Other Ag News:
Editor’s Note: This is the second post in a four-part blog series analyzing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on March 5. The first post provides an overview of the markup process and the bill as a whole. This post provides a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on local and regional food systems. The third post will offer a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on the farm safety net, farms’ ability to access land and capital, and fair competition. The final post will cover conservation, climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research.
In a moment where families and farmers are facing increased costs, The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA) takes modest steps to invest in local food supply chains while unfortunately neglecting to address the historically deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program included in 2025’s budget reconciliation bill (H.R. 1). Most notably, the bill would create a permanent – albeit unfunded – program that empowers states to develop their own community nutrition programs that purchase from small and mid-size farms and beginning and veteran farmers to distribute in food insecure communities. At other times, the bill underfunds programs, significantly jeopardizing their success.
The following analysis is divided into sections addressing local and regional market access and development, supply chain infrastructure and support, and food access:
- Market Access and Development
- Supply Chain Infrastructure and Support
- Food Access
In 2025, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) unexpectedly terminated two programs that sought to connect producers to new markets via business technical assistance and market access. The March termination came at a time when many farmers had already purchased supplies or expanded operations in anticipation of future sales. Since then, there has been notable support in the House and Senate for a new, permanent program that would invest in reliable state and domestic markets.
Local Farmers Feeding our Communities
The FFNSA creates a new program, the Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Program, which directs USDA to enter into cooperative agreements with state agencies and Tribal governments to provide them with funding to purchase and distribute local food to communities in need (Section 4306). Nestled in the nutrition title, it is clear that the program would readily provide healthy foods to food insecure communities. However, the primary focus of the program is to expand economic opportunities for small- and mid-sized farms, beginning and veteran farmers, while strengthening regional food networks. In addition to funding for direct food purchases, the new program includes:
- An emphasis on farm-fresh local products, requiring all food purchases to be minimally processed foods;
- A requirement for at least 25% of the total annual value of products purchased under these agreements to come from small, midsize, beginning, or veteran producers;
- Funding for administration and technical support that helps producers obtain food safety training and certification;
- An authorization of appropriations for $200 million annually;
- A directive that 10% of total funding be allocated first to Tribal nations, with each state then receiving 1% of funds, and all remaining funding to be allocated utilizing the Emergency Food Assistance state allocation formula.
The inclusion of the Farmers Feeding our Communities Program is an instance of Congress responding to farmers and communities nationwide, celebrating the success of the previous Local Food Purchase Assistance Program while also making pragmatic improvements, such as directing technical assistance for food safety. However, without mandatory funding, the program would not be able to provide reliable market access, limiting program effectiveness and making farmers hesitant to participate.
Food Safety Outreach Program
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 FFNSA 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. However, FFNSA misses an opportunity to increase funding levels for FSOP, a crucial misstep, especially given the array of food safety regulations increasingly impacting smaller producers. It also makes the misstep of removing a community outreach and grant feedback component that may negatively impact program structure in the future (Sec. 7301).
Local Agriculture Market Program
The farm bill has a longstanding history of supporting local market development through programs such as the Local Agriculture Market Program. Yet, FFNSA fails to fully respond to the growing program demand and its proven track record in generating new business revenue and jobs. FFNSA offers program reforms that codify a simplified, turnkey application process, which will support essential activities such as farmers’ market manager time, marketing activities, and special purpose equipment. Unfortunately, it does not offer an increase in appropriations or mandatory funding levels. The combined effect of the changes may generate more demand than the program can support (Section 10102).
Federal Procurement Reform
Without a Child Nutrition Reauthorization anywhere on the horizon, the farm bill is the primary opportunity to update federal food procurement policies that respond to the needs of farmers, businesses, school nutrition stakeholders, and communities. FFNSA directs USDA to examine USDA’s food purchasing practices to understand 1) barriers for farmers and businesses to sell nontraditional, culturally relevant, or local and regional products directly to USDA, and 2) the quality of foods being purchased for USDA programs. This assessment would also make administrative, regulatory, and legislative recommendations to address barriers. This is a small but necessary step in updating long term commodity purchasing practices (Section 10106).
Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program
Meat and poultry processing is a closely regulated industry. Yet, for decades, geographic and funding limitations have frequently prevented Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) personnel from providing food safety education before regulation. These same limitations have also made it challenging for FSIS to cost-effectively regulate smaller processors in many states. As a result, Congress created the Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program (CIS) in the Food Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) to enable products processed at state-inspected plants to be sold interstate if the state has a Meat and Poultry Inspection program equivalent to the federal inspection program.
