75 million to $3.5 million, and guaranteed operating loans from $1.75 million to $3 million. These changes are not paired with any corresponding increase to the total funding authorization for FSA to make these loans. This combination is concerning, as it could result in bigger loans to fewer farms, while adding to increasingly large debt burdens on borrowers without strong protections from overcollateralization. (Sections 5201, 5208).
Title 6 – Rural Development
Alongside relatively minor programmatic tweaks, the Agricultural Act discussion draft includes several bipartisan provisions which could enhance investments in small and very small meat processing plants, though these investments are undermined by an eligibility expansion beyond the original intent.
Investing in Meat Processing Capacity. The discussion draft includes strong bipartisan provisions for investment in small and very small meat processing plants and the resources those plants need to appropriately adopt food safety practices. The $25 million authorization of appropriations for a program prioritizing small and very small processors will continue to make investments to reduce farmer wait times, and improve processor viability. However, this investment is weakened by the fact that the bill expands eligible applicants to include land grant universities, state departments of agriculture, and other organizations with already existing capacities well beyond the small and very small meat processors for whom this program was intended. (Sec. 6315)
Resources for Rural Producers and Communities. Beyond the investment in meat processing infrastructure, the discussion draft addresses programmatic tweaks, such as expanding loan size and uses for the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (Section 6230), increasing training and resources for veteran farmers in the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas Program (Section 6221), and standardizing multiyear grants for Rural Cooperative Development Grants (Section 6219).
The discussion draft would also codify the Rural Development Innovation Center with an emphasis on promoting efficiency and coordination among Rural Development programs with input from public and private stakeholders (Section 6234).
Title 7 – Research
Overall, the Agricultural Act makes little progress when it comes to investing in publicly funded research that benefits small to mid-sized farmers and ranchers.
Minimal Programmatic Improvements; Lack of Some Necessary Reauthorizations. The discussion draft reauthorizes the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program as well as the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative while offering no additional funding or meaningful changes to either program. Furthermore, it makes few to no improvements to Agricultural Research Service research initiatives, including no reauthorization for USDA Climate Hubs or the Long-term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network, as well as no authorization for the Organic Transition Program (ORG) or meaningful efforts to coordinate organic and sustainable agriculture at USDA-REE. (Sec. 7201-7203, 7209)
Resources for 1890s. The draft does, however, make meaningful strides to better support our nation’s historically black land grant universities. This includes the creation of at least three new 1890’s Centers of Excellence potentially focusing on climate resiliency, forestry resilience and conservation, food safety and value-added agriculture, food and agricultural sciences, and social sciences as areas of focus with an increase from $10 million to $20 million in discretionary funding. In addition, funding for 1890’s Extension was increased from 20 percent (as per the National Agricultural Research, Education, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA)) to no less than 40 percent. (Sec. 7110)
Seeds and Breeds. The discussion draft also adds regionally adapted cultivar and breed development to the list of Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) research priorities. However, the bill does not include the funding NSAC and others have advocated for to ensure that regionally adapted seed and breed development receives meaningful support. (Sec. 7507)
Workforce Development. Meat processing plants are in need of workforce development, and while the discussion draft takes some steps by including meat processing as a topic area for AFRI – Education and Workforce Development Grants it doesn’t sufficiently expand funding to support this new area of focus. It also does not limit this workforce development funding to small and very small meat processors, opening the door for these limited funds to go to training for the largest plants and companies, and not benefit those with greater economic need. (Sec. 7507)
Food Safety. Investments in food safety education and equipment or training are essential to meeting ever-evolving market and regulatory food safety requirements. Without sufficient investments, these food safety requirements can prevent many smaller-scale producers from entering new markets. The discussion draft meets the bare minimum of reauthorizing some of the programs that provide these investments – such as the Food Safety Outreach Program (FSOP). FSOP, which funds education on a variety of food safety topics, includes an intentional focus on reaching underserved producer communities. (Sec. 7301)
Title 10 – Horticulture
The Agricultural Act discussion draft offers few if any meaningful strides forward for organic and urban agriculture, while missing the opportunity to help fuel local and regional food systems.
