Opinion: On the West Texas High Plains, a farm recession from closing cotton gins eats away at rural economies

Part of a ginning business stands out on High Plains
of West Texas. (Floydada Co-op Gin photo)

A farm recession doesn't look like a Wall Street crash. It's quieter, deeper and far more difficult for an agriculturally-based community to recover from, writes Tony St. James in his opinion for RED TV. When a region's farms go under, their disappearance is followed by the loss of "the businesses that once processed, serviced, and supported the crop."

West Texas cotton gins that once flourished and pumped millions of dollars into the state's economy are struggling to survive drought and market volatility. "In 2022, extreme drought forced producers to abandon nearly 74% of planted acres, driving production to the lowest levels seen in decades," St. James explains. While production rebounded in 2023, the farm losses of 2022 were nearly impossible to balance.

After 2022, some farmers had to sell or close their gins. Their consolidation into another gin or complete closings cascaded down to all the equipment dealers, irrigation companies and trucking firms that depended on that gin for work and profits.

Location of Parmer County, Texas,
population 9,870 (Wikipedia map)

"In Parmer County, one cooperative gin has sold, another is unlikely to reopen, and only one large facility remains," St. James writes. "The cotton did not disappear. The infrastructure did. . . . This is what a farm recession looks like on Main Street."

From a state or national perspective, the loss and absorption of gins may not signal any crisis, but for towns centered on cotton, the loss of one or two gins can kill their rural economy.

"Cotton remains central to the Texas economy. . . . But rural infrastructure tends to thin faster than it rebuilds," St. James adds. To survive, some West Texas counties are faced with "rebuilding the backbone of the local economy."

Cotton field project helps farmers and students learn how to outsmart bugs while saving money and time

Pests are identified by AI as they fly through a light sensor
inside this trap. (Photo by D. Mcgee via The Conversation)

Researchers working to introduce precision agriculture practices to farmers and agriculture students made progress during their recent project, in which AI was deployed to outsmart cotton-eating bugs in Jenkins County, Georgia.

Jenkins County, with a population of roughly 8,700, is "among the top 25 cotton-growing counties in the state," write Debra Lam, Atin Adhikari and James E. Thomas for The Conversation. The area's farmers rely heavily on expensive pesticides to defeat "stink bugs, cotton bollworms, corn earworms, tarnished plant bugs and aphids."

The project aimed to help farmers determine when to spray their crops by combining "AI-based early pest detection methods with existing integrated pest management practices and the Georgia Cotton Insect Advisor app," according to the report. By integrating those tools, researchers learned how to "improve pest detection, decrease pesticide exposure levels and reduce insecticide use."

The project's outcome demonstrated that AI tools could reliably predict where and when pest infestations would occur, providing farmers with the knowledge they need to save money and labor costs by applying pesticides only where and when necessary.

Through the use of AI sensors, the research provided farmers with practical and intuitive ways to plan and protect their crops. According to the report, "Even after the sensors are gone, farmers who used them become better at spotting pests. . . . AI dashboards and mobile apps help them see how pest populations grow over time and respond to different field conditions."

The project was part of Georgia's ongoing effort to train more farmers and students on how to integrate precision agriculture into their farming or pest management practices. According to The Conversation's report, "The same tools could help local governments manage mosquitoes and ticks and open up more agtech innovations." 

As U.S. cotton farmers continue to lose money, some may 'lose the farm.' A 2025 Farm Bill could help.

Cotton has lost market share relative to man-made fibers.

(National Cotton Council graph via Farm Journal)

A sour market and steep input prices may put some U.S. cotton farmers out of business. "Cheap cotton prices and dwindling demand are just part of the problem," reports Tyne Morgan of Farm Journal. "Input costs have climbed and there’s no safety net to be found from a new farm bill."

In decades past, farmers would often choose cotton over food production crops, but overall changes have made the crop an unprofitable investment. "With cotton prices falling below farmers’ breakeven, that crop is causing financial pain to even grow," Morgan explains. Franz Rowland, who grows cotton in Boston, Ga., told him, “There’s no farm bill to support us, and the reference price is so low that it’s not anything that we can depend on."