CIS has expanded markets and opportunities and encouraged the creation of new products in the small plants it serves. Over time, however, it has become evident that the CIS program requires an expansion of scope and funding in order to serve more small and very small meat processors. The bipartisan Strengthening Local Processing Act (SLPA, H.R. 945) includes changes to the federal and state regulatory authorities’ cost-share model, which could alter the cost-benefit analysis for states that have their own meat and poultry inspection programs, ultimately making for more effective regulation of small and very small meat processors. Those plants will then be able to work more effectively with small and diversified farms that are an essential component of a sustainable and equitable food system.
Unfortunately, the FFNSA declines to make any changes to the CIS program structure, instead promoting outreach about the program and requiring a report on that outreach each year (Sec 12113). While the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) supports more effective promotion of the CIS program, the failure to include many of the necessary structural and funding improvements means that the FFNSA misses a critical opportunity to expand markets for smaller processors, increase competition in the industry, and help bring more nutritious, locally, and often sustainably raised animal products to market. The FFNSA requires FSIS to provide more publicly available food safety resources designed for small and very small meat processors, including additional widely available validation studies, which small processors can use to support scale-appropriate food safety control techniques. (Section 12112).
Business Technical Assistance
Successful local market development programs have included temporary investments in value-chain coordination and business technical assistance that connect producers to scale appropriate market opportunities. These hands-on efforts can provide regionalized, specific support that strengthens local food networks. Two of USDA’s most notable initiatives to support these activities are the Regional Food Business Centers and the Meat and Poultry Processing Capacity Technical Assistance program. Unfortunately, the FFNSA does not authorize either program. It does, however, meet the bare minimum of reauthorizing a number of longstanding rural business development programs, such as the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP), Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), Rural Business Development Grants, and Rural Cooperative Development Grants. Additional program changes to RMAP are noted in the following section.
Local Food: Supply Chain and Infrastructure SupportUSDA’s previous transformative food system initiative focused on improvements across the supply chain, with investments in infrastructure, workforce development, value-chain coordination, and business technical assistance. The FFNSA offers a few new options for infrastructure investments, but does not adequately respond to the needs of rural communities for specialized food workforce training and technical assistance for scaling businesses. Disproportionate investment along the supply chain can lead to supply without adequate markets for producers, or potentially new infrastructure for businesses without sufficient business planning to strategically scale.
Infrastructure
The FFNSA attempts to sustain some of the meat processing expansion programs created by ARPA, for example, through a “new, mobile, and expanded meat processing and rendering grants” program (Section 6304). This section bears some but not enough resemblance to the original programs (MPPEP, Local MCap, MPIRG) that were developed, in part, based on the proposals in SLPA.
At only $3 million in authorized appropriations funding, the FFNSA’s Section 6304 grants are insufficiently funded relative to the demand across the US. Furthermore, the bill expands eligible applicants to include land grant universities, state departments of agriculture, and other organizations with existing capacities well beyond the small and very small meat processors for whom this program was intended. Instead of limiting these grants to small and very small processors, the FFNSA only includes it as a priority that the funding goes to small and very small processors. This, combined with the lack of a ‘socially disadvantaged’ priority, means that the FFNSA-created grant program runs the risk of funneling money to processors that already have access to other financial instruments to expand capacity. This fails to meaningfully address the processing bottleneck that smaller-scale producers nationwide experience.
The FFNSA expands upon the existing business and industry guaranteed loan program by setting aside a portion of its annual funding for a permanent food supply chain guaranteed loan that seeks to support food supply chain capacity by financing projects focused on aggregation, processing, distribution, and manufacturing. Additionally, it caps the guarantee fee institutions pay to USDA to 3%, which has been cited as a barrier for borrowers among a number of lenders. However, there is little specificity of program goals or parameters for business scale or production type. This financial product is unlikely to support emerging food enterprises or small and mid-scale enterprises participating exclusively in regional food supply chains due to the rigorous underwriting standards associated with USDA guaranteed loans (Section 6304, 6412).
The Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program supports business enterprise development in rural communities by offering affordable loans and relevant ancillary business technical assistance. RMAP is long overdue for program updates to increase the allowable loan sizes and relax restrictions on building renovations, a critical need in many rural spaces. The FFNSA would increase the loan limit to $75,000 and up to 50% of that loan can support costs associated with renovation, construction or other real estate improvement (Section 6422).
Finally, the bill codifies recent LAMP program updates by allowing the purchase of necessary special purpose equipment (Section 10102).