Organic Production and Markets. The Agricultural Act makes modest progress for organic producers by increasing the authorized funding levels for the National Organic Program, beginning at $26 million in fiscal year 2027 and rising in steps to $34 million in fiscal year 2031. At the same time, it leaves out several of the investments the organic sector needs most. The discussion draft does not provide meaningful relief from rising certification costs, increase mandatory funding for organic research, improve organic dairy data collection, or make the investments needed to help farmers transition to organic production and expand domestic organic markets. (Sec. 10105)
Urban Agriculture. The Senate discussion draft takes a similar approach to the House by clarifying and narrowing the scope of services of the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production to emphasize the Office’s mandate to support farmers in urban areas navigating critical conservation and business technical assistance services. It authorizes cooperative agreements to maximize on the ground support, which is particularly important during a time of record low staffing levels. However, NSAC has concerns with particular provisions that would limit Urban FSA County Committees to the original pilot ten locations while there are twenty seven actively seated across the nation. Moreover, without a prescribed level of annual mandatory funding, the Office may continue to be underfunded and under-resourced (Section 10111).
Local Market Development. Despite a long and successful track record of the Local Agricultural Marketing Program Grants (Value-Added Producer, Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion, and Regional Food System Partnership Program), the Senate does not take the same opportunity the House did to expand upon the popular turnkey grants with additional activities. This, paired with no funding increases, limits USDA’s ability to meet program demand and risks underinvesting in local agricultural markets for the lifespan of the farm bill (Section 10103).
Specialty Crop Support. For broader specialty crop support, the Senate proposed changes to Specialty Crop Block Grants that respond to stakeholder concern. Earlier this year, USDA attempted to impose cost-share requirements for future rounds of grants; the Senate followed the lead of the House by including a provision that would prevent this in addition to requiring States to solicit annual input from producers and industry groups (Section 10109).
Title 11 – Crop Insurance
The Agricultural Act discussion draft takes limited steps towards improving crop insurance options for farmers and ranchers, largely failing to address well-documented barriers uninsured farmers face in accessing coverage.
FCIC Board & Specialty Crop Advisory Committee. The Senate discussion draft establishes a Specialty Crop Advisory Committee to inform the development and expansion of crop insurance, and makes changes to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Board. A Specialty Crop Advisory Committee can serve an important role in improving available options for specialty crop farmers. However, as written, the discussion draft does not require any appointees to specifically represent beginning, small, diversified, or organic farmers, and therefore may not reflect the specific needs of the full diversity of American specialty crop farms. The draft requires the inclusion of a beginning farmer member on the FCIC Board, but the newly required specialty crop representative is unfortunately added only as a non-voting board member (Section 11001).
Reimbursement rates for Approved Insurance Provider Administrative and Operating Costs. The OBBB Act passed last year increased administrative and operation (A&O) reimbursement rates for approved Insurance providers (AIPs), specifically for areas with high loss ratios. The discussion draft codifies those changes for the 2026 and subsequent reinsurance years, tying future rates for a given policy to that in place for the 2026 reinsurance year. However, as written, the language leaves open the possibility for new policies approved after 2027 to have no statutorily directed A&O rates, and thus an opportunity for higher reimbursement rates than currently permitted for any existing policy. Rather than taking meaningful steps to improve access to stronger risk management tools for currently uninsured farmers, the draft prioritizes guaranteed revenue for private insurance companies. (Section 11008).
