Latest news with #BrandonO'Connor
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
South Dakota leads U.S. hemp industry, though USDA report shows Texas rapidly gaining ground
Hemp plant (NRCS photo, Brandon O'Connor) South Dakota continued to expand its industrial hemp footprint in 2024 as Texas quickly gained ground, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Hemp Report. As defined in the 2018 Farm Bill, the term 'hemp' is a cannabis plant with a no more than 0.3% concentration of the chemical that results in a high, known as THC. According to the report, which was released on Thursday, South Dakota farmers planted 3,900 acres of hemp – a 22% increase from 2023. They harvested 3,700 acres, up 27.6%. Most of that growth came from hemp grown for fiber, a product for which South Dakota reigns as the nation's top supplier. Texas farmers planted 4,900 acres, a 1,860% increase from last year. Only 1,500 acres of that was harvested, though. Former Democratic state lawmaker Oren Lesmeister, a rancher from Parade, championed the bills that created South Dakota's hemp industry. He now serves on the South Dakota Industrial Hemp Association's board of directors. He said Texas' numbers mean little if farmers do not have a place to process their hemp. 'We're kicking a– and taking names when it comes to production and processing,' Lesmeister said. South Dakota leads the nation in hemp processing and the production of hemp fiber, according to the report. There were 13.6 million pounds of hemp harvested for fiber in South Dakota last year. That's a 14% decrease, even as the number of acres harvested, 3,550, increased by 22%. Every harvested pound was processed, according to the report. About 23% of the 59 million pounds of hemp processed in the U.S. was processed in South Dakota. The mismatch between pounds harvested and acres planted is the result of lower per-acre yields for farmers. The average yield in the state dropped sharply by 30% in 2024, to 3,840 pounds per acre. Despite that, the value of South Dakota's fiber hemp climbed to $3.54 million, a 50% year-over-year increase, buoyed by a 73% rise in price per pound. 04-17-2025 SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bills banning foreign ownership of NC farmland advance
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service photo by Brandon O'Connor. Two committees in the North Carolina General Assembly voted Tuesday morning to approve legislation banning certain foreign entities from acquiring farmland in the state. The House Homeland Security and Military and Veterans Affairs Committee took up House Bill 133, 'NC Farmland and Military Protection Act.' About an hour later, the Senate Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee approved the upper chamber's counterpart, Senate Bill 394, 'Prohibit Foreign Ownership of NC Land.' Both measures now head to subsequent panels — House Commerce and Economic Development and Senate Judiciary, respectively. At a time of rocky international relations due to the Trump administration's tariffs, the legislation could signify a move toward increased tension with foreign countries. HB 133, sponsored by Reps. Jennifer Balkcom (R-Henderson), Neal Jackson (R-Moore, Randolph), Jeff Zenger (R-Forsyth), and John Bell (R-Goldsboro), would prohibit 'adversarial' foreign governments from purchasing, acquiring, or leasing agricultural land in North Carolina, according to the bill text. The restrictions would also apply to land situated within a 75-mile radius of a military installation — a number influenced by national defense recommendations, Balkcom said — such as Fort Bragg near Fayetteville. A complete list of applicable installations is outlined in the bill text. 'If it was up to me, I'd do the entire state,' Balkcom said. 'But this doesn't infringe on private property rights. You can sell it to anybody but a foreign national that's an adversary against the United States.' Rep. Celeste Cairns (R-Carteret, Craven) asked for clarification on the bill's parameters. She asked if people would be able to sell property to individual citizens of the 'adversarial' countries without connection to their government. Balkcom responded in the affirmative. In response to a question from Rep. Wyatt Gable (R-Onslow) about how the 'adversarial' governments are defined, she said there's guidance from the U.S. Department of Defense. Although the bill doesn't list specific countries, it refers to governments subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Over in the upper chamber, Sens. Bob Brinson (R-Beaufort, Craven, Lenoir), Bobby Hanig (R-Bertie, Camden, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Northampton, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell), and Timothy Moffitt (R-Henderson, Polk, Rutherford) serve as the primary sponsors for SB 394. The measure explicitly refers to the 'adversarial' nations by name: China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Brinson described the legislation as a state effort to protect national security, because 'food security is national security.' 'The key purpose of this bill is to both safeguard our agricultural integrity and to protect our national security,' he said. 'This bill ensures that North Carolina farmland does not come under international adversarial control, and also prevents adversarial nations from acquiring land near sensitive military installations.' SB 394 is more restrictive than its House counterpart. The proposal bars the prohibited foreign parties from making claims to land situated within a 25-mile radius of a military installation or land underneath special use airspace as designated by the Federal Aviation Administration. Sen. Lisa Grafstein (D-Wake) pointed out there is a growing population of Chinese immigrants and Chinese Americans in the state. She asked if the bill would ban someone from purchasing land if they are a legal resident of the U.S. with Chinese citizenship. 'If they're a resident alien of the U.S., they have the same right to acquire or hold land as a citizen, as long as they're a resident in the state,' Brinson said. 'As long as they are a legal resident alien, they should have the same land ownership rights as a citizen.'