While cotton is a dependable crop, it's expensive to produce and harvest. "Cotton is a high input crop that requires a heavy dose of fertilizer and intensive pest and weed management," Morgan adds. "But in addition to that, today’s cotton farmers are dealing with the rising cost of equipment." A used cotton picker can cost around $585,000, but a new one retails for roughly $1 million.

The outlook for 2025 cotton crops is negative. The president and CEO of National Cotton Council, Gary Adams, told Morgan, "We’ve gone beyond just losing money now that we’re to the point of losing the farm. Unfortunately, where the industry is, that’s what it looks like as we’re going into 2025." Morgan adds, "There’s a lot to unpack in explaining why cotton prices are so low, but the biggest reason is dwindling demand."

Cotton's biggest competitor is man-made fibers such as polyester. "At the same time, big cotton producers, such as Brazil and Australia, are staring at big crops, which is helping global competition for the smaller market that’s left," Morgan reports. "China is still a larger buyer of U.S. cotton."

For now, U.S. cotton farmers are pushing for a 2025 Farm Bill that offers support. Adams told Morgan, “I just can’t state this strongly enough: We have to have a farm bill done by Congress this year that applies to the 2025 crop."

With its $12.98 T-shirt, this company shows how retail apparel production can thrive in the U.S.

American Giant photo via The Wall Street Journal

It isn't fancy -- it's practical. It's sold at Walmart, but it's no import. It's a "Made in America" T-shirt woven with U.S. cotton sold by an American company making a tidy profit off its $12.98 tee, reports Suzanne Kapner of The Wall Street Journal. The T-shirt maker, American Giant, used the "heft" of Walmart's guaranteed sales contracts to garner enough investor support to make affordable "Made in the USA" apparel items possible.

American Giant's success wasn't spurred by tariffs on Chinese imports. Instead, it was Walmart's 2013 pledge to spend more on items that were made, grown or assembled in the U.S. that helped the company grow. Kapner explains, "In 2021, Walmart increased its goal and promised to spend billions more each year through 2030."

Bayard Winthrop, the chief executive of American Giant, said that "without Walmart acting as a backstop by committing to buy a predetermined number of shirts over time, American Giant’s suppliers wouldn’t have had the confidence to make the investments in automation and other upgrades that drove down production costs," Kapner writes. "The T-shirt project brought together what Winthrop has called 'strange bedfellows.'"

The T-shirt is made out of "yarn that is grown, spun, dyed and sewn in the U.S., contracting with suppliers mainly in the Southeast," Kapner reports. "It also owns a cutting and sewing facility in Middlesex, N.C., and is part owner in another sewing facility in Los Angeles, which opened specifically to make the Walmart T-shirts."

Even with its $12.98 price tag, American Giant's Walmart T-shirt competes against similar 100% cotton tees at half the price. American Giant differentiates itself with American emblems, which other apparel makers cannot use. Kapner explains, "Walmart bars suppliers from using the term 'American Made' or the American flag on products that aren’t made in the U.S."

So far, the $12.98 T-shirt boasts solid sales and "American Giant is making 100% cotton sweatshirts for Walmart that will sell for $38.98," Kapner reports. Despite the company's success, "it is unclear how much Americans care about buying products made in the U.S. . . . With the uptick of inflation in recent years, budget-minded shoppers have become even more price conscious."

Farm Bill debate snags on GOP efforts to cut climate funds and food aid to increase subsidies for cotton, peanuts, rice

"Congress appears unlikely to pass a new Farm Bill by the end of this year amid standoffs over Republicans’ push to extend subsidies to three specific Southern crops — at the potential cost of billions in both food aid and popular farm conservation programs," reports Saul Elbein of The Hill.

The Farm Bill will expire Dec. 31 unless Congress passes an extension, which senators say could be included in a bill to keep the government open after next week. But Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., "said Speaker Mike Johnson had committed December floor time to the farm bill — and gave The Hill a preview of what such a bill might look like," Elbein reports.

