Farmers weigh in on the pros and cons of federal aid programs and what they believe is needed to adopt regenerative practices in today’s environment of tight margins.
Farmers like Ted Hamer and April Hemmes aren’t opposed to conservation practices or regenerative agriculture—both Iowa row crop growers already use some. What they are opposed to is taking on unmanageable risk in an environment of tight margins, volatile markets and rising input costs without clear, reliable benefits.
During their recent, wide-ranging conversation on AgriTalk, a central theme emerged: if policymakers and companies seek broader adoption of conservation and regenerative practices, they must pair expectations with practical, well-designed incentives.
Here are some of the key points the two farmers made during their discussion with Host Davis Michaelson.
‘Regenerative’ is Just Good Farming
When new programs are announced with big dollar figures and bold language, they often imply that farmers need to be “fixed.” That doesn’t sit well with farmers, many of whom have been stewarding the same land for generations.
As Hemmes, based in Franklin County, Iowa, puts it, many practices highlighted under the umbrella of “regenerative agriculture” are simply standards for good farming.
“What you’re saying is regenerative ag, I just call farming. That’s just what we do. Taking care of our ground and having healthy soils is what we farmers do because it’s our legacy to our family,” says Hemmes, who uses no-till, cover crops and water management practices.
In her and Hamer’s perspective, farmers are not resistant to regenerative practices. Instead, they dislike being told they are “farming wrong” by groups and individuals outside of agriculture who may not fully grasp the on-the-ground economic and agronomic realities.
Tight Margins Make Experimenting A High-Stakes Decision
Hamer, based in Tama County, Iowa, explains that adopting new practices—such as cover crops, reduced tillage, or diversified rotations—often means incurring upfront costs, significant management changes, and a lot of uncertainty.
“It’s terribly risky with the margins we have right now… I’ve got to make a buck… I can’t have it be so risky that I don’t see a return on my investment,” Hamer says.
This is the crux of the matter: even when farmers are supportive and willing to adopt new practices and technologies, the math has to work, and some profit must be realized.
Their collective perspective is clear: without robust ROI data, strong cost-share or incentive payments, and integrated risk-management tools (like multi-year contracts or crop insurance integration), shifting current practices is often unjustifiable.
“The margins are too tight to stick your neck out very far at this time,” Hamer says.
Incentives Must Include Technical Support
National agricultural announcements often tout the dollar amounts available, such as the recently announced $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program. While funding is crucial, Hemmes points to an equally pressing need: technical support in the field to help implement the programs effectively.
“They need more dollars for people in the field…. I’ve been a soil and water commissioner for over 30 years, and we are in desperate need for technicians out here. So, throwing money at this is one thing, but getting the people in place to carry out the programs is another,” she says.
When USDA service centers, Extension offices, and others at the local level are understaffed and technical assistance is stretched thin, good programs can stall at the farm gate. Hemmes outlines the requirements for effective incentives:
• Adequate Technical Assistance: To help farmers correctly design and implement complex practices.
• Reasonable Timelines: Recognizing that some benefits, like improved soil structure and organic matter, take time to develop and build.
• Simple, Predictable Processes: Application and compliance should be straightforward.
Without the necessary technical support and manpower, Hemmes notes that even the best programs often just turn into frustrating paperwork exercises.
Aid Payments Don’t Fix Structural Issues
Short-term “bridge” or aid payments can help keep farms afloat during difficult years, but Hemmes and Hamer say they don’t structurally support the long-term decisions that can improve grower practices and profitability.
The main issue, they contend, is that much of the money from these aid programs never truly stays on the farm.
“This payment (the $12 billion Farmer Bridge Assistance program) isn’t for us. It’s all going to input costs, fertilizer, equipment. None of that money stays in our hands,” Hamer says.
Hemmes agrees, noting that people outside of agriculture often “don’t see what the problem is” because farmers are seemingly getting “free” money.
“It’s not like we go to Amazon and order a bunch more crap off there because we got some money,” she says. “No. It goes to everything we have to do to put the next crop in the ground.”
Ultimately, she believes, major policy change requires facing difficult truths.
“We’d love free and fair trade, but we know that’s not a possibility,” she contends. “It’s going to hurt to make a change, and I think that’s what politicians don’t like. They want to get reelected, so [their attitude is] ‘let’s just keep doing it this way.’ That’s the tough part of it all, because anything that revolves around changing policy is messy.”
AG WEB