Workforce Development
Small and very small processors – for whom jobs tend to be more cross functional than in their larger industry competitors – have struggled to recruit and maintain the highly skilled workforce they need. More funding and programs specifically created to support the unique needs of small and very small meat workforce development are important to increase growth in the sector.
Unfortunately, the FFNSA does not offer any new funding or new programs to meet the much needed investment in this sector. The bill does amend the USDA’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) to include meat processing workforce development as an area of research. The bill also authorizes the creation of new community college grants oriented towards the development of a broader highly skilled agricultural workforce. While this may include meat processing training, it does not do so explicitly (Section 7123, 7503).
Local Food: AccessWhile the Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Program would increase the circulation of farm-fresh foods in American communities, FFNSA does very little to otherwise support access to and affordability of nutritious foods for food insecure families.
A number of USDA programs incentivize families to use their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance benefits (SNAP) to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables in local food settings by providing matching cash benefits, generating a win for families and farmers. These programs – namely the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) and the Gus Schumaker Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) – receive bipartisan support. FFNSA makes common sense reforms to include popular items such as herbs, maple syrup, and tree nuts in the eligible foods for SFMNP (Section 4201). It also updates award criteria for GusNIP grantees by allowing the Secretary to waive the match requirement for applicants from persistent poverty counties and prioritize projects that increase year-round availability for fruits and vegetables (Section 4303). While NSAC is pleased to see efforts to reduce match requirements, the new prioritization stands to weaken the existing priority for direct-marketing settings, leading to potential shifts of spending away from American farmers. Overall, FFNSA does not succeed in meeting the growing needs of food insecure communities with no additional funding to either program in addition to a failure to restore the cuts to SNAP that were initiated by H.R. 1 in 2025.
Some changes in the FFNSA likely stand to increase local food access in vulnerable communities by increasing the connectivity between farmers and their communities (Section 10003). The bill offers a number of reforms to the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production that are responsive to the growth of a new office since its initial implementation in 2020. Those changes include:
- Expanding the responsibilities and improving the services of the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP) to better support the business and conservation needs of urban and innovative producers;
- Renewing the Federal Advisory Committee until 2031;
- Permanently authorizing the FSA Urban County Committees;
- Directing USDA to increase outreach and technical assistance to producers through cooperative agreements with community experts;
- Ensuring UAIP grants have broader reach to producers by allowing for awards to farmer cooperatives and subawards to individual farmers.
Yet, due to the no-cost nature of the bill, the proposed changes will generate increased demand without any increase or guarantee of funding. OUAIP has consistently been underfunded or forgotten in Appropriations Cycles. Therefore, these program improvements stand to be delayed without adequate funding.
The post Unpacking the House Farm Bill: Part 2 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
Purchase Kosher Meat Safely
During Passover, many families serve kosher meat and poultry, which are produced under rabbinical supervision.
(WASHINGTON, D.C., March 25, 2026) – Spring holidays bring families and friends together for Easter ham, Passover brisket, and Mother’s Day egg-based brunch dishes. As consumers across America prepare these traditional meals for large gatherings, following basic food safety practices can help reduce the risk of foodborne illness.
Editor’s Note: This is the first post in a four-part blog series analyzing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on March 5. This post provides an overview of the markup process and the bill as a whole, as well as its likely (or unlikely) path to becoming law. Subsequent posts provide a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on the farm safety net, local and regional food systems, and conservation, climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research.
In the early morning hours of Thursday, March 5, 2026, the House Committee on Agriculture favorably reported the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA, H.R. 7567) out of committee by a vote of 34-17. FFNSA arrives at an undeniable crossroads for American food and agriculture.
Across fields and communities nationwide, recent years have brought hardships not seen since perhaps the US farm crisis of the 1980s. Today, high production costs, unstable markets, and low crop prices driven by uncertain export markets and overproduction have converged to create an economic climate that threatens farmers’ livelihoods. Unfortunately, too many of these impacts stem directly and indirectly from actions taken by the current Administration.
Meanwhile, in the halls of Congress, elected Representatives have been unable to pass a new, bipartisan farm bill. Since at least the mid-1960’s, Congress has reauthorized a new farm bill roughly every five years by bringing together a bipartisan coalition of rural and urban interests and the Members of Congress who represented them. Yet, 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 March 2026, we are in uncharted waters – over seven years have passed since the 2018 Farm Bill was signed into law, the longest such stretch in recent memory.
