High court rulings in several states that put strict constitutional limits on government agents’ power to enter private property prompted Idaho Farm Bureau to ask their members if this was a problem in Idaho. Their responses made it clear constitutional protections for the state’s private landowners needed to be strengthened.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1924 ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s protections for private property (“persons, house, papers and effects”) do not extend to open land, even if the property is fenced. So, when government agents enter onto private land without the owner’s consent, it’s not state or federal law under which they’re acting, but legal precedent.

“Our members are law-abiding people who see government agents as having legal authority, so they were deferential when agents came onto their land without prior notice. But when they learned the agents in almost every case had no statutory authority to do so, they were mad,” explained Russ Hendricks, Idaho Farm Bureau vice president of governmental affairs.

Grassroots Action

That anger turned into action in the form of farmer-written Idaho Farm Bureau policy to enact state legislation to spell out limitations on government’s authority to enter onto private land without a warrant or the landowner’s consent.

The Long Path to Legislative Success

Idaho Farm Bureau’s first attempt at the legislation didn’t quite hit the mark and the legislative session ended without much progress on the bill. For the second round, Idaho Farm Bureau worked with two supportive county prosecutors to craft a bill that worked for both law enforcement and private landowners. While the bill took longer to draft than Idaho Farm Bureau was hoping for, the organization used that time to meet with as many lawmakers as possible to explain the problem they were trying to solve for private landowners. Most, if not all, of the lawmakers they met with were shocked that private land was not off-limits to government agents without a warrant or prior consent.

Making the Case with Stakeholders

By fall 2025, Idaho Farm Bureau was ready with draft legislation and began meeting with individual members of the boards of three key organizations: the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association and the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association.

“At each of the meetings with the individual board members, we brought a local legislator as well as an Idaho Farm Bureau member who had had government agents on their land without their consent,” Hendricks said.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association initially were neutral on the bill when it was formally introduced as the Property Rights Protection Act, while the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association opposed it. Both organizations later reversed their respective positions but neither spoke publicly as the bill was being discussed by lawmakers.

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission’s opposition was expected.

Slightly unexpected, according to Hendricks, was the overwhelming lawmaker support for the bill, which passed the Idaho Senate 30-5 and the Idaho House 65-3-2. Gov. Brad Little signed the bill into law on March 31.

Under the enacted legislation, government agents — state, local or federal — may not enter private land that is not open to the public unless they have a warrant, face a true emergency or receive the landowner’s consent.

Penalties Set the Bill Apart

Though the state court rulings limit government’s power to enter private property, including land, they do not spell out penalties for law enforcement officers who do so. The Property Rights Protection Act does.

And the penalties – which the two cooperative county prosecuting attorneys encouraged Idaho Farm Bureau to include – are far firmer than a slap on the wrist. Government agents who knowingly and unlawfully trespass face a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation (payable to rangeland improvement), plus attorney fees, court costs and potential landowner lawsuits for actual damages, if any.

Sharing Resources

Noting that it was court rulings in several states that prompted Idaho Farm Bureau to act, Hendricks knows other states without those private land protections might be looking to Idaho Farm Bureau for guidance, especially if they want to go the legislative, rather than the judicial, route.

To help other states get started, Hendricks developed a comprehensive resources page that includes the legal history of the issue, the Property Rights Protection Act text, letters and statements in support of and in opposition to the bill, as well as editorials and Idaho Farm Bureau videos.

Read Article on FB.org

Key Takeaways:

• Section 180 tax deductions allow farmers and ranchers to deduct costs associated with the purchase, acquisition or application of critical inputs such as fertilizer and minerals in the year paid.

• For years, companies have advertised opportunities for farmers and ranchers to submit Section 180 deductions on the value of residual fertilizer and minerals in newly acquired farm or pastureland.

• While “residual fertility” deduction claims carry the allure of substantial per-acre savings, these claims are not backed by sound IRS guidance and could result in significant penalties for farmers and ranchers claiming these deductions.

Farmers buying land have long been able to take a tax deduction on the fertilizer they apply. However, a more aggressive idea has spread quickly over the past few years: claiming deductions on the fertilizer that was already in the soil when the land changed hands. Marketed under the banner of Section 180 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), the "residual fertility" deduction advertises to land buyers a first-year write-off of hundreds or thousands of dollars per acre. While the tax-savings benefits are attractive on the surface, residual fertility claims lack sound IRS guidance. Further, if projected per-acre deductions were to be realized, the cost would far exceed budgetary projections for all of Section 180. This Farm Bureau Intel walks through what the deduction is, how big the potential pool of claims could be, and what a farmer stands to lose if a claim is deemed inadmissible.