The GOP plan would boost subsidies for peanuts, cotton and rice, "the only commodities that won’t get automatic price increases" under current law, Elbein reports: "To pay for this increase, Republican supporters of those programs want to cut food aid and take money from $20 billion previously allocated to conservation payments backed by Democrats, environmental groups and a wide array of farm groups. Thompson argues this move is necessary because 'at least two of those commodities are really upside down right now,' or facing expenses above the market prices of their products — an apparent allusion to cotton and peanuts. . . . According to USDA figures, market prices for cotton in 2022 weren’t high enough to cover the sector’s total expenses."

The plan would raise payments in the Agricultural Risk Coverage/Price Loss Coverage (ARC/PLC) program. "Critics say the proposed increases to the ARC/PLC will direct money only to a few thousand of the nation’s biggest farmers at the expense of programs that benefit all of them," Elbein reports. "Ten percent receive 80 percent of the payments, and 'only the largest of peanut farmers receive more than a few thousand'," Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group told Elbein.

The plan also has conservative opposition. David Ditch of the Heritage Foundation "argued that in an era when interest payments on the national debt are already dragging on the economy, Thompson’s proposal would lock in permanent payments to farmers who — while they may have had a hard year — are already well-subsidized," Elbein reports.

Jonathan Coppess, an attorney in the University of Illinois agricultural economics department, also takes a longer view. "However bad this year’s picture is for cotton, rice and peanuts, Coppess said, agriculture as a whole is coming off of two record years — and most farms that will qualify for ARC/PLC payments are very large, highly diversified operations that grow many crops, rather than just a few," Elbein writes.

"And even the idea that crops such as cotton are underwater this year relies on counting — as the USDA does — costs that include opportunity or capital recovery costs, or the “expense” of using land, labor or equipment for farming as opposed to using it for something else. This strains the very notion of 'expense,' said Anne Schechinger, Midwest director of the EWG."

American farmers will plant less cotton this year, partly due to drought in high-production areas like Texas

U.S. Department of Agriculture map

Ten years ago, U.S. farmers opted to grow more cotton, but this year marks a change. "Battered by drought and rising costs, U.S. cotton growers will devote more of their land to corn, wheat, and soybeans — crops that promise higher revenue this year — while sharply reducing their cotton plantings, said a survey released on Sunday," reports Chuck Abbott of Successful Farming. "The National Cotton Council said its survey of growers indicated 11.4 million acres will be planted to cotton this spring, 17% less than last year."

Multiple factors have prompted the shift. The Cotton Council's economic summary cited "an environment characterized by increased production costs, slumping consumer demand, and supply chain disruptions. . . . Growers across the Cotton Belt said they would shift some of their land out of cotton. Corn, wheat, and soybeans were the most frequently mentioned alternatives. Futures prices for most alternative crops were strong for the past year but cotton futures have fallen more than 16% since last winter."

Texas produces about 40 percent of the nation's cotton, and Texas growers told the Cotton Council they would plant 6.2 million acres of cotton, 21% less than last year. "Much of the Texas Panhandle and South Plains was in a state of 'exceptional' drought in 2022," reports Jillian Taylor of the Texas Tribune. "More than 70% of all acres in the region failed. It’s one of the worst cotton production seasons the area has seen since the 1950s, according to Plains Cotton Growers, a nonprofit organization of cotton producers from a 41-county region in the northernmost part of the state."

Darren Hudson, a professor of agriculture and economics at Texas Tech University, told Taylor that about a third of economic activity in the region is related to agriculture, “but one of these smaller towns, probably, 80% of their economic activity is related to agriculture in some way. So when you see a loss like this, it impacts those communities much more severely than it does a major metro area.”

Taylor writes, "This year’s drought doesn’t spell the end for most cotton farmers. The federal government offers an insurance subsidy that allows farmers like Walker to break even on their expenses. But breaking even doesn’t mean farmers are in the clear. Farmer Steven Walker said, “We can only do that so many years before it really catches up to us and we’re behind on keeping up our equipment.”