Fails to strengthen WFRP or other insurance options for uninsured farms. The Senate draft fails to take any meaningful steps toward improving Whole Farm Revenue Protection or Micro Farm policies. The draft requires a review of the insurable revenue limit currently in place for the policy (Section 11013), but in no way addresses the program’s well-documented challenges and solutions. The draft instructs USDA to research several new crop insurance policies, including index based policies for specific weather events such as hurricanes, frost, or freezes. It also instructs USDA to publish a report within 18 months on the barriers for organic farmers to accessing crop insurance (Section 11014). While the discussion draft amends the eligibility definitions for the additional crop insurance premium discounts passed in the OBBB Act and now includes veteran farmers, such a change will have limited impact if not paired with solutions to the many barriers to accessing insurance these farmers face (Section 11006).
Title 12 – Miscellaneous
Food Safety Support for Small-Scale Meat Processors. The discussion draft requires USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) to establish a searchable database of all the peer-reviewed, publicly-available validation studies for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans for small and very small plants; create and make available to small and very small plants models of HACCP plans for multiple types of small plants, including but not limited to a HACCP plans for slaughter plants and processing only plants, and based on the different types of products processed by plants; and create and publish guidance for public comment and input on how to get your HACCP plan approved. (Sec. 12107)
Interstate Market Access. While the Senate proposal does provide for further outreach to state departments of agriculture regarding the Cooperative Interstate Shipping (CIS) Program, it does not change the federal cost share for that program or the state meat and poultry inspection programs – both of which are key changes needed for the program to better work with and regulate small and very small meat processors. (Sec. 12111). It does however, include some small steps towards greater market access for state inspected plants by including the DIRECT Act in this bill, which allows for online sales of retail quantities of state inspected meat to cross into interstate commerce, usually not possible for state inspected meat without further utilization of the CIS program. (Sec.12110)
No Limits on Vertical Integration. The discussion bill introduced new, potentially anti-competitive methods of ownership that might directly counteract the benefits of other investments in the bill. Including the A-Plus Act (Sec. 12106) would likely create more vertically integrated markets, where a stockyard is also the only meat processing operation in an area.
Farming Opportunities, Training and Outreach. The Senate Bill reauthorizes the Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach (FOTO) program, which includes 2501 and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP). However, it does not offer increased funding or technical changes that would significantly benefit America’s underserved farmers or the next generation of farmers and ranchers. (Sec. 12511)
The post Digging Deeper into the Senate’s Farm Bill ‘Discussion Draft’ appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
(Washington, D.C., June 29, 2026) – Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a proclamation temporarily suspending countervailing duties (CVDs) on certain phosphate fertilizer imports, providing immediate relief to American farmers while advancing the Administration’s broader strategy to strengthen America’s fertilizer supply chain.
(Washington, D.C., June 29, 2026) – Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a proclamation temporarily suspending countervailing duties (CVDs) on certain phosphate fertilizer imports, providing immediate relief to American farmers while advancing the Administration’s broader strategy to strengthen America’s fertilizer supply chain.
ESPAÑOL ABAJO
The idea is to offer our listeners a language experience. Wilber’s original conversation with Tim in Spanish is followed by an English translation read by Tim and our team member Garrett Quade. This consecutive interpretation format is not common in media production, but we feel that it centers the importance of language and allows us to really hear Wilber in his native tongue. The result is an experiential gem for an English speaker interested in learning Spanish, or a Spanish speaker learning English. It’s also an opportunity to bring a mindset of learning for anyone listening to this episode.
Small Farms Radio · Episode 11 – Raising Pollos Under Elderberry: A Bilingual Conversation with Wilber de la RosaWilber’s first business, at Jubilo farm, is raising broiler chickens under a canopy of elderberry, hazelnuts, corn and sunflowers. He tells us that chickens are jungle birds, so he is trying to simulate a jungle in Minnesota. These plantings provide shade on hot days, attract insects, and provide additional income by being able to harvest nuts, berries and popcorn. He wants his birds to be outside, taking dust baths and having “chicken parties” until their last day. This approach helps him talk about his operation and connect with customers who are willing to pay slightly more for a bird that was raised in a way that aligns with their values.