Opportunities to authorize a new, full farm bill during the 118th Congress – in 2023 and 2024 – came and went in both the House and Senate. When the November 2024 election delivered a governing “trifecta” for the Republican Party, they turned to the budget reconciliation process to pass a bill that updated some parts of the farm bill, while leaving most out. This reconciliation bill, commonly referred to as H.R. 1, took the unprecedented step of cutting nearly $200 billion from one part of the farm bill in order to fund another part of the farm bill, effectively breaking the decades-old bipartisan farm bill coalition.
It is against this backdrop – unprecedented times in farm country and in federal food and agriculture policy – that the House Agriculture Committee introduced FFNSA.
A single farm bill – as important as it is – cannot solve everything. Yet a single farm bill can set us on a better path. Judged within the inseparable context of this moment, FFNSA includes some promising provisions but ultimately falls short, choosing to double down on an agricultural system that simply is not working, rather than making real strides toward a system that does.
Summarizing the MarkupThe FFNSA markup kicked off shortly after 6:00 pm EDT on March 3 and did not conclude until around 1:30 am EDT on March 5 – more than twenty hours in total. The vast majority of the markup focused on the debate of dozens of amendments offered by policymakers from both parties.
To understand the debate around many of the amendments, it’s important to understand that, due to the unique nature of current Congressional budgeting rules, any reauthorized farm bill cannot cost more than the most recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline of the current (in this case, 2018) Farm Bill. This means that to increase funding for one farm bill program, a corresponding amount of funding has to be cut from another farm bill program. Traditionally, this has meant redirecting funding from a program within the same Title (eg, Conservation Title) of the bill. Without such an “offset” for new or increased funding, however, many amendments offered during markup, which would have improved the bill, were rejected because they were not budget-neutral. During markup, several lawmakers from both parties took to deriding CBO – Congress’s nonpartisan official budgetary scorekeeper – when their amendments did not achieve budget-neutrality.
In reality, however, partial blame rests with Congressional leaders who have not been able to identify and direct outside funding resources into the farm bill, even while Congress has simultaneously managed to move tens of billions in funding for ad hoc assistance programs since 2018. This inability to secure new, outside funding for a farm bill is, in part, why H.R. 1 resorted to slashing billions from nutrition assistance to fuel farm subsidies, and why the new version of FFNSA lacks the resources to set us on a better path.
In total, just over 150 amendments were filed to FFNSA. 74 amendments received a vote of some sort – 29 of which were roll call votes and 45 of which were voice votes. Of those 74 amendments that received a vote, 44 were approved and incorporated into FFNSA – 3 by roll call vote, and 41 by voice vote. Find the full list of amendments here. Below is a list of amendment votes directly related to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)’s priorities that were taken during the House Committee on Agriculture’s markup of FFNSA:
- Representative Dusty Johnson’s (R-SD-AL) amendment to expand eligibility for the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) to include larger co-ops, risking crowding out opportunities for individual farmers and rural small businesses. NSAC opposed. Approved by voice vote.
- Rep. Brad Finstad’s (R-MN-1) amendment to make significant changes to the Farming Opportunities Training Outreach program – including 2501 and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program – that alters priority areas and how applications are reviewed, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of both programs. NSAC opposed. Approved by voice vote.
- Rep. David Scott’s (D-GA-13) amendment to provide mandatory funding for the Scholarships for Students at 1890s Institutions. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
- Rep. Jahana Hayes’s (D-CT-5) amendment to improve the Whole-Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) Program and Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) by establishing a simplified, revenue-based option within NAP, creating an “on-ramp” for producers to transition from NAP to WFRP, adding incentives for insurance agents selling WFRP policies, and authorizing the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to pilot new projects within NAP to develop innovative crop insurance options for RMA, among other changes. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
- Rep. Chellie Pingree’s (D-ME-1) amendment to remove harmful pesticide preemption language in FFNSA, thereby restoring the ability of communities to protect themselves from chemical exposure. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote, 28 opposed – 22 in favor.
- Rep. Nikki Budzinski’s (D-IL-13) amendment to restore full funding to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) – a popular and oversubscribed conservation program – after hundreds of millions of dollars were siphoned off to other programs. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
- Rep. Sharice Davids’ (D-KS-3) amendment to ensure that farmers have access to local USDA offices by preventing their closure, and requiring USDA to rehire qualified employees who have been terminated since January 2025. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
- Rep. Shomari Figures’ (D-AL-2) amendment to strengthen land-grant universities’ ability to provide heirs’ property education and succession planning. NSAC supported. Approved by voice vote.