This analysis addresses claims made under the Section 180 election, which is taken in the year the land is acquired. Landowners who do not qualify for that election, such as those who cash-rent rather than farm the ground, or who bought in an earlier year, may instead capitalize residual fertility and recover it over several years under other provisions. Those claims fall outside this analysis.

What is Section 180?

Initially ratified by Congress in 1960, Section 180 lets a taxpayer engaged in farming elect to expense the cost of fertilizer, lime and similar soil amendments in the year paid rather than capitalize them. While data on the number of farmers across the country who use Section 180 claims is unavailable, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that farmers save $150 million in taxes each year by using Section 180 tax deductions. estimates that farmers save $150 million in taxes each year by using Section 180 tax deductions.

Separate from the use of Section 180 to deduct the cost of applied fertilizer and similar related soil amendments is the concept of utilizing Section 180 to claim a deduction on unexhausted, residual fertilizer and similar minerals already present on newly purchased or inherited farmland. When farmland is purchased or inherited, the buyer allocates part of the purchase price (or stepped-up basis) to the unexhausted nutrients left by the prior owner and deducts that amount.

However, the precedent for Section 180 residual fertilizer deduction claims is, at best, unresolved. The only formal IRS guidance related to residual fertility claims comes from an early IRS memorandum, which denied a claimed deduction but outlined what a taxpayer would need to show:

• That residual fertilizer attributable to the prior owner is present and measurable;

• That it is being used up by the crops in the ground; and

• That the taxpayer holds beneficial ownership of the land.

No court decision, regulation or revenue ruling has endorsed the practice. Agricultural law commentary from Iowa State's Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation and Southern Ag Today describes a narrow, soil test-documented claim as reasonable with respect to approval for submitted deductions, while suggesting that claims based on total nutrient content, long-past purchases, or pasture and rangeland are vulnerable.

How Large Could the Pool of Claims Be?

There is no official count of residual fertility claims made under Section 180. However, what can be measured is the pool of land eligible to generate a claim.

USDA's 2024 Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land (TOTAL) survey, released in March 2026, asked landowners what they expect to do with their land over the next five years (2025 through 2029). Owners reported plans to sell 22.8 million acres to nonrelatives and 12.8 million acres to relatives, with another 7.4 million acres to be gifted or donated. Gifts fall outside this analysis, because gifted land carries over the donor's basis and leaves the new owner no fresh purchase price to allocate to soil fertility. That leaves 35.6 million acres of farmland sales. Applying the national cropland share from the 2022 Census of Agriculture (43% out of 880 million farm acres) narrows the base to 15.5 million cropland acres, which this analysis uses to estimate annual transfers of cropland at 3.1 million acres per year for 2025-2029.

Multiplying those acres by the values in circulation produces a revealing pattern. A conservatively documented claim of $150 an acre (about two years of applied phosphorus and potassium at current prices) would cost the Treasury about $111 million a year at a 24% marginal tax rate. That is below what JCT already scores for all of Section 180, which is what one would expect: a modest, defensible deduction taken by a subset of land buyers should fit inside the existing estimate.

However, if the advertised values were realized, the cost to Treasury would be significantly more. At a deduction level of $300 per acre, the implied cost to the government is $223 million a year. Some companies advertise per-acre deductions significantly higher than $300 per acre, with one promoter quoted in a Oklahoma State University Extension webinar telling farmers their clients' nutrient loads run "over $1,300 per acre," which implies $964 million a year, or $4.8 billion across the five-year window (over 6 times the estimated impact by JCT). the estimated impact by JCT).

These estimates are ceilings, not precise forecasts of potential deduction savings. They assume every eligible acre generates a claim, which certainly is not happening. But the gap between the ceiling and JCT’s score of $150 million per year (for all of Section 180, not just residual fertility claims) is the crux of why some are skeptical about residual fertility claims under this section of the tax code.

Either uptake remains a small fraction of what the marketing implies or the tax return data JCT works from to score the budgetary impact of Section 180 (which lags by two to three years) has not yet caught up with a practice that has spread quickly. However, both readings describe a deduction growing faster than its official footprint.