Wilber’s second business is called Tortillas La Mayzteca, which produces traditional artisanal tortillas from nixtamalized corn. Nixtamalization is an ancient Mesoamerican process of turning dried corn into masa (like special cornmeal), the base for tortillas, posole, tamales and many more traditional dishes. Dried corn is soaked in an alkaline solution, usually made by adding lime to the water, and then ground. This process creates a chemical reaction that increases the nutritional value of the mixture by adding calcium and making vitamin B3 available. It also improves the flavor and aroma of the masa. Finally, it significantly reduces the presence of mycotoxin (a category of toxins produced by a fungi that colonize crops) in the corn.To create these tortillas, Wilber has partnered with local farmers to grow a specific variety of corn that has been crossbred to be like the corn grown in Guatemala in terms of flavor and chemical makeup but adapted to the Minnesotan climate. This variety yields just above half per acre of what a standard variety yields, but he is able to pay the farmer three times what they would normally get per bushel because he is sharing profits from the value-added product. Wilber views his business arrangements as collaborative; he wants all his partners to share in prosperity.
Part of Wilber’s success is his ability to communicate his vision and his work. He offers an interesting approach to agricultural entrepreneurship using production practices, breeds and varieties that create a unique product. He also controls the whole supply chain of both products, ensuring quality and capturing profits.
If you’re interested in agricultural entrepreneurship, languages, or regenerative agriculture, give this episode a listen. You can find it by searching for Small Farms Radio wherever you get your podcasts.
Criando pollos bajo los saucos: Una plática bilingüe de Small Farms Radio con Wilber de la RosaEste mes, en Small Farms Radio, compartimos una conversación con Wilber de la Rosa. Wilber es propietario de Jubilo Farm en Minnesota, una operación agropecuaria regenerativa. Además, recientemente ha lanzado Tortillas La Mayzteca, una empresa integrada verticalmente dedicada a la producción de tortillas tradicionales. Wilber platica con Tim Shenk, del proyecto Futuro en Ag del Cornell Small Farms Program, su enfoque de crear empresas comprometidas con un estilo de vida saludable, así como sobre su compromiso con los métodos regenerativos. La conversación original está en español y ahora también en inglés gracias a Tim.
Este episodio ofrece una experiencia lingüística a nuestros oyentes. A la conversación original de Wilber con Tim en español, le hemos agregado una traducción al inglés leída por Tim y por Garrett Quade, miembro de nuestro equipo. Este formato de interpretación consecutiva no es habitual en la producción de podcasts. Sin embargo, creemos que pone de relieve la importancia del idioma en la comunicación, y nos permite escuchar a Wilber en su lengua materna. El resultado es una experiencia única tanto para nuestra audiencia angloparlante interesada en aprender español como para un hispanohablante que esté aprendiendo inglés. También es una oportunidad para fomentar una mentalidad de aprendizaje en cualquiera que escuche este episodio.
El primer negocio de Wilber, Jubilo Farm, consiste en la cría de pollos de engorde bajo la sombra de sauco, avellanos, maíz y girasoles. Nos cuenta que los pollos son aves de la jungla, por lo que está intentando simular una jungla en Minnesota. La llamada “jungla” de Wilber proporciona sombra en los días calurosos, atraen insectos y aportan ingresos adicionales al permitir la recolección de frutos secos, nueces, bayas y maíz para hacer palomitas. Quiere que sus aves estén al aire libre, tomando baños de polvo y “celebrando fiestas” hasta su último día. Este enfoque le ayuda a diferenciar su operación de otras parecidas. De esta forma se conecta con clientes dispuestos a pagar un poco más por un pollo criado de una manera que se ajusta a sus valores.