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Where Trump administration cut local food support, Colorado should step in
(NRCS/USDA photo by Brandon O'Connor) Impacts from the Trump administration's funding and program cuts are trickling — or gushing — down to Coloradans. Local food purchasing programs are some of the latest government programs summarily guillotined by the administration. These programs, managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture via the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement and the Local Food for Schools & Child Care Agreement Program, would have appropriated $13.1 million to provide local food to food banks, students and food insecure populations. By supporting Colorado farmers and ranchers, local food procurement programs also promised to strengthen regional food systems. The local food purchasing programs were true win-win initiatives for Colorado's consumers and producers. From Pueblo to the Western Slope, food banks, schools, day cares, churches and veteran service centers used USDA dollars to buy local produce, beef, dairy, grains and other agricultural products from Colorado farms, ranches, dairies and more. Between May 2022 and June 2024, 220 food producers earned $6.7 million from local food purchasing programs. More than a million dollars funneled into the pockets of Western Slope farmers. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX For producers participating in the programs, the short-term outcomes were financial stability, new partnerships with large institutions, and the expansion of business operations. For the entire state, the long-term outcome could have been a thriving regional food system — so that in time, Coloradans could purchase local, sustainable, and highly nutritious food not just at farmer's markets, but from grocery stores and restaurants. Most of the food in Colorado grocery stores is produced and processed out of state or internationally then shipped to various warehouses across North America before being shelved in King Soopers, Trader Joe's or elsewhere. This globalized and opaque system obscures food production from consumers, facilitating the concealment of environmental and humanitarian issues in American food supply chains (such as excessive pesticide use, child labor, deforestation). Regional food systems, or systems in which food is produced, processed and consumed all within the same region, offer an alternative paradigm for feeding Coloradans. Regional food systems reduce food waste, increase farmers' profit margins, generate local jobs, and strengthen local economies. And by supporting small- and mid-sized farmers growing diverse crops, regional food systems protect biodiversity, improve soil quality, and reduce energy use. The local food purchasing programs accomplished the non-controversial goals of stimulating local economies and feeding people in need — so what instigated the Trump administration's ire? Because the administration offered no explanation, the answer may only be conjectured: perhaps because these programs emphasize supporting socially disadvantaged food producers, and almost certainly because the Trump administration is determined to dismantle Biden-era initiatives, regardless of their merit. And on the surface, cutting local food purchasing programs aligns with the Trump administration's efforts to rein in unnecessary spending (a subjective assessment) in the name of government efficiency. Yet, these claims of government efficiency ring especially hollow and hypocritical considering that ongoing inefficient government spending is the reason these programs are necessary in the first place — $478 billion of subsidies benefitted the nation's largest and wealthiest farms between 2015 and 2022, creating an uneven playing field for the country's small- and mid-sized food producers. The approximately $1 billion budget for local food purchasing programs is a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidies lavished on farmers that don't even grow food for people. Instead they farm corn, soy and other commodity crops to create ethanol, livestock feed, and other products. Regardless of the justification and injustice driving the termination of the USDA's local food purchasing programs, they leave a void that needs filling. The benefits of strong regional food systems are too great to neglect, and the programs were too successful to abandon. The state of Colorado must step up to support farmers, ranchers and food insecure people. And because the state is currently struggling with a $1 billion budget deficit, additional government spending requires more state income. To support regional food systems and food security, state legislators should look into creating an enterprise, or otherwise refer a small excise tax on soft drinks to the ballot for Coloradans to vote on. Boulder, which adopted a soft drink excise tax in 2016, demonstrates the profitably of such taxes — so far, it has generated $29 million for health-related programs. If expanded throughout the entire state, an excise tax on soft drinks could provide a huge sum to fund regional food systems and other state priorities, like healthy meals for all public schools. According to an online calculator developed by the University of Connecticut Center for Food Policy and Health, a $0.02/ounce excise tax on soft drinks in Colorado would have generated between $227 million and $287 million in 2023 (depending on the tax pass through rate). Colorado leaders face a difficult task: maintaining Coloradan's quality of life and rights, as well as the state's environmental and social prerogatives despite opposition at the federal level. An arsenal of state policies is necessary to combat perverse federal policy decisions, and policies to resuscitate local food purchasing programs should be a top priority — for the sake of food insecure Coloradans, local food producers, and the state's regional food systems. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill targeting ESG for farmers advances to next NC House committee