What’s the Potential Downside?

The relevant question for an individual farmer is not the national total but the downside of a single claim. Consider a 500-acre cropland purchase at $6,020 an acre (the 2026 U.S. average reported by USDA) for a total of just over $3 million.

On 500 acres, a claimed deduction of $150 per acre is a $75,000 deduction and, at a 24% marginal rate, about $18,000 in first-year tax savings. At $750 an acre, the deduction is $375,000 and the savings $139,000; at $2,000 an acre, the deduction reaches $1 million and the savings $370,000.

These are all, in theory, pretty substantial savings. However, it is important to consider what those figures assert about the land itself. A $150 claim allocates 2.5% of the purchase price to soil fertility. A $2,000 claim allocates 33% ($1 million), which suggests that a third of what the buyer paid for was soil fertility.

If a claim is disallowed, the tax is repaid, which cancels the benefit. What the farmer pays on top of that is the penalty, underpayment of interest at the IRS' current 7% rate, and the cost of defending the position via retaining legal and/or tax professionals. Furthermore, accuracy-related penalties could increase from 20% to 40% when a claimed value is at least twice the correct amount. With a $ 150-per-acre claim, that loss could be roughly $16,000 to $20,000. For a $2,000 per acre claim, a disallowed residual fertility deduction could result in a net loss of nearly $170,000.

There is, however, a further wrinkle in the documented claim's favor: the Iowa State Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation notes that a technical advice memorandum can constitute substantial authority for a return position, which may shield a well-supported claim from the accuracy-related penalty altogether.

Two mechanical traps compound the risk on the aggressive end. The Section 180 election belongs on the return for the year the land was acquired, so promoters offering a 15- or 20-year lookback are implicitly relying on amended returns for years that may already be closed, while the six-year statute of limitations for substantial omissions keeps exposure open longer precisely on the largest claims. And a seven-figure first-year deduction can run into the excess business loss limitation, deferring the advertised savings into later years while the audit exposure begins immediately.

Bottom Line

Section 180 deductions are a useful tool for farmers and ranchers who seek to deduct their fertilizer and related minerals costs. However, utilizing Section 180 to make a claim based on residual fertility could lead farmers and ranchers into a sticky situation with the IRS. While advertised quotes show eye-popping tax savings by claiming residual fertility deductions, the reality is that residual fertility claims under Section 180 are supported by an IRS memorandum regarding a claim that was denied.

Farmers and ranchers should insist on soil test documentation they control, understand that a vendor's valuation is not IRS acceptance, and weigh the year-one savings against a penalty structure that grows with the claim. For policymakers, the situation calls for IRS guidance or statutory clarification of Section 180 to define what qualifies, thereby legitimizing deductions while removing the incentive for the aggressive version before enforcement does so retroactively.

Read Article on FB.org

The Environmental Protection Agency announced a draft rule to reallocate 100% of renewable fuel volumes lost through small refinery exemptions. Chad Smith tells us it’s an important next step in supporting the farm economy.

Read Article on FB.org

The American Farm Bureau Federation submitted comments on the EPAs proposed Waters of the U.S. Rule. Chad Smith tells us farmers believe the proposed rule is a step in the right direction.

Read Article on FB.org

Key Takeaways

• China’s list of goods covered under the new “30-for-30" trade framework includes major U.S. agricultural products such as beef, pork, poultry, dairy, corn, wheat, rice, sorghum and specialty crops, but whole soybeans are excluded.

• The roughly $30 billion figure reflects the value of products covered by the framework. Lower tariffs can help U.S. products compete, but they don't guarantee sales.

• The benefits for farmers and ranchers will depend on how far tariffs are reduced, how quickly changes take effect and whether the new agricultural working group can resolve non-tariff market-access barriers.

The United States and China have taken another step toward easing trade barriers, each identifying roughly $30 billion in goods for tariff reductions. This list comes from the newly established U.S.-China Board of Trade. For U.S. agriculture, the agreement covers a wide range of products, from beef and pork to corn, wheat, dairy and specialty crops. However, this is not a purchase commitment. Several important details, including final tariff rates, the timing of implementation and the exclusion of whole soybeans, limit how much can be concluded about its near-term impact on U.S. farm exports.