USDA surveys find more big farmers embrace cover crops

Just over half of the nation's largest farms said they planted cover crops in 2017, showing increased acceptance of the practice's benefits for soil health and water retention, according to a newly released Agriculture Department survey of 400 producers with production worth at least $500,000 a year (putting them in the top 7.4 percent of farms). Here are some takeaways from the poll:

• In 2017, farmers reported planting 15.4 million acres of cover crops, a 50% increase from 2012.
• 81% of growers with cover crops said the practice improved soil health and crop yields. One in seven said it improved soil health but not crop yields.
• 48% of farmers polled said they abandoned cover crops in the past or have never planted them before.
• Field-level surveys of crop fields found that expanded adoption of cover crops is highest on fields that include corn silage in the rotation and lowest on fields that include wheat.
• In 2018, about one-third of the acreage planted with a cover crop received a financial assistance payment from either federal, state, or other programs that support cover-crop planting.
• Most of the farmers who planted cover crops were fairly new to the practice. Half the farms with cover crops reported doing so for five years or less, and on 25% or less of their land. Only one-fourth of the growers who plant cover crops had done so for more than 10 years.

Documents show how Monsanto and BASF sold dicamba even though they knew it would damage other crops

Dicamba herbicide manufacturers Monsanto and BASF knew their products would damage soybean and cotton crops that aren't genetically engineered to resist it, but sold it anyway, according to documents obtained by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting. 

"Executives from Monsanto and BASF, a German chemical company that worked with Monsanto to launch the system, knew their dicamba weed killers would cause large-scale damage to fields across the United States but decided to push them on unsuspecting farmers anyway, in a bid to corner the soybean and cotton markets," Jonathan Hettinger reports. "Monsanto and BASF have denied for years that dicamba is responsible for damage, blaming farmers making illegal applications, weather events and disease. The companies insist that when applied according to the label, dicamba stays on target and is an effective tool for farmers."

The investigation also found that Monsanto limited testing that could delay or deny regulatory approval of dicamba, and that its investigations of drift incidents were designed to limit the company's liability or payouts to farmers, Hettinger reports. Read more here.

Direct federal aid to farmers predicted to more than double in 2020, driving forecast of 41.3% rise in net farm income

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service has published the last of three 2020 Farm Sector Income Forecasts. The forecast is updated three times a year, usually in February, August and November. ERS released a webinar Wednesday discussing the findings. The recording is not yet available, but will be posted here soon. Here are some of the report's top findings:

• Direct government farm payments (excluding USDA loans and crop-insurance payments) are forecast to total $46.5 billion, a $24 billion (107.1%) increase from 2019. That's mostly because of supplemental and disaster assistance for the coronavirus pandemic.
• Net farm income, a broad measure of profits, is projected at $119.6 billion, a $36 billion (41.3%) increase from 2019. That figure is not adjusted for inflation.
• In inflation-adjusted 2020 dollars, net farm income is projected to increase $35 billion, also up 41.3% from 2019.
• Net cash farm income (a more precise measurement of profits) is predicted to increase $24.7 billion (22.6%) to $134.1 billion from last year. That figure is not adjusted for inflation.
• In inflation-adjusted 2020 dollars, net cash farm income is predicted to increase $23.4 billion, or 21.1%, from 2019. 
• Overall farm cash receipts are forecast to decrease $3.2 billion, or 0.9%, to $366.6 billion.
• Total animal and animal product receipts are predicted to decrease $9.7 billion, or 5.5% from 2019.
• Total crop receipts are forecast to increase $6.4 billion, or 3.3%, from 2019. Receipts for fruits, nuts, soybeans, vegetables, melons and sugar beets are projected to increase, while receipts for corn and cotton are expected to decrease.
• Total production expenses are predicted at $343.6 billion, a $5.2 billion (1.5%) decrease from 2019.
• Interest expenses are predicted to decrease $5.4 billion, or 25.9%, from 2019.
• Spending on livestock, poultry, oils and fuels is also expected to decline, but fertilizer spending is forecast to increase $1.1 billion, or 5.1%, from 2019. 
• Net rent to landlords is projected to increase $1.3 billion, or 7.6%, in 2020.
• Farm sector equity is projected to decline by 0.1% after adjusting for inflation.
• Farm sector assets are forecast at $3.12 trillion, a 1.5% rise from 2019, following increases in farm real estate assets and other investments and financial assets.
• Farm sector debt is projected at $435.2 billion, a 4% increase from 2019.
• Real estate debt is projected to increase 6.1% from 2019.
• Farm sector debt-to-asset levels, which have been trending higher since 2012, are predicted to increase again in 2020 to 13.95%. 
• Working capital is projected to increase 6% this year, after an 11.9% increase last year.