El segundo negocio de Wilber se llama Tortillas La Mayzteca, que elabora tortillas artesanales tradicionales a partir del maíz nixtamalizado. La nixtamalización es un antiguo proceso mesoamericano que consiste en convertir el maíz seco en masa (harina de maíz), la base de las tortillas, el posole, los tamales y muchos otros platos tradicionales. El maíz seco se remoja en una solución alcalina, que suele prepararse añadiendo cal al agua, y luego es molido. Este proceso provoca una reacción química que aumenta el valor nutricional de la mezcla al añadir calcio y hacer que la vitamina B3 sea asimilable. También mejora el sabor y el aroma de la masa. Por último, reduce significativamente la presencia de micotoxinas (una categoría de toxinas producidas por hongos que colonizan los cultivos) en el maíz. Para elaborar estas tortillas, Wilber se ha asociado con agricultores locales para cultivar una variedad específica de maíz híbrida. En cuanto a sabor y composición química, se parece mucho al maíz cultivado en Guatemala, adaptado al clima de Minnesota. Esta variedad rinde un poco más de la mitad por acre de lo que rinde una variedad estándar, pero Wilber puede pagar a los agricultores el triple de lo que normalmente recibirían por bushel, ya que comparte con ellos los beneficios del producto de valor añadido. Wilber considera que sus acuerdos comerciales son colaborativos; quiere que todos sus socios participen en la prosperidad.
Parte del éxito de Wilber radica en su capacidad para comunicar su visión y su trabajo. Ofrece un enfoque interesante del emprendimiento agropecuario mediante prácticas de producción, razas y variedades que dan lugar a un producto único. Además, controla toda la cadena de suministro de ambos productos, lo que le permite garantizar la calidad y obtener beneficios.
Si a Ud. le interesa el emprendimiento agropecuario, los idiomas o la agricultura regenerativa, no se pierda este episodio. Puede encontrarlo buscando “Small Farms Radio” donde sea que escuche los podcasts.
The post Raising Pollos Under Elderberry: Small Farms Radio’s Bilingual Conversation with Wilber de la Rosa appeared first on Cornell Small Farms.
Washington, D.C., June 25, 2026 – On the heels of President Donald J. Trump signing an Executive Order advancing regenerative agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke L. Rollins simultaneously announced a final Regenerative Feedstock Rule, a landmark action that will help farmers voluntarily capture new value from regenerative agricultural practices through biofuel markets.
(WASHINGTON, D.C., June 24, 2026) — Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released the annual Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payment error rates (PER), which measure how accurately states determine who is eligible for SNAP and how much they should receive.
The national payment error rate for fiscal year (FY) 2025 is 10.62%, far surpassing the congressional threshold of 6%.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Laura Zaks
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
press@sustainableagriculture.net
Comment: Senate Farm Bill Draft Offers Untapped Potential
Washington, DC, June 24, 2026 – The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) released the following statement attributable to Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director, in response to the Agricultural Act of 2026 discussion draft released by Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Chairman John Boozman (R-AR):
“At such a critical moment for farmers and American agriculture, prioritizing investments that ensure the long term success of farmers and their communities is paramount. The Senate discussion draft offers minimal improvements and fails to respond to States’ requests to delay SNAP cost share requirements, all but eliminating a viable path on the Senate floor. Ultimately, the proposal falls well short of tapping its full potential – and in doing so doubles down on a food and farming system that simply isn’t working.
Farmers are calling for expanded market access right here at home through new investments in proven models that support farmers and help them nourish their communities. Amidst high production costs, unstable markets, and low crop prices, we should re-envision the farm safety net by improving access to risk management tools for farms of all shapes and sizes. Finally, we must prioritize investments in long-term solutions that build resilience into individual farm businesses – from improving access to on-farm conservation programs for all farmers, to support for diversified farming systems that work in concert with natural resources.
We appreciate the Committee’s continued push toward reauthorizing a much needed farm bill and urge Congress to put farmers back in control of their own future by prioritizing meaningful, long-term farm bill investments over short-term band-aids on a broken system. NSAC is eager to work toward a farm bill that bolsters domestic markets with guaranteed investments in local food infrastructure and procurement, expands rather than stifles access to critical on-farm conservation resources, and builds a more fair farm safety net for all.”