On Sept. 27, the White House released the first product lists under the new “30-for-30” framework. The two governments set lists based on 2024 bilateral trade: 1,619 U.S. products for potential tariff reductions entering China and 77 Chinese products entering the United States. The actual rate of tariff reductions is yet to determined. Both countries will need to announce reduction rates and specify how they will be implemented.

Agriculture is Prominent on China’s List

Agricultural products make up a significant portion of China’s list. Covered products include beef, pork, lamb, poultry and offal; dairy products such as cheese, butter and cream; wheat, barley, corn, rice and sorghum; fruits, vegetables, beans and mushrooms; edible oils, juices and processed foods; as well as seafood, pet food, tobacco and forest products.

China's Ministry of Commerce has said about 90% of covered products are expected to see tariffs cut to most-favored-nation (MFN) rates, the standard tariffs China charges World Trade Organization (WTO) members without a free trade agreement. That would remove the retaliatory duties added during the trade dispute but not eliminate tariffs, so competitors with free trade agreements, like Australia and New Zealand, could still pay less. Notably for U.S. agriculture, though, it would return covered products to tariff rates equal to competitors in South America like Brazil and Argentina. Specific reductions and implementation dates have not been released.

However, one notable agriculture product is left out. Whole soybeans. Soybeans have historically been one of the top agricultural exports to China, but they are not included in this round of proposed tariff reductions. Soybean oil and some other soybean-derived products are covered; however, China is primarily a whole soybean importer, owing to a mature domestic crush industry. In late 2025 and spring 2026, the administration announced separate purchase commitments with China, including at least 25 million metric tons of soybeans and at least $17 billion in agricultural purchases annually in 2026, 2027 and 2028. This latest agreement does not include any purchase commitments.

Trade Has Fallen Sharply

Historically, China has been a top trading partner for U.S. agriculture. However, that has fallen amid the ongoing negotiations and trade tensions. USDA reports that U.S. agricultural exports to China fell 66% in 2025 to $8.4 billion, dropping China to the sixth-largest U.S. agricultural export market. USDA attributed much of that decline to reciprocal tariffs and weaker Chinese demand for U.S. soybeans. USDA’s May trade forecast projected fiscal year 2026 agricultural exports to China at about $12 billion, compared with $16.2 billion in fiscal year 2025.

The new agreement to lower tariffs on products included in the 30-for-30 framework may improve the competitiveness of U.S. commodities. For products such as meat, dairy, grains and specialty crops, even modest tariff reductions can narrow the price gap between U.S. products and competing supplies from countries with more favorable trade arrangements.

However, there are other factors that impact trade outside of tariffs. Chinese purchases will still depend on domestic consumption, commodity prices, exchange rates, production conditions and competition from other exporters. Brazil, Australia, New Zealand and other major agricultural suppliers will continue competing for market share. In many commodities, U.S. producers also face non-tariff barriers that cannot be resolved simply by reducing an import duty.

The Agricultural Working Group

The announcement also included the creation of a working group within the China Board of Trade that will specifically focus on agricultural market access barriers. The White House described the group as a mechanism for addressing impediments to agricultural trade beyond tariffs.

Agricultural exporters routinely face sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, facility registrations, onerous biotechnology approval processes, product eligibility rules and other regulatory requirements that can limit market access even when tariff rates are competitive. Continued negotiations through a standing agricultural working group could provide a venue for addressing those barriers product by product.

What it Means for Agriculture

The 30-for-30 framework represents potential improvement in market access for U.S. agriculture, particularly livestock products, grains, dairy and specialty crops. However, the agreement does not guarantee additional purchases. The $30 billion figure reflects the 2024 trade value of goods included in the broader framework, not a Chinese commitment to purchase $30 billion of U.S. products.

For farmers and ranchers, the real test is how far tariffs fall, how quickly the cuts take effect, whether regulatory barriers are addressed and, ultimately, whether ships leave U.S. ports loaded with American farm products bound for China.

Read Article on FB.org

The American Farm Bureau Federation applauded an executive order on dyed diesel usage. Chad Smith says more is needed.

Read Article on FB.org

Leaning into the International Year of the Woman Farmer, Women in Agribusiness this year expanded their annual Demeter Award of Excellence to include a female farmer category. Last month, Michigan dairy farmer and Farm Bureau member Terri Hawbaker took the stage at the 15^th annual Women in Agribusiness Summit in New Orleans to accept the award.