- Rep. Alma Adams’ (D-NC-12) amendment to increase funding for 1890’s Centers of Excellence. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
- Rep. Alma Adams’ (D-NC-12) amendment to ensure a reliable and accurate assessment of the prevalence of food insecurity among families, seniors, and children across the country by requiring USDA to continue its implementation of the Annual Household Food Security Survey. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
- Rep. Eugene Vindman’s (D-VA-7) amendment to authorize the Organic Transitions Program (ORG), which supports highly innovative research, education, and extension projects that help producers overcome barriers in undertaking the transition to become successful USDA certified organic farms. NSAC supported. Approved by voice vote.
- Rep. Eric Sorensen’s (D-IL-17) amendment to direct USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop a standardized Soil Carbon Monitoring methodology and develop a Soil Carbon Monitoring Network. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
- Rep. Shri Thanedar’s (D-MI-13) amendment to restore the unexpected, unjustified cuts to nutrition education programs that connect low-income communities to nutritious foods by funding SNAP-Ed at $500 million annually in mandatory funding. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
- Rep. Gabe Vasquez’s (D-NM-6) amendment to support wildlife habitat connectivity and migration corridors, increase payment limits for private land owners, and provide technical support for voluntary practices that improve landscape resilience. NSAC supported. Approved by voice vote.
- Rep. Jill Tokuda’s (D-HI-2) amendment to return rescinded funding that would bring farm-fresh food to students’ plates in schools and childcare centers by funding a local food purchasing program with $660,100,000 annually. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
- Vote on the final House Committee on Agriculture passage of the FFNSA. NSAC opposed. Approved by roll call vote 34 in favor – 17 in opposition.
In addition to the amendments listed above, numerous amendments that would have improved the bill were offered but did not receive a vote, including amendments that would have: removed the WFRP expansion limit (Salinas); created a New Producer Economic Security Program to support beginning farmers and ranchers (Budzinski); relocated the state assistance for soil health (SASH) program to the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (Tokuda); provided $50 million in mandatory annual funding for the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (Thanedar); and increased funding for the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Incentive Program (Rouzer).
Where to from HereUltimately, the Committee markup resulted in some changes to FFNSA, but none meaningful enough to make it worthy of support. The remainder of this blog series reveals the extent to which key NSAC farm bill priorities are impacted by FFNSA’s proposals, or lack thereof.
As of posting, there are no concrete and immediately available details about the next steps for FFNSA. While movement on the House floor and in the Senate appears possible, it remains far from guaranteed. For any farm bill to find a legitimate path to becoming law this year, at least two factors will need to be present. First, any farm bill will have to make robust, new investments. The scattered policy improvements included in FFNSA ring hollow without the resources to fuel them. Second, the threshold to pass a farm bill in the Senate requires 60 votes, and thus, the path to a farm bill remains through a true bipartisan process.
More than 7 years removed from the 2018 Farm Bill, farmers, families, and communities still deserve – now more than ever – a new full, bipartisan farm bill that rises to the occasion. As always, NSAC will continue to steadfastly engage with lawmakers as the farm bill meanders its way through the 119th Congress.
The post Unpacking the House Farm Bill: Part 1 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
Consumers often find marketing claims such as, raised without antibiotics, cage-free, and grass-fed on protein-based food packaging. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) offers audit services that provide assurance to customers on the validity of these types of claims.
(Washington, D.C., March 24, 2026) – Today, on National Agriculture Day, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins announced the launch of a national public awareness campaign to inform meat, poultry, and egg producers of the “Product of USA” voluntary labeling standard which went into effect on January 1, 2026, and increases consumer understanding of what the label means.
(Washington, D.C., March 19, 2026) – U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins and U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. published a joint opinion piece in Fox News highlighting the need to strengthen SNAP retailer stocking standards.
In 2026, USDA will begin transforming duplicative loan and grant systems into a modern platform built for the 21st century. We’re excited to incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) and automation to improve customer experience and reduce approval times.
Investing in Rural America
(Washington, D.C., March 16, 2026) – The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service today completed the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and issued the final record of decision for the Resolution Copper Project. The decision is now available on the agency’s project page. This is another important project in advancing President Trump’s goal of mineral independence and energy dominance by boosting domestic mineral production.
(Washington, D.C., March 10, 2026) – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced it has awarded over $26.8 million to grant projects through the Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP). The program helps local and regional food entities develop, coordinate, and expand producer-to-consumer marketing, local and regional food markets, and local food enterprises.
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