Stay tuned to NSAC’s blog for deeper analysis and coverage of the farm bill reauthorization, including the Agriculture Act of 2026, in the days ahead.
###
About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)
The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net
The post Comment: Senate Farm Bill Draft Offers Untapped Potential appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
“Farmers have waited far too long for a new farm bill while dealing with rising input costs, market volatility, and shrinking margins,” said Darin Von Ruden, a Wisconsin farmer and president of the state’s Farmers Union chapter. Farmers across the country agree and have been clear with Congress: they need a new farm bill that provides investments and policy solutions that will meaningfully improve not only the immediate crises farmers are facing, but also the long-term resilience and viability of their farms. As the House recently passed its Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 and attention turns to the Senate, this blog post uplifts farmers’ perspectives on how the House bill falls short of what they really need to see from a new farm bill, and what changes are urgently needed in the Senate and any final version. Grounded in comments from small, mid-sized, and diversified producers, these stories reveal what’s at stake for conservation, local and regional food systems, the farm safety net, and the basic capacity of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to serve the people who grow our food.
The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) opposed the House farm bill as it offered only scattered policy improvements without the resources to fuel them. Members of Congress who voted for the bill were quick to point to support from farmers, making the same mistake previous farm bills have made: monolithing farmers and suggesting status quo ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy approaches will benefit all farmers. As focus shifts to the Senate Agriculture Committee, it is important to uplift the perspectives of farmers who believe the House farm bill does not fully address their needs. Right now, Congress is at a crossroads – they could take the quickest possible path, keep things ‘business as usual’ and pass a farm bill filled with short-term bandaids, or they can work towards a pragmatic, comprehensive, and fair farm bill that fosters food system resiliency, improves farmers’ livelihoods, and sets up the next generation of American farmers to thrive.
Farmers Want a Better Farm BillWhile the general public may not closely track the farm bill, farmers with operations of all shapes and sizes certainly do. After the House passed its farm bill proposal, NSAC surveyed its member organizations to hear farmers’ opinions, with responses ranging from small urban growers to large row crop operations. While perspectives differ based on growing practices, experience with federal programs, and geography, a common thread was the persistent challenge of accessing federal programs that would improve operations and overall viability, exacerbated by limited conservation program funding, understaffing at USDA agencies responsible for program outreach and implementation, or the outright termination of popular, effective programs.
USDA Photo by Bob NicholsAs the Senate prepares to move forward with its farm bill proposal, these farmers’ stories should be heard, considered, and addressed. The farmers who agreed to provide stories had the choice to be named and quoted in this blog post or to contribute anonymously. Quotes from farmers who chose to remain anonymous are attributed only by geography.
A Farm Bill that Leaves Many Farmers BehindBelow are some of the most salient points farmers shared with us about the inadequacies of the House’s farm bill. Commentary is organized around four key areas: threats to climate and conservation efforts, local and regional food systems, a fair farm safety net, and USDA’s ability to effectively fulfill its mission of serving American farmers and the public.
Climate and Conservation
While there were some bright spots in the Conservation title of the House farm bill, farmers were quick to point to an overall lack of new investments needed to address high demand for conservation. Farmers in Iowa and Illinois cited reduced funds for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). One farmer specifically emphasized that these programs are in high demand because they are so accessible and beneficial for small acreage and urban farmers.
Patrick Brown of Brown Family Farms in North Carolina says it’s in his blood to farm. His grain operation was established in 1865; for generations, his family has weathered storms and taken advantage of opportunities like EQIP to sustain their business. He spoke of the increased competition for these cost-share programs that are likely to occur with less funding available, saying: “up to $600 million has been completely cut from EQIP… making the pot of money that you compete for in the program smaller.” He added that, as currently structured in the House farm bill, it carves out $100 million per year from CSP for state soil health programs. Instead, he suggests soil health programs should be funded through different programs like RCPP, “so that the CSP funding pie does not get smaller for producers like [us],” he said.