Here are the top findings from the September 2020 update and from the December 2019 update.

China's bought less than half what it promised in trade deal

In February, China promised to buy about $36.6 billion in U.S. farm goods as part of the "Phase I" trade deal with the Trump administration. But China is less than halfway to that goal as of October, with only two months left in the year, Chad Brown reports for the Peterson Institute for International Economics, an independent nonprofit organization.

However, Iowa State University economist Wendong Zhang said recently that China is buying large amounts of U.S. food, agriculture products and seafood that could total $31 billion in the 2020-21 fiscal year, which ends June 30. "The forecast included $11 billion worth of soybeans, $2.7 billion of pork, $1.8 billion of cotton, and $1.5 billion of corn," Chuck Abbott reports for Successful Farming.

Last week the Department of Agriculture predicted near-record farm exports of $152 billion in the fiscal year, based on expectations that the pandemic will recede and trade tensions with China will fade under the Biden administration, Abbott reports for the Food & Environment Reporting Network.

With future legality of dicamba in doubt, farmers struggle to make decisions as seed-buying season approaches

With the legality of the weed killer dicamba in question, many farmers are struggling to make decisions about next year as the fall seed-buying season approaches. Dicamba use in the U.S. is at or near a record high this year, with 60 million acres of dicamba-tolerant crops planted, but it's unclear what next year will look like, Emily Unglesbee reports for DTN/The Progressive Farmer.

A federal court recently banned sales of dicamba-based products in the U.S. until late in December, ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency didn't do due diligence when reauthorizing the herbicide in 2018. Reauthorization expires Dec. 20, and EPA is expected to try to reauthorize it then, if not sooner. EPA told farmers they could use existing stores of dicamba-based herbicides through July, and a federal appeals court upheld that call, but it's still unclear what legal footing dicamba will be on next year.

"The most pressing question facing farmers and the industry is whether two companies, BASF and Bayer, will be able to get new registrations approved for XtendiMax and Engenia, two over-the-top dicamba herbicides whose registrations were vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in early June," Unglesbee reports. "With no clear timeline from EPA on when it might make those decisions -- nor any information on what new labels would look like -- the Xtend cropping system is faced with uncertainty as farmers near the fall seed-buying season, with some opting to switch to other herbicide-tolerant platforms."

Ag roundup: Farmers' hopes dip as pandemic roils markets

Here's a roundup of how the covid-19 pandemic is affecting the agriculture sector.

Farmers' hopes for a good year pushed Purdue University's Ag Economy Barometer to a record high in February, but pandemic fears caused the barometer to plunge in March. The barometer is based on monthly surveys of 400 U.S. farmers.

"Price forecasts for most agricultural products are bleak. In the past month, dairy prices have dropped 26-36%, corn futures have dropped by 14%, soybean futures are down 8% and cotton futures have plummeted 31%," Feed & Grain reports. "Hog futures are down by 31%. A surge in demand for beef emptied grocery store meat aisles, but there is no lack of supply. Despite a rise in retail prices in some areas, the prices paid to cattle ranchers have fallen 25%."

Spot and future prices are spiking for some staples like wheat and rice, the University of Illinois' Farm Policy News reports. That's likely to stabilize; the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects global wheat and rice reserves to be an an all-time high. 

Some groceries are getting more expensive. Egg prices at the supermarket have tripled in the past month, The Wall Street Journal reports.

On the bright side, lower energy prices mean fertilizer prices are down, David Widmar reports for Successful Farming.

Farmers are panic-buying animal feed, fearing that feed mills will close or trucks might be delayed, Bloomberg Businessweek reports.

A Tyson Foods meatpacking plant in southeastern Iowa shut down Monday after more than two dozen workers got sick with covid-19, Chuck Abbott reports for the Food & Environment Reporting Network. Others could shutter, affecting rural jobs.