A farmer harvests soybeans. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service photo by Brandon O'Connor. The North Carolina House Agriculture and Environment Committee voted Wednesday to approve legislation targeting socially responsible lending in agriculture, moving the measure to the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee. Sponsors explain House Bill 62, the 'Farmers Protection Act,' as a measure to prevent banks and credit unions from using discriminatory practices against farmers in the state. It's sponsored by Reps. Neal Jackson (R-Moore, Randolph), Jimmy Dixon (R-Duplin, Wayne), Jennifer Balkcom (R-Henderson), and Karl Gillespie (R-Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Macon). Rather than race or gender, the bill targets 'ESG' — short for 'environmental, social, governance,' a method for evaluating sustainability performance. The proposal purports to ban banks and credit unions from denying service to agriculture producers based on their greenhouse gas emissions, use of fossil-fuel derived fertilizer, or use of fossil-fuel powered machinery, according to the bill text. 'It says you cannot deny cancel financial services based upon a farmer's ESG score or rating,' Jackson said. 'Figure it based upon if they have good credit or not, but not based upon their ESG score.' The House Judiciary 1 Committee approved the legislation at the end of February. Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) reminded members of the earlier discussion, where Jackson offered the bill is a preventative measure. 'You indicated in that discussion that there wasn't any evidence of this happening right now among North Carolina banks and with North Carolina farmers, but it was part of a national effort anticipating what might happen,' she said. Mark Swallow spoke during the bill's public comment section as a representative of Democracy Out Loud. He said there's a reason ESG exists — as a protective measure, not a punitive one. 'It's meant to make sure, as the climate is changing, that we can survive in it, including farming,' he said. 'To try and de-incentivize bankers, you should be incentivizing farmers to do what they need to do to live up to those standards, because if they want to continue farming, they need to make those changes.' On Wednesday, the committee also voted to advance HB 164, 'Protect North Carolina Sawmills,' to the House Rules Committee.
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NC House committee approves bill that targets socially responsible lending in agriculture
A farmer harvests soybeans. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service photo by Brandon O'Connor. The North Carolina House Judiciary 1 Committee approved a bill Tuesday that its sponsors say is designed to prevent banks and credit unions from using discriminatory practices in transactions with the state's farmers. The bill, however, has nothing to do with race, gender or other societal groups traditionally victimized by discrimination in agriculture. Instead, House Bill 62, the 'Farmers Protection Act,' is the latest in a growing catalogue of legislative proposals across the country introduced by conservative lawmakers that target 'ESG' — short for 'environmental, social, governance' and the practice whereby corporate actors take such matters into account. North Carolina's former Treasurer Dale Folwell regularly championed the anti-ESG cause and in 2023 helped win enactment of a new state law — passed over then-Governor Roy Cooper's veto — that banned the use of ESG in multiple parts of state government, including investment decisions. The new bill would ban banks and credit unions from denying service to agriculture producers based on their greenhouse gas emissions, use of fossil-fuel derived fertilizer, or use of fossil-fuel powered machinery, according to the bill text. The bill would also establish a rebuttable presumption that if a bank or credit union has made an ESG commitment related to agriculture, it is in violation of the law if it restricts service to a farmer (e.g., turning down a loan application). The rebuttable presumption can only be overcome if the lender provides evidence that its denial or restriction of a service was based 'solely on documented financial considerations rather than an ESG commitment,' the text reads. Since the bill would exclude banks at the national level, Rep. Hugh Blackwell (R-Burke) asked if its sponsors have looked at ways North Carolina could motivate them to implement the policy. 'There are federal regulations coming,' Balkcom said. 'Once that happens, we'll be able to customize with this.' Mark Swallow from Democracy Out Loud testified against the legislation during the public comment portion of the meeting. He said this bill is about protecting the fossil fuel industry, not farmers. 'It uses legislation to bully banks and especially credit unions….' Swallow said. 'This legislation will hurt, if not kill agriculture in our state by preventing it from evolving to address the new reality of changing climate.' Swallow encouraged the committee to rewrite the bill to reduce the use of fossil fuels and protect the environment, saying the changing climate will hurt farmers much more than financial discrimination, but the committee was unmoved. The measure, which is sponsored by Reps. Neal Jackson (R-Moore, Randolph), Jimmy Dixon (R-Duplin, Wayne), Jennifer Balkcom (R-Henderson), and Karl Gillespie (R-Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Macon) was approved on a voice vote and referred to the House Agriculture and Environment Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Dixon.