“I am deeply humbled and honored to receive this recognition from Women in Agribusiness in collaboration with the American Farm Bureau Federation. I am especially grateful for the opportunity to attend the Summit and network with so many successful women,” Hawbaker said.

Growing a Diversified Farm with a Focus on Sustainability

Since starting her dairy from scratch in October 2002 with her late husband, Rick, Hawbaker has built a thriving, diversified operation in Pewamo in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, spanning 337 acres and supporting a 150-cow milking herd, 70 replacement cattle, and grass-finished beef.

Her seasonal, pasture-based model that aligns calving with Michigan's natural grazing cycle has cut input costs while improving environmental stewardship and long-term profitability. That commitment to quality has earned her farm several awards, including more than eight Grade A Perfect Score awards, two Outstanding Performance awards, and four Bronze Quality awards, all from the Michigan Milk Producers Association. Hawbaker has also been nationally recognized in publications like USA Today and received individual honors including being a finalist for Michigan Farm Bureau’s Young Farmer Achievement Award.

A Role Model in Resilience

As long as Hawbaker’s list of agricultural accolades is, what really sets her apart is her resilience. For the past decade, she has raised five children as a widow while continuing to grow her business, homeschooling them and instilling values of hard work, accountability and problem-solving. Hawbaker has shown that both family and career can thrive together, making her a powerful role model for women across agriculture.

As one admirer described her journey, “She is the embodiment of a strong female achieving the American dream through grit, innovation and unwavering faith.”

Leadership On and Off the Farm

Hawbaker's influence reaches well beyond her own farm. She hosts grazing and conservation field days, mentors international agricultural fellows, and serves on boards including the American Forage and Grasslands Council, the Michigan Forage Council, the Michigan Milk Producers Association, and GreenStone Farm Credit Services.

According to Women in Agribusiness, Hawbaker embodies the full spirit of the Women in Agribusiness Demeter Award: a proven leader, a woman of notable achievement, and a mentor who lifts others up — all while leading with purpose, faith and unwavering determination.

AFBF and the Demeter Award

The American Farm Bureau Federation promoted the Female Farmer Demeter Award of Excellence opportunity among Farm Bureau’s strong network of female farmers across the United States and provided support and recognition through the full award lifecycle, including covering travel and lodging for Hawbaker to accept her award at the 2026 Women in Agribusiness Summit.

Read Article on FB.org

Key Takeaways

• USDA’s September Farm Sector Income Forecast provided the first state-level estimates for 2025 farm economic conditions. State-level projections were provided for gross farm income, production expenses and net farm income.

• A handful of states dominate farm income and expenses. California ($72 billion), Iowa ($47 billion), and Texas ($43 billion) led gross farm income, and the top 10 states accounted for more than half of both national gross income and production expenses.

• Net farm income is similarly concentrated. California ($26 billion), Texas ($15 billion), Iowa ($10 billion), and Nebraska (more than $8 billion) together made up over 30% of the national total and the top 10 states accounted for nearly 60% of U.S. net farm income.

USDA’s September Farm Sector Income Forecast provided updated projections for 2026 farm income but also provided the first state-level estimates for gross farm income, production expenses and net farm income (a broad measure of overall farm profitability) for 2025. These updated forecasts revealed that during 2025 U.S. inflation-adjusted net farm income climbed by nearly $32 billion, or 23%, to $167 billion. This is increase was driven by record livestock-based cash receipts as well as ad hoc federal support from USDA’s congressionally approved programs authorized under the American Relief Act of 2025.

State-Level Gross Farm Income

Buried beneath the headline net farm income projections for 2026, we find that inflation-adjusted U.S. gross farm income in 2025 is now forecast at $653 billion, an increase of 5%, or nearly $34 billion, from 2024’s inflation-adjusted value. As the nation’s largest agricultural producer, it is no surprise that California led the country with gross farm income of $72 billion in 2025, down only slightly from 2024’s estimate. Following California, Iowa was the nation’s second-largest contributor to real gross farm income at $47 billion – an increase of 9% year-over-year, attributable to higher cattle-based income and increased federal support compared to the year prior. Rounding out the top three, Texas contributed $43 billion to national gross farm income, and like Iowa was higher than 2024 due to livestock-based income and higher federal support.