Farmers adopting conservation practices that protect the soil, water, and air – by extension improving their neighboring communities’ health and wellbeing – should be supported in their efforts. Instead, the bill siphons off resources from the nation’s most popular conservation programs, increasing competition for limited funding. Coupled with the unresolved staffing crisis at NRCS and USDA as a whole, this is a recipe for reduced access and degraded customer service for all farmers, particularly small farms. Any farm bill that passes this year must both preserve and increase resources for conservation programs and ensure robust staffing levels for NRCS.
Local Food Systems
In Ohio, a producer at an organic mill and processing facility, who asked to remain anonymous, expressed disappointment at the lack of investment in local food systems. Speaking of the Local Food Purchasing Assistance Program (LFPA, which was terminated last year under the rubric that it didn’t align with the current Administration’s priorities), the producer lamented that the program’s innovation and hard-won progress was ignored. “For the two years that the program ran, we were able to purchase over a half million pounds of black beans from our region’s farmers and send those to all 12 Ohio food banks,” pointing to a first-time budget for food banks that had been created for the program. “When the billion-dollar program was terminated without notice, I assumed that it would be packaged and added to the farm bill.” As they later elaborated, the termination of LFPA pushed their mill into the red, an impact that was likely reproduced across the state as many farmers rely on the program to access local markets.
Another farmer in Pennsylvania added that there were not enough funds allocated for SNAP, SNAP-Ed, which saw its funding slashed by last year’s reconciliation bill, or for local food purchasing. When most think of the threats to SNAP, many think of small children, the elderly, and those most vulnerable in our society. Notably absent from these conversations are how farmers and their bottom lines will be impacted. Both SNAP and SNAP-Ed have been demonstrated to be spurs of economic activity, with every dollar spent on SNAP reportedly generating $1.50 in economic activity.
An Illinois farmer noted that the loss in funds for SNAP in the farm bill signaled a massive failure for those accessing locally grown produce. For his part, Brown, in North Carolina, shifted his focus out. “Overall the bill does not include nearly enough of the priorities that regional food systems and small and mid-size farmers need,” shared Brown. In March, NSAC argued that disproportionately investing along the food supply chains could lead to supply without adequate markets available for producers, a point farmers we spoke to inherently understood.
Investing in programs that allow farmers to gain access to a stable local market and meat processing facilities closer to home, while making food more accessible to millions of people who struggle to put food on the table, is a simple way a farm bill can invest in strengthening local and regional food systems and economies while actively creating jobs in rural communities. The House farm bill fell short of the mark in investing in such programs. While it did allow for the creation of a program that would replace LFPA, for example, it did not include funding for that program.
Faithfull Farms, North CaroliaSafety Net for Small and Beginning Farmers
Rising production costs, low crop prices, and unpredictable market conditions are threatening farmer livelihoods. The current economic environment replicates the conditions preceding the 1980s farm crisis, during which farmers were pushed off their land, farm consolidation skyrocketed, and rural communities collapsed, many never to recover. This catastrophic precedent illustrates the critical role the farm safety net plays in maintaining farm viability under the present circumstances.
The farm safety net provides support through disaster assistance, farm credit, and crop insurance. The current construction of the farm safety net typically tends to function well for most large commodity operations; however, most small, beginning, and diversified farmers report that these systems don’t benefit their operations. As stated by two farmers from Illinois, the farm safety net doesn’t work for them because it is “hard to access for small diversified farm systems.”
The impacts of an insufficient farm safety net are severe. Without strong support, a large percentage of small, mid-sized, diversified, and beginning farms may be forced into foreclosure, leading to scarcity of local fruits and vegetables, and an increase in expensive imported produce. As demonstrated during the 1980s farm crisis, policy decisions that leave out wide swaths of farmers can decimate rural communities and squander their trust. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, which means the Senate has an opportunity to avert a second farm crisis by supporting the farms that are most vulnerable to external factors through this farm bill.