FDA approves GMO cotton with edible cotton seeds

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a genetically engineered form of cotton that makes its seeds edible without hurting the valuable fiber. Researchers believe the seeds can become a cheap source of protein for people and animals, Jessica Fu reports for The New Food Economy.

The U.S. is a powerhouse cotton producer, bringing 9.6 billion pounds worth $7 billion to the world market every year. Most of its value is in the fiber; seeds have been of little use because they contain a toxic chemical called gossypol. The chemical can trigger severe respiratory distress, impaired immune and reproductive function, and death in humans. Cotton seeds are used in some cattle feed, a few insecticides, and for cottonseed oil, production of which removes gossypol, Fu reports.

Keerti Rathore, a plant-biotechnology professor at Texas A&M University, has been working for the past two decades to change that. It turns out that cotton seeds are rich in proteins, but Rathore found it difficult to reduce gossypol levels in seeds but not in the rest of the plant, where it serves as a natural insecticide, Fu reports.

After years of experimentation, Rathore submitted a low-gossypol cotton to the FDA and the Agriculture Department for approval in 2017. "Last year, USDA deregulated the genetically engineered cotton, giving farmers free rein to grow the crop. FDA’s move this month gives producers permission to use it as an ingredient in human food, as well as animal feed," Fu reports.

It will still be a while before the new seeds are on grocery and feed-store shelves. Seed companies must agree to sell them, and farmers may be slow to grow a new form of cotton. And, "beyond the bureaucratic aspects, low-gossypol cotton seeds also face the challenge of overcoming the cultural stigma surrounding genetically modified foods," Fu reports.

$108 hoodie illustrates modern realities of 'Made in America'

Scores of manufacturers moved their factories overseas in the past 40 years to take advantage of cheaper labor and laxer environmental standards. President Trump has vowed to lure manufacturers back home, but it may be difficult for many companies to do so and still make a profit, Dustin Stephens reports for CBS News. To illustrate the obstacles to "Made in America" labels, CBS interviewed Bayard Winthrop, all of whose American Giant apparel is made in the U.S., and followed production of its popular hooded sweatshirt. He illustrates how some manufacturers may have to provide fewer jobs and rely more on automation and immigrant labor to remain profitable.

When Winthrop came up with the idea for American Giant in 2012, the first major problem he faced was a lack of infrastructure for apparel components. He had to essentially coax a master yarn dyer out of retirement to accomplish that part of the process, Stephens reports. But the supply chain problems start with farm labor: a North Carolina cotton farmer told CBS he hires seasonal Mexican workers because few locals are willing to work for him, no matter what pay and benefits he offers.

Workforce is also a problem in the mill where the cotton is cleaned and spun into yarn. It must rely largely on automation to stay profitable. "In the 1960s a mill like this would have employed 2,000 workers; today, about 125 work here producing about 2 million pounds of yarn a week," Stephens reports. But human workers must be used in the final step, where the fabric is cut and sewn. Keeping this step in the U.S. adds as much as $17 to the hoodie's cost, Winthrop said; American Giant tries to keep costs down by selling its products almost entirely online, with only two brick-and-mortar stores.

The final cost of the hoodie is $108. And though it's widely praised as "the greatest hoodie ever made," the price tag could put it out of reach for many Americans. However, Winthrop says domestic manufacturing matters. "I think we're selling a value system," Winthrop told CBS. "Stand for some things that matter, stand for American manufacturing, stand for the people that are making stuff. And when we buy things, when we do it consciously, when we do it with an eye towards understanding how these little votes that we make have an impact attached to them, we'll be better off."

EPA allows more use of pesticide toxic to bees after USDA announces it will stop tracking bee-colony numbers

Portland Press Herald photo illustration

"The Environmental Protection Agency approved broad new applications Friday for a controversial insecticide, despite objections from environmental groups and beekeepers who say it is among the compounds responsible for eviscerating the nation’s bee populations," Brady Dennis reports for The Washington Post.

It could be difficult to assess whether sulfoxaflor impacts the honeybee population, since the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced that its National Agricultural Statistics Service will stop collecting quarterly data for its annual Honey Bee Colonies report, and has not said when or if it will resume.