Interestingly, the top 10 states in the U.S. in terms of agricultural income accounted for more than 50% of the nation’s real gross farm income. Rounding out the top 10 states in terms of real gross farm income are Nebraska ($41 billion), Kansas ($33 billion), Minnesota ($29 billion), Illinois ($26 billion), North Carolina ($20 billion), Indiana ($19 billion) and Wisconsin ($19 billion).

Production Expenses and Real Net Farm Income

It’s no secret that input costs have continued to put pressure on farm income; as Congress and the administration have responded on two separate occasions to provide relief; first through ECAP and then through the Farmer Bridge Assistance program. During 2025, inflation-adjusted farm production expenses total $486 billion and were the highest in California, followed by Iowa, Nebraska and then Texas. Similar to revenues, the top 10 agricultural states in terms of production expenses, accounted for more than 50% of production expenses nationwide.

Inflation-adjusted net farm income, the difference between gross farm receipts and total production expenses, is a broad measure of the overall health of the farm economy. During 2025, inflation-adjusted net farm income totaled $167 billion and was up $32 billion from the prior year – again driven by strong returns in the livestock sector and increased federal support. Net farm income was the highest in California at $26 billion, followed by Texas at $15 billion, Iowa at $10 billion and Nebraska at more than $8 billion. These four states alone accounted for more than 30% of the nation’s net farm income in 2025.

Summary

USDA's September Farm Sector Income Forecast delivered the first state-level estimates of 2025 farm income, providing insight into the distribution of income, federal support, and production expenses across the U.S.

Gross farm income rose 5% to $653 billion, led by California at $72 billion, followed by Iowa at $47 billion and Texas at $43 billion, the latter two both supported by stronger livestock income and higher federal support. Importantly, the top 10 states generated more than half of the nation's gross farm income and accounted for more than half of production expenses. Net farm income was highest in California ($26 billion), Texas ($15 billion), Iowa ($10 billion), and Nebraska (more than $8 billion), which together accounted for over 30% of the national total.

Read Article on FB.org

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall tonight applauded the executive order signed by President Trump to ease limits on the use of tax-exempt dyed diesel fuel to give farmers a break.

"We thank President Trump for recognizing that what happens at the fuel pump directly affects what happens on the farm and therefore at dinner tables across America. Allowing dyed diesel fuel to be used over-the-road will bring welcome relief for farmers because every cent per gallon matters when you're running a fleet of grain trucks or hauling cattle hundreds of miles.

“As we detailed in a letter to the president last week, this effort will bring much needed price relief for farmers as they work to complete harvest across the U.S. The federal highway diesel tax is currently more than 24-cents per gallon, so it’s a big deal to farmers to be able to use tax exempt diesel more broadly to get their harvest to market. We appreciate that the president listened to farmers and responded.”

Read last week’s letter to the president here.

Read a Farm Bureau Intel on the impact of diesel prices during harvest here.

Read Article on FB.org

Key Takeaways

• Passed by Congress in 1921 to police unfair practices, price manipulation and monopoly in livestock markets, the Packers and Stockyards Act has lost force as its authority has been moved repeatedly between agencies and its direct line to the Secretary of Agriculture has weakened.
• Since the 2008 farm bill, each administration has proposed or finalized rules that the next one withdrew or Congress defunded.
• The Biden-era rules survived repeated defunding attempts, but USDA proposed in March 2026 to push back the Biden-ear Poultry Grower Payment Systems & Capital Improvement rule to December 2027. AFBF opposed that delay because it would weaken protections for producers.

Background

Congress passed the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA) in 1921. At that time, the cost of living post-World War I had significantly increased, and President Woodrow Wilson instructed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate the meat packing industry from the “hoof to the table” to identify and prevent market manipulation.

When the PSA was implemented, it gave the secretary of agriculture the direct ability to regulate specified activities of businesses engaged in the marketing of livestock, meat and poultry through the Packers and Stockyards Administration. This included prohibiting packers from engaging in unfair practices, giving undue preferences, manipulating price and supply, and creating a monopoly.

Over time, the Packers and Stockyards Administration’s ability to directly report to the secretary was eroded. In 1927, the Packers and Stockyards Administration became part of the Bureau of Animal Industry, which in turn eventually became part of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Over the next few decades, the Packers and Stockyards Administration alternated between being its own entity or under the umbrella of another agency. This continued until 1994 when the administration became the Packers and Stockyards Division (PSD) and merged with the Federal Grain Inspection Service to become the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). Most recently, PSD was swept into AMS’ Livestock and Poultry Division as part of the ongoing USDA reorganization.