Understaffing and Access
In 2025, 20 % of USDA staff left the agency either because they were abruptly laid off through Reduction in Force or through the Deferred Resignation Program in a purported effort to streamline federal services and reduce waste and fraud. This broad and indiscriminate staff reduction left 141 counties across the United States with zero USDA support staff, while 1,197 counties, or 53 percent of counties in the country, had a net staff loss. Understaffed offices limit USDA’s ability to fulfill its mission of serving farmers. “The bill does next to nothing to increase staffing levels at local NRCS and FSA offices, a key concern we’ve heard from many of the farmers…especially after the huge staff losses of last year,” Brown said.
One Illinois farmer expressed her concern about grant funding, explaining that “a lot of small farmers rely on [grant funds] to sustain themselves and continue to help at-risk populations.” She added to the urgency of the matter, noting that “local farmers are important and are becoming obsolete.” A couple of other Illinois farmers likewise highlighted the lack of support for farmers like them in the House farm bill version. “Loss of USDA staff makes access even more difficult,” one remarked. Another explained that adjustments to FSA loan programs were improvements on the surface that could easily go to expanding existing large operations that don’t need government support while leaving small farms with even less access to those loan programs. “Combined with no meaningful increase in total available funding, means that smaller operations will likely lose out at the local FSA office,” he shared.
USDA has been nicknamed the “People’s Department,” but without resources that allow it – and, crucially, its staff – to fulfill its mission, farmers are left scrambling to find someone who can help them when they want to apply for a cost-share program, write a conservation plan, or receive a loan.
A Strong Farm BillAs the Senate drafts its own version of the farm bill, it must keep in mind everyone who participates in our food and agricultural system, whether they run large, medium, or small operations. It must consider those who grow diverse and specialty crops, who are engaged in localized food production and marketing, and those using conservation practices. While farmers shared the shortcomings of the House version of the farm bill, they also had a clear vision for what a strong farm bill that supported all farmers would look like.
Von Ruden was quick to point to the need to support small farms. “That means a stronger safety net, meaningful support for conservation, and policies that address consolidation,” Von Ruden said.
One of the farmers in Illinois echoed that sentiment. “A strong farm bill aggressively reduces consolidation in our food and farm system and prioritizes the needs of small and beginning farmers and those who have been historically disadvantaged by prior Farm Bills,” he explained. He pointed to a state program in Illinois called the Local Food Infrastructure Grant program as a model that the federal government could explore. “Federal funding has largely shied away from investment in hard assets due to concerns of fraud or negligence. I would support greater oversight, including direct farm visits and supported audits, if it meant that the USDA was investing more directly in the relocalization of our food system,” he closed.
A farm bill that also supports those who have been traditionally disenfranchised resonated with Swanson, who shared what a strong farm bill meant to her: “Being allowed to stand up for minority populations while supporting small food production.”
Another farmer in Ohio reinterpreted what is implied in the title of the House bill as “Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026,” by saying that to her, a strong farm bill “focuses on homeland security, which means nothing less than supporting Family Farms and the food processors that they work with [who] are committed to growing and distributing healthy food for all while keeping soil and water clean and fertile. Give them the hand up to transition to organic and install on-farm renewable energy systems to ensure we have food for all.”
As the Senate takes up the responsibility of crafting a meaningfully bipartisan farm bill, these stories offer members of the Senate Agriculture Committee grounding in what is needed to draft a farm bill that can adequately address the needs of all our nation’s farmers.
The post Farmers React to House Farm Bill appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
Pages
Signup for the Ag Newsletter
Get the freshest farm news, events and updates from in and around Cattaraugus County, NY at least once a month! Go signup!
Other ways to stay connected:
Get Involved in Farming
Resources for Starting a Farm in Cattaraugus County
Profile of Cattaraugus County soils
Agriculture Career Exploration
Questions about farming? Find out Who to Call