The EPA first approved sulfoxaflor in 2013, but its use was restricted in 2015 after the agency was successfully sued in federal court. In 2016 the EPA approved its use for crops that don't attract bees, as well as for some plants after blooming was complete. "The agency also has repeatedly granted emergency waivers to states to allow the use of sulfoxaflor on certain crops because of a lack of effective alternatives for farmers — including more than a dozen such exemptions this year alone for sorghum and cotton," Dennis reports.

Farmers will now be allowed to spray the chemical, which the EPA says is "very highly toxic" to bees, to a wider range of crops, including corn, soybeans, citrus, strawberries, pineapples and pumpkins, Dennis reports.

"The news comes during a time that commercial honeybee colonies have been declining at a startling rate. The annual loss rate for honeybees during the year ending in April rose to 40.7 percent, up slightly over the annual average of 38.7 percent, according to the Bee Informed Partnership, a nonprofit group associated with the University of Maryland," Dannis reports. "Some of the losses have been associated with events such as massive wildfires in the west, the wet winter in the Midwest and hurricanes in the Southeast. But the bee losses documented over the past decade are often blamed in no small part on the increased use of fungicides, herbicides and certain pesticides."

In considering whether to approve expanded use of the chemical, the EPA relied on new industry-backed studies that showed that sulfoxaflor requires fewer applications and dissipates more quickly than other pesticides, which makes it less dangerous to bees and other wildlife, Dennis reports.

Glyphosate (Roundup) use soars in recent decades, especially in Midwest, as weeds grow more resistant

Glyphosate use in the U.S. Click the image to enlarge it, or click here for the interactive version.
(Map by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting)

Nationwide use of the controversial pesticide glyphosate has skyrocketed over the past 30 years, even as it becomes less effective against weeds and is increasingly the target of health-related lawsuits. According to U.S. Geological Survey estimates, use of glyphosate on crops rose from 13.9 million pounds in 1992 to 287 million pounds in 2016. Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Roundup.

"A review of the agency’s data by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting shows that farmers across the Midwest used an estimated 188.7 million pounds of glyphosate in 2016 – nearly 40 times more than in 1992 when they used a total of 4.6 million pounds. The data for the year 2016 is the latest available," Christopher Walljasper and Ramiro Ferrando report for the center. "Farmers in those 12 states – including Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska – grow most of the country’s soybean and corn crops. Glyphosate is now the primary way farmers manage weeds that would otherwise reduce the amount of grain they can produce. The Midwest accounts for 65 percent of the nation’s use of glyphosate for crops, according to the center’s analysis."

Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, introduced glyphosate in 1974, but the pesticide became much more popular after Monsanto began selling genetically modified Roundup-resistant seeds. Usage increased even more in 2000 after the patent expired and other companies could sell it. There were at least 40 generic glyphosate-based herbicides on the market by 2007, Walljasper and Ferrando report.

However, as weeds evolved to resist glyphosate, farmers have had to use more of it. James Benham, a longtime farmer in southeastern Indiana, told the center that farmers are in a tough place financially because they have to spend more money on seed and chemicals without seeing more profit. "Sometimes if you timed it just right, you could get away with just one spraying. Now we’re spraying as often as three or four times a year," Benham said. "That puts the farmer in that much more of a crisis mode. Can’t do without it, can’t hardly live with it."

EPA issues 'emergency exemption' for fourth year to allow limited use of a pesticide that is harmful to bees

The Environmental Protection Agency will allow farmers in 18 states this year to use an insecticide that may kill bees on two crops, sorghum and cotton, that attract bees.

This is the fourth straight year that EPA has issued an emergency exemption for sulfoxaflor, which is not approved for general use. Dow AgroSciences marketed the pesticide, sold under the brand names "Closer" and "Transform" as an alternative to neonicotinoids that harm bees, Zoe Schlanger reports for Quartz. But the pesticide apparently failed to live up to expectations, and was banned in 2015 after beekeepers, environmental groups and honey industry advocates filed suit.