Evolution of the PSA

Over the last 105 years, the PSA has changed several times to adapt to changes in livestock production and marketing. The last meaningful changes to the PSA came in 2002, and since then, there have been multiple attempts to make changes through congressional appropriation and authorization authorities.

2008 Farm Bill

The 2008 farm bill expanded the PSA by adding provisions specific to swine and poultry growers. Several key provisions of this expansion were:

• A contract poultry grower or swine producer can cancel a contract within three days of the contract being executed;
• Integrators must provide growers information about facility upgrades (capital investment disclosures);
• Contract disputes must be carried out in the U.S. District Court where the alleged dispute occurred; and
• USDA was directed to enact regulations to establish criteria the secretary will consider in determining undue or unreasonable preference; reasonable notice to poultry growers of any suspension or delivery of birds under the contract; when a requirement of additional capital investments constitutes a violation of the act; and if a reasonable amount of time has been given for a producer or grower to remedy a breach of contract.

2010 Rulemaking

USDA’s subsequent proposed rule, released in 2010, was broadly opposed by industry stakeholders, including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council,National Turkey Federation, National Pork Producers Council and the American Meat Institute. AFBF’s filed comments were neutral given the ambiguity surrounding several provisions dealing with undue or unreasonable preferences.

Parts of the rule were finalized in December 2011 with an effective date of Feb. 7, 2012. Due to industry pushback, Congress stepped in and defunded the most contentious parts of the rule regarding unfair or undue preferences in fiscal years 2012 through 2015.

Both the Obama and Trump administrations proposed new rules that were rescinded by their successors in the White House. 

USDA Rulemaking and Congressional Actions 2021-2025

In 2021, President Biden signed an executive order launching a whole-of-government approach to promoting competition and reducing consolidation in the American economy. As part of the executive order implementation, USDA proposed and finalized three rules to promote fairness, transparency and competition within the livestock sector. Two of the three rules were specific to broiler production, while the third rule on market integrity is applicable to all species, e.g., cattle, hogs and poultry.

USDA withdrew a proposed fourth rule to address competition and unfair practices in the marketplace, or “harm to competition.”

Attempts to defund these rules through the appropriations process in fiscal years 2023 through 2026 failed to result in any meaningful changes to USDA implementing and enforcing them..

However, in March 2026, USDA issued a proposed rule to delay the implementation date of the Poultry Grower & Capital Improvement Systems final rule from July 1, 2026, to Dec. 31, 2027. AFBF submitted comments in opposition.

Executive Order

On Sept. 4, 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order 14424 directing the secretary of agriculture to do a comprehensive policy and regulatory review and report within 60 days on “current enforcement actions, resources needs, and a plan for heightened enforcement for the coming year” and a “review of existing regulations, guidance, and enforcement policies under the Act, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, revise them to strengthen protections for producers and ensure effective deterrence of prohibited conduct.”

The executive order was carefully crafted to give the maximum amount of regulatory flexibility to USDA to revise or terminate these regulations. This is due in part to Executive Order 14192. Signed by the president on Jan. 31, 2025, the order states that any time an agency “publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed.”

In July, USDA updated its Agency Rule List for 2026 to include rescissions of the three finalized PSA rules. By signing the executive order, the president sent a signal to the secretary of agriculture that necessary and needed reforms to the PSA are not an administration priority, a concern for Farm Bureau because of the increased regulatory and market uncertainty it creates for farmers and ranchers who are already up against so many challenges.

• USDA/AMS—Proposed Rule Stage—Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity under the Packers and Stockyards Act – Rescission (AMS-FTPP-25-0014)
• USDA/AMS—Proposed Rule Stage—Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments – Rescission (AMS-FTPP-25-0015)
• USDA/AMS—Proposed Rule Stage Poultry Grower Payment Systems and Capital Improvement Systems – Rescission (AMS-FTPP-22-0046)

Conclusion

More than 100 years in, the Packers and Stockyards Act requires periodic changes to protect farmers and ranchers from unfair and anti-competitive practices in the marketplace as marketing practices for livestock change over time.

The repeal of recent Packers and Stockyards Act regulations creates policy uncertainty and continues the regulatory back and forth that hinders the promotion of fair competition in the livestock industry.

Read Article on FB.org