Sulfoxaflor behaves very like neonicotinoids, researchers found. "A paper published in Nature in August 2018 found that exposure to sulfoxaflor significantly lowered bees’ ability to reproduce. Exposed colonies had fewer than half the number of offspring as unexposed colonies," Schlanger reports.

In 2016 EPA reapproved sulfoxaflor but said it could only be sprayed on bee-attracting crops after their bloom period. It allowed exceptions for cotton and sorghum, and could extend further exceptions in the future: "In October 2018, Dow submitted an application to expand the use of sulfoxaflor to rice fields, avocado trees, household plants, tree farms, and greenhouses," Schlanger reports.

USDA official says farmers have gotten far less in trade aid than originally expected

A senior U.S. Department of Agriculture official said on the Adams on Agriculture program Thursday that American farmers hurting from the trade war with China may get significantly less in aid than originally expected. Agriculture Undersecretary Bill Northey said a little more than $5 billion was paid out by the beginning of January, though the administration expected to pay out $8 billion, Chuck Abbott reports for Successful Farming.

"Northey did not provide details nor was a USDA spokesman immediately available to say why the figure differed from the USDA’s earlier estimate that up to $9.6 billion in cash would go to producers of almonds, cotton, corn, dairy, pork, soybeans, sorghum, sweet cherries, and wheat," Abbott reports. "Soybean growers, hit hard by the loss of sales to China, were in line for $7.3 billion." The USDA has also said it would pay farmers $1.2 billion for food to donate and give $200 million to agriculture export groups to promote trade.

The aid payments, administered through the Market Facilitation Program, are limited to $125,000 for producers of grain, livestock, fruit, and nut producers, and are not available to those who make more than $900,000 a year, Abbott reports.

Corn growers upset that they're getting less in trade-war aid than soybean growers

The White House promised to help farmers hurt by the trade war with China, but many corn farmers are upset that they're getting far less than soybean growers.

"Federal economists have calculated that the nation’s losses in corn – its largest crop by harvest and export volume – amount to just a penny per bushel, a pittance farmers call absurd," P.J. Huffstutter and Mark Weinraub report for Reuters. "That’s in stark contrast to the substantial $1.65 per bushel the government will pay for lost sales of soybeans, the crop hardest hit by retaliatory Chinese tariffs in a trade war launched by U.S. President Donald Trump."

Both corn and soybean aid only cover half of this fall's harvest, though the feds may decide to give more money later. The U.S. Department of Agriculture released $6.1 billion recently of an authorized $12 billion aid package for farmers of grains, oilseeds, cotton, dairy and hogs, Reuters reports. Government data shows that the U.S. has paid out $1.9 million for 12,807 corn claims as of October 31.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, a former farmer, recently told Illinois corn farmers that he didn't understand how his own agency's economists had calculated the amount of relief offered, but said they had to stick to it because that's what the U.S. would present to the World Trade Organization when filing an unfair trade grievance, Reuters reports.

"We have got $1.65 on beans and a penny on corn? That doesn’t make any sense," Perdue told the farmers. "If I were picking numbers, I’d have picked a different one."

U.S. farmers may get less aid than first estimated if trade agreement with Mexico and Canada mitigates losses

Farmers hurt by the trade war with China could get less than the U.S. Department of Agriculture's promised $12 billion because of the new trade deal with Canada and Mexico that replaces the North
American Free Trade Agreement, Humeyra Pamuk reports for Reuters.

USDA announced in August that the first $6 billion would include cash payments to farmers of soybeans, sorghum, corn, wheat, cotton, dairy and hogs. Regarding the second $6 billion installment, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue told Reuters the department will be "recalculating along as we go" because the new agreement might lessen the financial pain felt by some farmers.

Pamuk notes, "American farmers have yet to see the full benefit of the new accord as an ongoing dispute over steel and aluminum tariffs mean they still face retaliatory measures when trading with Canada and Mexico. That agreement also does not address the harm as a result of the trade war."

Perdue told Reuters that the steel and aluminum tariffs were "instrumental" in pressuring Canada to negotiate the deal, but now that it has been signed, the tariffs' purpose has been served and he believes the three countries should return to a no-tariff policy on steel and aluminum.